CHAP. I. That if the Erastians could prove what they alledge con­cerning the Iewish Church Government, yet in that particular the Iewish Church could not be a president to the Christian.

OBserving that very much of Erastus his strength, and much of his followers their confidence, lie [...]h in the old Testament, and Jewish Church, which (as they averre) knew no such distinction, as Civill Government, and Church Government; Civill Justice, and Church Discipline; I have thought good, first of all, to remove that great stumbling-block, [Page 2] that our way may afterward lie fair and plain before us. I doe heartily acknowledge, that what we finde to have been an Ordinance, or an approved practice in the Jewish Church, ought to be a rule and patterne to us, such things onely excepted which were typicall, or temporall, that is, for which there were speciall 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 State­government, and that the Jewes had never any supreame Sanhe­drin but one onely, and that civil, and such as had the temporall coercive power of Magistracy (which they will never be able to prove) yet there are divers con [...]iderable reasons, for which that could be no president 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 certaine, 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 chiefe 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 chiefe of the Fathers of Israel, for the judgement of the Lord, &c. 2 Chro. 19. 8.

Secondly, the people of Israel had Gods own Judiciall Law given by Moses, for their civill Law: and the Priests and Levites in stead of civill Lawyers.

Thirdly, the Sanhedrin did punish no man, unlesse admoni­tion had been first given to him for his amendment. Maimon. de fundam. legis cap. 5. sect. 6. (yea saith Gul. Vorstius upon the [Page 3] place, though a man had killed his parents, the Sanhedrin did not punish him unlesse 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 it self tels us ad tit. Sanhedrin cap. 5. sect. 1.

Fourthly, the Sanhedrin respondebat de Jure, did interpret the Law of God, and determine controversies, concerning the sence and intent thereof. Deut. 17. 8, 9, 10, 11. and it was on this man­ner as the Ierusalem Talmud in Sanhedrin cap. 10. sect. 2. re­cords. There were there (in Ierusalem) three assemblies of Iudges: one sitting at the entry to the mountaine of the Sanctuary: another sitting at the doore of the Court: the third sitting in the Conelave made of cut stone. First, addresse was made to that which sate at the ascent of the mountaine of the Sanctuary: then the Elder (who came to represent the cause which was too hard for the Courts of the Cities) said on [...]his manner. I have drawne this sence from the holy Scripture, my fellows have drawn that sence. 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 Iudges sitting at the doore 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 roome of cut stone (which was in the Temple) from the morning to the evening daily sa­crifice. The Sanhedrin did judge cases of Idolatry, apostasie, false Prophets, &c. 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 civill Magistracy, then I aske where is that Christian State, which was, or is, or ought to be moulded according to this patterne. Must Ministers have vote in Parliament? Must they be civill Lawyers? must all criminall and capitall Judgements be according to the Judiciall Law of Moses, and none otherwise? Must there be no civill punishment, without previous admonition of the offender? Must Parliaments sit, as it were in the Temple of God, and interpret Scripture, [Page 4] which sence 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 paralell made with the Jewish Sanhedrin. I know some divines hold, that the Judiciall Law of Moses, so far as concerneth the punishments of sins against the morall [...]aw, Idolatry, blasphemy, Sabbath-breaking, adul­tery, theft, &c. ought 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 shewing, what must follow, if the Jewish Government be taken for a pr [...]sident, without making a dis [...]inction 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 civill 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 Jewes had but one Sanhedrin, yet there was such an intermixture [...]of Civill and Ecclesiasticall 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 sute to our Civill nor to our Ecclesiasticall Courts. Nay, while the Erastians appeale to the Jewish Sanhedrin (sup­pose it now to be but one) they doe thereby ingage themselves to grant unto Church officers a share at least (yea a great share) in Ecclesiasticall government: for so they had in the Supreme Sanhedrin of the Jewes.

And further the Jewes 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 Ierusalem: in which assembly were others beside those of the Sanhedrin. Of the men of the great Synagogue I read in Tze­mach David pag. 56. [...]dit. Hen. Vors. that they did receive the [Page 5] 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, Pries [...]s, and Scribes of the Law of God had an interest in the Synagoga magna after the Captivity, so we read of occasionall and extraordinary Ecclesiasticall 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 chiefe Priests and Scribes, Matth. 2. 4. I conclude, that if it should be granted there was no Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin among the Jewes, distinct from the civill, yet as the necessity of a distinct Ecclesiasticall Government among us, is greater then it was among them (in respect of the foure considerations above mentioned) so likewise the Priests had a great deale more power and authority in the Jewish Church, (not onely by oc­casionall Synods, but by their interest in Synagoga magna, and in the civill Sanhedrin it selfe) then the Erastians are willing that Church officers should have in the Christian Church.

CHAP. II. That the Iewish Church was formally distinct from the Iewish State or Common-wealth.

IT hath been by some (with much confidence and scorne of all who say otherwise) averred that Excommunication and Church-government distinct from the Civill, hath no patterne for it in the Jewish Church. I am sure (saith M ^r Coleman in [Page 6] his Brotherly examination re-examined, pag. 16.) the best reformed Church that ever was went this way, I meane the Church of Israel, which had no distinction of Church government and Civill govern­ment. Hast thou appealed unto Caesar? unto Caesar shalt thou goe. Have you appealed to the Jewish Church? thither shall you goe. Wherefore I shall endeavour to make these five things appeare: 1. That the Jewish Church was formally [...] from the Jewish State. 2. That there was an Eccle [...]iasticall Sanhedrin and Government distinct from the Civill. 3. That there was an Ecclesiasticall Excommunication, [...] from Civill pu­nishments. 4. That in the Jewish Church there was also a pub­like exomologesis or declaration of repentance, and thereupon a reception or admission againe of the offender to fellowship with the Church in the holy things. 5. That there was a sus­pension of the prophane from the Temple and Passeover.

First, the Jewish Church was formally di [...]tinct 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 lawes; the Ceremoniall Law was given to them in reference to their Church state, the Judiciall Law was given to them in reference to their Civill State. Is. Abrabanel de capite fidei cap. 13. putteth this difference between the Lawes given to Adam and to the sonnes 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 Judiciall or civill Laws. But the divine Law given by Moses, doth direct the soule to its last perfection and end. I doe not approve the difference which he puts between these Lawes. This onely I note, that he distinguisheth Judiciall or Civill Laws for conservation of society, (though given by God) from those Laws which are given to perfect the soule, and to direct it to its last end, such as he conceives the whole morall and ceremoniall Law of Moses to be▪ Halichoth Olam tract. 5. cap. 2. tels us that such and such Rabbies were followed in the ceremoniall Lawes: other Rabbies followed in the Judiciall Lawes. 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 [Page 7] give thanks, nor receive the Sacraments as that State, but as that Church. They did not punish evill doers by mulcts, im­prisonment, banishment, burning, stoning, hanging, as that Church, but as that State. 3. In respect of controversi [...]s; some causes and controversies did concerne the Lords matters, some the Kings matters, 2 Chro. 19. 11. To judge between blood and blood was one thing. To judge between Law and Com­mandement, between Statut [...]s and judgements; that is, to give the true sence of the Law of God when it was controverted, was another thing. 4. In respect of Officers: the Priests and L [...]vites 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 Priests office. 5. In respect of continuance, when the Romans tooke away the Jewish State and civill Government, yet the Jewish Church did remaine, and the Romans did permit them the liberty of their religion. And now though the Jewes have no Jewish State, yet they have Jewish Churches. Whence it is, that when th [...]y tell where one did or doth live, they doe not mention the Town, but the Church: In the holy Church at Uenice, at Frank­ford, &c. 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 Ioshua, under the Iudges, 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 De Iure natur. & Gentium lib. 2. cap. 4. Prosely [...]us Iu­stitiae utcunque novato patriae nomine Iudaeus dice [...]etur, non tam quidem [...] Iudaicus simpli­citer censendus [...]sset qu [...]m 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, Baptisme, and Sacrifice: and they were allowed not onely 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 Jewes: neverthelesse they were res [...]rained and secluded from Dignities, Magistracies and preferments in the Jewish Republique, 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 priviledge of Roman Citizens. Thus M. Selden, who [Page 8] hath thereby made it manifest, that there was a dis [...]iuction of the Jewish Church and Jewish State, because those Proselytes Buxtorf. lexic. Chald. Talm. & Rabbin pag. 408 Proselyti justi­tiae sunt qui non rerum externa­rum, sed solius religionis causâ, & gloriae Dei studio, religionem Iudaicam amplectuntur, & totam legem Mosis dicto modo recipiunt. Hi natis Iudaeis habentur aequales: understand in an Ecclesiasticall, not in a Civill capacity. In which sence also Matthias Martinius in lexic. philol. pag. 2922. saith that these Proselytes, cum ad sacrorum Iudaicorum communionem admit [...]ebantur, &c. veri Iudaei censebantur: and that to be made a Proselyte, and to be made a Jew, are used promiscuously in the Rabbinicall writings. So also Drusius praet. l. 4. in Io. 12. 20. being imbodied 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 Civill priviledges: Whence it is also that the names of Jewes and Proselytes were used distinctly, Acts 2. 10.

CHAP. III. That the Iewes had an Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin and Go­vernment distinct from the Civill.

I Come to the second point, that there was an Ecclesiasticall government, and an Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin among the Jews. This distinction of the two Sanhedrins, the Civill and the Ecclesiasticall, is maintained by Zepperus de polit. eccles. l. 3. cap. 7. Iunius in Deut. 17. Piscator ibid. Wolphius in 2. Reg. 23. Gerhard Harm. de pass. cap. 8. G [...]dwin Moses and Aaron lib. 5. cap. 1. Bucerus de gubern. eccl. 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 professours of Groning. (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 onely adde the Testimony of Constantinus L'Empereur, a man singularly well acquainted with the Jewish antiquities, who [Page 9] hath expressed himselfe 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 Caete [...]ùm su­premus Senatus cujus in hoc con­cl [...]visedes, du­plex fuisse vide­tur, pro [...]erum Ecclesi [...]ticarum & politicarum diversitate: quonia [...] Deut 17. 12. ubi de supremis Senatoribus agi­tur, manisestè Sacerdos d Iudice distinguitur; ad sacerdotema [...]t ad Iudicem i. e. Sacerdotes aut Iudices, ut com. 9. inaicio est, ubi pro Sacerd [...]te ponuntur Sacerdotes. Adde Ieboshaphatum, cum Iudicia Hic­rosolymis restaura [...]et, duos ordines conflituisse, Sacerdetes & Capita samilia [...]um, ad judicium Dei & ad litem: similiter duos praes [...]les com 11. un [...]m ad omnem causam Dei: alterum scilicet duce [...] Iudaeorum 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. Iomae, eadem distinctio his verbis confirmatur (ubi de [...] Sacerdotis magni ad diem expiatio­nis agitur) tradunt eum Seniores d [...]mus Iudicii, Senioribus Sacerdotii. Margin, expressing not only his opinion, but the ground of it.

And it is no obscure footstep of the Ecclefiasticall Sanhe­drin, Propter meri­tum assess [...]rum Sy [...]edrii, qui oc­cupati sunt in lege, & illuminant Iudicium. Et descendit in Babyloniam ad concilium Sapientum. I [...] non fuit Synedrium Iudicum & 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 Ecclesiasticall 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 controversie among Interpre­ters who those seventy Elders were. Iu Exod. 24. Quaest. 3. Tostatus maketh it cleare, that they were not the seventy Elders chosen for the govern­ment of the Common-wealth, Num 11. Nor yet the Judges chosen by the advice of Iethro, 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 comming out of Egypt. But on the twenty day of the second moneth, in the second yeere, they tooke their journey from Sinai to the Wildernesse of Paran, Num. 10. 11, 12. and there [Page 10] pitched at Hibroth-hattaavath Num. 33. 16. where the seventy Elders were chosen to relieve Moses of the burthen 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 Ie­thros advice Exod. 18. Iethro himselfe not having come to Moses till the end of the first yeere, or the beginning of the second yeere after the comming 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 Iethro should in the space of three daies, heare that Moses and the people of Israel were in the wilder­nesse of Sinai, and come there unto them, that Moses should goe forth and meet him, and receive him, and entertaine him; that Iethro should observe the manner of Moses his government, in litigious judgement from morning till evening, and give counsell to rectifie it; that Moses should take course to helpe it; how could all this be done in those three daies, which were also appointed for sanctifying the people against the receiving of the Law? Therefore In Exod. 18. Quest. 2. he concludeth that the story of Iethro Exod. 18. is an anticipation. Lastly, he saith, the seventy Elders mentioned Exod. 24. could not be Judges who did judge the people before Iethro came, because Iethro did observe the whole burthen 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 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 avoyd the dan­ger of popular anarchy. authority in judging controversies, wherein Aaron or Hur were to preside vers. 14. They are joyned 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 Ju­diciall lawes, Exod. 21. & 22. & 23. and that 24 Chapter is a transition to the ceremoniall lawes concerning the worship of God, and structure of the Tabernacle, which are to follow. Neither had the seventy Elders (of which now I speake) any share of the Supreme civill Government, to judge hard Civill causes, and to receive appeals concerning those things from the inferiour Judges; for all this did still lie upon Moses [Page 11] 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 lesse then a solemne interesting and investing of them into an Ecclesiasticall authority.

The next proofe for the Ecclesiasticall Sanhed [...]in 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 civill Court of Judges, and the autho­rity of the civill Sanhedrin is mainly grounded on this very Text. Now if this Text hold forth a superior civill Jurisdi­ction (as is universally acknowledged) it holds forth also a superior Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction distinct from the Civill. 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 inferiour Courts to those at Ierusalem. 1. capitall causes. 2. mulcts. 3. leprosie, and the judgement of clean or unclean. Now this third belon­ged to the cognizance and judgement of the Priests. Yea the Text it self holdeth forth two sorts of causes, and controversies, some forensicall between blood and blood: some ceremoniall between stroke and stroke; not onely Hierome, but the Chaldee, and Greek, readeth, between leprosie and leprosie. Grotius noteth, the Hebrew word is used for leprosie, many times in one chap­ter, Lev. 13. Plea and plea seemeth common to both, there be­ing difference of judgement concerning the one and the other. 3. Here are two Iudicatories 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 plurall V. 9. the like must be understood of the Iudge, whereby we must understand Iudges, 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 [Page 12] so you have there, references of difficult cases from inferior Courts, to the Priests or to the Judges at Ierusalem. 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 (its 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 add [...]th 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 onely end avour to satisfie 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 doe presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the Priest, or unto the Judge, even that man shall die. Which proves, Eros [...]us Con­firm th [...]s. lib. 4 cap. 3 M [...]ses [...] ait, inter­sici [...]dum [...]sse illum, qu [...] vel [...], sen­temiae 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 controver [...]e ceremoniall, between leprosie and leprosie, or between clean and unclean, Lev. 10. 9, 10, 11. Ezech. 22. 26. or dogmaticall and doctrinall, concerning the sence of the Law, and answering de Jure, when the sence of the Law was contro­verted by the Iudges of the Cities, then he that would not stand to the sentence of the Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin, whereof the high Priest was pre [...]dent, was to die the death. But if the cause was criminall, as between blood and blood, wherein the nature or proofe of the fact, could not be agreed upon, by the Judges of the Cities, then he that would not submit to the decree of the civill Sanhedrin at I [...]rusalem should die the death. And thus the English Divines in their late annotations, give the sence 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 [Page 13] if the just sentence of a competent Judge be contemned in secular effaires.

In the third place, we read that David did thus divide the Levites (at that time eight and thirty thousand) foure and twenty thousand of them were to set forward the work of the house of the Lord, foure thousand were porters, and foure 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 lookt 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 sonnes were for the outward businesse 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 Me [...]ochius in 1. Paral. 23. 4. idem sunt prae­positi & Iudi­ces, 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 controversie 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 keepe 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 businesse which came from without to Ierusalem, 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 Ierusalem, but some of them in severall Cities of the Land, that there might be the easier accesse 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 Ecclesiasticall Sanh d [...]in at Ierusalem. However the Levites had a ruling power, and Deut. 31. 28. those who are schoterim in the origi­nall, 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 [Page 14] in Israel, except the Levites onely; 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 ministred to the King by course, & the Captains over the thousands, &c. Nor yet wil 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 civill 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 Ecclesiasticall Government, besides the Civill and Military? I grant those Levites did rule and judge not one­ly in all the businesse of the Lord, but also in the service of the King, 1 Chro. 26. 30, 32. But the reason was, because the Jewes had no other civill Law, but Gods owne Law, which the Priests and Levites were to expound. So that it was proper for that time, and there is not the like reason that the Ministers of Jesus Christ in the New Testament should judge or rule in civill affairs: (nay it were contrary to the rule of Christ and his Apostles for us to do so) yet the Levites their judging and gover­ning in all the bufines of the Lord, is a patterne left for the entru­sting of Church officers in the New Testament with a power of Church government: there being no such reason for it, as to make it peculiar to the old Testament, and not common to the New.

The fourth Scripture which proves 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 Ecclesiasticall govern­ment and Sanhedrin, is 2 Chro. 19. 8, 10, 11. where Iehoshaphat restoreth the same Church government, which was first insti­tuted by the hand of Moses, and afterward ordered and setled by David. Moreover (saith the Text) in Jerusalem did Jehoshaphat set of the Levites, and of the Priests, and of the chiefe of the Fa­thers of Israel, for the judgement of the Lord, and for controver­sies, &c. It is not controverted whether there was a civill San­hedrin at Ierusalem, but that which is to be proved from the place, is an Ecclesiasticall Court, which I prove thus. Where there is a Court made up of Ecclesiasticall members, judging Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall causes, for a Spirituall and Eccle­siasticall end, moderated by an Ecclesiasticall president, having power ultimately and authoritatively to determine causes and [Page 15] controversies brought before them by appeale or reference from inferiour Courts; and whose sentence is put in execution by Ecclesiasticall officers; There it must needs be granted that there was a supream Ecclesiasticall court, with power of Government. But such a Court we finde at Ierusalem in Iehoshaphats time. Ergo. The Proposition I suppose no man wil deny. For a Court so con­stituted, so qualified, and so authorised, is the very thing now in debate. And he that will grant us the thing which is in the assumption, shall have leave to call it by another name if he please. The assumption I prove by the parts. 1. Here are Le­vites and Priests in this Court, as members thereof, with power of decisive suffrage, and with them such of the chiefe of the Fathers of Israel, as were joyned in the government of that Church; Whence the Reverend and learned Assembly of Di­vines, and many Protestant Writers before them have drawn an argument for Ruling Elders. And this is one of the Scrip­tures alledged by our Divines against Bellarmin, to prove that others beside those who are commonly (but corruptly) called the Clergy ought to have a decisive voyce in Synods.

2. Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall causes were here judged: which are called by the name of the judgement of the Lord, V. 8. and the matters of the Lord distinguished from the Kings matters, V. 11. so V. 10. beside controversies between blood and blood, that is, concerning consanguinity and the interpreting of the Laws concerning forbidden degrees in marriage, (it being observed by interpreters that all the lawfull or unlawfull degrees are not particularly expressed, but some onely, and the rest were to be judged of by parity of reason, and so it might fall with­in the cognizance of the Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin.) Though it may be also expounded otherwise, between blood and blood, that is, Whether the murther was wilfull or casuall, (which was matter of fact) the cognisance whereof belonged to the civill Judge; It is further added between Law and Commandement, Statutes and Judgements: noting seeming contradictions between one Law and another, (such as Manasseb Ben Israel hath spoken of in his Conciliator) or when the sence and meaning of the Law is controverted, (which is not matter of fact, but of right) where­in speciall use was of the Priests whose lips should preserve [Page 16] knowledge and the Law was to be sought at his mouth, A [...]al. 2. 7. and that not onely ministerially and doctrinally, but judi­cially and in the Sanhedrin at Ierusalem, such controversies concerning the Law of God were brought before them, as in 2 Chro. 19. the place now in hand. Yea shall even warn them, &c. Which being spoken to the Court, must be meant of a syne­dricall Decree, determining those questions and controversies concerning the Law, which should come before them. As for that distinction in the Text of the Lords matters and the Kings matters, Erastus page 274. saith that by the Lords matters is meant any cause expressed in the Law, which was to be judged. Whereby he takes away the distinction which the Text makes; for in his sence the Kings matters were the Lords matters. Which himselfe (it seems) perceiving, he immediately yeeldeth our interpretation, that by the Lords matters are meant things pertaining to the worship of God; and by the Kings matters, civill things. Si per illas libet res ad cultum Dei spectantes, per haec res civiles accipere, non pugnabo. If you please (saith he) by those, to understand things pertaining to the worship of God, by these, civill things, I will not be against it.

3. It was for a Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall end, ye shall even warne them that they trespasse not against the Lord. Its not said a­gainst one another, but against the Lord, for two reasons. 1. Be­cause mention had been made of the Commandements, Statutes, and Iudgements, after the generall word Law, V. 10. by which names Interpreters use to understand (both in this and many other places of Scripture) the Lawes morall, Ceremoniall and Judiciall. Now the case to be judged might be part of the Cere­moniall Law, having reference to God and his Ordinances; and not part of the Judiciall law, or any injury done by a man to his neighbour. And in refer [...]nce to the morall Law it might [...]e a trespasse against the first Table, not against the se­cond. 2. Even in the case of a personall or civill injury, or whatso [...]ver the controversie was that was brought before them, they were to warn the Judges in the Cities not to tres­passe against the Lord by mistaking or mis-understanding the Law, or by righting mens wrongs so as to wrong Divine right. And for that end they were to determine the Ius, and [Page 17] the intendment of the law, when it was controverted.

4. Whatsoever cause of their brethren that dwelt in the Ci­ties, should come unto them, V. 10. (whether it should come by appeale, or by reference and arbitration) this Court at Ie­rusalem was to give out an ultimate and authoritative determi­nation of it. So that what was brought from inferiour courts to them, is brought no higher to any other Court.

5. This Court had an Ecclesiasticall Prolocutor or modera­tor, V. 11. Amariah the chiefe Priest is over you in all matters of the Lord: Whereas Zebadiah the Ruler of the house of Iudah, was Speaker in the civill Sanhedrin for all the Kings matters. Amariah and Zebadiah were not onely with the Sanhedrin, as members, or as Councellors, but over them as Presidents. Eis summos Magistratus ( [...]) ex amicorum numero praeposuit, Amasiam Sacerdotem, & ex Judae tribu Zebadiam, saith Iosephus antiq. l. 9. cap. 1. Erastus confesseth pag. 273. that both of them were Presidents 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 Kings matters. What then? He saith they were Presidents both of them to the whole Sanhedrin, not the one to one number, and the other to another. Yet in this he yeeldeth 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. Enquire I pray thee of the former age, and prepare thy selfe to the s [...]arch of their fathers: and in the Prophets words, Ierem. 2. 10. Passe 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 President of a Cou [...]t, and that in sacred things and causes; that a civill Magistrate was president of a Court, and that in civill 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 Presidents, and of the subject [Page 18] matter, (if there were no more) will prove two Courts for­mally distinct. Even as now among our selves the same men may be members of two, or three, or foure, or more Courts, but the distinction of Presidents, and of the subject matter, maketh the Court distinct.

6. Here were also Ecclesiasticall 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 doe the Hebrews distinguish these two words) so it was here also, some of the Levites appointed to judge, V. 8. some to doe the part of Officers in point of execution of Ecclesiasticall censures, for they could not, nor might not compell men by the civill Sword. The same name is given to military Officers who prosecute the commands of authority, Iosh. 1. 10. And so much of this fourth.

The fifth place which I take to hold forth that distinction of Courts and Jurisdictions is Ierem. 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 Ecclesiasticall councels, Matth. 2. 4. To the same sence saith Diodati, that the Prophets here spo­ken of, were such as were learned in the law, and had been bred in the Schooles and Colledges of the chiefe Prophets, and in Jeremiahs time were present at Ecclesiasticall judgements and assemblies, 2 Kings 23. 2. as in Christs [...] 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 Ieremiah 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 Ieremiahs 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 appeales from Ecclesiasticall to Civill courts: to which argument I have elsewhere spoken. [Page 19] Onely I take here what they grant, that there were two Courts, and two sentenc [...]s given, and so it was. The sentence of the Court of the Priests, (as themselves explaine 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 sinne 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 doe 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 Ieremiah were a false Prophet, you had reason to call for justice upon him even unto death: but your judgement hath runne upon a false supposition in point of fact, which we doe not finde proved, but know to be false. Wherefore from this place, these two things may appeare: 1▪ That the Court of the Priests had not power of capitall punishments; for if they had, certainly Ie­remiah 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 ought to be punished so and so, according to the Law. That they had such a power, appeareth, 1. from V. 8, 9. where they doe not take him to lead him to the Court of the Princes, and there to [...]ccuse him; but they take him, so as to give forth their owne sentence against him, as against a false Prophet, Thou shalt surely die, say they, why hast thou prophesied in the name of the Lord, &c. 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 alledge 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 Princes 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. [Page 20] 3. If you compare the sentence of the Priests with the sentence of the Princes, the former is in suo genere, no lesse judiciall, authoritative, and peremptory, than the later: onely that was affirmative, this was negative. Finally, let us take for a con­clusion of this Argument, that which M ^r. Prynne himselfe in his fourth part of The Soveraigne power of Parliaments and King­domes, pag. 144. tels us out of vindiciae contra Tyrannos, with an approbatory and encomiastick close of his citation. Ieremy being sent by God to denounce the overthrow of the City Jerusalem, is for this first condemned (citing in the Margin Ierem. 26.) by the Priests and Prophets, that is, by the Ecclesiasticall 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 Ecclesiasticall Sanhe­drin, is Ierem. 18. 18. where the adversaries of Ieremiah say among themselves, Come and let us d [...]vise devices against Jere­miah, for the Law shall not perish from the Priest, nor counsell 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 onely 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, doe contradict Ieremiah, 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 doe observe, namely, the Popish error was also their error, the Church cannot erre. But let us yet follow the argument to the bottome. How came they to thinke the Church cannot erre? 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 doe according to the sentence which they of that place (which the Lord shall [...]hoose) shall shew thee; and thou shalt observe to doe according to all that they enforme thee. According to the sen­ [...]ence of the Law which they shall teach thee, and according to the [Page 21] judgement which they shall tell thee, thou shalt [...]: thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee, to the right hand, or to the left; And the man that will doe 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 Ie­remiah. Wherein their meaning could not be this, that the doctrine of every individuall Priest, or of every individuall Scribe, is infallible, (for as the Law now cited did speak of the Sanhedrin, not of individuall Priests, so neither the Jewes 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 councell of Priests, Wise-men, and Prophets, which (as they apprehen­ded) could not erre, and whose determination they preferred to the word of the Lord by Ieremiah: for the Law (that is, saith Menochius, the interpretation of the Law) can not perish from the Priest, nor counsell from the wise. Now this was an Ecclesia­sticall, not a civill Sanhedrin, which may appeare thus: First, they doe not make mention of the Judge mentioned Deut. 17. (where the Priest & the Judge are distinguished) onely they men­tion the Priest, the Prophet, (for which the Chaldee hath Scribe: which is all one, as to the [...] argument for we finde both Prophets and Scribes in Ecclesiasticall assemblies, as was said before) and the wise. By the wise are meant those that were chiefe or did excell among the Scribes or Doctors of the Law. So Grotius annot. in Matth. [...]3. 34. and it may be collected from Ierem. 8. 8, 9. This is cert [...]ine, that these wise men were Church­officers; 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 himselfe by way of allusion to the Ecclesiasticall Ministers of the Jewes. 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 civill Sanhedrin at this time did (so far as we can finde) contradict Ieremiah; but when his cause came afterward before them, Ierem. 26. they shew much favour and friendship to him. Thirdly, that which is added, [Page 22] come and let us him smite with the tongue: may be three waies read, and every way it sut [...]th to the Ecclesiasticall 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 doe in the name of them all) either thus: Let us smite him for the tongue, that is for an Ecclesiasticall 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 Ecclesiasticall 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 Ecclesiasticall sentence or declaration, smite him not with the Sword (which belonged onely to the civill 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 counsell from the ancients. Here againe, these are to be lookt upon collectively and conjunctly, (not di [...]tributively and seve­rally) and this I prove from the Text it selfe, not onely be­cause the counsell here sought for, was not to be given by one ancient, but by the ancients, yea i [...] was a principall part of the curse or judgement, that counsell could not be had from an assembly of ancients or Elders, suppose it might be had from some individuall Elders here or there:) but also because the Antithesis in the Text intimateth a disappointment in that thing which was sought after. They shall seeke a vision from the Pro­phet, or (as the Chaldee hath it) discipline from the Scribe. This they shall not finde, and why? because the Law shall perish from the Priest, and counsell from the Ancients. It was there­fore Consistoriall or Synedricall counsell, 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 reveale the councell of the Lord, in a time of generall defection, like Micaiah contradicting the 400 Prophets, yet an Ecclesiasticall counsell of Prophets, Scribes, Priests, and Elders, sometime Israels glory, shall turn to be Israels shame, [Page 23] and that assembly which did sometime respondere d [...] jure, and pronounce righteous judgement, and give light in difficult cases, shall doe so no more: the very light of Israel shall be dark­nesse; the law and counsell shall perish from them; that is, they shall not finde councell, nor the understanding of the law, saith Sanctius. Polanus upon the place draweth an Argument against the infallibility of counsels, because the law and counsell did perish not onely (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 Ierusalem. If this Text be rightly applied by him (and so it is by other Protestant Writers) to prove against Papists that Councels may erre, then here was an Ecclesiasticall councell.

Eightly, even without Ierusalem 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 sate in his house, and the Elders sate with him. I know some think that those Elders were the Magistrates of Samaria, but this I cannot admit, for two reasons. 1. Because Iosephus Antiq. lib. 9. cap. 2. cals them Elishaes disciples: and from him Hugo Cardinalis, Carthusia­nus, and others doe so expound the Text. They are called Eli­shas Disciples, as the Apostles were Christs Disciples, by way of Excellency and eminency: all the disciples or sonnes of the Prophets were not properly Elders, but those onely who were assumed into the Assembly of Elders, or called to have a share in the mannaging of the common affaires of the Church. 2. Cajetan upon the place gives this reason from the Text it selfe, to prove that these Elders were spirituall men (as he spea­keth) because Elisha asketh them, See ye how this sonne 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, unlesse they had been men familiar with God? Now these Elders were sitting close with Elisha in his house. It was not a pub­like or Church assembly for worship, but for counsell, delibe­ration, and resolution, in some case of difficulty and publike concernment. So Tostatus and Sanctius on the place. A para­lell [Page 22] [...] [Page 23] [...] [Page 24] place there is, Ezech. 8. 1. I sate in mine house, and the Elders of Iudah sate before me. Whether those Elders came to know what God had revealed to the Prophet, concerning the state of Iudah and Ierusalem, as Lavater upon the place supposeth, or for deliberation about some other thing, it is nothing like a civill Court, but very like an Ecclesiasticall senate. Now if such there was out of Ierusalem, how much more in Ierusalem, where (as there came greater store of Ecclesiasticall causes and controversies concerning the sence of the Law, to be judged, so) there was greater store of Ecclesiastical persons [...]it for govern­ment? whatsoever of this kind we finde elsewhere, was but a Transsumpt, the Archetype was in Ierusalem.

