Diotrephes catechized: OR Sixteen IMPORTANT QUESTIONS Touching the ECCLESIASTICAL jurisdiction and Censures( contradistinct to Civill) now eagerly pretended to and challenged by a Divine Right, by some Over-rigid Presbyterians, and Independents.  
Propounded to both these D●ssenting Parties, for the further Discovery of Truth; the pres●rvation of the Civill Christian Magistrates Interest, and speedier comprimising of our present unhappy Controversies touching CHURCH-Government. On which many so over-dote, as to place the whole kingdom of Christ and substance of Religion therein; to repute all our former Reformation, a mere nothing, the Church of Christ undone, and the exercise of their Ministry, not only fruitless but unlawful, so as they cannot with good Conscience continue, but threaten to relinquish it, in case they cannot obtain their demands of such an Exorbitant power, by Divine Jnstitution, which Christ and his Apostles never claimed, exercised, nor themselves, nor Predecessors, ever formerly enjoyed, petitioned for, or pretended to in any age, but this.  
Proposed, published by W. Pryn, a Well-wisher to Verity and unity. The third Edition with some Enlargments.  LUKE 22.24, 25, 26. MAT. 20.25, 26, 27. 
And there was a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the Greatest. But Jesus called them unto him and said; ye know, that the Princes of the Gentiles Exerc●se Lordship( or Dominion) over them, and they that are great exercise Authority upon them; But it shall be so among you; But whosoever will not bee Great among you, let him be your Se●vant; Even as the son of man came, not to be ministered unto, but to Minister  1 PET. 5, 2, 3, 5. 
Feed the Flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight,( or care) thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy luchre, but of a ready mind, Neither as over-ruling, ( or being Lords over) Gods heritage, but being ensamples to the flock: Yea all of you, be ye subject one to another, and be clothed with humility; for God resisteth the Proud, and giveth Grace to the humble.  
London, Printed for Michael spark. Anno Dom. 1646.   

sixteen Jmportant Questions touching the ecclesiastical jurisdiction and Censures, Contradistinct to Civill, now challenged by a Divine Right.  
THe serious consideration of the importunate claims of a new kind of ecclesiastical jurisdiction by a pretended Divine Right, by those very men who of late so eagerly declaimed against the Old, as Antichristian and papal, when challenged by our Prelates upon the self-same grounds and Title, hath induced me to propound these few Important Questions to the over-eager prosecutors of this supposed Divine Authority, at leastwise to moderate, if not extinguish those unseasonable deplorable late kindled flames of contention, which if not timely prevented may prove more fatal to our Churches, Kingdoms, then all the former dissensions, and break forth into a new Civill war, between ourselves, when we have totally vanquished the common enemy. The Prelates deserting of their undoubted jus humanum, and unadvised challenge of a jus Divinum to advance perpetuate their Jurisdictions, and swearing men to this their Title by a new, &c. Oath, was the immediate forerunner, yea principal means of the utter subversion both of their Hierarchy and Authority. And we have cause to fear that some over-rigid Presbyterians inconsiderate zeal, in waving the presbyterial Authority vested in them by an unquestionable Ordinance of Parliament( to their full contents as most men deemed;) and resorting to a more dubious disputable( pretended) jus Divinum( formerly laid aside by both Houses of Parliament and the Assembly, though new resumed, revived,) the more highly to advance and firmly settle it in our Churches, may produce the like contrary unexpected effects: and either revive the old exploded Luciferian Episcopacy, or introduce that more feared anarchical Hydra or Bible of Independency, which they most endeavour to suppress; or at leastwise revolve the censorius or corrective power of all scandalous sins and sinners into the Civill magistrates hands, the far safest of the three: on whose behalf, I shall with the spirit of Peace and meekness propose these following Queries, both to my Presbyterian and Independent Brethren; desiring their acquiescens in, or serious answers to them after sound deliberation( laying aside all private Interests and designs, whatsoever, which may misguide their judgments) for the sifting out of that one Golden medium of sacred truth, which can onely reconcile and cordially re-unite us in the bonds of Love.  
1. Whether all scandalous sins and offences now pretended by Presbyterians or Independents to be of Ecclesiastical cognisance, be not by Gods own Institution and command( as well before, as under the Law, and through out the Old Testament,) inquirable, examinable, and to bee determined, judged onely by the temporal magistrates, or Civill powers, and punished only with temporal or corporal punishments, not by any ecclesiastical Persons Officers, or Church Censures only, distinct from civill; since, we red that the several scandalous sins of 
(a) Levit. 20.4 to 8. Deut. 13.4. to 18. c. 17.2 to 8 Josh 22.10. to 34.2 Chron. 23.17.15.13. judge 6 30, 31 1 King 18, 40. 2 King 10, 20. to 29. c. 11, 18.  Idolatry, 
(b) Exod. 21.17. Levi. 20.9. c. 24.10. to 16. 1 Kings 24.10. to 16. Dan. 3.29. Mat. 26.65.  cursing, blaspreming, 
(c) Exod. 21.14. Numb. 15. ●2, to 37.  Sabbath-breaking, 
(d) Exod. 21.15, 17. Levit. 20.9. Deutr 22 18.19, 20. josh 1.18.1. Sa. 11, ●●. Ez. 7.25.29  disobedience to Parents natural or civill, 
