Aarons Rod Blossoming, Argument
THE CONTENTS.
The first Booke. Of the Jewish Church Government.
CHAP. I. That if the Erastians could prove what they alledge concerning the Iewish Church Government, yet in that particular the Iewish Church could not be a president to the Christian.
THe Jewish Church a patterne to us in such things as were not typicall or temporall. If it could be proved, that the Jewes had no supreme Sanhodrin but one, and it such as had the power of civill Magistracy, yet there are foure reasons for which that could be no president to the Christian Church. Where the constitution, manner of proceedings, and power of the Sanhedrin, ure touched. Of their Synagoga Magna, what it was. That the Priests had great power and authority not onelyonly in occasionall Synods, but in the civill Sanhedrin it selfe.
CHAP. II. That the Iewish Church was formally distinct from the Iewish State or Commonwealth.
WE are content that the Erastians appeale to the Jewish government. Seven distinctions between the Jewish Church and the Jewish State. Of the proselytes of righteousnesse, and that they were imbodied into the Jewish Church, not into the Jewish State.
CHAP. III. That the Iewes had an ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin and Government distinct from the civill.
DIvers Authors cited for the ecclesiastcal Sanhedrin of the Jews. The first Institution thereof, Exo. 24. That the choosing & calling forth of these 70 Elders is not coincident with the choosing of the 70 Elders mentioned Num. 11. nor yet with the choosing of Judges Exod. 18. The institution of two coordinate Governments, cleared from Deut. 17. A distinct Ecclesiasticall government setled by David, 1 Chro. 23. and 26. The same distinction of Civill and Church▪ government revived by Iehoshaphat, 2 Chro. 19. That Text vindicated. Two distinct Courts, one Ecclesiasticall, another Civill, proved from Ierem. 26. Another argument for an Ecclesiasticall Senate from Ierem. 18. 18. Who meant by the wise men of the Jewes? Another argument from Ezech. 7. 26. Another from 2 Kings 6. 32. and Ezech. 8. 1. Another from Psal. 107. 32. Another from Zech. 7. 1, 2, 3. That Ezech. 13. 9. seemeth to hold forth an Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin. That the Councell of the chiefe Priests, Elders and Scribes, so often mentioned in the Gospel, and in the Acts of the Apostles, was an Ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin, and not a civill Court of Justice, as Erastus and M. Prynne suppose: which is at length proved. That the civill Sanhedrin which had power of life and death did remove from Hierusalem, 40 yeeres before the destruction of the Temple and City, and consequently neere three yeeres before the death of Christ. The great objection, that neither the Talmud nor Talmudicall Writers doe distinguish a civill and an ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin, answered. Finally, those who are not convinced that there was a distinct ecclesiasticall Sanhedrin among the Jewes, may yet by other Mediums be convinced that there was a distinct ecclesiasticall Government among the Jewes: as namely, the Priests judgement of cleannesse or uncleannesse, and so of admitting or shutting out.
CHAP. IV. That there was an Ecclesiasticall Excommunication among the Iewes: and what it was.
FIfteen witnesses brought for the Ecclesiasticall excommunication among the Jewes, all of them learned in the Jewish antiquities. Of the 24 causes of the Jewish excommunication, which were lookt upon formally qua scandals, not qua injuries. Of the three degrees of their excommunication, Niddui, Cherem, and Shammata. The manner and form of their Excommunication, sheweth that it was a solemne Ecclesiasticall censure. Formula anathematis. The excommunication of the Cuthites. The excommunication among the Jewes was a publique and judicial act: and that a private or extrajudicial excommunication was voyd, if not ratified by the Court. The effects of the Jewish excommunication. That such as were excommunicated by the greater excommunication were not admitted to come to the Temple. He that was excommunicated with the lesser excommunication was permitted to come, yet not as other Israelites, but as one publiquely bearing his shame. The end of their excommunication was spirituall.
CHAP. V. Of the cutting of from among the people off God frequently mentioned in the Law.
THe sence of the Hebrew word foreign scanned. That the commination of cutting off a man from his people, or from the Congregation of Israel, is neither meant of eternall death, nor of dying without children, nor of capitall punishment from the hand of the Magistrate, nor yet of cutting off by the immediate hand of God for some secret sinne. Reasons brought against all these. That Excommunication was meant by that cutting off, proved by six reasons.
CHAP. VI. Of the casting out of the Synagogue.
THe casting out of the Synagogue is understood by Interpret…rs and others to be an excommunication from the Church assemblies, and not a civill punishment. Eight considerations to prove this. That he who was cast out of the Synagogue was shut out, not onelyonly from the company and fellowship of men, but from the place of publique sacred assemblies. It cannot be proved, that he who was cast out of the Synagogue was free to enter into the Temple. The casting out of the Synagogue was abused by the Pharisees, as the casting out of the Church by Diotrephes.
CHAP. VII. Other Scripturall arguments to prove an Excommunication in the Iewish Church.
THat the separation from the Congregation, Ezra 10. 8. was Excommunication. Iosephus explained in this particular. Of the devoting of a mans substance as holy to the Lord▪ which was joyned with the Excommunication. What meant by the cursing Neh. 13. 25. That the foreign or separating mentioned Luke 6. 22. was Excommunication, or a segregation not from civil fellowship onelyonly, but from sacred or Church communion. The Ecclesiasticall use of that word touched.
CHAP. VIII. Of the Iewish Exomologesis, or publike Declaration of Repentance by confession of sinne.
