AARON'S ROD BLOSSOMING. OR, The Divine Ordinance of Church-Government VINDICATED, So as the present Erastian Controversy concerning the distinction of Civil and Ecclesiastical Government, Excommunication, and Suspension, is fully debated and discussed, from the holy Scripture, from the Jewish and Christian Antiquities, from the consent of latter Writers, from the true nature and rights of Migistracy, and from the groundlessness of the chief Objections made against the Presbyterial Government in point of a domineering arbitrary unlimited power. By George Gillespie Minister at Edinburgh. For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulder. Isaiah 9 6. Let the Elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, 1 Tim. 5. 17. And the spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets, for God is not the Author of confusion but of peace. 1 Cor. 14 32, 33. August. lib. contra Donatistas post collationem, Cap. 4. Ne fortè aut indisciplinata patientia foveat iniquitatem, aut impatiens disciplina dissipet unitatem. Published by Authority. London, Printed by E. G. for Richard Whitaker, at the sign of the King's Arms in Paul's Church yard. 1646. TO THE Reverend and Learned Assembly of DIVINES Convened at WESTMINSTER. Right Reverend, THough many faithful servants of God did long ago desire to see those things which we see, and to hear those things which we hear; Yet it hath been one of the special mercies reserved for this Generation, and denied to the times of our Ancestors, that Divines of both Kingdoms within this Island, should be gathered and continued together, to consult peaceably and freely concerning a Reformation of Religion in Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government. 'Tis a mercy yet greater, that two Nations formerly at so great a distance in the form of public Worship and Churchgovernment, should (to their mutual comfort and happiness, and to the further endearing of each to other) through the good hand of God be now agreed upon one Directory of Worship, and with a good progress advanced, as in one Confession of Faith, so likewise in one form of Church-government. For all which, as the other Reformed Churches, (in regard of their common interest in the Truth and Ordinances of Christ) so especially your Brethren in the Church of Scotland are your debtors: Your name is as precious ointment among them, and they do esteem you very highly in love for your works sake. A work, which as it is extraordinary and unparallelled, requiring a double portion of the Spirit of your Master, so You have very many Hearts and Prayers going along with you in it, that the pleasure of the Lord may prosper in your hand. As for my Reverend Colleagues and myself, it hath been a good part of our happiness that we have been partakers of, and Assistants in your grave and learned Debates. Yet (as we declared from our first coming amongst you,) we came not hither presuming to prescribe any thing unto You, but willing to receive as well as to offer light, and to debate matters freely and fairly from the Word of God, the common Rule both to you and us. As herein You were pleased to give testimony unto us in one of your Letters to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, so the great respects which in other things and at other times you have expressed, both towards that Church from which we are entrusted, and particularly towards ourselves, do call for a return of all possible and public testimonies of gratitude. For which purpose, I do for my part take hold of this opportunity. I know that I owe much more unto You, than I have either ability to pay, or Elocution to set forth. Yet although I cannot retaliate your Favours, nor render that which may be worthy of yourselves; I beseech you to accept this part of my retribution of respects. I do offer and entitle unto You this Enucleation of the Erastian Controversy, which is Dignus vindice nodus. I hope here is a word in season concerning it. Others might have done better, but such furniture as I had, I have brought to the work of the Tabernacle. I submit what is mine unto your greater learning and better judgement, and shall ever continue Yours to serve you, GEO. GILLESPIE. To the Candid Reader. I Have often and heartily wished that I might not be distracted by nor engaged into polemic Writings, of which the World is too full already, and from which many more learned and idoneous have abstained; and I did accordingly resolve that in this Controversall age I should be slow to write, swift to read and learn. Yet there are certain preponderating reasons which have made me willing to be drawn forth into the light upon this subject. For beside the desires and solicitations of divers Christian friends, lovers of truth and peace, seriously calling upon me for an answer to Mr Prynne his Vindication of his four Questions concerning Excommunication and Suspension, the grand importance of the Erastian controversy, and the strong influence which it hath into the present juncture of asfaires, doth powerfully invite me. Among the many Controversies which have disquieted and molested the Church of Christ, those concerning Ecclesiastical Government and Discipline are not the least, but among the chief, and often managed with the greatest animosity and eagerness of spirit, whence there have grown most dangerous divisions and breaches, such as this day there are, and for the future are to be expected, unless there shall be (through God's mercy) some further composing and healing of these Church-consuming distractions: which if we shall be so happy as once to obtain, it will certainly contribute very much toward the accommodation of civil and State-shaking differences. And chose, if no healing for the Church, no healing for the State. Let the Gallio's of this time (who care for no intrinsical evil in the Church) promise to themselves what they will, surely he that shall have cause to write with Nicolaus de Clemangis, a Book of lamentation de corrupto Ecclesiae statu, will find also cause to write with him de lapsu & reparatione Justitiae. As the thing is of high concernment to these so much disturbed and divided Churches, so the elevation is yet higher by many dègrees; This controversy reacheth up to the Heavens, and the top of it is above the clouds. It doth highly concern jesus Christ himself, in his glory, royal prerogative, and kingdom, which he hath and exerciseth as Mediator and Head of his Church. The Crown of jesus Christ, or any part, privilege, or pendicle thereof must needs be a noble and excellent Subject. This truth that jesus Christ is a King, and hath a Kingdom and government in his Church, distinct from the kingdoms of this World, and from the civil Government, hath this commendation and character above all other truths, that Christ himself suffered to the death for it, and sealed it with his blood. For it may be observed from the story of his Passion, a Luke 23. 3. John 18. 33, 36 37. this was the only point of his accusation, which was confessed and avouched by himself, b Luke 23. 2. John 19 12, 15. was most aggravated, prosecuted, and driven home by the jews, c Joh. 19 12, 13 was prevalent with Pilate as the cause of condemning him to die, and d d John 19 19 was mentioned also in the superscription upon his cross. And although in reference to God, and in respect of satisfaction to the Divine justice for our sins, his death was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a price of redemption, yet in reference to men who did persecute, accuse, and condemn him, his death was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Martyr's Testimony to seal such a truth. This Kingly Office of jesus Christ (as well as his Prophetical) is administered and exercised, not only inwardly and invisibly by the working of his Spirit in the souls of particular persons, but outwardly also and visibly in the Church, as a visible political ministerial body, in which he hath appointed his own proper Officers, Ambassadors, Courts, Laws, Ordinances, Censures, and all these administrations, to be in his own name, as the only King and Head of the Church. This was the thing which Herod and Pilate did, and many Princes, Potentates, and States do look upon, with so much fear and jealousy, as another Government coordinate with the civil. But what was dark upon the one side to them, hath been light upon the other side to those servants of jesus Christ who have stood, contended, and sometime suffered much for the Ordinance of Church-Government and Discipline, which they looked upon as a part of Christ's Kingdom. So e De regno Christi lib. 1. cap 4 Non defuerunt quoque intra ●os triginta annos, praesertim in Germania, qui videri voluerunt just●m Evangelii praedi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. v●um perpauci adhuc repei ti sunt qui se Christi Evangelio & regno emuino subj●cissent: imo qui passi fuissent Christi religionem & Ecclesia●um Disciplinam restitui per omnia juxta leges Regis nostri. Et infra In Hungaria, gratia Domino, non-paucae jam existunt Ecclesiae quae cum p●â Christi doctrinâ, s●lidam etiam ejus discipl●nam receperunt, custodiunique religiosè. Rex noster Christus saxit ut ●arum Ecclesiarum exemplunt quam plurimae sequantur. Bucer. So f De polit. Eccles. lib. 1. cap. 2. Politeia Ecclesiastica est pars regni Christi. Parker. So g M john Welseh his Letter to the Lady Fleemming, written from his prison at Blackness in January 1616. Who am I that he should first have called me and then constituted me a Minister of glad things, of the Gospel of salvation these fifteen years already, and now last of all to be a sufferer for his cause and kingdom, to witness that good confession that Jesus Christ is the King of Saints, and that his Church is a most free Kingdom, yea as free as any Kingdom under Heaven, not only to convocate hold and keep her meetings, conventions, and assemblies, but also to judge of all her affairs, in all her meetings and conventions, among his Members and Subjects! These two points, that Christ is the head of his Church, Secondly that she is free in her government from all other Jurisdiction except Christ's; these two points are the special cause of our imprisonment, being now convict as traitors for maintaining thereof. We have been waiting with joyfulness to give the last testimony of our blood in confirmation thereof, if it would please our God to be so favourable as to honour us with ●hat dignity. Thus he. M. Welseh my countryman of precious memory, who suffered much for the same truth, and was ready to seal it with his blood. Beside divers others who might be named, especially learned Didoclavius in his Altar Damascenum Cap. 1. and throughout. I am not ignorant that some have an evil eye upon all government in a Nation, distinct from civil Magistracy, and if it were in their power they would have all Anti-Erastians (and so consequently both Presbyterians and Independents) looked upon as guilty of Treason, at least, as violaters of, and encroachers upon the rights and privileges of Magistracy, in respect of a distinct Ecclesiastical government. And indeed it is no new thing for the most faithful Ministers of jesus Christ to be reproached and accused as guilty of Treason, which was not only the lot of M. Calderwood, and (as hath been now showed) of M. Welsch, and those that suffered with him, h Discourse of the troubles at Frankfurt first published in the year 1575. and reprinted at London in the year 1641. pag. 37. but of M. Knox before them, as likewise of many Martyrs and confessors, and i Acts 17. 6, 7. of the Apostles themselves. Yet (if we will judge righteous judgement, and weigh things in a just balance) we do not rob the Magistrate of that which is his, by giving unto Christ that which is Christ's. We desire to hold up the honour and greatness, the power and authority of Magistracy, against Papists, Anabaptists, and all others k Judas ep. v. 8. that despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities. We do not l Fr à S. Clara Apolog. Episcop. cap. 2. compare (as Innocentius did) the civil and the ecclesiastical powers, to the two great lights, that to the Moon, this to the Sun. We hold m The second book of the Discipline of the Church of Scotland, cap. 1. it is proper to Kings, Princes and Magistrates, to be called Lords, and Dominators over their Subjects whom they govern civilly, but it is proper to Christ only to be called Lord and Master in the Spiritual government of the Church; and all others that bear office therein, ought not to usurp Dominion therein, nor be called Lords, but only Ministers, Disciples and Servants. We acknowledge and affirm n The confession of faith of the Church of Scotland Art. 25 that Magistracy and civil Government in Empires, Kingdoms, Dominions, and Cities, is an Ordinance of God for his own glory, and for the great good of mankind, so that whoever are enemies to Magistracy, they are enemies to mankind and to the revealed will of God: o Ibib. That such persons as are placed in authority, are to be beloved, honoured, feared, and holden in a most reverend estimation, because they are the Lieutenants of God, in whose seat God himself doth sit and judge; We teach p Ibid. that not only they are appointed for civil policy, but also for maintenance of the true Religion, and for suppressing of Idolatry and superstition whatsoever. We confess q Ibid. that such as resist the supreme power, doing that thing which appertaineth to his charge, do resist God's Ordinance; and therefore cannot be guiltless. And further we affirm, that whosoever deny unto them their aid, counsel and comfort, whilst the Princes and Rulers vigilantly travel in execution of their Office, that the same men deny their help, support, and counsel to God, who by the presence of his Lieutenant doth crave it of them. We know and believe, r The Confession of Helvetia in the head of Magistracy. that though we be free, we ought wholly in a true faith holily to submit ourselves to the Magistrate, both with our body, and with all our goods, and endeavour of mind, also to perform faithfulness, and the oath which we made to him, so far forth as his government is not evidently repugnant to him for whose sake we do reverence the Magistrate. s The confession of Bohemia cap. 16. That we ought to yield unto Kings and other Magistrates in their own stations, fear, honour, tribute, and custom, whether they be good men or evil, as likewise to obey them, in that which is not contrary to the Word of God: It being always provided that in things pertaining to our souls and consciences, we obey God only and his holy Word. We believe t The French confession Art. 39 that God hath delivered the Sword into the hands of the Magistrates, to wit, that offences may be repressed, not only those which are committed against the second Table, but also against the first. We do agree and avouch, u The confession of Belgia Att. 36. that all men of what dignity, condition, or state soever they be, aught to be subject to their lawful Magistrates, and pay unto them Subsidies and Tributes, and obey them in all things which are not repugnant to the word of God. Also they must pour out their prayers for them, that God would vouchsafe to direct them in all their actions, and that we may lead a peaceable and quiet life under them, with all godliness and honesty. We teach x The confesof Saxony, Art. 23. that it doth belong to the authority and duty of the Magistrate, to forbid and (if need be) to punish such sins as are committed against the ten Commandments or the Law natural: as likewise to add unto the Law natural some other laws, defining the circumstances of the natural Law, and to keep and maintain the same by punishing the transgressors. We hold y Irish Articles of Religion Art. 61, 62. that the laws of the Realm may punish Christian men with death, for heinous and grievous offences. And that it is lawful for Christian men, at the command of the Magistrate, to bear Arm, and to serve in just wars All these things we do sincerely, really, constantly, faithfully, and cheerfully yield unto and assert in behalf of the civil Magistrate. So that the cause which I now take in hand doth not depress but exalt, doth not weaken but strengthen Magistracy. I do not plead against the power of the Sword when I plead for z Matth. 16, 19 & 18 18. which is meant ●t laying on or taking of Church censure. August. Tract. 50 in Jo. Simo 〈◊〉 in Ecclesiâ fit, ut quae in terrd ligantur in caelo ligentur, & que solvuntur in terrd, solvantur in caelo: quiacum excommunicate Ec. clesia, in caelo ligatur excommunicatustcum reconciliatur ab Ecclesiâ, in caelo solvitur reconciliatus, etc. the power of the Keys. These two are most distinct, they ought not to be confounded, neither need they to clash or interfeere between themselves. The controversy is not about taking from the Magistrate what is his, but about giving to Christ that which is his. We hold a reciprocal subordination of persons, but a coordination of powers. a The second Book of the Discipline of the Church of Scotland, cap. 1. As the Ministers and others of the Ecclesiastical estate are subject to the Magistrate civil, so ought the person of the Magistrate be subject to the Church Spiritually, and in Ecclesiastical government. And the exercise of both these jurisdictions cannot stand in one person ordinarily. Again, ᵇ The Magistrate neither aught to preach, minister the Sacraments, nor execute the censures of the Church, nor yet prescribe any rule how it should be done, but command the Ministers to observe the rule commanded in the Word, and punish the transgressors by civil means. The Ministers exerce not the civil Jurisdiction, but teach the Magistrate, how it should be exercised according to the word. c See the Laws and Statutes of Geneva translated out of the French and printed at London 1643. pag. 9, 10. The Laws and Statutes of Geneva do at once ratify the Ecclesiastical Presbyterial power of jurisdiction or censure, and withal appoint that Ministers shall not take upon them any civil jurisdiction, but where there shall be need of compulsion or civil punishments, that this be done by the Magistrate. Yea, under a Popish Magistrate (as in France) and even under the Turk himself many Churches do enjoy not only the Word and Sacraments, but a free Church government and Discipline within themselves, rectio disciplinae libera, which is thought no prejudice to the civil government, they that govern the Churches having no dominion nor share of Magistracy. Vide D. Chytraei orat. de statu Ecclesiarum in Graecia etc. I know well, that there are other horrid calumnies and misrepresentations of Presbyterial Government, besides that of encroaching upon Magistracy: but they are as false as they are foul. And although we go upon this disadvantage d De corona orat. 5. in initio which Demosthenes (being loadened with a heavy charge and grievous aspersions by e In orat. contr● Ciesiphontem. Aeschines) did complain of, that though by right both parties should be heard, yet the generality of men do with pleasure hearken to reproaches and calumnies, but take little or no pleasure to hear men's clearing of themselves or their cause; and that his adversary had chosen that which was more pleasant, leaving to him that which was more tedious: Nevertheless I must needs expect from all such as are conscionable and faithful in this Cause and Covenant, that their ears shall not be open to calumnies, and shut upon more favourable informations. And however, let the worst be said which malice itself can devise, it shall be no small comfort to me, that our Lord and Master hath said, f Matth. ●. 11. Blessed are ye when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely for my name's sake. I know also that a Government and Discipline in the Church (the thing which I now undertake to plead for) is a very displeasing thing g Psalm 2. 3. Luke 1●▪ 14. to those that would fain enjoy liberty either of pernicious errors, or gross profaneness. But (as Maimonides saith well) we must not judge of the easiness or heaviness of a Law according to the affections and lust of any evil man, being rash (in judgement) and given to the worst vices; but according to the understanding of one who is most perfect among men, like unto whom, according to the Law, all others ought to be. More Nevochim part. 2. Cap. 39 No marvel that the licentious hate that way wherein they shall find themselves hemmed in, if not hedged up with thorns. And that they may the more flatter themselves in their sinful licentiousness, they imagine that Christ's yoke is easy and his burden light, to the flesh as well as to the Spirit, to carnal as well▪ as to spiritual men. For my part if I have learned Christ aright, I hold it for a sure principle, that in so far as a man is spiritual and regenerate, in as far his flesh is under a yoke; and in so far as he is unregenerate, in as far his flesh is sine jugo without a yoke. The h Origen. in Levit. Hom. 3. Quid percu●it? carnem. Quid sanat? Spiritum. Prorsus ut illa deficiat, iste pro▪ ficiat. healing of the spirit is not without the smiting of the flesh. When I speak of this Divine Ordinance of Church Government, my meaning is not to allow, muchless to animate any in the too severe and over strict exercise of Ecclesiastical discipline and censures. It was observed by i Hier. ad Marcellum. Hierome, as one of the errors of the Montanists: Illi ad omne pene delictum Ecclesiae obserant fores. They shut the Church door, (that is, they excommunicate and shut out of the Church) almost at every offence. I confess the greater part are more apt to fail in the defect, then in the excess, and are like to come too short, rather than to go too far. Yet a failing there may be, and hath been both ways. The best things, whether in Church or State, have been actually abused, and may be so again, through the error and corruption of men. The holy Scripture itself is abused to the greatest mischiefs in the world, though in its own nature it serves for the greatest good in the world. The abuse of a thing which is necessary, and especially of a divine Ordinance, whether such abuse be feared or felt, ought not, may not prejudice the thing itself. My purpose and endeavour shall be (wherein I beseech the▪ Lord to help my infirmities) to own the thing, to disowne the abuses of the thing, to point out the path of Christ's Ordinance, without allowing either rigour against such as ought to be tenderly dealt with, or too much lenity towards such as must be saved with fear, and pulled out of the fire, or at all any aberration to the right or left hand. I have had much ado to gain so many ●…orae sub●…isivae from the works of my public calling, as might suffice for this work. I confess it hath cost me much pains, and I think I may say without presumption, he that will go about solidly to answer it, will find it no easy matter. Subitane lucubrations will not do it. But if any man shall by unanswerable contrary reasons or evidenees discover error or mistake in any of my principles, let truth have the victory, let God have the glory. Only this favour (I may say this justice) I shall protest for. First, that my principles and conclusions may be rightly apprehended, and that I may not be charged with any absurd, dangerous or odious assertion, unless my own words be faithfully cited from which that assertion shall be gathered, yea also without concealing my explanations, qualifications, or restrictions, if any such there be. Which rule to my best observation I have not transgressed, in reference to the Opposites. Secondly, that as I have not dealt with their Nauci, but with their Nucleus, I have not scratched at their shell, but taken out their kernel (such as it is) I have not declined them, but encountered, yea sought them out, where their strength was greatest, where their Arguments were hardest, and their exceptions most probable: so no man may decline or dissemble the strength of my Arguments, Inferences, Authorities, Answers and Replies, nor think it enough to lift up an Axe against the uttermost branches, when he ought to strike at the root. Thirdly, if there be any acrimony, let it be in a real and rational conviction, not in the manner of expression. In which also I ask no other measure to myself than I have given to others. 'tis but in vain for a man to help the bluntness of reason with the sharpness of passion: for thereby he loseth more than he gaineth with intelligent Readers: the simpler sort may peradventure esteem those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, those despicable nothings, to be something, but then they are delu ded, not edified.▪ Therefore let not a man cast forth a flood of passionate words, when his Arguments are like broken cisterns which can hold no water. If any Replyer there be of the Erastian party, who will confine himself within these Rules and Conditions, as I do not challenge him, so (if God spare me life and liberty) I will not refuse him. But if any shall so reply as to prevaricate and do contrary to these just and reasonable demands, I must (to his greater shame) call him to the Orders, and make his tergiversation to appear. I shall detain thee (good Reader) no longer. The Lord guide thee and all his people in ways of truth and peace, holiness and righteousness, and grant that this Controversy may (I trust it shall) have a happy end to the glory of God, to the embracing and exalting of jesus Christ in his Kingly Office, to the ordering of his House according to His own will, to the keeping pure of the Ordinances, to the advancing of Holiness, and shaming of profaneness, and finally to the peace, quiet, well-being, comfort, and happiness of the Churches of Christ. These things (without thoughts of provoking any either public or private person) the searcher of hearts knoweth to be desired and intended by him who is Thine, to please thee, for thy good to edification, GEO. GILLESPIE. THE CONTENTS. The first Book. Of the Jewish Church Government. CHAP. I. That if the Erastians' could prove what they allege concerning the jewish Church Government, yet in that particular the jewish Church could not be a precedent to the Christian. THe Jewish Church a pattern to us in such things as were not typical or temporal. If it could be proved, that the Jews had no supreme Sanhodrin but one, and it such as had the power of civil Magistracy, yet there are four reasons for which that could be no precedent to the Christian Church. Where the constitution, manner of proceedings, and power of the Sanhedrin, ure touched. Of their Synagoga Magna, what it was. That the Priests had great power and authority not only in occasional Synods, but in the civil Sanhedrin itself. CHAP. II. That the jewish Church was formally distinct from the jewish State or Commonwealth. WE are content that the Erastians' appeal to the Jewish government. Seven distinctions between the Jewish Church and the Jewish State. Of the proselytes of righteousness, and that they were embodied into the Jewish Church, not into the Jewish State. CHAP. III. That the jews had an ecclesiastical Sanhedrin and Government distinct from the civil. DIvers Authors cited for the ecclesiastcal Sanhedrin of the Jews. The first Institution thereof, Exo. 24. That the choosing & calling forth of these 70 Elders is not coincident with the choosing of the 70 Elders mentioned Num. 11. nor yet with the choosing of Judges Exod. 18. The institution of two coordinate Governments, cleared from Deut. 17. A distinct Ecclesiastical government settled by David, 1 Chro. 23. and 26. The same distinction of Civil and Church▪ government revived by jehoshaphat, 2 Chro. 19 That Text vindicated. Two distinct Courts, one Ecclesiastical, another Civil, proved from jerem. 26. Another argument for an Ecclesiastical Senate from jerem. 18. 18. Who meant by the wise men of the Jews? Another argument from Ezech. 7. 26. Another from 2 Kings 6. 32. and Ezech. 8. 1. Another from Psal. 107. 32. Another from Zech. 7. 1, 2, 3. That Ezech. 13. 9 seemeth to hold forth an Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin. That the Council of the chief Priests, Elders and Scribes, so often mentioned in the Gospel, and in the Acts of the Apostles, was an Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin, and not a civil Court of Justice, as Erastus and M. Prynne suppose: which is at length proved. That the civil Sanhedrin which had power of life and death did remove from Jerusalem, 40 years before the destruction of the Temple and City, and consequently near three years before the death of Christ. The great objection, that neither the Talmud nor talmudical Writers do distinguish a civil and an ecclesiastical Sanhedrin, answered. Finally, those who are not convinced that there was a distinct ecclesiastical Sanhedrin among the Jews, may yet by other Mediums be convinced that there was a distinct ecclesiastical Government among the Jews: as namely, the Priest's judgement of cleanness or uncleanness, and so of admitting or shutting out. CHAP. IU. That there was an Ecclesiastical Excommunication among the jews: and what it was. FIfteen witnesses brought for the Ecclesiastical excommunication among the Jews, all of them learned in the Jewish antiquities. Of the 24 causes of the Jewish excommunication, which were looked upon formally qua scandals, not qua injuries. Of the three degrees of their excommunication, Niddui, Cherem, and Shammata. The manner and form of their Excommunication, showeth that it was a solemn Ecclesiastical censure. Formula anathematis. The excommunication of the Cuthites. The excommunication among the Jews was a public and judicial act: and that a private or extrajudicial excommunication was void, if not ratified by the Court. The effects of the Jewish excommunication. That such as were excommunicated by the greater excommunication were not admitted to come to the Temple. He that was excommunicated with the lesser excommunication was permitted to come, yet not as other Israelites, but as one publicly bearing his shame. The end of their excommunication was spiritual. CHAP. V. Of the cutting of from among the people off God frequently mentioned in the Law. THe sense of the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 scanned. That the commination of cutting off a man from his people, or from the Congregation of Israel, is neither meant of eternal death, nor of dying without children, nor of capital punishment from the hand of the Magistrate, nor yet of cutting off by the immediate hand of God for some secret sin. Reasons brought against all these. That Excommunication was meant by that cutting off, proved by six reasons. CHAP. VI Of the casting out of the Synagogue. THe casting out of the Synagogue is understood by Interpretors and others to be an excommunication from the Church assemblies, and not a civil punishment. Eight considerations to prove this. That he who was cast out of the Synagogue was shut out, not only from the company and fellowship of men, but from the place of public sacred assemblies. It cannot be proved, that he who was cast out of the Synagogue was free to enter into the Temple. The casting out of the Synagogue was abused by the Pharisees, as the casting out of the Church by Diotrephes. CHAP. VII. Other scriptural arguments to prove an Excommunication in the jewish Church. THat the separation from the Congregation, Ezra 10. 8. was Excommunication. josephus' explained in this particular. Of the devoting of a man's substance as holy to the Lord▪ which was joined with the Excommunication. What meant by the cursing Neh. 13. 25. That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or separating mentioned Luke 6. 22. was Excommunication, or a segregation not from civil fellowship only, but from sacred or Church communion. The Ecclesiastical use of that word touched. CHAP. VIII. Of the jewish Exomologesis, or public Declaration of Repentance by confession of sin. THe Heathens had their public Declaration of repentance from the Jews. The Jewish Exomologesis proved from the imposition of hands upon the head of the Sacrifice. The Law Leu. 5. 5. did also appoint Confession of sin, to be made at the offering of a Trespass offering. Which confession was made in the Temple, and in the Priest's hearing▪ The Law of confessing sin Num. 5, 6, 7. explained, and divers particulars concerning confession deduced from it. Other proofs of the Jewish Confession of sins from joh. 9 24. Also from that which interveened between their Excommunication and their absolution. From Ezra 10 10, 11. That David's confession Psalm 51. was published in the Temple, after ministerial conviction by Nathan. That if there be necessity of satisfying an offended brother, how much more of satisfying an offended Church? CHAP. IX. Whether in the jewish Church there was any suspension or exclusion of profane, scandalous, notorious sinners, from partaking in the public Ordinances, with the rest of the children of Israel in the Temple. THe affirmative is proved by plain and full testimonies of Philo, and josephus, beside some late Writers well acquainted with the Jewish antiquities. That the Publican Luke 18. came not into the Court of Israel, but into the Court of the Gentiles. Nor can it be proved, that he was a profane Publican, so much as in the opinion of the Pharisees and Jews. That the Temple into which the adultress was brought john 8. was also the Court of the Gentiles: neither was she admitted into the Temple for worship, but brought thither for a public trial and sentence. Seven scriptural arguments brought to prove an exclusion of the scandalous and known profane persons, from the Temple. Somewhat de jure Zelotarum. What esteem the Hebrews had of an Heretical or Epicurean Israelite. That the Temple of jerusalem was a Type of Christ, (which is instanced in ten particulars) and had a Sacramental holiness in it, so that the analogy is not to be drawn to an exclusion of profane persons from the Word preached, but from the Sacrament. CHAP. X. A debate with M. Prynne, concerning the exclusion of profane scandalous persons from the Passeover. THe Analogy of the Law of the Passeover, as Master Prynne understandeth it, will militat strongly against that which himself yieldeth. That the unclean might be kept back from the Passeover longer than a month. That they were kept back by an authoritative restraint, and were cut off if they did eat in their uncleanness. That some unclean persons were not put out of the camp, nor from the company of men, but from the Tabernacle and holy things only. That all unclean persons were not suspended from all Ordinances. That scandalous and flagitious persons were not admitted to a trespass offering (which was a reconciling Ordinance) much less to the Passeover (which was a sealing Ordinance) without a public penitential Confession of their sin. M. Prynnes replies to this argument of mine confuted. CHAP. XI. A Confutation of the strongest arguments of Erastus, namely, those drawn from the Law of Moses. THe strength of these Arguments put together. Which is not only enervated, but retorted. That the confession of sin required Levit. 5. 5. Num. 5. 6, 7. was a confession of the particular sin by word of mouth: and that this confession was required even in criminal and capital cases. That moral, as well as ceremonial uncleanness, was a cause of sequestration from the Sanctuary, yea much more, the moral uncleanness being more hateful to God, more hurtful and infective to God's people. That the exclusion of the unclean under the Law could not so fitly signify the exclusion from the Kingdom of Heaven, as from communion with the Church in this life. That this legal Type did certainly signify a sequestration of scandalous or morally unclean persons from Church-Communion under the New Testament, is proved from Esay 52. 1. 2 Cor. 6. 14, 15, 16, 17. also from the exposition of Peter's vision Acts 10. That among the Jews such as attended a litigious action, or at least a capital judgement, upon the preparation day, were thought defiled and not allowed to eat the Passeover. That it was not left to a man's free will to judge of his own cleanness or uncleanness, nor to expiate his sin when he pleased. That the universal precept for all that were circumcised to eat the Passeover, doth admit of other exceptions, beside those that were legally unclean, or in a journey. The great difference between Sacraments and Sacrifices, which Erastus confoundeth. CHAP. XII. Fourteen arguments to prove that scandalous and presumptuous offenders against the moral Law, (though circumcised, and not being legally unclean) were excluded from the Passeover. KNown presumptuous and obstinate sinners, were cut off from among their people, therefore not admitted to the Passeover. The Jews themselves held that moral, as well as ceremonial uncleanness did render them incapable of eating the Passeover. Who were esteemed Heretical or apostate Israelites? Who Epicurean Israelites? That these and such like were not acknowledged to be in the communion of the Church of Israel, nor was it allowed to speak or converse with them, muchless that they should eat the Passeover. Grotius his argument, there was an excommunication for ceremonial uncleanness, therefore much more for moral uncleanness. What God did teach his people by the purging out of leaven. If the shewbread might not be given to David's men, unless they had for some space before abstained from their wives, much less might known adulterers be admitted to the Passeover. Ezech. 22. 26. discussed against Mr. Coleman. The original words explained. Profane Church members have the name of Heathens, and strangers. The qualifications of Proselytes, without which they were not admitted to Circumcision and the Passeover. That course was taken Ezra 10. that none defiled with unlawful marriages might eat the Passeover. By Erastus his principles the most scandalous conversation was not so hateful to God as legal uncleanness. The Law of confessing sin, Levit. 5. Num. 5. is meant of every known sin, which was to be expiated by Sacrifice, especially the more notorious and scandalous sins. CHAP. XIII. M. Prynnes argument from 1 Cor. 10. (which he takes to be unanswerable) discussed and confuted. Mr Prynne in expounding that Text of the Passeover differeth both from the Apostles, and from Erastus himself. His argument (if good) will necessarily conclude against his own Concessions. If scandalous sinners had been suspended from the Manna, and Water of the Rock, they had been suspended from their ordinary orporal meat and drink. That the scandalous sins mentioned by the Apostle, were committed, not before, but after their eating of that Spiritual meat, and drinking of that Spiritual drink. The Argument strongly retorted. The scandalous sins mentioned by the Apostle were national sins, and so come not home to the present Question, which is of persons, not of Nations. An Appendix to the first Book. THe Erastians' misrepresent the Jewish Government. Their compliance with the Anabaptists in this particular. Their confounding of that which was extraordinary in the Jewish Church, with that which was the ordinary rule. Fourteen Objections answered. M. Prynne his great mistakes of Deut. 17. and 2 Chron. 19 The power and practice of the godly Kings of judah in the reformation of Religion cleared. The Argument from Solomon his deposing of Abiathar, and putting Zadock in his place, answered four ways. The Priests were appointed to be as Judges in other cases, beside those of leprosy and jealousy. 2 Chro. 23. 19 further scanned. A scandalous person was an unclean person both in the Scripture phrase, and in the Jewish language. The sequestration of the unclean from the Sanctuary, no civil punishment. Of Laws and causes Civil and Ecclesiastical among the Jews. Of their Scribes and Lawyers. Some other observable passages of Maimonides concerning Excommunication. What meant by not entering into the Congregation of the Lord, Deut. 23. 1, 2, 3. and by separating the mixed multitude, Nehem. 13. 3. Five reasons to prove that the meaning of these places, is not in reference to civil dignities and places of government, nor yet in reference to unlawful marriages only, but in reference to Church-membership and communion. Two Objections to the contrary answered. One from Exod. 12. 48. Another from the example of Ruth. An useful observation out of Onkelos, Exod. 12. The second Book. Of the Christian Church Government. CHAP. I. Of the rise, growth, decay and reviving of Erastianisme. THe Erastian error not honest is parentibus natus. Erastus the Midwife, how engaged in the business. The breasts that gave it suck, profaneness and self-interest. It's strong food, arbitrary Government. It's Tutor, Arminianism. It's deadly decay and consumption, whence it was? How ill it hath been harboured in all the reformed Churches? How stifled by Erastus himself? Erastianisme confuted out of Erastus. The Divines who have appeared against this error. How the Controversy was lately revived? CHAP. II. Some Postulata or common principles to be presupposed. THat there ought to be an exclusion of vile and profane persons, (known to be such) from the holy things, is a principle received among the Heathens themselves. That the dishonour of God by scandalous sins ought to be punished, as well, yea much rather, than private injuries. That public sins ought to be publicly confessed, and the offenders put to public shame. That there ought to be an avoiding of, and withdrawing from scandalous persons in the Church, and that by a public order, rather than at every man's discretion. That there is a distinction of the Office and power of Magistracy a●d Ministry. That the directive judgement in any business doth chiefly belong to those who by their procession and vocation are set apart to the attendance and oversight of such a thing. CHAP. III. What the Erastians' yield unto us, and what we yield unto them? THey yield that the Magistrate his power in Ecclesiasticis, is not arbitrary, but tied to the word. That there may be a distinct Church government under Heathen Magistrates. That the abuse takes not away the just power. They allow of Presbyteries, and that they have some jurisdiction. That the Ministry is jure divino, and Magistracy distinct from it. We yield unto them▪ That none ought to be Rulers in the Church, but such against whom there is no just exception. That Presbyterial government is not a Dominion but a Service. That it hath for its object only the inward man. That Presbyterial government is not an Arbitrary government, cleared by sieve considerations. That it is the most limited, and least Arbitrary government of any other, cleared by comparing▪ it with Popery, Prelacy, Independency, and with lawful Magistracy. That the civil Magistrate may and aught to do much in and for Religion, ordinarily, and yet more in extraordinary cases. That the civil Sanction is a free and voluntary act of the Magistrates favour. That Ministers owe as much subjection and honour to the Magistrate as other Subjects. CHAP. IU. Of the agreement and the differences between the nature of the Civil, and of the Ecclesiastical powers or Governments. TEn agreements between the Civil power and the Ecclesiastical power. The differences between them opened in their causes, efficient, matter, (where a fourfold power of the keys is touched) for me, and ends, both supreme and subordinate, (where it is opened, how and in what respect the Christian Magistrate intendeth the glory of Jesus Christ, and the purging of his Church;) Also effects, objects, adjuncts, correlations, ultimate terminations, and divided executions. CHAP. V. Of a twofold Kingdom of jesus Christ: a general Kingdom as he is the eternal Son of God, the Head of all Principalities and Powers, reigning over all creatures: and a particular Kingdom, as he is Mediator, reigning over the Church only. HOw this controversy falls in, and how deep it draws. That our Opposites herein▪ join issue with the Socinians. Nine Arguments to prove this distinction of a twofold Kingdom of Christ. In which, of the eternity, universality, donation, and subordination of the Kingdom of Christ. The Arguments brought to prove that Christ as Mediator reigneth over all things, and hath all government (even civil) put in his hands, examined and confuted. In what sense Christ is said to be over all, the heir of all things, to have all things put under his feet, to be the head of every man. A distinction between Christ's Kingdom, Power, and Glory, cleared. CHAP. VI Whether jesus Christ, as Mediator, and Head of the Church, hath placed the Christian Magistrate, to hold and execute his office, under and for him as his Vicegerent? The Arguments for the affirmative discussed. THe decision of this Question will do much, (yet not all) in the decision of the Erastian controversy. The question rightly stated. Ten Arguments for the affirmative discussed and answered. Where divers Scriptures are debated and cleared. How we are to understand that Christ is King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. How all power in Heaven and in Earth is said to be given to him. That the Governments set in the Church, 1 Cor. 12. 28. are not civil Magistrates, fully proved, Ephes. 1. 21, 22, 23. and Colos. 2. 10. vindicated. CHAP. VII. Arguments for the negative of that Question formerly propounded. THe lawful authority of the Heathen Magistrates vindicated. It can not be showed from Scripture, that Christ as Mediator hath given any Commission of Vicegerentship to the Christian Magistrate. That the work of the Ministry is done in the name and authority of Jesus Christ: the work of Magistracy not so. The power of Magistracy or civil Government, was not given to Christ as Mediator, showed from Luke 12. 14. Iohn ●8 36. Luke 17. 20, 21. Magistracy founded in the Law of nature and Nations. The Scripture holds forth the same origination of Heathen Magistracy, and of Christian Magistracy. CHAP. VIII. Of the power and privilege of the Magistrate in things and causes Ecclesiastical, what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not, and what it is? THat no administration formally and properly Ecclesiastical, (and namely the dispencing of Church censures) doth belong unto the Magistrate▪ nor may (according to the Word of God be assumed and exercised by him, proved by six Arguments. That Christ hath not made the Magistrate head of the Church, to receive appeals from all Ecclesiastical Assembles. There are other sufficient remedies against abuses or Maladministration in Church-Government Reasons against such appeals to the Magistrate. The Arguments to the contrary from the Examples of Ieremy and of Paul, discussed. Of the collaterality and coordination of the Civil and Ecclesiastical powers. What is the power and right of the Magistrate in things and causes Ecclesiastical, cleared, first generally; next, more particularly by five distinctions. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 belong to the civil power, but non 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 2. The Magistrate may imperare that which he may not elicere. 3. Distinguish the directive power from the coercive power. 4. The Magistrate's power is cumulative not privative. 5. He may do in extraordinary cases that which he ought not to do ordinarily. A caution concerning the Arbitrary power of Magistrates in things Ecclesiastical. CHAP. IX. That by the Word of God there ought to be another Government besides Magistracy or civil Government, namely an Ecclesiastical Government (properly so called) in the hands of Church-officers. THe Question stated, and the Affirmative proved by one and twenty scriptural Arguments. Who meant by the Elders that rule well, 1 Tim. 5. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 names of government. The words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb 13. 7, 17. examined. Of receiving an accusation against an Elder. Of rejecting an Heretic. Of the excommunication of the Incestuous Corinthian, and the sense of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ Of the subjection of the spirits of the Prophets to the Prophets. The Angels of the Churches why reproved for having false Teachers in the Church? Note that man, 2 Thess. 3. 14. proved to be Church-censure. Of the Ruler, Rom. 12. 8. and Governments, 1 Cor. 12. 28. A pattern in the Jewish Church for a distinct Ecclesiastical government. What meant by cutting off, Gal. 5. 12? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly what? Of the Ministerial power to revenge all disobedience, 2 Cor. 10. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 2. 8. what? Of the visible administration of the Kingdom of Christ by his Laws, Courts, Censures. The Arguments for Excommunication, from Matth. 18. and 1 Cor. 5. briefly vindicated. That Elders are rulers of the flock. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a name of Government Ministers why called Stewards of the Mysteries of God. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a name of government. Church-Government exercised by the Synod of the Apostles and Elders, Acts 15. CHAP. X. Some objections made against Ecclesiastical Government and Discipline, answered. Mr Husseys' objection doth strick as much against Paul, as against us. The fallacy of comparing Government with the word preached, in point of efficacy. Four ends or uses of Church-government. That two coordinate Governments are not inconsistent. The objection, that Ministers have other work to do, answered. The fear of an ambitious ensnarement in the Ministry, so much objected, is no good Argument against Church-government. M. Husseys' motion concerning Schools of Divinity examined. Church Government is no immunity to Church-officers from Censure. Though the Erastian principles are sufficiently overthrown by asserting from Scripture the may be of Church-government, yet our Arguments prove a must be or an Institution. Six Arguments added which conclude this point. CHAP. XI. The necessity of a distinct Church-government, under Christian, as well as under Heathen Magistrates. THis acknowledged by Christian Emperors of old. Grotius for us in this particular. Christian Magistracy hath never yet punished all such offences as are Ecclesiastically censurable. Presbyteries in the primitive times did not exercise any power which did belong of right to the Magistrate. No warrant from the word, that the Ordinance of a distinct Church government, was only for Churches under persecution: but chose the Churches are charged to keep till the coming of Christ, the commandment then delivered. No just ground for the fear of the interfeering of the civil, and of the Ecclesiastical power. The Church's liberties enlarged, (not diminished) under Christian Magistrates. The Covenant against this exception of the Erastians'. The Christian Magistrate, if he should take upon him the whole burden of the corrective part of Church-government, could not give an account to God of it. The Erastian principles do involve the Magistrate into the Prelatical guiltiness. The reasons and grounds mentioned in Scripture, upon which Church-censures were dispensed in the Primitive Churches, are no other than concern the Churches under Christian Magistrates. The end of Church-censures, neither intended nor attained by the administration of Christian Magistracy. The power of binding and losing not temporary. They who restrict a distinct Church-government, to Churches under Heathen or persecuting Magistrates, give a mighty advantage to Socinians and Anabaptists. Gualther and Master Prynne for us in this Question. APPENDIX. A Collection of some testimonies out of a Declaration of King james, the Helvetian, Bohemian, Augustane, French, and Dutch confessions, the Ecclesiastical Discipline of the reformed Churches in France, Harmonia Synodorum Belgicarum, the Irish Articles, a Book of Melanchton, and another of L. Humfredus. The third Book. Of Excommunication from the Church, AND Of Suspension from the Lords Table. CHAP. I. An opening of the true state of the question, and of Master Prynnes many mistakes and misrepresentations of our Principles. A Transition from Church-government in general, to Excommunication and Suspension in particular. The present controversy ten ways mis-stated by M. Prynne. That which was publicly depending between the Parliament and Assembly, did rather concern the practical conclusion itself, than the Mediums to prove it. The strength of the Assemblies proofs for Suspension scarce touched by M. Prynne. That the power of Suspension is neither in the Minister alone, nor unlimited. The question is practically stated by Aretius. The present controversy how different from the Prelatical? The power desired to Elderships, is not to judge men's hearts, but to judge of external evidences. The distinction of converting and confirming Ordinances how necessary in this question? Excommunication and Suspension confounded by M. Prynne (as likewise by the Separatists) contrary to the manner both of the Jewish Church, and of the ancient and reformed Christian Churche●▪ M. Prynnes assertion concerning suspension, is contrary to the Ordinances of Parliament. The Question stated, as it ought to be stated. CHAP. II. Whether Matth. 18. 15, 16, 17. prove Excommunication. THe Erastians' cannot avoid an argument ex consequenti from this Text for Excommunication, although we should grant that the literal sense and direct intendment of the words, is not concerning Excommunication. Of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That the trespass meant vers. 15. is sometime known to more than one at first. That the meaning is not of a civil personal injury, but of a scandalous sin, whether there be materially a personal injury in it or not. This confirmed by six reasons. That if it were granted these words, If thy brother trespass against thee, are understood of a personal injury, this could be no advantage to the Erastian cause, in six respects. Erastus' his Argument, that the trespass here meant is such as one brother may forgive to another, answered. That the Law of two or three witnesses belongeth to Ecclesiastical, as well as to civil Courts. That Tell the Church here can not be, Tell the civil Sanhedrin or Court of justice among the Jews. Of the meaning of these words Let him be unto thee as an Heathen man and a Publican. M. Prynnes Argument retorted. That the Heathens might not enter into the Temple, to wit, into the Court of Israel, but into the Intermurale they might come and worship. That there is not the like reason for excluding Excommunicate persons wholly from our Churches. Of Solomon's porch. That M. Prynne confoundeth the devout penitent Publican with the profane unjust Publicans. The Objection from the Publicans going up to the Temple to pray, examined. Publicans commonly named as the worst and wickedest of men. Another objection, Let him be to thee, (not to the whole Church) as an Heathen, etc. discussed. CHAP. III. A further demonstration that these words Let him be unto thee as an Heathen man and a Publican, are not meant of avoiding Civil, but Religious or Church-fellowship. THe great disorder and confusion which M. P●…ynne his sense of this Text might introduce. That it was not unlawful to the Jews to have civil company or fellowship with Heathens, unless it were for religious respects, and in case of the danger of an idolatrous insnarement, which is cleared by a passage of Elias in Thesbyte. In what sense Peter saith Acts 10. 28. that a Jew might not keep company or come unto one of another Nation. That the Jews did keep civil and familiar fellowship with Gerard toschav, or Gerschagnar, the proselyte indueller, or the proselyte of the gate, who yet was uncircumcised, and no member of the Jewish Church, nor an observer of the Law of Moses, but only of the seven precepts given to the sons of Noah. Which cleareth the reason why the Synod of the Apostles and Elders, who would not impose circumcision nor any other of the Mosaical ceremonies upon the believing Gentiles, did nevertheless impose this as a necessary burden upon them, to abstain from blood and things strangled. Christians are permitted by Paul to eat and drink with them that believe not. Further proofs that some uncircumcised Heathens had civil fellowship with the Jews, and some circumcised Hebrews had not Ecclesiastical communion with the Jews. The Question decided out of Maimonides. That these words, Let him be unto thee as an Heathen man and a Publican do imply somewhat negative, and somewhat positive. The negative part is, that he must not be worse used in civil things, than an Heathen man or Publican: that Excommunication breaketh not natural and moral duties: neither is any civil fellowship at all forbidden to be kept with an Excommunicate person, except under a spiritual notion and for spiritual ends, not qua civil fellowship. The positive part is, that he must be used in the same manner, as an Heathen man and a Publican in Spiritual things, and in Church-communion. Heathens five ways excluded from communion with the Jews in the holy things. Let him be as a Publican implieth two things more than Let him be as an Heathen, but exclusion from some Ordinances was common both to Heathens and scandalous Publicans. That the Phraisees speech concerning the Publican who went up to the Temple to pray, showeth that he was not esteemed a profane Publican. CHAP. IU. A Confutation of Erastus and Bilson their Interpretation of Matth. 18. 15, 16, 17. as likewise of Dr. Sutcliffe his Gloss, differing somewhat from theirs. THe scope of this Scripture wholly spiritual, concerning the gaining of a brother from sin, not civil concerning the prosecuting of a personal injury. Rebuke for sin a common Christian duty. Which is necessary in sins committed against God, rather than in injuries committed against man. That any sin by which thou art scandalised is a trespass against thee. The Erastian Interpretation of Matth. 18. makes it lawful for one Christian to go to law with another before an unbelieving Judge, and so maketh Paul contrary to Christ. The same Interpretation restricteth the latter part of the Text to those Christians only, who live under an unbelieving Magistrate, while it is confessed that the former part belongeth to all Christians. It is contrary also to the Law of Moses. They contradict themselves concerning the coercive power of the Sanhedrin. The gradation in the Text inconsistent with their sense. The Argument of Erastus to prove that the words as a Publican, are meant of a Publican qua Publican, and so of every Publican, examined. Their exception, Let him be TO THEE, etc. not to the whole Church, answered three ways. CHAP. V. That Tell it unto the Church hath more in it, then, Tell it unto a greater number. THe word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 never given to any lawful assembly, simply because of majority of number. This Interpretation provideth no effectual remedy for offences. Kahal by the Hebrews and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Grecians often used for an assembly of such as had Jurisdiction and ruling power. Whether the two or three witnesses Matth. 18. 16. be only witnesses or assistants in the admonition, or whether the intention be that they shall prove the fact before the Church forensically, (if need be) and whether two or three witnesses must be taken when the offence is known to him only that gives the first rebuke; discussed? This their Interpretation brings a brother under the greatest yoke of bondage. Grotius his Interpretation of the word Church, not inconsistent with ours. Divers Authors of the best note for our Interpretation, that is, that by the Church here is meant the Elders of the Church assembled. The name of the Church given to the Elders for four considerations. CHAP. VI Of the power of binding and losing, Matth. 18. 18. OUr Opposites extremely difficulted and divided in this point. Binding and losing both among Hebrews & Grecians, authoritative & forensical words. Antiquity for us, which is proved out of Augustine, Hierome, Ambrose, chrysostom, Isidorus Pelusiota, Hilary, Theophylact. That this power of binding and losing belongeth neither to private persons, nor to civil Magistrates, but to Church officers, and that in reference, 1. to the bonds of sin and iniquity. 2. To the dogmatic decision of controversies concerning the will of Christ. That this power of binding and losing is not merely doctrinal but juridical or forensical, and meant of inflicting or taking off Ecclesiastical censure. This cleared by the coherence and dependency between verse 17. and 18, (which is asserted against M. Prynne) and further confirmed by eleven reasons. In which the agreement of two on earth verse 19 the restriction of the rule to a brother or Church-member, also Matth▪ 16. 19 John 20. 23. Psalm 149. 6, 7, 8, 9 are explained. Another Interpretation of the binding and losing, that it is not exercised about persons, but about things or Doctrines, confuted by five reasons. How binding and losing are acts of the power of the Keys, as well as shutting and opening. CHAP. VII. That 1 Cor. 5. proveth Excommunication, and (by a necessary consequence even from the Erastian Interpretation) Suspension from the Sacrament of a person un excommunicated. THe weight of our proofs not laid upon the phrase of delivering to Satan. Which phrase being set aside that Chapter will prove Excommunication, verse 8. Let us keep the Passeover▪ etc. applied to the Lords Supper, even by M. Prynne himself. Master Prynnes first exception from 1 Cor. 10. 16, 17. & 11. 20 21. concerning the admission of all the visible members of the Church of Corinth, even drunken persons to the Sacrament, answered. His second, a reflection upon the persons of men. His third, concerning these words, No, not to eat, confuted. Hence Suspension by necessary consequence. His fourth exception taken off. His three conditions which he requireth in Arguments from the lesser to the greater, are false and do not hold. Our Argument from this Text doth not touch upon the rock of separation. Eight considerations to prove an Ecclesiastical censure, and namely excommunication from 1 Cor. 5. compared with 2▪ Cor. 2. More of that phrase, to deliver such a one to Satan. CHAP. VIII. Whether Judas received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. THe Question between M. Prynne & me concerning judas, much like unto that between Papists and Protestants concerning Peter. Two things premised. 1. That Matthew and Mark mentioning Christ's discourse at Table, concerning the Traitor, before the Institution and distribution of the Lords Supper, place it in its proper order, and that Luke placeth it after the Sacrament by an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or recapitulation: which is proved by five reasons. 2. That the story john. 13. concerning judas and the sop, was neither acted in Bethany two days before the Passeover, nor yet after the Institution of the Lords Supper. The first Argument to prove that judas received not the Lord's Supper from joh. 13. 30. he went out immediately after the sop. Mr Prynnes four answers confuted. His opinion that Christ gave the Sacrament before the common supper, is against both Scripture and Antiquity. Of the word immediately. The second Argument from Christ's words at the Sacrament. That which M. Prynne holds, viz. that at that time (when Christ infallibly knew judas to be lost) he meant conditionally that his body was broken and his blood shed for judas; confuted by three reasons. The third Argument from the different expressions of Love to the Apostles, with an exception, while judas was present; without an exception at the Sacrament. M. Prynnes Arguments from Scripture to prove that judas did receive the Sacrament, answered. That judas received the Sacrament, is no indubitable verity as Mr. Prynne calls it, but hath been much controverted both among Fathers, Papists and Protestants. That the Lutherans who are much of M. Prynnes opinion in the point of judas his receiving of the Lords Supper, that they may the better uphold their Doctrine of the wicked their eating of the true body of Christ, yet are much against his opinion in the point of admitting scandalous persons not Excommunicated to the Sacrament. M. Prynnes bold assertion that all the Ancients except Hilary only, do unanimously accord that judas received the Lord's Supper, without one dissenting voice; disproved as most false, and confuted by the testimonies of Clemens, Dionysius Areopagita, Maximus, Pachymeres, Ammonius Alexandrinus, Tacianus, Innocentius 3. Rupertus Tuitiensis, yea by those very passages of Theophylact, and Victor Antiochenus, cited by himself. Many modern writters also against his opinion, as of the Papists, Salmeron, Turrianus, Barradius, of Protestants, Danaeus, Kleinwitzius, Piscator, Beza, Tossanus, Musculus, Zanchius, Gomarus, Diodati, Grotius. The testimonies cited by M. Prynne for judas his receiving of the Sacrament▪ examined: some of them found false, others prove not his point, others who think that judas did receive the Sacrament, are clear against the admission of known profane persons. The confession of Bohemia and Belgia not against us, but against Master Prynne. CHAP. IX. Whether Judas received the Sacrament of the Passeover that night in which our Lord was betrayed. THat Christ and his Apostles did eat the Passeover, not before, but after that Supper at which he did wash his Disciples feet, and give the sop to judas. These words before the Feast of the Passeover, Joh. 13. 1. scanned. The Jews did eat the Passeover after meal, but they had no meal after the Paschall supper. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 joh. 13. 2. needeth not be turned, supper being ended, but may suffer two other readings. Christ's sitting down with the twelve is not meant of the Paschall supper, and if it were, it proves not that judas did eat of that Passeover, more than 1 Cor. 15. 5. proves that judas did see Christ after his resurrection. A pious observation of Cartwright. Another of chrysostom. CHAP. X. That if it could be proved that Judas received the Lord's Supper, it maketh nothing against the Suspension of known wicked persons from the Sacrament. CHrists admitting of judas to the Sacrament when he knew him to be a devil, could no more be a precedent to us, than his choosing of judas to be an Apostle, when he knew also that he was a devil. judas his sin was not scandalous but secret, at that time when it is supposed that he did receive the Sacrament. The same thing which M. Prynne makes to have been after the Sacrament, to prove that judas did receive the Sacrament, the very same he makes to have been before the Sacrament, to prove that judas was a scandalous sinner, when he was admitted to the Sacrament. He yieldeth upon the matter that judas received not the Sacrament. That before judas went forth, none of the Apostles knew him to be the Traitor except john, yea some hold that john knew it not. That Christ's words to judas, Thou hast said, did not make known to the Apostles that he was the Traitor, and if they had, yet (by their principles who hold that judas received the Sacrament) these words were not spoken before the Sacrament. Divers Authors hold that judas was a secret▪ not a scandalous sinner, at that time when it is supposed he received the Sacrament, yea M. Prynne himself holdeth so in another place. He loseth much by proposing as a precedent to Ministers what Christ did to judas in the last Supper. Christ did upon the matter excommunicate judas; which many gather from these words, That thou dost do quickly. And if Christ had admitted him to the Sacrament, it could be no precedent to us. CHAP. XI. Whether it be a full discharge of duty to admonish a scandalous person of the danger of unworthy communicating? And whether a Minister in giving him the Sacrament after such admonition, be no way guilty? Mr Prynne doth here mistake his mark, or not hit it, whether the Question be stated in reference to the Censure of Suspension, or in reference to the personal duty of the Minister. Five duties of the Minister in this business beside Admonition. Admonition no Church censure, properly. Six conclusions promised by M Prynne, examined. His Syllogism concerning the true right of all visible members of the visible Church to the Sacrament discussed. Four sorts of persons, beside children and fools, not able to examine themselves, and so not to be admitted to the Lords Supper, by that limitation which M. Prynne yeedeth. His Argument from the admission of carnal persons to Baptism, upon a mere external sleight profession, answered. His eleven reasons for the affirmative of this present Question answered. The Erastian Argument from 1 Cor. 11. 28. Let a man examine himself, not others, nor others him, faileth many ways. M. Prynne endeavours to pacify the consciences of Ministers by persuading them to believe, that a scandalous person is outwardly fitted and prepared for the Sacrament. How dangerous a way it is to give the Sacrament to a scandalous person, upon hopes that Omnipotency can at that instant change his heart and his life. Of a man's eating and drinking judgement to himself. CHAP. XII. Whether the Sacrament of the Lords Supper be a converting or regenerating Ordinance. Mr Prynne in this controversy joineth not only with the more rigid Lutherans, but with the Papists. The testimonies of Calvin, Bullinger, Ursinus, Musculus, Bucerus, Festus Honnius, Aretius, Vossius, Pareus, the Belgic confession, and form of administration, the Synod of Dort, Gerhardus, Walaeus, Chamierus, Polanus, Amesius, are produced against M. Prynne, all these and many others denying the Lords Supper to be a converting Ordinance. How both Lutherans and Papists state their controversy with Calvinists (as they call them) concerning the efficacy of the Sacraments. M. Prynnes distinctions of two sorts of conversion, and two sorts of sealing, being duly examined, do but the more open his error instead of covering it. Of the words Sacrament and Seal: concerning which M. Prynne as he leaneth toward the Socinian opinion, so he greatly calls in question that truth, without the knowledge whereof the Ordinance of Parliament appointeth men to be kept back from the Sacrament. Four distinctions of my own premised, that the true state of the Question may be rightly apprehended. The 1. Distinction between the absolute power of God, and the revealed will of God. 2. Between the Sacrament itself, and other Ordinances which do accompany it. 3. Between the first grace, and the following graces. 4. Between visible Saints and invisible Saints. CHAP. XIII. Twenty Arguments to prove that the Lords Supper is not a converting Ordinance. 1. FRom the nature of signs instituted to signify the being or having of a thing. The significancy of Sacraments à parte ante. 2. Sacraments suppose faith and an interest had in Christ, therefore do not give it. 3. The Lord's Supper gives the new food, therefore it supposeth the new life. 4. It is a seal of the righteousness of faith, therefore instituted for justified persons only. 5. From the example of Abraham's Justification before circumcision. 6. From the duty of self-examination, which an unregenerate person cannot perform. 7. From the necessity of the wedding garment. 8. Faith comes by hearing, not by seeing or receiving. 9 Neither promise nor example in Scripture of conversion by the Lord's Supper. 10. Every unconverted and unworthy person, if he come (while such) to the Lords Table) cannot but eat and drink unworthily, therefore ought not to come. 11. The wicked have no part in an Eucharistical consolatory Ordinance. 12. Christ calleth none to this Feast but such as have spiritual gracious qualifications. 13. They that are visibly no Saints, ought not to partake in the Communion of Saints. 14. Baptism itself (at least when administered to persons of age) is not a regenerating, but a sealing Ordinance. 15. From the necessity of the precedency of Baptism before the Lords Supper. 16. From the method of the Parable of the lost son. 17. From the doctrinal dehorting of all impenitent unworthy persons from coming to the Sacrament, unless they repent, reform, etc. (allowed by M. Prynne himself) which a Minister may not do, if it be a converting Ordinance. 18. From the incommunicablenesse of this Ordinance to Pagans, or to excommunicated Christians for their conversion. 19 From the instrumental causality of a converting Ordinance, which in order doth not follow, but precede conversion, and therefore is administered to men, not qua penitent, but qua impenitent, which can not be said of the Sacrament. 20. Antiquity against M. Prynne in this point. Witness the Sancta Sanctis. Witness also Dionysius Areopagita, Justin Martyr, chrysostom, Augustine, Isidorus Pelusiot●…, Prosper, Beda, Isidorus Hispalensis, Rabanus Maurus, besides Scotus, Alensis, and other Schoolmen. CHAP. XIV. Master Prynne his twelve Arguments brought to prove that the Lords Supper is a converting Ordinance, discussed and answered. HIs first Argument answered by three distinctions. His second proveth nothing against us, but yieldeth somewhat which is for us. His third charged with divers absurdities. His fourth concerning the greatest proximity and most immediate presence of God, and of Christ in the Sacrament retorted against himself, and moreover not proved nor made good by him. His fifth Argument hath both universal grace and other absurdities in it. His sixth concerning conversion by the eye, by the book of nature, by Sacrifices, by Miracles, as well as by the ear, examined and confuted in the particulars. His seventh not proved. Nor yet his eighth, concerning conversion by afflictions without the word. His ninth concerning the rule of contraries is misapplied by him. His tenth concerning the ends of the Sacrament yieldeth the cause and mireth himself. His eleventh a gross petitio principii. His twelfth appealing to the experience of Christians, rectified in the state, and repelled for the weight. That this debate concerning the nature, end use, and effect of the Sacrament, doth clearly cast the balance of the wholecontroversie concerning Suspension. Lucas Osiander cited by M. Prynne against us, is more against himself. CHAP. XV. Whether the admission of scandalous and notorious sinners to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, be a pollution and profanation of that holy Ordinance? And in what respects it may be so called? THe true state of this Question cleared by five distin●ions. Nine Arguments to prove the affirmative. That the admitting of the scandalous and profane to the Sacrament gives the lie to the word preached, and looseth those whom the word binddeth. That it is a strengthening of the hands of the wicked 'tis a profanation of Baptism to baptise a Catechumene Jew, or a Pagan, being of a known profane life, although he were able to make confession of the true faith by word of mouth. That such as are found unable to examine themselves (whether through natural or sinful disability) or manifestly unwilling to it, ought not to be admitted to the Lords Supper. The reason for keeping back children and fools holds stronger for keeping back known profane persons. Hag. 2. 11, 12, 13, 14. explained. A debate upon Matth. 7. 6. Give not that which is holy to dogs, &c wherein M. Prynne is confuted from Scripture, from Antiquity, from Erastus also and Grotius. CHAP. XVI. An Argument of Erastus (drawn from the Baptism of John) against the excluding of scandalous sinners from the Lords Supper, examined. THat john baptised none but such as confessed their sins, and did outwardly appear penitent. 'tis a great question whether those Pharisees who came to his Baptism, Matth. 3. were baptised. The coincidency of that story Matth. 3. with the message of the Pharisees to john Baptist, joh. 1. The Argument retorted. CHAP. XVII. Antiquity for the Suspension of all scandalous persons from the Sacrament, even such as were admitted to other public Ordinances. O● the four degrees of Penitents in the ancient Church and of the Suspension of some unexcommunicated persons from the Lords Supper who did join with the Church in the hearing of the word and prayer. Proved out of the ancient Canons of the Counsels of Ancyra, Nice, Arles, the sixth and eighth General Counsels, out of Gregorius Thaumaturgus, and Basilius Magnus, confirmed also out of Zonaras, Balsamon, Albaspin●…us. The Suspension of all sorts of scandalous sinners in the Church from the Sacrament further confirmed out of Isidorus Pelusiota, Dionysius Areopagita with his Scholiast Maximus, and his paraphrast Pachimeres. Also out of Cyprian, Justin Martyr, chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustine, Gregorius Magnus, Walafridus Strabo. CHAP. XVIII. A discovery of the instability and looseness of M. Prynne his principles, even to the contradicting of himself in twelve particulars. AN Argument hinted by M. Prynne from the gathering together all guests to the wedding Supper, both bad and good, examined, and four answers made to it. That M. Prynne doth profess and pretend to yield the thing for which his Antagonists contend with him, but indeed doth not yield it: his Concessions being clogged with such things as do evacuate and frustrate all Church Discipline. That M. Prynne contradicteth himself in twelve particulars. Four Counter-quaerees to him. A discourse of M. Fox the Author of the Book of Martyrs, concerning three sorts of persons who are unwilling that there should be a Discipline or power of Censures in the Church. The Names of Writers or Works cited and made use of in this Tractate. IS. Abrabanel Melchier Adamus Ainsworth Aeschines Albaspinaeus Albinus Flaccus Alcuinus Alex. Alensis Algerus Ambrose Ambrose the Monk Ammonius Alexandrinus Ampsin●ius Dutch Annotations English Annotations Apollonius Aquinas Arabic N. T. Aretius' Arias Montanus Aristótle Arnobius Irish Articles of faith Augustinus Azorius B BAlsamon Io. Baptista derubcis Baronius Basilius Magnus Mr Bayne Becanus Becmanus Beda Bellarmine Bertramus Beza Bilson Brentius Brochmand Brughton Mart. Bucerus Gers. Bucerus Budoeus Bulling●r Buxtorff C CAbeljavius Cajetanus Calvin I Camero Camerarius Canons of the African Church. L. Capellus D. Carthusianus Cartwright I Casaubon The Magdeburgian Centurists Chaldee Paraphrase Chamierus Chemnitius Chrysostomus D. Chytraeus Is. Clarus Fr. à S. Clara Clemens Clemens Alexandrinus Nic. de Clemangis judocus Clichtoveus I. Cloppenburgius I. Coach Mr Coleman Algid de Coninck Barthol. Coppen Balthasar ●orderius Corpus Disciplinae Mr Cotoon Tomes of Counsels Richardus Cowsin Cyprian Cyrill. D DAneus R. David Ganz. Demos●henes M. David Dickson Didoclavius Lud. de Dieu Mich. Dilherrus Di●dati The Directory of both Kingdom's Dio●yfins 〈◊〉 Synod of Dort jesuits of Douai I Drusius Du●renus Durandus Duran●s E ELias R. Eli●ser C ● Empereur Erastus Erasmus C. Espen●us Es●ius Euthymius Aben Ezra F FA●ritius Mr Fox Ch. Francken Hist. of the troubles at Frankford The Discipline of the reformed Churches of Fran● Dr Fulk● G P. Galatinus Phil. Gamachaeus Gelenius Laws and Statutes of Genevah Genebrardus Geo. Genzius I. ●rhardus Gesnerus S●l. Glassius Godwyn Gomarus Gorranus Gregorius Magnus Gregorius Thaumaturgus Professors of Groaning Grotius Gualther H HArmony of confessions Harmonia Synoder●n Belgicarum Haymo Helmichius Hemmiugius Heshusius Hesychius Hier● Hilarius M. Hildersham P. Hinkelmannus Fra●. Holy-Oke 〈◊〉 Honnius H●go de S. Uict●re Hug● Cardi●lis L. Humfredus Aegid. H●ius M. Hussey Hutterus I KIng james Iansen●us I'lyricus I●nocentius. 3. josephus' josuae levitae Halichoth Olam. Isidorus Hisp●lensis Isidorus 〈◊〉 julius Caesar Fr. junius justinus Martyr K KE●erm ●nnus Dr K●llet C. Kir●erus L COrn. a Lapide Lavater Laurentius de la bar Mr Leigh Nieolaus Lambardus Lorinus Luthe●us Lyr● M MAccovius Maimonides Maldonat Man●sseh Ben. Israel Conciliator Marianae Marlorat Martial M. Martinius P. Martyr Maximus Medina Meisnerus Menochius Mercerus P. Maulin Munsterus Musculus N G. Nazianzen I. Newenklaius Nonnus Novarinus O OEcumenius Origen Luc. Osiander P PAchymeres Mr Paget: Pagnin Paraeus Parker Pasor Pelargus Pellicanus Pemble Philo the jew Piscator Plato Polanus Mr Prynne R RAbanus Maurus Raynolds The Remonstrants' Revius Rittangelius D. Rivetus Rupertus Tuitiensis M. Rutherfurd S EManuel Sa Salmasius Salmeron M. Sal●marsh Sanctius Saravia I Scaliger Scapula Schindlerus jonas Schlichtingius The Book of Discipline of Scotland Scotus Subtilis M. Selden The 〈◊〉 ●eius F. Socin●s ●ipingius Fr. Spanbemi●t Spelman Stegmannus Strigelius Suarez Suidas Su●livius Syariac● N. T. T TAcianus The Talmud Tannerus Tertullian Theodoretus Theophylactus Tilenus Tirinus Titus Bostrorum Episcapus Toletus Tostatus Tossanus Trelcatius Triglandius Tully W WAlaeus Walafridus Strabo Mr Io. Welsh Mr john Wey●es of Craigton Mr john Weimes of Latho●ker Westhemerus Whitgift Whittakerus Willet I. Winkelmannus Wolphius V GR. de Valentia Vatablus Uazquez Uedelius Victor Antiochenus Gisb. V●etius Gul. Vorstius Hen. Vorstius Ger●ardus Uossius Dionysius Vossius Ursinus Z ZAnc●ius Zepperus Zon●ras Z●inglius. Aaron's Rod blossoming: OR, The Divine Ordinance of Church-government VINDICATED. The first Book. Of the Jewish Church-government. CHAP. I. That if the Erastians' could prove what they allege concerning the jewish Church Government, yet in that particular the jewish Church could not be a precedent to the Christian. OBserving that very much of Erastus his strength, and much of his followers their confidence, lieth in the old Testament, and Jewish Church, which (as they aver) knew no such distinction, as Civil Government, and Church Government; Civil Justice, and Church Discipline; I have thought good, first of all, to remove that great stumbling-block, that our way may afterward lie fair and plain before us. I do heartily acknowledge, that what we find to have been an Ordinance, or an approved practice in the Jewish Church, aught to be a rule and pattern to us, such things only excepted which were typical, or temporal, that is, for which there were special reasons proper to that infancy of the Church, and not common to us. Now, if our opposites could prove that the Jewish Church was nothing but the Jewish State, and that the Jewish Church-government, was nothing but the Jewish State-government, and that the Jews had never any supreme Sanhedrin but one only, and that civil, and such as had the temporal coercive power of Magistracy (which they will never be able to prove) yet there are divers considerable reasons, for which that could be no precedent to us. First, Casaubon exerc. 13. anno 31. num. 10. proves out of Maimonides, that the Sanhedrin was to be made up (if possible) wholly of Priests and Levites; and that if so many Priests and Levites could not be found, as were fit to be of the Sanhedrin, in that case some were assumed out of other Tribes. Howbeit I hold not this to be agreeable to the first institution of the Sanhedrin. But thus much is certain, that Priests and Levites were members of the Jewish Sanhedrin, and had an authoritative decisive suffrage in making decrees, and inflicting punishments, as well as other members of the Sanhedrin. Philo the Jew de vita Mosis pag. 530. saith that he who was found gathering sticks upon the Sabbath, was brought ad principem & sacerdotum consistorium, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. that is, to the Prince or chief Ruler (meaning Moses) together with whom the Priests did sit and judge in the Sanhedrin. Jehosaphat did set of the Levites, of the Priests, and of the chief of the Fathers of Israel, for the judgement of the Lord, etc. 2 Chro. 19 8. Secondly, the people of Israel had God's own Judicial Law given by Moses, for their civil Law: and the Priests and Levites in stead of civil Lawyers. Thirdly, the Sanhedrin did punish no man, unless admonition had been first given to him for his amendment. Maimon. de fundam. legis cap. 5. sect. 6. (yea saith Gul. Vorstius upon the place, though a man had killed his parents, the Sanhedrin did not punish him unless he were first admonished) and when witnesses were examined, seven questions were propounded to them, one of which was, whether they had admonished the offender, as the Talmud itself tells us add tit. Sanhedrin cap. 5. sect. 1. Fourthly, the Sanhedrin respondebat de Jure, did interpret the Law of God, and determine controversies, concerning the sense and intent thereof. Deut. 17. 8, 9, 10, 11. and it was on this manner as the jerusalem Talmud in Sanhedrin cap. 10. sect. 2. records. There were there (in jerusalem) three assemblies of judges: one sitting at the entry to the mountain of the Sanctuary: another sitting at the door of the Court: the third sitting in the Conelave made of cut stone. First, address was made to that which sat at the ascent of the mountain of the Sanctuary: then the Elder (who came to represent the cause which was too hard for the Courts of the Cities) said on this manner. I have drawn this sense from the holy Scripture, my fellows have drawn that sense. I have taught thus, my f●…llows so and so. If they had learned what is to be determined in that cause, they did communicate it unto them. If not, they went forward together to the judges sitting at the door of the Court: by whom they were instructed, if they (after the laying forth of the difficulty) knew what resolution to give. Otherwise all of them jointly had recourse to the great Sanhedrin. For from it doth the Law go forth unto all Israel. It is added in Exc. Gemar. Sanhed. cap. 10. sect. 1. that the Sanhedrin did sit in that room of cut stone (which was in the Temple) from the morning to the evening daily sacrifice. The Sanhedrin did judge cases of Idolatry, apostasy, false Prophets, etc. Talm. Hieros. in Sanhed. cap. 1. sect. 5. Now all this being unquestionably true of the Jewish Sanhedrin: if we should suppose, that they had no supreme Sanhedrin but that which had the power of civil Magistracy, than I ask where is that Christian State, which was, or is, or aught to be moulded according to this pattern. Must Ministers have vote in Parliament? Must they be civil Lawyers? must all criminal and capital Judgements be according to the Judicial Law of Moses, and none otherwise? Must there be no civil punishment, without previous admonition of the offender? Must Parliaments sit, as it were in the Temple of God, and interpret Scripture, which sense is true, and which false, and determine controversies of faith and cases of conscience, and judge of all false doctrines? yet all this must be, if there be a parallel made with the Jewish Sanhedrin. I know some divines hold, that the Judicial Law of Moses, so far as concerneth the punishments of sins against the moral law, Idolatry, blasphemy, Sabbath-breaking, adultery, theft, etc. aught to be a rule to the Christian Magistrate. and for my part, I wish more respect were had to it, and that it were more consulted with. This by the way. I am here only showing, what must follow, if the Jewish Government be taken for a precedent, without making a distinction of Civil & Church government. Surely, the consequences will be such, as I am sure our opposites will never admit of, and some of which (namely concerning the civil places or power of Ministers, and concerning the Magistrates authority to interpret Scripture) ought not to be admitted. Certainly, if it should be granted that the Jews had but one Sanhedrin, yet there was such an intermixture ●of Civil and Ecclesiastical both persons and proceedings, that there must be a partition made of that power, which the Jewish Sanhedrin did exercise, which (taken whole and entire together) can neither suit to our Civil nor to our Ecclesiastical Courts. Nay, while the Erastians' appeal to the Jewish Sanhedrin (suppose it now to be but one) they do thereby engage themselves to grant unto Church officers a share at least (yea a great share) in Ecclesiastical government: for so they had in the Supreme Sanhedrin of the Jews. And further the Jews had their Synagoga magna, which Grotius on Matth. 10. 17. distinguisheth from the Sanhedrin of 71. for both Prophets and others of place and power among the people praeter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, besides the members of that Sanhedrin were members of that extraordinary assembly, which was called the great Synagogue, such as that Assembly Ezra 10. which did decree forfeiture and separation from the Congregation, to be the punishment of such as would not gather themselves unto jerusalem: in which assembly were others beside those of the Sanhedrin. Of the men of the great Synagogue I read in Tzemach David pag. 56. edit. Hen. Vors. that they did receive the traditions from the Prophets; and it is added Viri Synagogae magnae ordinarunt nobis preces nostras. The men of the great Synagogue did appoint unto us our prayers, meaning their Liturgies, which they fancy to have been so instituted. The Hebrews themselves controvert, whether all the men of the great Synagogue did live at one and the same time, or successively; but that which is most received among them, is, that these men did flourish all at one time, as is told us in the passage last cited, where also these are named as men of the great Synagogue, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Zerubbabel, Mordechai, Ezra, Jehoshua, Seria, Rehaliah, Misphar, Rechum, Nehemias'. Rambam addeth, Chananiah, Mischael, and Azariah. Finally, as Prophets, Priest's, and Scribes of the Law of God had an interest in the Synagoga magna after the Captivity, so we read of occasional and extraordinary Ecclesiastical Synods before the Captivity, as that assembly of the Priests and Levites under Hezekiah, 2 Chro. 29. 4. 15. and that erring Synod of the 400 Prophets, 1 Kings 22. 6. Herod also gathered together the chief Priests and Scribes, Matth. 2. 4. I conclude, that if it should be granted there was no Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin among the Jews, distinct from the civil, yet as the necessity of a distinct Ecclesiastical Government among us, is greater than it was among them (in respect of the four considerations above mentioned) so likewise the Priests had a great deal more power and authority in the Jewish Church, (not only by occasional Synods, but by their interest in Synagoga magna, and in the civil Sanhedrin itself) than the Erastians' are willing that Church officers should have in the Christian Church. CHAP. II. That the jewish Church was formally distinct from the jewish State or Commonwealth. IT hath been by some (with much confidence and scorn of all who say otherwise) averred that Excommunication and Church-government distinct from the Civil, hath no pattern for it in the Jewish Church. I am sure (saith Mr Coleman in his Brotherly examination re-examined, pag. 16.) the best reformed Church that ever was went this way, I mean the Church of Israel, which had no distinction of Church government and Civil government. Hast thou appealed unto Caesar? unto Caesar shalt thou go. Have you appealed to the Jewish Church? thither shall you go. Wherefore I shall endeavour to make these five things appear: 1. That the Jewish Church was formally 〈◊〉 from the Jewish State. 2. That there was an Eccle●iasticall Sanhedrin and Government distinct from the Civil. 3. That there was an Ecclesiastical Excommunication, 〈◊〉 from Civil punishments. 4. That in the Jewish Church there was also a public exomologesis or declaration of repentance, and thereupon a reception or admission again of the offender to fellowship with the Church in the holy things. 5. That there was a suspension of the profane from the Temple and Passeover. First, the Jewish Church was formally distinct from the Jewish State. I say formally, because ordinarily they were not distinct materially, the same persons being members of both. But formally they were distinct, (as now the Church and State are distinct among us Christians.) 1. In respect of distinct laws; the Ceremonial Law was given to them in reference to their Church state, the Judicial Law was given to them in reference to their Civil State. Is. Abrabanel de capite fidei cap. 13. putteth this difference between the Laws given to Adam and to the sons of Noah, and the divine Law given by Moses: that those Laws were given for conservation of humane society and are in the classis of Judicial or civil Laws. But the divine Law given by Moses, doth direct the soul to its last perfection and end. I do not approve the difference which he puts between these Laws. This only I note, that he distinguisheth Judicial or Civil Laws for conservation of society, (though given by God) from those Laws which are given to perfect the soul, and to direct it to its last end, such as he conceives the whole moral and ceremonial Law of Moses to be▪ Halichoth Olam tract. 5. cap. 2. tells us that such and such Rabbis were followed in the ceremonial Laws: other Rabbis followed in the Judicial Laws. 2. In respect of distinct acts: they did not worship God and offer Sacrifices in the Temple, nor call upon the name of Lord, nor give thanks, nor receive the Sacraments as that State, but as that Church. They did not punish evil doers by mulcts, imprisonment, banishment, burning, stoning, hanging, as that Church, but as that State. 3. In respect of controversies; some causes and controversies did concern the Lords matters, some the King's matters, 2 Chro. 19 11. To judge between blood and blood was one thing. To judge between Law and Commandment, between Statutes and judgements; that is, to give the true sense of the Law of God when it was controverted, was another thing. 4. In respect of Officers: the Priests and Levites were Church-officers. Magistrates and Judges not so, but were Ministers of the State. The Priests might not take the Sword out of the hand of the Magistrates. The Magistrates might not offer Sacrifice nor exercise the Priest's office. 5. In respect of continuance, when the Romans took away the Jewish State and civil Government, yet the Jewish Church did remain, and the Romans did permit them the liberty of their religion. And now though the Jews have no Jewish State, yet they have Jewish Churches. Whence it is, that when th●y tell where one did or doth live, they do not mention the Town, but the Church: In the holy Church at Venice, at Frankford, etc. See Buxtorf. lex. Rabin. pag. 1983. 6. In respect of variation. The constitution and Government of the Jewish State was not the same, but different, under Moses and joshua, under the judges, under the Kings, and after the Captivity. But we cannot say, that the Church was new modelld as oft as the State was. 7. In respect of members. For as a De jure nature. & Gentium lib. 2. cap. 4. Prosely●us justitiae utcunque novato patriae nomine judaeus dice●etur, non tam quidem 〈◊〉 judaicus simpliciter censendus ●sset quam peregrinas semper, cui jura quamplurima inter cives. See the like lib. 5. c. 20. M. Selden hath very well observed concerning that sort of Proselytes, who had the name of Pr●…selyti Justitiae; they were initiated into the Jewish religion by Circumcision, Baptism, and Sacrifice: and they were allowed not only to worship God apart by themselves, but also to come into the Church and Congregation of Israel, and to be called by the name of Jews: nevertheless they were restrained and secluded from Dignities, Magistracies and preferments in the Jewish Republic, and from divers marriages, which were free to the Israelites: Even as strangers initiated and associated into the Church of Rome, have not therefore the privilege of Roman Citizens. Thus M. Selden, who hath thereby made it manifest, that there was a dis●iuction of the Jewish Church and Jewish State, because those Proselytes b Buxtorf. lexic. Chald. Talm. & Rabbin pag. 408 Proselyti justitiae sunt qui non rerum externarum, sed solius religionis causâ, & gloriae Dei study, religionem judaicam amplectuntur, & totam legem Mosis dicto modo recipiunt. Hi natis Iudaeis habentur aequales: understand in an Ecclesiastical, not in a Civil capacity. In which sense also Mathias Martinius in lexic. philol. pag. 2922. saith that these Proselytes, cum ad sacrorum judaicorum communionem admit●ebantur, etc. veri Iudaei censebantur: and that to be made a Proselyte, and to be made a Jew, are used promiscuously in the rabbinical writings. So also Drusius praet. l. 4. in Io. 12. 20. being embodied into the Jewish Church as Church members, and having a right to communicate in the holy Ordinances among the rest of the people of God, yet were not properly members of the Jewish State, nor admitted to Civil privileges: Whence it is also that the names of Jews and Proselytes were used distinctly, Acts 2. 10. CHAP. III. That the jews had an Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin and Government distinct from the Civil. I Come to the second point, that there was an Ecclesiastical government, and an Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin among the Jews. This distinction of the two Sanhedrins, the Civil and the Ecclesiastical, is maintained by Zepperus de polit. eccles. l. 3. cap. 7. junius in Deut. 17. Piscator ibid. Wolphius in 2. Reg. 23. Gerhard Harm. de pass. cap. 8. Godwin Moses and Aaron lib. 5. cap. 1. Bucerus de gubern. eccls. pag. 61, 62. Walaeus Tom. 2. pag. 9 Pelargus in Deut. 17. Sopingius ad bonam fidem Sibrandi pag. 261. et seq. The Dutch Annotations on Deut. 17. & 2 Chron. 19 Bertramus de polit. Jud. cap. 11. Ap●…llonii jus Majest. part. 1. p. 374. Strigelius in 2. Paralip. cap. 19 The professors of Groaning. (Vide Judicium facult. Theol. academiae Groninganae, apud Cabeljav. def. potest. Eccl. pag. 54.) I remember Raynolds in the Conference with Hart is of the same opinion. Also M. Paget in his defence of Church government, pag. 41. Besides divers others. I shall only add the Testimony of Constantinus L'Empereur, a man singularly well acquainted with the Jewish antiquities, who hath expressed himself concerning this point both in his Annotations upon Bertram pag. 389. and Annot. in Cod. Middoth. pag. 187, 188. The latter of these two passages you have here in the c Caete●ùm supremus Senatus cujus in hoc conclavi sedes, duplex fuisse videtur, pro ●erum Ecclesi●ticarum & politicarum diversitate: quonia● Deut 17. 12. ubi de supremis Senatoribus agitur, manisestè Sacerdos d judice distinguitur; ad sacerdotema●t ad judicem i. e. Sacerdotes aut judices, ut come. 9 inaicio est, ubi pro Sacerd●te ponuntur Sacerdotes. Add jeboshaphatum, cum judicia Hicrosolymis restaura●et, duos ordines conflituisse, Sacerdetes & Capita samilia●um, ad judicium Dei & ad litem: similiter duos praes●les come 11. un●m ad omnem causam Dei: alterum scilicet ducey judaeorum ad omne negotium Regis. Quibus succinunt verba Jerem. 19 1. quibus Seniores populi● Senioribus Sacerdot●m distinguntur. Quocirca in N. T. sublato (ut videtur) per H●rodem, uno synedrio, sc. politico; al●erum Apostolorum seculo supersuit, in quo politici etiam manebant reliqui●: nam ab Ecclesiasticis Seniores populi distinguntur, Matth. 26. 3. 59 & 27. vers. 1. Ni magis placeat, quod ab aliis observatum suit, Herodem, sublatis 70. Senioribus è familia Davidica, alios inseriores substitu●sse: quod judiciorum quibusdam excmplis firmari videtur. Adeo 〈◊〉 illis temporibus duplex quoque Synedrium suerit, quamvis utriusque Senatores subinde convenirent: qu● fortè reserendum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quod Matth. 26. 59 Marc 14. 55. & 15. 1. Acts 22. 30. occurrit. (Quin etiam cap 1. cod. jomae, eadem distinctio his verbis confirmatur (ubi de 〈◊〉 Sacerdotis magni ad diem expiationis agitur) tradunt eum Seniores d●mus judicii, Senioribus Sacerdotii. Margin, expressing not only his opinion, but the ground of it. And it is no obscure footstep of the Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin, d Propter meritum assess●rum Sy●edrii, qui occupati sunt in lege, & illuminant judicium. Et descendit in Babyloniam ad concilium Sapientum. I● non fuit Synedrium judicum & Magistratus summi, sed collegium doctorum. which is cited out of Elias, by D. Buxtorf in his Lexicon Chald. Talmud. & Rabbin. p. 1514. The first institution of an Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin appeareth to me to be held forth Exod. 24. 1. where God saith to Moses, Come up unto the Lord, thou and Aaron, Nad●… and Abihu, and seventy of the Elders of Israel. It is a controversy among Interpreters who those seventy Elders were. f In Exod. 24. Quaest 3. Tostatus maketh it clear, that they were not the seventy Elders chosen for the government of the Commonwealth, Num 11. Nor yet the Judges chosen by the advice of jethro, Exod. 18. Nor yet any other Judges which had before time Judged the people. These three negatives Willet upon the place holdeth with Tostatus. Not the first: for this was done at Mount Sinai, shortly after their coming out of Egypt. But on the twenty day of the second month, in the second year, they took their journey from Sinai to the Wilderness of Paran, Num. 10. 11, 12. and there pitched at Hibroth-hattaavath Num. 33. 16. where the seventy Elders were chosen to relieve Moses of the burden of Government. So that this election of seventy Exod. 24. was before that election of seventy Num 11. Not the second: for this election of seventy Exod. 24. was before that election of Judges by jethros advice Exod. 18. jethro himself not having come to Moses till the end of the first year, or the beginning of the second year after the coming out of Egypt, and not before the giving of the Law: which Tostatus proves by this argunent, The Law was given the third day, after they came to Sinai; but it was impossible that jethro should in the space of three days, hear that Moses and the people of Israel were in the wilderness of Sinai, and come there unto them, that Moses should go forth and meet him, and receive him, and entertain him; that jethro should observe the manner of Moses his government, in litigious judgement from morning till evening, and give counsel to rectify it; that Moses should take course to help it; how could all this be done in those three days, which were also appointed for sanctifying the people against the receiving of the Law? Therefore g In Exod. 18. Quest. 2. he concludeth that the story of jethro Exod. 18. is an anticipation. Lastly, he saith, the seventy Elders mentioned Exod. 24. could not be Judges who did judge the people before jethro came, because jethro did observe the whole burden of government did lie upon Moses alone, and there were no other Judges. Now it is to be observed, that the seventy Elders chosen and called Exod. 24. were also invested with h Menocbius in Exod. 24. 14. redite ad populum, ut illum regatis, & in officio contineati●. Pelargus upon the place saith that Moses would not leave the Church without Rulers to avoid the danger of popular anarchy. authority in judging controversies, wherein Aaron or Hur were to preside vers. 14. They are joined with Aaron, Nadad, and Abihu, and are called up as a Representative of the whole Church, when God was making a Covenant with his people. 'tis after the Judicial laws, Exod. 21. & 22. & 23. and that 24 Chapter is a transition to the ceremonial laws concerning the worship of God, and structure of the Tabernacle, which are to follow. Neither had the seventy Elders (of which now I speak) any share of the Supreme civil Government, to judge hard Civil causes, and to receive appeals concerning those things from the inferior Judges; for all this did still lie upon Moses alone, Num. 11. 14. Furthermore they saw the glory of the Lord, and were admitted to a sacred banquet, and to eat of the Sacrifices in his presence Exod. 24. 5, 10, 11. and were thereby confirmed in their calling. All which laid together may seem to amount to no less than a solemn interesting and investing of them into an Ecclesiastical authority. The next proof for the Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin shall be taken from Deut. 17. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. where observe 1. 'tis agreed upon both by Jewish and Christian Expositors, that this place holds forth a supreme civil Court of Judges, and the authority of the civil Sanhedrin is mainly grounded on this very Text. Now if this Text hold forth a superior civil Jurisdiction (as is universally acknowledged) it holds forth also a superior Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction distinct from the Civil. For the Text carrieth the authority and sentence of the Priests as high, as the authority and sentence of the Judges, and that in a disjunctive way, as two powers, (not one) and each of them binding, respectively, and in its proper sphere. 2. The Hebrew Doctors tell us of three kinds of causes, which being found difficult were transmitted from the inferior Courts to those at jerusalem. 1. capital causes. 2. mulcts. 3. leprosy, and the judgement of clean or unclean. Now this third belonged to the cognizance and judgement of the Priests. Yea the Text itself holdeth forth two sorts of causes, and controversies, some forensical between blood and blood: some ceremonial between stroke and stroke; not only Hierome, but the Chaldee, and Greek, readeth, between leprosy and leprosy. Grotius noteth, the Hebrew word is used for leprosy, many times in one chapter, Leu. 13. Plea and plea seemeth common to both, there being difference of judgement concerning the one and the other. 3. Here are two judicatories distinguished by the disjunctive Or V. 12. which we have both in the Hebrew, Chaldee, Greek, and in our English Translation; so that vers. 9 and is put for or, as Grotius noteth, expounding that verse by vers. 12. And as the Priests and Levites are put in the plural V. 9 the like must be understood of the judge, whereby we must understand judges, and so the Chaldee readeth V. 9 even as (saith Ainsworth) many Captains are in the Hebrew called an head, 1 Chron. 4. 42. And so you have there, references of difficult cases from inferior Courts, to the Priests or to the Judges at jerusalem. 4. There is also some intimation of a twofold sentence; one concerning the meaning of the Law, according to the sentence of the Law, which they shall teach thee, V. 11. and this belonged to the Priests, Mal. 2. 7. for the Priests (it's not said the Judges) lips should preserve knowledge, and they should seek the Law at his mouth. Another concerning matter of fact, and according to the judgement which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do. Grotius upon the place acknowledgeth a udgement of the Priests distinct from that of the Judges: and he adds a simile from the Roman Synod consisting of seventy Bishops which was consulted in weighty controversies. But he is of opinion that the Priests and Levites did only end avour to satisfy and reconcile the dissenting parties, which if they did, well, if not, that then they referred the reasons of both parties to the Sanhedrin, who gave forth their decree upon the whole matter. The first part of that which he saith, helpeth me. But this last hath no ground in the Text, but is manife●ly inconsistent therewith, V. 12. The man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the Priest, or unto the Judge, even that man shall die. Which proves, i Eros●…us Confirm th●…s. lib. 4 cap. 3 M●…ses 〈◊〉 ait, intersici ●…dum ●…sse illum, qu●… vel 〈◊〉, sentemiaes vel Judicis assentire nollet Non ergo liberum facit ab i●…lo ad 〈◊〉 pr●…vocare. that the judgement of both was supreme in suo genere, that is, if it was a controverse ceremonial, between leprosy and leprosy, or between clean and unclean, Leu. 10. 9, 10, 11. Ezech. 22. 26. or dogmatic and doctrinal, concerning the sense of the Law, and answering the Jure, when the sense of the Law was controverted by the judges of the Cities, than he that would not stand to the sentence of the Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin, whereof the high Priest was pre●dent, was to die the death. But if the cause was criminal, as between blood and blood, wherein the nature or proof of the fact, could not be agreed upon, by the Judges of the Cities, than he that would not submit to the decree of the civil Sanhedrin at I●…rusalem should die the death. And thus the English Divines in their late annotations, give the sense according to the disjunction, V. 12. While the Priest bringeth warrant from God for the sentenee which he passeth in the cause of man, Ezech. 44. 23, 24. he that contumaciously disobeyeth him disobeyeth God, Luke 10. 16. Matth. 10. 14. The cause is alike if the just sentence of a competent Judge be contemned in secular affairs. In the third place, we read that David did thus divide the Levites (at that time eight and thirty thousand) four and twenty thousand of them were to set forward the work of the house of the Lord, four thousand were porters, and four thousand praised the Lord with instruments, and six thousand of them were made some schoterim Officers, and some sch●…phtim Judges, 1 Chro. 23. 4. Some understand by Schoterim Rulers, or those who were over the charge. To speak properly schophtim were those that gave sentence; schoterim those that looked to the execution of the sentence, and to the keeping of the law, like the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Craecians: (for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was one thing, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 another.) So 1 Chro. 26. 29. Chenaniah and his sons were for the outward business over Israel, fo●… Officers (or Rulers or over the charge) and Judges: that is, they were not tied to attendance and service in the Temple, as the Porters and singers, and those that did service about the Sacrifices, Lights, Washings, and such like things in the Temple: but they k Me●ochius in 1. Paral. 23. 4. idem sunt praepositi & judices, quorum mun●s erat Israelitarum causas qu● juxta legem finiebantur, judicare, quod patet ex 2. Paral. 19 8. ubi habemus constituit Jehosaphat in Jerusalem levi●…as & sacerdotes, & Princip s famil●…arum ex Is●…a l, ut judicium & causam domini judicarent. were to judge and give sentence concerning the law and the meaning thereof, when any such controversy should be brought before them from any of the Cities in the Land: They were not appointed to be Officers and Judges over the rest of the Levites to keep them in order (for which course was taken in another way) but to be Rulers and Judges over Israel, saith the Text, in the outward business which came from without to jerusalem, in judging of which peradventure they were to attend by course, or as they should be called. If any say that all those Levites who were Judges did not sit in judgement at jerusalem, but some of them in several Cities of the Land, that there might be the easier access to them; I can easily grant it, and I verily believe it was so, and it maketh the more for a Church government in particular Cities, which was subordinate to the Ecclesiastical Sanh d●in at jerusalem. However the Levites had a ruling power, and Deut. 31. 28. those who are schoterim in the original, the Septuagints call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Hierome, Doctores, because their Teachers were Officers over the charge, and had a share in Government. Now no man can imagine that there were no other Officers over the charge not Judges in Israel, except the Levites only; for it followeth in that same Story, ● Chro. 28. 1. And David assembled all the Princes of Israel, the Princes of the Tribes, and the Captains of the Companies that ministered to the King by course, & the Captains over the thousands, etc. Nor yet will any man say, that the Levites were Officers over the charge, and Judges of the same kind, in the same manner, or for the same ends, with the civil Rulers and Judges, or the military Commanders; or that there was no distinction between the ruling power of the Princes, and the ruling power of the Levites. Where then shall the difference lie, if not in this, that there was an Ecclesiastical Government, besides the Civil and Military? I grant those Levites did rule and judge not only in all the business of the Lord, but also in the service of the King, 1 Chro. 26. 30, 32. But the reason was, because the Jews had no other civil Law, but Gods own Law, which the Priests and Levites were to expound. So that it was proper for that time, and there is not the like reason that the Ministers of Jesus Christ in the New Testament should judge or rule in civil affairs: (nay it were contrary to the rule of Christ and his Apostles for us to do so) yet the Levites their judging and governing in all the bufines of the Lord, is a pattern left for the entrusting of Church officers in the New Testament with a power of Church government: there being no such reason for it, as to make it peculiar to the old Testament, and not common to the New. The fourth Scripture which proves l Salmas. apparat. ad libros de Primatu p. 302. Quae ad ●es sacras ac divinas pertinebant, de his praecipue judicium Sacerdotum fuit, de ali● civilibus & regalib●, praesides 〈◊〉 rege constituti, ut patet ex lib. 2. Chro. cap. 19 Titinus in 2. Chro. 19 11. Ubi not a distinctionem sori seu Magistratus Ec clesiastici & civilis, contra Anglo-Calvinistas & nostros Arminianos'. an Ecclesiastical government and Sanhedrin, is 2 Chro. 19 8, 10, 11. where jehoshaphat restoreth the same Church government, which was first instituted by the hand of Moses, and afterward ordered and settled by David. Moreover (saith the Text) in Jerusalem did Jehoshaphat set of the Levites, and of the Priests, and of the chief of the Fathers of Israel, for the judgement of the Lord, and for controversies, etc. It is not controverted whether there was a civil Sanhedrin at jerusalem, but that which is to be proved from the place, is an Ecclesiastical Court, which I prove thus. Where there is a Court made up of Ecclesiastical members, judging Spiritual and Ecclesiastical causes, for a Spiritual and Ecclesiastical end, moderated by an Ecclesiastical precedent, having power ultimately and authoritatively to determine causes and controversies brought before them by appeal or reference from inferior Courts; and whose sentence is put in execution by Ecclesiastical officers; There it must needs be granted that there was a supreme Ecclesiastical court, with power of Government. But such a Court we find at jerusalem in Iehoshaphats time. Ergo. The Proposition I suppose no man will deny. For a Court so constituted, so qualified, and so authorised, is the very thing now in debate. And he that will grant us the thing which is in the assumption, shall have leave to call it by another name if he please. The assumption I prove by the parts. 1. Here are Levites and Priests in this Court, as members thereof, with power of decisive suffrage, and with them such of the chief of the Fathers of Israel, as were joined in the government of that Church; Whence the Reverend and learned Assembly of Divines, and many Protestant Writers before them have drawn an argument for Ruling Elders. And this is one of the Scriptures alleged by our Divines against Bellarmin, to prove that others beside those who are commonly (but corruptly) called the Clergy ought to have a decisive voice in Synods. 2. Spiritual and Ecclesiastical causes were here judged: which are called by the name of the judgement of the Lord, V. 8. and the matters of the Lord distinguished from the King's matters, V. 11. so V. 10. beside controversies between blood and blood, that is, concerning consanguinity and the interpreting of the Laws concerning forbidden degrees in marriage, (it being observed by interpreters that all the lawful or unlawful degrees are not particularly expressed, but some only, and the rest were to be judged of by parity of reason, and so it might fall within the cognizance of the Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin.) Though it may be also expounded otherwise, between blood and blood, that is, Whether the murder was wilful or casual, (which was matter of fact) the cognisance whereof belonged to the civil Judge; It is further added between Law and Commandment, Statutes and Judgements: noting seeming contradictions between one Law and another, (such as Manasseb Ben Israel hath spoken of in his Conciliator) or when the sense and meaning of the Law is controverted, (which is not matter of fact, but of right) wherein special use was of the Priests whose lips should preserve knowledge and the Law was to be sought at his mouth, A●…al. 2. 7. and that not only ministerially and doctrinally, but judicially and in the Sanhedrin at jerusalem, such controversies concerning the Law of God were brought before them, as in 2 Chro. 19 the place now in hand. Yea shall even warn them, etc. Which being spoken to the Court, must be meant of a synedricall Decree, determining those questions and controversies concerning the Law, which should come before them. As for that distinction in the Text of the Lords matters and the King's matters, Erastus' page 274. saith that by the Lords matters is meant any cause expressed in the Law, which was to be judged. Whereby he takes away the distinction which the Text makes; for in his sense the King's matters were the Lords matters. Which himself (it seems) perceiving, he immediately yieldeth our interpretation, that by the Lords matters are meant things pertaining to the worship of God; and by the King's matters, civil things. Si per illas libet res ad cultum Dei spectantes, per haec res civiles accipere, non pugnabo. If you please (saith he) by those, to understand things pertaining to the worship of God, by these, civil things, I will not be against it. 3. It was for a Spiritual and Ecclesiastical end, ye shall even warn them that they trespass not against the Lord. It's not said against one another, but against the Lord, for two reasons. 1. Because mention had been made of the Commandments, Statutes, and judgements, after the general word Law, V. 10. by which names Interpreters use to understand (both in this and many other places of Scripture) the Laws moral, Ceremonial and Judicial. Now the case to be judged might be part of the Ceremonial Law, having reference to God and his Ordinances; and not part of the Judicial law, or any injury done by a man to his neighbour. And in reference to the moral Law it might ●e a trespass against the first Table, not against the second. 2. Even in the case of a personal or civil injury, or whatsoever the controversy was that was brought before them, they were to warn the Judges in the Cities not to trespass against the Lord by mistaking or misunderstanding the Law, or by righting men's wrongs so as to wrong Divine right. And for that end they were to determine the Ius, and the intendment of the law, when it was controverted. 4. Whatsoever cause of their brethren that dwelled in the Cities, should come unto them, V. 10. (whether it should come by appeal, or by reference and arbitration) this Court at jerusalem was to give out an ultimate and authoritative determination of it. So that what was brought from inferior courts to them, is brought no higher to any other Court. 5. This Court had an Ecclesiastical Prolocutor or moderator, V. 11. Amariah the chief Priest is over you in all matters of the Lord: Whereas Zebadiah the Ruler of the house of judah, was Speaker in the civil Sanhedrin for all the King's matters. Amariah and Zebadiah were not only with the Sanhedrin, as members, or as Councillors, but over them as Precedents. Eyes summos Magistratus (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) ex amicorum numero praeposuit, Amasiam Sacerdotem, & ex Judae tribu Zebadiam, saith josephus' antiq. l. 9 cap. 1. Erastus confesseth pag. 273. that both of them were Precedents set over the Sanhedrin. and pag. 275. Si Sacerdotem in Dei nomine, Zebadiam autem Regis praesedisse affirmetur, non refragabor. He confesseth also, that the one was more especially to take care of the Lords matters, the other of the King's matters. What then? He saith they were Precedents both of them to the whole Sanhedrin, not the one to one number, and the other to another. Yet in this he yieldeth also p. 273. Quanquam non peccet forte, qui Senatores hos per officia distributos di●…at, ut alii magis haec, alii magis illa negotia tractarint. Whosoever denieth that that place proveth two distinct Courts, he may be convinced from this one reason, and I shall say to him in the words of Bildad, Jo●… 〈◊〉. 8. Inquire I pray thee of the former age, and prepare thyself to the s●…arch of their fathers: and in the Prophet's words, jerem. 2. 10. Pass over the Isles of Chittim, and see, and send unto Kedar and consider diligently: and see if there be such a thing. Where was it ever heard of, that a Priest was Precedent of a Cou●t, and that in sacred things and causes; that a civil Magistrate was precedent of a Court, and that in civil causes: and yet not two Courts, but one Court? If both Courts had materially consisted of the same members, of the same Priests, and of the same fathers of Israel, (which yet cannot be proved) this very diversification of the Precedents, and of the subject matter, (if there were no more) will prove two Courts formally distinct. Even as now among ourselves the same men may be members of two, or three, or four, or more Courts, but the distinction of Precedents, and of the subject matter, maketh the Court distinct. 6. Here were also Ecclesiastical Officers, vers. 11. also the Levites shall be officers before you. As before 1 Chro. 23. & 26. some of the Levites were schophtim Judges to give sentence, others schoterim, officers to see that sentence put in execution, and to cause those that were refractory to obey it, (so do the Hebrews distinguish these two words) so it was here also, some of the Levites appointed to judge, V. 8. some to do the part of Officers in point of execution of Ecclesiastical censures, for they could not, nor might not compel men by the civil Sword. The same name is given to military Officers who prosecute the commands of authority, josh. 1. 10. And so much of this fourth. The fifth place which I take to hold forth that distinction of Courts and Jurisdictions is jerem. 26, where first the Prophet is taken into the Court of the Priests and Prophets, for which the Chaldee readeth Scribes, whose office it was to be Doctors of the law, and to resolve the difficult cases, and in that capacity they were members of Ecclesiastical counsels, Matth. 2. 4. To the same sense saith Diodati, that the Prophets here spoken of, were such as were learned in the law, and had been bred in the Schools and Colleges of the chief Prophets, and in Jeremiahs' time were present at Ecclesiastical judgements and assemblies, 2 Kings 23. 2. as in Christ's 〈◊〉 Scribes and Doctors of the Law used to be, who were somewhat like these Prophets. Menochius and others expound it as the Chaldee doth. In this Court jeremiah was examined and judged as a false Prophet, V. 8. 9 yet though they had judged him worthy to die, the Court of the Princes acquitteth him as a Prophet of the Lord, who had spoken to them in the name of the Lord, V. 10, 11, 16. That jeremiahs' cause was twice judged in two distinct Courts, and two different sentences upon it, hath been asserted by divers of the Erastian party to prove appeals from Ecclesiastical to Civil courts: to which argument I have elsewhere spoken. Only I take here what they grant, that there were two Courts, and two sentences given, and so it was. The sentence of the Court of the Priests, (as themselves explain it, V. 11.) was this, This man is worthy to die, or as the Hebrew hath it, the judgement of death is for this man. The Chaldee thus, a sin of the judgement of death is upon this man. For (say they) he hath 〈◊〉 so and so; and he that speaketh against this City, and against this holy place is worthy to die. But the sentence ●f the Court of the Princes is V. 16. This man is n●…t worthy to die, for he hath spoken to us in the name of the Lord our God. They do not say to the Priests, Who did put any jurisdiction or authority to judge, in your hands? but they acquit him in point of fact, whom the Court of the Priests had condemned in point of right, as if they had said to the Priests, if jeremiah were a false Prophet, you had reason to call for justice upon him even unto death: but your judgement hath run upon a false supposition in point of fact, which we do not find proved, but know to be false. Wherefore from this place, these two things may appear: 1▪ That the Court of the Priests had not power of capital punishments; for if they had, certainly jeremiah had been put to death, as Hierom noteth. 2. Yet they had a power to judge of a false Prophet, and judicially to pronounce him to be a false Prophet, and such a one as aught to be punished so and so, according to the Law. That they had such a power, appear, 1. from V. 8, 9 where they do not take him to lead him to the Court of the Princes, and there to accuse him; but they take him, so as to give forth their own sentence against him, as against a false Prophet, Thou shalt surely die, say they, why hast thou prophesied in the name of the Lord, etc. Why didst thou dare to pretend the name of God, as if God had sent thee to preach against the Temple and holy City? 2. I●…remiah doth not in all his differences allege that the Priests and Scribes had not power to judge of a false Prophet, or to give sentence against one in such a case. Nor yet did the Prince's object this, as hath been said; yet this had been as strong an exception as could have been made against the Priests, if they had assumed a power and authority of judgement, which was without their Sphere, and did not at all belong unto them. 3. If you compare the sentence of the Priests with the sentence of the Princes, the former is in suo genere, no less judicial, authoritative, and peremptory, than the later: only that was affirmative, this was negative. Finally, let us take for a conclusion of this Argument, that which Mr. Prynne himself in his fourth part of The Sovereign power of Parliaments and Kingdoms, pag. 144. tells us out of vindiciae contra Tyrannos, with an approbatory and encomiastic close of his citation. jeremy being sent by God to denounce the overthrow of the City Jerusalem, is for this first condemned (citing in the Margin jerem. 26.) by the Priests and Prophets, that is, by the Ecclesiastical Judgement or Senate: after this by all the people, that is, by the ordinary Judges of the City, to wit, by the Captains of thousands and hundreds: at last by the Princes of Judah: that is, by 71 men sitting in the new porch of the Temple; his cause being made known, he is acquitted. The sixth place which intimateth an Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin, is jerem. 18. 18. where the adversaries of jeremiah say among themselves, Come and let us d●…vise devices against Jeremiah, for the Law shall not perish from the Priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the word from the Prophet. Come, and let us smite him with the tongue. The force of their argument, (as not only our Interpreters, but Maldonat also and Sanctius, following Aquinas and Lyra, tell us) stands in this, those who are of greatest authority in the Church, the Priests, Prophets, and Elders, with whom are the Oracles of truth, do contradict jeremiah, therefore he is a false Prophet. But what was the ground of this consequence? surely the ground was, that which Bullinger and the late English Annotations do observe, namely, the Popish error was also their error, the Church cannot err. But let us yet follow the argument to the bottom. How came they to think the Church cannot err? or what was that Church which they thought infallible? No doubt they had respect to the Law of the Sanhedrin, Deut. 17. 10, 11, 12. And thou shalt do according to the sentence which they of that place (which the Lord shall ●…hoose) shall show thee; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee. According to the sen●…ence of the Law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgement which they shall tell thee, thou shalt 〈◊〉: thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall show thee, to the right hand, or to the left; And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the Priest (that standeth to minister there before the Lord thy God) or unto the Judge, even that man shall die. From this Scripture misapplyed they drew an argument against jeremiah. Wherein their meaning could not be this, that the doctrine of every individual Priest, or of every individual Scribe, is infallible, (for as the Law now cited did speak of the Sanhedrin, not of individual Priests, so neither the Jews of old nor the Papists after them, have drawn the conceited infallibility so low, as to every particular Priest.) But they mean collectively, and point at an assembly or council of Priests, Wisemen, and Prophets, which (as they apprehended) could not err, and whose determination they preferred to the word of the Lord by jeremiah: for the Law (that is, saith Menochius, the interpretation of the Law) can not perish from the Priest, nor counsel from the wise. Now this was an Ecclesiastical, not a civil Sanhedrin, which may appear thus: First, they do not make mention of the Judge mentioned Deut. 17. (where the Priest & the Judge are distinguished) only they mention the Priest, the Prophet, (for which the Chaldee hath Scribe: which is all one, as to the 〈◊〉 argument for we find both Prophets and Scribes in Ecclesiastical assemblies, as was said before) and the wise. By the wise are meant those that were chief or did excel among the Scribes or Doctors of the Law. So Grotius annot. in Matth. ●3. 34. and it may be collected from jerem. 8. 8, 9 This is cert●ine, that these wise men were Church-officers; for as they are 〈◊〉 from the Judges, Esay 3. 2. so Jesus Christ speaking of 〈◊〉, and other Ministers of the Gospel, whom he was to send forth, expresseth himself by way of allusion to the Ecclesiastical Ministers of the Jews. Matth 23. 34. Behold I send unto you Prophets, and Wise men, and Scribes, which Luke ch. 11. V. 49. hath thus, I will send them Prophets and Apostles. Secondly, the civil Sanhedrin at this time did (so far as we can find) contradict jeremiah; but when his cause came afterward before them, jerem. 26. they show much favour and friendship to him. Thirdly, that which is added, come and let us him smite with the tongue: may be three ways read, and every way it suiteth to the Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin (whether themselves be the speakers in the Text, or whether the people be the speakers of it, as of that which they would de●ire and move the Sanhedrin to do in the name of them all) either thus: Let us smite him for the tongue, that is for an Ecclesiastical cause, for false Doctrine. Or thus, Let us smite him in the tongue (so the Septuagint, and Arias Montanus) that is, Let us smite him with an Ecclesiastical censure, and silence him, and discharge him to preach any more to the people. Or thus, Let us smite him with the tongue, that is, with an Ecclesiastical sentence or declaration, smite him not with the Sword (which belonged only to the civil Magistrate) but with the tongue, by declaring him to be a false Prophet, and by determining the case de jure, what ought to be done with him according to the Law. Seventhly, consider another place, Ezech. 7. 26. Then shall they seek a vision of the Prophet: but the Law shall perish from the Priest, and counsel from the ancients. Here again, these are to be looked upon collectively and conjunctly, (not distributively and severally) and this I prove from the Text itself, not only because the counsel here sought for, was not to be given by one ancient, but by the ancients, yea i● was a principal part of the curse or judgement, that counsel could not be had from an assembly of ancients or Elders, suppose it might be had from some individual Elders here or there:) but also because the Antithesis in the Text intimateth a disappointment in that thing which was sought after. They shall seek a vision from the Prophet, or (as the Chaldee hath it) discipline from the Scribe. This they shall not find, and why? because the Law shall perish from the Priest, and counsel from the Ancients. It was therefore consistorial or Synedricall counsel, Judgement, or Disscipline, which should be sought, but should not be found. So that though a Prophet of the Lord shall peradventure be found, who can reveal the council of the Lord, in a time of general defection, like Micaiah contradicting the 400 Prophets, yet an Ecclesiastical counsel of Prophets, Scribes, Priests, and Elders, sometime Israel's glory, shall turn to be Israel's shame, and that assembly which did sometime respondere d●… jure, and pronounce righteous judgement, and give light in difficult cases, shall do so no more: the very light of Israel shall be darkness; the law and counsel shall perish from them; that is, they shall not find council, nor the understanding of the law, saith Sanctius. Polanus upon the place draweth an Argument against the infallibility of counsels, because the law and counsel did perish not only (saith he) from the Priests here and there in the Cities, but also from the high Priest, and the other Priests and Elders, who were together at jerusalem. If this Text be rightly applied by him (and so it is by other Protestant Writers) to prove against Papists that Counsels may err, than here was an Ecclesiastical council. Eightly, even without jerusalem and I●…da there was a Senate or assembly of Elders, which did assist the Prophets in overseeing the manners of the people, censuring sin, and deliberating of the common affairs of the Church. This C. Bertramus de polit. Jud. c. 16. collecteth from 2 Kings 6. 32. But Elisha sat in his house, and the Elders sat with him. I know some think that those Elders were the Magistrates of Samaria, but this I cannot admit, for two reasons. 1. Because josephus Antiq. lib. 9 cap. 2. calls them Elishaes' disciples: and from him Hugo Cardinalis, Carthusianus, and others do so expound the Text. They are called Elishas Disciples, as the Apostles were Christ's Disciples, by way of Excellency and eminency: all the disciples or sons of the Prophets were not properly Elders, but those only who were assumed into the Assembly of Elders, or called to have a share in the managing of the common affairs of the Church. 2. Cajetan upon the place gives this reason from the Text itself, to prove that these Elders were spiritual men (as he speaketh) because Elisha asketh them, See ye how this son of a murderer hath sent to take away my head? What expectation could there be, that they did see a thing, then secret and unheard of, unless they had been men familiar with God? Now these Elders were sitting close with Elisha in his house. It was not a public or Church assembly for worship, but for counsel, deliberation, and resolution, in some case of difficulty and public concernment. So Tostatus and Sanctius on the place. A parallel place there is, Ezech. 8. 1. I sat in mine house, and the Elders of judah sat before me. Whether those Elders came to know what God had revealed to the Prophet, concerning the state of judah and jerusalem, as Lavater upon the place supposeth, or for deliberation about some other thing, it is nothing like a civil Court, but very like an Ecclesiastical senate. Now if such there was out of jerusalem, how much more in jerusalem, where (as there came greater store of Ecclesiastical causes and controversies concerning the sense of the Law, to be judged, so) there was greater store of Ecclesiastical persons ●it for government? whatsoever of this kind we find elsewhere, was but a Transsumpt, the Archetype was in jerusalem. Ninthly, that place Ze●…h. 7. 1, 2, 3. helpeth me much. The Jews sent Commissioners unto the Temple, there to speak unto the Priests which were in the house of the Lord of Hosts, and to the Prophets (the Chaldee hath and to the Scribes) saying, Should I weep in the first month, etc. Here is an Ecclesiastical assembly, which had authority to determine controversies concerning the worship of God. Grotius upon the place distinguisheth these Priests and Prophets from the civil Sanhedrin, yet he saith they were to be consulted with, in controverted cases, according to the Law, Deut. 17. 9 If so, than their sentence was authoritative and binding, so far that the man who did presumptuously disobey them, was to die the death, Deut. 17. 12. Tenthly, let it be considered what is that Moshav Zekenim consessus or Cathedra seniorum, Psal. 107. 32. (for though every argument be not an infallible demonstration, yet cuncta juvant) let them exalt him also in the Congregation (or Church) of the people, and praise him in the Assembly of the Elders. Compare this Text with Psalm 115. 9, 10, 11. as likewise with Psalm 118. 2, 3, 4. In all the three Texts, there are three sorts of persons distinguished, and more especially called upon to glorify God. Oh that men would praise the Lord for his goodness, saith the Text in hand, Psalm 107. 31. for that you have in the other two places, Ye that fear the Lord, etc. for the congregation of the people, you have in the other two places Israel, and the house of Israel. For the Assembly of the Elders, you have in the other Texts, the house of Aaron. I will not here build any thing upon the observation of Hugo Cardinalis on Psalm 107. 32. that the congregation of the Princes is not mentioned in this business, because not many mighty, not many noble, etc. One thing I am sure of, there were Elders in Israel, clearly distinct both from the Princes, Judges, and civil Magistrates, jos. 23. 2. 2 Kings 10. 1. Ezra 10. 14. Acts 4. 5. and elsewhere. And the parallel Texts afore cited, do couple together these Elders and the house of Aaron, as Pastors and ruling Elders now are; and as the Priests and Elders are found conjoined elsewhere in the old Testament, Exod. 24. 1. Deut. 27. 1. with vers. 9 Ezech. 7. 26. jer. 19 1. So Matth. 26. 59 The work also of giving thanks for mercies and deliverances obtained by the afflicted and such as have been in distress (the purpose which the Psalmist hath in hand, extended also to the deliverances of particular persons.) is more especially commended to those who are assembled in an Ecclesiastical capacity. Even as now among ourselves, the civil Courts of Justice, or Magistrates and Rulers or Judges assembled by themselves in a politic capacity, use not to be desired to give thanks for the delivery of certain persons from a danger at Sea, or the like. But it were very proper and fit to desire thanks to be returned, 1. by those that fear God; for as we should desire the prayers, so likewise the praises of the Saints. 2. By the Church or Congregation, of which they that have received the mercy are members. 3. By the Eldership, yea (if therebe occasion) by a Synod of Elders, who as they ought to watch over the City of God, and to stand upon their watchtower for observing approaching dangers, so they ought to take special notice of exemplary mercies, bestowed upon the afflicted members of the Church, and be an ensample to the flock, in giving thanks, as well as in other holy duties. The eleventh place, which seemeth to hold forth unto us an Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin, is Ezech. 13. 9 where its said of the Prophets that did see vanity, and Divine lies: they shall not be in the assembly of my people, neither shall they be written in the writing of the house of Israel, neither shall they inter into the Land of Israel. Where (as Diodati and Grotius observe,) the speech riseth by degrees. 1. they shall not any more be admitted into the assembly or council to have any voice there, as Prophets in those days had saith Diodati citing jer. 26. 7. Secondly, they shall not so much as come into the computation or numbering of the people as members of the Church of Israel. 3. Nay they shall not be permitted to dwell in the holy Land, or to return thither from their captivity; they shall not have so much favour as strangers had, who might come into the holy Land and sojourn there. In the first branch, the word translated assembly is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sod which properly signifieth a secret, and is used for counsel (because counsel ought to be secret) or for the place of counsel, or assembly of Counsellors. Pagnin in his Thesaurus p. 1761. readeth this place with Hierome, in consilio, or otherwise saith he, in concilio. Vatablus: in concilio populi mei non erunt. The Septuagints read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: that is, those Prophets shall have no hand in the Discipline of my people. The same word they render in other places by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, yea by both these put together, Prov. 20. 19 where for the Hebrew sod, the Septuagints have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He that revealeth the secret counsels in the Sanhedrin; and it cohereth well with the preceding Verse, where they mention 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Governments. Sometime they expound the word by an Episcopal (I mean not Prelatical) inspection job 29. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. God was an overseer of my house. So that, so far as the Septuagints authority can weigh, that place Ezek. 13. 9 must be understood of the secluding of those Prophets from the Sanhedrin, not from the Civil (in which the Prophets were not members) but from the Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin. In the twelfth and last place, the new Testament holds out to us an Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin: Whether the civil Sanhedrin was wholly taken away by Herod, and another civil Sanhedrin not substitute in the place of that which he took away, but the Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin only remaining, as some hold; or whether both did then continue though not so clearly distinct, as others hold: This we find that there was an Ecclesiastical government in the hands of Church-officers; for 1. there was a council of the Priests and Elders and Scribes Matth. 2. 4. & 16. 21. & 21. 23. & 26. 57, 59 & 27. 1. 12. Mark 14. 43. Luke 22. 66. Acts 4. 5. m Magdeb Gent. 〈◊〉. lib. 1. cap 6. Seniores populi videntu●… fuisse 〈◊〉 è populo lecti viri, aetate, d ctrina, & vitae p●…obitate spectati, gui simul cum Ecclesiasticis 〈◊〉, Templi, 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 rerum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ecclesiae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 habuerunt. The Centurists say that those Elders were joined with the Priests in the government of the Church, with Ecclesiastical persons in Ecclesiastical affairs. Which hath been rightly taken for a precedent of our ruling Elders. 2. That Council is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luke 22. 66. Acts 22. 5. the Presbytery or Eldership: the very name which Paul gives to that assembly of Church-officers, who ordained Timothy, 1 Tim. 4. 14. is it credible that the Apostle would transfer the name of a civil Court to signify an Assembly, which was merely Ecclesiastical and not Civil? The very use of the word in this sense by the Apostle, tells us that in his age the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was taken in an Ecclesiastical notion only. 3. This Council did examine jesus concerning his Disciples and his doctrine, and received witnesses against him, and pronounced him guilty of blasphemy, Matth. 27. 57 Mark 14. 53, 55. joh. 18. 19 Hence Protestant writers draw an argument against Papists, to overthrow their infallibility of Counsels: unto which argument Bellarmine deviseth four answers. But it came not once into his thoughts, to reply that this council was civil, not Ecclesiastical, which had been his best answer, if any probability for it. It hath been supposed, both by Protestant, and Popish Writers, that it was an Ecclesiastical Council, such as the controversy is about: otherwise our Argument had been as impertinent, as their answer was insufficient. 4. Our opposites have no evasion here, but that which Bilson, Saravia, and others of the Prelatical party did answer in opposition to ruling Elders; namely, that the Jewish Elders were Judges or Magistrates; But the reply which served then, will serve now: the Elders are plainly distinguished from Judges, Rulers, and Princes, jos. 8. 33. & 23. 2. Deut. 5. 23. jud. 8. 14. 2 Kings 10. 1, 5. Ezra 10. 14. Acts 4. 5. T●…status on Deut. 21. 2. & 22. 15, 16. observeth the same distinction of Judges and Elders. Pelargus on Deu●…. 21. 2, 3, 4. observeth the like. That which I say concerning the distinction of Judges and Elders may be confirmed by Halichoth Olam Tract. 1. cap 3. The Judges of Soura, M. Houna, and D. Isaac. The judges of Phoumbeditha M. Papa the son of Samuel, etc. The Elders of Soura M. Houna and M. Hisda. The Elders of Phoumbeditha Ena and Abimi the son of Rahba. And thus we are taught how to under and th●se Gemarick phrases, of the Judges of such a place, and the Elders of such a place, that we may not mistake them as if they were one. 5. Some have also drawn a pattern for the constitution of Synods, from that Council, Acts 4. 5, 6. where we find assembled together Rulers, 〈◊〉, Elders, Scri●es, according to which pattern we have in our Synods, 1. the civil 〈◊〉 to preside in the order of proceedings, for preventing tumults, injuries, disorders, and to assist and protect the Synod. 2. Pastors of Churches. 3. Doctors from universities, answering to the Scribes or Doctors of the Law. 4. Ruling Elders who assist in the Government of the Church. 6. After that judaea was redacted into a Province, and the Romans having keptin their own hands, not only the power of life and death john 18. 31. but all judgement in whatsovever civil, or criminal offences, falling out among the Jews, meant by matters of wrong or wicked lewdness, Acts 18. 14. And having left to the Jew's no government, nor any power of judgement, except in things pertaining to their religion only Ib. verse 15. These six things considered, it is very unprobable (if not impossible) that the Council of the Priests, Elders, and Scribes, mentioned so often in the New Testament, should be no Ecclesiastical Court, but a temporal and civil Magistracy. The Centurists Cent. 1. lib. 1. cap. 10. reckon that Council for an Ecclesiastical Court, distinct from civil Magistracy: and they propose these two to be distinctly treated of, Acta coram Pontificibus seu Magistratu Ecclesiastico, (and here they bring in the council of the Priests, Elders, and Scribes,) And Actio coram Pilato seu magistratu politico. I know Erastus lib. 3. cap. 2. and lib. 4. cap. 4. though he confess plainly that the Jewish Sanhedrin mentioned in the Gospel, and in the Acts of the Apostles, had only power of judging causes belonging to Religion, and that the Romans did leave them no power to judge of civil injuries; yet he holdeth, that in these causes of Religion, the Sanhedrin had power not only of imprisoning, and scourging, but even of death itself. And so endeavours to make it a temporal or civil Magistracy, (which Mr Prynne also doth vindic. page 4, 5. yet he speaketh dubiously of their power of capital punishments.) But this is confuted by the reasons which I have given. Whereunto I further add these few animadversions. 1. The strongest proof which Erastus brings out of josephus' antiq. lib. 20. cap. 8. which (as he allegeth) puts the thing out of all controversy, is a very weak and insufficient proof. josephus tells us in the close of that Chapter, that after the death of Herod and A chelaus, this was the Jewish Government, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This he citeth page 177. and page 178. to prove that the Sanhedrin in Christ's time, was a civil Magistracy, having power of the Sword. But I may with a great deal more probability argue chose from these words. josephus tells us the Constitution and form of the Jewish policy or Government was at that time Aristocratical, but it was an Ecclesiastical Aristocracy, the government was in the hands of the chief Priests. Or thus (if you will) the Jews at that time had a bare name of an aristocracy; they had their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Optimates, Primates, or Rulers: but it was titulo tenus, all power of civil government being taken from them by the Romans, and the government that was, was Ecclesiastical. That very Chapter gives us a better argument to prove, that the Romans did not permit to the Jews capital Judgements: for josephus there records that Ananus the high Priest taking the opportunity after the death of Festus, while Albinus the Successor of Festus, was but yet on his journey toward judea, did call a Council of Judges (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) before whom he presented james the brother of Christ, and some others, who were (as guilty of impiety) condemned to be stoned. Which mightily displeased all such as did observe the Laws. Albinus at that time coming from Alexandria, being informed of the thing, and that it was not lawful for Ananus to do any such thing, without the Roman Governor, wrote a chiding and threatening letter to Ananus. And further, the thing being secretly signified by some to King Agrippa, who did also beseech the King to command Ananus to do no such thing again, he having trespassed in this. Whereupon Agrippa was so highly offended, that he took away from Ananus the high Priests place, and gave it to jesus the son of Damneus. 2. Whereas Erastus argueth from the imprisoning, beating, or scourging, yea taking counsel to kill the Apostles Acts 4, & 5. the stoning of Steven Acts 7. Paul's letters from the high Priest, for biuding and bringing to jerusalem the Disciples of the Lord Acts 9 1, 2. also the imprisoning and condemning to death the Saints Acts 26. 10. Unto all this I answer out of n Antiq. jud. lib. 20. cap 6. Ipsi 〈◊〉 pontifices dissiacre cae●erunt à Sacer●otibus & primatibus Hieroso● mi●anorum ●ivium, singuléque m●edebant stipati manu au▪ dacissimorum & seditiosorum bominum, 〈◊〉 inter se mutu●S ce●tabant convitiis & 〈◊〉: nec erat qui compesceret, quasi vacante urbe Magistratibus. In tantum autem exarsit summorum pontific●m impudentia, ut auderent servos suos in areas mittere, qui auf●rrent debitas Sacerdotibus decimas, aliquótque pauperiores è Sacerdo●um ordine alimentorum in●pia fame deficerent. Tantò plus ●um pol●ebat violentia sedi- tiosorum quam justitia. josephus, that in that degenerate age the high Priests and such as adhered to them, did use a great deal of violence, whereby they did many things for which they had no just nor lawful power. So that the Letters and Warrants given out to Saul, and the execution of the same by a cruel and bloody persecuting of the Saints, can not prove the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the power and authority which was allowed to the Sanhedrin, but only the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the present prevalent power of the high Priest and his faction in that confusion of affairs; and their extreme malice against the Saints, to have been such as made them to do things for which they had no legal power nor warrant. And this one Animadversion breaks all the strength of Mr Prynnes argument vindic. page 5. that the Council of the Jews had power (which no mere Ecclesiastical consistory can do) to scourge, imprison, torture, and outlaw offenders, if not to c●…ndemne, put to death. (Where he citeth divers Texts, none of which proveth either torturing, or out-lawing, and the most of which, prove not so much as that the Council of the Jews at that time had authority to scourge or imprison, as Matth. 5. 22. & 10. 17. Mark 13. 9 Acts 6. 12, 13, 14. & 24. 20. & 25. 15.) The imprisonment of the Apostles was not without the authority of the Captain of the Temple Acts 4. 1, 3. This captain of the Temple, is thought by the best interpreters, to have been the Captain of the Garrison which the Romans placed in the ca●tle Antonia hard by the Temple, and that to prevent tumults and uproars when the people came to the Temple, especially at the solemn feasts in great multitudes. But that the Captain of the Temple was a civil Magistrate of the Jews, or one deputed with authority and power from the Sanhedrin, will never be proved. When the Council thought of slaying the Apostles Acts 5. 33. it was in a sudden passion, being cut to the heart at that which they heard. But Gamaliel tells them Verse 35. Ye men of Israel take heed to yourselves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 warning them as Interpreters take it, of their own danger, from the Romans, if they should put any one to death. The putting of Steven to death was upon pretence of judicium zeli, or Ius zelotarum, as Grotius thinks d●… Jure belli a●… pacis lib. 2. cap 20. sect. 9 If so, it was an extraordinary act. I am sure it was done most tumultuously, disorderly and furiously, before either himself was heard speak out, or any sentence was given against him, as is manifest Acts 7. 54, 57, 58. 3. Erastus' his gloss upon john 18. 31. It is not lawful for us to put any man to death, meaning (saith he) for making himself a King against Caesar, the cause for which they did chiefly accuse him to Pilate. So likewise Bishop Bilson (a great follower of Erastus) of the perpetual government of Christ's Church cap. 4. But mark the words, Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him and judge him according to your Law; The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death. Pilate durst not have refused to judge a man who made himself a King against Caesar, nor durst he have put it over upon the Jews to have judged one in that which concerned Caesar's crown. Nay, as soon as the Jews objected, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend; for whosoever maketh himself a King, speaketh against Caesar. Pilate when he heard that, went in again, and sat down on the Judgement seat john 19 12. 13. Therefore when Pilate said to the Jews take ye him, and judge him according to your law, he spoke it of matters of their Law. The Council of the chief Priests, Elders and Scribes had given sentence against Christ the ju●…e, that he was guilty of blasphemy, and thereupon (not having power to put any man to death) they led him to Pilate, Matth. 26. 65, 66. with Matth. 27. 1, 2. Mark 14. 63, 64. with Mark 15. 1. Luke 22. 71. with Luke 23. 1. Pilate unwilling to meddle against Christ, waves the business in the Judgement-hall, I perceive (would he say) that this man is accused of such things as concern your Law and your Religion; therefore take him and judge him according to your Law. They reply, in reference to that which Pilate did drive at, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death. If they had meant, for causes which concerned Caesar's Crown, it had been not only an impertinent reply, but a yielding to pilate's intention; for he might have said, I do not mean, that ye shall judge him for that which concerneth Caesar, but for that which concerneth your own Law and Religion. Therefore certainly the answer which the Jews made to Pilate, did reply, that though they had power to judge a man in that which concerned their Law and Religion, yet they had no power to put any man to death, no not for that which concerned their Law. 4. There are several passages in the story of Paul which show us, that though the Jewish Sanhedrin might judge a man in matters of their Law, yet they were accusers, not Judges, in civil or capital punishments, I mean when a man was accused as worthy of bonds or of death, though it were for a matter of their Law, they had no liberty to judge, but only to accuse. The Jews drew Paul before the judgement seat of Gallio, even for a matter of their law. This fellow (say they to Gallio) persuadeth men to worship God, contrary to the Law Acts 18. 13. If they had intended only an Ecclesiastical censure, their recourse had been either to the Sanhedrin, or at least to the Synagogue, but because they intended a corporal temporal punishment, which neither the Sanhedrin nor the Synagogue had power to inflict, therefore they must prosecute Paul before Gallio; whose answer was to this purpose, that if it had been a matter of wrong or wicked lewdness, it had been proper for him to have judged it, but that since it was no such thing, he would not meddle in it, knowing also, that the Jews had no power to do it by themselves. Again, Acts 23. 28, 29. Claudius' Lysias writeth to Faelix concerning Paul thus, and when I would have known the cause wherefore they accused him, I brought him forth into their Council. Whom I perceived to be accused of questions of their Law, but to have nothing laid to his charge worthy of death or of bonds. That which made Lysias interpose in the business, and rescue Paul from the hands of the Jews, was the Jews design to put Paul to death, under colour of judging him according to their Law (which was the pretence made by Tertullus Acts 24. 6.) Now in that which was to be punished, either by death, or so much as by bonds, Lysias conceives the Jews to be no competent Judges, therefore he brings Paul into the council of the Jews, not to be judged by them, but to know what accusation they had against him. For the same reason Paul himself did decline going to jerusalem, to be judged there, no not of matters concerning the Religion and Law of the Jews, that accusation being so far driven on, as to make him worthy of death. His accusers (saith Festus to King Agrippa) brought none accusation of such things as I supposed, but had certain questions against him of their own superstition, and of one jesus which was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive. And because I doubted of such manner of questions▪ I asked him whether he would go to jerusalem, and there be judged of these matters, Acts 25. 18, 19, 20. This Paul had declined vers. 10. I stand at Caesar's judgement seat (said he) where I ought to be judged. And why? but because his accusation was capital, even in that which concerned the Law of the Jews, and he knew the Jews at that time had no power of capital judgements. Some have alleged this example of Paul for appeals from Presbyteries or Synods to the civil Magistrate: by which argument themselves grant that the Jewish Sanhedrin then declined by Paul, was a Ecclesiastical, not a civil Court. 5. Besides all this Erastus his opinion is strongly confuted by that which Constantinus L'Empereur Annot. in remp. Jud. pag. 404. to 407. proving that the Jews after the thirtieth year of Christ, had no power of punishing with death; for proof hereof citeth a passage of Aboda zara, that forty years before the destruction of the Temple, the Sanhedrin (which had in former times exercised capital judgements) did remove from Jerusalem, quum viderent se non posse judicia capitalia exercere, when they perceived that they could not exercise capital judgements, they said let us remove out of this place, lest we be guilty: it being said Deut. 17. 10. according to the sentence which they of that place shall show thee: whence they collected, that if they were not in that place, they were not obliged to capital judgements: and so they removed. And if you would know when there he tells us out of Rosch Hasschana, they removed from Hieru salem to jabua, thence to Ousa thence to Sc●…aphrea, etc. He that desires to have further proofs for that which hath been said, may read Buxtorf. lexic. Chald. Talmud. & rabbin. pag. 514, 515. He proves that judicia criminalia, criminal judgements did cease, and were taken away from the Jews forty years before the destruction of the second Temple. This he saith is plain in Talmud Hierosol. in lib. Sanhedrin cap. 7. in Talmud Babyl. in Sanbedrin fol. 41. 1. in Aboda z●…ru fol. 8. 2. in Schab. fol. 15. 1. in juchasin fol. 51. 1. Majen●…on. in Sanhedrin cap. 14. sect. 13. He citys also a passage in Berachos fol. 58. 1. concerning one who for a heinous crime even for lying with a beast ought to be adjudged to death; but when one said that he ought to die, it was answered, that they had no power to put any man to death. And this saith Dr. Bux●…orf is the very same, which the Jews said to Pilate John 18. 31. Now this power being taken from the Jews forty years before the destruction of the Temple and City, which was in the 71 year of Christ, his death being in the 34. Hence he proveth that this power was taken from the Jews near three years before the death of Christ. And I further make this inference, that since the Sanhedrin which had power of life and death, did remove from Jerusalem forty years before the destruction of the Temple (for which see also Tzemach David. edit. Hen. Vorst. pag. 89. and so about three years before the death of Christ; it must needs follow that the Council of the Priests, Elders, and Scribes, mentioned so often in, and before Christ's passion, was not a civil Magistracy, nor the civil Sanhedrin, but an Ecclesiastical San●edrin. Whence also it follows, that the Church Matth. 18. 17. unto which Christ directs his Disciples to go with their complaints, was not the civil Court of Justice among the Jews, (as Mr Prynne takes it) for that civil Court of Justice had then removed from Jerusalem, and had lost its authority in executing Justice, I. Coach annot. in Exc. Gem. Sanhedrin. cap. 1. s●…ct. 13. beareth witness to the same story above mentioned, that forty years before the destruction of the Temple, the Sanhedrin did remove from its proper seat (where he also mentions the ten stations or degrees of their removing) and jam tum cessarunt judicia capitalia, saith he. Now at that time the capital judgements did cease. Thus we have three witnesses singularly learned in the Jewish Antiquities. Unto these add Casau●…on exerc. 16. anno 34. num. 76. He holds that though the Council of the Jews had cognizance of the offence (for otherwise how could they give a reason or cause when they demanded justice) in which respect the Council did judge Christ to be guilty of death, Mark 14. 64. yet their Council had then no more power of capital punishments, which saith he, the more learned modern writers do demonstrate è juchasin, and from other talmudical writings; he addeth that this power of putting any man to death was taken from the Jews some space before this time when they said to Pilate, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death: for this power was taken from them, saith he, forty years before the destruction of the second Temple, as the rabbinical writers do record. I have thus largely prosecuted my last argument, drawn from the New Testament, mentioning the Council of the Priests, Elders, and Scribes. And I trust the twelve arguments which have been brought may give good satisfaction toward the proof of an Ecclesiastical Jewish Sanhedrin. The chief objection which ever I heard or read against this distinction of a Civil Sanhedrin and an Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin among the Jews, is this. That neither the Talmud nor the talmudical writers mention any such distinction, but speak only of one supreme Sanhedrin of 71, and of other two Courts, which sat the one at the door of the Court before the Temple, the other at the gate which entereth to the mountain of the Temple. There were also Courts in the Cities where capital cases were judged by three and twenty, pecunial mults by three. Answ. It must be remembered that not only the talmudical Commentators, but the Talmud itself, is much later than the time of the Sanhedrin, and the integrity of the Jewish government. Yea later (by some Centuries) than the destruction of the Temple and City of jerusalem. So that the Objection which is made is no stronger than as if one should argue thus, There is no mention of Elderships constituted of Pastors and Ruling Elders (without any Bishop having preeminence over the rest) neither in the Canon Law, nor decretals of Popes, nor in the Book of the Canons of the Roman Church. Therefore when Paul wrote his Epistle to the Church of Rome, there was no such Eldership in that Church, constituted as hath been said. But if the Ecclesiastical Government either of the Church of Rome, or of the Church of the Jews can be proved from Scripture (as both may) it ought to be no prejudice against those truths, that they are not fou●d in the Writers of aftertimes, and declining ages. Howbeit there may be seen some footsteps of a Civil and Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin, even in the talmudical writers, in the opinion of Constantinus L'Empereur, and in that other passage cited by D. Buxtorf out of Elias. Of which before. And so much concerning an Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin among the Jews. If after all this, any man shall be unsatisfied in this particular, yet in the issue, such as are not convinced that there was an Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin among the Jews, distinct from their civil Sanhedrin, may nevertheless be convinced not by the former arguments, but by other Mediums, that there was an Ecclesiastical government among the Jews distinct from their civil government. For it belonged to the Priests, (not to the Magistrates or Judges) to put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean. And the Priests (not the Magistrates) are challenged for not putting difference between the holy and profane Ezech. 22. 26. And this power of the Priests was not merely doctrinal or declarative, but decisive, binding, and juridical, so far as that according to their sentence men were to be admitted as clean, or excluded as unclean. Yea in other cases, as namely in trying and judging the scandal of a secret and unknown murder, observe what is said of the Priests, Deut. 21. 5. by their word shall every controversy and every stroke be tried. Yea themselves were Judges of controversies Ezech. 44. 24. And in controversy they shall stand in judgement, and they shall judge it according to my judgements. Where the Ministers of the Gospel are principally intended, but not without an allusion unto and parallel with the Priests of the old Testament, in this point of jurisdiction. Suppose now it were appointed by Law, that Ministers shall separate or put difference between the holy and profane, that by their word every controversy concerning the causes of suspension or sequestration of men from the Sacrament, shall be tried; that in controversy they shall stand in judgement, and judge according to the word of God: Would not every one look upon this, as a power of government put into the hands of Ministers. And none readier to aggravate such government, than the Erastians'. Yet all this amounts to no more, then by the plain and undeniable Scriptures above cited, was committed to the Priests. Suppose also, that men were kept back from the Temple and from the Passeover, not for any moral uncleanness, but for ceremonial uncleanness only (which is to be afterwards discussed) yet the Priests their judging and deciding of controversies concerning men's legal uncleanness, according to which judgement and decision, men were to be admitted to, or kept back from the Temple and Passover (yea sometime their own houses, as in the case of leprosy) could not choose but entitle them to a power of government, which power was peculiar to them, and is not in all the old Testament ascribed to Magistrates or Judges. And as the exercise of this power did not agree to the Magistrate, so the commission, charge, and power given to those who did keep back the unclean, was not derived from the Magistrate; for it did belong to the intrinsecall sacerdotal authority 2 Kings 11. 18. The Priest (jehojada) appointed Officers over the house of the Lord. The 70 thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. These Officers or overseers over the Temple, were appointed by jehojada, for keeping back the unclean, as Grotius upon the place, following josephus, hath observed. Compare 2 Chro. 23. 19 And he (jehojada) set the Porters at the gates of the house of the Lord, that none which was unclean in any thing should enter in▪ For the same end did he appoint these overseers over the Temple, 2 Kings 11. It was also appointed by the Law, that the man who should do any thing presumptuously, contrary to the sentence of the Priests, should die the death, as well as the man who should do any thing presumptuously, contrary to the sentence of the Judge, Deut. 17. 9, 12. Finally, the high Priest was a ruler of the people, and to him is that law applied, Thou shalt not speak evil of the Ru●…ers of thy people Acts 23. 5. Which is not meant only in regard that he was precedent of the Sanhedrin; for there was an Ecclesiastical ruling power, which was common with him to some other Priests, 2 Chro. 35. 8. Hilkiah the high Priest, and Zachariah and jehiel Priests of the second order, are called Rulers of the house of God: being in that very place thus distinguished from other Priests and Levites employed in the manual work of the Temple about Sacrifices and the like. CHAP. IU. That there was an Ecclesiastical Excommunication among the jews: and what it was. IT hath been affirmed by some who pretend to more skill in Jewish antiquities than others, that though the Jews had an excommunication which did exclude a man from the liberty of civil fellowship, so that he might not come within four cubits of his neighbour, (and so one man might and did excommunicate another) yet no man was judicially or by sentence of a Court excommunicated, at least not from the Temple, Sacrifices, and holy assemblies. To these I shall in the first place oppose the judgement of others who have taken very much pains in searching the Jewish antiquities, and are much esteemed for their skill therein. n Lexicon Chald. Talmud. & Rabbin. edit. 1639. pag. 8●7, 828. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Excommunicatio, exclusio ● caetu sacro, ejectio ex syna▪ goga etc. Cum tali excommunicato non licet edere nec bibert. Quo fortè respicit Apostolus 1 Cor. 5. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Nam admonitionem illam generalem facit, ex occasione incestuosis quem excommunicare jubet. D. Buxtors expoundeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cherem to be a casting out of one from the holy assemblies, or an ejection from the Synagogue, and maketh it parallel to the Excommunicating of the incestuous man 1 Cor. 5. o De jure nature. & Gentium lib. 4. cap. 9 Atque is planè à communicatione orationis, & convenius, & omnis sancti commercii relegabatur, quemadmodum de bujusmodi anathemate sub initils Ecclesie Christianae loquitur Tertullianus. Mr Selden extendeth the Jewish Excommunication so far, as to comprehend an exclusion from fellowship in prayer and holy assemblies, and makes it parallel to that which Tertullian tells us to have been used by the Primitive Church. Mr Brughton in his exposition of the Lords prayer page 14. makes a parallel between the Jewish and the Christian Church in many particulars, and among the rest, he saith they agree in the manner of Excommunication and absolution. p Animad in Pirke pag. 169. Qu●… enim dicat apostatam, blashemum aliaque sacra capita intra templum suisse admissa? etc. Certe si quibuslibet excommunicatis permissum suisset in trare Templom, tum 〈◊〉 mitior Judaicae Synagoga disciplina esset statuenda, quam veteris Christianae Ecclesiae. Henric. Vorstius in his late animadversions upon Pirke Rabbi Eliezer, wonders how any man can imagine that an Apostate, a blasphemer, or the like was admitted into the Temple. For his part, he thinks some excommunicate persons were absolutely excluded from the Temple, and that others for whom there were hopes of reconciliation, were admitted into it. q Quest. & Resp. l. 1. quaest. 9 Solebant autem veteres (Inder) si qu● gravius deliquerat, primum eum movere caetu Ecclesiastico: si non emendabat se, tum feriebant 〈◊〉: quòd si ne tum quidem redibat ad srugem, ultimo ac postremo loco samatizabant. Drusius and r Annot. in Exc. Gemar. Sanhedrin cap. 1. Qui simpliciter excommunicatus est (menudde) est ille quidem separatus à caetu, ita ut pro vero membro Ecclesie non habeatur. johannes Coach hold, that there were such excommunicate persons among the Jews, as were removed from Church assemblies, and were not acknowledged for Church members. s Lexicon pentaglot. pag. 655. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Excommunicatio, cum quis se non emendans catu Ecclesiastico ●ovetur, & ex populo suo excinditur. Where he also mentioneth the three distinct kinds of Excommunication Niddui, Cherem, and Schammata. Ibid. pag. 1076. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 remetio, excommunicatio, ejectio ex caetu piorum, illa anathematis species, qua quis immundus ab bominum contubernio, aut qua aliquis ● caetu Ecclesiastico removetur ad tempus▪ à lege praescriptum. Schindlerus describeth their excommunication to be a putting away of an impenitent obstinate sinner from the public assembly of the Church, and so a cutting him off from his people. t De arcano sermone cap. 47. Ejectio autem è Synagega, communicationis abnegatio est, & abalienatio a religiosa consuetudine, quae á nostris recepto jam verbo sixcommunicatio dicitur. Arias Montanus expounds their casting out of the Synagogue to be an excommunication (such as in the Christian Church) from religious fellowship. u Magdeb. Cent. 1. ●…ib. 1. cap 7. Judicabant degmata & promulgobant eorum damnationes, unà cum personis: quae quidem res▪ nihil aliud quam publica Excommunicatio erat Jo. 9 22. & 11. 47. 48. & 1●. 4●. Et infra. Extra Synagogam fieret,▪ hoc est excommunicaretur. So do the Centurists plainly, where they do purposely show what was the Ecclesiastical policy and Church government of the Jews: They make it a distinct Question, whether the Jews in Christ's time had any civil Government, or Magistracy. x 〈◊〉▪ Ebr. cap 7. legis sanctio triplex etc. Prima est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aversatio, antolitio & amandatio &c. Secunda est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 devo●… extremo cuidam exitio. Excommunicatio: quando videlicet a●…quis excindi duebatur ex populo sue, & in eo amplius non censeri (ut jam supra expo▪ suimus) ex majore aliquo delicto. atque hoc p●…to esse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fieri etc. Primae illae speciei respondet quod in Ecclesiis nostris vocamus prohibitionem seu suspensionem à Sacramentis: 〈◊〉 Excommunicatio publice facta. Cornelius Bertramus thinks that to the Jewish Niddui answereth our suspension from the Sacrament, and that to their cherem answereth our excommunication from the Church: and that the Jews had the very same kind of excommunication, by which the incestuous Corinthian, Hymeneus and Philetus, and the Emperor Theodosius were excommunicated. Constansinus l' Empereur annot. in rempub. Jud. pag. 370. to 378. holdeth the same thing which Bertramus holdeth concerning the Jewish excommunication, and which hath now been cited. Godwyn in his Moses and Aacon, lib. 5. cap. 1 speaketh of the Ecclesiastical Court of the Jews, unto which (saith he) belonged the power of excommuication, the several sorts of which censure he explaineth cap. 2. namely Niddui, cherem, and Shammata. After all which, he begins cap. 3. to speak of civil Courts of the Jews, a distinct government. Grotius. annot. in Luke 6. 