Diotrephes Catechized 2, Treatise
Sixteene Jmportant Questions touching the Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction and Censures, Contradistinct to Civill, now challenged by a Divine Right.
THe serious consideration of the importunate Claimes of a new kind of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction by a pretended Divine Right, by those very men who of late so eagerly declaimed against the Old, as Antichristian and Papall, when challenged by our Prelates upon the self-same grounds and Title, hath induced me to propound these few Important Questions to the over-eager prosecutors of this supposed Divine Authority, at leastwise to moderate, if not extinguish those unseasonable deplorable late kindled flames of contention, which if not timely prevented may prove more fatall to our Churches, Kingdoms, then all the former dissentions, and break forth into a new Civill war, between our selves, when we have totally vanquished the common enemy. The Prelates deserting of their undoubted jus humanum, and unadvised challenge of a jus Divinum to advance perpetuate their Jurisdictions, and swearing men to this their Title by a new, &c. Oath, was the immediate forerunner, yea principall meanes of the utter subversion both of their Hierarchy and Authority. And we have cause to feare that some over-rigid Presbyterians inconsiderate zeale, in waving the Presbyteriall Authority vested in them by an unquestionable Ordinance of Parliament (to their full contents as most men deemed;) and resorting to a more dubious disputable (pretended) jus Divinum (formerly laid aside by both Houses of Parliament and the Assembly, though new resumed, revived,) the more highly to advance and firmely settle it in our Churches, may produce the like contrary unexpected effects: and either revive the old exploded Luciferian Episcopacy, or introduce that more feared Anarchicall Hydra or Bible of Independency, which they most endeavour to suppresse; or at leastwise revolve the censorius or corrective power of all scandalous sins and sinners into the Civill Majestrates hands, the farre safest of the three: on whose behalfe, I shall with the spirit of Peace and Meekenesse propose these following Queries, both to my Presbyterian and Independent Brethren; desiring their acquiescens in, or serious answers to them after sound deliberation (laying aside all private Interests and designes, whatsoever, which may misguide their judgments) for the sisting out of that one Golden medium of sacred truth, which can onelyonly reconcile and cordially re-unite us in the bonds of Love.
1. Whether all scandalous sins and offences now pretended by Presbyterians or Independents to be of Ecclesiastical cognisance, be not by Gods own Institution and command (as well before, as under the Law, and through out the Old Testament,) inquirable, examinable, and to bee determined, judged onelyonly by the temporall Majestrates, or Civill powers, and punished only with temporall or corporall punishments, not by any Ecclesiasticall Persons Officers, or Church Censures only, distinct from civill; since, we read that the severall scandalous sins of(a)Levit. 20.4 to 8. Deut. 13.4. to 18. c. 17.2 to 8 Josh 22.10. to 34.2 Chron. 23.17.15.13. Judg 6 30, 31 1 King 18, 40. 2 King 10, 20. to 29. c. 11, 18. Idolatry, (b)Exod. 21.17. Levi. 20.9. c. 24.10. to 16. 1 Kings 24.10. to 16. Dan. 3.29. Mat. 26.65.cursing, blaspreming, (c)Exod. 21.14. Numb. 15.…2, to 37.Sabbath-breaking, (d)Exod. 21.15, 17. Levit. 20.9. Deutr 22 18.19, 20. Iosh 1.18.1. Sa. 11, …. Ez. 7.25.29disobedience to Parents naturall or civill, (e)Gen. 26.11 c. 38, 24, 25, Levit. 20.10, 15, 17, 18. Deut. 22.22 to 25 Levit. 18.6. to 30. c. 21.9 John 8, 4, 5,Whordome, Adultery (f)Levit. 18.22, to 30. c. 20, 11, to 22. Exod. 22.19. Iudg. 20, 1. to 15Incest, rape, Sodomy, Buggery, (g)Gen. 9.5.6 Exod. 21.12, 13, 14. Levit. 24, 17. Num. 35.15, to 34. 1 King 2.32 to 35Murther, (h)Levit. 20 27. Deutr. 18.11. 1 Sam. 28.9. 1 Deu. 21 22Witchcraft, Sorcery, with sundry other sins, were by Gods own precept, to bee inquired after, censured, punished by the Temporall Majestra e, civill Congregation, powers and People only, with civill punishments alone, as putting or stoning to death, burning, (i)Deut. 22.28 29.9, c 23 2, 3 2 Cor. 11, 23.24. c. 6.5. Deu. 12.47, 48. Acts 16.22.23hanging [k] fines, stripes and the like, but never enjoyned to be examined, censured by Ecclesiasticall Persons, Officer, or to be punished by them with Church-censures, as Excommunication, Suspention from the Passeover, Circumcision, Sacrifices, Festivalls, or any publike Ordinances then in use, or exclusion from the Temple or Synagogues, as the marginall texts demonstrat. And more especially Ezra. 7.25.26. where King Artaxerxes sending Ezra the Priest (descended linially from the High-Priests before him, as is evident by v. 1. to 6) up to Ierusalem, with a speciall Commission to repaire the City, Temple, restore the service of God therein, and settle the Government of that place according to the Law of God, gives him this command: And thou Ezra, after the wisdome of thy God, that is in thine hand, set Majestrates and Iudges that may judge ALL THE PEOPLE that are beyond the River, all such as know the LAW OF THY GOD, and teach yee them that know them not: AND WHOSOEVER WILL NOT DO THE LAW OF THY GOD, and the Law of the King; let judgment be executed speedily against him, [not by Ezra the Priest, or any Ecclesiasticall Consistory or Presbytery of Priests, with meere Ecclesiasticall Censures of Excommunication or suspention from the Temple, or publike Ordinances of God no such Church Officers, punishments being then knowne, or instituted by Gods Law; but by the Majestrates and Iudges appointed, who were to punish them only with temporall censures, as the