(e) Gen. 26.11 c. 38, 24, 25, Levit. 20.10, 15, 17, 18. Deut. 22.22 to 25 Levit. 18.6. to 30. c. 21.9 John 8, 4, 5,  whoredom, Adultery 
(f) Levit. 18.22, to 30. c. 20, 11, to 22. Exod. 22.19. judge. 20, 1. to 15  Incest, rape, Sodomy, Buggery, 
(g) Gen. 9.5.6 Exod. 21.12, 13, 14. Levit. 24, 17. Num. 35.15, to 34. 1 King 2.32 to 35  murder, 
(h) Levit. 20 27. Deutr. 18.11. 1 Sam. 28.9. 1 Deu. 21 22  Witchcraft, Sorcery, with sundry other sins, were by Gods own precept, to bee enquired after, censured, punished by the temporal Majestra e, civill Congregation, powers and People only, with civill punishments alone, as putting or stoning to death, burning, 
(i) Deut. 22.28 29.9, c 23 2, 3 2 Cor. 11, 23.24. c. 6.5. Deu. 12.47, 48. Acts 16.22.23  hanging[ k] fines, stripes and the like, but never enjoined to be examined, censured by ecclesiastical Persons, Officer, or to be punished by them with Church-censures, as Excommunication, suspension from the Passeover, Circumcision, Sacrifices, festivals, or any public Ordinances then in use, or exclusion from the Temple or Synagogues, as the marginal texts demonstrat. And more especially Ezra. 7.25.26. where King Artaxerxes sending Ezra the Priest( descended lineally from the High-Priests before him, as is evident by v. 1. to 6) up to jerusalem, with a special Commission to repair the City, Temple, restore the service of God therein, and settle the Government of that place according to the Law of God, gives him this command: And thou Ezra, after the wisdom of thy God, that is in thine hand, set magistrates and Iudges that may judge ALL THE PEOPLE that are beyond the River, all such as know the LAW OF THY GOD, and teach ye them that know them not: AND WHOSOEVER WILL NOT DO THE LAW OF THY GOD, and the Law of the King; let judgement be executed speedily against him,[ not by Ezra the Priest, or any ecclesiastical Consistory or Presbytery of Priests, with mere ecclesiastical Censures of Excommunication or suspension from the Temple, or public Ordinances of God no such Church Officers, punishments being then known, or instituted by Gods Law; but by the magistrates and Iudges appointed, who were to punish them only with temporal censures, as the following words thus resolve] Whether it be unto DEATH, or to BANISHMENT, or to CONFISCATION of GOODS or to IMPRISONMENT: the only punishments censures then inflicted on Delinquents against Gods Law, as well as against the Kings: Yea had there been any other censures ecclesiastical distinct from those temporal, which ought by any Divine Right or institution then to have been inflicted upon notorious scandalous offenders against Gods Law, by the high Priest, or any other Church Officers or Judicatory, no doubt this devout King upon this occasion would have expressly commanded Ezra the Priest himself, or those Church Officers or Judicatories to have duly executed the same when he gave him this large Commission, and extended so much extraordinary favour to him, that he cries out in the very next ensuing words, ver. 27. Blessed be the Lord God of our Fathers, who hath put such a thing as this into the Kings heart, &c. Which as it expressly determines, that this Commission and forecited direction was inspired into the Kings heart by God himself, and so most consonant to his written word and Law? so it insinuates, that by the Law of God in those dayes, all scandalous Offenders again. Gods Law were to be punished only by the civill magistrates and Judges with civill punishments, not by any ecclesiastical Officers, or judicatory, with any Church censures whatsoever. This may bee further evidenced by the Priests, Prophets Peoples, and Princes proceedings against Jeremiah, and Uriah, who for Preaching and prophesying falsely,[ as was supposed] were punished by the King & Princes, upon the Priests, Prophets, and peoples malicious accusation, only by 
* Jer. 26. throughout c. 29, 26. c. 31.33, c. 37.18, 19 c. 38. &. 39.  imprisonment and death alone, not by Church censures Church judicatories: Yea Deu. 13.5. false Prophets are expressly enjoined to be put to death by the civill magistrate, not punished by the Ecclesiastical powers with excommunications or suspentions. And it is most clear and undeniable by the 1 King 22.26, 27. 2 Chron. 16.10. c. 18.25.26. Mat. 14.3 4 5. Luk. 22.23. Acts 5.18.19. c. 8.3. c. 12.2, 3 4. c. 16.23, 24. c. 22.19.20. to 30. c. 24. & 25. & 26. 2 Cor. 6.5. Heb. 11.36.37. That both in the Old and new Testament, false Prophets, teachers and broachers of erroneous doctrines; or such who were so reputed though true, yea the Apostls & Saints of Christ, for preaching, professing the gospel and truth of God amongst the Jews and others who reputed it 
* Acts 24, 14. c. 28, 22.  heresy, schism or false doctrine, contrary to what they had formerly received were usually convented before the civill magistrates, and punished with imprisonment, stripes, putting or stoning to death, and the like, but not with excommunication, or any ecclesiastical censures of divine institution, though now made matters of mere ecclesiastical Cognisance. And if so, whether the temporal Christian magistrates and civill powers as such, have not now the self-same divine Authority to punish such sins and sinners under the gospel, onely with temporal punishments, without the interposition, examination, or Censures of any Church-Officers or Presbyteries, as the Godly temporal magistrates and civill powers had then under the Law? If not, how the contrary can be evidenced by clear Scriptures, and by what texts in particular?  