22. compares the Jewish excommunication with that which was exercised by the Druids in France, who did interdicere saerificiis, interdict and prohibit from their Sacrifices impious and obstinate persons. Yea those who were excommunicate by Niddui or the lesser excommunication, he likens to those penitents or mourners in the ancient Christian Church, who were said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, qui non cum caeteris orabant etc. He tells us the ancient Christians did in divers things follow the Jewish discipline, and among other things in excommunication; He citys the same passage of Tertullian which is cited by Mr Selden, concerning a shntting out, à communicatione orationis, & conventus, & omnis sancti commercii. Which is as full and high a description of the Ecclesiastical censure of Excommunication, as any can be. So that the Jewish Excommunication being paralleled with that Excommunication which Tertullian speaks of, and which was practised in the ancient Christian Church, what more can be required in this particular? And here I cannot but take notice, that Master Prynne doth very much mistake and misrepresent Mr Selden, as if he held the Jewish excommunication to have been no more but a shutting out from civil company or fellowship, whereas he clearly holds lib. 4. de jure not. & Gent. cap. 9 p. 522. that he who was excommunicated by the Jewish cherem, was put away and cast off from fellowship in prayer, and from all religious fellowship, even as Tertullian speaks of excommunicated persons in the Church. Lud. Capellus in Spicilegio upon joh. 9 22. speaking of the common distinction of the three degrees of the Jewish Excommunication, doth plainly bear witness to that which I plead for, namely, y Harum trium Excommunicationis specierum vel potius graduum, secunda primam, tertia utramque includebat. Prima piis quidem Iudaeis erat formidabtlis, quia per eam à sacrorum communione submovebantur, at qui minus pii erant eâ non magnopere movebantur. that there was a Jewish Excommunication from communion in the holy things. I confess he understands the Cherem, and the Shammata, otherwise than I do; for he takes the Cherem to be nihil aliud, nothing else than the forfeiture of a man's substance for the use of the Sanctuary: (whereas it is certain there was a Cherem of persons as well as of things, and the formulae of the Cherem which shall be cited afterward, contain another thing than forfeiture.) And Shammata he takes to be the devoting of men to death, and that being Shamatized they must needs die. (And yet the Jews did shamatize the Cuthites or Samaritans (as we shall see afterward) whom they had not power to put to death.) However he speaks of the Niddui as a mere Ecclesiastical censure, and therefore tells us it was formidable to the godly, it being a shutting out from communion in the holy things, but not formidable to wicked men; which must be upon this reason, because wicked men did care little or nothing for any censure or punishment, except what was civil. He granteth also that Niddui was included in the other two: so that in all three there was a shutting out from the holy things. I must not forget the Testimony of my Countryman Master Weemse in his Christian Synagogue lib. 1. cap. 6. sect. 3. paragr. 7. They had three sorts of Excommunication; first the lesser, than the middle sort, than the greatest. The lesser was called Niddui: and in the New Testament they were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, put out of the Synagogue: and they hold that Cain was excommunicated this way. The second was called Cherem or Anathema: with this sort of Excommunication was the Incestuous person censured 2 Cor. 2. The third Shammatha, they hold that Enoch instituted it, Judas v. 14. And after, these who were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, put out of the Synagogue were not simply secluded from the Temple, but suffered to stand in the Gate, etc. These who were Excommunicated by the second sort of Excommunication, were not permitted to come near the Temple. These who were Excommunicated after the third sort, were secluded out of the society of the people of God altogether. And thus I have produced fifteen witnesses for the Ecclesiastical Excommunication of the Jews. I might produce many more, but I have made choice of these, because all of them have taken more than ordinary pains in searching the Jewish antiquities, and divers of them are of greatest note for their skill therein. In the next place let us observe the causes, degrees, manner and rites how, the authority by which, the ends and effects of excommunication among the Jews, and see whether all these do not help to make their Excommunication a pattern for ours. For the causes, there were 24 causes, for which a man was Excommunicated among the Jews. You may read them in buxtorf's Lexicon Chald▪ Talmud & Rabbin. p. 1304, 1305. M. Selden de jure not. & Gentium. lib. 4. cap. 8. Jo. Coach Annot. in Excerp. Gem. Sanhedrin cap. 2. pag. 147. divers of these causes did not at all concern personal or civil injuries (for such injuries were not accounted causes of Excommunication, but were to be punished otherwise, as shall be proved afterward) but matters of scandal, by which God was dishonoured, and the stumbling-blocke of an evil example laid before others; One cause was the despising of any of the precepts of the Law of Moses, or Statutes of the Scribes. Another was the selling of Land to a Gentile. Another was, a Priest not separating the gifts of the oblation. Another, he that in captivity doth not iterate or observe the second time a holy day. Another, y Buxtors lexic. Rabbin. p. 2463 ex Pesachim fol. 50. Qui vesperâ sabbathi & aliorum dierum festorum operas serviles ●cit, infaustum illud quidem est, neque videt signum benedictionis, sed non schammatisamus eum: at qui vespers pass ch●tis operas serviles facit, hîc verò omnino schammatisamus eum. They did also excommunicate an heretical or Epicurean Israelite. Buxtorf ibid., pag. 195. he that doth any servile work upon Easter eve. Another, he that mentioneth the name of God rashly, or by a vain oath. Another, he that enduceth, or giveth occasion to others to profane the name of God. Another, he that makes others to ●ate holy things without the holy Temple. Another, he that maketh computation of years and months without the Land of Israel: that is, (as Dr Buxtorf) writeth Calendars, or (as M. Selden) computeth years and months otherwise than their fathers had done. Another, he that retardeth or hindereth others from doing the Law and Commandment. Another, he that maketh the offering profane (as Dr Buxtorf) or offereth a sickly beast, (as I. Coch.) Another, a Sacrificer that doth not show his Sacrificing Knife before a Wise man or a Rabbi, that it may be known to be a lawful Knife, and not faulty. Another, he that cannot be made to know or to learn. Another, he that having put away his wife, doth thereafter converse familiarly with her. Another, a Wise man (that is, a Rabbi or Doctor) infamous for an evil life. The other causes had also matter of scandal in them, namely, the despising of a Wise man or Rabbi, though it were after his death. The despising of an Officer or messenger of the house of judgement. He that casteth up to his neighbour a servile condition, or calls his neighbour servant. He that contumaciously refuseth to appear at the day appointed by the Judge. He that doth not submit himself to the Judicial sentence. He that hath in his house any hurtful thing, as a mad dog or a weak leather. He that before Heathen Judges beareth witness against an Israelite. He that maketh the blind to fall. He that hath Excommunicate another without cause, when he ought not to have been Excommunicate. Thus you have the 24 causes of the Jewish Excommunication; of which some were mere scandals: others of a mixed nature, that is, partly injuries, partly scandals; but they were reckoned among the causes of Excommunication qua scandals, not qua 〈◊〉. Io. Coch. Annot. in Exc. Gem. Sanhedrin. pag. 146▪ explaining how the wronging of a Doctor of the Law by contumelies, was a cause of Excommunication, showeth that the Excommunication was because of the scandal. Licet tamen condonare nisi res in praputulo gesta sit. Publicum Doctoris ludibrium in legis contemptum redundat. 〈◊〉 ob causam Doctor legis honorem 〈◊〉 remittere non potest. Ubi res clam & sine scandalo gesta est, magni animi & sapientis est injuriam contemptu vindicare. If there was no scandal, the injury might be remitted by the party injured, so as the offendor was not to be Excommunicate▪ But if the contumely was known abrond, and was scandalous, though the party wronged were willing and desirous to bury it, yet because of the scandal, the Law provided that the offender should be excommunicate. For they taught the people that he who did contend against a Rabbi did contend against the holy Ghost (for which see Gul. Vorstius annot. in Maimon. de fundam. legis. pag. 77, 78.) and hence did they aggravate an Ecclesiastical or Divine (not a Civil) injury. Whence it appeareth that the causes of Excommunication, were formally looked upon as scandals. Add that if qua injuries, than a quatenus ad omne, all personal or civil injuries had been causes of Excommunication. But all civil injuries do not fall within these 24. causes. If it be objected, that neither do all scandals fall within these 24. causes. I answer they do; for some of the causes are general and comprehensive, namely these two, the 5th. He that despiseth the Statutes of the Law of Moses, or of the Scribes; and the 18th. He that retardeth or hindereth others from doing the Law. When I make mention of any particular heads, either of the Jewish Discipline, or of the ancient Christian discipline, let no man understand me, as if I intended the like Strictness of Discipline in these days. My meaning is only, to prove Ecclesiastical censures, and an Ecclesiastical Government. And let this be remembered upon all like occasions; though it be not everywhere expressed. And so much for the causes. The degrees of the Jewish excommunication, were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Niddui, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cherem, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Schammata. Elias in Tisbite, saith plainly that there were three kinds of excommunication, Niddui, Cherem, and Schammata. Niddui is 〈◊〉 out; but if he be not converted, they smite him with Cherem; and if neither so he repent, they schammatize him. These three Doctor Buxtorf thus distinguisheth, not only out of Elias, the common sentence of the but Hebrew Doctors. The first and smallest excommunication is Niddui, which is a simple separation for a certain time. The greater excommunication is Cherem, which▪ is a separation with imprecations and curses. The greatest of all is Schammata, a final excommunication, without hope of returning to the Church. So likewise Hen. Uorstius animad. in Pirke pag. 230. And answerably hereunto some Divines have distinguished Excommunicatio Minor, Major, and Maxima. The first is suspension from the Sacrament. The second is a casting out of the Church, and a delivering over to Satan: which yet is a medicinal excommunication for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved. The third is Anathema Maranatha, an accursing of a man to the comimg of Christ, without hope of mercy; which is excommunicatio exterminativa, and cannot be done, without a prophetical Spirit. Corn. Bertramus de repub. Ebraeor cap. 7. saith that our suspension from the Sacrament answereth to their Niddui: our Excommunication to their Cherem. And for their Schammata, he thinks it was an adjudging of one to eternal death; whereunto answereth the Apostles Anathema, and the Churches devoting of julian the Apostate, as one to be no more prayed for, but to be prayed against. Munsterus will have Schammata to be the same with Niddui. Wherein Master Selden agreeth with him, still holding a difference between Niddui, and Cherem, as between the lesser, and the greater excommunication: de Jure not. & Gentium, l. 4. c. 8. Of the same opinion is Io. Coach, Annot. in Exc. Gem. Sanhedrin. p. 149. But Constantinus l' Empereur annot. in rempub. Jud. tells us, that the Talmudists in divers places, do distinguish the three degrees of Excommunication, as Bertramus doth; and that Schammata was the highest Excommunication, greater than either Niddui or Cherem, he proves not only by the Epitheton adonai added by the Chaldee paraphrase Num. 21. 25. Et percussit eum Israel per Schammata dei; but further from the words of Rabbi Solomon, comparing one excommunicated by Schammata, to the fat cast in the Furnace, which is wholly consumed, and which never comes out, so he that is Schammatized, is lost for ever, and without all remedy unto all eternity. He confirmeth it also, from the words of Elias above mentioned. It is not much to my present argument, to dispute whether the Jews had three distinct degrees of excommunication or two only. However it's agreed, that the Jews had their Excommunicatio Minor & Major. And Niddui▪ was an Excommunication for 30. days, during which time if the person (man or woman) repent, well and good: if not, he was excommunicate, for other 30. days. Yea, saith Doctor Buxtorf, the time might be triplicate to 90. days. And if after all that time he repent not, than he was excommunicate, with the greater excommunication Cherem. And so much for the degrees. As for the manner, and rites of their excommunication, it was done most solemnly, z Lexicon. Chald. Talmud. & Rabbin. pag. 2468. Excom municatio siebat quandoque verbis expressis, quando excommunicandus erat praesens: quandeque scripto publicè affixo, quando absens erat. Hinc legitur in Majemone in libro Madda cop. 7. Sect. 2. Quomodo sit Niddui: dicit N. esto in excommunicatione. Si. excommunicant eum in faciem, id est presentem, dicit N. hic esto in excommunicatione sive banno. Ibid. pag. 2469. Nuncius vel minister publicus judicii câ side habetur, ut si dicat, N. à me citatus ad Judicium, contempsit me, aut vilipendit Judicem, aut dixit sa nolle comparere in Judicio, tunc sammatisent ipsum ad verba ejus, sed non scribunt super eo Schedam Excommunicationis Shammata, donec veverint duc quo testentur ipsum noluisse comparere ad Judicium. Doctor Buxtorf tells us, if the party was present, the sentence of Excommunication was pronounced against him by word of mouth: If he was absent, there was a writ publicly affixed, containing the sentence of Excommunication, which writ was not published, till the offence was proved, at least by two witnesses. It is certain from Pirke Rabb. Elierser cap. 38. that Cherem was not without an assembly of ten at least. And it is as certain that Cherem was not only in a solemn, but in a sacred manner performed, which is manifest from that Formula Anathematis, which a Lexicon Rabbin. p. 828. Ex sententia domini Dominorum, sit in Anathemate Ploni Filius Ploni, in utraque domo Judicii, Superiorum scilicet & Inferiorum, in Anathemate item Sanctorum Excelsorum, in anathemate Seraphim & Ophannim, in anathemate denique totius Ecclesiae, maximorum & minimorum &c. Doctor Buxtorf hath transcribed out of an old Hebrew Manuscript; and from b Another form more full and large see in Vorstius his Animadversions upon Pirke pag. 226. to 230. Decreto vigilum atque edicto Sanctotum anathemizamus. adju●amus, excommunicamus Schammatizamus, maledicimus, execramus ex sententia hujus loci atque ex scientia hujus coe●ûs, hoc libro legis, sexcentis tredecim praeceptis in illo conscriptis. Anathe. mate quo Joshua devo vie Jericho; maledictione quâ maledixit Eliseus pueris, & maledictione quam imprecatus est Gichazi servo suo. Shammate quo Schammatizavit Barack Meroz, etc. Nomine Aebthariel Jah Domini Zehaoth. Nomine Michael Principis magni. Nomine Mathatheron cujus nomen est sicuti nomen Domini ejus. Nomine Sandalphon qui nectit coronas pro domino suo. Nomine Nominis 42. literarum. Nomine quod apparuit Mosi in Sinai. Nomine quo dissecuit Moses Mare. Nomine Ehieh ascher Ehieh, Ero qui ero. Arcano nominis Amphor●…sch. Scripturâ quae exarata est in tabulis. Nomine Domini exercituum Dei Israelis, qui sedit inter cherubin, etc. Maledictus ex ore nominis celebrandi, & tremendi, quod e●reditur ex ore Sacerdotis magni die expiationum, etc. Evellatur ipse è tabernaculo. Nolit dominus illi condonare, sed tunc sumet furor & indignatio contra virum illum. Incumbant illi omnes maledictiones conscriptae in hoc libro legis. Expellat nomen ejus sub caelo, & segreget illum in malum ex omnibus tribubus Israelis, juxta omnes execrationes hujus faederis consignatas in hoc libro legis, etc. Haec sit voluntas Dei & dicatur Amen. another form, which Hen. Vorstius taketh out of Col Bornwell both showing, that it was not a civil, but a sacred business, done in the name and authority of the God of heaven: and the latter formula still used in most of the Jewish Synagogues as Vorstius informs us We read also in Pirke Rabb. Elieser cap. 38. c Quid tum fec●runt Ezra, Zerobahel, & Jehoshua? Congregaveront totam Ecclesiam seu caetum populi in templum dom ni & introduxerant 300. sacerdotes, & 300. adoles▪ centes (seu discipulos minores) quibus erant in manibus 300. buccinae, & 300. libri legis. Hi clangebant; Levitae autem cantabant & psallebant: & excommunicabant Cuthaeos per mysterium nominis Te r●grammati, & per scripturam descriptam in Tabulis legis, & per anathema fori superioris seu caelestis, & per anathema fori inferioris seu terrestris, ita ut nemo Israelitarum unquam in posterum comederet buccellam aliquam Cuthaeorum. Hinc dicunt Quicunque comedit carnem Cuthaei, is vescitur quasi carne poreinâ. Cuthaeus quoque ne seret proselytus, neque haberet partem in resurrectione mortuorum, juxta illud quod scriptum est. Non ad vos simul nobiscum attinet instauratio domus dei nostri: neque in hoc neque in suturo seculo. Praeterea quoque ne haberet partem in Jerusalem. hinc dicitur, Uobis non est pars neque jus, neque memoria in Jerusalem. Transmisetunt autem Anathema hoc ad Israelitas qui erant in Babylonia. that the Cuthites (who were also called Samaritans) after they had been circumcised by Rabb. D●…stai, and Rabbi Zacharias, and had been taught by them out of the Book of the Law; they were excommunicate by Ezra, Zerubbabel, and joshua the high Priest, 300. Priests, and 300. Disciples, and the whole Church, in the Temple; the Trumpets sounding, and the Levites singing; they did even by the great name of God, excommunicate the Cuthites, that there should be no fellowship between any man of Israel and the Cuthites, that no Proselyte should be received of the Cuthites; and that they should have no part in the resurrection of the dead, nor in the building of the house of God, nor in jerusalem. This passage Doctor Buxtorf, in his rabbinical Lexicon, p. 2464. and Master Selden de Jure not. & Gentium. l. 4. c. 8. have observed out of Pirke; and Doctor Buxtorf, both there and dissert de lit. Hebr. thes. 49. noteth the three words used by the Hebrews in this relation, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is, they did excommunicate them both by Niddui, Cherem, and Schammata. And so much for the manner and rites. As for the authority, by which a man was excommunicated, we see (by that which hath been already noted) that it was a public and judicial act, and it was necessary there should be at least an Assembly of ten. Those formulae before cited, make it evident, that it was an authoritative sentence of an Ecclesiastical Assembly, (and therefore done as it were in name of the Court of heaven, to which purpose domus Judicii superioris seu coelestis, was mentioned in the business, and it was a juridical or forensical act, and done solemnly in the Temple, in that case of the Cuthites) Drusius de tribus Sectis Judaeorum lib. 4. Num. 237. concerning the Discipline of the Essaeans, and their Excommunicating of ungodly persons, tells us it was done by a hundreth men Assembled together. It is very true, which Mr. Selden observeth, de Jure not. & Gentium l. 4. c. 8. the Hebrews writ of a Judicial excommunication, and of an extrajudicial excommunication, by which one private man might excommunicate another. Yet, that extrajudicial excommunication could not stand in force, unless it were ratified by the Court; and of itself, it was rather optative, or imprecative, than obligative: as is manifest by the Instance, which d Annot Gem in Ex. Sanhedrin. p. 147. R. Simon, si●…. Lakisch custodiebat hortum. venit quidam & ficus caepit vovare. Ille inclamare: hic non nauci facere. Tum ille▪ excommunicatus esto. Tu vicissim inquit alter excommunicatus esto. Nam si ad pecuniam tibi obstrictus sum, numquid anathemati obnoxius sum? Adiit R. Lakisch super hoc Scholae rectores. Responsum est: Ipsius Anathema anathema est▪ tuum nullum est. Io. Coach gives us ex Gem. Moed Caton. Two men having mutually excommunicated each other, it cometh to an authoritative decision. He that had excommunicated the other, for that for which he ought to have been punished by a pecunial mulct, but not by excommunication, was himself justly excommunicate by the other, according to the last of the 24. causes of excommunication before mentioned, that is, that he who unjustly excommunicateth another, shall be himself excommunicated. So the excommunicating of the one man for a civil injury was declared null: and the excommunicating of the other, for his unjust act of excommunication, was ratified. Which doth not only prove what I have said of private, or extrajudicial excommunication: but also confirm what I asserted before, concerning the causes of excommunication, that it was not for personal or civil injuries, but for matter of scandal. And that pecuniary mulcts and excommunication, were not inflicted for the same but for different causes. And so much for the authority. The effects of excommunication were e Buxtorf. Lexion Chald. Talm. & Rab. p. 1305. 828. these. He might not be admitted into an Assembly of ten persons. He might not sit within four cubits to his neighbour. He might not shave▪ his hair, nor wash himself. It was not lawful to eat nor drink with him. He that died in excommunication got no Funerals, nor was there any mourning made for him, but a stone was set over him, to signify that he was worthy to be stoned, because he did not repent, and because he was separated from the Church. An excommunicate person might not make up the number of ten, where there were nine. The reason was because he might not be acknowledged for a Church Member, or one who could make up a lawful Assembly. Drusius de tribus sectis Judaeorum lib. 3. cap. 11. draweth two consequences from that excommunication of the Cuthites before mentioned. 1. That it was not lawful for a Jew, to eat bread with a Samaritan. 2. That the Samaritans were cut off from the Jewish Church, and that without hope of regress, being Shammatized. It is more disputable, how far forth Excommunication did deprive a man of the liberty of access into the Temple. The Talmudists hold, that of old an Excommunicate person might enter into the Temple, yet so as he might be known that he was Excommunicate. It is said in Pirke Rabb. Elieser cap. 17. that Solomon built two Gates, one for Bridegrooms, another for Mourners and Excommunicated persons; and when the Children of Israel, sitting between these two Gates, upon the sabbath-days and Holidays, did see a Bridegroom come in, they knew him, and did congratulate with him: but when they saw one come in at the door of the mourners, having his Lips covered, they knew him to be a mourner, and said, He that dwells in this house, comfort thee. But when they saw one come in at the door of mourners, with his Lips not covered, they knew him to be Excommunicated, and spoke to him on this manner. He that dwells in this house comfort thee, and put into thy mind, to hearken unto thy Neighbours. The like you have in codice Middoth cap. 2. Sect. 2. where it is said that ordinarily, all that came into the Temple, did enter upon the right hand; and they went out upon the left hand, those excepted to whom some sad thing had befallen; and when it was asked of such a one, why dost thou enter upon the left hand, he either answered, that he was a mourner, and then it was said to him, He that dwells in this house comfort thee, or he answered, because I am Excommunicate (so readeth Buxtorf) or quia ego contaminatus rejicior (so readeth l' Empereur) and then it was said to him, He that dwells in this house, put into thy mind, to hearken to the words of thy companions, that they may restore thee. The same thing is cited e libro Musar by Drusius praeter. lib. 4. in Jo. 9 22. His opinion is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those that were separate and excommunicate by the lesser excommunication, were admitted into the Temple, in the manner aforesaid: but that they were not admitted into the Synagogue: because it's added in libro Musar, (which I find also added in the forementioned place of Pirke R Elies.) that after the temple was destroyed, it was decreed, that Bridegrooms and Mourners should come into the Synagogues, and that they in the Synagogue, should congratulate with the one, & condole with the other. Behold saith Drusius, no mention here of excommunicate persons, for they did not come into the Synagogues. Peradventure every Excommunicate person, had not access to the Temple neither, but he that was extrajudicially, or by private persons excommunicate, as those words might seem to intimate, He that dwells in this house put into thy mind, to hearken to thy neighbours or companions, that they may restore thee. Or if you take it to extend to judicial excommunication, then Hen. Vorstius doth expound it, animad. in Pirke p. 169. f De his meritò dubitari potest, num licuerit ipsis sacra adire limina, imprimis qui severi●…i ex communicationis genere vel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 multati erant. Quis enim dicat Apostatam, blasphemum, al●…áque sacra capita intra Templum suisse admissa? De 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alia ratio ●…sse potest, eum his spes veniae non fuerit adempta. so, as it may be understood only of the lesser excommunication, when there was still hope of repentance, and reconciliation. So Io. Coch. ubi supra pag. 149. thinks that an excommunicate person was not altogether cast out of the Synagogue, but was permitted to hear, and to be partaker of the Doctrine, but otherwise and in other things he was separate, and not acknowledged for a Church Member; and this he saith of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 menudde, of him that was simply excommunicate by the lesser excommunication or Niddui. But he saith otherwise of him that was excommunicate with Cherem. Non docet, non docetur. He is neither permitted to teach, nor to be taught. Grotius on Luke 6. 22. tells us, that excommunicate persons under Niddui, came no otherwise to the Temple than Heathens did, that is, had no liberty to come into the Court of Israel. However, such as were excommunicate by Cherem were not permitted to come near the Temple, saith Master Weemse in his Christian Synag. p. 138. An excommunicate person of the first sort, (Niddui,) when he came to the Temple, or Synagogue, you see (by what hath been said) he was there publicly bearing his shame, and looked upon as one separate from the Communion of the people of God. And so much for the effects. The end of Excommunication was spiritual, g M. Selden de ●…ure nature. & Gentium lib. 4. cap. 8. Effectus ac finit excommunicationis hujusmodi, Jure communi erat, ut solitae popularium consuetudin●… libertate reu●… privaretur, usque dum panitentiâ ad bonam mentem rediens solveretur sententiâ. that a sinner being by such public shame and separation humbled, might be gained to repentance, and thereby his soul saved; (which is the end of Church Discipline, not of civil censures.) The Court waited 90. days upon his Repentance, and did not proceed to Cherem, except in case of his continuing impenitency, when all that time he gave no sign of repentance, nor sought absolution. From all that hath been said, I hope it's fully manifest, that the Jewish excommunication was an Ecclesiastical censure, and not (as ( h Independency examined pag. 10. Vindic. of the 4. Questions p. 4. 5 Master Prynne would have it) a civil excommunication, like to an outlary at Common Law. I conclude with a passage of Drusius de Tribus Sectis Judaeorum lib. 4. cap. 22. concerning the Essaeans, who did most religiously retain the Discipline of Excommunication. Jus dicturi inter se congregantur centum viri, qui eos quos deprehenderint reos & improbos expellunt e caetu suo. These words he citeth out of Salmanticensis. Being to Judge or give sentence among themselves, a hundreth men are gathered together, who do expel from their Assembly those whom they find to be guilty and ungodly. He addeth this Testimony of Rufinus. Deprehensos verò in peccatis à sua congregatione depellunt. Such as are deprehended in sins they put away from their Congregation. Lo, an Ecclesiastical Excommunication because of scandalous sins. CHAP. V. Of the cutting off from among the people of God, frequently mentioned in the Law. IT hath been much controverted, what should be the neaning of that commination, so frequently used in the Law of Moses: that soul shall be cut off from among his people. The radix 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth properly such a cutting off, as is like the cutting off a Branch from the Tree: and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cutting off, is applied to divorcement, Deut, 24. 1. a bill of divorcement, in the Hebrew, of cutting off. So Isa. 50. 1. jer. 3. 8. It is certain that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 carath doth not necessarily signify to cut off by death, destruction, or a total abolition of the very existence of him that is cut off, but any cutting off, by whatsoever loss or punishment it be. The Septuagints render it, not seldom, by such words as signify the loss or punishment of the party, without destroying him, as by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, abscindo, amputo, succid●…, excindo, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 avello, abstraho, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, demitto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, circumcido, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, aufere, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 percutio, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verbero. Sometime they render it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contero, extero, terendo excutio: to strike out, (sometime, to wash out, or, to wipe off spots or filth, as H. Stephanus tells us: thence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the cloth wherewith we wipe our hands when we wash them) Numb. 19 13. that soul shall be cut off from Israel. The Septuagints 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Yea where they render it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or cutting off is sometimes meant of captivity Amos 1. 5. sometimes of the decay and dissolution of a Monarchy Ezech. 31. 12. Sometimes of the deposition or repudiating of Priests. 1 Sam. 2. 33. the man of thine whom I shall not cut off from mine Altar. Sometimes generally for a judgement or punishment, Isa. 22. 25. The English translators in some places where it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the original and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, render it to fail, 1 Kings 2. 4. to lose 1 Kings 18. 5. Sometime they render the same original word to hew, 1 Kings 5. 6. to hew timber, Jer. 66. Sometime simply to cut, Ezech. 16. 4 thy navel was not cut. In other places where the Septuagints have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aufero, the English hath to fail, 1 Kings 8. 25. & 9 5. 2 Chro. 7. 18. This 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the word used by the Apostle in the case of Excommunication, 1 Cor. 5. 13. There are five different opinions concerning that cutting off mentioned in the Law. First, Augustine in divers places, understands the meaning to be of the second death or eternal condemnation. But this is not suitable to the infancy of the Jewish Church; for whiles they were bred under the pedagogy of the Law, things eternal and invisible were not immediately and nakedly propounded unto them, but under the shadows and figures of temporal and visible things. So that if eternal death were the ultimate intendment of that commination (as I verily believe it was) yet it must needs be acknowledged, that there was some other punishment in this life, comprehended under that phrase, to resemble in some sort, and to shadow forth that everlasting cutting of. 2. Some understand that cutting off to be when a man dieth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without children, having no offspring or posterity behind him to preserve the memory of him; for he that left children behind him, was esteemed to live in some sort after he was dead. But the cutting off in the Law, is privative, not negative, it is a depriving of a man of what he hath, not the denial of what he would have. Neither was that of the preserving of one's name in the posterity, applicable to women, but to their husbands only; whereas their cutting off was threatened to all that were guilty, whether men or women. Finally, if that were the sense, than the cutting off did neither belong to such as choosed voluntarily to live unmarried, nor to men who being married had children to preserve their memory after their death. But all that committed such or such a sin, were to be cut off, whether married or unmarried, whether having children or wanting children. 3. Others understand capital punishment to be inflicted by the civil Magistrate. But if all the offences for which cutting off was threatened in the Law, had been punished by death, the Mosaical laws, no less than those of Draco, might have been said to be written in blood, saith i De gubern. Eccl. pag. 57 Gersomus Bucerus. Is it credible that all and every one, who did by any chance, eat the fat, or the blood, or did make a perfume for smell like to the holy perfume, or did touch a dead body, or a grave, or a tent wherein a man had died, or any thing which an unclean person had touched; and had not been thereafter sprinkled with the water of separation; were without mercy to die for any of these things? Yet these were cut off from among their people Exod. 30. 38. Leu. 7. 15, 17. Num. 19 13. 20. Another reason I take from Mercerus on Gen. 17. 14. We nowhere find either in Scripture, or in the Jewish writings, that such of the seed of Abraham, as did neglect circumcision, were punished by the Sword of the Magistrate, yet by the Law such were to be cut off. Now without all controversy such were excluded from communion with the Church of Israel, and being so excluded they were said properly to be cut off from among their people, saith Mercerus. And moreover the cutting off in the Law, is expressed by such a word, as doth not necessarily signify that the person cut off ceaseth to have any being, but it is used to signify a cutting off from a benefit, relation, or fellowship, when the being remains, as was noted in the beginning. 4. Many of the Hebrews whom M. Ainsworth annot. in Gen. 17. 14. Exod. 31. 14. Numb. 15. 30. followeth, understand by that cutting off, untimely death, or the shortening of life, before the natural period. This interpretation I also dislike, upon these reasons, 1. That which is taken for a foundation of that opinion, namely, that the cutting off in the Law is meant only as a punishment of private sins known to God alone, and which could not be proved by witnesses; this (I say) is taken for granted which is to be proved. 2. Yea, the contrary appeareth from Levit. 17. 4, 5. the end of that cutting off was, that the children of Israel might fear to do that thing which they saw so punished. But how could they make this use of a Divine judgement inflicted for some private sin, they knew not for what? 3. The commination of Divine judgements is added in a more proper place Deut. 28. Leu. 26. and in divers places, where wrath and punishment from God is denounced against all such as would not observe his Commandments, nor keep his Statutes and Judgements. But the cutting off is a part (and a great part) of the corrective or penal Mosaical Laws, which contain punishments to be inflicted by men, not by God; which makes Piscator almost everywhere in his Scholia to observe, that exscindetur is put for exscinditor, that soul shall be cut off for, let that soul be cut off. 4▪ The cutting off was a distinguishing punishment; they that did such and such things were to be cut off, and in being cut off, were to bear their iniquity, Leu. 18. 29. Numb. 15. 31. But we cannot say that Abijah the son of jeroboam, or King josiah, being taken away by an untimely death, were thereby marked with a sign of God's wrath, or that they were cut off from among their people, and did bear their iniquity. 5. And whereas they object from Levit. 17. 10. & 20. 5, 6. that the cutting of was a work of God, not of men, it is easily answered from that same place, it was only so, in extraordinary cases, when men did neglect to punish the offenders. Levit. 20. 4, 5. And if the people of the land hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill him not: then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off. Which giveth light to the other place Levit. 17. 10. What I have said against the third and fourth opinion, doth militate against Erastus, for he expoundeth the cutting off these two ways, that is either of capital punishment, or of destruction by the hand of God, yet he inclineth chiefly to the last. See lib. 3. c. 6. He toucheth this cutting off in divers places but valde jejunè. And because he is pleased to profess he had no skill of the Hebrew, he appealeth to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Of which before. There is a fifth exposition, followed by many both Popish and Protestant writers, who understand by the cutting off, excommunicating or casting out from the Church, and of this opinion are some very good Hebritians, as Schindlerus lexic. pentagl. pag. 655. Cornelius Bertramus de republica Ebraeorum. cap. 2. godwyn's Moses and Aaron lib. 3. cap. 4. The Jewish Canons of Repentance printed in Latin at Cambridge, anno 1631. where the Hebrew hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Latin hath ordinarily Excommunicatio. So do divers of our soundest writers take the cutting off in the Law to be excommunication. Synops. pur. Theol. Disp. 48. Thes. 24. 39 There are these reasons for it. 1. The cutting off had reference to an Ecclesiastical corporation or fellowship. It is not said, that soul shall be cut off from the earth, or cut off from the Land of the living, but, cut of from his people: more plainly, from Israel, Exod. 12. 15. Num. 19 13. but most plainly, that soul shall be cut off from the Congregation (or Church) of Israel, Exo. 12. 19 that soul shall be cut off from among the Congregation (or Church) Num. 19 20. intimating somewhat Ecclesiastical. So Leu. 22. 3. that soul shall be cut off from my presence. The Septuagints 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from me. The Chaldee, from my face. And this was the very cutting off or excommunication of Cain from the Church, by God himself Genes. 4. 14. from thy face shall I be hid. and vers. 14, and Cain went out from the presence of the Lord. It is another and much different phrase, which is used to express cutting off from the world, or from the land of the living Ezech. 25. 7. I will cut thee off from the people, and will cause thee to perish out off the Country's, Jerem. 11. 19 Let us cut him off from the land of the living. Zeph. 1. 3. I will cut off man from off the Land. 2. He that in his uncleanness did eat of an unholy thing was to be cut off Levit. 7. 20, 21. yet for such a one was appointed confession of sin, and a trespasse-offering, by which he was reconciled and atonement made for him, as M. Ainsworth himself tells us on Levit. 5. 2. whence I infer, that the cutting off such a one was not by death inflicted, either from the hand of the Magistrate, or from the hand of God, but that the cutting off was Ecclesiastical, as well as the reception or reconciliation. I know M. Ainsworth is of opinion that the cutting off was for defiling the Sanctuary presumptuously, or eating of an holy thing presumptuously, when a man was not cleansed from his uncleanness: and that atonement by sacrifice was appointed for such as defiled the Sanctuary ignorantly. But that which made him think so, was a mistake; for he supposeth, that for sins of ignorance or infirmity only, God did appoint Sacrifices; but that for wilful or malicious sins there was no Sacrifice. See his annot. on Levit. 4. 2. Which Faustus Socinus also holdeth praelect. cap. 22. p. 144. But to me, the contrary is plain from Levit. 6. 1. to 8. where we have atonement to be made by Trespass offerings, for wilful lying, perjury, fraud, robbing, or violence, which made the Septuagints, V. 2. for commit a trespass, to read, despising despise the commandments of the Lord. And whereas M. Ainsworth confirmeth his opinion from Heb. 10. 26. for if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more Sacrifice for sins; I answer with Calvin, Beza, Hemmingius, and others upon the place, it is not meant of all sins done wilfully, (which to hold were a most dangerous and despairing Doctrine,) but of a total defection from Christ and the truth. And now to return, there is nothing Levit. 5. 2. to exclude a Trespasse-offering for one who should in his uncleanness wilfully go to the Sanctuary, or touch an holy thing: but there is this reason, why it should not be excluded, because in that very place Verse 1. he that did wilfully, for favour or malice, conceal his knowledge, being a witness in judgement, was yet admitted to bring his Trespasse-offering. 3. The Apostle 1 Cor. 5. gives us some light concerning the cutting off; for as Vers. 6, 7, 8. most manifestly he pointeth at the purging of all the congregation of Israel from leaven▪ Exod. 12. so Vers. 13. when he saith, therefore put away from among yourselves▪ that wicked person, he plainly alludeth to Exod. 12. 15, 19 Whosoever eateth that which is leavened, even that soul shall be cut off from the Congregation, (or Church) of Israel. Theophylact on 1 Cor. 5. 13. observeth the Apostles allusion to the old Law of cutting off: and Maccovius (otherwise no very good friend to Church-discipline and Government) loc. come. disp. 22. proveth that Excommunication was transferred from the Jews to us, by Christ himself Matth. 18. and that the cutting off mentioned in the Law, is no other thing than that which the Apostle meaneth, when he saith, put away from among yourselves that wicked person. 4. The cutting off soul from among his people did typify or resemble eternal death and condemnation; In which respect Peter doth some way apply it to the days of the Gospel, that every soul which will not hear Christ the great Prophet, shall be destroyed from among his people, Acts 3. 23. So Vatablus on Gen. 17. 14. that soul shall be cut off, that is, shall not be partaker of my promises, and of my benefits. So that as I. Coch. annot▪ in Sanhedrin. cap. 9 saith well, death inflicted by the hand of God is less than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cutting off. Nam exterminii post mortem poena luitur. The same thing Guil. Vorstius confirmeth out of Maimonides, annot. in Maimon. de fundam. legis pag. 127. And Abrabanel de capite fidei cap. 8. saith that the greatest reward is the life of the world to come, and the greatest punishment is the cutting off of the soul. Now this could not so fitly be resembled, and shadowed forth by the cutting off from the land of the living, either by the hand of God, or by the hand of the Magistrate, as by cutting off from the Church, and from the communion of Saints, by excommunication, which is summum futuri judicii praejudicium, as Tertullian called it, and foreshoweth that the ungodly shall not stand in the judgement, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous, Psal. 1. 5. But Gods taking away of a man by death in the phrase of the Old Testament, is not a cutting off from, but a gathering of him unto his people; yea k Gen. 25▪ 17. it is said of wicked Ishmael when he died, he was gathered unto his people. And as for the abbreviation of life, and the untimelinesse of death in youth, or middle age, that both is now, and was of old, one of the things which come alike to all, to the good as well as to the bad. As touching the capital punishment of malefactors by the hand of the Magistrate, it being founded upon the very law of nature, and common to all Nations, without as well as within the Church, (so that very often those from whom a malefactor is cut off, are not so much as by profession the Church and people of God:) it cannot so fitly resemble the separation or casting out of a man from having part or portion of the inheritance of the Saints in light. 5. Dr. Buxtorf lexic. chald. Talm. & Rahbin. page 1101. tells us that this difference was put between him that was guilty of cutting off, and him that was guilty of death. Reus▪ mortis, ipse tantum, non semen ejus: paena excidii comprehendit ipsum & semen ejus. Now if the punishment of death was personal one●▪ and the punishment of cutting off, comprehensive not only of them but of their seed, how can this agree so well, to any thing else, as to Excommunication; especially if that hold which Godwyn in his Moses and Aaron lib. 5. cap. 2. tells us, that the children of excommunicate persons were not circumcised. 6. M. Selden de jure not. & Gent. lib. 7. cap. 10. tells us, that the Hebrew Doctors themselves do not agree concerning that cutting off in the Law. He saith that R. Bechai and others, make three sorrs of cutting off. i. a cutting off, whereby the body only is cut off, which they understand by that phrase Levit. 20. 6. I will cut him off from among his people: and this is untimely death Palm 55. 23. Bloody and deceitful men shall not live out half their days. 2. They say there was another cutting off, which was of the soul only, Levit. 18. 29. the souls that commit these things ●…all be cut off from among their people. By this cutting off (they say) the soul ceaseth to have a being, the body not being taken away by death, before the natural period. 3. They make a third kind, whereby both soul and body is cut off, Num. 15. 31. That soul shall be utterly cut off, his iniquity shall be upon him. Whereby (say they) both the body is destroyed before the natural time, and likewise the soul ceaseth to have a being. But whatsoever any of the Hebrews fancied in their declining latter times, concerning that second kind of cutting off, (which M. Selden doth not approve, but relate out of them) I am confident it was only the degenerating notion of Excommunication; and that very fancy of theirs, is a footstep thereof; which may make us easily believe that the more ancient Hebrews in purer times, did understand that such a cutting off was mentioned in the Law, by which a man in respect of his Spiritual being was cut off from the Church of Israel, whiles his natural life and being was not taken from him. Yea Gul●…elmus Vorstius annot. in Maimon. de fundam. legis pag. 60. showeth us, that some of the Hebrews acknowledge nothing under the name of the cutting off, but that which is the cutting off of the soul only. But if there be so much as some cutting off mentioned in the Law, which concerneth a man's Spiritual estate only, it doth abundantly confirm what I plead for: and I shall not need to assert, that everywhere in the Law Excommunication must needs be understood by cutting off. Some understand the cutting off in the Judicial or Civil laws, to be meant of capital punishments: and the cutting off in the ceremonial Laws (which were properly Ecclesiastical) to be meant of Excommunication, or cutting off from the Church only. If anywhere the cutting off be Excommunication, it sufficeth me. Or what ever it may signify more, or be extended unto, if Excommunication be one thing which it signifieth, than they who think it signifieth some other thing beside Excommunication, are not against me in this question. I shall conclude with that in the Dutch Annotations upon Gen. 17. 14. that soul shall be cut off from his people. The Annotation Englished saith thus, that man shall be excommunicate from the fellowship of God's people. This kind of expression implies also (as some do conceive) a bodily punishment to be inflicted withal by the Magistrate. They hold determinately and positively that it signifieth Excommunication. Whether it signify some other thing beside, they judge not to be so clear, and therefore offer it to be considered. It is but a poor argument, whereby Bishop Bilson, of the Government of the Church, chap. 4. would prove the cutting off not to be meant of Excommunication, because it is applied even to capital offences, such as the Law elsewhere appointeth men to be put to death for. As if it were any absurdity to say, that one and the same offence, is to be punished sub formalitate scandali with excommunication, and sub formalitate criminis with capital punishment. And who knoweth not that a capital crime is a cause of excommunication, which is also sometimes the sole punishment, the Magistrate neglecting his duty. If a known blasphemer or incestuous person be not cut off by the Magistrate as he ought by the Law of God: shall he therefore not be cut off by excommunication? If he had proved that all the causes of cutting off in the Law were capital crimes, he had said much: but that will never be proved. CHAP. VI Of the casting out of the Synagogue. WE read of a casting out of the Church, which was pretended to be a matter of conscience and religion, and such as did more especially concern the glory of God, Isa. 66. 5. Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name's sake, said, let the Lord be glorified. Such was the casting out of the Synagogue, mentioned in the Gospel joh. 9 22. & 12. 42. & 16. 2. Arias Montanus de arcano Sermone cap. 47. expounds it of excommunication from Church Assemblies. So the Magdeburgians cent. 1. lib. 1. cap. 7. and Corn. Bertramus de repub. Ebraeor. cap. 7. Godwyn in his Moses and Aaron, lib. 3. cap. 4. & lib. 5. cap. 2. Wherein the interpreters also upon the places cited do generally agree, Erasmus, Brentius, Tossanus, Diodati, Cartwright in his harmony, Gerhard, etc. So likewise M. Leigh out of Paulus Tarnovius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicitur▪ ejectus e 〈◊〉 sacro Ecclesiae, excommunicatus. See Critica Sacra of the new Test. pag. 391. So doth Aretius, Theol. Probel. loc. 133. (though cited by our Opposites againstus) he saith, though it was abused by the Pharisees, yet it showeth the Ancient use of the the thing itself, that there was such a discipline in the Jewish Church. It is not much material, to dispute which of the degrees of the Jewish Excommunication, or whether all the three were meant by that casting out of the Synagogue. Drusius, and Grotius expound, Io. 9 22. of Niddui. Gerhard expounds Io. 16. 2. of all the three Niddui, Cherem, and Shammata. It is enough for this present argument, if it was a spiritual, or Ecclesiastical Censure, not a civil punishment. Master Prynne, Vindic. pag. 48, 49. tells us. First, this casting▪ out of the Synagogue, was not warranted by God's Word, but was only a humane invention. Secondly, as it was practised by the Jews, it was a diabolical institution. Thirdly, that it was merely a civil Excommunication, like to an Outlary, whereby the party cast out, was separate from civil conversation only, or from all company with any man, but was not suspended from any Divine Ordinance. Fourthly, that it was inflicted by the Temporal Magistrate. Fifthly, that in the Jewish Synagogues at that time, there was neither Sacrament nor Sacrifice, but only Reading, Expounding, Preaching, Disputing, and Prayer, so that it cannot prove suspension from the Sacrament. To the first, I answer, it was not only warranted by the cutting off mentioned in the Law, but Erastus himself gives a warrant for it from God's word. He saith, pag. 315. the casting out of the Synagogue, was vel idem vel simile quidpiam with that separating from the congregation Ez●…a. 10. 8. To the second Aretius hath answered. The best things in the world may be abused. To the third, I offer these eight considerations to prove that it was an Ecclesiastical, not a civil Censure. First, the causes for which men were put out of the Synagogues, were matters of scandal, offences in point of Religion, and we read of none cast out of the Synagogue for a civil injury or crime; It was for confessing Christ Io. 9 22. & 12. 42. then counted heresy: and for Preaching of the Gospel Io. 16. 2. Secondly, The Synagogicall Assembly or Court, was Spiritual and Ecclesiastical, as Ludoviens de Dieu noteth upon Matth 10. 17. we read of the Rulers of the Synagogue, Act. 13. 15. among whom he that did pressed and moderate, was called the chief Ruler of the Synagogue Act. 18. 8. 17. names never given to civil Magistrates or Judges. Therefore Brughton makes this of the Rulers of the Synagogue, to be one of the parallels between the Jewish, and the Christian Church. See his exposition of the Lords Prayer pag. 14. 16. As for that Assembly of the Pharisees, which did cast out, or excommunicate the blind man, Io. 9 Tossanus upon the place calls it Senatus Ecclesiasticus; and Brentius argueth from this example against the infallibility of Counsels, because this Council of the Pharisees called Christ himself a finner. 3 The Court of civil Judgement, was in the Gates of the City, not in the Synagogue. 4 Such as the Communion and fellowship was in the Synagogue, such was the casting out of the Synagogue. But the Communion or fellowship, which one enjoyed in the Synagogue, was a Church-Communion and Sacred fellowship, in acts of Divine worship. Therefore the casting out of the Synagogue was also Ecclesiastical and Spiritual, not civil or temporal. 4 The end was Sacred and Spiritual, to glorify God Is. 66. 5. to do God good service Io. 16. 2. in that which did more immediately and nearly touch his name and his glory, Though the Pharisees did falsely pretend that end, their error was not in mistaking the nature of the Censure, but in misapplying it where they had no just cause. 5 Master Prynne himself tells us pag. 49. That this excommunication from the Synagogue was of force forty days (though I believe he hath added ten more then enough, and if he look over his Books better, he will find he should have said thirty,) yet so as that it might be shortened upon repentance. But I pray, are civil punishments shortened or lengthened according to the party's repentance? I know Church Censures are so. But I had thought, the end of civil punishments, is not to reclaim a man's soul by repentance, and then to be taken off: but to guard the Laws of the Land, to preserve Justice, Peace, and good order, to make others fear to do evil, to uphold the public good. The Magistrate must both punish and continue punishments, as long as is necessary for those ends, whether the party be penitent or not. 6 How is it credible, that the holy Ghost meaning to express a casting out from civil company or conversation only, (which was not within, but without the Synagogue) would choose such a word as signifieth the casting out from an Ecclesiastical or Sacred Assembly? (for such were the Synagogues, in which the Jews had Reading, Expounding, Preaching and Prayer, as Master Prynne tells us) Christ himself distinguisheth the Court or Judicatory, which was in the Synagogue, from civil Magistracy Luk. 12. 11. And when they bring you unto the Synagogues, and unto Magistrates and Powers. Magistrates and Powers are civil Rulers, supreme and subordinate, but the Synagogues are distinct Courts from both these. 7 Our Opposites cannot give any other rational interpretation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Erastus pag. 315. confesseth, it is very hard to tell what it was. He gives three conjectures. First, that it was some ignominy put upon a man: which I think no body denies, and it may well stand with our interpretation. Secondly, he saith not that it was a separating of the party from all company, or society with any man. (for which Master Prynne citeth Erastus with others) but a pulling away, or casting out of a man from some particular Town only; for instance, from Nazareth. Thirdly, He saith, it seems also to have been a refusal of the privileges of Jewish Citizens▪ or the esteeming of one no longer for a true Jew, but for a Proselyte. But that a Proselyte, who was free to come both to Temple and Synagogue (for of such a Proselyte he speaketh expressly) should be said to be made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it may well weaken, it cannot strengthen his cause. 8. In Tzemach David edit. Hen. Vorst. pag, 89. We read, that when the Sanhedrin did remove from Jerusalem, 40. years before the destruction of the Temple, there was a Prayer composed against the Heretics. Hen. Vorstius in his observ. pag. 285▪ showeth out of Maimon▪ that it was a maledictory Prayer appointed to be used against the Heretics of that time, who increased mightily: and that R. Sol. Jarchi addeth this explanation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Minim, the Disciples of Jesus of Nazareth. D. Buxtorf. Lexic. Chald. Talm. & rab. pag. 1201. collecteth that this maledictory Prayer was composed in Christ's time, and against his Disciples. Surely it suiteth no story so well, as that of the decree of casting out of the Synagogue Io. 12. 42. After all these eight considerations, this I must add, that I do not a little admire, how Master Prynne could cite godwyn's Jewish Antiquities lib. 5. cap. 2. for that opinion, that the casting out of the Synagogue was not an Ecclesiastical but only a civil censure. If he had but looked upon the page immediately preceding, he had found this distinction between the Ecclesiastical and civil courts of the Jews; The office of the Ecclesiastical Court, was to put a difference between things holy and unholy, etc. It was a representative Church. Hence is that, di●… Ecclesiae. Matt. 18. 17. Tell the Church because unto them, belonged the power of excommunication, the several sorts of which censure follow; and so he beginneth with the casting out of the Synagogue, as the first or dat Excommunication o● Niddui, and tells us among other effects of it, that the male Children of one thus cast out were not circumcised. To Master Prynnes fourth exception, the Answer may be collected from what is already said. We never find the temporal Magistrate called the Ruler of the Synagogue, nor yet that he sat in Judgement in the Synagogue. The beating or scourging in the Synagogues, was a tumultuous disorderly act; we read of no sentence given, but only to be put out of the Synagogue, which sentence was given by the Synagogicall consistory, made up of the Priest or Priests and Jewish Elders. For the power of judging in things and causes Ecclesiastical, did belong to the Priests and Levites, together with the Elders of Israel. 1 Chro. 23. 4. & 26. 30. 32. 2. Chro. 19 8. And therefore what reason Master Prynne had to exclude the Priests from this corrective power, and from being Rulers of the Synagogue, I know not. Sure I am the Scriptures cited make Priests and Levites to be Judges and Rulers Ecclesiastical; of which before. As for the chief Ruler of the Synagogue: Archysynagogus erat primarius in Synagoga Doctor, say the Centurists Cent. 1. lib. 1. cap 7. and if so, than not a civil Magistrate. To the fifth I Answer, 1. If there was an exclusion from Reading, Expounding, Preaching, and Prayer, then much more from Sacraments, in which there is more of the communion of Saints. 2. He that was cast out of the Synagogue might not enter in the Synagogue, saith Menochius in Io. 9 22. therefore he did not communicate in Prayer with the Congregation, nor in other acts of Divine Worship, (which how far it is applicable to excommunication in the Christian Church, I do not now dispute, nor are all of one opinion, concerning excommunicate persons, their admission unto some, or exclusion from all public Ordinances, hearing of the word and all) I know Erastus answereth the word Synagogue may signify either the material house, the place of Assembling; or the people, the congregation which did Assemble; and some who differ in Judgement from us in this particular, hold that when we read of putting out of the Synagogue, the word Synagogue doth not signify the house or place of public worship (which yet it doth signify in other places, as Luk. 7. 5. Act. 18. 7.) but the Church or Assembly itself. But I take it to signify both jointly; and that it was a casting out, even from the place itself, such as that Io. 9 34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. and they cast him out, or excommunicated him, as the English Translators add in the Margin. Besides, I take what it is granted. It was a casting out from the Assembly, or Congregation itself. But how could a man be cast out from the Congregation, and yet be free to come where the Congregation was Assembled together? O but he must keep off four cubits distance, from all other men. And was there so much room to reel to and fro in the Synagogue? I do not understand how a man shall satisfy himself in that notion. But I rather think Bertramus speaks rationally, that he that was excommunicate by Niddui was shut out ab hominum contubernio atque ade●… ab ipsius Tabernaculi aditu. de Rep. Jud. cap. 7. which Niddui he takes to be the same with casting out of the Synagogue. He that was cast out from men's society, must needs be excluded from the public holy Assemblies, and from the place where these Assemblies are. Whereunto agreeth that which we read in Exc. Gem. Sanhedrin cap. 3. Sect. 9 a certain Disciple, having after two and twenty years divulged that which had been said in the School of R. Ammi, he was brought out of the Synagogue, and the said Rabbi caused it to be proclaimed, this is a revealer of secrets. 3 It is more than Mr. Prynne can prove that the Sacrament of Circumcision was not then administered in the Synagogues. The Jews do administer it in their Synagogues; and that john was Circumcised in the Synagogue, some gather from Luk. 1. 59 Venerunt, they came (to wit to the Synagogue) to Circumcise the Child; for my part I lay no weight upon that argument. But I see l●sse ground for Mr. Prynnes Assertion. As for that which M. Prynne addeth in the close, that those who were cast out of the Synagogue might yet resort to the Temple, he hath said nothing to prove it. I find the same thing affirmed by Sutlivius de Presbyt. pag. 25. (though I had thought Master Prynnes Tenants of this kind, should never have complied with those of Episcopal men, against the anti-episcopal party) But neither doth Sutlivius prove it; only he holds that the casting out of the Synagogue was merely a civil Excommunication, and his reason is that which he had to prove, that Christ and his Disciples, when they were cast out of the Synagogues, had notwithstanding a free access to the Temple. To my best observation, I can find no Instance of any admitted to the Temple, while cast out of the Synagogue. I turn again to Erastus pag. 314. to see whether he proves it. He gives us two instances, first of Christ himself who was cast out of the Synagogues, and yet came into the Temple. But how proves he that Christ was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? for this, he tells us only Quis dubitat? who makes Question of it? I am one who make a great Question of it●, or rather put it out of Question, that Christ was not cast out of the Synagogues; for what saith he himself Io. 18. 20. I ever taught in the Synagogue, and in the Temple, whether the jews always resort. Christ was cast out of the City of Nazareth in the tumult by the people Luk. 4. but here was no consistorial sentence, it was not the casting out of the Synagogue of which our Question is. The other Instance which Erastus gives, helps him as little. The Apostles saith he, were cast out of the Synagogue, and yet immediately went to the Temple, and taught the people Act. 4. & 5. And how many Synagogues was Paul cast out of? 2 Cor. 11. Yet he is not reprehended for coming into the Temple. Answ. I find nothing of the Synagogue in those places which he citeth. It was the Council, not the Synagogue which the Apostles had to do with Act. 4. v 5. But what have they gained if they could prove that Christ or his Apostles, while known to be excommunicate from the Synagogues, were admitted into the Temple? How often did they come into the Temple, when the Priests, and Elders, and Scribes, would gladly have cast them out, but they feared the people, and so were restrained? Nay, what if they could give other Instances, that such as were cast out of the Synagogue, were permitted to come into the Temple; what gain they thereby? If we understand the casting out of the Synagogue to be meant of Niddui, of the lesser Excommunication as Drusius, Bertramus, Grotius, and Godwyne understand it, we are not at all pinched or straitened. Nay, though we should also comprehend the Cherem or greater excommunication under this casting out of the Synagogue, all that will follow upon the admission of such into the Temple, will be this, that excommunicate persons when they desired to make atonement for their sin by Sacrifice, were for that end admitted into the Temple (which who denies?) but still with a mark of Ignominy upon them as long as they were excommunicated, as I have showed before. Chap. 4. Finally whereas Master Prynne concludeth his Discourse of this point, that we may as well prove excommunication from Diotrephes 3. Io. 10, as from the casting out of the Synagogue, I admit the parallel thus. The Pharisees did cast out from the Synagogue such as professed Christ; Diotrephes did cast out of the Church (as john saith) such as received the Brethren. Both clavae errante: the Ecclesiastical censure was abused and misapplyed; yet from both it appeareth▪ that Ecclesiastical Censures were used in the Church. There was a casting out of the Synagogue used among the Jews, which the Pharisees did abuse. There was a casting out of the Church used among Christians, which Diotrephes did abuse. I remember I heard Master Coleman once draw an argument against excommunication from that Text in john concerning Diotrephes. Which is as if we should argue thus, the Scripture tells us it is a sin to condemn the righteous, Ergo it is a sin to condemn. It is a sin to cast out of the Church godly persons who love and receive the Brethren, Ergo it is a sin to cast out of the Church. A fallacy à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter. The weight is laid upon the application of such a Censure to such persons: An unju● Excommunication is not imitable, but a just Excommunication is imitable▪ according to the warning given us in the words immediately added, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. CHAP. VII. Other scriptural Arguments to prove an Excommucation in the jewish Church. ANother Scripture proving Excommunication in the Jewish Church (which is also parallel to that casting out of the Synagogue as Erastus himself told us) is Ezra. 10. 8. that whosoever would not come within three days, according to the counsel of the Princes and Elders, all his Substance should be forfeited, and himself separated from the Congregation (or Church, It is Kahal in the Hebrew, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek) of those that had been carried away. This separation from the Congregation or Church is not meant of banishment, but of Excommunication, as it is interpreted by Lyra, Hugo Cardinalis, Cajetan, Nicholaus Lombardus, Mariana, Cornelius a lapide: of Protestants Pellicanus, Lavater, Diodati, the Dutch Annotations, the late English Annotations; all upon the place. Also by Zepperus de pol. eccls lib. 3. cap. 7. and divers others who cite that place occasionally. Ampsingius disp. advers. Anabaptist. pag. 276. doth from that place confute the Anabaptists tenant, that there was no other but a Civil Tribunal in the Jewish Church. Beda upon the place calls this Assembly a Synod, sanita Synodo etc. Josephus antiq. lib. 11. cap. 5. expresseth the punishment of those who would not come to Jerusalem at that time, thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A double punishment 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: the former is referred to the persons themselves, and it signifieth an abalienation of those persons from the Congregation, not a banishing or driving of them out of the Land; for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to abalienate a person or thing, by renouncing and quitting the right, title, and interest which formerly we had in that person or thing; so houses, lands, persons, etc. are abalienated, when (though they and we remain where before) we cease to own them as ours; and thus the Congregation of Israel did renounce their interest in those offenders, and would not own them as Church-members. The other punishment was the dedicating or devoting of their substance. Gelenius the Interpreter hath rightly rendered the sense of josephus: Et quisquis non adfuerat intra praescriptum ●…empus, ut excommunicetur, bonaque ejus sacro aerario addicantur. You will object, this separation from the Congregation is coupled together with forfeiture of a man's estate, and so seemeth rather banishment than Excommunication. This objection being taken off, I think there shall be no other difficulty to perplex our interpretation. Wherefore I answer these two things. 1. It is the opinion of divers who hold two Sanhedrins among the Jews, one Civil, and another Ecclesiastical; that in causes and occasions of a mixed nature which did concern both Church and State, both did consult conclude, and decree, in a joint way, and by agreement together. Now Ezra 10. the Princes, Elders, Priests, and Levites, were assembled together upon an extraordinary cause, which conjuncture and concurrence of the Civil and the Ecclesiastical power might occasion the denouncing of a double punishment upon the contumacious, forfeiture and excommunication. But 2. The objection made, doth rather confirm me, that Excommunication is intended in that place. For this forfeiture was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a making sacred, or dedicating to an holy use, as I have showed out of josephus. The original word translated forfeited is more properly translated devoted, which is the word put in the margin of our books. The Greek saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, anathemstizabitur which is the best rendering of the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It was not therefore that which we call forfeiture of a man's substance. Intellige saith Grotius, ita ut Deo sacra fiat. And so the excommunication of a man, and the devoting of his substance as holy to the Lord, were joined together: and the substance had not been anathematised if the man had not been anathematised. I do not say that Excommunication ex natura rei doth infer and draw after it, the devoting of a man's estate as holy to the Lord. No: Excommunication can not hurt a man in his worldly estate, further than the Civil Magistrate and the Law of the Land appointeth. And there was Excommunication in the Apostolical Churches, where there was no Christian Magistrate to add a Civil mulct. But the devoting of the substance of Excommunicated persons Ezra 10. as it had the authority of the Princes and Rulers for it, so what extraordinary warrants or instinct there was upon that extraordinary exigence, we can not tell. Finally M. Selden de Jure not. & Gentium. lib. 4. cap. 9 p. 523. agreeth with Lud. Capellus that the separation from the Congregation Ezra 10. 8. plane ipsum est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fieri, it is the very same with casting out of the Synagogue, which confuteth further that which M. Prynne holds, that the casting out of the Synagogue was not warranted by God's word, but was only a humane invention. I know some have drawn another argument for the Jewish Excommunication from Nehem. 13. 25. I contended with them, and cursed them, id est, anathematizavi & excommunicavi, saith C. a lapide upon the place. So Tirinus upon the same place. Mariana expounds it, anathema dixi. Aben Ezra understands it of two kinds of Excommunication, Niddui and Cherem. For my part, I lay no weight upon this, unless you understand the cursing or malediction to be an act of the Ecclesiastical power, only authorised or countenanced by the Magistrate: Which the words may well bear▪ for neither is it easily credible that Nehemiah did with his own hand smite those men and pluck off their hair, but that by his authority he took care to have it done by civil Officers, as the cursing by Ecclesiastical Officers. The Dutch annotations lean this way, telling us that Nehemiah did express his zeal against them as persons that deserved to be banned or cut off from the people of God. Another Text proving the Jewish Excommunication is Luke 6. 22. When they shall separate you, and shall reproach you, and ●…ast out your name as evil. It was the most misapplied censure in the world, in respect of the persons thus cast out; but yet it proves the Jewish custom of casting out such as they thought wicked and obstinate persons. This 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Beda upon the place understandeth of casting out of the Synagogue, Separent & Synagoga depellant etc. yet it is a more general and comprehensive word than the casting out of the Synagogue. It comprehendeth all the three degrees of the Jewish Excommunication, as Grotius expounds the place. Which agreeth with Munsterus Dictionar. Trilingue, where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the only Greek word given both for the three Hebrew words Niddui, Cherem, and Shammata, and for the Latin Excommunicatio. Wherefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place is extermino, excommunico, repudio, which is one of the usual significations of the word given by Stephanus, and by Scapula. It is a word frequently used in the Canons of the most ancient Counsels, to express such a separation as was a Church-censure, and namely suspension from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. For by the ancient Canons of the Counsels, such offences as were punished in a Minister by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is deposition, were punished in one of the people by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is segregation or sequestration. Zonara's upon the 13th Canon of the eighth general Council, observeth a double 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used in the ancient Church ●ne was a total separation or casting out of the Church which is usually called Excommunication; another was a suspension or sequestration from the Sacrament only. Of which I am to speak more afterward in the third Book. I hold now at the Text in hand, which may be thus read, according to the sense and letter both, when they shall excommunicate you, etc. Howbeit the other reading when they shall separate you, holds forth the same thing which I speak of; separate, from what? our Translators supply from their company: but from what company of theirs? not from their civil company only, but from their▪ sacred or Church assemblies, and from religious fellowship, it being a Church-censure and a part of Ecclesiastical discipline, in which sense, as this word frequently occurreth in the Greek fathers and ancient Canons when they speak of Church discipline, so doubtless it must be taken in this place. 1. Because, as Grotius tells us, that which made the Jews the rather to separate men in this manner from their society was the want of the Civil coercive power of Magistracy, which sometime they had. And I have proved before that the civil Sanhedrin which had power of criminal and capital judgements did remove from jerusalem, and cease to execute such judgement, forty years before the destruction of the Temple. 2. Because in all other places of the new Testament where the same word is used, it never signifieth a bare separation from civil company, but either a conscientious and religious separation by which Church members did intend to keep themselves pure from such as did walk, (or were conceived to walk) disorderly and scandalously, Acts 19 9 2 Cor. 6. 17. Gal. 2. 13. or Gods separating between the godly and the wicked, Matth 13. 49. & 25. 32. or the setting apart of men to the ministry of the Gospel, Acts 13. 2. Rom. 1. 1. Gal. 1. 15. Thirdly, a Civil separation is for a Civil injury; but this separation is for wickedness and impiety, whether accompanied with civil injury or no; they shall cast out your name as evil, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or as it seems the Syriak and Arabik interpreters did read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tanquam improborum, as of wicked and evil men. The sense is the same. Thus far of the Jewish Church, the Jewish Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin, the Jewish Excommunication. I proceed to the Jewish Exomologesis or public Confession of sin. CHAP. VIII. Of the jewish Exomologesis, or public Declaration of Repentance by confession of sin. AS there were some footsteps of public Confession among the Heathens, and namely among the Lacedæmonians: l Lorinus in Psal. 31. 5. ex Plutarcho. who made him that was deprehended in a crime, to compass the Altar, and there to express his own shame, and to pronounce some disgraceful words against himself. So, I make no doubt, they had this (as many other rites) from an imitation of the people of God, who had their own Exomologesis, and public testimonies of Repentance, which may thus appear. First, a man was to put his hand upon the head of the Sacrifice which he brought, and so it was accepted to make atonement for him, Leu. 1. 4. and this was done in the Tabernacle publicly before the Priest. Genebrardus and Lorinus in Psalm 31. 5. tell us out of Aben Ezra and other rabbinical Autors, and ex libro Siphri, that when he that brought the Sacrifice, did put his hands between the horns of the beast which was to be offered, he did distinctly commemorate that sin for which he did then repent, professing his detestation thereof, and promising to do▪ so no more. Mr Ainsworth on Levit. 1. 4. to the same purpose citeth out of Maimeny in treat. of offering Sacrifices, cap. 3. these words. He layeth his hands between the two horns, and confesseth upon the same offering, the iniquity of sin, and upon the trespasse-offering, the iniquity of trespass: and upon the burnt offering he confesseth the iniquity of doing that which he should not▪ and not doing that he ought, etc. Now that confession of sin was joined with the laying on of hands upon the Sacrifice, is not only proved by the judgement of the Hebrews, understanding the Law in that sense, but by the Law itself, Leu. 16. 21. where Aaron is commanded to lay his hands upon the head of the live Goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the Goat. Secondly, the Law appointeth confession to be made at the bringing of Trespass-offerings Levit. 5. and that in three kinds of trespasses. 1 If one hear the voice of swearing, that is, hear his neighbour swearing or cursing, which he ought to reveal: and is a witness whether he hath seen or known of it: (that is, whether he himself hath been present at the cursing or reviling (of God Levit. 24. 10, 11. or of man, 2 Sam. 16. 7.) or hath heard it by relation from others, and known it that way. So the Dutch Annotations and the best Interpreters) if he do not utter it, than he shall bear his iniquity. The meaning is when one doth for favour or malice (So Aretius and Pareus upon the place) dissemble the truth, and conceal his knowledge, and so make himself partaker of other men's sins. Grotius expounds it by Prov. 29. Who so is partner with a thief hateth his own soul: he heareth a cursing and bewrayeth it not. In such a case a man did greatly scandalise all those (were they more or fewer) who knew his dissimulation, and that he did not utter his knowledge. 2 If one had touched any unclean thing, and not being cleansed from his uncleanness m See Ainswarth upon the place. did go into the Sanctuary or touch an holy thing (whether he knew himself to have touched the unclean thing, when he went into the Sanctuary, but did afterward forget it, as the Hebrews understand the place; or whether he did not know of his uncleanness when he went into the Sanctuary) as soon as it was revealed to him by others who did take offence at it, or otherwise brought to his knowledge, he was held guilty till confession and atonement was made. It was not simply the touching of an unclean thing, for which the confession and trespasse-offering was appointed: Seeing the Law (saith Ainsworth) maketh such unclean but till evening Leu. 11. 24, 31. when washing themselves and their clothes they were clean, and for uncleanness by a dead man, the sprinkling water cleansed them, Num. 19 17, 18, 19 Wherefore he resolveth out of the Hebrew Doctors, that this confession of sin, and the trespasse-offering was required in case an unclean person in his uncleanness came to the Sanctuary, or did eat of an holy thing. 3 If one had sworn unadvisedly, as David, 1 Sam. 25. 22. Herod, Mark 6. 23. those conspirators against Paul, Acts 23. 21. (which are the examples given in the Dutch Annotations, and they are examples of scandals) if the thing were hid from him, through the distemper, impetuosity, and passion of his spirit, overclouding the eye of his mind, so that when he hath sworn a scandalous oath, he scarce knows or remembers well the thing. Or thus; If a man had sworn an oath to do a thing, or not to do it, and afterward falsified his oath, either because he could not do what he had rashly sworn, or because he was unwilling to do it, or because he neglected to do it: (Aretius puts this triple case in expounding the Text:) When a man was brought to the knowledge of the falsifying of his oath, being told, or put in mind of it by others, saith Diodati, which was also a case of scandal. In any of these three cases, a man was to confess his sin, when he brought his trespasse-offering, and the offering was not accepted without confession: Leu. 5. 5. And it shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these things, that he shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing. And he shall bring his trespasse-offering, etc. n Bucer. scripta Anglicana▪ pag. 310. Nunc autem legimus▪ Leu. 4, 5. & 6. Deum populo suo ordin●sse ac mandasse: si quos de populo, de sacerdotibus, aut principibus, aut si etiam populus universus aliquid fortè deliquisset contra mand●a sua, seu faciendo quae ipse vetuerat, seu omittendo quae praeceperat; ut tales ante se in ecclesia sua, & coram sacerdote comparerent, ibi peccatum suum confiterentur, veniam pererent, oblationes suas offerrent, & hoc modo per sacerdotem recoaciliationem consequerentur. idque haud dubiè non absque seria humiliatione, planctu, & jejunio. This confession was made in the Priests hearing, and not to God alone, as Mr Prynne affirmeth Vindic. pag. 17. For, 1. It was a cereomoniall Law, concerning the external worship of God, and a part of the Law of trespass-offerings. He might as well have said, that the Trespasse-offering was made to God alone, without the presence of the Priest or any other▪ 2. He himself doth not deny (but intimate) that till such confession was made, a man was not admitted to make atonement by trespass-offerings. And so do the Jews understand the Law of confession, as we shall hear by and by. Now how could it be known, whether a man had confessed any thing at all, if it was secretly, and to God alone? 3. The sins to be confessed, were oft times scandalous and known to others, (as hath been cleared.) Therefore the confession was to be known to others also. 4 That this confession (not private and auricular, but public and penitential) was made in the Temple, before and in the hearing of the Priest, I prove from Philo the Jew. In his book the sacr. Abelis & Caini, at the close, speaking of the Levites ministry, he saith, that he did execute and perform 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, all those services which belong to a perfect Priesthood, and to the bringing of man to God, whether by burnt-offerings, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aut pro peccatis quorum paenitet saith Gelenius the Interpreter, meaning the trespass-offerings. But observe further, he speaks of the penitential part, as a public thing, or rather of the public declaration of repentance. Repentance of sins, that is, repentance declared or professed (which was in the confession joined with the trespass-offerings) was one of the chief things about which the levitical ministry was exercised: which is the clear sense of the place. More plainly, the same Philo lib. de victimis towards the close, where he tells that certain parts of the trespass-offerings were eaten by the Priests, and that these must be eaten in the Temple, he gives this reason for it, lest the penitents sin and shame should be divulged and punished more than needs must, which intimateth that the particular offence was so confessed that it was made known to such as were within the Temple. The third scriptural proof is Num. 5. 6, 7. When a man or a woman shall commit any sin that men commit, to do a trespass against the Lord, and that person be guilty, Then they shall confess their sin which they have done: and he shall recompense his trespass, etc. The Hebrews expound it thus: All the precepts in the Law, whether they command or forbid a thing, if a man transgress against any one of them, either presumptuously or ignorantly, when he maketh repentance and turneth from his sin, he is bound to confess before the blessed God, as in Numb. 5. 7. This confession is with words, and it is commanded to be done. How do they confess? He saith, Oh God, I have sinned, I have done perversely, I have trespassed before thee, and have done thus and thus: and lo I repent, and am ashamed of my doings: and I will never do this thing again. And this is the foundation of confession. And who so maketh a large confession, and is long in this thing, he is to be commended. And so the owners of sin and trespass-offerings, when they bring their oblations for their ignorant or for their presumptuous sins: atonement is not made for them by their oblation, until they have made Repentance and Confession by word of mouth. Likewise all condemned to death by the Magistrates, or condemned to Stripes, no atonement is made for them by their death, or by their Stripes, until they have repent and confessed. And so he that hurteth his Neighbour, or doth him damage, though he pay him whatsoever he oweth him, atonement is not made for him, tell he confess and turn away from doing so again for ever, as it is written in Num. 5. 6. Any of all the sins of men. All this Ainsworth transcribeth out of Maimony in Misn. treat. of Repentance, Chap. 1. Sect. 1. See also the Latin Edition of the Jewish Canons of Repentance Printed at Cambridge Ann. 1631. Where beside that passage in the first Chapter, concerning the necessity of confessing by word of mouth, that sin for which the Trespass offering was brought, you have another plain passage, cap. 2. for ( o Eximia l●us est paenitentiam agenti, ut publicè confiteatur, iniquitates suas toti caetui indicans, & delicta quae in proximum admisit, aliis aperiens hunc in modum. Revera peccavi in N. N. (virum nominans) & haec vell illa feci: Ecce autem me vobis nunc convertor, & me facti paenitet. Qui vero prae super●ia non indicat, sed abscondit iniquitates suas▪ ill● perfecta non est paenitentia: quia dicitur, Qui abscondit scelera sua, non dirigetur. Haec dicta intelligenda sunt de peccatis quae in proximum admittuntur. Verum in transgressionibus quae sunt hominis in Deum, non necesse est cuiquam seipsum propalare: Quin imò perfrictae frontis est, illiusmodi peccata revelare: Sed in conspectu Dei paenitentiam agit, & coram illo peccata haec speciatim recenset. ) public confession (not of private sins known to God only, but) of known sins by which others were scandalised. In which passage I nnderstand by sins against God, sins known to God only. 1. Because its forbidden to reveal those sins, therefore they were secret. 2. Because otherwise those Canons shall contradict themselves, for cap. 1. it's told us that all who brought trepasse offerings, were bound to confess by word of mouth, the sin which they had done, without which confession, they got not leave to make atonement by the trespasse-offering. Now trespass offerings were for sins against God as well as for sins against man. 3. It should otherwise contradict the Law Num. 5. 6. which appointeth any sin or trespass against the Lord to be confessed. 4. Those trespasses were to be publicly confessed, for which in case of impenitency and obstinacy, a man was excommunicated with Cherem, or the greater Excommunication. But a man was excommunicated for divers sins against God, which did not at all wrong his Neighbour, setting a side the scandal. Which I have proved before. These four reasons will prove either that the meaning of that Canon must be of private sins, and not of public and scandalous sins against the first Table: or otherwise that the Canon is contrary to and inconsistent with both Scripture, Reason, and other Rabbinnicall writings. From the Law Num. 5. thus explained, observe concerning the Confession of sin. 1. It was for any scandalous sin, of commission or omission against the first or second Table. 2. It was not free and voluntary to the offender. I do not say that he w●s compelled to it by any external Force or coercive power: but he was commanded and obliged by the Law to confess; Vatablus on Num. 5. 7. Fatebuntur 1. ●. t●…nebuntur fateri, they shall confess, that is, they shall be bound to confess: and a man was not admitted with his trespass offering except he confessed. 3. It was done by word of mouth. 4. And publicly before the Congregation that were present. 5. p Hanc 〈◊〉 confessionem Hebraei vocant confessionem super peccato singulari, quia in aliis sacrificiis siebat confessio peccatorum generalis, saith ●atablus upon the place. The particular trespass was named in the Confession. 6. Sins both of Ignorance and Malice, when scandalous, were to be confessed. 7. The sinner was not slinted to a Prescript form of words in Confession, but was to enlarge his confession, as his heart was enlarged. 8. In Criminal and Capital cases, beside the civil or corporal punishment, confession was to be made, because of the scandal which had been given. Which doth further appear from the Talmud itself in Sanhedrin. cap. 6. Sect. 2. for that is observed in all who are put to death, that they must confess; for whoever doth confess he hath part in the world to come; and namely it is recorded of Achan, that Joshua said to him, my Son give now Glory to the Lord God of Israel, and make confession unto him; And Achan answered, Indeed, I have sinned against the Lord God of Israel, and thus and thus etc. Whence is it collected that his confession did expiate his sin. And Joshua said, why hast thou troubled us? God shall trouble thee this day. This day thou shalt be troubled, not in the world to come. The like you read of Achan in Pirke R. Elieser cap. 38. I know achan's confession was not in the Sanctuary, nor at a Trespass offering. But I make mention of it because q Confirm. Thes. pag. 106. 113. Erastus holdeth that under the Law, confession was only required in such cases, where the sin was not criminal or capital. Which is confuted by the aforementioned passages in Maimonides and the Talmud itself: proving that whether the sin was expiated by Sacrifice or by death, it was always to be confessed; from the same example of Achan doth P. r Ex ●o quod in libro Joma, id est, dierum, in capite, jom h●kippurim, id est, dies propitiationum, ita scribitur. Dixit Rab. Hunna: Omnis qui transgressione transgressus est, necesse est ut singulatim exprimat peccatum. Galatinus lib. 10. cap. 3. prove that Declaration of repentance was to be made by word of mouth, and that the sin was to be particularly confessed, which he further proveth by another rabbinical passage. In the fourth place, Io. 9 24. seemeth to hold forth a judicial public confession of sin to have been required of scandalous sinners. The Pharisees being upon an examination of him that was born blind, and was made to see, they labour to drive him so far from confessing Christ, as to confess sin and wicked collusion, Give God the Praise say they, we know that this man is a sinner. Which is to be expounded by jos. 7. 19 Give glory to the Lord God of Israel, and make confession. Fifthly, as the Jews had an Excommunication, so they had an absolution, and that which interveened was Confession and Declaration of Repentance. And hence came the Arabik 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nadam, he hath repent; and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nadim a penitent, the Niddui made the nadim: for when a man was excommunicated by the lesser Excommunication, s Seld. de jure not. & Gentium lib. 4. cap. 8. Pro diversitate peccati & peccantis moribus, nunc citius nunc serius sequebatur absolutio. Sed ut plurimum excommunicatio fiebat in diem tricesimum etc. Intra hoc tempus exspectabat forum ut ad Bonam ●ediret. mentem, 〈◊〉, & quae juberent ipsi praestaret etc. Post trignta di●um contumaciam, idem tempus semel i●erabatur &c▪ At vero s●▪ neque intra id spatii paenitens absolutionem pe●eret, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cherem seu Anathemate feriebatur. the Consistory waited first 30. days, and then other 30. days, and as some think (the third time) 30. days, to see whether the offender were penitent, (which could not be known without confession) and would seek absolution: which if he did not, but continued obstinate & impenitent, than they proceeded to the greater excommunication. Which doth prove a public Confession, at least in the case of the excommunicated. Sixthly, we find a public penitential confession Ezra. 10. 10. 11. And Ezra the Priest stood up and said unto them, ye have transgressed and have taken strange wives to increase the trespass of Israel. Now therefore make confession unto the Lord God of your Fathers, and do his pleasure, and separate yourselves from the people of the land, and from the strange wives. Mark here the foresaking of the sin could not suffice without confessing the sin. All Israel had sworn and covenanted to do the thing, to put away the strange wives vers. 5. But Ezra the Priest tells them they must also make confession of their sin; confession of their former trespass must be joined with Reformation for the future: All which the people promise to do as Ezra had said vers. 12. But what was this confession? was it only a private confession to God alone? or was it only a general confession made by the whole congregration of Israel at a solemn Fast and humiliation? Nay, that there was a third sort of Confession differing from both these, appear by vers. 13. neither is this a work of one day or two: for we are many that have transgressed in this thing; yea, three Months are spent in the business, vers. 16, 17. during which space, all that had taken strange wives, came at appointed times out of every City, and were successively examined by Ezra the Priest and certain chief of the Fathers and Levites, (such of both, as were not themselves guilty) before whom such as were found guilty did make Confession: The Sons of the Priests made Confession as well as others, yea, with the first; and gave their hands, that they would put away their wives: and being guilty, they offerered a Ram of the Flock for their trespass. With which trespass offering confession was ever joined, as hath been before showed from the Law. Seventhly, Master Hildersham of worthy memory in his 34. Lecture upon Psal. 51. draweth a● Argument from David's example for the public Confession of a scandalous sin before the Church, He made, saith he, public Confession of his sin to the Congregation and Church of God; for we see in the Title of this Psalm. 1. That he committed this Psalm (that containeth the acknowledgement of his sin, and profession of his repentance) to the chief musician to be published in the Sanctuary and Temple. 2 That in this publication of his Repentance, he hideth not from the Church his sin, nor cloaketh it at all, but expresseth in particular the special sin, etc. Add hereunto, this public Confession was made after ministerial conviction by Nathan, who did convince David of the greatness of that scandalous sin, in which he had then continued impenitent near a year or thereabout. The Doctrine which Master Hildersham draweth from David's example is this, That they whose sins God hath detected and brought to light, whose sins are public and notorious, scandalous and offensive to the congregations where they live, aught to be willing to confess their sins publicly, to make their Repentance as public and notorious as their sin is. He addeth in his explanation, when they shall be required to do it by the Discipline of the Church. Mark one of his applications (which is the Subject of the 37. Lecture) The second sort that are to be reproved by this Doctrine, are such as having authority to enjoin public Repentance to scandalous sinners, for the satisfying of the Congregation, when they are detected and presented unto them, refuse or neglect to do it. And here he complaineth, that the public acknowledgement of scandalous sins, was grown out of use, and that though it was ordered by authority, yet it was not put in execution. The Canons of our Church (saith he) can. 26. straightly charge every Minister, That he shall not in any wise admit to the Communion, any of his flock which be openly known to live in sin notorious without Repentance. And the Book of Common Prayer in the rubric before the Communion, commandeth, that if any be an open and notorious evil liver, so that the Congregation by him is offended, the Minister shall call him, and advertise him in any wise, not to presume to the Lords Table, till he hath openly declared himself, to have truly repent, that the Congregation may thereby be satisfied, which were afore offended. So that you may see the Laws and Discipline of our Church, require that open and scandalous sinners should d●…e open and public Repentance▪ yea, give power to the Minister to repel and keep back such from the Communion that refuse to do it. Where it may be observed by the way, that the Power of Elderships for suspending scandalous persons (not Excommunicated) from the Sacrament, now so much contented against by Master Prynne, is but the same Power which was granted by authority to the Ministry, even in the prelatical times. And he hath upon the matter endeavoured to bring the Consciences of a whole Elder-ship into a greater servitude under this present Reformation, than the Conscience of a single Minister was formerly brought under by Law in this particular. Eightly, Master Hildersham Ibid. Lect. 34. argueth not only ●… pari, but ●… fortiori. If a necessity of satisfying an offended Brother, how much more a necessity of satisfying an offended Church, which will equally hold both for the old and new Testament? His own words are very well worth the transcribing. This is evident by those two Laws Leu. 6. 5. 6. and Num. 5. 6. 8. where God plainly taught his people, that their trespass offering which they brought to him, to seek pardon of any sin, whereby they had wronged any man, should not be accepted, till they had first made satisfaction to the party to whom the wrong was done. And le●…t we should think those Laws concerned the Jews only, our Saviour himself giveth this in charge Matth. 5. 23. 24. If thou bringest thy Gift to the Altar, and there remember'st that thy Brother hath aught against thee: leave there thy Gift before the Altar, and go thy way, first be reconciled to thy Brother, and then come and offer thy Gift. And if there be such necessity of making satisfaction to any one Brother that hath aught against us, before we can get assurance of our reconciliation with God, what necessity is there of making satisfaction to a whole Church and Congregation, that we have given just cause of offence unto? In this case it is not sufficient to approve our Repentance and truth of heart to God; we must be willing also and desirous to approve it to the Congregation and Church of God, that we may say as the two Tribes and half said, Josh. 22. The Lord God of Gods he knoweth, and Israel he shall know. Thus Master Hildersham. CHAP. IX. Whether in the jewish Church, there was any Suspension or exclusion of profane, scandalous, notorious sinners, from partaking in the public Ordinances, with the rest of the Children of Israel in the Temple. Erastus' and his followers hold, that among the Jews none was excluded from any public Ordinance in the Temple, for moral uncleanness, that is, for a profane scandalous conversation, but only for legal or ceremonial uncleanness. The like Master Prynne saith of the Passeover, and of the Temple he holds that even those who were for their offences cast out of the Synagogues, were yet free to come and did come to the Temple. I shall particularly make Answer both to Erastus and to Master Prynne in this point, when they shall fall in my way afterward. I shall here, more generally endeavour to rectify their great mistake, and to prove an exclusion from the Temple and public Ordinances, for public and scandalous offences in life and conversation, or for moral as well as ceremonial uncleanness. First, I shall prove it ex ore duorum, from the Testimonies of two of the most famous witnesses of the Jews themselves, Philo and josephus. t Offerenti victimas le● praecipit, ut p●rus fiat corpore ac animo. Et infra. Necessum est igitur adituros Templum sacr●rum gratia, & corpore nitidos esse, & multo magis anima. ● etc. nam veri Dei Templum non patet prophanis sacrificiis. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.) Et post. an dubium est, neque legem quicquam ab injustis, neque solem à tenebris accipere? Et versus finem. Caeterum quia societatem humanitatemque (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) maximè docet lex nostra, utrique vir●ti honorem habet meritum, neminem deplorate malum ad eas admittens, sed quam longissimè in rem malam ablegans. Cum igitur sciret concionibus (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) admisceri multos improbos, quòd se posse in turba latere autument, ut id caveret in posterum, omnes indignos à sacro caetu edicto prohibint (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) incipiens à semiviris obscaeno 〈◊〉 laborantibus, qui naturae monetam adulterantes, in impudicarum mulierum affectum & formam sponte degenerant. Spadones item & castratos arcet etc. Pariter repellit non tantum scorta, sed & natos è prostitutis, contactos materno dedecore propter natales adulterinos. etc. Alii vero quasi contendant hos in impietatis stadio post se relinquere, addunt amplius, ut non solùm ideas, said & deum esse negent. Et post. Proinde omnes hi meritò pelluntur à sacris c●ibus, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) Philo lib de Victimas offerentibus, is so full and plain, as if he had purposely written that Book to record the exclusion of scandalous persons from Communion with the Church of Israel in the Temple. He presseth all along the necessity of holiness and purity in those who bring Sacrifices, and tells us that their Law did exclude from their holy Assemblies meretricious persons, despisers of God, and all that were known to be impious and profane, as well as those who were legally unclean. The same thing may be confirmed out of josephus, u Antiq. lib. 19 cap. ●. libenter & continuò degebat (Agrippa) Hierosolymis, institutorum ac rituum patriae servator religiosissimus▪ 〈◊〉 enim ●rat â contaminamentis omnibus, nec ulla dies ei praeteribat absque sacrificio. Accidit aliquando ut quidam Hierosolymita legis peri●s, nomine Simon, advocata concione, per regis absentiam, agentis ●um Caesareae, crimina●etur illum ●t impurum & arcendum templi aditu, quod non ni●i dignis pateat. Id ubi praefectus u●bis illi significavit per literas, confestim accersivit hominem etc. Di● mihi inquit, quid ribi non probatur ex his quae ●acimus. who records that one Simon a Doctor of the Law, did in the absence of King Agrippa, accuse him to the people as an impure unworthy man, who ought not be suffered to enter into the Temple. josephus gives a good Testimony to Agrippa, that he was unjustly accused. Agrippa himself sends for Simon, and asks him what he had ever done which deserved such an accusation. But neither Agrippa himself, nor josephus, saith one syllable to this purpose, that the excluding of a man from the Temple for profaneness and impiety was a new Arbitrary censure, contrary to the law or custom of the Jews: which (no doubt) they had done, if there had been any ground for them to say so. Their very pleading of innocency, and no more, tacitly confirmeth that if guilty, it had been just to exclude from the Temple. Again de bello Jud. lib. 4. cap. 5. josephus' records that Ananus the high Priest (whom cap. 7. He highly commends for good government) had an oration to the Jews against the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the zealots, who under colour of that name, which they took to themselves, committed a great deal of injustice and violence. He said with tears, I had rather die then see the house of God filled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with such crimes (or criminal persons) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the forbidden and holy places to be haunted and trodden with the feet of those who are polluted with murders: speaking of those zealots. What can be more plain; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a piacular crime, was a cause of keeping back from the Temple (even as also among the Heathens, some were for piacular crimes interdicted the Sacrifices) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, blood-guiltiness, defilement by murder, was also a cause of exclusion from the Temple, and to such the Temple was a place inaccessible and forbidden. I add a Testimony of I. Scaliger Elench. Trihaeres. Nic. Terar. cap. 28. where speaking of those Essaeans who did not observe the Mosaical rites, he saith, Itaque non mirum, si tanquam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & piaculares aditu Templi prohibebantur. The like Constantinus l'Empereur annot. in Cod. Middoth pag 44. proves from another passage in josephus: vi●…i autem qui non per omnia cas●…i essent ab interiori aula prohibebantur. Where l'Empereur addeth, In spacii descripti partem interiorem non admittebant quoque haereticum: which he saith may be proved out of the Talmud. Quis enim dicat (saith Hen. Vorstius, animad. in Pirke pag. 169.) apostatam, blasphemum, aliaque sacra capita intra Templum fuisse admissa. Of the exclusion of excommunicate persons I have before spoken, following their opinion who hold, that such as were excommunicate by the lesser Excommunication or Niddui, had liberty to come into the Temple, yet so that they were to enter in at the gate of the mourners, and were not seen in the Temple, but as penitents: but such as were excommunicated by the greater Excommunication or Cherem were not suffered to come into the Temple, nor so much as into any assembly of ten men, and they might neither teach nor be taught. x Annot▪ in Luk. 6. 22. Qui hac nota (minoris 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 five Niddui) inusti erant, s●ante Templo, accedebant ad Templum, ut ex Hebraeis vir doctus notavit: sed haud dubiè consistebant extra ● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qui distingueb●t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ ab Israelitis. Name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 interim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. lo●o habebantur. Grotius holds that such as were excommunicated by Niddui or the lesser Excommunication had power to come to the Temple, but no otherwise then Heathens, and that they might not come into the Court of Israel: which is an answer to M. Prynnes objection, that such as were cast out of the Synagogue came to the Temple. There are but two places in the new Testament, which seem at first to make much against that which I have said. One is, Luke 18. concerning the Publicans going up to the Temple to pray, as well as the Pharisee. The other is john 8. concerning the woman taken in adultery, whom they brought before Christ in the Temple. I remember y Confirm Thes. lib. 1. cap. 2. pag. 99 and elsewhere. Erastus objecteth them both. To the first I answer, it rather confirmeth than confuteth what I have said. For 1. The Text saith, Vers. 13. the Publican stood afar off: the Pharisee not so. z Nam mos id●●erebat ut Publicani in atrio. Gentilium, Pharisaei in atrio Israelitarum sta●nt, nec quicquam in ●o erat insolitum au● Pharisaeo imputandum. Grotius upon the place, Verse 11. noteth, that the Pharisees fault was not in this particular, that he came further into the Temple than the Publican: for the custom was such, that the Publicans were to stand in the Court of the Gentiles, the Pharisees in the Court of Israel. Camer. myroth. in Luke 18. is also of opinion that the Publican stood in the Court of the Gentiles, or in that first Court into which josephus lib. 2. contra Appion. saith, that all, even Heathens, might come. 2. And though our opposites could prove, that the Publican came into the Court of Israel, (which they will never be able to do) yet this place helps them not at all, unless they can prove that this was a scandalous and profane Publican. It is certain that divers of the Publicans were religious and devout men, and that this was one of them, we may more than conjecturally know, by the Pharisees own words, for when he hath thanked God, that he is not as other men, adulterers, unjust, extortioners, he addeth with a disjunction, or even as this Publican, thus preferring himself not only to the infamous and scandalous Publicans, but even to this devout Publican. More of this place afterward, in the debate of Matth. 18. To the other objection from john 8. 2, 3. where it is said that the Pharisees brought a woman taken in adultery into the Temple, and set her before Christ; First, I answer with a Sanè cum Servator in Templo d●cuisse cap. 8. Joh. legitur, quò mulierem depraehensam Pharisaei ipsi adduxerunt; alium locum praeter hunc qui ●at extra a tria, designati credere nequeo: quandequidem è Josepho obs●vatum jam suit, impu●is atria adire fa● non fuisse. Const. l'Empereur annot. in Cod. Middoth cap. 2. pag. 45. by the Temple, in that place, we are to understand the Intermurale, the utter Court, or Court of the Gentiles, which was without the Court of Israel, which utter Court (saith he) both the Evangelists and josephus call by the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Temple. Yea the whole mountain of the Temple, even comprehending that part of it which was without the Intermurale, had the name of the Temple, as M. Selden noteth de Jure not. & Gent. l. 3. c. 6. p. 298. And lib. 4. cap. 5. he expounds that of the Money-changers in the Temple, to be meant of the court of the Gentiles. This answer doth the better agree to john 8. because V. 2. tells us, it was in the place where all the people came unto Jesus, and he taught them. Now it is certain that both Christ and his Apostles did often teach the people in the Court of the Gentiles, and in Solomon's porch, which was without the Court of Israel, in the Intermurale, that all might have the better occasion of hearing the Gospel, even they who were not permitted to enter into the Court of Israel. Wherefore since the Text tells us, that when the Pharisees brought the woman to Christ, he was teaching in such a place, where all the people had access to hear him: this agreeth better to the Intermurale, then to the Court of Israel. Secondly, I answer, that woman did not come as a privileged person, free to come and worship ●in the Court of Israel, with the Church of Israel; but she is brought as an accused person, that in the most public and shameful manner she might be sentenced and condemned, and made vile before all the people: so that it was in her paena, non privilegium. b P. Cuneu● de▪ repub. Hebr. lib. 1. cap. 12. Concilii magni sedes in ipso ●anctuario fuit. The Sanhedrin also did sit in the Temple, so that such as were to be examined and judged, must be brought to that place where the Sanhedrin was, which sat in that part of the Temple that was called Gazith. This might be the occasion of bringing some to the Temple as parties to be judged, who were not admitted to the Ordinances of worship in the Court of Israel. Even as the prohibition of reading atheistical or heretical books, Sanhedrin cap. 11. sect. 1. was not violated by the Counsels reading or searching of them for a Judicial trial and examination: as is rightly observed by Dionysius Vossius, annot. in Maimon. de Idol. pag. 25. And now having taken off the two principal objections, we shall take notice of such Scriptures as either directly, or at least by consequence prove, that notorious and scandalous sinners were not allowed to be admitted into the Temple, and partake in all the ordinances. 1. God reproveth not only the bringing of strangers into his Sanctuary, who were uncircumcised in the flesh, but the bringing of those who were uncircumcised in heart, that is, known to be such, for de secretis non judicat Ecclesia, Ezech. 44. 7, 9 Such ought not to have had fellowship in the holy things. No stranger uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my Sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel. It is a law concerning proselytus domicilii, such proselytes as having renounced idolatry, and professing to observe the seven precepts given to the sons of Noah, were thereupon permitted to dwell and converse among the children of Israel. (Of which more elsewhere.) Such a one ought not be admitted into the Sanctuary, or place of the holy assemblies, there to partake in all the Ordinances with the Church, unless he be both circumcised in flesh, and also in regard of his profession and practice a visible Saint, or one supposed to be circumcised in heart. The disjunction Nor tells us that if he were either uncircumcised in flesh, or known to be uncircumcised in heart, God did not allow him to be admitted to communion with the children of Israel in all public ordinances. 2. There is a Law, Deut. 23. 18. forbidding to bring the hire of a whore into the house of the Lord: and that because it was the price of a whore; how much more was it contrary to the will of God, that the whore herself, being known to be such, should be brought to the house of the Lord? For propter quod ununiqu●…que est tale, id ipsum est magis tale. This argument is hinted by c De monarchia lib. 2. proinde rectè honesté que vetitum est alicubi, ne merce● meretrici● inferatur in sacratium. Atqui nummi per se carent crimine, sed quae hos accepit unà cum suo quaestu est abominabilis. Philo the Jew. 3. The Lord sharply contendeth with those who did steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn Incense to Baal, and yet presumed to come and stand before him in his own house. Is this house which is called by my name, saith the Lord, become a den of robbers in your eyes? jerem. 7. 9, 10, 11. A den of robbers is the place which receives robbers; and (saith Vatablus upon the place) as robbers after their robbing come to their den, so do these even after their stealing, murdering, etc. come to the Temple. To the same purpose is that challenge Ezech. 23. 38, 39 Moreover this they have done unto me, they have defiled my Sanctuary in the same day, and have profaned my Sabbaths. For when they had slain their children to their Idols, than they came the same day into my Sanctuary to profane it. But God would not have the Temple to be a receptacle for such. When Christ applieth that Scripture, jerem. 7. against those who bought and sold in the Temple, Matth. 21. 12, 13. he makes it clear, that the Temple was made a den of robbers, not only as it was made a place of gain, or a den where the robbers prey lies, but even as it was a receptacle of the robbers or thiefs themselves: therefore he is not contented with the overthrowing of the Tables of money-changers, and the seats of them that sold Doves, but he did also cast out all them that sold and bought in the Temple: that is, he would neither suffer such things, nor such persons in the Temple, yea though it was only in the utmost Court, or the Court of the Gentiles, as Grotius and Mr Selden think: how much less would he have suffered such persons in the Court of Israel. d Lib. de Victimas offerentibus. Nam veri Dei Templum non pater profanis sacrificiis. Tali homini dicerem, obon●, non gaudet D●us centenis boum victimis etc. mavult pia● mentes &c▪ Philo the Jew doth also apply what is said in the Prophets of Gods hating the Sacrifices of the wicked, even to the excluding of profane men from the Temple. Mr. Selden de jure not. & Gent. lib. 4. cap. 5. doth so explaive that casting out of the buyers and sellers out of the Temple, that the argument in hand is not a little strengthened thereby. He saith truly, that those who were cast out had polluted and profaned that holy place, ideo & ipsi, ut qui tum criminis aliorum participes, tum suo infames pariter, sie Templum seu montis Templi locum illum ipsis permissum profanabant, ejiciendi. He holdeth also that this which Christ did was done ex jure patrio, to wit, ex Zelotarum jure: and that else it had been challenged by the Priests and Scribes, if it had been contrary to the law or custom. Zelots, that is, private persons zealously affected, were permitted to scourge, wound, yea kill such as they saw publicly committing atrocious wickedness, by which the holiness either of the name of God, or of the Temple, or of the Nation of the Jews was violated. So Mr. Selden showeth out of the Talmudists, Ib. cap. 4. Now (saith he) Zelotarum jure, our Saviour though a private person (for so he was looked upon by the Priests and Scribes) did scourge and cast out the buyers and sellers. If so, then certainly such wicked and abominable persons were not allowed to come to the Temple; and if they did, they ought to have been judicially and by authority cast out; for that which was permitted to private persons in the executing of justice or inflicting of punishment, out of their zeal to the glory of God, was much more incumbent to such as had authority in their hands for correcting and removing the profanation of the Temple in an authoritative, judicial, and orderly way. 4. The Levites had a charge to let none that were unclean in any thing enter into the Temple, 2 Chron. 23. 19 Now this is like that 1 Cor. 5. 11. with such a one no not to eat: an argument from the denial of that which is less, to the denial of that which is more. So here, it was a necessary consequence: If those that were ceremonially unclean were to be excluded from the Temple, much more those who were morally or impiously unclean. For, 1. the legal uncleanness did signify the sinful uncleanness; and the exclusion of those that were known to be legally unclean from the Temple, did signify the excluding of those who are known to be grossly and notoriously unclean in their life and conversation. Which shall be abundantly confirmed afterwards. Therefore Bertramus de Rep. Ebr. cap. 7. saith rightly that the Levites had a charge to keep from the Temple the unclean aut etiam alio quovis modo indignos, or those also who were any otherways unworthy. 2. Godwyn in his Moses and Aaron, lib. 5. cap. 2. makes a comparison between the three degrees of the Jewish excommunication, and the three degrees of excluding the unclean, Numb 5. 2. which parallel if we please to make then as for any of the three sorts of uncleanness, the touch of the dead, issue, or leprosy, a man was excluded from the camp of God or the Sanctuary; so it will follow that even those who were cast out by the Niddui▪ or lowest degree of Excommunication, were fo● a time suspended from communion with the Church in the Ordinances. 3. The Levites were appointed to put a difference not only between the clean and the unclean, but between the holy and unholy, Levit. 10. 10. or between the holy and profane, Ezech. 22. 26. & 44. 23. By clean and unclean I understand persons or things that were ceremonially such; by holy and profane, persons that were morally such. 5. I prove the same point from Psalm 118. 19, 20. open to me the gates of righteousness, I will go into them, and will praise the Lord. This gate of the Lord into which the righteous shall enter. The Chaldee saith, The gate of the house of the Sanctuary of the Lord. The gates of God's Sanctuary, are called gates of righteousness, saith Ainsworth on the place, because only the just and clean might enter into them. We read also that it was written over the gates of some of the Jewish Synagogues, This is the gate of the Lord, into which the righteous shall enter. * Haec porta etc. i. e. D●us hoc Templum sibi dicari voluit, hîc est sanctuarium ejus: debet pu●um esse ab omnibus sordibus, quemadmodum etiam lex severè jubet. Antehac impuri & scelerati (quales Saul, & alii omnes impii qui primas tenebant, i●a ut nemo non 〈◊〉 ipsorum esse Templum) co●ruperant hoc templum. Non fuit igitur tam domicilium ipsius Dei, quamlatronum ●verna. Vatablus upon this place, thinks that David speaks by way of antithesis to the former▪ pollution of the Sanctuary by Saul, and other wicked persons, who by coming to the house of God had made it a den of thieve●▪ But now the righteous shall enter in it. [The righteous] ●…on to such (saith Di●…dati) and 〈◊〉 to profane persons, it belongeth to enter in there. 6. The same thing may be proved, from Psalm 15. 1. Lord who shall abide in thy Tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy hill? He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness, etc. I know the chief intendment of God in this place is to describe such a one as is a true member of the Church invisible, and shall enter into the Heavenly jerusalem. But certainly there is an allusion to the Sanctuary, and the holy hill thereof in jerusalem, as to the type of that which is Spirivall and eternal, which jansenius upon the place noteth: and the Prophet here teacheth the people so to look upon those offences for which men were excluded from the Sanctuary, as to learn what kind of persons are true members of the Church, and who not; who shall be allowed to communicate in all the Ordinances of the new Testament, and who not; who shall be received into everlasting life, and who not; and thus by the type he holds forth the thing tipyfied; Gesnerus upon the place thinks that communion with the Church in this world is meant in the first words, Lord who shall sojourn (so the word is jagur in the Hebrew, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek) in thy Tabernacle. (the name of Tabernacle fitly expressing the movable and military estate of the Church in this world:) and that reception into the Church Triumphant, is meant in the following words: who shall dwell in thy holy hill? which noteth a permanent and durable estate. The Chaldee Paraphrase expoundeth the whole, of such as were thought worthy to be admitted into the house of the Lord, thus, Lord who is worthy to abide in thy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and who shall be worthy to sojourn in the mountain of the house of thy holiness. So Psalm 24. 3. the Chald● readeth thus, Who shall be worthy to ascend unto the mountain of the house of the Sanctuary of the Lord? So that the thing alluded unto in both these places, is that the Priests and Levites did admit 〈◊〉 to the Sanctuary, but such as had the marks or characters there enumerated, so far as men can ●udge of these marks, that is so fa●e as they are external and discernible. 7. The same thing seemeth also to be alluded unto Psalm 50. 16. Unto the wicked (the Chaldee adds, that repenteth not, and prayeth in his transgression) God saith, what hast thou to do to declare my Statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth. It is spoken to a scandalous profane man, Vers. 18, 19, 20. who yet will needs take upon him a form of godliness. e Lib. 3. the vit●… Mos●…s: quem ne honoris quidem gratia ●…as est nominari ab omnibus●… sed à solis optimis & purificatis hominibus. Where Philo the Jew speaks of him that blasphemed the name of the Lord, he addeth, that it was not lawful for all men to name the name of God, no not for Honour or Religion's sake, but only for good and holy men. And this gives me occasion to add in conclusion a further confirmation out of the Hebrew Doctors. They held that an Israelite turning an Heretic, (that is, denying any of their thirteen fundamental Articles) to be as an Heathen man, and did therefore permit a Jew to lend to him upon usury even as to an Heathen. M. Selden de Jure not. & Gentium. lib. 6. cap. 10. They held that such a one, an heretical Israelite, had no communion with the Church of Israel. See Tzemach David translated by Hen. Vorstius pag. 67. Abrabanel de capite fidei cap. 3. dub. 5. & Ib. cap. 6. They esteemed an heretical Jew, more heretical than a Christian, and did excommunicate him, even summarily and without previous admonition. See Buxtorf. lexic. Chald. Talm. & Rabbin. pag. 195. Moses Maimonides de fundam. legis. cap. 6. sect. 10. tells us that if an Epicurean Israelite had written a copy of the book of the Law, it was to be burnt, with the name of that Epicurean wretch, because he had not done it holily, nor in the name of God. They who did imagine the Scripture itself to be polluted and profaned, when it came through the hands of an Epicurean, or Heretical Israelite, no doubt, they thought the Temple polluted and profaned, if such a one should be suffered to come and worship in it. From all which it appeareth, how much reason L'Empereur had to say, that they did not admit an Heretic into the inner part of the Intermurale, or that part of the Temple which divided between the Israelites and Heathens. If any man shall ask, what I mean to infer from all this. Must all profane persons be kept back from our 〈◊〉 ●s and public Assemblies, and so from hearing the word? I answer; God forbid. The Analogy which I understand is to hold between the Jewish and Christian Church, is this. As profane persons were forbidden to enter into the Temple because of the sacramental and typical holiness thereof (for the Temple was a Type of Christ) so profane persons are now much more to be kept back from the Sacrament of the Lord Supper, which hath more of Sacramental signification, mystery, and holiness in it, than the Temple of jerusalem had, and whereby more ample Evangelicall promises are set forth and sealed unto us. And as profane persons might of old come into the Court of the Gentiles, and there hear the word preached in Solomon's Porch (where both Christ and his Apostles did Preach Io. 10. 23. Act 3. 11. Act. 5. 12. which Porch was in the utmost Court, That is, the Court of the Gentiles: of which elsewhere out of josephus) but might not come into the Court of Israel, nor have communion in the Sacrifices: so profane obstinate sinners are to be excluded, for their impiety, from the Church communion of Saints, though they may hear the word, as Heathens also may do. Now that the Temple of jerusalem had a Typical Sacramental resemblance of Christ, may appear plainly in divers particulars. 1. As the glory of the Lord dwelled in the Temple within the oracle, above the Ark and the Mercy seat; and at the dedication of the Temple, the cloud of the glory of the Lord did visibly fill the whole house; so in Christ the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily, as the Apostle speaks▪ 2. As the great God whom the heavens of heavens cannot contain, was yet pleased to dwell on earth, by putting his name in that place; so notwithstanding of the infinite distance between God and man, yet they are brought near each to other, to have fellowship together in Jesus Christ. 3. God revealed his will, that he would accept no Sacrifices from his people, but in the Temple only, after it was built: So God hath revealed his will, that 〈◊〉 spiritual Sacrifices cannot be acceptable to him, except in▪ Jesus Christ only. 4. The people of God were bound to set their Faces toward the Temple of Jerusalem, when they prayed 1. Kings 8. 30. 48. Dan. 6. 10. So are we bound in Prayer to look toward Jesus Christ with an eye of faith 5. As there was an ample promise of God to hear the Prayers which should be made in that place 2. Chro. 7. 15, 16. so hath God promised to hear us and accept us, if we seek unto him in and through Jesus Christ. 6. God said of the Temple, mine eyes and mine heart, shall be there perpetually. 2 Chro. 6. 16. so he said of Chri●t, This is my well beloved Son in whom I am well pleased. 7. There was but one Temple so but one Mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ saith Paul. 8. As the Temple was appointed to be a house of Prayer for all Nations Isa. 56. 7. and the s●ranger, as well as the Israelite, might come and pray in it 2 Chro. 6 32. So 〈◊〉 is a propitiation, not for the Jews only, but for the Gentiles; and whosoever believes on him, (Jew or Gentile) shall not be confounded. 9 Because of thy Temple at Jerusalem, shall Kings bring presents unto thee, saith the Prophet, Ps. 68 29. so because of Jesus Christ (who hath got a name above every name, and hath received all power in heaven and earth) shall Kings submit themselves and bow the knee. 10. Glorious things were spoken of jerusalem the City of God, but the Temple was the glory of jerusalem: so glorious things are spoken of the Church, But Christ is the Church's glory. Other like considerations might be added, but these may suffice. CHAP. X. A debate with Master Prynne, concerning the exclusion of profane scandalous persons from the passover. THat which Master Prynne in his Vindication pag. 15, 16. pleadeth for his opinion, from the Law of the passover, may be (as I conceive) with no great difficulty answered, and I shall do it very shortly, (being to insist further in answering Erastus, who said much more for that point, which deserveth ●n answer) First, in answer to our argument from the keeping back of the unclean. Num. 9 he saith, that all circumcised persons whatsoever, had a right to eat the passover, etc. being bound to eat the passover in its season, except in cases of necessity, disability, by reason of a journey, or of legal uncleanness only, not spiritual, as is clear by Exo. 12. 3. 43. to 50. Num. 9 1. to 15. Deut. 16. 16, 17. Ezra. 6. 19, 20, 21. 2 Kings 23. 21, 27, 2. Chron. 35. 6, 7. 13. 17. 18. where we read that all the people and all the males that were present received the passover, not one of them being excluded from eating it. Answ. 1. If it was so, doth not this make as much against himself as against us, unless he will say, that the Analogy must hold so far, that all Baptised persons whatsoever, none excepted (if it be not in cases of necessity or disability) how scandalous, impenitent, and obstinate soever they be, aught to be admitted to the Lords Table? so there shall be no excommunication at all (which yet himself granteth) for if any Baptised person, (though such as Master Prynne himself would have to be excommunicated) shall be shut out from the Church and from all public Ordinances, and so from the Lords Supper, because of his obstinacy and continuance in some foul scandal, after previous admonitions, in so doing, we shall, by his principles, do contrary to the Law of the passover, in the point of Analogy. 2. The Texts cited by him, prove that men were debarred for legal uncleanness, but there is not one of them which will prove that men were debarred only for legal uncleanness, and no man for moral uncleanness. Yea, one of those Texts. Ezra. 6. 21. tells us that those who were admitted to the passover, were such as had separated themselves from the silthynesse of the heathen of the Land, to seek the Lord God of Israel. 3. That moral uncleanness, I mean known profaneness or scandalous sins, did render men uncapable of eating the passover I shall prove anon by divers arguments, unto which I remit Master Prynne. That which he objecteth from 1 Cor. 10. I am to answer also distinctly by itself. His second reply is, that those who were legally unclean at the day appointed for the passover, so as they could not then receive it, were yet peremptorily enjoined to eat it the 14. day of the second month, etc. Num. 9 11. 12. he must not be suspended from it above one month. Answ. The Scripture cited proves no such thing, except upon supposition that they be clean the 14. day of the following month. And what if any of them were in the second month also unclean, by the touch of a deadbody or otherwise? Were they not kept off in the second month, as well as in the first? Is it not plainly said of the second passover vers. 12. (the very pla●e cited by himself) according to all the Ordinances of the passover they shall keep it? and one of those Ordinances was the keeping back the unclean. Thirdly, he saith, that he who was legally unclean, was kept back neither by the Priest nor Magistrate, but by those of the same Family as vers. 6, 7. imports. And the true reason (saith he) in this Text why his uncleanness did seclude him from eating the passover, was because it quite excluded him out of the camp for a time, (not Tabernacle or Temple) and so by necessary consequence from the house wherein he was to eat the passover, etc. and by like reason it debarred him from all other Ordinances. Answ. 1 The Text Num. 9 6, 7. tells us the unclean were kept back; but by whom they were kept back, it tells not. That it was neither left free to the unclean person to eat of the passover, nor to the Family to admit him, but that there was an authoritative restraint, I prove by this argument. He that was unclean and before his cleasing did eat of the flesh of the Peace-offerings was cut off from among his people Leu. 7. 20. 21, Therefore he that in his uncleanness, did eat the passover, was to be cut off also. No man will say that there was any less punishment intended for the pollution of the passover, than for the pollution of Peace-offerings. And if the unclean were not permitted, under the Law, to eat of the Flesh of the Sacrifices, or if they did they were cut off; shall not as great care be had to keep the body of Jesus Christ (which was signified by the flesh of the sacrifices) and the blood of the Covenant, from being trod under Foot by Dogs and Swine? 2. Neither is there any such reason in that Text Num. 9 as the excluding quite out of the camp, those who were unclean by a dead body, and so by consequence from the passover. Nay the Text rather intimateth, that they were in the camp; for they came before Moses and Aaron on that day, when the passover was kept, and said, We are defiled by the dead body of a man, Wherefore are we kept back. vers. 6. 7. I hope Moses and Aaron were not without the camp. I knew the Lepers and some other unclean persons were put out of the camp; but there is not one of the Texts cited by him which gives the least shadow of reason to prove that the unclean by the dead body of a man were quite excluded out of the Camp, except Num. 5. 2. And if he will believe the Hebrew Doctors, and others upon that place, there were three Camps, the Camp of Israel, the Camp of the Levites, and the Camp of Divine Majesty; f Vatablus in Num. 5. 2. T●ia secundum Hebraeos castra erant. Castra nempe Dei, id est Tabernaculum: Castra levitarum, & castra Israel. Leprosi ab omnibus arcebantur: Impuri per fluxum à primis duobus excludebantur. Pollutus vero propter cadaver solum à tabernaculo Ecclesiae arcebatur. Godwyn in his Moses and Aarom lib. 5. cap. 2. citeth Paulus fagius for the same thing. See also Mr. Wee●…se his Christian Synagogue pag. 135. 136. The unclean by the dead were free (say they) to be in the first two Camps, and were only excluded from the third. However, it's agreed, that some unclean persons were excluded from the Sanctuary, who were not excluded from the camp of the Chidrens of Israel, as is observed by Tostatus in Leu. 12. Quaest 21. Menochius in Num. 5. 2. the English Annotations on Num. 5. 2. and others. And if Master Prynne can prove, that those unclean persons who were excluded from the Sanctuary, were not excluded from the Passeover, let him try it. That this thing may be yet better understood, let us observe with Tostatus in Levit. 22. Quest. 7. a threefold separation of the unclean under the Law: some were separate only from the Sanctuary and the holy things; for he that had but touched a man or a woman, who had an issue, or had touched the Bed, Clothes, or any thing else, which had been under him or her, was not permitted to come unto the Tabernacle, till he was cleansed Leu. 15. Others were separated both from the holy things, and from the company or society of their Neighbours, yet not cast out of the camp: for this he gives the case of women having an issue of blood, who were put apart seven days Leu. 15. and for the same space a woman after the birth of a male Child, was unclean, so far as to be kept apart from human society, but she did continue unclean three and thirty days longer, as to the Sanctuary and hallowed things, during which space of the three and thirty days, she was not separated from company and society, as in the first seven days, only she was forbidden to touch any hallowed thing, or to come into the Sanctuary. There was a third sort separated not only from the Sanctuary, and from humane society, but also cast out of the camp, which was the case of Lepers. I conclude, all unclean persons whatsoever were excluded from the Tabernacle Leu. 15. 31. and from eating of the flesh of the Sacrifices Leu. 7. 20. 21. Neither might any of the Sons of Aaron having his uncleanness upon him eat of the holy things, though it was his Food Leu. 22. v. 2. to 7. in which places cutting off is appointed to be the punishment, not for unclean persons their being in the camp, but for their coming to the Tabernacle, or for their eating of the holy things; and accordingly it is said 2 Chro. 23. 19 that Ichojada set the Porters at the Gates of the house of the Lord, that none which was unclean in any thing should enter in. But we never read that none which was unclean in any thing, was permitted to enter in at the Gates of jerusalem, or to converse among the people. 3 Whereas Master Prynne thinks that unclean persons were excluded from all Ordinances, as well as from the Passeover, first, what saith he to that which Erastus holdeth and (as he thinks) grounded upon Scripture, namely that all unclean persons as well as others, were admitted to the feast of expiation? Next, what saith he to that which is observed by Master Selden and divers others, namely, that some unclean persons might come not only to the mountain of the house of the Lord, but might also enter into the intermurale? Into that utmost Court the heathens might come and pray; & so might the Israelites that were not legally clean saith g De tempfabrie. p. 15. in quod (at●ium) exte●i, id est Gentes, quae Israolis nomen non prosit erentur, conve nire ad orandum poss●nt: & Isr●elitae etiam qui caeremoniali ritu puri non essent: Arias Montanus. The fourth and fifth Answers which Mr. Prynne gives that there is no such warrant for keeping back scandalous persons from the Lords Table, as there was for keeping back the unclean from the Passeover; and that suspension for legal uncleanness: proves not suspension for moral uncleanness, These I say do but petere principium, and therefore to be passedover, because he takes for granted what is in controversy. I shall therefore proceed to that which he addeth in the next place, in answer to an argument of mine in my controversal fast Sermon, (as he miscalleth it) The argument as I did propound it, was this. Those scandalous sinners that were not admitted to offer a trespass offering (which was reconciling ordinance) without confession of sin, and Declaration of their Repentance for the same, were much less admitted to the Passeover (which was a sealing Ordinance) without confession of known and scandalous sins, if they had committed any such. But circumcised persons, if they were scandalous sinners, were not admitted to offer a trespass offering (which was a reconciling Ordinance) without confession of sin and Declaration of their Repentance for the same Leu. 5. 5. 6. Ergo Mr Prynne answereth pag. 17. it's a mere nonsequitur. 1. Because contradicted (as he thinks) by 1 Cor. 10. which is a contrarious argument, and I shall answer it in the proper place. 2. He saith that examination of the Conscience, Repentance, and Confession, are no where required of such as did eat the Passeover, it being only a commemoration of God's mercy in passing over the Israelites first borne, when he slew the Egyptians: but there being no remission without confession, it was necessary that those who came to offer a trespasse-offering for some particular sins, should confess those very sins, yet not to the Priest, but to God alone. Answ. 1. If examination of the Conscience, Repentance, and confession, were not required in those that did eat the Passeover, and if there might be a worthy eating of it without this (as he plainly intimateth when he saith that this is no where required in Scripture, of such as did eat the Passeover, though all circumstances and necessaries for the worthy eating of it, he most punctually enumerated) And if the Passeover was but only a commemoration of God's infinite mercy in passing over the Israelites first borne, as he saith, (which was but a temporal mercy) Then he must needs say, either that in the Sacrament of the Passeover, or confirmation of faith, increase of grace, nor spiritual mercy was given, or that in that Sacrament this grace (yea, by his Principles, conversion and regeneration itself) was conferred ex opere operato. And he must either say the like of the Lords Supper, or otherwise hold that the Sacraments of the new Testament differ from those of the old, specifically; and that the Passeover did not seal the same covenant of grace for the substance, which is now sealed by the Lord's Supper. 2 What was the meaning of the bitter Herbs, with which the Passeover was commanded to be eaten? Were not the people of God thereby taught the necessity of Repentance in that very action? And what means it that at Hezekiahs' Passeover, the people are called to turn again unto the Lord, 2 Chron. 30. 6. that the Priests and the Levites were ashamed and sanctified themselves, vers. 15. & offered Peace-offerings made confession to the Lord God of their fathers, vers. 22. where I understand confession of sin, according to the Law, which appointed confession of sin to be made with the Peace offerings, which confession was signified by laying hands upon the head of the offering Leu. 3. 2. 8. 13. compared with Leu. 16. 21. and so we find Repentance joined with peace offerings. judg. 20. 26. finally read we not of the people's preparing of their heart to seek God at the Passeover 2 Chro. 30. 19 which as it could not be without Repentance and examination of their consciences, so Hezekiah mentioneth it, as that without which the people's eating of the Passeover, could not have been in any wise accepted. 3. That it was not a private confession to God alone, but a public penitential confession in the Temple, and before the Priests, I have before Chap. 8. made it to appear both out of the Text, and out of Philo the jew. This I add here. The Confession of the sin was made in the place of offering the trespass offering, before the Priest, at the laying on of hands between the horns of the beast, therefore it was not made in secret to God only: which doth further appear, by the ●awes concerning such and such Sacrifices, for such and such sins, Leu. 5. and by the restitution which was also joined with the confession Num. 5. 7. And it is also clear from the Jewish h Uide edit. lutin. Cantabr. a●…no. 1631. pag. 5. Eximia laus est paenitentiam agenti, ut publicè confiteatur, iniquitat●s suat toti caetui indicans, & delicta q●ae in proximum admisit, ●liis 〈◊〉 hunc in modum, ●evera pecca●i in N. N. (vitum nominans) & haec & illa seci 〈◊〉 Ecce autem me vobis nunc conv●rtor & me facti paenitet. Q●i verò prae superbia non i●dicat, sed abscondit iniquitates suas, illi perfecta non est paenitentia, Quia dicitu●, Qui abscondit scelera sua, non dirigetur. Canon's paenitentiae cap. 1. & 2. where we find confession of ●inne to be made both by word of mouth, and publicly before the congregation. 4. In stead of making my argument a nonsequitur, he makes it a clarè-sequitur: for the first part of it not being taken off, but rather granted by him, because (as he saith truly) without confession of sin there is no remission of it, hence the other part must needs follow: for if it was in vain so much as to sue for pardon in a reconciling Ordinance, when the sin was not confessed; how much more had it been a taking in vain of the name of God, & a profaning of a sealing Ordinance, to seal up pardon to a scandalous sinner, who had not so much as confessed his scandalous sin, but continued in manifest impetency? But we will try whether his third and last answer can relieve him. It is this: That every particular communicant before he comes to receive the Sacrament, makes a public confession of his sins to God with the rest of the congregation, and in words at least, voweth newness of life for the future, there being no communicant that ever I heard of (saith he) so desperately wicked and atheistical, as not to profess heartily sorrow for all his forepast sins, or to avow impenitent continuance in them when he came to the Lords Table. Behold, what a latitude? If the vilest sinner practically persevering in a scandalous sin, shall but join with, and not gainsay the public confession of the whole congregation (wherein the best men do and aught to join) and in words promise newness of life (and who will not promise to endeavour to live better?) nay if he have but so much wit, as not to profess or avow impenitency: then Mr. Prynne alloweth his admission to the Sacrament. But is this the confession that my argument did prove? nothing like it. It was a particular confession of such a sin by name, Levit. 5. 5. and it shall he when he shall be guilty in one of these things, that he shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing: and with the confession there was a real amendment. For instance, a recompensing of the trespass with the principal, and the addition of a fifth part, when the case did so require, Num. 5. 7. Then they shall confess their sin which they have done, and he shall recompense his trespass, etc. This is that my argument did drive at, and it still stands in force to conclude that the confession of the particular sin which hath given public scandal, i R. Mosis canones panitentiae cap. 2. Quicunque verbis confitetur, & ●x cord non statuit peccacum derelinquere: ecce hic ei similis est qui lavat, & manu reptile immundum retinet: Neque enim quicquam prodest lavatio, donec reptile abjecerit. Et hoc illud est quod a Sapiente illo dicitur. Qui autem confessus fuerit & reliquerit ea, misericordiam consequetur. Quin & oportet ut pecca●um speciatim recenseat: Quia dicitur: Obsecro domine, peccavit populus iste peccatum maximum seceruntque sibi deos anreos. together with the forsaking of it externally and in practice, is so necessary, that without these the admission of a scandalous sinner is a most horrible profanation of the Sacrament. But now finding the argument concerning the Passeover and legal uncleanness to have been more fully prosecuted by Erastus than it is by Mr. Prynne, I do resolve to trace it hard at the heels whithersoever it goeth. CHAP. XI. A Confutation of the strongest arguments of Erastus, namely, those drawn from the Law of Moses. AMong Erastus k Confirm. Thes. lib 1. cap. 3. & 4. his arguments against Excommunication, three of them, namely, the first, the seventh, and the sixteenth, are all one for the substance, the strength of them lying in this supposition, that the Scripture doth not restrain, nor keep off any from the Sacrifices nor any other Sacraments (as he speaketh) of the old Testament, because of a wicked or scandalous conversation: but chose commandeth that all the males both Jew's and foreigners, being circumcised, and not being legally unclean, nor in a journey, should compear thrice in the year before the Lord at jerusalem, to keep the three solemn feasts, of the Passeover, Weeks, and Tabernacles. Now (saith he) Christ hath not in this thing destroyed nor altered the Law of Moses, nor hath he made the rule straiter now than it was then: but as then all circumcised, so now all baptised persons must be acknowledged for Church members, having a right to partake of Church privileges: and as then there was no discipline or punishment for the flagitious and wicked, except by the hand of the Magistrate; so ought it to be in like manner in the Christian Church. This argument he trusteth very much unto. And because it is the common opinion, that the excluding and separating of the unclean under the Law, did signify the excluding of scandalous sinners from communion with the Church, he spendeth l Lib. 2. cap. 1. a long chapter against that opinion, and laboureth to make it appear that the legal uncleanness did signify the corruption of our nature and unbelief; that exclusion from the Temple did signify exclusion from the heavenly Paradise; and that the cleansing and reception into the Temple, did tipyfie the cleansing of our souls, and the turning of us to God by the blood of Jesus Christ. Now here I shall make such animadversions, as shall not only enervate the strength which these arguments may seem to have against Church censures: but also afford some strong reasonings against Erastus, from those very grounds rightly apprehended, from which (upon misapprehensions) he disputeth against the excluding of scandalous sinners. First, it is certain that for divers sins against the moral Law, the sinners were appointed not only to bring their Trespass-offerings, but to confess the sin which they had committed, and to declare their repentance for the same, and till this was done, the Trespasse-offering was not accepted. Let us but have the like, that is a confession of the sin, and declaration of repentance, and then men shall not be excluded for scandals formerly given. m Pag. 106, 107, 148, 149. Erastus himself acknowledgeth that in this point of the confession of sin, the analogy must hold betwixt the old and new Testament; only he pleadeth, that the very act, the very desiring of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, is really a confession that he is a sinner who desireth it: and that, much more, it may suffice, if sinners being asked by the Minister, confess themselves to be sinners, and that they have not perfectly kept the Commandments of God. But all this, say I, can not satisfy the argument drawn from that confession of sin under the Law. For, 1. It was not a confession ipso facto, by the bringing of the Trespass-offerings, but by word of mouth, and n See Ainsworth▪ annot. on Num. 5. 7. thus it hath been expounded by the Hebrew Doctors. The owners of sin and Trespass-offerings, when they bring their oblations for their ignorant or for their presumptuous sins, atonement is not made for them by their oblation, until they have made repentance, and confession by word of mouth. 2. It was not a general confession that one is a sinner, and hath not perfectly kept the Commandments of God, (for who did ever refuse to make such a confession, that were in their right wits? that limitation is as good as nothing, when we speak of the suspending of any from the Lords Table.) But it was a confession of the particular individual sin, which had been committed, Levit. 5. 5. And it shall be when he shall be guilty in one of these things, that he shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing. Mark, in that thing. Num. 5. 7. Then they shall confess their sin which they have done. o Ainsworth on Lev●t. 6 4. Which Law is to be understood of all like sins and trespasses, that is, that other sins which were expiated by Sacrifice, were first to be confessed. All this maketh against Erastus. Next, whereas he saith p Pag. 106. 113. that this confession or declaration of repentance for sin, in the old Testament, had place only in those sins for which the Law appointed no particular punishments: and that there was no confession imposed where the Magistrate was to punish the crime: This with a great deal of boldness and confidence (as his manner is) he doth maintain: Intending thereby (it seems) to exempt from all manner of Church-discipline whatsoever is punishable by the civil Magistrate, as adultery, perjury, and the like. But that which he affirmeth so strongly, is manifestly contrary to the express Law, Levit. 6. from vers. 1. to vers. 8. where wilful lying, and perjury, robbing and violence, fraud and cozenage, all these were to be confessed and expiated by Sacrifice; notwithstanding that they were also to be severely punished by the civil Magistrate. Nay, in that very place it is commanded that what had been violently taken away, or deceitfully gotten, or fraudulently detained, should be restored, and moreover a fifth part added thereto, for a mulct, yet this did not exempt the sinner from making confession. So Num. 5. 6, 7, 8. for one and the same offence the Law enjoineth both that confession be made and expiation; and moreover that recompense be made to the party injured or to his kinsman. Yea the Law, Num. 5. 6, 7. speaketh universally; When a man or woman shall commit any sin that men commit, etc. then they shall confess their sin which they have done. Which made the Hebrews extend this Law to criminal and capital cases, as Mr. Ainsworth upon the place noteth out of these words of Maimony. Likewise, all condemned to death by the Magistrates, or condemned to stripes; no atonement is made for them by their death, or by their stripes, until they have repent and confessed. And so he that hurteth his neighbour, or doth him damage, though he payeth him what ever he oweth him, atonement is not made for him till he confess. Therefore Erastus is still a double loser in arguing from the Law of Moses. It proves not what he would, and it doth prove what he would not. Thirdly, men were kept from the Sanctuary of the Lord, not only for ceremonial, but for moral uncleanness, I mean for public and scandalous sins against the moral Law. Ezech. 44. 7, 9 God was offended when such proselytes were brought into his Sanctuary, as were either uncircumcised in flesh, or uncircumcised in heart; that is, whose practice or conversation did declare them to be uncircumcised in heart: else the Lord would not have challenged those who brought such proselytes into his Sanctuary, if their uncircumcision of heart had not been externally manifested, so that it might be perceived by his people; according to that Psalm 36. 1. The transgression of the wicked saith within my heart, that there is no fear of God before his eyes. To the same purpose we read Ezra 6. 21. not that all proselytes, nor all uncircumcised, but only all such as had separate themselves from the filthiness of the Heathen of the Land, to seek the Lord God of Israel, did eat of the Passeover. Moreover we may argue by a necessary consequence from Scripture. The ceremonial uncleanness was a cause of exclusion from the Sanctuary, and from the holy things. Therefore much more moral uncleanness. It was more sinful in its self, and more abominable in God's sight for those who did steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, and burn Incense to Baal, to come and tread in the Courts of the house of the Lord, and to offer Sacrisices there, as if God's house had been a den of robbers, Isa. 1. 11, 12, 13, 14. jerem. 7. 9, 10, 11. This I say was more abominable to God then if he that had touched a dead body, or had come into the tent where a man died, should have come unto the Tabernacle in his legal uncleanness. Therefore when Christ casteth out the buyers and sellers out of the Temple, it is not for ceremonial but moral uncleanness, and he applieth to them the words of jeremiah, Ye have made it a den of thiefs, Matth. 21. 13. with jerem. 7. 11. And as it was more sinful to the person, and more hateful to God, so it was more hurtful to the souls of others, who were in greater danger of infection from the moral, then from the ceremonial uncleanness. This q Pag. 145. Cum ergo quaeritur cur ei qui semen praeter voluntatem noctu emisit, ad sacra adire non licuerit, priusquàm mundaretur, scortatori autem & concubinario licuerit? respondeo, quia ille ad se appropinquantes contaminabat; hic Deo & sibi immundus tantum erat: aliosque non magis inquinabat, quam si cum uxore legitima cubavisset. Erastus denieth indeed, but his expression is unsavoury and unholy, which I am ashamed to repeat. Sure the Apostle speaketh far otherwise Heb. 13. 15, 16. Lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled; lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau. A profane or scandalous person defileth, you see, many others: and sin was of a defiling nature under the old Testament, as well as under the new. I mean a root of bitterness not plucked up, a profane person not censured, doth defile others, as well as himself. Both Peter and jude have told us, that scandalous persons are spots and blemishes in the communion of Saints, 2 Pet. 2. 13. jude vers. 12. So that as Erastus granteth, that one legally unclean could make others legally unclean among whom he came, and therefore was kept off from fellowship and company with the congregation of God's people: It must likewise be granted, that scandalous persons are to be suspended from the sacred communion of the Christian Church, because if they should be admitted, the Church should be thereby sinfully defiled. For if the saying God speed to a false teacher make us partakers of his evil deeds 2 john 10. how much more doth the admitting of such or the like scandalous sinners to the Lords Table make (I say not all who communicate then and there, but) all who consent to their admission, to be partakers of their evil deeds. Fourthly, whereas r Pag. 140. Quocirca non fuit exclusio haec, qua propter legis immunditiam aliqui prohibebantur venire in caetus publicos, sigu●a rei cujuspiam in hoc seculo complendae, sed i●ago & simulacrum suit rei in altera vita persiciendae. Erastus holdeth that the exclusion of the unclean under the Law, did only typyfie something which is to come to pass in the life to come, that is, the shutting forth of sinners from the Heavenly Paradise, if they be not washed from their silthynesse by the blood of Jesus Christ: and therefore ought not to be unto us any argument for the exclusion of scandalous sinners. I answer, If the shutting out from Heaven was the only thing signified, and if there be a fit analogy or proportion between the Type and the thing typified, than 1. one may be in Heaven and cast out again, and in and out again, as under the Law one might be many times admitted to the Temple and shut out again. 2. It would also follow, that there is some other exclusion greater than the exclusion from Heaven, as under the Law there was a greater exclusion than the exclusion from the Sanctuary, and that was to be cast out from the company and conversation of God's people: s Tostatus in Levit. 12. quast. 21. for though every uncleanness which did exclude one from the company of the Israelites, did also exclude him from the Sanctuary; yet every uncleanness which did exclude one from the Sanctuary, did not exclude him from the company of the Israelites. Even as now among us, suspension from the Lords Table is not the greatest and worst exclusion, but there is another greater than that. Thus you see Erastus could not make his Type agree with his Antitype. Whence it doth further appear that the exclusion of the unclean under the Law, did teach and hold forth somewhat in a political sense, touching the communion and fellowship of the Church in this life. Whatsoever it might signify more, I will not now dispute, but this it did signify. And this I shall so far make good, that I shall at once both answer Erastus, and propound a strong argument for the keeping off from the holy things those that are morally and scandalously encleane. First, let it be remembered that I have proved already from Heb. 13. 15, 16. 2 Pet. 2. 13. jude vers. 12. that the people of God are defiled by communion and fellowship with scandalous sinners. In the second place consider that prophecy, Isa. 52. 1. Put on thy beautiful garments, O Jesusalem, the holy City: for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean. That whole Chapter is a prophecy concerning the condition of the Church in the New Testament, as is evident by six parallels at least. Vers. 5. with Rom. 2. 24. Vers. 7. with Rom. 10. 15. Vers. 10. with Luke 3. 6. the beginning of Vers. 11. with Revel. 18. 4. the following part of Vers. 11. with 2 Cor. 6. 17. Vers. 15. with Rom. 15. 21. Neither is it the Church invisible, but the Church visible, for Vers. 15. is applied to the calling of the Gentiles Rom. 15. 21. and Vers. 11. to the Churches open separation from Babylon, Revel. 18. 4. It is also the Church ministerial Vers. 7, 8, 11. How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, etc. Thy watchmen shall lift up the voice, etc. Be ye clean that bear the vessels of the Lord. It remains to consider what is meant by the unclean, Vers. 1. it cannot be meant of legal uncleanness (the ceremonial Law being abolished) nor of the hid uncleanness of close hypocrites (for in that sense it is only the privilege of the Church triumphant, that no unclean thing, nor no hypocrite shall enter there.) It must therefore be meant of such as are visibly or scandalously unclean. And when it is said, there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised, and the unclean, it must be understood respective, the uncircumcised, signifying such as are not fit to be at all Church-members: the unclean signifying such as are not fit to have communion in the holy things: for so these two were distinguished under the Law. Thirdly, there is another place which (to me) puts it out of controversy, 2 Cor. 6: 14, 15, 16, 17. Where the Apostle exhorteth believers to avoid all intime conversation or fellowship with unbelievers, by marrying with them, by going to the Idol Temples, or the like; he concludeth with a manifest allusion to the legal ceremony, Be ye separate, and touch not the unclean thing, or the unclean things as the Syriac hath it. And what agreement hath the Temple of God with idols, Vers. 16. Where the Syriack readeth thus: And what agreement hath the Temple of God with the temple of Devils? Remember, would the Apostle say, that as under the Law, the touching or eating of unclean things made those that touched them, or did eat of them to be unclean; so doth your fellowship with unbelievers, or your eating in their Idol temples defile you. And as then those that had touched any unclean thing were not received into the Sanctuary, so I will not receive you into fellowship with me and my people, saith the Lord, except you be separate from the sons of Belial. Therefore touch not the unclean thing, and I will receive you: Which is not spoken of receiving us into Heaven, but of receiving us into the Tabernacle of God in this life, as is manifest by Levit. 26. 11, 12. the place cited by the Apostle in the words immediately preceding. And I will set my Tabernacle among you, and my soul shall not abhor you. And I will walk among you, and will be your God, and ye shall be my people. And in this manner, God saith he will not receive us, except we avoid fellowship with the workers of iniquity, especially in holy things. I shall add fourthly, for further clearing of this point in hand, Peter's vision, and the interpretation thereof Act 10. & 11. a passage cited by Erastus pag. 138, 139. while he is proving, that the thing signified by the legal uncleanness, was only the corruption and Infidelity of nature which excludeth a sinner from heaven. The place is so far from proving what he would, that it proveth the contrary; for it speaketh plainly of that uncleanness which excludeth men from fellowship with the Saints in this life; from companying together, from eating together. And when Peter expoundeth the vision, he saith, ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or to come unto one of another Nation: but God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean, meaning for being a Gentile and not a jew. Act. 10. 28. you see, the not eating nor touching of unclean Beasts, Birds, and creeping things (such as Peter saw in the vision) was understood by the people of God, as forbidding their association or fellowship in this world with Heathens, or irreligious persons, and such as walked not according to the Law. And in this sense the Law was understood, not only by Peter, but generally by the Jews Act. 11. 3. Gal. 2. 12. Nay fifthly, the legal uncleanness, in the sense of the Jews, did signify not only such things as did exclude others from fellowship with them, but such as did exclude the Jews themselves from the holy things. Therefore it is said Io. 18. 28. they themselves went not into the Judgement hall, lest they should be defiled: but that they might eat the Passeover: Intimating that if they had gone into the house of an uncircumcised man, or had upon such a day gone into the Judgement Hall about a litigious action, they had been unclean, and so might not eat the Passeover. Whether it were the coming into the house of Pilate, he being a man uncircumcised; or t Tostatus in Matth. 26. quaest. 48. Etiam actus quidam praeter contactum, reddebant homines immundos ad manducandum agnum, vel quaecunque sanctificate, sicut litigare judicialiter, vel intrare in locum Judicii ad litigandum, sic dicitut Io. 18. Lud. Capelli ΕΠΙΚΡΙΣΙΣ de ultimo Christi paschate p. 25. Cum itaque haec una fuerit illarum Traditionum, ut ne die festo capitali judicio vacarent, causa nulla est curex istimemus eos sine necessitate voluisse proprias constitutiones ita pedibus conculcare, & tam solennis festi religionem prophanare. Casaubon Exerc. 16. Anno 34. num. 32. citeth a plain passage in Maimonides declaring that they held it unlawful to judge of capital cases upon the perparation to the Sabbath or to a Holiday. whether it were (which I rather think) a litigious action upon a Holiday, which might have defiled them: this is plain, that they thought there was a moral uncleanness (signified by the ceremonial uncleanness) which might keep men from the Passeover. The fifth animadversion shall be this: whereas Erastus holdeth pag. 106. that under the law every one was judged clean or unclean, according to his own judgement and conscience, and not according to the Priests, the Lepers only excepted; Also that when a man had committed any sin, it was in the free will of the sinner to expiate his sin when he pleased, and he was no way compelled to it. I answer, If every unclean person except the Leper was allowed to judge and pronounce himself clean when he pleased, then to what purpose did u L' Empereur annot. in cod. middoth. p. 40. Arcebantur autem hujusmodi contaminati, donec ca peregissent quae ad reatum caeremonialem quem contraxerant delendum facerent, atque hac ratione suis magistris morem gessissent. The unclean were not permitted to partake of the sacrifices. josephus de bello jud lib. 7. c. 17. that Law serve Leu. 7. 20. 21. or that whoever was unclean and had not purified himself, was not to be admitted to come into the Tabernacle, and if he presumed to come, he was to be cut off from the congregation Num. 19? By Erastus his principles no man should have been cut off, if he had pleaded himself not to be unclean; and how many would do so, if that could save them from being cut off? Is it not also plain from Levit. 15. 15. 30. 31. that both men and women who were unclean by their issues, (not by Leprosy) were to bring an offering to the Priest for their cleansing, otherwise were not to be accounted clean, but looked upon as defilers of the Tabernacle in their uncleanness, whatever they might think of themselves. So women that were unclean after Childbirth, had not power to pronounce themselves clean, and were not free to come to the Sanctuary when they pleased, but they were first to bring a sin offering, and the Priest was to make atonement for them Leu. 12. 6. 7. 8. There was a certain number of days appointed for the cleansing, both of women after Childbirth, and of men who had an issue, yea, when the days of the cleansing were fullfilled, they were not free to come unto the Tabernacle, except they brought their offering for atonement. Leu. 12. 6. 7. & 15. v. 13. 14. 15. Philo the Jew de vita Mosis lib. 3. pag. 531. tells us there was a certain definite time, till the expiring whereof, those that were unclean by a dead body, were excluded from the Temple. josephus' antiq. jud. lib. 3. cap. 10. records the like, not only of Lepers, but of those that had an issue, or were defiled by the dead, that till the set time was fulfilled, all these were kept back from the congregration. The other thing which Erastus saith, that it was left free to the sinner to expiate his sin when he pleased, doth no better agree with the Word. for it was commanded that upon the very knowledge of the sin, the trespass offering should be brought, and the sin confessed Levit. 4. 14. 28. & 5. 3. 4. 5. Sixthly, whereas Erastus pag. 105. urgeth the universal Law, by which all are commanded to keep the Passeover except the unclean, and those in a journey, therefore all others (how flagitious or scandalous soever in their lives) were bound to keep it; I answer. Who knows not, that many universals in Scripture are to be restricted, and not to be understood as the words at first sound? as Io. 2. 10. every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine, that is every Master of a feast Luk. 13. 15. doth not each one of you on the Sabbath lose his Ox or his Ass; that is each one that hath an Ox or an Ass; Io. 10. 8. all that ever came before me were Thiefs and Robbers, meaning whoever before him did make himself the true door, by which the sheep must enter in. So joel. 2. 28. I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh, yet not upon all and every one, but upon those only whom he receiveth in Covenant. Rev. 13. 8. and all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him (the Beast) whose names are not written in the Book of life; yet there have been many reprobates who neither worshipped the Pope nor knew him: but it is meant of all under the power of the Beast. So when all are commanded to keep the Passeover, it must be understood of all sit persons, and such as were not to be excepted. You will say the Law excepteth none, but the unclean, and those in a journey, therefore all others not excepted were to keep it; for where an exception is made from an universal Rule, that Rule is the more sure and certain concerning all other particulars not excepted. To that I answer, Erastus himself addeth another exception, and that is, of the sick who could not be present. The Hebrews make divers other exceptions, for they say, Women and Servants are not bound to appear: but all men are bound except the deaf, and the Dumb, and the Fool, and the little-Child and the Blind, and the Lame, and the defiled, and the uncircumcised; and the old man, and the sick, and the tender and weak which are not able to go up on their Feet. All these eleven are discharged etc. See Ainsworth on Exo. 23. 17. And compare this with Maimonides de Idolol. ch●o. 11. Sect. 18. where he that hearkens to soothsayers, Wizards, Charmers, and the like, is said to be reckoned among Fools and Children whose reason is imperfect. Therefore these were to be excepted as well as Fools and Children, and so were other scandalous persons, which I shall prove anon. A Seventh Animadversion shall be this. Erastus in these Arguments of his from the Law, doth confound Sacraments with Sacrifices (as I touched in the beginning) yea, x Pag. 94. Huc ipso, quod ad expiandum peccatum jubetur adferre Sacrificium, non excluditur à Sacramentis, sed ad ea invitatur; nam o●nnia haec Sacrificia etant vera Sacramenta, he argueth expressly, that whoever were admitted to expiate their Sin by Sacrifices, were thereby admitted to Sacraments, because (saith he) all these Sacrifices were true Sacraments. So he speaketh in other places, that he might seem to dispute the more appositely for promiscuous admission to the Sacrament of the Lord Supper. y Pareus in ●…evit. 4. differunt Sacrificium & Sacramentum; quod Sacrificium est obedientia nostra Deoad mandatum ejus praestita, sive moralis five caerimonialis cum morali conjuncta▪ Sacramentum est Signum gratiae dei erga nos in fide à nobis susceptum. But Sacrifices and Sacraments are as different as Giving and Receiving. In Sacrifices man is the giver, God is the Receiver. In Sacraments God is the Giver, Man is the Receiver. In Sacrifices Peace is made with God. In Sacraments it is sealed and supposed to be made. They therefore that hold the Passeover was a Sacrifice (an opinion partly grounded on Deut. 16. 