following words thus resolve] Whether it be unto DEATH, or to BANISHMENT, or to CONFISCATION of GOODS or to IMPRISONMENT: the only punishments censures then inflicted on Delinquents against Gods Law, as well as against the Kings: Yea had there bin any other censures Ecclesiasticall distinct from those temporall, which ought by any Divine Right or institution then to have bin inflicted upon notorious scandalous offendors against Gods Law, by the high Priest, or any other Church Officers or Judicatory, no doubt this devout King upon this occasion would have expresly commanded Ezra the Priest himselfe, or those Church Officers or Judicatories to have duely executed the same when he gave him this large Commission, and extended so much extraordinary favour to him, that hee cryes out in the very next ensuing words, ver. 27. Blessed be the Lord God of our Fathers, who hath put such a thing as this into the Kings heart, &c. Which as it expresly determines, that this Commission and forecited direction was inspired into the Kings heart by God himselfe, and so most consonant to his written word and Law? so it insinuates, that by the Law of God in those dayes, all scandalous Offenders again. Gods Law were to be punished only by the civill Majestrates and Judges with civill punishments, not by any Ecclesiasticall Officers, or judicatory, with any Church censures whatsoever. This may bee further evidenced by the Priests, Prophets Peoples, and Princes proceedings against Jeremiah, and Ʋriah, who for Preaching and prophecying falsly, [as was supposed] were punished by the King & Princes, upon the Priests, Prophets, and peoples malicious accusation, only by *Jer. 26. throughout c. 29, 26. c. 31.33, c. 37.18, 19 c. 38. &. 39.imprisonment and death alone, not by Church censures Church judicatories: Yea Deu. 13.5. false Prophets are expresly enjoyned to be put to death by the civill Majestrate, not punished by the Ecclesiastical powers with excommunications or suspentions. And it is most cleare and undeniable by the 1 King 22.26, 27. 2 Chron. 16.10. c. 18.25.26. Mat. 14.3 4 5. Luk. 22.23. Acts 5.18.19. c. 8.3. c. 12.2, 3 4. c. 16.23, 24. c. 22.19.20. to 30. c. 24. & 25. & 26. 2 Cor. 6.5. Heb. 11.36.37. That both in the Old and new Testament, false Prophets, teachers and broachers of Erronious doctrins; or such who were so reputed though true, yea the Apostls & Saints of Christ, for preaching, professing the Gospell and truth of God amongst the Jewes and others who reputed it*Acts 24, 14. c. 28, 22. Heresie, scisme or false doctrine, contrary to what they had formerly received were usually convented before the civill Majestrates, and punished with imprisonment, stripes, putting or stoning to death, and the like, but not with excommunication, or any Ecclesiasticall censures of divine institution, though now made matters of meer Ecclesiasticall Cognisance. And if so, whether the temporall Christian Majestrates and civill powers as such, have not now the self-same divine Authority to punish such sinnes and sinners under the Gospell, onelyonly with temporall punishments, without the interposition, examination, or Censures of any Church-Officers or Presbyteries, as the Godly temporall Majestrates and civill powers had then under the Law? If not, how the contrarie can be evidenced by cleare Scriptures, and by what texts in particular?
2. Whether the texts of Deut. 17.8. to 14. and 2 Chr. 19.8. to the end, do warrant any Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction, Congregationall or Classicall in causes meerly Ecclesiasticall, or any meere Church censures, distinct from the civill Majestracy, and temporall censures, as*See Mr. Rutherfords Divine Right of Church-Government, c. 14 qu… 10. p. 386 &c. 408. 412. 416. 505, 506. 545. some now pretend? Whether the genuine scope and sence of these texts, hold forth any more or other jurisdiction and power in the Priests, Levites, or High Priest himselfe, then this: That they joyntly with the temporall Judges, and chiefe of the Fathers of Israel not alone by themselves] should resolve (not ordinary plaine, or undisputable but only] all such doubtfulll, cases, or controversies which the ordinary Judges or Majestrates in their Cities held dubious, or too hard for them to determine aright between [not scandall and scandall, or who should be excommunicated, suspended from the Ordinances, as scandalous, ignorant or unfit and who not; but between bloud and bloud, plea and plea, stroke and stroke, (being matters of civill controversie) in their gates; and between Law and Commandement, Statutes and judgments, (to wit the judicial written Law of God) upon whose exposition any civill doubts, or controversies should arise which the people themselves could not resolve,] whose superior resolutions they should submit to, and proceed accordingly to execution; and he that would presumptuously disobey and not submit to their sentence, was not to be excommunicated or suspended,*Deut. 17.12.13. but put to death; (a meer civill censure) to terrifie others. And if this only be the ful sence and meaning of these texts, whether any episcopall presbiteriall, classical or congregationall jurisdiction to correct scandalls with meer Ecclesiasticall censures can bee deduced from them? Whether that speech of Jehoshaphat, 2 Chro. 19.11. And behold Amariah the chiefe Priest is over you in all matters of the Lord [not scandalous sins and Ecclesiasticall offences committed by the Priests or people, no matters of the Lord, but sins of men, detested by the Lord;] imply or necessarily enforce, that he had any Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction in point of judicature, to censure, punish all or any sort of scandalous sinners with Church censures] of which there is not one sillable in the text] vested in him by any