SIXTEEN ANTIQVAERIES PROPOUNDED To the Catechiser of DIOTREPHES.  
The PREFACE.  
LEst the Reader should be in a maze about the intent of these Antiquaeries, he may please to take notice, that the Author conceived it the fittest way of answer to Mr. prynn's Sixteen Questions: Partly, because the chief of them are already propounded by the Honourable House of Commons to the Reverend Assembly for their resolution, whom to anticipate by his shallow endeavours, might be counted little better than a presumption. Partly, because divers of Mr. prynn's Queries seem to be little better than captious, as requiring that to make a thing of Divine right, (namely, a clear proof from Scripture in express terms) which no rational man not engaged will demand or expect. Now a captious Question cannot well be answered better than by a Question; for which the Author wants not a good precedent, Mat. 21.23. to the 27. Yet he hath not so bound himself up to Queries, but in some matters of difference, he takes liberty of dispute; especially about that great question of suspension from the Lords Supper; and that new Paradox of Mr. prynn's, that the Lords Supper is a converting Ordinance; which mistake arises frrm confounding those things that should be distinguished; and attributing that to one Ordinance, which is the proper effect of another. For example, in the Lord's Supper four Ordinances usually meet; namely, Prayer, Preaching, (at least in opening and applying the words of Institution) singing of Psalms, and the administration of the Sacramental elements.  
Now we deny not but Prayer and Preaching are converting ordinances: But the great question is, whether the actual receiving of the Sacramental elements be a converting Ordinance. This we deny, and unless Mr. Prynn can make this good, he speaks nothing to the purpose: but may as well prove Marriage, Ordination, or Burial of the dead to be converting Ordinances, as the Lords Supper; since at all these the Prayers and Sermons that have been in use, no doubt have been effectual means to convert divers; and in particular, Marriage teaches us admirable things about the love of Christ to his Church, etc. Yet I think never any was so mad, as to call any of these three converting Ordinances. The same reason is thereof the Lords Supper. Therefore we deny not but a scandalous person, yea, an heathen may be present at the Lords Supper, and hear the Prayers and exhortations, see the Elements consecrated, and all the Sacramental actions, and this with a great deal of profit, if the Lord please to sanctify all these unto him: which is further apparent in the other Sacrament of Baptism, the present benefit whereof usually redounds more to the standers by, than to the party Baptised. But that the actual receiving of the outward elements by a graceless scandalous person doth never convert him, I conceive may be clearly proved by this argument He that eats and drinks damnation, that discerns not the Lords body, that murders Christ, certainly at that instant, and in that particular act is not converted: but so doth every unworthy receiver. Therefore a Father says well, that wicked men in the Lord's Supper do receive panem Domini, but not panem Dominum; but certainly, at what instant a man is converted, he receives panem Dominum; nor can any possibly be converted, but at that instant he must of necessity receive Christ. If Mr. Prynn answer, he may be converted by Prayer preceding, and the words of institution opened and applied. I answer, 1. Then although he have the worthiness of person, yet he wants the worthiness of actual preparation; and so is still unworthy in that respect at least. 2. Though upon the former supposition he be really worthy, (as having truth of grace) yet he is visibly unworthy, till he have given satisfaction to the Church for the particular scandal whereby he hath offended them, and dishonoured the name of God; and if he be truly humbled (as no doubt every true convert is) he will leave his gift at the Altar, and first go and be reconciled to his brother; and then come and offer his gift, Mat. 5.23, 24. If he be not so fit to eat the Passeover the first, God will accept him in the second month. And for my part, I can apprehend no way like suspension, to prevent the double danger of an unworthy receiver; for if he neglect to come to the Lords Supper, he slights it. If he come unworthily, he eats and drinks his own damnation or judgement. But being kept from the Sacrament, he is preserved from both these guilts. And further, by this penalty may be brought to athrough sight of his error, and so be sitted better for the Sacrament against the next opportunity. But enough, and too much by way of Preface. I fear I have made too great a Porch for so little an house. Yet I see not how it could well be spared, as being a necessary explication of my ensuing design. I leave it to thy judgement, and both thee and it to God's bl●ssing.  