THe Heathens had their publique Declaration of repentance from the Jewes. The Jewish Exomologesis proved from the imposition of hands upon the head of the Sacrifice. The Law Lev. 5. 5. did also appoint Confession of sinne, to be made at the offering of a Trespasse offering. Which confession was made in the Temple, and in the Priests hearing▪ The Law of confessing sinne Num. 5, 6, 7. explained, and divers particulars concerning confession deduced from it. Other proofes of the Jewish Confession of sins from Ioh. 9. 24. Also from that which interveened between their Excommunication and their absolution. From Ezra 10 10, 11. That Davids confession Psalm 51. was published in the Temple, after ministeriall conviction by Nathan. That if there be necessity of satisfying an offended brother, how much more of satisfying an offended Church?
CHAP. IX. Whether in the Iewish Church there was any suspension or exclusion of prophane, scandalous, notorious sinners, from partaking in the publique Ordinances, with the rest of the children of Israel in the Temple.
THe affirmative is proved by plaine and full testimonies of Philo, and Iosephus, beside some late Writers wel acquainted with the Jewish antiquities. That the Publican Luke 18. came not into the Court of Israel, but into the Court of the Gentiles. Nor can it be proved, that he was a prophane Publican, so much as in the opinion of the Pharisees and Jews. That the Temple into which the adultresse was brought Iohn 8. was also the Court of the Gentiles: neither was she admitted into the Temple for worship, but brought thither for a publique triall and …entence. Seven Scripturall arguments brought to prove an exclusion of the scandalous and known prophane persons, from the Temple. Somewhat de jure Zelotarum. What esteem the Hebrews had of an Hereticall or Epicurean Israelite. That the Temple of Ierusalem was a Type of Christ, (which is instanced in ten particulars) and had a Sacramentall holinesse in it, so that the analogy is not to be drawn to an exclusion of prophane persons from the Word preached, but from the Sacrament.
CHAP. X. A debate with M. Prynne, concerning the exclusion of prophane scandalous persons from the Passeover.
THe Analogy of the Law of the Passeover, as Master Prynne understandeth it, wil militat strongly against that which himselfe yeeldeth. That the uncleane might be kept backe from the Passeover longer then a monethmonth. That they were kept back by an authoritative restraint, and were cut off if they did eate in their uncleannesse. That some uncleane persons were not put out of the campe, nor from the company of men, but from the Tabernacle and holy things onelyonly. That all uncleane persons were not suspended from all Ordinances. That scandalous and flagitious persons were not admitted to a trespasse offering (which was a reconciling Ordinance) much lesse to the Passeover (which was a sealing Ordinance) without a publique penitentiall Confession of their sinne. M. Prynnes replyes to this argument of min… confuted.
CHAP. XI. A Confutation of the strongest arguments of Erastus, namely, those drawn from the Law of Moses.
THe strength of these Arguments put together. Which is not onelyonly e…ervated, but retorted. That the confession of sinne required Levit. 5. 5. Num. 5. 6, 7. was a confession of the particular sin by word of mouth: and that this confession was required even in criminall and capitall cases. That morall, as well as ceremoniall uncleannesse, was a cause of sequestration from the Sanctuary, yea much more, the morall uncleannesse being more hatefull to God, more hurtfull and infective to Gods people. That the exclusion of the unclean under the Law could not so fitly signifie the exclusion from the Kingdom of Heaven, as from communion with the Church in this life. That this legall Type did certainly signifie a sequestration of scandalous or morally uncleane persons from Church-Communion under the New Testament, is proved from Esay 52. 1. 2 Cor. 6. 14, 15, 16, 17. also from the exposition of Peters vision Acts 10. That among the Jewes such as attended a litigious action, or at least a capitall judgement, upon the preparation day, were thought defiled and not allowed to eate the Passeover. That it was not left to a mans free will to judge of his owne cleannesse or uncleannesse, nor to expiate his sinne when he pleased. That the universall precept for all that were circumcised to eate the Passeover, doth admit of other exceptions, beside those that were legally uncleane, or in a journey. The great difference between Sacraments and Sacrifices, which Erastus confoundeth.
CHAP. XII. Fourteen arguments to prove that scandalous and presumptuous offenders against the morall Law, (though circumcised, and not being legally uncleane) were excluded from the Passeover.
KNown presumptuous and obstinate sinners, were cut off from among their people, therefore not admitted to the Passeover. The Jewes themselves held that morall, as wel as ceremoniall uncleannesse did render them incapable of eating the Passeover. Who were esteemed Hereticall or apostat Israelites? Who Epicurean Israelites? That these and such like were not acknowledged to be in the communion of the Church of Israel, nor was it allowed to speake or converse with them, muchlesse that they should eate the Passeover. Grotius his argument, there was an excommunication for ceremoniall uncleannesse, therefore much more for morall uncleannesse. What God did teach his people by the purging out of leaven. If the shew-bread might not be given to Davids men, unlesse they had for some space before abstained from their wives, much lesse might known adulterers be admitted to the Passeover. Ezech. 2…. 26. discussed against Mr. Coleman. The originall words explained. Proph…ne Church members have the name of Heathens, and strangers. The qualifications of Proselytes, without which they were not admitted to Circumcision and the Passeover. That course was taken Ezra 10. that none defiled with unlawfull marriages might eate the Passeover. By Erastus his principles the most scandalous conversation was not so hatefull to God as legall uncleannesse. The Law of confessing sin, Levit. 5. Num. 5. is meant of every known sin, which was to be expiated by Sacrifice, especially the more notorious and scandalous sins.
CHAP. XIII. M. Prynnes argument from 1 Cor. 10. (which he takes to be unanswerable) discussed and confuted.
Mr Prynne in expounding that Text of the Passeover differeth both from the Apostles, and from Erastus himselfe. His argument (if good) wil necessarily conclude against his owne Concessions. If scandalous sinners had been suspended from the Manna, and Water of the Rocke, they had been suspended from their ordinary orporal meat and drinke. That the scandalous sins mentioned by the Apostle, were committed, not before, but after their eating of that Spirituall meate, and drinking of that Spirituall drinke. The Argument strongly retorted. The scandalous sins mentioned by the Apostle were Nationall sins, and so come not home to the present Question, which is of persons, not of Nations.