divine Authority? And if so, whether it makes not more for Papall and Archiepiscopall, then Presbyteriall, Classicall, or Congregationall Authority? this power or superintendent jurisdiction over all matters of the Lord, being vested in this High Priest alone, and no other. Or rather, whether it be not clearly meant, that as King Josiah himselfe did by his owne Regall Authority appoint Judges in the Land, and in Jerusalem, in the preceeding 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. and 10. verses, to determin all controversies, and punish all Offences whatsoever, according to the Laws of God and that Kingdom; so, hee did by the selfe-same regall authority appoint Amariah, then chiefe Priest, over the Priests and Levites only, (implyed in the word You, not over the people of the Land] in all matters of the Lord, that is, to order, direct the Priests and Levites under him in their severall courses, and all matters whatsoever concerning the worship, service, Oblations, and sacrifices of the Lord to be per. formed by them in the Temple at Jerusalem: in the self-same manner, as he set Zebadiah the ruler of the House of Judah, over all the Kings matters; in the very next ensuing words? That is, (as all consent,) not over the people and kingdom for to judg and govern them, for that the Iudges forementioned were to do; but over his houshold, lands, revenewes as his Lord Treasurer, or Lord high Steward of the Revenews of the Crown, as the comparing of it with 1 Chr. 26.30.33. [And of the Hebronites, Hashabiah and his brethren, men of valour, a thousand and 700. were Officers among them of Israel on this side of Iordan westward IN ALL BUSINESSES OF THE LORD and in the service of the King, &c. And his Brethren, men of Vallour were 2000. 700. chiefe Fathers, whom King David made Rulers over the Rubenites, Gadites, and the halfe Tribe of Manasseth, for EVERY MATTER PERTAINING UNTO GOD and Officers of the King, joyntly: (therefore Church Officers made by the King, and alterable at his pleasure, not by any Divine institution of God himselfe;) and the paralleling it with these explenatory texts, Num. c. 3. &. 4. & 18.3. to 12. 1 Chr. 9.10. to 35. c. 23. & 24. & 25. and 26. 2 Chro. 5.7. to 14. c. 8.14.15. c. 13.9.10.11.12. c. 26.16. to 21. c. 29.3. to 35. c. 30.16. c. 31.2.3.11. to 20. c. 35.2.12. Ezra. 6.17.18. Neh. 12.40. to 47. compared with Heb. 5.1, 2. For every high Priest taken from among men, is ordained for men IN THINGS PERTAINING TO GOD, that hee may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sine, &c. infallibly demonstrate? And if so, then what Divine warrant is there from hence for any such Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction distinct from the temporall, as many now comend for, from these two noted texts? or for any Priests, Ministers of the Gospell, or Church Officers distinct from the temporall Majestracy, to examine, correct any scandalous offences by a meer Ecclesiasticall power, or to punish them with Church Censures, different from civill punishments?
3. Whether the Priests jurisdiction to judge of (l)Lev. c. 13. & 14.all causes of Leprosie (no scandalous sin nor offence, but a meer naturall infirmity,) and that only among the Jews, yea as well in houses, garments, Vessels; [no subjects of Ecclesiasticall censures] as persons: or their proceedings in the case of (m)Num. 5.12. to 31.Ielousie, by vertue of expresse speciall Leviticall or Ceremoniall Lawes (the only cases wherein the Priests were appointed to bee as sole Judges in the old Testament, whose proper office was,(n)Exod. 30.10. Lev. 4. and 5, c. 6, 7. c. 7, 7.8. Num. 8.19.21. c. 15.25. &c. Heb. 5.1, 2, 3. to offer sacrifices & make attonement for sins, not to censure or punish them;] be any infallible proofe of the Aaroricall Priests or Presbyteries Ecclesiasticall Iudicature or jurisdiction to censure all spirituall Leprosies of the soule with Church censures? Or of the Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction of Presbyteries or Independent Congregations to judg or censure all causes of spirituall Leprosie, or scandalous offences under the Gospell? And whither we may not as soundly argue from the Writ,*Regist. f. 267. Fit. Nat. Bre. f. 234. De Leproso amovendo; and the Statute of 1 Iac. chap. 31. as they from these Texts; Majors, Bayliffes of Towns, Iustices of Peace, Constables and other Officers may lawfully remove Lepers, and shut up persons infected with the Plague of Pestilence, Ergo, they may excommunicate and suspend from the Sacrament a l such as are scandalously or notoriously infected with the Leprosie and plague of sin?
4. Whether, Deut. 13.12, 13.14. Iosh. 22.10. to 34. Iudg. 20.1. to 18. 2 Chron. 19.9. to 11. Ezra. 10.16, 17. [where we read of temporall Officers, Princes sent and imployed Commissioners, as well as Priests, to inquire after Idolaters, Idolatry, rapes, mariages with heathnish Wives, and other Ecclesiasticall crimes] compared together, bee not a stronger Scripture evidence for proofe of the Parliaments, and Lay-Commissioners Authority, to inquire after, yea punish Idolaters and scandalous sinners, then any texts that can be produced by the Presbyterians or Independents out of the Old Testament, for probat of a divine right either in their Classes, Presbyteries or Independent Congregations to censure scandalous sins and sinners with Ecclesiasticall censures? And whither the Statutes of 31. H. 8. c. 10. [appointing a Lay Vicegerent in all Ecclesiasticall matters] 26. H. 8. cap. 1.37. H. 8. c. 17.1. E. 6. c. 2.1. E. c. 1. [appointing Laymen, and Lay-Commissioners, to exercise all manner of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction by way of censure,] doe not justifie such Commissioners to be legall, as well as these texts, warrant them to be in some sort divine?