R. D.   

Sixteen Antiquaeries; Propounded to the Catechiser Of DIOTREPHES.  
I. WHether no scandalous Sin belong to Ecclesiastical cognizance: If so, why then did the Apostle, and Church of Corinth presume to judge the incestuous Corinthian, 1 Cor. 5. & 1 Cor. 2. Or why hath God given his Ministers the greatest abilities to judge of all sins, if they must only see with other men's eyes, and judge nothing scandalous, but what the Magistrate judges so? If they may judge of any scandalous sin, why not of all? and that this is more than a judgement of dislike or reproof, see 1 Cor. 5.12, 13. for so I may judge him that is without, who yet falls not under the sentence of excommunication, nor is capable of it.  
II. Whether they who were the fittest and ablest judges of cases dubious and too hard for inferior Magistrates, Deut. 17.8, 9 (according to Mr. pryn's own grant) might not lawfully judge of ordinary cases also? Surely, Jethro Exod. 17.17, 18. did not think Moses sinned simply in judging lesser matters, but counselled him rather for his own & the people's ease to refer petty matters to inferior Judges. Further, if the High Priest might judge of civil matters, why not also, yea much more of spiritual, being more within his sphere as a spiritual person? Else the Magistrate, being a mere civil power might judge both of civil and spiritual cases; but the High Priest being a spiritual power, might judge only of civil cases. We deny not the judging of scandalous sins to the Magistrate; and rest confident he will never be so far catechised by Mr. Prynn, as to deny the judging of scandals to the Ministry, etc.  
III. Whether the cases of Leprosy and Jealousy were the only cases wherein the Priests were appointed to be as Judges in the Old Testament; see the contrary, Deut. 17.8, 9 which is also confessed by Mr. Prynn himself in his second question immediately foregoing.  
iv Whether any deny the Parliament and their Lay-Commissioners power to inquire after, and punish scandalous sinners, (though I find not where they have any power by the Ordinance to punish) and whether that may not go very well hand in hand with the censures of the Church, and their enquiry. But the great question is, whether Lay-Commissioners have power from the Word to suspend Church censures against scandalous persons. If so, let Mr. Prynn show an express place of Scripture for such a suspension, and we shall soon yield the cause. Otherwise he must pardon us if we receive not this his Catechise for an Oracle.  
V Whether any Minister claim power jure Divino to examine witnesses upon oath: And whether Mr. Prynn think the evidence against the incestuous Corinthian was made good upon oath. If the Parliament out of their care to prevent misinformation, require an Oath of the Witnesses, I hope that doth not scruple his conscience: and if any Minister scruple it, the ruling Elders have jus humanum, and so by consequence jus Divinum to examine upon oath.  
VI Further, whether the not mentioning, or not appointing of ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in the Old Testament (if granted) be proof sufficient against the exercise of it in the New Testament: Yet if Mr. Prynn please to consult Ez●k. 23. v. 28, 29. & Ezek. 44.7, 9 I believe he will find that not only ceremonial, but also moral pollutions defiled the house of God; and that therefore such were to be kept back.  
VII. Whether Ministers under the Law had equal Jurisdiction with Ministers under the Gospel; and whether Magistrates either under the Law or Gospel had properly any Ecclesiastical power. If the former, than Priests might excommunicate under the Law for scandalous sins, which both may be done, and hath been done under the Gospel, 1 Cor. 5. & Tit. 3.10. If the latter, then let Mr. Prynn give us an express Scripture-evidence for the Magistrates power to excommunicate: or that the Church might not excommunicate (when once it had Christian Magistrates) till it had order from them.  