2. Whether the texts of Deut. 17.8. to 14. and 2 Chr. 19.8. to the end, do warrant any ecclesiastical jurisdiction, congregational or classical in causes merely ecclesiastical, or any mere Church censures, distinct from the civill Majestracy, and temporal censures, as 
* See Mr. Rutherfords Divine Right of Church-Government, c. 14 qu●… 10. p. 386 &c. 408. 412. 416. 505, 506. 545.  some now pretend? Whether the genuine scope and sense of these texts, hold forth any more or other jurisdiction and power in the Priests, Levites, or High Priest himself, then this: That they jointly with the temporal Judges, and chief of the Fathers of Israel not alone by themselves] should resolve( not ordinary plain, or undisputable but only] all such doubtfulll, cases, or controversies which the ordinary Judges or magistrates in their Cities held dubious, or too hard for them to determine aright between[ not scandal and scandal, or who should be excommunicated, suspended from the Ordinances, as scandalous, ignorant or unfit and who not; but between blood and blood, plea and plea, stroke and stroke,( being matters of civill controversy) in their gates; and between Law and Commandement, Statutes and judgments,( to wit the judicial written Law of God) upon whose exposition any civill doubts, or controversies should arise which the people themselves could not resolve,] whose superior resolutions they should submit to, and proceed accordingly to execution; and he that would presumptuously disobey and not submit to their sentence, was not to be excommunicated or suspended, 
* Deut. 17.12.13.  but put to death;( a mere civill censure) to terrify others. And if this only be the full sense and meaning of these texts, whether any episcopal presbiteriall, classical or congregational jurisdiction to correct scandals with mere ecclesiastical censures can bee deduced from them? Whether that speech of Jehoshaphat, 2 Chro. 19.11. And behold Amariah the chief Priest is over you in all matters of the Lord[ not scandalous sins and ecclesiastical offences committed by the Priests or people, no matters of the Lord, but sins of men, detested by the Lord;] imply or necessary enforce, that he had any ecclesiastical jurisdiction in point of judicature, to censure, punish all or any sort of scandalous sinners with Church censures] of which there is not one syllable in the text] vested in him by any divine Authority? And if so, whether it makes not more for papal and archiepiscopal, then presbyterial, classical, or congregational Authority? this power or superintendant jurisdiction over all matters of the Lord, being vested in this High Priest alone, and no other. Or rather, whether it be not clearly meant, that as King Josiah himself did by his own regal Authority appoint Judges in the Land, and in Jerusalem, in the preceding 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. and 10. verses, to determine all controversies, and punish all Offences whatsoever, according to the Laws of God and that Kingdom; so, he did by the selfsame regal authority appoint Amariah, then chief Priest, over the Priests and Levites only,( implyed 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, service, Oblations, and sacrifices of the Lord to be per. formed by them in the Temple at Jerusalem: in the self-same manner, as he set Zebadiah the ruler of the House of Judah, over all the Kings matters; in the very next ensuing words? That is,( as all consent,) not over the people and kingdom for to judge and govern them, for that the Iudges forementioned were to do; but over his household, lands, revenues as his Lord Treasurer, or Lord high Steward of the revenues of the Crown, as the comparing of it with 1 Chr. 26.30.33.[ And of the Hebronites, Hashabiah and his brethren, men of valour, a thousand and 700. were Officers among them of Israel on this side of jordan westward IN ALL BUSINESSES OF THE LORD and in the service of the King, &c. And his Brethren, men of valour were 2000. 700. chief Fathers, whom King David made Rulers over the Rubenites, Gadites, and the half Tribe of Manasseth, for EVERY MATTER PERTAINING UNTO GOD and Officers of the King, jointly: ( therefore Church Officers made by the King, and alterable at his pleasure, not by any Divine institution of God himself;) and the paralleling it with these explenatory texts, Num. c. 3. &. 4. & 18.3. to 12. 1 Chr. 9.10. to 35. c. 23. & 24. & 25. and 26. 2 Chro. 5.7. to 14. c. 8.14.15. c. 13.9.10.11.12. c. 26.16. to 21. c. 29.3. to 35. c. 30.16. c. 31.2.3.11. to 20. c. 35.2.12. Ezra. 6.17.18. Neh. 12.40. to 47. compared with Heb. 5.1, 2. For every high Priest taken from among men, is ordained for men IN THINGS PERTAINING TO GOD, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sine, &c. infallibly demonstrate? And if so, then what Divine warrant is there from hence for any such ecclesiastical Jurisdiction distinct from the temporal, as many now commend for, from these two noted texts? or for any Priests, Ministers of the gospel, or Church Officers distinct from the temporal Majestracy, to examine, correct any scandalous offences by a mere ecclesiastical power, or to punish them with Church Censures, different from civill punishments?  
3. Whether the Priests jurisdiction to judge of 
(l) Lev. c. 13. & 14.  all causes of leprosy( no scandalous sin nor offence, but a mere natural infirmity,) and that only among the Jews, yea as well in houses, garments, Vessels;[ no subjects of ecclesiastical censures] as persons: or their proceedings in the case of 
(m) Num. 5.12. to 31.  jealousy, by virtue of express special levitical or ceremonial laws( the only cases wherein the Priests were appointed to bee as sole Judges in the old Testament, whose proper office was, 
(n) Exod. 30.10. Lev. 4. and 5, c. 6, 7. c. 7, 7.8. Num. 8.19.21. c. 15.25. &c. Heb. 5.1, 2, 3.  to offer sacrifices & make atonement for sins, not to censure or punish them;] be any infallible proof of the Aaroricall Priests or Presbyteries ecclesiastical judicature or jurisdiction to censure all spiritual Leprosies of the soul with Church censures? Or of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Presbyteries or Independent Congregations to judge or censure all causes of spiritual leprosy, or scandalous offences under the gospel? And whither we may not as soundly argue from the Writ, 
* Regist. f. 267. Fit. Nat. Bre. f. 234.  De Leproso amovendo; and the Statute of 1 jac. chap. 31. as they from these Texts; Majors, bailiffs of Towns, Iustices of Peace, Constables and other Officers may lawfully remove Lepers, and shut up persons infected with the Plague of Pestilence, Ergo, they may excommunicate and suspend from the Sacrament a l such as are scandalously or notoriously infected with the leprosy and plague of sin?  