5ly. Whether there bee any precept or president in all the Old Testament directly or punctually determining, that there was by divine institution an unquestionable Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction vested by God himselfe in Priests Levites, or any Jewish Officers, to examine witnesse upon Oath, convent or censure any scandalous sinners by excommunication, or suspension of them from the Tabernacle, Temple, pub ike Assemblies, Synagouges, sacrifices solemn publike festivalls, or other sacred Ordinances for any scandalous sin whatsoever? If so, then what are these precepts, presidents, and scandalous sins in particular? And whether it be probable they had any direct authority given them by God himselfe, to suspend or put back any from the Sacraments of Circumcision or the Passeover (which Baptisme and the Lords Supper now succeed) since both of them originally were ordered to be performed in private, by the(o)Gen. 17.10. to 28. c. 21 4. c 24, 22, 23, 24. Exod. 12.48. c 4.24, 25 26 Luk 2 21. Josh. 10.2, 3, 7 Acts 7.8. Parents or Masters of the Family not Priests or Levites; and executed or eaten by them in their(p)Exod. 12.3, 4, 15, 21, 40 to 46. Mat. 26 17. to 26. Mar. 14, 12. to 19 Master Rutherford… due Right of Presbyteries, p. 473 474, 475. several private houses, where the Priests and Levites had no Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction that we read of, and were not present at these sacred actions unles only at some few solemn generall Passeovers at Ierusalem where they were but Ministeriall, to (q)2 Chro. 30 13. to 21. c 35 1. to 20. Ezra 6.18. to 22. 1 Cor. 10. l. to 8. compared together.helpe kill the Passeover, and sprinkle the bloud not Magisteriall, to keep any back from eating thereof, by any pretext of Ecclesiasticall Authority.
6ly. Whether Ministers or Presbyteries under the Gospell, have any other or greater Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction then the Jewish High Priest, Priests and Levites had under the Law? And whether Christian Kings, Magistrates have not as large an Ecclesiasticall power and Authority under the Gospell, as any godly Kings or Magistrates exercised under the Law? If you answer negatively to the first and affirmatively to the latter of these demands; then how can that Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction of Presbyteries or Congregations, and their power of Church censures, distinct from the civill Magistracy, be any way ustified or maintained by the Scripture? If affirmatively in the first, and Negatively in the latter, then shew us direct Scripture Authorities to convince our judgments of what you thus assert, or else give over your pretence of jus divinum? It is confessed both by the Presbyterians, and Independents and cleare by sundry *See Question 1. in the Margin.expresse texts, that Christian Majestrates are jure Divino, and have an undoubted divine Authority, yea command to punish and cut off all scandalous sinners, Psal. 100 5.7, 8. Rom. 13.1 to 8. Pro. 20.26. Whether Presbyteries, or Independent Congregations have any divine Ecclesiasticall …ight to punish them with Church censures, is very disputable and denyed by many. Therefore it is the safest, readiest way to Unity and Reformation to remit the punishment of all scandalous offences to the Civill Magistrate, rather than to the pretended disputable questioned authority of Presbyteries, Classes, or Independent Congregations.
7ly. Whether there be any expresse texts in all the New Testament, and what in particular, which infallibly evince an Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction by divine right to be setled by Christ in all Christian Ministers, Presbyteries, or Congregations and in which of them in particular, to continue un alterably in all Churches of Christ to the end of the world for the excommunication or suspention of all kinds of scandalous persons from the Sacrament, though they externally pretend and professe their sincere repentance in general? or any certain rules prescribed them in the Gospell and in what particular Texts for the due e ecution of this jurisdiction in*I am confident there are hundreds of cases in summa Angelica, Rosella, Hostiensis, Antonius Corse…us, Tho. Ze…, and other Canonist: T… Excommunicatio, and others which wil happen in our Presbyteries concerning excommunications and suspention…, for the deciding whereof there is no one rule nor Text in Scripture: Then how can their proceedings therein be Jure Divine, and regulated by Gods words. all cases or scandalls that may happen? If not whether in can probably bee imagined that Christ in his wisdome would erect, institute and vest an Ecclesiasticall Government in Church Officers, without prescribing them any certaine rules whereby to manage it in all particulars, and leave them to proceed in an arbitrary way, according to their meere pleasures contrary to Mat. 28.19 20. If yea, then produce these texts to us for our satisfaction.
8ly. What rules or presidents are there in Scripture to relieve parties grieved by unjust, Ecclesiasticall censures, either by appeales or other ways and to what superior Tribunalls? If no such rules or presidents appeare therein; admitting Presbyteries, or Congregations Ecclesiasticall jurisdictions, censures to be Jure divino,] then whether by Gods own Law which provides them no reliefe the parties injured must not remain remedilesse when mo…t injuriously sentenced by any private Presbytery Classis Congregation without any help or benefit of Appeale to Provincial Nationall Synods, Parliaments or the Civill Magistrate? And if so: whether this will not introduce as many absolute tyrannies, and arbitrary Tribunalls, [against which we have so much contested of late] as there are Presbyteries or Congregations: especially if wee grant them a generall power of all things they themselves shall judge to bee scanda…ls, without confining them to particulars, or establish their jurisdictions by a divine right, which no meer humane power or institution can controle?
Ninthly Whether if Christ hath instituted or left any exact Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction, discipline or power of censures to his Church distinct from the Civill Magistracy and censues this pretended jurisdiction discipline or power be so absolute and sufficient of it selfe alone as to bee fully able to correct redresse, reform all abuses, scandalls, corruptions, and suppresse all Heresies, Schismes Errors, Vices, arising in every Church? If not, then we may justly suspect, it is no reall jurisdiction nor discipline instituted by Christ, ho would (r)Deut. 22.4 2 S m. 22.31. Psal. 19.7. 2 Tim. 3.17.institute and bequeath no incompleate, nor imperfect jurisdiction, judicatory, or discipline to his best Beloved Spouse the Church: If yea, whether is that jurisdiction now contended for by Presbyterians or Independents, such? If so, then it is compleate, and every way selfe-sufficient without the concurtence or assistance of the Christian Magistrate or any temporall authority to assist, maintaine it, or supply its defects: But this none can truly assert nor affirme.
