j LIBRARY 
 
 JN 354 .R79 1843 
 Gillespie, George, 1613- 
 1648. 
 
 Aaron's rod blossoming, or, 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2015 
 
 https://archive.org/details/aaronsrodblossomOOgill 
 
AAEON'S 
 
 ROD BLOSSOMING; 
 
 OR, 
 
 THE DIVINE ORDINANCE 
 
 OF 
 
 CHURCH aOYERNMENT VINDICATED; 
 
 so AS THE PRESENT ERASTIAN CONTROVERSY CONCERNING 
 THE DISTINCTION OF CIVIL AND ECCLESIASTICAL GOVERNMENT, EXCOMMUNICATION AND SUSPENSION 
 IS FULLY DEBATED AND DISCUSSED, FROM THE HOLT SCRIPTURE, FROM THE JEWISH AND 
 CHRISTIAN ANTIQUITIES, FROM THE CONSENT OF LATER WRITERS, FROM 
 THE TRUE NATURE AND RIGHTS OF MAGISTRACY, 
 AND 
 
 FROM THE GROUNDLESSNESS OF THE CHIEF OBJECTIONS MADE AGAINST THE PRESBYTERIAL 
 GOVERNMENT, IN POINT OP A DOMINEERING ARBITRARY UNLIMITED POWER. 
 
 BY GEORGE GILLESPIE, 
 
 MIMSTER AT EDINBURGH. 
 
 For unto us A child Is l)orn, unto us a son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulder.— /s»f. ix.6. 
 Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour. — 1 Tim. v. 17. 
 And the epirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets, for God ia not the author of confusion but. of peace.— 1 Cor. xiv. 32,33. 
 N'e forte aut indiaciplinata patienUa foveat iuiquitatenij aut impatiens disciplina dlasipet unitatem. — A uffiut. lib, cotUra Danat. pott collut. cap. 
 
 EDINBURGH : 
 ROBERT OGLE, AND OLIVER & BOYD. 
 
 M. OGLE & SON AND WILLIAM COLLINS, GLASGOW. 
 D. DEWAR, PERTH. A. BROWN & CO., ABERDEEN. W. M'COMB, BELFAST. 
 HAMILTON, ADAMS & CO., AND JAMES NISBET & CO., LONDON. 
 
 MDCCCXLIV. 
 
[Published by Authority. 
 
 London, Printed by E. G. for Richard Whitaker, at the signs of the 
 Kings Armes in Pauls Church-yard. 1646.] 
 
 EDINBURGH : 
 
 liErRISTI D BY A. MUERAY, 1 MILNE SQUAM. 
 
ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 There are few conversant with the Works of the Scottish Reformers who do not 
 appreciate the talent and learning, and admire the style of composition and eloquence 
 displayed in the writings of George Gillespie. As his Works have always been held 
 in high estimation, and have been long exceedingly rare, and, consequently, high in 
 price, the publication of a Complete Edition of his Works has been suggested by seve- 
 ral Gentlemen of judgment and discrimination. 
 
 With that object in view the Publisher now issues his " Aaron's Rod Rlossoming," 
 which will be immediately followed by his " Dispute against English Popish Cere- 
 monies," and " A Treatise of Miscellany Questions," together with his " Journal of 
 the Westminster Assembly of Divines," (a work which has never before been printed,) 
 and his Minor Controversial Pieces and Sermons. An Account of his Life and Writino-s, 
 to form a prefix, will also be published, together with Title-page, Index, &c., to complete 
 the Work. 
 
 It is expected that the Series will form One large handsome Volume, printed in a 
 superior manner; and the Pubhc will thus have in a collected form, for the first time, 
 the Complete Wi'itings of one of the gi'eatest ornaments of our Church. 
 
 « 
 
Ekrata. — Page 20, col. 2, line 2 of note, for HI J read'*)*lj. P. 25, 1. 6, note, for J read 3. 
 P, 26, c. 2, 1. 27, for ^ read y P- 59, c. 2. line 5 from bottom, for "1 read I- P. CO, 1. 11 
 from bottom, for "7J read 1J. P. 190, c. 2, 1. 4 from bottom, for "jQj^ read "iDX- 
 
Dedication, ......... xv. 
 
 Author's Preface, . . . . . . . . xvii. 
 
 THE FIRST BOOK. 
 
 OF THE JEWISH CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 
 
 Ch.vp. I. — Tliat if the Erastians could prove what they allege concerning the Jewish 
 church government, yet, in that particular, the Jewish church could not be a pre- 
 cedent to the Christian, ...... 1 
 
 The Jewish church a pattern to us in such things as were not typical or temporal. If it could be 
 proved that the Jews had no supreme sanhedrim but one, and it such as had the power of civil 
 magistracy, yet there are four reasons for which that could be no precedent to the Christian 
 church. Where the constitution, manner of proceedings, and power of the sanhedrim are 
 touched. Of their synagoga magna, what it was. That the priests had great power and autho- 
 rity, not only in occasional synods, but in the civil sanhedrim itself. 
 
 Ch-VP. II. — That the Jewish church was formally distinct from the Jewish state or 
 
 commonwealth, ....... 3 
 
 We arc content that the Erastians appeal to the Jewish government. Seven distinctions between 
 the Jewish church and tlie Jewish state. Of the proselytes of righteousness, and that they were 
 embodied into the Jewish church, not into the Jewish state. 
 
 Ch.\p. III. — That the Jews had an ecclesiastical sanhedrim and government distinct 
 
 from the civil, ........ 4 
 
 Divers authors cited for the ecclesiastical sanhedrim of the Jews. The first institution thereof, 
 Exod. xxiv. That the choosing and calling forth of these seventy elders is not coincident with 
 the choosing of the seventy elders mentioned Num. xi., nor yet with the choosing of judges, 
 Exod. xviii. The institution of two co-ordinate governments cleared from Deut. xvii. A dis- 
 tinct ecclesiastical government settled by David, 1 Chron. xxii. 26. The same distinction of civil 
 and church government revived by Jehoshaphat, 2 Chron. xix. That text vindicated. Two dis- 
 tinct courts, one ecclesiastical, another civil, proved from Jer. xxvi. Another argument for an 
 ecclesiastical senate from Jer. xviii. 18. Who meant by the wise men of the Jews ? Another ar- 
 gument from Ezek. vii. 26. Another from 2 Kings vi. 32 ; Ezek viii. 1. Another from Psal. 
 cvii. 32. Another from Zech. vii. 1 — 3. That Ezek. xiii. 9 secmeth to hold forth an ecclesiasti- 
 cal sanhedrim. That the council of the chief priests, elders and scribes, so often mentioned in 
 the gospel, and in the Acts of the apostles, was an ecclesiastical sanhedrim, and not a civil court of 
 justice, as Erastus and Mr Prynne suppose ; which is at length proved. That the civil sanhe- 
 drim, which had power of life and death, did remove from Jerusalem forty years before the de- 
 struction of the temple and city, and, consequently, near three years before the death of Christ. 
 The great objection, that neither the Talmud nor Talmudical writers do distinguish a civil and 
 an ecclesiastical sanhedrim answered. Finally, Those who are not convinced that there was a 
 distinct ecclesiastical sanhedrim among the Jews, may yet by other mediums be convinced that 
 there was a distinct ecclesiastical government among the Jews ; as, namely, the priest's judgment 
 of cleanness or uncleanness, and so of admitting or shutting out. 
 
 Chap. IV. — That there was an ecclesiastical excommunication among the Jews ; and 
 
 what it was, ........ 19 
 
 Fifteen witnesses brought for the ecclesiastical excommunication among the Jews, all of them 
 learned in the Jewish antiquities. Of the twenty-four causes of the Jewish excommunication, 
 which were looked upon formally qua scandals, not qua injuries. Of the three degrees of their 
 
 b 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 excornmunication, niddui, clierem, and schammata. The manner and form of their excommunica- 
 tion slioweth that it was a solemn: ecclesiastical censure. Formula anathematis. The>xcommn- 
 nication of the Cuthites. Tlie excommunication among the Jews was a public and judicial act ; 
 and that a private or extra-judicial excommunication was void, if not ratifed by the court. The 
 effects of the Jewish excommunication. That such as were excommunicated by the greater ex- 
 communication 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 publicly 
 bearing his shame. The end of their excommunication was spiritual. 
 
 Chap. V. — Of the cutting off from among the people of God frequently mentioned in 
 
 the law, ........ 26 
 
 The sense of the Hebrew word JTlj^ scanned. That the commination of cutting oflf a man from 
 his people, or from the congregation of Israel, is neither meant of eternal death, nor of dying 
 without children, nor of capital punishment from the hand of the magistrate, nor yet of cutting 
 off by the immediate hand of God for some secret sin. 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, .... 30 
 
 The casting out of the synagogue is understood by interpreters and others to be an excommuni- 
 cation from the church assemblies, and not a civil punishment. Eight considerations to prove 
 this. That he who was cast out of the synagogue was shut out, not only from the company and 
 fellowship of men, but from the place of public 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 sy- 
 nagogue was abused by the Pharisees, as the casting out of the church by Diotrephes. 
 
 Chap. VII. — Other scriptural arguments to prove an excommunication in the Jewish 
 
 church, • . . . . . . . .34 
 
 That the separation from the congregation, Ezra x. 8, was excommunication. Josephus explained 
 in this particular. Of the devoting of a man's substance as holy to the Lord, which was joined 
 with the excommunication. What meant by the cursing, Neh. vii. 22. That the a^a^itfils or se- 
 parating mentioned Luke xiii. 25, was excommunication, or a segregation not from civil fellow- 
 ship only, but from sacred or church communion. The ecclesiastical use of that word touched. 
 
 Chap. VIII. — Of the Jewish exoraologesis, or public declaration of repentance by 
 
 confession of sin, ........ 36 
 
 The heathens had their public declaration of repentance from the Jews. The Jewish cxomologesis 
 proved from the imposition of hands upon the head of the sacrifice. The law, Lev. v. 5, did also 
 appoint confession of sin to be made at the offering of a trespass-offering, — which confession 
 was made in the temple, and in the priest's hearing. The law of confessing sin. Num. v. 6, 7, ex- 
 plained, and divers particulars concerning confession deduced from it. Other proofs of the Jewish 
 confession of sins from John ix. 24. Also from that which intervened between their excommunica- 
 tion and their absolution. Erom Ezra x. 10, 11. That David's confession, Psal. Ii.,wa3 published 
 in the temple, after ministerial 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 Jewish church, there was any suspension or exclusion 
 of profane, scandalous, notorious sinners, from partaking in the public ordinances 
 with the rest of the children of Israel in the temple, ... 41 
 
 The affirmative is proved by plain and full testimonies of Philo and Josephus, beside some late wri- 
 ters well acquainted with the Jewish antiquities. That the publican, Luke xviii., came not into 
 the court of Israel, but into the court of the Gentiles. Nor can it be proved that he was a pro- 
 fane publican so much as in the opinion of the Pharisees and Jews. That the temple into which 
 the adulteress was brought, John viii., was also the court of the Gentiles ; neither was she admit- 
 ted into the temple for worship, but brought thither for a public trial and sentence. Seven scrip- 
 tural arguments brought to prove an exclusion of the scandalous and known profane persons 
 from the temple. Somewhat dejure Zelotarum. What esteem the Hebrews had of an heretical 
 or Epicurean Israelite. That the temple of Jerusalem was a type of Christ (which is instanced in 
 ten particulars), and had a sacramental holiness in it, so that the analogy is not to be drawn to 
 an exclusion of profane persons from the word preached, but from the sacrament. 
 
 Chap. X. — A debate with Mr Prynne concerning the exclusion of profane, scan- 
 dalous persons from the passover, ..... 47 
 
 The analogy of the law of the passover, as Mr Prynne understandeth it, will militate strongly 
 against that which himself yieldeth. That the unclean might be kept back from the passover 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 vn. 
 
 longer than a month. That they were kept back by an authoritative restraint, and were cut off if 
 they did eat in their uncleanness. That some unclean persons were not put out of the camp, nor 
 from the company of men, but from the tabernacle and holy things only. That all unclean per- 
 sons were not suspended from all ordinances. That scandalous and flagitious persons were not 
 admitted to a trespass-offering (which was a reconciling ordinance), much less to the passover 
 (which was a sealing ordinance) without a public penitential confession of their sin. Mr Prynne's 
 replies to this argument of mine confuted. 
 
 Chap. XI. — A confutation of the strongest arguments of Erastus, namely, those drawn 
 
 from the law of Moses, . . . . . . .51 
 
 The strength of these arguments put together, which is not only enervated, but retorted. That 
 the confession of sin required. Lev. v. .5, Num. v. 6, 7, was a confession of the particular sin by 
 word of mouth ; and that this confession was required even in criminal and capital cases. That 
 moral as well as ceremonial uncleanness was a cause of sequestration from the sanctuary, yea, 
 much more, the moral uncleanness being more hateful to God, more hurtful and infective to 
 God's people. That the exclusion of the unclean, under the law, could not so fitly signify the ex- 
 clusion from the kingdom of heaven as from communion with the church in this life. That this 
 legal type did certainly signify a sequestration of scandalous, or morally unclean persons from 
 church communion under the New Testament, is proved from Isa. lii. 1 ; 2 Cor. vi. 14 — 17, also 
 from the exposition of Peter's vision, Acts x. That among the Jews such as attended a litigious 
 action, or at least a capital judgment, upon the preparation day, were thought defiled, and not al- 
 lowed to eat the passover. That it was not left to a man's free will to judge of his own clean- 
 ness or uncleanness, nor to expiate his sin when he pleased. That the universal precept for all 
 that were circumcised to eat the passover, doth admit of other exceptions beside those that were 
 legally unclean, or in a journey. The great difference between sacraments and sacrifices, which 
 Erastus confoundcth. 
 
 Chap. XII. — Fourteen arguments to prove that scandalous and presumptuous offen- 
 ders against the moral law (though circumcised, and not being legally unclean) 
 were excluded from the passover, ..... 56 
 
 Known presumptuous and obstinate sinners were cut off from among their people, therefore not 
 admitted to the passover. The Jews themselves held that moral as well as ceremonial unclean- 
 ness did render them incapable of eating the passover. Who were esteemed heretical or apostate 
 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 speak or converse with them, mucli 
 less that they should eat the passover. Grotius's argument. There was an excommunicatiou for 
 ceremonial uncleanness, therefore much more for moral uncleanness. What God did teach his 
 people by the purging out of leaven. If the shew-bread might not be given to David's men un- 
 less they had for some space before abstained from their wives, much less might known adulterers 
 be admitted to the passover. Ezek. xxii. 26 discussed against Mr Coleman. The original words 
 explained. Profane church members have the name of heathens and strangers. The qualifica- 
 tions of proselytes, without which they were not admitted to circumcision and the passover. 
 That course was taken, Ezra x., that none defiled with unlawful marriages might eat the pass- 
 over. By Erastus's principles the most scandalous conversation was not so hateful to God as le- 
 gal uncleanness. The law of confessing sin, Lev. v.. Num. v., is meant of every known sin 
 which was to be expiated by sacrifice, especially the more notorious and scandalous sins. 
 
 Chap. XIII. — Mr Prynne's argument from 1 Cor. x. (which he takes to be unan- 
 swerable) discussed and confuted, ..... 62 
 
 Mr Prynne, in expounding that text of the passover, differeth both from the apostles and from 
 Erastus himself. His argument (if good) will necessarily conclude against his own concessions. 
 If scandalous sinners had been suspended from the manna and water of the rock, they had been 
 suspended from their ordinary corporal meat and drink. That the scandalous sins mentioned by 
 the Apostle were committed not before, but after, their eating of that spiritual meat, and drink- 
 ing of that spiritual drink. The argument strongly retorted. The scandalous sins mentioned 
 by the Apostle were national sins, and so come not home to the present question, which is of per- 
 sons, not of nations. 
 
 Appendix to the First Book, ...... 65 
 
 The Erastians misrepresent the Jewish government. Their compliance 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. Mr Prynne's great mistakes of 
 Deut. xvii., 2 Chron. xix. The power and practice of the godly kings of Judah in the reforma- 
 tion of religion cleared. The argument from Solomon's deposing of Abiathar, and putting Zadock 
 in his place, answered four ways. The priests were appointed to be as judges in other cases be- 
 side those of leprosy and jealousy. 2 Chron. xxiii. 19, further scanned. A scandalous person was 
 an unclean person both in the Scripture phrase and in the Jewish language. The sequestration 
 of the unclean from the sanctuary no civil punishment. Of laws and causes civil and ecclesiasti- 
 cal among the Jews. Of their scribes and lawyers. Some other observable passages of Maimoni- 
 
viii. 
 
 COT^TENTS. 
 
 des concerning excommunication. AVhat meant by " not entering into the congregation of the 
 Lord," Deut. xxiii. 1 — 3, and by " separating the mixed multitude," Neh. xiii. 2. Five reasons to 
 prove that the meaning of these places is not in reference to civil dignities and places of govern- 
 ment, nor yet in reference to unlawful marriages only, but in reference to church membership 
 and communion. Two objections to the contrary answered. One from Exod. xii. 48. Another 
 from the example of Ruth. An useful observation out of Onkelos, Exod. xii. 
 
 THE SECOND BOOK. 
 
 OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 
 
 Chap. I. — Of tlie rise, growth, decay, and reviving of Erastianism, . . 75 
 
 The Erastian error not honestis parentibus natus. Erastus the midwife, how engaged in the busi- 
 ness. The breasts that gave it suck, profaneness and self-interest. Its strong food, arbitrary go- 
 vernment. Its tutor, Arminianism. Its deadly decay and consumption, whence it was. How 
 ill it hath been harboured in all the reformed churches? How stiffled by Erastus himself? 
 Erastianism confuted out of Erastus. The divines who have appeared against this error. How 
 the controversy was lately revived. 
 
 Chap. II. — Some postulata, or common principles, to he presupposed, . 79 
 
 That there ought to be an exclusion of vile and profane persons (known to be such) from the holy 
 things, is a principle received among the heathens themselves. That the dishonour of God by 
 scandalous sins ought to be punished, as well, yea much rather, than private injuries. That pub- 
 lic sins ought to be publicly confessed, and the offenders put to public shame. That there ought 
 to be an avoiding of and withdrawing from scandalous persons in the church, and that by a pub- 
 lic order rather than at every man's discretion. That there is a distinction of the oflSce and 
 power of magistracy and ministry. That the directive judgment in any business doth chiefly be- 
 long to those who by their profession and vocation are set apart to the attendance and oversight 
 of such a thing. 
 
 Chap. III. — Wliat the Erastians yield unto us, and what we yield unto them, 80 j 
 
 They yield that the magistrate's 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 I 
 away the just power. They allow of presbyteries, and that they have some jurisdiction. That the 
 ministry is jure divino, and magistracy distinct from it. We yield unto them, that none ought I 
 to be rulers in the church but such against whom there is no just exception. That presbyterial ! 
 government is not a dominion but a service. That it hath for its object only the inward man. 
 That presbyterial government is not an arbitrary government, cleared by five considerations. 
 That it is the most limited and least arbitrary government of any other, cleared by comparing it 
 with Popery, Prelacy, Independency, and with lawful magistracy. That the civil magistrate may 
 and ought to do much in and for religion, ordinarily, and yet more in extraordinary cases. That 
 the civil sanction is a free and voluntary act of the magistrate's 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 civil 
 
 and of the ecclesiastical powers or governments, .... 85 
 
 Ten agreements between the civil power and the ecclesiastical power. The differences between 
 them opened, in their causes, efficient, matter (where a fourfold power of the keys is touched), form, 
 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 kingdom of Jesus Christ : A general kingdom, as he is the 
 eternal Son of God, the Head of all principalities and powers, reigning over all 
 creatures ; and a particular kingdom, as he is Mediator, reigning over the church 
 
 only, 90 
 
 How this controversy falls in, and how deep it draws. That our opposites herein join 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 kingdom of Christ. The arguments 
 brought to prove that Christ as Mediator reigneth over all things, and hath all government (even 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 civil) put in his liaads, examined and confuted. In wliat sense Clii ist is said to be " over all, the 
 heir of all things," to have " all things put under his feet," to be " the head of every man." A dis- 
 tinction between Christ's kingdom, power and glory cleared. 
 
 Chap. VI. — Whether Jesus Christ, as Mediator and Head of the church, hath placed 
 the Christian magistrate to hold and execute his office under and lor him, as 
 his vicegerent. The arguments for the affirmative discussed, . . 96 
 
 The decision of this question will do much (yet not all) in the decision of the Erastian controversy. 
 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. xii. 28, are not civil magistrates, fully proved, 
 Eph. i. 21—23, and Col. ii. 10, vindicated. 
 
 Chap. VII. — Arguments for the negative of that question formerly propounded, 107 
 
 The lawful authority of the heathen magistrates vindicated. It cannot be shown from Scripture, 
 that Christ, as Mediator, hath given any commission of vicegerentship to the Christian magis- 
 trate. That the work of the ministry is done in the name and authority of Jesus Christ ; the 
 work of magistracy not so. The power of magistracy, or civil government, was not given to 
 Christ as Mediator, shown from Luke xii. 14 ; John xviii. 36 ; Luke xvii. 20, 21. Magistracy 
 founded in the law of nature and nations. The Scripture holds forth the same origination of hea- 
 then magistracy and of Christian magistracy. 
 
 Chap. VIII. — Of the power and privilege of the magistrate in things and causes 
 
 ecclesiastical, what it is not, and what it is, . . . .114 
 
 That no administration, formally and properly ecclesiastical ("and, namely, the dispensing 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 appeals from all ecclesiastical assemblies. There are other sufficient 
 remedies against abuses or maladministration in church government. Reasons against such ap- 
 peals to the magistrate. The arguments to the contrary from the examples of Jeremiah and of 
 Paul discussed. Of the coUaterality and co-ordination of the civil and ecclesiastical powers. 
 What is the power and right of the magistrate in things and causes ecclesiastical, cleared : first, 
 generally ; next, more particularly, by five distinctions. 1. Tic 'i^ai rris ixxXvf'ias belong to the 
 civil power, but not ra I'Uu. 2. The magistrate may imipcmre that whicli he may notefo'c«?-e. Dis- 
 tinguish the directive power from the coercive power. 4. The magistrate's power is cumulative not 
 privative. 5. He may do in extraordinary cases that which he ought not to do ordinarily. A 
 caution concerning the arbitrary power of magistrates in things ecclesiastical. 
 
 Chap. IX. — That by the word of God there ought to he another government besides 
 magistracy or civil government, namely, an ecclesiastical government (properly 
 so called) in the hands of church olficers, .... 124 
 
 The question stated, and the affirmative proved, by one-and-twenty scriptural arguments. AVho 
 meant by " the elders that rule well," 1 Tim. v. 17. Xljoso-Tas and ^^oi'irTdfityos names of government. 
 The words tiyovftUos and ■Trukiriai, Heb. xiii. 7, 17, examined. Ol receiving an accusation against 
 an elder. Ol rejecting an heretic. Of the excommunication of tlie incestuous Corinthian, and 
 the sense of the word WiTifiM. 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 Thes. iii. 14, proved to be church censure. Of the ruler, Rom. xii. 18, and governments, 
 1 Cor. xii. 28. A pattern in the Jewish church for a distinct ecclesiastical government. What 
 meant by cutting off, Gal. v. 12. ' AsroxoorTiw properly what ? Of the ministerial power " to revenge 
 all disobedience," 2 Cor. x. 6. Kv^Zrai, 2 Cor. ii. 8, what ? Of the visible administration of the 
 kingdom of Christ, by his laws, courts, censures. The arguments for excommunication from 
 Matt, xviii. and 1 Cor. v. briefly vindicated. That ciders are rulers of the flock, 'E'riffxni-os a name 
 of government. Ministers why called " stewards of the mysteries of God." Vixovof^is a name 
 of government. Church government exercised by the synod of the apostles and elders, Acts xv. 
 
 Chap. X. — Some objections made against ecclesiastical government and discipline 
 
 answered, ........ 143 
 
 Mr Hussey's objection doth strike as much against Paul as against us. The fallacy of comparing 
 government with the word preached, in point of efficacy. Four ends or uses of church govern- 
 ment. That two co-ordinate governments are not inconsistent. The objection, that ministers 
 have other work to do, answered. The fear of an ambitious ensnareraent in the ministry, so 
 much objected, is no good argument against church government. Mr Hussey's motion concern- 
 ing schools of divinity examined. Church government is no immunity to church officers from 
 censure. Though the Erastian principles are sufficiently overthrown by asserting, from Scrip- 
 ture, the may be of church government, yet our arguments prove a must he, or an institution. 
 Six arguments added, which conclude tliis point. 
 
X. \ CONTENTS. 
 
 Chap. XI. — The necessity of a distinct church government under Christian as well 
 
 as under heathen magistrates, ...... 148 
 
 This acknowledged by Cliristiaa emperors of old. Grotius for us in this particular. Christian ma- 
 gistracy liatli never yet punislied all .such offences as arc ecclesiastically censurable. Presbyteries 
 in the primitive times did not exercise any power wliicli did belong of right to the magistrate. No 
 warrant from the word, that the ordinance of a distinct church government was only for cliurches 
 under persecution ; but contrariwise, the churclies are charged to keep till the coming of Christ 
 tlie commandment tlicn delivered. No just ground for the fear of the interfering of the civil and 
 of the ecclesiastical power. The cliurch's liberties enlarged (not diminished) under Christian ma- 
 gistrates. Tlie Covenant against this exception of the Erastians. The Christian magistrate, if he 
 should take upon him the wliole burden of the corrective part of cliurch government, could not 
 give an account to God of it. Tlie Erastian pi-inciples do involve the magistrate into the prela- 
 tical guiltiness. Tlie reasons and grounds mentioned in Scripture upon which church censures 
 were dispensed in tlie primitive cliurches, are no other than concern the churches under Cliris- 
 tian magistrates. The end of cliurch censures neither intended nor attained by the administra- 
 tion of Christian magistracy. The power of binding and loosing not temporary. Tliey who re- 
 strict a distinct ciiurcli government to churches under heathen or persecuting magistrates give 
 a mighty advantage to Socinians and Anabaptists. Gualther and Mr Pryune for us in this 
 question. 
 
 Appendix to the Second Book, . . , . . .153 
 
 A collection of some testimonies out of a declaration of King James, the Helvetian, Bohemian, Au- 
 gustine, French and Dutch Confessions, the ecclesiastical discipline of tlie reformed churches in 
 Erance, Harmonia Synodorum Belgicarum, the Irish Articles, a book of Alelauchton, and another 
 of L. liumfredus. 
 
 THE THIRD BOOK. 
 
 OF EXCOMMUNICATION FROM THE CHURCH, AND OF SUSPENSION FROM THE 
 
 LORD'S TABLE. 
 
 Chap. I. — An opening of the true state of the question, and of Mr Prynne's many 
 
 mistakes and misrepresentations of our principles, . . . 1 56 
 
 A transition from church government in general to excommunication and suspension in particular. 
 The present controversy ten ways misstated by Mr I'rynne. That wliicli was publicly depending 
 between the Parliament and Assembly did rather concern the practical conclusion itself than the 
 mediums to prove it. The strength of the Assembly's proofs for suspension scarce touched by Mr 
 Prynne. That the power of suspension is neither in the minister alone, nor unlimited. The 
 question is practically stated by Aretius. The present controversy how different from the prela- 
 tical ? The power desired to elderships, is not to judge men's hearts, but to judge of external evi- 
 dences. Tlie distinction of converting and confirming ordinances, how necessary in this ques- 
 tion ? Excommunication and suspension confounded by Mr Prynne (as likewise by the Separa- 
 tists), contrary to the manner both of the Jewish church, and of the ancient and reformed Chris- 
 tian churches. Mr Prynne's assertion concerning suspension is contrary to the ordinances of 
 parliament. The question stated as it ought to be stated. 
 
 Chap. II. — Whether Matt, xviii. 15 — 17 prove excommunication, . . 162 
 
 The Erastians cannot avoid an argument ex consequenti from this text for excommunication, al- 
 though we should grant that the literal sense and direct intendment of the words is not concern- 
 ing excommunication. Of the word ixxXr^iria- That the trespass meant ver. 15, is sometime 
 known to more than one at first. That the meaning is not of a civil personal injury, but of a 
 scandalous sin, whether there be materially a personal injury in it or not. This confirmed by six 
 reasons. That if it were granted these words, " If thy brother trespass against thee," are under- 
 stood of a personal injury, this could be no advantage to the Erastian cause, in six respects. 
 Erastus's argument, that tlie trespass here meant is such as one brother may forgive to another, 
 answered. That the law of two or three witnesses belongeth to ecclesiastical, as well as to civil 
 courts. That " Tell the church" here, cannot be, Tell the civil sanhedrim or court of justice among 
 the Jews. Of the meaning of these words, " Let him be unto thee as an lieathen man and a pub- 
 lican." Mr Pynne's 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 Solo- 
 mon's porch. That Mr Prynne confoundeth the devout penitent publican with the profane un- 
 just publicans. The objection from the publican's 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 churcli) as an heathen," &c., discussed. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 XI. 
 
 Chap. III. — A further demonstration that these words, " Let him be unto thee as 
 an heathen man and a pubhcan," are not meant of avoidino- civil, but rehgious 
 or church fellowship, ....... 170 
 
 The great disorder and confusion which Mr Prynne's sense of this text might introduce. That it 
 Teas not unlawful to the Jews to have civil company or fellowship with heathens, unless it were for 
 religious respects, and, in case of the danger of an idolatrous ensnarement, which is cleared by a 
 passage of Elias in Tishbite. In what sense Peter saith, Acts x. 28, that a Jew might not keep 
 company, or come unto one of another nation. That the Jews did keep civil and familiar fellow- 
 ship with Ger toschav, or Ger schagnar, the proselyte indweller, or the proselyte of the gate, who 
 yet was uncircumcised, and no member of the Jewish church, nor an observer of the law of Mo- 
 ses, but only of the seven precepts given to the sons of Noah ; which cleareth the reason why 
 the synod of the apostles and elders, who would not impose circumcision, nor any other of the 
 Mosaical ceremonies upon the believing Gentiles, did, nevertheless, impose this as a necessary 
 burden upon them, to abstain from blood and things strangled. Christians are permitted by 
 Paul to eat and drink with them that believe not. Further proofs, that some uncircumcised hea- 
 thens had civil fellowship with the Jews, and some circumcised Hebrews had not ecclesiastical 
 communion with the Jews. The question decided out of Maimonides. That these words, "Let 
 him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican," do imply somewhat negative, and somewhat 
 positive. The negative part is, that he must not be worse used in civil things than an heathen 
 man or publican ; that excommunication breaketh not natural and moral duties ; neither is any 
 civil fellowship at all forbidden to be kept with an excommunicate person, except under a spiri- 
 tual notion and for spiritual ends, not qua civil fellowship. The positive part is, that he must be 
 used in the same manner as an heathen man and a publican in spiritual things, and in church 
 communion. Heathens five ways excluded from communion with the Jews in the holy things. 
 " Let him be as a publican," implieth two things more than " Let him be as an heathen ;" but ex- 
 clusion from some ordinances was common both to heathens and scandalous publicans. That the 
 Pharisee's speech concerning the publican who went up to the temple to pray, showeth that he 
 was not esteemed a pi-ofane publican. 
 
 Chap. IV. — A confutation of Erastus andBilson's interpretation of Matt, xviii. 15 — 
 
 17, as hkewise of Dr Sutcliffe's gloss differing somewhat from theirs, . 181 
 
 The scope of this scripture wholly spiritual, concerning the gaining of a brother from sin, not civil, 
 concerning the prosecuting of a personal injury. Rebuke for sin a common Christian duty, 
 which is necessary in sins committed against God, rather than in injuries committed against 
 man. That any sin by which thou art scandalised is a trespass against thee. The Erastian inter- 
 pretation of Watt, xviii. makes it lawful for one Christian to go to law with anotlier before an un- 
 believing judge, and so maketh Paul contrary to Christ. The same interpretation restricteth the 
 latter part of tlie text to those Christians only 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 
 Moses. They contradict themselves concerning the coercive power of the sanhedrim. The gra- 
 dation in the text inconsistent with their sense. 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 ways. 
 
 Chap. V.— That " Tell it unto the church," hath more in it than " Tell it unto a 
 
 greater number," ....... 187 
 
 The word ixxXrm-la. never given to any lawful assembly simply because of majority of number. This 
 interpretation provideth no effectual remedy for offences. Kahal by the Hebrews, and ixxXwia 
 by the Grecians, often used for an assembly of such as had jurisdiction and ruling power. Whe- 
 ther the two or three witnesses, Matt, xviii. 16, be only 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 only that 
 gives the first rebuke, discussed. This, their interpretation, brings a brother under the greatest 
 yoke of bondage. Grotius's interpretation of the word church not inconsistent with ours. Divers 
 authors of the best note for our interpretation ; tliat 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 con- 
 siderations. 
 
 Chap. VI.—" Of the power of binding and loosing," Matt, xviii. 18, . . 190 
 
 Onr opposites extremely difEculted and divided in this point. Binding and loosing, both among 
 Hebrews and Grecians, authoritative and forensical words. Antiquity for us, which is proved out 
 of Augustine, Jerome, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Isidorus, Pelusiota, Hilarius, Theophylact. That 
 this power of binding and loosing belongeth neither to private persons nor to civil magistrates, 
 but to church officers ; and that in reference, 1. To the bonds of sin and iniquity ; 2. To the dog- 
 matical decision of controversy concerning the will of Clirist. That this power of binding and 
 loosing is not merely doctrinal, but juridical or forensical, and meant of inflicting or taking off 
 ecclesiastical censure. This cleared by the coherence and dependency between ver. 17 and 18 
 f which is asserted against Jlr Prynne), and further confirmed by eleven reasons. In which 
 the agreement of twi? on earth, ver. 19 ; the restriction of the rule to a brother or church mem- 
 ber, also Matt. xvi. 19; John xx. 23; Psal. cxlix. 6 — 9, are explained. Another interpretation 
 
XII. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 of the binding and loosing, that it is not exercised about persons, but about things or doctrines, 
 confuted by five reasons. How binding and loosing arc acts of the power of the keys, as well as 
 shutting and opening. 
 
 Chap. VII. — That 1 Cor. v. provcth excommunication and (by a necessary conse- 
 quence, even from the I^rastian interpretation) suspension from the sacrament 
 of a person unexcommunicated, . . . . . .198 
 
 The weight of our proofs not laid upon the phrase of delivering to Satan. Which phrase being set 
 aside, tliat chapter will prove excommunication. Ver. 8, " Let us keep the passover," Ac, applied 
 to the Lord's supper, even by Mr Prynne himself. Mr Prynne's first exception from 1 Cor. x. 
 16, 17 ; xi. 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 cat," confuted. Hence suspension by 
 necessary consequence. His fourth exception taken off. His three conditions which he requir- 
 eth in arguments from the lesser to the greater, are false and do not hold. Our argument from 
 this text doth not touch upon the rock of separation. Eight considerations to prove an ecclesi- 
 astical censure, and, namely, excommunication from, 1 Cor. v. compared with 2 Cor. ii. 2. More 
 of that phrase, " To deliver such an one to Satan." 
 
 Chap. VIII. — Whether Judas received the sacrament of the Lord's supper, . 204 
 
 The question between Mr Prynne and me concerning Judas much like unto that between Papists 
 and Protestants concerning Peter. Two things premised. 1. That Matthew and Mark, mention- 
 ing Christ's discourse at table concerning the traitor, before the institution and distribution of 
 the Lord's supper, place it in its proper order, and that Luke placeth it after the sacrament by 
 an icrri^oXdyia or recapitulation, which is proved by five reasons. 2. That the story, John xiii., 
 concerning Judas and the sop, was neither acted in Bethany two days before the passover, nor 
 yet after the institution of the Lord's supper. The first argument to prove that Judas received 
 not the Lord's supper, from John xiii. 30, " he went out immediately after the sop." Mr Prynne's 
 four 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 
 Christ's words at the sacrament. That which Mr Prynne holds, viz., that at that time ("when 
 Christ infallibly knew Judas to be lost) he meant conditionally that his body was broken and his 
 blood shed for Judas, confuted by three reasons. The third argument from the different expres- 
 sions of love to the apostles, with an exception, while Judas was present ; without an exception, at 
 the sacrament. Mr Prynne's arguments from Scripture to prove that Judas did receive the sacra- 
 ment, answered. That Judas received the sacrament is no indubitable verity, as Mr Prynne calls 
 it, but hath been much controverted both among fathers. Papists and Protestants. That the 
 Lutherans, who are much of Mr Prynne's opinion in the point of Judas's receiving of the Lord's 
 supper, that they may the better uphold their doctrine of the wicked's eating of the true body of 
 Christ, yet are much against his opinion in the point of admitting scandalous persons, not excom- 
 municated, to the sacrament. Mr Prynne's bold assertion, that all the ancients, except Ililarius 
 only, do unanimously accord that Judas received the Lord's supper, without one dissenting voice, 
 disproved as most false, and confuted by the testimonies of Clemens, Dionysius Areopagita, Maxi- 
 mus, Pachymeres, Ammonius Alexandrinus, Tacinus, Innocentius III. Rupertns Tultiensis, yea, 
 by those very passages of Theophylact and Victor Antiochenus, cited by himself. Many modern 
 w riters also against his opinion, as of the Papists, — Salmeron, Turrianus, Barradius ; of Protes- 
 tants, — Danseus, Kleinwitzius, IPiscator, Beza, Tossanus, Musculus, Zanchius, Gomarus, Diodati, 
 Grotius. Tlie testimonies cited by Mr Prynne for Judas's receiving of the sacrament examined ; 
 some of them found false, others prove not his point, others who think that Judas did receive the 
 sacrament, arc clear against the admission of known profane persons. The Confession of Bohe- 
 mia and Belgia not against us, but against Mr Prynne. 
 
 Chap. IX. — Whether Judas received the sacrament of the passover that night in which 
 
 our Lord was betrayed, . . . . . . .216 
 
 That Christ and his apostles did eat the passover not before, but after that supper at which he did 
 wash his disciples' feet and give the sop to Judas. These words, " Before the feast of the pass- 
 over," John xiii. 1, scanned. The Jews did eat the passover after meal, but they had no meal 
 after the paschal supper. Ae/Vvsu ytvof^Uou, Jolin xiii. 2, needeth not be turned " supper being 
 ended," but may suffer two other readings. Christ's sitting down with the twelve is not meant 
 of the paschal supper, and if it were, it proves not that Judas did eat of that passover, more than 
 1 Cor. XV. 5 proves that Judas did see Christ after his resurrection. A pious observation of 
 Cartwright. Another of Chrysostom. 
 
 Chap. X. — That if it could be proved that Judas received the Lord's supper, it mak- 
 
 eth nothing against the suspension of known wicked persons from the sacrament, 219 
 
 Christ's admitting of Judas to the sacrament, when he knew him to be a devil, could no more be a 
 precedent to us, than his choosing of Judas to be an apostle, when he knew also that he was a 
 devil. Judas's sin was not scandalous but secret at that time when it was supposed that he did 
 receive the sacrament. The same thing which Mr Prynne makes to have been after the sacra- 
 ment, to prove that Judas did receive the sacrament, tiie very same he makes to have been before 
 the sacrament, to prove that Judas was a scandalous sinner when he was admitted to the sacra.- 
 
CONTEXTS 
 
 Xlll. 
 
 ment. He yieldeth upon the matter that Judas received not the sacrament. That before Judas 
 went forth none of the apostles knew him to be the traitor except John, yea some hold that John 
 knew it not. That Christ's words to Judas, " Thou hast said," did not make known to tlie apos- 
 tles that he was the traitor, and if they ha I, yet (by their principles, who hold that Judas received 
 the sacrament) these words were not spoken before the sacrament. Divers authors hold that Ju- 
 das was a secret, not a scandalous sinner at that time when it is supposed he received the sa- 
 crament, yea Mr Prynne himself holdeth so in another place. He loseth much by proposing as 
 a precedent to ministers wliat Christ did to Judas in the last supper. Christ did upon the matter 
 excommunicate Judas, which many gather from these words, '• That thou doest do quickly." 
 And if Christ had admitted him to the sacrament it could be no precedent 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, . . 223 
 
 Mr Prynne doth here mistake his mark, or not hit it, whether the question be stated in reference 
 to the censure of suspension, or in reference to the personal duty of the minister. Five duties of 
 the minister in this business beside admonition. Admonition no church censure, properly. Six 
 conclusions premised by Mr Prynne, examined. His syllogism concerning the true right of all 
 ■risible members of the visible church to the sacrament, discussed. Four sorts of persons, beside 
 children and fools, not able to examine themselves, and so not to be admitted to the Lord's sup- 
 I per, by that limitation which Mr Prynne yieldeth. His argument from the admission of carnal 
 
 I persons to baptism upon a mere external slight profession, answered. His eleven reasons for the 
 
 I affirmative of this present question answered. The Erastian argument from 1 Cor. xi. 28, " Let 
 
 i a man examine himself," not others, nor others him, faileth many ways. Mr Prynne endeavours 
 
 to pacify the consciences of ministers by persuading them to believe, that a scandalous person is 
 outwardly fitted and prepared for the sacrament. How dangerous a way it is to give tlie sacra- 
 ment to a scandalous person, upon hopes that omnipotency can at that instant change his heart ;! 
 and his life. Of a man's eating and drinking judgment to himself. I 
 I j 
 Chap. XII. — Whether the sacrament of the Lord's supper be a convertmg or rege- j 
 1 Derating ordinance, ....... 229 I 
 
 I Mr Prynne in this controversy joineth not only with the more rigid Lutherans, but with the Pa- I 
 ' pists. The testimonies of Calvin, Bullinger, Ursinus, Musculus, Bucerus, Fcstus Honnins, Are- 
 
 ! tins, Vossius, Parens, the Belgic Confession and form of administration, the Synod of Dort, Ger- 
 
 I hardns, "SValaeus, Chamierus, Polanus, Amesius, are produced against Mr Prynne, all these and 
 
 many others denying the Lord's supper to be a converting ordinance. How both Lutherans and 
 Papists state their controversy with Calvinists (as they call them) concerning the efficacy of the 
 sacraments. Mr Prynne's distinctions of two sorts of conversion and two sorts of sealing, being 
 duly examined, do but the more open his error instead of covering it. Of the words sacrament 
 and seal, concerning which Mr Prynne, as he leaneth toward the Socinian opinion, so he greatly 
 calls in question that truth, without the knowledge whereof the ordinance of parliament appoint- 
 eth men to be kept back from the sacrament. Four distinctions of my own premised, that the 
 true state of the question may be rightly apprehended. The 1st Distinction, between the ab- 
 solute power of God, and the revealed will of God. 2. Between the sacrament itself, and other 
 ordinances which do accompany it. 3. Between the first grace, and the following graces. 4. Be- 
 tween risible saints and in risible saints. 
 
 Chap. XIII. — Twenty arguments to prove that the Lord's supper is not a converting 
 
 ordinance, ........ 236 
 
 1. From the nature of signs instituted to signify the being or having of a thing. The significancy 
 of sacraments, a parte ante. 2. Sacraments suppose faith and an interest had in Christ, there- 
 fore do not give it. 3. The Lord's supper gives the new food, therefore it supposeth the new life. 
 4. It is a seal of the righteousness of faith, therefore instituted for justified persons only. 5. 
 From the example of Abraham's justification before circumcision. 6. From the duty of self-ex- 
 amination, which an unregenerate person cannot perform. 7. From the necessity of the wedding 
 garment. 8. Faith comes by hearing, not by seeing or receiving. 9. Neither promise nor ex- 
 ample in Scripture of conversion by the Lord's supper. 10. Every unconverted and unworthy i 
 person if he come f while such to the Lord's table), cannot but eat and drink unworthily, there- 
 fore ought not to come. 11. The wicked have no part in an encharistical consolatory ordinance. | 
 12. Christ calleth none to this feast but such as have spiritual gracious qualifications. 13. They 
 that are risibly no saints ought not to partake in the communion of saints. 14. Baptism itself 
 (at least when administered to persons of agej is not a regenerating but a sealing ordinance. 15. 
 From the necessity of the precedency of baptism before the Lord's supper. 16. From the me- 
 thod of the parable of the lost son. 17. From the doctrinal dehorting of all impenitent unworthy 
 persons from coming to the sacrament, unless they repent, reform, &c. (.allowed by Mr Prynne 
 himself), which a minister may not do, if it be a converting ordinance. 18. From the incoramu- 
 nicableness of this ordinance to pagans, or to excommunicated Christians for their conversion. { 
 19. From the instrumental casualty of a converting ordinance, which in order doth not follow, 
 but precede conversion, and therefore is administered to men, not qua penitent, but qua impeni- 
 tent, which cannot be said of the sacrament. 20. Antiquity against Mr Prynne in this point. 
 
xiv. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 Witness the Sancta Sanctis. Witness also Dionysins Areopagita, Justin Martyr, Chrysostom, 
 Augustine, Isidorns Pelasiota, Prosper, Beda, Isidorus Uispalensii, Rabanus Maurns, besides 
 Scotns, Alensis, and other schoolmen. 
 
 Chap. XIV. — Mr Prynne's twelve arguments, brought to prove that the Lord's sup- 
 per is a converting ordinance, discussed and answered, . . , 245 
 
 His first argument answered by three distinctions. His second proveth nothing against us, but 
 yieldcth somewhat which is for us. His third charged with divers absurdities. His fourth, con- 
 cerning the greatest proximity and most immediate presence of God and of Christ in the sacra- 
 ment, retorted against himself, and moreover not proved nor made good by him. His fifth argu- 
 ment hath both universal grace and other absurdities in it. His sixth, concerning conversion by 
 the eye, by the book of nature, by sacrifices, by miracles, as well as by the ear, examined and con- 
 futed 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, yieldeth the cause and mirtth himself. His 
 eleventh, a gross petitio j/rincipii. 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 clearly ca.st the balance of the whole controversy concerning sus- 
 pension. Lucas Osiander, cited bj Mr Prynne against ns, is more against himself. 
 
 Chap. XV. — Whether the admission of scandalous and notorious sinners to the sacra- 
 ment of the Lord's supper be a pollution and profanation of that holy ordinance, 
 and in what respects it may be so called, ..... 253 
 
 The true state of this question cleared by five distinctions. Xine arguments to prove the affirma- 
 tive. That the admitting of the scandalous and profane to the sacrament gives the lie to the 
 ■word preached, and looseth those whom the word bindeth. That it is a strengthening of the hands 
 of the wicked. It is a profanation of baptism to baptize a catechumen Jew, or a pagan, being of 
 a known profane life, although he were able to make confession of the true faith by word of 
 month. That such as are found unable to examine themselves Cwhether through natural or sin- 
 ful disability) or manifestly unwilling to it, ought not to be admitted to the Lord's supper. The 
 reason for keeping back children and fools holds stronger for keeping back known profane 
 persons. Hag. ii. U — 14, explained. A debate upon Matt. vii. 6, " Give not that which is holy 
 unto the dogs," &c., wherein Mr Prynne is confuted from Scripture, from antiquity, from Erastos 
 also and Grotius. 
 
 Chap. XVI. — An argument of Erastus (drawn from the baptism of John), against the 
 
 excluding of scandalous sinners from the Lord's supper, examined, . 259 
 
 That John baptized none but such as confessed their sins, and did outwardly appear penitent. It is 
 a great question whether those Pharisees who came to his baptism. Matt. iiL were baptized. The 
 coincidency of that story, Matt. iiL with the message of the Pharisees to John Baptist, John i. 
 The argument retorted. 
 
 Chap. XVII. — Antiquity for the suspension of all scandalous persons from the sacra- 
 ment, even such as were admitted to other public ordinances, . . 260 
 
 Of the four degrees of penitents in the ancient church, and of the suspension of some unexcommu- 
 nicated persons from the Lord's supper, who did join with the church in the hearing of the word 
 and prayer, proved out of the ancient canons of the councils of Ancyra. Nice, Aries, the sixth 
 and eighth General Councils, out of Gregorins Thaumaturgus, and Basilius Magnus, confirmed 
 also out of Zonaras, Balsamon, Albaspinaens. The suspension of all sorts of scandalous sinners 
 in the church from the sacrament further confirmed out of Isidorus Pelusiota, Dionysins Areo- 
 pagita with his scholiast Maximus, and his paraphrast Pachymeres. Also out of Cyprian, Jus- 
 tin ilartyr, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustine, Gregorins Magnus, Walfridus Strabo. 
 
 Chap. XVIII. — A discovery of the instability and looseness of Mr Prynne's princi- 
 ples, even to the contradicting of himself in twelve particulars, . . 268 
 
 An argument hinted by Mr Prynne from the gathering together all guests to the wedding supper, 
 both bad and good, examined, and four answers made to it. That Mr Prynne doth profess and 
 pretend to yield the thing for which his antagonists contend with him, but indeed doth not yield 
 it ; his concesssions being clogged with such things as do evacuate and frustrate all church disci- 
 pline. That Mr Prynne coatradicteth hiniaelf in twelve particulars. Four connter-queries to 
 hinu 
 
 Appetdh to the Thibd Book, ...... 274 
 
 A discourse of Mr Foi, the Author of the Booh of Martyrt, concerning three sorts of persons who 
 are mnriOing that tbere siioald be a discipline or power of censures in the chnrch. 
 
TO THE 
 
 REVEREND AND LEARNED 
 
 ASSEMBLY OF DIVINES 
 
 CONVE>'ED AT AVESTMIXSTER. 
 
 Right Reverend, 
 
 Though many faithful servants of God did long ago desire to see 
 those things which we see, and to hear those things which we hear, yet it hath been one 
 of the special mercies reserved for this generation, and denied to the times of our ancestors, 
 that divines of both kuigdoms, within tliis island, should be gathered and continued toge- 
 ther, to consult peaceably and freely concerning a reformation of religion in doctrine, 
 woi-ship, discipline, and government. It is a mercy yet greater, that two nations, formerly 
 at so great a distance in the form of public worship and church government, should (to 
 their mutual comfort and happiness, and to the further endearing of each to other), through 
 the good hand of God, be now agreed upon one directory of worship, and, with a good 
 progress, advanced as in one confession of laith, so, likewise, in one form of church govern- 
 ment. ; for all which, as the other refomed churches (in regard of their common interest 
 in the truth and oi'dinances of Christ), so especially your brethren in the Church of 
 Scotland, are your debtors. Your name is as precious ointment among them, and they do 
 esteem you very highly in love, for your work's sake, — a work which, as it is extraordi- 
 nary and unparalleled, requiring a double portion of the Spirit of your Master, so you have 
 very many hearts and prayers going along with you in it, that the pleasure of the Lord 
 may prosper in your hand. 
 
 As for my reverend colleagues and myself, it hath been a good part of our happiness 
 that we have been partakers of, and assistants in, your grave and learned debates. Yet 
 (as we declared from our first coming amongst you) we came not hither presuming to pre- 
 scribe anything unto you, but willing to receive as well as to offer light, and to debate 
 matters freely and fairly from the word of God, the common rule both to you and us. 
 As herein you were pleased to give testimony unto us in one of your letters to the General 
 Assembly of the Church of Scotland, so the great respects which, in other things and at 
 other times, you have expressed, both towards that church from which we are entrusted, 
 and particularly towards ourselves, do call for a return of all possible and public testimonies 
 of gratitude ; for which purpose I do, for my part, take hold of this opportunity. I know 
 that I owe much more unto you than I have either ability to pay, or elocution to set forth. 
 Yet, although I cannot retaliate your fovoui-s, nor render that which may be worthy of 
 yourselves, 1 beseech you to accept this part of my retribution of respects. I do offer and 
 entitle unto you this enucleation of the Erastian conti'oversy, which is dignus vindice 
 nodus. I hope here is a word in season corcerning it. Others might have done better, 
 but such furniture as I had I have brought to the work of the tabernacle. I submit what 
 is mine unto your greater learning and judgment, and shall ever continue, 
 
 Yours to serve you, 
 
 GEO. GILLESPIE. 
 
TO THE CANDID READER. 
 
 I II A V): often and lioril'lily wishod that 1 inij,'lit 
 not be distractt'J by, nor engaged into, polemic 
 writings, of wlucli tlie world is too full already, 
 and from which many nioro learned and idoncous 
 have abstained; and I did, accordingly, resolve 
 that, in this controversial age, I should be slow to 
 write, swift to read and learn. Yet there are cer- 
 tain preponderating reasons which have made me 
 willing to be drawn forth into the light upon this 
 subject ; for beside the desires and solicitations of 
 divers Christian friends, lovers of truth and peace, 
 seriously calling upon me for an answer to Mr 
 Prynne's Vindication of his Four Questions concern- 
 ing excommunication and suspension, the grand 
 importance of the Erastian controversy, and the 
 strong influence which it hath into the present 
 juncture of affairs, doth powerfully invite me. 
 
 Among the many controversies which have dis- 
 quieted and molested the Church of Christ, tliose 
 concerning ecclesiastical government and disci- 
 pline are not the least, but among the chief, and 
 often managed with the greatest animosity and 
 eagerness of spirit, whence there have grown most 
 dangerous divisions and breaches, such as this day 
 there are, and for the future ai-e to be expected, 
 unless there shall be (through God's mercyj some 
 further composing and healing of these church- 
 consuming distractions, which, if we shall be so 
 happy as once to obtain, it will certainly contri- 
 bute very much toward the accommodation of civil 
 and state-shaking differences ; and, contrariwise, 
 if no healing for the church, no healing for the 
 State. Let the Gallios of this time (who care for 
 no intrinsical evil in the church) promise to them- 
 selves what they will, surely he that shall have 
 cause to write with Nicolaus de Clemangis, a book 
 of lamentation, de corrupto ccclesice statu, will find 
 also cause to w^rite witli him de lajjsu et repara- 
 tione juslitice. 
 
 As the thing is of high concernment to these so 
 much disturbed and divided churches, so the ele- 
 vation is yet higher by many degrees. This con- 
 troversy reacheth up to the heavens, and the top 
 of it is above the clouds. It doth highly concern 
 Jesus Christ himself, in his glory, royal preroga- 
 tive, and kingdom, which he hath and exerciseth 
 as Mediator and Head of his church. The crown 
 of Jesus Christ, or any part, privilege, or pendicle 
 thereof, must needs be a noble and excellent sub- 
 ject. This truth, that Jesus Christ is a king, and 
 hath a kingdom and government in his church 
 
 distinct from the kingdoms of this world, niid 
 from the civil government, hath this commenda- 
 tion and character above all other truths, that 
 Christ himself suffered to the deatli for it, aiid 
 sealed it with liis blood ; for, il may bo observed 
 from the story of his passion, this was the only 
 point of liis accusation,* which was confessed and 
 avouched by himself, was most aggravated, pro- 
 secuted, and driven home by the Jew3,t was preva- 
 lent with Pilate as the cause of condemning him 
 to die,| and was mentioned also in the superscrip- 
 tion upon his cross."|| And although, in reference 
 to God and in respect of satisfaction to the divine 
 justice for our sins, his death was Xur^oy, a price 
 of redemption, yet, in reference to men who did 
 persecute, accuse, and condemn him, his death was 
 fta^Tv^iet, a martyr's testimony to seal such a 
 truth. This kingly office of Jesus Christ (as well 
 as his prophetical) is administered and exercised, 
 not only inwardly and invisibly, by the working of 
 his .Spirit in the souls of particular persons, but 
 outwardly also, and visibly in the church, as a visi- 
 ble, political, ministerial body, in which he hath 
 appointed his own proper officers, ambassadors, 
 courts, laws, ordinances, censures, and all these 
 administrations, to be in his own name, as the 
 only King and Head of the church. This was the 
 thing which Herod and Pilate did, and many 
 princes, potentates, and states, do look upon with 
 so ranch fear and jealousy, as another govern- 
 ment co-ordinate with the civil. But what was 
 upon the one side to them, hath been light upon 
 the other side to those servants of Jesus Christ 
 who have stood, contended, and sometime suffered 
 much for the ordinance of church government 
 and discipline, which they looked upon as a part 
 of Christ's kingdom. So Bucerus,i so Parker,T so 
 
 • Luke xxiii. 3 ; John sviii. 33, 36, 37. 
 
 f Luke xxiii. 2; John xix. 12, 15. 
 
 i John xix. 12, 13. {| John xix. 19. 
 
 § De Refftio C'hristi, lib. 1, cap. 4.— Non defuerunt quoque intra hoi 
 triginta annos, pnesertim in Germania, qui videri voluerunt justam 
 evangelii prffidicationem plane amplecti, &e. verum perpauci adhuo 
 reperti sunt qui se Christi evangelio et regno omnino subjecissent : 
 imo qui passi fuissent Christi religionem et eeclesiarum discipUnam 
 restitui per omnia juxta leges regis nostri. £t infra. In Hungaria, 
 gratia Uomino non paucEe jam existunt ecclesise quse cum puta 
 Uhristi doctrina, solidam etiam ejus disciplinam recegerunt, custo- 
 diuntque religiose. Rex noster Christus faxit ut harum eeclesiarum 
 exfmplum quam plurinjie sequantnr. 
 
 •I De Polit. Ktxle*., lib. 1, cap. 2. — Toliteift ectlesiasticu est par» 
 regnl Christi. 
 
XVI. 
 
 TO THE READER. 
 
 Mr Welsh,* my countrvman of precious memory, 
 who suffered much for the same truth, and was 
 ready to seal it with his blood. Beside divers 
 others who might be named, especially learned 
 Didoclavius in his Altare Damascenum, cap. 1, and 
 throughout. 
 
 I am not ignorant that some have an evil eye 
 npou all government in a nation, distinct from 
 civil magistracy ; and, if it were in their power, 
 they would have all Anti-Erastians (and so, con- 
 sequently, botli Presbyterians and Independents) 
 looked upon as guilty of treason, at least, as vio- 
 lators of, and encroachers upon, the rights and 
 privileges of magistracy, in respect of a distinct 
 ecclesiastical government. And, indeed, it is no 
 new thing for the most faithful ministers of Jesus 
 Christ to be reproached and accused as guilty of 
 treason, which was not only the lot of Mr Calder- 
 wood and (as hath been now shown) of Mr Welsh, 
 and those that suffered with him, but of Mr 
 Knoxt before them, as likewise of many martyrs 
 and confessors, and of the apostles themselves.* 
 Yet (if we will judge righteous judgment, and 
 weigh things in a just balance) we do not rob the 
 magistrate of that which is his, by giving unto 
 Christ that which is Christ's. We desire to hold 
 up the honour and greatness, the power and autho- 
 rity of magistracy, against Papists, Anabaptists, and 
 all others" that " despise dominion, and speak evil 
 of dignities."|| We do not compare (as Innocentius 
 did) the civil and the ecclesiastical powers to the 
 two great lights ; that to the moon, this to the 
 sun.§ We hold " it is proper to kings, princes, 
 and magistrates, to be called lords and dominators 
 over their subjects whom they govern civilly ; but 
 it is proper to Christ only to be called Lord and 
 blaster in the spiritual government of the chnrch ; 
 and all others that bear office therein, ought not 
 to usurp dominion therein, nor be called lords, 
 but only ministers, disciples, and servants."ir We 
 acknowledge and affirm, that magistracy and civil 
 government in empires, kingdoms, dominions, and 
 cities, is an ordinance of God for his own glory, 
 and for the great good of mankind, so that who- 
 ever are enemies to magistracy, they are enemies 
 to mankind, and to the revealed will of God. 
 " That such persons as are placed in authority are 
 to be beloved, honoured, feared, and holden in a 
 most reverend estimation, because they are the 
 lieutenants of God, in whose seat God himself doth 
 sit and judge." We teach that not only they 
 are appointed for civil policy, but also for main- 
 tenance of the true religion, and for suppressing 
 of idolatry and superstition whatsoever." We con- 
 fess " that such as resist the supreme power, doing 
 
 • Mr John Welsh's Letter to the Lady Fleming, WTitten from his 
 prison at Blackness in Jan, 1616. — *' Who am I that he should first 
 have called me and then constituted me a minister of glad things, of 
 the gospel of salvation, these fifteen years already, and now, last of 
 all, to be a sufferer for his cause and kingdom, to witness that good 
 confession, that Jesus Christ is the King of saints, and that his church 
 is a most free kingdom ; yea, as free as any kingdom under heaven, 
 not only to convocate, hold and keep her meetings, conventions, and 
 assemblies, but also to judge of all her affairs, in all her meetings and 
 conventions, among his members and subjects ! These two points, 
 that Christ is the head of his church ; secondly, that she is free in her 
 government from all other jurisdiction except Christ's ; these two 
 points are the special cause of our imprisonment, being now convict 
 as traitors for maintaining thereof. We have been waiting with joy- 
 fulness to give the last testimony of our blood in confirmation thereof, 
 if it would please our God to be so iavourable as to honour us with 
 that dignity." Thus he. 
 
 f Discourse of the Troubles at Francfort, first published in the 
 year 1575, and reprinted at London in the year 1<>42, p. 37 . 
 
 % Acts xvii. 6, 7. II Jude 8. 
 
 g Fr. a S. Clara Apolog. Episcop., cap. 2. 
 
 ^ The Second Book of the Discipline of the Church of Scotland, c. I. 
 
 that thing which appertaineth to his charge, do 
 resist God's ordinance, and therefore cannot be 
 guiltless. And, further, we affirm, that whosoever | 
 deny unto them their aid, counsel and comfort, 
 whilst the princes and rulers vigilantly travel in 
 execution of their office, that the same men deny 
 their help, support, and counsel to God, who, by | 
 the presence of his lieutenant, doth crave it of 
 them."* AVe know and believe " that, though we 
 be free, we ought wholly, in a true faith holily to 
 submit ourselves to the magistrate, both with our 
 body, and with all our goods and endeavour of 
 mind, also to perform faithfulness, and the oath 
 which we made to him, so far forth as his govern- 
 ment is not evidently repugnant to him, for whose 
 sake we do reverence the magistrate."! That we 
 ought to yield unto kings and other magistrates 
 in their own stations, fear, honour, tribute, and 
 custom, whether they be good men or evil, as like- 
 wise to obey them in tliat which is not contrary to 
 the word of God, it being always provided, that in 
 things pertaining to our souls and consciences, we 
 obey God only, and his holy word. J: We believe 
 that God hath " delivered the sword into the hands 
 of the magistrates, to wit, that offences may be 
 repressed, not only those which are committed 
 against the second table, but also against thefir3t."|| 
 We do agree and avouch, " that all men, of what 
 dignity, condition, or state soever they be, ought 
 to be subject to their lawful magistrates, and pay 
 unto them subsidies and tributes, and obey them 
 in all things which are not repugnant the word of 
 God. Also, they must pour out their prayers for 
 them, that God would vouchsafe to direct them in 
 all their actions, and that we may lead a peaceable 
 and quiet life under them, with all godliness and 
 honesty ."§ We teach that " it doth belong to the 
 authority and duty of the magistrate, to forbid 
 and (if need be) to punish such sins as are com- 
 mitted against the ten commandments, or the law 
 natural ;" as likewise " to add unto the law natu- 
 ral some other laws, defining the circumstances 
 of the natural law, and to keep and maintain the 
 same by punishing the transgressors."1f We hold 
 that " the laws of the realm may punish Christian 
 men with death, for heinous and grievous of- 
 fences." And " that it is lawful for Christian men, 
 at the command of the magistrate, to bear arms, 
 and to serve in just wars."** All these things 
 we do sincerely, really, constantly, faithfully, and 
 cheerfully yield unto and assert in behalf of the civil 
 magistrate. So that the cause, which I now take 
 in hand, doth not depress but exalt, doth not 
 weaken but strengthen, magistracy. I do not 
 plead against " the power of the sword," when I 
 plead for " the power of the keys."tt These two 
 are most distinct, they ought not to be confounded, 
 neither need they to clash or Interfere between 
 themselves. The controversy is not about taking 
 from the magistrate what is his, but about giving 
 to Christ that which is his. We hold a reciprocal 
 subordination of persons, but a co-ordination of 
 powers. "As the ministers and others of the 
 
 » The Confession of Faith of the Chun h of Scotland, art. 35. 
 
 t The Confession of Helvetia, in the head of Magistrac>'. 
 
 $ The Confession of Bohemia, cap. 16. 
 
 II The French Confession, art, 39. 
 
 I The Confession of Belgia, art. 36. 
 
 ^ The Confession of Saxony, art. 23. 
 Irish Articles of Religion, art. 61, 62. 
 
 ■ff Matt. xvi.l9; xviii. 18, which is meant of laying on or taking off 
 church censure. August., tract. 50, in John, Si autt.-m in ecclesia fit, 
 ut quEC in terra ligantur in c£b1o ligentur, et quse solvuntur in terra, 
 solvantur in cielo: quiacum exconimuiiicat ecclesia, in calo ligatur 
 excommunicatus ; cum reconciliatur ab ecclesia, in caelo soh'itur r** 
 conciliatus, &c. 
 
TO THE READER. XIX. 
 
 ecclesiastical estate are subject to the magistrate 
 civil, so ought the person of the magistrate be 
 subject to the church spiritually, and in ecclesias- 
 tical government ; and the exercise of both these 
 jurisdictions cannot stand in one person ordina- 
 rily."* Again, " The magistrate neither ought to 
 preach, minister the sacrament, nor execute the 
 censures of the church, nor yet prescribe any rule 
 how it should be done, but command the ministers 
 to observe the rule commanded in the word, and 
 punish the transgressors by civil means. The 
 ministers exercise not the civil jurisdiction, but 
 teach the magistrate how it should be exercised 
 according to the word." The laws and statutes of 
 Geneva do at once ratify the ecclesiastical presby- 
 terial power of jurisdiction or censure, and withal 
 appoint, that ministers shall not take upon them 
 any civil jurisdiction, but where there shall be need 
 of compulsion or civil punishments, that this be 
 done by the magistrate.t Yea, under a popish 
 magistrate (as in France), and even under the 
 Turk himself, many churches do enjoy not only 
 the word and sacraments, but a free church go- 
 vernment and discipline within themselves, rectio 
 disciplincB libera, which is thought no pi-ejudice to 
 the civil government, they that govern the churches 
 having no dominion nor share of magistracy. 
 Vide D. Chytrcei oral, de Statu Ecclesiarum in 
 Grcecia, &c. 
 
 I know well that there are otiier horrid calum- 
 nies and misrepresentations of presbyterial go- 
 vernment, besides that of encroaching upon ma- 
 gistracy ; but they are as false as they are foul. 
 And althougli we go upon this disadvantage which 
 Demosthenes* (being loadened with a heavy cliarge 
 and grievous aspersions by /Eschines]|) did com- 
 plain of, that, though by right, both parties should 
 be heard, yet the generality of men do, with plea- 
 sure, hearken to reproaches and calumnies, but 
 take little or no pleasure to hear men's clearing . 
 of themselves or tlicir cause ; and that his adver- 
 sary had cliosen that which was more pleasant, 
 leaving to him that wliich was more tedious. 
 Nevertheless I must needs expect from all such as 
 are conscionable and faithful in this cause and co- 
 venant, that their ears shall not be open to calum- 
 nies, and shut upon more favourable informations. 
 And, however, let the worst be said which malice 
 itself can devise, it shall be no small comfott to 
 me, that our Lord and Master hath said, " Blessed 
 are ye when men shall revile you, and persecute 
 you, and shall say all manner of evil against you 
 falsely for my name's sake."§ 
 
 I know also that a government and discipline in 
 the church (the thing which I now undertake to 
 plead for) is :i, very displeasing thing to those that 
 would fain enjoy liberty, either of pernicious er- 
 rors or gross profaneness.t But (as Maimonides 
 saith well) " we must not judge of the easiness or 
 heaviness of a law, according to the affections and 
 lust of any evil man, being rash (in judgment^ and 
 given to the worst vices, but according to the 
 understanding of one who is most perfect among 
 men, like unto whom, according to the law, all 
 others ought to be," More Novechim, part 2, cap. 
 39. No marvel that the licentious hate that way 
 wherein they shall find themselves hemmed in, if 
 not hedged up, with thorns. And that they may 
 
 • The Second Book of tbe Discipline of the Church of Scotland, c. 1. 
 f See the Laws and Statutes of Geneva, translated out of the 
 French, and printed at London 1643, p. 9, 10. 
 t De Corona, orat. 5, in initio. 
 § In orat. contra Ctesiphontera. 
 II Matt. V. 11. 
 
 if Psalm ii. 3 ; Luke xix. 14. 
 
 the more flatter themselves in their sinful licen- 
 tiousness, they imagine that Christ's yoke is easy, 
 and his burden light, to the flesli as well as to the 
 spirit, to carnal as well as to spiritual men. For 
 ray part, if I have learned Christ aright, I hold it 
 for a sure principle, that in so far as a man is spi- 
 ritual and regenerate, in as far his flesh is under 
 a yoke ; and in so far as ho is unregcnerate, in as 
 far his flesh is sine ju^o without a yoke. The heal- 
 ing of the spirit is not without the smiting of the 
 flesh."* 
 
 When I speak of this divine ordinance of church 
 government, my meaning is not to allow, much less 
 to animate any in the too severe and over-strict 
 exercise of ecclesiastical discipline and censures. 
 It was observed by Jerome, as one of the errors 
 of the Montanists : Illi ad omne pene delictum 
 ecclesio} obserant fores :^ They shut the church 
 door (that is, they excommunicate and shut out 
 of the church) almost at every offence. I confess 
 the greater part are more apt to fail in the de- 
 fect than in the excess, and are like to come too 
 short rather than to go too far. Yet a failing 
 there may be, and hath been, both ways. The best 
 things, whether in church or state, have been actu- 
 ally abused, and may be so again, through the er- 
 ror and corruption of men. The Holy Scripture 
 itself is abused to the greatest mischiefs in the 
 world, though in its own nature it serves for the 
 greatest good in the world. The abuse of a thing 
 which is necessary, and especially of a divine or- 
 dinance, whether such abuse be feared or felt, 
 ought not, may not, prejudice the thing itself. My 
 purpose and endeavour shall be (wherein I be- 
 seech the Lord to help my infirmities ) to own the 
 thing, to disown the abuses of the thing, to point 
 out the path of Christ's ordinance without allow- 
 ing either rigour against such as ought to be ten- 
 derly dealt with, or too much lenity towards such 
 as must be saved with fear, and pulled out of the 
 fire, or at all any aberration to the right or left 
 hand. 
 
 I have had much ado to gain so many horce 
 subcisivce from the works of my public calling, as 
 might suffice for this work. I confess it hath cost 
 me much pains, and I think I may say without 
 presumption, he that will go about solidly to an- 
 swer it will find it no easy matter. Subitane lucu- 
 brations will not do it. But if any man shall, by 
 unanswerable contrary reasons or evidences, dis- 
 cover error or mistake in any of my principles, 
 let truth have the victory, let God have the glory. 
 Only this favour (I may say this justice) I shall 
 protest for : First, That my principles and con- 
 clusions may be rightly apprehended, and that I 
 may not be charged with any absurd, dangerous 
 or odious assertion, unless my own words be faith- 
 fully cited from which that assertion shall be ga- 
 thered, yea also without concealing my explana- 
 tions, qualifications, or restrictions, if any such 
 there be ; which rule, to my best observation, I 
 have not transgressed in reference to the oppo- 
 sites. Secondly, That as I have not dealt with 
 their nauci, but with their nucleus, I have not 
 scratched at their shell, but taken out their ker- 
 nel (such as it isj, I have not declined them, but 
 encountered, yea sought them out where their 
 strength was greatest, where their arguments were 
 hardest, and their exceptions most probable ; so 
 no man may decline or dissemble the strength of 
 my arguments, inferences, authorities, answers 
 
 • Origen. in Lev., hom. 3.— Quid percutit ? camem. Quid sanat? 
 spiritum. Prorsus ut ilia deficiat, iste proficiat. 
 f Jerom. ad MarceUum. 
 
XX. 
 
 and replies, nor think it enough to lift up an axe 
 against the outermost branches, when he ought to 
 strike at the root. Thirdly, If there be any acri- 
 mony, let it be in a real and rational conviction, 
 not in the manner of expression. In wliich also 
 I ask no other measure to myself than I have 
 given to others. It is but in vain for a man to 
 help the bluntness of reason witli tlie sharpness of 
 passion ; for thereby he looseth more than he 
 gaineth with intelligent readers ; tlie simpler sort 
 may peradventure esteem those t^ovhtrifiiva, those 
 despicable nothings, to be somctliing, but then 
 they are deluded not edified. Tlierefore let not 
 a man cast forth a flood of passionate words 
 when his arguments are like broken cisterns which 
 can hold no water. 
 
 If any replier there be of the Erastian party, 
 who will confine himself within these rules and 
 conditions, as I do not challenge him, so (if God 
 spare me life and liberty) I will not refuse him. 
 But if any shall so reply as to prevaricate and do 
 contrary to these just and reasonable demands, 
 
 I must (to his greater shame) call him to the or- I 
 ders, and make his tergiversation to appear. I 
 I shall detain tliee (good reader) no longer. | 
 The Lord guide tliee and all his people in ways of I \ 
 truth and peace, holiness and righteousness, and It 
 grant that this controversy may (I trust it shall) 1 
 have a happy end to tlie giory of God, to the em- j 
 bracing and exalting of Jesus Christ in his kingly I 
 office, to the ordering of his house according to j 
 his own will, to the keeping pure of the ordi- I 
 nances, to the advancing of holiness, and shaming 
 of profaneness, and finally to the peace, quiet, 
 well-being, comfort, and happiness of the churches 
 of Christ. These things (without thoughts of pro- 
 voking any either public or private person^ the 
 searcher of hearts knoweth to be desired and in- 
 tended by him who is 
 
 Thine, to please thee, 
 
 for thy good to edification. 
 
 GEO. GILLESPIE. 
 
AAEON'S ROD BLOSSOMINa. 
 
 THE FIRST BOOK. 
 
 OF THE JEWISH CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 THAT IF THE ERASTIANS COULD PROVE WHAT 
 THET ALLEGE CONCERNING THE JEWISH 
 CHURCH GOVERNMENT, YET IN THAT PAR- 
 TICULAR THE JEWISH CHURCH COULD NOT 
 BE A PRECEDENT TO THE CHRISTIAN. 
 
 Observing that very much of Erastus's 
 strength, and much of his followers' confi- 
 dence, lieth in the Old Testament, and Jew- 
 ish church, which, as they aver, knew no 
 such distinction as civil government and 
 church government, civil justice and church 
 discipline, — I have thought good, first of 
 all, to remove that great stumbling-block, 
 that our way may afterward lie fair and 
 plain before us. I do heartily acknowledge, 
 that what we find to have been an ordi- 
 nance, or an approved practice in the Jew- 
 ish church, ought to be a rule and pattern to 
 us, such things only excepted which were 
 typical or temporal, that is, for which there 
 were special reasons proper to that infancy 
 of the church, and not common to us. Now 
 if our opposites could prove that the Jewish 
 church was nothing but the Jewish state, 
 and that the Jewish church government was 
 nothing but the Jewish state government, 
 and that the Jews had never any supreme 
 sanhedrim Init one only, and that civil and 
 such as had the temporal coercive power of 
 magistracy (which they will never be able 
 
 to prove), yet there are divers considerable 
 reasons for which that could be no precedent 
 to us. 
 
 First. Casaubon (exerc. 13, anno 31, 
 num. 10) proves, out of Maimonides, that 
 the sanhedrim was to be made up, if pos- 
 sible, wholly of priests and Levites ; and that 
 if so many priests and Levites could not be 
 found as were fit to be of the sanhedrim, in 
 that case some were assumed out of other 
 tribes. Tlowbeit I hold not this to be agree- 
 able to the first institution of the sanhedrim. 
 But thus much is certain, that priests and 
 Levites were members of the Jewish sanhe- 
 drim, and had an authoritative decisive suf- 
 frage in making decrees, and inflicting pun- 
 ishments, as well as other members of the 
 sanhedrim. Philo, the Jew {de vita Mosis, 
 p. 530), saith, that he who was found gather- 
 ing sticks upon the Sabbath, was brought 
 ad principem et sacerdotum conslstorium, 
 
 Iti TO!/ cl^^otra, a (rvtr^^lvov fih h^sTs, that is, tO 
 
 the prince or chief ruler (meaning Moses), 
 together with whom the priests did sit and 
 judge in the sanhedrim. " Jehoshaphat did 
 set of the Levites, of the priests, and of the 
 chief of the fathei'S of Israel, for the judg- 
 ment of the Lord," &c. 2 Chron. xix. 8. 
 
 Secondly. The people of Israel had God's 
 own judicial law, given by Moses, for their 
 civil law, and the priests and Levites instead 
 of civil lawyers. 
 
 Thirdly. The sanhedrim did punish no 
 
Aaron's rod blossomixg, or the 
 
 man unless admonition had been first given 
 to him for his amendment. Slaimonides, 
 de fundam. h'g'ts, cap. 5, sect. 6, yea, saith 
 Gul. Vorstius upon the place, though a man 
 had killed his parents the sanhedrim did not 
 punish him unless he were first admonished ; 
 and when witnesses were examined, seven 
 questions were propounded to them, one of 
 which was, whether they had admonished 
 the offender, as the Talmud itself tells us, 
 ad tit. Sanhedrim, cap. 5, sect, 1. 
 
 FouHldy. The sanhedrim, respondehat 
 de jure, did interpret the law of God, and 
 determine controversies concerning the sense 
 and intent thereof, Deut. xvii. 8 — 11 ; and 
 it was on this manner, as the Jerusalem 
 Talmud, in Sanhedrim, cap. 10, sect. 2, 
 records : " There were there (in Jenisalem) 
 three assemblies of judges, — one sitting at 
 the entry to the mountain of the sanctuary, 
 another sitting at the door of the court, the 
 third sitting in the conclave made of cut 
 stone. First, addresses were made to that 
 which sat at the ascent of the mountains 
 of the sanctuaiy ; then the elder (who came 
 to represent the cause which was too hard 
 for the courts of the cities) said on this man- 
 ner, — ' I have drawn this sense from the 
 holy Scripture, my fellows have dra™ that 
 sense ; I have taught thus, my fellows so 
 and so.' If they had learned what is to be 
 determined in that cause, they did commu- 
 nicate it unto them, if not, they went for- 
 ward together to the iudges sitting at the 
 door of the court, by whom they were in- 
 structed, if they, after the laying forth of 
 the difficulty, knew what resolutions to give. 
 Otherwise all of them had recourse to the 
 great sanhedrim ; for from it doth the law 
 go forth unto all Israel." It is added in 
 JExc. Gemar. Sanhed. cap. 10, sect. 1, that 
 the sanhedrim did sit in the room of cut 
 stone (which was in the temple) from the 
 morning to the evening daily sacrifice. The 
 sanhedrim did judge cases of idolatry, apos- 
 tacy, false prophets, &c., Talm. Hieros. in 
 Sanhed. caj). 1, sect. 5. 
 
 Now all this being unquestionably true of 
 the Jewish sanhedrim, if we should suppose 
 that they had no supreme sanhedrim but 
 that which had the power of civil magis- 
 ti'acy, then, I ask, where is that Christian 
 state which was, cr is, or ought to be, 
 moulded according to this pattei'n ? Must 
 ministers have vote in parliament ? Must 
 they be civil la^'yers? Must all criminal 
 and capital judgments be according to the 
 
 judicial law of Moses, and none otherwise ? 
 Must there be no civil punishment without 
 previous admonition of the offender ? Must 
 parliaments sit, as it were, in the temple of 
 God, and interpret Scripture, which sense 
 is true and which false, and detennine con- 
 troversies of faith and cases of conscience, 
 and judge of all false doctrines? Yet all 
 this must be if there be a parallel made 
 with the Jewish sanhedi-im. I know some 
 divines hold that the judicial law of Moses, 
 so far as concerneth the punishments of sins 
 against the moral law, idolatry, blasphemy. 
 Sabbath-breaking, adulteiy, theft, &:c., ought 
 to be a rule to the Chiistian magistrate ; 
 and, for my part, I wish more respect were 
 had to it, and that it were more consulted 
 with. This by the way. I am here only 
 showing what must follow if the Jewish go- 
 vernment be taken for a precedent, without 
 makingf a distinction of civil and church go- 
 vernment. Surely the consequences will be 
 such as I am sure our opposites will never 
 admit of, and some of which (namely, con- 
 cerning the civil places or power of minis- 
 ters, and concerning the magistrate's autho- 
 rity to interpret Scripture) ought not to be 
 admitted. 
 
 Certainly, if it should be granted that the 
 Jews had but one sanhedrim, yet there was 
 such an intemiixture of civil and ecclesiasti- 
 cal, both persons and proceedings, that there 
 must be a partition made of that power 
 which the Jewish sanhedrim did exercise, 
 which, taken whole and entire together, can 
 neither suit to our civil nor to our ecclesias- 
 tical courts. Nay, wliile the Erastians ap- 
 peal to the Jewish sanhedrim (suppose it 
 now to be but one) they do thereby engage 
 themselves to grant unto church officers a 
 share, at least, yea, a great share, in eccle- 
 siastical government ; for so they had in the 
 supreme sanhedrim of the Jews. 
 
 And further, the Jews had their si/na- 
 goga magna, which Grotius on Matt. x. 17, 
 distinguishes from the sanhedrim of seventy- 
 one ; for both prophets and othei's of place 
 and power among the people, propter, rels 
 ffutQ^ous, besides the membei's of that sanhe- 
 drim were members of that extraoi'dinary 
 assembly, which was called the great spia- 
 gogue, such as that assembly (Ezra x.) 
 which did decree forfeiture and separation 
 from the congregation to be the pmiishment 
 of such as would not gather themselves unto 
 Jerusalem, in which assembly were others 
 beside those of the sanhedrim. 01' the men 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 3 
 
 of the great synao-ogue I read in Tzemach 
 David, p. 56, edit. Hon. Vorstius, that they 
 did receive the traditions from the prophets ; 
 and it is added, Viri synagogcv niagnai or- 
 dinarunt nobis prcces nostras, — The men 
 of the great synagogue did appoint unto us 
 our prayers, — meaning their liturgies, which 
 they fancy to have been so instituted. The 
 Hebrews themselves controvert whether all 
 the men of the great synagogue did live at 
 one and the same time, or successively ; but 
 that which is most received among them is, 
 that these men did flourish all at one time, 
 as is told us in the passage last cited, where 
 also these are named as men of the great 
 synagogue, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Ze- 
 rubbabel, Mordecai, Ezra, Jehoshua, Seria, 
 Rehaliah, Misphar, Rechum, Nehemiah. 
 E.ambam addeth Chananiah, Mischael and 
 Azariah. 
 
 Finally, as prophets, priests, and scribes 
 of the law of God, had an interest in tlie 
 synagoga magna after the captivity, so we 
 read of occasional and extraordinary eccle- 
 siastical synods before the captivity, as that 
 assembly of the priests and Levites under 
 Hezekiah, 2 Chron. xxix. 4, 15, and that sy- 
 nod of the four hundred prophets, 1 Kings 
 xxii. 6. Herod also gathered together the 
 chief priests and scribes, Matt. ii. 4. I con- 
 clude that if it should be granted there was 
 no ecclesiastical sanhedrim among the Jews 
 distinct from the civil, yet, as the necessity 
 of a distinct ecclesiastical orovernment aniono- 
 us is greater than it was among them, m re- 
 S])ect of the four considerations above-men- 
 tioned, so likewise the priests had a great 
 deal more power and authority in the Jew- 
 ish church, not only by occasional synods, 
 but by their interest in synagoga magna, 
 and in the civil sanhedrim itself, than the 
 Erastians are willing that church officci'S 
 should have in the Christian church. 
 
 CHAPTEll 11. 
 
 THAT THE JEWISH CHURCH WAS FORMALLY 
 DISTINCT FROM THE JEWISH STATE OR 
 COMMONWEALTH. 
 
 It hath been by some (with much confi- 
 dence and scorn of all who say otherwise) 
 averred, that excommunication and church 
 government distinct from the civil hath no 
 pattern for it in the Jewish church. " I 
 
 am sure," saith Mr Coleman in his Brother- 
 ly Examination Re-examined, p. 16, "the 
 best reformed church that ever was, went 
 this way, I mean the church of Israel, which 
 had no distinction of church o-overnment and 
 civil government." Hast thou appealed unto 
 Csesar ? unto Ceesar shalt thou go. Have you 
 appealed to the Jewish church 'i thither shall 
 you go. Wherefore I shall endeavour to make 
 these five things appear : 1. That the Jewish 
 church was formally distinct from the Jew- 
 ish state. 2. That there was an ecclesiasti- 
 cal sanhedrim and government distinct from 
 the civil. 3. That there was an ecclesiasti- 
 cal excommunication distinct from civil pun- 
 ishments. 4. That in the Jewish church 
 there was also a public exomologesis, or de- 
 claration of repentance, and, thereupon, a 
 reception or admission again of the ofiender 
 to fellowsliip with the church in the holy 
 things. 5. That there was a suspension of 
 the profane from the temple and passover. 
 
 First. The Jewish church was ibrmally 
 distinct from the Jewish state. I say for- 
 mally, because ordinarily they were not dis- 
 tinct materially, the same persons being 
 members of both ; but formally they were 
 distinct, as now the church and state are 
 among us Christians. 1. In respect of dis- 
 tinct laws, the ceremonial law was given to 
 them in reference to their church state, the 
 judicial law was given to them in reference 
 to their civil state. Is. Abrabanel, dc capite 
 Jidci, cap. 13, putteth this diffei'ence be- 
 tween the laws given to Adam and to the 
 sons of Noah, and the divine law given by 
 Moses, — that those laws were given for con- 
 servation of human society, and are in the 
 classes of judicial or civil laws. But the 
 divine law given by Moses doth direct the 
 soul to its last perfection and end. I do not 
 approve the difference which he puts be- 
 tween these laws. This only I note, that 
 he distinguislieth judicial or civil laws for 
 conservation of society, though given by God, 
 from those laws which are given to perfect 
 the soul, and to direct it to its last end, such 
 as he conceives the whole moral and cere- 
 monial law of Moses to be. Halichoth 01- 
 ain, tract 5, cap. 2, tells us that such and 
 such rabbles wei'e Ibllowed in the ceremonial 
 laws ; other rabbles followed in the judicial 
 laws. 2. In respect of distinct acts, they did 
 not worship God and offer sacrifices in the 
 temple, nor call upon the name of the Lord, 
 nor give thanks, nor receive the sacraments 
 as that state, but as that church. They 
 
4 
 
 A.VIION b ROD BLOSSOMING, OR THE 
 
 did not punish evil-doei-s by mulcts, im- 
 prisonment, banishment, burning, stoning, 
 hanging, as that chuixh, but as that state. 
 3. In respect of controversies, some causes 
 and controversies did concern the Lord's 
 matters, some the king's matters, 2 Chron. 
 xix. 11. To judge between blood and blood 
 was one thing ; to judge between law and 
 commandment, between statutes and judg- 
 ments, that is, to give the ti-ue sense of the 
 law of God when it was controverted, was 
 another thing. 4. In respect of officei-s, 
 the priests and Levites were church officere : 
 magistrates and judges not so, but were min- 
 isters of the state. The priests might not 
 take the sword out of the hand of the magis- 
 trates : the masistrates misht not otfer sa- 
 crifice nor exercise the priest's oftice. 5. In 
 respect of continuance, when the Romans 
 took away the Jewish state and civil govern- 
 ment yet the Jewish chui-ch did remain, and 
 the Romans did permit them the liberty of 
 their religion. And now, though the Jews 
 have no JcNvish state, yet they liave Jewish 
 churches ; whence it is, that when they tell 
 where one did or doth live, they do not 
 mention the tow^l but the church : " In the 
 holy church at Venice, at Frankford," Sec. 
 See Buxtorf. Lex. Rabbin, p. 1983. 6. In 
 respect of variation, the constitution and 
 government of the Jewish state was not the 
 same, but different, under Moses and Jo- 
 shua, under the judges, mider the kings, 
 and after the captivity ; but we caimot say 
 that the church was remodelled as often as 
 the state was. 7. In respect of members ; 
 for, as ^Ir Selden hath very well observed 
 concerning that sort of proselytes who had 
 the name ot Prosclt/ti J uatitUv.^ They were 
 initiated into the Jewish religion by circum- 
 cision, baptism and sacrifice ; and they were 
 allowed not only to worship God apai-t by 
 themselves, but also to come into the church 
 and congregation of Israel, and to be called 
 by the name of Jews, — nevertheless they 
 were restrained and secluded from dignities, 
 magistracies and preferments in the Jewish 
 republic, and from divei-s marriages which 
 were free to the Israehtes, even as sti-angers 
 initiated and associated into the church of 
 Rome have not therefore the privilege of 
 
 1 De Jure natur. et Gentium, lib. 2. cap. 4, Pro- 
 seljlus Justitiae ntcunqne novato patria; nomine Ju- 
 dseus diceretur, non tam quidcra civis Jadaicus 
 simpliciter ccusendns esset quam peregrinus sem- 
 per, cui jura quamplurima inter cives. See the like, 
 lib. 5, c.'20. 
 
 Roman citizens. Tlius Mr Selden, who 
 hath thereby made it manifest that there 
 was a distinction of the Jewish church and 
 Jewish state, because those proselytes, being 
 embodied into the Jewish church as church 
 members, and having a right to communi- 
 cate in the holy ordinances among the rest 
 of the people of God, yet were not properly 
 membei-s of the Jewish state, nor admitted 
 to civil privileges ; whence it is also that the 
 names of Jews and proselytes were used 
 distinctly, Acts ii. 10. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THAT THE JEWS H.VD A\ ECCLESIASTICAL 
 S.VNHEDRIM AXD GOVERXMENT DISTINCT 
 FROM THE CIVIL. 
 
 I come to the second point, that there 
 was an ecclesiastical government and an 
 ecclesiastical sanhedrim among the Jews. 
 This distuiction of the two sannedrims, the 
 civil and the ecclesiastical, is maintained by 
 Zeppei-us, dc poUt. cedes. Ub. 3, cap. 7 ; 
 Junius, m Dout. xvii. ; Piscator, ibid. ; Wol- 
 phius, in 2 Kings xxiii. ; Gerhard Harm, de 
 puss. cap. 8 ; Godwin's 3Ioscs and Aaron, 
 Ub. 5, cap. 1 ; Bucerus de gubern. eccl., 
 p. 61, 62; "\Vala?us, torn. 2, p. 9; Pelargus, 
 in Deut. xvii. ; Sopingius ad bonain Jidem 
 Sibrandi, p. 261, ct scq. ; tlie Dutch An- 
 notations on Deut. xvii. and 2 Chron. xix. ; 
 Bertramus de polit. Jud. cap. 11 ; Apol- 
 lonii jus JMajest., part 1, p. 374; StrigeUus, 
 in 2 Parol ip. cap. 19 ; the professors of | 
 Groningen ( vide Judicium facult. Theol. 
 acadcmice Groningance, apud Cabcljav. 
 dcf. potest. £ccl., p. 64). I remember 
 Raynolds, in the conference nith H:u-t, is ' 
 of the same opinion ; also Mr Paget, in his i 
 Defence of Chm'ch Government, p. 41, be- 
 sides diver's others. I shall oiily add the [ 
 
 3 Buxtorf. Lexic. Chald. Talm. et Rabbin, p. 408. ! 
 Poselvti justitiae sunt qui non rerum externarum, 
 scd solius religionis causa, et gloriae Dei studio, re- 
 ligionem Judaicam amplectuntur, ct totam legem 
 Mosis dicto raodo rccipiunt. Hi natis Judais ha- 
 bcntur a^quales : understand in an ecclesiastical, 
 not in a civil capacity. In which sense also Mat- 
 thias Martinius, in lexic. philol., p. 2922, saith that 
 these proselytes, cum ad sacrorum Judaicorum 
 communionem admittebantur, etc., Tcri Judmi cen- 
 sebantur ; and that to be made a proselyte and to 
 be made a Jew, are used promiscuously iu the rab- 
 binical writings. So also Drusius pra2t. 1. 4, in lo. 
 12,20. 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHUECII GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 5 
 
 testimony of Constantinus L'Empcreur, a 
 man singularly well acquainted with the 
 Jewish antiquities, who hath expressed hini- 
 sell' concerning this point I)oth in liis Anno- 
 tations upon Bertram, p. 389, and Amiot. in 
 Cod. Middoth. p. 187, 188. The latter of 
 these two passages is in the note,^ express- 
 ing not only his opinion, but the ground of 
 it. And it is no obscure footstep of the ec- 
 clesiastical sanhedrim,* which is cited out of 
 Elias by Dr Buxtorff, in his Lexicon Chald. 
 Tidmud. et Rabbin, p. 1514. 
 
 The first institution of an ecclesiastical 
 sanhedrim appeareth to me to be held forth 
 in Exod. xxiv. 1 , where God saith to Moses, 
 " Come up unto the Lord, thou and Aaron, 
 Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders 
 of Israel." It is a controversy among in- 
 terpreters who those seventy elders were. 
 Tostatus maketh it clear^ that they were 
 not the seventy elders chosen for the go- 
 vernment of the commonwealth, Num. xi. ; 
 nor yet the judges chosen by the advice 
 of Jethro, Exod. xviii. ; nor yet any other 
 judges who had before-time judged the peo- 
 ple. These three negatives Willet upon 
 
 1 Caeterum suprcmiis Senatua cujus in hoc con- 
 clavi sedes, duplex fuisse videtur, pro rerura ecclcsi- 
 asticarum ct politicarura diversitate: quoniain Deut. 
 xvii. 12, ubi de supremis senatoribus agitur, mani- 
 feste saccrdos a Judicc distinguitur ; ad sacerdotem 
 aut ad Judiccm, i.e., saccrdotcs aut Judices, ut 
 com. 9, indicio est, ubi pro sacerdote ponuntur sa- 
 cerdotcs. Adde Jeliosliapiiatum, cum Judicialliero- 
 solymis rcstauraret, duos ordines constituissc, sa- 
 cerdotes et capita I'amiliarum, ad judicium Dei et 
 ad litem : similiter duos presides com. 11, uuum ad 
 omnen causam Dei : alterum scilicet duccra Judaa- 
 orum ad omne negotium regis. Quibus succinunt 
 verba, Jcr. xix. 1, quibus scniorcs jiopuli ab seniori- 
 bu3 saccrdotum distiuguutur. Quocirca in N. T. 
 eublato (ut videtur) per Ilerodem, uno synedrio, sc. 
 politico ; alterum apostolorum seculo superfuit, in 
 quo politici etiam niauebant reliquiae : nam ab ec- 
 clesiasticis seniorcs populi distinguntur, Matt. xxvi. 
 3, 59 ; xxvii, 1. Ni magis placeat, quod ab aliis 
 observatum fuit, Ilerodem, sublatis 70. Seniori- 
 bus e familia Davidica, alios inferiores substituisse : 
 quod judiciorum quibusdaui exemplis firmari vide- 
 tur. Adeo ut illia tcmporibus duplex quoque Sync- 
 drium fuerit, quamvis utriusque senatores subinde 
 couvenirent: quo forte refcreudum to trun^^mv i>.o)i, 
 quod Matt. xxvi. 59 ; Mark xiv. 55 : xv. i ; Acts 
 xxii. 30, occurit. ((iuin etiam c. 1, cod. Jomaj, ead- 
 em distinctio his verbis confirmatur ubi de praepo- 
 ratione sacerdotis niagui ad diem expiationis agi- 
 tur) tradunt eum seniores domus Judicii, seniori- 
 bus sacerdotii. 
 
 2 Propter meritum assessorum Synedrii, qui oc- 
 cupati sunt in lege, et illuminant Judicium. Et 
 desceudit in Babyloniam ad concilium sapieiitum. 
 
 I Id non fuit Synedrium Judicum ct magistratus 
 I summi, sed collegium doctorum. 
 
 3 In Exod, xxiv. Quest. 3. 
 
 the place holdeth with Tostatus. Not the 
 first, for this was done at Mount Sinai, 
 shortly after their coming out of Egypt. 
 But on the twentieth day of the second 
 month, in the second year, they took their 
 journey I'rom Sinai to the wilderness of Pa- 
 ran, Num. X. 11, 12, and there pitched at 
 Hibroth-hataavath, Num. xxxiii. 16, wliere 
 the seventy elders were chosen, to relieve 
 Moses of the burden of government. So 
 that this election of seventy, Exod. xxiv., 
 was before that election of seventy. Num. 
 xi. Not the second, for this election of 
 seventy, Exod. xxiv., was before that elec- 
 tion of judges by Jethro's advice, Exod. 
 xviii., Jethro himself not having come to 
 Moses till the end of the first year, or the 
 beginning of the second year, after the com- 
 ing out of Egypt, and not before the giving 
 of the law ; which Tostatus proves by this 
 argument : the law was given the third day 
 after they came to Sinai, but it was impos- 
 sible that Jethro could in the space of throe 
 days hear that Moses and the people of Is- 
 rael were in the wilderness of Sinai, and 
 come there unto them, — that Moses should 
 go forth and meet him, and receive him, 
 and entertain him, — that Jethro should ob- 
 serve the manner of Moses' government, in 
 litigious government from morning till eve- 
 ning, and give counsel to rectify it, — that 
 Moses should take course to help it. How 
 could all this be done in those three days, 
 which were also appointed for sanctifying 
 the people against the receiving of the law ? 
 Thercfoi'e he concludeth that the story of Je- 
 thi'o, Exod. xviii., is an anticipation. ^ Last- 
 ly, he saith, the seventy elders mentioned 
 Exod. xxiv., could not be judges who did 
 judge the people before Jethro came, be- 
 cause Jethro did observe the whole burden 
 of government did lie upon Moses alone, 
 and there were no other judges. 
 
 Now it is to be observed that the seventy 
 elders chosen and called, Exod. xxiv., were 
 also invested with authority in judging con- 
 troversies,^ wherein Aaron or Hur were to 
 preside, verse 14. They are joined with 
 Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and are called 
 up as a representative of the whole church, 
 when God was makmg a covenant with his 
 
 1 In Exod. xviii. Quest. 2. 
 
 2 Menocliius in Exod. xxiv. 14, redite ad populum, 
 ut ilium regatis, ct in officio contineatis. Pelargus 
 upon the place saith that Moses would not leave tlie 
 cliurch -without rulers to avoid the danger of popu- 
 lar anarchy. 
 
6 
 
 people. It is after the judicial laws, Exod. 
 xxi., xxii., xxiii., and that xxiv. chapter is 
 a transition to the ceremonial laws concern- 
 ing the worship of God and structure of the 
 tabernacle, which are to follow. Neither 
 had the seventy elders, of which now I 
 speak, any share of the supreme civil go- 
 vernment, to judge hard civil causes, and to 
 receive appeals concerning those things from 
 the inferior judges ; for all this did still lie 
 upon Moses alone, Num. xi. 14. Further- 
 more they saw the glory of the Lord, and 
 were admitted to a sacred banquet, and to 
 eat of the sacrifices in his presence, Exod. 
 xxiv. 5, 10,11, and were thereby confirmed 
 in their calling. All which laid together 
 may seem to amount to no less than a so- 
 lemn interesting and investing of them into 
 an ecclesiastical authority. 
 
 The next proof for the ecclesiastical san- 
 hedrim shall be taken from Deut. xvii. 8 — 
 12, where observe, 1. It is agreed upon, 
 both by Jewish and Christian expositors, 
 that this place holds forth a supreme civil 
 court of judges ; and the authority of the 
 civil sanhedrim is mainly grounded on this 
 very text. Now if this text holds forth a 
 superior civil jurisdiction, as is universally 
 acknowledged, it holds forth also a superior 
 ecclesiastical jurisdiction distinct from the 
 civil ; for the text carrieth the authority 
 and sentence of the priests as high as the 
 authority and sentence of the judges, and 
 that in a disjunctive way, as two powers, not 
 one, and each of them bmding respectively 
 and in its proper sphere. 2. The Hebrew 
 doctors tell us of three kinds of causes, which, 
 being found difficult, were transmitted from 
 the inferior courts to those at J erusalem : 
 (1.) Capital causes; (2.) Mulcts; (3.) Le- 
 prosy, and the judgment of clean or unclean. 
 Now this third belonged to the cognisance 
 and judgment of the priests ; yea, the text 
 itself holdeth forth two sorts of causes and 
 controversies : some forensical, between blood 
 and blood ; some ceremonial, between stroke 
 and stroke. Not only Jerome, but the Chal- 
 dee and Gi-eek readeth, between leprosy and 
 leprosy. Grotius noteth the Hebrew word 
 is used for leprosy many times in one chap- 
 ter. Lev. xiii. Plea and plea seemeth 
 common to both, there being difference of 
 judgment concerning the one and the other. 
 3. Here are two judicatories distinguished by 
 the disjunctive or, verse 12, Avliich we have 
 both in the Hebrew, Chaldee, Greek, and 
 in our English translation ; so that, verse 9, 
 
 and is put for or, as Grotius noteth, ex- 
 pounding that verse by verse 12 ; and as 
 the priests and Levites are put in the plural, 
 verse 9, the like must be understood of the 
 judge, whereby we must understand judges ; 
 and so the Clialdee readeth, verse 9, even 
 as, saith Ainsworth, many captains are in 
 the Hebrew called an head, 1 Chron. iv. 
 42. And so you have there references of 
 difficult cases from the inferior courts to 
 the priests, or to the judges at Jerusalem. 
 4. There is also some intimation of a two- 
 fold sentence ; one concerning the meaning 
 of the law: " according to the sentence of the 
 law, which they shall teach thee," verse 11 ; 
 and this belonged to the priests, Mai. ii. 7, 
 " for the priest's (it is not said the judge's) 
 lips should preserve knowledge, and they 
 should seek the law at his mouth." An- 
 other concerning matter of fact : " and ac- 
 cording to the judgment which they shall 
 tell thee thou shalt do." Grotius upon the 
 place acknowledgeth a judg-ment of the 
 priests distinct from that of the judges, and 
 he addeth a simile from the Roman synod, 
 consistmg of seventy bishops, which was con- 
 sulted in weighty controversies. But he is 
 of opinion that the priests and Levites did 
 only endeavour to satisfy and reconcile the 
 dissenting parties, which if they did, well ; 
 if not, that then they referred the reasons 
 of both parties to the sanhedrim, who gave 
 forth their decree upon the whole matter. 
 The first part of that which he saith help- 
 eth me ; but this last hath no ground in the 
 text, but is manifestly inconsistent there- 
 with ; verse 12, " The man that will do 
 presumptuously, and will not hearken unto 
 the priest, or unto the judge, even that man 
 shall die ;" which proves that the judgment 
 of both was supreme in sua gencre,^ that is, 
 if it was a controversy ceremonial between 
 leprosy and leprosy, or between clean and 
 unclean, Lev. x. 9 — 11 ; Ezek. xxii. 26 ; or 
 dogmatical and doctrinal, concemintr the 
 sense of the law, and answermg de jure, 
 when the sense of the law was controverted 
 by the judges of the cities, then he that 
 would not stand to the ecclesiastical sanhe- 
 drim, whereof the liigh priest was president, 
 was to die the death. But if the cause was 
 ci-iminal, as between blood and blood, where- 
 
 1 Erastus Confirm thes. lib. 4, cap. 3, iloses 
 operte ait, Interficiendum esse ilium, qui vel sacer- 
 dotis sententiae vel Judicis assentire noUet. Non 
 ergo liberum facit ab illo ad hunc provocare. 
 
DI\aXE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOATERXJIEXT VINDICATED. 7 
 
 in the nature or proof of the fact could not 
 be agTecd upon by the judges of the cities, 
 then he tliat would not submit to the decree 
 of the civil sanhedrim at Jerusalem should 
 die the death. And thus the English di- 
 vines, in their late annotations, give the 
 sense according to the disjunction, ver. 12. 
 "Wliile the priest bringeth warrant from God 
 for the sentence which he passeth in the 
 cause of man, Ezek. xliv. 23, 24, he that 
 contumaciously disobeyeth him, disobeyeth 
 God, Luke x. 16 ; Matt. x. 14. The cause 
 is alike, if the just sentence of a competent 
 judge be contenmed in secular affairs. 
 
 In the third place, we read that David 
 did thus divide the Levites (at that time 
 eight-and-thirty thousand), four-and-twenty 
 thousand of them were to set forward the 
 work of the house of the Lord ; four thou- 
 sand were porters, and four thousand praised 
 the Lord with instruments, and six thou- 
 sand of them were made, some schoterim 
 officers, and some schophtim judges, 1 
 Chron. xxiii. 4. Some understand by scho- 
 terim, rulers, or those who were over the 
 charge. To speak properly, schophtim were 
 those that gave sentence, schoterim, those 
 that looked to the execution of the sen- 
 tence, and to the keeping of the law, like 
 the yo/j-ohf'ia among the Grecians ; for y/j-o- 
 hirla was One thing, vofm^pvXaxla another : so 
 1 Chron. xxvi. 29, " Chenaniah and his 
 sons were for the outward business over 
 Israel, for officers (or rulers, or over the 
 charge), and judges ;" that is, they were 
 not tied to attendance and service in the 
 temple, as the porters and singers, and 
 those that did service about the sacrifices, 
 lights, washings, and such like things in the 
 temple ; but tliey were to judge and give 
 sentence concerning the law, and the mean- 
 ing thereof,^ when any such controversy 
 should be brought before them from any of 
 the cities in the land. They were not ap- 
 pomted to be officers and judges over the 
 rest of the Levites, to keep them m order, 
 for which course was taken in another way, 
 but to be rulers and judges over Isi'ael, saith 
 the text, in " the outward business" which 
 came from without to Jerusalem, in judging 
 
 1 Menochius in 1 Paral. xxiii. 4, idem sunt praepo- 
 siti et Judices, quorum raunus erat Israolitarum 
 causas quae juxta legem finiebantur, judicare, quod 
 patct ex 2 Paral. xix. 8, ubi babemus coustituit Je- 
 ho.sbaphat in Jerusalem levitas et sacerdotes et prin- 
 cipcs familiarum ex Israel, ut judicium et causam 
 domini judicarent. 
 
 of which, peradventure, they were to attend 
 by course, or as they were called. If any 
 say that all those Levites who were judges 
 did not sit in judgment at Jerusalem, but 
 some of them in several cities of the land, 
 that there might be the easier access to 
 them ; I can easily grant it, and I verily be- 
 lieve it was so, and it maketh the more for a 
 church government in particular cities, which 
 was subordmate to the ecclesiastical sanhe- 
 drim at Jerusalem. However the Levites 
 had a ruling power, and, Deut. xxxi. 28, 
 those who are schoterim in the original the 
 Septuagints call y^afiftaTouirayuy'.Ts, Jerome, 
 doctors, because their teachers were officers 
 over the charge, and had a share in govern- 
 ment. Now no man can imagine that there 
 were no other officers over the charge not 
 judges in Israel except the Levites only ; 
 lor it followeth in that same story, 1 Chron. 
 xxviii. 1, " And David assembled all the 
 princes of Israel, the princes of the tribes, 
 and the captains of the companies that min- 
 istered unto the king by course, and the 
 captains over the thousands," &c. Nor yet 
 will any man say that the Levites were offi- 
 cers over the charge, and iudges of the same 
 knid, in the same manner, or for the same 
 ends, with the civil rulers or judges, or the 
 military commanders ; or that" there was no 
 distinction between the ruling power of the 
 princes and the ruling power of the Le- 
 vites. Where, then, shall the difference 
 lie, if not in this, — that there was an eccle- 
 siastical government besides the civil and 
 military? I gTant those Levites did rule 
 and judge not only in all the business of the 
 Lord, but also in the service of the king, 
 1 Chron. xxvi. 30, 32. But the reason 
 was, because the Jews had no other civil 
 law but God's own law, which the priests 
 and Levites were to expound ; so that it was 
 proper for that time, and there is not the 
 like reason that the ministers of Jesus 
 Christ in the New Testament should judge 
 or rule in civil affairs ; nay, it were con- 
 trary to the rule of Christ and his apostles 
 for us to do so, yet the Levites' iudo;ino- and 
 
 • '111 »/ O O 
 
 governmg in all the business of the Lord, 
 is a pattern left for the entrusting of church 
 officers in the New Testament with a power 
 of church government : there being no such 
 reason for it, as to make it peculiar to the 
 Old Testament, and not common to the 
 New. 
 
 The fourth scriptm-e which proves an ec- 
 clesiastical government and sanhedrim, is 
 
8 
 
 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 2 Chron. xix. 8, 10, 11, where Jehosha- 
 phat restoreth the same church government 
 which was first instituted by the hand of 
 Moses, and afterward ordered and settled 
 by David. " Moreover (saith the text) in 
 Jerusalem did Jehoshaphat set of the Le- 
 vites, and of the priests, and of the chief of 
 the fathers of Israel, for the judgment of 
 the Lord, and for controversies," &c. It is 
 not controverted whether there was a civil 
 sanhedrim at Jerusalem, but that which is 
 to be proved from the place is an ecclesias- 
 tical court, which I prove thus : Where 
 there is a court made up of ecclesiastical 
 members, judging spiritual and ecclesiasti- 
 cal causes, for a spiritual and ecclesiastical 
 end, moderated by an ecclesiastical presi- 
 dent, having power ultimately and authori- 
 tatively to determine causes and controver- 
 sies brought before them by appeal or re- 
 ference from inferior courts, and whose sen- 
 tence is put into execution by ecclesiastical 
 officers, there it must needs be granted that 
 there was a supreme ecclesiastical court, 
 with power of government. But such a 
 court we find at Jerusalem in Jehosha- 
 phat's time ; therefore, the proposition, I 
 suppose, no man will deny ; tor a court so 
 constituted, so qualified, and so authorised, 
 is the very thmg now in debate. And he 
 that will grant us the thing which is in the 
 assumption, shall have leave to call it by 
 another name if he please. The assump- 
 tion I prove by the parts. 
 
 1. Here are Levites and priests in this 
 court, as members thereof, with power of 
 decisive suffrage, and with them such of the 
 chief of the fathers of Israel as were joined 
 in the government of that church ; whence 
 the reverend and learned Assembly of Di- 
 vines, and many Protestant writers before 
 them, have drawn an argument for ruling 
 elders. And this is one of the scriptures 
 alleged by our divines against Bellarmine, 
 to prove that others beside those who are 
 commonly, but corruptly, called the clergy, 
 ought to have a decisive voice in synods. 
 
 2. Spiritual and ecclesiastical causes were 
 here judged : which are called by the name 
 
 1 Salmasins apparat. ad libros de Primatu, p. 302. 
 Qn» ad res sacras ac divinas pertinebant, de his 
 pra;cipue judicium sacerdotum fuit, de aliis civili- 
 bu3 et regalibus, prajsides si rege coustituti, nt 
 patet ex lib. 2 Chron. xix. Tirinus in 2 Chron. 
 xix. 11, Ubi nota distinctionem forfori seu, magis- 
 tratus ecclesiastici et cirilis, contra Anglo-Calvin- 
 istas et nostros Arminianos. 
 
 of " the judgment of the Lord," ver. 8, and 
 " the matters of the Lord," distinguished 
 from "the king's matters," ver. 11 ; so ver. 
 10, beside controversies " between blood 
 and blood," that is, concerning consangui- 
 nity and the interpreting of the laws con- 
 cerning forbidden degrees in marriage (it 
 being observed by interpreters that aU the 
 lawful or unlawful degrees are not particu- 
 larly expressed, but some only, and the rest 
 were to be judged of by parity of reason, and 
 so it might fall within the cognisance of the 
 ecclesiastical sanhedrim), though it may be 
 also expounded otherwise, " between blood 
 and blood," that is, whether the murder 
 was wilful or casual (which was matter of 
 fact), the cognisance whereof belonged to 
 the civil judge ; it is further added" " be- 
 tween law and commandment, statutes and 
 judgments, noting seeming contradictions 
 between one law and another (such as Ma- 
 nasseh Ben Israel hath spoken of in his 
 Conciliator), or when the sense and mean- 
 ing of the law is controverted (which is 
 not matter of fact, but of right), wherein 
 special use was of the priest, whose lips 
 should pi^eserve knowledge, and the law was 
 to be sought at his mouth, Mai. ii. 7, and 
 that not only ministerially and doctrinally, 
 but judicially, and in the sanhedrim at Je- 
 rusalem, such controversies concerning the 
 law of God were brought before them, as in 
 2 Chron. xix., the place now in hand : " Ye 
 shall even warn them," &c., which, being 
 spoken to the court, must be meant of a sy- 
 nedrical decree, determining those questions 
 and controversies concerning the law which 
 should come before them. As for that dis- 
 tinction in the text of " the Lord's matters 
 and the king's matters," Erastus, p. 274, 
 saith, that by the Lord's matters is meant 
 any cause expressed in the law wliich was 
 to be judged, whereby he takes away the 
 distinction which the text makes ; for in his 
 sense the king's matters were the Lord's 
 matters ; which himself (it seems) perceiv- 
 ing, he immediately yieldeth our interpi-e- 
 tation, that by the Lord's matters, are 
 meant things pertaining to the worship of 
 God, and by the king's matters, civil things. 
 Si per illas libct res ad cultum Dei spec- 
 tantes, per hcec res civiles accipere, non 
 pugnaho. " If you please (saith he) by 
 those to understand things pertaining to 
 the worship of God, by these, civil things, 
 I wUl not be again.st it." 
 
 3. It was for a spiritual and ecclesiastical 
 
DIVINE ORDINiVNCE OF CIIUKCII GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 9 
 
 end, — " Ye shall even warn them that they 
 trespass not against the Lord." It is not 
 said, against one another, but, against 
 the Lord, for two reasons : 1, Because 
 mention had been made of the command- 
 ments, statutes and judgments after the 
 general word law, ver. 10, by which names 
 interpreters used to understand (both in this 
 and many other places of Scripture) the 
 laws moral, ceremonial and judicial. Now 
 the case to be judged might be part of the 
 ceremonial law, having reference to God 
 and Ills ordinances, and not part of the judi- 
 cial law, or any injury done by a man to his 
 neighbour ; and, in reference to the moral 
 law, it might be a trespass against the first 
 table, not against the second. 2. Even in 
 the case of a personal or civil injury, or 
 whatsoever the controversy was tliat was 
 l)rought before them, they were to warn 
 the judges in the cities not to trespass 
 against the Lord, by mistaking or misun- 
 derstanding the law, or by righting men's 
 wrongs so as to wrong divine right ; and 
 for that end they were to determine the 
 jus, and the intendment of the law, when it 
 was controverted. 
 
 4. MTiatsoever cause of their brethren 
 that dwelt in the cities should come unto 
 them, ver. 10 (whether it should come by 
 appeal, or by reference and arbitration), 
 this court at Jerusalem was to give out an 
 ultimate and authoritative determination of 
 it ; so that what was brought from inferior 
 courts to them, was brought no higher to any 
 other court. 
 
 5. This court had an ecclesiastical prolo- 
 cutor or moderator, ver. 11, " Amariah the 
 chief priest is over you in all matters of the 
 Lord ;" whereas Zebadiah, the ruler of the 
 house of Judah, was speaker in the civil 
 sanhedrim for all the king's matters. A- 
 mariah and Zebadiah were not only with 
 the sanhedrim as members, or as council- 
 lors, but over them as presidents. Eis 
 summos magistratus (af;t»i'T£f) ex amico- 
 rum numcra pra:posuit, Amasiam sacer- 
 dotcm, ct ex Judce tribu Zebadiam, saith 
 Josephus, Antiq. 1. 9, cap. 1. Erastus con- 
 fesseth, p. 273, that both of them were pre- 
 sidents set over the sanhedrun, and, p. 275, 
 Si sacerdotem in Dei nomine, Zebadiam 
 autem regis prcesedisse ajirmetur, non 
 refragabor. He confesseth also that the 
 one was more especially to take care of the 
 Lord's mattei-s, the other of the king's mat- 
 ters. What then ? He saith they were 
 
 presidents both of them to the whole san- 
 hedrim, not the one to one number and the 
 other to another. Yet in this he yieldeth 
 also, p. 273, Qunnquam non peccet forte, 
 qui scnatores hos per offi,eia distributos 
 dicat, ut alii magis ha;c, alii magis ilia 
 negotia tractarint. Whosoever denieth 
 that that place proveth two distinct courts, 
 he may be convinced from this one reason, 
 and I shall say to him in the words of Bil- 
 dad. Job viii. 8, " Enquire, I pray thee, of 
 the former age, and prepare thyself to the 
 search of their fathers ;" and in the pro- 
 phet's words, Jer. ii. 10, " Pass over the 
 isles of Chittim, and see, and send unto 
 Kedar, and consider diligently, and see if 
 there be such a thing." Wliere was it ever 
 heard of that a priest was president of a 
 court, and that in sacred things and causes ; 
 that a civil magistrate was president of a 
 court, and that in civil causes, and yet not 
 two courts, but one court ? If both courts 
 had materially consisted of the same mem- 
 bers, of the same priests, and of the same 
 fathers of Israel (which yet cannot be 
 proved), this very diversification of the pre- 
 sidents, and of the subject-matter (if there 
 were no more), wall prove two courts for- 
 mally distinct ; even as now among our- 
 selves, the same men may be members of 
 two, or three, or four, or more courts, but 
 the distinction of presidents, and of the sub- 
 ject-matter, maketli the court distinct. 
 
 6. Here were also ecclesiastical officers, 
 ver. 11, "Also the Levites shall be officers 
 before you." As before, 1 Chron. xxiii. 26, 
 some of the Levites were schophtim, judges 
 to give sentence, others schoterim, officers 
 to see that sentence put in execution, and 
 to cause those that wei'e refractory to obey 
 it (so do the Hebrews distinguish these two 
 words), so it was here also, some of the Le- 
 vites were appointed to judge, some to do 
 the part of officers in point of execution of 
 ecclesiastical censures ; for they could not, 
 nor miglit not, compel men by the civil 
 sword. The same name is given to military 
 officers who prosecute the commands of au- 
 thority. Josh. i. 10. And so much of this 
 fourth. 
 
 The fifth place which I take to hold forth 
 that distinction of courts and jurisdictions, is 
 Jer. xxvi., where first the prophet is taken 
 into the court of the priests and prophets, 
 for which the Chaldee readetli scribes, whose 
 office it was to be doctors of the law, and 
 to resolve the difficult cases ; and in that 
 
 B 
 
10 
 
 Aaron's rod blossomixg, or the 
 
 capacity tliey were members of ecclesiastical 
 councils, Matt. ii. 4. To the same sense, 
 saith Diodati, that the prophets here spoken 
 of were such as were learned in the law, and 
 had been bred in the schools and colleges of 
 the chief prophets, and, in Jeremiah's time, 
 were present at ecclesiastical judgments and 
 assemblies, 2 Kings xxiii. 2, as in Christ's 
 time the scribes and doctors of the law used 
 to be, who were somewhat like these pro- 
 phets. Menochius and others expound it as 
 the Chaldee doth. In this court Jeremiah 
 was examined and judged as a false prophet, 
 ver. 8, 9 ; yet, though they had judged him 
 worthy to die, the court of the princes ac- 
 quitteth him as a prophet of the Lord, who 
 had spoken to them in the name of the 
 Lord, ver. 10, 11, 16. That Jeremiah's 
 cause was twice judged in two distinct courts, 
 and two different sentences upon it, hath 
 been asserted by divers of the Erastian 
 party, to prove appeals from ecclesiastical to 
 civil courts ; to which argument I have else- 
 where spoken. Only I take here what they 
 grant, — that there were two courts, and two 
 sentences given, — and so it was. The sen- 
 tence of the court of the priests (as them- 
 selves explain it, ver. 11), was this, — " This 
 man is worthy to die," or, as the Hebrew 
 hath it, " The judgment of death is for this 
 man ;" the Chaldee thus, — " A sin of the 
 judgment of death is upon this man ;" for, 
 say they, he hath prophesied so and so ; 
 and he that speaketh against this city, and 
 against this holy place, is worthy to die. 
 But the sentence of the court of the princes 
 is, ver. 16, " This man is not worthy to die, 
 for he hath spoken to us in the name of the 
 Lord our God." They do not say to the 
 priests, Who did put any jurisdiction, or 
 authority to judge, in your hands ? but they 
 acquit him, in point of fact, whom the court 
 of the priests had condenmed, in point of 
 right ; as if they had said to the priests. If 
 Jeremiah were a false prophet you had rea- 
 son to call for justice upon him, even unto 
 death ; but your judgment hath run upon a 
 false supposition in point of fact, which we 
 do not find proved, but know to be ftilse. 
 Wherefore from this place these two things 
 may appear : 1 . That the court of the priests 
 had not power of capital punishments ; for 
 if they had, certainly Jeremiah had been 
 put to death, as Jerome noteth. 2. Yet 
 they had a power to judge of a false prophet, 
 and judicially to pronounce him to be a I'alse 
 prophet, and such a one as ought to be pun- 
 
 ished so and so, according to the law. That 
 they had such a power appeareth, (1.) from 
 ver. 8, 9, where they do not take him to 
 lead him to the court of the princes, and 
 there to accuse him ; but they take him, so 
 as to give forth their own sentence against 
 him, as against a false prophet, — " Thou 
 shalt surely die," say they, " why hast thou 
 prophesied in the name of the Lord ?" &c. 
 Wliy didst thou dare to pretend the name 
 of God, as if God had sent thee to preach 
 against the temple and holy city ? (2.) Je- 
 remiah doth not in all his differences allege 
 that the priests and scribes had not jjower 
 to judge of a false prophet, or to give sen- 
 tence against one in such a case : nor yet 
 did the princes object this, as hath been 
 said ; yet this had been as strong an excep- 
 tion as could have been made against the 
 priests, if they had assumed a power and 
 authority of judgment which was without 
 their sphere, and did not at all belong unto 
 them. (3.) If you compare the sentence of 
 the priests with the sentence of the princes, 
 the former is in siio genere, no less judicial, 
 authoritative, and peremptory than the lat- 
 ter ; only that was affirmative, this was ne- 
 gative. Finally, let us take for a conclusion 
 of this argument that which 3Ir Prynne 
 himself, in his fourth part of " Tlie Sove- 
 reign Power of Parliaments and Kingdoms," 
 p. 144, tells us, out of Vindiciw contra 
 Tyrannos, with an approbatory and enco- 
 miastic close of his citation : " Jeremiah, 
 being sent by God to denounce the over- 
 throw of the city Jerusalem, is, for this, 
 first condemned (citing in the margin Jer. 
 xxvi.) by the priests and prophets, that is, 
 
 BY THE ECCLESIASTICAL JUDGMENT OR SE- 
 NATE, after this, by all the people, that is, 
 by the ordinary judges of the city, to wit, 
 by the captains of thousands and hundreds ; 
 at last, l)y the princes of Judah, that is, by 
 seventy-one. men sitting in the new porch of 
 the temple, his cause being made known, 
 he is acquitted." 
 
 The sixth place which intimateth an eccle- 
 siastical sanhedrim, is Jer. xviii. 18, where 
 the adversaries of Jeremiah say among them- 
 selves, " Come and let us devise devices 
 against Jeremiah, for the law shall not pe- 
 rish from the priest, nor counsel from the 
 wise, nor the word from the prophet. Come, 
 and let us smite him with, the tongue." 
 The force of their arginnent (as not only 
 our interpreters, but Maldonat also, and 
 Sanctius, following Aquinas and Lyra, tell 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 11 
 
 us) stands in this, those who are of greatest 
 authority in the church, the priests, pro- 
 phets, and elders, with whom are the oracles 
 of truth, do contradict Jeremiah, therefore 
 he is a false prophet. But what was the 
 ground of this consequence ? Surely the 
 ground was that Avhich Bullinger and the 
 late English annotations do observe, namely, 
 the Popish error was also their error, — the 
 church cannot err. But let us yet follow 
 the argument to the bottom. How came 
 they to think the church cannot err ? or 
 what was that church which they thought 
 infallible ? No doubt they had respect to 
 the law of the sanhedrim, Deut. xvii. 10 — 
 12, " And thou shalt do according to the 
 sentence which they of that place (which the 
 Lord shall choose) shall show tlice ; and 
 thou shalt observe to do according to all that 
 they inform thee : according to tlie sentence 
 of the law which they shall teach thee, and 
 according to the judgment which they shall 
 tell thee, thou shalt do : thou shalt not de- 
 cline from the sentence which they shall 
 show thee, to the right hand, or to the left ; 
 and the man that will do jDresumptuously, 
 and will not hearken unto the priest (that 
 standeth to minister there before the Lord 
 thy God) or unto the judge, even that man 
 shall die." From this scripture misapplied 
 they drew an argument against Jeremiah, 
 wherein their meaning could not be this, 
 that the doctrine of every individual pi'iest, 
 or of every individual scribe, is infallible (for 
 as the law now cited did speak of the san- 
 hedrim, not of individual priests, so neither 
 the Jews of old, nor the Papists after them, 
 have drawn the conceited intixllibility so low 
 as to every particular priest) ; but they 
 mean collectively, and point at an assembly 
 or council of priests, wise men, and prophets, 
 which, as they apprehended, could not eri', 
 and whose determination they prefei'red to 
 the word of the Lord by Jeremiah ; " for 
 the law (that is, saith Menochius, the in- 
 terpretation of the law) cannot perish from 
 the priest, nor counsel from the wise." Now 
 this was an ecclesiastical, not a civil sanhe- 
 drim, which may ajipear thus: 1. They do 
 not make mention of the judge mentioned 
 Deut. xvii. (where the priest and the judge 
 are distinguished), only they mention the 
 priest, the prophet (tor which the Chaldee 
 hath scribe : which is all one, as to the pre- 
 sent argument; for we find both prophets 
 and scribes in ecclesiastical assemblies, as 
 was said before), and the ivise. By the wise. 
 
 are meant those that were chief or did excel 
 among the scribes or doctor's of the law. So 
 Grotius, annot. in Matt, xxiii. 34, and it 
 may be collected from Jer. viii. 8, 9. This 
 is certain, that these wise men were church- 
 officers ; for as they are distinguished from 
 the judges, Isa. iii. 2, so Jesus Christ, 
 speaking of apostles and other ministers of 
 the gospel whom he was to send forth, ex- 
 presseth himself by way of allusion to the 
 ecclesiastical ministers of the Jews, Matt, 
 xxiii. 34, " Behold I send unto you pro- 
 pliets, and wise men, and scribes," which 
 Luke xi. 49, hath thus, " I will send them 
 prophets and apostles." 2. The civil san- 
 hedrim at this time did (so far as we can 
 find) contradict Jeremiah ; but when his 
 cause came afterward before them, Jer. 
 xxvi., they show much favour and friend- 
 ship to him. 3. That which is added, 
 " Come and let us smite him with the 
 tongue," may be three ways read, and 
 every way it suiteth to the ecclesiastical san- 
 hedrim (^vhether themselves be the speakers 
 in the text, or whether the people be the 
 speakers of it, as of that which they would 
 desire and move the sanhedrim to do in the 
 name of them all), either thus, " Let us 
 smite him for the tongue," that is, for an 
 ecclesiastical cause, ibr false doctrine ; or 
 thus, " Let us smite him in the tongue" (so 
 the Septuagint, and Arias Montanus), that 
 is, lot us smite him with an ecclesiastical 
 censure, and silence him, and discharge him 
 to preach any more to the people ; or thus, 
 " Let us smite him with the tongue," that 
 is, with an ecclesiastical sentence or declara- 
 tion ; smite him not with the sword (which 
 belonged only to the civil magistrate) but 
 with the tongue, l)y declaring him to be a 
 false prophet, and by determining the case 
 de jure, what ought to be clone with, him 
 accoi-ding to the law. 
 
 Seventhly, Consider another place, Ezek. 
 vii. 26, " 'I'hen shall they seek a vision of 
 the prophet : but the law shall perish fi-om 
 the priest, and counsel i'rom the ancients." 
 Here again, these are to be looked upon col- 
 lectively and conjunctly (not distributively 
 and severally), and this I prove from the 
 text itself, not only because the counsel here 
 sought for was not to be given by one an- 
 cient, but by the ancients (yea, it was a 
 principal part of the curse or judgment that 
 counsel could not be had from an assembly 
 of ancients or elders, suppose it might be 
 had from some individual elder here or 
 
12 aahon's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 there), but also because the antithesis in the 
 text intiniateth a disappointment in that 
 thing which was sought after. They shall 
 seek " a vision from the prophet," or (as the 
 Chaldeeliath it) discipline f rom the scribe. 
 This they shall not find, and why ? because 
 the Law shall perish from the priest, and 
 counsel from the ancients. It was there- 
 fore consistorial or synedrical counsel, judg- 
 ment, or discipline, which should be sought, 
 but should not be found. So that though a 
 pi'ophet of the Lord shall peradventure be 
 found who can reveal the comisel of the Lord 
 in a time of general defection, like Micaiah 
 contradicting the four hundred prophets, yet 
 an ecclesiastical counsel of prophets, scribes, 
 priests, and elders, sometime Israel's glory, 
 shall turn to be Israel's shame, and that 
 assembly which did sometime respondere 
 de jure, and pronounce righteous judgment, 
 and give light in difficult cases, shall do so 
 no more : the very light of Israel shall be 
 darkness ; the law and council shall perish 
 from them ; that is, they shall not find 
 council, nor the understanding of the law, 
 saith Sanctius. Polanus upon the place 
 draweth an argument against the infallibi- 
 lity of councils, because the law and council 
 did perish not only (saith he) from the priests 
 here and there in the cities, but also from 
 the high priest and the other priests and 
 elders who were together at Jerusalem. If 
 this text be rightly applied by him (and so 
 it is by other Protestant writers) to prove 
 against Papists that councils may err, then 
 here was an ecclesiastical council. 
 
 Eighthly, Even vnthout Jerusalem and 
 Judali there was a senate, or assembly of 
 elders, which did assist the prophets in over- 
 seeing the manners of the people, censuring 
 sin, and deliberating of the common affairs 
 of the church. This Bertramus [de polit. 
 Jud. c. 16) collecteth from 2 Kings vi. 32, 
 " But Elisha sat in his house, and the elders 
 sat with him." I know some think that 
 those elders were the magistrates of Sama- 
 ria; but this I cannot admit, for two reasons : 
 \. Because Josephus [Antiq. lib. 9, cap. 2) 
 calls them EUsha's disciples ; and from him 
 Hugo Cardinalis, Carthusianns, and others, 
 do so expound the text. They are called 
 Elisha's disciples as the apostles were Christ's 
 disciples, by way of excellency and eminency : 
 all the disciples or sons of the prophets were 
 not properly elders, but those only who were 
 assumed into the assembly of elders, or called 
 to have a share in the managing of the com- 
 
 mon affairs of the church. 2. Cajetan upon 
 the place gives this reason from the text it- 
 self, to prove that these elders were spiritual 
 men (as he speaketh), because Ehsha asketh 
 them, " See ye how this son of a murderer 
 hath sent to take away my head?" "WTiat 
 expectation could there be that they did 
 see a thing then secret and unheard of, un- 
 less they had been men familiar with God 'i 
 Now these elders were sitting close with 
 Elisha in his house. It was not a public or 
 church assembly for worship, l)ut for council, 
 deliberation, and resolution, in some case of 
 difficulty and public concernment. So Tos- 
 tatus and Sanctius on the place. A parallel 
 place there is, Ezek. viii. 1, " I sat in mine 
 house, and the elders of Judah sat before 
 me." Wliether those elders came to know 
 what God had revealed to the prophet con- 
 cerning the state of Judah and Jei-usalem, 
 as Lavater upon the place supposeth, or for 
 deliberation about some other thing, it is 
 nothing like a civil court, but very like an 
 ecclesiastical senate. Now if such there was 
 out of Jerusalem, how much more in Jera- 
 salem, where, as there came greater store of 
 ecclesiastical causes and controversies con- 
 cerning the sense of the law to be judged, so 
 there was greater store of ecclesiastical per- 
 sons fit for government ! Whatsoever of this 
 kind we find elsewhere, was but a transsumpt, 
 the archetype was in Jerusalem. 
 
 Nintlily, That place, Zech. vii. 1 — 3, 
 helpeth me much. The Jews sent com- 
 missioners unto the temple, there to speak 
 unto the priests which were in the house of 
 the Lord of hosts, and to the prophets (the 
 Chaldee hath, and to the scribes), saying, 
 " Should I weep in the first month," &c. 
 Here is an ecclesiastical assembly which had 
 authority to determine controversies concern- 
 ing the worship of God. Grotius upon the 
 place distinguisheth these priests and pro- 
 phets from the civil sanhedrim, yet he saith 
 they were to be consulted with in contro- 
 verted cases, according to the law, Dcut. 
 xvii. 9 ; if so, then then' sentence was au- 
 thoritative and bindmg so far, that the man 
 who did presumptuously disobey them was to 
 die the death, Deut. xvii. 12. 
 
 Tenthly, Let it be considered what is 
 that moshav zekenim conscssus or cathedra 
 seniorum, Psal. cvii. 32 (for though every 
 argument be not an infallible demonstration, 
 yet cuncta juvant), " Let them exalt him 
 also in the congregation (or church) of the 
 people, and praise him in the assembly of the 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 13 
 
 elders. Compare this text with Psal. cxv. 
 9 — 11, as hkewiso with Psal. cxviii. 2 — 4. 
 Ill all the three texts there are three sorts 
 of persons distinguished, and more especially 
 called upon to glorify God. " Oh that men 
 would praise the Lord for his goodness," 
 saith the text in hand, Psal. cvii. 31 ; for 
 that you have in the other two places, yc 
 that fear the JLord^ &c.; for the cotujrega- 
 tlon of the people, you have in the other 
 two places, Israel, and tJie house of Israel; 
 for the assemhlfj of the elders, you have in 
 the other texts, the house of Aaron. I will 
 not here build anything upon the observa- 
 tion of Hugo Cardinalis on Psal. cvii. 32, 
 that the congregation of the princes is not 
 mentioned in this business, because " not 
 many mighty, not many noble," &c. ; one 
 thing I am sure of, there were elders in Is- 
 rael clearly distinct both from the princes, 
 judges, and civil magistrates, Josh, xxiii. 2 ; 
 2 Kings X. 1 ; Ezra x. 14 ; Acts iv. 5, and 
 elsewhere ; and the parallel texts aforecited 
 do couple together these elders and the house 
 of Aaron as pastors and ruling elders now are, 
 and as the priests and elders are found con- 
 joined elsewhere in the Old Testament, Ex. 
 xxiv. 1 ; Deut. xxvii. 1, with ver. 9 ; Ezek. 
 vii. 26 ; Jer. xix. 1 ; so Matt. xxvi. 59. The 
 woi'k also of giving thanks for mercies and de- 
 liverances obtained by the afflicted, and such 
 as have been in distress (the purpose which 
 the Psalmist hath in hand, extended also to 
 the deliverances of particular pei'sons), is 
 more especially commended to those who arc 
 assembled in an ecclesiastical capacity; even 
 as now among ourselves, the civil courts of 
 justice, or magisti-ates and rulers, or judges 
 assembled by themselves in a politic capacity, 
 use not to be desired to give thanks for the 
 delivery of certain persons from a danger at 
 sea, or the like ; but it were very proper and 
 fit to desire thanks to be returned, 1. By 
 those that fear God ; for as we should desire 
 the prayers, so likewise the praises of the 
 saints. 2. By the church or congregation 
 of which they that have received the mercy 
 are members. 3. By the eldership, yea (if 
 there be occasion), by a synod of elders, who, 
 as they ought to watch over the city of God, 
 and to stand upon their watclitower for ob- 
 serving approaching dangers, so they ought 
 to take special notice of exemplary mercies 
 bestowed upon the afflicted members of the 
 church, and be an ensample to the flock, in 
 giving thanks, as well as in other holy 
 duties. 
 
 The eleventh place which scemeth to hold 
 forth unto us an ecclesiastical sanhedrim, is 
 Ezek. xiii. 9, where it is said of the prophets 
 that did see vanity, and divine lies, " They 
 shall not be in the assembly of my people, 
 neither shall they be written in the writing 
 of the house of Israel, neither shall they 
 enter into the land of Israel ; where (as 
 Diodati and Grotius observe) the speech 
 riseth by degrees : 1. They shall not any 
 more be admitted into the assembly or coun- 
 cil to have any voice there, as prophets in 
 those days had, saith Diodati, citing Jer. 
 xxvi. 7. 2. They shall not so much as come 
 into the computation or numbering of the 
 people, as members of the church of Israel. 
 3. Nay, they shall not be permitted to dwell 
 in the Holy Land, or to return thither from 
 their captivity ; they shall not have so much 
 favour as strangers had, who might come 
 into the holy land and sojourn there. 
 
 In the first branch, the word translated 
 assembly is "ITD sod, which properly sig- 
 nifieth a secret, and is used for counsel (be- 
 cause counsel ought to be secret), or for the 
 place of council, or assembly of covmcillors. 
 Pagnin, in his Tlicsaurus, p. 1761, readeth 
 this place with Jerome, in consilio, or other- 
 wise, saith he, in concilio ; Vatablus, in 
 concilio populi mci non crunt. The Sep- 
 tuagints read iv i-ai^ua tov Xaou //.oZ, that is, 
 those prophets shall have no hand in the 
 discipline of my people ; the same word they 
 render in other places by Piovxh and o-uveS^wn^ 
 yea, l)y both these put together, Prov. xx. 
 19, whore for the Hebrew sod, the Sep- 
 tuagints have PiouXas h rvr^^'iUj he that re- 
 vealeth the secret councils in the sanhe- 
 drim; and it cohereth well with the pre- 
 ceding verse, where they mention xuit^niru; 
 governments. Sometime they expound the 
 word by an episcopal (I mean not pvphiti- 
 cal) inspection, Job xxix. 4, ©s»« i'r',<rKO'!rh 
 lmi7'ro Tov oiKov fcou, " (Jod was ail overseer 
 of my house ;" so that, so far as the Sep- 
 tuagints' authority can weigh, that place, 
 Ezek. xiii. 9, must be understood of the se- 
 cluding of those prophets from the sanhe- 
 drim, not from the civil (in which the pro- 
 phets were not membei's), but from the ec- 
 clesiastical sanhedrim. 
 
 In the twelfth and last place, the New 
 Testament holds out to us an ecclesiastical 
 sanhedrim. Whether the civil sanhedrim was 
 wholly taken away by Herod, and another 
 civil sanhedrim not substituted in the place 
 of that which he took away, but the eccle- 
 
14 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 siastical sanhedrim only remaining, as some 
 hold, or whether lioth did then continue, 
 though not so clearly distinct, as others hold, 
 this we find, that there was an ecclesiastical 
 government in the hands of church-officers ; 
 for, 1 . There was a council of the priests, and 
 elders, and scribes. Matt. ii. 4 ; xvi. 21 ; 
 xxi. 23; xxvi. 57, 59; xxvii. 1, 12; Mark 
 xiv. 43 ; Luke xxii. 66 ; Acts iv. 5. The 
 Centurists say that those elders were joined 
 with the priests in the government of the 
 church, with ecclesiastical persons in eccle- 
 siastical affairs, which had been rightly taken 
 for a precedent of our ruling elders.^ 2. That 
 council is called ^^'.rSuTi^ion, Luke xxii. 66 ; 
 Acts xvii. 5, the presbytery or eldership, 
 the very name which Paul gives to that 
 assembly of church-oflficers who ordained 
 Timothy, 1 Tim. iv. 14. Is it credible that 
 tlie Apostle would transfer the name of a 
 civil court to signify an assembly which was 
 merely ecclesiastical and not civil ? The 
 very use of the word in this sense by the 
 Apostle tells us, that, in his age, the word 
 !T5£ffgi/Ts^;«v vvas taken in an ecclesiastical no- 
 tion only. 3. This council did examine 
 Jesus concerning his discijjles, and his doc- 
 trine, and received witnesses against him, 
 and pronounced him guilty of blasphemy. 
 Matt, xxvii. 57; Mark xiv. 53, 55; Job xviii. 
 10 ; hence Protestant writers draw an argu- 
 ment against Papists, to overthrow their in- 
 fallibility of councils, unto which argument 
 Bellarmine deviseth four answers, but it 
 came not once into his thoughts to reply 
 that this council was civil, not ecclesiastical, 
 which had been his best answer if any pro- 
 bability for it. It hath been supposed, both 
 by Protestant and Popish writers, that it was 
 an ecclesiastical council such as the contro- 
 versy is about, otherwise our argument had 
 been as impertinent as their answer was in- 
 sufficient. 4. Our opposites have no evasion 
 here, but that which Bilson, Saravia, and 
 others of the prelatical party did answer in 
 opposition to ruling elders, namely, that the 
 Jewish elders were judges or magistrates ; 
 but the reply which served them will serve 
 now : the elders are plainly distinguished 
 from judges, rulers and princes, Josh. viii. 
 33 ; xxiii. 2 ; Deut. v. 23 ; Judg. viii. 14 ; 
 
 1 Magdcb Gent. 1, lib. 1, cap. 6, Seniores populi 
 ■videntur fuisse aliquot e populo lecti viri, jetate, 
 doctrina, et vita; probitate spectati, qui simul cum 
 ecclesiasticis personis, templi, judiciorura et aliarum 
 reium quae ad ecclesiae gubernationem pertinebant, 
 curam babuerunt. 
 
 2 Kings X. 1, 5; Ezra x. 14; Acts iv. 5; 
 Tostatus on Deut. xxi. 2 ; xxii. 15, 16, ob- 
 
 serveth the same distinction of judges and 
 elders; Pelargus on Deut. xxi. 2—4, ob- 
 serveth the like. That which I say con- 
 cerning the distinction of judges and elders 
 may be confirmed by Halichoth 01am (tract 
 1, cap. 3) ; the judges of Soura, M. Houna, 
 and Dr Isaac ; the judges of Phoumbeditha, 
 M. Papa the son ol Samuel, &c. ; the elders 
 of Soura, M. Houna, and M. Hasda ; the 
 elders of Phoumbeditha, Ena, and Abimi 
 the son of Kabba. And thus we are taught 
 how to understand these gemaric phrases, of 
 the judges of such a place, and the elders 
 of such a place, that we may not mistake 
 them as if they were one. 5. Some have 
 also drawn a pattern for the constitution of 
 synods from that council. Acts iv. 5, 6, where 
 we find assembled together rulers, priests, 
 elders, scribes, according to which pattern 
 we have in our sjTiods : (1.) The civil magis- 
 trate, to preside in the order of proceedings 
 for preventing tumults, injuries, disorders, 
 and to assist and protect the synod ; (2.) 
 Pastors of churches ; (3.) Doctors from uni- 
 versities, answering to the scribes or doctors 
 of the law ; (4.) liuling elders, who assist in 
 the government of the church. 6. After that 
 Judea was redacted into a province, the Ro- 
 mans having kept in their own hands, not 
 only the power of life and death (John xviii. 
 31), but all judgment in whatsoever civil 
 or criminal offences falling out amongr the 
 Jews, meant by " matters of wrong or wicked 
 lewdness," Acts xviii. 14, and having left to 
 the Jews no government, nor any power of 
 judgment, except in things pertaining to 
 their I'eligion only, ver. l5. These six 
 things considered, it is very improbable, if 
 not impossible, that the council of the priests, 
 elders, and scribes, mentioned so often in the 
 New Testament, should be no ecclesiastical 
 court, but a temporal and civil magistracy. 
 The Centurists [Cent. 1, lib. 1, cap. 10) [ 
 reckon that council for an ecclesiastical court | 
 distinct from civil magistracy, and they pro- 
 pose these two to be distinctly treated of, 
 acta coram pont 'ijicihxis seu magistratu ec- 
 clesiastico (and here they bring in the coun- 
 cil of the priests, elders, and scribes), and 
 actio coram Pilato scu magistratu politico. 
 
 I know Erastus (lib. 3, cap. 2, and lib. 4, 
 cap. 4), though he confess plainly that the 
 Jewish sanhedrim mentioned in the Gospel, 
 and in the Acts of the apostles, had only 
 power of judging causes belonging to re- 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNiMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 15 
 
 1 1 ligion, and that the Ilomans did leave them 
 j i no power to judge of civil injuries, yet ho 
 holdeth, that "in these causes of religion the 
 sanhedrim had power not only of imprison- 
 ing and scourging, but even of death itself, 
 and so endeavours to make it a temporal or 
 civil magistracy (which Mr Prynne also doth, 
 Vindic. p. 4, 5, yet he speaketh dubiously 
 of their power of capital punishments) ; but 
 1 this is confuted by the reasons which I have 
 given, whereunto I further add these few- 
 animadversions. 
 
 1. The strongest proof which Erastus 
 brings out of Josephus {Antiq. lib. 20, cap. 
 8), which, as he allegcth, puts the thing out 
 of all controversy, is a very weak and in- 
 sufficient proof. Josephus tells us in the 
 close of that chapter, that after the death of 
 Herod and Archelaus, this was the Jewish 
 
 government, a^nrrox^arla fih nv h -roXlrna ti 
 {rjayray/av rtiu 'iSi/ovs ci ot^^n^u; •XiVMrimm. 
 
 This he citoth, p. 177, and p. 178, to prove 
 that the sanhedrim in Christ's time was 
 a civil magistracy, having power of the 
 sword. But I may, with a great deal more 
 probability, argue conti'ariwise from these 
 words. Josephus tells us the constitution 
 and form of the Jewish policy or govern- 
 ment was at that time aristocratical, but it 
 was an ecclesiastical aristocracy, the govern- 
 ment was in the hands of the chief priests ; 
 or thus (if you will), the Jews at that time 
 had a bare name of an aristocracy, they had 
 their «j;t;»vT£j, optimates, piimates or rulers, 
 but it w;is tltulo tenus, all power of civil 
 government being taken from them by the 
 Ilomans, and the government that was, was 
 ecclesiastical. That very chapter gives us a 
 better ai-gument to pi'ove that the Romans 
 did not permit to the Jews capital judg- 
 ments ; for Josephus there records that An- 
 anias the high priest, taking the opportunity 
 after the death of Festus, while Albinus the 
 successor of Festus was but yet on his jour- 
 ney toward Judea, did call a council of judges 
 (icafiZ,u irmil^itv xgiruA^ before whom he pre- 
 sented James the brother of Christ, and 
 some others, who were (as guilty of impiety) 
 condemned to be stoned, which mightily 
 displeased all such as did observe the laws. 
 Albinus at that time coming from Alexan- 
 dria beincr informed of the thino- and that 
 it was not lawful for Ananias to do any such 
 thing without the Koman governor, wrote a 
 chiding and threatening letter to Ananias ; 
 and further, the thing being secretly sig- 
 ni.fied by some to king Agrippa, who did 
 
 also beseech the king to command Ananias 
 to do no such thino- again, he havincr tres- 
 passed in this ; whereupon Agrippa was so 
 highly offended, that he took away from An- 
 anias the high priest's place, and gave it to 
 Jesus the son of Damneus. 
 
 2. Whereas Erastus argueth from the im- 
 prisoning, beating, or scourging, yea, taking- 
 counsel to kill the apostles, Acts iv. 5, the 
 stoning of Stephen, Acts vii., Paul's letters 
 fi'om the high priest for binding and bring- 
 ing to Jerusalem the disciples of the Lord, 
 Acts ix. 1, 2, also the imprisoning and con- 
 demning to death the saints. Acts xxvi. 10 ; 
 unto all this I answer out of Josephus, ^ 
 that in that degenei'ate age the high priests, 
 and such as adhered to them, did use a great 
 deal of violence, whereby they did many 
 things for which they had no just nor lawful 
 power ; so that the letters and warrants 
 given out to Saul, and the execution of the 
 same by a cruel and bloody persecuting of 
 the saints, cannot prove the llwria^ the power 
 and authority which was allowed to the san- 
 hedrim, but only the ^waftis^ the present 
 prevalent power of the high priest and his 
 faction in that confusion of affairs, and their 
 extreme malice against the saints, to have 
 been such as made them to do things for 
 which they had no legal power nor warrant ; 
 and this one animadversion breaks all tlie 
 strength of Mr Prynne's argument ( Vindic. 
 p. 5), that the council of the Jews had power 
 (which no mere ecclesiastical consistory can 
 do) to scourge, imprison, torture, and outlaw 
 offenders, if not to condemn, put to death 
 (whei'e he citeth divers texts, none of which 
 proveth either torturing or outlawing, and 
 the most of which prove not so much as that 
 the council of the Jews at that time had au- 
 thority to scourge or imprison, as Matt. v. 
 22; X. 17; Mark xiii. 9; Acts vi. 12—14; 
 xxiv. 20 ; XXV. 15). The imprisonment of 
 the apostles was not without the authority 
 of the captain of the temple. Acts iv. 1, 3. 
 
 1 Antiq. Jud. lib. 20, cap. 6, Ipsi summi pontifices 
 dissidere caeperunt a sacerdotibus etprimatibus Hie- 
 rosolymitanorum civiura, singuleque incedebant sti- 
 pati manu audacissimorum et seditiosorum hornl- 
 nura, conflictantesque inter se rautuis certabant 
 convitiis et lapidationibus : nec erat qui compesce- 
 ret, quasi vacanti urbe magistratibus. la tantum 
 autera exarsit summorum pontificem impudentia, 
 ut auderent servos suos in areas raittere, qui aufer- 
 rent debitas sacerdotibus decimas, aliquotque pau- 
 periores e saccrdotum ordine alimentorum inopia 
 fame deficerent. Tanto plus turn poUebat violentia 
 seditiosorum quam justitia. 
 
IG 
 
 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 This captain of the temple is thought by the 
 best interpreters to have been the captain of 
 the garrison which the Romans placed in 
 the castle Antouia, hard by the temple, and 
 that to prevent tumults and uproars when 
 tlie people came to the temple, especially at 
 the solemn feasts, in great multitudes ; but 
 that the captain of the temple was a civil 
 magistrate of the Jews, or one deputed with 
 autliority and power from the sanhediim, 
 will never be proved. WTien the council 
 thought of slaying the apostles, Acts v. 33, 
 it was in a sudden passion, being " cut to the 
 heart" at that which they heard ; but Ga- 
 maliel tells them, " Ye men of Israel, take 
 heed to yourselves," lavnTs, warning them, 
 as interpreters take it, of their own danger 
 from the Romans if they should put any one 
 to death. The putting of Stephen to death 
 was upon pretence of judicium zeli, or jus 
 zelotarum, as Grotius thinks (de jure belli 
 ac pads, hb. 2, cap. 20, sect. 9) ; if so, it 
 was an extraordinary act. I am sure it was 
 done most tumultuously, disorderly and fu- 
 riously, before either himself was heard speak 
 out, or any sentence was given against liim, 
 as is manifest, Acts vii. 54, 57, 58. 
 
 3. Erastus's gloss upon John xviii. 31, 
 " It is not lawful for us to put any man to 
 death," meaning, saith he, for making him- 
 self a king against Csesar, the cause for which 
 they did chiefly accuse him to Pilate. So 
 Uke\vise Bishop BiLson (a great follower of 
 Erastus) of the perpetual government of 
 Christ's church, cap. 4; but mark the words, 
 " Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him 
 and judge him according to your law ; the 
 Jews therefore said unto him, It is not law- 
 ful for us to put any man to death." Pilate 
 durst not have refused to judge a man who 
 made himself a king ai^ainst Ca?sar, nor durst 
 he have put it over upon the Jews to have 
 judged one m that which concerned Cscsar's 
 cro\vn ; nay, as soon as the Jews objected, — 
 " If thou let this man go thou art not Caesar's 
 friend, for whosoever maketh himself a king 
 speaketh against Csesar," — Pilate, when he 
 heard that, went in again and sat down on the 
 judgment seat, John xix. 12, 13 ; therefore 
 when Pilate said to the Jews, Take ye him 
 and judge him according to your law, he 
 spake it of matters of their law. The council 
 of the chief priests, elders and scribes, had 
 given sentence against Christ de jive that 
 ne was guilty of blasphemy, and thereupon, 
 not having power to put any man to death, 
 they led him to Pilate, Matt. xxvi. G5, 66 ; 
 
 xxvu.^1, 2 ; Mark xiv. 63, 64 ; xv. 1. ; Luke 
 xxii. 71 ; xxiii. 1 ; Pilate, unwilling to med- 
 dle against Christ, waves the business in the 
 judgment hall : I perceive (would he say) i 
 that this man is accused of such things as i 
 concern your law and your religion, there- ' 
 fore take him and judge him according to 
 your law. They reply in reference to that 
 which Pilate did drive at, " It is not lawful 
 for us to put any man to death." If they had 
 meant for causes which concerned Cajsar's 
 crown, it had been not only an impertinent ! 
 reply, but a yielding to Pilate's intention ; for i 
 he might have said, I do not mean that ye 
 shall judge him for tliat which concemeth 
 Caesar, but for that which concemetii your 
 own law and religion. Therefore certainly 
 the answer which the Jews made to Pilate 
 did reply, that though they had power to 
 judge a man in that wliich concerned their | 
 law and religion, yet they had no power to 
 put any man to death ; no, not for that which 
 concerned their law. 
 
 4. There are several passages in the story 
 of Paul which show us, that though the 
 Jewish sanhedrim might judge a man in 
 matters of their law, yet they were accusers, 
 not judges, in civil or capital punishments ; I 
 mean, when a man was accused as worthy of 
 bonds or of death, though it were for a mat- 
 ter of their law, they had no hberty to judge, 
 but only to accuse. The Jews drew Paid be- 
 fore the judgment seat of GaUio even for a 
 matter of their law. " This fellow (say they to 
 GalUo) persuadeth men to worship God con- 
 trary to the law," Acts xviii. 13. If they had 
 intended only an ecclesiastical censure, their 
 recoui'se had been either to the sanhedrim, 
 or, at least, to the synagogue, but because 
 they intended a corporal temporal punish- 
 ment, which neither the sanliedi-im nor the 
 synagogue had power to inflict, therefore 
 they must prosecute Paid before GaUio, 
 whose answer was to this purpose. That if 
 it had been a matter of wrong or wicked 
 lewdness, it had been proper for him to have 
 judged it, but that since it was no such tiling, 
 he would not meddle in it, knowing also that 
 the Jews had no power to do it by them- 
 selves. Again, Acts xxiii. 28, 29, Claudius 
 Lysias writeth to Felix concerning Paid 
 thus : " And when I would have known the 
 cause whereof they accused him, I brought 
 him forth into their council, whom I per- 
 ceived to be accused of questions of their law, 
 but to have nothing laid to his charge worthy 
 of death or of lx>nds." That wluch made 
 
DIVINE ORDIXAXCE OF CHURCH GOVERXMEXT VINT)ICATED. 
 
 17 
 
 Lysias interpose in the business, and rescue 
 Paul from the hands of the Jews, was the 
 Jews' design to put Paul to death, under 
 colour of judging him according' to their law, 
 which was the pretence made by TertuUus, 
 Acts xxiv. 6. Now in that whicdi was to be 
 punished either by death or so nmch as by 
 bonds, Lysiiis conceives the Jews to be no 
 competent judges, therefoi-e he brings Paul 
 into the council of the Jews not to be judged 
 by them, but to know what accusation they 
 had against him. For the same reason Paul 
 himself did decline going to Jerusalem to 
 be judged there ; no, not of matters concern- 
 ing the religion and law of the Jews, that 
 accusation being so far driven on as to make 
 him worthy of death. His accusers, saith 
 Festus to king Agrippa, " brought none ac- 
 cusation of such things as I supposed, but 
 had certain questions against him of their 
 own superstition, and of one Jesus which 
 was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive ; 
 and because I doubted of such manner of 
 questions, I asked him whether he would go 
 to Jerusalem and there be judged of these 
 mattters," Acts xsv. 18—20. This Paul 
 had declined, ver. 10, " I stand at Cscsar's 
 judgment-seat, said he, where I ought to 
 be judged." And why, but because his ac- 
 cusation was capital, even in that which con- 
 cerned the law of the Jews, and he knew 
 the Jews at that time had no power of ca- 
 pital judgments ? Some have alleged this 
 example of Paul for appeals from presby- 
 teries or synods to the civil magisti-ate, by 
 wliicli argument themselves grant that the 
 Jewish sanhedrim, then decHned by Paul, 
 was an ecclesiastical, not a civil court. 
 
 5. Besides all this, Erastus' opinion is 
 strongly confuted by that which Constan- 
 tinus L'Empereur, Annot. in Itemp. J ud., 
 p. 404—407, proving that the Jews, after 
 the thirtieth year of Christ, had no power 
 of punishing with death, for jjroof hereof ci- 
 teth a passage of Abodazara, that forty years 
 before the destruction of the temple, the 
 sanhedrim, which had in former times ex- 
 ercised capital judgments, did remove from 
 Jerusalem, qiium vidcrent se nou posse ju- 
 dicia capitalia exercere, when they per- 
 ceived that they could not exercise capital 
 judgments, they said, Let us remove out of 
 this place, lest we be guilty : it being said, 
 Deut. xvii. 10, " according to the sentence 
 which they of that place shall shew thee ;" 
 whence they collected, that if they were not 
 in that place, they were not obliged to ca- 
 
 pital judgments, and so they removed. And 
 if you would know whether, he tells us out 
 of llosch Ilasschana, they removed from Je- 
 rusalem to Jabua, thence to Ousa, thence to 
 Schaphrea, &c. He that desires to have 
 further proofs for that which hath been said, 
 may read, Buxtorf. Lexlc. Chald. Talmud, 
 et Rabbin., p. 514, 515, he proves that 
 judicia criminalia, criminal judgment, did 
 cease, and were taken away from the Jews 
 foi'ty years before the destruction of the 
 second temple. This he saith is plain in 
 Talmud Hierosol. in lib. Sanhedrim, cap. 
 7; in Talmud Babt/l. in Sanhedrim, fol. 
 41, 1 ; in Abodazara, fol. 8, 2; in Schab., fol. 
 15, 1; in Jiichasin,{o\. 51, 1, Majemon, in 
 Sanhedrim, cap. 14, sect. 13. He cites also 
 a passage in Bcrachos, fol. 58, 1, concerning 
 one who, for a heinous crime, even for lying 
 with a be;ist, ouglit to be adjudged to death ; 
 but when one said that he ought to die, it 
 was answered, that they had no power to put 
 any man to death. And this, saith Dr Bux- 
 torff, is the vei'y same which the Jews said 
 to Pilate, John xviii. 31. Now this power 
 being taken from the Jews forty years be- 
 fore the destruction of the temple and city, 
 which was in the seventy-first year of Christ, 
 his death being in the thirty-fourth, hence 
 he proveth that this power was taken from 
 the Jews near three years before the death 
 of Christ ; and I fuither make this infer- 
 ence, that since the sanhedrim, which had 
 power of life and death, did remove from 
 Jerusalem forty yeai-s before the destruction 
 of the temple (for which see also Tzcmacli 
 David, edit. Hen. Vorst. p. 89), and so about 
 three years bel'oi'e the death of Christ, it 
 must needs follow that the council of tlie 
 priests, elders and scribes, mentioned so often 
 in and before Christ's passion, was not a 
 civil magistracy, nor the civil sanhedrim, but 
 an ecclesi;istical sanhedrim ; whence also it 
 follows, that the church, jMatt. xviii. 17, 
 unto which Christ directs his disciples to go 
 with their complaints, was not the civil court 
 of justice among the Jews (as Mr Prynne 
 takes it), for that civil court of justice had 
 then removed from Jerusalem, and had lost 
 its authority in executing justice. J. Coch, 
 Annot. in Exc. Gem. Sanhedrim, cap. 1, 
 sect. 13, beareth witness to the same story 
 above mentioned, that, forty years before the 
 destruction of the temple, the sanhedrim 
 did remove from its proper seat (where he 
 also mentions the ten stations or degrees of 
 their removing), and Jam turn eessarunt 
 C 
 
18 
 
 Aaron's rod blossomixg, or the 
 
 judicia capitalia, saith he, now at that time 
 the capital judgments did cease. Thus we 
 have three witnesses singularly learned in 
 the Jewish antiquities. Unto tliese add Ca- 
 sauhon, cxerc. 16, anno. 34, 7iurn. 76. He 
 holds that though the council of the Jews 
 had cognisance of the offence (for otherwise 
 how could they give a reason or cause when 
 they demanded justice), in which respect 
 the council did judge Christ to be guilty of 
 death, Mark xiv. 64, yet their council had 
 then no more power of capital punishments ; 
 which, saith he, the more leained modern 
 wi'itei's do demonstrate e Juchasin, and from 
 other Talmudical writings. He addeth, that 
 this power of putting any man to death was 
 taken from the Jews some space before this 
 time, when they said to Pilate, " It is not 
 lawful for us to put any man to death ;" for 
 this power was taken from them, saith he, 
 forty years before the destruction of the 
 second temple, as the rabbinical writers do 
 rjcord. I have thus largely prosecuted my 
 last argument, drawn from the New Testa- 
 ment, mentioning the council of the priests, 
 elders, and scribes ; and I trast the twelve 
 argTiments which have been brought, may 
 give good satisfaction toward the proof of an 
 ecclesiastical Jewish sanhedrim. The chief 
 objection which ever I heard or read against 
 this distinction of a civil sanhedrim and an 
 ecclesiastical sanhedrim among the Jews, Ls 
 this,— that neither the Talmud nor the Tal- 
 mudical writers mention any such distinction, 
 but speak only of one supreme sanhedrim of 
 seventy-one, and of other two courts, which 
 sat, the one at the door of the court before 
 the temple, the other at the gate which en- 
 tereth to the mountain of the temple. There 
 were also coui-ts in the cities where capital 
 cases were judged by three-and-twenty, pe- 
 cunial mulcts by three. 
 
 Ans. It must be remembered that not 
 only the Talmudical commentators, but the 
 Talmud itself is much later than the time 
 of the sanhedrim, and the integi'ity of the 
 Jewish government ; yea, later by some cen- 
 turies than the destruction of the temple 
 and city of Jerusalem : so that the objection 
 which is made is no stronger than as if one 
 should argue thus. There is no mention of 
 elderships constituted of pastors and ruling 
 elders (without any L'ishop having pre-emin- 
 ence over the rest), neither in the canon law, 
 nor decretals of popes, nor in the book of the 
 canons of the Roman church; therefore, when 
 Paul wrote his epistle to the church of 
 
 Piome, there was no such eldership in that 
 church, constituted as hath been said. But 
 if the ecclesiastical government, either of 
 the church of Rome or of the church of the 
 Jews, can be proved from Scripture (as both 
 may), it ought to be no prejudice against 
 those truths, that they are not found in the 
 writers of aftertimes, and declining ages. 
 Howbeit there may be seen some footsteps 
 of a civil and ecclesiastical sanhedrim even 
 in the Talmudical writers, in the opinion 
 of Constantinus L'Empereur, and in that 
 other passage cited by Dr Buxtorff out of 
 Elias, of which before : and so much con- 
 cerning an ecclesiastical sanhedrim among 
 the Jews. 
 
 If, after all this, any man shall be un- 
 satisfied in this particular, yet, in the issue, 
 such as are not convinced that there was 
 an ecclesiastical sanhedrim among the Jews, 
 distinct from their civil sanhedrim, may 
 nevertheless be convinced, not by the fonner 
 arguments, but by other mediums, that there 
 was an ecclesiastical government among the 
 J ews distinct from their civil government ; 
 for it belonged to the priests, not to the 
 magistrates or judges, to put difference be- 
 tween holy and unholy, and between unclean 
 and clean ; and the priests, not the magis- 
 trates, are challenged for not putting differ- 
 ence between the holy and profane, Ezek. 
 xxii. 26 ; and this power of the priests was 
 not merely doctrinal or declarative, but de- 
 cisive, binding, and juridical, so far as that, 
 according to their sentence, men were to be 
 admitted as clean, or excluded as unclean ; 
 yea, in other cases, as, namely, in trying and 
 judging the scandal of a secret and unknown 
 murder, observe what is said of the priests, 
 Deut. xxi. 5, " By their word shall eveiy 
 controversy and every stroke be tried ;" 
 yea, themselves wei-e judges of controver- 
 sies, Ezek. xliv. 24, " And in controversy 
 they shall stand in judgment, and they 
 shall judge it according to my judgments." 
 AMiere the ministei's ot the gospel are prin- 
 cipally intended, but not without an allu- 
 sion unto, and parallel with the priests of the 
 Old Testament, in this point of jurisdiction. 
 Suppose now it were appointed by law that 
 ministers shall separate or put difference 
 between the holy and profane, that by their 
 word every controversy concerning the causes 
 of suspension or sequestration of men from 
 the sacrament shall be tried, that in con- 
 troversy they shall stand in judgment, and 
 judge according to the word of God, would 
 
DIVIXE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 not every one look upon this as a power of 
 government put into the hands of minis- 
 ters, and none readier to aggravate such go- 
 vernment than the Erastians ? Yet all this 
 amounts to no more than, by the plain and 
 undeniable scriptures above cited, was com- 
 mitted to the priests. Suppose also that men 
 were kept back from the temple and from 
 the passover, not for any moral uncleaimess, 
 but for ceremonial uncleanness only (which 
 is to be aftenvards discussed), yet the priests' 
 iudoino- and decidino- of controversies con- 
 
 11 1 1* 
 
 ceniing men's legal uncleanness, according 
 to which judgment and decision men were 
 to be admitted to, or kept back from, the 
 temple and passover (yea, sometime their 
 own houses, as in the case of leprosy), could 
 not choose but entitle them to a power of 
 government, which power was peculiar to 
 them, and is not in all the Old Testament 
 ascribed to magistrates or judges ; and as the 
 exercise of this power did not agree to the 
 magistrate, so the commission, charge, and 
 power given to those who did keep back the 
 unclean, was not derived from the magis- 
 trate, for it did belong to the intrinsical 
 sacerdotal authority, 2 Kings xi. 18, " The 
 priest (Jehoiada) appointed ofiicers over the 
 house of the Lord." The LXX. thus, xaJ 
 
 xaTirrnrsv i U^ivs 'frifni'raus £» wx» xvoiou. These 
 
 officers or overseers over the temple wei'e 
 appointed by Jehoiada lor keeping back the 
 unclean, as Grotius upon the place, following 
 Josephus, hath observed. Compare 2-Chron. 
 xxiii. 19, " And he (Jehoiada) set the porters 
 at the gates of the house of the Lord, that 
 none wliich was unclean in anything should 
 enter in." For the same end did he appoint 
 these overseers over the temple, 2 Kings xi. 
 It was also appointed by the law, that the 
 man who should do anything presumptuous- 
 ly, contrary to the sentence of the priests, 
 should die the death, as well as the man 
 who should do anything presumptuously, 
 conti'ary to the sentence of the judge, Deut. 
 xvii. 9, 12. 
 
 Finally, the high-priest was a ruler of 
 the people, and to him is that law applied, 
 " Thou shalt not speak evil of the rulers of 
 thy people," Acts xxiii. 5 ; wliich is not 
 meant only in regard that he was president 
 of the sanhedrim, for there was an eccle- 
 siastical ruling power which was common 
 with him to some other priests, 2 Chron. 
 XXXV. 8. Hilkiah the high-priest, and Zech- 
 ariali, and Jehiel, priests of the second order, 
 are called rulers of the house of God, being 
 
 19 
 
 in that very place thus distinguished from 
 other priests and Levites employed in the 
 manual work of the temple, about sacrifices 
 and the hke. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THAT THERE WAS AN ECCLESIASTICAL EX- 
 COMMUNICATION AMONG THE JEWS ; AND 
 WHAT IT WAS. 
 
 It hath been affirmed by some who pre- 
 tend to more skill in Jc^vish antiquities than 
 others, that though the Jews had an excom- 
 munication which did exclude a man from 
 the liberty of civil fellowship, so that he 
 might not come within four cubits of his 
 neighbour (and so one man might and did 
 excommunicate another), yet no man was 
 judicially, or by sentence of a court, excom- 
 municated, at least not Irom the temple, sa- 
 crifices, and holy assemblies. 
 
 To these I shall in the first place oppose 
 the judgment of others who have taken very 
 much pains in searching the Jewish anti- 
 quities, and are much esteemed for their 
 skill therein. Dr Buxtorffi expoundeth 
 Din to he a casting out of one from 
 
 the holy assemblies, or an ejection from the 
 synagogue, and maketh it parallel to the 
 excommunicating of the incestuous man, 1 
 Cor. V. Mr Selden^ extendeth the Jewish 
 excommunication so far as to comprehend an 
 exclusion from fellowship in prayer and holy 
 assemblies, and makes it parallel to that 
 which Tertullian tells us to have been used 
 by the primitive church. Mr Brughton, in 
 his Exposition of the Lord's Prai/cr, p. 
 14, makes a parallel between the Jemsh and 
 the Christian church in many particulars; 
 and among the rest, he saith they agree in 
 the manner of excommunication and absolu- 
 tion. Henric. Vorstius, in his late animad- 
 
 1 Lexicon Chald. Talmud, et Rabbin, edit. 1639, 
 p. 827, 828. C3~in ExcoMiiui'^idtio, exclusio a 
 Cfetu sacro, ejictio cx synagoga, etc. Cum tali ex- 
 comrauoicato non licet edere nec bibere. Quo forte 
 respicit apostolus, 1 Cor. v. 11. TZ towutu firi^l 
 ffmiirSitiv, Nam admonitionem illam geueialem 
 tacit, ex occasione incestuosi quem excommunicare 
 jubet. 
 
 De Jure Natur. et Gentium, lib. 4, cap. 9, Atqne 
 is plane a communicatione orationis, et conventns, 
 et omnis sancti coinmercii relcgabatur, quemadmo- 
 dum de bujusmodi anatUemate sub iuitiis ecclesise 
 Cliristianaj loquitur TertuUianus. 
 
20 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 versions upon Piike Rablji Eliozer, wonders 
 how any man can ima^rine that an apostate, 
 a blasphemer, or the like, was aclniitted into 
 the temple.^ For his part, he thinks some 
 excommunicate persons were absolutely ex- 
 cluded from the temple, and that others, for 
 whom there were hopes of reconciliation, 
 were admitted into it, Drusius^ and Johan- 
 nes Coch^ hold that there were such ex- 
 communicate persons among the Jews as 
 were removed from church assemblies, and 
 were not acknowledged i'or church members. 
 Schindlerus* describeth their excommunica- 
 tion to be a putting away of an impenitent 
 obsiinate sinner from the public assembly 
 of the church, and so a cutting him off from 
 his people. Arias Montanus^ expounds 
 their casting out of the synagogue to be an 
 excommunication (such as in the Christian 
 church) from religious fellowship. So do 
 the Centurists" plainly, where they do pur- 
 posely show what was the ecclesiastical policy 
 and church government of the Jews ; they 
 make it a distinct question, whether the 
 Jews in Christ's time had any civil govern- 
 ment or magistracy. Cornelius Bertramus 
 thinks that to the Jewish niddui answereth 
 our suspension from the sacrament, and that 
 
 1 Animad in Pirke, p. 169, Qnis cnim dicat apos- 
 tatam, blaspliemum aliaque sacra capita intra tem- 
 plum fuisse admissa? etc. Certe si qnibuslibct ex- 
 communicatis permissum fuissct in trare tpmplnm, 
 turn raulto mitior JudaicfE synagogje disciplina esset 
 statuenda, quara veteris Christiana; ccclesiae. 
 
 2 Quest, et Resp. lib. 1, quaest. 9, Solebunt antem 
 vetercs (Judaei) si qnis grarius deliqucrat primura 
 cum movere caetu ecclesiastico : si non cmendabat 
 se, turn feriebant anatlicmate : quod sine turn qui- 
 dera redibat a*! frugem, ultimo ac postremo loco 
 saniatizabaut. 
 