4. Whether, Deut. 13.12, 13.14. josh. 22.10. to 34. judge. 20.1. to 18. 2 Chron. 19.9. to 11. Ezra. 10.16, 17.[ where we red of temporal Officers, Princes sent and employed Commissioners, as well as Priests, to inquire after Idolaters, Idolatry, rapes, marriages with heathenish Wives, and other ecclesiastical crimes] compared together, bee not a stronger Scripture evidence for proof of the Parliaments, and Lay-Commissioners Authority, to inquire after, yea punish Idolaters and scandalous sinners, then any texts that can be produced by the Presbyterians or Independents out of the Old Testament, for probat of a divine right either in their Classes, Presbyteries or Independent Congregations to censure scandalous sins and sinners with ecclesiastical censures? And whither the Statutes of 31. H. 8. c. 10.[ appointing a Lay Vicegerent in all ecclesiastical matters] 26. H. 8. cap. 1.37. H. 8. c. 17.1. E. 6. c. 2.1. E. c. 1.[ appointing Laymen, and Lay-Commissioners, to exercise all manner of ecclesiastical jurisdiction by way of censure,] do not justify such Commissioners to be legal, as well as these texts, warrant them to be in some sort divine?  
5ly. Whether there bee any precept or president in all the Old Testament directly or punctually determining, that there was by divine institution an unquestionable ecclesiastical jurisdiction vested by God himself in Priests Levites, or any Jewish Officers, to examine witness upon Oath, convent or censure any scandalous sinners by excommunication, or suspension of them from the Tabernacle, Temple, pub ike Assemblies, Synagouges, sacrifices solemn public festivals, or other sacred Ordinances for any scandalous sin whatsoever? If so, then what are these precepts, presidents, and scandalous sins in particular? And whether it be probable they had any direct authority given them by God himself, to suspend or put back any from the Sacraments of Circumcision or the Passeover( which baptism and the Lords Supper now succeed) since both of them originally were ordered to be performed in private, by the 
(o) Gen. 17.10. to 28. c. 21 4. c 24, 22, 23, 24. Exod. 12.48. c 4.24, 25 26 Luk 2 21. Josh. 10.2, 3, 7 Acts 7.8.  Parents or Masters of the Family not Priests or Levites; and executed or eaten by them in their 
(p) Exod. 12.3, 4, 15, 21, 40 to 46. Mat. 26 17. to 26. Mar. 14, 12. to 19 Master Rutherford● due Right of Presbyteries, p. 473 474, 475.  several private houses, where the Priests and Levites had no ecclesiastical jurisdiction that we red of, and were not present at these sacred actions unless only at some few solemn general passovers at jerusalem where they were but ministerial, to 
(q) 2 Chro. 30 13. to 21. c 35 1. to 20. Ezra 6.18. to 22. 1 Cor. 10. l. to 8. compared together.  help kill the Passeover, and sprinkle the blood not magisterial, to keep any back from eating thereof, by any pretext of ecclesiastical Authority.  
6ly. Whether Ministers or Presbyteries under the gospel, have any other or greater ecclesiastical jurisdiction then the Jewish High Priest, Priests and Levites had under the Law? And whether Christian Kings, Magistrates have not as large an ecclesiastical power and Authority under the gospel, as any godly Kings or Magistrates exercised under the Law? If you answer negatively to the first and affirmatively to the latter of these demands; then how can that ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Presbyteries or Congregations, and their power of Church censures, distinct from the civill Magistracy, be any way ustified or maintained by the Scripture? If affirmatively in the first, and Negatively in the latter, then show us direct Scripture Authorities to convince our judgments of what you thus assert, or else give over your pretence of jus divinum? It is confessed both by the Presbyterians, and Independents and clear by sundry 
* See Question 1. in the Margin.  express texts, that Christian magistrates are jure Divino, and have an undoubted divine Authority, yea command to punish and cut off all scandalous sinners, Psal. 100 5.7, 8. Rom. 13.1 to 8. Pro. 20.26. Whether Presbyteries, or Independent Congregations have any divine ecclesiastical ●ight to punish them with Church censures, is very disputable and denied by many. Therefore it is the safest, readiest way to Unity and Reformation to remit the punishment of all scandalous offences to the Civill Magistrate, rather than to the pretended disputable questioned authority of Presbyteries, Classes, or Independent Congregations.  
7ly. Whether there be any express texts in all the New Testament, and what in particular, which infallibly evince an ecclesiastical jurisdiction by divine right to be settled by Christ in all Christian Ministers, Presbyteries, or Congregations and in which of them in particular, to continue un alterably in all Churches of Christ to the end of the world for the excommunication or suspension of all kinds of scandalous persons from the Sacrament, though they externally pretend and profess their sincere repentance in general? or any certain rules prescribed them in the gospel and in what particular Texts for the due e ecution of this jurisdiction in 
* I am confident there are hundreds of cases in summa Angelica, Rosella, Hostiensis, Antonius Corse●us, Tho. Ze●●●●, and other Canonist: T●● Excommunicatio, and others which will happen in our Presbyteries concerning excommunications and suspention●, for the deciding whereof there is no one rule nor Text in Scripture: Then how can their proceedings therein be Jure Divine, and regulated by Gods words.  all cases or scandals that may happen? If not whether in can probably bee imagined that Christ in his wisdom would erect, institute and rest an ecclesiastical Government in Church Officers, without prescribing them any certain rules whereby to manage it in all particulars, and leave them to proceed in an arbitrary way, according to their mere pleasures contrary to Mat. 28.19 20. If yea, then produce these texts to us for our satisfaction.  
8ly. What rules or presidents are there in Scripture to relieve parties grieved by unjust, ecclesiastical censures, either by appeals or other ways and to what superior tribunals? If no such rules or presidents appear therein; admitting Presbyteries, or Congregations ecclesiastical jurisdictions, censures to be Jure divino,] then whether by Gods own Law which provides them no relief the parties injured must not remain remediless when mo●t injuriously sentenced by any private Presbytery Classis Congregation without any help or benefit of appeal to Provincial national Synods, Parliaments or the Civill Magistrate? And if so: whether this will not introduce as many absolute tyrannies, and arbitrary tribunals,[ against which we have so much contested of late] as there are Presbyteries or Congregations: especially if wee grant them a general power of all things they themselves shall judge to bee scanda●ls, without confining them to particulars, or establish their jurisdictions by a divine right, which no mere human power or institution can control?  