For First, no Presbytery Classis or Independent Congregation hath yet challenged, not can claim by divine right, any coercive power by way of attachment, imprisonment, or fine to bring any party or witnesse summened so much as to appeare before them, in case of wilfull neglect or refusall to appeare or be examined, to prepare any cause or sentence.
Secondly In case any Ecclesiasticall censure of Excommunication or suspention bee inflicted by them upon scandalous person after ful hearing, if they absolutely contemne the same or refuse to conform themselves, or by open violence intrude into the Congregation, Church, or force the Minister to give the Sacrament to them though excommunicated or suspended.
Thirdly, In case any Hereticke Schismaticke, or prophane person shall wilfully seperate from our Congregations, (as thousands nov doe) refusing to communicate with us in any Ordinances, proclaiming us to bee no Churches, and passe a schimaticall sentence o Non-Communion with us, by reason of some unjust exceptions or pretences against our Orthodox Doctrine discipline, or form of government; and thereupon refuse to appeare before our Presbyteries, Congregations, or to submit unto their jurisdictions or censures; in all these and such like cases, the pretended divine Ecclesiasticall power, censures of Presbyteries, Classes, or Independent Congregations are at a Nonplus, and so defective, invalid of themselves to enforce obedience to such contumatious, or reduce, reclaime such hereticall, schismaticall, or prophane persons from their obstinacy, Heresies, Schismes and neglect of publike Ordinances, that they are enforced to pray in ayde from the Civill Magistrate by Capias excommunicatums, imprisonments fines or other such civil compulsory means the only effectuall course by way of censure used in all ages to suppresse, reform(*)I am assured a speciall (much desired) active Committee to examine and punish the broachers of new blasphemous Hereticall Anabaptisticall errors, and gatherers of Schismaticall Conventicles, and Jndictments of such as our Assizes and Sessions, would more suppresse them in one monethmonth, then all Ecclesiasticall Judicatories in an Age. See Justinian: Cod. lib. 1. Tit. 4.6.8. & Codex. Theod: lib. 16. Where we finde obstinate Hereticks, and Schismaticks, punished and suppressed by temporall Laws. 1. They were disabled to thus inherit by discent, or to purchase any Lands; to buy, sell, make any contract Will, or take any Legacy: to sue, or to be witnesses in any Court of Justice; to beare any Office, civill; or Military; to bee present at any councells or elections, or to List themselves Souldiers in the Army, whence they were cashiered when detected to bee such. Secondly, Their goods were all confiscated, or went to their next heires that were Orthodox, their persons banished, and in some cases imprisoned and put to death. Thirdly, Their hereticall books were prohibited and burnt, the houses where they kept Diurnall or Nocturnall Conventicles confiscated, if kept there with the Owners privity or consent: If by the Tenants privitie without the Land-lords, if the Tenant were poore; then he was publikely bastanadoed or whipt, if rich, then fined; and their conventicles both in Churches and private places prohibited, suppressed, under severe penalties. By these meanes and censures alone Heretickes. Heresies, Scismaticks have alwayes beene suppressed, restrained informer ages; but never by church censures, which they both derided and contemned. See Frid: Lindeb…ogus Codex Legum Antiqu. Leges Wisigothor, lib. 12. Tit. 2. Lex 2. Neap. 1. Tit. 1.2. Capitul: Karoli & Lud: lib. 5. Tit. 183. Paul. Geschinij, Constit: Carolinae, Ruhr. 3.4, 5. with our owne Statutes against Recusants, and Heretickes; And these will be the only meanes to suppresse them now. heresies, schismes, and the only way to suppresse, redresse them now) without which all their Ecclesiasticall censures, are both contemptible, ineffectuall and altogether insufficient to reform abuses: So that if the Magistrates bee Infidels, Hereticks, or Schismaticks, who will not; or prophane, negligent timorous or licentious persons, who care not or dare not to assist the Presbyteries Classes or Congregations inforcing submission to their Church processes, censures, they are so defective and ineffectuall of themselves, that none can justly call, or infallibly prove them to be the Kingdom, Scepter, Government, discipline and censures of Christ, whereby his Church must onelyonly bee governed, purged, reformed as some now pretend them to bee without any Scripture authority, which no where so much as once stiles Church-Discipline, Christs kingdome or Scepter.
10ly. Whether Mat. 18.15, 16, 17. (if meant of Christian Presbyteries or Church Officers, as is pretended, not of the civill Magistracy or Jewish Sanhedrim, whereas the word foreign, which wee translate Church, both in the Old and New Testament signifieth any Assembly, as well civill and prophane, as Ecclesiasticall, or Religious, as is cleare by Acts 19.39.41. and sundry Texts of the Old Testament, as Master*Due Rights of Presbyteries, pag. 349. 350. and Divine Right of church Government, pag. 231. Rutherford himselfe confesseth) gives any authority to them to proceed ex officio, against notorious scandalous sins (as Idolatry, Blasphemy swearing drunkennesse, &c.) since it speakes not of any publike scandalous offences against God and the Church, but only of private personall*So this word Trespas is used here, and in Mat. 6.14, 15. Luke 17.3, 4. Gen. 31.36. cap. 50.17, 1. Sam. 25, 28. Though some falsly aver it is never used in Scripture but for a trespasse or sin against God. trespasses between man and man, to bee proceeded against only upon the voluntary complaint of the party offended, after previous private admonitions, and then reproofes before witnesses, yea, of such offences, which upon private satisfaction wee are to forgive 77. times, without any publike complaint, or censure, Luk. 17.3, 4. Therefore not meant of meer publike scandalls, which no private man can remit, and no Church or Presbytery will grant that they ought to be 77. times remitted one after another, without the least suspention or excommunication, upon meet externall shews of Repentance: And whether, thou hast gained thy brother, in this Text be meant properly of gaining him to God by true repentance, or only unto him who gaines him, by way of reconciliation, and renewing friendship, as the phrase it selfe, compared with Prov. 18.19. intimates?