 3 Aunot. in Exc. Gemar. Sanhedrim, cap. 1, Qui 
 simpliciter excommnnicatus est (raeuudde) est ille 
 quidera separatus a caetu, ita ut pro vero membro 
 ecclesia; non habeatur. 
 
 ■4 Lexicon Pentaglot. p. &"'5. Q'^pl Excommu- 
 nicatio, cum quis se non cmendaus cEetu ecclesias- 
 tico movctur, et ex populo suo excinditnr. AVhere 
 he also mentioneth tlie three distinct kinds of ex- 
 communication, — Xiddni, Cherem and Schammata. 
 Ibid. p. 1076. remotio, cxcomraunicatio, 
 
 cjectio ex castu pioium, ilia anathematis species, 
 qua qnis immundns ab hominura contubernio, aut 
 qua aliquis a CEetu ecclesiastico removetur ad tem- 
 pus, a lege prsBscriptum. 
 
 5 De Arcano Sermone, cap. 47, Ejectio antcm e 
 synagogae, coramunicationis abm gatio est, et abali- 
 enatio a religiosa consuctudine, quae a nostris re- 
 cepto jam verbo excoramunicatio dicitur. 
 
 8 Magdeb. Cent. 1, lib. 1, cap. 7, .Tudicabant dog- 
 mata et proraulgabant eorum damnationes, una cum 
 personis : qua; quidem res niliil aliud qnam publica 
 excomraunicatio eiat, John ix. 22; xi.47, 48; xii. 
 42. Et infra. Extra synagogam fierct, hoc est ex- 
 communicarctur. 
 
 to their cherem answereth our oxcommunl- 
 cation from the church, and that the Jews 
 had the very same kind of excommunication 
 by which the incestuous Corinthian, Ilyme- 
 neus and Phiietus, and the Emperor Theo- 
 dosius were excommunicated.^ Con.stantinus 
 L'Empereur, Annot. in Rempub. Jud., p. 
 370 — 378, holdeth the same thing whicii 
 Bertramus holdeth concerning the Jewish 
 excommunication, and which hath now been 
 cited. Godwin, in his Moses and Aaron, 
 Ub. 5, cap. 1, speaketh of the ecclesiastical 
 court of the Jews, unto which, saith he, 
 belonged the power of excommunication ; 
 the several sorts of which censure he ex- 
 plaineth, cap. 2, namely, niddui, cherem 
 and schammata ; after all which he begins, 
 cap. 3, to speak of civil courts of the Jews, a 
 distinct government. 
 
 Grotius, annot. m Luke vi. 23, compares 
 the Jewi.sh excommunication with that which 
 was exercised by the Druids in Erance, who 
 did interdicere sacri/xiis, interdict and 
 prohibit from their sacrifices impious and 
 ob.stiriate persons ; yea, those wlio were ex- 
 communicate by niddui, or the lesser ex- 
 communication, he hkens to those penitents 
 or mourners in the ancient Christian church, 
 who were said to be " wj/jxj.buVsj, qui non cum 
 cceteris orahant, &:c. lie tells us the an- 
 cient Christians did in divers things follow 
 the Jewish discipline, and, among others, 
 in excommunication. He cites the same pas- 
 sage of Tertulhan which is cited by Mr Sel- 
 den, concerning a shutting out a communi- 
 cationc orationis, et convcntus, et omnis, 
 sancti rommcrcii, which is as full and high j 
 a description of the ecclesiastical censure of 1 
 excommunication as any can be ; so that the 
 Jewish exconmiunication being paralleled 
 with that excommunication which Tertulhan 
 speaks of, and which was practised in the 
 ancient Christian church, what more can be 
 required in this particular ? And here I can- 
 not but take notice that Mr Prj'nne doth very 
 much mistake and misrepresent Mr Selden, 
 
 1 De Rcpub. Ebr. cap. 7, Legis sanctio triplex, 
 etc. Prima est '"^J aversatio, araolitio et amau- 
 datio, etc. Secunda est ^^TP! '^^'''otio extremo 
 cuidara exitio, excommumciitio : qnando videlicet 
 aliquis excindi dicebatnr ex populo suo, ct in eo 
 amplius non censeri (ut jam supra exposuimus) 
 ex majore aliquo delicto. Atque hoc puto esse a^t- 
 iruyayuyef fieri, etc. Primae illaB speciei respon- 
 dui quod in ecclesiis nostris vocamus proLibitionem 
 sen su.spcnsionem a sacramentis : secundac cxcom- 
 municatio publice facta. 
 
DIVINE ORDIX.\>'CE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 21 
 
 as if* ho lield the Jewish excommunication to 
 1 have been no more but a shutting out from 
 civil company or fellowship, whereas he 
 clearly holds (lib. 4, de Jure Nat. ct Gent. 
 cap. 9, p. 522), that lie who was excom- 
 municated by the Jewish c/iernn, was put 
 away and cast off from fellowship in prayer, 
 and from all religious fellowship, even as 
 Tertullian speaks of excommunicated per- 
 sons in the church. 
 
 Lud. Capellus in Spicilegio, upon Job 
 ix. 22, speaking of the common distinction 
 of the three degrees of the Jewish excom- 
 j niunication, doth plainly bear witness to that 
 which I plead for, namely, that there was 
 a Jewish excommunication from communion 
 in the holy things.^ I confess he understands 
 the chercm and the schammata otherwise 
 than I do, for he takes the chcrem to be 
 nihil aliiid, nothing else than the forfeiture 
 of a man's substance for the use of the sanc- 
 tuary (whereas it is certain there was a 
 cherem of persons as well as of things, and 
 the formula} of the chercm, which shall be 
 cited afterward, contain another thing than 
 forfeiture), and schammata he takes to be 
 the devoting of men to death, and that be- 
 ing shammatisod they must needs die, (and 
 yet the Jews did shammatiso the Cuthites 
 or Samaritans, as we shall see afterward, 
 whom they had not power to put to death). 
 However, he speaks of the niddui as a mere 
 ecclesiastical censure, and therefore tells us it 
 was formidable to the godly, it being a shut- 
 ting out from communion in the holy things, 
 but not formidable to wicked men, which 
 must be upon this reason, because wicked 
 men did care little or nothing for any cen- 
 sure or punishment, except what was civil ; 
 he gi'anteth also that niddui was hichided 
 in the other two, so that in all three there 
 was a shutting out from the holy things. 
 
 I must not forget the testimony of my 
 countryman, Mr \Veymes, in his Christian 
 Synagogue, lib. 1, cap. 6, sect. 3, par. 7, 
 " They had three sorts of excommunication ; 
 first the lesser, then the middle sort, then 
 the greatest. The lesser was called niddui ; 
 and in the New Testament they were called 
 arariniyayii, put out of the Synagogue ; 
 and tliey hold that Cain was excuiiimu- 
 
 1 Harum trium excomraunicationis speciernm 
 Tel potius graduum, secunda primam, tertia utram- 
 que includebat. Prima piis quidem Judaiis eiat 
 foi inidabilis, quia per earn a sacrorum comniunioue 
 submovebantur, at qui miuus pii eraut fa nou mag- 
 noperc movebautur. 
 
 nicated this way. The second was called 
 chcrem or anathema; with this sort of ex- 
 communication was the incestuous person 
 censured, 2 Cor. ii. The third schammata : 
 they hold that Enoch instituted it, Jude, ver. 
 14 ; and after, these who were a.'rdtrvya.ywym, 
 put out of the synagogue, were not simply 
 secluded from the temple, but suffered to 
 stand in the gate, &c. ; these who were ex- 
 communicated by the second sort of excom- 
 munication, were not permitted to come 
 near the temple ; these who were excom- 
 municated after the third sort, were se- 
 cluded out of the society of the people of 
 God altooetlier." 
 
 And thus I have produced fifteen wit- 
 nesses for the ecclesiastical excommunication 
 of the Jews. I might produce many more, 
 but I have made choice of these, because all 
 of them have taken more than ordinary 
 pains in searching the Jewish antiquities, 
 and divers of them are of greatest note for 
 their skill therein. 
 
 In the next place, let us observe the 
 causes, degrees, manner and rites, how the 
 authority by which the ends and effects of 
 excommunication among the Jews, and see 
 whether all the.-e do not help to make their 
 excommunication a pattern for ours. For 
 the causes : There were twenty-four causes 
 for which a man was excommunicated among 
 the Jews. You may read them in Buxtorff's 
 Lexicon Chedd. Talmud et Rabbin, p. 1304, 
 1305; Mr Selden, de Jure Nat. ct Gentium, 
 lib. 4, cap. 8 ; J. Coch, Annot. in Excerp. 
 Gem. Sanhedrim, cap. 2, p. 147. Divers of 
 these causes did not at all concern personal 
 or civil injuries (for such injuries were not 
 accounted causes of excommunication, but 
 were to be punished otherwise, as shall be 
 proved afterward), but matters of scandal, 
 by which God was dishonoured, and the 
 stumbling-block of an evil example laid be- 
 fore others. One cause was the despising of 
 any of the precepts of the law of Moses, or 
 statutes of the sci ibes ; another was the sell- 
 ing of land to a Gentile ; another was a 
 priest not separating the gifts of the obla- 
 tion ; another, he that in captivity doth not 
 iterate or observe the second time a holy 
 day ; another, he that doth any servile 
 work upon Easter eve ;^ another, he that 
 
 1 Buxtorf. Lcxic. Rabbin, p. 2463 ex Pesachim 
 fol. 50. Uui vespera Sabbatbi et alioium dierum 
 festoruni operas serviles tacit, iiilaustum illud qui- 
 dem est, ueque videt siguum beuedictiouis, sed uon 
 
22 
 
 Aaron's rod blossomixg, or the 
 
 mentioneth the name of God rashly, or by 
 a vain oath ; another, he that induceth, or 
 giveth occasion to otliers, to profane the 
 name of God ; another, he that makes others 
 to eat holy things without the holy temple ; 
 another, he that maketh computation of 
 years and months without tlie land of Israel, 
 ! that is (as Dr Buxtorff), writeth calendars, 
 ' or (as Mr Selden) computcth years and 
 months otherwise than their fathers had 
 done ; another, he that rctardeth or liin- 
 dereth others from doing tlie law and com- 
 mandment ; another, he that maketh the 
 offering profane (as Dr Buxtorff), or offereth 
 a sickly l)east (as J. Coch) ; another, a sa- 
 crificer that doth not show his sacrificing- 
 knife before a wise man or a rabbi, that it 
 may be known to be a lawful knife, and not 
 faulty ; another, he that cannot be made to 
 know or to learn ; another, he that having 
 put away his wife, doth thereafter converse 
 familiarly with her ; another, a wise man 
 (that is a rabl)i or doctor) infamous for an 
 evil life. The other causes had also matter 
 of scandal in them, namely, the desjiising of 
 a wise man, or rabbi, though it were after 
 his death ; the despising of an officer, or 
 messenger of the house of judgment ; he 
 that casteth up to his neighbour a servile 
 condition, or calls his neighbour servant ; 
 he that contumaciously refuseth to appear 
 at the day appointed by the judge ; he that 
 doth not submit himself to tlie judicial sen- 
 tence ; he tliat hath in his house any hurt- 
 ful thing, as a mad dog, or a weak ladder ; 
 he that before heathen judges beareth wit- 
 ness against an Israelite ; he that maketh 
 the bhnd to fall ; he that hath excommuni- 
 cate another without cause, when he ought 
 not to have been excommunicate. Thus you 
 have the twenty-four causes of the Jewish 
 excommunication, of which some were mere 
 scandals, others of a mixed nature, that is, 
 partly injuries, partly scandals, but they 
 were reckoned among the causes of excom- 
 munication, qua scandals, not qua injuries. 
 J. Coch, Annot. in Exc. Gem. Sanhedrim, 
 p. 146, explaining how the wronging of a 
 doctor of the law by contumelies was a 
 cause of excommunication, showeth that the 
 excommunication was because of the scan- 
 dal : Licet tamen condonarc nisi res in 
 
 schammatisamus eum : at qui vesprra paschatis 
 operas servilcs facit, hie vero omnino seliamraatisa- 
 mus eum. Tlioy did also excommunicate a licrcti- 
 I cal or Epicurean Israelite. Buxtorfi, ibid, p. 195. 
 
 prapatulo tjesta sit. Publicum dorloris 
 ludibrium in legis contemptum redundat. 
 Hanc ob cxusam doctor legis honorern 
 SHum remittere non potest. Ubi res clam 
 et sine scandalo gesta est, magni animi et 
 sapientis est injuriam contemptu vindi- 
 care. If there was no scandal, the injury 
 might be remitted by the party injured, so \ 
 as the offender was not to be excommuni- ; 
 cate ; but, if the contumely was known 
 abroad, and was scandalous, though the 
 party wronged were willing and desirous to 
 bury it, yet, because of the scandal, the law 
 provided that the offender should be ex- 
 communicate ; for they taught the people 
 that he who did contend against a rabbi did 
 contend against the Holy Ghost (for which ; 
 see Gul. Vorstius Annot. in Maimon. de \ 
 Fundam. Legis., p. 77, 78), and hence did 
 they aggravate an ecclesiastical or divine 
 (not a civil) injury ; whence it appeareth 
 that the causes of excommunicaton were 
 formally looked upon as scandals ; add that 
 if qua injui'ies, then a qnatenus ad omnc, i 
 all personal or civil injuries, had been causes 
 of excommunication. But all civil injuries 
 do not fall within these twenty-four causes. 
 If it be objected, that neither do all scandals 
 fall within these twenty-four causes, I an- 
 swer. They do ; for some of the causes are 
 general and comprehensive, namely these 
 two, the fifth — he that despisetli the sta- 
 tutes of the law of Moses, or of the scribes ; j 
 and the eighteenth — he that retardeth or j 
 hindereth others from doing the law. i 
 
 When I make mention of any paiticular | 
 heads, either of the Jewish discipline or of 
 the ancient Christian discipline, let no man 
 understand me as if I intended the like 
 strictness of discipline in these days. My 
 meaning is only to prove ecclesiastical cen- 
 sures, and an ecclesiastical government ; and 
 let this be remembered upon all like occa- j 
 sions, though it be not everywhere ex- I 
 pressed : and so much for the causes. j 
 
 The degrees of the Jewish excommuni- 
 cation, were 'TT^ niddui, mn eherem, 
 schammata. Elias ifi Tisbite, 
 saith plainly, that " There were three kinds 
 of excommunication, niddui, eherem, and 
 schammata. Niddui is a casting out; but if 
 ho be not converted, they smite him with ehe- 
 rem; and if neither so he rejjent, they scham- 
 matisc him." These three Dr Buxtorff 
 thus distinguisheth, not only out of Elias, the 
 common sentence, but of the Hebrew doctors. 
 The first and smallest excomnumication is 
 
DIVIXE ORDIXAXCE OF CHURCH GOVER>'XIENT VINDICATED. 
 
 23 
 
 niddui, which is a simple separation for a 
 certain time ; the greater excommunication 
 is chercm, which is a separation with im- 
 precations and curses; the greatest of all 
 is schammata, a final excommunication, 
 without hope of returning to the church : so 
 likewise Hen. Vorstius Animad. in Pirkc, 
 p. 230. And, answerably hereunto, some 
 divines have distinguished cxcommitnicat'to 
 minor, major and maxima. The fii"st is 
 suspension from the sacrament ; the second 
 is a casting out of the church, and a deliver- 
 mg over to Satan, which yet is a medicinal 
 excommunication for the destruction of the 
 flesh, that the spirit may be saved ; the third 
 is anathema maranatha, an accursing of a 
 man to the coming of Christ, without hope 
 of mercy, which is excommunicatio cxtcr- 
 minativa, and cannot be done without a 
 prophetical spirit. Bertramus (de Mepub. 
 Ehra;or, cap. 7) saith, that our suspension 
 from the sacrament answereth to their nid- 
 dui, our excommunication to then' chercm, 
 and for their schammata, he thinks it was 
 an adjudging of one to eternal death, where- 
 unto answereth the Apostle's anathema, and 
 the church's devoting of JuUan the apostate 
 as one to be no more prayed for, but to be 
 prayed against. Munsterus will have scham- 
 mata to be the same with niddui, wherein 
 Mr Selden agreeth with him, still holding 
 a difference between niddui and chcrem, 
 as between the lesser and the gi-eater ex- 
 communication [dc Jure \at. et Gentium, 
 lib. 4, cap. 8) ; of the same opinion is J. Coch, 
 Annot. in Kxc. Gem. Sanhedrim, p. 149. 
 But Constantinus L'Empereur, Annot. in 
 Rempub. J ud., tells us, that the Talmudists, 
 in divers places, do distinguish the three de- 
 grees of excommunication, as Bertramus 
 doth ; and that schammata was the highest 
 excommunication, greater than either ')t.id- 
 dui or cherem, he proves not only by the 
 epitheton adonai added by the Chaldee pa- 
 raphrase. Num. xxi. 25, Et percussit cum 
 Israel per schammata dei; but further, 
 from the words of Rabbi Solomon, compar- 
 ing one excommunicated by schammata, to 
 the fat cast in the furnace, which is wholly 
 consumed, and which never comes out, so 
 he that is shammatised is lost for ever, and 
 mthout all remedy unto all eternity. He 
 confirmeth it also from the words of Elias 
 above mentioned. It is not much to my pre- 
 sent argument to dispute whether the Jews 
 had three distinct degrees of excommunica- 
 tion or two only. However, it is agreed that 
 
 the Jews had their excommunicatio minor 
 and major. And niddui was an excom- 
 munication for thirty days, during which 
 time, if the person (man or woman) repent, 
 well and good, if not, he was excommunicate 
 for other thirty days ; yea, saith Dr Buxtorff, 
 the time might be triplicate to ninety days; 
 and if, after all that time, he repent not, 
 then he was excommunicate with the greater 
 excommunication, cherem : and so much for 
 the degi'ees. 
 
 As for the manner and rites of their ex- 
 communication, it was done most solemnly. 
 Dr Buxtorff^ tells us, if the party was pre- 
 sent, the sentence of exconnnunication was 
 pronounced against him by word of mouth ; 
 if he was absent, there was a writ publicly 
 affixed, containing the sentence of excom- 
 munication, which w^rit was not published 
 till the offence was proved at least by two 
 witnesses. 
 
 It is cei-tain from Pirke Rabbi Elieser, 
 cap. 38, that cherem was not without an as- 
 sembly of ten at least ; and it is as certain 
 that cherem was not only in a solemn, but 
 in a sacred manner performed, which is 
 manifest from that formula anathematis, 
 which Dr Buxtorff hath transcribed out of 
 an old Hebrew manuscript ;2 and from an- 
 other form which Hen. Vorstius^ taketh out 
 
 1 Lexicon Chald. Talmud, et Rabbin., p. 2468. 
 Excommunicatio fiebat quandoque verbis expressis, 
 quando excommunicandus oiat pra:sens: quandoque 
 scripto publice atfixe, quando absens erat. Ilinc 
 legitur in Maj. emone in libro Madda, cap. 7, sect 2. 
 Quomodo fit Niddui: dicit N. esto in excoramunica- 
 tione. Si excommnnicant cum in faciem, id est pre- 
 sentem, dicit N. liic esto in cxcommunicatione sive 
 banno. Ibid. p. 2169. Nuncius vel minister publi- 
 cus judicii ea fide habetur, ut si dicat, X. a me citatua 
 ad judicium, contempsit me, aut vilipendit judicem, 
 aut dixit se nolle comparere in judicio, tunc samma- 
 tisent ipsum ad verba ejus, sed non scribunt super 
 eo schedam excommunicationis shammata, donee 
 venerint duo quo testentur ipsum noluisse compa- 
 rere ad judicium. 
 
 2 Lexicon Rabbin., p. 828. Ex sententia domini 
 dominorum, sit in AnatUemate Ploni Filius Ploni, 
 in ntraque domo judicii, superiorum scilicet et infe- 
 riorum, in anathemate item sanctorum excelsorum, 
 in anathemate seraphim et ophannim, in anathemate 
 denique totius ecclesiae, maximorum et minimorum, 
 etc. 
 
 3 Another form, more full and large, see iu Vor- 
 stius's Animadversions upon Pirke, p. 226 — 230. 
 Decreto vigilum atque edicto sanctorum anathemi- 
 zamus, adjuramus, excommunicamus schammatiza- 
 mus, maledicimus, execramus ex sententia hujus 
 loci atque ex scientia hujus coetus, hoc libro Icgis, 
 sexcentis tredecim praeceptis in illo conscriptis. 
 Anathemate quo Joshua devovit Jericho; raaledic- 
 tione qua maledixit Eliseus pueris, et maledictione 
 quam imprecatus est Gichazi servo suo. Shammate 
 quo schammatizavit Barack Meroz, etc. Nomine 
 
2i 
 
 Aaron's rod blossomixo, or the 
 
 of Col Bo, both showino; that it was not a 
 civil, but a sacred business, done in the name 
 and authority of the God of lieaven; and 
 tiie latter fonnula still used in most of the 
 Jewish synaoo,l^ues, as Vorstius informs us. 
 
 We read also in Pirlce llabbi Elieser, cap. 
 38, that the Cuthites^ (who were also called 
 Samaritans), after they had been circumcised 
 by llabbi Dostai, and Rablji Zacharias, and 
 had been taught by them out of tlie book of 
 the law, they were excommunicate by Ez- 
 ra, Zerubbabel, and Joshua the high-priest, 
 three hundred priests, and three hundred 
 disciples, and the whole church in the tem- 
 ple, the trumpets sounding, and the Levites 
 singing ; they did even by the great name of 
 God excommunicate the Cuthites, that there 
 should be no fellowship between any man of 
 Israel and the Cuthites, that no proselyte 
 should be received of the Cuthites, and tliat 
 they should have no part in the resiu-rection 
 of the dead, nor in the building of the house 
 of God, nor in Jerusalem. This passage 
 Dr Buxtorff in his Rahhinical Lexicon, p. 
 
 Aebthariel Jali Domini Zcbaoth. Nomine Micliael 
 Principis magni. Nomine jMathatlieron cujus no- 
 men est sicuti iiomen doniini ejus. Nomine Sandal- 
 phon qui nectit coronas pro domino suo. Nomine 
 Nominis 42, literarum. Nomine quod apparuit 
 Mosi in Sinai. Nomine quo dissccuit Moses Mare. 
 Nomine Ehieh asclier Eliicli, Ero qui ero. Arcano 
 nominis Ampboraseh. Scriptura quas cxarata est 
 in tabulis. Nomine Domini cxercituura Dei Israelis, 
 qui sedit inter cherubim, etc. Maledictus ex ore 
 nominis celebrandi, et tremendi, quod cgreditur ex 
 ore sacerdotis magni die expiationem, etc. Evella- 
 tur ipse e tabernaculo. Nolit dominus illi condonare, 
 sed tunc fumet furor et indignatio contra virura 
 ilium. Incumbant illi omnes maledictiones con- 
 scriptae in hoc libro legis. Expellat noraen ejus 
 sub caslo, et segreget ilium in malum ex omnibus 
 tribubus Israelis, juxta omncs execrationcs bujus 
 faederis consignatas in hoc libro legis, etc. Ilaec sit 
 voluntas Dei et dicatur. Amen. 
 
 1 Quid turn fecerunt Ezra, Zerobabel et Joshua ? 
 Congregaverunt totam ccclesiam sen caelum populi 
 in templum domini et introduxerunt 300 sacerdotes 
 ct 30O adolesceutcs (scu discipulos minores) quibus 
 erant in manibus 300 buccina;, ct 300 libri legis. 
 Hi clangebant ; Levitae autem cantabant et psalle- 
 bant: et cxconimuuicabant Cuthaeos per mysterium 
 nominis Teiragrammati, et per scripturam descrip- 
 tam in Tabulis legis, et per auathcma fori supcrioris 
 sen caelestis, ct per anathema fori inferiores seu tcr- 
 restris, ita ut nemo Israelitarum unquam in poste- 
 rum comcderet buccellam aliquam Cuthajorum. 
 Hinc dicunt quicunque comedit carnem Cuthaei, is 
 vescitur quasi carne porcina. Curhaeus quoque ne 
 ficret proselytus, ncque haberet partem in resur- 
 rection e mortuorum, juxta illud quod scriptum est. 
 Non ad vos simul nobiscum attinetinstauratiodomus 
 dei nostri: neque in hoc neqne in futuro seculo. 
 Praeterea quoque ne haberet partem in Jerusalem. 
 Hinc dicitur, S'obis non est pars neque jus, neque 
 memoria in Jerusalem. Transmiserunt autem ana- 
 thema hoc ad Israelitas qui erant in Babylonia. 
 
 2464, and Mr Selden, dc Jure Nat. ct 
 Gentium, lib. 4, cap. 8, have ol>sei-ved out 
 of Pirke and Dr liuxtoHF, both there and 
 Dixsert dc Lit. Ilehr. tiies. 49, notcth the 
 three words used 1)V the IIobi-e\vs in this re- 
 
 kition, rn;DT T'DDtJ^DT T'Dnnoi tkit 
 
 is, they did excommunicate them both by 
 niddui, cherem, and srhammuta : and so 
 much for the manner and rites. 
 
 As lor the authority by which a man was 
 excommunicated, we see (by that which 
 hath been already noted) that it was a pub- 
 lic and judicial act, and it was nece.ssary 
 there should be at least an assembly of ten. 
 Those forinxdoi before cited make it evident 
 that it was an authoritative sentence of an 
 ecclesiastical assembly (and therefore done 
 as it were in name of the court of heaven, 
 to which purpose domus Judicii supcriori.f 
 scu coilcstis, was mentioned in the business, 
 and it was a juridical or forensical act, and 
 done solemnly in the temple, in that case of 
 the Cuthites), Drusius dc Trihus Scctis Ju- 
 dccormn, lib. 4, num. 237, concerning the 
 discipline of the Esseans, and their excom- 
 municating of ungodly persons, tells us it 
 it was done by a hundred men assembled 
 together. It is very true which Mr Selden 
 observeth, de Jure Nat. et Gentium, lib. 4, 
 cap. 8, the Hebrews' writ of a judicial ex- 
 communication, and of an extrajudicial ex- 
 communication, by which one private man 
 might excommunicate another ; yet that ex- 
 trajudicial excommunication could not stand 
 in force unless it were ratified by the court ; 
 and of itself it was rather optative, or ini- 
 precative, than obligative, as is manifest by 
 the instance which J. Coch^ gives us, ex 
 Gem. Moed Caton. Two men having mu- 
 tually excommunicated each other, it cometh 
 to an authoritative decision : he that had 
 excommunicated the other for that for which 
 he ought to have been punished by a pe- 
 cunial mulct, but not by excommunication, 
 was himself justly excommunicate by the 
 other, according to the last of the twenty- 
 four causes of excommunication before men- 
 tioned, that is, he who unjustly excommuni- 
 cateth another shall be himself excommuni- 
 
 1 Annot. Gem. in Ex. Sanhedrim, p. 147, R. Si- | 
 mon, fil. Lakisch custodiebat liortum. vcnit quidara 
 et ficus caepit vovarc. lUe inclamare : hie non uauci 
 facere. Tum illes excommunicatus esto. Tu vicis- 
 sim inquit alter excommunicatus esto. Nam si ad 
 pecuniam tibi obstrictus sum, numquid anathcmati 
 obnoxius sum ? Adiit R. Lakisch super hoc Scbolae 
 rectores. Responsum est : Ipsius Anathema ana- 
 thema est : tuum nullum est. 
 
DIVINE ORDI^•A^•CE OF CHURCH GOVERXMENT VINDICATED. 25 
 
 cated ; so the excommunicating of tlie one 
 man for a civil injury was declared null, and 
 the excommunicatnig of the other for his 
 unjust act of excommunication was ratified ; 
 which doth not only prove what I have said 
 of private or extrajudicial excommunication, 
 but also confirm what I asserted before, 
 concerning the causes of excommunication, 
 that it was not for personal or civil injuries, 
 but for matter of scandal, and that pecuniary 
 mulcts and excommunication were not in- 
 flicted for the same, but for different causes; 
 and so much for the authority. 
 
 The effects of excommunication were 
 thcse,^ — he might not bo admitted into an 
 assembly of ten persons ; he might not sit 
 within four cubits to his neighbour; he 
 might not shave his hair, nor wash himself; 
 it was not lawful to eat nor drink with him. 
 lie that died in excommunication got no 
 funeral, nor was there any mourning made 
 for him, Init a stone was set over him to 
 signify that he was worthy to be stoned, be- 
 cause he did not repent, and because he was 
 separated from the church. An excommuni- 
 cate person might not make up the number 
 of ten where there were nine ; the reason 
 was, because he might not be acknowledged 
 for a church member, or one who could make 
 up a lawfid assembly. Drusius (c/c tribus sec- 
 tis Judceoruin, lib. 3, cap. 11) draweth two 
 consequences from that excommunication of 
 the Cuthites before mentioned : 1. That it 
 was not lawful for a Jew to eat bread with 
 a Samaritan. 2. That the Samaritans were 
 cut off from the Jewish church, and that 
 without hope of regress, being schammatised. 
 
 It is more disputable how far forth ex- 
 communication did deprive a man of the 
 hberty of access into the temple. The Tal- 
 mudists hold, that of old an excommiuiicate 
 person might enter into the temple, yet so 
 as he might be known that he was excom- 
 municate. It is said in Pirke Rabbi Eheser, 
 cap. 17, that Solomon built two gates, one 
 for bridegrooms, another for mourners and 
 exconmiunicated persons ; and when the 
 children of Israel, sitting between these two 
 gates upon the sabbath days and holy days, 
 did see a bridegroom come in, they knew him 
 and did congratulate with him ; but when 
 they saw one come in at the door of the 
 mourners, having his lips covered, they knew 
 him to be a mourner, and said, " He that 
 
 1 Buxtorf. Lexicon ChalJ. Talm. et Rab., p. 1305, 
 828. 
 
 dwells in this house comfort thee;" but when 
 they saw one come in at the door of mourn- 
 ers with his lips not covered, they knew him 
 to be excommunicated, and spake to him on 
 this manner, " He that dwells in this house 
 comfort thee, and put into thy mind to hear- 
 ken unto thy neighbours." The like you have 
 in Cordice Middoth, c. 2, sect. 2, where it is 
 said, that ordinarily all that came into the 
 temple did enter upon the right hand, and 
 they went out upon the left hand, those ex- 
 cepted to whom some sad thing had befallen ; 
 and when it was asked of such a one. Why 
 dost thou enter upon the left hand ? he 
 either answered that he was a mourner, and 
 then it was said to him, " He that dwells in 
 this house comfort thee," or he answered. 
 Because I am excommunicate (so readeth 
 Buxtorff), or Quia ego contaminatus reji- 
 cior (so readeth L'Empereur), and then it 
 was said to him, " He that dwells in this 
 house put into thy mind to hearken to the 
 words of thy companions, that they may re- 
 store thee." The same thing is cited e lihro 
 Musar by Drusius, prceter lib. 4, in John ix. 
 22, his opinion is that CUOH those that 
 were separate and exconmiunicate by the 
 lesser excomnumication, were admitted into 
 the temple in the manner aforesaid, but that 
 they were not admitted into the synagogue, 
 because it is added 'm libro Musar (which I 
 find also added in the fore-mentioued place 
 of Pirke R. Elieser), that after the temple 
 was destroyed, it was decreed that bride- 
 grooms and mourners should come into the 
 synagogue, and that they in the synagogue 
 should congratulate with the one, and con- 
 dole with the other. Behold, saitli Drusius, 
 no mention hei'e of excommunicate persons, 
 for they did not come into the synagogues ; 
 peradventure every exconmumicate person 
 had not access to the temple neither, but he 
 that was extrajudicially, or by private per- 
 sons excommunicate, as those words might 
 seem to intimate, " He tliat dwells in this 
 house put into thy mind to hearken to thy 
 neighbours, or companion', that they may 
 restore thee;" or, if you taVe it to extend to 
 judicial excommunication, then Hen. Voi- 
 stius^ doth expomid it [Animad. in Pirke, p. 
 
 1 De his inerito dubitari potest, num licuerit ip- 
 sis sacra adire limiua, imprimis qui scveriori ex- 
 communicationis genera vel multati erant. 
 
 Quis enim dicat Apostatara, blasphemum, aliaque 
 sacra capita intra templura fuisse admissa ? De 
 t3"n alia ratio esse potest, cum bis spes ve- 
 nia3 non tuerit adempta. 
 
 D 
 
26 
 
 aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 169) so as it may be understood only of 
 the lesser excommunication, when there 
 was still hope of repentance and reconcilia- 
 tion ; so J. Coch {Uhi Supra, p. 149) thinks 
 that an excommunicate person was not al- 
 together cast out of the synagogue, but was 
 permitted to hear, and to be partaker of the 
 doctrine, but otherwise, and in other things, 
 he was separate, and not acknowledged for a 
 church member, and this he saith of rmjD 
 menudcle, of him that was simply excom- 
 municate by the lesser excommunication or 
 niddui ; but he saith otherwise of him that 
 was excommunicate with cherem, Non do- 
 cet, non docetur, he is neither permitted to 
 teach nor to be taught. Grotius on Luke 
 vi. 22, tells us, that excommunicate persons 
 under niddui came no otherwise to the tem- 
 ple than heathens did, that is, had no liberty 
 to come into the court of Israel. However, 
 such as were excommunicate by cherem 
 were not permitted to come near the tem- 
 ple, saith Mr Weymes in his Christian 
 Synag., p. 138. An excommunicate per- 
 son of the first sort [niddui), when he came 
 to the temple, or synagogue, you see (by 
 what hath been said) he was there publicly 
 bearing his shame, and looked upon as one 
 separate from the communion of the people 
 of God ; and so much lor the effects. 
 
 The end of excommunication was spiritual, 
 that a sinner being by such pubUc shame 
 and separation humbled, might be gained to 
 repentance, and thereby his soul saved ^ 
 (which is the end of church discipline, not 
 of civil censures). The court waited ninety 
 days upon his repentance, and did not pro- 
 ceed to cherem, except in case of his con- 
 tinuing impenitency, when all that time he 
 gave no sig-n of repentance, nor sought ab- 
 solution. 
 
 F rom all that hath been said, I hope it is 
 fully manifest, that the Jewish excommu- 
 nication was an ecclesiastical censure, and 
 not (as Mr Prynne would have it) a civil 
 excommunication like to an outlawry at com- 
 mon law. 2 
 
 I conclude with a passage of Drusius de 
 Tribus Sectis Judceorum, hb. 4, cap. 22, 
 
 1 M. Selden de Jure Natur. et Gentium, lib. 4, 
 cap. 8, Effectus ac finis excoramunicationis hujus- 
 raodi, jure communi erat, ut solitae popularium 
 consuetudinis libertate reus privaretur, usque dum 
 psenitcntia ad bonam mentem rediens solveretur 
 sententia. 
 
 2 Independency Examined, p. 10. Vindic. of tlie 
 Four Questions, p. 4, 5. 
 
 concerning the Essaans, who did most re- 
 ligiously retain the discipline of excommu- 
 nication : J us dicturi inter so congrec/antur 
 centum viri, qui eos quos deprehenderint 
 reos et improbos expiellunt c ccetu suo. 
 These words he citeth out of Salmanticensis : 
 " Being to judge or give sentence among 
 themselves, a hundred men are gathered to- 
 gether, who do expel from their assembly 
 those whom they find to be guilty and un- 
 godly." He addeth this testimony of Rufi- 
 nus : Deprehensos vera in p)eccatis a sua 
 congregatione depellunt — such as are de- 
 prehended in sins they put away from their 
 congregation. Lo, an ecclesiastical excom- 
 munication because of scandalous sins ! 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 OF THE CUTTING OFF FROM AilONG THE PEO- 
 PLE OF GOD, FREQUENTLY MENTIONED IN 
 THE LAW. 
 
 It hath been much controverted, what 
 should be the meaning of that commination 
 so frequently used in the law of Moses, 
 " That soul shall be cut off from among his 
 people." The radix HTD signifieth pro- 
 perly such a cutting off as is like the cutting 
 off a branch from the tree; and niDn!!! 
 cutting off, is applied to divorcement; Deut. 
 xxiv. 1 , a bill of divorcement, in the Hebrew, 
 of cutting off ; so Isa. 1. 1 ; Jer. iii. 8. It is 
 certain that HID carath doth not neces- 
 sarily signify to cut off by death, destruction, 
 or a total abolition of the veiy existence of 
 him that is cut off, but any cutting off, by 
 whatsoever loss or punishment it be. The 
 Septuagmts render it not seldom by such 
 words as signify the loss or pmiishment of 
 the party without destroying him, as by 
 
 Tw, airoxoiTTat/, txxo'^raf, xaraxovrTU, absciyido^ 
 
 amputo, succido, excindo; aToff^da^ avello ; 
 
 abstrabo, x.a-'ra.tfaa ; demitto, s-s^'TS^va ; cir- 
 
 cumcido,t^(paiiiu\ tiai^u, aufero; iri.n-rTu ^ -pcr- 
 ciitio ; f"'''^!^ uerbero. Sometime they render 
 it b\ ix-i^'i'u contero, cxtero, terendo excutio, 
 to strike out (sometime to wash out, or to 
 wipe 0^' spots or filth, as H. Stephanus tells 
 us ; thence 'ixr^ififta, the cloth wherewith we 
 wipe our hands when we wash them) ; Num. 
 xix. 13, " That soul shall be cut off from Is- 
 rael." The Septuagints, txr^iiwiTai h ■4'i'x,'' 
 Ixi'ivti t» \<r^ariX ; yea, where they render it by 
 lloktD^iia, that i^dXif^ivrii, or cutting off, is 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNJIENT VINDICATED. 
 
 27 
 
 sometimes meant of captivity, Amos i. 5 ; 
 sometimes of the decay and dissolution of a 
 monarchy, Ezek. xxxi. 12 ; sometimes of the 
 deposition or repudiating of priests, 1 Sam. 
 ii. 33, " The man of thine whom I shall not 
 cut off from mine altar ;" sometimes gene- 
 rally lor a judgnnent, or punishment, Isa. 
 xxii. 25. The English translators in some 
 places where it is n"l3 original, and 
 
 6g«Xo^^£i/<a/, render it to fail, 1 Kings ii. 4 ; to 
 loose, 1 Kings xviii. 5 ; sometime they ren- 
 der the same original word to hew, 1 Kings 
 V. 6 ; " to hew timber," Jer. Ixvi. ; sometime 
 simply to cut, Ezek. xvi. 4, " Thy navel was 
 not cut." In other places where the Sep- 
 tuagints have f5«'j<a aufero, the English hath 
 to fedl, 1 Kino-s viii. 25 ; ix. 5 ; 2 Chron. vii. 
 18. This ilai^a is the word used by the 
 Apostle in the case of excommunication, 1 
 Cor. V. 13. 
 
 There are five different opinions concern- 
 ing that cutting off mentioned in the law. 
 
 1. Augustine in divers places understands 
 the meaning to be of the second death, or 
 eternal condemnation. But this is not suit- 
 able to the intancy of the Jewish church, for 
 while they were bred under the prcdagogy 
 of the law, things eternal and invisible were 
 not immediately and nakedly propounded 
 unto them, but under the shadows and 
 figin-es of temporal and visible things ; so 
 that if eternal death were the ultimate in- 
 tendment of that cominination (as I verily 
 believe it was), yet it must needs be ac- 
 knowledged that there was some other pun- 
 ishment in this life comprehended under 
 that phrase, to resemble in some sort, and to 
 shadow forth that everlasting cutting off. 
 
 2. Some understand that cutting off to 
 be when a man dieth itrixus, without chil- 
 dren, having no offspring or posterity be- 
 hind him to preserve the memory of him ; 
 for he that left children behind him was 
 esteemed to live in some sort after he was 
 dead. But the cutting off" in the law is jyri- 
 vative, not negative ; it is a depriving of a 
 man of what he hath, not the denial of what 
 he would have ; neither was that of the 
 preserving of one's name in the posterity 
 applicable to women, but to their husbands 
 only, whereas their cutting off was threat- 
 ened to all who were guilty, whether men or 
 women. Finally, if that were the sense, 
 then the cutting off did neither belong to 
 such as chose voluntarily to live unmarried, 
 nor to men who, being married, had children 
 to preserve their memory after their death, 
 
 but all that committed such or such a sin 
 were to be cut off whether married or un- 
 married, whether having children or wanting 
 childi'en. 
 
 3. Others understand capital punishment 
 to be inflicted by the civil magistrate. But 
 if all the offences for which cutting off was 
 threatened in the law had been punished by 
 death, the Mosaical laws no less than those 
 of Draco might have been said to be written 
 in blood, saith Gersomus Bucerus.^ Is it 
 credible that all and every one who did by 
 any chance eat the fat or the blood, or did 
 make a perfume for smell like to the holy 
 perfume, or did touch a dead body, or a 
 grave, or a tent wherein a man had died, or 
 anything that an unclean person had touch- 
 ed, and had not been thereafter sprinkled 
 with the water of separation, were without 
 mercy to die for any of these things ? Yet 
 these were cut off' from among their people, 
 Exod. XXX. 38 ; Lev. vii. 15, 17 ; Num. 
 xix. 13, 20. Another reason I take from 
 Mercerus on Gen. xvii. 14. We nowhere 
 find, either in Scripture or in the Jcv/ish 
 writings, that such of the seed of Abraham 
 as did neglect circumcision were punished 
 by the sword of the magistrate, yet by the 
 law such were to be cut off. Now, without 
 all controversy, such were excluded from 
 connnunion with the church of Israel, and 
 being so excluded, they were said properly 
 to be cut off' from among their people, saith 
 Mercerus ; and moreover the cutting off in 
 the law is expressed by such a word as doth 
 not necessarily signify that the person cut 
 off ceaseth to have any being, but it is used 
 to signify a cutting off' from a benefit, rela- 
 tion, or fellowship, when the being remains, 
 as was noted in the beginning. 
 
 4. Many of the Hebrews, whom Mr Ain- 
 sworth (Annot. in Gen. xvii. 14; Exod. xxxi. 
 14 ; Num. xv. 30) f'olloweth, understand by 
 that cutting off untimely death, or the short- 
 ening of life before the natural period. This 
 interpretation I also dislike upon these rea- 
 sons : 1. That which is taken for a founda- 
 tion of that opinion, namely, that the cut- 
 ting off in the law is meant only as a pun- 
 ishment of private sins known to God alone, 
 and which could not be proved by witnesses, 
 this, I say, is taken for granted, which is to 
 be proved. 2. Yea, the contrary appeareth 
 from Lev. xvii. 4, 5, the end of that cutting 
 off was, that the children of Israel might 
 
 1 Be Gubern. Eccl. p. 57. 
 
28 
 
 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 fear to do that thinsj which they saw so pun- 
 ished ; but how could they make this use of 
 a divine judgment inflicted for some private 
 sin, they knew not for what. 3. The com- 
 mination of divine judgments is added in a 
 more proper place, Deut. xxviii.; Lev. xxvi., 
 and in divers places, where wrath and pun- 
 ishnient from God is denounced against all 
 such as would not observe his command- 
 ments, nor keep his statutes and judgments. 
 But the cutting off is a part (and a gi-eat 
 part) of the corrective or penal Mosaical 
 laws which contain punishments to be in- 
 flicted by men, not by God, which makes 
 Piscator almost everywhere in his Scholia, 
 to observe, that excindetur is put for ex- 
 scinditor, that soul shall be cut off, for 
 let that soul he cut off. 4. The cutting off 
 was a distinguishing punishment, — they that 
 did such and such things were to be cut off, 
 and in being cut off were to bear their ini- 
 quity. Lev. xviii. 26 ; Num. xv. 31, but we 
 cannot say that Abijah the son of Jeroboam, 
 or king Josiah, being taken away by an un- 
 timely death, were thereby marked with a 
 sign of God's wrath, or that they were cut 
 off from among their people, and did bear 
 their iniquity. 5. And whereas they object 
 from Lev. xvii. 10 ; xx. 5, 6, that the cut- 
 ting off was a work of God, not of men, it is 
 easily answered from that same place, it was 
 only so in extraordinary cases, when men did 
 neglect to punish the offenders. Lev. xx. 4, 
 5, " And if the people of the land hide their 
 eyes from the man when he givetli of his 
 seed unto Molech, and kill him not, then I 
 will set my face against that man, and 
 against his family, and will cut him off ;" 
 which giveth liglit to the other place, Lev. 
 xvii. 10. What I have said against the third 
 and fourth opinion doth militate against 
 Erastus, for he expoundeth the cutting off 
 these two ways, that is either of capital pun- 
 ishment, or of destruction by the hand of 
 God, yet he inclineth chiefly to the last (see 
 lib. 3, c. 6). He touchetli this cutting off' in 
 divers places, but valde jejune, and because 
 he is pleased to profess he had no skill of 
 the Hebrew, he appealetli to the word '4*- 
 Xo^jsuai : of which before. 
 
 There is a fifth exposition, followed by 
 many both Popish and Protestant writers, 
 who understand by the cutting off, excom- 
 municating or casting out from the church ; 
 and of this opinion are some very good He- 
 britians, as Schindlerus, Lcxic. Pentagl., p. 
 655 ; Cornelius Bertramus, de Repuhlica 
 
 
 
 EbrcBorum, cap. 2 ; Godwin's Moses and 
 Aaron, lib. 3, cap. 4 ; the Jewish Canons of 
 Repentance, ■printed in Latin at Cambridge, 
 anno 1631, where the Hebrew hath fT^D 
 the Latin hath ordinarily excommunicatio ; 
 so do divers of our soundest writers take the 
 cutting off in the law to be excommunication, 
 Synops. pur. Theol. Disp. 48, Thes. 24. 
 39. There are these reasons for it : — 
 
 1. The cutting off had reference to an 
 ecclesiastical corporation or fellowship. It 
 is not said, that soul shall be cut off from 
 the earth, or from the land of the living, 
 but, cut off from his people, more plain- 
 ly, from Israel, Exod. xii. 15 ; Num. xix. 
 14, but most plainly, " That soul shall be 
 cut off from the congregation" (or church), 
 Num. xix. 20, intimating somewhat eccle- 
 siastical ; so Lev. xxii. 3, " That soul shall be 
 cut off from my presence." The Septua- 
 gints, ia-' IftoZ^ from me; the Clialdee,/roOT 
 my face; and this was the very cutting off, or 
 excommunication, of Cain from the church 
 by God himself. Gen. iv. 14, " From thy 
 face shall I be hid," and ver. 14, " And Cain 
 went out from the presence of the Lord." 
 It is another and much different phrase 
 which is used to express cutting off' from 
 the world, or from the land of the living, 
 Ezek. XXV. 7, " I w-ill cut thee off' from the 
 people, and will cause thee to perish out of 
 the countries;" Jer. xi. 19, " Let us cut him 
 off from the land of the living ;" Zeph. i. 3, 
 " I will cut off' man from off the land." 
 
 2. He that in his uncleanness did eat of 
 an unholy thing was to be cut off. Lev. vii. 
 20, 21 ; yet for such a one was appointed 
 confession of sin and a trespass-offering, by 
 which he was reconciled, and atonement 
 made for him, as Mr Ainsworth himself 
 tells us on Lev. v. 2 ; whence I infer, that 
 the cutting off such a one was not by death 
 inflicted either from the hand of the ma- 
 gistrate or from the hand of God, but that 
 the cutting off' was ecclesiastical, as well as 
 the reception or reconciliation. I know Mr 
 Aiuswoith is of opinion that the cutting off 
 was for defiling the sanctuary presumptu- 
 ously, or eating of an holy thing pi'esumptu- 
 ously, when a man was not cleansed from his 
 uncleanness, and that atonement by sacrifice 
 was appointed for such as defiled the sanc- 
 tuary ignorantly. But that which made him 
 think so was a mistake, for he supposeth 
 that for sins of ignorance or infirmity only 
 God did appoint sacrifices, but that for wil- 
 ful or malicious sins there was no sacrifice, 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 29 
 
 see his Annot. on Lev. iv. 2, which Faustus 
 Socinus also hokleth, Prcelect., cap. 22, p. 
 14-1. But to me the contraiy is plain I'rom 
 Lev. vi. 1—8, where we have atonement to 
 be made by trespass-offerings lor wilful ly- 
 ing, perjury, fraud, robbing, or violence, 
 which made the Septuagints, ver. 2, for com- 
 mit a trespass, to read, despising, despise 
 the commandments of the Lord. And 
 whereas Mr Ainsworth confirmeth his opi- 
 nion from Heb. x. 26, " For if we sin wilfully 
 after that we have received the biowlcdge 
 of the truth, there remainetli no more sa- 
 crifice for sins," I answer with Calvin, 
 Beza, Hemniingius, and others upon the 
 place, It is not meant of all sins done wil- 
 fully (which to hold were a most dangerous 
 and despairing doctrine), but of a total de- 
 fection from Clu'ist and the truth. And 
 now, to return, there is nothing. Lev. v. 2, 
 to exclude a trespass-offering for one who 
 should in his uncleanness wilfully go to the 
 sanctuary, or touch an holy thing ; but 
 there is this reason why it should not he 
 excluded, because in that very place, ver. 1, 
 he that did wilfully, for favour or malice, 
 conceal his knowledge, being a witness in 
 judgment, was yet admitted to bring his 
 trespass-offering. 
 
 3. The Apostle, 1 Cor. v., gives us some 
 light concerning the cutting off, for (as ver. 
 6—8) most manifestly he pointeth at the 
 purging of all the congregation of Israel 
 trom leaven, Exod. xii. ; so ver. 13, when he 
 saith, " Therefore put away from among 
 yourselves that wicked person," he plainly 
 alludeth to Exod. xii. 15, 19, " Whosoever 
 eatcth that which is leavened, even that 
 soul shall be cut off from the congregation 
 (or church) of Israel." Theophylact on 1 
 Cor. V. 13, observeth the Apostle's allusion 
 to the old law of cutting oft', and Maccovius 
 (otherwise no very good friend to church 
 discipline and government), Loc. Com. disp. 
 22, proveth that excommunication was trans- 
 ferred from the Jews to us by Christ him- 
 self, Matt, xviii., and that the cutting off 
 mentioned in the law is no other thing than 
 that which the Apostle meaneth when he 
 saith, " Put away from among yourselves 
 that wicked person." 
 
 4. The cutting oft' a soul from among his 
 people did typify or resemble eternal death 
 and condemnation ; in which respect Peter 
 doth some way apply it to the days of the 
 gospel, that every soul which will not hear 
 Christ the great prophet " shall be destroyed 
 
 from among his people," Acts iii. 23. So 
 Vatablus on Gen. xvii. 14, " That soul shall 
 be cut off," that is, shall not be partaker of 
 my promises, and of my benefits ; so that as 
 J. Coch, Annot. in Sanhedrim, cap. 9, saith 
 well, death inflicted by the hand of God is 
 less than H^D cutting off, Nam exterminii 
 post mortem pcena lidtur. The same thing 
 Gul. Vorstius confirmeth out of Maimoni- 
 des, Annot. in Maimon. de Fundam. Le- 
 gis, p. 127 ; and Abrabanel, de capite Fi- 
 dei, cap. 8, saith that " the gi'eatest reward 
 is the life of the world to come, and the 
 greatest punishment is the cutting oft' of the 
 soul." Now this could not so fitly be re- 
 sembled and shadowed forth by the cutting 
 off from the land of the living, either by 
 the hand of God, or by the hand of the ma- 
 gistrate, as by cutting off from the church, 
 and from the communion of saints by ex- 
 communication, which is summitm futuri 
 judicii prcejiidieium, as TertuUian called 
 it, and foreshoweth that " the ungodly shall 
 not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the 
 congrefjation of the righteous," Psal. i. 5. 
 But God 's taking away of a man by death, 
 in the phrase of the Old Testament, is not 
 a cutting off from, but a gathering of him 
 unto his people ; yea, it is said of wicked 
 Ishmael when he died, he was gatlicred 
 unto his people ; and as for the abbreviation 
 of life, and the untimeliness of death in 
 youth or middle age, that both is now and 
 was of old, one of the things which come 
 alike to all, to the good as well as to the 
 bad. As touching the capital punishment of 
 malefactors by the hand of the magistrate, it 
 being founded upon the very law of nature, 
 and common to all nations without as well 
 as within the church (so that very often 
 those from whom a malefactor is cut off are 
 not so much as by profession the church and 
 people of God), it cannot so fitly resemble 
 the separation or castuig out of a man from 
 having part or portion of the inheritance of 
 the saints in light. 
 
 5. Dr Buxtorff, Lexie. Chald. Talm. et 
 Rabbin., p. 1101, tells us that this difference 
 was put between him that was guilty of cut- 
 ting oft', and him that was guilty of death : 
 Jteus mortis, ipse tantum, non semen ejus : 
 poena excidii comprehendit ipsum et semen 
 ejus. Now if the punishment of death was 
 personal only, and the punishment of cut- 
 ting off comprehensive not only of them but 
 of their seed, how can this agree so well to 
 anything else as to excommunication ; espe- 
 
30 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 cially if that hold which Godwin in his Mo- 
 ses and Aaron, lib. 5, cap. 2, tells us, that 
 the children of excommunicate persons were 
 not circumcised. 
 
 6. Mr Sclden, da Jure. Nat. et Gent., lib. 
 7, cap. 10, tells us, that the Hebrew doctors 
 themselves do not agree concerning that cut- 
 ting off in the law. He saith that R. Bechai 
 and others make three sorts of cutting off : 
 
 1. A cutting off whereby the body only is 
 cut off, which they understand by that 
 phrase, Lev. xx. 6, " I will cut him off from 
 among his people ;" and this is untimely 
 death, Psal. Iv. 23, " Bloody and deceitful 
 men shall not Hve out half then- days." 
 
 2. They say there was another cutting off, 
 wliich was of the soul only, Lev. xviii. 29, 
 " The souls that commit these things shall be 
 cut off from among their people." By this 
 cutting off, they say, the soul ceaseth to 
 have a being, the body not being taken away 
 by death before the natural pei iod. 3. They 
 make a third kind whereby both soul and 
 body is cut off, iSTum. xv. 31, " That soul 
 shall be utterly cut off, his iniquity shall be 
 upon him," whereby, say they, both the 
 body is destroyed before the natural time, 
 and likewise the soul ceaseth to have a be- 
 ing. But whatsoever any of the Hebrews 
 fancied in their declining latter times con- 
 cerning that second kind of cutting off 
 (which Mr Selden doth not approve, but 
 relate out of them), I am confident it was 
 only the degenerating notion of excommuni- 
 cation, and that very fancy of theirs is a 
 footstep thereof, which may make us easily 
 believe that the more ancient Hebrews in 
 purer times did understand that such a cut- 
 ting off was mentioned in the law by which 
 a man in respect of his spiritual being was 
 cut off from the church of Israel, while his 
 natural life and being was not taken from 
 him; yea, Gul. Vorstius Annot. in Maimon. 
 de Fundam. Legis, p. 60, showeth us, that 
 some of the Hebrews acknowledge nothing 
 under the name of the cutting off, but that 
 which is the cutting off of the soul only ; but 
 if there be so much as some cutting off' men- 
 tioned in the law which concerneth a man's 
 spiritual estate only, it doth abundantly 
 confirm what I plead for, and I shall not 
 need to assert, that everywhere in the law 
 excommunication must needs be miderstood 
 by cutting off. Some miderstand the cut- 
 ting oft' in the judicial or civil laws to be 
 meant of capital punishments, and the cut- 
 ting off in the ceremonial laws (which were 
 
 properly ecclesiastical) to be meant of ex- 
 comnmnication, or cutting off from the 
 church only ; if anywhere the cutting off be 
 excommunication, it sufSceth me, or what- 
 ever it may signify more, or be extended 
 unto, if excommunication be one thing which 
 it sig-nifieth, then they who think it signi- 
 fieth some other thing beside excommuni- 
 cation are not against me in this question. 
 
 I shall conclude with that in the Dutch 
 Annotations upon Gen. xvii. 14, "that soul 
 shall be cut off' from his people." The an- 
 notation Englished saith thus, That man 
 shall be excommunicate from the fellowship 
 of God 's people. This kind of expression im- 
 plies also (as some do conceive) a bodily 
 punishment to be inflicted withal by the 
 magistrate. They hold determinately and 
 positively that it signifieth excommunication, 
 whether it signify some other thing beside, 
 they judge not to be so clear, and therefore 
 offer it to be considered. 
 
 It is but a poor argument whereby Bishop 
 Bilson, Of the Government of the Church, 
 chap. 4, would prove the cutting off not to 
 be meant of excommunication, because it is 
 applied even to capital offences, such as the 
 law elsewhere appointeth men to be put to 
 death for, as if it were any absm-dity to say, 
 that one and the same off'ence is to be pun- 
 ished suh formalitate scandali with excom- 
 munication, and suh formalitate criminis 
 with capital punishment ; and who knoweth 
 not that a capital crime is a cause of excom- 
 munication, which is also sometimes the sole 
 punishment, the magisti-ate neglectmg his 
 duty. If a known blasphemer or incestuous 
 person be not cut off' by the magistrate, as 
 he ought by the law of God, shall he there- 
 fore not be cut off by excommunication. If 
 he had proved that all the causes of cutting 
 off in the law were capital crimes, he had 
 said much ; but that wLd never be proved. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 OF THE CASTING OXJT OF THE SYNAGOGUE. 
 
 We read of a casting out of the church, 
 which was pretended to be a matter of con- 
 science and rehgion, and such as did nioi'e 
 especially concern the glory of God, Isa. 
 Ixvi. 5, " Your brethren that hated you, that 
 cast you out for my name's sake, said. Let 
 the Lord be glorified." Such was the cast- 
 
mVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNHfENT VINDICATED. 
 
 31 
 
 ing out of the synagogue mentioned in the 
 gospel, Job ix. 22 ; xii. 42 ; xvi. 2, Arias 
 Montanus, dc Arcano Sermonc, cap. 47, ex- 
 pounds it of excomnnniication from church 
 assembUes. So the Magdeburians, cent. 1, 
 hb. 1, cap. 7, and Corn. Bertramus dc Be- 
 jnib. Ehroior., cap. 7, Godwin in his Moses 
 and Aaron, hb. 3, cap. 4, ct hb. 5, cap. 2. 
 AVherein the interpreters also upon the 
 places cited do generally agree — Erasmus, 
 Brentius, Tossanus, Diodati, Cartwright in 
 his Harmony, Gerhardus, &c. So likewise 
 Mr Leigh out of Paidus 2'arnovius, a-rmrv- 
 yayayos dicitur ejcctus 6 coitu sacro ccclesice, 
 cxcommunicatus. See Critlca Sacra of the 
 I New Testament p. 391. So doth Aretius, 
 Thcol. Prohcl. loc. 133 (though cited by 
 our opposites against us), he saith, though it 
 was abused by the Pharisees, yet it showeth 
 the ancient use of the thing itself, that there 
 was such a discipline in the Jewish church ; 
 it is not much material to dispute which of 
 j the degrees of the Jewish excommunication, 
 I or whether all the three were meant by that 
 t casting out of the synagogue. Drusius and 
 I Grotius expound John ix. 22, of niddui, 
 \ Gerhardus expounds John xvi. 2, of all the 
 three, niddui, chercm, and schammata. It 
 is enough for this present argument, if it 
 was a spiritual, or ecclesiastical censure, not 
 a civil punishment. Mr Pi-ynne, Vindic. p. 
 48, 49, tells us : First, this casting out of 
 the synagogue was not warranted by God's 
 word, but was only a human invention ; 
 Secondly, as it was practised by the Jews 
 it was a diabolical institution ; Thirdly, that 
 it was merely a civil exconmiunication, like 
 to an outlawry, whereby the party cast out 
 was separate from civil conversation only, or 
 from all company with any man, but was 
 not suspended from any divine ordinance ; 
 Fourthly, that it was inflicted by the tem- 
 poral magistrate ; Fifthly, that in the Jew- 
 ish synagogues at that time, there was nei- 
 ther sacrament nor sacrifice, but only read- 
 ing, expounding, preaching, disputing, and 
 prayer, so that it cannot prove suspension 
 I'rom the sacrament. To the first I answer, 
 it was not only warranted by the cutting off 
 mentioned in the law, but Erastus himself 
 gives a warrant for it from God 's word. He 
 saith, p. 315, the casting out of the synagogue 
 was vel idem vel simile quidbiam with that 
 separating from the congregation, Ezra x. 
 18. To the second Aretius hath answered. 
 The best things in the world may be abused. 
 To the third I oflfer these eioht considera- 
 
 tions to prove that it was an ecclesiastical 
 not a civil censure. 
 
 1. The causes for which men were put 
 out of the synagog-ues, were matters of scan- 
 dal, offences in point of religion, and we 
 read of none cast out of the synagogue for a 
 civil injury or crime, it was for confessing 
 Christ, John ix. 22 ; xii. 42, then counted 
 heresy, and for preaching of the gospel, 
 John xvi. 2. 
 
 2. The synagogical assembly or court was 
 spiritual and ecclesiastical, as Ludoviens do 
 Dieu noteth upon Matt. x. 17. We read of 
 " the rulers of the synagogue," Acts xiii. 15, 
 among whom he that did preside and mode- 
 rate, was called " the chief ruler of the syna- 
 gogue," Acts xviii. 8, 17, names never given 
 to civil magistrates or judges. Therefore 
 Brughton makes this of the rulers of the 
 synagogue to be one of the parallels between 
 the Jewish and the Christian church, see his 
 Exposition of the Lord^s Prayer, p. 14, 
 16. As for that assembly of the Pharisees 
 which did cast out or excommunicate the 
 blind man, John ix., Tossanus upon the jjlace 
 calls it scnatus ecclcsiasticus ; and Brentius 
 argueth from this example against the in- 
 fallibility of councils, because this council of 
 the Pharisees called Chi-ist himself a sinner. 
 
 3. The court of civil judgment was in the 
 gates of the city, not in the synagogue. 
 
 4. Such as the commimion and fellowship 
 was in the synagogue, such was the casting- 
 out of the synagogue ; but the communion 
 or fellowship which one enjoyed in the syna- 
 gogue was a church communion and sacred 
 fellowship in acts of divine worship, there- 
 fore the casting out of the synagogue was 
 also ecclesiastical and spiritual, not civil or 
 temporal. The end was sacred and spiritual, 
 to glorify God, Isa. Ixvi. 5, to do God good 
 service, John xvi. 2, in that which did more 
 immediately and nearly touch his name and 
 his glory. Though the Pharisees did falsely 
 pi-etend that end, their error was not in 
 mistaking tlie nature of the censure, but in 
 misapplying it where they had no just cause. 
 
 5. Mr Prynne himself tells us, p. 49, that 
 this excommunication from the synagogue 
 was of force forty days (though I believe he 
 hath added ten more than enough, and if he 
 look over his books better, he will find he 
 should have said thii'ty), yet so as that it 
 might be shortened upon repentance. But, 
 I pray, are civil punishments shortened or 
 lengthened according to the parties repent- 
 ance 'i I know churcli censures are so, but I 
 
32 
 
 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 had thought the end of civil punishments is 
 not to reclaim a man's soul l)y repentance, 
 and then to l)e taken off, but to guard the 
 laws of the land ; to preserve justice, peace, 
 and good order ; to make others fear to do 
 evil ; to uphold the public good. The magis- 
 trate must both punish and continue punish- 
 ments as long as is necessary for those ends, 
 whether the party be penitent or not. 
 
 6. How is it credible that the Holy Ghost, 
 meaning to express a casting out from civil 
 company or conversation only (which was 
 not within, but without the synagogue), 
 would choose such a word as signifieth the 
 casting out from an ecclesiastical or sacred 
 assembly (for such were the synagogues in 
 which tlie Jews had reading, expounding, 
 preaching and prayer, as Mr Prynne tells 
 us) ? Christ himself distinguishetli the court 
 or judicatory which was in the synagogue 
 from civil magistracy, Luke xii. 11, " And 
 when they bring you unto the synagogues, 
 and unto magistrates and powers." Magis- 
 trates and powers are civil rulers, supreme 
 and subordinate, but the synagogues are dis- 
 tinct courts from l)oth these. 
 
 7. Our opposites cannot give any other 
 rational interpretation of the word atros-wvayii- 
 yos. Erastus, p. 315, confesseth it is very hard 
 to tell what it was. He gives three conjec- 
 tures : Fii'st, that it was some ignominy put 
 upon a man, which I think nol)ody denies, 
 and it may well stand with our interpreta- 
 tion. Secondly, he saith not that it was a 
 separating of the party from all company, 
 or society with any man (for which Mr 
 Prynne citeth Erastus with others), but a 
 pulling away, or casting out of a man from 
 some particular town only, for instance, from 
 Nazareth. Thirdly, he saith, it seems also 
 to have been a refusal of the privileges of 
 Jewish citizens, or the esteeming of one no 
 longer for a tvuc Jew, but for a proselyte ; 
 but that a proselyte, who was free to come 
 both to temple and synagogue (for of sucli a 
 proselyte he speaketh expressly), should be 
 said to be made a^oirvvayayts, it may well 
 weaken, it cannot strengthen his cause. 
 
 8. In Tzemach David, edit. Hen. Vor- 
 stius, p. 89, we read, that w1ien the sanhe- 
 drim did remove from Jerusalem, forty 
 years before the destruction of the temple, 
 there was a prayer composed against the 
 heretics. Hen. Vorstius, in his Observ., p. 
 286, showeth out of Maimonides that it was 
 a maledictoi'y prayer appointed to be used 
 against the heretics of that time, who in- 
 
 creased mightily, and that R. Sol. Jarchi 
 addeth this explanation of the word CD'^Q 
 Minim, the disciples of Jesus of NazaretJi. 
 Dr Buxtorff, Lexic. Cheild. Talm. et Rab- 
 bin, p. 1201, collecteth that this maledictoiy 
 prayer was composed in Christ's time, and 
 against his disciples. Surely it suiteth no 
 story so well as that of the decree of casting 
 out of the synagogue, John xii. 42. 
 
 After all these eight considerations, this I 
 must add, that I do not a little admire how 
 Mr Prynne could cite Godwin'' s Jewish 
 Antiquities, lib. 5, cap. 2, for that opinion, 
 that the casting out of the synagogue was not 
 an ecclesiastical but only a civil censure. If 
 he had but looked to the page immediately 
 preceding, he had found this dLstinction )je- 
 tween the ecclesiastical and civil courts of 
 the Jews. " The office of the ecclesiastical 
 court was to put a difference between thin^ 
 holy and unholy, &c. It was a representa- 
 tive church, hence is that, die ccclesiec, Matt, 
 xviii. 17, Tell the church, because unto them 
 belonged the power of excommunication, the 
 several sorts of which censure follow." And 
 so he begmneth with the casting out of the 
 synagogue, as the first or lesser excommuni- 
 cation, or niddui, and tells us among other 
 effects of it, that the male children of one 
 thus cast out were not circumcised. 
 
 To Mr Prynne's fourth exception the 
 answer may be collected from what is al- 
 ready said. We never find the tempoi'al ma- 
 gistrate called the ruler of the synagogue, 
 nor yet that he sat in judgment in the sy- 
 nacfooTie. The beatinor or scoursjin^ in the 
 synagogues was a tumultuous disorderly act : 
 we read of no sentence given, but only to be 
 put out of the synagogue, which sentence 
 was given by the synagogical consistory, 
 made up of the priest or priests and Jewish 
 elders ; for the power of judging in things 
 and causes ecclesiastical, did belong to the 
 priests and Levites, together with the elders 
 of Israel, 1 Chron. xxiii. 4 ; xxvi. 30, 32 ; 
 2 Chron. xbc. 8 ; and, therefore, what rea- 
 son Mr Prynne had to exclude the priests 
 from this corrective power, and from being 
 rulers of the synagogue, I know not. Sure I 
 am the scriptures cited mfike priests and 
 Levites to be jv 'q,9s and rulers ecclesiastical, 
 of which before. As for the chief ruler of 
 the synagogue, Arehjsynagogus errat pri- 
 marius in synagoga doctor, say the Cen- 
 turists, cent. 1, lib. 1, cap. 7, and if so, then 
 not a civil magistrate. 
 
 To the fifth I answer, 1. If there was an 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OP CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 33 
 
 exclusion from reading, expounding, preach- 
 ing and prayer, then much more fi-om sacra- 
 ments, in which there is more of the com- 
 munion of saints. 2. He that was cast out 
 of the synagogue might not enter into the 
 synagogue, saith Menochius in John ix. 22, 
 therefore he did not communicate in prayer 
 with the congregation, nor in other acts of 
 divine worship (which how far it is apphcable 
 to excommunication in the Christian church 
 I do not now dispute ; nor are all of one 
 opinion concerning excommunicate persons' 
 admission unto some, or exclusion from all 
 public ordinances, hearing of the word and 
 all), I know Erastus answereth, the word 
 synagogue may signify either the material 
 house — the place of assembling, or the peo- 
 ple — the congregation which did assemble. 
 And some who differ in judgment from us 
 in this particular, hold that when we read of 
 putting out of the synagogue, the word syna- 
 gogue doth not signify the house, or place, 
 of public worship (which yet it doth signify 
 in other places, as Luke vii. 5 ; Acts xviii. 
 7), but the church or assembly itself. But 
 I take it to signify both jointly ; and that it 
 was a casting out, even from the place itself, 
 such as that, John ix. 34, koI eieftaXov (lvtov 
 elio, " And they cast him out," or excommu- 
 nicated him, as the English translators add in 
 the margin ; besides I take what it is granted 
 — it was a casting out from the assembly or 
 congregation itself. But how could a man 
 be cast out from the congregation, and yet 
 be free to come where the congregation was 
 assembled together ? 0 ! but he must keep 
 off four cubits' distance from all other men. 
 And was there so much room to reel to and 
 fro in the synagogue ? I do not understand 
 how a man shall satisfy himself in that no- 
 tion. But I rather think Bertramus speaks 
 rationally, that he that was excommunicate 
 by niddui was shut out ab hominum contu- 
 hcrnio atque adco ah ipsius Tahcrnaculi 
 aditn. de Rep. Jud., cap. 7, which niddui 
 he takes to be the same with casting out of 
 the synagogue. He that was cast out from 
 men's society must needs be excluded from 
 the public holy assemblies, and from the 
 place where these assemblies are. Where- 
 unto agreeth that which we read in Exc. 
 Gem. Sanhedrim, cap. 3, sect. 9, A certain 
 disciple having, after two-and-twenty years, 
 divulged that which had been said in the 
 school of R. Ammi, he was brought out of 
 the synagogue, and the said rabbi caused it to 
 be proclaimed. This is a revealer of secrets. 
 
 3. It is more than jNIr Prynne can prove, 
 that the sacrament of circumcision was not 
 then administered in the synagogues. The 
 Jews do administer it in their synagogues ; 
 and that John was cii'cumcised in the syna- 
 gogue some gather from Luke i. 59 : Ve- 
 nerunt, " They came (to wit to the syna- 
 gogue) to circumcise the child." For my 
 part, I lay no weight upon that argument ; 
 but I see less ground for Mr Prynne's as- 
 sertion. 
 
 As for that which Mr Prynne addeth in 
 the close, that those who were cast out of 
 the synagogue might yet resort to the tem- 
 ple, he hath said nothing to prove it. I 
 find the same thing affirmed by Sutlivius de 
 Preshyt., p. 25 (though I had thought Mr 
 Prynne's tenets of this kind should never 
 have complied with those of Episcopal men 
 against the anti-episcopal party) ; but neither 
 doth Sutlivius prove it : only he holds that 
 the casting out of the synagogue was merely 
 a civil excommunication ; and his re;ison is 
 that which he had to prove, — that Chiist 
 and his disciples, when they were cast out 
 of the synagogues, had, notwithstanding, a 
 free access to the temple. To my best ob- 
 servation I can find no instance of any ad- 
 mitted to the temple while cast out of the 
 synagogue. I turn again to Erastus, p. 314, 
 to see whether he proves it. He gives us 
 two instances, — first of Christ himself, who 
 was cast out of the synagogues, and yet came 
 into the temple. But how proves he that 
 Christ was Inroavi'ayayos ? For this he tells 
 us only quis duhitat, — who makes question 
 of it ? I am one who make a great ques- 
 tion of it, or I'ather put it out of question, 
 that Christ was not cast out of the syna- 
 gogues ; for what saith he himself, John 
 xviii. 20, " I ever taught in the synagogue 
 and in the temple, whether the Jews al- 
 ways resort." Christ was cast out of the 
 city of Nazareth, in the tumult, by the peo- 
 ple, Luke iv. But here was no consistorial 
 sentence ; it was not the casting out of the 
 synagogue of which our question is. The 
 other instance which Erastus gives helps 
 him as little. The apostles, saith he, were 
 cast out of the synagogue, and yet immcr 
 diately went to the temple and taught the 
 people. Acts iv. and v. And how many 
 synagogues was Paul cast out of? 2 Cor. xi. 
 yet he is not reprehended for coming into 
 the temple. 
 
 Arts. I find nothing of the synagogiie in 
 those places which he citeth. It was the 
 
 E 
 
34 
 
 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 council, not the synagogue, which the apostles 
 had to do with, Acts iv. and v. 
 
 But what have they gained if they could 
 prove that Christ or his apostles, while known 
 to be excommunicate from the synagogues, 
 were admitted into the temple ? How often 
 did they come into the temple when the 
 priests, and elders, and scribes, would gladly 
 have cast them out, but they feared the peo- 
 ple, and so were restrained ? Nay, what if 
 they could give other instances that such as 
 were cast out of the synagogue were pei'- 
 mitted to come into the temple, what gain 
 they thereby ? If we understand the cast- 
 ing out of the synagogTie to be meant ol' 
 niddui, of the lesser excommunication, as 
 Drusius, Bertramus, Grotius, and Godwin 
 understand it, we are not at all pinched 
 or straitened ; nay, though we should also 
 comprehend the cherem, or greater excom- 
 munication, under this casting out of the 
 synagogue, all that will follow upon the ad- 
 mission of such into the temple will be this, 
 that excomnumicate persons, when they de- 
 sired to make atonement for their sin by 
 sacrifice, were, for that end, admitted into 
 the temple, (which who denies ?) but still 
 with a mark of ignominy upon them as long 
 as they were excommunicated, as I have 
 showed before, chap. iv. Finally, whereas 
 Mr Prynne concludeth his discourse of this 
 point, that we may as well prove excommu- 
 nication from Diotrephes, 3 John 10, as 
 from the casting out of the synagogue, I 
 admit the parallel thus : — The Pharisees did 
 cast out from the synagogue such as pro- 
 fessed Christ ; Diotrephes did cast out of 
 the church (as John saith) such as received 
 the brethren. Both clave crrante ; the 
 ecclesiastical censure was abused and misap- 
 plied, yet from both it appeareth that eccle- 
 siastical censures were used in the church. 
 There was a casting out of the synagogue 
 used among the Jews, which the Pharisees 
 did abuse ; there was a casting out of the 
 church used among Christians, which Diotre- 
 phes did abuse. I remember I lieai'd Mr 
 Coleman once draw an argument against 
 excommunication from that text in John 
 concerning Diotrephes, which is, as if we 
 should argue thus : The Scripture tells us it 
 is a sin to condemn the righteous, therefore 
 it is a sin to condemn. It is a sin to cast 
 out of the church godly persons who love 
 and receive the brethren, therefore it is a 
 sin to cast out of the church. A fallacy d 
 dicto secundum quid ad dictum simplici- 
 
 ter. The weight is laid upon the applica- 
 tion of such a censure to such persons. An 
 unjust excommunication is not imitable, but 
 a just excommunication is imitable, accord- 
 ing to the warning given us in the words 
 immediately added, " follow not that which 
 is evil, but that which is good." 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 OTHER SCRIPTURAL ARGUSLENTS TO PROVE 
 AN EXCOMMUNICATION IN THE JEWISH 
 CHURCH. 
 
 Another scripture proving excommuni- 
 cation in the Jewish church (which is also 
 parallel to that casting out of the synagogue, 
 as Erastus himself told us) is Ezra x. 8, 
 " That whosoever would not come within 
 three days, according to the counsel of the 
 princes and elders, all his substance should 
 be forfeited, and himself separated from the 
 congregation (or church : it is kahal in the 
 Hebrew, and eKcXjjo-m in the Greek) of 
 those that had been carried away." 
 
 This separation from the congregation or 
 church is not meant of banishment, but of 
 excommunication, as it is interpreted by 
 Lyra, Hugo Cardinalis, Cajetan, Nicholaus 
 Lombardus, Mariana, Cornelius a Lapide ; 
 of Protestants, Pellicanus, Lavater, Diodati, 
 the Dutch Annotations, the late English 
 Annotations, — all upon the place ; also by 
 Zepperus, de Pol. Bed., lib. 3, cap. 7, and 
 divers others who cite that place occasion- 
 ally. Ampsingius, Disjy. Advcrs. Ana- 
 baptist, p. 276, doth from that place con- 
 fute the Anabaptists' tenet, that there was 
 no other but a civil tribunal in the Jewish 
 church. Beda, upon the place, calls this 
 assembly a synod, finita si/nodo, Sfc. Jose- 
 phus, Antiq., lib. 11, cap. 5, expresseth the 
 punishment of those who would not come to 
 Jerusalem at that time, thus, uTraWorptwdri- 
 or)iJL(.vii)v Tov irXi'idovs, nal Tijs ouaias avruiy 
 Kara rtjy raiv ■Trpea^vrtptov Kpiaiv cKpteprndrj- 
 ao^evr)s. A double punishment avaWo-piw- 
 ois and a<j>iepw(Tis : the former is referred 
 to the persons themselves, and it signifieth 
 an abalienation of those persons from the 
 congregation, not a banishing or driving of 
 them out of the land ; for cnraWo-ptow sig- 
 nifieth to abalienate a person or thing, 
 by renouncing and quitting the right, title, 
 and interest, which Ibrmerly we had in that 
 person or thing ; so houses, lands, persons, 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 35 
 
 &c., are abalienated, when (though they and 
 we remain where before) we cease to own 
 thcni as ours ; and thus the congregation of 
 Israel did renounce their interest in those 
 offenders, and would not own them as church- 
 members. The other punishment was the 
 dedicating or devoting of their substance. 
 Gelenius, the interpreter, hath rightly ren- 
 dered the sense of Josephus, et quisquis non 
 adfuerat intra prcescriptum tempus, ut 
 excommutdcetur, bonaquc ejus sacro cera- 
 rio addicantur. You will object, this sepa- 
 ration from the congregation is coupled to- 
 gether with forfeiture of a man's estate ; 
 and so seemeth rather banishment than ex- 
 communication. This objection being taken 
 off, I think there shall be no other ditRculty 
 to perplex our interpretation. Wherefore 
 I answer these two things : 1. It is the 
 opinion of divers who hold two sanhedrims 
 among the Jews, one civil and another eccle- 
 siastical, that in causes and occasions of a 
 mixed nature, which did concern both church 
 and state, both did consult, conclude, and 
 decree, in a joint way, and by agreement 
 together. Now, Ezra x., the princes, elders, 
 priests, and Levites, were asseml)led toge- 
 ther upon an extraordinary cause, ■which 
 conjuncture and concurrence of the civil and 
 the ecclesiastical power might occasion the 
 denouncing of a double punishment upon 
 the contumacious, forfeiture and excom- 
 munication. But, 2. The objection made 
 doth rather confirm me that exconm.iunica- 
 tion is intended in that place ; for this for- 
 feiture was a<j>te(iwcTis, a making sacred, or de- 
 dicating to an holy use, as I have shown out 
 of Josephus. The original word ti'anslated 
 forfeited is more properly translated <ieiio<ed, 
 which is the word put in the margin of our 
 books. The Greek saith ai ofle/uarcrO/yoerfu, 
 anathematizabitur, which is the best ren- 
 dering of the Hebrew Din*- It was not 
 theretore that which we call forfeiture of 
 a man's substance. Intelluje, saith Grotius, 
 ita lit Deo sacra fiat ; and so the excom- 
 namication of a man, and tlte devoting of 
 his substance as lioly to the Lord, were 
 joined together ; and the substance had not 
 been anathematised if the man had not been 
 anathematised. I do not say that excom- 
 munication, ca; natura rei, doth infer and 
 draw after it the devoting of a man's estate 
 as holy to the Lord. No ; excommunica- 
 tion cannot hurt a man in his worldly estate 
 farther than the civil magistrate and the 
 law of the land appointeth ; and there was 
 
 excommunication in the apostolical churches, 
 where there was no Christian magistrate to 
 add a civil mulct. But the devoting of the 
 substance of excommunicated persons, Ezi-a 
 X., as it had the authoi'ity of the princes and 
 rulers for it, so what extraordinary warrants 
 or instinct there was upon that extraordin- 
 ary exigence we cannot tell. 
 
 Finally, Mr Selden, de Jure Nat. et 
 Gentium, lib. 4, cap. 9, p. 523, agreeth 
 with Lud. Capellus, that the separation 
 from the congregation, Ezra x. 8, plane 
 ipsum est aTtoavvaywyov fieri, is the very 
 same with casting out of the synagogue ; 
 which confuteth farther that which Mr 
 Prynne holds, that the casting out of the 
 synagogue was not warranted by God's 
 word, but was only a human invention. 
 
 I know some have drawn another argu- 
 ment for the Jewish exconmiunication from 
 Neh. xiii. 25, " I contended with them, 
 and cursed them," id est, anathcmatizavi 
 et excommunicavi, saith Coi'nelius a Lapide 
 upon the place ; so Tirinis upon the same 
 place. Mariana expounds it, anathema dixi. 
 Aben Ezra understands it of two kinds of 
 excommunication, niddni and cherem. For 
 my part, I lay no weight upon this, unless 
 you understand the cursing or malediction 
 to be an act of the ecclesiastical power, only 
 authorised or countenanced by the magis- 
 trate, which the words may well bear ; for 
 neither is it easily crediV)le that Nehemiah 
 did, with his own hand, smite those men and 
 pluck off their haii-, but that, by his autho- 
 rity, he took care to have it done by civil 
 officers, as the cursmg by ecclesiastical offi- 
 cers. The Dutch Annotations lean this way , 
 telling us that Nehemiah did express his zeal 
 against them as persons that deserved to be 
 banned, or cut off from the people of God. 
 
 Another text proving the Jewish excom- 
 munication is Luke vi. 22, " When they 
 shall separate you, and shall reproach you, 
 and cast out your name as evil." It was the 
 most misapplied censure in the world, in re- 
 spect of the persons thus cast out ; but yet it 
 proves the Jewish custom of casting out such 
 as they thought wicked and oljstinate per- 
 sons. This afopiafxis Beda upon the place 
 understandeth of casting out of the syna- 
 gogue, separent et synagoga depellant, &c., 
 yet it is a more genei-al and comprehensive 
 word than the casting out of the synagogue. 
 It conipreliendeth all the three degrees of 
 the Jewish excommimications, as Grotius ex- 
 pounds the place ; which agreeth with Mun- 
 
36 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 stems Dictionar. Trilingue, where aipopia- 
 fios is the only Greek woi'd given both for 
 the three Hebrew words, niddui, cherern, 
 and schammata, and for the Latin excom- 
 municatio. Wherefore a(popi'(ii) in this place 
 is extermino, excommunico, repudlo, which 
 is one of the usual significations of the word 
 given by Stephanus and by Scapula. It is 
 a word frequently used in the canons of the 
 most ancient councils to express such a sepa- 
 ration as was a church censure, and, name- 
 ly, suspension from the sacrament of the 
 Lord's supper; for, by the ancient canons of 
 the councils, such offences as were punished 
 in a minister by mduifjeais, that is, deposi- 
 tion, were punished in one of the people by 
 afopia^os, that is, segregation or sequestra- 
 tion. Zonaras, upon the 13th canon of the 
 eighth General Council, obsei'veth a double 
 aipopifffios used in the ancient church : one 
 was a total separation, or casting out of the 
 church, which is usually called excommuni- 
 cation ; another was a suspension or seques- 
 tration from the sacrament only, of which 
 I am to speak more afterward in the third 
 book. I hold now at the text in hand, 
 which may be thus read, according to the 
 sense and letter both, when they shall ex- 
 communicate you, 8fc. ; howbeit the other 
 reading, when they shall separate you, 
 holds lorth the same thing which I speak 
 of. Separate from what ? Our transla- 
 tors supply, from their company. But 
 from what company of theirs ? Not from 
 their civil company only, but from their 
 sacred or church assemblies, and from reli- 
 gious fellowship, it being a church censure 
 and a part of ecclesiastical discipline ; in 
 which sense, as this word frequently occur- 
 reth in the Greek fathers and ancient canons, 
 when they speak of church discipline, so 
 doubtless it must be taken in this place. 1. 
 Because, as Grotius tells us, that which made 
 the Jews the rather to separate men in this 
 manner from their society, was the want of 
 the civil coercive power of magistx-acy, which 
 sometime they had. And 1 have proved 
 before, that the civil sanhedrim, which had 
 power of criminal and capital judgments, 
 did remove from Jerusalem, and cease to 
 execute such judgment, forty years before 
 the destruction of the temple. 2. Because, 
 in all other places of the New Testament 
 where the same word is used, it never sig- 
 nifieth a bare separation from civil company, 
 but either a conscientious and religious sepa- 
 ration, by which church members did intend 
 
 to keep themselves pure from such as did 
 walk (or were conceived to walk) disorderly 
 and scandalously, Acts xix. 9 ; 2 Cor. vi. 
 17 ; Gal. ii. 13 ; or God's separating be- 
 tween the godly and the wicked. Matt. xiii. 
 49 ; XXV. 32 ; or the setting apart of men 
 to the ministry of the gospel, Acts xiii. 2 ; 
 Rom. i. 1 ; Gal. i. 15. 3. A civil separa- 
 tion is for a civil injury ; but this separation 
 is for wickedness and impiety, whether ac- 
 companied with civil injury or no; they shall 
 cast out your name as evil, ws vovripov, or, 
 as it seems, the Syraic and Arabic inter- 
 preters did read, ws irovripuiy, tanquara im- 
 prohoram, as of wicked and evil men. The 
 sense is the same. 
 
 Thus far of the Jewish church, the Jew- 
 ish ecclesiastical sanhedrim, the Jewish ex- 
 communication. I proceed to the Jewish 
 exomologesis, or public confession of sin. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 OF THE JEWISH EXOMOLOGESIS, OR PUBLIC 
 DECLARATION OF REPENTANCE BY CONPES- 
 SION OF SIN. 
 
 As there were some footsteps of public 
 confession among the heathen, and, namely, 
 among the Lacedemonians, who made him 
 that was deprehended in a crime to com- 
 pass the altar, and there to express his own 
 shame, and to pronounce some disgi-aceful I 
 words against himself ;^ so, I make no doubt, j 
 they had this (as many other rites) from an j 
 imitation of the people of God, who had j 
 their own exomologies and public testimo- 
 nies of repentance, which may thus appear. 
 
 First. A man was to put his hand upon 
 the head of the sacrifice which he brought, 
 and so it was accepted to make atonement j 
 for him, Lev. i. 4, and this was done in the 
 tabernacle before the priest. Genebrardus 
 and Lorinus, in Psal. xxxi. 5, teUs us out 
 of Aben Ezra and other rabbinical authors, 
 and ex libra Siphri, that when he that 
 brought the sacrifice did put his hands 
 between the horns of the beast which was to 
 be ofifered, he did distinctly commemorate 
 that sin for which he did then repent, pro- j 
 fessing his detestation thereof, and promising 
 to do so no more. Mr Ainsworth, on Lev. 
 i. 4, to the same purpose, citeth out of Mai- 
 monides in liis Treatise of offering sacrifices, 
 
 1 Lorinus in Psal. iii. 1, 5, ex Plutarcho. 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 37 
 
 cap. 3, these words, " He layetli his hands 
 between the two horns, and cont'esscth upon 
 the same, offering the iniquity of sin, and 
 upon the trespass-offering the iniquity of 
 trespass ; and upon the burnt-offering he 
 confesseth the iniquity of doing that which 
 he should not, and not doing that he ought," 
 &c. Now, that confession of sin was joined 
 with the laying on of hands upon the sacri- 
 fice is not only proved by the judgment of 
 the Hebrews, understanding the law in that 
 sense, but by the law itself, Lev. xvi. 21, 
 where Aaron is commanded to lay his hands 
 upon the head of the live goat, " and confess 
 over him all the iniquities of the children of 
 Israel, and all their transgressions in all 
 their sins, putting them upon the head of 
 the goat." 
 
 Secondly. The law appointeth confession 
 to be made at the bringing of trespass-offer- 
 ings, Lev. v., and that in three kinds of 
 trespixsses. 
 
 1. If one hear the voice of swearing, that 
 is, hear his neighbour swearing or cursing, 
 which he ought to reveal, and is a witness 
 whether he hath seen or known of it (that 
 is, whether he himself hath been present at 
 the cursing or reviling of God, Lev. xxiv. 
 10, 11, or of man, 2 Sara. xvi. 7, or hath 
 heard it by relation from others, and known 
 it that way, so the Dutch Annotations and 
 the best interpreters), if he do not utter it, 
 then he shall bear his iniquity. The mean- 
 ing is, when one doth, for favour or malice 
 (so Aretius and Parens upon the place), dis- 
 semble the truth and conceal his knowledge, 
 and so make himself partaker of other men's 
 sins. Grotius expounds it by Prov. xxix., 
 " Whoso is partner with a thief hateth his 
 own soul; he hearetli cursing and bewray- 
 eth it not." In such a case a man did 
 greatly scandalise all those (were they more 
 or fewer) who knew his dissimulation, and 
 that he did not utter his knowledge. 
 
 2. If one had touched any unclean thing, 
 and, not being cleansed from his uiicleanness, 
 did 00 into the sanctuary or touch an holy 
 tlnngi (whether he knew himself to have 
 touched the unclean thing, when he went 
 into the sanctuary, but did afterward forget 
 it, as the Hebrews understand the place, or 
 whether he did not know of his uncleanness 
 when he went into the sanctuary), as soon 
 as it was revealed to him by others who did 
 take offence at it, or otherwise brought to 
 
 1 See Ainsworth upon the place. 
 
 his knowledge, he was held guilty till con- 
 fession and atonement was made. It was 
 not simply the touching of an unclean thing 
 for which the confession and trespass-offer- 
 ing was appointed ; seeing the law (saith 
 Ainsworth) maketli such unclean but till 
 evening. Lev. xi. 24, 31, when, washing 
 themselves and their clothes, they were 
 clean ; and for uncleanness by a dead man, 
 the sprinkling water cleansed them, Num. 
 xix. 17 — 19. Wherefore he resolveth, out 
 of the Hebrew doctors, that this confession 
 of sin and the trespass-offering was re- 
 quired, in case an unclean person, in his un- 
 cleanness, came to the sanctuary, or did eat 
 of an holy thing. 
 
 3. If one had sworn unadvisedly, as David, 
 1 Sam. XXV. 22, Herod, Mark vi. 23, those 
 conspirators against Paul, Acts xxiii. 21 
 (which are the examples given in the Dutch 
 Annotations, and they are examples of scan- 
 dals), if the thing were hid from him, 
 through the distemper, impetuosity, and 
 passion of his spirit overclouding the eye of 
 his mind, so that when he hath sworn a 
 scandalous oath he scarce knows or remem- 
 bers well the thing. Or thus, if a man had 
 sworn an oath to do a thing, or not to do it, 
 and afterward falsified his oath, either be- 
 cause he could not do what he had rashly 
 sworn, or because he was unwilling to do it, 
 or because he neglected to do it, (Aretius 
 puts this triple case in expounding the text) ; 
 when a man was brought to the knowledge 
 of the falsifying of his oath, being told, or 
 put in mind of it by others, saith Diodati, 
 which was also a case of scandal. 
 
 In any of these three cases a man was to 
 confess his sin when he brought his trespass- 
 offering, and the offering was not accepted 
 without confession ; Lev. v. 5, " And it shall 
 be, when he shall be guilty in one of these 
 things, that he shall confess that lie hath 
 sinned in that thing ; and he shall brino- his 
 trespass-offering," &c. This confession was 
 made in the priest's hearing, and not to God 
 alone, as Mr Prynne afiirmeth, Vindic. p. 
 
 1 Bucer .Scripta Anglicana, p. 310. Nunc autem 
 legiinus, Lev. iv. 5, 6. Deura populo suo ordinasse 
 ac maudasse : si quos de populo, de sacerdotibus, 
 aut principibus, aut si etiam populus uuiversus ali- 
 quid forte deliquisset contra mandata sua, seu faci- 
 endo qua3 ipse vetuerat, seu oraittendo quae pra;ce- 
 perat ; ut tales ante se in ecclcsia sua, et coram sa- 
 ccrdotc tomparercnt, ibi peccatum suum contiter- 
 entur, veniam peterent, oblationes suas otFcreut, et 
 boc niodo per sacerdotem reconeiliationein conse- 
 querentur. idquc baud dubic uou absque scria liurai- 
 Uatione, planctu, et jejunio. 
 
38 
 
 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 17. For, 1. It was a ceremonial law con- 
 cerning the external worship of God, and a 
 part of the law of trespass-offerings. He 
 might as well have said, that the trespass- 
 offering was made to God alone, without the 
 presence of the priest or any other. 2. He 
 himself doth not deny (but intimate) that, 
 till such confession was made, a man was 
 not admitted to make atonement by trespass- 
 offerings ; and so do the Jews understand 
 the law of confession, as we shall hear by 
 and by. Now how could it be known whether 
 a man had confessed any thing at all, if it 
 was secretly, and to God alone ? 3. The sins 
 to be confessed were oft-times scandalous 
 and known to others (as hath been cleared), 
 therefore the confession was to be known to 
 others also. 4. That this confession (not 
 private and auricular, but public and peni- 
 tential) was made in the temple, before, and 
 in the hearing of the priest, I prove from 
 Philo the Jew, in his book de Sacr. Abelis 
 et Caini, at the close, speaking of the Levite's 
 ministry, he saith, that he did execute and 
 perform Xeirovpyias ciTraaas, all those ser- 
 vices which belong to a perfect priesthood, 
 and to the brino-ins: of man to God, whether 
 by burnt-offerings, y bia fieravoius afxapra- 
 fj.uTojv, aut jjro peccatis quorum pcBnitet, 
 saith Gelenius the interpreter, meaning the 
 ti'espass-offerings. But observe further, he 
 speaks of the penitential part, or public 
 things, or rather of the public declaration of 
 repentance ; repentance of sins, that is, re- 
 pentance declared or professed (which was in 
 the confession joined with the trespass-off er- 
 
 ino-s") was one of the chief thino;s about which 
 • • •11*1 
 the Levitical ministry was exercised, which 
 
 is the clear sense of the place. More plainly, 
 the same Philo lib. de victimis towards the 
 close, where he tells that certain parts of the 
 trespass-offerings were eaten by the px'iests, 
 and that these must be eaten in the temple, 
 he gives this reason for it, lest the penitent's 
 sin and shame should be divulged and pun- 
 ished more than needs must, which intimat- 
 eth that the particular offence was so con- 
 fessed that it was made known to such as 
 were within the temple. 
 
 The third scriptural proof is Num. v. 6, 
 7, " When a man or a woman shall commit 
 any sin that men commit, to do a trespass 
 against the Lord, and that person be g-uilty, 
 then they shall confess their sin which they 
 have done, and he shall recompence his tres- 
 pass," &c. The Hebrews expound it thus, 
 " All the precepts in the law, whether they 
 
 command or forbid a thing, if a man trans- 
 gress against any one of them, either pre- 
 sumptuously or ignorantly, when he maketh 
 repentance and turneth from his sin, he is 1 
 bound to confess before the blessed God, as ' 
 in Num. V. 7. This confession is with words, 
 and it is commanded to be done. How do 
 they confess ? He saith. Oh God, I have sin- 
 ned, I have done perversely, I have tres- 
 passed before thee, and have done thus and 
 thus, and, lo, I repent, and am ashamed of my 
 doings, and I will never do this thing again. 
 And this is the foundation of confession ; 
 and whoso maketh a large confession, and 
 is long in this thing, he is to be commended ; | 
 and so the owners of sin and trespass-offer- j 
 ings, when they bring their oblations for 
 their ignorant or for their presumptuous sins, 1 
 atonement is not made for them by their 
 oblation, until they have made repentance 
 and confession by word of mouth ; likewise 
 all condemned to death by the magistrates, 
 or condemned to stripes, no atonement is 
 made for them by their death, or by their 
 stripes, until they have repented and con- 
 fessed. And so he that hurteth his neigh- | 
 hour, or doth him damage, though he pay | 
 him whatsoever he oweth liim, atonement is ; 
 not made for him, until he confess and turn ! 
 away from doing so again for ever, as it is I 
 written in Num. v. 6, any of all the sins of 
 men." All this Ainsworth transcribeth out j 
 of Maimon. in Misn. Treat, of Repentance, 
 chap. 1, sect. 1, see also the Latin edition of 
 the Jewish Canons of Repentance, printed 
 at Cambridge anno 1631, where, beside that 
 passage in the first chapter concerning the 
 necessity of confessing by word of mouth 1 
 that sin for which the trespass-offering was j 
 brought, you have another plain passage, 
 cap. 2, for public confession, not of private 
 sins known to God only, but of known sins 
 by which others were scandalised.^ 
 
 1 Eximia laus est pcEnitentiam agenti. ut pnblice 
 confiteatur, iniquitates suas toti caetui iodicans, et 
 delicta quae in proxiraum admisit, aliis aperiens 
 bunc in inodum. Revera peccavi in N. X. fvirnm 
 nominans) et liaec vel ilia feci : Ecce autem me 
 Tobis nunc converter, et me facti psenitet. Qui 
 Tero pras superbia non iudicat, sed abscondit iniqui- 
 tates suas, illi perfecta non est paenitentia: quia 
 dicitur. Qui abscondit scelcra sua, non dirigetur. 
 Haec dicta intelligeuda sunt de peccatis quae in 
 proxiraum admittuntur. Yerum in trausgressioni- 
 bus quae sunt bominis in Deum, non necesse est 
 cuiquam seipsum propalare : quin irao perfrictae 
 frontis est, illiusmodi peccata revelare : Sed in con- 
 spectu Dei paenitentiam agit, et coram illo peccata 
 haec speciatim recenset. 
 
DIVIXE ORDIX.'US'CE OF CHURCH GOVEU.N'MENT VINDICATED. 
 
 39 
 
 111 which passage I understand by sins 
 against God, sins known to God only. 1. 
 Because it is forbidden to reveal those sins, 
 therefore they were secret. 2. Because oth- 
 erwise those canons shall contradict them- 
 selves, for in cap. 1 it is told us that all who 
 brought trespass-offerings were bound to 
 confess, by word of mouth, the sin which 
 they had done, without which confession 
 they got not leave to make atonement by 
 the trespass-offering. Now trespass-off'er- 
 ings were for sins against God, as well as 
 for sins against man. 3. It should other- 
 wise contradict the law. Num. v. 6, which 
 appointeth any sin or trespass against the 
 Lord to be confessed. 4. Those trespasses 
 were to be publicly confessed, for which, in 
 case of impenitency and obstinacy, a man 
 was excommunicated with die rem, or the 
 greater exconmiunication. But a man was 
 excommunicated for divers sins against God, 
 which did not at all wrong his neighbour, 
 setting aside the scandal, which I have 
 proved before. These four reasons will 
 prove either that the meaning of that canon 
 must be of private sins, and not of public 
 and scandalous sins against the first table, 
 or otherwise that the canon is contrary to, 
 and inconsistent with both Scripture, reason, 
 and other rabbinical writings. 
 
 From the law, Num. v., thus exanipled, 
 observe concerning the confession of sin : 
 1. It was for any scandalous sin of commis- 
 sion or omission against the first or second 
 table ; 2. It was not free and voluntary to 
 the offender. I do not say that he was com- 
 pelled to it by any external force or co- 
 ercive power, but he was commanded and 
 obliged by the law to confess. Vatablus on 
 Num. V. 7, Fatchuntur, i.e. tanehuntur 
 fateri, they shall confess, that is, they shall 
 be bound to confess, and a man was not ad- 
 mitted with his trespass-offering except he 
 confessed; 3. It was done by woi'd of mouth; 
 4. And publicly before the congregation 
 that were present ; 5. The particular tres- 
 pass was named in the confession ;^ 6. Sins 
 both of ignorance and malice, when scanda- 
 lous, were to be confessed ; 7. The sinner was 
 not stinted to a prescript form of words in 
 confession, but was to enlarge his confession 
 as his heart was enlarged ; 8. In crimmal 
 
 1 Hunc confcssionera Hcbraei vocant confessioncm 
 super peccato singulari, quia in aliis sacrificiis fiebat 
 coufessio peccatorum generalis, saithi Vatablus upon 
 the place. 
 
 and capital cases, beside the civil or corporal 
 punishment, confession was to be made, be- 
 cause of the scandal which had been given, 
 which doth further appear from the Talmud 
 itself, in sanhedrim, cap. 6, sect. 2, for that 
 is observed in all who are put to death, that 
 they must confess, for whoever doth confess, 
 he hath part in the world to come ; and 
 namely it is recorded of Achan, that Joshua 
 said to him, " My son, give now glory to the 
 Lord God of Israel, and make confession 
 unto him ; and Achan answered. Indeed I 
 have sinned against the Lord God of Israel, 
 and thus and thus, &c., whence it is collected 
 that his confession did expiate his sin. And 
 Joshua said, Why hast thou troubled us, God 
 shall trouble thee this day ; this day thou 
 shalt be troubled, not in the world to come." 
 The like you read of Achan in Pirke R. 
 Elieser, cap. 38. I know Achan's confession 
 was not in the sanctuary, nor at a trespass- 
 offering ; but I make mention of it because 
 Erastus hoklethji that under the law con- 
 fession was only required in such cases where 
 the sin was not ci'iminal or capital ; which 
 is confuted by the afore-mentioned passages 
 in JVIaimonides and the Talnuid itself, prov- 
 ing that whether the sin was expiated by 
 sacrifice or by death, it was always to be con- 
 fessed ; from the same example of Achan 
 doth P. Galatinus,^ lib. 10, cap. 3, prove 
 that declaration of repentance was to be 
 made by word of mouth, and that the sin 
 was to be particularly confessed, which he 
 further proveth by another rabbinical pas- 
 sage. 
 
 In the fourth place, John ix. 24 seemeth 
 to hold forth a judicial public confession of 
 sin to have been required of scandalous sin- 
 ners. The Pharisees being upon an examin- 
 ation of him that was born blind and was 
 made to see, they labour to drive him so far 
 from confessing Christ, as to confess sin and 
 wicked collusion, " Give God the praise (say 
 theyV we know that this man is a sinner," 
 whicli is to be expounded by Josh. vii. 19, 
 " Give glory to the Lord God of Israel, and 
 make confession." 
 
 Fifthly, as the Jews had an excommuni- 
 cation, so they had an absolution, and that 
 which intervened was confession, and decla- 
 
 1 Confirm. Thes. p. 106, 113. 
 
 2 Ex CO quo quod in libro Jomo, id est, dierum, 
 in capite, jam hakippurini, Id est, dies propitiation- 
 um, ita scribitur. Dixit Rab. Huuna: Omnis qui 
 transgressione transgressus est necesse est ut sin- 
 gulatim exprimat peccatum. 
 
40 
 
 AAROX'S ROD BLOSSOMING, OR THE 
 
 ration of repentance. And lience came the 
 Arabic nadam, he hath repented, 
 
 and DTJ<i nadim, a penitent, the niddui 
 made the nadim ; for when a man was ex- 
 communicated by the lesser excommunica- 
 cation, the consistory ^ waited first thirty 
 days, and then other thirty days, and as 
 some think (the third time) thirty days, to 
 see whether the offender were penitent 
 (which could not be known without confes- 
 sion), and woidd seek absolution, which if 
 he did not, but continued obstinate and im- 
 penitent, then they pi'oceeded to the greater 
 excommunication, which doth prove a pub- 
 lic confession, at least in the case of the ex- 
 communicated. 
 
 Sixthly, we find a public penitential con- 
 fession, Ezra X. 10, 11 : " And Ezra ;the 
 priest stood up and said unto them, Ye have 
 transgressed, and have taken strange wives 
 to increase the trespass of Israel ; now there- 
 fore make confession unto the Lord God of 
 of your fathers, and do his pleasure, and se- 
 parate yourselves from the people of the 
 land, and from the strange wives." Mark 
 here, the forsaking of the sin could not suf- 
 fice without confessing the sin ; all Israel 
 had sworn and covenanted to do the thing, 
 to put away the strange wives, ver. 5, but 
 Ezra the priest tells them, they must also 
 make confession of their sin ; confession of 
 their former trespass must be joined with 
 reformation for the future : all which the 
 people promise to do as Ezra had said, ver. 
 12. But what was this confession, was it only 
 a private confession to God alone, or was it 
 only a general confession made by the whole 
 contjreKation of Israel at a solemn fast and 
 humiliation ? Nay, that there was a third 
 sort of confession, differing from both these, 
 appeareth by ver. 13, " Neither is this a 
 work of one day, or two, for we are many 
 that have transgi'essed in this thing ;" yea, 
 three months are spent in the busuiess, ver. 
 16, 17, during which space all that had 
 taken strange wives came at appointed times 
 out of every city, and were successively ex- 
 amined by Ezra the priest, and certain chief 
 
 1 Seld. de Jure Nat. et Gentium, lib. 4, cap. 8. 
 Pro diversitate peccati et peccautis moribus, nunc 
 citius nunc serins sequebatnr absolutio. Sed ut 
 plurimum cxcommnnicatio fiebat in diem tricesi- 
 mura, etc. Intra hoc tempus expectabat forum nt 
 ad Bonara rediret. mentem, resipisceret, et quae ju- 
 berent ipsi praestaret, etc. Post triginta dierum con- 
 tumaciam, idem tempus serael iterabatur, etc. At 
 vero si neque intra id spatii pasnitens absolutioncm 
 peteret, ^ Cherem seu anatliemate ferriebatnr. 
 
 of the filthers and Levites (such of both as 
 were not themselves guilty), before whom 
 such as were found guilty did make confes- 
 sion ; the sons of the priests made confession 
 as well as others, yea, with the first, and 
 gave their hands that they would put away 
 their wives ; and being guilty, they offered a 
 ram of the flock for their trespass ; with 
 which trespa.ss-offering confession was ever 
 joined, as hath been before shewed from the 
 law. 
 
 Seventhly, Mr Hildersham, of worthy 
 memory, in his tliirty-fourth lecture upon 
 Psal. li., draweth an argument from David's 
 example for the public confession of a scan- 
 dalous sin before the church. He made, saith 
 he, public confession of his sin to the congre- 
 gation, and church of God, for we see in the 
 title of this psalm, 1. That he committed 
 this psalm (that containeth the acknow- 
 ledgment of his sin, and profession of his 
 repentance) to the chief musician to be pub- 
 lished in the sanctuary and temple ; 2. That 
 in this pubhcation of his repentance he 
 hideth not from the church his sin, nor 
 cloaketh it at all, but expresseth in particu- 
 lar the special sin, &c. Add hereunto, this 
 public confession was made after ministerial 
 conviction by Nathan, who did convince 
 David of the oi-eatness of that scandalous 
 sin, m which he had then continued impeni- 
 tent near a year or thereabout. The doc- 
 trine which Mr Hildersham draweth from 
 David's example is this, "That they whose 
 sins God hath detected and brought to light, 
 whose sins are pubhc and notorious, scandal- 
 ous and offensive to the congregations where 
 they hve, ought to be willing to confess their 
 sins publicly, to make their repentance as 
 public and notorious as their sin is." He 
 addeth in his explanation, "^Mien they shall 
 be required to do it by the disciphne of the 
 church." Mark one of his apphcations 
 (which is the subject of the thirty -seventh 
 lecture) : " The second sort that are to be 
 reproved by this doctrine, are such as having 
 authority to enjoin public repentance to scan- 
 dalous sinners, for the satisfying of the con- 
 gregation, when they are detected and pre- 
 sented unto them, refuse or neglect to do 
 it." And here he complaineth, that the 
 public acknowledgment of scandalous sins 
 was gi-own out of use, and that though it 
 was ordered by authority, yet it was not put 
 in execution. " The canons of our church 
 (saith he, can. 26), straitly charge every 
 minister, that he shall not in any wise admit 
 
DIVIXE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 41 
 
 to the communion any of his flock which be 
 openly known to hve in sin notorious with- 
 out repentance. And The Book of Com- 
 mon Prai/er, in the rubric before the com- 
 munion, commandeth, that if any be an open 
 and notorious evil liver, so that the cono-re- 
 gation by him is offended, the minister sliall 
 call him, and advertise him in anywise not 
 to presume to the Lord's table till he hath 
 openly declared himself to have truly re- 
 pented, that the congregation may thereby 
 be satisfied, which were atbre offended. So 
 that you may see the laws and discipline of 
 our church require that open and scanda- 
 lous sinners should do open and public re- 
 pentance, yea, give power to the minister to 
 repel and keep back such from the com- 
 munion that refuse to do it." Where it 
 may be observed by the way, that the power 
 of elderships for suspending scandalous per- 
 sons (not exconnwunicated) from the sacra- 
 ment, now so much contended against by 
 Mr Prynne, is but the same power whicli 
 was granted by authority to the ministry 
 even in the prelatical times ; and he hath 
 upon the matter endeavoured to bring the 
 consciences of a whole eldership into a 
 greater servitude under this present refor- 
 mation, than the conscience of a single min- 
 ister was formerly bi'ought under by law in 
 this particular. 
 
 Eighthly, Mr Hildersham, ibid. lect. 34, 
 argueth not only a pari but « fortiori. If a 
 necessity of satisfying an offended brother, 
 how much more a necessity of satisfying an 
 offended church, which will equally hold 
 both for the Old and New Testament? His 
 own words are very well worth the ti'an- 
 scribing : " This is evident by those two 
 laws. Lev. vi. 5, 6, and Num. v. 6, 8, where 
 God plainly taught his people, that their 
 trespass-offering which they brought to him 
 to seek pardon of any sin whereby they had 
 wronged any man, should not be accepted 
 till they had first made satisfaction to the 
 party to whom the wrong was done. And, 
 lest we should think those laws concerned 
 the Jews only, our Saviour himself giveth 
 this in charge. Matt. v. 23, 24, ' If thou 
 bringest thy gift to the altar, and there re- 
 memberest that thy brother hath ought 
 against thee, leave there thy gift before the 
 altar, and go thy way, first be reconciled to 
 thy brother, and then come and offer thy 
 gilt.' And if there be such necessity of 
 making satisfaction to any one brother that 
 hath ought against us, before we can get 
 
 assurance of our reconciliation with God, 
 what necessity is there of making satisfaction 
 to a whole church and congregation, that we 
 have given just cause of offence unto. In 
 this case it is not sufficient to approve our 
 repentance and truth of heart to God ; we 
 must be willing also and desirous to approve 
 it to the congregation and church of God, 
 that we may say as the two tribes and half 
 said. Josh. xxii. ' The Lord God of gods he 
 knoweth, and Israel he shall know.'" Thus 
 Mr Hildersham. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 WHETHER IN THE JEWISH CHURCH THERE 
 WAS ANY SUSPENSION OR EXCLUSION OF 
 PROFANE, ' SC.\JS'DALOUS, NOTORIOUS SIN- 
 NERS, FROM PARTAKING IN THE PUBLIC 
 ORDINANCES WITH THE REST OF THE CHIL- 
 DREN OF ISRAEL IN THE TEMPLE. 
 
 Erastus and his followers hold, that among 
 the J ews none were excluded from any pub- 
 lic ordinance in the temple for moral un- 
 cleanness, that is, for a profane scandalous 
 conversation, but only for legal or ceremo- 
 nial uncleanness. The like Mr Prynne 
 saith of the passover ; and, of the temple, 
 he holds that even those who were, for 
 their offences, cast out of the synagogues, 
 were yet free to come, and did come, to 
 the temple. I shall particulai'ly make an- 
 swer both to Erastus and to Mr Prynne in 
 this point, when they shall fall in my way 
 afterward. I shall here, more generally, 
 endeavour to rectify their great mistake, 
 and to prove an exclusion from the temple 
 and public ordinances, lor public and scan- 
 dalous offences in life and conversation, or 
 for moral as well as ceremonial uncleanness. 
 
 First, I shall prove it cx ore duo rum 
 from the testimonies of two of the most 
 famous witnesses of the Jews themselves, 
 Pliilo and Josephus. Philo, lib. de Victiinas 
 Ojfcrentibus,^ is so full and plain, as if he 
 
 1 Ofiferenti victimaa lex praecipit, ut purus fiat 
 corpore ac animo. Et infra. Necessum est igitur 
 adituros templum sacrorum gratia, et corpore 
 nitidos esse, ct raulto magis aniina, etc. Nam veri 
 Dei tenijilum non patet proplianis sacrificiis. To 
 ya^ Toy ovtu; ovros h^ov avii^ots a^arov ^ufftaig.^ 
 Et post. An dubium est, neque legem quicquam ab 
 injustis, neque solem a tenebris accipere ? Et ver- 
 sus finem. Cieteruiu quia societatera humaiiita- 
 
 F 
 
42 AAROX'S KOD BLOSSOMING, OK THE 
 
 had purposely written that book to record 
 the exclusion of scandalous persons from 
 communion with the church of Israel in 
 the temple. He presseth all along the 
 necessity of holiness and purity in those who 
 bring sacrifices, and tells us that their law 
 did exclude from their holy assemblies mei'e- 
 tricious persons, despisers of God, and all 
 tliat Avere known to be impious and pro- 
 fane, as well as those who were legally un- 
 clean. 
 
 The same thing may bo confirmed out of 
 Josephus,^ who records that one Simon, a 
 doctor of the law, did, in the absence of 
 king Agrippa, accuse him to the people as 
 an impure unworthy man, who ought not to 
 be suft'ered to enter into the temple. Jose- 
 phus gives a good testimony to Agrippa, that 
 he was unjustly accused. Agrippa himself 
 sends for Simon, and asks him \N iiat he had 
 ever done, which deserved such an accusa- 
 tion. But neither Agrippa himself, nor 
 Josephus, saith one syllable to this purpose, 
 that the excluding of a man from the tem- 
 ple for profaneness and impiety was a new 
 arbitrary censure, contrary to the law or 
 custom of the Jews, which (no doubt) they 
 had done, if there had been any ground for 
 them to say so. Their very pleading of in- 
 nocency, and no more, tacitly contirmeth 
 that, if guilty, it had been just to exclude 
 
 temque (^xemulas hi xa.) (piXavS^wria.;) maxime 
 docct lex nostra, utrique virtuti honorrra Iiabet 
 meritum, neraiiicm deplorare malum ad eas admit- 
 tens, sed quam loiigissime in rem ma!am able^ans. 
 Cum igitur sciret concionibus (b rrai; ixxXriiriais) 
 admisceri multos improbos, quod se posse iu turba 
 latere autument, ut id cavcret in posterura, omnes 
 indignos a sacro caetu edieto prohibint (^^oavil^yii 
 'TTo.vTas T'ovi ava^tsus U^ou cvXXoyou)^ inoipieus a se- 
 raiviris obscaeno morbo laborautibus, qui naturje 
 monetam adulterantes, in impudicatum mulierum 
 atfectum et formam spoute degenerant. Spadones 
 item et castrates arcet, etc. Pariter repellit non 
 tantura scorta, sed et natos e prostitutis, contactos 
 materno dedecore propter natalcs adulterinos, etc. 
 Alii vero quasi contendant hos in impictatis stadio 
 post se rclinquere, addunt amplius, ut non solum 
 ideas, sed et deum esse negent. Et pon. Proinde 
 omnes hi merito pelluntur a sacris csetibus {^lo 
 
 1 Antiq., lib. 19, cap. 7, Libenter et continue dege- 
 bat (Agrippa) Hierosolymis, institutorum ac rituum 
 patriae servator religiosissinius, pnrus enira erat a 
 contaminamentis omnibus, nec ulla dies ei praeteri- 
 bat absque sacrificio. Accidit aliquando ut quidam 
 Hierosolymita legis peritus, nomine Simon, advo- 
 cata concione, per regis absentiam, agentis tum Cae- 
 sarae, criminaretur ilium ut impurum et arccndum 
 tcmpli aditu, quod non nisi dignis pateat. Id ubi 
 praefectus urbis illi significavit per litcras, confcs- 
 tim accersivit hominem, etc. Die mihi inquit, quid 
 tibi non probatur ex liis quae facimus. 
 
 from the temple. Again, de Bella Jud. 
 lib. 4, cap. 5, Josephus records that Ananias, 
 the high pi'iest (whom, cap. 7, he highly 
 commends for good government), had an 
 oration to the Jews against the i^f)\wrai, the 
 zealots, who, under colour of that name 
 which they took to themselves, conunitted a 
 great deal of injustice and violence. He 
 said with tears, " I had rather die than see 
 the house of God filled roaov-ois t'tytni with 
 such crimes (or criminal persons), «.q! t'us 
 otSarous Kdi ayt'as ^wpas Treat fiiatfiiymr, 
 oTEioywpovfiivas, and the forbidden and 
 holy places to be haunted and trode with 
 the feet of those who are polluted with mur- 
 ders," — speaking of those zealots. What can 
 be more plain ? to oyos, a piacular crime, 
 was a cause of keeping back from the tem- 
 ple (even as also among the heathens, some 
 were for piacular crimes interdicted the 
 sacrifices) ; fiianpot'ia, blood-guiltiness, de- 
 filement by murder, was also a cause of ex- 
 clusion from the temple, and to such the tem- 
 ple was a place inaccessible and forbidden. 
 I add a testimony of J. Scaliger, Elcnch. 
 Trihceres.JVic. Terar., cap. 28, where, speak- 
 ing of those Essteans who did not observe 
 the Mosaical rites, he saith, Itaque non 
 mirum, si tanqiiam etaye'is et piaculares 
 aditu tcmpli prohihehantur. The like 
 Constantinus L'Empereur, Annot. in Cod. 
 Middoth, p. 44, proves from another pas- 
 sage in Josephus: Viri atitcm qui non per 
 omnia casti essent ah interiori aula pro- 
 hibebantur. Where L'Empereur addeth, 
 In spaed dcscripti partem interiorem non 
 admittebant quoqiie hcereticum, which, he 
 saith, may be proved out of the Talmud. 
 Quis enini dicat (saith Hen. Vorstius, Ani- 
 mad. inPirke, p. 169) apostatam, blasphe- 
 mum, aliaque sacra capita intra templum 
 fiiissc c(dmissa. Of the exclusion of excom- 
 municate persons I have before spoken, fol- 
 lowing their opinion who hold, that such as 
 were excommunicate by the lesser excommu- 
 nication, or nicldid, had liberty to come into 
 the temple, yet so that they were to enter 
 in at the gate of the mourners, and were not 
 seen in the temple but as penitents; but 
 such as were excommunicated by the greater 
 excommunication, or chercm, were not suf- 
 fered to come into the temple, nor so much 
 as into any assembly of ten men ; and they 
 might neither teach nor be taught. Grotius 
 holds that such as were excommunicated by 
 niddui, or the lesser exconmiunication, had 
 power to come to the temple, but no other- 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHUKCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 43 
 
 wise than heathens, and that they might 
 not come into the court of Israel ;^ which is 
 an answer to Mr Prynne's objection, that 
 such as were cast out of the synagogue came 
 to the temple. 
 
 There are but two places in the New Tes- 
 tament which seem at first to make much 
 against that which I have said. One is, 
 Luke xviii., concerning the Publican's going 
 up to the temple to pray as well as the Pha- 
 risee ; the other is John viii., concerning the 
 woman taken in adultery, whom they brought 
 before Christ in the temple. I remember 
 Ei'astus objecteth them both." 
 
 To the first I answer. It rather confirm- 
 eth than confuteth what I have said ; for 
 1. The text saitli, vcr. 13, "The Publican 
 stood afar off," the Pharisee not so. Gro- 
 tius upon the place, ver. 11, noteth, that the 
 Pharisee's fault was not in this ])articular, 
 that he came farther into the temple tlian 
 the Publican ;3 for the custom was such, that 
 the Publicans were to stand in the court of 
 the Gentiles, the Pharisees in the court of 
 Israel. Camer. Myroth. in Luke xviii., is 
 also of opinion that the Publican stood in 
 the court of the Gentiles, or in that first 
 court into which Josephus, lib. 2, contra Ap- 
 pio7i., saith, that all, even heathens, might 
 come. 2. And though our opposites could 
 prove that the Publican came into the court 
 of Israel (which they never will be able to 
 do), yet this place helps them not at all, un- 
 less they can prove that this was a scandal- 
 ous and profane Publican. It is certain that 
 divers of the Publicans were religious and 
 devout men, and that this was one of them, 
 we may more than conjecturally know, by 
 the Pharisee's own words; for when he hath 
 thanked God that he is not as other men, 
 adulterers, unjust, extortioners, he addeth 
 with a disjunction, or even as this Publican ; 
 thus preferring himself not only to the infa- 
 mous and scandalous Publicans, but even to 
 this devout Publican. More of this place 
 afterward, in the debate of Matt, xviii. 
 To the other objection from John viii. 2, 3, 
 
 1 Annot. in Luke vi. 22. Qui hac nota (minoris 
 xfa^iir/iDv sive uidduij iuusti erant, staute teinplo, 
 accedebant ad templum, ut ex Hebrieis vir doctus 
 notavit : sed baud dubie consistebaut extra tov ti^i- 
 SccTsv qui distinguebat Uvixou; ab Israelitis. Nam 
 afo^itr/iUoi interim Ihixuv loco babebantur. 
 
 (Jontirm. Thes., lib. 1, cap. 2. p. 99, and elsewhere. 
 
 3 Nam mo3 id ferebat ut Publicani in atrio Genti- 
 lium, Pbarisaei in atrio Israelitarum starent, nec 
 quicquam in eo erat iusolitum aut Pharisaeo impu- 
 taudum. 
 
 where it is said that the Pharisees brought 
 a woman taken in adultery into the temple, 
 and set her before Christ, First, I answer 
 with Constantinus L'Enipereur,^ Annot. in 
 Cod. Middoth, cap. 2, p. 45, By the temple 
 in that place we are to understand the inter- 
 murale, the outer court, or court of the Gen- 
 tiles, which was without the court of Israel, 
 which outer court (saith he) both the evange- 
 lists and Josephus call by the name of lepbv 
 the temple ; yea, the whole mountain of 
 the temple, even comprehending that part 
 of it which was without the intermurale, 
 had the name of the temple, as Mr Selden 
 noteth, de J urc Nat. et Gent., lib. 3, cap. 
 6, p. 298 ; and lib. 4, cap. 5, he expounds 
 that of the money-changers in the temple, 
 to be meant of the court of the Gentiles. 
 This answer doth the better agree to John 
 viii., because ver. 2 tells us, it was in the 
 place where " all the people came unto 
 Jesus, and he taught them." Now it is 
 certain that both Christ and his apostles did 
 often teach the people in the court of the 
 Gentiles, and in Solomon's porch, which 
 was without the court of Israel, in the inter- 
 murale, that all might ha,vo the better occa- 
 sion of hearing the gospel, even they who 
 were not permitted to enter into the court 
 of Israel. Wherefore, since the text tells 
 us, that when the Pharisees brought the 
 woman to Christ, he was teaching in such 
 a place, where all the people had access 
 to hear him, this agreeth better to the 
 intermurale than to the court of Israel. 
 Secondly, I answer. That woman did not 
 come as a privileged person, free to come 
 and worship in the coui't of Israel with the 
 church of Israel ; but she is brought as an 
 accused person, that, in the most public and 
 shameful manner, she might be sentenced 
 and condemned, and made vile before all 
 the people ; so that it was in her paina non 
 privile<jium. The sanhedrim also did sit in 
 the temple,- so that such as were to be exa- 
 mined and judged, must be brought to that 
 place where the sanhedi-im was, which sat 
 in that part of the temple that was called 
 Gazith. This might be the occasion of 
 bringing some to the temple as parties to be 
 
 1 Sane cum servator in tempio docuisse, cap. 8. 
 Job. legitur, quo mulierem depraebensam Pbarisiei 
 ipsi adduxerunt ; alium locum prteter bunc qui erat 
 extra atria, design^ti credere uequeo : quandoqui- 
 dein e Josepbo observatum jam suit, impuris atria 
 adire fas uon fuisse. 
 
 2 P. Cuneus de Repub. Ilebr., lib. 1, cap. 12. Con- 
 cilii magni sedes iusipso Sauctuario fuit. 
 
44 
 
 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 judged, who wei-e not admitted to the ordi- 
 nances of woi-ship in the court of Israel, even 
 as the prohil^ition of reading atheistical or 
 heretical books, Sank. c. 11, sect. 1, was not 
 violated by the council's reading or searching 
 of them for a judicial trial and examination ; 
 as is rightly observed by Dionysius Vossius, 
 Annot. in Maimon. de Idol. p. 25. 
 
 And now, having taken off the two prin- 
 cipal objections, we shall take notice of such 
 scriptures as either directly, or at least by 
 consequence, prove that notorious and scan- 
 dalous sinners were not admitted into the 
 temple or to partake in the ordinances. 
 
 1. God reproveth not only the bringing 
 of strangers into his sanctuary, who were 
 uncircumcised in the flesh, but the bring- 
 ing of those who were uncircumcised ui 
 heart, that is, known to be such ; for de sec- 
 retis non judicat ecclesia, Ezek. xliv. 7, 9, 
 such ought not to have had fellowship in the 
 holy things. " No stranger, uncircumcised 
 in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of 
 any stranger that is among the children of 
 Israel." It is a law concerning proselytus 
 domicilii, proselytes who, having renounced 
 idolatry, and protijssing to observe the seven 
 precepts given to the sons of Noah, were 
 thereupon permitted to dwell and convei*se 
 among the children of Israel (of which more 
 elsewhere). Such a one ought not to be 
 admitted into the sanctuary, or place of the 
 holy assemblies, there to partake in all the 
 ordinances with the church, unless he be 
 both circumcised in flesh, and also in regard 
 of his profession and practice, a vil^ible saint, 
 or one supposed to be circumcised in heart. 
 The disjunction nor tells us, that if he were 
 either uncircumcised in flesh, or known to 
 be uncircumcised in heart, God did not allow 
 him to be admitted to communion with the 
 children of Israel in all public ordinances. 
 
 2. There is a law, Deut. xxiii. 18, foi"bid- 
 ding to bring the hire of a whore into the 
 house of the Lord ; and that, because it was 
 the price of a whore, how much more was 
 it contrary to the will of God, that the 
 whore herself, being known to be such, 
 should be brought to the house of the Lord ? 
 For propter quod unumquoque est tale, 
 id ipsum est magis tale. This ai'gniment 
 is huited by Philo the Jew.i 
 
 1 De Monarcliia, lib. 2, Proinde recte honeste que 
 vetitum est alicubi, ne merces meretricis inferatur 
 in sacrariura. Atqui nummi per se careut crimine, 
 sed quae lios accepit uaa cum suo quaestu est abo- 
 miuabilis. 
 
 3. The Lord sharply contendeth with 
 those who did steal, murder, and commit 
 adultery, and swear falsely, and bum in- 
 cense to Baal, and yet presumed to come 
 and stand before him in his own house. 
 " Is this house, which is called by my name, 
 saith the Lord, become a den of robbers in 
 your eyes?" Jer. vii. 9 — 11. A den of rob- 
 bers is the place which receives robbers ; and 
 (saith Vatablus upon the place) as robbers, 
 after their robbuig, come to their den, so do 
 these, even after their stealing, murdering, 
 &c., come to the temple. To the same pur- 
 pose is that challenge, Ezek. xxiii. 38, 39, 
 " Moreover this they have done unto me, 
 they have defiled my sanctuary in the same 
 day, and have profaned my Sabbaths. For 
 when they had slain their children to their 
 idols, then they came the same day into my 
 sanctuary to profane it." But God would 
 not have the temple to be a receptacle for 
 such. Wlien Christ applieth that scripture, 
 Jer. vii., against those who bought and sold 
 in the temple. Matt. xxi. 12, 13, he makes 
 it clear that the temple was made a den of 
 robbers, not only as it was made a place of 
 gain, or a den where the robber's prey lies, 
 but even as it was a receptacle of the robbei-s 
 or thieves themselves; therefore he is not 
 contented with the overthrowing of the tables 
 of money-changers, and the seats of them 
 that sold doves, but he did also " cast out all 
 them that sold and bought in the temple ;" i 
 that is, he would neither suffer such things 
 nor such persons in the temple; yea, though 
 it was only in the utmost court, or the court 
 of the Gentiles, as Grotius and Mr Selden 
 think, how much less would he have suffered 
 such pei'soiis m the comt of Israel ? Philo 
 the Jew doth also apply what is said in the 
 prophets, of God's hating the saci'ifices of 
 the wicked, even to the excluding of profane 
 men from the temple. ^ Mr Selden, deJure 
 Nat. et Gent., Ub. 4, cap. 5, doth so explain 
 that castuig out of the buyers and sellers out 
 of the temple that the argument in hand is 
 not a httle strengthened thereby. He saith 
 truly, that those who were cast out had pol- 
 luted and profaned that holy place, ideo et 
 ipsi, ut qui turn cinminis aliorum parti- 
 cipes, turn suo infames pariter, sie tern- I 
 plum seu montis templi locum ilium ipsis 
 
 1 Lib. de Victimas offcrcntibus. Kam veri Dei 
 templura non pater profanis sacrificiis. Tali ho- 
 mini dicerem, oobone, non gaudet Deus centenis 
 boum victimis, etc. ; mavnlt pias mentes, etc. 
 
45 
 
 permissum profanabant, ejiciendi. He 
 holdeth also that this which Christ did 
 was done ex jure patrio, to wit, ex zelo- 
 taruni jure; and that else it had been 
 challenged by the priests and scribes if it 
 had been contrary to the law or custom. 
 Zealots, that is, private persons zealously 
 affected, were permitted to scourge, wound, 
 yea, kill, such as they saw publicly commit- 
 ting atrocious wickedness, by which the holi- 
 ness, either of the name of God, or of the 
 temple, or of the nation of the Jews, was 
 violated. So Mr Selden showeth out of the 
 Talmudists, ibid. cap. 4. Now (saith he) 
 zelotarum jure, our Saviour, though a pi'i- 
 vate person (for so he was looked upon by 
 the priests and scribes), did scourge and cast 
 out the buyers and sellers. If so, then cer- 
 tainly such wicked and abominable persons 
 were not allowed to come to the temple ; 
 and if they did, they ought to have been 
 judicially, and by authority, cast out ; for 
 that which was permitted to private per- 
 sons, in the executing of justice or inflicting 
 of punishment, out of their zeal to the glory 
 of God, was much more incumbent to such 
 as had authority in their hands for correct- 
 ino- and removing the prol'anation of the 
 temple in an authoritative, judicial, and 
 orderly way. 
 
 4. The Levites had a charge to let none 
 that were unclean in any thing enter into 
 the temple, 2 Chron. xxiii. 19. Now, this 
 is like that, 1 Cor. v. 11, " with such an one 
 no not to eat :" an argument from the de- 
 nial of that which is less, to the denial of 
 that which is more. So here it was a neces- 
 sary conseq^uence, if those that were ceremo- 
 nially unclean were to be excluded from the 
 temple, much more those who were morally 
 or impiously unclean. For, 1. The legal 
 uncleanness did signify the sinful unclean- 
 ness ; and the exclusson of those that were 
 known to be legally unclean from the temple, 
 did signify the excluding of those who were 
 known to be grossly and notoriously unclean 
 in their life and conversation, which shall be 
 abundantly confirmed afterwards. Therefore 
 Bertramus de Rep. Ebr., cap. 7, saith 
 rightly, that the Levites had a charge to 
 keep from the temple the unclean, aut 
 etiam alio quovis modo indignos, or those 
 also who were any otherwise unworthy. 
 2. Godwin, in his Moses and Aaron, lib. 
 5, cap. 2, makes a comparison between the 
 three degrees of the Jewish excommuni- 
 cation and the three degrees of excluding 
 
 the unclean, Num, v. 2, which pai'allel if 
 we please to make, then as for any of the 
 three sorts of uncleanness, the touch of the 
 dead, issue, or lepi'osy, a man was excluded 
 from the camp of God or the sanctuary ; so 
 it will follow that even those who were cast 
 out by the niddui, or lowest degree of ex- 
 communication, were for a time suspended 
 from communion with the church in the 
 ordinances. 3. The Levites were appointed 
 to put a difference not only between the 
 clean and the unclean, but between the holy 
 and unholy, Lev. x. 10 ; or between the 
 holy and profane, Ezek. xxii. 26 ; xliv. 23. 
 By clean and unclean, I understand per- 
 sons or things that were ceremonially such ; 
 by holy and profane, persons that were 
 morally such. 
 
 5. I prove the same point from Psal. 
 cxviii. 19, 20, " Open to me the gates of 
 riohteousness : I will go mto them and I will 
 praise the Lord. This gate of the Lord 
 into which the righteous shall enter." The 
 Chaldee saith, " The gate of the house of 
 the sanctuary of the Lord." The gates of 
 God's sanctuary are called " gates of right- 
 eousness," saith Ainsworth on the place, 
 " because only the just and clean might 
 enter into them." We read also that it was 
 written over the gates of some of the Jew- 
 ish synagogues, " This is the gate of the 
 Lord, into which the righteous shall enter." 
 Vatablus upon this place thinks that David 
 speaks by way of antithesis to the former 
 pollution of the sanctuary by Saul and other 
 wicked persons, who, by coming to the house 
 of God, had made it a den of thieves.^ But 
 now the righteous shall enter in it. The 
 righteous, " for to such (saith Diodati), and 
 not to profane persons, it belongeth to enter 
 in there." 
 
 6. The same thing may be proved from 
 Psal. XV. 1, " Lord, who shall abide in 
 thy tabernacle ? who shall dwell in thy holy 
 hill ? He that walketh uprightly, and work- 
 eth righteousness," &c. 1 know the chief 
 intendment of God in this place is to de- 
 scribe such a one as is a true member of the 
 church invisible, and shall enter into the 
 
 1 Haec porta, etc. i.e. Dcus hoc templnm sibi 
 dicari voluit, bic est sanctuarium ejus : debet pu- 
 rum esse ab omnibus sordibus, quemadraodura etiam 
 lex severe jubet. Anteliac impuri et scelerati (quales 
 Saul, et alii omues impii qui priraas tenebant, ita 
 ut nemo non putassct ipsorum esse templum) cor- 
 rupcrant hoc templun. Non fuit igitur tarn domi- 
 cilium ipsius Uei, quam latronum caverna. 
 
46 
 
 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 heavenly Jerusalem. But certainly there 
 is an allusion to the sanctuary and the holy 
 hill thereof in Jerusalem, as to the type of 
 that which is spiritual and eternal, which 
 Jansenius upon the place noteth ; and the 
 prophet here teacheth the people so to look 
 upon those offences from which men were 
 excluded from the sanctuary, as to learn 
 what kind of persons are true members of 
 the church, and who not ; who shall be al- 
 lowed to communicate in all the ordinances 
 of the New Testament, and who not ; who 
 shall be received into everlasting life, and 
 who not : and thus, by the type, he holds 
 forth the thing typified. Gesnerus upon 
 the place, thinks that communion with the 
 church in this world is meant in the first 
 words, " Lord, who shall sojourn (so the 
 word is, jagur, in the Hebrew, Trnpoiki'iaei in 
 the Greek) in thy tabernacle" (the name of 
 tabernacle fitly expressing the moveable and 
 military estate of the church in this world) ; 
 and that reception into the church trium- 
 phant is meant in the following words, " Who 
 shall dv^ell in thy holy hill ?" which noteth 
 a permanent and durable estate. The Chal- 
 dee Paraphrase expoundeth the whole of such 
 as were thought worthy to be admitted into 
 the house of the Lord thus, " Lord, who is 
 worthy to abide in thy tabernacle, and who 
 shall be worthy to sojourn in the mountain 
 of the house of thy holiness ?" So Psal. 
 xxiv. 3, the Chaldee readeth thus, " Who 
 shall be worthy to ascend unto the mountain 
 of the house of the sanctuary of the Lord ?" 
 So that the thing alluded unto in both these 
 places is, that the priests and Levites did 
 admit none to the sanctuary but such as had 
 the marks or characters there enumerated, 
 so far as men can judge of these marks, 
 that is, so far as they are external and dis- 
 cernible. 
 
 7. The same thing seemeth also to be al- 
 luded unto, Psal. 1. 16, " Unto the wicked 
 (the Chaldee adds, that repenteth not and 
 prayeth in his ti-ansgression) God saith. 
 What hast thou to do to declare my sta- 
 tutes, or that thou shouldst take my cove- 
 nant in thy mouth." It is spoken to a 
 scandalous profane man, ver. 18 — 20, who 
 yet will needs take upon him a form of god- 
 liness. Where Philo the Jew speaks of him 
 that blasphemed the name of the Lord,^ he 
 
 1 Lib. 3, de Vita Mosis : quoin ue honoris quidem 
 gratia fas est nomiiiari ab omnibus, scd a solis op- 
 timis et purificatis liominibus. 
 
 addeth, that it was not lawful for all men to 
 name the name of God ; no, not for honour 
 or religion's sake, but only for good and holy 
 men. And this gives me occasion to add 
 in conclusion a farther confirmation out of 
 the Hebi-ew doctors. They held, that an 
 Israelite turning an heretic (that is, deny- 
 ing any of their thirteen fundamental arti- 
 cles) was to be as an heathen man ; and did 
 therefore permit a Jew to lend to him upon 
 usury, even as to an heathen. Mr Selden, 
 de Jure Nat. et Gent., lib. 6, cap. 10. 
 They held that such a one (an heretical Is- 
 raelite) had no communion with the church 
 of Israel, see Tzemach David, translated by 
 Hen. Vorstius, p. 67 ; Abrabanel, de Capite 
 Fidei, cap 3, dub. 5 ; et ib., cap. 6. They 
 esteemed an heretical Jew more heretical 
 than a Christian, and did excommunicate 
 him even summarily, and without pi-evious 
 admonition. See BuxtorfF, Lexic. Chald. 
 Talm. et Rabbin., p. 195. Moses Maimo- 
 nides, de Fimdam. Legis., cap. 6, sect. 
 10, tells us, that if an Epicurean Israelite 
 had written a copy of the book of the law, 
 it was to be burnt, with the name of that 
 Epicurean wretch, because he had not done 
 it holily, nor in the name of God. They 
 who did imagine the Scripture itself to be 
 polluted and profaned when it came through 
 the hands of an Epicurean or heretical Isra- 
 elite, no doubt they thought the temple pol- 
 luted and profaned, if such a one should be 
 suffered to come and worship in it: from all 
 which it appearetli how much I'eason L'Em- 
 pereur had to say, that they did not admit 
 an heretic into the inner part of the intcr- 
 murale, or that part of the temple which 
 divided between the Israelites and heathens. 
 
 If any man shall ask what I mean to infer 
 from all this : JMust all profane persons be 
 kept back from our churches and public as- 
 semblies, and so from hearing the word ? I 
 answer, God forbid. The analogy which I 
 understand is to hold between the Jewish 
 and Christian church is this : As profane 
 persons were forbidden to enter into the 
 temple, because of the sacramental and ty- 
 pical holiness thereof (for the temple was a 
 type of Christ), so profane persons are now 
 much more to be kept back from the sacra- 
 ment of the Lord's supper, which hath more 
 of sacramental signification, mystei-y, and 
 holiness in it, than the temple of Jerusalem 
 had, and whereby more ample evangelical 
 promises are set forth and sealed unto us. 
 And as profane persons might of old come 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 47 
 
 into the court of the Gentiles, and there 
 hear the word preached in Solomon's porch 
 (where both Christ and his apostles did 
 preach, John x. 23 ; Acts iii. 11 ; Acts v. 
 12, which porch was in the utmost court, 
 that is, the court of the Gentiles, of which 
 elsewhere out of .Tosephus), but might not 
 come into the court of Israel, nor have com- 
 munion in the sacrifices ; so profane obsti- 
 nate sinners are to be excluded for their 
 impiety from the church communion of 
 saints, though they may hear the word, as 
 heathens also may do. Now, that the tem- 
 ple of Jerusalem had a typical sacramental 
 resemblance of Christ, may appear plainly 
 in divers particulars: 1. As the glory of 
 the Lord dwelt in the temple within the 
 oracle, above the ark and the mercy-seat, 
 and at tlie dedication of the temple, the 
 cloud of the glory of the Lord did visibly 
 fill tlie whole house ; so, in Christ, the ful- 
 ness of the godhead dwells bodily, as the 
 Apostle speaks. 2. As the great God, whom 
 the heaven of heavens cannot contain, was 
 yet pleased to dwell on earth, by putting 
 his name in that place ; so notwithstanding 
 of the infinite distance between God and 
 man, yet they are brought near each to 
 other, to have fellowship together in Jesus 
 Christ. 3. God revealed his will that he 
 would accept no sacrifices from his people, 
 but in the temple only, after it was built ; 
 so God hath revealed his will, that our spi- 
 ritual sacrifices cannot be acceptable to him 
 except in Jesus Christ only. 4. The peo- 
 ple of God were bound to set their faces 
 toward the temple of Jerusalem when tliey 
 prayed, 1 Kings viii. 30, 48 ; Dan. vi. 10, 
 so are we bound in pi'ayer to look toward 
 Jesus Christ with an eye of faith. 5. As 
 there was an ample promise of God to hear 
 the prayers which should be made in that 
 place, 2 Chron. vii. 15, 16, so hath God pro- 
 mised to hear us and accept us, if we seek 
 unto him in and through Jesus Christ. 6. 
 God said of the temple, " Mine eyes and 
 mine heart shall be there perpetually," 2 
 Chron. vi. 16 ; so he said of Christ, " This 
 is my well-beloved Son, in whom I am well 
 pleased." 7. There was but one temple ; so 
 but " one Mediator between God and man, 
 the man Jesus Christ," saith Paul. 8. As 
 the temple was appointed to be a house of 
 prayer for all nations, Isa. Ivi. 7, and the 
 stranger, as well as the Israelite, might 
 come and pray in it, 2 Chron. vi. 32 ; so 
 Christ is a propitiation, not for the Jews 
 
 only, but for the Gentiles ; and whosoever 
 believes on him (Jew or Gentile) shall not 
 be confounded. 9. " Because of thy tem- 
 ple at Jerusalem shall kings bring presents 
 unto thee," saith the prophet, Psal. Ixviii. 
 29 ; so because of Jesus Christ (who liath 
 got a name above every name, and hath 
 received all power in heaven and earth) 
 shall kings submit themselves and bow the 
 knee. 10. Glorious things were spoken of 
 Jerusalem, the city of God, but the temple 
 was the glory of Jerusalem ; so glorious 
 things are spoken of the church, but Christ 
 is the church's glory. Other like considera- 
 tions might be added, but these may suffice. 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 A DEBATE WITH MR PRYNNE, CONCERNING 
 THE EXCLUSION OF PROFANE, SCANDALOUS 
 PERSONS FROM THE PASSOVER. 
 
 That which Mr Prynne in his Vindica- 
 tion, p. 15, 16, pleadcth for his opinion from 
 the law of the passover, may be (as I con- 
 ceive) with no great difficulty answered, and 
 I shall do it very shortly (being to insist 
 further in answering Erastus, who said much 
 more for that point which deserveth an an- 
 swer). First, in answer to our argument 
 from the keeping back of the unclean, Num. 
 ix., he saith, " That all circumcised persons 
 whatsoever had a right to eat the passover, 
 &c., being bound to eat the passovei- in its 
 season, except in cases of necessity, disability, 
 by reason of a journey, or of legal unclean- 
 ness only, not spiritual, as is clear by Exod. 
 xii. 3, 43—50 ; Num. ix. 1—15 ; Deut. 
 xvi. 16, 17 ; Ezra vi. 19—21 ; 2 Kings 
 xxiii. 21, 22; 2 Chron. xxxv. 6, 7, 13, 17, 
 18, where we read that all the people and 
 all the males that were present received the 
 passover, not one of them being excluded 
 from eating it." 
 
 Ans. 1. If it was so, doth not this make 
 as much against himself as against us, imless 
 he will say, that the analogy must hold so 
 far, that all baptized persons whatsoever, 
 none excepted (if it be not in cases of ne- 
 cessity or disability), how scandalous, im- 
 penitent, and obstinate soever they be, 
 ought to be admitted to the Lord's table ? 
 So there shall be no excomnnmication at all 
 (which yet himself granteth) ; for if any 
 baptized pei'son (though such as Mr Prynne 
 
48 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 himself" would have to be excommunicated) 
 shall be shut out from the church, and from 
 all public ordinances, and so from the Lord's 
 supper, because of his obstinacy and conti- 
 nuance in some foul scandal, after previous 
 admonitions in so doing, we shall, by his 
 principles, do contrary to the law of the 
 passover in the point of analogy. 2. The 
 texts cited by him prove that men were de- 
 barred for legal uncleanness, but there is not 
 one of them which wLU prove that men were 
 debaiTed only for legal uncleanness, and no 
 man for moral uncleanness. Yea, one of 
 those texts, Ezra vi. 21, tells us, that those 
 who were admitted to the passover were such 
 " as had separated themselves from the fil- 
 thiness of the heathen of the land, to seek 
 the Lord God of Israel." That moral un- 
 cleanness, I mean, known profaneness or 
 scandalous sins, did render men incapable of 
 eating the passover, I shall prove anon by 
 divers arooiments, mito wliich I remit Mr 
 Piynne. 
 
 That which he objecteth from 1 Cor. x. 
 I am to answer also distinctly by itself. His 
 second reply is, " That those who were le- 
 gally unclean at the day appointed for the 
 passover, so as they could not then receive 
 it, were yet peremptorily enjoined to eat it 
 the fourteenth day of the second month, &c.. 
 Num. ix. 11, 12, he must not be suspended 
 from it above one month." 
 
 Ans. The scriptm-e cited proves no such 
 thing, except upon supposition that they be 
 clean the fourteenth day of the following 
 month. And what if any of them were in 
 the second month also unclean by the touch 
 of a dead body or othenvise ? Were they not 
 kept off' in the second month, as well as in 
 the first ? Is it not plainly said of the second 
 passover, ver. 12 (the very place cited by 
 himself), " accoi'ding to all the ordinances of 
 the passover they shall keep it ?" and one of 
 those ordinances was the keeping back of the 
 miclean. 
 
 Thirdly, he saith, that he who was legally 
 miclean was kept back neither by the priest 
 nor magistrate, but by those of the same 
 family, as ver. 6, 7, imports : " And the 
 true reason (saith he in his text) why his 
 uncleanness did seclude him from eating the 
 passover, was because it quite excluded him 
 out of the camp for a time (not tabernacle 
 or temple), and so, by necessary consequence, 
 from the house wherein he was to eat the 
 passover," &;c. ; and, by like reason, it de- 
 barred him from all other ordinances. 
 
 Ans. 1. The text, Num. ix. 6, 7, tells us, 
 the unclean were kept back, but by whom 
 they were kept back, it tells not. That it 
 was neither left free to the unclean person 
 to eat of the passover, nor to the family to 
 admit him, but that there was an authorita- 
 tive restraint, I prove by this argument : 
 He that was unclean, and before his cleans- 
 ing did eat of the flesh of the peace-offer- 
 ings, was cut off from among his people, 
 Lev. vii. 20, 21 ; therefore he that in his un- 
 cleanness did eat the passover was to be cut 
 off also. No man will say that there was 
 any less punishment intended for the pollu- 
 tion of the passover than for the pollution 
 of peace-offerings. And if the imclean were 
 not permitted under the law to eat of the 
 flesh of the sacrifices, or if they did, they 
 were cut off, shall not as great care be had 
 to keep the body of Jesus Christ (which was 
 signified by the flesh of the sacrifices), and 
 the blood of the covenant, from being trod 
 mider foot by dogs and swine ? 
 
 2. Neither is there any such reason in 
 that text. Num. ix., as the excluding quite 
 out of the camp those who were unclean by a 
 dead body, and so, by consequence, from the | 
 passover. Nay, the text rather intimateth i 
 that they were in the camp, for they came 
 before Moses and Aaron on that day when 
 the passover was kept, and said, " We are 
 defiled by the dead body of a man, where- 
 fore are we kept back," ver. 6, 7. I hope 
 Moses and Aaron were not without the 
 camp. I know the lepers and some other un- 
 clean persons were put out of the camp, but 
 there is not one of the texts cited by him 
 which gives the least shadow of reason to 
 prove that the unclean by the dead body of 
 a man were quite excluded out of the camp, 
 except Num. v. 2. And if he will beheve 
 the Hebrew doctors, and others upon that 
 place, there were three camps, the camp of 
 Israel, the camp of the Levites, and the 
 camp of Divine Majesty. The unclean by 
 the dead were free (say they) to be in the 
 first two camps, and were only excluded 
 from the tliird^. However, it is agreed that 
 some unclean persons were excluded from 
 
 1 Vatablns in Xnm. t. 2. Tria secnndnm Heb- 
 raeos castra erant. C'astra ncmpe Dei, id est ta- 
 bernacnlum : castra Levitarnm, et castra Israel. 
 Leprosi ab omnibus arcebantur : impuri per flux- 
 nm a primis duobns excludebantur. Pollutns vero 
 propter cadaver solum a taberuaculo ecclesiae arce- 
 batur. Godwin, in his Moses and Aaron, lib. 5, 
 cap. 2, citeth Paulus Fagius for the something. See 
 also Mr AVeymes' Christian Synagogue, p. 135, 136. 
 
DIVIXE ORDIXAXCE OF CIIUKCII GOYERXMEXT VIXDICATED. 
 
 49 
 
 the sanctuary who were not exchided frona 
 the camp of" the children of Israel, as is ob- 
 served by Tostatus in Lev. xii. quest, xxi. 
 Menoc'hius in Num. v. 2, the Eiir/lish An- 
 notations on Num. v. 2, and others. And 
 if Mr Prynne can prove, that those unclean 
 persons who were excluded from the sanc- 
 tuary were not excluded from tlie passovei', 
 let him try it. That this tiling may be yet 
 better understood, let us observe with Tos- 
 tatus, in Lev. xxii. quest, vii., a threefold se- 
 paration of the unclean under tlie law: some 
 were separate only from the sanctuary and 
 the holy things ; for he that had but touched 
 a man or a woman who had an issue, or had 
 touched the bed, clothes, or anything else 
 which had been under him or her, was not 
 permitted to come into the tabernacle tiU 
 he was cleansed, Lev. xv. Others were se- 
 parated both from the holy things and tVom 
 the company or society of their neighbours, 
 yet not cast out of the camp : fur this he 
 gives the case of women having issues of 
 blood, who were put apart seven days, Lev. 
 XV.; and for the same space a woman after 
 the larth of a male child was unclean, so far 
 as to be kept apart from human society, but 
 she did continue unclean three-and-thirty 
 days longer as to the sanctuary and the hal- 
 lowed things, during which space of three- 
 and-thirty days she was not separated from 
 company and society as in the first seven 
 days, only she was forbidden to touch any 
 hallowed thing, or to come into the sanc- 
 tuary. There was a third sort separaied not 
 only from the sanctuai-y and from human so- 
 ciety, but also cast out of the camp; which 
 was the case of lepers. I conclude, all unclean 
 persons whatsoever were excluded from the 
 t-ibernacle, Lev. xv. 31, and from eaiiug of 
 the flesh of the sacrifices. Lev. vii. 20, 21 ; 
 neither might any of the sons of Aaron, hav- 
 ing his uncleanuess upon him, cat of the holy 
 things, though it was liis food. Lev. xxii. 2 
 — 7, in which pla.ces cutting off is appointed 
 to be the punislunent, not for unclean per- 
 sons being in the camp, but for their com- 
 ino- to the tabernacle, or for their eating 
 of the holy things ; and accordingly it is said 
 2 Chron. xxiii. 19, that .Tehuiada "set the 
 porters at the gates of the house of the 
 Lord, that none Avhich was unclean in 
 anything should enter in." But we never 
 read that none wlio were unclean in any- 
 thing were permitted to enter in at tlie 
 gates of Jemsalem, or to converse among 
 the people. 
 
 3. Whereas Mr Prynne thinks that un- 
 clean persons were excluded from all ordi- 
 nances, as well as from the passover : First, 
 What saith he to that which Erastus holdeth, 
 and (as he thinks) grounded upon Scripture, 
 namely, that all unclean persons, as well as 
 othei-s, were admitted to the feast of expia- 
 tion. Next, ^Vhat saith he to that which is 
 observed by Mr Selden and divers others, 
 namely, that some unclean persons might 
 come not only to the mountain of the house 
 of the Lord, but might also enter into the 
 intrrmnralc. Into that utmost court the hea- 
 thens might come and pray, and so might 
 tlie Israelites that were not legally clean, 
 saith Arias Montanus.'^ The fourth and fifth 
 answei-s which Mr Prynne gives, that there is 
 no such warrant for keeping back scandalous 
 persons from the Lonl's table as there was 
 for keepiug l>ack the unclean from the pass- 
 over, and that suspension for legal unclean- 
 ness proves not suspension for moral un- 
 cleanuess, these, I s;iy, do but pctere princi- 
 'phnn, and therefore to be passed over because 
 he takes for granted what is in controversy. 
 
 I shall therefoi-e proceed to that which 
 he addc'ih in tlic next place in answer to an 
 aiguriii iit of mine in my controversial fast 
 scrnnm (as he miscalh^ih it). The argu- 
 ment, as I did propound it, was this : Those 
 scandalous sinners that ^vere not admitted 
 to oiler a tre>pass-ofFe)'ing (Avhich was a re- 
 conciling ordinance) without confession of 
 sin, and declaration of their repentance for 
 the same, Avei e much less admitted to the 
 passover (which was a sealing ordinance) 
 without confession of known and scandalous 
 sins, if they had committed any such. But 
 circumcised persons, if they were scandalous 
 sinners, were not admitted to offer a tres- 
 pass-ofl'eririg (wliich was a reconciling ordi- 
 nance) without confession of sin and declar- 
 ation of their repentance for the same. Lev. 
 V. 5, 6 ; therefore Mr Prynne answereth, p. 
 17, It is a mere non-seqnitur. 1. Because 
 contradicted (as he thinks) by 1 Cor. x. 
 which is a contrarious arginnent, and I shall 
 answer it in the proper place. 2. He saith 
 that examination of the conscience, repent- 
 ance, and confession, are nowhere required 
 of such as did eat the passover, it being only 
 a commemoration of God's mercy ia passing 
 over the Israelites' first-born, when he slew 
 
 1 De Terap. Fabric, p. 15, in quod (atrium^ exteri, 
 id estGeutos, qu;e Israelis uomen non protiterentur, 
 coiivciiire ad oranduiu posseiit: et Israelitae etiam 
 qui caercraouiali ritu puri uoii essont. 
 
50 
 
 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 the Egyptians, but thei'e being no i-emission 
 without confession, it was necessary that 
 those who came to offer a trespass-offering 
 for some particular sins should confess those 
 very sins, yet not to the priest, but to God 
 alone. 
 
 Ans. 1. If examination of the conscience, 
 repentance and confession, were not required 
 in those that did eat the passovcr, and if 
 there might be a worthy eating of it without 
 this (as he plainly intimateth when he saith, 
 " that this is nowhere required in Scripture 
 of such as did eat the passover, though all 
 circumstances and necessaries for the worthy 
 eating of it be most punctually enumerated"), 
 and if the passover was " but only a com- 
 memoration of God's infinite mercy in pass- 
 ing over the Israelites' first-born," as he 
 saith (which was but a temporal mercy), 
 then he must needs say, either that in the 
 sacrament of the passover, or confirmation 
 of faith, no increase of grace, nor spiritual 
 mercy was given, or that in that sacrament 
 this grace (yea, by his principles, conver- 
 sion and regeneration itself) was conferred 
 ex opere operato. And he must either say 
 the like of the Lord's supper, or otherwise 
 hold that the sacraments of the New Testa- 
 ment differ from those of the old, specially ; 
 and that the passover did not seal the same 
 covenant of grace for the substance which is 
 now sealed by the Lord's supper. 
 
 2. What was the meaning, of the bitter 
 herbs with which the passover was com- 
 manded to be eaten ? Were not the people of 
 God thereby taught the necessity of repen- 
 tance in that very action ? And what means 
 it that at Hezekiah's passover the people 
 are called to turn again unto the Lord, 2 
 Cliron. XXX. 6, that the priests and tlie Le- 
 vites were ashamed and sanctified them- 
 selves, ver. 15, and offered peace-offerings, 
 and made " confession to the Lord God of 
 their fathers?" ver. 22; where I understand 
 confession of sin according to the law, which 
 appointed confession of sin to be made with 
 the peace-offerings, which confession was 
 signified by laying hands upon the head of 
 the offering, Lev. iii. 2, 8, 13, compared 
 with Lev. xvi. 21, and so we find repen- 
 tance joined with peace-offerings, J udg. xx. 
 26. Finally, read we not of the people's 
 preparing of their heart to seek God at the 
 passover', 2 Chron. xxx. 19, which as it 
 could not be without repentance and ex- 
 amination of their consciences, so Hezekiah 
 mentioneth it as that without which the 
 
 people's eating of the passover could not have 
 been in anywise accepted. 
 
 3. That it was not a private confession to 
 God alone, but a public penitential confes- 
 sion in the temple, and before the priests, 
 I have before, chap. 8, made it to appear, 
 both out of the text, and out of Philo the 
 J ew. This I add here : The confession of the 
 sin was made in the place of offering the 
 trespass-offering before the priest, at the 
 laying on of hands between the horns of the 
 beast, therefore it was not made in secret to 
 God only, which doth further appear by 
 the laws concerning such and such sacrifices, 
 for such and such sins. Lev. v., and by the 
 restitution which was also joined with the 
 confession, Num. v. 7. And it is also clear 
 from the Jewish Canones Poenitentice, cap. 
 1, 2, where we find confession of sin to be 
 made both by word of mouth and publicly 
 before the consi-ecration. 
 
 4. Instead of making my argument a non- 
 sequitur he makes it a clare-sequitur ; for 
 the first part of it not being taken off, but 
 rather granted by him, because (as he saith 
 truly) without confession of sin there is no 
 remission of it, hence the other part must 
 needs follow ; for if it was in vain so much as 
 to sue for pardon in a reconciling ordinance, 
 when the sin was not confessed, how much 
 more had it been a taking in vain of the 
 name of God, and a profaning of a sealing 
 ordinance, to seal up pardon to a scandalous 
 sinner who had not so much as confessed his 
 scandalous sin, but continued in manifest 
 impenitency. 
 
 But we will try whether his third and 
 last answer can relieve liim. It is this, 
 " That every particular communicant, before 
 he comes to receive the sacrament, makes a 
 pubhc confession of his sins to God, with the 
 rest of the congregation, and, in words at 
 least, voweth newness of life for the future ; 
 there bemg no communicant that ever I 
 heard of (saith he) so desperately wicked and 
 atheistical, as not to profess heartily sorrow 
 for all his forepast sins, or to avow impeni- 
 tent continuance m them when he came to 
 
 1 Vide edit. Latin. Cantabr., auno 1631, p. 5. Exi- 
 mia laus est paenitentiam agenti, ut publice confit- 
 eatur, iniqnitates suas toti caetui indicans, et delicta 
 quae in proximum adraisit, aliis aperiens hunc in 
 modum, Revera Peccari in N.N. (virum cominans) 
 et haec et ilia feci : ecce autem me vobis nunc con- 
 vertor et me facti paenitet. Qui vero prae superbia 
 non indicat, sed abscondit iniquitates suas, illi per- 
 fecta non est paenitentia. Quia dicitur, Qui abscondit 
 scelera sua, non dirigetur. 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 51 
 
 the Lord's table." Behold, what a latitude ! 
 If the vilest sinner, practically persevering 
 in a scandalous sin, shall but join with, and 
 not gainsay, the public confession of the 
 whole congregation (wherein the best men 
 do and ought to join), and in words promise 
 newness of life (and who will not promise to 
 endeavour to live better), nay, if he have so 
 much wit as not to profess or avow impeni- 
 tency, then Mr Prynne alloweth his ad- 
 mission to the sacrament. But is this the 
 confession that my argument did prove ? 
 Nothing like it. It was a particular confes- 
 sion of such a sin by name; Lev. v. 5, " And 
 it shall be when he shall be guilty in one of 
 these things, that he shall confess that he 
 hath sinned in that thing;" and with the 
 confession there was a real amendment. 
 For instance, a recompensing of the tres- 
 pass with the principal, and the addition of 
 a fifth part when the case did so require ; 
 Num. V. 7, " Then they shall confess their 
 sin which they have done, and he shall re- 
 compense his trespass," &c. This is that my 
 argument did drive at, and it still stands 
 in force to conclude that the confession of 
 the particular sin which hath given public 
 scandal, together with the forsaking of it 
 externally and in practice, is so necessary, 
 that without these the admission of a scan- 
 dalous sinner is a most horrible profanation 
 of the sacrament. 
 
 But now findinor the argument concerninof 
 the passover and legal uncleanness to have 
 been more tiilly prosecuted by Erastus than 
 it is by Mr Prynne, I do resolve to trace it 
 hard at the heels whithersoever it goeth. 
 
 CHAPTER XL 
 
 A CONTUTATION OF THE STRONGEST ARGU- 
 MENTS OF ERASTUS, NAMELY, THOSE DRAWN 
 FROM THE LAW OF MOSES. 
 
 Among Erastus's {Confirm. Thcs., lib. 1, 
 cap. 3 and 4) arguments against excommu- 
 
 1 R. Mosis Canones Paenitentiae, cap. 2. Quicun- 
 que verbis confitetur, et ex corde non statuit pecca- 
 tum derelinquere : ecce hie ei similis est qui lavat, 
 et manu reptile immundum retinet : aeque enira 
 quicquara prodest lavatio, donee reptile abjecerit. 
 Et hoc illud est quod a sapiento illo dicitur. Qui 
 autem confessus fuerit et reliquerit ea, raisericor- 
 diara consequetur. Quin et oportet ut peccatum 
 speciatim recenseat. Quia dicitur : Obsecro domine, 
 peccavit populus iste peccatum maximum fecerunt- 
 que sibi deos aureoa. 
 
 nication, three of them, namely, the first, 
 the seventh, and the sixteenth, are all one 
 for the substance, the strength of them lying 
 in this supposition, that the Scripture doth 
 not restrain, nor keep off any from the sa- 
 crifices, nor any other sacraments (as he 
 speaketh) of the Old Testament, because of 
 a wicked or scandalous conversation ; but 
 contrariwise, commandeth that all the males, 
 both J ews and foreignei's, being circumcised, 
 and not being legally unclean, nor in a jour- 
 ney, should compear thrice in the year be- 
 fore the Lord at Jerusalem, to keep the 
 three solemn feasts — of the passover, weeks, 
 and tabernacles. Now (saith he) Christ 
 hath not, in this thing, destroyed nor al- 
 tered the law of Moses, nor hath he made 
 the rule straiter now than it was then ; but 
 as then all circumcised, so now all baptized 
 persons, must be acknowledged for church 
 members, having a right to partake of church 
 privileges ; and as then there was no disci- 
 pline or punishment for the flagitious and 
 wicked, except by the hand of the magis- 
 trate, so ought it to be in like manner in 
 the Christian church. This argument he 
 trusteth very much unto ; and because it is 
 the common opinion, that the excluding and 
 separating of the unclean under the law, did 
 signify the excluding of scandalous sinners 
 from communion with the church, he spend- 
 eth a long chapter (lib. 2, cap. 1) against 
 that opinion, and labouretli to make it ap- 
 pear that the legal uncleanness did signify 
 the corruption of our nature and unbelief; 
 that exclusion from the temple did signify 
 exclusion from the heavenly paradise ; and 
 that the cleansing and reception into the 
 temple, did typify the cleansing of our 
 souls, and the turning of us to God by the 
 blood of Jesus Christ. 
 
 Now, here I shall make such animadver- 
 sions as shall not only enervate the strength 
 which these arguments may seem to have 
 against church censures, but also afford some 
 strono; reasonings against Erastus from those 
 very grounds, rightly apprehended, from 
 which (upon misapprehensions) he disput- 
 eth against the excluding of scandalous sin- 
 ners. 
 
 First, It is certain that for divers sins 
 against the moral law the sinners were ap- 
 pointed not only to bring their trespass- 
 offerings, but to confess the sin which they 
 had conmiitted, and to declare their repen- 
 tance for the same ; and till this was done, 
 the trespass-offering was not accepted. Let 
 
52 
 
 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 us but have the hke, that is, a confession of 
 the sin and declaration of repentance, and 
 then men shall not be excluded for scandals 
 formerly given. Er;tstus (p. 106, 107, 148, 
 149) himself ackiiowledgeth, that in this 
 point of the confession of sin the analogy 
 must hold betwixt the Old and New Tcsta- 
 : ment ; only he pleadeth that tlic very act — 
 i the very desiring" of the sacrament of the 
 i Lord's supper, is really a confession tluit he 
 j is a sinner who dosireih it ; and lluit much 
 j more it may sufhce if sinners, being asked 
 by the minister, confess themselves to be 
 sinners, and that they has'c not perfectly 
 I kept the commandments of God. But all 
 I this, say I, cannot satisfy the argument 
 j drawn from that confession of sin under the 
 j law. For, 1. It was not a confession ipso 
 j facto, by the bringing of the trespass-offer- 
 ings, but by word of mouth; and tlius it 
 hath been expounded by the Hebrew doc- 
 tors :^ The owners of sin and trespass-offer- 
 ings, when they bring their oljlations for 
 their ignorant, or for their presumptuous 
 sins, atonement is not made ibr them by 
 their oblation until they have made repen- 
 tance and confession by word of mouth. 2. 
 It was not a general confession that one is 
 a sinner, and hath not perfectly kept the 
 commandments of God (for who did ever 
 refuse to make such a confession that were 
 in their right wits? — that limitation is as good 
 as nothing, when we speak of the suspend- 
 ing of any from the Lord's table), but it 
 was a confession of the particular individual 
 sin which had been committed ; Lev. v. 5, 
 " And it shall be, when he shall be guilty in 
 one of these things, that lie shall confess 
 that he hath sinned in that thing." Mark, 
 in that thimj. Num. v. 7, " Then they shall 
 confess their sin which they have done." 
 Which law is to be understood of all like 
 sins and ti'espasses, that is, that other sins 
 which were expiated by sacrifice were first 
 to be confessed. 2 All this maketh against 
 Erastus. 
 
 Next, Wliereas he saith (p. 106, 113) that 
 this confession or declaration of repentance 
 for sin, in the Old Testament, had place 
 only in those sins for which the law ap- 
 pointed no particular punishments, and that 
 there was no confession imposed where the 
 magistrate was to punish the crime : This, 
 with a great deal of boldness and confidence 
 
 1 Sor Ainswortli, Aiinot. on Num. v. 7. 
 
 2 Ainsworth on Lev. vi. 4. 
 
 (as his manner is), he doth maintain, intend- 
 ing thereby (it seems) to exempt from all 
 manner of church discipline whatsoever is 
 punishable by the civil magistrate, as adul- 
 tciy, perjury, and the like. But that which 
 he afhrmeth so strongly is manifestly con- 
 trary to the express law. Lev. vi. 1 — 8, 
 where wilful lying and perjury, robbing and 
 violence, fraud and cozenage, — all these 
 were to be confessed and expiated by sacri- 
 fice, notwithstanding that they were also to 
 be severely j)unished by the civil magistrate. 
 Nay, in tliat very place it is commanded, 
 that what had been violently taken away, or 
 deceitfully gotten, or fraudulently detained, 
 should be restored ; and, moreover, a fifth 
 part added thereto for a mulct, yet tins did 
 not exempt the sinner from making confes- 
 sion. So Num. V. 6 — 8, for one and the 
 same offence, the law enjoinetli both that 
 confession be made and expiation ; and, 
 moreover, that recompense be made to the 
 party injured, or to his kinsman. Yea, the 
 law. Num. V. 6, 7, speaketh univei"sally, 
 " Wlien a man or woman shall commit any 
 sin that men commit, &c., then they shall 
 confess their sin which they have done," 
 which made the Hebrews extend this law 
 to criminal and capital cases, as Mr Ains- 
 worth upon the place noteth out of these 
 words of ]Maimonides : " Likewise, all con- 
 demned to death by the magistrates, or con- 
 demned to stripes, no atonement is made 
 for them by their death or by their stripes, 
 until they have i-epentcd and confessed ; 
 and so he that hurteth his neighbour, or 
 doth him damage, though he payeth him 
 whatever he oweth him, atonement is not 
 made for him till he confess." Therefore 
 Eiastus is still a double loser in arg-uing 
 from the law of Moses. It proves not what 
 he would, and it doth prove what he would 
 not. 
 
 Thirdly, Men were kept from the sanc- 
 tuary of the Lord, not only for ceremonial, 
 but for moral uncleanness, I mean for pub- 
 lic and scandalous sins against the moral 
 law, Ezek. Ixiv. 7, 9. God was offended 
 when such proselytes were brought into his 
 sanctuary as were either uncircumcised in 
 flesh or uncircumcised in heart ; that is, 
 whose practice or conversation did declare 
 them to be uncircumcised in heaii:, else the 
 Lord would not have challenged those who 
 brought such proselytes into his sanctuary, 
 if their uncircumcision of heart had not 
 been externally manifested, so that it might 
 
IMVIXB ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 53 
 
 bo perceived by his people, according to that, 
 Psahu xxxvi. 1, "The transgression of the 
 wicked saith within niy heart, that there is 
 no fear of God before his eyes." To the 
 same purpose we read, Ezra vi. 21, not that 
 all proselytes, nor all uiicircumcised, but only 
 " all such ;is had separate themselves from 
 the filthiness of the heathen of the land, to 
 seek the Lord God of Israel," did eat of the 
 passovcr. Moreover, we may arg-ue, by a 
 necessary consequence, from Scripture: The 
 ceremonial uncleaniiess was a cause of ex- 
 clusion from the sanctuary, and from the 
 holy things ; therefore much more moi-al 
 uncleanness. It was more sinful in itself, 
 and more abominable in God's sight, for 
 those who did steal, muixler, commit adul- 
 tery, swear falsely, and burn incense to Baal, 
 to come and tread in the courts of the house 
 of the Lord, and to ofier sacrifices there, as 
 if God's house had been a den of robbers, 
 Isa. i. 11—14; Jcr. vii. 9— 11,— this, I 
 say, was more abominable to God than if he 
 that had touched a dead body, or had come 
 into the tent where a man died, should have 
 come unto the tabernacle in his legal mi- 
 cleanness ; therefore, when Christ casteth 
 out the buyers and sellers out of the tem- 
 ple, it is not for ceremonial but moral un- 
 cleanness, and he applieth to them tlie words 
 of Jeremiah, " Ye have made it a den of 
 thieves," Matt, xxi, 13, with Jer. vii. 11. 
 And as it was more sinful to the person, 
 and more hateful to God, so it was more 
 hurtful to the souls of others, who were in 
 greater danger of infection from the moral 
 than from the ceremonial uncleanness. This 
 Erastus denieth indeed, i but his expression is 
 unsavoury and unholy, which I am ashamed 
 to repeat. Sure the Apostle speaketh far 
 otherwise, Heb. xiii. 15, 16, " Lest any root 
 of bitterness springing up trouble you, and 
 thereby many be defiled ; lest there be any 
 fornicator or profane person, as Esau." A 
 profane or scandalous person defileth, you 
 see, many others ; and sin was of a defiling 
 nature under the Old Testament as well as 
 under the New. I mean a root of bitter- 
 ness not plucked up — a profane person not 
 censui-ed, doth defile others as well as him- 
 self. Both Peter and Jude have told us, 
 
 1 P. 145. Cum ergo quaeritur cur ei qui semen 
 pi'SDter yoluntatem noctu emisit, ad sacra ailire noii 
 Ucuerit, priusquam mundarctur, scortatori autera 
 et concubinario Ucuerit ? rcspondeo, quia ille ad sc 
 appropinquantes contamiuabat ; liic lico et sibi im- 
 mundus tantum erat : aliosque nou magis inquiaa- 
 bat, quam si cum uxorc Icgitima cubavisset. 
 
 that scandalous persons are spots and ble- 
 mishes in the conununion of saints, 2 Pet. 
 ii. 13 ; Jude, ver. 12 ; so that, as Erastus 
 granteth that one legally unclean could 
 make others legally unclean among whom 
 he came, and therefore was kept off from 
 fellowship and company with the congrega- 
 tion of God's people, it must likewise be 
 granted, that scandalous persons are to be 
 suspended from the sacred communion of 
 the Christian church, because, if they should 
 be admitted, the church should be thereby 
 sinfully defiled ; for if the saying God speed 
 to a false teacher, make us partakers of his 
 evil deed, 2 John 10, how much more doth 
 the admitting of such or the like scandalous 
 sinners to the Lord's table, make (I say not 
 all who communicate then and there, but) all 
 who consent to their admission, to be par- 
 takers of their evil deeds. 
 