VIII. Whether there be any express text in all the New Testament, giving Jurisdiction by Divine right to all Ministers, Presbyteries, etc. to suspend or excommunicate all scandalous persons; yea, though they profess and protest they will never repent. If so, let Mr. Prynn produce those places, and we shall make them good also against those that being convinced of scandalous sins, do externally pretend and profess repentance in general, but give not the Church offended particular satisfaction for a particular scandal. If he can produce no such positive text, then let him speak out, that a visible Devil, though he openly profess he will live and die in his abominations, yet ought not to be denied the Sacrament, if he desire to have it: or else let him give us leave to prove our assertions by good consequences, which himself must be forced to use, for proving fare greater matters than Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction.  
IX. What rules or precedents there are in Scripture to determine matters controverted between particular Churches, or in a particular church; and if the Officers of several Churches may meet for that end, Act. 15. Why not also for relieving of parties wronged by any particular Church in way of censure; & otherwise, what relief could the Primitive Churches have had for 300 years after Christ. Who denies the last appeal to the Magistrate in case the Church either cannot, or will not do their duty; or having done their duty, yet cannot prevail with obstinate Churches or persons to reclaim them?  
X. Whether that power of censuring may justly be suspected, which of itself alone, is not fully able to redress all abuses and corruptions: and since the Magistrate cannot fully reform all abuses, and the Church power may reform all abuses, or cut off all unreformable persons from their communion, which is all God requires of his Church. In which case, if the party censured obtrude himself forcibly upon the Church and Ordinances, the C●●●●● cannot be counted either irreligious or uncivil to repel such force with force, and therein to crave the Magistrates assistance, which he cannot in conscience or equity deny. The Officers of the High Priest knew this well enough, and therefore were afraid to apprehend the Apostles forcibly, Acts 5.26.  
XI. Whether the Church, Mat. 18. v. 15, 17. being meant of Presbytery, (which Mr. Prynn seems to dislike) may not much more censure gross sins committed against God, than lesser sins committed against my brother: and whether a truly pious soul be not more offended with gross sins committed against God, than a particular wrong done unto himself. If it be meant of the Civil Magistrate, or Jewish Sanhedrin (as he pretends) there's no doubt but complaint might be made unto them of gross sins as well as of personal wrongs. And although I cannot forgive the wrong done by a scandalous sinner to an whole society; yet if his repentance appear to me being a member of that society, I both may, and aught to forgive him for my own particular: as when my brother wrongs me, I ought to forgive him the injury done myself, though I cannot forgive the wrong he doth God by the same offence.  
XII. Whether they, who have right and power to determine controversies authoritatively, have not also right to censure and suppress scandals: Otherwise those Seducers might still have gone on to trouble the Church of Antioch, notwithstanding the decrees of the Synod, had there been no power in the Church to suppress them: And if the Church had power then to judge Heresies and scandals, let Mr. Prynn show where they lost that Charter; and where Christ said the Church should have that power no longer then till he sent them Christian Magistrates; or that civil censures give a supersedeas, to Ecclesiastical censures.  
XIII. Whether that precept of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 5. for casting out the incestuous Corinthian, be not a clear & constant precedent for the like censure to be passed upon all scandalous sinners. Otherwise let Mr. Prynn give us a reason why one scandalous sin should be censured by the Church, rather than another. He that bid them purge out the old leaven, and not to eat with a scandalous brother, I think speaks plain enough, that such a person ought to be cast out. Doth not the Scripture by instancing in one particular, include all of the same kind; and must not every text be interpreted in the largest sense, unless there be some just ground of limitation? I thought it had been a good rule both in Logic and Divinity, A quatenus ad omne valet consequentia. Otherwise if his blaming them for not casting out the incestuous Corinth●n be not a just item for the Church to cast out all scandalous persons than his blaming them for not mourning for that scandalous sin, is no warning for any Church to mourn for scandalous sins committed by any of their members, 1 Cor. 5.2. I cannot see why the censure of a Magistrate should hinder Church-censures, more than the reproof of a Magistrate should hinder Church-reproof