Ninthly, that place Ze [...]h. 7. 1, 2, 3. helpeth me much. The Jews sent Commissioners unto the Temple, there to speake 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 weepe in the first moneth, &c. Here is an Ecclesiasticall assembly, which had authority to determine controversies concerning the worship of God. Grotius upon the place distinguisheth these Priests and Prophets from the civill Sanhedrin, yet he saith they were to be consulted with, in controverted cases, accor­ding to the Law, Deut. 17. 9. If so, then 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 inf [...]llible 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 glorifie God. Oh that men would praise the Lord for his goodnesse, saith the Text in hand, Psalm 107. 31. for that you have in the other two places, Ye that feare the Lord, &c. for the congregation of the pe­ple, 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 [Page 25] observation of Hugo Cardinalis on Psalm 107. 32. that the con­gregation of the Princes is not mentioned in this businesse, be­cause not many mighty, not many noble, &c. One thing I am sure of, there were Elders in Israel, clearly distinct both from the Prin­ces, Judges, and civill Magistrates, Ios. 23. 2. 2 Kings 10. 1. Ezra 10. 14. Acts 4. 5. and elsewhere. And the parallel Texts afore cited, doe couple together these Elders and the house of Aaron, as Pastors and ruling Elders now are; and as the Priests and Elders are found conjoyned elsewhere in the old Testa­ment, Exod. 24. 1. Deut. 27. 1. with vers. 9. Ezech. 7. 26. Ier. 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 distresse (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 Eccle­siasticall capacity. Even as now among our selves, the civill Courts of Justice, or Magistrates and Rulers or Judges assem­bled by themselves in a politick 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 feare 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 speciall notice of exemplary mercies, bestowed upon the afflicted members of the Church, and be an ensample to the flocke, in giving thanks, as well as in other holy duties.

The eleventh place, which seemeth to hold forth unto us an Ecclesiasticall 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 councell to have any voice there, as Prophets in those [Page 26] daies had saith Diodati citing Ier. 26. 7. Secondly, they shall not so much as come into the computation or numbring 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 returne thi­ther from their captivity; they shall not have so much favour as strangers had, who might come into the holy Land and so­journe there.

In the first branch, the word translated assembly is [...] sod which properly signifieth a secret, and is used for counsell (be­cause counsell ought to be secret) or for the place of counsell, or assembly of Counsellers. 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 Episcopall (I mean not Prelaticall) inspection Iob 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 Civill (in which the Prophets were not members) but from the Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin.

In the twelfth and last place, the new Testament holds out to us an Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin: Whether the civill Sanhe­drin was wholy taken away by Herod, and another civill San­hedrin not substitute in the place of that which he took away, but the Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin onely remaining, as some hold; or whether both did then continue though not so cleare­ly distinct, as others hold: This we finde that there was an Ecclesiasticall government in the hands of Church-officers; for 1. there was a councell of the Priests and Elders and Scribes Matth. 2. 4. & 16. 21. & 21. 23. & 26. 57, 59. & 27. 1. 12. Marke 14. 43. Luke 22. 66. Acts 4. 5. 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 [Page 27] Elders were joyned with the Priests in the government of the Church, with Ecclesiasticall persons in Ecclesiasticall affaires. Which hath been rightly taken for a president of our ruling Elders. 2. That Councell 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 civill Court to signifie an Assembly, which was meerely Ecclesiasticall and not Civill? The very use of the word in this sence by the Apostle, tels us that in his age the word [...] was taken in an Ecclesiasticall notion onely. 3. This Councell did examine Iesus concerning his Disciples and his doctrine, and received witnesses against him, and pro­nounced him guilty of blasphemy, Matth. 27. 57. Marke 14. 53, 55. Ioh. 18. 19. Hence Protestant writers draw an argument against Papists, to overthrow their infallibility of Councels: unto which argument Bellarmine deviseth foure answers. But it came not once into his thoughts, to reply that this councell was civill, not Ecclesiasticall, 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 Ecclesiasticall Coun­cell, such as the controversie 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 Prelaticall 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, Ios. 8. 33. & 23. 2. Deut. 5. 23. Iud. 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 Iudges of Phoumbeditha M. Papa the sonne of Samuel, &c. The Elders of Soura M. Houna and M. Hisda. The Elders of Phoumbeditha Ena and Abimi the sonne of Rahba. And thus we are taught how to [Page 28] under and th [...]se Gemarick phrases, of the Judges of such a place, and the Eld [...]rs of such a place, that we may not mi­stake them as if they were one. 5. Some have also drawne a patterne for the constitution of Synods, from that Coun­cell, Acts 4. 5, 6. where we finde assembled together Rulers, [...], Elders, Scri [...]es, according to which patterne we have in our Synods, 1. the civill [...] 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 Iudaea was redacted into a Province, and the Romans having keptin their owne hands, not only the power of life and death Iohn 18. 31. but all judgement in what­sovever civill, or criminall offences, falling out among the Jews, meant by matters of wrong or wicked leudness, Acts 18. 14. And having left to the Jewes no government, nor any power of judgement, except in things pertaining to their religion onely Ib. verse 15. These six things considered, it is very unprobable (if not unpossible) that the Councell of the Priests, Elders, and Scribes, mentioned so often in the New Testament, should be no Ecclesiasticall Court, but a temporall and civill Magistracy. The Centurists Cent. 1. lib. 1. cap. 10. reckon that Councell for an Ecclesiasticall Court, distinct from civill Magistracy: and they propose these two to be distinctly treated of, Acta coram Pontificibus seu Magistratu Ecclesiastico, (and here they bring in the councell of the Priests, Elders, and Scribes,) And Actio coram Pilato seu magistratu politico.

I know Erastus lib. 3. cap. 2. aud lib. 4. cap. 4. though he con­fesse plainly that the Jewish Sanhedrin mentioned in the Gos­spell, and in the Acts of the Apostles, had onely power of judging causes belonging to Religion, and that the Romans did leave them no power to judge of civill injuries; yet he holdeth, that in these causes of Religion, the Sanhedrin had power not onely of imprisoning, and scourging, but even of death it selfe. And so endeavours to make it a temporall or civil Magistracy, (which M ^r Prynne also doth vindic. page 4, 5. yet he speaketh dubiously of their power of capitall punishments.) [Page 29] But this is confuted by the reasons which I have given. Where­unto I further adde these few animadversions.

• 1. The strongest proofe which Erastus brings out of Iose­phus antiq. lib. 20. cap. 8. which (as he alledgeth) puts the thing out of all controversie, is a very weake and insufficient proof. Iosephus tels 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 Christs time, was a civill Magistracy, having power of the Sword. But I may with a great deale more probability argue contrariwise from these words. Iosephus tels us the Constitution and forme of the Jewish policy or Govern­ment was at that time Aristocraticall, but it was an Ecclesia­sticall Aristocracy, the government was in the hands of the chiefe Priests. Or thus (if you will) the Jewes 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 civill government being taken from them by the Romans, and the government that was, was Ecclesiasticall. That very Chapter gives us a better argument to prove, that the Romans did not permit to the Jewes capitall Judgements: for Iosephus there records that Ananus the high Priest taking the opportu­nity after the death of Festus, while Albinus the Successour of Festus, was but yet on his journey toward Iudea, did call a Councell of Judges ( [...]) before whom he presented Iames 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 comming from Alexandria, being enformed of the thing, and that it was not lawfull for Ananus to doe any such thing, without the Roman Governour, wrote a chiding and threatning 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 doe no such thing againe, he having trespassed in this. Whereupon Agrippa was so highly offended, that he tooke away from Ananus the high Priests place, and gaue it to Iesus the sonne of Damneus.
• [Page 30]2. Whereas Erastus argueth from the imprisoning, beating, or scourging, yea taking counsell to kill the Apostles Acts 4, & 5. the stoning of Steven Acts 7. Pauls letters from the high Priest, for biuding and bringing to Ierusalem 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
  Antiq. Iud. 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.
  Iosephus, that in that degenerate age the high Priests and such as adhered to them, did use a great deale of violence, whereby they did many things for which they had no just nor lawfull power. So that the Letters and Warrants given out to Saul, and the execution of the same by a cruell and bloody persecu­ting of the Saints, can not prove the [...] the power and authority which was allowed to the Sanhedrin, but onely the [...] the present prevalent power of the high Priest and his faction in that confusion of affaires; and their extreame ma­lice against the Saints, to have been such as made them to doe things for which they had no legall power nor warrant. And this one Animadversion breakes all the strength of M ^r Prynnes argument vindic. page 5. that the Councell of the Jewes had power (which no meere Ecclesiasticall consistory can doe) to scourge, imprison, torture, and out-law 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 Councell of the Jewes 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 Captaine of the Temple Acts 4. 1, 3. This captaine of the Temple, is thought by the best interpreters, to have been the Captaine of the Garrison which the Romans placed in the ca [...]tle Antonia hard by the Temple, and that to prevent tu­mults and uproares when the people came to the Temple, espe­cially at the solemne feasts in great multitudes. But that the Captaine of the Temple was a civill Magistrate of the Jewes, or one d puted with authority and power from the Sanhedrin, will never be proved. When the Councell 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 tels them [Page 31] Verse 35. Ye men of Israel take heed to your selves [...] 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 Iudicium 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 himselfe was heard speake out, or any sentence was given against him, as is manifest Acts 7. 54, 57, 58.
• 3. Erastus his glosse upon Iohn 18. 31. It is not lawfull for us to put any man to death, meaning (saith he) for making him­selfe 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 perpetuall government of Christs Church cap. 4. But marke the words, Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him and judge him according to your Law; The Jewes therefore said unto him, It is not lawfull for us to put any man to death. Pilate durst not have refused to judge a man who made himselfe a King against Caesar, nor durst he have put it over upon the Jewes to have judged one in that which concerned Caesars crowne. Nay, as soone as the Jewes objected, If thou let this man goe, thou art not Caesars friend; for whosoever maketh himselfe a King, speaketh against Caesar. Pilate when he heard that, went in againe, and sate down on the Judgement seat Iohn 19. 12. 13. Therefore when Pilate said to the Jewes take ye him, and judge him according to your law, he spake it of matters of their Law. The Councell of the chiefe Priests, Elders and Scribes had given sentence against Christ de 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. Marke 14. 63, 64. with Marke 15. 1. Luke 22. 71. with Luke 23. 1. Pilate unwilling to meddle against Christ, waves the businesse in the Judgement-hall, I perceive (would he say) that this man is accused of such things as concerne 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 lawfull for us to put any man to death. If they had meant, for causes which concerned Caesars Crown, it had been not [Page 32] onely an impertinent reply, but a yeelding to Pilates intention; for he might have said, I doe not meane, that ye shall judge him for that which concerneth Caesar, but for that which con­cerneth your owne Law and Religion. Therefore certainely the answer which the Jewes 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 severall passages in the story of Paul which shew us, that though the Jewish Sanhedrin might judge a man in matters of their Law, yet they were accusers, not Judges, in civill or capitall punishments, I meane 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 onely to accuse. The Jewes drew Paul before the judgement seat of Gallio, even for a matter of their law. This fellow (say they to Gallio) per­swadeth men to worship God, contrary to the Law Acts 18. 13. If they had intended onely an Ecclesiasticall censure, their re­course had been either to the Sanhedrin, or at least to the Syna­gogue, but because they intended a corporall temporall 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 leudnesse, 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 Jewes had no power to doe it by themselves. Againe, Acts 23. 28, 29. Claudius Ly­sias writeth to Faelix concerning Paul thus, and when I would have knowne the cause wherefore they accused him, I brought him forth into their Councell. 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 businesse, and rescue Paul from the hands of the Jewes, was the Jewes designe 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 Jewes to be [Page 33] no competent Judges, therefore he brings Paul into the coun­cell of the Jewes, not to be judged by them, but to know what accusation they had against him. For the same reason Paul himselfe did decline going to Ierusalem, to be judged there, no not of matters concerning the Religion and Law of the Jewes, 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 certaine questions against him of their owne superstition, and of one Iesus which was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive. And because I doubted of such manner of questions▪ I asked him whether he would goe to Ierusalem, and there be judged of these matters, Acts 25. 18, 19, 20. This Paul had declined vers. 10. I stand at Caesars judgement seat (said he) where I ought to be judged. And why? but because his accusation was capitall, even in that which con­cerned the Law of the Jewes, and he knew the Jewes at that time had no power of capitall judgements. Some have alledged this example of Paul for appeales from Presbyteries or Synods to the civill Magistrate: by which argument themselves grant that the Jewish Sanhedrin then declined by Paul, was a Eccle­siasticall, not a civill 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 Jewes after the thirtieth yeere of Christ, had no power of punishing with death; for proofe hereof citeth a passage of Aboda zara, that forty yeers before the destruction of the Temple, the Sanhedrin (which had in former times exercised capitall judgements) did remove from Hierusalem, quum viderent se non posse judicia capitalia exercere, when they perceived that they could not exercise capitall 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 shew thee: whence they collected, that if they were not in that place, they were not obliged to capitall judgements: and so they removed. And if you would know whe ther he tels us out of Rosch Hasschana, they removed from Hieru salem to Iabua, thence to Ousa thence to Sc [...]aphrea, &c. He that de­sires to have further proofes for that which hath been said, may [Page 34] read Buxtorf. lexic. Chald. Talmud. & rabbin. pag. 514, 515. He proves that Iudicia criminalia, criminall judgements did cease, and were taken away from the Jewes forty yeeres before the destruction of the second Temple. This he saith is plaine 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 Iuchasin fol. 51. 1. Majen [...]on. in Sanhedrin cap. 14. sect. 13. He cites also a passage in Berachos fol. 58. 1. concerning one who for a hainous 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 D ^r. Bux [...]orf is the very same, which the Jewes said to Pilate John 18. 31. Now this power being taken from the Jewes forty yeeres before the destruction of the Tem­ple and City, which was in the 71 yeere of Christ, his death being in the 34. Hence he proveth that this power was taken from the Jewes neere three yeeres 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 Hierusa­lem forty yeers before the destruction of the Temple (for which see also Tzemach David. edit. Hen. Vorst. pag. 89. and so about three yeeres before the death of Christ; it must needs follow that the Councell of the Priests, Elders, and Scribes, mentioned so often in, and before Christs passion, was not a civill Magi­stracy, nor the civill Sanhedrin, but an Ecclesiasticall San [...]e­drin. Whence also it follows, that the Church Matth. 18. 17. unto which Christ directs his Disciples to goe with their com­plaints, was not the civill Court of Justice among the Jewes, (as M ^r Prynne takes it) for that civill Court of Justice had then removed from Hierusalem, and had lost its authority in execu­ting Justice, I. Coch annot. in Exc. Gem. Sanhedrin. cap. 1. s [...]ct. 13. beareth witnesse to the same story above mentioned, that forty yeeres 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 Iam tum cessarunt judicia capitalia, saith he. Now at that time the capitall judgements did cease. Thus we have three witnesses singularly learned in the Jewish Antiquities. Unto these adde Casau [...]on [Page 35] exerc. 16. anno 34. num. 76. He holds that though the Councell of the Jewes had cognizance of the offence (for otherwise how could they give a reason or cause when they demanded justice) in which respect the Councell did judge Christ to be guilty of death, Marke 14. 64. yet their Councell had then no more power of capitall punishments, which saith he, the more lear­ned moderne writers doe demonstrate è Iuchasin, and from o­ther Talmudicall writings; he addeth that this power of putting any man to death was taken from the Jewes some space before this time when they said to Pilate, It is not lawfull for us to put any man to death: for this power was taken from them, saith he, forty yeeres before the destruction of the second Tem­ple, as the Rabbinicall writers doe record.

I have thus largely prosecuted my last argument, drawn from the New Testament, mentioning the Councell of the Priests, Elders, and Scribes.

And I trust the twelve arguments which have been brought may give good satisfaction toward the proofe of an Ecclesia­sticall Jewish Sanhedrin.

The chiefe objection which ever I heard or read against this distinction of a Civill Sanhedrin and an Ecclesiasticall Sanhe­drin among the Jewes, is this. That neither the Talmud nor the Talmudicall writers mention any such distinction, but speake onely of one supreme Sanhedrin of 71, and of other two Courts, which sate the one at the doore of the Court be­fore the Temple, the other at the gate which entereth to the mountaine of the Temple. There were also Courts in the Ci­ties where capitall cases were judged by three and twenty, pecu­niall mults by three.

Answ. It must be remembred that not onely the Talmudicall Commentators, but the Talmud it selfe, 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 Ierusalem. 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, [Page 36] nor in the Booke 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 Ecclesiasticall Government either of the Church of Rome, or of the Church of the Jewes 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 af [...]er­times, and declining ages. Howbeit there may be seen some footsteps of a Civill and Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin, even in the Talmudicall 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 Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin among the Jewes.

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 Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin among the Jewes, distinct from their civill Sanhedrin, may neverthelesse be convinced not by the former arguments, but by other Mediums, that there was an Ecclesiasticall government among the Jewes distinct from their civill government. For it belonged to the Priests, (not to the Magistrates or Judges) to put difference between holy and un­holy, and between unclean and cleane. And the Priests (not the Magistrates) are challenged for not putting difference between the holy and prophane Ezech. 22. 26. And this power of the Priests was not meerly doctrinall or declarative, but decisive, binding, and juridicall, so farre as that according to their sen­tence men were to be admitted as cleane, or excluded as un­cleane. Yea in other cases, as namely in trying and judging the scandall of a secret and unknown murther, observe what is said of the Priests, Deut. 21. 5. by their word shall every contro­versie and every stroke be tried. Yea themselves were Judges of controversies Ezech. 44. 24. And in controversie they shall stand in judgement, and they shall judge it according to my judgements. Where the Ministers of the Gospell 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 prophane, that by their [Page 37] word every controversie concerning the causes of suspension or sequestration of men from the Sacrament, shall be tried; that in controversie they shall stand in judgement, and judge accor­ding to the word of God: Would not every one looke upon this, as a power of government put into the hands of Mini­sters. And none readier to aggravate such government, then the Erastians. Yet all this amounts to no more, then by the plaine and undeniable Scriptures above cited, was committed to the Priests. Suppose also, that men were kept backe from the Temple and from the Passeover, not for any morall unclean­nesse, but for ceremoniall uncleannesse onely (which is to be afterwards discussed) yet the Priests their judging and deciding of controversies concerning mens legall uncleannesse, accor­ding to which judgement and decision, men were to be admit­ted to, or kept backe from the Temple and Passover (yea some­time their owne houses, as in the case of leprosie) 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 keepe backe the un­cleane, was not derived from the Magistrate; for it did be­long to the intrinsecall sacerdotall authority 2 Kings 11. 18. The Priest (Iehojada) appointed Officers over the house of the Lord. The 70 thus, [...]. These Officers or overseers over the Temple, were appointed by Iehojada, for keeping backe the uncleane, as Grotius upon the place, following Iosephus, hath observed. Compare 2 Chro. 23. 19. And he (Iehojada) set the Porters at the gates of the house of the Lord, that none which was uncleane 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 doe any thing presumptuously, contrary to the sentence of the Priests, should die the death, as well as the man who should doe 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 speake evill of the Ru [...]ers of thy [Page 38] people Acts 23. 5. Which is not meant onely in regard that he was president of the Sanhedrin; for there was an Ecclesiasticall ruling power, which was common with him to some other Priests, 2 Chro. 35. 8. Hilkiah the high Priest, and Zachariah and Iehiel 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 imployed in the manuall worke of the Tem­ple about Sacrifices and the like.

CHAP. IV. That there was an Ecclesiasticall Excommunication a­mong the Iewes: and what it was.

IT hath been affirmed by some who pretend to more skill in Jewish antiquities than others, that though the Jewes had an excommunication which did exclude a man from the liberty of civill fellowship, so that he might not come within foure 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. Lexicon Chald. Talmud. & Rabbin. edit. 1639. pag. 8 [...]7, 828. [...] Excommunica­tio, exclusio [...] caetu sacro, ejectio ex syna▪ goga &c. Cum tali excommunicato non licet edere nec bibert. Quo fortè respicit Apostolus 1 Cor. 5. 11. [...], Nam admonitionem illam generalem facit, ex occasione incestuosi 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. De Iure natur. & 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. M ^r Selden extendeth the Jewish Excom­munication so farre, as to comprehend an exclusion from fel­lowship in prayer and holy assemblies, and makes it parallel [Page 39] to that which Tertullian tels us to have been used by the Pri­mitive Church. M ^r 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. Animad in Pirke pag. 169. Qu [...] enim dicat apostatam, blas­hemum aliaque sacra capita in­tra templum su­isse admissa? &c. 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 thinkes some excommunicate persons were absolutely excluded from the Temple, and that others for whom there were hopes of reconciliati­on, were admitted into it. Quest. & Resp. l. 1. quaest. 9 Solebant au­tem veteres (I [...] ­der) 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 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. Iohannes Coch hold, that there were such excommunicate persons among the Jewes, as were removed from Church assemblies, and were not acknowledged for Church members. 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 publique assembly of the Church, and so a cutting him off from his people. 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. 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 doe the Centurists plainly, where they doe purposely shew what was the Ecclesiasticall policy and Church government of the Jewes: They make it a distinct Question, whether the Jewes in Christs time had any civill [Page 40] Government, or Magistracy. [...] ▪ Ebr. cap 7. legis san­ctio triplex &c. 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 &c. 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 Jewes had the very same kind of excommunication, by which the incestuous Corinthi­an, Hymeneus and Philetus, and the Emperour 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 Ecclesiasticall Court of the Jewes, unto which (saith he) belonged the power of excommuica­tion, the severall sorts of which censure he explaineth cap. 2. namely Niddui, cherem, and Shammata. After all which, he begins cap. 3. to speake of civill Courts of the Jewes, a distinct government.

Grotius. annot. in Luke 6. 22. compares the Jewish excommu­nication with that which was exercised by the Druides 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 &c. He tels us the ancient Christians did in divers things follow the Jewish discipline, and among other things in excommunication; He cites the same passage of Ter­tullian which is cited by M ^r Selden, concerning a shntting out, à communicatione orationis, & conventus, & omnis sancti commercii. Which is as full and high a description of the Ecclesiasticall cen­sure of Excommunication, as any can be. So that the Jewish Excommunication being paralleld with that Excommunica­tion which Tertullian speakes 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 M ^r Selden, as if he held the Jewish excommunication to have been no more but a shutting out from civill company or fellowship, whereas [Page 41] he clearly holds lib. 4. de jure nat. & 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 Ioh. 9. 22. speaking of the common distinction of the three degrees of the Jewish Excom­munication, doth plainly beare witnesse to that which I plead for, namely, 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 confesse he understands the Cherem, and the Shammata, otherwise then I doe; for he takes the Cherem to be nihil aliud, nothing else than the forfei­ture of a mans substance for the use of the Sanctuary: (whereas it is certaine there was a Cherem of persons as well as of things, and the formulae of the Cherem which shall be cited afterward, containe 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 Jewes 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 meere Ecclesiasticall censure, and therefore tels 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 civill. 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 Countreyman Master Weemse in his Christian Synagogue lib. 1. cap. 6. sect. 3. paragr. 7. They had three sorts of Excommunication; first the lesser, then the middle sort, then 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, Jude v. 14. And after, these who were [...], put out of the Synagogue were not simply secluded [Page 42] from the Temple, but suffered to stand in the Gate, &c. These who were Excommunicated by the second sort of Excommunication, were not permitted to come neer 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 Ecclesia­sticall Excommunication of the Jewes. I might produce many more, but I have made choice of these, because all of them have taken more than ordinary paines 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 Jewes, and see whether all these doe not helpe to make their Excommunication a patterne for ours. For the causes, there were 24 causes, for which a man was Excommunicated among the Jewes. You may read them in Buxtorfs Lexicon Chald▪ Talmud & Rabbin. p. 1304, 1305. M. Selden de jure nat. & Gentium. lib. 4. cap. 8. Jo. Coch Annot. in Excerp. Gem. Sanhedrin cap. 2. pag. 147. divers of these causes did not at all concerne personall or civill injuries (for such injuries were not accounted causes of Excommunication, but were to be punished otherwise, as shall be proved afterward) but matters of scandall, by which God was dishonoured, and the stumbling-blocke of an evill example laid before others; One cause was the despising of any of the preceps 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, 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 vesper [...] pas ch [...]tis operas ser­viles facit, hîc verò omnino schammatisamus eum. They did also ex­communicate an hereticall or Epicurean Is­raelite. Buxtorf ibid, pag. 195. he that doth any servile worke upon Easter eve. Another, he that mentioneth the name of God rashly, or by a vaine oath. Ano­ther, he that enduceth, or giveth occasion to others to pro­phane the name of God. Another, he that makes others to [...]ate holy things without the holy Temple. Another, he that maketh computation of yeeres and moneths without the Land of Israel: that is, (as D ^r Buxtorf) writeth Calendars, or (as M. Selden) computeth yeeres and moneths otherwise than their [Page 43] fathers had done. Another, he that retardeth or hindreth o­thers from doing the Law and Commandement. Another, he that maketh the offering prophane (as D ^r Buxtorf) or offereth a sickly beast, (as I. Coch.) Another, a Sacrificer that doth not shew his Sacrificing Knife before a Wise man or a Rabbi, that it may be knowne to be a lawfull Knife, and not faulty. Ano­ther, he that cannot be made to know or to learne. 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 evill life. The other causes had also matter of scandall 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 cals his neighbour servant. He that contumaciously refuseth to appeare at the day appointed by the Judge. He that doth not submit himselfe to the Judiciall sentence. He that hath in his house any hurtfull thing, as a mad dogge or a weake leather. He that before Heathen Judges beareth witnesse 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 meere 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, sheweth that the Excommunication was because of the scan­dall. 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 scandall, 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 scandall, the Law [Page 44] 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 Ecclesiasticall or Divine (not a Civill) injury. Whence it appeareth that the causes of Excommunication, were formally lookt upon as scandals. Adde that if qua injuries, then a quatenus ad omne, all personall or civill injuries had been causes of Excommunication. But all civill injuries doe not fall within these 24. causes. If it be objected, that neither doe all scandalls fall within these 24. causes. I answer they doe; for some of the causes are generall and comprehensive, namely these two, the 5 ^th. He that despiseth the Statutes of the Law of Moses, or of the Scribes; and the 18 ^th. 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 Strictnesse of Dis­cipline in these dayes. My meaning is onely, to prove Eccle­siasticall censures, and an Ecclesiasticall Government. And let this be remembred 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 finall 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 [Page 45] of the Church, and a delivering over to Sathan: which yet is a medicinall 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 propheticall 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 eternall death; whereunto answereth the A­postles Anathema, and the Churches devoting of Iulian 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 nat. & Gentium, l. 4. c. 8. Of the same opinion is Io. Coch, Annot. in Exc. Gem. Sanhedrin. p. 149. But Constantinus l' Empereur annot. in rempub. Jud. tels 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 then either Niddui or Cherem, he proves not onely 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 Jewes 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. dayes, during which time if the person (man or woman) repent, well and good: if not, he was excommunicate, for other 30. dayes. Yea, saith Doctor Bux­torf, the time might be triplicate to 90. dayes. And if after all that time he repent not, then he was excommunicate, with the [Page 46] greater excommunication Cherem. And so much for the de­grees.

As for the manner, and rites of their excommunication, it was done most solemnly, 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 ve­uerint 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 publikely 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 certaine that Cherem was not onely in a solemn, but in a sacred manner performed, which is manifest from that Formula Anathematis, which 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 Another forme 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, &c. 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 cherubim, &c. Maledictus ex ore nominis celebrandi, & tremendi, quod e [...]reditur ex ore Sacerdotis magni die expiationum, &c. 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, &c. Haec sit voluntas Dei & dicatur Amen. another forme, which Hen. Vorstius [Page 47] taketh out of Col Bo both shewing, that it was not a civill, but a sacred businesse, 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 informes us

We read also in Pirke Rabb. Elieser cap. 38. 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 Ioshua 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 fellow-ship 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 Ierusalem. This passage Doctor Buxtorf, in his Rabbinicall Lexicon, p. 2464. and Master Selden de Jure nat. & 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 publike and judiciall 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 Ecclesiasticall Assembly, (and therefore done as it were in name of the Court [Page 48] of heaven, to which purpose domus Judicii superioris seu coelestis, was mentioned in the businesse, and it was a juridicall or fo­rensicall 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 M ^r. Selden ob­serveth, de Jure nat. & Gentium l. 4. c. 8. the Hebrews writ of a Judiciall excommunication, and of an extrajudiciall excom­munication, by which one private man might excommunicate another. Yet, that extrajudiciall excommunication could not stand in force, unlesse it were ratified by the Court; and of it selfe, it was rather optative, or imprecative, than obligative: as is manifest by the Instance, which 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. Coch gives us ex Gem. Moed Caton. Two men having mutually excommunicated each other, it commeth to an authoritative decision. He that had excommunicated the other, for that for which he ought to have been punished by a pecuniall 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 himselfe excommunicated. So the excommu­nicating of the one man for a civill injury was declared null: and the excommunicating of the other, for his unjust act of ex­communication, was ratified. Which doth not onely prove what I have said of private, or extrajudiciall excommunication: but also confirme what I asserted before, concerning the causes of excommunication, that it was not for personall or civill in­juries, but for matter of scandall. 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 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 foure cubits to his neighbour. He might not shave▪ his hair, nor wash himself. It was not lawfull to eat nor drinke with him. He that dyed in excommunication got no Funerals, nor was there any mourning made for him, but a stone was set over him, to signifie that he was worthy to be [Page 49] 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 lawfull 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 lawfull 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 regresse, being Shammatized.

It is more disputable, how farre forth Excommunication did deprive a man of the liberty of accesse 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 Bride-grooms, another for Mourners and Excommunicated persons; and when the Children of Israel, sitting between these two Gates, upon the Sabbath-dayes and Holy-dayes, did see a Bride-groome come in, they knew him, and did congratulate with him: but when they saw one come in at the doore 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 doore of mourners, with his Lips not covered, they knew him to be Excommunicated, and spake to him on this manner. He that dwells in this house comfort thee, and put into thy minde, 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 minde, to hearken to the words of thy companions, that they may restore thee. The same [Page 50] 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 its added in libro Musar, (which I finde also added in the fore-mentioned place of Pirke R Elies.) that after the temple was destroyed, it was decreed, that Bride-grooms 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 accesse to the Temple neither, but he that was extrajudicially, or by private persons excommunicate, as those words might seeme 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 judiciall ex­communication, then Hen. Vorstius doth expound it, animad. in Pirke p. 169. 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 [...]á (que) sa­cra capita intra Templum suisse admissa? De [...] alia ratio [...]sse potest, eum his spes ve­niae non fuerit adempta. so, as it may be understood onely 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 heare, 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 neere 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 publike­ly bearing his shame, and looked upon as one separate from the [Page 51] Communion of the people of God. And so much for the effects.

The end of Excommunication was spirituall, M. Sel­den de [...]ure na­tur. & 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 publike shame and separation humbled, might be gained to repentance, and thereby his soule saved; (which is the end of Church Discipline, not of civill censures.) The Court waited 90. dayes upon his Repentance, and did not proceed to Cherem, except in case of his continuing impenitency, when all that time he gave no signe of repentance, nor sought absolution.

From all that hath been said, I hope it's fully manifest, that the Jewish excommunication was an Ecclesiasticall censure, and not (as ( Indepen­dency examined pag. 10. Vindic. of the 4. Questions p. 4. 5 Master Prynne would have it) a civill 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 retaine 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 doe expell 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 sinnes they put away from their Congregation. Loe, an Ecclesiasticall Excommuni­cation because of scandalous sinnes.