11ly. Whether, Acts 15.1. to 36. where a Synod of Apostles, Elders, and Brethren met together at Jerusalem, to debate and resolve a dubious point of doctrine only about Circumcision without exercising any act of discipline or Ecclesiasticall censure on any scandalous person be a sound divine Au…hority to evidence to any mans conseience, the Divine Right of Presbyteries, Classes, or Independent Congregations, to inflict Ecclesiasticall censures upon scandalous Delinquents, or to examine witnesses upon Oath against them, of which there is not one sillable in that text?
12ly. Whether the precept of Paul 1 Cor. 5.13. for putting away from among them the incestuous person, written to this particular Church in this one case of incest onelyonly, against which heinous scandalous sinne, (not so much at named among the very Gentiles, ver. 1.) being then under Heathen Magistrates they could not safely complaine to them of it without great scandall, nor go to Law before them for ordinary just civill things without offence as appeares by the very next words, 1 Cor. 6 1. to 9. when as by the Law of God had the Magistrates there bin Jewes or Christians this sin of Incest was to be punished by them, not with excommunication or suspention from the Church, but death it selfe, Lev. 18.8. c 20.11 12. Be any satisfactory or infallible argument for the continuance & exercise of excommunication, or suspention from the Sacrament in all Churches of Christ in all succeeding ages in all other cases of sin or scandall, though the Magistrates in them be Christian, and may, yea ought to punish those sins with death or other temporall censures, if complained of? Whether those that presse this text may not as well conclude from the very next words, 1 Cor. 6.1. to 9. that it is unlawfull for Christians to goe to Law before any Christian Judges now, and that they must sue onelyonly before their Presbyteries or Congregations for meere temporall matters, because Paul then commanded the Corinthians not to go to Law before heathen Judges to prevent scandall, but only in the Church before the Saints, or such Judges as the Church shold appoint them? As inferre, that all scandalous persons must bee excommunicated and suspended from the Sacrament by Classes, Presbyteries, and censured only by them now, not by the Christian Majestrate, because the incestuous Corinthian was then Ordered to bee put away and punished by the Church and Saints of Corinth, for want of a Christian Majestrate to punish him with death, or corporall censures? Yea, whether they may not as Logically and Theologically argue from the very next chap. 1 Cor. 7.27. where Paul writes thus: I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distresse [or necessity] for a man not to touch a Woman, or marry; Ergo, it is lawfull, yea it is necessary for Christian men or Women in all ages, Churches of Christ to vow perpetuall Virginity, and not to marry at all, as the Papists thence inferre in defence of their Monks, Nons, and unmarried Clargie; As reason from this Text, That Paul in regard of the Corinthians present distresse and necessity for want of Christian Majestrates to punish this incestuous; person with death, and civill censures adviseth the Church of Corinth, To put away from AMONG THEMSELVES that wicked person; [or thing as some read it:] Ergo all Ministers Presbyteries and particular congregations of Christ have a divine inherent Ecclesiasticall right and power in them to punish not only incestuous persons, but all other scandalous sinners with excommunication, suspention from the Sacrament, and other Church censures, even when and where there is no such necessity nor defect of Christian Magistrates but sufficient store of them both able and willing to punish such with civill punishments answerable to their crimes and scandals? This is all that can bee extracted from this Text, whereon they most rely; which must needs bee a grosse inconsequent, because no Apostolicall advice to any one particular Church upon a private extraordinary occasion and necessity only, can or ought to bee a generall binding Law or Institution of Christ to oblige all other Churches whatsoever in the like, or any other cases, where there is no such extraordinary occasion or necessity; As is cleare by one pregnant evidence in the 16. chap. of this very Epistle, v. 1.2. concerning the Collection then advised to be made for the Saints, by the Corinthians on every first day of the weeke, or weekely; which being but a particular advice and direction to this Church for that one Collection; is*See truth triumphing over falshood, p. 155. 156. no binding Law or Rule to all other Churches of Christ strictly to imitate in all their ensuing Collections, as is evident by Acts 13.28.29 30. 2 Cor. 8.1. to 21. c. 9.1. to 15. Rom. 13.25.26. Philip. 4.14. to 20. Else no Church could since appoint any publike monthly collections on week dayes, or fasting dayes, but only weekly Collections on the Lords day, under paine of transgressing the institution of Christ and this Apostle; which none dare aver: However, since the Apostle writes not here to any Classis, Presbytery, or Presbyter, but to the whole Church at Corinth; TO PUT AWAY FROM AMONG THEMSELVES, that wicked person: [that is, to seclude him wholly from their Congregation, Church, Company, and not so much as to eate at their Tables or keep any company with him at all, as is evident by ver. 7.9 11.] not to suspend him only from the Lords Supper of which there is not one fillable in this cha. nor of any such suspention in the 10. and 11. chapters where he purposely treates of this Sacrament] we may well question whether it makes not more against Presbyteries and Classes divine power of Excommunication, and a bare suspention of scandalous persons from the Lords Supper only, without secluding them from all other Ordinances and Church Assemblies as well as it, then for them, it being contrary to the very definition and practise of Excommunication hitherto known and used in the Church, to excommunicate a notorious scandalous person from the Lords Supper only once a monethmonth, a quarter, a yeare, for feare of infecting others, and yet to admit him daily or weekly to joyne with the Church in all other Ordinances but it alone; when all [aAlexan. Alensis sum. Theol: pa. s 4. qu. 21.22. Sotus in 4. Sent. dist. 22. Thomas, Richardus, Paludanus, Durandus; in 4. sent. dist. 18. p. Bins. fe…ldius Enchi. rid Theolog: pars 5. c. 1.] Schoolmen [(b)Gratian Caus. 11. qu. 3. Summa Angelica, & Rosella Tit. Excommunicatio Hostiensi…. Sum. l. 5. Tit. De Senten: Excom. Antonius Corsetus. Tit. Excom. Bochellus, Decret. Eccles. Gal 2. Tit. 14. c 2 Thes. 3.14. 2 John 10.11. 2 Tim 2.17. Tit. 1.13. c. 3.10. Rom. 11, 3. John 10.16.17. John 9.22.32, 33. cap. 12 42. c. 16.2. Numb. 5.2, 3.4. c. 21.14, 15. D ut. 23.1.2, 3] Canonists resolve, that excommunication [especially that they call Major Excommunication] excludes men, not onelyonly from the Sacrament but likewise from entring into the Church, the very society and prayers of the faithfull, and those who wittingly keepe company, buy or sell with such are to be ipso facto excommunicated; Whereas many now pretend it should seclude men from the Lords Supper onelyonly, but not from any other Ordinance, contrary to this, to (c) other Texts produced by our opposites for proofe of Excommunication, and all sound Antiquity.
