Aarons Rod Blossoming, Book 2 · Chapter 9
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 onelyonly. 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 hold there ought: and I shall propound for the affirmative these Arguments.
The first Argument I draw from 1 Tim. 5. 17. foreign, 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 onelyonly 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 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. foreign, qui praesunt vobis. Hence doth Calvin conclude ePraesunt 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.
But saith Mr. Hussey pag. 18. Pasor telleth us that foreign 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 foreign 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 foreign, or foreign, or foreign, or foreign, or foreign, 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 foreign; Neither will that of the genitive case help him, for see the like 1 Tim. 3. 4. foreign, 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. foreign 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 foreign 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. where it is with a genitive. Sometime indeed with a genitive it may be turned praecedo, as Pasor saith, but he citeth onelyonly 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 fEt hoc nomine differt foreign a foreign, quod haec praesidentiam cùm potestate, sive praeposituram cum jurisdictione ac coercitione …ibuat, foreign vero ut in loco quis sit priore collocatus, tantum efficit. foreign Hesychius foreign interpretatur gubérnationem vel administrationem. Et notum qui dicerentur proprie foreign in Republica Atheniensium.Salmasius de primatu Papae, pag. 18, 19. foreign, to speak properly, is another thing then foreign: 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 foreign are also foreign. Yea they have the very names of foreign and foreign or foreign (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: foreign. 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 foreign.
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 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 foreign in the 17th. 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 gAretius comment. in Hebr. 13. 14. Primum Apostolus salutat suo nomine ipsorum praepositos, hoc est foreign, 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 foreign 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 foreign, 1 Cor. 12. 28. And if you consult the Septuagints, the Word foreign except very rarely where it signifieth foreign seu viae ducem (and then, to speak properly, subjection and obedience is not due to the foreign) 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 foreign and foreign, are likewise by by them translated foreign and foreign; all which are names of superiority, command, and government: foreign 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 foreign and foreign. Now foreign and foreign are the same in signification. Stephen in Theslinguae Gr. citeth out of Plutarch foreign; and tells us that foreign with a Genitive, and foreign, generally is used for praesum. foreign is Iosephs greatest Title, to expresse his government over Egypt, Acts 7. 10. yea, Christ himself is called foreign, 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 foreign, 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. foreign, he that is chief, as he that serveth. OnelyOnly 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 foreign, which is no more but Be perswaded. For proof whereof, he tells us out of Pasor, that foreign 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 foreign what he can; the passive foreign, doth frequently signisie I obey, or obtemper: For which signification, H. Stephanus in the word foreign, citeth out of Xenophon foreign: out of Plutaroh, foreign: out of Plato, foreign. If we come to the Scripture phrase, I am sure in some places foreign signifieth a thing of another nature, then to be perswaded forensically, as Iam. 3. 3, Behold, we put bits in the horses mouthes, that they may obey us: foreign. 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 foreign 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 foreign by pareo, obedio; for which he citeth Gal. 3. 1. foreign, not to obey the truth. And foreign he renders inobediens, refractarius, as Rom. 1. 30. foreign, disobedient to parents. I know that foreign 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 foreign, and submit your selves (which in Theodorets opinion noteth here intense obedience: They must not onelyonly foreign, yeeld, but foreign, yeeld with subjection and submission: This relateth to authority; nor can we say that the Judges do foreign 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 onelyonly expresse word for obedience to Magistrates is foreign, 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 foreign ▪ 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 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 foreign, 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 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, foreign He speaks of a rejecting of persons, not of things onelyonly; and of such a rejecting of persons, as cannot be understood onelyonly 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 foreign or foreign is used for recuse, aversor, repudio; and citeth out of Plutarch foreign, 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 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, hZach 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 foreign reject, this is a higher degree. and this (much more) must be with all authority, foreign, which words compare with 1 Cor. 7. 25. where the Apostle opposeth foreign, 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 onelyonly. 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 onelyonly (for so they judged those also that were without) but an authoritative corrective Judgement, by which a scandalous brother, a rotten member, like to infect other members, is put away from among the people of God. And this Judgement was made, sentence given, and censure inflicted foreign, 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 foreign, 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 foreign 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 foreign for to be punished or censured: and in Conc. Carthag. can. 49. he calls the man who is under Church-censure, foreign. Balsamon in Conc. Carthag. can. 46. calls him foreign. Both of them do often use foreign for Church-censure, as in the place last cited, foreign. Yea the Councell of Antioch held under Constantius, useth Pauls word foreign 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, foreign, 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, foreign, & ipse a Synodo puniatur, and let himself be punished by the Synod: foreign 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 foreign to agree in signification with foreign, which is punishment. The sixth general Councel Can. 60. useth the verb foreign for suffering punishment, adding also by way of explanation foreign, 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 iAegid. 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 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 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. foreign, note that man: signate (as Menochius rendreth it) rather then 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: foreign is some what more then foreign, The latter usually signifieth no more, but significo, indico, signum do: but the former is signum & notam imprimo, obsigno, insignio. The Septuagints make foreign to answer to the Hebrew foreign and foreign, levavit, elevavit, sustulit, So Psal. 4. 7. foreign &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 foreign that they may have no fellowship with the foreign, 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 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. foreign 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 kMusculus 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 foreign & foreign 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 foreign. 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, onelyonly 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 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 onelyonly the disputations of Protestants against Papists; of the ancient Fathers against the Hereticks of their times (for how is Justification by Faith ONELYONLY, 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, foreign 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; onelyonly observe what lAt 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.