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 soule 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, [Page 52] of cutting off. So Isa. 50. 1. Ier. 3. 8. It is certaine that [...] ca­rath doth not necessarily signifie to cut off by death, destructi­on, or a totall abolition of the very existence of him that is cut off, but any cutting off, by whatsoever losse or punishment it be. The Septuagints render it, not seldome, by such words as signifie the losse 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 tels us: thence [...], the cloth wherewith we wipe our hands when we wash them) Numb. 19. 13. that soule 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 originall and [...], render it to faile, 1 Kings 2. 4. to loose 1 Kings 18. 5. Sometime they render the same originall word to hew, 1 Kings 5. 6. to hew timber, Jer. 66. Sometime simply to cut, Ezech. 16. 4 thy navell was not cut. In other places where the Septuagints have [...] aufero, the English hath to faile, 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 eternall con­demnation. But this is not sutable to the infancy of the Jew­ish Church; for whiles they were bred under the paedagogy of the Law, things eternall and invisible were not immediately and nakedly propounded unto them, but under the shadows and figures of temporall and visible things. So that if eternall death were the ultimate intendment of that commination (as I [Page 53] 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 off-spring 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 deniall of what he would have. Neither was that of the pre­serving of ones name in the posterity, applicable to women, but to their husbands onely; whereas their cutting off was threat­ned to all that were guilty, whether men or women. Finally, if that were the sence, then 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 sinne, were to be cut off, whether married or unmarried, whether having children or wanting children.

3. Others understand capitall punishment to be inflicted by the civill Magistrate. But if all the offences for which cutting off was threatned in the Law, had been punished by death, the Mosaicall lawes, no lesse then those of Draco, might have been said to be written in blood, saith De gubern. Eccl. pag. 57. Gersomus Bucerus. Is it credible that all and every one, who did by any chance, eate 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. Lev. 7. 15, 17. Num. 19. 13. 20. Another reason I take from Mercerus on Gen. 17. 14. We nowhere finde 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 controversie such were excluded from [Page 44] 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 signifie that the person cut off ceaseth to have any being, but it is used to signifie 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 shortning of life, before the naturall 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 onely as a punishment of private sinnes 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 feare to doe that thing which they saw so punished. But how could they make this use of a Divine judgement inflicted for some private sinne, they knew not for what? 3. The commination of Divine judgements is added in a more proper place Deut. 28. Lev. 26. and in divers places, where wrath and punishment from God is denounced against all such as would not observe his Commandements, nor keepe his Statutes and Judgements. But the cutting off is a part (and a great part) of the corrective or penall Mosaicall Lawes, which containe 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 soule shall be cut off for, let that soule 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 beare their iniquity, Lev. 18. 29. Numb. 15. 31. But we cannot say that A­bijah the sonne of Ieroboam, or King Iosiah, being taken away by an untimely death, were thereby marked with a signe of Gods wrath, or that they were cut off from among their people, and did beare their iniquity. 5. And where­as they object from Levit. 17. 10. & 20. 5, 6. that the cutting of [Page 35] was a worke of God, not of men, it is easily answered from that same place, it was onely 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 waies, that is either of capitall 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 professe he had no skil 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. Godwyns 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 doe 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 Ecclesiasticall corpo­ration or fellowship. It is not said, that soule 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 soule shall be cut off from the Congre­gation (or Church) of Israel, Exo. 12. 19. that soule shall be cut off from among the Congregation (or Church) Num. 19. 20. intimating somewhat Ecclesiasticall. So Lev. 22. 3. that soule shal 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 himselfe 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, [Page 56] which is used to expresse 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 Countreys, 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 uncleannesse did eate of an unholy thing was to be cut off Levit. 7. 20, 21. yet for such a one was appoin­ted confession of sinne, and a trespasse-offering, by which he was reconciled and atonement made for him, as M. Ainsworth himselfe tels us on Levit. 5. 2. whence I inferre, 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 Ecclesiasticall, 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 uncleannesse: and that atonement by sacrifice was appointed for such as defiled the Sanctuary ignorantly. But that which made him thinke so, was a mistake; for he supposeth, that for sinnes of ignorance or infirmity onely, God did ap­point Sacrifices; but that for wilfull or malicious sinnes 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 plaine from Levit. 6. 1. to 8. where we have atonement to be made by Trespasse offerings, for wilfull lying, perjury, fraud, robbing, or violence, which made the Septuagints, V. 2. for commit a trespasse, to read, despising despise the commandements of the Lord. And whereas M. Ainsworth confirmeth his opinion from Heb. 10. 26. for if we sinne wilfully after that we have recei­ved the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more Sacrifice for sinnes; I answer with Calvin, Beza, Hemmingius, and others upon the place, it is not meant of all sinnes done wilfully, (which to hold were a most dangerous and despairing Do­ctrine,) but of a totall defection from Christ and the truth. And now to returne, there is nothing Levit. 5. 2. to exclude a Trespasse-offering for one who should in his uncleannesse wil­fully goe to the Sanctuary, or touch an holy thing: but there is this reason, why it should not be excluded, because in that [Page 57] very place Verse 1. he that did wilfully, for favour or malice, conceale his knowledge, being a witnesse 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 your selves▪ that wicked person, he plainly alludeth to Exod. 12. 15, 19. Whosoever eateth that which is leavened, even that soule 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. com. disp. 22. proveth that Excommunication was transferred from the Jewes to us, by Christ himselfe 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 your selves that wicked person.
• 4. The cutting off soule from among his people did typi­fie or resemble eternall death and condemnation; In which respect Peter doth some way apply it to the daies of the Gospell, that every soule which will not heare 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 lesse then [...] 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 soule. 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 fore-sheweth that the ungodly shall not stand in the judgement, nor [Page 58] 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
  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 capitall 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. D ^r. Buxtorf lexic. chald. Talm. & Rahbin. page 1101. tels 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 personall one [...] ▪ and the punishment of cutting off, comprehensive not onely 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. tels us, that the chil­dren of excommunicate persons were not circumcised.
• 6. M. Selden de jure nat. & Gent. lib. 7. cap. 10. tels us, that the Hebrew Doctors themselves doe 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 onely 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. Bloudy and deceitfull men shall not live out half their daies. 2. They say there was another cutting off, which was of the soule onely, Levit. 18. 29. the souls that commit these things [...]all be cut off from among their people. By this cutting off (they say) the soule ceaseth to have a being, the body not being taken away by death, before the naturall period. 3. They make a third kind, whereby both soule and body is cut off, [Page 59] Num. 15. 31. That soule shall be utterly cut off, his iniquity shall be upon him. Whereby (say they) both the body is destroyed be­fore the naturall time, and likewise the soule ceaseth to have a being. But whatsoever any of the Hebrews fancied in their de­clining latter times, concerning that second kinde of cut­ting off, (which M. Selden doth not approve, but relate out of them) I am confident it was onely 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 Spirituall being was cut off from the Church of Israel, whiles his naturall life and being was not taken ftom him. Yea Gul [...]elmus Vorstius annot. in Maimon. de fundam. legis pag. 60. sheweth us, that some of the Hebrewes acknowledge nothing under the name of the cutting off, but that which is the cut­ting off of the soule onely. But if there be so much as some cutting off mentioned in the Law, which concerneth a mans Spirituall estate onely, it doth abundantly confirme 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 Judiciall or Civill lawes, to be meant of capitall punishments: and the cutting off in the ceremoniall Lawes (which were properly Ecclesiasticall) to be meant of Excommunication, or cutting off from the Church onely. If anywhere the cutting off be Excommunication, it sufficeth me. Or what ever it may sig­nifie more, or be extended unto, if Excommunication be one thing which it signifieth, then they who thinke 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 soule shall be cut off from his people. The Anno­tation Englished saith thus, that man shall be excommunicate from the fellowship of Gods people. This kind of expression implies also (as some doe conceive) a bodily punishment to be i [...]sticted withall by the Magistrate. They hold determinately and positively that it signifieth Excommunication. Whether it signifie some other [Page 60] thing beside, they judge not to be so cleare, and therefore offer it to be considered.

It is but a poore 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 applyed even to capitall 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 capitall punishment. And who knoweth not that a capitall 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 capitall 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 concerne the glory of God, Isa. 66. 5. Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my names sake, said, let the Lord be glorified. Such was the casting out of the Synagogue, mentioned in the Gospell Ioh. 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 doe generally agree, Erasmus, Brentius, Tossanus, Diodati, Cartwright in his harmony, Gerhard, &c. So likewise M. Leigh out of Paulus Tarnovius, [...] dicitur▪ ejectus e [...] sacro Ecclesiae, excommunicatus. See Critica Sacra of the new Test. [Page 61] 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 sheweth the Antient use of the the thing it self, that there was such a discipline in the Jewish Church. It is not much materiall, 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 spirituall, or Ecclesiasticall Censure, not a civill punishment. Master Prynne, Vindic. pag. 48, 49. tels us. First, this casting▪ out of the Syna­gogue, was not warranted by Gods Word, but was onely a hu­mane invention. Secondly, as it was practiced by the Jewes, it was a diabolicall institution. Thirdly, that it was meerly a civill Excommunication, like to an Outlary, whereby the party cast out, was separate from civill conversation onely, or from all company with any man, but was not suspended from any Divine Ordinance. Fourthly, that it was inflicted by the Tem­porall Magistrate. Fifthly, that in the Jewish Synagogues at that time, there was neither Sacrament nor Sacrifice, but onely Reading, Expounding, Preaching, Disputing, and Prayer, so that it cannot prove suspension from the Sacrament. To the first, I answer, it was not onely warranted by the cutting off mentioned in the Law, but Erastus himselfe gives a warrant for it from Gods 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 Ecclesiasticall, not a civill Censure.

• First, the causes for which men were put out of the Syna­gogues, were matters of scandall, offences in point of Religi­on, and we read of none cast out of the Synagogue for a civill injury or crime; It was for confessing Christ Io. 9. 22. & 12. 42. then counted heresie: and for Preaching of the Go­spell Io. 16. 2.
• Secondly, The Synagogicall Assembly or Court, was Spiri­tuall [Page 62] and Ecclesiasticall, 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 pre [...]de and moderate, was called the chiefe Ruler of the Synagogue Act. 18. 8. 17. names never given to civill Magistates or Judges. Therefore Brughton makes this of the Rulers of the Synagogue, to be one of the paralells be­tweene the Jewish, and the Christian Church. Se [...] 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 Councells, because this Councell of the Pharisees call'd Christ himselfe a finner.
• 3 The Court of civill 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 Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall, not civill or temporall.
• 4 The end was Sacred and Spirituall, to glorifie God Is. 66. 5. to doe God good service Io. 16. 2. in that which did more immediately and neerly 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 dayes (though I beleeve he hath added ten more then enough, and if he look over his Bookes better, he will find he should have said thirty,) yet so as that it might be shortned upon repentance. But I pray, are civill punishments shortned or lengthened ac­cording to the parties repentance? I know Church Censures are so. But I had thought, the end of civill punishments, is not to reclaime a mans soule by repentance, and then to be taken off: but to guard the Lawes of the Land, to preserve Justice, Peace, [Page 63] and good order, to make others feare to doe evill, to uphold the publike 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 ex­presse a casting out from civill company or conversation onely, (which was not within, but without the Synagogue) would choose such a word as signifieth the casting out from an Eccle­siasticall or Sacred Assembly? (for such were the Synagogues, in which the Jewes had Reading, Expounding, Preaching and Prayer, as Master Prynne tells us) Christ himselfe distinguish­eth the Court or Judicatory, which was in the Synagogue, from civill Magistracy Luk. 12. 11. And when they bring you unto the Synagogues, and unto Magistrates and Powers. Magistrates and Powers are civill Rulers, supreame and subordinate, but the Synagogues are distinct Courts from both these.
• 7 Our Opposites cannot give any other rationall 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 thinke 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 Towne onely; for instance, from Nazareth. Thirdly, He saith, it seemes also to have been a refusall of the priviledges 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 expressely) 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 Hierusalem, 40. yeeres before the destruction of the Temple, there was a Prayer composed against the Hereticks. Hen. Vorstius in his ob­serv. pag. 285▪ sheweth out of Maimon▪ that it was a male­dictory Prayer appointed to be used against the Hereticks of that [Page 64] time, who encreased 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 Christs time, and against his Disciples. Surely it suteth 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 adde, that I doe not a little admire, how Master Prynne could cite God­wyns Jewish Antiquities lib. 5. cap. 2. for that opinion, that the casting out of the Synagogue was not an Ecclesiasticall but onely a civill censure. If he had but looked upon the page im­mediately preceding, he had found this distinction between the Ecclesiasticall and civill courts of the Jewes; The office of the Ecclesiasticall Court, was to put a difference between things holy and unholy, &c. 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 severall sorts of which censure follow; and so he beginneth with the casting out of the Synagogue, as the first or lesser 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 temporall Magistrate called the Ruler of the Synagogue, nor yet that he sate in Judgement in the Synagogue. The beating or scourging in the Synagogues, was a tumultuous disorderly act; we read of no sentence given, but onely 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 Ecclesiasticall, 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 Ecclesiasticall; of which before. As for the chief Ruler of the Synagogue: Archysynagogus erat [Page 65] primarius in Synagoga Doctor, say the Centurists Cent. 1. lib. 1. cap 7. and if so, then not a civill 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 farre 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 publike Ordinances, hearing of the word and all) I know Erastus answereth the word Synagogue may signifie either the materiall 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 signifie the house or place of publike worship (which yet it doth signifie in other places, as Luk. 7. 5. Act. 18. 7.) but the Church or Assembly it selfe. But I take it to signifie both joyntly; and that it was a casting out, even from the place it selfe, such as that Io. 9. 34. [...]. and they cast him out, or excommunicated him, as the English Translators adde in the Margine. Besides, I take what it is granted. It was a casting out from the Assembly, or Congregation it selfe. 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 keepe off foure cubites distance, from all other men. And was there so much roome to reele to and fro in the Synagogue? I doe not understand how a man shall satisfie himselfe in that notion. But I rather thinke Bertramus speakes 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 mens society, must needs be excluded from the publike holy Assemblies, and from the place where these Assemblies are. Whereunto agreeth that [Page 66] which we read in Exc. Gem. Sanhedrin cap. 3. Sect. 9. a certaine Disciple, having after two and twenty yeeres divulged that which had been said in the Schoole 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 then Mr. Prynne can prove that the Sacrament of Circumcision was not then administred in the Synagogues. The Jewes do administer it in their Synagogues; and that Iohn 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 Tenen [...]s of this kind, should never have complyed with those of Episcopall men, against the Anti-Epis­copall party) But neither doth Sutlivius prove it; onely he holds that the casting out of the Synagogue was meerely a ci­vill 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 accesse 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 himselfe 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 onely 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 himselfe Io. 18. 20. I ever taught in the Synagogue, and in the Temple, whether the Iewes alwayes resort. Christ was cast out of the City of Nazareth in the tumult by the people Luk. 4. but here was no consistoriall 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 [Page 67] 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 Councell, not the Synagogue which the Apostles had to doe with Act. 4. v 5.

But what have they gained if they could prove that Christ or his Apostles, while knowne 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 gaine 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 straitned. 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 sinne by Sacrifice, were for that end admitted into the Temple (which who denies?) but still with a marke of Ignominy upon them as long as they were excommunicated, as I have shewed 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 paralell thus. The Pharisees did cast out from the Synagogue such as professed Christ; Diotrephes did cast out of the Church (as Iohn saith) such as received the Brethren. Both clave errante: the Ecclesiasticall censure was abused and misapplyed; yet from both it appeareth▪ that Ecclesiasticall Censures were used in the Church. There was a casting out of the Synagogue used among the Jewes, which the Pharisees did abuse. There was a casting out of the Church used among Christians, which Diotrephes did abuse. I remember I heard [Page 68] Master Coleman once draw an argument against excommunica­tion from that Text in Iohn concerning Diotrephes. Which is as if we should argue thus, the Scripture tells us it is a sinne to condemne the righteous, Ergo it is a sinne to condemne. It is a sinne to cast out of the Church godly persons who love and receive the Brethren, Ergo it is a sinne 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 evill, but that which is good.

CHAP. VII. Other Scripturall Arguments to prove an Excommu­cation in the Iewish Church.

ANother Scripture proving Excommunication in the Jewish Church (which is also paralell to that casting out of the Synagogue as Erastus himselfe told us) is Ezra. 10. 8. that whosoever would not come within three dayes, according to the counsell of the Princes and Elders, all his Substance should be forfeited, and himselfe separated from the Congregation (or Church, It is Kahal in the Hebrew, and [...] in the Greeke) of those that had been carryed 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. eccl. 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 tenent, that there was no other but a Civill Tribunall in the Jewish Church. Beda upon the place cals this Assembly a Synod, [...]nita Synodo &c. Josephus antiq. [Page 69] lib. 11. cap. 5. expresseth the punishment of those who would not come to Hierusalem 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, &c. are ab­alienated, when (though they and we remaine where before) we cease to owne them as ours; and thus the Congregation of Israel did renounce their interest in those offenders, and would not owne them as Church-members. The other punishment was the dedicating or devoting of their substance. Gelenius the Interpreter hath rightly rendered the sence of Iosephus: 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 mans 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 Jewes, one Civill, and another Ecclesiasticall; that in causes and occasions of a mixed nature which did concerne both Church and State, both did consult conclude, and decree, in a joynt 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 Civill and the Ecclesiasticall power might occasion the denouncing of a double punishment upon the contumacious, forfeiture and ex­communication. But 2. The objection made, doth rather con­firme me, that Excommunication is intended in that place. For this forfeiture was [...] a making sacred, or dedicating to an holy use, as I have shewed out of Iosephus. The originall word translated forfeited is more properly translated devoted, which is the word put in the margin of our bookes. The Greek [Page 70] saith [...], anathemstizabitur which is the best ren­dring of the Hebrew [...]. It was not therefore that which we call forfeiture of a mans 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 joyned to­gether: and the substance had not been anathematized if the man had not been anathematized. I doe not say that Excom­munication ex natura rei doth inferre and draw after it, the devoting of a mans estate as holy to the Lord. No: Ex­communication can not hurt a man in his worldly estate, fur­ther than the Civill Magistrate and the Law of the Land ap­pointeth. And there was Excommunication in the Apostolical Churches, where there was no Christian Magistrate to adde a Civill 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 nat. & 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 Gods word, but was onely a humane invention.

I know some have drawne 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, unlesse you understand the cursing or malediction to be an act of the Ecclesiasticall power, onely authorised or countenanced by the Magistrate: Which the words may well beare▪ for neither is it easily credible that Nehemiah did with his owne hand smite those men and plucke off their hayre, but that by his authority he tooke care to have it done by civill Officers, as the cursing by Ecclesiasticall [Page 71] Officers. The Dutch annotations leane this way, telling us that Nehemiah did expresse his zeale 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 evill. It was the most misapplied censure in the world, in respect of the persons thus cast out; but yet it proves the Jewish custome 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 &c. yet it is a more generall and comprehensive word then 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 onely Greeke word given both for the three Hebrew words Niddui, Cherem, and Shammata, and for the Latine Excommunicatio. Wherefore [...] in this place is extermino, excommunico, repudio, which is one of the usuall significations of the word given by Stephanus, and by Scapula. It is a word frequently used in the Canons of the most ancient Councels, to expresse 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 Coun­cels, 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. Zonaras upon the 13 ^th Canon of the eighth generall Councell, observeth a double [...] used in the ancient Church [...]ne was a totall separation or casting out of the Church which is usually cal­led Excommunication; another was a suspension or sequestra­tion from the Sacrament onely. Of which I am to speak more afterward in the third Booke. I hold now at the Text in hand, which may be thus read, according to the sence and letter both, when they shall excommunicate you, &c. Howbeit the other reading when they shall separate you, holds forth the same thing which I speake of; separate, from what? our Translators supply from their company: but from what company of theirs? not from [Page 72] their civill company onely, but from their▪ sacred or Church assemblies, and from religious fellowship, it being a Church­censure and a part of Ecclesiasticall discipline, in which sence, as this word frequently occurreth in the Greeke fathers and ancient Canons when they speake of Church discipline, so doubtlesse it must be taken in this place. 1. Because, as Grotius tels us, that which made the Jewes the rather to separate men in this manner from their society was the want of the Civill coercive power of Magistracy, which sometime they had. And I have proved before that the civill Sanhedrin which had power of criminall and capitall judgements did remove from Ierusa­lem, and cease to execute such judgement, forty yeeres 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 civill company, but either a conscientious and religious separation by which Church mem­bers did intend to keep themselves pure from such as did walke, (or were conceived to walke) 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 ministery of the Gospell, Acts 13. 2. Rom. 1. 1. Gal. 1. 15. Thirdly, a Civill separation is for a Civill injury; but this separation is for wickednesse and impiety, whether accompanied with civill injury or no; they shall cast out your name as evill, [...], or as it seemes the Syriak and Arabik in­terpreters did read [...] tanquam improborum, as of wicked and evill men. The sence is the same.

Thus farre of the Jewish Church, the Jewish Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin, the Jewish Excommunication. I proceed to the Jewish Exomologesis or publike Confession of sinne.

CHAP. VIII. Of the Iewish Exomologesis, or publike Declaration of Re­pentance by confession of sinne.

AS there were some footsteps of publique Confession among the Heathens, and namely among the Lacedemonians: Lorinus in Psal. 31. 5. ex Plutarcho. who made him that was deprehended in a crime, to compasse the Altar, and there to expresse his owne shame, and to pronounce some disgracefull words against himselfe. So, I make no doubt, they had this (as many other rites) from an imitation of the people of God, who had their owne Exomologesis, and publique testimonies of Repentance, which may thus ap­peare.

• 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, Lev. 1. 4. and this was done in the Taber­nacle publiquely before the Priest. Genebrardus and Lorinus in Psalm 31. 5. tell us out of Aben Ezra and other Rabbinicall Autors, and ex libro Siphri, that when he that brought the Sa­crifice, did put his hands between the hornes of the beast which was to be offered, he did distinctly commemorate that sinne for which he did then repent, professing his detestation thereof, and promising to do▪ so no more. M ^r 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 hornes, and confesseth upon the same offering, the iniquity of sinne, and upon the trespasse-offering, the iniquity of trespasse: and upon the burnt offering he confesseth the iniquity of doing that which he should not▪ and not doing that he ought, &c. Now that confes­sion of sinne was joyned with the laying on of hands upon the Sacrifice, is not onely proved by the judgement of the Hebrews, understanding the Law in that sence, but by the Law it selfe, Lev. 16. 21. where Aaron is commanded to lay his hands upon the head of the live Goat, and confesse over him all the iniquites [Page 74] of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sinnes, putting them upon the head of the Goat.
• Secondly, the Law appointeth confession to be made at the bringing of Trespasse-offerings Levit. 5. and that in three kinds of trespasses.

• 1 If one heare the voyce of swearing, that is, heare his neigh­bour swearing or cursing, which he ought to reveale: and is a witnesse whether he hath seen or known of it: (that is, whether he himselfe 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 knowne it that way. So the Dutch Annotations and the best Interpreters) if he doe not utter it, then he shall beare his iniquity. The meaning is when one doth for favour or malice (So Aretius and Pareus upon the place) dis­semble the truth, and conceale his knowledge, and so make himselfe partaker of other mens sinnes. Grotius expounds it by Prov. 29. Who so is partner with a thiefe hateth his owne soule: he heareth a cursing and bewrayeth it not. In such a case a man did greatly scandalize 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 uncleane thing, and not being cleansed from his uncleannesse
  See Ainswarth upon the place.
  did goe into the Sanctuary or touch an holy thing (whether he knew himselfe to have tou­ched the uncleane 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 uncleannes 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 uncleane thing, for which the confession and trespasse-offering was appointed: Seeing the Law (saith Ainsworth) maketh such uncleane but till eve­ning Lev. 11. 24, 31. when washing themselves and their clothes they were cleane, and for uncleannesse 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 sinne, and the trespasse-offering was required in case an uncleane person [Page 75] in his uncleannesse came to the Sanctuary, or did eate of an holy thing.
• 3 If one had sworne 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 knowes or remembers well the thing. Or thus; If a man had sworne an oath to doe a thing, or not to doe it, and afterward falsified his oath, either be­cause he could not doe what he had rashly sworne, or because he was unwilling to doe it, or because he neglected to doe 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 scandall.

In any of these three cases, a man was to confesse his [...]inne, when he brought his trespasse-offering, and the offering was not accepted without confession: Lev. 5. 5. And it shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these things, that he shall confesse that he hath sinned in that thing. And he shall bring his trespasse-offering, &c. Bucer. scripta Anglicana▪ pag. 310. Nunc au­tem legimus▪ Lev. 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 [...]acien­do 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 M ^r Prynne affirmeth Vindic. pag. 17. For, 1. It was a cereomoniall Law, concerning the externall worship of God, and a part of the Law of trespasse-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 himselfe doth not deny (but intimate) that till such con­fession was made, a man was not admitted to make atonement by trespasse-offerings. And so doe the Jewes understand the Law of confession, as we shall heare by and by. Now how could it be knowne, whether a man had confessed any thing at all, if it was secretly, and to God alone? 3. The sinnes to be confes­sed, were oft times scandalous and knowne to others, (as hath been cleared.) Therefore the confession was to be knowne to others also. 4 That this confession (not private and auri­cular, but publique and penitentiall) was made in the Temple, [Page 76] before and in the hearing of the Priest, I prove from Philo the Jew. In his booke de sacr. Abelis & Caini, at the close, speaking of the Levites ministery, he saith, that he did execute and per­forme [...], 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 trespasse-offerings. But observe further, he speaks of the peni­tentiall part, as a publique thing, or rather of the publique declaration of repentance. Repentance of sinnes, that is, repen­tance declared or professed (which was in the confession joyned with the trespasse-offerings) was one of the chiefe things about which the Leviticall ministery was exercised: which is the cleare sence of the place. More plainly, the same Philo lib. de victimis towards the close, where he tels that certaine parts of the trespasse-offerings were eaten by the Priests, and that these must be eaten in the Temple, he gives this reason for it, lest the penitents sinne and shame should be divulged and punished more then needs must, which intimateth that the particular offence was so confessed that it was made knowne to such as were within the Temple.

The third Scripturall proofe is Num. 5. 6, 7. When a man or a woman shall commit any sinne that men commit, to doe a trespasse against the Lord, and that person be guilty, Then they shall confesse their sinne which they have done: and he shall recompence his tres­passe, &c. The Hebrews expound it thus: All the precepts in the Law, whether they command or forbid a thing, if a man transgresse against any one of them, either presumptuously or ignorantly, when he maketh repentance and turneth from his sinne, he is bound to confesse before the blessed God, as in Numb. 5. 7. This confession is with words, and it is commanded to be done. How doe they confesse? He saith, Oh God, I have sinned, I have done perversely, I have tres­passed before thee, and have done thus and thus: and loe I repent, and am ashamed of my doings: and I will never doe this thing a­gaine. 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 sinne and trespasse-offerings, when they bring their oblations for their ignorant or for their presumptuous [Page 77] sinnes: atonement is not made for them by their oblation, untill 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, un­till they have repented and confessed. And so he that hurteth his Neighbour, or doth him dammage, though he pay him whatsoever he oweth him, atonement is not made for him, tell he confesse and turne away from doing so againe for ever, as it is written in Num. 5. 6. Any of all the sinnes 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 sinne for which the Trespasse offering was brought, you have another plaine passage, cap. 2. for ( 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.) publike confession (not of private sinnes known to God onely, but) of known sinnes by which others were scandalized.

In which passage I nnderstand by sinnes against God, sinnes known to God onely. 1. Because its forbidden to reveale those sinnes, 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 confesse by word of mouth, the sinne which they had done, without which confession, they got not leave to make atonement by the trespasse-offering. Now trespasse offerings were for sinnes against God as well as for sinnes against man. 3. It should other­wise contradict the Law Num. 5. 6. which appointeth any sinne or trespasse against the Lord to be confessed. 4. Those tre­spasses were to be publikely confessed, for which in case of im­penitency and obstinacy, a man was excommunicated with [Page 78] Cherem, or the greater Excommunication. But a man was ex­communicated for divers sinnes against God, which did not at all wrong his Neighbour, setting a side the scandall. Which I have proved before. These four reasons will prove either that the meaning of that Canon must be of private sinnes, and not of publike and scandalous sinnes 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 sinne. 1. It was for any scandalous sinne, of commission or omission against the first or second Table. 2. It was not free and voluntary to the offender. I doe not say that he w [...]s compelled to it by any externall Force or coercive power: but he was commanded and obliged by the Law to con­fesse; Vatablus on Num. 5. 7. Fatebuntur 1. [...]. t [...]nebuntur fateri, they shall confesse, that is, they shall be bound to confesse: and a man was not admitted with his trespasse offering except he confessed. 3. It was done by word of mouth. 4. And publikely before the Congregation that were present. 5. Hanc [...] confessionem Hebraei vocant confessionem super peccato singulari, quia in aliis sacrifici­is siebat confes­sio peccatorum generalis, saith [...]atablus upon the place. The particular trespasse was named in the Confession. 6. Sinnes both of Igno­rance and Malice, when scandalous, were to be confessed. 7. The sinner was not slinted to a Prescript forme of words in Confessi­on, but was to enlarge his confession, as his heart was enlarged. 8. In Criminall and Capitall cases, beside the civill or corpo­rall punishment, confession was to be made, because of the scan­dall which had been given. Which doth further appeare from the Talmud it selfe in Sanhedrin. cap. 6. Sect. 2. for that is observed in all who are put to death, that they must confesse; for whoever doth confesse he hath part in the world to come; and namely it is recorded of Achan, that Joshua said to him, my Sonne 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 &c. Whence is it collected that his confession did expiate his sinne. 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 Achans confession was not in the Sanctuary, nor at a Trespasse offering. But I make mention of it because Confirm. Thes. pag. 106. 113. Era­stus [Page 79] holdeth that under the Law, confession was onely required in such cases, where the sinne was not criminall or capitall. Which is confuted by the afore-mentioned passages in Mai­monides and the Talmud it selfe: proving that whether the sinne was expiated by Sacrifice or by death, it was alwayes to be con­fessed; from the same example of Achan doth P. 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 sinne was to be parti­cularly confessed, which he further proveth by another rabbini­call passage.

In the fourth place, Io. 9. 24. seemeth to hold forth a judi­ciall publike confession of sinne 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 farre from confessing Christ, as to confesse sinne and wicked collusion, Give God the Praise say they, we know that this man is a sinner. Which is to be expounded by Ios. 7. 19. Give glory to the Lord God of Israel, and make confession.

Fifthly, as the Jewes 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 repented; and [...] nadim a penitent, the Niddui made the nadim: for when a man was excommunicated by the lesser Excommunication, Seld. de jure nat. & Gentium lib. 4. cap. 8. Pro di­versitate pec­cati & peccan­tis moribus, nunc citius nunc serius se­quebatur absolutio. Sed ut plurimum excommunicatio fiebat in diem tricesimum &c. Intra hoc tem­pus exspectabat forum ut ad Bonam [...]ediret. mentem, [...], & quae juberent ipsi praesta­ret &c. 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. dayes, and then other 30. dayes, and as some thinke (the third time) 30. dayes, 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, then they proceeded to the greater excommuni­cation. Which doth prove a publike Confession, at least in the case of the excommunicated.

Sixthly, we find a publike penitentiall confession Ezra. 10. 10. 11. And Ezra the Priest stood up and said unto them, ye have trans­gressed [Page 80] and have taken strange wives to encrease the trespasse of Israel. Now therefore make confession unto the Lord God of your Fathers, and doe his pleasure, and separate your selves from the people of the land, and from the strange wives. Marke here the foresaking of the sinne could not su [...]fice without confessing the sinne. All Israel had sworne and covenanted to doe the thing, to put away the strange wives vers. 5. But Ezra the Priest tells them they must also make confession of their sinne; confession of their former trespasse must be joyned with Reformation for the future: All which the people promise to doe as Ezra had said vers. 12. But what was this confession? was it onely a private confession to God alone? or was it onely a generall confession made by the whole congregration of Israel at a solemne Fast and humiliation? Nay, that there was a third sort of Confession differing from both these, appeareth by vers. 13. neither is this a worke of one day or two: for we are many that have transgressed in this thing; yea, three Moneths are spent in the businesse, 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 certaine chiefe 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 trespasse. With which trespasse offering confession was ever joyned, as hath been before shewed from the Law.