and admonition. The same offence committed both against Church and State, may justly be reproved & censured both by Church and State. As for Suspension, which he so much stickles against both in this and other places; let him show me a reason why they who have power to do the greater, may not do the lesser. He that hath power to hang; 〈…〉 also power to mulct or scourge; and why should not they have power to suspend from one Ordinance, that have power to cast out of the Church, and so to keep back from all Ordinances? (according to Mr. Prynn:) Though for my part I see not where he can clear it by Scripture that an excommunicated person must be kept from all Ordinances. To instance particularly in hearing, where is it said an excommunicated person shall not have so much as the privilege of one that is without, 1 Cor. 14.24, 25. Might an Infidel hear the Word for his conversion, and shall an excommunicated person be denied the benefit of that Ordinance? I grant by excommunication he is as an heathen, but why he may not have the privilege of one that is without, I desire Mr. Prynn to instruct me, and I shall thank him for it. For my part, I believe this opinion of his is as true as that other formerly vented by him with so much confidence, namely, that the Lords Supper is a converting ordinance. But I pray, where is there any clear Scripture evidence, either by way of precept or example, that the Lords Supper was appointed to convert, or hath converted any. We deny not but the meditation of Christ's death, the words of institution, and the Sacramental elements and actions may do much, and let Mr. Prynn show me in Scripture, why either an excommunicated person, or an infidel may not be present at all these, yet neither of them may be admitted to partake of the Ordinance, and who knows what a prevailing argument it may be for their conversion to see the children of God sitting at his Table, and themselves shut out as dogs, Luk. 13.28 That which shall work confusion at the day of judgement may now work conversion in the day of grace: yet I dare not say, every thing that may convert, is a converting ordinance; the works of God, an holy conversation, and the sufferings of the martyrs may possibly convert, and no doubt have converted many: yet whoever called them converting ordinances? They well may be occasions of converting, but it must be an express word of Institution that makes a converting Ordinance; or at least to make a thing properly a Divine Ordinance, there must be a strong and clear consequence from Scripture. And here by the way I humbly conceive that jus Divinum is of a larger extent, than either a Divine Ordinance, or a Divine institution: There is no lawful or good action, but hath a jus Divinum to justify it; and that either mandatorium, or permissivum, either in express terms, or by good (though not immediate) consequence; but this is not enough to make a Divine Ordinance. This I note the rather to take away that cavil against divers things in the Presbyterian government, as pleaded for jure Divino: the meaning is not, that every particular in that Government hath express words of Scripture immediately to make it good: nor can any Church government in the world, plead by such a Charter: but that what is held in it as of Divine right may be cleared by good consequence out of Scripture, and hath no just Scripture evidence against it. But I crave pardon for this long digression. Only I desire the Reader to observe how importunate Mr. Prynn is for us to bring express proofs of Scripture for our tenets; and yet neither hath, nor can bring one express place to prove the Lords Supper a converting ordinance; but is glad to fly to consequences, and those both weak and erroneous.  
XIV. Whether the Magistrate punishing of an obstinate offendor (at the motion of the Church, make him a mere servant or executioner to Presbyteries, Congregations, or Church-officers. If one particular Minister may in the name of God, command a Magistrate to do his duty, whether it be in matters of Religion or Justice; I see not why a company of Ministers, etc. may not desire him to punish a malefactor, which he ought to do, whether desired by them or no. It seems by Mr. prynn's inference the State of Scotland is a mere Servant and executioner to the Church; and the Presbyterian Government is like to prove as bad as that of the Pope & Prelates: such odious comparisons might with far more honour and conscience be buried in silence.  
XV. Whether may I not desire Authority to settle that jure Divino, which indeed is so (although not so apprehended by divers in Authority) and which both Parliament and people have covenanted the settling of, according to the word of God. And whether most of the Reformed Churches have not this (unlimited, arbitrary) power, as (he calls it) to censure all scandalous sinners, and that without any enumeration of particular sins, or appeal to Lay-commissioners: and so (according to M. Prynn) are in a worse case than if they were under the domineering of the Lordly Prelates.  