The Proposition is proved thus. There can be no reason given for an Ecclesiastical government among the Jews, distinct from the Civil, which will not hold as well and as strongly for an Ecclesiastical government among Christians, distinct from the Civil: for we speak not now of the particulars (a high Priest, or the like) which were typical and proper to that time, but we speak of a Church government distinct from the Civil, look upon it under that notion, and then see if any reason can be given for it among them, which will not conclude the like among us: yea much more among us, for if the Priests had a great influence and interest into the Civil Government of the Jewes, and yet there was a Church-government distinct from the Civil; how much more now when Ministers have not, neither ought to have any share in the Civil government? The assumption hath been abundantly proved before in the first book. I will not repeat, but here note these Scriptures: Ier. 5. 31. The Prophets bear rule: It was their office to bear rule, It was their sin to support themselves in their ruling by the false Prophets. 1 Chron. 9 11. Azariah, the Ruler of the House of God. 2 Chron. 31. 13. And Azariah the Ruler of the House of God. …. 11. 11. Serajah the Ruler of the House of God. All the chief Pri…sts or heads of the several Classes or Orders of Priests were called Principes Sanctuarii saith Matthias Martinius Lexic. Philol. pag. 3268. So 2. Chron. 35. 8. Hilkiah and Zachariah, and Jehiel, Rulers of the House of God. Act. 23. 5. Then said Paul, I wist not brethren that he was the high Priest, for it is written thou shalt not speak evil of the Ruler of thy people. Finally, Deut. 31. 28. where we find schoterim, that is Officers, Rulers, or such as were set over the charge; the 70. read foreign, Hierome, Doctores. More plainly 2 Kings 11. 18. the Priest appointed Officers over the House of the Lord.
Thirteenthly, A corrective Ecclesiastical government in the Churches of Galatia seemeth to be intimated, Gal. 5. 12. I would they were even cut off (foreign) which trouble you. Which many understand of Excommunication. See Esthius in lib. 4. Sent. Dist. 19. Sect. 6. 7. Also Salmeron, Menochius, Vasquez, Novarinus, and (of ours) B…za, Diodati, Gomarus, all upon the place, beside diverse others. Musculus upon the place doth paralell this cutting off, with delivering to Sathan, 1 Cor. 5. 5. 1 Tim. 1. 20. and explaineth excindantur by abalienentur which best suteth to excommunication. Certainly the words will easily admit this sence, or rather invite to it: for foreign is not properly perdo, destruo, consumo, but amputo, abscindo, also minuo, because that from which any thing is cut off, is diminished and made lesse: also repello, abjungo, separo, ahstraho. And so foreign, abscindor, excindor, separor, abstra…or. Hunters and such as trace the Vestigies, but cannot find them, are said foreign, to be cut off or abstracted. H…sych. foreign. So foreign, abscissus, is not he who is cut off by death or destruction, but he that hath his members cut off: Which seems to have been the ground of Augustine his mistake of this Text, conceiving the Apostles wish to be, that those men should be made Eunuchs. The Septuagints have sometimes foreign, circumcido, and foreign, demitto, as synonymous with foreign. Now from the phrase, to the purpose of the Text. That it is meant of Excommunication, I have these reasons which confirme me: 1. Because vers. 9. a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump, are the very same words which he useth 1 Cor. 5. 6. where he presseth the excommunication of the inces…uous man; as there, one unclean person in life; so here, some few seducers (especially that one who is singularly pointed at vers. 10.) is meant by the little leaven, which was to be purged out, lest it should leaven the whole Church. 2. Interpreters do generally agree, that the Apostle here alludeth to Circumcision, which those Judaizing teachers pressed upon the Galatians as necessary: wishing that they who would so fain have the Galatians circumcised, were themselves cut off and cast out of the Church as rotten members, or as a Gangren out of the body. This allusion suteth best with excommunication. 3. The words so understood will more fitly answer and be paralel unto the cutting off in the Law, that soul shall be cut off from among his people (which I have before proved to be meant of excommunication) as likewise to that 1 Cor. 5. 14. Put away that wicked person from among you. 4. Other Interpretations do not so well agree to the Text. This cutting off could not be expected nor any hopes had of it by the hand of Justice, or of the Magistrate, for the Magistrates of that time were themselves troublers of the Christians, so far they were from cutting of those that troubled them. Those that understand the words of an imprecation of eternal cutting off from God, and being accursed from Christ, draw themselves into thorny questions, wherein they can hardly satisfie themselves or others. To understand it of cutting off by death, doth not well answer that allusion to Circumcision, generally observed (as hath been said) by Interpreters: which allusion doth intimate that it is not a cutting off out of the World, but a cutting off from the body of the Church. I would that they themselves were cut off as the praeputium from the Church, that is, cut off à consortio Ecclesiae saith Gu…lther. If it be said, why then doth the Apostle onelyonly wish it? Why doth he not prescribe or command to excommunicate them? To this we may either answer as B…za, The Apostle Pauls authority at that time was extreamly blasted and weakned in the Churches of Galatia; Or thus, the Apostle knew that as the Churches of Galatia then stood affected (being bewitched with the Judaizing Zealots, and in a manner moved away to another Gospel) both Churches and Ministery were unwilling to excommunicate those that he means of: for which cause he would not peremptorily command their excommunication, renitente Ecclesiâ, but forbeareth for that season, wishing for better times. Some think that the Apostle speaketh positively of excommunication, vers. 10. He shall bear his Judgement. But others are of opinion the Apostle there speaks of the judgement of God, which he certainly and positively denounces, and that vers. 12. he addeth this as a distinct purpose, that he could wish them also cut off from the Church by excommunication.
It will be an Argument of more weight against Erastus his Interpretation of that Text, if we object against him thus. This cutting off which the Apostle wisheth to those that troubled the Galatians, cannot be meant of a divine or miraculous judgement upon them, such as he thinks to be meant 1 Cor. 5. (which place he parallels with Gal. 5. 12. as to the punishment intended) for if so, why doth not the Apostle adjudge them positively to be cut off or destroyed, as he did constitute and decree by his Apostolical power of miracles (so thinks Erastus) the incestuous Corinthian to be delivered to Satan? To this Erastus replieth, lib. 3. cap. 9, Because the Apostles had not power to work miracles quoties vellent, as often as they would, nor to afflictor stay any, but when it seemed good in Gods eyes, sed quando Deo visum fuit utile, necessarium, & salutare. But I ask, Was it right and agreeable to the will of God, that the Apostle should wish their cutting off? Was it not profitable and necessary for the Churches good, that they should be cut off? Where shall we finde that the working of a miracle was profitable and necessary for the Churches good, and that an Apostle did desire and thirst after the working of that miracle, and yet had not power from God to work it? How had the false Apostles insulted at this? Is this the great Apostle of the Gentiles, who hath not power from God to work a miracle, when himself professeth he would gladly have it wrought?