Seventhly, Master Hildersham of worthy memory in his 34. Lecture upon Psal. 51. draweth a [...] Argument from Davids ex­ample for the publike Confession of a scandalous sinne before the Church, He made, saith he, publike Confession of his sinne to the Congregation and Church of God; for we see in the Title of this Psalme. 1. That he committed this Psalme (that containeth the ac­knowledgement of his sinne, and profession of his repentance) to the chief musitian to be published in the Sanctuary and Temple. 2 That in this publication of his Repentance, he hideth not from the Church his sinne, nor cloketh it at all, but expresseth in particular the speciall sinne, &c. Adde hereunto, this publike Confession was made [Page 81] after ministeriall conviction by Nathan, who did convince Da­vid of the greatnesse of that scandalous sinne, in which he had then continued impenitent neer a yeer or thereabout. The Doctrin which Master Hildersham draweth from Davids example is this, That they whose sinnes God hath detected and brought to light, whose sinnes are publike and notorious, scandalous and offensive to the congregations where they live, ought to be willing to confesse their sins publikely, to make their Repentance as publike and notorious as their sinne is. He addeth in his explanation, when they shall be required to doe it by the Discipline of the Church. Marke 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 en­joyne publike Repentance to scandalous sinners, for the satisfying of the Congregation, when they are detected and presented unto them, refuse or neglect to doe it. And here he complaineth, that the publike acknowledgement of scandalous sinnes, 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 sinne notorious without Repentance. And the Booke of Common Prayer in the rubrike before the Communion, commandeth, that if any be an open and notorious evill 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 repented, that the Congregation may thereby be satisfi­ed, which were afore offended. So that you may see the Lawes and Discipline of our Church, require that open and scandalous sin­ners should d [...]e open and publike Repentance▪ yea, give power to the Minister to repell and keepe back such from the Communion that re­fuse to doe it. Where it may be observed by the way, that the Power of Elder-ships 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 Ministery, even in the prelati­call times. And he hath upon the matter endeavoured to bring the Consciences of a whole Elder-ship into a greater [Page 82] servitude under this present Reformation, then the Conscience of a single Minister was formerly brought under by Law in this particular.

Eightly, Master Hildersham Ibid. Lect. 34. argueth not one­ly [...] 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 owne words are very well worth the transcrib­ing. This is evident by those two Laws Lev. 6. 5. 6. and Num. 5. 6. 8. where God plainly taught his people, that their trespasse offering which they brought to him, to seeke pardon of any sinne, 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 thinke those Lawes concerned the Jewes onely, our Saviour himselfe giveth this in charge Matth. 5. 23. 24. If thou bringest thy Gift to the Altar, and there remembrest that thy Brother hath ought 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 ought 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 halfe said, Josh. 22. The Lord God of Gods he knoweth, and Israel he shall know. Thus Master Hildersham.

CHAP. IX. Whether in the Iewish Church, there was any Suspen­sion or exclusion of prophane, scandalous, notorious sin­ners, from partaking in the publike Ordinances, with the rest of the Children of Israel in the Temple.

ERastus and his followers hold, that among the Jewes none was excluded from any publike Ordinance in the Temple, for morall uncleanesse, that is, for a prophane scan­dalous conversation, but onely for legall or ceremoniall un­cleanesse. 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 rectifie their great mistake, and to prove an exclu­sion from the Temple and publike Ordinances, for publike and scandalous offences in life and conversation, or for morall as well as ceremoniall uncleanesse.

First, I shall prove it ex ore duorum, from the Testimonies of two of the most famous witnesses of the Jewes themselves, Phi­lo and Iosephus. 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. [...] &c. 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 quàm 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 &c. Pariter repellit non tan­tum scorta, sed & natos è prostitutis, contactos materno dedecore propter natales adulteri­nos. &c. Alii vero quasi contendant hos in impietatis stadio post se relinquere, addunt am­plius, ut non solùm ideas, sed & deum esse negent. Et post. Proinde omnes hi meritò pel­luntur à sacris c [...]ibus, ( [...]) Philo lib de Victimas offerentibus, is so full [Page 84] and plaine, as if he had purposely written that Booke to record the exclusion of scandalous persons from Communion with the Church of Israel in the Temple. He presseth all along the necessity of holinesse 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 prophane, as well as those who were legally uncleane.

The same thing may be confirmed out of Iosephus, 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 &c. 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. Iosephus gives a good Testimony to Agrippa, that he was un­justly accused. Agrippa himselfe sends for Simon, and askes him what he had ever done which deserved such an accusation. But neither Agrippa himselfe, nor Iosephus, saith one syllable to this purpose, that the excluding of a man from the Temple for prophanenesse and impiety was a new Arbitrary censure, con­trary to the law or custome of the Jewes: 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, tacitely con­firmeth that if guilty, it had been just to exclude from the Tem­ple. Againe de bello Jud. lib. 4. cap. 5. Iosephus records that Ana­nus the high Priest (whom cap. 7. He highly commends for good government) had an oration to the Jewes against the [...], the zelots, who under colour of that name, which they took to themselves, committed a great deale of injustice and violence. He said with tears, I had rather dye then see the house of God filled [...] with such crimes (or criminall per­sons) [...], and the forbidden and holy places to be haunted and trode with the feet of those who are polluted with murthers: speaking of those ze­lots. What can be more plaine; [...], 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-guiltinesse, defilement by murther, was also a cause of exclusion from the Temple, and to such the Temple was a place inaccessible and forbidden. I adde a Testi­mony [Page 85] of I. Scaliger Elench. Trihaeres. Nic. Terar. cap. 28. where speaking of those Essaeans who did not observe the Mosaicall 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 Iosephus: 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. 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. Nam [...] 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 Iohn 8. concerning the woman taken in adultery, whom they brought before Christ in the Temple. I remember Confirm Thes. lib. 1. cap. 2. pag. 99. and elsewhere. Erastus objecteth them both.

To the first I answer, it rather confirmeth then confuteth what I have said. For 1. The Text saith, Vers. 13. the Publican stood afarre off: the Pharisee not so. 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 then the Pub­lican: for the custome was such, that the Publicans were to stand in the Court of the Gentiles, the Pharisees in the Court [Page 86] 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 Iosephus 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 doe) yet this place helpes them not at all, unlesse they can prove that this was a scanda­lous and prophane Publican. It is certaine that divers of the Publicans were religious and devout men, and that this was one of them, we may more then conjecturally know, by the Pharisees owne 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 him­selfe not onely 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 Iohn 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 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 Iosephus call by the name of [...] the Temple. Yea the whole mountaine 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 nat. & 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 Iohn 8. because V. 2. tels us, it was in the place where all the people came unto Jesus, and he taught them. Now it is certaine that both Christ and his Apostles did often teach the people in the Coutt of the Gentiles, and in Solomons porch, which was without the Court of Israel, in the Intermurale, that all might have the better occasion of hearing the Gospell, even they who were not permitted to enter into the Court of Israel. Wherefore since the Text tels us, that when the Pharisees brought the woman to Christ, he was teaching in such a place, [Page 87] where all the people had accesse to heare him: this agreeth better to the Intermurale, then to the Court of Israel. Secondly, I answer, that woman did not come as a priviledged 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 publique and shamefull manner she might be sentenced and condemned, and made vile before all the people: so that it was in her paena, non privilegium. 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 sate 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 atheisticall or hereticall bookes, San­hedrin cap. 11. sect. 1. was not violated by the Councels reading or searching of them for a Judiciall triall and examination: as is rightly observed by Dionysius Vossius, annot. in Maimon. de Idol. pag. 25.

And now having taken off the two principall 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 onely 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 sonnes 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 pertake in all the Ordi­nances with the Church, unlesse he be both circumcised in flesh, [Page 88] and also in regard of his profession and practice a visible Saint, or one supposed to be circumcised in heart. The disjunction Nor tels 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 cōmunion with the children of Israel in al publik 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 her selfe, being knowne 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
  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 steale, murther, and commit adultery, and sweare falsely, and burne Incense to Baal, and yet presumed to come and stand before him in his owne house. Is this house which is called by my name, saith the Lord, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Ierem. 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 denne, so doe these even after their stealing, murthe­ring, &c. 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 prophaned my Sabbaths. For when they had slaine their children to their Idols, then they came the same day into my Sanctuary to prophane it. But God would not have the Temple to be a receptacle for such. When Christ applieth that Scripture, Ierem. 7. against those who bought and sold in the Temple, Matth. 21. 12, 13. he makes it cleare, that the Temple was made a den of robbers, not onely as it was made a place of gaine, or a den where the robbers prey lies, but even as it was a receptacle of the robbers or theeves 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 onely in the utmost Court, or the Court of the Gentiles, as Grotius and M ^r Selden thinke: how much lesse would he [Page 89] have suffered such persons in the Court of Israel.
  Lib. de Victi­mas offerentibus. Nam veri Dei Templum non pater profanis sacrificiis. Tali homini dice­rem, obon [...], non gaudet D [...]us centenis boum victimis &c. 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 pro­phane men from the Temple. M ^r. Selden de jure nat. & Gent. lib. 4. cap. 5. doth so explaiue that casting out of the buyers and sellers out of the Temple, that the argument in hand is not a little strengthned 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 custome. Zelots, that is, private persons zealously affected, were permitted to scourge, wound, yea kill such as they saw publiquely committing atrocious wickednesse, by which the holinesse either of the name of God, or of the Temple, or of the Nation of the Jewes was violated. So M ^r. Selden sheweth out of the Talmudists, Ib. cap. 4. Now (saith he) Zelotarum jure, our Saviour though a private person (for so he was lookt 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 zeale to the glory of God, was much more incum­bent to such as had authority in their hands for correcting and removing the prophanation of the Temple in an authoritative, judiciall, and orderly way.
• 4. The Levites had a charge to let none that were uncleane 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 eate: an argument from the deniall of that which is lesse, to the deniall of that which is more. So here, it was a necessary consequence: If those that were ceremonially uncleane were to be excluded from the Temple, much more those who were morally or impiously uncleane. For, 1. the legall uncleannesse did signifie [Page 90] the sinfull uncleannesse; and the exclusion of those that were known to be legally uncleane from the Temple, did signifie the excluding of those who are knowne to be grossely and no­toriously uncleane 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 keepe from the Temple the uncleane aut etiam alio quovis modo indignos, or those also who were any otherwaies unworthy. 2. God­wyn in his Moses and Aaron, lib. 5. cap. 2. makes a comparison betweene the three degrees of the Jewish excommunication, and the three degrees of excluding the uncleane, Numb 5. 2. which parallel if we please to make then as for any of the three sorts of uncleannesse, the touch of the dead, issue, or leprosie, a man was excluded from the campe 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 onely betweene the cleane and the uncleane, but betweene the holy and unholy, Levit. 10. 10. or betweene the holy and profane, Ezech. 22. 26. & 44. 23. By cleane and uncleane I understand persons or things that were ceremo­nially such; by holy and prophane, persons that were morally such.
• 5. I prove the same point from Psalm 118. 19, 20. open to me the gates of righteousnesse, I will goe 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 Gods Sanctuary, are called gates of righteous­ness, saith Ainsworth on the place, because onely the just and cleane 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 &c. 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 speakes by way of antithesis to the for­mer▪ pollution of the Sanctuary by Saul, and other wicked persons, who by comming to the house of God had made it a denne of thieve [...] ▪ But now the righteous shall enter in it. [The righteous] [...]on to such (saith Di [...]dati) and [...] to [Page 91] prophane 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 righteousnesse, &c. I know the chiefe 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 Ierusalem. But certainly there is an al­lusion to the Sanctuary, and the holy hill thereof in Ierusa­lem, as to the type of that which is Spiriuall and eternall, which Iansenius upon the place noteth: and the Prophet here teacheth the people so to looke upon those offences for which men were excluded from the Sanctuary, as to learne what kind of persons are true members of the Church, and who not; who shall be allowed to commun [...]cate 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 thinkes that communion with the Church in this world is meant in the first words, Lord who shall sojourne (so the word is jagur in the Hebrew, [...] in the Greek) in thy Tabernacle. (the name of Tabernacle fitly expressing the moveable 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 sojourne in the mountaine of the house of thy holinesse. So Psalm 24. 3. the Chald [...] readeth thus, Who shall be worthy to ascend unto the mountaine 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 markes or characters there enu­merated, so farre as men can [...]udge of these markes, that is so fa [...]e as they are externall and discernable.
• 7. The same thing seemeth also to be alluded unto Psalm 50. 16. Unto the wicked (the Chaldee addes, that repenteth not, and prayeth in his transgression) God saith, what hast thou to doe to de­clare [Page 92] my Statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth. It is spoken to a scandalous prophane man, Vers. 18, 19, 20. who yet will needs take upon him a forme of godlinesse.
  Lib. 3. de vit [...] Mos [...]s: quem ne honoris quidem gratia [...]as est nominari ab om­nibus [...] sed à solis optimis & puri­ficatis hominibus.
  Where Philo the Jew speakes of him that blasphemed the name of the Lord, he addeth, that it was not lawfull for all men to name the name of God, no not for Honour or Religions sake, but onely for good and holy men. And this gives me occasion to adde in conclusion a further confirmation out of the Hebrew Doctors. They held that an Israelite turning an Hereticke, (that is, denying any of their thirteen fundamentall 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 nat. & Gentium. lib. 6. cap. 10. They held that such a one, an hereti­call 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 hereticall Jew, more hereticall then 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. tels us that if an Epicurean Israelite had written a coppy of the booke 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 it selfe to be pol­luted and prophaned, when it came thorough the hands of an Epicurean, or Hereticall Israelite, no doubt, they thought the Temple polluted and prophaned, 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 Heretick into the inner part of the Intermurale, or that part of the Temple which divided between the Israelites and Heathens.

If any man shall aske, what I meane to inferre from all this. Must all prophane persons be kept back from our [...] [...]s and publike 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 prophane persons were forbidden to enter into the Temple because of the [Page 93] sacramentall and typicall holinesse thereof (for the Temple was a Type of Christ) so prophane persons are now much more to be kept back from the Sacrament of the Lord Supper, which hath more of Sacramentall signification, mystery, and holi­nesse in it, then the Temple of Ierusalem had, and whereby more ample Evangelicall promises are set forth and sealed unto us. And as prophane persons might of old come into the Court of the Gentiles, and there heare the word preached in Solomons 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 else-where out of Iosephus) but might not come into the Court of Israel, nor have communion in the Sacrifices: so prophane obstinate sinners are to be excluded, for their impiety, from the Church communion of Saints, though they may heare the word, as Heathens also may doe. Now that the Temple of Ierusalem had a Typicall Sacramentall resemblance of Christ, may appear plainly in divers particulars. 1. As the glory of the Lord dwelt in the Temple within the oracle, above the Arke 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 fulnesse of the God-head dwells bodily, as the Apostle speakes▪ 2. As the great God whom the heavens of heavens cannot containe, 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 neer each to other, to have fellow-ship together in Jesus Christ. 3. God revealed his will, that he would accept no Sacrifices from his people, but in the Temple onely, after it was built: So God hath revealed his will, that [...] spirituall Sacrifices can­not be acceptable to him, except in▪ Jesus Christ onely. 4. The people of God were bound to set their Faces toward the Tem­ple of Hierusalem, when they prayed 1. Kings 8. 30. 48. Dan. 6. 10. So are we bound in Prayer to looke toward Jesus Christ with an eye of faith 5. As there was an ample promise of God to heare the Prayers which should be made in that place 2. Chro. 7. 15, 16. so hath God promised to heare us and accept us, if we seeke unto him in and through Jesus Christ. 6. God said of the [Page 94] 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 Jewes onely, but for the Gentiles; and whosoever beleeves on him, (Jew or Gentile) shall not be confounded. 9. Because of thy Temple at Hierusalem, 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 Ierusalem the City of God, but the Temple was the glory of Ierusalem: so glorious things are spoken of the Church, But Christ is the Churches glory. Other like considerations might be added, but these may suffice.

CHAP. X. A debate with Master Prynne, concerning the ex­clusion of prophane scandalous persons from the passeover.

THat which Master Prynne in his Vindication pag. 15, 16. pleadeth for his opinion, from the Law of the passeover, may be (as I conceive) with no great difficulty answered, and I shall doe 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 passeover, &c. being bound to eat the passeover in its season, except in cases of necessity, disability, by reason of a journey, or of legall uncleannesse onely, not spirituall, as is cleer 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 [Page 95] that were present received the passeover, not one of them being exclud­ed from eating it.

Answ. 1. If it was so, doth not this make as much against himselfe as against us, unlesse he will say, that the Analogy must hold so farre, that all Baptized persons whatsoever, none excepted (if it be not in cases of necessity or disability) how scand [...]lous, impenitent, and obstinate soever they be, ought to be admitted to the Lords Table? so there shall be no excommu­nication at all (which yet himselfe granteth) for if any Bap­tized person, (though such as Master Prynne himselfe would have to be excommunicated) shall be shut out from the Church and from all publike Ordinances, and so from the Lords Sup­per, because of his obstinacy and continuance in some foule scandall, after previous admonitions, in so doing, we shall, by his principles, doe contrary to the Law of the passeover, in the point of Analogy. 2. The Texts cited by him, prove that men were debarred for legall uncleannesse, but there is not one of them which will prove that men were debarred onely for legall uncleannesse, and no man for morall uncleannesse. Yea, one of those Texts. Ezra. 6. 21. tells us that those who were admit­ted to the passeover, were such as had separated themselves from the silthynesse of the heathen of the Land, to seeke the Lord God of Israel. 3. That morall uncleannesse, I meane known prophannesse or scandalous sinnes, did render men uncapable of eating the passe­over I shall prove anone by divers arguments, unto which I re­mit Master Prynne.

That which hee objecteth from 1 Cor. 10. I am to answer also distinctly by it selfe. His second reply is, that those who were legally uncleane at the day appointed for the passeover, so as they could not then receive it, were yet peremptorily enjoyned to eat it the 14. day of the second moneth, &c. Num. 9. 11. 12. he must not be suspended from it above one moneth. Answ. The Scripture cited proves no such thing, except upon supposition that they be clean the 14. day of the following moneth. And what if any of them were in the second moneth also uncleane, by the touch of a deadbody or otherwise? Were they not kept off in the se­cond moneth, as well as in the first? Is it not plainly said of the second passeover vers. 12. (the very pla [...]e cited by himselfe) [Page 96] according to all the Ordinances of the passeover they shall keep it? and one of those Ordinances was the keeping back the uncleane.

Thirdly, he saith, that he who was legally uncleane, 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 uncleannesse did seclude him from eating the passeover, 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 passeover, &c. 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 passeover, nor to the Family to admit him, but that there was an authori­tative restraint, I prove by this argument. He that was uncleane and before his cleasing did eat of the flesh of the Peace-offerings was cut off from among his people Lev. 7. 20. 21, Therefore he that in his uncleannesse, did eat the passeover, was to be cut off also. No man will say that there was any lesse punishment in­tended for the pollution of the passeover, than for the pollution of Peace-offerings. And if the uncleane 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 bloud of the Covenant, from being trod under Foot by Dogges 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 uncleane by a dead body, and so by consequence from the passeover. Nay the Text rather intimateth, that they were in the camp; for they came before Moses and Aaron on that day, when the passe­over 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 uncleane 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 uncleane by the dead body of a man were quite excluded out of the Camp, except Num. 5. 2. And if he [Page 97] will beleive 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;
  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. cit [...]th Paulus fagius for the same thing. See also Mr. Wee [...]se his Christian Syna­gogue pag. 135. 136.
  The uncleane by the dead were free (say they) to be in the first two Camps, and were onely excluded from the third. However, its agreed, that some uncleane persons were excluded from the Sanctuary, who were not excluded from the camp of the Chidren of Israel, as is observed by Tostatus in Lev. 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 uncleane 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 uncleane under the Law: some were separate onely 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 Lev. 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 dayes Lev. 15. and for the same space a woman after the birth of a male Child, was uncleane, so farre as to be kept apart from human society, but she did continue un­cleane three and thirty dayes longer, as to the Sanctuary and hallowed things, during which space of the three and thirty dayes, she was not separated from company and society, as in the first seven dayes, onely she was forbidden to touch any hal­lowed thing, or to come into the Sanctuary. There was a third sort separated not onely from the Sanctuary, and from humane society, but also cast out of the camp, which was the case of Lepers. I conclude, all uncleane persons whatsoever were excluded from the Tabernacle Lev. 15. 31. and from eat­ing of the flesh of the Sacrifices Lev. 7. 20. 21. Neither might any of the Sonnes of Aaron having his uncleannesse upon him eat of the holy things, though it was his Food Lev. 22. v. 2. to 7. in which places cutting off is appointed to be the punish­ment, [Page 98] 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 uncleane in any thing should enter in. But we never read that none which was uncleane in any thing, was permitted to enter in at the Gates of Ierusalem, or to converse among the people.
• 3 Whereas Master Prynne thinkes that uncleane persons were excluded from all Ordinances, as well as from the Passeover, first, what saith he to that which Erastus holdeth and (as he thinkes) grounded upon Scripture, namely that all uncleane 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 uncleane persons might come not onely to the mountaine 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 cleane saith
  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 M ^r. Prynne gives that there is no such warrant for keeping back scandalous persons from the Lords Table, as there was for keeping back the uncleane from the Passeover; and that suspension for legall uncleannesse: proves not suspension for morall uncleannesse, These I say doe but petere principium, and therefore to be passedover, because he takes for granted what is in controversie.

I shall therefore proceed to that which he addeth in the next place, in answer to an argument of mine in my controversall 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 trespasse offering (which was reconciling or­dinance) without confession of sinne, and Declaration of their Repentance for the same, were much lesse 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 trespasse offering (which was a reconciling Ordinance) without confession of sinne and De­claration of their Repentance for the same Lev. 5. 5. 6. Ergo [Page 99] M ^r Prynne answereth pag. 17. its a meer non-sequitur. 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 eate the Passeover, it being onely a commemoration of Gods 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 sinnes, should confesse those very sinnes, 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 eate 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 onely a commemoration of Gods infinite mercy in passing over the Israelites first borne, as he saith, (which was but a temporall mercy) Then he must needs say, either that in the Sacrament of the Passeover, or confirma­tion of faith, increase of grace, nor spirituall mercy was given, or that in that Sacrament this grace (yea, by his Principles, con­version and regeneration it selfe) 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 seale the same covenant of grace for the substance, which is now sea­led by the Lords 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 turne againe 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 sinne, according to the Law, which appointed confession [Page 100] of sinne to be made with the Peace offerings, which confession was signified by laying hands upon the head of the offering Lev. 3. 2. 8. 13. compared with Lev. 16. 21. and so we find Repentance joyned with peace offerings. Iudg. 20. 26. finally read we not of the peoples preparing of their heart to seeke 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 peoples 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 publike penitentiall 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 Iew. This I adde here. The Con­fession of the sin was made in the place of offering the trespasse 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 onely: which doth further appear, by the [...]awes concern­ing such and such Sacrifices, for such and such sinnes, Lev. 5. and by the restitution which was also joyned with the confession Num. 5. 7. And it is also cleare from the Jewish
  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.
  Canones paenitentiae cap. 1. & 2. where we find confession of [...]inne to be made both by word of mouth, and publikely before the congre­gation.
• 4. In stead of making my argument a non-sequitur, 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 vaine so much as to sue for pardon in a reconciling Ordinance, when the sinne was not confessed; how much more had it been a taking in vaine of the name of God, & a prophaning of a sealing Ordinance, to seale up pardon to a scandalous sinner, who had not so much as con­fessed his scandalous sin, but continued in manifest impetency?

[Page 101]But we will trie 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 publike confession of his sinnes to God with the rest of the congregation, and in words at least, voweth newnesse of life for the future, there being no communicant that ever I heard of (saith he) so desperatly wicked and atheisticall, as not to professe heartily sorrow for all his forepast sinnes, 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 sinne, shall but joyne with, and not gainsay the publique confession of the whole congregation (wherein the best men doe and ought to joyne) and in words promise newnesse of life (and who will not promise to endea­vour to live better?) nay if he have but so much wit, as not to professe or avow impenitency: then M ^r. 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 sinne by name, Levit. 5. 5. and it shall he when he shall be guilty in one of these things, that he shall confesse that he hath sinned in that thing: and with the confession there was a reall amendment. For instance, a recompencing of the trespasse with the principall, and the addition of a fifth part, when the case did so require, Num. 5. 7. Then they shall confesse their sinne which they have done, and he shall recompence his trespasse, &c. This is that my argument did drive at, and it still stands in force to conclude that the confession of the particular sinne which hath given publique scandall, R. Mosis ca­nones paniten­tiae cap. 2. Qui­cunque verbis confitetur, & [...]x corde 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 propha­nation of the Sacrament.

But now finding the argument concerning the Passeover and legall uncleannesse to have been more fully prosecuted by E­rastus than it is by M ^r. Prynne, I doe resolve to trace it hard at the heeles whithersoever it goeth.

CHAP. XI. A Confutation of the strongest arguments of Erastus, namely, those drawn from the Law of Moses.

AMong Erastus 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 restraine, 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 contrariwise commandeth that all the males both Jewes and forreiners, being circumcised, and not being legally uncleane, nor in a journey, should compear thrice in the yeere before the Lord at Ierusalem, to keepe 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 then it was then: but as then all circumcised, so now all baptized persons must be acknowledged for Church mem­bers, having a right to partake of Church priviledges: 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 uncleane under the Law, did signifie the excluding of scandalous sin­ners from communion with the Church, he spendeth Lib. 2. cap. 1. a long chapter against that opinion, and laboureth to make it appeare that the legall uncleannesse did signifie the corruption of our nature and unbeliefe; that exclusion from the Temple did signifie exclusion from the heavenly Paradice; 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 [Page 103] onely 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 certaine that for divers sinnes against the morall Law, the sinners were appointed not onely to bring their Trespasse­offerings, but to confesse the sinne 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 sinne, and declara­tion of repentance, and then men shall not be excluded for scandals formerly given. Pag. 106, 107, 148, 149. Erastus himselfe acknowledgeth that in this point of the confession of sinne, the analogy must hold betwixt the old and new Testament; onely 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, confesse themselves to be sinners, and that they have not perfectly kept the Comman­dements of God. But all this, say I, can not satisfie the argu­ment drawn from that confession of sinne under the Law. For, 1. It was not a confession ipso facto, by the bringing of the Trespasse-offerings, but by word of mouth, and See Ainsworth▪ annot. on Num. 5. 7. thus it hath been expounded by the Hebrew Doctors. The owners of siune and Trespasse-offerings, when they bring their oblations for their ignorant or for their presumptuous sinnes, atonement is not made for them by their oblation, untill they have made repentance, and con­fession by word of mouth. 2. It was not a generall confession that one is a sinner, and hath not perfectly kept the Commande­ments 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 speake of the suspending of any from the Lords Table.) But it was a confession of the particular indivi­duall sinne, which had been committed, Levit. 5. 5. And it shall be when he shall be guilty in one of these things, that he shall confesse that he hath sinned in that thing. Marke, in that thing. Num. 5. 7. Then they shall confesse their sinne which they have done. Ainsworth on Lev [...]t. 6 4. Which [Page 104] Law is to be understood of all like sinnes and trespasses, that is, that other sinnes which were expiated by Sacrifice, were first to be confessed. All this maketh against Erastus.

Next, whereas he saith Pag. 106. 113. that this confession or declaration of repentance for sinne, in the old Testament, had place onely in those sinnes 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 deale of boldnesse and considence (as his manner is) he doth main­taine: Intending thereby (it seems) to exempt from all manner of Church-discipline whatsoever is punishable by the civill Magistrate, as adultery, perjury, and the like. But that which he affirmeth so strongly, is manifestly contrary to the expresse Law, Levit. 6. from vers. 1. to vers. 8. where wilfull lying, and perjury, robbing and violence, fraud and couzenage, all these were to be confessed and expiated by Sacrifice; notwithstan­ding that they were also to be severely punished by the civill 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 enjoyneth both that confession be made and expiation; and moreover that recompence 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 sinne that men commit, &c. then they shall confesse their sinne which they have done. Which made the Hebrews extend this Law to criminall and capitall cases, as M ^r. 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, untill they have repented and confessed. And so he that hurteth his neighbour, or doth him dammage, though he payeth him what ever he oweth him, atonement is not made for him till he confesse. Therfore 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.

[Page 105] Thirdly, men were kept from the Sanctuary of the Lord, not onely for ceremoniall, but for morall uncleannesse, I meane for publique and scandalous sinnes against the morall 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 practise 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 feare of God before his eyes. To the same purpose we read Ezra 6. 21. not that all proselytes, nor all uncircumcised, but onely all such as had seperate themselves from the filthinesse of the Heathen of the Land, to seeke the Lord God of Israel, did eate of the Passeo­ver. Moreover we may argue by a necessary consequence from Scripture. The ceremoniall uncleannesse was a cause of exclu­sion from the Sanctuary, and from the holy things. Therefore much more morall uncleannesse. It was more sinfull in its selfe, and more abominable in Gods sight for those who did steale, murder, commit adultery, sweare falsely, and burne Incense to Baal, to come and tread in the Courts of the house of the Lord, and to offer Sacrisices there, as if Gods house had been a denne of robbers, Isa. 1. 11, 12, 13, 14. Ierem. 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 legall un­cleannesse. Therefore when Christ casteth out the buyers and sellers out of the Temple, it is not for ceremoniall but morall uncleannesse, and he applieth to them the words of Ieremiah, Ye have made it a denne of theeves, Matth. 21. 13. with Ierem. 7. 11. And as it was more sinfull to the person, and more hatefull to God, so it was more hurtfull to the soules of others, who were in greater danger of infection from the morall, then from the ceremoniall uncleannesse. This 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, quàm 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 farre othewise Heb. 13. [Page 106] 15, 16. Lest any root of bitternesse sp [...]inging up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled; lest there be any fornicator, or prophane per­son, as Esan. A prophane or scandalous person defileth, you see, many others: and sinne was of a defiling nature under the old Testament, as well as under the new. I meane a root of bitternesse not plucked up, a prophane person not censured, doth defile others, as well as himselfe. Both Peter and Iude have told us, that scandalous persons are spots and blemishes in the communion of Saints, 2 Pet. 2. 13. Iude vers. 12. So that as Erastus granteth, that one legally uncleane could make others legally uncleane among whom he came, and there­fore was kept off from fellowship and company with the con­gregation of Gods 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 evill deeds 2 Iohn 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 evill deeds.

