Aarons Rod Blossoming, Book 3 · Chapter 4
CHAP. IV. A confutation of Erastus and Bilson their Interpretation of Math. 18. 15, 16, 17. as likewise of Doctor Sutliffe his Glosse differing some what from theirs.
AS for that other Erastian Glosse upon Matth. 18. 17. that Christ meaneth of going to the orthodox Magistrate being of the same true religion, (& that this is the sence of those words Tell the Church) but if the Brother who hath done us wrong will not heare nor obey that Magistrate, then let him he unto thee as an Heathen man and a publican, that is, thou mayest prosecute him, as thou wouldest prosecute an Heathen man or a Publican before an extrinsecall Tribunall, such as at that time the Roman Emperours was to the Jewes. See Erastus thes. 41. wherein he is followed by Bishop Bilson of the perpetuall Government of Christs Church cap. 4. This Glosse hath been justly rejected by many learned men. The first Argument which I bring against it, is that it is wide from the scope of the Text, yea prejudgeth and even overthroweth the great thing which is principally intended by Jesus Christ in this place, Camero Myroth. in Math. 18. thinks it is, utterly different from Christs intention in this place, which is to prescribe rules to our consciences concerning the amendment of our Brother, and the reducing of him from his sinne, not to give oeconomicall rules concerning the reparation of our injuries or losses: Wherefore he concludes that by the Church is meant the Presbytery mentioned 1. Tim. 4. 14. He holdeth also that in the new Testa. the word foreign doth ever signifie an Assembly cum foreign ad religionem, with an habitude and reference to religion. Let it be also observed with Bucerus Script. Anglic. pag. 40. 41. 304, 305, 306. that what our Saviour directeth one Brother to doe toward the gaining of another, by admonitions and reproofs, doth onelyonly belong to the care and sollicitude of the salvation of his soule, and the gaining of him from eternall death to eternall life; and this he collects from these words in the Text, thy Brother, and thou hast gained thy Brother. He doth also paralell Math. 18. 15. with Gal. 6. 1. Brethren, if any man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spirituall, restore such an one in the spirit of meeknesse. Now this as it is the surest exposition (expounding Scripture by Scripture) so it doth not concerne a Judiciall proceeding in the case of private Injuries, but the Christian duty of reclaiming and saving the soule from sin.
He further observeth that the thing which Christ recommendeth to every Christian, to be done ex Charitate Christiana, is nothing else but what is incumbent to Pastors ex officio; for Pastors ought by vertue of their publike charge and ministery to doe the same thing authoritatively, which one Christian is bidden doe to another in Christian Brotherly charity, that is to admonish, rebuke, &c.
I am perswaded were the Lord Jesus his scope and intent in this Text rightly understood, there should need no other confutation of the Glosses given either by Erastus or by Mr. Prynne. They restrict to the case of private or personall injuries, and to the party injuried civilly, that which our Saviour prescribeth oCartwright Histor. christi ex 4. Evang. pag. 354. Hoc loco (Mat. 18) notandum, singulotum in Ecclesia civium munus esse, ut deiinquentem s…rm corpaint.as a duty of Christian Charity, which every Church Member oweth to another. It was an impious word of Cain, Am I my Brothers Keeper? though spoken in reference to his Brothers body and naturall life; How much more sinfull is it, to say or thinke in reference to our Brothers soule, Am I my Brothers Keeper? Every Christian is bound by the commandement of God to rebuke his Brother, when he seeth, heareth, or knoweth hlm to commit sinne: Lev. 19. 17. Thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sinne upon him. Where the Marginall paralell in the English Bibles is Mat. 18. 15. Yea, Erastus himself lib. 2. cap. 2. pag. 154. confesseth that Christ doth in Matth. 18. interpret that Law Lev. 19. So Prov. 28. 4. Such as keep the Law contend with the wicked. We ought to hate and abhorre sinne by which God is dishonoured (and consequently to expresse our zeale against it by rebukes when it is committed in our sight, hearing, presence, privity or knowledge) as much yea much more, then if it were a private and personall injury against our selves Psal. 97. 