Fourteenthly, that passage, 2 Cor. 10. 6. is by some brought (not without very considerable Reasons) for the Spiritual or Ecclesiastical censures. And have in readin…sse, saith the Apostle, or (as the Syriack, we are ready) to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled. Novarinus in 2 Cor. 10. 6. pleri que de excommunicandi potestate haec verba interpretantur. In this sence was the Text understood a thousand yeers ago by Gegro…y Epist. lib. 2. cap. 37. The Dutch Annotations upon the place, say that the Apostles meaning is; of declaring the vengeance of God against the obstinate; and of exercising the Ecclesiastical Banne or Discipline, against those who professing themselves members of the Congregation, do yet teach or lead unchristian lives or doctrine. Others also (among whom is Master David Dickson) understand Church-censures to be here meant. The Apostle is in that Chapter confuting the calumny of such as said of him, His Epistles were weighty and powerful, and did speak of great things; but when he himself is bodily present, he doth but little, he assumes no great authority, he is weak and almost contemptible. In answer hereunto, he tells them, The weapons of our warfare (speaking not onelyonly in his own name, but in the name of all the Ministers of Christ) though they be not carnal, yet they are mighty through God to conquer and captivate souls to the obedience of Christ. And as for the stubborn and unruly, we are armed with a power of corrective government, which shall be more fully executed in due time. There is but one of two Interpretations which can with any probability seem to agree to this Text, namely, that it is meant either of the extraordinary Apostolical power, by which they did miraculously punish some offenders (as Peter did Ananias and Sapphira, and as Paul did E…ymas) or of a corrective Church-government, and Excommunication. The Reasons which induce me to believe, that the Apostle meaneth here of Church-censures, especially Excommunication, and not of that extraordinary miraculous power, are these. 1. The reason added, When your obedience is fulfilled, cannot suit to the power of working miracles (for it had been the more seasonable to work such miracles, while the obedience of the Corinthians was not yet fulfilled. Miracles are not for them that believe, but for them that believe not, saith the same Apostle.) But it suits very well to the power of Church-censures: for as Esthius and Novarinus explain the Apostles reason, it is in vain to excommunicate all such as are worthy of Excommunication, when there is a general re…itency and unwillingnesse in the Church; or to cut off a member, when the same evil hath infected either the whole or the greatest part of the body; which Augustine also tells us in divers places. And this (by the way) confirms the reason which I gave why the Apostle onelyonly wisheth those that troubled the Galatians to be cut off, but doth not command it, in regard of the present unwillingnesse and disaffection of those Churches. 2. We may have a great deal of light to this place by comparing it with Cha…. 12. verse 20, 21. and Chap. 13. verse 2. Many among the Corinthians had sinned foul and …eandalous sins, whereof they had not repented, and for which they were not censured or cast out of the Church. The Apostle certifieth them, that if he come, he will not spare. What? was it his meaning to work a miracle upon every fornicator, and each other scandalous person in the Church of Corinth? No sure: mark his words; Now I write to them which heretofore have sinned, and to ALL OTHER, that if I come again, I will not spare. Who can imagine his meaning to be, that he would work a miracle upon them and all other? So …ere when it is said, having in readiness… to … ALL …, let it be remembred that the Apostolical power of miracles was never appointed to be executed against ALL disobedience. Thirdly, that which the Apostle saith of the Spiritual weapons, mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds, &c. was not proper or peculiar to the Apostles, but is rightly applied to all the Ministers of the Gospel: the more hardly can it be supposed, that what is immediately added, and as it were with one breath uttered, And having in readinesse to … all disobedience, is meant of the extraordinary Apostolical power. Fourthly, such as the weapons are for conquering and subduing souls to the obedience of Christ, such is the corrective or punitive part there spoken of. But the weapons for conquering, are meerly Spiritual, not corporal: Therefore the corrective or punitive part there spoken of, is also Spiritual, and so doth not concern the inflicting of corporal punishment, such as the Erastians understand by delivering to Satan.
Fifteenthly, an Ecclesiastical ruling power may be proved from 2 Cor. 2. 8. I beseech you that you would confirm your love towards him. Here is a Juridical power of loosing, and consequently of binding; for it belongeth to the same power to binde and loose, to excommunicate and to absolve. An authoritative juridical loosing, I prove from the word foreign, which properly signifieth the making a thing sure or firm by a decisive suffrage, authoritative judgement, or ratificatory and obligatory sentence past upon it. Hen. Stephanus in Thes. linguae Gr. in the word foreign, saith that this Text 2 Cor. 2. 8. is more rightly read, Ut ratam faciatis in illum charitatem, then as the vulgar Latin hath it, Ut confirmetis. The Verb foreign he expoundeth thus; Auctoritatem do, auctoritate mea comprobo; vel ratum habeo, ratum facio. Pasor renders the same Verb sancio, ratum facio, and citeth for that sence, 2 Cor. 2. 6. So Erasmus likewise upon the place. So Cartwright upon the same place against the Rhemists. So Chemnitius Exam. Conc. Trident. part. 4. de Indulg. pag. 53. The force of this word foreign was urged against the opinion of Erastus in a publike Dispute at Heydelberg; the narration whereof is left by Ursinus in his Catechetical explications. That the word signifieth an authoritative act, and supposeth a ruling power, may be thus further confirmed. First, who did foreign, but foreign? No doubt the Apostle borroweth the word from the language and customs of the Heathen Greeks. Now foreign was a fixed or set lawful Assembly, which met with a judicial ruling power, and ratified a thing by decisive suffrages, foreign. See Suidas in the word foreign, Stephanus and Scapula in the word foreign; Erasmus in 2 Cor. 2. 8. Arias Montanus in the word foreign, tells us that to the Graecians foreign was the same thing, which Comitia to the Latines: Therefore such Assemblies had a judicial power, and their suffrages were foreign, firm and ratified Sentences. Secondly, foreign commeth from foreign, whence also cometh foreign Lord, foreign dominion, foreign to rule, or to have a dominion: It was long ago observed by Dionysius Areopagita, de divinis nominibus, cap. 12. where after he hath put into the description of foreign dominion, that it is foreign, true and unshaken firmenesse, he addes this reason, foreign. Which Balthasar Corderius rendereth thus: Qu…propter dominatio Grae…è à foreign derivato nomine, idem est quod firmatio, firmamentum & firmum, ac firmans seu ratificans. Pachimeres in his Paraphrase addeth that foreign as it signifieth foreign, hath its name from foreign. So then it is not every confirming, certifying, or making sure a thing, but when a thing is made sure or firm with fulnesse of authority and power. The word foreign is therefore rightly rendred by Stephanus, Scapula and Pasor, not onelyonly firmamentum, rata fides, but auctoritas plena, full authority. Thirdly, the same Apostle calls a ratified Testament (which ratification is by a legal and judicial authority) foreign, Gal. 3. 15. Fourthly, the opposite Verb foreign signifieth anctoritate priv…, omni imperio spolio, irritum reddo. As foreign noteth a privation of authority, so foreign a giving of authority or ratification.