Fourthly, whereas 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 uncleane under the Law, did onely typyfie something which is to come to passe in the life to come, that is, the shutting forth of sinners from the Heavenly Paradice, 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 onely thing signified, and if there be a fit analogy or proportion between the Type and the thing typified, then 1. one may be in Heaven and cast out againe, and in and out againe, as under the Law one might be many times admitted to the Temple and shut out againe. 2. It would also follow, that there is some other exclusion grea­ter then 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 [Page 107] of Gods people: Tostatus in Levit. 12. quast. 21. for though every uncleannesse which did exclude one from the company of the Israelites, did also exclude him from the Sanctuary; yet every uncleannesse 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 then that. Thus you see Erastus could not make his Type agree with his Anti­type. Whence it doth further appeare that the exclusion of the uncleane under the Law, did teach and hold forth some­what in a politicall sence, touching the communion and fel­lowship of the Church in this life. Whatsoever it might signifie more, I will not now dispute, but this it did signifie. And this I shall so farre 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 aud scanda­lously encleane. First, let it be remembered that I have pro­ved already from Heb. 13. 15, 16. 2 Pet. 2. 13. Iude 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 beautifull garments, O Jesusalem, the holy City: for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the un­circumcised aud the uncleane. 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 ministeriall Vers. 7, 8, 11. How beautifull upon the mountaines are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, &c. Thy watchmen shall lift up the voyce, &c. Be ye cleane that beare the vessels of the Lord. It remaines to consider what is meant by the uncleane, Vers. 1. it cannot be meant of legall un­cleannesse (the ceremoniall Law being abolished) nor of the hid uncleannesse of close hypocrites (for in that sence it is [Page 108] onely the priviledge of the Church triumphant, that no un­cleane thing, nor no hypocrite shall enter there.) It must therefore be meant of such as are visibly or scandalously un­cleane. And when it is said, there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised, and the uncleane, it must be understood respective, the uncircumcised, signifying such as are not fit to be at all Church­members: the uncleane 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 controversie, 2 Cor. 6: 14, 15, 16, 17. Where the Apostle exhorteth believers to avoyd all intime con­versation or fellowship with unbelievers, by marrying with them, by going to the Idoll Temples, or the like; he conclu­deth with a manifest allusion to the legall ceremony, Be ye sepa­rate, and touch not the uncleane thing, or the uncleane things as the Syriacke 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 Divels? Re­member, would the Apostle say, that as under the Law, the touching or eating of uncleane things made those that touched them, or did eate of them to be uncleane; so doth your fel­lowship with unbelievers, or your eating in their Idoll 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 sonnes of Belial. There­fore touch not the uncleane 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 soule shall not abhorre you. And I will walke 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 adde fourthly, for further cleering of this point in hand, Peters vision, and the interpretation thereof Act 10. & 11. a passage cited by Erastus pag. 138, 139. while he is proving, [Page 109] that the thing signified by the legall uncleannesse, was onely the corruption and Infidelity of nature which excludeth a sinner from heaven. The place is so farre from proving what he would, that it proveth the contrary; for it speaketh plainly of that uncleannesse which excludeth men from fellow-ship 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 unlawfull thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or to come unto one of another Nation: but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean, mean­ing for being a Gentile and not a Iew. 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 sence the Law was understood, not onely by Peter, but generally by the Jews Act. 11. 3. Gal. 2. 12.

Nay fifthly, the legall uncleannesse, in the sence of the Jewes, did signifie not onely such things as did exclude others from fel­low-ship with them, but such as did exclude the Jewes 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 Tostatus in Matth. 26. quaest. 48. Eti­am actus qui­dam praeter contactum, reddebant ho­mines immun­dos ad mandu­candum ag­num, vel quae­cunque sancti­ficat [...], sicut litigare judici­aliter, vel in­trare in locum Judicii ad liti­gandum, sic dicitut Io. 18. Lud. Capelli [...] 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 sole [...]is festi religionem prophanare. Casaubon Exerc. 16. Anno 34. num. 32. citeth a plaine passage in Maimonides declaring that they held it unlawfull to judge of capitall cases upon the perparation to the Sabbath or to a Holy-day. whether it were (which I rather think) a litigious action upon a Holy-day, which might have defiled them: this is plaine, that they thought there was a morall uncleannesse (signified by the ceremoniall uncleanesse) which might keep men from the Passeover.

[Page 110]The fifth animadversion shall be this: whereas Erastus hold­eth pag. 106. that under the law every one was judged cleane or uncleane, according to his owne judgement and conscience, aud not according to the Priests, the Lepers onely excepted; Al­so that when a man had committed any sinne, it was in the free will of the sinner to expiate his sinne when he pleased, and he was no way compelled to it. I answer, If every uncleane per­son except the Leper was allowed to judge and pronounce him­self cleane when he pleased, then to what purpose did 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. Iosephus de bello Iud lib. 7. c. 17. that Law serve Lev. 7. 20. 21. or that whoever was uncleane 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 uncleane; and how many would doe so, if that could save them from being cut off? Is it not also plaine from Levit. 15. 15. 30. 31. that both men and women who were uncleane by their issues, (not by Leprosie) were to bring an offering to the Priest for their cleansing, otherwise were not to be account­ed cleane, but lookt upon as defilers of the Tabernacle in their uncleannesse, whatever they might thinke of themselves. So women that were unclean after Child-Birth, had not power to pronounce themselves cleane, and were not free to come to the Sanctuary when they pleased, but they were first to bring a sinne offering, and the Priest was to make atonement for them Lev. 12. 6. 7. 8. There was a certaine number of dayes appointed for the cleansing, both of women after Child-Birth, and of men who had an issue, yea, when the dayes of the cleansing were full-filled, they were not free to come unto the Tabernacle, ex­cept they brought their offering for atonement. Lev. 12. 6. 7. & 15. v. 13. 14. 15. Philo the Jew de vita Mosis lib. 3. pag. 531. tells us there was a certaine definit time, till the expiring whereof, those that were uncleane by a dead body, were excluded from the Temple. Iosephus antiq. Iud. lib. 3. cap. 10. records the like, not onely 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 [Page 111] the sinner to expiate his sinne when he pleased, doth no better agree with the Word. for it was commanded that upon the very knowledge of the sinne, the trespasse offering should be brought, and the sinne confessed Levit. 4. 14. 28. & 5. 3. 4. 5.

Sixthly, whereas Erastus pag. 105. urgeth the universall Law, by which all are commanded to keep the Passeover except the uncleane, 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 universalls 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 Oxe or his Asse; that is each one that hath an Oxe or an Asse; Io. 10. 8. all that ever came before me were Theeves and Robbers, meaning whoever be­fore him did make himself the true doore, by which the sheep must enter in. So Ioel. 2. 28. I will poure out my spirit upon all flesh, yet not upon all and every one, but upon those onely 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 Booke 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 universall Rule, that Rule is the more sure and certaine 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 Hebrewes 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 Foole, and the little-Child and the Blinde, and the Lame, and the defiled, and the uncircumcised; and the old man, and the sick, and the tender and weake which are not able to goe up on their Feet. All these eleven are discharged &c. See Ainsworth on Exo. 23. 17. And compare this with Maimonides de Idolol. ch [...]o. [Page 112] 11. Sect. 18. where he that hearkens to Sooth-sayers, Wizards, Charmers, and the like, is said to be reckoned among Fooles 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, 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 expressely, that whoever were admitted to expiate their Sinne 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 seeme to dispute the more appositely for promiscuous admission to the Sacrament of the Lord Supper. 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 Jewes dispersed, who though they observe divers paschall rites, yet they doe not kill the Paschall Lambe, nor keep the Passeover according to the Law, it being to them unlawfull 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 morall Law (though circumcised and not being legally uncleane) were ex­cluded from the Passeover.

THere is so much weight laid, both by Erastus himself, and by Master Prynne, upon the universall Law commanding all that were circumcised to eat the Passeover, except such as were legally uncleane, 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 morall Law, as well as for legall unclean­nesse. Peradventure it will seeme to some, that I undertake to prove a paradox, and to walke 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 Gods appointment were excluded from the priviledges of Church Members, and not to be reckoned among the Congre­gation of Israel, those were by Gods appointment excluded from the Passeover. But whosoever committed any scandalous sinne presumptuously, or with an high hand, were by Gods ap­pointment excluded from the priviledges 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 then the Church of Israel: Those there­fore who were not to be acknowledged or used as Church­Members, were by Gods appointment excluded from the Passe­over. The Assumption is proved from Numb 15. 30. 31. But the soule that doth ought presumptuously (whether he be born in the land, or a stranger) the same reproacheth the Lord, and that soule shall [Page 114] be cut off from among his people, Because he hath despised the word of the Lord, and hath broken his commandement, that soule shall utterly be cut off: his iniquity shall be upon him.

The presumption here spoken of, is not onely the presumpti­on of heart (saith Cajetan) of which God onely 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 denyes that there is a God, or that the Law was given by God, or after admonition goeth on in his trespasse. But sure he mistakes the punishment, which he un­derstands to be extrajudiciall, 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. Onely this, such presumptuous and contumacious sin­ners were not to be reckoned among the people of God, nor to enjoy the priviledge of Church Members, therefore not ad­mitted to the Passeover.

Secondly, Iosephus de bello Iud. lib. 7. cap. 17. speaking of such as were permitted to eat the Passeover, in the time of Cesti­us, doth thus designe them, [...], being all of them pure and holy, not onely pure from legall un­cleannesse, but such as were also esteemed holy. But moreover, it is clear from Io. 18. 28, they themselves (the Jewes) went not into the Judgement Hall lest they should be defiled: but that they might eat the Passeover: that the Jewes did so understand the Law, that morall as well as ceremoniall uncleannesse, did render them uncapable of the Passeover: for they had no such ceremoniall Law, that they who come into the Judgement Hall, should be legally or ceremonially uncleane: yet this had disabled them from eating the Passeover: for they held litigious or forensicall actions unlawfull upon a holy day as Capellus, and Casaubon (above cited) doe 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 Sonne 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 [Page 115] to eat of the Passeover. Yea, some Israelites who were not a­postates, nor idolaters, were for a seandalous action excluded from civill, how much more from Ecclesiasticall fellow-ship? See Maimon; of Idolatry cap. 9. Sect. 15. With an Israelite, who hath made defection to the worship of Idolls, it is forbidden to have traffique or commerce either in his going or returning: with another Israelite going to the Markets and Faires of Heathens, we are onely forbidden to have commerce in his returning. If it was unlawfull to them, so much as to have civill commerce with an Israelite coming from the Markets of Heathens (fearing lest he had sold some what which was dedicate 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 uncleane, yet if he either turned Idolater, or an Heretick, or an Epicurean, was no longer acknowledged to be in Church­Fellowship or Communion, therefore rendred uncapable of the Passeover. Is. Abrabanel in his Book de capite fidei, as he shew­eth whom they esteemed Apostats or Hereticks 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 beleeve the Articles of faith professed in the Jewish Church Cap. 6. yea, he tells us Cap. 24. (which the Talmud it self saith [...]it. Sanhedrin. cap. 11. Sect. 1.) that Hereticall or Epicurean Israelites were lookt upon as ex­cluded from having portion in the world to come. And as Doctor Buxtorf sheweth out of their owne writers, they esteem­ed an Hereticall Israelite to be so abominable, that they did straight 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 heare R. Moses Maimonides himself de Idololatria cap. 2. Sect. 8. An Idolatrous Israelite is as an Heathen in all things which he doth &c. So also Is­raelites who are Epicures are not esteemed to be Israelites in any action of theirs &c. Now they are Epicures who aske counsell from the thoughts of their own mind, being Ignorant of those things we have spoken of, untill having transgressed the chief heads of the Law, they [Page 116] offend by contumacy and presumption, and say there is no sinne in this thing. But it is forbidden to speake with them or to answer them; for it is said, come not neer the door of her house Prov. 5. 8. Therefore the whorish woman that Solomon speakes 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 lesse 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 passeover those whom they thought themselves obliged to persecute even unto hell?

Fifthly, those Arguments which prove an exclusion of known prophane persons from the Temple, will also prove an exclusi­on of known prophane persons from the Passeover: for none might eat of the Passeover, who might not also come into the Temple. That scandalous prophane 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 legall uncleannesse, much more for morall uncleannesse, this being more hatefull to God and more hurt­full 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 mens 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 sinfull example hurt others, & bring a reproach upon the whole congregation from which the congregation could not be made free, but by some publik detestation of that wickednes▪ 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 lumpe? purge out therefore the old leaven. Which relateth not onely 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 [Page 117] scope of the whole Chapter. Now the morall signification of that ceremony of purging out the leaven, did concerne 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 typifie 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 yeelding 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 onely among the Hebrews, but among other Nati­ons, as Hugo Grotius noteth upon the place, and upon Exod. 19. 15. Now the Shew-bread, or the twelve loaves which did shew or present the people to God, can not be supposed to be holier then the Paschall Lambe which did shew or present Christ to the people, and was a Sacrament or Seale of the covenant of grace. David also and his men in that danger of their lives had as good right to eate the Shew-bread, as any Israelite could pre­tend to for his eating the Passeover: yea that was a substantiall duty of the second Table, which Christ himselfe justifieth: this was a ceremoniall duty of the first Table, and grounded on a positive law. This therefore doth afford me an argument with manifold advantages. For if the Shew-bread might not be given to David and his men in their extreame necessity, un­lesse they had for a certaine space before abstained from the use of their wives, otherwise lawfull: how much lesse might the Passeover be given as an holy Ordinance (which did not concern the saving of mens lives in extreame necessity) to scandalous persons living in known whordome and adultery?

Ninthly, I argue from that place, Ezech▪ 22. 26. Her Priests have violated my law and have prophaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and prophane. Will any man say, that they were to put a difference between the holy and [Page 118] prophane 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 backe from the Passeover because of known prophanesse or morall uncleannesse? for what difference was put between the holy and prophane, when the prophane were received as well as the holy? M ^r Coleman held that this Text reacheth not to the keeping pure of the Ordinances by any act of government, but onely that the Priests did prophane the holy things in their owne practice, by ea­ting in their uncleannesse, and also in their ministery because they taught not the children of Israel to put a difference be­tween the cleane and the uncleane. Maledicis pag. 11. But the Text gives not the least ground to restraine this fault of the Priests here reproved, either to their personall actions, or to their doctrinall ministery. Nay the Text will reach to an act of government neglected; for the word here used to expresse the distinguishing or putting of a difference between the holy and prophane is [...] which is often used in Scripture to expresse 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 chiefe of the Priests, &c. Ezra 10. 8. all his substance should be forfeited, and himselfe separated from the congregation. Here it sig­nifieth such a separation, as was a publique censure: why not also Ezech. 22. 26? The same word is used in the story of the division of the Land by Ioshua, Iosh. 16. 9. And the separate Cities for the children of Ephraim. It is used also to expresse Gods di­viding of light from darknesse, Genes. 1. 4. also his separa­ting of Israel from all other Nations, Levit. 20. 24. And whereas M ^r Coleman did take hold of the following words in that place of Ezechiel, neither have they shewed difference between the uncleane and the cleane, as being meerly doctrinall. First, (if it were so) how will it appeare that these words are exegeticall to the former, and that the putting of difference between the holy and prophane, mentioned in the former words, was onely meant of shewing the difference doctrinally? [Page 119] 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 expresse a forensicall censure or judiciall separa­tion by [...] as Ezra 108. [...]. So that when they retalne the same word in rendering [...] in this Text of Ezekiel, they doe thereby intimate that the latter word will reach a power which was more then doctrinall, as well as the former. Which I doe the rather assert, because [...] is taken by the Septuagints (not seldome) 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 onely doctrinally, but by rules, Canons, Statutes, and Government. Yea [...] will reach the teaching or making men to know by censures or punishments inflicted, as Iudg. 8. 16. Gedeon tooke briars and thornes [...] Pagnin, & confregit. and he brake with these the men of Succoth. Hierome, & contrivit. The Septuagints [...] comminui [...]. The English Translation, and with these be taught (in the Margent 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 tels us that the Hebrews doe not onely admit this sence 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 prophane, neither have they broken (or divided) between the uncleane and the cleane. The latter part seemeth to charge the Priests with the admission of such as were legally uncleane; the former part, with the admission of such as were morally un­cleane or prophane, to such ordinances as were appointed onely for the holy and cleane.

Tenthly, Heathens or strangers who were not Proselytes of the covenant or of righteousnessè, were not permitted to eate of the [Page 120] Passeover. Now one that is by profession a Church member, but living in prophanesse and scandalous wickednesse, ought to be esteemed as an Heathen, Matth. 18. 17. yea as worse than an Infidell, 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 cals 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 priviledges, as well as the best Israelites?

Eleventhly, that which was among the Jewes a sufficient cause to deny circumcision to him who desired to be admitted and received into the Jewish Church as [...] Ger ben berith, a proselyte, sonne of the covenant, or [...] Ger tsedeck, a proselyte of righteousnesse, was also a sufficient cause to deny the Passeover to a proselyte who desired to eate it. Even as now that for which we may and ought to refuse Baptisme 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 baptized, is much lesse fit to receive the Lords Supper. But prophanesse or a scandalous conversation was among the Jewes a sufficient cause and reason to refuse Circum­cision. Yea as D ^r Buxtorf tels us in Lexic. Chald. Talm. & Rabbin. pag. 408. before the Jewes would circumcise or baptize a pro­selyte (for after circumcision they did baptize him) they did first examine him exactly, and prove him narrowly, whether he desired to be a proselyte, from covetousnesse, ambition, feare, the love of an Israelitish virgin, or the like sinister end. If upon examination it did appeare that he was not moved by any worldly consideration, but by affection to Religion and the glory of God, then they proceeded to set before his eyes the strictnesse of the law, and how strait and narrow a path he must walke in, telling him also of the persecutions and tribu­lations of Israel. If after all this triall they found him stedfast in his desires and resolutions, then they received him, he be­ing [Page 121] first instructed in the Articles of their faith, and in the Com­mandements of the Law. How much lesse would they have circumcised a scandalous person, being so farre from any hope­full signes of sincerity, that he had the blacke markes 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 eate the Passeover with the children of Israel, as had separated themselves unto them from the silthinesse of the Heathen of the Land, to seeke the Lord God of Israel. If those who did eate were thus qualified, it is not ob­scurely intimated, that those who were not thus qualified did not eate. And if no proselyte who did not separate himselfe from the filthinesse of the Heathen, was allowed to eat the Passe­over, then muchlesse was an Israelite who did not separate him­selfe 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 unlawfull marriages, and the strange wives put away; and this worke was ended against the beginning of the first moneth, to the intent that none defiled with unlawfull ma­riages might eate 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 &c.

Thirteenthly, I argue from the signification of the legall or ceremoniall uncleannesse, and from that which was signified by the exclusion of those that were legally uncleane. Without all controversie the keeping backe of such, was a significant cere­mony. For all the legall ceremonies concerning cleannesse or uncleannesse were teaching ceremonies, and are therefore called Doctrines, Matth. 15. 9. Col. 22. 2. What was taught and signified thereby, I have before shewed, namely, that prophane ones be not admitted to fellowship with Gods people in their holy things. Yea, was not prophannesse and open wickednesse more hatefull to God than legall uncleannesse? yes saith Erastus pag. 144. because God appointed greater punishments for the [Page 122] 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 legall unclean­nesse was more hatefull to God than prophanesse and wicked­nesse, in reference to fellowship in the holy things, (for that is the point) He holds that the most flagitious and prophane were commanded of God to eate the Passeover, and yet those that were onely Iegally uncleane 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 soule 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 appeare before me, who hath requird 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 onely of those that were free. Which Lavater hom. 23. in Ezram. some of the Zurik Divines themselves have interpreted to signifie the exclusion of those who are servants of sinne, and of those who seeke onely 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 uncleane, even those that had scandalously transgressed the morall Law, were excluded from the Passeover. The ground of my argument is that whereof I have spoken before, the law for confession of sinne and declaration of repentance; without which the Trespasse-offering was not accepted Levit. 5. 5, 6. which Law is extended to every knowne sinne that was to be expiated by Sacrifice, Numb. 5. 6, 7. When a man or woman shall commit any sinne that men commit, to doe a trespasse 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 sinne shall be known, so the phrase of being guilty is explained, Levit. 4. 13, 14.) Then they shall confesse their sinne which they have done. After which followes restitution to the party wronged, and atonement made by the Priest. Whence I argue thus. If the scandalous persons were not admited to the Trespasse offering (which was a reconciling Ordinance) with­out [Page 123] confession of their sinne, which was knowne to have been committed by them, much lesse were they admitted to the Passeover (which was a sealing Ordinance) without such con­fession of their sinne. But scandalous persons were not admit­ted to the Trespasse-offering, (which was a reconciling Ordi­nance) without confession of their sinne which was known to have been committed by them. Therefore much lesse were they admitted to the Passeover, (which was a sealing Ordinance) without such comession. This argument I did before Chap. 10. vindicate from M ^r. Prynne. I will here further strengthen it, and vindicate it from another exception, which peradventure will be made against it. The proposition is certaine: 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 farre lesse seale re­conciliation. There is no peace to the wicked saith God, how much lesse 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 onely of private sinnes, and those of ignorance, which so soon as they come to knowledge, are to be confessed: I answer. 1. Its more then can be proved, that one­ly private sinnes and those of ignorance are there meant of. Of this I have spoken elsewhere. But be it so. If some private sinnes, yea sinnes of ignorance were to be publiquely confessed when they were known, how much more were publique and scanda­lous sins to be publiquely confessed? 2. The Hebrews understand the Law of confession to be extended to all sinnes 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 doe this thing againe. 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 sinne, whereby a man did professe that he was worthy to be destroyed for his sinne, and that he laid his sinne upon the beast which was [Page 124] 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 sinne was made by word of mouth; which as it is the judgement of 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 confesse over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sinnes, putting them upon the head of the Goat. Whereupon I conclude, that any sinne which was expiated by Sacrifice, whether a pub­lique or secret offence, was confessed before it was expiated. 4. The Law Numb. 5. 6. extends confession to any sinne 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, concering confession of sinne, is no warrant for their private auricular, and Sacramentall con­fession, 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 &c. Tertiò, nec Judaei omnia externa peccata in confessione declarabant, sed praesertim notoria & publica, ut fert opinio probabilior. because the Jewes were not by that Law bound to con­fesse any other sinnes, but sinfull actions or externall transgres­sions, nor all such, but chiefly the notorious and scandalous sinnes. If he had perceived the least colour of an argument, from that Mosaicall Law, for the necessity of confessing private sinnes 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 spirituall pollution by reason of grosse and scandalous sinnes, did not debaree them that were circumcised from the Passeover. as Paul (saith he) expressely 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 Baptized unto Moses in the Cloud & in the Sea; and did all eat the same spirituall meat (to wit the Passe­over and Manna) and did: all drinke of the same spirituall drinke, for they dranke of the Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. But perhaps all these Communicants were visible Saints, free from any legall pollution, at least not Tainted with any scandalous sinne: The Apostle to take off this evasion, subjoynes, in the very next words. But with many of them, God was not well pleased, &c. So that the Israe­lites being once circumcised, were all admitted to eat the Passeover, though some of them were Idolaters, others lusters after evill 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 Gospell. It's one of Erastus his argments, 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 cleerly determines, that those who were tainted with grosse and scandalous sinnes, were admitted to the Passeover; yet I finde nothing of the Passeover, neither in the Text, nor in the sence 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 corporall nourishment; Erastus replyeth no­thing concerning the Passeover (which had been his best answer [Page 126] if he had seen any probability for it,) onely 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 it self 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 spirituall meat, that is of the Manna, not of the Passeover, of which women and Children under 13 yeares of age did not eat: neither did all the males above 13 yeares 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 Jewes exclude also the Dumbe and the Deaf. If it be said, that vers. 1. speaketh onely 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 beleeving Sisters to pray for him. In this same Text in hand, the Apostle speakes to the whole Church of Corinth, to make them afraid of Gods judge­ments if they sinne as the Israelites did. If he had argued onely from the sinne and judgement of the men, and not also of the women in the wildernesse, the women in Corinth had so much the lesse applyed it to themselves. But if I should grant (which will never be proved) that by the Fa­thers are understood the men onely, yet it cannot be said that as all the men of Israel were Baptized in the Cloud and Sea, and all of them drank of the same spirituall 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, &c. 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 shew the weak grounds of M ^r. Prynnes strong confidence.
• [Page 127]3. If this argument of his hold good, he must grant by A­nalogy that all Baptized persons must be admitted to the Lords Table, though they be Idolaters, fornicators, &c. which as it is contrary to the Ordinance of Parliament, so to his own professed Tenents, 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 onely suspended from the Sacrament, but excommunicated from all other Ordi­nances, till publike satisfaction given for the scandall, and till externall symptomes of repentance appear. So the Antidote ani­madverted tells us and his owne vindication pag. 50. If this be his minde, then it is incumbent to him to loose his owne knot, all circumcised persons though Tainted with grosse scandalous sinnes, as Idolatry, and Fornication, were admitted to the Passeover, and so it ought to be under the Gospell. If he say that those scandalous sinners in the wildernesse had not been ad­monished, were not obstinate, or that they professed repentance, and promised amendment, and did not in the meane while per­severe in their wickednesse, but satisfied for the scandall: 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 doe not confesse and forsake their sinne, may be admitted to the Lords Table.
• 4. The Manna and the water out of the Rock, though they had a spirituall and evangelicall signification, and di [...] typifie Jesus Christ, yet they were also the ordinary Food and Drink of the people in the wildernesse: so that if scandalous sinners had been excluded from partaking of these, they had been de­prived of their ordinary daily corporall nourishment; which makes a vast difference between their case in the wildernesse, and ours at the Lords Table.

• 5. The Apostle speakes of those scandalous sinnes, as com­mitted, not before, but after the eating of that spirituall meat, and drinking of that spirituall drink; first this is cleer of their Baptisme in the Cloud and in the Sea, which was at their pas­sing through the Red Sea, Exod. 14. before any of the grosse and scandalous sinnes there mentioned were committed; and [Page 128] therefore was not pertinent to be objected. Immediately there­after they did eat of the spirituall meat, that is of the man­na Exo. 16. and drank of the spirituall 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 spirituall meat, and drunk of the spirituall drink, they did fall into Idolatry, Fornication, &c. 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 Baptized, and had eaten and drunk at the Lords Table; for after all this they had need to take heed, lest they fall in foule sinnes, and lust after evill 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 grosse and scandalous sinnes, were allowed and ad­mitted, as before, to eat of the spirituall meat, and drink of the spirituall drink. I mean not onely 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 sinne 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 joyned to Baal Peor Numb. 25. 5. and there died also of the [Page 129] Plague 24000. v. 9. But what was the peoples 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 dyed for it, and the remnant did repent, and confesse that particular sinne 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 chiefe 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 grosse and scandalous sinnes of Idola­try, Fornication, &c. 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 spirituall meat, and spirituall drink, as Typifying Christ, though appointed of God also for ordinary daily food and drink to his people) untill they mourned, repented, confessed, and atonement was made for them: It is much lesse 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 spirituall.

  But the former part is true. Therefore so is the latter.

• 6. Another Answer I shall adde, (though I need adde no more) Those sinnes 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 nationall sinnes; and so fall not within the verge of our Controversie, which is not con­cerning the suspending of a scandalous Nation from the Sacra­ment, for some nationall sinne; but concerning the suspension of scandalons persons for their personall publike offences. If it [Page 130] be objected unto me, that the Apostle saith, that some of them were Idolaters, and some of them did commit Fornication, &c. 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 yeers in the wildernesse, successively: so that he makes a distri­bution of Israel in the wildernesse, 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 sinnes 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 sinnes, but yet they were natio­nall (as we call nationall) sinnes, 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 sinne of drunkennesse rather than to excommuni­cate all Africa.

  These are my six answers to Master Prynnes unanswerable ar­gument.

CHAP. I. Of the Rise, Growth, Decay, and Reviving of Erastianisme.

DIverse 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 [Page 162] Serpent, who finding his Kingdom very much impaired, weak­ned and resisted by the vigor of the true Ecclesiastical discipline, which separateth between the precious and the vile, the holy & pro­phane; and so contributeth much to the shaming away of the un­fruitful works of darknesse; thereupon he hath cunningly gone about to draw men, first into a jealousie, and then into a dislike of the Ecclesiastical discipline, by Gods mercy restored in the Reformed Churches. The Mother of it, is the enmity of nature a­gainst the Kingdom of Iesus Christ; which he, as Mediator, doth exercise in the goverment of the Church: Which enmity is naturally in all mens hearts, but is unmortified and strongly prevalent in some, who have said in their hearts, We will not have this man to raigne 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, then what is apparant by his owne 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 lookt 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 publick 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 epitomi­zed (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 Catechisme.

The Erastian error being borne, the breasts which gave it suck were prophanesse 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 [Page 163] 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 by assed that way: Both these you may find among the causes (mention­ed by Aretius [...]. probl. loc. 133.) for which there was so much un willingnes to admit the discipline of Excomunication. Magistratus jugum non admittuxt, timent honoribus, licentiam a­mant, &c. The Magistrates do not admit a yoke, are jealous of their honours, love licentiousnesse. Vulgus quoque & plebs dissolutior: major pars corruptissima est, &c. 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 Royall Prerogative. Mr. Iohn Wemys (sometime Senator of the Colledge 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 dissent from and argue against the distinction of Civil and Ecclesiasticall lawes, and against the Synodical power of censures; holding that both the power of making Ecclesiastical lawes, and the corrective power to cen­sure Transgressors, is proper to the Magistrate.

The Tutor which bred up the Erastian error, was Arminia­nisme; for the Arminians finding their plants pluckt 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 lesse opposition that way. They will have Synods onely to examine, dispute, discusse, 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 [Page 164] over the Churches, Synods, and Ecclesiastical proceedings' which the Pope did formerly usurpe: 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 nakednesse.

Some harbour it had in Switzerland, but that was lookt up­on as comming onely through injury of time, which could not be helped; the Theological and Scriptural principles of the Divines of those Churches, being Anti-Erastian, and Presby­teriall, as I have See Nihil Respondes pag. 32 33. Male audis pag. 52. 53. else-where shewed against Mr. Coleman. So that Erastianisme could not get warmth and strength enough, no not in Zurick it self. Yea Dr. Ursi [...]us in his Iudicium 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 In alijs (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 alijs omnibus Ecclesijs, tain ab ijs quae nullam habent Excommunicationem, quam ab ijs 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 practice 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 Mid-wife, who did half stisle it in the birth, from which did accrue a most dangerous infirmity, of which it could never recover. 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. Quippe 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 eis, 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 [Page 165] Theses; also the close of his sixth Book; put these together, you will find him yeeld, that all ought not to be admitted promiseu­ously to the Sacrament, but that such admission be according to the custome and rule observed in the Church of Heidelberg (and what that was, you may find in the Heidelberg Catechisme Quaest. 82. & 87. namely a suspension of prophane scandalous persons from the Sacrament, and in case of their obstinacy and continuing in their offences, an excommunicating of them.) He yeelds 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 doe not approve and embrace the true Doctrine, that is, Hereticks and Secta­ries. 5. Such as desire to receive the Sacrament otherwise then in the right manner, and according to Christs Institution. 6. Such as defend or justifie their wickednes. 7. Such as doe not con­fesse and acknowledge their sins, and professe 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 Tenents concerning Christs Institution, or manner of Administration, are contrary to that which is received in the Church where they live: (for 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 prophane) So neither doth it altogether exempt the pro­phane, but such onely as do neither deny nor defend their wic­kednesse, but confesse their sins, and professe sorrow for them. Let the Erastians of this time observe what their great Master hath yeelded touching the Ecclesiastical Censure of prophane 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 hee may seem to have said somewhat) falls a quarrelling with Pres­byteries for presuming to judge of the sincerity of that repen­tance [Page 166] professed by a scandalous sinner, and their not resting sa­tisfied with a mans owne profession of his repentance. If his followers will now be pleased to reduce the controversie with­in that narrow circle, Whether a Presbyterie 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 denie his sin by which he hath gi­ven scandall, but confesseth it, and professeth sincere and hearty repentance for it: (which is the point that Erasius is faine to hold at in the issue) Then I hope we shall be quickly agreed, and the controversie buried; for we do rest satisfied with the offender his confession of his sinne, and profession of his repen­tance, unlesse his owne known words or actions give the lye to his profession of repentance; that is, if he be known to ju­stifie and defend his sin in his ordinary discourse, or to continue in the practice of the sin, which he professeth to the Presbyterie he repents of; if these or such like sure signes of his impeniten­cy be known, must the Presbyterie 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, Heretick, A­postate (for Erastus is content that such be excluded from the Sacrament.) Suppose such a one doth confesse 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 Heresie, or to be a perswader and enticer of others secretly to that way, or if there be any other known infallible signe of his impenitency, must his verbal profession to the Presbyterie 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 Heretick, so in the case of a prophane person, or one of a scandalous conversation, there is a necessity that the Presbyterie examine the real signes 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 losse which it sustained by the learning and labour of some Divines in the Reformed Churches, who had to very good pur­pose [Page 167] 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 hindred by the great troubl [...]s of Geneva, at that time besieged by the Duke of Savoy; Beza himself being also at that time 71. yeares 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 calld 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) exhibite to the Prince Elector Palatine Frederick the third, Iudicium de disciplina Eccle­siastica & Excommunicatione (which you may find in the end of his third Tome) wherein he doth soundly confute the Theses of Erastus, neither hath any reply been made thereto, that e­ver I could learn of [...] Also in his Catecheticall 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 beleeve that Ursinus is his, and not ours, in this controversie.