 Eourthly, AVhereas Erastus holdeth that 
 the exclusion of the unclean under the law 
 did only typify something which is to come 
 to pass in the life to come, that is, the shut- 
 ting forth of sinners from the heavenly pa- 
 radise if they bo not washed from their fil- 
 thiness by the blood of Jesus Christ, and 
 therefore ought not to be unto us any arg-u- 
 ment for the exclusion of scandalous sinners,! 
 I answer. If the shutting out from heaven 
 was the only thing signified, and if there 
 be a fit :fnalogy or proportion between the 
 type and the thing typified, then, 1. One 
 may be in heaven and cast out again, and in 
 and out again, as, under the law, one might 
 be many times admitted into the temple and 
 shut out again. 2. It would also follow that 
 there is some other exclusion greater than 
 the exclusion from heaven; as, under the 
 law, there was a greater exclusion than the 
 exclusion from the sanctuary, and that was, 
 to be cast out I'rom the company and con- 
 versation of God's people for though every 
 uncleanness which did exclude one trom the 
 company of the Israelites did also exclude 
 him from the sanctuary, yet every unclean- 
 ness which did exclude one from the sanctu- 
 ary did not exclude him fr om the company 
 of the Israelites ; even as now among us 
 suspension from the Lord's table is not the 
 greatest and worst exclusion, but there is 
 
 1 P. 140. Quocirca non fuit cxclusio Iijec, qua 
 propter legis iramunditiam aliqui proliibcbautur 
 venire in cajtus publicos, figura rei cujus[ijam in 
 hoc seculo coraplendai, scd imago ct simulacrum 
 fuit rci in altera vita perficiendai. 
 
 2 Tostatus in Lev. xii., quest. 21. 
 
54 
 
 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 another gi-eater than that. Thus you see 
 Erastus could not make his type agree with 
 his antitype. "Whence it doth further ap- 
 pear that the exclusion of the unclean under 
 the law, did teach and hold forth somewhat 
 in a political sense, touching the communion 
 and fellowship of the church in this life. 
 IMiatsoever it might signify more I will not 
 now dispute, but this it did signify. And this 
 I shall so far make good, that I shall at once 
 both answer Erastus and propound a strong 
 argument for the keeping off from the holy 
 things those that are morally and scandal- 
 ously unclean. First, Let it be remembered 
 that I have proved already from Heb. xiii. 
 15, 16 ; 2 Pet. ii. 13 ; Jude, ver. 12, that 
 the people of God are defiled by communion 
 and fellowship with scandalous sinners. In 
 the second place. Consider that prophecy, 
 Isa. lii. 1, " Put on thy beautiful garments, 
 O Jeinsalem, the holy city ; for henceforth 
 there shall no more come into thee the un- 
 circumcised and the unclean." That whole 
 chapter is a prophecy concerning the condi- 
 tion of the church in the New Testament, 
 as is evident by six parallels at least : ver. 5 
 with Kom. ii. 24 ; ver. 7 ^vith llom. x. 15 ; 
 ver. 10 with Luke iii. 6 ; the beginning of 
 ver. 11 with Rev. xviii. 4; the following 
 part of ver. 11 with 2 Cor. vi. 17 ; ver. 15 
 with Rom. XV. 21. Neither is it the church 
 invisible, but the church visible ; Tor ver. 15 
 is applied to the calling of the Gentiles, 
 Rom. XV. 21, and ver. 11 to the church's 
 open separation from Babylon, Rev. xviii. 4. 
 It is also the chuixh ministeiial : ver. 7, 8, 
 11, " How beautiful upon the mountains are 
 the feet of him that bringeth good tidings," 
 &c. " Thy watchmen shall hft up the 
 voice," &c. " Be ye clean that bear the 
 vessels of the Lord." It remains to con- 
 sider what is meant by the unclean. Ver. 
 1, It cannot be meant of legal uncleanness 
 (the ceremonial law being abolished), nor of 
 the hid uncleanness of close hypocrites (for 
 in that sense it is only the privilege of the 
 church triumphant, that no unclean thmg, 
 nor no hypocrite, shall enter there). It 
 must theretbre be meant of such as are visi- 
 bly or scandalously unclean. And when it 
 is said, " There shall no more come into 
 thee the uncircumcised and the unclean," it 
 must be understood respective; the uncir- 
 cumcised signifying such as are not fit to be 
 at all church-members ; the unclean signify- 
 ino- such as are not fit to have commmiion 
 in the holy thmg-s : for so these two were 
 
 distinguished under the law. Thirdly, There 
 is another place which, to me, puts it out of 
 controversy, 2 Cor. vi. 14 — if, where the 
 Apostle exhorteth believers to avoid all in- 
 timate conversation or fellowship with unbe- 
 lievers, by marrying with them, by going to 
 the idol temples, or the like. He conclud- 
 eth with a manifest allusion to the legal ce- 
 remony, " Be ye separate, and touch not the 
 unclean thing," or, the unclean ttdnrfs, as 
 the Syriac hath it ; " And what agreement 
 hath the temple of God with idols," ver. 16, 
 where the Syriac readeth thus. And what 
 agreement hath the temple of God with 
 the temple of devils ? Remember, would 
 the Apostle say, that as under the law the 
 touching or eating of unclean things made 
 those that touched them or did eat of them 
 to be unclean, so doth your fellowship with 
 unbelievers, or your eating in their idol 
 temples, defile you. And as then those 
 that had touched any unclean thing were 
 not received into the sanctuary, so I will not 
 receive you into fellowship with me and my 
 people, saith the Lord, except you be sepa- 
 rate from the sons of Belial. Therefore 
 " touch not the unclean thing, and I will 
 receive you;" which is not spoken of receiv- 
 ing us into heaven, but of receiving us into 
 the tabernacle of God in this Hfe, as is mani- 
 fest by Lev. xxvi. 11, 12, the place cited by 
 the Apostle in the words immediately pre- 
 ceding, " And I will set my tabernacle 
 among you, and my soul shall not abhor 
 you. And I will walk among you, and wiU 
 be your God, and ye shall be my people." 
 And in this manner God saith he will not 
 receive us except we avoid fellowship with 
 the workers of iniquity, especially in holy 
 things. I shall add fom-thly, for further 
 clearing of this point in hand, Peter's vision 
 and the interpi-etation thereof, Acts x. and 
 xi., a passage cited by Ei-astus, p. 138, 139, 
 while he is proving that the thing signified ! 
 by the legal uncleanness, was only the cor- ' 
 ruption and infidelity of natm-e, which ex- 
 cludeth a sinner from heaven. The place 
 is so far from proving what he would, that 
 it proveth the contrary ; for it speaketh 
 plainly of that uncleanness which excludeth 
 men from fellowship with the saints in this 
 life, from companying together, from eating 
 together. And when Peter expoundeth the 
 vision, he saith, " Ye know how that it is an 
 unlawful thinsc for a man that is a Jew to 
 keep company, or to come unto one of an- 
 other nation ; but God hath showed me that 
 
DIVIXE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 55 
 
 I should not call any man common or un- 
 clean," meaning, for being a Gentile and 
 not a Jew, Acts x. 28. You see, the not 
 eating nor touching of unclean beasts, birds, 
 and creeping things (such as Peter saw in 
 the vision), was understood by the people of 
 God, as forbidding their association or fel- 
 lowship in this woi'ld with heathens or irre- 
 ligious persons, and such as walked not ac- 
 cording to the law. And in this sense the 
 law was understood not only by Peter, but 
 generally by the Jews, Acts xi. 3 ; Gal. 
 ii. 12. 
 
 Nay, fifthly, the legal uncleanness, in the 
 sense of the Jews, did signify not only such 
 things as did exclude others from fellowship 
 with them, but such as did exclude the Jews 
 themselves from the holy things. There- 
 fore it is said, John xviii. 28, " They them- 
 selves went not into the judgment hall, lest 
 they should be defiled, but that they might 
 eat the passover ;" — intimating, that if they 
 had gone into the house of an uncircumcised 
 man, or had, upon such a day, gone into the 
 judgment hall about a litigious action, they 
 had been unclean, and so might not eat the 
 passover. Whether it were the coming into 
 the house of Pilate, he being a man uncir- 
 cumcised, or whether it were (which I rather 
 think) a litigious action upon a holy day,i 
 which might have defiled them, this is plain, 
 that they thought there was a moral unclean- 
 ness (signified by the ceremonial uncleanness) 
 which might keep men from the passover. 
 
 The fifth animadversion shall be this : 
 Whereas Erastus holdeth, p. 106, that under 
 the law every one was judged clean or un- 
 clean according to his own judgment and 
 conscience, and not according to the priest's, 
 tlie lepers only excepted ; also, that when a 
 man had committed any sin, it was in the 
 free will of the sinner to expiate his sin when 
 he pleased ; and he was no way compelled 
 to it, — I answer, If every unclean person. 
 
 1 Tostatus in Matt, xxvi., quest. 48. Etiam ac- 
 tus quidara praeter contactum, reddebant lioraines 
 imraundos ad manducandum agnum, Tel quaecunque 
 sanctificata, sicut litigare judicialiter, vel intrare in 
 locum judicii ad litigandum, sic dicit ut, John xviii. 
 Lud. Capelli EniKPISIS de ultimo Christi pas- 
 chate, p. 25. Cum itaque hsec una fuerit illarura 
 traditionum, ut ne die festo capitali judicio vacarent, 
 causa nulla est cur existimemus eos sine necessitate 
 voluisse proprias constitutiones ita pedibus concul- 
 care, et tarn solennis festi religionem proplianare. 
 Casaubon, Exerc. 16, annot. 34, num. 32, citeth a 
 plain passage in Maimonides, declaring that they 
 held it unlawful to judge of capital cases upon the 
 preparation to the Sabbath or to a holyday. 
 
 except the leper, w;is allowed to judge and 
 pronounce himself clean when he pleased, 
 then to what purjjose did that law serve,^ 
 Lev. vii. 20, 21 ; or that whoever was un- 
 clean, and had not purified himself, was not 
 to be admitted to come into the tabernacle, 
 and if he presumed to come, he was to be 
 cut off from the congregation ? Num. xix. 
 By Erastus's principles no man should have 
 been cut off, if he had pleaded himself not 
 to be unclean ; and how many would do so, 
 if that could save them from being cut off ? 
 Is it not also plain from Lev. xv. 15, 30, 31, 
 that both men and women, who were unclean 
 by their issues (not by leprosy), were to bring 
 an offering to the priest for their cleansing, 
 otherwise were not to be accounted clean, 
 but looked upon as defilers of the taber- 
 nacle in their uncleanness, whatever they 
 might think of themselves ? So women that 
 were unclean after child-birth, had not power 
 to pronounce themselves clean, and were not 
 free to come to the sanctuary when they 
 pleased ; but they were first to bring a sin- 
 off'ering, and the priest was to make atone- 
 ment ibr them. Lev. xii. 6 — 8. There was 
 a certain number of days appointed for the 
 cleansing, both of women alter child-birth, 
 and of men who had an issue, yea, when the 
 days of the cleansing were fulfilled they 
 were not free to come unto the tabernacle 
 except they brought their off"ering for atone- 
 ment. Lev. xii. 6, 7 ; xv. 13 — 15. Philo 
 the Jew, de Vita Mosis, lib. 3, p. 531, tells 
 us, there was a certain definite time, till 
 the expiring whereof those that were un- 
 clean by a dead body were excluded from 
 the temple. Josephus, Antiq. Jud., lib. 3, 
 cap. 10, records the like, not only of lepers, 
 but of those that had an issue, or were de- 
 filed by the dead, that till the set time was 
 fulfilled, all these were kept back from the 
 congreo-ation. 
 
 The other thing which Erastus saith, that 
 it was left free to the sinner to expiate his 
 sin when he pleased, doth no better agree 
 with the word ; for it was commanded that 
 upon the very knowledge of the sin the 
 trespass-offering should be brought, and the 
 sin confessed. Lev. iv. 14, 28 ; v. 3 — 5. 
 
 1 L'Empereur, Annot. in Cod. Middoth, p. 20. 
 Arcebantur autem hujusmodi contaminati, donee ea 
 peregissent qua: ad reatum casremonialem quem 
 contraxerant delenitum facerent, atque hac ratione 
 suis magistris morem gessissent. The unclean were 
 not permitted to partake of the sacrifices. Jose- 
 phus de Bello Jud., lib. 7, c. 17. 
 
56 a.vuon's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 Sixthly, Whereas Erastus, p. 105, urgeth 
 the universal law, by which all are coin- 
 maiided to keep the passovcr, except the 
 unclean and those in a journey, therefore all 
 others (how flagitious or scandalous soever 
 in their lives) were bound to keep it, I an- 
 swer. Who knows not, that many universals 
 in Scripture are to be restricted, and not to 
 be understood as the words at first sound ? 
 As John ii. 10, " Every man at the be- 
 ginning doth set forth good wine," that 
 is, every master of a feast; Luke xiii. 15, 
 " Doth not each one of you, on the Sab- 
 bath, loose his ox or his ass," that is, each 
 one that hath an ox or an ass ; John x. 8, 
 " All that ever came before me were thieves 
 and robbers," meaning, whoever before him 
 did make himself the true door by which the 
 sheep must enter in ; so Joel ii. 28, " I will 
 pour out my Spirit upon all flesh," yet not 
 upon all and every one, but upon those only 
 whom he receiveth in covenant ; Ilev. xiii. 
 8, " And all that dwell upon the earth shall 
 worship him (the beast), whose names are 
 not written in the Book of life," yet there 
 have been many reprobates who neither wor- 
 shipped the Pope nor knew him ; but it is 
 meant of all under the power of the beast. 
 So when all are commanded to keep the 
 passover, it must be understood of all fit 
 persons, and such, as were not to be ex- 
 cepted. You will say the law excepteth 
 none but the unclean and those in a jour- 
 ney, therefore all others not excepted were 
 to keep it ; for where an exception is made 
 from an universal rule, that rule is the more 
 sure and certain concerning all other parti- 
 culars not excepted. To that I answer, 
 Erastus himself addeth another exception, 
 and that is, of the sick who could not be pre- 
 sent. The Hebrews make divers other ex- 
 ceptions, for they say, " Women and ser- 
 vants are not bound to appear ; but all men 
 are l)ound, except the deaf, and the dumb, 
 and the fool, and the little child, and the 
 blind, and the lame, and the defiled, and 
 the uncircumcised, and the old man, and 
 the sick, and the tender, and weak, which 
 are not able to go upon their feet ; — all 
 these eleven are discharged," &c. See Ains- 
 worth on Exod. xxiii. 17, and compare this 
 with Maimonides, de Idolol., chap. 11, sect. 
 18, where he that hearkens to soothsayers, 
 wizards, charmers, and the like, is said to be 
 reckoned among fools and children, whose 
 reason is imperfect ; therefore these were to 
 be excepted as well as fools and children, 
 
 and so wei'c other scandalous pei'sons, which 
 I shall prove anon. 
 
 A seventh animadversion shall be this : 
 Erastus, in these ai-gmnents of his from 
 the law, doth confound sacraments with 
 sacrijic/'s (as I touched in the beginning), 
 yea, he argueth expi-essly,i that whoever 
 were admitted to expiate their sin by sacri- 
 fices, were thereby admitted to sacraments, 
 because (saith he) all these sacrifices were 
 tiiie sacraments. So he speaketh in other 
 places, that he might seem to dispute the 
 more oppositely for promiscuous admission 
 to the sacrament of the Lord's supper. But 
 sacrifices and sacraments are as different as 
 giving and receiving. ^ In sacrifices, man is 
 the giver, God is the receiver ; in sacraments 
 God is the giver, man is the receiver. In sa- 
 crifices peace is made with God ; in sacra- 
 ments it is sealed and supposed to be made. 
 They therefore that hold the passover was 
 a sacrifice (an opinion partly grounded on 
 Deut. xvi. 2, and partly taken from the Jews 
 dispersed, who, though they observe divers 
 paschal lites, yet they do not kill the pas- 
 chal lamb, nor keep the passover according 
 to the law, it being to them unlawful to offer 
 sacrifices, excejit in the land of Canaan) — 
 have the shorter evasion from Erastus's ar- 
 gument touching the admission to the pass- 
 over. But I have given other answers ; and 
 this much shall suffice for answer to the 
 Erastian argaiments drawn from the law of 
 Moses, which are supposed by some to be the 
 strongest. 
 
 CIIAPTEB XII. 
 
 FOURTEEN ARGUJIEXTS TO PRO"\i; THAT SCAN- 
 DALOUS AND PRESUMPTUOUS OFFENDERS 
 AGAINST THE MORAL LAW (THOUGH CIR- 
 CUMCISED AND NOT BEING LEGALLY UN- 
 CLEAN) WERE EXCLUDED FROM THE PASS- 
 OVER. 
 
 There is so much weight laid, both by 
 Erastus himself and by Mr Prynne, upon 
 
 1 P. 94. Hoc ipso, quod ad expiandum peccatnm 
 jubetur acifei re sacrificium, non exchiditur a sacra- 
 mentis, sed ad ca iuvitatur ; nam omnia liEcc sacri- 
 ficia erant vera sacramenta. 
 
 2 Pareas in Lev. iv. Dilfcrnnt sacrificium et sa- 
 cramentum ; quod sacrificium est obcdientia nostra 
 Deo ad maudatum ejus praestita, sive moralis sive 
 cairimonialis cum morali conjuncta : sacramcntum 
 est signum gratia; dci erga nos in fide a nobis sus- 
 ceptum. 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 57 
 
 the universal law commanding all that were 
 circumcised to eat the passover, except such 
 as were legally unclean, or were in a jour- 
 ney, that I am resolved, once for all, to de- 
 monstrate against them, that men were ex- 
 cluded from the passover for scandalous and 
 enormous trespasses against the moral law 
 as well as for legal uncleanness. Peradven- 
 ture it will seem to some that I undertake 
 to prove a paradox, and to walk in an un- 
 trodden or obscure path ; yet my argu- 
 ments are such as, I trust, shall weigh much 
 with intelligent men. 
 
 The first ai'gument shall be this (which is 
 hinted by Ursinus and Parous, Explic. Ca- 
 techit., quest. 85, art. 2) : Whosoever, by 
 God's appointment, were excluded from the 
 privileges of church members, and not to be 
 reckoned amonor the cono-resation of Israel, 
 those were, by God's appointment, excluded 
 from the passover. But whoeoever com- 
 mitted any scandalous sin presumptuously, 
 or with an high hand, were, by God's ap- 
 pointment, excluded fi'om the privileges of 
 church members, and not to be reckoned 
 among the congregation of Israel ; therefore 
 the proposition hath this manifest reason for 
 it : Those all who were commanded to eat 
 the passover cannot be understood to be of 
 a larger extent than the church of Israel ; 
 those therefore who were not to be acknow- 
 ledged or used as church members, were, by 
 God's appointment, excluded from the pass- 
 over. The assuuiption is proved fi-om Num. 
 XV. 30, 31, " But the soul that doetli ought 
 presumptuously (whether he be born in the 
 land or a stranger), the same reproacheth 
 the Lord ; and that soul shall be cut off 
 from among his people. Because he hath de- 
 spised the word of the Lord, and hath broken 
 his commandment, that soul shall utterly be 
 cut off : his iniquity shall be upon him." 
 
 The presumption here spokeii of is not 
 only the presumption of heart (saith Caje- 
 tan), of which God only is judge, but a 
 presumption manifested in word or work, 
 which he conceives to be intimated by the 
 Hebrew phrase, with an high hand. Gro- 
 tius understands, one that either denies that 
 there is a God, or that the law was given by 
 God, or, after admonition, goeth on in his 
 trespass. But sure he mistakes the punish- 
 ment, which he understands to be extra- 
 judicial, and that he who finds one thus 
 sinning presumptuously, may kill him ex 
 jure zelotarum, as Phinehas did kill Ziinri 
 and Cozbi. 
 
 I have spoken before of the cutting off, 
 which I will not here resume. Only this : 
 such presumptuous and contumacious sinners 
 were not to be reckoned among the people 
 of God, nor to enjoy the privilege of church 
 members, therefore not admitted to the pass- 
 over. 
 
 Secondly, Josephus, de Bello Jud., lib. 
 7, cap. 17, speaking of such as were permit- 
 ted to eat the passover in the time of Ces- 
 tius, doth thus design them, KaQapwv unav- 
 T(i)v Koi ayiwi', being all of them pure and 
 holy, — not only pure from legal uncleanness, 
 but such as were also esteemed holy. But, 
 moreover, it is clear from John xviii. 28, 
 " They themselves (the Jews) went not into 
 the judgment-hall, lest they should be de- 
 filed, but that they might eat the passover," 
 that the Jews did so understand the law, — 
 that moral as well as ceremonial unclean- 
 ness did render them incapable of the pass- 
 over ; for they had no such ceremonial law, 
 that they who came into the judgment- 
 hall, should be legally or ceremonially un- 
 clean^ yet this had disabled them from eat- 
 ing the passover ; for they held litigious or 
 fbrensical actions unlawful upon a holy day, 
 as Capellus and Casaubon (above cited) do 
 prove. Such a sinful and scandalous act had 
 kept tliem back from the passover. 
 
 Thirdly, If we consult the Chaldee Para- 
 phrase upon Exod. xii. 43, it saith thus, 
 " Every son of Israel, who is an apostate, 
 shall not eat of it ;" and upon the same 
 place Mr Ainsworth proves out of Maimo- 
 nides, that no apostate nor idolater was per- 
 mitted to eat of the passover. Yea, some 
 Israelites who were not apostates nor idola- 
 ters, were for a scandalous action excluded 
 from civil, how much more from ecclesiasti- 
 cal fellowship. See Maimonides, Of Ido- 
 latry, cap. 9, sect. 15, " With an Israelite, 
 who hath made defection to the worship of 
 idols, it is forbidden to have traffic or com- 
 merce, either in his going or returning ; 
 with another Israelite going to the markets 
 and fairs of heathens, we are only forbidden 
 to have commerce in his returning." If it 
 was unlawful to them so much as to have 
 civil commerce with an Israelite coming 
 from the markets of heathens (fearing lest 
 he had sold somewhat which was dedicate to 
 idolatry, as the reason is there given), al- 
 though he was no apostate nor idolater, it 
 is not easily imaginable that such a one was 
 freely admitted to the passover. 
 
 Eourthly, An Israelite, thoun-h circum- 
 
58 
 
 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 cised, and not legally unclean, yet, if he 
 either turned idolater, or an heretic, or an 
 Epicurean, was no longer acknowledged to be 
 in church-fellowship or communion, there- 
 fore rendered incapable of the passover. Is. 
 Abral>anel, in his book, de Capite Fidei, as 
 he slioweth whom they esteemed apostates 
 or heretics, cap. 12, so he also intimateth 
 that such were excluded from the commun- 
 ion of their law, cap. 3, dub. 5, none being 
 acknowledged to be in the communion of 
 Israel, who did not believe the articles of 
 faith professed in the Jewish church, cap. 6 ; 
 yea, he tells us, cap. 24 (which the Tahnud 
 itself saith, Tit. Sanhedrim, cap 11, sect. 1), 
 that heretical or Epicurean Israelites were 
 looked upon as excluded from having por- 
 tion in the world to come. And as Dr 
 Buxtorff showeth out of their own writers, 
 they esteemed an heretical Israelite to be 
 so abominable, that they did straight, and 
 without delay, excommunicate him, Lexic. 
 Chald. Talm. et Rahhin., p. 195. How is 
 it then imaginable that they admitted such 
 a one to eat the passover ? Let us hear R. 
 Moses Maimonides himself, de Idololatria, 
 cap. 2, sect. 8, " An idolatrous Israelite is 
 as an heathen in all things which he doth, 
 &c. ; so also Israelites who are Epicures are 
 not esteemed to be Israelites in any action 
 of theirs, &:c. Now, they are Epicures who 
 ask counsel from the thoughts ot their owa 
 mind, being ignorant of those things we have 
 spoken of, until having transgi'essed the chief 
 heads of the law, they offend by contumacy 
 and presmnption, and say there is no sin 
 in this thing. But it is forbidden to speak 
 with them, or to answer them; for it is said, 
 ' Come not near the door of her house,'" 
 Prov. V. 8. Therefore the whorish woman 
 that Solomon speaks of was (in the opinion 
 of Maimonides) such a one as was not to be 
 esteemed as an Israelite, nay, nor such as 
 was to be spoken with, much less to be ad- 
 mitted to the passover ; yea, Maimonides, 
 de Idol., cap. 10, sect. 2, saith yet more, 
 " But those Israelites which forsake their 
 religion, or become Epicures, we are bidden 
 kill them, and persecute them even unto 
 hell." How could they then admit to the 
 passover those whom they thought them- 
 selves obliged to persecute even unto hell ? 
 
 Fiftlily, Those arguments which prove an 
 exclusion of known profane persons from the 
 temple, will also prove an exclusion of known 
 profane persons from the passover, for none 
 might eat of the passover who might not 
 
 also come into the temple. That scandalous 
 profane pei'sons might not come into the 
 temple hath been proved already. 
 
 Sixthly, I argue from the lesser to the 
 greater. If men were to be kept back for 
 legal uncleanness, much more for moral un- 
 cleanness, this being more hateful to God 
 and more hurtful to men than the other. 
 This just consequence Grotius, Annot. in 
 Luke vi. 22, doth admit. If by the law, 
 saith he, one that was leprous or had a filthy 
 scab was separated from men's company lest 
 he should infect others, it was no ill conse- 
 quence, that (if no heavier thing) this at 
 least should be imposed on flagitious and 
 wicked persons, who did by the contagion of 
 their sinful example hurt others, and bring 
 a reproach upon the whole congTegation, 
 from which the congregation could not be 
 free but by some public detestation of that 
 wickedness. Thus Grotius. 
 
 Seventhly, The purging out of leaven from 
 the congi-egation of Israel was a sio-nificant 
 teaching ceremony, holding forth t&s duty, 
 that the church ought to put away wicked 
 persons from among them ; for so doth the 
 Apostle expound it, 1 Cor. v. 6, 7, " Know 
 ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the 
 whole lump ; purge out therefore the old 
 leaven." Which relateth not only to the 
 purging of their own hearts, but to the 
 purging of the church, and the putting away 
 of that wicked person, this bemg the scope 
 of the whole chapter. Now the moral sig- 
 nification of that ceremony of purging out 
 the leaven did concern the church of Israel 
 as well as the Christian church ; even as the 
 divers washings under the law did teach and 
 hold forth the duty of sanctification and 
 purity to the people of God at that time, as 
 well as typify the sanctification of the Chris- 
 tian church. 
 
 Eighthly, Though the hallowed bread 
 might in case of necessity be lawfully given 
 to David and his men (the ceremonials of 
 the first table yielding to the suhstantials 
 of the second), yet Abimelech the priest 
 would not adventure to give it till he un- 
 derstood that the young men had then kept 
 themselves at least from women, 1 Sam. 
 xxi. 4 — 6, this being a part of that sancti- 
 fication which was required in those who did 
 partake of holy things, not only among the 
 Hebrews but among other nations, as Hugo 
 Grotius noteth upon the place, and upon 
 Exod. xix. 15. Now the shew-bread, or 
 the twelve loaves which did show or present 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 59 
 
 the people to God, cannot be supposed to be 
 holier than the paschal lamb, wliich did 
 show or present Christ to tlie people, and 
 was a sacrament or seal of the covenant of 
 grace. David also, and his men, in that 
 danger of their lives, had as good right to 
 eat the shew-bread as any Israelite could 
 pretend to for his eating the passover ; yea, 
 that was a substantial duty of the second 
 table, which Christ himself justifieth ; tliis 
 was a ceremonial duty of the first table, and 
 grounded on a positive law. This therefore 
 doth afford me an argument with manifold 
 advantages ; lor if the shew-bread might 
 not be given to David and his men in their 
 extreme necessity, unless they had for a 
 certain space before abstained from the use 
 of their wives, otherwise lawful, how much 
 less might the passover be given as an holy 
 ordinance (which did not concern the sav- 
 ing of men's lives in extreme necessity) to 
 scandalous persons, living in known whore- 
 dom and adultery. 
 
 Ninthly, I argue from that place, Ezek. 
 xxii. 26, " Her priests have violated my law, 
 and have profimed mine holy things ; they 
 have put no difference between the holy and 
 profane." Will any man say that they were 
 to put a difference between the holy and 
 profane in other ordinances, and not in the 
 passover? And why not in the passover 
 as well as in other ordinances ? If such dif- 
 ference was to be put in the passover, then 
 how shall one imagine that no man was 
 kept back from the passover because of 
 known profaneness or moral uncleanness. For 
 what difference was put between the holy 
 and profane, when the profane were received 
 as well as the holy ? Mr Coleman held that 
 this text reacheth not to the keeping pure 
 of the ordinances by any act of government, 
 but only that the priests did profane the 
 holy things in their OAvn practice by eating 
 in their uncleanness, and also in their min- 
 istry, because they taught not the children 
 of Israel to put a difference between the 
 clean and the unclean, Maledicis, p. 11. 
 But the text gives not the least ground to 
 restrain this fault of the priests, here re- 
 proved, either to their personal actions, or 
 to their doctrinal ministry. Nay, the text 
 will reach to an act of government neglected, 
 for the word here used to express tlie dis- 
 tinguishing or putting of a difference be- 
 tween the holy and profane is ^"T^, which is 
 often used in Scripture to express an act of 
 government or authority whereby one per- 
 
 son is separated or distinguished from an- 
 other person, or one thing from another 
 thing, as Ezra viii. 24, " Then I separated 
 twelve of the chief of the priests," &c. ; Ezra 
 X. 8, " All his substance should be forfeited, 
 andhimself separatedfrom thecongregation." 
 Here it signifieth such a separation as was 
 a public censure. Wliy not also Ezek. xxii. 
 56 ? The same woi'd is used in the story of 
 the division of the land by Joshua ; Josh, 
 xvi. 9, " And tlie separate cities for the 
 children of Ephraim." It is used also to ex- 
 press God's dividing of light from darkness, 
 Gen. i. 4 ; also his separating of Israel from 
 all other nations. Lev. xx. 24. And whereas 
 Mr Coleman did take hold of the following 
 words in that place of Ezekiel, " Neither 
 have they showed difference between the 
 unclean and the clean," as being merely doc- 
 trinal, — First (if it were so), how will it ap- 
 pear that these words are exegetical to the 
 former, and that the putting of difference | 
 between the holy and profane, mentioned in ! 
 the former words, was only meant of show- 
 ing the difference doctrinally ; or why may 
 we not rather understand that the priests 
 are charged with neglect of duty both in 
 doctrine and government. Secondly, even 
 that latter word mn feccrunt scire, the 
 Septuagints render bieareWuv ; and they 
 use hiaoTtWio as synonymous with X'''P'^"'> 
 (lipopi'^tii, bwpl^d), biatpiofiat, djro)^(^(<j : by 
 all these (signifying to separate or to divide) 
 they render ^^l^ ; yea, the Septuagints ex- 
 press a forensical censure or judicial separa- 
 tion by hiaariWu) ; as Ezra x. 8, koi uuros 
 StaaraXi'/uercK ; SO that when they retain 
 the same word in rendering J/"]' in this 
 text of Ezekiel, they do thereby intimate 
 that the latter word will reach a power 
 which was more than doctrinal, as well as 
 the former, which I do the rather assert, 
 because J/"]* is taken by the Septuagints 
 (not seldom) as agreeing in signification 
 with de voluntate suo certiorem red- 
 didit, constituit, decrevit ; so that it will 
 reach the making of others to know a thing, 
 not only doctrinally, but by rules, canons, 
 statutes, and government. Yea, yT» will 
 reach the teachino- or makino- men to know 
 by censures or punishments inflicted; as 
 Judges viii. 16, Gideon took briers and 
 thorns (y~|'T, Pagnin, et confregit.), and he 
 brake with tliese the men of Succoth. Je- 
 rome, et contrivit. The Septuagints, ica- 
 Telavev, commlnuit. The English transla- 
 tion, " and with these he taught (in the 
 
60 
 
 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 margin, made to knoiv) the men of Suc- 
 coth." For this signification of the word, 
 namely, conterere, Arias Montanus, in his 
 Hebrew Lexicon, citeth Isa. liii. 3 ; Ezek. 
 xix, 7. So contcri, Psal. Ixxiv. 5 ; Prov. x. 
 9. Upon this last place Mercei-us tells us 
 that the Hebrews do not only admit this 
 sense of that text, but in other places also 
 take the same word pro confringi. So that 
 without the least violence to the text in 
 Ezekiel it may be thus read, " They have 
 not separated (or put difference) between 
 the holy and profane, neither have they 
 broken or (divided) between the unclean 
 and the clean." The latter part seemeth to 
 charge the priests with the admission of 
 such as were legally unclean, the fonner 
 pait with the admission of such as were 
 morally unclean, or profane, to such ordi- 
 nances as were appointed only for the holy 
 and clean. 
 
 Tenthly, Heathens or strangers, who were 
 not proselytes of the covenant of righteous- 
 ness, were not pennitted to eat of the pass- 
 over. Now one that is by profession a 
 church member, but living in profaneness 
 and scandalous wickedness, ought to be es- 
 teemed as an heathen, ilatt. xviii. 17, yea, 
 as worse than an infidel, 1 Tim. v. 8. 
 Hence was it that the word heathen was 
 used for an irreligious or wicked man, as is 
 observed byMathias Martinius m Lex. Phil. 
 p. 717, 718, and as a discriminating name 
 from believers; so Zonai'as in Cone. Carthag. 
 can. 24. When David speaks of his per- 
 secuting wicked enemies, though Israelites, 
 he calls them strangers and heathens, Psal. 
 liv. 3 ; lix. 5. How then can it be sup- 
 posed that those who were esteemed as 
 heathens were admitted to all church privi- 
 leges as well as the best Israelites? 
 
 Eleventhly, That which was among the 
 Jews a sufficient cause to deny circumcision 
 to him who desired to be admitted and re- 
 ceived into the Jewish church as iTHIl" 
 IJl Grer ben berith, a proselyte, son of the 
 covenant, or p"15f li Ger tsedeck, a pro- 
 selyte of righteousness, was also a suffi- 
 cient cause to deny the passover to a pro- 
 selyte who desired to eat it. Even as now 
 that for which we may and ought to refuse 
 baptism to one that desireth it, must needs 
 be also a cause and reason to refuse the 
 Lord's supper to him that desireth to re- 
 ceive it ; for he that is not fit to be baptized 
 is much less fit to receive the Lord's supper. 
 But profaneness, or a scandalous conversa- 
 
 tion, was among the Jews a sufficient cause 
 and reason to refuse circumcision. Yea, as 
 Dr Buxtoi-ff tells us in Lexic. Chald. 
 Tahn. et Rahhin. p. 408, before the Jews 
 would circumcise or baptize a proselyte (for 
 after circumcision they did baptize him), 
 they did first examine him exactly, and 
 prove him narrowly, whether he desired to 
 be a proselyte, from covetousness, ambition, 
 fear, the love of an Israelitish virgin, or the 
 like sinister end. If upon examination it 
 did appear that he was not moved by any 
 worldly consideration, but by affection to 
 religion and the glory of God, then they 
 proceeded to set before his eyes the strict- 
 ness of the law, and how strait and narrow 
 a path he must walk in, telhng him also of 
 the persecutions and tribulations of Israel. 
 If after all this trial they found him sted- 
 fast in his desires and resolutions, then they 
 received him, he being first instinicted in 
 the articles of their faith, and in the com- 
 mandments of the law. How much less 
 would they have circumcised a scandalous 
 person, being so far from any hopeful signs 
 of sincerity that he had the black marks of 
 a worker of iniquity. And if they would 
 not receive such a scandalous flagitious per- 
 son to circumcision, how could thev receive 
 such a one (being ciixumcised) to the pass- 
 over ? 
 
 Twelfthly, Compare Ezra vi. 21, with 
 Ezra X. 16, 17. First, it is marked Ezra 
 vi. 21, that such proselytes did eat the pass- 
 over with the children of Israel, " as had 
 separated themselves unto them from the 
 filthiness of the heathen of the land, to seek 
 the Lord God of Israel." If those who did 
 eat were thus qualified, it is not obscurely 
 intimated that those who were not thus qua- 
 lified did not eat. And if no proselyte who 
 did not separate himself from the filthiness 
 of the heathen was allowed to eat the pass- 
 over, then much less was an Israehte who 
 did not separate hinself from the filthiness 
 of the heathen allowed to eat it. I like ' 
 well Beda's observation upon Ezra x. 
 16, 17. Israel was purged fi-om imlawful 
 marriages, and the strange wives put away, 
 and this work was ended against the begin- 
 ning of the first month, to the intent that 
 none defiled with unlawful marriages might 
 eat the passover, Ut ante initium mensis 
 primi consummarentur omnes qui pro- 
 phano erant connubio macidati, id est a 
 tali scelere purgarentur, quatenus ipsum 
 mensem primum in quo erat pascha fad- 
 
DIVIXE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNiMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 61 
 
 endicm, mundi intrarcnt, mundi paschalia 
 festa peragerent, ^c. 
 
 Thirteenthly, I argue from the significa- 
 tion of the legal or ceremonial uncleaniiess, 
 and from that which was signified by the ex- 
 clusion of those that were legally unclean. 
 Without all controversy the keeping back of 
 such was a significant cei'emony ; for all 
 the legal ceremonies concerning cleanness 
 or uncleanness were teaching ceremonies, 
 and are therefore called doctrines, INIatt. 
 XV. 9 ; Col. xxii. 2. What was taught and 
 signified thereby I have before showed, 
 namely, that profane ones be not admitted 
 to fellowship with God's people in their holy 
 things. Yea, was not profaneness and open 
 wickedness more hateful to God than legal 
 uncleanness ? Yes, saith Erastus, p. 144, be- 
 cause God appointed greater punishments 
 for the former than tor the latter ; the 
 greater crimes were punished by fire and 
 sword, stoning, hanging ; the smaller by 
 mulcts and stripes. But yet (say I) by his 
 grounds the legal uncleanness was more 
 hateful to God than profaneness and wicked- 
 ness in rei'erence to fellowship in the holy 
 things (for that is the point) ; he holds that 
 the most flagitious and profane were com- 
 manded of God to eat the passover, and yet 
 those that were only legally unclean were 
 forbidden, though the Scripture say, Prov. 
 XV. 8 ; xxi. 27, that the sacrifice of the 
 wicked is abomination to the Lord, and 
 the oblations of those whose hands were flill 
 of blood, his soul hated, and he could not 
 away with them, Isa. i. 11 — 14, and when 
 they came to his house, he told them, 
 " \\lien ye come to appear before me, who 
 hath required this at your hands, to tread 
 my courts ?" 
 
 I shall not need to insist here upon the 
 excluding of bond-servants, and those that 
 were bought with money, from the pass- 
 over, and the admitting only of those that 
 were free, which some of the Zurich divines^ 
 themselves have interpreted to signify the 
 exclusion of those who are servants of sin, 
 and as those who seek only the things of the 
 earth. But there is one argument more (it 
 shall be the last) which doth convince me 
 that others besides the uncircumcised, and 
 they that were legally unclean, even those 
 that had scandalously transgressed the moi'al 
 law, were excluded from the passover. The 
 ground of my argument is that whereof I 
 
 1 Lavater, hom. 23 in Ezram. 
 
 have spoken before, the law for confession of 
 sin and declaration of repentance, without 
 wdiich the trespass-offering was not accepted, 
 Lev. V. 5, 6, which law is extended to every 
 known sin that was to be expiated by sacri- 
 fice. Num. V. 6, 7, " \Mien a man or woman 
 shall commit any sin that men commit, to 
 go a trespassing against the Lord (the Se- 
 venty read, and despising he despise, to 
 note rebellion or contumacy), and that per- 
 son be guilty (that is, be found guilty, or 
 when the sin shall be known, so the phrase 
 of being guilty is explained, Lev. iv. 13, 14), 
 then they shall confess their sin which they 
 have done ;" after which follows restitution 
 to the party wronged, and atonement made 
 by the priest. Whence I argue thus : If the 
 scandalous persons were not admited to the 
 trespass-offering (which was a reconciling 
 ordinance) without confession of their sin, 
 which was known to have been committed by 
 them, much less were they admitted to the 
 passover (which w'as a sealing ordinance) with- 
 out such confession of their sin. But scanda- 
 lous persons were not admitted to the tres- 
 pass-off'ering (which was a reconciling ordi- 
 nance), without confession of their sin, which 
 was known to have been committed by them ; 
 therefore much less were they admitted to 
 the passover (which was a sealing ordinance) 
 without such confession. This argument I 
 did before, chap, x., vindicate from Mr 
 Prynne. I will here farther strengthen it, 
 and vindicate it from another exception, 
 which, peradventure, will be made against 
 it. The proposition is certain ; for some 
 are caUed to make their peace with God 
 who cannot have any assurance sealed unto 
 them that their peace is made with God. 
 But if God will not be reconciled, he will 
 fir less seal reconciliation. " There is no 
 peace to the wicked," saith God, how much 
 less can their peace be sealed to them. 
 The assumption is manifest from the scrip- 
 tures last cited ; and if any shall say that 
 the law. Lev. v., is meant only of private 
 sins and those of ignorance, which, so soon 
 as they come to kiiowledge, are to be con- 
 fessed, I answer, 1. It is more than can 
 be proved, that only private sins and those 
 of ignorance are there meant of. Of this 
 I have spoken elsewhere. But be it so. If 
 some private sins, yea, sins of ignorance, 
 were to be publicly confessed when they 
 were known, how much more were public 
 and scandalous sins to be pubhcly confessed ? 
 2. The Hebrews understand the law of con- 
 
62 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 fession to be extended to all sins whatsoever 
 that were expiated by saci-ifice ; and that 
 before atonement could be made, the sinner 
 must make confession and say, " 0 God, I 
 have sinned and done perversely, I have 
 trespassed before thee, and have done thus 
 and thus; and, lo ! I repent and am asham- 
 ed of my doings, and I will never do this 
 thing again." 3. In all sacrifices for atone- 
 ment or expiation, a man laid his hand upon 
 the head of his offering, Lev. i. 4 ; Exod. 
 xxix. 10, 15, 19. This laying on of hands 
 was the rite used in confession of sin, where- 
 by a man did profess that he was worthy to 
 be destroyed for his sin ; and that he laid 
 his sin upon the beast which was killed in 
 his stead, thereby figuring that upon Christ 
 are laid the iniquities of us all. And with 
 the laying on of hands upon the sacrifice, 
 confession of sin was made by word of mouth, 
 which, as it is the judgment of interpreters,^ 
 so it is easily proved fi'om Lev. xvi. 21, 
 " And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon 
 the head of the live goat, and confess over 
 him all the iniquities of the children of Is- 
 rael, and all their transgressions in all their 
 sins, putting them upon the head of the 
 goat." Whereupon I conclude, that any 
 sin which was expiated by sacrifice, whether 
 a public or secret offence, was confessed be- 
 fore it was expiated. 4. The law. Num. 
 V. 6, extends confession to any sin that men 
 commit, as hath been before observed. 5. 
 Philippus Gamachseus, a learned doctor of 
 Sorbon, Comment, in Tertiam partem 
 ThomcB, de PoenitenticB Sacramento, cap. 
 13, doth ingenuously acknowledge, that the 
 foresaid law of Moses, concerning confession 
 of sin, is no warrant for their private auri- 
 cular and sacramental confession, because 
 the Jews were not, by that law, bound to 
 confess any other sins^ but sinful actions or 
 external transgressions, nor all such, but 
 chiefly the notorious and scandalous sins. 
 If he had perceived the least colour of an 
 argument from that Mosaical law, for the 
 necessity of confessing private sins to the 
 priest, surely he had taken hold of it, and 
 had not quit it. 
 
 1 Tostatus in Lev. i. quaest. 15 ; Ainsworth on 
 Lev. i. 4. 
 
 2 Deinde nec Judaei confitcbantur peccata omnia ex- 
 acte, accurate, sicut nos ; non enim peccata interna 
 et mentalia, sed solum externa, quae opere ipso con- 
 summat essent, et in exteriorem actum transiissent, 
 etc. Tertio, nec Jud»i omnia externa peccata in 
 confessione declarabant, sed prajsertim notoria et 
 publica, ut fert opinio probabilior. 
 
 CHAPTER XIIL 
 
 MR PRYNXE's argument FROM I COR. X. 
 
 (which he takes to be unanswerable) 
 discussed and contuted. 
 
 Mr Prynne, in the 15th page of his Vin- 
 dication, endeavoureth to prove that spiri- 
 tual pollution, by reason of gross and scan- 
 dalous sins, did not debar them that were 
 circumcised from the passover, "as (saith he) 
 Paul expressly determines, 1 Cor. x. 1 — 10 
 (an unanswerable text to this purpose), 
 ' Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye 
 should be ignorant that (the text saith how 
 that) all our fathers were under the cloud, 
 and all passed through the sea, and were aU 
 baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the 
 sea ; and did all eat the same spiritual meat 
 (to wit the passover and manna), and did all 
 drink of the same spiritual drink ; for they 
 drank of the rock that followed them, and 
 that rock was Christ.' But perhaps all 
 these communicants were visible saints, free 
 from any legal pollution, at least not tainted 
 with any scandalous sin. The Apostle, to 
 take oft" this evasion, subjoins in the veiy 
 next words, ' But with many of them, God 
 was not well pleased,' &c. So that the Is- 
 raelites, being once circumcised, were all 
 admitted to eat the passover, though some 
 of them were idolaters ; others lusters after 
 evil things ; others fornicators ; others temp- 
 ters of Christ; others nmrmurers against 
 God and Moses." The same argument he 
 hinteth, p. 9, to piwe the Hke under the 
 gospel. It is one of Erastus's arguments. 
 Confirm. Thes., p. 118, 119, and as colour- 
 able as any other, yet not unanswerable as 
 JSIr Prynne holds. 
 
 For, 1. Though he saith the Apostle clear- 
 ly determines that those who were tainted 
 with gross and scandalous sins were admit- 
 ted to the passover, yet I find nothing of 
 tlie passover, either in the text or in the 
 sense of any interpreter which I have looked 
 upon ; nay, it did not so much as fall in the 
 thoughts of Erastus himself; for Beza hav- 
 ing objected to him, that he ought to have 
 compared our sacraments with the purely 
 sacred feasts in the Old Testament rather 
 than with the manna, and with the water of 
 the rock, which were for corporal nourish- 
 ment, Ei^astus repHeth nothing concerning 
 the passover (which had been his best an- 
 
I 
 
 DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 63 
 
 swer if lie had seen any probability for it), 
 only he saith, that he compareth our sacra- 
 ments with the manna and the water of the 
 rock, as the Apostle doth before him. 
 
 2. The text itself seemeth rather to de- 
 termine clearly that the passover is not 
 there intended; for all the other particulars 
 there mentioned did agree to all the Is- 
 raelites, men, women, and children : all 
 these were under the cloud, and all these 
 passed through the sea, and all these drank 
 of the water of the rock ; and why shall we 
 not understand that all these did also eat of 
 the same spiritual meat, that is, of the man- 
 na, not of the passover, of which women 
 and children under thirteen years of age 
 did not eat ? Neither did all the males 
 above thirteen years eat of it ; for the un- 
 clean were excluded by the law : those that 
 were in a journey did not eat of it, nor the 
 hired servant. The sick, saith Erastus, did 
 not eat of it : the Jews exclude also the 
 dumb and the deaf. If it be said that ver. 
 1 speaketh only of the fathers, and that 
 therefore the text is not to be understood of 
 women and children also, I answer, This is 
 as inconsequent as if one would argue, Paul 
 saith, "Men, brethren, and fathers," there- 
 fore no women were among that multitude 
 of the people. Acts xxi. 35, 36, 39, 40 ; or 
 thus the Apostle saith, " Brethren, pray for 
 us," therefore he desires not believing sisters 
 to pray for him. In this same text in hand 
 the Apostle speaks to the whole church of 
 Corinth, to make them afraid of God's judg- 
 ments if they sin as the Israelites did. If 
 he had argued only from the sin and judg- 
 ment of the men, and not also of the women 
 in the wilderness, the women in Corinth had 
 so much the less applied it to themselves. 
 But if I should grant (which will never be 
 proved), that by the fathers are understood 
 the men only, yet it cannot be said, that as 
 all the men of Israel were baptized in the 
 cloud and sea, and all of them drank of the 
 same spiritual drink which came out of the 
 rock, so all of them did eat the passover; 
 for even of the males divers were excluded 
 from the passover, as the unclean, the hired 
 servant, the child, the sick, &c., so that this 
 would make the Apostle's argumentation, 
 running upon a five-fold all, to hang ill to- 
 gether. I had not insisted at all upon this, 
 but to show the weak grounds of Mr Prynne's 
 strong confidence. 
 
 3. If this argument of his hold good, he 
 must grant, by analogy, that all baptized 
 
 persons must be admitted to the Lord's ta- 
 ble, though they be idolaters, fornicators, 
 &c., which, as it is contrary to the ordinance 
 of parliament, so to his own professed tenets ; 
 for he professeth otherwhere, he is not for 
 the admission of scandalous persons to the 
 sacrament, and that he would have them, in 
 case of obstinacy, not only suspended from 
 the sacrament, but excommunicated from all 
 other ordinances, till public satisfaction given 
 for the scandal, and till external symptoms 
 of repentance appear. So The Antidote ani- 
 madverted tells us, and his own Vindica- 
 tion, p. 50. If this be his mind, then it is 
 incumbent to him to loose his own knot — 
 all circumcised persons, though tainted with 
 gross seandalous sins, as idolatry and forni- 
 cation, were admitted to the passover, and so 
 it ought to be under the gospel. If he say 
 that those scandalous sinners in the wilder- 
 ness had not been admonished, were not 
 obstinate, or that they professed repentance 
 and promised amendment, and did not, in 
 the meanwhile, persevere in their wicked- 
 ness, but satisfied for the scandal : First, 
 How proves he that ? Next, In so saying 
 he will answer for us as well as for himself; 
 and his argument (if all granted) cannot 
 prove that such scandalous sinners as have 
 manifest symptoms of impenitency, or do 
 not confess and forsake their sin, may be 
 admitted to the Lord's table. 
 
 4. The manna, and the water out of the 
 rock, though they had a spiritual and evan- 
 gelical signification, and did typify Jesus 
 Christ, yet they were also the ordinary food 
 and drink of the people in the wilderness ; 
 so that if scandalous sinners had been ex- 
 cluded I'rom partaking of these, they had 
 been deprived of their ordinary daily corpo- 
 ral nourishment, which makes a vast difll^'er- 
 ence between their case in the wilderness, 
 and ours at the Lord's table. 
 
 5. The Apostle speaks of those scandalous 
 sins as committed not before, but after the 
 eating of that spiritual meat, and drinking 
 of that spiritual drink. First, This is clear 
 of their baptism in the cloud and in the 
 sea, Exod. xiv., before any of the gross and 
 scandalous sins there mentioned were com- 
 mitted ; and therefore was not pertinent to 
 be objected. Immediately thereafter they 
 did eat of the spiritual meat, that is, of the 
 manna, Exod. xvi., and drank of the spiri- 
 tual drink, that is, of the water out of the 
 I'ock which followed them, Exod. xvii., " to 
 give drink to my people, my chosen, saith 
 
64 
 
 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 the Lord," Isa. xliii. 20. Now, after those 
 men had eaten of the spiritual meat, and 
 drank of the spiritual drink, they did fall 
 into idolatry, fornication, &c., and this is all 
 which the Apostle saith, thereby warning 
 the Corinthians not to presume upon their 
 partaking in the ordinances, nor to think 
 all well with themselves because they were 
 baptized, and had eaten and drank at the 
 Lord's table ; for after all this they had 
 need to take heed, lest they fall in foul sins, 
 and lust after evil things, and so draw upon 
 themselves the heavier judgments. That 
 which Mr Prynne takes lor granted (upon a 
 marvellous mistake of the Apostle's words) 
 he hath yet to prove, that is, that after some 
 of them had fallen into idolatry, others into 
 fornication, others into murmuring against 
 God, those who were known to have com- 
 mitted those gross and scandalous sins were 
 allowed and admitted, as before, to eat of 
 the spiritual meat, and drink of the spiritual 
 drink. I mean not only the passover (which 
 is not at all meant in this text), but even 
 from the manna and the water of the rock 
 those scandalous sinners were cut off by 
 death, except such of them as did repent 
 and turn, for whom atonement was made to 
 God. As soon as Moses came into the 
 camp, he gave a charge to slay every man 
 his brother, and every man his companion, 
 which had committed the sin of idolati'y ; 
 and for the rest who survived Moses made 
 atonement, and got an answer of peace from 
 God concerning them, Exod. xxxii. and 
 xxxiii. We read also that the Lord plagued 
 the people because of their idolatry, Exod. 
 xxxii. 35 ; and the people did mourn and 
 humble themselves, and cast off their orna- 
 ments, Exod. xxxiii. 4 ; so that (lam sm-e) 
 the first case mentioned by the Apostle 
 maketh much against our opposites. The 
 second example is the matter of Peor, where 
 they did fall both into idolatry and fornica- 
 tion together. But what came of it ? Moses 
 gave a charge to the judges of Israel to slay 
 every one his men that were joined to Baal- 
 Peor, Num. xxv. 7 ; and there died also of 
 the plague 24,000, ver. 9. But what was 
 the people's part in repenting ? Verse 6 
 tells us, that " all the congregation of the 
 children of Israel were weeping before the 
 door of the tabernacle of the congregation;" 
 and for those that remained alive, Phinehas 
 made atonement, and the Lord smelled a 
 savour of rest, ver. 11, 13. As for the 
 third case instanced by the Apostle, which 
 
 is the tempting of Christ, much people of 
 Israel died for it, and the remnant did re- 
 pent and confess that particular sm, that 
 they had " spoken against the Lord and 
 against Moses," and therefore did desire 
 Moses to pray unto the Lord for them. Num. 
 xxi. 6, 7. Lastly, for that of murmuring, 
 those that had the chief hand in it died of 
 the plague, Num. xiv. 37 ; and " the people 
 mourned greatly," and confessed, " we have 
 sinned," ver. 39, 40 ; and thus, by searclring 
 for an answer to our opposites' argument, we 
 have found this argimient against them : — 
 
 If God himself did execute such discipline 
 upon those who were tainted with the gross 
 and scandalous sins of idolatrj', fornication, 
 &c., that he would not permit thenr to en- 
 joy their former liberty of eating of the 
 manna, and drinking of the water of the 
 rock (being spiritual meat and spiritual 
 drink, as typifying Christ, though appointed 
 of God also for ordinary daily food and 
 drhik to his people) until they mourned, 
 repented, confessed, and atonement was 
 made for them, it is much less the will of 
 God that such scandalous sinners as are 
 manifestly impenitent, and manifestly not 
 reconciled to God, should be admitted and 
 received to the Lord's supper, which is an 
 ordinance purely spiritual. But the former 
 part is true ; therefore so is the latter. 
 
 6. Another answer I shall add (though I 
 need add no more) : Those sins mentioned 
 by the Apostle were not scandals given by a 
 few persons, nor yet by a few families, nor 
 by a tribe, but they were common national 
 sins, and so fall not within the verge of our 
 controversy, which is not concerning the 
 suspending of a scandalous nation from the 
 sacrament for some national sin, but con- 
 cerning the suspension of scandalous persons 
 for their personal public offences. If it be 
 objected unto me that the Apostle saith, 
 that some of them were idolaters, and some 
 of them did conmiit fornication, &c., I an- 
 swer. When he saith some, he saith so in 
 reference to the all which had gone before, 
 that is, all the Isi'aelites who did eat of the 
 manna and drink of the water of the rock 
 during the forty years in the wilderness suc- 
 cessively; so that he makes a distribution of 
 Israel in the wilderness, comparing one pas- 
 sage with another, not distributing those 
 that lived together at one and the same 
 time. And that it must needs be so mider- 
 stood I prove from Exod. xxxii., where we 
 find all the j^coplc falling into idolatry ; so 
 
DIVINE ORDIN.VNCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 65 
 
 Num. xiv. 2, " And all the children of Is- 
 rael murmured against Moses and against 
 Aaron." The other two are also called the 
 sins of the people and of Israel, and the 
 people were punished, and for one of them 
 all the heads of the people conmianded to 
 be hanged, Num. xxi. 5, 6 ; xxv. 3, 4. 
 Peradventure every one did not act in each 
 of these sins, but yet they were national (as 
 
 we call national) sins, the generality of the 
 children of Israel, either acting or partaking 
 therein. In such a case Augustine thought 
 fit to suspend the exercising of excommuni- 
 cation for the sin of drunkenness rather than 
 to excommunicate all Africa. 
 
 These are my six answers to Mr Prynne's 
 unanswerable argument. 
 
 AN APPENDIX TO THE FIRST BOOK, 
 
 CONTAINING AN ADDITIONAL DEBATE CONCERNING THE JEWISH CHURCH 
 GOVERNMENT AND CENSURES. 
 
 I have said enough (as I suppose) of a 
 church government and church censures 
 distinct from magistracy and civil justice 
 among the Jews, whereby the seeming Old 
 Testament strength of the Erastians is suf- 
 ficiently, yea, abundantly broken ; and now 
 it appeareth how ill-grounded that asser- 
 tion is, which did lately come abroad in the 
 discourse entitled, The Difference about 
 Churcli Government Ended, p. 8, " Mo- 
 ses was first the sole ruler, &c. Afterwai'ds, 
 when kings reigned in Israel, king Solomon 
 put Abiathar the high-priest from his office, 
 setting up Zadok ; and David distinguished 
 the courses of the priests ; and other godly 
 kings, from time to time, ruled in things 
 ecclesiastical, and priests never, till that 
 after their return from the Babylonish cap- 
 tivity," &c. And no better grounded are 
 the first five questions in Mr Prynne's Dio- 
 trephes Catechised, in which he doth inti- 
 mate that there was no distinct ecclesiastical 
 jurisdiction among the Jews; and that all 
 scandalous sins and offences now pretended to 
 be of ecclesiastical cognisance, were, by God's 
 own institution, throughout the Old Testa- 
 ment, inquirable, examinable, determinable, 
 and punishable, only by the temporal ma- 
 gistrates or civil powers, not by any ecclesi- 
 astical persons or officers. But when he 
 should prove that there was no ecclesiastical 
 jurisdiction distinct from the civil, he brings 
 many scriptures to prove that there was a 
 civil jurisdiction, and civil or temporal pun- 
 
 ishments in the Old Testament. How cold 
 
 the consequence from hence will be, against 
 church government, the intelligent reader 
 cannot but perceive. 
 
 The most of that strength which doth 
 militate against these Erastian principles 
 is presented and drawn up in this preced- 
 ing book. That which I now intend is only 
 an additional debate. 
 
 And first of all it is to be observed, that 
 the same point of controversy is debated with 
 the Anabaptists,^ they holding, as the Eras- 
 tians do, that in the Old Testament there 
 was but one kind of government, one kind 
 of jurisdiction, one kind of punishment, and 
 that it was civil or temporal ; but an eccle- 
 siastical judicature or censure in the Old 
 Testament they deny, wherein they are 
 contradicted by those that write against 
 them. 
 
 1 See Ampsingius Disp. Adv. Anabapt., p. 276, 
 Job. Cloppeuburg. in Gangraena Theol. Anabapt. 
 part. 3, Disp. 11, citeth tbese words out of a book 
 of the Anabaptists, de Censur. Eccles. : " Ante ad- 
 ventum Christi tempore veteris, Testaraenti, uni- 
 cum tantum institutum fuisse regimen, ac non nisi 
 unicam punitionem, Tidelicet a magistratu exercen- 
 dam secundum scriptam legem a Mose traditam : 
 qua luendum erat vel in bonis vel in corpore, ac 
 sustinenda aut Mors, aut career, aut mulcta pecu- 
 niaria : quae omnia poUtici erant, non ecclesiastici 
 judicii." In opposition hereunto he addeth. " In 
 ecclesiis roformatis creditur ex verbo Dei, fuisse a 
 Deo jam olim in U.T. institutum duplex regimen, 
 duplici officio gubernationis, qua politicse, qua ec- 
 clesiastieae, distinctnm." 
 
 I 
 
63 
 
 Aaron's rod blossomixg, or the 
 
 Secondly, We must distinguish with great 
 caution, and (as they say) cum grano sails, 
 between that which was oi-dinary, and that 
 which was extraordinary in the Jewish go- 
 vernment. We cannot, from extraordinary 
 cases, collect and conclude that which was 
 the fixed, settled, ordinary rule. The exam- 
 ples which have been alleged for the admin- 
 istration of church government, the pui-ging 
 away of scandals, the ordering of the minis- 
 try in the Old Testament by the temporal 
 magistrate or civil powers only, and ])y their 
 own immediate authority, how truly alleged, 
 or how rightly apprehended, shall appear 
 by and by : this I say for the present, di- 
 vers of them were extraordinary cases, and 
 are recorded as precedents for godly magis- 
 trates' duty and authority, not in a reformed 
 and constituted church, ^ but in a church 
 which is full of disorders and wholly out of 
 course, needing reformation. So that the 
 Erastian arguments drawn fi'om those exam- 
 ples, for investing the magistrate with the 
 whole and sole power of government and 
 jurisdiction in ecclesiastical affairs, are no 
 whit better than the popish and prelatical 
 argTiments for the lawfulness of the civil 
 power and places of clergymen (as they 
 called them), drawn from some extraordi- 
 naiy examples of Aaron's joining with Clo- 
 ses, and Eleazar with Joshua, in civil business 
 of greatest consequence ; of the administra- 
 tion and government of the commonwealth 
 by Eli the priest, and by Samuel the pro- 
 phet ; of the anointing of Jehu to be king 
 by Elisha ; of the killing of AthaUah, and 
 the making of Joash king, by the authority i 
 of Jehoiada the priest ; of the withstanding 
 and thrusting out of kincr Uzziah bv four- 
 score valiant men of the priests, and such 
 like cases. Mr Prynne himself, in his Dio- 
 trcph.es Catechised, p. 4, noteth that Ezra 
 the priest received a special commission from 
 Artaxerxes, to set magistrates and judges 
 which might judge all the people, Ezra vii. 
 11, 25, from aU which it appeareth, that as 
 priests did extraordinary some things which 
 ordinarily belonged to magistracy, so magis- 
 trates did extraordinarily that which ordi- 
 narily did not belong to their administra- 
 tion. I conclude this point with a passage 
 in the Second Book of the Discipline of the 
 
 1 Dr Parens in Deut. xvii. Judicia ecclcsiastica 
 ad ecclesiam pertinent secundum verbam Dei. Ma- 
 gistratU5 niliil omiuus est cu^tos utriusque tabulae, 
 ct ceslantibus, sacerdotibus vel degenerantibus, de- 
 bet reformarc secundum legem. 
 
 Church, of Scotland, chap. 10 : " And al- j 
 though kings and princes that be godly, ' 
 sometimes by their own authority, when the 
 church is corrupted, and all things out of 
 order, place ministers, and restore the true 
 service of the Lord, after the example of 
 some godly kings of Judah, and divers godly | 
 emperors and kings also in the light of the ! 
 New Testament, yet where the ministry of 
 the church is once lawfully constituted, and ' 
 they that are placed do their office faith- 
 fully, all godly princes and magistrates ought 
 to hear and obey their voice, and reverence 
 the majesty of the Son of God speaking in 
 them." " J 
 
 In the third place, let us take a particular 
 survey of such objections, from which the 
 Erastians do conclude that the power of ' 
 church government in the Old Testament 
 was only in the hand of the magistrate. 
 
 And first, concerning Moses, it is objected 
 that he, being the supreme magistrate, did 
 give laws and ordinances for ordering the 1 
 church in things pertaining to God. 
 
 Ans. This he did as a prophet from the 
 mouth of the Lord, yea, as a type of Jesus 1 
 Christ the Great Prophet, Deut. xviii. 15, | 
 18, not as civil magistrate. ' 
 
 Ohj. 2. We read, not of an ecclesiastical I 
 sanhedrim adjoined with Moses, but only of i 
 a civil sanhedrim. Num. xi. Neither doth 
 the Talmud mention any supreme sanhe- 
 drim but one. 
 
 Ans. 1. If those seventy elders, Num. xi., 
 be understood only of the civil sanhedrim 
 (which some do not admit, though for my 
 part I do not gainsay it), yet we read of the 
 constitution of another sanhedrim or assem- 
 bly of seventy before them, which I have 
 before proved from Exod. xxiv. 1. 
 
 2. And if there had been no distinct 
 ecclesiastical sanhedrim in Moses' time, yet 
 by the law, Deut xvii., when the people 
 came into the land of promise, they were to 
 have two distinct courts in the place which 
 the Lord should choose : of which also be- 
 fore. And whereas Mr Prynne, in his Dio- 
 trephes Catechised, quest. 2, intiniateth, 
 that by the law, Deut. xvii., the priests 
 were only jointly and together with the 
 temporal judges to resolve hard civil cases 
 or controversies, — this sense can neither 
 agree with the disjunction in the text, ver. 
 12, the man that will not hearken "unto 
 the priest, or unto the judge," nor yet with 
 the received intei'pretation of those words, 
 " between stroke and stroke," that is, " be- 
 
67 
 
 tween leprosy and leprosy;" the decision 
 whereof is nowhere in Scripture found to be 
 either com nutted unto or assumed by the 
 civil judge. As for the Talmud, that of 
 Babylon was not begun to be compiled be- 
 j fore the year of Christ 3G7, nor finished 
 ' before the year of Christ 500. The Jeru- 
 salem Talmud can pretend to no greater 
 antiquity than the year of Christ 230, so 
 that both were collected long after the dis- 
 solution of the sanhedrim and government 
 j of the Jews. No marvel, therefore, if these 
 declining times did wear out the memory of 
 some part of their former government. 
 
 Ohj. 3. The king was, by God's appoint- 
 ment, entrusted with the custody of the book 
 of the law, Deut. xvii. 18 ; 2 Kings x. 12. 
 
 Ans. 1. The principal charge of the cus- 
 tody of the law was committed to the priests 
 and Levites, Deut. xxxi. 9 ; xxiv. 25, 26. 
 Of the king it is only said, Deut. xvii. 18, 
 " That he shall write him a copy of this law 
 in a book, out of that which is before the 
 priests and Levites." 
 
 2. I heartily yield that a lawful magis- 
 trate, whether Christian or heathen, ought 
 to be a keeper or guardian of both tables ; 
 and, as God's vicegerent, hath authority to 
 2)unish heinous sins against either table, by 
 civil or corporal punislnnents, which proves 
 nothing against a distinct church govern- 
 ment for keeping pure the ordinances of 
 Christ. 
 
 Obj. 4. King David did appoint the offices 
 of the Levites, and divided their courses, 
 1 Chron. xxiii ; so likewise did Solomon ap- 
 point the courses and charges of the priests, 
 Levites and porters, in the temple. 
 
 Ans. David did not this thing as a king, 
 but as a prophet, 2 Chron. viii. 14, " For 
 so had David the man of God commanded ;" 
 the same thing being also commanded by 
 other prophets of the Lord, 2 Chron. xxix. 
 25, " According to the commandment of 
 David, and of Gad the king's seer, and Na- 
 than the prophet, for so wa.s the command- 
 ment of the Lord by his prophets," which 
 cleareth also Solomon's part ; for (beside 
 that himself also was a prophet) he received 
 from David, the man of God, a pattern of 
 that ^^'hicll he was to do in the work of the 
 house of the Lord, and directions concern- 
 ing the courses of the Levites, 1 Chron. 
 xxviii. 11 — 13 ; 2 Chron. viii. 14. 
 
 Ohj. 5. King Solomon deposed Abiathar 
 from his priesthood, and di<l put Zadok in 
 his place. 
 
 Ans, 1. Abiathar was guilty of high trea- 
 son for assisting and aiding Adonijah against 
 Solomon, wliom not only his lather David, 
 but God himself had designed to the crown ; 
 so that the crime was of civil cognisance, and 
 Abiathar deserved to die for it. That which 
 Solomon did Avas an eTriftVem, a moderation 
 of the punishment, as Strigelius calls it; when 
 Solomon might justly have put him to death, 
 he only banisheth him from Jerusalem to 
 Anathoth, there to enjoy his own inheri- 
 tance, to live a private life, and no more to 
 intermeddle in state affairs. Wherefore this 
 example doth belong to tlie case of a capital 
 crime committed by a minister, but not to 
 the case of scandal or maladministration in 
 his ministry. 
 
 2. Neither did Solomon directly or inten- 
 tionally put Abiatliar from the priesthood 
 for that offence, but by con.sequence it fol- 
 lowed upon his banishment from Jerusalem, 
 the place where tlie high-priest was to exer- 
 cise his calling, 1 Kings ii. 27, " So (that is, 
 in respect of banishment from Jerusalem, 
 mentioned in the verse immediately preced- 
 ing) Solomon thrust out Abiathar from be- 
 ing priest unto the Lord." A minister now 
 banished is not thereby thrust out from all 
 exei'cise of his ministry, for he may exercise 
 it in anotlier place ; but Abiathar, being 
 thrust out from Jerusalem, was eo ipso thrust 
 from the calling of the high-priest, which 
 was necessarily to be exercised in that place. 
 
 3. Solomon being a prophet, who knows 
 what warrants he had more than ordinary 
 for that which ho did to Al:)iathar ? That 
 it was not without an extraordinary divine 
 instinct some collect from the next words : 
 " That he (Solomon) miglit fulfil the word 
 of the Lord which he spake concerning the 
 house of Eli in Shilo." 
 
 4. As for the investing of Zndok with 
 the place and autiiority of the high-priest, 
 it doth not prove that the magistrate hath 
 a constitutive power to make or authorise 
 church-officers ; for Zadok had been for- 
 merly chosen by the congregation of Israel, 
 and anointed to be high-priest, 1 Chron. 
 xxix. 22, yea, he did fall to the place jure 
 divino, for the high priesthood was given to 
 Eleazar, the eldest son of Aaron, and was to 
 l emain in the family of Eleazar, from wliom 
 Zadok had lineally descended; whereas Abi- 
 athar was not of the f;imily of Eleazar, but 
 of the family of Ithamar. 
 
 Obj. 6. Hezckiah did apply his regal 
 power to the reformation of tlie Levites and 
 
68 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 to the purging of the temple, 2 Chron. xxix. 
 5 ; and did also appoint the courses of the 
 priests and Levites, every man according to 
 his service, 2 Chron. xxxi. ; so likewise did 
 king Josiah, 2 Chi'on. xxxv. 
 
 Ans. Hezekiah, in exhorting the Levites 
 to sanctify themselves, and to cleanse the 
 temple, doth require no other thing than 
 the law of God did require, Num. viii. 6, 
 11, 15 ; xviii. 32 ; which Hezekiah himself 
 pointeth at, 2 Chron. xxix. 11. And why 
 should not the magistrate command minis- 
 ters to do the duties of their calling, accord- 
 ing to the word of God ? As for his ap- 
 pointing of the courses of the priests and 
 Levites, he did nothing therein but what 
 the Lord had commanded by his prophets, 
 2 Chron. xxix. 25. The like I answer con- 
 cerning king Josiah, for it is recorded that 
 what he did, was after the writing of David 
 and Solomon, 2 Chron. xxxv. 4 ; " And ac- 
 cording to the commandment of David, and 
 Asaph, and Heman, and Jeduthun, the 
 king's seer," ver. 15; " as it is written in 
 the book of Moses," ver. 12. 
 
 Obj. 7. King Joash, while he yet did 
 right, in the days of Jehoiada the priest, 
 sent the priests and Levites to gather from 
 all Israel a collection for repairing the 
 house of the Lord ; and when they dealt 
 negligently in this business, he discharged 
 them to receive any more money so col- 
 lected. 
 
 Ans. Joash did impose no other collec- 
 tions but those quce divino jure dcbehan- 
 tur, which were due by divine right, saith 
 Wolphius in 2 Kings xii. The thing was 
 expressly commanded in the law of Moses ; 
 compare 2 Chron. xxiv. 6 ; Exod. xxx. 12 
 — 14. As for the king's prohibition after- 
 wards laid upon the priests : 1. The priests 
 had still neglected the work till the three- 
 and-twentieth year of his reign was come. 
 2. The priests themselves consented to re- 
 ceive no more money. 3. The high-priest 
 had still a chief hand in the managing of 
 that business, in which also the priests that 
 kept the door had an interest, all which is 
 plain from 2 Kings xii. 6 — 10. And be- 
 side all this, it was a money matter, con- 
 cerning the hiring and paying of workmen, 
 and so did belong to ra ei<o, to the extrin- 
 sical, not to the intrinsical things of the 
 church. 
 
 Obj. 8. The kings of the Jews have 
 purged the land from idolatry and super- 
 stition, have broken down altars, cut down 
 
 groves, destroyed high places, and such like 
 idolatrous monuments. 
 
 Ans. This was nothing but what was 
 commanded in the law of Moses, where- 
 unto also the secular coercive power was 
 necessary. 
 
 Let it be remembered concerning those 
 godly reforming kings of Judah. 1. The 
 case was extraordinary, no matter of ordi- 
 nary government. 2. Their reformation was 
 jure divino, the law of God was the rule, 
 and jus divinum was not then startled at, 
 but embraced. 3. Sometime also the re- 
 formation was not without an assembly of 
 the prophets, priests and elders, as 2 Kings 
 xxiii. 1. 
 
 Obj. 9. Mr Prynne, in his Diotrephes 
 Catechised, quest. 2, starteth another ob- 
 jection from 2 Chron. xix., asking, " Wliether 
 it be not clearly meant, that as king Josiah 
 himself (he should have said Jehoshaphat) 
 did, by his own regal authority, appoint 
 judges in the land and in Jerusalem, in 
 the preceding verses (5 — 10), to deter- 
 mine all controvei'sies, and punish all offences 
 whatsoever, according to the laws of God 
 and that kingdom, so he did by the self- 
 same regal authority appoint Amariah, then 
 chiel'-priest, over the priests and Levites 
 only (implied in the word you, not over the 
 people of the land), in all matters of the 
 Lord, that is, to order, direct the pi'iests 
 and Levites under him in their several 
 courses, and all matters whatsoever concern- 
 ing the worship," &c. 
 
 Ans. 1. Mr Prynne will never prove 
 from that text that Jehoshaphat, by his re- 
 gal authority, did appoint or set Amariah 
 the chief-priest to be over the rest. The 
 English translators express the sense by 
 interlacing the word is, ver. 11, " And 
 behold Amariah the chief-priest is over 
 you in all matters of the Lord." 2. To 
 restrict the word you to the priests and 
 Levites only is an intolerable wresting of 
 the text ; for all these relatives, ver. 9 — 
 11, them, ye, you, must needs repeat the 
 antecedent, ver. 8, and so relate to the chief 
 of the fathers of Israel, as well as to the 
 priests and Levites. So that these words, 
 " Amariah the chief priest is over you," are 
 spoken to the sanhedrim ; and the plain 
 meaning is, that Amariah the chief-priest 
 was at that time the nasi, or princeps sen- 
 atus, the prince or chief ruler of the senate, 
 as Grotius expounds it. 3. That the high- 
 priest was a ruler of the people as well as 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 69 
 
 of the priests and Levites, is manifest from 
 Acts xxiii. 5, where Paul applieth to the 
 high-priest that law, " Thou shalt not speak 
 evil of the ruler of thy people." 4. Where- 
 fore to retort the objection, Mr Prynne doth 
 here acknowledge upon the matter two dis- 
 tinct governments to have been at that time, 
 one civil, another ecclesiastical; distinct, I 
 say, both objectivelt/ and snhjectivelt/: ob- 
 jectivcli/, for he expounds the Lord's mat- 
 ters to be meant of the sacrifices and other 
 services in the temple, tlie kimj's matters he 
 takes to be the king's household, lands, re- 
 venues ; subjectivcli/ also, for he yieldeth 
 upon the matter both Amariah and Zebe- 
 diah to have had a certain ruling or govern- 
 ing power in ordering and directing those 
 over whom they wei'e set, which well agreeth 
 both with the version of the LXX. (giving 
 the name of i/yovnevos both to the one and 
 to the other), and with the original ; for he 
 that is over the sandedrim itself must needs 
 be a ruler. 
 
 Obj. 10. The causes of leprosy, Lev. xiii., 
 xiv., and jealousy, Num. v. are " the only 
 cases wherein the priests were appointed to 
 be as judges in the Old Testament." So 
 Mr Prynne in his Diotrephes Catechised, 
 quest. 3. 
 
 Ans. 1. If the priests were judges in 
 these cases, then (so far at least) there was 
 a judging, decisive, binding sentence of the 
 priests, distinct from and not subordinate 
 unto the civil magistracy. 2. But that these 
 two were the only cases wherein the priests 
 were appointed to be as judges is easily 
 confuted, being an assertion contrary to di- 
 vers texts of Scripture, as, first, Deut. xxi. 
 5, in the trial of secret murder, the law ap- 
 pointeth thus, " And the priests, the sons of 
 Levi, shall come near, &c., and by their 
 word shall every controversy and every 
 stroke be tried," that is, every controversy 
 which was to be ended by purgations or pu- 
 rifications, oaths or confession, .as Pelargus 
 noteth upon the place. There is also a general 
 comprehensive expression concerning the 
 priests' judging and deciding of contro- 
 versies fbrensically, Ezek. xliv. 24, " And 
 in controversy they shall stand in judgment, 
 and they shall judge it according to my 
 judgments." Likewise Deut. xvii. 8, 9, 12, 
 the priest as well as the judge hath au- 
 thority to give forth a binding decree con- 
 cei'ning hard matters brought from inferior 
 courts to Jerusalem. Again, 2 Chron. xxiii. 
 19, the porters of the templ% (that is, the 
 
 priests that kept the door, as they are de- 
 signed, 2 Kings xii. 9, of whom also it is 
 said, that Jehoiada the high-priest " ap- 
 pointed officers over the house of the Lord," 
 2 Kings xi. 18, which text Grotius, follow- 
 ing Josephus, doth parallel with 2 Chron. 
 xxiii. 19) had this charge, " that none 
 which was unclean in anything should enter 
 in." 
 
 Obj. 11. If the priests' power of judging 
 reached further than the cases of leprosy 
 and jealousy, the most was to judge of such 
 as were unclean in anything, and that ac- 
 cording to their sentence the unclean were 
 to be excluded. 
 
 Ans. Not to insist now upon these texts, 
 Deut. xvii. 9, 12 ; xxi. 5 ; Ezek. xliv. 24, 
 which hold forth the juridical power of the 
 priests more generally and comprehensively, 
 without restricting it to cases of clean and 
 unclean only, nor yet to repeat divers 
 other answers before given, in answer to 
 Erastus and Mr Prynne, concerning legal 
 and moral uncleanness, I shall here only 
 give this one answer out of that text, 2 
 Chron. xxiii. 19, " none which was unclean 
 in anything." What cogent argument can 
 now restrict this text, concerning the exclu- 
 sion of unclean persons from the temple, to 
 such only who were legally or ceremonially 
 unclean ? If we should suppose and grant 
 that it is meant only of the legal unclean- 
 ness, yet both by analogy and d fortiori 
 that text affordeth an aroument against the 
 Ei'astians, and I have accordingly made use 
 of it before ; yet, nevertheless, I believe it 
 will puzzle them to prove that this text 
 doth not compi'ehend those also that were 
 morally unclean ; that is, scandalous profane 
 persons. For my part I do believe that it 
 is meant of keeping back those that were 
 morally unclean, as well as those that were 
 ceremonially such. And my reasons are 
 these, 1. The text saith generally, " none 
 which was unclean in anything," or as the 
 LXX. have it, uKudapros hs irayra Xoyor, 
 such as were unclean in every or any word, 
 or (if you will) against any word, that is, 
 against any commandment of the law. 2. 
 Because impiety, profaneness, and wicked- 
 ness, hath the name of uncleanness, even in 
 the Old Testament, and such as commit sin 
 and ungodliness are called unclean, and are 
 said to defile themselves, as well as those 
 that were legally unclean. I shall not need 
 to expound Lev. v. 3, " If he touch the un- 
 cleanness of man, whatsoever uncleanness it 
 
70 
 
 be that a man shall be defiled withal," 
 as it' it were meant of fellowship with 
 scandalous sinners ; which is Origen's in- 
 terpretation, horn 3, in Lev., who also tak- 
 eth a commentary to that text from 1 Cor. 
 V. 11. It will have more weight in it 
 to observe Targum Onkelos, Deut. xxiii. 
 2, where the law concerning tnamzer, a bas- 
 tard or whore's son, is thus explained : " A 
 bastard shall not be clean that he may enter 
 into the congregation of the Lord : even unto 
 the tenth generation his sons shall not be 
 clean, that they may enter into the congre- 
 gation of the Lord." But I will give yet 
 surer warrants for what I say : Job. xxxvi. 
 14, " Their life is among the unclean," that 
 is (as PagTiin, following the Chaldee Para- 
 phrase, expresseth it), inter scortatores ; 
 Jerome, inter cffceminatos ; others, vnter 
 impudicos ; the same word is rendered So- 
 domites, 1 Kings xiv. 24. It cometh from 
 2^"Tp) which evfi'inws, or per Antiphrasin 
 signitieth to be impure or unclean, and it is 
 used of the legal uncleanness; Deut. xxii. 
 9, " Lest the fruit of thy vinevard be de- 
 filed." So Hag. ii. 13, 14, both he that 
 touched a dead body, and he that tres- 
 passed against the moral law, is K^tD "w- 
 clean ; for after the resolution concemmg 
 that which was legally unclean, it is added, 
 " So is this people, and so is this nation be- 
 fore me, saith the Lord ; and so is every 
 work of their hands, and that which they 
 offer there is unclean." The same name is 
 given to an ungodly pei-son, Eccl. ix. 2, 
 where the godly person is called the clean ; 
 the notorious scandalous profane person is 
 called the unclean. So wickedness is fre- 
 quently called uncleanness, as Ezra ix. 11; 
 Ezek. xxxvi. 25; Zech. xiii. 1. I will here 
 add a testimony of 31aimonides in More 
 Nevochim, part 3, cap. 47 : " Hence also the 
 transgression of the commandment is called 
 uncleanness or pollution, and it is said of the 
 principal and fundamental commandments, 
 of idolatry, of uncovering the nakedness, of 
 the shedding of blood. Of idolatry it is 
 said. Lev. xx. 3, ' Because he hath given of 
 his seed unto Molech to defile my sanctuary, 
 and to profane my holy name.' Of the 
 uncovering of the nakedness, Lev. xviii. 24, 
 ' Defile not yourselves in any of these things.' 
 Of the shedding of blood. Num. xxxv. 
 33, 34, ' Defile not therefore the land 
 wherein ye dwell.' ^Mierefore this word 
 uncleanness or defilement is said of three 
 sorts of things : First, Of a man's quahties, 
 
 and of his transgressions of the command- 
 ments, whether theoretical or practical (that 
 is, which concern either doctrine or his con- 
 versation). Secondly, Of external filthiness 
 and defilements, (Sec' Tliirdly, Of these ima- 
 ginary things, tliat is, the touching or carry- 
 ing upon the shoulders some unclean thing," , 
 &c. Add hereunto the observation of Dru- 
 sius, de Trihus Sect. Judccor., lib. 2, num 
 82—84. The Pharisees did account sin- 
 ners and profane persons to be unclean, and 
 thought themselves polluted by the company 
 of such persons ; for \vhich reason also they 
 used to wash when they came from the mar- 
 ket. Though there was a superstition in 
 this ceremony, yet the opinion that profane 
 persons are unclean persons, and to be 
 avoided for uncleanness, had come from the 
 purest antiquities of the Jews, even from 1 
 ]Moses and the prophets. Since, therefore, ] 
 both in the Old Testament phrase, and in i 
 the usual language of the Jews themselves, [ 
 a scandalous profane person was called an 
 unclean person, it is to me more than proba- 
 ble that where I read, " Xone which was 
 unclean in anything should enter in," it is 
 meant of those that were morally unclean by 
 a scandalous wicked conversation, no less, 
 yea, much more, than of those that were 
 only ceremonially unclean. 3. Especially 
 considering tliat the sanctuary was profaned ' 
 and polluted by the moral uncleanness of I 
 sin, and by profane persons entering into it, 
 as is manifest from Lev. xx. 3 ; Ezra xxiii. 
 39. How can it then be imagmed that those 
 priests whose charge it was to keep back 
 those that were unclean in anything, would 
 admit and receive such as were not only | 
 unclean persons in the language of Scripture j 
 and of the J ews themselves, but were also, by ' 
 express scriptures, declared to be defilei-s or 
 pollutei-s of the sanctuary ? 4. It is said of 
 the high -priest. Lev. xvi. 16, " And he shall 
 make atonement for the holy place, because 
 of the uncleanness of the childi-en of Israel, 
 and because of their transgressions in all 
 their sins ;" or from their uncleanness, and 
 from their transgressions, as the Chaldee 
 and the LXX. have it : the sense is the 
 same ; and it showeth that the holy place 
 was made unclean by the transgressions and 
 sins of the children of Israel, which unclean- 
 ness of transgression, if it were nsible, pub- 
 lic and notorious, then the priests had failed 
 in admitting such to the holy place. 
 
 Ohj. 12. Throughout the Old Testament 
 we read only of temporal pmiishments, as 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 71 
 
 burning, hanging, stoning, fines, stripes, and 
 the liive, but never of excommunication or 
 any church censure. Neither did the Jews 
 know the distinction of laws ecclesiastical 
 and laws civil, causes ecclesiastical and causes 
 civil ; for the church of the Jews was their 
 commonwealth, and their commonwealth was 
 their church, and the government of church 
 and state among them was one and the same. 
 Their civil lawyers were also expositors or 
 doctors of the law of God. 
 
 Ans. That in the Jewish church there 
 was an ecclesiastical censure or punishment 
 distinct from the civil I have proved in this 
 preceding book, both from Scripture and the 
 Jewish antiquities. And if there were no 
 more but the sequestration or separation 
 from the temple or from the pa^sover, for 
 such legal uncleanness as did not separate a 
 man from his house, nor from all company 
 of men, even that alone proves a kind of 
 censure distinct from all civil punishment. 
 Neither did it belong to the magistrate or 
 civil judge, but to the priests, to examine, 
 judge, and determine, concerning cleanness 
 or uncleanness, and, consequently, concern- 
 ing admission to or separation from the 
 temple, passover, and sacrifices. 
 
 That the Jewish church and the Jewish 
 state were formally distinct, see before, chap. 
 2, where it hath been observed that some 
 proselytes had the lull privileges of the 
 Jewish cliurch, though none of them had 
 the i'ull privileges of the Jewish common- 
 wealth. The like I have I'ead of the Spa- 
 niards, who admit the Moors, or inhabitants 
 of Morisco, to turn Christians, and receive 
 them into ecclesiastical membership and 
 communion, but by no means into their 
 civil liberties. That the causes of excom- 
 munication among them were looked upon 
 as scandals, and not as civil injuries, see 
 chap. 4. This only I add, that 3Iore Nc- 
 vochim, part 2, chap. 40, doth distinguish 
 civil laws from sacred laws, even among the 
 people of God, making the scope of the civil 
 laws to be the good, safety, and prosperity of 
 the commonwealth ; the sacred or divine 
 laws to concern properly religion and men's 
 souls. He that ^vill compare the civil laws 
 and penal statutes of the Jews, mentioned in 
 Baha Kanid, with their ceremonial laws 
 cuncerning the holy ordinances of God, and 
 Viho should have communion therein, and 
 •who not, cannot but look upon their church 
 and ecclesi;;stical laws as formally distinct 
 from their state and civil laws. Again, he 
 
 that will consider who were the viri sj/na- 
 gogoR magna;, the men of the great syna- 
 gogue, and what their power and acts were 
 (as Dr BuxtorfF describeth the same in his 
 Tt/herias, cap. 10, 11), and their authori- 
 tative determinations concerning the right 
 writing, reading, and expounding of the holy 
 Scripture, &c., must needs acknowledge that 
 it was senatus ccdesiasticiis magnus (as 
 Buxtorff calls it), and that such power and 
 acts were incompetent to the civil magis- 
 trate. As for their doctors of law and scribes, 
 they were the sons of Aaron, yet some way 
 diversified in their administrations, Scaliger, 
 in Elench. Triluevcs Nic. Scrar, cap. 11, 
 distinguisheth between the rufxabibacTKuXoi 
 and the t'o/jtiKoi,^ that the former were the 
 wise men or chief of the scribes who did 
 interpret the law, and declare the sense of 
 it ; the latter did attend civil forensical 
 matters. Drusius de Tribus Sect. Jud., 
 lib. 2, cap. 13, noteth from Luke xi. 45,46, 
 that there was some distinction between the 
 ypajujuartis and the ro/jiikot, between the 
 scribes and the lawyers, for when Christ 
 had spoken of the scribes and Pharisees, 
 " Then answered one of the lawyers, and 
 said unto him. Master, thus saying, thou re- 
 proachest us also. And he said, Woe unto 
 you also, ye lawyers." This will be more 
 plain by that other distinction observed by 
 Lud. de Dieu, in Mat. xxii. 35, and divers 
 others, between ypn/^juareis roi/ vv/xov and 
 ypdfj/uarels Toii Xaov, between the scribes of 
 the law of God who did interpret the law, 
 such as Ezra the priest, and the scribes of 
 the people, who were actuarii publici, pub- 
 lic notaries or clerks. Whence it appeareth 
 that the offices of scribes and lawyers (al- 
 though the persons themselves were of the 
 tribe of Levi) were so ordered, as that civil 
 and sacred affairs might not be confounded. 
 Yea, the scriveners or notaries were of two 
 sorts ; for besides those which did attend 
 civil courts of justice, &c., there was a chief 
 scril)e who waited upon the king, and wrote 
 unto him a copy of the book of the law, ac- 
 cording to that, Deut. xvii. 18. Such a 
 scribe was Sheva, 2 Sam. xx. 25; Shaphan, 
 2 Kings xxii. 3 — 8 ; Baruch, Jer. xxxvi. 
 Such a scribe had Joash, 2 Kings xii. 10. 
 There were divers other scribes for the 
 
 1 Quura ysfioSi^ccrxceXoi legem intcrpretarentur, 
 quo J propriuiii TaSn a-cfaiii lofuyM vero formulas ju- 
 ris prae scriberent, et actioucs civilcs docereut, et 
 foreusia magis tractarent. 
 
72 
 
 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 house of the Lord and for the people, whose 
 office it was to write and to read the law, 
 1 Chron. ii. 55 ; Psal. xlv. 1 ; Jer. viii. 8. 
 
 Obj. 13. But neither in the Old Testa- 
 ment nor in the Talmudists can there be 
 found any ecclesiastical excommunication, 
 properly so called. 
 
 Ans. I deny both, yea, I have disproved 
 both. Moreover, as touching the excom- 
 munication used in the Jewish church, I 
 shall add here these followincr testimonies of 
 Maimonides. in libro Tract. Talmud 
 
 Torah, cap. 6, sect. 10 : " He that revileth 
 a wise man, though after his death, shall be 
 excommunicated by the sanhedrim, by whom 
 also, after repentance, he shall be absolved." 
 lb. sect. 11 : " He who is excommunicated 
 in his town, ought also to be esteemed in all 
 other cities and towns as a person excom- 
 municated." Answerable her'eunto were the 
 ancient canons, which did appoint that a 
 person excommunicated in his own church 
 should not be received to communion in an- 
 other church. The twenty -four causes of 
 excommunication (above mentioned) he there 
 reckoneth forth from sect. 13 to the end of 
 the chapter. Again, cap. 7, sect. 12: " What 
 is the manner of a simple excommunication, 
 or niddui ? He that doth excommunicate 
 saith, Let that person, N. be in (or under) an 
 excommunication or separation. If the per- 
 son excommunicated be present, they who 
 do excommunicate say unto him. Let this 
 person, N. be separated, or excommunicated. 
 And when chcrem, or the greater excom- 
 munication is inflicted, what is the manner? 
 They say, Let N. be devoted and accursed ; 
 let an execration, adjuration, and separation 
 be upon him. But how do they loose the 
 person excommunicated, and how do they 
 free him from the separation or the curse ? 
 They say, Be thou loosed, be thou pardoned. 
 If the guilty party be absent, they say, Let 
 N. be loosed, and let him be pai'doned." In 
 the same chapter, sect. 8: " ]S( either is there 
 any certain space of time predetermined, 
 before which the bond of the excomnumica- 
 tion inflicted may not be loosed ; for im- 
 mediately, and at the same time, when ex- 
 communication is inflicted, it may be loosed, 
 if the guilty party do immediately repent, 
 and come to himself." Which doth fui'ther 
 set forth the great difference between the 
 nature and scope of excommunication, and 
 the nature and scope of corporal or civil 
 punishments. For how soon soever an ex- 
 communicated person giveth good signs of 
 
 true repentance, he is to be loosed from the 
 bond of excommunication ; but he that is 
 punished in his body or estate for any crime, 
 is not freed from the punishment because 
 he is known to be penitent. The repentance 
 of a criminal person is no supersedeas to 
 civil justice. Thereafter Maimonides pro- 
 ceedeth thus: " Yet if it seem good to the 
 sanhedrim that any man shall be left in the 
 state of excommunication, for how many 
 years shall he be left in excommunication ? 
 The sanhedrim will determine the number 
 of years and space of time, according to the 
 heinousness of the trespass. So likewise if 
 the sanhedrim will, it may devote and sub- 
 ject to a curse, first the party himself who is 
 guilty of the crime, and then also every other 
 person whosoever eateth or drinketh with 
 him, or sitteth near unto him, unless at four 
 cubits distance ; that so by this means the 
 heavier correction may fall upon the sinner, 
 and there may be as it were a hedge put 
 about the law, which may restrain wicked 
 men from transgressing it." Whence ob- 
 serve, 1. It was from the Jewish church, 
 that the ancient councils of the Christian 
 church took a pattern for determining and 
 fixing a certain number of years to the se- 
 paration of some heinous offenders from the 
 sacrament, and sometimes from other ordi- 
 nances also. Though I do not approve this 
 thing, either in the Jewish or Christian 
 church ; for at what time soever a scandalous 
 sinner doth give evident signs of repentance, 
 the church ought to receive him again into 
 her bosom and fellowship. 2. From the 
 Jewish church also was the pattern taken 
 for that ancient discipline in the Christian 
 church, that he who keepeth company and 
 communion with an excommunicated person 
 should fall under the same censure of ex- 
 communication ; which thing must be well 
 explained and qualified before it can be ap- 
 proved. 3. Compare also this passage of 
 Maimonides with 1 Cor. v. 11, " With such 
 an one no not to eat ;" 2 Thes. iii. 14, 
 " Have no company with him, that he may 
 be ashamed." Which texts do fitly answer 
 to that which the Hebrew writers say of a 
 person excommunicated. 4. The excommu- 
 nication of an ottender among the J ews, was 
 intended not only for the offender's humilia- 
 tion and amendment, but for an ensample 
 to others, that they might hear and fear, and 
 do no more any such thing : it was therefore 
 a public and exemplary censure. And so 
 nmch of sect. 8. 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 73 
 
 In the 9Lh and lOtli sections Maimonides 
 showeth us, that though a wise man was 
 allowed to prosecute unto the sentence of 
 excommunication one that did revile or ca- 
 lumniate him, yet it was more praise-worthy, 
 and more agreeable to the example of the 
 holy men of God, to pass in silence and to en- 
 dure patiently such injuries. Then foUoweth 
 sect. 11, " These things which have been 
 said, are to be understood of such reproaches 
 and contumelies as are clandestine. For if 
 railers do put a public infamy upon a wise 
 man, it is not lawful to him to use indulgence 
 or to neglect his honour: and if he shall par- 
 don (as to the punishment) him who hath 
 hurt his fame, he himself is to be punished, 
 because that is a contempt of the law. He 
 shall therefore avenge the contumely, and 
 not suffer himself to be satisfied, before the 
 guilty party hath craved mercy." Here is 
 the true object, or (if you will) the procuring 
 and meritorious cause of excommunication, 
 viz. not a private, personal, or civil injury, 
 which a man may pass by or pardon if he 
 will, but a scandalous sin, the scandal where- 
 of must be removed and healed, by some 
 testimony or declaration of the sinner's re- 
 pentance, otherwise he must fall under the 
 censure and public shame. 
 
 These testimonies of Maimonides, and the 
 observations made thereupon, beside all that 
 hath been said in this preceding book, will 
 make it manifest that the spiritual censure 
 of excommunication was translated and taken 
 from the Jewish church into the Christian 
 church. 
 
 Furthermore, beside all the scriptural 
 proofs ah"eady brought, I shall desire an- 
 other text (Neh. xiii. 1 — 3) to be well 
 weighed. After the reading of the law 
 (Deut. xxiii. 3), that the Ammonite and 
 the Moabite should not come into the con- 
 greuation of God for ever, " it came to 
 pass," saith the text, " when they heard the 
 law, that they sepai'ated from Israel all the 
 mixed multitude." I conceive that this se- 
 paration was a casting out of the church of 
 Israel, and is not meant here of a civil sepa- 
 ration from honours and privileges, nor yet 
 only in reference to the dissolution of un- 
 lawful marriages. I understand also, by the 
 prohibition of entering into the congregation 
 of the Lord, Deut. xxiii. 1 — 3, that such 
 were not to be received into church commu- 
 nion. Ostendit mitem qui a coetibus fide- 
 Uum debeant excludi : He showeth who 
 ought to be excluded from the assemblies of 
 
 the faithful, saith Aretius, upon Deut. xxiii. 
 1. Hie dicitur ecclesia Dei atrium mun- 
 doruin, quod non dehehant talcs inqredi: 
 Here that court of the temple which was 
 appointed only for the clean, is called the 
 congregation of God, whereunto such per- 
 sons ought not to enter, saith Hugo Cardi- 
 nalis upon the same place. Audita lege 
 de duahas inimicis gentibus anathematiz- 
 andis, &c. : Having heard the law concern- 
 ing the two hostile nations to be anathe- 
 matized or accursed, saith Beda, on Neh. 
 xiii., thereupon they separated the mixed 
 multitude. Pelargus on Deut. xxiii., citeth 
 Theodoret, Procepius, and Rabanus, besides 
 the Canonists, for this sense, that the not 
 entering into the congregation of the Lord, 
 is meant of refusing ecclesiastical, not civil 
 privileges. I know that divers others un- 
 derstand Deut. xxiii. 1 — 3, of not admit- 
 ting unto, and Neh, xiii. 3, of separating 
 from, marriages with the Jews, and civil 
 dignities or places of magistrates or rulers 
 in that commonwealth; such an one " shall 
 not enter into the congregation of the Lord," 
 — that is, shall not be received into the as- 
 sembly or court of judges. But there are 
 some reasons which dissuade me from this, 
 and incline me to the other interpretation. 
 
 First, The law, Deut. xxiii., being read 
 to the people, Neh. xiii. 3, upon the 
 hearing of that law, " they separated from 
 Israel all the mixed multitude." It is not 
 to be imagined that all this mixed multitude 
 were married to Jews, much less that they 
 were all magistrates, rulers, or members of 
 courts and judicatures in Israel. But by 
 the mixed multitude are meant all such as 
 were in Israel, but not of Israel, or such as 
 conversed and dwelt among the Jews, and 
 had civil fellowship with them, but had no 
 part nor poition (by right) in church mem- 
 bership and communion ; in which sense also 
 the mixed multitude is mentioned, Exod. 
 
 xii. 38 ; Num. xi. 4. 
 
 Secondly, That this separation from Israel 
 is to be understood in a spiritual and eccle- 
 siastical sense, it appeareth by the instance 
 and application immediately added, Neh. 
 
 xiii. 4 — 10. And before this, — that is, be- 
 fore this separation, Eliashib the priest, 
 being allied unto Tobiah, had prepared for 
 him a chamber in the courts of the house of 
 God ; but now when the separation of the 
 mixed multitude was made, Nehemiah did 
 cast out the stuff of Tobiah, and commanded 
 to cleanse the chambers of the temple which 
 
AARON S ROD BLOSSOMING, OR THE 
 
 had been defiled by Tobiali. Behold an in- 
 stance of the separation in i-eference to the 
 temple or holy place, not to any civil court I 
 Thirdly, The Chaldee Paraphrase helpeth 
 me, Deut. xxiii. 1 — 3, for instead of these 
 words, " shall not enter mto the congrega- 
 tion of the Lord," Onkelos readeth, " shall 
 not be clean to enter into the congregation 
 of the Lord," having respect to the law 
 which did forbid miciean persons to enter 
 into the temple. Ita isti mundi rcputa- 
 bantur: So likewise were these (Ammo- 
 nites, Moabites, bastards, &c.) esteemed as 
 unclean, saith Tostatus in Deut. xxiii., 
 quest. 1. 
 
 Fourtlily, Edomites and Egj'ptians might 
 enter into the congresation of the Lord in 
 the third generation, Deut. xxii. 7, 8. n as 
 the meaning, that Edomites and Egyptians 
 should, in the third generation, marry with 
 the Jews, or be magisti'ates in Israel, mem- 
 bers of the sanhedrim, or judges ? He that 
 will think so, will hardly prove that it was 
 so. To me it is not at all probable that 
 God would allow his people either to marry 
 with the Edomites and Egyptians, or to 
 prefer them to be magistrates and judges in 
 Israel, no not in the tliird generation. But 
 it is very probable, that when an Edomite 
 or Egyptian came to dwell in the land of 
 Israel, as a proselyte indweller, observing 
 the seven prccejjts given to the sons of Xoah, 
 the children of that Egyptian or Edomite 
 in the third generation might enter into 
 the congregation of the Lord, — that is, 
 might, upon their desire and submission to 
 the whole law of Moses, be received as pro- 
 selytes of righteousness or of the covenant, 
 and so free to come to the court of Israel, 
 and in all church relations to be as one of 
 the Israelites themselves. 
 
 Fifthly, Philo the Jew, lib. de Victimas 
 Offer c'litihus, towards the end, tells us that 
 their law did prohibit all unworthy persons 
 from their sacred assemblies, ivfjoavtipyei 
 iravTOi Tovs avaliovs ufiov avWoyuv. 1' roni 
 the same sacred assembhes of the church, 
 he saith that their law did also exclude 
 eunuchs and bastards, or such as were born 
 eK ■7r6pvr}i (the word used by the LXX. in 
 Deut. xxiii. 2), where Pliilo most certainly 
 hath respect to that law, Deut. xxiii., under- 
 standing by the congregation of the Lord in 
 that place, neither a civil court nor liberty of 
 marriage, but the sacred or church assembly. 
 
 There are but two objections which I find 
 brought against that which I have been now 
 
 proving. One is from Exod. xii. 48, a law 
 which admitteth strangers to the church 
 and passover of the Jews, provided they 
 were willing to be circumcised. The other 
 is from the example of lluth the Moabitess, 
 who was a member of the church of Israel. 
 
 To the first I answer, that Exod. xii. 48 
 will not prove that every stranger who de- 
 sired to be circumcised, and to eat the pass- 
 over, was to be immediately admitted upon 
 that desire, without any more ado ; only it 
 proves that before any stranger should eat 
 of the passover he must first be circumcised. 
 A stranger might not be ger tsedek, a prose- 
 lyte of righteousness, when he pleased, but 
 he was first to be so and so qualified. Be- 
 sides this, it may be justly doubted whether 
 Deut. xxii. 3 be not an exception from the 
 rule, Exod. xii. 48, for all strangers were 
 not to be alike soon and readily received to 
 be proselytes of righteousness : but a great 
 difference there was between those nations 
 which God had expressly and particularly 
 devoted and accm-sed, and others not so ac- 
 cursed. 
 
 To the other objection concerning Ruth, 
 Rabanus, cited by Pelai-gus on Deut. xxiii., 
 answereth, that the tenth generation of the 
 Moabites was past before that Ruth did en- 
 ter into the congregation of the Lord. And 
 if it had not, yet the case was extraordinary, 
 and one swallow makes not summer. 
 
 Ohj. 14. But is there any pattern or pre- 
 cedent ui the Jewish church for keeping 
 back scandalous sinners from the sacrament? 
 
 Alts. There is; for I have proved a keep- 
 ing back of notorious sinners both from the 
 passover and from the temple itself, which 
 had a sacramental signification, and was a 
 type of Christ and communion with him. 
 It is worthy of observation, that by the 
 Chaldee Paraphi'ase, Exod. xii. 43, any 
 Israelite who was "1/3nii^5<"T' apostate, 
 might not eat of the passover. Again, ver. 
 48, ♦JT'^^nbDT) omnis pro/anus. So 
 the Latin uiterpreter of Onkelos, " And 
 no pi'ofane person shall eat of it." The 
 word is used not only of a heathen, but 
 of any profane person, as Pi'ov. ii. 16, 
 where the Chaldee expresseth the whorish 
 woman (though a Jewess) by the name of 
 >ij^»j"l'^«n- It Cometh from ^^f]^ to be 
 protaned, e sancto profanum fieri. Surely 
 Onkelas had not thus paraphrased upon 
 Exod. xii. if it had not been the law of the 
 Jews that notorious profane persons should 
 be kept back from the passover. 
 
DIVIXE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNTVIENT VINDICATED. 
 
 75 
 
 THE SECOND BOOK. 
 
 OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 OF THE RISE, GROWTH, DECAY, AND REVIVING 
 OF ERASTIANISJI. 
 
 Divers learned men have (to very good 
 purpose) discovered the origin, occasion, 
 first authors, fomenters, rise and growth of 
 errors, both Popish and others. I shall, 
 after their example, make known briefly 
 what I find concerning the rise and growth, 
 the planting and watering, of the Erastian 
 error. I cannot say of it that it is honcstis 
 parentihus natns, it is not born and de- 
 scended of honest parents. The father of it 
 is the old serpent, who, finding his kingdom 
 very much impaired, weakened and resisted, 
 \ by the vigour of the true ecclesiastical dis- 
 cipline, which separateth between the pre- 
 cious and the vile, the holy and profane, and 
 so contributeth much to the shaming away 
 of the unfruitful works of darkness, there- 
 upon he hath cunningly gone about to draw 
 men, first into a jealousy, and then into a 
 dislike of the ecclesiastical discipline by God's 
 mercy restored in the reformed churches. 
 The mother of it is the enmity of nature 
 against the kingdom of Jesus Christ, which 
 he, as Mediator, doth exercise in the govern- 
 ment of the church ; wliich enmity is natu- 
 rally in all men's heai'ts, but is unmortified 
 and strongly prevalent in some, who have 
 said in their hearts, " We will not have this 
 man to i-eign over us," Luke xix. ; " Let us 
 break their bands asunder, and cast away 
 their coi'ds from us," Psal. ii. 3. The mid- 
 wife which brought this unhappy brood into 
 the light of the woi'ld, was Thomas Erastus, 
 doctor of medicine at Heidelberg, of whom 
 I shall say no more than what is apparent 
 
 by his own preface to the reader, namely, 
 that as he was once of opinion that excom- 
 munication is connnanded in the word of 
 God, so he came off to the contraiy opinion, 
 not without a malecontented humour, and a 
 resentment of some things which he looked 
 upon as provocations and personal reflec- 
 tions, though it is like enough they were not 
 really such, but, in his apprehension, they 
 were. One of these was a public dispute at 
 Heidelberg, in the year 1568, upon certain 
 theses concerning the necessity of church 
 government, and the power of presbyteries 
 to excomnmnicate ; which theses were ex- 
 hibited by Mr George Withers, an English- 
 man, who left England because of the cere- 
 monies, and was at that time made doctor 
 of divinity at Heidelberg. And the learned 
 dispute thereupon you may find epitomised 
 (as it was taken the day ibllowing from the 
 mouth of Dr Ursinus) in the close of the se- 
 cond part of Dr Pareus' Explication of the 
 Heiddbcra Catechism. 
 
 The Erastian error being born, the breasts 
 which gave it suck were profaneness and self- 
 interest. The sons of Belial were very much 
 for it, expecting that the eye of the civil 
 magistrate shall not be so vigilant over them, 
 nor his hand so much against them for a 
 scandalous and dissolute conversation, as 
 church discipline would be. Gcrmanorum 
 bibere est vivere, in practice as well as in 
 pronunciation. What great marvel if many 
 among them (for I do not speak of all) did 
 comply with the Erastian tenet ? And it is 
 as little to be marvelled at if those, whether 
 magistrates, lawyers, or others, who con- 
 ceived themselves to be so far losers, as 
 ecclesiastical courts were interested in go- 
 vernment, and to be greater gainers by the 
 
76 
 
 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 abolition of the ecclesiastical interest in go- 
 vernment, were biassed that way. Both 
 these you may find among the causes (men- 
 tioned by Aretius, Theol. Prohl. loc. 133) 
 for which there was so much unwillingness 
 to admit the discipline of exconmiunication. 
 Magisti'atus jugum non admittunt, timent 
 honoribiis, licentiam amant, &c. : The ma- 
 gistrates do not admit a yoke, are jealous of 
 their honours, love licentiousness. Vuhjus 
 quoque ct plebs dissolutior : major pars 
 corruptissima fist, &c. : The community also 
 and people are more dissolute : the greater 
 part is most vicious. 
 
 After that this unlucky child had been 
 nursed upon so bad milk, it came at last to 
 eat strong food, and that was arbitrary go- 
 vernment, under the name of royal preroga- 
 tive. Mr John Wemyes (sometime senator 
 of the College of Justice in Scotland), as 
 great a royalist as any of his time, in his 
 book de Regis Primatu, lib. 1, cap. 7, doth 
 utterly dissent from and argue against the 
 distinction of civil and ecclesiastical laws, 
 and against the synodical power of censures; 
 holding that both the power of making 
 ecclesiastical laws, and the corrective power 
 to censure transgressors, is proper to the 
 magistrate. 
 
 The tutor which bred up the Erastian 
 error was Arminianism ; for the Arminians, 
 finding their plants plucked up, and their 
 poison antidoted by classes and synods, there- 
 upon they began to cry down synodical 
 authority, and to appeal to the magistrate's 
 power in things ecclesiastical, hoping for 
 more favour and less opposition that way. 
 They will have synods only to examine, 
 dispute, discuss, to impose nothing under 
 pain of ecclesiastical censure, but to leave 
 all men free to do as they list. See their 
 Exam. Cens. cap. 25, and Vindic. lib. 2, 
 cap. 6, p. 131- — 133. And for the magis- 
 ti-ate, they have endeavoui-ed to make him 
 head of the church, as the Pope was ; yea, 
 so far, that they are not ashamed to ascribe 
 unto the magistrate that jurisdiction over 
 the churches, synods, and ecclesiastical pro- 
 ceedings, which the Pope did formerly usurp. 
 For which see Apollonius in his Jus Majcs- 
 tatis Circa Sacra. 
 
 But the Erastian error being thus born, 
 nursed, fed and educated, did fall into a 
 most deadly decay and consumption ; the 
 procuring causes whereof were these three : 
 — First, The best and most (and in some 
 respect all) of the reformed churches refused 
 
 to receive, harbour, or entertain it, and so 
 left it exposed to hunger and cold, shame 
 and nakedness. 
 
 Some harbour it had in Switzerland, but 
 that was looked upon as coming only through 
 injury of time, which could not be helped : 
 the theological and scriptural principles of 
 the divines of those churches being anti- 
 Erastian and Presbyterial, as I have else- 
 where shown against Mr Coleman so 
 that Erastianism could not get warmth and 
 strength enough, no not in Zurich itself. 
 Yea, Dr Ursinus, in his Judicium de Dis- 
 ciplina Ecclesiastica et Excommunica- 
 tione, exhibited to the Prince Elector Pala- 
 tine Frederick III. (who had required him 
 to give his judgment concerning Erastus's 
 theses), doth once and again observe, that 
 all the reformed churches and divines, as 
 well those that did not practise excommuni- 
 cation as those who did practise it, agree, 
 notwithstanding, in this principle, that ex- 
 communication ought to be in the church ;2 
 which is a mighty advantage against Eras- 
 tianism. 
 
 The second cause was a misaccident from 
 the midwife, who did half stifle it in the 
 birth, froni which did accrue a most danger- 
 ous infirmity, of which it could never recover. 
 Read the preface of Erastus before the Con- 
 firmation of his Theses,^ also the close of his 
 
 1 See Nihil Respondes, p. 32, 33, Male audis, 
 p. 52, 53. 
 
 2 In aliis (ecclesiis) nbi aut nulla est excommn- 
 nicatio in usu, aut non legitime administratur, ac 
 nihilominus absque omni controversia, in confesso 
 est ac palam docttur, cam merito in ecclesia vigere 
 debere. Et infra. I\ e etiam celsitudo tua se snas- 
 que ecclesias ab aliis omnibus ecclesiis, tam ab iis 
 quae nullam babcnt excoramnnicationcm, quam ab 
 lis quae habent, nova liaec opinione scjungat : siqui- 
 dem universae ac singulae uno ore confitentur, sem- 
 perque confessae sunt, merito illam in usu esse de- 
 bere. 
 
 3 Erast. Proefat. Nos de illis solis loqui peccato- 
 ribus qui doctriuam intelligunt, probant araplectun- 
 tur : peccata sua se agnoscere vers atque odisse aiunt, , 
 et sacramentis secundum institutionem Christi uti j 
 cupiunt. Et lib. 6, cap. 2, Faciunt praeterea nobis i 
 injuriam (imrao vera calumnia est) cum dicuut nos 
 omnes sine uUo examine velle admitti, quales sint 
 ac esse velint. Quippe sic volumus unumqnem- 
 que admitti, quomodo ecclesiae uostrae consuetude 
 et regula jubet. Et infra. Sine ut idololatram et 
 apostatam, negamus membrum esse ecclesiae Chris- 
 ti, sic etiara Xequitiam suam defendentcm negamus 
 inter membra ecclesiae censendum esse. Et quem- 
 admodum illos ex Cbristiano coetu judicamus exter- 
 minandos, sic hos quoque putamus in eo ccEtu non 
 esse ferendos. Verum neque de his, neque de illis 
 quaerunt nostrae theses : sed disputatur in eis, de 
 solis doctrinam amplexantibus, et sacramentis rite 
 cum ecclesia uti cupieutibus, hoc est pseuitentiam 
 eodem modo quo alii profitentibus. 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 77 
 
 sixth book : put these together, you will find 
 him yield that all ought not to be admitted 
 promiscuously to the sacrament, hut that such 
 admission be according to the custom and rule 
 observed in the church of Heidelberg (and 
 what that was, you may find in the Heidel- 
 berg Catechism, quest. 82 and 87, namely, 
 a suspension of profane scandalous persons 
 from the sacrament ; and in case of their ob- 
 stinacy and continuing in their offences, an 
 excommunicating of them). He yields also 
 that these seven sorts of persons ought not 
 to be esteemed as membei'S of the church, 
 and that if any such be found in the visible 
 church, they ought to be cast out: — 1. Idola- 
 ters. 2. Apostates. 3. Such as do not un- 
 derstand the true doctrine; that is, ignorant 
 persons. 4. Such as do not approve and 
 embrace the true doctrine ; that is, heretics 
 and sectaries. 5. Such as desire to receive 
 the sacrament otherwise than in the right 
 manner, and according to Christ's institu- 
 tion. 6. Such as defend or justify their 
 wickedness. 7. Such as do not confess and 
 acknowledge their sins, and profess sorrow 
 and repentance for them, and a hatred or 
 detestation of them. And thus, you see, as 
 Erastianism pleadeth for no favour to sec- 
 taries, or whosoever dissent in doctrine, or 
 whose tenets concerning Christ's institution, 
 or manner of administration, are contrary 
 to that which is received in the church 
 where they live (for it is content that all 
 such, were they never so peaceable and godly, 
 be cast out of the church by excommunica- 
 tion :^ all the favour and forbearance which 
 it pleadeth for is to the loose and profane), 
 so neither doth it altogether exempt the 
 profane, but such only as do neither deny 
 nor defend their wickedness, but confess 
 their sins, and profess sorrow for them. 
 Let the Erastians of this time observe what 
 their great Master hath yielded touching 
 the ecclesiastical censure of profane ones, 
 which, though it is not satisfactory to us, 
 for reasons elsewhere given, yet it can be as 
 little satisfactory to them. But whereas 
 Erastus, together with those his concessions 
 (that he may seem to have said somewhat), 
 fixlis a quarrelling with presbyteries for pre- 
 
 1 Erastus ib. Equidom in Thcsibus ab initio mo- 
 nui, me dc sola ilia excominunicationc agere, qua 
 aliqui doctrinam intelligentes, probantes, amplex- 
 antes, et sacramentis recte uti cupientes, quod ad 
 externum usura attinet ab eiisdera propter anteactae 
 vitae turpitudinem a quibusdam presbyteris repel- 
 luntur : quia scilicet uon videtur eis scrio dolere, 
 qui lapsus fuit, ac sibi dolere id profitetur. 
 
 suming to judge of the sincerity of that re- 
 pentance professed by a scandalous sinner, 
 and their not resting satisfied with a man's 
 own profession of his repentance : if his 
 followers will now be pleased to reduce the 
 controversy within that narrow circle — whe- 
 ther a presbytery may excommunicate from 
 the church, or at least suspend from the 
 sacrament, any church member, as an im- 
 penitent scandalous sinner, who yet doth not 
 defend nor deny his sin by which he hath 
 given scandal, but confesseth it, and pro- 
 fesseth sincere and hearty repentance for it 
 (which is the point that Erastus is fain to hold 
 at in the issue), — then I hope we shall be 
 quickly agreed, and the controversy buried ; 
 for we do rest satisfied with the offender's 
 confession of his sin and profession of his 
 repentance, unless his own known words 
 or actions give the lie to his profession of 
 repentance; that is, if he be known to justify 
 and defend his sin in his ordinary discourse, 
 or to continue in the practice of the sin 
 which he professeth to the presbytery he 
 repents of ; if these or such like sure signs of 
 his impenitency be known, must the presby- 
 tery notwitlistanding rest satisfied with his 
 verbal profession of repentance ? All that 
 fear God (I think) would cry, Shame, shame, 
 upon such an assertion. And, moreover, let 
 us take it in the case of an idolater, heretic, 
 apostate (for Erastus is content that such be 
 excluded from the sacrament). Suppose 
 such a one doth confess his sin, and profess 
 repentance, but in the meanwhile is known 
 to be a writer or spreader of books in defence 
 of that idolatry or heresy, or to be a per- 
 suader and enticer of others secretly to that 
 way ; or if there be any other known infalli- 
 ble sign of his impenitency, must his verbal 
 profession to the presbyteiy in such cases be 
 trusted and taken as satisf;xctory ? I am con- 
 fident Erastus himself would not have said 
 so. ^^^aerefore as in the case of an heretic, 
 so in the case of a profane person, or one of 
 a scandalous conversation, there is a neces- 
 sity that the presbytery examine the real 
 signs of repentance ; and the offender's ver- 
 bal profession is not all. 
 
 I'he third cause which helped forward the 
 deadly malady and consumption of Erastian- 
 ism, was the gi'ief, shame, confusion, and 
 loss which it sustained by the learning and 
 labour of some divines in the reformed 
 churches, who had to very good purpose 
 taken pains to discover to the world the 
 cursed nature of that unlucky brood, being 
 
78 Aaron's rod blossomixg, or the 
 
 of the seed of the Amalekitcs, wliich ought 
 not to enter into the congreo-ation of the 
 Lord. The divines who have more especially 
 and particularly appeared against it are (to 
 my observation) these: Beza, de Excommu- 
 nicatione, et Presbi/tcrio contra Erastmn, 
 which was not printed till Erastus's reply 
 unto it was first printed. Whercunto, as 
 Beza, in alarge pretlice, layeth the foundation 
 of a duply, so he had prepared and perfected 
 his duply had he not been hindered by the 
 great troubles of Geneva, at that time be- 
 sieged by the Duke of Savoy ; Beza himself 
 being also at that time seventy-one years old : 
 howbeit, for all that, he did not lay aside the 
 resolution and thought of that duply, if he 
 should have opportunity, and see it requisite 
 or called for ; all which is manifest from 
 that preface. Next to him I reckon Zecharias 
 Ursinus, a most solid judicious divine, who 
 did (as I touched befoi-e) exhiltit to the 
 Prince Elector Palatine Fi-ederick III., 
 Judicium de Disciplina Ecclesiastica et 
 Excommunicatione (which you may find in 
 the end of his third vol.), wherein he doth 
 soundly confute the theses of Erastus ; 
 neither hath any reply been made thereto, 
 that ever I could learn of. Also in his Ca- 
 techetical Explications, quest. 85, he plainly 
 disputes against the Erastian principles. The 
 more strange it is, that Mr Hussey, in his 
 Epistle to the Parliament, would make 
 them believe that Ursinus is his, and not 
 ours, in this controversy. 
 
 After these, there did others, more lately, 
 come upon the stage against the Ei'astian 
 principles, as Casparus Brochmand, a Luth- 
 eran, in System. Theol. torn. 2, Artie, de 
 Disciplina Ecclesiastica, where he examin- 
 eth the most substantial arguments of Eras- 
 tus ; Antonius Walden, de Munere Minis- 
 trorumEcclesice et inspectioneMagistratus 
 circa illud, et in locis com. de clavivihus 
 et potestate ecclesiastica, et tom. 2, Disp. 
 de Disciplina Ecclesiastica ; Hehnichius, 
 de vocatione Pastorum et institutione Con- 
 sistoriorum ; J). Triglandius, in disserta- 
 tione de Potestate Civili et Ecclesiastica ; 
 D. Revius, in examine libelli de Episcopatu 
 Constantini magni; D. Apollonii, Jus Ma- 
 jestatis circa sacra ; D. Cabeliavius, de li- 
 hertatc Ecclesice in exercenda Disciplina 
 Spirituali ; Dr Voetius, in his Politica Ec- 
 clesiastica, especially his Disputationes de 
 Potestate et Politia Ecclesiarum. Besides 
 Acronius, Thysius, Ludov. a Renesse, who 
 were champions against that unhappy error 
 
 revived in the Low Countries, by Wtenbo- \ 
 gard, a proselyte of the Arminians. 
 
 But now, while Era-stianism did thus lie a 
 dying, and like to breathe its last, is there no 
 physician who will undertake the cure, and 
 endeavour to raise it up from the gates of 
 death to life? Yes, Mr Coleman wa.s the man, 
 who (to that purpose) first appeared publicly : 
 First, by a sermon to the parliament ; next, 
 by debating the controversy with myself in 
 writing ; and, lastly, by engaging in a pub- 
 he debate in the reverend Assembly of Divines, 
 against this proposition, — "Jesus Christ, as 
 King and Head of his church, hath ap- 
 pointed a government in the church, in the : 
 hands of church-officers, distinct from the 
 civil government. " After he had some days 
 argued against this proposition (having full 
 liberty both to argue and reply as much 
 as he pleased), it pleased God to visit him 
 with sickness, during which the Assembly 
 (upon intimation from himself, that he wished 
 them to lay aside that pi'oposition for a time, 
 that, if God should give him health again, 
 he might proceed in his debate), did go 
 upon another matter, and lay this aside for 
 that season. The Lord was pleased to re- 
 move him by death before he could do what 
 he intended in this and other particulars. 
 One of his intentions was to translate, and 
 publish in English, the book of Erastus 
 against excommunication. But, through 
 God's mercy, before the poison was ready, 
 there was one antidote ready, I mean Mr 
 Rutherford's answer to Erastus. But though 
 Mr Coleman was the first man, he was not 
 the only man that hath appeared in this 
 controversy in England. Others (and those of 
 divers professions) are come upon the stage. 
 I shall leave every man to his Judge, and 
 shall judge nothing before the time ; only 
 I shall wish every man to consider sadly and 
 seriously, l)y what spirit and principles he is 
 led, and whether he be seeking the things 
 of Christ, or his own things ; whether he be 
 pleasing men, or pleasing Christ; whether sin 
 be more shamed and holiness more advanced, 
 this way or that way ; which way is the 
 most agreeable to the word of God, to the 
 example of the best reformed churches, and 
 so to the solemn League and Covenant. The 
 controversy is now hot : every faithfvil servant 
 of Christ will be careful to deliver his own 
 soul by his faithfulness, and let the Lord do 
 what seemeth him good. The cause is not 
 ours, but Christ's ; it stands him upon his 
 honour, his crown, his laws, his kingdom. 
 
DIVINE ORUINAJvX'E OF CHURCH GOVEKNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 79 
 
 Our eyes arc towards the Lord, and we 
 will wait tor a divine decision of the business : 
 " For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is 
 our lawgiver, the Lord is our king, he will 
 save us. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 SOME POSTULATA OR COMJION PRINCIPLES TO 
 BE PRESUPPOSED. 
 
 For a foundation to the following discourse, 
 I shall shall premise the particulars follow- 
 ing, which I hope shall be condescended 
 upon, and acknowledged, as so many Koivai 
 ii'iotai. 
 
 1. There must be a most conscientious 
 and special care had, that there be not a 
 promiscuous admission of all sorts of persons 
 (that please or desire) to partake in all the 
 public ordinances of God ; but a distinction 
 is to be made of the precious and the vile, 
 the clean and the unclean ; I mean those who 
 are apparently and visibly such. This was 
 a principle and rule among the heathens 
 themselves; therefore, when they came to do 
 sacrifice, the profane were bidden begone, ^ 
 and Cajsar tells us, that of old the Druids 
 (the heathenish French priests) did interdict 
 the flagitious from their sacritices and holy 
 things'^. 
 
 These Druids France had from England, 
 if the observation of Francis Holy-Oke, out 
 of Tacitus, hold. 
 
 2. That censures and punishments ought 
 to be appointed and inflicted, as ibr personal 
 and private injuries between man and man, 
 so much more for public and scandalous sins, 
 whereby God is very much dishonoured, and 
 the church dangerously scandalised. Tibc- 
 rius's slighting nvds.nn,I)curum injuvlas diis 
 
 1 Procul, hinc procul ite profani, 
 Conclamat vates, totoque absistite luco. 
 
 Et illud^ ixas ixaf oittis uXit^os 
 Et illud, Tu Genitoi' cape sacra manu patriosque 
 peuates. 
 
 Me bello extento digressum et caede receuti 
 Attrectave iiefas, douec me flumiue vivo 
 A bluero 
 
 2 Coesar, lib. 6, de Bello Galileo. — Si quis privatus 
 aut publicus coi-um decreto non steterit, sacrificiis 
 iiiUrdicunt. llaec poena est apud eos gravissima. 
 Quibus est interdictum, ii numero impiorum ac 
 sceleratoruin haboiitur. Ii oiniies deceduiit. Others 
 read, Ab iis omucs decedunt aditum serinoneinque 
 defugiuut, ne quid ex contagioiie iucoininodi acci- 
 piaut. 
 
 curoi esse, may be entertained among Athe- 
 ists, but is exploded among all true Chris- 
 tians. TlfjwToi' yap »/ Trepi Oeibiy tirifjieXeia, 
 is the Christian maxim. Care is to be flrst 
 taken of things pertaining to God. 
 
 3. It is requisite and necessary, that he 
 who hath given public scandal and oflFence 
 to the church, and hath openly dishonoured 
 God by a gross notorious sin, should honour 
 God, edify others, and (so far as in him 
 lieth) remove the oft'ence by a public con- 
 fession of the sin, and declaration of his sor- 
 row and repentance for the same, and of his 
 resolution (through the grace of Christ) to 
 do so no more ; as many of the believers 
 at Ephesus did publi(;ly confess and show 
 their deeds. Acts xix. 18: the Syriac addeth, 
 their offences. A pattern of this confession 
 we have in the law of Moses and Jewish 
 policy (whereof elsewhere), as likewise in the 
 baptism of John, Mat. iii. 6. 
 
 Of this public confession of sin, see Festus 
 Honnius, disp. 51, thes. 2 ; Mr Hilder- 
 sham on Psal. li. lect. 34, 37, and divers 
 others. Both the word of God, and the 
 example of the best reformed churches, lead- 
 eth us this way. The Centurists, Cent. 1, 
 lib. 2, cap. 4, observe four kinds of confession 
 in the New Testament : First, a confession 
 of sin to God alone, 1 John i. 9. Secondly, 
 A confession coram ecclcsia, before the 
 church, when men acknowledge publicly 
 their wicked and scandalous deeds, and do 
 profess their repenting and loathing of the 
 same ; and for this tliey cite Acts xix. 18. 
 Thirdly, A confession one to another of par- 
 ticular private injuries and offences, chiefly 
 recommended to those who are at variance, 
 and have wronged one another, James v. 16. 
 Fourthly, The confession or profession of 
 the true faith, 1 John iv. 2. 
 
 4. That public shame put upon a scanda- 
 lous sinner, and the separating or casting 
 out of such an one, as the vile from the pre- 
 cious, is the fittest and most eftectual means 
 which the church can use to humble him, to 
 break his heart, and to bring him to the 
 acknowledgment of his offence. 
 
 5. That there may be, and ol"ten are, such 
 persons in the church whom we must 
 avoid,! E,oni. xvi. 17. Withdraw from them, 
 1 Tim. vi. 5 ; 2 Tim. iii. 5 ; 2 Thes. iii. 6. 
 
 1 Erastus, lib. 4, cap. 7. — Horum dcbetis vitain et 
 mores obscrvare, et quos impuros esse cognovistis 
 vitat e, ne vos quoque inficiamini ; ipsi autem pude- 
 fiant et in viam redeaut. 
 
80 
 
 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 Have no company with them, 2 Thes. iii. 
 14. Not eat witli them, 1 Cor. v. 11. Nor 
 bid them God speed, 2 John, 10, 11. 
 
 6. That since thei-e must be a withdraw- 
 ing from a brother that walketh disorderly 
 and scandalously, it is more agreeable to the 
 glory of God, and to the church's peace, 
 that this be done by a puljlic authoritative 
 ecclesiastical judgment and sentence, than 
 wholly and solely to trast it to the piety 
 and prudence of each particular Christian, 
 to esteem as heathens and publicans, whom, 
 and when, and for what he shall think good, 
 and accordingly to withdraw and separate 
 from them. 
 
 7. That there is a distinction between 
 magistracy and ministry, even jure divino. 
 That the civil magistrate hatli not power to 
 abolish or continue the nnnistry, in abstrac- 
 to, at his pleasure ; nor yet to make or un- 
 make ministers in concreto, — that is, to or- 
 dain or depose ministers as he thinks fit. 
 
 8. As the offices are distinct, so is the 
 power :^ magistrates may do what ministers 
 may not do, and ministers may do what 
 magistrates may not do, 
 
 9. It is juris communis, a principle of 
 common equity and natural reason, that the 
 directive judgment in any matter doth 
 chiefly belong to such as (by their profession 
 and vocation) are devoted and set apart to 
 the study and knowledge of such matters, 
 and (in that respect) supposed to be ablest 
 and fittest to give judgment thereof: a 
 consultation of physicians is called for when 
 the magistrate desires to know the nature, 
 symptoms, or cure of some dangerous di- 
 sease ; a consultation of lawyers in legal 
 questions ; a council of war in military 
 expeditions. If the magistrate be in a ship 
 at sea, he takes not on him the directive 
 part of navigation, which belongs to the 
 master, with the mates and pilot ; neither 
 doth the master of the ship (if it come to a 
 sea-fight) take on him the directive part in 
 the fighting, which belongs to the captain. 
 And so in all other cases, artijici in sua 
 arte crcdendum. ^\Tierefore, though the 
 judgment of Christian prudence and discre- 
 tion belongs to every Clii'istian, and to the 
 magisti'ate in his station ; and though the 
 
 1 Sdlmasius, Appar. ad lib.de prim. p. 303. — Cum 
 sit ut jam vidimus duplex potestas ecclesiastica, al- 
 tera interna, externa altera, tam peccant qui utram- 
 que principi, vel magistratui civili tribuunt, quam 
 qui utramque denegaut miuistro ecclesiastico. 
 
 magistrate may be, and sometime is, learned 
 in the Scriptures, and well acquainted with 
 the principles of time divinity, yet, ut plv^ 
 rimum and ordinarily, especially in a rightly 
 reformed and well constituted clmrch, minis- 
 ters are to be supposed to be fittest and ablest 
 to give a directive judgment in things and 
 causes spiritual and ecclesiastical; with whom 
 also other ruling church officers do assist and 
 join, who are more experimentally and prac- 
 tically (they ought also to be, and divers times 
 are, more theoretically) acquainted with the 
 right way and niles of church government 
 and censures, than the civil magistrate (when 
 he is no ruling elder in the church, which Ls 
 but accidental) can be rationally or ordina- 
 rily supposed to be. 
 
 10. There is some power of government 
 in tlie church given to the ministry by 
 Christ, else why are they said to be set 
 over us in the Lord, and called rulers and 
 governors ? as we shall see afterwards. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 WHAT THE ERASTI.VNS YIELD UNTO VS, AND 
 WHAT WE YIELD UNTO THEM. 
 
 For better stating of the controversy, we 
 shall first of all take notice of such particu- 
 lars as are the opposites' concessions to us, 
 or our concessions to them. Their conces- 
 sions are these : — 
 
 1. That the Christian magistrate, in or- 
 dering and disposing of ecclesiastical causes 
 and matters of I'eligion, is tied to keep close 
 to the rule of the word of God ; and that 
 as he may not assume an arbitraiy govern- 
 ment of the state, so far less of the church.' ' 
 
 2. That church officers may exercise 
 church government, and authority in mat- 
 ters of religion, where the magistrate doth 
 not profess and defend the true religion : 
 in such a case, two governments are allowed 
 to stand together — one civil, another eccle- 
 siastical. This Erastus granteth, as it were, 
 
 1 Erastus, Confirm. Thes. lib. 3. cap. 1. — Yerun- 
 taraen ut in rebus profanis curandis ei (magistra- 
 tui; non licet terminos et fines aequitatis, justitiae 
 ac honcstatis, hoc est praescriptionem legum et sta- 
 tutorum Rcip. transcendere. Sic in disponendis et 
 ordinandis rebus sacris, Tel ad cultura divinum per- 
 tinentibus, longe minus ei licet nlla in parte, a prae- 
 scripto verbi Dei discedere; quod tarquam rogulura 
 in omnibus debet sequi, ab coquenusquam vel latum 
 pilum deflectere. 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 81 
 
 by constraint and it seems by way of com- 
 pliance with the divines of Zurich (who hold 
 excommunication by church officers under 
 an infidel magistrate, and that jure dlvino) 
 to move them to comply the more with him 
 in other particulars. 
 
 3. That the abuse of church government 
 is no good argument against the thing itself : 
 " There being no authority so good, so ne- 
 cessary in church or state, but by reason of 
 their corruptions who manage it, may be 
 abused to tyrarmy and oppression." These 
 are Mr Prynne's words, Vindic. of the Four 
 Questions, p. 2. 
 
 4. That some jurisdiction belongs to pres- 
 byteries by divine right. Mr Prymie, in his 
 epistle dedicatory before the Vindication of 
 his Four Questions, saith, that his scope is, 
 *' not to take from our new presbyteries all 
 ecclesiastical jurisdiction due by divine right 
 to them, but to confine it within certain de- 
 finite limits, to prevent all exorbitant abuses 
 of it. 
 
 5. That the Christian magistrate ought 
 not, may not, preach the word, nor minister 
 the sacraments. Mr Coleman, in his Uro- 
 therly Examination Re-examined, p. 14, 
 " I never had it in my thoughts that the 
 jjarliaraont had power of dispensing the 
 word and sacraments." Then so far there 
 is a distinction of magistracy and ministry 
 jure divino ; yet in this he did not so well 
 agree with Erastus.^ 
 
 6. That the ministry is jure divino, and 
 ininisters have their j)ower and authority of 
 preaching the word derived to thein from 
 Christ, not from the magistrate. So Mr 
 Hussey in his epistle to myself, " We preach 
 the word with all authority Irom Cinist, de- 
 rived to us by those of our brethren that 
 were in commission before us. Magistrates 
 may drive away false teachers, but not the 
 preachers of the gospel, but at their utmost 
 peril." 
 
 7. They admit and allow of presbyteries, 
 so that they do not exercise government and 
 jurisdiction. Erastus, lib. 4, cap. 1. 
 
 Our concessions to our opposites are these : 
 
 J Erastus, Confirm. Thes. lib. 3, cap. 1. — Intelligi 
 hoc debet de ea repub. dictum, in qua magistratus et 
 subditi, eandem prolitentur religionem, earaque ve- 
 ram. In Lac dico duas distinctas jurisdictioues mi- 
 nirae debere esse. In alia, in qua videlicet magis- 
 tratus falsam tuetur seutentiani, ccrto quodammodo 
 tolerabilis videri fortasse possit divisio lectionum. 
 
 2 Ibid. lib. 4, cap. 2. — Quod addis non licere ma- 
 gistratui, re ita postulante, docere ot sacramenta 
 administra re (si raodo per negotia possit utrique 
 muueri sufficere) id verum non est. 
 
 1. That all are not to be admitted pro- 
 miscuously either to be governors or mem- 
 bers in the ecclesiastical republic, that is, 
 in a visible political church. None are to 
 govern nor to be admitted members of 
 presbyteries or synods, except such as, both 
 for abihties and conversation, are qualified 
 according to that which the apostle Paul re- 
 quireth a bishop or elder to be.^ Scandalous 
 or profane church-officei's are the worst of 
 dogs and swine, and to be first cast out. 
 And as all are not to govern, so all are 
 not to be governed ecclesiastically, but only 
 church membei's, 1 Cor. v. 12; therefore 
 what hath been objected concerning many, 
 both pastors and people in England, who 
 are still branches of the old stock, doth not 
 strike against what we hold : All are not fit 
 for a church government ; therefore those 
 that are fit shall not have a church govei'n- 
 nient. So they nuist argue, or thus : A po- 
 pish people are not fit to be governed pres- 
 byterially, and episcopal ministers are not 
 fit to govern, therefore the rest of the na- 
 tion shall want a government. 
 
 2. Presbyterial goveiinnent is not despo- 
 tical, but ministerial; it is not a dominion, 
 but a service. We are not lords over God's 
 heritage, 1 Pet. v. 3, but we are the ser- 
 vants both of Christ and of his church. 
 " We preach not ourselves (saith the Apos- 
 tle), but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves 
 your servants for Jesus' sake," 2 Cor. iv. 5. 
 
 3. That power of government with which 
 pastors and elders are invested, hath for the 
 object of it, not the external man, but the 
 inward man. It is not, nor ought not to 
 be, exei'cised in any compulsive, coercive, 
 coi'poral, or civil punishments ; when there 
 is need of coercion or compulsion, it belongs 
 to the magistrate, and not to the minister, 
 though the question be of a matter of re- 
 ligion, of persons or things ecclesiastical ; 
 which as it is rightly observed by Sahnasius,'^ 
 so he further asserteth against tiie popish 
 
 1 Bullinger, de Cone, lib. 1, cap. 8. — Si turpe aut 
 indignum quondam videbatur gentes inducere in 
 templum Dei: quare nonvideatur Lodie sacrilegum, 
 introdueere in synodum ecclesiasticam canes et 
 porcos. 
 
 Appar. ad lib. de Primatu, p. 294. — Ubicunque 
 sane imperio opus est per \ira agente ac jubeute, 
 aut jurisdictione cogente et coliercente, iiiliil istic 
 habent quod agant verbi divini niinistri, neque jus 
 agendi uUum, etiamsi de re aut persona ecclesias- 
 tica quaistio sit, aut dereligioue agatur, sed ad prin- 
 cipcs aut magistratus ea vis coactiva, et illud jus 
 imperativura et cocrcitivum pertinet. Ibid, p. 295. 
 — Jurisdictiouem iidem (poutificii doctores) porro 
 
82 
 
 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 writers, that all ecclesiastical jurisdiction 
 hath for the object of it, only the inward 
 man ; for consider the end of church cen- 
 sures, saith he, even when one is excommu- 
 nicated or suspended from the sacrament, it 
 is but to reduce him and restore him by re- 
 pentance, that he may again partake of the 
 sacrament rightly and comfortal:)ly : which 
 I'epentance is in the soul or inward man, 
 though the signs of it appear externally. 
 
 4. Presbyterial government is not an ar- 
 bitrary government, for clearing whereof 
 take these five considerations: — 1. We can 
 do nothing against the tnith, but for the 
 truth ; and the power which the Lord hath 
 given us is to edification, and not to de- 
 struction, 2 Cor. xiii. 8, 10. All presbyterial 
 proceedings must be levelled to this end, and 
 squared by this rule. 2. Presbyters and 
 presbyteries are subject to the law of the 
 land, and to the corrective power of the 
 magistrate : Quatemis ecclesia est in re- 
 publica, et reipub. pars, non respublica 
 ecclesicE, — In so far as the church is in the 
 commonwealth, and a part of the common- 
 wealth, not the commonwealth a part of the 
 church, saith Salmasius, Appar. ad lib. de 
 Primatu, p. 292 ; for which, p. 300, he cites 
 Optatus Milivitanus, lib. 3, Xon enini res- 
 publica est in ecclesia, sed ecclesia in re- 
 publican Ministers and elders are subjects 
 and members of the commonwealth, and in 
 that respect punishable l)y the magistrate 
 if they transgress the law of the land. 3. 
 Yea, also as church officers, they are to be 
 kept within the limits of their calling, and 
 compelled (if need be) by the magistrate to 
 do those duties which by the clear word of 
 God and received piinciples of Christian re- 
 ligion, or by the received ecclesiastical con- 
 stitutions of that church, they ought to do. 
 4. And in corrupto ecclesice statu, I mean, 
 if it shall ever happen (which the Lord for- 
 bid, and I trust shall never be) that pres- 
 
 interiorem ac exteviorem ita distinguunt, ut interior 
 sit qua sacerdos possit peccatorem confessum a pec- 
 catis absolvere et satisfactionem iraponere : exterior 
 autem qua peccatores adstringit vinculo anathema- 
 tis, aliasque publicas censuras irrogat, et abiisdera 
 exsolvit. Verum hae duse jurisdictiones nuam faci- 
 unt, earn que solam interiorum. XuUa quippe ex- 
 terior est, cum utraque respiciat et pro objecto 
 habeat hominem interiorem, id est animam. Ibid, 
 p. 297. — Finis tantum respici debet. Aliqnis sus- 
 peuditur et excomraunicatur ? Sane, sed ut paeni- 
 tentiam restitui possit, et sacramenta corporis et 
 sanguinis Christi iterum participare. Et paeniten- 
 tia ilia quam quis agit ut possit reconciliari, inte- 
 rioris est hominis. 
 
 byteries or synods shall make defection 
 from the tmth to error, from holiness to 
 profaneness, from moderation to tyranny 
 and persecution, censuring the innocent and 
 absolving the guilty, as Popery and Prelacy 
 did, and their being no hopes of redressing 
 such enormities in the ordinary way, by in- 
 trinsical ecclesiastical remedies; that is, by 
 well-constituted synods, or assemblies of or- 
 thodox, holy, moderate presbyters ; in such 
 an extraordinary exigence, the Christian 
 magistrate may and ought to interpose his 
 authority to do divers things which, in an 
 ordinary course of government, he ought not 
 to do ; for in such a case, magistracy (with- 
 out expecting the proper intrinsical remedy 
 of better ecclesiastical assembhes) may im- 
 mediately, by itself, and in the most effectual 
 manner, suppress and restrain such defec- 
 tion, exorbitancy, and tyranny, and not suf- 
 fer the unjust, heretical, tyrannical sen- 
 tences of presbyteries or synods to be put in 
 execution. Howbeit, in ecclesia bene con- 
 stituta, in a well-constituted and reformed 
 church, it is not to be supposed that the 
 condition of affairs will be such as I have 
 now said. We heartily acknowledge with 
 Mr Cartwright, annot. on ]\Iatt. xxii., sect. 
 3, " That it belongeth to the magistrate to 
 reform things in the church as often as the 
 ecclesiastical persons shall, either through ig- 
 norance or disorder of the affection of co- 
 vetousness or ambition, defile the Lord's 
 sanctuary." For saith Junius, Anirnad. in 
 Bell, contr. 4, hb. 1, cap. 12, 18, " Both 
 the church, when the concurrence of the 
 magistrate faileth, may extraordinarily do 
 something which ordinarily she cannot ; and 
 again when the church faileth of her duty, 
 the magistrate may extraordinarily procure 
 that the church return to her duty. 
 
 5. I dare confidently say, that if compa- 
 risons be rightly made, presbyterial govern- 
 ment is the most limited and the least arbi- 
 trary government of any other in the world. 
 I should have thought it very unnecessary 
 and superfluous to have once named here 
 the papal government, or yet the prelatical, 
 but that Mr Prynne, in his preface to his 
 four grand Questions, puts the reverend As- 
 sembly of Divines in mind, that they should 
 beware of usurping that which hath been 
 even by themselves disclaimed against, and 
 quite taken away from the Pope and pre- 
 lates. Mr Coleman also, in his Sermon, 
 brought objections from the usurpations of 
 Pope Paul V. and of the archbishop of 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 83 
 
 Canterbury. Well, if we must needs make 
 a comparison, come on. The papal usurpa- 
 tions are many : 1. The Pope takes upon 
 him to determine what belongs to the ca- 
 non of Scripture, what not. 2. That he 
 only can determine what is the sense of 
 Scripture. 3. He addeth unwritten tradi- 
 tions. 4. He makes himself judge of all 
 controversies. 5. He dispenseth with the 
 law of God itself. 6. He makes himself 
 above general councils. 7. His government 
 is monarchial. 8. He receiveth appeals from 
 all the nations in the world. 9. He claimeth 
 infallibility, at least cx cathedra. 10. He 
 maketh laws absolutely binding the con- 
 science, even in things indifferent. 11. He 
 claimeth a temporal dominion over all the 
 kingdoms in the world. 12. He saith he 
 may depose kings, and absolve subjects from 
 their oath of allegiance. 13. He persecuteth 
 all with fire and sword, and anathemas, who 
 do not subject themselves to him. 14. He 
 claimeth the sole power of convocating 
 genei'al councils. 15. And of presiding or 
 moderating therein by himself or his legates. 
 — What conscience or ingenuity can there 
 now be in making any parallel between papal 
 and presbyterial government ? 
 
 As little there is in making the compari- 
 son with Prelacy, the power whereof was in- 
 deed arbitrary and impatient of those limi- 
 tations and rules which presbyteries and sy- 
 nods, in the reformed churches, walk by. 
 For, 1. The prelate was but one, yet he 
 claimed the power of ordination and juris- 
 diction as proper to himself in his own dio- 
 cese. We give the power of ordination and 
 chui'ch censures not xmi, but unitati; not to 
 one, but to an assembly gathered into one. 
 2. The prelate assumed a perpetual prece- 
 dency, and a constant privilege of modera- 
 ting synods, which presbyterial government 
 denieth to any one man. 3. The prelate 
 did not tie himself either to ask or to re- 
 ceive advice from his fellow-presbyters, ex- 
 cept when he himself pleased ; but there 
 is no presbyterial nor synodical sentence 
 which is not concluded by the major part of 
 voices. 4. The prelate made himself pas- 
 tor to the whole diocese (consisting it may 
 be of some hundreds of congregations), hold- 
 ing that the ministers of particular congre- 
 gations did preach the word and minister 
 the sacraments in his name, by virtue of au- 
 thority and order from him, and because he 
 could not act by himself in every congrega- 
 tion : the presbyterial government acknow- 
 
 ledgeth no pastoral charge of preaching the 
 word and ministering the sacraments to more 
 congregations than one ; and doth acknow- 
 ledge the pastors of particular churches, be- 
 ing lawfully called, to have power and au- 
 thority for preaching the word and minis- 
 tering the sacraments in the name of Christ, 
 and not in the name of the presbytery. 5. 
 The prelates, as they denied the power and 
 authority of pastors, so they utterly denied 
 the very offices of ruling elders and deacons, 
 for taking more especitd care of the poor in 
 particular congregations. 6. They did not 
 acknowledge congregational elderships, nor 
 any power of discipline in particular con- 
 gregations, which the presbyterial govern- 
 ment doth. 7. They intruded pastors oft 
 times against the consent of the congrega- 
 tion, and reclamante ecclesia, which the 
 presbyterial government doth not. 8. They 
 ordained ministers without any particular 
 charge, which the presbyterial government 
 doth not. 9. In synods they did not allow 
 any but the clergy alone (as they kept up 
 the name) to have decisive suffrage. The 
 presbyterial government gives decisive voices 
 to ruling elders as well as to pastors. 10. 
 The prelates declined to be accountable to, 
 and censurable by, either chapters, diocesan 
 or national synods. In presbyterial govern- 
 ment, all (in whatsoever ecclesiastical admin- 
 istration) are called to an account in pres- 
 byteries, provincial and national assemblies 
 respectively, and none are exempted from 
 synodical censures in case of scandal and ob- 
 stinacy. 11. The prelate's power was not 
 merely ecclesiastical, they were lords of 
 parliament, they held civil places in the 
 state, which the presbyterial government 
 condemneth. 12. The prelates were not 
 chosen by the church, presbyters are. 13. 
 The prelates did presume to make law bind- 
 ing the conscience, even in things indif- 
 ferent, and did persecute, imprison, fine, 
 depose, excommunicate men for certain rites 
 and ceremonies acknowledged by themselves 
 to be indifferent (setting aside the will and 
 authority of the law -makers). This the pres- 
 byterial government abhorreth. 14. They 
 did excommunicate for money matters, for 
 trifles, which the presbyteiial government 
 condemneth. 15. The prelates did not al- 
 low men to examine, by the judgment of 
 Christians and private discretion, their de- 
 crees and canons, so as to search the Scrip- 
 tures and look at the warrants, but would 
 needs have men think it enough to know 
 
84 
 
 a.vron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 the things to be commanded by them that 
 are in place and power. Presbyterial go- 
 vernment doth not loi'd it over men's con- 
 sciences, but admitteth (yea commendeth) 
 the searching of the Scriptures, whether 
 these tilings which it holds forth be not so, 
 and doth not press men's consciences with sic 
 volo, sic jubco, but desireth they may do in 
 faith what they do. 16. The prelates held 
 up pluralities, non-residencies, &c., which the 
 presbyterial government doth not. 17. As 
 many of the prelates did themselves ne- 
 glect to preach the gospel, so they kept up 
 in divers places a reading non-preaching 
 ministry, which the presbyterial government 
 sufFereth not. 18. They opened the door 
 of the ministry to divers scandalous, Armi- 
 nianised, and popishly-aflfected men, and 
 locked the door upon many worthy to be ad- 
 mitted. The presbyterial government here- 
 in is as contrary to theirs, as theirs was to 
 the right. 19. Their official courts, commis- 
 saries, &:c., did serve themselves heirs to the 
 sons of Eli, " Nay, but thou shalt give it me 
 now, and if not, 1 will take it by force." The 
 presbyterial government hateth such pro- 
 ceedings. 20. The prelates and their high 
 commission court did assume potestatem 
 utriusque gladii, the power both of the tem- 
 poral and civil sword. The presbyterial go- 
 vernment meddleth with no civil nor tem- 
 poral punishments. 
 
 I do not intend to enumerate all the 
 differences between the papal and prelati- 
 cal government on the one side, and the 
 presbyterial government on the other side, 
 in this point of unlimitedness or arbitrari- 
 ness. These differences which I have given 
 may serve for a conscientious caution to in- 
 telligent and modei-ate men, to beware of 
 such odious and unjust comparisons as have 
 been used by some, and among others by 
 Mr Saltmarsh, in his Parallel between the 
 Prclari^ and Preshytvry ; which, as it can- 
 not strike against us, nor any of the reformed 
 churches (who acknowledge no such presby- 
 tery as he describeth), and, in some parti- 
 culars, striketh at the ordinance of pailia- 
 ment (as, namely, in point of the Directory), 
 so he that hath a mind to a recrimination, 
 might, with more truth, lay divers of those 
 imputations upon those whom (I believe) he 
 is most unwilling they should be laid upon. 
 
 In the third place, The prcsbyterian go- 
 vernment is more limited and less arbitrary 
 than the independent government of single 
 congi'cgations, which, exempting themselves 
 
 fi-om the presbyterial subordination, and 
 from being accountable to, and censurable 
 by, classes or synods, must needs be sup- 
 posed to exercise a much more unlimited 
 or arbitrary power than the presbyterial 
 churches do ; especially when this .shall be 
 compared and laid together with one of 
 their three grand principles, which disclaim- 
 eth the binding ot themselves for the future 
 unto their present judgment and practice, 
 and avoucheth the keeping of this reserve to 
 alter and retract. See their Apologetical 
 Narration, p. 10, 11, by which it appear- 
 eth that their way will not suffer them to 
 be so far moulded into an unifomiity, or 
 bounded within certain particular rules (I 
 say not with others, Imt even among them- 
 selves), as the presbyterial! way will ad- 
 mit of. 
 
 Finally, The presbyterial government 
 hath no such liberty nor arbitrariness, as 
 civil or military government hatli, there 
 being in all civil or temporal affairs a great 
 deal of latitude left to those wlio manage 
 the same, so that they command nor act 
 nothing against the word of God. But pres- 
 byterial government is tied up to the rules 
 of Scripture, in all such particulars as are 
 properly spiritual and proper to the church, 
 tliough, in other particulars, occasional cir- 
 cumstances of times, places, accommoda- 
 tions, and the like, the same light of nature 
 and reason guideth both church and state ; 
 yet in things properly spiritual and ecclesi- 
 tical, there is not near so much latitude left 
 to the presbytery, as there is in civil affairs 
 to the magistrate. 
 
 And thus I have made good what I said, 
 That presbyterial government is the most 
 limited and least arbitrary government of 
 any other ; all which vindication and clear- 
 ing of the presbyterial Qfovernment doth 
 overthrow (as to this point) Mr Ilussey's 
 Observation, p. 9, of the irregularity and 
 arbitrariness of church government. And 
 so much for my fourth concession. 
 
 The fifth shall be this : It is far from our 
 meaning that the Christian magistrate should 
 not meddle with matters of religion, or with 
 things and causes ecclesiastical, and that he 
 is to take care of the commonwealth, but 
 not of the church. Certainly there is nmch 
 power and authority which, by tlie word of 
 God, and by the Confessions of I'aith of tlie 
 reformed churches, doth belong to the Chris- 
 tian magisti'ate in matters of religion, which 
 I do but now touch by the way, so far as is 
 
85 
 
 necessary to wipe off the aspersion cast upon 
 presbyterinl oovernment. The particulars 
 1 refer to cliapter 8. 
 
 Our sixth concession is, That in extraor- 
 dinary cases, when church government doth 
 degenerate into tyi'anny, ambition, and ava- 
 rice, and they wlio have the managing of 
 the ecclesiastical power, make defection and 
 fall into manifest heresy, impiety or injus- 
 tice (as under Popery and Prelacy it was for 
 the most jiart), then, and in such cases 
 (which we pray and hope we shall never see 
 again), the Christian magistrate may and 
 ought to do divers things in and for reli- 
 gion, and interpose his authority divers 
 ways, so as doth not properly belong to his 
 cognisance, decision and administration or- 
 dinarily, and in a reformed and well-con- 
 stituted church ; for extraordinary diseases 
 must have extraordinary remedies. More 
 of til is before. 
 
 A seventh concession is this. The civil 
 sanction added to church government and 
 discipline, is a free and voluntary act of the 
 magistrate, that is, church government doth 
 not, ex natura rei, necessitate the magis- 
 trate to aid, assist, or corroborate the same, 
 by adding the strength of a law. But the 
 magistrate is free in this to do or not to do, 
 to do more or to do less, as he will answer 
 to God and his conscience. It is a cumula- 
 tive act of favour done by the magistrate. 
 My meaning is not, tiiat it is free to the 
 magistrate, in gencre morls, but in genere 
 cutis. The magistrate ought to add the 
 civil sanction hie ct nunc, or he ought not 
 to do it. It is either a duty or a sin ; it is 
 not indifferent. But my meaning is, the 
 magistrate is free herein from all coaction, 
 yea, from all necessity and obligation, otiier 
 than ai'iseth from the word of God liinding 
 his conscience. Tiiere is no power on earth, 
 civil or spiritual, to constrain him. The ma- 
 gistrate himself is his own judge on earth 
 how far he is to do any cumulative act of 
 favour to the church ; which takes off that 
 cahnnny, that presbyterial government dotii 
 force or compel the conscience of the magis- 
 trate. I pray God we may never have 
 cause to state the question otherwise, I 
 mean, concerning the magistrate's forbid- 
 ding what Christ hath connnanded, or com- 
 manding what Cln-ist hath forbidden, in 
 which case we must serve Christ and our 
 consciences, rather than obey laws contrary 
 to the word of God and our covenant ; 
 whereas in the other c;ise, of the maois- 
 
 trate's not adding of the civil sanction, we 
 may both serve Christ, and do it without 
 the least appearance of disobedience to the 
 magistrate. 
 
 Eighthly, We grant that pastors and el- 
 ders, whether they be considered distribu- 
 tively, or collectively in presbyteries and 
 synods, being subjects and members of the 
 commonwealth, ought to be subject and obe- 
 dient in the Lord to the magistrate and to 
 the law of the land ; and, as in all other 
 duties, so in civil subjection and obedience, 
 they ought to be ensamples to the flock; 
 and their ti-espasses against law are punish- 
 able as much, yea, more, than the trespasses 
 of other subjects. Of this also before. 
 
 Ninthly, If the magistrate be offended at 
 the sentence given, or censui'e inflicted, by 
 a presbytery or a synod, they ought to be 
 ready, in all humility and respect, to give 
 him an account and reason of such proceed- 
 ings, and by all means to endeavour the 
 satisfaction of the magistrate's conscience, or 
 otherwise to be warned and rectified if them- 
 selves have erred. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 OF THE AGREEMENTS AND DIFFERENCES BE- 
 TWEEN THE NATURE OF THE CIVIL AND 
 OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL POWERS OR GO- 
 VERNMENTS. 
 
 Having now observed what our opposites 
 yield to us, or we to them, I shall, for fur- 
 ther unfolding of what I plead for or against, 
 add here the chief agreements and differ- 
 ences between the civil and ecclesiastical 
 powers, so far as I apprehend them. They 
 both agree in these things : 1. They are ' 
 both from God — both the magisti-ate and 
 the minister is authorised from God — both 
 are the ministers of God, and shall give ac- 
 count of their administrations to God. 2. 
 Both are tied to observe the law and com- 
 mandments of God, and both have certain 
 directions from the word of God to guide 
 them in their administration. 3. Both civil 
 magistrates and church officers are fathers, 
 and ought to be honoui'cd and obeyed accord- 
 ing to the fifth conmiandment. Utrumque 
 scilicet dominium, saith Luther, torn. 1,. 
 fol. 139. Both goverinnents, the civil and 
 the ecclesiastical, do pertain to that com- 
 mandment. 4. Both magistracy and minis- 
 
86 
 
 Aaron's rod blossomixg, or the 
 
 try are appointed for the glory of God as 
 supreme, and for the good of men, as the 
 subordinate end. 5. They are both of them 
 mutually aiding and auxiliary each to other ; 
 magistracy strengthens the ministry, and the 
 ministry strengthens magistracy. 6. They 
 agree in their general kind, they are both 
 powers and governments. 7- Both of them 
 require singular qualifications, eminent gifts 
 and endowments, and of both it liolds true, 
 Quis ad hcec idoneus ? 8. Both of them 
 have degrees of censure and correction accor- 
 ding to the degrees of offences. 9. Neither 
 the one nor the other may give out sentence 
 against one who is not convicted, or whose 
 offence is not proved. 10. Both of them 
 have a certain kind of jurisdiction in foro 
 exteriori ; for though the ecclesiastical power 
 be spiritual, and exercised about such things 
 as belong to the inward man only, yet, as 
 Dr Rivet upon the Decalogue, p. 260, 261, 
 saith truly : " There is a two-fold power of 
 external jurisdiction which is exercised in 
 foro exteriori, one by church censures, ex- 
 communication, lesser and greater, which is 
 not committed to the magistrate, but to 
 church officers ; another, which is civil and 
 coercive, and that is the magistrate's." But 
 Mr Coleman told us, " He was persuaded it 
 will trouble the whole world to bound eccle- 
 siastical and civil jurisdiction, the one from 
 the other," Maledicls, p. 7. Well, I have 
 given ten agreements, I w'lW now give ten 
 differences. 
 
 The difference between them is great. 
 They differ in their causes, effects, objects, 
 adjuncts, correlations, executions, and ulti- 
 mate terminations. 
 
 1. In the efficient cause. The King of 
 nations hath instituted the civil power ; the 
 King of saints hath instituted the ecclesias- 
 tical power; I mean, the most high God, 
 possessor of heaven and earth, who exercis- 
 eth sovereignty over the workmanship of his 
 own hands, and so over all mankind, hath 
 instituted magistrates to be in his stead as 
 gods upon earth. But Jesus Christ, as Me- 
 diator and King of the church, whom his 
 Father hath "set upon his holy hill of 
 Zion," Psal. ii. 6, " to reign over the house 
 of Jacob for ever," Luke i. 33, " who hath 
 the key of the house of David laid upon his 
 shoulder," Isa. xxii. 22, hath instituted an 
 ecclesiastical power and government in the 
 hands of church-officers, whom, in his name, 
 he sendeth forth. 
 
 2. In the matter. Magistracy, or civil 
 
 power, hath, for the matter of it, the earthly 
 sceptre and the temporal s^vord, that is, it 
 is monarchial and legislative; it is also pu- 
 nitive or coercive of those that do evil. 
 Understand, upon the like reason, remune- 
 rative of those that do well. The ecclesi- 
 astical power hath, for the matter of it, the 
 keys of the kingdom of heaven. i 1. The 
 key of knowledge or doctrine, and that to 
 be administered not only severally by each 
 minister concionaliter, but also consistorially I 
 and synodically, in determining controversies ' 
 of faith, and that only according to the rule 
 of holy Scripture, which is clavis boyfiuTiKij. ; 
 2. The key of order and decency, so to speak, 
 liy which the circumstances of God's worship, 
 and all such particulars in ecclesiastical al- I 
 fairs as are not determined in Scripture, are 
 determined by the ministers and ruhng offi- j 
 cers of the church, so as may best agree to ' 
 the general rules of the Word concerning 
 order and decency, avoiding of scandal, do- 
 ing all to the glory of God, and to the edi- 
 fying of one another. And this is clavis 
 biartikTiK}) 3. The key of corrective dis- 
 cipline, or censures to be exercised upon the 
 scandalous and obstinate, which is clavis 
 cpirit^. 4. Add also the key of oi'dination 
 or mission of church-officers, which I may 
 call clavis klovaiaariKii, the authorising or 
 power-giving key ; others call it missio po- ' 
 testativa. 
 
 3. They differ in their forms. The power 
 of magistracy is ap\tT-ei.roftKi) and iec-ortk^. 
 It is an authority or dominion exercised in 
 the particulars above mentioned, and that 
 in an immediate subordination to God ; for 
 which reason magistrates are called gods. 
 The ecclesiastical power is vn-ijperiK-)/, or 
 ^lakoficij, or viKoro/jiK)] only. It is merely 
 ministerial and steward-hke, and exercised 
 in an immediate subordination to Jesus 
 Christ as King of the church, and in his 
 name and authority. 
 
 4. They differ in their ends. The supreme 
 
 1 Festus Honnius, disp. 30, thes. 6 — Circa bonnm 
 spirituale Tersatur potestas ecclesiastica proprie ita 
 dicta, cujus proprium officium est verbnm Dei prae- 
 dicare, sacramenta administrare, disciplinara eccle- 
 siasticam exercere, miaistros ecclesiae ordinare, de 
 controTersiis ecclesiasticis quae circa doctrinam aut 
 regimen ecclesiae intercidunt, ordinarie judicare, et 
 de ritibns adiaphoris ad ordinem, decorum atqne 
 aedificationem ecclesiae pertinentibus, canones sen 
 leges ecclesiasticas constituere. J. Gerhardus, loc. 
 com. torn. 6, p. 49-i. — Distinguitur Cbristi regnnm 
 ad quod potestas clavium pertinet, ab imperils mun- 
 danis quae gladio corporali in administratione utun- 
 tur. 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 87 
 
 end of magistracy is only the glory of God 
 as King of nations, and as exercising domi- 
 nion over the inhabitants of the earth ; and 
 in that respect the magistrate is appointed 
 to keep his subjects within the bounds of 
 external obedience to the moral law, the 
 obligation whereof lieth upon all nations and 
 all men. The supreme end of the ecclesi- 
 astical power is either proximus or remotus. 
 The nearest and immediate end is the glory 
 of Jesus Christ, as Mediator and King of the 
 chui-ch. The more remote end is the glory 
 of God, as having all power and authority in 
 heaven and earth. You will say. Must not 
 then the Christian magistrate intend the 
 glory of Jesus Christ, and to be subservient 
 to him, as he is Mediator and King of the 
 church ? Certainly he ought and must ; 
 and God forbid but that he should do so. 
 But how ? Not qua magistrate, but qua 
 Christian. If you say to me again. Must 
 not the Christian magistrate intend to be 
 otherwise subservient to the kingdom of J e- 
 sus Christ as Mediator, than by personal or 
 private Christian duties, which are incum- 
 bent on every Christian? I answer. No doubt 
 he ought to intend more, even to glorify 
 Jesus Christ in the administration of magis- 
 tracy ; which that you may rightly appre- 
 hend, and that I be not misunderstood, take 
 this distinction : It is altogether incumbent 
 on the ruling officers of the church to intend 
 the glory of Christ as Mediator, even ex na- 
 tura rei, in regard of the very nature of 
 ecclesiastical power and government, which 
 hath no other end and use for which it was 
 intended and instituted, but to be subser- 
 vient to the kingly office of Jesus Christ in 
 the governing of his church upon earth 
 (and therefore sublata ecclesia pcrit regi- 
 men ecclesiasticuni, take away the church 
 out of a nation, and you take away all eccle- 
 siastical power of government, which makes 
 another difference from magistracy, as we 
 shall see anon). But the magistrate, though 
 Christian and godly, doth not cx natura 
 rei, in regard of the nature of his particular 
 vocation, intend the glory of Jesus Christ as 
 Mediator and King of the church; but in 
 reoard of the common principles of Christian 
 religion, which do oblige every Christian, in 
 his particular vocation and station (and so 
 the magistrate in his), to intend that end. 
 All Christians are commanded, that what- 
 ever they do in word or deed, they do all 
 in the name of the Lord Jesus, Col. iii. 17, 
 that is, accordino- to the will of Christ, and 
 
 for the glory of Christ ; and so a merchant, 
 a mariner, a tradesman, a schoolmaster, a 
 captain, a soldier, a printer, and, in a word, 
 every Christian, in his own place and sta- 
 tion, ought to intend the glory of Christ, 
 and the good of his church and kingdom. 
 Upon which ground and principle, if the 
 magistrate be Christian, it is incumbent to 
 him so to administer that high and eminent 
 vocation of his, that Christ may be glorified 
 as King of the church, and that this king- 
 dom of Christ may flourish in his dominions 
 (which would God every magistrate called 
 Christian did really intend). So then the 
 glory of Christ, as Mediator and King of the 
 church, is to the ministry both finis operis, 
 and fi.nis operantis. To the magistrate, 
 though Chi'istian, it is only finis operantis, 
 that is, it is the end of the godly magistrate, 
 but not the end of magistracy ; whereas it 
 is not only the end of the godly minister, but 
 the end of the ministry itself. The minis- 
 ters' intendment of this end flows from the 
 nature of their particular vocation ; the ma- 
 gisti-ates' intendment of the same end flows 
 from the nature of their particular vocation 
 of Christianity, acting, guiding, and having 
 influence into their particular vocation. So 
 much of the supreme ends. 
 
 Now, the subordinate end of all eccle- 
 siastical power is, that all who are of the 
 church, whether officers or members, may 
 live godly, righteously, and soberly, in this 
 present world, be kept within the bounds of 
 obedience to the gospel, void of all known 
 offence toward God and toward man, and be 
 made to walk according to the rules deliv- 
 ered to us by Christ and his apostles. The 
 subordinate end of the civil power is, that all 
 public sins committed presumptuously against 
 the moral law, may be exemplarily punished, 
 and that peace, justice, and good order, may 
 be preserved and maintained in the com- 
 monwealth, which doth greatly redound to 
 the comfort and good of the church, and to 
 the promoting of the course of the gospel. 
 For this end the Apostle bids us pray for 
 kings and all who are in authority (though 
 they be pagans, much more if they be Chris- 
 tians), " that we may live under them a 
 peaceable and quiet life, in all godliness and 
 honesty," 1 Tim. ii. 2. He saith not sim- 
 ply, " that we may live in godliness and 
 honesty," but that we may both live peace- 
 ably and quietly, and also live godly and 
 honestly, which is the very same that we 
 I commonly say of the magistrate, that he is 
 
88 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 custos utriusque tabulce. Ho is to take 
 special care that all his sulijccts be made to 
 observe the law of God, and live not only in 
 moral lionesty, but in godliness, and that so 
 living they may also enjoy peace and quiet- 
 ness. More particularly, the end of church 
 censures is, that men may be ashamed, hum- 
 bled, reduced to repentance, that their spirit 
 may be saved in the day of the Lord ; the 
 end of civil punishments inflicted by the 
 magistrate is, that justice may be done ac- 
 cording to law, and that peace and good 
 order may be maintained in the common- 
 wealth, as hath been said. The end of de- 
 livering Hymeneus and Alexander to Satan 
 was, " that they may learn not to blas- 
 pheme," 1 Tim. i. 20. Erastus yields to 
 Beza, p. 239, that the apostle doth not say, 
 Ut noil possint blasphemare, " that hence- 
 forth they may not be able to sin as they did 
 before (which yet he acknowledgeth to be 
 the end of civil punishments), but that they 
 may learn not to blaspheme." Wherefore, 
 when he expounds ii'a TraibevdMii to no 
 other sense but this — that the Apostle had 
 delivered those two to be killed by Satan, 
 Ut non possint, that they may not be able 
 to blaspheme so any more, just as a magis- 
 trate delivei-s a thief to the gallows, that he 
 may not be able to steal any more, and (as 
 he tells us some speak) that he may learn to 
 steal no more, — he is herein confuted not 
 only out of the text, but out of himself. So 
 then, the end of church censures is 'iva irai- 
 beuOuiai, that the offenders may learn, or be 
 instracted, to do so no more, which belong- 
 eth to the inward man or soul. The end of 
 civil punishments is, Ut non pjossint (as 
 Erastus tells us), that the oft'enders may not 
 be able, or at least (being alive and some 
 way free) may not dare to do the like, the 
 swoi'd being appointed for a terror to them 
 who do evil, to restrain them from public 
 and punishable offences — not to work upon 
 the spirit of their minds, nor to effect the 
 destroying of the flesh by mortification, that 
 the spirit may be safe in the day of the 
 Lord. 
 