The sixteenth Argument to prove a distinct Church-Government, is this. The visible political ministerial Church is the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, and he is the Head, King, Judge, and Law-giver thereof, Isa. 9. 6. Isa. 22. 21, 22. Psal. 2. 6. Luk. 1. 33. 1 Cor. 15. 24 Eph. 1. 21m 22, 23. Dare any say that the Lord Jesus shall not governe the Church of England, and reigne over the same? Luk. 19. 14 27. Must he not be received both as Lord and as Christ? Acts 2. 36. Now in the administration and government of a Kingdom these three things are necessarily required. 1. Lawes. 2. Officers, Ministers, Judges, Courts. 3. Censures and punishments of offences. Which three being universally necessary in every Kingdom, can … of all be supposed to be wanting in the Church and Kingdom o… Jesus Christ, who hath been more faithfull in the execution o… his Kingly office, and hath provided better for the Government of his Church, then ever any King or State in this world did for a Civil Government. I adde the Lawes, Judicatories, and censures in the Kingdom of Christ must be spiritual and Becl…siastical, because his Kingdom is not of this world, and his servants cannot take the sword, Iohn 18. 36. Neither are the weapons of our warfarre carnal, but yet mighty through God, and in readinesse to revenge all disobedience: 2 Cor. 10. 4. 6. I do not see what can be answerd to this Argument, except any do so far deny the Kingly office of Jesus Christ, as to say that the Church Political or Ministerial is not his Kingdom; but onelyonly the Church Mystical; that is, as he ruleth over our soules by his Word and Spirit. To which purpose Mr. Hussey in his plea pag. 33. denyeth that the visible Church can be called the Body of Christ, or he their Head; and tells us that the government which Christ hath over the faithful, is truely spiritual, and of this Kingdom faith he, he hath indeed no Officers but his Spirit. I reply, 1. The Scripture is plain that a visible ministeriall Church is the body of Christ, Rom. 12. 4, 5. 1 Cor. 10. 16. 17. 1 Cor. 12. 12. to 28. If we admit of a visible Church and visible Saints, we must also admit of a visible body, and a visible Kingdom of Christ. 2. The Political Ministerial Church were a body without a head. The Analogie of a political head as well as of a natural head agreeth to Christ: the foreign as well as foreign: and he hath an influence upon the Church potestative as well as effective. 3. He … his Prophe…icall office not onelyonly in teaching us inwardly by his Spirit, but in teaching the Church outwardly by his servants the Ministers of his Word: Now i… he be a Prophet to the visible ministerial Church, he is also a King to the same; for his offices cannot be divided, his Scholars are his Subjects, and whosoever receive him as a Prophet, must also receive him as a King. Yea, let us hear Mr. Hussey himself pag. 17. The Kingdom of Christ is … ample as his Prophecy, &c. the Doctrine which they must teach commands, no… commands have alwaies power and authority …. So that either he must say that Christ gives no commands to the visible Church, or confesse that the visible Church is the visible Kingdom of Christ. 4 That the Kingdom of Christ comprehendeth the Government and discipline of the Church, I prove from Matt…. …16. 28. There be some standing here which shall not tast… of death till they see the Son of man comming in his Kingdom: Where first of all note, Christ hath not onelyonly an invisible, but a visible Kingdom; Next, this visible Kingdom is not meant of his comming again in glory to judge the quick and the dead; for all that were then hearing Christ, have tasted of death, and yet Christ is not come to judgement. Nor is it meant of Christs tranfiguration mentioned Matth. 17. for that was six dayes after, Matth. 17. 1. and if he meant that, he would not have said so emphatically, there be some here that shall not taste of death, &c. intimating what was to come to passe, not after some daies, but after some yeares; as if he had said this age or generation shall not passe away till these things be fulfilled. Neither is that transfiguration any where called the Kingdom of God, nor can it be properly so called. Nor lastly is the Kingdom of God in that place meant onelyonly of the preaching of the Gospel, for so they had seen Christ comming in his Kingdom. Luk. 10. 9. 11. Nor is it meant of Christs working of miracles, for so likewise they had seen his Kingdom. Matth. 12. 28. Melius ergo Beda & Gregorius, quorum sententiam nostri sequuntur, per illud Regnum Christi intelligunt constitutionem Ecclesiarum, post Christi ascensum, saith Tossanus upon the place. Some of those to whom he spoke at that time lived to see Christ reigne in the gathering and governing of Churches. Gregor.. Hom 32. in Evang. Et quia nonnulli ex discip…lis us que ad…o in corpore victuri erant ut Ecclesiam Dei constructam conspiceren…, & contra mundi hujus glorium erectam, consolatoria promissione nan… dieitur: Sunt quidam de hinc … qui non gustabu…t mortem, donec videant reg…um Dei. The very same words hath Bed… on Mark. 9. 1. following (it seemes) Gregory. Grotius on Matth. 16. 28. doth likewise understand the promulgation of the Gospel, and the Sc…pter of Christ, that is, his law going out of Zion to be here meant. I conclude, as the Church is not onelyonly a mystical but a political body, So Christ is not onelyonly a mystical but a political Head.