An Appendix to the first Booke.
THe Erastians misrepresent the Jewish Government. Their complyance with the Anabaptists in this particular. Their confounding of that which was extraordinary in the Jewish Church, with that which was the ordinary rule. Fourteen Objections answered. M. Prynne his great mistakes of Deut. 17. and 2 Chron. 19. The power and practice of the godly Kings of Iudah in the reformation of Religion cleared. The Argument from Solomon his deposing of Abiathar, and putting Zadock in his place, answered foure waies. The Priests were appointed to be as Judges in other cases, beside those of leprosie and jealousie. 2 Chro. 23. 19. further scanned. A scandalous person was an unclean person both in the Scripture phrase, and in the Jewish language. The sequestration of the uncleane from the Sanctuary, no civill punishment. Of Lawes and causes Civill and Ecclesiasticall among the Jewes. Of their Scribes and Lawyers. Some other observable passages of Maimonides concerning Excommunication. What meant by not entring into the Congregation of the Lord, Deut. 23. 1, 2, 3. and by separating the mixed multitude, Nehem. 13. 3. Five reasons to prove that the meaning of these places, is not in reference to civil dignities and places of government, nor yet in reference to unlawful mariages onelyonly, but in reference to Church-membership and communion. Two Objections to the contrary answered. One from Exod. 12. 48. Another from the example of Ruth. An useful observation out of Onkelos, Exod. 12.
The second Booke. Of the Christian Church Government.
CHAP. I. Of the rise, growth, decay and reviving of Erastianisme.
THe Erastian error not honest is parentibus natus. Erastus the Mid-wife, how engaged in the busines. The breasts that gave it sucke, prophannesse and selfinterest. Its strong food, arbitrary Government. Its Tutor, Arminianisme. Its deadly decay and consumption, whence it was? How ill it hath been harboured in all the reformed Churches? How stiffled by Erastus himselfe? Erastianisme confuted out of Erastus. The Divines who have appeared against this error. How the Controversie was lately revived?
CHAP. II. Some Postulata or common principles to be presupposed.
THat there ought to be an exclusion of vile and prophane persons, (knowne to be such) from the holy things, is a principle received among the Heathens themselves. That the dishonour of God by scandalous sinnes ought to be punished, as well, yea much rather, than private injuries. That publique sinnes ought to be publiquely confessed, and the offenders put to publique shame. That there ought to be an avoyding of, and withdrawing from scandalous persons in the Church, and that by a publique order, rather then at every mans discretion. That there is a distinction of the Office and power of Magistracy a…d Ministery. That the directive judgement in any businesse doth chiefly belong to those who by their prosession and vocation are set apart to the attendance and oversight of such a thing.
CHAP. III. What the Erastians yeeld unto us, and what we yeeld unto them?
THey yeeld that the Magistrate his power in Ecclesiasticis, is not arbitrary, but tied to the word. That there may be a distinct Church government under Heathen Magistrates. That the abuse takes not away the just power. They allow of Presbyteries, and that they have some jurisdiction. That the Ministery is Iure divino, and Magistracy distinct from it. We yeeld unto them▪ That none ought to be Rulers in the Church, but such against whom there is no just exception. That Presbyteriall government is not a Dominion but a Service. That it hath for its object onelyonly the inward man. That Presbyteriall government is not an Arbitrary government, cleared by sive considerations. That it is the most limited, and least Arbitrary government of any other, cleared by comparing▪ it with Popery, Prelacy, Independency, and with lawfull Magistracy. That the civil Magistrate may and ought to doe much in and for Religion, ordinarily, and yet more in extraordinary cases. That the civil Sanction is a free and voluntary act of the Magistrates favour. That Ministers owe as much subjection and honour to the Magistrate as other Subjects.
CHAP. IV. Of the agreement and the differences between the nature of the Civill, and of the Ecclesiasticall powers or Governments.
TEn agreements between the Civil power and the Ecclesiasticall power. The differences between them opened in their causes, efficient, matter, (where a fourfold power of the keys is touched) for me, and ends, both supreme and subordinate, (where it is opened, how and in what respect the Christian Magistrate intendeth the glory of Jesus Christ, and the purging of his Church;) Also effects, objects, adjuncts, correlations, ultimate terminations, and divided executions.
CHAP. V. Of a twofold Kingdome of Iesus Christ: a generall Kingdome as he is the eternall Sonne of God, the Head of all Principalities and Powers, raigning over all creatures: and a particular Kingdome, as he is Mediator, raigning over the Church onelyonly.
HOw this controversie fals in, and how deepe it drawes. That our Opposites herein▪ joyne issue with the Socinians. Nine Arguments to prove this distinction of a twofold Kingdom of Christ. In which, of the eternity, universality, donation, and subordination of the Kingdome of Christ. The Arguments brought to prove that Christ as Mediator raigneth over all things, and hath all government (even civil) put in his hands, examined and confuted. In what sence Christ is said to be over all, the heire of all things, to have all things put under his feet, to be the head of every man. A distinction between Christs Kingdome, Power, and Glory, cleared.
CHAP. VI. Whether Iesus Christ, as Mediator, and Head of the Church, hath placed the Christian Magistrate, to hold and execute his office, under and for him as his Vicegerent? The Arguments for the affirmative discussed.
THe decision of this Question will doe much, (yet not all) in the decision of the Erastian controversie. The question rightly stated. Ten Arguments for the affirmative discussed and answered. Where divers Scriptures are debated and cleared. How we are to understand that Christ is King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. How all power in Heaven and in Earth is said to be given to him. That the Governments set in the Church, 1 Cor. 12. 28. are not civill Magistrates, fully proved, Ephes. 1. 21, 22, 23. and Colos. 2. 10. vindicated.