Ninthly Whether if Christ hath instituted or left any exact ecclesiastical jurisdiction, discipline or power of censures to his Church distinct from the Civill Magistracy and censues this pretended jurisdiction discipline or power be so absolute and sufficient of itself alone as to bee fully able to correct redress, reform all abuses, scandals, corruptions, and suppress all Heresies, schisms Errors, Vices, arising in every Church? If not, then we may justly suspect, it is no real jurisdiction nor discipline instituted by Christ, ho would 
(r) Deut. 22.4 2 S m. 22.31. Psal. 19.7. 2 Tim. 3.17.  institute and bequeath no incompleate, nor imperfect jurisdiction, judicatory, or discipline to his best Beloved Spouse the Church: If yea, whether is that jurisdiction now contended for by Presbyterians or Independents, such? If so, then it is complete, and every way selfe-sufficient without the concurtence or assistance of the Christian Magistrate or any temporal authority to assist, maintain it, or supply its defects: But this none can truly assert nor affirm.  
For First, no Presbytery Classis or Independent Congregation hath yet challenged, not can claim by divine right, any coercive power by way of attachment, imprisonment, or fine to bring any party or witness summened so much as to appear before them, in case of wilful neglect or refusal to appear or be examined, to prepare any cause or sentence.  
Secondly In case any ecclesiastical censure of Excommunication or suspension bee inflicted by them upon scandalous person after full hearing, if they absolutely contemn the same or refuse to comform themselves, or by open violence intrude into the Congregation, Church, or force the Minister to give the Sacrament to them though excommunicated or suspended.  
Thirdly, In case any heretic schismatic, or profane person shall wilfully separate from our Congregations,( as thousands nov do) refusing to communicate with us in any Ordinances, proclaiming us to bee no Churches, and pass a schimaticall sentence o Non-Communion with us, by reason of some unjust exceptions or pretences against our Orthodox Doctrine discipline, or form of government; and thereupon refuse to appear before our Presbyteries, Congregations, or to submit unto their jurisdictions or censures; in all these and such like cases, the pretended divine ecclesiastical power, censures of Presbyteries, Classes, or Independent Congregations are at a Nonplus, and so defective, invalid of themselves to enforce obedience to such contumatious, or reduce, reclaim such heretical, schismatical, or profane persons from their obstinacy, Heresies, schisms and neglect of public Ordinances, that they are enforced to pray in aid from the Civill Magistrate by Capias excommunicatums, imprisonments fines or other such civil compulsory means the only effectual course by way of censure used in all ages to suppress, reform 
(*) I am assured a special( much desired) active Committee to examine and punish the broachers of new blasphemous heretical anabaptistical errors, and gatherers of schismatical Conventicles, and Jndictments of such as our Assizes and Sessions, would more suppress them in one month, then all ecclesiastical Judicatories in an Age. See Justinian: Cod. lib. 1. Tit. 4.6.8. & Codex. Theod: lib. 16. Where we find obstinate heretics, and schismatics, punished and suppressed by temporal Laws. 1. They were disabled to thus inherit by discent, or to purchase any Lands; to buy, sell, make any contract Will, or take any Legacy: to sue, or to be witnesses in any Court of Justice; to bear any Office, civill; or Military; to bee present at any councells or elections, or to List themselves Souldiers in the Army, whence they were cashiered when detected to bee such. Secondly, Their goods were all confiscated, or went to their next heires that were Orthodox, their persons banished, and in some cases imprisoned and put to death. Thirdly, Their heretical books were prohibited and burnt, the houses where they kept diurnal or nocturnal Conventicles confiscated, if kept there with the Owners privity or consent: If by the Tenants privity without the Land-lords, if the Tenant were poor; then he was publicly bastanadoed or whipped, if rich, then fined; and their conventicles both in Churches and private places prohibited, suppressed, under severe penalties. By these means and censures alone heretics. Heresies, schismatics have always been suppressed, restrained informer ages; but never by church censures, which they both derided and contemned. See Frid: Lindeb●ogus Codex Legum Antiqu. Leges Wisigothor, lib. 12. Tit. 2. Lex 2. Neap. 1. Tit. 1.2. Capitul: Karoli & lord: lib. 5. Tit. 183. Paul. Geschinij, Constit: Carolinae, Ruhr. 3.4, 5. with our own Statutes against Recusants, and heretics; And these will be the only means to suppress them now.  heresies, schisms, and the only way to suppress, redress them now) without which all their ecclesiastical censures, are both contemptible, ineffectual and altogether insufficient to reform abuses: So that if the Magistrates bee Infidels, heretics, or schismatics, who will not; or profane, negligent timorous or licentious persons, who care not or dare not to assist the Presbyteries Classes or Congregations enforcing submission to their Church processes, censures, they are so defective and ineffectual of themselves, that none can justly call, or infallibly prove them to be the Kingdom, sceptre, Government, discipline and censures of Christ, whereby his Church must onely bee governed, purged, reformed as some now pretend them to bee without any Scripture authority, which no where so much as once stiles Church-Discipline, Christs kingdom or sceptre.  