But peradventure some men will be bold to give another answer, that the Lord Jesus indeed reigneth over the Church, even in a political respect, but that the administration and influence of this his Kingly office is in, by, and through the Magistrate, who is supreme Judge, Governour, and Head of the Church under Christ. To this I answer, Hence it would follow 1. That Christs Kingdom is of this World, and commeth with observation, as the Kingdoms of this World do, which himself denieth Luke 17 20 Iohn 18 36. Next, It would follow, that Christ doth not reigne nor exercise his Kingly office in the Government of his Church under Pagan, Turkish, or persecuting Princes, but onelyonly under the Christian Magistrate, which no man dare say.
3. The Civil Magistrate is Gods Vicegerent, but not Christs: that is, the Magistrates power hath its rise, orig…nation, institution, and deputation, not from that speciall dominion which Christ exerciseth over the Church as Mediator and Head thereof, But from that Universal Lordship and Soveraignity which God exerciseth over all men by right of Creation: In so much, that there had been (for orders sake) Magistrates or superior Powers though man had not fallen, but continued in his innocency; and now by the Law of Nature and Nations there are Magistrates among those who know nothing of Christ, and among whom Christ reigneth not as Mediator, though God reigneth over them by the Kingdom of power.
4. If the Magistrate be supreme Head and Governour of the Church under Christ, then the Ministers of the Church are the Magistrates Ministers as well as Christs, and must act in the Magistrates name, and as subordinate to him; and the Magistrate shall be Christs Minister, and act in Christs Name.
The seventeeth Argument I draw from the institution of Excommunication by Christ, Matth. 18. 17. Tell it unto the Church: But if he neglect to hear the Church, Let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a Publican. In which Text 1. All is restricted to a brother, or a Church-member, and agreeth not to him who is no Church-member. 2. His tre…pasle is here lookt upon under the notion of scandal, and of that which is also like to destroy his owne soule. 3. The scope is not civil, but spiritual, to gain or save his soul. 4. The proceedings are not without witnesses. 5. There is a publick complaint made to the Church. 6. And that because he appeares impenitent, after admonitions given privatly, and before two or three. 7. The Church speaks and gives a: Judgement concerning him, which he is bound to obey. 8. If he obey not, then he is to be esteemed and held as a heathen man and a Publican. 9. And that for his not hearing the Church, which is a publike scandal concerning the whole Church. 10. Being as as an Heathen and Publican, he is kept back from some ordinances. 11. He is bound on earth by Church-Officers. Whatsoever ye bind, &c. 12. He is also bound in Heaven. More of this place else-where. These hints will now serve. The Erastians deny, that either the case, or the court, or the censure there mentioned is Ecclesiastical or Spiritual. But I prove all the three.
First, Christ speaketh of the case of scandals, not of personal or civil injuries, whereof he would be no Judge, Luk. 12. 14. and for which he would not permit Christians to go to Law before the Roman Emperor or his deputies, 1 Cor. 6. 1. 6. 7. But if their interpretation stand, they must grant that Christ giveth laws concerning civil injuries, and that he permitteth one of his disciples to accuse another for a civil injury before an unbeleeving Judge. Beside, Christ saith not, If he shall hear thee, thou hast from him a voluntary reparation of the wrong, or satisfaction for it (which is the end why we deal with one who hath done us a civil injury) But he saith, If he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother, intimating that the offending brother is told and admonished of his fault, onelyonly for a spiritual end, for the good of his soul, and for gaining him to repentance. All which proveth that our Saviour meaneth not there of private or civil injuries, as the Erastians suppose, but of scandals, of which also he had spoken much before, as appeareth by the preceding part of that chapter. A civil injury done by one brother to another is a scandal, but every scandal is not a civil injury. The Jewes (to whose custome Christ doth here allude) did excommunicate for diverse scandals which were not civil injuries. And Paul saith of a scandal which was not a civil injury: when ye sin so against the brethren. &c. 1 Cor. 8. 12.
2. The court is Ecclesiastical, not civil, for when it is said Tell it unto the Church, must we not expound Scripture by Scripture, and not understand the Word Church to be meant of a civil Court? for though the word foreign is used Act. 19. reoitative, of a heathenish civil assembly, called by that name among those heathens: yet the pen-men of the holy Ghost have not made choice of the Word foreign in any place of the new Testament, to expresse a civil court either of Jewes or Christians. So that we cannot suppose that the holy Ghost speaking so as men may understand him, would have put the word foreign in this place to signifie such a thing as no where else in the new Testament it is found to signifie. Nay, this very place expoundeth it self, for Christ directeth his speech to the Apostles, and in them to their Successors in the government of the Church. Whatsoever ye shall bind &c. And if two of you shall agree, &c. So that the church which here bindeth or judgeth, is an Assembly of the Apostles, Ministers, or Elders of the church.
3. The censure is spirituall, as appeareth both by these words, Let him be unto thee as a Heathen and a Publican; which relate to the Excommunication from the church of the Jewes, and comprehendeth not onelyonly an exclusion from private fellowship and company (which was the condition of the Publicans, with whom the Jewes would not eat) but also an exclusion from the Temple, Sacrifices, and communion in the holy things, which was the condition of heathens, yea of prophane Publicans too: of which elsewhere. And further it appeareth by these words, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, &c. The Apostles had no power to inflict any civil punishment, but they had power to bind the soul, and to retain the sin. Ioh. 20. 23. And this power of binding is not in all the Scripture ascribed to the civil Magistrate.