CHAP. VII. Arguments for the negative of that Question formerly propounded.
THe lawfull authority of the Heathen Magistrates vindicated. It can not be shewed from Scripture, that Christ as Mediator hath given any Commission of Vice-gerentship to the Christian Magistrate. That the worke of the Ministery is done in the name and authority of Jesus Christ: the worke of Magistracy not so. The power of Magistracy or civill Government, was not given to Christ as Mediator, shewed from Luke 12. 14. Iohn …8 36. Luke 17. 20, 21. Magistracy founded in the Law of nature and Nations. The Scripture holds forth the same origination of Heathen Magistracy, and of Christian Magistracy.
CHAP. VIII. Of the power and priviledge of the Magistrate in things and causes Ecclesiasticall, what … … not, and what it is?
THat no administration formally and properly Ecclesiasticall, (and namely the dispencing of Church censures) doth belong unto the Magistrate▪ nor may (according to the Word of God be assumed and exercised by him, proved by six Arguments. That Christ hath not made the Magistrate head of the Church, to receive appeales from all Ecclesiasticall Assembles. There are other sufficient remedies against abuses or Mal-administration in Church-Government Reasons against such appeales to the Magistrate. The Arguments to the contrary from the Examples of Ieren…y and of Paul, discussed. Of the collaterality and coordination of the Civill and Ecclesiasticall powers. What is the power and right of the Magistrate in things and causes Ecclesiasticall, cleared, first generally; next, more particularly by five distinctions. 1. foreign belong to the civill power, but non foreign, 2. The Magistrate may imperare that which he may not elicere. 3. Distinguish the directive power from the coercive power. 4. The Magistrates power is cumulative not privative. 5. He may doe in extraordinary cases that which he ought not to doe ordinarily. A caution concerning the Arbitrary power of Magistrates in things Ecclesiasticall.
CHAP. IX. That by the Word of God there ought to be another Government besides Magistracy or civill Government, namely an Ecclesiasticall Government (properly so called) in the hands of Church-officers.
THe Question stated, and the Affirmative proved by one and twenty Scripturall Arguments. Who meant by the Elders that rule well, 1 Tim. 5. 17. foreign and foreign names of government. The words foreign and foreign Heb 13. 7, 17. examined. Of receiving an accusation against an Elder. Of rejecting an Hereticke. Of the excommunication of the Incestuous Corinthian, and the sence of the word foreign ▪ Of the subjection of the spirits of the Prophets to the Prophets. The Angels of the Churches why reproved for having false Teachers in the Church? Note that man, 2 Thess. 3. 14. proved to be Church-censure. Of the Ruler, Rom. 12. 8. and Governments, 1 Cor. 12. 28. A patterne in the Jewish Church for a distinct Ecclesiasticall government. What meant by cutting off, Gal. 5. 12? foreign properly what? Of the Ministeriall power to revenge all disobedience, 2 Cor. 10. 6. foreign 2 Cor. 2. 8. what? Of the visible administration of the Kingdome of Christ by his Laws, Courts, Censures. The Arguments for Excommunication, from Matth. 18. and 1 Cor. 5. briefly vindicated. That Elders are rulers of the flock. foreign a name of Government Ministers why called S…ewards of the Mysteries of God. foreign a name of government. Church-Government exercised by the Synod of the Apostles and Elders, Acts 15.
CHAP. X. Some objections made against Ecclesiasticall Government and Discipline, answered.
Mr Husseys objection doth stricke as much against Paul, as against us. The fallacy of comparing Government with the word preached, in point of efficacy. Foure ends or uses of Church-government. That two coordinate Governments are not inconsistent. The objection, that Ministers have other worke to doe, answered. The feare of an ambitious ensnarement in the Ministery, so much objected, is no good Argument against Church-government. M. Husseys motion concerning Schooles of Divinity examined. Church Government is no immunity to Church-officers from Censure. Though the Erastian principles are sufficiently overthrown by asserting from Scripture the may be of Church-government, yet our Arguments prove a must be or an Institution. Six Arguments added which conclude this point.
CHAP. XI. The necessity of a distinct Church-government, under Christian, as well as under Heathen Magistrates.
THis acknowledged by Christian Emperours of old. Grotius for us in this particular. Christian Magistracy hath never yet punished all such offences as are Ecclesiastically censurable. Presbyteries in the primitive times did not exercise any power which did belong of right to the Magistrate. No warrant from the word, that the Ordinance of a distinct Church government, was onelyonly for Churches under persecution: but contrariwise the Churches are charged to keep till the comming of Christ, the commandement then delivered. No just ground for the feare of the interfeering of the civill, and of the Ecclesiasticall power. The Churches liberties enlarged, (not diminished) under Christian Magistrats. The Covenant against this exception of the Erastians. The Christian Magistrate, if he should take upon him the whole burthen of the corrective part of Church-government, could not give an account to God of it. The Erastian principles doe involve the Magistrate into the Prelaticall guiltinesse. The reasons and grounds mentioned in Scripture, upon which Church-censures were dispenced in the Primi…ive Churches, are no other then concerne the Churches under Christian Magistr…tes. The end of Church-censures, neither intended nor attained by the administration of Christian Magistracy. The power of binding and loosing not temporary. They who restrict a distinct Church-government, to Churches under Heathen or persecuting Magistrats, give a mighty advantage to Socinians and Anabaptists. Gualther and Master Prynne for us in this Question.
APPENDIX.
A Collection of some testimonies out of a Declaration of King Iames, the Helvetian, Bohemian, Augustane, French, and Dutch confessions, the Ecclesiasticall Discipline of the reformed Churches in France, Harmonia Synodorum Belgicarum, the Irish Articles, a Book of Melanchton, and another of L. Humfredus.