10ly. Whether Mat. 18.15, 16, 17.( if meant of Christian Presbyteries or Church Officers, as is pretended, not of the civill Magistracy or Jewish Sanhedrim, whereas the word 〈◇〉, which wee translate Church, both in the Old and New Testament signifieth any Assembly, as well civill and profane, as ecclesiastical, or Religious, as is clear by Acts 19.39.41. and sundry Texts of the Old Testament, as Master 
* Due Rights of Presbyteries, pag. 349. 350. and Divine Right of church Government, pag. 231.  Rutherford himself confesseth) gives any authority to them to proceed ex officio, against notorious scandalous sins( as Idolatry, Blasphemy swearing drunkenness, &c.) since it speaks not of any public scandalous offences against God and the Church, but only of private personal 
* So this word trespass is used here, and in Mat. 6.14, 15. Luke 17.3, 4. Gen. 31.36. cap. 50.17, 1. Sam. 25, 28. Though some falsely aver it is never used in Scripture but for a trespass or sin against God.  trespasses between man and man, to bee proceeded against only upon the voluntary complaint of the party offended, after previous private admonitions, and then reproofs before witnesses, yea, of such offences, which upon private satisfaction wee are to forgive 77. times, without any public complaint, or censure, Luk. 17.3, 4. Therefore not meant of mere public scandals, which no private man can remit, and no Church or Presbytery will grant that they ought to be 77. times remitted one after another, without the least suspension or excommunication, upon meet external shows of Repentance: And whether, thou hast gained thy brother, in this Text be meant properly of gaining him to God by true repentance, or only unto him who gains him, by way of reconciliation, and renewing friendship, as the phrase itself, compared with Prov. 18.19. intimates?  
11ly. Whether, Acts 15.1. to 36. where a Synod of Apostles, Elders, and Brethren met together at Jerusalem, to debate and resolve a dubious point of doctrine only about Circumcision without exercising any act of discipline or ecclesiastical censure on any scandalous person be a sound divine authority to evidence to any mans conscience, the Divine Right of Presbyteries, Classes, or Independent Congregations, to inflict ecclesiastical censures upon scandalous Delinquents, or to examine witnesses upon Oath against them, of which there is not one syllable in that text?  
12ly. Whether the precept of Paul 1 Cor. 5.13. for putting away from among them the incestuous person, written to this particular Church in this one case of incest onely, against which heinous scandalous sin,( not so much at name among the very Gentiles, ver. 1.) being then under Heathen Magistrates they could not safely complain to them of it without great scandal, nor go to Law before them for ordinary just civill things without offence as appears by the very next words, 1 Cor. 6 1. to 9. when as by the Law of God had the Magistrates there been Jews or Christians this sin of Incest was to be punished by them, not with excommunication or suspension from the Church, but death itself, Lev. 18.8. c 20.11 12. Be any satisfactory or infallible argument for the continuance & exercise of excommunication, or suspension from the Sacrament in all Churches of Christ in all succeeding ages in all other cases of sin or scandal, though the Magistrates in them be Christian, and may, yea ought to punish those sins with death or other temporal censures, if complained of? Whether those that press this text may not 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, and that they must sue onely before their Presbyteries or Congregations for mere temporal matters, because Paul then commanded the Corinthians not to go to Law before heathen Judges to prevent scandal, but only in the Church before the Saints, or such Judges as the Church should appoint them? As infer, that all scandalous persons must bee excommunicated and suspended from the Sacrament by Classes, Presbyteries, and censured only by them now, not by the Christian magistrate, because the incestuous Corinthian was then Ordered to bee put away and punished by the Church and Saints of Corinth, for want of a Christian magistrate to punish him with death, or corporal censures? Yea, whether they may not as Logically and Theologically argue from the very next chap. 1 Cor. 7.27. where Paul writes thus: I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress[ or necessity] for a man not to touch a Woman, or mary; Ergo, it is lawful, yea it is necessary for Christian men or Women in all ages, Churches of Christ to vow perpetual Virginity, and not to mary at all, as the Papists thence infer in defence of their Monks, Nons, and unmarried clergy; As reason from this Text, That Paul in regard of the Corinthians present distress and necessity for want of Christian magistrates to punish this incestuous; person with death, and civill censures adviseth the Church of Corinth, To put away from AMONG THEMSELVES that wicked person;[ or thing as some red it:] Ergo all Ministers Presbyteries and particular congregations of Christ have a divine inherent ecclesiastical right and power in them to punish not only incestuous persons, but all other scandalous sinners with excommunication, suspension from the Sacrament, and other Church censures, even when and where there is no such necessity nor defect of Christian Magistrates but sufficient store of them both able and willing to punish such with civill punishments answerable to their crimes and scandals? This is all that can bee extracted from this Text, whereon they most rely; which must needs bee a gross inconsequent, because no apostolical advice to any one particular Church upon a private extraordinary occasion and necessity only, can or ought to bee a general binding Law or Institution of Christ to oblige all other Churches whatsoever in the like, or any other cases, where there is no such extraordinary occasion or necessity; As is clear by one pregnant evidence in the 16. chap. of this very Epistle, v. 1.2. concerning the Collection then advised to be made for the Saints, by the Corinthians on every first day of the week, or weekly; which being but a particular advice and direction to this Church for that one Collection; is 
* See truth triumphing over falsehood, p. 155. 156.  no binding Law or Rule to all other Churches of Christ strictly to imitate in all their ensuing Collections, as is evident by Acts 13.28.29 30. 2 Cor. 8.1. to 21. c. 9.1. to 15. Rom. 13.25.26. Philip. 4.14. to 20. Else no Church could since appoint any public monthly collections on week dayes, or fasting dayes, but only weekly Collections on the Lords day, under pain of transgressing the institution of Christ and this Apostle; which none dare aver: However, since the Apostle writes not here to any Classis, Presbytery, or Presbyter, but to the whole Church at Corinth; TO PUT AWAY FROM AMONG THEMSELVES, that wicked person:[ that is, to servile him wholly from their Congregation, Church, Company, and not so much as to eat at their Tables or keep any company with him at all, as is evident by ver. 7.9 11.] not to suspend him only from the Lords Supper of which there is not one fillable in this cha. nor of any such suspension in the 10. and 11. chapters where he purposely treats of this Sacrament] we may well question whether it makes not more against Presbyteries and Classes divine power of Excommunication, and a bare suspension of scandalous persons from the Lords Supper only, without secluding them from all other Ordinances and Church Assemblies as well as it, then for them, it being contrary to the very definition and practise of Excommunication hitherto known and used in the Church, to excommunicate a notorious scandalous person from the Lords Supper only once a month, a quarter, a year, for fear of infecting others, and yet to admit him daily or weekly to join with the Church in all other Ordinances but it alone; when all[ 
a Alexan. Alensis sum. Theol: pa. s 4. qu. 21.22. Sotus in 4. Sent. dist. 22. Thomas, Richardus, Paludanus, Durandus; in 4. sent. dist. 18. p. Bins. fe●ldius Enchi. rid Theolog: pars 5. c. 1. ] Schoolmen[ 
(b) Gratian cause. 11. qu. 3. Summa Angelica, & Rosella Tit. Excommunicatio Hostiensi●. Sum. l. 5. Tit. De Senten: Excom. Antonius Corsetus. Tit. Excom. Bochellus, Decret. Eccles. Gal 2. Tit. 14. c 2 Thes. 3.14. 2 John 10.11. 2 Tim 2.17. Tit. 1.13. c. 3.10. Rom. 11, 3. John 10.16.17. John 9.22.32, 33. cap. 12 42. c. 16.2. Numb. 5.2, 3.4. c. 21.14, 15. D ut. 23.1.2, 3 ] Canonists resolve, that excommunication[ especially that they call mayor Excommunication] excludes men, not onely from the Sacrament but likewise from entering into the Church, the very society and prayers of the faithful, and those who witting keep company, buy or sell with such are to be ipso facto excommunicated; Whereas many now pretend it should servile men from the Lords Supper onely, but not from any other Ordinance, contrary to this, to( c) other Texts produced by our opposites for proof of Excommunication, and all sound Antiquity.  