 The fifth difference between the civil and 
 ecclesiastical powers is in respect of the 
 effects. The effects of the civil power are 
 civil laws, civil punishments, civil rewards; 
 the effects of tlie ecclesiastical power are 
 determinations of controversies of faith, ca- 
 nons concerning order and decency in the 
 church, ordmation or deposition of church- 
 officers, suspension from the sacrament, and 
 
 excommunication. The powers being dis- 
 tinct in their nature and causes, the effects 
 must needs be distinct which flow from the 
 actuating and putting in execution of the 
 powers. I do not here speak of the effects 
 of the ecclesiastical power of order, the dis- 
 pensing of the word and sacraments, but 
 of the effects of the power of jurisdiction or 
 government, of which only the controversy is. 
 
 Sixthly, The civil power hath for the ob- 
 ject of it TO (iidiTihca, the things of this life, 
 matters of peace, war, justice, the king's 
 matters, and the country matters — those 
 things that belong to the external man ; 
 but the ecclesiastical power hath for its ob- 
 ject, things pertaining to God, the Lord's 
 matters, as they are distinct from civil mat- 
 ters, and things belonging to the inward 
 man, distinct from the things belonffing to 
 the outward man. This difference Protes- 
 tant writers do put between the civil and 
 ecclesiastical powers. Fr. Junius, Ecclesi- 
 ast., lib. 3, cap. 4, saith thus : " We have 
 put into our definition human things to be 
 the subject of civil administration ; but the 
 subject of ecclesiastical administration we 
 have taught to be tilings divine and sacred. 
 Things divine and sacred we call both those 
 which God commandeth for the sanctification 
 of our mind and conscience as things neces- 
 sary, and also those which the decency and 
 order of the church requireth to be ordained 
 and observed, for the profitable and con- 
 venient use of the things which are neces- 
 sary. For example, prayers, the adminis- 
 tration of the word and sacraments, eccle- 
 siastical censures, are things necessary and 
 essentially belonging to the communion of 
 saints ; but set days, set hours, set places, 
 flists, and the like, belong to the decency 
 and order of the church, &c. But human 
 things we call such as touch the life, the 
 body, goods, and good name, as they are ex- 
 pounded in the second table of the Deca- 
 logue ; for these are the things in which the 
 whole civil administration standeth." Tile- 
 nus, Si/nt., part 2, disp. 32, tells us to the 
 same purpose, that civil government or 
 magistracy versatur circa res tcrrenas et 
 homincm externum. " Magistratxis (saith 
 Danccus, Pol. Christ., lib. 6, cap. 1,) insti- 
 tuti sunt d Deo rerum humanarum quae 
 hominum societati necessarice sunt,respectu 
 et ad earum curam." 
 
 If it be objected, how can these things 
 agree with that which hath been before by 
 us acknowledged, that the civil magisti-ate 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 89 
 
 ought to take special care of religion, of the 
 conservation and purgation thereof, of the 
 abolishing idolatry and superstition ; and 
 ouo-ht to be custos utriusque tabula:, of the 
 first as well as second table ? I answer, that 
 magistrates are appointed not only for civil 
 policy, but for the conservation and purga- 
 tion of religion, as is expressed in the Con- 
 fession of Faith of the Church of Scotland, 
 before cited, we firndy believe as a most un- 
 doubted truth. But when divines make the 
 object of magistracy to be only such things 
 as belong to this life and to human society, 
 they do not mean the object of the magis- 
 trate's care (as if he were not to take care 
 of religion), but the object of his operation. 
 Tlie magistrate himself may not assume the 
 administration of the keys, nor the dispens- 
 ing of church censures ; he can but punish 
 the external man with external punishments. 
 Of which more afterwards. 
 
 The seventh difference stands in the ad- 
 juncts ; For, 1. The ecclesiastical power in 
 presbyterial or synodical assemblies ought 
 not to be exercised without prayer and call- 
 ing upon the name of the Lord, Matt, xviii. 
 19: there is no such obligation upon the civil 
 power, as that there may be no civil court 
 of justice without prayer. 2. In divers cases 
 civil jurisdiction hath been, and is, in the 
 person of one man ; but no ecclesiastical ju- 
 risdiction is committed to one man, but to 
 an assemljly, in which two at least must 
 agree in the thing, as is gathered from the 
 text last cited. 13. No private or secret of- 
 fence ought to be brought before an ecclesi- 
 astical court, except in the case of contu- 
 macy and impenitency after previous admo- 
 nitions. This is the ordinary rule, not to 
 dispute now extraordinary exceptions from 
 that rule, but the civil power is not bound 
 up by any such ordinary rule ; for I sup- 
 pose our opposites will hardly say (at least 
 hardly make it good) that no civil injuiy or 
 breach of law and justice, being privately 
 committed, may be brought before a civil 
 court, except first there be previous admoni- 
 tions, and the party admonished prove ob- 
 stinate and impenitent. 
 
 The eighth difference stands in the cor- 
 relations. The corrclatum of magistracy is 
 people embodied in a commonwealth, or a 
 civil corporation. The corrclatum of the 
 ecclesiastical power is people embodied in a 
 church, or spiritual coi'poration. The com- 
 monwealth is not in the church, but the 
 church is in the commonwealth ; that is, one 
 
 is not therefore in or of the church, because 
 he is in or of the commonwealth, of which 
 the church is a part ; but yet every one 
 that is a member of the church is also a 
 member of the commonwealth, of which 
 that church is a part. The Apostle dis- 
 tinguisheth those that are without and those 
 that are within in reference to the church, 
 who were notwithstanding both sorts within 
 in reference to the commonwealth, 1 Cor. 
 V. 12, 13. The corrclatuTii of the ecclesi- 
 astical power may be quite taken away by 
 persecution, or by defection, when the cor- 
 rclatum of the civil power may remain, and 
 therefore the ecclesiastical and the civil 
 power do not se mutuo ponere et tollere. 
 
 Ninthly, There is a great difference in 
 the ultimate termination. The ecclesiastical 
 power can go no further than excommunica- 
 tion, or (in case of extraordinary warrants, 
 and when one is known to have blasphemed 
 against the Holy Ghost) to anathema mar- 
 anatha. If one bo not humbled and reduced 
 by excommunication, the church can do no 
 more but leave him to the judgment of 
 God, who hath promised to ratify in heaven 
 what his servants, in his name and accord- 
 ing to his will, do upon earth. Salmasius 
 spends a whole chapter in confuting the 
 point of the coactive and magistratical juris- 
 diction of bishops, see Walo 3Icssal. cap. 6. 
 He acknowledgeth in that very place, p. 455, 
 456, 459, 462, that the elders of the church 
 have, in common, the power of ecclesiastical 
 discipline, to suspend from the sacrament and 
 to excommunicate, and to receive the of- 
 fender again upon the evidence of his repen- 
 tance. But the point he asserteth is, that 
 bishops or elders have no such power as the 
 magistrate hath, and that if he that is ex- 
 conmiunicate do not care for it, nor submit 
 himself, the elders cannot compel him ; but 
 the termination or cjuo usque of the civil 
 power is quite different from this, " It is 
 unto death, or to banishment, or to confis- 
 cation of goods, or to imprisonment," Ezra 
 vii. 26. 
 
 Tenthly, They differ in a divided execu- 
 tion ; that is, the ecclesiastical power ought 
 to censure sometime one whom the magis- 
 trate thinks not fit to punish with temporal 
 or civil punishments ; and again, the magis- 
 trate ought to punish with the temjjoral 
 sword, one whom the church ought not to 
 cut off by the spiritual sword. This differ- 
 ence Parous gives, E.r.plic. Cutcch. quest. 
 I 85, art. 4, and it cannot be denied; for those 
 
 M 
 
aauon's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 90 
 
 that plead most for liberty of conscience, 
 and argue against all civil or temporal pun- 
 ishments of heretics, do notwithstanding ac- 
 knowledge, that the church whereof they 
 are members ought to censure and excom- 
 municate them, and doth not her duty ex- 
 cept she do so. The church may have rea- 
 son to esteem one as an heathen and a pub- 
 lican that Ls no church member, whom yet 
 the magistrate, in prudence and policy, doth 
 permit to live in the commonwealth. Again, 
 the most notorious and scandalous sinners, 
 blasphemers, murderers, adulterers, incestu- 
 ous persons, robbers, &c., when God gives 
 them repentance, and the signs thereof do 
 appear, the church doth not bind but loose 
 them, doth not retain but remit their sins, 
 I mean ministerially and declaratively ; not- 
 withstanding the magistrate may and ought 
 to do justice according to law, even upon 
 those penitent sinners. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 OF A TWOFOLD KJXGDOM OF JISUS CHRIST : 
 A GEXERAL KIXGDOJI, AS HE IS THE ETER- 
 NAL SOX OF GOD, THE HEAD OF ALL PRIX- 
 CIPALITIES AXD POWERS, REIGXIXG 0\TER 
 ALL CREATURES ; AST) A P.UITICULAR KIXG- 
 DOM, AS HE IS MEDIATOR REIGXIXG OVER 
 THE CHLTICH ONLY. 
 
 The controversy which hath been moved 
 concerning the civil magistrate's vicegerent- 
 ship, and the holding of his otHce of, and 
 under, and for Jesus Christ, as he is Medi- 
 ator, hath a necessary coherence with, and 
 dependence upon, another controversy con- 
 cerning a twofold kingdom of Jesus Christ : 
 one, as he is the eternal Son of God, reign- 
 ing together with the Father and the Holy 
 Ghost over aU thinos ; and so the mams- 
 trate is his vicegerent, and holds his office 
 of and under him ; another, as Mediator and 
 Head of the church, and so the magistrate 
 doth not hold his office of and under Christ 
 as his vicegerent. "Wherefore, before I 
 come to that question concerning the ori- 
 gin and tenure of the magistrate's office, 
 I have thought good here to premise the 
 enodation of the question concerning the 
 twofold kingdom of Jeais Christ. It is a 
 distinction which Mr Hussey cannot endure, 
 and no mai-vel, for it overturneth the foun- 
 dation of his opinion. He looks upon it as 
 
 an absurd assertion, p. 25, " Shall he have 
 one kingdom as Mediator, and another as 
 God?" He quarrelleth all that I have 
 said of the twofold kingdom of Christ, and 
 will not admit that Christ, as 3Iediator, is 
 King of the church only, p. 25 — 27, 35 — 37. 
 
 The controversy draweth deeper than he 
 is aware of, for Socinians and Photinians, 
 finding themselves puzzled with those argu- 
 ments which (to prove the eternal godhead 
 of Jesus Christ) were drawn from such scrip- 
 tures as call him " God, Lord, the Son of 
 God ;" also from such scriptures as ascribe 
 worship and adoration to liim, and from the 
 texts which ascribe to him a supreme lord- 
 ship, dominion, and kingdom over all things 
 (for this hath been used as one argument for 
 the godhead of Jesus Christ and his con- 
 substantiality with the Father, " The Fa- 
 ther reigns, the Son reigns, the Holy Ghost 
 reigns, vide hb. Isaaci Clari Hispani Ad- 
 vcrsus Varimadum Arianum), thereupon 
 they devised this answer, That Jesus Christ, 
 in respect of his kingly office, and as Media- 
 tor, is called God, and Lord, and the Son of 
 God (of which see Fest. Honnii Specimen 
 Controv. Bclgic, p. 24 ; Jonas Schlich- 
 tingius contra Mcisncrum, p. 436) ; and 
 that in the same respect he is worshipped, 
 that in the same respect he is King, and that 
 the kingdom which the Scripture ascribeth 
 to Jesus Christ, is only as Mediator and 
 Head of the church, and that he hath no 
 such universal dominion over all things as 
 can prove him to be the eternal Son of God. 
 This gave occasion to orthodox Protestant 
 writers more fully and distinctly to assert 
 the great difference between that which the 
 Scripture saith of Christ as he is the eter- 
 nal Son of God, and that which it saith of 
 him as he is ]Mediator ; and particularly to 
 assert a twofold kingdom of Jesus Christ, 
 and to prove from Scripture that, besides 
 that kingdom which Christ hath as Media- 
 tor, he hath another kingdom over aU things, 
 which belongs to him only as he is the eter- 
 nal Son of God. This the Socinians to this 
 day do contradict, and stiffly hold that Chiist 
 hath but one kingdom, which he exerciseth 
 as Mediator over the church, and in some 
 respect over all things ; but by no means 
 they admit that Christ, as God, reigneth 
 over all things. But our writers still hold 
 up against them the distinction of that two- 
 fold kingdom of Jesus Christ, see Stegmanni 
 Photinianismus, disp. 27, quest. 6. The 
 same distinction of the twofold kingdom of 
 
mVIXE OIUJIXAXCE OF CHUKCH GO^^:RXMEXT VINDICATEn. 91 
 
 Christ, as God and as Mediator, is fre- 
 quently to be found in Protestant -writei's, 
 see Si/nops. pur. TheoL, disp. 26, tlies. 53 ; 
 Gomarus in Ohad. ver. ult. ; the late Eng- 
 lish Annotations on 1 Cor. xv. 24, and 
 many others. Let Polanus speak for the 
 rest.* See also the same distinction cleared 
 and asserted by ^Ir Apollonius in his Jus 
 Majestatis Circa Sacra, part 1, p. 33, 
 et seq. 
 
 The arguments to prove that distinction 
 of the twofold kingdom of Christ are these : 
 
 Fii-st, Those kingdoms — of which the one 
 is accessory and adventitious to the Son of 
 God, and which, if it were not, the want of 
 it could not prove him not to be God ; the 
 other necessarily floweth from his godhead, 
 so that without it he were not God — are 
 most difterent and distinct kingdoms. But 
 the kingdom of Christ as Mediator, and the 
 kingdom of Christ as he is the eternal Son 
 of God, are such ; therefore, if the Son of 
 God had never received the office of 3Iedia- 
 tor, and so should not have reigned as Me- 
 diator, yet he had been the natural Son of 
 God ; for this could not be a necessary con- 
 sequence : He is the natural Son of God, 
 therefore he is iMediator ; for he had been 
 the natural Son of God thougli he had not 
 been Mediator, and thougli man had not 
 been redeemed. But if you suppose that 
 the Son of God reigns not, as God, with the 
 Father and the Holy Ghost from everlast- 
 ing to everlasting, then you must needs sup- 
 pose that he is not the natural and eternal 
 Son of God. 
 
 Secondly, Those kingdoms, of which the 
 one is proper and personal to Jesus Christ 
 as God-man, the other not proper and per- 
 sonal, but common to the Father and the 
 Holy Ghost, — are most different and dis- 
 tinct kingdoms ; but the kingdom of Jesus 
 Christ as Mediator, and his kingdom as he 
 is the eteraal Son of God, are such. There- 
 fore, tliat kingdom which Christ hath as 
 Mediator, by special dispensation of God 
 
 1 Syut. Tiieol., lib. 6, cap. 29.— Reguum Cliristi 
 vcl naturale est, vol douativum. Regnuin Christi 
 naturalc est quod Christu!5 a natura habct, estqnc 
 communis totius Deitatis, etc. Hos regnura ctiam 
 universale dicitur, quia est simpliciter in universa. 
 At rcguum Christi donativum est quod Christus 
 tradium a Patre ut BtathaiTos accepit, etc. Hoc reg- 
 nura est proprium Christi, quod ut Rex Mediator 
 obtinet in persona sua : ac regnum etiam singulare 
 dicitur quia est peculiare in ecclesia, etc. Utque 
 naturale regnum obtinet jure natura?, quia est uatu- 
 ralis filius Uei Patris : ita donativum regnum obti- 
 net jure donationis. 
 
 committed to him, is his alone properly and 
 personally; for we cannot say that the Father 
 reigns as Mediator, or that the Holy Ghost 
 reigns as Mediator. But that kingdom 
 which Christ hath, as he is the eternal Son 
 of God, is the very same consubstantially 
 with that kingdom whereby God the Father 
 and God the Holy Ghost do reign. 
 
 Thirdly, He that hath a kingdom which 
 shall be continued and exercised forever, and 
 a kingdom which shall not be continued and 
 exercised forever, hath two distinct king- 
 doms. But Jesus Clu-ist hath a kingdom 
 which shall be continued and exercised for- 
 ever, namely, the kingdom which he hath as 
 the eternal Son of God ; and another king- 
 dom which shall not be continued and exer- 
 cised forever, namely, the kingdom which he 
 hath as Mediator : Therefore, the eternity of 
 the one kingdom is not doubted of : but that 
 the other kingdom shall not be forever ex- 
 ercised, that is, that Christ shall not forever 
 reign as ^lediator, is proved from 1 Cor. xv. 
 24, 25.1 Mr Hussey, p. 35 — 37, goeth about 
 to answer this argnment, which he confess- 
 eth to say something ; and indeed it saith so 
 much, that though he maketh an extrava- 
 gant exception — " Doth it appear," saith he, 
 " that the kingdom that he shall lay down 
 to God his Father, is not over all the world ?" 
 — yet he plainly yields the point which I 
 was then proving. " Christ (saith he), in the 
 day of judgment, shall lay down all the office 
 of Mediatorship." I hope he will not sjiy 
 that Christ shall lay down at the day of 
 judgment that kir.gdom which he hath as 
 the eternal Son of God. So then I have 
 what I was seeking, that Christ hath one 
 kingdom as Mediator, another as the eter- 
 nal Son of God. And whereas 3Ir Hussey 
 holdeth that Christ, as Mediator, reigns over 
 aU things as the vicar of his Father, we shall 
 see anon the weakness of his arguments 
 brought to prove it. Meanwhile, I ask, "What 
 then is that kingdom which belongs to Christ 
 as the eternal Son of God, and which shall 
 not be laid down, but continue forever ? Let 
 him think on this argument. AMiatsoever 
 belongs to that kingdom which shall be con- 
 tinued forever, and shall not be laid down at 
 
 1 Svat. pur. Theol. disp. 26, thes. 35. — Ipsi (Pa- 
 tri) suum quoque sceptruin ^Mediatorium sen ceco- 
 nomicura traditurus dicitur, ut imperiura mere di- 
 vinum eadcni gloria ac majestate cum Patre, erga 
 suos clcctos in CEternura e.\erceat. Zach. Ursinus, 
 tom. 1, 39S. — Christus Patri tradet regnum post 
 glorificationem ecclesiae, id est, desinet facere olK- 
 cium Jlcdiatoris. 
 
92 
 
 aakon's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 the day of jiKlgnient, doth belong to Christ, 
 not as Mediator, but as the eternal Son of 
 God. But the general power and dominion 
 by which Jesus Christ excrciseth sovereignty 
 over all creatures, without exception, dohig 
 to them, and fulfilling upon them all the 
 good pleasure of his will, belongs to that 
 kingdom which shall be continued forever, 
 and shall not be laid down at the day of 
 judgment ; therefore, that general power 
 and dominion by Mhich Jesus Christ exercis- 
 eth sovereignty over all creatures, without ex- 
 ception, doing to them, and fulfilling upon 
 them, all the good pleasure of his will, doth 
 belong to Christ, not as Mediator, but as the 
 eternal Son of God. And thus I make a 
 transition to another argument. 
 
 Fourthly, lie that hath a kingdom admi- 
 nistered by and in evangelical ordinances, and 
 a kingdom administered by his divine power, 
 without evangelical ordinances, hath two 
 different and distinct kingdoms. But Jesus 
 Christ hath a kingdom administered Ijy and 
 in evano-elical ordinances, and a kino-dom 
 administered by his divine power, without 
 evangelical ordinances; therefore, doth not 
 Jesus Christ reign over devils and damned 
 spirits by his divine power, reserving them 
 in chains of darkness to the judgment of 
 the great day ? But will Mr Hussey say that 
 Christ reigns over the devils and damned 
 spirits as Mediator, or by the same kingdom 
 by which he reigns in his church by and in 
 his ordinances? Therefore we must needs 
 say, that Christ hath one kingdom as the 
 eternal Son of God, another as jMediator. 
 
 Fifthly, He that hath a kingdom in sub- 
 ordination to God the Father, and as his 
 vicegerent, and another kingdom wherein 
 he is not subordinate unto, but equal with 
 God the Father, hath two most different 
 kingdoms. But Jesus Christ hath a king- 
 dom in subordination to God the Father, 
 and another kingdom wherein he is not sub- 
 ordinate unto, but equal with God the Fa- 
 ther ; therefore, the kingdom which Christ 
 hath as Mediator, doth (in regard of the 
 office of Mediatorship) constitute him in a 
 subordination to his Father, whose command- 
 ments he executeth, and to whom he gives 
 an account of his ministration. So that 
 though he that is Mediator, being the eter- 
 nal Son of God, is equal with the Father, 
 yet as Mediator he is not equal with the 
 Father, but subordinate to the Father ; 
 which our divines prove from these scrip- 
 tures, — Isa. xhi. 1, " Behold my servant ;" 
 
 John xiv. 28, " Mv Father is greater than I ;" 
 1 Cor. xi. 3, " The head of Christ is God." 
 In the same consideration as Christ is our 
 head, God is Christ's head, namely, as Chi'ist 
 is Mediator. But that kingdom which Clirist 
 hath as he is the eternal Son of God, he 
 holds it not in a subordination to God the 
 Father, but as being consubstantial with his 
 Father, and thinking it no robbery to be 
 called equal with God ; so that, in tliis con- 
 sideration, the Father is not greater than 
 he. Mr Hussey, p. 37, saith of Clu'ist, in 
 respect of the government which he hath as 
 Mediator, " He is as it were tlie vicar of his 
 Father." I hope he will not say so of that 
 government which Christ hath as the eter- 
 nal Son of God. And, p. 27, he holds that 
 Christ, as jSIediator, is subject to God ; " but 
 in the consideration that Christ is the second 
 person of Trinity, so he is not inferior to 
 God the Father." So that he himself can- 
 not but yield my argument. 
 
 Sixthly, If Christ hath a kingdom in 
 time dispensed and delegated to him, and 
 unto which he was anointed, and hath an- 
 other kingdom which is not delegated, nor in 
 time dispensed, nor he anointed to it, but 
 doth necessai'ily and naturally accompany 
 the communication of the divine nature to 
 him by eternal generation, then he hath 
 two very different kingdoms: one as he is j 
 JMediator, another as he is the eternal Son 
 of God. But Christ hath a kingdom in time 
 dispensed and delegated, &c. If you speak 
 of Christ as ^Mediatoi*, God hath made him 
 both Lord and Christ, Acts ii. 36, but as he 
 is the eternal Son of God, he is not Donmivs 
 /actus; he is not made Lord and King, any 
 more than he is made the natural Son of 
 God. When the Psalmist speaketh of that 
 kingdom which Christ hath as Mediator, 
 he tells us of the anomting of Christ, Psal. 
 xlv. 6, " The sceptre of thy kingdon is a | 
 right sceptre;" ver. 7, "Thy God hath 
 anointed thee with the oil of gladness." But 
 we cannot say that Christ was anointed to , 
 that kingdom which he hath as the eternal 
 Son of God. I 
 
 Seventhly, If the Scripture holds forth a 
 kingdom which Christ hath over all crea- 
 tures, and another kingdom which he hath 
 over the church only, then it holds forth the 
 twofold kingdom which I plead for, and 
 which ]Mr Hussey denieth. But the Scrip- 
 ture holds iorth, &c. : Christ, as he is " God 
 over all, blessed forever," lloni. ix. 5, exer- 
 ciseth sovereignty and dominion over all 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHUKCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 93 
 
 things, even as his Father doth, Psal. cxv. 3 ; 
 Dan. iv. 34, 35, foi- his Father and he are 
 one. But as he is Mediator, his kingdom is 
 his churcli only, and he is " over his own 
 house," Heb. iii. 6. You will say the word 
 only is not in Scripture. I answer. When 
 we say that faith only justifieth, the word 
 oidij is not in Scripture, but the thing is. Just 
 so hei-e; for, first, David, Solomon, and 
 Eliakim, were types of Christ the King. 
 Now David and Solomon did reign only over 
 God's people as their subjects, though they 
 had other people tributaries and subdued. 
 So doth Christ reigii over the house of Jacob 
 only, Luke i. 32, 33, " The Lord shall 
 give unto him the throne of his father David, 
 and he shall reign over the house of Jacob 
 forever ;" Isa. ix. 7, " Of the increase of his 
 government and peace there shall be no end, 
 upon the throne of David, and upon his 
 kingdom, to order it ;" Isa. xxi. 22, " I will 
 commit the government into his hand, and 
 he shall be a father to the inhabitants of 
 Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah, and 
 the key of the house of David will I lay upon 
 his shoulder." 2. It was foretold and ap- 
 plied to the church and people of God as a 
 proper and peculiar comfort to the church, 
 that Christ was to come and reign as a king, 
 Isa. ix. 6, " Unto us a child is born, unto us 
 a son is given ; and the government shall be 
 upon his shoulder ;" Zech. ix. 9, " Rejoice 
 greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daugh- 
 ter of Jerusalem : behold, tluj king cometh 
 unto thee ;" Matt. ii. 6, " Out of thee shall 
 come a governor that shall rule my people 
 Israel." 3. The Jews did generally under- 
 stand it so, that the JSIessias was to be the 
 church's king only, which made Pilate say 
 to them, " Shall I crucify your King ?" And 
 hence it was also, that the wise men who 
 came to inquire for Christ, said, "Where is he 
 that is born King of the Jews?" Matt. ii. 2. 
 
 Eighthly. That very place, Eph i. 21 — 
 23, from which Mr Coleman drew an argu- 
 ment against us, doth plainly hold forth 
 a twofold supremacy of Jesus Christ : one 
 over all things, another in reference to the 
 chui'ch only, which is his body, his I'ulness, 
 and to whom alone he is Head, accordmg to 
 that text. Of which more afterwards. 
 
 Ninthly. The Apostle, Col. i., doth also 
 distinguish this twofold pre-eminence, su- 
 premacy, and kingdom of Jesus Christ : one 
 which is universal, and over all things, and 
 which belongeth to him as he is the eternal 
 Son of God, ver. 15 — 17, " Vvho is the 
 
 image of the invisible God, the first-born of 
 every creature : for by him were all things 
 created that are in heaven, and that are in 
 eai'th, visible and invisible, whether they be 
 thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or 
 powers ; all things were created by him and 
 for him. And he is before all things, and by 
 him all things consist." Another which is 
 economical and particular in and over the 
 church, and this he hath as Mediator ;^ ver. 
 18, " And he is the head of the body, the 
 church ; who is the beginning, the first-born 
 from the dead ; that in all things he might 
 have the pre-eminence." That, ver. 18, he 
 speaketh of Chi'ist as Mediator, is not con- 
 troverted. But Mr Hussey, p. 35, would 
 fain make it out (if he could) that Christ, as 
 Mediator, is spoken of, ver. 15 — 17. The 
 Apostle, indeed, in that which went before, 
 did speak of Christ as Mediator. But the 
 scope of these three verses is to prove the 
 godhead of Jesus Christ. Yea, Mr Hussey 
 himself yieldeth, that as God, and not as 
 Mediator, he did create the world. How can 
 he then contend that the Apostle speaketh 
 here of Christ as Mediator ? and why doth 
 he find fault with my exposition that the 
 Apostle speaketh here of Christ as God ? Do 
 not our writers urge Col. i. 16, 17, against 
 the Socinians and Pliotinians, to prove the 
 eternal godhead of Jesus Christ, because by 
 him aU things were created, and he is be- 
 fore all things. See Stegmanni Photinia- 
 nismus, disp. 5, quest. 12 ; Becmanus, exer- 
 cit. 4 and 8; where you may see, that the 
 adversaries contend (as Mr Hussey doth) 
 that the Apostle, ver. 15 — 17, doth not 
 speak of the person of Jesus Christ, proving 
 him to be true God, but that he speaks of 
 Christ as Mediator, or in respect of his oHico, 
 and of that dominion which Christ hath as 
 Mediator (so Jonas Schlichtinguis contra 
 Meisner, p. 469); and that ver. 15 — 17, 
 ascribeth no more to Christ than ver. 18. 
 But Becmanus, answering Julius, distinguish- 
 eth the text as I do ; for which analvsis I 
 did formerly cite Beza, Zancliius, Gualther, 
 Bullinger, Tossanus, M. Bayne, beside divers 
 others. But I have found none that under- 
 stands the text as ilr Hussey doth, except 
 the Socinians and Photinians, who do not 
 
 1 Calvin in Col. i. 18. — Postquam genoraliter de 
 Christi excelleutia disseruit, deque sumrao ejus in 
 omnes creaturas principatu : itenira redit ad ca 
 qua; peculiariter ad ccclesiam spectant. In nomine 
 capitis alii plura cousiderant, etc. Hie vero potis- 
 simum. meo judicio, de guberuatioue loquitur. 
 
94 
 
 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 acknowledge that Christ hath such an uni- 
 versal dominion and lordship over all things 
 as God the Father, but only that he ruleth 
 over all things as Mediator. 
 
 Now for answer to that which Mr Hussey, 
 p. 26, 27, allegeth, to prove that Christ, as 
 Mediator, reigneth over all things : first, he 
 tells us out of Diodati, that Christ is Head of 
 the church, and King of the universe ; and 
 out of Calvin, that the kingdom of Christ is 
 over all, and filleth heaven and earth. But 
 who denieth this ? That which he had to 
 prove is, that Christ, as Mediator, is King of 
 the universe, and, as Mediator, his kingdom 
 is spread over all ; and when he hath proved 
 that, he hath another thing to prove, that 
 the universality of Christ's kingdom, as he is 
 Mediator, is to be understood not only in an 
 ecclesiastical notion, that is, so far as all 
 nations are or shall be brought under the 
 obedience of the gospel, but also in the no- 
 tion of civil government, that is, that Christ 
 reigns as Mediator over all creatures, whe- 
 ther under or without the gospel ; and that all 
 civil power, principality and government 
 whatsoever in this world, is put in Christ's 
 hand as Mediator. If, therefore, he will 
 argue, let him argue so as to conclude the 
 point. 
 
 The next olyection he maketli is from 
 Heb. i. 2, Christ, as Mediator, is made " heir 
 of all things." 
 
 But I answer, Christ is heir of all things, 
 
 1. As the eternal Son of God, in the same 
 respect as it is said of Christ in the next 
 words of the same verse, that he made the 
 world ; and thus he may be called heir of all 
 things by nature, even as Col. i. 15, he is 
 called " the first-born of every creature." 
 
 2. He is heir of all things as Mediator, for 
 the heathen and all the ends of the earth 
 are given him for an inheritance, Psal. ii. 8; 
 but that is only church-wise ; he shall have a 
 catliolic church gathered out of all nations, 
 and all kings, and people, and tongues, and 
 langTiages shall be made to serve him. 
 
 Moreover, Mr Hussey objecteth from 
 Heb. ii. 8, and 1 Cor. xv. 28, that God hath 
 put all things under Christ's feet as he is 
 Mediator. Ans. As this is not perfectly 
 fulfilled in this world, but will then be ful- 
 filled when " Christ shall have put down all 
 rule, and all authority and power :" so in the 
 measure and degree wherein it is fulfilled 
 in this world, it concerneth not men only, 
 but all the works of God's hands : Heb. 
 ii. 7, " Thou crownedst him with glory and 
 
 honour, and didst set him over the works of 
 thy hands ;" which is taken out of the eighth 
 Psalm, ver. 6, 7, " Thou hast put all things 
 under his feet, all sheep and oxen," &c. 
 Now how is it that the Apostle applieth all 
 this to Christ ? How doth Christ rule over 
 the beasts, fowls, fishes? Calvin, in 1 Cor. 
 XV. 27, 28, answei'eth, Dominatur ergo, ut 
 omnia serviant ejus glorice, — He ruleth, 
 so as all things may serve for his glory. So, 
 then, all thhigs are put under Christ's feet 
 as lie is Mediator, both in regard of his ex- 
 cellency, the dignity and glory unto which 
 he is exalted, far above all the glory of any 
 creature, and in respect of his power and 
 over-ruling providence, whereby he can dis- 
 pose of all things so as may make most for 
 his glory. But it is a third thing which Mr 
 Hussey hath to prove, namely, that Christ, 
 as Mediator, exei-ciseth his office and govern- 
 ment over all men as his subjects, and over 
 all magistrates as his deputies, yea, over all 
 things, even over the reasonable creatures ; 
 for, by his arguing, he wiU have Christ, as 
 Mediator, to govern the sheep, oxen, fowls, 
 and fishes ; all things, as well as all persons, 
 being put under Christ's feet. But in the 
 handling of this very argument, Mr Hussey 
 yields the cause : — " God is said to put all 
 things under him (saitli he), whereby it is 
 implied, that all things were not under him 
 before they were put under him ; but as the 
 second pei'son in Trinity, so nothing could 
 be said to be put under him, because they 
 were in that respect always under him." Is 
 not this all one for substance with that dis- 
 tinction formerly cited out of Polanus, of a 
 twofold kingdom of Christ : one natural, as 
 he is the second person in the Trinity, an- 
 other donative, as he is Mediator ? 
 
 Lastly. Mr Hussey arg-ueth from Phil. ii. 
 8 — 10: Christ, as Mediator, is exalted to 
 have a name above every name, that at the 
 name of Jesus every knee may bow. Ans. 
 Here is indeed a dignity, glory, and power, 
 as Diodati saith, above all things, but yet 
 not a government or kingdom, as Mediator; 
 for those who must bow the knee to Christ, 
 are not only things in heaven, that is, angels, 
 and things in earth, that is, men, but also 
 things under the earth, that is, devils ; yet 
 devils are none of the subjects of Christ's 
 kingdom as he is Mediator. Therefore this 
 text proves not a headship or government 
 over all (which Mr Hussey contends for), but 
 a power over all. 
 
 I will here anticipate another objection, 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNJIENT VINDICATED. 
 
 which is not moved by Mi" Hussey. It may be 
 objected fi-om 1 Cor. xi. 3, " That the head 
 of every man is Christ." I answer, 1. Some 
 understand this of Christ as God, and as the 
 Creator of man. And if it be said that the 
 latter clause, the " head of Christ is God," is 
 meant of Christ as Mediator, and not as 
 God : yet Martyr tells us out of Chrysos- 
 toni, tliat all these comparisons and subor- 
 dinations in this text are not to be taken in 
 one and the same sense. 2. I grant also 
 that Christ may be called the head of every 
 man, not only in respect of his godhead, 
 but as Mediator ; that is, the head of every 
 man in the church, not of every man in the 
 world ; for the apostle speaks, de ordine di- 
 vinitus sancito in ccclesice corpore mystico, 
 as Mr David Dickson (an interpreter who 
 hath taken very good pains in the textual 
 study of Scripture) saith upon the place. I 
 shall clear it by the like forms of speech, 
 Jer. XXX. 6, " Wherefore do I see every 
 man with his hands on his loins ?" Luke xvi. 
 16, " The kingdom of God is preached, and 
 every man pi-esseth into it ;" 1 Cor. xii. 7, 
 " The manifestation of the Spirit is given to 
 every man to profit withal;" Heb. ii. 9,' 
 " Jesus did taste death for every man." Yet 
 none of these places are meant of every man 
 in the world. 3. Yea, in some sense Christ, 
 as Mediator, may be called the head of every 
 man in the world ; that is, in respect of 
 dignity, excellency, glory, eminence of place, 
 quia in hoc sexu ille supra omens cminet, 
 saith Gualther, or because no man had parity 
 or equality of honour with Christ ; so Martyr 
 and llunnius. The English Annotations sskj 
 that Christ is the head of eveiy man, " in 
 as much as he is the fii-st-begotten among 
 many brethren." Which best agreeth with 
 my second answer. 
 
 But for taking off all these, and for pre- 
 venting of other objections, that one dis- 
 tinction will suffice, which I first gave in 
 examining Mr Coleman's sermon. In the 
 Mediator, Jesus Christ, there is, 1. 'Yirepo^^ii 
 or h6la, dignity, excellency, honour, glory, 
 splendour. 2. Aui a/jis, his mighty power, 
 by which he is able to do in heaven and 
 earth whatsoever he will. 3. BaCTiXe/n, his 
 kingdom, and kingly office or government ; 
 which three, as they are distinguished in 
 God, " thine is the kingdom, and the power, 
 and the glory," why not in the Mediator 
 also ? In the first two respects, Christ, as 
 Mediator, is over all things, and so over all 
 men, and so over all magistrates, and all 
 
 they in subjection to him, but in the third 
 respect, the relation is only between Christ 
 and his church, as between king and king- 
 dom, so that the thing in difference is that 
 which Mr Hussey hath not proved, namely, 
 that Christ, as Mediator, doth not only excel 
 all things in gloi-y, and exei'cise a supreme 
 power and providence over all things for his 
 own glory, and his church's good (neither 
 of which is denied), but that he also is as 
 Mediator, King, Head, and Governor of the 
 universe, and hath not only the government 
 of his church, but all civil government put 
 in his hand. When Mr Hussey, p. 28, 
 saith, that I denied, p. 43, what this dis- 
 tinction yieldeth, namely, that Christ, as 
 Mediator, exerciseth acts of divine power in 
 the behalf and for the good of his church, it 
 is a calumny ; for that which I denied, p. 
 43, was concerning the kingdom, not the 
 power. My woi-ds were these : " But, as Me- 
 diator, he is only the church's King, Head, 
 and Governor, and hath no other kingdom." 
 Yea himself, p. 26, speaking to these words 
 of mine, noteth that I did not say, that as 
 Mediator he hath no such power ; how com- 
 eth it to pass that he chargeth me with 
 the denying of that which himself, but two 
 pages before, had observed that I deny it not? 
 
 Well, but, p. 43, he desires from me a 
 further clearing of my distinction, " king- 
 dom, power, and glory," and that I will 
 show from Scripture how it agreeth to 
 Christ. I shall obey his desire, though it 
 was before easy to be understood, if he had 
 been wiUing enough to understand. Solo- 
 mon did excel all the kings of the earth in 
 wisdom, riches, glory, and honour, 2 Chron. 
 i. 12, and herein he was a type of Christ, 
 Psal. Ixxxix. 27, " I will make him my 
 first-born, higher than the kings of the 
 earth :" but as Solomon was only king of 
 Israel, and was not, liy office or authority of 
 government, a catholic king over all the 
 kingdoms of the world, nor all other kings 
 Solomon's vicegerents or deputies, so Jesus 
 Clirist, as Mediator, is only the church's 
 King, and is not King or Governor of the 
 whole world, nor civil magistrates his vice- 
 gerents, though he excel them all in dignity, 
 glory, and honour. Again, David did sub- 
 due, by power, divers states, provinces, and 
 kingdoms, and make them tributary ; but 
 was David king of the Philistines, and king 
 of the Moabites, and king of the Syrians, 
 and king of the Edomites, because he smote 
 them and subdued them? 2 Sam. viii. Nay it 
 
96 
 
 Aaron's rod elossomixg, or the 
 
 is added in that very place, ver. 15, " And 
 David reigned over all Israel, and David 
 executed justice and judgment unto all liis 
 people." (And this is one argument to prove 
 that those subdued and tributary territories 
 were not properly under the government of 
 Israel, because Israel was not bound to 
 extirpate idolaters out of those lands, but 
 only out of the holy land. See Mairnonides 
 deldolol, cap. 7, sect. 1, with the annotation 
 of Dionysius Vossius.) So Christ, who was 
 set upon the throne of David, doth, as Me- 
 diator, put forth his divine and irresistible 
 power in subduing all his church's enemies, 
 according to that, Psal. ii. 9, " Thou shalt 
 break them with a rod of iron, thou shalt 
 dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel ;" 
 Rev. xvii. 14, " The Lamb shall overcome 
 them, for he is Loi'd of lords, and King of 
 kings." But this vis major, this restraining, 
 subduing power, makes not Christ, as Medi- 
 ator, to be King and Governor, not only of 
 his church, but of the whole world beside. 
 Yea, the power of Christ is over all things, 
 as well as all persons ; over all beasts, fowls, 
 and fishes ; Heb. ii. 7, 8, compai'ed with 
 Psal. viii. 7, 8; yea, his 2>ower is over devils, 
 meant by things under the eaith, Phil. ii. 
 10. Wherefore it cannot be said, that 
 Christ, as Mediator, is King, Head and Go- 
 vernor of all those whom he excelleth in 
 glory, or whom he hath under his power, to 
 do with them what he will. It is a strange 
 mistake when Mr Hussey, p. 43, objecteth 
 against this distinction, that a kingdom 
 without power and glory, is a nominal 
 empty thing. Surely there may be a kingly 
 right and authority to govern where there 
 is little either power or glory. But this is 
 nothing to my distinction, which doth not 
 suppose a kingdom without power and glory, 
 nor yet power and glory without a kingdom, 
 but only that the kingdom and government 
 is not to be extended to all those whom the 
 king excelleth in glory (for then one king 
 that hath but little glory shall be subject to 
 a king that hath much glory), or over whom 
 the king exerciseth acts of power (for then 
 the king shall be king to his and his king- 
 dom's enemies). I vei'ily believe that this 
 distinction, rightly apprehended, will discover 
 the great mistakes of that supposed universal 
 kingdom of Christ, as Mediator, x'eigning 
 over all tilings, and the civil magistrate as 
 his vicegerent. 
 
 CIIAPTEE, VI. 
 
 WHETHER JESUS CHRIST, AS MEDIATOR A.VD 
 HEAD OF THE CHURCH, HATH PLACED THE 
 CHRISTIAN MAGISTRATE TO HOLD AND EX- 
 ECUTE HIS OFFICE UNDER AND FOR HIM, 
 AS HIS VICEGERENT. THE ARGUMENTS FOR 
 THE AFFIRMATIVE DISCUSSED. 
 
 Mr Hussey is very angry at my distinc- 
 tions and arguments which I brought against 
 Mr Coleman's fourth rule, insomuch that, 
 in his reply to me, he spendeth very near 
 two parts of three upon this matter, from 
 p. 16 to 44, having passed over sicco pede 
 much of what I had said of other points in 
 difference. Come now, therefore, and let 
 us try his strength in this great point. He 
 holds that Christ, as Mediator, hath placed 
 the Christian magistrate under him, and a.s 
 his vicegerent, and hath given him commis- 
 sion to govern the church, which, if he or 
 any man can prove from the word of God, 
 it will go far in the decision of the Erastian 
 controversy, though this is not all which is 
 incumbent to the Erastians to prove; for, as 
 I first replied to Mr Coleman's fourth nile, 
 the question is. Whether there be not some 
 other government instituted and appointed 
 by Jesus Christ to be in his church beside 
 the civil government ? And if it should be 
 granted that Christ, even as Mediator, hath 
 committed, delegated, and instituted, civil 
 government in his church, yet they must 
 further prove that Christ hath committed 
 the whole and sole power of church govern- 
 ment to the magistrate, and so hath lett no 
 share of government to the ministry. But 
 I can by no means yield that so much con- 
 tended for vicegerentship of the Christian 
 magistrate, and his holdinof of his office of 
 and under Christ, as he is Mediator. 
 
 Mr Coleman in his Re-examination, p. 
 19, was fearful to set his foot upon so slip- 
 pery ground. He was loath to adventure 
 upon this assertion, that magistracy is derived 
 from Christ, as Mediator, by a conmiission 
 of deputation and vicegerentship (which yet 
 did necessarily follow upon the fourth rale 
 which he had delivered in his sermon). 
 Wherefore he made a retreat and held him 
 at this : " That magistracy is given to Christ 
 to be serviceable in his kingdom." But out 
 steps Mr Hussey and boldly avers a great 
 deal more. I much mistake if he shall not 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 97 
 
 be made either to make a retreat, as Mr 
 Coleman did, or to do worse. 
 
 First of all, this part of our controversy is 
 to be rightly stated. The question is not, 1. 
 Whether the magistrate be God's deputy or 
 vicegerent, and as God upon earth ; for who 
 denies that ? Nor, 2. Whether the magis- 
 trate be Christ's deputy, as Christ is God, 
 and as he exerciseth an universal dominion 
 over all things, as the Father and the Holy 
 Ghost doth? Here likewise I hold the affir- 
 mative. Nor, 3. Whether the Christian 
 magisti'ate be useful and subservient to the 
 kingdom of Jesus Christ, even as he is Me- 
 diator and King of the church ; for in this 
 also I hold the affirmative ; that is, that as 
 every man in his own calling, parents, mas- 
 ters, servants, merchants, soldiers, &c., be- 
 ing Christians, so the magistrate in his emi- 
 nent station, being a Christian, is obliged to 
 endeavour the propagation of the gospel, and 
 the good and benefit of the church of Chi-ist. 
 But the question is, Whether the Christian 
 magistrate be a governor in the church vice 
 Christi, in the room and stead of Jesus 
 Christ, as he is Mediator ? Or (which is all 
 one) whether the rise, derivation, and tenure 
 of Christian magistracy be from Jesus Christ 
 under this formal consideration, as he is Me- 
 diator and Head of the church ? Or (which 
 is also the same). Whether Jesus Christ, by 
 virtue of that authority and power of govern- 
 ment which, as Mediator and as God-man, 
 he received of the Father, liath substituted 
 and given commission to the Christian ma- 
 gistrate to govern the church in subordina- 
 tion to him, as he governeth it in subordina- 
 tion to his Father ? In all these Mr Hus- 
 sey is for the affirmative, I am for the nega- 
 tive. Let us hear his reasons. First, p. 
 16, he argueth from my concession : " A 
 Christian magistrate is a governor in the 
 church," said Mr Coleman. This understood 
 sano sensu I admitted. " Now (saith Mr 
 Hussey), if the church be Christ's kingdom, 
 surely such as govern in it must receive 
 conmiission from him ; which commission 
 (saith he) must be in this form : Christ the 
 Mediator, King of his church, doth appoint 
 kings and civil magistrates to govern under 
 him." Let him find this commission in 
 Scripture, and I shall confess he hath done 
 much. Neither doth any such thing follow 
 upon my concession. For, 1. It is one thing 
 to govern in the church, another thing to 
 govern the church. Christian parents, mas- 
 ters of colleges, and the like, are governors 
 
 in the church ; that is, being within, not 
 without the church, yet, as parents or mas- 
 ters, they are not church governors. 2. I 
 can also admit that the Christian magistrate 
 governeth the church ; and if this had been 
 the concession, which is more than the other, 
 it could not have helped him. For how 
 doth the magistrate govern the church ? 
 Not qua a church, but qua a part of the 
 commonwealth, as learned Salmasius dis- 
 tinguisheth, Appar. ad lib. do Primat., 
 p. 292, 300; tor the commonwealth is not 
 in the church, but the church in tlie com- 
 monwealth, according to that, Rev. ii., the 
 chui'ch in Smyrna, the church in Pergamos, 
 the church in Thyatira. And suppose all 
 that are members of the commonwealth to 
 be also church members, yet, in an univer- 
 sal spread of the gospel, the church is go- 
 verned by the magistrate as it is a connnon- 
 wealth, not as it is a church. Eveiy soul 
 must be subject to the higher powers, church 
 officers, church members, and all, but the 
 ri ToidvTov, qua tale, and Kad' 6, quo ad, is 
 not any ecclesiastical or spiritual, but a hu- 
 man and civil relation. But whereas Mr 
 Hussey addeth, that the gospel is the law 
 by which Christ will judge all the world : 
 " If all the world be under the law of Christ, 
 then the kingdom of Christ must needs reach 
 over all the world :" His proofs are mere 
 mistakes. He cites 2 Thess. i. 7, 8, Christ 
 shall come "in flaming fire, to take ven- 
 geance on all them that know not God, and 
 that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ ;" but, in that place, they that obey 
 not the gospel are those disobedient persons 
 to whom the gospel was preached. He cites 
 also Rom. ii. 16, " Judge all the world ac- 
 cording to my gospel ;" but the text saith 
 not so : it saith, the secrets of men, not all 
 the woi'ld. Wherefore, as the Apostle there 
 saith of the law, ver. 12, so say I of the gos- 
 pel, as many as have sinned without the gos- 
 pel, shall also perish without the gospel ; 
 and as many as have sinned under the gos- 
 pel, shall be judged by the gospel. 
 
 Secondly, He draweth an argument the 
 strength wher'eof is taken from Psal. ii. 8, 
 " Ask of me, and I shall give thee the hea- 
 then for thine inheritance, and the uttermost 
 parts of the earth for thy possession ;" and 
 from 1 Tim. vi. 15, our Lord Jesus Christ 
 is said to be " King of kings, and Lord of 
 lords :" Jesus, Christ, being names that 
 agree to him only as Mediator. 
 
 Ans. Christ, as Mediator, hath right to 
 
 N 
 
98 
 
 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 the whole earth, and all the kingdoms of the 
 world, not as if all government (even civil) 
 were given to Christ (for in this kind he 
 governeth not so much as any part of the 
 earth, as he is Mediator), which was the 
 thing he had to prove ; but it is meant only 
 of his spiritual kingdom, which is not of this 
 world, and in this respect alone it is that 
 Christ, as Mediator, hath right to the go- 
 vernment of all nations : he hath jus ad 
 rem, though not in re. As for that title, 
 " King of kings, and Lord of lords," it may 
 be understood two ways : First, as Christ is 
 the eternal and natural Son of God, the 
 eternal Wisdom of God, by whom " kings 
 reign, and princes degree justice," Prov. 
 viii. 15, 16; which is spoken of Christ, as 
 1 he was the Father's delight, and as one 
 j brought up with him before the foundation 
 I of the world, ver. 22 — 30. Neither can the 
 i names of Jesus and Christ prove that what 
 j is said there must needs be meant of him 
 as Mediator. Mark how well-grounded 
 Mr Hussey's arguments are. Jesus sat at 
 ' meat in Simon the Pharisee's house, Luke 
 vii. 37; Jesus wept for Lazarus, because 
 he loved him, John xi. 35, 36. Must we 
 needs therefore say that, as Mediator, he 
 sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, and, 
 as Mediator, he wept for Lazarus ? Christ 
 is the Son of David, Matt. xxii. 42. Must 
 j we therefore say that, as Mediator, he is 
 j the Son of David ? Christ is " God over 
 { all, blessed for ever," Rom. ix. 5. Must we 
 I therefore say that this is meant of Christ 
 ^ only as Mediator ? Wliat is more ordinary 
 Ij than to use the names of Jesus and Christ, 
 ! when the thing wliich is said is meant in 
 reference to one of the natures ? Secondly, 
 Christ is " King of kings, and Lord of lords," 
 even as Mediator : not in Mr Hussey's sense, 
 as if kings had their commission from Christ, 
 and did reign in his stead, as he is Media- 
 tor ; but in the sense of the Hebraism, 
 " Vanity of vanities," that is, most vain ; 
 " Holy of holies," that is, most holy ; so 
 " King of kings, and Lord of lords," tloat 
 is, the most excellent glorious King of all 
 others : the excellency, splendour, dignity, 
 and majesty of kings, may be compared 
 without any subordination. Drusius, Prce- 
 terit, lib. 3, upon this very place which Mr 
 Hussey objecteth, saith that this form of 
 sj)eech, "King of kings, and Lord of lords," 
 was taken from the Persians and Assyrians, 
 who called a gi-eat king, King of kings, and 
 lord of lords. 
 
 I 
 
 Thirdly, " The kingdom of Clirist (saith 
 Mr Hussey), is as ample as his prophecy ; 
 but the prophecy of Christ is extended to all 
 nations, as may appear by the commission, 
 ' Go teach all nations.' " But, 1. I throw 
 back the argument. Christ's kingdom and 
 his prophecy are commensurable ; therefore, 
 as his prophecy is not actually extended to 
 all nations, except successively as the gospel 
 cometh among them, so his kingdom, as he 
 is Mediator, is extended no farther than the 
 church, not to aU nations. 2. His argument 
 therefore is a miserable fallacy, a dicto secun- 
 dum quid ad dictum simpliciter. Clu'ist's 
 prophecy is extended to all nations succes- 
 sively, and when the gospel conies among 
 them, therefore his kingdom is simply ex- 
 tended to all nations, and is not bounded 
 within the church only." 
 
 Fourtldy, He tells us, p. 17, " If kings 
 may be called holy, if then- offices may be 
 accounted holy offices, or not sinful, they 
 must be held of and under Clu'ist. 
 
 Ans. If he mean holy, in opposition to 
 civil, human, worldly, secular, I deny the 
 office of kings to be holy ; if he mean holy, 
 in opposition to sinful, unlawful, unholy (as 
 it seems he doth), then I confess the office 
 of kings is lawful, not sinful, and themselves 
 are holy when sanctified. But this proves 
 not that they hold their office of and under 
 Christ, more than cartei-s or cobblers hold 
 their office of and under Christ. I am far 
 from making a pai-allel between the magis- 
 trate and these ; but this I say, Mr Hussey's 
 plea for the magistrate is no other than 
 agreeth to these. And where he addeth 
 out of Calvin, "Kings have place m the 
 church and flock of Christ, and are not 
 spoiled of their crown and sword, that they 
 may be admitted into the church ;" this, 
 m reference to the conclusion he driveth at, 
 is no more than if he had argued thus, 
 " Carters and cobblers have place in the 
 church and flock of Christ, and are not 
 necessitated to quit their secular calling 
 that they may be admitted into the church 
 of Christ ; therefore they hold their offices 
 of and under Christ." 
 
 Filtlily, He argueth thus : " That office 
 which Christ hath declared to be of God, 
 and bounded and limited in his gospel, that 
 office is held under Christ as Mediator ; but 
 the civil magistrate is so. Bom. xiii. 4." 
 
 'Ans. 1. His proposition is most false, 
 and will never be proved. 2. If this argu- 
 ment hold good, then the pagan magistrate 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHUKCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 99 
 
 holds his office under Christ as Mediator (for 
 of such magistrates then in being the Apostle 
 meaneth, Kom xiii.); so that either he must 
 recal what he saith here, or what he saith 
 afterward, that the office of the pagan ma- 
 gistrate is sinful and unlawful. 3. By Mr 
 Hussey's medium, one might prove that 
 servants hold their office under Christ as 
 Mediator, because he hath declared their 
 office to be of God, and hath bounded and 
 limited it in his gospel, Eph. vi. 5 — 8. 
 
 Sixthly, He saith they be the same per- 
 sons that are under Christ and under the 
 magistrate ; and further, " Christ's ends and 
 the king's ends are both one ;" 1 Tim. ii. 2, 
 " That we may lead a quiet and peaceable 
 life, in all godliness and honesty." Now, 
 either the office of the Mediator's Idngdom 
 is superior, or inferior, or co-ordinate, in re- 
 ference to the magistrate's office. 
 
 Ans. 1 . Very often they are not the same 
 persons that are under Christ and under the 
 magistrate ; for, 1 Cor. v. 11, 12, the Apos- 
 tle distinguisheth those that were within, 
 or those that were called brethren, from 
 those that were without, — both were under 
 the magistrate, both were not under Christ; 
 and now the Jews, in divers places, are 
 under the Christian magistrate, not under 
 Christ. 2. The end of Clirist's kingly office 
 and the end of magistracy are so different, 
 that to say they are the same, is to offer 
 indignity and dishonour to Jesus Christ. 
 Kings are indeed appointed that we may 
 live under them a quiet and peaceable life, 
 in all godliness and honesty ; but herein 
 he hath answered himself, p. 29, " The civil 
 magistrate may require of the people that 
 they will attend upon the means, out of na- 
 tural principles," Deum esse et colendmn. 
 Of the ends of magistracy I have spoken 
 before, whither I remit him. The ends of 
 Christ's kingly office are quite another thing ; 
 namely, to destroy all our soul's enemies, — 
 Satan, the flesh, the wicked world, death ; to 
 put all his enemies under his feet ; to send 
 out his officers and ministers for the perfect- 
 ing of the saints, for the work of the minis- 
 try, for the edifying of the body of Christ ; 
 to govern his people by his Word and Spi- 
 rit, and to keep them by the power of God 
 thi'ough fiiith unto salvation. 3. The com- 
 parison between Christ's kingly office as Me- 
 diator, and the magistrate's office, is neither 
 to be drawn from superiority and inferiority, 
 nor co-ordination ; for they are disparata, 
 and differ toto genere. 
 
 And now I shall proceed, for method's 
 sake, to examine other four arguments from 
 Scripture, upon which Mr Hussey (though 
 he doth not join them to the former six) 
 afterward layeth no small weight for up- 
 holding that opinion, that the magistrate 
 holds his office of and under Christ, as he is 
 Mediator. 
 
 The seventh argument, therefore, shall be 
 that which he draweth from Matt, xxviii. 
 18, p. 25, whereunto I have two answers, 
 according to two different applications of 
 that text. When Christ said, " All power is 
 given unto me in heaven and in earth," it 
 may be understood either as he is Mediator, 
 or as he is the Second Person in the blessed 
 Trinity, the eternal Son of God. So, when 
 the Ubiquitaries would prove from that place 
 the real communication of divine onmipo- 
 tence to the human nature of Christ, our 
 divines answer. The text may be understood 
 either of Christ's person, God-man, or as he 
 is the natui-al Son of God. See Gomarus 
 upon the place. Now, take the text either 
 way, it proves not what Mr Hussey would. 
 Let it be understood of Christ as God-man, 
 and as Mediator (which is the most promis- 
 ing sense for him) yet it cannot prove that 
 all power, without exception, and all govern- 
 ment, — as well without as within the chui'ch, 
 as well secular as ecclesiastical, — is put in 
 Christ's hand as he is Mediator, and that the 
 civil magistrate holds his office of and under 
 Christ : but the sense must be. All power 
 which belongs to the Mediator, and all au- 
 thority which belongs to the gathering and 
 o'overnino- of the church is given to me : for 
 we niust needs expound his meaning as hnn- 
 self hath taught us,i Jolm xviii. 36 ; Luke 
 xii. 14. We must not say that any such 
 power is given to him, as himself denieth 
 to be given to him, namely, civil power 
 and magistracy. Wherefore Martin Bucer, 
 in his Scripta Anglicana, p. 273, doth 
 rightly refer these words, " All power is 
 
 1 Greg, de Valeiitia. comment, in Thom., torn. 4, 
 disp. 1, quest. 32, punct. 6. — kSI autem per omncm 
 potestatem, secundo intelligamus ibi cum Hierony- 
 mo ct Anselmo omnem potestatem necessariam 
 quidem Christo ad gubernandam spiritualiter om- 
 nem ecclesiam, tum in coelo, ubi est caput et rex au- 
 gelorum ; tum in terra, ubi sunt homines, quorum 
 item est rex et caput : satis constat non iude sequi 
 quod acceperit etiam potestatem politicam. Medina 
 in tertiam partem, quest. 59, art. 4. — Dicendura 
 quad omuls potestas et auctoritas tribuenda est 
 Christo, si taraen deceus sit ad _ofEeium redemp- 
 tionis ; at quod fuerit rex temporalis totius orbis 
 niinirac decuit Christum, ob idquc istam auctorita- 
 tera nou accepit. 
 
100 
 
 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 given unto me in heaven and in eai'th," 
 to the head de Ecclesice CEconomia, and 
 makes this text parallel to John xx. 21 — 
 23, " As my Father hath sent me, even so 
 send I you," &;c. ; " \Miose soever sins ye re- 
 mit," &c.; and to Matt. xvi. 19, " I will give 
 unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, 
 and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, 
 shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever 
 thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in 
 heaven." And thLs is the vCtaa eiovaia all 
 authoi"ity or power in heaven and in earth, 
 which is meant, Matt, xxviii. 18 ; which is 
 further confirmed by the Syriac, which read- 
 eth thus, ver. 18, " All power is given unto 
 me in heaven and in earth : but as my Father 
 hath sent me, even so send I you ;" ver. 19, 
 " Go, therefore, teach all nations." So re- 
 stricting the sense to be in reference to the 
 church only, and excluding civil government 
 and magistracy, from which Christ had before 
 excluded his apostles. Medina in tertiam 
 Partem, quest. 59, art. 4, holds the same 
 thing, that the context and cohesion of ver. 
 18, 19, proves the kingdom of Christ to be 
 merely spiiitual. 
 
 But, 2. The text will suffer yet a further 
 restriction, namely, that all power in heaven 
 and in earth is said to be given unto Jesus 
 Chi'ist, as he is the eternal Son of God; and 
 that both in respect of the eternal genera- 
 tion by which the godhead, and so all divine 
 properties (of which omnipotence is one) was 
 irom all eternity communicated from the 
 Father to the Son, and in respect of the 
 declaration or manifestation of him to be the 
 Son of God with pov.er, when God raised 
 him from the dead. Mr Hussey saith he is 
 astonished to hear that any thing should be 
 given to Christ, as God. V^'lIere, first of all, 
 I observe, how miserably he mangleth and 
 maimeth my words, as in other places, so 
 here. He citeth these words as mine, That 
 Christ, as he is eternal God, doth, with the 
 Father and the Holy Ghost, reig-n over the 
 kingdoms of the earth, &c., and this power 
 was given," &c. It is not fair nor just deal- 
 ing to change a man's words in a citation, 
 especially when the change is material. ?sow 
 here are divei^s changes in this passage. 
 This one only I take notice of : I said not 
 " As he is eternal God," but, " As he is the 
 eternal Son of God ;" and all along in that 
 question, I spake of the Son of God, not 
 essentially, but personally, as* he is the Son 
 of God, or Second Person in the Trinity ; 
 and so the godhead, and all the attributes 
 
 and properties thereof, are communicated 
 to him from the Father by the eternal gene- 
 ration ; and, as the Nicene Creed said, he 
 is Deiis de Deo, Lumen de Lumine : God 
 of God, Light of Light. I ask, therefore, 
 Mr Hussey, What do you mutter here ? 
 Speak it out. Do you hold that Jesus Christ 
 is not only ohmuibms but vnoa-aTiKoiis, not 
 only essentialli/ but personally avr'ideos, 
 that he is not only ex seipso Devs, but ex 
 seipso Filius ? If this be the thing you hold, 
 then you oppose me indeed; but so as you 
 fall into a blasphemous heresy, that Chi-ist, 
 as he is the eternal Son of God, hath not all 
 power in heaven and in earth, but only as 
 he is Mediator, because that power is given 
 to him ; and nothing can be given to Christ, 
 as the etemal Son of God, but only as he 
 is Mediator, by your principles. But if your 
 meaning be no more than this, that Christ 
 considered nhutuhuii, in respect of the very 
 nature and essenceof the godhead, isdurofleos, 
 not God of God, but God of himself, and that 
 so nothing can be said to be given to him; 
 then why have you dealt so uncharitably as to 
 suppose me to be herein opposite unto you, 
 when I plainly spake of the etemal Son of 
 God vT!uarartKbis, in respect of the pei-son- 
 ality or relation of fiUation, or as he is the 
 eternal Son of God ? in winch sense I yet 
 aver confidently, that aU power in heaven 
 and earth may be said to be given to Je- 
 sus Christ, as he is the etemal Son of God 
 by eternal generation. 
 
 I added, that all power in heaven and 
 earth may be said to be given to Christ, as 
 he is the eternal Son of God, in another 
 respect, namely, in respect of the declaration 
 thereof at his resurrection. To this Mr 
 Hussey replieth, " That to hold anything 
 should be given him that should concern his 
 godliead at the time of his resm-rection, is 
 more monstrous." Then hath Gomarus and 
 others given a monstrous answer to the Ubi- 
 quitaries; yet they clear it by Augustine's 
 rule, AUquid dicitur fieri quando incipit 
 pateficri. Is it any more strange than to 
 say that Christ was begotten that day when 
 he was raised from the dead ? Acts xiii. 33. 
 The Son of God had, in obedience to liis 
 Father's will, laid aside and relinquished his 
 divine dominion and power when he took 
 upon him the form of a servant (which I said 
 before, but it seems was not considered by 
 Mr Hussey) ; now, at his resiu-rection, the 
 Father restoreth with ailvantage that for- 
 merly - rel in qu ish e d so ver eign t y . 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 101 
 
 But he addeth, that if Matt, xxviii. 18, 
 be not understood of Christ as Mediator, 
 " then he liad no authority as Mediator to 
 send his apostles ; for it foUowcth, ' Go ye 
 therefore and preach.' From this authority 
 here spoken of is the authority to preach 
 the gospel." 
 
 Ans. Not to stand upon the want of the 
 particle liw therefore, in divers Greek co- 
 pies, I admit of the cohesion and depend- 
 ance of the words, thus : Christ being to give 
 a commission to the apostles to go and preach 
 the gospel to all nations, he first anticipateth 
 a great objection, which might arise in the 
 apostles' minds. They might think, How 
 shall we be able to carry the gospel through 
 the nations ? We shall have all the powers of 
 the world against us. To remove this fear, 
 he said, " AH power is given unto me in 
 heaven and in earth." As if he had said. 
 Do you believe that I who send you out, am 
 the Son of the living God? then know assur- 
 edly, that my divine power and sovereignty 
 shall be for you, and I will so overrule all 
 the kings and potentates, and states of the 
 world, as may be most for my glory and your 
 good ; fear not, therefore, but go and preach 
 to all nations." 
 
 And so much of that text, Matt.xxviii. 18. 
 Sahneron upon the place draws from it 
 Christ's dominion even in temporal things 
 (as Mr Hussey doth), and thence he deriveth 
 the temporal power of the Pope as Christ's 
 vicar over the kinos and kiniidoms of the 
 world. So Suarez ui tertiam partem Tho- 
 mce, disp. 48, sect. 2 ; Gamachajus in tertiam 
 partem Thomce, quest. 22 ; yet some of the 
 Papists themselves are ashamed to defend 
 Clu'ist's dominion in temporal things (except 
 as God only), it appearing to them so far 
 contrary to other scriptures. 
 
 Bellarmine himself, lib. 5, de Pout. Mom. 
 cap. 4, confesseth that Christ, as he did not 
 execute any tempox'al dominion, so he neither 
 had nor received such power and authority : 
 thereupon he inferreth that the Pope, whom 
 he calleth Christ's vicar and representee on 
 earth, hath not any temporal dominion di- 
 rectly, but indirectly, and in ordinc ad spi- 
 ritualia. I appeal also to Sahneron, in an- 
 other place, where he speaks more soundly, 
 torn. 4, part 3, tract. 4, p. 413. He proves 
 from John xviii. 36, and Luke xii. 14, that 
 Christ had not nor received not any tem- 
 poral power, and thence inferreth, Cum ergo 
 Christies hujusmodi potestatem non hubu- 
 erit, nec JPetro illam tradidit. 
 
 The eighth argument shall be that which 
 Mr Coleman did draw from 1 Cor. xii. 28, to 
 prove that Christ hath placed in his church 
 magistrates or civil governments. Hereunto 
 I had made four answers. Mr Hussey pass- 
 eth two of them, which he is pleased to esteem 
 " trifles not worth answer." Now the Ga- 
 maliel speaks e cathedra. The other two 
 he offereth to confute, p. 28 — 31. First, 
 Whereas I said, that if by governments, in 
 that place be understood civil magistrates, 
 yet the text saith not that Christ hath placed 
 them. "Then (saith Mr Hussey) a fortiori 
 you disclaim by that means any government 
 in this place as officers under Christ." No, 
 Sir, this reasoning is a haculo ad ayiguluni. 
 I hold church officers and church govern- 
 ment to be under Christ, and under him as 
 Mediator and King of the church, and am 
 ready to prove it against any that will deny 
 it. But upon supposition that civil govern- 
 ment is meant in that text (which I utterly 
 deny), I had reason to call the affirmer to 
 his proper task, to prove from that text, that 
 Christ, as Mediator, hath placed civil govern- 
 ment or magistracy in his church. This 
 was the point it was brought for, and still I 
 call to make good that proof, for I deny it. 
 It seems Mr Hussey finds himself puzzled 
 to make it out, and therefoi'e he saith, " If 
 Mr Coleman will be ruled by me, so as Mr 
 Gillespie will not urge this for constitution of 
 church governments, he shall let it go." But 
 if it be a truth. Sir, you ought to buy it, 
 and not sell it ; for my part, I dare make 
 no bargain of Scripture. 
 
 My next answer was, that " the Apostle 
 speaks of such governors as the church had 
 at that time ; but at that time the church 
 had no godly nor Christian magistrates." Mr 
 Hussey ansvvereth, that it cannot be proved 
 "that the Apostle speaketh of such officers 
 as were in the church in his time only." 
 He addeth, " I shall urge some few argu- 
 ments to the contrary." To the contrary 
 of what ? I did not say that the Apostle 
 speaketh of such officers as were in the church 
 in his time only ; but that the chui'ch at that 
 time had all those officers whom the Apostle 
 speaketh of. One would think that he who 
 censureth other's so much for want of skill in 
 disputations, should not so far mistake his 
 mark. But we know what he would have 
 said though he hath not hit it. Let us hear 
 his arguments. First, he tells us that the 
 woi'd e'Oero will signify proposuit or decrevit, 
 so that where we read, " God hath set in 
 
102 
 
 the church," it may be read, " God hath 
 appointed to his church," so to take in 
 those governments whicli should aftenvard 
 by God's appointment come to the church. 
 He clears it by John xv. 16; Acts xix. 21. 
 Ans. Then the Apostle saith no more to the 
 Corinthians than might have been said to 
 the old world before the flood ; for ii' the 
 meaning be that God hath ordained and 
 purposed, all this text had been true, if de- 
 hvered in tcrm 'inis tcrminantihus, to the old 
 world, " God hath set some in the church, 
 first Apostles," &c. 2. The context showeth 
 that the Apostle speaketh only of such ad- 
 ministrations as the church had at that time; 
 for all this is spoken in reference to the pre- 
 venting of a schism in the church of Corinth, 
 and that evexy member of that body might 
 discharge its own proper function without 
 usurping another's. 3. He confuteth him- 
 self, for he addeth, " This cannot be a cata- 
 logue of such officers as are at all times ne- 
 cessary to the church, for then apostles might 
 not be mentioned." Therefoi'e it must be 
 said, that edero in this place is posuit or col- 
 locavit (according to the more usual sigiiifi- 
 cation of riOrifji), and doth relate to that 
 present time, as well as Acts xx. 28, " The 
 Holy Ghost hath made or setyou ovei'seers," 
 eQero itrtoKovovs. In like manner here God 
 hath set ( or placed) in the church, and so 
 it will agree both to ordinary and extraordi- 
 nary ofiicers. But if eOero be decrevit, then 
 it will refer the apostles, prophets, evange- 
 lists, miracles, to the future estate of the 
 church, as if they were ordinary officers to 
 continue in the church. 4. Wlien eOero sig- 
 nifieth decrevit, then the thing is not men- 
 tioned as having an actual present existence, 
 but a futurition ; so that when he takes him 
 to the decrevit, he quits the posuit, and by 
 that means one cannot prove from that text 
 that the church at that time had any of 
 these officers there enumerated : edero relates 
 to all that follows, and either it must be pos- 
 uit to them all, or to none of them. 
 
 5. If he had intended to express God's 
 decree or purpose to give unto his church 
 certain officei-s, he would not have said 
 Kal ovs fiiv edero 6 Seos ei^ ri] eKKXrjaia, and 
 God hath decreed some in the church ; 
 which could make no perfect sense except 
 some other thing were added. Mr Hussey 
 might as well expound Acts v. 18, edevro 
 avTovs kv TTjpiicret hefioaia, thus, and they 
 decreed them in the common prison. Mr 
 Hussey would render the text thus, he hath 
 
 appointed to his church. If the text had 
 said edero rfj CKKXijaia he might have ren- 
 dered it so, but when the text saith iv rij 
 eKK\T]ata, he must not render it to the church, 
 but in the church, as Acts xix. 21, edero 6 
 TlavXos ev tw irvevfiari, " Paul purposed in 
 the Spirit the purpose was not to the 
 Spirit, but in the Spuit. 
 
 The second argument whereby he im- 
 pugneth that which I said is thLs: "At that 
 time there were workers of miracles which 
 did supply the defect of civil magistrates." 
 And here he insisteth a while to teU us that 
 " thus much a national covenant and civil 
 magistrate may require of the people, that 
 they will attend upon the means out of na- 
 tui-al principles," which at that time mira- 
 cles caused men to attend upon. But quid 
 hcec ad Rhomhum ? How comes this home 
 to that which he undertook to prove ? And 
 if it did, I must say that the civil magistrate 
 is but little, and a national covenant i'ar less 
 beholden to him. And if the workers of 
 miracles did at that time supply the defect 
 of civil magistrates (I sujipose he should 
 have said Christian magistrates), then he 
 must draw Chi-istian magistracy to come in 
 succession not so much to the civil magis- 
 tracy in the apostles' times (which yet was 
 true magistracy), as to the mii-acles men- 
 tioned in the text ; and so bring in the 
 Christian magistrate upon the ceasing of mir- 
 acles. A fine plea indeed for Christian ma- 
 gistracy. 
 
 His third argument goeth thus, We have 
 in the text first, second, and third, when 
 the Apostle speaks of those which might be 
 liable to present view; but then he breaks off 
 with eweira, after that ?ntVacZes, which lasted 
 somewhat longer than the apostles and pro- 
 phets ; and last, we have eha, and these 
 may be ordinary gifts, and this etra relates 
 to helps, governments : That Calvin thinks 
 the helps " were some officers the church 
 hath lost ; but being put both in one case 
 without any conjunction copulative, why 
 they may not (I believe he would have said, 
 why may they not ? for the sense can be no 
 other) belong both to one thing, and this 
 etra may not have some influence upon the 
 times and after age." Ans. If this be his 
 manner, we shall not much fear the dint of 
 his arguments, when it comes to the schools, 
 which he calls for. \Miat a gi'eat matter is 
 made of mere nothing ? First, He offereth 
 violence to the text ; because if elra note 
 posteriority of time, and ordinary gifts, then 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 103 
 
 ETreira, which is compounded from elm, 
 must much rather note the same thing, and 
 so we shall have not only gifts of heal- 
 ing, but miracles too, oi'dinary and continu- 
 ing administrations in the church. Next, 
 he offereth violence to the Greek lanOTage : 
 for when elm and eTreim signify posteriority, 
 not only in the enumeration, but in the time 
 of existence, then the one must needs signify 
 a pre-existence, and the other a post-exis- 
 tence ; they cannot be contemporary from 
 their beginnings. Yet Mr Hussey will needs 
 have eireirct before miracles, and again elra 
 before gifts of healing and diversities of 
 tongues, to signify posteriority of time, 
 though he cannot say that gifts of healing 
 and diversities of tongues were not contem- 
 porary but posterior in time to miracles. 
 And further, observe, that when the text 
 runs in this order, "first apostles, secondarily 
 prophets, thirdly teachers, after that mira- 
 cles, then gifts of healing," &c., Mr Plussey 
 will make the sense, that there were apostles 
 before prophets, there were prophets before 
 teachers, there were teachers before mira- 
 cles, there were miracles before gifts of heal- 
 ings, &c. ; and vice versa, there were no gifts 
 of healing till after there had been miracles, 
 no miracles till after there had been teachers 
 in the church, &c. ; even as Mark iv. 28, 
 vpwTOf "first the blade, elra tlien the ear, 
 elra after that the full corn in the ear :" the 
 blade hath an existence before the ear, the 
 ear before the fuU corn. So that, taking 
 elra and eVeira in his sense, he must either 
 make out distinctly the order of time, or 
 else confess he would make the Apostle 
 speak as never Grecian in the world spake, 
 or lastly, be content to understand the Apos- 
 tle's words of the order of enumeration. If 
 the word fiereTretra had been in the text, 
 that had indeed carried it to posteriority of 
 time, as Heb. xii. 17 ; but elra (though 
 sometime it signifieth posteriority of time, 
 yet) in this place, having reference to such 
 antecedents and consequents, cannot bear his 
 sense. I see it were no ill sport to examine 
 his quaint arguments if a man had but so 
 much leisure. 
 
 Thirdly, He offereth violence to Calvin ; 
 for Calvin saith,i that these helps mentioned 
 1 Cor. xii. 28, were either an ancient gift 
 and office unknown to us now, or it belongs 
 
 1 Calvin in 1 Cor. xii. 28. — Aut certe tarn munns 
 quam domum oliin fuit, quod nobis liodie est incog- 
 nitum : aut ad diaconiam pertinet, hoc est curam 
 paupcrum. Atque hoc secundum milii niagis arridet. 
 
 to deaconship, that is, the care of the poor. 
 And this second (saith lie) rather pleaseth 
 me. Qua fide then, could Mr Hussey affii-m 
 that Calvin thinks they were some ofliicei's 
 that the church hath lost ? 
 
 Fourthly, Whereas ho thinks helps, go- 
 vernments, to belong both to one thing, 
 there was some such thing once foisted into 
 the English Bibles: avTiX^nrteis, Kvt,epvr)- 
 aeis, was read thus, helps in governments : 
 but afterwards the prelates themselves were 
 ashamed of it, and so it was printed accord- 
 ing to the Greek distinctly, hcljxs, govern- 
 ments. The Syriac addeth a copulative, 
 and readeth thus, and helpers, and gover- 
 nors, so making them distinct officers in 
 the church. Neither is it any unusual thing 
 in the Greek, to put together nouns in the 
 same case without any conjunction copula- 
 tive, when the things themselves so expressed 
 are most different, as Matt. xv. 19 ; Gal. 
 v. 19—23 ; Rom. i. 29—31. 
 
 The next thing he brings against me, is 
 from Eph. iv. 11, whore there is no ordi- 
 nary or standing officer left to us, but the 
 teacher of the Word. Here is neither help 
 nor government, but this poor teacher left 
 alone to edify the body of Christ, and to 
 perfect the saints. Ans. What argument is 
 there here ? Ruling elders are not mentioned 
 Eph. iv., therefore the governments men- 
 tioned 1 Cor. xii., are such as the church 
 had not at that time. There are divers pas- 
 sages of Christ's doctrine, life, and suffer- 
 ings, which are not mentioned by Matthew, 
 yet they are mentioned by John or some of 
 the other evangelists. So if we take the 
 primitive platform right, we nmst set the 
 whole before us ; that which is not in one 
 place is in another place. The Apostle, 
 Eph. iv., intendeth only to speak of preach- 
 ing officers who are appointed for this work 
 of the ministry, to bring us to unity of the 
 faith and of the knowledge of the Son of 
 God, that we be not carried about with 
 every wind of doctrine, ver. 12 — 14. And 
 if the Apostle had intended to enumerate 
 all church officers in that place which were 
 then in the church, how comes it he doth 
 not mention deacons, which he distinguisheth 
 from bishops or elders ? 1 Tim. iii. 
 
 His last argument is, that in this very 
 place, 1 Cor xii., the Apostle, when he doth 
 again enumerate the particulars, ver. 29, 30, 
 he leaveth out helps, governments ; for 
 which, he saith, he knows no reason, but be- 
 cause there were none such at that time, 
 
104 
 
 AARO^''s ROD BLOSSOMING, OR THE 
 
 and the Apostle in that induction was to 
 deal with their experience. This (as many 
 other things which he hath) was before an- 
 swered to Mr Coleman. I give tliis plain 
 reason for the omission of these two : The 
 Apostle speaketh to those who were not 
 well satisfied nor contented with their own 
 station in the church, but were aspiring to 
 more eminent gifts and administrations : 
 " Are all apostles ? (saith he), are all pro- 
 phets?" &c., and so he reckoneth out only 
 those rare and singular gifts, which men did 
 most covet. And, for that cause, it was nei- 
 ther necessary, nor had it been agi'eeable to 
 the scope of the Apostle to have added, 
 " are all helps ? are all governments ?" But 
 now he purposely leaveth out these, thereby 
 intimating to the ruling elders and deacons 
 of the church of Corinth, that they ought to 
 be contented with their own station, though 
 they be neither apostles, nor prophets, &c. 
 
 It remaineth, therefore, that the govern- 
 ments in the church, mentioned 1 Cor. xii. 
 28, were such governments as were in the 
 church at that time, and therefore not to be 
 understood of Christian magistracy, but of 
 church government distinct from the civil. 
 
 The ninth argument brought to prove 
 that all government is given to Christ as 
 Mediator, and that the Christian magistrate 
 holds his office of and under Christ, as the 
 head of magistracy and principality, is from 
 Eph. i. 21 — 23. This argument, first pro- 
 pounded by Mr Coleman, is prosecuted by 
 Mr Hussey, p. 32, 33, &c. He demures 
 upon that which I said, that this place mak- 
 eth more against him than for him ; the 
 meaning whereof was no more than this, 
 that this place doth rather afford us an ar- 
 gument against him than him against us. 
 Come we to the particulars. My first reply 
 was, " The Apostle saith not that Christ is 
 given to the church, as the Head of aU prin- 
 cipalities and powers : the brother saith so ; 
 and in saying so, he makes Christ a Head to 
 those that are not of his body." This ex- 
 ception Mr Hussey quarrelleth ; but when 
 he hath endeavoured to prove from that 
 text, that Christ is the Head of principah- 
 ties, because he that is Head of all things 
 is also Head of prmcipalities; though he will 
 never be able to make it out from that 
 text, that Christ (as Mediator) is Head of all 
 things ; but only, that he who is the church's 
 Head is over all things : " and gave him to 
 be the Head over (not of) all things to the 
 church," saith the text, which, as I told be- 
 
 fore, the Syriac readeth more plainly thus : 
 " And him M'ho is over aU, he gave to be 
 the Head to the church." At last he fairly 
 gives over tlie proof. "It is true (saith 
 he), disputations do require men to keep 
 close to terms, but in Col. ii. 10, ye have 
 the veiy words, 'Head of all principality 
 and power.' " In Col. ii. 10, Christ, as he 
 is the eternal Son of God, is called Head of 
 all principality and power, as we shall see 
 anon ; but Eph. i., where the Apostle speak- 
 eth of Christ's headship in reference to the 
 church, and as Mediator, he Ls not called the 
 Head of all principality and power; so that I 
 had reason to except against Mr Coleman's 
 argument, which made that text, Eph. i., 
 to say what it saith not. Now, what saith 
 he to the reason I added, can Christ be a 
 Head to them that are not of his body ? 
 He tells me, the visible church is not the 
 body of Christ, but only the faitliful. He 
 might have observed the visible church, con- 
 sistins of visible saints, plainly spoken of as 
 the body of Christ, 1 Cor. x. 16, 17; 1 Cor. 
 xii. 12, 14, 27. I know the visible church 
 is not all one with the invisible and mystical 
 body of Christ; but he who denieth the 
 visible church to be the visible, political, 
 ministerial body of Christ., must ako deny 
 the visible church to be the visible church ; 
 for if a church, then certainly the body of 
 Christ, at least visibly. 
 
 The next thing which I did reply was in 
 explanation of the text, which was to this 
 sense : He that is the church's Head is over 
 all, both as he is the Son of God, or, as the 
 Apostle saith, Rom. ix. 5, " God over all, 
 blessed for ever;" yea, even as man, he is 
 over or above all creatures, being exalted to 
 a higher degi'ee of glory, majesty, and dig- 
 nity, than man or angel ever was, or shall 
 be ; but neither his divine omnipotence, nor 
 the height of glory and honour which, as 
 man, he is exalted to, nor both these toge- 
 ther in the Mediator and Head of the church, 
 omnipotence and exaltation to glory, can 
 prove that (as Mediator) he exerciseth his 
 kingly office over all principalities and powers, 
 and that they hold of and under him as Me- 
 diator. Mr Hussey repUeth, that the text 
 makes Christ over or above principalities 
 and powers, not only in dignity and honour, 
 but as Kmg or Head of them ; and that thus 
 we must understand the comparison, that 
 he is above principahty in principaUty, power 
 in power, might in might, dominion in do- 
 minion. This is nothinji but a begging of 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 105 
 
 what is in question : that the power and 
 dominion of the civil magistrate is eminently 
 in Christ as Mediator, and from him (so con- 
 sidered) derived to the magistrate, is that 
 which I deny can be proved I'rom tliat text ; 
 and, lo ! when he comes to the point of pro- 
 bation, he supposeth what he iiad to prove. 
 My exposition of the text made good sense ; 
 for as an earthly king is exalted to have 
 more power and more glory than those not 
 only of his subjects, but of another state or 
 kingdom to whom he is not king, so the 
 ]\Iediator and King of the church is exalted 
 to power and glory far above all principality 
 and power, but is not therefore Head, or 
 King, or Governor, to all principality and 
 power as Mediator. And as my exposition 
 makes good sense of the text, his makes very 
 bad sense of it ; for if Christ, as Mediator, be 
 Head and King of all principalities, powers, 
 and dominions, then he is, as Mediator, Head 
 and King of heathenish and Turkish princi- 
 pality, power, might, and dominion ; and, 
 when the Apostle wrote this to the Ephe- 
 sians, it must be granted (according to Mr 
 Hussey's gloss) that Christ, as Mediator, was 
 Head and King of the Roman emperor, and 
 that Caesar held his office of and under Christ 
 as Mediator ; for if Head of all principality, 
 how shall they except any ? 
 
 I further brought several reasons from the 
 text itself. The first was this: " The hon- 
 our and dignity of Jesus Christ there spoken 
 of, hath place not only in this world, but in 
 that which is to come (ver. 21) ; but the 
 kingdom and government which is given to 
 Christ, as Mediator, shall not continue in the 
 world to come." Mr Hussey answereth, p. 
 41, this is ignoratio elenchi, itfoUoweth not 
 "that which belongeth to tini in reference to 
 the world to come, belongeth not to him as 
 Mediator ; therefore that government that 
 is given to him in reference to this world is 
 not given to him as Mediator." But still 
 he begs what is in question, and divideth 
 asunder what the text coupleth together, — 
 "not only in this world, but also in tliat 
 which is to come." Here is a rising and 
 heightening, but no contradistinction ; no- 
 thing here of one exaltation in reference to 
 the world to come, another in reference to 
 this world ; but that exaltation of Christ 
 above every name that is named (which this 
 text speaks of) begins in this world, and shall 
 continue in the world to come. Calvin in 
 Eph. i. 21, Seculi autem futuri disertum 
 facit mentionem, ut signijicet uon tempora- 
 
 lem esse Christi exceUentiam, sedceternam: 
 He makes express mention of the world to 
 come, that he may signify Christ's excel- 
 lency not to be temporal but eternal. This 
 doth well agree to the dignity, excellency, 
 glory, and honour of Christ, but it cannot 
 be said that Christ shall for ever continue 
 in his kingly office as Mediator. 
 
 The second reason which I brought from 
 the text was from ver. 22, " He hath put all 
 things under his feet;" that is, all things ex- 
 cept the church, saith Zanchius. But all 
 things are not yet put under his feet, except 
 in respect of God's decree ; it is not yet done 
 actually, Heb. ii. 8. Now Christ reigns as 
 Mediator before all things be put under his 
 feet, not after all things are put under his \ 
 feet, which is clear, 1 Cor. xv. 25 ; Acts ii. : 
 34, 35. Mr Hussey's reply, p. 41, 42, saith, \ 
 that the church is not here to be excepted; 
 but church and all is here put under Christ's 
 feet ; which he proveth by Heb. ii. 8, " He 
 left nothing that is not put under him." 
 But this cannot be understood to be actually 
 done ; for the next words say, " But now 
 we see not yet all things put under him." 
 And if not done actually, but in respect of 
 God's decree and foreknowledge (according 
 to the sense I gave out of Jerome on Eph. 
 i. 22), how can it strengthen him in this 
 particular ? " Wo see not yet." This yet 
 shall, not expire till the end, when Christ 
 shall put down all authority and power ; 
 and now, when it is said, " He hath put all 
 things under his feet," Eph. i. 22, that the 
 church is not meant to be compi-ehended, I 
 but to be excepted in that place, as Zanchi- 
 us saith, may thus appear : The Apostle dis- 
 ting^iisheth the cdl tilings from the church, 
 and calls the church the body of Christ, and 
 him the Head to that body ; but the all things 
 are put under Christ's feet (his body is not 
 under his feet, but under the Head, and he 
 over all things ; for so runs the text, " And 
 hath put all things under his feet, and gave 
 him to be the Head over all things to the 
 church, which is his body." 
 
 And whereas Mr Hussey distingiiisheth 
 between Christ's putting all his enemies 
 under his feet, 1 Cor. xv. 25, and the 
 Father's putting all things under his feet, 
 ver. 27 ; and maketh this latter to be an 
 actual putting under him of friends, foes, 
 cliui-ch, and all ; whence it seems he would 
 have it to follow that Christ reigns as Medi- 
 ator, even after all things are put under his 
 feet. He is herein easily confuted from 
 
 O 
 
106 
 
 Heb. ii. 8, where God the Father's putting 
 all things under Christ's feet is plainly de- 
 clared to be a thing to come, and not yet 
 i actually done. 
 
 I The next reason which I gave out of" the 
 , text was from those words, "And gave him to 
 be the Head over all things to the church." 
 Christ's Headship and his government, as 
 J Mediator, are commensurable. " Christ is 
 I a Head to'none but to his church." These 
 I words of mine Mr Hussey changeth thus : 
 " He is Head over none (saith Mr Gilles- 
 \ pie) but his church ;" and then he addeth, 
 I " Is this to argue out of Scripture, or rather 
 j to deny and outface the Scripture ? The 
 Scripture saith, ' He is over all.' " See 
 what unconscionable impudent boldness this 
 is to cite my words (yea, in a different cha- 
 racter too, that his reader may believe it 
 the better), and yet to change not only my 
 words, but my meaning. I purposely kept 
 myself to the text, that Christ is a Head 
 to none but to his church, yet he that is 
 the church's Head is over all things. And 
 since Mr Hussey w ill needs hold that Christ, 
 as Mediator, is Head of all things (which 
 the text saith not), what were the conse- 
 quence hereof ? The text saitli t/;rep iraira 
 ; 0VC7- all things, not over all persons only ; 
 so Heb. ii. 7, 8, compared with Psal. viii. 
 6, 7, whence it follows, by Mr Hussey's 
 principles (which I tremble to mention), 
 that Christ, as Mediator, is Head and 
 King not only of men, but of sheep, oxen, 
 fowls, and fishes. Behold how dangerous 
 it is for men to be wise above that ^vhich is 
 written. 
 
 The last reason which I bi'ought from the 
 last verse was this : The cliurch is there 
 called Christ's fulness in reference to his 
 Headship. This, Mr Hussey saith, seemeth 
 to come tolerably from the text ; but the 
 next w^ords, " That which makes him full 
 and complete, so far as he is a Head or 
 Kmg," he calls a fallacy. " How cometh j 
 this word King in here V saith he. First, | 
 Here he yields that the church makes Christ j 
 full and complete, so far as he is a Head ; | 
 whence it foUoweth that, as Mediator, he 
 is only the church's Head, and there is no 
 other body of Christ but the church ; for if 
 the church be his fulness, his complete body, 
 there can be no other body of Chiist. Doth I 
 not this destroy what he hath been arguing 
 for, that Christ, as Mediator, is Head of all 
 principaHty and power ? And for the word 
 1 King, it may well come in where Head com- j 
 
 eth ; for Ls not Christ's kingdom, as Medi- 
 ator, commensurable with his Headship as 
 Mediator ? Is he, as Mediator, King to any 
 to whom he is not Head ? Surely this very 
 answer, as it is his last, so it really yieldeth 
 the cause. 
 
 The tenth objection is that which I my- 
 self moved to prevent my antagonists. Christ 
 is called " the Head of all principality and 
 power," Col. ii. 10. 
 
 To this I answered out of BuUinger, Gual- 
 ther, and Tossanus, The scope and meaning 
 of the Apostle is to show that Christ is true 
 God, and therefore we must not understand 
 the Apostle to speak of Christ's Headship 
 as Mediator, but as he is the natural and 
 eternal Son of God. ]Mr Hussey, p. 34, 
 thinks it is no good consequence the Apostle 
 speaks not of Christ as Mediator, because he 
 speaks of him as true God, " Is not Christ 
 (saith he) true God as Mediator ?" I answer. 
 As Mediator he is God-man. But he must 
 remember the argument is urged to prove 
 the subordination of all principality and 
 power to Jesus Christ as Mediator. Now let 
 him prove that the Apostle speaketh there of 
 ChiTst as Mediator. I say he speaketh of 
 Christ as God. He cannot conclude against 
 what I said, except he argue thus : That 
 which Christ is as God, he is as Mediator ; 
 which is false, as I have made it appear else- 
 where. "Well, but 3Ir Hussey proves from 
 the text that Christ is there spoken of as 
 Mediator, ver. 9, 18, " For in him dwelleth 
 the fulness of the godhead bodily ; and ye are 
 complete in him, which is the Head of aU 
 principality and power." But he draweth 
 no argument from the words : neither is 
 there anytliing in them that maketh against 
 me. The Apostle shows them, that the man 
 Jesus Christ is also true God, equal and con- 
 substantial with the Father ; for the very 
 fulness of the godhead is in liim ; that is, he 
 is fully and completely God ; so that, saith 
 Calvin, they who desire something more than 
 Clu'ist, must desire something more than 
 God. ^Mierefore our writers make the right 
 use of this place when they bring it against 
 the Socinians, to prove the godhead of Christ. 
 See Chris. Becmanus, exercit. 9. This ful- 
 ness of the godhead is in Christ bodily ; that 
 is, either personally, to distinguish him from 
 the holy men of God, who were inspired by 
 the Holy Ghost ; or substantially, as others 
 take the word, in opposition to the taber- 
 nacle and temple in which the godhead was 
 typically. " Ye are complete in him," saith 
 
DIVIXE ORDIXANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNjMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 107 
 
 the Apostle, meaning because he is completely 
 God ; so that we need not invocate or wor- 
 ship angels, as if we were not complete in 
 Chi-ist. Mr Husscy admitteth what I said 
 concerning the scope oi" the place, to teach 
 the Colossians not to worship angels, because 
 servants: " But (saith he) may they not 
 worship Christ as Mediator? Yes, doubtless, 
 they may." No doubt he that is Mediator 
 must be worshipped, because he is God ; 
 Christ God-man is the object of divine ador- 
 ation, and his godiiead is the cause of that 
 adoration ; but whether he is to be wor- 
 shipped because he is Mediator, or under 
 this formal consideration, as Mediator, and 
 whether the ^Mediator ought to be thereibre 
 adored with divine adoration, because he is 
 Mediator, is res altioris indaginis. If Mr 
 Hussey please to read and consider what 
 divers schoolmen have said upon that point, 
 as Aquinas, part 3, quest. 25, art. 1, 2 ; 
 Alex. Alensis, Sum. 2'heol. part 3, quest. 
 30, membr. 2 ; Suarez, in tertiam pa7-t. 
 Thomce, disp. 53, sect. 1 ; Valentia, Com- 
 ment, in Tho. torn. 4, disp. 1, quest. 24, 
 punct. 1 ; Tannerus, Theol. Scholast. torn. 
 4, disp. 1, quest. 7, dub. 7- But much 
 more if he please to read Disputatio de 
 Adorcitione Christi, habita inter Faustum 
 Socinum et Christianum Francken ; and 
 above all, Dr Voetius Select. Disput. ex 
 Poster, part. Theol., disp. 14: An Christus 
 qua Mediator sit adorandus ? then I be- 
 lieve he will be more wary and cautious what 
 he holds concerning that question. But I 
 must not be led out of my way to multiply 
 questions unnecessarily : All that I said was, 
 that the Apostle teacheth the Colossians not 
 to worship angels, because they are servants, 
 but Christ the Son of the living God, who 
 is the Head and Lord of angels ; and in that 
 place the Apostle speaketh of the honour 
 which is due to Christ as God. And, if we 
 would know in what sense the Apostle calls 
 Christ the Head of all principality and power, 
 see how he expounds himself. Col. i. 15 — 
 17, speaking of the godhead of Jesus Christ. 
 Finally, If Mr Huasey will prove anything 
 from Col. ii. 10, against us, ho must prove 
 that those words, " Which is the head of all 
 principality and power," are meant in re- 
 ference not only to the angels, but to civil 
 magistrates ; and next, that they are meant 
 of Christ, not only as God, but as Mediator : 
 both which he hath to prove, for they are 
 not yet proved. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 ARGUMENTS FOR THE NEGATIVE OF THAT 
 QUESTION FORMERLY PROPOUNDED. 
 
 ^ly arguments against the derivation of 
 magistracy from Jesus Christ as Mediator, 
 and against the magistrate's holding of his 
 office of and under Christ as Mediator, are 
 these :— 
 
 First, This doctrine doth evacuate and 
 nullify the civil authority and government of 
 all heathen or pagan magisti-ates ; for which 
 way was the authority of government derived 
 from Christ, and from him as Mediator, to 
 a pagan magistrate or emperor ? If he hath 
 not his power from Christ, as Mediator, then 
 he is but an usurper, and hath no just title 
 to reign, according to their principles, who 
 hold that all government, even civil, is given 
 to Christ, and to him as Mediator. Mr 
 Hussey, forsooth, doth learnedly yield the 
 argument, and answereth, p. 20, that not 
 only it is a sin to be a heathen, but the go- 
 vernment of a heathen is sinful and unlawlul ; 
 for which he gives this reason, " Whatsoever 
 is not of faith is sin," He might as well 
 conclude, in that sense, that the best virtues 
 of the heathen were sin, because not of faith ; 
 that is, accidentally sin, in respect of the 
 end, or manner of doing, not materialli/, or 
 in their own nature. Upon the same reason 
 he must conclude, that the government of a 
 Christian magistrate is unlawful, if it be not 
 of faith, as ofttimes it is not, through the blind- 
 ness and corruption of men's hearts who go- 
 vern. But whether is the government of a 
 heathen magistrate per se, simpliciter, et ex 
 natura sua, unlawtul and sinful ? Whether 
 hath he any just right or title to government 
 and magistracy? If his title to civil magis- 
 tracy be just, and if his government be in 
 itself materially and substantially lawful, then 
 he nuist have a commission from Christ, and 
 from him as Mediator. This I suppose can- 
 not be Mr Hussey's sense, for he hath not 
 answered one syllable to the argument, tend- 
 ing that way. But if the government of an 
 heathen magisti'ate be in itself materially, 
 substanially, and in the nature of the tenure, 
 sinful and unlawful, so that, as long as he re- 
 mains an heathen, he hath no real right or 
 true title to government, but only a preliended 
 and usurped title (which must needs be Mr 
 Hussey's sense, if he hath answered anything 
 
108 
 
 Aaron's hod blossoming, or the 
 
 at all to my argument), then he goeth cross 
 not only to the holy men of" God in the Old 
 Testament, who honoured heathen princes, 
 and were subject to them as to lawful magis- 
 trates, but also to the doctrine of Jesus Christ, 
 who taught his disciples to give unto Cccsar 
 what is Ca?sar's ; and of the apostles, who, in 
 their time, exhorted the churches to be sub- 
 ject even to heathen magistrates (for they 
 j had no other at that time), to obey them, to 
 t pray for them, Rom. xiii. ; Titus iii. 1 ; 1 
 Tim. ii. 1, 2; 1 Peter ii. 13 — 17. It is 
 justly condemned as one of the errors of the 
 Anabaptists, that an heathen magistrate is 
 not to be acknowledged as a lawful magis- 
 trate, or as being from God. See Gerhard, 
 Loc. Com., tom. 6, p. 498, 499; P. Hinkel- 
 mannus, de Anabaptisnio, disp. 13, cap. 1. 
 The Scriptures now cited are so clear, that 
 when Mr Hussey saith of the heathen ma- 
 gistrate, " Let Baal plead for himself," he 
 might as well have said, that Christ and his 
 apostles pleaded for Baal. They that plead 
 foi- the authority of an heathen magistrate 
 do not plead for Baal, but for God, and for 
 his ordinance ; " For the powers that be are 
 ordained of God," saith Paul, speaking even 
 of the heathen magistrates, Kom. xiii. 1. 
 But what will Mr Hussey say, if his great 
 master Erastus be found a pleader for Baal 
 as much as I am ? Confirm. Thcs, lib. 3, 
 cap. 2, p. 184, speaking of the heathen and 
 unbelievina; magistrates, before whom the 
 Corinthians went to law one agamst another, 
 he saith, An non est impius quoque magis- 
 tratus a Deo proepositii.t, ut svhjectos quos- 
 lihet ah injur a et vi tueatur ? Is not the 
 I ungodly magistrate also preferred by God, 
 that he may defend any or' his subjects from 
 ir.jury and violence. Yea, the Scriptures 
 atbre touched are so clear in this point, that 
 Gamachceus, in Primam Sectmdce, quest. 4, 
 5, cap. 33, though he hold that by human and 
 ecclesiastical right, pagan princes lose their 
 dominion and authority over their subjects 
 when their subjects turn Christians, yet he 
 ncknowledgeth that they still retain their 
 former jurisdiction over those subjects by the 
 law of God and nature. Surely one might 
 as well say, that heathen parents are unlaw- 
 lul, and heathen masters are unlawful, and 
 heathen husbands are unlawful (all which 
 were contrary to the word of God), as to say 
 tliat heathen magistrates are unlawiul. Take 
 t!ie histance in parents ; tor all lawful magis- 
 ti-at(!s are i'athers by the fifth commandment: 
 Doth the paternity of a heathen father dif- 
 
 ferre specie from the paternity of a Chris- 
 tian father ? are they not both lawful parents, 
 being made such by God and nature ? are 
 not their children bound to honour them, 
 and be subject to them, and obey them in 
 things lawful ? The paternity is the same in 
 se, but different moclaliter, that I may bor- 
 row a distinction from Mr Hussey. The 
 Christian father is sanctified, and qualified 
 to do service to Jesus Christ, as a father, in 
 educating his children Christianly, which an 
 heathen father cannot do. So the heathen 
 magistrate and the Christian magistrate are 
 both lawful magistrates, being made such by 
 God and nature, or by election of people. 
 They are both of them to be honoured, sub- 
 mitted unto, and obeyed ; they are both of 
 them the ministers of God for good to their 
 people ; their power is the same in actu sig- 
 nato, though not in actu exercito. The 
 heathen magistrate may do, and ought to do, 
 what the Christian magistrate doth ; but the 
 Christian magistrate is fitted, qualified, en- 
 abled, and sanctified to glorify and serve 
 Jesus Christ, as a magistrate, which the 
 heathen magistrate is not. 
 
 Secondly, They that hold the derivation 
 of magistracy to be from Jesus Christ, and 
 that it is held of and under him as Medi- 
 ator, must either show from Scripture that 
 Jesus Christ, as Mediator, hath given a com- 
 mission of vicegerentship or deputyship to 
 the Christian magistrate, or otherwise ac- 
 knowledge, that they have given the most 
 dangerous and deadly wound, even to Chris- 
 tian magistracy itself, which ever before it 
 received. Mr Hussey, p. 20, answereth, 
 " I conceive he (the Christian magistrate) 
 hath a commission from Christ ;" but when 
 he should prove it (which my argument 
 called for), here he is at a loss. He citeth 
 Psal. Ixxii. 11, " All kings shall fall down 
 before him, all nations shall serve him ;" 
 Isa. Ix. 12, " That nation and kingdom 
 that will not serve thee shall perish." I 
 hope indeed there is a time coming when 
 all kings shall fall down before Jesus Christ, 
 and all nations shall serve him, and that 
 will make an end of the Erastian contro- 
 versy : but, I pray, do all that serve Jesus 
 Christ hold their office of and under Christ, 
 as Mediator, and as his vicegerents ? Then 
 the poorest servant that fears God shall be 
 a vicegerent of Jesus Christ, as Mediator, 
 and shall have a commission from Christ to 
 that effect; for every godly servant doth not 
 serve his master only, but Christ, Eph. vi. 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 109 
 
 5 — 7- Again, if those who shall pei'ish be- 
 cause they serve not Christ, be his deputies 
 and vicegerents, then the wickedest perse- 
 cutors in the world shall have a commission 
 of vicegerentship from Jesus Christ. Well, 
 let the Christian magistrate animadvert, 
 whether these men have done any thank- 
 worthy service to magistracy, who will needs 
 have it to hold of and under Christ as Me- 
 diator, and by a commission of vicegerent- 
 ship from him ; and when they are put to 
 it to produce that commission, they prove 
 no more than agreeth either to the meanest 
 Christian, or to the wickedest persecutor. 
 The ministry hath a clear undeniable com- 
 mission from Christ, as Mediator (even our 
 opposites themselves being judges), Matt, 
 xvi. 19 ; xxviii. 19, 20 ; John xx. 21—23 ; 
 2 Cor. V. 19, 20; Eph. iv. 11, 12; Acts 
 XX. 28 ; Tit. i. 5. I say therefore again, 
 let them also show from Scripture a com- 
 mission i'rom Jesus Christ, constituting Chris- 
 tian magistrates to bo his vicegerents, as he 
 is Mediator, and to hold their office of and 
 under him as Mediator ; which if they can- 
 not show, they have done a greater dis- 
 service to the Christian magistrate than 
 they can easily repair or amend. We are 
 sure the lawful magistrate (whether heathen 
 or Christian) is God's vicegerent, and that 
 is a safe holding of his office. But our op- 
 posites shall never prove, that any civil ma- 
 gistrate (though Chiistian and godly) is the 
 vicegerent of Jesus Christ, as Mediator. 
 And, hi seeking to prove it, I am persuaded 
 they shall but discover their own weakness, 
 and shall also weaken the magistrate's au- 
 thority more than they can strengthen it. 
 
 Thirdly, The Scripture intimateth this 
 difference between ministi-y and magistracy, 
 — that the work of the ministry and the ad- 
 ministrations thereof are performed in the 
 name of Jesus Christ, as Mediator and 
 King of the church: the work of magis- 
 tracy not so, except we add to the word of 
 God. They who will do anything in the 
 name of Jesus Christ, as Mediator, and can- 
 not find any scripture which can warrant 
 their so doing, are liars, and the truth is not 
 in them. Now, let our opposites show (if 
 they can) where they find, in Scripture, 
 that the Christian magistrate is to rule in 
 the name of Christ, to judge in the name of 
 Christ, to make laws in the name of Christ, 
 to make war or peace in the name of Christ, 
 to punish evil doers with the temporal sword 
 in the name of Christ. Of the ministry I 
 
 did show, that in the name of the Lord 
 Jesus Christ we do assemble ourselves to- 
 gether. Matt, xviii. 20 ; in his name do we 
 preach, Luke xxiv. 47 ; Acts iv. 17, 18 ; 
 v. 28, 44 ; ix. 27 ; in his name do we bap- 
 tize. Acts ii. 38 ; viii. 16 ; xix. 5 ; in his 
 name do we excommunicate, 1 Cor. v. 5. 
 These my proofs from Scripture, Mr Hussey, 
 p. 21, professeth he will examine according 
 to laws of disputation. I know none trans- 
 gresseth those laws more than himself, and 
 even in this very place, where he professeth 
 to keep close to laws of disputation, my 
 first proof, from Matt, xviii. 20, he quarrell- 
 etli upon a mere mistake of his own. He 
 saith I brouglit it to prove the institution of 
 church officers, and that to prove it, I do 
 not appropriate the meeting in the name of 
 Christ to church officers; and thereupon ho 
 tells us the text saith not, that none shall 
 gather together in my name but church 
 officers. Are these Mr Ilussey's laws of 
 disputation ? He had need to be a better 
 disputer who calls othei's to school. I did 
 not speak here of the institution of church 
 officers, and far less did I exclude all others 
 from meeting in the name of Christ. Church 
 officers assemble in the name of Christ with 
 the church, and when they assemble in the 
 name of Christ apart, and without the mul- 
 titude, will it follow, that because they meet 
 in the name of Christ, therefore none but 
 they meet in the name of Christ? Well, let 
 Mr Hussey try all his logic in this conse- 
 quence, it will not do. The sixth General 
 Council, act. 17, apply unto their own oecu- 
 menical assembly that promise of Christ, 
 Matt, xviii. 20, "Wliere two or three are 
 gathered together in my name," &c. Pro- 
 testant writers, both in their commentaries 
 and polemic writings, do usually apply the 
 same text to synods and councils ; for in- 
 stance, Calvin, Jnstit. lib. 4, cap. 9, sec. 1, 2, 
 holds that the authority of councils depen- 
 deth upon that promise of Christ, " Where 
 two or thi'ee are met together in my name," 
 «S:c. That which went before, carries it to 
 assemblies for acts of discipline, as being 
 principally intended in that place. The 
 promise, ver. 20, is general, belonging to all 
 church assemblies ; yet in that place it is 
 applied to assemblies of church officers for 
 discipline. But neither need I go so far in 
 this present argument ; for when church 
 officers meet with the church for the word, 
 sacraments, and other parts of worship, this is 
 in the name of Jesus Christ, without all con- 
 
Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 troversy, and this is enough to justify all 
 that I brought that text for ; especially 
 there being herein a difference between sa- 
 cred and civil assemblies. There is no such 
 promise made to magistrate's courts of jus- 
 tice, as to church assemblies. That which 
 he citeth out of Dr Whittaker and Bisliop 
 Mortoun makes nothing against me, neither 
 doth he quote the places, peradventure be- 
 cause he found something in those passages 
 which made against him. Wliittaker's sense 
 is plainly of sacred, and not of civil assem- 
 blies. And for that so much controverted 
 text, Matt, xviii. 17, " tell the church," 
 Whittaker expoundeth it, as we do, against 
 the Ei'astians, " tell the pastors and rulers 
 of the church." Whittaker, de Eccles. quest. 
 1, cap. 2. Die £^cclesice, hoc est Pastoribus 
 et Pra'fectis Ecclesice. 
 
 As for preaching, Mr Hussey saith, it is 
 out of question that we preach in the name 
 of Christ. Well, then, let him show such an- 
 other thing of the Magistrate as is, without 
 controversy, done by him in the name of 
 Christ. 
 
 But where I added, that in the name of 
 Jesus Christ we baptize, though I said no 
 more than the Scripture saith, yet he is 
 pleased to object against me. " These places 
 he citeth (saith he) to piwe that we may 
 baptize in the name of Jesus, as exclusively 
 to Father and Holy Ghost (leaving out the 
 words of the commission. Matt, xxviii.. Bap- 
 tize in the name of the Father, Son, and 
 Holy Ghost) ; for so the state of his question 
 doth require ; for he distinguisheth acutely 
 and accurately between Christ as Mediator 
 and Second Person (ho should have said as 
 Second Person) in Trinity, in all this argu- 
 ment." And so he concludes that which I 
 had said to be " contrary to the words of the 
 commission and the practice of all churches." 
 What doth he drive at ? I cited plain texts 
 to prove that baptism is administered in the 
 name of Christ. Either Mr Hussey denieth 
 that this is done in the name of Cliinst as Me- 
 diator, or he denieth it not. If he deny it, 
 let him speak it out, and he shall not want an 
 answer : meanwhile let him remember that 
 himself, p. 25, saith, that Christ, as Media- 
 tor, did give that commission to the apostles, 
 " Go, preach and baptize." If he deny it 
 not, then let him give the like instance for 
 magistracy and civil government, to prove it 
 to be managed in the name of J esus Christ 
 as Mediator, else he must not plead that ma- 
 gistracy is of the same tenure from Christ as 
 
 the ministry. Again, either he admitteth a 
 distinction between Christ as Mediator, and 
 as Second Person in Trinity, or not. If he 
 do not, he will infaUibly wind himself into a 
 gross heresy ; as, namely, these two : He must 
 deny that principle which, according to the 
 word of God, all orthodox divines hold against 
 the Arians and Antitrinitarians, that Chiist, 
 as Mediator, is subordinate unto, and lesser 
 than the Father ; but as Second Person in 
 the Trinity, he is not subordinate unto, nor 
 lesser than the Father, nor the Father 
 greater than he, but as such he is equal with 
 the Father in greatness, glory, and honour.^ 
 2. As opera Trinitatis ad extra sunt in- 
 divisa, he must also hold, that whatsoever j 
 Christ, as Mediator, doth, that also the Fa- j 
 ther and the Holy Ghost doth : but Christ, j 
 as Mediator, did humble himself to the 
 death, offer himself in a sacrifice for sin, 
 maketh intercession for us ; therefore, he 
 must conclude the Father doth the same. 
 But if he do admit the distinction as Media- 
 tor, and as Second Person in Trinity, then 
 why doth he so often quan-el it ? And in this 
 very place his argument must drive against 
 that distinction, or against notlung. But how 
 doth the baptizing in the name of Christ, as 
 jMediator, agree with the commission to bap- 
 tize in the name of the Father, Son, and 
 Holy Ghost ? Though this belong not to my 
 argument, yet I will, by the way, speak to it. 
 First, I say, the question is of things or ac- 
 tions not of words. Mr Hussey (it seems) 
 did apprehend my meaning, as if I had in- 
 tended an expression to be made in the act 
 of baptizing, thus, — " I baptize thee in the 
 name of Jesus Christ." But I speak of the 
 action, not of the expi-ession, even as in the 
 other instance I gave : our assembling toge- 
 ther is in the name of Christ, though we do 
 not say in terminis, " We are now assembled 
 in the name of Christ." In baptism Christ 
 doth not command us tosayeitherthese words, 
 " I baptize thee in the name of Christ ;" 
 or these, " I baptize thee in the name of the 
 Father, Son, and Holy Ghost :" but we are 
 commanded to do the thing, both in the 
 name of Christ, as Mediator, and in the name 
 of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ; but in 
 different respects. A minister of Christ 
 doth both preach and baptize in the name 
 of Christ, as Mediator ; that is, vice Christi, 
 
 1 Synop. pur. Theol., disp. 26, the?. 29.— Tametsi 
 ob istam mcdiationem filius Dei minor sit Patre, non 
 propterea ipso minor est quoad Deitatem. 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. Ill 
 
 in Christ's stead, and having authority for 
 that eftect from Christ, as Mediator ; for 
 Christ, as Mediator, gave us our commission 
 to preadh and baptize, by Mr Hussey's con- 
 fession. So that to preach and baptize eiri 
 rdi ovofxari IrjffoC Xpiffrov (which we find 
 both of preaching, Luke xxiv. 47, and of bap- 
 tizing, Acts ii. 38), comprehendeth a formal 
 commission, power and authority, given and 
 derived from Chi"ist. I say not that it com- 
 prehendeth no more, but this it doth com- 
 prehend. But when Christ biddeth us bap- 
 tize ets TO ovofin unto, or into, or in the 
 name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, 
 Matt, xxviii. 19, this doth relate to the end 
 and effect of baptism, or the good of the 
 baptized (if we understand the words pro- 
 perly), not the authority of the baptizer, as 
 if a formal commission were there given him 
 from the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. 
 So that to baptize one iyi or unto the name 
 of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is pro- 
 perly meant both of sealing the parties' right 
 and title to tlie enjoyment of God himself, 
 as their God by covenant, and their interest 
 in the love of God, the grace of Christ, and 
 the communion of the Holy Gliost ; and of 
 dedicating the party to the knowledge, pi"o- 
 fession, faith, love, and obedience of God the 
 Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. 
 
 I return. The next branch of my argu- 
 ment was, that we excommunicate in the 
 name of Christ, 1 Cor. v. 5. Mr Hussey, p. 
 22, saith, I make great haste here. " Deli- 
 ver to Satan (saith he) is not to excommu- 
 nicate, &c. But grant that it were excommu- 
 nication, &c., the decree was Paul's and not 
 the Corinthians'." What is meant by deli- 
 vering to Satan, belongs to another debate. 
 Call it an apostolical act, or call it an ecclesi- 
 astical act, or both, yet it was done in the 
 name of the Lord Jesus Christ ; the like 
 whereof we find not in Scripture of any act 
 of the civil magistrate. Why doth he not 
 attend to the drift of the argamient ? And 
 as to his exceptions, they are no other than 
 prelates, Papists, and Socinians have made 
 before liim, and which are answered long 
 ago.i That the Apostle commandeth to ex- 
 communicate the incestuous man is acknow- 
 
 1 Synops. pur. Theol. disp. 42, corol. 4. — An Apos- 
 tolus Paulus cum hominem iucestuosum Satanae 
 traderet, quicquam peculiare liabuerit ? Nos contra 
 Sociniauos Apostolura Paulum non ex jure sibi pe- 
 culiari, sed sibi cum omnibus ecclesiae presbyteris 
 communi, incestuosum ilium Satans tradisse, col- 
 ligimus ex 1 Cor. v. 4 ; Matt, xviii. 17, 18. 
 
 lodged by Mr Prynne. That he who is ex- 
 communicated may be truly said to be de- 
 livered to Satan, is undeniable ; for he that 
 is cast out of the church, whose sins are re- 
 tained, on whom the kingdom of heaven is 
 shut and locked, whom neither Christ nor his 
 church doth own, is delivered to Satan, who 
 reigns without the church. That this cen- 
 sure or punishment of excommunication was 
 a church act, and not an apostolical act only, 
 may thus appear : — 1. The Apostle blameth 
 the Corinthians that it was not sooner done; 
 he would not have blamed them that a mi- 
 racle was not wrought. 2. He writeth to 
 them to do it when they were gathered to- 
 gether ; not to declare or witness what the 
 Apostle had done, but to join with him in 
 the authoritative doing of it, ver. 4, 5. Again 
 he saith to them, ver. 7, " Purge out there- 
 fore the old leaven ;" ver. 12, " Do not ye 
 judge them that are within ?" ver. 13, " Put 
 away from among yourselves that wicked 
 person." 3. It was " a censure inflicted by 
 many," 2 Cor. ii. 6 ; not by the Apostle alone, 
 but hj many. 4. The Apostle doth not 
 absolve the man, but writeth to them to for- 
 give him, 2 Cor. ii. 7. Lastly, The Syriac 
 maketh for us, which runneth thus, — ver. 4, 
 " That in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 you may all be gathered together, and I with 
 you in the Spirit, with the power of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ," ver. 5, " That you may 
 deliver him to Satan," &c. 
 
 But now, at last, Mr Hussey comes home, 
 and gives this answer to my third arg-unient, 
 " A thing may be said to be done in the 
 name of Christ or of God, when men do 
 anything in confidence that God will assist 
 us : so Psal. xx. 5, ' In the name of our 
 God will we set up our banners,' in confidence 
 God will assist us. Thus, I hope, the par- 
 liament and other Christians may undertake 
 the business in the name of Christ," &c. 
 Secondly, " In the name of Christ a thing 
 is said to be done, that is done in the autho- 
 rity, room, and place of Christ," &c. So he, 
 p. 24, seeking a knot in the rush. In the 
 first part of his distinction, he saith nothing 
 to my argument, neither saith he any more 
 of the parliament than agreeth to all Chris- 
 tians, the poorest and meanest; for every 
 Christian servant, every Christian artificer, 
 is bound to do whatsoever he doth, in the 
 name of Christ, Col. iii. 17. But what is that 
 to the argument ? Come to the other mem- 
 ber of his distinction. The ministers of Christ 
 do act in the name of Christ ; that is, in the 
 
112 
 
 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 authoi'ity, room, and place of Christ: We are 
 ambassadors for Christ, and we preach in 
 Christ's stead, 2 Cor. v. 20. This he doth 
 not nor cannot deny (which makes good my 
 argument). Why did he not show us the hke 
 concerning magistracy? I suppose he would, 
 if he could : this is the very point which he 
 had to speak to, but hath not done it. 
 
 My fourth argument against the magis- 
 trate's holding of his office of, and under, 
 and for Christ ; that is, in Christ's room and 
 stead as Mediator, shall be that which was 
 drawn from Luke xii. 14. The Jews were of 
 the same opinion, which Mr Coleman and 
 Mr Hussey have followed, namely, that civil 
 government should be put in the hands of 
 Christ, which they collected from Jer. xxiii. 
 5, " He shall execute justice and judgment 
 in the earth ;" and such other prophecies, by 
 them misunderstood. And hence it was that 
 one said to Christ, " Master, speak to my 
 brother, that he divide the inheritance with 
 me." Our Lord's answer was, " Man, who 
 made me a judge or a divider over you." 
 Whatsoever act of authority is done by a 
 deputy or vicegerent, as representing his 
 master and sovereign, may be done by the 
 king himself when personally present. If, 
 therefore, the magistrate judge civil causes, 
 and divide inheritances, as the vicegerent 
 of Christ, and of Christ as Mediator, then 
 Chiist himself, when present in the days of 
 his flesh, had power, as Mediator, to judge 
 such causes. But this Christ himself plainly 
 denieth. Let us hear Mr Hussey's answer, 
 p. 24 (it is the very same with that which 
 Azorius, Instit. Mor., part 2, lib. 4, cap. 19, 
 pleading for the Pope's temporal dominion, 
 answereth concerning the pomt now in hand), 
 " It doth not follow that because Christ was 
 not a judge actu exercito, therefore the ori- 
 ginal right of government was not in him. 
 And this objection may be answered thus : 
 Christ doth not say he was not a judge, 
 but. Who made me a judge ? How dost thou 
 know that I am judge ? And thus Christ, 
 in the time of his humihation, did often 
 hide the manifestation of his power."i What 
 
 1 Jo. Brentius Horn, in Luc. torn. 1, horn. 106. — 
 Quis me constituit judicem aut divisorem super vo3 ? 
 lioc est, alia est civilis magistratus vocatio, alia mea 
 vocatio. Ad ilium pertinet ut dijudicet controver- 
 sias de haereditatibus, et id genus aliis rebus. Ad 
 me autem pertinet ut doceam evangelion de remis- 
 sione peccatorum, et vita aetcrna. Ut igitur noUem 
 quod magistratus meum officium temere usurparet, 
 ita et mea interest, ne temere usurpem milii voca- 
 tionem magistratus. Observanda doctrina, qua non 
 
 greater violence could be offered to the 
 text? For the verb vaTeffrf/Te, constituit, is 
 purposely used to deny the power or right, 
 as well as the exercise, and proveth that he 
 was not a judge nctu signato, having no 
 such power nor authoi-ity given him. It is 
 the same phrase which is used, Acts vii. 35, 
 t/j ne KaTiaTt)c!€v, " ^\^lo made thee a ruler 
 and a iudoe ?" Moses was then be^anningf to ! 
 do the part of a ruler and a judge actu ex- | 
 ercito ; but they refuse him as having no , 
 warrant, power, nor authority. Acts vi. 3, 
 the apostles bid choose seven deacons, oBs 
 KUTanTt^nofiev, " whom we may appoint," i 
 say they, " over this business." Tit. i. 5, Ka\ 
 KaTuarljaTis (card ttoXiv Trpfat>VTeuov%, " and 
 ordain elders in every city." Yet neither 
 can that of the deacons, nor this of the el- 
 ders, be understood othenvise than of the 
 right, power, and authority given them. 
 See the like, Heb. vii. 28 ; Luke xii. 42 ; 
 Matt. xxiv. 47. The scope therefore of 
 Christ's answer was this (as Aretius upon 
 the place), A^on deheo alicna munia inva- 
 dere, I ought not to invade such offices as 
 belong to others, not to me. 
 
 Some of the Jesuits (as forward as they ] 
 are to defend the temporal power of the 
 Pope as Christ's vicar on earth, yet) cannot | 
 shut their eyes against the light of this text, ' 
 " Who made me a judge or a divider over \ 
 you ?" but they are forced to acknowledge | 
 that Christ denies that he had any right or 
 authority to be a civil judge ; for how can 
 he who is authorised to be a judge say, 
 " Wlio made me a judge ?"^ 
 
 The fifth argument I take from John 
 xviii. 36, " My kingdom is not of this 
 world." The great jealousy and fear which 
 both Herod and Pilate had of Christ was, 
 that they understood he was a king. Clirist 
 
 solum erudimur, quod sic proprium et legitimnm 
 officium CUristi in hoc externo mundo, verum 
 etiam admoncmur exemplo Christi, ne quis alienam 
 vocationem illegitime invadat. Jo. AVinckelmannus 
 in Luke xii. li. — Negat se esse politicnm judicem 
 herciscunda; familiae, sicut nec adulterum damnat, 
 John viii. Ostendit enim esse discrimen inter politi- 
 cnm magistratum, et munus ecclesiasticum. 
 
 1 Greg, de Valentia comment. Tbcol. tom. 4, disp. 
 1, qua;st. 22, punct. 6, Homo, quis me constituit ju- 
 dicem aut divisorem inter vos ? — Quasi diceret : Ne- 
 mo plane, neque homo, et multo minus Dens. Si 
 enim a Deo habuisset Dominium jurisdictionis poli- 
 tics, multo verius fuisset constitutus judex politi- 
 cus, qnam si eam jurisdictionem habuisset ab ho- 
 mine. Et tamen negat omnino se fuisse talera ju- 
 dicem constitutum. Unde per hoc quod addit, Quis 
 me constituit judicem ? etc. Eum remisit ad alium 
 qui haberet eam potestatem, qua ipsi carcret. See 
 the like in Bellarmine de Pontif., lib. 5, cap. 4 
 
DIVIXE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 clears himself in this point : his kingdom 
 was such as they needed not be afraid of; 
 for though it be " in the world," it is not 
 " of the world ;" thouoh it be lierc, it is not 
 from hence : it is heterogeneous to tem- 
 poral monarchy and civil government. Mr 
 Hussey, p. 24, tells us, he knows not how 
 those governments that should be executed 
 by church officers, should savour less of the 
 world than the civil government. For this 
 I remit him to those many and great dif- 
 ferences which I have shown between the 
 civil and the ecclesiastical power. In the 
 meanwhile, my argument stands in force; for 
 if all civil government were put in Christ's 
 hand, as he is Mediator, and he to depute 
 and substitute othei's whom he will under 
 him, then what is there in that answer of 
 Iiis to Pilate which could convincingly an- 
 swer those mistakes and misapprehensions of 
 the nature of his kingdom ? That which 
 is now taught by Mr Hussey is the very 
 thing which Herod and Pilate were afraid 
 of; but Christ denieth that which they were 
 afraid of, and ver. 36 is an answer to the 
 question asked, ver. 33, " Art thou the King 
 of the Jews ?" " My kingdom is not of this 
 world," saith he. To the same sense (as 
 Grotius upon the place notetli out of Euse- 
 bius) Christ's kinsmen, when they were asked 
 concerning his kingdom, did answer to Do- 
 mitian, that his kingdom was not worldly 
 but heavenly.^ 
 
 Sixthly, I prove the point from Luke 
 xvii. 20, 21, " And when he was demanded 
 of the Pharisees when the kingdom of Grod 
 should come, he answered them, and said. 
 The kingdom of God cometh not with obser- 
 vation. Neither shall they say, Lo here ! or, 
 lo there ! lor, behold, the kingdom of Gocl 
 is within you." By the kingdom of God is 
 meant, in this place, the kingdom of the ^les- 
 siah, as interpreters do unanimously agi-ee. 
 Both John Baptist and Christ himself had 
 preached that the kingdom of God was at 
 hand ; and the Jews themselves were in ex- 
 pectation of the Messiah to make them free 
 from the Roman yoke, and to restore a tem- 
 poral or earthly monarchy to Israel. Here- 
 upon they ask when this kingdom should 
 come. His answer is, " The kingdom of God 
 cometh not fiera irafiaTTipiiaeus, with obser- 
 vation," or " outward show and pomp ;" but 
 
 1 'Us // avTov fiaoiXeia ov KoafiiKi) fjey 
 01/6' eirtyetos, iirovpuvios he kui dyyeXtci) 
 rvy\a.vei. 
 
 it is within you, it is spiritual, it belongs 
 to the inward man. But if the magistrate 
 be Christ's vicegerent, and hold his office 
 of and under Christ as Mediator ; and if 
 Christ, as Mediator, reign in, through, and 
 by the magistrate, then the kingdom of the 
 Messiah doth come with observation and 
 pomp, with a cromi, a sceptre, a sword, and 
 fjcTci jroXX?/$ Oar-ao-i'as, with princely splen- 
 dour, riches, triumph, such as the Pharisees 
 then, and the Jews now, do expect ; which, 
 saith Grotius, is the thing that Christ here 
 denieth ; for all the outward pomp, observa- 
 tion, splendour, majesty, power, and autho- 
 rity, which a vicegerent hath, doth princi- 
 pally redound unto his master and sove- 
 reign ; so that, by our opposites' principles, 
 the kingdom of Christ must come with ob- 
 servation, because the dominion of tlie ma- 
 gistrate (whom they hold to 1)e his vicege- 
 rent) cometh with observation. 
 
 Seventhly, That government and autho- 
 rity which hath a foundation in the law of 
 nature and nations (yea, might and should 
 have had place and been of use, though man 
 had not sinned) cannot be held of, and under, 
 and managed for Christ, as he is Mediator. 
 But magistracy or civil government hath a 
 foundation in the law of nature and nations 
 (yea, might and should have had place, and 
 been of use, though man had not sinned) ; 
 therefore, the reason of the proposition is be- 
 cause the law of nature and nations, and the 
 law which was written in man's heart, in his 
 first creation, doth not flow from Christ as 
 Mediator, but from God as Creator. Neither 
 can it be said that Christ, as Mediator, rul- 
 etli and governetli all nations by the law of 
 nature and nations, or that Christ should 
 have reimed as Mediator though man had 
 not sinned. The assumption is proved by 
 Gerhard, Loc. Com., torn. 6, p. 459, 460, 
 474. In the state of innocency there had 
 been no such use of magistracy as now there 
 is ; for there had been no evil-doers to be 
 punished, no unruly persons to be restrained, 
 yet, as the wife had been subject to the hus- 
 band, and the son to the father, so, no 
 doubt, there had been an union of divers 
 families under one head, man being natu- 
 rally ^wuf TroXiTiKov, as Aristotle calls him. 
 He is for society and policy, and how can 
 it be imagined that mankind, multiplying 
 upon the earth, should have been without 
 headship, superiority, order, society, govern- 
 ment ? And what wonder that the law of 
 nature teach all nations some government? 
 
114 
 
 AARON S ROD BLOSSOMING, OR THE 
 
 Jerome observeth, that nature guideth the 
 very reasonless creatures to a kind of ma- 
 gistracy.! 
 
 Eighthly, If the Scripture hold forth the 
 same derivation or origination of magistracy 
 in the Christian magistrate and in the hea- 
 then magistrate, then it is not safe to us to 
 hold that the Ciiristian magistrate holds his 
 office of and under Christ as Mediator; but j 
 the Scripture doth hold forth the same de- 
 rivation or origination of magistracy in the 
 Christian magistrate and in the heathen 
 magistrate ; therefore the proposition hath 
 this reason for it, because the heathen ma- 
 gistrate doth not hold his office of and under 
 Christ as Mediator. Neither doth Mr Hus- 
 sey herein contradict me, only he holds the 
 j heathen magistrate and his government to 
 I be unlawful, wherein he is anabaptistical, 
 and is confuted by my first argument. As 
 for the assumption, it is proved from divers 
 scriptures, and namely these, Eom. xiii. 1, 
 " The powers that be are ordained of God," 
 which is spoken of heathen magistrates ; 
 Dan. ii. 37, " Thou, O King, art a King 
 of kings ; for the God of heaven hath given 
 thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and 
 glory ;" so saith Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar, 
 an idolatrous and heathen king. See the 
 like, Jer. xxvii. 6 ; Isa. xlv. 1. God sent 
 his servant the prophet to anoint Hazael 
 king over Syria, 1 Kmgs xix. 15. Read 
 to this purpose Augustine, de Civit. Dei, 
 lib. 5, cap. 21, where he saith, that the 
 same God gave a kingdom and authority 
 both to the Romans, Assyrians, Persians, 
 Hebrews ; and that he who gave the king- 
 dom to the best empei'ors, gave it also to 
 the worst emperors ; yea, he that gave it 
 to Constantine a Clu-istian, did also give it, 
 saith he, to Juhan the apostate." Tertul- 
 lian, Apol., cap. 30, speaking of the hea- 
 then emperors of that time, saith, that they 
 were from God, d quo sunt secundi, jjost 
 quern priini ante oinnes : that he who had 
 made them men, did also make them em- 
 perors, and give them their power. Ibid., 
 cap. 33, Ut merito dixerim noster est ma- 
 gis Ccesar, ut a nostra Deo constitutus : 
 So that I may justly say, Csesar is rather 
 
 J Hier. Rustico Monacho. — Etiam muta animan- 
 tia et ferarum greges ductores sequuntur suos. In 
 apibus principes sunt. 
 
 2 Qui Mario, ipse Caio Caesari : qui Angusto, ipse 
 et Neroni ; qui Vespasianis vel patri vel filio, sua- 
 vissimis imperatoribus, ipse et Domitiano crudelis- 
 simo. Et ne per singulos ire necesse sit, qui Con- 
 I stantino Cliristiano, ipse apostatae Juliano. 
 
 ours, as being placed by our God, saith he, 
 speaking to the pagans in the behalf of 
 Christians ; wherefore, though there be huge 
 and vast differences between the Christian 
 magistrate and the heathen magistrate, the 
 former excelling the latter as much as hght 
 doth darkness, yet, in this point of the deri- 
 vation and tenure of magistracy, they both 
 are equally interested, and the Scripture 
 showeth no difference as to that point. 
 
 CHAPTER VIIL 
 
 OF THE POWER AND PRIVILEGE OF THE MAGIS- 
 TRATE IN THINGS AND CAU.SES ECCLESIAS- 
 TICAL ; WHAT IT IS NOT, AND WHAT IT IS. 
 
 The new notion that the Chi'istian magis- 
 trate is a church officer, and magistracy an 
 ecclesiastical as well as a civil administration, 
 calls to mind that of the wise man, " Is there 
 anything whereof it may be said. See, this is 
 new ? it hath been already of old time, which 
 was before us." Plato, in his Politicus (a 
 little after the middle of that book), tells me, 
 that the kings of Egypt were also priests, 
 and that, in many cities of the Grecians, the 
 supreme magisti-ate had the administration 
 of the holy thmgs. Notwithstanding, even 
 in this particular there stiU appearetJi some 
 new thing under the sun. For Plato tells 
 me again, epist. 8, that those supreme 
 magistrates who were priests, might not be 
 present, nor join in criminal nor capital 
 judgments, lest they (being priests) should 
 be defiled. If you look after some other 
 precedent for the union of civil and ecclesi- 
 astical government, secular and spii'itual 
 administrations in one and the same per- 
 son or persons, perhaps it were not hai'd to 
 find such precedents as om- opposites will be 
 ashamed to own. 
 
 I am sure heathens themselves have known 
 the difference between the office of priests 
 and the office of magistrates. Aristotle, de 
 Repub., lib. 4, cap. 15, speaking of priests, 
 saith, TovTO yap erepof ri ttapa rtxi iroXiri- 
 Kus ap^as : For this is another thing than 
 civil magistrates. He had said before, ttoX- 
 XiZy yap emoTaTiHv »; woXtrto) KOivu)via 
 heirai : For a civil society hath need of 
 many rulers, but every eiriaraTTis who is 
 made by election or lot, is not a civil magis- 
 trate ; and the first instance he giveth is 
 that of the priests ; and so Aristotle would 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERXMENT VINDICATED. 115 
 
 have the priest to be t7r((7rar»js a ruler, but 
 not a civil magistrate. So, de Repuh., lib. 
 7, cap. 8, he distinguisheth between the 
 priests and the judges in a city. 
 
 But to the matter. I will here endea- 
 vour to make these two things appear: 1. 
 That no administration, formally and pro- 
 perly ecclesiastical (and, namely, the dis- 
 pensing of church censures), doth belong 
 unto the magistrate, nor may (according to 
 the word of God) be assumed and exercised 
 by him. 2. That Christ hath not made the 
 magistrate head of the church, to receive ap- 
 pesils (properly so called) from all ecclesias- 
 tical assemblies. Touching the first of these, 
 it is no other than is held forth in the Irish 
 Articles of Faith (famous among orthodox 
 and learned men in these kingdoms), which 
 do plainly exclude the magistrate from the 
 administration of the word and sacraments, 
 and from the power of the keys of the king- 
 dom of heaven. It is the unhappiness of 
 this time, that this and other truths, formerly 
 out of controversy, should be so much stuck 
 at and doubted of by some. 
 
 Now, that the corrective part of church 
 government, or the censure of scandalous 
 persons, in reference to the purging of the 
 chui'ch and keeping pure of the ordinances, 
 is no pai-t of the magistrate's office, but is a 
 distinct charge belonging of right to min- 
 isters and elders ; as it may fully appear by 
 the arguments brought afterwards to prove 
 a government in the church distinct from 
 magistracy (which arguments will necessarily 
 cany the power of church censures, and the 
 administration of the keys of the kingdom 
 of heaven, uito other hands than the magis- 
 trate's) ; so I shall here strengthen it by 
 these confirmations : — 
 
 First, Church censures must needs be dis- 
 pensed by ministers and elders, because they 
 are heterogeneous to magistracy : For, first, 
 The magistrate by the power which is in 
 his hand, ought to punish any of his subjects 
 that do evil, and he ouglit to punish like 
 sins with like punishments. But if the power 
 of church censures be in the magistrate's 
 hands, he cannot walk by that rule ; for 
 church censures are only for church mem- 
 bers, not for all subjects ; 1 Cor. v. 10, 12. 
 Secondly, Church censures are to be executed 
 in the name of Chi'ist, Matt, xviii. 20, with 
 ver. 17, 18 ; 1 Cor. v. 4; and this cannot be 
 done in his name, by any other but such as 
 have commission from him to bind and 
 loose, forgive and retain sins. But where 
 
 is any such commission given to the civil 
 magistrate, Christian more than heathen ? 
 Thirdly, Church censures are for impenitent, 
 contumacious off'enders ; but the magistrate 
 doth and must punish oftenders (when the 
 course of justice and law so requireth), 
 whether they appear penitent or impeni- 
 tent. Fourthly, The magistrate's power of 
 punishing offenders is bounded by the law 
 of the land. What then shall become of 
 such scandals as are not crimes punishable 
 by the law of the land ? such as obscene 
 rotten talking, adulterous and vile beha- 
 viour, or the most scandalous conversing and 
 companying together (though the crime of 
 adultery cannot be proved by witnesses), 
 living in known malice and envy, refusing 
 to be reconciled, and thereupon lying off (it 
 may be for a long time) from the sacrament, 
 and the like, which are not proper to be ta- 
 ken notice of by the civil judge. So that, in 
 this case, either there must be church cen- 
 sures and discipline exercised by church offi- 
 cers, or the magistrate must go beyond his 
 limits. Or, lastly. Scandals shall spread in 
 the church, and no remedy against them. 
 Far be it from the thoughts of Christian 
 magistrates, that scandals of this kind shall 
 be tolerated, to the dishonour of God, the 
 laying of the stumbling-blocks of bad ex- 
 amples before others, and to the violation 
 and pollution of the ordinances of Jesus 
 Christ, who hath commanded to keep his 
 ordinances pure. 
 
 A second argument may be this, In the 
 Old Testament God did not command the 
 magistrates, but the priests, to put a diff'er- 
 ence betwixt the profane and tlio holy, the 
 unclean and the clean ; Lev. x. 10 ; Ezek. 
 xxii. 26; Ezek, xliv. 23, 24; Deut. xxi. 5 ; 
 2 Chron. xxiii. 18, 19. And, in the New 
 Testament, the keysof the kingdom of heaven 
 are given to the ministers of the church : 
 Matt. xvi. 19 ; xviii. 18 ; John xx. 23, but 
 no where to the civil magistrate. It be- 
 longeth to church officers to censure false 
 doctrine, Bev. ii. 2, 14, 15; to decide con- 
 troversies. Acts xvi. 4 ; and to examine and 
 censure scandals, Ezek. xliv. 23, 24, which 
 is a prophecy concerning the ministry of the 
 New Testament ; and elders judge an elder, 
 1 Tim. V. 19, or any other church member, 
 1 Cor. V. 12. 
 
 Thirdly, The Scripture holdeth forth the 
 civil and ecclesiastical power as most distinct ; 
 insomuch that it condemneth the spiritual- 
 isms of the civil power, as well as the secu- 
 
116 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 larising of the ecclesiastical power ; state 
 papacy, as well as papal state. Church 
 officers may not take the civil sword, nor 
 judge civil causes, Luke xii. 13, 14; xxii. 25; 
 Matt. xxvi. 52 ; 2 Cor. x. 4 ; 2 Tim. ii. 4. 
 So Uzzah might not touch the ark ; nor 
 Saul offer burnt-offerings ; nor Uzziah burn 
 incense. I wish we may not have cau&e to 
 revive the proverb which was used in Am- 
 brose's time : " That emperors did more co- 
 vet the priesthood than the priests did 
 covet the empire." Sliall it be a sin to 
 church officers to exercise any act of civil 
 government, and shall it be no sin to the 
 civil magistrate to engross the whole and 
 sole power of church government ? Are not 
 the two powers formally and specifically 
 distinct ? Of which before, chap. 4. 
 
 It is to be well noted, that Maccovius 
 and Vedelius, who ascribe a sort of papal 
 power to the civil magistrate, to the great 
 scandal of the reformed church, do notwith- 
 standing acknowledge that Christ hath ap- 
 pointed church discipline and censures, and 
 the same to be dispensed by church officers 
 only ; and that the magistrate, as he may 
 not preach the word and administer the 
 sacraments, so he may not exercise church 
 discipline, nor inflict spiritual censures, such 
 as excommunication. Though Erastus, p. 
 175, hath not spared to say, that the magis- 
 trate may, in the New Testament (though 
 he might not in the old), exercise the min- 
 isterial function, if he can have so much lei- 
 sure from his other employments. 
 
 Fourthly, The power of church discipline 
 is intrinsical to tlie church ; that is, both 
 they who censure, and they who are cen- 
 sured, must be of the church, 1 Cor. v. 12, 
 13 ; they must be of one and the same cor- 
 poration ; the one must not be in the 
 body, and the other out of the body. But 
 if this power were in the magistrate, it were 
 extrinsical to the church ; for the magistrate, 
 quatenus a magistrate, is not so nmch as a 
 church member ; far less can the magistrate, 
 as magistrate, have jurisdiction over church 
 members, as church members ; even as the 
 minister, as minister, is not a member of 
 the commonwealth or state, far less can he, 
 as minister, exercise jurisdiction over the 
 subjects, as subjects. 
 
 The Christian mao-istrate in Enoland is 
 not a member of the church as a magistrate, 
 but as a Christian ; and the minister of 
 Jesus Christ in England, is not subject to 
 the magistrate as he is a minister of Christ, 
 
 but as he is a member of the commonwealth 
 of England. He was both a learned man 
 and a great royalist in Scotland, who held 
 that all kings, infidel as well as Christian, 
 have equal authority and jurisdiction in the 
 church, though all be not alike qualified or 
 able to exercise it. J ohn Weymes, de Reg. 
 primat., p. 123. Let our opposites loose 
 this knot among themselves ; for they are 
 not of one opinion about it. 
 
 Fifthly, Church officers might, and did 
 freely, and by themselves, dispense church 
 censures, under pagan and unbelieving ma- 
 gistrates, as is by all confessed. Now the 
 church ought not to be in a worse condition 
 under the Christian magistrate than under 
 an infidel ; for the power of the Christian 
 magistrate is cumulative, not privative to 
 the church ; he is a nursmg-father, Isa. xlix. 
 23, not a step-father. He is keeper, de- 
 fender and guardian of both tables, but nei- 
 ther judge nor interpreter of Scripture. 
 
 Sixthly, I shall shut up this argumenta- 
 tion with a convincing dilemma. The as- 
 semblies of church officers being to exercise 
 discipline, and censure offences (which is 
 supposed, and must be granted in regard of 
 the ordinances of parliament), either they 
 have power to do this jure propria, and vir- 
 tute officii, or oiAy jure devoluto, and vir- 
 tute delegationis, such authority being de- 
 rived from the magistrate. If the former, I 
 have what I would ; if the latter, then it 
 folio weth, 1. That where presbyteries and 
 synods do exercise spiritual jurisdiction, not 
 by any power derived from, or dependent 
 upon, the civil magistrate, but in the name 
 and authority of Jesus Christ, and by the 
 power received from him, as in Scotland, 
 France, and the Low Countries, &c., there 
 all ecclesiastical censures, such as deposition 
 of ministers, and excommunication of scan- 
 dalous and obstinate persons, have been, are, 
 and shall be, void, null, and of no effect; 
 even as when the prelatical party did hold, 
 that the power of ordination and jurisdiction 
 pertain eth only to prelates, or such as are de- 
 legated with commission and authority from 
 them, thereupon they were so put to it by 
 the arguments of the anti-episcopal party, 
 that they were forced to say, that presby- 
 ters, ordained by presbyters in other re- 
 formed churches, are no presbyters, and 
 their exconnnmiication was no excommuni- 
 cation. 2. It will follow, that the magistrate 
 himself may exconnnunicate, for nemo po- 
 test alvis delegare plus juris quam ipse 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 117 
 
 habet: No man can give irom him, by dele- 
 gation or deputation to anotlier, that right 
 or power which he himself hath not. 3. If 
 the power of excommunication come by de- 
 legation from the magistrate, either the ma- 
 rs ^ o , ... 
 
 gistrate must in conscience give tins power 
 to church officers only, or he is free, and 
 may, without sin, give this power to others. 
 If the former, what can bind up the magis- 
 trate's conscience, or astrict the thing to 
 church officers, except it be God's ordinance 
 that they only do it ? If the latter, then, 
 though this parliament hath taken away the 
 old high commission court, which had potes- 
 tatem ntriusquc gladii, yet they may law- 
 fully, and without sin, erect a new high com- 
 mission court, made up of those who shall be 
 no church officers, yea, having none of the 
 clergy in it (as the other had), with commis- 
 sion and power granted to them to execute 
 spiritual jurisdiction and excommunication, 
 and that not only in this or that church, yea, 
 or province, but in any part of the whole king- 
 dom. So much of the first point. Now to 
 the second, concerning appeals to the magis- 
 trate, as to the head of the church. 
 
 It is asked, what remedy shall there be 
 against the abuse of church discipline by 
 church officers, except there be appeals from 
 the ecclesiastical courts to the civil magis- 
 trate : which if it be, church officers will bo 
 the more wary and cautious to do no man 
 wrong, knowing that they may be made to 
 answer for it : and if it be not, there is a 
 wide door opened, that ministers may do as 
 they please. 
 
 Ans. 1. Look what remedy there is for 
 abuses in the preaching of the word, and ad- 
 ministration of the sacraments: the like re- 
 medy there is for abuses in church discipline. 
 Mal-administration of the word and sacra- 
 ments is no less sinful to the ministers, and 
 hurtful to others, than mal-administration of 
 discipline: and, in some respects, the former 
 is more to the dishonour of God, and de- 
 struction of men, than the latter. Ministers 
 have not an arbitrary power to preach what 
 they will. Now, when the word is not truly 
 preached, nor the sacraments duly adminis- 
 tered by any minister or ministers, the ma- 
 gistrate seeketh the redress of these things 
 (in a constituted church) by the convocating 
 of synods, for examining, discovering, and 
 judging of such errors and abuses as are 
 found in particular churches. But if the 
 synod should connive at, or comply with that 
 same eri'or, yet the magistrate taketh not 
 
 upon him the supreme and authoritative 
 decision of a controversy of faith, but still 
 endeavoureth to help all this by other eccle- 
 siastical remedies — as another synod, and yet 
 another, till the evil be removed. The like 
 we say concerning abuses in church disci- 
 pline : The magistrate may command a re- 
 suming and re-examination of the case in 
 another synod ; but still the synod ratifieth 
 or reverseth the censure ; in which case it is 
 betwixt the magistrate and the synod, as 
 betwixt the will and understanding; for Vo- 
 luntas imperat intellectui quo ad exerci- 
 tium, yet notwithstanding determinatur per 
 intellectum quoad spccijicationem actus. 
 
 Take for instance this also : If it be a case 
 deserving deposition or degradation ; in such 
 a case, saith learned Salmasius, Appar. ad 
 lib. de Primatu, p. 298, the prince or ma- 
 gistrate cannot take from a minister that 
 power which was given him in ordination, 
 with imposition of hands, for he cannot take 
 that which he cannot give ; but if a prince 
 would have a minister, for his offences, to be 
 deprived of his ministerial power, he must 
 take care that it be done by the ministers 
 themselves, qui judices veri ipsius sunt, et 
 auferre soli possunt quod per ordination- 
 em dederunt : who are his true judges, and 
 they only can take away what by ordination 
 they have given. Thus Salmasius. 
 
 2. And further, if presbyteries or synods 
 exceed the bounds of ecclesiastical power, 
 and go without the sphere of their own 
 activity, interposing and judging in a civil 
 cause which concern eth any man's life or 
 estate, the magistrate may I'everse and make 
 null whatsoever they do in that kind, and 
 punish themselves for such abuse of their 
 power, as Solomon punished Abiathar, and 
 banished him to Anathoth, he being guilty 
 of high treason, 1 Khigs ii. 26. It was not 
 a case of scandal only, or of delinquency, or 
 mal-administration in his sacerdotal office, 
 otherwise it had fallen within the cogni- 
 sance, and jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical 
 sanhedrim. 
 
 3. Though the case be merely spiritual 
 and ecclesiastical, the Christian magistrate 
 (by himself and immediately) may not only 
 examine by the judgment of discretion the 
 sentence of the ecclesiastical court, but also 
 when he seeth cause (either upon the com- 
 plaint of the party, or scandal given to him- 
 self), interpose by letters, messages, exhor- 
 tations, and sharp admonitions to the pres- 
 bytery or synod, who, in tliat case, are bound 
 
118 Aaron's ROD BLOSSOMING, OR THE 
 
 in conscience, with all respect and honour to 
 the magistrate, to give him a reason of what 
 they have done, and to declare the grounds 
 of their proceedings, till, by the blessing of 
 God upon this free and fair dealing, they 
 either give a rational or satisfactory account 
 to the magistrate, or be themselves convinced 
 of their mal-adniinistration of discipline. 
 
 4. And in extraordinary cases, when the 
 clergy hath made defection, and all church 
 discipline is degenerated into tyranny, as 
 under Popery and Prelacy it was, it belong- 
 eth to the magistrate to take the protection 
 of those who are cast out or censured un- 
 justly ; for extraordinary evils must have ex- 
 traordinary helps. And in this sense we 
 are to understand divers of our Reformers 
 and others, groaning under the pressures of 
 the Roman clergy, and calling in the help 
 of the civil magistrate for their relief. 
 
 But we deny that (in a well-constituted 
 church) it is agreeable to the will of Christ 
 for the magistrate either to receive appeals 
 (propei'ly so called) from the sentence of an 
 ecclesiastical court, or to receive complaints 
 exhibited against that sentence by the party 
 censured, so as by his authority, upon such 
 complaint, to nullify or make void the eccle- 
 siastical censure. 1 The latter of these two 
 Vedelius pleadeth for, not the former. But 
 Apollonius oppugneth the latter, as being 
 upon the matter all one with the former. Now 
 to ascribe such power to the magistrate is, 1. 
 To change the Pope, but not the popedom; 
 the head, but not the headship. For is not 
 this the Pope's chief supremacy, to judge all 
 men, and to be judged of no man ; to ratify 
 or rescind at his pleasure the decrees of the 
 church, councils and all? And shall this power 
 now be transferred upon the magistrate ? 
 Good Lord, where are we, if this shall be the 
 upshot of our reformation? Oh for it! Shall 
 we condemn the Papists and Anabaptists 
 who give too little to the magistrate, and 
 then join hands with the Arminians, who 
 give as much to the magistrate as the Pope 
 
 1 Svnops. pur. Theol. disp. 48, thes. 19. — Etsi vero 
 liano spiritualem potestatem a Christiani magistra- 
 tus inspectione, tanqnam utriusque tabulae custode 
 non cximiraus, ncgamus tamcn cam, aut ejus praxin 
 a magistratus suprema auctoritate pendere, sicuti 
 quidam recentiorcg contendunt, cum a Christo solo 
 pendeat, et ab ipso immediate ecclesiae sit concessa 
 ut loci antea producti dcmonstrant. Ac proindo 
 nec per appellation em, aut provocationcm proprie 
 dictam, potestas hacc ad magistratus aut principum 
 tribunal deferri potest, quum ejus executio penes 
 ipsos non sit. 
 
 hath formerlly usurped? 2. Appeals lie in 
 the same line ol subordination, and do not go 
 de genere in genus ; but the civil and eccle- 
 siastical courts stand not in one line, neither 
 are they of one kind and nature; they are 
 disparata, non suhordinata. 3. They who 
 receive appeals have also power to execute 
 the sentence, else the appeal is in vam ; but 
 the magistrate hath no power to execute the 
 church censure, nor to shut out of the church, 
 our opposites themselves being judges. It 
 was not, therefore, without just cause that 
 Augustine did very much blame the Dona- 
 tists for their appealing from the ecclesias- 
 tical assemblies, to the emperors and civil 
 courts, epist. 48, 162. 
 
 There are two examples alleged from 
 Scripture for appeals from ecclesiastical to 
 civil courts. One is the example of Jere- 
 miah, Jer. xxvi ; the other is the example 
 of Paul, Acts XXV. But neither of the two 
 prove the point. For, 1. Jeremiah was not 
 censured by the priests with any spiritual or 
 ecclesiastical censure (of which alone our 
 controversy is) but the priests took him, and 
 said to him, " Thou shalt surely die," Jer. 
 xxvi. 8. 2. Would God that every Chris- 
 tian magistrate may protect the servants of 
 God from such unjust sentences and perse- 
 cuting decrees. Wlien ecclesiastical courts are 
 made up of bloody persecutors, that is an ex- 
 traordinary evil which must have an extraor- 
 dinary remedy. 3. Neither yet Ls there any 
 syllable of Jeremiah's appealing from the 
 priests to the princes; but the text saith, 
 " When the princes of Judah heard these 
 things, then they came up," &c. ver. 10; 
 that is, the princes, so soon as they under- 
 stood that the priests had taken Jeremiah, 
 and had said to him, " Thou shalt surely 
 die," ver. 8, and being also informed that 
 all the people were gathered together tumul- 
 tuously and disorderly against the prophet, 
 ver. 9, they thought it their duty to rescue 
 the prophet from the priests and people, 
 that he might be examined and judged by 
 the civil court, he being challenged and ac- 
 cused as one worthy to die. 
 
 As for Paul's appellation to Caesar, First, 
 It is supposed by our opposites, that he ap- 
 pealed from the ecclesiastical sanhedrim of 
 the Jews, which is a great mistake, for he 
 appealed from the judgment-seat of Festus to 
 Csesar ; that is, from an inferior civil court 
 to a superior civil court ; which he had just 
 cause to do: foi', though Festus had not yet 
 given forth any sentence against Paul, yet 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 119 
 
 he appeals d gravamine, and it was a great 
 grievance indeed, while as Festus showed 
 himself to he a most corrupt judge, who, 
 though the Jews could prove none of those 
 things whereof they accused Paul, Acts xxv. 
 7 (which should have made Festus to acquit 
 and dismiss him), yet, being willing to do 
 the Jews a pleasure, he would have Paul go 
 to Jerusalem, there to be judged before him- 
 self, ver. 9. Now this was all the favour 
 that the Jews had desired of Festus, that he 
 would send Paul to Jerusalem, they laying 
 wait in the way to kill him, ver. 3. No ap- 
 pellation here from the sanhedrim at Jerusa- 
 lem, where he had not as yet compeared to be 
 examined ; far less could he appeal from any 
 sentence of the sanhedrim. The most which 
 can be, with any colour, alleged from the 
 text is, that Paul declined to be judged by the 
 sanhedrim at Jerusalem, they not being his 
 competent and proper judges in that cause. 
 " I stand at Caesar's judgment-seat (saith he) 
 where I ought to be judged;" meaning that 
 he was accused as worthy of death, for sede- 
 tion, and offending against Csesar, whereof 
 he ought to be judged only at Caesar's tri- 
 bunal; not by the Jews, who were no judges 
 of such matters. A declinator of a judge is 
 one thing, and appellation from his judgment 
 or sentence is another thing. But put the case 
 that Paul had indeed appealed from the san- 
 hedrim at Jerusalem, either it was the civil 
 sanhedrim, or the ecclesiastical. If the civil, 
 it is no precedent for appeals from ecclesias- 
 tical courts : if the ecclesiastical, yet that 
 serveth not for appeals fi'om ecclesiastical 
 courts in ecclesiastical causes ; for it was a 
 capital crime whereof Paul was accused. 
 Nay, put the case that Paul had at that 
 time appealed from the ecclesiastical sanhe- 
 drim in an ecclesiastical cause, yet neither 
 could that help our opposites ; for the govern- 
 ment of the Christian church and the go- 
 vernment of the Jewish church were at that 
 time separate and distinct, so that the eccle- 
 siastical court, which should have judged of 
 any scandal given by Paul (if at all he ought 
 to have been censured), had been a Christian 
 synod, not a Jewish sanhedrim. And so much 
 of appeals. Of which question Triglandius, 
 Revius, and Cabeljavius have peculiarly and 
 fully written. Three famous academies also, 
 of Leyden, Groningen, and Utrecht, did give 
 their public testimonies against appeals from 
 ecclesiastical to civil courts ; and the three 
 professors of Utrecht, in their testimony, do 
 obtest all Christians that love truth and 
 
 peace, to be cautious and wary of the Armi- 
 nian poison lurking in the contrary tenets. 
 See Cabeljavius, Defensio potestatis Eccle- 
 siasticce, p. 60. 
 
 It is further objected, that thus fixing a 
 spiritual jurisdiction in cliurch officers, we 
 erect two collateral powers in the kingdom, 
 the civil and the ecclesiastical, unless all ec- 
 clesiastical courts be subordinate to magis- 
 tracy, as to a certain headship. 
 
 Ans. There is a subordination of persons 
 here, but a co-ordination of powers. A sub- 
 ordination of persons, because as the mini- 
 sters of the church are subject to the civil 
 magistrate, they being members of the com- 
 monwealth or kingdom, so the magistrate is 
 subject to the ministers of the church, he 
 being a church member. The former we 
 assert against Papists, who say that the 
 clergy is not subject to the magistrate : the 
 latter we hold against those who make 
 the magistrate to be the head of the church. 
 Again, a co-ordination of powers ; because 
 as the subjection of the person of the 
 Christian magistrate to the pastors and elders 
 of the church, in things pertaining to God, 
 doth not infer the subordination of the power 
 and office of the magistrate to the church 
 officers, so the subjection of pastors and 
 elders to the magisti'ate, in all civil things 
 (as other members of the commonwealth are 
 subject), may well consist with the co-ordin- 
 ation of the ecclesiastical power with the civil. 
 And as it is an error in Papists to make the 
 secular power dependent upon, and derived 
 from, the ecclesiastical power, so it is an 
 error in others to make the ecclesiastical 
 power derived from, and dependent upon the 
 civil power ; for the ecclesiastical power is 
 derived from Christ, Eph. iv. 11. 
 
 And now, while I am expressing my 
 thoughts, I am the more confirmed in the 
 same, by falling upon the concession of one 
 who is of a different judgment ; for he who 
 wrote Jus Hegum in opposition to all spi- 
 ritual authority exercised under any form 
 of ecclesiastical government, doth, notwith- 
 standing acknowledge, p. 16, " Both of them 
 (the magistrate and the minister), have their 
 commission immediately from God, and each 
 of them are subject to the other, without any 
 subordination of offices from the one to the 
 other ; for the magistrate is no less subject 
 to the operation of the word from the mouth 
 of the minister than any other man whatso- 
 ever : and the minister again is as much 
 subject to the authority of the magistrate as 
 
120 
 
 Aaron's rod elossomixg, or the 
 
 any other subject whatsoever; and therefore, 
 though there be no subordination of offices, 
 yet is there of pei-sons; the person of a min- 
 ister remaining a subject, but not the func- 
 tion of the ministry." He might have said 
 the same of the exercise of church discipline 
 which he saith of the preaching of the word ; 
 for the same Christ who gave the keys of 
 doctrine gave also the keys of discipline, 
 without any tie to make the use thereof sub- 
 ject to the pleasure of the civil magistrate. 
 Let him prove that the ministry of the 
 word is not subordinate to, nor dependent 
 upon the magistrate, and I shall prove, by the 
 same medium, that the ministry of church 
 censures hath as little of that subordination 
 in it. 
 
 And this I must add, that least of all 
 others can our Independent brethren charge 
 the Presbyterians with the setting up of an 
 ecclesiastical government co-ordinate with, 
 and not subordinate unto, the civil govern- 
 ment: for themselves hold as much in this 
 point (if not more) than we do. Take, for 
 instance, Mr Cotton's Keys of the Kingdom 
 of Heaven, published by Mr Goodwyn and 
 Mr Nye, p. 49 : " The first subject of the 
 ministerial power of the keys, though it be 
 independent in respect of derivation of power 
 from the power of the sword to the perform- 
 ance of any spiritual administration," &:c.; 
 p. 53, " As the church is subject to the 
 sword of the magistrate in things which con- 
 cern the civil peace, so the magistrate (if 
 Christian) is subject to the keys of the 
 church," &c. 
 
 As for that coUaterality which is objected, 
 I answer. The civil and ecclesiastical power, 
 if we speak properly, are not collateral. 1. 
 They have no footing upon the same 
 ground : there may be many subject to the 
 magistrate, who are no church members, 
 and so not under the spiritual power ; and 
 where the same persons are subject to both 
 the powers, there is no more coUaterality, 
 in this case, nay, not so much, as is betwixt 
 the power of a father in one man, and the 
 power of a master in another man, when 
 both powers are exercised upon the same 
 man who is both a son and a servant. 2. 
 Powers that are collateral, are of the same 
 eminency and altitude, of the same kind 
 and nature ; but the civil power is a domin- 
 ion and lordship ; the ecclesiastical power is 
 ministerial, not lordly. 3. Collateral powers 
 do mutually and alike exercise authority 
 over each other respectively. But, though 
 
 the magistrate may exercise much authority 
 in things ecclesiastical, church officers can 
 exercise no authority in things civil. The 
 magistrate's authority is ecclesiastical ohjec- 
 tive, though not formaliter : but the church 
 officer's authority is not civil so much as ob- 
 jective, not being exercised about either 
 civil, criminal, or capital cases. 4. Collateral 
 powers are subordinate to, and derived from 
 the supreme and original power, like two 
 branches growing out of the same stock, two j 
 streams flowing from the same fountaui, two 
 lines drawn from the same centre, two arms 
 under the same head ; but the power of the 
 magistrate is suljordinate unto, and depend- 
 eth upon the dominion of God the Creator 
 of all: the power of church officers depend- 
 eth upon the dominion of Christ, the Me- 
 diator and King of the church. 
 
 I shall conclude my answers to the pre- 
 sent objection, with the testimony of learned 
 Salmasius, who hath so overtlu-own the papal 
 and prelatical government, from Scripture 
 and antiquity, that he hath withal preserved, 
 yea, strengthened the distinction of civil go- 
 vernment and church government, and hold- 
 eth that church censures and civil punish- 
 ments do very well consist and sweetly agree 
 together.^ 
 
 I have now done with the negative part 
 of this present controversy, — what the power 
 of the magistrate in ecclesiastids is not ; 
 I proceed to the positive part, — what it is. 
 To this I will speak first more generally, 
 then more particularly. 
 
 For the general, I hold with the large 
 Confession of Faith of the Church of 
 Scotland, art. 25: " Moreover to kings, 
 princes, rulers, and magistrates, we affirm, 
 that chiefly and most principally, the con- 
 servation and the purgation of the religion 
 appertains ; so that not only they are ap- 
 pointed for civil policy, but also for main- 
 tenance of the true religion, and for supress- 
 ing of idolatry and superstition whatsover." 
 
 1 Apparat. ad Hb. de Primatu, p. 282, 283.— Plebs 
 antein ipsa quam cnrant pastores, qnantnm attinet 
 aJ animaecaram, pastoribus suis subdita est. Si 
 corporis ratio agatur, summum in illnd imperinm 
 habent principes ac snpremi raagistratns. Delicta 
 igitur bominum dupliciter puninntur, ant in anima 
 sola, ant in corpora. Pcenae quae corporis necem ant 
 noxum inferunt, ant bonornm amissionem, a raagis- 
 tratn civili inflignntur : Qnae vero aniraamm casti- 
 gationem et emendationem jpectant, per ministrnm 
 ecclesiae imponuntnr. .Snmma earnm pcEnarum ex- 
 communicatio est. Et infra. Idem peccatnm in 
 eodem homine aliter vindicat magistratus civilis, 
 aliter punit minister ecclesiae. 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 121 
 
 To the same purpose, Calvin, Instit. lib. 4, 
 cap. 20, sect. 9 : "Hoc nomine maxime lau- 
 dantur sancti Reges, quod Dei cultuin 
 corruptum vel eversum restituerint, vel 
 curam gesserint religionis, ut sub illis 
 pura et incolumis Jlorerct." The like see 
 in Zanchius, prsec. 4, p. 791, and in Po- 
 lanus, Syntag. lib. 10, cap. 65. They hold 
 that the Christian magistrate's office, as 
 concerning religion, is, " diligently to take 
 care that in his dominion or kingdom, reli- 
 gion, from the pure word of God, expounded 
 by the word of God itself, and understood 
 according to the principles of faith (which 
 others call the analogy of faith), be either in- 
 stituted, or (being instituted) kept pure, or 
 being corrupted, be restored and reformed : 
 that false doctrines, abuses, idols, and super- 
 stitions be taken away, to the glory of God, 
 and to his own and his subjects' salvation." 
 Unto these things I do assent as unto safe 
 and undoubted truths. 
 
 But for the clearer understanding and en- 
 odation of our present question, I will par- 
 ticularise and explain what I hold, by these 
 five following distinctions : — 
 
 1. Distingue materiam subjectam. There 
 are two sorts of things belonging to the 
 church. Some which are intrinsical, and be- 
 longing to the soul or inward man, directly 
 and primarily. Such things are not to be 
 dispensed and administered by the civil ma- 
 gistrate : I mean the word and sacraments, 
 the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the 
 suspension or excommunication of church 
 officers or members, the ordination or de- 
 position of officers, the determination and 
 resolution from Scripture of controversies 
 concerning the faith, the worship of God, 
 the government of the church, cases of con- 
 science. These being in their nature, end, 
 and use, merely spiritual, and belonging not 
 to the outward man, but to the inward man 
 or soul, are committed and entrusted to the 
 pastors and other ruling officers of the 
 church, and are not of civil and extrinsical, 
 but of ecclesiastical and intrinsical cognis- 
 ance and judgment. There are other things 
 belonging to the church, which are extrin- 
 sical, and do properly belong to the outward 
 man, and are common to the church with 
 other human societies or corporations : things 
 of this kind fall within the civil jurisdiction; 
 for the churches of Christ, being societies of 
 men and women, and parts of common- 
 wealths, are accountable unto and punishable 
 by the civil magistrate, in their bodies, lives, 
 
 civil liberties, and temporal estates, for tres- 
 passes against the law of God or the law of 
 the land. By the law of God I understand 
 here jus divinum naturale, that is, the 
 moral law or Decalogue, as it bindeth all 
 nations (whether Christians or infidels), be- 
 inor the law of the Creator and King of na- 
 tions. The magistrate, by his authority, 
 may, and in duty ought, to keep his subjects 
 within the bounds of external obedience to 
 that law, and punish the external man with 
 external punishments for external tres- 
 passes against that law. From this obliga- 
 tion of the law, and subjection to the correc- 
 tive power of the magistrate. Christian sub- 
 jects are no more exempted than heathen 
 subjects, but rather more straitly obliged. 
 So that if any such trespass is committed by 
 church officers or members, the magistrate 
 hath power and authority to summon, ex- 
 amine, judge, and (after just conviction and 
 proof) to punish these, as well as other men. 
 We do therefore abominate the disloyal pa- 
 pal tenet, that clergymen are not to be ex- 
 amined and judged by civil, but by ecclesi- 
 astical courts only, even in causes civil and 
 criminal. Whereof see Duarenus, de Sacr. 
 Eccl. Minist. lib. 1, cap. 2; Spelman, Con- 
 cil. Britann. torn. 1, p. 413. j 
 I further explain myself by that com- | 
 mon distinction, that there are two sorts of j 
 things that belong to the church, ra t'irjui \ 
 and ra e£a», things inward and things out- 
 ward ; for church officers and church mem- 
 bers do consist (as other men) of a soul 
 and of a body. AH things properly belong- 
 ing to the soul or internal man (which here 
 we call things inward), are the objects of 
 ecclesiastical power given to church officers, 
 pastors, and other ruling officers ; but what 
 belongs to the outward man, to the bodies of 
 church officers and members (which things 
 are outward), the iudoino- and managing 
 thereof is m the hand of the magistrate, 
 who ruleth not only rovs e£w, those that are 
 without, whom the church judgeth not, but 
 ra e£w rf)s ki:K\r}aias, the things outward of 
 the church. Salmasius calls the power of 
 the magistrate in things ecclesiastical elwre- 
 piK)) kirianonii, the inward episcopacy or 
 overseeing ; which well agreeth with that 
 which Constantino said to the bishops, 'I'/uels 
 fief Tuv eiau) Ttjs encXjja/as, eyu) be rdif 
 ejcrls. You are made bishops of the inward 
 things of the church, I of the things out- 
 ward. So that he doth not assume their 
 government, but distinguisheth his from 
 
122 Aaron's bod blossoming, or the 
 
 theirs. This external inspection and admin- 
 istration of the magistrate, in reference to 
 religion, is twofold. 1. Corrective, by ex- 
 ternal punishments. 2. Auxiliari/, by ex- 
 ternal benefits and adminicles. The magis- 
 trate may and ought to be both custos et 
 vindex utriusque tabula;, he ought to 
 preserve both the first and second table of 
 the holy and good law of God, from being 
 despised and violated, and punish by corpo- 
 ral or other temporal punishments, such 
 (whether church ofticers or church mem- 
 bers) as opeidy dishonour God by gross of- 
 fences, either against the first or against 
 the second table ; and this he doth as God's 
 deputy and vicegerent, subordinate and sub- 
 servient to that universal dominion which 
 God Almighty exerciseth over the children 
 of men. But in doing hereof, he is also 
 helpful and useful to the kingdom of Christ, 
 as Mediator ; magistracy being (in the re- 
 spects aforesaid) serviceable and profitable 
 (as to order the commonwealth aright, so 
 also) to purge the church of scandals, to 
 promote the course of the gospel, and the 
 edification of one another. But how ? not 
 perfectly, but pro tanto ; not every way, 
 but more suo ; not intrinsically, but extrin- 
 sically ; not primarily, but secondarily ; not 
 directly, but ex consequenti ; not sub for- 
 malitate scandili, scd sub formalitate 
 criminis, not under the notion of scandal, 
 but of crime. The magistrate, in punishing 
 all crimes committed by any in the church 
 (which are contrary to the law of God) ; in 
 suppressing tumults, disorders ; in protecting 
 the church from danger, harm, or molesta- 
 tion ; in putting a hook in the nostrils, and 
 a bridle in the mouths, of unruly, obstinate, 
 and contumacious sinners, who vex the 
 church, and create trouble to the people of 
 God ; in so doing, he doth by consequence, 
 and removendo prohibens, purge the church, 
 and advance the kingdom of Christ, and the 
 course of the gospel : in the meanwhile, 
 not depriving the church of her own intrin- 
 sical power and jurisdiction, but making it 
 rather more eff'ectual by the aid of the se- 
 cular power; — and so much of the corrective 
 part of the magistrate's administration. The 
 other part of his administration in reference 
 to religion, is auxihary, or assistant to the 
 church ; tor the magistrate watcheth over 
 the outward business of the church, not only 
 by troubling those persons, and punishing 
 those sins, that trouble the Israel of God ; 
 but by administering such things as are ne- 
 
 cessary for the wellbeing and comfortable 
 subsistence of the church; and, for that end, 
 doth convocate synods pro re nata (beside 
 the ordinary and set meetings), and pre- 
 sideth therein (if he please) in extenial 
 order, though not in the synodical debates 
 and resolutions ; he addeth his civil sanction 
 to the synodical results, if he find nothing 
 therein which may hurt peace or justice in 
 the commonwealth. The magistrate ought 
 also to take care of the maintenance of the 
 ministry, schools, poor, and of good works 
 for necessary uses, that religion and learn- 
 ing may not want their necessary adminicles. 
 Finally, he ought to take care that all 
 churches be provided with an able, orthodox, 
 and godly ministry, and schools with learned 
 and well-qualified teachers, such as shall be 
 best approved by those to whom it belong- 
 eth to examine and judge of their qualifi- 
 cations and parts. And all these ways the 
 magistrate ought to be, and the well-atfected 
 magistrate hath been, and is, a nursing-father 
 to the church of Christ. 
 