The third Booke. Of Excommunication from the Church, AND Of Suspension from the Lords Table.
CHAP. I. An opening of the true state of the question, and of Master Prynnes many mistakes and mis-representations of our Principles.
A Transition from Church-government in generall, to Excommunication and Suspension in particular. The present controversie ten waies misstated by M. Prynne. That which was publiquely depending between the Parliament and Assembly, did rather concerne the practicall conclusion it selfe, then the Mediums to prove it. The strength of the Assemblies proofes for Suspension scarce touched by M. Prynne. That the power of Suspension is neither in the Minister alone, nor unlimitted. The question is practically stated by Aretius. The present controversie how different from the Prelaticall? The power desired to Elderships, is not to judge mens hearts, but to judge of externall evidences. The distinction of converting and confirming Ordinances how necessary in this question? Excommunication and Suspension confounded by M. Prynne (as likewise by the Separatists) contrary to the manner both of the Jewish Church, and of the ancient and reformed Christian Churche… ▪ M. Prynnes assertion concerning suspension, is contrary to the Ordinances of Parliament. The Question stated, as it ought to be stated.
CHAP. II. Whether Matth. 18. 15, 16, 17. prove Excommunication.
THe Erastians cannot avoyd an argument ex consequenti from this Text for Excommunication, although we should grant that the literall sence and direct intendment of the words, is not concerning Excommunication. Of the word foreign. That the trespasse meant vers. 15. is sometime known to more then one at first. That the meaning is not of a civill personall injury, but of a scandalous sinne, whether there be materially a personall injury in it or not. This confirmed by six reasons. That if it were granted these words, If thy brother trespasse against thee, are understood of a personall injury, this could be no advantage to the Erastian cause, in six respects. Erastus his Argument, that the trespasse here meant is such as one brother may forgive to another, answered. That the Law of two or three witnesses belongeth to Ecclesiasticall, as well as to civill Courts. That Tell the Church here can not be, Tell the civill Sanhedrin or Court of justice among the Jewes. Of the meaning of these words Let him be unto thee as an Heathen man and a Publican. M. Prynnes Argument retorted. That the Heathens might not enter into the Temple, to wit, into the Court of Israel, but into the Intermurale they might come and worship. That there is not the like reason for excluding Excommunicate persons wholly from our Churches. Of Solomons porch. That M. Prynne confoundeth the devout penitent Publican with the prophane unjust Publicans. The Objection from the Publicans going up to the Temple to pray, examined. Publicans commonly named as the worst and wickedest of men. Another objection, Let him be to thee, (not to the whole Church) as an Heathen, &c. discussed.
CHAP. III. A further demonstration that these words Let him be unto thee as an Heathen man and a Publican, are not meant of avoyding Civill, but Religious or Churchfellowship.
THe great disorder and confusion which M. P…ynne his sence of this Text might introduce. That it was not unlawfull to the Jewes to have civill company or fellowship with Heathens, unlesse it were for religious respects, and in case of the danger of an idolatrous insnarement, which is cleared by a passage of Elias in Thesbyte. In what sence Peter saith Acts 10. 28. that a Jew might not keepe company or come unto one of another Nation. That the Jewes did keep civill and familiar fellowship with Ger toschav, or Gerschagnar, the proselyte indueller, or the proselyte of the gate, who yet was uncircumcised, and no member of the Jewish Church, nor an observer of the Law of Moses, but onelyonly of the seven precepts given to the sonnes of Noah. Which cleareth the reason why the Synod of the Apostles and Elders, who would not impose circumcision nor any other of the Mosaicall ceremonies upon the believing Gentiles, did neverthelesse impose this as a necessary burthen upon them, to abstaine from blood and things strangled. Christians are permitted by Paul to eate and drinke with them that believe not. Further proofes that some uncircumcised Heathens had civill fellowship with the Jewes, and some circumcised Hebrews had not Ecclesiasticall communion with the Jewes. The Question decided out of Maimonides. That these words, Let him be unto thee as an Heathen man and a Publican doe imply somewhat negative, and somewhat positive. The negative part is, that he must not be worse used in civill things, than an Heathen man or Publican: that Excommunication breaketh not naturall and morall duties: neither is any civill fellowship at all forbidden to be kept with an Excommunicate person, except under a spirituall notion and for spirituall ends, not qua civill fellowship. The positive part is, that he must be used in the same manner, as an Heathen man and a Publican in Spirituall things, and in Church-communion. Heathens five waies excluded from communion with the Jewes in the holy things. Let him be as a Publican implieth two things more then Let him be as an Heathen, but exclusion from some Ordinances was common both to Heathens and scandalous Publicans. That the Phraisees speech concerning the Publican who went up to the Temple to pray, sheweth that he was not esteemed a prophane Publican.
CHAP. IV. A Confutation of Erastus and Bilson their Interpretation of Matth. 18. 15, 16, 17. as likewise of Dr. Sutcliffe his Glosse, differing somewhat from theirs.
THe scope of this Scripture wholly spirituall, concerning the gaining of a brother from sin, not civill concerning the prosecuting of a personall injury. Rebuke for sinne a common Christian duty. Which is necessary in sinnes committed against God, rather than in injuries committed against man. That any sinne by which thou art scandalized is a trespasse against thee. The Erastian Interpretation of Matth. 18. makes it lawfull for one Christian to goe to law with another before an unbelieving Judge, and so maketh Paul contrary to Christ. The same Interpretation restricteth the latter part of the Text to those Christians onelyonly, who live under an unbelieving Magistrate, while it is confessed that the former part belongeth to all Christians. It is contrary also to the Law of Moyses. They contradict themselves concerning the coercive power of the Sanhedrin. The gradation in the Text inconsistent with their sence. The Argument of Erastus to prove that the words as a Publican, are meant of a Publican qua Publican, and so of every Publican, examined. Their exception, Let him be TO THEE, &c. not to the whole Church, answered three waies.