13ly. Whether there bee any ground or example at all in Scripture to enjoyn the civill Christian Magistrate, in cases of obstinacy contumacy against Church censures inflicted by Presbyteries or Congregations to become a meet servant and executioner to Presbyteries, Congregations or Church Officers, (as the Pope and Prelates anciently made them, to enforce Obedience to their censures by imprisonment or other coercive meanes without any particular examination of the merits of the cause, or justice of the proceedings? Whether such Ministeriall execution of their censures, if admitted, do not necessarily subject the people to a double jurisdiction, vexation for one and the self-same scandalous crime which may prove more intolerably oppressive to them then the most exorbitant country Committees or Prelates consistories if not exactly bounded, & subordinate the Maj…stracy to the Ministery, Presbyteries & particular congregations in point of Authority? Wch if obliged by any divine Law to see Church censures executed and enforce obedience to them, then certainely Christian Majestrates as such, must either be Church Officers as well as Ministers or Lay-Elders; (the rather, because all Precepts given to Majestrates themselves in Scripture are given only to such*See Deut. 17.14, to 21. 2 Sam. 7.8, c. 32.1, 3. 1 Kings 17.9. 2 Chron. 9.8. c. 19.5. to 11. c. 1.9. to 13. Isay 49.23. Godly or Christian Majestrates who belive, embrace the Scriptures, and are Members of a visible Church or Christian state, as such, not to any Infidels or heathen Majestrates as heathenish, or meer Majestrates out of the Church, as some grosly mistake, else they were not obliged by Gods Law to see Church censures executed, obeyed, submitted too, if no Church Officers.
And whether the Antiqueries by affirming, it is the Magistrates duty to punish an obstinate Offender, at the motion of the Church or of one particular Minister which he ought …o do whether desired by them or no: doth not thereby grant that the power of punishing obstinate scandalous sinners, even for pretended Ecclesiastical Offences, belongs properly to the Christian Magistrates, not to Ecclesiasticall Consistories and Presbyteries?
14ly. Whether it be not more agreeable to the word of God, the Rules of Justice, and more conducing to the Churches peace for the Civill Majestrate juditially to examine punish all pretended scandalous persons with temporall censures, and then (if they still continue impenitent to certifie the proofs taken before him to the Presbytery, Classis, or Congregation, upon their request, for their conviction there, to ground an Excommunication or suspention upon, if there be cause: then to give them immediate power to examine all scandalls themselves upon Oath; without first acquainting the Civill Majestrate with it, or desiring his antecedent examination of the scandalls, of purpose to subject them to Church censures? Since we read of no such Examinatious upon Oath practised by Presbyteries, Church Officers, or particular Congregations among the Jewes or Christians in Scripture: which if taken in writing and recorded (as they ought to bee, that so they may be scanned upon Appeales) there must then be a particular Examiner or Register at least appointed in every Presbytery, Classis and Provinciall Synod to record them; for which they will expect a constant Fee from the Church or State or an answerable recompence from the parties accusing or accused; (which cannot be setled without Act or Ordinance of Parliament being new Fees and Offices) and so it will draw a very great unnecessary charge (farre greater then that of Bishops and their Officialls) upon the people, which they will unwillingly beare. In which regard it is fitest the civill Majestrates or Justices of Peace should only take the Examinations of scandalls, as they doe in cases of Felony and other scandalous crimes, and certifie them to the Presbyterie, or Classis, as there shall be need.
15ly. Whether it be not both unjust and unreasonable to presse the Parliament to settle any kind of Church government, as prescribed Jure divino, before it be clearly demonstrated or manifested to their judgments and consciences to be so, by perspicuous undenyable proofes from Scripture? Or to importune them to grant any unlimited arbitrary power to Classes, Presbyteries, or Congregations, to judge of or censure unknown contingent scandals [never yet thus censured from Adams dayes till now] before they can so much as conjecture what they are, or where ever they will bee perpetrated in our Churches? since offences alwayes use to (hLev. 24.10.10 27. Num. 25.32, 37.) preceed Lawes made to punish them; and ex malis moribus optimae oriuntur leges, as all Polititians have resolved? whether the demanding of such an unlimited power to bee now established, be not as bad, yea more unreasonable then the late Prelates &c. Oath (most justly damned, declaimed against, and savours not more of wilfulnes then conscience, of the spirit of (i1 John 3 9.10, 11.) Diotrephes, then of Christ, of whose kingdom some pretend it to be a most necessary and inseperable Branch? Whether any Prophet, Apostle, godly Presbyter private Congregation or Classis in the primitive Church, ever sollicited their Princes or Parliaments for such an exorbitant unlimited power, and who in particular? Or whether any reformed Churches beyond the Seas doe at this day claime, or really enjoy, execute any such an indefinite Arbitrary power (as some falsly pretend they doe) and what Churches in particular?