10. Amos, 5. 15. Rom. 12. 9. Psal. 139. 21, 22. Hence it is that the Apostle exhorteth Christians to warne them that are unruly or disorderly, 1 Thess. 5. 13. Wherefore it is justly and truly maintained by Augustine Regul. 3 infine Tomi primi. Durandus lib. 4. dist. 19. Quaest. 3. Tostatus in Math. 18. Quaest. 29. and divers thers, that to admonish and rebuke a Brother committing sinne, is a necessary Christian duty commanded by the word of God, whereunto Christians are obliged by the love of God and their Neighbour: for which see also Aegidius de Coninck de actib. supernat. disp. 28. dub. 2. & 4. And if the offender be not reduced by more private admonitions and rebukes, the same Law of spirituall love bindeth his Brother that knoweth his sinne and impenitency to tell the Church, as Ioseph told his Father of his Brethrens faults, Gen. 37. 2. and Joseph brought unto their Father their evill report, that is their scandalous sinnes which made them to have an evill report. It is well noted by Pareus upon the place, that the thing which Ioseph did complaine of to his Father, was not his Brethrens hatred against himselfe, nor any personall injury done to himself, (because their hatred of Ioseph was the effect, not the cause, of the information which he gave to his Father of their faults) but it was their sinne and scandalous life by which they brought an evill name upon themselves and the family of their Father. Wherein he doth upon good reason justifie what Ioseph did, because he told not his Brethrens faults to an Enemy but to a Father, nor for their evill, but for their good. It was also declared unto the Apostle by them of the house of Cloe that there were contentions among the Corinthians 1 Cor. 1. 11. So it is collected from 2 Thess. 3. 11. that some in the Church of Thessalonica gave notice to the Apostle of such as walked disorderly. And as he that spares the Rod hates the Child, so he that neglects to rebuke an offending Brother, or (when that cannot amend him) neglects to tell the Church, doth hate his Brothers soule, in so farre as he suffers sinne upon him.
If these things be acknowledged for truths, we will be easily induced to believe that the scope of Jesus Christ Math. 18. 15, 16, 17. is to teach us, not what he permits the party injured to doe toward the party injuring, but what he commands every one that loves the soule and salvation of his Neighbour, to doe for reducing his Neighbour from a sinne wherewith he is overtaken. Which fitly agreeth with pSi peccaverit in te frater tuus] Eadem habentur in libro Musar 221. quan▪ quam paulò aliter, Qui arguit socium debet primùm hoc sacere placidè interse & ipsum solùm verbis mollibus, ita ut non pude saciat eum Si respiscit▪ bene est … sin, debet eum acriter arguere, & pudefacere inter se & ipsum. Si non respiscit, debet adhibere socios, ipsumque coram illis pudore afficere: si nec hoc mod… quicquam prosecit, debet eum pudesacere coram multis, ejusque delictum publicare. Nam certè detegendi sunt Hypocritae.that which Drusius praeter. lib. 1. on Mat. 18. 15. citeth e libro Musar. Besides, both Fathers, Schoole-men, Casuists, Commentators, Popish, and Protestant, when they handle the Questions de correptione fraterna, they make Brotherly rebukes to be a common duty of love which one neighbour oweth to another, and ever and anon they cleare what they hold from Mat. 18. I verily believe it is one of the wiles yea depths of Sathan in perverting that Text with the Erastian Glosses, to throw out of the Church and to drown in desuetude and oblivion, a great and necessary duty which every Christian by the law of love oweth to the soule of his Brother with whom he converseth, which were it conscionably practised, I dare say, it should be a most powerfull and effectuall meanes (by the blessing of Christ upon his owne ordinance) to purge the Church of scandals, to gaine soules, and to advance holinesse.
Now he that can neither be reduced by more private reprehensions nor by publike Ecclesiasticall conviction, Let him be unto thee as an Heathen man, saith Christ, let him be esteemed as one that hath no part in the communion of the Saints, in Church-Membership, in the holy things, in the commonwealth of Israel, in the Covenants of promise, more then an Heathen man. Which is a spirituall, not a civill separation, according to that Gal. 2. 15. We who are Jewes by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles.