CHAP. V. That Tell it unto the Church hath more in it, then, Tell it unto a greater number.
THe word foreign never given to any lawfull assembly, simply because of majority of number. This Interpretation provideth no effectuall remedy for offences. Kahal by the Hebrews and foreign by the Grecians often used for an assembly of such as had Jurisdiction and ruling power. Whether the two or three witnesses Matth. 18. 16. be onelyonly witnesses or assistants in the admonition, or whether the intention be that they shall prove the fact before the Church forensically, (if need be) and whether two or three witnesses must be taken when the offence is known to him onelyonly that gives the first rebuke; discussed? This their Interpretation brings a brother under the greatest yoke of bondage. Grotius his Interpretation of the word Church, not inconsistent with ours. Divers Authors of the best note for our Interpretation, that is, that by the Church here is meant the Elders of the Church assembled. The name of the Church given to the Elders for four considerations.
CHAP. VI. Of the power of binding and loosing, Matth. 18. 18.
OUr Opposites extreamly difficulted and divided in this point. Binding and loosing both among Hebrews & Grecians, authoritative & forensicall words. Antiquity for us, which is proved out of Augustine, Hierome, Ambrose, Chrysostome, Isidorus Pelusiota, Hilary, Theophylact. That this power of binding and loosing belongeth neither to private persons, nor to civill Magistrates, but to Church officers, and that in reference, 1. to the bonds of sinne and iniquity. 2. To the dogmaticall decision of controversies concerning the will of Christ. That this power of binding and loosing is not meerely doctrinall but juridicall or forensicall, and meant of inflicting or taking off Ecclesiasticall censure. This cleared by the coherence and dependency between verse 17. and 18, (which is asserted against M. Prynne) and further confirmed by eleven reasons. In which the agreement of two on earth verse 19. the restriction of the rule to a brother or Church-member, also Matth▪ 16. 19. John 20. 23. Psalm 149. 6, 7, 8, 9. are explained. Another Interpretation of the binding and loosing, that it is not exercised about persons, but about things or Doctrines, confuted by …ive reasons. How binding and loosing are acts of the power of the Keys, as well as shutting and opening.
CHAP. VII. That 1 Cor. 5. proveth Excommunication, and (b… a necessary consequence even from the Erastian Interpretation) Suspension from the Sacrament of a person un excommunicated.
THe weight of our proofs not laid upon the phrase of delivering to Sathan. Which phrase being set aside that Chapter will prove Excommunication, verse 8. Let us keepe the Passeover▪ &c. applied to the Lords Supper, even by M. Prynne himselfe. Master Prynnes first exception from 1 Cor. 10. 16, 17. & 11. 20 21. concerning the admission of all the visible members of the Church of Corinth, even drunken persons to the Sacrament, answered. His second, a reflection upon the persons of men. His third, concerning these words, No, not to eate, confuted. Hence Suspension by necessary consequence. His fourth exception taken off. His three conditions which he requireth in Arguments from the lesser to the greater, are false and doe not hold. Our Argument from this Text doth not touch upon the rock of separation. Eight considerations to prove an Ecclesiasticall censure, and namely excommunication from 1 Cor. 5. compared with 2▪ Cor. 2. More of that phrase, to deliver such a one to Sathan.
CHAP. VIII. Whether Judas received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper.
THe Question between M. Prynne & me concerning Iudas, much like unto that between Papists and Protestants concerning Peter. Two things premised. 1. That Matthew and Marke mentioning Christs discourse at Table, concerning the Traytor, before the Institution and distribution of the Lords Supper, place it in its proper order, and that Luke placeth it after the Sacrament by an foreign or recapitulation: which is proved by …ive reasons. 2. That the story Iohn. 13. concerning Iudas and the sop, was neither acted in Bethany two daies before the Passeover, nor yet after the Institution of the Lords Supper. The first Argument to prove that Iudas received not the Lords Supper from Ioh. 13. 30. he went out immediately after the sop. Mr Prynnes foure answers confuted. His opinion that Christ gave the Sacrament before the common supper, is against both Scripture and Antiquity. Of the word immediately. The second Argument from Christs words at the Sacrament. That which M. Prynne holds, viz. that at that time (when Christ infallibly knew Iudas to be lost) he meant conditionally that his body was broken and his blood shed for Iudas; confuted by three reasons. The third Argument from the different expressions of Love to the Apostles, with an exception, while Iudas was present; without an exception at the Sacrament. M. Prynnes Arguments from Scripture to prove that Iudas did receive the Sacrament, answered. That Iudas received the Sacrament, is no indubitable verity as Mr. Prynne cals it, but hath been much controverted both among Fathers, Papists and Protestants. That the Lutherans who are much of M. Prynnes opinion in the point of Iudas his receiving of the Lords Supper, that they may the better uphold their Doctrine of the wicked their eating of the true body of Christ, yet are much against his opinion in the point of admitting scandalous persons not Excommunicated to the Sacrament. M. Prynnes bold assertion that all the Ancients except Hilary onelyonly, doe unanimously accord that Iudas received the Lords Supper, without one dissenting voyce; disproved as most false, and confuted by the testimonies of Clemens, Dionysius Areopagita, Maximus, Pachymeres, Ammonius Alexandrinus, Tacianus, Innocentius 3. Rupertus Tuitiensis, yea by those very passages of Theophylact, and Victor Antiochenus, cited by himselfe. Many moderne writters also against his opinion, as of the Papists, Salmeron, Turrianus, Barradius, of Protestants, Danaeus, Kleinwitzius, Piscator, Beza, Tossanus, Musculus, Zanchius, Gomarus, Diodati, Grotius. The testimonies cited by M. Prynne for Iudas his receiving of the Sacrament▪ examined: some of them found false, others prove not his point, others who thinke that Iudas did receive the Sacrament, are cleare against the admission of known prophane persons. The confession of Bohemia and Belgia not against us, but against Master Prynne.