2. and partly taken from the Jews dispersed, who though they observe divers paschal rites, yet they do not kill the Paschall Lamb, nor keep the Passeover according to the Law, it being to them unlawful to offer Sacrifices, except in the Land of Canaan) have the shorter evasion from Erastus his Argument touching the admission to the Passeover. But I have given other answers. And this much shall suffice for answer to the Erastian Arguments drawn from the Law of Moses, which some suppose to be the strongest. CHAP. XII. Fourteen Arguments, to prove that scandalous and presumptuous Offenders against the moral Law (though circumcised and not being legally unclean) were excluded from the Passeover. THere is so much weight laid, both by Erastus himself, and by Master Prynne, upon the universal Law commanding all that were circumcised to eat the Passeover, except such as were legally unclean, or were in a journey: that I am resolved, once for all, to demonstrate against them, that men were excluded from the Passeover, for scandalous and enormous Trespasses against the moral Law, as well as for legal uncleanness. Peradventure it will seem to some, that I undertake to prove a paradox, and to walk in an untrodden or obscure Path. Yet my Arguments are such, as I trust shall weigh much with intelligent men. The first Argument shall be this. (which is hinted by Ursinus and Pareus Explic. catechit. Quest. 85. art. 2.) Whosoever by God's appointment were excluded from the privileges of Church Members, and not to be reckoned among the Congregation of Israel, those were by God's appointment excluded from the Passeover. But whosoever committed any scandalous sin presumptuously, or with an high hand, were by God's appointment excluded from the privileges of Church Members and not to be reckoned among the Congregation of Israel. Ergo. The Proposition hath this manifest reason for it. Those all who were commanded to eat the Passeover, cannot be understood to be of a larger extent than the Church of Israel: Those therefore who were not to be acknowledged or used as Church-Members, were by God's appointment excluded from the Passeover. The Assumption is proved from Numb 15. 30. 31. But the soul that doth aught presumptuously (whether he be born in the land, or a stranger) the same reproacheth the Lord, and that soul shall be cut off from among his people, Because he hath despised the word of the Lord, and hath broken his commandment, that soul shall utterly be cut off: his iniquity shall be upon him. The presumption here spoken of, is not only the presumption of heart (saith Cajetan) of which God only is Judge, but a presumption manifested in word or work, which he conceives to be intimated by the Hebrew phrase, with an high hand. Grotius understands one that either denies that there is a God, or that the Law was given by God, or after admonition goeth on in his trespass. But sure he mistakes the punishment, which he understands to be extrajudicial, and that he who finds one thus sinning presumptuously, may kill him ex jure Zelotarum, as Phinehes did kill Zi●…i and Cosbi. I have spoken before of the cutting off, which I will not here resume. Only this, such presumptuous and contumacious sinners were not to be reckoned among the people of God, nor to enjoy the privilege of Church Members, therefore not admitted to the Passeover. Secondly, josephus de bello jud. lib. 7. cap. 17. speaking of such as were permitted to eat the Passeover, in the time of Cestius, doth thus design them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, being all of them pure and holy, not only pure from legal uncleanness, but such as were also esteemed holy. But moreover, it is clear from Io. 18. 28, they themselves (the Jews) went not into the Judgement Hall lest they should be defiled: but that they might eat the Passeover: that the Jews did so understand the Law, that moral as well as ceremonial uncleanness, did render them uncapable of the Passeover: for they had no such ceremonial Law, that they who come into the Judgement Hall, should be legally or ceremonially unclean: yet this had disabled them from eating the Passeover: for they held litigious or forensical actions unlawful upon a holy day as Capellus, and Casaubon (above cited) do prove. Such a finfull and scandalous act had kept them back from the Passeover. Thirdly, if we consult the Chaldee paraphrase upon Exod. 12. 43. it saith thus. Every Son of Israel, who is an Apostate, shall not eat of it. And upon the same place Master Ainsworth proves out of Maimonides that no Apostate nor Idolater was permitted to eat of the Passeover. Yea, some Israelites who were not apostates, nor idolaters, were for a seandalous action excluded from civil, how much more from Ecclesiastical fellowship? See Maimon; of Idolatry cap. 9 Sect. 15. With an Israelite, who hath made defection to the worship of Idols, it is forbidden to have traffic or commerce either in his going or returning: with another Israelite going to the Markets and Fairs of Heathens, we are only forbidden to have commerce in his returning. If it was unlawful to them, so much as to have civil commerce with an Israelite coming from the Markets of Heathens (fearing lest he had sold some what which was dedicated to Idolatry, as the reason is there given) although he was no Apostate nor Idolater: it is not easily ●imaginable, that such a one was freely admitted to the Passeover. Fourthly, an Israelite though circumcised, and not legally unclean, yet if he either turned Idolater, or an Heretic, or an Epicurean, was no longer acknowledged to be in Church-Fellowship or Communion, therefore rendered uncapable of the Passeover. Is. Abrabanel in his Book de capite fidei, as he showeth whom they esteemed Apostats or Heretics cap. 12. so he also intimateth that such were excluded from the communion of their Law Cap. 3. dub. 5. none being acknowledged to be in the Communion of Israel, who did not believe the Articles of faith professed in the Jewish Church Cap. 6. yea, he tells us Cap. 24. (which the Talmud itself saith ●…it. Sanhedrin. cap. 11. Sect. 1.) that Heretical or Epicurean Israelites were looked upon as excluded from having portion in the world to come. And as Doctor Buxtorf showeth out of their own writers, they esteemed an Heretical Israelite to be so abominable, that they did strait and without delay excommunicate him. Lexic. Chald. Talm. & Rabbin. pag. 195. How is it then imaginable that they admitted such a one to eat the Passeover? Let us hear R. Moses Maimonides himself de Idololatria cap. 2. Sect. 8. An Idolatrous Israelite is as an Heathen in all things which he doth etc. So also Israelites who are Epicures are not esteemed to be Israelites in any action of theirs etc. Now they are Epicures who ask counsel from the thoughts of their own mind, being Ignorant of those things we have spoken of, until having transgressed the chief heads of the Law, they offend by contumacy and presumption, and say there is no sin in this thing. But it is forbidden to speak with them or to answer them; for it is said, come not near the door of her house Prov. 5. 8. Therefore the whorish woman that Solomon speaks of, was (in the opinion of Maimonides) such a one as was not to be esteemed as an Israelite, nay nor such as was to be spoken with, much less to be admitted to the Passeover. yea, Maimonides de Idal. cap. 10. Sect. 2. saith yet more. But those Israelites which forsake their religion, or become Epicures we are bidden kill them and persecute them even unto hell. How could they then admit to the passover those whom they thought themselves obliged to persecute even unto hell? Fifthly, those Arguments which prove an exclusion of known profane persons from the Temple, will also prove an exclusion of known profane persons from the Passeover: for none might eat of the Passeover, who might not also come into the Temple. That scandalous profane persons might not come into the Temple, hath been proved already. Sixthly, I argue from the lesser to the greater. If men were to be kept back for legal uncleanness, much more for moral uncleanness, this being more hateful to God and more hurtful to men then the other. This just consequence Grotius annot. in Luk. 6. 22. doth admit. If by the Law saith he, one that was leprous or had a filthy scab, was separated from men's company, lest he should infect others, it was no ill consequence. that (if no heavier thing) this at least should be imposed on flagitious & wicked persons, who did by the contagion of their sinful example hurt others, & bring a reproach upon the whole congregation from which the congregation could not be made free, but by some public detestation of that wickedness▪ thus Groti: Seventhly, the purging out of leven from the Congregation of Israel, was a significant teaching Ceremony▪ holding forth this duty, that the Church ought to put away wicked persons from among them; for so doth the Apostle expound it 1. Cor. 5. vers. 6. 7. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? purge out therefore the old leaven. Which relateth not only to the purging of their own hearts, but to the purging of the Church, and the putting away of that wicked person, this being the scope of the whole Chapter. Now the moral signification of that ceremony of purging out the leaven, did concern the Church of Israel as well as the Christian Church; even as the divers washings under the Law did teach and hold forth the duty of sanctification and purity to the people of God at that time, as well as typify the sanctification of the Christian Church. Eighthly, though the hallowed bread might in case of necessity be lawfully given to David and his men, (the Ceremonials of the first Table yielding to the Substantials of the second) yet Abimelech the Priest would not adventure to give it, till he understood that the young men had then kept themselves at least from women, 1 Sam. 21. 4, 5, 6. this being a part of that sanctification which was required in those who did partake of holy things, not only among the Hebrews, but among other Nations, as Hugo Grotius noteth upon the place, and upon Exod. 19 15. Now the Shewbread, or the twelve loaves which did show or present the people to God, can not be supposed to be holier than the Paschall Lamb which did show or present Christ to the people, and was a Sacrament or Seal of the covenant of grace. David also and his men in that danger of their lives had as good right to eat the Shewbread, as any Israelite could pretend to for his eating the Passeover: yea that was a substantial duty of the second Table, which Christ himself justifieth: this was a ceremonial duty of the first Table, and grounded on a positive law. This therefore doth afford me an argument with manifold advantages. For if the Shewbread might not be given to David and his men in their extreme necessity, unless they had for a certain space before abstained from the use of their wives, otherwise lawful: how much less might the Passeover be given as an holy Ordinance (which did not concern the saving of men's lives in extreme necessity) to scandalous persons living in known whoredom and adultery? Ninthly, I argue from that place, Ezech▪ 22. 26. Her Priests have violated my law and have profaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane. Will any man say, that they were to put a difference between the holy and profane in other Ordinances, and not in the Passeover? and why not in the Passeover, as well as in other Ordinances? If such difference was to be put in the Passeover, then how shall one imagine that no man was kept back from the Passeover because of known profaneness or moral uncleanness? for what difference was put between the holy and profane, when the profane were received as well as the holy? Mr Coleman held that this Text reacheth not to the keeping pure of the Ordinances by any act of government, but only that the Priests did profane the holy things in their own practice, by eating in their uncleanness, and also in their ministry because they taught not the children of Israel to put a difference between the clean and the unclean. Maledicis pag. 11. But the Text gives not the least ground to restrain this fault of the Priests here reproved, either to their personal actions, or to their doctrinal ministry. Nay the Text will reach to an act of government neglected; for the word here used to express the distinguishing or putting of a difference between the holy and profane is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is often used in Scripture to express an act of government or authority, whereby one person is separated or distinguished from another person, or one thing from another thing, as Ezra 8. 24. Then I separated twelve of the chief of the Priests, etc. Ezra 10. 8. all his substance should be forfeited, and himself separated from the congregation. Here it signifieth such a separation, as was a public censure: why not also Ezech. 22. 26? The same word is used in the story of the division of the Land by joshua, josh. 16. 9 And the separate Cities for the children of Ephraim. It is used also to express Gods dividing of light from darkness, Genes. 1. 4. also his separating of Israel from all other Nations, Levit. 20. 24. And whereas Mr Coleman did take hold of the following words in that place of Ezechiel, neither have they showed difference between the unclean and the clean, as being merely doctrinal. First, (if it were so) how will it appear that these words are exegetical to the former, and that the putting of difference between the holy and profane, mentioned in the former words, was only meant of showing the difference doctrinally? or why may we not rather understand, that the Priests are charged with neglect of duty both in Doctrine and Government. Secondly, even that latter word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fecerunt scire, the Septuagints render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and they use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Synonymous with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: by all these (signifying to separate or to divide) they render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yea the Septuagints express a forensical censure or judicial separation by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Ezra 108. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So that when they retalne the same word in rendering 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this Text of Ezekiel, they do thereby intimate that the latter word will reach a power which was more than doctrinal, as well as the former. Which I do the rather assert, because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken by the Septuagints (not seldom) as agreeing in signification with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de voluntate sua certiorem reddidit, constituit, decrevit: so that it will reach the making of others to know a thing, not only doctrinally, but by rules, Canons, Statutes, and Government. Yea 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will reach the teaching or making men to know by censures or punishments inflicted, as judg. 8. 16. Gedeon took briers and thorns 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pagnin, & confregit. and he broke with these the men of Succoth. Hierome, & contrivit. The Septuagints 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comminui●…. The English Translation, and with these be taught (in the Margin made to know) the men of Succoth. For this signification of the word, namely conterere, Arias Montanus in his Hebrew Lexicon citeth Isa. 53. 3. Ezech. 19 7. So conteri Psalm 74. 5. Prov. 10. 9 Upon this last place Mercerus tells us that the Hebrews do not only admit this sense of that Text, but in other places also take the same word pro confringi. So that without the least violence to the Text in Ezekiel it may be thus read; They have not separated (or put difference) between the holy and profane, neither have they broken (or divided) between the unclean and the clean. The latter part seemeth to charge the Priests with the admission of such as were legally unclean; the former part, with the admission of such as were morally unclean or profane, to such ordinances as were appointed only for the holy and clean. Tenthly, Heathens or strangers who were not Proselytes of the covenant or of righteousnessè, were not permitted to eat of the Passeover. Now one that is by profession a Church member, but living in profaneness and scandalous wickedness, aught to be esteemed as an Heathen, Matth. 18. 17. yea as worse than an Infidel, 1 Tim. 5. 8. Hence was it that the word Heathen was used for an irreligious or wicked man, as is observed by Mathias Martinius in lexic. philol. pag. 717. 718. and as a discriminating name from believers; so Zonaras in Cone. Carthag. Can. 24. When David speaks of his persecuting wicked enemies, though Israelites, he calls them strangers and heathen, Psal. 54. 3. Psal. 59 5. How then can it be supposed, that those who were esteemed as heathens, were admitted to all Church privileges, as well as the best Israelites? Eleventhly, that which was among the Jews a sufficient cause to deny circumcision to him who desired to be admitted and received into the Jewish Church as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gerard ben berith, a proselyte, son of the covenant, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gerard tsedeck, a proselyte of righteousness, was also a sufficient cause to deny the Passeover to a proselyte who desired to eat it. Even as now that for which we may and aught to refuse Baptism to one that desireth it, must needs be also a cause and reason to refuse the Lords Supper to him that desireth to receive it; for he that is not fit to be baptised, is much less fit to receive the Lords Supper. But profaneness or a scandalous conversation was among the Jews a sufficient cause and reason to refuse Circumcision. Yea as Dr Buxtorf tells us in Lexic. Chald. Talm. & Rabbin. pag. 408. before the Jews would circumcise or baptise a proselyte (for after circumcision they did baptise him) they did first examine him exactly, and prove him narrowly, whether he desired to be a proselyte, from covetousness, ambition, fear, the love of an Israelitish virgin, or the like sinister end. If upon examination it did appear that he was not moved by any worldly consideration, but by affection to Religion and the glory of God, than they proceeded to set before his eyes the strictness of the law, and how straight and narrow a path he must walk in, telling him also of the persecutions and tribulations of Israel. If after all this trial they found him steadfast in his desires and resolutions, than they received him, he being first instructed in the Articles of their faith, and in the Commandments of the Law. How much less would they have circumcised a scandalous person, being so far from any hopeful signs of sincerity, that he had the black marks of a worker of iniquity? And if they would not receive such a scandalous flagitious person to circumcision, how could they receive such a one (being circumcised) to the Passeover? Twelfthly, compare Ezra 6. 21. with Ezra 10. 16, 17. First it is marked Ezra 6. 21. that such proselytes did eat the Passeover with the children of Israel, as had separated themselves unto them from the filthiness of the Heathen of the Land, to seek the Lord God of Israel. If those who did eat were thus qualified, it is not obscurely intimated, that those who were not thus qualified did not eat. And if no proselyte who did not separate himself from the filthiness of the Heathen, was allowed to eat the Passeover, then muchless was an Israelite who did not separate himself from the silthynesse of the Heathen, allowed to eat it. I like well Beda his observation upon Ezra 10. 16, 17. Israel was purged from unlawful marriages, and the strange wives put away; and this work was ended against the beginning of the first month, to the intent that none defiled with unlawful marriages might eat the Passeover, Ut ante initium mensis primi consummarentur omnes qui prophano erant connubio maculati, id est a tali scelere purgarentur, quatenus ipsum mensem primum in quo erat pascha faciendum, mundi intrarent, mundi paschalia festa peragerent etc. Thirteenthly, I argue from the signification of the legal or ceremonial uncleanness, and from that which was signified by the exclusion of those that were legally unclean. Without all controversy the keeping back of such, was a significant ceremony. For all the legal ceremonies concerning cleanness or uncleanness were teaching ceremonies, and are therefore called Doctrines, Matth. 15. 9 Col. 22. 2. What was taught and signified thereby, I have before showed, namely, that profane ones be not admitted to fellowship with God's people in their holy things. Yea, was not profaneness and open wickedness more hateful to God than legal uncleanness? yes saith Erastus pag. 144. because God appointed greater punishments for the former then for the latter: the greater crimes were punished by fire and sword, stoning, hanging; the smaller by mulcts, and stripes. But yet (say I) by his grounds the legal uncleanness was more hateful to God than profaneness and wickedness, in reference to fellowship in the holy things, (for that is the point) He holds that the most flagitious and profane were commanded of God to eat the Passeover, and yet those that were only jegally unclean were forbidden: though the Scripture say, Prov. 15. 8. & 21. 27. that the Sacrifice of the wicked is abomination to the Lord, and the oblations of those whose hands were full of blood, his soul hated, and he could not away with them▪ Isa. 1. 11, 12, 13, 14. and when they came to his house, he told them, When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hands, to tread my courts? I shall not need to insist here, upon the excluding of bond servants, and those that were bought with money, from the Passeover, and the admitting only of those that were free. Which z Lavater hom. 23. in Ezram. some of the Zurik Divines themselves have interpreted to signify the exclusion of those who are servants of sin, and of those who seek only the things of the earth. But there is one argument more (it shall be the last) which doth convince me, that others besides the uncircumcised, and they that were legally unclean, even those that had scandalously transgressed the moral Law, were excluded from the Passeover. The ground of my argument is that whereof I have spoken before, the law for confession of sin and declaration of repentance; without which the Trespasse-offering was not accepted Levit. 5. 5, 6. which Law is extended to every known sin that was to be expiated by Sacrifice, Numb. 5. 6, 7. When a man or woman shall commit any sin that men commit, to do a trespass against the Lord (the 70 read, and despising he despise; to note rebellion or co●macy) and that person be guilty (that is be found guilty, or when the sin shall be known, so the phrase of being guilty is explained, Levit. 4. 13, 14.) Then they shall confess their sin which they have done. After which follows restitution to the party wronged, and atonement made by the Priest. Whence I argue thus. If the scandalous persons were not admitted to the Trespass offering (which was a reconciling Ordinance) without confession of their sin, which was known to have been committed by them, much less were they admitted to the Passeover (which was a sealing Ordinance) without such confession of their sin. But scandalous persons were not admitted to the Trespasse-offering, (which was a reconciling Ordinance) without confession of their sin which was known to have been committed by them. Therefore much less were they admitted to the Passeover, (which was a sealing Ordinance) without such comession. This argument I did before Chap. 10. vindicate from Mr. Prynne. I will here further strengthen it, and vindicate it from another exception, which peradventure will be made against it. The proposition is certain: for some are called to make their peace with God, who can not have any assurance sealed unto them, that their peace is made with God; But if God will not be reconciled, he will far less seal reconciliation. There is no peace to the wicked saith God, how much less can their peace be sealed to them? The assumption is manifest from the Scriptures last cited. And if any shall say that the Law, Levit. 5. is meant only of private sins, and those of ignorance, which so soon as they come to knowledge, are to be confessed: I answer. 1. It's more than can be proved, that only private sins and those of ignorance are there meant of. Of this I have spoken elsewhere. But be it so. If some private sins, yea sins of ignorance were to be publicly confessed when they were known, how much more were public and scandalous sins to be publicly confessed? 2. The Hebrews understand the Law of confession to be extended to all sins whatsoever that were expiated by Sacrifice, and that before atonement could be made, the sinner must make confession and say, O God I have sinned, and done perversely, I have trespassed before thee, and have done thus and thus: and lo I repent and am ashamed of my doings, and I will never do this thing again. 3. In all Sacrifices for atonement or expiation a man laid his hand upon the head of his offering, Levit. 1. 4. Exod. 29. 10, 15, 19 This laying on of hands was the rite used in confession of sin, whereby a man did profess that he was worthy to be destroyed for his sin, and that he laid his sin upon the beast which was killed in his stead, thereby figuring that upon Christ are laid the iniquities of us all. And with the laying on of hands upon the Sacrifice, confession of sin was made by word of mouth; which as it is the judgement of a Tostatus in Levit. 1. quaest. 15. Ainsworth on Levit. 1. 4. Interpreters, so it is easily proved from Levit. 16. 21. And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live Goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the Goat. Whereupon I conclude, that any sin which was expiated by Sacrifice, whether a public or secret offence, was confessed before it was expiated. 4. The Law Numb. 5. 6. extends confession to any sin that men commit, as hath been before observed. 5. Philippus Gamachaeus a learned Doctor of Sorbon, comment. in tertiam partem Thomae, de Paenitentiae Sacramento cap. 13. doth ingenuously acknowledge, that the foresaid law of Moses, concerning confession of sin, is no warrant for their private auricular, and Sacramental confession, b Deinde nec Judaei confiteban● peccata omnia exactè, accuratè, sicut nos; non enim peccata interna & mentalia, sed solùm externa, quae opere ipso consummata essent, & in exteriorem actum trans●issent etc. Tertiò, nec Judaei omnia externa peccata in confession declarabant, sed praesertim notoria & publica, ut fert opinio probabilior. because the Jews were not by that Law bound to confess any other sins, but sinful actions or external transgressions, nor all such, but chiefly the notorious and scandalous sins. If he had perceived the least colour of an argument, from that Mosaical Law, for the necessity of confessing private sins to the Priest, surely he had taken hold of it, and had not quit it. CHAP. XIII. Master Prynnes Argument from 1 Cor. 10. (which he takes to be unanswerable) discussed and confuted. MAster Prynne in the 15. page of his Vindication endeavoureth to prove, that spiritual pollution by reason of gross and scandalous sins, did not debaree them that were circumcised from the Passeover. as Paul (saith he) expressly determines 1 Cor. 10. 1. to 10. (an unanswerable Text to this purpose) moreover Brethren I would not that ye should be ignorant that: (the Text saith how that) all our Fathers were under the Cloud, and all passed through the Sea, & were all Baptised unto Moses in the Cloud & in the Sea; and did all eat the same spiritual meat (to wit the Passeover and Manna) and did: all drink of the same spiritual drink, for they drank of the Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. But perhaps all these Communicants were visible Saints, free from any legal pollution, at least not Tainted with any scandalous sin: The Apostle to take off this evasion, subjoins, in the very next words. But with many of them, God was not well pleased, etc. So that the Israelites being once circumcised, were all admitted to eat the Passeover, though some of them were Idolaters, others lustres after evil things; others fornicators, others tempters of Christ; others murmurers against God and Moses. The same argument he hinteth pag. 9 to prove the like under the Gospel. It's one of Erastus his arguments, Confirm. Thes. pag. 118. 119. and as colourable as any other, yet not unanswerable as Master Prynne holds. For 1. though he saith the Apostle clearly determines, that those who were tainted with gross and scandalous sins, were admitted to the Passeover; yet I find nothing of the Passeover, neither in the Text, nor in the sense of any Interpreter which I have looked upon. Nay, it did not so much as fall in the thoughts of Erastus himself; for Beza having objected to him that he ought to have compared our Sacraments with the purely sacred Feasts in the old Testament rather than with the manna, and with the water of the Rock, which were for corporal nourishment; Erastus replieth nothing concerning the Passeover (which had been his best answer if he had seen any probability for it,) only he saith that he compareth our Sacraments with the manna and the water of the Rock, as the Apostle doth before him. 2. The Text itself seemeth rather to determine clearly, that the Passeover is not there intended for all the other particulars there mentioned did agree to all the Israelites, men, women, and Children: all these were under the Cloud, and all these passed through the Sea, and all these drank of the water of the Rock; and why shall we not understand, that all these did also eat of the same spiritual meat, that is of the Manna, not of the Passeover, of which women and Children under 13 years of age did not eat: neither did all the males above 13 years eat of it▪ for the unclean were excluded by the Law: those that were in a journey did not eat of it nor the hired Servant: the sick saith Erastus did not eat of it: the Jews exclude also the Dumb and the Deaf. If it be said, that vers. 1. speaketh only of the Fathers, and that therefore the Text is not to be understood of women and Children also. I answer, This is as inconsequent, as if one would argue, Paul saith Men, Brethren, and Fathers, therefore no women were among that multitude of the people Act. 21. 35. 36. 39 40. or thus, the Apostle saith Brethren pray for us, therefore he desires not believing Sisters to pray for him. In this same Text in hand, the Apostle speaks to the whole Church of Corinth, to make them afraid of God's judgements if they sin as the Israelites did. If he had argued only from the sin and judgement of the men, and not also of the women in the wilderness, the women in Corinth had so much the less applied it to themselves. But if I should grant (which will never be proved) that by the Fathers are understood the men only, yet it cannot be said that as all the men of Israel were Baptised in the Cloud and Sea, and all of them drank of the same spiritual drink which came out of the Rock, so all of them did eat the Passeover▪ for even of the males divers were excluded from the Passeover, as the unclean, the hired Servant, the Child, the sick, etc. so that this would make the Apostles argumentation running upon a fivefold all to hang ill together. I had not insisted at all upon this, but to show the weak grounds of Mr. Prynnes strong confidence. 3. If this argument of his hold good, he must grant by Analogy that all Baptised persons must be admitted to the Lords Table, though they be Idolaters, fornicators, etc. which as it is contrary to the Ordinance of Parliament, so to his own professed Tenants, for he professeth otherwhere, he is not for the admission of scandalous persons to the Sacrament, and that he would have them in case of obstinacy, not only suspended from the Sacrament, but excommunicated from all other Ordinances, till public satisfaction given for the scandal, and till external symptoms of repentance appear. So the Antidote animadverted tells us and his own vindication pag. 50. If this be his mind, than it is incumbent to him to lose his own knot, all circumcised persons though Tainted with gross scandalous sins, as Idolatry, and Fornication, were admitted to the Passeover, and so it ought to be under the Gospel. If he say that those scandalous sinners in the wilderness had not been admonished, were not obstinate, or that they professed repentance, and promised amendment, and did not in the mean while persevere in their wickedness, but satisfied for the scandal: first how proves he that? next, in so saying he will answer for us as well as for himself, and his argument (if all granted) cannot prove that such scandalous sinners as have manifest symptoms of impenitency, or do not confess and forsake their sin, may be admitted to the Lords Table. 4. The Manna and the water out of the Rock, though they had a spiritual and evangelical signification, and di● typify Jesus Christ, yet they were also the ordinary Food and Drink of the people in the wilderness: so that if scandalous sinners had been excluded from partaking of these, they had been deprived of their ordinary daily corporal nourishment; which makes a vast difference between their case in the wilderness, and ours at the Lord's Table. 5. The Apostle speaks of those scandalous sins, as committed, not before, but after the eating of that spiritual meat, and drinking of that spiritual drink; first this is clear of their Baptism in the Cloud and in the Sea, which was at their passing through the Red Sea, Exod. 14. before any of the gross and scandalous sins there mentioned were committed; and therefore was not pertinent to be objected. Immediately thereafter they did eat of the spiritual meat, that is of the manna Exo. 16. and drank of the spiritual drink, that is of the Water out of the Rock which followed them Exod. 17. to give drink to my people, my chosen saith the Lord Isa. 43. 20. Now after those men had eaten of the spiritual meat, and drunk of the spiritual drink, they did fall into Idolatry, Fornication, etc. and this is all which the Apostle saith, thereby warning the Corinthians not to presume upon their partaking in the Ordinances, nor to think all well with themselves, because they were Baptised, and had eaten and drunk at the Lords Table; for after all this they had need to take heed, lest they fall in foul sins, and lust after evil things, and so draw upon themselves the heavier judgements. That which Master Prynne takes for granted (upon a marvellous mistake of the Apostles words) he hath yet to prove, that is, that after some of them had fallen into Idolatry, others into fornication, others into murmuring against God, those who were known to have committed those gross and scandalous sins, were allowed and admitted, as before, to eat of the spiritual meat, and drink of the spiritual drink. I mean not only the Passeover, (which is not at all meant in this Text) but even from the Manna and the water of the Rock those scandalous sinners were cut off by death, except such of them as did repent and turn, for whom atonement was made to God. As soon as Moses came into the camp, he gave a charge to slay every man his Brother, and every man his companion which had committed the sin of Idolatry: and for the rest who survived Moses made atonement, and got an answer of Peace from God, concerning them. Exo. 32. & 33. We read also that the Lord plagued the people, because of their Idolatry Exo. 32. 35. and the people did mourn and humble themselves and cast off their Ornaments Exo. 33. 4. So that (I am sure) the first case mentioned by the Apostle maketh much against our Opposites. The second example is the matter of Peor, where they did fall both into Idolatry and Fornication together; but what came of it? Moses gave a charge to the Judges of Israel, to slay every one his men that were joined to Baal Peor Numb. 25. 5. and there died also of the Plague 24000. v. 9 But what was the people's part in Repenting? vers. 6. tells us, that all the congregation of the Children of Israel were weeping before the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation; and for those that remained alive, Phinehes made atonement, and the Lord smelled a savour of rest vers. 11. 13. As for the third case, instanced by the Apostle, which is the tempting of Christ, much people of Israel died for it, and the remnant did repent, and confess that particular sin that they had spoken against the Lord and against Moses, and therefore did desire Moses, to pray unto the Lord for them. Num. 21. 6. 7. Lastly, for that of murmuring, those that had the chief hand in it died of the Plague, Num. 14. 37. and the people mourned greatly, and confessed, We have sinned vers. 34. 40. And thus by searching for an Answer to our Opposites argument, we have found this argument against them. If God himself did execute such Discipline upon those who were tainted with the gross and scandalous sins of Idolatry, Fornication, etc. That he would not permit them to enjoy their former liberty of eating of the Manna, and drinking of the Water of the Rock, (being spiritual meat, and spiritual drink, as Typifying Christ, though appointed of God also for ordinary daily food and drink to his people) until they mourned, repent, confessed, and atonement was made for them: It is much less the will of God, that such scandalous sinners, as are manifestly impenitent and manifestly not reconciled to God, should be admitted and received to the Lords Supper, which is an Ordinance purely spiritual. But the former part is true. Therefore so is the latter. 6. Another Answer I shall add, (though I need add no more) Those sins mentioned by the Apostle were not scandals given by a few persons, nor yet by a few Families, nor by a Tribe, but they were common national sins; and so fall not within the verge of our Controversy, which is not concerning the suspending of a scandalous Nation from the Sacrament, for some national sin; but concerning the suspension of scandalons persons for their personal public offences. If it be objected unto me, that the Apostle saith, that some of them were Idolaters, and some of them did commit Fornication, etc. I answer, when he saith some, he saith so in reference to the All which had gone before, that is, all the Israelites who did eat of the Manna and drink of the water of the Rock, during the 40 years in the wilderness, successively: so that he makes a distribution of Israel in the wilderness, comparing one passage with another, not distributing those that lived together at one and the same time. And that it must needs be so understood I prove from Exo. 32. where we find all the people falling into Idolatry, so Num. 14. 2. And all the Children of Israel murmured against Moses and against Aaron. The other two are also called the sins of the people, and of Israel, and the people were punished, and for one of them all the Heads of the people commanded to be hanged. Num. 21. 5. 6. & 25. 3. 4. Peradventure every one did not act in each of these sins, but yet they were national (as we call national) sins, the generality of the Children of Israel, either acting or partaking therein. In such a case Augustine thought fit to suspend the exercising of Excommunication for the sin of drunkenness rather than to excommunicate all Africa. These are my six answers to Master Prynnes unanswerable argument. The end of the first Book. AN APPENDIX To the First Book: Containing an additional debate concerning the Jewish Church-Government and Censures. I Have said enough (as I suppose) of a Church-Government and Church-Censures distinct from Magistracy and civil Justice among the Jews, whereby the seeming Old Testament strength of the Erastians', is sufficiently yea abundantly broken; And now it appeareth how ill grounded that Assertion is which did lately come abroad in the Discourse entitled, The difference about Church-government ended Pag. 8. Moses was first the sole Ruler, etc. Afterwards when Kings reigned in Israel, King Solomon put Abiathar the high Priest from his Office, setting up Zadok, and David distinguished the courses of the Priests, and other godly Kings from time to time ruled in things Ecclesiastical, and Priests never; till that after their return from the Babylonish captivity, etc. And no better grounded are the first five questions in Mr Prynne his Diotrephes catechised, in which he doth intimate that there was no distinct Ecclesiastical jurisdiction among the Jews, and that all scandalous sins and offences now pretended to be of Ecclesiastical cognisance, were by Gods own institution throughout the old Testament, inquireable, examinable, determinable, and punishable only by the temporal Magistrates or ●ivill powers, not by any Ecclesiastical persons or Officers. But when he should prove that there was no Ecclesiastical jurisdiction distinct from the civil, he brings many Scriptures to prove that there was a civil jurisdiction and civil or temporal punishments in the Old Testament. How cold the consequence from hence will be, against Church-Government, the intelligent Reader cannot but perceive. The most of that strength which doth militate against these Erastian Principles, is presented and drawn up in this preceding Book. That which I now intent is only an additional debate. And first of all it is to be observed that the same point of Controversy is debated a S●…e A●…psiagius Di●…p: adv. Anabapt. pag. 276. joh. Cloppenburg. in Gangraena Theol. Anabapt. part. 3. Disp. 11. citeth these words out of a book of the Anabaptists de Censur. Eccles. Ante adventum Christi tempore veteris Testamenti, unicum tantum institutum suisse regimen, ac non nisi unicam punitionem, videlicet d m●…gistratu exercendam secundum scriptam lagem à Mose traditam: quâ luendum erat vel in bonis vel in corpore, ●…c sustinenda aut Mors, aut carcer, aut muleta pecuniaria: quae omnia politici 〈◊〉, non Ecclesiastici judicii. In opposition hereunto he addeth. In Ecclesiis reformatis creditur ex verbo Dei, fuisse à Deo jam olim in U. T. 〈◊〉 duplex regimen, duplici officio gubernátionis, qua politicae, qua Ecclesiasticae; distinctum. with the Anabaptists, they holding as the Erastians' do, that in the old Testament, there was but one kind of government, one kind of jurisdiction, one kind of punishment, and that it was Civil or Temporal; but an Ecclesiastical Judicature or censure in the old Testament they deny. Wherein they are contradicted by those that writ against them. Secondly, we must distinguish with great caution, and (as they say) cum grano salis, between that which was ordinary and that which was extraordinary in the Jewish Government. We can not, from extraordinary cases collect and conclude that which was the fixed, settled, ordinary rule. The examples which have been alleged for the administration of Church-Government, the purging away of scandals, the ordering of the Ministry in the old Testament, by the Temporal Magistrate or civil powers only, and by their own immediate authority, how truly alleged or how rightly apprehended shall appear by and by: this I say for the present, divers of them were extraordinary cases, and are recorded as precedents for godly Magistrates their duty and authority, b D. 〈◊〉 in Deut. 17. Judicia ecclesiastica ad Ecclesiam pertinent secundum verbum Dei. Magistratus nihil ominus est custos utriusque Tabulae, & ces●antibus Sacerdotibus vel degenerantibus, debet reformare secundum legem. not in a reformed and constituted Church, but in a Church which is full of disorders, and wholly out of course, needing reformation. So that the Erastian Arguments drawn from those examples, for investing the Magistrate with the whole and sole power of Government and jurisdiction in Ecclesiastical affairs, are no whit better than the Popish and Prelatical Arguments, for the lawfulness of the civil power and places of Clergymen (as they called them) drawn from some extraordinary examples of Aaron his joining with Moses, and Eleazar with joshua, in civil business of greatest consequence; of the administration and Government of the Commonwealth by Eli the Priest, and by Samuel the Prophet; of the anointing of jehu to be King by Elisha; of the kill of Athaliah, and the making of joash King by the authority of jebojada the Priest; of the withstanding and thrusting out of King Uzziah, by fourscore valiant men of the Priests, and such like cases. Master Prynne himself in his Diotrephes catechised pag. 4. noteth that Ezra the Priest received a special commission from Artaxerxes, to set Magistrates and Judges which might judge all the people Ezra 7. 11, 25. from all which it appeareth that as Priests did extraordinary some things which ordinarily belonged to Magistracy, so Magistrates did extraordinarily that which ordinarily did not belong to their administration. I conclude this point with a passage in the second book of the Discipline of the Church of Scotland Chap. 10. And although Kings and Princes that be godly, sometimes by their own authority, when the Church is corrupted, and all things out of order, place Ministers, and restore the true service of the Lord, after the example of some godly Kings of Judah and divers godly Emperors and Kings also in the light of the new Testament: yet where the Ministry of the Church is once lawfully constituted, and they that are placed do their Office faithfully, all godly Princes and Magistrates ought to bear and obey their voice, and reverence the Majesty of the Son of God speaking in them. In the third place, let us take a particular survey of such Objections, from which the Erastians' do conclude that the power of Church-gov●rnment in the old Testament was only in the hand of the Magistrate. And first concerning Moses, it is objected that he being the supreme Magistrate did give Laws and Ordinances for ordering the Church in things pertaining to God. Answ. This he did as a Prophet from the mouth of the Lord, yea as a type of Jesus Chri●t the great Prophet, Deut. 18. 15. 18. not as civil Magistrate. 2. Object. We read not of an Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin adjoined with Moses, but only of a civil Sanhedrin Num. 11. Neither doth the Talmud mention any supreme Sanhedrin but one. Answ. 1. If those 70 Elders, Num. 11. be understood only of the civil Sanhedrin, (which some do not admit, though for my part I do not gainsay it) yet we read of the con●itution of another Sanhedrin or Assembly of 70 before them. Which I have before proved from Exod. 24. 1. 2. And if there had been no dis●inct Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin in Moses his time, yet by the Law, Deut. 17. when the people came into the Land of promise, they were to have two distinct Courts in the place which the Lord should choose. Of which also before. And whereas Mr Prynne in his Diotrephes catechised quaest. 2. intimateth, that by the Law Deut. 17. the Priests were only ●oyntly and together with the temporal Judges, to resolve hard civil cases or controversies: this sense can neither agree with the dis●unction in the Text verse 12. the man that will not hearken unto the Priest, or unto the Judge: nor yet with the received interpretation of those words between stroke and stroke, that is, between leprosy and leprosy, the decision whereof, is no where in Scripture found to be either committed unto or assumed by the civil Judge. As for the Talmud, that of Babylon was not begun to be compiled before the year of 〈◊〉 367, nor finished before the year of Christ 500 The jerusalem Talmud can pretend to no greater antiquity than the year of Christ 230. So that both were collected long after the dissolution of the Sanhedrin and government of the Jews. No marvel therefore, if these declining times did wear out the memory of some part of their former government. 3. Object. The King was by God's appointment entrusted with the custody of the book of the Law, Deut. 17. 18. 2 King. 11. 12. Answ. 1. The principal charge of the custody of the Law was committed to the Priests and Levites, Deut. 31. 9, 24, 25 26. Of the King it is only said Deut. 17. 18. That he shall write him a copy of this law in a Book, out of that which is before the Priests and Levites. 2. I heartily yield that a lawful Magistrate, whether Christian or Heathen, aught to be a keeper or guardian of both Tables, and as God's Vicegerent hath authority to punish heinous sins against either Table, by civil or corporal punishments which proves nothing against a 〈◊〉 Church-government for keeping pure the Ordinances of Christ. 4. Object. King David did appoint the Offices of the Levites and divided their courses 1 Chr●…. 23. So likewise did Solomon appoint the courses and charges of the Priests, Levites and Porters in the Temple. Answ. David did not this thing as a King, but as a Prophet, 2 〈◊〉. 8. 14. For so bad David the man of God commanded; the same thing being also commanded by other Prophets of the Lord, 2 hro. 29. 25. According to the commandment of David, and of G●…d the King's seer, and Nathan the Prophet, for so was the commandment of the Lord by his Prophets. Which cleareth also Solomon's part, for (beside that himself also was a Prophet) he received from David the man of God, a pattern of that which he was to do in the work of the house of the Lord, and directions concerning the courses of the Levites, 1 Chro. 28. 11, 12, 13. 2 Chro. 8. 14. 5 Object. King Solomon deposed Abiathar from his Priesthood, and did put Zadok in his place. Answ. Abiathar was guilty of high treason for assisting and aiding Adonijah, against Solomon, whom not only his father David but God himself had designed to the Crown. So that the crime was of civil cognizance, and Abiathar deserved to die for it. That which Solomon did was an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a moderation of the punishment, as Strigelius calls it; when Solomon might justly have put him to death, he only banisheth him from Jerusalem to Anathoth, there to enjoy his own inheritance, to live a private life, and no more to intermeddle in State affairs. Wherefore this example doth belong to the case of a capital crime committed by a Minister, but not to the case of scandal or maladministration in his Ministry. 2. Neither did Solomon directly or intentionally put Abiathar from the Priesthood for that offence, but by consequence it followed upon his banishment from Jerusalem, the place where the high Priest was to exercise his calling, 1 King. 2. 27. So (that is, in respect of banishment from jerusalem mentioned in the verse immediately preceding) Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being Priest unto the Lord. A Minister now banished is not thereby thrust out from all exercise of his Ministry, for he may exercise it in another place; but Abiathar being thrust out from Jerusalem was eo ipso thrust from the calling of the high Priest, which was necessarily to be exercised in that place. 3. Solomon being a Prophet, who knows what warrants he had more than ordinary for that which he did to Abiathar? that it was not without an extrordinary divine instinct, some collect from the next words; that he (Solomon) might fulfil the word of the Lord which he spoke cencerning the house of Eli in Shilo. 4. As for the investing of Zadok with the place and authority of the high Priest, it doth not prove that the Magistrate hath a constitutive power to make or authorise Church officers: for Zadok had been formerly chosen by the congregation of Israel, and anointed to be high Priest, 1 Chro. 29. 22. yea he did fall to the place jure divino: for the high Priesthood was given to Eleazar the eldest son of Aaron, and was to remain in the family of Eleazar, from whom Zadok had lineally descended: Whereas Abiathar was not of the family of Eleazar, but of the family of Ithamar. 6. Object. Hezekiah did apply his regal power to the reformation of the Levites and to the purging of the Temple, 2 Chr. 29. 5. and did also appoint the courses of the Priests and Levites every man according to his service, 2 Chro. 31. So likewise did King josiah, 2 Chro. 35. Answ. Hezekiah in exhorting the Levites to sanctify themselves and to cleanse the Temple, doth require no other thing than the Law of God did require, Num. 8. 6. 11. 15. & 18. 32. which Hezekiah himself pointeth at, 2 Chro. 29. 11. And why should not the Magistrate command Ministers to do the duties of their calling according to the Word of God? As for his appointing of the courses of the Priests and Levites, he did nothing therein, but what the Lord had commanded by his Prophets, 2 Chro. 29. 25. The like I answer concerning King josiah, for it is recorded, that what he did, was after the writing of David and Solomon, 2 Chro. 35. 4. and according to the Commandment of David and Asaph, and Heman, and Jeduthun, the King's seer, Verse 15. as it is written in the book of Moses, v. 12. 7. Object. King joash while he yet did right in the days of jebojada the Priest, sent the Priests and Levites to gather from all Israel, a collection for repairing the house of the Lord, and when they dealt negligently in this business he discharged them to receive any more money so collected. Ans. Joash did impose no other collections, but those quae divino jure debebantur, which were due by divine right, saith Wolphius, in 2 Kings 12. The thing was expressly commanded in the Law of Moses, compare 2 Chro. 24. 6. Exo. 30, 12, 13, 14. As for the King's prohibition afterwards laid upon the Priests, 1. the Priests had still neglected the work till the three and twentieth year of his reign was come, 2. The Priests themselves consented to receive no more money, 3. The high Priest had still a chief hand in the managing of that business, in which also the Priests that kept the door had an interest. All which is plain from 2 Kings 12. 6. 8, 9, 10. And beside all this, it was a money matter, concerning the hiring and paying of workmen, and so did belong to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to the extrinsecall, not to the intrinsecall things of the Church. 8. Object. The Kings of the Jews have purged the Land from Idolatry and Superstition, have broken down Altars, cut down Groves, destroyed high places, and such like Idolatrous Monuments. Ans. This was nothing but what was commanded in the Law of Moses, whereunto also the secular coercivepower was necessary. Let it be remembled concerning those godly reforming Kings of 〈◊〉 1. The case was extraordinary, no matter of ordinary Government. 2 Their reformation was jure divino. The Law of God was the rule, and Ius Divinum was not then startled at, but embraced. 3. Sometime also the reformation was not without an assembly of the Prophets, Priests and Elders, as 2 Kings 23. 1. 9 Object. Mr. Prynne in his Diotrephes Catechised, Quest. 2. 〈◊〉 another objection from 2 Chr. 19 ask, whether it be not clearly meant, that as King Josiah himself (he should have said jehoshaphat) did by his own regal authority, appoint judges in the Land and in Jerusalem, in the preceding 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10. Verses, to d●…termine all controversies and punish all offences whatsoever, acco●…ding to the Laws of God and that Kingdom, so he did by the self same regal authority appoint Amariah then chief Priest, over the Priests and Levites only. (employed in the word you, not over the people of the Land) in all matters of the Lord, that is, to Order, direct the Priests and Levites, under him in their several courses, and all matters whatsoever concerning the Worship, etc. Ans. 1. Mr. Prynne will never prove from that Text, That jehoshaphat by his regal authority did appoint, or set Amariah the chief Priest to be over the rest; The English translators express the sense by interlacing the word is Verse 11. And behold Amariah the chief Priest is over you in all matters of the Lord. 2. To restrict the word you to the Priests and Levites only, is an intolerable wresting of the Text; for all these relatives, Verse 9, 10, 11. them, ye, you, must needs repeat the antecedent Verse 8. and so relate to the chief of the Fathers of Israel, as well as to the Priests and Levites. So that these words, Amariah the chief Priest is over you, are spoken to the Sanhedrin; and the plain meaning is, that Amariah the chief Priest was at that time the Nasi, or princeps Senatus, the Prince or chief Ruler of the Senate, as Grotius expounds it. 3. That the high Priest was a Ruler of the People, as well as of the Priests and Levites, is manifest from, Acts 23. 5. where Paul applieth to the high Priest, that Law, Thou shalt not speak evil of the Ruler of thy people. 4. Wherefore to retort the Objection, Mr. Prynne doth here acknowledge upon the matter two distinct Governments to have been at that time, one civil, another Ecclesiastical: distinct I say both objectively, and subjectively: objectively, for he expounds the Lords matters to be meant of the sacrifices and other services in the Temple, The King's matters he takes to be the Kings Househould, Lands, Revenues: Subjectively also, for he yieldeth upon the matter both Amariah and Zebadiah to have had a certain ruling or governing power in ordering and directing these over whom they were set, which well agreeth both with the version of the 70 (giving the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both to the one and to the other) and with the Original; for he that is over the Sanhedrin itself must needs be a Ruler. 10. Object. The causes of Leprosy, Leu. 13. & 14. and jealousy Num. 5. are the only cases wherein the Priests were appointed to be as Judges in the Old Testament. So Mr. Prynne in his Diotrephes catechised quest. 3. Ans. 1. If the Priests were Judges in these cases, than (so far at least) there was a judging, decisive, binding sentence of the Priests, distinct from and not subordinate unto the civil Magistracy. 2. But that these two were the only cases wherein the Priests were appointed to be as Judges, is easily confuted, being an assertion contrary to divers Texts of Scripture, as first Deut. 21. 5. in the trial of secret murder the Law appointeth thus: And the Priests the sons of Levi shall come near, etc. and by their word shall every controversy and every stroke be tried, that is, every controversy which was to be ended by purgations or purifications, Oaths or confession, as Pelargus noteth upon the place. There is also a general comprehensive expression concerning the Priests their judging and deciding of controversies forensically, Ezech. 44. 24. And in controversy they shall stand in judgement, and they shall judge it according to my judgements. Likewise Deut. 17. 8, 9, 12. the Priest as well as the Judge hath authority to give forth a binding decree concerning hard matters, brought from inferior Courts to jerusalem. Again 2 Chron. 23. 19 the Porters of the Temple (that is, the Priests that kept the door as they are designed 2 Kings 12. 9 of whom also it is said, that I●…hojadah the high Priest, appointed Officers over the house of the Lord, 2 Kings 11. 18. which Text Grotius following josephus doth parallel wi●h 2 Chro. 23. 19) had this charge, that none which was unclean in any thing should enter in. 11. Object. If the Priest's power of judging reached further than the cases of Leprosy, and Jealousy, the most was to judge of such as were unclean in any thing, and that according to their sentence the unclean were to be excluded. Ans. Not to insist now upon these Texts, Deut. 17. 9 12. & 21. 5. Ez●…. 44. 24. which hold forth the juridical power of the Priests more generally and comprehensively, without restricting it to cases of clean and unclean only; nor yet to repeat divers other answers before given, in answer to Erastus and M. Prynne, concerning legal and moral uncleanness; I shall here only give this one answer out of that Text 2 Chro. 23. 19 none which was unclean in any thing. What cogent argument can now restrict this Text concerning the exclusion of unclean persons from the Temple, to such only who were legally or ceremonially unclean? If we should suppose and grant that it is meant only of the legal uncleanness, yet both by Analogy and à fortiori, that Text affordeth an argument against the Erastians', and I have accordingly made use of it before; Yet nevertheless I believe it will puzzle them to prove that this Text doth not comprehend those also that were morally unclean, that is, scandalous profane persons. For my part I do believe that it is meant of keeping back those that were morally unclean, as well as those that were ceremonially such. And my reasons are these, 1. The Text saith generally, none which was unclean in any thing, or as the 70 have it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, such as were unclean in every or any word, or (if you will) against any word, that is, against any Commandment of the Law, 2. Because impiety, profaneness, and wickedness hath the name of uncleanness, even in the old Testament; & such as commit sin and ungodliness are called unclean, and are said to defile themselves, as well as those that were legally unclean. I shall not need to expound, Leu. 5. 3. if he touch the uncleanness of man, whatsoever uncleanness it be that a man shall be defiled withal; as if it were meant of fellowship with scandalous sinners; which is origen's Interpretation, Hom. 3. in Levit. who also taketh a commentary to that Text from, 1 Cor. 5. 11. It will have more weight in it, to observe Targum Onkel●…s, Deut. 23. 2. Where the Law concerning Mamzer a bastard or whore's son, is thus explained, A bastard shall not be clean that he may enter into the Congregation of the Lord: even unto the tenth Generation his sons shall not be clean that they may enter into the Congregation of the Lord. But I will give yet surer warrants for what I say. job. 36. 14. their life is among the unclean, that is, (as Pagnin following the Chaldee paraphrase expresseth it) inter scortatores; Hierome, inter effaeminatos: others, inter impudicos; the same word is rendered Sodomites, 1 Kings 14. 24. It cometh from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or per Antiphrasin signifieth to be impure or unclean, and it is used of the legal uncleanness, Deut. 22. 9 lest the fruit of thy Vineyard be defiled. So Hag. 2. 13, 14. both he that touched a dead body, and he that trespassed against the moral Law, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unclean; for after the resolution concerning that which was legally unclean, it is added, So is this people, and so is this nation before me saith the Lord, and so is every w●…rke of their hands, and that which they offer there is unclean. The same name is given to an ungodly person, Eccle. 9 2. where the godly person is called the clean, the notorious scandalous profane person is called the unclean. So wickedness is frequently called uncleanness as, Ezra. 9 11. Ezec. 36. 25. Zech. 13. 1. I will here add a Testimony of Maimonides in More Nevochim part 3. cap. 47. Hence also the transgression of the Commandment is called uncleanness or pollution, and it is said of the principal and fundamental Commandments, of Idolatry, of uncovering the nakedness, of the shedding of blood. Of Idolatry it is said c Leu. 20. 3● : Because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my Sanctuary, and to profane my holy Name. Of the uncovering of the nakedness; d Leu. 18. 24▪ defile not yourselves in any of these things. Of the shedding of blood, e Num. 35. 33, 34. defile not therefore the Land wherein ye dwell. Wherefore this word uncleanness or defilement is said of three sorts of things, first of a man's qualities and of his transgressions of the Commandments, whether theorical or practical (that is, which concern either Doctrine, or his conversation.) Secondly of external filthiness and defilements, etc. Thirdly, of these imaginary things, that is, the touching or carrying upon the shoulders some unclean thing, etc. Add hereunto the observation of Drusius de tribus sect. Judaeor. lib. 2. num. 82. 83. 84. The Pharisees did account sinners and profane persons to be unclean, and thought themselves polluted by the company of such persons, for which reason also they used to wash when they came from the market. Though there was a superstition in this Ceremony, yet the opinion that profane persons are unclean persons, and to be avoided for uncleanness, had come from the purest antiquities of the Jews, even from Moses and the Prophets. Since therefore both in the old Testament phrase, and in the usual language of the Jews themselves, a scandalous profane person was called an unclean person, it is to me more than probable that where I read, none which was unclean in any thing should enter in it is meant of those that were morally unclean by a scandalous wicked conversation, no less yea much more than of those that were only ceremonially unclean. 3. Especially considering that the Sanctuary was profaned and polluted by the moral uncleanness of sin, and by profane persons their entering into it, as is manifest from Leu. 20. 3. Eze. 23. 39 How can it then be imagined that those Priests whose charge it was to keep back those that were unclean in any thing, would admit and receive such as were not only unclean persons in the language of Scripture and of the Jews themselves, but were also by express Scriptures declared to be defilers or polluters of the Sanctuary? 4. It is said of the high Priest, Lev 16. 16. and he shall make atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins: or from their uncleanness and from their transgressions, as the Chaldee and the LXX have it: the sense is the same: and it showeth that the holy place was made unclean by the transgressions and sins of the children of Israel: which uncleanness of transgression, if it were visible, public and notorious, than the Priests had failed in admitting such to the holy place. 12. Object. Throughout the old Testament we read only of temporal punishments, as burning, hanging, stoning, fines, stripes, and the like, but never of Excommunication or any Church censure. Neither did the Jews know the distinction of Laws Ecclesiastical and Laws civil, causes Ecclesiastical and causes civil, for the Church of the Jews was th●ir Commonwealth, and their Commonwealth was their Church, and the Government of Church and State among them was one and the same. Their civil Lawyers were also Expositors or Doctors of the Law of God. Ans. That in the Jewish Church, there was an Ecclesiastical censure or punishment distinct from the civil, I have proved in this preceding book, both from Scripture and from the Jewish antiquities. And if there were no more but the sequestration or separation from the Temple or from the passover, for such legal uncleanness as did not separat a man from his house, nor from all company of men, even that alone proves a kind of censure distinct from all civil punishment: neither did it belong to the Magistrate or civil Judge, but to the Priests to examine, judge, and determine concerning cleanness or uncleanness, and consequently concerning admission to or separation from the Temple, Passeover, and sacrifices. That the Jewish Church and the Jewish State were formally distinct, see before Chap. 2. Where it hath been observed that some Proselytes had the full privileges of the Jewish Church, though none of them had the full privileges of the Jewish commonwealth. The like I have read of the Spaniards, who admit the Moors or inhabitants of Morisco to turn Christians, and receive them into Ecclesiastical Membership and Communion, but by no means into their civil liberties. That the causes of Excommunication among them were looked upon as scandals, and not as civil injuries, see Chap. 4. This only I add that More Nevochim part. 2. Chap. 40. doth distinguish civil Laws from sacred Laws, even among the people of God, making the scope of the civil Laws to be the good safety and prosperity of the Commonwealth; the Sacred or Divine Laws to concern properly Religion and men's souls. He that will compare the civil Laws and panall Statutes of the Jews mentioned in Baba Kama, with their ceremonial Laws concerning the holy Ordinances of God, and who should have communion therein, who not, cannot but look upon their Church and 〈◊〉 Laws, as formally distinct from their State and civil Laws. Again, he that will consider who were the viri synagogae magnae, the men of the great synagogue, and what their power and acts were, (as Dr. Buxtorf describeth the same in his Tyberi●…t Cap. 10, 11.) and their authoritative determinations, concerning the right writing, reading, and expounding of the holy Scripture, etc. must needs acknowledge that it was Senatus ecclesiasticus magnus (as Buxtorf calls it) and that such power and acts were incompetent to the civil Magistrate. As for their Doctors of Law and Scribes, they were of the sons of Aaron, yet some way diversified in their administrations. Scaliger in elench. Trihaeres. Nic. Serar. cap. 11. distinguisheth between the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, f Quum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 legem interpretarentur, quod proprium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verò formulas juris praescriberent, & actiones civiles docerent, & forensia magis tractarent. that the former were the wisemen or chief of the Scribes who did interpret the Law, and declare the sense of it; the latter did attend civil forensical matters. Drusius de tribus sect. Jud. lib. 2. cap. 13. noteth from Luke. 11. 45. 46. that there was some distinction between the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, between the Scribes and the Lawyers, for when Christ had spoken of the Scribes and pharisees, than answered one of the Lawyers and said unto him, Master, thus saying thou reproachest us also. And he said, Woe unto you also ye Lawyers: This will be more plain by that other distinction observed by Lud. de dieu. in Mat. 22. 35. and divers others, between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, between the Scribes of the Law of God who did interpret the Law, such as Ezra the Priest; and the Scribes of the people who were Actuarii publici, public Notaries or Clerks. Whence it appeareth that the Offices of Scribes and Lawyers (although the persons themselves were of the Tribe of Levi) were so ordered, as that civil and sacred affairs might not be confounded. Yea, the Scriveners or Notaries were of two sorts; for besides those which did attend civil Courts of Justice, etc. There was a chief Scribe who waited upon the King and wrote unto him a copy of the Book of the Law, according to that Deut. 17. 18. Such a Scribe was Sheva, 2 Sam. 20. 25. Shaphan 2 Kings 22. 3. 8. Baruch Jer. 36. Such a Scribe had Joash 2 Kings 12. 10. There were divers other Scribes for the house of the Lord and for the people, whose office it was to write and to read the Law, 1 Chro. 2. 55, Psal. 45. 1. jer. 8. 8. 13. Object. But neither in the old Testament nor in the Talmudists can there be found any Ecclesiastical Excommunication properly so called. Answ. I deny both, yea I have disproved both. Moreover, as touching the Excommunication used in the Jewish Church I shall add here these following Testimonies of M●…imonides. In libro 〈◊〉 Tract. Talmud Torah Cap. 6. sect. 10. He that revileth a wiseman, though after his death, shall be excommunicated by the Sanhedrin, by whom also after repentance he shall be absolved. Ib. sect. 11. He who is excommunicated in his own Town, ought also to be esteemed in all other Cities and Towns, as a person excommunicated. Answerable hereunto were the ancient Canons, which did appoint that a person excommunicated in his own Church should not be received to communion in another Church. The 24. causes of excommunication (above mentioned) he there reckoneth forth from sect. 13. to the end of that Chapter. Again, Cap. 7. sect. 2. What is the manner of a simple excommunication or Niddui? He that doth excommunicate saith: Let that person N. be in (or under) an excommunication or separation. If the person excommunicated be present, they who do excommunicate say unto him, Let this person N. be separated or excommunicated. And when Cherem or the greater excommunication is inflicted, what is the manner? They say, Let N. be devoted and accursed, let an execration, adjuration and separation be upon him. But how do they lose the person excommunicated, and how do they free him from the separation or the curse? they say, Be thou loosed, be thou pardoned. If the guilty party be absent, they say. Let N. be loosed, and let him be pardoned. In the same Chapter sect. 8. Neither is there any certain space of time predetermined, before which the bond of the excommunication inflicted may not be loosed. For immediately and at the same time when excommunication is inflicted, it may be loosed if the guilty party do immediately repent, and come to himself. Which doth further set forth the great difference between the nature and scope of Excommunication, and the nature and scope of corporal or civil punishments. For how soon soever an excommunicate person giveth good signs of true repentance, he is to be loosed from the bond of excommunication. But he that is punished in his body or estate for any crime, is not freed from the punishment, because he is known to be penitent; The repentance of a criminal person is no supersedeas to civil Justice. Thereafter Maimonides proceedeth thus. Yet if it seem good to the Sanhedrin that any man shall be left in the state of excommunication, for how many years shall be be left in excommunication? The Sanhedrin will determine the number of years and space of time, according to the heinousness of the trespass. So likewise if the Sanhedrin will, it may devote and subject to a curse, first the party himself who is guilty of the crime, and then also every other person whosoever eateth or drinketh with him, or sitteth near unto him unless at four cubit's distance: that so by this means the heavier correction may fall upon the sinner, and there may be as it were a hedge put about the law, which may restrain wicked men from transgressing it. Whence observe 1. It was from the Jewish Church, that the ancient Counsels of the Christian Church, took a pattern for determining and fixing a certain number of years to the separation of some heinous offenders from the Sacrament, and sometimes from other Ordinances also. Though I do not approve this thing, either in the Jewish or Christian Church; for at what time soever a scandalous sinner doth give evident signs of repentance, the Church ought to receive him again into her bosom and fellowship. 2. From the Jewish Church also was the pattern taken, for that ancient Discipline in the Christian Church, that he who keepeth company and communion with an excommunicated person, should fall under the same censure of excommunication. Which thing must be well explained and qualified before it can be approved. 3. Compare also this passage of Maimonides with 1 Cor. 5. 11. with such a one no not to eat, 2 Thes. 3. 14. have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Which Texts do fitly answer to that which the Hebrew writers say of a person excommunicated. 4. The excommunication of an offender among the Jews, was intended not only for the offender's humiliation and amendment, but for an ensample to others, that they might hear and fear and do no more any such thing: it was therefore a public and exemplary censure. And so much of Sect. 8. In the 9 and 10. Sections Maimonides showeth us, that though a wise man was allowed to prosecute unto the sentence of excommunication one that did revile or calumniat him, yet it was more praiseworthy and more agreeable to the example of the holy men of God to pass in silence and to endure patiently such injuries. Then followeth Sect. 11. These things which have been said, are to be understood of such reproaches and contumelies as are clandestine. For if railers do put a public infamy upon a wise man, it is not lawful to him to use indulgence or to neglect his honour: and if he shall pardon (as to the punishment) him who hath hurt his fame, he himself is to be punished, because that is a contempt of the law. He shall therefore avenge the contumely, & not suffer himself to be satisfied, before the guilty party hath craved merey. Here is the true object, or (if you will) the procuring and meritorious cause of Excommunication, viz. not a private personal or civil injury, which a man may pass by or pardon if he will, but a scandalous sin the scandal whereof must be removed and healed, by some Testimony or Declaration of the sinner's repentance, otherwise he must fall under the censure and public shame. These Testimonies of Maimonides, and the observations made thereupon, beside all that hath been said in this preceding Book, will make it manifest that the Spiritual censure of excommunication was translated and taken from the Jewish Church into the Christian Church. Furthermore, beside all the Scriptural proofs already brought, I shall desire another Text, Nehem. 13. 1, 3. to be well weighed. After the reading of the law (Deut. 23. 3.) that the Amm●…nite and the Moabite should not come into the congregation of God for ever, it came to pass, saith the Text, when they heard the law, that they separated from Israel all the mixed multitude. I conceive that this separation was a casting out of the Church of Israel, and is not meant here of a civil separation from honours and privileges, nor yet only in reference to the dissolution of unlawful marriages. I understand also by the prohibition of entering into the congregation of the Lord Deut. 23. 1, 2, 3. that such were not to be received into Church communion. Ostendit autem qui a caetibus fidelium debeant excludi. He sheweth who ought to be excluded from the assemblies of the faithful, saith Aretius upon Deut. 23. 1. Hic dicitur Ecclesia Dei atrium mundorum, quod non debebant tales ingredi. Here that Court of the Temple which was appointed only for the clean, is called the Congregation of God, whereunto such persons ought not to enter, saith Hugo Cardinalis upon the same place. Audita lege de duabus inimicis gentibus anathematizandis, etc. Having heard the law concerning the two hostile Nations, to be anathematised or accursed, saith Beda on Nehem. 13. thereupon they separated the mixed multitude. Pelargus on Deut. 23. citeth Theodoret, Procpius, and Rabanus, besides the Canonills, for this sense, that the not entering into the Congregation of the Lord, is meant of refusing Ecclesiastical not civil privileges. I know that divers others understand Deut. 23. 1, 2, 3. of not admitting unto, and Nehem. 13. 3. of separating from marriages with the Jews, and civil dignities or places of Magistrates or Rulers in that Commonwealth, such a one shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord, that is, shall not be received into the Assembly or Court of Judges. But there are some reasons which dissuade me from this and incline me to the other interpretation. First, the Law Deut. 23. being read to the people Nebem. 13. 3. upon the hearing of that law they separated from Israel all the mixed multitude. It is not to be imagined that all this mixed multitude was married to Jews, muchless that they were all Magistrates, Rulers, or members of Courts and Judicatures in Israel. But by the mixed multitude are meant all such as were in Israel but not of Israel, or such as conversed and dwelled among the Jews and had civil fellowship with them, but had no part nor portion (by right) in Church-membership and Communion: in which sense also the mixed multitude is mentioned Exod. 12. 38. Num. 11. 4. Secondly, that this separation from Israel is to be understood in a spiritual and ecclesiastical sense, it appeareth by the instance and application immediately added Neb. 13. 4. to vers. 10. And before this, that is, before this separation, Eliashih the Priest being allied unto Tobiah had prepared for him a chamber in the Courts of the house of God, but now when the separation of the mixed multitude was made; Nehemiah did east out the stuff of Tobiah, and commanded to cleanse the chambers of the Temple which had been defiled by Tobiah. Behold an instance of the separation in reference to the Temple or holy place, not to any civil Court. Thirdly, the Chaldee paraphrase helpeth me Deut. 23. 1, 2, 3. for instead of these words, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord, Onkelos readeth shall not be clean to enter into the congregation of the Lord; having respect to the law which did forbid unclean persons to enter into the Temple. Ita isti mundi reputabantur; so likewise were these (Ammonites, Moabites, bastards, etc.) esteemed as unclean, saith Tostatus in Deut. 23. quaest. 1. Fourthly, Edomites and Egytians might enter into the congregregation of the Lord in the third generation Deut. 22. 7, 8. Was the meaning, that Edomites and Egyptians should in the third generation marry with the Jews, or be Magistrates in Israel, members of the Sanhedrin, or Judges? He that will think so, will hardly prove that it was so. To me it is not at all probable, that God would allow his people either to marry with the Edomites and Egyptians, or to prefer them to be Magistrates and Judges in Israel, no not in the third generation. But it is very probable, that when an Edomite or Egyptian came to dwell in the Land of Israel, as a proselyte indweller, ob erving the seven precepts given to the sons of Noah, the children of that Egyptian or Edomite in the third generation, mi●ht enter into the congregation of the Lord, that is, might upon their desire and submission to the whole law of Moses, be received as proselytes of righteousness or of the Covenant, and so free to come to the Court of Israel, and in all Church relations to be as one of the Israelites themselves. Fifthly, Philo the Jew lib. de victimas offerentibus towards the end, tells us that their Law did prohibit all unworthy persons from their sacred Assemblies, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. From the same sacred Assemblies of the Church, he saith that their law did also exclude Eunuohs, and bastards, or such as were borne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (the word used by the LXX in Deut. 23. 2.) where Philo most certainly hath respect to that Law, Deut. 23. understanding by the congregation of the Lord in that pla●e, neither a civil Court nor liberty of marriage, but the sacred or Church Assembly. There are but two objections which I find brought against that which I have been now proving. One is from Exod. 12. 48. a law which admitteth strangers to the Church and Passeover of the Jews, provided they were willing to be circumcised. The other objection is from the example of Ruth the Moabitesse, who was a member of the Church of Israel. To the first I answer, that Exod. 12. 48. will not prove that every stranger who desired to be circumcised, and to eat the Passeover, was to be immediately admitted upon that desire, without any more ado: only it proves that before any stranger should eat of the Passeover, he must first be circumcised. A stranger might not be Gertsedek, a proselyte of righteousness, when he pleased, but he was first to be so and so qualified. Besides this, it may be justly doubted whether Deut. 23. 3. be not an exception from the rule Exod. 12. 48. for all strangers were not to be alike soon and readily received to be proselytes of righteousness: but a great difference there was between those Nations which God had expressly and particularly devoted and accursed, and others not so accursed. To the other objection concerning Ruth, Rabanus cited by Pelargus on Deut. 23. answereth that the tenth generation of the Moabites was past, before Ruth did enter into the congregation of the Lord. And if it had not, yet the case was extraordinary, and one Swallow makes not Summer. 14. Object. But is there any pattern or precedent in the Jewish Church, for keeping back scandalous sinners from the Sacrament? Ans. There is; for I have proved a keeping back of notorious sinners both from the Passeover, and from the Temple itself which had a Sacramental signification and was a Type of Christ and Communion with him. It is worthy of observation that by the Chaldee paraphrase, Exod. 12. 43. Any Israelite who was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an apostate, might not eat of the Passeover. Again, verse 48. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & omnis prophanus. So the Latin Interpreter of Onkelos: And no profane person shall eat of it. The word is used not only of a Heathen, but of any profane person, as Prov. 2. 16. where the Chaldee expresseth the whorish woman (though a Jewesse) by the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It cometh from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be profaned, è sancto prophanum fieri. Surely Onkelos had not thus paraphrased upon Exod. 12. if it had not been the Law of the Jews, that notorious profane persons should be kept back from the Passeover. The second Book OF THE CHRISTIAN Church-Goverment. CHAP. I. Of the Rise, Growth, Decay, and Reviving of Erastianisme. Divers Learned men have (to very good purpose) discovered the origination, occasion, first authors, fomenters, rise and growth of Errors, both Popish, and others: I shall after their example make known briefly, what I find concerning the rise and growth the planting and watering of the Erastian Error, I cannot say of it, that it is honest is parentibus natus, it is not borne and descended of honest parents. The Father of it is the old Serpent, who finding his Kingdom very much impaired, weakened and resisted by the vigour of the true Ecclesiastical discipline, which separateth between the precious and the vile, the holy & profane; and so contributeth much to the shaming away of the unfruitful works of darkness; thereupon he hath cunningly gone about to draw men, first into a jealousy, and then into a dislike of the Ecclesiastical discipline, by God's mercy restored in the Reformed Churches. The Mother of it, is the enmity of nature against the Kingdom of jesus Christ; which he, as Mediator, doth exercise in the government of the Church: Which enmity is naturally in all men's hearts, but is unmortified and strongly prevalent in some, who have said in their hearts, We will not have this man to reign over us. Luke 19 Let us break their bonds asunder, and cast away their cords from us. Psal. 2. 3. The Midwife which brought this unhappy brood into the light of the world, was Thomas Erastus' Doctor of Medicine at Heidelberg of whom I shall say no more, than what is apparent by his own Preface to the Reader, namely, that as he was once of opinion, that excommunication is commanded in the Word of God, so he came off to the contrary opinion, not without a male-contented humour, and a resentment of some things which he looked upon as provocations and personal reflections, though its like enough they were not really such, but in his apprehensions they were. One of these was a public dispute at Heydelberg in the year 1568. upon certain Theses concerning the necessity of Church Government, and the power of Presbyteries to excommunicate: Which Theses were exhibited by M. George Withers an Englishman, who left England because of the Ceremonies, and was at that time made Doctor of Divinity at Heydelberg. And the learned dispute had thereupon, you may find epitomised (as it was taken the day following from the mouth of Dr. Vrsinus) in the close of the second part of Dr. Pareus his explication of the Heidelberg Catechism. The Erastian error being borne, the breasts which gave it suck were profaneness and self-interest. The sons of Belial were very much for it, expecting that the eye of the civil Magistrate shall not be so vigilant over them, nor his hand so much against them for a scandalous and dissolute conversation, as Church-discipline would be. Germanorum bibere est vivere, in practice as well as in pronunciation. What great marvel if many among them (for I do not speak of all) did comply with the Erastian Tenent? And it is as little to be marvelled at, if those, whether Magistrates, Lawyers, or others, who conceived themselves to be so far losers, as Ecclesiastical Courts were interested in Government, and to be greater gainers by the abolition of the Ecclesiastical interest in government; were byassed that way: Both these you may find among the causes (mentioned by Aretius' 〈◊〉. probls. loc. 133.) for which there was so much un willingness to admit the discipline of Excommunication. Magistratus jugum non admittuxt, timent honoribus, licentiam amant, etc. The Magistrates do not admit a yoke, are jealous of their honours, love licentiousness. Vulgus quoque & plebs dissolutior: major pars corruptissima est, etc. The Communaltic also and people are more dissolute: the greater part is most vicious. After that this unlucky child had been nursed upon so bad milk, it came at last to eat strong food, and that was Arbitrary Government, under the name of Royal Prerogative. Mr. john Wemies (sometime Senator of the College of Justice in Scotland) as great a Royalist as any of his time, in his book de Regis primatu, lib. 1. cap. 7. doth utterly descent from and argue against the distinction of Civil and Ecclesiastical laws, and against the Synodical power of censures; holding that both the power of making Ecclesiastical laws, and the corrective power to censure Transgressor's, is proper to the Magistrate. The Tutor which bred up the Erastian error, was Arminianism; for the Arminians finding their plants plucked up, and their poison antidoted by Classes and Synods, thereupon they began to cry down Synodical authority, and to appeal to the Magistrates power in things Ecclesiastical, hoping for more favour and less opposition that way. They will have Synods only to examine, dispute, discuss, to impose nothing under pain of Ecclesiastical censure, but to leave all men free, to do as they list. See their exam. cens. cap. 25. and Vindic. lib. 2. cap. 6. pag. 131. 133. And for the Magistrate they have endeavoured to make him head of the Church, as the Pope was; yea so far, that they are not ashamed to ascribe unto the Magistrate that Jurisdiction over the Churches, Synods, and Ecclesiastical proceedings proceedings which the Pope did formerly usurp: For which see Apollonius in his Ius Maj●…statis circa sacra. But the Erastian Error being thus borne, nursed, fed, and educated, did fall into a most deadly decay and consumption: the procuring causes whereof were these three. First, the best and most (and in some respect all) of the Reformed Churches refused to receive, harbour, or entertain it, and so left it exposed to hunger and cold, shame and nakedness. Some harbour it had in Switzerland, but that was looked upon as coming only through injury of time, which could not be helped; the Theological and Scriptural principles of the Divines of those Churches, being Anti-Erastian, and Presbyterial, as I have * See Nihil Respondes pag. 32 33. Male audis pag. 52. 53. elsewhere showed against Mr. Coleman. So that Erastianisme could not get warmth and strength enough, no not in Zurick itself. Yea Dr. Ursi●…us in his judicium de Disciplinâ Ecclesiasticâ, & excommunicatione, exhibited to the Prince Elector Palatine Frederick the third (who had required him to give his judgement concerning Erastus his Theses) doth a In aliis (Ecclesijs) ubi aut nulla est excommunicatio in usu, aut non lecitime administratur, ac nihilomirus absque omni convoversia, in consesso est ac palam docetur, eam merito in Ecclesia vigere debere, Et infra, Ne etiam Celsitudo tua se suasque Ecclesias ab aliis omnibus Ecclesijs, tain ab iis quae nullam habent Excommunicationem, quam ab iis quae habent, nova hac opinione sejungat: siquidem universae ac singulae uno ore confitentur, semperque confessae sunt, merito illam in usu esse debere. once and again observe, that all the Reformed Churches and Divines, as well those that did not practise excommunication, as those that did practise it, agree notwithstanding in this principle, that excommunication ought to be in the Church. Which is a mighty advantage against Erastianisme. The second cause was a mis-accident from the Midwife, who did half stisle it in the birth, from which did accrue a most dangerous infirmity, of which it could never recover. b Erast. praefat. Nos de illis solis loqui peccatoribus qui doctrinam intelligunt, probant amplectuntur: peccata sua se agnoscere vere atque edisse aiunt, & Sacramentis secundum Institutienem Christi uti cupiunt. Et lib. 6. cap. 2. faciunt praelerea nobis injuriam (imo vera calumnia est) cum dicunt nos omnes sine ullo examine velle admitti, quales quales sint ac esse velint. Quip sic volumus unumquemque admitti, quomodo Ecclesiae nostrae consuetudo & regula jubet. Et intra. Sane ut Idololatram & Apostatam, negamus membrum esse Ecclesiae Christi, sic etiam Nequitiam suam desendentem negamus inter membra Ecclesiae censendum esse. Et quemadmodum illos ex Christiano coetu judicamus exterminandos, sic hos queque putamus in eo coeiu non esse ferendos. Verum neque de bis, neque de illis quaerunt nostrae Theses: sed disputatur in eyes, de solis doctrinam amplexantibus, & Sacramentis rite cum Ecclesia uti cupientibus, hoc est poenit entiam eodem modo quo alij profitentibus. Read the preface of Erastus before the Confirmation of his Theses; also the close of his sixth Book; put these together, you will find him yield, that all ought not to be admitted promisevously to the Sacrament, but that such admission be according to the custom and rule observed in the Church of Heidelberg (and what that was, you may find in the Heidelberg Catechism Quaest 82. & 87. namely a suspension of profane scandalous persons from the Sacrament, and in case of their obstinacy and continuing in their offences, an excommunicating of them.) He yields also that these seven sorts of persons ought not to be esteemed as members of the Church, and that if any such be found in the visible Church, they ought to be cast out. 1. Idolaters. 2. Apostates. 3. Such as do not understand the true Doctrine, that is, Ignorant Persons. 4. Such as do not approve and embrace the true Doctrine, that is, Heretics and Sectaries. 5. Such as desire to receive the Sacrament otherwise then in the right manner, and according to Christ's Institution. 6. Such as defend or justify their wickedness. 7. Such as do not confess and acknowledge their sins, and profess sorrow and repentance for them, and a hatred or detestation of them. And thus you see as Erastianisme pleadeth for no favour to Sectaries, or whosoever dissent in doctrine, or whose Tenants concerning Christ's Institution, or manner of Administration, are contrary to that which is received in the Church where they live: (for c Erastus' ib. Equidem in Thesibus ab initi●… monui, me de sola illa excommunicatione apere, qua aliqui doctrinam intelligentes, probantes, amplexantes, & Sacramentis rectè uti cupientes, quod ad externum usum attinet ab eijsdem propter anteactae vitae turpitu linem a quibusdam Presbyteris repelluntur: quia scilic et non videtur eis serio dolere, qui lapsus fuit, ac sibi dolere id profitetur. it is content that all such, were they never so peaceable and godly, be cast out of the Church by excommunication. All the favour and forbearance which it pleadeth for, is to the loose and profane) So neither doth it altogether exempt the profane, but such only as do neither deny nor defend their wickedness, but confess their sins, and profess sorrow for them. Let the Erastians' of this time observe what their great Master hath yielded touching the Ecclesiastical Censure of profane ones. Which though it is not satisfactory to us, for reasons elsewhere given, yet it can be as little satisfactory to them. But whereas Erastus together with those his Concessions (that he may seem to have said somewhat) falls a quarrelling with Presbyteries for presuming to judge of the sincerity of that repentance professed by a scandalous sinner, and their not resting satisfied with a man's own profession of his repentance. If his followers will now be pleased to reduce the controversy within that narrow circle, Whether a Presbytery may excommunicate from the Church, or at least suspend from the Sacrament, any Church-member, as an impenitent scandalous sinner, who yet doth not defend nor deny his sin by which he hath given scandal, but confesseth it, and professeth sincere and hearty repentance for it: (which is the point that Erasius is fain to hold at in the issue) Then I hope we shall be quickly agreed, and the controversy buried; for we do rest satisfied with the offender his confession of his sin, and profession of his repentance, unless his own known words or actions give the lie to his profession of repentance; that is, if he be known to justify and defend his sin in his ordinary discourse, or to continue in the practice of the sin, which he professeth to the Presbytery he reputes of; if these or such like sure signs of his impenitency be known, must the Presbytery notwithstanding rest satisfied with his verbal profession of repentance? All that fear God (I think) would cry shame, shame, upon such an assertion. And moreover, let us take it in the case of an Idolater, Heretic, Apostate (for Erastus is content that such be excluded from the Sacrament.) Suppose such a one doth confess his sin, and professeth repentance, in the mean while is known to be a writer or spreader of books in defence of that Idolatry or Heresy, or to be a persuader and enticer of others secretly to that way, or if there be any other known infallible sign of his impenitency, must his verbal profession to the Presbytery in such cases be trusted and taken as satisfactory? I am confident Erastus himself would not have said so. Wherefore as in the case of an Heretic, so in the case of a profane person, or one of a scandalous conversation, there is a necessity that the Presbytery examine the real signs of repentance, and the offenders verbal profession is not all. The third cause which helped forward the deadly malady and consumption of Erastianisme; was the grief, shame, confusion and loss which it sustained by the learning and labour of some Divines in the Reformed Churches, who had to very good purpose taken pains to discover to the world the curled nature of that unlucky brood, being of the seed of the Amalekites, which ought not to enter into the Congregation of the Lord. The Divines who have more especially and particularly appeared against it, are (to my observation) these. Beza de Excommunicatione, & Presbyterio contra Erastum: Which was not printed till Erastus his Reply unto it was first printed. Whereunto as Beza in a large Preface layeth the foundation of a duply, so he had prepared and perfected his duply, had he not been hindered by the great troubl●s of Geneva, at that time besieged by the Duke of Savoy; Beza himself being also at that time 71. years old; howbeit for all this, he did not lay aside the resolution and thought of that duply, if he should have opportunity, and see it requisite or called for; all which is manifest from that preface. Next to him, I reckon Zacharias Ursinus a most solid judicious Divine, who did (as I touched before) exhibit to the Prince Elector Palatine Frederick the third, judicium de disciplina Ecclesiastica & Excommunicatione (which you may find in the end of his third Tome) wherein he doth sound confute the Theses of Erastus, neither hath any reply been made thereto, that ever I could learn of ● Also in his catechetical explications, Quaest, 85. He plainly disputes against the Erastian principles. The more strange it is that Mr. Hussey in his Epistle to the Parliament would make them believe that Ursinus is his, and not ours, in this controversy. After these, there did others, more lately, come upon the Stage against the Erastian Principles, as Casparus Brochmand a Lutheran, in System. Theol. Tom. 2. Artic. De disciplina Ecclesiastica, where he examineth the most substantial Arguments of Erastus: Antonius Walaeus de munere ministrorum Ecclesiae & inspectione Magistratus circa illud. Et in loc●… come. de clavivibus & potestate Ecclesiastica. Et Tom, 2. Disp. de disciplina Ecclesiastica. Helmichius de vocatione Pastorum & institutione Consistoriorum. D. Triglandius in differtatione de potestate civili & Ecclesiastica. D. Revius in examine libelli de Episcopatu Constantini magni. D. Apollonij 〈◊〉 Majestatis circa sacra. D. Cabeliavius de libertate Ecclesiae in exercenda disciplina spirituali. Dr. Voqtius in his Politica Ecclesiastica, especially his Disputations de potestate & Politia Ecclesiarum. Beside Acronius, Thysius, Ludou. a Renesse, who were Champions against that unhappy error revived in the Low-Countries by W●…enbogard a Proselyte of the Arminians. But now, while E●…astianisme did thus lie a dying, and like to breathe its last, is there no Physician who will undertake the cure, and endeavour to raise it up from the gates of death to life? Yes, Mr. Coleman was the man, who (to that purpose) first appeared publicly; First by a Sermon to the Parliament; Next, by debating the Controversy with myself in writing; and lastly, By engaging in a public debate in the Reverend Assembly of Divines, against this Proposition: jesus Christ as King and Head of His Church, hath appointed a Government in the Church, in the hands of Church-Officers, distinct from the Civil Government. After he had some days argued against this proposition (having full liberty both to argue and reply as much as he pleased) it pleased God to visit him with sickness, during which, the Assembly (upon intimation from himself, that he wished them to lay aside that Proposition for a time, that if God should give him health again, he might proceed in his debate) did go upon other matter, and lay this aside for that season. The Lord was pleased to remove him by death, before he could do what he intended in this, and other particulars. One of his intentions was to translate and publish in English the Book of Erastus against Excommunication. But through God's mercy, before the poison was ready, there was one Antidote ready, I mean Mr. Rutherford his answer to Erastus. But though Mr. Coleman was the first man he was not the only man that hath appeared in this present Controversy in England. Others (and those of divers professions) are come upon the Stage. I shall leave every man to his Judge, and shall judge nothing before the time. Only I shall wish every man to consider sadly and seriously, by what Spirit and Principles he is led, and whether he be seeking the things of Christ, or his own things; whether he be pleasing men, or pleasing Christ; whether sin be more shamed, and holiness more advanced, this way, or that way; Which way is most agreeable to the Word of God, to the example of the best Reformed Churches; and so to the sol●mne League and Cov●nant. The Controversy is now hot: every faithful servant of Christ, will be careful to deliver his own soul by his faithfulness, and let the lord do what seemeth him good. The cause is not ours, but Christ's; it stands him upon his Honour, his Crown, his Laws, his Kingdom. Our eyes are towards the Lord, and Isa. 33. 2●. we will wait for a divine decision of the business: For the Lord is our Judge, the Lord is our Lawgiver, The Lord is our King, he will save us. CHAP. II. Some Postulata or common Principles to be presupposed. FOr a foundation to the following discourse, I shall premise the particulars following, which I hope shall be condescended upon, and acknowledged, as so many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. There must be a most conscientious and special care had, that there be not a promiscuous admission of all sorts of persons (that please or desire) to partake in all the public Ordinances of God: but a distinction is to be made of the precious and the vile, the clean and the unclean; I mean those who are apparently and visibly such. This was a principle and rule among the Heathens themselves, therefore d Procul, hinc procul ite prophani, Conclamat vates, totoque absistite luco. Et illud, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Et illud, Tu Genitor cape sacra manu patriosque penates. Me bello extento digressum & caede recenti Attrectare nefas, donec me flumine vivo Abluere— when they came to do sacrifice, the profane were bidden be gone, and e Caesar lib. 6. de bello Gallico, Si quis privatus aut publicus eorum decreto non steterit, sacrificijs interdicunt. Haec poena est apud eos gravissima Quibus est interdictum, ij numeroimpiorum ac sceleratorum habentur. Ij omnes decedunt (others read) ab iis omnes decedunt) adinim sermonemque defugiunt, ne quid ex contagione incommodi accipiant. Caesar tells us, that of old the Druids (the Heathenish French Priests) did interdict the flagitious from their sacrifices and holy things. These Druids France had from England, if the observation of Francis Holy-Oke out of Tacitus, hold. 2. That censures and punishments ought to be appointed and inflicted, as for personal and private injuries between man and man, so much more for public and scandalous sins, whereby God is very much dishonoured, and the Church dangerously scandalised. Tiberius' his slighting maxim, Deorum injurias Dijs curae esse, may be entertained among Atheists, but is exploded among all true Christians. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is the Christian maxim. Care is to be first taken of things pertaining to God. 3. It is requisite and necessary, that he who hath given public scandal and offence to the Church, and hath openly dishonoured God by a gross notorious sin, should honour God, edify others, and (so far as in him lieth) remove the offence by a public confession of the sin, and declaration of his sorrow and repentance for the sa●ne; and of his resolution (through the grace of Christ) to do so no more: As many of the Believers at Ephesus did publicly confess and show their deeds: Act. 19 18. The Syriack addeth their offences. A pattern of this confession we have in the Law of Moses, and Jewish policy (whereof elsewhere) as likewise in the Baptism of john, Matth. 3. 6. Of this public Confession of sin, see Festus Honnius disp. 51. Thes, 2. Mr. Hildersham on Psal. 51. Lect. 34. & 37. and divers others. Both the Word of God, and the example of the best Reformed Churches, leadeth us this way. The Centurists Cent. 1. lib. 2. cap. 4. observe four kinds of confession in the New-Testament: First, a Confession of sin to God alone. 1 john 1. 9 Secondly, a confession coram Ecclesia, before the Church, when men acknowledge publikcly their wicked and scandalous deeds, and do profess their repenting and loathing of the same: And for this they cite Act. 19 18. Thirdly, a confession one to another of particular private injuries and offences, chiefly recommended to those who are at variance, and have wronged one another. jam. 5. 16. Fourthly, the confession or profession of the true Faith. 1 john 4. 2. 4. That public shame put upon a scandalous sinner, and the separating or casting out of such an one, as the ulle from the precious, is the fittest and most effectual means which the Church can use to humble him, to break his heart, and to bring him to the acknowledgement of his offence. 5. That there may be and often are such persons in the Church, whom f Erastus lib. 4. cap. 7. Horum debetis vitam & mores observare, & quos impuros esse cognovistis vitare, ne vos quoque inficiamini; ipsi autem pudefiant & in viam redeant. we must avoid, Rom. 16. 17. Withdraw from them. 1 Tim 6. 5. 2 Tim. 3. 5. 2 Thes. 3. 6. Have no company with them. 2 Thes. 3. 14. Not eat with them. 1 Cor. 5. 11. Nor bid them God speed. 2 Epist. John, vers. 10. 11. 6. That since there must be a withdrawing from a brother that walketh disorderly and scandalously, it's more agreeable to the glory of God, and to the Church's peace, that this be done by a public authoritative Ecclesiastical judgement and sentence, than wholly and solely to trust it to the piety and prudence of each particular Christian, to esteem as heathens and publicans, whom, and when, and for what he shall think good, and accordingly to withdraw and separate from them. 7. That there is a distinction between Magistracy and Ministry, even jure Divino. That the civil Magistrate hath not power to abolish or continue the Ministry in abstracto at his pleasure; nor yet to make or unmake Ministers in concreto, that is, to ordain or depose Ministers, as he thinks fit. 8. As the Offices are distinct g Salmasius appar. ad lib. de prim. pag. 303. Cum sit ut jam vidimus duplex potestas Ecclesiastica, altera interna, external altera tam peccant qui utramque principi, vel magistratui civili tribuunt, quam qui utramque denegant ministre Ecclesiastico. so is the power; Magistrates may do what Ministers may not do: and Ministers may do what Magistrates may not do. 9 It is juris Communis, a principle of common equity and natural reason, that the directive Judgement in any matter doth chiefly belong to such as (by their profession and vocation) are devoted and set apart to the study and knowledge of such matters, and (in that respect) supposed to be ablest and fittest to give Judgement thereof. A consultation of Physicians is called for, when the Magistrate desires to know the nature, symptoms, or cure of some dangerous disease. A consultation of Lawyers, in Legal questions. A Council of War in military expeditions. If the Magistrate be in a ship at Sea, he takes not on him the directive part of Navigation, which belongs to the master, with the mates and pilot. Neither doth the master of the ship (if it come to a Sea-fight) take on him the directive part in the fight, which belongs to the Captain. And so in all other cases, Artifici in sua arte credendum. Wherefore though the Judgement of Christian prudence and discretion belongs to every Christian, and to the Magistrate in his Station; and though the Magistrate may be, and sometime is learned in the Scriptures, and well acquainted with the principles of true Divinity, yet ut plurimum, and ordinarily, especially in a rightly Reform and well constituted Church, Ministers are to be supposed to be fittest and ablest to give a directive Judgement in things and causes Spiritual and Ecclesiastical: with whom also other ruling Church. Officers do assist and join, who are more experimentally and practically (they ought also, and divers times are more Theoretically) acquainted with the right way and rules of Church-government and censures; then the civil Magistrate (when he is no ruling Elder in the Church, which is but accidental) can be rationally or ordinarily supposed to be. 10. There is some power of Government, in the Church given to the Ministry by Christ: else why are they said to be set over us in the Lord, and called Rulers and Governors, as we shall see afterwards? CHAP. III. What the Erastians' yield unto Us, and what We yield unto them. FOr better stating of the controversy, We shall first of all take notice of such particulars as are the Opposites concessions to us, or our concessions to them. Their concessions are these. 1. h Erastus confirm. Thes. lib. 3. cap. 1. Veruntamen ut in rebus prophanis curandis ei (Magistratui) non licet terminos & fines aequitatis, justitiae ac honestatis, hoc est praescriptionem legum & statutorum Reiptranscendere. Sic in disponendis & ordinandis rebus sacris, vel ad cultum divinum pertinentibus, long minus ei licet 〈◊〉 in part, a praescripto verbi Dei discedere; quod tanquam re gulam in omnibus debet sequi, ab eoquenusquam vel latum pilum deflectere. That the Christian Magistrate in ordering and disposing of Ecclesiastical causes and matters of Religion, is tied to keep close to the Rule of the Word of God; and that as he may not assume an Arbitrary Government of the State, so far less of the Church. 2. That Church-Officers may exercise Church-government, and authority in matters of Religion, where the Magistrate doth not profess and defend the true Religion: In such a case two Governments are allowed to stand together, one civil, another Ecclesiastical. This i Erastus ibid. Intelligi hoc debet de ea Repub. dictum, in quia Magistratus & subditi, eandem profitentur Religionem, eamque veram. In hac dico duas distinctis jurisdictiones minime debere esse. In alta, in qua videlicet Magistratus falsam tuetur sententiam, certo quodo●…modo toler abilis videri fortosse possit divisio rectionum. Erastus granteth, as it were by constraint, and it seems by way of compliance with the Divines of Zurik (who hold excommunication by Church-Officers under an infidel Magistrate, and that jure Divino) to move them to comply the more with him in other particulars. 3. That the abuse of Church-governement is no good argument against the thing itself: There being no authority so good, so necessary in Church or State, but by reason of their corruptions who manage it, may be abused to tyranny and opression. These are Mr. Prinnes words, Vindic. of the 4. Questions pag. 2. 4. That some Jurisdiction belongs to Presbyteries by Divine Right. Mr. Prynne in his Epistle Dedicatory before the vindication of his four questions, saith, that his scope is, not to take from our new Presbyteries, all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction due by Divine Right to them, but to confine it within certain definite limits, to prevent all exorbitant abuses of it. 5. That the Christian Magistrate ought not, may not preach the Word, nor minister the Sacraments. Mr. Coleman in his Brotherly examination re-examined pag. 14. I never had it in my thoughts that the Parliament had power of dispensing the Word and Sacraments: Then so far there is a distinction of Magistracy and Ministry jure Divino: Yet in this he did not so well agree with k Confirm. Thes. lib. 4. cap. 2. Quod addis non licere magistratui, re ita postulante, docere & Sacramenta administra re (si modo per ne gotia possit utrique muneri sufficere) idverum non est. Erastus. 6. That the ministry is jure Divino, and Ministers have their power and authority of preaching the Word derived to them from Christ, not from the Magistrate. So Mr. Hussey in his Epistle to myself. We preach the Word with all authority from Christ, derived to us by those of our Brethren that were in Commission before us. Magistrates may drive away false Teachers, but not the Preachers of the Gospel but at their utmost peril. 7. They admit and allow of Presbyteries, so that they do not exercise Government and Jurisdiction. Erast. lib. 4. cap. 1. Our Concessions to our Opposites, are these. 1. That all are not to be admitted promiscuously either to be governor's or members in the Ecclesiastical Republic, that is, in a visible political Church. None are to govern l Bullinger de Conc. lib. 1. c. 8. Si turpe aut indignum quondam videbatur gentes inducere in templum Del: quare non videatur hodie sacrilegum, introducere in Synodum Ecclesiasticam canes & porcos. nor to be abmitted members of Presbyteries or Synods, except such as both for abilities and conversation, are qualified according to that which the Apostle Paul requireth a Bishop or Elder to be. Scandalous or profane Church-Officers are the worst of dogs and swine, and to be first cast out. And as all are not to govern, so all are not to be governed Ecclesiastically; but only Church-Members, 1 Cor. 5. 12. Therefore what hath been objected concerning many both Pastors and People in England, who are still branches of the old stock, doth not strike against what we hold. All are not sit for a Church-government. Therefore those that are fit shall not have a Church-Government. So they must argue; Or thus, a Popish people are not fit to be governed Presbyterially, and Episcopal Ministers are not fit to govern; therefore the rest of the Nation shall want a Government. 2. Presbyterial Government is not despotical, but ministerial, it is not a Dominion, but a Service. We are not Lords over God's heritage: 1 Pet. 5. 3. but we are the servants both of Christ and of his Church. We preach not ourselves, saith the Apostle, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your servants for Jesus sake. 2 Cor. 4. 5. 3. That power of Government with which Pastors and Elders are invested, hath for the object of it, not the external man, but the inward man. It is not, nor ought not to be exercised in any compulsive, coercive, corporal, or civil punishments. When there is need of coercion or compulsion, it belongs to the Magistrate, not to the Minister, though the question be of a matter of Religion; of Persons or things Ecclesiastical. Which as it is rightly observed by m Appar. ad lib. de primatu pag. 294. Ubicunque sane imperio opus est per vim agente ac jubenie, aut Jurisdictione cogente & cohercente, nihil istic habent quod agant verbi divini ministri, neque jus agendi ullum, etiamsi de re aut persona Ecclesiastica quaestio sit, aut de Religione agatur, sed ad principes out Magistratus ea vis coactiva, & il'ud jus imperativum & coercitivum pertinet. Ibid. pag. 295. jurisdictionem ijdem (pontificij Doctores) porro interiorem ac exteriorem ita distinguunt, ut interior sit qua Sacerdos possit peccatorem confessum a peccatis absolvere & satisfactionem ponere: exterior autem qua peccatores adstringit 〈◊〉 Anathematis, aliasque publicas censuras irrc●…at, & abijsdem exsolvit. Verum hae duae jurisdictiones un●…m faciunt, ean que solam interiorem. Nulla quip exterior est, cum utraque respiciat & p●…o objecto habeat hominem interiorem, id est animam. lb. p. 297. Finis tantum respici debet. Aliquis suspenditur & excommunicatur? Sane, sed ut per poenitentiam restitui possit, & Sacramenta corporis & sanguiriss Christi iterum participare. Et poenitentia illa quam quis agit ut possit reconciliari, interioris est hominis. Salmasius, so he further asserteth against the Popish Writers, that all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction hath for the object of it, only the inward man; for consider the end of Church-censures, saith he, even when one is ex communicated or suspended from the Sacrament, it is but to reduce him and restore him by repentance, that he may again partake of the Sacrament rightly and comfortably: which repentance is in the soul or inward man, though the signs of it appear externally. 4. Presbyterial Government is not an arbitrary Government; for clearing whereof take these five Considerations. 1. We can do nothing against the Truth but for the Truth: and the power which the Lord hath given u●, is to edification and not to destruction 2 Cor. 13 8 10. All Presbyterial proceedings must be leveled to this end, and squared by this rule. 2. Presbyters and Presbyteries are 〈◊〉 to the Law of the Land, and to the corrective power of the Magistrate; Quatenus Ecclesia est in Republica, & Reipub. pars, non Respublica Ecclesiae: In so far as the Church is in the Commonwealth, and a part of the Commonwealth; not the Commonwealth a part of the Church, saith Salmasius appar. ad lib. de Primatu pag. 292. for which, pag. 300. he citys, Optatus Milivitanus lib. 3. Non enim Respullica est in Ecclesia, sed Ecclesia in Republica. Ministers and Elders are Subjects and Members of the Commonwealth, and in that respect punishable by the Magistrate, if they transgress the Law of the Land. 3. Yea also as Church-Officers, they are to be kept within the limits of their calling, and compelled (if need be) by the Magistrate to do those Duties which by the clear Word of God and received principles of Christian Religion, or by the received Ecclesiastical Constitutions of that Church, they ought to do. 4. And in corrupto Ecclesiae statu, I mean, if it shall ever happen (which the Lord forbid, and I trust shall never be) that Presbyteries, or Synods shall make defection from the Truth to Error, from Holiness to profaneness, from Moderation to Tyranny and Persecution, censuring the innocent and absolving the guilty, as Popery and Prelacy did, and there being no hopes of redressing such enormities in the ordinary way by intrinsecal Ecclesiastical remedies, that is, by well-constituted Synods, or Assemblies of Orthodox, holy, moderate Presbyters: In such an extraordinary exigence, the Christian Magistrate may and aught to interpose his Authority to do divers things which in an ordinary course of Government he ought not to do; for in such a case, Magistracy (without expecting the proper intrinsical remedy of better Ecclesiastical Assemblies) may immediately, by itself, and in the most effectual manner, suppress and restrain such defection, exorbitancy, and tyranny, and not suffer the unjust, heretical, tyrannical Sentences of Presbyteries or Synods to be put in execution. Howbeit in Ecclesia bene constituta, in a well constituted and Reformed Church, it is not to be supposed, that the condition of affairs will be such as I have now said. We heartily acknowledge with Mr. Cartwright annot. on Mat. 22. Sect. 3. That it belongeth to the Magistrate, to reform things in the Church, as often as the Ecclesiastical persons shall either through ignorance, or disorder of the affection of covetousness or ambition, d●…file the Lords Sanctuary. For saith junius Animad. in Bell. contr. 4. lib. 1. cap. 12. & 18. Both the Church when the concurrence of the Magistrate faileth, may extraordinarily do something which ordinarily she cannot: and again when the Church faileth of her duty, the Magistrate may extraordinarily procure, that the Church return to her duty. 5. I dare confidently say, that if comparisons be rightly made, Presbyterial Government is the most limited and the least Arbitrary Government of any other in the world. I should have thought it very unnecessary and superfluous, to have once named here the Papal Government, or yet the Prelatical, but that Mr. Prynn in his preface to his four grand Questions, puts the Reverend Assembly of Divines in mind, that they should beware of usurping that which hath been even by themselves disclaimed against, and quite taken away from the Pope and Prelates. Mr. Coleman also in his Sermon brought objections from the usurpations of Pope Paul the fifth, and of the Archhbishop of Canterbury: Well, if we must needs make a comparison, come on. The Papal usurpations are many. 1. The Pope takes upon him to determine what belongs to the Canon of Scripture, what not? 2. That he only can determine what is the sense of Scripture. 3. He addeth unwritten Traditions. 4. He makes himself Judge of all controversies. 5. He dispenseth with the Law of God itself. 6. He makes himself above General Counsels. 7. His government is Monarchical. 8. He receiveth appeals from all the Nations in the world. 9 He claimeth Infallibility at lest ex Cathedra. 10. He maketh Laws absolutely binding the Conscience, even in things indifferent. 11. He claimeth a Temporal Dominion over all the Kingdoms in the world. 12. He saith he may depose Kings, and absolve Subjects from their oath of allegiance. 13. He persecuteth all with fire and sword and anathemas, who do not subject themselves to him. 14. He claimeth the sole power of convocating general Counsels. 15. And of presiding or moderating therein by Himself or his Legates. What Conscience or ingenuity can there now be, in making any parallel between Papal and Presbyterial Government? As little there is in making the comparison with Prelacy, the power whereof was indeed arbitrary and impatient of those limitations and rules which Presbyteries and Synods in the Reformed Churches walkby. For 1. The Prelate was but one, yet he claimed the power of ordination and jurisdiction as proper to himself in his own Diocese. We give the power of ordination and Church censures not uni, but unitati, not to one, but to an Assembly gathered into one. 2. The Prelate assumed a perpetual precedency and a constant privilege of moderating Synods, Which Presbyterial Government denyeth to any one man. 3. The Prelate did not tie himself either to ask or to receive advice from his fellow Presbyters, except when he himself pleased. But there is no Presbyterial nor Synodical sentence, which is not concluded by the major part of voices. 4. The Prelate made himself Pastor to the whole Diocese (consisting it may be of some hundreds of Congregations) holding that the Ministers of particular Congregations did preach the Word and minister the Sacraments, in his name by virtue of authority and order from him, and because he could not act by himself in every Congregation. The Presbyterial Government acknowledgeth no Pastoral charge of preaching the Word and ministering the Sacraments to more Congregations than one; and doth acknowledge the Pastors of particular Churches, being lawfully called, to have power and authority for preaching the Word and ministering the Sacraments in the name of Christ, and not in the name of the Presbytery. 5. The Prelates as they denied the power and authority of Pastors, so they utterly denied the very offices of ruling Elders, and Deacons for taking more especial care of the poor, in particular Congregations. 6. They did not acknowledge congregational Elderships, nor any power of discipline in particular Congregations which the Presbyterial Government doth. 7. They intruded Pastors oft times against the consent of the Congregation, and reclamante Ecclesiâ, which the Presbyterial Government doth not. 8. They ordained Ministers without any particular charge, which the Presbyterial Government doth not. 9 In Synods they did not allow any but the Clergy alone (as they kept up the name) to have decisive suffrage. The Presbyterial Government gives decisive voices to ruling Elders as well as to Pastors. 10. The Prelates declined to be accountable to and censurable by either Chapters, Diocesan or national Synods. In Presbyterial Government all (in whatsoever Ecclesiastical administration) are called to an account in Presbyteries, Provincial and national Assemblies respectively, and none are exempted from Synodical censures in case of scandal and obstinacy. 11. The Prelate's power was not merely Ecclesiastical, they were Lords of Parliament, they held Civil places in the State, which the Presbyterial Government condemneth. 12. The Prelates were not chosen by the Church, Presbyters are. 13. The Prelates did presume to make Laws binding the Conscience, even in things indifferent, and did persecute, imprison, fine, depose, excommunicate men for certain Rites and Ceremonies acknowledged by themselves to be indifferent (setting aside the will and authority of the Law makers) This the Presbyterial Government abhorreth. 14. They did excommunicate for money matters, for trifles. Which the Presbyterial Government condemneth. 15. The Prelates did not allow men to examine by the Judgement of Christian and private discretion, their Decrees and Canons, so as to search the Scriptures and look at the Warrants, but would needs have men think it enough to know the things to be commanded by them that are in place and power. Presbyterial Government doth not lord it over men's consciences, but admitteth (yea commendeth) the searching of the Scriptures, whether these things which it holds forth be not so, and doth not press men's Consciences with Sic volo, sic jubeo, but desireth they may do in faith what they do. 16. The Prelates held up pluralities, non-residencies etc. Which the Presbyterial Government doth not 17. As many of the Prelates did themselves neglect to preach the Gospel, so they kept up in divers places a reading non-preaching Ministry: Which the Presbyterial Government suffereth not. 18. They opened the door of the Ministry to divers scandalous, Arminianized, and popishly affected men, and locked the door upon many worthy to be admitted. The Presbyterial Government herein is as contrary to theirs, as theirs was to the right. 19 Their Official Courts, Commissaries, etc. did serve themselves H●ires to the sons of Eli, Nay, but thou shalt give it me now, and if not, I will take it by force. The Presbyterial Government 〈◊〉 such proceedings. 20. The Prelates and their High-Commission Court did assume pot●…statem utriusque gladij, the power both of the Temporal and Civil Sword. The Presbyterial Government meddleth with no Civil nor Temporal punishments. I do not intend to enumerate all the differences between the Papal and Prelatical Government on the one side, and the Presbyterial Government on the other side; in this point of unlimitedness or arbitrarynesse. These differences which I have given, may serve for a conscientious caution to intelligent and moderate men, to beware of such odious and unjust comparisons, as have been used by some, and among others by Mr. Sal●…marsh in his Parallel between the Prelacy and Presbytery: Which as it cannot strike against us, nor any of the Reformed Churches (who acknowledge no such Presbytery as he describeth) and in some particulars, striketh at the Ordinance of Parliament (as namely in point of the Directory) so he that hath a mind to a Recrimination, might with more truth lay divers of those imputations upon those, whom (I believe) he is most unwilling they should be laid upon. In the third place, The Presbyterian Government is more limited and less arbitrary than the Independent Government of single Congregations, which exempting themselves from the Presbyterial subordination, and from being accountable to, and censurable by Classes or Synods, must needs be supposed to exercise a much more unlimited or arbitrary power, than the Presbyterial Churches do: especially when this shall be compared and laid together with one of their three grand Principles, which disclaimeth the binding of themselves for the future unto their present judgement and practice, and avoucheth the keeping of this reserve to alter and retract. See their Apologetical narration, pag. 10, 11. By which it appeareth that their way will not suffer them to be so far moulded into an Uniformity, or bounded within certain particular rules (I say not with others, but even among themselves) as the Presbyterian way will ad●it of. Finally, The Presbyterial Government hath no such liberty nor arbitrariness, as Civil or Military Government hath: there being in all civil or temporal affairs a great deal of latitude 〈◊〉 to those who manage the same, so that they command nor act nothing against the Word of God. But Presbyterial Government is tied up to the rules of Scripture, in all such particulars as are properly spiritual and proper to the Church; Though in other particular, occasional circumstances of times, places, accommodations, and the like, the same light of nature and reason guideth both Church and State; yet in things properly Spiritual and Ecclesiastical, there is not near somuch latitude left to the Presbytery, as there is in civil affairs to the Magistrate. And thus I have made good what I said, That Presbyterial Government is the most limited and least arbitrary Government of any other. All which Vindication and clearing of the Presbyterial Government, doth overthrow (as to this Point) Master Hussey's Observation, pag. 9 of the irregularity and arbitrariness of Church-government. And so much of my fourth Conc●ssion. The fifth shall be this: 'Tis far from our meaning, that the Christian Magistrate should not meddle with matters of Religion, or things and causes Ecclesiastical, and that he is to take care of the Commonwealth, but not of the Church. Certainly there is much power and Authority which by the Word of God, and by the Confessions of Faith of the Reformed Churches, doth belong to the Christian Magistrate in matters of Religion. Which I do but now touch by the way, so far as is necessary to wipe off the aspersion cast upon Presbyterial Government. The particulars I refer to Chapter 8. Our sixth Concession is, That in extraordinary cases, when Church-government doth degenerate into tyranny, ambition, and avarice; and they who have the managing of the Ecclesiastical power, make defection and fall into manifest Heresy, Impiety, or Injustice, (as under Popery and Prelacy it was for the most part:) then, and in such cases (which we pray and hope we shall never see again) the Christian Magistrate may and aught to do divers things in and for Religion, and interpose his Authority divers ways, so as doth not properly belong to his cognizance, decision, and administration, ordinarily, and in a Reformed and well constituted Church. For extraordinary diseases must have extraordinary remedies. More of this before. A seventh Concession is this: The Civil Sanction added to Church-government and Discipline, is a free and voluntary Act of the Magistrate. That is, Church-government doth not ex 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, necessitate the Magistrate to aid, assist, or corroborate the same, by adding the strength of a Law. But the Magistrate is free in this, to do or not to do, to do more or to do less, as he will answer to God and his conscience: it is a cumulative Act of favour done by the Magistrate. My meaning is not, that it is free to the Magistrate▪ in genere moris; but in genere entis. The Magistrate ought to add the Civil Sanction hic & nunc, or he ought not to do it. It is either a duty, or a sin; it is not indifferent. But my meaning is, The Magistrate is free herein from all coaction, yea from all necessity and obligation; other than ariseth from the Word of God, binding his conscience. There is no power on Earth, Civil or Spiritual, to constrain him. The Magistrate himself is his own Judge on Earth, how far he is to do any cumulative Act of favour to the Church. Which takes off that calumny, that Presbyterial Government doth force or compel the conscience of the Magistrate. I pray God we may never have cause to state the Question otherwise, I mean, concerning the Magistrate his forbidding what Christ hath commanded, or commanding what Christ hath forbidden: in which case we must serve Christ and our consciences, rather than obey Laws contrary to the Word of God and our Covenant: whereas in the other case, of the Magistrate his not adding of the Civil Sanction, we may both serve Christ, and do it without the least appearance of disobedience to the Magistrate. Eighthly, We grant that Pastors and Elders, whether they be considered distributively, or collectively in Presbyteries and Synods, being Subjects and Members of the Commonwealth, aught to be subject and obedient in the Lord to the Magistrate and to the Law of the Land; and as in all other duties, so in Civil subjection and obedience they ought to be ensamples to the Flock; and their trespasses against Law are punishable, as much, yea, more than the trespasses of other Subjects. Of this also before. Ninthly, If the Magistrate be offended, at the sentence given, or censure inflicted by a Presbytery or a Synod, they ought to be ready in all humility and respect, to give him an account and reason of such their proceedings, and by all means to endeavour the satisfaction of the Magistrate his conscience: or otherwise to be warned and rectified, if themselves have erred. CHAP. IU. Of the agreements and differences between the nature of the Civil and of the Ecclesiastical Powers or Governments. HAving now observed what▪ our opposites yield to us, or we to them, I shall for further unfolding of what I plead for, or against, add here the chief agreements and differences between the Civil and Ecclesiastical powers, so far as I apprehend them. They both agree in these things: 1. They are both from God; both the Magistrate, and the Minister is authorized from God, both are the Ministers of God, and shall give account of their administrations to God. 2. Both are tied to observe the Law and Commandments of God: and both have certain directions from the Word of God to guide them in their administration. 3. Both Civil Magistrates and Church Officers are Fathers▪ and ought to be honoured and obeyed according to the fifth Commandment: Utrumque scilicet dominium, saith Luther, Tom. 1. fol. 139. both Governments, the Civil and the Ecclesiastical, do pertain to that Commandment. 4▪ Both Magistracy and Ministry are appointed for the glory of God as Supreme, and for the good of men as the subordinate end. 5. They are both of them mutually aiding and auxiliary, each to other. Magistracy strengthens the Ministry, and the Ministry strengthens Magistracy. 6. They agree in their general kind; they are both Powers and Governments. 7. Both of them require singular qualifications, eminent gifts and endowments▪ and of both it holds true, Quis ad haec idoneus? 8. Both of them have degrees of censures and correction according to the degrees of offences. 9 Neither the one nor the other may give out sentence against one who is not convict, or whose offence is not proved. 10. Both of them have a certain kind of Jurisdiction in foro exteriori. For though the Ecclesiastical power be spiritual, and exercised about such things as belong to the inward man only; yet as Dr. Rivet upon the Decalogue, pag. 260. 261. saith truly, there is a twofold power of external jurisdiction which is exercised in foro exteriori: one by Church-Censures, Excommunication, lesser and greater▪ which is not committed to the Magistrate, but to Church-Officers: Another, which is Civil and coercive, and that is the Magistrates. But Mr. Coleman told us, he was persuaded it will trouble the whole World to bond Ecclesiastical and Civil Jurisdiction, the one from the other; Maledicis pag. 7. Well: I have given ten agreements. I will now give ten differences. The difference between them is great; they differ in their causes, effects, objects, adjuncts, correlations, executions, and ultimate terminations. 1. In the efficient cause. The King of Nations hath instituted the Civil power; The King of Saints hath instituted the Ecclesiastical power. I mean the most high God, possessor of Heaven and Earth, who exerciseth Sovereignty over the workmanship of his own hands, and so over all mankind, hath instituted Magistrates to be in his stead, as gods upon Earth. But jesus Christ as Mediator and King of the Church, whom his Father hath set upon his holy Hill of Zion, Psal. 2. 6. to reign over the House of Jacob for ever, Luke 1. 33. who hath the key of the House of David laid upon his shoulder, Isa. 22. 22. hath instituted an Ecclesiastical power and government in the hands of Church-Officers, whom in his name he sendeth forth. 2. In the matter, Magistracy or Civil power hath for the matter of it the earthly Sceptre and the Temporal Sword: that is, it is Monarchical and Legislative: it is also punitive or coercive of those that do evil; understand, upon the like reason, remunerative of those that do well. n Festus Honnius disp. 30. thes. 6. Circa bonum spirituale versatur potestas Ecclesi astica proprie ita dicta, cujus proprium officium est verbum Dei praedicare, Sacramenta administrare, disciplinam Ecclesiasticam exercere, Ministros Ecclesiae ordinare, de controversiis Ecclesi isticis quae circa doctrinam aut regimen Ec clesiae intercidunt, ordinary judicare, & de ritibus adiaphoris ad ordinem, decorum atque aedificationem Ecclesiae pertinentibus, Canon's seu leges Ecclesiasticas constituere. I. Gerard loc. come. Tom. 6. pag. 494. Distinguitur Christi regnum ad quod potestas clavium pertinet, ab imperiis mundanis quae gladio corporali in administratione utuntur. The Ecclesiastical power hath for the matter of it, the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. 1. The key of knowledge or doctrine, and that to be administered, not only severally by each Minister concionaliter, but also Consistorially and Synodically in determining controversies of Faith, and that according to the rule of holy Scripture only: which is clavis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 2. The key of order and decency, so to speak: by which the circumstances of God's Worship and all such particulars in Ecclesiastical affairs, as are not determined in Scripture, are determined by the Ministers and ruling Officers of the Church, so as may best agree to the general rules of the word concerning order and decency, avoiding of scandal, doing all to the glory of God, and to the edifying of one another. And this is clavis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 3. The key of corrective discipline or censures to be exercised upon the scandalous and obstinate: which is clavis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 4. Add also the key of Ordination or mission of Church-Officers, which I may call clavis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the authorising or power giving key, others call it missio potestativa. 3. They differ in their forms. The power of Magistracy is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It is an authority or dominion exercised in the particulars above mentioned, and that in an immediate subordination to God: for which reason Magistrates are called gods. The Ecclesiastical power is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only. It is merely Ministerial and Steward-like, and exercised in an immediate subordination to jesus Christ, as King of the Church, and in his name and authority. 4. They differ in their ends. The supreme end of Magistracy is only the glory of God, as King of Nations, and as exercising dominion over the inhabitants of the earth: And in that respect the Magistrate is appointed to keep his Subjects within the bounds of external obedience to the moral Law, the obligation where of lieth upon all Nations, and all men. The supreme end of the Ecclesiastical power, is either proximus or remotus. The nearest and immediate end is the glory of jesus Christ, as Mediator and King of the Church. The more remote end is the glory of God, as having all power and authority in heaven and earth. You will say, Must not then the Christian Magistrate intent the glory of jesus Christ, and to be subservient to him as he is Mediator and King of the Church? Certainly he ought and must; and God forbid but that he should do so. But how? not qua Magistrate, but qua Christian. If you say to me again, Must not the Christian Magistrate intent to be otherwise subservient to the Kingdom of jesus Christ as Mediator, then by personal or private Christian duties, which are incumbent to every Christian? I answer, no doubt he ought to intend more, even to glorify jesus Christ in the administration of Magistracy. Which that you may rightly apprehend, and that I be not misunderstood, take this distinction. It is altogether incumbent to the ruling Officers of the Church, to intend the glory of Christ as Mediator, even ex natura rei, in regard of the very nature of Ecclesiastical power and government which hath no other end and use for which it was intended and instituted, but to be subservient to the Kingly office of jesus Christ in the governing of his Church upon earth (and therefore sublata Ecclesiâ perit regimen Ecclesiasticum, take away the Church out of a Nation, and you take away all Ecclesiastical power of government, which makes another difference from Magistracy, as we shall see anon.) But the Magistrate though Christian and godly, doth not ex natura rei, in regard of the nature of his particular vocation▪ intent the glory of jesus Christ as Mediator, and King of the Church: but in regard of the common principles of Christian Religion, which do oblige every Christian in his particular vocation and station (and so the Magistrate in his) to intend that end. All Christians are commanded that whatever they do in word or deed, they do all in the name of the Lord jesus, Col. 3. 17. that is, according to the will of Christ, and for the glory of Christ: And so a Merchant, a Mariner, a Tradesman, a Schoolmaster, a Captain, a Soldier, a Printer, and in a word, every Christian in his own place and station ought to intend the glory of Christ, and the good of his Church and Kingdom. Upon which ground and principle, if the Magistrate be Christian, it is incumbent to him so to administer that high and eminent vocation of his, that Christ may be glorified as King of the Church, and that this Kingdom of Christ may flourish in his Dominions, (which would God every Magistrate called Christian did really intend.) So then the glory of Christ as Mediator and King of the Church, is to the Ministry both finis operis, and finis operantis. To the Magistrate, though Christian, it is only finis operantis; That is, it is the end of the godly Magistrate, but not the end of Magistracy: whereas it is not only the end of the godly Minister, but the end of the Ministry itself. The Minister's intendment of this end, flows from the nature of their particular vocation. The Magistrate's intendment of the same end, flows from the nature of their general vocation of Christianity, acting, guiding, and having influence into their particular vocation. So much of the supreme ends. Now the subordinate end of all Ecclesiastical power, is, that all who are of the Church, whether Officers or members, may live godly, righteously, and soberly in this present world, be kept within the bounds of obedience to the Gospel, void of all known offence toward God, and toward man, and be made to walk according to the rules delivered to us by Christ and his Apostles. The subordinate end of the Civil power is, that all public sins committed presumptuously against the moral Law, may be exemplarly punished, and that peace, justice, and good order may be preserved and maintained in the Commonwealth, which doth greatly redound to the comfort and good of the Church, and to the promoting of the course of the Gospel▪ For this end the Apostle bids us pray for Kings, and all who are in Authority (though they be Pagans, much more if they be Christians) that we may live under them a peaceable and quiet life, in all Godliness and Honesty: 1▪ Tim. 2. 2. He saith not simply, that we may live in Godliness and Honesty, but that we may both live peaceably and quietly, and also live godly and honestly: which is the very same that we commonly say of the Magistrate, that he is Custos utriusque Tabulae. He is to take special care that all his Subjects be made to observe the Law of God, and live not only in moral honesty, but in Godliness, and that so living, they may also enjoy peace and quietness. More particularly; the end of Church censures is, that men may be ashamed, humbled, reduced to repentance, that their spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. The end of civil punishments inflicted by the Magistrate is, That justice may be done according to Law, and that peace and good order may be maintained in the Commonwealth, as hath been said. The end of delivering Hymeneus and Alexander to Satan, was, that they may learn not to blaspheme, 1 Tim. 1. 20. Erastus yields to Beza, pag. 239. that the Apostle doth not say Ut non possint blasphemare, that henceforth they may not be able to sin as they did before (which yet he acknowledgeth to be the end of civil punishments,) but that they may learn not to blaspheme. Wherefore when he expounds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to no other sense but this, That the Apostle had delivered those two to be killed by Satan, Ut non possint, that they may not be able to blaspheme so any more; just as a Mastgirate delivers a thief from the gallows, that he may not be able to steal any more, and (as he tells us some speak) that he may learn to steal no more: He is herein confuted, not only out of the Text, but out of himself. So then, the end of Church-censures is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that the offenders may learn or be instructed to do so no more; which belongeth to the inward man or soul. The end of civil punishments is, Ut non possint (as Erastus tells us) that the offenders may not be able or at least (being alive and some way free) may not dare to do the like, the sword being appointed for a terror to them who do evil, to restrain them from public and punishable offences, not to work upon the spirit of their minds, nor to effect the destroying of the flesh by mortification, that the spirit may be safe in the day of the Lord. The fifth difference between the Civil and Ecclesiastical powers, is in respect of the effects. The effects of the Civil power are Civil Laws, Civil punishments, Civil rewards. The effects of the Ecclesiastical power, are Determinations of Controversies of Faith, Canons concerning Order and Decency in the Church, Ordination or Deposition of Church-Officers, Suspension from the Sacrament, and Excommunication. The powers being distinct in their nature and causes, the effects must needs be distinct, which flow from the actuating and putting in execution of the powers. I do not here speak of the effects of the Ecclesiastical power of Order, the dispensing of the Word and Sacraments; but of the effects of the power of Jurisdiction or Government, of which only the Controversic is. Sixthly: The Civil power hath for the object of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the things of this life, matters of Peace, War, Justice, the King's matters, and the Countrey-matters, those things that belong to the external man: But the Ecclesiastical power hath for the object of it, things pertaining to God, the Lords matters, as they are distinct from Civil matters, and things belonging to the inward man, distinct from the things belonging to the outward man. This difference Protestant Writers do put between the Civil and Ecclesiastical powers. Fr. Junius Ecclesiast. lib. 3. cap. 4. saith thus: We have put into our definition humane things to be the subject of Civil administration: but the subject of Ecclesiastical administration, we have taught to be things Divine and Sacred. Things Divine and Sacred we call both those which God commandeth for the sanctification of our mind and conscience, as things necessary; and also those which the decency and order of the Church requireth to be ordained and observed, for the profitable and convenient use of the things which are necessary: For example, Prayers, the administration of the Word and Sacraments, Ecclsiastical censure, are things necessary and essentially belonging to the Communion of Saints: but set days, set hours, set places, fasts▪ and the like, belong to the decency and order of the Church etc. But humane things we call such as touch the life, the body▪ goods and good name, as they are expounded in the second Table of the Decalogue; for these are the things in which the whole Civil administration standeth. Tilen, Synt. part. 2. disp. 32. tells us to the same purpose, That Civil Government or Magistracy versatur circa res terrenas & hominem externum. Magistratus, saith Danavi Pol. Christ. lib. 6. cap. 1. instituti sunt à Deo rerum humanarum quae hominum societati necessariae sunt, respectu, & ad earum curam. If it be objected, How can these things agree with that which hath been before by us acknowledged, that the Civil Magistrate ought to take special care of Religion, of the conservation and purgation thereof, of the abolishing idolatry and superstition; and aught to be Custos utriusque Tabulae, of the first, as well as second Table? I answer, That Magistrates are appointed, not only for Civil Policy, but for the conservation and purgation of Religion▪ as is expressed in the Confession of Faith of the Church of Scotland, before cited, we firmly believe, as a most undoubted truth. But when Divines make the object of Magistracy to be only such things as belong to this life and to humane society, they do not mean the object of the Magistrates Care (as if he were not to take care of Religion;) but the object of his Operation. The Magistrate himself may not assume the administration of the keys, nor the dispensing of Church-censures; he can but punish the external man with external punishments. Of which more afterwards. The seventh difference stands in the Adjuncts: For 1. the Ecclesiastical power in Presbyterial or Synodical Assemblies, ought not to be exercised without prayer and calling upon the Name of the Lord, Matth. 18. 19 There is no such obligation upon the Civil power, as that there may be no Civil Court of Justice without prayer. 2. In divers cases Civil Jurisdiction hath been and is in the person of one man: But no Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction is committed to one man, but to an Assembly in which two at least must agree in the thing, as is gathered from the Text last cited. 3. No private or secret offence ought to be brought before an Ecclesiastical Court, except in the case of contumacy and impenitency, after previous admonitions: This is the ordinary rule, not to dispute now extraordinary exceptions from that rule. But the Civil power is not bound up by any such ordinary rule: For I suppose, our opposites will hardly say (at least hardly make it good) that no Civil injury or breach of Law and Justice, being privately committed, may be brought before a Civil Court, except first there be previous admonitions, and the party admonished prove obstinate and impenitent. The eighth difference stands in their correlations. The Correlatum of Magistracy is people embodied in a Commonwealth, or a Civil corporation. The Correlatum of the Ecclesiastical power is people embodied in a Church, or Spiritual corporation. The Commonwealth is not in the Church, but the Church is in the Commonwealth, that is, One is not therefore in or of the Church, because he is in or of the Commonwealth, of which the Church is a part; but yet every one that is a Member of the Church, is also a Member of the Commonwealth, of which that Church is a part. The Apostle distinguisheth those that are without, and those that are within in reference to the Church, who were notwithstanding both sorts within in reference to the Commonwealth, 1 Cor. 5. 12, 13. The Correlatum of the Ecclesiastical power may be quite taken away by persecution, or by defection, when the Correlatum of the civil power may remain. And therefore the Ecclesiastical and the civil power do not se mutuò ponere & tollere. Ninthly: There is a great difference in the ultimate termination. The Ecclesiastical power can go no further than Excommunication, or (in case of extraordinary warrants, and when one is known to have blasphemed against the holy Ghost) to Auathema Maranatha. If one be not humbled and reduced by Excommunication, the Church can do no more, but leave him to the Judgement of God, who hath promised to ratify in Heaven, what his Servants in his Name, and according to his Will, do upon Earth. Salmasius spends a whole chapter in confuting the Point of the coactive and Magistratical Jurisdiction of Bishops. See Walo Messal. cap. 6. He acknowledgeth in that very place, pag. 455, 456, 459, 462▪ that the Elders of the Church have in common the power of Ecclesiastical Discipline, to suspend from the Sacrament and to excommunicate, and to receive the offender again upon the evidence of his repentance. But the Point he asserteth is, That Bishops or Elders have no such power as the Magistrate hath, and that if he that is excommunicate do not care for it, nor submit himself, the Elders cannot compel him. But the termination or Quo usque of the civil power, is most different from this. It is unto death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment. Ezra 7. 26. Tenthly: They differ in a divided execution. That is, the Ecclesiastical power ought to censure sometime one whom the Magistrate thinks not fit to punish with temporal or civil punishments: And again, the Magistrate ought to punish with the temporal Sword, one whom the Church ought not to cut off by the Spiritual Sword. This difference Pareus gives, Explic. Catech. quaest. 85. art. 4. and it cannot be denied: For those that plead most for Liberty of conscience▪ and argue against all civil or temporal punishments of Heretics, do notwithstanding acknowledge, that the Church whereof they are Members ought to censure and excommunicate them, and doth not her duty except she do so. The Church may have reason to esteem one as an Heathen and a Publican that is no Church-Member, whom yet the Magistrate in prudence and policy doth permit to live in the Commonwealth. Again, the most notorious and scandalous sinners, blasphemers, murderers, adulterers, incestuous persons, robbers, etc. when God gives them repentance, and the signs thereof do appear, the Church doth not bind but lose them, doth not retain but remit their sins; I mean ministerially and declaratively. Notwithstanding the Magistrate may and aught to do Justice according to Law, even upon those penitent sinners. CHAP. V. Of a twofold Kingdom of jesus Christ: a general Kingdom, as he is the eternal Son of God, the Head of all Principalities and Powers, reigning over all creatures: and a particular Kingdom, as he is Mediator, reigning over the Church only. THe Controversy which hath been moved concerning the civil Magistrate his Vicegerentship, and the holding of his Office▪ of and under and for Jesus Christ as he is Mediator, hath a necessary coherence with, and dependence upon another Controversy concerning a twofold Kingdom of Jesus Christ; one, as he is the eternal Son of God, reigning together with the Father and the holy Ghost over all things; and so the Magistrate is his Vicegerent, and holds his Office of and under him: another as Mediator and Head of the Church, and so the Magistrate doth not hold his Office of and under Christ as his Vicegerent. Wherefore before I come to that Question concerning the origination and tenure of the Magistrate's Office, I have thought good here to premise the enodation of the Question concerning the twofold Kingdom of Jesus Christ. It is a distinction which Master Hussey cannot endure▪ and no marvel; for it overturneth the foundation of his opinion. He looks upon it as an absurd assertion, pag. 25. Shall he have one Kingdom as Mediator, and another as God? He quarrelleth all that I said of the twofold Kingdom of Christ, and will not admit that Christ as Mediator is King of the Church only, pag. 25, 26, 27, 35, 36, 37. The Controversy draweth deeper than he is aware of: for Socinians and Photinians finding themselves puzzled with those arguments which (to prove the eternal Godhead of Jesus Christ) were drawn from such Scriptures as call him God, Lord, the Son of God; also from such Scriptures as ascribe Worship and Adoration to him; and from the Texts which ascribe to him a Supreme Lordship, Dominion, and Kingdom over all things: (For this hath been used as one Argument for the Godhead of Jesus Christ and his consubstantiality with the Father. The Father reigns, the Son reigns, the holy Ghost reigns. Vide lib. Isaaci Clari Hispani adversus Varimadum Arianum:) Thereupon they devised this answer▪ That Jesus Christ in respect of his Kingly Office, and as Mediator, is called God, and Lord, and the Son of God, (of which see Fest. Honnij Specimen Controu. Belgic. pag. 24. jonas Schlichtingius contra Meisnerum pag. 436.) and that in the same respect he is worshipped, that in the same respect he is King, and that the Kingdom which the Scripture ascribeth to Jesus Christ, is only as Mediator and Head of the Church, and that he hath no such Universal Dominion over all things as can prove him to be the eternal Son of God. This gave occasion to Orthodox-Protestant-Writters, more fully and distinctly to assert the great difference between that which the Scripture saith of Christ, as he is the eternal Son of God; and that which it saith of him, as he is Mediator: and particularly to assert a twofold Kingdom of Jesus Christ, and to prove from Scripture, that besides that Kingdom which Christ hath as Mediator, he hath another Kingdom over all things which belongs to him only as he is the eternal Son of God. This the Socinians to this day do contradict, and stisly hold that Christ hath but one Kingdom, which he exerciseth as Mediator over the Church, and in some respect over all things; but by no means they admit that Christ as God reigneth over all things: But our Writters still hold up against them the distinction of that twofold Kingdom of Jesus Christ. See Stagmanni Photinianismus Disp. 27. quaest. 6. The same distinction of the twofold Kingdom of Christ, as God, and as Mediator, is frequently to be found in Protestant Writers. See Synops. pur. Theol. Disp. 26. thes. 53. Gomarus in Obad. vers. ult. The late English Annotations on 1 Cor. 15. 24. and many others. Let o Synt. Theol. lib. 6. cap. 29. Regnum Christi vel naturale est▪ vel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Regnum Christi naturale est quod Christus a natura hal et, estque communis totius Deita is etc. Hes Regnum etiam universale dicitur, quia est simpliciter in universa. At Regnum Christi donativum est qued Christus tradiium a Patre ut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 accepit etc. Hoc Regnum 〈◊〉 prium Christi, quod ut Rex Mediator obtinet in persona sua: ac Regnum etiam singular di● quia est peculiare in Ecclesia etc. Utque naturale Regnum obtinet jure naturae, quia est naturalis filius Dei Patris: ita donativum Regnum obtinet jure donationis. Polanus speak for the rest. See also the same distinction cleared and asserted by Master Apollonius in his Ius Majestatis circa sacra, part. 1. pag. 33. & seq. The Arguments to prove that distinction of the twofold Kingdom of Christ, are these: First, Those Kingdoms of which the one is accessary and adventitions to the Son of God, and which, if it were not, the want of it could not prove him not to be God: the other necessarily floweth from his Godhead, so that without it he were not God; are most different and distinct Kingdoms. But the Kingdom of Christ as Mediator, and the Kingdom of Christ as he is the eternal Son of God, are such. Ergo: If the Son of God had never received the Office of Mediator, and so should not have reigned as Mediator, yet he had been the natural Son of God; for this could not be a necessary consequence, He is the natural Son of God, Therefore he is Mediator; for he had been the natural Son of God, though he had not been Mediator, and though man had not been redeemed. But if you suppose that the Son of God reigns not as God with the Father and the holy Ghost, from everlasting to everlasting, than you must needs suppose that he is not the natural and eternal Son of God. Secondly, Those Kingdoms of which the one is proper and personal to Jesus Christ God-man; the other is not proper and personal, but common to the Father and the holy Ghost, are most different and distinct Kingdoms. But the Kingdom of Jesus Christ as Mediator, and his Kingdom as he is the eternal Son of God, are such. Ergo: That Kingdom which Christ hath as Mediator, by special dispensation of God committed to him, is his alone properly and personally: for we cannot say that the Father reigns as Mediator, or that the holy Ghost reigns as Mediator. But that Kingdom which Christ hath, as he is the eternal Son of God, is the very same consubstantially with that Kingdom whereby God the Father and God the holy Ghost do reign. Thirdly, He that hath a Kingdom which shall be continued and exercised for ever, and a Kingdom which shall not be continued and exercised for ever, hath two distinct Kingdoms. But Jesus Christ hath a Kingdom which shall be continued and exercised for ever, namely, the Kingdom which he hath as the eternal Son of God; and another Kingdom which shall not be continued and exercised for ever, namely, the Kingdom which he hath as Mediator. Ergo: The eternity of the one Kingdom is not doubted of: But that the other Kingdom shall not be for ever exercised, that is, p Synt. pur. Theol. Desp. 26. thes. 35. Ipsi (Patri) suum queque Sceptrum Mediatorium seu oeconomieum traditurus dicitur, ut imperium mere divinum eadem gloria ae Majestate cum Patre, erga suos electos in aeternum exerceat. Zach. Ursinus Tom. 1. pag. 398. Christus Patri tradet Regnum post glorificationem Ecclesiae, id est, desinet facere Officium Mediatoris. that Christ shall not for ever reign as Mediator, is proved from 1 Cor. 15. 24, 25. Master Hussey pag. 35, 36, 37. goeth about to answer this Argument, which he confesseth to say something: and indeed it saith so much, that though he maketh an extravagant exception, (Doth it appear, saith he, that the Kingdom that he shall lay down to God his Father, is not over all the world?) yet he plainly yields the Point, which I was then proving. Christ, saith he, in the day of Judgement shall lay down all the Office of Mediatorship. I hope he will not say that Christ shall lay down at the day of Judgement that Kingdom which he hath as the eternal Son of God. So then I have what I was seeking, that Christ hath one Kingdom as Mediator, another as the eternal Son of God. And whereas Master Hussey holdeth that Christ as Mediator reigns over all things as the Vicar of his Father, we shall see anon the weakness of his Arguments brought to prove it. Mean while, I ask, What then is that Kingdom which belongs to Christ as the eternal Son of God, and which shall not be laid down, but continued for ever? Let him think on this Argument, Whatsoever belongs to that Kingdom which shall be continued for ever, and shall not be laid down at the day of Judgement, doth belong to Christ, not as Mediator, but as the eternal Son of God. But the general Power and Dominion, by which Jesus Christ exerciseth Sovereignty over all creatures without exception, doing to them and fulfilling upon them all the good pleasure of his Will, belongs to that Kingdom which shall be continued for ever, and shall not be laid down at the day of Judgement. Ergo: That general Power and Dominion by which Jesus Christ exerciseth Sovereignty over all creatures without exception, doing to them and fulfilling upon them all the good pleasure of his Will; doth belong to Christ, not as Mediator, but as the eternal Son of God. And thus I make a transition to another Argument. Fourthly, He that hath a Kingdom administered by and in Evangelical Ordinances, and a Kingdom administered by his Divine Power, without Evangelical Ordinances, hath two different and distinct Kingdoms. But Jesus Christ hath a Kingdom administered by and in Evangelical Ordinances, and a Kingdom administered by his Divine power, without Evangelical Ordinances. Ergo: Doth not Jesus Christ reign over the Devils and damned Spirits by his Divine Power, reserving them in chains of darkness to the Judgement of the great day? But will Master Hussey say that Christ reigns over the Devils and damned Spirits as Mediator or by the same Kingdom by which he reigns in his Church by and in his Ordinances? Therefore we must needs say, That Christ hath one Kingdom as the eternal Son of God, another as Mediator. Fifthly, He that hath a Kingdom in subordination to God the Father, and as his Vicegerent; and another Kingdom wherein he is not subordinate unto, but equal with God the Father, hath two most different Kingdoms. But Jesus Christ hath a Kingdom in subordination to God the Father, and another Kingdom wherein he is not subordinate unto, but equal with God the Father. Ergo: The Kingdom which Christ hath as Mediator doth (in regard of the Office of Mediatorship) constitute him in a subordination to his Father, whose Commandments he executeth, and to whom he gives an account of his Ministration. So that though he that is Mediator, being the eternal Son of God, is equal with the Father; yet as Mediator, he is not equal with the Father, but subordinate to the Father, which our Divines prove from these Scriptures, Isai. 42. 1. Behold my servant. Jo. 14. 28. My Father is greater than I 1 Cor. 11. 3. The Head of Christ is God: In the same consideration as Christ is our Head, God is Christ's Head, namely, as Christ is Mediator. But that Kingdom which Christ hath as he is the eternal Son of God, he holds it not in a subordination to God the Father; but as being consubstantial with his Father, and thinking it no robbery to be called equal with God: So that in this consideration, the Father is not greater than he. Master Hussey pag. 37. saith of Christ, in respect of the Government which he hath as Mediator, He is as it were the Vicar of his Father. I hope he will not say so of that Government which Christ hath as the eternal Son of God. And pag. 27. he holds that Christ as Mediator is subject to God; But in the consideration that Christ is the second person of Trinity, so he is not inferior to God the Father. So that he himself cannot but yield my Argument. Sixthly, If Christ hath a Kingdom in time dispensed and delegate to him, and unto which he was anointed, and hath another Kingdom which is not delegate nor in time dispensed, nor he anointed to it; but doth necessarily and naturally accompany the communication of the Divine nature to him by eternal generation: then he hath two most different Kingdoms, one as he is Mediator; another as he is the eternal Son of God. But Christ hath a Kingdom in time dispensed and delegate etc. If you speak of Christ as Mediator, God hath made him both Lord and Christ, Act. 2. 36. but as he is the eternal Son of God he is not Dominus factus; he is not made Lord and King, no more than he is made the natural Son of God. When the Psalmist speaketh of that Kingdom which Christ hath as Mediator, he tells us of the anointing of Christ. Ps. 45. 6. The Sceptre of thy Kingdom is a right Sceptre: vers. 7. Thy God hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness. But we cannot say that Christ was anointed to that Kingdom, which he hath as the eternal Son of God. Seventhly, If the Scripture holds forth a Kingdom which Christ hath over all creatures, and another Kingdom which he hath over the Church only▪ then it holds forth the twofold Kingdom which I plead for, and which Master Hussey denieth. But the Scripture holds forth etc. Christ as he is God over all, blessed for ever, Rom. 9 5. exerciseth Sovereignty and Dominion over all things, even as his Father doth, Psal. 115. 3. Dan. 4 34, 35. for his Father and he are one. But as he is Mediator, his Kingdom is his Church only, and he is over his own House, Heb. 3. 6. You will say the word only is not in Scripture. I answer: When we say that Faith only justifieth, the word only is not in Scripture, but the thing is. Just so here: For, first, David, Solomon, and Eliakim were types of Christ the King. Now David and Solomon did reign only over God's people as their Subjects, though they had other people tributaries and subdued: So doth Christ reign over the House of jacob only, Luk. 1. 32, 33. The Lord shall give unto him the Throne of his Father David, and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever. Isai. 9 7. Of the increase of his Government and Peace there shall be no end, upon the Throne of David and upon his Kingdom to order it. Isa. 21. 22. I will commit the Government into his hand, and he shall be a Father to the Inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah, and the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder. 2. It was foretold and applied to the Church and people of God as a proper and peculiar comfort to the Church, that Christ was to come and reign as a King: Isai. 9 6. Unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given, and the Government shall be upon his shoulder. Zech. 9 9 Rejoice greatly O Daughter of Zion: Shout O Daughter of Jerusalem: Behold THY KING cometh unto thee. Matth. 2. 6. Out of thee shall come a Governor that shall rule my people Israel. 3. The jews did generally understand it so, That the Messias was to be the Church's King only, which made Pilate say to them, Shall I crucify your King? And hence it was also, that the wise men who came to inquire for Christ, said, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? Matt. 2. 2. Eighthly, That very place Eph. 1. 21, 22, 23. from which Master Coleman drew an Argument against us, doth plainly hold forth a twofold supremacy of jesus Christ, one over all things, another in reference to the Church only which is his body, his fullness, and to whom alone he is head, according to that Text: Of which more afterwards. Ninthly, The Apostle Col. 1. doth also distinguish this twofold preeminence, supremacy, and Kingdom of jesus Christ: one, which is universal, and over all things, and which belongeth to him as he is the eternal Son of God, vers. 15. 16. 17. Who is the Image of the Invisible God, the first born of every creature: For by him were all things created that are in Heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be Thrones, or Dominions, or Principalities, or Powers: all things were created by him and for him. And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. q Calv. in Col. 1. 18. Postquam generaliter de Christi excellentia disseruit, deque summo ejus in omnes creaturas principa●…: iterum redit adea quae peculiariter ad Ecclesiam spectant. In nomine capitis alii plura considerant etc. Hic vero potissimum, meo judicio, de guhernatione loquitur. Another which is economical and particular in and over the Church, and this he hath as Mediator: vers. 18. And he is the head of the body the Church: who is the beginning, the first born from the dead, that in all things he might have the preeminence. That vers. 18. he speaketh of Christ as Mediator, is not controverted. But Mr. Hussey pag. 35. would fain make it out (if he could) that Christ as Mediator is spoken of, vers. 15. 16. 17. The Apostle indeed in that which went before did speak of Christ as Mediator. But the scope of these three verses is to prove the Godhead of jesus Christ. Yea, Mr. Hussey himself yieldeth, that as God and not as Mediator he did create the world. How can he then contend that the Apostle speaketh here of Christ as Mediator? and why doth he find fault with my exposition that the Apostle speaketh here of Christ as God? Do not our Writers urge Col. 1. 16. 17. against the Socinians and Photinians, to prove the eternal Godhead of jesus Christ, because by him all things were created, and he is before all things. See Stegmanni Photinianismus disp. 5. Quaest 12. Becmanus Exercit. 4. and Exerc. 8. Where you may see, that the Adversaries contend (as Mr. Hussey doth) that the Apostle vers. 15. 16. 17. doth not speak of the person of jesus Christ, proving him to be true God; but that he speaks of Christ as Mediator or in respect of his Office, and of that dominion which Christ hath as Mediator (So jonas Schlichtingius contra Meisner. pag. 469.) and that vers. 15. 16. 17. ascribeth no more to Christ, than vers. 18. But Becmanus answering julius, distinguisheth the Text as I do: for which Analysis I did formerly cite Beza, Zanchius, Gualther, Bullinger, Tossanus, M. Bayne, beside divers others. But I have found none that understands the Text as Mr. Hussey doth, except the Socinians and Photinians, who do not acknowledge that Christ hath such an universal dominion and Lordship over all things, as God the Father, but only that he ruleth over all things, as Mediator. Now for answer to that which Mr. Hussey pag. 26. 