XVI. Whether the former abuse of the Magistrates favour, with all the evil consequences thereof, be a safe ground to deny that just power wherewithal God hath invested his Church, and of the exercise whereof we have examples in the new Testament. And whether by the same argument Magistracy itself might not be cried down, since there is no form of Government, whether inferior or superior, but hath been too too much abused to tyranny, etc. Yet I wonder withal Mr. Prynn doth not bring one instance of tyranny under the Presbyterian Government in any of the Reformed Churches: who I hope do not deserve the name of Diotrephes, nor need to be catechised by Mr. Prynn.  
To conclude therefore with him, I grant Christ's yoke is easy, but not to a carnal heart. And I desire Mr. Prynn to give one instance in practice, where the Presbyterian Government, hath been an hard yoke, unless to such who stickle for a lawless liberty of doing and speaking what they please under the notion of a pretended liberty of conscience.  
If I should make bold to add one Question more to the sixteen; namely, whether by what Mr. Prynn hath written about this and other subjects; it doth not appear that he is far better versed in Law than Gospel: it might happily be offensive; and therefore I forbear: only I shall add this, that if the Gospel prevailed more, the Law would ●● in far less request: and wish hearty the fear of this did not make too ●●●●y stickle so much against the Presbyterian Government, which if once rightly settled, I dare venture to prophesy it would cut off many needless Lawsuits, & prevent many a bitter potion. I honour both Law and Physic; yet wish with all my heart that every man were so conscientious and peaceable as there might be no need of Lawyers: and so temperate and healthful, as there might be no work for Physicians. And he that at is of another mind, I shall be bold to tell him he is in the number of those that eat up the sin of God's people, and set their hearts upon their iniquity, Hos. 4.8. How ever, I cannot but wonder at Mr. prynn's overweening confidence both in this and other writings of his about church Government. He cannot but know that the Honourable Houses of Parliament after consultation had with the Assembly of Divines, and a solemn Covenant entered into to reform the Government according to the Word, have past an Ordinance for suspension of scandalous persons from the Sacrament. And therefore it might well have become him not to write so magisterially, as if the spirit of God had left all them to come to him. Had any, being not a professed Lawyer, past as confident a vote against any Law matter determined by an Assembly of the ablest Judges and Lawyers, I should not have blamed Mr. Prynn, if he had said, Ne suitor ultra crepidam. Let himself then judge whether it be not a presumption for one that is not a Divine to vote so peremptorily against an Assembly of the most able and godly Divines in the Christian world. Hath Mr. Prynn been present at all the debates about this argument, and heard all that was argued for it in the Reverend Assembly? He might at least have suspended his Catechise, till he had seen what answer they could have given to the Queries of the Honourable House of Commons, but since he is so confident in particular against suspension: Let him answer me directly, whether none are to be suspended from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. If he say some may be suspended, let him show me an express place of Scripture to warrant it, and what persons may be suspended, and in what cases. If he hold the universal negative, than it will necessarily follow that Infants, fools, madmen, persons actually drunk, yea, very heathens and infidels ought to be admitted to the Lords Supper. If he say, all these are visibly uncapable of that Ordinance: I ask him why? for the Scripture says not in express terms, admit no infidel, madman, etc. The ground then of their non-admittance must be cleared by way of consequence, because such cannot receive worthily. It's apparent then, that visible unworthiness is a just ground of non-admission to the Lords Supper. As therefore real unworthiness should make the party forbear, so visible unworthinese is a just ground for the Church to suspend him: and that whether this unworthiness be personal or preparatory, and this latter be negative by natural incapacity, or privative by neglect, or positive by the guilt of some scandalous sin unrepented of; any of these, if known, make a person visibly unworthy. If then visible unworthiness be the causa formalis, of non-admission; then a quatenus adomne, etc. all that are visibly unworthy must be suspended. Nor can Mr. Prynn prove it by Scripture or good Logic that a general outward show of repentance, can make him visibly worthy, who by a scandalous sin hath made himself visibly unworthy; nay, did he truly repent, unless that repentance were visible, (as the scandal was) I should question his admission. He that is really worthy, may be visibly unworthy; as he that is really unworthy, may be visibly worthy.   

London, Printed by R. Cotes for Stephen Bowtell, 1646.