My second Argument shall be this. That which Christ saith generally of any sinne whereby one Brother scandalizeth another Brother, the Erastians restrict to private or personall injuries. And whereas Christs rule tendeth to the rescuing and saving of a sinner, their Glosse runnes upon a mans particular interest in the resarclating of a private injury. If thy Brother trespasse against thee, that is, Cum quis coram aliquo peccaverit, saith Munsterus, when any brother sinneth in the presence of some other. Are we not oblidged to rebuke an offending Brother in Christian love; and to endeavour to bring him to repentance and to save his soule; whether he hath done to us any particular injury or not: May we suffer sinne upon his soule, because that sinne is not an injury to us? Let it be well observed, the thing here aimed at, is the salvation of the offending Brother, and his turning from sinne, as Grotius rightly noteth from the word foreign, (which qConfirm. Thes. lib. 3. cap. 3. p 188. Ideo dicit Christus foreign apud Math. ut intelligamus cum erroris & iniquitatis convincendum esse, ut eam agnoscat ac deprecetur non apud nos tantum, sed multò magis apud Deum.Erastus also confesseth from the word foreign) for in that sence is the same word used 1 Cor. 9. 19, 20, 21, 22. that I might gain them that are under the Law, &c. and 1 Pet. 3. 1. they may be wonne by the conversation of the wives. This (saith Grotius) James doth explain Ch. 5. v. 20. he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way, shall save a soule from death, and shall hide a multitude of sinnes. If this then be the meaning of Christs words, thou hast gained thy Brother: then it concerneth all sinnes whereby we know our Brothers soule and salvation to be in hazard. Wherefore though Grotius understand private injuries to be that case which the Text putteth, yet saith he, it is the manner of the Law of God, by one particular and more remarkable kind of things, to intimate what ought to be done in other things according to the rule of just proportion. And it holds more true in other sinnes, then in the case of private injuries: This rebuking is necessary as well in sins which are committed against God as in those which are committed against man, and by so much the more its necessary in sinnes which are committed against God, by how much they are heavier then sinnes which are committed against man, saith Tostatus in Mat. 18. quest. 93. And Grotius himself citeth out of Mimus,
Amici vitia si feras faeias tua.
And whereas the Erastian take much hold of the words against thee. If thy Brother trespasse against thee. I have before answered, that any sinne against God which is committed in my sight, hearing, or knowledge, and so becommeth a scandall or stumbling Block to me, is a trespasse committed against me, because he that ought to edifie me doth scandalize me. So that the words against thee are added, to signifie, not a civill injury, bnt rather a spirituall injury or scandall. Augustine regul. 3. in fine Tom. 1. applieth the rule and method of proceeding mentioned Mat. 18. to lascivious or adulterous behaviour, which one Brother observing in another, ought to admonish him, first secretly, then to take witnesses, then to tell the Church, and if he be contumacious, de vestra societate projiciatur, let him be cast out of your society saith he, and the context carrieth it to any scandall whereby one Brother scandalizeth another: whereof much was spoken in the preceding part of the Chapter. Erastus pag. 154. Scopus Christi est in hoc capite docere, quantum malum sit scandalum. The scope of Christ is in this Chapter to teach how great an evill scandall is. Wherefore I adhere to the resolution of Tostatus in Math. 18. quaest. 84, sive sit peccatum directè contra deum, sive contra proximum, si fit nobis scientibus, fit contra nos, cum nos scandalizet. Both Chrysostome and Theophilact upon Math. 18. 15. observe this cohesion, that Christ having before spoken against those that give scandall, now he gives a rule to the person scandalized.
Thirdly, that exposition which now I argue against, tendeth to make one Scripture contradict another, and to make that lawfull by one Scripture, which another Scripture makes unlawfull even some of themselves being Judges. They so expound Matth. 1 S. that they make it lawfull (and as such allowed by Christ himself) for a Christian to pursue his Brother for a civill injury before Infidell or Heathnish Judges, even as he would pursue an Heathen or Infidell, if such an one had done him the in ury. rConfirm. Thes. lib. 3. cap 2 pag. 184. Habitant nunc sub Turca & pontifice Romano fideles; Si quis assiciatur ibi à fratre injuriâ, nec audire injuriosus suum coetum velit, quid aliud potest offensus facere quàm ejus implorare Judicis opem, qui facultatem habet coercendi?Erast, saith freely (yet foully) that if a Congregation of the faithfull be under the Turke or the Pope, one of them may pursue another for an injury (when the offender will not hearken to his own Assembly) before those Judges who are aliens, and Enemies to the true Religion. His exposition of Matth. 