13ly. Whether there bee any ground or example at all in Scripture to enjoin the civill Christian Magistrate, in cases of obstinacy contumacy against Church censures inflicted by Presbyteries or Congregations to become a meet servant and executioner to Presbyteries, Congregations or Church Officers,( as the Pope and Prelates anciently made them, to enforce Obedience to their censures by imprisonment or other coercive means without any particular examination of the merits of the cause, or justice of the proceedings? Whether such ministerial execution of their censures, if admitted, do not necessary subject the people to a double jurisdiction, vexation for one and the self-same scandalous crime which may prove more intolerably oppressive to them then the most exorbitant country Committees or Prelates consistories if not exactly bounded, & subordinate the Maj●stracy to the ministry, Presbyteries & particular congregations in point of Authority? which if obliged by any divine Law to see Church censures executed and enforce obedience to them, then certainly Christian magistrates as such, must either be Church Officers as well as Ministers or Lay-Elders;( the rather, because all Precepts given to magistrates themselves in Scripture are given only to such 
* See Deut. 17.14, to 21. 2 Sam. 7.8, c. 32.1, 3. 1 Kings 17.9. 2 Chron. 9.8. c. 19.5. to 11. c. 1.9. to 13. Isay 49.23.  Godly or Christian magistrates who believe, embrace the Scriptures, and are Members of a visible Church or Christian state, as such, not to any Infidels or heathen magistrates as heathenish, or mere magistrates out of the Church, as some grossly mistake, else they were not obliged by Gods Law to see Church censures executed, obeied, submitted too, if no Church Officers.  
And whether the Antiqueries by affirming, it is the Magistrates duty to punish an obstinate Offender, at the motion of the Church or of one particular Minister which he ought ●o do whether desired by them or no: doth not thereby grant that the power of punishing obstinate scandalous sinners, even for pretended Ecclesiastical Offences, belongs properly to the Christian Magistrates, not to ecclesiastical Consistories and Presbyteries?  
14ly. Whether it be not more agreeable to the word of God, the Rules of Justice, and more conducing to the Churches peace for the Civill magistrate juditially to examine punish all pretended scandalous persons with temporal censures, and then( if they still continue impenitent to certify the proofs taken before him to the Presbytery, Classis, or Congregation, upon their request, for their conviction there, to ground an Excommunication or suspension upon, if there be cause: then to give them immediate power to examine all scandals themselves upon Oath; without first acquainting the Civill magistrate with it, or desiring his antecedent examination of the scandals, of purpose to subject them to Church censures? Since we red of no such Examinatious upon Oath practised by Presbyteries, Church Officers, or particular Congregations among the Jews or Christians in Scripture: which if taken in writing and recorded( as they ought to bee, that so they may be scanned upon appeals) there must then be a particular Examiner or Register at least appointed in every Presbytery, Classis and provincial Synod to record them; for which they will expect a constant Fee from the Church or State or an answerable recompense from the parties accusing or accused;( which cannot be settled without Act or Ordinance of Parliament being new Fees and Offices) and so it will draw a very great unnecessary charge( far greater then that of Bishops and their officials) upon the people, which they will unwillingly bear. In which regard it is fittest the civill magistrates or Justices of Peace should only take the Examinations of scandals, as they do in cases of Felony and other scandalous crimes, and certify them to the presbytery, or Classis, as there shall be need.  
15ly. Whether it be not both unjust and unreasonable to press the Parliament to settle any kind of Church government, as prescribed Jure divino, before it be clearly demonstrated or manifested to their judgments and consciences to be so, by perspicuous undeniable proofs from Scripture? Or to importune them to grant any unlimited arbitrary power to Classes, Presbyteries, or Congregations, to judge of or censure unknown contingent scandals[ never yet thus censured from Adams dayes till now] before they can so much as conjecture what they are, or where ever they will bee perpetrated in our Churches? since offences always use to( 
h Lev. 24.10.10 27. Num. 25.32, 37. ) preceded laws made to punish them; and ex malis moribus optimae oriuntur leges, as all politicians have resolved? whether the demanding of such an unlimited power to bee now established, be not as bad, yea more unreasonable then the late Prelates &c. Oath( most justly damned, declaimed against, and savours not more of wilfulness then conscience, of the spirit of( 
i 1 John 3 9.10, 11. ) Diotrephes, then of Christ, of whose kingdom some pretend it to be a most necessary and inseparable Branch? Whether any Prophet, Apostle, godly Presbyter private Congregation or Classis in the primitive Church, ever solicited their Princes or Parliaments for such an exorbitant unlimited power, and who in particular? Or whether any reformed Churches beyond the Seas do at this day claim, or really enjoy, execute any such an indefinite Arbitrary power( as some falsely pretend they do) and what Churches in particular?  