The eighteenth Argument shall be drawn from the example of excommunication, 1 Cor. 5. 4, 5. The Apostle writeth to the church of Corinth to deliver to Sathan (for the delivery to Sathan was an act of the church of Corinth, as the Syriack explaineth it) the incestuous man, which is called a censure inflicted by many 2 Cor. 2. 6. that is, by the whole Presbytery of the Church of Corinth. And whereas some understand by delivering to Sathan, the putting forth of the extraordinary Apostolicall power to the working of a miracle upon the offender, by giving him over into the hands of Sathan, so as to be bodily tormented by him, or to be killed and destroyed (as Erastus takes it) I answer 1. It cannot be meant of death, for it is said that Hymeneus and Alexander were delivered to Sathan, and to what end? that they might learne not to blaspheme, 1 Tim. 1. 20 which had been too late to learn after death, 2. Nor is it at all meant of any miraculous tormenting of the body by the divel, for beside that it is not likely this miracle could have been wrought, Paul himself not being present to work it, it is utterly incredible that the Apostle would have so sharply rebuked the Church of Corinth, for that a miracle was not wrought upon the incestuous man, (it not being in their power to do:) or that he would seek the consent of that Church to the working of a miracle, and as a joynt act proceeding from him and the Church by common counsell and deliberation, for where read wee of any miracle wrought that way? Therefore it is much more safe to understand by delivering to Sathan, (as Gualther himself doth) Excommunication, which is a shutting out of a Church-member from the Church, whereby Sathan commeth to get dominion and power over him, for he is the God of this World, who reigneth at his pleasure in and over those who are not the Church and people of God. 2 Cor. 4. 4. Eoh. 2. 2. And if any shall be so far unsatisfied as not to admit this sence which we put upon that phrase of delivering to Sathan; Yet our Argument for Excommunication drawn from 1 Cor. 5. standeth strong, the weight of it not being laid upon tradere Satanae onelyonly, but upon vers. 6. 7. 11, 12. compared with 2 Cor. 2. 6. which undeniably prove Excommunication from Church fellowship.
The nineteenth Argument shall be drawn from Act. 20. 28. Take heed therefore unto your selves, and to all the flock over the which the holy Ghost hath made you Overseers foreign, compared with 1 Pet. 5. 2. 3. Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof: foreign: Which Texts as they hold forth a Bishop and a Presbyter to be one and the same Iure divino, so they hold forth the ruling power of Presbyters or Elders.
First, Because otherwise the simile (so much made use of in these Scriptures) of overseeing the flock (mentioned and joyned together with the feeding thereof) will fall short in a main and most materiall point: for the overseers of flocks do not onelyonly make them to lye down in green pastures, and lead them beside the still waters, but they have also rodds and staves for ruling the flocks, and for correcting and reducing the wandring sheep, which will not be brought home by the voice of the shepheard, Psal. 23. 2. 4. The Pastorall rod there mentioned by David is corrective: as Clemens Alexandrinus paedag. lib. 1. cap. 7. who doth also paralel it with that 1 Cor. 4. Shall I com… unto you with a rod?
Secondly, Paul requireth the Elders of the Church of Ephesus to take heed unto, and to oversee the whole flock, which did consist of more then did or could then meet together ordinarily into one place for the worship of God, as appeareth by the Church in the house of Aquila and Priscilla (which was one, but not the onelyonly one Church assembly at Ephesus) by the great and wonderfull increase of the Gospel at Ephesus, and such other Arguments which I do but point at, the full debate of them not being my present work. Peter also writing to the Churches of the strangers in severall provinces, calls them the flock not flocks, and commends unto the Elders the feeding and oversight of that flock. Now what is it that can denominate many particular visible Churches or Congregations to be one visible ministeriall flock or Church, unlesse it be their union and association under one Ecclesiasticall Government? No doubt, they had the administration of the Word and Sacraments partitive, or severally. Nor do I deny but they had a partitive several Government: but there was also an union or association of them under one common Government, which did denominate them to be one visible Ecclesiastical flock.
Thirdly, The very name given to the Elders of the Church, foreign, is a name of authority, rule, and government, especially in the Christian and Ecclesiasticall use of the Word. H. Stephanus in Thes. ling. Gr. in the word foreign, saith that the Elders of the Church were called foreign, seu foreign, to wit saith he, those qui verbo & gubernationi praeera…t. Where he tells us also that the Magistrate or Praetor who was sent with a Judiciall power into those Townes which were und…r the power of the Athenians, was called by the name of foreign. The Septuagints use the word Nehem. 11. 9. Ioel the son of Zi…hri was their overfeer (foreign) and Judah the son of Senuah was second over the City. He that had but the second place was a Ruler, how much more he that was in the first place. Loe here, the head and chief Ruler of the Benjamites called by the name of foreign. So Numb. 31. 14. 2 Kings 11. 15. the chief officers of the Host, the Captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, are called by the Septu…gints foreign. The same Hebrew words which they render by foreign, they render in other places by foreign, praefectus, foreign, Antistes foreign, praepositus, foreign, Princeps: Yea the name of God foreign they render by this word Iob. 20. 29. This is the portion of a wicked man from God, and the heritage appointed to him by God, foreign saith the Greek, by the overseer, (even as the same name of Bishop is given to Christ, 1 Pet. 2. 25.) Conradus Kirch…rus in the word Pakad, tells us also that Gen. 41. 34. L…t Pharaoh do this and let him appoint Officers over the Land, where the 70. read foreign, the Greek Scholia which he useth to cite hath foreign
Fourthly, Peter addeth, not as being Lords, or over-ruling foreign, that we might understand he condemneth the ruling power of the Lord Bishop, not of the Lords Bishop, of Episcopus Dominus, not of Episcopus Domini. Just as Ezek. 34. 4. the shepheards of Israel are reproved for lording it over the flock, with force and with cruelty have ye ruled them, It was their duty to rule them, but it was their sin to rule them with force and with cruelty.