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 substantiall Arguments of Erastus: Antonius Walaeus de munere ministrorum Ecclesiae & inspectione Magistratus circa illud. Et in loc [...] com. 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, [Page 168] especially his Disputations de potestate & Politia Ecclesiarum. Beside Acronius, Thysius, Ludov. 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 lye a dying, and like to breath its last, is there no Physitian 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 publikely; First by a Sermon to the Parliament; Next, by debating the Controversie with my selfe in writing; and lastly, By engaging in a publike debate in the Reverend As­sembly of Divines, against this Proposition: Iesus Christ as King and Head of His Church, hath appointed a Governement in the Church, in the hands of Church-Officers, distinct from the Ci­vil Governement. After he had some dayes argued against this proposition (having full liberty both to argue and reply as much as he pleased) it pleased God to visit him with sicknesse, 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 goe 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 Gods 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 onely man that hath appeared in this present Controversie 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. Onely 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 owne things; whether he be pleasing men, or pleasing Christ; whether sin be more shamed, and holinesse more ad­vanced, this way, or that way; Which way is most agreeable to the Word of God, to the example of the best Reformed [Page 169] Churches; and so to the sol [...]mne League and Cov [...]nant. The Controversie is now hot: every faithfull servant of Christ, will be carefull to deliver his owne soule by his faithfulnesse, and let the lord do what seemeth him good. The cause is not ours, but Christs; it stands him upon his Honour, his Crowne, his Lawes, his Kingdom. Our eyes are towards the Lord, and Isa. 33. 2 [...]. we will wait for a divine decision of the businesse: For the Lord is our Judge, the Lord is our Law-giver, 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 speciall care had, that there be not a promiscuous admission of all sorts of persons (that please or desire) to partake in all the publike 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 apparantly and visibly such. This was a principle and rule among the Heathens themselves, therefore ^d when they came to doe sacrifice, the prophane were bidden be gone, and [Page 172] 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 ijs omnes de­cedunt) adinim sermonemque de­fugiunt, ne quid ex contagione in­commodi accipi­ant. Caesar tells us, that of old the Druides (the Heathnish French Priests) did interdict the flagitious from their sacrifices and ho­ly things.

  These Druides 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 publike and scandalous sins, where­by God is very much dishonoured, and the Church dangerously scandalized. Tyberius his slighting maxime, Deorum injurias Dijs curae esse, may be entertained among Atheists, but is explo­ded among all true Christians. [...], is the Christian maxime. Care is to be first taken of things per­taining to God.

• 3. It is requisite and necessary, that he who hath given pub­lick scandall and offence to the Church, and hath openly disho­noured God by a grosse notorious sin, should honour God, edi­fie others, and (so far as in him lyeth) remove the offence by a publike 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 Belee­vers at Ephesus did publikely confesse and shew their deeds: Act. 19. 18. The Syriack addeth their offences. A patterne of this confession we have in the Law of Moses, and Jewish poli­cie (whereof else-where) as likewise in the Baptisme of Iohn, Matth. 3. 6.

  Of this publike Confession of sin, see Festus Honnius disp. 51. Thes, 2. Mr. Hildersham on Psal. 51. Lect. 34. & 37. and diverse 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 Iohn 1. 9. Secondly, a confession coram Ecclesia, before the Church, when men acknowledge publikcly their wicked and scandalous deeds, and do professe their repenting and lothing 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 [Page 173] have wronged one another. Iam. 5. 16. Fourthly, the confes­sion or profession of the true Faith. 1 Iohn 4. 2.

• 4. That publick shame put upon a scandalous sinner, and the separating or casting out of such an one, as the vlle from the precious, is the fittest and most eff [...]ctual 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
  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, its more agreeable to the glory of God, and to the Churches peace, that this be done by a publick 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 Ministery, even Iure Divino. That the civil Magistrate hath not power to abolish or continue the Ministery 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
  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 doe: and Ministers may doe what Magistrates may not do.
• 9. It is Iuris Communis, a principle of common equity and naturall 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 Physiti­ans is called for, when the Magistrate desires to know the na­ture, symptomes, or cure of some dangerous disease. A con­sultation of Lawyers, in Legal questions. A Councell of War in military expeditions. If the Magistrate be in a ship at Sea, [Page 172] 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 fighting, 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 Reformed 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 joyne, who are more experimentally and practically (they ought also, and diverse 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 accidentall) can be rationally or ordinarily supposed to be.
• 10. There is some power of Governement, in the Church given to the Ministery by Christ: else why are they said to be set over us in the Lord, and called Rulers and Governours, as we shall see afterwards?

CHAP. III. What the Erastians yeeld unto Vs, and what We yeeld unto them.

FOr better stating of the controversie, 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.
  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, longe minus ei licet [...] in parte, 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 tyed 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 lesse of the Church.
• 2. That Church-Officers may exercise Church-govern­ment, and authority in matters of Religion, where the Magi­strate doth not professe and defend the true Religion: In such a case two Governments are allowed to stand together, one ci­vil, another Ecclesiastical. This
  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 divisi [...] 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 Iure 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 it self: 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.
• [Page 174]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 Ministery Iure Divino: Yet in this he did not so well agree with
  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 ministery is Iure 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 my self. 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 doe 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 governours or members in the Ecclesiastical Republick, that is, in a visible political Church. None are to governe
  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 prophane Church-Officers are the worst of dogs and swine, and to be first cast out. And as all are not to go­verne, so all are not to be governed Ecclesiastically; but one­ly 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 [Page 175] they must argue; Or thus, a Popish people are not fit to be governed Presbyterially, and Episcopal Ministers are not fit to governe; therefore the rest of the Nation shall want a Govern­ment.
• 2. Presbyteriall Government is not despotical, but mini­sterial, it is not a Dominion, but a Service. We are not Lords o­ver Gods heritage: 1 Pet. 5. 3. but we are the servants both of Christ and of his Church. We preach not our selves, saith the A­postle, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and our selves 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 coertion 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
  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. Iurisdictionem 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 Iurisdictiones un [...]m faciunt, ean que solam interiorem. Nulla quippe 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 & sanguiris 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, onely 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 soule or inward man, though the signes of it appear externally.
• [Page 176]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 levelled 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 Common-wealth, and a part of the Common-wealth; not the Common-wealth a part of the Church, saith Salmasius appar. ad lib. de Primatu pag. 292. for which, pag. 300. he cites, Optatus Milivitanus lib. 3. Non enim Re­spullica est in Ecclesia, sed Ecclesia in Republica. Ministers and Elders are Subjects and Members of the Common-wealth, and in that respect punishable by the Magistrate, if they transgresse 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 Errour, from Holinesse to Pro­phanesse, 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 ought to interpose his Authority to do diverse things which in an ordinary course of Government he ought not to do; for in such a case, Magi­stracy (without expecting the proper intrinsecal remedy of better Ecclesiasticall Assemblies) may immediately, by it self, and in the most effectual manner, suppresse and restrain such de­fection, exorbitancy, and tyranny, and not suffer the unjust, [Page 177] 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 reforme things in the Church, as often as the Ecclesiastical persons shall either through ignorance, or disorder of the affection of covetuousnesse or ambition, d [...]file the Lords Sanctuary. For saith Iunius Animad. in Bell. contr. 4. lib. 1. cap. 12. & 18. Both the Church when the concur­rence of the Magistrate faileth, may extraordinarily doe 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 limitted 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 Prelats. Mr. Coleman also in his Sermon brought objections from the usurpations of Pope Paul the fift, 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 onely can determine what is the sence of Scripture. 3. He addeth unwritten Traditi­ons. 4. He makes himself Judge of all controversies. 5. He dispenseth with the Law of God it self. 6. He makes himself above General Councels. 7. His government is Monarchi­cal. 8. He receiveth appeals from all the Nations in the world. 9. He claimeth Infallibility at least ex Cathedra. 10. He ma­keth Lawes 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 [Page 177] Kings, and absolve Subjects from their oath of allegiance. 13. He persecuteth all with fire and sword and Anathema's, who do not subject themselves to him. 14. He claimeth the sole power of convocating general Councels. 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 Papall and Presbyteriall Governe­ment?

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 owne Diocesse. 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 priviledge of moderating Synods, Which Presbyterial Go­vernment denyeth to any one man. 3. The Prelate did not tye himself either to aske or to receive advice from his fellow Presbyters, except when he himself pleased. But there is no Presbyteriall nor Synodicall sentence, which is not concluded by the major part of voices. 4. The Prelate made himself Pastor to the whole Diocesse (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 vertue of authority and order from him, and because he could not act by himself in every Congre­gation. The Presbyteriall Government acknowledgeth no Pa­storall charge of preaching the Word and ministring the Sacra­ments to more Congregations then one; and doth acknowledge the Pastors of particular Churches, being lawfully called, to have power and authority for preaching the Word and mini­string the Sacraments in the name of Christ, and not in the name of the Presbyterie. 5. The Prelates as they denyed the power and authority of Pastors, so they utterly denyed the ve­ry offices of ruling Elders, and Deacons for taking more espe­ciall care of the poor, in particular Congregations. 6. They [Page 179] did not acknowledge Congregationall Elderships, nor any power of discipline in particular Congregations which the Presbyteriall Government doth. 7. They intruded Pastors oft times against the consent of the Congregation, and recla­mante Ecclesiâ, which the Presbyteriall 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 Clergie 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 Nationall Synods. In Pres­byteriall Government all (in whatsoever Ecclesiasticall admi­nistration) are called to an account in Presbyteries, Provinciall and Nationall Assemblies respectively, and none are exempted from Synodicall censures in case of scandall and obstinacy. 11. The Prelates power was not meerly Ecclesiasticall, they were Lords of Parliament, they held Civil places in the State, which the Presbyterial Government condemneth. 12. The Pre­lats were not chosen by the Church, Presbyters are. 13. The Prelates did presume to make Lawes 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 Presbyteriall Government abhorreth. 14. They did excommunicate for money matters, for trifles. Which the Presbyteriall 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. Presbyteriall Government doth not lord it over mens consciences, but admitteth (yea commendeth) the searching of the Scriptures, whether these things which it holds forth be not so, and doth not presse mens Consciences with Sic volo, sic jubeo, but desireth they may doe in faith what they do. 16. The Prelates held up pluralities, non-residen­cies [Page 180] &c. Which the Presbyteriall Government doth not 17. As many of the Prelates did themselves neglect to preach the Gospel, so they kept up in diverse places a reading non­preaching Ministery: Which the Presbyteriall Goverment suf­fereth not. 18. They opened the door of the Ministery to diverse scandalous, Arminianized, and popishly affected men, and locked the door upon many worthy to be admitted. The Presbyteriall Government herein is as contrary to theirs, as theirs was to the right. 19. Their Official Courts, Commis­saries, &c. 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 utrius (que) gladij, the power both of the Temporall and Civil Sword. The Presbyteriall Government medleth with no Civil nor Temporall 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 unlimitednesse or arbitrarynesse. These differences which I have given, may serve for a consciencious caution to intelligent and moderate men, to beware of such odiou [...] and unjust compa­risons, as have been used by some, and among others by Mr. Sal [...]marsh in his Parallel between the Prelacy and Presbyterie: Which as it cannot strike against us, nor any of the Reformed Churches (who acknowledge no such Presbyterie 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 diverse of those imputations upon those, whom (I beleeve) he is most unwilling they should be laid upon.

In the third place, The Presbyterian Government is more limited and lesse 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 [Page 181] 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 arbitrarinesse, 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 tyed 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 arbitrarinesse 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 Common-wealth, 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 [Page 182] 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 ought to do diverse things in and for Religion, and interpose his Authority diverse wayes, 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 lesse, 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 adde 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 then 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 then obey [Page 183] 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 Common-wealth, ought 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 then 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. IV. Of the agreements and differences be­tween the nature of the Civil and of the Ecclesiastical Powers or Govern­ments.

HAving now observed what▪our opposites yeeld to us, or we to them, I shall for further unfolding of what I plead for, or against, adde 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 tyed 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 Ministery 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 Ministery, and the Ministery strengthens Magistracy. 6. They agree in their general kinde; they are both Powers and Governments. 7. Both of them re­quire singular qualifications, eminent gifts and endowments▪ [Page 185] 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 onely; yet as Dr. Rivet upon the Decalogue, pag. 260. 261. saith truly, there is a two-fold 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 perswaded it will trouble the whole World to bound 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 Soverainty 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 Iesus Christ as Mediator and King of the Church, whom his Father hath set upon his holy Hill of Zion, Psal. 2. 6. to reigne 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 goverment 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 Scepter 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, [Page 186] remunerative of those that do well. 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, ordinarie judicare, & de ritibus adiapho­ris ad ordinem, decorum atque aedificationem Ecclesiae perti­nentibus, Cano­nes seu leges Ec­clesiasticas con­stituere. I. Ge­rard loc. com. 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 keyes of the Kingdom of Hea­ven. 1. The key of knowledge or doctrine, and that to be administred, not onely severally by each Minister concionaliter, but also Consistorially and Synodically in determining contro­versies of Faith, and that according to the rule of holy Scri­pture onely: which is clavis [...]. 2. The key of order and decency, so to speak: by which the circumstances of Gods 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 generall rules of the word concerning order and decency, avoy­ding of scandall, 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. Adde al­so the key of Ordination or mission of Church-Officers, which I may call clavis [...], the authorizing or power giving key, others call it missio potestativa.

3. They differ in their formes. 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 [...] onely. It is meerly Ministeriall and Steward-like, and exercised in an immediate subordination to Iesus Christ, as King of the Church, and in his name and au­thority.

4. They differ in their ends. The supreme end of Magi­stracy is onely 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 lyeth upon all Nations, and all men. The supreme end of the Ecclesiastical power, is either proximus or remotus. The neerest and immediate end is the glory of Ie­sus Christ, as Mediator and King of the Church. The more re­mote end is the glory of God, as having all power and authority [Page 187] in heaven and earth. You will say, Must not then the Christi­an Magistrate intend the glory of Iesus 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 intend to be otherwise subservient to the Kingdom of Iesus 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 glorifie Iesus 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 Ecclesiasticall 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 Iesus 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 Eccle­siasticall 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▪ intend the glory of Iesus 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 Iesus, Col. 3. 17. that is, according to the will of Christ, and for the glory of Christ: And so a Marchant, a Mariner, a Tradesman, a School-master, a Captain, a Souldier, 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 [Page 188] 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 Ministery both finis operis, and finis operantis. To the Magistrate, though Christian, it is onely finis operantis; That is, it is the end of the godly Magistrate, but not the end of Ma­gistracy: whereas it is not onely the end of the godly Minister, but the end of the Ministery it self. The Ministers intendment of this end, flowes from the nature of their particular vocation. The Magistrates intendment of the same end, flowes 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 publike 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 Godlinesse and Honesty: 1▪ Tim. 2. 2. He saith not simply, that we may live in Godlinesse 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 utrius (que) Tabulae. He is to take speciall care that all his Subjects be made to observe the Law of God, and live not onely in moral honesty, but in Godlinesse, and that so living, they may also enjoy peace and quietnesse. More parti­cularly; the end of Church censures is, that men may be asha­med, humbled, reduced to repentance, that their spirit may [Page 189] 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 Common-wealth, 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 yeelds 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 sence 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 theef from the gallows, that he may not be able to steal any more, and (as he tels us some speak) that he may learn to steal no more: He is herein confuted, not onely 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 tels 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 terrour to them who do evil, to restrain them from publike and punishable offences, not to work upon the spirit of their mindes, 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 [Page 190] Word and Sacraments; but of the effects of the power of Ju­risdiction or Government, of which onely the Controver­sic is.

Sixthly: The Civil power hath for the object of it [...], the things of this life, matters of Peace, War, Justice, the Kings 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 minde 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 dayes, set hours, set places, fasts▪ and the like, belong to the decency and order of the Church &c. 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. tels us to the same purpose, That Civil Government or Magistracy ver­satur circa res terrenas & hominem externum. Magistratus, saith Danaui 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 ought to be Custos utriusque Tabulae, of the [Page 191] first, as well as second Table? I answer, That Magistrates are appointed, not onely 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 beleeve, as a most undoubted truth. But when Divines make the object of Magistracy to be onely 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 Common-wealth, or a Civil corporation. The Correlatum of the Ecclesiastical power is people embodied in a Church, or Spiritual corpora­tion. The Common-wealth is not in the Church, but the Church is in the Common-wealth, that is, One is not there­fore [Page 192] 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 Common-wealth, 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 then 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 ratifie 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 [Page 193] 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 Hereticks, 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 Church­Member, whom yet the Magistrate in prudence and policy doth permit to live in the Common-wealth. Again, the most no­torious and scandalous sinners, blasphemers, murtherers, adulterers, incestuous persons, robbers, &c. when God gives them repentance, and the signes thereof do appear, the Church doth not binde but loose them, doth not retain but re­mit their sins; I mean ministerially and declaratively. Not­withstanding the Magistrate may and ought to do Justice accor­ding to Law, even upon those penitent sinners.

CHAP. V. Of a twofold Kingdom of Iesus Christ: a general Kingdom, as he is the eternal Son of God, the Head of all Principalities and Powers, raigning over all creatures: and a particular Kingdom, as he is Me­diator, raigning over the Church onely.

THe Controversie 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 dependance upon another Controversie concerning a twofold Kingdom of Jesus Christ; one, as he is the eternal Son of God, raigning 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▪ [Page 195] 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 onely, pag. 25, 26, 27, 35, 36, 37.

The Controversie draweth deeper then 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 raigns, the Son raigns, the holy Ghost raigns. 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 Controv. Belgic. pag. 24. Ionas 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 onely 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 onely 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 [Page 196] raigneth 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 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 &c. Hes Regnum etiam universale dicitur, quia est simpliciter in universa. At Regnum Christi donativum est qued Christus tradiium a Patre ut [...] accepit &c. Hoc Regnum [...] prium Christi, quod ut Rex Mediator obtinet in persona sua: ac Regnum etiam singulare di­ [...] quia est peculiare in Ecclesia &c. 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 accessory 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 raigned 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 raigns not as God with the Father and the holy Ghost, from everlasting to everlasting, then 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 [Page 197] 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 raigns as Mediator, or that the holy Ghost raigns 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 raign.
• 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,
  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 raign 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 yeelds 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 raigns over all things as the Vicar of his Father, we shall see anon the weaknesse 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 [Page 198] 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 Soveraignty 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 Sove­raignty 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 administred by and in Evangelical Ordinances, and a Kingdom administred by his Divine Power, without Evangelical Ordinances, hath two different and distinct Kingdoms. But Jesus Christ hath a King­dom administred by and in Evangelical Ordinances, and a Kingdom administred by his Divine power, without Evange­lical Ordinances. Ergo: Doth not Jesus Christ raign over the Devils and damned Spirits by his Divine Power, reserving them in chains of darknesse to the Judgement of the great day? But will Master Hussey say that Christ raigns over the Divels and damned Spirits as Mediator or by the same Kingdom by which he raigns 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 [Page 199] 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 then I. 1 Cor. 11. 3. The Head of Christ is God: In the same con­sideration as Christ is our Head, God is Christs 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 then 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 yeeld 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 &c. 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 then he is made the natural Son of God. When the Psal­mist speaketh of that Kingdom which Christ hath as Mediator, he tels us of the anointing of Christ. Ps. 45. 6. The Scepter of thy Kingdom is a right Scepter: vers. 7. Thy God hath anointed thee with the oyle of gladnesse. But we cannot say that Christ was anointed to that Kingdom, which he hath as the eternal Son of God.
• [Page 200]Seventhly, If the Scripture holds forth a Kingdom which Christ hath over all creatures, and another Kingdom which he hath over the Church onely▪ then it holds forth the twofold Kingdom which I plead for, and which Master Hussey denieth. But the Scripture holds forth &c. Christ as he is God over all, blessed for ever, Rom. 9. 5. exerciseth Soveraignty 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 onely, and he is over his own House, Heb. 3. 6. You will say the word onely is not in Scripture. I answer: When we say that Faith onely justifieth, the word onely 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 raign onely over Gods people as their Subjects, though they had other people tribu­taries and subdued: So doth Christ raign over the House of Ia­cob onely, Luk. 1. 32, 33. The Lord shall give unto him the Throne of his Father David, and he shall raign over the house of Jacob for ever. Isai. 9. 7. Of the encrease 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 raign 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. Rejoyce 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 Governour that shall rule my people Israel. 3. The Iews did generally understand it so, That the Messias was to be the Churches King onely, which made Pilate say to them, Shall I crucifie your King? And hence it was also, that the wise men who came to enquire 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 [Page 201] hold forth a two-fold supremacy of Iesus Christ, one over all things, another in reference to the Church onely which is his body, his fulnesse, and to whom alone he is head, according to that Text: Of which more afterwards.
• Ninthly, The Apostle Col. 1. doth also distinguish this two-fold preeminence, supremacy, and Kingdom of Iesus 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.
  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 &c. Hic vero potissi­mum, meo judi­cio, de guherna­tione loquitur.
  Another which is oeconomicall 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 God-head of Iesus Christ. Yea, Mr. Hussey himself yeeldeth, 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 God-head of Iesus 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 Iesus 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 Ionas Schlichtingius contra Meisner. pag. 469.) and that vers. 15. 16. 17. ascribeth no more to Christ, [Page 202] than vers. 18. But Becmanus answering Iulius, distinguisheth the Text as I do: for which Analysis I did formerly cite Beza, Zanchius, Gualther, Bullinger, Tossanus, M. Bayne, beside diverse others. But I have found none that understands the Text as Mr. Hussey doth, except the Socinians and Photinians, who do not ac­knowledge that Christ hath such an universall dominion and Lordship over all things, as God the Father, but onely that he ruleth over all things, as Mediator.

  Now for answer to that which Mr. Hussey pag. 26. 27. al­ledgeth, to prove that Christ as Mediator reigneth over all things, First, he tells us out of Diodati that Christ is head of the Church, and King of the Universe, and out of Calvin, that the Kingdom of Christ is over all, and filleth heaven and earth: But who denieth this? That which he had to prove, is, that Christ as Mediator, is King of the Universe, and as Mediator his King­dom is spread over all: and when he hath proved that, he hath another thing to prove, that the universality of Christs King­dom as he is Mediator, is to be understood not onely in an Ec­clesiastical notion, that is, so far as all Nations are or shall be brought under the obedience of the Gospel; but also in the noti­on of Civil Government, that is, that Christ reignes as Media­tor over all creatures, whether under or without the Gospel: and that all Civil Power, Principality, and Government what­soever in this World, is put in Christs hand as Mediator. If therefore he will argue, let him argue so, as to conclude the point.

  The next objection he maketh, is from Heb. 1. 2. Christ as Mediator is made Heir of all things.

  But I answer, Christ is Heir of all things. 1. as the eternall Son of God, in the same respect as it is said of Christ in the next words of the same verse, that he made the world: and thus he may be called Heir of all things by nature, even as Col. 1. 15. he is called the first borne of every creature. 2. He is heir of all things as Mediator, for the Heathen and all the ends of the earth are given him for an inheritance, Psal. 2. 8. but that is onely Church-wise, he shall have a Catholique Church gathe­red out of all Nations, and all kings and people, and tongues, and languages shall be made to serve him.

  [Page 203]Moreover Mr. Hussey objecteth from Heb. 2. 8. and 1 Cor. 15. 28. that God hath put all things under Christs feet as he is Mediator. Answ. As this is not perfectly fulfilled in this World, but will then be fulfilled when Christ shall have put down all rule and all authority, and power: so in the measure and degree wherein it is fulfilled in this World, it concerneth not men onely, but all the works of Gods hands, Heb. 2. 7. Thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands. Which is taken out of the eighth Psalme, vers. 6. 7. Thou hast put all things under his feet, all sheep and oxen &c. Now how is it that the Apostle applyeth all this to Christ? How doth Christ rule over the beasts, fowles, fishes? Calvin in 1 Cor. 15. 27. 28. answereth, dominatur ergo, ut omnia serviant ejus gloriae. He ruleth, so as all things may serve for his glory. So then, all things are put under Christs feet as he is Mediator, both in regard of his excellency, dignity, and glory unto which he is exalted far above all the glory of any creature; and in re­spect of his power and over-ruling providence whereby he can dispose of all things so as may make most for his glory. But it is a third thing which Mr. Hussey hath to prove, namely, that Christ as Mediator exerciseth his office and government over all men as his Subjects, and over all Magistrates as his Deputies, yea over all things, even over the reasonlesse creatures; for by his arguing, he will have Christ as Mediator to governe the sheep, oxen, fowles, and fishes: all things as well as all persons being put under Christs feet. But in the handling of this very argument Mr. Hussey yeelds the cause. God is said to put all things under him, saith he, whereby it is implyed that all things were not under him, before they were put under him; but as the second Per­son in Trinity, so nothing could be said to be put under him, because they were in that respect alwaies under him. Is not this all one for substance with that distinction formerly cited out of Pola­nus, of a two-fold Kingdom of Christ, one natural; as he is the second Person in the Trinity, another donative, as he is Mediator?

• Lastly, Mr. Hussey argueth from Phil. 2. 8. 9. 10. Christ as Mediator is exalted to have a name above every name, that at the name of Iesus every knee may bow. Answ. Here is indeed a [Page 204] dignity, glory, and power, as Diodati saith, above all things, but yet not a government or kingdom, as Mediator: for those who must bow the knee to Christ, are not onely things in heaven, that is, Angels, and things in earth, that is, men, but also things under the earth, that is, divells, yet divells are none of the Sub­jects of Christs kingdom as he is Mediator. Therefore this Text proves not a Head-ship or Government over all, (which Mr. Hussey contends for) but a power over all.

I will here anticipate another objection, which is not mo­ved by Mr. Hussey. It may be objected from 1 Cor. 11. 3. that the head of every man is Christ. I answer, 1. Some under­stand this of Christ as God, and as the Creator of man. And if it be said that the latter clause the head of Christ is God, is meant of Christ as Mediator, and not as God: yet Martyr tells us out of Chrysostome, that all these comparisons and subordina­tions in this Text, are not to be taken in one and the same sence. 2. I grant also that Christ may be called the head of every man, not onely in respect of his God-head, but as Mediator, that is, the head of every man in the Church, not of every man in the World: for the Apostle speaks, de ordine divinitus sancito in Ecclesiae corpore mystico, as Mr. David Dicksone (an Interpre­ter who hath taken very good pains in the Textuall study of Scripture) saith upon the place. I shall clear it by the like formes of speech. Ier. 30 6. Wherefore do I see every man with his hands on his loyns? Luke 16. 16. The Kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth unto it. 1 Cor. 12. 7. The manife­staetion of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withall. Heb. 2. 9. Iesus did taste death for every man. Yet none of these pla­ces are meant of every man in the World. 3. Yea in some sence Christ, as Mediator, may be called the head of every man in the World, that is, in respect of dignity, excellency, glo­ry, eminence of place, quia in hoc sexu ille supra omnes eminet, saith 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 brtheren. Which best agreeth with my second answer.

But for taking off all these, and for preventing of other ob­jections, [Page 205] that one distinction will suffice, which I first gave in examining Mr. Colemans Sermon. In the Mediator Iesus Christ there is, 1. [...], dignity, excellency, honour, glory, splendor. 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 onely 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 onely excell 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 onely the government of his Church, but all Civil government put in his hand. When Mr. Hussey pag. 28. saith that I denyed pag. 43. what this distinction yeeldeth, 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 onely the Churches King, Head, and Governour, 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 commeth it to passe that he chargeth me with the denying of that, which himself but two pages before had observed that I denie it not?

Well, but pag. 43, he desires from me a further clearing of my distinction, Kingdom, power, and glory, and that I will shew from Scripture, how it agreeth to Christ. I shall obey his desire: though it was before easie to be understood, if he had been willing enough to understand. Solomon did excell all the Kings of the earth in wisedom, riches, glo­ry, and honour, 2 Chron. 1. 12. and herein he was a type [Page 206] of Christ, Psal. 89. 27. I will make him my first born, high­er then the Kings of the earth: But as Solomon was onely King of Israel, and was not by office or authority of Go­vernment, a Catholique King over all the Kingdomes of the World, nor all other Kings Solomons Vicegerents, or Deputies: So Iesus Christ as Mediator is onely the Churches King, and is not King or Governour of the whole World, nor Civil Magistrates his Vicegerents, though he excell them all in dignity, glory, and honour. Again, David did subdue by power diverse 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 onely 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 Churches enemies, ac­cording to that Psal. 2 9. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron, thou shalt dash them in peeces like a Potters 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 Governour, not onely 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, fowles, and fishes; Heb. 2. 7. 8. compared with Psal. 8. 7. 8. Yea his power is over divells, meant by things un­der the earth, Phil. 2. 10. Wherefore it cannot be said, that Christ as Mediator, is King, Head, and Governour 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 [Page 207] a nominall empty thing. Surely there may be a Kingly right and authority to governe, 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 onely 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 Kingdomes enemies) I verily beleeve that this distinction rightly apprehended, will discover the great mistakes of that supposed universall 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 fo 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 past over sicco ped 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 contro­versie: 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 Iesus 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 [Page 209] 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 Ministery. But I can by no means yeeld 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 fearfull to set his foot upon so slippery ground. He was loth to adventure upon this a [...]sertion, 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 Controversie is to be rightly sta­ted. The Question is not. 1. Whether the Magistrate be Gods Deputy or Vicegerent, and as God upon earth; for who denies that? Nor 2. Whether the Magistrate be Christs De­puty as Christ is God, and as he exerciseth an universall 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 usefull 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 owne calling, parents, masters, servants, mar­chants, souldiers &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 Governour 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 formall consi­deration, as he is Mediator and head of the Church. Or (which [Page 210] is also the same) whether Jesus Christ by vertue 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 Governour in the Church, said Mr. Coleman, This under­stood sano sensu I admitted. Now saith Mr. Hussey, If the Church be Christs Kingdom, surely such as govern in it, must receive commission from him. Which commission saith he, must be in this forme. 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 confesse 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 Colledges, and the like, are Governours in the Church, that is, being within, not without the Church, yet as Parents or masters they are not Church-Governours. 2. I can also admit that the Christian Magistrate governeth the Church; and if this had been the concession, which is more then 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 primat. pag. 292. 300. For the Common-wealth is not in the Church, but the Church in the Common-wealth, 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 Common-wealth to be also Church-members, yet in an u­niversall spread of the Gospel, the Church is governed by the Magistrate as it is a Common-wealth, not as it is a Church. E­very soule 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: [Page 211] if all the world be under the Law of Christ, th [...]n the Kingdom of Christ must needs reach over all the World: his proofes are meer mistakes: he cites 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 cites also Rom. 2. 16. Iudge 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 onely 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 onely 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 wayes. First, as Christ is the eternal and natural Son of God, the eternal wisdom of God, by whom Kings reigne, and Princes decree justice, Prov. 8. 15. 16. which is spoken of Christ, as he was the Fathers 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. Iesus sate at meat in Simon the Pharisees house. Luke 7. 37. Iesus wept for Lazarus because he loved him. Iohn 11. 35. 36. Must we needs therefore [Page 212] say, that as Mediator he sate 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 onely 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 sence, as if Kings had their commission from Christ, and did reigne in his stead, as he is Mediator; but in the sence 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, splendor, 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 forme 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 a [...] ample as his Prophecy; but the Prophecie of Christ is extended to all Nations, as may appear by the commission, G [...] teach all Nations. But 1. I throw back the argument; Christs Kingdom and his Prophecie are commensurable: therefore as his prophecie is not actually extended to all Nations, except successively, as the Go­spel commeth among them, so his Kingdom, as he is Mediator, is extended no further then the Church, not to all Nations. 2. His argument therefore is a miserable fallacy à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter. Christs 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 onely.