27. allegeth, to prove that Christ as Mediator reigneth over all things, First, he tells us out of Diodati that Christ is head of the Church, and King of the Universe, and out of Calvin, that the Kingdom of Christ is over all, and filleth heaven and earth: But who denieth this? That which he had to prove, is, that Christ as Mediator, is King of the Universe, and as Mediator his Kingdom is spread over all: and when he hath proved that, he hath another thing to prove, that the universality of Christ's Kingdom as he is Mediator, is to be understood not only in an Ecclesiastical notion, that is, so far as all Nations are or shall be brought under the obedience of the Gospel; but also in the notion of Civil Government, that is, that Christ reigns as Mediator over all creatures, whether under or without the Gospel: and that all Civil Power, Principality, and Government whatsoever in this World, is put in Christ's hand as Mediator. If therefore he will argue, let him argue so, as to conclude the point. The next objection he maketh, is from Heb. 1. 2. Christ as Mediator is made Heir of all things. But I answer, Christ is Heir of all things. 1. as the eternal Son of God, in the same respect as it is said of Christ in the next words of the same verse, that he made the world: and thus he may be called Heir of all things by nature, even as Col. 1. 15. he is called the first borne of every creature. 2. He is heir of all things as Mediator, for the Heathen and all the ends of the earth are given him for an inheritance, Psal. 2. 8. but that is only Church-wise, he shall have a Catholic Church gathered out of all Nations, and all kings and people, and tongues, and languages shall be made to serve him. Moreover Mr. Hussey objecteth from Heb. 2. 8. and 1 Cor. 15. 28. that God hath put all things under Christ's feet as he is Mediator. Answ. As this is not perfectly fulfilled in this World, but will then be fulfilled when Christ shall have put down all rule and all authority, and power: so in the measure and degree wherein it is fulfilled in this World, it concerneth not men only, but all the works of God's hands, Heb. 2. 7. Thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands. Which is taken out of the eighth Psalm, vers. 6. 7. Thou hast put all things under his feet, all sheep and oxen etc. Now how is it that the Apostle applieth all this to Christ? How doth Christ rule over the beasts, fowls, fishes? Calvin in 1 Cor. 15. 27. 28. answereth, dominatur ergo, ut omnia serviant ejus gloriae. He ruleth, so as all things may serve for his glory. So then, all things are put under Christ's feet as he is Mediator, both in regard of his excellency, dignity, and glory unto which he is exalted far above all the glory of any creature; and in respect of his power and overruling providence whereby he can dispose of all things so as may make most for his glory. But it is a third thing which Mr. Hussey hath to prove, namely, that Christ as Mediator exerciseth his office and government over all men as his Subjects, and over all Magistrates as his Deputies, yea over all things, even over the reasonless creatures; for by his arguing, he will have Christ as Mediator to govern the sheep, oxen, fowls, and fishes: all things as well as all persons being put under Christ's feet. But in the handling of this very argument Mr. Hussey yields the cause. God is said to put all things under him, saith he, whereby it is employed that all things were not under him, before they were put under him; but as the second Person in Trinity, so nothing could be said to be put under him, because they were in that respect always under him. Is not this all one for substance with that distinction formerly cited out of Polanus, of a twofold Kingdom of Christ, one natural; as he is the second Person in the Trinity, another donative, as he is Mediator? Lastly, Mr. Hussey argueth from Phil. 2. 8. 9 10. Christ as Mediator is exalted to have a name above every name, that at the name of jesus every knee may bow. Answ. Here is indeed a dignity, glory, and power, as Diodati saith, above all things, but yet not a government or kingdom, as Mediator: for those who must bow the knee to Christ, are not only things in heaven, that is, Angels, and things in earth, that is, men, but also things under the earth, that is, devils, yet devils are none of the Subjects of Christ's kingdom as he is Mediator. Therefore this Text proves not a Head-ship or Government over all, (which Mr. Hussey contends for) but a power over all. I will here anticipate another objection, which is not moved by Mr. Hussey. It may be objected from 1 Cor. 11. 3. that the head of every man is Christ. I answer, 1. Some understand this of Christ as God, and as the Creator of man. And if it be said that the latter clause the head of Christ is God, is meant of Christ as Mediator, and not as God: yet Martyr tells us out of chrysostom, that all these comparisons and subordinations in this Text, are not to be taken in one and the same sense. 2. I grant also that Christ may be called the head of every man, not only in respect of his Godhead, but as Mediator, that is, the head of every man in the Church, not of every man in the World: for the Apostle speaks, de ordine divinitus sancito in Ecclesiae corpore mystico, as Mr. David Dicksone (an Interpreter who hath taken very good pains in the textual study of Scripture) saith upon the place. I shall clear it by the like forms of speech. jer. 30 6. Wherefore do I see every man with his hands on his loins? Luke 16. 16. The Kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth unto it. 1 Cor. 12. 7. The manifestaetion of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. Heb. 2. 9 jesus did taste death for every man. Yet none of these places are meant of every man in the World. 3. Yea in some sense Christ, as Mediator, may be called the head of every man in the World, that is, in respect of dignity, excellency, glory, eminence of place, quia in hoc sexu ille supra omnes eminet, saith Gualther, or because no man hath parity or equality of honour with Christ: So Martyr and Hunnius. The English annotations say, that Christ is the Head of every man, in as much as he is the first begotten among many brtherens. Which best agreeth with my second answer. But for taking off all these, and for preventing of other objections, that one distinction will suffice, which I first gave in examining Mr. Colemans' Sermon. In the Mediator jesus Christ there is, 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, dignity, excellency, honour, glory, splendour. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, his mighty power, by which he is able to do in heaven and earth whatsoever he will. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his Kingdom, and Kingly-office or government. Which three as they are distinguished in God▪ Thine is the Kingdom, and the power, and the glory: Why not in the Mediator also? In the first two respects, Christ as Mediator is over all things, and so over all men, and so over all Magistrates, and all they in subjection to him. But in the third respect the relation is only between Christ and his Church, as between King and Kingdom. So that the thing in difference, is that which Mr. Hussey hath not proved, namely, that Christ as Mediator doth not only excel all things in glory, and exercise a supreme power and providence over all things, for his own glory, and his Churches good (neither of which is denied) but that he also is as Mediator, King, Head, and Governor of the Universe, and hath not only the government of his Church, but all Civil government put in his hand. When Mr. Hussey pag. 28. saith that I denied pag. 43. what this distinction yieldeth, namely, that Christ as Mediator exerciseth acts of divine power in the behalf and for the good of his Church, it is a calumny: for that which I denied pag. 43. was concerning the Kingdom, not the power: my words were these. But as Mediator he is only the Church's King, Head, and Governor, and hath no other Kingdom. Yea himsef, pag. 26. speaking to these words of mine, noteth that I did not say, that as Mediator he hath no such power. How cometh it to pass that he chargeth me with the denying of that, which himself but two pages before had observed that I deny it not? Well, but pag. 43, he desires from me a further clearing of my distinction, Kingdom, power, and glory, and that I will show from Scripture, how it agreeth to Christ. I shall obey his desire: though it was before easy to be understood, if he had been willing enough to understand. Solomon did excel all the Kings of the earth in wisdom, riches, glory, and honour, 2 Chron. 1. 12. and herein he was a type of Christ, Psal. 89. 27. I will make him my first born, higher than the Kings of the earth: But as Solomon was only King of Israel, and was not by office or authority of Government, a Catholic King over all the Kingdoms of the World, nor all other Kings Solomon's Vicegerents, or Deputies: So jesus Christ as Mediator is only the Church's King, and is not King or Governor of the whole World, nor Civil Magistrates his Vicegerents, though he excel them all in dignity, glory, and honour. Again, David did subdue by power divers States, Provinces, and Kingdoms, and make them tributary. But was David King of the Philistines, and King of the Moabites, and King of the Syrians, and King of the Edomites, because he smote them and subdued them, 2. Sam. 8. Nay it is added, in that very place vers. 15. And David reigned over all Israel, and David executed justice and judgement unto all his people. (And this is one argument to prove that those subdued and tributrary Territories, were not properly under the government of Israel, because Israel was not bound to extirpate Idolaters out of those lands, but only out of the holy land. See Maimonides de Idolol. cap. 7. sect. 1. with the annotation of Dionysius Vossius.) So Christ who was set upon the throne of David, doth as Mediator, put forth his divine and irresistible power in subduing all his Church's enemies, according to that Psal. 2 9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron, thou shalt dash them in pieces like a Potter's vessel. Rev. 17. 14. The Lamb shall overcome them, for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings. But this vis major, this restraining subduing power makes not Christ, as Mediator, to be King and Governor, not only of his Church, but of the whole World beside. Yea the power of Christ is over all things, as well as all persons, over all beasts, fowls, and fishes; Heb. 2. 7. 8. compared with Psal. 8. 7. 8. Yea his power is over devils, meant by things under the earth, Phil. 2. 10. Wherefore it cannot be said, that Christ as Mediator, is King, Head, and Governor of all those whom he excelleth in glory, or whom he hath under his power, to do with them what he will. It is a strange mistake when Mr, Hussey pag. 43. objecteth against this distinction, that a Kingdom without power and glory, is a nominal empty thing. Surely there may be a Kingly right and authority to govern, where there is little either power or glory. But this is nothing to my distinction, which doth not suppose a Kingdom without power and glory, nor yet power and glory without a Kingdom, but only that the Kingdom and Government is not to be extended to all those whom the King excelleth in glory (for then one King that hath but little glory, shall be subject to a King that hath much glory:) or over whom the King exerciseth acts of power, (for then the King shall be King to his and his Kingdom's enemies) I verily believe that this distinction rightly apprehended, will discover the great mistakes of that supposed universal Kingdom of Christ, as Mediator, reigning over all things, and the Civil Magistrate as his Vicegerent▪ CHAP. VI. Whether Jesus Christ, as Mediator and head of the Church, hath laced the Christian Magistrate to hold and execute his Office under and foe him, as his Vicegerent. The Arguments for the 〈◊〉 discussed. MR. Hussey is very angry at my distinctions and arguments which I brought against Mr. Col●…mans fourth rule, insomuch that in his Reply to me, he spendeth very near two parts of three upon this matter, from pag. 16. to 44. having passed over sicco bed much of what I had said of other points in difference. Come now therefore and let us try▪ his strength in this great point. He holds that Christ as Mediator hath placed the Christian Magistrate under him, and as his Vicegerent, and hath given him commission to govern the Church, which if he or any man can prove from the Word of God, it will go far in the decision of the Erastian controversy: though this is not all which is incumbent to the Erastians' to prove, for as I first replied to Mr. Colemans fourth rule, the Question is, whether there be not some other government instituted and appointed by jesus Christ to be in his Church beside the Civil Government: and if it should be granted that Christ even as Mediator hath committed, delegated and instituted Civil Government in his Church, yet they must further prove, that Christ hath committed the whole and sole power of Church-Government to the Magistrate, and so hath left no share of Government to the Ministry. But I can by no means yield that so much contended for Vicegerentship of the Christian Magistrate, and his holding of his Office of and under Christ as he is Mediator. Mr. Coleman in his re-examination pag. 19 was fearful to set his foot upon so slippery ground. He was loath to adventure upon this assertion, that Magistracy is derived from Christ as Mediator by a Commission of Deputation and Vicegerentship (which yet did necessarily follow upon the fourth rule which he had delivered in his Sermon) Wherefore he made a retreat and held him at this, That Magistracy is given to Christ to be serviceable in his Kingdom. But out steps Mr. Hussey and boldly 〈◊〉 a great deal more: I much mistake if he shall not be made either to make a retreat as Mr. Coleman did, or to do worse. First of all, this part of our Controversy is to be rightly stated. The Question is not. 1. Whether the Magistrate be God's Deputy or Vicegerent, and as God upon earth; for who denies that? Nor 2. Whether the Magistrate be Christ's Deputy as Christ is God, and as he exerciseth an universal dominion over all things, as the Father and the holy Ghost doth. Here likewise I hold the affirmative. Nor 3. Whether the Christian Magistrate be useful and subservient to the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, even as he is Mediator and King of the Church; for in this also I hold the affirmative, that is, that as every man in his own calling, parents, masters, servants, merchants, soldiers &c. being Christians, so the Magistrate in his eminent station, being a Christian, is obliged to endeavour the propagation of the Gospel, and the good and benefit of the Church of Christ. But the Question is, Whether the Christian Magistrate be a Governor in the Church Vice Christi, in the room and stead of Jesus Christ as he is Mediator. Or (which is all one) Whether the rise, derivation, and tenure of Christian Magistracy be from Jesus Christ under this formal consideration, as he is Mediator and head of the Church. Or (which is also the same) whether Jesus Christ by virtue of that authority and power of Government which as Mediator, and as God-man, he received of the Father, hath substituted and given commission to the Christian Magistrate to govern the Church in subordination to him, as he governeth it in subordination to his Father. In all these Mr. Hussey is for the affirmative, I am for the negative. Let us hear his reasons. First pag. 16. He argueth from my concession. A Christian Magistrate is a Governor in the Church, said Mr. Coleman, This understood sano sensu I admitted. Now saith Mr. Hussey, If the Church be Christ's Kingdom, surely such as govern in it, must receive commission from him. Which commission saith he, must be in this form. Christ the Mediator, King of his Church, doth appoint Kings and Civil Magistrates to govern under him. Let him find this commission in Scripture, and I shall confess he hath done much. Neither doth any such thing follow upon my Concession. For 1. It is one thing to govern in the Church▪ another thing to govern the Church: Christian parents, masters of Colleges, and the like, are Governors in the Church, that is, being within, not without the Church, yet as Parents or masters they are not Church-governors. 2. I can also admit that the Christian Magistrate governeth the Church; and if this had been the concession, which is more than the other, it could not have helped him. For how doth the Magistrate govern the Church? not qua a Church, but qua a part of the Commonwealth, as learned Salmafiu●… distinguisheth, Appar. ad lib. de primate. pag. 292. 300. For the Commonwealth is not in the Church, but the Church in the Commonwealth, according to that Rev, 2. The Church in Smyrna, the Church in Pergamus, the Church in Thyatira. And suppose all that are members of the Commonwealth to be also Church-members, yet in an universal spread of the Gospel, the Church is governed by the Magistrate as it is a Commonwealth, not as it is a Church. Every soul must be subject to the higher powers, Church-Officers, Church-members and all, but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qua tale, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: quo ad, is not any Ecclesiastical or spiritual, but a humane and civil relation. But whereas Mr▪ Hussey addeth that the Gospel is the Law by which Christ will judge all the world: if all the world be under the Law of Christ, th●…n the Kingdom of Christ must needs reach over all the World: his proofs are mere mistakes: he citys 2. Thess. 1. 7. 8. Christ shall come in slaming fire, to take vengeance on all them that know not God, and that obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: but in that place they that obey not the Gospel, are those disobedient persons to whom the Gospel was preached: He citys also Rom. 2. 16. judge all the world according to my Gospel: but the Text saith not so; it saith, the secrets of men, not all the World. Wherefore as the Apostle there saith of the Law vers. 12. so say I of the Gospel, as many as have sinned without the Gospel, shall also perish without the Gospel; and as many as have sinned under the Gospel, shall be judged by the Gospel. Secondly, He draweth an argument the strength whereof is taken from Psal. 2. 8. Ask of me and I shall give thee the Heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession: and from 1 Tim. 6. 15. our Lord Jesus Christ is said to be King of kings, and Lord of lords: Jesus, Christ, being names that agree to him only as Mediator. Answ. Christ as Mediator hath right to the whole earth, and all the kingdoms of the World, not as if all government (even civil) were given to Christ (for in this kind he governeth not so much as any part of the earth as he is Mediator) which was the thing he had to prove: but it is meant only of his spiritual kingdom, which is not of this world, and in this respect alone it is, that Christ as Mediator hath right to the government of all Nations, he hath jus ad rem, though not in re. As for that title King of kings, and Lord of Lords, it may be understood two ways. First, as Christ is the eternal and natural Son of God, the eternal wisdom of God, by whom King's reign, and Princes decree justice, Prov. 8. 15. 16. which is spoken of Christ, as he was the Father's delight, and as one brought up with him before the foundation of the World: Ibid. vers. 22. to 30. Neither can the names of Jesus and Christ prove that what is said there must needs be meant of him as Mediator, mark how well grounded Mr. Husseys' arguments are. jesus sat at meat in Simon the Pharisees house. Luke 7. 37. jesus wept for Lazarus because he loved him. john 11. 35. 36. Must we needs therefore say, that as Mediator he sat at meat in the Pharisees house, and as Mediator he wept for Lazarus? Christ is the Son of David, Matth. 22. 42. Must we therefore say that as Mediator he is the Son of David? Christ is God over all, blessed for ever. Rom. 9 5. Must we therefore say that this is meant of Christ only as Mediator? What is more ordinary then to use the names of Jesus and Christ when the thing which is said is meant in reference to one of the natures? Secondly, Christ is King of kings, and Lord of lords, even as Mediator: not in Mr. Husseys' sense, as if Kings had their commission from Christ, and did reign in his stead, as he is Mediator; but in the sense of the Hebraisme, Vanity of vanities, that is, most vain; holy of holies, that is, most holy; so King of kings, and Lord of lords, that is, the most excellent glorious King of all others: the excellency, splendour, dignity, and majesty of Kings may be compared without any subordination. Drusius Pr●…terit. lib. 8. upon this very place which Mr. Hussey objecteth, saith that this form of speech, King of kings, and Lord of lords, was taken from the Persians and Assyrians, who called a great King, King of kings, and Lord of lords. Thirdly, The Kingdom of Christ saith Mr. Hussey, is as ample as his Prophecy; but the Prophecy of Christ is extended to all Nations, as may appear by the commission, G●… teach all Nations. But 1. I throw back the argument; Christ's Kingdom and his Prophecy are commensurable: therefore as his prophecy is not actually extended to all Nations, except successively, as the Gospel cometh among them, so his Kingdom, as he is Mediator, is extended no further than the Church, not to all Nations. 2. His argument therefore is a miserable fallacy à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter. Christ's prophecy is extended to all Nations successively, and when the Gospel comes among them, therefore his Kingdom is simply extended to all Nations▪ and is not bounded within the Church only. Fourthly, He tells us pag. 17. if kings may be called holy, if their Offices may be accounted holy Offices, or not sinful, they must be held off and under Christ. Answ. If he mean holy in opposition to civil, humane, worldly, secular, I deny the office of kings to be holy; if he mean holy in opposition to sinful, unlawful, unholy (as it seems he doth) than I confess the office of Kings is lawful not sinful, and themselves are holy when sanctified: but this proves not that they hold their office of and under Christ, more than carters or cobblers hold their office of and under Christ: I am far from making a parallel between the Magistrate and these: but this I say, Mr. Husseys' plea for the Magistrate is no other than agreeth to these. And where he addeth out of Calvin, Kings have place in the Church, and flock of Christ, and are not spoiled of their Crown and Sword that they may be admitted into the Church; this in reference to the conclusion he driveth at, is no more than if he had argued thus, carters and cobblers have place in the Church and flock of Christ, and are not necessitated to quit their secular calling that they may be admitted into the Church of Christ, therefore they hold their offices of and under Christ. Fifthly, He argueth thus, That Office which Christ hath declared to be of God, and bounded and limited in his Gospel, that Office is held under Christ as Mediator: But the Civil Magistrate is so, Rom. 13. 4. Answ. 1. His proposition is most false, and will never be proved. 2. If this argument hold good, than the Pagan Magistrate holds his office under Christ as Mediator (for of such Magistrates then in being, the Apostle meaneth, Rom. 13.) So that either he must recall what he saith here, or what he saith afterward, that the office of the Pagan Magistrate is sinful and unlawful. 3, By Mr. Husseys' medium, one might prove that servants hold their office under Christ as Mediator, because he hath declared their office to be of God, and hath bounded and limited the same in his Gospel. Eph. 6. 5▪ 6, 7, 8. Sixthly, He saith they be the same persons that are under Christ, and under the Magistrate, and further, Christ's ends and the King's ends are both one, 1 Tim. 2. 2. that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. Now either the office of the Mediators Kingdom is superior, or inferior, or coordinate, in reference to the Magistrates office. Answ. 1. Very often they are not the same persons that are under Christ, and under the Magistrate. For 1 Cor. 5. 11, 12. the Apostle distinguisheth those that were within, or those that were called brethren, from those that were without, both were under the Magistrate, both were not under Christ; and now the Jews in divers places are under the Christian Magistrate, not under Christ. 2. The ●nd of 〈◊〉 kingly office, and the end of Magistracy are so different, that to say they are the same, i● to offer indignity and dishonour to Jesus Christ. Kings are indeed appointed, that we may live under them a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty: But herein he hath answered himself pag. 29. the civil Magistrate may require of the people, that they will attend upon the means, out of natural Principles, Deum esse & colendum. More of the ends of Magistracy I have spoken before, whether I remit him. The ends of Christ's Kingly Office are quite another thing; namely, to destroy all our soul's enemies, Satan, the flesh, the wicked world, death, to put all his enemies under his feet; to send out his officers and ministers for the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, to govern his people by his Word and Spirit, and to keep them by the power of God through faith unto salvation. 3. The comparison between Christ's Kingly office as Mediator, and the Magistrates office, is neither to be drawn from superiority and inferiority, nor co-ordination; for they are disparata, and differ toto genere. And now I shall proceed for methods sake to examine other four Arguments from Scripture, upon which Mr. Hussey (though he doth not join them to the former six) afterward layeth no small weight for upholding that opinion, that the Magistrate holds his office of and under Christ, as he is Mediator. The seventh argument therefore shall be that which he draweth from Matth. 28. 18. pag. 25. Whereunto I have two answers, according to two different applications of that Text. When Christ said All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth, it may be understood either as he is Mediator, or as he is the second person in the blessed Trinity, the eternal Son of God. So when the Ubiquitaries would prove from that place the real communication of Divine omnipotency to the humane nature of Christ, our Divines answer, the Text may be understood either of Christ's person, God-man, or as he is the natural Son of God. See Gomarus upon the place. Now take the Text either way, it proves not what Mr. Hussey would. Let it be understood of Christ as God-man, and as Mediator, (which is the most promising sense for him) yet it cannot prove that all power without exception, and all government as well without as within the Church, as well secular as Ecclesiastical, is put in Christ's hand as he is Mediator, and that the civil Magistrate holds his office of and under Christ: but the sense must be r Greg. de Valenti●. comment. in Thom. tom. 4. disp. 1. quaest. 32. punct. 6. Si autem per omnem potestatem, secundo intelligamus ibi cum Hieronymo & Anselmo omnem potestatem necessariam quidem Christo ad gubernandam spiritualiter omnem Ecclesiam, tum in coelo, ubi est caput & rex 〈◊〉; tum in terra, ubi 〈◊〉 homines, quorum item est rex & caput: satis constat non inde sequi quod accepe●…it etiam potestatem pol●…ticam. Medina in tertiam partem, quaest: 59 a●t. 4. Dicendum quad omnis potestas & auctoritas tribuenda est Christo, si tamen decens sit ad efficium redemptionis; at quod fuerit rex temporalis totius orbis minime decuit Christum, ●…b idque istam auctoritatem non accepit. All power which belongs to the Mediator, and all authority which belongs to the gathering and governing of the Church is given to me: for we must needs expound his meaning as himself hath taught us: john 18. 36. Luke 12. 14. We must not say that any such power is given to him, as himself denieth to be given to him, namely, civil power and Magistracy. Wherefore Martin Bucer in his Scripta Anglicana, pag. 273. doth rightly refer these words, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth, to the head de Ecclesiae oeconomia, and makes this Text parallel to john 20. 21, 22, 23. As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you, etc. Whose soever sins ye remit, etc. and to Matth. 16. 19 I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt lose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven. And this is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all authority or power in heaven and in earth, which is meant Matth. 28. 18. Which is further confirmed by the Syriack, which readeth thus verse 18. All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth: but as my Father hath sent me▪ even so send I you. Vers. 19 Go therefore teach all Nations: So restricting the sense to be in reference to the Church only, and excluding civil government and Magistracy, from which Christ had before excluded his Apostles. Medina in tertiam Partem, quaest. 59 art. 4. holds the same thing, that the context and cohesion of vers. 18. and vers. 19 proves the Kingdom of Christ to be merely spiritual. But 2. The Text will suffer yet a further restriction, namely that all power in heaven and in earth is said to given unto Jesus Christ, as he is the eternal Son of God, and that both in respect of the eternal generation by which the Godhead, and so all Divine properties (of which omnipotency is one) was from all eternity communicated from the Father to the Son: and in respect of the declaration or manifestation of him to be the Son of God with power, when God raised him from the dead. Mr. Hussey saith he is astonished to hear that any thing should be given to Christ, as God; Where first of all I observe how miserably he mangleth and maimeth my words as in other places, so here; He citeth these words as mine, That Christ as he is eternal God, doth with the Father and the holy Ghost reign over the Kingdoms of the earth, etc. and this power was given etc. It is not fair nor just dealing to change a man's words in a citation, especially when the change is material. Now here are divers changes in this passage. This one only I take notice of, I said not as he is eternal God, but as he is the eternal Son of God, and all along in that Question I spoke of the Son of God, not essentially, but personally, as he is the Son of God, or second person in the Trinity, and so the God head and all the attributes and properties thereof, are communicated to him from the Father by the eternal Generation; and as the Nicene Creed said he is Deus de Deo, Lumen de Lumine, God of God, Light of Light. I ask therefore Mr. Hussey, What do you mutter here? Speak it out, Do you hold that Jesus Christ is not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not only essentially, but personally 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that he is not only ex seipso Deus, but ex seipso filius? If this be the thing you hold, than you oppose me indeed, but so as you fall into a blasphemous heresy, that Christ as he is the eternal Son of God, hath not all power in in Heaven and in Earth, but only as he is Mediator, because that power is given to him, and nothing can be given to Christ as he is the eternal Son of God, but only as he is Mediator, by your principles: But if your meaning be no more than this, that Christ considered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in respect of the very nature and essence of the Godhead, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not God of God, but God of himself, and that so nothing can be said to be given to him: then why have you dealt so uncharitably as to suppose me to be herein opposite unto you; when I plainly spoke of the eternal Son of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in respect of the personality or relation of filiation, or as he is the eternal Son of God, in which sense I yet aver confidently, that all power in heaven and earth may be said to be given to Jesus Christ, as he is the eternal Son of God by eternal generation. I added, that all power in heaven and earth may be said to be given to Christ as he is the eternal Son of God, in another respect, namely in respect of the declaration thereof at his resurrection. To this Mr. Hussey replieth, that to hold any thing should be given him that should concern his Godhead at the time of his resurrection, is more monstrous. Then hath Gomarus and others given a monstrous answer to the Ubiquitaries, yet they clear it by Augustine's rule, aliquid dicitur fieri quando incipit patesieri. Is it any more strange then to say that Christ was begotten that day when he was raised from the dead Act. 13. 33. The Son of God had in obedience to his Father's will, laid aside and relinquished his divine dominion and power when he took upon him the form of a servant (which I said before, but it seems was not considered by Mr. Hussey) now at his resurrection the Father restoreth with advantage that formerly relinquished Sovereignty. But he addeth, that if Matt. 28. 18. be not understood of Christ as Mediator, than he had no authority as Mediator to send his Apostles: for it followeth Go ye therefore and preach: from this authority here spoken of, is the authority to preach the Gospel. Answ. Not to stand upon the want of the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore, in divers Greek copies: I admit of the cohesion and dependence of the words, thus. Christ being to give a commission to the Apostles to go and preach the Gospel to all Nations, he first anticipateth a great objection, which might arise in the Apostles minds; They might think, how shall we be able to carry the Gospel through the Nations? We shall have all the powers of the world against us. To remove this fear, he said, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth, as if he had said, Do you believe that I who send you out, a● the Son of the living God? T●en know assuredly, that my divine power and sovereignty shall be for you, and I will so overrule all the Kings and Potentates and States of the World, as may be most for my glory and your good; fear not therefore, but go and preach to all Nations. And so much of that Text Matth. 28. 18. Salmeron upon the place draws from it Christ's dominion even in temporal things (as Mr. Hussey doth) and thence he deriveth the temporal power of the Pope as Christ's Vicar over the Kings and Kingdoms of the World. So Suarez in tertiam partem Thomae disp. 48. sect. 2. Gamachaeus in tertiam partem Thomae, Quaest 22. yet some of the Papists themselves are ashamed to defend Christ's dominion in temporal things (except as God only) it appearin to them so far contrary to other Scriptures. Bellarmine himself lib. 5. de Pont. Rom. cap. 4. confesseth that Christ as he did not execute any Temporal dominion, so he neither had nor received such power and authority: thereupon he inferreth that the Pope whom he calleth Christ's Vicar and Representee on earth, hath not any Temporal dominion directly, but indirectly, and in ordine ad spiritualia. I appeal also to Salmeron in another place where he speaks more sound Tom. 4. part▪ 3. Tract. 4. pag. 413. he proves from john 18. 36. and Luke 12. 14. that Christ had not nor received not any temporal power, and thence inferreth, Cum ergo Christus hujusmodi potestatem non habuerit, nec Petro illam tradidit. The vl argument shall be that which Mr. Coleman did draw from 1 Cor. 12. 28. to prove that Christ hath placed in his Church Magistrates or civil Governments. Hereunto I had made four answers. Mr. Hussey passeth two of them, which he is pleased to esteem trifles not worth answer. Now the Gamaliel speaks è cathedra. The other two he offereth to confute, pag. 28, 29, 30 31. First, whereas I said that if by Governments in that place be understood civil Magistrates, yet the Text saith not that Christ hath placed them. Then saith Mr. Hussey à fortiori you disclaim by that means any Government in this place as Officers under Christ. No Sir, this reasoning is à baculo ad angulum. I hold Church-Officers and Church-government to be under Christ, and under him as Mediator, and K●ng of the Church, and am ready to prove it against any that will deny it: But upon supposition, that civil Government is meant in that Text, (which I utterly deny) I had reason to call the affirmer to his proper task, to prove from that Text, that Christ as Mediator hath placed civil Government or Magistracy in his Church. This was the point it was brought for, and still I call to make good that proof, for I deny it. It seems Mr. Hussey finds himself puzzled to make it out, and therefore he saith, if Mr. Coleman will be ruled by me. so as Mr. Gilespie will not urge this for constitution of Church-Governments, he shall 〈◊〉 it go. But if it be a truth, Sir you ought to buy it, and not sell it: For my part I dare make no bargain of Scripture. My next answer was, that the Apostle speaks of such Governors, as the Church had at that time; but at that time the Church had no Godly nor Christian Magistrates. Mr. Hussey answereth that it cannot be proved that the Apostle speaketh of such Officers as were in the Church in his time only. He addeth, I shall urge some few argaments to the contrary. To the contrary of what? I did not say that the Apostle speaketh of such Officers as were in the Church in his time only: but that the Church at that time had all those Officers whom the Apostle speaketh of. One would think that he who censureth others so much for want of skill in disputations, should not so far mistake his mark. But we know what he would have said though he hath not hit it. Let us hear his arguments. First, he tells us that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will signify proposuit or decrevit, so that where we read God hath set in the Church, it may be read God hath appointed to his Church, so to take in those Governments which should afterward by God's appointment come to the Church. He clears it by john 15. 16. Act. 19 21. Answ. Then the Apostle saith no more to the Corinthians, then might have been said to the old world before the flood, for if the meaning be that God hath ordained and purposed, all this Text had been true, if delivered in terminis terminantibus, to the old World, God hath set some in the Church, first Apostles, etc. 2. The context showeth that the Apostle speaketh only of such administrations, as the Church had at that time, for all this is spoken in reference to the preventing of a Schism in the Church of Corinth, and that every member of that body might discharge its own proper function without usurping another's. 3. He confuteth himself, for he addeth, This cannot be a Catalogue of such Officers as are at all times necessary to the Church, for th●…n Apostles might not be mentioned. Therefore it must be said, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place is posuit or collocavit (according to the more usual signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) and doth relate to that present time, as well as Act. 20. 28. The holy Ghost hath made or set you overseers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: In like manner here God hath set (or placed) in the Church, and so it will agree both to ordinary and extraordinary officers. But if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be decrevit, than it will refer the Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, miracles, to the future estate of the Church, as if they were ordinary Officers to continue in the Church. 4. When 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth decrevit, than the thing is not mentioned, as having an actual present existence, but a futurition; so that when he takes him to the decrevit, he quits the posuit, and by that means one cannot prove from that Text, that the Church at that time had any of these Officers there enumerated: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 relates to all that follows, and either it must be posuit to them all, or to none of them. 5. If he had intended to express God's decree or purpose to give unto his Church certain Officers, he would not have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and God hath decreed some in the Church. Which could make no perfect sense except some other thing were added. Mr. Hussey might as well expound Act. 5. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, thus, and they decreed them in the common prison. Mr. Hussey would render the Text thus, he hath appointed to his Church: If the Text had said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he might have rendered it so, but when the Text saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he must not render it ●…o the Church, but in the Church, as Act. 19 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Paul purposed in the spirit: the purpose was not to the Spirit, but in the Spirit. The second Argument whereby he 〈◊〉 that which I said, is this, at tha●… time there were workers of miracl●…s which did supply the defect of civil Magistrates. And here he insisteth a while to tell us that thus much a National Covenant and 〈◊〉 Magistrate may require of the people, that they will attend upon the means out of natural principles, which at that time miracles caused men to attend upon. But quid haec ad Rhombum? How comes this home to that which he undertook to prove? And if it did, I must say that the civil Magistrate is but little, and a National Covenant far less beholding to him. And if the workers of miracles did at that time supply the defect of civil Magistrates (I suppose he should have said Christian Magistrates) than he must draw Christian Magistracy to come in succession not so much to the civil Magistracy in the Apostles times (which yet was true Magistracy) as to the miracles mentioned in the Text, and so bring in the Christian Magistrate upon the ceasing of miracles. A fine plea indeed for Christian Magistracy. His third Argument goeth thus, We have in the Text first, second, and third; when the Apostle speaks of these which might be liable to present view, but then he breaks off with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, after that miracles, which lasted somewhat longer than the Apostles and Prophets; and last we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and these may be ordinary gifts, and this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 relates to helps, Governments: that Calvin thinks the helps were some Officers the Church hath lost: But being put both in one case without any conjunction copulative, why they may not (I believe he would have said, why may they not? for the sense can be no other) belong both to one thing, and this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may not have some influence upon the times and after age. Answ. If this be his manner, we shall not much fear the dint of his Arguments, when it comes to the Schools, which he calls for. What a great matter is made of mere nothing? First, he offereth violence to the Text, because if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 note posteriority of time, and ordinary gifts, than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is compounded from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must much rather note the same thing, and so we shall have not only gifts of healing, but miracles too, ordinary and continuing administrations in the Church. Next he offereth violence to the Greek language: for when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify posteriority, not only in the enumeration, but in the time of existence, than the one must needs signify a pre-existence, and the other a post-existence, they cannot be contemporary from their beginnings; yet Mr. Hussey will needs have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before miracles, and again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 efore gifts of healing and diversities of tongues, to signify posteriority of time, though he cannot say that gifts of healing and diversities of tongues were not contemporary but posterior in time to miracles, And further observe that when the Text runs in this order, first Apostles, secondarily Prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, than gifts of healings, etc. Mr. Hussey will make this the sense, that there were Apostles before prophets, there were Prophets before teachers, there were Teachers before miracles, there were miracles before gifts of healings, etc. and vice versa, there were no gifts of healings till after there had been miracles, no miracles till after there had been Teachers in the Church, etc. even as Mark. 4. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first the blade 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than the ear, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after that the full corn in the ear: the blade hath an existence before the ear, the ear before the full corn. So that taking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his sense, he must either make out distinctly the order of time, or else confess he would make the Apostle speak as never Grecian in the world spoke, or lastly be content to understand the Apostles words of the order of enumeration. If the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had been in the Text▪ that had indeed carried it to posteriority of time as Heb. 12. 17. but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (though sometime it signifieth posteriority of time, yet) in this place having reference to such antecedents and consequents cannot bear his sense. I see it were no ill sport to examine his quint Arguments if a man had but so much leisure. Thirdly, He offereth violence to Calvin, for s Calv. in 1 Cor. 12. 28. Aut certe tam munus quam domum olim suit, quod nobis hodie est incognitum: aut ad diaconiam pertinet, hoc est curam pauperum. Atque hoc secundum mihi magis arridet▪ Calvin saith that these helps mentioned 1 Cor. 12. 28. were either an ancient gift and office unknown to us now, or it belongs to Deaconship, that is, the care of the poor. And this second (saith he) rather pleaseth me. Qua fide then, could Mr. Hussey affirm that Calvin thinks they were some Officers that the Church hath lost. Fourthly, Whereas he thinks helps, governments, to belong both to one thing, there was some such thing once foisted into the English Bibles: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, was read thus, helps in Governments: but afterwards the Prelates themselves were ashamed of it, and so it was printed according to the Greek distinctly, helps, Govirnments. The Syriack addeth a copulative, and readeth thus, and helpers, and Governors, so making them distinct officers in the Church. Neither is it any unusual thing in the Greek, to put together Nouns in the same case without any conjunction copulative, when the things themselves so expressed are most different, as Matth. 15, 19 Gal. 5. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23. Rom. 1. 29, 30. 31. The next thing he brings against me, is from Ephes. 4. 11. where there is no ordinary or standing Officer left to us, but the Teacher of the Word: here is neither help nor government but this poor Teacher left alone to edify the body of Christ, and to perfect the Saints. Answ. What Argument is there here? ruling Elders are not mentioned Ephes. 4. therefore the Governments mentioned 1 Cor▪ 12. are such as the Church had not at that time. There are divers passages of Christ's doctrine, life, and sufferings, which are not mentioned by Matthew, yet they are mentioned by john or some of the other Evangelists. So if we take the primitive platform right, we must set the whole before us, that which is not in one place is in another place. The Apostle Eph. 4. intendeth only to speak of preaching officers who are appointed for this work of the Ministry, to bring us to unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, that we be not carried about with every wind of Doctrine, v 12 13, 14. And if the Apostle had intended to enumerate all Church-officers in that place, which were then in the Church, how comes it he doth not mention Deacons which he distinguisheth from Bishops or Elders? 1 Tim. 3. His last Argument is, that in this very place 1 Cor. 12. the Apostle, when he doth again enumerate the particulars vers. 29. 30. he leaveth out helps, Governments, for which, he saith, he knows no reason, but because there were none such at that time, and the Apostle in that induction was to deal with their experience. This (as many other things which he hath) was before answered to Mr. Coleman. I give this plain reason for the omission of these two. The Apostle speaketh to those, who were not well satisfied nor contented with their own station in the Church, but were aspiring to more eminent gifts and administrations, are all Apostles? saith he, are all Prophets? etc. and so he reckoneth out only those rare and singular gifts, which men did most covet: and for that cause it was neither necessary, nor had it been agreeable to the scope of the Apostle to have added, are all helps? are all Governments? But now he purposely leaveth out these, thereby intimating to the ruling Elders and Deacons of the Church of Corinth, that they ought to be contented with their own station, though they be neither Apostles, nor Prophets. etc. It remaineth therefore that the Governments in the Church mentioned 1 Cor. 12. 28. were such Governments as were in the Church at that time, and therefore not to be understood of Christian Magistracy: but of Church▪ Government distinct from the civil. The ninth Argument brought to prove that all Government is given to Christ as Mediator, and that the Christian Magistrate holds his office of and under Christ, as the head of Magistracy and Principality, is from Eph. 1. 21, 22, 23. This Argument first propounded by Mr. Coleman, is prosecuted by Mr. Hussey pag. 32, 33. etc. He demurs upon that which I said, that this place maketh more against him then for him; the meaning whereof was no more than this, that this place doth rather afford us an Argument against him, then him against us. Come we to the particulars. My first Reply was, The Apostle saith not that Christ is given to the Church, as the head of all Principalities and Powers. The Brother saith so, and in saying so he makes Christ a head to those that are not of his body. This exception Mr. Hussey quarrelleth, but when he hath endeavoured to prove from that Text that Christ is the head of Principalities: because he that is head of all things, is also head of Principalities: though he will never be able to make it out from that Text, that Christ (as Mediator) is head of all things, but only, that he who is the Church's head is over all things; and gave him to be the head over (not of) all things to the Church, saith the Text, which as I told before, the Syriack readeth more plainly thus, and him who is over all, he gave to be the head to the Church.) At last he fairly gives over the proof. It is true saith he, disputations do require men to keep close to terms, but in Col. 2. 10. ye have the very words, head of all Principality and Power. In Col. 2. 10. Christ as he is the eternal Son of God, is called head of all Principality and power: as we shall see anon: but Ephes. 1. where the Apostle speaketh of Christ's headship, in reference to the Church, and as Mediator, he is not called the head of all Principality and Power. So that I had reason to except against Mr. Colemans' argument which made that Text Ephes. 1. to say what it saith not. Now what saith he to the reason I added, can Christ be a head to them that are not of his body? He tells me the visible Church is not the body of Christ, but only the faithful. He might have observed the visible Church consisting of visible Saints, plainly spoken of, as the body of Christ, 1 Cor. 10. 16, 17. 1 Cor. 12, 12. 14 27. I know the visible Church is not all one with the invisible and mystical body of Christ; but he who denyeth the visible Church to ●e the visible, political, ministerial body of Christ, must also deny the visible Church to be the visible Church; for if a Church, then certainly the body of Christ, at least visibly. The next thing which I did reply, was in explanation of the Text, which was to this sense. He that is the Church's head, is over all, both as he is the Son of God, or as the Apostle saith Rom. 9 5. God over all, blessed for ever, yea even as man he is over or above all creatures, being exalted to a higher degree of glory, majesty, and dignity, than man or Angel ever was, or shall be: but neither his divine omnipotency, nor the height of glory and honour which as man he is exalted to, nor both these together in the Mediator and Head of the Church, omnipotency and exaltation to glory, can prove that (as Mediator) he exerciseth his Kingly office over all Principalities and Powers, and that they hold of and under him as Mediator. Mr. Hussey replieth that the Text makes Christ over or above Principalities and Powers, not only in dignity and honour, but as King or Head of them, and that thus we must understand the comparison, that he is above Principality in Principality, Power in Power, Might in Might, Dominion in Dominion. This is nothing but a begging of what is in Question: That the Power and Dominion of the civil Magistrate, is eminently in Christ as Mediator, and from him (so considered) derived to the Magistrate, is that which I deny can be proved from that Text; and lo when he comes to the point of probation, he supposeth what he had to prove. My exposition of the Text made good sense; For as an earthly King is exalted to have more power and more glory, than those not only of his Subjects, but of another State or Kingdom to whom he is not King; so the Mediator and King of the Church is exalted to power and glory far above all Principality and Power, but is not therefore Head or King or Governor to all Principality and Power, as Mediator. And as me exposition makes good sense of the Text, his makes very bad sense of it. For if Christ as Mediator be head and King of all Principalities, powers, and Dominions, than he is, as Mediator, head and King of Heathenish and Turkish Principality, Power, might, and Dominion; and when the Apostle wrote this to the Ephesians, it must be granted (according to Mr. Husseys' gloss) that Christ as Mediator was head and King of the Roman Emperor, and that Caesar held his office of and under Christ as Mediator: for if head of all Principality, how shall they except any? I further brought several reasons from the Text itself. The first was this, The honour and dignity of Jesus Christ there spoken of, hath place not only in this world, but in that which is to come (vers. 21) But the Kingdom and Government which is given to Christ as Mediator, shall not continue in the World to come. Mr. Hussey answereth pag. 41. this is Ignoratio el nehi, it followeth not, that which belongeth to him in reference to the World to come, belongeth not to him as Mediator, therefore that Government that is given to him in reference to this World, is not given to him as Mediator. But still he begs what is in Question, and divideth asunder what the Text coupleth together, not only in this World, but also in that which is to come: here is a rising and heightening, but no contradistinction, nothing here of one exaltation in reference to the World to come, another in reference to this World: but that exaltation of Christ above every name that is named, (which this Text speaks of) begins in this World, and shall continue in the World to come. Calvin. in Eph. 1. 21. Seculi autem futuri disertam facit mentionem, ut significet non temporalem esse Christi excellentiam, sed aeternam. He makes express mention of the World to come, that he may signify Christ's excellency not to be temporal, but eternal. This doth well agree to the dignity, excellency, glory, and honour of Christ, but it cannot be said that Christ shall for ever continue in his Kingly Office as Mediator. The second reason which I fetched from the Text, was from vers. 22. He hath put all things under his feet; that is, all things except the Church, saith Zanchius. But all things are not yet put under his feet, except in respect of God's decree; It is not yet done actually. Heb. 2. 8. Now Christ reigns as Mediator before all things be put under his feet, not after all things are put under his feet, which is clear 1 Cor. 15. 25. Act. 2. 34, 35. Mr. Husseys' reply pag. 41. 42. saith, that the Church is not here to be excepted, but Church and all is here put under Christ's feet, which he proveth by Heb. 2. 8. He left nothing that is not put under him. But this cannot be understood to be actually done; for the next words say, But now we see not yet all things put under him: and if not done actually, but in respect of God's decree and foreknowledge, (according to the sense I gave out of Hierome on Eph. 1. 22.) how can it strengthen him in this particular? We see not yet. This yet shall not expire till the end, when Christ shall put down all authority and power. And now when it is said He hath put all things under his feet. Ephes. 1. 22. that the Church is not meant to be comprehended, but to be excepted in that place as Zanchius saith, may thus appear; the Apostle distinguisheth the all things from the Church, and calls the Church the body of Christ, and him the head to that body, but the all things are put under Christ's feet (his body is not under his feet, but under the head) and he over all things: for so runs the Text, and hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the Church, which is his body. And whereas Mr. Hussey distinguisheth between Christ's putting all his enemies under his feet, 1 Cor. 15. 25. and the Father's putting all things under his feet, Ibid. vers. 27. and maketh this latter to be an actual putting under him of friends, foes, Church and all, whence it seems he would have it to follow, that Christ reigns as Mediator, even after all things are put under his feet. He is herein easily confuted from Heb. 2. ●. Where God the Father his putting all things under Christ's feet, is plainly declared to be a thing to come, and not yet actually done. The next reason which I gave out of the Text was from those words, And gave him to be the head over all thiags to the Church; Christ's headship and his Government as Mediator, are commensurable. Christ is a head to none but to his Church. These words of mine Mr. Hussey changeth thus: he is head over none saith Mr. Gilespie, but his Church, and then he addeth, Is this to argue out of Scripture, or rather to deny and outface the Scripture? the Scripture saith, he is over all. See what unconscionable impudent boldness this is, to cite my words (yea in a different character too, that his Reader may believe it the better) and yet to change not only my words, but my meaning. I purposely kept myself to the Text, that Christ is a head to none but to his Church, yet he that is the Church's head is over all things. And since Mr. Hussey will needs hold that Christ as Mediator is head of all things (which the Text saith not) what were the consequence hereof? The Text saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over all things, not over all persons only: So Heb. 2 7, 8. compared with Psal. 8. 6, 7. Whence it follows by Mr. Husseys' principles (which I tremble to mention) that Christ as Mediator is Head and King not only of men, but of sheep, oxen, fowls, and fishes. Behold how dangerous it is for men to be wise above that which is written. The last reason which I brought from the last verse, was this, The Church is there called Christ's fullness in reference to his Headship. This Mr. Hussey saith, seemeth to come tolerably from the Text; but the next words, that which makes him full and complete so far as he is a Head or King: he calls a fallacy, How cometh this word King in here? saith he; First here he yields that the Church makes Christ full and complete so far as he is a Head, whence it followeth that as Mediator he is only the Church's head, and there is no other body of Christ but the Church; for if the Church be his fullness, his complete body, there can be no other body of Christ. Doth not this destroy what he hath been arguing for, that Christ as Mediator is head of all Principality and Power? And for the word King, it may well come in where Head cometh: for is not Christ's Kingdom as Mediator, commensurable with his Headship as Mediator? Is he as Mediator King to any to whom he is not Head? Surely this very answer as it is his last, so it really yieldeth the cause. The tenth objection is that which I myself moved to prevent my Antagonists. Christ is called the Head of all Principality and Power, Col. 2. 10. To this I answered out of Bullinger, Gualther, and Tossanus; the scope and meaning of the Apostle, is to show that Christ is true God, and therefore we must not understand the Apostle to speak of Christ's headship as he is Mediator, but as he is the natural and eternal Son of God. Mr. Hussey pag. 34. thinks it is no good consequence, the Apostle speaks not of Christ as Mediator, because he speaks of him as true God, Is not Christ saith he, true God as Mediator? I answer, As Mediator he is God-man. But he must remember the Argument is urged to prove the subordination of all Principality and power to Jesus Christ as Mediator. Now let him prove that the Apostle speaketh there of Christ as Mediator; I say he speaketh of Christ as God; He cannot conclude against what I said, except he argue thus, that which Christ is as God, he is as Mediator; which is false, as I have made it appear elsewhere. Well: but Mr. Hussey proves from the Text that Christ is there spoken of as Mediator. vers. 9, 10. For in him dwelleth the fullness of the Godhead bodily, and ye are complete in him which is the head of all Principality and power. But he draweth no argument from the words. Neither is there any thing in them which maketh against me. The Apostle shows them, that the man Jesus Christ is also true God, equal and consubstantial with the Father; for the very fullness of the Godhead is in him, that is, he is fully and completely God, so that saith Calvin, they who desire something more than Christ, must desire something more than God. Wherefore our Writers make the right use of this place when they bring it against the Socinians, to prove the Godhead of Christ. See Christian. Becman. exercit. 9 This fullness of the Godhead is in Christ bodily, that is, either personally, to distinguish him from the holy men of God, who were inspired by the holy Ghost; or substantially, as others take the Word, in opposition to the Tabernacle and Temple in which the Godhead was typically. Ye are complete in him, saith the Apostle, meaning because he is completely God, so that we need not invocate or worship Angels, as if we were not complete in Christ. Mr. Hussey admitteth what I said concerning the scope of the place, to teach the Colossians not to worship Angels, because servants: But saith he, may they not worship Christ as Mediator? yes doubtless they may. No doubt he that is Mediator must be worshipped, because he is God; Christ God-man is the object of divine adoration, and his Godhead is the cause of that adoration; but whether he is to be worshipped because he is Mediator, or under this formal consideration as Mediator; and whether the Mediator ought to be therefore adored with divine adoration, because he is Mediator, is res altioris indaginis. If Mr. Hussey please to read and consider what divers School▪ men have said upon that point, as Aquinas tertia part. quaest. 25. art. 1. & 2. Alex. Alensis Sum. Theol. part▪ 3. quaest. 30. membr. 2. Suarez in tertiam part. Thomae Disp. 53. sect. 1. Valentia Comment. in Tho. Tom. 4. Disp. 1. quaest. 24. punct. 1. Tannerus Theol. Scholast. Tom. 4. Disp. 1. quaest. 7. Dub. 7. But much more if he please to read Disputatio de adoratione Christi, habita inter Faustum Socinum & Christianum Francken: and above all Dr. Voetius select. disput. ex poster. part. Theol. Disp. 14. An Christus qua Mediator sit adorandus? Then I believe he will be more wary and cautious what he holds concerning that Question. But I must not be led out of my way to multiply Questions unnecessarily: All that I said was, that the Apostle teacheth the Colossians, not to worship Angels, because they are servants, but Christ the Son of the living God, who is the Head and Lord of Angels; and in that place the Apostle speaketh of the honour which is due to Christ as God; and if we would know in what sense the Apostle calls Christ the Head of all Principality and Power, see how he expounds himsel Coloss. 1. 15, 16, 17. speaking of the Godhead of Jesus Christ. Finally, If Mr. Hussey will prove any thing from Coloss. 2. 10. against us, he must prove that those words which is the head of all Principality and power, are meant in reference not only to the Angels, but to Civil Magistrates; and next, that they are meant of Christ, not only as God, but as Mediator. Both which he hath to prove, for they are not yet proved. CHAP. VII. Arguments for the Negative of that Question formerly propounded. MY Arguments against the derivation of Magistracy from Jesus Christ as Mediator, and against the Magistrates holding of his office of and under Christ as Mediator, are these. First, This Doctrine doth evacuate and nullify the civil Authority and Government of all Heathen or Pagan Magistrate; for which way was the authority of Government derived from Christ, and from him as Mediator, to a Pagan Magistrate or Emperor? If he hath not his power from Christ as Mediator, than he is but an usurper, and hath no just title to reign, according to their Principles which hold that all government, even civil, is given to C rist, and to him as Mediator. Mr. Hussey forsooth doth learnedly yield the argument, and answereth pag. 20. that not only it is a sin to be a Heathen, but the government of a Heathen is sinful and unlawful, for which he gives this reason, Whatsoever is not of faith is sin. He might as well conclude, in that sense, that the best virtues of the Heathen were sin, because not of faith, that is, accidentally sin, in respect of the end, or manner of doing, not materially, or in their own nature. Upon the same reason he must conclude, that the government of a Christian Magistrate is unlawful, if it be not of faith, as oftimes it is not, through the blindness and corruption of men's hearts who govern. But whether is the government of a Heathen Magistrate per se, simpliciter, & ex natura sua, unlawful and sinful? Whether hath he any just right or title to Government and Magistracy? If his title to civil Magistracy be just, and if his government be in itself materially and substantially lawful▪ than he must have a Commission from Christ, and from him as Mediator: This I suppose cannot be Mr. Husseys' sense, for he hath not answered one syllable to the argument, tending that way. But if the Government of an Heathen Magistrate be in itself materially, substantially, and in the nature of the tenure, sinful and unlawful, so that as long as he remains an Heathen, he hath no real right, nor true title to Government, but only a pretended and usurped title (which must needs be Mr. Husseys' sense, if he hath answered any thing at all to my Argument) than he goeth cross not only to the holy men of God in the old Testament who honoured Heathen Princes, and were subject to them as to lawful Magistrates; but also to the doctrine of Jesus Christ, who taught his Disciples to give unto Caesar what is Caesar's; and of the Apostles who in their time exhorted the Churches to be subject even to Heathen Magistrates (for they had no other at that time) to obey them, to pray for them. Rom. 13. Titus 3. 1. 1 Tim. 2. 1, 2. 1 Pet. 2. 13, 14. 17. It is justly condemned as one of the errors of the Anabaptists, that an heathen Magistrate is not to be acknowledged as a lawful Magistrate, or as being from God. See Gerhard loc. come. Tom. 6. Pag. 498 499 P. Hinkelmannus de Anabaptismo disp. 13. cap. 1. The Scriptures now cited are so clear, that when Mr. Hussey saith of the heathen Magistrate, Let Baal plead for himself, he might as well have said, that Christ and his Apostles pleaded for Baal. They that plead for the authority of an heathen Magistrate do not plead for Baal, but for God, and for his ordinance: for the powers that be, are ordained of God, saith Paul speaking even of the heathen Magistrates, Rom. 13. 1. But what will Mr. Hussey say, if his great master Erastus be found a pleader for Baal, as much as I am? Confirm. Thes. lib. 3. cap. 2. pag. 184. speaking of the heathen and unbelieving Magistrates, before whom the Corinthians went to law one against another, he saith, An non est impius quoque Magistratus à Deo praepositus, ut subjectes quoslibet ab injuria & vi tueatur? Is not the ungodly Magistrate also preferred by God, that he may defend any of his Subjects from injury and violence. Yea the Scriptures afore touched are so clear in this point, that Gamachaeus in primam secunda Quaest 4. & 5. cap. 33. though he hold that by humane and Ecclesiastical right, Pagan Princes lose their dominion and authority over their Subjects, when their Subjects turn Christians; yet he acknowledgeth that they still retain their former Jurisdiction over those Subjects, by the Law of God and nature. Surely one might as well say, that heathen Parents are unlawful, and heathen masters are unlawful, and heathen husbands are unlawful; (all which were contrary to the Word of God) as to say that heathen Magistrates are unlawful. Take the instance in Parents, for all lawful Magistrates are fathers by the fifth Commandment. Doth the paternity of a heathen father differre specie, from the paternity of a Christian father? are they not both lawful parents, being made such by God and nature? are not their children bound to honour them, and be subject to them, and obey them in things lawful? The paternity is the same in se, but different modaliter that I may borrow a distinction from Mr. Hussey. The Christian father is sanctified, and qualified to do service to Jesus Christ, as a father, in educating his children Christianly, which an heathen father can not do. So the heathen Magistrate, and the Christian Magistrate are both lawful Magistrates, being made such by God and nature, or by election of people: they are both of them to be honoured, submitted unto, and obeyed, they are both of them the ministers of God for good to their people: their power is the same in actu signato, though not in actu exercito. The heathen Magistrate may do and aught to do what the Christian Magistrate doth; but the Christian Magistrate is fitted, qualified, enabled, and sanctified to glorify and serve Jesus Christ, as a Magistrate, which the heathen Magistrate is not. Secondly, They that hold the derivation of Magistracy to be from Jesus Christ, and that it is held of and under him as Mediator, must either show from Scripture that Jesus Christ as Mediator hath given a commission of Vicegerentship or Deputyship to the Christian Magistrate, or otherwise acknowledge, that they have given the most dangerous and deadly wound, even to Christian Magistracy itself, which ever before it received. Mr. Hussey pag. 20 answereth, I conceive he (the Christian Magistrate) hath a Commission from Christ: but when he should prove it (which my argument called for) here he is at a loss. He citeth Psal. 72▪ 11. All Kings shall fall down before him, all Nations shall serve him. Isa. 60. 12. That Nation and Kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish. I hope indeed there is a time coming when all Kings shall fall down before Jesus Christ, and all Nations shall serve him, and that will make an end of the Erastian controversy. But I pray, do all that serve Jesus Christ, hold their office of and under Christ, as Mediator, and as his Vicegerents? then the poorest servant that fears God shall be a Vicegerent of Jesus Christ, as Mediator, and shall have a commission from Christ to that effect, for every godly servant doth not serve his master only, but Christ, Eph. 6. 5, 6, 7. Again, if those who shall perish because they serve not Christ, be his Deputies and Vicegerents; then the wickedest persecuters in the World shall have a commission of Vicegerentship from Jesus Christ. Well, let the Christian Magistrate animadvert, whether these men have done any thankworthy service to Magistracy, who will needs have it to hold of and un●er Christ as Mediator, and by a commission of Vicegerentship from him; and when they are put to it, to produce that commission, they prove no more than agreeth either to the meanest Christian, or to the wickedest persecuter. The Ministry hath a clear undeniable commission from Christ as Mediator (even our opposites themselves being Judges) Matth. 16. 19 and 28. 19 20. john 20. 21, 22▪ 23. 2 Cor. 5. 19, 20. Eph. 4. 11, 12. Act. 20. 28. Tit. 1. 5. I say therefore again▪ let them also show from Scripture a commission from Jesus Christ constituting Christian Magistrates to be his Vicegerents as he is Mediator, and to hold their office of and under him as Mediator: which if they cannot show, they have done a greater disservice to the Christian Magistrate, than they can easily repair or amend: We are sure the lawful Magistrate (whether Heathen or Christian) is God's Vicegerent▪ and that is a safe holding of his office. But our opposites shall never prove, that any civil Magistrate (though Christian and godly) is the Vicegerent of Jesus Christ as Mediator. And in seeking to prove it, I am persuaded they shall but discover their own weakness, and shall also weaken the Magistrate's authority more than they can strengthen it. Thirdly, The Scripture intimateth this difference between Ministry and Magistracy; that the work of the Ministry and the administrations thereof are performed in the name of Jesus Christ as Mediator and King of the Church: the work of Magistracy not so, except we add to the Word of God; they who will do any thing in the Name of Jesus Christ as Mediator, and cannot find any Scripture which can warrant their so doing, are liars, and the truth is not in them. Now let our opposites show (if they can) where they find in Scripture, that the Christian Magistrate is to rule in the name of Christ, to judge in the name of Christ, to make laws in the name of Christ, to make war or peace in the name of Christ, to punish evil doers with the Temporal Sword in the name of Christ. Of the Ministry I did show, that in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ we do assemble ourselves together, Matth. 18. 20. in his name do we preach, Luk. 24. 47. Act. 4. 17, 18. and 5. 28. 44. and 9 27. In his name do we baptise, Act. 2. 38. and 8. 16. and 19 5. In his name do we excommunicate, 1 Cor. 5. 5. These my proofs from Scripture Mr. Hussey pag. 21. professeth he will examine according to laws of disputation. I know none transgresseth those laws more than himself, and even in this very place where he professeth to keep close to laws of disputation: my first proof from Matth. 18. 20. he quarrelleth upon a mere mistake of his own. He saith I brought it to prove the institution of Church-officers, and that to prove it, I do appropriate the meeting in the name of hCrist to Church-Officers, and thereupon he tells us the Text saith not, that none shall gather together in my name but Church-Officers. Are these Mr. Husseys' laws of disputation? He had need to be a better disputer who calls others to School. I did not speak here of the Institution of Church-Officers, and far less did I exclude all others from meeting in the name of Christ; Church-officers assemble in the name of Christ with the Church; and when they assemble in the name of Christ apart, and without the multitude, will it follow that because they meet in the name of Christ, therefore none but they meet in the name of Christ. Well, let Mr. Hussey try all his Logic in this consequence, it will not do. The sixth general Council, Actione 17. apply unto their own ecumenical Assembly, that promise of Christ Matth. 18. 20. Where two or three are gathered together in my Name, etc. Protestant Writers both in their Commentaries, and Polemic Writings, do usually apply the same Text to Synods and Counsels: For instance, Calvin. Instit. lib. 4. cap. 9 sect 1. & 2. holds that the authority of Counsels dependeth upon that promise of Christ, Where two or three are met together in my name, etc. That which went before, carries it to Assemblies for acts of discipline, as being principally intended in that place. The promise ver. 20. is general, belonging to all Church Assemblies: yet in that place it is applied to Assemblies of Church-Officers for discipline. But neither need I go so far in this present argument; for when Church-Officers meet with the Church for the Word, Sacraments▪ and other parts of Worship, this is in the name of Jesus Christ, without all controversy, and this is enough to justify all that I brought that Text for; especially there being herein a difference between sacred and civil Assemblies: there is no such promise made to Magistrates Courts of Justice, as to Church Assemblies. That which he citeth out of Dr. Whittaker and Bishop Mortoun makes nothing against me, neither doth he quote the places, peradventure because he found something in those passages which made against him. Whittakers sense is plainly of sacred, and not of civil Assemblies. And for that so much controverted Text Matth. 18. 17. Tell the Church. Whittaker expoundeth it as we do against the Erastians', Tell the Pastors and Rulers of the Church. Whittak. de Eccles. quaest. 1. cap. 2. Dic Ecclesiae, hoc est Pastoribus & Praefectis Ecclesiae. As for preaching, Mr. Hussey saith, it is out of question that we preach in the name of Christ. Well: then let him show such another thing of the Magistrate, as is without controversy done by him in the name of Christ. But where I added, that in the name of Jesus Christ we baptise, though I said no more than the Scripture saith, yet he is pleased to object against me. These places he citeth saith he, to prove that we baptise in the Name of Jesus, as exclusively to Father and holy Ghost, (leaving out the words of the commission: Matth. 28. Baptise in the name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost) for so the state of his question doth require; for he distinguisheth acutely and acurately between Christ as Mediator and second person (he should have said as second Person) in Trinity, in all this Argument. And so he concludes that which I had said to be contrary to the words of the Commission and the practice of all Churches. What doth he drive at? I cited plain Texts to prove that baptism is administered in the name of Christ: Either Mr. Hussey denyeth that this is done in the name of Christ as Mediator: or he denyeth it not. If he deny it, let him speak it out, and he shall not want an answer. Mean while let him remember that himself pag. 25. saith, that Christ as Mediator did give that commission to the Apostles, Go Preach and baptise. If he deny it not, then let him give the like instance for Magistracy and civil Government, to prove it to be managed in the name of Jesus Christ as Mediator, else he must not plead that Magistracy is of the same tenure from Christ as the Ministry. Again, either he admitteth a distinction between Christ as Mediator, and as second person in Trinity, or not. If he do not, he will infallibly wind himself into a gross heresy; as namely these two. 1. He must deny that principle which according to the Word of God, all Orthodox Divines hold against the Arrians and Antitrinitarians, that t Synop. pur. Theol. Disp. 26. Thes. 29. Tametsi ob istam mediationem filius Dei minor sit Patre, non propterea ipso minor est quoad Deitatem. Christ as Mediator is subordinate unto, and lesser than the Father; but as second person in the Trinity he is not subordinate unto nor lesser than the Father, nor the Father greater than he, but as such he is equal with the Father in greatness, glory, and honour. 2. As opera Trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa, he must also hold that whatsoever Christ as Mediator doth, that also the Father and the holy Ghost doth: but Christ as Mediator did humble himself to the death, offer himself in a sacrifice for sin, maketh intercession for us, Ergo, he must conclude the Father doth the same. But if he do admit the distinction as Mediator, and as second person in Trinity, then why doth he so often quarrel it? And in this very place his Argument must drive against that distinction, or against nothing. But how doth the baptising in the name of Christ as Mediator, agree with the commission to baptise in the name of the Father▪ Son, and holy Ghost? Though this belong not to my Argument, yet I will by the way speak to it. First I say, the Question is of things or actions, not of words. Mr. Hussey (it seems) did apprehend my meaning, as if I had intended an expression to be made in the act of baptising, thus, I baptise thee in the name of jesus Christ. But I spoke of the action, not of the expression, even as in the other instance I gave; our assembling together is in the name of Christ, though we do not say in terminis, We are now assembled in the name of Christ. In baptism Christ doth not command us to say, either these words, I baptise thee in the Name of Christ; or these words, I baptise thee in the Name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost: but we are commanded to do the thing, both in the name of Christ as Mediator, and in the name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost: But in different respects. A minister of Christ doth both preach and baptise in the name of Christ as Mediator, that is vice Christi▪ in Christ's stead, and having authority for that effect from Christ as Mediator; for Christ as Mediator gave us our commission to preach and baptise by Mr. Husseys' confession. So that to preach and baptise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which we find both of preaching, Luk. 24 47. and of baptising, Act. 2. 38.) comprehendeth a formal commission, power and authority given and derived from Christ, I say not that it comprehendeth no more, but this it doth comprehend. But when Christ biddeth us baptise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto, or into, or in the name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, Mat. 28. 19 this doth relate to the end and effect of baptism, or the good of the baptised (if we understand the words properly) not the authority of the baptizer, as if a formal commission were there given him from the Father, Son, and holy Ghost. So that to baptise one in or unto the name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, is properly meant both of sealing the parties right and title to the enjoyment of God himself, as their God by covenant, and their interest in the love of God, the grace of Christ, and the communion of the holy Ghost; and of dedicating the party to the knowledge, profession, saith, love, and obedience of God, the Father, Son, and holy Ghost. I return, The next branch of my Argument was that we excommunicate in the name of Christ 1 Cor. 5 5. Mr. Hussey pag. 22. saith I make great haste here, deliver to Satan saith he is not to excommunicate, etc. But grant that it were excommunication, etc. the decree was Paul's, and not the Corinthians. What is meant by delivering to Satan, belongs to another debate. Call it an Apostolical act, or call it an Ecclesiastical act, or both, yet it was done in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ; the like whereof we find not in Scripture of any act of the civil Magistrate. Why doth he not attend to the drift of the Argument? And as to his exceptions u Synops. pur. Theol. Disp. 42. Coral. 4. An Apostolus Paulus cum hominem incestuojum Satanae tra●…ret, quicquam peculiare habuerit? Nos contra Socinianos' Apostolum Paulum non ex jwe sibi peculiari, sed sibi cum omnibus Ecclesiae Preslyteris communi, incestuosum illum Satanae tradidisse, colligimus ex 1 Cor. 5. 4. Mat. 18. 17. 18. they are no other than Prelates, Papists, and Socinians have made before him, and which are answered long ago. That the Apostle commandeth to excommunicate the incestuous man, is acknowledged by Mr. Prynne. That he who is excommunicated may be truly said to be delivered to Satan, is undeniable; for he that is cast out of the Church, whose sins are retained, on whom the Kingdom of heaven is shut and locked, whom neither Christ nor his Church doth own, is delivered to Satan, who reigns without the Church. That this censure or punishment of excommunication was a Church act, and not an Apostolical act only, may thus appear. 1. The Apostle blameth the Corinthians, that it was not sooner done; he would not have blamed them, that a miracle was not wrought. 2. He writeth to them, to do it when they were gathered together, not to declare or witness what the Apostle had done, but to join with him in the authoritative doing of it, vers. 4. 5. again he saith to them vers. 7. Purge out therefore the old leaven. vers. 12. Do not ye judge them that are within? vers. 13. Put away from among yourselves that wicked person. 3. It was a censure inflicted by many, 2. Cor. 2. 6 not by the Apostle alone, but by many. 4. The Apostle doth not absolve the man, but writeth to them to forgive him, 2 Cor. 2. 7. Lastly, the Syriack maketh for us, which runneth thus, vers. 4. That in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, you all may be gathered together, and I with you in the Spirit, with the power of our Lord jesus Christ, vers. 5. That you may deliver him to Satan. etc. But now at last Mr. Hussey comes home, and gives this answer to my third Argument. A thing may be said to be done in the name of Christ or of God, when men do any thing in confidence that God will assist us: so Psal. 20 5. In the name of our God will we set up our banners in confidence God will assist us: Thus I hope the Parliament and other Christians may undertake the business in the name of Christ, etc. Secondly, In the name of Christ a thing is said to be done, that is done in the authority, room, and place of Christ, etc. So he pag. 24. seeking a knot in the rush. In the first part of his distinction, he saith nothing to my Argument, neither saith he any more of the Parliament than agreeth to all Christians, the poorest and meanest; for every Christian servant, every Christian Artificer is bound to do whatsoever he doth, in the name of Christ, Colos. 3. 17. But what is that to the Argument? Come to the other member of his distinction. The Ministers of Christ do act in the name of Christ: that is, in the authority, room and place of Christ; We are Ambassadors for Christ, and we preach in Christ's stead, 2 Cor. 5. 20. This he doth not nor cannot deny: (which makes good my Argument;) Why did he not show us the like concerning Magistracy? I suppose he would, if he could: this is the very point which he had to speak to, but hath not done it. My fourth Argument against the Magistrates holding of his office of, and under, and for Christ, that is, in Christ's room and stead as Mediator, shall be that which was drawn from Luk. 12. 14. The Jews were of the same opinion, which Mr. Coleman and Mr. Hussey have followed, namely, that civil government should be put in the hands of Christ, which they collected from jer. 23. 5. He shall execute justice and judgement in the earth; and such other Prophecies by them misunderstood. And hence it was that one said to Christ, Master, Speak to my brother that he divide the inheritance with me. Our Lord's answer was, Man who made me a Judge or a divider over you. Whatsoever act of authority is done by a Deputy or Vicegerent, as representing his Master and Sovereign, may be done by the King himself when personally present: If therefore the Magistrate judge civil causes, and divide inheritances, as the Vicegerent of Christ, and of Christ as Mediator, than Christ himself, when present in the days of his flesh, had power as Mediator to judge such causes. But this Christ himself plainly denyeth. Let us hear Mr. Husseys' answer, pag. 24. (It is the very same with that which Azorius Instit. mor. part. 2. lib. 4. cap. 19 (pleading for the Pope's Temporal Dominion) answereth concerning the point now in hand) It doth not follow that because Christ was not a judge actu exercito, therefore the original right of Government was not in him: And this Objection may be answered thus, Christ doth not say he was not a judge, but who made me a judge? how dost thou know that I am a judge? And thus Christ in the time of his humiliation did often hide the manifestation of his power. x Jo. Brentius Hom. in Luc. Tom. 1. Hom. 106. Quis me construit Judicem aut divisorem super vos? hoc est, alia est civilis Magistratus voca to, alia mea vocatio. Ad illum pertinet ut dijudicet controversias de haereditatibus, & id genus ahis rebus. Add me autem pertinet ut doceam Evangelion de remissione peccatorum, & vita aeterna. Ut igitur nollem quod magistratus meum officium temere usurparet, ita & mea interest, ne temere usurpem mihi vocationem magistratus. Observanda doctrina, qua non solum erudimur, quod sit proprium & legitimum officium Christi in hoc externo mundo, verum etiam admonemur exemplo Christi, ne quis alienam vocationem illegitime invadut. Jo. Winckelmannus in Luk. 12. 14. Negat se esse politicum Judicem herciscundae familiae, sicut nec adulteram damnet, Joh. 8. Ostendit enim esse discrimen inter Politicum magistraium, & munus Ecclesiasticum. What greater violence could be offered to the Text? For the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 constituit is purposely used to deny the power or right, as well as the exercise; and proveth that he was not a Judge actu signato, having no such power nor authority given him, it is the same phrase which is used Act. 7. 35. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Who made thee a Ruler and a Judge? Moses was then beginning to do the part of a Ruler and a Judge, actu exercito; but they refuse him as having no warrant, power, nor authority, Act. 6. 3. the Apostles bid choose seven Deacons, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whom we may appoint say they over this business, Tit. 1. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 : and ordain Elders in every City: yet neither can that of the Deacons, nor this of the Elders, be understood otherwise, then of the right, power, and authority given them. See the like Heb. 7. 28. Luk. 12. 42. Matth. 24. 47. The scope therefore of Christ's answer was this (as Aretius upon the place) non debeo aliena munia invadere. I ought not to invade such Offices as belong to others, not to me. Some of the Jesuits (as forward as they are to defend the Temporal Power of the Pope as Christ's Vicar on earth, yet) cannot shut their eyes against the light of this Text, who made me a Judge or a divider over you? But they are forced to acknowledge y Greg. de Valentia comment. Theol. Tom. 4. Disp. 1▪ Quaest 22. Punct. 6. Homo, quis me constituit Judicem aut divisorem inter vos? Quasi diceret: Nemo plane, neque homo, & multo minus Deus. Si enim a Deo habuisset Dominium Jurisdictionis politicae, multo verius su sset censtitutus Judex politicus, quam si eam Jurisdictionem habuisset ab homine. Et tamen negat omnino se fuisse talem Judicem constitutum. Unde per hoc quod addit, Quis me constituit Judicem? etc. Eum remisit ad alium qui haberet eam potestatem, qua ipse careret. See the like in Bellarmine de Pontif. lib. 5. cap. 4. that Christ denies that he had any right or authority to be a civil Judge. For how can he who is authorized to be a Judge say, Who made me a Judge? The fifth Argument I take from john 18. 36. My Kingdom is not of this World. The great jealousy and fear which both Herod and Pilate had of Christ; was, that they understood he was a King. Christ clears himself in this point, his Kingdom was such as they needed not be afraid of, for though it be in the World, it is not of the World; though it be here, it is not from hence, it is heterogeneous to Temporal monarchy and civil Government. Mr. Hussey pag. 24. tells us, he knows not how those Governments that should be executed by Church-Officers▪ should savour less of the World than the civil Government. For this I remit him to those many and great differences, which I have showed between the civil and the Ecclesiastical Power. In the mean while my argument stands in force; For if all civil Government were put in Christ's hand as he is Mediator, and he to depute and substitute others whom he will under him; then what is there in that answer of his to Pilate, which could convincingly answer those mistakes and misapprehensions of the nature of his Kingdom. That which is now taught by Master Hussey, is the very thing which Herod and Pilate were afraid of: but Christ denyeth that which they were afraid of: and vers. 36. is an answer to the Question asked, vers. 33. Art thou the King of the Jews? My Kingdom is not of this World, saith he. To the same sense (as Grotius upon the place noteth out of Eusebius) Christ's kinsmen when they were asked concerning his Kingdom, did answer to Domitian, z 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that his Kingdom was not worldly; but heavenly. Sixthly, I prove the point from Luke 17. 20, 21. And when he was demanded of the Pharisees when the Kingdom of God should come; he answered them and said, The Kingdom of God cometh not with observation. Neither shall they say lo here, or lo there; For behold the Kingdom of God is within you. By the Kingdom of God is meant in this place the kingdom of the Messiah, as Interpreters do unanimously agree. Both john Baptist and Chrst himself had preached, that the Kingdom of God was at hand; and the Jews themselves were in expectation of the Messiah to make them free from the Roman yoke, and to restore a temporal or earthly monarchy to Israel. Hereupon they ask when this Kingdom should come. His answer is, The Kingdom of God cometh not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with observation, or outward show and pomp, but it is within you, it is spiritual, it belongs to the inward man. But if the Magistrate be Christ's Vicegerent, and hold his office of and under Christ as Mediator, and if Christ as Mediator reign in, through and by the Magistrate, than the Kingdom of the Messiah doth come with observation and pomp, with a crown, a sceptre, a sword, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with princely splendour, riches, triumph, such as the Pharisees then, and the Jews now do expect: which saith Grotius is the thing that Christ here denieth; For all the outward pomp, observation, splendour, majesty, power, and authority, which a Vicegerent hath, doth principally redound unto his Master and Sovereign: So that by our opposites principles, the Kingdom of Christ must come with observation, because the dominion of the Magistrate (whom they hold to be his Vicegerent) cometh with observation. Seventhly, That Government and authority which hath a foundation in the law of nature and Nations (yea might and should have had place and been of use, though man had not sinned) cannot be held of and under and managed for Christ as he is Mediator. But Magistracy or civil Government hath a foundation in the law of Nature and Nations (yea might and should have had place and been of use though man had not sinned) Ergo. The reason of the proposition, is because the law of nature and nations, and the law which was written in man's heart in his first creation, doth not flow from Christ as Mediator, but from God as Creator: neither can it be said that Christ as Mediator ruleth and governeth all nations by the law of nature and nations, or that Christ should have reigned as Mediator, though man had not sinned. The Assumption is proved by Gerhard loc. come. Tom. 6. pag. 459. 460. 474 In the state of innocency there had been no such use of Magistracy as now there is; for there had been no evil doers to be punished, no unruly persons to be restrained; yet as the wife had been subject to the husband, and the son to the Father, so no doubt there had been an union of divers families under one head, man being naturally 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Aristotle calls him, he is for society and policy, and how can it be imagined that mankind multiplying upon the earth should have been without headship, superiority, order, society, govenment? And what wonder that the law of nature teach all Nations some government: a Hier. Ru st co monacho. Etiam muta animantia & serarum greges ductores sequuntur suos. In apibus principes sunt. Hicrome observeth, that nature guideth the very reasonless creatures to a kind of Magistracy. Eightly, If the Scripture hold forth the same derivation or origination of Magistracy in the Christian Magistrate and in the heathen Magistrate, than it is not safe to us to hold that the Christian Magistrate holds his office of and under Christ as Mediator. But the Scripture doth hold forth the same derivation or origination of Magistracy in the Christian Magistrate, and in the Heathen Magistrate. Ergo, The proposition hath this reason for it, because the Heathen Magistrate doth not hold his office of and under Christ as Mediator; neither doth Mr. Hussey herein contradict me: only he holds the heathen Magistrate and his Government to be unlawful: wherein he is Anabaptistical, and is confuted by my first Argument. As for the Assumption, it is proved from divers Scriptures, and namely these, Rom. 13. 1. the powers that be, are ordained of God, which is spoken of heathen Magistrates. Dan. 2. 37. Thou O King art a King of Kings, for the God of heaven hath given thee a Kingdom, Power, and Strength, and Glory. So saith Daniel to Nabuchadnezzar an Idolatrous and heathen King. See the like jer. 27. 6. Isa. 45. 1. God sent his servant the Prophet to anoint Hazael King over Syria; 1 Kings 19 15. Read to this purpose Augustine de civet. Dei, lib. 5. cap. 21. Where he saith b Qui Mario, ipse Caio Caesari: qui Augusto, ipse & Neroni; qui Vespasianis vel patri vel filio, suavissimis Imperatoribus, ipse & Domitiano crudelissimo. Et ne per singulos ire necessesit, qui Constantino Christiano, ipse Apostatae juliano. that the same God gave a Kingdom and authority both to the Romans, Assyrians, Persians, Hebrews; and that he who gave the Kingdom to the best Emperors, gave it also to the worst▪ Emperors; yea he that gave it to Constantine a Christian▪ did also give it saith he, to julian the apostate. Tertullian Apol. cap. 30. speaking of the heathen Emperors of that time, saith that they were from God, à quo sunt secundi, post quem primi ante omnes, that he who had made them men, did also make them Emperors, and give them their power. Ibid. cap. 33. Ut meritò dixerim noster est magis Caesar, ut a nostro Deo constitutus: so that I may justly say, Caesar is rather ours, as being placed by our God: saith he, speaking to the Pagans in the behalf of Christians. Wherefore though there be huge and vast differences between the Christian Magistrate and the heathen Magistrate, the former excelling the latter, as much as light doth darkness, yet in this point of the derivation and tenure of Magistracy; they both are equally interested, and the Scripture showeth no difference, as to that point. CHAP. VIII. Of the Power and Privilege of the Magistrate in things and causes Ecclesiastical; what it is not, and what it is. THe new notion that the Christian Magistrate is a Church-officer, and Magistracy an Ecclesiastical as well as a civil administration, calls to mind that of the Wiseman; Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See this is new? it hath been already of old time which was before us. Plato in his Politicus (a little after the middle of that book) tells me, that the Kings of Egypt were also Priests, and that in many Cities of the Grecians, the supreme Magistrate had the administration of the holy things. Notwithstanding even in this particular there still appeareth some new thing under the Sun. For Plato tells me again Epist. 8. that those supreme Magistrates who were Priests, might not be present nor join in criminal nor capital judgements, lest they (being Priests) should be defiled. If you look after some other Precedent for the union of civil and ecclesiastical Government, secular and spiritual administrations, in one and the same person or persons, perhaps it were not hard to find such precedents, as our opposites will be ashamed to own. I am sure Heathens themselves have known the difference between the office of Priests and the office of Magistrates. Aristotle de Repub. lib. 4. cap. 15. speaking of Priests saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For this is another thing then civil Magistrates. He had said before, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For a civil society hath need of many Rulers: but every 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who is made by election or lot, is not a civil Magistrate: and the first instance he giveth is that of the Priests: and so Aristotle would have the Priest to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Ruler, but not a civil Magistrate. So de Repub. lib. 7. cap. 8. he distingu sheth between the Priests and the Judges in a City. But to the matter. I will here endeavour to make these two things appear. 1. That no administration formally and properly Ecclesiastical (and namely the dispencing of Church censures) doth belong unto the Magistrate, nor may (according to the word of God) be assumed and exercised by him, 2. That Christ hath not made the Magistrate head of the Church, to receive appeals (properly so called) from all Ecclesiastical Assemblies. Touching the first of these, it is no other than is held forth in the Irish Articles of Faith (famous among Orthodox and Learned men in these Kingdoms) which do plainly exclude the Magistrate from the administration of the Word and Sacraments, and from the power of the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. It is the unhappiness of this time that this and other truths formerly out of controversy, should be so much stuck at and doubted of by some. Now that the corrective part of Church-Government, or the censure of scandalous persons in reference to the purging of the Church, and keeping pure of the ordinances, is no part of the Magistrates office, but is a distinct charge belonging of right to Ministers and Elders; as it may fully appear by the Arguments brought afterwards to prove a government in the Church distinct from Magistracy: (which Arguments will necessarily carry the power of Church censures and the administration of the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven into other hands than the Magistrates;) so I shall here strengthen it by these confirmations. First, Church-censures must needs be dispensed by Ministers and Elders, because they are heterogeneous to Magistracy: For first, the Magistrate by the power which is in his hand, aught to punish any of his Subjects that do evil, and he ought to punish like sirs with like punishments. But if the power of Church-censures be in the Magistrates hands, he cannot walk by that rule; For Church-censures are only for Church-members, not for all Subjects: 1 Cor. 5. 10. 12. Secondly, Church-censures are to be executed in the name of Christ, Matth. 18. 20. with vers. 17, 18. 1 Cor. 5. 4. and this cannot be done in his name, by any other but such as have commission from him to bind and lose, forgive and retain sins. But where is any such commission given to the civil Magistrate, Christian more than Heathen? Thirdly, Church-censures are for impenitent contumacious offenders: but the Magistrate doth and must punish offenders (when the course of Justice and law so requireth) whether they appear penitent or impenitent. Fourthly, The Magistrate's power of punishing offenders, is bounded by the law of the land. What then shall become of such scandals as are not crimes punishable by the law of the land? such as obscene rotten talking, adulterous and vile behaviour, or the most scandalous conversing and companying together (though the crime of adultery cannot be proved by witnesses) living in known malice and envy, refusing to be reconciled, and thereupon lying off (it may be for a long time) from the Sacrament, and the like, which are not proper to be taken notice of by the civil Judge. So that in this case, either there must be Church-censures and discipline exercised by Church-officers, or the Magistrate must go beyond his limits: Or lastly. Scandals shall spread in the Church, and no remedy against them. Far be it from the thoughts of Christian Magistrates, that scandals of this kind shall be tolerated, to the dishonour of God, the laying of the stumbling blocks of bad examples before others, and to the violation and pollution of the Ordinances of Jesus Christ, who hath commanded to keep his ordinances pure. A second Argument may be this, In the old Testament God did not command the Magistrates, but the Priests to put a difference betwixt the profane and the holy, the unclean and the clean: Levit. 10. 10. Ezech. 22. 26. Ezech. 44. 23, 24. Deut. 21. 5. 2 Chron. 23. 18, 19 And in the new Testament, the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are given to the Ministers of the Church: Matth. 16. 19 and 18. 18. john 20. 23. but no where to the civil Magistrate. It belongeth to Church-officers to censure false doctrine. Revel. 2. 2. 14. 15. to decide controversies, Acts 16. 4. and to examine and censure scandals, Ezech. 44 23, 24. which is a Prophecy concerning the ministry of the New Testament. And Elders judge an Elder, 1 Tim. 5. 19 or any other Church-member. 1 Cor. 5. 12. Thirdly, The Scripture holdeth forth the civil and Ecclesiastical power as most distinct; insomuch that it condemneth the Spiritualizing of the civil Power, aswell as the Secularizing of the Ecclesiastical power; State Papacy, aswell as Papal-State: Church-officers may not take the civil sword, nor judge civil causes: Luke 12. 13, 14, and 22. 25. Matth. 26. 52. 2 Cor. 10. 4. 2 Tim. 2. 4. So Uzzah might not touch the Ark: nor Saul offer burnt offerings: nor Uzziah burn incense: I wish we may not have cause to revive the proverb which was used in Ambrose his time. That Emperors did more covet the Priesthood, than the Priests did covet the Empire. Shall it be a sin to Church-officers to exercise any act of civil government? and shall it be no sin to the civil Magistrate to engross the whole and sole power of Church-Government? Are not the two powers formally and specifically distinct? Of which before▪ Chap. 4. It is to be well noted that Maccovius and Vedelius who ascribe a sort of Papal power to the civil Magistrate, to the great scandal of the Reformed Church; do notwithstanding acknowledge that Christ hath appointed Church discipline and censures, and the same to be dispensed by Church-officers only: And that the Magistrate as he may not preach the Word, and administer the Sacraments; So he may not exercise Church-discipline, nor inflict spiritual censures, such as excommunication. Though Erastus pag. 175. hath not spared to say, that the Magistrate may in the New Testament (though he might not in the old) exercise the ministerial function, if he can have so much leisure from his other employments. Fourthly, The power of Church discipline is intrinsecall to the Church, that is, both they who censure, and they who are censured, must be of the Church, 1 Cor. 5. 12. 13. They must be of one and the same Corporation, the one must not be in the body, and the other out of the body. But if this power were in the Magistrate, it were extrinsecall to the Church. For the Magistrate quatenus a Magistrate, is not so much as a Church-member; far less can the magistrate as magistrate have jurisdiction over Church-members, as Church members, even as the minister as minister is not a member of the Commonwealth or State, far less can he, as minister, exercise jurisdiction over the Subjects, as Subjects. The Christian magistrate in England is not a member of the Church as a magistrate, but as a Christian. And the minister of Jesus Christ in England, is not subject to the magistrate as he is a minister of Christ, but as he is a member of the Commonwealth of England He was both a learned man and a great royalist in Scotland, who held that all Kings, Infidel as well as Christian, have equal authority and jurisdiction in the Church, though all be not alike qualified or able to exercise it. Io. Wemius, de Reg. primate. pag. 123. Let our opposites lose this knot among themselves; for they are not of one opinion about it. Fifthly, Church-officers might and did freely and by themselves dispense Church-censures, under Pagan and unbelieving magistrates, as is by all confessed: Now the Church ought not to be in a worse condition under the Christian magistrate, then under an Infidel; for the power of the Christian magistrate is cumulative, not privative to the Church; He is a Nursing Father, Isa. 49. 23. not a Stepfather. He is keeper, defender and guardian of both Tables, but neither Judge nor Interpreter of Scripture. Sixthly, I shall shut up this Argumentation with a convincing dilemma. The Assemblies of Church-officers being to exercise discipline, and censure offences (which is supposed and must be granted in regard of the Ordinances of Parliament) either they have power to do this jure proprio, and virtute officii: or only jure devoluto, and virtute delegationis, such authority being derived from the magistrate; If the former; I have what I would; If the latter, than it followeth, 1. That where Presbyteries and Synods do exercise spiritual Jurisdiction, not by any power derived from, or dependant upon the civil Magistrate, but in the name and authority of jesus Christ, and by the power received from him, as in Scotland, France, the Low-Countries, etc. there all Ecclesiastical censures, such as deposition of Ministers, and Excommunication of scandalous and obstinate persons. have been, are, and shall be void, null, and of no effect. Even as when the Prelatical party did hold, that the power of ordination and jurisdiction pertaineth only to Prelates, or such as are delegate with commission and authority from them: thereupon they were so put to it by the Arguments of the anti-episcopal party, that they were forced to say, that Presbyters ordained by Presbyters in other Reformed Churches, are no Presbyters, and their excommunication was no excommunication. 2. It will follow, that the Magistrate himself may excommunicate, for nemo potest aliis delegare plus juris quam ipse habet; No man can give from him by delegation or deputation to another, that right or power which he himself hath not. 3. If the power of excommunication come by delegation from the Magistrate, either the Magistrate must in conscience give this power to Church-officers only, or he is free and may without sin give this power to others; If the former, what can bind up the Magistrate's conscience, or astrict the thing to Church-Officers, except it be God's ordinance that they only do it? If the latter, then though this Parliament hath hath taken away the old High Commission Court, which had Potestatem utriusque gladii, yet they may lawfully and without sin erect a new High Commission Court, made up of those who shall be no Church-officers, yea having none of the Clergy in it (as the other had) with commission and power granted to them to execute spiritual Jurisdiction and Excommunication, and that not only in this or that Church, yea or Province, but in any part of the whole Kingdom. So much of the first point. Now to the second, concerning appeals to the Magistrate, as to the head of the Church. It is asked, what remedy shall there be against the abuse of Church-discipline by Church-officers, except there be appeals from the Ecclesiastical Courts to the civil Magistrate: which if it be, Church-officers will be the more wary and cautious to do no man wrong, knowing that they may be made to answer for it: And if it be not, there is a wide door opened, that ministers may do as they please. Answ. 1 Look what remedy thene is for abuses in the preaching of the Word, and administration of the Sacraments; the like remedy there is for abuses in Church-discipline; Maladministration of the Word and Sacraments is no less sinful to the ministers, and hurtful to others, than maladministration of discipline: and in some respects the former is more to the dishonour of God and destruction of men than the latter: Ministers have not an arbitrary power to preach what they will, Now when the word is not truly preached, nor the Sacraments duly administered by any minister or ministers, the Magistrate seeketh the redress of these things (in a constituted Church) by the convocating of Synods, for examining, discovering, and judging of such errors and abuses as are found in particular Churches. But if the Synod should connive at, or comply with that same error; yet the Magistrate taketh not upon him the supreme and authoritative decision of a controversy of faith, but still endeavoureth to help all this by other Ecclesiastical remedies; as another Synod, and yet another, till the evil be removed. The like we say concerning abuses in Church-discipline: The Magistrate may command a resuming and re-examination of the case in another Synod: but still the Synod ratisieth or reverseth the censure. In which case it is betwixt the Magistrate and the Synod, as betwixt the will and understanding; for Voluntas imperat Intellectui quo ad exercitium, yet notwithstanding determinatur per intectellum quoad specificationem actus. Take for instance this also. If it be a case deserving deposition or degradation: In such a case saith learned Salmasius appar. ad lib. de primatu pag. 298. the Prince or Magistrate cannot take from a minister that power which was given him in ordination with imposition of hands, for he cannot take away that which he cannot give. But if a Prince would have a minister for his offence to be deprived of his ministerial power, he must take care that it be done by the ministers themselves; qui Judices veri ipsius sunt, & auferre soli possunt quod per ordinationem dederunt. Who are his true Judges, and they only can take away what by ordination they have given. Thus Salmasius. 2. And further, if Presbyteries or Synods exceed the bounds of Ecclesiastical power, and go without the Sphere of their own activity, interposing and judging in a civil cause which concerneth any man's life or estate, The Magistrate may reverse and make null whatsoever they do in that kind, and punish themselves for such abuse of their power; As Solomon punished Abiathar, and banished him to Anathoth, he being guilty of high treason: 1 Kings 2. 26. It was not a case of scandal only, or of Delinquency or maladministration in his Sacerdotal office, otherwise it had fallen within the cognizance, and jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin. 3. Though the case be merely spiritual and ecclesiastical the Christian Magistrate (by himself and immediately) may not only examine by the judgement of discretion the sentence of the Ecclesiastical Court, but also when he seeth cause (either upon the complaint of the party, or scandal given to himself) interpose by letters, messages, exhortations, and sharp admonitions to the Presbytery or Synod, who in that case are bound in conscience, with all respect and honour to the Magistrate, to give him a reason of what they have done, and to declare the grounds of their proceedings, till by the blessing of God upon this free and fair dealing, they either give a rational and satisfactory account to the Magistrate, or be themselves convinced of their maladministration of Discipline. 4 And in extraordinary cases when the Clergy hath made defection, and all Church discipline is degenerated into Tyranny, as under Popery and Prelacy it was; it belongeth to the Magistrate to take the protection of those who are cast out or censured unjustly; for extraordinary evils must have extraordinary helps. And in this sense we are to understand divers of our Reformers and others, groaning under the pressures of the Roman Clergy, and calling in the help of the civil Magistrate for their relief. But we deny that (in a well constituted Church) it is agreeable to the will of Christ, for the Magistrate, either c Synops. pur. Theol. disp. 48. Thes. 19 E●…si vero hanc spiritualem p●…testatem a Christiani Magistratus inspectione, tanquam utriusque tabulae custode non eximimus, negamus tamen eam, aut ejus praxin a Magistratus suprema aucto●…itate pendere, sicuti quidam ●…ecentiores contendunt, cum a Christo solo pendeat, & ab ipso immediate Ecclesiae sit concessa ut loci an●…ea producti demon strant. Ac proinde nec per appellationem, aut provocationem proprie dictam, po●…estas haec ad Magistratus aut Principum tribunal deferr●… potest. quum ejus executio penes ipsos non sit. to receive appeals (properly so called) from the sentence of an Ecclesiastical Court, or to receive complaints exhibited against that sentence by the party censured, so as by his authority, upon such complaint, to nullify or make void the Ecclesiastical censure. The latter of these two Vedelius pleadeth for, not the former. But Apollonius oppugneth the latter, as being upon the matter all one with the former. Now to ascribe such power to the Magistrate, is 1. To change the Pope, but not the Po●…edome; the Head, but not the Headship; for is not this the Pope's chief supremacy, to judge all men▪ and to be judged of no man, to ratify or rescind at his pleasure the decrees of the Church, Counsels ●nd all: and shall this power now be transferred upon the Magistrate? Good Lord, where are we, if this shall be the upshot of our Reformation? Oh for it? Shall we condemn the Papists and Anabaptists who give too little to the Magistrate, and then join hands with the Arminians, who give as much to the Magistrate as the Pope hath formerly usurped? 2. Appeals lie in the same line of subordination, and do not go de g●…nere in genus; but the civil and Ecclesiastical Courts stand not in one line, neither are they of one kind and nature; they are disparata, non subordinata. 3. They who receive appeals, have also power to execute the sentence, else the appeal is in vain. But the Magistrate hath no power to execute the Church ce●sure, nor to shut out of the Church, our opposites themselves being Judges. It was not therefore without just cause that Augustine did v●ry ●uch ●lame the Donatists for their appealing from the Ecclesiastical Assemblies, to the Emperors and civil C●urts, Epist. 48. and Epist. 162. There are two examples alleged from Scripture for appeals from Ecclesiastical to Civil Courts: One is the example of jeremiah; Ier. 26. The other is the example of Paul, Act. 25. But neither of the two prove the point. For 1. jeremiah was not censured by the Priests with any Spiritual or Ecclesiastical censure (of which alone our controversy is) but the Priests took him and said to him, Thou shalt surely die. Jer. 26. 8. 2. Would God that every Christian Magistrate may protect the servants of God from such unjust sentences and persecuting decrees. When Ecclesiastical Courts are made up of bloody persecuters▪ that is an extraordinary evil which must have an extraordinary remedy. 3. Neither yet is there any syllable of jeremiahs' appealing from the Priests to the Princes, but the Text saith, When the Princes of Judah heard these things, than they came up, etc. verse 10. that is, The Princes so soon as they understood that the Priests had taken jeremiah, and had said to him Thou shalt surely die. verse 8. And being also informed that all the people were gathered together tumultuously and disorderly against the Prophet, verse 9 They thought it their duty to rescue the Prophet from the Priests and people, that he might be examined and judged by the civil Court, he being challenged and accused as one worthy to die. As for Paul's Appellation to Caesar. First, It is supposed by our opposites that he appealed from the Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin of the Jews, which is a great mistake; For he appealed from the Judgement-seat of Festus to Caesar; that is, from an inferior civil Court, to a superior civil Court, which he had just cause to do: for though Festus had not yet given forth any sentence against Paul, yet he appeals à gravamine, and it was a great grievance indeed, while as Festus showed himself to be a most corrupt Judge, who though the Jews could prove none of those things whereof they accused Paul, Act. 25. 7. (which should have made Festus to acquit and dismiss him) yet being willing to do the Jews a pleasure, he would have Paul to go to jerusalem, there to be judged before himself. verse 9 Now this was all the favour that the Jews had desired of Festus, that he would send Paul to jerusalem, they laying wait in the way to kill him. vers. 3. No appellation here from the Sanhedrin at jerusalem, where he had not as yet compeered to be examined, far less could he appeal from any sentence of the Sanhedrin. The most which can be with any colour alleged from the Text, is, that Paul declined to be judged by the Sanhedrin at jerusalem, they not being his competent and proper Judges in that cause. I stand at Caesar's judgement-seat saith he, where I ought to be judged; meaning that he was accused as worthy of death, for sedition, and offending against Caesar; whereof he ought to be judged only at Caesar's Tribunal; not by the Jews, who were no Judges of such matters. A declinator of a Judge is one thing, and Appellation from his Judgement or sentence is another thing. But put the case that Paul had indeed appealed from the Sanhedrin at jerusalem, either it was the civil Sanhedrin, or the Ecclesiastical. If the civil, it is no Precedent for appeals from Ecclesiastical Courts. If the Ecclesiastical, yet that serveth not for appeals from Ecclesiastical Courts in Ecclesiastical causes; for it was a capital crime whereof Paul was accused. Nay, put the case that Paul had at that time appealed from the Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin in an Ecclesiastical cause: yet neither could that help our opposites, for the government of the Christian Church, and the government of the Jewish Church were at that time separate and distinct, so that the Ecclesiastical Court, which should have judged of any scandal given by Paul (if at all he ought to have been censured) had been a Christian Synod, not a Jewish Sanhedrin. And so much of Appeals. Of which Question Triglandius, Revius, and Cabeljavius, have peculiarly and fully written. Three famous Academies also, of Leyden, Groening, and Utrecht, did give their public testimonies against appeals from Ecclesiastical to civil Courts. And the three Professors of Utrecht in their testimony do obtest all Christians that love truth and peace, to be cautious and wary of the Arminian poison lurking in the contrary Tenent. See Cabeljav. defensio potestatis Ecclesiasticae. pag. 60. It is further objected, That thus fixing a spiritual jurisdiction in Church-officers, we erect two collateral Powers in the Kingdom, the Civil and the Ecclesiastical, unless all Ecclesiastical Courts be subordinate to Magistracy, as to a certain head-ship. Answ. There is a subordination of Persons here, but a co-ordination of powers: A subordination of Persons, because as the Ministers of the Church are subject to the civil Magistrate, they being members of the Commonwealth or Kingdom; So the Magistrate is subject to the Ministers of the Church, he being a Church-member. The former we assert against Papists, who say that the Clergy is not subject to the Magistrate. The latter we hold against those who make the Magistrate to be the head of the Church: Again, a co-ordination of powers; because as the subjection of the person of the Christian Magistrate to the Pastors and Elders of the Church, in things pertaining to God, doth not infer the subordination of the power and office of the Magistrate to the Church-officers: So the subjection of Pastors and Elders to the Magistrate in all civil things (as other members of the Commonwealth are subject) may well consist with the co-ordination of the Ecclesiastical power with the civil. And as it is an error in Papists to make the secular power dependant upon, and derived from the Ecclesiastical power: So it is an error in others to make the Ecclesiastical power derived from, and dependant upon the civil power: for the Ecclesiastical power is derived from Christ, Ephes. 4. 11. And now while I am expressing my thoughts, I am the more confirmed in the same, by falling upon the concession of one who is of a different Judgement; For he who wrote Ius Regum in opposition to all spiritual authority exercised under any form of Ecclesiastical Government, doth not withstanding acknowledge pag. 16. Both of them (the Magistrate and the Minister) have their Commission immediately from God, and each of them are subject to the other, without any subordination of offices from the one to the other, for the Magistrate is no less subject to the operation of the Word from the mouth of the Minister, than any other man whatsoever: And the Minister again is as much subject to the authority of the Magistrate as any other Subject whatsoever; And therefore though there be no subordination of Offices, yet is there of Persons; the Person of a Minister remaining a Subject, but not the function of the Ministry. He might have said the same of the exercise of Church-discipline which he saith of the preaching of the Word, for the same Christ who gave the keys of doctrine, gave also the keys of discipline, without any tye to make the use thereof subject to the pleasure of the civil Magistrate. Let him prove that the ministry of the Word is not subordinate to, nor dependant upon the Magistrate; and I shall prove by the same medium, that the ministry of Church-censures hath as little of that subordination in it. And this I must add, that least of all others can our Independent brethren charge the Presbyterians with the setting up of an Ecclesiastical Government coordinate with, and not subordinate unto the civil Government: For themselves hold as much in this point (if not more) than we do. Take for instance Mr. Cotton his k●…yes of the Kingdom of Heaven, published by Mr. Goodwin and Mr. Nye, pag. 49. The first Subject of the ministerial power of the keys, though it be independent in respect of derivation of power from the power of the sword to the performance of any spiritual administration: etc. Pag. 53. As the Church is subject to the sword of the Magistrate in things which concern the civil peace: so the Magistrate (if Christian) is subject to the keys of the Church. etc. As for that collaterality which is objected, I answer, The Civil and Ecclesiastical power, if we speak properly, are not collateral. 1. They have no footing upon the same ground: there may be many subject to the Magistrate, who are no Church-Members, and so not under the Spiritual power: and where the same persons are subject to both the powers, there is no more collaterality in this case, nay, not so much, as is betwixt the power of a Father in one man, and the power of a Master in another man, when both powers are exercised upon the same man who is both a son and a servant. 2. Powers that are collateral, are of the same eminency and altitude, of the same kind and nature; but the civil Power is a Dominion and Lordship: the Ecclesiastical power is Ministerial, not Lordly. 3. Collateral powers do mutually and alike exercise authority over each other respectively. But, though the Magistrate may exercise much authority in things Ecclesiastical, Church-Officers can exercise no authority in things civil. The Magistrate's authority is Ecclesiastical objective, though not formaliter: but the Church-Officers authority is not civil so much as objective, not being exercised about either civil, criminal, or capital cases. 4. Collateral powers are subordinate to, and derived from the Supreme and Original power, like two branches growing out of the same stock, two streams flowing from the same fountain, two lines drawn from the same centre, two arms under the same head. But the power of the Magistrate is subordinate unto; and dependeth upon the Dominion of God the Creator of all: the power of Church-Officers dependeth upon the Dominion of Christ, the Mediator and King of the Church. I shall conclude my answers to the present Objection, with the Testimony of learned d Apparat. ad lib. de Primatu pag. 282, 283. ●…lebs autem ipsa quam curan●… pastors, quantum a●…tines ad animaecuram, Pastoribus suis subdita est. Si corporis ratio aga●…ur, summum in illud Imperium habent Principes ac Supremi Magistratus. Delicta igitur hominum dupliciter puniumur, aut in anima sola, aut in corpore. Poenae quae corporis necem aut noxam inferunt, aut bonorum amissionem, a Magistratu civili infliguntur: Quae vero animarum castigationem & emendationem spectant, per Ministrum Ecclesiae imponuntur. Summa earum poenarum excommunicatio est. Et in●ra. Idem peccatum in eodem homine ali●…er vindicat Magistratus civilis, aliter punit Minister Ecclesiae. Salmasius, who hath so overthrown the Papal and Prelatical Government from Scripture and antiquity, that he hath withal preserved, yea strengthened the distinction of civil Government and Church-government, and holdeth that Church-censures and civil punishments do very well consist and sweetly agree together. I have now done with the negative part of this present Controversy, what the power of the Magistrate in Ecclesiasticis is not. I proceed to the positive part, what it is. To this I w●ll speak first more generally, then more particularly. For the general, I hold with the large Confession of Faith of the Church of Scotland; Art. 25. Moreover to Kings, Princes, Rulers, and Magistrates, we affirm, that chiefly and most principally, the conservation and the purgation of the Religion appertains; so that not only they are appointed for civil Policy▪ but also for maintenance of the true Religion, and for suppressing of Idolatry and Superstition whatsoever. To the same purpose, Calvin, Instit. lib. 4. cap. 20. sect. 9 Hoc nomine maximè laudantnr sancti Reges, quòd Dei cultum corruptum vel eversum restituerint, vel curam gesserint Religionis, ut sub illis pura & incolumis floreret. The like see in Zanchius in 4. praec. pag. 791. and in Polanus Syntag. lib. 10. cap. 65. They hold that the Christian Magistrate his Office, as concerning Religion, is, diligently to take care that in his Dominion, or Kingdom, Religion from the pure Word of God, expounded by ●…he Word of God itself, and understood according to the Principles of Faith (which others call the Analogy of Faith) be either instituted, or (being instituted) kept pure; or being corrupted, be restored and reform: that false Doctrines, Abuses, Idols, and Superstitions be taken away, to the glory of God, and to his own and his Subjects salvation. Unto these things I do assent as unto safe and undoubted truths. But for the clearer understanding and enodation of our present Question, I will particularise and explain what I hold, by these five following Distinctions. 1. Distingue materiam subjectam. There are two sorts of things belonging to the Church. Some which are intrinsecal, and belonging to the soul or inward man, directly and primarily. Such things are not to be dispensed and administered by the civil Magistrate, I mean the Word and Sacraments, the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, the Suspension or Excommunication of Church-Officers or Members, the Ordination or Deposition of Officers, the Determination and Resolution from Scripture of Controversies concerning the Faith, the Worship of God, the Government of the Church, Cases of Conscience. These being in their nature, end, and use, merely spiritual, and belonging not to the outward man, but to the inward man or soul, are committed and entrusted to the Pastors and other ruling Officers of the Church, and are not of civil and extrinsical, but of Ecclesiastical and intrinsecal cognizance and judgement. There are other things belonging to the Church, which are extrinsical and do properly belong to the outward man, and are common to the Church with other humane Societies or Corporations. Things of this kind fall within the civil Jurisdiction. For the Churches of Christ, being Societies of men and women, and parts of Commonwealths, are accountable unto and punishable by the civil Magistrate, in their bodies, lives, civil Liberties, and temporal Estates, for trespasses against the Law of God or the Law of the Land: By the Law of God I understand here Ius divinum naturale, that is, the moral Law or Decalogue, as it bindeth all Nations (whether Christians or Infidels) being the Law of the Creator and King of Nations. The Magistrate by his authority, may and in duty ought to keep his Subjects within the bounds of external obedience to that Law, and punish the external man with external punishments for external trespasses against that Law. From this obligation of the Law, and subjection to the corrective power of the Magistrate, Christian Subjects are no more exempted then Heathen Subjects, but father more straight obliged. So that if any such trespass is committed by Church-Officers or Members, the Magistrate hath power and authority to summon, examine, judge, and (after just conviction and proof) to punish these, as well as other men. We do therefore abominate the disloyal Papal Tenent, that Clergy men are not to be examined and judged by civil, but by Ecclesiastical Courts only, even in causes civil and criminal. Whereof see Duarenus de Sacr. Eccl. Minist. lib. 1. cap. 2. Spelman Concil. Britann. Tom. 1. pag. 413. I further explain myself by that common distinction, that there are two sorts of things that belong to the Church, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, things inward, and things outward. For Church Officers and Church-members do consist (as other men) of a soul, and of a body. All things properly belonging to the soul or internal man, (which here we call things inward) are the object of Ecclesiastical power given to Church-officers, Pastors, and other ruling officers. But what belongs to the outward man, to the bodies of Church-officers and members (which things are outward) the judging and managing thereof, is in the hand of the Magistrate, who ruleth not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, those that are without, whom the Church judgeth not, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the things outward of the Church. Salmasius calls the power of the Magistrate in things Ecclesiastical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the inward Episcopacy or overseeing. Which well agreeth with that which Constantine said to the Bishops, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. You are made Bishops of the inward things of the Church, I of the things outward. So that he doth not assume their government, but distinguisheth his from theirs. This external inspection and administration of the Magistrate, in reference to Religion, is twofold. 1. Corrective, by external punishments. 2. Auxiliary, by external benefits and adminicles. The Magistrate may and aught to be both Custos & vindex utriusque Tabulae, he ought to preserve both the first and second Table of the holy and good Law of God, from being despised and violated, and punish by corporal or other temporal punishments such (whether Church Officers or Church-members) as openly dishonour God by gross offences, either against the first or against the second Table; and this he doth as God's Deputy and Vicegerent subordinate and subservient to that universal dominion which God almighty exerciseth over the children of men. But in doing hereof, he is also helpful and useful to the Kingdom of Christ as Mediator; Magistracy being (in the respects aforesaid) serviceable and profitable (as to order the Commonwealth aright, so also) to purge the Church of scandals, to promote the course of the Gospel, and the edification of one another. But how? not perfectly, but pro tanto; not every way, but more suo; not intrinsically, but extrinsecally; not primarily, but secundarily; not directly, but ex consequenti; not sub formalitate scandali, sed sub formalitate criminis, not under the notion of scandal, but of crime; The Magistrate in punishing all crimes committed by any in the Church (which are contrary to the Law of God) in suppressing tumults, disorders, in protecting the Church from danger, harm, or molestation, in putting a hook in the nostrils, and a bridle in the mouths of unruly, obstinate, and contumacious sinners, who vex the Church, and create trouble to the people of God; in so doing, he doth by consequence, and removendo prohibens, purge the Church, and advance the Kingdom of Christ, and the course of the Gospel: In the mean while not depriving the Church of her own intrinsical power and Jurisdiction, but making it rather more 〈◊〉 by the aid of the secular power. And so much of the corrective part of the Magistrates administration. The other part of his administration in reference to Religion, is auxiliary, or assistant to the Church. For the Magistrate watcheth over the outward business of the Church, not only by troubling those persons, and punishing those sins that trouble the Israel of God; but by administering such things as are necessary for the well being and comfortable subsistence of the Church, and for that end, doth convocate Synods pro re nata, (beside the ordinary and set meetings) and presideth therein (if he please) in external order, though not in the Synodical debates and resolutions: He addeth his civil sanction to the Synodical results, if he find nothing therein which may hurt Peace or Justice in the Commonwealth. The Magistrate ought also to take care of the maintenance of the Ministry, Schools, poor, and of good works for necessary uses, that Religion and Learning may not want their necessary adminicles. Finally, He ought to take care that all Churches be provided with an able, orthodox, and Godly Ministry, and Schools with learned and well qualified Teachers, such as shall be best approved by those to whom it belongeth to examine and Judge of their qualifications and parts. And all these ways the Magistrate ought to be, and the well affected Magistrate hath been and is a nursing Father to the Church of Christ. 2. My second distinction shall be this: The Magistrate may and ought not only to conserve Justice, peace and order in the Commonwealth, and in the Church, as it is in the Commonwealth, but also to take special care of the conservation of the true Reformed Religion, and of the Reformation of it when and wherein it needeth to be reform, imperatiuè, not elicitiuè. The Magistrate saith Dr. Rivet on the decalogue, pag. 262. is neither to administer Word, nor Sacraments, nor Church discipline, etc. but he is to take care that all these things be done by those whom God hath called thereunto. What ever is properly spiritual belonging to the soul and inward man (such as Church-censures, and the other particulars before mentioned) cannot be actus elicitus of the Magistrate: The Magistrate can neither immediatione suppositi, nor immediatione virtutis, determine controversies of faith, ordain Ministers, suspend from the Sacraments, or excommunicate. He can neither do these things himself; nor are they done in the name and authority of the Magistrate or by any Ministerial power receeived from him, but in the name and authority of Jesus Christ, and by the power given from Jesus Christ. Yet all these and generally the administration of the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, are actus imperati of the Christian Magistrate, and that both antecedenter and consequenter. Antecedently, the Magistrate may command Church-officers to suspend or excommunicate all obstinate and scandalous persons: he may command the Classis to ordain able and godly ministers, and no other: he may command a Synod to meet, to debate and determine such or such a controversy. Consequently also, when the thing is examined, judged, resolved, or done by the Ecclesiastical power, the Magistrate hath power and authority to add his civil sanction confirmation, ot ratification, to make the Ecclesiastical sentence to be obeyed and submitted unto by all whom it concerneth. In all which the Christian Magistrate doth exceeding much for the conservation and purgation of Religion: not eliciondo actus, doing or exercising by himself or by his own authority acts of Church. Government or discipline, but taking care, that such and such things be done by those to whom they do belong. 3. Distinguish the directive part and the coercive part. The directive part, in the conservation or purgation of Religion, doth belong to the Ministers and ruling Officers of the Church assembled together; In administering therefore that which concerneth Religion and people's spiritual good, the Magistrate not only juvatur, but dirigitur, is not only helped, but directed by the Ecclesiastical directive power; Fest. Hon. Disp. 30. Thes. 6. Magistracy may say to Ministry as Moses said to Hobab; Thou mayest be to us in stead of eyes. Ad sacrae Religionis informationem, fid●…lis Magistratus verbi divini administris, veluti oculis, uti debet; and for that end he is to make use of consistorial and Synodical Assemblies say the Professors of L●…yden, Synopspur. 〈◊〉. Disp. 50. Thes. 44. But the coercive part, in compelling the obstinate and unruly, to submit to the Presbyterial or Synodical sentence, belongs to the Magistrate. Not as if the Magistrate had nothing to do, but to be an executioner of the pleasure of Church-officers, or as if he were by a blind and implicit faith to constrain all men to stand to their determination. God forbid. The Magistrate must have his full liberty to judge of that which he is to compel men to do, to judge of it, not only judicio appreh●…nsivo, by understanding and apprehending ●right what it is, but judicio discretivo, by the judgement of Christian prudence and discretion, examining by the Word of God, the grounds, reasons, and warrants of the thing, that he may in Faith, and not doubtingly, add his authority thereto. In which judging, he doth judicare, but not judicem agere; that is, he is Iudex suarum actionum, he judgeth whether he ought to add his civil authority to this or that which seemeth good to Church-officers, and doth not concur therewith, except he be satisfied in his Conscience that he may do so; yet this makes him not supreme Judge or Governor in all Ecclesiastical causes, which is the Prerogative of Jesus Christ, revealing his will in his word: nor yet doth it invest the Magistrate with the subordinate ministerial forensical directive judgement in Ecclesiastical things or causes, which belongeth to Ecclesiastical not to civil Courts. 4. Distinguish between a Cumulative and a Privative authority. The Magistrate hath indeed an authoritative influence into matters of Religion and Church-Government; but it is cumulative, that is, the Magistrate takes care that Church-officers as well as other Subjects may do those things which ex officio they are bound to do; and when they do so, he aideth, assisteth, strengtheneth, ratifieth, and in his way, maketh effectual what they do. But that which belongs to the Magistrate is not privative, in reference to the Ecclesiastical Government. It is understood salvo jure Ecclesiastico: for the Magistrate is a nursing Father, not a step. Father to the Church: and the Magistrate (as well as other men) is under that tye; 2 Cor. 13. 8. We can do nothing against the Truth, but for the Truth. This Proviso therefore is justly made, that whatever power the Magistrate hath in matters of Religion, it is not to hinder the free exercise of Church discipline and censures against scandalous and obstinate sinners. As the Casuists in other cases distinguish Lucrum cessans, and damnum emergens, so must we distinguish between the Magistrate his doing no good to the Church, and his doing evil to the Church: between his not assisting, and his opposing: between his not allowing or authorising, and his forbidding or restraining. It doth properly and of right belong to the Magistrate to add a civil sanction and strength of a law for strengthening and aiding the exercise of Church discipline, or not to add it. And himself is Judge whether to add any such cumulative act of favour or not. But the Magistrate hath no power nor authority to lay bands and restraints upon Church-officers to hinder any of Christ's ordinances, or to forbid them to do what Christ hath given them a commission to do. And if any such restraints of prohibitions or laws should be laid on us, we ought to obey God rather than men. 5. Distingue tempora. Whatever belongs to the Magistrate in matters of Religion, more than falls under the former distinctions, is extraordinary, and doth not belong to ordinary Government. In extraordinary reformations the Magistrate may do much by his own immediate authority, when Synods have made defection either from the truth of doctrine, or from holiness and godliness: yet in such a case he ought to consult with such orthodox godly Divines as can be had, either in his own or from other Dominions. Fest. Hon. Disp. 30. Thes. 5. And so much be spoken of the Magistrate his power and duty in things and causes Ecclesiastical. As we do not deny to the Magistrate any thing which the Word of God doth allow him, so we dare not approve his going beyond the bounds and limits which God hath set him. And I pray God that this be not found to be the bottom of the controversy, Whether Magistracy shall be an arbitrary Government; if not in civil, yet in Ecclesiastical things? Whether the Magistrate may do, or appoint to be done in the matter of Church-Government, admission to, or exclusion from the Ordinances of Christ, what ever shall seem good in his eyes? And whether in purging of the Church he is obliged to follow the rules of Scripture, and to consult with learned and godly Ministers? although Erastus himself (as is before observed) and Sutlivius (a great follower of him) de Presbyt. cap. 8. are ashamed of, and do disclaim such assertions. CHAP. IX. That by the Word of God there ought to be another Government beside Magistracy ●r Civil Goveram●nt, ●amely an Ecclesiastical Government (properly so call●d) in the hands of Church-offic●rs. THis Question hath arisen from Mr. Colemans third and fourth rule which he offered to the Parliament, excluding all Government of Church-officers, Ministers and Elders; that is, as he expounds himself all corrective government, leaving them no power except what is merely doctrinal, and appropriating all government properly so called to the Magistrate only. Mr. Hussey following him falls in the same ditch with him. The Question is not whether Church-officers ought to have any share in the Civil Government? Nor whether Church-officers may have any Lordly government or imperious domination over the Lord's heritage? Nor whether Church-Officers may exercise an arbitrary irregular Government, and rule as themselves list? God forbid. But the Question plainly is, Whether there may not, yea ought not to be in the Church a Ministerial or Ecclesiastical Government properly so called, beside the civil Government or Magistracy. Mr. Coleman did, and Mr. Hussey doth hold there ought not. I hold there aught: and I shall propound for the affirmative these Arguments. The first Argument I draw from 1 Tim. 5. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Elders that rule well. Mr. Hussey pag. 8. asks whether the word Elder be prima, or secunda notio. If prima notio, why must not Elder women be Church-officers as well as Elder men? If secunda notio for a ruling Officer, Parliament men, Kings and all Civil Governors are such Elders. I know no use which that distinction of prima and secunda notio hath in this place, except to let us know that he understands these Logical terms. Egregiam vero laudem. He might have saved himself the labour, for who knows not Hieromes distinction? Elder is either a word of age or of office: but in Ecclesiastical use it is a word of office. Mr. Husseys' first notion concerning Elder women is no masculine notion. His second notion is an anti-parliamentary notion. For the honourable Houses of Parliament in the first words of their Ordinance concerning ordination of Ministers have declared, that by the word of God a Bishop and a Presbyter or Elder are all one; for thus beginneth the Ordinance, Whereas the word Presbyter, that is to say Elder, and the word Bishop, do in the Scripture intent and signify one and the same function, etc. Therefore Parliament men and civil Governors cannot be the Elders mentioned by the Apostle Paul, except Mr. Hussey make them Bishops, and invest them with power of ordination. Besides this, if Kings and Parliament men be such Elders as are mentioned in this Text, than the Ministers of the Word must have not only an equal share in Government, but more honour and maintenance than Kings and Parliament men. See how well Mr. Hussey pleadeth for Christian Magistracy: It is also an anti-scriptural notion, for some of those Elders that ruled well, did labour in the Word and Doctrine, as Paul tells us in the very same place; these (sure) are not civil Governors. Wherefore Mr. Hussey must seek a third notion before he hit the Apostles meaning. It is not hujus loci to debate from this Text the distinction of two sorts of Elders; though among all the answers which ever I heard or read, Mr. Husseys is the weakest, pag. 11. that by Elders that labour in the Word and Doctrine, are meant those Ministers whose excellency lies in Doctrine and instruction, and that by Elders that rule, are meant those that give reproof. He contradistinguisheth a reproving minister from a minister labouring in the Word and Doctrine. The very reproof given by a minister will be, (it seems) at last challenged as an act of government. It is as wide from the mark, that he will have the two sorts of Elders to differ thus, that the one must govern and not preach, the other must preach and not govern; not observing that the Text makes ruling to be common to both. The one doth both rule and labour in the Word and Doctrine: The other ruleth one y, and is therefore called ruling Elder, non quia solus praeest, sed quia solum praeest. But to let all these things be laid aside as heterogeneous to this present Argument: the point is, here are Rulers in the Church who are no civil Rulers. Yea this my Argument from this Text was clearly yielded by Mr. Coleman in his Maledicis pag. 8. But I will deal clearly saith he, these Officers are Ministers, which are instituted not here, but elsewhere; and those are the Rulers here mentioned. Ergo, he yieldeth Ecclesiastical rulers (and those instituted) distinct from Magistracy. Neither is it a Lordly but a ministerial ruling of which our Question is. For my part saith Mr. Hussey, I know not how Lordship and Government doth differ one from another. Then every Governor of a ship must be a lord. Then every Steward of a great house must be lord of the House. There is an economical or ministerial government, and of that we mean. My second Argument I take from 1 Thes. 5. 12. And we beseech you brethren to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, qui praesunt vobis. Hence doth Calvin conclude e Praesunt in Domino. Hoc additum videtur ad notandum spirituale regimen. Tametsi enim Reges quoque & Magistrátus Dei ordinatione praesunt, quia tamen Ecclesiae gubernationem Dominus peculialiter vult suam agnosci, ideo nominatim praeesse in Domino dieuntur, qui Christi nomine & mandato Ecclesiam gubernant. a Church Government distinct from civil government, for this is a spiritual Government, it is in the Lord, that is in the name of the Lord, or (as others) in things pertaining to God. Hence also Beza argueth against Episcopal Government; because the Elders in the Apostolic Churches did govern in common. But saith Mr. Hussey pag. 18. Pasor telleth us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a genitive case signifieth praecedo, and then it signifieth no more but them that go before you, either by Doctrine or example. I answer first to the matter, next to the force of the Word. For the matter, certainly the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or ruling power of ministers, is not merely doctrinal or persuasive, as is manifest by 1 Tim. 5. 17. where those who are not convinced of two sorts of Elders, are yet fully convinced of two sorts of acts, the act of ruling, and the act of teaching. Whatsoever that Text hath more in it, or hath not, this it hath, that those who labour in the Word and Doctrine, are Rulers; but they are more especially to be honoured for their labouring in the Word and Doctrine. Next, as to the force of the Word, if it be true which Mr. Hussey here saith, than the English Translators that read are over you; Calvin, Beza, Bullinger, Gualther, and others that here follow Hierome, and read praesunt vobis; Arias Montanus who reads praesidentes vobis, have not well understood the Greek. But if Mr. Hussey would needs correct all these and many more, Why did he not at least produce some instances to show us where the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are used for no more, but a mere going before, either by doctrine or example, without any power or authority of Government. Yea if this here be no more but a going before either by Doctrine or example, than every good Christian who goeth before others by good example is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Neither will that of the genitive case help him, for see the like 1 Tim. 3. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, one that ruleth well his own house, Mr. Hussey will make it no more but this, one that goeth before his own house, by teaching them, or by giving them good example, though the very next words tell us there is more in it, and that is authoritative government, having his children in subjection. So vers. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ruling their children well. Pasor is not at all against my sense, but for it: for if Mr. Hussey will make Pasor to say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a genitive doth never signify any more but praecedo, than he makes him to say both that which is manifestly false, and in so saying to contradict himself, for Pasor tells us also, the word signifieth praesum, and for that he citys 1 Tim. 3. 4. where it is with a genitive. Sometime indeed with a genitive it may be turned praecedo, as Pasor saith, but he citeth only Tit. 3. 8. where it is not Genitivus personae (as 1 Thes. 5. but rei; and we may also read praestare, as A. Montanus to excel or be chief in good works, or to maintain, as our books have it. But furthermore I shall offer for answer to Mr. Hussey the observation of an excellent Grecian. It is f Et hoc nomine differt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quod haec praesidentiam cum potestate, sive praeposituram cum jurisdictione ac coercitione ●ibuat, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vero ut in loco quis sit priore collocatus, tantum efficit. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hesychius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 interpretatur gubérnationem vel administrationem. Et notum qui dicerentur proprie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Republica Atheniensium. Salmasius de primatu Papae, pag. 18, 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to speak properly, is another thing then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: the former signifieth a power of jurisdiction and government: the latter a precedence or placing of one before another: although they are sometimes used promiscuously, and although 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Yea they have the very names of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (if you look to the native Etymology of the words) from their precedence or standing before, even as Antistites quasi ante stantes, and praetor quasi praeitor: such names being chosen (for mollifying and dulcifying of Government) as might hold forth precedence, rather than high sounding names of power and authority. I shall add but two testimonies of ancient Grecians: Plato Epist. 7. near the end: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Or if he that ruleth some great City, and such as hath the dominion over many smaller Cities, should unjustly distribute to his own City the means and substance of those lesser Cities. Dionysius Areopagita Epist. 8. speaking of Moses his supreme power of rule and government over Israel, which was envied by Korah and his faction, calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Well: Mr. Hussey will try if his Logic can help him, if his Greek cannot. Whatsoever this person is that is to be beloved, ho is supposed not instituted in this place, the subject is supposed not handled in any Science. The like he saith afterward pag. 22. that we cannot prove from 1 Cor. 5. that Paul did institute excommunication, but at most that he supposed an Institution. For my part, that Scripture which supposeth an Institution, shall to me prove an Institution; for I am sure that which any Scripture supposeth, must be true. And herein as I take it, Mr. Coleman would have said as I say, for in his fourth rule he proved the Institution of Magistracy from Rom. 13. yec Magistracy is not instituted in that place, but supposed to be instituted. A third Argument I take from Hebr. 13 7. Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the Word of God: Vers. 17. Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give an account. Bullinger and Gualther refer this 17th. verse both to Magistracy and Ministry, and so far they are ours, in sharing the rule and government between both, and in making obedience due to both. But Calvin and many others do better expound the Text of Ecclesiastical Rulers or Governors' onel: wherein Salmasius followeth the Greek Scholiasts, who expound the Text of Bishops or Elders who did in common govern the Church. See Walo Messal. pag. 137. 138. That it is not spoken of civil but of Ecclesiastical rulers, may thus appear: beside that it were hard to take 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 17th. verse in another sense than it hath verse 7. or the Rulers that watch for the soul, vers. 17. to be any other, than the rulers that had spoken the Word of God, vers. 7. it is further to be noted that the Apostle speaks of such Rulers as the believing Hebrews had at that time, as is evident by vers. 24. Salute all them g Aretius' comment. in Hebr. 13. 14. Primum Apostolus salutat suo nomine ipsorum praepositos, hoc est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quo nomine intelligo tum Ministros, tum etiam Seniores, qui reliquos auctoritate regebant, & in officio detinebant. that have the rule over you, and all the Saints, and those Rulers did watch for their souls. But they had no Christian or godly Magistrates that watched for their souls, or whom the Apostle would thus salute with the Saints. But the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Mr. Hussey pag. 18. which is ducum, them that lead you. The Apostle hath indeed chosen a word free of ambition, yet saith Beza, auctoritatis maximae, it is a word of the greatest authority. The Syriack hath the same word here, by which he rendereth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 Cor. 12. 28. And if you consult the Septuagints, the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 except very rarely where it signifieth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seu viae ducem (and then, to speak properly, subjection and obedience is not due to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) as Exod. 23. 23. where yet it was an Angel that was the guide, and so not without authority: they do usually and in innumerable places use this word to express one invested with power and authority of Government; and the same Hebrew words which they render by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are likewise by by them translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; all which are names of superiority, command, and government: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Governor, is pilate's highest Title, Matth. 27. 2. And Erastus, lib. 5. cap. 2. pag. 312, saith, The Magistrates of the Gentiles were called by the names of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are the same in signification. Stephen in Theslinguae Gr. citeth out of Plutarch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and tells us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a Genitive, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, generally is used for praesum. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Joseph's greatest Title, to express his government over Egypt, Acts 7. 10. yea, Christ himself is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to express his governing or ruling power over his Church, Matth. 2. 6. Salmasius doth at once show us, both that the Apostle means the Elders of the Church under the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and that the same name is used for civil Magistrates, yea Emperors. See Walo Messal. pag. 219, 220. Far be it from all the Ministers of Christ, to arrogate or assume any such dominion as belongs to the civil Magistrate, or to lord it over the Lord's Inheritance. Nay, here that rule must take place, Luke 22. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he that is chief, as he that serveth. Only the holy Ghost gives to Church-officers those names of authority which are given to civil Magistrates, thereby to teach the people of God their duty, and that there is another Government beside the civil, whereunto they ought to submit and obey in the Lord. Master Husseys next answer is, that where our Books have it Obey them that have the rule over you, the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is no more but Be persuaded. For proof whereof, he tells us out of Pasor, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is verbum foreuse, a word whereby the Advocates persuade the Judges: yet we cannot say that the Judges obey the Advocates. I answer: Let him make of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what he can; the passive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doth frequently signify I obey, or obtemper: For which signification, H. Stephanus in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, citeth out of Xenophon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: out of Plutaroh, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: out of Plato, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. If we come to the Scripture phrase, I am sure in some places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth a thing of another nature, then to be persuaded forensically, as jam. 3. 3, Behold, we put bits in the horses mouths, that they may obey us: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But here when we speak of the obedience of Church-members to Church-officers, it is a free, rational, willing, Christian obedience; yet obedience it is which we owe to Spiritual Rulers, as well as that which we owe to civil Magistrates. Sure Gualther and Bullinger did understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here to be more than be persuaded; for they apply this Text to the obedience due to Magistrates. And M. Hussey might have also observed that Pasor renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by pareo, obedio; for which he citeth Gal. 3. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not to obey the truth. And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he renders inobediens, refractarius, as Rom. 1. 30. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, disobedient to parents. I know that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is also used for to be persuaded; but I verily believe M. Hussey is the first man that ever quarrelled the word obey in this Text, and turned it to be no more but be persuaded. Yet if he shall well observe that which followeth in the very next words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and submit yourselves (which in Theodoret's opinion noteth here intense obedience: They must not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, yield, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, yield with subjection and submission: This relateth to authority; nor can we say that the Judges do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Advocates, nor travellers to their guides) he himself shall be persuaded to cast away this gloss, and to seek a better. And if he will stand to it, he shall but do a disservice to Magistracy, whiles he would weaken the power of the Ministry: for though there be much in the New Testament concerning subjection or submission to Magistrates; yet the clearest, fullest, yea (to my remembrance) the only express word for obedience to Magistrates is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is rightly translated in our Books to obey Magistrates: but Master Hussey will make it no more, but to be persuaded by Magistrates. Yea, the very simple and uncompounded Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ in the forecited passages of Xenophon and Plutarch is used where they speak of obedience to Magistrates and masters. If this must fail him, he hath yet another answer: Let the word stand, saith he, as it is translated obey; yet it is not always correlative to the command of a Superior: and the holy Ghost requireth obedience here, not by an argument from the authority of him that leadeth them, but from the benefit that cometh to themselves; for that is unprofitable for you. He divideth what the Apostle joineth; for there are two sorts of Arguments in the Text, by which the Apostle persuadeth them to this obedience: one is taken from the authority of the Ministry, which is intimated both by that name of authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and by their subordination or submission which the Apostle calls for: another from the benefit that cometh to themselves, by their obedience, and the hurt which they shall do to themselves by their disobedience. Both these Arguments are wrapped up in these words, For they watch for your souls, which is the very same with that Acts 20. 28. To all the flock over the which the holy Ghost hath made you overseers. The Apostle doth also persuade Christians to be subject to the Magistrate, by an Argument taken from the benefit that cometh to themselves, Rom. 13. 4. For he is the Minister of God to thee for good: yet that doth not weaken but rather strengthen the Authority of the Magistrate. The fourth Argument shall be taken from 1 Tim. 5. 19 Against an Elder receive not an accusation, but before (or under) two or three witnesses. Which is not a temporary charge laid upon Timothy as an Evangelist, and so incompetent to ordinary Ministers: for it is joined with the rules of public Rebuking, of laying on of hands, not partaking of other men's sins, and such like things which are of ordinary concernment. He is also charged to keep the Commandment till the appearing of Christ, 1 Tim. 5. 14, which cannot be otherwise understood then as spoken to him in reference to the Ministry. Now what is an act of Government, if this be not, to receive accusations, and that against Elders, and that under two or three witnesses? The Apostle intendeth here the avoiding of these two evils; first, upon the one hand, because veritas odium parit, and Elders doing their duty faithfully, will certainly be hated, and slandered, and evil spoken of by some, that therefore every Diotrephes prattling against a servant of Christ with malicious words, may not be able to blast his Christian reputation and good name: Next, upon the other part, because the offences and scandals of Elders are not to be connived at, but to be aggravated and censured, more than the offences of others, that therefore an accusation be received against them, if it be under two or three witnesses. Now where accusations ought to be received, and that under two or three witnesses, and not otherwise (with special charge also to observe these things, without partiality, or preferring one before another, vers. 21.) there is certainly a forensical proceeding, and a corrective Jurisdiction or Government. More of this Argument in Malè audis, pag. 14. Fifthly, what is that else but a corrective Jurisdiction, Tit. 3. 10. A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He speaks of a rejecting of persons, not of things only; and of such a rejecting of persons, as cannot be understood only of that avoiding or rejecting, by which every private Christian ought to observe, and avoid, and not receive false Teachers, but of a public Ministerial or Consistorial rejecting of an Heretic, by cutting him off, or casting him out of the Church. It is a Canon de Judiciis Ecclesiasticis, saith Tossanus upon the the place. This the Greek will easily admit: for Stephanus in Thesauro linguae Gr. tells us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for recuse, aversor, repudio; and citeth out of Plutarch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to repudiate or put away a wife. As here also we may read, A man that is an Heretic, after the first and second admonition, repudiate or put away; though the word reject doth also bear the same sense. And as the Greek will admit it, so I have these reasons to confirm it, which shall suffice for the present. (He that pleaseth, may read a large Discourse concerning the censure of Heretics, in Claudius Espencaeus upon this place.) First, The Apostles scope is not to hold forth the common duties of all Christians, except ex consequenti: but his primary intention all along in that Epistle, is to instruct Titus concerning the ordering and governing of the Church, Chap. 1. vers. 5. Secondly, there must be a first and second admonition, before the Heretic be thus rejected. This rejecting is not for his dangerous and false Doctrine, simply or by itself considered, but for his contumacy and incorrigibleness. But private Christians ought to observe by the judgement of private discretion, and aught in prudence and caution to avoid all familiar fellowship and conversation with a man that is an Heretic, though he hath not yet gotten a first and second admonition: Matth. 7. 15, 16. Beware of false Prophets which come to you in ●…eeps clothing, but inwardly they are ravening Wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Thirdly, the admonition in the Text is a public authoritative or ministerial admonition, after that thou (Titus) hast once and again admonished him saith the Syriack: therefore the rejecting must also be public and ministerial. Fourthly, h Zach Ursinus Tom. 3. pag. 769. Object. 1. Tantum praecipit ministro ut eum sugiat ergo non excommunicantus. Resp. Negatur antecedens quia non vult de una & eadem re, vel persona, contraria judicia esse aut pugnantes sententias. Ergo dum vult ut Haereticum pro everso habeat minister, non vult ut reliqui in Ecclesia habeant eum pro stante. Object. 2. Sed non jubet excommunicari. Resp. jubet, quia vult illum pro everso & suopte judicio condemnato haberi. Ergo non est Ecclesiae membrum, & alibi docet judicium hoc debere fieri ordinario & legitimo consensu Ecclesiae. This rejecting of an Heretic is the last act, when he appears incorrigible. We find before chap. 1. vers. 13. Rebuke them sharply; and chap. 2. vers. 15. Rebuke with all authority. But now when the Apostle saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reject, this is a higher degree. and this (much more) must be with all authority, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which words compare with 1 Cor. 7. 25. where the Apostle opposeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, commandment, and opinion or judgement. From all which it will appear, that this rejecting of an Heretic by Titus and others joined with him in the Government of the Church, was an authoritative and Juridical act, and the judgement thereupon decisive, not consultative only. Fifthly, Look by what authority Elders were ordained, by the same authority they were for heresy (maintained with contumacy) rejected: for the Apostle committeth into the same hands, the ordaining of Elders, and the rejecting of Heretics; compare Tit. 3. 10. with Tit. 1. 5. Now the ordination was by the Presbytery: 1 Tim. 4. 14. Therefore so was the rejection. I conclude with the Dutch Annotations upon Tit. 3. 10. reject. i e. Have no communion with him. Let him go without disputing any further with him, and casting the holy things before such dogs. Matth. 7. 6. Let him not remain in the outward communion of the Church. The sixth Argument I draw from 1 Cor. 5. 12. Do not ye judge them that are within? Vers. 13. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. 2 Cor. 2. 6. Sufficient to such a man is this punishment (or censure.) which was inflicted of many. Here is an Ecclesiastical judging, not by the judgement of private Christian discretion only (for so they judged those also that were without) but an authoritative corrective Judgement, by which a scandalous brother, a rotten member, like to infect other members, is put away from among the people of God. And this Judgement was made, sentence given, and censure inflicted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by many, that is not by all, but by the Elders of that Church saith Walaeus, Tom. 1. pag. 468, or you may read by the chiefest; So Piscator and Heinsius upon the place. The sense is all one, as if the Apostle had said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by them that have the rule over you. Now what will you make of judging, putting away, and censuring, being acts neither of a civil power, nor put forth upon any except Church-members, if you make it not a corrective Church-government? As for Mr. Colemans answer that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 amounts to no more but an objurgation, I have fully confuted that in Male audis pag. 12. 