The twentieth Argument I take from 1 Cor. 4. 1. Let a man so account of us, as of the Ministers of Christ, and Stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover it is required in Stewards that a man be found faithfull. And Tit. 1. 7. a Bishop is the Steward of God; foreign. This name doth exclude Lordship and dominion, but withall it noteth a ministeriall rule or government, as in the proper, so in the metaphorical signification: foreign is a name diverse times given by Aristotle in his Politicks to the civil Magistrate. The Septuagints have foreign as fynonymous with foreign. Esth…r 8. 9. To the Lieutenants and the Deputies. The 70. thus, foreign. The holy Ghost by the same word expresseth Government, Gal. 4. 2. foreign, is under Tutors and Governors. Rom. 16. 23. Erastus is called foreign. Theophylact thinks he was Governour of the City; Erasmus that he was praefectus aerario, Town-Treasurer. The English Translators call him the Chamberlain of the City. Yea setting aside the metaphorical signification of this name often used for a name of rule; the very literall and native signification of the word will serve to strengthen this Argument in hand. Ministers are foreign, that is, house-stewards, or over the house; but what house? Aristotle at the beginning of the second book of his Oeconomicks, distinguisheth a fourfold oeconomy, foreign: kingly, noble, civil, private: The Ministers of Christ are foreign of the first sort. They are stewards in the house of the great King. He that is steward in a Kings house, must needs have a ruling power in the house. 1 Kings 4. 6. Ahishar was over Solomons houshold. 1 Kings 18. 3. And Ahab called Obadiah which was the Governour of his house. 2 Kings 18. 18. Eliakim which was over the houshold. In all which places the 70. have foreign. I hold therefore with mCurabit denique (oeconomus) ut impuros & perdite viventes a familia excludat, eosdemque si poenitentiam egerins, rursus in eam recipiat.Peter Martyr upon 1 Cor. 4. 1. that Ministers being by their calling and office stewards in the house of God, ought to cast out prophane impure persons out of the house, and receive them again upon their repentance. And why are they called Stewards of the mysteries of God? surely the Sacraments are part (and a chief part) of those mysteries: and Christ hath made his Ministers (not the civil Magistrates) stewards of these mysteries, to receive unto, or to exclude from the Sacraments; and as they may not keep back any of the children of the house, so they may not suffer dogs to eat at the childrens Table.
The one and twentieth Argument, which shall claudere agmen, shall be drawn from Act. 15. where we find an Ecclesiastical Assembly or Synod of the Apostles, Elders, and other choice brethren, snch as Iudas and Sylas: These did so assemble themselves, and proceed with authority in a businesse highly concerning the truth of the Gospel, Christian liberty, the healing of scandal, and the preserving of peace in the Church, as that it is manifest they had, and executed a power of government distinct from Magistracy. Mr. Selden de Jure natur. & Gent. lib. 7. cap. 12. hath sufficiently expressed that which is the ground of my present Argument: and I rather choose to speak it in his words then in my owne, Now a dispute being had of this thing at Antioch, Paul and Barnabas (who having used many Arguments against that Pharisaical opinion, yet could not end the controversie) are sent to Hierusalem that there the thing might be determined by the Apostles and Elders. It is agitated in a Synod. In it it is determined by the Apostles and Elders, that the Gentiles who had given their names to Christ, are not indeed bound by the Law of Moses or of the Hebrewes, as it is Mosaicall and prescribed to the Church or Common-wealth of the Iewes, but that they ought to enjoy their Christian liberty. And so much for that which the Synod loosed them from. But what dorh the Synod bind upon them? The Synod doth also impose certain things, namely abstinence from fornication, and from things offered to Idols, and from blood, and things strangled, VT QUAE NECESSARIO OBSERVANDA, EX AUTHORITATE SYNODI, saith Mr. Selden, BEING SUCH AS WERE NECESSARILY TO BE OBSERVED, IN REGARD OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE SYNOD, by those who giving their names to the Christian Religion, should live with the Jewes (they also giving their names to the Christian Religion) and so enter into religious fellowship with them. I shall adde two other Testimonies of Mr. Prynns; The first I shall take out of his twelve considerable serious Questions concerning Church-Government, pag. 5. where arguing against the Independency of particular Congregations, he askes, whether the Synod…l Assembly of the Apostles, Elders, and Brethren at Hierusalem, Act. 15. who MADE AND SENT BINDING DECREES to the Churches of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, and other Churches, be … an apparent subversion of Independency. So that by Mr. Prynns confession, the Scripture holds forth other Governours or Rulers in the Church beside Magistrates, and the authority of these other Governours to be such as to make and send to the Churches BINDING DECREES in things and causes Ecclesiastical. Another Testimony I take from his Independency examined, pag. 10 11. where he argueth against the Independents, and proveth from Act. 15. the authority of ordinary Ecclesiastical Synods, bringing also six Arguments, to prove that the Apostles did not there act in their extraordinary Apostolical capacity, or as acted by a spirit of infallibility, but in their ordinary capacity. Thereafter he concludeth thus. Therefore their assembling in this Councel, not in their extraordinary capacity, as Apostles onelyonly, bu… as Elders, Ministers: and the Elders, Brethrens sitting together in Councell with them, upon this Controversie and occasion, is an undeniable Scripture authority for the lawfulnesse, use of Parliaments, Councels. Synods under the Gospel, upon all like nec…ssary occasions: and FOR THEIR POWER TO DETERMINE CONTROVERSIES OF RELIGION, TO MAKE CANONS IN THINGS NECESSARY FOR THE CHURCHES PEACE AND GOVERNMENT.
Loe here Mr. Prynn gives us an undeniable Scripture authority for a diataktick governing power in the Church, distinct from Magistracy. How he will draw from Act. 15. the use of Parliaments or their authority, I do not imagine: It is enough for my Argument that he acknowledgeth this Scripture to warrant Synods of Ministers and Elders, and the power of these Synods to be not onelyonly consultive, but conclusive, decisive, and obligatory; for, this (I suppose) he means by the power to determine controversies, and to make Canons for the Churches peace and government: else he had concluded nothing against the Independents, who yeeld a consultive Synodicall power.
If any shall yet desire to be more parti…ularly satisfied concerning the strength of my present Argument from Act. 15. I will make it out from these particulars following.