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 denie the office of kings to be holy; if he mean holy in opposition to sinful, unlawful, un­holy [Page 213] (as it seems he doth) then I confesse 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 then carters or coblers hold their office of and under Christ: I am far from making a paralel 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 coblers 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, then 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, Christs ends and the Kings ends are both one, 1 Tim. 2. 2. that we may lead a qui­et and peaceable life in all godlinesse 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 [Page 215] that were called brethren, from those that were without, both were under the Magistrate, both were not under Christ; and now the Jews in diverse 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 godlinesse 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 Christs Kingly Office are quite another thing; namely, to destroy all our soules 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 ministery, 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 Christs 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 joyn 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 eternall Sonne of God. So when the Ubiquitaries would prove from that place the reall communication of Divine omnipotency to the humane nature of Christ, our Divines answer, the Text may [Page 214] be understood either of Christs 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 sence 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 Christs hand as he is Mediator, and that the civil Magistrate holds his office of and under Christ: but the sence must be 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: Iohn 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 referre these words, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth, to the head de Ecclesiae oeconomia, and makes this Text paralel to Iohn 20. 21, 22, 23. As my Fa­ther hath sent me, even so send I you, &c. Whose soever sins ye re­mit, &c. and to Matth. 16. 19. I will give unto thee the keyes of the kingdom of Heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose 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. Goe therefore teach all Nations: So restricting the sence to be in refe­rence to the Church onely, 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 meerly spirituall.

[Page 216]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 Sonne of God, and that both in re­spect of the eternal generation by which the God-head, 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 reigne over the Kingdoms of the earth, &c. and this power was given &c. It is not fair nor just dealing to change a mans words in a citation, especially when the change is materiall. Now here are divers changes in this passage. This one onely I take notice of, I said not as he is eternal God, but as he is the eternal Sonne of God, and all along in that Question I spake of the Son of God, not essentially, but personally, as he is the Sonne 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, Doe you hold that Jesus Christ is not onely [...], but [...], not onely essentially, but perso­nally [...], that he is not onely ex seipso Deus, but ex seipso filius? If this be the thing you hold, then you oppose me in­deed, but so as you fall into a blasphemous heresie, that Christ as he is the eternall Sonne of God, hath not all power in in Heaven and in Earth, but onely as he is Mediator, be­cause that power is given to him, and nothing can be given to Christ as he is the eternall Sonne of God, but onely as he is Mediator, by your principles: But if your mean­ing be no more then this, that Christ considered [...] in re­spect of the very nature and essence of the God-head, is [...], not God of God, but God of himself, and that so nothing can be [Page 217] 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 spake of the eternal Son of God [...] in respect of the personality or relation of filiation, or as he is the eternall Son of God, in which sence I yet averre 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 God-head 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 Augustines 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 Fathers will, laid aside and relinquished his divine dominion and power when he took upon him the forme 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 Soveraignty.

But he addeth, that if Matt. 28. 18. be not understood of Christ as Mediator, then 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 diverse Greek coppies: I admit of the cohesion and de­pendance 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 beleeve that I who send you out, a [...] the Son of the li­ving [Page 218] God? T [...]en know assuredly, that my divine power and soveraignty shall be for you, and I will so over-rule 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 Christs dominion even in temporall things (as Mr. Hussey doth) and thence he deriveth the tempo­rall power of the Pope as Christs 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 Christs dominion in temporall things (except as God onely) 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 Temporall dominion, so he neither had nor received such power and authority: thereupon he inferreth that the Pope whom he calleth Christs 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 soundly Tom. 4. part▪ 3. Tract. 4. pag. 413. he proves from Iohn 18. 36. and Luke 12. 14. that Christ had not nor received not any temporall power, and thence inferreth, Cum ergo Christus hujusmodi po­testatem non habuerit, nec Petro illam tradidit.

The eigth 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 [Page 219] K [...]ng of the Church, and am ready to prove it against any that will denie 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 Magistra­cie in his Church. This was the point it was brought for, and still I call to make good that proof, for I denie it. It seemes 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 goe. 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 Go­vernours, 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 onely. 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 onely: 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 signifie 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 Gods appointment come to the Church. He clears it by Iohn 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, &c. 2. The context sheweth that the Apostle speaketh onely of such administrations, as the Church had at that time, for all this is spoken in reference to the pre­venting [Page 220] of a Schisme in the Church of Corinth, and that every member of that body might discharge its owne proper functi­on without usurping anothers. 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 usuall 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, then it will referre 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, then the thing is not mentio­ned, as having an actuall 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 expresse Gods 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 sence 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 rendred 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 [...] [Page 221] 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 lesse 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) then 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 Magi­stracie.

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 then 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 beleeve he would have said, why may they not? for the sence 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 Schooles, which he calls for. What a great matter is made of meer no­thing? First, he offereth violence to the Text, because if [...] note posteriority of time, and ordinary gifts, then [...], which is compounded from [...] must much rather note the same thing, and so we shall have not onely gifts of healing, but miracles too, ordinary and continuing administrations in the Church. Next he offereth violence to the Greek language: for when [...] and [...] signifie posteriority, not onely in the enumeration, but in the time of existence, then the one must needs signifie a pre-existence, and the other a post-existence, they cannot be contemporary from their beginnings; yet Mr. Hussey will needs [Page 222] have [...] before miracles, and again [...] efore gifts of heal­ing and diversities of tongues, to signifie 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, then gifts of healings, &c. Mr. Hussey will make this the sence, that there were Apostles before prophets, there were Prophets before teachers, there were Teachers be­fore miracles, there were miracles before gifts of healings, &c. 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, &c. even as Mark. 4. 28. [...] first the blad [...] then the ear, [...] after that the ful corn in the ear: the blade hath an existence before the eare, the eare before the full corne. So that taking [...] and [...] in his sence, he must either make out distinctly the order of time, or else confesse he would make the Apostle speak as never Grecian in the world spake, 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 sence. 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 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 Prelats 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 [Page 223] 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 edifie 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 diverse passages of Christs doctrine, life, and sufferings, which are not mentioned by Matthew, yet they are mentioned by Iohn 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 onely to speak of preaching officers who are appointed for this work of the Ministery, 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 owne station in the Church, but were aspiring to more eminent gifts and ad­ministrations, are all Apostles? saith he, are all Prophets? &c. and so he reckoneth out onely those rare and singular gifts, which men did most covet: and for that cause it was neither necessary, [Page 224] 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 owne station, though they be neither Apostles, nor Prophets. &c.

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. &c. He demurres upon that which I said, that this place maketh more against him then for him; the mean­ing whereof was no more then 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 onely, that he who is the Churches 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 termes, 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 eternall Son of God, is called head of all Principality and power: as we shall see anon: but [Page 225] Ephes. 1. where the Apostle speaketh of Christs 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 onely the faithfull. 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 replie, was in explanation of the Text, which was to this sence. He that is the Churches head, is over all, both as he is the Sonne 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, then 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 onely 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, [Page 226] he supposeth what he had to prove. My exposition of the Text made good sence; For as an earthly King is exalted to have more power and more glory, then those not onely 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 sence of the Text, his makes very bad sence of it. For if Christ as Mediator be head and King of all Principalities, powers, and Dominions, then 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 glosse) that Christ as Mediator was head and King of the Romane Emperour, 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 severall reasons from the Text it self. The first was this, The honour and dignity of Jesus Christ there spo­ken of, hath place not onely 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 beggs what is in Question, and divideth asunder what the Text coupleth together, not onely in this World, but also in that which is to come: here is a rising and heightning, 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) beginnes 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 expresse mention of the World to come, that he may signifie Christs excellency not to be temporal, but eternal. This doth well [Page 227] 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 fetcht 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 Gods decree; It is not yet done actually. Heb. 2. 8. Now Christ reignes 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 Christs 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 Gods decree and fore-knowledge, (according to the sence 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 Christs 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 Christs putting all his enemies under his feet, 1 Cor. 15. 25. and the Fathers 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 reignes 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 Christs [Page 228] 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; Christs 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 boldnesse this is, to cite my words (yea in a different character too, that his Reader may beleeve it the better) and yet to change not onely my words, but my mean­ing. I purposely kept my self to the Text, that Christ is a head to none but to his Church, yet he that is the Churches 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 onely: So Heb. 2 7, 8. compared with Psal. 8. 6, 7. Whence it followes by Mr. Hus­seys principles (which I tremble to mention) that Christ as Mediator is Head and King not onely of men, but of sheep, oxen, fowles, 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 Christs fulnesse 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 compleat so farre as he is a Head or King: he calls a fallacy, How commeth this word King in here? saith he; First here he yeelds that the Church makes Christ full and compleat so farre as he is a Head, whence it followeth that as Mediator he is onely the Churches head, and there is no other body of Christ but the Church; for if the Church be his fulnesse, his compleat 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 commeth: for is not Christs [Page 229] 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 yeeld­eth the cause.

The tenth objection is that which I my self 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 shew that Christ is true God, and therefore we must not understand the Apostle to speak of Christs headship as he is Mediator, but as he is the natural and eternal Sonne 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 else-where. Well: but Mr. Hussey proves from the Text that Christ is there spoken of as Mediator. vers. 9, 10. For in him dwelleth the fulnesse of the God-head bodily, and ye are compleat 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 shews them, that the man Jesus Christ is also true God, equal and consubstantial with the Fa­ther; for the very fulnesse of the God-head is in him, that is, he is fully and compleatly God, so that saith Calvin, they who desire something more then Christ, must desire something more then God. Wherefore our Writers make the right use of this place when they bring it against the Socinians, to prove the God-head of Christ. See Christian. Becman. exercit. 9. This fulnesse of the God-head 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 [Page 230] take the Word, in opposition to the Tabernacle and Temple in which the God-head was typically. Ye are compleat in him, saith the Apostle, meaning because he is compleatly God, so that we need not invocate or worship Angels, as if we were not com­pleat 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 doubtlesse 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 God-head is the cause of that adoration; but whether he is to be worship­ped because he is Mediator, or under this formall 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 beleeve he will be more wary and cautious what he holds con­cerning that Question. But I must not be ledd 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 sence the Apostle calls Christ the Head of all Principality and Power, see how he expounds himsel Coloss. 1. 15, 16, 17. speaking of the God-head 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 onely to the Angels, but to Civil Magistrates; [Page 231] and next, that they are meant of Christ, not onely 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 nullifie the civil Authority and Government of all Heathen or Pagan Magistrat [...]; for which way was the authority of Government derived from Christ, and from him as Mediator, to a Pagan Magistrate or Emperour? If he hath not his power from Christ as Mediator, then 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 yeeld the argument, and answereth pag. 20. that not onely it is a sin to be a Heathen, but the govern­ment of a Heathen is sinfull and unlawfull, for which he gives this reason, Whatsoever is not of faith is sin. He might as well conclude, in that sence, that the best vertues 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. Vpon the same reason he must conclude, that the government of a Christian Magistrate is unlawfull, if it be not of faith, as oftimes it is not, through the blindnesse and corruption of mens hearts who govern. But whether is [Page 232] 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 Magistracie be just, and if his government be in it self ma­terially and substantially lawful▪ then he must have a Commis­sion from Christ, and from him as Mediator: This I suppose cannot be Mr. Husseys sence, for he hath not answered one syllable to the argument, tending that way. But if the Go­vernment of an Heathen Magistrate be in it self materially, sub­stantially, and in the nature of the tenure, sinfull and unlaw­full, so that as long as he remains an Heathen, he hath no reall right, nor true title to Government, but onely a pretended and usurped title (which must needs be Mr. Husseys sence, if he hath answered any thing at all to my Argument) then he go­eth crosse not onely to the holy men of God in the old Testa­ment who honoured Heathen Princes, and were subject to them as to lawful Magistrates; but also to the doctrine of Jesus Christ, who taught his Disciples to give unto Caesar what is Caesars; and of the Apostles who in their time exhorted the Churches to be subject even to Heathen Magistrates (for they had no other at that time) to obey them, to pray for them. Rom. 13. Titus 3. 1. 1 Tim. 2. 1, 2. 1 Pet. 2. 13, 14. 17. It is justly condemned as one of the errors of the Anabaptists, that an heathen Magistrate is not to be acknowledged as a law­full Magistrate, or as being from God. See Gerhard loc. com. Tom. 6. Pag. 498 499 P. Hinkelmannus de Anabaptismo disp. 13. cap. 1. The Scriptures now cited are so clear, that when Mr. Hussey saith of the heathen Magistrate, Let Baal plead for himself, he might as well have said, that Christ and his Apostles pleaded for Baal. They that plead for the authority of an hea­then Magistrate do not plead for Baal, but for God, and for his ordinance: for the powers that be, are ordained of God, saith Paul speaking even of the heathen Magistrates, Rom. 13. 1. But what will Mr. Hussey say, if his great master Erastus be found a plea­der for Baal, as much as I am? Confirm. Thes. lib. 3. cap. 2. pag. 184. speaking of the heathen and unbeleeving Magistrates, be­fore whom the Corinthians went to law one against another, he saith, An non est impius quoque Magistratus à Deo praepositus, [Page 233] ut subjectes quoslibet ab injuria & vi tueatur? Is not the ungodly Magistrate also preferred by God, that he may defend any of his Subjects from injury and violence. Yea the Scriptures afore touched are so clear in this point, that Gamachaeus in primam se­cunda Quaest. 4. & 5. cap. 33. though he hold that by humane and Ecclesiastical right, Pagan Princes lose their dominion and authority over their Subjects, when their Subjects turne Chri­stians; yet he acknowledgeth that they still retain their former Jurisdiction over those Subjects, by the Law of God and na­ture. Surely one might as well say, that heathen Parents are unlawful, and heathen masters are unlawful, and heathen husbands are unlawful; (all which were contrary to the Word of God) as to say that heathen Magistrates are unlawful. Take the instance in Parents, for all lawful Magistrates are fathers by the fifth Commandement. Doth the paternity of a heathen father differre specie, from the paternity of a Christian father? are they not both lawful parents, being made such by God and nature? are not their children bound to honour them, and be subject to them, and obey them in things lawful? The pater­nity is the same in se, but different modaliter that I may borrow a distinction from Mr. Hussey. The Christian father is sancti­fied, and qualified to do service to Jesus Christ, as a father, in educating his children Christianly, which an heathen father can not do. So the heathen Magistrate, and the Christian Magistrate are both lawful Magistrates, being made such by God and nature, or by election of people: they are both of them to be honoured, submitted unto, and obeyed, they are both of them the mini­sters of God for good to their people: their power is the same in actu signato, though not in actu exercito. The heathen Ma­gistrate may do and ought to do what the Christian Magistrate doth; but the Christian Magistrate is fitted, qualified, enabled, and sanctified to glorifie and serve Jesus Christ, as a Magistrate, which the heathen Magistrate is not.

Secondly, They that hold the derivation of Magistracy to be from Jesus Christ, and that it is held of and under him as Mediator, must either shew from Scripture that Jesus Christ as Mediator hath given a commission of Vicegerentship or De­putyship to the Christian Magistrate, or otherwise acknow­ledge, [Page 234] that they have given the most dangerous and deadly wound, even to Christian Magistracy it self, which ever be­fore it received. Mr. Hussey pag. 20 answereth, I conceive he (the Christian Magistrate) hath a Commission from Christ: but when he should prove it (which my argument calld for) here he is at a losse. He citeth Psal. 72▪ 11. All Kings shall fall downe before him, all Nations shall serve him. Isa. 60. 12. That Nation and Kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish. I hope indeed there is a time comming when all Kings shall fall down before Jesus Christ, and all Nations shall serve him, and that will make an end of the Erastian controversie. But I pray, do all that serve Jesus Christ, hold their office of and under Christ, as Mediator, and as his Vicegerents? then the poorest servant that fears God shall be a Vicegerent of Jesus Christ, as Media­tor, and shall have a commission from Christ to that effect, for every godly servant doth not serve his master onely, but Christ, Eph. 6. 5, 6, 7. Again, if those who shall perish because they serve not Christ, be his Deputies and Vicegerents; then the wickedest persecuters in the World shall have a commission of Vicegerentship from Jesus Christ. Well, let the Christian Ma­gistrate animadvert, whether these men have done any 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 then agreeth either to the meanest Christian, or to the wickedest persecuter. The Mi­nistery hath a clear undeniable commission from Christ as Me­diator (even our opposites themselves being Judges) Matth. 16. 19. and 28. 19. 20. Iohn 20. 21, 22▪ 23. 2 Cor. 5. 19, 20. Eph. 4. 11, 12. Act. 20. 28. Tit. 1. 5. I say therefore again▪ let them also shew from Scripture a commission from Jesus Christ constituting Christian Magistrates to be his Vicegerents as he is Mediator, and to hold their office of and under him as Media­tor: which if they cannot shew, they have done a greater dis­service to the Christian Magistrate, then they can easily repair or amend: We are sure the lawful Magistrate (whether Heathen or Christian) is Gods Vicegerent▪ and that is a safe holding of his office. But our opposites shall never prove, that any civil [Page 235] Magistrate (though Christian and godly) is the Vicegerent of Jesus Christ as Mediator. And in seeking to prove it, I am per­swaded they shall but discover their own weaknesse, and shall also weaken the Magistrates authority more then they can strengthen it.

Thirdly, The Scripture intimateth this difference between Ministery and Magistracy; that the work of the Ministery and the administrations thereof are performed in the name of Jesus Christ as Mediator and King of the Church: the work of Ma­gistracy not so, except we adde to the Word of God; they who will do any thing in the Name of Jesus Christ as Mediator, and cannot find any Scripture which can warrant their so do­ing, are lyars, and the truth is not in them. Now let our op­posites shew (if they can) where they find in Scripture, that the Christian Magistrate is to rule in the name of Christ, to judge in the name of Christ, to make laws in the name of Christ, to make war or peace in the name of Christ, to punish evil doers with the Temporal Sword in the name of Christ. Of the Ministery I did shew, that in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ we do assemble our selves together, Matth. 18. 20. in his name doe we preach, Luk. 24. 47. Act. 4. 17, 18. and 5. 28. 44. and 9. 27. In his name do we baptize, Act. 2. 38. and 8. 16. and 19. 5. In his name do we excommunicate, 1 Cor. 5. 5. These my proofs from Scripture Mr. Hussey pag. 21. professeth he will examine according to laws of disputation. I know none trans­gresseth those laws more than himself, and even in this very place where he professeth to keep close to lawes of disputation: my first proof from Matth. 18. 20. he quarrelleth upon a meer mistake of his owne. He saith I brought it to prove the institu­tion of Church-officers, and that to prove it, I do appropri­ate the meeting in the name of hCrist to Church-Officers, and thereupon he tells us the Text saith not, that none shall gather together in my name but Church-Officers. Are these Mr. Hus­seys lawes of disputation? He had need to be a better disputer who calls others to School. I did not speak here of the Institu­tion of Church-Officers, and far lesse did I exclude all others from meeting in the name of Christ; Church-officers assemble in the name of Christ with the Church; and when they assemble [Page 236] in the name of Christ apart, and without the multitude, will it follow that because they meet in the name of Christ, therefore none but they meet in the name of Christ. Well, let Mr. Hussey try all his Logick in this consequence, it will not do. The sixth general Councell, Actione 17. apply unto their owne oecume­nicall Assembly, that promise of Christ Matth. 18. 20. Where two or three are gathered together in my Name, &c. Protestant Writers both in their Commentaries, and Polemick Writings, do usually apply the same Text to Synods and Councells: For instance, Calvin. Instit. lib. 4. cap. 9. sect 1. & 2. holds that the authority of Councells dependeth upon that promise of Christ, Where two or three are met together in my name, &c. That which went before, carries it to Assemblies for acts of discipline, as being principally intended in that place. The promise ver. 20. is general, belonging to all Church Assemblies: yet in that place it is applyed to Assemblies of Church-Officers for discipline. But neither need I go so far in this present argument; for when Church-Officers meet with the Church for the Word, Sacra­ments▪ and other parts of Worship, this is in the name of Jesus Christ, without all controversie, and this is enough to justifie all that I brought that Text for; especially there being herein a difference between sacred and civil Assemblies: there is no such promise made to Magistrates Courts of Justice, as to Church Assemblies. That which he citeth out of Dr. Whittaker and Bishop Mortoun makes nothing against me, neither doth he quote the places, peradventure because he found something in those passages which made against him. Whittakers sence is plainly of sacred, and not of civil Assemblies. And for that so much controverted Text Matth. 18. 17. Tell the Church. Whittaker expoundeth it as we do against the Erastians, Tell the Pastors and Rulers of the Church. Whittak. de Eccles. quaest. 1. cap. 2. Dic Ecclesiae, hoc est Pastoribus & Praefectis Ec­clesiae.

As for preaching, Mr. Hussey saith, it is out of question that we preach in the name of Christ. Well: then let him shew such another thing of the Magistrate, as is without controversie done by him in the name of Christ.

But where I added, that in the name of Jesus Christ we [Page 237] baptize, though I said no more then the Scripture saith, yet he is pleased to object against me. These places he citeth saith he, to prove that we baptize in the Name of Jesus, as exclusively to Father and holy Ghost, (leaving out the words of the commission: Matth. 28. Baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost) for so the state of his question doth require; for he distin­guisheth acutely and acurately between Christ as Mediator and se­cond person (he should have said as second Person) in Trinity, in all this Argument. And so he concludes that which I had said to be contrary to the words of the Commission and the practice of all Churches. What doth he drive at? I cited plain Texts to prove that baptisme is administred in the name of Christ: Either Mr. Hussey denyeth that this is done in the name of Christ as Mediator: or he denyeth it not. If he denie it, let him speak it out, and he shall not want an answer. Mean while let him re­member that himself pag. 25. saith, that Christ as Mediator did give that commission to the Apostles, Go Preach and baptize. If he denie it not, then let him give the like instance for Magi­stracy and civil Government, to prove it to be managed in the name of Jesus Christ as Mediator, else he must not plead that Magistracy is of the same tenure from Christ as the Ministery. Again, either he admitteth a distinction between Christ as Me­diator, and as second person in Trinity, or not. If he doe not, he will infallibly wind himself into a grosse heresie; as namely these two. 1. He must denie that principle which according to the Word of God, all Orthodox Divines hold against the Arrians and Antitrinitarians, that 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 then the Father; but as second per­son in the Trinity he is not subordinate unto nor lesser then the Father, nor the Father greater then he, but as such he is equal with the Father in greatnesse, glory, and honour. 2. As opera Trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa, he must also hold that what­soever Christ as Mediator doth, that also the Father and the holy Ghost doth: but Christ as Mediator did humble himself to the death, offer himself in a sacrifice for sin, maketh intercession for us, Ergo, he must conclude the Father doth the same. But if he do admit the distinction as Mediator, and as second person in Trinity, then why doth he so often quarrell it? And in this [Page 238] very place his Argument must drive against that distinction, or against nothing. But how doth the baptizing in the name of Christ as Mediator, agree with the commission to baptize in the name of the Father▪ Son, and holy Ghost? Though this be­long not to my Argument, yet I will by the way speak to it. First I say, the Question is of things or actions, not of words. Mr. Hussey (it seems) did apprehend my meaning, as if I had intended an expression to be made in the act of baptizing, thus, I baptize thee in the name of Iesus Christ. But I spake 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 baptisme Christ doth not command us to say, either these words, I baptize thee in the Name of Christ; or these words, I baptize 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 baptize in the name of Christ as Mediator, that is vice Christi▪ in Christs stead, and having authority for that effect from Christ as Mediator; for Christ as Mediator gave us our commission to preach and baptize by Mr. Husseys confession. So that to preach and baptize [...] (which we find both of preaching, Luk. 24 47. and of baptizing, Act. 2. 38.) comprehendeth a formall 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 baptisme, or the good of the baptized (if we understand the words properly) not the authority of the baptizer, as if a formall commission were there given him from the Father, Son, and holy Ghost. So that to baptize 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 [Page 239] 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 hast here, deliver to Sathan saith he is not to excommunicate, &c. But grant that it were excommuni­cation, &c. the decree was Pauls, and not the Corinthians. What is meant by delivering to Sathan, belongs to another debate. Call it an Apostolicall act, or call it an Ecclesiasticall 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 Synops. pur. Theol. Disp. 42. Co­roll. 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 then Prelats, Papists, and Socinians have made before him, and which are answered long agoe. 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 Sathan, 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 owne, is delivered to Sathan, who reignes without the Church. That this censure or punishment of excommunica­tion was a Church act, and not an Apostolicall act onely, 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 wit­nesse what the Apostle had done, but to joyne with him in the authoritative doing of it, vers. 4. 5. again he saith to them vers. 7. Purge out therfore the old leaven. vers. 12. Doe not ye judge them that are within? vers. 13. Put away from among your selves 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 Iesus Christ, vers. 5. That you may deliver him to Sathan. &c.

[Page 240]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 businesse in the name of Christ, &c. Secondly, In the name of Christ a thing is said to be done, that is done in the authority, room, and place of Christ, &c. 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 then 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 Christs stead, 2 Cor. 5. 20. This he doth not nor cannot denie: (which makes good my Argument;) Why did he not shew 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 Christs room and stead as Mediator, shall be that which was drawn from Luk. 12. 14. The Jewes 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 Ier. 23. 5. He shall execute justice and judge­ment in the earth; and such other Prophecies by them mis-un­derstood. And hence it was that one said to Christ, Master, Speak to my brother that he divide the inheritance with me. Our Lords 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 Soveraigne, may be done by the King himself when personally present: If there­fore the Magistrate judge civil causes, and divide inheritances, [Page 241] as the Vicegerent of Christ, and of Christ as Mediator, then Christ himself, when present in the dayes 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 Popes Temporall Dominion) answereth concerning the point now in hand) It doth not follow that because Christ was not a Iudge actu exercito, therefore the o­riginall right of Government was not in him: And this Objection may be answered thus, Christ doth not say he was not a Iudge, but who made me a Iudge? how dost thou know that I am a Iudge? And thus Christ in the time of his humiliation did often hide the ma­nifestation of his power. 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. Ad 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 Verbe [...] 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 businesse, 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 Christs 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.

[Page 242]Some of the Jesuits (as forward as they are to defend the Temporal Power of the Pope as Christs Vicar on earth, yet) cannot shut their eies against the light of this Text, who made me a Judge or a divider over you? But they are forced to acknow­ledge 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? &c. 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 Iohn 18. 36. My Kingdom is not of this World. The great jealousie 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 lesse of the World then the civil Government. For this I remit him to those many and great differences, which I have shewed between the civil and the Ecclesiastical Power. In the mean while my argument stands in force; For if all ci­vil Government were put in Christs 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 sence (as Grotius upon the place noteth out of Eusebius) Christs kinsmen when they were asked concerning his Kingdome, did answer to Domi­tian, [Page 243] [...] 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 commeth not with observation. Neither shall they say loe 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 Iohn 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 aske when this Kingdom should come. His answer is▪ The King­dom of God commeth not [...] with observation, or outward shew and pomp, but it is within you, it is spiritual, it belongs to the inward man. But if the Magistrate be Christs Vicegerent, and hold his office of and under Christ as Mediator, and if Christ as Mediator reigne in, through and by the Magi­strate, then the Kingdom of the Messiah doth come with ob­servation and pomp, with a crown, a scepter, a sword, and [...], with princely splendor, 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, splendor, majesty, power, and authority, which a Vicegerent hath, doth principally redound unto his Master and Soveraign: 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) commeth 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 [Page 244] law of nature and nations, and the law which was written in mans 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. com. 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 diverse 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: Hier. Ru st co mona­cho. Etiam muta animantia & serarum gre­ges ductores se­quuntur suos. In apibus prin­cipes sunt. Hic­rome observeth, that nature guideth the very reasonlesse 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, then 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: onely 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 Nebuchad­nezzar an Idolatrous and heathen King. See the like Ier. 27. 6. Isa. 45. 1. God sent his servant the Prophet to anoint Hazael [Page 245] King over Syria; 1 Kings 19. 15. Read to this purpose Augu­stine de civit. Dei, lib. 5. cap. 21. Where he saith 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 Iuli­ano. 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 Iulian 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 darknesse, yet in this point of the derivation and tenure of Magistracy; they both are equal­ly interested, and the Scripture sheweth no difference, as to that point.

CHAP. VIII. Of the Power and Priviledge 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 Church­officer, and Magistracy an Ecclesiastical as well as a civil administration, calls to mind that of the Wise-man; 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 supream 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 joyne in criminall nor capitall judge­ments, lest they (being Priests) should be defiled. If you look after some other President for the union of civil and ecclesiastical Government, secular and spirituall administrations▪ in one and the same person or persons, perhaps it were not hard to find such presidents, as our opposites will be ashamed to owne.

I am sure Heathens themselves have known the difference between the office of Priests and the office of Magistrates. Ari­stotle [Page 247] 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 Citty.

But to the matter. I will here endeavour to make these two things appear. 1. That no administration formally and properly Ecclesiasticall (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 Ecclesiasticall 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 unhappinesse of this time that this and other truths formerly out of controversie, 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 then 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, [Page 248] ought to punish any of his Subjects that doe evil, and he ought to punish like si [...]s 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 onely for Church­members, 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 loose, forgive and retain sins. But where is any such commission given to the civil Magistrate, Christian more then 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 Magistrates power of punishing offenders, is bounded by the law of the land. What then shall become of such scandalls 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 envie, 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. Scandalls shall spread in the Church, and no reme­dy against them. Far be it from the thoughts of Christian Ma­gistrates, that scandalls 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 prophane 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 [Page 249] keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven are given to the Ministers of the Church: Matth. 16. 19. and 18. 18. Iohn 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 scandalls, Ezech. 44 23, 24. which is a Prophecy concerning the ministery 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 judg 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, then the Priests did covet the Empire. Shall it be a sin to Church-officers to exercise any act of civil government? and shal it be no sin to the civil Magistrate to ingrosse 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 scandall of the Reformed Church; do notwithstanding acknow­ledge that Christ hath appointed Church discipline and cen­sures, and the same to be dispenced by Church-officers onely: And that the Magistrate as he may not preach the Word, and administer the Sacraments; So he may not exercise Church­discipline, nor inslict 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 ministeriall 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 [Page 250] 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 lesse 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 lesse 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 Royallist 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. primat. pag. 123. Let our opposites loose this knot among themselves; for they are not of one opinion about it.