CHAP. IX. Whether Judas received the Sacrament of the Passeover that night in which our Lord was betrayed.
THat Christ and his Apostles did eate the Passeover, not before, but after that Supper at which he did wash his Disciples feet, and give the sop to Iudas. These words before the Feast of the Passeover, Joh. 13. 1. scanned. The Jewes did eate the Passeover after meale, but they had no meale after the Paschall supper. foreign Ioh. 13. 2. needeth not be turned, supper being ended, but may suffer two other readings. Christs sitting down with the twelve is not meant of the Paschall supper, and if it were, it proves not that Iudas did eate of that Passeover, more than 1 Cor. 15. 5. proves that Iudas did see Christ after his resurrection. A pious observation of Cartwright. Another of Chrysostome.
CHAP. X. That if it could be proved that Judas received the Lords Supper, it maketh nothing against the Suspension of known wicked persons from the Sacrament.
CHrists admitting of Iudas to the Sacrament when he knew him to be a divell, could no more be a president to us, then his choosing of Iudas to be an Apostle, when he knew also that he was a divell. Iudas his sinne was not scandalous but secret, at that time when it is supposed that he did receive the Sacrament. The same thing which M. Prynne makes to have been after the Sacrament, to prove that Iudas did receive the Sacrament, the very same he makes to have been before the Sacrament, to prove that Iudas was a scandalous sinner, when he was admitted to the Sacrament. He yeeldeth upon the matter that Iudas received not the Sacrament. That before Iudas went forth, none of the Apostles knew him to be the Traytor except Iohn, yea some hold that Iohn knew it not. That Christs words to Iudas, Thou hast said, did not make known to the Apostles that he was the Traitor, and if they had, yet (by their principles who hold that Iudas received the Sacrament) these words were not spoken before the Sacrament. Divers Authors hold that Iudas was a secret▪ not a scandalous sinner, at that time when it is supposed he received the Sacrament, yea M. Prynne himselfe holdeth so in another place. He loseth much by proposing as a president to Ministers what Christ did to Iudas in the last Supper. Christ did upon the matter excommunicate Iudas; which many gather from these words, That thou dost doe quickly. And if Christ had admitted him to the Sacrament, it could be no president to us.
CHAP. XI. Whether it be a full discharge of duty to admonish a scandalous person of the danger of unworthy communicating? And whether a Minister in giving him the Sacrament after such admonition, be no way guilty?
Mr Prynne doth here mistake his marke, or not hit it, whether the Question be stated in reference to the Censure of Suspension, or in reference to the personall duty of the Minister. Five duties of the Minister in this businesse beside Admonition. Admonition no Church censure, properly. Six conclusions promised by M Prynne, examined. His Syllogism concerning the true right of all visible members of the visible Church to the Sacrament discussed. Four sorts of persons, beside children and fooles, not able to examine themselves, and so not to be admitted to the Lords Supper, by that limitation which M. Prynne yeedeth. His Argument from the admission of carnall persons to Baptisme, upon a meere externall sleight profession, answered. His eleven reasons for the affirmative of this present Question answered. The Erastian Argument from 1 Cor. 11. 28. Let a man examine himselfe, not others, nor others him, faileth many waies. M. Prynne endeavours to pacifie the consciences of Ministers by perswading them to believe, that a scandalous person is outwardly fitted and prepared for the Sacrament. How dangerous a way it is to give the Sacrament to a scandalous person, upon hopes that Omnipotency can at that instant change his heart and his life. Of a mans eating and drinking judgement to himselfe.
CHAP. XII. Whether the Sacrament of the Lords Supper be a converting or regenerating Ordinance.
Mr Prynne in this controversie joyneth not onelyonly with the more rigid Lutherans, but with the Papists. The testimonies of Calvin, Bullinger, Ursinus, Musculus, Bucerus, Festus Honnius, Aretius, Vossius, Pareus, the Belgicke confession, and forme of administration, the Synod of Dort, Gerhardus, Walaeus, Chamierus, Polanus, Amesius, are produced against M. Prynne, all these and many others denying the Lords Supper to be a converting Ordinance. How both Lutherans and Papists state their controversie with Calvinists (as they call them) concerning the efficacy of the Sacraments. M. Prynnes distinctions of two sorts of conversion, and two sorts of sealing, being duely examined, doe but the more open his errour instead of covering it. Of the words Sacrament and Seale: concerning which M. Prynne as he leaneth toward the Socinian opinion, so he greatly cals in question that truth, without the knowledge whereof the Ordinance of Parliament appointeth men to be kept backe from the Sacrament. Foure distinctions of my own premised, that the true state of the Question may be rightly apprehended. The 1. Distinction between the absolute power of God, and the revealed will of God. 2. Between the Sacrament it selfe, and other Ordinances which doe accompany it. 3. Between the first grace, and the following graces. 4. Between visible Saints and invisible Saints.
CHAP. XIII. Twenty Arguments to prove that the Lords Supper is not a converting Ordinance.