16. Whether Christian Princes and magistrates 
k See justin. Cod. l. 1. Tit. 7. De Episcopali Audientia Capit Caroli & Ludovici Jmp. l. 6. c. 301 313.314, 322.323, 326, 330. lib. 1. throughout. Leges Wisigoth, l. 2. c. 29, 30.  indulging of overmuch power, honour and ecclesiastical Authority in point of Jurisdiction Church censures. and excommunication in former ages to the clergy, under this apprehension persuasion, that they were most pious, conscientious, holy, moderat, just and humble persons, who would exercise it for Gods glory only, and the Churches good; hath not been the true original cause of all that Antichristian Tyranny, persecution, exorbitances of Popish Prelates, and clergymen, which have overspread, corrupted, infested the Church and people of God? And whether former examples of this kind may not justly lesson us to beware of the like error for the present though our Ministers who claim this Ecclesiatiicall Jurisdiction now contested for by a Divine Right be never so godly, upright, discreet, humble, conscientious, since we know not wha● many of our Ministers, Elders who must exercise it in the Country are for the present; or what the best of them all or their successors at least may prove for the 
l Acts 20.29, 31 2 King 8.12. Eccles. 2.19, 18.  future,( 
m Gen 3.5, 6.3. John 9.10. ) ( ambition being mans first sin, and most pleasing to our corrupt natures, as we see by the example of [ m] Christs own Apostles, 
n Mat. 20.20. to 29. Luk. 22.24. to 31:  and daily experiences every where especially when they have engrossed more ecclesiastical power into their hands by pretext of a Divine Right, then ever the express Law of God or Christ himself in his gospel hath delegated to them. It is very observable, that while the[ 
(o) See Philip de Morney his Mystery of iniquity, Carolus Molinaeus, Commentar in Edict: Henrici secundi, &c. c ntra parvas datas, &c. abbess uspergensis Platina & Bulaeus de vitis Pontificum Romanorum: Grimstons imperial History.  Popes claimed their Papacy and superiority over other Churches by grants and donations from the Christian Emperors of Rome, they were very humble, loyal, and obsequious to them. But after the long enjo ment of their transcendent jurisdiction by imperial donations had so far puffed them up with pride as by degrees to desert their true ancient claim, and challenge both their Papacy and Supremacy by a Divine Right from Christ himself by wresting divers Scriptures to their purpose[ and some of those among others which our Divines now principally insist upon.] they presently cast off both their subjection and Loyalty to the Emperors at once; and so prosecuted them with excommunications, Interdicts, suspentions, rebellions, force of arms, and parties raised against them in their own Empires; that at last they quiter trampled them under their f eat, disposing of their Crownes at pleasure, making them swear so emne homage to them as their vassals, and to hold their imperial Crownes from them alone, who formerly did homage to and held their bishoprics, with all the papal jurisdiction they enjoyed only from them: Yea if our Presbyteries. Classes or Independent Congregations shall bee admitted to hold and enjoy all the ecclesiastical jurisdiction they now pretend to, by a Divine Right; and the Parliament their power, authority, onely by a mere human institution and not by as clear a Divine Right as theirs; the next consequence I fear will be( and we see it already maintained in some[ 
(x) Mr. Rutherford.  Presbyterians and more[ 
(y) Mr. John Goodw●n. Master Henry Burton. Master Saltmarsh. Mr. Robinson and others. ] Independents printed books;) That our Parliaments Kings and temporal magistrates must have not king at all to do with Church Officers, or Church government by way of direction, correction, or app●… a●e, but merely as their subordinate Ministers, to ratify their determination● and enforce obedience to their censures; which if they neglect or refuse to do or stop their proceedings by any Prohibitions or legal course, for ought I know, when their Divine pretended authority is settled to their minds, the next thing they shal hear of will bee; that which ●ur Kings, Judges, and Officers, did heretofore from our Clergy in Archbishop 
* Eindwode, Provinc. lib. 5. Tit. de Paenis f. 226. &c. Jo. de Aton. Const. f. 138. to 142.  Boniface his time, when they opposed their extravagances even a serious admonition to obey their dictates and after that an I●te●diction of all their Lands, Castles. towns with a suspension of them from the Sacrament, or excommunication from or Non-communion with their Congregations for this Contumacy: And then Lord have mercy upon us miserable sinners we may sooner bewail then remove that spiritual yoke of bondage which we thus suffer voluntarily to be imposed both in our own and others neck●. It being a very difficult task and work of many ages to moderate abat 〈…〉 late or suppress any ecclesiastical jurisdiction, though never so exo●…ant especially if once legally settled, or but encroached by colour of a Divine Right, as wee see by the Papacy and our late exploded Prelacy.  
I shal therfore close up a l with the Apostles seasonable advice, Gal 5.1. Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free and be not again entangled with any yoke of bondage, which Christ himself hath not imposed on us by a clear and evident institution in his word: Christs 
* Matth. 11.30  yoke is easy, and his burden light, to which all people must with cheerfulness submit: if the Presbyterians yoke, in suspending men from the Sacrament for all kind of supposed scandals, though they profess unfeigned penitence for all their sins, and eaenestly desire to receive it; or the Independents yoke, in non-admitting or secluding those from their Congregations whom they judge not real Saints, or will not subscribe to their private Church Covenants, and denying all benefit of appeals to any superior judicatories paramount their own private Congregations,( without any express precept or president in Scripture, to warrant these their practices, proceedings) bee not such, wee may justly suspect and reject them too, as none of Christs.  
FINIS.