18. doth plainly lead hereunto. So saith Bishop Bilson (a great follower of Erastus) in this debate upon Matth. 18. in the place before cited, let him be to thee as an Heathen man and a publican, that is pursue him in those courts, where thou wouldest a Pagan and Publican that should do thee wrong. But how doth this agree with 1 Cor. 6. (the place which Erastus thes. 41. conceiveth to be a Commentary upon Matth. 18.) doth not the Apostle expressely condemne it, as being utterly a fault that one brother went to Law with another for the things of this life or civill causes, before the unjust and unbeleevers? Nay, let us heare Bishop Bilson himself in that very place. Paul saith he by no means permitted them to pursue their Brethren at the Tribunals of Infidels. What then? will they set Paul against Christ? or will they make 1 Cor. 6. contrary to Matth. 18. As for that whereby Erastus would reconcile this difference, it is as good as nothing. He saith pag. 183. that Paul requireth them to referre to arbitrators within the Church it self, only the smallest matters and things pertaining to this life, but not crimes or weighty matters which he would reserve to the Magistrates, otherwise he had detracted much from those to whom he every where commandeth to give obedience. And so (saith he) that which Paul saith is nothing but what Christ saith, Tell the Church. Besides Paul himself appealed to Cesar. let all men judge (saith he) whether the Apostle would make it unlawfull to other wronged persons, which he thought lawfull for himself? I answer, 1. If it was a shame and foule scandall for Christians to pursue one another for smaller matters pertaining to this life, how much more for crimes and weightier matters? for then the unbeleevers might cast the heavier load of reproaches upon the Christian religion. 2. This might have opened a door to elude that which the Apostle so earnestly presseth; for one would be ready to say, this cause of mine is a weighty one, it is an injury and crime that can not be born, therefore I am free to pursue it before unbelievers. Whereas the Apostle saith, Why do ye not rather take wrong? why doe ye not rather suffer your selves to be defrauded? 3. The judging of the smallest matters, and of the things pertaining to this life, is by the Apostle opposed, not to weighty civill injuries, but to the judging of the world and of Angells, as is manifest by the Antithesis in the Text. But he maketh no intimation of the least distinction of civill injuries, as if some might be pursued before unbeleiving Judges, some not: he speaketh generally vers. 1. Dare any of you having a matter against another. vers. 4. If then ye have judgements of things pertaining to this life vers. 7. Why doe ye not rather take wrong? 4. If that which Paul saith, be the same with that which Christ saith Tell the Church, and if it was Pauls mind that he who would not hearken to chosen arbitrators among the Saints might be pursued before the unbeleiving Judges (as Erastus tells us both here and Thes. 47.) then Tell the Church cannot be meant of telling the Magistrate of the same religion; for Paul sends them to no Christian Magistrate (because there was none such then and there) but to arbitrators chosen among the Saints. Tis most strange to me that so acute a disputant could expound the Telling of the Church Matth. 18. by the reference to arbitrators 1. Cor. 6. and yet understand the Church Matth. 18. to be the civill Magistate. 5. There might be subjection and obedience to the Heathen Magistrates, although the Saints should not go to Law one against another before them 6. Paul did but appeal from Caesars Deputy to Caesar himself. He was drawne by the Jewes before the Tribunall of Festus (wherein Paul was a sufferer) and finding Festus unjust and partiall, and that he endeavoured to deliver him to the Jewes, who had a mind to have him put to death, thereupon he appealeth from Festus to Caesar. So that if Erastus had made the paralell right, all that he could conclude from Pauls example, had been this, that when a Christian is drawne and compelled by his accusers and Enemies (not being Christians) before the Tribunall of an inferiour Heathen Judge, if he there find himself in danger of his life, he may appeale in his just defence to an higher Heathen Judge. Wherefore I yet conclude that by the Erastian principles Christ and Paul cannot be reconciled▪ These three Arguments doe militate not onelyonly against Erastus and Bilson, but likewise against Sutlivius de Presb. Cap. 9. where he gives this sence of Matth. 18. 15, 16, 17. that we ought to take heed we give no scandall in the pursuing of injuries, and for that end ought to give admonition first privately, then before witnesses, and in case of obstinacy in the brother that hath done the injury, to tell the Rulers of the Church (meaning the Prelates) and if he will not hear them, then to go to Law with that Brother, as with an Heathen or Publican. The other Arguments which are to follow, (the last excepted) strike not at his Interpretation, but at those other Glosses, of Erastus, Bilson, and Master Prynne.