 2. My second distinction shall be this : 
 The magistrate may and ought not only to 
 conserve justice, peace, and order in the 
 commonwealth and in the church, as it is in 
 the commonwealth ; but also to take special 
 care of the conservation of the true reformed 
 religion, and of the reformation of it, when 
 and wherein it needeth to be I'eformed, 
 imperative, not elicitive. The magistrate 
 (saith Dr Rivet on the Decalogue, p. 262) 
 is neither to administer word, nor sacra- 
 ments, nor church discipline, &c. ; but he is 
 to take care that all these things be done 
 by those whom God hath called thereunto. 
 Whatever is properly spiritual, belonging to 
 the soul and inward man (such as church 
 censures, and the other particular before 
 mentioned), cannot be actus elicitus of the 
 magistrate. The magistrate can neither 
 immediatione suppositi, nor immediatione 
 virtutis, determine controversies of I'aith, 
 ordain ministers, suspend from the sacra- 
 ments, or excommunicate. He can neither 
 do these things himself, nor are they done 
 in the name and authority of the magis- 
 trate, or by any nnnisterial power received 
 from him, but in the name and authority of 
 Jesus Christ, and by the power given from 
 Jesus Christ. Yet all these, and generally 
 the administration of the keys of the king- 
 dom of heaven, are actus imperati of the 
 Christian magisti-ate, and that both antece- 
 denter and consequenter. Antecedently, 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 123 
 
 the magistrate may command church officers 
 to suspend or excommunicate all obstinate 
 and scandalous persons ; he may command 
 the classes to ordain able and godly minis- 
 ters, and no other; he may command a 
 synod to meet to debate and determine such 
 or such a controversy. Consequently, also, 
 when the thing is examined, judged, re- 
 solved, or done by the ecclesiastical power, 
 the magistrate hath power and authority to 
 add his civil sanction, confirmation, or rati- 
 fication ; to make the ecclesiastical sentence 
 to be obeyed and submitted unto by all whom 
 it concerneth ; — in all which the Christian 
 magistrate doth exceeding much for the con- 
 servation and purgation of religion ; not eli- 
 ciendo aetus, doing or exercising by him- 
 self, or by his own authority, acts of church 
 government or discipline, but taking care 
 that such and such things be done by those 
 to whom they do belong. 
 
 3. Distinguish the directive part and the 
 coercive part. The directive part, in the 
 conservation or purgation of religion, doth 
 belong to the ministers and i-uling officers 
 
 -1 11 
 
 ot the church assembled together. In ad- 
 ministering, therefore, that which concern- 
 eth religion and people's spiritual good, the 
 magistrate not only juvatur, but dirigitur, 
 is not only helped, but directed by the 
 ecclesiastical directive power, Fcst. Hon., 
 disp. 30, thes. 6. Magistracy may say to 
 ministry, as Moses said to Hobab, " Thou 
 mayest be tons instead of eyes." Ad sacrce 
 religionis informationem, Jidelis magistra- 
 tus verhi divini administris, veluti oculis, 
 uti debet ; and for that end he is to make 
 use of consistorial and synodical assemblies, 
 say the Professors of Leyden, St/nops. pur. 
 Theol., disp. 50, thes. 44. But the coer- 
 cive part, in compelling the obstinate and 
 unruly to submit to the presbyterial or syno- 
 dical sentence, belongs to the magistrate. 
 Not as if the magistrate had nothino- to do 
 but to be an executioner ot the pleasure of 
 church oflGicers, or as if he were by a blind 
 and implicit faith to constrain all men to 
 stand to their determination. God forbid. 
 The magistrate must have his full liberty 
 to judge of that which he is to compel men 
 to do, to judge of it, not ovl\j judicio appre- 
 hensivo, by understanding and apprehend- 
 ing aright what it is, but judicio discretivo, 
 by the judgment of Christian prudence and 
 discretion, examining, by the word of God, 
 the grounds, reasons, and warrants of the 
 thing, that he may, in faith and not doubt- 
 
 ingly, add his authority thereto, in which 
 judging he doth judicare, but not judicem 
 agere; that is, he isjitdecc suarum actionum, 
 he judgeth whether he ought to add his 
 civil authority to this or that which seemeth 
 good to church officei's, and doth not concur 
 tlierewith, except he be satisfied in his con- 
 science that he may do so. Yet this makes 
 him not supreme judge or governor in all 
 ecclesiastical causes, which is the prerogative 
 of Jesus Christ, revealing his will in his 
 word ; nor yet doth it mvest the magistrate 
 with the subordinate, ministerial, forensical, 
 directive judgment in ecclesiastical things or 
 causes, which belongeth to ecclesiastical, not 
 to civil courts. 
 
 4. Distinguish between a cwmdative and 
 a privative authority. The magistrate hath 
 indeed an authoritative influence into mat- 
 ters of religion and church government ; but 
 it is cumulative ; that is, the magistrate takes 
 care that church officers, as well as other 
 subjects, may do those things which, ex of- 
 ficio, they are bound to do; and when they 
 do so, he aideth, assisteth, strength eneth, 
 ratifieth, and, in his way, maketh effectual 
 what they do. But that which belongs to 
 the magistrate is not privative, in reference to 
 the ecclesiastical government. It is under- 
 stood sa^?;ojMre ccclesiastico: for the magis- 
 trate is a nursing-father, not a step-father 
 to the church ; and the magistrate (as well 
 as other men) is under that tie, 2 Cor. xiii. 
 8, " We can do nothing against the truth, 
 but for the truth." This proviso, therefore, 
 is justly made, that whatever power the ma- 
 gistrate hath in matters of religion, it is not 
 to hinder the free exercise of church disci- 
 pline and censure against scandalous and ob- 
 stinate sinners. 
 
 As the casuists in other cases distinguish 
 lucrum cessans, and damnum emergens, so 
 must we distinguish between the magistrate's 
 doing no good to the church, and his doing 
 evil to the church ; between his not assisting, 
 and his opposing; between his not allowing 
 or authorising, and his forbidding or restrain- 
 ing. It doth properly and of right belong- 
 to the magistrate to add a civil sanction and 
 strength of a law for strengthening and aid- 
 ing the exercise of church discipline, or not 
 to add it. And himself is judge whether to 
 add any such cumulative act of favour or not. 
 But the magistrate hath no power nor autho- 
 rity to lay bands and restraints upon church 
 officers to hinder any of Christ's ordinances, 
 or to forbid them to do what Christ hath 
 
124 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 given them a commission to do. And if any 
 such resti'aints of prohibitions or laws should 
 be laid on us, we ought to obey God ra- 
 ther than men. 
 
 5. Distingue tempora. Whatever belongs 
 to the magistrate in matters of religion, more 
 than falls under the former distinctions, is 
 extraordinary, and doth not belong to ordi- 
 nary government. In extraordinary refor- 
 mations the magistrate may do much by his 
 own immediate authority, when synods have 
 made defection either from the truth of doc- 
 trine, or from hoUness and godliness ; yet in 
 such a case he ought to consult with such 
 orthodox godly divines as can be had, either 
 in his own or from other dominions. Fest. 
 Hon. disp. 30, thes. 5. 
 
 And so much be spoken of the magistrate's 
 power and duty in things and causes ecclesi- 
 astical. As we do not deny to the magis- 
 trate anything which the word of God doth 
 allow him, so we dare not approve his going 
 beyond the bounds and limits which God 
 hath set hira. And I pray God that this be 
 not found to be the bottom of the contro- 
 versy, Whether magistracy shall be an arbi- 
 trary government, if not in civil, yet in ec- 
 clesiastical things ? whether the magistrate 
 may do, or appoint to be done, in the matter 
 of church government, admission to, or ex- 
 clusion from the ordinances of Christ, what- 
 ever shall seem good in his eyes ? and whe- 
 ther, in purging of the church, he is ob- 
 liged to follow the rales of Scripture, and 
 to consult with learned and godly ministers? 
 although Erastus himself (as is before ob- 
 served) and Sutlivius (a great follower of 
 him), de Prcsbyt. cap. 8, are ashamed of, 
 and do disclaim such assertions. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 THAT BT THE WORD OF GOD THERE OUGHT 
 TO BE ANOTHER GOVERNMENT BESIDE MA- 
 GISTRACY OR CIVIL GOVERNMENT, NAMELY, 
 AN ECCLESIASTICAL GOVERNMENT (PRO- 
 PERLY SO called) in THE HAA'DS OF 
 CHURCH OFFICERS. 
 
 This question hath arisen from Mr Cole- 
 man's third and fourth rule which he offered 
 to the parliament, excluding all government 
 of church officers, ministers, and elders ; that 
 is, as he expounds himself, all corrective go- 
 vernment, leaving them no power except 
 
 what is merely doctrinal, and appropriating 
 all government, properly so called, to the 
 magistrate only. Mr Hussey, following him, 
 falls in the same ditch with him. The ques- 
 tion is not, Whether church officers ought to 
 have any share in the civil government ; 
 nor whether church officers may have any 
 lordly government or imperious domina- 
 tion over the Lord's heritage ; nor whether 
 church officers may exercise an arbitrary ir- 
 regular government, and rale as themselves 
 list. God forbid. But the question plainly is, 
 Whether there may not, yea, ought not, to 
 be in the chui'ch a ministerial or ecclesiastical 
 government, properly so called, beside the 
 civil government or magistracy. Mr Cole- 
 man did, and Mr Hussey doth hold there 
 ought not. I hold there ought ; and I shall 
 propound for the affirmative these argu- 
 ments : — 
 
 The first argument I draw from 1 Tim. 
 V. 17, 'Ot KoKws npoearuTfs npeat^vrepui, 
 " Elders that rule well." Mr Hussey, p. 8, 
 asks, whether the word elder be prima or 
 secunda notio. If prima notio, ^Tiy must 
 not elder women be church ofl&cers as well 
 as elder men ? If secunda notio for a ruling 
 officer, parliament men, kings, and all civil 
 governors, are such eldei'S. I know no use 
 which that distinction of prima and secunda 
 notio hath in this place, except to let us 
 know that he understands these logical terms. 
 Egregiam vero laudem. He might have 
 saved himself the labour, for who knows 
 not Jerome's distinction ? Elder is either a 
 word of age or of office ; but in ecclesiastical 
 use it is a word of office. Mr Hussey's first 
 notion concerning elder women is no mascu- 
 line notion. His second notion is an anti- 
 parliamentary notion ; for the honourable 
 Houses of Parliament, in the first words of 
 their ordinance concerning ordination of mi- 
 nisters, have declared, that, by the word of 
 God, a bishop and a presbyter or elder are 
 all one ; for thus beginneth the ordinance : 
 " Whereas the word presbyter, that is to 
 say, elder, and the word bishop, do in the 
 Scripture intend and signify one and the 
 same function," &c. Therefore parhament 
 men and civil governors cannot be the elders 
 mentioned by the apostle Paul, except Mr 
 Hussey make them Isishops, and invest them 
 with power of ordination. Besides this, if 
 kings and parliament men be such elders as 
 are mentioned in this text, then the minis- 
 ters of the word must have not only an 
 equal share m government, but more honour 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 125 
 
 and maintenance than kings and parliament 
 men. See how well Mr Hussey pleadeth 
 for Christian magistracy : It is also an anti- 
 scriptural notion, for some of those elders 
 that ruled well, did labour in the word and 
 doctrine, as Paul tells us in the very same 
 place; these, sure, are not civil governors. 
 \^'^lerefore Mr Hussey must seek a third 
 notion before he hit the Apostle's meaning. 
 It is not hujus loci to debate from this text 
 the distinction of two sorts of elders ; though 
 among all the answers which ever I heard 
 or read, Mr Hussey 's is the weakest, p. 11, 
 that by eldei-s that labour in the word and 
 doctrine, are meant those ministers whose 
 excellency lies in doctrine and instruction; 
 and that by elders that rule, are meant those 
 that give reproof. He contradistinguisheth 
 a reproving minister from a minister labour- 
 ing in the word and doctrine. The very re- 
 proof given by a minister will be (it seems) 
 at last challenged as an act of government. 
 It is as wide from the mark, that he will 
 have the two sorts of elders to dilFer thus, that 
 the one must govern and not preach, the 
 other must preach and not govern ; not ob- 
 serving that the text makes ruling to be 
 common to both. The one doth both rule 
 and labour in the word and doctrine ; the 
 other ruleth only, and is therefore called 
 ruling elder, non quia solus prceest,sed quia 
 solum prceest. But to let all these things be 
 laid aside as heterogeneous to this present 
 argument, the point is, here are rulers in 
 the church who are no civil rulers. Yea, 
 this my argument from this text was clearly 
 yielded by Mr Coleman in his Maledicis, 
 p. 8 : " But I will deal clearly (saith he), 
 these officers are ministers, which are insti- 
 tuted not here, but elsewhere ; and these are 
 the rulers here mentioned." Therefore he 
 yieldeth ecclesiastical rulers (and those insti- 
 tuted) distinct from magistracy ; neither is 
 it a lordly but a ministerial ruling of which 
 our question is. " For my part (saith Mr 
 Hussey) I know not how loi'dship and go- 
 vernment doth differ one from another." 
 Then every governor of a ship must be a 
 lord ; then every steward of a great house 
 must be lord of the house. There is an 
 economical or ministerial government, and 
 of that we mean. 
 
 My second argument I take from 1 Thes. 
 V. 12, " And we beseech you, brethren, to 
 know them which labour among you, and 
 are over you in the Lord, and admonish 
 you." TliJoiTrajjefovs vfiaiv, qui prcBSunt 
 
 vohis. Hence doth Calvin conclude a church 
 government distinct from civil government ;i 
 for this is a spiritual govei'nment, it is in the 
 Lord ; that is, in the name of the Lord, or 
 (as others) in things pertaining to God. 
 Hence also Beza argueth against episcopal 
 government ; because the elders in the apos- 
 tolic churches did govern in common. But, 
 saith Mr Hussey, p. 18. " Pasor telleth us 
 that irpoiarafjiat, with a genitive case, signi- 
 eth prcBcedo, and then it signifieth no more 
 but them that go before you, either by doc- 
 trine or example." I answer first to the 
 matter, next to the force of the word. For 
 the matter: certainly the irpoaraaia, or rul- 
 ing power of ministers, is not merely doctrinal 
 or persuasive, as is manifest by 1 Tim. v. 17, 
 where those who are not convinced of two 
 sorts of elders, are yet fully convinced of two 
 sorts of acts, the act of ruling, and the act 
 of teaching. Whatsoever that text hath 
 more in it, or hath not, this it hath, that 
 those who labour in the word and doctrine, 
 are rulers ; but they are more especially to 
 be honoured for their labouring in the word 
 and doctrine. Next, as to the force of the 
 word : if it be true which Mr Hussey here 
 saith, then tlie English translators that 
 read, are over you, — Calvin, Beza, Bul- 
 linger, Gualther, and others that here follow 
 Jerome, and read prcBsunt vohis, — Arias 
 Montanus, who reads prcesidentes vobis, 
 have not well understood the Greek. But 
 if Mr Hussey would needs correct all these 
 and many more, why did he not at least 
 produce some instances to show us where 
 the words Trpoiarafiet'os, or irpoeorws, or 
 Trpoararr)s, or npoaraata, or icpoaTarein, are 
 used for no more but a mere going before, 
 either by doctrine or example, without any 
 power or authority of government. Yea, if 
 this here be no more but a going before, 
 either by doctrine or example, then every 
 good Christian who goeth before others by 
 good example is Trpottrra/ieros. Neither will 
 that of the genitive case help him ; for see 
 the like, 1 Tim. iii. 4, tov Ibiov oikov koXws 
 Trpoiara/xefot', " one that ruleth well his own 
 house :" Mr Hussey will make it no more 
 but this, one that goeth before his own 
 house, by teaching them, or by giving them 
 
 1 Praesunt in Domino. Hoc additum yidetur ad 
 notandura spirituale regimen. Tametsi enim reges 
 quoque et magistratua Dei ordinatione prasunt, 
 quia tamen ecclesiae gubernationera Dominus pecu- 
 lialiter vult suam agnosci, ideo nominatira praeesse 
 in Domino dicuntur, qui Christi nomine et mandato 
 ecclesiam gubernant. 
 
126 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 good example, though the very next words 
 tell us there is more in it, and that is au- 
 thoritative government, " having his chil- 
 dren in subjection," So vei-. 12, reKvuv 
 KaXws TTpoiarafievoi, ruling their children 
 well. Pasor is not at all against my sense, 
 but for it : for if Mr Hussey will make 
 Pasor to say that Trpotara/uat with a geni- 
 tive, doth never signify any more but prce- 
 cedo, then he makes him to say botii that 
 which is manifestly false, and in so saying, 
 to contradict himself; for Pasor tells us al- 
 so, the word signifieth prcesum ; and for 
 that he cites 1 Tim. iii. 4, where it is with a 
 genitive. Sometime indeed with a genitive 
 it may be turned prcccedo, as Pasor saith, 
 but he citeth only Tit. iii. 8, where it is not 
 Genitivus personce (as 1 Thes. v.) but rei ; 
 and we may also read prcestare, as Arias 
 Montanus, to excel or be chief in good 
 works, or to maintain, as our books have it. 
 
 But furthermore I shall offer for answer 
 to Mr Hussey the observation oi' an excel- 
 lent Grecian. It is Salmasius, de Primatu 
 Papce, p. 18, 19.1 WpouTaaiu, to speak pro- 
 perly, is another thing than Tr/jwroo-zacrio ; 
 the former signifieth a power of jurisdiction 
 and government, the latter a precedence 
 or placing of one before another ; although 
 they are sometimes used promiscuously, and 
 although TrpoCTrorai are also Trpw-oorarai. 
 Yea they have the very names of npoaTUTni 
 and -KjioeaTutTes or TrpoiaTUfxevoi (if you look 
 to the native etymology of the words), from 
 their precedence or standing before, even as 
 antistites quasi ante stantcs, and praitor 
 quasi prmitor : such names being chosen 
 (for mollifying and dulcifying of government) 
 as might hold forth precedence, rather than 
 high-soimding names of power and autho- 
 rity. I shall add but two testimonies of an- 
 cient Grecians: Plato, epis. 7, near the end: 
 '^H yueydXTjs irpoetT-uis noXewi, kui ttoXXwv 
 ap)(ovaT]s eXuTTOvwv, rij eav-ov -noXei to. 
 Twv cjfxii:poTep(iiv j^pi'ifxara biavefirj fit) Kara 
 binTji' : Or if he tliat ruleth some great city, 
 and such as hath the dominion over many 
 smaller cities, should unjustly distribute to 
 
 1 Et hoc nomine differt npiOTOiJTaaia a ■npa- 
 araaia, quod haec praesidentiam cum potestate, sive 
 praeposituram cum jurisdictione ac coercitione tri- 
 buat, xpwTOdTaaia vero ut in loco quis sit priore 
 collocatus, tantura efficit. WpotTTaaiav Hesychius 
 Kv^fpvr](Tiv interpretatur gubernationem vel ad- 
 miniatrationcm. Et notura qui dicerentur proprie 
 Trpoararav in republica atlieniensium. 
 
 his own city the means and substance of 
 those lesser cities. Dionysius Areopagita, 
 epist. 8, speaking of Moses' supreme power 
 of rule and government over Israel, which 
 was envied by Korah and his faction, calls 
 it rijv Tov Xaov Trpnarnniav. 
 
 Well, Mr Hussey will try if his logic can 
 help him, if his Greek cannot : " What- 
 soever this person is that is to be beloved, 
 he is supposed not instituted in this place, 
 the subject is supposed not handled in any 
 science." The like he saith afterward, p. 
 22, that we cannot prove from 1 Cor. v. 
 that Paul did institute excommunication, 
 but at most that he supposed an institu- 
 tion. For my part, that scripture which 
 supposeth an institution, shall to me prove 
 an institution; for I am sure that which 
 any scripture supposeth, must be true. And 
 herein, as I take it, Mr Coleman would have 
 said as I say, for in his fom'th rule he proved 
 the institution of magistracy from Rom. xiii. 
 yet magistracy is not instituted in that place, 
 but supposed to be instituted. 
 
 A third argument I take from Heb. xiii. 
 7, " Remember them which have the rule 
 over you, who have spoken unto you the 
 word of God :" ver. 17, " Obey them that 
 have the rule over you, and submit your- 
 selves ; for they watch for your souls, as 
 they that must give an account." Bulhnger 
 and Gualther refer this verse both to ma- 
 gistracy and ministry ; and so far they are 
 ours, in sharing the rule and government 
 between both, and in making obedience due 
 to both. But Calvin and many others do 
 better expound the text of ecclesiastical ru- 
 lers or governors only : wherein Salmasius 
 foUoweth the Greek scholiasts, who expound 
 the text of bishops or elders who did in com- 
 mon govern the church. See Walo Messal. 
 p. 137, 138. That it is not spoken of civil 
 but of ecclesiastical inilers, may thus appear : 
 beside that it were hard to take ijyounevos 
 in the 17th verse in another sense than it 
 hath ver 7, or the rulers that watch for the 
 soul, ver. 17, to be any other than the ru- 
 lers that had spoken the word of God, ver. 
 7, it is further to be noted, that the Apostle 
 speaks of such rulers as the believing He- 
 brews had at that time, as is evident by ver. 
 24, " Salute all them that have the rule 
 
 1 Aretius Comment, in Heb. xiii 14, Primum apos- 
 tolus salutat suo nomine ipsorum prajpositos, hoc est 
 tiyov/jefvvs, quo nomine iiitclligo turn miuistros, 
 turn etiam scnioios, qui i-eliquos auctoiitate rege- 
 bant, et in officio detinebaut. 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 12? 
 
 over you, and all the saints," and those ru- 
 lers did watch for their souls. But they had 
 no Christian or godly magistrates that 
 watched for their souls, or whom the Apos- 
 tle would thus salute with the saints. But 
 the word is j/vov/uerwc, saitli Mr Hussey, p. 
 18, which is ducum, — them that lead you. 
 The Apostle hath indeed chosen a woi'd free 
 of ambition ; yet, saith Beza, auctoritatis 
 maximce, it is a word of the greatest au- 
 thority. The Syriac hath the same word 
 here, by which he renderetli Kv€fpv))neis, 
 1 Cor. xii. 28 ; and if you consult the Sep- 
 tuagints, the word ijyovfif ios, — except very 
 rarely where it signifieth vhriyuy, seu vice 
 ducetn (and tlien, to speak properly, subjec- 
 tion and obedience is not due to the fiyov- 
 juei 0$), as Exod. xxiii. 23, where yet it was 
 an angel that was the guide, and so not 
 without authority, — they do usually and in 
 innumerable places use this word to express 
 one invested with power and authority of 
 government ; and the same Hebrew words 
 which they render by iiyovftttos and c'tfov- 
 yovfxeros, are likewise by them translated 
 iiyefjwi', bvt'CtaTTjs, (SaffiXeiis, auTp6in}f, na- 
 Tf)iap)^r)S, afj)^u)y, apj^ijyos, OTparriyos, upy^i- 
 arpaTTiyos, TzpouTurrfs and ema-uTrjs ; all 
 which are names of superiority, command, 
 and government; 6 tiyffxwr, the governor, is 
 Pilate's highest title. Matt, xxvii. 2. And 
 Erastus, lib. 5, cap. 2, p. 312, saith, the ma- 
 gistrates of the Gentiles were called by the 
 names of //ye/^oi'es and fiadiXe'is. Now 6 
 riyovfiei'os and 6 ^lyefxwv are the same in sig- 
 nification. Stephen, in Thes. Lingum Gr. 
 citeth out of Plutarch rjyovfievos ri/s Fepfia- 
 vtas; and tells us that j/yeo/int with a ge- 
 nitive, and iiyovfiai generally is used tor 
 prcesum. 'O liyov/jeyos is Joseph's greatest 
 title, to express his government over Egypt, 
 Acts vii. 10, yea, Christ himself is called o 
 riyovftevus, to express his governing or rul- 
 ing power over his church. Matt. ii. 6. 
 Sahnasius doth at once show us, both that 
 the Apostle means the elders of the church 
 under the name f/yovfiepoiv, and that the 
 same name is used for civil magistrates, yea 
 emperors. See Wcdo Messal. p. 219, 220. 
 Far be it from all the ministers of Christ to 
 arrogate or assume any such dominion as 
 belongs to the civil magistrate, or to lord it 
 over the Lord's inheritance. Nay, here 
 that rule must take place, Luke xxii. 26, 6 
 rjyovfievoi its 6 biaKoywv, "he that is chief, as 
 he that serveth." Only the Holy Ghost 
 gives to church officers those names of au- 
 
 thority which are given to civil magistrates, 
 thereby to teach the people of God their 
 duty, and that there is another government 
 beside the civil, whereunto they ought to 
 submit and obey in the Lord. 
 
 Mr Hussey's next answer is that where 
 our books have it, " Obey them that have 
 the rule over you ;" the word is ireiOeade, 
 which is no moi-e but be persuaded. For 
 proof whereof he tells us out of Pasor, that 
 TreiOiv is verhum forense, a word whereby 
 the advocates persuade the judges ; yet we 
 cannot say that the judges obey the advo- 
 cates. I answer. Let him make of ireiOut 
 what he can, the passive, ireiOo/Aai, doth fre- 
 quently signify / obei/, or obtemper ; for 
 which signification H. Stephanus, in the 
 word Treidofirii, citeth out of Xenophon nei- 
 6fS6at T€is aif)(jiv(Ti ; out of Plutarch, Trei- 
 Oeadat Tui beaKorri ; out of Plato, neldeddai 
 TO) S-etJ. If we come to the Scripture phrase, 
 I am sui'e, in some places, Tteideadai signi- 
 fieth a thing of another nature than to be 
 persuaded forensically, as James iii. 3, " Be- 
 hold, we put bits in the horses' mouths, that 
 they may obey us," Trpos to Treldesdai uvtovs 
 rifjuv. But here, when we speak of the obe- 
 dience of church members to church officers, 
 it is a free, rational, willing. Christian obe- 
 dience ; yet obedience it is which we owe to 
 spiritual rulers, as well as that which we 
 owe to civil magistrates. Sure Gualther 
 and Bullinger did understand Treideade here 
 to be more than be jjersuaded ; for they 
 apply this text to the obedience due to 
 magistrates. And Mr Hussey might have 
 also observed that Pasor renders nelOofiai 
 by pareo, obedio, for which he citeth Gal. 
 iii. 1, TT) eXr]Oeia fji) TreideaOut, "not to 
 obey the truth." And a7re<^»)s he renders 
 inobcdiens, rcfractariits, as Rom. i. 30, yo- 
 vevaiv aneiOt'is, " disobedient to parents." 
 I know that irei&ea&at is also used for to be 
 persuaded ; but I verily believe Mr Hus- 
 sey is the first man that ever quarrelled the 
 word o6^y in this text, and turned it to be 
 no more but be persuaded. Yet if he shall 
 well observe that which followeth in the very 
 next words, Ka\ vTreiKSTe, " and submit your- 
 selves" (which, in Theophylact's opinion, not- 
 eth here intense obedience : They must not 
 only eiKciv, yield, but vnetneiv, yield ivith 
 subjection and submission — this relateth 
 to authority, nor can we say that the judges 
 do vneiKeiy to the advocates, nor travel- 
 lers to their guides), he himself shall be per- 
 suaded to cast away this gloss, and to seek a 
 
128 
 
 1 
 
 aakon's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 better ; and if he will stand to it, he shall 
 but do a disservice to magistracy, whilst he 
 would weaken the power of the ministry ; for 
 though there be much in the New Testa- 
 ment concerning subjection or submission to 
 magistrates, yet the clearest, fullest, yea (to 
 my remembrance), the only express word 
 for obedience to magistrates is Trei^ap^et*', 
 which is rightly translated in our books to 
 obey magistrates ; but Mr Hussey will 
 make it no more but to be persuaded by 
 magistrates. Yea, the very simple and 
 uncompounded verb ireidecdai, in the fore- 
 cited passages of Xenophon and Plutarch, 
 is used where they speak of obedience to 
 magistrates and masters. 
 
 If this must fail him, he hath yet another 
 answer: Let the word stand, saith he, as 
 it is translated obey; yet it is not alway 
 correlative to the command of a superior ; 
 and the Holy Ghost requireth obedience 
 here, not by an argument from the autho- 
 rity of him that leadeth them, but from the 
 benefit that cometh to themselves, "for that 
 is unprofitable for you." He divideth what 
 the Apostle joineth ; for there are two sorts 
 of arguments in the text by which the Apos- 
 tle persuadeth them to this obedience : one 
 is taken from the authority of the ministry, 
 which is intimated both by that name of 
 authority rjyov/jiefoi, and by their subordina- 
 tion or submission which the Apostle calls 
 for ; another, from the benefit that cometh 
 to themselves by their obedience, and the 
 hurt which they shall do to themselves by 
 their disobedience. Both these arguments 
 are wrapt up in these words, " For they 
 watch for your souls," which is the very same 
 with that. Acts xx. 28, " To all the flock 
 over the which the Holy Ghost hath made 
 you overseers." The Apostle doth also per- 
 suade Christians to be subject to the magis- 
 trate, by an argument taken from the bene- 
 fit that cometh to themselves ; Rom. xiii. 4, 
 " For he is the minister of God to thee for 
 good ;" yet that doth not weaken, but rather 
 strengthen, the authority of the magistrate. 
 
 The fourth argument shall be taken from 
 1 Tim. v. 19, " Against an elder receive not 
 an accusation, but before (or under) two or 
 three witnesses :" which is not a temporary 
 charge laid upon Timothy as an evangelist, 
 and so incompetent to ordinary ministei-s ; 
 for it is joined with the rules of public re- 
 buking, of laying on of hands, not pai-taking 
 of other men's sins, and such like things, 
 which are of ordinary concernment. He 
 
 is also charged to keep the commandment 
 till the appearing of Christ, 1 Tim. v. 14, 
 which cannot be otherwise understood than 
 as spoken to him in reference to the minis- 
 try. Now, what is an act of government, if 
 this be not to receive accusations, and that 
 against elders, and that under two or three 
 witnesses ? The Apostle intendeth here the 
 avoiding of these two evils ; first, upon the 
 one hand, because Veritas odium parit, and 
 elders doing their duty faithfiiUy, will cer- 
 tainly be hated and slandered, and evil 
 spoken of by some, that therefore every 
 Diotrephes, prattling against a servant of 
 Christ with malicious words, may not be 
 able to blast his Christian reputation and 
 good name. Next, upon the other part, 
 because the offences and scandals of elders 
 are not to be connived at, but to be aggra- 
 vated and censured more than the offences 
 of others, that therefore an accusation be re- 
 ceived against them, if it be under two or 
 three witnesses. Now, where accusations 
 ought to be received, and that under two 
 or three witnesses, and not otherwise (with 
 special charge also to observe these things, 
 " without partiality, or preferring one before 
 another," ver. 21), there is certainly a foren- 
 sical proceeding, and a corrective jurisdiction 
 or government. More of this argument in 
 3Iale Audis, p. 14. 
 
 Fifthly, What is that else but a corrective 
 jurisdiction ? Tit. iii. 10, " A man that is 
 an heretic, after the first and second admo- 
 nition, reject," ■napairov. He speaks of a 
 rejecting of persons, not of things only; and 
 of such a rejecting of persons as cannot be 
 understood only of that avoiding or reject- 
 ing by which every private Christian ought 
 to observe, and avoid, and not receive false 
 teachers, but of a public, ministex-ial, or con- 
 sistorial rejecting of an heretic, by cutting 
 him off, or casting him out of the church. 
 
 It is a canon, de Judiciis Ecclesiasticis, 
 saith Tossanus upon the place. This the 
 Greek will easily admit ; for Stephanus, in 
 Thesauro Linguae Gr., tells us, that ira- 
 pairioftai or trapairovf^at is used for re- 
 cuso, aversor, repudio ; and citeth out of 
 Plutarch, ■napaiTeisQm ti]v yvvaim : To re- 
 pudiate or put away a wife. As here 
 also we may read, " A man that is an here- 
 tic, after the first and second admonition, 
 repudiate or put away ;" though the word 
 reject doth also bear the same sense. And 
 as the Greek will admit it, so I have these 
 reasons to confirm it, which shall suflBce for 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 129 
 
 the present. (He that pleaseth may read 
 a large discourse concerning the censure of 
 heretics, in ClaurJius Espencceiis upon this 
 place). First, The Apostle's scope is not to 
 hold forth the common duties of all Chris- 
 tians, except ex consequenti ; but his pri- 
 mary intention all along in that ejiistle, is to 
 instruct Titus concerning the ordering and 
 governing of the church, chap. i. 5. Se- 
 condly, There must be a first and second 
 admonition before the heretic be thus re- 
 jected. This rejecting is not for his dan- 
 gerous and false doctrine, simply or by 
 itself considered, but for his contumacy 
 and incorrigibleness. But private Christians 
 ought to observe by the judgment of pri- 
 vate discretion, and ought, in prudence and 
 caution, to avoid aU familiar fellowship and 
 conversation with a man that is an heretic, 
 though he hath not yet gotten a first and 
 second admonition ; Matt. vii. 15, 16, " Be- 
 ware of false prophets, which come to you in 
 sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ra- 
 vening wolves. Ye shall know them by their 
 fi-uits." Thirdly, The admonition in the text 
 is a public authoritative or ministerial admo- 
 nition, " After that thou (Titus) hast once 
 and again admonished him," saith the Sy- 
 riac ; therefore the rejecting must also be 
 public and ministerial. Fourthly, This re- 
 jecting of an heretic is the last aet, when he 
 appears incorrigible.i We find before, chap. 
 
 i. 13, " Rebuke them sharply ;" and chap. 
 
 ii. 15, " Rebuke with all autliority." But 
 now when the Apostle saith ■Kdimirov, reject, 
 this is a higher degree, and this (much more) 
 must be '• with all authority," /uera ttcWtj!! 
 e-KiTayiis, wliich words compare with 1 Cor. 
 vii. 25, where the Apostle opposeth eniTayrp' 
 and yyui/iqr, commandment, and opinion or 
 judepncnt. From all which it will appear, 
 that this rejecting of an heretic by Titus, 
 and others joined with him in the govern- 
 ment of the church, was an authoritative 
 and juridical act, and the judgment there- 
 upon decisive, not consultative only. Fifth- 
 ly, Look by what authority elders were or- 
 
 1 Zach. Ursinus, torn. 3, p. 769, obj. 1.— Tantum 
 pracipit ministri ut eum fugiat ergo non excommu- 
 nicandus. Resp. — Negatur antecedens quia non vult 
 de una et eadcm re, vel persona, contraria judicia 
 esse aut pugnantes sententias. Ergo dum \ult ut 
 haereticum pro cverso habeat minister, non vult ut 
 reliqui in ecclesia liabeant eura prostantc. Obj. 2. — 
 Sed non jubet excommunicari. Resp. — Jubct, quia 
 vult ilium pro ererso et suopte judicio condemnato 
 haberi. Ergo non est ecclesiaj membrum, et alibi 
 docet judicium hoc debere fieri ordiuario et legi- 
 time consensu ecclesiae. 
 
 dained, by the same authority they were for 
 heresy (maintained with contumacy) reject- 
 ed ; for the Apostle committeth into the 
 same hands the ordaining of elders and the 
 rejecting of heretics, compare Tit. iii. 10, 
 with Tit. i. 5. Now, the ordination was by 
 the presbytery, 1 Tim. iv. 14 ; therefore so 
 was the rejection. 
 
 I conclude with the Dutch Annotations 
 upon Tit. iii. 10, Reject, i.e., have no com- 
 munion with him. Let him go without dis- 
 puting any further with him, and casting 
 the holy things before such dogs, Matt, vih 
 6. Let him not remain in the outward com- 
 nnmion of the church. 
 
 The sixth argument I draw from 1 Cor. 
 V. 12, 13, " Do not ye judge them that are 
 within ? Therefore put away from among 
 yourselves that wicked person ;" 2 Cor. ii! 
 6, " Sufficient to such a man is this punisli- 
 ment (or censure), which was inflicted of 
 many." Here is an ecclesiastical judging, 
 not by the judgment of private Christian 
 discretion only (for so they judged those 
 also that were without), but an authoritative 
 corrective judgment, by which a scandalous 
 brother, a rotten member, like to infect 
 other members, is put away from among 
 the people of God. And this judgment was 
 made, sentence given, and censure inflicted, 
 vTTv Twy irXelofuiy, by many; that is, not by 
 all, but by the elders of that church, saith 
 WaL-eus, tom. 1, p. 468 ; or you may read, 
 % the chicfest ; so Piscator and Heinsius 
 upon the place. The sense is all one as if 
 the Apostle had said, Itto twv fiyovuifwy, 
 "by them that have the rule over you." Now 
 what will you make of judging, putting 
 away, and censuring, being' acts neither of a 
 civil power, nor put forth upon any except 
 church members, if you make it not a cor- 
 rective church government ? 
 
 As for Mr Coleman's answer, that fm- 
 Ttfiia amounts to no more but an objurgation, 
 I have fully confuted that in Blcile Auilis, 
 p. 12 — 14, which I will not resume. But, 
 beside all I said there, I add somewhat 
 which I have since observed. Zonaras, in 
 Cone. Antioeh., can. 22, useth eTrtrtfidafini, 
 for to he punished or censured ; and in 
 Cone. Carthag., can. 49, he calls the man 
 who is under church censure, 6 e-irt^rjdeis. 
 Balsamon, in Cone. Carthag., can. 46, calls 
 him 6 iniTeTifirfnevos. Both of them do 
 often use kiririfiiuv lor church censure, as in 
 the place last cited, rrt KavoviKu eTnn'fita. 
 Yea, the Council of Antioeh, held under 
 
130 
 
 AAnON's BOD ELOSSOMIXG, OR THE 
 
 Constantius, useth Paul's word, erriTinta, to 
 express ecclesiastical censure, and an act of 
 corrective government. Can. 3, it Ls said of 
 him that receiveth a presbyter or deacon, 
 being justly deposed, Kaicelvoi' e7riri//tas rvy- 
 '^(^at'eiv iiiru i:oii ijf ffvfuhovws TrapriXunvTu tovs 
 ^eafiooi TOVS eKK\r]TianTti:ovi, tile quoque a 
 coinmuni si/nodo puniatur, ut qui ecclesi- 
 astlca statuta dissolvat. Can. 22, a bishop 
 is prohiljit to ordain within the charge of 
 another bishop, unless that other bishop con- 
 sent ; but if any presume to do such a thing, 
 let the ordination be void or null, Kni uvrdv 
 eTTirifiias vir'u rijs avvuiov Tvyyjliveiv, ct ipse 
 a synodo puniatur, and let himself be pu- 
 nished by the synod. "Onwi KoXa^ovrat, saith 
 Balsamon, how they shoidd be punished 
 who ordain without the bounds of their own 
 charge, and without consent of him whose 
 charge it is, may be learned from other ca- 
 nons : where you see he understands eniTi^iin 
 to agree in signification with nokaan, which 
 is punishment. The sixth General Council, 
 can. 60, useth the verb eiriTifiaadai for suf- 
 fering punishment, adding also by way of ex- 
 planation, (T».\r)paya)y/a(? koi Ttoi'on VTT<.t>a\- 
 \eiv, to be subject to afflictions and labours. 
 
 Seventhly, We have an argument from 
 1 Cor. xxiv. 32, 33, " And the spirits of 
 the prophets are subject to the prophets ; 
 for God is not the author of confusion, but 
 of peace, as in all churches of the saints." 
 The Apostle is giving such rides and direc- 
 tions concerning prophecying or interpreta- 
 tion of Scripture, that upon the one hand 
 there may be a Uberty to all the prophets to 
 prophecy, and that the church may be edified 
 by the gifts of all, and that for that end one 
 ought to give place to another ; upon the 
 other hand, that a boundless liberty and con- 
 fusion, and immunity from censure, may not 
 be introduced into the church. To this latter 
 branch belongs ver. 29, 32, 33, " Let the pro- 
 phets speak two or three, and let the other 
 judge." He will have two, or at most three 
 prophets to speak in one congi-egation, at 
 one diet or time of assembling; and those 
 prophets, saith he, must be examined, judged, 
 and censured by the other prophets lor the 
 spirits of the prophets are subject to the 
 prophets; that is, every particular prophet 
 distj'ibutively, is subject to all the propliets 
 
 1 JEgid. Ilnnnius in 1 Cor. xiv. 32, Panlus hanc 
 regulara prsescribit, nt spiritus prophetarum pro- 
 plietis snbjiciantur, id est, ut is qui propbetat, non 
 dubitet, sermonera et concioncm suam censurae judi- 
 cioque reliquorum concionatorum subjicere. 
 
 collectively, or to the college of prophets 
 (add, and of other spiritual persons entrusted 
 with the government of the church, together 
 with the prophets, as from ver. 37, and Gal. 
 vi. 1, is well obsei-ved by our countryman, 
 Mr Dickson, upon this place). Therefore 
 Waloeus, tom. 1, p. 468, doth rightly collect 
 from this place an authority of church go- 
 vernment. Protestant writers prove hence 
 the authority of general councils above the 
 Pope ; and that the Pope is a false prophet, 
 because he refuseth to be subject to the pro- 
 phets. Junius, in divers places, applyeth 
 this text to the authority of presbyteries and 
 synods. Gualther upon the place applyeth it 
 against the Pope, who will judge all men, 
 and be judged of no man; whereas (saith he) 
 the Apostle here will have no man, how emi- 
 nent soever, to be free from censure, when he 
 is censurable. So then we have in this text a 
 subjection, and an authority of judging and 
 censuring. And this judgment, which the 
 Apostle here speaks of, is neither the judg- 
 ment of the civil magistrate, nor the judg- 
 ment of discretion common to the whole 
 church, but it is the judgment or censure of 
 prophets, and that not schoolwise, according 
 to 3Ir Hussey's notion of schools ; that is, by 
 the prophets' disputing a man out of his 
 error, and no more ; no vote, no decision, 
 no result, except he that hath taught an 
 error do agree to the arguments of the other 
 prophets, and so all " end in a brotherly ac- 
 cord," and in the " unanimous consent of the 
 whole clergy" (for so doth he advise the 
 Parliament), so that he shall be no more 
 subject to all the prophets, than all the pro- 
 phets to him. Yea, in Mr Hussey's sense 
 the Pope will not refuse to be subject to a 
 council of prophets, and then Protestant 
 >vriters have been far out of their way, who 
 have disputed against the Pope from this 
 text, supposing it to hold forth a binding au- 
 thoritative judgment of the prophets, where- 
 unto any one prophet is bound to be subject, 
 the judgment of his private discretion being 
 always reserved to him, that he give not blind 
 obedience. 
 
 Eighthly, I argue from Rev. ii. 14 — 20. 
 The Lord Jesus reproveth the angel of the 
 church in Pergamos for suffering those that 
 tauo-ht the doctrine of Balaam, and the angel 
 of tTie church in Thyatira for suffering Jeze- 
 bel, which called herself a prophetess, to se- 
 duce his people. The fault here reproved 
 must be the neglect of church censures and 
 corrective government, which is so manifest, 
 
DIVINE OKDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 131 
 
 that they who plead most for liberty of con- 
 science from the magistrate, do acknowledge, 
 that the angels of these churches are re- 
 proved for not censuring ecclesiastically those 
 that did thus seduce God's people. Neither 
 is it said " Because thou art silent and dost 
 not reprove nor convince ;" but " Because 
 thou hast there them that hold the doctrine 
 of Balaam ;" that is, because thou dost not 
 cast them out of the chui-ch, that they may not 
 hurt others. So the English Annotations 
 upon the place, referring us also to 1 Cor. v. 
 The angel of the church was guilty in this, 
 that those who had so much scandalised the 
 church by their doctrine, were still in the 
 church, and not yet cast out of the church. 
 And who can imagine that the angels of 
 those churches whom Christ himself com- 
 mendeth for holding fast his name, and for 
 their love, service, faith, and patience, were 
 so void either of prudence, as not to observe, 
 or of zeal, as not to gainsay and confute by 
 sound doctrine, those foul and scandalous 
 errors ? Certainly their sin was like that of 
 Eli, they did not together with the doctrinal 
 and monitory part, make use of that juris- 
 diction and corrective power which God had 
 put in their hands. 
 
 Ninthly, We have another argument from 
 1 Thes. iii. 14, " And if any man obey not 
 our woi'd by this epistle, note that man, and 
 have no company with him, that he may be 
 ashamed." Here the Syriac helpeth us 
 much, " And if any man obey not these 
 words, which are contained in this epistle, 
 let that man be separated from you, neither 
 have company with him, that he may be 
 ashamed." Gualther upon the place saith, 
 the Apostle speaks de disciplina ecclesias- 
 tica, what discipline they ought to have in 
 the church, and the end thereof. So Calvin, 
 Beza, Piscator, Zanchius, Diodati, the Dutch 
 Annotations, Gomarus, also Mariana, Caje- 
 tan, Sahneron, Gorranus, Esthius, in lib. 4, 
 sent. dist. 19, sect. 7, and divers others fol- 
 lowing Augustine, Ambrose, Chrysostom, 
 Theophylact, Theodoret, Aquinas, all these 
 do apply it to ecclesiastical discipline and 
 censure. Some controversy there is whether 
 this text reach as far as excommunication 
 (which doth not belong to this present argu- 
 ment), but certainly it reacheth to a public 
 church censure, and is more than the with- 
 drawing of pi'ivate company and fellowship, 
 either because of personal or private injuries, 
 or because of profanencss : For, 1. Ihe of- 
 fence spoken of by the Apostle is not a mat- 
 
 ter of civil or personal injury, but of scandal; 
 he speaks of idle bodies that walk disorderly, 
 not working at all ; and if these must be 
 noted and separated, how much more, saith 
 Theophylact, those who commit crimes and 
 wickedness ? 2. Here is contumacy added 
 to the offence, " If any man obey not our 
 word by this epistle," intimating that upon 
 occasion of this epistle, those that walk dis- 
 orderly were to be solemnly admonished, 
 and required to work in quietness, and to 
 eat their own bread ; which if after admoni- 
 tion they would not do, then to note them. 
 Aquinas clears it by 1 Sam. xv. 13, " For 
 rebellion is as the sin of witchci-aft, and stub- 
 bornness is as iniquity and as idolatry." 
 '^.l.rij.itaivaQe, note that man: signate (as 
 Menochius rendereth it) rather than either 
 signijtcate or notate, set a mark upon him, 
 even as (saith Erasmus) we set a mark upon 
 pushing oxen, that we may avoid them ; which 
 agreeth well with the Syriac, " Let that man 
 be separated from among you." Iri/jeivu is 
 somewhat more than or/ftaivio; the latter us- 
 ually signifietli no more but signijico, indico, 
 signum do ; but the former is signum et no- 
 tam imprimo, obsigno, insignia. The Sep- 
 tuagints make crij/jeifiw to answer to the He- 
 brew HDJ fid ^?t^'J) levavit, clcvavit, sus- 
 tulit, so Psal. iv. 7, enripeiiliOr] i<f {j/jus to 
 &c., signatum est super nos ; that is, 
 " The light of thy countenance is lifted up 
 upon us exeniplarily, or bannerv/ise," so as 
 it may be remarkable to others. The learned 
 authors of the Dutch Annotations upon 2 
 Thes. iii. 14, tells us that " this Greek word 
 doth not properly signify to present or re- 
 present one, but to note one and mark him 
 out, putting some ignominy upon him, or 
 outing him from an honoui'able conoTe2:a- 
 tion, and marking or blotting out his name, 
 as one unworthy of that honour." By which 
 reason, as likewise by that which follows, 
 they confute those who construe the word 
 note with the word epistle, as if the Apostle 
 had said, Note or present me such a one by 
 a letter. 4. " Have no company with him." 
 He speaks it to the 'Ivtuktoi that they may 
 have no fellowship with the urcu-roi; he will 
 have those that walk orderly and by rule, to 
 have no company with those that walk dis- 
 oiderly. Now this concerneth the whole 
 church equally, and ■ it is spoken to the 
 church ; tor what reason can there be that 
 some in the church should have no company 
 with one because of his scandalous and dis- 
 orderly walking, but the same reason will 
 
132 
 
 aabon's rod blossomixg, or the 
 
 make the whole church to have no company 
 with him ? There may be divei-s civil respects 
 and considerations which may make it unfit 
 for some to keep familiar civil fellowship, 
 which respects and considerations do not con- 
 cern others. But the avoiding of the com- 
 pany of those w ho walk scandalously and dis- 
 orderly, and that because they walk in that 
 manner, and further add obstinacy to their 
 sin after public admonition, must needs be- 
 long to the whole church. 5. " Note that 
 man, and have no company with him." He 
 must fii'st be noted, before he be avoided ; 
 and both these are public ecclesiastical acts: 
 ibr it was far from the Apostle's meaning 
 that every man should be herein left to his 
 liberty; he that pleasetli to note him and 
 have no company with him, well and good ; 
 he that pleaseth not, shall be free. But un- 
 less there be an ecclesiastical judgment and 
 censure passed upon such a one, every one had 
 been left to his liberty. 6. " That he may 
 be ashamed." This, as it is the end of church 
 censures, so it will be attained in a very 
 small measure, and perhaps not at all, by 
 one private man's avoiding the company ol' 
 another, which will not make the offender 
 ashamed, abased, and humbled, but v.'hen he 
 is publicly noted, and when the church avoids 
 his company, that is it which most covers a 
 man with shame and confusion of face. 
 
 Tenthly, The Apostle mentioneth ecclesi- 
 astical I'ulers, Bom. xii. 8, 6 npo'iarafievos, 
 prcefectus, or qui prasest, "he that ruleth," 
 that is, the ruling elder. He is making an 
 enumeration of ecclesiastical offices and ad- 
 ministrations, and no other. So Calvin, 
 Beza, Piscator, Martyr, Tossanus, Diodati, 
 all upon the place, and Junius, Ecclcs. lib. 
 2, cap. 1, do conceive, and the whole con- 
 text and the allusion to the several offices 
 of several members in the same body proveth 
 i it ; and if all the rest be ecclesiastical, why 
 [ not the office of ruhng also, which is there 
 I mentioned ?^ For how should civil ruling come 
 j in among the ecclesiastical admmistrations, 
 I especially in those days when magistrates 
 
 ! 1 Musculus upon the place. — Habet ecclesia quae- 
 libot suos praefectos et gubernatores, &c. Isti sunt 
 seuiores, &c. Calvin, ibid. — Temporis illius condi- 
 tio uou de quibuslibet praefectis Paulum loqui osten- 
 dit ("quia tune nuUi erant pii raagistratus), sed de 
 sonioribus qui morura erant ccnsores. Tossanus, 
 il)id. — Id omne ad regimen et ordinem ecclesiae et 
 potestatem illam spiritualem de qua 2 Cor. x., re- 
 
 I fcrri debet : et tribuitur praesidura appellatio quos 
 irooiiTTit/jiivtus et T^oiirrara; vocat apostolus, 1 Tim. 
 V , omnibus in gcuere rainistris et etiam scnioribus 
 ecclesiae. 
 
 were not Christian? Musculus takes the 
 rulers here to be elders. Gualther and 
 Bullinger, though they make this text ap- 
 plicable to civil rulers, yet they do not ex- 
 clude church officers from ruling, but ex- 
 pressly mention church governors distinct 
 from civil governoi-s, to be there compre- 
 hended under o Trpdiarafjefos. Mr Hussey, 
 p. 19, answering this argument, can neither 
 deny what I said of Gualther and Bullin- 
 ger, nor yet doth affirm that civil i-ulers are 
 there meant, only his reply is, that my ar- 
 gument is drawn from the interpretation of 
 the place, but " the disputant may not in- 
 terpret (saith he), that is the answerer's 
 part." This calls to mind the anabaptistical 
 error, Concionatores non retinent verba 
 textus, sed inter pretantur ea, id quod 
 non ferendum. For which see Petrus Hin- 
 kelmannus, de Anabaptismo, disp. 9, cap. 
 1. My ai'gument was drawn from the text, 
 for the text rightly understood and inter- 
 preted is the text. But see now what strange 
 rules you may expect when Mr Hussey 
 comes to school disputes: the disputant may 
 not interpret, he must keep close to terms; 
 if the thing be not in terminis in the text, 
 it is no argument ; by which rule he ^411 at 
 one dash overthrow not only the disputa- 
 tions of Protestants against Papists, — of the 
 ancient fathers against the heretics of their 
 times, (for how is justification by faith only, 
 the number of the sacraments, the consub- 
 stantiality of the Son with the Father, and 
 many other most material points proved, 
 but by Scripture rightly opened, cleared, 
 and interpreted ?) but also the disputations 
 of the apostles, and of Jesus Christ himself, 
 against the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Jews ; 
 for there is nothing more ordinary wth 
 Christ and his apostles in their disputes for 
 the truth, than to interpret Scripture, and 
 give the sense of it. 
 
 Eleventhly, Kv^epiyjcrfts, the governments 
 mentioned 1 Cor. xii. 28, are not civil but 
 ecclesiastical governments, as I have largely 
 proved chap. 6, and shall not need here to 
 repeat it ; only observe what Bullinger saith 
 on the place :^ whereunto add the testimony 
 of Hugo Grotius (whom I suppose our op- 
 posites do not look upon an adversary) on 
 Luke xii. 14. He acknowledgeth that in 
 the church of Corinch, censura morum was 
 
 1 At Gubernatores Tocavit Ambrosius qui spiritu- 
 alibns retinaculis docuraento sunt bominibus, quales 
 sunt seuiores, presbyteri, et disciplinae Christianas 
 praefecti, morum censores. 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 133 
 
 penes presbt/tcrium, the censure of men's 
 manners was in the power of the presbytery. 
 This government the church of Corinth had, 
 a Christian magistrate they had not. 
 
 Twelfthly, If in the Jewish church there 
 was an ecclesiastical government, distinct 
 from the civil, then in the Christian church 
 also there ouoht to be an ecclesiastical go- 
 vernment distinct from the civil. But in the 
 Jewish church there was an ecclesiastical go- 
 vernment distinct for the civil. Therefore, 
 the proposition is proved thus : There can 
 be no reason given for an ecclesiastical go- 
 vernment among the Jews, distinct fi'om 
 the civil, which will not hold as well and 
 as strongly for an ecclesiastical govei'nment 
 among Christians, distinct from the civil ; 
 for we speak not now of the particulars (a 
 high-priest, or the like) which were typical 
 and proper to that time, but we speak of a 
 church government distinct fi'om the civil : 
 look upon it under that notion, and then see 
 if any reason can be given for it among them, 
 which Avill not conclude the like among us ; 
 yea much more among us, for if the priests 
 had a great influence and interest into the 
 civil government of the Jews, and yet there 
 was a church government distinct from the 
 civil ; how much more now when ministers 
 liave not, neitlier ought to have any share in 
 the civil government. The assumption hath 
 been abundantly proved before in the first 
 book. I will not repeat, but here note these 
 scriptui'es : Jer. v. 31, "The priests bear 
 rule." It was their office to bear rule ; it 
 was their sin to support themselves in their 
 ruling by the false prophets ; 1 Chi-on. ix. 
 11, " Azariah, the ruler of the house of 
 God ;" 2 Chron. xxxi. 13, " And Azariah 
 the I'uler of the house of God ;" Neh. xi. 
 11," Seraiah, the ruler of the house of God." 
 All the chief priests, or heads of the several 
 classes or orders of priests, were called prin- 
 cipes sanctuarii, saith Matthias Martinius, 
 Lexic. Philol. p. 3268. So 2 Chron. xxxv. 
 8, "Hilkiah, and Zechariah, and Jehiel, ru- 
 lers of the house^of God;" Acts xxiii. 5, 
 "Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that 
 he was the high-priest; for it is written. 
 Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy 
 people." Finally, Deut. xxxi. 28, where we 
 find schotcrim, that is, officers, rulers, or 
 such as were set over the charge; the LXX. 
 read ypa/ifiaToeiGdyuryels, — Jerome, doc- 
 tors : more plainly, 2 Kings xi. 18, " The 
 priest appointed oificers over the house of 
 the Lord." 
 
 Thirteenthly, A corrective ecclesiastical 
 government in the churches of Galatia 
 seemeth to be intimated, Gal. v. 12, " I 
 would they were even cut off {awoKoxj^orrai) 
 which trouble you;" which many understand 
 of excommunication. See Esthius, in lib. 
 4, sent. dist. 19, sect. 6, 7. Also Salmeron, 
 Menochius, Vasquez, Novarinus, and (of 
 ours) Beza, Diodati, Gomarus, all upon the 
 place, beside divers others. Musculus upon 
 the place doth parallel this cutting off with 
 delivering to Satan, 1 Cor. v. 5 ; 1 Tim. i. 
 20 ; and explaineth excindantur by abalie- 
 nentur, which best suiteth to excommunica- 
 tion. Certainly the woi'ds will easily admit 
 this sense, or rather invite to it; for cnroKOTrTt,) 
 is not properly pcrdo, clestruo, consumo, but 
 amputo, ahscinclo,also minuo; because that 
 from which anything is cut off, is dimin- 
 ished and made less; also repello, abjun- 
 go, separo, abstraho. And so u-KOKuiTTOfxai, 
 abscindor, exc'mdor, separor, abstrahor. 
 Hunters, and such as trace the vestigies, but 
 cannot find them, are said aTroKOT:?jvat, to 
 be cut off or abstracted. Hcsych, an-oico- 
 xTivai €TTt Tuv t)(i'ev6i'Ttoi' Xiyernt orav fxr) 
 evpoimv. So airoKOTTos, abscissus, is not he 
 who is cut off by death or destruction, but he 
 that hath his members cut off ; wliich seems 
 to have been the ground of Augustine's mis- 
 take of this text, conceiving the Apostle'swish 
 to be, that those men should be made eunuchs. 
 The Septuagints have sometimes TrepiTe/urn}, 
 circumcido, and KaTarj-rraw, demitto, as sy- 
 nonymous with aTroKOTTTio. Now from the 
 phrase, to the purpose of the text. That it 
 is meant of excommunication, I have these 
 reasons which confirm me : 1. Because, ver. 
 9, " A little leaven leaveneth the whole 
 lump," are the very same words which he 
 useth, 1 Cor. v. 6, where he presseth the 
 excommunication of the incestuous man ; as 
 there, one unclean person in life ; so here, 
 some few seducers (especially that one who 
 is singularly pointed at ver. 10), is meant 
 by the little leaven, which was to be purged 
 out, lest it should leaven the whole church. 
 2. Interpreters do generally agree, that the 
 Apostle here alludeth to circumcision, which 
 those Judaising teachers pressed upon the 
 Galatians as necessary ; wishing that they 
 who would so fain have the Galatians cir- 
 cumcised, were themselves cut off and cast 
 out of the church as rotten members, or as 
 gangrene out of the body. This allusion suit- 
 eth best with excommunication. The words 
 so understood will more fitly answer and 
 
134 
 
 AAROX'S ROD BLOSSOMING, OR THE 
 
 be parallel unto the cutting off in the law : 
 " that soul shall he cut off' from among his 
 people" (which I have before proved to be 
 meant of excommunication), as likewise to 
 that, 1 Cor. V. 14, " put away that wicked 
 person from among you." 4. Other inter- 
 
 \ pretations do not so well agree to the text. 
 
 ! This cutting off" could not be expected, nor 
 any hopes had of it by the hand of justice, 
 
 I or of the magistrate, for the magistrates of 
 
 ! that time were themselves troublers of the 
 Christians, so far they were from cutting off 
 those that troubled them. Those that un- 
 derstand the words of an imprecation of 
 eternal cutting off' from God, and being ac- 
 cursed from Christ, draw themselves into 
 thorny questions, wherein they can hardly 
 satisfy themselves or others. To understand 
 it of cutting off by death, doth not well an- 
 swer that allusion to circumcision, generally 
 observed (as hath been said) by interpreters; 
 which allusion doth intimate that it is not a 
 cutting off out of the world, but a cutting off 
 from the body of the church. I would that 
 they themselves were cut off, as the 'prcepii- 
 tium, from the church, that is, cut oft' d con- 
 sortia ecclesioB, saith Gualthcr. If it be said. 
 Why doth he not prescribe or command 
 to excommunicate them ? \Miy then doth 
 the Apostle only wish it ? To this we 
 may either answer as Beza: The apostle 
 Paul's authority at that time was extreme- 
 ly blasted and weakened in the churches 
 of Galatia ; or thus, the Apostle knew 
 that as the churches of Galatia then stood 
 affected (being betwitched with the Ju- 
 daising zealots, and, in a manner, moved 
 away to another gospel), both churches and 
 ministry were unwilling to excommunicate 
 those that he means of ; for which cause he 
 would not peremptorily command their ex- 
 communication, rcnitente ecclesia, but for- 
 beareth for that season, wishing for better 
 times. Some think that the Apostle speak- 
 eth positively of excomnmnication, ver. 10 : 
 " He shall bear his judgment ;" but others 
 are of opinion the Apostle there speaks of 
 the judgment of God, — which he certainly 
 and positively denounces, — and that, ver. 
 12, he addeth this as a distinct purpose, — 
 that he could wish them also cut olf from 
 the church by excommunication. 
 
 It will be an argument of more weight 
 against Erastus's interpretation of that text, 
 if we object against him thus : Tliis cutting 
 off which the Apostle wisheth to those that 
 trouble the Galatians, cannot be meant of a 
 
 divine or miraculous judgment upon them 
 such as he thinks to be meant, 1 Cor. v. 
 (which place he parallels with Gal. v. 12, as 
 to the punishment intended) ; for if so, why 
 doth not the Apostle adjudge them posi- 
 tively to be cut off' or destroyed, as he did 
 constitute and decree, by his apostohcal 
 power of miracles (so thinks Erastus), the 
 incestuous Corinthian to be delivered to 
 Satan ? To this Erastus replieth, lib. 3, 
 cap. 9, Because the apostles had not power 
 to work miracles quoties vellent, as often as 
 they would, nor to afflict or slay any, but 
 when it seemed good in God's eyes, sed 
 quando Deo visum fuit utile, necessarium, 
 et saltitare. But 1 ask, Was it right and 
 agreeable to the will of God that the Apos- 
 tle should wish their cutting off'? W^as it 
 not profitable and necessary tor the church's 
 good that they should be cut off ? Where 
 shall we find that the working of a miracle 
 was profitable and necessary for the church's 
 good, and that an apostle did desire and 
 thirst after the working of that miracle, and 
 yet had not power from God to work it ? 
 How had the false apostles insulted at this ? 
 Is this the great Apostle of the Gentiles, who 
 hath not power from God to work a mira- 
 cle, when himself professeth he would gladly 
 have it wrought ? 
 
 Fourteenthly, That passage, 2 Cor. x. 6, 
 is, l)y some, brought (not without very con- 
 siderable reasons) for the spiritual or eccle- 
 siastical censures. " And have in readiness," 
 saith the Apostle (or as the Syriac, ive arc 
 readij), " to revenge all disobedience, when 
 your obedience is fulfilled." Novarinus in 
 2 Cor. X. 6, ■pleriquc de excommunicandi 
 potcstate hcBC verba interpretantur. In 
 this sense was the text understood a thou- 
 sand years ago by Gregory, Epist., lib. 2, 
 cap. 37. The Dutch Annotations upon the 
 place, say that the Apostle's meaning is : 
 " Of declaring the venoeance of God aoainst 
 the obstmate, and of exercising the ecclesi- 
 astical bann or discipline against those who, 
 professing themselves members of the con- 
 gregation, do yet teach or lead unchristian 
 lives or doctrine." Others also (among 
 whom is Mr David Dickson) understand 
 church censures to be here meant. The 
 Apostle is, in that chapter, confiiting the 
 calumny of such as said of lum. His epistles 
 were weighty and powerful, and did speak 
 of great things, but when lie himself is bo- 
 dily present, he doth but little, he ajsumes 
 no great authority, he is weak and almost 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 135 
 
 contemptible. In answer hereunto lie tells 
 them, " The weapons of our warfare" (speak- 
 t ing not only in his own name, but in the 
 I name of all the ministers of Christ), though 
 j they be not carnal, yet " they arc mighty 
 I through God" to conquer and captivate souls 
 I to the obedience of Christ. And as for the 
 stubborn and unruly, we are armed with a 
 power of corrective government, which shall 
 be more fully executed in due time. There 
 is but one of two interpretations which can, 
 with any probability, seem to agree to this 
 text, namely, that it is meant either of the 
 extraordinary apostolical power by which 
 they did mii-aculously punisli some offenders 
 (as Peter did Ananias and Sapphira, and 
 as Paul did Elymas), or of a corrective 
 church government and excommunication. 
 The reasons which induce me to believe 
 that the Apostle meaneth here of church 
 censures, especially exconmiunication, and 
 not of that extraordinary miraculous power, 
 are these: 1. The reason added, "When 
 your obedience is fulfilled," cannot suit to 
 the power of working miracles (for it had 
 been the more seasonable to work such mira- 
 cles while the obedience of the Corinthians 
 was not yet fulfilled. Jliracles are not for 
 them that believe, but for them that believe 
 not, saith the same apostle), but it suits very 
 well to the power of church censures ; for 
 as Esthius and Novarinus explain the Apos- 
 tle's reason, it is in vain to excommunicate 
 all such as are worthy of excommunication, 
 when there is a general renitency and un- 
 willingness in the church, or to cut off a mem- 
 ber when the same evil hath infected cither 
 the whole or the greatest part of the body, 
 which Augustine also tells us in divers places. 
 And this (by the way) confirms the reason 
 which I gave, why the Apostle only wisheth 
 those that troubled the Galatians to be cut off, 
 but doth not command it, in regard of the 
 present unwillingness and disaffection of those 
 churches. 2. "VVe may have a great deal of 
 light to tins place, by comparing it with chap, 
 xi. 20, 21 and xiii. 2. Many among the 
 Corinthians had sinned foul and scandalous 
 sins, whereof they had not repented, and for 
 which they were not censured or cast out of 
 the church. The Apostle certifieth them, 
 that if he come, he will not spare. What ? 
 Was it his meaning to work a miracle upon 
 every fornicator, and each other scandalous 
 person in the church of Corinth ? No, 
 sure. Mark his words, " Now, I write to 
 them which heretofore have sinned, and to 
 
 all other, that if I come again, I will not 
 spare." Who can imagine his meaning to 
 be that he would work a miracle upon them 
 and all other? So here, when it is said, 
 " having in readiness to revenge all disohe- 
 dioncc," let it be remembered that the apos- 
 tolical power of miracles was never appoint- 
 ed to be executed against all disobedience. 
 Thirdly, That which the Apostle saith of 
 the spiritual weapons, "Mighty, through 
 God, to the pulling down of strongholds," 
 &c., was not proper or peculiar to the apos- 
 tles, but is rightly applied to all the minis- 
 ters of the gospel ; the more hardly can it 
 be supposed, that what is immediately add- 
 ed, and, as it were with one breath, uttered, 
 " And having in readiness to revenge all 
 disobedience," is meant of the extraordinary 
 apostolical power. Fourthly, Such as the 
 weapons are for conquering and subduing 
 souls to the obedience of Clu'ist, such is the 
 corrective or punitive part there spoken of. 
 But the weapons for conquering are merely 
 spiritual, not corporal; therefore the cor- 
 rective or punitive part there spoken of is 
 also spiritual, and so doth not concern the 
 the inflicting of corporal punishment, such as 
 Erastians understand by delivering to Satan. 
 
 Fifteenthly, An ecclesiastical ruling power 
 may be proved from 2 Cor. ii. 8, " I beseech 
 you that you would confirm your love to- 
 wards him." Here is a juridical power of 
 loosing, and consequently of binding ; for it 
 belongeth to the same power to bind and 
 loose, to excommunicate and to absolve. An 
 authoritative juridical loosing I prove from 
 the word KvpiZaai, which properly signifietli 
 the making a thing sure or firm by a deci- 
 sive suffrage, authoritative judgment, or ra- 
 tificatory and obligatory sentence passed upon 
 it. Hen. Stephanus, in Thcs. Lin<jucv Gr., 
 in the word Kvpow, saith that this text, 2 Cor. 
 ii. 8, is more rightly read, Ut ratam fac'ia- 
 tis in ilium cJia/ritatcm, than as the vulgar 
 Latin hath it, Ut conjirmctis. The verb 
 Kvpou), he expoundeth thus : Auctoritatan 
 do, auctoritatc mca comproho ; vel ratum 
 habeo, ratum facio. Pasor renders the 
 same verb saricio, ratum facio, and citeth 
 for that sense 2 Cor. ii. 6. So Erasmus like- 
 wise upon the jilace ; so Cartwright upon the 
 same place against the lihemists ; so Chem- 
 nitius, Exam. Cone. Trident., part 4 ; de 
 Indulg. p. 53. The force of this word, 
 KVf>uaai, was urged agamst the opinion of 
 Erastiis in a public dispute at Heidelberg, 
 the narration whereof is left by Ursinus in 
 
136 
 
 AAROX S ROD BLOSSOMIXG, OR THE 
 
 his Catechetical Explications. That the 
 word si^ifieth an authoritative act, and 
 supposeth a ruling power, may be thus fur- 
 ther confirmed : Fii-st, who did KVfywaai 
 but Kvpia eccXijo-za ? Xo doubt the Apos- 
 tle borroweth the word from the language 
 and customs of the heathen Greeks. Now 
 Kvi)ia eLKXrirria was a fixed or set lawful as- 
 sembly, which met with a judicial ruling 
 power, and ratified a thing by decisive sul- 
 trages, eKvpovv ra y^/rifjiu^aTa. See Suidas in 
 the word ewcXij-r/a ; Stephanus and Scapula 
 in the word KvfHOi ; Erasmus in 2 Cor. 
 ii. 8. Arias Montanus, in the word icvpia, 
 tells us, that to the Grecians icvpia was the 
 same thing which comitia was to the La- 
 tins ; therefore such assembhes had a judicial 
 power, and their suffrages were nvpiai bv^at, 
 firm and ratified sentences. Secondly, Ki;- 
 p6u cometh from nvpos, whence also cometh 
 Kvpius, Lord, KvpioTes, dominion, Kvpievu, to 
 rule, or to have a dominion. It was long 
 ago obsei^ved by Dionysius Areopagita, de 
 Divinis 2i^ominibus, cap. 12, where, after 
 he hath put into the description of icvptorrjs, 
 dominion, that it is dX7j9//s tat afie-a—Tw- 
 Tos fie^atoTijs, true and unshaken firm- 
 ness, he adds this reason, bib tai KvptoTrjs 
 nnpa ~6 Kvpos, Kal to Kvpior, tat to nvptevof, 
 which Balthasar Corderius rendereth thus : 
 Quapropter dominatio G-roece a Kvpos de- 
 rivato nomine, idem est quod firmatio, fir- 
 mamentum et firmum, ac firmans seit ra- 
 tificans. Pachimeres in his Paraphrase add- 
 eth, that Kvpi6Tt)s, as it signifieth klvvaa, 
 hath its name from Kvpns. So, then, it is 
 not eveiy confirming, certifying, or making 
 sure a thing, but when a thing is made sure 
 or firm, with fulness of authority and power. 
 The word Kvpos is therefore rightly rendered 
 by Stephanus, Scapula, and Pasor, not only 
 firmamcntum rata fides, but auctoritas 
 plena, full authority. Thirdly, The same 
 Apostle calls a ratified testament (which ra- 
 tification is by a legal and judicial authority) 
 biadi'iKr} K€Kvpwfiivr], Gal. iii. 15. Fourth- 
 Iv, The opposite verb aKvpooj signifieth auc- 
 toritate privo, omni imperio spolio irritu.m 
 reddo. As aKvpou noteth a privation of 
 authority, so Kupooi a givbg of authority or 
 ratification. 
 
 The sixteenth argument to prove a dis- 
 tinct church oovemment is this : The visible, 
 pohtical, ministerial church is the kingdom 
 of Jesus Christ, and he is the Head, King, 
 Judge, and Lawnver thereof, Isa. ix. 6 ; 
 Isa. xxii. 21— 22^^ Psal. ii. 6 ; Luke i. 33 ; 
 
 1 Cor. XV. 24 ; Eph. i. 21—23. Dare any 
 say that the Lord Jesus sliall not govern the 
 Church of England, and reign over the same? 
 Luke xix. 14, 27. 3Iust he not be received 
 both as Lord and as Christ? Acts ii. 36. Now 
 in the administration and government of a 
 kingdom these three things are necessarily 
 required, 1. Laws. 2. Officers, ministers, 
 judges, courts. 3. Censures and punishments 
 of offences. "\Miich three being universally 
 necessary in every kingdom, can least of all be 
 wanting in the church and kingdom of Jesus 
 Christ, who hath been more faithful in the 
 execution of his kingly office, and hath pro- 
 vided better for the government of his church, 
 than ever any king or state in this world did 
 for a civil government. I add, The laws, ju- 
 dicatories, and censures, in the kingdom of 
 Christ, must be spiritual and ecclesiastical, 
 because his kingdom is not of this world, 
 and his servants cannot take the sword, John 
 xviii. 36. Neither are the weapons of our 
 warfare carnal, but yet mighty through God, 
 and in readiness to revenge all disobedience, 
 
 2 Cor. X. 4 — 6. I do not see what can be 
 answered to this argument, except any do so 
 far deny the kingly office of Jesus Christ, 
 as to say that the church political or minis- 
 terial is not his kingdom, but only the church 
 mystical ; that is, as he ruleth over our souls 
 by his word and Spirit. To which purpose 
 Mr Hussey, in his Plea, p. 33, denieth that 
 the visible church can be called the body of 
 Christ, or he their Head; and tells us that 
 the government which Christ hath over the 
 faithlul is tnily spiritual, " And of this king- 
 dom (saith he) he hath indeed no officers 
 but his Spirit." I reply, 1. The Scripture is 
 plain that a visible, ministerial church is the 
 body of Christ, Rom. xii. 4, 5 ; 1 Cor. x. 
 16, 17 ; 1 Cor. xii. 12—28. If we admit of 
 a visible church and visible saints, we must 
 also admit of a visible body, and a visible 
 kingdom of Christ. 2. The political, minis- 
 terial church, were a body without a head. 
 The analogy of a pohtical head as well as of 
 a natural head, agi'eeth to Christ ; the roXi- 
 Tela as well as ei epyeta : and he hath an in- 
 fluence upon the church potestative as well 
 as effective. 3. He executeth his propheti- 
 cal office not only in teaching us mwardly by 
 his Spirit, but in teaching the church out- 
 wardly by his servants, the ministei-s of his 
 word. Now, if he be a Prophet to the visible 
 ministerial church, he is also a King to the 
 same ; for his offices cannot be divided ; his 
 scholars are his subjects, and whosoever re- 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 137 
 
 ceive him as a prophet, must also receive him 
 as a king. Yea, let us hear Mr Hnssey him- 
 self, p. 17 : " The kingdom of Christ is as 
 ample as his prophecy, &c., the doctrine 
 which they must teach commands, now com- 
 mands have always power and authority an- 
 nexed ;" so that either he must say that 
 Christ gives no conmiands to the visible 
 church, or confess that the visible church is 
 the visible kingdom of Christ. 4. That the 
 kingdom of Christ compreliendeth the go- 
 vernment and discipline of the church, I 
 prove from Matt. xvi. 28, " There be some 
 standing here which shall not taste of death 
 till they see the Son of man coming in his 
 kingdom." Where, first of all, note, Christ 
 hatJi not only an invisible, but a visible king- 
 dom. Next, this visible kingdom is not meant 
 of his coming again in glory to judge the 
 quick and the dead; for all that were then 
 hearing Christ have tasted of death, and yet 
 Christ is not come to judgment. Nor is it 
 meant of Christ's ti-ansfiguration, Matt. xvii. 
 for that was six days after. Matt. xvii. 1 ; and 
 if he meant that, he would not have said so 
 emphatically, "There be some here that shall 
 not taste of death," &c., intimating what 
 was to come to pass, not alter some days, 
 but after some yeai-s ; as if he had said. This 
 age or generation shall not pass away till 
 these things be fulfilled. Neither is that 
 transfiguration anywhere called the kingdom 
 of God, nor can it be properly so called. Nor, 
 lastly, is the kingdom of God in that place 
 meant only of the preaching of the gosp6l, for 
 so they had seen Christ coming in his king- 
 dom, Luke X. 9, 1 1. Nor is it meantof Christ's 
 working of miracles, for so likewise they had 
 seen his kingdom, Matt. xii. 28, Melius 
 ergo JBeda et Gregorius, quorum senten- 
 tiam nostri sequuntur, per illud regnum 
 Christi inteliigunt constitutionem ccclesi- 
 arum, post Christi ascensum, saith Tossa- 
 nus upon the place. Some of these to whom 
 he spoke at that time lived to see Christ 
 reign in the gatherincr and sovernmo- of 
 churches. Gregor. Horn. 32, in Evang. : Et 
 quia nonnulli ex discipulis usque adeo in 
 corpore victuri erant ut ecclesiam Dei con- 
 structam conspicercnt, et contra mundi 
 hujus glo7-iam erectam, consolatoria pro- 
 missione nunc dicitur: sunt quidam de 
 June stantibus qui non gustabutit mortem, 
 donee videant regnum- Dei. The very same 
 words hath Beda on Mark ix. 1, following 
 (it seems) Gregory. Grotius, on Matt. xvi. 
 23, doth likewise understand the promulga- 
 
 tion of the gospel, and the sceptre of Christ; 
 that is, his law going out of Zion, to be here 
 meant. I conclude : as the church is not 
 only a mystical but a political body, so Christ 
 is not only a mystical but a political head. 
 
 But peradventure some men will be bold 
 to give another answer, that the Lord Jesus 
 indeed reigneth over the church, even in a 
 political respect, but that the administration 
 and influence of this his kingly office, is in, 
 by, and thi'ough the magistrate, who is su- 
 preme judge, governor, and head of the 
 church, under Christ. To this I answer, 
 Hence it would follow, 1 . That Christ's king- 
 dom is " of this world, and cometh with ob- 
 servation," as the kingdoms of this world do, 
 which himself denieth, Luke xvii. 20 ; John 
 xviii. 36. Next, it would follow, that Christ 
 doth not reign nor exercise his kingly office 
 in the government of his church under pa- 
 gan, Turkish, or persecuting pi-inces, but 
 only under the Christian magisti'ate, which 
 no man dare say. 
 
 3. The civil magistrate is God's vicege- 
 rent, but not Christ's ; that is, the magis- 
 trate's power hath its rise, origination, insti- 
 tution, and deputation, not from that special 
 dominion which Cluist exerciseth over the 
 church as Mediator and Head thereof, but 
 from that universal lordship and sovereignty 
 which God exerciseth over all men by right 
 of creation ; in so much that there had been 
 (for order's sake) magistrates or superior 
 powers though man had not fallen, but con- 
 thiued in his innocency: and now by the law 
 of nature and nations, there are magistrates 
 among those who know nothing of Christ, 
 and among whom Christ reigneth not as 
 Mediator, though God reigneth over them 
 by the kingdom of power. 
 
 4. If the magistrate be supreme head and 
 governor of the church under Chi'ist, then 
 the ministers of the church are the magis- 
 trate's ministers as well as Christ's, and nmst 
 act in the magistrate's name, and as subordi- 
 nate to him ; and the magistrate sliall be 
 Christ's minister, and act in Christ's name. 
 
 The seventeenth argument I draw from 
 the institution of exconnnunication by Christ, 
 Matt, xviii. 17, " Tell it unto the church ; 
 but if he neglect to hear the chui'ch, let him 
 be unto thee as a heathen man and a publi- 
 can." In which text, 1. All is restricted to a 
 brother, or a church member, and agreeth 
 not to him who is no church member. 2. His 
 trespass is here looked upon under the no- 
 tion of scandal, and of that which is also like 
 
 S 
 
138 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 to destroy liis own soul. 3. The scope is not 
 civil, but spiritual — to gain or save his soul. 
 
 4. The proceedings are not without witnesses. 
 
 5. There is a public complaint made to the 
 church. 6. And that because he appears 
 impenitent, after admonitions given private- 
 ly, and before two or three. 7. The church 
 speaks and gives a judgment concerning him, 
 which he is bound to obey. 8. If he obey not, 
 then he is to be esteemed and held as a hea- 
 then man and a publican. 9. And that for 
 his not hearing the church, which is a public 
 scandal concerning the whole church. 10. 
 Being as an heathen and publican, he is 
 kept back from some ordinances. 11. He 
 is bound on earth by church officers, " What- 
 soever ye bind," &c. 12. He is also bound 
 in heaven. More of this place elsewhere. 
 These hints will now serve. The Erastians 
 deny that either the case, or the court, or 
 the censure there mentioned, is ecclesiastical 
 or spiritual. But I prove all the three. 
 
 1. Christ speaketh of the case of scan- 
 dals, not of personal or civil injuries, where- 
 of he would be no judge, Luke xii. 14, and 
 for which he would not permit Christians to 
 go to law before the Roman emperor or his 
 deputies, 1 Cor. vi. 1, 6, 7. But if their in- 
 terpretation stand, they must grant that 
 Christ giveth laws concerning civil injuries, 
 and that he permitteth one of his disciples 
 to accuse another for a civil injury before an 
 unbelieving judge. Beside, Christ saith not, 
 If he shall hear thee, thou hast from him a 
 voluntary reparation of the wrong, or satis- 
 faction for it (which is the end why we deal 
 with one who hath done us a civil injury) ; 
 but he saith, " If he shall hear thee, thou 
 hast gained thy brother;" intimating that 
 the offending brother is told and admonished 
 of his fault, only for a spiritual end, for the 
 good of his soul, and for gaining him to re- 
 pentance. AU which proveth that our Sa- 
 viour meaneth not there of private or civil 
 injuries, as the Erastians suppose, but of 
 scandals, of which also he hath spoken much 
 before, as appeareth by the preceding part 
 of that chapter. A civil injury done by one 
 brother to another is a scandal, but every 
 scandal is not a civil injury. The Jews (to 
 whose custom Christ doth here allude) did 
 excommunicate for divers scandals which 
 were not civil injuries. And Paul saith of 
 a scandal which was not a civil injury, 
 " When ye sin so agauist the brethren," &c. 
 1 Cor. viii. 12. 
 
 2. The court is ecclesiastical, not civil ; for 
 
 when it is said, " Tell it unto the church," 
 must we not expound scripture by scripture, 
 and not understand the word church to be 
 meant of a civil court? for though the word 
 ecKXtjffj'a Ls used, Acts xix. recitative, of a 
 heathenish civil assembly, called by that 
 name among those heathens, yet the penmen 
 of the Holy Ghost have not made choice 
 of it in any place of the New Testament, to 
 express a civil court either of Jews or Chris- 
 tians. So that we cannot suppose that the 
 Holy Ghost, speaking so as men may under- 
 stand him, would have put the word e<:»:Xij<7ia 
 in this place to signify such a thing as no 
 whei'e else in the New Testament it is found 
 to signify. Nay, this very place expound- 
 eth itself, for Christ directeth his speech to 
 the apostles, and in them to their successors 
 in the government of the church : " ^Vhat- 
 soever ye shall bind," &c., and " if two of 
 you shall agree," &c. So that the church 
 which here bindeth or judgeth, is an as- 
 sembly of the apostles, ministers, or elders 
 of the church. » 
 
 3. The censure is spiritual, as appeareth 
 by these words, " Let him be unto thee as an 
 heathen man and a publican which relate to 
 the excommunication from the church of the 
 Jews, and comprehendeth not only an ex- 
 clusion from private fellowship and company 
 (which was the condition of the publicans, 
 with whom the Jews would not eat), but also 
 an exclusion from the temple, saci-ifices, and 
 communion in the holy things, which was 
 the condition of heathens, yea, of profane 
 pubhcans too ; of which elsewhere. And fur- 
 ther it appeareth by these words, " What- 
 soever ye shall bind on earth," &c. The 
 apostles had no power to inflict any civil 
 punishment, but they had power to bind 
 the soul, and to retain the sin, John xx. 23. 
 And this power of binding is not in all the 
 Scripture ascribed to the civil magistrate. 
 
 The eighteenth argument shall be drawn 
 from the example of excommunication, 1 
 Cor. V. 4, 5. The Apostle writeth to the 
 church of Corinth to deliver to Satan (for 
 the delivery to Satan was an act of the 
 church of Corinth, as the Syriac explaineth 
 it) the incestuous man, which is called a 
 censure " inflicted by many," 2 Cor. ii. 6 ; 
 that is, by the whole presbytery of the 
 church of Corinth. And whereas some un- 
 derstand by delivering to Satan, the putting 
 forth of the extraordinary apostolical power 
 to the working of a mii'acle upon the offen- 
 der, by giving him over into the hands of Sa- 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 139 
 
 tan, so as to be bodily tormented by him, or 
 to be killed or destroyed (as Erastus takes 
 it), I answer, 1. It cannot be meant of death, 
 lor it is said that Ilymeneus and Alexander 
 were delivered to Satan, and to what end ? 
 That they might learn not to blaspheme, 1 
 Tim. i. 20, which had been too late to learn 
 after death. 2. Nor is it at all meant of any 
 miraculous tormenting of the body by the 
 devil ; for beside that it is not likely this 
 miracle could have been wrought, Paul him- 
 self not being present to work it, it is utterly 
 incredible that the Apostle would have so 
 sharply rebuked the church of Corinth, for 
 that a miracle was not wrought upon the 
 incestuous man (it not being in their power 
 to do), or that he would seek the consent of 
 that church to the working of a miracle, and 
 as a joint act proceeding from him and the 
 church by common council and deliberation, 
 for where read we of any miracle wrought 
 that way ? Therefore, it is much more 
 safe to understand by delivering to Satan 
 (as Gualtlier himself doth), excomnmnica- 
 tion, which is a shutting out of a cliurch 
 member from the churcli, whereby Satan 
 Cometh to get dominion and power over him, 
 for he is the god of this world, who reigneth 
 at his pleasure in and over those who are 
 not the church and people of God, 2 Cor. 
 iv. 4 ; Eph. ii. 2. And if any shall be so far 
 unsatisfied as not to admit this sense which 
 we put upon that phrase of delivering to Sa- 
 tan, yet your argument for excommunica- 
 tion drawn from 1 Cor. v., standeth strong, 
 the weight of it not being laid upon tradere 
 SatancB only, but upon ver. 6, 7, H, 12, 
 compared with 2 Cor. ii. 6, which undenia- 
 bly prove excommunication from church fel- 
 lowship. 
 
 The nineteenth argument shall be drawn 
 from Acts xx. 28, " Take heed therefore 
 unto yourselves, and to all the flock over 
 which the Holy Ghost hath made you over- 
 seers," eTTOkOTTous, compared with 1 Peter v. 
 2, 3, " Feed the flock of God which is among 
 you, taking the oversight thereof," inioKo- 
 TTovrres. Which texts, as they hold forth a bi- 
 shop and a presbyter to be one and the same, 
 jure divino, so they hold forth the ruling 
 power of presbyters or elders. 
 
 First, Because otherwise the simile (so 
 much made use of in these scriptures) of 
 overseeing the flock (mentioned and joined 
 together with the feeding thereof), will fall 
 short in a main and most material point; 
 for the overseers of flocks do not only make 
 
 them to lie down in green pastures, and lead 
 them beside the still waters, but they have 
 also rods and staves for ruling the flocks, 
 and for correcting and reducing the wander- 
 ing sheep, which will not be brought home 
 by the voice of the shepherd, Psal. xxiii. 2, 
 4. The pastoral rod there mentioned by 
 David is corrective ; as Clemens Alexandri- 
 nus, Pcedacf., lib. 1, cap. 7, who doth also 
 parallel it with that text, 1 Cor. iv., " Shall 
 I come unto you with a rod ?" 
 
 Secondly, Paul requireth the elders of the 
 church of Ephesus to take heed unto, and to 
 oversee the whole flock, which did consist of 
 more than did, or could, then meet together 
 ordinarily in one place for the worship of 
 God, as appeareth by the church in the 
 house of Aquila and Priscilla (which M^as 
 one, but not the only one church assembly 
 at Ephesus), by the great and wonderful 
 increase of the gospel at Ephesus, and such 
 other arguments which I do but point at, 
 the lull debate of them not being my 
 present work. Peter also, writing to the 
 churches of the strangers in several provinces, 
 calls them the Jlock, not Jlocks, and com- 
 mends unto the elders the feeding and 
 oversight of that flock. Now, what is it 
 that can denominate many particular visible 
 churches or congregations to be one visible 
 ministerial flock or church, unless it be their 
 union and association under one ecclesiasti- 
 cal government ? No doubt they had the 
 adniinisti'ation of the word and sacraments 
 partitive or severally ; nor do I deny but 
 they had a partitive several government ; 
 but there was also an union or association of 
 them under one common government, which 
 did denominate them to be one visible eccle- 
 siastical flock. 
 
 Thirdly, The very name given to the 
 elders of the church, eniaKonoi, is a name of 
 authority, rule, and government, especially 
 in the Christian and ecclesiastical use of the 
 word. H. Stephanus, in Thes. Ling. Gr., 
 in the word ewtaKowos, saith that the elders 
 of the church were called e-KtaKOTroi, scu kv- 
 lara-ai Kai eiroiTTai tov Troi/ut'lov, to wit, 
 saith he, those qui verbo et gubemationi 
 prceerant. Where he tells us, also, that the 
 magisti-ate or prsetor, who was sent with a 
 juridical power into those towns which were 
 under the power of the Athenians, was called 
 by the name of iwiiTKmros. The Septua- 
 gints use the word, Nehem. xi. 9, " Joel, 
 the son of Zichri, was their overseer [enia- 
 KvTTOi eiT avTovs) ; and Judah, the son of 
 
140 AAROX'S ROD BLOSSOMING, OR THE 
 
 Zenuah, was second over the city." He 
 that had but the second place was a ruler, 
 how much more he that was in the first 
 place ? Lo, here, the head and chief ruler 
 of the Benjamites called by the name of 
 I eiri uKoiroi. So Num. xxxi. 14 ; 2 Kings 
 I xi. 15, the chief officers of the host, the 
 j captains over thousands, and captains over 
 hundreds, are called by the Septuagints kria- 
 1 Koiroi T~iibvvafi€iijs. The same Hebrew words 
 which they render by eTrinKoiros, they I'ender 
 in other places by eTtorarjjs, prcefectus, itpoo- 
 I TUTTfi, aiitistes,ToTrap^7]i,pra;positit.i,apy(^u>v, 
 princeps. Yea, the name of God they 
 render by this word. Job xx. 29, " This is 
 the portion of a wicked man from God, and 
 the heritage appointed unto him by God." 
 Ylapa Tov eTriakOTov, saith the Greek, 6«/ the 
 overseer (even as the same name of bishop 
 is given to Christ, 1 Pet. ii. 25). Conradus 
 Kircherus, in the word pakad, tells us also 
 that, Gen. xliv. 34, " Let Pharaoh do this, 
 and let him appoint officers over the land," 
 where the LXX. read To-apyni, the Greek 
 Scholia, which he useth to cite, hath eiria- 
 
 KOVOVS. 
 
 Fourtlily, Peter addeth, " not as being 
 lords," or over-mling, icaruKvpievdyTes, that 
 we might understand he condenmeth the 
 ruling power of the lord bishop, not of the 
 Lord's bishop ; of cpAscopus dominus, not 
 of episcojms Domini. Just as, Ezek. xxxiv. 
 4, tlie shepherds of Israel are reproved for 
 
 j lording it over the flock, " With force and 
 with cruelty have ye ruled them." It Avas 
 their duty to rule them, but it was their sin 
 to rule them with force and with cruelty. 
 
 The twentieth argimient I take from 1 
 Cor. iv. 1, 2, "Let a man so account of us, 
 as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards 
 of the mysteries of God. Moreover, it is 
 required in stewards, that a man be found 
 
 I faithful." And Tit. i. 7, a bishop is " the 
 steward of God," ^eov olKotofxos. This 
 name doth exclude lordship and dominion, 
 but withal it noteth a ministerial rule or 
 government, as in the proper, so in the me- 
 taphorical signification : olaoionos is a name 
 divers times given by Aristotle, in his Poli- 
 tia, to the civil magistrate. The Septua- 
 gints have olKovofioi as synonymous with 
 nrpaT-qyoi, aarpatrai, TOnapyni : Esth. viii. 
 9, " To the lieutenants and the deputies." 
 
 Ihe LXX. thus, lOIS OiKOVOfJOlS Kai TOIS 
 
 j (tpxnvai. The Holy Ghost, by the same 
 j word, expresseth government. Gal. iv. 2, 
 I vno eTTiTporrovs e<TTi Kni oiKOi ofJiOVS, "is under 
 
 tutors and governors." Rom. xvi. 23, Eras- 
 tus is called o oiMvofios rijs jroXews. Theo- 
 phylact thinks he was governor of the city ; 
 Erasmus, that he was prcefectus cerario, 
 town-treasurer. Tlie English translators call 
 him " the chamberlain of the city." Yea, 
 setting aside the metaphorical signification 
 of this name, often used i'or a name of rule, 
 the very literal and native signification of 
 the word will serve to strengthen tliis argu- 
 ment in hand. Ministers are o'lKovofxoi, that 
 is, house-stewards, or over the liouse. But 
 what house ? Aristotle, at the begiiming of 
 the second book of his Q^coHomics, distin- 
 guisheth a fourfold economy, ftuaiKiKi), aa- 
 rpnitiKii, TToXiTiKt), ibtti)Tii:)i : kingly, noble, 
 civil, private. The ministers of Christ are 
 oiKofofioi of the first sort. They are stewards 
 in the house of the Great King. He that is 
 steward in a king's house, must needs have 
 a ruling power in the house ; 1 Kings iv. 
 6, Abishar was over Solomon's household; 
 1 Kings xviii. 3, " And Ahab called Obadiah. 
 which was the governor of his house ;" 2 
 Kings xviii. 18, " Eliakim, which was over 
 the household;" in all which places the LXX. 
 have olKot ofios. I hold, therefore, with Peter 
 Martyr upon 1 Cor. iv. 1, that ministers 
 being, by their calling and office, stewards 
 in the house of God, ought to cast out pro- 
 fane impure persons out of the house, and 
 receive them again upon their repentance. ^ 
 And why are they called " stewards of the 
 mysteries of God ?" Surely the sacraments 
 are part (and a chief part) of those myste- 
 ries, and Christ hath made his ministers 
 (not the civil magistrates) stewards of these 
 mysteries, to receive unto, or to exclude from 
 the sacraments ; and as they may not keep 
 back any of the children of the house, so 
 they may not suffer dogs to eat at the cliil- 
 dren's table. 
 
 The one-and-twentieth argument, which 
 shall claudere agmen, shall be drawn from 
 Acts XV., where we find an ecclesiastical 
 assembly or synod of the apostles, elders, 
 and other choice brethren, such as Judas 
 and Silas. These did so assemble them- 
 selves, and proceed with authority in a busi- 
 ness highly concerning the truth of the gos- 
 pel. Christian hberty, the healing of scandal, 
 and the preserving of peace in the church, 
 as that it is manifest they had and executed 
 a power of government distinct from magis- 
 
 1 Curabit demque (oeconomus) nt impuros et per- 
 dite viventis a familia excludat, eosdemque si poeni- 
 teutiam egerint, rursus in earn recipiat. 
 
DIVIXE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 141 
 
 tracy. Mr Selden, de J ure Natur. et Gent., 
 lib. 7, cap. 12, hath sufficiently expressed 
 that which is the ground of my present argu- 
 ment, and I rather choose to speak it in his 
 words than in my own : " Now, a dispute 
 being had of this thing at Antioch, Paul and 
 Barnabas (who having used many arguments 
 against that Pharisaical opinion, yet could 
 not end the controversy) are sent to Jerusa- 
 lem, that there the tiling might be deter- 
 mined by the apostles and elders. It is 
 agitated in a synod. In it it is determined 
 by the apostles and elders, that the Gentiles 
 who had given their names to Christ, are 
 not indeed bound by the law of Moses or of 
 the Hebrews, as it is Mosaical and pre- 
 scribed to the church or commonwealth of 
 the Jews, but that they ought to enjoy their 
 Christian liberty." And so much for that 
 which the synod loosed them from. But 
 what doth the synod bind upon them ? The 
 synod doth also impose cei-tain things, name- 
 ly, abstinence from fornication, and from 
 tilings offered to idols, and from blood, and 
 things strangled, " ut quvE necessario ob- 
 
 SKRVAXDA, EX AUTHORITATE SYNODI, Saith Mr 
 
 Selden, beinj such as were necessarily to 
 be observed, in regard of the authority 
 of the synod, by those who, giving their 
 names to the Christian religion, should live 
 with the Jews (they also giving their names 
 to the Christian religion), and so enter into 
 religious fellowship with them." I shall add 
 two other testimonies of Mr Prynne's. The 
 first I shall take out of his Twelve Consider- 
 able Serious Questions co7icerning Church 
 Government, p. 5, where, arguing against 
 the independency of particular congregations, 
 he asks, " Whether the synodal assembly of 
 the apostles, elders, and bretlu'en at Je- 
 rusalem, Acts XV., who made and sent 
 binding decrees to the churches of the 
 G-entiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, 
 and other churches," be not an apparent 
 subversion of Independency ? So that, by 
 Mr Prynne's confession, the Scripture holds 
 forth other governors or rulers in the church 
 beside magistrates, and the authority of these 
 other governors to be such, as to make and 
 send to the churches binding decrees in 
 things and causes ecclesiastical. Another 
 testimony I take from his Independency 
 Examined, p. 10, 11, where he argueth 
 against the Independents, and proveth from 
 Acts XV., the authority of ordinary ecclesi- 
 astical synods ; bringing also six arguments 
 to prove that the apostles did not there act 
 
 in their extraordinary apostolical capacity, 
 or as acted by a spirit of infallibility, but in 
 their ordinary capacity. Thereafter he con- 
 cludeth thus : " Therefore their assembling 
 in this council, not in their extraordinary 
 capacity as apostles only, but as elders, min- 
 isters, and the eldei-s', brethi'en's, sitting to- 
 gether in council with them upon this contro- 
 versy and occasion, is an undeniable Scrip- 
 ture authority for the lawfulness, use of par- 
 liaments, councils, synods, under the gospel, 
 upon all like necessary occasions ; and for 
 their power to determine controversies of 
 religion, to make canons in things necessary 
 for the churches peace and government." 
 
 Lo, here Mr Prynne gives us an undenia- 
 ble Scripture authority for a diatactic govern- 
 ing power in the church, distinct from ma- 
 gistracy. How he will draw from Acts xv. 
 the use of parliaments or their authority, I 
 do not imagine ; it is enough for my argu- 
 ment that he acknowledgeth this scripture 
 to warrant synods of ministers and elders, 
 and the power of these synods to be not only 
 consultive, but conclusive, decisive, and ob- 
 ligatory ; for this (I suppose) he means by 
 the power to determine controversies, and 
 to make canons for the church's peace and 
 oovernment ; else he had concluded nothincr 
 against the Independents, who yield a con- 
 sultive synodical power. 
 
 If any shall yet desire to be more par- 
 ticularly satisfied concerning the strength 
 of my present argument from Acts xv., I 
 will maie it out f rom these pai'ticulai's fol- 
 lowing. 
 
 First, Here is a power and authority to 
 assemble synodically, and it is an intrinsical 
 power within the church itself, not adventi- 
 tious or extrinsical from the magistrate. 
 Whence the soundest Protestant wi-iters 
 prove, that though the (iivil magistrate hath 
 a power of convocating synods, and he ought 
 to do it when the church's necessity or 
 danger doth call for such a remedy ; yet 
 this power of his is positive, not privative, 
 cumulative, not destructive. And that " if 
 the magistrate be an enemy and persecutor 
 of the church and of true religion, or cease 
 to do his duty, that is, to wit, in a manifest 
 danger of the church, the church notwith- 
 standing ought not to be wanting to herself, 
 but ought to use the right and authority of 
 convocation, which first and foremost re- 
 maineth with the rulers of the church ; as 
 may be seen, Acts xv." So say the Pro- 
 i lessors of Leyden, in Synops. piurior. Theol. 
 
142 aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 disp. 49, thes. 24, beside divers others whom 
 I might here cite, hut tliat is not now my 
 business. 
 
 Secondly, Beside the puUic debate and 
 deliljeration, the synod did also choose and 
 send certain delegates or commissioners to 
 Antioch, and wrote by them a synodical 
 epistle to the churches in Antiooh, Syria, 
 I and Cilicia. I believe such synodical acts of 
 I sending commissioners and letters to the 
 churches in other nations or provinces, 
 should now be looked upon as acts of go- 
 I vernment, if done ivithout the leave of the 
 magistrate, as then Judas and Silas were 
 sent. 
 
 Thirdly, That synod did exercise and 
 make use of a threefold ecclesiastical power, 
 for remedy of a threefold ecclesiastical dis- 
 ease. 1. They purge out the leaven of false 
 doctrine and heresy, by deciding and deter- 
 mining that great controversy, whether cir- 
 cumcision and the keeping of the ceremonial 
 law of Closes were necessary to salvation : 
 they hold forth and declare to the churches 
 the negative ; and this they do by the dog- 
 matic power. 2. There was a great scandal 
 taken by the believing Jews (tlien not fully 
 instructed and persuaded concerning the ab- 
 rogation of the ceremonial law by the death 
 of Christ), who were so far stumbled and of- 
 fended at the behoving Gentiles, for their 
 eating of things sacrificed to idols, and of 
 blood, and things strangled, that they could 
 not freely nor contentedly converse, com- 
 pany, and eat together with the Gentiles. 
 For remedy whereof, the synod doth require 
 (in regard of the law of love, edification, 
 peace, and avoiding of scandal) that the 
 Gentiles should abstain from those things, 
 as also from fornication (which for what 
 cause it is added, I do not now dispute) ; and 
 this they do by the diatactic power. 3. 
 There was a aritati, a schism, dissention, 
 and rent made in the church by the Judais- 
 ing teachers, ver. 2, who clothed themselves 
 with a pretended authority and warrant 
 from the apostles and elders at Jerusalem, 
 and thereupon got the more following, and 
 drew away the more disciples after tliem. 
 For remedy hereof, the synod stigraatiseth 
 and brandeth those men, by declaring them 
 to be liars, troublers of the church, and s"ub- 
 verters of souls, ver. 24 ; and this they do 
 by the critic power, or authority of censures. 
 
 Fourthly, The decree and canon of the 
 synod, which is made, imposed, emitted and 
 ! promulgate, is authoritative, decisive, and 
 
 binding; Acts xv. 28, "For it seemeth good 
 to the Holy Ghost, and (here the Arabic 
 repeateth it seemeth good) to us, to lay upon 
 you no greater burden than these necessary 
 things ; that ye abstain, &c." If it be said 
 that this was but a doctrinal advice, " It 
 seemed good," &c., I answer, Josephus 
 Antiq. Jud. lib. 4, cap. 8, .speaking of the 
 decree of the supreme sanhedrim (which he 
 that disobeyed was to be put to death), calls 
 it TO hoKovv, that which seemeth good : so 
 likewise in this place, the word ebolf, is 
 not meant of an opinion only, for an opinion 
 (as schoolmen define it) is properly such a 
 judgment of or assent to a thing, as is evi- 
 dent and firm, but not certain ; so that opin- 
 ion cannot be ascribed to the Holy Ghost ; 
 it is therefore here a word of authority and 
 decree, as ^Ir Leigh, in his Critica Sacra 
 at the word iokeu>, noteth out of Chemni- 
 tius : in which sense the Grecians frequently 
 use it. So Stephanus, out of Demosthenes, 
 behoyBai rF/ /iouXi/, it is decreed hy the 
 senate : and Budseus out of Plato, beboKrat 
 fxoi Kardaveiv, it is ceHainhj appointed to 
 die. Observe also the word eTriTldeadat, 
 and /3dpos, impjosing and burden. They 
 do impose some burden, only they are care- 
 ful to impose no burden except in necessary 
 things : Acts xvi. 4, " And as they went 
 tlirough the cities they deUvered them 
 ra boyfxara ra KeKpi^eva, the decrees that 
 were ordained of the apostles and elders 
 which were at Jerusalem." And here I 
 cannot pass the observation of that gentle- 
 man who hath taken so good pains in the 
 original tongues, Mr Leigh, in his Critica 
 Sacra of the New Testament, on the word 
 boyfia : " ^Mieresoever boyfia is found in 
 the New Testament, it is put for decrees or 
 laws, as Luke ii. 1 ; Acts xvii. 7, it is put 
 for the decrees of Casar ; and Eph. ii. 15 ; 
 Col. ii. 14, for the ceremonial laws of Closes, 
 and so frequently by the LXX. in the Old 
 Testament for decrees; as Dan. ii. 13; iii. 
 10, 29 ; iv. 6 ; for laws, Dan. vi. 8." CcBte- 
 rum, saith Erasmus upon Acts xvi. 4, dog- 
 mata Grceca vox est, signijicans et ipsa 
 decreta sive placita, nan doctrinam ut 
 vulgus existimat. And whereas some have 
 objected, that boyfinTi^ui and boyfjaTi^Ofjini 
 are used only in reference to a doctrinal 
 power, as Col. ii. 20, boyfiarl^eadai, I an- 
 swer, Budseus expounds boy^arii^io to be 
 dccerno, and Col. ii. 20, bny^aTii^eTBai, the 
 Syriac makes it judicamini ; Erasmus and 
 Bullinger, decretis tenemi7ii ; Stephanus, 
 
DIVIXE OUDIXANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 143 
 
 Beza, and Gualther, ritihus oneramini; the 
 English translatoi-s, " Are ye subject to or- 
 dinances ?" This subjection was not only to 
 doctrines, but to commandments, ver. 22, 
 " after the connnandments and doctrines of 
 men ;" and these commandments (though 
 in deed and truth the commandments of men 
 only at that time) were imposed as the com- 
 mandments of God, and as ceremonial laws 
 by Moses. The vulgar Latin hath decerni- 
 tis, and Tertullian readeth Scntentiam fer- 
 tis; both of them (it seenieth) having read 
 boyfiaTii^ere : however they understand the 
 power related unto to be more than doctrinal. 
 
 I conclude, that huy^ara, Acts xvi. 4, 
 must be more than doctrinal declarations, 
 and that it is meant of binding decrees (that 
 I may use Mr Prynne's phrase), especially 
 when joined with KOkpij^ivn vtto twv utto- 
 cTToXoy Kai tSiv npea^vrepwy, there was a 
 judgment passed and given upon the making 
 and sending of those toy/xara, not the judg- 
 ment of one or two, but the judgment of 
 the apostles and elders synodically assem- 
 bled. So Acts xxi. 25, James and the el- 
 ders, speaking of that synodical judgTiient, 
 say, " We have written and concluded that 
 they observe no such thing," &c. 
 
 These ibur considerations being laid to- 
 gether, concerning an intrinsical ecclesias- 
 tical power of assembling together synodi- 
 cally ; of choosing and sending commission- 
 ers with a synodical epistle to the churches 
 in other parts ; of providmg effectual and 
 necessary remedies both for heresies, scan- 
 dals and schisms, arising in the church ; of 
 making and imposing binding decrees on the 
 churches, will infallibly prove from Scrip- 
 ture authority another government in the 
 church beside magistracy. 
 
 I might here add other arguments, but so 
 much for this time. 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 SOME OBJECTIONS AGAINST ECCLESIASTICAL 
 GOVERNMENT AND DISCIPLINE ANSWERED. 
 
 Obj. 1. Mr Hussey, in his epistle to my- 
 self, objecteth thus, — " ^Yhat will your cen- 
 sure do? it will shame a few whores and 
 knaves ; a great matter to shame them the 
 law of nature shameth." 
 
 All this in tcrminis might have been as 
 justly objected against the Apostle Paul, 
 
 when he wrote to the Corinthians to put 
 away from among themselves the incestuous 
 man. What will your censure do, Paul ? a 
 great matter to shame one whom the law of 
 nature shameth. The Lord save me I'rom 
 that religion which will not shame whores 
 and thieves, and all other whom the law of 
 nature shameth, and that in a church way 
 (as well as civilly) if any such member fall 
 into such impiety : yet this is not all. All 
 orthodox writers that write of church cen- 
 sures, will tell him, that scandals, either of 
 doctrine or life, either against the first or 
 second table, fall under ecclesiastical cogni- 
 sance and censure. 
 
 Obj. 2. He argueth thus, ibid. " Sure 
 in the day of our Lord there will be as good 
 a return of the word preached, as of the cen- 
 sure." And in his Plea, p. 1, " If the word 
 be able to make the man of God perfect, 
 then nothing is wanting to him, pcrfectum 
 cui nihil deest ; and it is a wonder how that 
 conscience should be wrought upon by hu- 
 man authority, with whom divme cannot 
 prevail." 
 
 Ans. 1. This also he might as well have 
 objected against the Apostle Paul, who did 
 require the Corinthians to put away from 
 among them the incestuous man, and Titus 
 to reject an heretic after once or twice ad- 
 monishing of him. 2. He might object the 
 same thing agamst magistracy. Shall there 
 not be a better account of the word preached 
 than of magistracy ? and if the word be able 
 to make the man of God perfect, there is 
 no need of magistracy ; perfcctum est cui 
 nihil deest. Surely many Erastian argu- 
 ments do wound civil as well as ecclesiastical 
 government. 3. Church censures are not acts 
 of human authority, for they are dispensed 
 in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and 
 (if clave non errante) are ratified in heaven. 
 4. Discipline is no addition to that word 
 which is able to make the man of God per- 
 fect, for it is one of the directions of the 
 word. 5. The comparison which some make 
 between the efficacy of the word preached, 
 and the efficacy of church discipline, as to 
 the point of converting and winning souls, is 
 a mere fallacy ab ignoratioyic elenchi ; for 
 church discipline is not intended as a con- 
 vertino- liaht-grivinop, or life-o-ivino- ordinance. 
 " Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by 
 the word of God ;" and the word is " the 
 power of God for salvation to every one that 
 believeth ;" but ecclesiastical discipline hath 
 a necessai-y use, though it hath not that use. 
 
144 
 
 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 Discipline and censures in the cliurcli are in- 
 tended, 1. For the glory of God, that his 
 name may not be blasphemed, nor the doc- 
 trine of the gospel reproached, by occasion of 
 uncensured scandals in the church. 2. For 
 keeping the ordinances of Christ from profan- 
 ation and pollution, that sif/na graticedivince, 
 the signs of God's favour and grace, and the 
 seals of his covenant, may be denied to un- 
 worthy scandalous persons. 3. For preserv- 
 ing the church fi-om the infection of bad and 
 scandalous examples, it is fit to put a black 
 mark upon them, and to put away the wick- 
 ed person, as the Apostle saith ; for a rotten 
 member if it be not cut off, and a scabbed 
 sheep, if not separated from the flock, may 
 infest the rest. 4. For the good also of the 
 offender himself, " that he may be ashamed," 
 and humbled, 2 Tlies. iii. 14 ; 2 Cor. ii. 7. 
 This afflicting of the sinner with shame and 
 sorrow, may, and shall, by the blessing of 
 God, be a means to the destruction of the 
 flesh, 1 Cor. v. 5 ; that is, to tame and mor- 
 tify his lusts, and so far removere prohibens, 
 that he may be the better wrought upon by 
 the word. I conclude : Church government 
 being instituted by Christ, and having a ne- 
 cessary use in the church, the Erastians gain 
 nothing by comparing it with the word ; be- 
 cause it is not so necessary as the word ; 
 therefore it is not necessary at all. Or, be- 
 cause it is not efficacious in the same manner 
 as the word is, therefore it is not efficacious 
 at all. The Apostle saith, " Christ sent me 
 not to baptize but to preach the gospel," 1 
 Cor. i. 17. What if he had said, " Christ sent 
 me not to rule but to preach the gospel ?" 
 Then had the Erastians triumphed. Yet 
 this expression could not have proved that 
 church government is not an ordinance of 
 Christ, more than that can prove that bap- 
 tism is not an ordinance of Christ. A nega- 
 tive in the comparative, will not infer a ne- 
 gative in the positive. 
 
 Obj. 3. " I could never yet see (said Mr 
 Coleman) how two co-ordinate governments, 
 exempt from superiority and inferiority, can 
 be in one state." 
 
 Against this I instanced in the co-ordin- 
 ate governments of a general and an admi- 
 ral, of a master and a father, of a captain 
 and a master in one ship. Mr Hussey, find- 
 ing he cannot make good Mr Coleman's 
 word, tells me, p. 7, that he meaneth two 
 supreme co-ordinate governments. Where 
 first he loseth ground, and tacitly yieldeth 
 that church government and civil govern- 
 
 ment, distinct from each other, do well con- 
 sist, as long as they are not supreme, but as 
 two armies under one head. No inconsis- 
 tency, therefore, of congregational and clas- 
 sical eldei'ships, and of provincial assemblies, 
 with the subordinate magistrates and civil 
 courts in cities and counties. Next, we shall 
 find also in Scripture two co-ordinate su- 
 preme governments, for the civil and eccle- 
 siastical sanhedrim of the Jews were both 
 supreme and co-ordinate, and there was no 
 appeal from the sentence of either ; as is 
 evident by that disjunctive law, Deut. xvii. 
 12, " And the man that will do presump- 
 tuously, and will not hearken unto the priest 
 (that is to the priests, ver. 9), or unto the 
 judge (that is, the assembly or court of 
 judges, as I have cleared elsewhere), even 
 that man shall die." But I have also an- 
 swered more fully this objection concerning 
 co-ordination, chap. 8. 
 
 Obj. 4. Ministers have other work to do, 
 and such as will take up the whole man. 
 " To this argument (saith Mr Hussey, p. 8) 
 Mr Gillespie maketh no answer at all, though 
 St Paul useth the very same argument to 
 discharge the preachers from the oversight 
 of the poor. Acts vi. 2, God forbid we should 
 leave the care of the word of God, and serve 
 at tables." It will not be unseasonable to 
 mind both him and Mr Prynne, that the 
 canonized names, by them used stylo Ro- 
 mano, St Paul, St Matthew, St Mark, &c., 
 ought to be laid aside, except they will use 
 it of all saints. And why not as well St Mo- 
 ses, and St Aaron (whom the Psalmist calls 
 the " Saints of the Lord) ?" Or why not St 
 Aquila, St Apollos, St Epaphras? &c. Me- 
 tliinks men professing reformation ought not 
 to satisfy themselves in using this form of 
 speech only of such as have been canonized 
 at Rome, and enrolled saints in the Pope's 
 calender. And as strange it is that Mr Hus- 
 sey makes Paul -to act in the business, Acts 
 vi., before he was either saint or apostle. 
 Now to the argument. I did answer at 
 first (though Mr Hussey is pleased not to 
 take notice of it), p. 36, that where Mr 
 Coleman objected, ministers have other work 
 to do, he might as well have added, that 
 when ministers have done that other work, 
 and all that ever they can, yet without the 
 power of church government, they shall not 
 keep themselves nor the ordinances from pol- 
 lution ; that is, church government is a part of 
 their work, and a necessary part, which hath 
 been proved. I thought it enough to touch 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 145 
 
 an answer where an objection was but touch- 
 ed ; anotlier objection in tiiat very place be- 
 ing more insisted on (and with more colour 
 of reason) concerning the fear of an ambi- 
 tious enactment. 
 
 And for the objection now in hand, Mr 
 Ilussey hath made it no whit stronger by 
 his instance from Acts vi. For, 1. The apos- 
 tles did not wholly lay aside the care of the 
 poor. Sure Paul (afterward an apostle) took 
 great care of the poor at divers times, and 
 in divers places, as himself recordeth ; bat 
 such taking care of the poor as did distract 
 and hinder them from the main work of 
 preaching the gospel, this was it which they 
 declined; and in that respect the work of 
 baptizing also did give place to the work of 
 preaching, 1 Cor. i. 17. Likewise the work 
 of discipline must be so ordered, as may not 
 liiuder the principal work of preaching the 
 gospel; which is very possible, yea proba- 
 tuin est; for where church government is 
 exercised, there are as painful preachers as 
 any in the world, and such as neglect none 
 of their other work. 2. To take special and 
 particular care of the poor, did belong, by 
 Christ's institution (whose mind was no doubt 
 known to the apostles), to the office of dea- 
 cons, and for that reason the ministers of 
 the word ought in like manner to be relieved 
 of that burden by deacons: but church go- 
 vernment doth belong to the elders of the 
 church, of whom some labour both in doc- 
 trine and govei'nment, others in government 
 only. 
 
 But neither must the argument go so, I 
 have anotlier thing to ask : What is that other 
 work which will take up the whole man ? 
 Mr Hussey, p. 12, expounds Mr Coleman's 
 meaning, " That the preaching of the gospel 
 would take up the whole man, especially in 
 our time : our knowledge of the Scriptures 
 is to be acquired by ordinary means," &c. 
 And in his Epistle to the Parliament he 
 saith, " I found the minister charged only 
 with preaching and baptizing, which being 
 performed with such zeal and diligence as is 
 needful, is abundantly a sulficient employ- 
 ment." And so he takes off the minister 
 not only from government, but from visiting 
 particular families, especially the sick; from 
 catechising and examining those who are to 
 be admitted to the Lord's supper, from the 
 celebration of the Lord's supper itself, to say 
 nothing of the solemnisation of marriage, 
 yea, from disputations in schools concerning 
 the controversies of the time, which yet him- 
 
 self so much calls for. And why ? The min- 
 ister hath other work to do, and such as will 
 take up the whole man, which is to preach 
 and baptize. 
 
 5. Obj. If acts of government be put in 
 the hands of church officers, there is fear of 
 an ambitious ensnarement, which Mr Cole- 
 man proved by an arguing from his own 
 heart to the hearts of other men. " Mr Gil- 
 lespie's answer to the matter of ambition 
 (saith Mr Hussey, p. 10), is only by involving 
 the civil magistrate in the same danger of 
 ambition." And here he falleth out into a 
 concertation, professedly with my answer, but 
 really with Mr Coleman's answer ; for the 
 foundation of his argument was universal. 
 " Might I measure others by myself, and I 
 know not why I may not (God fashionetli 
 men's hearts alike, and as in water face an- 
 swers to face, so the heart of man to man)," 
 &c. Hereupon I replied, " Is this corrup- 
 tion only in the hearts of ministers, or is it 
 in the hearts of all other men ? I suppose 
 he will say in all men's hearts ; and then his 
 argument will conclude against all civil go- 
 vernment." 
 
 And now per onines musas I beseech 
 him, which of us involveth the magistrate 
 in ambition ? Must I be charged with in- 
 volving the magistrate because I discovered 
 that Mr Coleman's argument involveth the 
 magistrate ? He might as truly say he is not 
 the traitor that commits treason, but he is 
 the traitor that reveals treason. And why 
 saith he that my answer was onlt/ concern- 
 inof that involvino- of the magistrate ? Did I 
 not first show that the two scriptures on 
 which Mr Coleman's argument was ground- 
 ed, did not prove it ; though now Mr Hus- 
 sey tells us, Mr Coleman did but allude to 
 those scriptures (I am sure it was all the 
 scriptural proof which was brought for that 
 argument upon which so much weight was 
 laid), " which I will not trouble my reader 
 withal," saith he. A pretty shift, when a 
 man cannot defend the argument, then, for- 
 sooth, he will not trouble the reader. Next, 
 did I not deny that which Mr Coleman did 
 take for granted, that we may reason from 
 this or that particular corruption in one man's 
 heart, to prove the same particular corrup- 
 tion in all other men's hearts, and that Paul 
 taught us not so, Phil. ii. 3? Did I not also 
 answer in his own words, that his brethren's 
 " wisdom and humility may safely be trusted 
 with as large a share of government as them- 
 selves desire ?" Did I not lastly answer, 
 T 
 
146 
 
 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 that if his whole argument were granted, it 
 cannot prove that there ought to be no 
 church government, for where the thing is 
 necessary, abuses must be corrected and 
 amended, but must not take away the thing 
 itself? Unto which exceptions nothing hath 
 been replied nor oflFered to vindicate or make 
 good that argument which was publicly of- 
 fered to the parliament. If such men were 
 fit to put the reverend Assembly and all 
 the ministry of England to school again, to 
 learn to dispute, let every pious and wise 
 man judge. And so I am led on to another 
 objection. 
 
 Obj. 6. Schools of divinity will advance 
 learning and religion, and get us an able 
 ministry more than ecclesiastical government 
 
 , can do ; so Mr Coleman in his Sermon, p. 
 26. Yea, Mr Hussey calleth for schools, 
 that there may be unity found among the 
 preachers of the gospel, together with more 
 learning and knowledge, p. 12 — 15 (where, 
 by the way, the Jesuits are much beholden 
 to him, and Protestant writers very little). 
 In his Epistle to the Parliament he desireth 
 that ministers would unbend their thought 
 of government, and think on ways to get 
 knowledge. I should have thought multum 
 scientice, parum conscientice, might be as 
 seasonable a complaint. Knowledge and 
 learning are indeed most necessary, and, I 
 am confident, shall flourish more under pres- 
 byterial government than either under Po- 
 pery or Prelacy. School disputes need not 
 hinder ecclesiastical government : that ought 
 to be done, and this not to be left undone. 
 There is a practical part which belongs to 
 presbyteries and synods, as well as a con- 
 templative part belonging to schools : which 
 made the divines of Zealand to offer this 
 among other articles, to be advised upon by 
 the synod of Doi't, that they who are pre- 
 paring for the ministry, may (after their 
 education at schools, before their settling in 
 the ministry) be, for some space, present in 
 presbyteries, to learn church government.^ 
 That which a minister must do, is work ; 
 and that work is labouring in the word and 
 doctrine, in ruling and watching over the 
 
 j flock, in dispensing the ordinances to them 
 as a faithful steward. But Mr Hussey, p. 
 
 1 Synod. Dord. sess. 18. Et qnia vocati ad minis- 
 terium regimini ecclesiae aliquando sunt praeficiendi : 
 ecclesiarum vero regimen in scbolis exacte non 
 addiscitur, non abs re foret si aliquot ante voca- 
 tionem mensibus, in urbibns celebrioribus potestas 
 illis fiat ut intersint presbyteriis, &c. 
 
 15, tells us, the minister must not be called 
 from his study to examine notorious offences, 
 which, indeed, suiteth his notion of schools. 
 The Grecians did not intend schools for any 
 such work ; for to them a-x^oXri was rest from 
 work, and uj^oXa^ed/ to be idle, to take a vaca- 
 tion ; that is, from other affairs, and from a 
 practical life, to attend reading and studies. 
 If schools be made to serve for all those 
 necessary uses which church government will 
 serve for, then there is much said, but other- 
 wise nothing against us. 
 
 Obj. 7. But quis custodiet ipsos custodes? 
 If the power of government and censures be 
 in the hands of church officers, how shall 
 they be censurable and punishable for their 
 own offences? How shall the censurers 
 themselves be censured ? This objection I 
 find in the eighth epistle of Dionysius Areo- 
 pagita (or whoever he was that wrote under 
 that name). It was made by one Demoplu- 
 lus. What then say you? Must not the 
 profane priests, or such as are convicted to 
 have done somewhat amiss, be corrected; and 
 shall it be lawful to them alone, while they 
 glory in the law, to dishonour God by break- 
 ing of the law ?" A httle after this, direct 
 answer is made to the objection : " But if, 
 perhaps, any among these err from that 
 which it becometh him to do, vaph rwf ofio- 
 Toyiov ayioiv iiratopdii)6fi<reTai,\et him be cor- 
 rected by the saints of his own order ; and so 
 order shall not be intermixed with order, but 
 each one shall be exercised in his own order 
 and administration." As the faults of church 
 officers deserve the greatest censures, so, in 
 all the reformed churches, where the free 
 exercise and administration of church dis- 
 cipUne is received, there is greatest seve- 
 rity of church discipline against church offi- 
 cers, and especially against ministers of the 
 word, when any such are, upon just proof, 
 convicted of scandal. It is too much diffi- 
 dence (and groundless, I dare say) to appre- 
 hend that ministers who have taken upon 
 them the bond of such a covenant, and joined 
 in such a reformation, will yet be ready to 
 connive at any scandalous person of their own 
 coat. And if a classis should happen to com- 
 mit such an error, yet there can be no such 
 fear in this particular from a provincial or 
 national assembly, which, in a well-reformed 
 church (as they are constituted of choice, 
 able and godly, both ministers and others 
 assembled from divers quarters, so) use to 
 correct (not to confirm) the maladministra- 
 tion in inferior ecclesiastical courts. I speak 
 
DIVIXE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 147 
 
 here of the ecclesiastical offences of church 
 officers ; their other offences belonging whol- 
 ly to the civil cognizance and jurisdiction. 
 
 Obj. 8. But " let the Scripture speak ex- 
 pressly, and institutions appear institutions, 
 and all must bow." It is asked. Why we must 
 not prove a inust be, as well as a mai/ be ; 
 and whether do our proofs amount to an in- 
 stitution and a jus divinum ? For satisfac- 
 tion in this point also, I answer, The ques- 
 tion which for the present I speak to, is not 
 whether Christ hath, in his word, limited 
 and determined us to any one particular 
 form of church government, so as no other 
 form can be admitted as lawful or agreeable 
 to the word ; much less do I now inquire 
 what is that particular form or kind of go- 
 vernment which Christ hath instituted ; but 
 the present controversy with the Erastians 
 is, Whether Christ have not appointed and 
 instituted a government in his church, in the 
 hands of church officers, distinct from civil 
 government ? As it is one thing to inquire 
 whether it be the will of God, that there be 
 a civil government or magistracy ; that is, 
 that there be not an anarchy in a nation, 
 but some rule and government ; another 
 thing to inquire whether God hath, in his 
 word, limited a nation to any one particular 
 kind of civil government, and if any, what it 
 is : so it is one thing to inquire whether it 
 be the will of God tliat there be an ecclesi- 
 astical government, or an intrinsical power 
 of ruling in the hands of church officers, dis- 
 tinct from the civil government ; another 
 thing to ask, whether the word determineth 
 any one kind of church government as neces- 
 sary, and which it is. The former, not the 
 latter, is our present controversy. Yea, in 
 very truth, the Erastians do oppose not only 
 the institution, but the lawfulness and agree- 
 ableness to the word of God, of a church 
 government distinct from the civil ; for their 
 principles and arguments tend to the invest- 
 ing of the civil magistrate with the whole 
 and sole power of church government, as 
 that which belongeth to him only, and that 
 jure divino ; so tliat, if their principles hold 
 good, it shall be unlawful and contrary to 
 the word of God for church officers to claim, 
 or assume, or exercise, any government or 
 power of censures. Though (I say) the clear- 
 ing and vindicating of the lawfulness of a 
 distinct church government doth overthrow 
 the Erastian principles, yet, that I may deal 
 the more clearly and fully for the satisfac- 
 tion of all such as may be satisfied, this I 
 
 avouch and aver, It is jure divino : it is the 
 will of God, and of his Son Jesus Christ, the 
 King and Head of his church, that there 
 be a chui'ch government in the hands of 
 church officers distinct from the civil govern- 
 ment ; it is de necessitate proecepti, of the 
 necessity of precept that it be so ; it is sin 
 and a violation of Christ's institution if it be 
 not so. I am confident the arguments which 
 I have brought, chap. 9, will reach this 
 point, and fully conclude it, especially if the 
 strength of them be put together. Yet, 
 now, to drive the nail to the head, I add 
 these following ai'guments directly inferring 
 and proving an institution : — 
 
 First, The Scripture speaks of church 
 government in the same manner, and with 
 the same height, fulness and peremptoriness 
 of expression, as it speaketh of other things 
 which are without any controversy acknow- 
 ledged, even by the Erastians themselves, 
 to be institutions of Christ. For instance, 
 let the Erastians prove agamst the Soci- 
 nians, the necessity and perpetuity of the 
 ordinance of baptism ; that it ought to con- 
 tinue always in the church, and that by vir- 
 tue of an institution and precept of Christ : I 
 will undertake, by the like medium, to infer 
 the like conclusion concerning church go- 
 I will bring the like argument concerning 
 vernment. Again, let them prove the ne- 
 cessity, perpetuity, and institution (I say not 
 now of the word itself, or of preaching, but) 
 of the ministry, or of the pastoral office: 
 church government. I do not now com- 
 pare or parallel the government with the 
 ministry of the word quo ad necessitatem 
 medii vel finis, as being equally necessary 
 to salvation, nor yet as being equally excel- 
 lent ; but this I say, the one is, by the Scrip- 
 ture language, an institution and ordinance 
 of Christ, as well as the other. One ordi- 
 nance may differ much from another, and 
 still both be ordinances. 
 
 Secondly, Church government is reckoned 
 among such things as had an institution, 
 and which God did set in the church, 1 Cor. 
 xii. 28. It is a good argument for the in- 
 stitution of pastors and teachers, that God 
 set them in the church, as we read in that 
 place, and Christ gave them to the church, 
 Ephes. iv. 11. Will not this, then, hold as 
 well for the institution of a government in 
 the church ? That the governments men- 
 tioned, 1 Cor. xii. 28, are ecclesiastical and 
 distinct from civil, is already proved, chap. 6. 
 
 Thirdly, If it be the will and command- 
 
148 
 
 AARON S ROD BLOSSOMING, OR THE 
 
 meiit of Got] that we be subject and obe- 
 dient to chiiicli governors, as those who are 
 over us in the Lord, as well as to civil go- 
 vernors, then it is the will of God that there 
 be a rule and government in the church 
 distinct from the civil. For relata se mu- 
 tuo ponunt vcl tollunt, if we be obliged, by 
 the fifth commandment, to honour magis- 
 trates as fathers, then it is the will of God 
 that there be such fathers ; so, when we are 
 commanded to know them which are over 
 us in the Lord, and to esteem them highly, 
 1 Thes. V. 12 ; to honour doubly elders that 
 rule well, 1 Tim. v. 17 ; to be subject and 
 obedient unto ecclesiastical rulers, Heb. 
 xiii. 17, with ver. 7, 24, doth not this inti- 
 mate the will of God, that pastors and elders 
 be over us in the Lord, and rule us eccle- 
 siastically ? 
 
 Fourtldy, Thatwhich, being administei'ed, 
 is a praise and commendation to a church, 
 and, being omitted, is a ground of contro- 
 versy to Christ against a church, can be no 
 other than an ordinance and necessary duty. 
 But church government and discipline is 
 such a thing as, being administered, is a 
 praise and commendation to a church, 2 
 Cor. ii. 9 ; Rev. ii. 2 ; and, being omitted, 
 is a ground of controversy to Christ against 
 a church, 1 Cor. v. 1, 2, 6 ; Rev. ii. 14, 20 ; 
 therefore, 
 
 Fiithly, The rules and directions concern- 
 ing an ecclesiastical government and disci- 
 pline are delivered precept-wise in Scrip- 
 ture ; 1 Cor. V. 13, " Put away that wicked 
 person from among you;" 2 Thes. iii. 14, 
 " Note that man ;" Tit. iii. 10, " A man 
 that is an heretic, after the first and second 
 admonition, reject." Augustine, Lib. con- 
 tra Donatistas post Collationcm, cap. 4, 
 saith, that church censures and discipline are 
 exercised in the church secimdvin prrcBcap- 
 tum apostolicum, according to the apostolic 
 precept, for which he citeth 2 Thes. iii. 14. 
 
 Sixthly, There is an institution and com- 
 mand. Matt, xviii. 17, " Let him be unto 
 thee as an heathen man and a pubhcan." 
 In which place there are three acts of the 
 cl'.urch, that is, of the assembly of church 
 officers : 1. They must be met together to 
 receive complaints and accusations : " Tell 
 the church. 2. They give sentence concern- 
 ing the case : "If he neglect to hear the 
 the church," &ic. Where hearing is required, 
 and obedience, there must needs be an au- 
 thoritative speaking or judging ; so that they 
 who would prove the church here hath only 
 
 power to admonish doctrinally, because it is 
 said, " If he hear not the church," they may 
 as well prove that the judges of Israel liad 
 no more power but to admonish doctrinally, 
 because it is appointed, Deut. xvii. 12, that 
 the man who will not hearken to the judge 
 shall die ; and is it not there expressed that 
 the judge shall put him to deatli, more than 
 it is expressed here tliat the church shall de- 
 clare the offender to be as an heathen and a 
 publican. 3. They must bind such a one by 
 excommunication : " Whatsoever ye bind on 
 earth," &c. 
 
 Neither could it ever enter in the thoughts 
 of Jesus Christ to command one church mem- 
 ber, or private brother, to esteem another 
 brother as an heathen and a publican, whom 
 he would not have so esteemed by the whole 
 church ; and least of all can it be the will of 
 Christ that one and the same person should 
 be esteemed by one of the church to be as an 
 heatiien and a publican, and, withal, be es- 
 teemed by the whole church as a brother, a 
 good Christian, a church member, and, ac- 
 cordingly, to be freely admitted to the or- 
 dinances. 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 THE NECESSITY OF A DISTINCT CHURCH GO- 
 VERNMENT VNDER CHRISTLO' AS WELL AS 
 UNDER HEATHEN MAGISTRATES. 
 
 Some, when they could not deny but there 
 was a church government in the primitive 
 and apostolic churches distinct from all civil 
 government, and church censures distmct 
 liom all civil punishments, yet they have 
 alleged (though no such thing was alleged of 
 old, neither by Constantine and other Chris- 
 tian emperors, nor by others in their behalf) 
 that this was for want of Christian magis- 
 trates, and that there is not the same reason 
 for such a church government or censures 
 where there is a Christian magistracy. See 
 Mr Hussey's Pica, p. 24 ; as likewise Mr 
 Prynne in his Diotrephcs Catechised. Mr 
 Coleman's He-examination, p. 16, calls for 
 an instance where the state was Christian. 
 For taking off this exception I shall observe, 
 
 First of aU, Grotius^ (otherwise no good 
 
 1 Annot. in Lnke vi. 22. — Reperti sunt et qui jndi- 
 cia ista ccclesise pntarent inliibenda, qnoties Chris- 
 tianas potestates Deua concederet saeculo, &c. At 
 Christi loges multo plus exigunt quam in commune 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 149 
 
 friend to church government, being poisoned 
 with the Arminian principles, who have en- 
 deavoured to weaken extremely the autho- 
 rity of classical and synodical assemblies, and 
 to give a kind of papal power to the magis- 
 trate), yet, in this particular, he argueth 
 strongly for us, and not against us. 
 
 Secondly, Where is that Christian magis- 
 tracy which hath suppressed or punished all 
 such offences as did fall under ecclesiastical 
 cognizance and censure in the primitive and 
 apostolic churches ? Or where is that Chris- 
 tian magistrate that will yet undertake to 
 punish all those offences and scandals which 
 were censured in the apostolic churches ? 
 Till some such instance be given, this excep- 
 tion against church discipline and censures 
 under a Christian magistrate hath not so 
 much as colour enough. Alice sunt leges 
 Ccesarum, alice Christi : aliud Papinian- 
 us, aliud Paulus noster prcecipit, saith Je- 
 rome in Epitaph. Fahiolce: Ca?sar's laws 
 and Christ's laws are not the same but differ- 
 ent : Papinianus commands one thing, Paul 
 another tiling. Chrysostom, Homil. 12, in 1 
 Epist. ad Cor., tells us, that the best and 
 wisest lawgivers had appointed no punish- 
 ment for fornication, for consuming and tri- 
 fling away of time with playing at dice, for 
 gluttony and drunkenness, for stage-plays 
 and lascivious whorish gestures therein. Is 
 there not some cause to apply all this (and 
 much more of this kind) even to Christian 
 lawgivers and magistrates ? Put the case, 
 that he who is called a brother (as the Apos- 
 tle speaks), that is, a member of the visible 
 church, be found grossly ignorant of the 
 principles of religion, and so far from grow- 
 ing in knowledge, that he loseth the know- 
 ledge of the Scriptures, and of the truth of 
 God which he had (for this hath been divers 
 times observed), through neglect of the 
 means ; or if he be known to neglect, or- 
 dinarily, prayer in and with his family, and 
 to continue in that offence after admonition ; 
 or if he live in known or scandalous malice 
 and envy, and refuse to be reconciled with 
 his neigiibour ; or if he be a known liar and 
 
 civibus imperii alicujus praescribi solet, aut etiam 
 potest, semper enim magna pars hominum ^povt'i 
 TO. tIs anKpos. Quara civiles quidem leges suo fun- 
 guntur ofBcio, si graviora et societati maximenocen- 
 tia delicta cocrceant at quae contra dilectionis, con- 
 tra mansuetudinis, contra patientiae leges peccantur, 
 extra communes leges sunt posita : non etiam extra 
 cas leges quas se sectantibus Cliristus praeacribit, et 
 secundum qua judicare debet ille sclectus ex mundo 
 coclus. 
 
 dissembler ; or if, by his words and actions, 
 he do scandalously and manifestly show him- 
 self covetous, drowned in sensuality, ambi- 
 tious, proud ; or if he give a foul scandal, 
 by filthy and obscene speeches, by lascivious, 
 obscene, whorish-like gestures or actions, 
 where the act itself of adultery or fornica- 
 tion cannot be proved. I suppose that, for 
 these and such like scandals (which are 
 causes deserving not only the eldership's in- 
 quiry and admonition, but suspension from 
 the Lord's table), the Christian magistrate 
 neither doth, nor by the civil or mvmicipal 
 laws is bound to ari'aign and punish all such 
 as are guilty thereof. 
 
 Thirdly, "Wliereas Archbishop "VMiitgift's 
 Answer to the Admon., p. 114, did allege 
 that the church " may not be governed un- 
 der a Christian magistrate, as it may under 
 a tyrant," which he brings, as an exception, 
 against ruling elders and elderships, while 
 he could not deny but such there were in 
 the primitive church. Mr Cartwright in his 
 Reply, p. 140, answereth, that if these el- 
 ders, under a tyrant, had meddled with any 
 office of a magistrate, then there had been 
 some cause why a godly magistrate, being in 
 the church, that office should cease ; but 
 since they did only assist the pastor in mat- 
 ters ecclesiastical, there is no distinction be- 
 tween times of persecution, and times of 
 peace, as touching the office of elders ; the 
 like say I of church censures and discipline. 
 If the government of the church by pres- 
 byteries and synods, if suspension and ex- 
 communication in the apostles' times had 
 been an usurping of anything belonging to 
 the magisti'ate, then there had been some rea- 
 son to lay aside all church censures and ec- 
 clesiastical government when the magistrate 
 turned Christian, and willing to do his duty ; 
 but if not, then the civil and church govern- 
 ment may still remain distinct, even where 
 the state is Christian. 
 
 Fourthly, Every institution or ordinance 
 of Christ must continue as a perpetual obli- 
 gation, unless we can find in the word that 
 Christ hath given us a dispensation or taken 
 off the obligation, and set a period to the or- 
 dinance, that it shall continue so long and 
 no longer. I mean every ordinance of Christ 
 must be perpetual, which we cannot prove 
 from the word to be but temporal or extra- 
 ordinary. Now, in the word Christ hath 
 not appointed the governing the church, and 
 coiTccting scandals, to be only under a tyrant, 
 and to cease under a Christian magistrate ; 
 
150 
 
 neither is there any such thing held forth 
 in Scripture (which yet our opposites must 
 show, if they will make good what they say). 
 But contrariwise, what Christ delivered to 
 the apostles, and they to the churches, is to 
 be kept and continued till our Lord come 
 again, 1 Cor. xi. 23, 26 ; 1 Tim. vi. 14; and 
 he himself saith, Eev. ii. 24, 25, " That 
 which ye have already, hold fast till I 
 come." These things were not spoken to 
 the apostles, to Timothy, to the churches of 
 that time, personally (for they were not to 
 live till, Christ's coming again), but the 
 charge was given unto them in name of 
 and with respect unto all the ministry and 
 churches of Christ. 
 
 Fifthly, This exception made against 
 church censures under a Christian magis- 
 trate, supposeth that such censures will 
 make an interfering and clashing between 
 the civil and ecclesiastical power. But there 
 is no cause for that fear, these powers be- 
 ing so hugely differenced in their efficient 
 causes, matters, forms, ends, effects, objects, 
 adjuncts, correlations, and ultimate termin- 
 ations, as I have made it to appear in the 
 particulars, chap. 4. 
 
 Sixthly, The church's liberty and power 
 is not to be infringed, diminished, nor taken 
 away, but presei'ved, maintained, enlarged, 
 and augmented, under a Christian magis- 
 trate. Were it not a sad case, if there 
 should be cause to say that the churches of 
 Christ have not so much liberty under a 
 Christian magistrate to keep themselves and 
 the ordinances from pollution, as they had 
 under pagan and infidel magistrates ? 
 
 Seventhly, Why may not Christian church 
 government consist with Christian magis- 
 tracy, as well as the Jewish church govern- 
 ment did consist with the Jewish magistracy, 
 being of the same religion ? Or if we please 
 to look to later precedents, who can be ig- 
 norant that civil government and church 
 discipline have rather strengthened than de- 
 stroyed each other, not only in France, where 
 the magistracy is not Protestant, but in Scot- 
 land, in the Low Countries, in Geneva, and 
 elsewhere ? 
 
 Eighthly, We have covenanted to endea- 
 vour a reformation of church government 
 and discipline, " according to the word of 
 God and the example of the best reformed 
 churches." Now both the word of God 
 and the example of the best reformed 
 churches, leadeth us to a church govern- 
 ment distinct from civil government ; and 
 
 the example of the best reformed churches 
 doth undeniably lead us to a church disci- 
 pline, even where the magistrate is Chris- 
 tian ; neither doth the word make any ex- 
 ception of Christian states, but contrariwise 
 chargeth us to keep the commandment and 
 ordinances till Christ come again. 
 
 Ninthly, The magistrate hath other work 
 to do, and such as will take up the whole 
 man ; and if he should take upon him the 
 whole burden of church government, the i 
 inquiring into, examining and correcting of ! 
 all scandals in the church, surely it is more 
 than he can discharge, or give a good ac- 
 count to God of. It will be hard enough to 
 church officers to do it, though they are set 
 apart to that service, and ex ojicio do watch 
 over people's souls, as they that must give j 
 an account. But for the Christian magis- 
 trate to discharge the whole corrective part 
 of church government, and to watch over 
 the souls of all the people, so as to take 
 care of the purging of the church from scan- 
 dals, and for that end to obseiTe, examine, 
 and judge all offences in the church, and to 
 determine that this man ought to be ad- 
 mitted to the sacrament, and that man 
 ought not to be admitted (for that there j 
 must be a suspension of scandalous and un- ' 
 worthy persons, I now take it for granted, 
 because of the ordinance of parliament), as 
 it is impossible for the magistrate to do all 
 this, so I believe it will be to him durus 
 sermo, a hard saying, to hear that he must 
 give account to God of all these things ; and 
 that ministers have no more to answer for 
 but preaching, ministering the sacraments to 
 those to whom they are appointed to give 
 them, catechising, visiting the sick, exhort- 
 ing, admonishing, reproving, comforting. It 
 was a good argument against the Prelate : he 
 assumed the ecclesiastical government of a 
 whole diocese, and could not give account to 
 God for so many thousands, and sometime 
 hundreds of thousand souls. Yet Mr Cole- 
 man would have had the parliament to be 
 church officers to the whole kingdom in 
 point of corrective government, and the 
 ministry to have no part of that govern- 
 ment. But then I ask. How shall they an- 
 swer for that ecclesiastical government and 
 administration of theirs, more than the Pre- 
 late could answer for tlie ecclesiastical go- 
 vernment of a whole diocese ? If it be said 
 that the parliament is only to settle a rule, 
 and to give order what is to be done, and to 
 commit the execution and the managing of 
 
I 
 
 DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 151 
 
 particular cases to subordinate courts and 
 inferior officers, then no more is said than 
 the prelates did plead for themselves, that 
 they did per alium what they could not do 
 per se. So that such principles do tend di- 
 rectly to involve the parliament in the pre- 
 latical guiltiness, which our principles do 
 avoid. Was it not another argument used 
 against the prelates, that they could not 
 manage both civil and church government, 
 and that an ecclesiastical administration 
 could not consist with civil power and places 
 in the parliament or with offices of state, 
 any one of these administrations (either the 
 civil or the ecclesiastical) requiring the whole 
 man. 
 
 Do not the Erastians endeavour to draw 
 the parliament into the very same absurdity 
 with which the prelates were pressed ? For 
 if any of these two administrations require 
 the whole man, how can the civil magistrate 
 (though Christian) take upon him the bur- 
 den of church government, more than 
 church officers can take upon them the bur- 
 den of civil government ? Philo the Jew 
 gives this reason why Moses did make a 
 partition of the charge between Joshua and 
 Aaron, committing to the one the civil, to 
 the other the ecclesiastical administration : 
 " He considered that it was impossible 
 rightly to take care both of the supreme 
 civil power, and of the priesthood, since the 
 one professeth to care for things pertaining 
 to God, the other for men," Philo de Cha- 
 ritate. 
 
 Tenthly, Ratio immutabilis facit prce- 
 ceptuvi immutabile. If the Apostle had re- 
 quired the Corinthians to excommunicate 
 the incestuous man, upon such grounds and 
 reasons as were proper to that time, and are 
 not applicable to after times, so as to prove 
 the necessity of excommunication for the 
 like offence, then there were some reason 
 why exconmiunication should not be es- 
 teemed a perpetual ordinance in the church, 
 but it is manuest that the reasons given by 
 the Apostle were not proper to that time, 
 but do concern this time as well as that. 
 The reasons are taken : 1. From the glory 
 of God; 1 Cor. v. 1, 2, he that had done such 
 wickedness as was not so much as named 
 among the Gentiles, was not to be suffered 
 among God's people, but to be taken away 
 from among them. If evil be not put away 
 from Israel, it is a great dishonour to the 
 God of Israel. This first argument used by 
 the Apostle, is like that Ezek. xxxvi. 22, 
 
 23 ; they had profaned the holy name of 
 God among the heathen, therefore God 
 would sanctify his great name, and make 
 the heathen to know that he is the Lord, 
 when he should be sanctified in his people 
 before their eyes. 2. From the commission, 
 power, and authority which the church of 
 Corinth, that is, their presbytery (compare 
 2 Cor. ii. 6), had to excommunicate such a 
 one; ver. 4, 5, " In the name of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered togeth- 
 er," &c. 3. From the good and benefit of the 
 sinner himself, that he might be ashamed, 
 humbled, reclaimed, mortified and saved ; 
 ver. 5, " For the destruction of the flesh, 
 that the spirit may be saved in the day of 
 the Lord Jesus." 4. From the church's 
 good, that the church might be preserved 
 from the contagion of such sinful examples ; 
 ver. 6, " Know ye not that a little leaven 
 leaveneth the whole lump ?" 5. From that 
 which was signified and typified by the 
 purging out of leaven from Israel in the 
 time of the passover ; ver. 7, " Purge out 
 therefore the old leaven," &c. 6. From the 
 end of Christ's death, which was to purify 
 and sanctify, as well as to reconcile and jus- 
 tify his people, ver. 7, 8, " For Christ our 
 passover is sacrificed for us ; therefore let 
 us keep the feast," &c. 7. From the differ- 
 ence which ought to be made between the 
 the foul sins of church members, and others 
 that are not church members ; a blacker 
 mark is to be put upon the former than 
 upon the latter ; and more withdrawing 
 there must be from a scandalous brother or 
 professor of Christian religion, than from a 
 profane heathen, ver. 9, 10, 11. 
 
 From all which it doth appear, that it is 
 not without good reason that Martyr and 
 Parens upon 1 Cor. v., do maintain the ne- 
 cessity of excommunication under a Chris- 
 tian and pious magistrate, as well as under 
 an infidel and profane magistrate. 
 
 Eleventhly, The end and use for which 
 church censures are necessary, is not intend- 
 ed and endeavoured, much less attained, by 
 the government of the Christian magistrate. 
 For though the Christian magistrate punish- 
 eth many (I cannot say all) gross and scan- 
 dalous sins with corporal or civil punishments, 
 yet to punish sin is one thing, to seek the 
 salvation of the sinner is another thing : so 
 the offender's suffering of punishment and 
 satisfying the law of the land is one thing, 
 his declaring of his repentance, and public 
 confession of his sin, tor taking away the 
 
152 
 
 AAROX'S ROD ELOSSOMIXG, OR TilE 
 
 scandal which he hath given to the church, 
 is another tiling. Suppose a delinquent 
 (whose fault is not capital by the law of the 
 land, for instance a fornicator, a drunkard, 
 a common swearer, a Sabbath-breaker, or 
 the like) to have suffered, in his person or 
 estate, all the punishment he ought to suffer, 
 so that he hath now made a civil atonement 
 (as I may call it) for his offence, and the 
 Christian magistrate hath no further to 
 charge him with. Suppose also that he is 
 by such corporal or civil punishments, as by 
 a bit and bridle, overawed and restrained 
 from committing again the like external acts : 
 notwithstanding he hath not the least sign 
 of true repentance and godly sorrow for his 
 former foul and scandalous sins, and he is 
 known to be not an accuser, but an excuser 
 of himself for those faults and scandals. Such 
 a one conies and desires to receive the sacra- 
 ment ; must his penal satisfaction to the 
 Christian magistrate be a sufficient peniten- 
 tial satisfaction to the church? Here is a 
 rock which the Erastians dash upon, unless 
 they admit of a distinct ecclesiastical judg- 
 ment concerning the signs of repentance in 
 a scandalous sinner, according to which, as 
 these signs shall appear or not appear, he is 
 to be admitted or not admitted to the sacra- 
 ment. 
 
 Twelfthly, The power of binding and loos- 
 ingis not a temporary but a perpetual one; 
 that is, appointed by Christ to continue in 
 his church always unto the end. Now this 
 power is given only to cliurch officers, and 
 Christ hath not given the keys of disciphne 
 and the power of binding and loosing (of 
 which elsewhere) to the magistrate, nay, not 
 to the Christian magistrate more than to the 
 infidel magistrate. Let the least hint be 
 found in Scripture, where Christ hath given 
 any such power to the Christian magistrate, 
 and I yield the cause. 
 
 Thirteenthly, The New Testament hold- 
 eth out as little of the ministry of the word 
 and sacraments under a Christian magistrate, 
 as it doth of a church government under a 
 Chi-istian magistrate. Shall this, therefore, 
 strengthen the Socinian tenet, that baptism 
 is not a perpetual ordinance in the church, 
 and that we are not obliged by that commis- 
 sion which the Apostles had to baptize? 
 God forbid. 
 
 Fourteenthly, The German Anabaptists 
 required an express warrant or example in 
 the New Testament of a Christian magis- 
 trate, or of the sword and wai-s in a Chi-is- 
 
 tian state, yet this hath been thought no 
 good argument against magistracy and wars 
 among Christians. 
 
 I cannot pretermit a passage of Gualther, 
 who may seem to be opposite to me in this 
 present question. Even he, in his Homily 
 upon John ix. 22, after he hath spoken of 
 excomnyinication in the Jewish church, and 
 in the apostolic churches, he addeth, " And 
 this day also there is need of ecclesiastical 
 discipline, which being instituted in the re- 
 formed churches, ought to be diligently kept, 
 lest the indulgence of magistrates, which 
 reigns almost everywhere, should render the 
 doctrine of the gospel suspected among those 
 that are without, and that themselves also 
 may be contained in their office, and may 
 not think that anything they will is lawful 
 to them in the church. 
 
 But after all this, let me put Mr Hussey 
 and other Erastians in mind, that if they do 
 acknowledge Jesus Christ hath instituted or 
 commanded that there be a church govern- 
 ment and power of censures distinct from 
 the civil government, when the magistrate 
 is heathenish or idolatrous, let them speak 
 it out, and let us agree so far. Othenrise if 
 they do not agree in this, it is but a bhnd 
 for them to make use of this distinction, that 
 where the magistrate is Christian, there is 
 no necessity of a distinct church govern- 
 ment. 
 
 I conclude vdih a passage of Mr Prynne 
 in his Tivelve Considerable Serious Ques- 
 tions touching Church Government. The 
 ninth of those questions runs thus : — " TMie- 
 ther the Independents' challenge of the Pres- 
 byterians to show them any national church 
 professing Christ in our Saviour's or the 
 apostles' days, before any one nation totally 
 converted to the Christian faith, or any 
 general open profession made of it by the 
 princes, magistrates, and major part of any 
 nation, kingdom, repubUc, who were then 
 all generally pagans and pei-secutors of the 
 gospel, not then universally embraced, be 
 not a most irrational unjust demand ?" Sure 
 if this hold against the Independents, it ivill 
 hold as strongly, yea more strongly against 
 the Erastians, to prove their demand to be 
 most irrational and unjust, while they chal- 
 
 1 Et bodie etiam disciplina ecclesiastica opns est, 
 
 quae in reforrnatis ecclesiis instituta diligenter ser- ^ 
 
 Tari debet, ne magistratnra indnlgentia quae ubique j 
 
 fere regnat, evangelii doctrinam exteris suspcctam j 
 
 reddat, et ut ipsi qnoqne in officio contineantur, nec j 
 
 sibi quidvia in ecclesia licere patent. | 
 
DIVINE ORDIN.UfCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 153 
 
 lenge us to show them in the New Testa- 
 ment a distinct church government under a 
 Christian magistrate, or where the state was 
 Christian, though themselves kjiow magis- 
 
 trates and states were then generally pagan, 
 not Christian. Yea, there was in those days 
 much more of a national church than of a 
 Christian magistrate. 
 
 AN APPENDIX TO THE SECOND BOOK, 
 
 CONTAINING A COLLECTION OF SOME TESTIMONIES NOT CITED BEFORE. 
 
 A Testimonxf of King James, in a De- 
 claration of his, penned ivith his oivn 
 hand, signed, and delivered to the Com- 
 missioners of the Church of Scotland at 
 Linlithgoiv, December 7, 1585. — " I, for 
 my part, shall never, neither my posterity 
 ought ever, cite, summon, or apprehend any 
 pastor or preacher for matters of doctrine in 
 religion, salvation, heresies, or true inter- 
 pretation of the Scripture ; hut, according 
 to my first act, which confirmeth the liberty 
 of pi'eaching the Word, ministration of the 
 sacraments, I avouch the same to be a mat- 
 ter mere ecclesiastical, and altogether im- 
 pertinent to my calling. Therefore never 
 shall I, nor ever ought they, I mean my 
 posterity, acclaim any power or jurisdiction 
 in the foresaids." (His Majesty's meaning 
 was, that he ought not to do this in prima 
 instantia ; that is, before the person be ac- 
 cused, convicted, or judged in any ecclesias- 
 tical court — which was the question at that 
 time, occasioned by Mr Andrew Melville's 
 case.) Afterward, in the same declaration, 
 it followeth thus : — " Christ saying, Die ec- 
 clcsice, and one only man stealing that dint 
 in a quiet hole, the act of parliament i-educ- 
 eth the sentence for informality and nullity 
 of process, — not as judges whether the ex- 
 communication was grounded on good and 
 just causes or not, but as witnesses that it 
 was uniformly proceeded, against the war- 
 rant of God's word, example of all reformed 
 kirks, and your own particular custom in 
 this country." A little after : — "I mind 
 not to cut off any liberty granted by God 
 to his kirk. I acclaim not to myself to be 
 judge of doctrine in i-eligion, salvation, he- 
 resies, or true interpretation of Scripture." | 
 
 And after ; — " My intention is not to med- 
 dle with excommunication, neither acclaim 
 I, to myself or my heirs, power in anything 
 that is mere ecclesiastical, and not abia<po- 
 por, nor with anything that God's word 
 hath simply devolved in the hands of his 
 kirk. And, to conclude, I confess and ac- 
 knowledge Christ Jesus to be Head and 
 Lawgiver to the same. And whatsoever 
 persons do attribute to themselves, as head 
 of the kirk, and not as member, to suspend 
 or alter anything that the word of God hath 
 only remitted to them, that man, I say, com- 
 mitteth manifest idolatry, and sinneth against 
 the Father in not trusting the words of his 
 Son,— against the Son in not obeying him, 
 and taking his place, — against the Holy 
 Ghost, the said Holy Spirit bearuig the con- 
 trary record to his conscience." 
 
 Testimonies taken out of the Harmony of 
 the Confessions of the Faith of the Re- 
 formed Churches. Reprinted at Lon- 
 don, 1643. 
 
 Out of the Confession of Helvetia, p. 
 238. — " Furthermore, there is another 
 power of duty, or ministerial power, limit- 
 ed out by Him who hath full and absolute 
 power and authority. And this is more 
 like a ministry than dommion ; for we see 
 that some master doth give unto the stew- 
 ard of his house authority and power over 
 his house, and, for that cause, delivereth 
 him his keys, that he may admit or ex- 
 clude such as his master will have admitted 
 or excluded. According to this power doth 
 the minister, by his office, that which the 
 Lord hath commanded him to do ; and the 
 
 U 
 
154 
 
 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 Lord doth ratify and confirm that which he 
 doth, and will have the deeds of his minis- 
 ters to be acknowledged and esteemed as 
 his own deeds. Unto which end are those 
 speeches in the gospel : I will give unto thee 
 the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and 
 whatsoever thou bindest or loosest in earth 
 shall be bound and loosed in heaven. (Matt, 
 xvi.) Again : Whose sins soever ye remit, 
 they shall be remitted ; and whose sins so- 
 ever ye retain, they shall be retained. (John 
 XX.) But if the minister deal not in all 
 things as his Lord hath commanded him, 
 but pass the limits and bounds of faith, then 
 the Lord doth make void that which he 
 doth. Wlierefore the ecclesiastical power 
 of the ministers of the church, is that func- 
 tion whereby they do indeed govern the 
 church of God, but yet so as they do all 
 things in the church as he hath prescril^ed 
 in his Word ; which thing being so done, 
 the faithful do esteem them as done of the 
 Lord himself." 
 
 Out of the Confession of Bohemia, p. 
 250. — " The fourteenth chapter of ecclesi- 
 astical doctrine is of the Lord's keys, of 
 which he saith to Peter, I will give unto 
 thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven 
 (Matt, xvi.), and these keys are the peculiar 
 function or ministry and administration of 
 Christ's power and his Holy Spirit ; which 
 power is committed to the church of Christ 
 and to the ministers thereof, unto the end 
 of the world ; that they should not only by 
 preaching publish the holy gospel, although 
 they should do this especially; that is, should 
 j show forth that word of true comfort, and 
 [ the joyful message of peace, and new tidings 
 ! of that favour which God offereth, but also 
 j that to the believing and unbelieving, they 
 should publicly or privately denounce and 
 I make known, to wit, — to them his favour, 
 [ to these his wrath, and that to all in gene- 
 ral, or to every one in particular, that they 
 ' may wisely receive some into the house of 
 j God, to the communion of saints, and drive 
 j some out from thence, and may so, through 
 j the pei'formance of their ministry, hold in 
 ' their hand the sceptre of Christ's kingdom, 
 1 and use the same to the government of 
 Christ's sheep." And after : — " Moreover, 
 a manifest example of using the power of 
 the keys is laid out in that sinner of Corinth 
 (1 Cor. V.) and others, whom St Paul, to- 
 gether with the church in that place, by 
 the power and authority of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, and of his Spirit, threw out from 
 
 thence and delivered to Satan ; and, con- 
 trariwise, after that God had given him 
 grace to repent, he absolved him from his 
 sins, he took him again into the church, to 
 the communion of saints and sacraments (2 
 Cor. ii.), and so opened to him the kingdom 
 of heaven again. By this we may under- 
 stand, that these keys, or this divine func- 
 tion of the Lord's, is committed and granted 
 to those that have charge of souls, and to 
 each several ecclesiastical societies, whether 
 they be small or great. Of which thing 
 the Lord saith to the churches, ' Verily I 
 say unto you, whatsoever ye bind on earth 
 shall be bound in heaven.' And straight 
 after, ' For where two or three are ga- 
 thered together in my name, there am I in 
 the midst of them.' Matt, xviii." 
 
 Out of the French Confession, p. 253. 
 — " We believe that this true church ought 
 to be governed by that regiment or disci- 
 pline which our Lord Jesus Christ hath es- 
 tablished, to wit, so that there be pastors, 
 elders, and deacons, that the purity of doc- 
 trine may be retained, vices repressed," &c. 
 
 Out of the Confession of Belgia, p. 257. 
 — " We believe that this church ought to 
 be ruled and governed by that spiritual re- 
 giment which God himself hath deUvered 
 in his word, so that there be placed in it 
 pastors and ministers purely to preach, and 
 rightly to administer the holy sacraments : 
 that there be also in it seniors and deacons, 
 of whom the senate of the church might 
 consist, that by these means true religion 
 might be preserved, and sincere doctrine 
 in eveiy place retained and spread abroad : 
 that vicious and wicked men might after a 
 spiritual manner be rebuked, amended, and, 
 as it were, by the bridle of discipline, kept 
 within their compass." 
 
 Out of the Confession of Auspurge, p. 
 260. — " Again, by the gospel, or, as they 
 term it, by God's law, bishops, as they be 
 bishops, that is, such as have the adminis- 
 tration of the word and sacraments commit- 
 ted to them, have no jurisdiction at all, but 
 only to forgive sin ; also to know what is 
 true doctrine, and to reject such doctrine as 
 will not stand with the gospel, and to debar 
 from the communion of the chmxh such as 
 are notoriously wicked, — not by human force 
 and violence, but by the word of God. And 
 herein of necessity the churches ought, by 
 the law of God, to perform obedience unto 
 them, according to the saying of Christ, ' He 
 that heareth you heareth me.' ITpon which 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 155 
 
 place the observation saith thus : ' To debar 
 the wicked, &c. ; to wit, by the judgment 
 and verdict of the presbytery, lawfully ga- 
 thered together,' " &c. 
 
 A Testimony out of the Ecclesiastical 
 Discipline of the Reformed Churches in 
 France, cap. 5, art. 9. — " The knowledge 
 of scandals, and the censure or judgment 
 thereof, belongeth to the company of pastors 
 and elders." Art. 15 :— " If it befalleth, 
 that besides the admonitions usually made 
 by the consistories to such as have done 
 amiss, there be some other punishment or 
 more rigorous censure to be used, it shall 
 then be done either by suspension, or priva- 
 tion of the holy comnnniion for a time, or 
 by excommunication, or cutting off from the 
 church. In which cases the consistories are 
 to be advised to use all prudence, and to 
 make distinction betwixt the one and the 
 other ; as hkewise to ponder and carefully 
 to examine the faults and scandals that are 
 brought before them, with all their circum- 
 stances, to judge warily of the censure which 
 may be required." 
 
 Harmonia Si/nodorum Belgicarum, cap. 
 14, art. 7 to 9. — " Peccata sua natura 
 publica, aut per admonitionis privatce 
 contemtum publicata, ex consistorii totius 
 arbitrio, modo et forma ad oidificationem 
 maxime accomodatis sunt corrigenda. 
 
 " Qui pcrtinaciter consistorii admoni- 
 tiones rejecerit, a S. Ccence communione 
 suspendetur. 
 
 " Si suspensus post iter atas admoni- 
 tiones nullum poinitentice signum dedcrit, 
 ad excommunicationem proccdet ecclesia." 
 
 Melchior Adamus de vitis G-ermanorum 
 Theologorum, p. 342. — " Cumque sub id 
 tempus ( anno 1545 ) Fredericus Elector 
 Palatinus, qui Ludovico successerat, de 
 ecclesiarum agitaret reformatione : com,- 
 posuit Melanchthon, cum evocato venire 
 integrum nan esset, scriptum de reforman- 
 dis ecclesiis : cujus synopsin aliquot re- 
 gulis comprehendit : quas addimus.^^^ 
 
 Vera et salutaris gubernatio ecclcsice 
 Christi proecipue in his Sex Membris con- 
 sistit." — " Primum, In vera et pura doc- 
 trina, quam Deus ecclesice sua} patefecit, 
 tradidit, et doceri mandavit. 
 
 1 Cons. Theol. p. 586. 
 
 * Gubernatio Ecclesiae in quibus consistat. 
 
 " Secundo, In legitimo usu sacramen- 
 torum. 
 
 " Tertio, In conservatione ministerii 
 evangclici et obedientice ergo pastores ec- 
 clesiarum, sicut Deus vult et postulat con- 
 servari ministerium evangelii, et servat 
 ipse sua potentia et presentia. 
 
 " Quarto, In conservatione honestoe et 
 pice disciplinoe retinendce per judicia ec- 
 clesiastica, seu jurisdictionem ecclesiasti- 
 cam. 
 
 " Quinto, In conservandis studiis ne- 
 cessarice doctrince et scholis. 
 
 " Sexto, Ad hcec opus est defensione 
 corporali et facidtatibus, ad personas, 
 quce sunt in ojiciis necessariis, alendas." 
 
 The Irish Ay-ticles of Religion, art. 58. 
 — " Neither do we give unto him (the su- 
 preme magistrate) hereby the administra- 
 tion of the word and sacraments, or the 
 power of the keys." And art. 69. — " But 
 particular and visible chui-ches (consisting 
 of those who make profession of the faith of 
 Christ, and live under the outward means 
 of salvation) be many in number, wherein 
 the more or less sincerely, according to 
 Christ's institution, the word of God is 
 taught, the sacraments are administered, 
 and the authority of the keys is used, the 
 more or less pure are such churches to be 
 accounted." 
 
 Laurentius Humfredus de Religionis 
 conservatione et Reformatione vera. Ad 
 Nobilitatem, Clerum, et Populum Angli- 
 canum, p. 23, 25. — " Nec satis mirari pos- 
 sum nec satis dolere, cum intelligam in his 
 locis repudiari disciplinam ecclesiasticam, 
 et vel nullam esse vel nimis laxam, vel non 
 satis vigilanter administratam, in quibus 
 tamen alioqui religionis sincera ejigies 
 cernitur : quasi evangelium esse possit 
 ubi non vivitur evangelice : aut quasi 
 Chnstus Iceco, carnali, voluptuario delec- 
 tetur evangclio, 8fc.^ At in ecclesia ma- 
 nere debet censura et jurisdictio, non mi- 
 nus quam gladius in 7'epub." " Sit ergo 
 hcec prima reformationis perfectce ratio, 
 nostri ac peccatorum recognitio et emen- 
 datio. Dcinde severior adsit in ecclesia 
 castigatio et animadversio : ut ilia laxitas 
 et remissio frcenetur, quo minus et levius 
 deinceps peccetur." 
 
 1 He wrote from Basil, 
 
156 
 
 AAROX'S KOD BLOSSOSirXG, OR THE 
 
 THE THIRD BOOK. 
 
 OF EXCOMMUNICATION FROM THE CHURCH, AND OF SUSPENSION 
 FROM THE LORD'S TABLE. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 AJf OPEXIXG OF THE TRITE STATE OF THE 
 QUESTION, AXD Of ilR PRYXXe's JIAXY MIS- 
 TAKES AXD MISREPRESEXTATIOXS OF OUR 
 PRINCIPLES. 
 
 Having now, by the light of Scripture and 
 other helps, asserted a church government 
 distinct from civil magistracy, both in the 
 Old and New Testament, the last part of 
 my present undertaking shall be to vindicate 
 the particular ordinances of excommunica- 
 tion and suspension, called by the school- 
 men excominunicatio major et minor, of 
 which also I have before spoken divers things 
 occasionally, for I have asserted an excom- 
 munication and suspension in the Jemsh 
 church, book i. cap. 4 — 12; the nature, 
 grounds, reasons, uses, and ends whereof 
 were not proper to the Old Testament, but 
 such as concern the Christian church. I 
 have also brought arguments, book ii. cap. 9, 
 10, which conclude not only church govern- 
 ment, but excommunication. And so much 
 of my work is done : nevertheless there is 
 more to do. Mr Prynne, first in his Four 
 Grand Queries, and thereafter in his Vin- 
 dication of the same, hath argued much both 
 against the suspension from the sacrament 
 of a person not excommunicated and wholly 
 cast out of the church, and against some of 
 the most pregnant scriptural proofs for ex- 
 communication itself. In his Vindication 
 he hath branched forth the controversy into 
 ten points of difference. Two of these, viz., 
 the fifth, concerning suspension from the sa- 
 crament of the passover, and the ninth, con- 
 cerning casting out of the sjTiagogue, I have 
 
 discussed before in the first book ; where I 
 have also examined other assertions of his 
 concerning the Jewish sanhedrim, temple, 
 confession of sin. The other points of dif- 
 ference not handled before, I am (as the 
 Lord will help me) now to speak to. 
 
 The fii'st point of difference is. Whether 
 in those Four Queries of his he stated the 
 controversy aright. He is offended that I 
 (in a sennon of mine before the Honourable 
 House of Commons) charged the questionist 
 with mistakes, and tliat I did not take notice 
 of the question concerning suspension from 
 the sacrament, as he stated it, Vindic. p. 3. 
 I had reason, because he had misstated it; 
 and since it pleased him to interpose in a 
 matter depending between the Honourable 
 Houses of Parhament, and the reverend As- 
 sembly of Divines, and to publish a paper 
 plainly reflecting upon a petition of the As- 
 sembly, I hope he cannot think either the 
 Assembly, or me, tied to his stating of the 
 question. If he will meddle with the busi- j 
 ness of the Assembly, he must speak to it as ' 
 it is. And that it may now appeal- how just 
 cause I had to charge his Queries with mis- 
 takes of the state of the question (which he 
 still niistaketh), I shall endeavour a more 
 particular and full discovery of these his 
 mistakes. And first, that which was desired 
 by the Assembly was, that such a rule may 
 be established by authority of Parhament, j 
 as may keep off all scandalous and notorious 
 sinners. The question was not what texts 
 of Scripture do warrant this thing. It did 
 not concern me to debate whether the Scrip- 
 tures of the Old and New Testament, quoted 
 by him, prove suspension from the Lord's 
 table. The controversy was of the practical 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 157 
 
 conclusion, and of establishing such a rule 
 as may keep off scandalous persons from the 
 sacrament. If the thing be done, if the con- 
 clusion be consented to, there is the greater 
 liberty for men to abound in their own sense 
 concerning the mediums to prove it. 
 