13. 14. which I will not resume. But beside all I said there, I add somewhat which I have since observed. Zonara's in Conc. Antioch. can. 22. useth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for to be punished or censured: and in Conc. Carthag. can. 49. he calls the man who is under Church-censure, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Balsamon in Conc. Carthag. can. 46. calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Both of them do often use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Church-censure, as in the place last cited, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Yea the Council of Antioch held under Constantius, useth Paul's word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to express Ecclesiastical censure, and an act of corrective government. Can. 3. It is said of him that receiveth a Presbyter or Deacon being justly deposed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ille quoque à communi Synodo puniatur, ut qui Ecclesiastica statuta dissolvat. Ibid. Can. 22. A Bishop is prohibit to ordain within the charge of another Bishop, unless that other Bishop consent. But if any presume to do such a thing, let the ordination be void or null, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & ipse a Synodo puniatur, and let himself be punished by the Synod: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Balsamen, how they should be punished who ordain without the bounds of their own charge, and without consent of him whose charge it is, may be learned from other Canons. Where you see he understands 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to agree in signification with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is punishment. The sixth general Council Can. 60. useth the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for suffering punishment, adding also by way of explanation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be subject to afflictions and labours. Seventhly, We have an Argument from 1 Cor. 14. 32, 33. And the Spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets; for God is not the Author of confusion, but of peace, as in all Churches of the Saints. The Apostle is giving such rules and directions concerning prophesying or interpretation of Scripture, that upon the one hand there may be a liberty to all the Prophets to prophecy, and that the Church may be edified by the gifts of all, and that for that end one ought to give place to another: upon the other hand, that a boundless liberty and confusion, and immunity from censure, may not be introduced into the Church: To this latter branch belongs vers. 29. 32. 33. Let the Prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. He will have two, or at most three Prophets to speak in one Congregation, at one diet or time of assembling: and those Prophets, saith he, must be i Aegid. Hunnius in 1 Cor. 14. 32. Paulus hanc regulam praescribit, ut spiritus Prophetarum Prophetis subjiciantur, id est▪ ut is qui prophetas, non du●…itet, sermonem & concionem suam censurae judicioque reliquorum concionatorum subjicere. examined, judged, and censured by the other Prophets: for the Spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets, that is, every particular Prophet distributively, is subject to all the Prophets collectively, or to the college of Prophets (add, and of other spiritual persons entrusted with the government of the Church, together with the Prophets, as from vers. 37. and Gal. 6. 1. is well observed by our Countryman Mr. Dickson upon this place). Therefore Walaeus Tom. 1 pag. 468. doth rightly collect from this place an authority of Church-Government. Protestant Writers prove hence the authority of General-Councels above the Pope: and that the Pope is a false Prophet, because he refuseth to be subject to the Prophets. junius in divers places, applieth this Text to the authority of Presbyteries and Synods. Gualther upon the place applieth it against the Pope who will judge all men, and be judged of no man; whereas (saith he) the Apostle here will have no man how eminent soever, to be free from censure, when he is censurable. So then we have in this Text a subjection, and an authority of judging and censuring. And this Judgement which the Apostle here speaks of, is neither the Judgement of the civil Magistrate, nor the Judgement of discretion common to the whole Church, but it is the Judgement or censure of Prophets, and that not School-wise according to Mr. Husseys' notion of Schools, that is by the Prophets disputing a man out of his error, and no more, no vote, no decision, no result, except he that hath taught an error do agree to the arguments of the other Prophets, and so all end in a brotherly accord, and in the unanimous consent of the whole Clergy (for so doth he advise the Parliament) so that he shall be no more subject to all the Prophets, than all the Prophets to him. Yea in Mr. Husseys' sense the Pope will not refuse to be subject to a Council of Prophets, and than Protestant Writers have been far out of their way, who have disputed against the Pope from this Text, supposing it to hold forth a binding authoritative Judgement of the Prophets, whereunto any one Prophet is bound to be subject, the Judgement of his private discretion being always reserved to him, that he give not blind obedience. Eighthly, I argue from Revel. 2. 14. 20. The Lord Jesus reproveth the Angel of the Church in Pergamus for suffering those that taught the doctrine of Balaam, and the Angel of the Church in Thyatira for suffering jezebel which called herself a Prophetess, to seduce his people. The fault here reproved must be the neglect of Church-censures and corrective government, which is so manifest, that they who plead most for liberty of Conscience from the Magistrate, do acknowledge that the Angels of these Churches are reproved for not censuring Ecclesiastically those that did thus seduce God's people. Neither is it said because thou art silent and dost not reprove nor convince; but because thou hast there them that hold the Doctrine of Balaam: that is, because thou dost not cast them out of the Church, that they may not hurt others. So the English Annotations upon the place, referring us also to 1 Cor. 5. The Angel of the Church was guilty in this, that those who had so much scandalised the Church by their Doctrine, were still in the Church, and not yet cast out of the Church. And who can imagine that the Angels of those Churches whom Christ himself commendeth for holding fast his name, and for their love, service, faith, and patience were so void either of prudence as not to observe, or of zeal, as not to gainsay and confute by sound doctrine those soul and scandalous errors? Certainly their sin was like that of Eli, they did not together with the doctrinal and monitory part, make use of that Jurisdiction and corrective power, which God had put in their hands. Ninthly, We have another Argument from 1 Thess. 3. 14. And if any man obey not our word by this Epistle, note that man, and have no Company with him, that he may be ashamed. Here the Syriack helpeth us much. And if any man obey not these words which are contained in this Epistle, let that man be separated from you, neither have company with him, that he may be ashamed. Gualther upon the place saith, the Apostle speaks de disciplina Ecclesiastica, what discipline they ought to have in the Church, and the end thereof. So Calvin, Beza, Piscator, Zanchius, Diodati, The Dutch Annotations, Gomarus, also Mariana, Cajetan, Salmeron, Gorranus, Esthius in lib. 4. Sent. Dist. 19 Sect. 7. and divers others following Augustine, Ambrose, chrysostom, Theophylact, Theodoret, Aquinas, all these do apply it to Ecclesiastical discipline and censure. Some controversy there is whether this Text reach as far as Excommunication (which doth not belong to this present Argument) but certainly it reacheth to a public Church-censure, and is more than the withdrawing of private Company and Fellowship, either because of personal or private injuries, or because of profaneness. For 1. the offence spoken of by the Apostle is not a matter of Civil or Personal injury, but of scandal; he speaks of idle bodies that walked disorderly, not working at all, and if these must be noted and separated, how much more saith Theoylact. those who commit crimes and wickedness? 2. Here is contumacy added to the offence, if any man obey not our word by this Epistle, intimating that upon occasion of this Epistle, those that walked disorderly were to be solemnly admonished, and required to work in quietness, and to eat their own bread: which if after admonition they would not do, then to note them. Aquinas clears it by 1 Sam. 15. 23- for rebellion is as the sin of witck-craft, and stubborness is as iniquity and as idolatry. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, note that man: signate (as Menochius rendereth it) rather than either significate or notate: set a mark upon him, even as (saith Erasmus) we set a mark upon pushing oxen that we may avoid them; which agreeth well with the Syriack, Let that man be separated from you: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is some what more than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The latter usually signifieth no more, but significo, indigo, signum do: but the former is signum & notam imprimo, obsigno, insignio. The Septuagints make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to answer to the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, levavit, elevavit, sustulit, So Psal. 4. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. signatum est super nos: that is, the light of thy c untenance is lifted up upon us examplarly, or banner-wise, so as it may be remarkable to others. The learned Authors of the Dutch Annotations upon 2 Thess. 3. 14. tell us that this Greek word doth not properly signify to present or represent one, but to note one and mark him out, putting some ignominy upon him, or outing him from an honourable Congregation, and marking or blotting out his name, as one unworthy of that honour. By which reason, as likewise by that which follows, they confute those who construe the word note with the Word Epistle, as if the Apostle had said, note or present me such a one by a letter. 4. Have no company with him. He speaks it to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they may have no fellowship with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he will have those that walk orderly and by rule, to have no company with those that walk disorderly. Now this concerneth the whole Church equally, and it is spoken to the Church, for what reason can there be that some in the Church should have no company with one, because of his scandalous and disorderly walking, but the same reason will make the whole Church to have no company with him? there may be divers civil respects and considerations which may make it unfit for some to keep familiar civil fellowship, which respects and considerations do not concern others. But the avoiding of the company of those who walk scandalously and disorderly, and that because they walk in that manner, and further add obstinacy to their sin after public admonition; must needs belong to the whole Church. 5. Note that man and have no company with him; he must first be noted, before he be avoided, and both these are public Ecclesiastical acts: for it was far from the Apostles meaning that every man should be herein left to his liberty; he that pleaseth to note him and have no company with him, well and good; he that pleaseth not, shall be free. But unless there be an Ecclesiastical Judgement and censure passed upon such a one, every one had been left to his liberty. 6. That he may be ashamed: this as it is the end of Church-censures, so it will be attained in a very small measure, and perhaps not at all, by one private man his avoiding the company of another, which will not make the offender ashamed, abased, and humbled, but when he is publicly noted, and when the Church avoids his Company, that is it which most covers a man with shame and confusion of face. Tenthly, The Apostle mentioneth Ecclesiastical Rulers, Rom. 12. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 praefectus, or qui praeest, he that ruleth, that is, the ruling Elder. He is making an enumeration of Ecclesiastical offices and administrations, and no other: So Calvin, Beza, Piscator, Martyr, Tossanus, Diodati, all upon the place, and junius Eccles. lib. 2. cap. 1. do conceive, and the whole context and the allusion to the several offices of several members in the same body proveth it, and if all the rest be Ecclesiastical, why not k Musculus upon the place. Habet Ecclesia quaelibet suos praesectos & Gubernatores &c. Isti sunt Seniores etc. Calv. ibid. Temporis illius conditio non de quibuslibet praefectis Paulum loqui ostendit, (quia tunc nulli erant pii Magistratus) sed de Senioribus qui morum erant Censores. Tossanus ibid. Id omne ad regimen & ordinem Ecclesiae & potestatem illam spiritualem de qua 2 Cor. 10. referri debet: & tribuitur praesidum appellatio quos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vocat Apostolus 1 Tim. 5. omnibus in genere ministris & etiam senioribus Ecclesiae. the office of ruling also, which is there mentioned? for how should civil ruling come in among the Ecclesiastical administrations, especially in those days when Magistrates were not Christian? Musculus takes the Rulers here to be Elders. Gualther and Bullinger, though they make this Text applicable to civil Rulers, yet they do not exclude Church-officers from ruling, but expressly mention Church-governors distinct from civil Governors, to be there comprehended under 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Mr. Hussey pag. 19 answering this argument, can neither deny what I said of Gualther and Bullinger, nor yet doth affirm that civil Rulers are there meant, only his reply is that my argument is drawn from the interpretation of the place, but the Disputant may not interpret saith he, that is the answerers' part: This calls to mind the Anabaptistical error, Concionatores non retinent verba Textus, sed interpretantur ea, id quod non ferendum. For which see Petrus Hinkolmannus de Anabaptism●…, Disp. 9 cap. 1. My Argument was drawn from the Text, for the Text rightly understood and interpreted; is the Text. But see now what strange rules you may expect when Mr. Hussey comes to School-disputes, the disputant may not interpret, he must keep close to terms, if the thing be not in terminis in the Text, it's no Argument, by which rule he will at one dash overthrow not only the disputations of Protestants against Papists; of the ancient Fathers against the Heretics of their times (for how is Justification by Faith ONLY, the number of the Sacraments, the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, and many other most material points proved, but by Scripture rightly opened, cleared, and interpreted?) but also the disputations of the Apostles, and of Jesus Christ himself against the Pharisees, Sadduces, and Jews; for there is nothing more ordinary with Christ and his Apostles in their disputes for the truth, then to interpret Scripture, and give the sense of it. Eleventhly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Governments mentioned 1 Cor. 12. 28. are not Civil but Ecclesiastical Governments, as I have largely proved Chap. 6. and shall not need here to repeat it; only observe what l At Gubernatores vocavit Ambiosius qui spiritu ilibus retina●ulis docum●nto 〈◊〉 hominibus, quales sunt seniores, Pres●yteri, & disciplinae Christianae praesecti, morum censores. Bullinger saith on the place: whereunto add the Testimony of Hugo Grotius (whom I suppose our opposites do not look upon as an adversary) on Luke 12. 14. He acknowledgeth that in the Church of Corinth, censura morum was penes Presbyterium, the censure of men's manners, was in the power of the Presbytery. This Government the Church of Corinth had, a Christian Magistrate they had not. Twelfthly, If in the Jewish Church there was an Ecclesiastical Government, distinct from the Civil; then in the Christian Church also there ought to be an Ecclesiastical Government distinct from the Civil. But in the Jewish Church there was an Ecclesiastical Government distinct from the Civil. Ergo. The Proposition is proved thus. There can be no reason given for an Ecclesiastical government among the Jews, distinct from the Civil, which will not hold as well and as strongly for an Ecclesiastical government among Christians, distinct from the Civil: for we speak not now of the particulars (a high Priest, or the like) which were typical and proper to that time, but we speak of a Church government distinct from the Civil, look upon it under that notion, and then see if any reason can be given for it among them, which will not conclude the like among us: yea much more among us, for if the Priests had a great influence and interest into the Civil Government of the Jews, and yet there was a Church-government distinct from the Civil; how much more now when Ministers have not, neither aught to have any share in the Civil government? The assumption hath been abundantly proved before in the first book. I will not repeat, but here note these Scriptures: jer. 5. 31. The Prophets bear rule: It was their office to bear rule, It was their sin to support themselves in their ruling by the false Prophets. 1 Chron. 9 11. Azariah, the Ruler of the House of God. 2 Chron. 31. 13. And Azariah the Ruler of the House of God. 〈◊〉. 11. 11. Serajah the Ruler of the House of God. All the chief Priest's or heads of the several Classes or Orders of Priests were called Principes Sanctuarii saith Mathias Martinius Lexic. Philol. pag. 3268. So 2. Chron. 35. 8. Hilkiah and Zachariah, and Jehiel, Rulers of the House of God. Act. 23. 5. Then said Paul, I wist not brethren that he was the high Priest, for it is written thou shalt not speak evil of the Ruler of thy people. Finally, Deut. 31. 28. where we find schoterim, that is Officers, Rulers, or such as were set over the charge; the 70. read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Hierome, Doctores. More plainly 2 Kings 11. 18. the Priest appointed Officers over the House of the Lord. Thirteenthly, A corrective Ecclesiastical government in the Churches of Galatia seemeth to be intimated, Gal. 5. 12. I would they were even cut off (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) which trouble you. Which many understand of Excommunication. See Esthius in lib. 4. Sent. Dist. 19 Sect. 6. 7. Also Salmeron, Menochius, Vasquez, Novarinus, and (of ours) B●…za, Diodati, Gomarus, all upon the place, beside divers others. Musculus upon the place doth parallel this cutting off, with delivering to Satan, 1 Cor. 5. 5. 1 Tim. 1. 20. and explaineth excindantur by abalienentur which best suiteth to excommunication. Certainly the words will easily admit this sense, or rather invite to it: for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not properly perdo, destruo, consumo, but amputo, abscindo, also minuo, because that from which any thing is cut off, is diminished and made less: also repello, abjungo, separo, ahstraho. And so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, abscindor, excindor, separor, abstrahor. Hunters and such as trace the Vestigies, but cannot find them, are said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be cut off or abstracted. H●…sych. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, abscissus, is not he who is cut off by death or destruction, but he that hath his members cut off: Which seems to have been the ground of Augustine his mistake of this Text, conceiving the Apostles wish to be, that those men should be made Eunuches. The Septuagints have sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, circumcido, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, demitto, as synonymous with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Now from the phrase, to the purpose of the Text. That it is meant of Excommunication, I have these reasons which confirm me: 1. Because vers. 9 a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump, are the very same words which he useth 1 Cor. 5. 6. where he presseth the excommunication of the incestuous man; as there, one unclean person in life; so here, some few seducers (especially that one who is singularly pointed at vers. 10.) is meant by the little leaven, which was to be purged out, lest it should leaven the whole Church. 2. Interpreters do generally agree, that the Apostle here alludeth to Circumcision, which those Judaizing teachers pressed upon the Galatians as necessary: wishing that they who would so fain have the Galatians circumcised, were themselves cut off and cast out of the Church as rotten members, or as a Gangrene out of the body. This allusion suiteth best with excommunication. 3. The words so understood will more fitly answer and be parallel unto the cutting off in the Law, that soul shall be cut off from among his people (which I have before proved to be meant of excommunication) as likewise to that 1 Cor. 5. 14. Put away that wicked person from among you. 4. Other Interpretations do not so well agree to the Text. This cutting off could not be expected nor any hopes had of it by the hand of Justice, or of the Magistrate, for the Magistrates of that time were themselves troublers of the Christians, so far they were from cutting of those that troubled them. Those that understand the words of an imprecation of eternal cutting off from God, and being accursed from Christ, draw themselves into thorny questions, wherein they can hardly satisfy themselves or others. To understand it of cutting off by death, doth not well answer that allusion to Circumcision, generally observed (as hath been said) by Interpreters: which allusion doth intimate that it is not a cutting off out of the World, but a cutting off from the body of the Church. I would that they themselves were cut off as the praeputium from the Church, that is, cut off à consortio Ecclesiae saith Gu●…lther. If it be said, why then doth the Apostle only wish it? Why doth he not prescribe or command to excommunicate them? To this we may either answer as B●…za, The Apostle Paul's authority at that time was extremely blasted and weakened in the Churches of Galatia; Or thus, the Apostle knew that as the Churches of Galatia then stood affected (being bewitched with the Judaizing Zealots, and in a manner moved away to another Gospel) both Churches and Ministry were unwilling to excommunicate those that he means of: for which cause he would not peremptorily command their excommunication, renitente Ecclesiâ, but forbeareth for that season, wishing for better times. Some think that the Apostle speaketh positively of excommunication, vers. 10. He shall bear his Judgement. But others are of opinion the Apostle there speaks of the judgement of God, which he certainly and positively denounces, and that vers. 12. he addeth this as a distinct purpose, that he could wish them also cut off from the Church by excommunication. It will be an Argument of more weight against Erastus his Interpretation of that Text, if we object against him thus. This cutting off which the Apostle wisheth to those that troubled the Galatians, cannot be meant of a divine or miraculous judgement upon them, such as he thinks to be meant 1 Cor. 5. (which place he parallels with Gal. 5. 12. as to the punishment intended) for if so, why doth not the Apostle adjudge them positively to be cut off or destroyed, as he did constitute and decree by his Apostolical power of miracles (so thinks Erastus) the incestuous Corinthian to be delivered to Satan? To this Erastus replieth, lib. 3. cap. 9, Because the Apostles had not power to work miracles quoties vellent, as often as they would, nor to afflictor stay any, but when it seemed good in God's eyes, sed quando Deo visum fuit utile, necessarium, & salutare. But I ask, Was it right and agreeable to the will of God, that the Apostle should wish their cutting off? Was it not profitable and necessary for the Churches good, that they should be cut off? Where shall we find that the working of a miracle was profitable and necessary for the Churches good, and that an Apostle did desire and thirst after the working of that miracle, and yet had not power from God to work it? How had the false Apostles insulted at this? Is this the great Apostle of the Gentiles, who hath not power from God to work a miracle, when himself professeth he would gladly have it wrought? Fourteen, that passage, 2 Cor. 10. 6. is by some brought (not without very considerable Reasons) for the Spiritual or Ecclesiastical censures. And have in readin●…sse, saith the Apostle, or (as the Syriack, we are ready) to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled. Novarinus in 2 Cor. 10. 6. plerique de excommunicandi potestate haec verba interpretantur. In this sense was the Text understood a thousand years ago by Gegro●…y Epist. lib. 2. cap. 37. The Dutch Annotations upon the place, say that the Apostles meaning is; of declaring the vengeance of God against the obstinate; and of exercising the Ecclesiastical Banne or Discipline, against those who professing themselves members of the Congregation, do yet teach or lead unchristian lives or doctrine. Others also (among whom is Master David Dickson) understand Church-censures to be here meant. The Apostle is in that Chapter confuting the calumny of such as said of him, His Epistles were weighty and powerful, and did speak of great things; but when he himself is bodily present, he doth but little, he assumes no great authority, he is weak and almost contemptible. In answer hereunto, he tells them, The weapons of our warfare (speaking not only in his own name, but in the name of all the Ministers of Christ) though they be not carnal, yet they are mighty through God to conquer and captivate souls to the obedience of Christ. And as for the stubborn and unruly, we are armed with a power of corrective government, which shall be more fully executed in due time. There is but one of two Interpretations which can with any probability seem to agree to this Text, namely, that it is meant either of the extraordinary Apostolical power, by which they did miraculously punish some offenders (as Peter did Ananias and Sapphira, and as Paul did E●…ymas) or of a corrective Church-government, and Excommunication. The Reasons which induce me to believe, that the Apostle meaneth here of Church-censures, especially Excommunication, and not of that extraordinary miraculous power, are these. 1. The reason added, When your obedience is fulfilled, cannot suit to the power of working miracles (for it had been the more seasonable to work such miracles, while the obedience of the Corinthians was not yet fulfilled. Miracles are not for them that believe, but for them that believe not, saith the same Apostle.) But it suits very well to the power of Church-censures: for as Esthius and Novarinus explain the Apostles reason, it is in vain to excommunicate all such as are worthy of Excommunication, when there is a general renitency and unwillingness in the Church; or to cut off a member, when the same evil hath infected either the whole or the greatest part of the body; which Augustine also tells us in divers places. And this (by the way) confirms the reason which I gave why the Apostle only wisheth those that troubled the Galatians to be cut off, but doth not command it, in regard of the present unwillingness and disaffection of those Churches. 2. We may have a great deal of light to this place by comparing it with Cha●…. 12. verse 20, 21. and Chap. 13. verse 2. Many among the Corinthians had sinned foul and ●eandalous sins, whereof they had not repent, and for which they were not censured or cast out of the Church. The Apostle certifieth them, that if he come, he will not spare. What? was it his meaning to work a miracle upon every fornicator, and each other scandalous person in the Church of Corinth? No sure: mark his words; Now I write to them which heretofore have sinned, and to ALL OTHER, that if I come again, I will not spare. Who can imagine his meaning to be, that he would work a miracle upon them and all other? So ●ere when it is said, having in readiness●… to 〈◊〉 ALL 〈◊〉, let it be remembered that the Apostolical power of miracles was never appointed to be executed against ALL disobedience. Thirdly, that which the Apostle saith of the Spiritual weapons, mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds, etc. was not proper or peculiar to the Apostles, but is rightly applied to all the Ministers of the Gospel: the more hardly can it be supposed, that what is immediately added, and as it were with one breath uttered, And having in readiness to 〈◊〉 all disobedience, is meant of the extraordinary Apostolical power. Fourthly, such as the weapons are for conquering and subduing souls to the obedience of Christ, such is the corrective or punitive part there spoken of. But the weapons for conquering, are merely Spiritual, not corporal: Therefore the corrective or punitive part there spoken of, is also Spiritual, and so doth not concern the inflicting of corporal punishment, such as the Erastians' understand by delivering to Satan. Fifteenthly, an Ecclesiastical ruling power may be proved from 2 Cor. 2. 8. I beseech you that you would confirm your love towards him. Here is a Juridical power of losing, and consequently of binding; for it belongeth to the same power to bind and lose, to excommunicate and to absolve. An authoritative juridical losing, I prove from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which properly signifieth the making a thing sure or firm by a decisive suffrage, authoritative judgement, or ratificatory and obligatory sentence passed upon it. Hen. Stephanus in Thes. linguae Gr. in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith that this Text 2 Cor. 2. 8. is more rightly read, Ut ratam faciatis in illum charitatem, then as the vulgar Latin hath it, Ut confirmetis. The Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he expoundeth thus; Auctoritatem do, auctoritate mea comprobo; vel ratum habeo, ratum facio. Pasor renders the same Verb sancio, ratum facio, and citeth for that sense, 2 Cor. 2. 6. So Erasmus likewise upon the place. So Cartwright upon the same place against the Rhemists. So Chemnitius Exam. Conc. Trident. part. 4. de Indulg. pag. 53. The force of this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was urged against the opinion of Erastus in a public Dispute at Heydelberg; the narration whereof is left by Ursinus in his Catechetical explications. That the word signifieth an authoritative act, and supposeth a ruling power, may be thus further confirmed. First, who did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? No doubt the Apostle borroweth the word from the language and customs of the Heathen Greeks. Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was a fixed or set lawful Assembly, which met with a judicial ruling power, and ratified a thing by decisive suffrages, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. See Suidas in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Stephanus and Scapula in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Erasmus in 2 Cor. 2. 8. Arias Montanus in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, tells us that to the Grecians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the same thing, which Comitia to the Latins: Therefore such Assemblies had a judicial power, and their suffrages were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, firm and ratified Sentences. Secondly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cometh from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whence also cometh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lord, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dominion, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to rule, or to have a dominion: It was long ago observed by Dionysius Areopagita, de divinis nominibus, cap. 12. where after he hath put into the description of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dominion, that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, true and unshaken firmness, he adds this reason, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Which Balthasar Corderius rendereth thus: Qu●…propter dominatio Grae●…è à 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 derivato nomine, idem est quod firmatio, firmamentum & firmum, ac firmans seu ratificans. Pachimeres in his Paraphrase addeth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it signifieth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, hath its name from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So than it is not every confirming, certifying, or making sure a thing, but when a thing is made sure or firm with fullness of authority and power. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is therefore rightly rendered by Stephanus, Scapula and Pasor, not only firmamentum, rata fides, but auctoritas plena, full authority. Thirdly, the same Apostle calls a ratified Testament (which ratification is by a legal and judicial authority) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Gal. 3. 15. Fourthly, the opposite Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth anctoritate priv●…, omni imperio spolio, irritum reddo. As 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 noteth a privation of authority, so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a giving of authority or ratification. The sixteenth Argument to prove a distinct Church-Government, is this. The visible political ministerial Church is the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, and he is the Head, King, Judge, and Lawgiver thereof, Isa. 9 6. Isa. 22. 21, 22. Psal. 2. 6. Luk. 1. 33. 1 Cor. 15. 24 Eph. 1. 21m 22, 23. Dare any say that the Lord Jesus shall not govern the Church of England, and reign over the same? Luk. 19 14 27. Must he not be received both as Lord and as Christ? Acts 2. 36. Now in the administration and government of a Kingdom these three things are necessarily required. 1. Laws. 2. Officers, Ministers, Judges, Courts. 3. Censures and punishments of offences. Which three being universally necessary in every Kingdom, can 〈◊〉 of all be supposed to be wanting in the Church and Kingdom of Jesus Christ, who hath been more faithful in the execution o● his Kingly office, and hath provided better for the Government of his Church, than ever any King or State in this world did for a Civil Government. I add the Laws, Judicatories, and censures in the Kingdom of Christ must be spiritual and Becl●siastical, because his Kingdom is not of this world, and his servants cannot take the sword, john 18. 36. Neither are the weapons of our warfarre carnal, but yet mighty through God, and in readiness to revenge all disobedience: 2 Cor. 10. 4. 6. I do not see what can be answered to this Argument, except any do so far deny the Kingly office of Jesus Christ, as to say that the Church Political or Ministerial is not his Kingdom; but only the Church Mystical; that is, as he ruleth over our souls by his Word and Spirit. To which purpose Mr. Hussey in his plea pag. 33. denyeth that the visible Church can be called the Body of Christ, or he their Head; and tells us that the government which Christ hath over the faithful, is truly spiritual, and of this Kingdom faith he, he hath indeed no Officers but his Spirit. I reply, 1. The Scripture is plain that a visible ministerial Church is the body of Christ, Rom. 12. 4, 5. 1 Cor. 10. 16. 17. 1 Cor. 12. 12. to 28. If we admit of a visible Church and visible Saints, we must also admit of a visible body, and a visible Kingdom of Christ. 2. The Political Ministerial Church were a body without a head. The Analogy of a political head as well as of a natural head agreeth to Christ: the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and he hath an influence upon the Church potestative as well as effective. 3. He 〈◊〉 his Prophetical office not only in teaching us inwardly by his Spirit, but in teaching the Church outwardly by his servants the Ministers of his Word: Now if he be a Prophet to the visible ministerial Church, he is also a King to the same; for his offices cannot be divided, his Scholars are his Subjects, and whosoever receive him as a Prophet, must also receive him as a King. Yea, let us hear Mr. Hussey himself pag. 17. The Kingdom of Christ is 〈◊〉 ample as his Prophecy, etc. the Doctrine which they must teach commands, no●… commands have always power and authority 〈◊〉. So that either he must say that Christ gives no commands to the visible Church, or confess that the visible Church is the visible Kingdom of Christ. 4 That the Kingdom of Christ comprehendeth the Government and discipline of the Church, I prove from Matt●…. ●16. 28. There be some standing here which shall not tast●… of death till they see the Son of man coming in his Kingdom: Where first of all note, Christ hath not only an invisible, but a visible Kingdom; Next, this visible Kingdom is not meant of his coming again in glory to judge the quick and the dead; for all that were then hearing Christ, have tasted of death, and yet Christ is not come to judgement. Nor is it meant of Christ's tranfiguration mentioned Matth. 17. for that was six days after, Matth. 17. 1. and if he meant that, he would not have said so emphatically, there be some here that shall not taste of death, etc. intimating what was to come to pass, not after some days, but after some years; as if he had said this age or generation shall not pass away till these things be fulfilled. Neither is that transfiguration any where called the Kingdom of God, nor can it be properly so called. Nor last is the Kingdom of God in that place meant only of the preaching of the Gospel, for so they had seen Christ coming in his Kingdom. Luk. 10. 9 11. Nor is it meant of Christ's working of miracles, for so likewise they had seen his Kingdom. Matth. 12. 28. Melius ergo Beda & Gregorius, quorum sententiam nostri sequuntur, per illud Regnum Christi intelligunt constitutionem Ecclesiarum, post Christi ascensum, saith Tossanus upon the place. Some of those to whom he spoke at that time lived to see Christ reign in the gathering and governing of Churches. Gregor.. Hom 32. in Evang. Et quia nonnulli ex discip●…lis usque ad●…o in corpore victuri erant ut Ecclesiam Dei constructam conspiceren●…, & contra mundi hujus glorium erectam, consolatoria promissione nan●… dieitur: Sunt quidam de hinc 〈◊〉 qui non gustabu●…t mortem, donec videant reg●…um Dei. The very same words hath Bed●… on Mark. 9 1. following (it seems) Gregory. Grotius on Matth. 16. 28. doth likewise understand the promulgation of the Gospel, and the Sceptre of Christ, that is, his law going out of Zion to be here meant. I conclude, as the Church is not only a mystical but a political body, So Christ is not only a mystical but a political Head. But peradventure some men will be bold to give another answer, that the Lord Jesus indeed reigneth over the Church, even in a political respect, but that the administration and influence of this his Kingly office is in, by, and through the Magistrate, who is supreme Judge, Governor, and Head of the Church under Christ. To this I answer, Hence it would follow 1. That Christ's Kingdom is of this World, and cometh with observation, as the Kingdoms of this World do, which himself denieth Luke 17 20 john 18 36. Next, It would follow, that Christ doth not reign nor exercise his Kingly office in the Government of his Church under Pagan, Turkish, or persecuting Princes, but only under the Christian Magistrate, which no man dare say. 3. The Civil Magistrate is God's Vicegerent, but not Christ's: that is, the Magistrates power hath its rise, origination, institution, and deputation, not from that special dominion which Christ exerciseth over the Church as Mediator and Head thereof, But from that Universal Lordship and Sovereignty which God exerciseth over all men by right of Creation: In so much, that there had been (for order's sake) Magistrates or superior Powers though man had not fallen, but continued in his innocency; and now by the Law of Nature and Nations there are Magistrates among those who know nothing of Christ, and among whom Christ reigneth not as Mediator, though God reigneth over them by the Kingdom of power. 4. If the Magistrate be supreme Head and Governor of the Church under Christ, than the Ministers of the Church are the Magistrates Ministers as well as Christ's, and must act in the Magistrate's name, and as subordinate to him; and the Magistrate shall be Christ's Minister, and act in Christ's Name. The seventeeths Argument I draw from the institution of Excommunication by Christ, Matth. 18. 17. Tell it unto the Church: But if he neglect to hear the Church, Let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a Publican. In which Text 1. All is restricted to a brother, or a Church-member, and agreeth not to him who is no Church-member. 2. His tre●pasle is here looked upon under the notion of scandal, and of that which is also like to destroy his own soul. 3. The scope is not civil, but spiritual, to gain or save his soul. 4. The proceedings are not without witnesses. 5. There is a public complaint made to the Church. 6. And that because he appears impenitent, after admonitions given privately, and before two or three. 7. The Church speaks and gives a: Judgement concerning him, which he is bound to obey. 8. If he obey not, than he is to be esteemed and held as a heathen man and a Publican. 9 And that for his not hearing the Church, which is a public scandal concerning the whole Church. 10. Being as as an Heathen and Publican, he is kept back from some ordinances. 11. He is bound on earth by Church-Officers. Whatsoever ye bind, etc. 12. He is also bound in Heaven. More of this place elsewhere. These hints will now serve. The Erastians' deny, that either the case, or the court, or the censure there mentioned is Ecclesiastical or Spiritual. But I prove all the three. First, Christ speaketh of the case of scandals, not of personal or civil injuries, whereof he would be no Judge, Luk. 12. 14. and for which he would not permit Christians to go to Law before the Roman Emperor or his deputies, 1 Cor. 6. 1. 6. 7. But if their interpretation stand, they must grant that Christ giveth laws concerning civil injuries, and that he permitteth one of his disciples to accuse another for a civil injury before an unbelieving Judge. Beside, Christ saith not, If he shall hear thee, thou hast from him a voluntary reparation of the wrong, or satisfaction for it (which is the end why we deal with one who hath done us a civil injury) But he saith, If he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother, intimating that the offending brother is told and admonished of his fault, only for a spiritual end, for the good of his soul, and for gaining him to repentance. All which proveth that our Saviour meaneth not there of private or civil injuries, as the Erastians' suppose, but of scandals, of which also he had spoken much before, as appear by the preceding part of that chapter. A civil injury done by one brother to another is a scandal, but every scandal is not a civil injury. The Jews (to whose custom Christ doth here allude) did excommunicate for divers scandals which were not civil injuries. And Paul saith of a scandal which was not a civil injury: when ye sin so against the brethren. etc. 1 Cor. 8. 12. 2. The court is Ecclesiastical, not civil, for when it is said Tell it unto the Church, must we not expound Scripture by Scripture, and not understand the Word Church to be meant of a civil Court? for though the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used Act. 19 reoitative, of a heathenish civil assembly, called by that name among those heathens: yet the penmen of the holy Ghost have not made choice of the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in any place of the new Testament, to express a civil court either of Jews or Christians. So that we cannot suppose that the holy Ghost speaking so as men may understand him, would have put the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place to signify such a thing as no where else in the new Testament it is found to signify. Nay, this very place expoundeth itself, for Christ directeth his speech to the Apostles, and in them to their Successors in the government of the Church. Whatsoever ye shall bind etc. And if two of you shall agree, etc. So that the church which here bindeth or judgeth, is an Assembly of the Apostles, Ministers, or Elders of the church. 3. The censure is spiritual, as appeareth both by these words, Let him be unto thee as a Heathen and a Publican; which relate to the Excommunication from the church of the Jews, and comprehendeth not only an exclusion from private fellowship and company (which was the condition of the Publicans, with whom the Jews would not eat) but also an exclusion from the Temple, Sacrifices, and communion in the holy things, which was the condition of heathens, yea of profane Publicans too: of which elsewhere. And further it appeareth by these words, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, etc. The Apostles had no power to inflict any civil punishment, but they had power to bind the soul, and to retain the sin. joh. 20. 23. And this power of binding is not in all the Scripture ascribed to the civil Magistrate. The eighteenth Argument shall be drawn from the example of excommunication, 1 Cor. 5. 4, 5. The Apostle writeth to the church of Corinth to deliver to Satan (for the delivery to Satan was an act of the church of Corinth, as the Syriack explaineth it) the incestuous man, which is called a censure inflicted by many 2 Cor. 2. 6. that is, by the whole Presbytery of the Church of Corinth. And whereas some understand by delivering to Satan, the putting forth of the extraordinary Apostolical power to the working of a miracle upon the offender, by giving him over into the hands of Satan, so as to be bodily tormented by him, or to be killed and destroyed (as Erastus takes it) I answer 1. It cannot be meant of death, for it is said that Hymeneus and Alexander were delivered to Satan, and to what end? that they might learn not to blaspheme, 1 Tim. 1. 20 which had been too late to learn after death, 2. Nor is it at all meant of any miraculous tormenting of the body by the devil, for beside that it is not likely this miracle could have been wrought, Paul himself not being present to work it, it is utterly incredible that the Apostle would have so sharply rebuked the Church of Corinth, for that a miracle was not wrought upon the incestuous man, (it not being in their power to do:) or that he would seek the consent of that Church to the working of a miracle, and as a joint act proceeding from him and the Church by common counsel and deliberation, for where read we of any miracle wrought that way? Therefore it is much more safe to understand by delivering to Satan, (as Gualther himself doth) Excommunication, which is a shutting out of a Church-member from the Church, whereby Satan cometh to get dominion and power over him, for he is the God of this World, who reigneth at his pleasure in and over those who are not the Church and people of God. 2 Cor. 4. 4. Eoh. 2. 2. And if any shall be so far unsatisfied as not to admit this sense which we put upon that phrase of delivering to Satan; Yet our Argument for Excommunication drawn from 1 Cor. 5. standeth strong, the weight of it not being laid upon tradere Satanae only, but upon vers. 6. 7. 11, 12. compared with 2 Cor. 2. 6. which undeniably prove Excommunication from Church fellowship. The nineteenth Argument shall be drawn from Act. 20. 28. Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock over the which the holy Ghost hath made you Overseers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, compared with 1 Pet. 5. 2. 3. Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Which Texts as they hold forth a Bishop and a Presbyter to be one and the same jure divino, so they hold forth the ruling power of Presbyters or Elders. First, Because otherwise the simile (so much made use of in these Scriptures) of overseeing the flock (mentioned and joined together with the feeding thereof) will fall short in a main and most material point: for the overseers of flocks do not only make them to lie down in green pastures, and lead them beside the still waters, but they have also rodds and staves for ruling the flocks, and for correcting and reducing the wand'ring sheep, which will not be brought home by the voice of the shepherd, Psal. 23. 2. 4. The Pastoral rod there mentioned by David is corrective: as Clemens Alexandrinus paedag. lib. 1. cap. 7. who doth also parallel it with that 1 Cor. 4. Shall I com● unto you with a rod? Secondly, Paul requireth the Elders of the Church of Ephesus to take heed unto, and to oversee the whole flock, which did consist of more than did or could then meet together ordinarily into one place for the worship of God, as appeareth by the Church in the house of Aquila and Priscilla (which was one, but not the only one Church assembly at Ephesus) by the great and wonderful increase of the Gospel at Ephesus, and such other Arguments which I do but point at, the full debate of them not being my present work. Peter also writing to the Churches of the strangers in several provinces, calls them the flock not flocks, and commends unto the Elders the feeding and oversight of that flock. Now what is it that can denominate many particular visible Churches or Congregations to be one visible ministerial flock or Church, unless it be their union and association under one Ecclesiastical Government? No doubt, they had the administration of the Word and Sacraments partitive, or severally. Nor do I deny but they had a partitive several Government: but there was also an union or association of them under one common Government, which did denominate them to be one visible Ecclesiastical flock. Thirdly, The very name given to the Elders of the Church, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is a name of authority, rule, and government, especially in the Christian and Ecclesiastical use of the Word. H. Stephanus in Thes. ling. Gr. in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith that the Elders of the Church were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, seu 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to wit saith he, those qui verbo & gubernationi praeera●…t. Where he tells us also that the Magistrate or Praetor who was sent with a Judicial power into those Towns which were under the power of the Athenians, was called by the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Septuagints use the word Nehem. 11. 9 joel the son of Ziohri was their overfeer (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) and Judah the son of Senuah was second over the City. He that had but the second place was a Ruler, how much more he that was in the first place. Lo here, the head and chief Ruler of the Benjamites called by the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So Numb. 31. 14. 2 Kings 11. 15. the chief officers of the Host, the Captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, are called by the Septu●gints 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The same Hebrew words which they render by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they render in other places by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, praefectus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Antistes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, praepositus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Princeps: Yea the name of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they render by this word job. 20. 29. This is the portion of a wicked man from God, and the heritage appointed to him by God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Greek, by the overseer, (even as the same name of Bishop is given to Christ, 1 Pet. 2. 25.) Conradus Kirch●…rus in the word Pakad, tells us also that Gen. 41. 34. Let Pharaoh do this and let him appoint Officers over the Land, where the 70. read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Greek Scholia which he useth to cite hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fourthly, Peter addeth, not as being Lords, or overruling 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that we might understand he condemneth the ruling power of the Lord Bishop, not of the Lords Bishop, of Episcopus Dominus, not of Episcopus Domini. Just as Ezek. 34. 4. the shepherds of Israel are reproved for lording it over the flock, with force and with cruelty have ye ruled them, It was their duty to rule them, but it was their sin to rule them with force and with cruelty. The twentieth Argument I take from 1 Cor. 4. 1. Let a man so account of us, as of the Ministers of Christ, and Stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover it is required in Stewards that a man be found faithful. And Tit. 1. 7. a Bishop is the Steward of God; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This name doth exclude Lordship and dominion, but withal it noteth a ministerial rule or government, as in the proper, so in the metaphorical signification: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a name divers times given by Aristotle in his Politics to the civil Magistrate. The Septuagints have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as fynonymous with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Esth●…r 8. 9 To the Lieutenants and the Deputies. The 70. thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The holy Ghost by the same word expresseth Government, Gal. 4. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is under Tutors and Governors. Rom. 16. 23. Erastus is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theophylact thinks he was Governor of the City; Erasmus that he was praefectus aerario, Town-Treasurer. The English Translators call him the Chamberlain of the City. Yea setting aside the metaphorical signification of this name often used for a name of rule; the very literal and native signification of the word will serve to strengthen this Argument in hand. Ministers are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, house-stewards, or over the house; but what house? Aristotle at the beginning of the second book of his Economics, distinguisheth a fourfold oeconomy, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: kingly, noble, civil, private: The Ministers of Christ are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the first sort. They are stewards in the house of the great King. He that is steward in a King's house, must needs have a ruling power in the house. 1 Kings 4. 6. Ahishar was over Solomon's household. 1 Kings 18. 3. And Ahab called Obadiah which was the Governor of his house. 2 Kings 18. 18. Eliakim which was over the household. In all which places the 70. have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I hold therefore with m Curabit denique (oeconomus) ut impuros & perdite viventes a familia excludat, eosdemque si poenitentiam egerins, rursus in eam recipiat. Peter Martyr upon 1 Cor. 4. 1. that Ministers being by their calling and office stewards in the house of God, aught to cast out profane impure persons out of the house, and receive them again upon their repentance. And why are they called Stewards of the mysteries of God? surely the Sacraments are part (and a chief part) of those mysteries: and Christ hath made his Ministers (not the civil Magistrates) stewards of these mysteries, to receive unto, or to exclude from the Sacraments; and as they may not keep back any of the children of the house, so they may not suffer dogs to eat at the children's Table. The one and twentieth Argument, which shall claudere agmen, shall be drawn from Act. 15. where we find an Ecclesiastical Assembly or Synod of the Apostles, Elders, and other choice brethren, snch as judas and Sylas: These did so assemble themselves, and proceed with authority in a business highly concerning the truth of the Gospel, Christian liberty, the healing of scandal, and the preserving of peace in the Church, as that it is manifest they had, and executed a power of government distinct from Magistracy. Mr. Selden de Jure nature. & Gent. lib. 7. cap. 12. hath sufficiently expressed that which is the ground of my present Argument: and I rather choose to speak it in his words then in my own, Now a dispute being had of this thing at Antioch, Paul and Barnabas (who having used many Arguments against that Pharisaical opinion, yet could not end the controversy) are sent to Jerusalem that there the thing might be determined by the Apostles and Elders. It is agitated in a Synod. In it it is determined by the Apostles and Elders, that the Gentiles who had given their names to Christ, are not indeed bound by the Law of Moses or of the Hebrews, as it is Mosaical and prescribed to the Church or Commonwealth of the jews, but that they ought to enjoy their Christian liberty. And so much for that which the Synod loosed them from. But what dorh the Synod bind upon them? The Synod doth also impose certain things, namely abstinence from fornication, and from things offered to Idols, and from blood, and things strangled, VT QUAE NECESSARIO OBSERVANDA, EX AUTHORITATE SYNODI, saith Mr. Selden, BEING SUCH AS WERE NECESSARILY TO BE OBSERVED, IN REGARD OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE SYNOD, by those who giving their names to the Christian Religion, should live with the Jews (they also giving their names to the Christian Religion) and so enter into religious fellowship with them. I shall add two other Testimonies of Mr. prynn's; The first I shall take out of his twelve considerable serious Questions concerning Church-Government, pag. 5. where arguing against the Independency of particular Congregations, he asks, whether the Synodal Assembly of the Apostles, Elders, and Brethren at Jerusalem, Act. 15. who MADE AND SENT BINDING DECREES to the Churches of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, and other Churches, be 〈◊〉 an apparent subversion of Independency. So that by Mr. prynn's confession, the Scripture holds forth other Governors or Rulers in the Church beside Magistrates, and the authority of these other Governors to be such as to make and send to the Churches BINDING DECREES in things and causes Ecclesiastical. Another Testimony I take from his Independency examined, pag. 10 11. where he argueth against the Independents, and proveth from Act. 15. the authority of ordinary Ecclesiastical Synods, bringing also six Arguments, to prove that the Apostles did not there act in their extraordinary Apostolical capacity, or as acted by a spirit of infallibility, but in their ordinary capacity. Thereafter he concludeth thus. Therefore their assembling in this Council, not in their extraordinary capacity, as Apostles only, bu●… as Elders, Ministers: and the Elders, brethren's sitting together in Council with them, upon this Controversy and occasion, is an undeniable Scripture authority for the lawfulness, use of Parliaments, Counsels. Synods under the Gospel, upon all like nec●…ssary occasions: and FOR THEIR POWER TO DETERMINE CONTROVERSIES OF RELIGION, TO MAKE CANONS IN THINGS NECESSARY FOR THE CHURCH'S PEACE AND GOVERNMENT. Lo here Mr. Prynn gives us an undeniable Scripture authority for a diataktick governing power in the Church, distinct from Magistracy. How he will draw from Act. 15. the use of Parliaments or their authority, I do not imagine: It is enough for my Argument that he acknowledgeth this Scripture to warrant Synods of Ministers and Elders, and the power of these Synods to be not only consultive, but conclusive, decisive, and obligatory; for, this (I suppose) he means by the power to determine controversies, and to make Canons for the Church's peace and government: else he had concluded nothing against the Independents, who yield a consultive Synodical power. If any shall yet desire to be more particularly satisfied concerning the strength of my present Argument from Act. 15. I will make it out from these particulars following. First, Here is a power and authority to assemble Synodically, and it is an intrinsical power within the Church itself, not adventitious or extrinsecall from the Magistrate. Whence the soundest Protestant writers prove, that though the civil Magistrate hath a power of convocating Synods, and he ought to do it when the Church's necessity or danger doth call for such a remedy; yet this power of his is positive, not privative, cumulative, not destructive, And that if the Magistrate be an enemy and persecuter of the Church and of true Religion, or cease to do his duty, that is to wit, in a manifest danger of the Church, the Church notwithstanding ought not to be wanting to herself, but aught to use the right and authority of convocation, which first and for●…most remaineth with the Rulers of the Church; as may be seen Act. 15. So say the Professors of Leyden in Synops. purior. Theol. Disp. 49. Thes. 24. beside divers others whom I might here cite, but that is not now my business. Secondly, Beside the public debate and deliberation, the Synod did also choose and send certain delegates or commissioners to Antioch, and wrote by them a Synodical Epistle to the Churches in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia. I believe such Synodical acts of sending Commissioners and letters to the Churches in other Nations or Provinces, should now be looked upon as acts of government, if done without the leave of the Magistrate, as then judas and Silas were sent. Thirdly, That Synod did exercise and make use of a threefold Ecclesiastical power, for remedy of a threefold Ecclesiastical disease. 1. They purge out the leven of false doctrine and heresy, by deciding and determining that great controversy, whether Circumcision and the keeping of the Ceremonial Law of Moses were necessary to salvation. They hold forth and declare to the Churches the negative; And this they do by the dogmatik power. 2. There was a great scandal, taken by the believing Jews (than not fully instructed and persuaded concerning the abrogation of the Ceremonial Law by the death of Christ) who were so far stumbled and offended at the believing Gentiles for their eating of things sacrificed to Idols, and of blood, and things strangled, that they could not freely nor contentedly converse, company, and eat together with the Gentiles. For remedy whereof, the Synod doth require (in regard of the law of love, edification, peace, and avoiding of scandal) that the Gentiles should abstain from those things, as also from fornication, (which for what cause it is added, I do not now dispute) And this they do by the Diataktik power. 3. There was a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a schism, dissension, and rend made in the Church by the Judaizing Teachers, vers. 2. Who clothed themselves with a pretended authority and warrant from the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem, and thereupon got the more following, and drew away the more disciples after them. For remedy hereof, the Synod stigmatizeth and brandeth those men, by declaring them to be liars, troublers of the Church, and subverters of souls, vers. 24. And this they do by the Critic power, or authority of censures. Fourthly, The decree and Canon of the Synod, which is made, imposed, emitted and promulgat, is authoritative, decisive, and binding; Act. 15. 28. For it seemed good to the holy Ghost, and (here the Arabic repeateth it seemed good) to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things, That ye abstain etc. If it be said that this was but a doctrinal advice. It seemed good etc. I answer, josephus Antiq. jud. lib. 4. cap. 8. speaking of the decree of the supreme Sanhedrin (which he that disobeyed was to be put to death) calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that which seemeth good: So likewise in this place, the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is not meant of an Opinion only, for an Opinion (as Schoolmen define it) is properly such a 〈◊〉 of or assent to a thing, as is evident and firm, but not certain: So that Opinion cannot be ascribed to the holy Ghost; It is therefore here a word of authority and decree: as Mr. Leigh in his Critica sacra at the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 noteth out of Ch●…mnitius. In which sense the Grecians frequently use it. So Stephanus out of Demosthenes: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It is the reed by the Senate. And Budaeus out of Plato, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It is certainly appointed to die. Observe also the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, imposing and burden. They do impose some burden, only they are careful to impose no burden except in necessary things. Acts 16. 4. And as they went through the Cities they delivered them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the decrees that were ordained of the Apostles and Elders which were at Jerusalem. And here I cannot pass the observation of that gentleman who hath taken so good pains in the Original Tongues, Mr. Leigh in his Critica sacra of the New Testament, in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Wheresoever 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is found in the New-Testament, it is put for Decrees or Laws, as Luke 2. 1. Acts 17. 7. it is put for the Decrees of Caesar; and Ephes. 2. 15. Colos. 2. 14. for the Ceremonial Laws of Moses; and so frequently by the LXX. in the Old Testament for Decrees; as Dan. 2. 13. and 3. 10. 29. and 4. 6. for Laws, Dan. 6. 8. Caeterum saith Erasmus upon Act. 16. 4. Dogmata Graeca vox est, significans & ipsa decreta five placita, non doctrinam ut vulgus existimat. And whereas some have objected, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are used only in reference to a doctrinal power, as Col. 2. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I answer, Budaeus expounds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be decerno, and Col. 2. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Syriack makes it judicamini; Erasmus and Bullinger, Decretis tenemini. Stephanus, Beza, and Gualther, ritibus oneramini; the English Translators, are ye subject to Ordinances? This subjection was not only to Doctrines, but to Commandments, vers. 22. after the Commandments and Doctrines of men: and these commandments (though in deed and truth the commandments of men only at that time) were imposed as the Commandments of God, and as Ceremonial Laws given by Moses. The vulgar Latin hath decernitis, and Tertullian readeth Sententiam fertis, both of them (it seemeth) having read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: however they understand the power related unto to be more than Doctrinal. I conclude that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Acts 16. 4. must be more than Doctrinal declarations, and that it is meant of binding decrees (that I may use Mr. prynn's phrase) especially when joined with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, there was a Judgement passed and given upon the making and sending of those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not the judgement of one or two, but the judgement of the Apostles and Elders Synodically assembled. So Acts 21. 25. james and the Elders speaking of that Synodical judgement say, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, etc. These four considerations being laid together, concerning an intrinsical Ecclesiastical power of assembling together Synodically; of choosing and sending Commissioners with a Synodical Epistle to the Churches in other parts; of providing effectual and necessary remedies both for heresies, scandals, and schisms arising in the Church; of making and imposing binding decrees on the Churches, will infallibly prove from Scripture authority another Government in the Church beside Magistracy. I might here add other Arguments, but so much for this time. CHAP. X. Some Objections m●de against Ecclesiastical Government a●d Discipline answered. MR. Hussey in his Epistle to myself objecteth thus, What will your censure do? it will shame a few whores and knaves; a great matter to shame them the Law of nature shameth. All this in terminis might have been as justly objected against the Apostle Paul, when he wrote to the Corinthians to put away from among themselves the incestuous man. What will your censure do Paul? a great matter to shame one whom the law of nature shameth. The Lord save me from that Religion which will not shame Whores and Thiefs, and all other whom the Law of Nature shameth, and that in a Church way (as well as civilly) if any such member fall into such impiety: yet this is not all. All Orthodox Writers that write of Church-censures, will tell him, that scandals either of Doctrine or life, either against the first or second Table, fall under Ecclesiastical cognizance and censure. Secondly, He argueth thus Ibid. Sure in the day of our Lord there will be as good a return of the word preached, as of the censure. And in his plea pag. 1. If the Word be able to make the man of God perfect, than nothing is wanting to him: perfectum cui nihil deest: and it is a wonder how that Conscience should be wrought upon by humane authority, with whom divine cannot prevail. Answ. 1. This also he might as well have objected against the Apostle Paul, who did require the Corinthians to put away from among them the incestuous man, and Titus to reject an Heretic after once or twice admonishing of him. 2. He might object the same thing against Magistracy. Shall there not be a better account of the word preached then of Magistracy? and if the Word be able to make the man of God perfect, there is no need of Magistracy. Perfectum est cui nihil deest. Surely many Erastian Arguments do wound Civil as well as Ecclesiastical Government. 3. Church-censures are not acts of humane authority, for they are dispensed in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and (if clavae non errante) are ratified in heaven. 4. Discipline is no addition to that Word which is able to make the man of God perfect, for it is one of the directions of the Word. 5. The comparison which some make between the efficacy of the Word preached, and the efficacy of Church-discipline, as to the point of converting and winning fowls, is a mere fallacy ab ignoratione elenchi: for Church discipline is not intended as a converting, light-giving, or life-giving Ordinance. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God: and the Word is the power of God for salvation to every one that believeth. But Ecclesiastical Discipline hath a necessary use, though it hath not that use. Discipline and censures in the Church are intended. 1. For the glory of God. that his name may not be blasphemed, nor the doctrine of the Gospel reproached, by occasion of uncensured scandals in the Church. 2. For keeping the Ordinances of Christ from profanation and pollution, that signa gratiae divinae, the signs of God's favour and grace, and the seals of his Covenant may be denied to unworthy scandalous persons. 3. For preserving the Church from the infection of bad and scandalous examples, it is fit to put a black mark upon them, and to put away the wicked person as the Apostle saith; for a rotten member if it be not cut off, and a scabbed sheep if not separated from the flock, may infect the rest. 4. For the good also of the offender himself, that he may be ashamed, and humbled. 2 Thes. 3. 14. 2. Cor. 2. 7. This afflicting of the sinner with shame and sorrow, may and shall by the blessing of God be a means to the destruction of the flesh; 1 Cor. 5. 5. that is to tame and mortify his lusts, and so far removere prohibens that he may be the better wrought upon by the Word. I conclude, Church-Government being instituted by Christ, and having a necessary use in the Church; the Erastians' gain nothing by comparing it with the Word. Because it is not so necessary as the Word, Ergo, it is not necessary at all. Or because it is not efficacious in the same manner as the word is. Ergo it is not efficacious at all. The Apostle saith Christ sent me not to baptiz●… but to preach the Gospel, 1 Cor. 1. 17. What if he had said Christ sent me not to rule but to preach the Gospel? Then had the Erastians' triumphed. Yet this expression could not have proved that Church-government is not an Ordinance of Christ, more than that can prove that Baptism is not an Ordinance of Christ. A negative in the comparative, will not infer a negative in the positive. 3. Object. I could never yet see said Mr. Coleman, how two coordinate governments exempt from Superiority and inferiority can be in one State. Against this I instanced in the coordinate governments of a General and an Admiral, of a Master and a Father, of a Captain and a Master in one ship. Mr. Hussey finding he can not make good Mr. Colemans' word, tells me pag. 7. that he meaneth two supreme coordinate Governments. Where first he loseth ground, and tacitly yieldeth that Church-Government and Civil Government, distinct each from other do well consist, as long as they are not supreme, but as two arms under one head: No inconsistency therefore of Congregational and Classical Elderships, and of Provincial Assemblies, with the subordinate Magistrates and civil Courts in Cities and Counties. Next we shall find also in Scripture two coordinate supreme Governments, for the civil and the Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin of the Jews were both supreme and coordinate, and there was no appeal from the sentence of either: as is evident by that disjunctive Law, Deut. 17. 12. And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the Priest (that is to the Priests, as vers. 9) or unto the Judge (that is, the Assembly or Court of Judges, as I have cleared elsewhere) even that man shall die. But I have also answered more fully this objection concerning co-ordination. Chap. 8. 4. Object. Ministers have other work to do, and such as will take up the whole man. To this Argument (saith Mr. Hussey pag. 8.) Mr. Gilespie maketh no answer at all, though Saint Paul useth the very self same Argument to discharge the Preachers from oversight of the poor. Act. 6. 2. God forbid we should leave the care of the word of God, and serve at Tables. It will not be unseasonable to mind both him and Mr. Prynne that the canonised names by them used Stylo Romano, Saint Paul, Saint Matthew, Saint Mark, etc. aught to be laid aside, except they will use it of all Saints, and why not as well Saint Moses, and Saint Aar●…n (whom the Psalmist calls the Saint of the Lord?) or why not Saint Aquila, Saint Apollo's, Saint Epaphras, etc. Methinks men professing Reformation ought not to satisfy themselves in using this form of speech, only of such as have been canoniz●dat Rome, and enrolled Saints in the Pope's Calendar. And as strange it is that Mr. Hussey makes Paul to act in the business, Act. 6. before he was either Saint or Apostle. Now to the Argument. I did answer at first (though Mr. Hussey is pleased not to take notice of it) pag. 36. that where Mr. Coleman objected, Ministers have other work to do, he might as well have added, that when Ministers have done that other work, and all that ever they can, yet without the power of Church-government, they shall not keep themselves, nor the Ordinances from pollution: that is, Church-Government is a part of their work, and a necessary part, which hath been proved: I thought it enough to touch an answer where an objection was but touched: another objection in that very place being more insisted on (and with more colour of reason) concerning the fear of an ambitious ensnarement. And for the objection now in hand, Mr. Hussey hath made it no whit stronger by his instance from Act. 6. For 1. the Apostles did not wholly lay aside the care of the poor. Sure Paul (afterward an Apostle) took great care of the poor at divers times, and in divers places as himself recordeth: but such taking care of the poor as did distract and hinder them from the main work of preaching the Gospel, this was it which they declined; and in that respect the work of baptising also did give place to the work of preaching, 1 Cor. 1. 17. Likewise the work of Discipline must be so ordered, as may not hinder the principal work of preaching the Gospel: which is very possible, yea probatum est: for where Church-government is exercised, there are as painful Preachers as any in the World, and such as neglect none of their other work. 2. To take special and particular care of the poor, did belong by Christ's institution (whose mind was no doubt known to the Apostles) to the office of Deacons, and for that reason the Ministers of the word ought in like manner to be relieved of that burden by Deacons: but Church-Government doth belong to the Elders of the Church, of whom some labour both in Doctrine and Government, others in Government only. But neither must the Argument go so, I have another thing to ask; what is that other work which will take up the whole man? Mr. Hussey pag. 12. expounds Mr. Colemans' meaning, that the preaching of the Gospel would take up the whole man, especially in our time: our knowledge of the Scriptures is to be acquired by ordinary means etc. And in his Epistle to the Parliament he saith, I found the Minister charged only with preaching and baptising, which being performed with such zeal and diligence as is needful, is abundantly a sufficient employment. And so he takes off the Minister not only from Government, but from visiting particular families, especially the sick; from catechising and examining those who are to be admitted to the Lords Supper, from the celebration of the Lords Supper itself, to say nothing of the solemnisation of marriage, yea from disputations in Schools concerning the controversies of the time, which yet himself so much calls for. And why? the Minister hath other work to do, and such as will take up the whole man, which is to preach and baptise. 5. Object. If acts of Government be put in the hands of Church-Officers, there is fear of an ambitious ensnarement, which Mr. Coleman proved by an arguing from his own heart to the hearts of other men. Mr. Gilespies answer to the matter of ambition saith Mr. Hussey, pag. 10. is only by involving the Civil Magistrate in the same danger of ambition. And here he falleth out into a concertation, professedly with my answer, but really with Mr. Colemans' Argument: for the foundation of his Argument was universal. Might I measure others by myself, and I know not why I may not (God fashioneth men's hearts alike, and as in warer face answers to face, so the heart of man to man) etc. Hereupon I replied, Is this corruption only in the hearts of Ministers? or is it in the hearts of all other men? I suppose he will say in all men's hearts; and then his Argument will conclude against all Civil Government. And now per omnes musas I beseech him, which of us involveth the Magistrate in ambition? Must I be charged with involving the Magistrate because I discovered that Mr. Colemans Argument involveth the Magistrate? He might as truly say he is not the Traitor that commits Treason, but he is the Traitor that reveals Treason. And why saith he that my answer was only concerning that involving of the Magistrate? Did I not first show that the two Scriptures on which Mr. Colemans' Argument was grounded, did not prove it: though now Mr. Hussey tells us Mr. Coleman did but allude to those Scriptures (I am sure it was all the scriptural proof which was brought for that Argument upon which so much weight was laid) which I will not trouble my Reader withal saith he: A pretty shift, when a man cannot defend the Argument, then forsooth he will not trouble the Reader. Next, did I not deny that which Mr. Coleman did take for granted; that we may reason from this or that particular corruption in one man's heart, to prove the same particular corruption in all other men's hearts, and that Paul taught us not so? Phil. 2. 3. Did I not also answer in his own words, that his brethren's wisdom and humility may safely be trusted with as large a share of Government as themselves desire? Did I not lastly answer, that if his whole Argument were granted, it cannot prove that there ought to be no Church-Government, for where the thing is necessary, abuses must be corrected and amended, but must not take away the thing itself? Unto which exceptions nothing hath been replied, nor offered to vindicate or make good that Argument which was publicly offered to the Parliament. If such men were fit to put the reverend Assembly and all the Ministry of England to school again, to learn to dispute, let every pious and wise man judge. And so I am led on to another Objection. 6. Object. Schools of Divinity will advance learning and Religion, and get us an able Ministry more than Ecclesiastical Government can do. So Mr. Col man in his Sermon pag. ●6. Yea Mr. Hussey calleth for Schools, that there may be unity found among the Preachers of the Gospel, together with more learning and knowledge, pag. 12, 13, 14, 15. (where by the way the Jesuits are much beholding to him, and Protestant Writers very little.) In his Epistle to the Parliament he desireth that Ministers would unbend their thought of Government, and think on ways to get knowledge. I should have thought multum scientiae, parum Cons●…ientiae, might be as seasonable a complaint. Knowledge and learning are indeed most necessary, and I am confident shall flourish more under Presbyterial Government, then either under Popery or Prelacy. School-disputes need not hinder Ecclesiastical Government: that aught to be done, and this not to be left undone. There is a practical part which belongs to Presbyteries and Synods, as well as a contemplative part belonging to Schools: which made m Synod. Dord. sess. 18. Et quia vocati ad ministerium regimini Ecclesiae aliquando sunt praeficiendi: Ecclesiarum vero regimen in Scholis exacte non addiscitur, non abs re f●…ret si aliquot ante vocasionem mensibus, in urbibus 〈◊〉 us potestas His fiat ut inte●…sint Presbyter●…is, etc. the Divines of Ze●…land to offer this among other Articles to be advised upon by the Synod of Dort, that they who are preparing for the Ministry, may (after their education at Schools, before their settling in the Ministry) be for some space present in Presbyteries, to learn Church-Government. That which a Minister must do, is work: and that work is labouring in the Word and Doctrine, in ruling and watching over the flock, in dispensing the Ordinances to them as a faithful Steward. But Mr. Hussey pag. 15. tells us the Minister must not be called from his study to examine notorious offences: which indeed suiteth his notion of Schools. The Grecians did not intend Schools for any such work; for to them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was rest from work, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be idle, to take a vacation from work, that is, from other affairs, and from a practical life, to attend reading and studies. If Schools be made to serve for all those necessary uses which Church-Government will serve for; then there is much said; but other wise nothing against us. 7. Object. But Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? if the power of Government and censures be in the hands of Church-officers, how shall they be censurable and punishable for their own offences? How shall the Censurers themselves be censured? This objection I find in the eight Epistle of Dionysius Areopagita (or who ever he was that wrote under that name) It was made by one D●…mophilus, What then say you, must not the profane Priests, or such as are convicted to have done somewhat amiss be corrected? and shall it be lawful to them alone, while they glory in the Law, to dishonour God by breaking of the Law? A little after, this direct answer is made to the objection. But if perhaps any among these err from that which it becometh him to do, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, let him be corrected by the Saints of his own order, and so order shall not be intermixed with order, but each one shall be exercised in his own order and administration. As the faults of Church-officers deserve the greatest censures, so in all the Reformed Churches, where the free exercise and administration of Church-discipline is received, there is greatest severity of Church-discipline against Church-officers, and especially against Ministers of the Word, when any such are upon just proof convict of scandal. It is too much diffidence (and groundless, I dare say) to apprehend that Ministers who have taken upon them the bond of such a Covenant, and joined in such a Reformation, will yet be ready to connive at any scandalous person of their own coat. And if a Classis should happen to commit such an error, yet there can be no such fear in this particular from a Provincial or National Assembly, which in a well Reformed Church, (as they are constituted of choice, able, and godly, both Ministers and others assembled from divers quarters, so) use to correct (not to confirm) the maladministration in inferior Ecclesiastical Courts. I speak here of the Ecclesiastical offences of Church-officers: their other offences belonging wholly to the Civil cognizance and Jurisdiction. 8. Object. But let the Scripture speak expressly, and Institutions appear Institutions, and all must bow. It is asked why we must not prove a must be, as well as a may be: and whether do our proofs amount to an Institution and a Ius divinum. For satisfaction in this point also. I answer the Question which for the present I speak to, is not whether Christ hath in his Word limited and determined us to any one particular form of Church-government, so as no other form can be admitted as lawful or agreeable to the Word: Much less do I now inquire what is that particular form or kind of Government which Christ hath instituted. But the present controversy with the Erastians' is, whether Christ have not appointed and instituted a Government in his Church in the hands of Church-officers, distinct from Civil government: As it is one thing to inquire whether it be the will of God, that there be a civil Government or Magistracy, that is, that there be not an Anarchy in a N●tion, but some rule and government. Another thing, to inquire whether God hath in his Word limited a nation to any one particular kind of Civil Government, and if any, what it is? So it is one thing to inquire whether it be the will of Christ, that there be an Ecclesiastical Government, or an intrinsical power of ruling in the hands of Church-officers, distinct from the civil Government? Another thing to ask whether the Word determineth any one kind of Church-Government as necessary, and which it is? The former, not the latter is our present controversy. Yea in very truth the Erastians' do oppose not only the institution, but the lawfulness and agreeableness to the Word of God, of a Church-Government distinct from the civil; For their principles and Arguments tend to the investing of the civil Magistrate with the whole and sole power of Church-Government; as that which belongeth to him only, and that jure divino: So that if their Principles hold good, it shall be unlawful and contrary to the Word of God, for Church-officers to claim, or assume, or exercise any Government or power of censures. Though (I say) the clearing and vindicating of the lawfulness of a distinct Church-Government, doth overthrow the Erastian Principles: yet that I may deal the more clearly and fully, for the satisfaction of all such as may be satisfied, this I avouch and aver: It is Jure divino, It is the will of God, and of his Son jesus Christ the King and Head of his Church, that there be a Church-Government in the hands of Church-Officers distinct from the Civil Government. It is de necessitate praecepti, of the necessity of precept that it be s●…. It is sin and a violation of nng Institution if it be not so. I am confident the Arguments which I have brought Chap. 9 will reach this point, and fully conclude it, especially if the strength of them be put together. Yet now to drive the nail to the head, I add these following Arguments, directly inferring and proving an Institution. First, The Scripture speaks of Church Government in the same manner, and with the same height, fullness, and peremptoriness of expression, as it speaketh of other things which are without controversy acknowledged even by the Erastians' themselves to be Institutions of Christ. For instance, Let the Erastians' prove against the Socinians the necessity and perpetuity of the Ordinance of Baptism, that it ought to continue always in the Church, and that by virtue of an Institution and precept of Christ: I will undertake by the like medium to infer the like conclusion concerning Church-Government. Again, let them prove the necessity, perpetuity, and institution (I say not now of the Word itself, or of preaching, but) of the ministry, or of the Pastoral office, I will bring the like Argument concerning Church-Government: I do not now compare or parallel the Government with the Ministry of the Word quo ad necessitatem medii vel finis, as being equally necessary to salvation, nor yet as being equally excellent; but this I say, The one is by the Scripture language an Institution and Ordinance of Christ as well as the other. One Ordinance may differ much from another, and still both be Ordinances. Secondly, Church-Government is reckoned among such things as had an Institution, and which God did set in the Church, 1 Cor. 12. 28. It is a good Argument for the Institution of Pastors and Teachers, that God set them in the Church, as we read in that place, and Christ gave them to the Church, Ephes. 4. 11. Will not this then hold as well for the Institution of a Government in the Church? That the Governments mentioned 1 Cor. 12. 28. are Ecclesiastical and distinct from civil, is already proved, Chap. 6. Thirdly, If it be the will and commandment of God, that we be subject and obedient to Church-Governors, as those who are over us in the Lord, as well as to civil Governors, than it is the will of God that there be a rule and Government in the Church, distinct from the civil. For Relata se mut●…o ponunt vel tollunt. If we be obliged by the fifth commandment to honour Magistrates as Fathers, than it is the will of God that there be such Fathers. So when we are commanded to know them which are over us in the Lord, and to esteem them highly, 1 Thess. 5. 12. to honour doubly Elders that rule well, 1 Tim. 5. 17. to be subject and obedlent unto Ecclesiastical Rulers, Heb. 13. 17. with verse 7. 24. doth not this intimate the will of God, that Pastor's and Elders be over us in the Lord, and rule us Ecclesiastically? Fourthly, That which being administered is a praise and commendation to a Church, and being omitted is a ground of controversy to Christ against a Church, can be no other than an Ordinance, and necessary duty. But Church-Government and Discipline is such a thing, as being administered, it is a praise and commendation to a Church, 2 Cor. 2. 9 Revil. 2. 2. and being omitted is a ground of Controversy to Christ against a Church, 1 Cor. 5. 1. 2. 6. Revel. 2. 14. 20. Ergo. Fifthly, The rules and directions concerning an Ecclesiastical Government and Discipline are delivered preceptwise in Scripture 1 Cor. 5. 13. Put away that wicked person from among you. 2 Thess. 3. 14. Note that man. Tit. 3. 10. A man that is an Heretic after the first and second admonition reject. Augustine lib. contra Donatistas post Collationem, Cap. 4. saith that Church-censur●s and discipline are exercised in th● Church secundum praeceptum Apostolicum, according to the Apostolic precept, for which he citeth 2 Thess. 3. 14. Sixthly, There is an Institution and command, Matth. 18 17. Let him be unto thee as an Heathen man and a Publican. In which place there are three Acts of the Church, that is, of the Assembly of Church-Officers. 1. They must be met together to receive complaints and accusations, Tell the Church. 2. They give sentence concerning the case, if he neglect to hear the Church, etc. Where hearing is required and obedience, there must needs be an authoritative speaking or judging. So that they who would prove the Church here hath only power to admonish doctrinally, because it is said If he hear not the Church; they may as well prove that the Judges of Israel had no more power but to admonish doctrinally because it is appointed Deut. 17. 12. that the man who will not hearken to the Judge shall die; and it is not there expressed that the Judge shall put him to death, more than it is expressed here that the Church shall declare the offender to be as a heathen and a publican. 3. They must bind such a one by Excommunication, Whatsoever ye bind on earth, etc. Neither could it ever enter in the thoughts of Jesus Christ to command one Church-member or private brother to esteem another brother as an heathen and a publican, whom he would not have so esteemed by the whole Church: and lest of all can it be the will of Christ that one and the same person should be esteemed by one of the Church to▪ be as a heathen and a publican, and withal be esteemed by the whole Church as a brother, a good Christian, a Church-member, and accordingly to be freely admitted to the Ordinances. CHAP. XI. The necessity of a distinct Church-Government under Christian as well as under Heathen Magistrates. SOme when they could not deny but there was a Church-Government in the Primitive and Apostolic Churches, distinct from all civil Government, and Churchcensures distinct from all civil punishments; yet they have alleged (though no such thing was alleged of old, neither by Constantine and other Christian Emperors, nor by others in their behalf) that this was for want of Christian Magistrates, and that there is not the same reason for such a Church-Government or censures, where there is a Christian Magistracy. See Mr. Husseys' plea, pag. 24. As likewise Mr. Prynne in his Diotrephes catechised. Master Colemans' re-examination, pag. 16. calls for an instance where the State was Christian. For taking off this exception, I shall observe, First of all n Annot. in Luc. 6. 22. Reperti sunt & qui Judicia ista Ecclesiae putarent inhibenda; quoties Christiana●… potestates Deus concederet saeculo etc. At Christi leges multo plus exigunt, quam in common civibus impe●…ii alicujus praescribi solet, aut etiam potest, semper enim magna pars hominum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Quare civiles quidem leges suo funguntur officio, si graviora & societati maxime no●…entia delicta coerceant: at quae contra dilectionis, contra mansuetudinis, contra patientiae leges pec●…antur, extra communes leges sunt posita: non etiam extra eas leges▪ quas se sectantibus Christus praescribit, & secundum quas▪ judicare debet ille selectus ex mundo coetus. Grotius (otherwise no good friend to Church-Government, being poisoned with the Arminian Principles, who have endeavoured to weaken extremely the authority of Classical and Synodical Assemblies, and to give a kind of Papal power to the Magistrate) yet in this particular he argueth strongly for us, and not against us. Secondly, Where is that Christian Magistracy which hath suppressed or punished all such offences as did f●ll under Ecclesiastical cognizance and censure, in the Primitive and Apostolic Churches? Or where is that Christian Magistrate that will yet undertake to punish all those offences and scandals which were censured in the Apostolic Churches? Till some such instance be given, this exception against Church-discipline and censures under a Christian Magistrate hath not so much as colour enough. Aliae sunt leges Caesarum▪ ali●…e Christi: aliud Papinianus, aliud Paulus noster praecipit saith Hierome in Epitaph. Fabiolae. Caesar's Laws, and Christ's Laws are not the same, but different. Papinianus commands one thing, Paul another thing. chrysostom Homil. 12. in 1. Epist. ad Cor. tells us that the best and wisest Lawgivers had appointed no punishment for fornication, for consuming and trifling away of time with playing at dice, for gluttony and drunkenness, for Stage-plays and lascivious whorish gestures therein. Is there not some cause to apply all this (and much more of this kind) even to Christian Law givers and Magistrates? Put the case that he who is called a brother (as the Apostle speaks) that is a member of the visible Church, be found grossly ignorant of the Principles of Religion, and so far from growing in knowledge, that he loseth the knowledge of the Scriptures, and of the truth of God which he had (for this hath been divers times observed) through neglect of the means: or if he be known to neglect ordina●lly prayer in and with his Family, and to continue in that offence after admonition: or if he live in known or scandalous malice and envy, and refuse to be reconciled with his neighbour, or if he be a known liar and dissembler: or if by his words and actions he do scandalously and manifestly show himself covetous, drowned in sensuality, ambitious, proud: or if he give a foul scandal by filthy and obscene speeches, by lascivious, obscene, whorish-like gestures or actions, where the act itself of adultery or fornication cannot be proved. I suppose that for these and such like scandals (which are causes deserving not only the Elderships' enquiry and admonition, but suspension from the Lords Table) the Christian Magistrate neither doth, nor by the civil or municipal Laws is bound to arraign and punish all such as are guilty thereof. Thirdly, whereas Archbishop Whitgift Answ. to the Admon. pag. 114. did allege that the Church may not be governed under a Christian Magistrate as it may under a Tyrant, which he brings as an exception against ruling Elders and Elderships, while he could not deny but such there were in the Primitive Church. Mr. Cartwrigh▪ in his Reply pag. 140. answereth, that if these Elders under a Tyrant had meddled with any office of a Magistrate, than there had been some cause why a godly Magistrate being in the Church, that office should cease: but since they did only assist the Pastor in matters Ecclesiastical, there is no distinction between times of persecution, and times of peace, as touching the office of Elders. The like say I of Church-censures and discipline. If the Government of the Church by Presbyteries and Synods, if suspension and excommunication in the Apostles times had been an usurping of any thing belonging to the Magistrate, than there had been some reason to lay aside all Church-censures and Ecclesiastical Government, when the Magistrate turned Christian, and willing to do his duty. But if not, than the civil and Church-government may still remain distinct, even where the State is Christian. Fourthly, Every Institution or Ordinance of Christ, must continue as a perpetual obligation, unless we can find in the Word that Christ hath given us a dispensation or taken off the obligation, and set a period to the Ordinance, that it shall continue so long and no longer. I mean every Ordinance of Christ must be perpetual, which we cannot prove from the Word to be but temporal or extraordinary. Now in the Word Christ hath not appointed the governing the Church, and correcting scandals, to be only under a Tyrant, and to cease under a Christian Magistrate: neither is there any such thing held forth in Scripture (which yet our opposites must show, if they will make good what they say) But chose, what Christ delivered to the Apostles, and they to the Churches, is to be kept and continued, till our Lord come again 1 Cor. 11. 23. 26. 1 Tim. 6. 14. and he himself saith, Rev. 2. 24. 25. That which ye have already, hold fast till I come. These things were not spoken to the Apostles, to Timothy, to the Churches of that time personally (for they were not to live till Christ's coming again) but the charge was given to them in name of and with respect unto all the Ministry and Churches of Christ. Fifthly, This exception made against Church-censures under a Christian Magistrate, supposeth that such censures will make an interfering and clashing between the civil and Ecclesiastical power. But there is no cause for that fear, these powers being so hugely differenced in their efficient causes, matters, forms, ends, effects, objects, adjuncts, correlations, and ultimate terminations, as I have made it to appear in the particulars, Chap. 4. Sixthly, The Church's liberty and power is not to be infringed, diminished, nor taken away; but preserved, maintained, enlarged, and augmented under a Christian Magistrate. Were it not a sad case, if there should be cause to say that the Churches of Christ have not so much liberty under a Christian Magistrate to keep themselves and the Ordinances from pollution, as they had under Pagan and Infidel Magistrates? Seventhly, Why may not Christian Church-government consist with Christian Magistracy, as well as the Jewish Church government did consist with the Jewish Magistracy, being of the same Religion? Or if we please to look to later Precedents, who can be ignorant that civil government and Church-discipline have rather strengthened then destroyed each other, not only in France where the Magistracy is not Protestant, but in Scotland, in the Low-Countries, in Geneva, and elsewhere? Eightly, We have covenanted to endeavour a Reformation of Church-Government and discipline according to the word of God and the example of the best Reformed Churches. Now both the Word of God, and the example of the best Reformed Churches, leadeth us to a Church-government distinct from civil Government: and the example of the best Reformed Churches doth undeniably lead us to a Church-discipline, even where he Magistrate is Christian, neither doth the word make any exception of Christian States, but chose chargeth us to keep the commandment and Ordinances till Christ come again. Ninthly, The Magistrate hath other work to do, and such as will take up the whole man: and if he should take upon him the whole burden of Church-Government, the enquiring into, examining and correcting of all scandals in the Church, surely it is more than he can discharge, or give a good account to God of. It will be hard enough to Church-officers to do it, though they are set apart to that service, and ex officio do watch over people's souls, as they that must give an account. But for the Christian Magistrate to discharge the whole corrective part of Church-Government, and to watch over the souls of all the people; so as to take care of the purging of the Church from scandals, and for that end to observe, examine, and judge all offences in the Church, and to determine that this man ought to be admitted to the Sacrament, and that man ought not to be admitted (for that there must be a suspension of scandalous and unworthy persons, I now take it for granted because of the Ordinance of Parliament) as it is impossible for the Magistrate to do all this, so I believe it will be to him durus sermo, a hard saying, to hear that he must give account to God of all these things; and that Ministers have no more to answer for but preaching, ministering the Sacraments to those to whom they are appointed to give them, catechising, visiting the sick, exhorting, admonishing, reproving, comforting. It was a good argument against the Prelate; he assumed the Ecclesiastical government of a whole Diocese, and could not give account to God for so many thousands, and sometime hundreths of thousand souls. Yet Mr. Coleman would have had the Parliament to be Church-Officers to the whole Kingdom in point of corrective Government, and the Ministry to have no part of that government. But then I ask, How shall they answer for that Ecclesiastical Government and administration of theirs, more than the Prelate could answer for the Ecclesiastical Government of a whole Diocese? If it be said that the Parliament is only to settle a rule, and to give order what is to be done, and to commit the execution and the managing of particular cases to subordinate Courts and inferior Officers, than no more is said then the Prelates did plead for themselves, that they did per alium what they could not do per se. So that such principles do tend directly to involve the Parliament in the Prelatical guiltiness, which our Principles do avoid. Was it not another Argument used against the Prelates, that they could not manage both Civil and Church-government, and that an Ecclesiastical Administration could not consist with civil power and places in the Parliament or with offices of State, any one of these administrations (either the civil or the Ecclesiastical) requiring the whole man. Do not the Erastians' endeavour to draw the Parliament into the very same absurdity with which the Prelates were pressed? For if any of these two administrations require the whole man, how can the civil Magistrate (though Christian) take upon him the burden of Church-Government, more than Church-Officers can take upon them the burden of civil-government? Philo the Jew gives this reason why Moses did make a partition of the charge between joshua and Aaron, committing to the one the civil, to the other the Ecclesiastical administration. He considered that it was impossible rightly to take care both of the supreme civil power, and of the Priesthood, since the one professeth to care for things pertaining to God, the other for men. Philo de charitate. Tenthly, Ratio immutabilis facit praeceptum immutabil●…. If the Apostle had required the Corinthians to excommunicate the incestuous man, upon such grounds and reasons as were proper to that time, and are not applicable to after times, so as to prove the necessity of excommunication for, the like offence, than there were some reason why excommunication should not be esteemed a perpetual ordinance in the Church: but it is manifest that the reasons given by the Apostle were not proper to that time, but do concern this time as well as that. The reasons are taken 1. From the glory of God, vers●… 1. 2. He that had done such wickedness as was not so much as named among the Gentiles, was not to be suffered among God's people, but to be taken away from among them; If evil be not put away from Israel, it is a great dishonour to the God of Israel. This first argument used by the Apostle, is like that Ezek. 36. 22, 23. They had profaned the holy name of God among the Heathen, therefore God would sanctify his great name, and make the Heathen to know that he is the Lord, when he should be sanctified in his people before their eyes. 2. From the commission, power, and authority which the Church of Corinth that is their Presbytery (compare 2 Cor. 2. 6.) had to excommunicate such a●one. vers. 4, 5. In the name of our Lord jesus Christ when ye are gathered together. etc. 3. From the good and benefit of the sinner himself, that he might be ashamed, humbled, reclaimed, mortified and saved: vers. 5. For the destruction of the Flesh, that the Spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 4. From the Churches good, that the Church might be preserved from the contagion of such sinful examples vers. 6. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? 5. From that which was signified and typified by the purging out of leaven from Israel in the time of the Passeover. vers. 7, Purge out therefore the old leaven etc. 6. From the end of Christ's death, which was to purify and sanctify, as well as to reconcile and justify his people, vers. 7. 8. For Christ our Passeover is sacrificed for us, Therefore let us keep the Feast, etc. 7. From the difference which ought to be made between the foul sins of Church-members, and others that are not Church-members: a blacker mark is to be put upon the former, then upon the latter: and more withdrawing there must be from a scandalous brother or professor of Christian Religion, then from a profane Heathen, vers. 9 10. 11. From all which it doth appear, that it is not without good reason that Martyr and Pareus upon 1 Cor. 5. do maintain the necessity of Excommunication, under a Christian and pious Magistrate, as well as under an Infidel and profane Magistrate. Eleventhly, The end and use for which Church-censures are necessary, is not intended and endeavoured, much less attained, by the government of the Christian Magistrate. For though the Christian Magistrate punisheth many (I cannot say all) gross and scandalous sins with corporal or civil punishments: yet to punish sin is one thing; to seek the salvation of the sinner is another thing: so the offender his suffering of punishment and satisfying the Law of the Land is one thing; his declaring of his repentance, and public confession of his sin, for taking away the scandal which he hath given to the Church, is another thing. Suppose a delinquent (whose fault is not capital by the law of the land, for instance a Fornicator, a drunkard, a common swearer, a Sabbath-breaker, or the like) to have suffered in his person or estate, all the punishment which he ought to suffer, so that he hath now made a civil atonement (as I may call it) for his offence, and the Christian Magistrate hath no further to charge him with. Suppose also that he is by such corporal or civil punishments as by a bit and bridle overawed and restrained from committing again the like external acts: Notwithstanding he hath not the least sign of true repentance and godly sorrow for his former foul and scandalous sins, and he is known to be not an accuser, but an excuser of himself for those faults and scandals. Such a one comes and desires to receive the Sacrament. Must his penal satisfaction to the Christian Magistrate be a sufficient penitential satisfaction to the Church? Here is a rock which the Erastians dash upon, unless they admit of a distinct Ecclesiastical Judgement, concerning the signs of repentance in a scandalous sinner, according to which, as these signs shall appear or not appear, he is to be admitted or not admitted to the Sacrament. Twelfthly, the power of binding and losing, is not a temporary but a perpetual power, that is, appointed by Christ to continue in his Church always unto the end. Now this power is given only to Church-officers, and Christ hath not given the keys of discipline and the power of binding and losing (of which elsewhere) to the Magistrate, nay not to the Christian Magistrate, more than to the Infidel Magistrate. Let the least hint be found in Scripture, where Christ hath given any such power to the Christian Magistrate, and I yield the cause. Thirteenthly, The new Testament holdeth out as little of the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments under a Chrinstian Magistrate, as it doth of a Church-government under a Christian Magistrate. Shall this therefore strengthen the Socinian Tenent, That Baptism is not a perpetual Ordinance in the Church, and that we are not obliged by that commission which the Apostles had to baptise? God forbid. Fourteen, The Germane Anabaptists required an express warrant or example in the New Testament of a Christian Magistrate, or of the sword and wars in a Christian State, yet this hath been thought no good Argument against Magistracy and wars among Christians. I cannot pretermit a passage of Gualther, who may seem to be opposite to me in this present Question. Even he in his Homily upon john 9 22. after he hath spoken of Excommunication in the Jewish Church, and in the Apostolic Churches, he addeth o Et hodie e●iam disciplina Ecclesiastica opus est, quae in reforma●is Eccles●is instituta diligenter servari debet, ne Magistratum indulgentia quae ubique sere regnat, Evangelii doctrinam exteris suspectam reddat, & ut ipsi quoque in officio contineantur, nec sibi quidvis in Ecclesia licere putentt. And this day also there is need of Ecclesiastical discipline, which being instituted in the Reformed Churches, aught to be diligently kept, lest the indulgence of Magistrates, which reigns almost every where, should render the Doctrine of the Gospel suspected among those that are without, and that themselves also may be contained in their office, and may not think that any thing they will is lawful to them in the Church. But after all this, let me put Mr. Hussey and other Erastians' in mind, that if they do acknowledge that Jesus Christ hath instituted or commanded that there be a Church Government and power of censures distinct from the Civil Government, when the Magistrate is Heathenish or Idolatrous, let them speak it out, and let us agree so far. Otherwise if they do not agree in this, it is but a blind for them to make use of this distinction, that where the Magistrate is Christian, there is no necessity of a distinct Church-Government. I conclude with a passage of Mr. Prynne in his twelve considerable serious Questions touching Church-Government. The ninth of those Questions runs thus. Whether the Independents challenge of the Presbyterians to show them any National Church, professing Christ in our Saviour's or the Apostles days, before any one Nation totally converted to the Christian Faith, or any general open profession made of it by the Princes, Magistrates, and major part of any Nation, Kingdom, Republic, who were then all generally Pagans and Persecutors of the Gospel, not then universally embraced, be not a most irrational unjust demand? Sure if this hold against the Independents, it will hold as strongly, yea more strongly against the Erastians', to prove their demand to be most irrational and unjust, while they challenge us to show them in the New-Testament a distinct Church-Government under a Christian Magistrate, or where the State was Christian, though themselves know Magistrates and States were then generally Pagan and not Christian: Yea there was in those days much more of a national Church then of a Christian Magistrate. An Appendix to the second Book, containing a Collection of some Testimonies not cited before; And first a Testimony of King james in a Declaration of his, penned with his own hand, signed and delivered to the Commissioners of the Church of Scotland at Linlithgow, December 7. Anno 1585. I For my part shall never, neither my posterity ought ever cite, summon, or apprehend any Pastor or preacher for matters of Doctrine, in Religion, Salvation, Heresies, or true Interpretation of the Scripture: but according to my first act which confirmeth the liberty of preaching the Word, ministration of the Sacraments, I avouch the same to be a matter mere Ecclesiastical, and altogether impertinent to my calling. Therefore never shall I, nor ever ought they, I mean my posterity, acclaim any power or jurisdiction in the foresaids. His Majesty's meaning was that he ought not to do this in prima instantiâ, that is, before the person be accused, convict, or judged in any Ecclesiastical Court. (which was the Question at that time, occasioned by Mr. Andrew Melvill his Case) Afterward in the same Declaration it followeth thus. Christ saying Dic Ecclesiae, and one only man stealing that dint in a quiet hole, the Act of Parliament reduceth the sentence for informality and nullity of process, not as judges whether the Excommunication was grounded on good and just causes or not, but as witnesses that it was unformally proceeded, against the warrant of God's Word, example of all Reformed Ki●ks, and your own particular custom in this Country. A little after. I mind not to cut off any liberty granted by God to his Kirk. I acclaim not to myself to be judge of Doctrine in Religion, salvation, heresies, or true Interpretation of Scripture. And after. My Intention is not to meddle with Excommunication, neither acclaim I to myself or my Heirs power in any thing that is mere Ecclesiastical and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nor with any thing that God's Word hath simply devolved in the hands of his Kirk. And to conclude, I confess and acknowledge Christ jesus to be Head and Lawgiver to the same. And what soever persons do attribute to themselves, as Head of the Kirk, and not as Member, to suspend or alter any thing that the Word of God hath only remitted to them, that man I say committeth manifest Idolatry, and sinneth against the Father in not trusting the Words of his Son, against the Son in not obeying him and taking his place, against the holy Ghost, the said holy Spirit bearing the contrary record to his Conscience. Testimonies taken out of the Harmony of the Confessions of the Faith of the 〈◊〉 Churches, Reprinted at London 1643. Pag. 238. Out of the confession of Helvetia. FUrthermore, there is another power of duty, or ministerial power limited out by him, who hath full and absolute power and authority. And this is more like a Ministry than Dominion. For we see that some master doth give unto the steward of his house authority and power over his House, and for that cause delivereth him his keys, that he may admit or exclude such as his master will have admitted or excluded. According to this power, doth the Minister by his office, that which the Lord hath commanded him to do, and the Lord doth ratify and confirm that which he doth, and will have the deeds of his ministers to be acknowledged and esteemed as his own deeds, unto which end are those speeches in the Gospel: I will give unto thee the keys of the Kingdom Matth. 16. of heaven, and whatsoever thou bindest or losest in earth, shall be bound and loosed in heaven. Again, whose sins soever John 20. ye remit, they shall be remitted; and whose sins soever ye retain, they shall be retained. But if the minister deal not in all things as his Lord hath commanded him: but pass the limits and bounds of Faith, than the Lord doth make void that which he doth. Wherefore the Ecclesiastical power of the Ministers of the Church, is that function whereby they do indeed govern the Church of God, but yet so as they do all things in the Church as he hath prescribed in his Word; which thing being so done, the faithful do esteem them as done of the Lord himself. Pag. 250. Out of the confession of Bohemia. THe 14th. Chapter of Ecclesiastical doctrine is of the Lords keys, of which he saith to Peter, I will Matth. 16. give thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and these keys are the peculiar function or Ministry and administration of Christ his power, and his holy Spirit; which power is committed to the Church of Christ, and to the Ministers thereof, unto the end of the world: that they should not only by preaching publish the holy Gospel, although they should do this especially, that is, should show forth that Word of true comfort, and the joyful message of peace, and new tidings of that favour which God offereth, but also that to the believing and unbelieving, they should publicly or privately denounce and make known, to wit, to them his favour, to these his wrath, and that to all in general, or to every one in particular, that they may wisely receive some into the house of God, to the communion of Saints, and drive some out from thence, and may so through the performance of their Ministry, hold in their hand the Sceptre of Christ his Kingdom, and use the same to the government of Christ his Sheep. And after, Moreover a manifest example of using the power of the keys is laid out in that sinner of Corinth and others, whom St. Paul, together with 1 Cor. 5. the Church in that place, by the power and authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of his Spirit, threw out from thence and delivered to Satan: and chose after that God had given him grace to repent, he absolved him from his sins, he took him again into the Church to the communion of Saints 2 Cor. 2. and Sacraments, and so opened to him the Kingdom of Heaven again. By this we may understand, that these keys, or this divine function of the Lords, is committed and granted to those that have charge of souls, and to each several Ecclesiastical Societies, whether they be small or great. Of which thing the Lord sayeth to the Churches, Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven. And Matth. 18. strait after: For where two or three are gathered together in my Name, there am I in the midst of them. Pag. 253. Out of the French Confession. WE believe that this true Church ought to be governed by that regiment or discipline which our Lord Jesus Christ hath established, to wit so, that there be Pastors, Elders, and Deacons, that the purity of doctrine may be retained, vices repressed. etc. Pag. 257. Out of the Confession of Belgia. WE believe that this Church ought to be ruled and governed by that spiritual Regiment which God himself hath delivered in his word, so that there be placed in it Pastors and Ministers purely to preach, and rightly to administer the holy Sacraments: that there be also in it Seniors and Deacons, of whom the Senate of the Church might consist, that by these means true Religion might be preserved, and sincere doctrine in every place retained and spread abroad: that vicious and wicked men might after a spiritual manner be rebuked, amended, and as it were by the bridle of discipline kept within their compass. Pag. 260. Out of the Confession of Auspurge. AGain, by the Gospel, or as they term it by God's Law, Bishops, as they be Bishops, that is, such as have the administration of the Word and Sacraments committed to them, have no jurisdiction at all, but only to forgive sin, Also to know what is true doctrine; and to reject such Doctrine as will not stand with the Gospel, and to debar from the communion of the Church such as are notoriously wicked, not by humane force and violence, but by the word of God. And herein of necessity the Churches ought by the law of God to perform obedience unto them, according to the saying of Christ, He that heareth you, heareth me. Upon which place the Observation saith thus. To debar the wicked, etc. To wit by the judgement and verdict of the Presbytery, lawfully gathered together. etc. A Testimony out of the Ecclesiastical Discipline of the Reformed Churches in France. Cap. 5. Art. 9 THe knowledge of scandals, and the censure or judgement thereof belongeth to the Company of Pastors and Elders. Art. 15. If it befalleth, that besides the admonitions usually made by the Consistories to such as have done amiss, there be some other punishment or more rigorous censure to be used: It shall then be done either by suspension, or privation of the holy communion for a time, or by excommunication or cutting off from the Church. In which cases the Consistories are to be advised to use all prudence, and to make distinction betwixt the one and the other: As likewise to ponder and carefully to examine the faults and scandals that are brought before them, with all their circumstances, to judge warily of the censure, which may be required. Harmonia Synodorum Belgicarum. Cap. 14. Art. 7. 8. 9 PEccata sua natura publica, aut per admonitionis privatae contemtum publicata, ex Consistorii totius arbitrio, modo & formâ ad aedificationem maximè accomodatis sunt Corrigenda. Qui pertinaciter Consistorii admonitiones rejecerit, à S. Coenae communione suspendetur. Si suspensus post iter atas admonitiones nullum poenitentiae signum dederit, ad Excommunicationem procedet Ecclesia. Melchior Adamus de vitis Germanorum Theologorum, Pag. 342. CUmque sub id tempus (Anno 1545.) Fredericus Elector Palatinus, qui Ludovico successerat, de Ecclesiarum agitaret Reformatione: composuit Melanchthon, cum evocato venire integrum non esset, scriptum de reformandis Ecclesiis: cujus Synopsin aliquot regulis comprehendit: Cons. Theol. pag. 586. quas addimus. Vera & salutaris gubernatio Ecclesiae Christi praecipuè in his sex Membris consistit. PRimum, In vera & pura Doctrina, quam Deus Ecclesiae suae patefecit, tradidit, & doceri mandavit. Gubernatio Ecclesiae in quibus consistat. Secundo, In legitime usu Sacramentorum. Tertio, In conservatione Ministerii Evangelici & obedientiae erga Pastores Ecclesiarum; sicut Deus vult & postulat conservari Ministerium Evangelii, & servat ipse sua potentiâ & presentiâ. Quarto, In conservatione honestae & pia Disciplinae retinendae per judicia Ecclesiastica, seu jurisdictionem Ecclesiasticam. Quinto, In conservandis studiis necessariae doctrinae & Scholis. Sexto, Ad haec opus est defensione corporali & facultatibus, ad personas, quae sunt in efficiis necessariis, alendas. The Irish Articles of Religion. Art. 58. NEither do we give unto him (the Supreme Magistrate) hereby the administration of the Word and Sacraments, or the power of the keys. And Art. 69. But particular and visible Churches (consisting of those who make profession of the Faith of Christ, and live under the outward means of Salvation) be many in number: wherein the more or less sincerely according to Christ's Institution, the Word of God is taught, the Sacraments are administered, and the authority of the keys is used; the more or less pure are such Churches to be accounted. Laurentius Humfredus de Religionis conservatione & Reformatione vera. Ad Nobilitatem, Clerum, & Populum Anglicanum. PAg. 23. Nec satis mirari possum nec satis dolere, cum intellgam in his locis * He wrote from Basil. repudiari disciplinam Ecclesiasticam, & vel nullam esse vel nimis laxam, vel non satis vigilanter administratam, in quibus tamen alioqui Religionis sincera effigies cernitur: quasi Evangelium esse possit ubi non vivitur Evangelicè: aut quasi Christus laeto▪ carnali, voluptuario delectetur Evangelio. etc. At in Ecclesia manere debet censura & jurisdictio, non minus quam gladius in Repub. Pag. 25. Sit ergo haec prima Reformationis perfectae ratio, nostri ac peccatorum recognitio & emendatio. Deinde severior adsit in Ecclesia castigatio & animadversio: ut illa laxit as & remissio frnaeetur, quo minus & levius deinceps peccetur. FINIS. THE THIRD BOOK. OF Excommunication from the CHURCH. AND, Of Suspension from the LORDS TABLE. CHAP. I. An opening of the true state of the question, and of Master Prynnes many mistakes and misrepresentations of our Principles. HAving now by the light of Scripture and other helps asserted a Church-government distinct from civil Magistracy, both in the Old and New Testament, the last part of my present undertaking shall be to vindicate the particular Ordinances of Excommunication and Suspension, called by the Schoolmen Excommunicatio major & minor. Of which also I have before spoken divers things occasionally; for I have asserted an Excommunication and Suspension in the Jewish Church, Book 1. Chap. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. The nature, grounds, reasons, uses, and ends whereof, were not proper to the Old Testament, but such as concern the Christian Church. I have also brought arguments Book 2. Chap. 9, 10. which conclude not only Church-government, but Excommunication. And so much of my work is done: Nevertheless there is more to do. Mr Prynne first in his four grand Quaeres, and thereafter in his Vindication of the same, hath argued much, both against the Suspension from the Sacrament of a person not Excommunicated and wholly cast out of the Church, and against some of the most pregnant scriptural proofs for Excommunication itself. In his Vindication he hath branched forth the controversy into ten points of difference. Two of these, viz. the fifth concerning suspension from the Sacrament of the Passeover, and the ninth concerning casting out of the Synagogue, I have discussed before in the first Book. Where I have also examined other assertions of his concerning the Jewish Sanhedrin, Temple, confession of sin. The other points of difference not handled before, I am (as the Lord will help me) now to speak to. The first point of difference is, whether in those four Quaeres of his he stated the Controversy aright. He is offended that I (in a Sermon of mine before the honourable House of Commons) charged the Questionist with mistakes, and that I did not take notice of the question concerning suspension from the Sacrament, as he stated it. Vindic. pag. 3. I had reason, because he had mis-stated it; and since it pleased him to interpose in a matter depending between the Honourable houses of Parliament, and the Reverend Assembly of Divines, and to publish a paper plainly reflecting upon a Petition of the Assembly, I hope he can not think either the Assembly, or me, tied to his stating of the question. If he will meddle with the business of the Assembly, he must speak to it as it is. And that it may now appear how just cause I had to charge his Queres with mistakes of the state of the question, (which he still mistaketh) I shall endeavour a more particular and full discovery of these his mistakes. And first, that which was desired by the Assembly was, that such a rule may be established by authority of Parliament, as may keep off all scandalous and notorious sinners from the Sacrament. The question was not what Texts of Scripture do warrant this thing. It did not concern me to debate whether the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament quoted by him, prove suspension from the Lords Table. The controversy was of the practical conclusion, and of establishing such a rule, as may keep off scandalous persons from the Sacrament. If the thing be done, if the conclusion be consented to, there is the greater liberty for men to abound in their own sense concerning the mediums to prove it. Secondly, and if he would needs debate what Texts of Scripture do prove the thing, and what precept or precedent in Scripture doth warrant it: me thinks he had done better to have informed himself, on what scriptural proofs the Reverend Assembly had grounded the suspension of scandalous sinners from the Sacrament, though not yet cast out of the Church; The proofs from Scripture voted in the Assembly, were these. Because the Ordinance itself must not be profaned. And because we are charged to withdraw from those who walk disorderly. And because of the great sin and danger both to him that comes unworthily, and also to the whole Church. The Scriptures from which the Assembly did prove all this, were, Matth. 7. 6. 2 Thess. 3. 6, 14, 15. 1 Cor. 11. 27, to the end of the Chapter, compared with jude vers. 23. 1 Tim. 5. 22. Another proof added by the Assembly was this. There was power and authority under the Old Testament to keep unclean persons from holy things, Levit. 13. 5. Num. 9 7. 2 Chro. 23. 19 And the like power and authority by way of analogy continues under the new Testament, for the authoritative suspension from the Lords Table, of a person not yet cast out of the Church. Now that which was the strength of the Assemblies proofs of the proposition, Mr Prynne hath almost never touched, but run out upon other particulars. Thirdly, observe that he disputes all along whether any Minister can suspend one from the Sacrament. But this no body, that I know, asserts. The power is given not uni, but unitati, to the Eldership, not to any one, either Minister or Elder. Fourthly, that which in the Preface of his Queres he undertakes to prove, is, that Excommunication and suspension from the Sacrament, being a matter of great moment and much difficulty, is to be handled and established with great wisdom, caution and moderation. And his result in the close is concerning a limited jurisdiction in Presbyteries. As these things are not denied by any that I know, so himself manifestly acknowledgeth by these expressions, the thing itself for the substance, (which yet the current of his debate runneth against) and only questioneth concerning the bounds, cautions and limitations. God forbid that Church-officers should ever claim an unlimited power: their power is given them to edification, and not to destruction, and we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth, 2 Cor. 13. 8, 10. The power of censures must not be in the power of any one man, nor in the power of any who are themselves scandalous and worthy of censure. a Aug. Tom 10. bom. 50. Nos vero à communione prohibere quenquam non postumus, quamvis haec prohibitio nondum sit mortalis, sed medicinalis, nisi aut sponnte confessum, aut in aliquò sive seculari five Ecclesiastico judicio nominatum atque convictum. There must be no sentence of Excommunication or suspension, upon reports, surmises, suspicions, but either upon the confession of the offence or proof thereof by two witnesses at least. None must be excommunicated nor suspended for money matters, debts, and such like civil causes which are not of Ecclesiastical cognizance, but are to be Judged by the civil Judge. It must not be for those peccata quotidianae incursionis, such sinful infirmities as all the godly in this life are guilty of: though on the other side, the scandalous sins meant of in this controversy, must not be restricted to such sins only as can not stand with the state of grace. These and such like limitations we do not only admit of, but desire to be put. Fifthly, he goeth about to clear the state of the question out of Aretius, and citeth him for what himself now undertaketh to prove. Whereas Aretius holds Excommunication to be an ordinance of God both in the Old and New Testament, and that it was wanting through the injury and corruption of the times, the abuse of it in Popery having made the thing itself hateful; and the most part in those places where he lived, loving carnal liberty so well; and taking upon them the protection and defence of profane ones, and being so unwilling to be brought under the yoke of Christ. For these and the like reasons, he thought it not expedient to have that discipline of Excommunication erected at that time in those parts; as himself gives the reasons: and b Theol. probl. loc. 132. Interea non desperandum esse libenter fateor, dabit posterior aetas tractabiliores fortè animas, mitiora pectora, quam nostra habent saecula. he professeth withal, that he doth not despair of better times, when men shall be more willing to submit to that discipline. So that this is the question, if it shall be stated out of Aretius; Whether Excommunication, being an Ordinance of God, aught to be settled where profaneness and licentiousness abounds, and where the better party is like to be oppressed by the greater party: or whether we should wait till God send better times for the settling of it. Sixthly, the Author of those questions maketh a parallel between that power of censures now desired to be settled in Presbyteries, and the Prelatical tyranny, as if this were the very power which heretofore was declaimed against in, denied to, and quite taken away from the Prelates. Yea in the close he makes this power now desired to be settled in Presbyteries, to be such as our very Lordly Prelates never durst to claim. Yet Ecclesiae Anglicanae politeia in tabulas digesta authore Richardo Cousin Tab. 5. tells me that the Episcopal Jurisdiction did exercise itself in these censures, which were common both to Laymen and Clergymen (as they were called.) 1. Interdictio divinorum. 2. Monitio. 3. Suspensio vel ab ingressu Ecclesiae, vel a perceptione Sacramentorum. 4. Excommunicatio. 5. Anathematisinius, etc. Nevertheless there is a truth too in that which Mr Prynne saith. I confess the Prelates never durst desire that which this learned and pious Assembly hath desired in this particular. He hath said it. The Prelates never durst indeed take upon them to suspend all scandalous persons from the Sacrament; for if they had, it had been said unto most of them, Physician cure thyself, besides the losing of many of their party. And moreover the very Lordly Prelates never durst make themselves to be but members of Presbyteries, nor to be subject to the admonitions and censures of their brethren, which every Minister now must do. The Lordly Prelate did (contrary to the institution of Jesus Christ) make himself Pastor of many Congregations, even of his whole Diocese, and did assume sole and whole power of Government and Church censures to himself, and his underling officers which were to execute the same in his name. And as the appropriating of Jurisdiction to the Lordly Prelate, so the manner and kind of his Government, and his proceedings in Ecclesiastical censures, came neither from Christ nor from the purest antiquity, but from the Pope's Canon Law. What then hath Presbytery to do with Prelacy? as much as light with darkness, or righteousness with unrighteousness. He that would see more of the differences between Presbyterial and prelatical Government, let him read a Book Printed in the Prelate's times, entitled The Pastor and the Prelate. And the clear Antithesis between Presbytery and Prelacy Printed at London anno. 1644. See also what I have said before Book. 2. Chap. 3. 7. It is evident by his fourth Question, that he states the case, as if Ministers meant to know the secrets of all men's hearts, and to be so censorious and peremptory in their Judging as to quench the smoking Flax or to break the bruised Reed; Thereupon he asks whether the Sacrament may be denied to a man, if he desires to receive it, in case he profess his sincere Repentance for his sins past, and promise newness of life for the time to come. God forbid we be censorious, peremptory, and rigid in our judging of men's spiritual Estate; where there is any thing of Christ, it's to be cherished, not quenched. But again, God forbid that we shut our eyes to call darkness light, or black white. In that very place where our Saviour condemneth uncharitable Judgement, immediately he addeth, Give not that which is holy unto the Dogs, neither cast ye pearls before swine Mat. 7 6. Impenitency under a scandalous sin is discerneable either by not confessing it, or by not forsaking it. All our present controversy is concerning a visible Church, visible Saints, visible holiness, visible Repentance, visible fitness or qualification for the Sacrament, that is c Concil. Nicaen. can. 11. Ab omnibus verò illud praecipue observetur, ut animus eorum & fructus paenitentiae attendator. Quicunque enim cum omni timore & lachrymis perseverantibus, & operibus bonis conversationem su●m, non ve●bis soli●, sed opere & veritate demonstran●, cum tempus statutum etiam ab his fuerit imple●um, & orationibus jam caeperint communicate, licebit etiam Episcopo humanius circa eos aliquid cogitare. Qui vero indifferenter habnerint lapsum, & sufficere sibi quod Ecclesiam introierint, arbitrantur, ipsi omnimodo tempora statuta complebunt. of such external signs and evidences as the word of God holds out for judging of the spiritual Estate of other men, not of such internal gracious marks whereby a man must judge of his own spiritual Estate. And so he that professeth his sincere Repentance for his sins past, and promiseth newness of life for the time to come, if there be nothing which (visibly and to the eye of man) giveth the lie to his profession and promise, (for instance, if it can be proved that immediately before or immediately after he hath professed or promised the contrary to his companions in his wickedness, or that he still continueth in the practice of that sin) is not to be excluded as an impenitent sinner from the Sacrament. 8. The third Quaere, as also the conclusion of all, runneth upon a great mistake, by reason of the confounding of things which are of a different nature. There is great weigh-laid upon this, that there is as much sin & danger to a man's soul in his unworthy and unprofitable hearing of the word, as in his unworthy receiving of the Sacrament; and therefore Ministers may as well refuse to Preach unto people, whom they deem unprofitable hearers, as refuse to give them the Sacrament, because they judge them unmeet to receive it. Whether the sin of unworthy hearing be as great as the sin of unworthy receiving the Sacrament, I will not now debate. The d A full answer to a Printed Paper entitled four serious Questions concerning Excommunication and Suspension etc. Reply which was made to his Queries by another, hath said enough to that point. But that which I intent in this place, is (for clearing a main Principle which we go upon) to distinguish these two things. There are some Ordinances appointed for the Conversion of Sinners. There are other Ordinances appointed for the Communion of Saints. The Preaching of the word and the hearing thereof, though it hath no small influence into the Communion of Saints, yet it is also appointed for converting and bringing in Sinners who have no part in the Communion of Saints. The Sacrament was not appointed for the Conversion of Sinners, but is peculiar to the Communion of Saints. The Apostles Preached to the unbeleiving Jews in the Temple and Synagogues Act. 2. 46. Act. 3. 11. 12. Act. 5. 12. 42. Act. 9 20. 22. 23. But it is only said of those that gladly received the word, they continued steadfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread and in prayers. Act. 2. 42. The Apostles Preached also to many Heathens and Idolaters, but they admitted none to the Sacramen till they saw such evidences as might persuade them in the judgement of charity that they were such as might be admitted. They that are suspended from the Sacrament, yea they that are excommunicate, are admitted to the hearing of the word for their conversion, as the unbelieving Jews and Heathens were. Can any allege the like reason for admitting them to the Sacrament? Erastus himself confirm. Thes. lib. 2 p. 134. non tamen pro non Judaeo, vel non circumciso, aut pro improbo damna●…vór habeba ●…ur Cogebatur inhilominus secundùm ritus patrios vivere, Sabbatum custo dire, aliáque talia sacere. Quinetiam a Sacramento expiationis generalis, quae die 10. ●…eni îs Septembris per agebatur Leu. 17. & 23. immundi nulli excludebantur. observeth that the unclean under the Law who might not eat of the Passeover, yet were not forbidden but commanded to observe the Sabbath, and the feast of Expiation. I mention it only as an argument ad hominem. If a sinner be known for a improfitable hearer of the word, that cannot make it a sin to me to Preach any more to him. But if he be known to be a Dog or a Swine in reference to the Sacrament, that will make it a sin to me if I minister the Sacrament to him. The reason is because I am still bound to endeavour his conversion (not knowing that he hath blasphemed against the holy Ghost) but I am not bound to give him the seal of remission of sins and salvation by Jesus Christ: yea it were sin to give that Seal to him who is visibly and apparently uncapable of such sweet and comfortable application of Christ. I conclude that the suspending of scandalous persons from the Sacrament, is neither only nor principally grounded upon the sin and guilt of eating and drinking unworthily, which will cleave to the unworthy Communicant: but rather (not excluding the other) upon the nature of the Ordinance which is such as cannot admit of the notoriously scandalous to receive, but that holy Ordinance shall thereby be profaned and made Common; for what can be more contrary to the na ure of that Ordinance and to the Institution of Jesus Christ, than to turn the communion of Saints, into the communion of scandalous sinners; and to make that which was instituted for the comfort of those that repent and believe, to be a comfort and Seal of Salvation to those who are known by their fruits to have neither Repentance nor Faith, and so to send them away with a good conceit of their spiritual Estate, and thereby to strengthen their hearts and hands in wickedness? 9 The Question is not whether all scandalous persons are to be excommunicated and wholly cast out off the Church. The Assemblies Petition was not concerning excommunicating, but concerning suspending from the Sacrament all scandalous Persons. Yet the current of Master Prynnes Argumentation both in his Queries, and in his Vindication thereof, for the most part, runneth along against Excommunication and Suspension from the Sacrament, as the Tittles likewise do promise. Which is a fallacy d conjunctis ad divisa. And when he debateth so much concerning excommunication and suspension, his and is either copulative or exegetical. If copulative, he opposeth no body that I know so much as himself; for I know none that would have all scandalous sinners suspended, to be excommunicated also, except himself. If exegetical, even so he is contrary to himself, who confesseth that one may be suspended from the Sacrament before he be excommunicated. vindic. p. 50. 51. And whereas in the latter part of his first Quaere, he would drive us to this hard choice, that either a scandalous person must be excommunicated, or not suspended from the Sacrament; He saith it is evident by Tertullia's Apology cap. 39 & lib. de poenit. that scandalous persons were ever excommunicate and wholly cast out of the Church, not barely sequestered from the Sacrament. Whence saith he all the Canonists and Schoolmen determine that an excommunicate person is excluded from the Church and all public Ordinances. Let the prudent reader observe, that in stead of proving that scandalous persons were wholly cast out of the Church, he tells us out of the Canonists and Schoolmen, that excommunicate persons were wholly cast out of the Church, that is, that those who were cast out of the Church, were cast out of the Church. And for his antiquity, he hath given here no small wound to the Reputation of his skill in Antiquities. Which will more fully appear Chap. 17. Mean while, how can any that hath read Tertullian or Cyprian, not know, that some failings and falls in time of persecution, and other smaller offences, were not punished by excommunication, but by suspension from the Sacrament, till after public Declaration of Repentance and confession of the offence, the offender was admitted to the Sacrament. And for the places he citeth, I find in Tertullia's Book de poenitentia much of that Exomologesis and public Declaration of Repentance, but that all scandalous persons brought under Church-censures were wholly cast out of the Church, I find not; In the 39 Chapter of his Apologetic there is no such thing as is alleged, but the contrary plainly intimated, e Ibidem etiam exhortationes, castigationes, & censura divina. Name & judicatur magno cum pondere ut apud certos de Dei conspectu: summumque futuri judicii praejudicium est, si quis ita deliquerit, ut a communicatione orationis, & conventus, & omnis sancti commercii releget●r. concerning several degrees of Ecclesiastical Discipline, and that if any man's offence was so great, as to deserve excommunication, than he was excommunicate and wholly cast out of the Church. And as in the Ancient Churches there were, and in the reformed Churches there now are different degrees of censures, according to the different degrees of offences: so in the Jewish Church the like may be observed, both concerning Ceremonial uncleanness, and moral offences. Touching the former, that Law Num. 5. 2. command the children of Israel that they put out of the Camp every Leper, and every one that hath an issue, and whosoever is defiled by the dead, hath been understood by the Jewish Doctors respectiuè, that is, that the, Leper was put out of all the three Camps, the Camp of Israel the Camp of the Levites, and the Camp of divine Majesty which was the Tabernacle: he that had an issue might be in the Camp of Israel, but was put out of the other two. He that was defiled by the dead, was only restrained from the Camp of divine Majesty, for which also see before Book. 1. Ch●…p. 10. And touching moral offences, there were several Steps and degrees in the Jewish excommunication, as f De jure nature. & Gent. lib. 4. cap. 8. Master Selden hath observed from the Talmudists: for first a man was separate from the Congregation for 30 days, and if thereafter he was found obstinate, he was separate for other 30 days, and if after 60 days he did not repent, than they passed from the lesser excommunication to the greater, that is from Niddui and Shammatha (as he thinketh) to Cherem or Anathema. The Author of the Queries, while he argueth in that first Quaere against the suspending from the Sacrament of a person not excommunicated nor wholly cast out of the Church, closeth in this particular with them of the Separation (which I believe he did it not intend to do;) for they in one of their Letters in answer to the second Letter of Fr. Junius written to them, where they bring eleven Exceptions against the Dutch Churches, one of these Exceptions was that they use a new censure of Suspension, which Christ hath not appointed. They do hold Excommunication to be an Ordinance of Christ, but do reject the distinction of Suspension and Excommunication, as Master Prynne doth. Tenthly, the true state of the present Question is not, whether the Parliament should establish the power of suspending scandalous persons from the Sacrament, as jure divino, (nay, let Divines assert that, and satisfy people's consciences in it: but let the Parliament speak in an authoritative and legislative way, in adding their civil sanction.) Nor, whether there ought to be any suspension from the Sacrament of scandalous persons, not yet excommunicated and cast out of the Church; and that the Elder-ship should do it; for the Ordinance of Parliament hath so far satisfied the desires of the Reverend Assembly and of the generality of godly people, that there is to be a suspension of scandalous persons (not excommunicated) from the Sacrament, and power is granted to the Eldership to suspend from the Sacrament for such scandals as are enumerate in the Ordinances of Octob. 20. 1645. and March. 14. 1645. Which Ordinances do appoint that All Persons Or any Person that shall commit such or such an offence, shall be by the Eldership suspended from the Sacrament, upon confession of the party, or upon the Testimony of two credible witnesses. So that in truth the stream of Master Prynnes exceptions runneth against that which is agreed and resolved upon in Parliament: and his arguments (if they prove any thing) must necessarily conclude against that power already granted by Parliament to Elderships. And now if he will speak to that point which is in present public agitation, he must lay aside his Querees and his Vindication thereof, and write another Book to prove that the Assembly and other godly ministers and people ought to rest satisfied (in point of conscience) with the power granted to Elderships to suspend from the Sacrament in the enumerate cases, and that there is not the like reason to keep off scandalous persons from the Sacrament for other scandals beside these enumerate in the Ordinance of Parliament. Nay, and he must confine himself within a nearower circle, than so; for the Parliament hath been pleased to think of some course for new emergent cases, that the door may not be shut for the future upon the Remonstrances of Elderships concerning cases not expressed. I know the Gentleman is free to choose his own Theme to treat of, and he may handle what cases of Conscience he shall think fit for the Church's edification. But since he professeth in the Conclusion of his four Questions and in the Preface before his Vindication, and in divers other passages, that his scope is to expedite a regular settlement of Church Discipline, without such a power of suspending the scandalous, as is now desired to be settled in the new Elderships, and manifestly reflecteth upon one of the Assemblies Petitions concerning that business, as hath been said; yea the first words of his Queres tell us, he spoke to the point in present public agitation, the case standing thus; I must put him in mind (under favour) that he hath not been a little out of the way, nor a little wide from the mark. And if the Question were which of these Tenants (Master Prynnes or ours,) concerning Suspension, doth best agree with the mind of the Parliament, let us hear their own Ordinance dated March 14. 1645. the words are these: yet were the fundamentals and substantial parts of that Government long since settled in persons by and over whom it was to be exercised, and the nature, extent, and respective subordination of their power was limited and defined; only concerning the administration of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, how all such persons as were guilty of notorious and scandalous Offences might be suspended from it, some difficulty arising, not so much in the Matter itself, as in the Manner, how it should be done, and who should be the Judges of the Offence: The Lords and Commons having it always in their purpose and Intention, and it being accordingly declared and Resolved by them That all sorts of notorious scandalous Offenders should be suspended from the Sacrament, Which is the very point so much opposed by Master Prynne; for the controversy moved by him is not so much concerning the manner, or who should be the Judges, as concerning the matter itself: he contending that all sorts of notorious scandalous offenders should not be suspended from the Sacrament, but only such as are excommunicated and excluded from the hearing of the Word, Prayer, and all other public Ordinances. Having now removed so many mistakes of the true state of the question: that which is in controversy is plainly this; Whether according to the word of God there ought to be in the Elderships of Churches a spiritual power and authority, by which they that are called brethren, that is, Church members, or Officers, for the public scandal of a profane life, or of pernicious doctrine, or for a private offence obstinately continued in after admonitions, and so growing to a public scandal, are upon proof of such scandal to be suspended from the Lords Table until signs of repentance appear in them; and if they continue contumacious, are in the name of Jesus Christ to be excommunicate and cut off from all membership and communion with the Church, and their sins pronounced to be bound on earth, and by consequence in Heaven, until by true and sincere repentance they turn to God, and by the declaration of such repentance be reconciled unto the Church. The affirmative is the received doctrine of the reformed Churches, whereunto I adhere. The first part of it concerning Suspension, is utterly denied by Mr Prynne, which breaketh the concatenation and order of Church discipline held forth in the question now stated. Whether he denieth also Excommunication by Elderships to be an Ordinance and Institution of Christ, and only holdeth it to be lawful and warrantable by the word of God, I am not certain. If he do, than he holds the total negative of this present question. However I am sure he hath gone about to take away some of the principal scriptural foundations and pillars upon which Excommunication is builded. * Yea now also it appeareth by his Diotrephes catechised that he denieth and opposeth Excommunication itself, at least under a Christian Magistrate. As touching the gradation and order in the question as now stated, it is meant positively and exclusively, that such a gradation not only may but aught to be observed ordinarily (which Mr Prynne denieth) although I deny not tha● for some public enormous, heinous abominations, there may be (without such degrees of proceeding) a present cutting off by Excommunication. But this belongs not to the present controversy. CHAP. II. Whether Matth. 18. 15, 16, 17. prove Excommunication. THe second point of difference is concerning Matth. 18. Mr Prynne in the first of his four questions told us that the words Matth. 18. 17. Let him be to thee as an Heathen man and a Publican, are meant only of personal private trespasses between man and man, not public scandalous sins against the Congregation: and that 'tis not said, Let him be to the whole Church, but let him be to Thee, etc. This I did in my Sermon retort. For if to thee, for a personal private trespass; much more to the whole Church, for a public scandalous sin, whereby he trespasseth against the whole Congregation. Yea, it followeth upon his interpretation, that he may account the whole Church as Heathens and Publicans, if all the members of the Church do him a personal injury, whereupon I left this to be considered by every man of understanding, whether if a private man may account the whole Church as Heathens and Publicans for a personal injury done to himself alone, it will not follow that much more the whole Church may account a man as a Heathen and Publican, for a public scandalous sin against the whole Church. Mr Prynne in his Vindication, pag. 3. glanceth at this objection, but he takes notice only of the half of it, and he is so far from turning off my retortion, that he confirmeth it; for pag. 4. he confesseth that every Christian hath free power by God's word to esteem not only a particular brother, but all the members of a Congregation, as Heathens and Publicans, if he or they continue impenitent in the case of private injuries, after admonition. Now my exception against his Quere remains unanswered. If I may esteem the whole Church as Heathens and Publicans, when they do me an injury and continue impenitent therein: may not the whole Church esteem me as an Heathen man and a Publican, when I commit a public and scandalous trespass against the whole Church, and continues impenitent therein? Shall a private man have power to cast off the whole Church as Heathens and Publicans? and shall not the whole Church have power to cast off one man as an Heathen and Publican? I know he understands those words, Let him be to thee as a Heathen man and a Publican, in another sense then either the reformed Churches do, or the ancient Churches did, and takes the meaning to be of avoiding fellowship and familiarity with him, before any sentence of Excommunication passed against the offender. But however my argument from proportion will hold. If civil fellowship must be refused, because of obstinacy in a civil injury, why shall not spiritual or Church-fellowship be refused to him that hath committed a spiritual injury or trespass against the Church? If private fellowship ought to be denied unto him that will not repent of a private injury, why shall not public fellowship in eating and drinking with the Church at the Lords Table be denied unto him that will not repent of a public scandal given to the Congregation? Are the rules of Church fellowship loser and wider than the rules of civil fellowship? or are they straiter? Is the way of communion of Saints broader than the way of civil communion? or is it narrower? Peradventure he will say, that the whole Church, that is, all the members of the Church, have power to withdraw from an obstinate scandalous brother, that is, to have no fraternal converse or private Christian fellowship with him. Well then: If thus far he be as a Heathen and a Publican to the whole Church distributively, how shall he be as a Christian brother to the whole Church collectively; If all the members of the Church severally withdraw fellowship from him even before he be excommunicated, how shall the whole Church together be bound to keep fellowship with him till he be excommunicated? Instead of losing such knots, Mr Prynne undertakes to prove another thing, that this Text of Matthew is not mean of Excommunication or Church censures, and that the Church in this Text was not any Ecclesiastical Consistory (here he citeth josephus, as if he had spoken of that Text) but only the Sanhedrin or Court of civil Justice. But though all this were true which he saith, yet there may be a good argument drawn by necessary consequence from this Text to prove Excommunication. Which Grotius did well perceive: for in his annotations upon the place, after he hath told his opinion that excommunication is not meant in this Text, he addeth, that he hath elsewhere spoken of the antiquity and necessity of Excommunication: quanquam ad eam ex hoc etiam loco non absurde argumentum duci p●…sse, non negaverim: though I will not deny, saith he, that even from this place, the argument may be drawn to excommunication without any absurdity. My argument aforementioned will hold good even from Master Prynnes own exposition. Thus far I have gone upon a confession: now to the confutation. Before I come to his reasons, I observe in his margin a double mistake of the testimony of Scapula. First, he sends us to Scapula to learn that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth any civil assembly or council, as well as an Ecclesiastical Presbytery. Yes: Scapula tells us, it hath in Heathen writers a general signification, to express any Assembly called forth. But he addeth immediately, that in the writing of Christians it signifieth the assembly of such as are called to eternal life and do profess Christian Religion. Since therefore it hath not the same signification in Heathen writings, and in the New Testament, he should have showed us where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the new Testament doth signify a civil Court of Justice. I hope the holy Ghost did speak so in this place as he might be understood, and to take the word Church here, in that sense which it hath nowhere else in the new Testament, doth not agree with that received maxim, That Scripture is to be expounded by Scripture. I find indeed the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used for a Civil assembly, Acts 19 39, 41. But as that is an Heathen assembly, so it is not the Evangelist Luke his expression otherwise then recitative: that is, he mentioneth an Heathen assembly under that name by which Heathens themselves called it. His other mistake of Scapula, is, the citing of him for that assertion, that the Church in this Text is not an Ecclesiastical Consistory. Whereas Scapula doth expound the Church Matth. 18. to be meant of the Presbytery or College of Elders, (as g Steph. Restringitur & 〈◊〉 m●…do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad synedrium seu Presbyterium, id est seniorum collegium, ut Matth. 18. So Marlorae in Thesaur●… saith that the word Ecclesia is taken prosenatu Ecclesiastico Matth. 18. 17. Stephani Thesaurus doth also) and having told that the word signifieth the whole Christian Church: also particular Congregations: he addeth two more restricted significations: sometimes it signifieth a Christian family: sometimes the Presbytery; for this last he citeth Matth. 18. Now I proceed to Mr Prynnes Reasons. First, saith he, this Text speaks not at all of any public scandalous sin against the Church or Congregation, the proper object of Church censures, but only of private civil trespasses between man and man, as is evident by the words, If thy brother trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between him and thee, etc. Answ. We have ever understood that place of such trespasses, which grow public afterwards by the offender's obstinacy after admonition. Yet the trespass here meant, may be often such as even at first is scandalous to more than one. Such a case falleth under Christ's rule here, and is not excluded. Wherein observe Durand upon the fourth Book of the Master of Sentences Dist. 19 Quest. 4. But if, saith he, the sin be not altogether secret, nor altogether known, that is, such as is known to many by whom he may be convict, or be is ill reported of among grave persons, though the public fame be not against him, so the procedor which Christ hath set us in the Gospel, seemeth to have place, to wit, that first he may be secretly admonished, concerning his amendment; which if it profit not, that he may be admonished concerning his amendment before those who know the fact; but if that also do not profit, that then he may be declared to the Church. But if we should grant that no other trespass is meant here, but a private trespass, yet I ask, is there no private trespass but that which is civil? The Schoolmen writing the scandalo will tell him that one brother trespasseth against another when he scandalizeth him by any sinful example, though without any civil injury. Nay it's the greatest trespass which is committed against the soul of our neighbour: scandal is soul murder. It is a breach of the Law of love, not only by omission, but by commission. He that is commanded to edify his brother, and then giveth scandal to him, doth he not trespass against his brother? The like answer I return to that which he addeth, that Luke relating the same thing without any Dic Ecclesiae, Luk. 17. 3, 4 putteth it out of question, if compared with Gen. 52. 31. (there is no such Scripture) 1 Sam. 25. 28. What? out of question. Doth he not find scandalous sins in the two verses immediately preceding in Luke, and thereupon it's immediately added, Take heed to yourselves, if thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him, and if he repent, forgive him. Can not a Christian rebuke his brother who scandalizeth him, and if he repent forgive him? Luke needed not add Dic Ecclesiae, because he speaks of a repenting brother, not of an impenitent brother, after private admonition. And that scandalous trespasses are understood Matth. 18. 19 (as Augustine, Tostatus, and many others have observed) may thus appear. 1. Scandals are the greatest and worst trespasses, as hath been said, and woe unto the world because of offences. Surely Jesus Christ did intend to provide a remedy against the greatest evils, rather than against the lesser. 2. Christ would not be Judge of civil injuries, Luke 12. 14. How can it be then supposed that he giveth here Laws concerning civil rather then spiritual injuries? 3. Christ saith, If be shall hear (not repair) thee, thou hast gained (not thy goods or thy good name, or the like, but) thy brother. Intimating, that it's not a man's own interest, but the rescuing of his brother's soul from sin and scandal, which is here sought. Mr Prynne himself confirmeth it not a little, for he takes the meaning to be of avoiding a brother's company, in the case of a civil or private injury, if he continue impenitent after admonition. Now what if he that hath done the injury make full reparation, and all real satisfaction to the brother injured, and yet continue impenient showing no symptom at all of repentance, must he not by Mr Prynnes exposition be esteemed as an heathen man and a Publican, because of his visible and scandalous impenitency? How often hath it been seen that a man was compelled by Law, or persuaded by friends to make a real restitution and full satisfaction for a civil or personal injury; and yet hath given very great scandal by his impenitency, not so much as confessing, but still defending and justifying his sinful act, in his discourses? 4. The dependency upon the preceding parts of that Chapter confirmeth it: from the beginning of the Chapter to this very Text, vers. 15. Christ hath been upon the doctrine of scandals, warning us not to offend so much as one of his little ones, which he presseth by divers arguments. 5. The Erastians' and we do both agree in this, that Christ here hath a respect to the Jewish Government. Now the trespasses for which men were excommunicate by the Jewish Sanhedrin were scandalous trespasses, such as the despising of any of the precepts of the law of Moses, or Statutes of the Scribes: The doing of servile work upon Easter Eve: The mentioning of the Name of God rashly, or by a vain oath: The inducing of others to profane the Name of God, or to eat holy things without the holy place; and the like; More of this elsewhere, in the 24 causes of the Jewish Excommunication. 6. Mr Prynne expoundeth this Text in Matthew by 1 Cor. 5. 9, 10, 11, 12. but there the Apostle intends the purging of the Church from scandals, whether those scandals have any private injury in them or not. Instance in Idolatry and drunkenness, there mentioned. 7. I can also (without yielding the least advantage to the Erastian cause) admit and suppose that which is so much pressed both by Erastus, Mr Prynne, and others, viz. that these words, If thy brother trespass against thee, are spoken of a personal injury between man and man, Though I do not grant the thing, yet I am content, even upon their own supposition, to argue from this Text. And first, it may be answered with Aegidius de Coninck. de actib. supernat. Disp. 28. Dub. 8. that Christ doth not speak of the case of personal injuries, as if he meant to restrict unto such cases the order of proceeding for gaining of the offender's soul from sin; h Sed solùm exempli causa attulit tale genu● peccati, de quò maximè poterat dubitari, an in ejus correptione hic ordo servandus sit, & in quò difficillimè servetur, ob innatam multis cupiditatem vindictae. but only for examples sake he brought such kind of sin, of which it might have been most doubted, whether in the reproof thereof this order be to be kept, and in which it can be most hardly observed, in respect of the innate desire of revenge in many. 2. Let our opposites themselves say, whether we ought not in conscience and duty, endeavour the gaining of an offending brother's soul, when we see him commit a trespass against God, which is no personal injury to ourselves, as well as when the trespass is a personal injury. 3. As this order of proceeding here prescribed by Christ, is (in the case of a personal injury) the greatest trial of Christian love in the person offended, so it may (by God's blessing) be the stronger and more efficacious upon the person offending, to conquer and overcome his spirit, while he that might prosecute him in a legal and criminal way, cometh in meekness and love to admonish him, and to endeavour the gaining of him from sin by repentance. Which is the observation of chrysostom upon the place, for if he that might demand punishment upon him, even that man be seen to be taking care of his salvation, this most of all other things is able to make him ashamed, and to yield. 4. If it be a civil and personal injury matterially, yet it comes not in here under that formal consideration, but partly as a scandal to him that hath received the injury (so that chrysostom doth rightly make this Text to hang together with that which was said before in the same Chapter concerning scandals) partly as a soul-destroying sin upon him that doth the wrong, which doth endanger his salvation: And if under such a notion private injuries be here spoken of, then what have our opposites gained? 5. The scope also is not civil but wholly spiritual; which chrysostom doth very well explain. Hom. 60. in Matth. What is it, if he shall hear thee? if he shall be persuaded to condemn himself of sin. Thou hast gained thy brother, he saith not thou baste a sufficient punishment or satisfaction, but thou hast gained thy brother. And after, He saith not accuse, nor censure, nor demand punishments, but convince, saith he. The Context confirmeth it; for these words are added immediately after the parable of bringing home the lost sheep. Which parable we have also Luke 15. (where it is not applied to the reducing of such as have done private injuries, but of Publicans and sinners who were publicly scandalous: this I thought good to note by the way) Ammonius Alexandrinus de Quatuor Evang. consonantia, cap. 96, 97. doth together with the parable of the lost sheep, add also the other two, of the lost penny, and the lost son, immediately before these words, If thy brother trespass against thee etc. 6. And suppose that the business hath its rise and beginning from a personal injury, verse 15. yet the trespass for which the man is to be held as a Heathen and Publican, is a public scandalous sin against the Church or Congregation, namely his neglecting to hear the Church vers. 17. for it is not his first trespass, but his contumacy against the Church, which by this Text is to make him esteemed as an Heathen and a Publican. Before I leave this point, I will answer the chief Argument by which Eràstus would prove that this Text is meant only of private civil injuries: because (saith he) the trespass here spoken of is no other than what one brother may forgive to another. I answer, both he and Master Prynne do suppose this Text Mat. 15, 16, 17. to be parallel to that in Luk. 17. 3. 4. which they take for granted, without proof or reason. Certainly there is a great difference between the purpose and scope of the one place and of the other. It will be replied that even in this very Chapter Matth. 18. the next thing which follows vers. 21. is concerning personal injuries which one brother can and aught to forgive to another. Then came Peter to him and said, Lord how oft shall my Brother sin against me, and I forgive him? etc. To that I answer. 1. We cannot gather from the Text that Peter did propound this question immediately after or upon occasion of that which went before vers. 15, 16, 17, etc. where nothing is spoken of one Brother's forgiving another. We read Luk. 8. 19 Then came to him his Mother and his Brethren, etc. yet the meaning is not that his Mother and his Brethren came to him immediately after his speaking of the words before mentioned by Luke in that place; for that it was not after these, but after other words, is plain from the Harmony of the other Evangelists Matthew and Mark. So here these words Than came Peter, may very well relate to a new business and to another time. 2. Or if it was the same time, it might be said, Then came Peter, that is, Peter being absent, and not having heard that which Christ had been before speaking, he came immediately after, & did propound a new Question. 3. Suppose also that Peter was present and heard all which had been before spoken, yet it is much doubted among Interpreters, whence Peter had the rise and occasion of that Question. Some think it was upon his calling to mind those words in the rule of Prayer, even as we forgive those who trespass against us. Others conceive the occasion of his Question was that which was said vers. 19 Again I say unto you if two of you shall agree on earth, supposing that agreement (and consequently forgiving of injuries) is necessary to make our Prayers the more effectual; for my part, I think it not improbable that whatever the occasion of the Question was, vers. 21 beginneth a new and distinct purpose. Which I take to be the reason why the Arabik here makes an intercision, and beginneth the eight and fiftieth Section of Matthew at those words, Then came Peter and said, Lord how oft, etc. 4. And if vers. 21. have a dependence upon that which went before, it may be conceived thus: Christ had said, If thy Brother trespass against thee, go & tell him his fault between thee and him alone, which supposeth a continuance of the former Christian fellowship and fraternal familiarity, and that we must not cast off a scandalous Brother as lost, or as an Enemy, but admonish him as a Brother. This might give occasion to Peter to ask, Lord how oft shall my Brother sin against me, that is, scandalise me by his sin against God, (for even in Luk. 17. 