16. Whether Christian Princes and MajestrateskSee Iustin. Cod. l. 1. Tit. 7. De Episcopali Audientia Capit Caroli & Ludovici Jmp. l. 6. c. 301 313.314, 322.323, 326, 330. lib. 1. throughout. Leges Wisigoth, l. 2. c. 29, 30. indulging of overmuch power, honour and Ecclesiasticall Authority in point of Jurisdiction Church censures. and excommunication in former ages to the Clergie, under this apprehention perswasion, that they were most pious, conscientious, holy, moderat, just and humble persons, who would exercise it for Gods glory only, and the Churches good; hath not bin the true Originall cause of all that Antichristian Tyranny, persecution, exorbitances of Popish Prelates, and Clergiemen, which have over-spred, corrupted, infested the Church and people of God? And whether former examples of this kinde may not justly lesson us to beware of the like error for the present though our Ministers who claim this Ecclesiatiicall Jurisdiction now contested for by a Divine Right be never so godly, upright, discreet, humble, conscientious, since we know not wha… many of our Ministers, Elders who must exercise it in the Country are for the present; or what the best of them all or their successors at least may prove for thelActs 20.29, 31 2 King 8.12. Eccles. 2.19, 18. future, (mGen 3.5, 6.3. John 9.10.) (ambition being mans first sin, and most pleasing to our corrupt natures, as we see by the example of [m] Christs own Apostles, nMat. 20.20. to 29. Luk. 22.24. to 31:and daily experiences every where especially when they have engrossed more Ecclesiasticall power into their hands by pretext of a Divine Right, then ever the expresse Law of God or Christ himselfe in his Gospell hath delegated to them. It is very observable, that while the [(o)See Philip de Morney his Mystery of iniquity, Carolus Molinaeus, Commentar in Edict: Henrici secundi, &c. c ntra parvas datas, &c. Abbas uspergensis Platina & Bulaeus de vitis Pontificum Romanorum: Grimstons Imperiall History. Popes claimed their Papacy and superiority over other Churches by grants and donations from the Christian Emperors of Rome, they were very humble, loyall, and obsequious to them. But after the long enjo ment of their transcendent jurisdiction by imperiall donations had so far puffed them up with pride as by degrees to desert their true ancient claime, and challenge both their Papacy and Supremacy by a Divine Right from Christ himselfe by wresting divers Scriptures to their purpose [and some of those among others which our Divines now principally insist upon.] they presently cast off both their subjection and Loyalty to the Emperors at once; and so prosecuted them with excommunications, Interdicts, suspentions, rebellions, force of Armes, and parties raised against them in their owne Empires; that at last they quite trampled them under their f ete, disposing of their Crownes at pleasure, making them sweare so emne homage to them as their Vassalls, and to hold their Imperiall Crownes from them alone, who formerly did homage to and held their Bishopricks, with all the Papall jurisdiction they enjoyed only from them: Yea if our Presbyteries. Classes or Independent Congregations shall bee admitted to hold and enjoy all the Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction they now pretend to, by a Divine Right; and the Parliament their power, authoritie, onelyonly by a meere humane institution and not by as cleare a Divine Right as theirs; the next consequence I feare wil be (and we see it already maintained in some [(x)Mr. Rutherford. Presbyterians and more [(y)Mr. John Goodw…n. Master Henry Burton. Master Saltmarsh. Mr. Robinson and others.] Independents printed Bookes;) That our Parliaments Kings and temporall Majestrates must have not ing at all to do with Church Officers, or Church government by way of direction, correction, or app…a…e, but meerly as t…eir subordinate Ministers, to ratifie their determination… and enforce obedience to their censures; which if they neglect or refuse to doe or stop their proceedings by any Prohibitions or legall course, for ought I know, when their Divine pretended authority is setled to their minds, the next thing they shal heare of will bee; that which …ur Kings, Judges, and Officers, did heretofore from our Clergy in Archbishop*Eindwode, Provinc. lib. 5. Tit. de Paenis f. 226. &c. Jo. de Aton. Const. f. 138. to 142. Boniface his time, when they opposed their extravagances even a serious admonition to obey their dictates and after that an I…te…diction of all their Lands, Castles. Townes with a suspention of them from the Sacrament, or excommunication from or Non-communion with their Congregations for this Contumacy: And then Lord have mercy upon us miserable sinners we may sooner bewayle then remove that spirituall Yoak of bondage which we thus suffer voluntarily to be imposed both in our own and others neck…. It being a very difficult task and work of many ages to moderate abat…late or suppresse any Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction, though never so exo…ant especially if once legally setled, or but incroached by coulor of a Divine Right, as wee see by the Papacy and our late exploded Prelacy.
I shal therfore close up a l with the Apostles seasonable advice, Gal 5.1. Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free and be not again intangled with any Yoak of bondage, which Christ himselfe hath not imposed on us by a cleare and evident institution in his word: Christs *Matth. 11.30Yoake is easie, and his burthen light, to which all people must with cheerfulnesse submit: if the Presbyterians yoke, in suspending men from the Sacrament for all kinde of supposed scandalls, though they professe unfained penitence for all their sins, and eaenestly desire to receive it; or the Independents Yoak, in non-admitting or secluding those from their Congregations whom they judg not reall Saints, or will not subscribe to their private Church Covenants, and denying all benefit of Appeales to any superiour judicatories paramount their own private Congregations, (without any expresse precept or president in Scripture, to warrant these their practises, proceedings) bee not such, wee may justly suspect and reject them too, as none of Christs.
FINIS.
End of the text · William Prynne, Diotrephes Catechized 2 (1646)