1. FRom the nature of signes instituted to signifie the being or having of a thing. The significancy of Sacraments à parte ante. 2. Sacraments suppose faith and an interest had in Christ, therefore doe not give it. 3. The Lords Supper gives the new food, therefore it supposeth the new life. 4. It is a seale of the righteousnesse of faith, therefore instituted for justified persons onelyonly. 5. From the example of Abrahams Justification before circumcision. 6. From the duty of self-examination, which an unregenerate person cannot performe. 7. From the necessity of the wedding garment. 8. Faith comes by hearing, not by seeing or receiving. 9. Neither promise nor example in Scripture of conversion by the Lords Supper. 10. Every unconverted and unworthy person, if he come (while such) to the Lords Table) cannot but eate and drink unworthily, therefore ought not to come. 11. The wicked have no part in an Eucharisticall consolatory Ordinance. 12. Christ calleth none to this Feast but such as have spirituall gracious qualifications. 13. They that are visibly no Saints, ought not to partake in the Communion of Saints. 14. Baptisme it selfe (at least when administred to persons of age) is not a regenerating, but a sealing Ordinance. 15. From the necessity of the precedency of Baptisme before the Lords Supper. 16. From the method of the Parable of the lost sonne. 17. From the doctrinall dehorting of all impenitent unworthy persons from comming to the Sacrament, unlesse they repent, reforme, &c. (allowed by M. Prynne himselfe) which a Minister may not doe, if it be a converting Ordinance. 18. From the incommunicablenesse of this Ordinance to Pagans, or to excommunicated Christians for their conversion. 19. From the instrumentall causality of a converting Ordinance, which in order doth not follow, but precede conversion, and therefore is administred to men, not qua penitent, but qua impenitent, which can not be said of the Sacrament. 20. Antiquity against M. Prynne in this point. Witnesse the Sancta Sanctis. Witnesse also Dionysius Areopagita, Justin Martyr, Chrysostome, Augustine, Isidorus Pelusiot…, Prosper, Beda, Isidorus Hispalensis, Rabanus Maurus, besides Scotus, Alensis, and other Schoolmen.
CHAP. XIV. Master Prynne his twelve Arguments brought to prove that the Lords Supper is a converting Ordinance, discussed and answered.
HIs first Argument answered by three distinctions. His second proveth nothing against us, but yeeldeth somewhat which is for us. His third charged with divers absurdities. His fourth concerning the greatest proximity and most immediate presence of God, and of Christ in the Sacrament retorted against himselfe, and moreover not proved nor made good by him. His fifth Argument hath both universall grace and other absurdities in it. His sixth concerning conversion by the eye, by the booke of nature, by Sacrifices, by Miracles, as well as by the eare, examined and confuted in the particulars. His seventh not proved. Nor yet his eighth, concerning conversion by afflictions without the word. His ninth concerning the rule of contraries is misapplied by him. His tenth concerning the ends of the Sacrament yeeldeth the cause and mireth himselfe. His eleventh a grosse petitio principii. His twelfth appealing to the experience of Christians, rectified in the state, and repelled for the weight. That this debate concerning the nature, end use, and effect of the Sacrament, doth clearely cast the ballance of the wholecontroversie concerning Suspension. Lucas Osiander cited by M. Prynne against us, is more against himselfe.
CHAP. XV. Whether the admission of scandalous and notorious sinners to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, be a pollution and prophanation of that holy Ordinance? And in what respects it may be so called?
THe true state of this Question cleared by five distin…ions. Nine Arguments to prove the affirmative. That the admitting of the scandalous and prophane to the Sacrament gives the lie to the word preached, and looseth those whom the word binddeth. That it is a strengthning of the hands of the wicked Tis a prophanation of Baptisme to baptise a Catechumene Jew, or a Pagan, being of a known prophane life, although he were able to make confession of the true faith by word of mouth. That such as are found unable to examine themselves (whether through naturall or sinfull disability) or manifestly unwilling to it, ought not to be admitted to the Lords Supper. The reason for keeping backe children and fooles holds stronger for keeping back known prophane persons. Hag. 2. 11, 12, 13, 14. explained. A debate upon Matth. 7. 6. Give not that which is holy to dogs, &c wherein M. Prynne is confuted from Scripture, from Antiquity, from Erastus also and Grotius.
CHAP. XVI. An Argument of Erastus (drawn from the Baptisme of John) against the excluding of scandalous sinners from the Lords Supper, examined.
THat Iohn baptised none but such as confessed their sinnes, and did outwardly appeare penitent. Tis a great question whether those Pharisees who came to his Baptisme, Matth. 3. were baptised. The coincidency of that story Matth. 3. with the message of the Pharisees to Iohn Baptist, Ioh. 1. The Argument retorted.
CHAP. XVII. Antiquity for the Suspension of all scandalous persons from the Sacrament, even such as were admitted to other publique Ordinances.
O… the foure degrees of Penitents in the ancient Church and of the Suspension of some unexcommunicated persons from the Lords Supper who did joyn with the Church in the hearing of the word and prayer. Proved out of the ancient Canons of the Councels of Ancyra, Nice, Arles, the sixth and eighth General Councels, out of Gregorius Thaumaturgus, and Basilius Magnus, confirmed also out of Zonaras, Balsamon, Albaspin…us. The Suspension of all sorts of scandalous sinners in the Church from the Sacrament further confirmed out of Isidorus Pelusiota, Dionysius Areopagita with his Scholiast Maximus, and his paraphrast Pachimeres. Also out of Cyprian, Justin Martyr, Chrysostome, Ambrose, Augustine, Gregorius Magnus, Walafridus Strabo.
CHAP. XVIII. A discovery of the instability and loosenesse of M. Prynne his principles, even to the contradicting of himselfe in twelve particulars.
AN Argument hinted by M. Prynne from the gathering together all guests to the wedding Supper, both bad and good, examined, and foure answers made to it. That M. Prynne doth professe and pretend to yeeld the thing for which his Antagonists contend with him, but indeed doth not yeeld it: his Concessions being clogged with such things as do evacuate and frustrate all Church Discipline. That M. Prynne contradicteth himselfe in twelve particulars. Foure Counter-quaerees to him. A discourse of M. Fox the Author of the Booke of Martyrs, concerning three sorts of persons who are unwilling that there should be a Discipline or power of Censures in the Church.