3. 4. that of forgiving one that trespasseth against us, is added immediately after a Doctrine of scandals;) and I forgive him, that is, as Grotius expounds it, restore him to the former degree of friendship and intimate familiarity, to deal with him thus as with a Brother; Which he well distinguisheth from that other forgiving which is a not revenging. And so much of Master Prynnes first reason. His second reason is because the Mention of two or three witnesses vers. 16. relateth only to the manner of trying civil capital crimes (as murders and the like) before the civil Magistrates of the Jews, etc. not to any proceedings in Ecclesiastical causes, in their Ecclesiastical Consistories, of which we find no precedent. Answ. 1. If this hold, than the Text must not be expounded indefinitely of civil injuries (as he did before) but of civil capital injuries, whereas Erastus takes the meaning to be of smaller offences only, and not of Capital crimes. 2. The Law concerning two or three witnesses is neither restricted to Capital crimes, nor to civil Judicatories. I appeal to the Ordinance of Parliament dated Octo. 20. 1645. The Elder-ship of every Congregation shall judge the matter of scandal aforesaid, being not Capital, upon the Testmiony of two credible Witnesses, at the least. That Law therefore of witnesses is alike applicable to all causes and Courts Ecclesiastical and civil Deut. 19 30. One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses shall the matter be established. 3. And the same Law is in the new Testament clearly applied to proceedings in Ecclesiastical causes 2 Cor. 13. 1. & again 1 Tim. 5. 19 Against the Elder receive not an accusation but before two or three witnesses, which is not spoken to any civil Magistrate, but to Timothy and others joined with him in Church Government. His third reason doth only beg what is in Question, that by the Church is not meant any Ecclesiastical but a civil Court of the Jews. He needed not to cite so many places to prove that the Jews had civil Courts. If he could but cite one place, to prove that they had no Ecclesiastical Courts, this were to the purpose. Not that I grant that at this time the Jews had any civil Jurisdiction or Jewish Court of Justice; for after that Herod the great did kill Hircanus and the Sanhedrin, (in the opinion of many learned men) the Jews had no more any civil Jurisdiction. Now Herod the great was dead before the time of Christ's Ministry. Others think they had some civil Jurisdiction a while after Hircanus' death. How ever he cannot prove, that at this time when Christ said Tell the Church, the Jews had any civil Court of Justice, which did exercise either Criminal or Capital Judgements. I have in the first Book showed out of Buxtorf, L'Empereur, Casauhon, and I. Coch. (who prove what they say from the talmudical writers) that 40 years before the destruction of the Temple (and so before Christ said Tell the Church) the Court of civil Justice at Jerusalem did cease. If Master Prynne make any thing of this Gloss of his, he must prove 1. That there was no Ecclesiastical Court among the Jews. (I have before proved that that Council of the Jews in Christ's time was an Ecclesiastical Court, though he conceives it was merely civil) 2. That a private civil injury might not then, nor may not now, be brought before a civil Court, except after several previous admonitions despised. 3. That Chists Rule, Tell the Church was antiquated and ceased, when a civil Court of Justice among the Jews ceased. If he say that the same rule continueth for telling the civil Magistrate in case the offender prove obstinate after admonition, than I ask. ●. how will he reconcile himself? for pag. 4. he saith the Church in this Text is only the Sanhedrin or Court of civil Justice among the Jews. 2. If this Text Mat. 18. was applicable to the primitive Church after the destruction of jerusalem, and when there was no Jewish Sanhedrin to go to, than the Pagan Magistracy must pass under the name of the Church, for they had no other civil Court of Justice to go to. One thing I must needs take notice of, that whereas he would prove here that Tell the Church, is nothing, but, tell the civil Court of Justice among the Jews, commonly called the Council saith he, or Sanhedrin, he doth hereby overthrow all that he hath been building for the Jewish Sanhedrin at that time, had not power to judge civil, nor criminal, and least of all Capital offences, but only causes Ecclesiastical: The Romans having taken from them their civil Government, and left them no Government nor Jurisdiction except in matters of Religion. I hope Master Prynne will not in this contradict i confirm. Thesium lib. 2. cap. 2. Quis nescit illo tempore Judaeos sub Romanis vixisse, ac praesidem eorum p●rentibus omnibus jus dicere solitum suisse? Civilem potentiam ad se omnem f●rè per●raxerant, relicta potestate ipsis de rebus sacris judicandi, & secundum legis ceremonias vivendi. Idem lib. 3. cap. 1. Interim tamen pa●ebant Romanis: neque in aliis rebus potestatem servaverant integram, quam in rebus ad religionem morésque patrios pertinentibus. Erastus. And if so, how shall his Gloss stand, that this Text is to be understood of civil injuries yea, and of these only, for remedy whereof he conceives that Christ sends his Disciples to the Jewish Sanhedrin? How sweetly do his Tenants agree together? His fourth reason is, that those words, let him be to thee as an Heathen man and a Publican, cannot signify excommunication, because Heathen men being never members of the Church, could never be excommunicated or cast out of it, being uncapable of such a censure. As for publicans, those of them who were members of the Jewish Church, though they were execrable to the Jews, by reason of their Tax-gatherings and oppressions, yet we never read in Scripture, that they were excommunicated or cast out of their Synagogues, but contrarily, that they went up into the Temple to pray, as well as the Pharisees, and were more acceptable to Christ himself, etc. So likewise Sutlivius (against Beza) de pres●…yt. Cap. 9 pag. 57 I answer 1. by a retortion. Master Prynne p. 4. expounds these words, let him be unto thee as an Heathen man and a publican, to be meant of avoiding familiar fellowship with the Brother that hath committed a civil trespass, and keeping no more civil company with him. Now I argue thus ad hominem. This cannot be the meaning which he gives, because Heathens being never admitted into familiar fellowship and company with the Jews (who might not marry nor familiarly converse with them, as himself proveth pag. 4.) could never be cast out of their fellowship and company, being uncapable of any such thing. If our exposition of excommunication must drive us to acknowledge that Heathens were formerly members of the Jewish Church, his exposition of avoiding familiar fellowship, must drive him to acknowledge that formerly the Heathens were admitted into familiar fellowship with the Jews. 2. Those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, let him be unto thee, etc. do not look backward but forward; neither is the matching and comparing of the scandalous impenitent Brother, with an heathen, à priori, but à posteriori, so that no comparison is to be made between the praeterite Estate of an offending Brother, and the praeterite Estate of an Heathen man, but between the future Estate of an offending obstinate Brother, and the present Estate of an Heathen man. 3. Let him be unto thee as an Heathen, is as much as have no communion nor fellowship with him in the holy Assemblies nor in the Temple; for Heathens were not permitted to come into the Temple Ezek. 44. 7. 9 Act. 21. 28. whereupon Paul is accused for bringing Greeks into the Temple and so polluting that holy place Act. 21. 28. Heathens were excluded from Atrium Israelis, the Court of Israel, which was without the Court of the Priests. There was without the Court of Israel, Atrium Gentium, the Court of the Heathen, otherwise called Intermurale, because it lay between the Temple and the utter wall mentioned Ezek. 42. 20. Into this utmost Court or intermurale Heathen men were admitted to come and worship there, according to that 1 Kings. 8. 41. 2 Chro. 6. 32. They might not only come into the holy Land, but to the holy City, and not only to the holy City, but to the mountain of the house of the Lord, yea, not only to the mountain of the Temple, but within the utter Wall: yet into the Court of Israel which was properly the first or utter Court of the Temple, they were forbidden to enter. He that would be further satisfied that these things were so, let him read joseph. antiq. lib. 15. cap. 14. T●…status in 1. Reg. 8. quaest. 21. Arias Montanus de saer. fabric. pag. 15. Azorius Instit. moral Tom. 1. lib. 6 Chap. 53. L'Empereur Annot. in Cod Middoth cap. 2. Sect. 3. Peradventure you will say, if it was thus, than an excommunicate person being esteemed as an Heathen, must not g●t leave to hear the word, nor at all to enter into the places of public Ass●molies where the word was Preached. Answ. I will not now debate that point. Others have debated it with the Anabaptists who hold that excommunicate persons ought not be admitted to the Hearing of the word. Luc. Osiand. Enchirid. contra Anab. c. 6. quest. 2. but however it doth not follow upon what I have said, that excommunicate persons must be wholly excluded from hearing of the word. First, because the places of our public worship have no Sacramental significancy or holiness as the Temple and Tabernacle had of old: therefore say the professors of Leyden there is not the like reason to exclude excommunicate persons wholly from our Temples, as there was excluding them from the Temple of jerusalem. 2. because both Christ Io. 10. 23. and the Apostles Acts 5. 12. did use to Preach in Solomon's Porch, ( b josephus' antiq. lib. 20. cap. 8. Suasit (popu lus) regi ut orientalem instauraret porticum. Ea templi extima claudebat, profundae valli & augustae imminens, etc. Opus Solomonis, regis, qui primus integrum Templum condi●it. ) This Porch so called was the great east Porch in the Intermurale, whether Heathens were admitted, and so they did hear the word, though they had no leave to come into the Court of Israel, there to have fellowship with or to be esteemed and reputed among the people of God. Yea, as Master Selden tells us de Jure not. & Gent. lib. 3. cap. 6. some understand by Solomon's Porch act. 3. 11. & 5. 12. the very Court of the Gentiles, into which they came to worship, which Gentiles were not withstanding forbidden by a superscription under pain of death to enter into the Court of Israel, or into that which josephus calls the second Temple. josephus doth also make mention of four Porches of the Temple; into the utmost of which (& this is certainly meant of Solomon's porch) it was lawful for heathens to come. contra appron. l. 2. 4. For the other part, let him be unto thee as a publican, if the meaning were no more but this avoid all fellowship and familiarity with him, it doth not hurt our Exposition: exclusion from the Temple being clearly signified by his being as an Heathen: and avoiding of fellowship with him being in the most emphatical manner further expressed by his being as a publicans both these put together do the more fully hold forth excommunication. And in this sense some resolve the words. 5. Yet let us see how Master Prynne proves that the Publicans were admitted into the Temple or Synagogues. He tells us that Christ received them or conversed with them, as if the meaning had been to compare an impenitent Brother with penitent publicans, Luk. 18. 13. who drew near to Christ to hear him Luk. 15. 2. who left all and followed Christ to be among his disciples Matth. 10. 3. Luk. 5. 27, 28. Mark. 2. 15. who justified God Luk. 7. 29. who knew themselves to be sick of soule-diseases Matth. 9 12, 13. These very places cited by himself make against him. However the Question is how Publicans were esteemed of in the Jewish Church (for that is the thing pointed at in those words, let him be unto thee as a Publican) for that, he objecteth that Publicans went up into the Temple to pray. If he mean that Publicans who were neither devout Jews nor Proselytes, went up into the Temple to pray, had access to and fellowship in the Sacrifices and Temple worship, as well as the Jews themselves, it's more than he can prove. If he mean that publicans who were Jew's or Proselytes, went up into the Temple to pray, it helpeth him not, except he can prove that when Christ saith, let him be unto thee as an Heathen man and a publican, the meaning is of such a publican as was a devout Jew or proselyte. And if so, than he had to prove that the Jews did not keep civil company or fellowship, so much as with the religious publicans with whom they went together to the Temple to pray and worship. This also he hath to prove, not that religious publicans (of whom Christ means not) but that impious infamous Publicans came to the Temple. 6. That passage Luke 18. 10. concerning the Publicans goeing up to the Temple to pray; first, it is expressly declared to be a parable Vers. 9 and therefore can not prove the reality of the thing according to the letter, no more than an audible conference between Abraham and the rich man in Hell can be proved from Luke 16. 24. to the end of the Chapter, (though I believe that be a History related parabolically, as V●…ssius proveth in his Theses:) far less can a parable properly so called prove an historical narration. The meaning may be no other but this, that if such a Publican and such a Pharisee should go up to the Temple to pray, than the one should depart justified, and the other not. 7. I can also grant without any prejudice to the business of Excommunication that the Publican, yea an execrable Publican did go up to the Temple to pray. For an excommunicate person among the Jews (as many think) so long as there was hope of his repentance, had leave to come into the utter Court of the Temple, yet so that they came in at the gate of the mourners, and excommunicate persons were known by all that saw them, to be excommunicate persons. More of this Book 1. cap. 4. 8. This very Text Luke 18. helps us. For 'tis said Vers. 13. The Publican stood afar off, that is, (in the opinion of Diodati) in some remote part of the first Court of the Temple, 1 Kings 8. 41. It is very probable (whereof see Book 1. chap. 9 that the Intermurale or atrium Gentium is meant, which sometime hath the name of the Temple. To the Publicans standing afar off is opposed the Pharisees standing by himself, Vers. 11. where I construct 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Camero doth: So Camerarius and Beza following the Syriack and some old Greek copies: he stood apart by himself, the very custom making it so, that the Publican should not come near him, but stand in atrio Gentium. 9 The reason why Publicans are named as hateful and execrable persons, was not for civil respects, nor because Publicans, (for the Jews themselves did not refuse to keep company with good and just Publicans, as I shall prove afterwards:) particularly, it was not for their Tax-gathering (a particular mentioned by Mr Prynne, it seems to strengthen his exposition of civil injuries) but for divers scandalous sins and abominable profaneness, therefore publicans and sinners, publicans and harlots, publicans and gluttons, and wine-bibbers are almost synonyma's in the Gospel, Matth. 9 11. & 11. 19 & 21. 32. Murk 2. 16. Luke 5. 30. and Publicans are named as the worst of men, Matth. 5. 46, 47. the most of them being so reputed. From all this which hath been said in answer to his fourth reason it appeareth that let him be to thee as an Heathen and a Publican, is more than he would make it, keep not any familiar company, or have no civil fellowship with him. And whereas page 4. he saith that Paul expressly interprets it so, 1 Cor. 5. 10, 11, 12. 2 Thess 3. 4. Ephes. 5. 11. Rom. 16. 17. I answer out of himself, in that same place, and pag. 5. Let him be to thee as an Heathen, etc. is a phrase never used elsewhere in Scripture. How then, saith he, that Paul doth expressly interpret it? Paul commandeth to withdraw fellowship, (and that for any scandalous sin in a Church-member, although it be no private injury to us, as the places quoted by himself make it manifest) Therefore Paul doth expressly interpret that phrase Mat. 18. to be meant of withdrawing civil fellowship only. What consequence is there here? I come to his fifth and last reason, the words runue only, Let him be to thee as an Heathen man and a Publican, not to the whole Church. Answ. 1. This is the very thing he said in his first Quaere, which is answered before. I shall only add here another answer out of l Erast Cousirm. Thes. lib. 2. pag. 158. Quod uni dictum est, dictum toti est ecclesiae. At uni dictum est ut septuagies in die culpam deprecanti remit●at. Ergo tota Ecclesia deprecanti ignoscore debet, quo●iescunque in die sibi ignosci petot Nulla enim justa causa proferri poterit, cur tota Ecclesia non debeat facere in hac causa, quod singulis ejus membris praeceptum est. Erastus, who argueth thus: One brother should forgive another seventy times in a day, if the offending brother do so oft turn again and crave pardon: Therefore so should the Church do to a sinner that craveth pardon, even as often as he doth crave pardon. For (saith he) there can be no just reason given wherefore the whole Church ought not to do herein, what Church members ought to do severally. If this be a good argument when Christ saith, If thy brother repent, forgive him, Luke 17. 334. (by which place Mr Prynne expoundeth Matth. 18. 15.) will it not be as good an argument, Let him be to thee as an Heathen and a Publican, therefore let him be such to the whole Church, when the whole Church is offended by his obstinacy and impenitency? 2. Those words, Let him be to thee, cannot be restrictive. It must be at least extended to all such as are commanded to rebuke their brother, and if he continue obstinate to tell the Church. Now the commandment for rebuking our brother that falls into a scandalous sin, is not restricted to him that is personally or particularly wronged, but it is a common Law of spiritual love, Levit. 19 17. Yea, saith Mr Hildersham, lect. 36. on Psal. 51. Every man hath received ●… commandment from Christ, to inform●… the governor's of the Church of such a brother as cannot otherwise be reform, Matth. 18. 17. Tell the Church. If it belong to every Church member to reprove a scandalous sin which his brother committeth in his ●ight or hearing, or to his knowledge, and if he repent not, to tell the Church, than it also belongs to every Church member to esteem him as an Heathen man and a Publican, if he hear not the Church. 3. The next words, Whatsoever ye shall bind on Earth shall be bound in Hraven, being spoken to the Apo les, and in them to other Mini●ers of Jesus Christ, do expound the former words Let him be unto thee, etc. to be meant not of private withdrawing of fellowship, but of a public Church censure. 4. The reason why Chri● will have such an offender to be esteemed as an Heathen man and a Publican, is not the offence and fault first committed, but his obstinacy and contumacy in that offence, and his neglecting to hear the Church. So that suppose the offence had been a private or personal injury; yet that for which the offender is to be esteemed as an Heathen and a Publican, toucheth the whole Church, and is a general scandal to them all, namely his contumacy and not hearing the Church. How can it then be imagined, that Christ would only have one Church member to esteem a man as an Heathen and a Publican, for that which is a common general scandal to the whole Church? m Quod si hos contemn●t, indicetur Ecclesiae ejus pervicatia. Et si ne Ecclesiam au dierit, monitus scilicet à multis, habeatur ab eis veluti ethnicus & publicanus. Et quaecunque illi sic ligave in't, ligata habebuntur in caelis, hoc est, quos ita monitos ejecerint è suo consortio, ●i etiam apud patrem ejecti habebuntur. Munsterus in his Annotations upon Matth. 18. doth better hit the meaning, that the offender is to be esteemed as an Heathen man and a Publiean, by those who did before admonish him but were despised, that is, by the Church, whose admonitions being despised, they ought to cast out him who had despised them. 5. And how can it be supposed, that Christ would have one and the same person to be as a Heathen man and a Publican to one member of the Church, and yet not to be as ● Heathen man and a Publican, but as a brother received in fellowship by the whole Church? Sure this were a repugnancy between the judgement of the whole Church, and the judgement of one member of the Church: and two things which are repugnant can not be both of them agreeable to the will of Christ. CHAP. III. A further demonstration that these words, Let him be to thee as an Heathen man and a Publican, are not meant of avoiding Civil, but Religious or Church-fellowship. I Hope I have already made it to appear that to draw Excommunication from Matth. 18. is not to extract water out of flint, as Mr Prynne supposeth: but that it cometh as liquidè from the Text, as water out of the fountain. Wherein I am the more confirmed, because Mr Prynnes exposition of these words, Let him be to thee as an Heathen man and a Publican, can not stand, for he takes the sense to be no more but this, keep not any civil fellowship or company with such a one. Now that this can not be our Saviour's meaning, I prove thus. 1. If a private man shall thus at his own hand withdraw and separate from an offending brother, as from an Heathen man and a Publican, n Martyr in 1 Cor. 5. ult. loc. de excom. Verum si hoc pro suo arbitrio cuique permittatur, ut facultatem habeat discedend● & separandi se à quibus voluerit, simultates, contentiones, & discordiae, longè graviores orientur, quam si publicâ excommunicatione uteremur. what order, peace, or good government can there be either in Church or State? And all the odium cast upon Excommunication (as contrary to the spiritual privileges of Christians) will fall more heavy upon his own way, which brings any man (be he Prince, Parliament-man, Pastor, or whoever he be) under so much slavery to the lust of any private person, that he may be by that person (and by ten thousand persons more, in case of so many civil injuries, not amended after complaint to the Magistrate) esteemed, avoided, and abhorred, as an Heathen man and a Publican. So that in the issue it may fall out, that any man how eminent or deserving soever he be in Church or State, may be looked upon as a Heathen and a Publican by ten thousand of the people, before ever he be so judged by any Judicature. For instance, put case that a Minister be judicially convict to have wronged his parishioners in the matter of small tithes, and they conceive him to persevere in the same injury, must or may each of them flee from him as from an Heathen and a Publican? Put case a whole company think themselves wronged in pay or otherwise by their Captain, or a whole Regiment by their Colonel, and after complaint made find themselves not repaired, are they therefore free to avoid all civil company with the Captain or Colonel, and to flee from them as from Heathens and Publicans? And what if both the Lord Major of London and many godly Ministers who have eat at his Table, should accuse Mr. Prynne of a calumny, because of that passage in his Book, pag. 12. where he saith of Anabaptists, Separatists, Independents, Presbyters or Divines, Neither of which make any conscience of not repairing to the Lord Majors, or any other public City feast, where they are sure of good fare, because they were certain there to meet and eat with some covetous or other scandalous persons, with whom St. Paul probibtes them, no not to eat? If, I say, the Lord Major should accuse Mr Prynne for slandering him and his house with the company of scandalous persons: and if many godly conscientious Ministers should accuse him for aspersing them, as having more love to good fare, than conscience of avoiding to eat with scandalous persons: And if after sentence passed against Mr Prynne he should still continue impenitent and not confess his fault in this particular? Will he allow the Lord Major, and all the godly Ministers who have eaten at the Lord Major's table to avoid Mr Prynne as an Heathen and a Publican? Let him take heed whether his principles will lead him. 2. Mr Prynne saith pag. 4. that Let him be to thee as an Heathen and a Publican, is interpreted by 1 Cor. 5. 10, 11, 12. 2 Thess. 3. 14. and elsewhere by Paul. Now that place of the Corinthians which he citeth, is meant of Excommunication, as shall be proved in due time. And vers. 12. (cited by himself) makes it plain, that a judicial act, not a private man's withdrawing only, is meant; for that verse speaks twice of judging, an Apostolical judging, and an Ecclesiastical judging. And the best interpreters expound 2 Thess. 3. 14. of Church censures. It's not the case of private civil injucies which the Apostle there speaks of, but the case of public scandal, If any man be disobedient to the Apostolical Epistle, note that man, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, put a mark upon him, that is, let him be publicly censured, Let him be separated from you, saith the Syriak, and then have no company with him, and all this that he may be ashamed, which must needs be by some public censure or black mark put upon him. 3. Let him be to thee as an Heathen; if it be meant of keeping no civil company, he must show us that the Jews of old were and Christians under the new Testament are forbidden to keep civil company with Heathens and those that are without the Church. He goeth about to prove that the phrase is taken from the practice of the Jews in that age, pag. 4. But how doth he prove it? He citeth some places to prove that the Israelites might not marry with the Canaanites, but he doth not prove that they might not keep civil company with any of the Heathens. There was no such favour nor fellowship permitted between the Israelites and the Canaanites, as between the Israelites and other Gentiles who came among them from other Lands, as Tostatus noteth in Matth. 26. quaest. 43. The reason was because God had destinat the Canaanites to utter destruction, and that the whole Land of Canaan should be given to the children of Israel. Only some few by special dispensation were spared as the Gibeonites because joshua and the Princes had sworn unto them, and Rahab with her kindred because she saved the spies. But such extraordinary cases excepted, the Israelites ought not to permit any of the Canaanites to live, nor receive them though they had been willing to be circumcised as Tostatus there thinketh. However that great distance and alienation in point of fellowship between the Israelites and the Canaanites, was not qua Heathens, but qua Canaanites, otherwise the children of Israel had been obliged to root out other Nations as well as the Canaanites. Yea the Law puts an express difference between the Nations, in so much that some of them were not to be abominate, though others were, Deut. 23. 7. Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite, for he is thy brother: thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian, because thou wast a stranger in his Land. The very Canaanites themselves were by the Law, Deut. 20. 10, 11. to have so much favour as an offer of peace, which if any of their Cities had accepted, that City was not to be cut off, but the people thereof were to be tributaries, and to serve Israel, and so permitted to live among them. The last of his citations maketh very much against him, namely, Acts 21. 28, 29. where the Jews of Asia do accuse Paul for bringing Greeks into the Temple. For they had seen before with him in the City Trophimus an Ephesian, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the Temple. Mark here Paul is not challenged for conversing familiarly with a Greek, but only for bringing him into the Temple; and without all doubt the malice of his adversaries did catch at every advantage which they could have against him. I cannot but admire how M. Prynne could cite this place to prove that the Jews might not converse nor keep civil company with the Heathens, since it proveth the very contrary, that the Jews might have civil, but no religious fellowship with Heathens. And whereas he addeth that the Jews had no dealing or conversation with the Samaritans, Joh. 4. 9 Luke 9 52, 53. I answer, the reason was because the Jewish Church had excommnnicated and anathematised for ever the Samaritans, who being once circumcised and having received the book of the Law, did afterward hinder the building of the house of the Lord. This Excommunication of the Cuthites or Samaritans most solemnly performed you may find in Pirke R. Ecclesiae, cap. 38. More of this elsewhere. Here I only touch it, to show that this also of the Samaritans makes against him. 4. It is certain that the Jews had civil company and conversation with Heathens. For Solomon's servants and hiram's servants were both together. 1 Kings 5. 18. 2 Chr. 2. 8. yea, 2 Chr. 2. 17, 18. Solomon numbered of strangers or heathens in the Land of Israel, a hundred fifty and three thousand and six hundred. Could there be so many of them and employed also in the building of the Temple, and yet no civil company kept with them? Nehemiah in the Court of Artaxerxes, and Daniel with his companions in the court of Nebuchadnenar had civil company with Heathens, but religious company with them they would have none. We find the King of Edom in fellowship with jehoshaphat and jehoram, 2 Kings 3. And the Merchants of Tyre were permitted to come into jerusalem, and there to fallen all manner of ware unto the children of juda, only they were forbidden to do it upon the Sabbath day, Nehem. 13. 16, 20, 21. L'Empereur de legibus Ebraeorum forensibus pag. 180, 181. putteth it out of controversy, that in Christ's time there were many Heathens in the Land of Canaan with whom the Jews did converse and dwell together; and that Christ found in those places where he preached both Jews and Gentiles. Istis locis inter istos commorabantur Gentiles, qui magistrorum placitis se astringi passi non sunt. And a little after, Nec enim Israelitas ab alienigenarum urbibus abstinuisse, josephus Indicat. And that long before that time there was a mutual conversing of Jew's and Gentiles, I gather from 1 Kings 20. 34. Thou shalt make streets for thee in Damascus as my father made in Samaria, meaning for trade and commerce. I will here anticipate a great objection which may be made against me, from Acts 10. 28. Ye know that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company or come unto one of another Nation. This might seem to make more for Mr Prynnes exposition, than all the places cited by himself. But I answer, for the better understanding of that place, first of all observe what Drusius Quaest & resp. lib. 2. quaest. 67. tells us out of Elias in Thesbite: The Jews had an old law against drinking Wine with Gentiles or Heathens, Lata videlicet eo tempore quo gentes vinum libabant in sacris, the Law was made at that time when the Gentiles used a praelibation of Wine in their idolatrous solemnities: whereupon the wise men of the Jews fearing jest Heathen men should give to Jew's that Wine which had been dedicated to Idols did forbid the Jews to drink Wine with Heathens: which (as other Statutes of their wise men) the Jews did religiosè religiously observe. Mark we hence, 1. It was not a general received custom among the Jews, in no case to eat or drink with Heathens; else it had been unnecessary and supervacaneous to forbid the drinking of Wine with Heathens, exceptio affirmat regulam in non exceptis. 2. It was for a religious and conscientious reason, propter 〈◊〉 idololatriae, for fear of partaking with Idolatry, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 civil respects, that they were forbidden to drink Wine with the Gentiles. The same I say of their shunning to eat with them, for the Heathens used also a dedicating of their meats to Idols, 1 Cor. 10. 27. Secondly, observe Peter addeth immediately: but God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean: meaning, so as not to keep company with him because of his Gentilism or uncircumcision, or because of his eating of meats which were unclean by the ceremonial Law, as Ludovicus de Dieu doth rightly give the meaning, understanding, not moral, but only ceremonial uncleanness to be there spoken of; for many men under the Gospel are still to be looked upon and avoided as morally unclean. But God had taught Peter by abrogating the ceremonial differences of meats in the vision, that the ceremonial Law which was the partition wall between Jews and Gentiles, was now to be taken away: so that the Gentiles should be no longer called dogs, as Matth. 15. 26. neither were the Disciples to be forbidden any longer to go into the way of the Gentiles, Matth. 10. 5. Henc forth no man should be called holy because of his circumcision, no man unclean because of his uncircumcision. This being the meaning, it followeth that the unlawfulness of eating and companying with an Heathen mentioned Act. 10. 28. must not be so understood, as if bare civil fellowship had been unlawful; but it must be understood, first, in reference to the moral Law, that is for avoiding the danger of Idolatry in eating or drinking that which Idolatrous Heathens had sacrificed to Idols, as hath been just now cleared. Secondly, in reference to the Ceremonial Law, or of such fellowship as was contrary to the ceremonial Law, in eating together with Heathens of meats legally unclean, such as were represented to Peter in the vision, and he commanded to eat what was formerly unclean to him. Otherwise when the Gentiles did not eat any thing which the Jews were forbidden to eat, it was lawful for the Jews to eat with the Gentiles saith Tostatus in 2. Paral. 6. Quest. 21. So likewise Grotius de Jure Belli ac pacis lib. 2. cap. 15. Sect. 9 where he referreth the Jews their not eating with the Heathens, to the Law of meats or the peculiaris victus which was prescribed to the Jews. But otherwise the Law did not make it unlawful for them to eat with any of another Nation: which he thinks is proved by Christ's own example who took a drink of water from the woman of Samaria, being yet most observant of the Law. That the unlawfulness of eating with the Heathens was understood in reference to the ceremonial Law, I prove, from Gal. 2. 12. 14. Peter having before eaten with the Gentiles, to avoid the scandal of some Jews that came from james, did withdraw and separate himself from the believing Gentiles: What? to keep no more any civil company with them. I hope no man will imagine that. But the Text expounds itself vers. 14. If thou being a jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as do the jews, why compelest thou the Gentiles to live as do the jews? This was Peter's fault, that having formerly lived as the Gentiles, that is, eating with them all sorts of meats freely, thinking himself liberate from the Yoke of the ceremonial Law, afterward he withdrew and separated himself from that manner of fellowship with the Centiles, and bound up himself to live as do the Jews, and to observe the distinction of meats according to the Law. And in so doing, whiles he avoided the scandal of the Jews, he gave a greater scandal to the Gentiles in compelling them by the authority of his example to Judaize, and to think the ceremonial Law necessary. Thirdly, The foresaid place Act. 10. is to be understood of such fellowship as was not merely civil, but religious and sacred: as may appear, 1. by the exposition formerly given of these words, God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean. 2. by the invitation of the men that were sent from Cornelius to Peter who did not call him to civil but to sacred fellowship Act. 10. 22. And they said, Cornelius the Conturion, a just man and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the Nation of the Jews, was warned from God by an holy Angel, to send for thee into his house and to hear words of thee. 3. Peter calls in the men and lodgeth them; that being a civil fellowship, he doth it freely, v. 23. but when he comes to Cornelius and those that were assembled with him, to hear words from Peter, here was the case of conscience, and here Peter beginneth to apologise v. 28. ye knew how that it is an unlawful thing, etc. The Syriak hath it thus, ye know that it is not lawful for a man that is a Jew to join himself unto a man that is a stranger, who is not a son of his generation: as it were intimating a religious and Church fellowship. 4. That which gave offence to them of the circumcision at jerusalem. was, that they heard Peter had so gone in to men uncircumcised, that they had also received the word of God from him Act. 11. 1. 3. And as soon as they were satisfied in that point, that God had given unto the Gentiles repentance unto life vers. 18. they held their Peace, and made no further scruple concerning eating with them. I hope I have sufficiently answered the strongest objection which can be made against that which I did begin to prove, namely, that the Jews might and did keep civil company and fellowship with Heathens. Which that I may now further consirme, let it be observed with Schindlerus in lexic. pentaglo p. 297. that there were two sorts of Proselytes among the Jews. Some that were circumcised and received the Law of Moses; and such a one was even as a Jew, and was called Proselytus justitiae or faederis, a righteous or a true Proselyte, or a Proselyte of the Covenant. Others, that did only renounce ldolatry and keep the seven precepts given to the sons of Noah, not being circumcised nor keeping the Law of Moses, were permitted to dwell with the Jews, and therefore such a one was called Proselytus portae or Proselytus incola, a Proselyte of the Gate, or a Proselyte indweller, who dwelled within their Gates. See for the same thing L'Empereur de legibus Ebraeorum forensibus pag. 72 Buxtorflexic. Rabbin. p. 408. 409. Grotius de Jure belli acpacis lib. 1. cap. 1. Sect. 16. Henr. Vorstius observ. ad chronol. R. Ganz. pag. 279. Georgius Genzius in annot. ad Maimon. canon. Ethic. p. 91. 92. To the same purpose, Master Ainsworth annot. in Gen. 9 4. and on Exod. 12. 45. and on Levit. 22. 10. hath noted out of the Hebrew writers: that such of the Heathens as did observe the seven precepts given to the Sons of Noah, though they were not circumcised, neither did observe the Ordinances of the ceremonial Law, nor were admitted to the holy things of the Children of Israel, yet they were permitted to cohabit and converse with the people of God in the holy Land. And that it was so, may be proved from Levit. 25. 6. 45. 47. (where the Chaldee hath an uncircumcised indweller) Deut. 14. 21. yea, such a one might dwell in the Priest's house Leu. 22. 10. The Jews receive no Proselyte now except one that undertakes to keep the whole Law to the least jote, as Doctor Buxtorf informs us in the place last cited: and so they are a great deal more strict in reference to the Gentiles than the Ancient Jews were. Notwithstanding they do without scruple familiarly converse and keep company with Gentiles who keep not the last of the seven precepts which bind (as they think) all the Sons of Noah, namely that concerning the not eating of blood. How much more may we suppose that the Ancient Jews did keep civil company and fellowship with such Gentiles as did observe all these seven precepts? And this comparison the Jews have made between themselves and the Gentiles in reference to the Law of Moses. It is our inheritance, not theirs: as for them, let them observe the seven precepts. Exc. Gem. Sanhedrin. cap. 7. Sect. 6. So that the Jews were not scandalised at the Gentiles their not observing of the whole Law of Moses, not being circumcised, etc. but at their not keeping of those seven precepts, which were also a part of the Law of Moses. This to me appeareth to be a chief reason (if not the reason) why the Synod of the Apostles & Elders at jerusa. did impose upon the Churches of the Gentiles no other burden of Jewish rites & Ceremonies, but to abstain from blood & things strangled: they did not impose circumcision, nor holy days, nor the like: because that which was intended was, to draw together the believers of the Jews & the believers of the Gentiles into a familiar conversation, that they might live together and eat together without scandal: and this could not be, except the believing Gentiles should observe the seven precepts which were given not only to the posterity of Abraham, but to the posterity of Noah; of which precepts one did forbid the eating of blood Gen. 9 4. (and under that is comprehended also the eating of things strangled) Now there was no doubt of the believing Gentiles their observing of the other six precepts which the Hebrews say were observed from Adam to Noah: the first against Idolatry, 2. against blasphemy, 3. against shedding of blood, 4. against uncleanness or unlawful copulations, 5. against Rapine or Robbery, 6. for executing judgement and inflicting punishment upon malefactors. All the question was of the seventh and last against eating of blood, which the believing Gentiles (though they knew it to be older than the ceremonial Law or circumcision itself, and to belong to all the posterity of Noah, yet) knew to be temporary and not perpetual, and so at the abrogation of the other ceremonies, and propagation of the Gospel to the Gentiles, thought themselves free from that, as well as other Ceremonies. On the other part, it was a principle among the Jews, that they ought not to converse familiarly with any of the Gentiles, except such as observe the seven precepts given to the Sons of Noah. Wherefore the Synod of the Apostles and Elders thought good that the believing Gentiles should so far condescend to the weakness of the Jews (not fully instructed concerning Christian liberty, and the abrogation of the old ceremonies) as to observe for a time that precept against eating blood, as well as the other precepts given to the Sons of Noah; to the intent that the Jews and Gentiles might Peaceably and familiarly cohabite and converse together: for though the Gentiles did not observe the other ordinances and ceremonies of the Jews: yet observing those seven precepts, they were free to converse familiarly with the Jews. Schindlerus in his Lexicon pentagl. pag. 298. land pag. 1530 seemeth to have had the same notion; for he saith the Apostles and Elders would not impose circumcision and the keeping of the Law of Moses, but they imposed some things not unlike to the precepts given to the Sons of Noah. I return to that distinction of the two sorts of Proselytes. The one had the name of Gerard tzedek a Proselyte of righteousness, and Gerard beareth, a Proselyte of the Covenant. The other was called Gerard toschav, a Prosclyte indweller and Gerard schagnar, a Proselyte of the Gate, qui intra portas, inter Judaeos scilicet habitabat, who dwelled within the Gates, to wit among the Jews saith Mathias Martinius in Lexic. philol. pag. 2922. This Proselyte indweller was not called nor esteemed as one of the Jews, being no Church Member, nor admitted to any religious or Church Commnnion with the Jews, but he was still esteemed and reckoned as one of the uncircumcised Gentiles. Yet the jews did keep civil company and fellowship with such a one, as with a neighbour and a inhabitant of the same City, or Land. And if the Jews had not been free to keep civil company with Heathens or Infidels, yet Christians are expressly allowed to do so. 1 Cor. 10. 27. If any of them that believe not, bid you to a Feast, and ye be disposed to go, whatsoever is set before you, eat, ask no question for conscience sake; and Ch. 5. 10. 11. 12. the Apostle permitteth Christians to company and eat with Fornicators, Covetous, Extortioners, or Idolaters, who are no Church-Members, but by no means with scandalous Brethren. I do not dispute whether any more liberty of this kind is granted to Christians, than peradventure was granted to the Jews. Yet I am sure a great measure of the liberty of civil fellowship with Heathens was granted to the Jews also. It must needs follow from that which hath been said, that, Let him be unto thee as an Heathen man and a Publican, is not a casting out from mere civil fellowship and company, but from religious and Church-fellowship. This agreeth well with that passage in josephus contra Appionem lib. 2. Whoever (of the Gentiles) are willing to come and live under our Law, it doth freely receive them esteeming Communion to consist not only in origination or descent, but also in choice of life. But as for those (of the Gentiles) who come occasionally among us, our Law doth not admit them into our solemn or sacred Assemblies, but it appointeth to communicate unto them all such things as they need, as fire, water meat, also to show them the way, and to let none of them be unburied. (So likewise Publicans noted for impiety and injustice were permitted to be City Members, but not owned for Church-Members) Grotius de Jure Belli ac pacis lib. 2. c. 15. Sect. 9 holds that it was lawful for the Jews, not only to have company and commerce with Heathens, but to do them good and to enter in League and Covenant with them, such only excepted as the Law did accurse, namely the seven Nations in Canaan, the Amalekites, Ammonites and Moabites. He brings among other things the example of the Asmonites, who as they were themselves skilled in the Law, so with the approbation both of Priests and People, they made a Covenant with the Lacedæmonians and Romans: yea publicly prayed for them. Learned Master Selden de Jure not. & Gent. lib. 2. c. 3 doth not only confirm what hath been said before of the Proselyti Domicilii, Heathens not circumcised nor keeping the Law of Moses, but observing the seven precepts given to the Sons of Noah, and that such were permitted to dwell together with the Children of Israel; but he further tells us out of Maimonides that though when the Jewish Republic did flourish and when they were sui Juris, no strangers were permitted to dwell among them except such as did renounce Idolatry and keep the seven precepts, yet after the captivity and under the Romans, the Jews did allow to themselves a common commerce and civil conversing even with such Gentiles, as had not renounced the Pagan or Idolatrous worship; & as for such of the Gentiles, as the Jews did observe to be good men whom they called ex piis è Gentibus mundi, such as Cornelius the Centurion, to whom the Jews themselves gave a good estimony of these he saith that though they were not formally admitted and received as Proselyte indwellers were wont to be (that formal reception of Proselyti Domicilii having ceased in those later times) yet he puts it out of doubt that the Jews were willing that such Gentiles should dwell among them. Add hereunto that which Gul. Vorstius annot. in Maimon. de fundam●…legis cap. 5. Sect. 9 observeth ou● of Beth Joseph de Idololat. and out of aboda zara, that a Heathen man was permitted to be Phi●tian to a Jew, provided that he should not entice him to Idolatry: and that a Jew also was permitted to be Physician to a Gentile, for which purpose they alleged the example of Moses who (as their Tradition told them) did practice medicine in Egypt. Furthermore when Master Prynne understands nothing by those words Let him be unto thee as an Heathen man and a Publican, but avoid civil fellowship and keep no familiar company with him, and expounds it also by 1 Cor. 5. 11. with such a one not to eat (which he still conceives to be only meant of avoiding civil fellowship) and by 2. Io. 10. receive him not into thy house. He is twice out, both because the Jews did keep civil company with Heathens which hath been proved: and also because (if we believe the Jewish writters concerning the customs of their Nation) the Rabbis or wise men among them did not keep familiar fellowship nor civil company with the Plebeians of the Jews themselves: they were forbidden to eat and drink with or among the Plebeians. Maimen de fundam. legis cap. 5. Sect. 13. neither might they converse in the paths nor come into the houses of the Plebeians. Ibid. Sect. 14. Gul. Vorstius in his annot. pag. 73. addeth a passage in Misua that a wise man might neither lodge with a Plebeian nor receive a Plebeian to lodge with him. Nevertheless a wise man was permitted to converse not only civilly but frequently with an Heathen man, for which see Master Selden de Jure not. & Gent. lib. 6. cap. 10. quoniam nihil mali ex Gentilium consuetudine viro scientiori im●…inere censebant. So that in Master Pryn●… sense, all the Plebeians of the Jews themselves were as Heathens and Publicans, or civilly excommunicated by their wise men. Wherefore we must needs distinguish a two fold communion or fellowship among the Jews, one civil, another Ecclesiastical; It was the shutting out from the Ecclesiastical communion of the Jews, which Christ alludes to Mat. 18. for beside the distinct notions of the Jewish Church and the Jew State (of which before) Is. Abrabanel de capitc fidei cap. 6. speaking of certain fundamental Articles which the Jewish Church did believe, saith, they were intended to be Articles of Judaisme, so that he that should believe these should be in the communion of Israel: and Ib. cap. 3. speaking of an Article concerning the coming of the Messiah, he moves a doubt about it, because Rabbi Hillell who denieth it, was not excluded from the communion of the Law, for the Gema●…a gives him the Title of Rabbi. When he comes to the solution of this doubt cap. 14. he clears Rabbi Hillell, as not denying that Article. But all this intimateth that for heresy there was a shutting out from Ecclesiastical communion: Or that an heretical apostate Jew was unto them as an Heathen man; and therefore they were permitted to take usury as from strangers or Heathens, so from an apostate Jew, quia fratris nomen exuerat saith Master Selden de Jure not. & Gent. lib. 6 c. 10. In Tzemach David edit. Hen. Uorst. pag. 67. it is said that the chief of the Heretics were Tzadok and Baythos, who denying rewards and punishments after this life, exiverunte communione (vel caetu Israelis) they went out from the Ecclesiastical communion of Israel. This is good reason to say of a son of Israel, if he be a son of Belial, let him be to thee as an Heathen, that is, esteem him as profane, and as lost as an Heathen; have no more Church communion with him then with an Heathen. And by this time I suppose it doth fully appear to the intelligent Reader that some uncircumcised Heathens were admitted in to the civil fellowship, and some Israelites continued not in the Ecclesiastical fellowship of ihe Jews: which overturneth the whole strength of Mr Prynnes answer to our argument from Matth. 18 But once more, (for I have thought good to insist the longer upon this point, because much dependeth upon it.) Let him be to thee as an Heathen, doth forbid Ecclesia●icall communion, not civil company except secondarily & as a consequent of Excommunication, & for spiritual respects and ends (as I shall show anon) but it is not meant of abstaining from mere civil company & fellowship: because the Jews were permitted to keep civil company and fellowship with Heathens, even any civil company which did not encroach upon Religion, or had appearance of an ensnarement into Idolatry, and in that respect (as participating of Religious fellowship) became unlawful. This is the point I have been proving, and which I will yet further prove out of Maim mides de Idolalotria cap▪ 9 That one Chapter is sufficient to 〈◊〉 the present question. Thus it begins. Three days before the feasts (or holidays) of Heathens that worship Idols, we are forbidden to buy from them, or to sell unto them any durable thing; to take or give any thing in lend; to take or make payment of that which was given in lend upon writ, or pledge; but what was given in lend upon words only, it is lawful to exact; because this seemeth to be taken out of their hands. It is also lawful to sell unto them, that which can not last, as green herbs or anything sodden; and that ever until their holy day. You see it was lawful among the Jews to buy and sell, borrow and lend, to make contracts, with Heathens, yea with Idolatrous Heathens; only in some (not in all) things there was a restraint upon them, and that but three days before the Heathen sestivities. Then follows Sect. 2. This hath place in the land of the Israelites: but in the other lands, it is not forbidden except upon their holy day. If any man transgress, by having trade or commerce with them, during that space of three days, it is lawful (though) to use the ware: but if any man trade with them upon their holiday, the things are forbidden to be used. It is unlawful also to send a gift to an Heathen man upon his holy day: unless it be known that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n●…t 〈◊〉 the worship of Idols, neither ser●…eth them. But if som●… 〈◊〉 m●…n upon his Holiday send a gift to an Israelite, let him not take it from him, 〈◊〉 it be suspected that h●… will be offended. Nevertheless●… he shall not use it, until it be known that the Heathen man doth not worship Idols nor esteem them to be Gods. Observe 1. that the things mentioned in the first Section, though unlawful to the ●ewes in their own Land, three days before the Heathenish 〈◊〉, yet they held them not unlawful in other Lands. 2. They held it lawfll for a Jew to send a gift to an Heathen man, or to receive a gift from him, so that it were not upon the Heathenish festivity. 3. Yea in some cases it was permitted to a Jew to send a gift to an Heathen man, upon the very Heathen festivity, (to wit, if he knew that Heathen man to be no worshipper of Idols) as likewise to receive a gift from him (though upon the holy day) for avoiding of offence. Sect. 4. reckoneth among the Heathenish festivities a day set apart by them for coronation of a King, or in memory of a man's nativity, deliverance out of danger, or the like. Then it is added Sect. 5. But with those Idolaters who spend that day in mirth and gladness, eating and drinking, and observe that day whether for custom or for the King's honour, nevertheless hold it not for a holy day, it is lawful to have commerce and trade. Wh●n conversing with Heathens did not entrench upon Religion, they could do it without scruple, even upon the Heathens good days or solemnities of joy. Then Sect. 8. Is Israelites dwell among Heathens with whom they have made a Cov●…nt, it is lawful to sell arms to the King's servants and to his military forces, etc. It is unlawful to enter into a Town in which Idolatry is practised: it is lawful to come out of it. But if the Idol be without the Town, it is also lawful to enter in it. If the Jews might dwell among and enter into league and covenant with Heathens, yea enter into the Towns of Idolaters, when the Idol was not in Town, than they held it not unlawful to have any civil company with Heathens. It follows Sect. 11. It is lawful to go to the markets or fairs of Heathens, and to buy from them beasts, man-servants, maidservants, though they be yet Heathens: also houses fields, vineyards. Also for writing (contracts) it is permitted to go to their judicial courts. If it be objected that Sect. 12. doth forbid an Israelite to come to the banquet of a Heathen, which he hath made for his son or for his daughter; I answer from that very place. For lest this should be taken for a prohibition of civil fellowship, Maimonides did add these words. Now this interval is appointed for Idolatry: for it is said, and one call thee, and thou eat of his Sacrifice, and thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and they go a wboring after their Gods: citing Exod. 34. 15, 16. From all which I conclude, that Christ's words, relating to the Jewish custom, Let him be to thee as a Heathen man, cannot be meant (as Mr Prynne would have them) of avoiding mere civil company and fellowship; for as much as it was not held unlawful among the Jews to have civil company and commerce with Heathens. Sure the Jews of our age are far from holding such a thing unlawful. Yea so far I am unsatisfied with Mr Prynnes interpretation, that I verily believe (and so do some others) a part of the intendment of these words, Let him be to thee as an Heathen man and a Publican, is to hold forth the lawfulness, yea the obligation of performing all natural (and in divers cases moral) duties to a person Excommunicated: I mean that the Text doth intimate thus much. As upon the one hand the contumacious offender who will not hear the Church, is to be used no better than an Heathen or a profane Publican, and is not to be admitted to any Ordinance, except such as Heathens and profane Publicans are and may be admitted unto; So upon the other hand, let him have no worse usage and entertainment, than those very Heathens and Publicans, unto whom all natural and some moral duties are performed, notwithstanding they be Heathens and Publicans. For the Apostle commandeth Christians to be subject even to Heathen Magistrates, servants to honour and be subject to heathen and ungodly Masters, the wife not to depart from the husband because he believeth not. So that this rule of Christ, Matth. 18. 17. is so full and perfect, as to teach us, as well what fellowship is lawful with such a one, as what fellowship is not lawful to be kept with him. I do not deny but that (according to the ordinary rule) fellowship with an excommunicate person in meat, drink, familiarity, and salutations, is unlawful, as well as in the Sacrament and prayer, according to the received rule: Si pro delictis, anathema quis efficiatur; Os, or are, vale, communio, mensa negatur. And the Scripture forbidding to eat with such a one, or to have company with him, or to bid him God speed, will reach as far. Nevertheless there are divers excepted or reserved cases in which the performance of natural duties unto and keeping of civil company with an excommunicate person is allowed. The exception made from the rule is this: Haec anathema quidem faciunt, ne possit obesse: Utile, lex, humile, res ignorata, necesse. Utile, as when a man seeketh payment of debt from an excommunicate person. Lex, because the law alloweth husband and wife to company together, though the one of them be excommunicate. Humile, because children may and aught to do the duties of children, and servants the duty of servants, and subjects the duty of subjects, and vassals the duty of vassals, and soldiers the duty of soldiers, in companying with submitting unto, honouring and obeying of their excommunicated Parents, Masters, Kings, Lords, Commanders. R●…s ignorata, when he that companieth with an excommunicate person, doth not know that he is excommunicate. Necesse, as when a man passeth through the Land or is under the power of excommunicate persons, or some such way is drawn into a necessity of speaking and companying with them. All which is most agreeable to this expression, Let him be unto thee as an Heathen man and a Publican, and to the nature of Excommunication, which doth not break asunder natural or moral, but spiritual and ecclesiastical bonds. If it be asked why then are we forbidden to eat with an excommunicate person, or to bid him God speed; I answer, these things are not forbidden but under a spiritual notion and for a spiritual end, that the offender may be ashamed and humbled, that others may not be deceived by countenancing of him or companying with him, and that our eating with him or saluting of him may not be interpreted as a conniving at, or complying with his sins, or as a sign of Christian fellowship with a scandalous person formerly called a brother▪ sinally that God may be the more glorified, wickedness the more ashamed, others the more edified, the sinner the more abased, ourselves the better kept from snares by avoiding of all appearance of evil. Otherwise setting aside these and such like spiritual considerations and respects, I do aver that Excommunication hath nothing to do with the avoiding of civil company qua civil, that is under a civil or politicalln otion. Thus we have the negative part of the rule of Christ. Now to the positive part. What is it to be as an Heathen and a Publican? He must not be worse used in natural or civil things, y●t he mu● be used in the same manner as an Heathen and a Publican, in spiritual things. Wherefore, Let him be as an Heathen man, implieth four things: 1. I have proved that Heathens were not permitted to come into the utter Court of the Temple, which the children of Israel did come into, only they might come and worship in the 〈◊〉 or atrium Gentium; and when they were at any time brought into the Temple, it's challenged both by God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●9. and by the people of the Jews, Acts 21. 28. 2. H●ns, though sojourning among the children of Israel, and dwelling within their gates might not eat of the Passeover Exod. 12. 43, 45. where the civil fellowship was allowed, partaking of the Passeover was forbidden. 3. No Heathen man, no not he that was in the Priest's house, might ca●e of an offering of the holy things, Levit. 22. 10, 13. 4. A Sacrifice was not accepted from the hand of an Heathen L●…it. 22. 25. those that came from a far Country to pray and worship before the Temple, if they had brought out of their own Country, or had bought in the Land of Israel, beasts, or Bread, or Oil, or Frankincense, or the like, and brought any of these for an Oblation, it was not accepted from their hand as Tostatus in 2. paral. 6. quest. 21. rightly observeth. Only he collecteth from Ezra 6. 8, 10. that an Heathen might give to the Priest's money or expenses to buy Sacrifices, and to offer them in the Temple. Fiftly, and generally, the Heathens had no part or portion with God's people, Nehem. 2. 20. they were not within but without the Church, being aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world, Ephes. 2. 12. So that, Let him be as an Heathen must reach thus far, Let him no more partake in the Ordinances than an Heathen, have no more Church-communion with him then with an Heathen, let him be no more acknowledged for a Church member than an Heathen. And good reason; he hath made himself as an Heathen, yea worse than an Heathen, Rom. 2. 25. If thou be a breaker of the Law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. Yea a scandalous and profane Church member is worse than an Infidel, 1 Tim. 5. 8. 1 Cor. 5. 1. This fivefold restraint of Heathens from the Temple, from the Passeover, from eating of an Offering, from bringing an Oblation unto the Lord, and generally from all Church fellowship, did lie even upon those Heathens who did cohabit and familiarly converse with the children of Israel, who are called proselyti domicilii: and no Heathen man was free of such restraint, except proselyti justitiae, who were circumcised and made members of the Jewish Church, and had the name of Jews. Finally, Let him be unto thee as an Heathen man, may have a Commentary from 1 Sam. 26. 19 where David curserh his enemies before the Lord, because they had made him as an Heathen man: they have driven me out this day from abiding in the inheritance of the Lord, saying, Go serve other Gods. He did not reckon his banishment, want of civil liberties, cutting off from the civil fellowship and company of the children of Israel, in comparison of that which was far worse to him, and a great deal heavier to be borne, namely, that he was rejected and repudiate from spiritual fellowship with God's people, from partaking in the holy Ordinances, from coming to the Sanctuary, from the Church privileges, that his persecution was materially and substantially an Excommunication, and qua Excommunication it was more grievous to him then qua persecution. I suppose it now appears that Let him be to thee as an Heathen man, is a shutting out not from civil, but from sacred fellowship. The other branch, Let him be to thee as a Publican, I have before said enough of it. This only I add. There were among the Jews two sorts of Publicans: some were good and just men, exacting no more than what was appointed them; others were unjust and extortioners, and thereby made infamous. The former sort the Hebrews have professed they were willing to converse civilly withal, as members of the same Commonwealth. See L'Empereur de legibus Ebraeorum forensibus, pag. 272. But when Christ saith, Let him be to thee as a Publican, he means the impious and unjust Publican only, as the same learned Antiquary there saith. And so when our Saviour bids us esteem such a one not only as an Heathen man, but as a Publican, he means that he is not only to be denied fellowship in the holy things, but further made infamous among the people; for the name Publican is used to signify the worst of men, Matth. 5. 46, 47. and in the Gospel it is said, Publicans and Sinners, Publicans and Harlots, as was noted before. So Hierome upon Matth. 18. 17. understands the name of Publicans secundum Tropologiam, for such as are given to unlawful gains, deceits, thefts, perjuries, and such like abominable wickednesses. Wherefore we must not think that for civil respects of Tax-gathering or the like the Jews refused to keep civil company or fellowship with the Publicans. For we read in Exc. Gem. Sanbedrin cap. 3. sect. 3. that though he that was a shepherd, as such, was unfit to be a witness, yet he that was simply a Publican (that is, as I. Coch. saith in his Annotation, a Publican who is not convict of exacting more than is appointed by Law) or a Publican as a Publican is not forbidden to be witness. Where it is also added, that the father of R. Sirrah had the office of a Publican thirteen years. Hence we see that a Publican were he a Jew or Gentile, provided he were a just Publican, his testimony had faith and credit in Judgement; How then can it be supposed that the Jews did not so much as keep any civil company with such a one? We must therefore understand that the Jews refused to have any fellowship with the impious and unjust Publicans, as with Church members, and this the Jews did because of their scandalous ungodliness and unrighteousness. Wherefore to be esteemed as a Publican was esteemed among the Jews, comprehendeth these three things. 1. To be esteemed as the worst of men, impious, abominable, execrable, infamous, and as it were publici odii victimae, for so were the Publicans esteemed among the Jews. Dr Buxtorf●…lexic. Chald. Talm. & Rabbin. pag. 1065. tells us that where in Sanhedrin fol. 44. 2. it is said of a certain Publican, the Gloss expounds it thus, Of a certain wicked man. 2. Not to hold or keep with such a one, the religious Christian fellowship, which we keep with Church members; yea, and (for religious ends, and in spiritual respects, as was said before) not to keep with such a one, so much as that civil fellowship which we are permitted to keep with Pagans and unbelievers, with whom when bidden to a feast, we may go and eat together as the Apostle expressly resolveth, but with him that is called a brother when scandalous and obstinate, (and therefore justly made as a Publican) we may not so much as eat, as the same Apostle teacheth, wherein those are ever to be excepted, who are tied by natural relations to perform natural and humane duties to the party excommunicate and made as a Publican, as the wife to the husband, the children to their parents. In both these respects, Let him be as a Publican, superaddeth somewhat, and saith more than was in that other part, Let him be as an Heathen man. The third thing which I conceive to be meant by being esteemed as a Publican, is coincident with was meant by Let him be as an Heathen, that is, let him be kept that which back from communion and fellowship with the Church in the holy things. Mr Prynne brought a parabolical argument concerning the Publicans going up to the Temple to pray. That devout and religious Publicans, whether Jew's or Gentiles did go up into the Temple to pray, I make no question, and such a one is the Publican in the Parable; yea, if we mark the Pharisees own words he speaketh of that Publican as one of the best and most religious Publicans Luk. 18. 11. God, I thank thee that I am not as other men are, extortioners unjust, adulterers, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 even as this Publican, The vulgar Latin hath it velut etiam hic publicanus, as likewise this Publican, making the publican to be one of those extortioners, unjust, adulterers. But it is a mistake of the Text, which plainly holds forth a disjunctive, not a copulative sense. The Pharisee is further declaring what himself was not, and the disjunctive ● intimateth some new matter. Therefore the Syriak and Arabik hath it, neither as this publican. Erasmus, aut etiam ut hic publicanus. Arias Monntanus, aut & ut hic publicanus. and the English, or even as this publican. Many of the publicans were extortioners, unjust, adulterers, but the Pharisee thought he had not said enough when he had preferred himself to these, therefore he addeth this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or even as this publican, which is a rising and heightening of his speech, as if he had said, God, I thank thee that I am more holy and righteous than the best of the publicans, who yet are not (as most of them are) extortioners, unjust, adulterers. But that profane, unjust, scandalous, infamous, publicans whether Jew's or Gentiles, were allowed or permitted to come to the Temple, to the Worship, Prayer and Sacrifices, among the rest of the people of the Jews, I deny it, and Master Prynne hath said nothing to prove it. These only are the publicans meant of when Christ saith, let him be unto thee as a publican. Now this sort of publicans, if they were allowed any thing in reference to the Temple, it was but to stand afar off in the Intermurale or atrium Gentium as Heathens might do. If the religious publican stood afar off, how much more the profane infamous publican? That such as were publicly scandalous, infamous for impiety, and esteemed the worst of men (which I have showed to be meant by let him be unto thee as a publican) were admitted into the Temple as much as the rest of the people of the Jews, or had fellowship with the Church in the holy things, I do not believe, I have proved the contrary from Philo and josephus. CHAP. IU. A confutation of Erastus and Bilson their Interpretation of Math. 18. 15, 16, 17. as likewise of Doctor Sutliffe his Gloss differing some what from theirs. AS for that other Erastian Gloss upon Matth. 18. 17. that Christ meaneth of going to the orthodox Magistrate being of the same true religion, (& that this is the sense of those words Tell the Church) but if the Brother who hath done us wrong will not hear nor obey that Magistrate, then let him he unto thee as an Heathen man and a publican, that is, thou mayest prosecute him, as thou wouldst prosecute an Heathen man or a Publican before an extrinsecall Tribunal, such as at that time the Roman Emperors was to the Jews. See Erastus thes. 41. wherein he is followed by Bishop Bilson of the perpetual Government of Christ's Church cap. 4. This Gloss hath been justly rejected by many learned men. The first Argument which I bring against it, is that it is wide from the scope of the Text, yea prejudgeth and even overthroweth the great thing which is principally intended by Jesus Christ in this place, Camero Myroth. in Math. 18. thinks it is, utterly different from Christ's intention in this place, which is to prescribe rules to our consciences concerning the amendment of our Brother, and the reducing of him from his sin, not to give economical rules concerning the reparation of our injuries or losses: Wherefore he concludes that by the Church is meant the Presbytery mentioned 1. Tim. 4. 14. He holdeth also that in the new Testa. the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth ever signify an Assembly cum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad religionem, with an habitude and reference to religion. Let it be also observed with Bucerus Script. Anglic. pag. 40. 41. 304, 305, 306. that what our Saviour directeth one Brother to do toward the gaining of another, by admonitions and reproofs, doth only belong to the care and solicitude of the salvation of his soul, and the gaining of him from eternal death to eternal life; and this he collects from these words in the Text, thy Brother, and thou hast gained thy Brother. He doth also parallel Math. 18. 15. with Gal. 6. 1. Brethren, if any man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness. Now this as it is the surest exposition (expounding Scripture by Scripture) so it doth not concern a Judicial proceeding in the case of private Injuries, but the Christian duty of reclaiming and saving the soul from sin. He further observeth that the thing which Christ recommendeth to every Christian, to be done ex Charitate Christiana, is nothing else but what is incumbent to Pastors ex officio; for Pastors ought by virtue of their public charge and ministry to do the same thing authoritatively, which one Christian is bidden do to another in Christian Brotherly charity, that is to admonish, rebuke, etc. I am persuaded were the Lord Jesus his scope and intent in this Text rightly understood, there should need no other confutation of the Glosses given either by Erastus or by Mr. Prynne. They restrict to the case of private or personal injuries, and to the party injuried civilly, that which our Saviour prescribeth o Cartwright Histor. christi ex 4. Evang. pag. 354. Hoc loco (Mat. 18) notandum, singulotum in Ecclesia civium munus esse, ut deiinquentem s●rm corpaint. as a duty of Christian Charity, which every Church Member oweth to another. It was an impious word of Cain, Am I my Brother's Keeper? though spoken in reference to his Brother's body and natural life; How much more sinful is it, to say or think in reference to our Brother's soul, Am I my Brother's Keeper? Every Christian is bound by the commandment of God to rebuke his Brother, when he seeth, heareth, or knoweth hlm to commit sin: Leu. 19 17. Thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. Where the Marginal parallel in the English Bibles is Mat. 18. 15. Yea, Erastus himself lib. 2. cap. 2. pag. 154. confesseth that Christ doth in Matth. 18. interpret that Law Leu. 19 So Prov. 28. 4. Such as keep the Law contend with the wicked. We ought to hate and abhor sin by which God is dishonoured (and consequently to express our zeal against it by rebukes when it is committed in our sight, hearing, presence, privity or knowledge) as much yea much more, then if it were a private and personal injury against ourselves Psal. 97. 10. Amos, 5. 15. Rom. 12. 9 Psal. 139. 21, 22. Hence it is that the Apostle exhorteth Christians to warn them that are unruly or disorderly, 1 Thess. 5. 13. Wherefore it is justly and truly maintained by Augustine Regul. 3 infine Tomi primi. Durandus lib. 4. dist. 19 Quaest 3. Tostatus in Math. 18. Quaest 29. and divers there's, that to admonish and rebuke a Brother committing sin, is a necessary Christian duty commanded by the word of God, whereunto Christians are obliged by the love of God and their Neighbour: for which see also Aegidius de Coninck de actib. supernat. disp. 28. dub. 2. & 4. And if the offender be not reduced by more private admonitions and rebukes, the same Law of spiritual love bindeth his Brother that knoweth his sin and impenitency to tell the Church, as joseph told his Father of his brethren's faults, Gen. 37. 2. and Joseph brought unto their Father their evil report, that is their scandalous sins which made them to have an evil report. It is well noted by Pareus upon the place, that the thing which joseph did complain of to his Father, was not his brethren's hatred against himself, nor any personal injury done to himself, (because their hatred of joseph was the effect, not the cause, of the information which he gave to his Father of their faults) but it was their sin and scandalous life by which they brought an evil name upon themselves and the family of their Father. Wherein he doth upon good reason justify what joseph did, because he told not his brethren's faults to an Enemy but to a Father, nor for their evil, but for their good. It was also declared unto the Apostle by them of the house of Cloe that there were contentions among the Corinthians 1 Cor. 1. 11. So it is collected from 2 Thess. 3. 11. that some in the Church of Thessalonica gave notice to the Apostle of such as walked disorderly. And as he that spares the Rod hates the Child, so he that neglects to rebuke an offending Brother, or (when that cannot amend him) neglects to tell the Church, doth hate his Brother's soul, in so far as he suffers sin upon him. If these things be acknowledged for truths, we will be easily induced to believe that the scope of Jesus Christ Math. 18. 15, 16, 17. is to teach us, not what he permits the party injured to do toward the party injuring, but what he commands every one that loves the soul and salvation of his Neighbour, to do for reducing his Neighbour from a sin wherewith he is overtaken. Which fitly agreeth with p Si peccaverit in te frater tuus] Eadem habentur in libro Musar 221. quan▪ quam paulò aliter, Qui arguit socium debet primùm hoc sacere placidè interse & ipsum solùm verbis mollibus, ita ut non pude saciat eum Si respiscit▪ bene est ●… sin, debet eum acriter arguere, & pudefacere inter se & ipsum. Si non respiscit, debet adhibere socios, ipsumque coram illis pudore afficere: si nec hoc mod●… quicquam prosecit, debet eum pudesacere coram multis, ejusque delictum publicare. Nam certè detegendi sunt Hypocritae. that which Drusius praeter. lib. 1. on Mat. 18. 15. citeth e libro Musar. Besides, both Fathers, Schoolmen, Casuists, Commentators, Popish, and Protestant, when they handle the Questions de correptione fraterna, they make Brotherly rebukes to be a common duty of love which one neighbour oweth to another, and ever and anon they clear what they hold from Mat. 18. I verily believe it is one of the wiles yea depths of Satan in perverting that Text with the Erastian Glosses, to throw out of the Church and to drown in desuetude and oblivion, a great and necessary duty which every Christian by the law of love oweth to the soul of his Brother with whom he converseth, which were it conscionably practised, I dare say, it should be a most powerful and effectual means (by the blessing of Christ upon his own ordinance) to purge the Church of scandals, to gain souls, and to advance holiness. Now he that can neither be reduced by more private reprehensions nor by public Ecclesiastical conviction, Let him be unto thee as an Heathen man, saith Christ, let him be esteemed as one that hath no part in the communion of the Saints, in Church-Membership, in the holy things, in the commonwealth of Israel, in the Covenants of promise, more than an Heathen man. Which is a spiritual, not a civil separation, according to that Gal. 2. 15. We who are Jew's by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles. My second Argument shall be this. That which Christ saith generally of any sin whereby one Brother scandalizeth another Brother, the Erastians' restrict to private or personal injuries. And whereas Christ's rule tendeth to the rescuing and saving of a sinner, their Gloss runs upon a man's particular interest in the resarclating of a private injury. If thy Brother trespass against thee, that is, Cum quis coram aliquo peccaverit, saith Munsterus, when any brother sinneth in the presence of some other. Are we not obliged to rebuke an offending Brother in Christian love; and to endeavour to bring him to repentance and to save his soul; whether he hath done to us any particular injury or not: May we suffer sin upon his soul, because that sin is not an injury to us? Let it be well observed, the thing here aimed at, is the salvation of the offending Brother, and his turning from sin, as Grotius rightly noteth from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (which q Confirm. Thes. lib. 3. cap. 3. p 188. Ideo dicit Christus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apud Math. ut intelligamus cum erroris & iniquitatis convincendum esse, ut eam agnoscat ac deprecetur non apud nos tantum, sed multò magis apud Deum. Erastus also confesseth from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) for in that sense is the same word used 1 Cor. 9 19, 20, 21, 22. that I might gain them that are under the Law, etc. and 1 Pet. 3. 1. they may be won by the conversation of the wives. This (saith Grotius) James doth explain Ch. 5. v. 20. he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way, shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins. If this than be the meaning of Christ's words, thou hast gained thy Brother: than it concerneth all sins whereby we know our Brother's soul and salvation to be in hazard. Wherefore though Grotius understand private injuries to be that case which the Text putteth, yet saith he, it is the manner of the Law of God, by one particular and more remarkable kind of things, to intimate what ought to be done in other things according to the rule of just proportion. And it holds more true in other sins, then in the case of private injuries: This rebuking is necessary as well in sins which are committed against God as in those which are committed against man, and by so much the more its necessary in sins which are committed against God, by how much they are heavier than sins which are committed against man, saith Tostatus in Mat. 18. quest. 93. And Grotius himself citeth out of Mimus, Amici vitia si feras faeias tua. And whereas the Erastian take much hold of the words against thee. If thy Brother trespass against thee. I have before answered, that any sin against God which is committed in my sight, hearing, or knowledge, and so becometh a scandal or stumbling Block to me, is a trespass committed against me, because he that ought to edify me doth scandalise me. So that the words against thee are added, to signify, not a civil injury, but rather a spiritual injury or scandal. Augustine regul. 3. in fine Tom. 1. applieth the rule and method of proceeding mentioned Mat. 18. to lascivious or adulterous behaviour, which one Brother observing in another, aught to admonish him, first secretly, then to take witnesses, then to tell the Church, and if he be contumacious, de vestra societate projiciatur, let him be cast out of your society saith he, and the context carrieth it to any scandal whereby one Brother scandalizeth another: whereof much was spoken in the preceding part of the Chapter. Erastus pag. 154. Scopus Christi est in hoc capite docere, quantum malum sit scandalum. The scope of Christ is in this Chapter to teach how great an evil scandal is. Wherefore I adhere to the resolution of Tostatus in Math. 18. quaest. 84, sive sit peccatum directè contra deum, sive contra proximum, si fit nobis scientibus, fit contra nos, cum nos scandalizet. Both chrysostom and Theophilact upon Math. 18. 15. observe this cohesion, that Christ having before spoken against those that give scandal, now he gives a rule to the person scandalised. Thirdly, that exposition which now I argue against, tendeth to make one Scripture contradict another, and to make that lawful by one Scripture, which another Scripture makes unlawful even some of themselves being Judges. They so expound Matth. 1 S. that they make it lawful (and as such allowed by Christ himself) for a Christian to pursue his Brother for a civil injury before Infidel or Heathenish Judges, even as he would pursue an Heathen or Infidel, if such an one had done him the in ury. r Confirm. Thes. lib. 3. cap 2 pag. 184. Habitant nunc sub Turca & pontifice Romano fideles; Si quis assiciatur ibi à fratre injuriâ, nec audire injuriosus suum coetum velit, quid aliud potest offensus facere quam ejus implorare Judicis opem, qui facultatem habet coercendi? Erast, saith freely (yet foully) that if a Congregation of the faithful be under the Turk or the Pope, one of them may pursue another for an injury (when the offender will not hearken to his own Assembly) before those Judges who are aliens, and Enemies to the true Religion. His exposition of Matth. 18. doth plainly lead hereunto. So saith Bishop Bilson (a great follower of Erastus) in this debate upon Matth. 18. in the place before cited, let him be to thee as an Heathen man and a publican, that is pursue him in those courts, where thou wouldst a Pagan and Publican that should do thee wrong. But how doth this agree with 1 Cor. 6. (the place which Erastus thes. 41. conceiveth to be a Commentary upon Matth. 18.) doth not the Apostle expressly condemn it, as being utterly a fault that one brother went to Law with another for the things of this life or civil causes, before the unjust and unbelievers? Nay, let us hear Bishop Bilson himself in that very place. Paul saith he by no means permitted them to pursue their Brethren at the Tribunals of Infidels. What then? will they set Paul against Christ? or will they make 1 Cor. 6. contrary to Matth. 18. As for that whereby Erastus would reconcile this difference, it is as good as nothing. He saith pag. 183. that Paul requireth them to refer to arbitrators within the Church itself, only the smallest matters and things pertaining to this life, but not crimes or weighty matters which he would reserve to the Magistrates, otherwise he had detracted much from those to whom he every where commandeth to give obedience. And so (saith he) that which Paul saith is nothing but what Christ saith, Tell the Church. Besides Paul himself appealed to Cesar. let all men judge (saith he) whether the Apostle would make it unlawful to other wronged persons, which he thought lawful for himself? I answer, 1. If it was a shame and foul scandal for Christians to pursue one another for smaller matters pertaining to this life, how much more for crimes and weightier matters? for then the unbelievers might cast the heavier load of reproaches upon the Christian religion. 2. This might have opened a door to elude that which the Apostle so earnestly presseth; for one would be ready to say, this cause of mine is a weighty one, it is an injury and crime that can not be born, therefore I am free to pursue it before unbelievers. Whereas the Apostle saith, Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? 3. The judging of the smallest matters, and of the things pertaining to this life, is by the Apostle opposed, not to weighty civil injuries, but to the judging of the world and of Angels, as is manifest by the Antithesis in the Text. But he maketh no intimation of the least distinction of civil injuries, as if some might be pursued before unbeleiving Judges, some not: he speaketh generally vers. 1. Dare any of you having a matter against another. vers. 4. If then ye have judgements of things pertaining to this life vers. 7. Why do ye not rather take wrong? 4. If that which Paul saith, be the same with that which Christ saith Tell the Church, and if it was Paul's mind that he who would not hearken to chosen arbitrators among the Saints might be pursued before the unbeleiving Judges (as Erastus tells us both here and Thes. 47.) then Tell the Church cannot be meant of telling the Magistrate of the same religion; for Paul sends them to no Christian Magistrate (because there was none such then and there) but to arbitrators chosen among the Saints. 'tis most strange to me that so acute a disputant could expound the Telling of the Church Matth. 18. by the reference to arbitrators 1. Cor. 6. and yet understand the Church Matth. 18. to be the civil Magistrate. 5. There might be subjection and obedience to the Heathen Magistrates, although the Saints should not go to Law one against another before them 6. Paul did but appeal from Caesar's Deputy to Caesar himself. He was drawn by the Jews before the Tribunal of Festus (wherein Paul was a sufferer) and finding Festus unjust and partial, and that he endeavoured to deliver him to the Jews, who had a mind to have him put to death, thereupon he appealeth from Festus to Caesar. So that if Erastus had made the parallel right, all that he could conclude from Paul's example, had been this, that when a Christian is drawn and compelled by his accusers and Enemies (not being Christians) before the Tribunal of an inferior Heathen Judge, if he there find himself in danger of his life, he may appeal in his just defence to an higher Heathen Judge. Wherefore I yet conclude that by the Erastian principles Christ and Paul cannot be reconciled▪ These three Arguments do militate not only against Erastus and Bilson, but likewise against Sutlivius de Presb. Cap. 9 where he gives this sense of Matth. 18. 15, 16, 17. that we ought to take heed we give no scandal in the pursuing of injuries, and for that end ought to give admonition first privately, then before witnesses, and in case of obstinacy in the brother that hath done the injury, to tell the Rulers of the Church (meaning the Prelates) and if he will not hear them, then to go to Law with that Brother, as with an Heathen or Publican. The other Arguments which are to follow, (the last excepted) strike not at his Interpretation, but at those other Glosses, of Erastus, Bilson, and Master Prynne. Fourthly, this Erastian exposition makes these words, but if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an Heathen man and a publican, to be applicable only to such Christians as live under unbelieving Magistrates, and not to all Christians. This consequence Erastus foresaw, that it would needs follow from his Interpretation, therefore he plainly owneth it Thes. 47. He confesseth that the former part concerning rebuking and seeking to gain the offending Brother, belongs to all Christians; What a boldness is here to rend asunder this passage of Scripture, which was uttered as it were with one breath? And why doth not the latter part also belong unto all Christians? Must Christians that live under an Infidel Magistrate have more effectual means and ways to use towards an offending Brother, and may they go a step further in putting him to shame or in humbling him, than those Christians can do who live under a Christian Magistrate? How well doth this hang together? I should have thought the balance must rather fall to this hand. But to make the condition of those, who live under a Christian Magistrate to be more privative, and the condition of those who live under an Infidel Magistrate to be more cumulative, is too great a paradox for me. Sixthly, Whereas they say that the way prescribed by Christ Matth. 18. is such as is agreeable to the Law of Moses, and they understand by Tell the Church, Tell the Magistrate, I ask what Magistrate? If the Judges and Magistrates of the Cities, as Bishop Bilson thinks, than he who did not hearken to those Judges might appeal to the great Sanhedrin at Jerusalem, or the Judges themselves might refer and transmit the case thither: so that the man was not to be strait way accounted as an Heathen man and a Publican. But if by the Church they understand the great Sanhedrin itself, he that would not hearken to it was to be put to death by the Law Deut. 17. So that it had not been agreeable to the Law of Moses, to teach that he who will not hearken to the great Sanhedrin is to be esteemed as an Heathen man and a Publican; for this supposeth that he shall not die but be suffered to live. Seventhly, the Erastian principles do plainly contradict and confute themselves. For both Erastus, Bishop Bilson, and Master Prynne hold that he Jewish Sanhedrin in Christ's time was a temporal Magistracy and a civil Court of justice, which had power to scourge, imprison, torture, and outlaw offenders, yea to put to death as the first two do positively aver. s Sutliviks de Presbytery Cap. 9 deindelo●…uitur Christus de Ecclesia, quae cogendi potestarem non habuit, c▪ j sque sententiam impunèlic●…it contemn●…re. Nam si cogendi po●…statem habuisset, srustra i●…la verba addita sunt, fi Ecclesiam audire noluerit: nam Ecclesia coegisset, & sententiam suam executioni mandasset. This he objecteth against the Presbytetian Interpretation. But in truth it helpeth us and strongly mili tateth against the Erastian Interpretation. How then can it be said, If he neglect to hear the Church, etc. that is, if he neglect to hear the civil Magistrate who hath power to imprison, scourge, torture, outlaw, yea to put him to death? Surely if he neglect to hear the Church, doth intimate that the Church hath not used nor cannot use any external coercive power. Erastus finds himself so mightily puzzled with this difficulty, that to make out his interpretation of Matth. 18. he confesseth Thes. 53. and confirm. Thes. lib. 2. cap. 2. the Jewish Sanhedrin had no power under the Romans to judge of civil causes and injuries, but of things pertaining to their religion only, t Pag. 158. Proinde impunè poterat, qui volebat judicium Synedtii contemnere in civilibus rebus. so that at that time (saith he) a man might impune without punishment contemn the judgement of the Sanhedrin in civil things. And thus while he seeketh a Salvo for his Gloss upon Matth. 18. he overthroweth the great argument by which he and his followers endeavour to prove that there was no other Sanhedrin in Christ's time, but a civil Court of justice, because say they, that Sanhedrin had the power of the Sword and other temporal punishments. Eighthly, observe the gradation in the Text, 1. a private conviction or rebuke. 2. Conviction before two or three witnesses. 3. Conviction before the Church, and the Churches declaring the thing to be an offence, and commanding the offender to turn from his evil way. 4. If he will not hear the Church (which implieth that the Church hath spoken and required him to do somewhat which he refuseth to do) then Let him be as an Heathen man and a Publican. This last is heavier than all that went before, and is the punishment of his not hearing the Church now this gradation is in consistent with the Interpretation which Erastus giveth; for by his own confession the Sanh drin of the Jews at that time had not power to judge of civil causes nor to punish any man for a civil injury, but for a matter of religion only. (yet they are not matters of Religion, but civil trespasses which he understands to be meant Matth. 18.) Here is an intercision in the third step of the gradation. And if it were an offence in the matter of religion, it had not been a greater punishment, but a greater ease to the offender, to draw him before the Roman tribunals, for the Romans cared for none of those things, of which the Jewish Sanhedrin was most zealous. The gradation in the Text is as inconsistent with Mr Prynnes interpretation; for imagine the offender to be after previous admonitions publicly accused and convict before the Church (that is, in his opinion) the civil Court of justice which had power to imprison, scourge, torture, and outlaw offenders, if not to condemn, and put to death) what should be done with such an one? can we go no higher? yes: thus it is in Mr Prynnes sense. He that will not submit to the Magistrate, and cannot be reduced by stripes and imprisonment, torturing and outlawing, yea peradventure by condemnation to die the death; let this be the last remedy for such an one, Let him be unto thee as an beathen man and a Publican, that is, withdraw familiar civil company from him. Ninthly, that interpretation of Erastus leaneth to a false supposition, namely that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a Publican, are meant universally of all Publicans good or bad, or whatever they were. To prove this he takes an argument pag. 189, 190, 195. from the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; for with the Grecians, saith he, the Article being joined to the predicate, noteth the nature and consequently the universality of the thing; whence he concludeth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth a Publican qua Publican, and so every Publican. Now what can be the sense of Christ's words in reference to every Publican (saith he) unless this be it, that it was lawful to pursue any Publican at a Tribunal of the Romans? I answer, his argument goeth upon a most false supposition, which I clear by the like instances, Matth. 6. 7. Use not vain repetitions as the Heathen do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Shall we thence conclude that the Heathens as Heathens, and so all Heathens without exception did use repetitions in prayer, or that they were all so devout in their way as to make long prayers? Luke 15. 11. I am not as other men are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, extortioners, unjust●… etc. Did the Pharisee mean that every man eo ipso that he was another man, and so the rest of the Pharisees as well as others, were extortioners, etc. john 15. 6. he is cast forth as a branch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. If the rule of Erastus hold, than a branch as a branch, and so every branch is cast out. Many such instances might be given. If in these Texts there must be a restriction of the sense, notwithstanding of the prepositive article, so that by Heathens we must understand devout or praying Heathens: by other men, vulgar men, or the common sort of men; by a branch, a fruitless or withered branch. Why shall we not also understand by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the profane loose or unjust Publican, and as Grotius doth rightly expound it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let him be esteemed, saith he, as an Heathen man, that is, as an alien from religion, or as a Publican; that is, if he be a Jew, esteem him as an infamous sinner, or one of a flagitious life. Since therefore Erastus confesseth pag. 194. that as the office of the Publicans was lawful, so likewise many Publicans were honest, chaste, religious, and pious men, I may safely conclude, that Let him be unto thee as a Publican, cannot be meant universally of all Publicans. For how can it be supposed that Christ would tacitly allow of alienation from or severity to pious Publicans? Tenthly, whereas the Erastians' lay great weight upon that form of speech, Let him be to thee, (not to the whole Church) as an Heathen man and a Publican, (which is also one of Sullivius his exceptions de Presbyterio, cap. 9) in this also they do abuse the Text, for 1. The same offence which is a sufficient ground to one Church-member to esteem another Church member as an Heathen man or a Publican, being a public and known scandal (such as is contumacy and disobedience to the Church) must needs be a sufficient ground to all other Church members, or to the whole Church to esteem so of him. Surely Christ would not have contradictory judgements in his Church concerning so high a point, as is the esteeming of a Church member to be as a Heathen man and a Publican. 2. The Erastians' herein argue no better than the Papists: Christ said to Peter, I will give unto thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Therefore unto Peter alone. Peradventure Mr. Hussey was so sagacious as to prevent this objection with his popish concession: these Keys were never given to any of the Apostles but to Peter, saith he, in his plea for Christian magistracy, pag. 9 It seems he will far less stick to grant the Prelatical argument, Timothy laid on hands, and Titus ordained Elders, therefore each of these had the power of ordination by himself alone. 3. It is a good observation of Luther Tom. 1. Resolve. super propos. 13. de potest. Papae. fol. 299. in the sixteenth of Matthew Christ begins with all his disciples, Whom say ye that I am? and he endeth with one, Unto thee will I give, etc. In the eighteenth of Matthew he beginneth with one, If thy brother trespass against thee, etc. and he endeth with all, Whatsoever he binds on earth, etc. Whence he concludeth that in both these places what is said to one is said to all of them. CHAP. V. That Tell it to the Church hath more in it, then, Tell it unto a greater number. THere is yet another interpretation of these words invented to elude the argument for Ecclesiastical government and censures from Mat. 18. Tell it unto the Church, that is, if the offending brother will neither hearken to private admonition, nor to admonition before two or three witnesses, then tell it unto many or unto a greater company. This calls to mind u Sutcliv de Presbyt. cap. 1. Dr Sutcliffes' gloss upon the word Presbytery, 1 Tim. 4. 14. that it signifieth Presbyters or Ministers non juris vinculo, sed utcunque collectos, as if the occasional meeting of some Presbyters in Westminster Hall, or upon the Exchange, or in a journey, or at a burial, were a Presbytery with power to lay on hands. That interpretation of the word Church is no better. But that I may reject nothing without reason, I desire it may be considered, 1. Whether either in Scripture, or in any Greek Lexicon, or in any Classic author, it can be found that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was ever used to signify merely a greater number or company then two or three, not called out and embodied together for government or worship. For my part I could never yet find where the simple majority of the number maketh the denomination of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I find the word sometimes (yet very seldom) used of an unlawful assembly combining or joining together to evil: the reason I take to be this, because they pretended to be authorised as a lawful assembly; so Christ called judas, friend, when he came to betray him with a kiss. But since the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matth. 18. 17. doth signify a lawful assembly, (as all do confess) I desire some testimony of Scripture or approved authors, where this name is given to a lawful assembly, which was not embodied for worship or government, but had the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 simply because of the majority of number. Sure I am 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is at lest caetus evocatus, an assembly called forth; and every offended brother hath not from Christ the privilege of gathering a Church. 2. If by tell it unto the Church were meant no more but this, tell it unto a greater number, then if the offender do not hear the Church, there must be recourse unto some others distinct from the Church, for the more authoritative and ultimate determination, (unless it be said that there is no remedy for offences, but in a greater number which each man shall make choice of) But where is their more effectual remedy, or where will they fix the ultimate degree of proceedings? 3. When Christ saith Tell it unto the Church, and if he neglect to hear the Church, etc. whether respect be had to the form of the Hebrews, or to the form of the Grecians, the Church will still have a ruling power. In the old Testament, the original giveth the name Kahal, Church, (which is the word used in the Hebrew Evangel of Matthew published by Munsterus, chap. 18. vers. 17.) and the Septuagints the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Elders and Rulers of Israel, as 1 Chro. 13. 2. 4. & 29. 1. 2 Chro. 1. 3. and in other places. And that which is said of the Elders, Deut. 19 12. I●…sh. 20. 4. is said of the Congregation or Church, Num. 35. 24. jos. 20. 6. So Exod. 12. 3. compared with vers. 21. The Septuagints also render Kahal by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Prov. 26. 26. It was not therefore to any assembly, but to an assembly of rulers, that causes were brought in the old Testament. If we turn to the Heathen Grecians, among them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had a power of jurisdiction to judge and determine causes, as is manifest from Acts 19 38. 39 There 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was of two sorts, as Suidas, Budaeus, Stephanus, and others have observed. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a lawful set fixed assembly, which met at ordinary diets (which is meant in that place of the Acts last cited) It was also called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because of the jurisdiction and ruling power which was seated in it. Wherein I am confirmed by this passage of Aristotle polit. lib. 3. cap. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. for the assembly, saith he, hath the government or arbitrement of all such things; He is speaking of the choosing of Magistrates, and of craving an account of their administration. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was indicted and called pro re nata, upon some urgent extraordinary cause, and it was concio magnatum s●…ve optimatum, in which the people were not present, as in the other. It was therefore rightly noted by Passor that Demosthenes useth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro concione magnatum. Afterward the Roman Senate was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without an adjection. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore among the Heathen Grecians (from whom the word came) was not any assembly, but an assembly which had a jurisdiction or ruling power. It shall not be in vain to add that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to appeal to a superior Ruler cometh from the same original verb from which cometh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 4. The Church mentioned Matth. 18. 17. hath a forensical or juridical power, as appear by that of the two or three witnesses vers. 16. which relateth to a Juridical proceeding in the trying and punishing of offences, as M. Prynne hath observed. Peradventure some man will say, that the two or three witnesses here are brought in only to be witnesses to the admonition, or to make the admonition the more effectual, and the more to be regarded, but not as if any use were to be made of these witnesses, to prove the fact or offence itself before the Church, if there be occasion. I answer, either it must be supposed here that the trespass was seen or known only by him that gives the first rebuke privately, or that it was also seen or known by those two or three witnesses. If the former, it is much disputed among Schoolmen whether he that rebukes his offending brother be to proceed any further than a private rebuke for a private offence, or whether he is to stop at private rebukes, and not to take witnesses with him (which divers think to be unfit and disallowed, as being an officious and unnecessary irritation of the offending brother by the spreading of his shame, a making of a private sin to become scandalous to others, as likewise an engaging of witnesses to assist in the admonition and rebuke by a blind and implicit faith) for my part I shall not need here to dispute this point: for what ever ought to be done, or ought not to be done in this case, when the trespass is known to one only: yet in the other case when besides him that rebukes there are two or three more which can be witnesses of the fact or trespass committed (the trespass being yet not publicly divulged) it can not be denied, that these witnesses of the fact are to be brought unto and confronted with the offender, when he cannot be gained by private rebuke, and (if need be) prove it afterward before the Church. Which I have before noted out of Durand. And x De actib. super●…at. Disp. 28. D●…b. 9 Item qua●do peccatum corripiendi p●aeter me est uni vel alteri notum, etiam facile mihi est hos post primam correp ionem adjungere mihi socios ac testes secundae 〈◊〉. Cum eni● high non minus quam ego ejus pecc●tum noverint, aequaliter poterunt ipsum de hoc corripere, illudúe poste●, si opus 〈◊〉, coram Superior● testari. Quare communiter omnes censent in eo casu testes ●sse adhibendos, si prima correptio non suerit efficax. Sed tota difficultas est quando pecca●um est mihi soli notum. Qua in re triplex est 〈◊〉. Prima docet quando tunc proximus non ●mendatur secreta me admonitione, non esse ulterius p●ogrediendum, etc. Aegidius de Coninck tells us (in whatsoever other case witnesses are to be taken, or are not to be taken) in this case all do consent that witnesses are to be taken. Concerning the taking of witnesses, when the trespass is known to me alone, there are three different opinions. 1. That when I have rebuked the offender privately, and cannot gain him, I am to proceed no further, but have done my duty and must leave the event to God. 2. That when a secret admonition is not effectual▪ witnesses are to be taken, in case the offender so admonished continue in his sin, or in case his relapse be feared and expected, that the witnesses may observe such continuing or relapse in sin, and then assist and join in rebuking him, and if need be (that is, in case of his contumacy) to prove the fact before the Church. 3. That even when his continuance or relapse in sin can not be observed, (and so can not be afterward proved by witnesses) yet the second admonition is to be given before witness, when the first admonition given privately hath not gained the offender. Of these let the Reader judge. 'tis enough for the point now in hand, that when witnesses can be had to prove the trespass committed, they ought to be brought, first before the offender, and then (if he continue obstinate) before the Church to prove the fact: and they must be three, or two at the least, which I do not see how it can be thought necessary, if we suppose that the sin is not known to any but to me alone who give though first rebuke; for if there must be a witness of my second admonition, why may not one witness join with me as well as two, when I can not have two, but one only, willing and ready to ●oyn with me. But now a necessity of precept lies on me, that I must have two witnesses at least, which cannot be otherwise understood, but in reference to a forensical proceeding afterwards, if need be. 5. That interpretation which now I speak against, while it goeth about to avoid a power of Jurisdiction and Censure in this Text, it doth subject him that is reproved by another, to a heavier yoke, and brings him into a greater servitude. For though a man be not disobedient nor contumacious unto any Court Civil or Ecclesiastical, yet if he doth not hearken to such a number, as the party offended shall declare the case unto (being a greater number than two or three) he must be by and by esteemed and avoided as an Heathen man and a Publican. 6. This interpretation, as it is fathered upon Grotius, so it may be confuted out of Grotius upon the very place. He expounds Tell it unto the Church by the same words which Drusius citeth, è libro Musar. declare it coram multis, before many. But is this any other then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the many spoken of 2 Cor 2. 6? a place cited by Grotius himself, together with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before all, 1 Tim. 5. 20. Now these were acts of Ecclesiastical power and authority, not simply the acts of a greater number. He tells us also it was the manner among the Jews to refer the business ad multitudinem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to the assembly of those who were of the same way, or followed the same rites, the judgements of which multitude (saith he) seniores tanquam praesides moderabantur, the Elders as Presidents did moderate. He further clears it out of Tertullian apol. cap. 39 where speaking of the Churches or assemblies of Christians, he saith: ibidem etiam exhortationes, castigationes & censura divina etc. president probati quique seniores. Where there are also exhortations, corrections, and Divine censure, etc. all the approved Elders do preside. And is not this the very thing we contend for? I hope I may now conclude that Tell the Church is neither meant of the civil Magistrate, nor simply of a greater number, but of the Elders or (as others express it better) of the Eldership or Assembly of Elders; So Stephanus, Scapula, and Pasor in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Calvin, Bucerus, Illyricus, Beza, Hunnius, Tossanus, Pareus, Cartwright, Camero, Diodati, the Dutch annotations, all upon the place. Marlorat in Thesauro in the word Ecclesia Zanchius in 4. Praec. pag. 741. junius Animad. in Bell. Contr. 3. lib. 1. cap. 6. Gerhard loc. theol. Tom. 6. pag. 137. Meisuerus Disput. de regim. Eccles. quaest. 1. Trelcatius Instit. Theol. lib. 1. pag. 291. Polanus Syntag. lib. 7. cap. 1. Bullinger in 1 Cor. 5. 4. Whittaker. de Ecclesia quaest. 1. cap. 2. Danaeus in 1 Tim. pag. 246. 394. These and many more understand that neither the Magistrate nor the multitude of the Church, nor simply a great number, is meant by the Church Matth. 18. but the Elders or Ecclesiastical senate, who have the name of the Church, partly, by a Synecdoche because they are a chief part of the Church (as otherwhere the people or flock distinct from the Elders, is called the Church Act. 20. 28.) partly, because of their eminent station and principal function in the Church, as we say we have seen such a man's Picture, when haply 'tis but from the shoulders upward: partly, because the Elders act in all matters of importance, so as they carry along with them the knowledge and consent of the Church. (And therefore according to Salmeron his observation Tom. 4. part. 3. Tract. 9 Christ would not say, Tell the officers or Rulers of the Church, but Tell the Church, because an obstinate offender is not to be excommunicate secretly or in a corner, but with the knowledge and consent of the whole Church: so that for striking of the sinner with the greater fear and shame, in regard of that knowledge and consent of the Church, the telling of the officers is called the telling of the Church:) partly also, because of the ordinary manner of speaking in the like cases; that which is done by the Parliament is done by the Kingdom, and that which is done by the common Council is done by the City. Among the Jews with whom Christ and his Apostles were conversant this manner of speaking was usual. Danaeus (where before cited) citeth R. David Kimchi upon Ose. 5. noting that the name of the house of Israel is often put for the Sanhedrin in Scripture. 'tis certain the Sanhedrin hath divers times the name Kabal in the Hebrew and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek of the old Testament, Which is acknowledged even by those who have contended for a kind of popular Government in the Church. See Guide unto Zion pag. 5. Ainsworth in his Counterpoison pag. 113. CHAP. VI Of the power of binding and losing Matth. 18. 18. THey that do not understand Matth. 18. 17. of Excommunication, are extremely difficulted and scarce know what to make of that binding and losing which is mentioned in the words immediately following v. 18. verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall lose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven. Erastus and Grotius understand it of a private brother, or the party offended his binding or losing of the offender. Bishop Bilson understands it of a civil binding or losing by the Magistrate, whom he conceives to be meant by the Church vers. 17. These do acknowledge a coherence and dependence between vers. 17. and 18. Mr Prynne differing from them, doth not acknowledge this coherence, and expounds the binding and losing to be ministerial indeed, but only Doctrinal. Some others dissenting from all these, do refer this binding and losing not to a person, but to a thing or Doctrine, whatsoever ye shall bind, that is, whatsoever ye shall declare to be false, erroneous, impious, etc. Sutlivius though he differ much from us in the Interpretation of vers. 15, 16, 17. yet he differeth as much (if not more) from the Erastians' in the Interpretation of vers. 18. for he will have the binding and losing, to be Ecclesiastical and spiritual, not civil, to be Juridical, not Doctrinal only, to be Acts of Government committed to Apostles, Bishops and Pastors: he alloweth no share to ruling Elders, yet he alloweth as little of the power of binding and losing, either to the Magistrate, or to the party offended. See him de Presbyteri●… Cap. 9 & 10. So that they can neither satisfy themselves nor others, concerning the meaning and the context. For the confutation of all those Glosses, and for the vindication of the true scope and sense of the Text, I shall first of all observe, whence this phrase of binding and losing appeareth to have been borrowed, namely, both from the Hebrews and from the Grecians. The Hebrews did ascribe to the Interpreters of the Law, Power, authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to bind, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to lose. So Grotius tells us on Mat. 16. 19 The Hebrews had their losing of an Excommunicated person, which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See Buxtorf. Lexic. Chald. Talm. Rabbin. pag. 1410. The Grecians also had a binding and losing which was judicial. Budaeus and Stephanus on the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cite out of Aeschines 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Quum primo suffragio non absolutus fuerit reus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the stone by which the Senators did give their suffrage in judgement, It was either a black stone, by which they did bind the sinner and retain his sin, and that stone was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: or it was a white stone, by which they did lose remit and absolve: and that stone was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: which was the thing that Tully calleth Solvere crimine. So where it is said, her iniquity is pardoned Isa. 40. 2. the 70 read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, her iniquity is loosed. And because there is usually some kind of expiation before a losing and remitting of sins, which expiation being performed the losing follows, therefore the Grecians called such necessary and requisite expiation by the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is, losing: and they had their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they expiatory Gods, who did chiefly take care of those expiations. That in Scripture the power of binding, is judicial and authoritative, is cleared by my Reverend and Learned Colleague Ma●er Rutherford in The Divine right of Church Government pag. 234. 235 I add, that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto which Grotius sends ●s, is used for that binding or incarceration which is an act of 〈◊〉 authority, as Gen. 40. 3. Gen. 42. 16. 19 24. Num. 15. 34 Levit. 24. 12. 2 Kings. 17. 4. Isa. 42. 7. Jer. 40. 1. Ezek. 3. 25. It is also used for an authoritative prohibition Num. 11. 28. my Lord Moses forbid them. Thence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 interdictum, a decree forbidding somewhat Dan. 6, 7, 8, 9 As binding and losing are Acts of authority and power, such as doth not belong to any single person or brother offended, so the binding and losing mentioned Matth. 18. 18. are Acts of Ecclesiastical and spiritual authority, belonging to the Kingdom and Government of Christ in his Church, but not belonging to the civil Magistrate. And as the authority is Ecclesiastical and spiritual, so it is more than Doctrinal, it is a power of inflicting or taking off Church Censures. These two things I will endeavour to prove. 1. That this power of binding and losing belongeth neither to private Christians nor to civil Magistrates, but to Church Officers. 2. That this power is juridical or forensical, and not Doctrinal only; that is, that Church-Officers are here authorised to bind with censures, or to lose from censures, as there shall be cause. In both which we have Antiquity for us. Which I do the rather observe because Erastus and Grotius allege some of the Ancients, for their exposition of Math. 18. 18. that this binding or losing is by the offended brother. That which Augustine, Origen, and Theophylact say of one brother his binding or losing, is but spoken tropologically, and not as the literal sense of the Text, yea, Theophylact in that passage cited by Erastus and Grotius, doth distinguish between the Ministerial or Ecclesiastical binding and losing, and the party offended his binding and losing. Non enim solùm quae solvunt sacerdotes sunt soluta, sed quaecunque & nos &c. Theophylact doth also find excommunication in that Text Illam autem (Ecclesiam) si non audierit, tunc abjiciatar, ne suae maliti●… participes faciat alios. I further appeal to Augustine himself Epist. 75. where speaking of Excommunication and Anathema he distinguisheth it from corporal punishment, and after he hath spoken of the temporal sword he addeth, Spiritualis autem paena, qua fit quod scriptum est, Quae ligaveris in terra, erunt ligata & in caelo, animas obligat. But the spiritual punishment, by which that thing is done which is written, What thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, doth bind soul●…. Again in his sixth Tome lib. 1. contra adversarium legis & prophetarum ●…ap. 17. y Ignoscendi autem misericors mansuetudo, etc. non ad hoc valet ut sit iniquitas impunita, aut torpens & dormiens disciplina, quod potius obsit quam dil g ns vigilansque vindicta. Claves quip ●egni caelorum sic dedit Christus Ecclesiae, ut non solùm diceret Quae solveritis super terram, c●unt solu a & in caelis: ubi apertissim è bonum, non malum pro malo reddit Ecclesia: verùm & adjungeret: Quae ligaveritis in terra erunt ligata & in caelo. quia bon● est & vindicandi justitia. Illud enim quod ait, Si nec Ecclesiam audi●rit, sit tibi tanquam ethn●cus & publicanus, g●avius est quam si gladio soriretur, si flammis absumeret●r, si feris subrigeretur. Nam ibi quoque subjunxit, Amen dico vobis quae ligaveritis super te●tam erunt ligata & in caelis: ut intelligeretur quanto gravius sit punitus qui velut relictus est impunitus. he doth most plainly interpret Math. 18. 18. of Church discipline and binding by Censure. z Hior. in Matth. 18. 19, Quia dixerat, Si autem Ecclesiam non audierit, sit tibi sicut ethnicus & publicanus, & poter●t contemptoris fratris haec occulta esse responsio vel tacita cogitatio: si me despicis & ego te despicio: si tu me condemnas & meâ sententiâ condemnaberis: potestatem tribuit Apostolis, ut sciant qui à talibus condemnantur, humanam sententiam divina sententia roborari, & quodcunque ligatum sucrit in terra, lig●ri pariter & in caelo. Hier. Epist. 1. ad Heliod. Absit ut de his quicquam sinist 'em loquar, qui apostolico gradui succedentoes, Christi corpus sacro ore conficiunt, per quos & nos Christiani sumus. Qui claves regni caelorum habentes, quodammodo ante Judic●i d●em judicant, &c, Mihi ante Presbyterum (legendum fortasse Presbyterium) sedere non licet: illi si peccavero, linnet tradere me Satanae in interitum catuis, ut spiritus salvus fit. Et in veteri quidem lege, quicunque sacerdotibus non obtemperasset, aut extra castra positus, lapidabatur à populo, aut gladio cervice subjecta, contemptum expiabat c●uore: Nunc ve●ò inobediens, spirituali mucrone truncatur, aut ejectus de Ecclesia, ●abido daemonum ore discerp●tur. Hierome both in his Commentary upon Matth. 18. and in his Epistle to Heliodorus, speaketh of this power of binding as a judicial forensical power belonging to the Ministers or Officers of the Church, by which they judge and censure offenders. But to save myself the labour of more citations, I take help from Bishop Bilson, of the perpetual Government of Christ's Church cap. 4. where though he expound the binding and losing Matth. 18. 18. to be Acts of the Magistrate, yet he acknowledgeth hat the Ancient writers lean vere much another way, and understand that Text of the ministerial and spiritual power of Excommunication, for which he citeth Chrysost. de sacerdotio lib. 3. Ambros. de penitent. lib. 1. c. 2. Hierom. in Matth. cap. 18. Hilar. in Mat. can. 18. Unto these I also add Isidorus Polusiota in the third Book of his Epistles, Epist. 260. where he applieth this Text Matth. 18, 19 to this sense, that impenitent finners are to be bound, and penitent sinners loosed, and thence argueth against the absolving of a perjured person who had not declared himself penitent, but had purchased his absolution by a gift. Nor can I pass chrysostom upon this very Text, where he tells that Christ will have such a one to be punished 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, both with a present Chastisement and with a future punishment, or both in earth and in heaven; and would have the offender to fear 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, casting out of the Church. He addeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he cuts not off immediately, but after admonitions. I will now proceed to a further confirmation of the two propositions afore mentioned. Touching the first, That this binding and losing Matth. 18. 18. belongeth nei her to private Christians, nor to civil Magistrates, but to Church Officers, I clear it thus. There are two things by which (as Schoolmen observe) men's souls and consciences are bound, 1. They are bound by their sins. Prov. 5. 22. His own iniquities shall take the wicked himself, & he shall be holden with the cords of his sins, Act. 8. 23. thou art in the bond of iniquity. 2. Men are bound by precepts Matth. 23. 4. They bind heavy burdens and grievous to be born, and lay them on men's shoulders. This binding by precept or law, some take to be meant Ezech. 3. 25. O Son of man behold they shall put bands upon thee, & shall bind thee with them, that is, thou shalt in vision see thyself bound with bands upon thee, to signify that I have forbidden thee to be a reprover to the rebellius house. So the Chaldee paraphrase. But thou a Son of man, behold I have put my word upon thee, as a band of cords with which they bind, and thou shalt not go forth into the midst of them. Now in both these respects the Scripture elsewhere doth ascribe to Church-Officers a power of binding and losing. 1 In respect of sin Io. 20. 23. Whosesoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them, and whosesoever sin s ye retain they are retained. It is spoken to the Apostles and their successors in the Ministry of the Gospel. Matth. 16. 19 I will give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shal●… bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt lose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Where the power of binding and losing is given to the Apostles, & Grotius upon the place cleareth it from 2. Cor. 5. 19 20. God hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now than we are Ambassadors for Christ. So that we find in Scripture Church Officers enabled and authorised ex officio as the Heralds and Ambassadors of the King of Zion, to lose from the bands of sin all repenting and believing sinners, and to bind over to eternal justice and wrath the impenitent and unbelievers. 2 They are also authorised, dogmatically and authoritatively to declare and impose the will of Christ, and to bind his precepts upon the shoulders of his people Matth. 28. 20. as likewise to lose them and pronounce them free from such burdens, as men would impose upon them contrary or beside the word of God 1 Cor. 7. 23. An example of both we have Act. 15. 28. The Synod of the Apostles and Elders bindeth upon the Churches such Burdens, as were necessary by the Law of love for the avoiding of scandal, but did pronounce the Churches to be free and loosed from other burdens which the Judaizing Teachers would have bound upon them. Now therefore if we will expound Matth. 18. 18. by other Scriptures (it being the only surest way to expound Scripture by Scripture) it is manifest and undeniable, that Church-Officers are by other Scriptures enabled and authorised to bind & lose in both those respects aforementioned. But we no where find in Scripture, that Christ hath given either to all private Christians, or to the civil Magistrate, a Commission and Authority to bind or lose sinners; I know a private Christian may and aught to convince an impenitent brother, and to comfort a repenting brother, ex charitate Christiana: But the Scripture doth not say, that God hath committed to every private Christian the word of reconciliation, and that all Christians are Ambassadors for Christ, nor is there a promise to ratify in heaven the convictions or comforts given by a private Christian: No more than a King doth engage himself in verbo principis to pardon such as any of his good Subjects shall pardon, or to condemn such as any of his good Subjects shall condemn: but a King engageth himself to ratify what his Ambassadors, Commissioners or Ministers shall do in his name and according to the Commission which he hath given them to pardon or condemn. Besides all this, if Christ had meant here of the brother to whom the injury was done, his private binding or losing, not condemning or forgiving, than he had kept the phrase in the singular number, which Erastus observeth diligently all along the Text vers. 15, 16, 17. But he might have also observed, that vers. 18. carries the power of binding and losing to a plurality, Whatsoever ye bind, etc. As for the Magistrate, it belongeth to him to bind with the cords of corporal or civil punishments, or to lose and liberat from the same, as he shall see cause according to law and justice. But this doth n 't belong to the spiritual Kingdom of Jesus Christ; for his Kingdom is not of this world, neither are the weapons thereof carnal but spiritual. And beside the Magistrate may lawfully and sometime doth bind on punishment, when the soul is loosed in Heaven, and the sin remitted. Again, the Magistrate may lawfully, and sometime doth loose and absolve from punishment, when a man's soul is impenitent, and sin is still bound upon his conscience. There is no such promise that God will forgive whom the Magistrate forgiveth, or condemn whom the Magistrate condemneth. Neither hath God any where in Scripture committed to the Magistrate the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, or the word of reconciliation, as to the Ambassadors of Christ. Binding and losing in the other sense by a dogmatic authoritative declaration of the will of Christ, is not so principally or directy intended Matth. 18. 18. as that other binding and losing in respect of sin. Howbeit it is not to be excluded, because the words preceding Vers. 17. mention not only the execution of Excommunication, Let him be to thee as an Heathen man and a Publican; but also the Church's judgement, and determination of the case, if he neglect to hear the Church, which words imply, that the Church hath declared the will of Christ in such a case, and required the offender to do accordingly, but he showing himself unwilling and contumacious, as it were saying in his heart, I will break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from me, thereupon the promise reacheth to this also, that what the Church hath determined or imposed according to the will of Christ shall be ratified and approved in Heaven. a Sutlivius de presbyt. cap. 14. p. 107. Apostoli religionis & fidei à Christo cognitionem acceperunt: haec enim pars est maxima clavium quas ille Apostolis suis commisit. Now Christ hath no where given a Commission either to every particular Christian, or to the Magistrate, to teach his people to observe all things which he hath commanded them, and authoritatively to determine controversies of faith, or cases of conscience. As in the old Testament, the Priest's lips did preserve knowledge, and they were to seek the law at his mouth, Mal. 2. 7. so in the new Testament the Ministers of Christ have the Commission to make known the counsel of God. My second proposition that the power of binding and losing Matth. 18. 18. is juridical or forensical, and meant of inflicting or taking off Ecclesiastical Censures; this I will make good in the next place against Mr Prynne, who to elude the argument for Excommunication from Matth. 18. answereth two things concerning the binding and losing there spoken of. 1. That these words have no coherence with, or dependence upon the former. 2. That this binding and losing is meant only of preaching the Gospel. Touching the first of these, I confess if by the Church, vers. 17. be meant a civil Court of Justice; and by those words, Let him be unto thee as an Heathen, etc. be meant no more but keep no civil fellowship with him (which is his sense of the Text) I cannot marvel that he could find no coherence between vers. 17. and vers. 18. yet if there be no coherence between these verses, the generality of Interpreters have gone upon a great mistake of the Text, conceiving that Christ doth here anticipate a great objection, and add a great encouragement in point of Church discipline; for when the offender is excommunicated, (that is all the Church can do to humble and reduce him) put the case he or others despise the censures of the Church, What will your censure do? saith Mr Hussey: To that very thing Christ answereth, It shall be ratified in Heaven, and it shall do more than the binding of the offenders in fetters of Iron could do. But let us hear what Mr Prynne saith against the coherence of Text: because (saith he) that of binding and losing is spoken only to and of Christ's disciples, as is evident by the parallel Text of Joh. 20. 23. not of the Jewish Church. It maketh the more against him (I am sure) that it's spoken to and of Christ's Disciples, for this proveth that the Church vers. 17. is not the Jewish Sanhedrin, but the Christian Presbytery, then instituted, and afterwards erected: and that the thing which makes one as an Heathen and a Publican, is binding of his sins upon him. And for the context, immediately after Christ had said, If he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee, etc. he addeth, Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, etc. The dependency is very clear. A Christian having first admonished his brother in private, then having taken two or three witnesses, after this having brought it to the public cognizance of the Ecclesiastical Consistory, and after all that, the offender being for his obstinacy excommunicate; here is the last step, no further progress. Now might one think, what of all this? what shall follow upon it? Nay, saith Christ, it shall not be in vain, it shall be ratified in Heaven. And as the purpose cohereth, so that form of words, Verily I say unto you, is ordinarily used by Christ to signify his continuing and pressing home the same purpose which he had last mentioned, as Matth. 5. 26. Matth. 6. 2. Matth. 8. 10. Matth. 10. 15. Matth. 11. 11. Matth. 18. 3. Matth. 19 23, 28. Matth. 21. 31. Matth. 23. 36. Matth. 26. 13. Matth. 24. 34, 47. Mark 10. 15. & 12. 43. & 13. 30. Luke 12. 37. and many the like passages. To my best observation, I have found no place where Christ's Verily I say unto you, begins a new purpose which hath no coherence with nor dependency upon the former. This coherence of the Text and the dependency of vers. 18. upon that which went before (which dependency is acknowledged by Erastus, who perceiving that he could not deny the dependency, fancieth that the binding and losing is meant of the offended brothers pardoning or not pardoning of the offender, Confirm. Thes. pag. 157.) doth also quite overthrow Master Prynnes other answer, that this binding and losing is only meant of preaching the Gospel, and of denouncing remission of sins to the penitent, and wrath to the impenitent. Nay, That potestas clavium conoionalis is instituted in other places: but here its potestas cl●…vium disciplinalis, as is evident: First, by the coherence of the Text, and by the taking of two or three more, and then telling of the thing to the Church; all which intimateth a rising as from one or two or three more, so from them to the Church, which cannot be meant of one man, as hath been argued against both Pope and Prelate, for no one man can be called a Church: neither hath one man the power of jurisdiction; but one man hath the power of preaching. Secondly, the Apostles, and those who succeed them in the work of the Ministry have the same power of the Keys committed from Christ to them ministerially, which Christ hath committed from the father to him (as Mediator) authoritatively. For in the parallel place, joh. 20. v. 21, 23. where he gives them power of remitting or retaining sins, he saith, As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. But the Father gave Christ such a power of the Keys, as comprehends a power of Government, and not merely doctrinal, Isa. 22. 21, 22. I will commit the government into his hand, etc. And the Keys of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder. Thirdly, It may be proved also by that which immediately followeth, vers. 19 Again I say unto you, that if two of you shall agree on earth etc. which cannot be meant of the power of preaching; for neither the efficacy of preaching, nor the ratification of it in Heaven, nor the fruit of it on Earth, doth depend upon this, that two preachers must needs agree in the same thing. But it agreeth well to the power of Discipline, concerning which it answereth these two objections. First, it might be said, the Apostles and other Church-governors' may fall to be very few in this or that Church where the offence riseth; shall we in that case execute any Church-discipline? Yes, saith Christ, if there were but two Church-officers in a Church (where no more can be had) they are to exercise Discipline, and it shall not be in vain. Again, it might be objected, be they two or three, or more, what if they do not agree among themselves? To that he answereth, there must be an agreement of two Church-officers at least, otherwise the sentence shall be null; we can not say the like of the doctrinal power of binding or losing, that it is of no force nor validity unless two at least agree in the same doctrine, as hath been said; two must agree in that sentence or censure, which is desired to be ratified in Heaven, and then they binding on Earth, and unanimously calling upon God to ratify it in Heaven, it shall be done. Fourthly, this binding and losing can not go without the Church, it is applicable to none but a Church member or a Brother. So the thread of the Text goes along from vers. 15. If thy Brother trespass against thee, and vers. 16. thou hast gained thy Brother. And when it is said, Tell the Church, it is supposed that the offender is a member of the Church, over whom the Church hath authority, and of whom there is hope that he will hear the Church. And when it is said, Let him be unto thee as an Heathen man and a Publican, it is supposed that formerly he was not unto us as an Heathen man and a Publican. For these and the like reasons Tostatus in Matth. 18. quaest. 91. and divers others hold that this rule of Christ is not applicable to those who are without the Church. But if the binding and losing be meant only of preaching the Gospel, as Master Prynne would have it, than it were applicable to those that are not yet baptised nor made Church members, for unto such the Gospel hath been and may be preached. The binding and losing which is proper to a Brother or to a Church member, must be a juridical power of censures, of which the Apostle saith, 1 Cor. 5. 12. What have I to do to judge them also that are without? Do not ye judge them that are within? Therefore chrysostom Hom. 61. in Matth. (according to the Greek Hom. 60.) doth parallel Matth. 18. with 1 Cor. 5. proving that this rule of Christ is not applicable to one that is without, but only to a brother. Which Paul also saith in these words, What have I to do to judge them also that are without? But he commandeth us to convince and reduce brethren, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to cut off the disobedient: this he (Christ) doth also in this place. Theophylact also on Matth. 18. noteth the same restriction of this rule of Christ to a Christian Brother. Fifthly, this binding power is not to be made use of, till all other means have been essayed, ante tentanda omnia saith Munsterus, first a private admonition, then before witnesses, than the matter is brought to the Church, the Church declareth and judgeth, the offender neglecteth to hear the Church, then after all this cometh the binding, which must needs be a binding with censures; for that binding which Master Prynne speaks of, the denouncing of the wrath of God against the impenitent, by the preaching of the Gospel, is not, neither aught to be suspended or delayed upon such degrees of proceeding. Sixthly, this binding and losing is not without two or three witnesses, vers. 16. But that of two or three witnesses relateth to a forensical or judicial proceeding, as Mr Prynne himself tells us. These witnesses may be brought before the Ecclesiastical court, either to prove the offender's contumacy being admonished, or to prove the scandalous fact itself, which was from the beginning known to two or three witnesses, according to the sense of Schoolmen, expressed in the precedent Chapter. Seventhly, this phrase of binding and losing is taken both from the Hebrews, and from the Grecians. But both the Hebrews and the Grecians used these words in a juridical sense, as I observed in the beginning. Eighthly, that the binding and losing Matth. 18. 18. is juridical, not doctrinal, belonging to the power of jurisdiction, not of order, is the sense of the ancients above cited, as likewise of Scotus lib. 4. Sent. Dist. 19 Quaest 1. art. 5. Tostatus in Matth. 18. Quest. 113. yea the current both of Schoolmen and of Interpreters, as well Protestant, as Popish, runneth that way. It were too long to cite all. Yea further Salmasius in appar. ad lib. de primatu p●…p. 296. understands the binding and losing Matth. 16. 19 joh. 20. 23. of Discipline. So Walaeus Tom. 1. pag. 92. So divers others. From the same places Aretius Theol. probl. loc. 133. the excom. draws Excommunication as an Ordinance of Christ. From the same two Texts joh. 20. 23. and Matth. 16. 19 Dionysius Areop agita de Ecclesiastica Hierarchia cap. 7. sect. 7. doth prove that Christ hath committed unto the Ministers of the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. His ancient Scholiast Maximus upon that place tells us, that he speaks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of excommunications and separations, or (as he there further explaineth) the judging and separating between the righteous and the wicked. Salmeron upon Matth. 16. 19 thinks that the latter part of that verse, And whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth, etc. doth belong to the power of jurisdiction and censure: Hugo de S. Victore de Sacramentis lib. 1. cap. 26. doth also expound Matth. 16. 19 of the forensical power of Excommunication. Now if in these places binding and losing, remitting and retaining sins comprehend a juridical power of laying on or taking off Church censures; how much more must this Juridical power be comprehended Matth. 18. 18. where the context and circumstances will much more enforce this sense, then in the other two places? this binding and losing being also in the plural number, Whatsoever ye bind, etc. not in the singular, as the phrase is Matth. 16. 19 Whatsoever thou shalt bind etc. One Minister may bind doctrinally, but one alone can not bind juridically. Ninthly, the very doctrinal or concional binding which is yielded by Mr Prynne, is voided and contradicted by the admission of known scandalous impenitent sinners to the Sacrament: for he that is admitted to the Sacrament is loosed, not bound; remission, not condemnation is supposed to be sealed up to him, as is manifest by the words of the Institution, Matth. 26. 27, 28. Drink ye all of it, for this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. So that without a power of binding by censures, and namely by suspension from the Sacrament, one and the same scandalous impenitent person shall be bound by the word, and loosed by the Sacrament. Surely he that is to be bound by the word, ought also to be bound by suspension from the Sacrament, unless we make one public Ordinance to contradict another. Tenthly, doth Mr Prynne believe that Jesus Christ hath any where given to Church-officers a forensical or juridical power of binding by Excommunication, and losing by Absolution or receiving again into the communion of the Church? If he doth believe it, than I ask where hath Christ committed that power unto them, if not Matth. 18? If he doth not believe that Christ hath given any such power, then why doth he hold Excommunication to be lawful and warrantable by the Word of God▪ Most certain it is, that neither King, nor Parliament, nor Eldership, nor Synod, nor any power on earth, may or aught to prohibit or keep back from the Sacrament such as Christ hath not commanded to be kept back, or to bind sinners by Excommunication, if Christ hath given no such commission to bind in that kind. Eleventhly, it may give us some light in this present Question, to compare the phrase of binding and losing Matth. 18. 19 with Psalm 149. 6, 7, 8, 9 Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a two-edged Sword in their hand, to execute vengeance upon the Heathen and pnnishments upon the people. To bind their Kings with chains, and their Nobles with fetters of Iron, To execute upon them the judgement written: This honour have all his Saints. Which both Jewish and Christian Interpreters refer to the Kingdom of Christ, out of whose mouth proceedeth a two-edged Sword, Revel. 1. 16. & 2. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the phrase used in the Greek version of Psalm 149. If it should be understood of temporal or external victories and conquests of the Nations and their Kings, so it was not fulfilled to the Jews in the old Testament; and the Jews do now but in vain flatter themselves with the expectation of such a thing to come. There are but two expositions which are most received and confirmed. The first is, that the Saints shall judge the world together with Christ 1 Cor. 6. 2. and then vengeance shall be executed on the wicked, and all they who would not have Christ to reign over them shall be bound hand and foot and cast into utter darkness. This is the sense of Arnobius upon the place, and the Jesuits of Douai, Emmanuel Sa, Jansenius, Lorinus, Menochius go that way. The other Exposition holds an accomplishment of the thing in this same world, and this in a Spiritual sense, concerning the Kingdom of Christ in this world, is holden by Calvin, Bucer, Westmeherus, Heshusius, Gesuerus, Fabritius, and others. So the Dutch Annotations, Augustine and Hierome, both of them upon the place, take the sword, and the chain, and fetters to be meant of the word of God conquering and overcoming aliens, and Heretics, and the mightiest enemies; which others clear from Isa. 45. 14. Men of stature shall come over unto thee, and they shall be thine, they shall come after thee, in chains they shall come over. But because the Psalmist maketh mention of a corrective or punitive judiciary power, therefore others▪ add for making the sense more full, the power of excommunication; for which Lorinus citeth Bruno, and Hugo Victorinus. Of the Protestant Interpreters upon the place, Gesnerus, applieth it to the power of the Keys, to be made use of according to that which is written Math. 18. Fabritius conceiveth the Text to comprehend castigationes spirituales, and he citeth Math. 16. 19 Math. 18. 18. Io. 20. 23. Heshusius cleareth it by the Instance of Theodosius excommunicated by Ambrose, Master Cotton in his Keys of the Kingdom of heaven pag. 53. applieth it to the Ecclesiastical power of the Keys. Bartholomaeus Coppen understands it of the spiritual rule and Kingdom of Christ, and makes it parallel to 2 Cor. 10. 4. the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty through God, to the pulling down of strong holds, vers. 6. and having in readiness to revenge all disobedience. This judiciary Ecclesiastical power is to be executed upon all such of the nations as fall under the Government of the Church according to the rule of Christ. And this honour have all his Saints, that their Ministers are armed with a power. They that follow this latter exposition will be easily induced to believe that the binding and losing Mat. 18. 19 is also judicial or juridical: They that follow the former exposition, will also observe that the phrase of binding in Scripture, even where it is ascribed to the Church or Saints, is used in a judiciary sense, and therefore it is most suitable to the Scripture phrase to understand Mat. 18, 19 in that sense. As touching that other Exposition of the binding and losing, that the object it is exercised about, is not a person, but a thing or Doctrine, for it is not said Whomsoever but whatsoever ye bind: It is sufficiently confuted by▪ much of that which hath been said already, proving a forensical binding and losing even of persons. Only I shall add these further considerations. First, the binding and losing are Acts of the power of the Keys, and are exercised about the same object, about which the power of the Keys is exercised Math. 16. 19 Now the power of the Keys is exercised about persons, for the Kingdom of heaven is opened or shut to persons, not to Doctrines. If it be said that the Keys are for opening and shutting, not for binding and losing, to this I answer with Alexr. Alensis part 4. Quaest 20. Membr. 5. that these Keys are as well for binding and losing as for shutting and opening; but the Act of binding and losing doth agree to the Keys immediately and in respect of the subject; but the act of opening in reference to the last end. Ibid. Membr. 2. He had given this reason why the power of the Keys is called the power of binding and losing, because although to open and shut be the more proper Acts of the Keys themselves, yet nevertheless to lose and bind are the more proper Acts in reference to those who are to enter into the Kingdom, or to be excluded from the same; for the persons themselves which do repent, are the subject of losing: and they that repent not, of binding. Which is not so of opening and shutting; for although the opening be to those that are loosed, and the shutting to those that are bound; yet those that are loosed are not the subject of opening (as to the manner of speaking) nor those that are bound, the Subject of shutting. So then antecedently binding and losing are Acts of the power of the Keys, because a man is bound before he be shut up, and loosed before the door be opened to him. Secondly, that Gloss which now I despute against, doth suppose one of these two things: either that binding and losing cannot be exercised upon the same object at different times, and that the binding is such as can never be loosed again; or otherwise that one and the same doctrine may be condemned at one time, and approved at another time. Both which are absurd, and contrary to the generality of Divines. Thirdly, seeing the Scripture speaketh of binding and losing in reference to persons, as corporally, so spiritually, which I have before proved. Why then, shall persons be excepted from being the object of binding and losing Matth. 18? Fourthly, that of binding and losing Mat. 18. 18. doth cohere with and is added by occasion of that which went before, as is also before proved. If this concerning the context be acknowledged, it will carry it to persons; for it was an offending brother, not a false Doctrine, which was spoken of in the verses preceding. Fifthly, binding and losing here doth at least reach as far as retaining or remitting of sins Io. 20. 23. but there it is Whosoever sins ye remit, etc. They whose sins are retained, are bound. Wherefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whatsoever Mat. 18. 18. is put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whomsoever, by an Hypallage generis, many examples whereof may be given in Scripture: so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Io. 1. 11. is expounded by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and all things that offend Mat. 13. 41. expounded by them that do iniquity. Unless you please to understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whatsoever sins ye bind upon men or loose from off them, they shall be bound upon them or loosed from off them in heaven. CHAP. VII. That 1 Cor. 5. proveth Excommunication and (by a necessary consequence even from the Erastian Interpretation) Suspension from the Sacrament of a person unexcommunicated. MAster Prynne in his first Quaere did ask whether that phrase 1 Cor. 5. To deliver such a one to Satan, be properly meant of excommunication or suspension from the Sacrament only. This, he saith, I did in my Sermon wave with a rhetorical preterition. I answer for the latter part of the Quaere, I know not the least ground, for who did ever expound it of suspension from the Sacrament only? for the former part of it, it's not necessary to be debated, therefore for husbanding time and not to multiply Questions unnecessarily, I said in my Sermon, that the Question ought to be whether that Chapter (not whether that phrase) prove excommunication; and that we have a shorter way to prove excommunication from the last words of that Chapter as Doctor Moulin doth in his Vates lib. 2. cap. 11. And if I should grant that delivering such a one to Satan signifieth either of those things which Master Prynne conceiveth, that is, a bodily possession, torture, or vexation by Satan, inflicted either by the apostolical power of miracles, or by God's immediate permission: yet that will not prove that it signifieth no more. Therefore Peter Martyr upon the place, thinks that the Apostles delivering of the man to Satan by a miraculous act, and the Churches delivering of him to Satan by Excommunication, do very well stand together. So Synop. pur. Theol. disp. 48. Thes. 40▪ and he alloweth of both these expositions; and afterward in his common place of excommunication he speaketh of God's cooperating with the Church censure, by punishing the Excommunicate person with diabolical vexations. Sure I am an excommunicate person may truly be said to be delivered to Satan, who is the God and Prince of this world and reigneth in the Children of disobedience. But Master Prynne will find himself difficulted to prove that tradere Satanae 1 Cor. 5. is only meant of a miraculous or extraordinary act, or to show how or why the Apostle requireth the Assembling of the Church and their consent to the working of a miracle. Which (if there were no more) may discover the weakness of Master Prynnes notions concerning delivering to Satan 6, 7, 8. But as the full debate were long, so it were not necessary, since Master Prynne doth now himself acknowledge that the last verse of that Chapter proveth excommunication, vindic. pag. 2. I come therefore to the next, which he calls the fourth difference, whether 1 Cor. 5. 11. with such an one no not to eat, be properly meant of excommunication or suspension from the Sacrament. But (whatsoever be properly meant by that phrase) that which his debate driveth at, is, that this verse doth neither prove excommunication nor suspension from the Sacrament so much as by necessary consequence. But let us see whether his reasons can weaken the proof of Suspension from vers. 11. first he saith there is not one syllable of receiving or eating of the Lords Supper in this Chapter. I answer, the question is neither of syllables nor words but of things, and how will he prove that vers. 8. Let us keep the feast, not with old leavon, etc. is not applicable to the Lords Supper, I say not to it only, yet surely it cannot be excluded, but must needs becomprehended as one part, yea, a principal part of the meaning, the better to answer the Analogy of the passover, (there much insisted upon.) He may be pleased also to remember that he himself pag. 24. proving the passover and the Lords Supper to be the same for the substance, for proof hereof citeth 1 Cor. 5. 7. and that Aretius Theol probl. loc. 80. expoundeth our Feast of the Passeover 1 Cor. 5. to be meant of the Lords Supper. But he further objecteth from 1 Cor. 10. 16, 17. We are all partakers of that one Bread; if all were then partakers of this Bread, certainly none were excluded from it in the Church of Corinth; but at the Israelites under the Law, did all eat the same spiritual Meat, and all Drink the same spiritual Drink though God were displeased with many of them who were Idolaters, tempters of God, fornicators, murmurers, and were destroyed in the wilderness. 1 Cor. 10. 1. to 12. so all under the Gospel who were visible members of ●…he Church of Corinth, did eat and drink the Lords Supper to which some drunkards whiles drunken did than resort, as is clear by 1 Cor. 11. 20. 21. Which Paul indeed reprehends vers. 22. Answ. 1 When Paul saith, we being many are one bread and one body, for we are all partakers of that one bread, he speaketh of the communion of Saints, & the word all can be of no larger extent then visible Saints, to whom the Epistle is directed 1 Cor. 1. 2. and cannot be applied to visible workers of iniquity, who continue impenitent and obstinate in so doing. As we may join in communion with a visible Church, which hath the external marks of a Church, though it be not a true invisible Church; so we join with visible Saints to become one body with them in external Church communion and to be partakers of one bread with them, though they be not true or invisible Saints in the hid man of the heart. But if these be visibly no Church, we cannot join in Church Communion; and if a man be visibly no Saint, he ought not to be admitted to the communion of Saints. I shall never be persuaded, that the Apostle Paul would say of himself and the Saints at Corinth, We are one body with known Idolaters, Fornicators, Drunkards and the like. 2 If all in the Church of Corinth, (none excluded) even drunkards whiles drunken, and if all under the Gospel who are visible members of the Church ought to be admitted to eat the same spiritual meat and drink the same spiritual drink at the Lords Table, as he supposeth that in the wilderness all the Israelites did the like, who were Idolaters, Fornicators, etc. Then I beseech you observe how Master Prynne doth by all this overthrow his own rules; for pag. 2. and elsewhere he tells us he would have notorious scandalous sinners who after admonition persevere in their iniquities without remorse of conscience or amendment to be excommunicated from the Church and from the society of the faithful in all public Ordinances? If both in the Church of Israel and in the Church of Corinth, all were admitted and none excluded, even those who were Idolaters or drunkards, whiles actually such without repentance or amendment; how can Master Prynne straiten Christians, now more than Moses did the Jews, or Paul the Corinthians? Since therefore his Arguments drive at it, it's best he should speak it out, that all manner of persons who profess themselves to be Christians, be they never so scandalous, never so obstinate, though they persevere in their iniquity after admonition without amendment, yet aught to be admitted to the Lords Table. 3 He shall never be able to prove either that those drunken persons 1 Cor. 11. 21. were drunken when they did resort to the Church, (for it was in the Church and in eating and drinking there, that they made themselves drunk) nor yet that the Idolaters and Fornicators in the wilderness their eating of the spiritual meat and drinking of the spiritual drink mentioned by the Apostle 1 Cor. 10. was after their Idolatries and Fornications: But of this latter, I have elsewhere spoken distinctly and by itself. 4 To say that all who were visible members of the Church of Corinth were admitted, and none excluded, and to say it with a certainly is to make too bold with Scripture. And the contrary will sooner be proved from 1 Cor. 10. 21. ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of Devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lords Table and of the Table of Devils. So much for his first exception. His second is concerning persons (but not to the purpose) that if we look upon the catalogue of those with whom we are forbidden to eat, not only shall most of the anabaptistical and Independent Congregations, but too many Presbyterian ministers and Elders, who are most forward to excommunicate others for Idolatry, Fornication, Drunkenness, must first be excommunicated themselves for their own covetousness. Answ. Let it light where it may, Ministers do not stand nor fall to his Judgement▪ but where just proof can fasten either covetousness or any other scandalous sin upon them, it's all the reason in the world they be censured with the first. If I had fallen upon this passage of his book without knowing the author, I had presently imagined it to be a piece from Oxford, it calls to my thoughts so many expressions in Pamphlets from thence, aspersing London and Westminster, as more full of covetousness, lying, hypocrisy, than Oxford of bloody Oaths, Masses and the like. Thirdly, saith he, it is as clear as the noon day sun, that, no not to e●…t, in this Text is no more, than not to keep company, or hold civil familiarity with such. What? as clear as the noon day sun? let us open our eyes then to see this meridian light; first saith he, no not to eat, is interpreted in the Text itself by not to keep company, which we find twice in the preceding words, eating together being one of the highest expressions of outward friendship and familiarity. Had the Apostle said simply, not to eat▪ this Argument had been the more colourable, but after he had twice said, not to keep company, to add no not to eat, b Magdeb. Cent. 1 lib. 2. cap. 4. pag. 275. edit. 1624. giving the sense of this very place, they say. Atque ita excludantur a communione Ecclesiae, ut non modo arceantur ab usu sacramen: orum, sed etiam à commerció, ne cibus quidem cum iis capiatur. Novariws upon the place expreseth the Apostles meaning in these words of Ambrose. Cum fraire in quo vi●…ia haec reperiuntur, non solùm Sacramenta non edenda, sed nec communem escam docet, ut erubescat quum vitatur & se currigat. doth plainly intimate that the Apostle argueth from the less to the greater▪ and that there is some other fellowship and company with such a one, which is more than eating together and so much less permitted: and what is that? (eating together being as Master Prynne saith one of the highest expressions of outward friendship and familiarity.) Must it not be communion in the holy things, and especially the receiving such a one to the Lords Table? as if he had said, If scandalous brethren be spots in your common, how much more in your sacred Feasts? for which cause the mixture of scandalous persons in Church fellowship is extremely blamed 2 Pet. 2. 13. jude v. 12. Put case that a Parliament man or a Divine of the Assembly were known (as God forbid) to be an Incendiary, an active malignant, a traitor, a blasphemer, so that no raher Parliament man or Member of the Assembly would eat or company with him, were it not strange, if for all that such a one should be permitted to sit in Parliament or in Assembly? Is it not as strange if the whole Church distributively shall not so much as eat with a scandalous person, and yet the whole Church Collectively shall eat with him, in that very action which is a symbol of the communion of Saints? So that if I should now admit that sense, that these words no not to eat, amount to no more than not to keep company, or hold civil familiarity with such, (as Mr. Prynne expresseth it) yet the Argument will stand firm and strong in regard of this necessary consequence. If a private Christian ought not to hold so much as civil fellowship with a scandalous brother not excommunicated, much less ought the Church to admit him to Church communion in all public Ordinances; (there being less latitude, & the rule much stricter in this Communion than in private civil fellowship,) & if we be forbidden to do so much as to eat with such a one at a common meal, quanto magis convictu sacro saith Pareus upon the place, how much more is the Church forbidden to receive him to the Lords Table? for if the end of avoiding private company with such a one be to make him ashamed, as the Erastians' themselves do confess from 2 Thes. 3. 14. were it not contrary to that end to countenance and embolden him by receiving him to public Church communion at the Lords Table? Surely the refusing of the private could not so much put him to shame, as the admission to the public should put respects upon him. Wherefore 1 Cor. 5. 11. as it is interpreted by Master Prynne proveth by a necessary consequence the Suspension from the Sacrament of a scandalous Church-Member not excommunicated. If his next reason help him not, surely his sun will go down at noon, He citeth some parallel Texts, which interpret not to eat here, of avoiding them, turning away from and rejecting them, etc. which are no judicial acts of the Presbytery, but moral or prudential acts of particular Christians. Answ. There is a judicial Presbyterial act, (as very many conceive) in some of those parallel Texts cited by him 2 Thess. 3. 14. Tit. 3. 10. and so his proof is no less questionable, than the thing he would prove by it. And here the Apostle intendeth more than a voluntary prudential withdrawing of particular Christians, even a judicial act, in the very next words, What have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? where he gives the reason of what he had said before, that he had written to them not to be mixed with scandalous brethren, permitting them to keep company with Pagans though guity of the same faults. The reason, because Church-censures are only for those that are Church-members not for aliens. After Mr Prynne hath put forth his strength to prove that Excommunication or Suspension from the Sacrament is not meant 1 Cor. 5. 11. he comes in the next place to answer the argument drawn by consequence▪ If we may not so much as eat with such a one at our own Tables, far less at the Lords Table. Whereunto his answer is, The argument is fallations, saith he, because it varieth in the kind of eating, the one being civil, the other spiritual; the one private in one's own house, or another's, where he hath absolute freedom or liberty to eat or not to eat with another, the other public in the Church, etc. But all this (say I) maketh our argument the stronger; for if it be sin to a private man to eat in his own house with a scandalous brother, though this be but a civil fellowship in which there is more liberty and less latitude than in religious fellowship; how much more sinful is it for Church-officers to admit such a one to Sacramental eating with the Church? And for that first rule of his, that arguments from the less t the greater are not conclusive, except in the same kind of action, it's utterly untrue. For the holy Scripture itself hath divers arguments from the less to the greater, where the kind is no less different, if not more, than private civil eating together is from public eating together at the Table of the Lord, as Numb. 12. 14. If Miriams' father had spit in her face, should she not be ashamed seven days? how much more when God hath smitten her with leprosy for speaking against his servant Moses? H●…g. 1. 4. you have built to yourselves ceiled houses, how much more ought ye to have built the house of the Lord? joh. 3. 12. If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell you of Heavenly things? 1 Cor. 6. 3. Know ye not that we shall judge Angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? His second exception is, that they fall not b●…th under the selfsame precept. If this be a just exception against our argument, than one cannot argue thus, It's a sin to steal a man's private goods, how much more to steal that which is holy? It's a sin to reproach a man's name, how much more to reproach God's Name? These do not fall under the selfsame precept? shall such arguments be therefore inconcludent? Whence comes all this new logic which the world never knew before? His third condition (let it be remembered he saith, if either of these three conditions fail, the argument is inconseqent) is, that it must be within the compass of the same power. If it be so, how shall that hold universally true? H●…w much better is it to get wisdom then Gold? and to get understanding rather to be chosen then Silver? By Mr Prynnes rule it must only hold true in this case, when it falls within the compass of the same power to get both Wisdom and Gold? However if he had apprehended out argument aright, he had perceived that the jesser thing, and the greater thing are both within the compass of the same power. The Church of Corinth ought not to eat with such a one at common Tables: therefore not at the Lords Table. For this refusing to eat with such a one at common Tables, was by virtue of a judicial Ecclesiastical sentence passed against the scandalous person. So that when Mr Prynne saith We have free power not to eat Bread with those at our own Tables, with whom we have no power or liberty left us by Christ, to refuse to eat with them at the Lords Table, and thereupon supposeth that our argumentation from that Text is one principal cause and prop of Independency, yea of separation, not only from Sacraments, but from Churches: he doth altogether misapprehend the business. For 1. Separation from Churches is properly a renouncing of membership as unlawful: our argument concerneth the unlawfulness of a particular act, not of a membership in such a Church. 2. The causes and motives of separation suppose either an unlawful constitution of Churches, or an unlawful government of Churches, or both, so far, that they who separate hold it unlawfnll to continue their membership in Churches so constituted and governed, or so much as to communicate and partake in the Sacrament with such Churches, though they know no scandalous person admitted to the Sacrament. 3. The great mistake lieth in this, that our present controversy is apprehended to be whether every particular Christian hath power or liberty from Christ to withdraw from the Sacrament, because of the admission of a scandalous person. Whereas our Question is only of the Church's power to suspend a scandalous person from the Sacrament, and when the Apostle vers. 9 10, 11. forbiddeth to be mixed or so much as to eat with such and such scandalous members of the Church, he meaneth of Church-discipline and Excommunication, which he had begun to speak of, and so he comes to show them what kind of persons c Gualther archel. in 1 Cor. 5. 11. Catalogus eorum qui debent excommunica●i. Tossanus ibid. Quod cibum non vult sumi cum iis, pertinet id quidem ad disciplinam excommunica●ionis. Martyr ibid. Notandum praeterea, non esse privatorum hominum ut quisque pro sus libidine ab hoc vel ab illo, quem peccasse fortè suspicatus fuerit, sese disjungere velit. Ad commune judicium Ecclesiae pertinet. Angust. Hom. 50 joineth 1 Cor. 5. v. 11. with v. 12, 13. and then saith, Quibus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 oftendit non ●…emerè aut quomodolibet, sed per judicium ●…uferondos esse 〈◊〉 ab Ecclesiae communione, ut si per judicium auferri non possunt, tolerentur potius, ne perverse malos quisque evitando, ab Ecclesia ipse discedens, eos quos fugere videtur vinci●…t ad gehennam. The same hath Bed●… upon the place out of Augustine▪ So likewise Ambr●…se and the Centurists before cited▪ he would have to be excommunicated, and used like that incestuous man. So Beza, Bullinger, Hunnius, Gualther, Martyr, Tossanus, and others upon the place. And long before all these Augustine and Beda plainly expound the Apostles words of a public Ecclesiastical Judgement, passed upon one who hath either confessed his offence or is formally accused and convict thereof; and as they conceive, that Text doth not at all justify but doth rather condemn private Christians their separating from the Church, because of a mixture of scandalons persons. I know we ought prudently and cautiously to endeavour the avoiding of the company and fellowship of scandalous brethren, though not yet censured in the Church, (which may be proved from other Scriptures) but that is not the point the Apostle is here upon: he means by no not to eat synecdochically, the whole casting off of an excommunicate person, and all that separation or withdrawing which is commanded to be made from him, or if you will (by a metonimy of the effect for the cause) he means excommunication itself: and however, the words immediately following prove that a public judicial act is intended as hath been said before. These things considered, I shall not need to be led out of my way by Mr Prynnes descanting upon the meaning of 1 Cor. 5. 11. how far it prohibits civil communion and eating with a scandalous Christian, being a railer or fornicator or Idolater, etc. I confess some of his limitations, as namely, that we may eat with such a●one in cases of expediency or when we can not avoid it in civility nor without offence, are very lubric, unsafe, and ensnaring, and at best it's but like that in Marshal's Epigram Difficilis, facilis, jucundus, acerbus es idem; Nec tecum possum vivere, nec sine te. But to treat of that case of conscience in general is not hujus loci; for this Text speaks of not eating with an excommunicate person. Neither yet shall I need here to examine Mr Prynnes six considerations p. 12, 13, 14. which he wisheth to be pondered by Separatists and Independents misled, (as he thinks) by our fallacious argument: I hope he doth not mistake our Question so far as to comprehend the sinfulness of any private Christian his receiving of the Sacrament, when and where some scandalous sinners are admitted to the Sacrament, that private Christian not being accessary to the sin of the Minister and Eldership in admitting those scandalous sinners. Wherefore I will add eight counterballancing considerations to prove from 1 Cor. 5. * The 13 verse he yieldeth to be a warrant for Excommunication: yet he 〈◊〉 concerning that also, in Diotre●… catechised. the first twelve verses thereof (all which Mr Prynne conceiveth can not prove Excommunication) compared with 2 Cor. 2. an Ecclesiastical jurisdiction or power of censures, and particularly of Excommunication. 1. There was a censure inflicted upon the incestuous man by the Eldership of the Church of Corinth, being assembled together 1 Cor. 5. 4, 5. Where read we that ever the Church was intentionally gathered together, to cooperate with an Apostle in the exercise of his miraculous apostolical power? But we do read that this man's punishment or censure was inflicted upon him not by the Apostle alone but by Many, 2 Cor. 2. 