First, Here is a power and authority to assemble Synodically, and it is an intrinsecall power within the Church it self, not adventitio…s or extrinsecall from the Magistrate. Whence the soundest Protestant writers prove, that though the civil Magistrate hath a power of convocating Synods, and he ought to do it when the Churches necessity or danger doth call for such a remedy; yet this power of his is positive, not privative, cumulative, not destructive, And that if the Magistrate be an enemy and persecuter of the Church and of true Religion, or cease to do his duty, that is to wit, in a manifest danger of the Church, the Church notwithstanding ought not to be wanting to her self, but ought to use the right and authority of convocation, which first and for…most remaineth with the Rulers of the Church; as may be seen Act. 15. So say the Professors of Leyden in Synops. purior. Theol. Disp. 49. Thes. 24. beside diverse others whom I might here cite, but that is not now my businesse.
Secondly, Beside the publike debate and deliberation, the Synod did also choose and send certain delegates or commissioners to Antioch, and wrote by them a Synodical Epistle to the Churches in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia. I beleeve such Synodical acts of sending Commissioners and letters to the Churches in other Nations or Provinces, should now be lookt upon as acts of government, if done without the leave of the Magistrate, as then Iudas and Silas were sent.
Thirdly, That Synod did exercise and make use of a threefold Ecclesiastical power, for remedy of a three-fold Ecclesiastical disease. 1. They purge out the leven of false doctrine and heresie, by deciding and determining that great controversie, whether Circumcision and the keeping of the Ceremoniall Law of Moses were neeessary to salvation. They hold forth and declare to the Churches the negative; And this they do by the dogmatik power. 2. There was a great scandal, taken by the beleeving Jewes (then not fully instructed and perswaded concerning the abrogation of the Ceremoniall Law by the death of Christ) who were so far stumbled and offended at the beleeving Gentiles for their eating of things sacrificed to Id…ls, and of blood, and things strangled, that they could not freely nor contentedly converse, company, and eate together with the Gentiles. For remedy whereof, the Synod doth require (in regard of the law of love, edification, peace, and avoyding of scandall) that the Gentiles should abstain from those things, as also from fornication, (which for what cause it is added, I do not now dispute) And this they do by the Diataktik power. 3. There was a foreign, a schisme, dissention, and rent made in the Church by the Judaizing Teachers, vers. 2. Who clothed themselves with a pretended authority and warrant from the Apostles and Elders at Hierusalem, and thereupon got the more following, and drew away the more disciples after them. For remedy hereof, the Synod stigmatizeth and brandeth those men, by declaring them to be lyars, troublers of the Church, and subverters of souls, vers. 24. And this they do by the Critick power, or authority of censures.
Fourthly, The decree and Canon of the Synod, which is made, imposed, emitted and promulgat, is authoritative, decisive, and binding; Act. 15. 28. For it seemed good to the holy Ghost, and (here the Arabick repeateth it seemed good) to us, to lay upon you no greater burthen then these necessary things, That ye abstain &c. If it be said that this was but a doctrinal advice. It seemed good &c. I answer, Iosephus Antiq. Iud. lib. 4. cap. 8. speaking of the decree of the supreme Sanhedrin (which he that disobeyed was to be put to death) calls it foreign, that which seemeth good: So likewise in this place, the word foreign, is not meant of an Opinion onelyonly, for an Opinion (as Schoolmen define it) is properly such a … of or assent to a thing, as is evident and firme, but not certain: So that Opinion cannot be ascribed to the holy Ghost; It is therefore here a word of authority and decree: as Mr. Leigh in his Critica sacra at the word foreign noteth out of Ch…mnitius. In which sence the Grecians frequently use it. So Stephanus out of Demosthenes: foreign. It is de reed by the Senate. And Budaeus out of Plato, foreign. It is certainly appointed to die. Observe also the word foreign, and foreign, imposing and burthen. They do impose some burthen, onelyonly they are carefull to impose no burthen except in necessary things. Acts 16. 4. And as they went through the Cities they delivered them foreign, the decrees that were ordained of the Apostles and Elders which were at Hierusalem. And here I cannot passe the observation of that gentleman who hath taken so good pains in the Original Tongues, Mr. Leigh in his Critica sacra of the New Testament, in the word foreign: Wheresoever foreign is found in the New-Testament, it is put for Decrees or Lawes, as Luke 2. 1. Acts 17. 7. it is put for the Decrees of Caesar; and Ephes. 2. 15. Colos. 2. 14. for the Ceremonial Lawes of Moses; and so frequently by the LXX. in the Old Testament for Decrees; as Dan. 2. 13. and 3. 10. 29. and 4. 6. for Lawes, Dan. 6. 8. Caeterum saith Erasmus upon Act. 16. 4. Dogmata Graeca vox est, significans & ipsa decreta five placita, non doctrinam ut vulgus existimat. And whereas some have objected, that foreign and foreign are used onelyonly in reference to a doctrinal power, as Col. 2. 20. foreign. I answer, Budaeus expounds foreign to be decerno, and Col. 2. 20. foreign, The Syriack makes it judicamini; Erasmus and Bullinger, Decretis tenemini. Stephanus, Beza, and Gualther, ritibus oneramini; the English Translators, are ye subject to Ordinances? This subjection was not onelyonly to Doctrines, but to Commandements, vers. 22. after the Commandements and Doctrines of men: and these commandements (though in deed and truth the commandements of men onelyonly at that time) were imposed as the Commandements of God, and as Ceremoniall Lawes given by Moses. The vulgar Latine hath decernitis, and Tertullian readeth Sententiam fertis, both of them (it seemeth) having read foreign: however they understand the power related unto to be more then Doctrinall.
I conclude that foreign, Acts 16. 4. must be more then Doctrinal declarations, and that it is meant of binding decrees (that I may use Mr. Prynns phrase) especially when joyned with foreign, there was a Judgement passed and given upon the making and sending of those foreign, not the judgement of one or two, but the judgement of the Apostles and Elders Synodically assembled. So Acts 21. 25. Iames and the Elders speaking of that Synodical judgement say, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, &c.
These four considerations being laid together, concerning an intrinsecall Ecclesiastical power of assembling together Synodically; of choosing and sending Commissioners with a Synodical Epistle to the Churches in other parts; of providing effectual and necessary remedies both for heresies, scandals, and schismes arising in the Church; of making and imposing binding decrees on the Churches, will infallibly prove from Scripture authority another Government in the Church beside Magistracy.
I might here adde other Arguments, but so much for this time.