 Secondly, And if he would needs debate 
 what texts of Scripture do prove the thing, 
 and what precept or precedent in Scripture 
 doth warrant it, methinks he had done 
 better to have informed himself on what 
 scriptural proofs the reverend Assembly had 
 granted the suspension of scandalous sinners 
 from the sacrament, though not yet cast out 
 of the church. The proofs from Scripture 
 voted were these, — because the ordinance it- 
 self must not be profaned ; and because we 
 are charged to withdraw from those who 
 walk disorderly ; and because of the great 
 sin and danger both to him that comes un- 
 worthily, and also to the whole church. 
 The Scriptures from which the Assembly 
 did prove all this, were Matt. vii. 6 ; 2 Thes. 
 iii. 6, 14, 15 ; 1 Cor. xi. 27, to the end of 
 the chapter, compared with Jude, ver. 23 ; 
 1 Tim. V. 22. Another proof added by the 
 Assembly was this : There was power and 
 authority under the Old Testament to keep 
 unclean persons from holy things, Lev. xiii. 
 5 ; Num. ix. 7 ; 2 Chron. xxiii. 19 ; and the 
 like power and authority by way of analogy 
 continues under the New Testament, for the 
 authoritative suspension from the Lord's 
 table, of a person not yet cast out of the 
 church. Now that which was the strenglh 
 of the Assembly's proofs of the proposition, 
 Mr Prynne hath almost never touched, but 
 run out upon other particulars. 
 
 Thirdly, Observe that he disputes all 
 along whether any minister can suspend one 
 from the sacrament. But this nobody that 
 I know asserts. The power is given not 
 uni, but unitati, to the eldership, not to one, 
 either minister or elder. 
 
 Fourthly, That which, in the preface of 
 his Queries, he undertakes to prove, is, that 
 excommunication and suspension from the 
 sacrament, being a matter of great moment 
 and much difficulty, is to be handled and 
 established with great wisdom, caution, and 
 moderation. And his result in the close is 
 concei'ning a limited jurisdiction in presby- 
 teries. As these things are not denied by 
 any that I know, so himself manifestly ac- 
 knowledgeth by these expressions, the thing 
 itself for the substance (which yet the cur- 
 rent of his debate runneth against), and only 
 
 questioneth concerning the bounds, cautions, 
 and limitations. God forbid that church of- 
 ficers should ever claim an unlimited power : 
 their power is given them to edification, and 
 not to destruction ; and we can do nothing 
 against the truth, but for the truth, 2 Cor. 
 xiii. 8, 10. The power of censures must not 
 be in the power of any one man, nor in the 
 powder of any who are themselves scandalous 
 and worthy of censure. There must be no 
 sentence of excommunication or suspension 
 upon reports, surmises, suspicions, but either 
 upon the confession of the offence or proof 
 thereof by two witnesses at least. ^ None 
 must be excommunicated nor suspended for 
 money matters, debts, and such hke civil 
 causes which are not of ecclesiastical cogni- 
 sance, but are to be judged by the civil judge. 
 It must not be for those peccata quotldiaruv 
 incursionis, such sinful infirmities as all the 
 godly in this life are guilty of; though, on 
 the other side, the scandalous sinners meant 
 of in this controversy, must not be restricted 
 to such sins only as cannot stand with the 
 state of grace. These, and such like limita- 
 tions we do not only admit of, but desire to 
 be put. 
 
 Fifthly, He goeth about to clear the state 
 of the question out of Aretius, and citetli 
 him for what himself now undertaketh to 
 pi'ove. Mliereas Aretius holds excommu- 
 nication to be an ordinance of God both in 
 the Old and New Testament, and that it 
 was wanting through the injury and corrup- 
 tion of the times, the abuse of it in Popeiy 
 having made the thing itself hateful ; and 
 the most part, in those places where he lived, 
 loving carnal liberty so well, and taking upon 
 them the protection and defence of profane 
 ones, and being so unwilling to be brought 
 under the yoke of Christ. For these and 
 the like reasons he thought it not expedient 
 to have that discipline of excommunication 
 erected, at that time, in those parts, as him- 
 self gives the reasons ; and he professeth,^ 
 withal, that he doth not despair of better 
 times, when men shall be more wilhng to 
 submit to that discipline. So that this is 
 the question, if it shall be stated out of Are- 
 
 1 Aug., torn. 10, hora. 50. — Nos vero a commu- 
 nione prohibere quenquam uoq possumus, quamvis 
 haec prohibitio nonduiii sit mortalis, sed medicinalis, 
 nisi aut sponte confessum, aut in aliquo sive seculari 
 sive ecclesiastico j udicio nominatum atque convictum. 
 
 2 Tlieol. Probl., loc. 132. — Interea non desperan- 
 dum esse libenter fateor, dabit posterior aetas trac- 
 tabiliores forte animas, mitiora pectora, quam nos- 
 tra habent saecula. 
 
158 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 tius, Whether excommunication, being an 
 ordinance of God, ought to be settled where 
 profaneness and Hcentiousness abounds, and 
 where the better party is Hke to be oppress- 
 ed by the greater party ; or whether we 
 should wait till God send better times for 
 the settling of it. 
 
 Sixthly, The author of those questions 
 maketh a parallel between that power of 
 censures now desired to be settled in pres- 
 byteries, and the prelatical tyranny, as if 
 this were the very power which heretofore 
 was disclaimed against in, denied to, and 
 quite taken away from, the prelates. Yea, 
 in the close, he makes this power now de- 
 sired to be settled in the presbyteries, to be 
 such as our very lordly prelates never 
 durst to claim, yet ecclesice Anglicance 
 politeia in tabulas digesta authore Rich- 
 ardo Cousin, tab. 5, tells me, that the epis- 
 copal jurisdiction did exercise itself in those 
 censures which were common both to lay- 
 men and clergymen (as they were called). 
 \. Inter dictio divinorum. 2. Monitio. S. 
 Suspensio vel ah ingresu ecclesice, vel aper- 
 ceptione sacramentorum. 4. Excommuni- 
 catio. 5. Anathematismus, Sfc. Never- 
 theless there is a truth, too, in that which 
 Mr Prynne saith : I confess the prelates 
 never durst desire that which this learned 
 and pious Assembly hath desired in this par- 
 ticular. He hath said it. The prelates 
 never durst, indeed, take upon them to sus- 
 pend all scandalous persons from the sacra- 
 ment ; for if they had, it had been said unto 
 most of them, " Physician, cure thyself," be- 
 sides the losing of many of their party. 
 And, moreover, the very lordly prelates 
 never durst make themselves to be but 
 members of presbyteries, nor to be subject 
 to the admonitions and censures of their 
 brethren, which every minister now must 
 do. The lordly prelate did (contrary to the 
 institution of Jesus Christ) make himself 
 pastor of many congregations, even of his 
 whole diocese, and did assume sole and 
 whole power of government and church 
 censures to himself, and his underling offi- 
 cers, which wei'e to execute the same in his 
 name. And, as the appropriating of juris- 
 diction to the lordly prelate, so the manner 
 and kind of his government, and his pro- 
 ceedings in ecclesiastical censures, came nei- 
 ther from Christ, nor from the purest anti- 
 quity, but from the Pope's canon law. What 
 then hath presbytery to do with prelacy ? 
 As much as light with darkness, or righte- 
 
 ousness with un righteousness. He that would 
 see more of the differences between presby- 
 terial and prelatical government, let him 
 read a book printed in the prelates' times, 
 entitled The Pastor and the Prelate ; and 
 The Clear Antithesis between Presbytery 
 and Prelacy, printed at London, anno. 
 1644. See also what I have said before, 
 book ii., chap. 3. 
 
 Seventhly, It is evident, by his fourth 
 question, that he states the case as if minis- 
 ters meant to know the secrets of all men's 
 hearts, and to be so censorious and peremp- 
 tory in their judging, as to quench the smok- 
 ing flax, or to break the bruised reed. There- 
 upon he asks. Whether the sacraments may 
 be denied to a man, " if he desires to receive 
 it, in case he profess his sincere repentance for 
 his sins past, and promise newness of life for 
 the time to come?" God forbid we be cen- 
 sorious, peremptory, and rigid in our judg- 
 ing of men's spiritual estate ; where there is 
 any thing of Christ, it is to be cherished, 
 not quenched. But again, God forbid that 
 we shut our eyes to call darkness light, or 
 black white. In that very place where our 
 Saviour condemneth uncharitable judgment, 
 immediately he addeth, " Give not that 
 which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye 
 pearls before swine," Matt. vii. 6. Impeni- 
 tency under a scandalous sin, is discernible 
 either by not confessing it, or by not for- 
 saking it. All our present controversy is 
 concerning a visible church, visible saints, 
 visible holiness, visible repentance, visible 
 fitness or qualification for the sacrament ; 
 that is, of such external signs and evidences 
 as the word of God holds out for judging of 
 the spiritual estate of other men, not of 
 such internal gracious marks whereby a man 
 must judge of his own spu'itual estate ;i and 
 so he that professeth his sincere repentance 
 for his sins past, and promiseth newness of 
 life for the time to come, if there be no- 
 thing which (visibly and to the eye of man) i 
 giveth the lie to his profession and promise 
 (for instance, if it can be proved that, im- 
 
 1 Concil. Nicaen,, can. 11. — Ab omnibus yero illud j 
 praecipue observetur, ut animus eorum et fructus | 
 paenitentiae attendatnr. Quicunque enim cum omni ' 
 timore et lachrymis perseverantibus, et operibus 
 bonis conversationem suam, non verbis solis, sed 
 opere et veritat demonstrant, cum tempus statutum 
 etiam ab his fuerit impletum, et orationibus jam 
 caeperint communicare, licebit etiam episcopo buma- 
 nius circa eos aliquid cogitare. Qui vero indifferen- 
 ter babuerint lapsum, et sufBcere sibi quod eccle- 
 siam introierint, arbitrantur, ipsi omnimodo tem- 
 pora statuta complebunt. 
 
DIVIXE ORDIN.Wv^CE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 159 
 
 mediately before or immediately after, he 
 hath professed or promised the contrary to 
 his companions in his wickedness, or that he 
 still continueth in the practice of that sin), 
 is not to be excluded as an impenitent sin- 
 ner from the sacrament. 
 
 Eighthly, The third query, as also the con- 
 clusion of all, runneth upon a great mistake, 
 by reason of the confounding of things which 
 are of a different nature. There is gj-eat 
 weight laid upon this, that there is as nmch 
 sin and danger to a man's soul in his unwor- 
 thy and unprofitable hearing of the word, as 
 in his unworthy receiving of the sacrament ; 
 and, therefore, ministers may as well refuse to 
 preach unto people, whom they deem unpro- 
 fitable hearers, as refuse to give them the 
 sacrament, because they judge them unmeet 
 to receive it. Whether the sin of unworthy 
 hearing be as great as the sin of unworthy 
 receiving the sacrament, I will not now de- 
 bate. The Refill which was made to his 
 Queries, by another, hath said enough to 
 I that point.i But that which I intend in 
 I this place, is (for clearing a main principle 
 which we go upon) to distinguish these 
 two things. There are some ordinances 
 appointed for the conversion of sinners ; 
 j there are other ordinances appointed for the 
 communion of saints. The preaching of 
 the word, and the hearing thereof, though 
 it hath no small influence into the commu- 
 nion of saints, yet it is also appointed for 
 convertino- and bringing in sinners who have 
 no part in the comnmnion of saints. The 
 sacrament was not appointed for the con- 
 version of sinners, but as peculiar to the 
 communion of saints. The apostles preached 
 to the unbelieving Jews in the temple and 
 synagogues. Acts ii. 46; iii. 11, 12; v. 12, 
 42 ; ix. 20, 22, 23. But it is only said of 
 those that gladly received the word, " They 
 continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine 
 and fellowship, and in breaking of bread and 
 in pi-aycr," Acts ii. 42. The apostles preach- 
 ed also to many heathens and idolaters, but 
 they admitted none to the sacraments till 
 they saw such evidences as might per- 
 suade them, in the judgment of charity, 
 that they were such as might be admit- 
 ted. They that are suspended from the 
 sacrament, yea, they that are excommuni- 
 I cated, are admitted to the hearing of the 
 j word for their conversion, as the unbelieving 
 
 1 1 A full Answei' to a printed paper entitled " Four 
 Serious Questions concerning Excommunication and 
 I Suspension," &c. 
 
 Jews and heathens were. Can any allege 
 the like reason for admitting them to the 
 sacrament ? l^rastus himself observeth^ that 
 the unclean, under the law, who might not 
 eat of the passover, yet were not forbidden, 
 but commanded, to observe the Sabbath and 
 the feast of expiation. I mention it only as 
 an argument ad hominem. If a sinner be 
 known for an unprofitable hearer of the 
 word, that cannot make it a sin to me to 
 preach any more to him ; but if he be 
 known to be a dog or a swine in reference 
 to the sacrament, that will make it a sin to 
 me if I minister the sacrament to him. 
 The reason is, because I am still bound to 
 endeavour his conversion (not knowing that 
 he hath blasphemed against the Iluly Ghost), 
 but I am not bound to give him the seal of 
 remission of sins and salvation by Jesus 
 Christ ; yea, it were sin to give that seal to 
 him who is visibly and apparently incapable 
 of such sweet and comfortable application of 
 Christ. I conclude, that the suspending of 
 scandalous persons from the saci'anient, is 
 neither only nor principally grounded upon 
 the sin and guilt of eating and drinking un- 
 worthily, which will cleave to the unworthy 
 communicant, but rather (not excluding the 
 other) upon the nature of the ordinance, 
 which is such as cannot admit of the notori- 
 ously scandalous to receive, but that holy or- 
 dinance shall thereby be profaned and made 
 common ; for what can be more contrary to 
 the nature of that ordinance, and to the in- 
 stitution of Jesus Christ, than to turn the 
 communion of saints into the communion of 
 scandalous sinners, and to make that which 
 was instituted for the comfort of those that 
 repent and believe, to be a comfort and seal 
 of salvation to those who are known by their 
 fruits tohaveneither repentance norfaith,and 
 so to send them away with a good conceit of 
 their spiritual estate, and thereby to streng- 
 then their hearts and hands in wickedness ? 
 
 Ninthly, The question is not whether all 
 scandalous persons are to be excommunicat- 
 ed and wholly cast out off the church. The 
 Assembly's petition was not concerning ex- 
 communicating, but concerning suspending, 
 from the sacrament, all scandalous persons. 
 Yet the current of Mr Prynne's argumen- 
 
 1 Confirm. Thes., lib. 2, p. 134. ■ — Non tamen pro 
 non Judseo, Tel non circumciso, ant pro improbo 
 damnatu habcbatur cogcbatur nihil ominus secun- 
 dum ritus patrios vivere, Sabbatura custo dire, alia- 
 que talia facere. Quin etiara a sacramento cxpia- 
 tionis generalis, qua; die 10, nienisis Septembris per 
 agebatur, Lev. xvii. 23,iramundi nulliexcludebantur. 
 
160 
 
 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 tation, both in his Queries and in his Vin- 
 dication thereof, for the most part, runneth 
 along against excommunication and suspen- 
 sion from the sacrament, as the titles like- 
 wise do promise, which is a fallacy a con- 
 junctis ad divisa. And when he debateth 
 so much concerning excommunication and 
 suspension, his and is either copulative or 
 exegetical. If copulative, he opposeth no- 
 body, that I know, so much as himself ; for 
 I know none that would have all scandalous 
 sinners suspended, to be excommunicated 
 also, except himself. If exegetical, even so 
 he is contrary to himself, who confesseth 
 that one may be suspended from the sacra- 
 ment before he be excommunicated, Vindic. 
 p. 50, 51. And whereas, in the latter part 
 of his first Query, he would drive us to this 
 hard choice, that either a scandalous person 
 must be excommunicated, or not suspended 
 from the sacrament. He saith it is evident, 
 by Tertuliian's Apology, cap. 39, et Lib. de 
 Pcenit., that scandalous persons were ever 
 excommunicate and wholly cast out of the 
 church, not barely sequestered from the sa- 
 crament. Whence (saith he) all the canon- 
 ists and schoolmen determine that an ex- 
 communicate person is excluded from the 
 church and all public ordinances. Let the 
 prudent reader observe, that mstead of prov- 
 ing that scandalous persons were wholly cast 
 out of the church, he tells us out of the ca- 
 nonists and schoolmen, that excommunicate 
 persons were wholly cast out of the church ; 
 that is, that those who were cast out of the 
 church, were cast out of the church. And, 
 for his antiquity, he hath given here no small 
 wound to the reputation of his skill in anti- 
 quities, which will more fully appear, chap. 
 17. Meanwhile, how can any that hath 
 read TertuUian or Cyprian, not know that 
 some failings and falls in time of persecution, 
 and other smaller offences, were not punish- 
 ed by excommunication, but by suspension 
 from the sacrament, till, after pubhc decla- 
 ration of repentajice and confession of the 
 offence, the offender was admitted to the sa- 
 crament ? And for the places he citeth, I 
 find in Tertuliian's book, de Poenitentia, 
 much of that exomologesis and public decla- 
 ration of repentance, but that all scandalous 
 persons brought under church censures were 
 wholly cast out of the church, I find not. 
 In the thirty-ninth chapter of his Apologe- 
 tic, there is no such thing as is alleged, but 
 the contrary plainly intimated concerning 
 I several degrees of ecclesiastical discipline ; 
 
 and that if any man's offence was so great 
 as to deserve excommunication, then he was 
 excommunicate and wholly cast out of the 
 church.* And as, in the ancient churches, 
 there were, and, in the reformed churches, 
 there now are, different degrees of censures, 
 according to the different degrees of offences, 
 so, in the Jewish church, the hke may be ob- 
 served, both concerning ceremonial unclean- 
 ness and moral offences. Touching the for- 
 mer, that law. Num. v. 2, " Command the 
 children of Israel that they put out of the 
 camp every leper, and every one that hath 
 an issue, and whosoever is defiled by the 
 dead," hath been understood by the Jewish 
 doctors respective ; that is, that the leper 
 was put out of all the three camps, the camp 
 of Israel, the camp of the Levites, and the 
 camp of divine majesty, which was the ta- 
 bernacle : he that an issue might be in the 
 camp of Israel, but was put out of the other 
 two. He that was defiled by the dead, was 
 only restrained from the camp of divine ma- 
 jesty, for which also see before, book i. chap. 
 10. And touching moral offences, there 
 were several steps and degi'ees in the J ewish 
 excommunication, as Mr Selden hath ob- 
 served from the Talmudists; for, first, a 
 man was separate from the congregation for 
 thirty days, and if thereafter he was found 
 obstmate, he was separate for other thirty 
 days, and if after sixty days he did i)ot re- 
 pent, then they passed from the lesser ex- 
 communication to the greater ; that is, from 
 niddui and shammatta (as he thinketh) to 
 cherem or anathema. The author of the 
 Queries, while he argueth in that first query, 
 against the suspending, from the sacrament, 
 of a person not excommunicated, nor whoUy 
 cast out of the church, closeth in this parti- 
 cular, with them of the separation (which I 
 believe he did it not intended to do) ; for 
 they, in one of their letters in answer to the 
 second letter of Fr. Junius, written to them, 
 where they bring eleven exceptions against 
 the Dutch churches, one of these exceptions 
 was that " they use a new censure of sus- 
 pension, -which Christ hath not appointed." 
 They do hold excommunication to be an 
 ordinance of Christ, but do reject the dis- 
 tinction of suspension and excommunication, 
 as Mr Prynne doth. 
 
 1 Ibidem etiam exhortationes, castigationes, et 
 censura di^ana. Nam et jiidicatnr magno cum pon- 
 dei-e nt apud certos de Dei con>pectu : summnmqne 
 futuri judicii prajjudiciiira est, si qiiis ita deliquerit, 
 ut a communicatione orationis, et conventus, et om- 
 nls sancti commercii relegetur. 
 
DIVIXE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 161 
 
 Tenthly, The true state of the present 
 question is not, Wliether the parhament 
 should cstabhsh the power oi suspending 
 scandjxious persons from the sacrament, as 
 jure divino (nay, let divines assert that, 
 and satisfy people's consciences in it ; but let 
 the parliament speak in an authoritative and 
 legislative vray, in adding their civil sanc- 
 tion). Nor, whether there ought to be any 
 suspension from the sacrament of scandalous 
 pei-sons, not yet excommunicated and cast 
 out of the church ; and that the eldership 
 should do it; for the ordinance of parliament 
 hath so far satisfied the desires of the re- 
 verend Assembly, and of the generality of 
 godly people, that there is to be a suspen- 
 sion of scandalous persons (not excommu- 
 nicated) from the sacrament, and power is 
 granted to the eldership to suspend from the 
 sacrament for such scandals as are enu- 
 merate in the ordinances of Oct. 20, 1645, 
 and March 14, 1645. Which ordinances do 
 appoint, that all persons, or any person, that 
 shall commit such or such an offence, shall 
 be by the eldership suspended from the sa- 
 crament, upon confession of the party, or 
 upon the testimony of two credible wit- 
 nesses. So that in truth the stream of Mr 
 Prynne's exceptions runneth against that 
 which is agreed and resolved upon in parlia- 
 ment ; and his arguments (if they prove 
 anything) must necessarily conclude against 
 that power already granted by parliament 
 to elderships. And now if he will speak to 
 that point which is in present public agi- 
 tation, he must lay aside his Queries and 
 his Vindication thereof, and write another 
 book to prove that the Assembly, and otlier 
 godly ministers and people, ought to rest sa- 
 tisfied (in point of conscience) with the power 
 granted to elderships to suspend from the 
 sacrament in the enumerate cases, and that 
 there is not the like reason to keep off scan- 
 dalous persons from the sacrament for other 
 scandals beside these enumerate in tlie ordi- 
 nance of parliament. Nay, and he must 
 confine himself within a narrower circle 
 than so ; for the parliament hath been 
 pleased to think of some course for new 
 emergent cases, that the door may not be 
 shut for the future upon the remonstrances 
 of elderships concernirig cases not expressed. 
 I know the gentleman is free to choose his 
 own theme to treat of, and he may handle 
 what cases of conscience he shall think fit 
 for the church's edification. But since he 
 professethin the conclusion of his jPo wr Ques- 
 
 tions and in the preface before his Vindica- 
 tion, and in divers other passages, that his 
 scope is to expedite a regular settlement of 
 church discipline, without such a power of 
 suspending the scandalous as now is desired to 
 be settled in the new elderships, and mani- 
 festly reflecteth upon one of the Assembly's 
 petitions concerning that business, as hath 
 been said ; yea, the first words of his Queries 
 tell us, he spoke to the point in present 
 public agitation, the case standing thus : I 
 must put him in mind (under favour) that 
 he hath not been a little out of the way, 
 nor a little wide from the mark. 
 
 And if the question were. Which of these 
 tenets (Mr Prynne's or ours) concerning 
 suspension, doth best agree with the mind 
 of the parliament? let us hear their own ordi- 
 nance, dated March 14, 1645, — the words are 
 these : " Yet were the fundamentals and 
 substantial parts of that government long 
 since settled in persons by and over whom it 
 was to be exercised, and the nature, extent, 
 and respective subordination of their power 
 was limited and defined ; only concerning 
 the administration of the sacrament of the 
 Lord's supper — how all such persons as were 
 guilty of notorious and scandalous offences 
 might be suspended from it — some difficulty 
 arising, not so much in the matter itself, as 
 in the manner, — how it should be done, and 
 who should be the judges of the offence ; the 
 lords and commons having it always in their 
 purpose and intention, and it being accord- 
 ingly declared and resolved by them that 
 all sorts of notorious scandalous o fenders 
 should he suspended from the sacrament:'" 
 which is the very point so much opposed by 
 Mr Prynne ; for the controversy moved by 
 him is not so much concerning the manner, 
 or who should be the judges, as concerning 
 the matter itself; he contending that all 
 sorts of notorious scandalous offenders should 
 not be suspended from the sacrament, but 
 only such as are excommunicated and ex- 
 cluded from the hearing of the word, prayer, 
 and all other public ordinances. 
 
 Having now removed so many mistakes 
 of the true state of the question, that which is 
 in controversy is plainly tliis: Whether, ac- 
 cording to the word of God, there ought to be 
 in the elderships of churches a spiritual power 
 and authority, i)y which they that are called 
 brethren, that is, chui'ch members, or offi- 
 cers, for the public scandal of a profane life, 
 or of pernicious doctrine, or for a private 
 offence obstinately continued in after ad- 
 
 X 
 
aauon's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 162 
 
 monitions, and so growing to a pulilic scan- 
 dal, are, upon proof of sucli scandal, to be 
 suspended from the Lord's table until signs 
 of repentance appear in them ; and if they 
 continue contumacious, are in the name of 
 Jesus Christ to be excommunicate and cut 
 off from all membership and communion 
 with the church, and their sins pronounced 
 to be bound on earth, and by consequence in 
 heaven, until by true and sincere repent- 
 ance they turn to God, and by the declara- 
 tion of such repentance be reconciled unto 
 the church. The affirmative is the received 
 doctrine of the reformed churches, where- 
 unto I adhere. The first part of it, concern- 
 ing suspension, is utterly denied by Mr 
 Prynne, which l^reaketh the concatenation 
 and order of chiu'ch discipline held forth in 
 the question now stated. Whether he de- 
 nieth also excommunication by elderships to 
 be an ordinance and institution of Christ, 
 and only holdeth it to be lawful and war- 
 rantable by the word of God, I am not cer- 
 tain. If he do, then he holds the total ne- 
 gative of this present question. However, I 
 am sure he hath gone about to take away 
 some of the principal scriptural foundations 
 and pillars upon which excommunication 
 is built. As touching the gradation and 
 
 j order in the question as now stated,^ it is 
 meant positively and exclusivdi/, that such 
 a gradation not only may, but ought to be 
 observed ordinarily (which Mr Prynne de- 
 nieth), although I deny not that for some 
 
 I public, enormous, heinous abominations, there 
 may be (without such degrees of proceed- 
 ing) a present cutting off by excommunica- 
 tion. But this belongs not to the present 
 controversy. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 WHETHER MATT. XVIII. 15 17, PROVE EX- 
 COMMUNICATION. 
 
 The second point of difference is concern- 
 ing Matt, xviii. Mr Prynne, in the first of 
 his Four Questions, told us that the woi'ds. 
 Matt, xviii. 17, " Let him be to thee as an 
 heathen man and a publican," are meant 
 only of personal private trespasses between 
 man and man, not public scandalous sins 
 
 1 Ypa, now also, it appeareth by his Diotrephes 
 Catechised, that he deuieth and opposeth excommu- 
 nication itself, at least under a Christian magistrate. 
 
 against the congregation ; and that it is not 
 said, " Let him be to the whole church, but 
 let him be to thee," &;c. This I did in my 
 Sermon retort ; for if to thee, for a personal 
 private trespass, much more to the whole 
 church, for a puljlic scandalous sin, whereby 
 he trespasseth against the whole congrega- 
 tion. Yea, it foUoweth upon his interpreta- 
 tion, that he may account the whole church 
 as heathens and publicans, if all the mem- 
 bers of the church do him a personal injury; 
 whereupon I left this to be considered by 
 every man of understanding. Whether, if a 
 private man may account the whole church as 
 heathens and publicans for a personal injury 
 done to himself alone, it will not follow, that 
 much more the whole church may account 
 a man as an heathen and publican for a pub- 
 lic scandalous sin against the whole church. 
 Mr Prynne, in his Vindication, p. 3, glan- 
 ceth at this objection ; but he takes notice 
 only of the half of it ; and he is so far fi'om 
 turning off my retortion, that he confirmeth 
 it ; for p. 4, he confesseth that every Chris- 
 tian hath free power, by God's word, to es- 
 teem not only a particular brother, but all 
 the members of a congregation, as heathens 
 and publicans, if he or they continue impen- 
 itent in the case of private injuries, after ad- 
 monition. Now my exception against his 
 Query remains unanswered. If I may es- 
 teem the whole church as heathens and pub- 
 licans, when they do me an injury and con- 
 tinue impenitent therein, may not the whole 
 church esteem me as an heathen man and a 
 publican, when I commit a public and scan- 
 dalous trespass against the whole church, 
 and continue impenitent therein ? Shall a 
 private man have power to cast off the whole 
 church as heathens and publicans, and shall 
 not the whole church have power to cast off 
 one man as an heathen and publican ? I 
 know he understands those words, "Let him 
 be to thee as an heathen man and a pub- 
 lican," in another sense than either the re- 
 formed churches do or the ancient churches 
 did, and takes the meaning to be of avoid- 
 ing fellowship and familiarity with him, be- 
 fore any sentence of excommunication passed 
 against the offender. But, however, my ar- 
 gument from jjroportion will hold : if civil 
 fellowship must be refiased, because of ob- 
 stinacy in a civil injury, why shall not spi- 
 ritual or church fellowship be refused to him 
 that hath committed a spiritual injuiy or 
 trespass against the church ? If private fel- 
 lowship ought to be denied unto him that 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 1G3 
 
 will not repent of a private injury, why shall 
 not public fellowship, in eating and drinking 
 with the church at the Lord's table, be de- 
 nied unto him that will not repent of a pub- 
 lic scandal given to the congregation ? Are 
 the rules of church fellowship looser and 
 wider than the rules of civil fellowship, or 
 are they straiter ? Is the way of communion 
 of saints broader than the way of civil com- 
 munion, or is it narrower? Peradventure 
 he will say, that the whole church, that is, 
 all the members of the church, have power 
 to withdraw from an obstinate scandalous 
 brother ; that is, to have no fraternal con- 
 verse or private Christian fellowship with 
 him. Well then, if thus far he be as an hea- 
 then and a publican to the whole church dis- 
 tributively, how shall he be as a Christian 
 brother to the whole church collectively ? If 
 all the members of the church severally 
 withdraw fellowship from him, even before 
 he be excommunicated, how shall the whole 
 church together be bound to keep fellowship 
 with him till he be excomnumicated ? In- 
 stead of loosing such knots, Mr Prynne un- 
 dertakes to prove another thing, — that this 
 text of jSIatthew is not meant ot' excommu- 
 nication or church censures, and that the 
 church in this text was not any ecclesiastical 
 consistory (here he citeth .Tosephus, as if he 
 had spoken of that text), but only the san- 
 hedrim or court of civil justice. But though 
 all this were true which he saith, yet there 
 may be a good ai'gxnnent drawn by necessary 
 consequence from this text, to prove excom- 
 munication ; which Grotius did well per- 
 ceive ; for in his annotations upon the place, 
 after he hath told his opinion that excom- 
 munication is not meant in this text, he 
 addeth, that he hath elsewhere spoken of 
 the antiquity and necessity of excommuni- 
 cation : Quanquani ad earn ex hoc ctiam 
 loco non absurde argumentum duct posse, 
 nan ncgaverim: though I will not deny, 
 saith he, that even from this place, the 
 argument may be drawn to excommunica- 
 tion without any absurdity. My ai-gument 
 afore-mentioned will hold good even from 
 Mr Prynne's own exposition. Thus far I 
 have gone upon a concession ; now to the 
 confutation. Before I come to his reasons, I 
 observe in his margin, a double mistake of 
 the testimony of Scapula. First, he sends 
 us to Scapula to learn that eKKXrjiria signifieth 
 any civil assembly or council, as well as an 
 ecclesiastical presbytery. Yes : Scapula tells 
 us it hath, in heathen writers, a general sig- 
 
 nification, to express any assembly called 
 forth ; but he added immediately, that in 
 the writings of Christians, it sionifieth the 
 assembly of such as are called to eternal life, 
 and do profess Christian religion. Since, | 
 therefore, it hath not the same signification 
 in heathen writings, and in the New Testa- i 
 ment, he should have showed us where the j 
 word eKi^XiTjiu in the New Testament doth ; 
 signify a civil court of justice. I hope the j 
 Holy Ghost did speak so in this place as he j 
 might be understood, and to take the word j 
 church here, in that sense which it hath l 
 nowhere else in the New Testament, doth } 
 not agree with that received maxim, — that j 
 Scripture is to be expounded by Scripture, j 
 I find, indeed, the word eicKXriaia used for j 
 a civil assembly, Acts xix. 39, 41 ; but as ' 
 that is ail heathen assembly, so it is not the 
 evangelist Luke's expression otherwise than i 
 recitative; that is, he mentioneth an hea- 
 then assembly under that name by which 
 heathens themselves called it. His other mis- I 
 take of Scapula is, the citing of him for that ' i 
 assertion, that the church in this text is not ' 
 an ecclesiastical consistory ; whereas Scapula 
 doth expound the church. Matt, xviii., to be 
 meant of the presbytery or college of elders 
 (as Stephani Thesaurus doth also) and hav- ; 
 ino- told that the word signifieth the whole 
 Christian churcli, also particular congrega- 
 tions, he addeth two more restricted signifi- 
 cations : sometimes it signifieth a Christian 
 family, sometimes the presbytery; for this 
 last he citeth Matt, xviii. Now I proceed to 
 Mr Prynne's reasons : — j 
 First, saith he. This text " speaks not at j 
 all of public scandalous sin against the church I 
 or congregation, the proper object of church I 
 censures, but only of private civil trespasses 
 between man and man, as is evident by 
 the words, ' If thy brother trespass against 
 thee, go and tell him his fault between him 
 and thee,'" &c. Ans. We have ever un- 
 derstood that place of such trespasses which 
 grow public afterwards by the offender's 
 obstinacy after admonition. Yet the tres- 
 pass here meant, may be often such as even 
 at first is scandalous to more than one. Such 
 a case falleth under Christ's rule here, and 
 is not excluded. Wherein observe Durand 
 upon the fourth book of the Master of Sen- 
 
 1 Stcpli. Restringitur et alio modo ixxXniTM ad sy- 
 nedriuiu seu presbyteriuin, id est seniorum colle- 
 gium, ut jMatt. -wiii. So Marlorat in Thesauro isaith, 
 that the word ecdesia is taken pro senatu ecclesi- 
 astico, Matt, xviii. 17. 
 
164 
 
 Aaron's rod blossomixg, or the 
 
 tcnces, (list. 19, quest. 4, " But if (saitli he) 
 the sin be not altogether secret, nor alto- 
 gether known; that is, such as is known to 
 many by whom he may be convicted, or he 
 is ill reported of among grave persons, 
 though the public fame be not against him, 
 so the procedure which Christ hath set us 
 in the gospel, seemeth to have place, to wit, 
 that first he may be secretly admonished 
 concerning his amendment ; which if it pro- 
 fit not, that he may be admonished concern- 
 ing his amendment before those who know 
 the fact; but if that also do not profit, that 
 then he may be declared to the church." 
 But if we should grant that no other tres- 
 pass is meant here but a private trespass, 
 yet I a«k, is there no trespass but that which 
 is civil ? The schoolmen writing de scandalo 
 will tell him that one brother trespasseth 
 against another when he scandaliseth him by 
 any sinful example, though without any civil 
 injury. iS'^ay, it is the greatest trespass 
 which is committed against the soul of our 
 neighbour : scandal is soul-murder. It is a 
 breach of the law of love, not only by omis- 
 sion, but by commission. He that is com- 
 manded to edify his brother, and then giv- 
 eth scandal to him, doth he not trespass 
 against his bi'other ? The like answer 1 re- 
 turn to that which he addeth, that " Luke, 
 relating the same thing ^^■ithout any die 
 ccclestce, Luke xviii. 3, 4, puts it out of 
 question, if compared with Gen. lii. 31 
 (there is no such scripture) 1 Sam. xxv. 28." 
 What : out of question ? Doth he not find 
 scandalous sins in the two verses immediately 
 preceding in Luke, and thereupon it is imme- 
 diately added, " Take heed to youi-selves, if 
 thy brother ti-espass against thee, rebuke 
 him, and if he repent, forgive him." Can- 
 not a Christian rebuke his brother who 
 scandaliseth him, and if he repent, forgive 
 him ? Luke needed not add die ecclesice, 
 because he speaks of a repenting brother, 
 not of an impenitent brother, after private 
 admonition. And that scandalous trespasses 
 are understood. Matt, xviii. 19 (as Augus- 
 tine, Tostatus, and many others have ob- 
 served), may thus appear: 1. Scandals are the 
 greatest and worst trespasses, as hath been 
 said, and " Woe unto the world because of 
 offences." Surely Jesus Christ did intend to 
 provide a remedy against the gi'eatest evils 
 rather than against the lesser. 2. Christ 
 would not be judge of civil injuries, Luke 
 xii. 14, how can it be then supposed that 
 he giveth here laws concerning civil rather 
 
 than spiritual injuries? 3. Christ saith, " If 
 he shall hear (not repair) thee, thou hast 
 gained (not thy goods, or thy good name, or 
 the Hke, but) thy brother." Intimating, that 
 it is not a man's own interest, but the rescu- 
 ing of his brother's soul from sin and scan- 
 dal, Avhich is here sought. Mr Prynne him- 
 self confirmeth it not a little ; for he takes 
 the meaning to be of avoiding a brother's 
 company, in the case of a civil or private in- 
 jury, if he " continue impenitent after ad- 
 monition." Now, wiiat if he that hath done 
 the injury make full reparation, and all real 
 satisfaction to the brother injured, and yet 
 continue impenitent, showing no symptom 
 at aU of repentance, must he not, by Mr 
 Prynne's exposition, be esteemed as an hea- 
 then man and a publican, because of his visi- 
 ble and scandalous impenitency? How often 
 hath it been seen, that a man was compelled 
 by law, or pei-suaded by friends to make a real 
 restitution and full satisfaction for a civil or 
 pei'sonal injury, and yet hath given very great 
 scandal by his impenitency, not so much as 
 coniessing, but still defending and justifying 
 his sinful act, in his discourses ? 4. The de- 
 pendency upon the preceding parts of that 
 chapter confirmeth it. From the beginning of 
 the chapter to this very text,ver. 15, Christ 
 hath been upon the doctrine of scandals, 
 warning us not to offend so much as one of 
 his little ones, which he presseth by divers 
 arguments. 5. The Erastians and we do both 
 agree in this, that Christ here hath a re- 
 spect to the Jewish government. Now, the 
 trespasses for which men were excommuni- 
 cated by the Jewish sanhedrim were scan- 
 dalous trespasses, such as the despising of 
 any of the precepts of the law of Moses, or 
 statutes of the scribes ; the doing of servile 
 work upon Easter eve ; the mentioning of 
 the name of God rashly, or by a vain oath ; 
 the inducing of othei's to profane the name 
 of God, or to eat holy things without the 
 holy place, and the like. Moi-e of this else- 
 where, in the twenty-four causes of the Jew- 
 ish excommunication. 6. Mr Prynne ex- 
 poundetli this text in Matthew by 1 Cor. 
 V. 9 — 12, but there the Apostle intends the 
 purging of the church from scandals, whe- 
 tlier those scandals have any private injury in 
 them or not. Instance in idolatry and di-unk- 
 enness there mentioned. 7- I can also (with- 
 out yielding the least advantage to the Eras- 
 tian cause) admit and suppose that which is so 
 much pressed both by Erastus, Mr Prynne, 
 and others, viz., that these words, " If thy 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 165 
 
 brother trespass against thee," are spoken of 
 a pei-sonal injury between man and man. 
 Though I do not grant the thing, yet I am 
 content, even upon their own supposition, to 
 argue from this text. And first, it may be 
 answered with Aegidius de Coninck, dc Ac- 
 tib. Supernat. disp. 28, dub. 8, that Christ 
 doth not speak of the case of personal injuries, 
 as if he meant to restrict unto such cases the 
 order of proceeding for gaining of the offend- 
 er's soul from sin, " but only for example's 
 sake he brought such kind of sin, of which it 
 might have been most doubted, whether in 
 the reproof thereof this order be to be kept, 
 and in which it can be most hardly observed, 
 in respect of the innate desire of revenge in 
 many."^ 2. Let our opposites themselves 
 say, whether we ought not, in conscience and 
 duty, endeavour the gaining of an offending 
 brother's soul, when we see him commit a 
 trespass against God, which is no personal 
 injury to ourselves, as well as when the tres- 
 pass is a personal injury ? 3. As this order 
 of proceeding here prescribed by Christ, is 
 (in the case of a personal injury) the great- 
 est trial of Christian love in the person of- 
 fended, so it may (by God's blessing) be the 
 stronger and more efficacious upon the per- 
 son oS'ending, to conquer and overcome his 
 spirit, while he that might prosecute him in 
 a legal and criminal way, cometh in meek- 
 ness and love to admonish him, and to en- 
 deavour the gaining of him from sin by re- 
 pentance : which is the observation of Chry- 
 sostom upon the place, — " For if he that 
 might demand punishment upon him, even 
 that man be seen to be taking care of his 
 salvation, this, most of all other things, is 
 able to make him ashamed, and to yield." 
 4. If it be a civil and personal injury ma- 
 terially, yet it comes not in here under that 
 formal consideration, but partly as a scandal 
 to him that hath received the injury (so that 
 Chrysostom doth rightly make this text to 
 hang together with that which was said be- 
 fore in the same chapter concerning scan- 
 dals) partly as a soid-destroying sin upon 
 him that doth the wrong, which doth en- 
 danger his salvation. And if under such a 
 notion private injuries be here spoken of, 
 then what have our opposites gained ? 5. The 
 scope also is not civil but wholly spiritual; 
 
 1 Sed solum exempli causa attulit tale genus pec- 
 cati, de quo maxime poterat dubitari, an in ejus 
 correptione hie ordo servandus sit, et in quo diffi- 
 cillime servetur, ob innatam multis cupiditatem 
 vindictae. 
 
 which Chrysostom doth very well explain, 
 Horn. 60 in Matt. " What is it? ' If he shall 
 hear thee,' if he shall be persuaded to con- 
 demn himself of sin, ' thou hast gained thy 
 brother.' He saith not thou hast a sujicient 
 punishment or satisfaction, but ' thou hast 
 gained thy brother.' (And after). He saith 
 not accuse, nor censure, nor demand punish- 
 ments, but convince, saith he." The con- 
 text confirmeth it; for these words are im- 
 mediately added after the parable of bring- 
 ing home the lost sheep. Which parable we 
 have also Luke xv. (where it is not applied 
 to the reducing of such as have done private 
 injuries, but of publicans and sinners who 
 were publicly scandalous ; this I thought 
 good to note by the way). Ammonius Alex- 
 andrinus, de Quatuor Evang. Consonantia, 
 cap. 96, 97, doth together with the parable 
 of the lost sheep add also the other two, of 
 the lost penny and the lost son, immediately 
 before these words, " If thy brother tres- 
 pass against thee," &c. 6. And suppose 
 that the business hath its rise and beginning 
 from a personal injury, ver. 15, yet the tres- 
 pass for which the man is to be held as a 
 heathen and a publican, is a public scandal- 
 ous sin against the church or congregation, 
 namely, his neglecting to hear the church, 
 ver. 17 ; for it is not his first trespass, but 
 his contumacy against the church, which, 
 by this text, is to make him esteemed as an 
 heathen and a publican. 
 
 Before I leave this point, I will answer 
 the chief arg-ument by which Erastus would 
 prove that this text is meant only of private 
 civil mjuries; because, saith he, the trespass 
 here spoken of is no other than what one 
 brother may foi-give to another. I answer, 
 both he and Mr Prynne do suppose this text, 
 Matt. XV. 16, 17, to be parallel to that in 
 Luke xvii. 3, 4, which they take for granted, 
 without proof or reason. Certainly there is 
 a great difference between the purpose and 
 scope of the one place and of the other. It 
 will be replied, that even in this very chap- 
 ter. Matt, xviii., the next thing which fol- 
 lows, ver. 21, is concerning personal injuries 
 which one brother can and ought to forgive 
 to another. " Then came Peter to him and 
 said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin 
 against me, and I forgive him," &c. To 
 that I answer, 1. We cannot gather from 
 the text that Peter did propound this ques- 
 tion immediately after, or upon occasion of, 
 that which went before, ver. 15 — 17, &c., 
 where nothing is spoken of one bi-other's 
 
166 
 
 Aaron's rod blossomixg, or the 
 
 forgiving another. We read, Luke viii. 19, 
 " Then came to him his mother and his 
 brethren," &c.; yet the meaning is not that 
 his mother and his brethren came to him 
 immediately after his speaking of the words 
 i before mentioned by Luke in that place ; 
 I for that it was not after these, but after 
 ' other words, is plain from the harmony of 
 the other evangelists, Mattliew and Mark. 
 So here these words, " Then came Peter," 
 may very well relate to a new business and 
 to another time. 2. Or if it was the same 
 time, it might be said, " Then came Peter;" 
 that is, Peter being absent, and not having 
 heard that w^hich Christ had been before 
 speaking, he came immediately after, and 
 did propound a new question. 3. Suppose, 
 also, tliat Peter was present and heard all 
 which had been before spoken, yet it is nmch 
 doubted among interpreters whence Peter 
 had the rise and occasion of that question. 
 Some think it was upon his calling to mind 
 those words in the rule of prayer, " Even as 
 we forgive those who trespass against us." 
 Others conceive the occasion of his question 
 was that which was said, ver. 19, " Again, I 
 say unto you, if two of you shall agree on 
 earth," supposing that agreement (and con- 
 I sequently forgiving of injuries) is necessary 
 to make our prayers the more effectual. For 
 my part, I think it not improbable that 
 whatever the occasion of the question was, 
 ver. 21 beginneth a new and distinct pur- 
 pose, which I take to be the reason why the 
 Arabic here makes an intercision, and be- 
 ginneth the fiitv-eishth section of Matthew 
 at those words, " Then came Peter and said, 
 Lord, how oft," &:c. 4. And if ver. 21 have 
 a dependence upon that which went before, 
 I it may be conceived thus : Christ had said, 
 i " If thy brother trespass against thee, go 
 I and tell him his fault between thee and him 
 I alone," which supposeth a continuance of 
 i the former Christian fellowship and frater- 
 I nal familiarity, and that we must not cast off 
 I a scandalous brother as lost, or as an enemy, 
 but admonish him as a brother. This might 
 give occasion to Peter to ask, " Lord, how oft 
 shall my brother sin against me," that is, 
 scandalise me by his sin against God (for even 
 in Luke xvii. 3, 4, that of forgiving one that 
 trespassetli against us, is added immediately 
 after a doctrine of scandals), " and I ibrgive 
 him," that is, as Grotius expounds it, re- 
 store him to the former degree of friendship 
 and intimate familiarity, to deal with him 
 I thas as with a brother; wliich he well dis- 
 
 tinguisheth from that other forgiving which 
 is not a revenging. And so much of Mr 
 Prynne's first reason. 
 
 His second reason is, because the mention 
 of two or three witnesses, ver. 16, relateth 
 " only to the manner of trying civil capital 
 crimes (as murdere and the like) before the 
 civil magistrates of the Jews, Sec, not to any 
 proceeding in ecclesiastical causes, in their 
 ecclesiastical consistories, of which we find no 
 precedent." 
 
 Ans. 1. If this hold, then the text must 
 not be expounded indefinitely of civil in- 
 juries (as he did before) but of civil capital 
 injuries ; whereas Erastus takes the meaning 
 to be of smaller offences only, and not of ca- 
 pital crimes. 2. The law concerning two or 
 tin-ee witnesses is neither restricted to ca- 
 pital crimes nor to civil judicatories. I appeal 
 to the ordinance of parliament, dated Octo- 
 ber 20, 1645, " The eldership of every con- 
 gi-egation shall judge the matter of scandal 
 aforesaid, being not capital, upon the testi- 
 mony of two credible witnesses, at the least." 
 That law, therefore, of witnesses is alike ap- 
 plicable to all caases and courts, ecclesiastical 
 and civil, Deut. xix. 30, " One witness shall 
 not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or 
 for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth ; at the 
 mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of 
 three witnesses, shall the matter be establish- 
 ed." And the same law is in the Xew Tes- 
 tament clearly applied to proceedings in ec- 
 clesiastical causes, 2 Cor. xiii. 1 ; again, 1 
 Tim. V. 19, "Against an elder receive not 
 an accusation but before two or three wit- 
 nesses," which is not spoken to any civil ma- 
 gistrate, but to Timothy, and others joined 
 with him in church government. 
 
 His third reason doth only beg what is in 
 question, that by the church is not meant 
 any ecclesiastical but a civil court of the 
 Jews. He needed not to cite so many places 
 to prove that the Jews had civil courts ; if 
 he could but cite one place to prove that 
 they had no ecclesiastical courts, this were 
 to the purpose. Not that I grant that at 
 this time the Jews had any civil jurisdiction 
 or Jewish court of justice ; for after that 
 i Herod the Great did kill Hircanus and the 
 sanhedrim (in the opinion of many learned 
 ; men), the Jews had no more any civil juris- 
 , diction. Now Herod the Great was dead 
 before the time of Christ's ministr)-. Othei"s 
 think they had some civil jmisdiction a 
 ' while after Hircanus's death. However he 
 i cannot prove that at this time, v. hen Christ 
 
DIVINE ORDIXANCE OF CHURCH GOVERXitENT VINDICATED. 
 
 167 
 
 said, " Tell the church," the Jews had any 
 civil court of justice, which did exercise 
 either criminal or capital judgments. I 
 have in the first book showed out of Bux- 
 torflF, L'Empereur, Casaubon, and J. Coch 
 (who prove what they say from the Talmu- 
 dical writers), that forty years before the 
 destruction of tlie temple (and so before 
 Christ said, " Tell the churcli,") the court 
 of civil justice at Jerusalem did cease. If 
 Mr Prynne make anything of this gloss of 
 his, he must prove: 1. That there was no 
 ecclesiastical court among the Jews (I have 
 before proved that that council of the Jews 
 in Christ's time was an ecclesiastical court, 
 though he conceives it was merely civil). 2. 
 That a private civil injury might not then, 
 nor may not now, be brought before a civil 
 court, except alter several previous admoni- 
 tions despised. 3. That Cin-ist's rule, " Tell 
 the church," was antiquated, and ceased when 
 a civil court of justice among the Jews ceased. 
 If he say that the same rule continueth for 
 telling the civil magistrate in case the of- 
 fender prove obstinate after admonition, 
 then I ask, 1. How will he reconcile him- 
 self? for p. 4, he saith, tiie church in this 
 \ text is " only the sanhedrim or court of 
 civil justice among the Jews." 2. If this 
 text. Matt, xviii., was applicable to the pri- 
 mitive church after the destruction of Jeru- 
 salem, and when there was no Je\vish san- 
 hedrim to go to, then the pagan magistracy 
 must pass under the name of the church, 
 for they had no other civil court of justice to 
 go to. 
 
 One thing I must needs take notice of, 
 that whereas he would prove here that 
 " Tell the church" is nothing but, Tell the 
 civil court of justice among the Jews, com- 
 monly called the council, saith he, or san- 
 hedrim, he doth hereby overthrow all that 
 he hath been building ; for the Jewish san- 
 hedrim at that time had not power to judge 
 civil nor criminal, and, least of all, capital 
 offences, but only causes ecclesiastical, the 
 Romans having taken from them their civil 
 government, and left them no government 
 nor jurisdiction, except in matters of reli- 
 gion. I hope Mr Prynne will not in this 
 contradict Erastus ;i and if so, how shall his 
 
 1 Confirm. Thesiura, lib. 2, cap. 2.— Quis nescit 
 illo tempore judaeos sub Romanis vixisse, ac prae- 
 sidem eorum petentibus omnibus jus diccre solitum 
 fuisse ? Civilem potentiam ad se omnem fore per 
 raxerant, relicta potestate ipsis de rebus sacris judi- 
 candi, et secundum legis ceremouias viveudi. Idem, 
 
 gloss stand, that this text is to be under- 
 stood of civil injuries, yea, and of these only, 
 for remedy whereof he conceives that Christ 
 sends his disciples to the Jewish sanhedrim? 
 How sweetly do his tenets agree together. 
 
 His fourth reason is, that those words, 
 " Lot him be to thee as an heathen man 
 and a publican," cannot signify excommuni- 
 cation, " because heathen men, being never 
 members of the church, could never be ex- 
 communicated or cast out of it, being inca- 
 pable of such a censure. As for publicans, 
 those of them who were members of the 
 Jewish church, though they were execrable 
 to the Je^vs by reason of their tax-gather- 
 ings and oppressions, yet we never read in 
 Scripture that they were excommunicated 
 or cast out of their synagogues, but con- 
 trarily, that they went up into the temple 
 to pray, as well as the Pharisees, and were 
 more acceptable to Christ himself," &c. So 
 likewise Sutlivius (against Beza), de Pres- 
 hyt. cap. 9, p. 57- I answer, 1. By a retor- 
 tion. Mr Prynne, p. 4, expounds these 
 words, " Let him be unto thee as an hea- 
 then man and a publican," to be meant of 
 avoiding familiar fellowship with the bro- 
 ther that hath committed a civil trespass, 
 and keeping no more civil company with 
 him. Now I argue thus ad hominem : 
 This cannot be the meaning which he gives, 
 because heathens, being never admitted into 
 familiar fellowship and company with the 
 Jews (who might not marry nor familiarly 
 converse with them, as himself proveth, p. 
 4), could never be cast out of their fellow- 
 ship and company, being incapable of any 
 such thing. If our exposition of exconmiu- 
 nication must drive us to acknowledge that 
 heathens were formerly members of the Jew- 
 ish church, his exposition of avoiding fami- 
 liar fellowship, must drive him to acknow- 
 ledge that formei'ly the heathens were admit- 
 ted into familiar fellowship with the Jews. 
 
 2. Those words, earwaoi, "let him be unto 
 thee," &c., do not look backward, but for- 
 ward ; neither is the matching and compar- 
 ing of the scandalous impenitent brother 
 with an heathen, a priori, hut d jMsteriori ; 
 so that no comparison is to be made between 
 the preterite estate of an offending brother, 
 and the preterite estate of an heatlien man, 
 but between the future estate of an offend- 
 
 lib. 3, cap. 1. — Interim tamen parebant Romanis : 
 
 neque in aliis rebus potestatem servaverant inte- 
 gram, quara in rebus ad religionem moresque patrios 
 pertiaeutibus. 
 
168 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 ing obstinate brother, and the present estate 
 of an heathen man. 
 
 3. "Let him be unto thee as an heathen," 
 is as much as. Have no communion nor fel- 
 lowship with him in the holy assemblies nor 
 in the temple ; for heathens were not per- 
 mitted to come into the temple, Ezek. xliv. 
 7, 9 ; Acts xxi. 28 ; whereupon Paul is ac- 
 cused for bringing Greeks into the temple, 
 and so polluting that holy place. Acts xxi. 
 28 ; heathens were excluded from atrium 
 Israelis, the court of Israel, which was 
 without the court of the priests. There was 
 without the court of Israel, atrium Gen- 
 tium, the court of the heathen, otherwise 
 called intermuralc, because it lay between 
 the temple and the outer wall mentioned 
 Ezek. xlii. 20. Into this utmost court, or in- 
 termurale, heathen men were admitted to 
 come and worship there, according to that, 
 1 Kings viii. 41 ; 2 Chron. vi. 32. They 
 might not only come into the Holy Land, 
 but to the Holy City, and not only to the 
 Holy City, but to the mountain of the house 
 of the Lord ; yea, not only to the mountain 
 of the temple, but within the outer wall ; 
 yet into the court of Israel, which was pro- 
 perly the first or outer court of the temple, 
 they were forbidden to enter. He tliat 
 would be further satisfied that these things 
 were so, let him read Josephus, Antiq. lib. 
 15, cap. 14; Tostatus in 1 Kings viii. quest. 
 21 ; Arias Montanus, de sacr. Fabric, p. 15 ; 
 Azorius Instit. Moral, torn. 1, lib. 6, chap. 
 53 ; L'Empereur Annot. in Cod. Middoth, 
 cap. 2, sect. 3. Peradventure you will say, 
 if it was thus, then an excommunicate per- 
 son, being esteemed as an heathen, must not 
 get leave to hear ths word, nor at all to en- 
 ter into the places of public assemblies where 
 the word w:is pi'cached. Ans. I will not 
 now debate that point ; others have debated 
 it with the Anabaptists, who hold that ex- 
 communicate persons ought not to be ad- 
 mitted to the hearing of the word : Luc. 
 Osiand, Enchirid. contra Anah. cap. 6, 
 quest. 2. But, however, it doth not tbllow 
 upon what I have said, that excommunicate 
 persons must be wholly excluded from hear- 
 ing the word ; First, Because the places of 
 our public worship have no sacramental sig- 
 nificancy or holiness, as the temple and ta- 
 bernacle had of old ; therefore, say the pro- 
 fessors of Leyden, there is not the like rea- 
 son to exclude excommunicate persons wholly 
 from our temples, as there was excluding 
 them from the temple of Jerusalem. Se- 
 
 cond, Because both Christ, John x. 23, and 
 the apostles. Acts v. 12, did use to preach 
 in Solomon's porch. This porch so called 
 was the great east porch in the intermurale, 
 whither heathens were admitted, and so 
 they did hear the word, though they had no 
 leave to come into the court of Israel, there 
 to have fellowship with, or to be esteemed 
 and reputed among the people of God.^ 
 Yea, as Mr Selden tells us, de J ure Nat. et 
 Gent., lib. 3, cap. 6, some understand by 
 Solomon's porch, Acts iii. 11 ; v. 12, the very 
 court of the Gentiles, into which they came 
 to worship, which Gentiles were notwith- 
 standing forbidden by a superscription, under 
 pain of death, to enter into the court of Israel, 
 or into that which Josephus calls the second 
 temple. Josephus doth also make mention 
 of four porches of the temple ; into the utmost 
 of which (and this is certainly meant of So- 
 lomon's porch) it was lawful lor heathens to 
 come, contra Appron. lib. 2. 
 
 4. For the other part, " Let him be unto 
 thee as a publican," if the meaning were no 
 more but this, Avoid all fellowship and fa- 
 miliarity with him, it doth not hurt our ex- 
 position ; exclusion from the temple being 
 clearly signified by his being "as an hea- 
 then ;" and avoiding of fellowship with him | 
 being in the most eniphatical manner fur- 
 ther expressed by his being as a publican ; 
 Ijoth these put together do the more fully 
 hold forth excommunication : and in this 
 sense some resolve the words. 
 
 5. Yet let us see how Mr Prynne proves 
 that the publicans were admitted into the 
 temple or synagogues. He tells us that 
 Christ received them or convei-sed with 
 them, as if the meaning had been to com- 
 pare an impenitent brother with penitent 
 publicans, Luke xviii. 13, who drew near 
 to Christ to hear him, Luke xv. 1 ; who 
 left all and followed Christ, to be among his 
 disciples, JSIatt. x. 3 ; Luke v. 27, 21 ; 
 Mark ii. 15 ; who justified God, Luke vii. 
 29 ; who knew themselves to be sick of soul- 
 diseases. Matt. ix. 12, 13. These very places 
 cited by himself make against him. How- 
 ever the question is. How publicans were es- 
 teemed of in the Jewish church (for that is 
 the thing pointed at in those words, " Let 
 him be unto thee as a publican") for that. 
 
 1 Josephus Antiq., lib. 20, cap. 8.— Suasit fpopn- 
 lus) regi ut orientalem instauraret porticum. Ea 
 templi extinia claudebat, profunda; Talli et augus- 
 tx imraiuens, &c. Opus .Solomouis regis, qui pri- 
 mus integrum templum coudidit. 
 
DIVIXE ORDIN'AXCE OF CHURCH GOVERXMENT VIXDICATED. 
 
 169 
 
 He objecteth that publicans went up into the 
 temple to pray. It" he mean that publirans 
 who were neither devout Jews nor pro- 
 selytes, went up into the temple to pray, 
 had access to and fellowship in the sacrifices 
 and temple worship, as well as the Jews 
 themselves, it is more than he can prove : 
 if he mean that publicans who were Jews or 
 proselytes, went up into the temple to pray, 
 it helpeth him not, except he can pi'ove that, 
 when Christ saith, " Let him be imto 
 thee as an heathen man and a publican," 
 the meaning is of such a publican as was a 
 devout Jew or proselyte. And if so, then 
 he had to prove that the Jews did not keep 
 civil company or fellowship, so much as with 
 the religious publicans with whom they went 
 together to the temple to pray and worship. 
 This also he hath to prove, not that religious 
 publicans (of whom Christ means not), but 
 that impious infamous publicans, came to the 
 temple. 
 
 6. That passage, Luke xviii. 10, concerning 
 the publican's going up to the temple to 
 pi'ay : First, It is expressly declared to be 
 a parable, ver. 9, and therefore cannot prove 
 the reality of the thing according to the 
 letter, no more than an audible conference 
 between Abraham and the rich man in hell 
 can be proved from Luke xvi. 24 to the 
 end of the chapter (though I believe that 
 be a history related parabolically, as Vossius 
 proveth in his Thesi.f) ; far less can a pai-a- 
 ble, properly so called, prove an historical 
 narration. The meaning may be no other 
 but this, — that if such a publican and such a 
 Pharisee should go up to the temple to pray, 
 then the one should depart justified, and 
 the other not. 
 
 7. I can also grant, without any prejudice 
 to the business of excommunication, that the 
 publican, yea, an execrable publican, did go 
 up to the temple to pray ; for an excommu- 
 nicate person among the Jews (as many 
 think), so long as there was hope of his re- 
 pentance, had leave to come into the outer 
 court of the temple, yet so that they came 
 in at the gate of the mourners ; and excom- 
 municate persons were known by all that 
 saw them to be excommunicate persons. 
 More of this, book i. chap. 4. 
 
 8. This very text, Luke xviii., helps us ; 
 for it is said, ver. 13, " The publican stood 
 afar off ;" that is (in the opinion of Diodati), 
 " in some remote part of the first court of 
 the temple," 1 Kings viii. 41. It is very 
 probable (whereof see book i. chap. 9) that 
 
 the intermuralc, or atrium Gentium, is 
 meant, which sometime hath the name of 
 the temple. To the publican's standing afar 
 off is opposed the Pliarisee's standing by 
 himself, ver. 11, where I construct TTfJos 
 eavTOf with arndets as Caniero doth : so i 
 Camerarius and Beza, following the Syriac, | 
 and some old Greek copies : he stood apart 
 by himself, — the very custom making it so, ' 
 that the publican should not come near him, 
 but stand in atrio Gentium. 
 
 9. The reason why publicans are named 
 as hateful and execrable persons, was not for I 
 civil respects, nor because publicans (for the 
 Jews themselves did not refuse to keep com- 
 pany with good and just publicans, as I shall 
 prove afterwards) particularly ; it was not tor 
 their tax-gathering (a particular mentioned 
 by Mr Prynne, it seems to strengthen his 
 exposition of civil injuries), but Ibr divers 
 scandalous sins and abominable profaneness ; 
 therefore publicans and sinners, publicans 
 and harlots, j)uhlieans and gluttons, and 
 ivine-bibhers, are almost synonymous in the 
 gospel, Matt. ix. 11 ; xi. 19 ; xxi. 32 ; Mark 
 ii. 16 ; Luke v. 30 ; and publicans are named 
 as the worst of men, Matt. v. 46, 47, the most 
 of them being so reputed. From all this ' 
 which hath been said in answer to his fourth i 
 reason, it appeareth, that " Let him be to | 
 thee as an heathen and a publican," is moi'e i 
 than he would make it : keep not any familiar i 
 company, or have no civil fello\vship with | 
 him. And whereas, p. 4, he saith that Paul i 
 expressly interprets it so, 1 Cor. v. 10 — 12; I 
 2 Thes. iii. 4 ; Eph. v. 11 ; Rom. xvi. 17, 
 I answer out of himself, in that same place, 
 and p. 5, " Let him be to thee as an hea- 
 then," &c., is a phrase never used elsewhere 
 in Scripture. How then saith he that Paul 
 doth expressly interpret it? Paul commaud- 
 cth to withdraw fellowship (and that for any 
 scandalous sin in a church member, although 
 it be no private injury to us, as the places 
 quoted by himself make it manifest), there- 
 tore Pauldoth expressly interpret that phrase, 
 jMatt. xviii., to be meant of withdrawing civil 
 fellowship only. What consequence is there 
 here ? 
 
 I come to his fifth and last reason, " The 
 words run only, ' Let him be to thee as an 
 heathen man and a publican,' not to the 
 whole church." 
 
 Ans. 1. This is the very thing he said 
 in his first query, which is answered before. 
 I shall only add here another answer out of 
 Erastus, who argueth thus : One brother 
 
170 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 should forgive another seventy times in a 
 day, if the offending brother do so oft turn 
 again and crave pardon ; therefore so should 
 the church do to a sinner that craveth par- 
 don, even as often as he doth crave pardon. ^ 
 For, saith he, there can be no just reason 
 given wherefore the whole church ought not 
 to do herein what church members ought 
 to do severally. If this be a good argument 
 when Christ saith, " If thy brother repent, 
 forgive him," Luke xvii. 3, 4 (by which place 
 Mr Prynne expoundeth Matt, xviii. 15), will 
 it not be as good an argument, " Let him be 
 to thee as an heathen and apubhcan," there- 
 fore let him be such to the whole church, 
 when the whole church is offended by his 
 obstinacy and impenitence ? 
 
 2. Those words, " Let him be to thee," 
 cannot be restrictive. It must be at least 
 extended to all such as are commanded to 
 rebuke their brother, and if, he continue ob- 
 stinate, to tell the church. Now, the com- 
 mandment for rebuking our brother that 
 falls into a scandalous sin, is not restricted to 
 him that is personally or particularly wrong- 
 ed, but it is a common law of spiritual love, 
 Lev. xix. 17. Yea, saith Mr Hildei'sham, 
 lect. 36 on Psal. li., " Every man hath re- 
 ceived a commandment from Christ, to m- 
 form the governors of the church of such a 
 brother as cannot otherwise be reformed ;" 
 Matt, xviii. 17, " Tell the church." If it 
 belong to every church member to reprove 
 a scandalous sin, which his brother commit- 
 teth in his sight or hearing, or to his know- 
 ledge, and, if he repent not, to tell the 
 church, then it also belongs to every church 
 member to esteem him as an heathen man 
 and a pubhcan if he hear not the church, 
 
 3. The next words, " ^Miatsoever ye shall 
 bind on earth shall be bound in heaven," be- 
 ing spoken to the apostles, and in them to 
 other ministers of Jesus Chi-ist, do expound 
 the former words, " Let liim be unto thee," 
 &c., to be meant not of private withdra^\'ing 
 of fellowship, but of a public church censure. 
 
 4. The reason why Christ \rill have such 
 an offender to be esteemed as an heathen 
 man and a publican, is not the offence and 
 fault first committed, but his obstinacy and 
 
 1 Erast. Confirm. Thes., lib. 2, p. 158.— Quod uiii 
 dictum est, dictum toti est ecclesise. At uui dictum 
 eat ut septuagies in die culpam depreeanti remittat. 
 Ergo tota ecclesia deprecanti ignoscere debet, quo- 
 tiescunqne in die sibi ignosci petet. Nulla enim justa 
 causa proferri potcrit, curtota ecclesia non debeat 
 facere in hac causa, quod singulis ejus membris pra;- 
 ceptum est. 
 
 contumacy in that offence, and his neglect- 
 ing to hear the church. So that, suppose 
 the offence had been a private or personal 
 injury, yet that for which the offender is to 
 be esteemed as an heathen and a publican 
 toucheth the whole church, and is a general 
 scandal to them all, namely, his contumacy 
 and not hearing the church. How can it 
 then be imagined, that Christ would only 
 have one church member to esteem a man 
 as an heathen and a publican, for that which 
 is a common general scandal to the whole 
 church? Munsterus, in his Annotations 
 upon Matt. xviii.,i doth better hit the mean- 
 ing, that the offender is to be esteemed as 
 an heathen man and a publican by those 
 who did before admonish him, but were de- 
 spised ; that is, by the church, whose admo- i 
 nitions being despised, they ought to cast 
 out him who had despised them. 
 
 5. And how can it be supposed that Christ 
 would have one and the same person to be as j 
 an heathen man and a publican to one mem- 
 ber of the church, and yet not to be as an 
 heathen man and a publican, but as a brother 
 received in fellowship, with the whole church? 
 Sure this were a repugnancy between the 
 judgment of the whole chm'ch, and the judg- 
 ment of one member of the church; and two 
 things which are repugnant cannot be both 
 of them agreeable to the will of Chi ist. 
 
 CHAPTER IIL 
 
 A FARTHER DEMONSTRATION THAT THESE 
 WORDS, " LET HOI BE TO THEE AS AN 
 HEATHEN MAN AND A PUBLICAN," ARE 
 NOT MEANT OF AVOIDING CIVIL, BUT RE- 
 LIGIOUS, OR CHURCH-FELLOWSHIP. 
 
 I hope I have already made it to appear 
 that, to draw excommunication from Matt, 
 xviii., is not to extract water out of flint, as 
 Mr Pi'ynne supposeth, but that it cometh as 
 liquide from the text, as water out of the 
 fountain ; wherein I am the more confirm- 
 ed, because Mr Prynne's exposition of these 
 words, " Let him be to thee as an heathen 
 man and a publican," cannot stand ; for he 
 
 1 Quod si bos contemnat, indicetur ecclesije ejus 
 perricatia. Et si ne ecclesiam audierit, monitus 
 scilicet a multis, habeatur ab eis veluti ethnicus et 
 publicanus. Et quascunque illi sic ligaverint, ligata 
 habebuntur in cajlis, boc est, quos ita monitos ejece- 
 rint e suo consortio, ii etiam apud patrem ejecti ha- 
 bebuntur. 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 171 
 
 takes the sense to be no more but this, Keep 
 not any civil fellowship or company with 
 such a one. Now, that this cannot be our 
 Saviour's meaning, I prove thus : 
 
 1. If a private man shall thus, at his own 
 hand, withdraw and separate from an of- 
 fending brother, as from an heathen man 
 and a publican, what order, peace, or good 
 government, can there be either in church 
 or state ?' And all the odium cast upon ex- 
 communication (as contrary to the spiritual 
 privileges of Christians) will fall more heavy 
 upon his own way, which brings any man 
 (be he prince, parliament man, pastor, or 
 whoever he be) under so much slavery to 
 the lust of any private person, that he may 
 be, by that person (and by ten thousand per- 
 sons more, in case of so many civil injuries, 
 not amended after complaint to the magis- 
 trate) esteemed, avoided, and abhorred, as 
 an heathen man and a publican. So that, in 
 the issue, it may fall out that any man, how 
 eminent or deserving soever he be in church 
 or state, may be looked upon as an hea- 
 then man and a publican, by ten thousand of 
 the people, before ever he be so judged by 
 any judicature. For instance, put the case, 
 that a minister be judicially convicted to 
 have wronged his parishioners in the mat- 
 ter of small tithes, and they conceive him to 
 persevere in the same injury, must, or may, 
 each of them fly fi-om him, as from an hea- 
 then and a publican ? Put the case : A 
 whole company think themselves wronged in 
 pay or otherwise by their captain, or a whole 
 regiment by their colonel, and, after com- 
 plaint, find themselves not repaired, are they 
 therefore free to avoid all civil company with 
 the captain or colonel, and to fly from them 
 as from heathens and publicans? And what if 
 both the Lord Mayor of London, and many 
 godly ministers who have eaten at his table, 
 should accuse Mr Prynne of a calumny, be- 
 cause of that passage in his book, p. 12, where 
 he saith of Anabaptists, Separatists, Inde- 
 pendents, Presbyters or Divines, " Neither 
 of which make any conscience of not repair- 
 ing to the Lord Mayor's, or any other public 
 city feast, where they are sure of good fare, 
 because they were certain there to meet and 
 eat with some covetous or other scandalous 
 
 1 Martyr in 1 Cor. v., nit. loc. <lc cxcom. — Vorum 
 si hoc pro suo arbitrio cuiquc pcrraittatur, ut facul- 
 tatem habeat disccdendi ct scparandi se a quibus 
 voluerit, simultatcs, contcntioncs, et discordia", longe 
 graviores orientur, quam si publica excommuiiica- 
 tione uteremur. 
 
 persons, with whom St Paul prohibits them, 
 ' no, not to eat ?' " If, I say, the Lord Mayor 
 should accuse Mr Prynne for slandering him 
 and his house, with the company of scandal- 
 ous persons ; and if many godly conscientious 
 ministers should accuse him for aspei'sing 
 them, as having more love to good flxre than 
 conscience of avoiding to eat with scandal- 
 ous persons ; and if, after sentence passed 
 against Mr Prynne, he should still continue 
 impenitent, and not confess his fault in this 
 particular, will he allow the Lord Mayor, and 
 all the godly ministers who have eaten at the 
 Lord Mayor's table, to avoid Mr Prynne as 
 an heathen and a publican ? Let him take 
 heed whither his principles will lead him. 
 
 2. Mr Prynne saith, p. 4, that, " Let him 
 be to thee as an heathen and a publican," is 
 interpreted by 1 Cor. v. 10 — 12 ; 2 Thes. iii. 
 14 ; and elsewhere, by Paul. Now, that 
 place of the Corinthians which he citeth is 
 meant of excommunication, as shall be proved 
 in due time. And ver. 12 (cited by him- 
 self) makes it plain, that a judicial act, not a 
 private man's withdrawing only, is meant ; 
 for that verse speaks twice of judging, — an 
 apostolical judging, and an ecclesiastical judg- 
 ing. And the best interpreters expound 2 
 Thes. iii. 14, of church censures. It is not 
 the case of private civil injuries which the 
 Apostle there speaks of, but the case of public 
 scandal : " If any man be disobedient," to the 
 apostolical epistle, " note that man," ffj^/uei- 
 ovade, put a mark upon him ; that is, let 
 him be publicly censui-ed, " Let him be se- 
 parated from you," saith the Syriac, and 
 then, " have no company with him," and 
 all this, " that he may be ashamed," which 
 must needs be by some public censure or 
 black mark put upon him. 
 
 3. " Let him be to thee as an heathen," if 
 it be meant of keeping no civil company, he 
 must show us that the Jew-s of old were, 
 and Christians under the New Testament 
 are, forbidden to keep civil company with 
 heathens and those that are without tlie 
 church. He goetli about to prove that the 
 phrase is taken from the practice of the Jews 
 in that age, p. 4. But how doth he prove 
 it? He citeth some places to pi'ove that 
 the Israelites might not marry with the 
 Canaanites, but he doth not prove that they 
 might not keep civil company with any of 
 the heathens. There was no such favour nor 
 fellowship permitted between the Israelites 
 and the Canaanites, as betw^een Israelites and 
 other Gentiles who came among them from 
 
Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 I other lands, as Tostatus iiotetli in Matt. xxvi. 
 1 quest. 43. The reason was, because God had 
 j destined the Canaanites to utter destinction, 
 I and that the whole land of Canaan should be 
 given to the children of Israel. Only some 
 few, by special dispensation, were spared, as 
 the Gibeonites, because Joshua and the 
 ; princes had sworn unto them, and Eahab 
 I \\ ith her kindred, because she saved the spies, 
 i But, such extraordinary cases excepted, tlie 
 Israelites ought not to permit any of the Ca- 
 nasmites tolive, norreceive them, though they 
 had been willing to be circumcised, as Tosta- 
 tus there thinketh. However, that great dis- 
 1 tance and alienation in pomt of fellowship be- 
 tween the Israelites and the Canaanites, was 
 not qua heathens, but qua Canaanites, other- 
 wise the children of Israel had been obhged 
 to root out other nations as well as the Ca- 
 naanites. Yea, the law puts an express dif- 
 ference between the nations, insomuch that 
 some of them were not to be abominate, 
 though otliers were ; Deut. xxiii. 7, " Thou 
 shalt not abhor an Edomite, for he is thy 
 brother : thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian, 
 because thou wast a stranger in his land." ' 
 Ihe very Canaanites themselves were, by 
 tlie law, Deut. xx. 10, 11, to have so much 
 favour as an offer of peace, which, if any of 
 tlieir cities had accepted, that city was not 
 to be cut off, but the people thereof were to 
 be tributaiies, and to serve Israel, and so 
 permitted to live among them. 
 
 The last of his citations maketli very much 
 against him, namely, Actsxxi. 28, 29, where 
 tlie Jews of Asia do accuse Paul for bringing 
 Greeks into the temple: " For they had seen 
 before with him in the city Trophimus, an 
 Ephesian, whom they supposed that Paul had 
 brought into the temple." Mark here, Paul 
 is not challenged for conversing familiarly 
 with a Greek, but only for bringing him 
 into the temple; and, without all doubt, the 
 malice of his adversaries did catch at every 
 advantage which they could have against 
 him. I cannot but admire how Mr Prynne 
 could cite this place to prove that the Jews 
 might not converse nor keep civil company 
 witli the heathens, since it proveth the very 
 contrary, — that the Jews might have civil, • 
 but no religious fellowship with heathens. 
 And whereas he addeth, that the Jews had 
 no dealing or convei-sation with the Samari- 
 tans, John iv. 9 ; Luke ix. 52, 63 ; I an- \ 
 swer. The reason was, because the Jewish 
 chuich had excomnmnicated and anathema- 
 tised lor ever the Samaritans, who, being 1 
 
 once circumcised, and having received the 
 book of the law, did afterward hinder the 
 building of the house of the Lord, This 
 excommunication of the Cuthites or Sama- 
 ritans, most solemnly performed, you may 
 find in Pirke R. EcclesioB, cap. 38. More 
 of this elsewhere. Here I only touch it, to 
 show that this also of the Samaritans makes 
 against him. 
 
 4. It is certain that the Jews had civil 
 company and conversation with heathens ; 
 for Solomon's servants and Hiram's servants 
 were both together, 1 Kings v. 18; 2 Chron. 
 ii. 8, yea, 2 Chron. ii. 17, 18. Solomon num- 
 bered of strangers or heathens in the land 
 of Israel, a hundred fifty and thi-ee thousand 
 and six hundred. Could there be so many 
 of them, and employed also in the builduig 
 of the temple, and yet no civil company kept 
 with them ? Nehemiah in the court of Artax- 
 erxes, and Daniel, with his companions, in 
 the court of Nebuchadnezzar, had civU com- 
 pany with heathens, but religious company 
 with them they would have none. We find 
 the king of Edom in fellowship with Jeho- 
 shaphat and Jehoram, 2 Kings iii. ; and the 
 merchants of Tyre were permitted to come 
 into Jerusalem, and there to sell all manner 
 of ware unto the children of Judah, only they 
 were forbidden to do it upon the Sabbath- 
 day, Neh. xiii. 16, 20, 21. L'Empereur, 
 de Lcgihus Ehrceorum JForensibus, p. 180, 
 181, putteth it out of controversy that, in 
 Christ's time, there were many heathens in 
 the land of Canaan with whom the Jews did 
 converse and dwell together ; and that Christ 
 found, in those places where he preached, 
 both Jews and Gentiles : Istis locis inter 
 istos commorabantur Gentiles, qui magis- 
 trorum placitis se astringi passi non sunt. 
 And a little after : Nec enim Israelitas ah 
 alienigcnarum urbihus abstinuisse, Jo- 
 sephus Indicat. And that long before that 
 time there was a mutual convei'sing of Jews 
 and Gentiles, I gather from 1 Kings xx. 34, 
 " Thou shalt make streets for thee in Da- 
 macus as my father made in Samaria," mean- 
 ing for trade and commerce. 
 
 I will here anticipate a great objection 
 which may be made against me, from Acts x. 
 28, " Ye know that it is an unlaArful thing for 
 a man that is a Jew to keep company or come 
 unto one of another nation." This might 
 seem to make more for Mr Prynne's expo- 
 sition than all the places cited by himself. 
 But I answer, for the better understanding 
 of that place, first of aU observe what Dru- 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 173 
 
 sius, Qua'st. ct Rcsp., lib. 2., quest. 67, tells 
 us out of EUas in Tishbite: The Jews had an 
 old law against drinking wine with Gentiles 
 or heathens, Lata videlicet eo tempore quo 
 gentes vinum libabant in sacris, the law 
 was made at that time when the Gentiles 
 used a prelibation of wine in their idolatrous 
 solemnities; whei'eupon the wise men of the 
 Jews, fearing lest heathen men should give 
 to Jews that wine which had been dedicated 
 to idols, did forbid the Jews to drink wine 
 with heathens : which (as other statutes of 
 their wise men) the Jews did reliijiose reli- 
 giously observe. Mark we hence, 1. It was 
 not a generally received custom among the 
 Jews in no case to eat or drink with hea- 
 thens, else it had been unnecessary and su- 
 pervacaneous to forbid the drinking of wine 
 with heathens, exccptio affi^rraat regulam in 
 lion exceptis. 2. It was for a religious and 
 conscientious reason, propter periculum ido- 
 lolatrioe, for fear of partaking with idolatry, 
 and not for civil respects, that they were for- 
 bidden to drink wine with the Gentiles. 
 The same I say of their shunning to eat with 
 them ; for the heathens used also a dedicating 
 of their meats to idols, 1 Cor. x. 27. 
 
 Secondly, Observe Peter addeth imme- 
 diately, " But God hath showed me that I 
 should not call any man common or unclean ;" 
 meaning, so as not to keep company with 
 him because of his Gentilism or uncircumci- 
 sion, or because of his eating of meats which 
 were unclean by the ceremonial law, as Lu- 
 dovicus de Dieu doth rightly give the mean- 
 ing, understanding not moral, but only cere- 
 monial uncleanness to be there spoken of ; 
 for many men under the gospel are still to 
 be looked upon and avoided as morally un- 
 clean. But God hath taught Peter, by ab- 
 rogating the ceremonial difference of meats 
 in the vision, that the ceremonial law, which 
 was the partition-wall between Jews and 
 Gentiles, was now to be taken away; so that 
 the Gentiles should no longer be called 
 dogs, as Matt. xv. 26; neither were the dis- 
 ciples to be forbidden any longer to go into 
 the way of the Gentiles, Matt. x. 5. Hence- 
 forth no man should be called holy because 
 of his circumcision, no man unclean because 
 of his uncircumcision. 
 
 This being the meaning, it followeth that 
 the unlawfulness of eating and companying 
 with an heathen, mentioned Acts x. 28, must 
 not be so understood, as if bare civil fel- 
 lowship had been unlawful; but it must be 
 understood, first, in reference to the moral 
 
 law; that is, for avoiding the danger of ido- 
 latry, in eating or drinking that which ido- 
 latrous heathens had sacrificed to idols, as 
 hath been just now cleared. Secondly, In 
 reference to the ceremonial law, or of such 
 fellowship as was contrary to the ceremonial 
 law, in eating together with heathens of 
 meats legally unclean, such as were repre- 
 sented to Peter in the vision, and he com- 
 manded to eat what was formerly unclean to 
 him. Otherwise, when the Gentiles did not 
 eat anything which the Jews wei'e forbidden 
 to eat, it was lawful for the Jews to eat with 
 the Gentiles, saith Tostatus in 2, Paral. 6, 
 quest. 21. So likewise Grotius, de Jure Belli 
 ac Pads, lib. 2, cap. 15, sect. 9, where he 
 referreth the Jews' not eating with the 
 heathens to the laws of meats, or the pecu- 
 liar is victus which was prescribed to the 
 Jews. But otherwise the law did not make 
 it unlawful for them to eat with any of an- 
 other nation ; which he thinks is proved by 
 Christ's own example, who took a drink of 
 water from the woman of Samaria, being 
 yet most observant of the law. That the 
 unlawfulness of eating with the heathens was 
 understood in reference to the ceremonial 
 law, I prove from Gal. ii. 12, 14. Peter 
 having before eaten with the Gentiles, to 
 avoid the scandal of some Jews that came 
 from James, did withdraw and separate him- 
 self from the believing Gentiles. What ! to 
 keep no more any civil company with them ? 
 I hope no man will imagine that. But the 
 text expounds itself, ver. 14, " If thou, be- 
 ing a Jew, livest after the manner of the 
 Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why com- 
 pellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the 
 •fews ?" This was Peter's fault, that, having 
 formerly lived as the Gentiles, that is, eat- 
 ing with them all sorts of meats freely, 
 thinking himself liberated from the yoke of 
 the ceremonial law, afterward he withdrew 
 and separated himself from that manner of 
 fellowship with the Gentiles, and bound up 
 himself to live as do the Jews, and to ob- 
 serve the distinction of meats according to 
 the law. And in so doing, whilst he avoided 
 the scandal of the Jews, he gave a greater 
 scandal to the Gentiles, in compelling them, 
 by the authority of his example, to Judaise, 
 and to think tlie ceremonial law necessary. 
 
 Thirdly, The foresaid place. Acts x., is to 
 be understood of such fellowship as was not 
 merely civil, but religious and sacred, as may 
 appear, 1. By the exposition formerly given 
 of these words, " God hath showed me that 
 
174 
 
 I should not call any man common or un- 
 clean." 2. By the invitation of the men 
 that were sent from Coi'nelius to Peter, who 
 did not call him to civil but to sacred fellow- 
 ship ; Acts X. 22, " And they said, Cornelius 
 ! the centurion, a just man and one that fear- 
 eth God, and of good report among all the 
 nation of the Jews, was warned from God by 
 I an holy angel, to send for thee into his house, 
 i and to hear words of thee." 3, Peter calls 
 i in the men and lodgeth them; that being a 
 civil fellowship, he doth it freely, ver. 23 ; 
 but when he comes to Cornehus and t'lose 
 that were assembled with him, to hear words 
 from Peter, here was the case of conscience, 
 and here Peter beginneth to apologise, ver. 
 28, " Ye know how that it is an unlawful 
 thing," &c. The Syiiac hath it thus; " Ye 
 know that it is not lawful for a man that is 
 a Jew to join himself unto a man that is a 
 stranger, who is not a son of his generation," 
 as it were, intimating a relitrious and church 
 fellowship. 4. That which gave offence to 
 them of the circumcision at Jemsalem, was, 
 that they heard Peter had so gone into men 
 uncircuuicised, that they had also received 
 the word of God from him, Acts xi. 1, 3. 
 And as soon as they were satisfied in that 
 point, that God had given unto the Gen- 
 tiles repentance unto life, ver. 18, they held 
 their peace, and made no further scruple 
 concerning eating with them. 
 
 I hope I have sufficiently answered the 
 strongest objection which can be made 
 against that which I did begin to prove, 
 namely, that the Jews might, and did, keep 
 civil company and fellowship with heathens. 
 Which, that I may now further confirm, let 
 it be observed, with Schindleras in Lexic. 
 Pentaglo., p. 297, that there were two sorts 
 of proselytes among the Jews : some that 
 were circumcised and received the law of Mo- 
 ses ; and such an one was even as a Jew, and 
 was called prosdytus justitioe ov foederis, a 
 riohteous or a true proselyte, or a proselyte 
 ot the covenant. Others that did only re- 
 nounce idolatry and keep the seven precepts 
 given to the sons of Noah, not being cir- 
 cumcised nor keeping the law of Moses, 
 were permitted to dwell with the Jews, and, 
 therefore, such a one was called prosclytus 
 portce or prosclytus incola, a pi'oselyte of 
 the gate, or a proselyte ind^veller, who 
 dwelt within their gates. See for the same 
 tiring L'Empereur, de Legihus Ebrccorum 
 Forensihus, p. 72; Buxtorff, ic.ric. Rabbin. 
 p. 408, 409; Grotius, de Jure Belli, ac 
 
 Pacts, lib. 1, cap. 1, sect. 16; Hen. Vorstius, 
 Observ. ad Chronol. ; R. Ganz, p. 279 ; 
 Georgius Genzius, in Annot. ad Maimon. 
 Canon. Ethic, p. 91, 92. To the same pur- 
 pose. Mr Ainsworth, Annot. in Gen. ix. 4, 
 and on Exod. xii. 45, and on Lev. xxii. 10, 
 hath noted out of the Hebrew writers, that 
 such of the heathens as did observe the 
 seven precepts given to the sons of Noah, 
 though they were not circumcised, neither 
 did observe the ordinances of the ceremonial 
 law, nor were admitted to the holy tilings of 
 the children of Israel, yet they were ad- 
 mitted to cohabit and converse with the 
 people of God in the Holy Land. And 
 that it was so, may be proved from Lev. 
 XXV. 6, 45, 47 (where the Chaldee hath, an 
 uncircumcised indweller) ; Deut. xiv. 21; 
 yea, such a one might dwell in the priest's 
 house, Lev. xxii. 10. The Jews receive no 
 proselyte now except one that undeitakes 
 to keep the whole law to the least jot, as 
 Dr Buxtorff informs us in the place last 
 cited ; and so they are a great deal more 
 strict m reference to the Gentiles than the 
 ancient Jews were. Notwithstanduig they 
 do, without scruple, familiarly converse and 
 keep company with Gentiles who keep not 
 the last ot the seven precepts which bind (as 
 they think) all the sons of Noah, namely, 
 that concerning the not eating of blood. 
 How nmch more may we suppose that the 
 ancient Jews did keep civil company ajid 
 fellowship with such Gentiles as did observe 
 all these seven precepts ? And this compai-i- 
 son the Jews have made between themselves 
 and the Gentiles in reference to the law of 
 Moses : " It is our inheritance, not theirs ; 
 as for them, let them observe the seven 
 precepts," Exc. Gem. Sanhedrim, cap. 7, 
 sect. 6. So that the Jews wei-e not scandal- 
 ised at the Gentiles' not observing of the 
 whole law of Moses, not being circumcised, 
 &c., but at their not keepuig of those seven 
 precepts, which were also a part of the law of 
 Moses. This to me appeareth to be a chief 
 reason (if not the reason) why the synod of 
 the apostles and elders at Jerusalem did im- 
 pose upon the churches of the Gentries no 
 other burden of Jewish rites and ceremonies, 
 but to abstain from blood and things sti'an- 
 gled. They did not impose circumcision, nor 
 holidays, nor the hke, because that which 
 was intended was, to draw together the be- 
 lievers of the Jews and the believers of the 
 Gentiles into a familiar conversation, that 
 they might live together and eat together 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNJIENT VINDICATED. 175 
 
 without scandal ; and this could not be, 
 except the beheving Gentiles should ob- 
 serve the seven precepts which were given 
 not only to the posterity of Abraham, but 
 to the posterity of Noah ; of which precepts 
 one did forbid the eating of blood, Gen. 
 ix. 4 (and under that is comprehended also 
 the eating of things strangled). Now there 
 was no doubt of the believing Gentiles' ob- 
 serving of the other six precepts, which 
 the Hebrews say were observed from Adam 
 to Noah: 1. Against idolatry; 2. Against 
 blasphemy ; 3. Against uncleanness or un- 
 lawful copulations; 5. Against rapine or rob- 
 bery; 6. For executing judgment and inflict- 
 ing punishment upon malefactors. All the 
 question was of the seventh and last, against 
 eating of blood, which the believing Gentiles 
 (though they knew it to be older than the 
 ceremonial law, or circumcision itself, and 
 to belong to all the posterity of Noah, yet) 
 knew to be temporary and not perpetual, 
 and so, at the abrogation of the other cere- 
 monies, and propagation of the gospel to the 
 Gentiles, thought themselves fi'ee from that 
 as well as other ceremonies. On the other 
 part, it was a principle among the Jews, 
 that they ought not to converse fomi- 
 liarly with any of the Gentiles, except 
 such as observe the seven precepts given to 
 the sons of Noah. Wherefore the synod of 
 the apostles and elders thought good that 
 the believing Gentiles should so for conde- 
 scend to the weakness of the Jews (not fully 
 instructed concerning Christian liberty, and 
 the abrooation of the old ceremonies), as to 
 observe for a time that precept against eat- 
 ing blood, as well as the other precepts 
 given to the sons of Noah ; to the intent 
 that the Jews and Gentiles might peaceably 
 and familiarly cohabit and converse to- 
 gether ; for though the Gentiles did not ob- 
 serve the other ordinances and ceremonies 
 of the J ews, yet, observing those seven pre- 
 cepts, they were free to converse familiarly 
 with the Jews. Schindlerus in his Lexicon 
 Pentagl., p. 298, and p. 1530, seemeth to 
 have had the same notion ; for he saith the 
 apostles and elders would not impose cir- 
 cumcision and the keeping of the law of 
 Moses, but they imposed some things not un- 
 like to the precepts given to the sons of Noah. 
 I return to that distinction of the two sorts 
 of proselytes : the one had the name of Ger 
 tsedeck, a proselyte of righteousness, and 
 Ger berith, a proselyte of the covenant; 
 the other was called Ger toschav, a pro- 
 
 selyte indweller, and Ger schagnar, a pro- 
 selyte of the gate, qui intra portas, inter 
 Judceos scilicet habitahat, — who dwelt 
 within the gates, to wit, among the Jews, 
 saith Matthias Martinius in Lexic. Philol., 
 p. 2922. This proselyte indweller was not 
 called nor esteemed as one of the Jews, 
 being no church member, nor admitted to 
 any religious or chmxh communion with the 
 Jews, but he was still esteemed and rec- 
 koned as one of the uncircumcised Gentiles ; 
 yet the Jews did keep civil company and 
 fellowship with such a one, as with a neigh- 
 bour and an inhabitant of the same city or 
 land. 
 
 And if the Jews had not been free to 
 keep civil company with heathens or in- 
 fidels, yet Christians are expressly allowed 
 to do so ; 1 Cor. x. 27, " If any of them 
 that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye 
 be disposed to go, whatsoever is set before 
 you eat, asking no question for conscience 
 sake ;" and, chap. v. 10 — 12, the Apostle 
 permitteth Christians to company and eat 
 with fornicators, covetous, extortioners, or 
 idolaters, who are no church members, but 
 by no means with scandalous brethren. I 
 do not dispute whether any more liberty 
 of this kind is granted to Christians than, 
 peradventure, was granted to the Jews ; 
 yet I am sure a gi'eat measure of the liberty 
 of civil fellowship with heathens was granted 
 to the Jews also. 
 
 It must needs follow from that which hath 
 been said, that, " Let him be unto thee as 
 an heathen man and a publican," is not a 
 casting out from mere fellowship and com- 
 pany, but from religious and church fellow- 
 ship. This agreeth well with that passage 
 m Josephus contra Appionem, lib. 2, "Who- 
 ever (of the Gentiles) are willing to come 
 and live under our law, it doth freely receive 
 them, esteeming communion to consist not 
 only in origination or descent, but also in 
 choice of life ; but as for those (of the Gen- 
 tiles) who come occasionally among us, our 
 law doth not admit them into our solemn or 
 sacred assemblies, but it appointeth to com- 
 municate unto them all such things as they 
 need, as fire, water, meat, also to show them 
 the way, and to let none of them be un- 
 buried," (So likewise publicans noted for 
 impiety and injustice were permitted to be 
 city members, but not owned for church 
 members.) Grotius, dc Jure Belli ac Pads, 
 lib. 2, cap. 15, sect. 9, holds that it was law- 
 ful for the Jews not only to have company 
 
176 
 
 AAROX .S ROD BLOSSO.'MING, OR THE 
 
 and commerce witli tlie heathens, but to do 
 them good and to enter in league and cove- 
 nant with them, such only excepted as the 
 law did accurse, namely, the seven nations in 
 Canaan, the Amalckites, Ammonites, and 
 Moabites. He brings, among other things, 
 the example of the Asmonites, who, as they 
 were themselves skilled in the law, so, with the 
 approbation both of priests and people, they 
 made a covenant with the Laced.xmonians 
 and Romans ; yea, publicly prayed for them. 
 Learned Mr Selden, dc Jure Nat. ct Gent. 
 lib. 2, cap. 3, doth not only confirm what hath 
 been said before of the proseli/ti domicilii, 
 heathens, not circumcised nor keeping the 
 law of Moses, but observing the seven pre- 
 cepts given to the sons of Noah, and that 
 such w^ere permitted to dwell together with 
 the childi-en of Israel ; but he further tells 
 us out of Maimonides, that though, when the 
 Jewish republic did flourish, and when they 
 were sui juris, no strangers were permitted 
 to dwell among them except such as did re- 
 nounce idolatry, and keep the seven pre- 
 cepts, yet, after the captivity, and under the 
 Romans, the Jews did allow to themselves a 
 common commerce and civil conversing even 
 W'ith such Gentiles as had not renounced 
 the pagan or idolatrous worship ; and, as for 
 such of the Gentiles as the Jews did observe 
 to be good men, whom they called ex piis e 
 Gentibus mundi, such as Cornelius the cen- 
 turion, to whom the Jews themselves gave 
 a good testimony, of these he saith, that 
 though they were not formally admitted and 
 received as proselyte indwellers were wont 
 to be (that formal reception of prosclyti do- 
 micilii having ceased in those latter times), 
 yet he puts it out of doubt that the Jews 
 were willing that such Gentiles should dweU 
 among them. 
 
 Add hereunto that which Gul. Vorstius, 
 Annot. in Maimon. de Fundam.Legis, cap. 
 5, sect. 9, observeth out of Beth Joseph, de 
 Idololat. and out of Abodazara, that an hea- 
 then man was permitted to be physician to 
 a Jew, provided that he should not entice 
 him to idolatry; and that a Jew also was 
 permitted to be physician to a Gentile, for 
 which purpose they alleged the example of 
 Moses, who (as their tradition told them) 
 did practice medicine in Egj'pt. 
 
 Furthermore, when Mr Prynne under- 
 stands nothing by those words, " Let him be 
 unto thee as an heathen man and a publi- 
 can," but avoid civil fellowship and keep no 
 familiar company with him, and expounds 
 
 it also by 1 Cor. v. 11, " With such an one 
 no not to eat" (which he still conceives to be 
 only meant of avoiding civil fellowship), and 
 by 2 John 10, " Receive him not into thy 
 house," he is twice out, both because the 
 Jews did keep civil company with heathens, 
 which hath been pi-oved, and also Ijecause (if 
 we believe the Jewish writei's concerning the 
 customs of their nation) the rabbles or wise 
 men among them did not keep familiar fel- 
 lowship nor civil company with the plebeians 
 of the Jews themselves : they were forbidden 
 to eat and drink with or among the plebeians, 
 Maimon. de Fundam. Lcgis, cap. 5. sect. 
 13 ; neither might they converse in the paths, 
 nor come into the houses of the plebeians, 
 Ibid. sect. 14. Gul. Vorstius, in his Annot., 
 p. 73, addeth a passage in Misno, that a 
 wise man might neither lodge with a ple- 
 beian, nor receive a plebeian to lodge w4th 
 him. Nevertheless a wise man was permitted 
 to converse not only civilly but frequently 
 with an heathen man, for which see Mr Sel- 
 den, de Jure Nat. et Gent., hb. 6, cap. 10 : 
 Quoniam nihil mali ex Gentilium con.me- 
 tudine vivo scientiori imminere censebant. 
 So that, in Mr Prynne's sense, all the 
 plebeians of the Jews themselves were as 
 heathens and publicans, or civilly excom- 
 municated by their wise men. 
 
 AMierefore we must needs distinguish a 
 twofold communion or fellowship among the 
 Jews, — one civil, another ecclesiastical. It 
 was the shutting out from the ecclesiastical 
 communion of the Jews which Christ alludes 
 to Matt, xviii.; for beside the distinct notions 
 of the Jewish church and the Jewish state 
 (of which before), Is. Abrabanel, de Capite 
 Fidei, cap. 6, speaking of certain funda- 
 mental articles which the Jewish church 
 did believe, saith. They were intended to be 
 " articles of Judaism, so that he that should 
 believe these should be in the communion of 
 Israel;" and Ibid. cap. 3, speaking of an 
 article concerning the comins; of the Mes- 
 siah, he moves a doubt about it, because 
 Rabbi Hillell, who denietli it, was not " ex- 
 cluded from the communion of the law," for 
 the Gernara gives him the title of Rabbi. 
 AMien he comes to the solution of this doubt, 
 cap. 14, he clears Rabbi Hillell, as not deny- 
 ing that article. But all this intimateth that 
 for heresy there was a shutting out trom 
 ecclesiastical communion; or thai an hereti- 
 cal apostate Jew was unto them as an hea- 
 then man; and, therefore, they were permit- 
 ted to take usury as from strangers or hea- 
 
DIVINE OKDIXAXCE OF CHURCH GOVERXMEXT VINDICATED. 
 
 177 
 
 thens, so from an apostate Jew, quia fratris 
 nomen cxuerat, saith Mr Selden, dc Jure 
 Nat. et Gent., lib. 6^ cap. 10. In Tzemach 
 David, edit. Hen.Vorstius, p. 67, it is said, 
 that the chief of the heretics were Tzadok 
 and Ba}'thos, who, denying rewards and 
 punishments after this life, exiverunt e com- 
 munionc [vel ccetu Israelis) they went out 
 from the ecclesiastical communion of Israel. 
 
 This is good reason to say of a son of Is- 
 rael, if he be a son of Belial, Let him be to 
 thee as an heathen ; that is, esteem him as 
 profane, and as lost as an heathen ; have no 
 more church communion with him than with 
 an heathen. And, by this time, I suppose, 
 it doth fully appear to the intelligent read- 
 er, that some uncircumcised heathens were 
 admitted into the civil fellowship, and some 
 Israelites continued not in the ecclesiastical 
 fellowship of the Jews, which overturneth 
 the whole strength of Mr Prynne's answer 
 to our argument, from Matt, xviii. But 
 once more (for I have thought good to insist 
 the longer upon this point, because much 
 dependeth upon it), " Let him be to thee 
 as an heathen," doth forbid ecclesiastical 
 communion, not civil company, except se- 
 condarily, and as a consequent of excommu- 
 nication and for spiritual respects and ends 
 (as I shall show anon) ; but it is not meant 
 of abstaining from mere civil company and 
 fellowship, because the Jews were permit- 
 ted to keep civil company and fellowship 
 with heathens, even any civil company which 
 did not encroach upon religion, or had ap- 
 pearance of an ensnarcment into idolatry, 
 and, in that respect (as participating of reli- 
 gious fellowship), became unlawful. This is 
 the point I have been proving, and which I 
 will yet farther prove out of JNIaimonides, 
 de Idololatria, cap. 9 ; that one chapter is 
 sufficient to decide the present question. 
 Thus it begins : " Three days before the 
 feasts (or holidays) of heathens that worship 
 idols, we are forbidden to buy from them, or 
 to sell unto them any durable thing ; to take 
 or give anything in lend ; to take or make 
 payment of that which was given in lend 
 upon writ or pledge ; but what was given in 
 lend upon words only, it is lawful to exact, 
 because this seemeth to be taken out of their 
 hands. It is also lawful to sell unto them 
 that which cannot last, as gxeen herbs, or 
 anything sodden, and that ever until their 
 holiday." You see it was lawful among 
 the Jews to buy and sell, borrow and lend, 
 to make conti'acts with heathens, yea, with I 
 
 idolatrous heathens ; only in some (not in 
 all) things there was a restraint upon them, 
 and that but three days before the heathen 
 festivities. Then follows, sect. 2, " This 
 hath place in the land of the Israelites, but 
 in the other lands it is not forbidden, except 
 upon their holiday. If any man transgress, 
 by having trade or commerce with them, 
 during that space of three days, it is lawful 
 (though) to use the ware ; but if any man 
 trade with them upon their holiday, the 
 things are forbidden to be used. It is un- 
 lawful also to send a gift to an heathen man 
 upon his holiday, unless it be known that 
 he doth not profess the woi'ship of idols, 
 neither serveth them ; but if some heathen 
 man, upon his holiday, send a gift to an 
 Israelite, let him not take it from him, un- 
 less it be suspected that he will be offended. 
 Nevei'theless he shall not use it, until it be 
 known that the heathen man doth not wor- 
 ship idols, nor esteem them to be gods." 
 Obsei've, 1. That the things mentioned in 
 the first section, though unlawful to the 
 Jews in their own land, three days before 
 the heathenish festivities, yet they held them 
 not unlawful in other lands. 2. They held 
 it lawful for a Jew to send a gift to an hea- 
 then man, or to receive a gift from him, so 
 that it were not upon the heathenish festi- 
 vity. 3. Yea, in some cases, it was permit- 
 ted to a Jew to send a gift to an heathen 
 man, upon the very heathen festivity (to 
 wit, if he knew that heathen man to be no 
 worshipper of idols), as likewise to receive 
 a gift from him (though upon the holiday) 
 for avoiding of offence. 
 
 Sect. 4. reckoneth among the heathenish 
 festivities a day set apart by them for coro- 
 nation of a king, or in memory of a man's na- 
 tivity, deliverance out of danger, or the like. 
 Then it is added, sect. 5, " But with those 
 idolaters Avho spend that day in mirth and 
 gladness, eatino" and drinking, and observe 
 that day, whether for custom or for the 
 king's honour, nevertheless hold it not for a 
 holiday, it is lawful to have commerce and 
 trade." When conversing with heathens 
 did not entrench upon religion, they could 
 do it without scruple, even upon the hea- 
 then's good days, or solemnities of joy. 
 Then, sect. 8, " If Israelites dwell among 
 heathens with whom they have made a cove- 
 nant, it is lawful to sell arms to the king's 
 servants, and to his military forces. &c. It 
 is unlawful to enter into a town in which 
 idolatry is practised : it is lawful to come 
 
178 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 out of it ; but if the idol be without the town, 
 it is also lawful to enter in it." If the Jews 
 might dwell among, and enter into league 
 and covenant with heathens, yea, enter into 
 the towns of idolaters when the idol was not 
 in town, then they held it not unlawful to 
 have any civil company with heathens. It 
 follows, sect. 11, " It is lawful to go to the 
 markets or fairs of heathens, and to buy from 
 them beasts, men-servants, maid -servants, 
 though they be yet heathens ; also houses, 
 fields, vineyards ; also for writing (contracts) 
 it is permitted to go to their judicial courts." 
 
 If it be objected that sect. 12 doth forbid 
 an Israelite to come to the banf[uet of an hea- 
 then, which he hath made for his son, or for 
 his daughter, I answer from that very place, 
 for lest this should be taken for a prohibi- 
 tion of civil fellowship, Maimonides did add 
 these words : " Now, this interval is ap- 
 pointed for idolatry ; for it is said, ' and one 
 caU thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice, and 
 thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, 
 and they go a whoring after their god,' " cit- 
 ing Exod. xxxiv. 15, 16. 
 
 From all which I conclude, that Christ's 
 words, relating to the Jewish custom, " Let 
 him be to thee as an heathen man," cannot 
 be meant (as Mr Prynne would have them) 
 of avoiding mere civil company and fellow- 
 ship ; for as much as it was not held unlaw- 
 ful among the Jews to have civil company 
 and commerce with heathens. Sure the 
 Jews of our age are far from holding such 
 a thing unlawfiil. 
 
 Yea, so far I am unsatisfied with Mr 
 Prynne's interpretation, that I verily be- 
 lieve (and so do some others) a part of the 
 intendment of these words, " Let him be 
 to thee as an heathen man and a publican," 
 is to hold forth the lawfulness, yea, the obli- 
 gation of performing all natural (and in di- 
 vers cases moral) duties to a person excom- 
 municated ; I mean, that the text doth in- 
 timate thus much. As, upon the one hand, 
 the contumacious offender who wiU not hear 
 the church, is to be used no better than an 
 heathen or a profane publican, and is not to 
 be admitted to any ordinance, except such as 
 heathens and profane publicans are, and may 
 be admitted unto ; so, upon the other hand, 
 let him have no worse usage and entertain- 
 ment than those very heathens and pub- 
 licans unto whom all natural, and some mo- 
 ral, duties are performed, notwithstanding 
 they be heathens and publicans ; for the 
 Apostle commandeth Christians to be sub- 
 
 ject even to heathen magistrates, servants to 
 honour and be subject to heathen and un- 
 godly masters, the wife not to depart from 
 the husband because he believeth not. So 
 that this rule of Christ, Matt, xviii. 17, is 
 so full and perfect, as to teach us, as well 
 what fellowship is lawful with such an one, 
 as what fellowship is not lawful to be kept 
 with him. I do not deny but that (accord- 
 ing to the ordinary rule) fellowship with an 
 excommunicate person, in meat, drink, fami- 
 liarity, and salutations, is unlawful, as well 
 as in the sacrament and prayer, according to 
 the received rule : 
 
 Si pro delictis, anathema qnis efficiatnr ; 
 Os, orare, vale, comraunio, mensa negatur. 
 
 And the scripture forbidding to eat with 
 such an one, or to have company with him, 
 or to bid him God speed, will reach as far. 
 Nevertheless, there are divers excepted or 
 reserved cases in which the performance of 
 natural duties unto, and keeping of civil 
 company with, an excommunicate person is 
 allowed. The exception made from the rule 
 is this : 
 
 Haec anathema quidem facinnt, ne possit obesse : 
 Utile, lex, humile, res ignorata, necesse. 
 
 Utile, as when a man seeketh payment of 
 debt from an excommunicate person ; lex, 
 because the law alloweth husband and wife 
 to company together, though the one of 
 them be excommunicate ; humile, because 
 children may and ought to do the duties of 
 children, and servants the duties of servants, 
 and subjects the duty of subjects, and vas- 
 sals the duty of vassals, and soldiers the duty 
 of soldiei's, in company ing with, submitting 
 unto, honouring and obeying of their excom- 
 municated parents, masters, kings, lords, 
 commanders ; res ignorata, when he that 
 companieth with an excommunicate person, 
 doth not know that he is excommmiicate ; 
 necesse, as when a man passeth through the 
 land, or is under the power of excommuni- 
 cate persons, or some such way, is drawn 
 into a necessity of speaking and companying 
 with them. All which is most agreeable to 
 this expression, "Let him be unto thee as 
 an heathen man and a publican," and to the 
 nature of excommunication, which doth not 
 break asunder natural or moral, but spiri- 
 tual and ecclesiastical bonds. If it be ask- 
 ed. Why then are we forbidden to eat with 
 an excommunicate person, or to bid him 
 God speed? I answer, These things are 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 179 
 
 not forbidden but under a spiritual notion, 
 and for a spiritual end, that the offender 
 may be ashamed and humbled; that others 
 may not be deceived by countenancing of 
 him, or companying with him ; and that our 
 eating with him, or saluting of him, may not 
 be interpreted as a conniving at, or comply- 
 ing with his sins, or as a sign of Christian 
 fellowship with a scandalous person formerly 
 called a brother. Finally, That Grod may 
 be the more glorified, wickedness the more 
 ashamed, others the more edified, the sin- 
 ner the more abased,- ourselves the better kept 
 from snares by avoiding of all appearance of 
 evil; otherwise, setting aside these and such 
 like spiritual considerations and respects, I 
 do aver that excommunication hath notliing 
 to do with the avoiding of civil company qua 
 civil ; that is, under a civil or political notion. 
 
 Thus we have the negative part of the 
 rule of Christ ; now to the positive part. 
 What is it to be " as an heathen and a pub- 
 lican?" He must not be worse used in na- 
 tural or civil things, yet he must be used in 
 the same manner as an heathen and a pub- 
 lican in spiritual things. 
 
 Wliei-efore, " Let him be as an heathen 
 man," implieth five things : — 
 
 1. I have proved that heathens were not 
 permitted to come into the outer court of 
 the temple, which the children of Israel did 
 come into, only they might come and wor- 
 ship in the intermurale or atrium Gentium; 
 and when they were at any time brought 
 into the temple, it is challenged both by 
 God, Ezek. xliv. 7, 9, and by the people of 
 the Jews, Acts xxi. 28. 
 
 2. Heathens, though sojourning among the 
 children of Israel, and dwelling within their 
 gates, might not eatof the passovei', Exod. xii. 
 43, 45; where the civil fellowship was allow- 
 ed, partaking of the passover was forbidden. 
 
 3. No heathen man, no not he that was 
 in the priest's house, might eat of an oflTer- 
 ing of the holy things. Lev. xxii. 10, 13. 
 
 4. A sacrifice was not accepted from the 
 hand of an heathen. Lev. xxii. 25; those that 
 came from a far country to pi'ay and wor- 
 ship before the temple, if they had brouglit 
 out of their own country, or had bought in 
 the land of Israel, beasts, or bread, or oil, 
 or frankincense, or the like, and brought 
 any of these for an oblation, it was not ac- 
 cepted from their hand, as Tostatus in 2, 
 Paral. 6, quest. 21, rightly observeth. Only 
 he coUecteth from Ezra vi. 8, 10, that an 
 heathen might give to the priests money or 
 
 expenses to buy sacrifices, and to offer them 
 in the temple. 
 
 5. And generally the heathens had no 
 part or poi-tion with God's people, Neh. ii. 
 20 ; they were not within but without the 
 church, " being aliens from the common- 
 wealth of Israel, and strangers from the co- 
 venants of promise, having no hope, and 
 without God in the world," Eph. ii. 12. So 
 that, " Let him be as an heathen," must 
 reach thus far, — Let him no more partake in 
 the ordinances than an heathen ; have no 
 more church communion with him than 
 with an heathen ; let him be no more ac- 
 knowledged for a church member than an 
 heathen, and good I'eason, he hath made 
 himself as an heathen, yea, worse than an 
 heathen. Rom. ii. 25, " If thou be a breaker 
 of the law, thy circumcision is made uncir- 
 cumcision ;" yea, a scandalous and profane 
 church member is " woi'se than an infidel," 
 1 Tim. V. 8 ; 1 Cor. v. 1. 
 
 This fivefold restraint of heathens from 
 the temple, from the passover, from eating 
 of an offering, from bringing an oblation 
 unto the Lord, and generally from all 
 church fellowship, did lie even upon those 
 heathens who did cohabit and familiarly 
 converse with the children of Israel, who 
 are called prosclyti domicilii ; and no hea- 
 then man was free of such restraint, except 
 froselyti justitice, who were circumcised 
 and made members of the Jewish church, 
 and had the name of Jews. 
 
 Finally, " Let him be unto thee as an 
 heathen man," may have a commentary 
 from 1 Sam. xxvi. 19, where David curseth 
 his enemies before the Lord, because they 
 had made him as an heathen man ; " they 
 have driven me out this day from abiding in 
 the inheritance of the Lord, saying, Go, 
 serve other gods." He did not reckon his 
 banishment, want of civil liberties, cutting 
 off from the civil fellowship and company of 
 the children of Israel, in comparison of that 
 which was far worse to him, and a great 
 deal heavier to be borne, namely, that he 
 was rejected and repudiated from spiritual 
 fellowship with God's people, from partak- 
 ing in the holy ordinances, from coming to 
 the sanctuary, from the church privileges, 
 that his persecution was materially and sub- 
 stantially an excommunication, and qua ex- 
 communication, it was more grievous to him 
 than qua persecution. 
 
 I suppose it now appears, that " Let him 
 be to thee as an heathen man," is a shutting 
 
180 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 out not from civil, but from sacred fellow- 
 ship. The other branch, " Let him be to 
 thee as a publican," I have before said 
 enough of it. This only I add : There were 
 among the Jews two sorts of publicans, — some 
 were good and just men, exacting no more 
 than what was appointed them ; others were 
 unjust and extortioners, and thereby made 
 infamous. The former sort the Hebrews 
 have professed they were willing to convei-se 
 civilly withal, as members of the same com- 
 monwealth. See L'Empereur, de Legihus 
 EhroBorum Forensibus, p. 272. But when 
 Christ saith, " Let him be to thee as a pub- 
 lican," he means the impious and unjust 
 publican only, as the same learned anti- 
 quary there saith. And so when our Sa- 
 viour bids us esteem such a one not only as 
 an heathen man, but as a publican, he means 
 that he is not only to be denied fellowship 
 in the holy things, but further, made infa- 
 mous among the people ; for the name pub- 
 lican is used to signify the worst of men. 
 Matt. V. 46, 47, and in the gospel it is said, 
 publicans and sinners, publicans and har- 
 lots, as was noted before. So Jerome upon 
 Matt, xviii. 17, understands the name of pub- 
 licans secundum tro'pologiam, for such as 
 are given to milawful gains, deceits, thefts, 
 perjuries, and such hke abominable wicked- 
 nesses ; wherefore we must not think that for 
 civil respects of tax-gathering or the like, the 
 Jews refused to keep civil company or fel- 
 lowship with the publicans ; for we read 
 in JExc. Gem. Sanhedrim, cap. 3, sect. 3, 
 that though he that was a shepherd, as such, 
 was unfit to be a witness, yet he that was 
 simply a publican (that is, as J. Coch saith 
 in his Annotation, a publican who is not 
 convicted of exacting more than is appointed 
 by law) or a publican, as a publican, is not 
 forbidden to be witness ; where it is also ad- 
 ded, that the father of R. Sira had the 
 office of a pubUcan tliirteen years. Hence 
 we see that a pubhcan's testimony, were he 
 a Jew or Gentile, provided he were a just 
 pubhcan, had faith and credit in judg- 
 ment; how then can it be supposed that 
 the Jews did not so much as keep any civil 
 company with such a one ? We must there- 
 fore understand that the Jews refused to 
 have any fellowship vatli the impious and 
 unjust publicans, as with church members, 
 and this the Jews did because of their scan- 
 dalous unoodliness and unrighteousness. 
 
 "VMiereibre, to be esteemed as a publican 
 was esteemed among the Jews, compre- 
 
 hendeth these three things: 1. To be es- 
 teemed as the worst of men, impious, abo- 
 minable, execrable, infamous, and, as it 
 were, publici odii victimoe, for so were the 
 publicans esteemed among the Jews. Dr 
 BuxtorfF, Lexic. Chald. Tahn. et Rabbin., 
 p. 1065, tells us, that where in Sanhedrim, 
 fol. 44, 2, it is said, " of a certain publican," 
 the gloss expounds it thus, " of a certain 
 wicked man." 2. Not to hold, or keep with 
 such an one, the religious Christian lellow- 
 ship which we keep with church members ; 
 yea, and (for religious ends, and in spiritual 
 respects, as was said before) not to keep 
 with such an one so much as that civil fel- 
 lowship which we are permitted to keep 
 with pagans and unbelievers, with whom, 
 when bidden to a feast, we may go and eat 
 together, as the Apostle expressly resolveth ; 
 but with him that is called a brother, when 
 scandalous and obstinate (and, therefore, 
 justly made as a publican), we may not so 
 much as eat, as the same Apostle teacheth, 
 wherein those are ever excepted who are 
 tied by natural relations to perform natural 
 and humane duties to the party excommuni- 
 cate and made as a pubhcan, as the wife to 
 the husband, the children to their parents. 
 In both these respects, " Let him be as a 
 publican," superaddeth somewhat, and saith 
 more than was in that other part, " Let him 
 be as an heathen man." 3. The thii-d thing 
 which I conceive to be meant by being es- 
 teemed as a pubhcan, is coincident with that 
 which was meant by "Let him be as an 
 heathen;" that is, let him be kept back from 
 communion and fellowship v.-ith the church 
 in the holy tilings. Mr Piynne brought a 
 parabolical argument concerning the pubh- 
 can's going up to the temple to pray ; that 
 devout and religious publicans, whether Jews 
 or Gentiles, did go up into the temple to 
 pray, I make no question, and such a one is 
 the publican in the parable ; yea, if we mark i 
 the Pharisee's own words, he speaketh of that 
 publican as one of the best and most reli- 
 gious pubUcans, Luke xviii. 11, "God I 
 thank thee that I am not as other men are, 
 extortionei-s, unjust, adulterers, Kal u»s ov- 
 Tos 6 TeXtbvris, or even as this publican." 
 The vulgar Latin hath it, velut etiam hie 
 publicanus, — as hkewise this publican, — 
 making the pubhcan to be one of those ex- 
 tortioners, unjust, adulterers. But it is a 
 mistake of the text, which plainly holds 
 forth a disjunctive, not a copulative sense. 
 The Pharisee is further declaring what him- 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 181 
 
 self was not, and the disjunctive f; intima- 
 teth some new matter. Therefore the Syriac 
 and the Arabic hath it, " neither as this pub- 
 hcan ;" Erasmus, aut etiam tit hie publi- 
 canus ; Arias Montanus, aiit et ut hie pub- 
 licanus ; and the Enghsh, " or even as this 
 pubhcan." Many of the pubhcans were ex- 
 tortioners, unjust, adulterers, but the Pha- 
 risee thought he had not said enough when 
 he had preferred himself to these, therefore 
 he addeth this dufj/o-is, " or even as this pub- 
 lican," which is a rising and heightening of 
 his speech, as if he had said, " God I thank 
 thee that I am more holy and righteous 
 than the best of the publicans, who yet are 
 not (as most of them are) extortioners, un- 
 just, adulterers." But that profane, un- 
 just, scandalous, infamous publicans, whe- 
 ther Jews or G-entiles, were allowed or per- 
 mitted to come to the temple, to the wor- 
 ship, prayer and sacrifices, among the rest 
 of the people of the Jews, I deny it, and 
 Mr Prynne hath said nothing to prove 
 it. These only are the publicans meant of 
 when Christ saith, " Let him be unto thee 
 as a publican." Now this sort of publicans, 
 if they were allowed anything in reference 
 to the temple, it was but to stand afar off 
 in the intermurale, or atrium Gentium, 
 as heathens might do. If the religious pub- 
 lican stood afar off, how much more the pro- 
 fane infamous publican. Tliat such as were 
 publicly scandalous, infamous for impiety, 
 and esteemed the worst of men (which I 
 have showed to be meant by " Let him be 
 unto thee as a publican,") were admitted 
 into the temple as much as the rest of the 
 people of the Jews, or had fellowship with 
 the church in the holy things, I do not be- 
 lieve : I have proved the contrary from 
 Philo and Josephus. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 A CONFUTATION OF ERASTUS AND BILSON's 
 
 INTERPRETATION OF MATT. XVIII. 15 17, 
 
 AS LIKEWISE OF DR SUTCLIFFE's GLOSS 
 DIFFERING SOMEWHAT FROM THEIRS. 
 
 As for that other Erastian gloss upon 
 Matt, xviii. 17, that Christ meaneth of go- 
 ing to the orthodox magistrate being of the 
 same true religion (and that this is the sense 
 of those words, " Tell the church"); but if 
 the brother who hath done us wrong will not 
 hear nor obey that magistrate, then " Let 
 
 him be unto thee as an heathen man and a 
 publican ;" that is, thou mayest prosecute 
 him, as thou wouldest prosecute an heathen 
 man or a publican, before an extrinsical tri- 
 bunal, such as at that time the Roman em- 
 peror's was to the Jews. See Erastus, thes. 
 41, wherein he is followed by Bishop Bilson, 
 Of the Perpetual Government of Christ's 
 Chureh, cap. 4. This gloss hath been justly 
 rejected by many learned men. The first 
 argument which I bring against it is, that it 
 is wide from the scope of the text, yea, pre- 
 judgeth, and even overthroweth the great 
 thing which is principally intended by Jesus 
 Christ in this place. Camero, Myroth. in 
 Matt, xviii., thinks it is utterly difl^erent 
 fi'om Christ's intention in this place, which 
 is to prescribe rules to our consciences con- 
 cerning the amendment of our brother, and 
 the reducing; of him from his sin, not to give 
 economical rules concerning the reparation 
 of our injuries or losses ; wherefore he con- 
 cludes, that by the church is meant the pres- 
 bytery mentioned 1 Tim. iv. 14. He hold- 
 eth that also in the New Testament the 
 word t(.t;\/j(7('a doth ever signify an assem- 
 bly cum rrj^eiret ad religionem, with an ha- 
 bitude and reference to religion. Let it be 
 also observed with Bucerus, Script. Anglic, 
 p. 40, 41, 304—306, that what our Saviour 
 directeth one brother to do toward the gain- 
 ing of another, by admonitions and reproofs, 
 doth only belong to the care and solicitude 
 of the salvation of his soul, and the gaining 
 of him from eternal death to eternal life ; 
 and this he collects from these words in the 
 text, " thy brother," and " thou hast gain- 
 ed thy brother." He doth also parallel 
 Matt, xviii. 15, with Gal. vi. 1, " Brethren, 
 if any man be overtaken in a i'ault, ye which 
 are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit 
 of meekness." Now this, as it is the surest ex- 
 position (expounding scripture by scripture), 
 so it doth not concern a judicial proceeding 
 in the case of private injuries, but the Chris- 
 tian duty of reclaiming and saving the soul 
 from sin. 
 
 He further observeth, that the thing 
 which Christ recommendeth to every Chris- 
 tian, to be done ex eharitate Christiana, 
 is nothing else but what is incumbent to 
 pastoi-s ex officio; for pastors ought, by vir- 
 tue of their public charge and ministry, to 
 do the same thing authoritatively, which one 
 Christian is bidden do to another in Chris- 
 tian brotherly charity ; that is, to admonish, 
 rebuke, &c. 
 
182 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 I am persuaded were the Lord Jesus' 
 scope and intent in this text rightly under- 
 stood, there should need no other confuta- 
 tion of the glosses given either by Erastus 
 or by Mr Prynne. They restrict to the case 
 of private or personal injuries, and to the 
 party injured civilly, that which our Saviour 
 prescribeth as a duty of Christian charity, 
 which every church member oweth to an- 
 other. i It was an impious woi'd of Cain, 
 " Am I my brother's keeper ?" though spo- 
 ken in reference to his brother's body and 
 natural life; how much more sinful is it to 
 say or thmk in reference to our brother's 
 soul, " Am I my brother's keeper ?" Every 
 Christian is bound by the commandment of 
 God to rebuke his brother, when he seeth, 
 heareth, or knoweth him to commit sin ; Lev. 
 xix. 17, " Thou shalt in anywise rebuke thy 
 neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him." 
 Where the marginal parallel in the English 
 Bibles is Matt, xviii. 15. Yea, Erastus him- 
 self, lib. 2, cap. 2, p. 154, confesseth that 
 Christ doth in Matt, xviii. interpret that 
 law, Lev. xix. So Prov. xxviii. 4, such as 
 keep the law, contend with the wicked. 
 We ought to hate and abhor sin, by which 
 God is dishonoured (and consequently to 
 express our zeal against it by rebukes when 
 it is committed in our sight, hearing, pre- 
 sence, privity, or knowledge), as much, yea, 
 much more, than if it were a private and 
 personal injury against ourselves, Psal. cvii. 
 10; Amos v. l5; Rom. xii. 9; Psal. cxxxix. 
 21 , 22. Hence it is that the Apostle exliort- 
 eth Christians to " warn them that are unruly 
 or disorderly," 1 Thes. v. 13. Wlierefore it 
 is justly and truly maintained by Augustine, 
 Regul. 3, infiyie Tomi primi ; Durandus, 
 lib. 4, dist. 19, quest. 3 ; Tostatus in Matt, 
 xviii., quest. 95, and divers others, that to 
 admonish and rebuke a brother committing 
 sin, is a necessary Christian duty command- 
 ed by the word of God, whereunto Chris- 
 tians are obliged by the love of God and 
 their neifflibour. For which see also ^gi- 
 dius de Coninck, de Actib. Supernat., disp. 
 28, dub. 2 and 4. And if the offender be 
 not reduced by more private admonitions 
 and rebukes, the same law of spiritual love 
 bindeth his brother that knoweth his sin 
 and impenitence to tell the church, as Joseph 
 told his father of his brethren's faults, Gen. 
 
 1 Cartwriglit, Histor. Cliristi, ex. 4, Evang., p. 354. 
 — Hoc loco (Matt, xviii.) notandura, singulorum in 
 ecclesia civium munus esse, ut delinquentem fratrem 
 corpiant. 
 
 xxxvii. 2, " And Joseph brought unto their 
 father their evil report ;" that is, their scan- 
 dalous sins, which made them to have an 
 evil report. It is well noted by Pareus 
 upon the place, that the thing which Joseph 
 did complain of to his father, was not his 
 brethren's hatred against himself, nor any 
 personal injury done to himself (because 
 their hatred of Joseph was the effect, not 
 the cause, of the information which he gave 
 to his father of their faults), but it was their 
 sin and scandalous life by which they brought 
 an evil name upon themselves and the family 
 of their father. Wherein he doth, upon good 
 reason, justify what Joseph did, because he 
 told not his brethren's faults to an enemy, 
 but to a father, nor for their evil, but for 
 their good. It was also declared unto the 
 Apostle by them of the house of Chloe, that 
 there were contentions among the Corin- 
 thians, 1 Cor. i. 11. So it is collected from 2 
 Thess. iii. 11, that some in the church of 
 Thessalonica gave notice to the Apostle of 
 such as walked disorderly. And as he that 
 spares the rod hates the child, so he that 
 neglects to rebuke an offending brother, or 
 (when that cannot amend him), neglects to 
 tell the church, doth hate his brother's soul, 
 in so far as he suffers sin upon him. 
 
 If these things be acknowledged for truths, 
 we will be easily induced to believe that the 
 scope of Jesus Christ, Matt, xviii. 15 — 17, 
 is to teach us, not what he permits the 
 party injured to do toward the party injur- 
 ing, but what he commands every one that 
 loves the soul and salvation of his neighbour, 
 to do for reducing his neighbour from a sin 
 wherewith he is overtaken. Which fitly 
 agreeth with that which Drusius, prcetei: 
 lib. 1 on ^latt. xviii. 15, cited e libro Musar. 
 Besides, both fathers, schoolmen, casuists, 
 commentators. Popish and Protestant, 
 when they handle the questions de correp- 
 tione freterna, they make brotherly rebukes 
 to be a common duty of love which one 
 neighbour oweth to another; and ever and 
 anon they clear what they hold from Matt. 
 
 1 Si peccaverit in te frater tuns. Eadem haben- 
 tur in libro Musar 221, quanquam paulo aliter, Qui 
 arguit socium debet primum hoc facere placide in- 
 terse et ipsnm solum verbis mollibus, ita ut non 
 pude faciat eum si resipiscit bene est : sin, debet 
 eura acriter arguere, et pudefacere inter se et ip- 
 sum. Si non respiscit, debet adhibere socios, ip- 
 snmque coram illis pudore ai3Bcere : si nec hocmodo 
 quicquara profecit, debet eum pude facere coram 
 multis, ejusque delictum publicare. Nam certe 
 detegendi suut hypocritae. 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 183 
 
 xviii. I verily believe it is one of the wiles, 
 yea, depths of Satan, in perverting that text 
 with the Erastian glosses, to throw out of the 
 church, and to drown in desuetude and obli- 
 vion, a great and necessary duty which every 
 Christian, by the law of love, oweth to the 
 soul of his brother with whom he converseth, 
 which, were it conscientiously practised, I 
 dare say it should be a most powerful and 
 effectual means (by the blessing of Christ 
 upon his own ordinance) to purge the church 
 of scandals, to gain souls, and to advance 
 holiness. 
 
 Now, he that can neither be reduced by 
 more private reprehensions nor by public ec- 
 clesiastical conviction, " Let him be unto thee 
 as an heathen man," saith Christ : let him 
 be esteemed as one that hath no part in the 
 communion of the saints, in church member- 
 ship, in the holy things, in the common- 
 wealth of Israel, in the covenants of promise, 
 more than an heathen man ; which is a spi- 
 ritual, not a civil separation, according to 
 that, Gal. ii. 15, " We who are Jews by na- 
 ture, and not sinners of the Gentiles." 
 
 My second argument shall be this : That 
 which Christ saith generally of any sin 
 whereby one brother scandaliseth another 
 brother, the Erastians restrict to private or 
 personal injuries. And whereas Christ's rule 
 tendeth to the rescuing and saving of a sin- 
 ner, their gloss runs upon a man's particular 
 interest in the I'esarciating of a private in- 
 jury. " If thy brother trespass against thee ;" 
 that is. Cum quis coram aliquo peccaverit, 
 saith Munsterus, " When any brother sinneth 
 in the presence of some other." Are we not 
 obliged to rebuke an offending brother in 
 Christian love, and to endeavour to bring 
 him to repentance, and to save his soul, whe- 
 ther he hath done to us any particular in- 
 jury or not ? May we suffer sin upon his soul, 
 because that sin is not an injury to us ? Let 
 it be well observed, the thing here aimed at, 
 is the salvation of the offending brother, and 
 his turning from sin, as Grotius rightly not- 
 eth from the word Kepbaiveiv (which Eras- 
 tus also confesseth from the word eXey^oi') 
 for in that sense is the word used, 1 Cor. ix. 
 19 — 22, " That I might gain them that are 
 under the law," &c. ; and 1 Peter iii. 1, 
 " They may be won by the conversation of 
 
 1 Confirm. Theg., lib. 3, cap. 3, p. 188.— Ideo dicit 
 Christus ilXty^m apud Matt, ut intelligamus eum er- 
 roris et iniquitatis convincendum esse, ut earn agnoE- 
 cat ac deprecetur non apud nos tantum, sed multo 
 magis apud Deum. 
 
 the wives." This, saith Grotius, James doth 
 explain, chap. v. 20, " He which convert- 
 eth the sinner from the error of his way, 
 shall save a soul from death, and shall hide 
 a multitude of sins." If this, then, be the 
 meaning of Christ's words. Thou hast gained 
 thy brother, then it concerneth all sins 
 whereby we know our brother's soul and sal- 
 vation to be in hazard. Wherefore, though 
 Grotius understand private injures to be that 
 case which the text putteth, yet, saith he, 
 it is the manner of the law of God, by one 
 particular and more remarkable kind of 
 things, to intimate what ought to be done 
 in other things, according to the rule of just 
 proportion. And it holds more true in other 
 sins than in the case of private injuries : 
 " This rebuking is necessary as well in sins 
 which are committed against God as in those 
 which are committed against man, and by so 
 much the more it is necessary in sins which 
 are committed against God, by how much 
 they are heavier than sins which are com- 
 mitted against man," saith Tostatus in Matt, 
 xviii., quest. 93. And Grotius himself cit- 
 eth out of Mimus : — 
 
 " Amici Titia si feras facias tua." 
 
 And whereas the Erastians take much 
 hold of the words against thee : " If thy 
 brother trespass against thee," — I have be- 
 fore answered, that any sin against God, 
 which is committed in my sight, hearing, or 
 knowledge, and so becometh a scandal or 
 stumbling-block to me, is a trespass commit- 
 ted against me, because he that ought to 
 edify me doth scandalise me. So that the 
 words against thee, are added to signify 
 not a civil injury, but rather a spiritual in- 
 jury or scandal. Augustine, Regul. 3, injine 
 torn. l,applieth the rule and method of pro- 
 ceeding mentioned Matt, xviii., to lascivious 
 or adulterous behaviour, which one brother 
 observing in another, ought to admonish him, 
 first secretly, then to take witnesses, then to 
 tell the church, and if he be contumacious, 
 de vestra societate projiciatur : Let hirn be 
 cast out of your society, saith he. And the 
 context carrieth it to any scandal whereby 
 one brother scandaliseth another, whereof 
 much was spoken in the preceding part of 
 the chapter. Erastus, p. 154, Scopus Christi 
 est in hoc capite docere, quantum malum 
 sit scandalum : The scope of Christ is, in 
 this chapter, to teach how great an evil 
 scandal is. Wherefore I adhere to the re- 
 solution of Tostatus in Matt, xviii., quest. 
 
J 184 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 84, Sive sit peccatum directe contra Deum, 
 sive contra proximum, si Jit nobis scienti- 
 bns, Jit contra nos, cum nos scandalizet. 
 Both Chrysostom and Theophylact, upon 
 Matt, xviii. 15, observe this cohesion, that 
 Christ, having before spoken against those 
 that give scandal, now he gives a rule to the 
 person scandalised. 
 
 Thirdly, That exposition which now I 
 argue against, tendeth to make one scrip- 
 ture contradict another, and to make that 
 lawful by one scripture which another scrip- 
 ture makes unlawful, even some of them- 
 selves being judges. They so expound 
 Matt, xviii., that they make it lawful (and 
 as such allowed by Christ himself) for a 
 Christian to pursue his brother for a civil 
 injury before infidel or heathenish judges, 
 even as he would pursue an heathen or infi- 
 del, if such an one had done him the injury. 
 Erastus saith freely^ (yet foully), that if a 
 congregation of the faithful be under the 
 Turk or the Pope, one of them may pursue 
 another for an injury (when the offender 
 will not hearken to his own assembly), be- 
 fore those judges who are aliens and ene- 
 mies to the true religion. His exposition of 
 Matt, xviii. doth plainly lead hereunto. So 
 saith Bishop Bilson (a great follower of 
 Erastus) in this debate upon Matt, xviii., in 
 the place before cited, " Let him be to 
 thee as an heathen man and a publican ; 
 that is, pursue him in those courts where 
 thou wouldest a pagan and publican that 
 should do thee wrong." But how doth this 
 agree with 1 Cor. vi. (the place which Eras- 
 tus, thes. 41, conceiveth to be a commen- 
 tai'y upon Matt, xviii.) ? Doth not the 
 Apostle expressly condemn it, as being ut- 
 terly a fault, that one brother went to law 
 with another, for the things of this life or 
 civil causes, before the unjust and unbeliev- 
 ers ? Nay, let us hear Bishop Bilson him- 
 self in that very place : " Paul (saith he) 
 by no means permitted them to pui'sue theu' 
 brethren at the tribunals of infidels." What 
 then ? Will they set Paul against Christ ? 
 or will they make 1 Cor. vi. contrary to 
 Matt, xviii. ? As for that whereby Erastus 
 would reconcile this difference, it as good as 
 nothing. He saith, p. 183, that Paul re- 
 
 quireth them to refer to arbitrators within the 
 church itself, only the smallest matters and 
 things pertaining to this hfe, but not crimes 
 or weighty matters, which he would reserve 
 to the magistrates, otherwise he had de- 
 tracted much from those to whom he every- 
 where commandeth to give obedience. And 
 so, saith he, that which Paul saith is nothing 
 but what Christ saith, " Tell the church." 
 Besides, Paul himself appealed to Caesar : 
 Let all men judge, saith he, whether the 
 Apostle would make it unlawful to other 
 wronged persons, which he thought lawful 
 for himself? I answer, 1. If it was a shame 
 and foul scandal for Christians to pursue one 
 another for smaller matters pertaining to 
 this life, how much more for crimes and 
 weightier matters ? for then the unbehevers 
 might cast the heavier load of reproaches 
 upon the Christian rehgion. 2. This might 
 have opened a door to elude that which the 
 Apostle so earnestly presseth ; for one would 
 be ready to say, this cause of mine is a 
 weighty one, it is an injury and crime that 
 cannot be borne, therefore I am free to 
 pursue it before unbelievers ; whereas the 
 Apostle saith, " \Miy do ye not rather take 
 wi'ong ? why do ye not rather suffer your- 
 selves to be defrauded ?" 3. The judging 
 of the smallest matters, and of the things 
 pertaining to this life is, by the Apostle, 
 opposed, not to weighty civil injuries, but to 
 the judging of the world and of angels, as is 
 manifest by the antithesis in the text. But 
 he maketh no intimation of the least dis- 
 tinction of civil injuries, as if some might be 
 pursued before unbelieving judges, some not. 
 He speaketh generally, ver. 1, " Dare any of 
 you having a matter against another ;" ver. 
 4, " If then ye have judgments of things 
 pertaining to this life ver. 7, " ^Miy do ye 
 not rather take wrong ?" 4. If that which 
 Paul saith be the same with that which 
 Christ saith, " Tell the church ;" and if it 
 was Paul's mind that he who would not 
 hearken to chosen arbitrators among the 
 saints, might be pursued before the unbe- 
 lieving judges (as Erastus tells us both here 
 and thes. 47), then " Tell the church" can- 
 not be meant of telling the magistrate of the 
 same rehgion ; for Paul sends them to no 
 Christian magistrate (because there was none 
 such then and there), but to arbitrators cho- 
 sen among the saints. It is most strange to 
 me, that so acute a disputant could expound 
 the telling of the church. Matt, xviii., by 
 the reference to arbitrators, 1 Cor. vi., and 
 
 1 Confirm. Thes., lib. 3, cap. 2, p. 184.— Habitant 
 nunc sub Turca et pontifice Romano fideles ; si qnis 
 afficiatur ibi a fratre injuria, nec audire injuriosus 
 suura coBtum velit, qtiid aliud potest offensus facere 
 quam ejus iraplorare judicis opem, qui facnltatem 
 habet coercendi ? 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 185 
 
 yet understand the church, Matt, xviii., to 
 be the civil magistrate. 5. There might be 
 subjection and obedience to the heathen ma- 
 gistrates, although the saints should not go 
 to law one against another before them. 6. 
 Paul did but appeal from Csesar's deputy to 
 Caesar himself. He was drawn, by the 
 Jews, before the tribunal of Festus (wherein 
 Paul was a sufferer), and finding Festus 
 unjust and partial, and that he endeavoured 
 to dehver him to the Jews, who had a mind 
 to have him put to death, thereupon he 
 appealeth from Festus to Ca3sar. So that 
 if Erastus had made the parallel right, all 
 that he could conclude from Paul's exam- 
 ple had been this : That when a Christian 
 is drawn and compelled by his accusers and 
 enemies (not being Christians), before the 
 tribunal of an inferior heathen judge ; if he 
 there find himself in danger of his life, he 
 may appeal in his just defence to an higher 
 heathen judge. Wherefore I yet conclude 
 that, by the Erastian principles, Christ and 
 Paul cannot be reconciled. These three ar- 
 guments do militate not only against Eras- 
 tus and Bilson, but likewise against Sutlivius, 
 de Prcsb., cap. 9, where he gives this sense 
 of Matt, xviii. 15 — 17, that we ought to 
 take heed we give no scandal in the pursu- 
 ing of injuries, and for that end ought to 
 give admonition first privately, then before 
 witnesses, and in case of obstinacy in the 
 brother that hath done the injury, to tell 
 the rulers of the church (moaning the pre- 
 lates), and if he will not hear them, then to 
 go to law with that brother, as with an hea- 
 then or publican. The other arguments 
 which are to follow (the lasted excepted), 
 strike not at his interpretation, but at those 
 other glosses of Erastus, Bilson, and Mr 
 Prynne. 
 
 Fourthly, This Erastian exposition makes 
 these words, "But if he neglect to hear the 
 church, let him be unto thee as an heathen 
 man and a publican," to be applicable only 
 to such Christians as live under unbelievin<i- 
 magistrates, and not to all Christians. This 
 consequence Erastus foresaw that it would 
 needs follow from his interpretation ; there- 
 fore he plainly owneth it, thes. 47. He con- 
 fesseth that the former part, concerning re- 
 bukincf and seeking to o-ain the offending 
 brother, belongs to all Christians. What a 
 boldness is here, to rent asunder this passage 
 of Scripture, which was uttered, as it were, 
 with one breath ! And why doth not the 
 latter part also belong unto all Christians ? 
 
 Must Christians that live under an infidel 
 magistrate have more effectual means and 
 ways to use towards an offending brother, 
 and may they go a step further in putting 
 him to shame, or in humbling him, than 
 those Christians can do who live under a 
 Christian magistrate ? How well doth this 
 hang together ! I should have thought the 
 balance must rather fall to this hand ; but 
 to make the condition of those who live un- 
 der a Christian magistrate to be more pri- 
 vative, and the condition of those who live 
 under an infidel magistrate to be more cumu- 
 lative, is too great a paradox for me. 
 
 Fifthly, Whereas they say that the way 
 prescribed by Christ, Matt, xviii., is such as 
 is agreeable to the law of Moses, and they 
 understand by " tell the church" tell the 
 magistrate, I ask, Wliat magistrate ? If 
 the judges and magistrates of the cities, as 
 Bishop Bilson thinks, then he who did not 
 hearken to those judges might appeal to the 
 great sanhedrim at Jerusalem, or the judges 
 themselves might refer and transmit the case 
 thither; so that the man was not to be 
 straightway accounted as an heathen man 
 and a publican. But if by the church they 
 understand the great sanhedrim itself, he 
 that would not hearken to it, was to be put 
 to death by the law, Deut. xvii., so that it 
 had not been agreeable to the law of Moses 
 to teach, that he who will not hearken to the 
 great sanhedrim, is to be esteemed as an 
 heathen man and a publican ; for this sup- 
 poseth that he shall not die, but be suffered 
 to live. 
 
 Sixthly, The Erastian principles do plain- 
 ly contradict and confute themselves, for both 
 Erastus, Bishop Bilson, and Mr Prynne, 
 hold that the Jewish sanhedrim, in Christ's 
 time, was a temporal magistracy and a civil 
 court of justice, which had power to scourge, 
 imprison, torture, and outlaw offenders, yea, 
 to put to death, as the first two do posi- 
 tively aver. How then can it be said, " If 
 he neglect to hear the church, &c.,"i that 
 is, if he neglect to hear the civil magis- 
 trate, who hath power to imprison, scourge. 
 
 1 Sutlivius de Presbyterio, cap. 9. — Deinde loqui- 
 tur Christus de ecclesia, quae cogendi potestatera 
 non habuit, cujusque sententiara impune licuit con- 
 temnere. Nam si cogendi potestatem babuisset, 
 frustra ilia verba addita sunt, si ecclesiam audire 
 noluerit : nam ecclesia cocgisset, et sententiam suam 
 executioni mandasset. This lie objectetb against the 
 Presbyterian interpretation ; but, in truth, it helpeth 
 us, and strongly militateth against the Erastian in- 
 terpretation. 
 
 2A 
 
106 
 
 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 tortui-e, outlaw, yea, to put him to death ? 
 Surely, " if he neglect to hear the church," 
 doth intimate that the church hath not 
 used, nor cannot use, any external coercive 
 power. Erastus finds himself so mightily 
 puzzled with this difficulty, that to make 
 out his interpretation of Matt, xviii., he con- 
 fesseth, thes. 53, and Confirm. Tkes., lib. 
 2, cap. 2, the Jewish sanhedrim had no 
 power, under the Romans, to judge of civil 
 causes and mjuries, but of things pertaining 
 to their religion only, so that at that time, 
 saith he, a man might impune, without pu- 
 nishment, contemn the judgment of the san- 
 hedrim in civil things.' And thus, while he 
 seeketh a salvo for his gloss upon Matt, xviii., 
 he overthroweth the great argument by 
 which he and his followers endeavour to 
 prove that there was no other sanhedrim 
 in Christ's time, but a civil court of justice, 
 because, say they, that sanhedrim had the 
 power of the sword and other temporal 
 punishments. 
 
 Seventhly, Observe the gradation in the 
 text : 1. A private conviction or rebuke. 
 
 2. Conviction before two or three witnesses. 
 
 3. Conviction before the church, and the 
 church's declaring the thing to be an of- 
 fence, and commanding the offender to turn 
 from his evil way. 4. If he will not hear 
 the church (which implieth that the church 
 hath spoken and required him to do some- 
 what which he refuseth to do), then " Let 
 him be as an heathen man and a publican." 
 This last is heavier than all that went be- 
 
 i fore, and is the punishment of his not hear- 
 ing the church. Now, this gradation is 
 inconsistent with the interpretation which 
 Erastus giveth ; for, by his own confession, 
 the sanhedrim of the Jews, at that time, 
 had not power to judge of civil causes, nor 
 to punish any man for a civil injury, but for 
 a matter of religion only (yet they are not 
 matters of religion, but civil trespasses which 
 he understands to be meant. Matt, xviii.) 
 Here is an intercision in the third step of 
 the gradation ; and if it were an offence 
 in the matter of religion, it had not been a 
 greater punishment, but a greater ease to 
 the offender, to draw him before the Roman 
 tribunals ; for the Romans cared for none 
 of those things of which the Jewish sanhe- 
 drim was most zealous. The gradation in 
 the text is as inconsistent with Mr Prynne's 
 
 1 P. 158. — Proinde irapune poterat, qui volebat 
 judicium .Synedrii coutemnere in civilibus rebus. 
 
 interpretation ; for imagine the offender to 
 be, after previous admonitions, publicly ac- 
 cused and convicted before the church (that 
 is, in his opinion, the civil court of justice, 
 which had power to imprison, scourge, tor- 
 ture, and outlaw offenders, if not to con- 
 demn and put to death), what should be 
 done with such an one ? Can we go no 
 higher ? Yes ; thus it is in Mr Prynne's 
 sense : He that will not submit to the ma- 
 gistrate, and cannot be reduced by stripes 
 and imprisonment, torturing and outlawing, 
 yea, peradventure by condemnation to die 
 the death, let this be the last remedy for 
 such an one, " Let him be unto thee as an 
 heathen man and a publican ;" that is, with- 
 draw familiar civil company from him. 
 
 Eighthly, That interpretation of Erastus 
 leaneth to a false supposition, namely, that 
 the words dtrnep 6 TeXwvrjs, " as a pubhcan," 
 are meant universally of all publicans, good 
 or bad, or whatever they were. To prove 
 this he takes an argument, p. 189, 190, 195, 
 from the article 6 ; for, with the Grecians, 
 saith he, the article being joined to the pre- 
 dicate, noteth the nature, and consequently 
 the universality of the thing; whence he con- 
 cludeth that 6 reXw^ys signifieth a publican 
 qua publican, and so every publican. Now, 
 what can be the sense of Christ's words in 
 reference to every publican, saith he, unless 
 this be it, that it was lawful to pursue any 
 publican at a tribunal of the Romans ? I 
 answer. His arg-ument goeth upon a most 
 false supposition, which I clear by the like 
 mstances : Matt. vi. 7, " Use not vain re- 
 petitions as the heathens do," wairepol edi f 
 Koi. Shall we thence conclude that the hea- 
 thens as heathens, and so all heathens, with- 
 out exception, did use repetitions in prayer, 
 or that they were all so devout, m their way, 
 as to make long prayers ? Luke xviii. 11, " I 
 am not as other men are, Sia-Kep ol \onroi 
 Tb)v aidfiioirwi', extortioners, unjust," &c. 
 Did the Pharisee mean that every man eo 
 ipso that he was another man, and so the 
 rest of the Pharisees, as well as others, were 
 extortioners, &c.? John xv. 6, "He is cast 
 forth as a branch," ws to KXfj^a. If the 
 rule of Erastus hold, then a branch, as a 
 branch, and so every branch, is cast out. 
 Many such instances might be given. If, in 
 these texts, there must be a restriction of 
 the sense, notwithstanding of the prepositive 
 article, so that, by heathens, we must under- 
 stand devout or praying heathens ; by other 
 men, vulgar men, or the common sort of 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 men ; by a branch, a fruitless or withered 
 branch ; why shall we not also understand 
 by 6 reX(I»i i;s, the profane, loose, or unjust 
 publican, and as Grotius doth rightly ex- 
 pound it, 6 afxaprwXoi. Let him be es- 
 teemed, saith he, as an heathen man ; that 
 is, as an alien from religion or as a publican, 
 that is, if he be a Jew, esteem him as an in- 
 famous sinner, or one of a flagitious life. 
 Since, therefore, Erastus confesseth, p. 194, 
 that as the office of the publicans was law- 
 ful, so likewise many publicans were honest, 
 chaste, religious, and pious men, I may safely 
 conclude, that " Let him be unto thee as a 
 publican," cannot be meant universally of 
 all publicans. For how can it be supposed 
 that Christ would tacitly allow of alienation 
 from, or severity to, pious publicans ? 
 
 Ninthly, Whereas the Erastians lay great 
 weight upon that form of speech, " Let him 
 be to thee (not to the whole church) as an 
 heathen man and a publican" (which is also 
 one of Sutlivius's exceptions, de Presbyterio, 
 cap. 9), in this also they do abuse the text ; 
 for, 1. The same offence which is a sufficient 
 ground to one church member to esteem 
 another church member as an heathen man 
 or a publican, being a public and known 
 scandal (such as is contumacy and disobe- 
 dience to the church), must needs be a suf- 
 ficient ground to all other chui-ch members, 
 or to the whole church to esteem so of him. 
 Surely Christ would not have contradictory 
 judgments in his church concerning so high 
 a point as is the esteeming of a church mem- 
 ber to be as an heathen man and a publican. 
 2. The Erastians herein argue no better than 
 the Papists. Christ said to Peter, " I will 
 ive unto thee the keys of the kingdom of 
 eaven ;" therefore unto Peter alone. Per- 
 adventure Mr Hussey was so sagacious as to 
 prevent this objection with his Popish con- 
 cession : " These keys were never given to 
 any of the apostles but to Peter," saith he, 
 in his Plea for Christian Magistracy, p. 9. 
 It seems he will far less stick to grant the pre- 
 latical argument, — Timothy laid on hands, 
 and Titus ordained eldei's ; therefore each 
 of these had the power of ordination by him- 
 self alone. 3. It is a good observation of 
 Luther, torn. 1, Resolv. super propos. 13, 
 de Potest. Papa;, fol. 299, In Matt, xvi., 
 Christ begins with all his disciples, " Whom 
 say ye that I am?" and he endeth with one, 
 "Unto thee will I give," &c. In Matt, 
 xviii. he beginneth with one, " If thy bro- 
 ther trespass against thee," &c. ; and he 
 
 187 
 
 endeth with all, " Whatsoever ye bind on 
 earth," &c. Whence he concludeth that, 
 in both these places, what is said to one is 
 said to all of them. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 THAT " TELL IT TO THE CHURCh" HATH MORE 
 IN IT THAN " TELL IT UNTO A GREATER 
 NUMBER." 
 
 There is yet another interpretation of these 
 words invented to elude the argument for 
 ecclesiastical government and censures, from 
 Matt, xviii., " Tell it unto the church ;" 
 that is, if the offending brother will neither 
 hearken to private admonition, nor to ad- 
 monition before two or three witnesses, then 
 tell it unto many or unto a greater company. 
 This calls to mind Dr Sutcliffe's gloss upon 
 the word presbytery,^ 1 Tim. iv. 14, that it 
 sigiiifieth presbyters or ministers, non juris 
 vinculo, sed utcunque collectos, as if the 
 occasional meeting of some presbyters in 
 Westminster Hall, or upon the Exchange, 
 or in a journey, or at a burial, were a pre- 
 bytery with power to lay on hands. 
 
 That interpretation of the word church is 
 no better. But that I may reject nothing 
 without reason, I desire it may be consider- 
 ed, 1. Whether either in Scripture, or in any 
 Greek lexicon, or in any classic author, it 
 can be found that the word eKuXriaia was 
 ever used to signify merely a greater num- 
 ber or company than two or three, not call- 
 ed out or embodied together for government 
 or worship. For my part I could never yet 
 find where the simple majority of the num- 
 ber maketh the denomination of ekicXt^cici. 
 I find the word sometimes (yet very seldom) 
 used of an unlawful assembly combining or 
 ioininor together to evil ; the reason I take 
 to be this, because they pretended to be au- 
 thorised as a lawful assembly. So Christ call- 
 ed Judas, " friend," when he came to betray 
 him with a kiss. But since the word ekKXrjain, 
 Matt, xviii. 17> doth signify a lawful assem- 
 bly (as all do confess), I desire some testi- 
 mony of Scripture, or approved authors, 
 where this name is given to a lawful assem- 
 bly, which was not embodied for worship or 
 govei'nment, but had the name of eKKXiju/a 
 simply because of the majority of numbers. 
 
 1 Sutlivius, de Presbyt., cap. 1. 
 
188 
 
 AARON S ROD BLOSSOMING, OR THE 
 
 Sure I am eKKXrjtria is at least coetus evoca- 
 tus, an assembly called forth; and every of- 
 fended brother hath not from Christ the 
 privilege of gathering a church. 2. If by 
 " Tell it unto the church" were meant 
 no more but this, tell it unto a greater 
 number, then, if the offender do not hear 
 the church, there must be recourse unto 
 some others distinct from the church, for 
 the more authoritative and ultimate deter- 
 mination (unless it be said that there is no 
 remedy for offences, but in a gi-eater num- 
 ber which each man shall make choice of). 
 But where is their more effectual remedy, 
 or where ^vill they fix the ultimate degree 
 of proceedings ? 3. ^\Tien Christ saith, 
 " Tell it unto the church, and if he neglect 
 to hear the church," &c., whether respect 
 be had to the form of the Hebrews, or to 
 the form of the Grecians, the church wiU 
 still have a ruling power. In the Old Tes- 
 tament, the original giveth the name kahal, 
 church (which is the word used in the He- 
 brew evangel of Matthew, published by Mun- 
 stei-us, chap, xviii. 17), and the Septuagints 
 the name eKKXnrjia, to the elders and ralers 
 of Israel ; as 1 Cliron. xiii. 2, 4, and xxix.l ; 
 2 Chron. i. 3, and in other places. And that 
 which is said of the elders, Deut. xix. 12 ; 
 Josh. XX. 4, is said of the congi'egation or 
 church. Num. xxxv. 24 ; Josh. xx. 6 ; so 
 Exod. xii, 3, compared with ver. 21. The 
 Septuagints also render kahal by awehpior, 
 Prov. xxvi. 26. It was not, therefore, to 
 any assembly, but to an assembly of rulers, 
 that causes were brought in the Old Testa- 
 ment. If we turn to the heathen Grecians, 
 among them eKKXrjrrla had a power of juris- 
 diction to judge and determine causes, as 
 is manifest from Acts xix. 38, 39. Their 
 eKKXriaia was of two sorts, as Suides, Buda:us, 
 Stephanus, and others have observed : (1.) 
 No/iii/jos and wpictfievrj eKKXijaia, a lawful, 
 set, fixed assembly, which met at ordinary 
 diets (wliich is meant in that place of the 
 Acts last cited). It was also called i.-i;p<'o 
 eKKXtiiTtn, because of the jurisdiction and rul- 
 ing power which was seated in it. ^Mierein 
 I am confirmed by this passage of Aristotle, 
 PoUt., hb. 3, cap. 11, >; yap eicicXriaia Kvpia 
 irnvTuv Twv toiovtwv iari, " For the assem- 
 bly (saith he) hath the government or arbi- 
 trament of all such things ;" he is speaking 
 of the choosing of magistrates, and of craving 
 an account of their administration. (2.) Ivy- 
 kXtjtos eKKXtjcIa, which was indicted and call- 
 ed pro re nata, upon some urgent extraor- 
 
 dinary cause, and it was concio magnatum 
 sive optimatum, in which the people were 
 not present, as in the other. It was, there- 
 fore, rightly noted by Pasor, that Demos- 
 thenes useth the word eKKXijaia pro con- 
 done rnagnatum. Afterward the Roman 
 senate was called ffuyicXijTos /3ok\»/, and 
 sometimes avyKXrjros without an adjective ; 
 eKKXriaia, therefore, among the heathen Gre- 
 cians (from whom the word came) was not 
 any assembly, but an assembly which had a 
 jurisdiction or ruling power. It shall not be 
 in vain to add, that eiriKoXeiadai, to appeal 
 to a superior ruler cometh from the same 
 original verb from which cometh eicKXtjaia. 
 4. The church mentioned Matt, xviii. 17, 
 hath a forensical or juridical power, as ap- 
 peareth by that of the two or three wit- 
 nesses, ver. 16, which relateth to a juridical 
 proceeding in the trying and punishing of of- 
 fences, as Mr Prynne hath observed. Perad- 
 venture some man vrih say, that the two or 
 three witnesses here are brought in only to 
 be witnesses to the admonition, or to make 
 the admonition the more effectual, and the 
 more to be regarded, but not as if any use 
 were to be made of these witnesses, to prove 
 the fact or offence itself before the church, 
 if there be occasion, — I answer. Either it 
 must be supposed here that the trespass was 
 seen or known only by him that gives the 
 first rebuke privately, or that it was also 
 seen or kno\m by those two or three wit- 
 nesses. If the former, it is much disputed 
 among schoolmen, whether he that rebukes 
 his offending brother be to proceed any fur- 
 ther than a private rebuke for a private of- 
 fence, or whether he is to stop at private re- 
 bukes, and not to take witnesses with him 
 (which divei-s think to be unfit and disallow- 
 ed, as being an officious and unnecessary 
 ii-ritation of the offending brother by the 
 spreading of his shame, a making of a pri- 
 vate sin to become scandalous to others, as 
 Ukewise an engaging of %vitnesses to assist in 
 the admonition and rebuke by a blind and 
 implicit faith). For my part I shall not need 
 here to dispute this pomt ; for whatever ought 
 to be done, or ought not to be done in this 
 case, when the trespass is kno-iMi to one only, 
 yet in the other case, when besides him that 
 rebukes there are two or three more which 
 can be witnesses of the fact or trespass com- 
 mitted (the trespass being yet not publicly 
 divulged), it caimot be denied, that these 
 witnesses of the fact are to be brought unto 
 and confronted with the offender, when he 
 
DI\TNT: ORDIX.VXCE of church GOATrnXMEXT VINDICATED. 189 
 
 cannot be gained by private rebuke, and (if 
 need be) prove it afterward before the church. 
 \Miich I have before noted out of Durandus. 
 And Aegidius de Coninck tells us (in what- 
 soever other case witnesses are to be taken, 
 or are not to bo taken), in this case all do 
 consent that witnesses are to be taken. ^ 
 
 Concerning the taking of witnesses, when 
 the trespass is known to me alone, there are 
 three different opinions : 1. That when I 
 
 I have rebuked the offender privately, and 
 cannot gain him, I am to proceed no fur- 
 
 I ther, but have done my duty, and must 
 leave the event to God. 2. That when a 
 secret admonition is not effectual, witnesses 
 ax-e to be taken, in case the offender so ad- 
 monished continue in his sin, or in case his 
 relapse be feared and expected, that the 
 witnesses may observe such continuing or 
 relapse in sin, and then assist and join in 
 rebuking him, and if need be (that is, in 
 case of his contumacy) to prove the iact be- 
 fore the church. 3. That even when his 
 continuance or relapse in sin cannot be ob- 
 served (ajid so cannot be aftenvard proved 
 by %N-itnesses), yet the second admonition is 
 to be given before witnesses when the first 
 admonition given privately hath not gained 
 the offender. Of these let the reader judge. 
 It is enough for the point now in hand, that 
 when witnesses can be had to prove the tres- 
 pass committed, they ought to be brought, 
 first before the offender, and then (if he 
 continue obstinate) before the church, to 
 prove the fact ; and they must be three, or 
 two at the least, which I do not see how it 
 can be thought necessary, if we suppose that 
 the sin is not known to any but to me alone 
 who give the fii-st rebuke ; for if there must 
 be a witness of my second admonition, why 
 may not one witness join with me as well as 
 two, when I cannot have two, but one only, 
 willing and ready to join with me. But now 
 a necessity of precept hes on nie, that I 
 must have two witnesses at least, which can- 
 
 1 De Actib. Supernat., disp. 28, dnb. 9.— Item 
 quando peccatum corripiendi praster me est uni 
 vel alteri notum, etiam facile miUi est hos post pri- 
 mam correptionem adjungere mihi socios ac testes 
 secundae correptionis. Cum enim hi non minus 
 qnam ego ejus peccatum noverint, ajqualiter pote- 
 runt ipsnm de hoc corripere, illudue postea, si opus 
 sit, coram superiore testari. Qnare comrauniter 
 omnes censent in eo causu testes esse adhibendos, si 
 prima correptio non fuerit efficax. Sed tota diffi- 
 cultas est quando peccatum est mihi soli notum. 
 Qua in re triplex est scntcntia. Prima docet quando 
 tunc pro.timus non emendatur sccreta me admoni- 
 tione, non esse ulterius progredicndum, &c. 
 
 not be otherwise imderstood, but in refer- 
 ence to a forensical pi-oceeduig aftenvai-ds, 
 if need be. 
 
 0. That interpretation which now I speak 
 agTiinst, while it goeth about to avoid a 
 power of jm'isdiction and censure in this 
 text, it doth subject him that is reproved by 
 another to a heavier yoke, and bring-s him 
 into a greater servitude ; for though a man 
 be not disobedient nor contumacious unto 
 any court civil or ecclesiastical, yet, if he 
 doth not heai'ken to such a number, as the 
 party offended shall declare the case imto 
 (being a greater number than two or three), 
 he must be by and by esteemed and avoided 
 as an heathen man and a publican. 
 
 6. Tliis interpretation, as it is fathered 
 upon Grotius, so it may be confuted out of 
 Grotius upon the very place. He expounds 
 " Tell it unto the church" by the same 
 words which Dnisius citeth, e libro Jlitsar. 
 declare it coram inultis, before many ; but 
 is this any other than Ino twv TrXetorwr, the 
 mant/ spoken of 2 Cor. ii. 6 ? a place cited 
 by Grotius himself, together with evu-ioy 
 TraiTwy, " before all," 1 Tim. v. 20. Now 
 these were acts of ecclesiastical power and 
 authority, not simply the acts of a greater 
 number. He tells us also it was the m;uiner 
 among the Jews to refer the business ad 
 multitudincm twv 6/io;i';Xii>r, to the as- 
 sembly of those who were of the same way, 
 or followed the same rites, the judgments of 
 which multitude, saith he, scniorcs tan- 
 quam prcestidts modcrabantur: The elders 
 as presidents did moderate. He fiu-ther 
 cleai-s it out of TertuUian, Apol. cap. 39, 
 where, speaking of the churches or assem- 
 blies of Christians, he s;iith, Jbidim etiam 
 crhoytationes, cat:t!tiatio)tes et ccnsura di- 
 v'tna, S^-c, pra;sident probati quiqite sen- 
 iorcs : W here there are also exhortations, 
 corrections, and divine censiu-e, &c., all the 
 approved elders do preside. And is not this 
 the very thing we contend for ? 
 
 I hope I may now conclude that " Tell 
 the church," is neither meant of the civil 
 magistrate, nor simply of a greater number, 
 but of the elders, or (as othei-s express it 
 better) of the eldership or assembly of el- 
 ders. So Stephanus, Scapula, and Pasor ui 
 the word eKxXijnta ; Calvin, Bucerus, lUy- 
 ricus, Beza, Hunnius, Tossanus, Parens, 
 Cart^^Tight, Camero, Diodati, the Dutch 
 Annotations, all upon the place ; Mai'lorat 
 in llicsauro, in the word ccclcsia ; Zan- 
 chius, in prsec. 4, p. 7-il ; Jimius, Animad. 
 
190 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 in Bell. Contr. 3, lib. 1, cap. 6 ; Gerhard, 
 Loc. Theol., torn. 6, p. 137; Meisnerus, 
 Disput. de Regim. Eccles., quest. 1 ; Trel- 
 catius, Instit. Theol., lib. 1, p. 291 ; Pol- 
 anus, Syntag., lib. 7, cap. 1 ; Bullinger, in 
 1 Cor. V. 4 ; Whittaker, de Ecclcsia, quest. 
 1, cap. 2 ; Danseus in 1 Tim. p. 246, 394. 
 These, and many more, understand that nei- 
 ther the magistrate nor the multitude of the 
 church, nor simply a great number, is meant 
 by the church. Matt, xviii., but the elders 
 or ecclesiastical senate, who have the name 
 of the church, partly by a synecdoche, be- 
 cause they are a chief part of the church (as 
 otherwhere the people or flock distinct from 
 the elders, is called the church. Acts xx. 
 28), partly because of their eminent station 
 and principal function in the chui'ch, as we 
 say we have seen such a man's picture, when 
 happily it is but from the shoulders upward ; 
 partly, because the elders act in all matters of 
 importance, so as they carry along with them 
 the knowledge and consent of the church 
 (and therefore according to Salmeron's ob- 
 servation, tom. 4, part. 3, tract. 9, Christ 
 would not say. Tell the officers or rulei-s 
 of the church, but, " Tell the church," be- 
 cause an obstinate offender is not to be excom- 
 municate secretly or in a corner, but with the 
 knowledge and consent of the whole church, 
 so that tor striking of the sinner with the 
 greater fear and shame, in regard of that 
 knowledge and consent of the church, the 
 telling of the officers is called the telling 
 of the church) ; partly also, because of the 
 ordinary manner of speaking in the like 
 cases ; that which is done by the parliament 
 is done by the kingdom, and that which is 
 done by the common council is done by the 
 city. Among the Jews with whom Christ 
 and his apostles were conversant this man- 
 ner of speaking was usual. Danseus (where 
 before cited) citeth R. David Kimchi upon 
 Hosea v., noting that the name of the house 
 of Israel is often put for the sanhedrim in 
 Scripture. It is certain the sanhedrim hath 
 divers times the name kahal in the Hebrew 
 and cKKkrinia in the Greek of the Old Tes- 
 tament ; which is acknowledged even by 
 those who have contended for a kind of po- 
 pular government in the church. See 
 Guide unto Zion, p. 5 ; Ainsworth in his 
 Counter poison, p. 113. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 OF THE power OF BINDING ASD LOOSING, 
 MATT. XVIII. 18. 
 
 They that do not understand Matt, xviii. 
 17, of excommunication, are in extreme dif- 
 ficulty and scarce know what to make of 
 that binding and loosingr which is mentioned 
 in the words immediately following, ver. 18, 
 " Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall 
 bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and 
 whatsoever ye shall loose on earth, shall be 
 loosed in heaven." Erastus and Grotius 
 understand it of a private brother, or the 
 offended party's binding or loosing of the 
 offender. Bishop Bilson understands it of 
 a civil binding or loosing by the magistrate, 
 whom he conceives to be meant by the 
 church, ver. 17. These do acknowledge a 
 coherence and dependence between ver. 17 
 and 18 ; Mr Prynne differing from them, 
 doth not acknowledge this coherence, and 
 expounds the binding and loosing to be min- 
 isterial indeed, but only doctrinal; some 
 others dissenting from aU these, do refer 
 this binding and loosing not to a person, 
 but to a thing or doctrine, " whatsoever ye 
 shall bind," that is, whatsoever ye shall de- 
 clare to be false, erroneous, impious, &c. 
 Sutlivius, though he differ much from us in 
 the interpretation of ver. 15 — 17, yet he 
 differeth as much (if not more) from the 
 Erastians in the interpretation of ver. 18 ; 
 for he will have the binding and loosing to 
 be ecclesiastical and spiritual, not civil ; to be 
 juridical, not doctrinal only ; to be acts of 
 government committed to apostles, bishops 
 and pastors. He alloweth no share to ruling 
 elders, yet he alloweth as little of the power 
 of binding and loosing, either to the magis- 
 trate or to the party offended. See him, de 
 Preshyterio, cap. 9, 10 ; so that they can 
 neither satisfy themselves nor others, con- 
 cerning the meaning and the context. 
 
 For the confutation of all those glosses, 
 and for the vindication of the true scope and 
 sense of the text, I shall first of all observe, 
 whence this phrase of binding and loosing ap- 
 peareth to have been borrowed, namely, both 
 from the Hebrews and from the Grecians. 
 The Hebrews did ascribe to the interpreters 
 of the law, power, authority "]DN hieiv, to 
 bind, and TriH Xwki', to loose. So Grotius 
 tells us on Matt. xvi. 19, the Hebrews had 
 their loosing of an excommunicated person, 
 
DIVIXE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 191 
 
 which they called nnjQn mnri- See 
 
 Buxtorff, Lexic. Chald. Talm. Rabbin, p. 
 1410. The Grecians also had a binding and 
 loosing which was judicial. Bud<Eus and Ste- 
 phanus, on the word \vw, cite out of Ae- 
 schines, 'EffeiSai' rjy Trpwrrj \p)i(j)u) jjrj Xvdij to 
 ■napavofxov, Quum primo st(ffragio non ab- 
 solutus fuerit reus rwv Trafiavofxwv. ^fi<j)os 
 was the stone by which the senators did give 
 their suffrage in judgment. It was either a 
 black stone, by which they did bind the sin- 
 ner and retain his sin, and that stone was 
 called >/ avaipovtra or KaOmpovia ; or it was 
 a white stone, by which they did loose, re- 
 mit and absolve ; and that stone was called 
 >/ awi^ovffa ov >/ eXeovaa, which was the 
 thing that Tully calleth solvere crimine. 
 So where it is said, " her iniquity is par- 
 doned," Isa. xl. 2, the LXX, read XeXvrai 
 avTr}s {] cifjiapria, her iniquity is loosed. 
 And because there is usually some kind of 
 expiation before a loosing and remitting of 
 sins, which expiation being performed, the 
 loosing follows, therefore the Grecians called 
 such necessary and requisite expiation by the 
 name of \vais, that is, loosing ; and they 
 had their \vaioi deol, expiatory gods, who 
 did chiefly take care of those expiations. 
 