6. Erastus pag. 214▪ thinks that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (in our books rendered punishment, and in the margin censure) was not excommunication, but only sharp objurgation or reproof. To this I have abundantly answered Book 2. chap. 9 and in Male audis pag. 12, 13, 14. And if it should be granted that the man was not then excommunicate but sharply and publicly rebuked (which indeed is the opinion of some) yet the Church of Corinth had proceeded to excommunication, had not written to dissuade them, if the Apostle and take them off with a Sufficit, which he neither needed nor would have done, if they had power to do no more ●o the offender then to rebuke him sharply. To conclude this point, M Prynne granteth that 1 Cor. 5. 13. proveth excommunication; and why the gathering together, vers. 4. should not be intended for the same work, I cannot imagine? Some question there was of old whether the Apostles meaning vers. 13. were not that the Corinthians should put away every man out of himself the evil of sin. Which Augustine having somewhere left in medio, doth in his Retractations correct, (and Beda upon the place out of him tells us the very same) and expound it of the taking away of the evil man from the Church by Excommunication, because saith he, the Greek can not be rendered hoc malum, but hunc malum. 2. They who had power to receive him and forgive him, and to confirm their love towards him, had power to cast him out and censure him; but those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Church officers of the Church of Corinth had power of the former; Therefore of the latter. See 2 Cor. 2. 7, 8. The Apostle adviseth them to forgive the offender. How to forgive him? not as man forgives a private injury: that was not the case. Nor only by the doctrine of remission of sins applied to him in foro conscientiae, upon evidence of his repentance: that any one Minister might do. But the Apostle will have those many who had censured him consistorially and judicially, to forgive him in the same manner. Which is yet further confirmed by that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that confirming of their love towards him vers. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is ratum facere, thence cometh not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. When the Apostle will express a ratified or confirmed testament Galat. 3. 15. he calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. From the same word Erasmus doth collect that the Apostle speaketh to them as the ordinary Judges who have power to confirm their love to that penitent sinner in an authoritative manner. And why doth the Apostle choose a word which properly signifies an authoritative confirming or ratifying of a thing, if he were not speaking of a jurisdiction and power of inflicting and taking off again censures? 3. The Apostle upon occasion of that offender's case, puts the Corinthians in remembrance, that they ought likewise to purge the Church from the mixture of other scandalous sinners, 1 Cor. 5. 9, 10, 11, 12. The Chapter both begins and ends with the case of the incestuous man and his punishment; which makes interpreters conceive, that what is interlaced concerning other scandalous sinners in the Church, is to be understood of such as the Apostle would have to be censured in the same manner as that incestuous man. 4. He instanceth in six cases, (not intending an enumeration of all the particular cases of Excommunication) fornication, covetousness, (meaning covetousness scandalously and grossly manifested, or practical covetousness, for of the heart God only judgeth) idolatry, railing, drunkenness, extortion. His instancing in these, tells us he intends not the case of private civil injuries, but of scandals, yea though the scandal be without the mixture of any civil or private injury, as in the case of an Idolater or a drunkard. 5. And even where there is a private injury wrapped up in the bosom of the scandal, as in railing and extortion, yet the Apostle there looketh upon them not qua injuries, but qua scandals; and in that notion, he will have not only the party particularly interested and injured, but the other members of the Church also to withdraw communion from the offender; for he writeth to the whole Church of Corinth, not to keep company with such. 6. When he saith, with such a one no not to ●…ate, he intimates by No not some further and greater punishment than not eating with him, as hath been said before: If not so much as eating with him, then muchless Church communion with him at the Lords Table. 7. He means not of that withdrawing whereby each Christian may and aught to withdraw familiarity and fellowship from such a notorious scandalous sinner, whose sin is manifest before hand, that he may keep himself pure, and not partake of another man's sin: In which case a member of one Church may withdraw familiar conversing with a scandalous member of another Church. But he speaks of such a withdrawing from and avoiding of the fellowship of a scandalous Brother, as is done not by one or some few private Christians, but by the whole Church (for he writeth to the whole Church of Corinth, not to company nor eat with such a one) I say, by the whole Church, whereof the offender was a member: and that not without a judicial or consistorial sentence, vers. 12. Do not ye judge them that are within? which can not be restricted to the judgement of Christian discretion and prudence (for so both the Apostles and they did judge those that were without, to walk circumspectly toward them, Col. 4. 5. and to beware of their evil.) But 'tis meant of censures and punishments inflicted by many, that is, by the Presbyters of that Church, 2 Cor. 2. 6. 8. And so I have touched upon the last consideration, which is this. That as the fault was a scandal given to the Church, and the judgement and censure was Ecclesiastical, not civil, so that censure for that offence was inflicted only upon Church members, not upon unbelievers. If an unbeliever did a civil injury to a Christian, the Christian was free to accuse the unbeliever (if he saw it good) before the civil Magistrate, and there to seek judgement and justice. Or the Christian was free to withdraw civil fellowship from the unbeliever, which did him a civil injury, which I suppose Mr Prynne will easily grant. But this way of censuring and punishing a scandalous Church member, did not agree to an Heathen who was an Idolater, or drunkard, or extortioner, etc. Vers. 10, 11, 12, 13. Thus I have proved Church censure from 1 Cor. 5. compared with 2 Cor. 2. without laying the weight of any argument upon Tradere Sathanae. Which I would not have to be understood, as if I yielded to our opposites, that the delivering to Satan is not meant of Excommunication. My meaning is only to make the shorter work of the Erastian Antithesis. The weight of their arguments, not of ours, is laid upon Tradere Sathanae. But for my sense of the word, I am of their opinion who interpret it of Excommunication; and so doth Gualther himself. So doth the Syriack, which readeth, That you (Corinthians) may deliver such a one to Satan. If it was an an act of the Church of Corinth, than it was a Church censure, not a miracle. The Greek doth also carry it to be an act of the Church of Corinth assembled together. We have also some (though not all) of the Ancients for us in this particular: as Balsamon in Canon. epist. Basilii ad Amphilo●…. C●…n. ●. observeth. Basil speaketh of some who at that time had been delivered to Satan for 30 years, that they might learn not to carry thnmselves filthily, yea unnaturally, as they had done formerly: concerning whom he adviseth that now after so long a time, they might be (upon their spontaneous confession of their heinous offence) received again into the Church. Hereupon Balsamonn oteth, Those are said to be delivered to Satan, who are separated from the communion of Christians. CHAP. VIII. Whether Judas received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. Mr. Prynne hath filled up a good part of his Vindication with the case of judas, as going very far in the deciding of this present controversy. But as Protestant writers answer the Papists in the case of Peter, that it cannot be proved tha● Peter was ever Bishop of Rome, but rather that he was not; and if he had, this cannot prove the Pope's Supremacy: the like I say of this case of judas. M. Prynne shall never be able to prove that judas did receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper: and if he could prove it, yet it shall not at all help that cause which he maintaineth. I begin with the matter of fact, whether judas received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, as well as the other Apostles, which is the question by him stated. For decision whereof, I hold it necessary, first of all that these two things be premised, concerning the harmony of the Evangelists in that matter of judas, the use whereof we shall see afterwards. Matthew and Mark tell us Christ's discourse of the Traitor at Table, and the discovery of judas, before the institution of the Sacrament. Luke hath the same thing after the institution and distribution of the Sacrament. So that either Matthew and Mark speak by anticipation, or Luke speaketh by a recapitulation; that is, either Matthew and Mark put before what was done after, or Luke puts after what was done before. Now that there is in Luke an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a narration of that after the institution which was indeed before the institution of the Sacrament, may thus appear. 1. That very thing which Luke placeth after the institution and distribution of the Sacrament, Luk. 22. 21, 22, 23. Behold the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the Table. And truly the son of man goeth as it was determined, but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed. And they began to inquire among themselves which of them it was that should do this thing. The very same thing do Matthew and Mark record before the institution of the Sacrament, Matth. 26. 21. to 26. Mark 14. 18. to 22. and it is more credible that one of the Evangelists is to be reduced to the order of two, rather than two to the order of one. 2. Especially considering that Luke doth not relate the business of the last supper according to that order wherein things were acted or spoken, as is manifest by Luke 22. 17. 18. And he took the cup and gave thanks and said, Take this and divide it among yourselves. This though related before the taking and breaking of the bread, yet it is but by an anticipation or preoccupation, occasioned by that which had preceded vers. 16. so to join the protestation of not drinking again, with that of not eating again the Passeover with his Disciples: therefore Beza, Salmeron, Maldonat, and others following Augustine and Euthymius do resolve it is an anticipation, even as Paul mentioneth the cup before the bread, 1 Cor. 10. 16. I know some understand the cup mentioned Luke 22. 17. to be the Paschall cup; others, to be the cup in the ordinary supper; but to me its plain that it was the Eucharistical cup; yea Mr Prynne takes it so pag. 25. because that which Luke saith of that cup, that Christ took it, and gave thanks, and gave it to the Disciples, that they might all drink of it, and told them he would not drink with them any more of the fruit of the Vine till the Kingdom of God should come; all this is the very same which Matthew and Mark record of the Eucharistical cup. Therefore our Non-conformists were wont to argue from that place, that the Minister ought not to give the Sacramental elements to each communicant out of his own hand, but that the communicants ought to divide the elements among themselves, because Christ saith in that place, of the cup, Divide it among yourselves. 3. Luke saith not that after Supper, or after they had done with the Sacrament, Christ told his Disciples that one of them should betray him; only he addeth, after the History of the Sacrament, what christ said concerning the Traitor. But Matthew and Mark do not only record Christ's words concerning the Traitor before they make narration concerning the Sacrament, but they record expressly that that discourse and the discovery of the Traitor was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as they did eat, Matth. 26. 21. Mark 14. 18. Now when the evening was come he sat down with the twelve, and immediately followeth, as the first purpose which Christ spoke of, and as they did eat, he said, verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. Which could not be so, if Luke relate Christ's words concerning the Traitor in that order in which they were first uttered; for Luke having told us verse 22. that Christ took the cup after Supper and said, This cup is the new Testament, etc. addeth, But behold the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the Table. So that if this were the true order, Christ did not tell his Disciples concerning the Traitor, as they did eat (which Matthew and Mark do say) but after they had done eating. If it be said that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may suffer this sense, when they had eaten, or having eaten. I answer, the context will not suffer that sense; for they were indeed eating in the time of that discourse, Matth. 26. 23. He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish the same shall betray me, Jos. 13. 26. He it is to whom I shall give a sop after I have dipped it. 4. Musculus in loc. come. de caen. dom. pag. 362. gives this reason out of Rupertus, why Luke's narration of Christ's words concerning the Traitor, is placed by a recapitulation after the Sacrament: because Luke is the only Evangelist who writeth distinctly of the Paschall Supper, and what Christ said at that Supper: and having once fallen upon that purpose, the connexion of the matter did require that he should immediately add the story of the Eucharistical Supper, without interlacing that of the Traitor. Which reason will pass for good with such as think judas did eat of the Paschalll Supper, and that Christ's words concerning him were spoken at the Paschall Supper, which I greatly doubt of. 5. Mr Prynne pag. 18. doth in effect grant the same thing that I say; for he saith, that Matthew and Mark record that immediately before the institution of the Sacrament, as they sat at meat Jesus said unto the twelve, Verily one of you shall betray me, whereupon they began to be sorrowful and to say unto him, etc. He addeth, that judas was the last man that said, Is it I? immediately before the institution, as Matthew records. But of Luke he saith only thus much, that he placeth these words of Christ concerning Judas his betraying him, after the institution and distribution of the Sacrament, not before it. If it be thus as Mr Prynne acknowledgeth, that Matthew and Mark record, that Christ had that discourse concerning judas before the institution of the Sacrament, then most certainly it was before the institution of the Sacrament, because it must needs be true which Matthew and Mark say. Whence it will necessarily follow that Luke doth not mention that discourse concerning judas in its proper place, and this doth not offer the least violence to the Text in Luke, because he doth not say that Christ spoke these words after the Sacrament, only he placeth these words after the Sacrament, as Mr Prynne saith rightly. When Scripture saith that such a thing was done at such a time, it must be so believed. But when Scripture mentioneth one thing after another, that will not prove that the thing last mentioned was last done. More plainly Master Prynne pag. 26, 27. tells us that the Sacrament was given after Christ had particularly informed his Disciples that one of them should betray him, which he proves from joh. 13. 18. to 28. Matth. 26. 20. to 36. Mark 14. 18. to 22. Luke 22. 21, 22, 23. Whence it follows inevitably by his own confession, that Matthew and Mark recording that discourse about judas after the Sacrament, do place it in the proper order; and that Luke mentioning that discourse about judas after the Sacrament, doth not place it in its own place. This is the first thing which I thought good to premise, which will easily take off the strongest argument which ever I heard alleged for judas his receiving of the Sacrament, namely this, that Luke immediately after the institution and distribution of the Sacrament addeth, But behold the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me at the Table. If these words were not uttered by Christ in that order wherein Luke placeth them (which I have proved) then the argument is not conclusive. The second thing to be premised, is this: that the story which we have joh 13. from the beginning to verse 31. concerning the Supper at which Christ discoursed of judas and gave him the sop, after which he went immediately out, was neither in Bethany two days before the Passeover, as the Antidote Animadverted tells us pag 5. nor yet after the institution of the Sacrament, as Mr Prynne tells us, Vindic. pag. 25. herein differing either from himself or his friend. That Supper in Bethany, the Pamphlet saith, was two days before the Passeover; but some Interpreters collect from john 12. 1, 2. it was longer before; Christ having come to Bethany six days before, and after that Supper the next day Christ did ride into jerusalem on a young Ass, and the people cried Hosanna, Joh. 12. 12. the very story which we have Matth. 21. Mark saith that two days before the Passeover the chief Priests and Scribes sought how to put Christ to death, but he doth not say that the Supper in Bethany was two days before the Passeover. But of this I will not contend, whenever it was, it is not much material to the present question, there was nothing at that Supper concerning judas, but a rebuking of him for having indignation at the spending of the Alabaster box of Ointment, and from that he sought opportunity to betray Christ: But the discourse between Christ and his Apostles concerning one of them that should betray him, and their ask him one by one Is it I? was in the very night of the Passeover, as is clear Matth. 26. 19, 20, to 26. Mark 14. 16, to 22. So that the story joh. 13. 18. to 30. being the same with that in Matthew and Mark, could not be two days before the Passeover. And if two days before Christ had discovered to john who should betray him, by giving the sop to judas, how could every one of the Disciples (and so john among the rest) be ignorant of it two days after, which made every one of them to ask Is it I? Finally, that very night in which the Lord Jesus did institue the Sacrament, the Disciples began to be sorrowful, and began to inquire which of them it was that should betray him, Matth. 26. 22. Mark 14. 19 Luke 22. 23. But if Christ had told them two days before that one of themselves who did sit at Table with him should betray him, surely they had at that time begun to be sorrowful and to ask every one Is it I? That which hath been said doth also discover that other mistake that the discourse at Table concerning the Traitor, and the giving of the sop to judas joh. 13. was after the institution of the Sacrament. If it were after, then either that in john is not the same with the discourse concerning the Traitor mentioned by Matthew and Mark; or otherwise Matthew and Mark speak by anticipation. But I have proved both that the true order is in Matthew and Mark, and that the discourse concerning the Traitor mentioned by john must be in the Evangelicall harmony put together with that in Matthew and Mark, as making one and the same story. And if this in john had been posterior to that in Matthew, then why doth Mr Prynne himself join these together as one, pag. 18, 19 These things premised, I come to the arguments which prove that judas did not receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. The first argument (which was by me touched in that Sermon so much quarrelled by Mr Prynne) is this. It is said of judas, joh. 13. 30. He then having received the sop went immediately out. But this sop or morsel was given him before the Sacrament, whiles they were yet eating the other Supper, at the end whereof Christ did institute the Sacrament. Therefore judas went away before the Sacrament. Let us hear Mr Prynnes four answers to this argument, pag. 24, 25. First, saith he, judas went not out till after Supper, john 13. 2. and Supper being ended, etc. Answ. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will not prove that the Supper was fully ended. The Centurists Gent. 1. lib. 1. cap. 10. explain john 13. 2. thus, Magnâ caenae hujus parte peractâ, A great part of this Supper being done; yea the Greek may be as well turned thus, When they were at Supper, as the late English Annotations have it. Ludovicus de Dieu chooseth this sense. Salmeron and others prove it from verse 4. He riseth from Supper, with vers. 12▪ he sat down again to Supper, and dipped the sop. Take but two like instances in this same story of the passion, Matth. 26. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now when Jesus was in Bethany, not, after Jesus was in Bethany. Matth. 26. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now when the even was come, not, when the even was ended. His second answer, that all the other three Evangelists prove that judas was present at the Sacrament, is but petitio principii. Thirdly (saith he) the Sacrament was not instituted after Supper, but as they sat at Supper. Answ. It was indeed instituted while they were sitting at supper, or before they rose from supper, so that they were still continuing in a Table gesture; yet the actions must needs be distinguished, for they did not at the same instant receive the Sacrament, and eat of another supper too. And though it be said of the bread, that as they did eat, Jesus took bread, yet of the cup Paul and Luke say, that Jesus took it after Supper, that is, after they had done eating; therefore certainly after judas got the sop and went away, at which instant they had not done eating. Neither is there any ground at all Luke 22. 17. to prove that he took the cup during supper, as Mr Prynne conceiveth. But finding no strength herein, he addeth: that some learned men are of opinion that 1 Cor. 11. 21, 22. Ter●…ul. apolog. Christ had that night first his paschal supper, at the close whereof he instituted his own Supper. Secondly, an ordinary supper which succeeded the institution of his own, in imitation whereof the Corinthians and Primitive Christians had their love feasts, which they did eat immediately after the Lord's Supper: and this is more than intimated John 13. v. 2, 12, to 31, etc. therefore Luke's after Supper he took the cup, must be meant only after the Paschall supper, not th●… other Supper. Answ. I verily believe that beside the Paschall and Eucharistical suppers, Christ and his Disciples had that night a common or ordinary supper, and so think Calvin and Beza upon Matth. 26. 20. Pareus upon Matth. 26. 21. Fulk on 1. Cor. 11. 23. Cartwright ibid. and in his Harmony lib. 3. pag. 173. Pelargus in joh. 13. quaest. 2. Tossanu●… in Matth. 26. Tolet and Maldon●… upon john 13. 2. jansenius cone. evang. cap. 131. and divers others. I am very glad that Mr Prynn●… grants it; and I approve his reason, that in the Paschall supper we read of no sops, nor aught to dip them in. The Jews indeed tell us of a sauce in the Passeover which they call Chareseth: but I suppose Christ kept the Passeover according to the Law, and did not tie himself to rites which had come in by tradition. I could bring other reasons to prove an ordinary supper, if it were here necessary. But what gaineth Mr Prynne hereby? surely he loseth much, a● shall appear afterwards. 2. Whereas he thinks the common supper at which Christ did wash his Disciples feet, and discover judas, and give him the sop, was after the Sacrament, as I know not those learned men that think as he doth in this point, so ●t is more than he can prove. The contrary hath been proved from Matthew and Mark who record that the discourse concerning judas was while they were eating that supper which preceded the Sacrament; so that the giving of the sop to judas must be before the Sacrament. But after the Sacrament both Matthew and Mark do immediately add, and when they had sung a hymn they went out into the mount of Olives. 3. As for that of the Corinthians, the very place cited by himself maketh against him, 1 Cor. 11. 21. for when they came together to eat the Lords Supper, every one did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first take his own supper, and that in imitation of Christ who gave the Sacrament after supper. So Aquinas, Lyra, and others following Augustine. This taking first or before, d 〈◊〉. ce●…. 1. lib. 2. cap. 6. cap. 384. edit. 1624. apud Corinthios invalu●rat ●lle abusus, ut an●e caenam Dominicam inter se concertarent; & alii ibi suas coenas instruerent & benepoti caenam Domini acciperen●. hath reference to the Sacrament; because it is spoken of every one who came to the Lords Table, every one taketh before his own supper, which made such a disparity that one was hungry and another drunken at the Sacrament, the poor having too little, and the rich too much at their own supper. 4. The example of the ancient Christians will help him as little. I find no such thing in Tertullia's Apologetik, as the eating of the love feasts immediately after the Lord's Supper. But I find both in the e ●…od. c●…non. eccls Afri●…. can. 41. Ut Sacramenta altaris 〈◊〉 ni●i à jejunis hominibus celebrentur, excepto uno die anniversario, quo caena dominica celebratur. African Canons and in f August. epist. 118. cap. 7. Sed nonnullos probabilis quaedam ratio delectavit, ut uno certo die per annum quo ipsam caenam Dominus dedit, ●anquam ad insigniorem commemorationem, post cibos offerti & accipi liceat corpus & s●nguinem Domini etc. hoc tamen non arbitror institu●um, nisi quia plures & propè omnes in plerisque locis eo die caenare consueverunt. Augustine, and in g Walafridus Strabo de reb. eccls cap. 19 Hoc qu●que commemorandum videtur, quod ipsa Sacrament● quidam interdum jejuni, interdum pransi perc●pisse leguntur. He tells us out of Socrates that the Egyptians ne●re Alexandria, as likewise those in Thebais did often take the Sacrament after they had eaten liberally. Walafridus Strabo that once in the year (and oftener by divers) the Sacrament was received after the ordinary meat for a commemoration of that which Christ did in the night wherein he was betrayed. It had been formerly in use among diver● to take the Sacrament ordinarily after meat, till the African Council discharged it, as Laurentius de la bar observeth in the notes upon Tertullian pag. 339. edit. Paris. 1580. Augustine epist. 118. cap. 5. & 6. answereth certain queries of januarius, concerning eating or not eating before the Sacrament. He saith that Christ did indeed give the Sacrament after supper, and that the Corinthians did also take it after supper: but that the Scripture hath not tied us to follow these examples, but left us at liberty. And upon this ground he defendeth the Church's custom at that time of taking the Sacrament fasting, for greater reverence to the Ordinance. But in this he speaks plainly, h Cum sero factum esset, recumbebat cum duodecim, & manducantibus ois dixit▪ Quoniam unus ex vobis me tradet. Post enim tradidit Sacramentum. that when Christ was eating with the Disciples, and telling them that one of them should betray him, he had not then given the Sacrament. With Augustine's judgement agreeth that Epistle of chrysostom, where answering an objection which had been made against him, that he had given the Sacrament to some that were not fasting, he denieth the fact, but addeth, if he had done so, it had been no sin, because Christ gave the Sacrament to the Apostles after they had supped. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Let them depose, saith he, the Lord himself, who gave the communion after supper. In commemoration whereof the ancient Church (even when they received the Sacrament fasting at other times, yet) upon the passion day called Good Friday received it after meals, as I proved before. And this I also add by the way, that though▪ Paul condemneth the Corinthians for eating their love feast in the Church, yet he allows them to eat at home before they come to the Lords Table, as the Centurists, cent. 1. lib. 2. cap. 6. pag. 384. prove from 1 Cor. 11. 34. And if any man hunger let him eat at home, that ye come not altogether unto condemnation. Casaubon Exerc. 16. pag. 367. edit. Francof. 1615. thinks it was in imitation of Christ's example that those Egyptians mentioned by Socrates did take the Sacrament at night after they had liberally supped 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, being filled with all sorts of meats. I conclude therefore that when Luke saith after supper he took the cup, the meaning is, after both paschal and common supper, and that there was no other eating after the Sacrament that night, and so consequently the giving of the sop to judas must needs be before the Sacrament; and his going out immediately after the sop proves that he did not receive the Sacrament. But Mr Prynne gives us a fourth answer, which is the last (but a very weak) refuge. The word immediately, saith he, many times in our common speech signifieth soon after, or not long after, as we usually say we will do this or that immediately, instantly, presently, whenas we mean only speedily, within a short time. Answ. 1. This is no good report which Mr Prynne brings upon the English tongue, that men promise to do a thing immediately, when they do not mean to do it immediately. I hope every conscientious man will be loath to say immediately, except when he means immediately, (for I know not how to explain immediately, but by immediately) and for an usual form of speaking, which is not according to the rule of the word, it's a very bad commentary to the language of the holy Ghost. 2. And if that form of speech be usual in making of promises, yet I have never known it usual in writing of Histories, to say that such a thing was done immediately after such a thing, and yet divers other things intervened between them. If between judas his getting of the sop and his going out did interveene the instituting of the Sacrament, the taking, blessing, breaking, distributing, and eating of the bread, also the taking and giving of the cup, and their dividing it among themselves, and drinking all of it; how can it then be a true narration that judas went out immediately after his receiving of the sop. 3. Neither is it likely that Satan would suffer judas to stay any space after he was once discovered, lest the company▪ and conference of Christ and his Apostles should take him off from his wicked purpose. 4. Gerard having in his common places given that answer, that the word immediately may suffer this sense, that shortly thereafter judas went forth; he doth professedly recall that answer in his Cotinuation of the Harmony cap. 171. p. 453. and that upon this ground, because judas being mightily irritated and exasperated▪ both by the sop, and by Christ's answer, (for when judas asked Is it I? Christ answered Thou hast said) would certainly break away abruptly and very immediately. So much of the first argument. The second argument (which I also touched in my Sermon) was this. As Christ said to the Communicants, Drink ye all of it, Matth. 26. 27. and they all drank, Matth. 14. 23. so he saith to them all, This is my Body which is broken for you, This is the cup of the new covenant in my Blood, which is shed for you, Luke 22. 19 20. But if judas had been one of the communicants, it is not credible that Christ would have said so in reference to him, as well as to the other Apostles. This argument Mr Prynne p. 25. doth quite mistake, as if the strength of it lay in a supposed particular application of the words of the institution to each communicant, which I never meant, but dislike it as much as he: The words were directed to all, in the plural. This is my Body broken for you, etc. my Blood shed for you, etc. Mr Prynne conceives that it might have been said to judas, being meant by Christ, only conditionally, that his Body was broken, and his Blood was shed for him, if he would really receive them by faith. Ionas Schlichtingius a Socinian in his book against Meisnerus pag. 803. though he supposeth as Mr Prynne doth that judas was present at the giving of the Sacrament, yet he holds that it is not to be imagined, that Christ would have said to judas, that his body was broken for him. And shall we then who believe that the death of Jesus Christ was a satisfaction to the justice of God for sin (which the Socini● believe not) admit that Christ meant to comprehend Iudas ●mong others, when he said this is my body which is broken for you? Ministers do indeed offer Christ to all upon condition of believing, being commanded to preach the Gospel to every creature, and not knowing who are reprobates: but that Christ himself (knowing that the son of perdition was now lost, that the Scripture might be fulfilled john 17. 12.) would in the Sacrament (which is more applicative than the word, and particularizeth the promises to the receivers) so speak, as that in any sense those words might be applied to judas, that even for him his body was broken and his blood shed; and that thereupon the seals should be given him, to me is not at all credible; and I prove the negative by four arguments: (though I might give many more) 1. If Christ did in reference to judas mean conditionally that his body was broken, and his blood shed for him, if he would believe (as Mr Prynne holds) than he meant conditionally to save the son of perdition whom he knew infallibly to be lost, and that he should be certainly damned and go to Hell, and that in eating the Sacrament he would certainly eat and drink judgement to himself (all which Mr Prynne himself pag. 26. saith Christ infallibly knew) But who dare think or say so of Jesus Christ? Suppose a Minister knew infallibly that such a one hath blasphemed against the holy Ghost, (which sin the Centurists and others think to have been committed by judas, which could not be hid from Christ) and is irrecoverably lost, and will be most certainly damned, durst that Minister admit that person to the Sacrament, and make those words applicable to him so much as conditionally; This is the Lords body broken for you: This is the blood of the new Covenant shed for you unto remission of sin? How much less would Christ himself say so, or mean so in reference to judas? 2. If Christ would not pray for judas, but for his elect Apostles only, and such as should believe through the word of the Gospel, than he meant not so much as conditionally to give his body and blood for judas. (for if he meant any good to judas, so much as conditionally, he would not have excluded him from having any part at all in his prayers to God.) But Christ doth exclude judas from his prayer, john 17. not only as one of the reprobate world vers. 9 but even by name vers. 12. giving him over for lost, and one that was not to be prayed for. 3. Love and hatred in God and in his son Jesus Christ, being eternal and unchangeable, (for actus Dei immanentes sunt aeterni) it followeth that if there was such a decree of God, or any such meaning or intention in Christ, as to give his body and blood for judas, whom he knew infallibly to be lost: and since that same conditional meaning or intention could not be without a conditional love of God and of Christ to judas and his salvation: this love doth still continue in God, and in Christ, to save judas now in Hell upon condition of his believing, which every Christian I think will abominate. 4. That conditional love and conditional intention or meaning, could not have place in the Son of God. For as Spanhemius doth rightly argue in his late learned Exercitations de gratia universali pag. 746. it doth not become either the wisdom or goodness of God to will and intend a thing upon such a condition as neither is nor can be. And pag. 829. he saith, that this conditional destination or intention cannot be conceived, as being incident only to such as do neither foreknow nor direct and order the event, and in whose hand it is not to give the faculty and will of performing the thing. Which can not without impiety be thought or said of God. Thus he. The third argument (which I shall now add) is that whereby Hilarius Can. 30. in Matth. and Innocentius the third lib. 4. de mysterio miss. cap. 13. prove that judas received not the Sacrament, neither was present at the receiving of it. Because that night while judas was present, Christ in his gracious and comfortable expressions to his Apostles did make an exception, as john 13. 10, 11. Ye are clean, but not all. For he knew who should betray him, therefore said he, ye are not all clean, vers. 18. I speak not of you all, I know whom I have chosen. So vers. 21. even as before Joh. 6. 70. Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil. But at the Sacrament all his sweet and gracious speeches are without any such exception, This is my body which is given for you, etc. Yea he saith positively of all the Apostles to whom he gave the Sacrament, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the Vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's Kingdom, Matth. 26. 29. and this he saith nnto them all, as it is clear from vers. 27. Drink ye all of it. Again, Luke 22. 28, 29, 30. Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptatoons. And I appoint unto you a Kingdom as my Father hath appointed unto me. That ye may eat and drink at my Table in my Kingdom, and sit on Thrones judging the twelve Tribes of Israel. Would not Christ much more have excepted judas in these expressions, if he had been present, seeing he had so often excepted him before? As for Mr Prynnes reason's from Scripture to prove that judas did receive the Sacrament, they are extremely inconcludent. First, he saith, that Matthew, Mark, and Luke, are all express in terminis, that Christ sat down to eat the Passeover, and the twelve Apostles with him; that judas was one of those twelv●, and present at the Table; that as they sat at meat together, Jesus took Bread, etc. that he said of the cup, drink ye all of it; and Mark saith they all drank of it. Answ. 1. The three Evangelists are all express in terminis, that when Even was come, Christ sat down with the twelve; as likewise that the twelve did eat with him that night; but that the twelve Apostles were with him in the eating of the Passeover, they are not express in terminis, and I have some reasons which move me to think that judas did not eat so much as of the Passeover that night▪ whereof in the proper place. 2. And if he had been at the Passeover, that proves not he was at the Lord's Supper. When Christ took the cup and said, Drink ye all of it, it was after supper, that is, after the Paschall supper, as Mr Prynne himself gives the sense. 3. When Mark saith, They all drank of it, he means all that were present, but judas was gone forth. His argument supposeth that judas was present, which being before disproved, there remains no more strength nor life in his argument. That which he addeth pag. 18, 19 if it have either strength or good sense, I confess the dulness of my conception. He would prove from Matthew and Mark that immediately before the institution of the Sacrament, Christ told his Disciples that one of them should betray him, and they all asked Is it I? and that therefore certainly the Sacrament was given to judas, because he was the last man that said Is it I? immediately before the institution. And further (saith he) Luke placeth these words of Christ concerning judas his betraying of him, after the institution, which manifesteth that judas was present at the Sacrament. His inference is this, that seeing john averreth, Chap. 13. v. 2. that all this discourse, and the giving of the sop to judas was after supper, and the other three Evangelists agreeing that Christ instituted and distributed the Sacrament, as they did eat, before supper quite ended, it must follow that judas did receive the Sacrament. Answ. 1. But how doth this hang together, first to argue that judas received the Sacrament, because Christ's discourse concerning judas, and judas his question Is it I? were immediately before the institution of the Sacrament: and again to prove that judas did receive the Sacrament, because Christ's discourse about judas was after supper ended, and after the Sacrament which was instituted before supper ended? the one way of arguing destroyeth the other. 2. For that in Matthew and Mark, that Christ discoursed of the Traitor, and that judas said Is it I? before the institution of the Sacrament, I confess; but that it was immediately before the institution of the Sacrament the Evangelists do not say, neither doth he prove it. judas went out after that discourse and the sop, and how much of the consolatory and valedictory Sermon (which beginneth john 13. 31.) was spent before the distribution of the Sacrament, who is so wise as to know? 3. For that in Luke, I have proved that though he sets down the things, yet not in that order wherein they were done: which is also the opinion of Grotius upon that place. And for that john 13. 2. Supper being ended, I have answered before. Shall we in the next place have a heap of humane testimonies concerning judas his receiving of the Sacrament? I see so much light from Scripture to the contrary, that I shall not be easily shaken with the authority of men: yet it shall not be amiss a little to try whether it be altogether so as he would make us believe. He saith we go against all antiquity, pag. 18. and against the most and best of Protestant writers, pag. 23. yea, that all ages have received it as an indubitable verity that judis received the Sacrament, pag. 19 No Sir, soft a little. The truth is the thing hath been very much controverted both among the Fathers, and among Papists, and among Protestant writers. I have found none so unanimous for judas his receiving of the Sacrament as the Lutherans, i Gerhard. loc. come. tom. 5. pag. 186, 187. Petrus Hinckelmannus de Anabaptismo. disp. 5. cap. 2. endeavouring thereby to prove that the wicked hypocrites and unbelievers do in the Sacrament eat the true body of Christ, and drink his true blood, yet (as hot as they are upon it) they acknowledge it is no indubitable verity, they cite authorities against it as well as for it. See Gerhard Harm. evang. cap. 171. Brachmand Tom. 3. pag. 2082. Neither do the Lutherans make any such use of judas his receiving of the Sacrament as Master Prynne doth: for they hold that not only excommunicated persons, but scandalous and notorious sinners, not yet excommunicated, aught to be kept back from the Lords Table: See Gerhard loc. come. Tom. 5. 180, 181, 182. where he proves distinctly that all these aught to be excluded from the Lords Supper. 1. Heretics. 2. Notorious scandalous sinners. 3. Excommunicated persons. 4. Possessed persons, furious persons, and idiots. 5. Infamous persons, who use unlawful arts, as Magicians, Negromancers, etc. and for the exclusion of scandalous sinners he citeth the Ecclesiastical Electoral Constitutions. L. Osiander Enchir. contra Anabap. cap. 6. quaest. 3. tells us that the Lutheran Churches exclude all known scandalous persons from the Sacrament. But it is strangest to me that Mr Prynne will not give credit to some of the Testimonies cited by himself. Theophylact. enar in Matth. 26. saith Quidam autem dicunt quod egresso Juda, tradidit Sacramentum aliis Discipulis, proinde & nos sic facere debemus, & malos à Sacramentis abarcere. Idem enar. in Marc. 14. Quidam dicun●… (but who they were appears not saith Mr Prynne, in any extant work of theirs) judam non fuisse participem Sacramentorum, sed egressum esse priusquam dominus Sacramenta traderet. Shall we take this upon Mr Prynnes credit, that it doth not appear in any extant work of theirs? Nay, let him take better heed what he saith, and whereof he affirmeth. In the next page he himself excepteth one, which is Hilary; but except him only, he saith that all the Ancients unanimously accord herein, without one dissenting voice. But see now whether all is to be believed that Mr Prynne gives great words for. 'tis well that he confesseth we have Hilary for us. First therefore let b Hilarius Can. 30. in Matth: Post quae Judas proditor indicatur, sine quo pascha accepto chalice & fracto pane conficitur: dignus enim aeternerum sacramentorum communione non f●erat etc. Neque sanè bibere cum eo poterat, qui non erat bibeturus in regno. the words of Hilary be observed. Next I will prove what he denieth, namely that others of the Ancients were of the same opinion. Clemens lib. 5. constit. Apost. cap. 13. after mention of the Paschall or typical supper, addeth these words, as of the Apostles, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But when he had delivered to us the antitype mysteries (so called in reference to the Paschall supper) of his precious body and blood, Judas not being present with us. I do not own these eight books of the Apostolical constitutions, as written by that Clemens who was Paul's fellow-labourer, Phil. 4. yet certainly they are ancient as is universally acknowledged. Dionysius Areopagita (or whosoever he was that anciently wrote under that name) de Ecclesiastica Hierarchia cap. 3. part. 3. sect. 1. speaking of the same bread, and the same cup, whereof all the communicants are partakers, he saith that this teacheth them a Divine conformity of manners, and withal calls to mind Christ's supper in the night when he was betrayed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In quo caena: so Ambrose the Monk in his Latin translation, and judoeus Clichtoveus in his Commentary, In which supper (for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 relates to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the supper before mentioned, and signifieth the time of supper, or after supper was begun.; so the Grecians use to say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify in the time of sickness) the author himself of those Symbols doth most justly deprive or cast out him (Judas) who had not holily and with agreement of mind supped together with him, upon holy things. By these holy things he understands (it should seem) the Typical or Paschall supper, of which judas had eaten before, and peradventure that night also, in the opinion of this Ancient. judocus Clichteveus in his Commentary saith only, that judas did that night eat together with Christ cibum, meat, he saith not Sacramentum. This ancient writer is also of opinion that Christ did excommunicate judas, or as Clichtoveus expounds him, à caeterorum discipulorum caetu aequissime separavit, discrevit & dispescuit. If you think not this clear enough, hear the ancient Scholiast Maximus to whom the Centurists give the Testimony of a most learned and most holy man: He flourished in the seventh Century, under Constans, he was a chief opposer of the Monothelites, and afterwards a martyr. His Scholia upon that place of Dionysius, maketh this inference 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that after Judas had gone forth from supper, Christ gave the mystery to his Disciples. Again, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Where note, that to him also, (that is, to judas) he (Christ) gave of a mystical bread (meaning the unleavened bread of the Passeover) and cup (meaning the cup drunk at the Paschall supper) but the mysteries (that is, the Eucharistical bread and cup, commonly called the mysteries by ancient writers) he gave to his Disciples after Judas went forth from supper, as it were because Judas himself was unworthy of these mysteries. Add hereunto the Testimony of Georgius Pachymeres, who lived in the thirteenth Century: in his Paraphrase upon that same place of Dionysius, he saith that Christ himself the author and institutor of this Sacrament, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Christ doth cast out and separate or excommunicate most justly Judas, who bade not holily supped together with him. For having given to him also of a mystical bread and cup, he gave the mysteries to the Disciples alone, after be went forth from Supper, thereby as it were showing that Judas was unworthy of these mysteries. By the mysteries which Maximus and Pachimeres speak of, and which they say Christ gave to his Disciples, after judas was gone forth., I can understand nothing, but the Eucharistical supper, the Elements whereof are very frequently called the mysteries by the ancients, as hath been said. And if any man shall understand by these mysteries the inward graces or things signified in the Lord's Supper, than what senoe can there be in that which Maximus and Pachimeres say? for Christ could as easily keep back from judas, and give to his other Disciples, those graces and operations of his Spirit, when judas was present among them, as when he was cast out. So that it could not be said that Christ did cast out judas in order to the restraining from him, and giving to the other Disciples, the invisible inward grace signified in the Sacrament, as if the other Apostles had not received that grace at the receiving of the Sacrament, but that Iud●…s must first be cast out, before they could receive it; or as if judas had received the inward grace, if he had not gone out from supper. The sense must therefore be this, that judas as an unworthy person was cast out by Christ, before he thought fit to give the Sacrament of his Supper unto his other Apostles. Unto all these Testimonies add Ammonius Alexandrinus de quatuor Evangeliorum consonantia, cap. 155. where he hath the story of Iud●…s his receiving of the sop, and his going forth immediately after he had received it: thereafter cap. 156. he addeth the institution and distribution of the Lords Supper, as being in order posterior to judas his going forth. So likewise before him Tacianus doth make the History of the institution of the Sacrament to follow after the excluding of judas from the company of Christ and his Apostles: which neither of them had done, if they had not believed that judas was gone before the Sacrament. With all these agreeth l Lib. 4. the myster. Miss cap. 13. Patet ergo quod Judas prius exiit quam Christus traderet Eucharistiam. Quod autem Lucas post calicem commemorat traditc●…em, per recapitualtionem potost intelligi: Quia saepe ●…it in Scriptura ut' quod prius sactum sserat posterius enarretur. That whole Chapter is sp●nt in the debating of this question. Innocentius the third, who holdeth expressly that the Sacrament was not given till judas had gone forth: and that there is a recapitulation in the narration of Luke. Moreover as it is evident by the forementioned Testimonies of Theophylact that some of the Ancients did hold that Christ gave not the Sacrament to judas: so also the Testimony cited by Mr Prynne out of Victor Antiochenus beareth witness to the same thing: sunt tamen qui Judam ante porrectam Eucharistiae Sacamentum exivisse existiment. But yet (saith he) there are who conceive that Judas went forth before the Sacrament of the Eucharist was given. And with these words Mr Prynne closeth his citation out of Victor Antiochenus. But I will proceed where he left off. The very next words are these, Sane Johannes quiddam ejusmodi subindicare videtur. Certainly I●…hn seemeth to intimate some such thing. Which is more than half a consenting with those who think that judas went forth before the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. I shall end with two Testimonies of Rupertus Tuitiensis, m In I●…h 6. de participatione autem co●po r●s & sanguinis ejus, potest aliquis opinari quod ille (Judas) intersuerit. Sed profecto diligentius Evangelistarum natratione, doctorumque ●nsiderata diversitate, citius deprehendi, huic quoque Sacramento illum nequaquam inter● Nam cum accepis●et buccellam, qua traditor designatus est, exivit continuo. one upon the sixth: n Idem in Io. 13. Sciendum 〈◊〉 ò est, quia, sicut & ante nos dictum est, si post bucellam continuo Judas ●xivit, sicut paulò post Evangelista dicit, procul●ubio nequaquam Discipulis tunc interfuit, quando Domirus noster Sacramentum illis corporis & sanguinis sui distribuit. Et paulo post. Igitur exemplo Domini, tolerate quidem malos boni debent in Ecclesia, don●c ventilabro Judicii granum à palea, vel à tritico separentur zizan●a: 〈◊〉 e● non ●o usque indish eta debet esse patientia, ut indig●is, quos noverunt, Sacrosancta Christi tradant mysteria. another upon the thirteenth of john. The latter of the two speaketh thus, being Englished. But we must know, that, as it hath been also said before us, if Judas after the sop did go forth immediately, as a little after the Evangelist saith, without doubt, he was not present with the Disciples at that time when our Lord did distribute unto them the Sacrament of his own body and blood. And a little after, Therefore by the Lord's example the good aught indeed to tolerate the bad in the Church, until by the fan of judgement the grain be separated from the chaff, or the tares from the wheat: but yet patience must not be so far void of discerning, as that they should give the most sacred mysteries of Christ, to unworthy persons whom they know to be such. As for modern writers, this present question hath been debated by Salmeron Tom. 9 Tract. 11. and by Dr Kellet in his Tricaenium lib. 2. cap. 14. both of them hold that judas did not receive the Lords Supper. Mariana on Luke 22. 21. citeth authors for both opinions, and rejecteth neither. Gerhard Harm. Evang. cap. 171, citeth for the same opinion, that judas did not receive the Lords Supper, (beside Salmeron) Turrianus and Barradius: and of ours Danaeus, Musculus, Kleinwitzius, Piscator, & alii complures, saith he, and many others. Add also Zanchius upon the fourth Command. Gomarus (who professedly handleth this question upon john 13.) o Beza i●… Jo. 13. 30. certa videtur esse corum sententia ●ui existimant Judam institutioni sacrae caenae non interfuisse. Beza puts it out of question, and p Tessanus in Joh. 13. ita ut Judae qu●dem laverit pedes Christus, sed postea egres●us caenae Sacramentali non interfuerit, sicut ●ruditi multi ex hoc capite colligunt. Tossanns tells us it is the judgement of many learned men, as well as his own. q Musculus in loc. come. de can●… Dom. p. 352. M●hi sanè dubium non est, egressum ad perficiendum traditionis scelus fuisse Judam, priusquam Sacramentum hoc à Domino Disscipul is traderetu●. Musculus following Rupertus, concludeth that certainly judas was gone forth, before Christ gave the Sacrament to his Apostles. So likewise r Diodati upon joh 13. 30. We may gather from hence that he (Judas) did not communicate of our Saviour's Sacrament. Diodati and s Grotius annot. in Mat. 26. 21, 26. Luk 22. 21. ●…ch. 13. holds that the Supper at which the sop was given to judas, and from which he went forth, was the common supper, and that it was before the Lord's Supper, and that Luke doth not place Christ's words concerning judas Luke 22. 21. in the proper place. Grotius. By this time it appeareth that Mr Prynne hath no such consent of writers of his opinion, or against mine, as he pretendeth. As for those Ancients cited by Mr Prynne, some of them (as Origen and Cyrill) did go upon this great mistake that the sop which Christ gave to judas, was the Sacrament; which error of theirs is observed by Interpreters upon the place. No marvel that they who thought so, were also of opinion that judas received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper; for how could they choose to think otherwise, upon that supposition? But now the later Interpreters, yea Mr Prynne himself having taken away that which was the ground of their opinion, their Testimonies will weigh the less in this particular. chrysostom thinks indeed that judas received the Sacrament, but he takes it to be no warrant at all for the admission of scandalous persons: for in one and the same Homily, Hom. 83. in Matth. he both tells us of judas his receiving of the Sacrament, and discourseth at large against the admission of scandalous persons. As for Bernard Mr Prynne doth not cite his words nor quote the place. Oecumenius (in the passage cited by Mr Prynne) saith that the other Apostles and judas did eat together communi mensa, at a common Table; But he saith not at the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. That which Oecumenius in that place argueth against, is the contempt of the poor in the Church of Corinth, and the secluding of them from the love feasts of the richer sort. Now, saith he, if Christ himself admitted judas to eat at one and the same Table, with his other Disciples, ought not we much more admit the poor to eat at our Tables? Mr Prynne tells us also that Nazianzen in his Christus patience agreeth that judas did receive the Lord's Supper together with the other Apostles. I answer, first I find no such thing in that place. Next, those verses so entitled, are thought to be done by some late author, and not by Nazianzen, as Io. NeW enklaius in his Censure upon them noteth, and giveth reason for it. Cyprians Sermon the ablutione pedum, as it is doubted of whether it be Cyprians, so the words cited by Mr Prynne do not prove the point in controvery. The other Testimony cited out of Cyprians Sermon de caena Domini, as it is not transcribed according to the original, so if Mr Prynne had read all which Cyprian saith in that Sermon against unworthy receivers, peradventure he had not made 〈◊〉 of that testimony. The words cited out of Ambrose do not hold forth clearly judas his receiving of the Eucharistical Supper. The words cited out of Augustine epist. 162. judas accepit pretium nostrum, are not there to be found, though there be something to that sense. It is no safe way of citations to change the words of Authors. This by the way. As for his other three citations out of Augustine Tract. 6. 26. & 62. in joh. I can not pass them without two Animadversions. First, the greatest part of those words, which he citeth as Augustine's words, and also as recited by Beda in his Commentary on 1 Cor. 11. is not to be found either in Augustine or Beda in the places by him cited; viz. these words: Talis erat Judas, & tamen cum sanctis Discipulis undecin●… intrabat & exibat. Ad ipsam caenam Dominicam pariter accessit, conversari cum iis potuit, eos inquinare non potuit: De uno p●…ne & Petrus accipit & Judas; & tamen quae pars fideli & infideli? Petrus enim accepit ad vitam, manducat Judas ad mortem: Qui enim comederunt indigne judicium sibi manducat & bibit SIBI, NON TIBI, etc. Of which last sentence if Mr Prynne can make good Latin, let him do it, (for I can not) and when he hath done so, he may be pleased to look over his Books better to seek those words elsewhere, if he can find them, for as yet he hath directed us to seek them where they are not. My next Animadversion shall be this. The words of Augustine, which Mr Prynne allegeth for judas his receiving of the Sacrament, are these, Tract. 6. in Joh. Num enim mala erat buccella quae tradita est Judae à Domino? Absit. Medicus non daret venenum: salutem medicus dedit, sed indigne accipiendo ad perniciem accepit, quia non pacatus accepit. Thus the original, though not so recited by Mr Prynne: but that I pass, so long as he retains the substance. Yet how will he conclude from these words that judas received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, unless he make Augustine to contradict himself most grossly: for Tract. 62. in Joh. (another place whether Mr Prynne directeth us,) speaking of Christ's giving of that buccella or sop to judas, he saith, Non autem ut putant quidam negligenter legentes, tunc Judas Christi corpus accepit: but Judas did not at that time receive the body of Christ, as some negligently reading do think. Which words Beda also in his Comment on joh. 13. hath out of Augustine. It is Augustine's opinion that the Sacrament was given before that time, at which judas was present. That which Mr Prynne citeth out of Algerus (a Monk, who in that same book writeth expressly for Transubstantiation) maketh more against him then for him. For Algerus takes the ●eason of Christ's giving the Sacrament to judas, to be this, because his perverse conscience though known to Christ was not then made manifest, judas not being accused and condemned: so that he was a secret, not a scandalous sinner. Thus far we have a taste of Mr Prynnes citations of the Ancients. Peradventure it were not hard to find as great flaws in some other of those citations. But it is not worth the while to stay so long upon it. Among the re● he citeth Haymo Bishop of Halberstat for judas his receiving of the Sacrament. But he may also be pleased to take notice that Haymo would have no notorious scandalous sinner to receive the Sacrament, and holds that a man eats and drinks unworthily qui gravioribus criminibus commaculatus praesumit illud (sacramentum) sumere; that is, who being defiled with heinous crimes presumeth to take the Sacrament; but if he had thought it (as Master Prynne doth) the most effectual ordinance, and readiest means to work conversion and repentance, he could not have said so. That which Mr Prynne pag. 23. citeth out of the two confessions of Bohemia and Belgia, doth not assert that for which he citeth them. For neither of them saith that judas did receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. The Belgik confession saith an evil man may receive the Sacrament unto his own condemnation. As for example, Judas and Simon Magus both of them did receive the Sacramental sign. I can subscribe to all this; for it is true in respect of the baptism both of judas and Simon Magus. But I must here put Mr Prynne in mind, that the thing which he pleads for, is extremely different from that which the Belgic Churches hold. For Harmonia Synodorum Belgicarum cap. 13. saith thus, Nemo ad Caenam dominicam admittatur, nisi qui fidei Confessionem ante reddiderit, & Disciplinae Ecclesiasticae se subjecerit, & vitae inculpatae testes fideles produxerit. Let no man be admitted to the Lords Supper, except he who hath first made a confession of his faith, and hath subjected himself to the Church Discipline, and hath proved himself by faithful witnesses to be of an unblameable life. The other confession of Bohemia saith that judas received the Sacrament of the Lord Christ himself, did also execute the function of a Preacher, and yet he ceased not to remain a devil, an hypocrite, etc. This needeth not be expounded of the Lords Supper (which if he had received, how did he still remain an hypocrite? for that very night his wickedness did break forth and was put in execution) but of the Passeover received by judas once and again, if not the third time. That Chapter is of Sacraments in general, and that which is added, is concerning Ananias and his wife, their being baptised of the Apostles. However the very same Chapter saith that Ministers must throughly look to it, and take diligent heed lest they give holy things to dogs, or cast Pearls before swine. Which is there applied to the Sacraments, and is not understood of preaching and admonishing only as Mr Prynne understands it. Also the Book entitled Ratio Disciplinae ordinisque Eccles●…astici in unitate fratrum Bohemorum cap. 7. appointeth not only Church-discipline in general, but particularly suspension from the Lords Table of obstinate offenders. Finally, whereas M. Prynne citeth a passage of the antiquated Common prayer Book, as it hath lost the authority which once it had, so that passage doth not by any necessary inference hold forth that judas received the Sacrament, as D. Kellet showeth at some length in his Tricaenium. The citation in which M. Prynne is most large, is that of Alexander Alensis part. 4. Quaest 11. membr. 2. art. 1. sect. 4. (though not so quoted by him) But for a retribution, I shall tell him three great points, in which Alexander Alensis in that very dispute of the receiving of the Eucharist, is utterly against his principles. First, Alexander Alensis is of opinion that the precept Matth. 7. 6. Give not that which is holy to dogs, neither cast ye Pearls before swine, doth extend to the denying the Sacrament to known profane Christians; for both in that Section which hath been cited, and art. 3. sect. 1. answering objections from that Text, he doth not say, that it is meant of the word, not of the Sacrament, and of Infidels, Heretics, Persecutors, not of profane ones: but he ever supposeth, that the Ministers are forbidden by that Text, to consent to give the Sacrament to profane scandalous sinners. Secondly, Alexander Alensis holds, that Christ's giving of the Sacrament to judas, is no warrant to Ministers to give the Sacrament to public notorious scandalous sinners, though they do desire it. And thus he resolveth Ib. art. 3. sect. 1. If the Priest know any man by confession to be in a mortal sin; he ought to admonish him in secret, that he approach not to the Table of the Lord: and he ought to deny unto such a one the body of Christ, if he desire it in secret. But if he desire it in public, then either his sin is public or secret. I●… public, he ought to deny it unto him; neither so doth he reveal sin because it is public: If private, he must give it, lest a worse thing fall out. Thirdly, Alexander Alensis holds the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, not to be a converting, but a confirming and conserving Ordinance Ibid. art. 2. sect. 2. His words I shall cite in the debating of that controversy. CHAP. IX. Whether Judas received the Sacrament of the Passeover that night in which our Lord was betrayed. Mr Prynne (distrusting peradventure the strength of his proofs for judas his receiving of the Lords Supper) betakes himself to an additional argument pag. 24. All our Antagonists, saith he, and the Evangelists clearly agree that Judas did eat the Passeover with Christ himself, as well as the other Apostles: now the Passeover was a type of the Lords Supper, etc. It seems he had not the notes of my Sermon truly (though he endeavour to confute it) for I did then, and I do still make a very great question of it, whether judas did so much as eat the Passeover at that time with Christ and the other Apostles: and I think I have very considerable reasons which make it probable that judas did not eat the Passeover that night with Christ and the Apostles. The resolution of this question depends upon another, whether Christ and his Apostles did eat the Passeover before that supper at which he did wash his Disciples feet, and gave the sop to judas (after the receiving whereof judas immediately went out) or whether that supper was before the eating of the Passeover. I find t Gerhard. Har●… Evang. cap. 170. Quidam statuunt pedum lotionem ips● etiam legali caenae sive agni pasch●lis esui praemittendam esse. some others as well as myself have been of opinion that it was before, not after the Passeover; (yea that the Jewish custom was to eat their common Supper before the Passeover. See M. Weemse his Christian Synagogue pag 120.) I find also Ammonius Alexandrinus de quatuor Evangeliorum consonantia cap. 154. placeth that supper mentioned john 13. 2, 4, 12, 18. at which Jesus did wash his Disciples feet, and when he had done sat down again, and told them that he who was eating bread with him should betray him. Then cap. 155. he proceedeth to the story of the Paschall supper, in which he conceiveth the sop was given to judas; but in this particular he did much mistake; for the sop was given at the same supper mentioned john 13. 2, 4, 12, 18. and not at the Paschall Supper (as M Prynne also acknowledgeth,) This is clear, that Ammonius placeth the common supper at which Christ did wash his Disciples feet, and told them of the Traitor, to have been before the Paschall supper. I will first tell the reasons that incline me this way, and then answer the objections which may seem to be against it. The reasons are these: 1. The oriental custom was to wash before meal, not after they had begun to eat. 2. This Supper (in which the sop was given to judas, whereupon he went away) was before the Feast of the Passeover, Joh. 13. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, meaning immediately before the feast of the Passeover, it being reckoned from the time of eating the Paschall Lamb, and so before the Feast of the Passeover, hath the same sense as Luke 11. 38. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Pharisee wondered that Christ had not washed before dinner, that is immediately before dinner. So here I undestand before the Feast of the Passeover, that is immediately before the time of eating the Paschall Lamb, which was the beginning of the Feast of the Passeover. You will say perhaps that Christ did not eat the Passeover upon the same day that the Jews did, and so those words before the Feast of Passeover, may be understood before the Passeover of the Jews, not before the Passeover of Christ. I answer, whether Christ and the Jews kept the Passeover at one time, is much debated among Interpreters. Baronius, Toletus, and divers others hold that Christ did eat the Paschall Lamb upon the same day with the Jews. Scaliger, Causabon, and others hold the contrary. The question hath been peculiarly debated between joh. Cloppenburgius, and Ludovicus Capellus, yet so that Capellus (who follows Scaliger and Casaubon) acknowledgeth that both opinions have considerable reasons, and both are straitened with some inconveniencies. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de ultimo Christi paschate pag. 6. & 22. For my part, I shall not contend: but admit the distinction of Christ's Passeover and the Jews Passeover; yet saith Maldonat upon joh. 13. 1. I doubt not but john understands Christ's Passe-over; for all the Evangelists in the story of the last Supper when they speak of the Passeover, they mean Christ's Passeover, and it was the true Passeover according to the Law. 3. That which makes many to think that Christ did eat the Passeover before that other Supper in which he gave the sop to judas, is a mistake of the Jewish custom, which as they conceive was to eat other meat after, but none before the Paschall Lamb. Now to me the contrary appeareth, namely, that whatsoever the Jews did eat before the Paschall Supper, in the night of the Passeover, was eaten before the Paschall Supper, and it was among them forbidden to eat any thing after the Paschall Supper. Which may be proved not only by that talmudical Canon (cited by D. Buxtorf in hist. instit. caenae Dom.) which saith, The Passeover is not eaten except after meal: but also more plainly by w Non dimittunt (caetum comedentium) post esum (agni) paschalis cum bellariis (Hoc est non sinunt caetum comedentium post esum agni paschalis comedere secundarum mensatum delitias) Ibid. v●…rsus finem. Comedentium caetus sic dimittitur, ut nihil amplius cibi aut bellariorum aut similes secundarum mensarum delitias, quae ad commessationes pertinent, illis comedere aut quicquam bibere permissum sit: non enim in more habent post sacram hanc caenam indulgere commess●tionibus & 〈◊〉, imo ne minimum quidem▪ gustant. Liber rituum paschalium lately translated and published by Rittangelius: and by another Canon cited by x Matth. Martini●… lexic. philol. pag. 25 29. Nam sanè Canon paschali●… diser●…e interdicebat, post poculum la●…dationis, aliquid cibi aut p●…tus sumere. Interdicitur comedere aliquid post poculum hymni. Hic fuit verus ritus celebrat●…nis pascha temporibus Messiae, etc. Martinius. But there are two arguments which may be brought to prove that judas did eat the Passeover with Christ and the Apostles. 1. Because that Supper at which judas got the sop, was after the Paschall supper, for it is said john 13. 2. Supper being ended. Which must be meant of the Paschall supper. I answer these words may very well be understood not of the Paschall supper, but of that other supper at which the sop was given to judas. And as for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: some Greek copies have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Nonnus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: so the sense were as Augustine expounds, Supper being prepared and ready and set on Table. But be it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the matter is not great; for there is no necessity of expounding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, thus, when Supper was done or ended. It may suffer other two senses. One is, that of Augustine, when it was Supper time, or when Supper was set on Table. And this sense is followed by A●…binus Fl●…us Alcuinus lib. de divinis Officiis, Artic. de Caena Domini. Circa v●…speram vero caenâ factâ, id est paratâ, & ad convivantium mensam usque perductâ, non transactâ neque ●…initâ, surgit Jesus à caenâ & p●…it vestimenta, etc. So likewise Mariana upon joh. 13. 2. tells us that caenâ factâ, may well be expounded, caenâ paratâ, or ante caenam, or cum caenae tempus adesset, which he cleareth by the like forms of speech in other Scriptures. Secondly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may very well be translated, when supper was begun, or when they were at Supper, as I have before showed by like instances in the New Testament, Matth. 26. 6. 20. Things permanent as a house, or the like are said to be factae, when they are ended and complete. But things which are successive are said to be factae, when they are begun, as dies factus, not when the day is ended, but when it is begun. So here, there can be no more proved from the words, but that supper was begun, or they were at supper. This sense is given by Osiander, Erasmus, ●…ossanus harm. evang. part 3. cap. 1. beside the Centuri●ts, Salmeron, and Lud. de Dieu before cited. The other argument may be this. Matthew, Mark and Luke, after they have told of the making ready of the Passeover, add that Christ sat 〈◊〉 with the Twelve. Ans. 1. It cannot be proved, that this is meant of sitting down to eat the Passeover; nay, it rather appeareth from the Text, that it was to eat that other supper, at which the sop was given to judas; The same discourse and questioning concerning the Traitor, which john sets down before judas his getting of the sop and going out; is recorded by Ma●…thew and Mark, to have been in that first supper, unto which Christ sat down with the twelve when even was come. Therefore Christ's sitting down with the twelve Matth. 26. 20, 21. Mark▪ 14. 17, 18. ●eing spoken of that supper at which Christ told his Disciples that one of them should betray him, and every one asked Is it I? (which by Mr Prynnes confession was not the Paschall, but the ordinary supper.) It followeth that the sitting down with the twelve is not meant of the Passeover, but of an ordinary supper before the Passeover. 2. The same words of Christ's sitting down with the twelve are expounded (though upon other considerations) as spoken in reference not to the Paschall, but the ordinary or common supper, by Lorinus in Psal. 101. 6. following Maldonat, and by Gerhard. Harm. Evang. cap 170. p. 403. Their reason is, because according to the Law, the Passeover was to be eaten standing, not sitting: but that is more than can be proved from the Law which doth not so much as speak of standing at the first Passeover. It is no necessary consequence: they had their stav●s in their hands, ergo they were standing. This by the way. 3. Granting that Christ's sitting down with the twelve were spoken of the Paschall supper, yet the paschal supper being after the other supper, at which judas got the sop and went away (which I now suppose for the reason's beforementioned till I see better reasons to the contrary.) It might be said, after judas was gone, that Christ sat down with the twelve, as well as 1 Cor. 15. 5. it is said of Christ risen from the dead, he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve, though he was seen only of the eleven, and judas was gone to his place. Which answers all that can be said from Luke 22. 14, 15. If I have not said so much, as to put it out of all question that judas did not eat of the Passeover with Christ and his Apostles, yet I am sure I have cleared so much as this, that Master Prynne will not be able to prove convincingly that judas did eat of the Passeover that ●ight with Christ. I will conclude with the pious observation of Mr Cartwright: that it was not a vain or idle question, which the Disciples propounded, (being commanded to prepare the Passeover) they ask, where wilt thou that we prepare? Luke 22. 8, 9 for Christ having commanded them, that into whatsoever City they entered, they should inquire who were godly therein, and turn in to such, to lodge and to eat there; They did thereby easily understand, that if in common and ordinary eating together, then much more in this sacred feast, they must turn in to the families of the godly, and avoid the profane; especially considering that they who were of that household were to eat the Passeover with Christ and his Disciples, according to the Law. From this very example of the Passeover he draws an argument for keeping off all ungodly and profane persons from the Sacrament, so far as is possible. Thus Cartwright Harm. Evang. lib. 3. pag. 162. The like observation chrysostom hath upon Matth. 26. 18. I will keep the Passeover at thy house with my Disciples. He bids us mark those words with my Disciples: not with profane or scandalous ones, but with my Disciples. To the like purpose Titus Bostrorum Episcopus in Luke 22. hath this observation. Non manducat autem hoc pascha cum Judaeis, sed tantum cum Discipulis suis: Siquidem Judaei, propter obstinatam incredulitatem, hoc paschate indigni erant. Yet he eateth not this Passeover with the Jews, but only with his own Disciples: for as much as the Jews, because of their obstinate incred●…lity, were unworthy of this Passeover. CHAP. X. That if it could be proved that Judas received the Lord's Supper, it maketh nothing against the Suspension of known wicked persons from the Sacrament. I Have now done with the first part of this Controversy concerning judas, and have disproved that which Mr Prynne hath said either for judas his receiving of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, or for his eating of the Passeover. In which particulars, though learned and godly Divines who are against the admission of scandalous sinners to the Sacrament, are not all of one opinion, yet all look upon it as a matter of debate, and I know none that ever cried down with scorn and contempt the opinion of judas his not receiving of the Sacrament, except Mr Prynne whose grounds are oftimes weakest where his assertions are strongest. I proceed to the second answer. Granting that Iud●…s did receive the Sacrament, that can make nothing for the admission of scandalons sinners whose profaneness and ungodly conversation is known, and maketh their name to stink in the Church. For judas his wickedness was not public nor known before he had got the sop and gone out, and left the company of Christ and the Apostles. And moreover he who argueth from Christ's receiving of judas to the Sacrament, when though his sin was yet secret, yet Christ knew him to be a devil; to prove that the Eldership may and aught to admit one to the Sacrament, whom they know to be a judas, a Devil: may as well argue from Christ's choosing of judas to be an Apostle when he knew him to be a Devil, to prove the lawfulness of the Elderships choosing of a Minister whom they know to be a devil. But now for that point of the scandal or secrecy of judas his sin, let us hear Mr Prynnes reply, pag. 26, 27. He gives it four feet to run upon. But the truth is, it hath but two (the same things being twice told) and those how foundered you shall see by and by. First he saith, that at the time when Christ instituted the Sacrament he foretold the Disciples that judas should betray him john 13. 18. to 28. Matth. 26. 20. to 26. Mark 14. 18. to 22. Luk●… 22. 21, 22, 23. More plainly pag. 27. he saith, Christ did admit judas, to eat the Passeover and Sacrament with his other Disciples, and they made not any s●…ruple of conscience to communicate with him in both, no not after Christ had particularly informed them, and judas himself, that he should betray him, Matth. 26. 21. to 36. Answ. 1. It was but just now that Mr Prynne told us, (to manifest that Iud●…s was at the Sacrament) that Luke placeth Christ's words concerning Iud●…s, after the Sacrament, not before it. And more expressly he told us out of john that Christ's discourse about judas, and his informing of the Disciples that one of them should betray him, and his giving the sop to judas, was after the Sacrament, because it was after supper ended, the Sacrament being instituted and distributed before supper ended Vindic. pag. 18, 19 & 25. The same thing which before he made to be after the Sacrament, to prove that judas did receive the Sacrament, the very same he now makes to be before the Sacrament, that he may prove judas a scandalous sinner and a known Traitor, even before his receiving of the Sacrament. And shall he thus abuse not only his Reader, but the Word of God itself with palpable and gross contradictions? I shall beseech him in the fear of God to look to it, and never more to take this liberty to put contrary senses upon the holy Scripture, so as may seem to serve most for his present advantage. Surely such lucubrations are not only subitane but sinful. 2. His answer which now he gives us doth clearly yield these two things: 1. That the Discourse about the Traitor, and the giving of the sop, I●…hn 13. 8. to vers. 28. was before the Sacrament; Now judas having gone out immediately after the sop, hereby Master Prynne strengtheneth my argument which I brought to prove that judas did not receive the Sacrament; which argument in this very particular he formerly opposed. 2. He hath here also yielded that these words Luke 22. 21, 22, 23. But behold the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the Table, etc. though mentioned after the Sacrament (which is the most colourable argument for judas his receiving of the Sacrament) yet were spoken before the Sacrament, and that the order of time is not to be gathered from Luke but from Matthew and Mark who record that discourse about judas before the Sacrament. And in yielding this, he takes off his own strongest argument, and confirms what I have before taken pains to prove. 3. Those Divines that hold judas did receive the Sacrament, do conceive that those words, But behold the hand of him that betrayeth me, etc. were indeed spoken after the Sacrament, and that Luke placeth them in their proper place. And so holding that the discourse about the Traitor was after the Sacrament, they do thereby intimate that judas was not known to be the Traitor, till after the Sacrament. Wherefore either a man must quit the most considerable argument for judas his receiving of the Sacrament, or else acknowledge that judas was not known by the Disciples to be the Traitor till after the Sacrament. 4. When after the giving of the sop Christ said to judas, That thou dost, do quickly, No man at the Table knew for what intent he spoke this unto him, John 13. 28. But if Christ had particularly informed them that judas was the Traitor, how is it that they could have been so altogether ignorant of Christ's intent, as to think that he was still trusting judas with the buying of what they had need of against the Feast, or with giving to the poor? Hence Lud. Capellus Spicileg. in Joh. 13. collecteth that when john asked of Christ, who it was, and when Christ said, He it is unto whom I shall give the sop, this was but a secret conference, and the rest of the Disciples did not hear it: else they could not have been so ignorant of it. 5. The places cited by Mr Prynne do not prove that Christ did particularly tell and inform his Disciples that judas (but that one of them) should betray him. Christ made it known to john alone by the sign of giving the sop, joh. 13. 26. Yea Theophylact. upon joh. 13. thinks, that as the other Apostles heard not what Christ said to john concerning the Traitor, so john himself even at that instant could hardly imagine that judas would commit so great wickedness. Nullus ergo cog●…vit, saith he, no man did know it, which he gathers from the words of John himself, vers. 28, 29. Bucerus in Matth. 26. 23. holdeth the same. I know some think it was made known to all the Disciples by that Math. 26. 25 Then Jud●…s which betrayed him answered and said, Master Is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said. But others answer that it is not certain that Christ said this to judas in the hearing of all the Disciples: also that these words Thou hast said, are not a clear affirmation of the thing. Lud. Capellus Spicileg. in Matth. 26. admitteth these words Thou hast said, to be affirmative of that which had been said. But he moves this doubt: when judas had said Is it I? he did not affirm the thing, but doubted of it. How then did Christ return such an answer as agreeth to that which judas had said, as if it had been a positive truth. He gives this solution, that Christ as searcher of the heart did speak it to judas, who was in his conscience convinced that he was the man, and so assenteth to the truth of that testimony of his Conscience. Now this could not be certainly known to the other Apostles. For my part I shall not need to contend much about that: for granting it to be a clear information to all the Disciples that Iud●…s was the Traitor, yet (by their principles who hold judas did receive the Sacrament) this was after, not before the Sacrament, for they make the anticipation to be in Matthew and Mark, and the true order to be in Luke. 6. Beside that of the French Catechism, which saith the impiety of judas was concealed, and not broken forth into the light and knowledge of men when the Sacrament was given: take these other Testimonies, Martyr. in 1 Cor. 5. Et quod attinet ad Judam, peccatum ejus non erat cognitum atque perspectum, nec ullo judicio convictum. Gerhard. Harm. Evang. cap. 171. pag. 453, judae scelus nondum erat in lucem productum, sed anim●… suo illud ad●…c ela●…sum tenebat. The same he hath in his common places Tom. 5. pag. 181. where he showeth that judas receiving of the Sacrament maketh nothing for the admission of scandalous persons; because although judas had gone to the chief Priests and agreed with them, this was known to none of the Disciples, at that time, but to Christ himself only. Nay the Testimony cited by Mr Prynne himself out of Algerus de Sacram. maketh strongly against him in this particular: Quia enim saith Algerus) Judas accusatus & damnatus non fuerat, ideo Christus conscientiam ejus perversam, quamvis sibi notam damnare noluit. For because Judas was not accused & condemned, therefore Christ would not condemn (openly) his perverse conscience, though known to himself. Innocentius 3. in the place above cited De mist. Missae lib. 4. cap. 13. after he hath asserted that judas did not receive the Lords Supper, he addeth, that if it should be granted that judas did receive it, this only will follow at most, that Ministers are to admit to the Sacrament such as are not known to the Church, to be impious or wicked, as judas his wickedness was not at that time known to the Disciples. Likewise both chrysostom and Theophylact upon john 13. are clear in this, that judas hypocrisy was not detected to the Apostles till Christ did separate him, and he went forth. Moreover I shall mind Mr Prynne how he himself doth apply this example of judas in his Independency examined, pag. 8, 9 he argueth thus: Whether Independents refus●…ll to admit such Christians who are not notoriously scandalous in their lives, nor grossly ignorant in the principles of Religion, to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, etc. only upon this suspicion or apprehension, that they are but carnal men, not truly regenerated or sanctified by God's Spirit (though they can not certainly judge of their present spiritual conditions infallibly known to God alone) be not a very uncharitable arrogant, yea unchristian practice, contrary to our Saviour's own immediate example, who at the first institution of this Sacrament admitted judas to his last Supper, as well as his Disciples, though he certainly knew him to be both a Traitor and a Devil. In which argumentation he himself supposeth that judas was not notoriously scandalous, nor known to the Disciples, (but to God and Christ alone) to be a Traitor and Devil. For otherwise he could not in any reason argue thus against the Independents: because if this supposition be not laid down that judas was an unregenerate yet not a scandalous person: then the Independents had this obvious answer, that if his Argument prove any thing, it doth conclude the admission not only of unregenerated and unsanctified, but of scandalous persons, to the Sacrament; whereas he brings it to prove against them, that persons not scandalous, though unregenerate, ought not to be refused the Sacrament. And now he brings the same thing against us to prove that scandalous persons ought to be admitted, if not excommunicated, and desirous to receive the Sacrament. He tells us by the way of judas his thievish, covetous, as well as traitorous disposition john 12. 6. both which did make him scandalous. But he might have observed, that the holy Ghost showeth plainly that in that act judas was not a scandalous sinner in the esteem of the other Disciples; for his thievish covetous disposition was not known to the Disciples; yea the pretext of his care for the poor was so plausible to them (though abominable to Christ who knew his heart) that it is said, not only of judas, but of the Disciples (by his instigation) they had indignation at the wasting of that which might have been sold for much and given to the poor, Matth. 26. 8. Let us now hear Mr Prynnes other answer Vindic. pag. 26, 27. he tells us that though perchance the other Disciples did not know that judas was a Traitor and a Devil, yet Christ himself did infallibly know all this of judas, and did notwithstanding admit him to the Sacrament. Whereupon he beseecheth all Ministers not to make themselves wiser, holier, rigider in this point then Christ himself. Answ. 1. If Ministers did take upon them to suspend men from the Sacrament upon their own private knowledge of some secret sins whereof those men are guilty: his argument might say somewhat. But the question being of suspension by the Eldership upon the notoreity or proof of the offence, and consis●oriall formal conviction of the offender, he saith here nothing to that point. 2. What a Minister should do when he certainly knows one of the Congregation (not convict nor notoriously scandalous) to be a judas, a Traitor, a Devil, I will not now dispute. But surely Mr Prynnes reason why the minister ought to admit such a one, is not rightly applied, * Durantus de ritibus lib. 2. cap. 38. num. 16. Ipsi tamen (Judae) corpus & sanguinem suum dedit, ne occultum peccatorem sine accusatore & evidenti probatione, ab aliorum communione separarot. Et insra num. 17. Nam etsi Christo nota crat Judae iniquitas, sicut Deo: non tamen ei cognita crat co modo, quo hominibus innotescit. for Christ did then know judas to be a Traitor and a Devil, but how? not as man, by sight, information, or the like, but as God and as omniscient, that is, he knew judas by that same knowledge whereby he knows close hypocrites in whom no eye of man hath seen any thing scandalous, but rather good and promising signs; some of this kind no doubt are admitted to the Sacrament both among Presbyterians and Independents, whom Christ knows to be judasses', because he knows what is in man. But now for a Minister to know (not the heart and the reins as Christ doth, but) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some foul act which a man hath done, and some wicked profession which a man hath made, though in private, and not yet known to the world; this is a very different case from the other, and if Christ had admitted judas to the Sacrament, knowing him by his divine knowledge to be a Traitor, this could not prove, that a Minister ought to admit a Traitor, whom by his humane knowledge he knows to be such. 3. And if that which Christ did in this particular aught to be a precedent to Ministers what to do in like cases: Then as Christ had a most sad and moving discourse about the Traitor, till judas himself was made to understand, that Christ knew his traitorous purpose, and then he said to him, That thou dost do quickly, which x Gerhard. Har. Evang cap. 172. Christus his verbis Judam quasi excommunicate, & ex Apostolorum coll●gio disc●dere jubet, cum se totum Diabolo tradidisset. Quod facis fac citius, id est, cum ali● Magistro te addixeris, & me audire pertinaciter renuas, abi ex meo & apostolorum meorum conspectu, etc. Ambros. lib. 2. de Cain & Abel cap. 4. Quod facis fac cele●…ius, quid illud? ut quia introie●at in illum Satanas, ipse abiret à Christo. Ejicitur itaque & excluditur, ●o quod jam cum Domino Jesu esse non posset, qui caeperat es●e cum diabolo. Estius in lib. 4. Sent. dist. 19 sect. 9 Qui● & ipse Christus hanc potestatem qua traduntur homines Sathanae, exercuisse videtur, quando judam à suo consortio removit, atque abire jussit dicendo, Quod facis, fac citius. chrysostom Hom. 71. in Joh. (according to the Greek Hom. 72.) making a Transition unto that Text, That thou dost, do quickly, he useth these words, to express what Christ was at that instant doing to judas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and again, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Christ did separate him from the rest of the Apostles, and cast him out. Theophy lact.. upon the same place: illum divisit Domin●…s & separavit ab alils discipulis. divers do rightly conceive to be as much, as if Christ had said to him, Get you gone, I have no more to do with you: He spoke it, ut a consortio suo recederet, that he might be gone out of his company, as Ambrose takes it: and thus did by the Sword of his mouth chase away and as it were excommunicate judas before the Sacrament. So should a Minister (if he see one in the Congregation whom he certainly knows to be a judas, and to be living in some abominable wickedness, even whiles he comes with a professed desire to receive the Sacrament) tell the Congregation, that he knows and sees one amongst them whom he certainly knows to be guilty of such a particular secret horrible sin, and (if it be possible) make the sinner himself to know by such or such a sign, that he is the man whom he speaks of, and not to leave off powerful checks, sharp rebukes, terrible comminations, till by the blessing of God and the power of the word, he get such a one terrified and chased away. 4. It shall not be in vain to observe here that Gamachaeus in tertiam partem Thomae Quaest 64. c. 4. though he hold that Christ gave the Sacrament to judas (whence he argueth that the Sacraments do infallibly work ex opere operato, where no bar is put, though there be no faith nor devotion exercised in the receiver) yet he doth immediately move this objection, It is unlawful to give the Sacraments to the unworthy, and to such as live in mortal sin. Whereunto y Respondemus id nobis revera esse illicitum, & peccare Ministros qui dant Sacramenta indignis, quando fine scandalo denegare possunt, attamen Deum his legibus non teneri, cum sit supremus Dominus, qui suis donis utitur, prout voluerit, quemadmodum etiam Deus non peccat permittendo hominum peccata, imò & ad peccati substantiam concurrendo; nobis verò, nec concurrere licet nec permittere aliquod peccatum, quando sufficienter & moraliter id impedire possumus. he answereth, that it is indeed unlawful to Ministers to give the Sacrament to the unworthy, when they can refuse them without scandal (a restriction which I suppose Mr Prynne dare not own; for if the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the thing must be determined by the scandal, they go upon a very slippery ground.) He addeth that it is unlawful to us to follow God's example in giving holy things to the unworthy, as it is unlawful to follow his example in the permitting of sin when we can hinder it. The like I find in Alexander Alensis, Summa Theol. part. 4. Quaest 11. membr. 2. art. 1. sect. 4. where he moves this objection in the question, whether Christ gave the Sacrament to judas. Christ himself hath commanded, Give not that which is holy to dogs, etc. and it seems he would not do the contrary of that which himself commandeth. Unto this objection his answer is, that this prohibition lieth indeed upon the Ministers, Dispensers' of the Sacraments, but bindeth not Christ himself the Lawmaker. As long therefore as we are able to prove from Scripture, that scandalous persons ought to be keep back from the Sacrament, and that it is unlawful for Church▪ officers to admit such; the Erastians' do but weakly help themselves by arguing from Christ's giving the Sacrament to judas. Which I have said by way of concession: for my opinion is, that Christ did upon the matter excommunicate judas, and that his practice in this very particular is a pattern to us, which I hope I have made evident. Finally, it is observed by Io. Baptista de Rubeis in his Novum rationale divinorum officiorum lib. 1. cap. 24. that this cause of judas doth not concern public and known scandalous persons, but secret and lurking wicked persons, when they publicly desire to receive the Sacrament; who yet (saith he) ought to be admonished and dehorted by the Minister, that they come not to the Sacrament: and if such a one make his desire to receive the Sacrament secretly known to the Minister, the Minister ought to refuse him, though his sin be yet secret, and not publicly known. * Si verò peccatum est manif●stum, tun● verò sive in occulto sive in manifesto petat, debot ei denegare. But if the sin be open or manifest, then whether the sinner do secretly or openly desire to receive the Sacrament, the Minister ought to refuse him. CHAP. XI. Whether it he a full discharge of duty to admonish a scandalous person of the danger of unworthy communicating? And whether a Minister in giving him the Sacrament after such admonition, be no way guilty? Mr. Prynne pag. 28. stateth the seventh point in difference thus, Whether the Minister hath not fully discharged his duty and conscience if he give warning to unworthy communicants of the danger they incur by their unworthy approaches to the Lords Table, and seriously dehort them from coming to it, unless they repent, reform, and come preparedly? But here he much mistakes his mark, or hitteth it not, as may appear thus. First, what if we should affirm it, as he doth? What hath he gained thereby? That the Minister hath not the power of keeping back scandalous persons: which cannot add one dram weight to his cause. The power is seated in the Eldership, of which the Minister is a principal member: even as Aristotle polit. lib. 3. cap. 11. tells us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It is not the Senator but the Senate that doth rule. But if Mr Prynne meant to conclude against the suspension of scandalous persons not excommunicated (the thing which all along he opposeth,) he ought to have stated the point thus, Whether the Eldership hath not fully discharged their duty, etc. For every branch of this controversy concerning Suspension (which is an act of jurisdiction and censure) must be fixed upon the Eldership, not upon the Minister. There is a huge difference between the Ministers personal duty, and the censure of suspension: in so much that if the affirmative of this present question (as he stateth it) were yielded to him; it derogateth nothing from the power of the Eldership to suspend from the Sacrament a person not excommunicate. Secondly, in the debating of this point he sometimes argueth against the refusing or withholding of the Sacrament by any Minister or Presbytery as pag. 29, 30, 31. sometimes he argueth that no Ministers private judgement or conscience ought to be the rule of his admitting any to, or suspending them from the Sacrament, as pag. 32. Which is a confounding together of two most different points. Thirdly, and if the question should be stated of the Minister his duty, that which Mr Prynne affirmeth, viz. that the Minister hath fully discharged his duty and conscience, if he give warning to unworthy communicants of the danger they incur by their unworthy approaches, to the Lords Table, and seriously dehort them from coming to it, unless they repent, reform and come preparedly; is erroneous and false: for there are other necessary duties incumbent to the Minister, in this business: as 1. he must be earnest in his prayers to God, for the conversion and reformation of such unworthy persons, else that God would give his Spirit and assistance to the Eldership, and others to whom the case shall be brought, that they may faithfully do their duty in restraining such persons: or (if not so) that God would by his own providence keep back such persons, or hedge up their way with thorns, and make a wall, that they shall not find their paths to come and profane the Lords Table. 2. The Minister must deal seriously with the Eldership by informations, exhortations, and admonitions, to move them to do their duty. 3. The Minister must give his own vote and sentence in the Eldership against the admission of such persons. 4. If (which God forbid) the Eldership be not willing to do their duty, but sinfully neglect it, the Minister ought to address himself with his complaints to the superior Ecclesiastical assemblies (as they lie in their order) that they may interpose by their authority, to rectify the maladministration of the congregational Eldership. 5. And if it should fall out that a scandalous unworthy person should find so much favour in the higher assemblies also, as that they shall judge him fit to be admitted to the Sacrament; yet if the Minister know him certainly to be a scandalous abominable person, and be also clear in his conscience, that the matter of scandal is sufficiently proved, he must not do an unlawful act in obedience to men, but walk by that Apostolical rule, 1 Tim. 5. 22. Be not partaker of other men's sins; Keep thyself pure. In doing whereof, he doth not make his conscience the rule of inflicting any censure and particularly of suspending from the Sacrament (which must be done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by many) but yet his conscience so far as it is informed and illuminate by the word of God, is a rule to him of his own personal acting or not acting, notwithstanding of which the offender stands rectus in curia, and is not excluded by the sentence of any Ecclesiastical Court. I confess a Minister ought to be very clear in his conscience, and be persuaded (not upon suspicions, surmises, or such like sleight motives, but) upon very certain grounds, that the sentence of an Eldership, Classis, or Synod is contrary to the Word of God, before he refuse to do the thing. But what may be the reason why Mr Prynne is so large upon this point from pag. 28. to 35? I take not upon me to judge the intention operantis. But the intentio operis is to yield somewhat in lieu of suspension from the Sacrament, which yet shall be no Church censure nor act of jurisdiction, and so to make the discipline of Suspension (yea and Excommunication too) to be of no necessary use in the Church. For if it be sufficient and a full discharge of duty, to admonish unworthy scandalous persons, not to come to the Lords Table, unless they repent and reform, this cuts off the necessity of Censure, whether Suspension or Excommunication. As for that admonition or warning to be given, it is no Church censure, nor act of Jurisdiction, especially when given by the Minister alone; for no Ecclesiastical jurisdiction can be exercised, or Censure inflicted by any one man, how eminent soever in the Church. Yea when it is a consistorial or Presbyterial Admonition, it is not properly a Censure, but a Degree to Censure. 1. Because Admonition doth not exclude a person from any Church privilege nor from communion in any Ordinance. And how can one be said to be under Church censure, who still enjoyeth all Church privileges? 2. If consistorial admonition be a binding, where is the losing of that bond? Every censure consistorially inflicted, must be also consistorially taken off, upon repentance appearing in the party. These things I do but t●uch, that I might make it appear how Mr Prynnes doctrine tendeth to strip Elderships out of all jurisdiction or power of Censures. Now come we to the particulars, wherens I do not find any great matter to insist long upon. He first premiseth six conclusions. Supposed conclusions he may make them, but proved Conclusions they are not. The first of them is indeed ushered in syllogistically, but very weakly, as shall appear. The strength of his discourse he contracteth into this argument. Those who have a true right to the Sacrament, as visible members of the visible Church, ought not in justice or conscience to be deprived of it, in case they demand it, by any Minister or Presbytery. But all unexcommunicate Christians, who are able to examine themselves, as visible members of the visible Church, have a true right to the Sacrament, in case they do demand it, when publicly administered. Ergo, they ought not in justice or conscience be deprived of it, by any Minister or Presbytery, when publicly administered, if they shall require it. Answ. First, this is fallacia plurium interrogationum; for these words, as visible members of the visible Church, both in the Major and Minor, clog and confound the argument, and patch up two distinct propositions into one. Secondly, his Major cannot be admitted without a distinction. There is Ius ad rem, and Ius in re. There is a remote right, or a right in actu primo, th●t is, such a right, relation, or habitude as entitleth a person to such a privilege or benefit, to be enjoyed and possessed by him when he shall be capable and fit to enjoy it: Such is the right of a Minor to his inheritance: Such was the right of lepers of old to their Tents, Houses, and Goods, when themselves were put out of the Camp, and might not (during their leprosy) actually enjoy their own habitations: Such is the right which a man hath in England to his sequestered Estate, Lands, and Houses; he doth not lose but retain his Right, Title, Charters and Deeds (as valid in Law, and not made void or null) and may be again admitted to the actual possession upon satisfaction given to the State: and a huge difference there is between Sequestration, and forfeiture or Outlawry. There is again a proxime right, or a right in actu secundo, which rendereth a person actually and presently capable of that thing which he is entitled unto. If Mr Prynnes major be understood of the first kind of right, I deny it. If of the second kind of right, I admit it, and it doth not help his opinion, nor hurt mine. Thirdly, yea himself must needs admit an exception from his major proposition, for by his own principles, those that have a true right to the Sacrament, as visible members of the visible Church, may be excommunicated and so deprived, not only of the Sacrament, but of all other public Ordinances. When he tells us here that nothing but an actual excommunication can suspend them from this their right, he doth but beg that which is in question. And if his Argument conclude against a lesser Suspension from their right, why not also against the greater? Fourthly, he hath not proved his minor, especially being understood of the second kind of right, which renders me● actually and presently capable of the thing. He saith that the Sacraments were bequeathed by Christ, to his visible Church on Earth, and all visible members of it. Which he hath not proved, and I deny it, except it have this limitation, all visible members of the visible Church, which are (visibly or in external profession and conversation) qualified according to the rule of Christ, and against whose admission to the Sacrament there is no just exception. Fifthly, when he concludeth, that no unexcommunicated Christians who are able to examine themselves (that is, as himself hath explained, who are not naturally disabled as children, and fools: though he shall find it a very hard task to prove, that all other unexcommunicate Christians besides these, are able to examine themselves) ought in justice or conscience to be deprived of the Sacrament by any Minister or Presbytery: he doth upon the matter conclude, that the Ordinances of Parliament Octob. 20. 1645. and March 14. 1645. authorising Presbyteries to suspend from the Sacrament scandalous persons unexcommunicated, are contrary to all justice and conscience. N. B. Sixthly, as touching that limitation yielded by himself, that they must be such as are able to examine themselves, I ask, 1. Are persons grossly ignorant able to examine themselves? 2. Are drunken persons able to examine themselves? 3. Are men of corrupt minds and erroneous, yea profane principles, who call evil good, and pervert Scripture to the defending of some gross sins, are these able to examine themselves? 4. Are those who are known that they had never any work of the law upon their consciences to convince or humble them (for by the Law is the knowledge of sin) able to examine themselves? If the answers be affirmative, then surely this selfe-examination is not rightly apprehended what it is. If the answers be negative; then those who in their addresses to the Lords Table are found ignorant, or drunk, or defenders of sin, or presumptuous and unconvinced, and do manifestly appear such, though they be not excommunicated, and being professed Christians, and desiring the Sacrament, yet ought not to be admitted. I proceed to his second conclusion, the strength whereof (so far as I am able to gather from his discourse) may be drawn together into this Argument. Such as in all ages, yea by the very Apostles themselves, have been deemed fit to receive, and could not be denied the Sacrament of Baptism, aught to be (being baptised and unexcommunicated, and willing to communicate) admitted to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. But in all Churches from Christ's time till this present, all external professors of Christ, even carnal persons, only upon a bare external profession of faith and repentance, were deemed fit to receive, and were never denied the Sacrament of Baptism (yea, saith he, we read in the very Apostles times that a mere external sleight confession of sin, and profession of the Christian faith, was sufficient to enable sinners to be baptised Ergo, all external professors of Christ, etc. aught to be admitted to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. Answ. 1. I retort the Argument thus. Such as have been deemed by the Apostles and by all well constituted Churches, unworthy to be admitted to Baptism, ought also to be deemed unworthy though baptised) to be admitted to the Lords Supper. But all known wicked and profane livers, how able and willing so ever to make confession of the true Christian faith, have been by the Apostles and all w●ll con●ituted Churches deemed unworthy to be admitted to Baptism. Ergo, all known wicked, etc. More of this afterward Chap 13. and Chap 15. Secondly, I answer directly, I distinguish the Major, I deny the Minor. I distinguish the Major: Those who have been admitted to Baptism ought to be admitted to the Lords Supper caeteris paribus, if the proportion hold in the particulars, and if they be as free of scandalous sins now when they desire to receive the Lords Supper, as they were when they desired to receive Baptism. He needed not make so great a matter of our suspending from the Sacrament a person formerly deemed fit to receive Baptism. For why? the person is a scandalous person now which he was not th●n. My limitation of caeteris paribus he himself▪ must admit; otherwise how will he defend his own Principle, that the flagitious, abominable and obstinate sinners who cannot be reduced by Admonitions, may and aught to be excommunicated, and so to be cut off from the Lords Supper, and all other public Ordinances, although formerly deemed sit to receive baptism? The Minor I utterly deny as most false and as a reproach ca● upon the Apostles themselves. Mr Prynnes Rule is so large, that Turks or Pagans who practically live in Idolatry, common swearing, adultery, drunkenness, murdering, stealing, or the like, and are known to live in those abominable scandalous sins, ought nevertheless up●…n a mere external sleight confession of sin, and profession of the Christian faith, be baptised. When I expected his proof from the Apostles times, he only tells us that Philip baptised Simon Magus though he were in the gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity, Acts 8. Yea, saith he, many other who turned Wolves, Apostates, Heretics were baptised by the very Apostles, Acts 20. 2. Tim. 3. If he had proved that Simon Magus was known to be in the gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity when Philip did baptise him, or that the Apostles did baptise any (upon a sleight external profession) who were then known to be Wolves, Apostates, and Heretics, he had said more for his cause then all his book saith beside. But to tell us that some persons baptised (he might as well have said that some persons who received the Lords Supper did appear afterward to be in the gall of bitterness, Wolves, Apostates, Heretics, is as much as to travel, and to bring forth nothing. For how shall ever this reach the admission of known profane persons to the Lords Supper? That which he had to prove was the admission (not of hypocrites, but) of known scandalous profane persons to Baptism. His third conclusion that it is the Ministers bounden duty to administer the Sacraments to their people, as well as to preach and pray; no man will deny it, so that the Ministers do it debito modo, and according to the rule of Christ: they are stewards of the mysteries of God: moreover it is required in stewards that a man be found faithful, 1 Cor. 4 1, 2. It is the bounden duty of Stewards to give the children's bread to children and not to dogs and swine. It is not the duty of Ministers to preach peace to the wicked, and much less to seal it to them who are known to be such. The fourth conclusion, that the Word and Sacraments are set accidentally for the fall and ruin, as well as for the salvation of men▪ maketh nothing to the purpose in hand. Whatever the secret intention of God be, and his unsearchable judgement upon the soul of this or that man, it is no rule of duty to the Minister or Eldership. To the Law and to the Testimony. Secret things belong to God. The fifth, that God only infallibly knows the hearts, and present state of all men, is no whit nearer the point The Eldership ●udggeth of words and works, professions and practices. By their fruits ye shall know them. The sixth, that no Ministers private judgement or conscience ought to be the rule of his admitting any to, or suspending them from the Sacrament, is also wide from the controversy in hand, which is concerning the Elderships (not the Ministers) power. Of the Ministers personal duty I have spoken before. These six conclusions premised▪ M r Prynne proceeds to prove, that a Minister in delivering the Sacrament to a scandalous unexcommunicated person, who after admonition of the danger, doth earnestly desire to receive it, etc. becomes no way guilty of his sin or punish●…ent, in case be eat or drink judgement by his unworthy receiving of it. His first reason, because this receiver hath a true right to this Sacrament, as a visible member of the visible Church, is the same thing which I have already answered. His second reason, because ●…e (the Minister) hath no Commission from Christ to keep back such a person, doth not conclude that the Minister becomes no way guilty etc. He had to prove that a Minister hath no commission touching this business, but only to admonish the person of the danger. I hold there are other five duties incumbent to the Minister. Of which before, If any of these duties be neglected, the Minister is guilty. Whether such a person ought to be kept back is the point in controversy, and therefore he ought not have taken the negative pro confessò. His third reason pag. 33. is the same which was used by z C●…nfirm, Thes. p●g. 120. Erastus as one of his arguments against Excommunication, that the Apostle saith, Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 1 Cor. 11. 28. Therefore a man's fitness or unfitness for the Sacrament, is not to be judged by others, but by himself only, and if he judge himself fit, the Eldership hath no power to exclude him. The same Scripture is here pressed against us by Mr Prynne to prove, that if a man judge himself fitly prepared, joins with others in the public confession of his sins, and promiseth newness of life, the Minister (he should say the Eldership) ought in point of charity to deem him so, and hath no commission from Christ to exclude him, etc. Let a man therefore examine himself, not others, or others him. I answer, 1. The self-examination there spoken of, is not mentioned as exclusive: for it is not said, Let a man examine himself only. 2. Yet I can grant it to be exclusive, it being understood of that judging of a man's self, which prevents the judgement of God vers. 31. no man's examining of another can do this, but his examining of himself. That which can give us confidence and boldness before God, and assure our hearts before him, 1 Joh. 3. 19 is not the examination or approbation of others, but of our own conscience; for what man knows the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? 1 Cor. 2. 11. The Pastors and Elders of Corinth had admitted some to the Lords Table, whom they judged sit and worthy Communicants, but God judged otherwise of them. Therefore saith the Apostle, let a man make a narrow search of his own conscience, and not rest upon the judgement of others. 3. If it be enough for a man to examine himself, by what warrant doth Mr Prynne require more, namely, that a man join with others in the public confession of his sins, and promise newness of life. 4. It is not enough for a notorious scandalous sinner to judge himself, nor yet to join with others in public confession: but he must publicly and particularly confess his own sin, which he must do personally, or for his own part, and others can not do it with him. 5. a Tom. 10. hom. 50. Et cum in se protulerit severissimae medicinae sententiam, veniat ad antistites, per quos illi in Ecclesiâ claves ministrantur, & tanquam bonus incipi●s jam esse filius maternorum membrorum ordine custodito, à praep●sitis sacrorum accipiat satisfaction s suae modum, ut in offe●ndo sacrificio cordis contribulati devotus & supplex, id tamen agate, quod non solum illi p●osit ad recipiendam salutem, sed etiam caeteris ad exemplum. Ut si peccata ejus non solum in gravi ejus malo, sed etiam in scandalo est aliorum: atque hoc expedire videtur utilita●i Ecclesiae, antistiti in notitia multorum, vel etiam totius plebis agere paenitentiam non recuset. Augustine tells us when a man hath examined himself, he must also edify the Church (which before he scandalised) by a public declaration of repentance for his scandalous sin. 6. Mr Prynne himself Vindic. pag. 50. will not have an excommunicated person, to be again received and admitted to the Lords Supper till public satisfaction given for the scandal, and open profession of amendment of life, accompanied with external symptoms of repentance. And why all this examination should not be required for a prevention of excommunication, yea of suspension, I know not. Mr Prynnes fourth reason is, because the Minister administers the Sacrament to that scandalous unexcommunicated person, as to a person outwardly fitted and prepared, the inward preparation of whose heart for aught he knows may be sincere towards God, and really changed from what it was before. I appeal to every godly Minister, whether this can pacify or secure his conscience, that a scandalous unexcommunicated person living in known profaneness and wickedness, is or may be esteemed a person outwardly fitted and prepared for the Sacrament, yea that the inward preparation of his heart, while he is living in gross scandalous sins, may be sincere towards God and really changed from what it was before: and that therefore he (the Minister) in delivering the Sacrament to a scandalous unexcommunicated person who after admonition of the danger, doth earnestly desire to receive it, as conceiving himself in his own●… heart and conscience meet to participate of it, becomes no way guilty, & c? The Lord save me from that Divinity which holds that a scandalous person in the Church may be admitted to the Lords Supper as a person outwardly fitted and prepared for that Sacrament. Fifthly, he argueth from the holiness and lawfulness of administering the Sacrament, and the Ministers good intention to benefit all, and hurt none by it. Answ. The first part of this reason is a fallacy ab ignoratione Elenchi: the point he had to prove was, that the administration of the Sacrament to a scandalous person, is a holy lawful action. The latter part doth not conclude. A good intention can not justify a sinful action. Sixthly, saith he, because such a persons unworthy r●…eiving is only contingent and casual▪ no Minister or creature being able infallibly to judge, wh●…ther God at this instant, may not by the omnipotent working of his Spirit, etc. change both his ●…eart▪ and his life. Answ. 1. By this principle the Minister shall become no way guilty, if he deliver the Sacrament to an Heathen, to an excommunicated person, for the same reason will have place in that case as much as in this, viz. God may at the very instant before or in the act of receiving change the heart and life of such a Heathen or excommunicate person. 2. A scandalous profane person his unworthy receiving, is casual and contingent in sensu diviso, but not in sensu composit●…, that is, peradventure God will give him repentance and change his heart and his life, which done, he shall come worthily, and receive worthily: but while he is yet scandalous and neither heart nor life yet changed, his receiving in that estate will certainly be an unworthy receiving: for it implies a contradiction and impossibility, to say that a man's life can be changed while it is not changed, in sensu composit●…, or that a man can be worthy while he is unworthy. 3. It is a most sinful tempting of the Almighty to ca●l his word behind us, and then expect the working of Omnipotency for that whereof we have neither promise nor example in the word. Seventhly, he argueth from our Concessions that Ministers may administer the Sacrament to masked hypocrites, and yet are not guilty of their unworthy receiving. This he saith is a yielding our objection false in the case of scandalous persons too. But his reason is ●ust as if he had said, Ministers are not guilty when they give the Sacrament to those who are not scandalous. Ergo, they are not guilty when they give the Sacrament to those that are scandalous. Or, as if he had argued thus He th●t harboureth a Traitor whom he doth not nor cannot know to be such, is not guilty. Ergo, he that harboureth a known Traitor is not guilty. Eighthly, (for he hath given his seventh already) he tells us, that the Minister only 〈◊〉 the Sacrament, and the unworthy receiving is the receivers own personal act and sin alone. Answ 1. He begs again and again what is in Que●ion. 2. There is an unworthy giving, as well as an unworthy receiving. The unworthy giving is a sinful act of the Minister, which makes him also accessary to the sin of unworthy receiving, and so partake of other men's ●innes. The ninth concerning Christ's giving of the Sacrament to judas is answered before. The tenth I have also answered before in his fourth conclusion. The Minister is a sweet savour of Christ, as well in those that perish by the Sacrament, as in those that are benefited by it, with this proviso, that he hath done his duty, as a faithful Steward, and that he hath not given that which is holy to dogs, else God shall require it at his hands. Finally, he argueth from 1 Cor. 11. 29. He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh (not condemnation but) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 judgement, (meaning some temporal judgement) to himself) not to the Minister or Communicants.) Answ. 1. Whatever be meant by judgement in this place, certainly it is a punishment of sin, and such a thing as proceedeth from God's displeasure: and it is as certain that unworthy receiving maketh a person liable to a greater judgement then that which is temporal. 2. If to himself be restrictive and exclusive in the case of close hypocrites, such as are by Church-officers (judging according to outward appearance) admitted to the Sacrament; yet how will it be made to appear that the Apostle meant those words as restrictive and exclusive in the case of scandalous and known unworthy communicants. 3. Such a scandalous person doth indeed eat and drink judgement to himself; but this can neither in whole nor in part excuse but rather greatly aggravate the sin of the Minister: for when a wicked man dieth in his iniquity, yet his blood God will require at the hands of the unfaithful Minister, who did strengthen his hands in his sin. CHAP. XII. Whether the Sacrament of the Lords Supper be a converting or regenerating Ordinance. I Had in answer to Mr. prynn's third Quaere, given this reason why profane and scandalous persons are to be kept off from the Sacrament, and yet not from hearing the Word: because the word is not only a confirming and comforting, but a converting Ordinance, and is a mean appointed of God to turn sinners from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God: Whereas the Sacrament is not a converting, but a confirming and sealing Ordinance, which is not given to the Church for the conversion of Sinners, but for the Communion of Saints: It is not appointed to put a man in the state of grace, but to seal unto a man that interest in Christ and in the Covenant of Grace which he already hath. Mr. Prynne doth with much eagerness contradict me in this, and argue at length the contrary. (Which is the marrow and fatness (if there be any) in his debate concerning the eighth point of difference) Whereby he doth not only contradict me, but himself too (as shall appear) yea and join not only with the more rigid Lutherans, but with the Papists themselves against the Writers of the Reformed Churches. For the very same thing which is controverted between him and me, is controverted between Papists and Protestants. The Papists hold that the Sacraments are instrumental to confer, give, or work grace; yea ex opere operato▪ as the Schoolmen speak. Our Divines hold that the Sacraments are appointed of God, and delivered to the Church as sealing Ordinances, not to give, but to testify what is given, not to make but confirm Saints. And they do not only oppose the Papists opus operatum: but they simply deny this instrumentality of the Sacraments, that they are appointed of God for working or giving grace, where it is not. This is so well known to all who have studied the Sacramentarian controversies, that I should not need to prove it. Yet that none may doubt of it, take here some few instead of many testimonies. b I●stit. pag. 301. edit. 1539. Cum hoc tantum in ministerio habeant (Sacramenta) testificari nobis ac confirmare Dei in nos benevolentiam etc. Ut quae 〈◊〉 largiantur quidem aliquid gratiae, sed renuncient & ostendant quae divina largitate nobis data sunt. Calvin holds plainly against the Papists that the Sacraments do not give any grace, but do declare and show what God hath given. He clears it in that chapter thus, the Sacraments are like seals appended to writs, which of themselves are nothing, if the paper or parchment to which they are appended be blank. Again, they are like pillars to a house which cannot be a foundation, but a strengthening of a house that hath a foundation; We are built upon the Word, the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles. Again, Sacraments are to us from God, that which messengers are which bring good news from men, they declare what is, but do not so much as instrumentally make it to be. These are Calvins similes. c Decad. 5. Serm. 7. Docuit vulgus Sacerdotum & Monachorum Sacramenta novae legis non tantum esse signa gratiae, sed simul etiam gratiae causos, hoc est qu●… habeant virtu●…m conferendi gra●…iam. And after. Sancti & electi Dei non tum primum gratia Dei donisque coelestibus participant, cum Sacramenta percipiunt. Etenim rebus prius quam fignis partic●…pant. And after. Pro●…nde in Coena 〈◊〉 non primum accipiuntur divi●…a 〈◊〉, sed pro acceptis aguntur gratia. Effec●… his opinor, eviciqu●… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. B●…llinger confuteth the Popish doctrine concerning the Sacraments conferring of grace, by this principle, that the Saints are justified and sanctified before they are sealed and confirmed by the Sacraments. d Ursin. Tract. Theol. pag. 350. Sicut verbum est conversionis & confirmationis organum: sic 〈◊〉 Sacramenta sunorgana confirmationis etc. Non res accipimus ideo quia signum accipimus: sed signum nobis tribuitur quia res habemus: idque ita, ut non cur habeamus causa, sed quod eas habeamus testimonium sit. Ibid. de Sacram. defence. quinti Arg. Pag. 557. Nos vero supra hoc discrimen verbi & Sacramentorum non dis●…imulavimus, quod fides per verbum inch●…atur: Sacramentorum usu autem confirmatur, exercetur, fovetur, augetur jam inchoata. Sacramenta enim ne docent quidem, nedum confirmant, nisi praeeunte verbo & addente explicationem typorum. Ideirco etiam Sacramenta iis instituta sunt, quos Deus jam pro membris Ecclesiae a nobis vult agnosci. Inchoatio igitur fidei ordinaria verbi propria est; confirmati●… inchoatae, Sacramentis cum verbo communis est. Judicium de disciplina Ecclesiastica ad finem Tom. 3 pag. 89. Quasi non pueris jam no●…um, verbum & conversis & non conversis esse annuncia●…dum, quo illi quidem confirmentur, high vero convertantur. Sacramenta autem iis esse instituta qui jam sunt conversi & membra populi Dei facti. Ursinus speaks so fully and plainly for us, that none can say more. He distinguisheth between the Word and Sacraments, as between converting and confirming Ordinances, and argueth that the Sacraments do not confer grace, because we receive not the thing by receiving the sign, but we get the sign because it is supposed we have the thing. Yea he speaks of it as a principle known to children. Wolfangus Musculus in his e De Coena Dom. pag. 350 Quis non videt quales nos ad mysticam hanc Domini mensam accedere oporteat? nempe non tales qui fruiti●…nem corporis ac sanguinis Domini primum in ea ●…aeramus, tanquam illius adhuc expertes: sed qui per fidem illius jam antea participes, gratiam semel acceptam, communicatione hac Sacramentali corporis ac sanguinis Domini, & mortis ipsius rememoratione, in cordibus nostris magis ac magis corrob●…rare, redemptorique gratias agere cupiamus. common places saith thus, Who seeth not what manner of persons we must be when we approach to this mystical Table of the Lord, to wit, not such as do therein first of all seek the fruition of the body and blood of the Lord, as if we were yet destitute thereof; but such as being already before partakers thereof by faith, do desire to corroborate more and more in our hearts, the grace once received by the Sacramental communication of the body and blood of the Lord, and by the remembrance of his death, and to give thanks to our Rede●…mer. f Adhaec praedicandum iis quoque est, qui nondum audierunt, aut certe nondum perceperunt. Attame● utcunque feratur impuritas con●entuum ubi verbum praedicatur, quam Christus & Apostoli quoque tulerunt: Coenae tamen communio (ut dixi) purior esse debet. Nam publica est eorum qui palam se Christianos profitentur, de redemptione gratiarum actio ●ideo circa hanc, ut communionem Christi solemmiter sancti percipiunt, ita excludendi inde sunt qui vita sua se extra ●anc communionem esse, ma●ifesto probant. Martin Bucer upon Matth. 18. 17. puts this difference between the Word preached, and the Lords Supper; that the Word may be preached to the unconverted: but the Lord's Supper may not be given to any who by their lives do declare that they are out of communion with Jesus Christ. Which is the very point now in controversy. g Fideles enim ante usum Sacramentorum hanc gratiam omnin● habe●t: neque ad Sacramentorum usum accedere debent qui ea● gratiam pro aetatis modo non habeat, neque admittendi sunt qui eam non habere meri●o praesumuntur. Festus Honnius Disp. 43. Thes. 3. confuting the Popish opinion of the Sacraments working or giving grace, brings this reason against it; They that receive the Sacraments, have this grace before they receive them, neither are any to be admitted to the Sacraments who may be justly supposed not to be justified and sanctified. Aretius' Comment. in Mark 14. loc. 3. observeth, Qui admissi sint ad istam Coenam? discipuli solum, Who were admitted to that (eucharistical) Supper? the Disciples o●…ely. Hence he inferreth: Quare mysteria haec ad solos fideles pertinent: Wherefore these mysteries do pertain to the faithful alone: that is, to those who are supposed to be converted and believers. Vossius Disp. de Sacram. effic. part. poster. After he hath observed two respects in which the Sacraments do excel the Word. 1. That Infants who are not capable of hearing the Word, are capable of the Sacrament of Baptism, and are brought to the laver of regeneration. 2. That the Sacraments do visibly and clearly set before our eyes that which is invisible in the Word. He adds h Quemadmodum autem Sacramenta duplici nomine praesiant verbo, itidem verbum duobus nominibus praferendum Sacramentis. Vno quod verbum in adultis & generet fidem, & genitam foveat atque alat: Sacramenta vero ●am non gignant, sed tantum genitam conserve●t atque augeant. Altero quod absque verbo non salv●mur. etc. Thes. 49. other two respects in which the Word doth far excel the Sacraments. 1. That the Word can both beget & confirm faith: the Sacraments cannot beget faith in those that are come to age, but only conserve and increase it. 2. That without the word we cannot be saved, for he that believes not is condemned; now faith cometh by hearing: but the Sacraments though profitable means of grace, yet are not simply necessary. The confession of the faith of the Church of Scotland in the Article entitled to whom Sacraments appertain, saith thus. But the Supper of the Lord we confess to appertain to such only as be of the household of faith, and can try and examine themselves as well in their faith, as in th●…ir duty towards their neighbours. The Belgic Confession Art. 33. saith of the Sacraments in general, that God hath instituted them to seal his promises in us, to be pledges of his love to us▪ and to nourish and strengthen our Faith. And i Credimus & confit●mur Iesu● Christum servatorem nostrum sanctae Coenae Sacramentum ●rdinasse & instituisse, ut ea nutriat & sustentet eos, quos jam regeneravit, etc. At vero, ad conservationem vitae sp●ritualis & c●estis, quam fideles jam habent, Deu● illis pane● 〈◊〉 misit etc. Art. 35. They plainly hold that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is intended and instituted by Christ for such as are already regenerate, and are already quickened with the life of grace. The Synod of Dort in their Judgement of the fifth Article of the Remonstrants k Quem ad modum autem Deo placuit opus hoc suum gratiae per predicationem Evangelii in nobis incho●re, ita p●r ejusdem auditum, lectionem, meditationem, adhortationes, minas, promissa, nec non per usum Sacramentorum, illud conservat, continuat et persicit. Sect. 14. ascribeth both the inchoation and conservation of grace to the Word: but ascribeth o●ely to the Sacraments the conserving, continuing, and perfecting of that begun grace. In the Belgic form of the administration of the Lords Supper (See Corpus Disciplinae lately published by the Ministers and Elders of the Dutch Church at London pag. 16.) it is said thus. Those which do not feel this Testimony in their hearts (concerning their examining of themselves touching their repentance, faith, and purpose of true obedience) they eat and drink judgement to themselves; Wherefore we also (according to the Commandment of Christ and the Apostle Paul) do admonish all those who find themselves guilty of these ensuing sins, to refrain from coming to the Lords Table, and do denounce unto them that they have no part in the Kingdom of Christ. (Here follows an enumeration of divers scandalous sins concluded with this general, and all those which lead a scandalous life.) All these as long as they continue in such sins, shall refrain from this spiritual food (which Christ only ordained for his faithful people) that so their ●…udgement and damnation may not be the greater. Which plainly intimates that they hold this Sacrament to be a sealing, not a converting Ordinance. And this they also signify, Ibid. pag. 17. And to the end we may firmly believe that we do belong to this gracious Covenant, the Lord Jesus in his last Supper took bread. etc. l Explic. Catech. Quaest 67. Verbum est instrumentum Spiritus sancti, per quod incl●…oat & confirmat in nobis fidem ideoque verbum debet praeire. Sacramenta sunt organa Spiritus sancti per quae fidem inchoatam confirmat: ideoque Sacramenta debent sequi. Ibid. Quaest 81. Art. 1. Sacramenta tantum sunt instituta fidelibus & conversis, ut his promissionem Evangelii obsignent, & fidem confirment. Verbum quidem est conversis, & non conversis common, ut conversi confirmentur, nondum conversi convertantur: Sacramenta vero ad solos fideles per●…inent. Paraeus puts this difference between the Word and Sacraments; that the Word is a mean appointed both for beginning and confirming faith: the Sacraments means of confirming it after it is begun. That the Word belongs both to the converted and to the unconverted: the Sacraments are intended for those who are converted and do believe, and for none others. And though the Lutherans make some controversy with us about the effect of the Sacraments, yet m Loc. come. Tom. 5. pag. 1. Per Baptismam regeneramur ac re●…ovamur: per Sacramentum Coenae alimur ac nutrimur ad vitam aeternum. In Baptism●… praesertim Infan●…um, per Spiritum S. fides accenditur: in usu sacrae Coenae augetur, confirmatur, & obsignatur. Per Baptis●…num Christo inserimur, in quo spirituale incrementum salutari Coenae usu accipimus. joh. Gerhardus doth agree with us in this point, that the Lords Supper is not a regenerating but a confirming and strengthening Ordinance, and this difference he puts between it and Baptism. n Tom. 1. pag. 477. At an non per Sacramenta etiam fides & regeneratio exhibetur? Resp. Distinguendum inter primum fidei & resipiscentiae initium, & confirmationem ejus ac augmentum. Nemo admit●…tur ad Sacramenta nisi pro fideli & poenitente habeatur; quemadmodum verba clara sunt, Quisquis crediderit & baptizatus fuerit. In●…ntes habentur pro foederatis, ac proinde etiam pro iis qui Spiritum fidei acceperunt, sed de hac repostea. Sic in Coena requiritur, ut 〈◊〉 probet se an sit in fide, & ut digne manducet: infidelibus enim vel nondum credentibus nullae fiunt promissiones, ac proinde nec obsignantur. Perperam ergo statuunt ipsa Sacramenta esse caus●… primae regenerationis aut justificationis, tum Pontificii, tum Lutherani quidam. Sed si fidei & regenerationis conf●…atio & augmentum spectetur, recte tribuitur Sacramentis ut causis instrumentalibus. Walaeus asserteth both against Papists, and against some of the Lutherans, that Sacraments do instrumentally confirm and increase faith and regeneration; but not begin nor work faith and regeneration where they are not. Petrus Hinkelmannus de Anabaptismo Disp. 9 cap. 1. Error 6. disputeth against this as a Tenent of the Calvi●…ists. Fideles habent Spiritum S. habent res signatas ante Sacramenta: the faithful have the holy Spirit, they have the things which are sealed, before they receive the Sacraments. Brochmand. System. Theol. Tom. 3. de Sacram. Cap. 2. Quaest 1. condemneth this as one of the Calvinian errors: Sacramenta non esse gratiae conferendae divinitu●… ordinata media: that Sacraments are not instituted and appointed of God to be means of conferring or giving grace. Which he saith is the assertion of Zuinglius, Beza, Danaeus, Musculus, Piscator, Vorstius. The Lutheran opinion he propounds ibid. quaest. 6. that the Sacraments are means appointed of God to confer grace, to give faith, and being given to increase it. Esthius in Sent. lib. 4. dist. 1. Sect. 9 stateth the opinion of the Calvinists (as he calls us) thus, justificationem usu Sacramenti esse priorem, obtentam nimirum per fidem quâ homo jam ante credidit sibi remitti peccata; Sacramentum verò postea adhiberi, ut verbo quidem promissionis fides confirmetur: elemento verò ceu sigillo quodam diplomati appenso eadem fides obsignetur; atque ita per Sacramentum declaretur testatumque fiat hominem jam prius esse per fidem justicatum. This he saith is manifestly contrary to the doctrine of the Church of Rome, from which (saith he) the Lutherans do not so far recede as the Calvinists. Gregorius de Valentia in tertiam partem Thomae Disp. 3. Quaest 3. punct. 1. thus explaineth the Tenent which he holdeth against the Protestants concerning the Sacraments giving of grace. Sacramenta esse veras causas qualitatis gratia, non principales, sed instrumentales: hoc ipso videlicet, quod Deus illis utitur ad productionem illius effectus, qui 〈◊〉 gratia, tamet si supra naturam seu efficacitatem naturale●… ipsorum. The Papists dispute indeed what manner of casuality or virtue it is by which the Sacraments work grace, whether Phisica, or Ethica; whether infita, or adsita. In which questions they do not all go one way. See Gamachaeus in tertiam partem Tho. Quest. 62. Cap. 5. But that the Sacraments do work or give grace to all such as do not ponere obicem, they all hold against the Protestants. They dispute also whether all the Sacraments give the first grace, or whether Baptism and Penance only give the first habitual grace, and the other five Sacraments (as they make the number) give increase of grace. But in this they all agree, that habitual grace is given in all the Sacraments of the New-Testament: the Thomists hold further, that the very first grace is de facto given in any of the Sacraments. See for the former o Becanus Theol. Scholar part. 4. Tract. de S●cram. Quaest 7. Omnia Sacramenta ●…ovae legis s●…mper conferunt gratiam habitu●…lem seu 〈◊〉, non ponentibus obicem, ac proinde gratia habitualis est communis quidam esfectus om●…ium Sacramentorum: Est communi●… sententia. Becanus, for the latter p Tannerus in Thomam. Tom. 4. Disp. 3. Qaest. 3. Dub. 5. ●…mo omnia Sacramenta de facto nonnunquam possunt ex opere operato (how much more if there be also opus operantis) confer●…e primam gr●…am. Haec est sententia magis pia & probabilior; quam docet S. Thomas etc. eandem communiter sequuntur T●…omistae. He confirms it thus. Quia quaedam Sacram●…nta per se pro●…riesolum instituta ad dindam prima●… gratiam, tossunt conserre 〈◊〉. Ergo etiam per se instituta ad honc toterunt conferre primam etc. Atque hoc etiam sensu admitti potest quod nonnulli dixeru●…t, omnibus Sacramentis sub ratione saltem generica Sacramenti novae Legis, etsi non specifica, per se co●…venire ut gratiam primam conferant. Tannerus. You will say peradventure▪ that Protestant Writers hold the Sacraments to be 1. Significant or declarative signs. 2. Obsignative or confirming signs▪ 3. Exhibitive signs, so that the thing signified is given and exhibit to the soul. I answer, That exhibition which they speak of, is not the giving of grace where it is not (as is manifest by the afore quoted Testimonies) but an exhibition to believers, a real effectual lively application of Christ and of all his benefits to every one that believeth, for the staying, strengthening, confirming, and comforting of the soul. Chamierus contractus. Tom. 4. lib. 1. cap. 2. Docemus ergo in Sacramentorum perceptione effici gratiam in fidelibus: & hactenus Sacramenta dicenda efficacia. Polan. Syntag. lib. ●. cap. 49. saith the visible external thing in the Sacrament, is thus far exhibitive, quia bona spiritualia per eam fidelibus significantur, exhibentur, communicantur & obsignantur. So that in this point Habenti dabitur is a good rule. For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance; but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. Maith. 25. 29. Our Divines do not say that the Sacraments are exhibitive Ordinances, wherein grace is communicated to those who have none of it, to unconverted or unbelieving persons. By this time it may appear (I suppose) that the controversy between us and the Papists concerning the effect of the Sacraments (setting aside the opus operatum, which is a distinct controversy▪ and is distinctly spoken to by our Writers, setting aside also the casualitas phisica and insita, by which some of the Papists say the Sacraments give grace, though divers others of them hold the Sacraments to be only moral causes of grace) is thus far the same with the present controversy between Mr. Prynn and me, that Protestant Writers do not only oppose the opus operatum, and the casualitas physica & insita, but they oppose (as is manifest by the Testimonies already cited) all casuality or working of the first grace of conversion and faith in or by the Sacraments, supposing always a man to be a believer and within the Covenant of grace before the Sacrament, and that he is not made such, nor translated to the state of grace in or by the Sacrament. This the Papists contradict, and therein Mr. Prynn joineth with them. When Bellarmine brings an impertinent Argument: The Sacraments (saith he) have not the same relation to faith which the Word hath: Nam verbum Dei praecedit fidem, Sacramenta autem sequuntur, saltem in adultis. The Word of God doth go before faith, but the Sacraments follow after it, at least in those who are of age. Dr. Ames Bell. enerv. Tom. 3. lib. 1. cap. 5. corrects his great mistake or oblivion. Hoc illud est quod nos docemus: Sacramenta confirmare fidem per verbum Dei prius ingeneratam, saltem in adultis. This (saith he) is that which we teach, that the Sacraments confirm that faith which was first begotten by the Word of God, at least in those who are of age. Mr. prynn's assertion is▪ that the Lords Supper is a converting, as well as a sealing Ordinance; for clearing whereof h● premiseth two distinctions. There are two sorts both of conversion and sealing, which he saith his Antagonists to delude the vulgar have ignorantly, wilfully, or injudiciously confounded. Whether such language beseems a man fearing God, or honouring them that do fear God, let every one judge who knoweth any thing of Christian moderation. See now if there be any reason for this grievous charge. First (saith he) there is an external conversion of men from Paganism or Gentilism to the external profession of the faith of Christ. This (he saith) is wrought by the Word or by Miracles, and effected by Baptism in reference to infants of Christian Parents. But how the Baptisms of such Infants is brought under the head of conversion from Paganism to the external profession of Christ, I am yet to learn. Secondly saith he, There is a conversion from a mere external formal profession of the Doctrine and Faith of Christ, to an inward spiritual embracing and application of Christ with his merits and promises to our souls, by the saving grace of Faith, and to an holy Christian real change of heart and life: In this last conversion, the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is not only a sealing or confirming, but likewise a regenerating and converting Ordinance as well as the Word. He might upon as good reason have made a third sort of conversion from a scandalous and profane life to the external obedience of the will and commandments of God. But all this is to seek a knot in the rush; for there is but one sort of conversion which is a saving conversion, and that is a conversion from nature to grace, from sin to sanctification, from the power of Satan to God, whether it be from paganism, or from profaneness, or from an external formal profession. Now that conversion which Mr. Prynn ascribes to the Sacrament is a true sanctifying and saving conversion. The other conversion which he ascribes not to the Sacrament, is not a saving conversion, for the external conversion of men from Paganism or Gentilism to the external profession of the faith of Christ, without the other conversion to an inward spiritual embracing of Christ, doth but make men seven▪ fold more the children of Hell. So that Mr. Prynn hath more opened his sore when he thought to cover and patch it. The other distinction which he gives us, is of a twofold sealing. But by the way he tells us that Baptism and the Lords Supper are termed Sacraments and Seals, without any Text of Scripture to warrant it. Hereby as he gratifieth q Faustus Socinus de Coena Dom. Tract. brev. terum, quod omnes fere opinantur, hoc ritu, quem Sacramentum appellant, confirmari saltem fidem nostram, ne id quidem verum censeri debet; cum nec ullo sacro testimonio comprobetur, nec ulla ratio sit, cur id fièri possit. Quomodo enim potest nos in fide confirmare id quod nos ipsi facimus, quodque licet a Domino institutum, opus tamen nostrum est. Smalc. Disp. 12. de Coena. Vox Sacramenti in hac significatione barbara vel saltem sacris litter is incognita est, ●…b hominibus vero otiosis, qui ceremoniis hujusmodi nescio quid praeter sacram Scripturam superstiti●…sum aut eti●…m Idololatricum ex parte, 〈◊〉 non sunt 〈◊〉, ad 〈◊〉 dolum 〈◊〉. the Socinians not a little (who will not have the Lords Supper to be called either seal or Sacrament, but an obediential act and a good work of ours, and tell us that we make the Lords Supper but too holy to delude the vulgar) So he correcteth all Orthodox Writers, Ancient and Modern. The Apostle▪ describeth Circumcision to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a seal of the righteousness of faith, Rom. 4. 11. Whence Divines give the name of seals to all Sacraments Rectè autem (saith Aretius Theol. Probl. Loc. 76.) speciebus imis & intermediis generibus eadem ●…ssignantur in definiendo genera. Circumcision is a seal, therefore a Sacrament is a seal: as well as this, Justice is a habit, therefore virtue is a habit. Man is a substance, therefore a living creature is a substance. And further, if Circumcision was a seal; the Lords Supper is much more a seal; as we shall see afterwards. The honourable Houses of Parliament, after advice had with the Assembly of Divines have judged this point (which Mr. Prynn so much quarrelleth) to be not only true, but so far necessary and fundamental, that in their Ordinance of October 20. 1645. for keeping back the ignorant and the scandalous from the Sacrament, this truth, That the Sacraments are seals of the Covenant of grace, is enumerate among those points of Religion, which all persons who shall be admitted to the Lords Supper ought to know, and of which whosoever is ignorant shall not be admitted to the Lords Supper. I hope Mr. Prynn shall not be willing to fall within the Category of ignorant persons, and such as ought not be admitted to the Sacrament: which yet by that Ordinance he must needs do; if he will not know the Lords Supper to be a seal of the Covenant of grace. Wherefore though he leaneth much that way, both here, and pag. 30. yet I shall expect he will rectify himself in this particular. His words are these. There is a double sealing (if we admit this Sacrament or Baptism to be seals, though never once styled seals in any Scripture Text) And in the Margin, they are termed Sacraments and seals of the Covenant, without any Text to warra●…t it. Now Quaeritur whether Mr. Prynn doth know that the Sacraments are seals of the Covenant of grace; and if he doth not know this, whether doth not the Ordinance strike against him. And now to return, the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, a Seal; (which makes most to our present purpose) is a Scripture word. As for the Word Sacrament, we need not seek it in Scripture, because it is a Latin Word, and there is not either in the Hebrew or Greek (the languages in which Scripture was written) any word which properly, closely and fully answereth to the Word Sacrament. Sure we have the thing Sacrament (though not the name) in Scripture. Peradventure Mr. Prynn is the more afraid of the Word Sacrament, because some derive it à sacrament which suiteth not so well to his notion of a converting Ordinance. Well: But what are nis two sorts of sealing? 1. A visible external sealing of the pardon of sin and Gods promises in the blood of Christ to our outward s●…nces. 2. An internal invisible sealing of them by the Spirit, working in, by the Word and Sacraments to our souls. In the first sense (he saith) this Sacrament is a seal to all receivers, even to those who are scandalous and unworthy, who receive only the outward Elements. Again this first kind of sealing (saith he) seals all God's promises and a free pardon of all our sins only conditionally, if we truly repent, lay hold on Christ etc. The second which is an absolute sealing, he grants to belong only to worthy penitent believing receivers. Who doth now delude the vulgar? When the Lords Supper is called a sealing Ordinance; did ever any man understand this of a sealing to our outward senses only, or of receiving the outward Elements and no more? Who can mistake the thing so far as to think that Christ hath instituted and ordained this Sacrament to be a mere external seal and no more? When he grants that in the second sense this Sacrament is a seal, only to worthy, penitent, believing receivers, who receive the inward invisible grace, as well as the outward signs: He grants that which I require, that is, that it is a sealing Ordinance intended for worthy penitent believing receivers, not for the scandalous and unworthy. God forbid we should make a sealing Ordinance to be an empty Ordinance. The truth is, his first kind of sealing without the second, is no sealing, yea worse than no sealing. Where there is no charter, how can there be a sealing, except we seal blank paper? and as we shall hear anon from chrysostom, we have not so much as the seal, except we have that which is sealed. I know it will be answered, there is somewhat to be sealed even to the scandalous and unworthy▪ that is, the pardon of all their sins conditionally, if they truly repent, believe, lay hold on Christ. In this very place Mr. Prynn tells us, that all God's promises and a free pardon is sealed, even to scandalous and unworthy receivers conditionally; that is, as he explicates himself pag 37. upon condition that they become penitent and believing receivers. But then (say I) he must upon as good reason grant, that the Sacrament may be given to Pagans and Turks, at least the first day of preaching the Gospel to them; May it not be said to Pagans and Turks, that if they repent and believe on Christ, they shall have pardon of sin? Here is the thing to be sealed in Mr. Prynn's opinion. What then should hinder the sealing? He shuneth to call the Sacrament a converting ordinance in reference to Pagans; and now behold his principles will admit the giving of the Sacrament even to Pagans as a sealing Ordinance, how much more than as a converting Ordinance? We have now heard his two distinctions, which if they have given any clearing to his assertion, it is such as is little to his advantage. I will now premise some distinctions of my own to clear that which I hold. 1. The Question is not the potentia Dei absoluta, Whether God by his omnipotency can give the first grace of conversion in the instant of receiving the Sacrament. But the Question is of the revealed will of God, and the way of the dispensation of grace made known to us in the Gospel, which must be the rule to us to walk by. A peradventure it may be, and who knoweth but the scandalous sinner may be converted, is no warrantable ground to go upon in this case, as Mr. Prynn would make it pag. 47. for we may as well adventure to delay repentance, upon a peradventure it may be. There is an example in the New-Testament of one who got repentance and mercy at his end, and if we believe the Hebrews and divers Christian Interpreters; there is another example of the same kind in the Old Testament, which is the example of Achan. Whereas there is no example in all the Scripture of any converted by the Sacrament. But if a thing be contrary to the revealed will and commandment of God (as both these are, the delaying of repentance, and the admission of scandalous persons to the Sacrament) we may not dare to go upon peradventures. To the Law, and to the Testimony. Search the Scriptures. If the Word do not show us any thing of conversion by the Sacrament, we must not think of any such thing. 2. We must distinguish between the Sacrament itself, and those things that do accompany the Sacrament, powerful preaching, exhortation, prayer, or the like before or after the Sacrament. Put case a sinner be effectually converted by a Sermon or a prayer, which he heareth at the Ordination of a Minister, will any man therefore say that Ordination is a converting Ordinance? So if by most serious powerful exhortations, convictions, promises, threatenings, by prayer, by Christian conference by reading or meditation before or after the Sacrament, the Lord be pleased to touch the Conscience and convert the soul of an impenitent profane wicked liver, nothing of this kind can make the Sacrament a converting Ordinance. 3. We must distinguish even in conversion between gratia praeveniens & subs●…quens, operans & co-operans, excitans & adjuvans, or rather, between habitual and actual conversion. Habitual conversion I call the first infusion of the life and habits of grace; actual conversion is the souls beginning to act from that life and from those habits. The first or habitual conversion in which the sinner is passive, and not at all active, it being wholly the work of preventing, exciting, quickening grace, is that which never is to be looked for in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, which is enough to overthrow that opinion, that scandalous impenitent sinners (having an external formal profession, but known by a wicked abominable conversation to be dead in sins and trespasses, in whom the holy Ghost hath never yet breathed the first breath of the life of grace) may be admitted to the Lords Supper (if they desire it, not being excommunicated) upon hopes, that it may prove a converting Ordinance to them. As for gratia subsequens co-operans & adjuvans, by which the sinner (having now a spiritual life created in him and supernatural habits infused in his soul) is said actually to convert, repent, and believe. I consider even in this actual conversion, repenting, believing, these two things. 1. The inchoation. 2. The progress of the work. Where the work is begun, if it were but faith like a grain of mustard seed, and where there is any thing of conversion which is true and sound; the Sacrament is a blessed powerful means to help forward the work. But I peremptorily deny that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is appointed or instituted by Christ as a regenerating converting Ordinance, as well as the word, or as a means of beginning actual, much less habitual conversion. 4. When I hold the Lords Supper not to be a converting but a sealing Ordinance, the meaning is not as if▪ I believed that all who are permitted to come to the Lords Table are truly converted, or that they are such as the seals of the Covenant of Grace do indeed and of right belong unto (for we speak of visible Churches and visible Saints) But my meaning is that Christ hath intended this Sacrament to be the children's read only (though the hired servants of the house have other bread enough and to spare) and he alloweth this portion to none but such as are already converted and do believe: and that they who are the ministers of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God ought to admit none to this Sacrament, except such as are qualified and fit (so far as can be judged by their profession, knowledge, and practice, observed and examined by the Eldership according to the rules of the Word, no humane court being infallible) to have part and portion in the communion of Saints, and to receive the seals of the Covenant of Grace, at least that they may not dare to admit any man whose known and scandalous wickedness continued in without signs of repentance, saith within their heart, that there is no fear of God before his eyes. These things premised (which are to be remembered by the Reader, but need not be repeated by me as we go along) I proceed to the Arguments which prove my assertion, that the Lords Supper is not a converting but a sealing Ordinance. And thereafter I shall answer Mr. prynn's Arguments brought to the contrary. CHAP. XIII. Twenty Arguments to prove that the Lords Supper is not a converting Ordinance. First, THat which is an institute significant sign, to declare and testify the being of that thing which is thereby signified, is not an operating cause or mean which makes that thing signified to begin to be where it was not. But the Sacrament is an instituted sign to declare and testify the being of that thing which is thereby signified. Ergo, This is an Argument used by r Chamier. contract. Tom 4. lib. 2. cap. 9 Quia ut efficientia toto genere suo differt a significatione: ita diversa ratio est instituendi in st●…umenta efficientia, & significantia &c. 2. prob. inductione. Quia nulla signa sive miraculosa, sive alia sunt efficientia. Polanus Synt. lib. 6. cap. 49. Elementum Sacramentale significat, testatur, & obsignat ●…redentibus rem verbo Dei promissam, eam autem nequaquam causat, efficit, aut producit. Protestant writers against Papists. The Sacraments being by their definition Signs, are not causes of that which they signify, neither are the things signified the effects of the Sacraments. Wherefore the Sacrament of the Lords Supper being a sign of our spiritual life, faith, union with Christ, and remission of sins, is not instituted to convey these spiritual blessings to such as have them not. Significancy is one thing, efficiency another. You will say by this Argument there is no grace exhibited nor given to believers themselves in the Sacrament. Answ. Growth in grace and confirmation of Faith is given to believers in the Sacrament, which the significancy hinders not, because the Sacrament doth not signify nor declare that the receiver hath much grace and a strong faith; but that he hath some life of grace and some faith. The very state of grace or spiritual life, regeneration, faith and remission of sins are signified, declared, testified, and sealed, but not wrought or given in the Sacrament. The strengthening of faith and a further degree of communion with Christ is not signified in the Sacrament, I mean, it's not signified that we have it, but that we shall have it, or at most that we do then receive it. So that believers may truly be said to receive at the Sacrament a confirmation or strengthening of their faith, or a further degree of communion with Christ: but it cannot be said that the very Sacramental act of eating or drinking, being a sign of spiritual life and union with Christ (as that which we have, not which we shall have, or at that instant receive) is a mean or instrumental cause to make a man have that which it testifieth or signifieth he hath already. There is no evasion here, for one who acknowledgeth the Sacrament to be a sign, declaring or showing forth that we have faith in Christ, remission of sins by him, and union with him. Mr. Prynn must either make blank the signification of the Sacrament à parte ante, though not à parte post, or else hold that the signification of the Sacrament, is not applicable to many of those whom he thinks fit to be admitted to receive it. Secondly, That which necessarily supposeth conversion and faith, doth not work conversion and faith. But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper necessarily supposeth conversion and faith. Ergo. The proposition is so certain, that either it must be yielded, or a contradiction must be yielded: for that which worketh conversion and faith, cannot suppose that they are, but that they are not. Therefore that which supposeth conversion and faith, cannot work conversion and faith, because then the same thing should be supposed both to be and not to be. The Assumption I prove from Scripture. Mark. 16. 16. He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved. Act. 2. 38. Repent and be baptised. verse. 41. Then they that gladly received his word were baptised. Act. 8. 36. 37. And the Eunuch said, See here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptised? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thin●… heart 〈◊〉 mayest. Act. 10. 47. Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptised which have received the holy Ghost as well as we? Now if Baptism itself (which is the Sacrament of our initiation) supposeth (according to the tenor and meaning of Christ's institution) that the party baptised (if of age) doth actually convert and believe, and (if an infant) supposeth an interest in Jesus Christ and in the Covenant of grace (for if he be a child of an Heathen or an Infidel although taken into a Christian Family, yet the Synod of Dort. Sess. 19 adviseth not to baptise such a child, till it come to such age as to be instructed in the principles of Christian Religion.) How much more doth the Lord's Supper, necessarily, by Christ's institution, suppose that the receivers are not unconverted and unbelieving persons? The previous qualifications which are supposed in Baptism, must be much more supposed in the Lord's Supper. Thirdly, That which gives us the new food, supposeth that we have the new birth and spiritual life, and that we are not still dead in sins and trespasses. But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper gives us the new food. Ergo it supposeth we have the new birth. The proposition I prove thus. s Synops. Pur. Theol. Disp. 43. Thes. 35. Duo tantum esse & non plura (Sacramenta) affirmamus: quoniam unum est initiationis, seu regenerationis, alterum nutritionis seu alimoniae. So Mathias Martinius lexic. Philol. pag. 3272. makes this distinction between baptism and the Lords Supper: that is a Sacrament of initiation and ●…doption: this of confirmation and ●…urishment. A man must first be born by the new birth, before he can be fed with the new food: and how can a man eat the flesh, and drink the blood of Christ, and yet be supposed not to have a spiritual life before that act, but to get a spiritual life in that very act? Doth a man get life because he eats and drinks, or doth he not rather eat and drink because he lives? The Assumption is a received and uncontroverted truth. And hence do Divines give this reason why we are but once baptised, but do many times receive the Lord● Supper; because it is enough to be once born, but not enough to be once nourished or strengthened. See the Belgic confession. Art. 34. and D. Parei Miscellanea Catechetica pag. 79. I shall strengthen my Argument by the Confession of Bohemia Cap. 11. The Sacraments cannot give to any such (which before was not inwardly quickened by the holy Ghost) either grace or justifying and quickening faith, and therefore they cannot justify any man, nor inwardly quicken or regenerate any man's Spirit: for faith must go before. And after. For if a dead man or one that is unworthy do come to the Sacraments, certainly they do not give him life and worthiness. etc. See the Harmony of Confessions printed at London 1643. pag. 280. 281. To what end then is the Sacrament of the Lords Supper instituted? For that, see the Confession of Belgia Ibid. pag. 320. We believe and confess that Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour hath instituted the holy Sacrament of his Supper, that in it he might nourish and sustain those whom he hath regenerated and engrafted into his Family, which is the Church. Both these Chapters did Mr. Prynn cite in the Question of judas (which yet prove not what he affirmeth in that point, as I have noted before) but it seems he did not observe these passages, which make directly against him in this Question of conversion or conferring of grace by the Sacrament. I add also Mr. Pemble in his Christian disections for receiving the Sacrament. The Sacrament saith he is appointed for our nourishment in grace; where we grow not by it, it is a sign this food was not digested but vomited up again t Polan. Synt lib. 6. cap. 56. He holds that omnes illi qui scandala praebent & non resipiscunt serio, a mensa Domini sunt arcendi. 1. Quia si infideles & impoenitèntes ad Coenam Domini admitterentur, profanaretur foedus Dei, tam communicando Symbola foederis iis quibus Deus nihil promittit, quam usu●…pando Symbola sacra sine fide & resipistentia. 2. Quia polluerent & contaminarent eibum & potum consecra●…um, quem Christus non destinavit nisi suis domesticis & fidelibus etc. 6. Quia incredulos & manifest impios Christus prohibuit admitti ad sacram Coenam: nam instituit illam solis fidelibus. Where faith, repentance, thankfulness, and obedience are not increased, there Christ crucified was not remembered. But how can there be any nourishment in grace, or any increase of grace in those who come to the Sacrament, without the first grace, or in the state of unregeneration? Fourthly, That Ordinance which is instituted only for believers and justified persons, is no converting but sealing Ordinance. But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is instituted only for believers and justified persons. Ergo. The Proposition hath light enough in itself; for converting Ordinances do belong even to unjustified and unconverted persons. Therefore that which is instituted only for believers is no converting Ordinance. All the Question will be of the Assumption, which I shall the rather confirm, because it is the very principle from which Polanus and others argue for the suspension of scandalous persons from the Lords Table. Now I prove the Assumption thus. Every Sacrament, even a Sacrament of initiation, is a seal of the righteousness of Faith. If Circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith. Rom. 4. 11. then Baptism (which hath succeeded to Circumcision) is also a seal of the righteousness of faith, and that more fully and clearly then Circumcision was: and if Baptism be a seal of the righteousness of faith, much more is the Sacrament of the Lords Supper a seal of the righteousness of Faith; which is also proved by Mat. 26. 28. For this is my blood of the new Covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. chrysostom on Rom. 4. considering those words vers. 11. a seal of the righteousness of Faith, hath this meditation upon it, that a Sacrament is no sign, no seal, except where the thing is which is signified and sealed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, For of what shall it be a sign, or of what shall it be a seal, when there is none to be sealed. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For (faith he) if it be a sign of righteousness, and thou hast not righteousness, neither haste thou the sign. If therefore a Sacrament be a seal of the righteousness of faith, than it is instituted only for believers and justified persons, because to such only it can seal the righteousness of faith. Upon this ground saith u Ubi supra pag. 395. Ursinus that the Sacraments are to the wicked and unbelievers no Sacraments: which agreeth with that Rom. 2. 25. If thou be a breaker of the Law, thy Circumcision is made uncircumcis●…on. Fifthly, The Apostle argues that Abraham the father of the faithful, and whose justification is as it were a pattern of ours, was not justified by Circumcision, or (as Aquinas confesseth upon the place) that Circumcision was not the cause but the sign of Justification. Rom. 4. 9 10. 11. We say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned? When he was in Circumcision or in uncircumcision? Not in Circumcision but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of Circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised x Bullinger Decad. 5. serm. 7. Quis praeterca i●…de non colligat, nos qui filii Abrahae sumus, non alia ratione justificari, quam p●…trem justifica●…um constat, ac Sacramenta nostra in nobis non aliud ●…fficere, quam quod in ille 〈◊〉? 〈◊〉 cum eadem sit ratio Sacramentorum veterum & nostrorum. If Abraham the father of the faithful, got not so much as the Sacrament of initiation, till after he was justified and sanctified, how shall we think of receiving, not only the Sacrament of initiation, but the Sacrament of spiritual nourishment, while unjustified and unsanctified? And if God did by his Word make a Covenant with Abraham, before he received Circumcision the seal of that Covenant, must it not much more be supposed, that they are within the Covenant of grace, who eat and drink at the Lords Table, and consequently, that those who are children of disobedience and wrath, and strangers to Christ and the Covenant of Grace (apparently and manifestly such, though not professedly) ought not to be admitted to the Lords Table under colour of a converting Ordinance, it being indeed a seal of the Covenant of grace. Sixthly, That Ordinance which is appointed only for such as can and do rightly examine themselves concerning their spiritual estate, regeneration, repentance, faith, and conversation: is no converting Ordinance. But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is an Ordinance which is appointed only for such as can and do rightly examine themselves concerning their spiritual estate, regeneration, repentance, faith, and conversation. Ergo, it is no converting Ordinance. The reason of the Proposition is, because unconverted persons cannot nor do not rightly examine themselves concerning their spiritual estate, regeneration, etc. For such are a generation pure in their own eyes, and yet not washed from their filthiness. Proverb. 16. 2. and 21. 2. and 30. 12. and the natural man cannot know the things of the Spirit of God, because they are spiritually discerned, But he that is spiritual judgeth all things. 1 Cor. 2. 14. 