Fifthly, Church-officers might and did freely and by themselves dispence Church-censures, under Pagan and unbe­leeving 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 Step-Father. 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 Iure proprio, and vir­tute officii: or onely Iure devoluto, and virtute delegationis, such authority being derived from the magistrate; If the former; I have what I would; If the latter, then it followeth, 1. That [Page 251] where Presbyteries and Synods do exercise spirituall Jurisdicti­on, not by any power derived from, or dependant upon the civil Magistrate, but in the name and authority of Iesus Christ, and by the power received from him, as in Scotland, France, the Low-Countries, &c. 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 Prelaticall party did hold, that the power of ordination and jurisdiction pertaineth onely to Prelats, or such as are delegate with commission and autho­rity from them: thereupon they were so put to it by the Argu­ments of the Anti-Episcopall 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 onely, or he is free and may without sin give this power to others; If the for­mer, what can bind up the Magistrates conscience, or astrict the thing to Church-Officers, except it be Gods 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 utrius (que) 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 onely 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 [Page 252] 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 dore 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 lesse sinfull to the ministers, and hurtful to others, then mal-administration 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 duely administred by any minister or ministers, the Magistrate seeketh the redresse 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 controversie 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 ministeriall power, he must take care that it be done by the ministers themselves; qui Judi­ces [Page 253] veri ipsius sunt, & auferre soli possunt quod per ordinationem de­derunt. Who are his true Judges, and they onely can take away what by ordination they have given. Thus Salmasius.

2. And further, if Presbyteries or Synods exceed the bounds of Ecclesiasticall power, and go without the Sphaere of their own activity, interposing and judging in a civil cause which concerneth any mans 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 scan­dall onely, or of Delinquency or mal-administration in his Sa­cerdotall office, otherwise it had fallen within the cognizance, and jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Sanhedrin.

3. Though the case be meerly spirituall and ecclesiastical the Christian Magistrate (by himself and immediatly) may not onely 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 scandall given to himself) in­terpose by letters, messages, exhortations, and sharp admo­nitions to the Presbyterie 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 rationall and satis­factory accompt to the Magistrate, or be themselves convinced of their mal-administration of Discipline.

4 And in extraordinary cases when the Clergy hath made defection, and all Church discipline is degenerated into Tyran­nie, 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 sence 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 [Page 254] 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 nullifi [...] or make void the Eccle­siastical censure. The latter of these two V [...]delius 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 Popes chief supremacy, to judge all men▪ and to be judged of no man, to ratifie or rescind at his pleasure the dec [...]ees of the Church, Councels [...]nd all: and shall this power now be trans­ferred upon the Magistrate? Good Lord, where are we, if this shall be the up-shot of our Reformation? O [...] for it? Shall we condemn the Papists and Anabaptists who give too little to the Magistrate, and then joyn hands with the Arminians, who give as much to the Magistrate as the Pope hath formerly usur­p [...]d? 2. Appeals lie in the same line of subordination, and do not go de g [...]nere in genus; but the civil and Ecclesiasticall 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 [...] 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 Ecclesi [...]stical Assemblies, to the Emperors and civil C [...]urts, Epist. 48. and Epist. 162.

There are two examples alledged from Scripture for ap­peals from Ecclesiastical to Civil Courts: One is the example of Ieremiah; I [...]r. 26. The other is the example of Paul, Act. 25. But neither of the two prove the point. For 1. Ieremiah was not censured by the Priests with any Spirituall or Ecclesiastical censure (of which alone our controversie 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 Ecclesiasticall Courts are made up of bloody [Page 255] persecuters▪ that is an extraordinary evil which must have an extraordinary remedy. 3. Neither yet is there any syllable of Ieremiahs appealing from the Priests to the Princes, but the Text saith, When the Princes of Judah heard these things, then they came up, &c. verse 10. that is, The Princes so soon as they understood that the Priests had taken Ieremiah, 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 Pauls 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 in [...]eriour civil Court, to a superiour 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 shew'd 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 dismisse him) yet being willing to do the Jews a pleasure, he would have Paul to go to Ierusalem, 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 Ierusalem, they laying wait in the way to kill him. vers. 3. No appellation here from the Sanhe­drin at Ierusalem, where he had not as yet compeered to be examined, far lesse could he appeal from any sentence of the Sanhedrin. The most which can be with any colour alleadged from the Text, is, that Paul declined to be judged by the San­hedrin at Ierusalem, they not being his competent and proper Judges in that cause. I stand at Caesars Iudgement-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 onely at Caesars Tribunall; not by the Jews, who were no Judges of such matters. A declinator of a [Page 254] [...] [Page 255] [...] [Page 256] Judge is one thing, and Appellation from his Judgement or sentence is another thing. But put the case that Paul had indeed appeal [...]d from the Sanhedrin at Ierusalem, either it was the civil Sanhedrin, or the Ecclesiasticall. If the civil, it is no President for appeals from Ecclesiastical Courts. If the Ec­clesiastical, yet that serveth not for appeals from Ecclesiasticall Courts in Ecclesiasticall 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 scandall 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 publike 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 poy­son lurking in the contrary Tenent. See Cabeljav. defensio pote­statis Ecclesiasticae. pag. 60.

It is further objected, That thus fixing a spirituall jurisdi­ction in Church-officers, we erect two collateral Powers in the Kingdom, the Civil and the Ecclesiastical, unlesse 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 Common-wealth 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: [Page 257] 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 inferre 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 Common-wealth 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 Ecclesiasticall 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 forme of Ecclesiastical Government, doth not withstanding acknowledge pag. 16. Both of them (the Magistrate and the Minister) have their Commission immediatly 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 lesse subject to the operation of the Word from the mouth of the Minister, then 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 Ministery. 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 keyes 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 ministery of the Word is not subordinate to, nor dependant upon the Magistrate; and I shall prove by the same medium, that the ministery of Church-cen­sures hath as little of that subordination in it.

And this I must adde, that least of all others can our Inde­pendent brethren charge the Presbyterians with the setting up [Page 258] of an Ecclesiastical Government co-ordinate with, and not sub­ordinate unto the civil Government: For themselves hold as much in this point (if not more) then we do. Take for in­stance Mr. Cotton his k [...]yes of the Kingdom of Heaven, published by Mr. Goodwyn and Mr. Nye, pag. 49. The first Subject of the ministeriall power of the keyes, though it be independent in re­spect of derivation of power from the power of the sword to the per­formance of any spiritual administration: &c. Pag. 53. As the Church is subject to the sword of the Magistrate in things which concerne the civil peace: so the Magistrate (if Christian) is sub­ject to the keyes of the Church. &c.

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 kinde 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 Magistrates 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 center, 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 [Page 259] 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 Apparat. ad lib. de Pri­matu pag. 282, 283. [...]lebs au­tem ipsa quam curan [...] Pastores, 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 withall 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 Controversie, 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 Consession 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 onely 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 s [...]oreret. 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 it self, and understood according to the Principles of Faith (which others call the Analogy of Faith) be either in­stituted, [Page 260] or (being instituted) kept pure; or being corrupted, be restored and reformed: that false Doctrines, Abuses, Idolls, 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 un [...]erstanding and enodation of our pre­sent Question, I will particularize 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 administred 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, meer­ly spiritual, and belonging not to the outward man, but to the inward man or soul, are committed and intrusted to the Pa­stors and other ruling Officers of the Church, and are not of civil and extrinsecal, but of Ecclesiastical and intrinsecal cog­nizance and judgement. There are other things belonging to the Church, which are extrinsecal and do properly belong to the outward man, and are common to the Church with other hu­mane Societies or Corporations. Things of this kinde 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 [Page 261] 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 straitly obliged. So that if any such trespasse 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 onely, 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 explane my self 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 onely [...], 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 externall punishments. 2. Auxiliary, by externall bene­fits and adminicles. The Magistrate may and ought to be both Custos & vindex utrius (que) Tabulae, he ought to preserve both the first and second Table of the holy and good Law of God, from [Page 263] being despised and violated, and punish by corporal or other tem­poral punishments such (whether Church Officers or Church­members) as openly dishonour God by grosse offences, either a­gainst the first or against the second Table; and this he doth as Gods Deputy and Vicegerent subordinate and subservient to that universall dominion which God almighty exerciseth over the children of men. But in doing hereof, he is also helpfull and use­full to the Kingdom of Christ as Mediator; Magistracy being (in the respects aforesaid) serviceable and profitable (as to or­der the Common-wealth 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 intrinsecally, but extrinsecally; not primarily, but secundarily; not directly, but ex consequenti; not sub formalitate scandali, sed sub formali­tate criminis, not under the notion of scandall, 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 prot [...]cting the Church from dan­ger, harme, or mol [...]station, in putting a hook in the nostrils, and a bridle in the mouthes of unruly, obstinate, and contu­macious sinners, who vexe 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 owne int [...]insecall 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 businesse of the Church, not onely by troubling those persons, and punishing those sins that trouble the Israel of God; but by administring 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 externall order, though not in the Synodicall debates and re­solutions: [Page 262] He addeth his civil sanction to the Synodical results, if he find nothing therein which may hurt Peace or Justice in the Common-wealth. The Magistrate ought also to take care of the maintenance of the Ministery, Schooles, 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 Ministery, 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 wayes 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 onely to conserve Justice, peace and order in the Common-wealth, and in the Church, as it is in the Common­wealth, but also to take speciall care of the conservation of the true Reformed Religion, and of the Reformation of it when and wherein it needeth to be reformed, imperativè, not elicitivè. The Magistrate saith Dr. Rivet on the decalogue, pag. 262. is neither to administer Word, nor Sacraments, nor Church discipline, &c. 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 doe these things himself; nor are they done in the name and authority of the Magistrate or by any Mini­steriall 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 keyes 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 [Page 264] 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 controversie. Consequently also, when the thing is examined, judged, resol­ved, or done by the Ecclesiasticall power, the Magistrate hath power and authority to adde his civil sanction confirmation, ot ratification, to make the Ecclesiasticall 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 elici [...]ndo actus, doing or exercising by himself or by his owne 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 administring therefore that which concerneth Religion and peoples spiri­tuall good, the Magistrate not onely juvatur, but dirigitur, is not onely helped, but directed by the Ecclesiastical directive power; Fest. Hon. Disp. 30. Thes. 6. Magistracy may say to Ministery 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 consistoriall and Synodicall 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 Pres­byteriall or Synodicall 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 implicite 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 compell men to do, to judge of it, not onely judicio appreh [...]nsivo, by under­standing and apprehending [...]right what it is, but judicio discre­tivo, by the judgement of Christian prudence and discretion, [Page 265] examining by the Word of God, the grounds, reasons, and war­rants of the thing, that he may in Faith, and not doubtingly, adde his authority thereto. In which judging, he doth Iudi­care, but not Iudicem agere; that is, he is Iudex suarum actio­num, he judgeth whether he ought to adde 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 Governour 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 ministeriall forensicall directive judgement in Ecclesiastical things or causes, which belongeth to Ecclesiasticall not to civil Courts.

• 4. Distinguish between a Cumulative and a Privativ [...] authority. The Mag [...]strate 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 ef­fectuall 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 authorizing, and his forbidding or restrain­ing. It doth properly and of right belong to the Magistrate to adde a civil sanction and strength of a law for strengthning and aiding the exercise of Church discipline, or not to add it. And [Page 266] 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 Christs ordinances, or to forbid them to do what Christ hath given them a commission to do. And if any such restraints of prohibitions or lawes 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 then falls under the former di­stinctions, is extraordinary, and doth not belong to ordinary Government. In extraordinary reformations the Magistrate may do much by his owne immediate authority, when Synods have made defection either from the truth of doctrine, or from holinesse and godlinesse: yet in such a case he ought to consult with such orthodox godly Divines as can be had, either in his owne 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 Ecclesiasticall. 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 bottome of the controversie, 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 meerly doctrinal, and appropriating all government properly so called to the Ma­gistrate onely. 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 Lords 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 Ministeriall or Ecclesiastical Government proper­ly so called, beside the civil Government or Magistracy. Mr. Coleman did, and Mr. Hussey doth hold there ought not. I [Page 268] hold there ought: 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. askes 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 Governours 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 Logicall termes. Egregiam vero laudem. He might have saved himself the labour, for who knowes not Hieromes distin­ction? Elder is either a word of age or of office: but in Eccle­siasticall 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 intend and si­gnifie one and the same function, &c. 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, then the Ministers of the Word must have not onely an equall share in Government, but more honour and maintenance then Kings and Parliament men. See how well Mr. Hussey pleadeth for Christian Magistracy: It is also an anti-Scripturall 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 Governours. 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 [Page 269] Ministers whose excellencie 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 seemes) 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 governe 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 yeelded 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 else-where; and those are the Rulers here men­tioned. Ergo, he yeeldeth Ecclesiastical rulers (and those in­stituted) distinct from Magistracy. Neither is it a Lordly but a ministeriall 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 Governour of a ship must be a lord. Then every Steward of a great house must be lord of the House. There is an oeconomicall 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 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 gu-bernant. a Church Government distinct from civil government, for this is a spiri­tuall 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 Episcopall Government; because the Elders in the Apostolique Churches did govern in common.

[Page 270] 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 meerly doctrinall or perswasive, 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, then 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 shew us where the words [...], or [...], or [...], or [...], or [...], are used for no more, but a meer 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, then 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 owne house, Mr. Hussey will make it no more but this, one that goeth before his owne 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 sence, but for it: for if Mr. Hussey will make Pasor to say that [...] with a genitive doth never signifie any more but praece­do, then 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 cites 1 Tim. 3. 4. [Page 271] where it is with a genitive. Sometime indeed with a genitive it may be turned praecedo, as Pasor saith, but he citeth onely 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 excell 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 Et hoc no­mine differt [...] a [...], quod haec praesidenti­am cùm 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 Etymologie 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 then high sounding names of power and autho­rity. I shall adde 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 owne 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 envyed by Ko­rah and his faction, calls it [...].

Well: Mr. Hussey will try if his Logick 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 [Page 272] 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 your selves: for they watch for your soules, as they that must give an account. Bullinger and Gualther referre this 17th. verse both to Magistracy and Ministery, 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 doe better expound the Text of Ecclesiasticall Rulers or Gover­nours 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 17 ^th. verse in another sence then it hath verse 7. or the Rulers that watch for the soule, vers. 17. to be any other, then 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 belee­ving Hebrewes had at that time, as is evident by vers. 24. Sa­lute all them 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 soules. But they had no Christian or godly Magistrates that watched for their soules, 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 rendreth [...], 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 expresse one invested with power and authority of Government; and the same Hebrew words which they render by [...] and [...], are likewise by [Page 273] by them translated [...] and [...]; all which are names of superiority, command, and government: [...] the Governour, is Pilates 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 Iosephs greatest Title, to expresse his government over Egypt, Acts 7. 10. yea, Christ himself is call­ed [...], to expresse his governing or ruling power over his Church, Matth. 2. 6. Salmasius doth at once shew 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 Emperours. 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 Lords Inheritance. Nay, here that rule must take place, Luke 22. 26. [...], he that is chief, as he that serveth. Onely 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 perswaded. For proof whereof, he tells us out of Pasor, that [...] is verbum foreuse, a word whereby the Advocates perswade 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 signisie 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 perswaded forensically, as Iam. 3. 3, Behold, we put bits in the [Page 274] horses mouthes, 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 then be per­swaded; 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 perswaded; 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 perswa­ded. Yet if he shall well observe that which followeth in the very next words [...], and submit your selves (which in Theodo­rets opinion noteth here intense obedience: They must not onely [...], yeeld, but [...], yeeld 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 perswaded to cast away this glosse, 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 Ministery: for though there be much in the New Testament concerning subje­ction or submission to Magistrates; yet the clearest, fullest, yea (to my remembrance) the onely expresse 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 perswaded by Magistrates. Yea, the very simple and uncompounded Verb [...] ▪ in the fore-cited 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 alway correlative to the command of a Superiour: 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 [Page 275] joyneth; for there are two sorts of Arguments in the Text, by which the Apostle perswadeth them to this obedience: one is taken from the authority of the Ministery, 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 wrapt 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 perswade 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 joyned with the rules of publike Rebuking, of laying on of hands, not partaking of other mens 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 Ministery. 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 pratling 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 then 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 [Page 276] 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 heretick, after the first and second admoni­tion, reject, [...] He speaks of a rejecting of persons, not of things onely; and of such a rejecting of persons, as cannot be understood onely of that avoiding or rejecting, by which e­very private Christian ought to observe, and avoid, and not re­ceive false Teachers, but of a publike Ministerial or Consistorial rejecting of an Heretick, by cutting him off, or casting him out of the Church.

It is a Canon de Judiciis Ecclesiasticis, saith Tossanus upon the the place. This the Greek will easily admit: for Stephanus in Thesauro linguae Gr. tells us that [...] or [...] is used for recuse, aversor, repudio; and citeth out of Plutarch [...], to repudiate or put away a wife. As here also we may read, A man that is an Heretick, after the first and second ad­monition, repudiate or put away; though the word reject doth also bear the same sence. And as the Greek will admit it, so I have these reasons to confirm it, which shall suffice for the present. (He that pleaseth, may read a large Discourse concerning the censure of Hereticks, in Claudius Espencaeus upon this place.) First, The Apostles scope is not to hold forth the common du­ties of all Christians, except ex consequenti: but his primary intention all along in that Epistle, is to instruct Titus concern­ing the ordering and governing of the Church, Chap. 1. vers. 5. Secondly, there must be a first and second admonition, before the Heretick be thus rejected. This rejecting is not for his dan­gerous and false Doctrine, simply or by it self considered, but for his contumacy and incorrigiblenesse. But private Christians ought to observe by the judgement of private discretion, and ought in prudence and caution to avoid all familiar fellowship and conversation with a man that is an Heretick, though he hath not yet gotten a first and second admonition: Matth. 7. 15, 16. Beware of false Prophets which come to you in [...]eeps clothing, but [Page 277] inwardly they are ravening Wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Thirdly, the admonition in the Text is a publike au­thoritative or ministerial admonition, after that thou (Titus) hast once and again admonished him saith the Syriack: therefore the rejecting must also be publick and ministerial. Fourthly, 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. Iubet, 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 Heretick is the last act, when he ap­pears incorrigible. We find before chap. 1. vers. 13. Rebuke them sharply; and chap. 2. vers. 15. Rebuke with all authority. But now when the Apostle saith [...] reject, this is a higher degree. and this (much more) must be with all authority, [...], which words compare with 1 Cor. 7. 25. where the Apostle opposeth [...], commandement, and opinion or judgement. From all which it will appear, that this rejecting of an Heretick by Titus and others joyned with him in the Government of the Church, was an authoritative and Ju­ridical act, and the judgement thereupon decisive, not consul­tative onely. Fifthly, Look by what authority Elders were ordained, by the same authority they were for heresie (main­tained with contumacy) rejected: for the Apostle committeth into the same hands, the ordaining of Elders, and the reje­cting of Hereticks; compare Tit. 3. 10. with Tit. 1. 5. Now the ordination was by the Presbyterie: 1 Tim. 4. 14. Therefore so was the rejection.

I conclude with the Dutch Annotations upon Tit. 3. 10. reject. i. e. Have no communion with him. Let him go without dis­puting any further with him, and casting the holy things before such dogs. Matth. 7. 6. Let him not remain in the outward com­munion of the Church.

The sixth Argument I draw from 1 Cor. 5. 12. Do not ye judge them that are within? Vers. 13. Therefore put away from among your selves that wicked person. 2 Cor. 2. 6. Sufficient to such a man is this punishment (or censure.) which was inflicted of many. Here is an Ecclesiastical judging, not by the judgement of private Christian discretion onely (for so they judged those [Page 278] also that were without) but an authoritative corrective Judge­ment, by which a scandalous brother, a rotten member, like to infect other members, is put away from among the people of God. And this Judgement was made, sentence given, and censure inflicted [...], by many, that is not by all, but by the Elders of that Church saith Walaeus, Tom. 1. pag. 468, or you may read by the chiefest; So Piscator and Heinsius upon the place. The sence is all one, as if the Apostle had said [...], by them that have the rule over you. Now what will you make of judging, putting away, and censuring, being acts neither of a civil power, nor put forth upon any except Church­members, if you make it not a corrective Church-govern­ment?

As for Mr. Colemans answer that [...] amounts to no more but an objurgation, I have fully confuted that in Male audis pag. 12. 13. 14. which I will not resume. But beside all I said there, I add somewhat which I have since observed. Zo­naras in Conc. Antioch. can. 22. useth [...] for to be punished or censured: and in Conc. Carthag. can. 49. he calls the man who is under Church-censure, [...]. Balsamon in Conc. Car­thag. can. 46. calls him [...]. Both of them do often use [...] for Church-censure, as in the place last cited, [...]. Yea the Councell of Antioch held under Con­stantius, useth Pauls word [...] to expresse Ecclesiasticall censure, and an act of corrective government. Can. 3. It is said of him that receiveth a Presbyter or Deacon being justly depo­sed, [...], ille quo (que) à communi Synodo puniatur, ut qui Ecclesiastica statuta dissolvat. Ibid. Can. 22. A Bishop is prohibit to ordain within the charge of another Bishop, un­lesse that other Bishop consent. But if any presume to do such a thing, let the ordination be void or null, [...], & ipse a Synodo puniatur, and let himself be punished by the Synod: [...] saith Balsamen, how they should be punished who ordain without the bounds of their owne charge, and without consent of him whose charge it is, may be learned from other Canons. Where you see he under­stands [...] to agree in signification with [...], which is [Page 279] punishment. The sixth general Councel Can. 60. useth the verb [...] for suffering punishment, adding also by way of ex­planation [...], to be subject to affli­ctions and labours.

Seventhly, We have an Argument from 1 Cor. 14. 32, 33. And the Spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets; for God is not the Author of confusion, but of peace, as in all Churches of the Saints. The Apostle is giving such rules and directions con­cerning prophecying or interpretation of Scripture, that upon the one hand there may be a liberty to all the Prophets to pro­phecy, and that the Church may be edified by the gifts of all, and that for that end one ought to give place to another: upon the other hand, that a boundlesse liberty and confusion, and immunity from censure, may not be introduced into the Church▪ To this latter branch belongs vers. 29. 32. 33. Let the Prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. He will have two, or at most three Prophets to speak in one Congregation, at one diet or time of assembling: and those Prophets, saith he, must be 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 colledge of Prophets (add, and of other spirituall persons intrusted with the government of the Church, together with the Prophets, as from vers. 37. and Gal. 6. 1. is well observed by our Coun­try-man Mr. Dickson upon this place). Therefore Walaeus Tom. 1 pag. 468. doth rightly collect from this place an authority of Church-Government. Protestant Writers prove hence the authority of General-Councels above the Pope: and that the Pope is a false Prophet, because he refuseth to be subject to the Prophets. Iunius in divers places, applieth this Text to the authority of Presbyteries and Synods. Gualther upon the place applyeth it against the Pope who will judge all men, and be judged of no man; whereas (saith he) the Apostle here will have no man how eminent soever, to be free from censure, when he is censurable. So then we have in this Text a subjection, and an authority of judging and censuring. And this Judge­ment which the Apostle here speaks of, is neither the Judge­ment [Page 280] of the civil Magistrate, nor the Judgement of discretion common to the whole Church, but it is the Judgement or cen­sure of Prophets, and that not School-wise according to Mr. Husseys notion of Schooles, that is by the Prophets disputing a man out of his error, and no more, no vote, no decision, no result, except he that hath taught an error do agree to the arguments of the other Prophets, and so all end in a brotherly accord, and in the unanimous consent of the whole Clergy (for so doth he advise the Parliament) so that he shall be no more subject to all the Prophets, then all the Prophets to him. Yea in Mr. Husseys sence the Pope will not refuse to be subject to a Councel of Prophets, and then Protestant Writers have been far out of their way, who have disputed against the Pope from this Text, supposing it to hold forth a binding authorita­tive Judgement of the Prophets, whereunto any one Prophet is bound to be subject, the Judgement of his private discretion being alwaies reserved to him, that he give not blind obe­dience.

Eighthly, I argue from Revel. 2. 14. 20. The Lord Jesus reproveth the Angel of the Church in Pergamus for suffering those that taught the doctrine of Balaam, and the Angel of the Church in Thyatira for suffering Iezebel which called her self a Prophetesse, to seduce his people. The fault here reproved must be the neglect of Church-censures and corrective govern­ment, which is so manifest, that they who plead most for li­berty of Conscience from the Magistrate, do acknowledge that the Angels of these Churches are reproved for not censuring Ec­clesiastically those that did thus seduce Gods people. Neither is it said because thou art silent and dost not reprove nor convince; but because thou hast there them that hold the Doctrine of Balaam: that is, because thou dost not cast them out of the Church, that they may not hurt others. So the English Annotations upon the place, referring us also to 1 Cor. 5. The Angel of the Church was guilty in this, that those who had so much scandalized the Church by their Doctrine, were still in the Church, and not yet cast out of the Church. And who can imagine that the An­gels of those Churches whom Christ himself commendeth for holding fast his name, and for their love, service, faith, and [Page 281] patience were so void either of prudence as not to observe, or of zeal, as not to gainsay and confute by sound doctrine those soul and scandalous errors? Certainly their sin was like that of Eli, they did not together with the doctrinal and monitory part, make use of that Jurisdiction and corrective power, which God had put in their hands.

Ninthly, We have another Argument from 1 Thess. 3. 14. And if any man obey not our word by this Epistle, note that man, and have no Company with him, that he may be ashamed. Here the Syriack helpeth us much. And if any man obey not these words which are contained in this Epistle, let that man be separated from you, neither have company with him, that he may be ashamed. Gualther upon the place saith, the Apostle speaks de disciplina Ecclesiastica, what di­scipline they ought to have in the Church, and the end thereof. So Calvin, Beza, Piscator, Zanchius, Diodati, The Dutch Annota­tions, Gomarus, also Mariana, Cajetan, Salmeron, Gorranus, Esthius in lib. 4. Sent. Dist. 19. Sect. 7. and diverse others fol­lowing Augustine, Ambrose, Chrysostome, Theophylact, Theo­doret, Aquinas, all these do apply it to Ecclesiasticall discipline and censure. Some controversie there is whether this Text reach as far as Excommunication (which doth not belong to this present Argument) but certainly it reacheth to a pub­lick Church-censure, and is more then the withdrawing of private Company and Fellowship, either because of personal or private injuries, or because of prophanesse. For 1. the offence spoken of by the Apostle is not a matter of Civil or Personal injury, but of scandal; he speaks of idle bodies that walked disorderly, not working at all, and if these must be noted and separated, how much more saith Theoylact. those who commit crimes and wickednesse? 2. Here is contumacy added to the offence, if any man obey not our word by this Epistle, intima­ting that upon occasion of this Epistle, those that walked dis­orderly were to be solemnly admonished, and required to work in quietnesse, and to eat their owne bread: which if af­ter admonition they would not do, then to note them. Aqui­nas clears it by 1 Sam. 15. 23- for rebellion is as the sin of witck-craft, and stubbornesse is as iniquity and as idolatry. 3. [...], note that man: signate (as Menochius rendreth it) rather then [Page 282] either significate or notate: set a mark upon him, even as (saith Erasmus) we set a mark upon pushing oxen that we may a­void them; which agreeth well with the Syriack, Let that man be separated from you: [...] is some what more then [...], The latter usually signifieth no more, but significo, indico, si­gnum do: but the former is signum & notam imprimo, obsigno, in­signio. The Septuagints make [...] to answer to the Hebrew [...] and [...], levavit, elevavit, sustulit, So Psal. 4. 7. [...] &c. signatum est super nos: that is, the light of thy c untenance is lifted up upon us examplarly, or banner-wise, so as it may be remarkeable to others. The learned Authors of the Dutch Annotations upon 2 Thess. 3. 14. tell us that this Greek word doth not properly signifie to present or represent one, but to note one and mark him out, putting some ignominy upon him, or outing him from an honourable Congregation, and marking or blotting out his name, as one unworthy of that honour. By which reason, as likewise by that which followes, they con­fute those who construe the word note with the Word Epistle, as if the Apostle had said, note or present me such a one by a letter. 4. Have no company with him. He speaks it to the [...] that they may have no fellowship with the [...], he will have those that walk orderly and by rule, to have no com­pany with those that walk disorderly. Now this concerneth the whole Church equally, and it is spoken to the Church, for what reason can there be that some in the Church should have no company with one, because of his scandalous and dis­orderly walking, but the same reason will make the whole Church to have no company with him? there may be divers ci­vil respects and considerations which may make it unfit for some to keep familiar civil fellowship, which respects and considerations do not concern others. But the avoyding of the company of those who walk scandalously and disorderly, and that because they walk in that manner, and further adde obstina­cy to their sin after publike admonition; must needs belong to the whole Church. 5. Note that man and have no company with him; he must first be noted, before he be avoyded, and both these are publick Ecclesiastical acts: for it was far from the Apostles meaning that every man should be herein left to [Page 283] his liberty; he that pleaseth to note him and have no company with him, well and good; he that pleaseth not, shall be free. But unlesse there be an Ecclesiastical Judgement and censure past upon such a one, every one had been left to his liberty. 6. That he may be ashamed: this as it is the end of Church-censures, so it will be attained in a very small measure, and perhaps not at all, by one private man his avoyding the company of another, which will not make the offender ashamed, abased, and hum­bled, but when he is publikely noted, and when the Church avoids his Company, that is it which most covers a man with shame and confusion of face.

Tenthly, The Apostle mentioneth Ecclesiastical Rulers, Rom. 12. 8. [...] praefectus, or qui praeest, he that ru­leth, that is, the ruling Elder. He is making an enumeration of Ecclesiastical offices and administrations, and no other: So Calvin, Beza, Piscator, Martyr, Tossanus, Diodati, all upon the place, and Iunius Eccles. lib. 2. cap. 1. do conceive, and the whole context and the allusion to the severall offices of severall members in the same body proveth it, and if all the rest be Ecclesiastical, why not Musculus upon the place. Habet Ecclesia quaelibet suos praesectos & Gubernatores &c. Isti sunt Seniores &c. 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 dayes when Magistrates were not Christian? Musculus takes the Rulers here to be Elders. Gualther and Bullinger, though they make this Text applicable to civil Rulers, yet they do not exclude Church-officers from ruling, but expressely mention Church-Governours distinct from civil Governours, to be there comprehended under [...]. Mr. Hussey pag. 19. an­swering this argument, can neither deny what I said of Gual­ther and Bullinger, nor yet doth affirm that civil Rulers are there meant, onely his reply is that my argument is drawn from the interpretation of the place, but the Disputant may not inter­pret saith he, that is the answerers part: This calls to mind the Anabaptistical error, Concionatores non retinent verba Textus, sed interpretantur ea, id quod non ferendum. For which see Pe­trus [Page 284] Hi [...]kolmannus 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 exspect when Mr. Hussey comes to School-dis­putes, the disputant may not interpret, he must keep close to termes, if the thing be not in terminis in the Text, its no Ar­gum [...]nt, by which rule he will at one dash overthrow not onely the disputations of Protestants against Papists; of the ancient Fathers against the Hereticks of their times (for how is Justification by Faith ONELY, the number of the Sacraments, the consubstantiality of the Sonne with the Father, and many other most materiall points proved, but by Scripture rightly opened, cleared, and interpreted?) but also the dis­putations of the Apostles, and of Jesus Christ himself against the Pharisees, Sadduces, and Jewes; for there is nothing more ordinary with Christ and his Apostles in their disputes for the truth, then to interpret Scripture, and give the sence of it.

Eleventhly, [...] the Governments mentioned 1 Cor. 12. 28. are not Civil but Ecclesiastical Governments, as I have largely proved Chap. 6. and shall not need here to repeat it; onely observe what At Guber­natores vocavit Amb [...]osius 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 mens manners, was in the power of the Presbytery. This Government the Church of Corinth had, a Christian Magistrate they had not.

Twelfthly, If in the Jewish Church there was an Eccle­siastical Government, distinct from the Civil; then in the Christian Church also there ought to be an Ecclesiastical Go­vernment distinct from the Civil. But in the Jewish Church there was an Ecclesiastical Government distinct from the Ci­vil. Ergo.