 That in Scripture the power of binding 
 is judicial and authoritative is cleared by my 
 reverend and learned colleague Mr Ruther- 
 ford, in 2Vie Divine Right of Church Go- 
 vernment, p. 234, 235. I add, that the 
 word "IDX, unto which Grotius sends us, is 
 used for that binding or incarceration which 
 is an act of corrective authority, as Gen. xl. 
 3; xlii. 16, 19, 24; Num. xv. 34; Lev. xxiv. 
 12 ; 2 Kings xvii. 4 ; Isa. xlii. 7 ; Jer. xl. 1 ; 
 Ezek. iii. 25. It is also used for an autho- 
 ritative prohibition, Num. xi. 28, " My lord 
 Moses, forbid them." Thence TON) inter- 
 dictum, a decree forbidduig somewhat, Dan. 
 vi. 7—9. 
 
 As binding and loosing are acts of autho- 
 rity and power, such as doth not belong to 
 any single person or brother offended, so 
 the binding and loosing mentioned Matt, 
 xviii. 18 are acts of ecclesiastical and spiri- 
 tual authority, belonging to the kingdom 
 and government of Christ in his church, but 
 not belonging to the civil magistrate. And 
 as the authority is ecclesiastical and spiri- 
 tual, so it is more than doctrinal, — it is a 
 power of inflicting or taking off church cen- 
 sures. These two things I will endeavour 
 to prove : 1. That this power of binding 
 and loosing belongeth neither to private 
 
 Christians, nor to civil magistrates, but to 
 church officei's. 2. That this power is ju- 
 I'idical or Ibrensical, and not doctrinal only ; 
 that is, that church officers are here autho- 
 rised to bind with censui-es, or to loose from 
 censures, as there shall be cause. In both 
 which we have antiquity for us ; which I do 
 the rather observe, because Erastus and Gro- 
 tius allege some of the ancients for their ex- 
 position of Matt, xviii. 18, that this binding 
 or loosing is by the offended brother. That 
 which Augustine, Origen, and Theophylact 
 say of one brother's binding or loosing, is 
 but spoken tropologically, and not as the 
 literal sense of the text ; yea, Theophylact, 
 in that passage cited by Erastus and Grotius, 
 doth distinguish between the ministerial or 
 ecclesiastical binding and loosing, and the 
 offended party's binding and loosing : Non 
 enim solum quce solvunt sacerdotes sunt 
 soluta, sed qucecunque et nos, 8fc. Theo- 
 phylact doth also find excommunication in 
 tliat text, Illam autem ( ecclesiam J si non 
 audierit, tunc abjiciatur, ne suae malitice 
 participes faciat alios. I further appeal to 
 Augustine himself, epist. 75, where, speak- 
 ing of excommunication and anathema, he 
 distinguislieth it from corporal punishment, 
 and, alter he hath spoken of the temporal 
 sword, he addeth, Spiritualis autem pcena, 
 qua Jit quod scriptum est, Quce ligaveris 
 in terra, erunt ligata et in ccelo, animas 
 obligat : But the spiritual punishment, by 
 which that thing is done which is written. 
 What thou shalt bind on earth shall be 
 bound in heaven, doth bind souls. Again, 
 in his sixth vol., lib. 1, contra Adversa- 
 rium Legis et Prophetarum, cap. 17, he 
 doth most plainly interpret Matt, xviii. 18 
 of church discipline and binding by censure.^ 
 Jerome, both in his commentary upon 
 Matt, xviii. and in his epistle to Pleliodorus, 
 speaketh of this power of binding as a judi- 
 
 1 Ignoscendi autem misericors mansuetudo, &c., 
 non ad hoc valet ut sit iniquitas irapunita, aut tor- 
 pens et dormieus disciplina, quod potius obsit qnam 
 diligcns vigilansque vindicta. Claves quippe regni 
 caelorum sic dedit C'liristus ecclesias, ut non solum 
 diceret quae solvcritis super terram, erunt solut a 
 et in caelis : ubi apertissimc bonum, non malum pro 
 malo reddit ccclesia : verum et adjungeret. Quae li- 
 gaveritis in terra erunt ligata et in caelo, quia bona 
 est et vindicandi justitia. I Hud enim quod ait, si 
 nec ecclesiam audierit, sit tibi tanquara etlinicus ct 
 publicanus, gravius est quam si gladio feriretur, si 
 liammis absumeretur, si feris subrigeretur. Js'am 
 ibi quoque subjunxit, amen dico vobis quae ligaveri- 
 tis super terram erunt ligata et in caelis : ut intelli- 
 geretur quanto gravius sit punitus qui velut relictus 
 est impunitus. 
 
192 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 cial forensical power belonging to the min- 
 isters or officers of the cliurch, by which 
 they judge and censure offenders. ^ 
 
 But to save myself the labour of more 
 citations, I take help from Bishop Bilson, 
 Of the Perpetual Government of Christ'' s 
 Church, cap. 4, where, though he expound 
 the binding and loosing. Matt, xviii. 18, to 
 be acts of the magistrate, yet he ack.no w- 
 ledgeth that the ancient writers lean very 
 much another way, and understand that 
 text of the ministerial and spiritual power of 
 excommunication, for which he citeth Chry- 
 sostom, de Sacerdotio, lib. 3 ; Ambrosius, 
 de Poenitent., lib. 1, cap. 2; Jerome in Matt, 
 cap. 18 ; Hilarius in Matt., can. 18. Unto 
 these I also add Isidorus Pelusiota, in the 
 third book of his Epistles, epist. 260, where 
 he applieth this text. Matt, xviii. 18, to this 
 sense, That impenitent sinners are to be 
 bound, and penitent sinners loosed, and 
 thence argueth against the absolving of a 
 perjured person who had not declared him- 
 self penitent, but had purchased his absolu- 
 tion by a gift. Nor can I pass Chrysostom 
 upon this very text, where he tells that 
 Christ will have such a one to be punished, 
 Kni Tij epTevdev Tifiwpia cot ri; eicei KoKaaet, 
 both with a present chastisement and with 
 a future punishment, or both in earth and 
 in heaven ; and would have the offender to 
 fear rijv airb rijs ei:K\r]aias ecSo\>))', casting 
 out of the church. He addeth, ovk evdeus 
 eleKoxpev, he cuts not off immediately, but 
 after admonitions. 
 
 I will now proceed to a further confirma- 
 tion of the two propositions afore-mentioned. 
 Touching the first, that this binding and 
 loosing, Matt, xviii. 18, belongeth neither 
 
 1 Jerome in Matt, xviii. 18, Quia dixerat, Si autera 
 ecclesiam non audierit, sit tibi sicut ctlinicus et pub- 
 licatius, et poterat contemptoris fratris haec occulta 
 esse responsio vel tacita cogitatio: si me despicis et 
 ego te despicio : si tu me coudemnas,et mea senten- 
 tia condemnaberis : potestatera tribuit apostolis, ut 
 sciant qui a talibus condemnantur, humanam sen- 
 tentiam divina sententia roborari, et quodcunque li- 
 gatum fuerit in terra, ligari pariter et in caelo. Je- 
 rome, epist. 1, ad Heliod. — Absit ut de bis quicquara 
 sinistrum loquar, qui apostolico gradui succedeates, 
 Christi corpus sacro ore conficiunt, per quos et nos 
 Christiani suraus. Qui claves regni caelorum ba- 
 bentes, quodammodo ante judicii diem judicant, &c. 
 Mihi ante presbyterura (legendum fortasse presby- 
 terium) sedere non licet: ilU si peccavero, licet tra- 
 dere me Satana: in interitum carnis, ut spiritus sal- 
 vus sit. Et in veteri quid em lege, quicunque sacer- 
 dotibus nou obtemperasset, aut extra castra positus, 
 lapidabatur a populo, aut gladio cervice subjecta, 
 contemptum expiabat cruore : Nunc vero inobedi- 
 ens, spirituali mucrone truncatur, aut ejectus de 
 ecclesia, rabido dsemonum ore discerpitur. 
 
 to private Christians nor to civil magistrates, 
 but to church officers, I clear it thus : There 
 are two things by which (as schoolmen ob- 
 serve) men's souls and consciences are bound. 
 1. They are bound by their sins, Prov. v. 
 
 22, "His own iniquities shall take the wick- 
 ed himself, and he shall be liolden with the 
 cords of his sins ;" Acts viii. 23, " Thou art 
 in the bond of iniquity." 2. Men are bound 
 by precepts. Matt, xxiii. 4, " They bind 
 heavy burdens, and grievous to be borne, and 
 lay them on men's shouldei's." This bind- 
 ing by precept or law some take to be meant, 
 Ezek. iii. 25, " 0 son of man, behold they 
 shall put hands upon thee, and sliall bind 
 thee with them ;" that is, thou shalt, in 
 vision, see thyself bound with bands upon 
 thee, to signify that I have forbidden thee 
 to be a reprover to the rebellious house. 
 So the Chaldee paraphrase : " But thou, O 
 Son of man, behold I have put my word 
 upon thee, as a band of cords with which 
 they bind, and thou shalt not go forth into 
 the midst of them." Now, in both these 
 respects, the Scripture elsewhere doth as- 
 cribe to church officers a power of binding 
 and loosing. 1. In respect of sin, John xx. 
 
 23, " Whose soever sins ye remit they are re- 
 mitted unto them, and whose soever sins ye 
 retain they are retained." It is spoken to 
 the apostles and their successors in the 
 ministry of the gospel. Matt. xvi. 19, "I 
 will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom 
 of heaven ; and whatsoever thou shalt bind 
 on earth shall be bound in heaven, and 
 whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall 
 be loosed in heaven ;" where the power of 
 binding and loosing is given to the apostles, 
 and Grotius upon the place cleareth it from 
 2 Cor. v. 19, 20, " God hath committed unto 
 us the woi'd of reconciliation. Now, then, 
 we are ambassadors for Christ." So that 
 we find, in Scripture, church officers ena- 
 bled and authorised, ex officio, as the heralds 
 and ambassadoi'S of the King of Zion, to 
 loose from the bands of sin all repenting 
 and believing sinners, and to bind over to 
 eternal justice and wrath the impenitent 
 and unbelievers. 2. They are also autho- 
 rised, dogmatically and authoritatively, to 
 declare and impose the will of Christ, and 
 to bind his precepts upon the shoulders of 
 his people. Matt, xxviii. 20 ; as likewise to 
 loose them and pronounce them free from 
 such burdens, as men would impose upon 
 them, contrary or beside the word of God, 
 1 Cor. vii. 23. An example of buth we have. 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNiMENT VIXDSCATED. 
 
 193 
 
 Acts XV. 28. The synod of the apostles and 
 elders bindeth upon the churches such bur- 
 dens as were necessary, by the law of love, 
 for the avoiding of scandal, but did pro- 
 nounce the churches to be free and loosed 
 from other burdens which the J Judaising 
 teachers would have bound upon them. 
 Now, therefore, if we will expound Matt, 
 xviii. 18, by other scriptures (it being the 
 only surest way to expound Scripture by 
 Scripture), it is manifest and undeniable, 
 that church officers are, by other scriptures, 
 enabled and authorised to bind and loose in 
 both those respects afore-mentioned. But 
 we nowhere find in Scripture, that Christ 
 hath given either to all private Christians, 
 or to the civil magistrate, a commission and 
 authority to bind or loose sinners. I know 
 a private Christian may and ought to con- 
 vince an impenitent brother, and to comfort 
 a repenting brother, ex charitate Chris- 
 tiana ; but the Scripture doth not say, that 
 God hath committed to every private Chris- 
 tian the word of reconciliation, and that all 
 Christians are ambassadors for Christ ; nor is 
 there a promise to ratify in heaven the con- 
 victions or comforts given by a private Chris- 
 tian, no more than a king doth engage 
 himself in verbo principis to pardon such as 
 any of his good subjects shall pardon, or to 
 condemn such as any of his good subjects 
 shall condemn; but a king engageth himself 
 to ratify what his ambassadors, commission- 
 ers, or ministers, shall do in his name, and 
 according to the commission which he hath 
 given them to pardon or condemn. Be- 
 sides all this, if Christ had meant here of 
 the brother's private binding or loosing, to 
 whom the injury was done, not condemn- 
 ing or forgiving, then he had kept the phrase 
 in the singular number, which Erastus ob- 
 serveth diligently all along the text, ver. 15, 
 16, 17. But he might have also observed, 
 that ver. 18 carries the power of binding 
 and loosing to a plurality, " Whatsover ye 
 bind," &c. As for the magistrate, it be- 
 longeth to him to bind with the cords of cor- 
 poral or civil punishments, or to loose and 
 liberate from the same, as he shall see cause, 
 according to law and justice. But this doth 
 not belong to the spiritual kingdom of Jesus 
 Christ ; for his kingdom is not of this world, 
 neither are the weapons thereof carnal but 
 spiritual. And, beside, the magistrate may 
 lawfully and sometime doth bind on punish- 
 ment, when the soul is loosed in heaven, and 
 the sin remitted. Again, the magistrate 
 
 may lawfully, and sometime doth, loose and 
 absolve from punishment, when a man's soul 
 is impenitent, and sin is still bound upon his 
 conscience. There is no such promise that 
 God will forgive whom the magistrate for- 
 giveth, or condemn whom the magistrate 
 condemneth. Neither hath God anywhere 
 in Scripture committed to the magistrate 
 the keys of the kingdom of heaven, or the 
 word of reconciliation, as to the ambassa- 
 dors of Christ. 
 
 Binding and loosing in the other sense, by 
 a dogmatical authoritative declaration of the 
 will of Christ, is not so principally or direct- 
 ly intended. Matt, xviii. 18, as that other 
 binding and loosing in respect of sin. How- 
 beit, it is not to be excluded, because the 
 words preceding, ver. 17, mention not only 
 the execution of excommunication, " Let 
 him be to thee as an heathen man and a 
 publican," but also the church's judgment, 
 and determination of the case, " If he ne- 
 glect to hear the church," which words imply 
 that the church hath declared the will of 
 Christ in such a case, and required the of- 
 fender to do accordingly; but he, showing 
 himself unwilling and contumacious, as it 
 were saying in his heart, I will break their 
 bands asunder, and cast away their coi-ds 
 from me, thereupon the promise reacheth 
 to this also, that what the church hath de- 
 termined or imposed according to the will of 
 Christ, shall be ratified and approved in 
 heaven. Now Christ hath nowhere given 
 a commission, either to every particular 
 Christian, or to the magistrate, to teach his 
 people to observe all things which he hath 
 commanded them, and authoritatively to de- 
 termine controversies of faith, or cases of 
 conscience.^ As in the Old Testament, the 
 priest's lips did preserve knowledge, and 
 they were to seek the law at his mouth, 
 Mai. ii. 7, so in the New Testament, the 
 ministers of Christ have the commission to 
 make known the counsel of God. 
 
 My second proposition, that the power of 
 binding and loosing. Matt, xviii. 18, is juri- 
 dical or forensical, and meant of inflicting 
 or taking off ecclesiastical censures, this I 
 will make good in the next place against 
 Mr Prynne, who, to elude the argument 
 for excommunication from Matt, xviii., an- 
 swereth two things concerning the binding 
 
 1 Sutlivius de Presbyt., cap. 14, p. 107. — Apostoli 
 
 religionis ct fidei a Christo cognitionem acceperuiit: 
 baec enim pars est maxima clavium quas ille aposto- 
 lis suis commisit. 
 
 2B 
 
19i 
 
 A.VROX S ROD BLOSSOMING, OR THE 
 
 and loosing there spoken of. 1. That these 
 words have no coherence with, or depen- 
 dence npon, the former. 2. That this bind- 
 ing and loosing is meant only of preaching 
 the gospel. Tonching the first of these, I 
 confess if by the church, ver. 17, be meant 
 a civil conrt of justice, and by those words, 
 " Let him be unto thee as an heathen," 
 &c., be meant no more but keep no civil i'el- 
 lowship with him (which is his sense of the 
 text), I cannot marvel that he could find no 
 coherence between verses 17 and 18 ; yet if 
 there be no coherence between these verses, 
 the generality of interpreters have gone upon 
 a great mistake of the text, conceiving that 
 Christ doth hero anticipate a great objec- 
 tion, and add a great encouragement in point 
 of church discipline ; for when the offender 
 is exconnnunicated (that is all the church 
 can do to humble and reduce him), put the 
 case. He or othei's despise the censures of the 
 church, " What will your censure do?" saith 
 Mr Hussey. To that very thing Christ an- 
 swereth. It shall be ratified in heaven, and 
 it shall do more than the binding of the of- 
 fenders in fetters of iron could do. But let 
 us hear what Mr Prynne saith against the 
 coherence of text. Because, saith he, that of 
 I'.inding and loosing is " spoken only to and 
 of Christ's disciples, as is evident by the pa- 
 rallel text of John xx. 23, not of the Jewish 
 church." 
 
 It maketh the more against him (I am 
 siu'e) that it is spoken to and of Christ's dis- 
 ciples; for this proveth that the church, ver. 
 17, is not the Jewish sanhedrim, but the 
 Christian presbytery, then instituted, and 
 afterwards erected ; and that the thing which 
 makes one as an heathen and a pubUcan, is 
 binding of his sins upon him. And for the 
 context, immediately alter Clu'ist had said, 
 " If he neglect to hear the church, let him 
 be unto thee," &c., he addeth, " Verily I 
 say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on 
 earth," &c. The dependency is very clear. 
 A Christian having first admonished his 
 brother in private, then, having taken two 
 or three witnesses, after this, having brought 
 it to the public cognisance of the ecclesiasti- 
 cal consistory, and after all that, the offender 
 being for his obstinacy exconnnunicatc : here 
 is the last step, no further progress. Now, 
 might one think, what of all this? what shall 
 follow upon it ? Nay, saith Christ, it shall 
 not be in vain, it shaU be ratified in heaven. 
 And as the purpose cohcreth, so that form 
 of words, " Verily I say unto you," is ordi- 
 
 narily used by Christ to signify his continu- 
 ing and pressing home the same purpose 
 which he had last mentioned, as Matt. v. 
 26; vi. 2; viii. 10; x. 15; xi. 11; xviii. 3 ; 
 xix. 23, 28 ; xxi. 31 ; xxiii. 36 ; xxiv. 34, 
 47 ; xxvi. 13; Mark x. 15 ; xii. 43; xiii. 30 ; 
 Luke xii. 37, and many the like passages. 
 To my best observation, I have found no 
 place where Chi-ist's " Verily I say unto 
 you" begins a new purpose, which hath no 
 coherence with, nor dependence upon the 
 former. 
 
 This coliercnce of the text, and the de- 
 pendency of ver. 18 upon that which went 
 before (which dependency is acknowledged 
 by Erastus, who, perceiving that he could 
 not deny the dependency, fancieth that the 
 binding and loosing is meant of the offended 
 brother's pardoning or not pardoning of the 
 offender. Confirm. Tlics. p. 157), doth also 
 quite overthrow ^Ir Pi-ynne's other answer, 
 that this binding and loosing is only meant 
 of preaching the gospel, and of denouncing 
 remission of sins to the penitent, and wratli 
 to the impenitent. 
 
 Nay, that potestas clavium concionalis 
 is instituted in other places, but here it is 
 potestas clav'ntm riisciplinalis, as is evident: 
 First, by the coherence of the text, and by 
 the taking of two or three more, and then 
 telling of the thing to the church ; all which 
 intimateth a rising as from one or two or three 
 more, so from them to the church, which 
 cannot be meant of one man, as hath been 
 argued against both Pope and prelate, for 
 no one man can be called a church ; neither 
 hath one man the power of jurisdiction, but 
 one man hath the power of preaching. 
 
 Secondly, The apostles, and those who suc- 
 ceed them in the work of the ministry, have 
 the same power of the keys committed from 
 Christ to them ministerially, which Christ 
 hath committed from the Father to him (as 
 ISIediator) authoritatively; for, in the parallel 
 place, John xx. 21, 23, where he gives tiiem 
 power of remitting or retaining sins, he saith, 
 " As my Father hath sent me, even so send I 
 you." But the Father gave Christ such a 
 power of the keys, as comprehends a power 
 of government, and not merely doctrinal ; 
 Isa. xxii. 21, 22, " I will commit the go- 
 vernment into his hand, &c. And the keys 
 of the house of David will I lay upon his 
 shoulder." 
 
 Thirdly, It may be proved also by that 
 which inmiediately followeth,ver. 19, "Again 
 I say unto you, that if two of you shall agree 
 
DIVINE ORDIXAXCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 195 
 
 on earth," &c., which cannot be meant of 
 the power of preaching ; for neither the ef- 
 ficacy of preaching, nor the ratification of it 
 in heaven, nor the fruit of it on earth, doth 
 depend upon this, that two preachers must 
 needs agree in the same thing. But it 
 agreeth well to the power of discipline, con- 
 cerning which it answereth these two objec- 
 tions : First, It might be said, the apostles 
 and other chm-ch governors may fall to be 
 very few in this or that church where the 
 offence riseth ; shall we, in that case, ex- 
 ecute any church discipline ? Yes, saith 
 Christ, if there were but two church officers 
 in a church (where no more can be had), 
 they are to exercise discipline, and it shall 
 not be in vain. Agam, it might be objected, 
 be they two or three, or more, w-hat if they 
 do not agree among themselves ? To that he 
 answereth. There must be an agreement of 
 two church officers at least, otherwise the 
 sentence shall be null. We cannot say the 
 like of the doctrmal power of binding or 
 loosing, that it is of no source or validity, 
 unless two, at least, agree in the same doc- 
 trine, as hath been said. Two must agree 
 in that sentence or censure, which is desired 
 to be ratified in heaven, and then they bind- 
 ing on earth, and unanimously calling upon 
 God to ratify it in heaven, it shall be done. 
 
 Fourthly, This binding and loosing can- 
 not go without the church — it is applicable 
 to none but a church member or a brother. 
 So tlie thread of the text goes along from 
 I ver. 15, "If thy brother trespass against 
 thee ;" and ver. 16, " Thou hast gained thy 
 brother.'" And when it is said, " Tell the 
 church," it is supposed that the offender is a 
 member of the church, over whom the church 
 hath authoi-ity, and of whom there is hope 
 that he will hear the church, And when it 
 is said, " Let him be unto thee as an hea- 
 then man and a publican," it is supposed 
 that formerly he was not unto us as an hea- 
 then man and a publican. For these and 
 the like reasons Tostatus, in Matt, xviii., 
 quest. 91, and divers others, hold that this 
 rule of Christ is not applicable to those wlio 
 are without the church. But if the bind- 
 ing and loosing be meant only of preaching 
 the gospel, as Mr Prynne would have it, 
 then it were applicable to those that are not 
 yet baptized nor made church members ; 
 ibr unto such the gospel hath been, and may 
 be, preached. The binding and loosing which 
 is proper to a brother, or to a church mem- 
 ber, must be a juridical power of censures, 
 
 of which the Apostle saith, 1 Cor. v. 12, 
 " What have I to do to judge them also 
 that are without ? do not ye judge them that 
 are witliin ?" Therefore Chrysostom, horn. 
 61, in Matt, (according to the Greek, hom. 
 60), doth parallel Matt, xviii. with 1 Cor. v., 
 proving that this rule of Christ is not appli- 
 cable to. one that is without, but only to a 
 brother: "Which Paul also saith in these 
 words, ^Miat have I to do to judge them 
 also that are without V But he commandeth 
 us to convince and reduce brethren, koi tnro- 
 Tifivetv fit) ireidnnerovs, and to cut off' the 
 disobedient : this he (Christ) doth also in this 
 place." Theophylact, also, on Matt, xviii., 
 noteth the same restriction of this rule of 
 Christ to a Christian brother. 
 
 Fifthly, This binding power is not to be 
 made use of, till all other means have been 
 essayed, ante tentanda omnia, saith Mun- 
 sterus ; first, a private admonition, then be- 
 fore witnesses, then the matter is brought to 
 the church, the church declaretli and judg- 
 eth, the offender neglecteth to hear the 
 church, then, after all this, cometh the bind- 
 ing, which must needs be a binding with 
 censures ; for that binding which Mr Prynne 
 speaks of, the denouncing of the wrath of 
 God against the impenitent, by the preach- 
 ing of the gospel, is not, neither ought to be, 
 suspended or delayed upon such degrees of 
 proceeding. 
 
 Sixthly, This binding and loosing is not 
 without two or three witnesses, ver. 16. 
 But that of two or three witnesses relateth 
 to a fbrensical or judicial proceeding, as Mr 
 Pi'pine himself tells us. These witnesses 
 may be brought before the ecclesiastical 
 court, either to prove the off'ender's contu- 
 macy, being admonished, or to prove the 
 scandalous fact itself, which was, from the 
 beginning, known to two or three witnesses, 
 according to the sense of schoolmen, express- 
 ed in the preceding chapter. 
 
 Seventhly, This phrase of binding and 
 loosing is taken both from the Hebrews and 
 li'om the Grecians ; but both the Hebrews 
 and the Grecians used these words in a juri- 
 dical sense, as I observed in the beginning. 
 
 Eiohthlv, That the binding and loosino- 
 Matt, xviii. 18, is juridical, not doctrinal, 
 belonging to the power of jurisdiction, not 
 of order, is the sense of the ancients above 
 cited ; as likewise of Scotus, lib. 4, sent, 
 dist. 19, quest. 1, art. 5 ; Tostatus in Matt, 
 xviii., quest. 113, yea, the curi-ent both of 
 schoolmen and of interpreters, as well Pro- 
 
196 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 testant as Popish, x'unneth that way. It 
 were too long to cite all. Yea, further, 
 Salmasius, in Appar. ad Lib. de Primatu, 
 p. 296, understands the binding and loosing. 
 Matt. xvi. 19; John xx. 23, of discipline; 
 so Walseus, torn. 1, p. 92 ; so divers others. 
 I From the same places, Aretius, Theol. 
 Prohl., loc. 133, de excom., draws excom- 
 munication as an ordinance of Christ ; from 
 I the same two texts, John xx. 23, and Matt. 
 I xvi. 19, Dionysius Areopagita, de Ecclesi- 
 j astica Hie rare Jiia, cap. 7, sect. 7, doth prove 
 j that Christ hath committed unto the minis- 
 ters of the church ras afopiaTiKUi bvyu/^en. 
 His ancient scholiast Maximus upon that 
 p!;ice tells us, that he speaks irepi twv ukoi- 
 t'l-rtjffiuj' icai afoptofjujy, of excommunica- 
 tions and separations, or (as he there fur- 
 tiier explaineth) the judging and separating 
 between the righteous and the wicked. Sal- 
 meron, upon Matt. xvi. 19, thinks that the 
 latter part of that verse, " And whatsoever 
 thou shalt bmd on earth," &c., doth belong 
 to the power of jurisdiction and censure ; 
 Hugo de S. Victore, de Saci'atnentis, lib. 1, 
 cap. 26, doth also expound Matt. xvi. 19, 
 of the forensical power of excommunication. 
 Now if, in these places, binding and loosing, 
 remitting and retaming sins, comprehend a 
 juiidical power of laying on, or taking off, 
 church censures, how much more must tliis 
 juridical power be comprehended, Matt, 
 xviii. 18, where the context and circum- 
 stances will much more enforce this sense, 
 than in the other two places ? This binding 
 and loosing being also in the plural num- 
 ber, " Whatsoever ye bind," &c., not in the 
 singular, as the phrase is. Matt. xvi. 19, 
 " Whatsoever thou shalt bind," &c. One 
 minister may bind doctrinally, but one alone 
 cannot bind juridically. 
 
 Ninthly, The very doctrinal or conscional 
 binding which is yielded by Mr Prynne, is 
 voided and contradicted by the admission of 
 known scandalous impenitent sinners to the 
 sacrament ; for he that is admitted to the 
 sacrament is loosed, not bound ; remission, 
 not condemnation, is supposed to be sealed 
 up to him, as is manifest by the words of 
 the institution. Matt. xxvi. 27, 28, " Drink 
 ye aU of it; for this is my blood of the New 
 Testament, which is shed for many, for the 
 remission of sins." So that, without a power 
 of binding by censures, and, namely, by 
 suspension from the sacrament, one and the 
 same scandalous impenitent person shall be 
 bound by the word, and loosed by the sacra- 
 
 ment. Surely he that is to be bound by the 
 word, ought also to be bound by suspension 
 from the sacrament, unless we make one 
 public ordinance to contradict another. 
 
 Tenthly, Doth Mr Prynne beheve that 
 J esus Christ hath anywhere given to church 
 officers a forensical or juridical power of 
 binding by excommunication, and loosing by 
 absolution or receiving again into the com- 
 munion of the church ? If he doth believe 
 it, then, I ask, where hath Christ committed 
 that power unto them, if not Matt, xviii. ? 
 If he doth not believe that Clu-ist hath 
 given any such power, then why doth he 
 hold excommunication to be lawful and war- 
 rantable by the woi'd of God ? Most cei-tam 
 it is, that neither king, nor parhament, nor 
 eldership, nor synod, nor any power on 
 earth, may, or ought to prohibit or keep 
 back from the sacrament such as Christ 
 hath not commanded to l)e kept back, or to 
 bind sinners by excommunication, if Christ 
 hath given no such commission to bind in 
 that kind. 
 
 Eleventhly, It may give us some light in 
 this present question, to compare the phrase 
 of binding and loosing. Matt, xviii. 19, with 
 Psal. cxlix. 6 — 9, " Let the high praises of 
 God be in their mouth, and a two-edged 
 sword in their hand ; to execute vengeance 
 upon the heathen, and punishments upon 
 the people ; to bind their kings with chains, 
 and their nobles with fetters of iron ; to ex- 
 ecute upon them the judgment written ; this 
 honour have all his saints :" wliich both Jew- 
 ish and Christian interpreters refer to the 
 kingdom of Christ, out of whose mouth pro- 
 ceedeth a tvvo-edged sword. Rev. i. 16 ; ii. 
 12, pofK^uia hiiTTofios, the phrase used in the 
 Greek version of Psal. cxliv. If it should be 
 understood of temporal or external victories 
 and conquests of the nations and their kings, 
 so it was not fulfilled to the Jews in the Old 
 Testament ; and the Jews do now but in 
 vain flattei themselves with the expectation 
 of such a thing to come. There are but two 
 expositions which are most received and 
 confirmed : the first is, that the saints shall 
 judge the world together with Christ, 
 1 Cor. vi. 2, and then vengeance shall be 
 executed on the wicked, and all they who 
 would not have Christ to reigii over them, 
 shall be bound hand and foot and cast into 
 outer darkness. This is the sense of Amobius 
 upon the place, and the Jesuits of Doway, 
 Emmanuel Sa, Jansenius, Lorinus, Meno- 
 chius, go that way. The other exposition 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 197 
 
 holds an accompUshment of the thing in this 
 same world; and this in a spiritual sense, 
 concerning the kuigdom of Christ in this 
 world, is holden by Calvin, Bucerus, West- 
 hemerus, Heshusius, Gesnerus, Fabritius, 
 and others. So the Dutch Annotations, 
 Augustine and Jerome, both of them upon 
 the place, take the sword and the chain, and 
 fetters, to be meant of the word of God con- 
 quering and overcoming aliens, and heretics, 
 and the mightiest enemies ; which others 
 clear from Isa. xlv. 14, " Men of stature 
 shall come over unto thee, and they shall be 
 thine, they shall come after thee, in chains 
 they shall come over." But because the 
 Psalmist maketh mention of a corrective or 
 punitive judiciary power, therefore others 
 add for making the sense more full, the 
 power of excommunication ; for which Lo- 
 rinus citeth Bruno and Hugo Victorinus. 
 Of the Protestant interpreters upon the 
 place, Gesneinis applieth it to the power 
 of the keys, to be made use of accoi'ding to 
 that which is written, Matt, xviii, Fabritius 
 conceiveth the text to comprehend castiga- 
 tiones spirituales, and he citeth Matt. xvi. 
 19 ; xviii. 18 ; John xx. 23. Heshusius 
 cleareth it by the instance of Theodosius 
 excommunicated by Ambrose. Mr Cotton, 
 in his Kei/s of the Kingdom of Heaven, p. 
 53, applieth it to the ecclesiastical power of 
 the keys. Barthol. Coppen understands it 
 of the spu'itual rule and kingdom of Christ, 
 and makes it parallel to 2 Cor, x. 4, " The 
 weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but 
 mighty through God to the pulling down of 
 strongholds ;" ver. 6, " and having in rea- 
 diness to revenge all disobedience." This 
 judiciary ecclesiastical power is to be ex- 
 ecuted upon all such of the nations as fall 
 under the government of the church accord- 
 ing to the rule of Christ ; and this honour 
 have all his saints, that their ministers are 
 armed with such a power. They that follow 
 this latter exposition will be easily induced to 
 believe that the binding and loosing, Matt, 
 xviii. 19, is also judicial or juridical. They 
 that follow the former exposition will also 
 observe that the phrase of binding in Scrip- 
 ture, even where it is ascribed to the church 
 or saints, is used in a judiciary sense, and 
 therefore it is most suitable to the Scriptiu-e 
 phrase to understand Matt, xviii. 19 in that 
 sense. 
 
 As touching that other exposition of the 
 binding and loosing, that the object it is ex- 
 ercised about, is not a person, but a thing 
 
 or doctrine, for it is not said whomsoever, 
 but whatsoever ye bind, it is sufficiently 
 confuted by much of that which hath been 
 said already, proving a forensical binding 
 and loosing even of persons. Only I shall 
 add these further considerations : — 
 
 First, The binding and loosing are acts of 
 the power of the keys, and are exercised 
 about the same object about which the 
 power of the keys is exercised. Matt. xvi. 
 19. Now the power of the keys is exercised 
 about persons, for the kingdom of heaven is 
 opened or shut to persons, not to doctrines. 
 If it be said that the keys are for opening 
 and shutting, not for binding and loosing, to 
 this I answer with Alex. Alensis, part 4, 
 quest. 20, mem. 5, *' that these keys are as 
 well for bindingr and loosing as for shuttino- 
 and opening ; but the act of binding and 
 loosing doth agree to the keys immediately 
 and in respect of the subject ; but the act of 
 opening in reference to the last end." Ibid. 
 mem. 2: He had given this reason why the 
 power of the keys is called the power of 
 binding and loosing, " Because although to 
 open and shut be the proper acts of the keys 
 themselves, yet nevertheless to loose and 
 bind are the more proper acts in reference 
 to those who are to enter into the kingdom, 
 or to be excluded from the same ; for the 
 persons themselves which do repent, are the 
 subject of loosing; and they that repent not, 
 of binding, which is not so of opening and 
 shuttuig, tor although the opening be to 
 those that are loosed, and the shutting to 
 those that are bound ; yet those that are 
 loosed are not the subject of opening (as to 
 the manner of speaking) nor those that are 
 bound the subject of shutting." So then 
 antecedently binding and loosing are acts of 
 the power of the keys, because a man is 
 bound before he be shut up, and loosed be- 
 fore the door be opened to him. 
 
 Secondly, That gloss which now I dispute 
 against, doth suppose one of these two things; 
 either that binding and loosing cannot be 
 exercised upon the same object at different 
 times, and that the binding is such as can 
 never be loosed again ; or otherwise that one 
 and the same doctrine may be condemned 
 at one time, and approved at another time : 
 both which are absurd, and contrary to the 
 generality of divines. 
 
 Thirdly, Seeing the Scripture speaketh of 
 binding and loosing in reference to persons, 
 as corporally, so spiritually, which I have 
 before proved, why, then, shall persons be 
 
198 
 
 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 excepted from being the objects of binding 
 and loosing, Matt, xviii. ? 
 
 Fourthly, That of binding and loosing, 
 Matt, xviii. 18, doth cohere with, and is 
 added by occasion of, that which went before, 
 as is also before proved. If this concerning 
 the context be acknowledged, it will carry it 
 to persons, for it was an offending brother, 
 not a false doctrine, which was spoken of in 
 the verses preceding. 
 
 Fifthly, Binding and loosing here doth at 
 least reach as far as retaining or remitting 
 of sins, John xx. 23, but there it is " Whose 
 soever sins ye remit," &c. They whose sins 
 are retained are bound. 
 
 ^Mierefore ona, luhatsoever, Matt, xviii. 
 18, is put for OI70VS, ivhomsoever, by an 
 hypallage generis, many examples where- 
 of may be given in Scripture : so t'u "ihiu, 
 John i. 11, is expounded by o'l 'ihioi ; and 
 "all things that offend," Matt. xiii. 41, ex- 
 pounded by t]i.em that do iniquity. Unless 
 you please to understand oaa aixap-i)^nTa, 
 whatsoever sins ye bind upon men or loose 
 from off them, they shall be bound upon 
 them or loosed from off them in heaven. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 THAT I COR. V. PROVETH EXCOMMUNICATION 
 AND (by a necessary CONSEQUENCE EVEN 
 FROM THE ERASTIAN INTERPRETATION) 
 SUSPENSION FROM THE SACR.VjALENT OF A 
 PERSON UNEXCOMMUNICATED. 
 
 Mr Prynnc, in his first query, did ask 
 whether tl'at phrase, 1 Cor. v., " To deliver 
 such a one to Satan," be properly meant of 
 excomnmnication or suspension from the sa- 
 crament only. This, he saitli, I did in my 
 sermon wave with a rhetorical pretention. 
 I answer. For the latter part of the query I 
 know not the least ground ; for who did ever 
 expound it of suspension from the sacrament 
 only ? For the former part of it, it is not 
 necessary to be debated, therefore, for hus- 
 banding time, and not to multiply questions 
 unnecessarily, I said in my sermon, that the 
 question ought to be whether that chapter 
 (not whether that phrase) prove excommu- 
 nication ; and that we have a shorter way to 
 prove excommunication from the last words 
 of that chapter, as Dr ]MouUn dotli in his 
 Vates, lib. 2, cap. 11. And if I should 
 grant that delivering such a one to Satan 
 
 signifieth either of those things which Mr 
 Prynne conceiveth ; that is, a bodily posses- 
 sion, torture, or vexation by Satan, inflicted , 
 either Ijy the apostolical power of miracles, 
 or by God's immediate permission ; yet that 
 will not prove that it signifieth no more. | 
 Therefore Peter Martyr upon the place, 
 thinks that the Apostle's delivering of the j 
 man to Satan by a miraculous act, and the i 
 church's delivering of him to Satan by ex- i 
 communication, do veiy well stand together, j 
 So Synop. pur. ThcoL, disp. 48, thes. 40, I 
 and he alloweth of both these expositions ; 
 and afterward, in his common place of ex- 
 communication, he speaketh of God's co- 
 operating with the censure, by punishing 
 the excommunicate person with diabolical 
 vexations. Sure I am an excommunicate 
 person may truly be said to be delivered to j 
 Satan, who is the god and prince of this | 
 world, and reigneth in the cliildi-en of dis- ! 
 obedience. But Mr Prynne will find it 
 somewhat difficult to prove that tradere 
 SatancE, 1 Cor. v. is only meant of a mira- 
 culous or extraordinary act, or to show how 
 or why the Apostle requireth the assembling 
 of the church, and their consent to the work- 
 ing of a miracle; which, if there were no 
 more, may discover the weakness of Mr 
 Prynne's notions concerning delivering to 
 Satan, 6 — 8. But as the full debate were 
 long, so it were not necessary, since Mr \ 
 Prynne doth now himself acknowledge that 
 the last verse of that chapter proveth ex- 
 communication, Vindic, p. 2. I come there- 
 fore to the next, which he calls the fourth | 
 difference, whether 1 Cor. v. 11, " With j 
 such an one no not to eat," be properly 
 meant of excommunication or suspension 
 from the sacrament. But (whatsoever be 
 properly meant by that phrase) that which 
 his debate driveth at is, that this verse doth 
 neither prove excommunication nor suspen- 
 sion from the sacrament so much as by ne- 
 cessary consequence. 
 
 But let us see whether his reasons can 
 weaken the proof of suspension from ver. 11. 
 First, He saith there is not one syllable of 
 receiving or eating of the Lord's supper in 
 this chapter. I answer. The question is 
 neither of syllables nor words, but of things ; 
 and how will he prove that ver. 8, " Let us 
 keep the feast, not with old leaven," &c. is 
 not applicable to the Lord's supper ; I say 
 not to it only, yet surely it cannot be ex- 
 cluded, but must needs be comprehended as 
 one part, yea, a principal part of the mean- 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 199 
 
 ing, the better to answer the analogy of the 
 passover (there much insisted upon). He 
 may be pleased also to remember that he 
 himself, p. 24, proving the passover and the 
 Lord's supper to be the same for the sub- 
 stance, for proof hereof citeth 1 Cor. v. 7, 
 and that Aretius, Theol. Prohl., loc. 80, 
 expoundeth our feast of the passover, 1 Cor. 
 v., to be meant of the Lord's supper. 
 
 But he further objecteth fi'om 1 Cor. x. 
 16, 17, " We are all partakers of that one 
 bread :" " If all were then partakers of this 
 bread, certainly none were excluded from 
 it in the church of Corinth ; but as the Is- 
 raelites under the law, did all eat the same 
 spiritual meat, and all drink the same spi- 
 ritual drink, though God were displeased 
 with many of them who were idolaters, 
 tempters of God, fornicators, murmurers, 
 and were destroyed in the wilderness, 1 Cor. 
 X. 1 — 12 : so all under the gospel who were 
 visible members of the church of Corinth 
 did eat and drink the Lord's supper, to 
 which some drunkards, whilst di-unken, did 
 then resort, as is clear by 1 Cor. xi. 20, 21, 
 which Paul indeed repi'ehends, ver. 22." 
 
 Ans. 1. When Paul saith, " We being 
 many are one bread and one body, for we 
 are all partakers of that one bread," he 
 speaketh of the communion of saints, and 
 the word all can be of no larger extent than 
 visilile saints, to whom the epistle is directed, 
 1 Cor. i. 2, and cannot be applied to visible 
 workers of iniquity, who continue impenitent 
 and obstinate in so doing. As we may join 
 in communion with a visible church, which 
 hath the external marks of a church, though 
 it be not a true invisible church, so we 
 join with visible saints to become one body 
 with them in external church communion, 
 and to be partakers of one bread with them, 
 though they be not true or invisible saints 
 in the hid man of the heart. But if these 
 be visibly no church, we cannot join in 
 church communion ; and if a man be visi- 
 bly no saint, he ought not to be admitted to 
 the communion of saints. I shall never be 
 persuaded that the apostle Paul would say 
 of himself and the saints at Corinth, " We 
 are one body with known idolaters, fornica- 
 tors, drunkai'ds and the like." 
 
 2. If all in the church of Corinth (none 
 excluded), even drunkards whilst drunken, 
 and if all under the gospel, who are visible 
 members of the church, ought to be admitted 
 to eat the same spiritual meat and drink the 
 same spiritual drink at the Lord's table, as 
 
 he supposeth that in the wilderness all the 
 Israelites did the like, who were idolaters, 
 foi-nicators, &c., then I beseech you observe 
 how Mr Prynnc doth by all this overthrow 
 his own rules ; for, p. 2 and elsewhere, he 
 tells us he would have notorious scandalous 
 sinners, who, after admonition, persevere in 
 their iniquities without remoi'se of conscience 
 or amendment, to be excommunicated from 
 the church and from the society of the faith- 
 ful in all public ordinances. If both in the 
 chui'ch of Israel and in the church of Co- 
 rinth all were admitted and none excluded, 
 even those who were idolaters or drunkards, 
 whilst actually such, without repentance or 
 amendment, how can Mr Prynne straiten 
 Christians now more than Moses did the 
 Jews, or Paul the Corinthians ? Since, 
 therefore, his arguments drive at it, it is 
 best he should speak it out, that all manner 
 of persons who profess themselves to be 
 Christians, be they never so scandalous, 
 never so obstinate, though they persevere 
 in their iniquity after admonition without 
 amendment, yet ought to be admitted to 
 the Lord's table. 
 
 3. He shall never be able to prove either 
 that those drunken persons, 1 Cor. xi. 21, 
 were drunken when they did resort to the 
 church (for it was in the church, and in eat- 
 ing and drinking there, that they made 
 themselves drunk), nor yet that the idola- 
 ters and fornicators' eating, in the wilder- 
 ness, of the spiritual meat, and drinking of 
 the spiritual drink mentioned by the Apos- 
 tle, 1 Cor. X., was after their idolatries and 
 fornications. But of this latter I have else- 
 where spoken distinctly and by itself. 
 
 4. To say that all who were visible mem- 
 bers of the church of Coiinth were admit- 
 ted, and none excluded, and to say it with 
 a certainly, is to make too bold with Scrip- 
 ture ; and the contrary will sooner be proved 
 from 1 Cor. x. 21, " Ye cannot drink the 
 cup of the Lord and the cup of devils : ye 
 cannot be partakers of the Lord's table and 
 of the table of devils." So much for his 
 first exception. 
 
 His second is concerning pei"sons (but not 
 to the purpose), that if we look upon the ca- 
 talogue of those with whom we are forbidden 
 to eat, not only shall most of the Anabap- 
 tistical and Independent congregations, but 
 too many Presbyterian ministers and elders, 
 who are most forward to excommunicate 
 others for idolatry, fornication, drunkenness, 
 nuist first be excommunicated themselves 
 
2O0 AAKOX'S EOD BLOSSOMISG, OR THE 
 
 for their ovm covetousness. Ans. Let it ' 
 light where it may, minL-ters do not stand i 
 nor fall to his judgment; but where just 
 proof can festen either coTetousness or any 
 other scandalous sin upon them, it is all the 
 reason in the world they be censured with 
 the first. If I had fallen upon this passage 
 of his book without knowing the author, I , 
 had presently imagined it to be a piece from 
 Oxford. It calls to my thoughts so many 
 expressions in pamphlets from thence, as- 
 persing London and Westminster, as more 
 full of covetonsness, lying, hypocrisy, than 
 Oxford of bloody oaths, masses, and the like. 
 
 Thirdly, " It is as clear as the noon-day j 
 sun (saith he), that ' Xo not to eat,' in this j 
 text, is no more than not to keep company, ' 
 or hold civil familiarity with such." ^Miat I 
 As clear as the noon-day sun I Let us open 
 our eyes, then, to see this meridian hght. j 
 First, saith he, " Xo not to eat," is inter- j 
 preted in the text itself, by " not to keep 
 company," which we find twice in the pre- ' 
 ceding words, — eating together being one of ' 
 the highest expressions of outward friendship 
 and familiarity. Had the Apostle said sim- 
 ply, " Xot to eat," this argument had been 
 the more colourable, but aner he had twice j 
 said, " Not to keep company," to add, " No I 
 not to eat," doth plainly intimate that the | 
 Apostle argueth from the less to the greater, 
 and that there is some other fellowship and [ 
 company with such a one, which is more than 
 eating together, and so much less permitted.* i 
 And what is that (eating together being, as 
 Mr Prynne saith, one of the highest expres- 
 sions of outward friendship and familiarity) ? 
 Must it not be communion in the holy things, 
 and especially the receiving such a one to the 
 Lord's table ? As if he had said, " If scandal- 
 ous brethren be spots in your common, how 
 much more in your sacred feasts : for which 
 cause the mixture of scandalous persons in 
 church fellowship is extremely blamed, 2 
 Pet. iL 13 ; Jude 12. Put the case : That 
 a parliament-man, or a divine of the Assem- 
 bly, were known (as God forbid) to be an 
 incendiary, an active malignant, a traitor, a 
 
 1 Magdeb. Cent. 1, lib. 2, cap. 4, p. 27.5, edit. 
 1624, giving the st-nse of this Terr place, they say, 
 Atqne ita excladantJir a commnnione ecclesiae, nt 
 Don modo arceantnr ab n;n sacramentornm, sed 
 etiam a commercio, ne cibus qnidem cnin iis eapia- 
 tur. Xo»-arinus upon the place eipresscth the Apos- 
 tle's meaning in these words of Ambrose: Com 
 fratre in quo vitia haec reperinntur, non solom sa- 
 cramenta non edenda, sed nec communem escam 
 docet, ut erubescat quum vitator ct se cnrrigat 
 
 blasphemer, so tliat neither parliament-man, 
 nor member of the Assembly would eat or 
 company with him, were it not strange if, 
 for all that, such a one should be permitted 
 to sit in parliament or in assembly ? Is it 
 not as strange if the whole church, distribu- 
 tively, shall not so much as eat with a scan- 
 dalous person, and yet the whole church, 
 collectively, shall eat with him, in that very 
 action which is a symbol of the commtmion 
 of saints ? So that if I should now admit 
 that sense, that these words, "No not to 
 eat," amount no more than " Not to keep 
 company, or hold civil familiarity with such" 
 (as Mr Prynne expresseth it), yet the ar- 
 gument will stand firm and strong in re- 
 gard of this necessary consequence : It" a 
 private Giristian ought not to hold so much 
 as civil fellowship with a scandalous brother 
 not 'excommunicated, much less ought the 
 church to admit him to church communion 
 in aU public ordinances (there being les6 
 latitude, and the rule much stricter in this 
 communion than in private civil fellowship) ; 
 and if we be forbidden to do so much as to 
 eat with such an one at a common meal, 
 quante magis convictu sacro, saith Pareus 
 upon the place, how much more is the 
 chm-ch forbidden to receive him to the 
 Lord's table. For if the end of avoiding 
 private company with such an one be to 
 make him ashamed, as the Erastians them- 
 selves do confess from 2 Thes. iii. were 
 it not contrary to that end to countenance 
 and embolden him, by receiving him to pub- 
 lic church communion at the Lord's table ? 
 Surely, the refusing of the private could not 
 so much put him to shame, as the admission 
 to the pubhc should put respect upon him. 
 AMierefore 1 Cor. v. 11, as it is interpreted 
 by Mr Prynne, proveth, by a necessary con- 
 sequence, the suspension from the saci-ament 
 of a scandalous church member not excom- 
 municated. 
 
 If his next reason help him not, surely his 
 sun wlU go do^vn at noon. He citeth some 
 parallel texts, which interpret " not to eat" 
 here, of avoiding them, turning away from 
 and rejecting them, &:c., which are no judi- 
 cial acts of the presbytery, but moral or pru- 
 dential acts of particular Christians. Ans. 
 There is a judicial presbyterial act (as very 
 many conceive) in some of those parallel 
 texts cited by him, 2 Thes. iii. 14 ; Tit. iii. 
 10 ; and so his proof is no less questionable 
 than the thing he would prove by it. And 
 here the Apostle intendeth more than a 
 
201 
 
 1 
 
 voluntary prudential withdrawing of parti- 
 cular Christians, even a judicial act, in the 
 very next words, " What have I to do to 
 judge them also that are without ? Do not 
 ye judge them that are within ?" "VMiere he 
 gives the reason of what he had said before, 
 that he had written to them not to be mixed 
 with scandalous brethren, permitting them 
 to keep company with pagans, though guilty 
 of the same faults. The x-eason, because 
 church censures are only for those that are 
 church members, not for aliens. 
 
 After ]Mr Prynne hath put forth his 
 strength to prove that excommunication, 
 or suspension from the sacrament, is not 
 meant 1 Cor. v. 11, he comes, in the next 
 place, to answer the argument drawn by 
 consequence : If we may not so much as 
 eat with such an one at our own tables, far 
 less at the Lord's table ; whereunto his an- 
 swer is, " The argument is fallacious (saith 
 he) because it varieth in the kind of eat- 
 ing, the one being civil, the other spiritual ; 
 the one private, in one's own house or an- 
 other's, where he hath absolute freedom or 
 liberty to eat or not to eat with another; 
 the other, public in the church," &c. But 
 all this, say I, maketh oiu- argument the 
 stronger ; for if it be sin to a private man to 
 eat in his own house with a scandalous bro- 
 ther, though this be but a civil fellowship, in 
 which there is more liberty and less lati- 
 tude than in religious fellowship, how much 
 more sinful is it for church officei-s to admit 
 such an one to sacramental eating with the 
 church ? 
 
 And for that first rule of his, that ar- 
 guments from the less to the greater are 
 not conclusive, except in the same kind of 
 action, it is utterly untrue ; for the holy 
 Scripture itself hath divers arguments from 
 the less to the greater, where the kind is 
 no less different, if not more, than private 
 civil eating together is from public eating 
 together at the table of the Lord. As Num. 
 xii. 14 : If Miriam's father had spit in her 
 face, should she not be ashamed seven days ? 
 how much more when God hath smitten her 
 with leprosy, for speaking against his servant 
 Moses ? Hag- i- 4, You have built to your- 
 selves ceiled houses, how much more ought 
 ye to have built the house of the Lord ? John 
 iii. 12, " If I have told you earthly things, and 
 ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell 
 you of heavenly things?" 1 Cor.vi.3, " Know 
 ye not that we shall judge angels, how much 
 more things that pertain to this life ?" 
 
 His second exception is, that " they fall 
 not both under the self-same precept." If 
 this be a just exception against our argu- 
 ment, then one cannot argue thus : It is a 
 sin to steal a man's private goods, how much 
 more to steal that which is holy ? It is a 
 sin to reproach a man's name, how much 
 more to reproach God's name ? These do 
 not fall under the self-same precept, shall 
 such arguments be therefore inconclusive ? 
 Whence comes all this new logic, which the 
 world never knew before ? 
 
 Ilis third condition (let it be remembered, 
 he saith, if either of these three conditions 
 fail, the argument is inconsequent) is, that 
 it must be within the compass of the same 
 power. If it be so, how shall that hold uni- 
 versally true? " How much better is it to 
 get wisdom than gold, and to get understand- 
 ing rather than choice silver?" By Mr 
 Prynne's rule it must only hold true in this 
 case, when it falls within the compass of the 
 same power, to get both wisdom and gold ? 
 However, if he had apprehended our argu- 
 ment aright, he had perceived that the lesser 
 thing, and the greater thing, are both within 
 the compass of the same power. The church 
 of Corinth ought not to eat with such an 
 one at common tables ; therefore not at the 
 Lord's table. For this refusing to eat with 
 such an one at common tables, was by vir- 
 tue of a judicial ecclesiastical sentence passed 
 against the scandalous person, so that when 
 Mr Prynne saith, "We have free power not 
 to eat bread with those at our own tables, 
 with whom we have no power or liberty left 
 us by Christ to refuse to eat with them at 
 the Lord's table," and thereupon supposeth 
 that our argumentation from that text is one 
 principal cause and prop of Independency, 
 yea, of separation, not only from sacraments 
 but from churches, he doth altogether mis- 
 apprehend the business. For, 1. Separation 
 from churches is properly a renouncing of 
 membership as unlawful. Om* argument 
 concerneth the unlawfulness of a particular 
 act, not of a membership in such a church. 
 2. The causes and motives of separation 
 suppose either an unlawful constitution of 
 churches, or an unlawful government of 
 churches, or both, so far, that they who 
 separate hold it unlawful to continue their 
 membership in churches so constituted and 
 governed, or so much as to communicate and 
 partake in the sacrament with such churches, 
 though they know no scandalous person ad- 
 mitted to the sacrament. 3. The great mis- 
 
202 AAKOX'S ROD BLOSSOMIXG, OR THE 
 
 take lietli in this, that our present contro- 
 versy is apprehended to be, whether every 
 particular Chnstian hath power or hberty 
 from Christ to withdraw from the sacra- 
 ment, because of the admission of a scandal- 
 ous person, whereas our question is only of 
 the church's power to suspend a scandalous 
 person from the sacrament ; and when the 
 Apostle, ver. 9 — 11, forbiddethto be mixed, 
 or so much as to eat, with such and such 
 scandalous members of the church, he mean- 
 eth of church discipline and excommunica- 
 tion, which he had begun to speak of, and 
 so he comes to show them what kind of per- 
 sons he would have to be excommunicated, ^ 
 and used like that incestuous man. So Beza, 
 BuUinger, Hunnius, Gualther, Martyr, Tos- 
 sanus, and others upon the place ; and long 
 before all these, Augustine and Beda plainly 
 expound the Apostle's words, of a public 
 ecclesiastical judgment passed upon one who 
 hath either confessed his oiTence, or is for- 
 mally accused and convicted thereof ; and as 
 they conceive, that text doth not at all jus- 
 tify, but doth rather condemn private Chris- 
 tians' separating from the church, becasue of 
 a mixture of scandalous persons. I know we 
 ought pnidently and cautiously to endeavour 
 the avoiding of the company and fellowship 
 of scandalous brethren, though not yet cen- 
 sured in the church (which may be proved 
 from other scriptures) ; but that is not the 
 point the Apostle is here upon. He means 
 by " No not to eat," synecdochically, the 
 I whole casting off of an excommunicate per- 
 ! son, and all that separation or withdrawing 
 I which is commanded to be made from him, 
 I or, if you will (by a metonymy of the effect 
 for the cause), he means excommunication 
 itself ; and, however, the words immediately 
 following prove that a public judicial act is 
 intended, as hath been said before. 
 
 1 Gnalther Archel, in 1 Cor. v. 11, Catalogus eo- 
 TTim qui debens excomimimcati. Tossanus, ibid. — 
 Quod cibum non Tult sumi cum iis, pertinet id qui- 
 dem ad discipUnam excommnnicationis. Martyr, 
 ibid. — Kotandum praeterea, non esse privatorum 
 hominnm ut quisque pro sua libidine ab boc tcI ab 
 ille, quem peccasse forte snspicatns fuerit, sese dis- 
 jungere relit. Ad commune judicium ecclesiae per- 
 tinet. August., hom. 50, joineth 1 Cor. t. 11, with 
 12, 13, and then saith, Quibus verbis satis ostendi 
 non temere ant quomodolibet, scd per judicium au- 
 ferendes esse malos ab ecclesiae commnnione, ut 
 si per judicium auferri non possunt, tolerentur po- 
 tins, ne perverse malos quisque evitando, ab ecclesia 
 ipse discedens, eos qnos fugere videtur vincia ad ge- 
 hennam. The same hath Beda upon the place out 
 of Augustine ; so likewise Ambrose and the Cen- 
 tnrists before cited. 
 
 These things considered, I shall not need 
 to be led out of my way by Mi* Prynne's de- 
 scanting upon the meaning of 1 Cor. v. 11, 
 how far it prohibits civil communion and 
 eating with a scandalous Christian, being a 
 railer, or fornicator, or idolater, &c. I con- 
 fess some of his limitations — a.s, namely, that 
 we may eat with such a one in cases of ex- 
 pediency, or when we cannot avoid it in ci- 
 vility nor without offence — are very lubric, 
 unsafe, and ensnaring, and at best it is but 
 like that in Martial's epigram. 
 
 Difficilis, facilis, jncnndus, accrbus es idem ; 
 Nec tecum possum vivere, nec sine te. 
 
 But to treat of that case of conscience in 
 general is not hujus loci ; for this text 
 speaks of not eating with an excommunicate 
 person. Neither yet shall I need here to 
 examine Mr Prynne's six considerations, p. 
 12 — 14, which he v.isheth to be pondered 
 by Separatists and Independents, misled (as 
 he thinks) by our fallacious argument. I 
 hope he doth not mistake our question so 
 far as to comprehend the smfulness of any 
 private Christian's receiving of the sacra- 
 ment, when and where some scandalous sin- 
 ners are admitted to the sacrament, that 
 private Chi'istian not being accessory to the 
 sin of the minister and eldership in admit- 
 ting those scandalous sinners. 
 
 Wherefore I will add eight counterbal- 
 ancing considerations, to prove fi'om 1 Cor. 
 V. 1 — 12,1 (all which Mr Prynne conceiveth 
 cannot prove excommunication,) compared 
 with 2 Cor. ii., an ecclesiastical jurisdiction 
 or power of censures, and particularly of ex- 
 communication. 
 
 1. There was a censure inflicted upon the 
 incestuous man by the eldership of the 
 church of Corinth, being assembled together, 
 1 Cor. V. 4, 5. \Miere read we that ever 
 the church was intentionally gathered to co- 
 operate with an apostle in the exercise of 
 his miraculous apostolical power ? But we 
 do read that this man's punishment or cen- 
 sure was inflicted upon him not by the 
 Apostle alone, but by many, 2 Cor. ii. 6. 
 Erastus p. 214, thinks that kwiTifxia (in our 
 books rendered 'punishment, and in the 
 margin censure) was not excommunication, 
 but only sharp abjm-gation or reproof. To 
 this I have abundantly answered, book ii. 
 chap. 9, and in Male Audis, p. 12 — 14. 
 
 1 The 13th verse he yieldeth to be a warrant for 
 excommunication ; yet he diflfereth concerning that 
 also, in Diotrephes Catechised. 
 
DIVIXE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNJIENT VINDICATED. 203 
 
 And if it should be granted that the man 
 was not then excommunicate, but shai'ply 
 and pubhcly rebuked (which indeed is the 
 opinion of some), yet tlie church of Corinth 
 had proceeded to excommunication if the 
 Apostle had not written to dissuade tliem, 
 and take them off with a siifficit, which he 
 neither needed nor would have done, if they 
 had power to do no more to the offender 
 than to rebuke him sharply. To conclude 
 this point, Mr Piynno granteth that 1 Cor. 
 V. 13, proveth excomnmnication ; and why 
 the gathering together, ver. 4, should not 
 be intended for the same M'ork, I cannot ima- 
 gine ? Some question there was of old, whe- 
 ther the Apostle's meaning, ver. 13, were 
 not, that the Corintliians should put away, 
 every man out of himself, the evil of sin ; 
 which Augustine having somewhere left in 
 medio, doth in his retractations correct (and 
 Beda upon the jjlace, out of him, tells us the 
 very same), and expounds it of the taking 
 away of the evil man from the church by ex- 
 communication, because, saith he, the Greek 
 cannot be rendered hoc malum, but /mnc 
 malum. 
 
 2. They who had power to I'eceive him 
 and forgive him, and to confirm their love 
 towards him, had power to cast him out and 
 censure him; but those T:\eiores, the church 
 officers of the church of Corinth, had power 
 of the former, therefore of the latter. See 
 2 Cor. ii. 7, 8, the Apostle adviseth them 
 to forgive the offender. How to forgive 
 him ? Not as man forgives a private injury, 
 that was not the case ; nor only by the doc- 
 trine of remission of sins applied to him in 
 foro conscientice, upon evidence of his re- 
 pentance ; that any one minister might do : 
 but the Apostle will have those many who 
 had censured him consistorially and judici- 
 ally, to forgive him m the same manner ; 
 which is yet further confirmed by that ku- 
 ptiiaii D/s c'tyrWijs, that confirming of their 
 love towai'ds him, ver. 8, Kvpi^-ai is ratum 
 facere, thence cometh not only kvpuxris but 
 Kupws. When the Apostle will express a 
 ratified or confirmed testament. Gal. iii. 15, 
 he calls it KeKvpiufxifriv biaOljurii'. From the 
 same wox'd Erasmus doth collect, that the 
 Apostle speaketh to them as the ordinary 
 judges, who have power to confirm their love 
 to that penitent sinner in an authoritative 
 manner. And why doth the Apostle choose 
 a word which properly signifieth an autho- 
 ritative confirming or ratifying of a thing, if 
 he were not speaking of a jurisdiction and 
 
 power of inflicting and taking off again 
 censures ? 
 
 3. The Apostle upon occasion of that of- 
 fender's case, puts the Coi-inthians in re- 
 membrance, that they ought likewise to 
 purge the church from the mixture of other 
 scandalous sinners, 1 Cor. v. 9 — 12. The 
 chapter both begins and ends with the case 
 of the incestuous man and his punishment ; 
 wliicli makes interpreters conceive, that 
 what is interlaced concerning other scanda- 
 lous sinners in the church, is to be under- 
 stood of such as the Apostle would have to 
 be censured in the same manner as that in- 
 cestuous man. 
 
 4. He instanceth in six cases (not intend- 
 ing an enumeration of all the particular 
 cases of excommunication), fornication, co- 
 vetousness (meaning covetousness scandal- 
 ously and grossly manifested, or practical 
 covetousness, for of the heart God only 
 judgeth), idolatry, railing, drunkenness, ex- 
 toi'tion. His instancing in these, tells us he 
 intends not the case of private civil injuries, 
 but of scandals, yea, though the scandal be 
 without the mixture of any civil or private 
 injury, as in the case of an idolater or a 
 drunkard. 
 
 5. And even where there is a private in- 
 jury wrapt up in the bosom of the scandal, 
 as in railing and extortion, yet the Apostle 
 there looketh upon them not qua injuries, 
 but qua scandals ; and in that notion, he 
 will have not only the party particularly in- 
 terested and injured, but the other mem- 
 bers of the church also, to withdraw com- 
 munion from the offender; for he writeth to 
 the whole church of Corinth not to keep 
 company with such. 
 
 6. When he saith, "With such an one no 
 not to eat," he intimates by no not, some 
 further and greater punishment than not 
 eating with him, as hath been said before. 
 If not so much as eating with him, then much 
 less church conimmiion with him at the 
 Lord's table. 
 
 7. He means not of that ^vithdrawdno- 
 whereby each Christian may and ought to 
 withdraw familiarity and fellowship from 
 such a notorious scandalous sinner, whose 
 sin is manifest beforehand, that he may 
 keep himself pure and not j)artake of an- 
 other man's sin ; in which case a member of 
 one church may withdraw familiar convei's- 
 ing with a scandalous member of another 
 church ; but he speaks of such a withdraw- 
 ing from, and avoiding of the fellowship of 
 
204 
 
 Aaron's rod blossomixg, or the 
 
 a scandalous brother, as is done not by one, 
 or some few private Christians, but by the 
 whole church (lor he writeth to the whole 
 church of Corinth, not to company nor eat 
 with such a one) ; I say, by the whole church, 
 whereof the offender was a member ; and 
 that not without a judicial or consistorial 
 sentence, ver. 12, " Do not ye judge them 
 that are within?" which cannot be restricted 
 to the judgment of Christian discretion and 
 prudence (for so both the apostles and they 
 did judge those that were without, to walk 
 1 circumspectly toward them, Col. iv. 5, and 
 to beware of their evil) ; but it is meant of 
 censures and punishments inflicted by many, 
 that is, by the presbyters of that church, 2 
 Cor. ii. 6. 
 
 8. And so I have touched upon the last 
 consideration, which is this : That as the 
 fault was a scandal given to the church, and 
 the judgment and censure was ecclesiastical, 
 not civil, so that censure for that offence 
 was inflicted only upon church members, not 
 upon unbehevers. If any unbeliever did a 
 civil injury to a Christian, the Christian was 
 free to accuse the unbeliever (if he saw it 
 good) before the civil magistrate, and there 
 to seek judgment and justice ; or the Chris- 
 tian was free to withdraw civil fellowship 
 from the unbeliever who did him a civil in- 
 jury, which I suppose Mr Prynne will easily 
 gr'ant. But this way of censuring and pun- 
 ishing a scandalous church member did not 
 agree to an heathen who was an idolater, or 
 drunkard, or extortioner, &c. ver. 10 — 13. 
 Thus I have proved church censure from 1 
 Cor. V. compared with 2 Cor. ii., without 
 laying the weight of any argument upon 
 tradere Sathance ; which I would not have 
 to be understood as if I yielded to our op- 
 posites that the delivering to Satan is not 
 meant of excommunication. My meaning is 
 only to make the shorter work of the Eras- 
 tian antithesis. The weight of their argu- 
 ments, not of ours, is laid upon tradere Sa- 
 thance ; but, for my sense of the word, I 
 am of theii' opinion who interpret it of ex- 
 communication ; and so doth Gualther him- 
 self. So doth the Syriac, which readeth, 
 " That you (Corinthians) may deliver such 
 an one to Satan." If it was an act of the 
 church of Corinth, then it was a church 
 censure, not a miracle. The Greek doth 
 also carry it to be an act of the church of 
 Corinth assembled together. We have also 
 some (though not all) of the ancients for 
 us in this particular ; as Balsamon in Ca- 
 
 non, epist. Basilii ad, Amphiloch., can. 7, 
 observeth. Basilius speaketh of some who at 
 that time had been delivered to Satan for 
 thirty years, that they might learn not to 
 carry themselves filthily, yea unnaturally, as 
 they had done formerly ; concerning whom 
 he adviseth that now, after so long a time, 
 they might be (upon theii' spontaneous con- 
 fession of their heinous offence) received 
 again into the church. Hereupon Balsa- 
 mon noteth : " Those are said to be deli- 
 vered to Satan who are separated from the 
 communion of Christians." 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 WHETHER JUDAS RECEIVED THE SACRAMENT 
 OF THE lord's SUPPER. 
 
 Mr Prynne hath filled up a good part of 
 his Vindication with tbe case of Judas, as 
 going very far in the deciding of this pre- 
 sent controversy. But as Protestant writers 
 answer the Papists in the case of Peter, that 
 it cannot be proved that Peter was ever 
 bishop of Rome, but rather that he was not; 
 and if he had, this cannot prove the Pope's 
 supremacy ; the like I say of this case of 
 Judas : Mr Prynne shall never be able to 
 prove that Judas did receive the sacrament 
 of the Lord's supper : and if he could prove 
 it, yet it shall not at all help that cause 
 which he maintaineth. 
 
 I begin with the matter of fact, "VMiether 
 Judas received the sacrament of the Lord's 
 supper, as well as the other apostles, which 
 is the question by him stated. For decision 
 whereof I hold it necessary, fii'st of all, that 
 these two thmgs be premised, concerning 
 the harmony of the evangehsts in that 
 matter of Judas, the use whereof we shall 
 see afterwards : Matthew and Mark tell us 
 Christ's discourse of the traitor at table, and 
 the discovery of Judas, before the institu- 
 tion of the sacrament ; Luke hath the same 
 thing after the institution and distribution 
 of tiie sacrament : so that either Matthew 
 and Mark speak by anticipation, or Luke 
 speaketh by a recapitulation ; that is, either 
 Matthew and Mark put before what was 
 done after, or Luke puts after what was 
 done before. Now that there is in Luke an 
 va-tpoXoyia, a narration of that after the 
 institution which was indeed before the insti- 
 tution of the saci-ament, may thus appear : — 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 205 
 
 1. That very thing which Luke placeth 
 after the institution and distribution of the 
 sacrament, Luke xxii. 21 — 23, " Behold the 
 hand of him that betrayeth nie is with me 
 on the table. And truly the Son of man 
 goeth as it was determined, but woe unto 
 that man by whom he is betrayed. And 
 they be^an to inquire among themselves 
 which of them it was that should do this 
 thing," — the very same thing do Matthew 
 and Mark record before the institution of 
 the sacrament, Matt. xxvi. 21 — 26 ; Mark 
 xiv. 18 — 22 ; and it is more credible that 
 one of the evangelists is to be reduced to 
 the order of two, rather than two to the 
 order of one. 
 
 2. Especially considering that Luke doth 
 not relate the business ot the last supper 
 according to that order wherein things were 
 acted or spoken, as is manifest by Luke xxii. 
 17, 18, " And he took the cup and gave 
 thanks, and said, Take this and divide it 
 among yourselves." This, though related 
 before the taking and breaking of the bread, 
 yet it is but by an anticipation or preoccupa- 
 tion, occasioned by that which had preceded, 
 ver. 16, so to join the protestation of not 
 drinkintr a^ain, with that of not eatino- ao-ain 
 the passover with his disciples ; therefore Be- 
 za, Salmeron, Maldonat, and others, follow- 
 ing Augustine and Euthyniius, do resolve it 
 is an anticipation, even as Paul mentioneth 
 the cup before the bread, 1 Cor. x. 16. I 
 know some understand the cup mentioned 
 Luke xxii. 17, to be the paschal cup ; others, 
 to be the cup in the ordinary supper ; but 
 to me it is plain that it was the eucharisti- 
 cal cup. Yea, Mr Prynne takes it so, p. 25, 
 because that which Luke saith of that cup, 
 that Christ took it, and gave thanks, and 
 gave it to the disciples, that they might all 
 drink of it, and told them he would not 
 drink with them any more of the fruit of 
 the vine till the kingdom of God should 
 come ; all this is the very same which Mat- 
 thew and Mark record of the eucliaristical 
 cup. Therefoi'e our non-conformists M^ere 
 wont to argue from that place, that the 
 minister ought not to give the sacramental 
 elements to each communicant out of his 
 own hand, but the communicants ought to 
 divide the elements among themselves, be- 
 cause Christ saith in that place, of the cup, 
 " Divide it among yourselves." 
 
 3. Luke saith not that after supper, or af- 
 ter they had done with the sacrament, Christ 
 told his disciples that one of them should be- 
 
 tray him ; only he addeth, after the histoiy of 
 the sacrament, what Christ said concerning 
 the traitor. But ]Matthew and Mark do not 
 only record Christ's words concerning the 
 traitor before they make narration concern- 
 ing the sacrament, but they record expressly 
 that that discourse, and the discovery of the 
 traitor, was k'jdiovTwv avTwt : " As they did 
 eat," Matt. xxvi. 21 ; Mark xiv. 18, " iSTow, 
 when the evening was come, he sat down 
 with the twelve," and immediately foUow- 
 eth, as the first purpose which Christ spake 
 of, " And as they did eat, he said. Verily I 
 say unto you, that one of you shall betray 
 me ;" which could not be so, if Luke relate 
 Christ's words concerning the traitor in that 
 order in which they were first uttered ; for 
 Luke having told us, ver. 22, that Christ 
 took the cup after supper and said, " This 
 cup is the New Testament," &c., addeth, 
 " But behold the hand of him that betray- 
 eth me is with me on the table." So that 
 if this were the true order, Christ did not 
 tell his disciples concerning the traitor, as 
 they did eat (which Matthew and iNIark do 
 say), but after they had done eating. If it 
 be said that kuBiovTiiJv avrdv may suffer this 
 sense, when the\j had eaten, or having cat- 
 en, I answer. The context will not suffer that 
 sense ; for they were, indeed, eating in the 
 time of that discourse. Matt. xxvi. 23, " He 
 that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, 
 the same shall betray me ;" John xiii. 26, 
 " He it is to whom I shall give a sop after 
 I have dipped it." 
 
 4. Musculus, in Loc. Com. de Ccen. Dom, 
 p. 362, gives this reason out of Bupertus, 
 why Luke's narration of Christ's words con- 
 cerning the traitor, is placed by a recapitu- 
 lation after the sacrament : because Luke is 
 the only evangelist who writeth distinctly of 
 the paschal supper, and what Christ said at 
 that supper ; and having once fallen upon 
 that purpose, the connection of the matter 
 did require that he should immediately add 
 the story of the eucliaristical supper, without 
 interlacing that of the traitor, which reason 
 will pass for good with such a.s think Judas 
 did eat of the paschal supper, and that 
 Christ's words concerning him were spo- 
 ken at the paschal supper, which I greatly 
 doubt of. 
 
 5. Mr Prynne, p. 18, doth, in effect, 
 grant the same thing that I say ; for he 
 saith, " That Matthew and Mark record, 
 that immediately before the institution of 
 the sacrament, as they sat at meat, Jesus 
 
206 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 said unto the twelve, Verily one of you shall 
 betray me, whereupon they began to be 
 sorrowful, and to say unto him," &c. He 
 addeth, " That Judas luas the last man that 
 said, Is it I ? immediately before the insti- 
 tution," as Matthew records. But of Luke 
 he saith only thus much, that he " placeth 
 these words of Christ concerning Judas's 
 betraying him, after the institution and dis- 
 tribution of the sacrament, not before it." 
 If it be thus, as Mr Prynne acknowledgeth, 
 that jNIatthew and Mark record that Christ 
 had that discourse concerning Judas before 
 the institution of the sacrament, then most 
 certainly it was before the institution of the 
 sacrament, because it must needs be true 
 which Matthew and Mark say. ^^^lence it 
 will necessarily follow that Luke doth not 
 mention that discourse concerning Judas in 
 its proper place, and this doth not offer the 
 least violence to the text in Luke, because 
 he doth not say that Christ spake these 
 words after the sacrament, only he placeth 
 these words after the sacrament, as Mr 
 Prynne saith rightly. When Scripture saith 
 that such a thing was done at such a time, 
 it must be so believed ; but when Scripture 
 mentioneth one thing after another, that 
 will not prove that the thing last mentioned 
 was last done. More plainly, Mr Prynne, 
 p. 26, 27, tells us, that the sacrament was 
 given after Christ had particularly informed 
 his disciples that one of them should betray 
 him, M'hich he proves from John xiii. 18 — 
 28 ; Matt. xxvi. 20—36 ; Mark xiv. 18— 
 22; Luke xxii. 21—23. mence it fol- 
 lows inevitably, by his own confession, that 
 Matthew and Mark, recording that dis- 
 course about Judas after the sacrament, do 
 place it in the proper order ; and that Luke, 
 mentioning that discourse about Judas after 
 the sacrament, doth not place it in its own 
 place. Tliis is tlie fii-st thing which I thought 
 good to premise, which will easily take off 
 the strongest argument which ever I heard 
 alleged for Judas's receiving of the sacra- 
 ment, namely this, that Luke, immediately 
 after the institution and distribution of the 
 sacrament, addeth, " But behold the hand 
 of him that betrayeth me, is with me at the 
 table." If these words M'ere not uttered by 
 Christ in that order wherein Luke placeth 
 them (which I have proved), then the argu- 
 ment is not conclusive. 
 
 The second thing to be premised is this : 
 That the story which we have, John xiii., 
 from the beginning to ver. 31, concerning 
 
 the supper at which Christ discoursed of 
 Judas and gave him the sop, after which lie 
 went immediately out, was neither in Be- 
 thany two days before the passover, as the 
 Antidote Animadverted tells us, p. 5 ; nor 
 yet after the institution of the sacrament, as 
 Mr Prynne tells us, Vindic. p. 25, herein 
 differing either from himself or his friend. 
 That supper in Bethany, the pamphlet saith, 
 was two days before the passover ; but some 
 interpreters collect from John xii. 1, 2, it 
 was longer before, Christ having come to 
 Bethany six days before, and after that sup- 
 per, the next day Christ did ride into Jeru- 
 salem on a young ass, and the people cried, 
 Hosanna, John xii. 12 : the very story which 
 we have. Matt. xxi. Mark saith, that two 
 days before the passover, the chief priests 
 and scribes sought how to put Christ to 
 death ; but he doth not say that the supper 
 in Bethany was two days before the pass- 
 over. But of this I wiU not contend, when- 
 ever it was, it is not much material to the 
 present question ; there was nothing at that 
 supper concerning Judas, but a rebuking of 
 him for having indignation at the spending 
 of the alabaster box of ointment, and from 
 that he sought opportunity to betray Christ. 
 But the discom'se between Christ and his 
 apostles concerning one of them that should 
 betray him, and their asking him one by 
 one, " Is it I ?" was in the very night of the 
 passover, as is clear, Matt. xxvi. 19 — 26 ; 
 Mark xiv. 16 — 22 ; so that the story, John 
 xiii. 18 — 30, being the same with that in 
 Matthew and Mai'k, could not be two days 
 before the passover ; and if, two days before, 
 Christ had discovered to John who should 
 betray him, by giving the sop to Judas, how 
 could every one of the disciples (and so John 
 among the rest) be iguorant of it two days 
 after, which made every one of them to ask, 
 " Is it I ?" Finally, That very night in 
 which the Lord Jesus did institute the sa- 
 crament, the disciples began to be sorrow- 
 ful, and began to inquire which of them it 
 was that should betray him. Matt. xxvi. 22; 
 Mark xiv. 19 ; Luke xxii. 23. But if Chi'ist 
 had told them two days before, that one of 
 themselves who did sit at table with him, 
 should betray him, surely they had, at that 
 time, begim to be sorrowful, and to ask 
 every one, " Is it I ?" 
 
 That which hath been said doth also dis- 
 cover that other mistake, that the discourse 
 at table, concernuigthe traitor and the giving 
 of the sop to Judas, Jolm xiii., was after the 
 
DIVINE ORDIN-UiTCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 207 
 
 institution of the sacrament. If it were after, 
 then either that in John is not the same with 
 the discourse concerning the traitor men- 
 tioned by Matthew and Mark, or otherwise 
 Matthew and Mark speak by anticipation. 
 But I have proved both that the true order 
 is in Matthew and Mark, and that the dis- 
 course concerning the traitor, mentioned by 
 John, must be in the evangehcal harmony 
 put together with that in Matthew and 
 Mark, as making one and the same story. 
 And if this in John had been posterior to 
 that in Matthew, then why doth ^Ir Prynne 
 himself join these together as one? p. 18, 19. 
 
 These things premised, I come to the ar- 
 guments which prove that Judas did not 
 receive the sacrament of the Lord's supper. 
 
 The first argument (which was by me 
 touched in that sermon so much quarrelled 
 by Mr Prynne) is this : It is said of Judas, 
 John xiii. 30, " Pie then, having received 
 the sop, went immediately out." But this 
 sop, or morsel, was given him before the sa- 
 crament, whilst they were yet eating the 
 other supper, at the end whei'eof Christ did 
 institute the sacrament; thei'efore Judas 
 went away before the sacrament. Let us 
 hear Mr Prynne's four answers to this ar- 
 gument, p. 24, 25. First, saith he, Judas 
 went not out till after supper ; John xiii. 
 2, " And supper being ended," &c. Ans. 
 beiTTvov yeia/jivov will not prove that the 
 supper was fully ended. The Centurists, 
 cent. 1, lib. 1, cap. 10, explain John xiii. 2 
 thus, Magna ccence hujus parte peractd: 
 A great part of this supper being done. 
 Yea, the Greek may be as well turned thus, 
 " When they were at supper," as the late 
 Encjlish Annotations have it. Ludovicus 
 de Dieu choosetli this sense ; Salmei'on and 
 others prove it from ver. 4, " He riseth from 
 supper," with ver. 12, He sat down again to 
 supper, and dipped the sop. Take but two 
 like instances in this same story of the pas- 
 sion, Matt. xxvi. 6, rou he '\t\aou yevo^evov 
 ev Brjdan'a : " Now when Jesus was in Be- 
 thany;" not, After Jesus luas in BetJiany. 
 Matt. xxvi. 20, 'O^^ias he yevofiei'rjf. "Now, 
 when the even was come ;" not, luhen the 
 even was ended. His second answer, that 
 all the other three evangelists prove that 
 Judas was present at the sacrament, is but 
 petitio pri^icipii. Thirdly, saith he, the 
 sacrament was not instituted after supper, 
 but as they sat at supper. Ans. It was, in- 
 deed, instituted while they were sitting at 
 supper, or before they rose from supper, so 
 
 that they were still continuing in a table 
 gesture ; yet the actions must needs be dis- 
 tinguished, for they did not, at the same 
 instant, receive the sacrament, and eat of 
 another supper too. And though it be said 
 of the bread, that " as they did eat, Jesus 
 took bread," yet of the cup Paul and Luke 
 say, that Jesus took it " after supper ;" that 
 is, after they had done eating, therefore, 
 certainly, after Judas got the sop and went 
 away, at which instant they had not done 
 eating. Neither is there any ground at all, 
 Luke xxii. 17, to prove that he took the 
 cup during supper, as Mr Prynne conceiv- 
 eth, but findino- no streno-th herein, he add- 
 eth, that some learned men are of opinion, 
 that Christ had, that night, " first, his pas- 
 chal supper, at the close whereof he institu- 
 ted his own supper," 1 Cor xi. 21, 22; se- 
 condly, an ordinary supper, which succeeded 
 the institution of his own, in imitation where- 
 of the Corinthians and primitive Christians 
 had their love fea.sts, which they did eat im- 
 mediately after the Lord's supper ; and this 
 is more than intimated, John xiii. 2, 12 — 
 31, &c., therefore Luke's after supper, he 
 took the cup, must be meant only after the 
 paschal supper, not the other supper."' 
 
 Ans. I verily believe that, beside the pas- 
 chal and eucharistical suppers, Christ and 
 his disciples had, that night, a common or 
 ordinary supper, and so think Calvin and 
 Beza upon Matt. xxvi. 20 ; Parens upon 
 Matt. xxvi. 21 ; Fulk on 1 Cor. xi. 23 ; 
 Cartwright, Ibid., and in his Harmon^/, 
 lib. 3, p. 173 ; Pelai-gus in John xiii., quest. 
 2 ; Tossanus in Matt, xxvi ; Tolet and Mal- 
 donat upon John xiii. 2 ; Jansenius, Cone. 
 Evang., cap. 131 ; and divei'S others. I 
 am very glad that Mr Prynne grants it ; 
 and I approve his reason that, in the pas- 
 chal supper, we read of no sops, nor ought 
 to dip them in. The Jews, indeed, tell us 
 of a sauce in the passover, which they call 
 charoseth ; but, I suppose, Christ kept the 
 passover according to the law, and did not 
 tie himself to rites wliich had come in by 
 tradition. I could bring other reasons to 
 prove an ordinary supper, if it were here 
 necessary. But what gaineth Mr Prynne 
 hereby ? Surely he loscth much, as shall 
 appear afterwards. 
 
 2. Whereas, he thinks, the common sup- 
 per at which Christ did wash his disciple's 
 teet, and discover Judas, and give him the 
 
 1 Tertullian, Apolog. 
 
208 
 
 AARON S ROD BLOSSOMING, OR THE 
 
 sop, was after the sacrament, as I know not 
 those learned men that think as he doth 
 in this point, so it is more than he can prove. 
 The contrary hath been proved from Mat- 
 thew and Mark, who record that the dis- 
 course concerning Judas, was wliile they 
 were eating that supper which preceded the 
 sacrament ; so that the giving of the sop to 
 Judas must be before the sacrament. But 
 after the sacrament, both Matthew and Mark 
 do immediately add, " And when they had 
 sung an hymn, they went out into the Mount 
 of Olives." 
 
 3. As for that of the Corinthians, the 
 very place cited by himself maketh against 
 him, 1 Cor. xi. 21 ; for when they came to- 
 gether to eat the Lord's supper, eveiy one 
 did npoXa/j^cu'eiv first take his own supper, 
 and that in imitation of Christ, who gave the 
 sacrament after supper ; so Aquinas, Lyra, 
 and othei's, following Augustine. This tak- 
 ing first, or before, hath reference to the sa- 
 crament ; because it is spoken of every one 
 who came to the Lord's table, " Every one 
 taketh before his own supper," which made 
 such a disparity, that one was hungry, and 
 another drunken, at the sacrament, the poor 
 having too little, and the rich too much, at 
 their own supper.^ 
 
 4. The example of the ancient Christians 
 will help him as little. I find no such thing 
 in Tertullian's Apologetic, as the eating of 
 the love feasts immediately after the Lord's 
 supper. But I find both in the African 
 Canons^ and in Augustine,' and in Wala- 
 fridus Strabo,* that once in the year (and 
 oftener by divers) the sacrament was re- 
 ceived after the ordinai-y meat, for a com- 
 
 1 Magdeb., cent. 1, lib. 2, cap. 6, 384, edit. 1624.— 
 
 Apud Corinthios invaluerat ille abusus, ut ante coe- 
 nam Dominicam inter se coneeitarent ; et alii ibi 
 suas ccEnas instruerent et benepoti ccenam Domini 
 acciperent. 
 
 2 Cod. Canon. Eccl. Afric, can. 41. — Ut Sacra- 
 
 menta altaris non niisi a jejunis hominibus celebren- 
 tur, excepto uiio die anniversario, quo cCEna domi- 
 nica celebratur. 
 
 3 August., cpist. 118, cap. 7. — Sed nonnullos pro- 
 babilig quasdara ratio delectavit, ut uno certo die 
 per annum quo ipsam coeuam Dominus dedit, tan- 
 quam ad insigniorem commemorationem, post cibos 
 offerri et accipi liceat corpus et sanguinem Domini, 
 &c., hoc tamen non arbitror institutum, nisi quia 
 plures et prope omnes in plerisque locis eo die cce- 
 nare consueverunt. 
 
 4 Walafridus Strabo de Reb. Eccl., cap. 19.— Hoc 
 quoque commeraorandum videtur, quod ipsa sacra- 
 menta quidam interdura jejuni, interdum pransi per- 
 cepisse leguntur. He tells us out of Socrates that 
 the Egyptians, near Alexandria, as likewise those in 
 Thebais, did often take the sacrament after they had 
 eaten liberally. 
 
 memoration of that which Clirist did in the 
 night wherein he was betrayed. It had 
 been formerly in use among divers to take 
 the sacrament ordinarily after meat, till the 
 African Council discharged it, as Laurentius 
 de la Barre observeth in the notes upon 
 Tertullian, p. 339, Paris edit., 1580. Au- 
 gustine, epist. 118, cap. 5, 6, answereth cer- 
 tain queries of J anuarius, concerning eating 
 or not eating before the sacrament. He 
 saith that Christ did indeed give the sacra- 
 ment after supper, and that the Corinthians 
 did also take it after supper ; but that the 
 Scriptui'e hath not tied us to follow these 
 examples, but lel't us at liberty. And, upon 
 this ground, he defcndeth the church's cus- 
 tom at that time of taking the sacrament 
 fasting, for greater reverence to the ordin- 
 ance. But in this he speaks plainly, that 
 when Christ was eating with the disciples, 
 and telling them that one of them should 
 betray him, he had not then given the sa- 
 crament. With Augustine's judgment a- 
 greeth that epistle of Chrysostom, where, 
 answering an objection which had been 
 made against him, that he had given the 
 sacrament to some that were not fasting, he 
 denieth the fact, but addeth, if he had done 
 so it had been no sin, because Christ gave 
 the sacrament to the apostles after they had 
 supped. K.adeXeT(oaav uvtov rov kiipiot' os 
 fjiera to ieini ijrrat Ttjv koivun/inv ei^ioKe : Let 
 them depose (saith he) the Lord himself, 
 who gave the connnunion after supper. In 
 commemoration whereof the ancient church 
 (even when they received the sacrament 
 fasting at other times, yet) upon the passion 
 day, called Good Fi'iday, received it after 
 meals, as I proved before. And this I also 
 add by the way, that though Paul condemn- 
 eth the Corinthians for eating their love 
 feast in the church, yet he allows them to 
 eat at home before they come to the Lord's 
 table, as the Centurists, cent. 1, lib. 2, cap. 
 6, p. 384, prove from 1 Cor. xi. 34, " And 
 if any man hunger, let him eat at home ; 
 that ye come not together unto condem- 
 nation." Casaubon, exerc. 16, p. 367, edit. 
 Franco. 1615, thinks it was in imitation of 
 Christ's example that those Egyptians men- 
 tioned by Socrates did take the sacrament 
 at night, after they had liberally supped, 
 TTavToiwv ebeiT^aTbiv eftfopridivres : being 
 filled with all sorts of meats. 
 
 1 Cum sero factum esset, recumbebat cum duode- 
 cim, et manducantibus eis dixit, quoniam unus ex 
 vobis me tradet. Post euim tradidit sacramentum. 
 
209 
 
 I conclude, therefore, that when Luke 
 saith, " After supper he took the cup," the 
 meaning is, after both paschal and common 
 supper, and that there was no other eating 
 after the sacrament that night, and so, con- 
 sequently, the giving of the sop to Judas 
 nuist needs be before the sacrament ; and 
 his going out immediately alter the sop, 
 proves that he did not receive the saci-ament. 
 
 But Mr Prynne gives us a fourth answer, 
 which is the last (but a very weak) refuge. 
 The word " immediately (saith he), many 
 times, in our conunon speecli, signifieth soon 
 after, or not long after, as we usually say 
 we will do this or that immediately, instantly, 
 presently, whereas we moan only speedily, 
 within a short time." Ans. 1. Tliis is no 
 good report which Mr Prynne brings upon 
 the English tongue, that men promise to do 
 a thing immediately, when they do not mean 
 to do it immediateh/. I hope every con- 
 scientious man will be loath to say imme- 
 diately, except when he means immediate- 
 ly (for I know not how to explain imme- 
 diately, but by immediately) ; and for an 
 usual form of speaking, which is not accord- 
 ing to the rule of the word, it is a very bad 
 commentary to tlie language of the Holy 
 Ghost. 2. And if that form of speech be 
 usual in making of promises, yet I have 
 never known it usual in writing of histories, 
 to say that such a thing was done imme- 
 diately after such a thing, and yet divers 
 other things intervened between them. If, 
 between Judas's getting of the sop and his 
 going out, did intervene the instituting of 
 the sacrament, the taking, blessing, break- 
 ing, distributing, and eating of the bread ; 
 also the taking and giving of the cup, and 
 their dividing it among themselves, and 
 drinking all of it ; how can it then be a true 
 narration that Judas went out immediately 
 after his receiving of the sop ? 3. Neither 
 is it likely that Satan would suffer Judas to 
 stay any space after he was once discovered, 
 lest the company and conference of Clirist 
 and his apostles should take him off from 
 his wicked purpose. 4. Gerhardus having, in 
 his Common Places, given that answer, that 
 the word immediately may suffer this sense, 
 that shortly thereafter Judas went forth, he 
 doth professedly recal that answer in his 
 Continuation of the Harmony, cap. 171, 
 p. 453, and that upon this ground, because 
 Judas being mightily irritated and exaspe- 
 rated, both by the sop and by Christ's an- 
 swer (for when Judas asked, " Is it I ?" 
 
 Christ answered, " Thou hast said"), would 
 certainly break away abruptly, and very im- 
 mediately. So much of the first argument. 
 
 The second argument (which I also touch- 
 ed in my sermon) was this: As Christ said 
 to the communicants, " Drink ye all of it," 
 Matt. xxvi. 27 ; " And they all drank," 
 Matt. xiv. 23 ; so he saith to them all, 
 " This is my body which is broken for you ; 
 this is the cup of the new covenant in my 
 blood, which is shed for you," Luke xxii, 
 19, 20. But if Judas had been one of the 
 communicants, it is not credible that Christ 
 would have said so in reference to him as 
 well as to the other apostles. This argu- 
 ment Mr Prynne, p. 25, doth quite mis- 
 take, as if the strength of it lay in a sup- 
 posed particular application of the words of 
 the institution to each communicant, which 
 I never meant, but dislike it as much as he. 
 The words were directed to all, in the plu- 
 ral, " This is my body broken for you, &c. ; 
 my blood shed for you," &c. Mr Prynne 
 conceives that it might have been said to 
 Judas, being meant by Ciu-ist, " only condi- 
 tionally, that his body was broken, and his 
 blood was shed for him, if he would really 
 receive them by faith." Jonas Schlichtin- 
 gius, a Socinian, in his book against Meis- 
 nerus, p. 803, though he supposeth, as Mr 
 Prynne doth, that Judas was present at the 
 giving of the sacrament, yet he holds that it 
 is not to be imagined that Christ would have 
 said to Judas, that his body was broken for 
 him. And shall we then, who believe that 
 the death of Jesus Christ was a satisfaction 
 to the justice of God for sin (which the So- 
 cinians believe not), admit that Christ meant 
 to comprehend Judas among others, when 
 he said, " This is my body which is broken 
 for you ?" 
 
 Ministers do, indeed, offer Christ to all, 
 upon condition of believing, being command- 
 ed to preach the gospel to every creature, 
 and )iot knowing who are reprobates ; but 
 that Christ himself (knowing that the son of 
 perdition was now lost, that the Scripture 
 might be fulfilled, John xvii. 12) would, in 
 the sacrament (which is more applicative 
 than the word, and particulariseth the pro- 
 mises to the receivers), so speak, as that, in 
 any sense, those words might be applied to 
 Judas, that even for him, his body was 
 broken and his Ijlood shed ; and that, there- 
 upon, the seals should be given him, to me 
 is not at all credible, and 1 prove the nega- 
 tive by four arguments (though I might give 
 
 2D ' 
 
210 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 many more) : 1. If Christ did, in refer- 
 ence to Judas, mean conditionally that his 
 body was broken, and his blood shed for 
 him, if he would believe (as Mr Prynne 
 holds), then he meant conditionally to save 
 the son of perdition, whom he knew infalli- 
 bly to be lost, and that he should be cer- 
 tainly dannicd and go to hell, and that, in 
 eating the saci'ament, he would certainly eat 
 and drink judgment to himself (all which 
 Mr Prynne himself, p. 26, saith Christ in- 
 i'allibly knew). But who dare think or say 
 so of Jesus Christ? Suppose a minister 
 knew infallibly that such an one hath blas- 
 phemed against the Holy Ghost (which sin 
 the Centurists and others think to have been 
 committed by Judas, which could not be hid 
 i'rom Christ), and is irrecoverably lost, and 
 will be most certainly damned, durst that 
 minister admit that person to the sacrament, 
 and make those words ap^jlicable to him so 
 much as conditionally, " This is the Lord's 
 body broken for you ; this is the blood of 
 the new covenant shed for you unto remis- 
 sion of sins ?" How much less would Christ 
 himself say so, or mean so, in reference to 
 Judas ? 
 
 2. If Christ would not pray for Judas, 
 but for his elect apostles only, and such as 
 should believe through the woi-d of the gos- 
 pel, then he meant not so much as condi- 
 tionally to give his body and blood for Ju- 
 das (for if he meant any good to Judas, so 
 much as conditionally, he would not have 
 
 j excluded him from having any part at all in 
 I his prayers to God). But Christ doth ex- 
 clude Judas from his prayer, John xvii., not 
 only as one of the reprobate world, ver. 9, 
 but even by name, ver. 12, giving him over 
 for lost, and one that was not to be prayed 
 for. 
 
 3. Love and hatred in God, and in his 
 Son Jesus Christ, being eternal and un- 
 changeable (for actus Dei immanentes sunt 
 ceterHi), it followeth that if there was such 
 a decree of God, or any such meaning or in- 
 tention in Christ, as to give his body and 
 blood for Judas, whom he knew infallibly to 
 be lost, and since that same conditional 
 meaning or intention could not be without 
 a conditional love of God and of Christ to 
 Judas and his salvation, this love doth still 
 continue in God, and in Christ, to save Ju- 
 das now in hell, upon condition of his believ- 
 ing, which every Christian I think will abo- 
 minate. 
 
 4. That conditional love and conditional 
 
 intention or meaning, could not have place 
 in the Son of God. For as Spanhemius 
 doth rightly argue in his learned exercita- 
 tions, de Gratia Universali, p. 746, it doth 
 not become either the wisdom or goodness 
 of God to will and intend a thing upon such 
 a condition a.s neither is nor can be. And 
 p. 829, he saith, that this conditional desti- 
 nation or intention cannot be conceived, as 
 being incident only to such as do neither 
 foreknow nor direct and order the event, 
 and in whose hand it is not to give the fa- 
 culty and will of performing the thing, 
 which cannot without impiety be thought or 
 said of God. Thus he. 
 
 The third argument (which I shall now 
 add) is that whereby Hilarius, can. 30, in 
 Matt., and Innocentius III. lib. 4, de Mys- 
 terio Miss. cap. 13, prove that Judas re- 
 ceived not the sacrament, neither was pre- 
 sent at the receiving of it : because that 
 night while Judas was present, Christ in his 
 gracious and comfortable expressions to his 
 apostles did make an exception, as John xiii. 
 10, 11, " Ye are clean, but not all; for he 
 knew who should betray him, therefore said 
 he. Ye are not all clean;" ver. 18, "I speak 
 not of you all, I know whom I have chosen ;" 
 so ver. 21, even as before ; John vi. 70, 
 " Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of 
 you is a devil." But at the sacrament all his 
 sweet and gracious speeches are without any 
 such exception, " This is my body which is 
 given for you," &c. Yea he saith positively 
 of all the apostles to whom he gave the sa- 
 crament, " I will not drink henceforth of 
 this fruit of the vine, until that day when I 
 drink it new ivith yon in my Father's king- 
 dom," Matt. xxvi. 29, and this he saith 
 unto them all, as it is clear from ver. 27, 
 " Drink ye all of it." Again, Luke xxii. 
 28 — 30, " Ye are they which have con- 
 tinued with me in my temptations ; and I 
 appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father 
 hath appouited unto me ; that ye may eat 
 and drink at my table in my kingdom, and 
 sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of 
 Israel." Would not Christ much more have 
 excepted Judas in these expressions, if he 
 had been present, seeing he had so often ex- 
 cepted him before ? 
 
 As for Mr Prynne's reasons from Scrip- 
 ture to prove that Judas did receive the sa- 
 crament, they are exti'emely inconclusive. 
 First, he saith that Matthew, Mark and 
 Luke, are all express in terminis, that 
 Christ sat down to eat the passover, and the 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 211 
 
 twelve apostles with him ; that Judas was 
 one of those twelve, and present at the ta- 
 ble ; that as they sat at meat togethei', Je- 
 sus took bread, &c., that he said of the cup, 
 Drink ye all of it ; and Mark saith they all 
 drank of it. 
 
 Ans. 1. The three evangelists are all ex- 
 press in terminis, that when even was come, 
 Christ sat down with the twelve, as likewise 
 that the twelve did eat with him that night; 
 but that the twelve apostles were with him 
 in the eating of the passover, they are not 
 express in terminis, and I have some rea- 
 sons which move me to think that Judas 
 did not eat so much as of the passover that 
 night; whereof in the proper place. 2. And 
 if he had been at the passover, that proves 
 not he was at the Lord's supper. When 
 Christ took the cup and said, " Drink ye all 
 of it," it was after supper, that is, after the 
 paschal supper, as Mr Pi'ynne himself gives 
 the sense. 3. When Mark saith, " They all 
 drank of it," he means all that were present, 
 but Judas was gone forth. His argument 
 supposeth that Judas was present, which be- 
 ing before disproved, there remains no more 
 strength nor life in his argument. 
 
 That which he addeth p. 18, 19, if it 
 have either strength or good sense, I con- 
 fess the dullness of my conception. He would 
 prove from Matthew and Mark, that im- 
 mediately before the institution of the sacra- 
 ment, Christ told his disciples that one of 
 them should betray him, and they all asked, 
 " Is it I ?" and that therefore certainly the 
 sacrament was given to Judas, because he 
 was the last man that said " Is it I ?" im- 
 mediately before the institution. And fur- 
 ther (saith he) Luke placeth these words of 
 Christ concerning Judas's betraying of him, 
 after the institution, which manifesteth that 
 Judas was present at the sacrament. His 
 inference is this, that seeing John avereth, 
 chap. xiii. 2, that all this discoui-se, and the 
 giving of the sop to Judas, was after supper, 
 and the other three evangelists agreeing 
 that Christ instituted and distributed the 
 sacrament, as they did eat, before supper 
 quite ended, it must follow that Judas did 
 receive the sacrament. 
 
 Ans. 1. But how doth this hang together: 
 1. To argue that Judas received the sacra- 
 ment, because Christ's discourse concerning 
 Judas and Judas's question, " Is it I ?" 
 were immediately before the institution of 
 the sacrament ; and again to prove that 
 Judas did receive the sacrament, because 
 
 Christ's discourse about Judas was after 
 supper ended, and after the sacrament, 
 which was instituted before supper ended ? 
 the one way of ai'guing destroyeth the other. 
 
 2. For that in Matthew and Mark, that 
 Christ discoursed of the traitor, and that 
 Judas said " Is it I ?" before the institution 
 of the sacrament, I confess ; but that it was 
 immediately before the institution of the sa- 
 crament the evangelists do not say, neither 
 doth he pi'ove it. Judas went out after that 
 discourse and the sop, and how much of the 
 consolatory and valedictory sermon (which 
 beginneth John xiii. 31) was spent before 
 the distribution of the sacrament, who is so 
 wise as to know ? 3. For that in Luke, I 
 have proved that though he sets down the 
 things, yet not in that order whei'ein they 
 were done ; which is also the opinion of 
 Grotius upon that place. And for that, Jolin j 
 xiii. 2, " Supper being ended," I have an- j 
 swered before. [ 
 
 Shall we, in the next place, have a heap 
 of human testimonies concerning Judas's re- 
 ceiving of the sacrament? I see so much 
 light ti'om the Scripture to the contrary, 
 that I shall not be easily shaken with the 
 authority of men ; yet it shall not be amiss 
 a little to try whether it be altogether so 
 as he would make us believe. He saith we 
 go "against all antiquity," p. 18, and against 
 the most and best of Protestant writers, p. 
 23 ; yea, that all ages have received it as 
 an indubitable verity, that Judas received 
 the sacrament, p. 19. No, Sir, soft a httle. 
 The truth is, the thing hath been very much 
 controverted, both among the fathers, and 
 among Papists, and among Protestant wri- 
 ters. I have found none so unanimous for 
 Judas's receiving of the sacrament as the 
 Lutherans, endeavouring thereby to prove 
 that the wicked hypocrites and unbelievers 
 do, in the sacrament, eat the true body of 
 Christ, and drink his true blood ;i yet (as hot 
 as they are upon it) they acknowledge it is 
 no indubitable veriti/, they cite authorities 
 against it as well as for it. See Gerliardus, 
 Harm. Evang., cap. 171; Brochmand, tom. 
 
 3, p. 2082. Neither do the Lutherans make 
 any such use of Judas's receiving of tlie sa- 
 crament, as Mr Prynne doth ; for they hold, 
 that not only excommunicated persons, but 
 scandalous and notorious sinners, not yet ex- 
 communicated, ought to be kept back from 
 
 1 Gerliardus, Loc. Cora., tom. 5, p. 186,187 ; Pet- 
 rus Hiiickelmannus de Anabaptismo, disp. 5, cap. 2. 
 
212 
 
 the Lord's table ; see Gerhardus, Loc. Com., 
 torn. 5, 180 — 182, M'here he proves dis- 
 tinctly, that all these ought to be excluded 
 from the Lord's supper : 1. Heretics. 2. 
 Notorious scandalous sinners, 3. Excom- 
 municated persons. 4. Possessed persons, 
 furious persons, and idiots. 6. Infamous 
 persons, who use unlawful arts, as magicians, 
 necromancers, &c.; and, for the exclusion of 
 scandalous sinners, he citeth the ecclesiastical 
 electoral constitutions. Luc. Osiander, En- 
 chir. contra Anabap., cap. 6, quest. 3, tells 
 us, that the Lutheran churches exclude all 
 known scandalous persons i'rom the sacra- 
 ment. But it is strangest to me that Mr 
 Prynne will not give credit to some of the 
 testimonies cited by himself. Theophylact, 
 in Matt, xxvi., saith, Quidam autem di- 
 cunt quod egresso Jzida, tradidit sacra- 
 mentum aliis discipulis, proinde et nos 
 sic facere debemus, et malos d sacra- 
 mentis abarcere. Idem in Mark xiv., Qui- 
 dam dicunt (but who they were appears 
 not, saith Mr Prynne, in any extant work 
 of theirs) Judam non ftdsse participem 
 sacramentorum, sed egressum esse prius- 
 quam dominus sacramenta traderet. Shall 
 we take this upon Mr Prymie's credit, that 
 it doth not appear in any extant work of 
 theirs ? Nay, let him take better heed what 
 he saith, and whereof he affirmeth. In the 
 next page he himself excepteth one, which 
 is Hilarius ; but except him only, he saith 
 that all the ancients unanimously accord 
 herein, without one dissenting voice. But 
 see, now, whether all is to be believed that 
 Mr Prynne gives great words for. It is 
 well that he confesseth we have Hilarius for 
 us. First, therefore, let the words of Hilai ius 
 be observed ;^ next, I will prove what he 
 denieth, namely, that others of the ancients 
 were of the same opinion. 
 
 Clemens, lib. 5, Constit. Apost., cap. 13, 
 after mention of the paschal or typical sup- 
 per, addeth these words as of the apostles, 
 irapahoiis be ii/J-lf to. avTiTvira fxyarhpiu tov 
 Ti^iiov awfxuTOS avrov Koi aifAaros, 'loiiha fii/ 
 avfiTrapot ros i}fjuv : But when he had de- 
 livered to us the antitype mysteries (so call- 
 ed in reference to the paschal supper) of his 
 precious body and blood, Judas not beuig 
 
 1 Hilarius, can. 30, in Matt. — Post quse Judas 
 proditor indicatur, sine quo pasclia accepto ealice 
 et fracto pane conficitur : dignus eniin asternorum 
 sacramentorum coramunione non fuerat, &c. Neque 
 sane bibere cum co poterat, qui non erat bibeturus 
 iu regno. 
 
 present with us. I do not own these eight 
 books of the apostolical constitutions as writ- 
 ten by that Clemens who was Paul's fellow- 
 labourer, Phil, iv., yet certainly they are an- 
 cient, as is universally acknowledged. Dio- 
 nysius Areopagita (or whosoever he was that 
 anciently wrote under that name), de Eccle- 
 siastica Hierarchia, cap. 3, part 3, sect. 1, 
 speaking of the sam.e bread and the same 
 cup, whereof all the communicants are par- 
 takers, he saith that this teacheth them a 
 divine conformity of manners, and withal j 
 calls to mind Christ's supper in the night | 
 when he was betrayed, Kad' b icai nvros o \ 
 tGjv avfi€6\u)v br]fii<jvpy6s, diroKXripoi hiKaio- 
 TUTa TOV ()V)(^ oaims avTto koi bfJiOTpoirws to. 
 Ifpa avi'heinvriaavTa. In qua cosna : so 
 Ambrose the monk, in his Latin translation ; 
 and Judocus Clichtoveus in his Commentary: 
 In which supper (for ica0' 6 relates to to helir- 
 rov, the supper before mentioned, and sig- 
 nifieth the time of supper, or after supper 
 was begun ; so the Grecians use to say Kara 
 Tu>v vvaot' to signify in the time of sickness) 
 " the author himself of those symbols doth 
 most justly deprive or cast out him (Judas) 
 who had not holily, and with agreement of 
 mind, supped together with him upon holy 
 things." By those holy things he under- 
 stands (it should seem) the typical or pas- 
 chal supper, of which Judas had eaten be- j 
 fore, and peradventure that night also, in the 
 opinion of this ancient. Judocus Clichtoveus, i 
 in his Commentary, saith only, that Judas ; 
 did that night eat together with Christ ci- ! 
 bum, meat, he saith not sacramentum. This | 
 ancient writer is also of opinion, that Christ 
 did excommunicate Judas, or as Clichto- \ 
 veus expounds him, a ccetcrorum discipulo- \ 
 rum coetu aiquissime separavit, discrevit ■ 
 et dispescuit. If you think not this clear j ' 
 enough, hear the ancient scholiast Maxi- 
 mus, to whom the Centurists give the testi- 
 mony of a most learned and most holy man. 
 He flourished in the seventh century under 
 Constance ; he was a chief opposer of the 
 Monothelites, and afterwards a martyr. His 
 scltoUa upon that place of Dionysius, mak- j 
 eth this inference, "Ort fxera to e^eXOely tov j 
 lov^ai' ex TOV beiirvov, TrapebioKev 6 Xpisros | 
 Toli fjadt]Ta7s TO fivarripiov : That after Ju- | 
 das had gone forth from supper, Christ gave | 
 the mystery to his disciples. Again, Kal ati- j 
 jxeiwaai, on Kal avrui fjierebuKe tov pvoriKOv | 
 npTtiV Ka\ TOV ■KOTTjpiuv, TO. hk fivtTTiipta Tols ' 
 I midijTuls fxeTU TO elfXOeli' tov beiniov tov 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 213 
 
 'lovbay, ws aval^iov tovtuv ovto% avTOu : 
 Where note, that to him also (that is, to 
 Judas) he (Christ) gave of a mystical bread 
 (meaning the unleavened bread of the pass- 
 over) and cup (meaning the cup drunk at 
 the paschal supper), but the mysteries (that 
 is, the eucharistical bread and cup, common- 
 ly called the mysteries by ancient writers) he 
 gave to his disciples after Judas went forth 
 from supper, as it were, because Judas him- 
 self was unwoi'thy of these mysteries. 
 
 Add hereunto the testimony of Georgius 
 Pachymeres, who lived in the thirteenth cen- 
 tury. In his Paraphrase upon that same 
 place of Dionysius, he saitli that Christ him- 
 self, the author and iiastitutor of this sacra- 
 ment, atroKXripul kol eTTubtaoTeWei biKato- 
 rara tou ov^ offiu>s avibenri'rjfyai'Ta 'lovbav, 
 (Cat dird) yap tov fivariKov aprov Kai tov 
 irorijiHov fxerabovs, to. fivcrri'ipia fiovtns rots 
 fiadi)Tais, fjeTO. to eleXdilv CKeivov eK roii 
 beiTTtou, napebwKei , u)s availov TOvrwv oitos 
 TOV 'lovba : Christ doth cast out and separate, 
 or excommunicate most justly, Judas, who 
 had not holily supped together with him. 
 For having given to him also of a mystical 
 bread and cup, he gave the mysteries to the 
 disciples alone, after he went forth from 
 supper, thereby, as it were, showing that 
 Judas was unworthy of these mysteries. 
 
 By the mysteries which Maximus and 
 Pachymeres speak of, and which, they say, 
 Christ gave to his disciples after Judas was 
 gone forth, I can understand nothing but 
 the eucharistical supper, the elements where- 
 of are very frequently called the mysteries 
 by the ancients, as hath been said. And if 
 any man shall understand by these myste- 
 ries the inward graces or thinos simified in 
 the Lord's supper, then what sense can there 
 be in that which Maximus and Pachymeres 
 say ? for Christ could as easily keep back 
 from Judas, and give to his other disciples, 
 those graces and operations of his Spirit, 
 when Judas was present among them, as 
 when he was cast out. So that it could not 
 be said that Clirist did cast out Judas in 
 order to the restraining from him, and giv- 
 ing to the other disciples, the invisible in- 
 ward gi'ace signified in the sacrament, as if 
 the other apostles had not received that 
 grace at the receiving of the sacrament, but 
 that Judas must first be cast out, before 
 they could receive it ; or as if Judas had 
 received the inward gi-ace, if he had not 
 gone out from supper. The sense must 
 therefore be this, that Judas, as an unwor- 
 
 thy person, was cast out by Christ, before he 
 thought fit to give the sacrament of his sup- 
 per unto his other apostles. 
 
 Unto all these testimonies add Ammonius 
 Alexandrinus, de Quatuor Evangelioram 
 Consonantia, cap. 155, where he hath the 
 story of Judas's receiving of the sop, and his 
 going forth immediately after he had re- 
 ceived it; thereafter, cap. 156, he addeth 
 the institution and distribution of the Lord's 
 supper, as being, in order, posterior to Ju- 
 das's going forth. So likewise before him, 
 Tacianus doth make the history of the insti- 
 tution of the sacrament to follow after the 
 excluding of Judas from the company of 
 Christ and his apostles, which neither of 
 them had done, if they had not believed 
 that Judas was gone before the sacrament. 
 With all these agreeth Innocentius 
 who holdeth expressly that the sacrament 
 was not given till Judas had gone forth ; 
 and that tliere is a recapitulation in the nar- 
 ration of Luke. Moreover, as it is evident 
 by the fore-mentioned testimonies of Theo- 
 phylact, that some of the ancients did hold 
 that Christ gave not the sacrament to Ju- 
 das ; so also the testimony cited by Mr 
 Prynne out of Victor Antiochenus beareth 
 witness to the same thing : Sunt tamen qui 
 Judam ante porrectam eucharistice sacra- 
 ■mentum exivisse existiment : But yet, saith 
 he, there are who conceive that Judas went 
 forth before the sacrament of the eucliarist 
 was given. And with these words Mr 
 Prynne closeth his citation out of Victor 
 Antiochenus ; but I will proceed where he 
 left off. The very next words are these, 
 Sane Johannes quiddam cjusmodi suhin- 
 dicare videtur : Certainly John seemeth to 
 intimate some such thing. Which is more 
 than half a consenting wit h those who think 
 that Judas went forth before the sacrament 
 of the Lord's supper. I shall end with two 
 testimonies of llupertus Tuitiensis, one- upon 
 
 1 Lib. 4, de Mystcr. Missse, cap. 13. — Patet ergo 
 quod Judas prius exiit quani Cljristus traderet eu- 
 charistiam. Quod autein Lucas post calicera com- 
 raemorat traditerem, per recapitulationem potest 
 intelligi: Quia saepe fit iu Scriptura ut quod prius 
 factum fuerat postcrius enarretur. Tliat whole 
 cliapter is spent in tUc debating of tliis question. 
 
 2 In John vi. de participatione autem corporis ct 
 sanguinis ejus, potest aliquis opinari quod ille (Ju- 
 das) interfuerit. Sed profecto diligentius evangcl- 
 istarum narratione, doctorumque considerata diver- 
 sitate, citius deprehendi, huic quoque Sacramento 
 ilium nequaquam interfuisse. Nam cum acccpisset 
 buccellam, qua traditor designatus est, exivit cou- 
 tiuuo. 
 
214 
 
 John vi. ; another upon John xiii.^ The 
 Latter of the two speaketh thus, being Eng- 
 lished : " But we must know that, as it hath 
 been also said before us, if Judas, after the 
 sop, did go forth immediately, as, a little 
 after, the Evangelist saith, without doubt, 
 he was not present with the disciples at that 
 time, when our Loi'd did distribute unto 
 them the sacrament of his own body and 
 blood." And a little after : " Therefore, by 
 the Lord's example, the good ought, indeed, 
 to tolerate the bad in the church, until, 'by 
 the fan of judgment, the gram be separated 
 from the chaff', or the tares from the wheat ; 
 but yet patience must not be so far void of 
 discerning, as that they should give the most 
 sacred mysteries of Christ to unworthy per- 
 sons, whom they knew to be such." 
 
 As for modern writers, this present ques- 
 tion hath been debated by Salmeron, tom. 
 9, tract. 11, and by Dr Kellet in his Tri- 
 cceniiim, lib. 2, cap. 14. Both of them hold 
 that Judas did not receive the Lord's sup- 
 per. Mariana on Luke xxii. 21, citeth au- 
 thors for both opinions, and rejecteth nei- 
 ther ; Gerhardus, Harm. Evaiuj., cap. 171, 
 citeth for the same opinion, that Judas did 
 not receive the Lord's supper (beside Sal- 
 meron), Turrianus and Barradius ; and of 
 ours, Danaeus, Musculus, Kleinwitzius, Pis- 
 cator, et alii complures, saith he, and many 
 others. 
 
 Add also Zancliius upon the fourth com- 
 mand. Gomarus (who professedly handleth 
 this question), upon John xiii. Beza puts it 
 out of question ;2 and Tossanus^ tells us it is 
 the judgment of many learned men, as well 
 as his own.* Musculus, follpwing Bupertus, 
 concludetli that certainly Judas was gone 
 
 1 Rupertus Tuitiensis in John xiii. — Sciendum 
 vero est, quia, sicut et ante nos dictum est, si post 
 buccellum continuo Judas cxivit, sicut paulo post 
 cvangclistadicit, procul dubio nequaquam discipulis 
 tunc interfiiit, quando Domiuus nostor sacranientum 
 illig corporis et sanguinis sui distribuit. Et paulo 
 post. — Igitur exemplo Domini, tolerare quideni ma- 
 los boni debent in ecclesia, donee ventilabro judicii 
 granum a palca, vol a tritico separentur zizania : 
 verumtamen non eo usque iudiscreta debet esse pa- 
 tientia, ut indignis, quos noverunt, sacrosancta 
 Cliristi tradaut niystcria. 
 
 2 Beza in John xiii. 30. — Certa videtnr esse eornm 
 senteiitia qui existiraant Judam institutioni sacrae 
 coenae non interfuisse. 
 
 3 Tossanus in Joliu xiii. — Ita ut Jud:E quidem la- 
 verit pedes Cliristus, sed postea egressus coenae sa- 
 cramentali non interfuerit, sicut eruditl raulti ex 
 hoc capitc colligunt. 
 
 4 Musculus In loc. Cora, de CcEna Dom., p. 352. — 
 Mihi sane dubium non est, egressum ad perfiden- 
 dum traditionis scelus fuisse .ludam, priusquam sa- 
 cramentum hoc a Doiniuo discipulis ti aderelur. 
 
 forth before Christ gave the sacrament to his I 
 apostles ;i so likewise Diodati and Grotius.^ 
 
 By this time it appeareth that Mr Prynne 
 hath no such consent of writers of his opin- 
 ion, or against mine, as he pretendetli. 
 
 As for those ancients cited by Mr Prynne, 
 some of them (as Origen and Cyril) did go 
 upon this great mistake, that the sop which 
 Christ gave to Judas was the sacrament ; 
 which error of theirs is observed by intei*- 
 preters upon the place. No marvel that they 
 who thought so, were also of opinion that 
 Judas received the saci'ament of the Lord's 
 supper ; for how could they choose to think 
 otherwise upon that supposition ? But now 
 the latter interpreters, yea Mr Pi-ynne him- 
 self, having taken away that which was the 
 ground of their opinion, their testimonies 
 will vveigh the less in this particular. Chry- 
 sostom thinks indeed that Judas received 
 the sacrament, but he takes it to l)e no war- 
 rant at all for the admission of scandalous 
 persons; for in one and the same homily, hom. 
 83, in Matt, he both tells us of Judas's receiv- | 
 ing of the sacrament and discourseth at large 
 against the admission of scandalous persons. ' 
 As for Bernard, Mr Prynne doth not cite | 
 his words nor quote the place. Oecunienius i 
 (in the pa.ssage cited by Mr Prynne) saith 
 that the other apostles and Judas did eat 
 together communi mensa, at a common ta- 
 ble ; but he saith not " at the sacrament of 
 the Loi'd's supper." That which Oecunie- 
 nius in that place argueth against, is the 
 contempt of the poor in the church of Cor- 
 inth, and the secluding of them from the 
 love-feasts of the richer sort. Now, saith he, 
 if Christ himself admitted Judas to eat at 
 one and the same table with his other dis- I 
 ciples, ought not we much more admit the 
 poor to cat at our tables ? Mr Prynne tells 
 us also that Nazianzen, in his Christus Pa- 
 ttens, agreeth that Judas did receive the 
 Lord's supper together with the other apos- 
 tles. I answer, first, I find no such thing 
 in that place ; next, those verses so entitled ; 
 are thought to be done by some late author, 
 and not by Nazianzen, as J. Newenklaius, in | 
 
 1 Diodati upon John xiii. 30. — "We may gather 
 from hence that he (Judas) did not communicate of 
 our Saviour's sacrament." 
 
 2 Grotius, Annot. in Matt. xxvi. 21, 26 ; Luke xxii. 
 21 ; John xiii., holds the supper at which the sop was 
 giveu to Judas, and from which he went forth, was 
 the common supper, and that it was before the 
 Lord's supper, and that Luke doth not place 
 Christ's words concerniug Judas, Luke xxii. 21, in 
 tlie proper place. 
 
DIVIJTE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 215 
 
 his censure upon them, noteth, and giveth 
 reason for it. Cyprian's sermon de ahlutione 
 I pedum, as it is doubted of whether it be 
 i Cyprian's, so the words cited by Mr Piynne 
 do not prove the point in controversy. The 
 1 other testimony cited out of Cyprian's ser- 
 i mon de coena Dorniyii, as it is not tran- 
 I scribed according to the original, so if Mr 
 Prynne had read all which Cyprian saith in 
 that sermon against unworthy receivers, 
 peradventure he had not made use of that 
 testimony. The words cited out of Ambrose 
 do not hold forth clearly Judas's receiving 
 of the eucharistical supper. The words ci- 
 ted out of Augustine, epist. 162, Judas ac- 
 cepit pretium nostrum, are not there to be 
 found, though there be something to that 
 sense. It is no safe way of citations to 
 change the words of authors. This by the 
 way. As for his other three citations out of 
 Augustine, tract 6, 26, 62, in John, I can- 
 not pass them without two animadversions. 
 First, The greatest part of those words 
 which he citeth as Augustine's words, and 
 also as recited by Beda in his commentary 
 on 1 Cor. xi. is not to be found either in 
 Augustine or Beda in the places by him ci- 
 ted ; viz. these words: Tcdis erat Judas, 
 et tamen cum Sanctis discipidis undecim 
 intrabat et exibat. Ad ipsam coenam Do- 
 minicam pariter accessit, conversari cum 
 Us potuit, cos inquinare non potuit : De 
 uno pane et Petrus accipit et J udas ; et 
 tamen quce pars Jideli et infideli? Petrus 
 enim accepit ad vitam, manducat Judas 
 ad mortem : qui enim comederunt indigne 
 judicium sihi manducat et bibit siBi, non 
 TiBi, &c. Of which last sentence if Mr 
 Prynne can make good Latin, let him do it 
 (for I cannot), and when he hath done so, he 
 may be pleased to look over his books better 
 to seek those words elsewhere if he can find 
 them, for as yet he hath directed us to seek 
 them where they are not. My next anim- 
 adversion shall be this. The words of Au- 
 gustuie which Mr Prynne allegeth for Ju- 
 das's receiving of the sacrament, are these, 
 tract 6, in John : Num enim mala erat 
 buccella qua: tradita est J udce d Domino ? 
 Absit. Medicus non daret venenum; salu- 
 tem medicus dedit, sed indigne accipiendo 
 ad perniciem accepit, quia non pacatus 
 accepit. Thus the original, though not so 
 recited by Mr Prynne ; but that I pass, so 
 long as he retains the substance. Yet how 
 will he conclude from these words that Ju- 
 das received the sacrament of the Lord's 
 
 supper, unless he make Augustine to con- 
 tradict himself most grossly ; for tract 62, 
 in John (another place whither Mr Pi'ynne 
 directeth us), speaking of Christ's giving of 
 that buccella or sop to Judas, he saith, Non 
 autem ut putant quidam negligenter le- 
 gentes, tunc Judas Christi corpus accepit: 
 But Judas did not at that time receive the 
 body of Christ, as some negligently reading 
 do think. Which words Beda also in his 
 comment on John xiii. hath out of Augus- 
 tine. It is Augustine's opinion that the sa- 
 crament was given before that time, at 
 which Judas was present. That which Mr 
 Prynne citeth out of Algerus (a monk, who 
 in that same book writeth expressly for 
 transubstantiation) maketh moi'e against him 
 than for him ; for Algei'us takes the reason 
 of Christ's giving the sacrament to Judas, to 
 be this, because his perverse conscience, 
 though known to Christ, was not then made 
 manifest, Judas not being accused and con- 
 demned, so that he was a secret, not a scan- 
 dalous sinner. Thus far we have a taste of 
 Mr Prynne's citations of the ancients ; per- 
 adventure it were not hard to find as great 
 flaws in some other of those citations. But 
 it is not worth the while to stay so long 
 upon it. Among the rest he citeth Haymo, 
 bishop of Halberstat, for Judas's receiving of 
 the sacrament ; but he may also be pleased 
 to take notice that Haymo would have no 
 notoi'ious scandalous sinner to receive the 
 sacrament, and holds that a man eats and 
 drinks unworthily qui gravioribus crimini- 
 bus commaculatus prcesumit illud (^sacra- 
 mentum) sumere : that is, who being defiled 
 with heinous crimes presumeth to take the 
 sacrament ; but if he had thought it (as Mr 
 Prynne doth) the most effectual ordinance, 
 and readiest means to work conversion and 
 repentance, he could not have said so. 
 That which Mr Prynne, p. 23, citeth out 
 of the two Confessions of Bohemia and 
 Belgia, doth not assert that for which he 
 citeth them ; for neither of them saith that 
 Judas did receive the sacrament of the 
 Lord's supper. The Belgic Confession 
 saith an evil man may receive the sacra- 
 ment unto his own condemnation : " As for 
 example, Judas and Simon Magus both of 
 them did receive the sacramental sign." I 
 can subscribe to all this ; for it is true in re- 
 spect of the baptism both of Judas and 
 Simon Magus. But I must here put Mr 
 Prynne in mind, that the thing which he 
 pleads for is extremely different from that 
 
216 
 
 j which the Belgic churches hold. For Har- 
 ; monia Synoclorum Bchjicarum, cap. 13, 
 saith thus, Nemo ad Coenam domhdcam 
 adniittatur, nisi qui jidei confessionem 
 ante reddiderit, et discipline ecclesias- 
 ticce se subjecerit, et vita; inculpatce testes 
 fideles produxerit : Let no man be admit- 
 ted to the Lord's supper, except he who 
 hath first made a confession of his fiiith, and 
 hath subjected himself to the church dis- 
 cipline, and hath proved himself by faith- 
 ful witnesses to be of an unblameable life. 
 The other Confession of Bohemia, saith that 
 " Judas received the sacrament of the Lord 
 Christ himself, did also execute the function 
 of a preacher, and yet he ceased not to 
 remain a devil, an hypocrite," &c. This 
 needeth not be expounded of the Lord's 
 supper (which if he had received, how did 
 he still remain an hypocrite"? for that very 
 night his wickedness did break forth and 
 was put in execution), but of the passover, 
 received by Judas once and again, if not the 
 third time. That chapter is of sacraments 
 in general, and that which is added, is con- 
 cerning Ananias and his wife, being bap- 
 tized of the apostles. However the very 
 same chapter saith that ministers must 
 thoroughly look to it, and take diligent heed 
 lest they give holy things to dogs, or cast 
 pearls before swine ; which is there applied 
 to the sacraments, and is not understood of 
 preaching and admonishing, only as Mr 
 Prynne understands it. Also the book en- 
 titled Ratio DiscipUncB Ordinisque Eccle- 
 siastici in Unitate Fratrum Bohemorum, 
 cap. 7, appointeth not only chm'ch discipline 
 in general, but particularly suspension from 
 the Lord's table of obstinate offenders. 
 Finally, whereas Mr Prynne citeth a pas- 
 sage of the antiquated Common Prayer-book, 
 as it hath lost the authority which once it 
 had, so that passage doth not by any neces- 
 sai-y inference hold forth that Judas received 
 the sacrament, as Dr Kellet showeth at some 
 length in his Triccenium. 
 
 The citation in which Mr Prynne is most 
 large, is that of Alex. Alensis, part. 4, quest. 
 11, mem. 2, art. 1, sect. 4 (though not so 
 quoted, by him) ; but for a retribution, I 
 shall tell him three great pomts in which 
 Alex. Alensis, in that very dispute of the 
 receiving of the eucharist, is utterly against 
 his principles : First, Alex. Alensis is of 
 opinion that the precept, Matt. vii. 6, "Give 
 not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither 
 cast ye your pearls before smne," doth ex- 
 
 tend to the denying of thesacrament to known 
 profane Christians ; for both in that section 
 which liath been cited, and art. 3, sect. 1, 
 answering objections from that text, he doth 
 not sa)', that it is meant of the word, not of 
 the sacrament ; and of infidels, heretics, per- 
 secutors, not of profane ones ; but he ever 
 supposeth, that the ministers are forbidden 
 by that text to consent to give the sacra- 
 ment to profane scandalous sinners. Se- 
 condly, Alex. Alensis holds, that Christ's 
 giving of the sacrament to Judas is no war- 
 rant to ministers to give the sacrament to 
 public notorious scandalous sinners, though 
 they do desire it. And thus he resolveth, 
 Ibid., art. 3, sect. 1, " If the priest know 
 any man by confession to be in a mortal sin, 
 he ought to admonish him in secret, that he 
 approach not to the table of the Lord ; and 
 he ought to deny unto such an one the body 
 of Christ, if he desire it in secret ; but if he 
 desire it in public, then either his sin is pub- 
 lic or secret, if public he ou<jht to deny it 
 unto him ; neither so doth he reveal sin be- 
 cause it is public ; if private he must give it, 
 lest a worse thing fall out." Thirdly, Alex. 
 Alensis holds the sacrament of the Lord's 
 supper, not to be a converting but a con- 
 firming and conserving ordinance. Ibid. art. 
 2, sect. 2. His words I shall cite in the de- 
 bating of that controversy. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 WHETHER JUDAS RECEIVED THE SACRAKENT 
 OF THE PASSOVER THAT XIGHT IN WHICH 
 OUR LORD WAS BETRAYED. 
 
 Mr Prynne (distrusting, peradventure, the 
 strength of his proofs for Judas's receiving 
 of the Lord's supper) betakes himself to an 
 additional argument, p. 24, " All our anta- 
 gonists (saith he) and evangehsts clearly 
 agree that Judas did eat the passover with 
 Christ himself, as well as the other apostles : 
 now the passover was a type of the Lord's 
 supper," &c. It seems he had not the notes 
 of my sermon truly (though he endeavour to 
 confute it), for I did then, and I do still 
 make, a very great question of it, whether 
 Judas did so much as eat the passover, at 
 that time, with Christ and the other apos- 
 tles ; and I think I have very considerable 
 reasons which make it probable that Judas 
 did not eat the passover that night with 
 
DIVIXE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 217 
 
 Christ and the apostles. The resolution of 
 this question depends upon another, whether 
 Christ and his apostles did eat the passover 
 before that supper at which he did wash 
 his disciples' feet and gave the sop to Ju- 
 das (after the receiving whereof Judas im- 
 mediately went out), or whether that supper 
 was before the eating of the passover. I 
 find some others,' as well as myself, have 
 been of opinion, that it was before, not af- 
 ter, the passover (yea, that the Jewish cus- 
 tom was to eat their common supper before 
 the passover, see Mr Weymes' Christian 
 Synagogue, p. 120) ; I find also Ammonius 
 Alexandrinus, de Qicatuor Evangeliorum 
 Consonantia, cap. 154, placeth that supper 
 mentioned John xiii. 2, 4, 12, 18, at which 
 Jesus did wash his disciples' feet, and when 
 he had done, sat down again and told them, 
 that he who was eating bread with him 
 should betray him. Then, cap. 155, he pro- 
 ceedeth to the story of the paschal supper, 
 in which he conceiveth the sop was given 
 to Judas, but in this particular he did much 
 mistake ; for the sop was given at the same 
 supper mentioned, John xiii. 2, 4, 12, 18, 
 and not at the paschal supper (as Mr Prynne 
 also acknowledgeth). This is clear, that 
 Ammonius placeth the common supper at 
 which Christ did wash his disciples' feet, 
 and told them of the traitor, to have been 
 before the paschal supper. I will first tell 
 the reasons that incline me this way, and 
 then answer the objections which may seem 
 to be against it. The reasons are these : — 
 
 1. The oriental custom was to wash be- 
 fore meal, not after they had begun to eat. 
 
 2. This supper (in which the sop was 
 given to Judas, whereupon he went away) 
 was " before the feast of the passover," John 
 xiii. 1, npo rjys eoprijs rov -rrauya, meaning 
 immediately before the feast of the pass- 
 over, it being reckoned from the time of 
 eatinw the paschal lamb ; and so " before 
 the feast of the passover," hath the same 
 sense as Luke xi. 38, Trpo rou apicrou, the 
 Pharisee wondered that Christ had not 
 washed "before dinner," that is, imme- 
 diately befoi-e dinner. So here I under- 
 stand, " before the feast of the passover," 
 that is, immediately before the time of eat- 
 ing the paschal lamb, which was the begin- 
 ning of the feast of the passover. You will 
 
 1 Gerhardus, Harm. Evan., cap. 170. — Quidam 
 statuunt pedum lotionem ipsi etiam legali coenae 
 sive agai paschalis esui praemittendam esse. 
 
 say, perhaps, that Christ did not eat the 
 passover upon the same day that the Jews 
 did, and so those words, " before the feast 
 of the passover," may be understood before 
 the passover of the Jews, not before the 
 passover of Christ. I answer. Whether 
 Christ and the Jews kept the passover at 
 one time is much debated among interpre- 
 ters. Baronius, Toletus, and divers others, 
 hold that Christ did eat the paschal lamb 
 upon the same day with the Jews. Scali- 
 ger, Causabon, and others, hold the con- 
 trary. The question hath been peculiarly 
 debated between Joh. Cloppenburgius and 
 Ludovicus Capellus ; yet so that Capellus 
 (who follows Scaliger and Casaubon) ac- 
 knowledgeth that both opinions have con- 
 siderable reasons, and both are straitened 
 with some inconvenience. 'ETraptfjfs, de 
 Ultimo Christi Paschate, p. 6, 22. For my 
 part, I shall not contend ; but admit the dis- 
 tinction of Christ's passover and the Jews' 
 passover. Yet, saith Maldonat upon John 
 xiii. 1, I doubt not but John understands 
 Christ's passover ; for all the evangelists, in 
 the story of the last supper, when they speak 
 of the passover, they mean Christ's passover, 
 and it was the true passover according to 
 the law. 
 
 3. That which makes many to think that 
 Christ did eat the passover before that other 
 supper in which he gave the sop to Judas, 
 is a mistake of the Jewish custom, which, as 
 they conceive, was to eat other meat after, 
 but none before the paschal lamb. Now to 
 me the contrary appeareth, namely, that 
 whatsoever the Jews did eat before the pas- 
 chal supper, in the night of the passover, 
 was eaten befoi-e the paschal supper, and it 
 was among them forbidden to eat anything 
 after the paschal supper. Which may be 
 proved not only by that Talmudical canon 
 (cited by Dr Buxtorff in Hist. Instit. Coence 
 Dam.) which saith, " The passover is not 
 eaten except after meal," but also more 
 plainly by Liber Rituum Paschalium,^ 
 lately translated and published by Rittan- 
 
 1 Non diraittnnt (caetum comedentium) post 
 esum (agni) paschalis cum bellariis ("Hoc est non 
 sinunt caetum comedentium post esum agni pas- 
 chalis comedere secundarum mensarum delitias). 
 Ibid, versus finem. Comedentium caetus sic di- 
 mittitur, ut nihil amplius cibi aut bellariorum aut 
 similes secundarum mensarum delitias, quae ad com- 
 messatioues pertinent, illis comedere aut quicquam 
 bibere permissum sit : non enira in more habent 
 post sacram hanc coenam indulgere commessation- 
 ibus et potationibus, imo ne minimum quidem gns- 
 tant. 
 
 2E 
 
AAROX'S ROD BLOSSOMING, OR THE 
 
 Sfelius ; and by another canon cited by Mar- 
 tinius.^ 
 
 But there are two arguments wliich may 
 be brought to prove that Judas did eat the 
 passover with Christ and the apostles. 1. 
 Because that supper at which Judas got the 
 sop was after the paschal supper ; for it is 
 said, John xiii. 2, " Supper being ended ;" 
 which must be meant of the paschal supper. 
 I answer. These words may very well be 
 understood, not of the paschal supper, but 
 of that other supper at which the sop was 
 given to Judas. And, as for betnyov yevo- 
 fiei'ov, some Greek copies have ytvonevov 
 and nonnus yiyvofjiivoto ; so the sense were, 
 as Augustine expounds. Supper being pre- 
 pared and ready, and set on table. But be 
 it yLvofiivov or yet ofxivcv, the matter is not 
 great ; for there is no necessity of expound- 
 ing heinvov yevofxeyov thus, when supper 
 was done, or ended. It may suffer other 
 two senses. First that of Aug-ustine, when 
 it was supper' time, or when supyper was 
 set on table. And this sense is followed by 
 Albinus Flaccus Alcuinus, hb. de Divinis 
 Oficiis, axt. dc Ccena Domini. Circa ves- 
 peram vera coena facta., id est parata, et 
 ad convivantium mensam usque perducta, 
 non transacta neque finita, surgit Jesus a 
 ccena et ponit vestimenta, &c. So likewise 
 jNIariana upon John xiii. 2, tells us that coena 
 facta may well be expounded coena parata, 
 or ante ccenam, or cum coence tempus ades- 
 set, which he cleareth by the like forais of 
 speech in other scriptures. Secondly, ActTr- 
 j ov yevojievov may very well be translated, 
 when suppjer ivas begun, or when they were 
 at supper, as I have before shown by like 
 instances in the New Testament, Matt. xxvi. 
 6, 20. Things pennanent, as a house or the 
 like, are said to be factce when they are 
 ended and complete ; but things which are 
 successive are said to be factce when they 
 are begun, as dies f actus, not when the day 
 is ended, but when it is begun. So here, 
 there can be no more proved from the words 
 but that supper was begun, or they were at 
 supper. This sense is given by Osiander, 
 Erasmus, Tossanus, Harm. Evang. part. 3, 
 cap. 1, beside the Centurists, Salmeron and 
 Lud. de Dicu, before cited. 
 
 ^ M. Martinius, Lexic. Philol., p. 25, 29, Nam 
 sane canon paschalis diserte interdicebat, post po- 
 culum laudationis, aliquid cibi aut potus sumere. 
 Iriterdicitur comedere aliquid post poculum brmni. 
 Ilic fuit verus ritus celebrationis pascba tempori- 
 bus Messiae, &c. 
 
 The other argument may be this. Mat- 
 thew, Mark, and Luke, after they have told 
 of the making ready of the passover, add 
 that Christ " sat down with the twelve." 
 
 Ans. 1. It cannot be proved that this is 
 meant of sitting down to eat the passover ; 
 nay, it rather appeareth from the text, that 
 it was to eat that other supper, at which the 
 sop was given to J udas. The same discourse 
 and questioning conceming the traitor, which 
 J ohn sets down before Judas's getting of the 
 sop and going out, is recorded by Matthew 
 and Mark to have been in that first supper, 
 unto which Christ sat down with the twelve 
 when even was come ; therefore Christ's sit- 
 ting down with the twelve, Matt. xxvi. 20, 
 21 ; Mark xiv. 17, 18, being spoken of that 
 supper at which Christ told his disciples 
 that one of them should betray him, and 
 every one asked " Is it I ?" (which, by Mr 
 Prynne's confession, was not the paschal but 
 the ordinary supper), it followeth that the 
 sitting down with the twelve is not meant of 
 the passover, but of an ordmaiy supper be- 
 fore the passover. 
 
 2. The same words of Christ's sitting down 
 with the twelve are expounded (though upon 
 other considerations) as spoken in rei'erence 
 not to the paschal, but the ordinary or com- 
 mon supper, by Lorinus, in Psal. ci. 6, fol- 
 lowing Maldonat ; and by Gerhardus, Harm. 
 Evang., cap. 170, p. 403. Their reason is, 
 because, according to the law, the passover 
 was to be eaten standina, not sittino-- but 
 that is more than can be proved from the 
 law, which doth not so much as speak of 
 standing at the first passover. It is no ne- 
 cessary consequence : they had their staves 
 in their hands, therefore they were stand- 
 ing. This by the way. 
 
 3. Granting that Christ's sitting down 
 with the twelve were spoken of the paschal 
 supper, yet the paschal supper being after 
 the other supper, at which Judas got the 
 sop and went away (which I now suppose, 
 for the reasons before mentioned, till I see 
 better reasons to the contrary), it might 
 be said, after Judas was gone, that Christ 
 sat down with the twelve, as well as, 1 Cor. 
 XV. 5, it is said of Christ risen from the 
 dead, " He was seen of Cephas, then of the 
 twelve," though he was seen only of the 
 eleven, and Judas was gone to his place, 
 which answers aU that can be said from 
 Luke xxii. 14, 15. 
 
 If I have not said so much as to put it 
 out of all question that Judas did not eat 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 219 
 
 of the passover with Christ and his apostles, 
 yet I am sure I have cleared so much as 
 this, that JNIr Prynne will not be able to 
 prove convincingly, that Judas did eat of 
 the passover that night with Christ. 
 
 I will conclude with the pious observation 
 of Mr Cartwright, that it was not a vain or 
 idle question which the disciples propound- 
 ed (being commanded to prepare the pass- 
 over) : they ask, " Wliere wilt thou th.at we 
 prepare ?" Luke xxii. 9 ; for Christ having 
 commanded them, that into whatsoever city 
 they entered, they should inquire who were 
 godly there, and turn in to such, to lodge 
 and to eat there, they did thereby easily 
 understand, that if, in common and oi'di- 
 nary eating together, then, much more in 
 this sacred feast, they must turn into the fa- 
 milies of the godly, and avoid the profane, es- 
 pecially considering that they who were of 
 that household, were to eat the passover with 
 Chi'ist and his disciples, according to the law. 
 From this very example of the passover, he 
 draws an argument for keeping off all un- 
 godly and profane persons from the sacra- 
 ment, so far as is possible. Thus Cart- 
 wright, Harm. Evang., lib. 3, p. 162. The 
 like observation Chrysostom hath upon Matt, 
 xxvi. 18, " I will keep the passover at thy 
 house with my disciples." Pie bids us mark 
 those words, " with my disciples ;" not with 
 profane or scandalous ones, but " with my 
 disci^iles." To the like purpose Titus Bos- 
 trorum Episcopus in Luke xxii. hath this 
 observation : Non manducat autem hocpas- 
 cha cum Judceis, sed tantum cum disci- 
 pulis sids : Siqiddem Judcei, propter ohsti- 
 natam incrediditatem, hoc paschate indigni 
 erant : Yet he eateth not this passover with 
 the Jews, but only with his own disciples : 
 for as much as the Jews, because of their ob- 
 stinate incredulity, were unworthy of this 
 passover. 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 THAT IF IT COULD BE PROVED THAT JUDAS 
 RECEIVED THE LORD's SUPPER, IT MAK- 
 ETH NOTHING AGAINST THE SUSPENSION 
 OF KNOWN WICKED PERSONS FROM THE 
 SACRAMENT. 
 
 I have now done with the first part of 
 this controversy concerning Judas, and have 
 disproved that which Mr Prynne hath said 
 
 either for Judas's receiving of the sacra- 
 ment of the Lord's supper, or for his eat- 
 ing of the passover. In which particulars, 
 though learned and godly divines who are 
 against the admission of scandalous sinners 
 to the sacrament, are not all of one opinion, 
 yet all look upon it as a matter of debate, 
 and I know none that ever cried down, with 
 scorn and contempt, the opinion of Judas's 
 not receiving of the sacrament, except Mr 
 Prynne, whose grounds are ofttimes weakest, 
 where his assertions are strongest. 
 
 I proceed to the second answer. Grant- 
 ing that Judas did receive the sacrament, 
 that can make nothing for the admission of 
 scandalous sinners, whose profaneness and 
 ungodly convei'sation is known, and maketh 
 their name to stink in the church ; for Ju- 
 das's wickedness was not public nor known 
 before he had got the sop and gone out, and 
 left the company of Christ and the apos- 
 tles. And, moreover, he who argueth from 
 Christ's receiving of Judas to the sacrament, 
 when, though his sin was yet secret, yet 
 Christ knew him to be a devil, to prove that 
 the eldership may and ought to admit one 
 to the sacrament, whom they know to be 
 a Judas, a devil, may as well arg-ue from 
 Christ's choosing of Judas to be an apostle, 
 when he knew him to be a devil, to j)rove 
 the lawfulness of the eldership's choosing of 
 a minister, whom they know to be a devil. 
 But now for that point of the scandal or se- 
 crecy of Judas's sin, let us hear Mr Prynne's 
 Reply, p. 26, 27. He gives it four feet to 
 run upon. But the truth is, it hath but 
 two (the same things being twice told) ; 
 and those how foundered you shall see by 
 and by. 
 
 First, he saith, that at the time when 
 Christ instituted the sacrament, he foretold 
 the disciples that Judas should betray him, 
 John xiii. 18—28; Matt. xxvi. 20—26; 
 Mark xiv. 18—22; Luke xxii. 21—23. 
 More plainly, p. 27, he saith, " Christ did 
 admit Judas to eat the passover and sacra- 
 ment with his other disciples, and they made 
 not any scruple of conscience to communi- 
 cate with him m both, no not after Christ 
 had particularly informed them, and Judas 
 himself, that he should betray him, Matt, 
 xxvi. 21 — 36. 
 
 Ans. 1. It was but just now that Mr 
 Prynne told us (to manifest that Judas was 
 at the sacrament) that Luke placeth Christ's 
 words concerning Judas after the sacrament, 
 not before it. And more expressly he told 
 
220 
 
 aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 us out of John, that Christ's discourse about 
 Judas, and his informing of the disciples that 
 one of them should betray him, and his giv- 
 ing the sop to Judas, was after the sacra- 
 ment, because it was after supper ended, the 
 sacrament being instituted and distributed 
 before supper ended, Vindic, p. 18, 19, 25. 
 The same thing which before he made to be 
 after the sacrament, to prove that Judas did 
 receive the sacrament, the vei-y same he now 
 makes to be before the sacrament, that he 
 may prove Judas a scandalous sinner and a 
 known traitor, even before his receiving of 
 the sacrament. And shall he thus abuse 
 not only his reader, but the word of God 
 itself, with palpable and gross contradic- 
 tions ? I shall beseech him, in the fear of 
 God, to look to it, and never more to take 
 this liberty to put contrary senses upon the 
 holy Scripture, so as may seem to serve most 
 for his present advantage. Surely such lu- 
 cubrations are not only suhitane but sinful. 
 
 2. His answer, which now he gives us, 
 doth clearly yield these two things : 1. That 
 the discourse about the traitor, and the giv- 
 ing of the sop, John xiii. 8 — 28, was before 
 the sacrament. Now Judas having gone 
 out immediately after the sop, hereby Mr 
 Prynne strengtheneth my ai'gument, which 
 I brought to prove that Judas did not re- 
 ceive the sacrament, which argument, in 
 this very particular, he formerly opposed. 
 2. He hath here also yielded that these 
 words, Luke xxii. 21—23, "But, behold, 
 the hand of him that betrayeth me is with 
 me on the table," &c., though mentioned 
 after the sacrament (which is the most col- 
 ourable argument for Judas's receiving of 
 the sacrament), yet were spoken before the 
 sacrament ; and that the order of time is 
 not to be gathered from Luke, but from 
 Matthew and Mark, who record that dis- 
 course about Judas before the sacrament. 
 And in yielding this, he takes off his owti 
 strongest argument, and confiims v.'Iiat I 
 have before taken pains to prove. 
 
 3. Those divines that hold Judas did re- 
 ceive the sacrament, do conceive that those 
 words, " But, behold, the hand of him that 
 betrayeth me," &c., were indeed spoken af- 
 ter the sacrament, and that Luke placeth 
 them in their proper place ; and so, holding 
 that the discourse about the traitor was after 
 the sacrament, they do thereby intimate 
 that Judas was not known to be the traitor 
 till after the sacrament. Wherefore, either 
 a man must quit the most considerable ar- 
 
 gument for Judas's receiving of the sacra- 
 ment, or else acknowledge that Judas was 
 not known by the disciples to be the traitor 
 till after the sacrament. 
 
 4. When, after the giving of the sop, 
 Christ said to Judas, " That thou doest, do 
 quickly," no man at the table knew for 
 what intent he spake this unto him," John 
 xiii. 28. But if Christ had particularly in- 
 formed them that Judas was the traitor, 
 how is it that they could have been so alto- 
 gether ignorant of Christ's intent, as to 
 think that he was still trusting Judas with 
 the buying of what they had need of against 
 the feast, or with giving to the poor ? Hence 
 Lud. Capellus Spicileg. in Jolui xiii. collect- 
 eth, that when John asked of Christ who it 
 was, and when Christ said, " He it is unto 
 whom I shall give the sop," this was but a 
 secret conference, and the rest of the disci- 
 ples did not hear it, else they could not 
 have been so ignorant of it. 
 
 5. The places cited by Mr Pi-ynne do not 
 prove that Christ did particularly tell and 
 inform his disciples that Judas (but that one 
 of them) should betray him. Christ made 
 it known to John alone, by the sign of giv- 
 ing the sop, John xiii. 26. Yea, Theophy- 
 lact upon John xiii. thinks that, as the other 
 apostles heard not what Christ said to John 
 concerning the traitor, so John himself even, 
 at that instant, could hai'dly imagine that 
 Judas would commit so great wickedness. 
 Nxdhis ergo cognovit, he saith, " No man ^ 
 did know it," which he gathers from the 
 words of John himself, ver. 28, 29. Bu- i 
 cei'us in Matt. xxvi. 23 holdeth the same. 
 
 I know some think it was made known to 
 all the disciples by that. Matt. xxvi. 25, I 
 " Then Judas, which betrayed him, an- 
 swered and said. Master, is it I ?" He said 
 unto him, " Thou hast said." But others 
 answer that it is not certain that Christ said 
 this to Judas in the hearing of all the disci- 
 plss ; also that these words, " Thou hast 
 said," are not a clear afHrmation of the 
 thing. Lud. Capellus Spicileg. in Matt, 
 xxvi. admitteth these words, " Thou hast 
 said," to be affirmative of that which had 
 been said. But he moves this doubt ; when 
 Judas had said, " Is it I ?" he did not af- 
 firm the thing, but doubted of it. How 
 then did Christ return such an answer as 
 agreeth to that which Judas had said, as if 
 it had been a positive truth ? He gives this 
 solution, that Christ, as searcher of the heart, 
 did speak it to Judas, who was, in his con- 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 221 
 
 science, convinced that he was the man, and 
 so assenteth to the ti-uth of that testimony 
 of his conscience. Now this could not be 
 certainly known to the other apostles. For 
 my part I shall not need to contend much 
 about that ; for granting it to be a clear in- 
 formation to all the disciples that Judas was 
 the traitor, yet (by their principles who hold 
 Judas did receive the sacrament) this was 
 after, not before, the sacrament; for they 
 make the anticipation to be in Matthew and 
 Mark, and the true order to be in Luke. 
 
 6. Beside that of the French Catechism, 
 which saith the impiety of Judas was con- 
 cealed and not broken forth into the light 
 and knowledge of men when the sacrament 
 was given, take these other testimonies : Mar- 
 tyr in 1 Cor. v., Et quod attinet ad Ju- 
 dam, peccatum ejus non erat cognitum. 
 Clique perspectum, nec ullo judicio convic- 
 tum ; Gerharius, Harm. Evang., caf. 171, 
 p. 453, Judce scelus nondum erat in lucem 
 productum, sed animo suo illud adhuc 
 clausum tenehat. The same he hath in his 
 Common Places, tom. 5, p. 181, where he 
 showeth that Judas's receiving of the sacra- 
 ment maketh nothing for the admission of 
 scandalous persons, because, although Judas 
 had gone to the chief priests and agreed 
 with them, this was known to none of the 
 disciples at that time, but to Christ himself 
 only. Nay, the testimony cited by Mr 
 Prynne himself out of Algerusde Sacram., 
 maketh strongly against him in this particu- 
 lar: Quia enim, saith Algerus, J^M(^as accu- 
 satus et damnatus non fuerat, ideo Chris- 
 tus conscientiam ejus perversam, quamvis 
 sibi notam damnare noluit: For because 
 Judas was not accused and condemned, there- 
 fore Christ would not condemn (openly) his 
 perverse conscience, though known to him- 
 self. Innocentius III. in the place above ci- 
 ted, de My St. Missce, lib, 4, cap. 13, after 
 he hath asserted that Judas did not receive 
 the Lord's supper, he addeth, that if it should 
 be granted that Judas did receive it, this only 
 will follow at most, that ministers are to ad- 
 mit to the sacrament such as are not known 
 to the church to be impious or wicked, as 
 Judas's wickedness was not, at that time, 
 known to the disciples. Likewise, both Chry- 
 sostom and Theophylact upon John xiii. are 
 clear in this, that Judas's hypocrisy was not 
 detected to the apostles till Christ did sepa- 
 rate him, and he went forth. Moreover, I 
 shall mind Mr Prynne how he himself doth 
 apply this example of Judas in his Inde- 
 
 pendency Examined : p. 8, 9, he argueth 
 thus : " Whether Independents' refusal to 
 admit such Christians who are not notori- 
 ously scandalous in their lives, nor grossly 
 ignorant in the principles of religion, to the 
 sacrament of the Lord's supper, &c., only 
 upon this suspicion or apprehension, that 
 they are but carnal men, not truly regene- 
 rated or sanctified by God's Spirit (though 
 they cannot certainly judge of their present 
 spiritual conditions, infallibly known to God 
 alone), be not a very uncharitable, arrogant, 
 yea, unchristian practice, contrary to our 
 Saviour's own immediate example, who, at 
 the first institution of this sacrament, admit- 
 ted Judas to his last supper, as ivell as his 
 disciples, though he certainly knew him to be 
 both a traitor and a devil." In which ar- 
 gumentation he himself supposeth that Ju- 
 das was not notoriously scandalous, nor known 
 to the disciples (but to God and Christ alone) 
 to be a traitor and devil ; for otherwise he 
 could not, in any reason, argue thus against 
 the Independents ; because if this supposition 
 be not laid down that Judas was an unrege- 
 nerate, yet not a scandalous person, then the 
 Independents had this obvious answer, that 
 if his argument prove anything, it doth con- 
 clude the admission not only of unregene- 
 rated and unsanctified, but of scandalous per- 
 sons, to the sacrament ; whereas he brings it 
 to prove against them, that persons not scan- 
 dalous, though unregenerate, ought not to be 
 refused the sacrament. And now he brings 
 the same thing against us, to prove that scan- 
 dalous persons ought to be admitted, if not 
 excommunicated, and desirous to receive the 
 sacrament. He tells us, by the way, of " Ju- 
 das's thievish, covetous, as well as traitorous, 
 disposition, John xii. 6, both which did make 
 him scandalous." But he might have ob- 
 served, that the Holy Ghost showeth plainly 
 that, in that act, Judas was not a scandalous 
 sinner in the esteem of the other disciples ; 
 for his thievish covetous disposition was not 
 known to the disciples, yea, the pretext of 
 his care for the poor was so plausible to them 
 (though abominable to Christ who knew his 
 heart), that it is said, not only of Judas, but 
 of the disciples (by his instigation), they had 
 indignation at the wasting of that which 
 might have been sold for much and given to 
 the poor. Matt. xxvi. 8. 
 
 Let us now hear Mr Pi'ynne's other an- 
 swer, Vindic, p. 26, 27. He tells us, that 
 though, perchance, the other disciples did 
 not know that Judas was a traitor and a de- 
 
222 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 vil, yet Christ himself did infallibly know all 
 this of Judas, and did, notwithstanding, ad- 
 mit him to the sacrament. Whereupon he 
 beseechetli all ministers not to make them- 
 selves wiser, holier, rigider, in this point 
 than Christ himself. 
 
 Ans. 1. If ministei'S did take upon them 
 to suspend men from the sacrament upon 
 their own private knowledge of some secret 
 sins, whereof those men are guilty, his ar- 
 gument might say somewhat. But the ques- 
 tion being of suspension by the eldership, 
 upon the notoriety or proof of the offence, 
 and consistorial formal conviction of the of- 
 fender, he saith here nothing to that point. 
 
 2. What a minister should do when he 
 certainly knows one of the congi-egation (not 
 convict nor notoriously scandalous) to be a 
 Judas, a traitor, a devil, I will not now dis- 
 pute. But surely Mr Prynne's reason why 
 the minister ought to admit such an one is 
 not rightly applied, for Christ did then know 
 Judas to be a traitor and a devil ; but how ? 
 not as man, by sight, mformation, or the like, 
 but as God and as omniscient ; that is, he 
 knew Judas by that same knowledge whereby 
 he knows close hypocrites, in whom no eye 
 of man hath seen any thing scandalous, but 
 rather good and promismg signs. Some of 
 this kind, no doubt, are admitted to the sa- 
 crament both among Presbyterians and Inde- 
 pendents, whom Christ knows to be Judases, 
 because he kno^^•s what is in mau.i But now 
 for a minister to know (not the heart and 
 the reins as Christ doth, but) ra TpdyfxaTa 
 or ra pi'i/jaTa, some foul act which a man 
 hath done, and some wicked profession which 
 a man made, though in private, and not yet 
 known to the world, this is a very different 
 case from the other ; and if Christ had ad- 
 mitted Judas to the sacrament, knowing him 
 by his divine knowledge to be a traitor, this 
 cannot prove that a minLster ought to admit 
 a traitor, whom, by his human knowledge, he 
 knows to be such. 
 
 3. And if that which Christ did in this 
 particular ought to be a precedent to min- 
 isters what to do in like cases, then, as 
 Christ had a most sad and moving discourse 
 about the traitor, till Judas himself was 
 made to understand that Christ knew his 
 
 1 Durantns de Ritibns, lib. 2, cap. 38, num. 16. — ■ 
 Ipsi tamen (Judae) corpus et sanguinem snum dedit, 
 ne occultum peccatorem sine accusatore et evidenti 
 probatione, ab aliorum commnaione sopararet. £t 
 infra, num. 17, Nam etsi Christo nota crat Judae 
 iniquitas, sicut Deo : non tamen ei cognita erat eo 
 modo, quo hominibus innotescit. 
 
 traitorous purpose, and then he said to him, 
 " That thou doest, do quickly," which di- 
 vers do rightly conceive to be as much as if 
 Christ had said to him. Get you gone, I 
 have no more to do with you,i he spake it, 
 ut a co/isortio sv.o recederet, that he might 
 be gone out of his company, as Ambrose 
 takes it), and thus did by the sword of his 
 mouth chase away, and as it were excom- 
 municate Judas before the sacrament, — so 
 should a minister (if he see one in the con- 
 gregation whom he certainly knows to be a 
 Judas, and to be living in some abominable 
 wickedness, even while he conies with a 
 professed desire to receive the sacrament) 
 tell the congi-egation, that he knows and 
 sees one amongst them whom he certainly 
 knows to be guilty of such a particular se- 
 cret horrible sin, and (if it be possible) make 
 the sinner himself to know by such or such 
 a sign, that he is the man whom he speaks of, 
 and not to leave off powerful checks, shai-p 
 rebukes, temble comminations, till, by the 
 blessing of God and the power of the word, 
 he gets such an one terrified and chased away. 
 
 4. It shall not be in vain to observe 
 here, that Gamachseus, in tertiam partem 
 Thomce, quest. 54, cap. 5, though he hold 
 that Christ gave the sacrament to Judas 
 (whence he argueth that the sacraments do j 
 infalhbly work ex opero operato, where no 
 bar is put, though there be no faith nor de- 
 votion exercised in the receiver), yet he doth 
 immediately move this objection :^It is un- 
 lawful to give the sacraments to the un- 
 worthy, and to such as Uve in mortal sin. 
 Whereunto he answereth, that it is indeed 
 
 1 Gerhardus, Harm. Evang., cap. 172. — Christns 
 his verbis Judara quasi excommunicat, et ex apos- 
 tolorum collegio discedere jubet, cum se totnm Dia- I 
 bolo tradidisset. Quod facis fac citius, id est, cum alii ' 
 magistro te addixeris, et me audire pertinaciter re- | 
 nuas, abi ex meo et apostolorum meorum conspectn, ' 
 &c. Ambrosius, lib. 2, de Cain et Abel, cap. 4, Quod 
 facis fac celerius, quid illud ? ut quia introierat in 
 ilium Satanas, ipse abiret a Christo. Ejicitur itaque 
 et excluditur, eo quod jam cum Domino Jesn esse 
 non posset, qui cajperat esse cum Diabolo. Estius, ' 
 in lib. -1, Sent. dist. 19, sect. 9. Quin et ipse Christns 
 banc potestatem qua traduntnr homines Sathanae, 
 exercuisse videtur, quando Judam a suo consortio 
 removit, atque abire jussit dicendo, Quod facis fac 
 citius. Chrysostom, hom. 71 in John (according to 
 to the Greek, hom. 72), making a transition unto 
 that text, " That thou doest, do quickly," he useth j 
 these words to express what Christ was at that in- i 
 stant doing to Judas, xcu afu^iri), and again, xcu 
 i^iSakit avTOf, Christ did separate him from the rest 
 of the apostles, and cast him out. Theophylact upon 
 the same place : Ilium divisit Dominus et separavit 
 ab aliis discipulis. 
 
DIVIXE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 223 
 
 unlawful to ministers to give the sacrament 
 to the unworthy when they can refuse them 
 without scandal (a restriction which I sup- 
 pose Mr Prynne dare not own ; for if the 
 lawfulness or unlawfulness of the thing must 
 be determined by the scandal, they go upon 
 a very slippery ground).' Pie addeth, that 
 it is unlawful to us to follow God's example 
 in giving holy things to the unworthy, as it 
 is unlawful to follow his example in the per- 
 mitting of sin when we can hinder it. The 
 like I tind in Alex. Alensis, Summa Theol. 
 part. 4, quest. 12, mem. 2, art. 1, sect. 4, 
 where he moves this objection in the ques- 
 tion, whether Christ gave the sacrament to 
 Judas. Christ himself hath commanded, 
 " Give not that which is holy unto the 
 dogs," &c., and it seems he would not do 
 the contrary of that which himself com- 
 mandeth. Unto this objection his answer is, 
 that this prohibition lieth indeed upon the 
 ministers, dispensers of the sacraments, but 
 bindeth not Christ himself the law-maker. 
 As long therefore as we are able to prove 
 from Scripture, that scandalous persons 
 ought to be kept back from the sacrament, 
 and that it is unlawful for church officers to 
 admit such, the Erastians do but weakly 
 help themselves by arguing from Christ's 
 giving the sacrament to Judas, which I have 
 said by way of concession ; for my opinion 
 is, that Christ did upon the matter excom- 
 municate Judas, and that his practice in this 
 very particular is a pattern to us, which I 
 hope I have made evident. 
 
 Finally, It is observed by John Baptista 
 de Rubeis in his Novum Rationale Divi- 
 norum Officiorum, lib. 1, cap. 24, that this 
 case of Judas doth not concern public and 
 known scandalous persons, but secret and 
 lurking wicked persons, when they publicly 
 desire to receive the sacrament ; who yet, 
 saith he, ought to be admonished and de- 
 horted by the minister that they come not 
 to the sacrament ; and if such an one make 
 his desire to receive the sacrament secretly 
 known to the minister, the minister ought 
 to refuse him, though his sin be yet secret 
 
 1 Respondemns id nobis revera esse illicitum, et 
 peccare ministros qui dant sacramenta indignis, 
 quando sine scandalo denegare possunt, attanien 
 Deum liis legibus non teneri, cum sit supremus Do- 
 minus, qui suis donis utitur, prout voluerit, quem- 
 admodum etiam Deus non peccat permittendo ho- 
 minum peccata, imo et ad peccati substantiam con- 
 currendo ; nobis vero, nec concurrere licet nec per- 
 mittere aliquod peccatum, quando suiEcieuter et 
 moi-aliter id impedire possumus. 
 
 and not publicly known ; " but if the sin be 
 open or manifest, then whether the sinner 
 do secretly or openly desire to receive the 
 sacrament, the minister ought to refuse 
 him."i 
 
 CHAPTER XL 
 
 WHETHER IT BE A FULL DISCHARGE OF DUTY 
 TO ADMONISH A SCANDALOUS PERSON OF 
 THE DANGER OF UNWORTHY COMMUNICA- 
 TING ? AND WHETHER A MINISTER IN GIV- 
 ING HIM THE SACRAMENT AFTER SUCH AD- 
 MONITION BE NO WAY GUILTY ? 
 
 Mr Prynne, p. 28, stateth the seventh 
 point in difference thus, " Wliether the 
 minister hath not fully discharged his duty 
 and conscience, if he give warning to un- 
 worthy communicants of the danger they 
 incur by their unworthy approaches to the 
 Lord's table, and seriously dehort them from 
 coming to it, unless they repent, reform, 
 and come preparedly ?" But here he much 
 mistakes his mark, or hittetli it not, as may 
 appear thus : First, What if we should af- 
 firm it as he doth ? What hath he gained 
 thereby? That the minister hath not the 
 power of keeping back scandalous persons ; 
 which cannot add one dram weight to his 
 cause. The power is seated in the eldership, 
 of which the minister is a principal member : 
 even as Aristotle, Polit. lib. 3, cap. 11, tells 
 us that 6 (3ovXevT})s is not the iip^wv but f) 
 (iov\i) : it is not the senator but the senate 
 that doth rule. But if Mr Prynne meant 
 to conclude against the suspension of scan- 
 dalous persons not excomnmnicated (the 
 thing which all along he opposeth), he 
 ought to have stated the point thus, " Whe- 
 ther the eldership hath not fully discharged 
 their duty," &c. ; for eveiy branch of this 
 controversy concerning suspension (which is 
 an act of jurisdiction and censure) must be 
 fixed upon the eldership, not upon the min- 
 ister. There is a huge difference between 
 the minister's personal duty and the censure 
 of suspension ; insomuch that if the affirma- 
 tive of this present question (as he stateth 
 it) were yielded to him, it derogateth noth- 
 ing from the power of the eldership to sus- 
 
 1 Si vero peccatum est manifestum, tunc rero 
 sive in occulto sive in manifesto petat, debet ei de- 
 negare. 
 
224 Aaron's rod blossojiing, or the 
 
 pend from the sacrament a person not ex- 
 communicate. Secondly, In the debating of 
 this point he sometimes argueth against the 
 refusing or witholding of tlie sacrament " by 
 any minister or presbytery," as p. 29 — 31, 
 sometimes he argueth that " no minister's 
 private judgment or conscience ought to be 
 the rule of his admitting any to, or suspend- 
 ing them from, the sacrament," as p. 32, 
 which is a confounding together of two most 
 different points. Thirdly, And if the ques- 
 tion should be stated of the minister's duty, 
 that which Mr Prynne affirmeth, viz., that 
 " the minister hath fully discharged his duty 
 and conscience, if he give warning to un- 
 worthy communicants of the danger they 
 incur by their unworthy approaches to the 
 Lord's table, and seriously dehort them from 
 coming to it, unless they repent, reform, and 
 come preparedly," is erroneous and false ; 
 for there are other necessary duties incum- 
 bent to the minister in this business : as, 1. 
 He must be earnest in his prayers to God 
 for the conversion and reformation of such 
 unworthy persons, else that God would give 
 his Spirit and assistance to the eldership, 
 and others to whom the case shall be 
 brought, that they may faithfully do their 
 duty in restraining such persons ; or (if not 
 so) that God would by his own providence 
 keep back such persons, or hedge up their 
 way with thorns, and make a wall that they 
 shall not find their paths to come and pro- 
 fane the Lord's table. 2. The minister 
 must deal seriously with the eldership, by 
 informations, exhortations and admonitions, 
 to move them to do their duty. 3. The 
 minister must give his own vote and sen- 
 tence in the eldership against the admission 
 of such persons. 4. If (which God forbid) 
 the eldership be not willing to do their 
 duty, but sinfully neglect it, the minister 
 ought to address himself with his complaints 
 to the superior ecclesiastical assemblies (as 
 they lie in their order) that they may inter- 
 pose by their authority, to rectify the mal- 
 administration of the congregational elder- 
 ship. 5. And if it should tall out that a 
 scandalous unworthy person should find so 
 much favour in the higher assemblies also as 
 that they shall judge him fit to be admitted 
 to the sacrament ; yet if the minister know 
 him certainly to be a scandalous abominable 
 person, and be also clear in his conscience, 
 that the matter of scandal is sufficiently 
 proved, he must not do an unlawful act in 
 obedience to men, but walk by that aposto- 
 
 lical rule, 1 Tim. v. 22, " Be not partaker 
 of other men's sins; keep thyself pure." In 
 doing whereof he doth not make his con- 
 science the rule of inflicting any censure, and 
 pailicularly of suspending from the sacra- 
 ment (which must be done viro twv ■irXeio- 
 vtov, hy many), but yet his conscience, so far 
 as it is informed and illuminate by the word 
 of God, is a rule to him of his own personal 
 acting or not acting, notwithstanding of 
 which the offender stands rectus in curia, 
 and is not excluded by the sentence of any 
 ecclesiastical court. I confess a minister 
 ought to be very clear in his conscience, 
 and be persuaded (not upon suspicions, sur- 
 mises, or such like slight motives, but) upon 
 very certain grounds, that the sentence of 
 an eldership, classis, or synod, is contrary 
 to the word of God, before he refuse to do 
 the thing. 
 