15. The carnal mind is enmity against God. Rom. 8. 7. The Assumption is proved by 1 Cor. 11. 28. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that Cup. This self-examination (Interpreters say) must be concerning a man's knowledge, y Synops. pur. Theol. Disp. 45. Th●s. 83. Dignus ejus usus praeeu●…te probatione sui cujusque definitur: scilicet an sit in fide 2 Cor. 13. 5. & s●…ria resipiscentia afficiatur, secundum illud Pauli, Probet vero seipsum homo. etc. repentance, faith, and conversation. The Apostle expounds himself 2 Cor. 13. 5. Examine yourselves whether ye be in the Faith: prove your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you except ye be reprobates, or counterfeit, and unapproved. This self examination, as it is requisite at other times, so especially before our coming to the Lords Table; and an unconverted man can no more do it truly and rightly (according to the Apostles meaning) than he can convert himself. And here that which Mr. Prynn did object, maketh against himself; the Apostle saith, Let a man examine himself, not others; for the examination there spoken of belongs to the Court of a man's own Conscience, and to the inward man saith Martyr upon the place, not to the Ecclesiastical Court. But a natural unconverted man may possibly examine others and espy a mote in his brother's eye, he cannot in any right or acceptable manner examine his own Conscience, nor go about the taking of the beam out of his own eye. z Ursinus Tract. Theol. pag. 650. edit. 1584. Ad Coenam Domini autem nulli nisi adulti, qui & probare seipsos possunt, & hanc probationem confession & vita ostendant. Quid porro de his faciendum qui vitam Christianis indignam agunt? Ecclesiastica disciplina coercendi sunt. He therefore who either cannot through ignorance, or doth not through impenitency and hardness of heart, examine himself, and is known to be such a one by his excusing, justifying, or not confessing his scandalous sin, or continuing in the practice thereof, ought not to be admitted to that holy Ordinance which is instituted only for such as can and do humbly and sound examine themselves, and consequently not intended for unconverted impenitent persons. Seventhly, That Ordinance unto which one may not come without a wedding garment, is no converting Ordinance. But the Supper of the Lord, the marriage feast of the King's son, is an Ordinance unto which one may not come without a wedding garment. Ergo. The Proposition hath this reason for it. If a man must needs have a wedding garment that comes, than he must needs be converted that comes; for whatever ye call the wedding garment, sure it is a thing proper to the Saints, and not common to unconverted sinners, and the want of it doth condemn a man into utter darkness, Matth. 22. 13. The Assumption is clear from Matth. 22. 11. 12. When the King came in to see the Guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment. And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither, not having a wedding garment? and he was speechless. If he had been of Mr. prynn's opinion he needed not be speechless; for Mr. prynn's divinity might have put this answer in his mouth. Lord I thought this to be a converting Ordinance, and that thou wouldst not reject those that come in without a wedding garment, provided that here at the marriage feast they get one. But we see the King condemneth the man for coming in thither without a wedding garment. Eightly, That Ordinance which is not appointed to work faith is no converting ordinance. But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is not appointed to work faith. Ergo. The proposition must be granted, unless a man will say that conversion may be without faith. The Assumption is proved by Rom. 10. 14. men cannot pray if they do not believe, and they cannot believe if they do not hear the Word, v. 17. So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. If faith cometh by hearing, than not by seeing; if by the word, than not by the Sacrament. Ninthly, That Ordinance which hath neither a promise of the grace of conversion annexed to it, nor any example in the Word of God of any converted by it, is no converting Ordinance. But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper hath neither a promise of the grace of conversion annexed to it, nor is there any example in all the Scripture of any ever converted by it. Therefore it is no converting Ordinance. Tenthly, That Ordinance whereof Christ would have no unworthy person to partake is not a converting Ordinance. But the Lord's Supper is an Ordinance whereof Christ would have no unworthy person to partake. Ergo. The proposition I prove thus. It is not the will of Christ that converting Ordinances should be dispensed to no unworthy person (for else how should they be converted) but only he hath forbidden to dispense unto unworthy persons such Ordinances as belong to the Communion Saints. The Assumption I prove from 1 Cor. 11. 27. Whosoever (though otherwise a worthy person & one converted to the state of grace) shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body & blood of the Lord. v. 29. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgement to himself, not discerning the Lords body. If the unworthiness of that particular act, in respect of the manner of doing it, make a man so guilty and liable to such judgement, how much more the unworthiness of the person that eats and drinks? For a man's state, the course of his life, and the frame of his Spirit, is more than one single act. This therefore doth prove that he that is an unworthy person (if he come to the Lords Table) doth eat and drink unworthily (Whence is that where the Apostle saith vers. 29. He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, the Syriack Interpreter hath it, he that eateth and drinketh thereof being unworthy, or indignus existens:) Which may be also gathered from the interweaving of vers. 28. between vers. 27. and vers. 29. He that eats and drinks, not having before rightly examined himself, eats and drinks unworthily. But he that is an unworthy person, and comes to the Lords Table unworthily and unpreparedly, eats and drinks not having before rightly examined himself. Ergo. What of that? will you say. a Magdeb. Cent. lib. cap. 4. pag. 278. Indign eos uti docet (Paulus) qui sine vera poenitentia & fide accedunt. etc. Oecumenius upon 1 Cor 11. fixeth the sin of eating and drinking unworthily upon the Corinthians, in regard of their contempt of the ●… poor, and their other sins: supposing all such to eat unworthily who are under any wickedness unrepented, when they come. Much to the point. Every unconverted and unregenerate person is an unworthy person (as the Scripture distinguisheth worthy persons and unworthy) and comes unworthily and unpreparedly (if he come while such) to the Lords Table; Therefore such a one if he come, eats and drinks unworthily, and so eats and drinks judgement to himself. b De Tempore Scrm. 244. Et cum nullus homo velit cum ●…unica sordibus plena ad Ecclesiam convenire, nescio qua Conscientia cum anima per luxuriam sit inquinata, praesumit ad altare accedere: non timens illud quod Apostolus dixit: Qui enim manducat Corpus & sumit sanguinem Domini indigne, reus erit corporis & sanguinis Domini. Augustine argueth promiscuously against those who come unworthily, and those that eat and drink unworthily, and applieth the Apostles words of eating and drinking unworthily, to all who come with polluted souls, such as all unconverted have. And Gualther, Martyr, and other Interpreters upon the place, the Centurists also in the place last cited, reckon those to eat and drink unworthily, who come without the wedding garment, and without faith, and holiness of conversation, which intimateth that they who live unworthily, do also eat the Lords Supper unworthily, which is most plainly intimate in the Directory pag. 50. where ignorant, scandalous, and profane persons are warned not to come to that holy Table, upon this reason, because he that eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks judgement to himself, which necessarily implieth that unworthy persons and profane livers, if they come to the Sacrament, are not converted, but sin more in eating and drinking unworthily. I conclude therefore that the prohibition of eating and drinking unworthily doth necessarily imply a prohibition of unconverted, unregenerate, impenitent persons, to come to the Lords Table, and by consequence that it is no converting Ordinance. Eleventhly, That Ordinance which is Eucharistical and consolatory, supposeth that such as partake of it have part and portion in that thing for which thanks are given, and are such as are fit to be comforted. But the Lord's Supper is an Ordinance Eucharistical and consolatory. Ergo. The Proposition needs no other proof but the third Commandment; Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain. Shall a man be called to give thanks for redemption, reconciliation, and remission of sins, and to take comfort in Jesus Christ, even while he is such a one of whom God hath said, There is no peace to the wicked: High talk becometh not a fool. Psal. 33. 1. Rejoice in the Lord O ye righteous, for praise is comely for the upright. Psal. 50. 14. 16. Offer unto God thanksgiving etc. But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my Covenant in thy mouth. c Zuinglius Tom. 2. de verâ & falsâ Religione cap. de Sacram. Coena Dominica d●…nus experimentum, quod morte Christi fidamus, quum gratulantes & laeti adsimus in eo coe●…u, qui Deo gratias agit pro beneficio redemptionis. The Assumption is acknowledged among all; for as it hath the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so is the nature of it. It is also a consolatory Ordinance, in which we are called to spiritual joy and gladness, it being a feast of fat things full of marrow, and of wines on the lees well refined. At this Ordinance of the holy Supper Christ spoke many a sweet and consolatory word to the disciples, and did not rebuke them nor chide them, as he had done at other times. Is it not then a healing slightly of the malady of impenitent unconverted sinners, yea a betraying of their souls to bring them to joy and comfort and thanksgivings and songs of praise, to eat of the marrow and fatness, and to drink of the rivers of pleasure which are in the house of God, when we ought rather call them to weeping and to mourning, to make their peace with God, and to flee from the wrath to come? Twelfthly, That Ordinance unto which Christ calleth none but such as have spiritual gracious qualifications, is not a converting but a sealing Ordinance. But the Lord's Supper is an Ordinance unto which Christ calleth none but such as have spiritual and gracious qualifications. Ergo. The Proposition I hope needs no proof, because unconverted persons dead in sins and trespasses, have no spiritual gracious qualifications. The Assumption may be proved by many Scriptures. If of any Ordinance, chiefly of this; it holds true that Christ inviteth and calleth none but such as labour and are heavy loaden, Matth. 11. 28. such as are athirst for the water of life, john 7. 37. Isa. 55. 1. such as have the wedding garment, Matth. 22. 12. such as examine themselves 1 Cor. 11. 28. such as are Christ's friends, Cant. 5. 1. Eat O friends, drink yea drink abundantly O beloved. Thirteenthly, That Ordinance which is instituted for the Communion of Saints, is intended only for such as are Saints, and not for unconverted sinners. But the Lord's Supper is an Ordinance instituted for the Communion of Saints, and of those who are members of the same body of Christ 1 Cor. 10. 16. 17. compared with 1 Cor. 1. 2. Ergo. Martin Bucer de Regno Christi lib. 1. cap. 7. conceiveth that this Sacrament doth so far belong to the Communion of Saints, that wicked and unworthy persons are not only to be kept back from partaking, but from the very beholding or being present in the Church at the giving of the Sacrament: which yet is more than we have affirmed. Fourteen, If Baptism itself (at least when ministered to those that are of age) is not a regenerating or converting Ordinance, far less is the Lords Supper a regenerating or converting Ordinance. But Baptism itself (at least when ministered to those that are of age) is not a regenerating or converting Ordinance. Ergo. The ground of the Proposition is, because Baptism hath a nearer relation to regeneration then the Lords Supper, and therefore hath the name of the laver of regeneration. The Assumption I prove thus. 1. Because we read of no persons of age baptised by the Apostles, except such as did profess faith in Christ, gladly received the Word, and in whom some begun work of the Spirit of grace did appear (I say not that it really was in all, but somewhat of it did appear in all.) 2. If the Baptism of those who are of age be a regenerating Ordinance, than you suppose the person to be baptised an unregenerated person (even as when a Minister first preacheth the Gospel to Pagans, he cannot but suppose them to be unregenerated:) But I believe no conscientious Minister would adventure to baptise one who hath manifest and infallible signs of unregeneration. Sure, we cannot be answerable to God if we should minister Baptism to a man whose works and words do manifestly declare him to be an unregenerated unconverted person. And if we may not initiate such a one, how shall we bring him to the Lords Table? Fifteenthly, If the Baptism even of those who are of age must necessarily precede their receiving of the Lord's Supper, than the Lords Supper is not a converting but a sealing Ordinance. But the Baptism even of those who are of age must necessarily precede their receiving of the Lord's Supper. Ergo. The Assumption is without controversy, it being the order observed by Christ and by the Apostles, and by all Christian Churches. The Proposition I prove thus. 1. d Hutterus Disp. 17. de Coena Dom. Thes. 1. Sacramentum initiationis novi Test. puta Baptisinum, ordine convenientissimo excipit Sacramentum confirmationis, quod est sacra●…ssima Coena Domini & Servatoris nostri Jesu Christi: tum ob causas alias, tum quod ea est fidei nostrae, in baptismo nobis collatae, respectu nostri infirmitas, ut nisi subinde confirmetur, mo●… penitus fatiscat & intereat. What better reason of the necessity of this precedency of Baptism, than that Baptism is the Sacrament of regeneration, the Lords Supper the Sacrament of our spiritual nourishment, and one must be borne before he eat and drink. 2. The Apostle saith Gal. 3. 27. As many of you as have been baptised into Christ, have put on Christ. Rom. 6. 4. We are buried with him by Baptism into death. Col. 2. 12. Buried with him in Baptism, wherein also you are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God. Therefore if the Sacrament of the Lords Supper be intended only for the baptised, than it is intended only for such as are supposed to have put on Christ, are buried and raised again with him through faith, and consequently, it is not intended for unconverted persons to convert them, but for converted persons to confirm them. Sixteenthly, The Method of the parable of the forlorn Son maketh very much against Mr. prynn's opinion. The Lord is indeed ready to forgive, and hath compassion upon the poor sinner, and falls on his neck and kisseth him, and saith to his servants, Bring forth the best robe and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet, and bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it, and let us eat and be merry. Luke 15. 20. 22, 23. And this is done in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, more especially and more manifestly then in any other Ordinance. But when? not while the man is yet playing the prodigal, wasting his substance with riotous living, nor yet while he is filling his belly in a far Country with the husks which the Swine did eat. But it was when he came to himself, when he came to his Father and said, Father I have sinned against Heaven and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy Son. Then, and not till then, doth the father bestow upon him the best robe and the fatted calf. For this my son was dead (saith the Father) and is alive again, was lost and is found. Had the best robe and the fatted calf been given him before he repented and came to himself, he had (belike) been so much the more careless of coming home to his father. But we see these love tokens, this feast, and this mirth, is for entertaining a poor penitent, not for converting an impenitent sinner. Seventeenthly, I shall draw another Argument both out of the Directory for the public Worship of God throughout the three Kingdoms, and out of Mr. Prynn himself. Thus it is. That Ordinance from which the Minister in the Name of Christ ought concionaliter or Doctrinally to excommunicate all impenitent profane persons, is not a converting but a sealing Ordinance. But the Lord's Supper is an Ordinance from which the Minister ought in the Name of Christ concionaliter or Doctrinally to excommunicate all impenitent profane persons, Ergo. The Proposition ariseth from this ground, we ought not to dehort impenitent profane men from converting Ordinances, but rather exhort them to come and partake thereof. The Assumption I prove, First, from the Directory in the head of the Lords Supper, which speaketh of the Minister thus, Next, he is, in the Name of Christ on the one part to warn all such as are ignorant, scandalous, profane, or that live in any sin or offence against their knowledge or Conscience, that they presume not to come to that holy Table, showing them that he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgement to himself. And on the other part he is in especial manner to invite and encourage all that labour under the sense of the burden of their sins, and fear of wrath, and desire to reach out unto a greater progress in grace then yet they can attain unto, to come to the Lords Tàble. Is it not here held forth as the will of Christ, that no profane impenitent unconverted person ought or may come to the Lords Table, but only such as have somewhat of the work of grace in them? But let us hear Mr. Prynn himself. The seventh difference which he stateth between his Antagonists and himself pag. 28. is this. Whether the Minister hath not fully discharged his Duty and Conscience if he give warning to unworthy Communicants of the danger they incur by their unworthy approaches to the Lords Table, and seriously dehort them from coming to it, unless they repent, reform, and come prepared. If this be a right stating of that difference (and if it be true which Mr. Hussey in his Epistle to the Parliament pag. 7. saith, that it is a very great and dangerous sin, if they come without repentance, faith, and charity, wherein the Minister must instruct his people publicly and privately.) Then I suppose that Mr. Prynn will not deny that a Minister ought in duty and conscience to do all this, to admonish a scandalous unworthy person, and seriously dehort etc. Only he contends that the Minister is not bound in duty and conscience after all this to keep back such from the Sacrament. Well: I take for the present what he grants: and even by that I prove the Lords Supper is no converting Ordinance; for if it were. 1. How dare any Minister seriously dehort any unworthy person from approaching to it? May we forbid sinners to use the means of their conversion, especially if they be such as are not excommunicated nor cast out of the Church, and do desire to receive the Sacrament? (which are the cases often put by Mr. Prynn.) 2. How can the Minister warn such persons not to come to the Sacrament unless they repent, reform, and come prepared? If it be not a sealing Ordinance intended only for such as do repent and reform, the Minister may not say so. 3. And otherwise the sense were this, that such persons ought not to come to a converting Ordinance, unless they be converted; for to repent, reform, and come prepared, are things which none can do who are not converted. Finally▪ By Mr. Prynn his principles, we may as well▪ yea rather, dehort men from coming to hear the Word unless they repent and reform. For pag. 44. he saith that the Sacrament is as converting, yea a more humbling, regenerating, converting Ordinance then the Word. Which if it be so, than we may more warrantably and with less danger to the souls of those who do not repent and reform, dehort them from coming to the Word, then from coming to the Sacrament. Eighteenthly, That Ordinance which is not communicable to Heathens or Pagans, nor to excommunicated Christians, for their conversion from darkness to light, from the power of Satan to God, from the state of sin to the state of repentance, is not a converting Ordinance. But the Lord's Supper is such. Ergo. The Reason of the Proposition is, because converting Ordinances are communicable to Heathens: and thence proceeded the general Commission to preach the Gospel to every creature, and to teach all Nations Matth. 28. 19 Mark 16. 15. which accordingly the Apostles did, Rom. 10. 18. Col. 1. 6. And if the Sacrament be a converting Ordinance for known impenitent scandalous profane persons within the Church, what reason is there imaginable why it is not also a converting Ordinance for Heathens, Pagans, Turks, Jews? Or where have we the least hint in Scripture that an Ordinance which may convert the profanest unexcommunicated person within the Church, cannot convert both Heathens and excommunicated Christians? The Assumption I prove from Mr. prynn's own acknowledgement, pag. 38. though the Sacrament saith he must not be administered to Heathens, to whom the Gospel may and must be preached, before they believe and profess Christ: yet it must be administered to them as well as Baptism, after their belief and profession of Christ. Where he clearly grants both Sacraments, Baptism and the Lords Supper, to be only sealing and confirming (not converting) Ordinances to Heathens, and therefore not communicable to them, till after they believe and profess Christ. Nineteenthly, That Ordinance which is not communicable nor lawful to be administered to any known impenitent sinner under that notion, but only as penitent sinners, truly repenting of their sins past, is not a converting but a sealing Ordinance. But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is such. Ergo. The Proposition I prove thus. A converting Ordinance may be administered to known impenitent sinners under that notion, or looked upon as such, wallowing in their blood and filthiness. Yea a converting Ordinance qua converting, is not (nor indeed can be) administered to penitent sinners qua penitent, or looked upon as truly converted. For as every effect is in order of nature posterior to its cause, so a converting Ordinance being the instrumental cause of conversion, regeneration, and repentance, it must needs be supposed that conversion and repentance doth not in order of nature precede but follow after the administration of the converting Ordinance. The Assumption is granted by Mr. Prynn pag. 37. The Minister (saith he) doth not (I suppose he will also say ought not) administer the Sacrament to any known impenitent sinners under that notion, but only as penitent sinners, truly repenting of their sins past, and promising, purposing to lead a new life for the future. Therefore yet again by some of his own principles, the Sacrament is not administered as instrumental to the first conversion of scandalous unworthy persons in the Church: for where there is in any Ordinance an instrumental causality toward the conversion of a scandalous person, that Ordinance must needs be administered to that person under the notion of an unconverted person, and the effect of conversion looked upon as consequent, not as antecedent. The twentieth Argument and the last is this. As I have before showed that Mr. Prynn in holding the Sacrament to be a converting Ordinance, unto which unregenerate impenitent and unbelieving persons (not being excommunicated) ought to be admitted, doth join issue with Papists, and dissenteth from the Protestant writers in a very special point, and that the controversy draweth very deep: So I will now make it to appear that he dissenteth as much from the Ancients in this particular. Dionysius Areopagita de Eccles. Hierarch. Cap. 3. Part. 3. speaking of the nature of this Ordinance of the Lords Supper, tells us that it doth not admit those scandalous sinners who were in the condition of penitents, before they had fully manifested their repentance, much less profane and unclean persons in whom no sign of repentance appeareth; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not admitting him who is not altogether most holy. Just in Martyr Apol. 2. lets us know that in his time the Lords Supper was given to none, but to such a person as was looked upon as a believer, and washed in the laver of regeneration, and lived according to the rule of Christ. chrysostom Hom. 83. in Matth. Augustine de side & operibus Cap. 18. Isidorus Pelusiota lib. 1. Epist. 143. and others might be here added. But I shall bring their full testimonies chap. 17. where I will show Antiquity to be for the suspension of scandalous persons unexcommunicated. Beside these, I add also e Si itaque in me manet, & ego in illo, tunc manducat, tunc bibit. Qui autem non in me manet, nec ego in illo, & si accipit Sacramentum, magnum acquirit tormentum. Et infra. Ad altare Dei invisibile (quo non accedit injustus) ille pervenit, qui ad hoc praesens justificatus accedit. Beda upon 1 Cor. 11. who tells us both out of Augustine and Prosper, that none ought to come to the Lords Table but a justified person, and such a one as abideth in Christ and Christ in him. Isidorus de Ecclesiast. offic. lib. 1. Cap. 18. citing the Apostles words, He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, addeth. f Hoc est enim indignè accipere, si eo tempore quis accipiat, quo debet agere poenitentiam. For this is to receive unworthily, if any man receive at that time in which he should be repenting. The same words hath Rabanus Maurus de Instit. Cleric. lib. 1. cap. 31. Which plainly showeth us that in their Judgement, the Sacrament of the Lords Supper doth suppose conversion and repentance to be already wrought, and if it be not wrought, the receiving is an unworthy receiving. Moreover that the Lords Supper was not anciently esteemed a converting Ordinance, but a sealing Ordinance, supposing conversion, is more than apparent by the distinction of Missa Catechumenorum and Missa fidellum: and by that proclamation in the Church before the Sacrament, Sancta Sanctis, the sense whereof Durantus de ritibus, lib. 2. cap. 55. num. 15. giveth out of chrysostom and cyril, that Sancta Sanstis was as much as to say: Si quis non est sanctus, non accedat: If any man be not holy, let him not approach. Or as if it had been said to them, The Sacrament is a holy thing, sancti & vos cum sitis sancto Spiritu donati; and seeing you also are holy, the holy Spirit being given unto you; atque ita sancta sanctis conveniant, and so holy things agreeing to holy persons. If the Lords Supper be a holy thing intended only for holy persons, than (sure) it is no converting Ordinance. I might also cite divers Schoolmen against Mr. Prynn in this particular. I shall instance but in two for the present. Scotus in lib. 4. Sent. didst. 9 Quaest 1. proveth from 1 Cor. 11. 27. that it is a mortal sin for a man to come to the Sacrament at that time when he is living in a mortal sin; and that he who is not spiritually a member of Christ, ought not to receive the Sacrament, which is a sign of incorporation into Christ. Alexander Alensis part 4. Quaest 11. Membr. 2. Art. 2. Sect. 2. saith thus. As there is a double bodily medicine (curativa & conservativa) one for cure, another for conservation, so there is a double spiritual medine, to wit (curativa & conservativa) one for cure, another for conservation; repentance for the cure, the Eucharist for conservation. etc. CHAP. XIIII. Mr. Prynne his twelve Arguments brought to prove that the Lords Supper is a converting Ordinance, discussed and answered. IT shall be now no hard business to answer Mr. prynn's twelve Arguments, brought by him to refute my assertion, that that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is no converting Ordinance. See Vindic. pag. 41. to 45. First he tells us we grant that moral carnal Christians, and all such as are not convicted of scandalous sins, are to be admitted to the Sacrament. Thrrefore doubtless (saith he) it is and was intended by Christ for a converting Ordinance to all such as these, to turn them from their evil ways, and work saving grace within their hearts, since it can have no other proper primary effect in such. Certainly God and Christ bestow no Ordinances upon men in vain; therefore their intentions in instituting this Supper, even for such visible, moral, unregenerate Christian, as well as real Saints, must necessarily be for their conversion, not their confirmation and sealing only. Answ. Lapsus in initio mali augurii est. He confoundeth here things most different. 1. He confoundeth our admitting of Communicants, with God's intention to do good to their souls: and his Argument runs upon this mistake, that God intendeth good to the souls of all who come to the Lords Table, though wicked close Hypocrites; and since this good cannot be sealing only, it must be conversion. But it is neither sealing, nor conversion, nor any good at all which God intends by that Ordinance to them that perish: yet it is not in vain: for he himself tells us pag. 34. that even in these, the Minister administering the Sacrament, is a sweet savour to God, who hath appointed the Sacrament secundarily and contingently, to be a means of aggravating men's sins and condemnation, to magnify his justice. 2. There is a most dangerous mistake in that which he saith of the intentions of God and of Christ. If he mean of what God intendeth or purposeth in the Council of his own will, that in this sense God intendeth the conversion of those that perish, is to make void and frustraneous the decree, will, and intention of God, which is gross Arminianism and Jesuitism. But if he mean finis operis, the proper end for which the Sacrament was instituted, and the good which the Word of God tells us we ought to seek, and may through the grace of God find in the Sacrament: Then in that sense, to say that Christ's intention in instituting this Sacrament was for conversion of moral unregenerate Christians, is merely a begging of what is in question. The like I say of that proper primary effect of the Sacrament in such. If he mean the proper primary effect decreed in the secret counsel of God, he mires himself in Arminianism. If he mean the proper primary effect of the Sacrament in respect of its own nature, this is but petere principium. 3. All who pretend right to the Sacrament are either visible Saints, qualified according to the rule of Christ, and such as the Eldership (examining their profession and practice according to the rules of the word) judgeth fit to be admitted to the Sacrament; or they are not such. If they be such, than the end and use of the Sacrament in reference to them, is to be a sealing Ordinance. for the Eldership judgeth and supposeth them fit to be sealed and confirmed, so far as they can understand, and in that capacity do admit them: God only being able to judge close Hypocrites. If they be not qualified, as I have said, than we do not grant that they ought to be admitted. His second Argument hath no strength at all. All Ordinances which strengthen grace do more or less begin or beget it, and the Directory itself calls the Sacraments means of grace pag. 52. What then? The Directory calls this Sacrament means of grace, because by it Christ and all his benefits are applied and sealed up unto us, and we are sealed up by his Spirit to an assurance of happiness and everlasting life. But (saith he) why may not the Sacraments convert as well as confirm. I have given many reasons for it. If he could prove that what confirms doth also convert, why did he not do it? If he could not prove it, why brings he a strong affirmation instead of an Argument? As for that which he addeth, that the Lords Supper is received not once as Baptism, but frequently. For this very end, that those who often fall into sin through infirmity, may likewise by this Supper often rise again, be refreshed, comforted, and get strength against their corruptions and sins: and is it not then a converting as well as a confirming Ordinance? What a wavering is here? Is the raising, refressiing, and comforting of those who often fall through infirmity, the conversion or first grace which now we dispute of? Or whether doth he not here yield the cause? For the refreshing and comforting and strengthening of those that fall through infirmity, is the effect of a confirming not of a converting Ordinance. And in this sense Divines have given a reason, why we are but once baptised, but do often receive the Lords Supper, because Baptism is the Sacrament of our initiation, the laver of regeneration; (I mean not that which hath been called Baptismal regeneration, fancied to be common to all the baptised, but I mean that which is wrought in and sealed to the Elect baptised) the Lord's Supper is the Sacrament of our spiritual nourishment and strengthening: and it is enough to be once born, once regenerate, but we must be often nourished and strengthened. His third Argument is this. The very receiving of the Sacrament even in ●…nregenerate persons, is accompanied with such things as are most effectual to convert. As 1. With a previous external serious examination of their own hearts and estates between God and their own Consciences. 2. A solemn searching out of all their open or secret sins and corruptions, past or present, accompanied with a serious particular private confession of them, a hearty contrition and humiliation for them etc. 3. Pious soul ravishing meditations etc. which make deep temporary impressions on their hearts 4. Flexanimous exhortations, admonitions, comminations, directions, prayers by the Ministers in the Congregation, before, in, and after this duty. Whereupon he leaveth it to every man's Conscience to judge whether this Sacrament is not more likely to regenerate and change their hearts, and lives, than the bare Word preached, or any other Ordinance. Answ. 1. Here is a lump of wild, uncouth, and most erroneous Divinity. Who ever heard of an external examination of men's hearts between God and their own Consciences? Or 2. That unregenerate persons can and do seriously examine their own hearts, and search out all their sins with a hearty contrition and humiliation for them? etc. Or 3. That deep temporary impressions on their hearts are most effectual to convert and regenerate (for he doth enumerate all these as particulars most effectual to convert.) Or 4. That in the very receiving of the Sacrament, men hear the Ministers prayers in the Congregation. 5. That this Sacrament is more likely to regenerate then the bare Word preached (I suppose he means not the word without the Spirit (for nobody holds the bare word in that sense to regenerate) but preaching without other concurring Ordinance) or any other Ordinance. Which if it be, he cannot choose but allow to give the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to excommunicated persons, and to the unbaptized, whether Heathens or Jews, being of age, and desiring to receive it. Secondly, If all the whole Antecedent part of his Argument were granted, the consequence is naught: for this must be the consequence, If examination of men's hearts, the searching out of all their sins, confession, contrition, prayers, vows, meditations, exhortations, which do accompany the Sacrament, be most effectual to convert and to beget grace, than the Sacrament is a converting Ordinance. Which consequence he will never prove. Put the case that self-examination, confession, prayers, vows, meditations, exhortations, at the calling of a Parliament, at the going out of an Army, at the choosing of Magistrates or Ministers, at the death of Parents, friends, etc. prove effectual to conversion; Shall we therefore say that the calling of a Parliament, the going out of the Army, the choosing of Ministers or Magistrates, the death of Parents or friends, are converting Ordinances? His fourth Argument alone is syllogistical (I wish all his Arguments throughout his whole book had been such, that the strength or weakness thereof might the sooner appear) That Ordinance where●…n we most immedietly converse with God and Christ, and have more intimate visible sensible communion with them, then in any other, is certainly the most powerful and effectual Ordinance of all others, to humble, regenerate, convert, and beget true grace within us. etc. But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper by our Antagonists own confession is such. Ergo. Answ. 1. I retort his Argument against himself. That Ordinance wherein we most immediately converse with God and Christ, and have more intimate communion with them then in any other, is a sealing, confirming, but not a converting Ordinance. For they who are converting have not such intimate communion and immediate conversing with God and Christ, as they who are already converted and do walk with God as Enoch did and are filled with all joy and peace in believing, Rom. 15. 13. even with joy unspeakable and full of glory, 1 Pet. 1. 8. The daughters of jerusalem being sick of love for Christ, yet are far from that communion with him, which his Spouse longer acquainted with him did enjoy, therefore they ask at her, whither her beloved was gone that they might seek him with her. Cant. 6 1. Hath the child fed with milk more communion and conversing with his father, than the son come to years, who eateth and drinketh at his father's Table? Do we not see often a servant convert like Apollo's, whom an Aquila and Priscilla must take and expound unto him the way of God more perfectly. Act. 18. 25, 26. 2. I deny his Proposition as he frames it, for the plain English of it is this; If it be a sealing, comforting, confirming Ordinance, than it is a converting Ordinance, which I clear thus. He takes his Medium from his Antagonists concession, for they accord (saith he) that we have more immediate communion with God in this Ordinance then in any other, for as much as in this Sacrament Christ is more particularly applied, and the remission of our sins more sensibly sealed to us then in any other Ordinance: from whence I thus infallibly conclude against these opposites. Then follows his Argument, which is no other than a putting of the converted in the condition of the unconverted, or the unconverted in the capacity of the converted▪ or to prove it converts, because it seals. 3. If this Sacrament be the most powerful and effectual Ordinance of all others, to humble, regenerate, convert, and beget true grace: it will follow that we ought (at least may) give the Sacrament not only to the most ignorant and scandalous within the Church, but to Turks, Pagans, Jews, and to excommunicated persons, as I said before. 4. He challengeth his Antagonists for crying up and magnifying this Sacrament above the Word preached, and by way of opposition tells them that he hath in some former Tractates proved God's presence and Spirit to be as much, as really present in other Ordinances as in this. Vindic. pag. 37 yet now I see no man who doth so much as himself, magnify the Sacrament above the Word. 5. Whereas he brings this proof for his Major Proposition: because the manifestation, revelation, and proximity of God and Christ to the soul, is that which doth most of all humble and convert it. If this hold true in the generality as he propounds it, than the Spirits of just men made perfect and glorified, are converted by the revelation and proximity of God and of Christ, whereof they have unconceaveably more than the Saints on earth. But neither in this world doth the manifestation and revelation of God and of Christ, prove conversion and regeneration to be in fieri at that instant when God so manifesteth and revealeth himself, which is the thing he had to prove. I give instance in divers of those Scriptures cited by himself: Gods revealing of himself to job, chap. 38. and 42. to Isaiah, chap. 6. Christ's manifesting of his power to Peter, Luke 5. was after, not at their conversion, so that Psal. 148. 14. But heteregeneous impertinent quotations of Scripture are usual with him: I am sorry I have cause to say it. Some other Scriptures which here he citeth may be expounded of God's proximity to us, and ours to God in Conversion, Isa. 55. 6. Zeph. 3. 2. Eph. 2. 17. jam. 4. 7. But that this kind of proximity which doth convert, is in the Sacrament, he hath supposed, but not proved. His fifth Argument is taken from the converting power of the Word: that which makes conversion by the Word is the particular application of Christ and the promises. Now the Sacrament doth most particularly and effectually apply Christ and the promises unto every Communicants eyes, ears, heart, and soul, far livelier than the Word preached. Answ. 1. This is a mere fallacy, à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter: and easily discovered. The Sacrament applieth Christ, but to whom? not to the unconverted and unbelievers (for that were to give a seal without a charter) but to those that are supposed to be converted and believers. He had this to prove, That the Sacrament doth apply Christ's death, passion, and merits to unconverted persons, and to unbelievers, yea to their heart and soul. 2. That the Sacrament doth apply the death, passion, and merits of Christ to the Communicants ears, and that far livelier than the word preached, is to me a riddle which I think will trouble Mr. Prynn himself to expound. 3. A great controversy there hath been about the oral or corporal manducation of the body of Christ in the Sacrament. But Mr. Prynn out-runneth here all Ubiquitaries in the World, for he hath said no less than that every Communicant eateth spiritually and by faith the body of Christ, even unconverted persons, for he saith, that this Sacrament doth most particularly, fully, lively, and sensibly apply the promises, yea the death, passion, and merits of Christ unto EVERY Communicants eyes, ears, HEART and SOUL. Which is plainly universal grace to all who ever received this Sacrament (and so to judas, according to his principles) and to all who ever shall receive it. 4. Whereas he would confirm this which he saith, by his Antagonists Confession; I do not think he can give any conscientious account of that word. Who said it, or where? He must needs hold universal grace, hold it who will. 5. Here lies the strength of his Argument: The Word converts by applying Christ, therefore the Sacrament, which doth more lively apply Christ to every Communicant, must be a converting Ordinance. Which necessarily implieth, that all who receive the Sacrament are converted. Yea if application infer conversion, as the effect of the Application, the Saints and Believers themselves must be again constituted in the first Article of Conversion, and transition from the estate of nature and unregeneration. 6. The Application of Christ in the Word unto Conversion, is a thing of another nature than the Sacramental application of Christ, and therefore like effects ought not to be ascribed unto these Ordinances: For the Application of Christ made in the Word preached to the unconverted to convert them, is per influxum Physicum, by a most efficacious life-giving influence, as when Elisha applied himself to the Shunnamites dead child, or like that Ezek. 16. 6. john 5. 25. and 11. 43. But this manner of influence or causality is denied to the Sacrament by many of the Schoolmen and Papists themselves. So much of his fifth Argument which I thought to answer in two words, if the many absurdities in it had given me leave. His sixth Argument is this, All grant that God doth as effectually convert by the eye as by the ear. All grant. I deny it. and I verily believe he can produce very few Authors (if any) for it. He ought not to speak so great words without good warrants, which here I am sure he hath not. Well: but he will prove the thing itself. First he tells us of the book of Nature, and of the Creatures, by which we are instructed etc. But either he means that the very book of Nature can and doth effectually and savingly convert to Faith in Christ and to true sanctification, or not. If the affirmative, than the Heathens who lived and died in Paganism had sufficient means and helps to conversion and faith in Christ: (for those Pagans had the book of the Creatures to instruct them, as is expressed in some Scriptures cited by himself) and so there may be salvation and the means thereof without the Church. If this be not his meaning, but that the book of Nature instructeth us concerning many things of God, yet doth not teach us to know Christ and all things necessary to salvation, far less doth effectually and savingly convert: then he hath said nothing to that point which he had to prove. 2. He saith that all the Sacrifices of the old Law, and Circumcision, and the Passeover did teach God's people who participated of them, or were present at them, by the eye, and were converting Ordinances, as all do and must acknowledge. Answ. Here is another tinkling Cymbal. Do all acknowledge that the Sacraments of the Old Testament were converting Ordinances? There can be no rational account given hereof. Certainly our Writers before cited, and divers others who deny the Sacraments of the New Testament to be converting Ordinances, never meant to admit that the Sacraments of the old Testament were converting Ordinances. 2. How Circumcision did teach by the eye those who did participate of that Ordinance, and so Infants, is another riddle. 3. If Sacrifices under the Law had been converting Ordinances, yet that cannot be a just parallel to Sacraments, except seeking to make the Lords Supper a converting Ordinance we convert itself into a Sacrifice for sin, as Papists do. But neither doth he offer the least colour of reason to prove that all the external Sacrifices of the old Law were converting Ordinances, which here he affirmeth. The Apostle speaketh otherwise of the Legal Sacrifices, which he saith could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the Conscience: Heb. 99 and therefore calls all those rites carnal Ordinances, vers. 10. for though they were spiritual in respect of their signification and typifying of Christ, and sealing the Covenant of grace to the faithful in the Old Testament, yet they were not spiritual in regard of their giving of grace or working conversion or purging the Conscience, for they had no such operation nor effect. Fourthly, Mr. Prynn confirms his present Argument by the miracles of the Prophets, Christ and the Apostles, which (saith he) converted thousands without preaching, did convert and regenerate men by the eye without the ear. For proof whereof he citys abundance of Texts of Scripture which do not prove what he saith, nay some of them prove the contrary. Some of the Scriptures cited, do not prove conversion and regeneration by miracles, but either confirmation as john 2. 11. after the miracle, it is added, and his Disciples believed on him. Or some preparatory initial work before regeneration, as that john 3. 2. Mr. Prynn will hardly prove that Nicodemus was already regenerated at that instant, when he knew not what regeneration was: Or that those john 2. 23. who believed on Christ when they saw his miracles at the feast, had any more than a temporary faith, it being said of them, that jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men. Act. 2. 12. Luke 5. 25. 26. tell us of some who at the sight of miracles were stricken with fear and amazement, and gave glory to God, which proves not that miracles did convert, but convince. The like I say of 1 Kings 18. 38. 39 Other Texts cited by him make express mention of the Word as a mean of the conversion which was wrought, as john 4. 50. the man believed the Word that Jesus had spoken, and this was before the miracle. john 7. 31. many believed, but they heard Christ preach vers. 14. So john 11. 45. those Jews who believed on Christ after they had seen the miracle, did also hear that which Christ said, yea their believing is mentioned as an effect of their hearing, vers. 41. 42. So Act. 6. 8. Stephen did indeed great miracles, but the multiplying of the number of the Disciples, is referred to the Word, vers. 7. Act. 8. 6. it is expressly said, And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spoke, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did. Quâ fide hath Mr. Prynn cited this very Text to prove that men were converted by miracles without the Word, by the eye without the ear. Some other Scriptures by him quoted prove only a popular confluence and the multitudes following of Christ. Having seen his miracles as john 6. 2. and 11. 47. 48. Matth. 15. 30. 31. For the people were inclined to hearken to doctrine by miracles, which moveth natural men to flock together to see strange things saith Mr. Hussey. Plea for Christian Magistracy, pag. 30. which he is pleased to clear by people's flocking to a Mountebank. Other Texts which he citeth, speak of miracles, but not a syllable of conversion or regeneration wrought by miracles, as Act. 15. 12. Act. 19 11. 12. Among the rest of the Texts he citeth john 6. 26. Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves and were filled. And hence forsooth he will prove that miracles did convert and regenerate men. I had not touched these particulars, were it not that I desire Mr. Prynn himself in the fear of God may be convinced of his making too bold with the Scripture in citing and applying it very far amiss: and that for the future his Reader may be wary, and not take from him upon trust a heap of Scriptural quotations, such as often he bringeth. In the fourth place, he tells us, That the things we see with our eyes do more affect, and beget deeper impressions in our hearts, than the things we hear. He means (I think) do more effectually convert, for so he makes the Application, that the very beholding of Christ's Person, passion, without the Word, were the most effectual means of working contrition, conversion, etc. Well: What is his proof? He citeth Christ's words to his Disciples, Blessed are your eyes for they see: (without adding the rest, and your ears, for they hear) and Simeons words, Mine eyes have seen thy salvation, as if forsooth either Simeon or the Apostles had been converted and regenerated by the seeing of Christ's person. He citys also Luk. 23. 46, 47, 48. as if all who (beholding Christ's passion and death) smote upon their breasts, had been by that sight converted and regenerated. That the things we behold with our eyes, if they be great or strange things work deep impressions, there can be no doubt of it. But that the hearing of great things may not work as deep impressions, or that seeing without hearing doth convert and regenerate, hath been strongly affirmed by Mr. Prynn, but not yet proved. I proceed to his seventh Argument which is this. The most melting soul-changing meditation is the serious contemplation of Christ's death and Passion. No meditation comparable to this, to regenerate and convert a carnal heart. And is not this effectually represented to our eyes, hearts, in this very Sacrament in a more powerful prevailing manner then in the Word alone. Answ. That which he had to subsume and prove is, that this Sacrament worketh in a unregenerate carnal heart such soul changing meditations of the death and passion of Christ, as it never had before (the soul having never before been regenerate) Which being the point to be proved, why did he not prove it, if he could? No doubt the Sacrament is a most powerful mean to beget in the hearts of believers and regenerate persons most humbling and melting meditations concerning the death of Christ. But that it begetteth any soul changing or regenerating meditations in those in whom the Word hath never yet begun the work of regeneration and conversion; I do as much disagree in this, as I agree in the other. The eighth Argument which he brings is from comparing the Sacrament with afflictions. Our own corporal external afflictions are many times without the Word the means of our repentance and conversion unto God, etc. Then much more the Sacrament, wherein the afflictions of Christ himself are so visibly set forth before our eyes. Answ. 1. It is a very bad consequence, for the strength resolves into this principle, an unregenerate carnal man will be more affected and moved with the representation of Christ's afflictions, than with the feeling of his own corporal afflictions. 2. Affliction doth not convert without the Word either going before or accompanying it (unless we say that Pagans or Turks may be converted savingly by affliction before ever they hear the Word.) Psal. 94. 12. Blessed is the man whom thou chastenest and teachest him out of thy Law. Job. 36. 9 10. 11. And if they be bound in fetters, and holden in cords of affliction. Then he showeth them their work and their transgression that they have exceeded. He openeth also their ear to Discipline, and commandeth that they return from iniquity. Behold conversion by afflictions, but not without the Word. While Mr. Prynn goeth about to prove that afflictions convert without the Word, the first Text he citeth is Psal. 119. 67. 71. where express mention is made of the Word. 3 As for Manasseh his conversion 2 Chron. 33. 11. 12. it was wrought by the means of affliction, setting home upon his Conscience that Word of God mentioned in the verse immediately preceding, which saith and the Lord spoke to Manasseh and to his people, but they would not hearken. Let him show the like instance of the conversion by the Sacrament of such as would not hearken to the Word, and I shall yield the cause. The Word is express, that affliction is one special powerful mean of conversion, but it no where saith any such thing of the Sacrament. 4. It was also incumbent to him to prove that afflictions do convert without the Word, not only at such times and in such places as do sequester a person from the liberty of hearing the Word preached, but also when and where the Word is freely enjoyed. Otherwise how far is he from concluding by Analogy the point he had to prove? which is, that an unregenerate person living under the Ministry of the Gospel, and being an ordinary hearer, never converted by the Word, may nevertheless (according to the dispensation of the grace of God revealed in Scripture) be converted by the Sacrament received? His ninth Argument is this. That Ordinance whose unworthy participation is a means of our spiritual obduration, must by the rule of contraries when worthily received, be the instrument of our mortification, conversion, salvation. But the unworthy receiving of the Sacrament is a means etc. Answ. 1. This Argument doth necessarily suppose, that an unconverted, unmortified, unworthy person, while such, may yet worthily receive (and so by that means be converted) the contrary whereof I have demonstrated in my tenth Argument. 2. If the Sacrament be not worthily received, without repentance, faith, and self-examination (for which cause men are dehorted to come, except they repent &c.) then there is perfect nonsense in the Argument, for to say that the Sacrament when worthily received is the instrument of conversion, is as much as this; The Sacrament is an instrument of conversion to those who are already converted. 3. That rule of Contraries is extremely mis-applyed. The rule is Oppositorum, quatenus talia, opposita sunt attributa, Contraries have contrary attributes. g Vide Kekerm. System. log. lib. 3. cap. ●0. The comparison must be made secundum differentias quibus dissident, Otherwise that old fallacy were a good Argument. A single life is good, therefore Marriage is evil; Virginity is pure, therefore Marriage is impure: Whereas Marriage and single life are not opposed in the point of good and evil, purity and impurity, but in the point of immunity from worldly cares and troubles. So it is a bad consequence (at least against us) unworthy receiving of the Sacrament is an instrument of obduration, Ergo Worthy receiving of it is a mean of conversion. For we hold that worthy receiving and unworthy receiving are not opposed in point of conversion, but in point of sealing: the worthy receiving seals remission and salvation: the unworthy receiving seals judgement. But Mr. Prynn still takes for granted what he had to prove; viz. That this particular is one of those differentiae quibus dissident ista Opposita. Come on to his tenth Argument. It's taken from the ends for which this Sacrament was ordained. 1. The keeping in memory Christ's death. 2. The ratification and sealing of all the promises and Covenant of grace unto the receivers souls. 2. To be a pledge and symbol of that most near and effectual communion which Christians have with Christ, and that spiritual union which they enjoy with him. 4. To feed the communicants souls in assured hope of eternal life. 5. To be a pledge of their resurrection. 6. To seal unto them the assurance of everlasting life. 7. To bind them as it were by an oath of fidelity to Christ, Whereupon he asketh how it is possible that this Sacrament should not both in God's intention and Christ's ordination, be a converting as well as a sealing Ordinance, since that which doth seal all these particulars to men's souls, etc. must needs more powerfully persuade, pierce, melt, relent, convert an obdurate heart and unregenerate sinner then the Word itself? Answ. 1. His Argument may be strongly retorted against himself, divers of these ends of the Sacrament being such as are incompetent and unapplicable to obdurate and unregenerate sinners: How did he imagine that even to such as these, the Sacrament doth ratify and seal to their souls all the promises and Covenant of grace, they not having yet closed with Christ in the Covenant? Or how will he make it to appear, that this Sacrament is a pledge of a most near union and communion with Christ, even to those who are yet far from any union with Christ? Or how shall they be fed in hope and sealed in assurance of everlasting life, who are yet under the curse of the Law and state of condemnation? Surely Master Prynne granting here that the Sacrament is ordained of Christ to seal, and that it doth seal all these particulars to men's souls, doth thereby yield the whole cause. For that which doth seal all these particulars to men's souls, most certainly doth not convert, but presuppose conversion. 2. If this Sacrament be by God's intention a converting Ordinance, and God's intention being by him distinguished from Christ's ordination, whether doth it not necessarily follow both from this and from his first Argument (unto which this gives more light) that God did in the secret counsel of his Will intend and decree the Conversion of the flintiest heart and obdurest spirit, as he speaketh; and that either this effect is wrought by the Sacrament in the flintiest heart and obduratest spirit (which I believe he dare not say) or that God's decree and intention is frustrate? 3. And if the Sacrament must needs more powerfully persuade, pierce, melt, relent, convert an obdurate heart and unregenerate sinner then the Word itself; how then can he either seclude Pagans, or dehort impenitent unworthy persons from the Sacrament? His eleventh Argument is the grossest and palpablest petitio principii of any that ever I met with, and to be offered to none except such as cannot distinguish between that which is affirmed, and that which is proved. First he tells us what true conversion is, and then asks if any thing be so prevalent to effect this as the Sacrament. This therefore I pass. His twelfth and last Argument is an appealing to the experience of Christians. But a part of his appeal is of no use; that is, Whether this Sacrament doth not strengthen against corruptions and tentations, which doth not touch this present Controversy. It is as little to the purpose which he saith of conversion by preparations to the Sacrament, which may be by the Word, Prayer, etc. But that many thousands of converted Christians will experimentally affirm, that the receiving of the Sacrament was the first effectual means of their conversion, yea, that they had not been converted had they been debarred from it for their former scandalous sins, I do as confidently deny it as he affirmeth it: and if any who hath been a scandalous liver, whose heart was never yet turned, humbled, broken, changed by the Word, nor by any other mean of grace, should affirm that his very receiving of the Sacrament did effectually convert him, I durst not herein give credit to him. For to the Law and to the Testimony; If they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. And whereas he concludes, For shame therefore disclaim this absurd irreligious paradox, for which there is not the least shadow of Scripture or solid reason: I shall wish him for shame to disclaim this and many such like expressions more bold and arrogant, than either prudent or conscientious. And the intelligent Reader who considereth my twenty Arguments for that which he calls so absurd, and my Answers to all his twelve Arguments, will easily judge where the shame and irreligiousness will lie. If at his door, let him look to it. Alba ligustra cadunt, vaccin●…a nigra leguntur. All that he addeth pag. 45, 46, 47, being at best rhetorical, not rational, and a superstructure upon that foundation, that the Lords Supper is a Converting Ordinance; it needs no battering, but falls of itself, the foundation being taken away. And as we ought not nor cannot without sin suspend scandalous sinners from the Sacrament, if it be a Converting Ordinance (upon which supposition also both the Advice of the Assembly of Divines, and the Ordinance of Parliament concerning Suspension from the Sacrament, were most sinful and unlawful) So if it be not a converting but a sealing Ordinance (which I hope is now luce clarius) there needs no other Argument for the suspension of scandalous sinners living in gross reigning sins, but this, That the end and use for which this Sacrament was instituted, is not conversion which these need, but sealing and confirmation, of which they are incapable, they being such as ought to be kept back à signis gratiae divinae, as Divines speak. For how shall these that in words profess God, but in their works deny him, be sealed with the seals or marked with the marks of the favour and grace of God? Most certainly this Question concerning the nature, end, and use of the Sacrament, casts the balance of the whole Controversy concerning Suspension: which I have therefore been the larger upon. And whereas Master Prynne concludeth, pag. 47, with a large citation out of Lucas Osiander Enchir. contra Anabapt. cap. 6. quaest. 3. for that he shall have this return. First, all that Osiander there saith, is brought to prove this point against the Anabaptists, quod et si unum aut alterum videamus in Ecclesia aliqua flagitiosum, propterea neque secessionem faciendam, neque à sacris congressibus, aut Coena Domini Christiano abstinendum. That although in some Church we see some one or other flagitious person, yet a Christian is not therefore either to make a separation, or to abstain from the sacred Assemblies or the Lord's Supper. Which is not the Question now agitated between us. Secondly, after that passage cited against us, Master Prynne might have taken notice of another passage which maketh against himself. Where the Anabaptists did object to the Lutheran Churches, their admitting of scandalous persons to the Sacrament, Osiander denieth it: for (saith he) although we cannot help hypocrites their coming to the Lords Table; nos tamen scienter neminem admittimus, nisi peccatores poenitentes, etc. Yet we admit none willingly, except penitent sinners who confess their sins and sorrow for them. Thirdly, Osiander, ibid. Quaest 2. holdeth Excommunication to be an Ordinance of God, and groundeth it upon Matth. 18. 15, 16, 17. Therefore Master Prynne must seek another Patron than Osiander. And now the nature of the Ordinance being cleared, there needeth no more to confute Master Prynne in that which he makes the eighth thing in controversy between him and his Antagonists, namely, Whether Ministers may not as well refuse to preach the Word to such unexcommunicated, gross, impenitent, scandalous Christians, whom they would suspend from the Sacrament. Certainly it is not lawful but commanded as a duty to preach both to the converted and to the unconverted, without excluding the most scandalous impenitent sinners whosoever. But the Lord's Supper being (according to its institution and the mind of Jesus Christ) a sealing or confirming Ordinance only, it cannot without a violation of the Institution be given to known impenitent scandalous persons. Other particulars in his Debate concerning this eighth point of difference, which do require any Answer, I will take occasion to speak unto them in the next Chapter. CHAP. XV. Whether the admission of scandalous and notorious sinners to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, be a pollution and profanation of that holy Ordinance; And in what respects it may be so called? MAster Hussey in his Plea, pag. 2. doth very much mistake his mark, when in opposition to what I had said concerning the polluting of the Sacrament by the admission of the scandalous, he tells me out of Beza, that the Sacraments remain effectual to the good, though evil men come to them: and thereupon concludeth, that the Sacrament is holy and pure to the believer, notwithstanding the unpreparedness of the wicked: Which is not the thing in question: much less is it the Question, Whether there be any such thing as a pollution of the Sacrament: for this Master Coleman hath yielded (though before he quarrelled that phrase of polluting the Ordinances) giving instance in the using of Cheese instead of Bread, Male dicis, pag. 12. But the true state of the Controversy may be laid open in these few distinctions. First, as Scotus in lib. 4. Sent. Dist. 3. Quaest 2. distinguisheth two sorts of things which may be called necessary to a Sacrament; necessarium simpliciter, and necessarium aliqualiter: the former he calls that without which the Sacrament is no Sacrament: the later, that without which they that give the Sacrament cannot avoid sin, or the want whereof maketh the Ministry guilty; so do I distinguish two sorts of pollution of the Sacrament, one which makes the Sacrament no Sacrament, but a common or unhallowed thing to those that do receive it, as (for instance) if the Sacrament were given by those that are no Ministers, o● to those that are no Church, or without the blessing and breaking of bread: Another which makes the ministration of the Sacrament hic & nunc, and with such circumstances to be sinful, and those that do so administer it to be guilty: and so whatsoever is done in the ministration of the Sacrament contrary to the revealed will of God, is a pollution of that Ordinance. The present Question is of the later, not of the former. Secondly, some wicked men by their receiving the Sacrament do only draw judgement upon themselves, and these are close hypocrites: Others by their receiving of the Sacrament do involve not themselves only, but others also into sin and God's displeasure; and these are scandalous notorious sinners. Thirdly, the sin of those who pollute the Sacrament by using it contrary to the nature and institution of it, may be the sin of others, and those others accessary to such pollution of the Sacrament two ways: either it is the sin of the whole Church, none excepted, so that none that communicateth then and there can be free of the sin, as where the bread is elevated and worshipped, all the communicants are eo ipso that they join in the Sacrament then and there, partakers of the sin of bread-worship, though perhaps some of them do not join in the act of worshipping the bread, but have done what they could to prevent or hinder it. Or it is the sin only of so many as have not done what they ought and might have done for observing the Institution, rule and example of Jesus Christ. And of this sort is the sin of communicating with scandalous and profane men. If private Christians have interposed, by admonitions given to the offender, and by petitions put up to those that have authority and power for restraining the scandalous from the Lords Table, they have discharged their consciences, and may without sin communicate though some scandalous members be admitted: for such person's sin in taking the Sacrament, but worthy communicants are not partakers of their sin. But if Church-officers who have a charge and authority from Jesus Christ, to receive none whom they know to be unworthy, profane and scandalous, shall not withstanding admit such persons, they are thereby partakers of their sin, so that their receiving, or rather polluting of the Sacrament, is imputed not to themselves only, but to the Church-officers who had authority to keep them back, and did it not. Fourthly, the suffering of a mixture of known wicked persons among the godly in the Church, doth sometime defile us with sin, sometime not. It doth not defile us, when we use all lawful and possible remedies against it, and namely, when we exercise the Discipline of Excommunication, and other Church-censures, saith Augustine, lib. contra Donatistas', post collationem, cap. 4. Tom. 7. But it doth defile us, and we do incur sin and wrath, when the means of redressing such known evils are neglected, indisciplinata patientia (it is Augustine's word) so to bear with wicked men, as not to execute discipline against them, that certainly makes us partakers of their sin. I mean in a reformed and well constituted Church, where the thing is feasible. But where it cannot be done, because of persecution, or because of the invincible opposition either of authority, or of a prevalent profane multitude, in that case we have only this comfort left us, Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness; and, in magnis voluisse sat est. Fifthly, neither doth this Question concerning the pollution or profanation, or abuse of the Sacrament, concern those peccata quotidianae incursionis, such sins of infirmity as all the godly, or at least the generallay of the godly, are subject unto and guilty of, as long as they are in the world (for then the Sacrament should be polluted to all; for, Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sins?) but only gross and scandalous sins, such as make the Name of God and the profession of Religion to be evil spoken of and reproached, those roots of bitterness which spring up, whereby many are like to be defiled; those that are guilty of such sins, and have given no evidence of true Repentance, if they be received to the Sacrament, it is a profaning of the Ordinance. Now that the admission of scandalous and notorious sinners to the Sacrament in a reformed and constituted Church, is a profanation or pollution of that Ordinance, may be thus proved. First, Paraeus upon the 82 Question in the Heidelberg Catechism, where it is affirmed, that by the admission of scandalous sinners to the Sacrament, the Covenant of God is profaned, giveth this reason for it, Because as they who having no Faith nor Repentance, if they take the seals of the Covenant, do thereby profane the Covenant; so they who consent to known wicked and scandalous persons their taking of the seals, or to their coming to the Sacrament, do by such consenting make themselves guilty of profaning the Covenant of God (for the doer and the consenter fall under the same breach of law) yea, so far do they sin by such consenting, as that they do thereby acknowledge the children of the devil to be the children of God, and the enemies of God to be in Covenant and to have fellowship with God. He distinguisheth these two things, who ought to come to the Sacrament, and who ought to be admitted. None ought to come, except those who truly believe and repent: None ought to be admitted, except such as are supposed to be believers and penitent, there being nothing known to the contrary. If any impenitent sinner take the Sacrament, he profanes the Covenant of God. If the Church admit to the Sacrament any known to live in wickedness without repentance, the Church profaneth the Covenant of God. Secondly, that Ordinance which is not a converting but a sealing Ordinance, which is not appointed for the conversion of sinners but for the communion of Saints, is certainly profaned and abused contrary to the nature, institution, and proper end thereof, if those who are manifestly ungodly, profane, impenitent, and unconverted, be admitted to the participation thereof. But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is not a converting but a sealing Ordinance, etc. which I have proved by infallible demonstrations. Ergo. Thirdly, That use of the Sacrament which is repugnant and contradictory to the Word truly and faithfully preached in the name of Christ, is a profaning of the Sacrament. But to give the Sacrament to those who are known to live in gross sins without repentance, is an use of the Sacrament which is repugnant and contradictory to the Word truly and faithfully preached in the Name of Christ. Ergo. I suppose no man will deny, that if we truly and faithfully preach the Word, we may and aught to pronounce and declare such as live in sin impenitent and unconverted, to be under God's wrath and displeasure as long as they continue in that estate. Be not deceived saith the Apostle, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thiefs, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the Kingdom of God. 1 Cor. 6. 9 10. See the like Ephes. 5. 5, 6, 7. Whence it is, that doctrinally we warn the ignorant and scandalous, and all such as live in known sins without repentance, that they presume not to come and profane that holy Table. Of which Ministers are appointed by the Directory to give warning. How then can we by giving the Sacrament to such as these, give the lie to the Word? h Z●ch. Ursin. Judicium de disciplina Ecclesiastica. Tom. 3. pag. 806. Haec enim Dei voluntas non erit in aeternum, ut Ecclesia Christiana alicui gratiam Christi & remissionem pec catorum, annun ciatione verbi divini deneget, & eidem exhibitione Sacramentorum spondeat. For what other thing shall we do; if those whom the Word pronounceth to have no part in the Kingdom of God nor of Christ, shall be admitted as well as the Godly to eat and drink at the Lords Table, while known to continue in the committing of their damnable sins, or while it is known that they have not repent of the uncleanness, and fernication, and lasciviousness which they have committed? 2 Cor. 12. 21. What is this but to absolve in the Sacrament those who are condemned in the Word, and to open the Kingdom of Heaven in the Sacrament unto those on whom the Word shutteth it? Fourthly, That use of the Sacrament which strengtheneth the hands of the wicked, so that he turneth not from his wickedness, is an abuse and profanation of the Sacrament. But the giving of the Sacrament to any known profane impenitent person is such an use of the Sacrament as strengtheneth the hands of the wicked, so that he turneth not from his wickedness. Ergo. I appeal to the experience of all godly and faithful ministers, whether they have not found it a great deal more difficult to convince or convert such profane men as have been usually admitted to the Sacrament, then to convince or convert such as have been kept back from the Sacrament? No marvel that such profane ones as have usually received the seals of the Covenant of grace, and joined in the highest act of Church-communion, live in a good opinion of their souls estate, and trust in lying words, Have we not eaten and drunken at thy Table? The Sacrament, The Sacrament, as of old The Temple, The Temple. Mr. Prynn thinks, that the Minister hath fully discharged his duty and conscience, if he give warning to unworthy Communicants of the danger they incur by their unworthy approaches to the Lords Table. Vindic. pag. 28, 29. But he may be pleased to receive an answer from himself, pag. 43. The things we see with our eyes do more affect and beget deeper impressions in our hearts, than the things we hear. The Word preached is Verbum audibile, the Sacrament is Verbum visibile. How shall profane ones be persuaded by their ears to believe that whereof they see the contrary with their eyes? they will give more credit in Mr. prynn's own opinion to the visible Word, then to the audible Word. Fifthly, If it were a profanation of the Sacrament of Baptism to baptise a Catechumene, a Jew, or a Pagan professing a resolution to turn Christian, he being manifestly under the power of abominable reigning sins, and being still a profane and wicked liver, although he were able to give a sound and Orthodox Confession of Faith: than it is also a profanation of the Lords Supper to admit unto it abominable and profane livers. But it were a profanation of the Sacrament of Baptism etc. Augustine lib. de fide & operibus cap. 18. tells us, that the Church did not admit whores and such other scandalous persons to Baptism. Et nisi egerint ab his mortuis operibus poenitentiam, accedere ad Baptismum non sinuntur. And except they repent (saith he) from these dead works, they are not suffered to come unto Baptism. Divers Arguments he brings in that Book for this thing, as 1. That Peter saith (Act. 2. 38.) Repent and be baptised. 2. That the Apostle Heb. 6. 1, 2. joineth repentance from dead works with Baptism. 3. That john preached the Baptism of Repentance. 4. That fornicators, adulterers, thiefs, etc. shall not inherit the Kingdom of God: therefore such as are known to live in these sins without repentance ought not to be baptised. 5. He argueth from 2 Cor. 6. 14, 15, 16. etc. Now I offer this Quaere. Shall an abominable wicked life, murder, adultery, swearing, cursing, lying, or the like keep back a man from so much as entering into the visible Church by the door of Baptism, and shall not the like abominations keep back a man from Fellowship with the Saints at the Lords Table? Is there more evidenc● of Saintship required in those who come to be baptised, then in those who come to the Lords Table? If there be, let our Opposites speak it out, and open up the riddle. If there be not, then how can their Tenent avoid the profanation of the Lords Table? Sixthly, That Ordinance which is profaned by admitting Infants and Idiots who can make no good use of it, is much more profaned by admitting abominable and known profane persons who make a very bad use of it. But the Lord's Supper is profaned by admitting Infants and Idiots who can make no good use of it. Ergo. Mr. Prynn pag. 29. yieldeth that children, fools, and distracted men, are by a natural disability made uncapable of receiving the Lords Supper, because unable to examine themselves, to which (saith he) not withstanding they have been admitted in some Churches. In what Churches fools and distracted men have been admitted to the Lords Supper, I should have willingly learned from him, for as yet I know not any such thing Children I know were sometime admitted by the Ancients who did afterward discover their own great error in that particular. However, He yields as I take it, children and fools to be uncapable of the Lords Supper. And why? because unable to examine themselves, in regard of natural disability. But where there is no disability in the natural faculties, may not a sinful disability which a man hath drawn upon himself (as ignorance, drunkenness, corrupt and atheistical opinions, presumptuous excusing or defending of sin) make him unable to examine himself? Shall men that are unable to examine themselves be admitted to the Sacrament, because not disabled by any natural disability? Sure this was far from Paul's thoughts when he delivered that rule concerning examining ourselves before the Sacrament. Whoever they be who are unable to examine themselves, whether naturally or sinfully, much more they who manifestly appear unwilling to examine themselves, if they be admitted and allowed to come to the Lords Supper, it is a high and heinous profanation of that Ordinance. Wherefore to prosecute my Argument, Why do we exclude Infants and Idiots? because 〈◊〉 Apostle saith, Let a man examine himself, and so let him 〈◊〉 Bread, and drink of that Cup: but Infants and Idiot's 〈◊〉 examine themselves. Now a positive profanation of the Sacrament, is worse than a negative profanation of it: abuti is more than non bene uti. We know that profane impenitent sinners will not only make no good use of the Sacrament, nor examine themselves aright, but will abuse it to the worst use that can be, even to slatter themselves in their wickedness, and to harden themselves in sin and impenitency. Mr. Prynn will tell us, we know not but God may convert such at the Sacrament. But there is not the least hint in all the Word of God of any impenitent sinner converted by the Sacrament. And beside, it is as easy for God to give an Idiot or distracted man his right wits, and to illuminate him with a self-examining knowledge and light in the very instant of approaching to or sitting down at the Table; And if a possibility, a per adventure it may be, and who knoweth but it may convert and do them good; be a warrantable ground for Ministers to administer the Sacrament to profane and scandalous persons as Mr. Prynn holds, pag. 47. why shall not the same ground be as warrantable for admitting Idiots. Seventhly, If the Temple was polluted and profaned by the coming of profane and abominable persons into it, then is the Sacrament of the Lords Supper also profaned by such persons their participation of it. But the Temple was polluted and profaned etc. The reason of the consequence in the Proposition is, because as the Temple had a Sacramental signification of Christ, and a certain Ceremonial holiness, as well as the Lords Table, so it will be dur●…s sermo (and I presume none of our Opposites will adventure to say it) that such profaneness as did of old keep back men from the Temple, cannot now exclude them from the Sacrament. The Assumption is largely proved in the first Book, both from Scripture and from Jewish writers. That one place Ezek. 23. 38. 39 (beside divers others) cleareth it. Moreover this they have done unto me: they have defiled my Sanctuary in the same day, and have profaned my Sabbaths▪ For when they had slain their children to their Idols, than they came the same day into my Sanctuary to profane it. You see the Temple was profaned and polluted, not only by those that were ceremonially unclean, but by Idolaters and Murderers when any such presumed to come into the Temple. Eighthly, I desire the scope of that place Hag. 2. 11, 12, 13, 14. may be considered. The Lord is teaching his people, that a thing legally holy, could not by the touch thereof sanctify that which by the Law was common and not holy, yet he which was legally unclean, did defile whatsoever he touched, yea though it were legally holy. So is this people, and so is this Nation before me, saith the Lord, and so is every work of their hands, and that which they offer there is unclean. The legal holiness and uncleanness were significant ceremonies to teach the people the hecessity of moral holiness, and the evil or danger of moral uncleanness: Hence God himself argues from the significant ceremony to the morality, so as the place holds forth by necessary plain consequence these three propositions. 1. The ceremonial uncleanness did signify the moral uncleanness, and the effect of the former did signify the effect of the latter. 2. Unholy persons are not sanctified by their approaching to, or joining in holy Ordinances: but he that is filthy will be filthy still, and he that is unjust▪ unjust still. If God do not give them his Spirit to sanctify them, the Ordinances cannot do it. 3. Yet unholy persons, while such, do defile holy Ordinances, and that by moral as well as by ceremonial uncleanness: therefore the people themselves, and every work of their hands being evil, the Lord for that cause reckoneth their sacrifices to be unclean. Did profane persons defile the Sacrifices of old, and do they not defile our Sacraments? Nay, I should think this, much more than that, there being more of the communion of Saints in our Sacraments, then in their Sacrifices. The ninth Argument which alone may conclude the point, shall be taken from Matth. 7. 6. Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine. If the Sacrament be a holy thing, and if profane scandalous impenitent sinners be dogs and swine, then to give the Sacrament to such, is to profane and pollute the Sacrament, and indeed no better but worse then to give pearls to swine. Mr. prynn's▪ reply vindic. pag. 39 doth not take off this Argument. For without any proof, he restricteth to certain particulars that which the Text saith generally both of the things and of the persons. First for the things, He saith the Text is principally intended of not preaching the Gospel to such, so that we must seclude them from the Word as well as from the Sacrament. But I ask, is it meant only of the Word? He hath not said so, nor will (I think) say so. Erastus' himself pag. 207. confesseth it is meant also of the Sacraments. The Text saith not, the holy thing, and the pearl, but holy things, pearls. It must therefore be understood respective. Some are so vile, and so abominably prodigiously profane, blasphemous, mockers, persecuters, that I ought not to preach to such, but to turn away from them to others, according to Christ's direction, and the Apostles example. Others are such as I may preach unto, yet ought not to pray or give thanks with them, nor to admonish them (and much less give them the Sacrament) Others I may admonish and pray with them, yet ought not to give them the Sacrament. And all these by reason of that rule, Give not that which is holy to dogs, etc. So that we are not bound up by this Text, either to seclude men from the Word, or otherwise from no holy: thing. Next, The Argument holds à fortiori, from the Word to the Sacrament. For saith i Explic. Catech. q●aest▪ 84. Si enim Christus hoc di xit de verbo audibili▪ quod ta●…men institutum est conversis, & n●…n convers●…s vel convertendis: 〈◊〉 magis 〈◊〉 dic●…uy d●… verbo visibili hoc est de Sacrame●…tis, quae tantum conversis sunt institut●…. Pareus. If Christ said this of the Word, which is common to the converted and to the unconverted, how much more must it be said of the Sacraments, which are instituted only for such as are converted. As for that sort of persons which the Text speaks of, Master Prynne (following Erastus, lib. 3. cap. 3.) saith that these dogs and swine are only such Infidels and Heathens, who refused to embrace the Gospel, and harbour the Preachers of it: Or persecutors of the Gospel, and of the Ministers of it: Or open Apostates from the Christian faith which they once embraced. And he citeth divers Scriptures, which he saith do expressly determine it. But he observes not that the most which those Scriptures prove, is, that such men as he speaks of are dogs and swine, which is not the Question: That which he had to prove, is, that the dogs and swine which Christ speaks of, are only Infidels, or persecutors, or apostates from the Christian faith. This ONLY he hath boldly averred, but shall never prove it. It is one thing to prove that Infidels, persecutors and apostates are dogs and swine, another thing to prove that there are no other dogs and swine. That which the Apostle Peter saith, of such as having escaped the pollutions of the world, and known the way of righteousness, do afterward turn aside from the holy Commandment, namely, that such do with the dog ●eturn to the vomit, and with the sow that was washed to the wallowing in the mire, 2 Pet. 2. 18, 20, 22. doth belong to all scandalous and backsliding Christians, whether they be such in doctrine or in life only; and is generally so applied by Divines. Erastus himself, pag. 207. understandeth that vomit and puddle, 2. Pet. 2. to be the sinful pleasures of the world, relabuntur (saith he, glozing upon the place) ad voluptates moresque hujus seculi. And Solomon saith the same thing generally of an ungodly wicked person, Prov. 26. 11. As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly. Nor is it to be forgotten that the Apostle using the words of Epimenides, calls the Cretians evil beasts, Tit. 1. 12. because they professed to know God, but in their works▪ denied him, being impure, disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate. Wherefore the precept Matth. 7. 6. is rightly applied by Isidorus Pelusiota, lib. 1. Epist. 143. to the denying of the Sacrament to all persons of an unclean conversation,▪ as well as to Jews and Heretics. So chrysostom doth apply this Text to the excluding of known unworthy men from the Sacrament; and this he doth, Homil. 1. de compunctione cordis, as I remember. And Hom. 83 in Matth. he hath these words to the same purpose. If thou hadst a clear fountain committed to thy keeping, to be kept clean by thee, wouldst thou let filthy swine come and puddle in it? how much more the fountain of the Blood of Christ? Where by filthy swine he understandeth all unworthy and scandalous persons whatsoever, as is evident by that which follows, and by that also which went before, where he gives instance of the scandals in life and conversation. And upon the Text itself, Matth. 7. he applieth it to a suspension of all such as were not acknowledged for visible Saints, not only from receiving but from beholding the Sacrament. Hence was that in the ancient Church, Sancta Sanctis; at which word all others were dismissed before the receiving of the Sacrament, who were not accounted visible Saints. Hence came the distinction of duplex missa, that is, duplex dimissio. Missa catechumenorum, & missa fid●…lium. When the Catechumen were dismissed, then also together with them were dismissed all scandalous persons who had scandalised the Church, except such Penitents as (having now in a great measure satisfied the Church-discipline, and manifested their repentance publicly, according to certain usual degrees of public declaration of repentance) were permitted to behold the giving and receiving of the Sacrament, after the Catechumen were gone (which yet themselves were not admitted to partake of, till they had gone thorough all the degrees, and finished the whole course of publicly manifesting Repentance; only in the danger of death they were permitted to receive the Sacrament, before that course was finished, if they should desire it.) Then last of all, after the Sacrament, was the missa fidelium, the dismission of the faithful. Augustine, lib. de fide & operibus, cap. 6. so applieth the prohibition of giving holy things to dogs, that he thence argueth against the administration of Baptism to persons living in adultery (although such as have embraced the Orthodox Doctrine) which is also the scope of that whole Book. Now if persons of a profane Conversation, though orthodox in their Judgement and Profession, be such dogs as aught to be refused Baptism when they desire it, surely they are also such dogs as aught to be refused the Lords Supper. Moreover, the only seeming advantage which Master Prynne catcheth, is from the word dogs (which yet is no advantage; for that is applied generally to wicked and profane persons in the Scriptures above cited▪ and so Revel. 22. 15.) but he shall do well to observe the word swine too: for (as Grotius upon the place, following chrysostom, doth make the distinction) the dogs are such as bark and contradict; the swine such as do not bark and contradict, but by an impure life (saith he) declare how little esteem they have of the holy things. Which difference (as he conceives) the Text itself doth hint: for it mentioneth not only the turning again to rent, which is the dog's part, but the trampling of Pearls under feet, which is the swine's part. Finally, this Argument from Matth. 7. hath gained so much upon (8) Pag. 107. Sermo noster de illis est, qui crimen agnoscunt & con●…itentur: qui emendationem promi●…tunt: qui Sacramentis rectè cum cae●…eris u●…i, quantum judicare nos possumus, desiderant. Erastus himself, lib. 3. cap. 3. that he restricteth himself to the admission of such only to the Sacrament as acknowledge and confess their fault, promise amendment, and desire to use the Sacraments rightly with the rest, so far as we are able to judge. Which concession will go far. CHAP. XVI. An Argument of Erastus (drawn from the Baptism of John) ●gainst the excluding of scandalous sinners from the Lords Supper, examined. THe strongest Arguments of Erastus drawn from the Old Testament, I have before discussed. Another Argument of his which deserveth an Answer (for I take him in his greatest strength) is this. john Baptist (saith he) did baptise all, none excepted, who came to him to be baptised; yea, even the Pharisees and Sadduces, whom yet he called a generation of Vipers. Answer. 1. They that were baptised by john, did confess their sins, and profess Repentance; and l Pag. 12. Erastus himself brings in john Baptist speaking to those Pharisees on this manner. I do not see into your hearts, but he that cometh after me, hath his fan in his hand, and will separate the chaff from the wheat: so that though ye may deceive me with a feigned repentance, yet you cannot deceive him. Hereupon Erastus concludeth, that the Ministers of the Gospel ought not to deny the Sacraments to those that profess repentance, and ought not take upon them to judge of men's hearts whether they do truly and unfeignedly repent. m Medina in tertiam partem, quaest. 38. Verum cum non sit idem, agnoscere se peccatorem, & con●…iteri peccata sua, recte intelligimus eos sua peccata saltem majora indicasse, & confessos esse D. Johanni, sic●…t & Act. 19 multi creden●…ium dicuntur venisse ad Paulum confitentes & annuntiantes actus suos. Now all this maketh for the suspension from the Sacrament of all such as do not confess their sins, nor profess repentance for the same: The drunkard that will not confess his drunkenness, the unclean person that will not confess his uncleanness, the Sabbath-breaker that will not confess his breach of the Sabbath, are by this ground to be excluded; and so of other scandalous persons. We are not to judge of men's hearts▪, but we are to judge of the external sign●s of repentance, whether sin be confessed, and repentance declared by some hopeful signs or not. 2. Neither doth his argument fully reach admission to the Lords Table, where some further and more exact proof must be had of one's fitness and qualification for the communion of Saints. Even those that are of age when they are baptised are but Incipientes: when they come to the Lords Table they are proficientes: There is some more required in proficients, then in Novices and beginners: as there is more required to fit one for strong meat th●n for milk. 3. It is also a question whether those Pharisees that came to the baptism of john were indeed baptised of him n In Matth. 3. quaest. 64. So Salmeron▪ Tom. 4 Part. 1. Tract. 5. Narrantur venisse ad Jo●…annem & ad baptis●…um su●…m. Non ●…onstat autem an baptisati su●…rint: n●…m Luc.▪ 7. dicuntur sprevisse consilium Dei in seme●… ipsos, non baptisati a Johanne. Tostatus tells us some think they were not baptised, and they prove it from Luk. 7. 29 30. And all the People that heard him and the Publicans justifie●… God, being baptised with the Baptism of John. But the Pharisees and Lawyers rejected the Counsel of God against thems●…lves, being not baptised of him. There is a controversy whether th●se be the words of our Saviour Christ, or of the Evangelist Luke. But there can be no controversy of this, that the Pharisees and Lawye●s were not baptised of john, but the people and the publicans were. Which may very well be extended to those Pharisees of whom we read Matth. 3. 7. For the holy Ghost having said of the people, that they were baptised of john in jordan, confessing their sins, he saith no such thing of the Pharisees, but only that they came to his Baptism (whether to see the fashion and the new Ceremony, or whether with an intention to be baptised) after which we read no more but that john gave them a most sharp admonition, and called them a generation of vipers, and told them that they should not glory in being Abraham's children: Whereupon it may seem they went away displeased and unbaptised. But when I compare the Evangelists together, that which appears to me to be meant Matth. 3. 7. concerning many of the Pharisees coming to the Baptism of john, is that they were sent from jerusalem with a message to ask john, Who art thou? For they who were sent upon that message were of the Pharisees, john 1. 24. and they were sent to Bethabara beyond jordan where john was baptising, john 1. 28. and a part of john's answer to them was, I baptise with water, but there standeth one among you whom ye know not: etc. john 1. 26. In both passages john speaks of him that was to come after him, whom he preferreth before himself. In both, he professeth that he could do no more but baptise with Water or Ministerially. In both, he saith he was not worthy to unloose the latchet of Christ's shoe. So that many of the circumstances do agree with the story, Matth. 3. and the other circumstances are not inconsistent. In the other Evangelists it is, I baptise you with water: But that proves not that the Pharisees who were sent to john, were baptised, for Luke doth plainly apply those words to the people Luke 3. 15. 16. 18. But when the Pharisees asked john, Why baptizest thou etc. the answer to them was not I baptise you with Water, but I baptise with Water. o Cent. 1. lib. 1. cap. 10. The Centurists think that the Pharisees who were sent from jerusalem to john to ask him Who art thou? John 1. were not sent from any good esteem which was had of john, but from malice, and an intent to quarrel with him. This they prove because john saith to them O Generation of Vipers, who hath forewarned you to flee from the wrath to come? Which insinuateth a coincidency of these two stories related Matth. 3. and john 1. p Tom. 4. part. 1. Tract. 15. Salmeron thinks that message was sent to john out of honour and respect to him, and he endeavours to confute the Centurists, but among all his answers he doth not aver (which had been his best reply, if he had thought it probable) that those words O Generation of Vipers, were not spoken to the Pharisees that were sent from jerusalem to john. Yea q Ibid. Tract. 6. Salmeron himself doth in another place observe divers coincidencies between the story of that which passed between john, and the Pharisees that came to his baptism; and the story of that which passed between john and the Pharisees that were sent to him from jerusalem. 4. Erastus argueth from the admission of a generation of Vipers to Baptism, to prove the lawfulness of admitting a generation of Vipers to the Lords Supper. But I argue chose. Such persons as desire to be received into the Church by Baptism, if they be profane and scandal us persons, ought not to be baptised but refused baptism, as Augustine proveth in his Book De Fide & Operibus. Therefore profane and scandalous persons ought much less be admitted unto the Lord's Supper. Of which Argument more before. I conclude with the r Cent. 1. Lib. 1. Cap. 10. Nequaquam margaritas anie porcos proi●…cit: non quoslibet temere ad Baptismum admisit, sed consitentes peccata sua, hoc est, exploratos, & agentes poenitentiam tantum: con●…umacos vere, ac defensores suarum impietatum aut scelerum, reprobavit. Centurists. john did not cast pearls before swine: he did not admit rashly any that would to Baptism, but such as confessed their sins, that is, only such as were tried and did repent, but the contumacious and the defenders of their impieties or crimes he did reject. CHAP. XVII. Antiquity for the suspension of all scandalous persons from the Sacrament, even such as were admitted to other public Ordinances. MR. Prynn in his first Quaere would have us believe that in the primitive times scandalous sinners were ever excommunicated and wholly cast out of the Church, and sequestered from all other Ordinances, as well as from the Sacrament; And since (saith he) in the primitive times (as is evident by Tertullia's Apology cap. 39 De poenitentia lib. and others) scandalous persons were ever excommunicated and wholly cast out of the Church (extra gregem dati) not barely sequestered from the Sacrament. But for further clearing of the ancient discipline concerning suspension, I have thought good here to take notice of the particulars following. First, That great Antiquary s Observat. lib. 1. cap. 1. Nam eorum in lapsos Judicium ad Eucharistiam referri nequit, quibus post aliquod tempus omnia cum 〈◊〉 fratribus volunt esse communia, praeter Eucharistiam, cui enim cum fidelibus supplicationes facere & orare liceret, is ad omnia quae eram in societate Christiana, una excepta Eucharistia, jus habere censebatur. Albaspinaeus, proving that Church communion or fellowship was anciently larger than partaking of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper; he proves it by this Argument, because many of those who had scandalously fallen, were admitted to communion with the Church in prayer and all other Ordinances, the Eucharist only excepted. Next, It is well known to the searchers of Antiquity, that there were four degrees of public declaration of repentance, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Which the Latins call fl●…us, auditio, substratio, consistentia: After all which followed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the participation of the Sacrament, which they were at last admitted unto, and is therefore mentioned by some as the fifth degree, though (to speak properly) it was not penal, nor any degree of censure as the other four were. First, The penitent was kept weeping at the Church door, beseeching those that went in to pray for him: thereafter he was admitted to hear the Word afar off among the Catechumen: In the third place there was a preparatory reconciliation or reception into the Church, with prayer and imposition of hands, which being done, the man was in some sort admitted into Christian fellowship, and acknowledged for a brother, yet after the Word and Prayer. he went forth with the Catechumen before the Sacrament. But there was a fourth degree after all this; he might stay in the Church, and see and hear in the celebration of the Sacrament, after the Catechumen and the three first sort of penitents were dismissed, yet still he was suspended from partaking of the Sacrament, for a certain time after he was brought to this fourth and last step: t Albaspinaeus Observ. lib. 2. Observ. 25. Quod si quaeratur quam ob rem antiqui quartum illum gradum posuerint etc. Nulla potest c●…ngruentior commodio●… que 〈◊〉 ratio, quam quae ex reverentia ac Religiene petitur, qua adversus, sanctam Eucha●…istiam fe●…ebantur: detetestabile q●…ippe Deo & hominilus, non solum existurabant hominem, vel levissima macula inquindium, aut maculae nebula ●…ffusum, ad E●…haristiam accedere, sed etiam periculosum absolutes poeni●…entes eam tangere & a●…ectare, quo●…●…on satis sancti & sanctificati censebantur, quibus tanta res committeretur. So cautious were those Ancients in admitting of men to the Sacrament, till they perceived lasting, continuing, clear, and real evidences of true repentance. Three of the degrees abovementioned are found in the Canons of the Council of Ancyra. and of the Council of Nice, namely the three last. The first which did not admit a man so much as into the Church to the hearing of the Word, as it was afterwards added, so it is not so justisicable as the other three. But here is the point I desire may be well observed, that of old in the fourth and fifth, yea in the third Century, u Causabon Exerc. 1●. pag. 397. edit. Francof. 1615. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 igitur c mysteriis Genti●…m vox accepta, appellabatur statio inter fideles: ibi poenitentes duos persape annos agebant; quod ad caetera ejusdem conditionis cum fidelibus; neque jam cum Catechumenis exibant; sola participatione mysteriorum caeteris fra●…ribus inferiores. men were admitted not only to the hearing of the Word, but to prayer with the Church, who yet were not admitted to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. x Conc. Ancyr. Can. 16 De his qui irrationabiliter versati sunt sive versantur. Quotquot ante vicesimum ae●…atis suae annum, tale crimen commiserint, quindecim annis exactis in poenitentia, communionem mereantur orati●…num. Deinde quinquennio in hac communione durantes, tunc dentum oblationis Sacramenta contingant. Discutiatur autem vita eorum, quales tempore poenitudinis extiterint. etc. The Council of Ancyra held about the year 308. Can. 16. appointeth some scandalous persons to show public signs of repentance for 15. years, before they be admitted to fellowship with the Church in prayer: and for 5. years thereafter to be kept off from the Sacrament. y Conc. Nicaen. can. 11 Duobus autem annis iidem sine oblatione in oratione sola participent populo. The Council of Nice doth plainly intimate the same thing, That some were admitted to Prayer, but not to the Sacrament. The different steps of the reception of those that had fallon may be likewise proved from z Conc. Arelat. 2. Can. 11. Si qui vero dolore victi & pondere persecutionis negate & sacrificare compulsi sunt, duobus annis inter Catechumenos: triennio inter poenitentes habeantur a communione suspensi. Of these Poenitentes we read also in Codice Canonum Ecclesiae Africanae Can. 43. & Can 102. And it is certain they were admitted to the Word, and some to Prayer, but not to the Sacrament, till the Church was abundantly satisfied with the signs and proofs of their true repentance. the Council of Arles. I. Mich. Dilherrus Lib. 2. Electorum Cap. 1. After the mention of those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth observe that as Antiquity did go too far, so the later times have fallen too short. And this is a chief cause why Christian Religion doth hear very ill among many, because Ecclesiastical Discipline hath waxed cold * Et causa non est postrema cur apud multos pessime audiat Christianismus: quod disciplina Ecclesiastica refrixerit. So much by the way. This of the several degrees of Penitents. I shall yet further insist upon, because this alone will prove that we have Antiquity for us. a Vide apud Theod. Balsam. Can. Greg. Thaumat. Can. 11. Fletus seu luctus est 〈◊〉 p●…rtam 〈◊〉: ubi peccato●…em stantem opo●…tet fideles ingredientes orare ut pro se precentur. Auditio est intra portam in porticu, uhi oportet eum qui peccavit stare, usque a●… Catechumenos, & illinc egredi. audience enim, inquit, scriptaras, & doctrinam, ejiciatur, & precatione indignus censeatur. Subjectio autem seu substiatio est, ut intra Templi portam stans cum Catechumenis egrediatur. Congrega●…o seu consistentia est, ut cum fidelibus consistat, & cum Catechumenis non egrediatur: ●…ostremo est participatio Sacramentorum. Gregorius Thaumaturgus in his Canonical Epistle concerning those who in the time of the incursion of the Barbarians, had eaten things sacrificed to Idols, and had committed other scandalous sins; doth plainly distinguish these five things thus. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The weeping is without the gate of the Church, where the sinner must stand, beseeching the faithful that come in to pray for him. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The hearing is within the Gate in the Porch, where the sinner may come no nearer than the Catechumen, and thence go out again. etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The substration is that standing within the Church door, he go forth with the Catechumen. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The consistency is that he stand still together with the faithful, and do not go forth with the Catechumen. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, In the last place the participation of the holy Mysteries or Sacrament. He that will read the Epistles of Basilius magnus to Amphilochius will find these five degrees more particularly distinguished, applied to several cases, and bounded by distinct intervals of time. It were too long to transcribe all: b Vide apud Theod. Balsam. Canonic. Epist. Basilii ad Amphil. Can. 4. Oportet autem non eos (Trigamo●…) omnino arcere ab Ecclesia, sed dignari auditione duobus vel tribus annis: & postea permitti quidem consistere, seu in fidelium esse Congregatione, a boni tamen communione abstinere, & sic postquam poenitentiae fructum ullum ostender●…nt, communionis loco restituere. Ibid. Can. 61. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, anno a sola Sacramentorum commun●…one arcebitur. Ibid. Can. 82. Qui autem sine necessitate suam fidem 〈◊〉. cum duobus annis defleverint, & duobus annis audiverint, & in quinio in substratione fuerint, & in duobus aliis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sine oblatione in orationis communionem suscepti extiterint, ita tandem condigna scilicet poenitentia ostensa, in corpo●…is Christi communionem recipientur. The like see Can. 56. Can. 64. Can. 66. Can. 80. I shall only give you some most plain passages to prove that there was in Basils' time a suspension from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper alone, or that a man was suspended from the Sacrament, when he was not suspended from hearing and praying among the faithful. For further confirmation of the same thing, read Conc. Ancyr. Can. 4. Can. 5. Can. 6. Can. 7. Can. 8. Can. 9 Co●…t. Nican. Can. 11. Can. 12. Can. 13. Can. 14. I do not mean to approve the too great severity of this ancient Discipline, nor do I hold it agreeable to the Will of Christ, that such as give good signs of true Repentance, and do humbly confess and really forsake their sin, having also made public declaration of their Repentance to the Church for removing the public scandal, ought notwithstanding of all this, to be suspended from the Sacrament when they desire to receiv● it. For the Word doth not warrant the suspending of scandalous sinners from the Sacrament, until such a set determinate time be expired, but only till they give sufficient evidence of Repentance. But setting aside this and such like circumstances, the thing itself, the suspending of a scandalous person from the Sacrament, who is not nor ought not to be suspended from assembling, hearing, and praying with the Church, is the Will of Christ, as I have proved, and was the commendable practice of the Ancient Church, which is the point I now prove against Mr. Prynne. The Council of Ancyra Can. 5. 16. doth also appoint the time of suspension from the Sacrament to be made shorter or longer, according as the signs of true Repentance should sooner or later, more or less appear in the offender. So doth the Council of Nice Can. 12. And the Council of Carthage held under Honorius and Theodosius the lesser. Can. 46. If any man shall object against me and say; Peradventure the Penitents before spoken of, were only such as did manifest their repentance after excommunication, and these several degrees aforementioned, were but the degrees of their reception or admission into the Church, so that all this shall not prove the suspension from the Sacrament of persons not excommunicated. I answer, he that will think so, will be found in a great mistake: and my Argument from Antiquity will yet stand good, for suspending from the Sacrament persons not excommunicated. For first, neither do the Canons of the Counsels of Ancyra, and Nice, nor of Gregorius Thaumaturgus and Basilius magnus, nor yet the Commentators Zonaras and Balsamon, apply these five degrees above mentioned to persons who had been excommunicated, but they speak generally of persons who had committed scandalous sins, and afterward were converted and appeared penitent: for instance, those who did backslide and fall in time of persecution, as multitudes did under Licinius and other persecuters, when they converted and professed repentance, they were received again into the Church by certain steps and degrees, some more, some fewer, according to the quality of their offence; No man that hath searched antiquity will say that all who did fall in time of persecution were excommunicated for that offence, nor yet that they were all put to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to the weeping at the Church door, but yet all of them, even those whose offence was lest (as the Libellatici who had taken Writs of protection from the Enemy or Persecuter) were put to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or consistentia, which was a suspension or abstention from the Sacrament, even when the person was admitted to hear and pray with the Church. Wherefore the degrees aforementioned were degrees of receiving into the Communion of the Church scandalous persons professing repentance. Secondly, The 61. Canon of Basil to Amphilochius speaketh thus. He that hath stolen, if repenting of his own accord he accuse himself, shall be for a year restrained from the Communion of the holy Mysteries only. But if he be convict, the space of two years shall be divided to him unto substration and consistency: then let him be thought worthy of the Communion. Will any man imagine that a penitent thief accusing himself, was excommunicated? It is more than manifest that here was a suspension of an offender not excommunicated. For assoon as the offence was known by the offenders accusing of himself, he was suspended from the Sacrament alone for a year, and then admitted to the Sacrament. Yea he that was convict of theft, was not by this Canon excommunicated, nor yet put either to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but only to the third and fourth degrees. Thirdly, By the 13th. Canon of Basil to Amphilochius, he that had killed another though in a lawful war, was (for the greater reverence to the Sacrament) suspended for three years; and by the 55. Canon, he also that killed a Robber was suspended from the Sacrament. I do not justify these Canons, but only I cite them to prove, that by the Ancient Discipline Persons not excommunicated were suspended from the Sacrament: for no man can imagine that a Soldier shedding blood in a lawful war, or a man killing a Robber on the high way was therefore excommunicated. Fourthly, The eighth general Council called Synodus prima & secunds, held about the year 869. in the thirteenth Canon, speaking of certain turbulent Schismatics (not being of the Clergy as the Canon speaketh, but Laics or Monks) appointeth this censure, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Let them be totally or altogether separated from the Church. Which intimateth that there was a lesser degree of being separated or suspended from communion with the Church. Zonara's upon that Canon doth so understand it, and distinguisheth a double 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For it is also a separation (saith he) to be excluded or restrained from the receiving of the Divine Mysteries only. But there is another separation, which is to be cast out of the Church, which the Canon calleth a total separation, as being the heavier or greater Censure. Which is the very same distinction with that which was afterward expressed under the terms of major & minor, the greater and lesser excommunication. For which also I shall give you another proof as clear and older too, taken from the 61. Canon of the sixth general Council, where it is decreed that those who resort to Magicians, Charmers, Fortune-tellers, and such others who profess curious and unlawful arts, shall fall under the Canon of six years' separation. But as for those who per●…ist in such things, and do not turn away nor flee from these pernicious and Heathenish studies, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, We appoint them to be altogether cast out of the Church. Mark the gradation in the Canon, and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And hear Balsamon his explanation upon it. Note from this present Canon (saith he) that he who sinneth and converteth, obtaineth favour, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and is punished in a lesser measure; But he who persevereth in the evil, and is not willingly reduced to that which is better, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is greatly punished. For here also he that cometh and confesseth the sin, is to be punished with six year's segregation: but he that persevereth in the evil 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is to be east out or expelled from the Church: add what he had said before, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and shall not thenceforth converse with the Orthodox. Which intimateth as plainly as any thing can be, that there was an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a segregation or sequestration used in the ancient Church, which was a lesser censure than casting out of the Church and from the company of Church-members. Zonara's seemeth to understand the Canon otherwise. (for he saith nothing of the offenders converting and confessing his sin before the six years' segregation; but that for the offence itself (committed, not confessed) a man was segregated six years, and afterward if he did not repent but continue in the offence, that then he was to be cut off, and cast out of the Church: wherein as I take it, he did explain the mind of the Council, better than Balsamon. However in that point which I now prove, they are most harmonious, namely concerning a greater and lesser excommunication. Wherefore also the Fathers of this Synod (saith Zonara's) did ordain those who do such a thing, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be segregated for six years, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but if they continue therein, to be also cut off from the Church. Fifthly, To suppose that there were no Poenitentes in the Ancient Church but such as were Excommunicati, were a greater error then that it should need any Confutation. Yea there were some poenitents who did of their own accord confess their offences which could not have been otherwise known but by such voluntary confession: and those saith Zonara's Annot. in Conc. Carth. Can. 46. were most properly called Poenitents, I hope no man will imagine that such were excommunicated. But so it was that all the Poenitents (even such as had neither been excommunicated nor yet forensically convict by proof of scandal, but did voluntarily confess and convert) were for some season kept back from the Sacrament, as is manifest by that instance given out of Basilius magnus, of theft voluntarily confessed, for which notwithstanding the offender was for a year suspended from the Sacrament. Sixthly, It is manifest that there were several degrees of censure upon Bishops and Presbyters. They were sometime suspended from giving the Sacrament, and as it were sequestered from the exercise of their Ministry, which suspension or sequestration is sometimes called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be separate, sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be sequestered from communion, to wit in the exercise of the Ministry, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not to minister There was a higher censure than this, which was deposition or degradation, called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the honour or degree of Presbytership to be taken away; Basils' phrase is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they are deposed from their degree. These two censures, a suspension or sequestration from the Ministry, and a total deposition from the Ministry are distinguished by the eighteenth Canon of the Council of Ancyra, and the sixteenth Canon of the Council of Nic●…, compared with the fifteenth Canon of those called the Apostles, (which certainly were not the Apostles, yet are ancient) See also Zonaras in Can. 11. Apost. Likewise both him and Balsamon in Conc. Nic. Can. 16. Again there was something beyond all this, which was excommunication or to be wholly cast out of the Church, a censure sometime not inflicted when the former were: For a Minister might be suspended, yea deposed from his Ministry, yet permitted to communicate or receive the Sacrament among the people, as is plainly determined Can. 15. Apost. and Can. 32▪ Basilii ad Amphil. If there were such degrees of censure appointed for Bishops and Presbyters, how shall we suppose that there was no less censure for Church-members then excommunication? For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to a Minister, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to one of the people, were parallel. Whence it is that you will often find in the ancient Canons, and namely of the sixth general Council, He that committeth such a fault, if he be one of the laity, let him be segregated, if one of the Clergy, let him be deposed. As therefore a further censure after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might fall upon a minister; so a further censure after that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might be inflicted upon one of the people. I have now made it to appear that the Practice, Discipline, and Canons of the ancient Church, are for us in this present controversy about suspension from the Sacrament. In the next place I will produce particular Testimonies of Fathers. I shall take them as they fall to my hand without any curious order. I begin with Isidorus P●…lusiota who flourished about the year 431. or (as others say) 440. In the first Book of his Epistles, Epist. 143, to Thalel●…us he dissuadeth from giving the Sacrament to three sort of persons. 1. To Jews. 2. To Heretics, of both which he saith that they had once received the doctrine of truth, but did after return with the dog to the vomit. 3. To persons of a profane and swinish conversation. d Margaritas item ne ante porcos projiciamus, divino interdict● prohibemur, hoc est ante e●s qui in vitiosis affectibus volutantur, ac porcinum vitae genus sequuntur: ne forte conculcent eas pedibus, nimirum in sceleratis suis studiis divino nomini contumeliam inferentes: & conversi disrumptant vos. Unto all or any of these he holds it unlawful to give the Sacrament, and that because of a divine prohibition, Give not holy things to dogs, neither cast ye pearls before swine. And he concludeth thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For saith he the giving of the mysteries to such persons, is unto those who contemptuously give them, a breach out of which they are not awaked. Dionysius Areopagita (whom I do not take to be that Areopagite converted by Paul▪ Act. 17. But certainly he is an Ancient Writer as is manifest by the Scholia upon him, written by Maximus who flourished about the year 657. He is also cited by the sixth general Council, and by some ancient writers) de Ecclesiastica Hierarchia cap. 3. part. 3. Sect. 6. 7. having spoken of the exclusion of the Catechumen, Energumen, and Penitents from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, though all these heard the word read and preached, he addeth that unclean, carnal, profane persons in whom Satan reigneth by sin, are worse, and aught much less to be admitted to the Sacrament, than those who were bodily possessed of the devil. These therefore (unclean and profane persons) as the first, and much rather than those (Energumen) let them be suspended or sequestrate by the judicial or discriminating voice of the Minister: for it is not permitted unto them to partake of any other holy thing, but the Ministry of the Word, by which they may be converted. For if this heavenly celebration of the divine Mysteries, refuse or repel, even penitents themselves (although they were sometime partakers thereof) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not admitting him who is not altogether most holy, etc. (for that most pure voice doth also restrain those who cannot be joined and knit together with such as do worthily communicate in those divine mysteries) surely the multitude of those in whom vile lusts and passions do reign, is much more profane, and hath much less to do with the fight and communion of these holy things. The old Scholiast Maximus upon that place saith thus, Note that he reckoneth together with the Energumen those that continue without repentance in the allurements of bodily pleasures, as fornicators, lovers and frequenters of unlawful plays, such as the divine Apostle having mentioned, doth subjoin with such a one no not to eat. Where Mr. Prynn may also note by the way how anciently 1 Cor. 5. 11. was applied, so as might furnish an argument against the admission of scandalous persons to the Sacrament. Let us also hear the Paraphrast Pachimeres upon the place. For if the celebration of the divine mysteries refuse even those who are in the very course of repentance, not admitting such, because they are not throughly or wholly purified and sanctified, as it were proclaiming itself invisible and incommunicable unto all who are not worthy to communicate, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, much more they who are yet impenitent are to be restrained from it. If you please to search further, take but one passage of e Cypr. lib. 3. Ep. 14. Na●… cum in mi●…oribus peccatis agant peccatores poenitentiam justo tempore, & secundum disciplinae ordinem a l exomologesin veniant, & per manus impositionem Episcopi & Cleri jus communicationis accipiant; Nunc ●…udo tempore, persecutione adhuc perseverante, nondum restituta Ecclesiae ipsius pace, ad communicationem admittuntur, & 〈◊〉 nomen ●…orum, & nondum poenitentia acta, nondum exomologest facta, nondum manu eis ab Episcopo & Clero imposita, Eucharistia illis datur, cum scriptum sit, Qui ederit l'anem aut biber●…t Calicem Domini indigne, reus erit Corporis & sanguinis Domini. Cyprian, which speaks plainly to me for suspension from the Sacrament, for he sharply reproves the receiving to the Sacrament such persons as were not excommunicate (for if they had, most certainly he had mentioned that as the most aggravating circumstance) but having committed smaller offences, had not made out the course of public manifesting their repentance according to the discipline of the Church. If we shall require more, we have a most plain Testimony of justine Martyr, telling us that at that time they admitted none to the Lords Supper except those only who had these three qualifications. 1. They must receive and believe the Doctrine preached and professed in the Church. 2. They must be washed or baptised unto the remission of sins and regeneration. 3. They must be such as live according to the rule of Christ. Just. Marty● Apol. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. His words are these. This food is with us called the Eucharist, which is lawful for none other to partake of, but to him that believeth those things to be true which are taught by us, and is washed in the laver for remission of sins and for Regeneration, and liveth so as Christ hath delivered or commanded. g Walasridus Strabo (a diligent searcher of the Ancients (c) De rebus Eccles. cap. 17. Unde etiam criminum foeditate capitalium, a membris Christi deviantes, ab ipsis Sacramentis Ecclesiastico suspenduntur judicio. Et infra. Sciendum enim a sanctis Patribus ob hoc vel maxime constitutum, ut mortaliter peccantes a Sacramentis Dominicis arceantur, ne indigne ea percipientes, vel majore reatu involvantur, ut Judas, etc. Vel ne (quod Apostolus de Corinthiis dicit) infirmitatem corporis & imbecillitatem, ipsamque mortem praesumptores incurrant. Et ut a communione susperst, terrore ejus exclusionis, & quodam condemnationis Anathemate compellantur, studiosius poenitentiae medicamentum appete●…e, & avidius recuperandae salutis desideriis inhiare. which were before him, and of the old Ecclesiastical Rites) who died about the year 849. mentioneth this suspension from the Sacrament, as an Ecclesiastical censure received from the Ancient Fathers: and he gives three reasons for it, to prove that it is for the sinners own good to be thus suspended. 1. That he may not involve himself in greater guiltiness. 2. That he may not be chastened of the Lord with sickness and such other afflictions as the profanation of that Sacrament brought upon the Corinthians. 3. That being terrified and humbled, he may think the more earnestly of repenting and recovering himself. It was truly said that this discipline was received from the Ancient Fathers, which as it appeareth from what hath been already said, so the Testimony of chrysostom must not be forgotten. He in his tenth Homily upon Matthew expounding those words Matth. 3. 6. And were baptised of him in Jordan, confessing their sins: noteth that the time of confession belongeth to two sorts of persons: to the profane not yet initiated; and to the baptised: to the one that upon their repentance they might get leave to partake in the holy Mysteries: to the other that being washed in Baptism from their filthiness they might come with a clean Conscience to the Lords Table. His meaning is, That neither the unbaptized nor scandalous livers though they were baptised, might be admitted to the Lords Table, whereupon he concludeth: Let us therefore abstain from this l●…ud and dissolute life. h Tempus quidem confessionis, aeque & lotis baptismate, & illotis prophanisque incumbit: illis quidem ut post patentia criminum vulnera poenitentia inter veniente curentur, & ad sacra Mysteria redire mereantur: his vero ut ablutis in Baptisino maculis, ad Dominicam mensam munda jam Conscientia accedant. The Latin Translation rendering the sense rather than the words, speaketh more plainly. But there is a most full and plain passage of chrysostom in his 83. Homily upon Matthew, near the end thereof, where he saith of the Lords Supper, Let no cruel one, no unmerciful one, none any way impure, come unto it. I speak these things both to you that do receive, and also to you that do administer. Even to you this is necessary to be told, that with great care and heedfulness you distribute these gifts. There doth no small punishment abide you, if you permit any whose wickedness you know, to partake of this Table: for his blood shall be required at your hands. If therefore any Captain, if the Consul, if he himself that wears the Crown come unworthily, restrain him, which to do thou hast more authority than he hath. And after. But if you say how shall I know this man and that man? I do not speak of those that are unknown, but of those that are known. I tell you a horrible thing, it is not so ill to have among you those that are bodily possessed of the Devil, as these sinners which I speak of, etc. i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Let us therefore put back not only such as are possessed, but ALL WITHOUT DISTINCTION WHOM WE SEE TO COME UNWORTHILY, etc. But if thou thyself darest not put him back, bring the matter to me, I will permit no such thing to be done. I will sooner give up my life, than I will give the body of the Lord unworthily; and sooner suffer my blood to be poured out, than give the Lords blood unworthily, and contrary to my duty (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) to such as are horribly scandalous. He concludeth that this discipline is medicinal and profitable in the Church, and that the keeping back of the scandalous, is the way to make many worthy Communicants. Can any man imagine that all such unworthy persons were excommunicate and wholly cast out of the Church? Do not all Chrysostom's Arguments militate against the admission of any scandalous and unworthy person known to be such? saith he not, that all simply or without distinction whom they perceived to come unworthily were to be put back? If only excommunicate persons were kept back from the Sacrament, what needed all this exhortation to those that did administer the Sacrament to be so careful, cautious, and heedful, whom they would admit? And if none were to be excluded from the Sacrament but those that were branded with the public infamy of excommunication, what needed this objection to be moved, how shall I know such? Moreover, Both Cyprian and k Ambros. lib. 2. de offic. cap. 27. cui titulus: De be▪ nignitate & quod excommunicatio tardius sit exerenda; saith thus Sic Episcopi affectus boni est ut 〈◊〉 sanare infirmo●…, serpentia auserre ulcera, ADURERE ALIQUA NON ABSCINDERE: postremo quod sanari non potest, cum dolore abscindere. Ambrose do most plainly and undeniably hold forth different degrees of Church censures, and l Cypr. lib. 1. Epist. 1● or according to Pamelius his Edition Epist. 62. Quod si poenitentiam hujus illiciti concubitus sui egerint, & a se invicem recesserint, inspiciantur interim Virgins ab obstetricibus diligenter, & si Virgines inventae fuerint, accepta communicatione ad Ecclesiam admittantur, hac tamen interminatione ut si ad eosdem masculos postmodum reversae suerint, aut si cum eisdem in una domo & sub eodem tecto simul habitaverint, GRAVIORE CENSURA ejiciantur, nec in Ecclesiam postmodum facile recipiantur. Si autem de eis aliqua corrupta fuerit deprehensa, AGAT POENITENTIAM PLENAM. Cyprian is most full and clear concerning a suspension from the Sacrament of persons not excommunicated nor cast out of the Church. For answering a case of Conscience put to him concerning certain young women whose conversation and behaviour with men had been scandalous and vile, he resolveth that so many of them as did profess repentance, and forsake such scandalous conversing and companying together, if they were still Virgins, were to be again received to communicate with the Church (namely in the Sacrament from which they had been kept back) with premonition given to them, that if they should after relapse into the like offence, they should be cast out of the Church graviore censura with a heavier censure: but that if they were found to have lost their Virginity, they should make out the whole course of public Declaration of repentance, and so not be so soon admitted to, but longer susspended from the Sacrament. Add hereunto a passage in m Aug. lib. contra Donatist. post collationem cap. 4. Ita sane ut nec emendationis vigilantia quiescat, corripiendo, degradando, excommunicando, cae●…erisque coe citionibus licitis atque concessis, quae salva unitatis pace in Ecclesia quotidie fiunt, secundum praeceptum Apostolicum charitate se●…vata, qui dixit, Si quis autem non obaudit verbo nostro. etc. Augustine plainly intimating that at that time, beside reprehension, degradation, and excommunication, there were other censures daily used in the Church according to the Apostles commandment, 1 Thess. 3. 14. 15. He is speaking of the mixture of good and bad in the Church, and that wicked men may be in some sort suffered in the Church, provided (saith he) that the discipline of Excommunication, and the other usual censures in the Church be not neglected, but duly executed where it is possible. But what were those other censures, if not the suspension of scandalous and profane persons (not excommunicated) from the Sacraments: I appeal for further proof hereof to one passage more of Augustine de fide & operibus cap. 18. n Meretrices & hist●iones & quilibet alii publicae turpitu dinis professores, nist solutis out di●uptis talibus vinculis, ad Christi Sacramenta non permittun●ur accedere: qui utique secundum istorum sententiam omnes admitterentur, nisi antiquum & robustum morem sancta Ecclesia retineret ex illa scilicet liquidissima verita●e venientem, qua cer●um habet, quoniam qui talia agunt, Regnum Dei non p●ssidebunt. Whores, Stage-players, and others whosoever they be that are Professors of public filthiness, except such bonds (of Wickedness) be loosed and broken, are not permitted to come unto the Sacraments of Christ: which forsooth according to their judgement (that is such as would have profane persons baptised as well as others) should be all admitted, unless the holy Church should retain the ancient and vigorous custom, which cometh from the most clear truth, by which she hath it for certain, that they who do such things, shall not inherit the Kingdom of God. Whence it will certainly follow, that all who were excluded from the Lords Table were not excommunicated persons: For first, The Church did keep back such scandalous persons upon this ground, because those who are known to live without repentance in any of those sins, of which the Apostle saith that they who do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God, are not fit to be admittrd unto the Sacrament (for this were to give the Seals of salvation to those whom the Word pronounceth to be in a state of damnation.) Secondly, Augustine is there confuting the opinion of some (whom he calls Fratres qui aliter sapiunt, Brethren who otherwise understood themselves well) whose Principles did admit to the Sacraments all unclean and scandalous persons: which cannot be meant of excommunicated persons; For there was never any such opinion maintained in the Church, that all excommunicated persons ought or may be received to the Sacrament. Lastly, Lest his meaning should be restricted to the Sacrament of Baptism only, (of which principally and purposely he treateth in that Book) he speaketh in the plural of the Sacraments of Christ. Observe also these passages of Gregory called the great, Epist. Lib. 2. Cap. 65. Sicut exigente culpâ, quis à Sacramento communionis dignè suspenditur, ita insontibus nullo modo talis debet irrogari vinaicta. Ibid. Cap. 66. Et si in vestra cognitione cujusquam ●…um facinorosi criminis reum esse patuerit, tunc ex nostra auctoritate non solum Dominici Corporis & Sanguinis communione privatu●… fit, verum●…tiam in Monasterium ubi poenitentiam agere debeat, retrudatur. And so much for Antiquity in this Question. CHAP. XVIII. A Discovery of the instability and looseness of Mr. Prynn his Principles, even to the contradicting of himself in twelve particulars. I Shall not need to insist upon his tenth point of difference Vindic. pag. 49. nor upon his four following Quaerees and Conclusion, in all which there is no new material point, but a repetition of divers particulars spoken to and debated elsewhere. As touching that hint of a new Argument pag. 56. Consider the Parabl●… of the marriage of the King's son, where the King sent forth his servants to invite guests to the wedding Supper, who gathered together ALL they found, both BAD and good, that the wedding might be furnished with guests. Matth. 22. 1. to 11. I answer, 1. Some understand here by the bad vers. 10. those who had formerly (before they were called and brought home by the Gospel) been the worst and most vicious among the Heathens, so that the words both bad and good make not a distinction of two sorts of Christians or Church-members, but of two sorts of Heathens not yet called, some of them were good, some of them bade comparitively, that is, some of them much better than others, some of them much worse. So Grotius, and long before him Hierome and Theophylact upon the place. 2. Others (as Bucerus, Tossanus, Cartwright, o In Matth. 22. Neque enim apertos ac palam malos, Apostoli aut ulli sancti Evangelii praecones congregare, & Ecclesiae communioni per Sacramenta aggregare potuerunt aut congregarunt, quod tales a communione Ecclesiae tanquam pestes illius sint arcendi, sed congregarunt opertos ac●…ectos, quos quia sub ovina pelle sunt lupi & sub externa fidei & vitae ●…bristianae specie, internam fraudem ac impietatem tegunt (atque ita vere bonis exterius pares, imo interdum superiores apparent) idcirco ab Apostolis aliisque Evangelii praeconibus dignosci non potuerunt. etc. Gomarus) understand by the bad, close Hypocrites who appear good so far as the Ministers and Officers of the Church are able to judge of them. These by a Synecdoche of the Genus for the Species may be understood by the bad. And so the Text will not comprehend scandalous and known profane persons. That Synecdoche generis, is often used in Scripture, is proved by Sal. Glassius Philolog. sacrae lib. 5. Tract. 1. Cap. 14. 3. I throw back an Argument from the same Parable against himself, for the King showeth his servants that he will have unworthy persons kept back from the marriage feast, vers. 8. Then saith he to his servants, the Wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy, Luk. 14. 24. For I say unto unto you, that none of those men which were bidden shall taste of my Supper. The King makes it also known that he alloweth none to come in to this Marriage Feast, except such only as have the Wedding garment (or as the Syriak Wedding garments) upon them. All which is inconsistent with Mr. prynn's principles concerning the admission of known scandalous unworthy persons to the Sacrament, as to a converting Ordinance. 4. And if all must be brought in or let in to the Lords Supper, both bad and good promisevously and without distinction, than it should follow that the Ordinances of Parliament concerning the suspension of all sorts of scandalous persons from the Sacrament are contrary to the Will of Christ: And that Mr. Prynn himself in yielding ●…ag. 50. and elsewhere, that scandalous impenitent obstinate persons ought to be not only suspended but excommunicated, doth yield what his Argument concludes to be unlawful. And so I come to that which I have here proposed, viz. the instability and looseness of Mr. prynn's principles in this controversy. By comparing divers passages together, I find that he doth profess and pretend to yield the Question, which yet he doth not yield really and indeed. First, It is to be observed that he deserteth Erastus and that party in the point of Excommunication. For in the vindication of his four Questions pag. 2. he readily yieldeth that gross notorious scandalous obstinate sinners, who presumptuously persevere in their iniquities, after private and public admonitions, without remorse of Conscience or AMENDMENT, may be justly excommunicated from the Church, the society of the faithful, and all public Ordinances, after due proof and legal conviction of their scandalous lives: and that 1. Cor. 5. 13. warrants thus much. The Antidote animadverted by P. in the first page yieldeth that excommunication is an Ordinance of God. And indeed 1 Cor. 5. 13. doth not only warrant excommunication as lawful, but enjoin and command it as necessary; for the Apostles words are praeceptive and peremptory: Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. The thing was not indifferent, but necessary and such as could not without sin be omitted. However Mr. Prynn his asserting from that place that it may be, is a deserting of the Erastian party. 2. In the 50. page of his vindication he professeth that his Antagonists do contend for that which he granteth them with advantage. They would have scandalous sinners suspended from the Sacrament. He will have them not only suspended from the Sacrament, but excommunicated from all other public Ordinances. 3. He confesseth ibid. that in some cases a person not excommunicated may be suspended from the Sacrament. But whatever his Concessions may seem to be, they are really as good as nothing. For 1. He will have none to be suspended from the Sacrament except such as are ripe for excommunication, and against whom the sentence of excommunication is ready to be pronounced as persons incorrigible. 2. He admitteth no suspension from the Sacrament till after several solemn previous public admonitions, reprehensions, rebukes contemned or neglected. See both these pag. 50. Whence you see that with Mr. prynn's consent all the votes of Parliament concerning several causes of suspension from the Lords Table, shall be of no use to Presbyteries, until after a long process of time, and after many previous public admonitions, So that if one in the Congregation commit a notorious incest or murder a day or two, or a week before the celebration of the Sacrament, and the thing be undeniably certified and proved before the Eldership, yet the Eldership cannot suspend such an abominable scandalous sinner from the Sacrament, hac vice: but must first go through all those preparatory steps which are necessary and requisite before excommunication. Well: but after all those public previous admonitions, shall the sentence of excommunication follow? Nay, here also he will have Presbyteries to go through a very narrow lane: for in the same place he thus describeth the persons whom he would have to be excommunicated; They are scandalous, obstinate, peremptory, incorrigible, notorious sinners, who desperately and professedly persevere in their gross scandalous sins, etc. But I beseech you, what if they persevere in their gross scandalous sins neither desperately nor professedly? Must they not then be excommunicate? Shall not the offender be cast out of the Church after clear proof of the offence, and several previous public admonitions contemned or neglected? Must we wait till the adulterer profess that he will persevere in his adultery; and till the blasphemer profess that he will persevere in his blasphemy? Nay further, What if the offender do neither 〈◊〉 nor actually persevere in his gross scandalous sin? Put case he that hath blasphemed once do not blaspheme the second time: and that he who grossly and scandalously profaned the Lords day, did it but once, and hath not done it again since he was reproved. Must this hinder the sentence of excommunication, when that one gross scandal is not confessed, nor any sign of repentance appearing in the offender? Moreover whereas Mr. Prynn in his fourth Quare, and in several places of his Vindication seemeth to allow none to be admitted to the Lords Table except such as profess sincere repentance for sins past, and promise newness of life for time to come. If we expound his meaning by his own expressions in other places, that which he granteth bordereth upon nothing: for pag. 13. speaking of scandalous sinners their admission to the Sacrament, if they profess sincere repentance for their sins past, and reformation of their lives for time to come, he addeth, as all do at least in their general confessions before the Sacrament, if not in their private meditations, prayers, etc. and a little after he saith, that all who come to receive, do always make a general and joint confession of their sins before God and the Congregation etc. And then he addeth pag. 14. Yea I dare presume, there is no receiver so desperate, that dares profess when he comes to receive, he is not heartily sorry for his sins past, but resolves to persevere impenitently in them for the future, though afterward he relapse into them, as the best Saints do to their old infirmities etc. I know the best Saints have their sinful infirmities, but whether the BEST do relapse to their OLD infirmities may be a Question. And however he doth open a wide door for receiving to the Sacrament all scandalous sinners not excommunicated, if they do but tacitly join in the general Confession of sins made by the whole Church, or do not contradict those general Confessions, and profess impenitency and persevering in wickedness, though in the mean time there be manifest real symptoms of impenitency, and no confession made of that particular sin which hath given public scandal. Wherefore I say plainly with the Professors of Leyden, Synops. Pur. Theol. Disp. 48. Thes. 35. The administration of this censure of suspension from the Lords Table hath place in these two different cases, either when one that is called a Brother hath given some heinous scandal of life or Doctrine, who after admonition doth indeed by word of mouth profess repentance, but yet doth not sh●…w the fruits meet for repentance, that so the scandal might be taken away from the Church: or when he doth not so much as in words promise or profess repentance, etc. Martin Bucer hath a notable speech to this purpose de Regno Christi, lib. 1. Cap. 9 To hold it enough that one do profess by Word only repentance of sins, and say that he is sorry for his sins, and that he will amend his life, the necessary signs and works of Repentance not being joined with such profession, It is the part of Antichrists priests, not of Christ's. In the next place it is to be taken notice of, how palpably and grossly Mr. Prynn contradicteth himself in divers particulars: Which being observed, may peradventure make himself more attentive in writing, and others more attentive in reading such subitane lucubrations. The particulars are these which follow. 1. Vindicat, pag. 17. he saith, the Confession of sin which was made at the Trespass offerings, was not to the Priest, Classis, or Congregation, but to God alone. 1. In the very same page he saith, None were kept off from making their atonement by a trespass offering, if they did first confess their sins to God, though perchance his confession was not cordial, or such as the Priests approved, but external only in show. I beseech you how could it be at all judged of, whether it was external and only in show, if it was made to God alone? Nay, if it was made to God alone, how could it be known whether he had confessed any sin at all; and so whether he was to be admitted to the trespass offering or not? 2. Vindic. pag. 50. He freely granteth That ALL scandalous, obstinate, peremptory, incorrigible, notorious sinners, who desperately and professedly persevere in their gross scandalous fins, to the dishonour of Christian Religion, the scandal of the Congregation, the ill example and infection of others, after several solemn previous public admonitions, reprehensions, rebukes, contemned or neglected, and full conviction of their scandal and 2. Vindic. pag. 57 Certainly the speediest, BEST and ONLY WAY to suppress ALL kind of sins, schisms, to reform and purge our Churches from ALL SCANDALOUS OFFENCES, will be for Ministers NOT to draw out the sword of Excommunication and suspension against them, which will do little good, but the sword of the Spirit, the powerful preaching of God's Word, and the sword of the Civil Magistrate. impenitency, may and OUGHT TO BE EXCOMMUNICATED, suspended, etc. If this be the best and only way to suppress sin, and to reform and purge the Churches, How is it that some scandalous sinners may and aught to be excommunicated? 3. Vindic. pag. 50 Where the f●…ct is notorious, the p●…oofs 〈◊〉, the sentence of excommunication ready to be pronounced against them as persons impenitently scandalous and in●…orrigible, ●…erchance the Presbytery or ●…l ssis may order a suspension from the Sacrament, or any other Ordinances, before the sentence of excommunication solemnly denounced if they see just cause. 3. Yet all along he disputes against the su pending from the Sacrament of a person unexcommunicated, and not suspended from all other public Ordinances and society of God's people. And pag 50. arguing for the right of all visible members of the visible Church to the Sacrament, he saith that nothing but an actual excommunication can suspend them from this their rig●…t. 4. Vindic. pag. 17. He saith that a particular examination of the Conscience, and Repentance for sin, is no where required in Scripture of such who did eat the Passeover. And herein he distinguisheth the Trespass-offerings, and the Passeover, that in bringing a trespass offering men came to sue for pardon, and make atonement, and that therefore confession of sin was necessary. But in the Passeover 4. Ibid. pag. 24. He saith that the Passeover was the same in substance with the Eucharist under the Gospel, wherein Christ was spiritually represented and received, as well as in the Lord's Supper. But how can this be, if repentance for sin was not necessary in the Passeover, and if it was only a commemoration of a by▪ p●st temporal mercy in sparing the first born of the Israelites? there was r●… atonement etc. but ONLY a commemoration of God's infinite mercy in passing over the Israelites first born when he sl●…w the Egyptians. 5. Vindic. pag. 18. He saith that immediately before the institution of the Sacrament, Christ told his Disciples that one of them should betray him, and that judas was the last man that said Is it I? immediately before the Institution. And pag. 27. he saith. That the other disciples did eat the Sacrament with judas, after Christ had particularly informed them and judas himself, that he should betray him. 5. Yet pag. 25. He reckoneth that very thing to have been after the Institution of the Sacrament: for to that Objection that judas went out before Supper ended, immediately after he received the sop, whereas Christ did not institute the Sacrament till after Supper: he makes this answer, that the dipping of the sop (at which time judas said is it I?) was at the common Supper, which (saith he) succeeded the Institution of the Sacrament, so that the Sacrament was instituted after the Paschal, not after the common Supper. And pag. 19 He argues that judas did receive the Sacrament upon this ground, that all this discourse and the giving of the sop to Judas was after Supper ended; but Christ instituted and distributed the Sacrament (at least the bread) as he sat at meat, as they were eating, before Supper quite ended. 6. Vindic. pag. 42. Speaking of ungodly scandalous sinners, he plainly intimateth that the receiving of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is more likely to regenerate and change their hearts and lives then the Word preached. And in that same page, he holdeth that this Sacrament is certainly the most powerful and effectual Ordinance of all others to humble, regenerate, convert. The like see pag. 44, 45. and pag. 52. Yea no doubt many debauched Persons have been really reclaimed, converted, even by their access and admission to the Sacrament. 6. Pag. 57 He ascribeth the power of godliness in many English Congregations to powerful preaching, and saith, that this sword of the Spirit, the powerful preaching of God's Word, and the sword of the Civil Magistrate, are only able to effect this work, to suppress all kind of sins, schisms, to reform and purge the Churches. If this be the speediest, best, and only way to suppress all kind of sins, schisms, to reform and purge our Churches from all scandalous offences, as he there saith, and if the Word and the Magistrate are only able to effect this work; How is it that the Lords Supper doth change men's hearts and lives, and that more effectually than any other Ordinance? Again pag. 37. he saith, he hath in other Treatises of his proved Gods presence and Spirit to be as much, as really present in other Ordinances, as in this of the Lords Supper. How then makes he this Sacrament to be the most powerful and effectual Ordinance of all others, to humble, regenerate, convert? 7. Pag. 40. He makes the Sacrament to be a seal to the senses of unworthy persons, but not to their souls; In this latter sense he saith it is a seal only to worthy penitent believing receivers. 7. Yet Pag. 44, 45. the strength of his tenth Argument lies in this, that the Sacrament sealeth unto the Communicants souls, yea to the flintiest heart, and obduratest spirit, the promises, an union with Christ, assurance of everlasting life, and therefore in regard of the sealing of all these particulars unto men's souls, must needs convert an obdurate unregenerate sinner. Which Argument were nonsense if it did not suppose the Sacrament to seal all these particulars even to the souls of unregenerate sinners. Mark but these words of his own; since that which doth seal all these particulars to men's souls, and represent them to their saddest thoughts, must needs more powerfully persuade, pierce, melts, relent, convert an obdurate heart▪ and unregenerate sinner, etc. 8. Vindic. Pag. 28. He admitteth that a Minister ought in duty and Conscience to give warning to unworthy persons of the danger of unworthy approaching to the Lords Table, and seriously dehort them from 8. Pag. 46. He tells us of an old error in forbidding drink to those who were inflamed with burning fevers, which Physicians of late have corrected by suffering such to drink freely. He desires that this old coming to it unless they repent, reform, and come prepared. error of Physicians may not enter among Divines; for as drink doth extinguish the unnatural heat which else would kill the diseased, so feverish Christians burning in the flames of sins and lusts ought to be permitted freely to come to the Lords Table, because they need it most to quench their flames. Do these now repent, reform, and come prepared? Yet here he makes it a sin to forbid them to come to the Lords Table. Though he applieth it against suspension: yet the ground he goeth upon makes it a soul murdering sin, so much as to dehort them from that which they need most to quench the flames of their lusts. 9 Vindic. Pag. 37. I answer, First▪ That the Minister doth not administer the Sacrament to any known impenitent sinners under that notion, but only as penitent sinners, truly repenting of their sins past. The meaning of which words cannot be that the Minister gives the Sacrament to known impenitent sinners, while known to be impenitent, and yet he gives the Sacrament to those known impenitent sinners, not as impenitent, 9 This as it casts down what himself hath built in point of the converting Ordinance (for if the Sacrament be not administered to any known impenitent sinners, under that notion, but only as penitent, than it doth not work but suppose repentance and conversion in the receivers, and so is not a converting Ordinance to any receiver:) So also it is inconsistent with what himself addeth in the very same place. Secondly but as penitent: which were a mighty strong Bull. But the meaning bust needs be, that the Minister gives the Sacrament to such as have been indeed formerly looked upon as impenitent sinners, and known to be such, but are now when they come to the Sacrament looked upon under the notion of penitent sinners, and that the Minister gives the Sacrament to none, except only under the notion and supposition that they are truly penitent. saith Mr. Prynn, He (the Minister) us●…h th●…se words, The body of Christ which was broken, and the blood of Christ shed for you, etc. not absolutely, but conditionally only, in case they receive the Sacrament worthily, and become penitent▪ and believing receivers, as they all profess themselves to be▪ just so as they preach repentan●…e and remission to their Auditors; Therefore the case is just, the same in both (the Word preached and the Sacrament) without any difference: Here Christ is offered in the Sacrament, as well as to the Word, and accordingly the Sacrament administered to known impenitent sinners under that notion, and as still known to be impenitent upon condition that they become penitent. 10. Vindic. Pag. 52. It being only the total exclusion from the Church and all Christian society (not any bare suspension from the Sacrament) which works both shame and remorse in excommunicate persons, as Paul resolves, 2. Thess. 3. 14. 1 Cor. 5. 13. compared with 1 Cor. 5. 1. to 11. 10. Yet Vindic. pag. 4. and 10. he denieth that either 1 Cor. 5. 9 11. or 2 Thess. 3. 14. can amount to any Excommunication or exclusion from the Church, and expounds both these places of a private withdrawing of Civil Fellowship, without any public judicial Act or Church censure. 11. In his Epistle to the Reader before his Vindication, he disclaimeth that which some conceived to be his opinion, viz. that the Ministers and elders of Christ's Church, ought not to be trusted with the power of Church censures, or that all of them are to be abridged of this power: and professeth that these debates of his tend only to a regular orderly settlement of the power of Presbyteries, not to take from them all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction due by divine right to them, but to confine it within certain definite limits. 11. Diotrephes catechised, pag. 7. It is the safest readiest way to unity and Reformation, to remit the punishment of all scandalous offences to the civil Magistrate, rather than to the pretended disputable questioned authority of Presbyteries, Classes, or Congregations. 12. Vindic. pag. 2. He agreeth with his Opposites that scandalous obstinate sinners after proof and conviction, may be justly excommunicated from the Church etc. And that 1 Cor. 5. 13. warrants thus much etc. So that thus far there is no dissent on either part. Remember the present controversy which he speaks to, is concerning excommunication in England, and so under a Christian Magistracy. 12. Diotrephes catechised, pag. 9 10. He plainly intimateth that 1 Cor. 5. 13. is no satisfactory Argument for the continuance and exercise of Excommunication in all Churches, and where the Magistrates be Christian. And that those who press this Text, may as well conclude from the very next words, 1 Cor. 6. 1. to 9 that it is unlawful for Christians to go to Law before any Christian Judges now, etc. Where by the way it is also to be noted, that he should have said before any heathen judge●…. Otherwise the Argument cannot be parallel. I shall now close with four Counter-Quaeries to Mr. Prynne. 1. Since diu deliberandum quod semel statuendum, which is a received maxim, approved by prudent men, and God himself, as his Epistle to the Reader saith; whether was it well done to publish his subitane lucubrations (as himself in that preface calls them) and upon so short deliberation to engage in this public and litigious manner against the desires of the Reverend and Learned Assembly, especially in a business wherein it is well known the hearts of godly people do generally go along with them? 2. Whether Mr. Prynus language be not very much changed from what it was in the Prelates times: seeing Vindic. pag. 7. he hath these words, our opposites generally grant, etc. citing only Cartwright? And are the old non Conformists of blessed memory, now Opposites? Where are we? I confess as he now stands affected, he is opposite to the old non-Conformists, and they to him. For instance. Mr. Hildersham Lect. 5. on Psal. 51. holdeth that all open and scandalous sinners should do open and public repentance, and acknowledge their scandalous sins in the Congregation, otherwise to be kept back from the holy Communion. And while Mr. Prynn pleadeth that Matth. 18. 15, 16, 17. is not meant of a Presbytery or of any Church-censure, he manifestly dissenteth from the nonconformist, and joineth issue with Bpp. Bilson de gubern. Eccl. c. 4. and Sutlivius de Presbyterio cap. 9 pleading for Prelacy against Presbytery. 3. Seeing the business of excommunication and sequestration from the Sacrament, now in public agitation, is a matter of great moment, much difficulty, and very circumspectly to be handled, established, to prevent profanation and scandal on the one hand; and arbitrary, tyrannical, papal domineering power over the Consciences, the spiritual privileges of Christians, on the other. (These are his own words in the preface of his Queries) whether hath he gone in an even path to avoid both these evils? Or whether hath he not declined to the left hand, while he shunned the error of the right hand! Whether hath he not so gone about to cure the heat of the liver,▪ as to leave a cold and phlegmatic stomach uncured? And whether doth he not trespass against that rule of his own last cited, when he adviseth this as the best and only way to suppress all kind of sins, and to reform and purge the Churches of this Kingdom, that the sword of excommunication and suspension be not drawn, but only the sword of the spirit, and the sword of the Magistrate? Vindic. pag. 57 Finally, Whether in this Kingdom there be more cause to fear and apprehend an arbitrary, tyrannical, papal domineering power over the Consciences of Christians, (where Church discipline is to be so bounded by authority of Parliament, that it be not promiscuously put in the hands of all, but of such against whom there shall be no just exception found, yea are or shall be chosen by the Congregations themselves, who have also lately abjured by a solemn Covenant, the Popish and Prelatical Government?) Or whether we ought not to be more afraid and apprehensive that the Ordinances of Christ shall hardly be kept from pollution, and the Churches hardly purged from scandals, there being many thousands both grossly ignorant, and grossly scandalous? 4. I desire it may be (upon a review) seriously considered, how little truth, wisdom, or charity there is in that suggestion of Mr, Prynn, pag. 57 that the lives of the generality of the people are more strict, pious, less scandalous and licentious in our English Congregations▪ where there hath been powerful preaching, without the practice of Excommunication or suspension from the Sacrament, then in the Reformed Churches of France, Germany, Denmark, or Scotland, for which I appeal to all Travellers, etc. I confess it is a matter of great humiliation to the servants of Christ, that there is occasion to exercise Church discipline and censures in the Reformed Churches: yet this is no other than what was the condition of the Apostolic Churches. 2 Cor. 12. 21. I fear saith the Apostle l●…st when I come again, my God will humble me among you, and that I shall bewail many which have sinned already, and have not repent of the uncleanness, and fornication, and lasciviousness which they have committed. And this is not the only Testimony concerning scandals and disorderly walking in those primitive Churches. But as for those who are so rigid in their censures against the government of the Reformed Churches, I answer to them as Hierome did of the Montanists. They are rigid, Rigidi autem sunt, non quo & ipsi pejora non peccent: sed hoc inter nos & illos interest, quod illi erubescunt confiteri peccata, quasi justi: nos dum poenitentiam agimus, facilius veniam promer●mur. not to the end that themselves also might not commit worse sins; but this difference there is between them and us, that they are ashamed to confess their sins, as if they were righteous: We while we repent, do the more easily obtain mercy. Mr. Prynn and others of his profession are not very willing that such an Ecclesiastical discipline be established in England, as is received and settled in Scotland and other Reformed Churches. But if once the like sin-searching, sin-discovering, and sin-censuring discipline were received and duly executed in England, than (and not till then) such comparisons may (if at all they must) be made, between the lives of the generality of the people in England, with those in other Reformed Churches, which of them is more or less licentious and scandalous. A Testimony of Mr. Fox the Author of the Book of Martyrs, taken out of a treatise of his printed at London, 1551. entitled De Censura Ecclesiastica Interpellatio J. Foxi, the eighth Chapter of which Treatise is here translated out of Latin into English. What the are chief obstacles hindering Excommunication? THat the thought and care of excommunication hath now so far waxed cold almost in all the Churches, is to be ascribed (as appeareth) unto three sorts of men. The first is of those whose minds the wealth of this world and high advancement of dignity do so lift up, that they are ashamed to submit the neck to the obedience of Christ. What (say these) shall that poor fellow lay a yoke on me? What, should I be subject to this naughty and rude Pastor? But let go, good Sir▪ your vain swelling empty words; how rude soever he be, yet if he be your Pastor, you must needs be a sheep of the flock, whom if he doth rightly instruct, so much the more dutifully you must submit. But if otherwise, it is the fault of the man, not of the Ministry; To those at least yield thyself to be ruled, whom thou knowest to be more learned. But go to, thou which canst not suffer a man to be thy Pastor, to whom then wilt thou submit thyself? unto Christ himself (thou sayest:) very well forsooth. This then is of such importance, that Christ for thy cause must again leave the heavens, or by his Angels or Arch-Angels feed and govern thee, whom these mean men the Pastors do not satisfy: But what if it so pleased the Lord by these mean Pastors, as thou callest them, to cast down and confounded all the highest stateliness and pride of this World, even as of old by a few and comtemptible Fishers he subdued not only the high and conceited opinion of Philosophers, but even the Sceptres of Kings also? Now what will thy boasting magnificence say? But hear what Christ himself saith of them, whom thou from thy high loftiness look●st down upon as unworthy. He that despiseth you despiseth me (saith he.) And moreover who so despiseth Christ, despiseth him from whom he is sent, and who said unto him, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee: Ask of me and I will give thee the Heathen for thine inheritance, and the utmost ends of the earth for thy possission: Thou shalt rule them with a rod of iron, and break them in pe●…ces like a potters vessel. Wherefore seeing thou dost acknowledge so great a Lord, so many ways above all Majesty whatsoever can be named; let it not be grievous to thee (my brother whosoever thou art, or with how great power soever thou art highly advanced) laying aside thy high looks and pride, to be humbled under his mighty hand; And do not think it a light matter (whereas thou entertainest with so great applause and honourable respect an earthly King's Ambassadors) that thou shouldest disdain the Ambassadors of him, who alone hath power over all Kings and Lords. If thou yieldest unto a mortal Physician thy wounds to be handled, yea to be cut also, and to be burned and seared (if need be) how cometh it, that thou canst less endure the same thing also in the curing of the diseases of the soul from the spiritual Physician, especially seeing in so many respects better is the health of the soul then of the body? Nor do thou so account any whit in this regard to be impaired of thy honour, if unto thy Bishop or Pastor, yea rather herein to Christ thou be subjected. Yea chose, so account as the thing is indeed, that there is no true glory but in Christ and in his sheepfolds; that none do more prosperously reign, than they which every way do serve him, without whom as there is no glory, so is there no safety and salvation. Neither let it seem disgraceful to thee, what so many ages ago the most high Monarches of the world and most potent Emperors have done before thee: amongst whom Philip, as he was the first of all the Emperors who was made a Christian; so I meet with no other more famous example, and more worthy of all men's imitation. He willing to be present at the solemn Assemblies of the Church on Easter, and to communicate of the Sacrament▪ when as yet he was judged not worthy of admission; It is reported that Fabian the Bishop withstood him, neither did receive him before he confessed his sins, and stood among the Penitentiaries. What would those our proud giants, fighters against God do here, if they had stood in the like condition and high place? But this no less mild than most mighty Emperor was nothing ashamed (forgetting in the mean while his Imperial Majesty) of his own accord to submit himself to the obedience of his Pastor, undergoing every thing whatsoever in the Name of Christ was imposed upon him. O truly noble Emperor, and no less worthy Bishop! But these examples in both are too rare amongst us this day. Another▪ sort is of those which would be Christians but in name and title only, they promise an honest enough show of Christian profession; they dispute both learnedly, and every where with grea● endeavour, of Christ; they carry about in their hands the Gospel; they frequent sacred Sermons; have cast off all superstition; they feed with the perfect; they marry, eat, and are clothed, so as they hold no difference either of times or of places. Finally, Whatsoever is pleasing in Christ they take and stiffly hold. But if ye look into their life, they are Epicures, Wasters, Ravenous, Covetous, Sons of Belial; Not Christ's servants, but slaves of their belly; who according to the Satirist, think virtue to be but words, as the wood to be but trees. And of these there is a great store every where, who seeing only for their belly they follow Christ, they leave nothing undevised and uninterprised to hinder Excommunication, that so they may the more freely satisfy and serve their own lusts. So the Covetous man feareth that his Covetousness be called in question, which he will not forsake. The Adulterer, he that buyeth or selleth men into slavery, the dycer, the whoremonger, the drunkard would rather his intemperance to be concealed. So the Robber, the Murderer, the Incendiary is afraid to be laid open or made known. So he that delighteth to be fatted and enriched with the damages of the Common▪ wealth, is unwilling to have any bridle to curb and restrain him: The Cheater that with false wares beguileth the people; the seller that with unjust gain outeth counterfeit wares; the deceiver who cozeneth and circumventeth his Neighbour. Last of all whosoever are thus affected that they savour or follow nothing but their belly, their ambition, and the purse, they do not willingly endure that their liberty of sinning should be stopped to them. Moreover after these, others not much unlike them, come into the same account, which out of some places of Scripture perversely wrested, if they find out aught that may flatter their affections, hence forthwith do they promise a wicked liberty of sinning to themselves and others, whence follows a very great corruption of life, together with injury of the Scripture. While these men are not sufficiently shaken and stricken with the sense of their sin, and force the Scripture violently wrested to defend and maintain their perverse affections, from which Scripture it had been meet to seek all medicines of their vices. But little do these men in the mean while consider how dear it cost Christ, which they make so small account of. They do not mark and weigh how horrible a thing sin is before God, which no otherwise could be expiate and purged but by the death of his only begotten Son; which hath utterly ruinated not whole Cities, but Kingdoms also and Monarchies. Which things if these and all other Epicures did more diligently think of, it would come to pass I suppose, that neither the custom of sin would so much like them, and withal the matter itself would so far draw them, that more willingly they would have recourse unto these so many ways wholesome remedies of the Church, as unto the only medicine of man's life. FINIS.