Fourthly, this Erastian exposition makes these words, but if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an Heathen man and a publican, to be applicable onelyonly to such Christians as live under unbelieving Magistrates, and not to all Christians. This consequence Erastus foresaw, that it would needs follow from his Interpretation, therefore he plainly owneth it Thes. 47. He confesseth that the former part concerning rebuking and seeking to gaine the offending Brother, belongs to all Christians; What a boldnesse is here to rent asunder this passage of Scripture, which was uttered as it were with one breath? And why doth not the latter part also belong unto all Christians? Must Christians that live under an Infidell Magistrate have more effectuall meanes and wayes to use towards an offending Brother, and may they go a step further in putting him to shame or in humbling him, then those Christians can doe who live under a Christian Magistrate? How well doth this hang together? I should have thought the ballance must rather fall to this hand. But to make the condition of those, who live under a Christian Magistrate to be more privative, and the condition of those who live under an Infidell Magistrate to be more cumulative, is too great a paradoxe for me.
Sixthly, Whereas they say that the way prescribed by Christ Matth. 18. is such as is agreeable to the Law of Moses, and they understand by Tell the Church, Tell the Magistrate, I aske what Magistrate? If the Judges and Magistrates of the Cities, as Bishop Bilson thinkes, then he who did not hearken to those Judges might appeale to the great Sanhedrin at Hierusalem, or the Judges themselves might referre and transmit the case thither: so that the man was not to be straight way accounted as an Heathen man and a Publican. But if by the Church they understand the great Sanhedrin it self, he that would not hearken to it was to be put to death by the Law Deut. 17. So that it had not been agreeable to the Law of Moses, to teach that he who will not hearken to the great Sanhedrin is to be esteemed as an Heathen man and a Publican; for this supposeth that he shall not dye but be suffered to live.
Seventhly, the Erastian principles do plainly contradict and confute themselves. For both Erastus, Bishop Bilson, and Master Prynne hold that he Jewish Sanhedrin in Christs time was a temporall Magistracy and a civill Court of justice, which had power to scourge, imprison, torture, and outlaw offenders, yea to put to death as the first two doe positively averre. sSutliviks de Presbyteri… Cap. 9 deindelo…uitur Christus de Ecclesia, quae cogendi potestarem non habuit, c▪ j sque sententiam impunèlic…it contemn…re. Nam si cogendi po…statem habuisset, srustra i…la verba addita sunt, fi Ecclesiam audire noluerit: nam Ecclesia coegisset, & sententiam suam executioni mandasset. This he objecteth against the Presbytetian Interpretation. But in truth it helpeth us and strongly mili tateth against the Erastian Interpretation.How then can it be said, If he neglect to heare the Church, &c. that is, if he neglect to heare the civill Magistrate who hath power to imprison, scourge, torture, outlaw, yea to put him to death? Surely if he neglect to heare the Church, doth intimate that the Church hath not used nor cannot use any externall coercive power. Erastus findes himselfe so mightily puzled with this difficulty, that to make out his interpretation of Matth. 18. he confesseth Thes. 53. and confirm. Thes. lib. 2. cap. 2. the Jewish Sanhedrin had no power under the Romans to judge of civill causes and injuries, but of things pertaining to their religion onelyonly, tPag. 158. Proinde impunè poterat, qui volebat judicium Synedtii contemnere in civilibus rebus.so that at that time (saith he) a man might impune without punishment contemne the judgement of the Sanhedrin in civill things. And thus while he seeketh a Salvo for his Glosse upon Matth. 18. he overthroweth the great argument by which he and his followers endeavour to prove that there was no other Sanhedrin in Christs time, but a civill Court of justice, because say they, that Sanhedrin had the power of the Sword and other temporall punishments.
Eighthly, observe the gradation in the Text, 1. a private conviction or rebuke. 2. Conviction before two or three witnesses. 3. Conviction before the Church, and the Churches declaring the thing to be an offence, and commanding the offender to turn from his evill way. 4. If he will not heare the Church (which implieth that the Church hath spoken and required him to doe somewhat which he refuseth to doe) then Let him be as an Heathen man and a Publican. This last is heavier then all that went before, and is the punishment of his not hearing the Church now this gradation is in consistent with the Interpretation which Erastus giveth; for by his owne confession the Sanh drin of the Jewes at that time had not power to judge of civill causes nor to punish any man for a civill injury, but for a matter of religion onelyonly. (yet they are not matters of Religion, but civill trespasses which he understands to be meant Matth. 18.) Here is an intercision in the third step of the gradation. And if it were an offence in the matter of religion, it had not been a greater punishment, but a greater ease to the offender, to draw him before the Roman tribunals, for the Romans cared for none of those things, of which the Jewish Sanhedrin was most zealous. The gradation in the Text is as inconsistent with Mr Prynnes interpretation; for imagine the offender to be after previous admonitions publiquely accused and convict before the Church (that is, in his opinion) the civill Court of justice which had power to imprison, scourge, torture, and outlaw offenders, if not to condemne, and put to death) what should be done with such an one? can we goe no higher? yes: thus it is in Mr Prynnes sence. He that will not submit to the Magistrate, and cannot be reduced by stripes and imprisonment, torturing and outlawing, yea peradventure by condemnation to die the death; let this be the last remedy for such an one, Let him be unto thee as an beathen man and a Publican, that is, withdraw familiar civill company from him.
Ninthly, that interpretation of Erastus leaneth to a false supposition, namely that the word foreign as a Publican, are meant universally of all Publicans good or bad, or whatever they were. To prove this he takes an argument pag. 189, 190, 195. from the Article foreign; for with the Grecians, saith he, the Article being joyned to the predicate, noteth the nature and consequently the universality of the thing; whence he concludeth that foreign signifieth a Publican qua Publican, and so every Publican. Now what can be the sence of Christs words in reference to every Publican (saith he) unlesse this be it, that it was lawfull to pursue any Publican at a Tribunall of the Romans? I answer, his argument goeth upon a most false supposition, which I cleare by the like instances, Matth. 6. 7. Use not vaine repetitions as the Heathen doe foreign. Shall we thence conclude that the Heathens as Heathens, and so all Heathens without exception did use repetitions in prayer, or that they were all so devout in their way as to make long prayers? Luke 15. 11. I am not as other men are foreign, extortioners, unjust… &c. Did the Pharisee meane that every man eo ipso that he was another man, and so the rest of the Pharisees as well as others, were extortioners, &c. Iohn 15. 6. he is cast forth as a branch foreign. If the rule of Erastus hold, then a branch as a branch, and so every branch is cast out. Many such instances might be given. If in these Texts there must be a restriction of the sence, notwithstanding of the prepositive article, so that by Heathens we must understand devout or praying Heathens: by other men, vulgar men, or the common sort of men; by a branch, a fruitlesse or withered branch. Why shall we not also understand by foreign, the prophane loose or unjust Publican, and as Grotius doth rightly expound it foreign Let him be esteemed, saith he, as an Heathen man, that is, as an alien from religion, or as a Publican; that is, if he be a Jew, esteeme him as an infamous sinner, or one of a flagitious life. Since therefore Erastus confesseth pag. 194. that as the office of the Publicans was lawfull, so likewise many Publicans were honest, chast, religious, and pious men, I may safely conclude, that Let him be unto thee as a Publican, cannot be meant universally of all Publicans. For how can it be supposed that Christ would tacitely allow of alienation from or severity to pious Publicans?
Tenthly, whereas the Erastians lay great waight upon that forme of speech, Let him be to thee, (not to the whole Church) as an Heathen man and a Publican, (which is also one of Sullivius his exceptions de Presbyterio, cap. 9.) in this also they do abuse the Text, for 1. The same offence which is a sufficient ground to one Church-member to esteem another Church member as an Heathen man or a Publican, being a publique and known scandall (such as is contumacy and disobedience to the Church) must needs be a sufficient ground to all other Church members, or to the whole Church to esteem so of him. Surely Christ would not have contradictory judgements in his Church concerning so high a point, as is the esteeming of a Church member to be as a Heathen man and a Publican. 2. The Erastians herein argue no better than the Papists: Christ said to Peter, I will give unto thee the keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven. Therefore unto Peter alone. Peradventure Mr. Hussey was so sagacious as to prevent this objection with his popish concession: these Keyes were never given to any of the Apostles but to Peter, saith he, in his plea for Christian magistracy, pag. 9. It seems he will farre lesse sticke to grant the Prelaticall argument, Timothy laid on hands, and Titus ordained Elders, therefore each of these had the power of ordination by himselfe alone. 3. It is a good observation of Luther Tom. 1. Resolv. super propos. 13. de potest. Papae. fol. 299. in the sixteenth of Matthew Christ begins with all his disciples, Whom say ye that I am? and he endeth with one, Unto thee will I give, &c. In the eighteenth of Matthew he beginneth with one, If thy brother trespasse against thee, &c. and he endeth with all, Whatsoever he binds on earth, &c. Whence he concludeth that in both these places what is said to one is said to all of them.