 But what may be the reason why Mr 
 Prynne is so large upon this point, from p. 
 28 — 35 ? I take not upon me to judge de 
 intentione operantis ; but the intentio ope- 
 ns is to yield somewhat in lieu of suspension 
 from the sacrament, which yet shall be no 
 church censure nor act of jurisdiction, and 
 so to make the discipline of suspension (yea, 
 and excommunication too) to be of no neces- 
 sary use in the church. For if it be suffi- 
 cient, and a full discharge of duty, to ad- 
 monish unworthy scandalous persons not to 
 come to the Lord's table unless they repent 
 and reform, this cuts off the necessity of 
 censure, whether suspension or excommuni- 
 cation. As for that admonition or warning 
 to be given, it is no church censure nor act 
 of jurisdiction, especially when given by the 
 minister alone ; for no ecclesiastical jurisdic- 
 tion can be exercised, or censure inflicted by 
 any one man, how eminent soever in the 
 church. Yea, when it is a consistorial or 
 presbyterial admonition, it is not properly a 
 censure, but a degree to censure. 1. Be- 
 cause admonition doth not exclude a person 
 from any church privilege, nor from commu- 
 nion in any ordinance. And how can one 
 be said to be under church censure who en- 
 joyeth all church privileges ? 2. If consis- 
 torial admonition be a binding, where is the 
 loosing of that bond ? Every censure con- 
 sistorially inflicted, must be also consistorially 
 taken off, upon repentance appearing in the 
 party. These things I do but touch, that I 
 might make it appear how Mr Prynne's 
 doctrine tendeth to strip elderships out of 
 all jurisdiction or power of censures. Now 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURC 
 
 H GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 225 
 
 come we to the particulars, wherein I do not 
 find any great matter to insist long upon. 
 
 He first premiseth six conclusions. Sup- 
 posed conclusions he may make them, but 
 proved conclusions they are not. The first 
 of them is indeed ushered in syllogistical- 
 ly, but very weakly, as shall appear. The 
 strength of his discourse he contracteth into 
 this argument : " Those who have a true 
 right to the sacrament, as visible members 
 of the visible church, ought not, in justice or 
 conscience, to be deprived of it, in case they 
 demand it, by any minister or presbytery. 
 But all unexcommunicate Christians, who are 
 able to examine themselves, as visible mem- 
 bers of the visible church, have a true right 
 to the sacrament, in case they do demand it, 
 when publicly administered. Therefore they 
 ought not, in justice or conscience, be de- 
 prived of it by any minister or presbytery, 
 when publicly administered, if they shall 
 require it." 
 
 Ans. First, This is fallacia plurium in- 
 terrogationum ; for these words, " As visi- 
 ble members of the visible church," both in 
 the major and minor, clog and confound the 
 argument, and patch up two distinct propo- 
 sitions into one. 
 
 Secondly, His major cannot be admitted 
 without a distinction. There \s, jus ad rem, 
 and jus in re. There is a remote right, or 
 a right in actu primo ; that is, such a I'ight, 
 relation, or habitude, as entitleth a person 
 to such a privilege or benefit, to be enjoyed 
 and possessed by him when he shall be ca- 
 pable and fit to enjoy it. Such is the right 
 of a minor to his inheritance. Such was the 
 right of lepers of old to their tents, houses, 
 and goods, when themselves were put out of 
 the camp, and might not (during their le- 
 prosy) actually enjoy their own habitations. 
 Such is the right which a man hath in Eng- 
 land to his sequestrated estate, lands, and 
 houses; he doth not lose, but retain his 
 right, title, charters and deeds (as valid in 
 law, and not made void or null), and may be 
 again admitted to the actual possession, upon 
 satisfaction given to the state ; and a huge 
 difference there is between sequestration and 
 forfeiture, or outlawry. There is again a 
 proximo right, or a right in actu secundo, 
 which rendereth a person actually and pre- 
 sently capable of that thing which he is en- 
 titled unto. If Mr Prynne's major be un- 
 derstood of the first kind of right, I deny it; 
 if of the second kind of right, I admit it, and 
 it doth not help his opinion, nor hurt mine. 
 
 Thirdly, Yea himself must needs admit 
 an exception from his major proposition, for 
 by his own principles, those that have a true 
 right to the sacrament, as visible members 
 of the visil)le church, may be excommuni- 
 cated, and so deprived, not only of the sacra- 
 ment, but of all other public oi'dinances. 
 When he tells us here, that " nothing but 
 an actual excommunication can suspend them 
 from this their right," he doth but beg that 
 which is in question. And if his argument 
 conclude against a lesser suspension from their 
 right, why not also against the greater ? 
 
 Fourthly, He hath not proved his minor, 
 especially being understood of the second 
 kind of right, which renders men actually 
 and presently capable of the thing. He 
 saith that the sacraments were bequeathed 
 by Christ, " to his visible church on earth, 
 and all visible members of it," which he 
 hath not proved, and I deny it, except it 
 have this limitation : All visible members 
 of the visible church, which are (visibly, or 
 in external profession and conversation) qua- 
 lified according to the rule of Christ, and 
 against whose admission to the sacrament 
 there is no just exception. 
 
 Fifthly, When he concludeth that no un- 
 excoinmunicated Christians, who ai'e able 
 to examine themselves (that is, as himself 
 hath explained, who are not naturally dis- 
 abled, as children and fools, though he shall 
 find it a very hard task to prove that all 
 other unexcommunicate Christians besides 
 these are able to examine themselves), ought, 
 in justice or conscience, to be deprived of 
 the sacrament by any minister or presbytery, 
 he doth upon the matter conclude, that the 
 ordinances of parliament, Oct. 20, 1645, 
 and March 14, 1645, authorising presbyte- 
 ries to suspend from the sacrament scandal- 
 ous persons unexcommunicated, are contrary 
 to all justice and conscience. Nota bene. 
 
 Sixthly, As touching that limitation yield- 
 ed by himself, that they must be such as are 
 able to examine themselves, I ask, 1. Are 
 persons grossly ignorant able to examine 
 themselves ? 2. Are drunken persons able 
 to examine themselves ? 3. Are men of 
 corrupt minds, and erroneous, yea, profane 
 principles, who call evil good, and pervert 
 Scripture to the defending of some gross 
 sins, are these able to examine themselves? 
 4. Are those who are known that they had 
 never any work of the law upon their con- 
 sciences to convince or humble them (" i'or 
 by the law is the knowledge of sin"), able 
 
226 
 
 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 to examine themselves ? If the answers be 
 affirmative, then sui'ely this seH'-examina- 
 tion is not rightly apprehended what it is. 
 If the answers be negative, then those who, 
 in their addresses to the Lord's table, are 
 found ignorant, or drunk, or defenders of 
 sin, or presumptuous and unconvinced, and 
 do manifestly appear such, though they be 
 not excommunicated, and being professed 
 Christians and desiring the sacrament, yet 
 ought not to be admitted. 
 
 I proceed to his second conclusion, the 
 strength whereof (so lar as I am able to 
 gather fi-om his discourse) may be drawn 
 together into this argument : Such as in all 
 ages, yea, by the very apostles themselves, 
 have been deemed fit to receive, and could 
 not be denied, the sacrament of baptism, 
 ought to be (being baptized and unexcom- 
 municated, and willing to communicate) ad- 
 mitted to the sacrament of the Lord's sup- 
 per. But in all churches, from Christ's 
 time till this present, all external professors 
 of Christ, even carnal persons, " only upon 
 a bare external profession of faith and re- 
 pentance," were deemed fit to receive, and 
 were never denied, the sacrament of bap- 
 tism (yea, saith he, " we read in the very 
 apostles' times, that a mere external slight 
 confession of sin, and profession of the Chris- 
 tian faith, was sufficient to enable sinners to 
 be baptized") ; therefore, all external pro- 
 fessors of Christ, &c., ought to be admitted 
 to the sacrament of the Lord's supper. 
 
 Ans. 1. I retort the argument thus : Such 
 as have been deemed by the apostles, and by 
 all well-constituted churches, unworthy to be 
 admitted to baptism, ought also to be deemed 
 unworthy, though baptized, to be admitted 
 to the Lord's supper. But all known wick- 
 ed and profane livers, how able and willing 
 soever to make confession of the true Chris- 
 tian faith, have been, by the apostles and all 
 well-constituted churches, deemed unworthy 
 to be admitted to baptism ; therefore, all 
 known wicked, &c. More of this afterward, 
 chap. xiii. and xv. 
 
 Secondly, I answer directly, I distinguish 
 the major, I deny the minor. I distinguish 
 the major : Those who have been admitted 
 to baptism ought to be admitted to the 
 Lord's supper, cceteris paribus, if the pro- 
 portion hold in the particulars, and if they 
 be as free of scandalous sins now, when they 
 desire to receive the Lord's supper, as they 
 were when they desired to receive baptism, 
 he needed not to make so great a matter of 
 
 our suspending from the sacrament a person 
 formerly deemed fit to receive baptism. For 
 why ? The person is a scandalous person 
 now, which he was not then. My limitation 
 of ccBteris paribus he himself must admit, 
 otherwise how will he defend his own prin- 
 ciple, that the flagitious, abominable and ob- 
 stinate sinners, who cannot be reduced by 
 admonitions, may and ought to be excom- 
 municated, and so to be cut off from the 
 Lord's supper and all other public ordin- 
 ances, although formerly deemed fit to re- 
 ceive baptism ? The minor I utterly deny 
 as most false, and as a reproach cast upon 
 the apostles themselves. Mr Prynne's rule 
 is so large, that Turks or pagans, who prac- 
 tically live in idolatry, common swearing, 
 adultery, drunkenness, murdering, steahng, 
 or the like, and are known to live in those 
 abominable scandalous sins, ought, neverthe- 
 less, " upon a mere external slight confes- 
 sion of sin, and profession of the Christian 
 faith," be baptized. When I expected his 
 proof from the apostles' times, he only tells 
 us, that Philip baptized " Simon Magus, 
 though he were in the gall of bitterness and 
 bond of iniquity," Acts viii. " Yea (saith 
 he), many others who turned wolves, apos- 
 tates, heretics, were baptized by the very 
 apostles," Acts xx. ; 2 Tim. 3. If he had 
 proved that Simon Magus was known to 
 be in the gall of bitterness and bond of ini- 
 quity when Philip did baptize him, or that 
 the apostles did baptize any (upon a slight 
 external profession) who were then known 
 to be wolves, apostates, and heretics, he had 
 Siiid more for his cause than all his book 
 saith beside. But to tell us that some per- 
 sons baptized (he might as well have said 
 that some persons who received the Lord's 
 supper), did appear to be afterward in the 
 gall of bitterness, wolves, apostates, heretics, 
 is as much as to travail and to bring forth 
 nothing. For how shall ever this reach the 
 admission of known profane persons to the 
 Lord's supper ? That which he had to prove 
 was the admission (not of hypocrites, but) of 
 known scandalous profane pei-sons to baptism. 
 
 His third conclusion, " That it is the min- 
 isters' bounden duty to administer the sa- 
 craments to their people, as well as to preach 
 and pray;" no man will deny it, so that the 
 ministei's do it debito modo, and accordingr 
 to the rule of Christ. They are " stewards of 
 the mysteries of God; moreover it is required 
 in stewards that a man be found faithful," 
 1 Cor. iv. 1,2. It is the bounden duty of 
 
DIVI>-i: ORDIX.VN'CE OF CHURCH GOVERXMEXT VrNT5ICATED. 
 
 227 
 
 stewards to give the cliildren's bread to chil- 
 dren, and not to dogs and swine. It is not 
 the duty of ministers to preach peace to the 
 wicked, and much less to seal it to them 
 who are known to be such. 
 
 The fourth conclusion, That the word and 
 sacraments are set accidentally for the fall 
 and ruin, as well as for the salvation of men, 
 maketh nothing to the purpose in hand ; 
 whatever the secret intention of God be, 
 and his unsearchable judgment upon the soul 
 of this or that man, it is no rule of duty to 
 the minister or eldei'ship. " To the law and 
 to the testimonv." " Secret things belong 
 to God." 
 
 The fifth, " That God only infalHbly 
 knows the hearts and present state of all 
 men," is no whit nearer the point. The 
 eldership judgeth of ivords and works, pro- 
 fessions and practices. " By their fruits ye 
 shall know them." 
 
 The sixth, " That no minister's private 
 judgment or conscience ought to be the rule 
 of his admitting any to, or suspending them 
 from, the sacrament," is also wide from the 
 controversy in hand, which is concerning 
 the eldership's (not the minister's) power. 
 Of the minister's personal duty I have spo- 
 ken before. 
 
 These six conclusions premised, iNIr Prynne 
 proceeds to prove, " that a minister, in de- 
 livering the sacrament to a scandalous un- 
 excommunicated person, who after admoni- 
 tion of the danger, doth earnestly desire to 
 receive it, &c., becomes no way guilty of his 
 sin or punishment, in case he eat or drink 
 judgment by his unworthy receiving of it." 
 His first reason. Because this receiver "hath 
 a true right to this sacrament, as a visible 
 member of the visible church," is the same 
 thing which I have ali-eady answered. His 
 second reason. Because he (the minister) 
 hath no commission from Christ to keep 
 back such a person," doth not conclude that 
 the minister " becomes no way guilty," &:c. 
 He had to prove that a minister hath no 
 commission touching this business, but only 
 to admonish the pei-son of the danger. I 
 hold there are other five duties incumbent 
 to the minister. Of which before. If 
 any of these duties be neglected, the min- 
 ister is guilty : whether such a person ought 
 to be kept back is the point in controvei-sy, 
 and therefore he ought not have taken the 
 negative, pro confesso. 
 
 His third reason, p. 33, is the same which 
 was used by Erastus, as one of his arguments 
 
 against excommunication : That the Apostle 
 saith, " Let a man examine himself, and so 
 let him eat of that bread and drink of that 
 cup," 1 Cor. xi. 28.1 Therefore a man's fit- 
 ness or unfitness tor the sacrament is not to 
 be judged by others, but by himself only ; 
 and if he judge himself fit, the eldership 
 hath no power to exclude him. The same 
 scripture is here pressed against us by Mr 
 Prynne, to prove that ii' a man "judge him- 
 self fitly prepared, joins with others in the 
 pubhc confession of his sins, and promiseth 
 newness of hfe, the minister (he should say 
 the eldership) ought in point of charity to 
 deem him so, and hath no commission from 
 Christ to exclude him, &c. Let a man 
 therefore examine liimself, not others, or 
 others him." 
 
 I answer, 1. The self-examination there 
 spoken of, is not mentioned as exclusive ; 
 for it is not said, " Let a man examine him- 
 self only." 2. Yet I can gi-ant it to be ex- 
 clusive, it being undei"stood of that judging 
 of a man's self which prevents the judgment 
 of God, ver. 31. No man's examining of an- 
 other can do this, but his examining of him- 
 self. That which can give us confidence and 
 boldness before God, and " assure our hearts 
 before him," 1 Johniii. 10, is not the exam- 
 ination or approbation of others, but of our 
 OAvn conscience ; " For what man knoweth 
 the things of a man, save the spirit of man 
 which is in him ?" 1 Cor. ii. 11. The pas- 
 tore and eldei"s of Corinth had admitted 
 some to the Lord's table, whom they judged 
 to be fit and worthy communicants, but God 
 judged otherwise of them. Therefore saith 
 the Apostle, let a man make a narrow 
 search of his own conscience, and not rest 
 upon the judgment of othere. 3. If it be 
 enough for a man to examine himself, by 
 what warrant doth Mr Prynne require 
 more, namely, that a man join with others 
 in the public confession of his sins, and pro- 
 mise newness of liie ? 4. It is not enough 
 for a notorious scandalous sinner to judge 
 himself, nor yet to jom with others in pub- 
 lic confession ; but he must publicly and 
 particularly confess his own sin, which he 
 must do personally, or for his own part, and 
 others cannot do it with him. 5. Augustine* 
 
 1 Confirm. Thes., p. 120. 
 
 2 Tom. 10, hom. 50. — Et cnm in se protnlerit se- 
 Terissimae medicinas sententiam, veniat ad antistites, 
 per qiios illi in ecclesia claves ministrantnr, et tan- 
 quam bonus incipiens jam esse filius raaternornm 
 membrorum ordine cnstodito, a praspositis sacrorum 
 
aahon's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 tells us, when a man hath examined himself, 
 he must also edify the cliurch (which before 
 hs scandalised) by a puljlic declaration of re- 
 pentance for his scandalous sin. 6. Mr 
 Prynne himself, Vinclic. p. 50, will not have 
 an excommunicated person to be again re- 
 ceived and admitted to the Lord's supper 
 I " till public satisfaction given for the scan- 
 i dal, and open profession of amendment of 
 I life, accompanied with external symptoms of 
 ; repentance." And why all this examination 
 . should not be required for a prevention of 
 excommunication, yea, of suspension, I know 
 not. 
 
 Mr Prynne's fourth reason is, Because the 
 minister administers the sacrament to that 
 
 j scandalous unexcommunicated person, " as 
 to a person outwardly fitted and prepared, 
 
 j the inward preparation of whose heart, for 
 aught he knows, may be sincere towards God, 
 and really changed frorn what it was before." 
 I appeal to every godly minister, whether 
 this can pacify or secure his conscience, that 
 a scandalous unexcommunicated person, liv- 
 ing in know^l profaneness and wickedness, is 
 or may be esteemed a person outwardly 
 fitted and prepared for the sacrament, yea, 
 that the inward preparation of his heart, 
 while he is living in gross scandalous sins, 
 may be sincere towards God, and really 
 changed from what it was before ; and that 
 therefore he (the minister) " in delivering 
 the sacrament to a scandalous unexcommu- 
 nicated person, who, after admonition of the 
 danger, doth earnestly desire to receive it, as 
 conceiving himself in his ovm heart and con- 
 science meet to participate of it, becomes no 
 way guilty ?" &c. The Lord save me from 
 that divinity which holds that a scandalous 
 person in the church may be admitted to 
 the Lord's supper as a person outwardly 
 fitted and jjrepared for that sacrament. 
 
 Fiithly, He argueth from the holiness and 
 lawfulness of administering the sacrament, 
 and the minister's good intention to benefit 
 all, and hurt none by it. 
 
 Ans. The first part of this reason is a 
 fallacy ah ignoratione elenchi. The point he 
 had to prove was, that the administration of 
 
 accipiat satisfactionis snae modnm, nt in offerendo 
 sacrificio cordis contribnlati devotns et supples, id 
 tamen agat, quod non solum illi prosit ad recipien- 
 dam salutem, sed etiam caeteris ad exemplura. Ut 
 si peccata ejus non solum in gravi ejus malo, sed 
 i etiam in scandalo est aliorum : atqne hoc expedire 
 videtur utilitati ecclesiae, antistiti in notitia multo- 
 rura, vel etiarn totius plebis agere psenitenliam non 
 recuset. 
 
 the sacrament to a scandalous person is a 
 holy lawful action. The latter part doth not 
 conclude. A good intention cannot justify a 
 sinful action. 
 
 Sixthly, " Because (saith he) such a per- 
 son's unworthy receiving is only contingent 
 and casual ; no mmister or creature being 
 able infallibly to judge whether God at this 
 instant may not, by the omnipotent working 
 of the Spirit, &c., change both his heart and 
 his life." 
 
 Ans. 1. By this principle the minister 
 shall become no way guilty, if he dehver the 
 sacrament to an heathen, to an excommuni- 
 cated person, for the same reason will have 
 place in that case as much as in this, viz., 
 God may at the very instant, before or in 
 the act of receiving, change the heart and 
 hfe of such an heathen or excommunicate 
 pereon. 2. A scandalous profane person's 
 unworthy receiving, is casual and contingent 
 in sensu diviso, but not in sensu composito, 
 that is, peradventure God will give him re- 
 pentance, and change his heart and his 
 life, which done, he shall come worthily and 
 receive worthily; but while he is yet scanda- 
 lous, and neither heart nor life yet changed, 
 his receiving in that estate will certainly be 
 an unworthy receiving ; for it implies a con- 
 tradiction and impossibihty, to say that a 
 man's life can be changed while it is not 
 changed, in sensu composito, or that a man 
 can be worthy while he is unworthy. 3. It 
 is a most sinful tempting of the Almighty 
 to cast his word behind us, and then expect 
 the working of omnipotency, for that whereof 
 we have neither promise nor example in the 
 word. 
 
 Seventhly, He argueth from our conces- 
 sions, that ministers may administer the sa- 
 crament to masked hypocrites, and yet are 
 not guilty of their unworthy receiving. This 
 he saith is a yielding our objection false in 
 the case of scandalous persons too. But his 
 reason is just as if he had said. Ministers are 
 not guilty when they give the sacrament to 
 those who are not scandalous ; therefore 
 they are not guilty when they give the sa- 
 crament to those that are scandalous. Or 
 as if he had argued thus : He that harbour- 
 eth a traitor, whom he doth not nor cannot 
 know to be such, is not guilty ; therefore 
 he that harboureth a known traitor is not 
 guilty. 
 
 Eighthly (for he hath given his seventh 
 already), He tells us, that " the minister 
 only gives the sacrament, and the unworthy 
 
DIVIXE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 229 
 
 receiving is the receiver's own pei'sonal act 
 and sin alone." 
 
 Ans. 1. He begs a^ain and again what is 
 1 • 1 • 
 
 in question. 2. There is an unworthy giv- 
 ing, as well as an unworthy receiving. The 
 unworthy giving is a sinful act of the min- 
 ister, which niaKes him also accessoi'y to the 
 sin of unworthy receiving, and so partake of 
 other men's sins. 
 
 The ninth, concerning Christ's giving 
 of the sacrament to Judas, is answered be- 
 fore. 
 
 The tenth I have also answered before, 
 in his fourth conclusion. The minister is a 
 sweet savour of Christ, as well in those that 
 perish by the sacrament, as in those that 
 are benefited by it, with this proviso, that he 
 hath done his duty as a faithful steward, and 
 that he hath not given that which is holy to 
 dogs, else God shall require it at his hands. 
 
 Finally, He argueth from 1 Cor xi. 29, 
 " He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, 
 eateth and drinketh (not condemnation but) 
 Kplfia, judgment (meaning some temporal 
 judgment) to himself" (not to the minister 
 or communicants). 
 
 Ans. 1. Whatever be meant by judgment 
 in this place, certainly it is a punishment of 
 sin, and such a thing as proceedeth from 
 God's displeasure ; and it is as certain that 
 unworthy receiving maketh a person liable 
 to a greater judgment than that which is 
 temporal. 2. If to himself be restrictive 
 and exclusive in the case of close hypocrites, 
 such as are by church officers (judging ac- 
 cording to outward appearance) admitted to 
 the sacrament ; yet how will it be made to 
 appear that the Apostle meant those words 
 as restrictive and exclusive in the case of 
 scandalous and known unworthy communi- 
 cants. 3. Such a scandalous person doth 
 indeed eat and drink judgment to himself ; 
 but this can neither in whole nor in part 
 excuse, but rather greatly aggravate, the sin 
 of the minister ; for when a wicked man 
 dieth in his iniquity, yet his blood God w-ill 
 require at the hands of the unftiithful min- 
 ister, who did strengthen his hands in his 
 sin. 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 WHETHER THE SACRAMENT OF THE LORd's 
 SUPPER BE A CONVERTING OR REGENERAT- 
 ING ORDINANCE. 
 
 I had, in answer to Mr Prynne's third 
 query, given this reason why profane and 
 scandalous persons are to be kept off from 
 the sacrament, and yet not from hearing the 
 word : because the word is not only a con- 
 firming and comforting, but a converting 
 ordinance, and is a mean appointed of God 
 to turn sinners from darkness to light, and 
 from the power of Satan to God ; whereas 
 the sacrament is not a converting, but a 
 confirming and sealing ordinance, which is 
 not given to the church for the conversioyi 
 of sinners, but for the communion of saints. 
 It is not appointed to put a man in the 
 state of grace, but to seal unto a man that 
 interest in Christ and in the covenant of 
 grace which he already hath. Mr Prynne 
 doth with much eagerness contradict me in 
 this, and argues at length the contrary 
 (which is the marrow and fatness, if there 
 be any, in his debate concerning the eighth 
 point of difference), whereby he doth not 
 only contradict me but himself too, as shall 
 appear, yea, and join not only with the more 
 rigid Lutherans, but with the Papists them- 
 selves, against the writers of the Reformed 
 churches. For the very same thing which 
 is controverted between him and me, is con- 
 troverted between Papists and Protestants. 
 The Papists hold that the sacraments are 
 instrumental to confer, give, or work grace ; 
 yea, ex opcre opcrato, as the schoolmen 
 speak. Our divines hold that the sacra- 
 ments are appointed of God, and delivered 
 to the church as sealingr ordinances, — not to 
 give, but to testily what is given, — not to 
 make, but confirm saints. And they do not 
 only oppose the Papists' opus operatum, 
 but they simply deny this instrumentality 
 of the sacraments, that they are appointed 
 of God tor working or giving grace where 
 it is not. This is so well known to all who 
 have studied the sacramentarian controver- 
 sies, that I should not need to prove it. Yet 
 that none may doubt of it, take here some 
 few, instead of many, testimonies : — 
 
 Calvin holds plainly, against the Papists, 
 that the sacraments do not give any grace, 
 but do declare and show what God hath 
 given. He clears it in that chapter thus : 
 
230 
 
 The sacraments are like seals appended to 
 writs, which of themselves are nothing, if 
 the paper or parchment to which they are 
 appended be blank. Again, They are like 
 pillars to a house, which cannot be a foun- 
 dation, but a strengthening of a house that 
 hath a foundation ; — we are built upon the 
 Word, the foundation of the prophets and 
 apostles. Again, Sacraments are to us from 
 God that which messengers are which bring 
 good news to men, — they declare what is, 
 but do not so much as instrumentally make 
 it to be.i These are Calvin's similies. 
 
 Bullinger confuteth the popish doctrine 
 concerning the sacraments' conferring of 
 grace, by this principle, that the saints are 
 justified and sanctified before they are seal- 
 ed and confirmed by the sacraments.^ 
 
 Ursinus speaks so fully and plainly for 
 us that none can say more.^ He distin- 
 guisheth between the word and sacraments, 
 as between converting and confiniiing or- 
 dinances, and argueth that the sacraments 
 do not confer grace, because we receive not 
 the thing by receiving the sign, but we get 
 
 1 Instit. p. 301, edit. 1539. — Cum hoc tantum in 
 ministcrio habeant (sacramenta) testificari nobis ac 
 confirmare Dei in nos benevolentiam, &c. Ut quae 
 non largiantur quidem aliquid gratiae, sed renunci- 
 ent et ostendant quae diviua largitate nobis data sunt. 
 
 2 Decad. 5, serra. 7. — Docuit vulgus sacerdotum 
 et monacliorum sacramenta novae legis non tantum 
 esse signa gratia;, sed siraul etiam gratiae causas, 
 hoc est quae liabeant virtutem couferendi gratiam. 
 And after : Sancti et electi Dei non turn primum 
 gratia Dei donisque coelcstibus, participant, cum 
 sacramenta percipiunt. Et enim rebus prius quam 
 signis participant. And after : Proinde in coena ilia 
 non priraum accipiuntur divina beneficia, sed pro 
 acceptis aguntur gratia. EfFeci his opinor, evicique 
 sacramenta non conferre gratiam. 
 
 3 Ursinus, Tract. Theol., p. 3.50. — Sicut verbum 
 est conversionis et confirraatiouis organum : sic et 
 sacramenta sunt organa confirmationis, &c. Non 
 res accipimus ideo quia signum accipimus : sed sig- 
 num nobis tribuitur quia res habemus : idque ita, ut 
 non cur habeamus causa, sed quod eas Ijabeamns 
 testimonium sit. Ibid, de Sacram. Defens. quinti 
 Arg. p. 557. — Nos vero supra hoc discrimen verbi 
 et sacramentorum non dissimulavimus, quod fides 
 per verbum inchoatur: Sacramentorum usu autem 
 confirmatur, c.xercetur, fovetur, augetur jam incbo- 
 ata. Sacramenta enim ne docent quidem, nedum 
 confirmant, nisi praeeunte verbo et addente expli- 
 cationcra typorum. Idcirco etiam sacramenta iis 
 instituta sunt, quos Dens jam pro merabris ecclesiae 
 a nobis vult agnosci. Inchoatio igitur fidei ordinaria 
 verbi propria est ; confirraatio inchoatae, sacramen- 
 tis cum verbo communis est. Judicium de Disci- 
 plina Ecclesiastica ad finem, tom. 3, p. 89. — Quasi 
 non pueris jam notum, verbum et conversis et non 
 conversis esse annunciandum, quo illi qnidem con- 
 firraentur, hi vero convertantnr. Sacramenta autem 
 iis esse instituta qui jam sunt couversi et membra 
 popnli Dei facti. 
 
 the sign because it is supposed we have the 
 thing; yea, he speaks of it as a principle 
 known to children. 
 
 Musculus, in his Common Places, saith 
 thus, " Who seeth not what manner of per- 
 sons we must be when we approach to this 
 mystical table of the Lord ? to wit, not such 
 as do therein first of all seek the fruition of 
 the body and blood of the Lord, as if we were 
 yet destitute thereof, but such as, being al- 
 ready before partakei-s thereof by faith, do 
 desire to corroborate more and more in our 
 heai'ts the grace once received by the sacra- 
 mental communication of the body and blood 
 of tlie Lord, and by the remembrance of his 
 death, and to give thanks to our Redeemer."^ 
 
 Martin Bucerus, upon Matt, xviii. 17, puts 
 this difference between the word preached 
 and the Lord's supper, that the word may 
 be preached to the unconverted, but the 
 Lord's supper may not be given to any who 
 by their lives do declare that they are out 
 of communion with Jesus Christ :- which is 
 the very point now in controversy. 
 
 Festus Honnius, disp. 43, thes. 3, confut- 
 ing the popish opinion of the sacraments' 
 working or giving grace, brings this reason 
 against it, They tliat receive the sacraments 
 have this grace before they receive them, 
 neither are any to be admitted to the sacra- 
 ments who may be justly supposed not to 
 be justified and sanctified.' 
 
 Aretius, Comment, in Mark xiv., loc. 3, 
 observeth. Qui admissi sint ad istam coen- 
 am ? discipidi solum : WTio were admitted 
 to that (eucharistical) supper ? The disciples 
 
 1 De Coena Dom. p. 350. — Quis non videt quales 
 nos ad mysticam banc Domini mensam accedere 
 oporteat ? nempe non tales qui fruitionem corporis 
 ac sanguinis Domini primum in ea quaeramns, tan- 
 quam illius adbuc expertes : sed qui per fidem illins 
 jam antea participes, gratiam semel acceptam, cora- 
 municatione hac sacramentali corporis ac sanguinis 
 Domini, et mortis ipsius rememoratione, in cordi- ' 
 bus nostris magis ac magis corroborare, redempto- j 
 rique gratias agere cupiamus. i 
 
 2 Ad haec praedicandum iis quoque est, qui non- 
 dum audierunt, ant certe nondum perceperunt. At- 
 tamen utcunqne feratur impnritas conventnnm ubi 
 verbum praedicatur, quam Christus et ApostoU quo- 
 que tulerunt : Coenae tamen communio (ut dixi) 
 purior esse debet. Nam publica est eomm qui pa- 
 lam se Christianos profitentur, de redemptione gra- 
 tiarum actio : ideo circa banc, ut communionem 
 Christi solemniter sancti percipiunt, ita excludendi 
 inde sunt qui vita sua se extra banc communionem 
 esse, manifesto probant. 
 
 ■* Fideles enim ante usum sacramentorum banc 
 gratiam omnino habent : neque ad sacramentorum 
 usum accedere debent qui eam gratiam pro aetatis 
 niodo non habent, neque admittendi sunt qui eam 
 non habere merito praesumuntur. 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNSIENT VINDICATED. 
 
 231 
 
 only. Hence he inferretli, Quare mysteria 
 hcec ad solos fidclcs 'pertinent : ^Mierefore 
 these mysteries do pertain to the faithful 
 alone ; that is, to those who are supposed to 
 be converted and beUevers. 
 
 Vossius, disp. de Sacramen. cjic. part, 
 poster., after he hath observed two respects 
 in which the sacraments do excel the word, — 
 1. That infants who are not capable of hear- 
 ing the word are capable of the sacrament 
 of baptism, and are brought to the laver of 
 regeneration ; 2. That the sacraments do 
 visibly and clearly set before our eyes that 
 which is invisible in the word, — he adds, 
 thes. 49, other two respects in which the 
 word doth far excel the saci'anients -.^ 1. 
 That the word can both beget and confirm 
 faith, — the sacraments cannot beget faith in 
 those that are come to age, but only con- 
 serve and increase it. 2. That without the 
 word we cannot be saved, for he that be- 
 lieves not is condemned ; now faith cometh 
 by hearing; but the sacraments, tlu'ough pro- 
 fitable means of grace, yet are not simply 
 necessary. 
 
 The Confession of the Faith of the 
 Church of Scotland, in the article entitled, 
 " To whom sacraments appertain," saith 
 thus : " But the supper of the Lord we con- 
 fess to appertain to such only as be of the 
 household of faith, and can try and examine 
 themselves as well in their faith as in their 
 duty towards their neighbours." The Bel- 
 gic Confession, art. 33, saith of the sacra- 
 ments in general, that God hath instituted 
 them to seal his promises in us, to be pledges 
 of his love to us, and to nourish and streng- 
 then our faith. And, art. 35, they plainly 
 hold that the sacrament of the Lord's sup- 
 per is intended and instituted by Christ for 
 such as are already regenerate, and are al- 
 ready quickened with the life of grace.- 
 
 The Synod of Dort, in their judgment of 
 the Fifth Article of the Remonstrants, sect. 
 14, ascribeth both the inchoation and con- 
 servation of grace to the word, but ascribeth 
 
 1 Quemadmodum autem sacraraeuta duplici no- 
 mine prasstant verbo, itidem Terbum duobus norai- 
 nibus praefercndum sacramentis. Uno quod Ter- 
 bum in adultis et gencret fidem, et gcnitara foveat 
 atque alat : Sacramenta vero earn non gignant, sed 
 tantum genitam couservent atque augeant. Altero 
 quod absque verbo non salvemur, &c. 
 
 2 Credimus et confitemur Jesum Christum sei-va- 
 torem nostrum sanctae coenae sacramentum ordi- 
 nasse et instituisse, ut ea nutriat et sustcntet eos, 
 quos jam regencravit, &c. At vero, ad conserva- 
 tionem vitae spiritualis et ccelestis, quam fideles 
 jam habcnt, Deus illis panem vivificum misit, &c. 
 
 only to the sacraments the conserving, con- 
 tinuing, and perfecting of that begun grace. ^ 
 
 In the Belgic form of the administration 
 of the Lord's supper (see Corpus Discipli- 
 nce, lately published by the ministers and 
 elders of the Dutch Church at London, p. 
 16) it is said thus : " Those who do not feel 
 this testimony in their hearts (concerning 
 their examining of themselves touching their 
 repentance, faith, and purpose of true obe- 
 dience), they eat and drink judgment to 
 themselves ; wherefore we also (according to 
 the commandment of Christ and the apostle 
 Paul) do admonish all who find themselves 
 guilty of these ensuing sins, to refrain from 
 coming to the Lord's table, and do denounce 
 unto them that they have no pai't in the 
 kingdom of Christ." (Here follows an 'enu- 
 meration of divers scandalous sins, concluded 
 with this general, " and all those which lead 
 a scandalous hfe.") " All these, as long as 
 they continue in such sins, shall refrain from 
 this spiritual food (which Christ only or- 
 dained for his faithful people) that so their 
 judgment and damnation may not be the 
 greater." Which plainly intimates that they 
 hold this sacrament to be a sealing, not a 
 converting ordinance. And this they also 
 signify, Ibid., p. 17, " And to the end we 
 may firmly believe that we do belong to this 
 gracious covenant, the Lord Jesus in his last 
 supper took bread," &c. 
 
 Parajus puts this difference between the 
 word and sacraments : that the word is a 
 mean appointed both for beginning and con- 
 firming faith, — the sacraments means of con- 
 firming it after it is begun : that the word 
 belongs both to the converted and to the un- 
 convei'ted, — the sacraments are intended for 
 those who are converted and do believe, and 
 for none others.- 
 
 And, though the Lutherans make some 
 
 1 Quem admodum autem Deo placuit opns hoc 
 suum gratia3 per predicationem evangelii in nobis 
 inehoare, ita per ejusdem auditum, lectionem, medi- 
 tationem, adhortationes, minas, promissa, nec non 
 per usura sacramentorum, illud conservat, continual 
 et perficit. 
 
 2 Explic. Catech., quest. 67. — Verbum est instru- 
 mentum Spiritus sancti, per quod inchoat et confir- 
 mat in nobis fidem ideoque verbum debet praeire. 
 Sacramenta sunt organa Spiritus sancti per quao 
 fidem inchoatam confirmat : ideoque sacramenta 
 debent sequi. Ibid, quest. 81, art. 1. — Sacramenta 
 tantum sunt instituta fidelibus et conversis, ut his 
 promissionera evangelii obsignent, et fidem confir- 
 ment. Verbum quidem est conversis, et non con- 
 versis commune, ut conversi confirmentur, nondum 
 conversi convertantur : Sacramenta vero ad solos 
 fideles pertinent. 
 
I 232 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 AARO'S ROD BLOSSOMIXG, OR THE 
 
 controversy with us about the effect of the 
 sacraments, yet J. Gerhardus doth agree 
 with us in this point, — that the Lord's sup- 
 
 Fr is not a regeneratingr, but a confirmin^r 
 and strenorthenincr ordinance : and this dil- 
 lerence he puts between it and baptism.' 
 
 Walaeus asserteth, both against Papists 
 and against some of the Lutherans, that 
 sacraments do instrumentally confirm and 
 increase faith and regeneration, but not be- 
 gin nor work faith and regeneration where 
 they are not.^ 
 
 Petnis Hinkelmannus, de Anabaptismo, 
 disp. 9, cap. 1, error 6, disputeth against this 
 as a tenet of the Calvinists. Fideles habent 
 Spiritum sanctum habent res signatas ante 
 sacrumenta: The faithful have the Holy Spi- 
 rit, they have the things which are sealed, 
 before they receive the sacraments. Broch- 
 mand, Si/stem, TheoL, torn. 3 ; de Sacram., 
 cap. 2, quest. 1, condemneth this as one of 
 the Calvinian eri-ors : Sacramenta non esse 
 graticB conferendce divinitus ordinata me- 
 dia : That sacraments ai-e not instituted and 
 appointed of God to be means of confen-ing 
 or giving grace. "NMiich, he saith, is the as- 
 sertion of Zuinglius, Beza, Danseus, Muscu- 
 lus, Piscator, Vorstius. The Lutheran opi- 
 nion he propounds. Ibid., quest. 6, that the 
 sacraments are means appointed of God to 
 confer grace, to give faith, and, being given, 
 to increase it. Esthius, in Sent., lib. 4, dist. 
 1, sect. 9, stateth the opinion of the Calvin- 
 ists (as he calls us) thus: Justificationem 
 vsu sacramenti esse prriorem, obtentam ni- 
 rnirum per Jidem qua homo jam ante cre- 
 
 1 Loc. Com. torn. 5, p. 1. — Per baptismam regen- 
 eramur ac renovamur: per sacramentnm coenae ali- 
 mur ac nutrimnr ad vitam aetemnm. In baptismo 
 praesertim infantom, per Spiritum sanctum fides ac- 
 cenditur : in usu sacrae coenae angetur, confirmatnr, 
 et obsignatur. Per baptismum Christo inferimnr, in 
 qno spiritnale Lncrementum salntari coenae usu ac- 
 cipimns. 
 
 * Tom. 1, p. 477. — At an non per sacramenta eti- 
 am fides et regeueratio exhibetur ? Resp. — Distin- 
 gnendnm inter primumfideiet resipiscentiae iuitinm, 
 et confirmationem ejus ac angmentum. Nemo ad- 
 mittitnr ad sacramenta nisi pro fideli et poenitente 
 habeatur ; quemadmodum verba clara sunt, Quis- 
 quis crediderit et baptisatus fuerit. Infantes ha- 
 bentur pro fffideratis, ac proinde etiam pro iis qui 
 Spiritum fidei acceperunt, sed de hac re postea. Sic 
 in coena requiritur, nt homo probet se an sit iu fide, 
 et ut digue mandacet : infideUbus enim vel nondum 
 credeutibus ntillae fiunt promissiones, ac proinde 
 nec obsignantnr. Perperam ergo statuunt ipsa sa- 
 cramenta esse cansas primae regenerationis aut jns- 
 tificationis, turn Pontificii, tum Lutherani quidam. 
 Sed si fidei et regenerationis confixmatio et aug- 
 mentum spectetur, recte tribuitur sacramentis ut 
 cansis instrumentalibus. 
 
 didit sibi remitti peccata ; sacramentum 
 vera postea adhiberi, ut verba quidem pro- 
 missionis fides confir metur : elemento vero 
 seu sigillo quodam diplomati appenso ea- 
 dem fides obsignetur ; atque itaper sacra- 
 mentum declaretur testatumque fiat homi- 
 nem jam prius esse per fidem justicatum. 
 This, he saith, is contrary to the doctrine of 
 the Church of Rome, from which, saith he, 
 the Lutherans do not so far recede as the 
 Calvinists. Gregorius, de Valentia in ter- 
 tiam pjartem Thomce, disp. 3, quest. 3, punct. 
 1, thus explaineth the tenet which he hold- 
 eth against the Protestants concerning the 
 sacraments'giving of grace: Sacramenta esse 
 veras causas qualitatis gratioe, non princi- 
 pales, sed instrumentales : hoc ipjso videli- 
 cet, quod Deus illis utitur ad productionem 
 illius effectus, qui est gratia, tamet si su- 
 pra naturam seu ejicacitatem naturalem 
 ipso rum. 
 
 The Papists dispute, indeed, what manner 
 of casuahty or virtue it is by which the sa- 
 craments work grace, whether physica or 
 ethica, whether insita or adsita. In which 
 questions they do not all go one way. See 
 Gamachseus, in tertiam partem Theol., 
 quest. 62, cap. 5. But that the sacraments i 
 do work or give grace to all such as do not 
 ponere obicem, they all hold against the 
 Protestants. They dispute, also, whether 
 all the sacraments give the first grace, or 
 whether baptism and penance only give the 
 first habitual grace, and the other five sacra- 
 ments (as they make the number) give in- 
 crease of grace. But in this they all agree, 
 that habitual grace is given in all the sacra- 
 ments of the New Testament ; the Tho- 
 mists hold further, that the very first grace 
 is dx facto given in any of the sacraments. 
 See for the former, Becanus ;' for the lat- 
 ter, Tannenis.- 
 
 1 Becanus, Theol. Schol., part. 4, tract, de Sacram., 
 quest. 7. — Omnia sacramenta novae legis semper 
 conferunt gratiam habitualem sen justificanttm, 
 non ponentibus obicem, ac proinde gratia habitaalis 
 est communis quidam eflfectus omnium sacramento- 
 rum : Est communis sententia. 
 
 2 Tannerus in Thomam. tom. 4, disp. 3, quest. 3, 
 dub. 5. — Imo omnia sacramenta de facto nonnun- 
 qnam posaunt ex opere operato (hov much more if 
 there be also opus operantis; conferre primam gra- 
 tiam. Haec est sententia magis pia et prohabilior ; 
 quam docet S. Thomas, &c. eandem communiter se- 
 quuntur Thomistae. He confirms it thus : Quia 
 quaedam sacramenta per se proprie solum institnta 
 ad dandam primam gratiam, possunt conferre se- 
 cundam. Ergo etiam per se instituta ad banc po- 
 terunt conferre primam, &c. Atque hoc etiam sen- 
 su admitti potest quod noimiilli dixemnt, omnibus 
 
divint: ordinance of church government vindicated. 
 
 I 
 
 233 
 
 You will say, peradventure, that Protes- 
 tant writers hold the sacraiuents to be, 1. 
 Significaiit or declarative signs. 2. Obsicf- 
 native or confirming signs. 3. Exhibitive 
 signs, so that the thing signified is given 
 and exhibited to the soul. I answer, That 
 exhibition which they speak of, is not the 
 giving of grace where it is not (as is manl- 
 iest by the afore-quoted testimonies), but 
 an exhibition to believers — a real effectual 
 lively application of Christ, and of all his 
 benefits, to every one that believeth ; for 
 the staying, strengthening, confirming, and 
 comforting of the soul. Chamierus, Con- 
 tractus., torn. 4, lib. 1, cap. 2 : Docemus 
 ergo in sacramentorum perceptione effici 
 gratiam in fidelibus: et hactenus sacra- 
 menta dicenda eficacia. Polanus, Syn- 
 tag., lib. 6, cap. 49, saith, the visible exter- 
 nal thing in the sacrament is thus far exhi- 
 bitive, quia bona spiritualia per earn fi- 
 delibus signijicantur, exhibentur, commu- 
 nicantur, et obsignantur ; so that, in this 
 point, habcnti debitur is a good rule. " For 
 unto everyone that hath shall be given, and 
 he shall have abundance ; but from him that 
 hath not shall be taken away, even that 
 which he hath," Matt. xxv. 29. Our di- 
 vines do not say that the sacraments are ex- 
 hibitive ordinances, wherein grace is commu- 
 nicated to those who have none of it, to un- 
 converted or unbelieving persons. 
 
 By this time it may appear (I suppose) 
 that the controversy between us and the Pa- 
 pists concerning the effect of the sacraments 
 (setting aside the opus operatum, which is 
 a distinct controversy, and is distinctly spo- 
 ken to by our writers, setting aside also the 
 causalitas physica and insita, by which some 
 of the Papists say the sacraments give grace, 
 though divers others of them hold the sacra- 
 ments to be only moi"al causes of grace), is 
 thus far the same with the present conti-o- 
 versy between Mr Prynne and me, that Pro- 
 testant writers do not only oppose the opus 
 operatum, and the causalitas physica and 
 insita, but they oppose (as is manifest by 
 the testimonies already cited) all casuality, 
 or working of the first grace of conversion 
 and faith in or by the sacraments, supposing 
 always a man to be a believer, and within 
 the covenant of grace before the sacrament, 
 and that he is not made such, nor translated 
 
 sacramentis sub ratione saltern generica sacramenti 
 novae legis, etsi non specifica, per se convenire ut 
 gratiam primam conferant. 
 
 to the state of grace in or by the sacrament. 
 This the Papists conti-adict, and therein Mr 
 Prynne joineth with them. Wien Bellar- 
 mine brings an impertinent argument,- — The 
 sacraments, saith he, have not the same re- 
 lation to faith which the word hath : Nam 
 verhum Dei prwcedit jidem, sacramenta 
 autem sequuntur, saltern in advltis : The 
 word of God doth go before faith, but the 
 sacraments follow after it, at least in those 
 who are of age, — Dr Ames, Bell. Enerv., 
 torn. 3, lib. 1, cap. 5, corrects his gi-eat mis- 
 take or oblivion : Hoc illud est quod nos 
 docemus : sacramenta conjirmare Jidem 
 per verbum Dei prius ingeneratam, sal- 
 tern in adultis : This, saith he, is that 
 which we teach, that the sacraments con- 
 firm that faith which was first begotten by 
 the word of God, at least in those who are 
 of age. 
 
 Mr Prynne's assertion is, that the Lord's 
 supper is a converting as well as a sealing 
 ordinance ; for clearing whereof he premis- 
 eth two distinctions. There are two sorts, 
 both of conversion and sealing, v/hich, he 
 saith, his antagonists, " to delude the vul- 
 gar, have ig-norantly, wilfully, or injudici- 
 ously, confounded." IVhether such language 
 beseems a man fearing God, or honouring 
 them that do fear God, let every one judge 
 who knoweth anything of Christian modera- 
 tion. See, now, if there be any reason for 
 this grievous charge. " First (saith he) there 
 is an external conversion of men from pagan- 
 ism or Gentilism, to the external profession 
 of the faith of Christ." This, he saith, is 
 wrought by the word or by miracles, and 
 effected by baptism in reference to infants 
 of Christian parents. But how the baptism 
 of such infants is brought under the head of 
 conversion from paganism to the external 
 profession of Christ, I am yet to learn. 
 " Secondly (saith he), there is a conversion 
 from a mere external formal profession of 
 the doctrine and faith of Christ, to an in- 
 ward spiritual embracing and application of 
 Christ, with his mei'its and promises, to our 
 souls, by tlie saving grace of faith, and to an 
 holy. Christian, real change of heart and life. 
 In this last conversion, the sacrament of the 
 Lord's supper is not only a sealing or con- 
 firming, but likewise a regenerating and con- 
 verting ordinance, as well as the word." 
 
 He might, upon as good reason, have 
 made a third sort of conversion, from a 
 scandalous and profane life, to the external 
 obedience of the will and commandments cf 
 2G 
 
234 
 
 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 God. But all this is to seek a knot in the 
 rush ; for there is but one sort of conver- 
 sion which is a saving conversion, and that 
 is, a conversion from nature to grace, from 
 sin to sanctification, from the power of Sa- 
 tan to God, whether it be from paganism, or 
 from profaneness, or from an external for- 
 mal profession. Now, that conversion which 
 Mr Prynne ascribes to the sacrament, is a 
 true sanctifying and saving conversion. The 
 other conversion, which he ascribes not to 
 the sacrament, is not a saving conversion ; 
 for the " external conversion of men from 
 paganism or Gentilism, to the external pro- 
 fession of the faith of Christ," without the 
 other conversion to an inward spiritual em- 
 bracing of Christ, doth but make men seven- 
 fold more the children of hell. So that Mr 
 Prynne hath more opened his sore, when he 
 thought to cover and patch it. 
 
 The other distinction which he gives us, 
 is of a twofold sealing. But, by the way, 
 he tells us, that baptism and tlae Lord's sup- 
 per are termed sacraments and seals, with- 
 out any text of Scripture to warrant it. 
 Hereby, as he gratifieth the Socinians not a 
 little^ (who will not have the Lord's supper 
 to be called either seal or sacrament, but an 
 obediential act and a good work of ours, and 
 tell us that we make the Lord's supper but 
 too holy to delude the vulgar), so he cor- 
 recteth all orthodox writers, ancient and 
 modern. The Apostle describeth circumci- 
 sion to be <T(})payis, a seal of the righteous- 
 ness of faith, Rom. iv. IL Whence divines 
 give the name of seals to all sacraments. 
 Recti autem (saith Aretius, Theol. Prohl., 
 loc. 76) spcciebus imis et intermediis gen- 
 eribus eadem assignantur in definiendo 
 genera. Circumcision is a seal, therefore a 
 sacrament is a seal : as well as this, — justice 
 is a habit, therefore virtue is a habit ; man 
 is a substance, therefore a living creature is 
 a substance ; and further, if circumcision 
 
 1 Faustus Socinns de Coena Dom. Tract, brev. — 
 Autem, quod omnes fere opinantur, hoc ritu, quern 
 sacramentum appellant confirmarl saltern fidera 
 nostram, ne id quidem verum ceuseri debet ; cum 
 nee nllo sacro testimonio comprobetur, ncc ulla 
 ratio sit, cur id fieri possit. Quomodo enim potest 
 nos in fide confirmare id quod nos ipsi facimus, 
 quodque licet a Domino institutum, opus tamen 
 nostrum est. Smalc. disp. 12, de Coena. — Vox sa- 
 cramenti in bac significatione barbara vel saltem 
 sacris Uteris incognita est, ab hominibus vero otio- 
 sis, qui ccreraouiis hujusmodi nescio quid prseter 
 sacram Scripturam superstitiosum aut etiam idolo- 
 latricura ex parte, tribuere non sunt veriti, ad te- 
 gendum dolum usurpata. 
 
 was a seal, the Lord's supper is much more a 
 seal, as we shall see afterwards. The hon- 
 ourable houses of parliament, after advice 
 had with the Assembly of divines, have 
 judged this point (which Mr Prynne so 
 much quarrelleth) to be not only true, but 
 so far necessary and fundamental, that, in 
 their ordinance of October 20, 1645, for 
 keeping back the ignorant and the scandal- 
 ous from the sacrament, this truth, " That 
 the sacraments are seals of the covenant of 
 grace," is enumerated among those points 
 of religion, which all persons who shall be 
 admitted to the Lord's supper ought to 
 know, and of which whosoever is ignorant, 
 shall not be admitted to the Lord's supper. 
 I hope Mr Prynne shall not be willing to 
 fall within the category of ignorant persons, 
 and such as ought not to be admitted to the 
 sacrament, which yet, by that ordinance, he 
 must needs do, if he will not know the 
 Lord's supper to be a seal of the covenant 
 of grace. Wherefore, though he leaneth 
 much that way, both here and p. 30, yet I 
 shall expect he will rectify himself in this 
 particular. His words are these : " There 
 is a double sealing, if we admit this sacra- 
 ment or baptism to be seals, though never 
 once styled seals in any Scripture text." And 
 in the margin, " They are termed sacraments 
 and seals of the covenant, without any text 
 to warrant it." Now, quceritur, whether 
 Mr Prynne doth know that the sacraments 
 are seals of the covenant of grace, and if he 
 doth not know this, whether doth not the 
 ordinance strike against him ? And now, 
 to return, the word acppayts, that is, a 
 seal (which makes most to our present pui*- 
 pose), is a Scripture word. As for the word 
 sacrament, we need not seek it in Scripture, 
 because it is a Latin word, and there is 
 not, either in the Hebrew or Greek (the 
 languages in which Scripture was written) 
 any word which properly, closely and fully, 
 answereth to the word sacrament. Sure 
 we have the thing sacrament (though not 
 the name) in Scripture. Peradventure Mr 
 Prynne is the more afraid of the word sa- 
 crament, because some derive it d sacra- 
 mente, which suiteth not so well to his no- 
 tion of a converting ordinance. 
 
 Well ; but what are his two sorts of seal- 
 ing ? " 1. A visible external sealing of the 
 pardon of sin and God's promises, in the 
 blood of Christ, to our outward senses. 2. 
 An internal invisible sealing of them by the 
 Spirit working in, by the word and sacra- 
 
DIVINE ORDINAJfCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 235 
 
 ments, to our souls. In the first sense (he 
 saith) this sacrament is a seal to all receiv- 
 ers, even to those who are scandalous and 
 unworthy, who receive only the outward ele- 
 ments." Again, this first kind of seahng, 
 saith he, " seals all God's promises, and a 
 free pardon of all our sins, only condition- 
 ally, if we truly repent, lay hold on Christ," 
 &c. The second, which is an absolute seal- 
 ing, he grants to belong only to worthy, pe- 
 nitent, believing receivers. Who doth now 
 delude the vulgar ? When the Lord's supper 
 is called a sealing oi-dinance, did ever any 
 man understand this of a sealing to our out- 
 ward senses only, or of receiving the outward 
 elements and no more? Who can mistake the 
 thing so far as to think that Christ hath in- 
 stituted and ordained this sacrament to be a 
 mere external seal, and no more ? "Wlien he 
 gi'ants that, in the second sense, this sacra- 
 ment is a seal, " only to worthy, penitent, 
 believing receivers, who receive the inward 
 invisible gi-ace, as well as the outward signs," 
 he grants that which I require ; that is, that 
 it is a sealing ordinance mtended for worthy, 
 penitent, believing receivers, not for the scan- 
 dalous and unworthy. God forbid we should 
 make a sealing ordinance to be an empty or- 
 dinance. The truth is, his first kind of seal- 
 ing, without the second, is no sealing, yea, 
 worse than no seahng. Wliere there is no 
 charter how can there be a sealing, except 
 we seal blank paper ? and, as we shall hear 
 anon fi-om Chrysostom, we have not so much 
 as the seal, except we have that which is 
 sealed. I know it will be answered, There 
 is somewhat to be sealed even to the scan- 
 dalous and unworthy ; that is, the pardon of 
 all their sins conditionally, if they truly re- 
 pent, believe, lay hold on Christ. In this 
 very place Mr Prynne tells us, that all God's 
 promises, and a free pardon, is sealed, even 
 to scandalous and unworthy receivers con- 
 ditionally ; that is, as he explicates him- 
 self, p. 37, upon condition that they " be- 
 come penitent and believing receivers." But 
 then, say I, he nmst, upon as good reason, 
 gi'ant that the sacrament may be given to 
 pagans and Turks, at least the first day of 
 preaching the gospel to them. May it not 
 be said to pagans and Turks, that if they re- 
 pent and believe on Christ, they shall have 
 pardon of sin. Here is the thing to be seal- 
 ed in Mr Prynne's opinion. What then 
 should hinder the sealing? He shunneth 
 to call the sacrament a converting ordinance 
 in reference to pagans ; and now, behold, his 
 
 principles will admit the giving of the sacra- 
 ment even to pagans as a sealing ordinance, 
 how much more then as a converting or- 
 dinance ? 
 
 We have now heard his two distinctions, 
 which, if they have given any clearing to 
 his assertion, it is such as is little to his ad- 
 vantage. I will now premise some distinc- 
 tions of my own to clear that which I hold. 
 
 1. The question is not de potentia Dei 
 absoluta, Whether God, by his omnipo- 
 tency, can give the first grace of conversion 
 in the instant of receiving the sacrament ? 
 But the question is of the revealed will of 
 God, and the way of the dispensation of 
 grace made known to us in the gospel, 
 which must be the rule to us to walk by. 
 A peradventure it may he, and who know- 
 eth but the scandalous sinner may be con- 
 verted, is no warrantable ground to go upon 
 in this case, as Mr Prynne would make it, 
 p. 47, for we may as well adventure to de- 
 lay repentance, upon a peradvcnture it may 
 be. There is an example in the New Tes- 
 tament of one who got repentance and mercy 
 at his end, and if we believe the Hebrews, 
 and divers Christian interpreters, there is 
 another example of the same kind in the 
 Old Testament, which is the example of 
 Achan ; whereas there is no example in all 
 the Scripture of any converted by the sacra- 
 ment. But if a thing be contrary to the 
 revealed will and commandment of God (as 
 both these are, the delaying of repentance, 
 and the admission of scandalous persons to 
 the sacrament), we may not dare to go upon 
 peradventure. " To the law and to the tes- 
 timony," " Search the Scriptures." If the 
 Word do not show us anything of conversion 
 by the sacrament, we must not think of any 
 such thing. 
 
 2. We must distinguish between the sa- 
 crament itself, and those things that do ac- 
 company the sacrament, — powerful preach- 
 ing, exhortation, prayer, or the like, before 
 or after the sacrament. Put the case : A sin- 
 ner being effectually converted by a sermon 
 or a pi'ayer which he heareth at the ordina- 
 tion of a minister, will any man therefore 
 say, that ordination is a converting ordi- 
 nance ? So if, by most serious powerful ex- 
 hortations, convictions, promises, threaten- 
 ings, by prayer, by Christian conference, by 
 reading or meditation before or after the 
 sacrament, the Lord be pleased to touch the 
 conscience and convert the soul of an im- 
 penitent profane wicked liver, nothing of this 
 
236 
 
 kind can make the sacrament a converting 
 ordinance. 
 
 3. We must distinguish, even in conver- 
 sion, between gratia prceveniens et subse- 
 quens, operant' et co-operans, excitans et 
 adjuvans, or rather, between habitual and 
 actual conversion. Habitual conversion I 
 call the first infusion of the hfe and habits 
 of gi-ace ; actual conversion is the soul's be- 
 ginning to act from that life, and from those 
 habits. The first, or habitual conversion, 
 iu which the sinner is passive, and not at all 
 active, it being wholly the work of prevent- 
 ing, exciting, quickening gi'ace, is that which 
 never is to be looked for in the sacrament of 
 the Lord's supper, which is enough to over- 
 throw that opinion, that scandalous impeni- 
 tent sinners (having an external fonnal pro- 
 fession, but known by a wicked, abominable 
 conversation, to be dead in sins and tres- 
 passes, in whom the Holy Ghost hath never 
 yet breathed the first breath of the life of 
 grace) may be admitted to the Lord's sup- 
 per (if they desire it, not being excommuni- 
 cated), upon hopes that it may prove a con- 
 verting ordinance to them. As for gra- 
 tia subsequens co-operans et adjuvans, by 
 which the sinner (having now a spiritual 
 life created in him, and supernatural habits 
 infused in his soul) is said actually to con- 
 vert, repent, and believe, I consider, even 
 in this actual conversion, repenting, believ- 
 ing, these two things : 1. Theinchoation. 2. 
 The progTCss of the work. Where the work 
 is begun, if it were but faith like a grain of 
 nmstard seed, and where there is anything 
 of conversion which is tnie and sound, the 
 sacrament is a blessed powerful means to 
 help forward the work. But I perempto- 
 
 ■ rily deny that the sacrament of the Lord's 
 supper is appointed or instituted by Christ 
 1 as a regenerating, converting ordinance, as 
 I well as the word, or as a means of be-nnninjc 
 actual, much less habitual conversion. 
 
 4. When I hold the Lord's supper not to 
 be a convei'ting but a seahng ordinance, the 
 meaning is not as if I believed that all who 
 are permitted to come to the Lord's table 
 are tnaly converted, or that they are such 
 as the seals of the covenant of grace do in- 
 deed, and of right, belong unto (for we speak 
 of visible churches and visible saints) ; but 
 my meaning is, that Christ hath intended 
 this sacrament to be the children's bread 
 
 1 only (though the hired servants of the house 
 I have other bread eriough and to spare), and 
 I he alloweth tliis portion to none but such as 
 
 are already converted and do believe ; and 
 that they who are the ministers of Christ, 
 and stewards of the mysteries of God, ought 
 to admit none to tliis sacrament except such 
 as are qualified and fit (so far as can be judged 
 by their profession, knowledge, and practice, 
 observed and examined by the eldership, ac- 
 cording to the rules of the word, no human 
 court being infallible) to have part and por- 
 tion in the communion of saints, and to re- 
 ceive the seals of the covenant of grace ; at 
 least that they may not dare to admit any 
 man, whose known and scandalous wicked- 
 ness continued in without signs of repen- 
 tance, saith within theii- hearts, that there is 
 no fear of God before his eyes. 
 
 These things premised (which are to be 
 remembered by the reader, but need not be 
 repeated by me as we go along), I proceed 
 to the arguments which prove iny assertion, 
 that the Lord's supper is not a converting 
 but a seahng ordinance. And thereafter I 
 shall answer Mr Prynne's arguments brought 
 to the contrary. 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 twenty arguments to prove that the i 
 lord's supper is not a conc erting or- 
 dinance. 
 
 First, That which is an instituted signifi- 
 cant sign, to declare and testify the being , 
 of that thing which is thereby signified, is ! 
 not an operating cause or mean which makes I 
 that thing signified to begin to be where it 
 was not. But the sacrament is an mstituted 
 sign to declare and testify the being of that 
 thing which is thereby signified. There- 
 fore, this is an argument used by Protestant j 
 writers against Papists.^ The sacraments I 
 being, by their definition, signs, are not 
 causes of that which they signify, neither J 
 are the tilings signified the effects of the 
 sacraments. Wherefore, the sacrament of 
 the Lord's supper, being a sign of our spiri- j 
 tual life, faith, union with Christ, and remis- 
 
 1 Cliamier. Contract, torn. 4, lib. 2, cap. 9. — Qtiia 
 ut eflBcientia to to genere sno differt a significatione: 
 ita diyersa ratio est instituendi instrumenta efSci- 
 entia, et significantia, &c. 2. Prob. inductione, Quia 
 uuUa signa sive miraculosa, sive alia sunt efficientia. 
 Polanu*, JSynt. lib. 6, cap. 49. — Elementum sacra- 
 mentale siguificat, tc statnr, et obsignat credentibna 
 rem verbo Dei promiisam, earn autem nequaquam 
 causat, cfficit, aut producit. 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOYERNStENT VINDICATED. 
 
 237 
 
 sion of sins, is not instituted to convey these 
 spiritual blessings to such as have them not. 
 Signijicancy is one thing ; ejjiciency an- 
 other. You will say, by this argument, 
 there is no grace exhibited, nor given to be- 
 lievei"s themselves, in the sacrament. 
 
 Ans. Growth in grace, and confirmation 
 of faith, is given to believers in the sacra- 
 ment, which the sigTiificancy hinders not, 
 because the sacrament doth not signify nor 
 declare that the receiver hath much grace 
 and a strong faith, but that he hath some 
 life of grace, and some faith. The very state 
 I of grace or spiritual life, regeneration, faith, 
 j and remission of sins, are signified, declared, 
 j testified, and sealed, but not wrought or 
 given in the sacrament. The strengthening 
 of faith, and a further degree of communion 
 with Christ, is not signified in the sacra- 
 ment, I mean, it is not signified that we 
 have it, but that we shall have it, or at 
 most, that we do then receive it. So that 
 believers may truly be said to receive, at the 
 sacrament, a confirmation or strengthening 
 of their faith, or a further degree of com- 
 nmnion with Christ ; but it cannot be said 
 that the very sacramental act of eatmg or 
 drinking, being a sign of spiritual life and 
 union with Christ (as that which we have, 
 not which we shall have, or at that instant 
 receive), is a mean or insti'umental cause to 
 make a man have that which it testifieth, 
 or sig-nifietli he hath, already. There is no 
 evasion here, for one who acbiowedgeth the 
 sacrament to be a sign, declaring or show- 
 ing forth that we have faith in Christ, re- 
 mission of sins by him, and union with him. 
 Mr Prynne must either make blank the sig- 
 nification of the sacrament, a parte ante, 
 though not a parte post, or else hold that 
 the signification of the sacrament is not ap- 
 plicable to many of those whom he thinks 
 fit to be admitted to I'eceive it. 
 
 Secondly, That which necessarily sup- 
 poseth conversion and faith, doth not work 
 conversion and faith. But the sacrament of 
 the Lord's supper necessarily supposeth con- 
 version and taith : therefore, the proposition 
 is so certain, that either it must be yielded, 
 or a contradiction must be yielded ; for that 
 which worketh conversion and faith, cannot 
 suppose that they are, but that they are not. 
 Therefoi'e that which supposeth conversion 
 and faith, cannot work convei-sion and faith, 
 because then the same thing should be sup- 
 posed both to be and not to be. The as- 
 sumption I prove from Scripture. Mark 
 
 xvi. 16, " He that believeth and is baptized 
 shall be saved." 'Acts ii. 38, " Kepent and 
 be baptized ;" ver. 41, " Then they that 
 gladly received his word were baptized." 
 Acts viii. 36, 37, " And the eunuch said, 
 See here is water, what doth hinder me to 
 be baptized ? And Philip said, If thou be- 
 lievest with all thine heart thou mayest." 
 Acts X. 47, " Can any man forbid water, 
 that these should not be baptized which have 
 received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" 
 
 Now if baptism itself (which is the sacra- 
 ment of our initiation) supposeth (according 
 to the tenor and meaning of Christ's insti- 
 tution) that the party baptized (if of age) 
 doth actually convert and believe, and (if an 
 infant) supposeth an interest in Jesus Christ 
 and in the covenant of grace (for if he be a 
 child of an heathen or an infidel, although 
 taken into a Christian f;imily, yet the Synod 
 of Dort, sess. 19, adviseth not to baptize 
 such a child, till it come to such age as to 
 be instructed in the principles of Christian 
 religion), how much more doth the Lord's 
 supper, necessarily, by Christ's institution, 
 suppose that the receivers are not uncon- 
 verted and unbelieving persons ? The pre- 
 vious qualifications which are supposed in 
 baptism, must be much more supposed in the 
 Lord's supper. 
 
 Thirdly, That v;hich gives us the new 
 food, supposeth that we have the new birth 
 and spiritual life, and that we are not still 
 dead in sins and trespasses. But the sacra- 
 ment of the Lord's supper gives us the new 
 food, therefore it supposeth we have the 
 new birth. Th.e proposition I prove thus : 
 A man must first be born by the new birth 
 before he can be fed with the new food ; and 
 how can a man eat the flesh and drink the 
 blood of Christ, and yet be supposed not to 
 have a spiritual life Ijefore that act, but to 
 get a spiritual life in that very act Doth 
 a man get lite because he eats and drinks, 
 or doth he not rather eat and drink because 
 he lives ? The assumption is a received and 
 uncontroverted truth. And hence do di- 
 vines give this reason why we are but once 
 baptized, but do many times receive the 
 Lord's supper : because it is enough to be 
 
 1 Synops. Pur. Theol. disp. 43, tlies. 35.— Duo 
 tantum esse et non plura C sacramenta) affirmamus : 
 quoniam unum est initiationis, seu regenerationis, 
 alterum nutritionis seu alimoniae. So Matthias 
 Martiuius, Lexic. Philol. p. 3272, makes this dis- 
 tinction between baptism and the Lord's supper : 
 that is a sacrament of initiation and adoption, this 
 of confirmation and nourishment. 
 
238 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 onee bora, but not enough to be once nou- 
 rished or strengthened. See the Belgic 
 Confession, art. 34 ; and D. Parei, Miscel- 
 lanea Catechetica, p. 79. I shall streng- 
 then my argument by the Confession of 
 Bohemia, cap. 11. " The sacraments can- 
 not give to any such (which before was not 
 inwardly quickened by the Holy Ghost) 
 either grace or justifying and quickening 
 faith, and therefore they cannot justify any 
 man, nor inwardly quicken or regenerate any 
 man's spirit; for faith must go before." And 
 after : " For if a dead man, or one that is 
 unworthy, do come to the sacraments, cer- 
 tainly they do not give him life and worthi- 
 ness," &c. See the Harmon^/ of Confes- 
 sions, printed at London 1643, p. 280, 281. 
 To what end then is the sacrament of the 
 Loi'd's supper instituted ? For that, see the 
 Confession of Bdgia, Ibid. p. 320. " We 
 believe and confess that Jesus Christ our Lord 
 and Saviour hath instituted the holy sacra- 
 ment of his supper, that in it he might nourish 
 and sustain those whom he hath regenerated 
 and ingrafted into his family, which is the 
 church." Both these chapters did Mr Prynne 
 cite in the question of Judas (which yet 
 prove not what he affirmeth in that point, 
 as I have noted before), but it seems he did 
 not observe these passages which make di- 
 rectly against him in this question of con- 
 version or conferring of grace by the sa- 
 crament. Add also Mr Pemble in his Chris- 
 tian Directions for receiving the Sacra- 
 ment. " The sacrament (saith he) is ap- 
 pointed for our nourishment in grace ; where 
 we gi'ow not by it, it is a sign this food was 
 not digested but vomited up again ; where 
 faith, repentance, thankfulness, and obe- 
 dience are not increased, there Christ cruci- 
 fied was not remembered." But how can 
 there be any nourishment in grace, or any 
 increase of grace in those who come to the 
 sacrament without the first grace, or in the 
 state of unregeneration ? 
 
 Fourthly, That ordinance which is in- 
 stituted only for believers and justified per- 
 sons, is no converting but a sealmg ordinance. 
 But the sacrament of the Loi'd's supper is 
 instituted only for believers and justified 
 persons ; therefore, the proposition hath 
 light enough in itself ; for converting ordi- 
 nances do belong even to unjustified and 
 unconverted persons. Therefore that which 
 is instituted only for believers is no convert- 
 ing ordinance. All the question will be of 
 the assumption, which I shall the rather 
 
 confirm, because it is the very principle from 
 which Polanus' and others argue for the sus- 
 pension of scandalous persons from the 
 Lord's table. Now I prove the assumption 
 thus : Every sacrament, even a sacrament of 
 initiation, is " a seal of the righteousness of 
 faith." If circumcision was " a seal of the 
 righteousness of faith," Rom. iv. 11, then 
 baptism (which hath succeeded to circumci- 
 sion) is also " a seal of the righteousness of 
 faith," and that more fully and clearly than ' 
 circumcision was ; and if baptism be " a seal 
 of the righteousness of faith," much more 
 is the sacrament of the Lord's supper " a 
 seal of the righteousness of faith ;" which is 
 also proved by Matt. xxvi. 28, " For this is 
 my blood of the new covenant, which is shed 
 for many for the remission of sins." Chry- 
 sostom on Rom. iv., considering those words, 
 ver. 11, "a seal of the righteousness of 
 faith," hath this meditation upon it, that a 
 sacrament is no sign, no seal, except where 
 the thing is which is signified and sealed i 
 Tifos yap earai ar}fielov, rtvos be ccbpayu, 1 
 ovK ovTos row ft<ppayiC()fievov : For of what 
 shall it be a sign, or of what shall it be a i 
 seal, when there is none to be sealed ? 'Et i 
 yap biKaioavvrjs eT-i arifielov biKnioaivriy I 
 be OVK ej^eis, ovbe arjfxe'iov e\eis : For (saith | 
 he), if it be a sign of righteousness, and 
 thou hast not righteousness, neither hast 
 thou the sign. If therefore a sacrament 
 be a seal of the righteousness of faith, then 
 it is instituted only for behevers and justified 
 persons, because to such only it can seal the 
 righteousness of faith. Upon this gi'ound 
 saith Ursinus that the sacraments are to the 
 wicked and unbehevei-s no sacraments; which 
 agreeth with that, Rom. ii. 25, " If thou be 
 a breaker of the law, thy cii'cumcision is made 
 uncircumcision . " ^ 
 
 Fifthly, The Apostle argues that Abra- 
 ham, the father of the faithful, and whose 
 justification is as it were a pattern of ours, 
 was not justified by circumcision, or (as 
 
 1 Polanus, Synt. lib. 6, cap. 56. — He holds that 
 omnes illi qui scandala praebent et non resipiscunt 
 serio, a mensa Domini sunt arcendi. 1. Quia si in- 
 fideles et impoenitentes ad coenam Domini admitter- 
 entur, profanaretur foedus Dei, tarn communicando 
 symbola foederus iis quibus Dcus nihil promittit, 
 quam nsurpando symbola sacra sine fide et resipis- 
 centia. 2. Quia polluerent et contaminarent cibum 
 et potum consecratum, quem Christua non destina- 
 Tit nisi suis domesticis et fidelibns, &c. 6. Quia in- 
 credulos et manifeste impios Christus prohibuit ad- 
 mitti ad sacram coenam : nam instituit illam soils 
 i fidelibus. 
 
 I a ubi Supra, p. 395. 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 239 
 
 Aquinas conf'esseth upon the place) that cir- 
 cumcision was not the cause but the sign of 
 justification. Rom. iv. 9 — 11, " We say 
 that faith was reckoned to Abraham for 
 righteousness. How was it then reckoned ? 
 When he was in circumcision or in uncii'- 
 cumcision ? Not in circumcision but in un- 
 circumcision. And he received the sign of 
 circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of 
 the faith which he had yet being uncii'cum- 
 cised." If Abraham, the father of the 
 faithful, got not so much as the sacrament 
 of initiation till after he was justified and 
 sanctified, how shall we think of receiving, 
 not only the sacrament of initiation, but the 
 sacrament of spiritual nourishment, while 
 unjustified and unsanctified ? And if God 
 did, by his word, make a covenant with A- 
 braham before he received circumcision, the 
 seal of that covenant, must it not much 
 more be supposed, that they are within the 
 covenant of grace who eat and drink at the 
 Lord's table, and consequently, that those 
 who are children of disobedience and wrath, 
 and strangers to Christ and the covenant of 
 grace (apparently and manifestly such, 
 though not professedly) ought not to be ad- 
 mitted to the Loi'd's table under colour of a 
 converting ordinance, it being indeed a seal 
 of the covenant of grace. 
 
 Sixthly, That ordinance which is appointed 
 only for such as can and do rightly examine 
 themselves concerning their spiritual estate, 
 regeneration, repentance, faith, and convei- 
 sation, is no converting ordinance. But the 
 sacrament of the Loi'd's supper is an ordi- 
 nance which is appointed only for such 
 as can and do rightly examine themselves 
 concerning their spiritual estate, regenera- 
 tion, repentance, faith, and conversation : 
 therefore, it is no converting ordinance. 
 The reason of the proposition is, because un- 
 converted persons cannot nor do not rightly 
 examine themselves concerning their spiri- 
 tual estate, regeneration, &c. For such 
 are " a generation pure in their own eyes, 
 and yet not washed from their filthiness," 
 Prov. xvi. 2 ; xxi. 2 ; xxx. 12, and the na- 
 tural man cannot know the things of the 
 Spirit of God, " because they are spiritually 
 discerned ; but he that is spiritual judgeth 
 
 1 Bullinger, Decad. 5, serm. 7. — Quia praeterea 
 inde non coUigat, nos qui filii Abrahae suraus, non 
 alia ratione justificari, quam patrem justificarum 
 constat, ac sacramenta nostra in nobis non aliud 
 efficere, quam quod in illo efFecerunt ? praesertim 
 eura eadera sit ratio sacramentorum yeterum et 
 nostrorum. 
 
 all things," 1 Cor. ii. 14, 15 ; " The carnal 
 mind is enmity against God," Rom. viii. 7. 
 The assumption is proved by 1 Cor. xi. 28, 
 " But let a man examine himself, and so let 
 him eat of that bread and drink of that cup." 
 This self-examination (interpreters say) must 
 be concerning a man's knowledge, repen- 
 tance, faith, and conversation.^ The Apos- 
 tle expounds himself, 2 Cor. xiii. 5, " Ex- 
 amine yourselves whether ye be in the 
 faith ; prove your ownselves, how that Jesus 
 Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates," or 
 counterfeit, aiid unapproved. This self-ex- 
 amination, as it is requisite at other times, 
 so especially before our coming to the Lord's 
 table ; and an unconverted man can no more 
 do it truly and rightly (according to the 
 Apostle's meaning) than he can convert him- 
 self. And here that which Mr Prynne did 
 object maketh against himself. The Apostle 
 saith, " Let a man examine himself," not 
 others ; for the examination there spoken of 
 belongs to the court of one's own conscience, 
 and to the inward man, saith Martyr upon 
 the place, not to the ecclesiastical court. But 
 a natural unconverted man may possibly ex- 
 amine others, and espy a mote in his bro- 
 ther's eye; he cannot in any right or accep- 
 table manner examine his own conscience, 
 nor go about the taking of the beam out of 
 his own eye. He therefore who either can- 
 not through ignorance, or doth not through 
 impenitency and hardness of heart, examine 
 himself, and is known to be such an one by 
 his excusing, justifying, or not confessing his 
 scandalous sin, or continuing in the practice 
 thereof, ought not to be admitted to that 
 holy ordinance which is instituted only for 
 such as can and do humbly and soundly ex- 
 amine themselves, and consequently not in- 
 tended for unconverted impenitent persons, i 
 Seventhly, That ordinance unto which one 
 may not come without a wedding garment, 
 is no converting ordinance. But the supper 
 of the Lord, the marriage feast of the king's 
 son, is an ordinance unto which one may not 
 come without a wedding garment; there- 
 fore, the proposition hath this reason for it. 
 
 1 Synops. pur. Tbeol. disp. 45, thes. 83. — Dignua 
 ejus usus praeeunte probatione sui cujusque defini- 
 tur : scilicet an sit in fide, 2 Cor. xiii. 5, et seria re- 
 sipiscentia afficiatur, secundum illud Pauli, probet 
 vero seipsum homo, &c. 
 
 2 Ursinus, Tract. Theol. p. 650, edit. 1584— Ad 
 coenam Domini autem nuUi nisi adulti, qui et pro- 
 bare seipsos possunt, et banc probationem confes- 
 sione et vita ostendaut. Quid poro de his facien- 
 dum qui vitam Christiauis indignam agunt ? Eccle- 
 siastica disciplina coercendi sunt. 
 
240 
 
 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 If a man must needs have a wedding gar- 
 ment that comes, then he must needs be 
 converted that comes ; for wliatever ye call 
 the wedding garment, sure it is a thing pro- 
 per to the saints, and not common to uncon- 
 verted sinners, and the want of it doth con- 
 demn a man unto outer darkness, Matt. xxii. 
 13. The assumption is clear from Matt, 
 xxii. 11, 12, "When the king came in to 
 see the guests, he saw there a man which 
 had not on a wedding garment. And he 
 saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in 
 hither, not having a wedding garment and 
 he was speechless." If he had been of Mr 
 Prynne's opinion he needed not be speech- 
 less ; for Mr Prynne's divinity might have 
 put this answer in his mouth : Lord, I 
 thought this to be a converting ordinance, 
 and that thou wouldst not reject those that 
 come in without a wedding garment, pro- 
 vided that here, at the marriage i'east, they 
 get one. But we see the king condemneth 
 the man for coming in thither without a 
 wedding garment. 
 
 Eighthly, That ordinance which is not 
 appointed to work faith, is no converting 
 ordinance. But the sacrament of the Lord's 
 supper is not appointed to woi'k faith ; there- 
 fore the proposition must be granted, unless 
 a man will say that conversion may be with- 
 out faith. The assumption is proved by Kom. 
 X. 14. Men cannot pray if they do not be- 
 lieve, and they cannot believe if they do not 
 hear the word, ver. 17, " So, then, faith com- 
 eth by hearing, and hearing by the word of 
 God." If faith cometh by hearing, then not 
 by seeing ; if by the word, then not by the 
 sacrament. 
 
 Ninthly, That ordinance which hath nei- 
 ther a promise of the grace of conversion an- 
 nexed to it, nor any example in the woi'd of 
 God of any converted by it, is no converting 
 ordinance. But the sacrament of the Lord's 
 supper hath neither a promise of the grace 
 of conversion annexed to it, nor is there any 
 example in all the Scripture of any ever 
 converted by it ; therefore it is no convert- 
 ing ordinance. 
 
 Tenthly, That ordinance whereof Christ 
 would have no unworthy person to partake, is 
 not a converting ordinance. But the Lord's 
 supper is an ordinance whereof Christ would 
 have no unworthy person to partake, there- 
 fore, the proposition I prove thus : It is not 
 the will oi' Christ that converting ordinances 
 should be dispensed to no unworthy person 
 (for else how should they be converted) ; but | 
 
 only he hath forbidden to dispense unto un- 
 worthy persons, such ordinances as belong to 
 the communion of saints. The assumption 
 I prove from 1 Cor. xi. 27, " Whosoever 
 (though otherwise a worthy person, and one 
 converted to the state of grace) shall eat this 
 bread, and drink this cup of the Lord un- 
 worthily, shall be guilty of the body and 
 blood of the Lord ;" ver. 29, " For he that 
 eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and 
 drinketh judgment to liimself, not discern- 
 ing the Lord's body." If the unwoi'thiness 
 of that particular act, in respect of the man- 
 ner of doing it, make a man so guilty and 
 liable to such judgment, how much more 
 the unworthiness of the person that eats and 
 drinks? For a man's state, the course of 
 his life, and the frame of his spirit, is more 
 than one single act. This, therefore, doth 
 prove, that he that is an unworthy person, if 
 he come to the Lord's table, doth eat and 
 drink unworthily (whence is that where the 
 Apostle saith, ver. 29, " He that eateth 
 and drinketh unworthily," the Syriac inter- 
 preter hath it, " He that eateth and drink- 
 eth thereof, being unworthy, or indignus 
 existens), which may be also gathered from 
 the interweavmg of ver. 28, between ver. 27 
 and ver. 29. He that eats and drinks, not 
 having before rightly examined himself, eats 
 and drinks unworthily ; but he that is an 
 unworthy person, and comes to the Lord's 
 table unworthily and unpreparedly, eats and 
 drinks, not having before rightly examined 
 himself ; therefore. What of that ? will you 
 say. Much to the point.^ Every uncon- 
 verted and unregenei'ate person is an un- 
 worthy person (as the Scripture distinguish- 
 eth worthy persons and unworthy), and 
 comes unworthily and unpreparedly (if he 
 come while such) to the Lord's table ; there- 
 fore, such an one, if he comes, eats and drinks 
 unworthily, and so eats and drinks judgment 
 to himself. Augustine argueth promiscu- 
 ously against those who come unworthily,^ 
 
 1 Magdeb. cent. 1, lib. 2, cap. 4, p. 278.^ — Indigne 
 eos uti docet (Paulus) qui non probant seipsos : lioc 
 est qui sine vera poenitentia et fide accedunt, &c. 
 Oecumenius, upon 1 Cor. xi. fixetli the sin of eating 
 and drinking unworthily upon the Corinthians, in 
 regard of their contempt of the poor, and their 
 other sins : supposing all to eat unworthily who are 
 under any wickedness unrepented when they come. 
 
 2 De Tempore Serm. 244. — Et cum nullos homo 
 velit cum tunica fordibus plena ad ecclesiam con- 
 venire, nescio qua conscientia cum aniraa per luxu- 
 riam sit inquiuata, praesumit ad altare accedere : 
 non timens illud quod apostolus dixit : Qui enim 
 mauducat corpus et sumit sanguinem Domini in- 
 digne, reus erit corporis et sanguinis Domini 
 
DIVINE OUDIN.VNCE OF CHURCH GOVEIIXMENT VINDICATED. 241 
 
 and those that eat and drink unworthily, 
 and appheth the Apostle's words of eating 
 and drinking unworthily, to all who come 
 with polluted souls, such as all unconverted 
 have. And Gualther, Martyr, and other 
 interpreters upon the place, the Centurists 
 also in the place last cited, reckon those to 
 cat and drink unworthily, who come without 
 the wedding garment, and without faith and 
 holiness of convereation, which intimateth 
 that they who live unworthily, do also eat 
 the Lord's supper unworthily, which is most 
 plainly intimated in the Directory, p. 50, 
 where ignorant, scandalous, and profane per- 
 sons, are warned not to come to that holy 
 table, upon this reason, because he that eats 
 and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks judg- 
 ment to himself, which necessarily implieth, 
 that unworthy persons and profane livers, if 
 they come to the sacrament, are not conver- 
 ted, but sin more in eating and drinking un- 
 worthily. I conclude, tlierefore, that the 
 prohibition of eating and drinking unwor- 
 thily, doth necessarily imply a prohibition of 
 unconverted, unregenerate, impenitent per- 
 sons, to come to the Lord's table, and, by 
 consequence, that it is no converting ordi- 
 nance. 
 
 Eleventhly, That ordinance, which is eu- 
 charistical and consolatory, supposeth that 
 such as partake of it, have part and portion 
 in that thing for which thanks are given, 
 and are such as are fit to be comforted. 
 But the Lord's supper is an ordinance eu- 
 charistical and consolatory ; therefore, the 
 proposition needs no other proof but the 
 third commandment, " Thou shalt not take 
 the name of the Lord thy God in vain." 
 Shall a man be called to give thanks for re- 
 demption, reconciliation, and remission of 
 sins, and to take comfort in Jesus Christ, 
 even while he is such an one of whom God 
 hath said, " There is no peace to the wick- 
 ed : high talk becometh not a fool." Psal. 
 xxxi. 1, " llejoice in the Lord, 0 ye right- 
 eous ; for praise is comely for the upright ;" 
 Psal. 1. 14, 16, " Offer unto God thanksgiv- 
 ing, &c. But unto the wicked God saith. 
 What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, 
 or that thou shouldest take my covenant in 
 thy mouth?" The assumption is acknow- 
 ledged among all ;i for as it hath the name 
 
 1 Zninglius, torn. 2, De Vera et Falsa Religionc, 
 cap. de Sacramen. — CcEiia Dominica damus exppri- 
 mentum, quod raorte CLristi fidaimis, quum gratu- 
 lantes et Iseti adsimus in co coetu, qui Deo gratias 
 agit pro beneficio redemptionis. 
 
 €V)^aptorict, SO is the nature of it. It is also 
 a consolatory ordinance, in which we are 
 called to spiritual joy and gladness, it being 
 a feast of fat things full of marrow, and of 
 wines on the lees well refined. At this or- 
 dinance of the holy supper, Christ spake 
 many a sweet and consolatory word to the 
 disciples, and did not rebuke them nor 
 chide them, as he had done at other times. 
 Is it not, then, a healing slightly of the ma- 
 lady of impenitent unconverted sinners, yea, 
 a betraying of their souls, to bring them to 
 joy, and comfort, and thanksgivings, and 
 songs of praise, to eat of the marrow and 
 fatness, and to drink of the rivers of plea- 
 sure which are in the house of God, when 
 we ought rather call them to weeping and 
 to mourning, to make their peace with God, 
 and to flee from the wrath to come ? 
 
 Twelfthly, That ordinance unto which 
 Christ calleth none but such as have spi- 
 ritual gracious qualifications, is not a con- 
 verting but a sealing ordinance. But the 
 Lord's supper is an ordinance unto which 
 Christ calleth none but such as have spiri- 
 tual and gracious qualifications ; therefore, 
 the proposition, I hope, needs no proof, be- 
 cause unconverted persons, dead in sins and 
 trespasses, have no spiritual gracious qualifi- 
 cations. The assumption may be proved by 
 many scriptui'es. If of any ordinance, chiefly 
 of this, it holds true that Christ inviteth and 
 calleth none but such as labour and are heavy 
 laden. Matt. xi. 28 ; such as are athirst for 
 the water of life, John vii. 37 ; Isa. Iv. 1 ; 
 such as have the wedding garment. Matt, 
 xxii. 12 ; such as examine themselves, 1 
 Cor. xi. 28 ; such as are Christ's firiends ; 
 Song of Sol. V. 1, " Eat, O friends; drink, 
 yea, drink abundantly, O beloved." 
 
 Thirteenthly, That ordinance which is 
 instituted for the communion of saints, is in- 
 tended only for such as are saints, and not 
 for unconverted sinners. But the Lord's 
 supper is an ordinance instituted for the 
 communion of saints, and of those who are 
 members of the same body of Christ, 1 Cor. 
 X. 16, 17, compared with 1 Cor. i. 2 ; there- 
 fore, Mtirtin Bucerus, de Regno Christi, lib. 
 1, cap. 7, conceiveth that this sacrament doth 
 so i'ar belong to the communion of saints, that 
 wicked and unworthy persons are not only 
 to be kept back from partaking, but from the 
 very beholding or being present in the church 
 at the giving of the sacrament, which yet is 
 more than we have affirmed. 
 
 Eourteenthly, If baptism itself (at least 
 
242 
 
 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 when ministered to those that are of acre) is 
 not a regeneratinor or converting ordinance, 
 tar less is the Lord's supper a regenerating 
 or converting ordinance. But baptism itself' 
 (at least administered to those that are of age) 
 is not a regenerating or converting ordinance ; 
 therefore, the ground of the proposition is, be- 
 cause baptism hath a nearer relation to re- 
 generation than the Lord's supper,and there- 
 fore hath the name of the laver of regene- 
 ration. The assumption I prove thus: 1. 
 Because we read of no persons of age bap- 
 tized by the apostles, except such as did pro- 
 fess faith in Christ, gladly received the word, 
 and in whom some begun work of the Spi- 
 rit of grace did appear (I say not that it 
 really was in all, but somewhat of it did ap- 
 pear in all). 2. If the baptism of those 
 who are of age be a regenerating ordinance, 
 then you suppose the person to be baptized 
 an unregenerated person (even as when a 
 minister first preacheth the gospel to pa- 
 gans, he cannot but suppose them to be un- 
 regenerated) ; but I believe no conscientious 
 minister would adventure to baptize one who 
 hath manifest and infallible signs of unrege- 
 neration. Sure we cannot be answerable to 
 God if we should niuiister baptism to a man 
 whose works and words do manifestly de- 
 clare him to be an unregenerated, uncon- 
 verted person ; and if we may not initiate 
 such an one, how shall we bring him to the 
 Lord's table ? 
 
 Fifteenthly, If the baptism even of those 
 who are of age must necessarily precede 
 their receiving of the Lord's supper, then 
 the Lord's supper is not a converting but a 
 sealing ordinance. But the baptism even of 
 those who are of age must necessarily pre- 
 cede theii' receiving of the Lord's supper. 
 Therefore, the assumption is without con- 
 troversy, it being the order observed by 
 Christ and by the apostles, and by all Chris- 
 tian churches. The proposition I prove 
 thus : 1. What better reason of the neces- 
 sity of this precedency of baptism, than that 
 baptism is the sacrament of regeneration, the 
 Lord's supper the sacrament of our spiritual 
 nourishment,! and one must be bom before he 
 
 1 Hntterus, disp. 17, de Coena Dom., thes. 1. — 
 Sacramentum initiationis Novi Test, puta baptis- 
 mum, ordine convenientissimo excipit sacramea- 
 tnm confirmationis, quod est sacratissima coena 
 Dommi et servatoris nostri Jesu C'hristi : turn ob 
 cansas alias, turn quod ea est fidei nostrae, in bap- 
 tismo nobis collatae, respectu nostri infirmitas, ut 
 nisi subinde confirmetur, mox penitus fatiscat et 
 intereat. 
 
 eat and drink. 2. The Apostle saith. Gal. 
 iii. 27, " As many of you as have been bap- 
 tized into Christ, have put on Christ;" Rom. 
 vi. 4, " We are buried with him by baptism 
 into death ;" Col. ii. 12, " Buried with him 
 in baptism, wherein also you are risen with 
 him through the faith of the operation of 
 God." Therefore if the sacrament of the 
 Lord's supper be intended only for the bap- 
 tized, then it is intended only for such as 
 are supposed to have put on Christ, are bu- 
 ried and raised again with him through 
 faith, and consequently, it Ls not intended 
 for unconverted persons to convert them, 
 but for converted persons to confirm them. 
 
 Sixteenthly, The method of the parable 
 of tlie forlorn son maketh very much against 
 Mr Prynne's opinion. The Lord is indeed 
 ready to forgive, and hath compassion upon 
 the poor sinner, and falls on his neck and 
 kisseth him, and saith to his servants, 
 " Bring forth the best robe and put it on 
 him, and put a ring on his hand, and shoes 
 on his feet, and bring hither the fatted calf, 
 and kill it, and let us eat and be merry," 
 Luke XV. 20 — 23. And this is done in the 
 sacrament of the Lord's supper more espe- 
 cially and more manifestly than in any other 
 ordinance. But when ? Not while the man 
 it yet playing the prodigal, wasting his sub- 
 stance with riotous hving, nor yet while he 
 is filling his belly in a far country with the 
 husks which the swine did eat. But it was 
 " when he came to himself,'' — when he 
 " came to his father," and said, " Father, I 
 have sinned against heaven and in thy sight, 
 and am no more worthy to be called thy 
 son." Then, and not till then, doth the fa- 
 ther bestow upon him the best robe and 
 the fatted calf ; " For this my son was dead 
 (saith the father) and is alive again, was lost 
 and is found." Had the best robe and the 
 fatted calf been given him before he re- 
 pented and came to himself, he had, proba- 
 bly, been so much the more careless of com- 
 ing home to his father. But we see these love 
 tokens, this feast, and this mirth, is for en- 
 tertaining a poor penitent, not for converting 
 an impenitent sinner. 
 
 Seventeenthly, I shall draw another ar- 
 gument both out of the Director^/ for the 
 public worsliip of God throughout the three 
 kingdoms, and out of Mr Prynne him- 
 self. Thus it is : That ordinance fi'om which 
 the minister, in the name of Christ, ought 
 concionalitcr, or doctrinally, to excommuni- 
 cate all impenitent profane persons, is not a 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 243 
 
 converting but a sealing ordinance. But 
 the Lord's supper is an ordinance from which 
 the minister ought, in the name of Christ, 
 concionaliter, or doctrinally, to exconununi- 
 cate all impenitent profane persons ; there- 
 fore the proposition ariseth from this ground, 
 we ought not to dehort impenitent profane 
 men from converting ordinances, but rather 
 exhort them to come and partake thereof. 
 The assumption I prove, First, From the 
 Directory, in the head of the Lord's supper, 
 which speaketh of the minister thus, " Next, 
 he is, in the name of Christ, on the one part 
 to warn all such as are ignorant, scandalous, 
 profane, or tliat live in any sin or offence 
 against their knowledge or conscience, that 
 they presume not to come to that holy ta- 
 ble, showing them that he that eateth and 
 drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh 
 judgment to himself; and on the other 
 part he is in especial manner to invite and 
 encourage all that labour under the sense of 
 the burden of their sins, and fear of wrath, 
 and desire to reach out mito a greater pro- 
 gress in grace than yet they can attain unto, 
 to come to the Lord's table." Is it not here 
 held forth as the will of Christ, that no pro- 
 fane, impenitent, unconverted person, ought 
 or may come to the Lord's table, but only 
 such as have somewhat of the work of grace 
 in them ? But let us hear Mr Prynne him- 
 self. The seventh difference which he stat- 
 eth between his antagonists and himself, p. 
 28, is this, " Whether the minister hath not 
 fully discharged his duty and conscience if 
 he give warning to unworthy comnumicants 
 of the danger they incur by their unworthy 
 approaches to the Lord's table, and seriously 
 dehort them from coming to it, unless they 
 repent, reform, and come prepared." 
 
 If this be a right stating of that differ- 
 ence (and if it be true which Mr Hussey, in 
 his Epistle to the Parliament, p. 7, saith, 
 that " it is a very great and dangerous sin, 
 if they come without repentance, faith, and 
 charity, wherein the minister must instruct 
 his people publicly and privately"), then, I 
 suppose that Mr Prynne will not deny that 
 a minister ought in duty and conscience to 
 do all this, to admonish a scandalous un- 
 worthy person, and seriously dehort, &c. ; 
 only he contends that the minister is not 
 bound in duty and conscience after all this 
 to keep back such from the sacrament. 
 Well, I take for the present what he grants, 
 and even by that I prove the Lord's supper 
 is no converting ordinance ; for if it were, 
 
 1. How dai-e any minister seriously dehort 
 any unworthy person from approaching to 
 it ? May we forbid sinners to use the means 
 of their conversion, especially il' they be such 
 as are not excommunicated nor cast out of the 
 church, and do desire to receive the sacra- 
 ment (which are the cases often put by Mr 
 Prynne) ? 2. How can tlie minister warn 
 such persons not to come to the sacrament, 
 " unless they repent, reform, and come pre- 
 pared ?" If it be not a sealing ordinance in- 
 tended only for such as do repent and re- 
 form, the minister may not say so. 3. And 
 otherwise the sense were this, that such per- 
 sons ought not to come to a converting ordi- 
 nance, unless they be converted ; for to re- 
 pent, reform, and come prepared, are things 
 which none can do who ai'e not converted. 
 Finally, By Mr Prynne's principles, we may 
 as well, yea rather, dehort men from coming 
 to hear the word unless they repent and re- 
 form. For, p. 44, he saith, that the sacra- 
 ment is " as converting, yea a more hum- 
 bling, regenerating, converting ordinance 
 than the word ;" which if it be so, then we 
 may more warrantably, and with less danger 
 to the souls of those who do not repent and 
 I'eform, dehort them from coming to the 
 word, than from coming to the sacrament. 
 
 Eighteenthly, That ordinance which is 
 not communicable to heathens or pagans, 
 nor to excommunicated Christians, for their 
 conversion from darkness to light, from the 
 power of Satan to God, from the state of sin 
 to the state of repentance, is not a convert- 
 ing ordinance. But the Lord's supper is 
 such : Therefore, the reason of the proposi- 
 tion is, because converting ordinances are 
 communicable to heathens ; and thence pro- 
 ceeded the general commission to preach the 
 gospel to every creature, and to teach all 
 nations. Matt, xxviii. 19 ; Mark xvi. 15; 
 which accordingly the apostles did, Rom. x. 
 18 ; Col. i. 6. And if the sacrament be a 
 converting ordinance for known impenitent, 
 scandalous, profane persons within the church, 
 what reason is there imaginable why it is not 
 also a converting ordinance for heathens, pa- 
 gans, Turks, Jews ? Or where have we the 
 least hint m Scripture that an ordinance 
 which may convert the profanest unexcom- 
 municated person within the church, cannot 
 convert both heathens and excommunicated 
 Christians ? 
 
 The assumption I prove from Mr Prynne's 
 own acknowledgment, p. 38, " Though the 
 sacrament (saith he) must not be adminis- 
 
244 
 
 -VAROX'S ROD BLOSSOMING, OR THE 
 
 tered to heathens, to whom the gospel may 
 and must be preached, before they believe 
 and profess Christ, yet it must be adminis- 
 tered to them as well as baptism, after their 
 belief and profession of Christ." ^liere he 
 clearly grants both sacraments, baptism, and 
 the Lord's supper, to be only sealing and 
 confirming (not converting) ordinances to 
 heathens, and therefore not communicable 
 to them till after they beUeve and profess 
 Christ. 
 
 Ninteenthly, That ordinance which is not 
 comnmnicable nor lawful to be administered 
 to any known impenitent sinner under that 
 notion, but only as penitent sinners, traly 
 repenting of their sins past, is not a con- 
 vertino- but a sealing ordinance. But the 
 
 D O 
 
 sacrament of the Lord's supper is such, 
 therefore the proposition I prove thus : A 
 converting ordinance may be administered 
 to known impenitent sinners under that no- 
 tion, or looked upon as such, wallowing in 
 their blood and filthiness. Yea a conveiting 
 ordinance qua converting, is not (nor indeed 
 can be) administered to penitent sinners qua 
 penitent, or looked upon as tinaly converted ; 
 for as every effect is in order of nature pos- 
 terior to its cause, so a converting ordmance, 
 being the instrumental cause of conversion, 
 regeneration, and repentance, it must needs 
 be supposed that conversion and repentance 
 doth not in order of nature precede but fol- 
 low after the administration of the convert- 
 ing ordinance. 
 
 The assumption is granted by Mr Prynne, 
 p. 37 : " The minister (saith he) doth not 
 (I suppose he will also say ouglit not) ad- 
 minister the sacrament to any known im- 
 penitent sinners under that notion, but only 
 as penitent sinners, truly repenting of then- 
 sins past, and promising, purposing to lead 
 a new hfe for the futui-e." Therefore yet 
 again, by some of his own principles, the sa- 
 crament is not administered as instrumental 
 to the first conversion of scandalous unwor- 
 thy persons in the church ; for where there 
 is in any ordinance an instinimental casuaUty 
 toward the conversion of a scandalous person, 
 that ordinance nmst needs be administered 
 to that person under the notion of an un- 
 converted person, and the effect of conver- 
 sion looked upon as consequent, not as an- 
 tecedent. 
 
 The twentieth argument, and the last, is 
 this: As I havebeforesliowed that Mr Prynne 
 in holdino- the sacrament to be a convertino- 
 ordmance, unto which unregenerate, impeni- 
 
 tent, and unbelieving persons (not being ex- 
 comnmnicated) ought to be admitted, doth 
 join issue with Papists, and dissenteth from 
 the Protestant writers in a very special point, 
 and that the controversy draweth very deep; 
 so I will now make it to appear that he dis- 
 senteth as much from the ancients in this 
 particular. Dionysius Areopagita, de Eccles. 
 Hierarchy cap. 3, part. 3, speaking of the 
 nature of this ordinance of the Lord's sup- 
 per, tells us, that it doth not admit those 
 scandalous sinners who were in the condition 
 of penitents, before they had fully manifested 
 their repentance, much less profane and un- 
 clean persons in whom no sign of repentance 
 appeareth ; tov /ji) ■navTeXiis upwrarov 6v 
 irpoaityiivr) : not admitting him who is not 
 altogether most holy. Justinus Martyr, 
 apol. 2, lets us know that in his time the 
 Lord's supper was given to none but to such 
 a person as was looked upon as a beUever, 
 and washed in the laver of regeneration, 
 and Uved according to the rule of Christ. 
 Chrysostom, hom. 83, in Matt. ; Augustine, 
 de Fide et Opcribus, cap. 18 ; Isidorus Pe- 
 lusiota, lib. 1, epist. 143, and others, might 
 be here added. But I shall bring their fuU 
 testimonies, chap, xvii., where I will show 
 antiquity to be lor the suspension of scanda- 
 lous persons unexcommunicated. Beside 
 these, I add also Beda upon 1 Cor. xi., who 
 tells us, both out of Augustine and Prosper, 
 that none ought to come to the Lord's table 
 but a justified person, and such an one as 
 abideth in Christ and Christ in him.^ Isi- 
 dorus, de Ecclesiast. ojic, lib. 1, cap. 18, 
 citing the Apostle's words, " He that eateth 
 and drinketh unworthily," addeth, " For ; 
 this is to receive unworthily, if any man re- | 
 ceive at that time m which he should be re- ! 
 penting."2 The same words hath Rabanus i 
 Mauras, de Instit. Cleric, Ub. 1, cap. 31, 
 which plainly showeth us, that in their judg- ; 
 ment the sacrament of the Lord's supper ; 
 doth suppose conversion and repentance to 
 be alreadv wroucrht, and if it be not wi-ought, 
 the receiving is an miworthy receivmg. 
 
 Moreover, that the Lord's supper was not ' 
 anciently esteemed a converting ordinance, 
 but a sealing ordinance, supposing conver- 
 
 1 Si itaque in me manet, et ego in illo, tunc man- 
 ducat tunc bibit. Qui autem non in me manet, nec 
 ego in illo, et si accipit sacramentnm, magnum ac- 
 quirit tormentum. Et infra. Ad altare Dei invisi- 
 bile (quo non accedit injustus) Ule pervenit, qui ad 
 hoc prassens jnstificatus accedit. 
 
 2 Hoc est enira iiidigne accipere, si eo tempore 
 quis accipiat, quo debet agere poenitentiam. 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNJIENT VINDICATED. 
 
 245 
 
 sion, is more than apparent by the distinc- 
 tion of Missa Catechumenorum and Missa 
 Jidelium ; and by that proclamation in the 
 church before the sacrament, sancta Sanc- 
 tis, the sense whereof Durantus, de Ritibus, 
 hb. 2, cap. 55, num. 15, giveth out of Chry- 
 sostom and Cyril, that sancta Sanctis was 
 as much as to say, Si quis non est sanctus, 
 non accedat : If any man be not holy, let 
 him not approach. Or as if it had been said 
 to them. The sacrament is an holy thing, 
 sancti et vos cum sitis Sancto Spiritu do- 
 nati, and seeing you also are holy, the 
 Holy Spirit being given unto you ; atque 
 ita sancta Sanctis convcniant, and so holy 
 things agreeing to holy persons. If the 
 Lord's supper be a holy thing intended only 
 for holy persons, then, sure, it is no con- 
 verting ordinance. 
 
 I might also cite divers schoolmen against 
 Mr Prynne in this particular. I shall in- 
 stance but in two for the present. Scotus, in 
 lib. 4, sent. dist. 9, quest. 1, proveth from 
 1 Cor. xi. 27, that it is a mortal sin for a 
 man to come to the sacrament at that time 
 when he is living in a mortal sin ; and that 
 he who is not spiritually a member of Christ, 
 ought not to receive the sacrament, which is 
 a sign of incorporation into Christ. Alex. 
 Alensis, part. 4, quest. 11, mem. 2, ait. 2, 
 sect. 2, saith thus, " As there is a double bo- 
 dily medicine [curativa et conservativa), one 
 for cure, another for conservation, so there is 
 a double spiritual medicine, to wit {cu7-ativa 
 ct conservativa), one for cure, another for 
 conservation ; repentance for the cure, the 
 eucharist for conservation," &c. 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 jiu prynne's twelve arguments, brought 
 TO prove that the lord's supper is a 
 converting ordinance, discussed and 
 answered. 
 
 It shall be now no hard business to an- 
 swer Mr Prynne's twelve arguments, bi'ought 
 by him to refute my assertion, that the sa- 
 crament of the Lord's supper is no convert- 
 ing ordinance. See Vindic, p. 41 — 45. 
 
 First, He tells us we grant that moral 
 carnal Christians, and all such as are not 
 convicted of scandalous sins, are to be ad- 
 mitted to the sacrament. " Therefore, 
 doubtless (saith he), it is and was intended 
 
 by Christ for a converting ordinance to all 
 such as these, to turn them from their evil 
 ways, and work saving grace within their 
 hearts, since it can have no other proper 
 primary effect in such. Certainly God and 
 Christ bestow no ordinances upon men in 
 vain ; therefore, their intentions in institut- 
 ing this supper, even for such visible, mo- 
 ral, unregenerate Christians, as well as real 
 saints, nmst necessarily be for their con- 
 version, not their confirmation and sealing 
 only." 
 
 Ans. Lapsus in initio mali augurii est. 
 He confoundeth here things most different. 
 
 1. He confoundeth our admitting of com- 
 municants, with God's intention to do good 
 to their souls ; and his argument iims upon 
 this mistake, that God intendetli good to 
 the souls of all who come to the Lord's ta- 
 ble, though wicked close hypocrites; and 
 since this good cannot be sealing only, it 
 must be conversion. But it is neither seal- 
 ing nor conversion, nor any good at all 
 which God intends by that ordinance to 
 them that perish, yet it is not in vain ; for 
 he himself tells us, p. 34, that even in these, 
 the minister administering the sacrament is 
 a sweet savour to God, who hath appointed 
 the sacrament " secondarily and contingent- 
 ly, to be a means of aggravating men's sins 
 and condemnation, to magnify his justice." 
 
 2. There is a most dangerous mistake in 
 that which he saith of the intentions of God 
 and of Christ. If he mean of what God 
 intendetli or purposeth in the counsel of his 
 own will, that, in this sense, God intendetli 
 the conversion of those that perish, is to 
 make void and frustraneous, the degree, will, 
 and intention of God, which is gross Armi- 
 nianism and Jesuitism. But if he mean 
 finis operis, the proper end for which the 
 sacrament was instituted, and the good which 
 the word of God tells us we ought to seek, 
 and may, through the grace of God, find in 
 the sacrament, then, in that sense, to say 
 that Christ's intention, in instituting this sa- 
 crament, was for convei'sion of moral unre- 
 generate Christians, is merely a begging of 
 what is in question. The like I say of that 
 proper primary effect of the sacrament in 
 such. If he mean the proper primary effect 
 decreed in the secret counsel of God, he 
 mires himself in Arniinianism ; if he mean 
 the proper primary effect of the sacrament, 
 in respect of its own nature, this is but pe- 
 tere principium. 3. All who pretend right 
 to the sacrament, are either visible saints, 
 
246 
 
 Aaron's rod blossomixg, or the 
 
 I 
 
 qualified according to the rule of Christ, 
 and such as the eldership (examining their 
 profession and practice according to the 
 rules of the word) judgeth fit to be ad- 
 mitted to the sacrament ; or they are not 
 such. If they be such, then the end and 
 use of the sacrament in reference to them, 
 is to be a sealing ordinance ; for the el- 
 dership judgeth and supposeth them fit to 
 be sealed and confirmed, so far as they can 
 understand, ajid in that capacity do admit 
 them, God only being able to judge close 
 hypocrites. If they be not qualified, as I 
 have said, then we do not grant that they 
 ought to be admitted. 
 
 His second argument hath no strength 
 at aU. All ordinances which strengthen 
 grace, do more or less begin or beget it, and 
 the Directory itself calls the sacraments 
 means of grace, p. 52. \Miat then ? The 
 Directory calls this sacrament a means of 
 grace, because by it " Chiist and all liis be- 
 nefits are applied and sealed up unto us," 
 and we " are sealed up by his Spirit to an 
 assurance of happiness and everlasting life." 
 But, saith he, why may not the sacraments 
 convert as well as confinn ? I have given 
 many reasons for it. If he could prove that 
 what confirms doth also convert, why did he 
 not do it ? If he could not prove it, why 
 brings he a strong affirmation instead of an 
 argument ? As for that which he addeth, 
 that the Lord's supper is received not once, 
 as baptism, but frequently, " for this very 
 end, that those who often fall into sin through 
 infirmity, may likewise, by this supper, of- 
 ten rise again, be refreshed, comforted, and 
 get strength against their conuptions and 
 sins ; and is it not then a converting as well 
 as confirming ordinance V What a waver- 
 ing is here ! Is the raising, refreshing, and 
 comfortincr of those who often fall through 
 infirmity, the conversion or first grace which 
 now we dispute of? or whether doth he not 
 here yield the cause ? For the refreshings 
 and comfortingr, and strengthening; of those 
 who fall through infirmity, is the effect of a 
 confirming, not of a converting ordinance. 
 And, in this sense, divines have given a rea- 
 son why we are but once baptized, but do often 
 receive the Lord's supper, because baptism is 
 the sacrament of our initiation, the laver of 
 regeneration (I mean not that which hath 
 been called baptismal regeneration, fancied 
 to be common to all the baptized, but I mean 
 that which is wrought in and sealed to the 
 elect baptized) ; the Lord's supper is the 
 
 sacrament of our spiritual nourishment and 
 strengthening ; and it is enongh to be once 
 born, once regenerate, but we must be often 
 nourished and strengthened. 
 
 His third argument is this : The very 
 receiving of the sacrament, " even in un- 
 regenerate pei-sons," is accompanied with 
 such things " as are most effectual to con- 
 vert." As, 1, " With a previous external 
 serious examination of their own hearts and 
 estates between God and their own con- 
 sciences. 2. A solemn searching out of a^ 
 their open or secret sins aud coiTuptions, past 
 or present, accompanied with a serious, par- 
 ticular, private confession of them, &c. 3. 
 Pious, soul-ravishingr meditations, &c., which 
 make deep temporary impressions on their 
 hearts. Flexanimous exhoitations, admoni- 
 tions, comminations, directions, prayers by 
 the ministers in the congregations, before, 
 in, and after this duty." TVTiereupon he 
 leaveth it to every man's conscience to judge 
 whether this sacrament is not " more likely 
 to regenerate and change their hearts and 
 hves, than the bare word preached, or any 
 other ordinance. 
 
 Ans. 1. Here is a lump of wild, uncouth, 
 and most erroneous divinity. ^Vho ever 
 heard of an external examination of men's 
 hearts between God and their own con- 
 science ? or, 2. That unregenerate per- 
 sons can and do seriously examine their own 
 hearts, and search out all their sins, with a 
 hearty contrition and humiliation for them ? 
 &:c. ; or, 3. That " deep temporary impres- 
 sions on their hearts" are most effectual to 
 convert and regenerate (for he doth enume- 
 rate aU these as particulars most effectual to 
 convert) ; or, 4. That in the very receiving 
 of the sacrament, men hear the minister's 
 prayers in the congregation ; 5. That this 
 sacrament '"is more likely to regenerate 
 than the bare word preached (I suppose he 
 means not the word without the Spirit, for 
 nobody holds the bare word in that sense 
 to regenerate, but preaching without other 
 concurring ordinance), or any other ordi- 
 nance," which if it be, he cannot choose but 
 allow to give the sacrament of the Lord's 
 supper to excommunicated persons, and to 
 the unbaptized, whether heathens or Jews, 
 being of age and desii'ing to receive it. 
 
 Secondly, If all the whole antecedent 
 part of his argument were gi^anted, the con- 
 sequence is nought ; for this must be the 
 consequence : If examination of men's hearts, 
 the searching out of all their sins, conies- 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 247 
 
 sion, conti'ition, prayers, vows, meditations, 
 exhortations, which do accompany the sacra- 
 ment, be most effectual to convert and to 
 beget grace, then the sacrament is a con- 
 verting ordinance. Wliich consequence he 
 will never prove. Put the case, that self- 
 examination, confession, prayers, vows, me- 
 ditations, exhortations, at the calling of a 
 parliament, at the going out of an army, at 
 the choosing of magistrates or ministers, at 
 the death of parents, friends, &c., prove 
 effectual to conversion, shall we therefore 
 say that the calling of a parliament, the 
 going out of the army, the choosing of mi- 
 nisters or magistrates, the death of parents 
 or friends, are converting ordinances ? 
 
 His fourth argument alone is syllogistical 
 (I wish all his arguments throughout his 
 whole book had been such, that the strength 
 or weakness thereof might the sooner ap- 
 pear) : " That ordinance wherein we most 
 immediately converse with God and Christ, 
 and have more intimate, visible, sensible 
 communion with them than in any other, 
 is certainly the most powerful and effectual 
 ordinance of aU others, to humble, regene- 
 rate, convert, and beget true ^race within 
 us, &c. But the sacrament of the Lord's 
 supper, by our antagonist's own confession, is 
 such ;" therefore, 
 
 Ans. 1. I retort his argument against 
 himself. That ordinance wherein we most 
 immediately converse with God and Christ, 
 and have more intimate communion with 
 them than in any other, is a sealing, con- 
 firming, but not a converting ordinance. 
 For they who are converting have not such 
 intimate conmiunion and immediate convers- 
 ing with God and Christ, as they who are 
 already converted, and do walk with God, 
 as Enoch did, and are filled "with all joy 
 and peace in believing," Rom. xv. 13 ; even 
 with " joy unspeakable and full of glory," 1 
 Pet. i. 8. The daughters of Jerusalem be- 
 ing sick of love for Christ, yet are far from 
 that communion with him which his spouse, 
 longer acquainted with him, did enjoy, there- 
 fore they ask at her, whither her beloved was 
 gone, that they might seek him with her, 
 Song of Sol. vi. 1. Hath the child, fed with 
 milk, more communion and conversing with 
 his father than the son come to years, who 
 eateth and drinketh at his father's table? 
 Do we not see often a fervent convert like 
 Apollos, whom an Acquilla and Priscilla 
 must take and expound unto him the way of 
 God more perfectly ? Acts xviii. 25, 26. 
 
 2. I deny his proposition as he fi-ames it, 
 for the plain English of it is this : If it be 
 a sealing, comforting, confirming ordinance, 
 then it is a converting ordinance ; which I 
 clear thus : He takes his medhim from his 
 antagonist's concession, for they accord, saith 
 he, that we have more immediate commu- 
 nion with God in this ordinance than in any 
 other ; for as much as, in this sacrament, 
 Christ is " more particularly applied, and 
 the remission of our sins more sensibly seal- 
 ed to us than in any other ordinance : from 
 whence I thus infallibly conclude against 
 these opposites." Then follows his argu- 
 ment, which is no other than a putting of 
 the converted in the condition of the un- 
 converted, or the unconverted in the capa- 
 city of the converted ; or to prove it con- 
 verts, because it seals. 
 
 3. If this sacrament be " the most pow- 
 erful and effectual ordinance of all others, 
 to humble, regenerate, convert, and beget 
 true grace," it will follow that we ought (at 
 least may) give the sacrament not only to 
 the most ignorant and scandalous within the 
 church, but to Turks, pagans, Jews, and to 
 excommunicated persons, as I said before. 
 
 4. He challengeth his antagonists for cry- 
 ing up and magnifying this saci'ament above 
 the word preached, and by way of opposi- 
 tion tells them, that he hath, in some for- 
 mer tractates, proved " God's pi-esence and 
 Spirit to be as much, as really present, in 
 other ordinances as in this," Vindic, p. 37. 
 Yet now I see no man who doth so much 
 as himself magnify the sacrament above tlie 
 word. 
 
 5. Whereas he brings this proof for his 
 major proposition, " Because the manifesta- 
 tion, revelation, and proximity of God and 
 Christ to the soul, is that which doth, most 
 of all, humble and convert it." If this hold 
 true in the generality, as he propounds it, 
 tlien the spirits of just men made perfect 
 and glorified, are converted by the revela- 
 tion and proximity of God and of Christ, 
 whereof they have inconceivably more than 
 the saints on earth. But neither in this 
 world doth the manifestation and revelation 
 of God and of Christ, prove conversion and 
 regeneration to be in Jieri, at that instant, 
 when God so manifesteth and revealeth 
 himself, which is the thing he had to prove. 
 I give instances in divers of those scriptures 
 cited by himself : God's revealing of himself 
 to Job, chap, xxxviii. 42 ; to Isaiah, chap, 
 vi. ; Christ's manifesting of his power to 
 
248 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 Peter, Luke v., was after, not at, their con- 
 version ; so that, Psal. cxlviii. 14. But he- 
 terogeneous impertinent quotations of Scrip- 
 ture are usual with him, I am sorry I have 
 cause to say it. Some other scriptures, which 
 here he citeth, may he expounded of God's 
 proximity to us, and ours to Grod, in conver- 
 sion : Isa. Iv. 6 ; Zeph. ii. 17 ; Eph. ii. 17 ; 
 James iv. 7. But that this kind of proximity 
 which doth convert, is in the sacrament, he 
 hath supposed hut not proved. 
 
 His fitth argument is taken from the con- 
 verting power of the word. That which 
 makes convei'sion hy the word, is the parti- 
 cular application of Christ and the promises. 
 Now, the sacrament doth most particularly 
 and effectually apply Christ and the pro- 
 mises " unto every communicant's eyes, ears, 
 heart, and soul, far livelier than the word 
 preached." 
 
 Ans. 1. This is a mere fallacy, a dicto 
 secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter, and 
 easily discovered. The sacrament applieth 
 Christ, hut to whom ? Not to the uncon- 
 verted and unbelievers (for that were to give 
 a seal without a charter), but to those that 
 are supposed to be converted, and behevers. 
 He had this to prove, that the sacrament 
 doth apply Christ's death, passion, and me- 
 rits to unconverted persons, and to unbe- 
 lievers, yea, to their heart and soul. 2. 
 That the sacrament doth apply the death, 
 passion, and merits of Christ, to the com- 
 municant's ears, and that ftir livelier than 
 the word preached, is to me a riddle, which, 
 I think, will trouble Mr Prynne himself to 
 expound. 3. A great controversy there 
 hath been about the oral or corporal man- 
 ducation of the body of Christ in the sacra- 
 ment ; but Mr Prynne outrmineth here 
 all Ubiquitaries in the world, for he hath 
 said no less than that every communicant 
 eateth spiritually, and by faith, the body of 
 Christ, even unconverted persons ; for he 
 saith, that this sacrament " Doth most par- 
 ticularly, fully, lively, and sensibly, apply 
 the promises ; yea, the death, passion, and 
 merits of Christ, unto every communicant's 
 eyes, ears, heart and soul ;" which is, plain- 
 ly, universal grace to all who ever received 
 this sacrament (and so to Judas, according 
 to his principles), and to all who ever shall 
 receive it. 4. Whereas he would confirm 
 this which he saith by his antagonist's con- 
 fession, I do not think he can give any con- 
 scientious account of that word. A\Tio said 
 it, or where? He must needs hold univer- 
 
 sal grace, hold it who will. 5. Here hes '\ 
 the strength of his argument : The word ' 
 converts by applying Christ ; therefore the 
 sacrament, which doth more lively apply 
 Christ to every communicant, must be a 
 converting ordinance ; which necessarily im- i 
 plieth, that all who receive the sacrament 
 are converted. Yea, if application infer j 
 conversion, as the effect of the application, i 
 the saints and believers themselves must be i 
 again constituted in the first article of con- j 
 version, and transition from the estate of 
 nature and unregeneration. 6. The applica- 
 tion of Christ in the word unto conversion, j 
 is a thing of another nature than the sacra- i 
 mental application of Christ, and therefore, [ 
 like effects, ought not to be ascribed unto , 
 these ordinances ; for the application of 
 Christ, made in the word preached to the | 
 unconverted to convei't them, is per in- \ 
 jluxum physicum, by a most efficacious life- 
 giving influence, as when Elisha applied him- 
 self to the Shunnamite's dead child, or like 
 that, Ezek. xvi. 6 ; Jolin v. 25 ; xi. 43. 
 But this manner of influence or casuality is 
 denied to the sacrament by many of the j 
 schoolmen and Papists themselves. So much ! 
 of his fifth argimient, which I thought to j 
 answer in two words, if the many absurdi- 
 ties in it had given me leave. 
 
 His sixth argument is this : AU gi'ant 
 that God doth as effectually convert by the 
 eye, as by the ear. AU grant. I deny it ; 
 and, I verily beheve, he can produce very 
 few authors (if any) for it. He ought not 
 to speak so gi-eat words v\'ithout good war- 
 rants, which here, I am sure, he hath not. 
 Well; but he will prove the thing itself. 
 1. He tells us of the book of nature, and of 
 the creatures, by which we are instructed, 
 &c. But either he means that the very 
 book of nature can and doth effectually and j 
 savingly convert to faith in Christ, and to 
 true sanctification, or not. If the affirma- 
 tive, then the heathens who hved and died 
 in paganism, had sufficient means and helps j 
 to conversion and faith in Christ (for those 
 pagans had the book of the creatures to in- ; 
 struct them, as is expressed in some scrip- j 
 tures cited by himself) ; and so there may 
 be salvation, and the means thereof, without 
 the church. If this be not his meaning, but : 
 that the book of nature instructeth us con- ' 
 cerning many things of God, yet doth not | 
 teach us to know Christ and all things ne- j 
 cessary to salvation, far less doth effectually ! 
 and savingly convert, then he hath said no- 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 249 
 
 thing to that point which he had to prove. 
 2. He saith that all the sacrifices of the old 
 law, and circumcision, and the passover, did 
 teach God's people who participated of them, 
 or were present at them, by the eye, and 
 were converting ordinances, " as all do and 
 must acknowledge." 
 
 Ans. 1. Here is another tinkling cymbal. 
 Do all acknowledge that the sacraments of 
 the Old Testament were converting ordi- 
 nances ? There can be no rational account 
 given hereof. Certainly our writers before 
 cited, and divers others who deny the sacra- 
 ments of the New Testament to be convert- 
 ing ordinances, never meant to admit that 
 the sacraments of the Old Testament were 
 converting ordinances. 2. How circumci- 
 sion did teach, by the eye, those who did 
 participate of that ordinance, and so infants, 
 is another riddle. 3. If sacrifices under the 
 law had been converting ordinances, yet that 
 cannot be a just parallel to sacraments, ex- 
 cept seeking to make the Lord's supper a 
 converting oi'dinance we convert itself into 
 a sacrifice for sin, as Papists do; but neither 
 doth he offer the least colour of reason to 
 prove that all the external sacrifices of the 
 old law were converting ordinances, which 
 here he affirmeth. The Apostle speaketh 
 otherwise of the legal sacrifices, which he 
 saith " could not make him that did the 
 service perfect, as pertaining to the con- 
 science," Heb. ix. 9 ; and, therefore, calls 
 all those rites " cardinal ordinances," ver. 
 10 ; for though they were spiritual, in re- 
 spect of their signification and typifying of 
 Christ, and sealing the covenant of grace to 
 the faithful in the Old Testament, yet they 
 were not spiritual in regard of their giving 
 of grace, or working conversion, or purging 
 the conscience, for they had no such opera- 
 tion nor effect. 
 
 Foui-thly, Mr Prynne confirms his pre- 
 sent argument by the miracles of the pro- 
 phets, Christ, and the apostles, which, saith 
 he, " converted thousands without preach- 
 ing, did convert and regenerate men by the 
 eye without the ear," for proof whereof he 
 cites abundance of texts of Scripture, which 
 do not prove what he saith ; nay, some of 
 them prove the contrary. 
 
 Some of the scriptures cited do not prove 
 conversion and regeneration by mii'acles, but 
 either confirmation, as John ii. 11,— after 
 the miracle, it is added, " And his disciples 
 believed on him," — or some preparatory ini- 
 tial work before regeneration, as that, John 
 
 iii. 2. Mr Prynne will hardly prove that 
 Nicodemus was already regenerated at that 
 instant, when he knew not what regenera- 
 tion was ; or that those, John ii. 23, who 
 believed on Clirist when they saw his mira- 
 cles at the feast, had any more than a tem- 
 porary faith, it being said of them, that 
 " Jesus did not commit himself unto them, 
 because he luiew all men," Actsii. 12. Luke 
 V. 25, 26, tells us of some who, at the sight 
 of miracles, were stricken with fear and 
 amazement, and gave glory to God, which 
 proves not that miracles did convert, but 
 convince. The like I say of 1 Kings xviii. 
 38, 39. Other texts cited by him make 
 express mention of the word as a mean of 
 the conversion which was wrought, as John 
 
 iv. 50, " The man believed the woi'd that 
 Jesus had spoken ;" and this was before the 
 miracle, John vii. 31 ; many believed, but 
 they heard Christ preach, ver. 14. So, John 
 xi. 45, those Jews who believed on Clirist 
 after they had seen the miracle, did also 
 hear that which Christ said ; yea, their be- 
 lieving is mentioned as an effect of their 
 hearing, ver. 41, 42. So, Acts vi. 8, Ste- 
 phen did, indeed, great miracles ; but the 
 multiplying of the number of the disciples is 
 referred to the word, ver. 7. Acts vi. 8, 
 it is expressly said, " And the people, with 
 one accord, gave heed unto those things 
 which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the 
 miracles which he did." Qiid fide hath Mr 
 Prynne cited this very text to prove that 
 men were converted by miracles without the 
 word, by the eye, without the ear. Some 
 other scriptures by him quoted, prove only 
 a popular confluence and the multitude's fol- 
 lowing of Christ, having seen his miracles, 
 as John vi. 2 ; xi. 47, 48 ; Matt. xv. 30, 31. 
 For " the people were inclined to hearken 
 to doctrine by miracles, which moveth natu- 
 ral men to flock together to see strange 
 things," saith Mr Hussey's Plea for Chris- 
 tian Magistrxicy, p. 30, which he is pleased 
 to clear by people's flocking to a mounte- 
 bank. Other texts which he citeth speak of 
 miracles, but not a syllable of conversion or 
 regeneration wrought by miracles, as Acts xv. 
 12 ; xix. 11, 12. Among the rest of the 
 texts, he citeth John vi. 26, " Ye seek me, 
 not because ye saw the miracles, but because 
 ye did eat of the loaves and were filled." 
 And hence, forsooth, he will prove that 
 miracles did convert anl regenerate men. 
 I had not touched these particulars, were 
 it not that I desire Mr Prynne himself, 
 
 21 
 
250 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 in the fear of God, may be convinced of 
 his making too bold with the Scripture, in 
 citing and applying it very far amiss, and 
 that, for the future, his reader may be wary, 
 and not take from him, upon trust, a heap 
 of scriptural quotations, such as often he 
 bringeth. 
 
 In the fourth place he tells us, That 
 "the things we see with our eyes do more 
 affect and beget deeper impressions in our 
 hearts than the things we hear." He means 
 (I think) do more effectually convert, for 
 so he makes the application, that " the 
 very beholding of Chiist's person, passion, 
 without the word, were the most effectual 
 means of workiug contrition, convei'sion," 
 &c. Well : What is his proof? He citeth 
 Christ's words to his disciples, " Blessed are 
 your eyes, for they see" (without adding the 
 rest, " and your ears, for they hear") ; and 
 Simeon's words, "Mine eyes have seen thy 
 salvation," as if, forsooth, either Simeon or 
 the apostles had been converted and regene- 
 rated by the seeing of Christ's person. He 
 cites also Luke xxiii. 46 — 48, as if all who 
 (beholding Christ's passion and death) smote 
 upon their breasts, had been, by that sight, 
 converted and regenerated. That the things 
 we behold with our eyes, if they be great or 
 sti'ange things, work deep impressions, there 
 can be no doubt of it ; but that the hearing 
 of great things may not work as deep im- 
 pressions, or that seeing without hearing 
 doth convert and regenerate, hath been 
 strongly affirmed by Mr Prynne, but not 
 yet proved. 
 
 I proceed to his seventh argument, which 
 is this : The most melting, soul-changing 
 meditation, is the serious contemplation of 
 Christ's death and passion. No meditation 
 comparable to this, to " regenerate and con- 
 vert a carnal heart." And is not this " ef- 
 fectually represented to our eyes, hearts, in 
 this very sacrament, in a more powerful, pre- 
 vailing manner, than in the word alone ?" 
 
 Ans. That which he had to subsume and 
 prove is, that this sacrament worketh in an 
 unregenerate carnal heart, such soul-chang- 
 ing meditations of the death and passion of 
 Christ, as it never had before (the soul hav- 
 ing never before been regenerate), which be- 
 ing the point to be proved, why did he not 
 prove it, if he could ? No doubt the sacra- 
 ment is a most powerful mean to beget, in 
 the hearts of believers and regenerate per- 
 sons, most humbling and melting medita- 
 tions concerning the death of Christ; but 
 
 that it begetteth any soul-changing or rege- 
 nerating meditations in those in whom the 
 word hath never yet begun the work of re- 
 generation and conversion, I do as much 
 disagree in this as I agree in the other. 
 
 The eighth argument which he brings is 
 from comparing the sacrament with afflic- 
 tions. " Our own corporal external afflic- 
 tions are many times, without the word, the 
 means of our repentance and convereion unto 
 God, &c. Then much more the sacrament, 
 wherein the afflictions of Christ himself are 
 so visibly set forth before our eyes." 
 
 A7iS. 1. It is a very bad consequence, for 
 the strength resolves into this principle. An 
 unregenerate carnal man will be more af- 
 fected and moved with the representation of 
 Christ's afflictions, than with the feeling of 
 his own corporal afflictions. 2. Affliction 
 doth not convert, without the word either 
 going before or accompanying it (unless we 
 say that pagans or Turks may be converted 
 savingly by affliction before ever they hear 
 the word) : Psal. xciv. 12, " Blessed is the 
 man whom thou chastenest, and teachest 
 him out of thy law." Job xxxvi. 8 — 10, 
 " And if they be bound in fetters, and 
 holden in cords of affliction ; then he 
 showeth them their work, and their trans- 
 gression that they have exceeded. He 
 openeth also their ear to discipline, and 
 commandeth that they return from iniquity." 
 Behold conversion by afflictions, but not 
 without the word. While Mr Prynne goeth 
 about to prove that afflictions convert with- 
 out the word, the first text he citeth is 
 Psal. cxix. 67, 71, where expi-ess mention is 
 made of the word. 3. As for Manasseh's 
 conversion, 2 Chron. xxxiii. 11, 12, it was 
 wi'ought liy the means of affliction setting 
 home upon his conscience that word of God 
 mentioned in the verse immediately preced- 
 ing, which saith, " And the Lord spake to 
 Manasseh and to his people, but they would 
 not hearken." Let him show the hke in- 
 stance of the conversion by the sacrament of 
 such as would not hearken to the word, and 
 I shall yield the cause. The word is ex- 
 press, that affliction is one special powerful 
 mean of conversion, but it no where saith 
 any such thing of the sacrament. 4. It was 
 also incumbent to him to prove that afflic- 
 tions do convert without the word, not only 
 at such times and in such places as do se- 
 quester a person from the liberty of hear- 
 ing the word preached, but also when and 
 I where the woid is freely enjoyed ; otherwise 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 251 
 
 how far is he from conckiding hj analogy 
 the point he had to prove ? which is, that an 
 unregenerate person Hvingunder the ministry 
 of the gospel, and being an ordinary hearer, 
 never converted by the word, may neverthe- 
 less (according to the dispensation of the 
 grace of God revealed in Scripture) be con- 
 verted by the sacrament received ? 
 
 His ninth argument is this, " That ordi- 
 nance whose unworthy participation is a 
 means of our spiritual obduration, must, by 
 the rule of contraries, when worthily re- 
 ceived, be the instinnient of our mortifica- 
 tion, conversion, salvation. But the unwor- 
 thy receiving of the sacrament is a means," 
 &c. 
 
 Ans. 1. This argument doth necessarily 
 suppose, that an unconverted, unmortified, 
 unworthy person, while such, may yet wor- 
 thily receive (and so by that means be con- 
 verted) the contrary whereof I have demon- 
 strated in my tenth argument. 2. If the 
 sacrament be not worthily received, with- 
 out repentance, faith, and self-examination 
 (for which cause men are dehorted to come, 
 except they repent, &c.), then there is per- 
 fect nonsense in the argument ; for to say 
 that the sacrament, when worthily received, 
 is the instrument of conversion, is as much 
 as this, — The sacrament is an instrument of 
 conversion to those who are already con- 
 verted. 3. That rule of contraries is ex- 
 tremely misapplied. The rule is Opposito- 
 rum, quatenus talia, opposita sunt attri- 
 huta : contraries have contrary attributes. 
 The comparison must be made secundum 
 differcntias qidhus dissident,^ otherwise that 
 old fallacy were a good argument, A single 
 life is good, therefore marriage is evil ; vir- 
 ginity is pure, therefore marriage is impure : 
 whereas marriage and single life are not op- 
 posed in the point of good and evil, purity 
 and impurity, but in the point of immunity 
 from worldly cares and troubles. So it is a 
 bad consequence (at least against us), un- 
 worthy receiving of the sacrament is an in- 
 strument of obduration, therefore worthy 
 receiving of it is a mean of conversion. For 
 we hold that worthy receiving and unworthy 
 I'eceiving are not opposed in point of con- 
 version, but in point of sealing : the wor- 
 thy receiving seals remission and salvation ; 
 the unwoi'thy receiving seals judgment. But 
 Mr Prynne still takes for gTanted what he 
 had to prove ; viz., that this particular is one 
 
 1 Vide Kekerm. System. Log., lib. 3, cap. 20. 
 
 of those diffcrentice quibus dissident ista 
 opposita. 
 
 Come on to his tenth argument. It is 
 taken from the ends for which this sacra- 
 ment was ordained : 1. The keeping in me- 
 mory Christ's death. 2. The ratification 
 and sealing of all the promises, and cove- 
 nant of grace, unto the receivers' souls. 3. 
 To be a pledge and symbol of that most 
 near and effectual communion which Chris- 
 tians have with Christ, and that spiritual 
 union which they enjoy with him. 4. To 
 feed the communicants' souls in assured hope 
 of eternal life. 5. To be a pledge of their 
 resurrection. 6. To seal unto them the 
 assurance of everlasting life. 7. To bind 
 them as it were by an oath of fidelity to 
 Christ. Whereupon he asketh how it is 
 possible that this sacrament "should not, 
 both in God's intention and Christ's ordina- 
 tion, be a converting as well as a sealing or- 
 dinance, since that which doth seal all these 
 particulars to men's souls, &c., must needs 
 more powerfully persuade, pierce, melt, re- 
 lent, convert an obdurate heart and unre- 
 generate sinner, than the word itself?" 
 
 Ans. 1. His ai'gument may be strongly re- 
 torted against himself, divers of these ends 
 of the sacrament being such as are incom- 
 petent and inapplicable to obdurate and un- 
 regenerate sinners. How did he imagine 
 that even to such as these, the sacrament 
 doth ratify and seal to their souls all the 
 promises and covenant of grace, they not 
 having yet closed with Christ in the cove- 
 nant? Or how will he make it to appear 
 that this sacrament is a pledge of a most near 
 union and communion with Christ, even to 
 those who are yet far from any union with 
 Christ ? Or how shall they be fed in hope 
 and sealed in assurance of everlasting life, 
 who are yet under the curse of the law and 
 state of condemnation ? Surely Mr Prynne, 
 granting here that the sacrament is ordained 
 of Christ to seal, and that it " doth seal 
 all these particulars to men's souls," doth 
 thereby yield the whole cause. For that 
 which doth seal all these particulars to 
 men's souls, most certainly doth not con- 
 vert, but presuppose conversion. 2. If this 
 sacrament be by God's intention a convert- 
 ing ordinance, and God's intention being by 
 him distinguished from Christ's ordination, 
 whether doth it not necessarily follow both 
 from this and from his first argument (unto 
 which this gives more light), that God did, 
 in the secret counsel of his will, intend and 
 
Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 decree the conversion of " the flintiest heart 
 and obduratest spirit," as he speaketh ; and 
 that either this effect is wrought by the sa- 
 crament in the flintiest heart and obdurat- 
 est spirit (which I beheve he dare not say), 
 or that Grod's decree and intention is frus- 
 trate ? 3. And if the sacrament " must 
 needs more powerfully persuade, pierce, 
 melt, relent, convert an obdurate heart and 
 unregenerate sinner than the word itself," 
 how then can he either exclude pagans, or 
 dehort impenitent unworthy persons from 
 the sacrament ? 
 
 His eleventh arorument is the grossest and 
 most palpable petitio principii of any that 
 ever I met with, and to be oflered to none 
 except such as cannot distinguish between 
 that which is affirmed, and that which is 
 proved. First, He tell us what true conver- 
 sion is, and then asks if anything be so pre- 
 valent to effect this as the sacrament. This, 
 therefore, I pass. 
 
 His twelfth and last argument is an ap- 
 pealing to the experience of Christians. But 
 a part of his appeal is of no use ; that is, 
 whether this sacrament doth not strengthen 
 against corruptions and temptations ; which 
 doth not touch this present controvei'sy. It 
 is as little to the purpose which he saith of 
 conversion by preparations to the sacrament, 
 which may be by the word, prayer, &c. 
 But that many thousands of converted Chris- 
 tians will experimentally affirm, that the re- 
 ceiving of the sacrament was the first effec- 
 tual means of their conversion, " yea, that 
 they had not been converted had they been 
 debarred from it for their former scandalous 
 sins," I do as confidently deny it as he affirm- 
 eth it; and if any who hath been a scandalous 
 liver, whose heai't was never yet turned, 
 humbled, broken, changed by the word, nor 
 by any other mean of grace, should affirm 
 that his very receiving of the sacrament did 
 effectually convert him, I durst not herein 
 give credit to him ; for " to the law and to 
 the testimony ; if they speak not according 
 this word, it is because there is no light in 
 them." And whereas he concludes, " For 
 shame, therefore, disclaim this absui"d irreli- 
 gious paradox, for which there is not the 
 least shadow of Scripture or solid reason ;" 
 I shall wish him for shame to disclaim this, 
 and many such like expressions, moi'C bold 
 and arrogant than either prudent or con- 
 scientious. And the intelligent reader who 
 considereth my twenty arguments for that 
 which he calls so absurd, and my answers to 
 
 all his twelve arguments, will easily judge 
 where the shame and irreligiousness will lie. 
 If at his door let him look to it. Alba li- 
 gustra cadunt, vaccinea nigra leguntur. 
 
 All that he addeth, p. 45 — 47, being at 
 best rhetorical, not rational, and a super- 
 structure upon that foundation, that the 
 Lord's supper is a converting ordinance, it 
 needs no battering, but falls of itself, the 
 foundation being taken away. And as we 
 ought not nor cannot, without sin, suspend 
 scandalous sinners from the sacrament, if it 
 be a converting ordinance (upon which sup- 
 position also both the advice of the As- 
 sembly of Divines, and the ordinance of 
 parliament concerning suspension from the 
 sacrament, were most sinful and unlawful), 
 so if it be not a converting but a sealing or- 
 dinance (which I hope is now luce clarius) 
 there needs no other argument for the sus- 
 pension of scandalous sinners living in gross 
 I'eigning sins, but this, that the end and use 
 for which this sacrament was instituted, is 
 not conversion, which these need, but sealing 
 and confirmation, of which they are incapa- 
 ble, they being such as ought to be kept 
 back d signis gratice divinoe, as divines 
 speak. For how shall these that in words 
 profess God, but in their works deny him, 
 be sealed with the seals or marked with the 
 marks of the favour and grace of God ? Most 
 certainly this question concerning the nature, 
 end, and use of the sacrament, casts the bal- | 
 ance of the whole controversy concerning I 
 suspension; which I have therefore been the \ 
 larger upon. ■ 
 
 And whereas Mr Prynne concludeth, p. I 
 47, with a large citation out of Lucas Osi- 
 ander, Enchir. contra Anabapt., cap. 6, i 
 quest. 3, for that he shall have this return : i 
 First, All that Osiander there saith, is ' 
 brought to prove this point against the An- j 
 abaptists. Quod etsi unum aut alterum vi- 
 deamus in ecclesia aliqua Jlagitiosuin, 
 propter ea neque seccssioncm faciendam, 
 neque a sacris congressibus, aut ccena 
 Domini Christiana abstinendum : That 
 although in some church we see some one 
 or other flagitious person, yet a Christian is { 
 not therefore either to make a separation, 
 or to abstain from the sacred assemblies or 
 the Lord's supper ; which is not the question 
 now agitated between us. Secondly, After 
 that passage cited against us, Mr Prynne 
 might have taken notice of another passage 
 which maketh against himself: Where the 
 Anabaptists did object to the Lutheran 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 253 
 
 churches' admitting of scandalous persons 
 to the sacrament, Osiander denieth it ; 
 for, saith he, although we cannot help hypo- 
 crites coming to the Lord's table, nos ta- 
 men scienter neminem admittimus, nisi 
 peccatores poenitentes, 8fC., yet we admit 
 noHQ wiHingly, except penitent sinners who 
 confess their sins and sorrow for them. 
 Thirdly, Osiander, Ibid., quest. 2, holdeth 
 excommunication to be an ordinance of God, 
 and groundeth it upon Matt, xviii. 15 — 17. 
 Therefore Mr Prynne must seek another 
 patron than Osiander. 
 
 And now, the nature of the ordinance be- 
 ing cleared, there needeth no more to con- 
 fute Mr Prynne in that which he makes the 
 eighth thing in controversy between him 
 and his antagonists, namely, " Whether 
 ministers may not as well refuse to preach 
 the word to such unexcommunicated, gross, 
 impenitent, scandalous Christians, whom 
 they would suspend from the sacrament." 
 Certainly it is not only lawful, but commanded 
 as a duty, to preach both to the converted and 
 to the unconverted, without excludino' the 
 most scandalous impenitent sinners whoso- 
 ever. But the Lord's supper being (accord- 
 ing to its institution and the mind of Jesus 
 Christ) a sealing or confirming ordinance 
 only, it cannot without a violation of the in- 
 stitution be given to known impenitent scan- 
 dalous persons. Other particulars in his de- 
 bate concerning this eighth point of differ- 
 ence, which do require an answer, I will take 
 occasion to speak unto them in the next 
 chapter. 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 WHETHER THE ADMISSION OF SCANDALOUS 
 AND NOTORIOUS SINNERS TO THE SACRA- 
 MENT OF THE lord's SUPPER, BE A POLLU- 
 TION AND PROFANATION OF THAT HOLY 
 ORDINANCE ; AND IN WHAT RESPECTS IT 
 MAY BE SO CALLED. 
 
 Mr Hussey, in his Plea, p. 2, doth very 
 much mistake his mai'k, when, in opposition 
 to what I had said concerning the polluting 
 of the sacrament by the admission of the 
 scandalous, he tells me out of Beza, that the 
 sacraments remain effectual to the good, 
 though evil men come to them ; and there- 
 upon concludeth, that the sacrament is holy 
 and pure to the believer, notwithstanding 
 the unpreparedness of the wicked ; which is 
 
 not the thing in question, much less is it the 
 question. Whether there be any such thing 
 as a pollution of the sacrament ; for this Mr 
 Coleman hath yielded (though before he 
 quarrelled that phrase of polluting the ordi- 
 nances), giving instance in the using of 
 cheese instead of bread, 3Iale Diets, p. 12 ; 
 but the true state of the controversy may 
 be laid open in these few distinctions : — 
 
 First, As Scotus, in lib. 4, sent. dist. 3, 
 quest. 2, distinguisheth two sorts of things 
 which may be called necessary to a sacra- 
 ment, necessarimn simpliciter, and neces- 
 sarium aliqualiter, — the former he calls 
 that without which the sacrament is no sa- 
 rament ; the latter, that without which they 
 that give the sacrament cannot avoid sin, or 
 the want whereof maketh the minister guilty, 
 — so do I distinguish two sorts of pollution of 
 the sacrament, one which makes the sacra- 
 ment no saci'ament, but a common or un- 
 hallowed thing to those that do receive it ; 
 as, for instance, if the sacrament were given 
 by those that are no ministers, or to those 
 that are no church, or without the blessing 
 and breaking of bread ; another which makes 
 the ministration of the sacrament hie ct 
 nunc, and with such circumstances to be 
 sinful, and those that do so administer it to 
 be guilty ; and so whatsoever is done in the 
 ministration of the sacrament contrary to 
 the revealed wiU of God, is a pollution of 
 that ordinance. The present question is of 
 the latter, not of the former. 
 
 Secondly, Some wicked men, by their re- 
 ceiving the sacrament, do only draw judg- 
 ment upon themselves, and these are close 
 hypocrites ; others by their receiving of the 
 sacrament do involve not themselves only, 
 but others also, into sin and God's displea- 
 sure, and these are scandalous notorious 
 sinners. 
 
 Thirdly, The sin of those who pollute the 
 sacrament, by using it contrary to the na- 
 ture and institution of it, may be the sin of 
 otiiei's, and those others accessory to such 
 pollution of the sacrament two ways : either 
 it is the sin of the whole church, none ex- 
 cepted, so that none that communicateth 
 then and there can be free of the sin, as 
 where the bread is elevated and woi'shipped, 
 all the conuuunicants are eo ipso that they 
 join in the sacrament then and there, par- 
 takers of the sin of bread-worship, though 
 perhaps some of them do not join in the act 
 of worshipping the bread, but have done 
 what they could to prevent or hinder it ; 
 
254 Aaron's rod blossojMixg, or the 
 
 or it is tlie sin only of so many as have not 
 done what they ought and might have 
 done for observing the institution, rule and 
 example of Jesus Christ ; and of this sort 
 is the sin of communicating with scandalous 
 and profane men. If private Christians 
 have interposed, by admonitions given to 
 the offender, and by petitions put up to 
 those that have authority and power for re- 
 straining the scandalous from the Lord's ta- 
 ble, they have discharged their consciences, 
 and may without sin communicate, though 
 some scandalous members be admitted ; lor 
 such persons sin in taking the sacrament, 
 but worthy communicants are not partakers 
 of their sin. But if church officers, who 
 have a charge and authority fi'om Jesus 
 Christ to receive none whom they know to 
 be unworthy, proftxne and scandalous, shall 
 notwithstanding admit such persons, they 
 are thereby partakers of their sin ; so that 
 their receiving, or rather polluting of the sa- 
 crament, is imputed not to themselves only, 
 but to the church officers who had authority 
 to keep them back, and did it not. 
 
 Fourthly, The suffering of a mixture of 
 known wicked persons among the godly in 
 the church, doth sometime defile us with 
 sin, sometime not. It doth not defile us 
 when we use all lawful and possible reme- 
 dies against it, and, namely, when we exer- 
 cise the discipline of excommunication and 
 other church censures, saith Augustine, lib. 
 contra Donatistas, post Collationem, cap. 
 4, tom. 7. But it doth defile us, and we 
 do incur sin and wrath, when the means of 
 redressing such known evils are neglected, 
 indisciplinata patientia (it is Augustine's 
 word) ; so, to bear with wicked men as not 
 to execute discipline against them, that cer- 
 tainly makes us partakers of their sin, I 
 mean, in a reformed and well-constituted 
 church, wl'.cre the thing is practicable. But 
 where it cannot be done, because of perse- 
 cution, or because of the invincible opposi- 
 tion either of authority or of a prevalent 
 profane multitude, in that case we have only 
 this comfort left us, " Blessed are they that 
 hunger and thirst after righteousness;" and, 
 in mac/nis voluisse sat est. 
 
 Fifthly, Neither doth this question con- 
 cerning the pollution, or pro'anation, or 
 abuse of the sacrament, concern those pec- 
 cata quotidi'ince incursionis, such sins of 
 infirmity as all the godly, or at least the 
 generality of the godly, are subject unto 
 and guilty of, as long as they are in the 
 
 world, (for then the sacrament should be 
 polluted to all ; for, " Who can say, I have 
 made my heart clean, I am pure from my 
 sins ?") but only gross and scandalous sins, 
 such as make the name of God, and the pro- 
 fession of religion, to be evil spoken of and 
 reproached, those I'oots of bitterness which 
 spring up, whereby many are like to be de- 
 filed ; those that are guilty of such sins, and 
 have given no evidence of tme repentance, 
 if they be received to the sacrament, it is a 
 profaning of the ordinance. 
 
 Now, that the admission of scandalous 
 and notorious sinners to the sacrament, in a 
 reforn»ed and constituted church, is a profa- 
 nation or pollution of that ordinance, may 
 be tiius proved : — 
 
 First, Parseus upon question 82 in the 
 Heidelberg Catechism, where it is affirmed, 
 that by the admission of scandalous sinners 
 to the sacrament, the covenant of God is 
 profaned, giveth this reason for it : Because, 
 as they who, having no faith nor repentance, 
 if they take the seals of the covenant, do 
 thereby profane the covenant ; so they who 
 consent to known wicked and scandalous 
 persons' taking of the seals, or to their 
 coming to the sacrament, do, by such con- 
 senting, make themselves guilty of profaning 
 the covenant of God (for the doer and the 
 consenter fall under the same breach of law), 
 yea, so liir do they sin by such consenting, 
 as that they do thereby acknowledge the 
 children of the devil to be the children of 
 God, and the enemies of God to be in co- 
 venant, and to have fellowship with God. 
 He distinguisheth these two things, who 
 ought to come to the sacrament, and who 
 ouuht to be admitted. None ought to come 
 except those who truly believe and repent ; 
 none ought to be admitted except such as 
 are supposed to be believers and penitent, 
 there being nothing known to the contraiy. 
 If any impenitent sinner take the sacra- 
 ment, he profanes the covenant of God ; if 
 the church admit to the sacrament any 
 known to live in wickedness, without repen- 
 tance, the church profaneth the covenant 
 of God. 
 
 Secondly, That ordinance which is not a 
 converting but a sealing ordinance, which is 
 not appointed for the conversion of sinners, 
 but for the communion of saints, is certainly 
 profaned and abused, contrary to the nature, 
 institution, and proper end thereof, if those 
 who are manifestly ungodly, profane, im- 
 penitent, and unconverted, be admitted to 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 255 
 
 the participation thereof. But the sacra- 
 ment of the Lord's supper is not a convert- 
 ing but a sealing ordinance, &c., which I 
 have proved by infalhble demonstrations ; 
 therefore, &c. 
 
 Thirdly, That use of the sacrament which 
 is repugnant and contradictory to the woi'd, 
 truly ai)d faithfully preached in the name 
 of Christ, is a profaning of the sacrament. 
 But to give the sacrament to those who are 
 known to live in gross sins without repen- 
 tance, is an use of the sacrament whi(;h is 
 repugnant and contradictory to the word, 
 truly and foithfully preached in the name 
 of Christ ; therefore, &c. 
 
 I suppose no man will deny, that if we 
 truly and faithfully preach the word, we may 
 and ought to pronounce and declare such as 
 live in sin, impenitent and unconverted, to 
 be under God's wrath and displeasure as 
 long as they continue in that estate. " Be 
 not deceived (saith the Apostle), neither 
 fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, 
 nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves 
 with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, 
 nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortion- 
 ers, shall inherit the kingdom of God," 1 
 Cor. vi. 9, 10 ; see the like, Ephes. v. 5 — 7- 
 Whence it is, that doctrinally we warn the 
 ignorant and scandalous, and all such as live 
 in known sins without repentance, that they 
 presume not to come and profane that holy 
 table, of which ministers are appointed by 
 the Directory to give warning. How then 
 can we, by giving the sacrament to such as 
 these, give the lie to the word ? For what 
 other thing shall we do,^ if those whom the 
 word pronounceth to have no part in the 
 kingdom of God, nor of Christ, shall be 
 admitted, as well as the godly, to eat and 
 drink at the Lord's table, while known to 
 continue in the committing of their damna- 
 ble sins, or while it is known that " they 
 have not repented of the uncleanness, and 
 fornication, and lasciviousness which they 
 have committed," 2 Cor. xii. 21, — what is 
 this but to absolve in the sacrament those 
 who are condemned in the word, and to 
 open the kingdom of heaven in the sacra- 
 ment unto those on whom the word shut- 
 teth it ? 
 
 1 Zach. Ursinus, .Judicium de Disciplina Ecclesi- 
 astica, torn. 3, p. 806. — Haec enim Dei voluntas non 
 erit in aeternura, ut ecclcsia Cliristiani alicui gratiam 
 Ohristi et rcmissionem pcccatorem, anuunciatione 
 vci bi divini deneget, et eidem exliibitione sacramen- 
 torum spondeat. 
 
 Fourthly, That use of the sacrament 
 which strengtheneth the hands of the wick- 
 ed, so that he turneth not from his wick- 
 edness, is an abuse and profanation of the 
 sacrament. But the giving of the sacra- 
 ment to any known profane impenitent per- 
 son, is such an use of the sacrament as 
 strengtheneth the hands of the wicked, so 
 that he turneth not from his wickedness ; 
 therefore, 
 
 I appeal to the experience of all godly 
 and faithful ministers, whether they have 
 not found it a great deal more difficult to 
 convince or convert such profane men as 
 have been usually admitted to the sacra- 
 ment, than to convince or convert such as 
 have been kept back from the sacrament ? 
 No marvel that such profane ones as have 
 usually received the seals of the covenant of 
 grace, and joined in the highest act of 
 church communion, live in a good opinion 
 of their soul's estate, and trust in lying 
 words, " Have we not eaten and drunken 
 at thy table ?" The sacrament, the sacra- 
 ment, as of old, The temple, the temple. Mr 
 Prynne thinks that the minister hath fully 
 discharged his duty and conscience, if he 
 give warning to unworthy communicants of 
 the danger they incur by their unworthy 
 approaches to the Lord's table, Vindic, p. 
 28, 29. But he may be pleased to receive 
 an answer from himself, p. 43, " The things 
 we see with our eyes do more affect and be- 
 get deeper impressions in our hearts than 
 the things we hear." The word preached 
 is verbum audihilc ; the sacrament is ver- 
 bum vlsibile. How shall profane ones be 
 persuaded, by their ears, to believe that 
 whereof they see the contrary with their 
 eyes ? They will give more credit in Mr 
 Prynne's own opinion to the visible word 
 than to the audible word. 
 
 Fifthly, If it were a profanation of the 
 sacrament of baptism to baptize a catechu- 
 men, a Jew, or a pagan, professing a resolu- 
 tion to turn Christian, he being manifestly 
 under the power of abominable reigning 
 sins, and being still a profane and wicked 
 liver, although he were able to give a sound 
 and orthodox confession of faith, then it is 
 also a profanation of the Lord's supper to a^- 
 mit unto it abominable and profane livers. 
 But it were a profanation of the sacrament 
 of baptism, &c. Augustine, lib. de Fide ct 
 Operibus, cap. 18, tells us, that the church 
 did not admit whores, and such other scan- 
 dalous persons, to baptism. Et nisi cgcrint 
 
256 
 
 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 ab his inortuis operibus poenitentiam, ac- 
 cedere ad baptismum non sinuntur : And 
 except they repent, saith he, from these dead 
 works, they are not suffered to come unto 
 baptism. Divers arguments he brings in 
 that book for this thing, as, 1. That Peter 
 saith, Acts ii. 38, " Repent and be bap- 
 tized." 2. That the Apostle, Heb. vi. 1, 2, 
 joineth repentance from dead works with 
 baptism. 3. That John preached the bap- 
 tism of repentance. 4. That fornicators, 
 adulterers, thieves, &c., shall not inherit the 
 kingdom of God ; therefore, such as are 
 known to live in these sins without repen- 
 tance, ought not to be baptized. 5. He ar- 
 gueth from 2 Cor. vi. 14 — 16, &c. Now, 
 I offer this query. Shall an abominable 
 wicked life, murder, adultery, swearing, 
 cursing, lying, or the like, keep back a man 
 from so much as entering into the visible 
 church by the door of baptism, and shall 
 not the like abominations keep back a man 
 from fellowship with the saints at the Lord's 
 table ? Is there more evidence of saintship 
 required in those who come to be baptized, 
 than in those who come to the Lord's table? 
 If there be, let our opposites speak it out, 
 and open up the riddle ; if there be not, 
 then how can their tenet avoid the profana- 
 tion of the Lord's table ? 
 
 Sixthly, That ordinance which is profaned 
 by admitting infants and idiots, who can 
 make no good use of it, is much more pro- 
 faned by admitting abominable and known 
 profane persons, who make a very bad use 
 of it. But the Lord's supper is profaned 
 by admitting infants and idiots, who can 
 make no good use of it ; therefore, &c. 
 
 Mr Prynne, p. 29, yieldeth that children, 
 fools, and distracted men, are, by a natural 
 disability, made incapable of receiving the 
 Lord's supper, because unable to examine 
 themselves, to which, saith he, notwith- 
 standing, they have been admitted in some 
 churches. In what churches fools and dis- 
 tracted men have been admitted to the 
 Lord's supper, I should have willingly learn- 
 ed from him ; for, as yet, I know not any 
 such thing. Children, I know, were some- 
 time admitted by the ancients, who did after- 
 ward discover their own great error in that 
 particular. However, he yields, as I take it, 
 children and fools to be incapable of the 
 Lord's supper. And why ? Because unable 
 to examine themselves, in regard of natu- 
 ral disability. But where there is no disa- 
 bility in the natural faculties, may not a sin- 
 
 ful disability, which a man hath drawn upon 
 himself (as ignorance, drankenness, corrupt 
 and atheistical opinions, presumptuous ex- 
 cusing or defending of sin), make him un- 
 able to examine himself? Shall men that 
 are unable to examine themselves be admit- 
 ted to the sacrament, because not disabled 
 by any natural disability ? Sure this was 
 far from Paul's thoughts, when he delivered 
 that rule concerning examining ourselves 
 before the sacrament. \Mioever they be 
 who are unable to examine themselves, whe- 
 ther naturally or sinfully, much more they 
 who manifestly appear unwilling to examine 
 themselves, if they be admitted and allowed 
 to come to the Lord's supper, it is a high 
 and heinous profanation of that ordinance. 
 Wherefore, to prosecute my argument. Why 
 do we exclude infants and idiots ? Because 
 the Apostle saith, " Let a man examine 
 himself, and so let him eat of that bread, 
 and drink of that cup ;" but infants and 
 idiots cannot examine themselves. Now, a 
 positive profanation of the sacrament is 
 worse than a negative profanation of it : 
 abuti is more than non bene uti. We know 
 that profane impenitent sinners will not only 
 make no good use of the sacrament, nor ex- 
 amine themselves aright, but will abuse it 
 to the worst use that can be, even to flatter 
 themselves in their wickedness, and to har- 
 den themselves in sin and impenitency. Mr 
 Prynne will tell us. We know not but God 
 may convert such at the sacrament ; but 
 there is not the least hint, in all the word of 
 God, of any impenitent sinner converted by 
 the sacrament. And, beside, it is as easy 
 for God to give an idiot, or distracted man, 
 his right wits, and to illuminate him with a 
 self-examining knowledoe and light, in the 
 very instant of approachmg to, or sitting 
 down at, the table ; and if a possibility, a 
 peradventure it may be, and luho knoweth 
 but it may convert and do them good, be a 
 warrantable ground for ministers to admin- 
 ister the sacrament to profane and scandal- 
 ous persons, as Mr Prynne holds, p. 47, 
 why shall not the same ground be as war- 
 rantable for admitting idiots ? 
 
 Seventhly, If the temple was polluted and 
 profaned by the coming of profane and abo- 
 minable persons into it, then is the sacra- 
 ment of the Lord's supper also profaned by 
 such persons' participation of it ; but the 
 temple was polluted and proftined, &c. The 
 reason of the consequence in the proposition 
 is, because, as the temple had a sacramental 
 
257 
 
 1 
 
 signification of Christ, and a certain ceremo- 
 nial holiness, as well as the Lord's table, so 
 it will be dunts sermo (and, I presume, 
 none of our opposites will adventure to say 
 it), that such profaneness as did of old keep 
 back men from the temple, cannot now ex- 
 clude them from the sacrament. 
 
 The assumption is largely proved in the 
 first book, both from Scripture and from 
 Jewish writers. That one place, Ezek. xxiii. 
 38, 39 (beside divers others), cleareth it : 
 " Moreover, this they have done unto me : 
 tliey have defiled my sanctuaiy in the same 
 day, and have profaned my sabbaths. For, 
 when they had slain theii- children to their 
 idols, then they came the same day into my 
 sanctuary to profane it." You see the tem- 
 ple was proCmed and polluted, not only by 
 those that were ceremonially unclean, but 
 by idolaters and murderers, when any such 
 presumed to come into the temple. 
 
 Eighthly, I desire the scope of that place. 
 Hag. ii. 11 — 14, may be considered. The 
 Lord is teaching his people, that a thing 
 legally holy, could not, by the touch thereof, 
 sanctify that which, by the law, was common 
 and not holy, yet he which was legally un- 
 clean, did defile whatsoever he touched, yea, 
 though it were legally holy. " So is this 
 people, and so is this nation before me, saith 
 the Lord, and so is every work of their 
 hands, and that which they offer there is 
 unclean." The legal holiness and unclean- 
 ness were significant ceremonies to teach the 
 people the necessity of moral holiness, and 
 the evil or danger of moral imcleanuess. 
 Hence God himself argues from the signifi- 
 cant ceremony to the morality, so as the 
 place holds forth, by necessary plain conse- 
 quence, these three propositions : 1. The 
 ceremonial uncleanness did signify the moral 
 uncleanness, and the effect of the former 
 did signify the effect of the latter. 2. JJn- 
 holy persons are not sanctified by their ap- 
 proaching to, or joining in holy ordinances ; 
 but he that is filthy will be filthy still, and 
 he that is unjust, unjust still. If God do 
 not give them his Spirit to sanctify them, the 
 ordinances cannot do it. 3. Yet unholy per- 
 sons, while such, do defile holy ordinances, 
 and that by moral as well as by ceremo- 
 nial uncleanness; therefore the people them- 
 selves, and every work of their hands, be- 
 ing evil, the Lord, for that cause, reckoneth 
 their sacrifices to be unclean. Did profane 
 persons defile the sacrifices of old, and do 
 they not defile our sacraments ? Nay, I 
 
 should think this much more than that, 
 there being more of the communion of 
 saints in our sacraments than in their sa- 
 crifices. 
 
 The ninth argument, which alone may 
 conclude the point, shall be taken from 
 Matt. vii. 6, " Give not that which is holy 
 unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls 
 before swine." If the saci'ament be a holy 
 thing, and if profane, scandalous, impeni- 
 tent sinners be dogs and swine, then to 
 give the sacrament to such, is to profane 
 and pollute the sacrament, and, indeed, no 
 better, but worse, than to give pearls to 
 swine. Mr Prynne's reply, Vindic. p. 39, 
 doth not take off this argument ; for, with- 
 out any proof, he restricteth to certain par- 
 ticulars that which the text saith generally, 
 both of the things and of the persons. First, 
 for the things, he saith. The text is princi- 
 pally intended of not preaching the gospel 
 to such, so that we must seclude them from 
 the word, as well as from the sacrament. 
 But I ask, Is it meant only of the word ? 
 He hath not said so, nor will (I think) say 
 so. Erastus himself, p. 207, confesseth it is 
 meant also of the sacraments. The text 
 saith not, the holij thing and the pearl, but 
 " holy things, pearls." It must, therefore, 
 be understood respective. Some are so vile, 
 and so abominably, prodigiously profane, 
 blasphemous, mockers, persecutors, that I 
 ought not to preach to such, but to turn 
 away from them to others, according to 
 Christ's direction, and the Apostle's ex- 
 ample. Orliers are such as I may preach 
 unto, yet ought not to pray or give thanks 
 with them, nor to admonish them (and much 
 less give them the sacrament). Others I 
 may admonish and pray wth them, yet 
 ought not to give them the sacrament ; and 
 all these, by reason of that rule, " Give not 
 that which is holy to dogs," &c. So that 
 we are not bound up by this text, either to 
 seclude men from the word, or otherwise 
 from no holy thing. Next, the argument 
 holds a fortiori from the word to the sacra- 
 ment ; for, saith ParECus,' if Christ said this 
 of the word, which is common to the con- 
 verted and to the unconverted, how much 
 more must it be said of the sacraments, 
 
 1 Explic. Catech. quest. 84. — Si enim Christns hoc 
 dixit de verbo audibili, quod tamen institutum est 
 conversis et nou conversis rel convertendis : multo 
 raagis lioc dicitur de verbo Tisibili hoc est de sacra- 
 mentis, quse tantnm conversis sunt instituta. 
 
 2 K 
 
258 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 which are instituted only for such as are 
 converted. 
 
 As for that sort of persons which the text 
 speaks of, Mr Prynne (following Erastus, 
 lib. 3, cap. 3) saith, that these dogs and 
 swine are only such infidels and heathens, 
 who refused to embrace the gospel, and har- 
 bour the preachers of it ; or persecutors of 
 the gospel, and of the ministers of it ; or 
 open apostates from the Christian faith, 
 which they once embraced. And he citeth 
 divers scriptures, which, he saith, do ex- 
 pressly determine it. But he observes not, 
 that the most which those scriptures prove 
 is, that such men as he speaks of are dogs 
 and swine, which is not the question. That 
 which he had to prove is, that the dogs and 
 swine which Christ speaks of, are only infi- 
 dels, or persecutors, or apostates from the 
 Christian faith. This only he hath boldly 
 averred, but shall never prove it. It is one 
 thing to prove that infidels, persecutors and 
 apostates, are dogs and swine; another thing 
 to prove that there are no other dogs and 
 swine. That which the apostle Peter saith 
 of such as, having escaped the pollutions of 
 the world, and known the way of righteous- 
 ness, do afterward turn aside from the holy 
 commandment, namely, that such do, with 
 the dog, return to the vomit, and with the 
 sow that was washed to the wallowmg in the 
 mire, 2 Pet. ii. 18, 20, 22, doth belong to 
 all scandalous and backsliding Christians, 
 whether they be such in doctrine or in life 
 only ; and is generally so applied by divines. 
 Erastus himself, p. 207, understandeth that 
 vomit and puddle, 2 Pet. ii., to be the sin- 
 ful pleasures of the world, relahuntur (saith 
 he, glossing upon the place) ad voluptates 
 moresque hujus seculi. And Solomon saith 
 the same thing generally of an ungodly 
 wicked person, Prov. xxvi. 11, "As a dog 
 returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to 
 his folly." Nor is it to be forgotten that the 
 Apostle, using the words of Epimenides, 
 calls the Cretians evil beasts, Tit. i. 12, be- 
 cause they professed to know God, but in 
 their works denied him, being impure, diso- 
 bedient, and unto every good work repi'o- 
 bate. Wherefore the precept, Matt. vii. 6, 
 is rightly applied by Isidorus Pelusiota, lib. 
 1, epist. 143, to the denying of the sacra- 
 ment to all persons of an unclean conversa- 
 tion, as well as to Jews and heretics. So 
 Chrysostom doth apply this text to the ex- 
 cluding of known unworthy men from the 
 sacrament, and this he doth, Homil. 1, de 
 
 compunctione cordis, as I remember. And, 
 Ho7n. 83 in Matt., he hath these words to 
 the same pui-pose, " If thou hadst a clear 
 fountain committed to thy keeping, to be 
 kept clean by thee, wouldst thou let filthy 
 swine come and puddle in it, how much 
 more the fountain of the blood of Christ ?" 
 Where, by filthy swine, he understandeth 
 all unworthy and scandalous persons what- 
 soever, as is evident by that which follows, 
 and by that also which went before, where 
 he gives instance of the scandals in life and 
 conversation. And upon the text itself. 
 Matt, vii., he applieth it to a suspension of 
 all such as were not acknowledged for visi- 
 ble saints, not only from receiving, but firom 
 beholding, the sacrament. Hence was that 
 in the ancient church, sancta Sanctis, at 
 which word all others were dismissed before 
 the receiving of the sacrament, who were 
 not accounted visible saints ; hence came 
 the distinction of duplex missa, that is, 
 duplex dimissio. Missa catechumeno- 
 rum, et missa fidelium. When the cate- 
 chumens were dismissed, then also toge- 
 ther with them were dismissed all scandal- 
 ous persons who had scandalized the church, 
 except such penitents as (having now, in a 
 great measure, satisfied the church disci- 
 pline, and manifested their repentance pub- 
 licly, according to certain usual degrees of 
 public declaration of repentance) were per- 
 mitted to behold the giving and receiving 
 of the sacrament, after the catechumens 
 were gone (which yet, themselves, were not 
 admitted to partake of, till they had gone 
 through all the degrees, and finished the 
 whole course of publicly manifesting repen- 
 tance, only in the danger of death, they 
 were permitted to receive the sacrament, be- 
 fore that course was finished, if they should 
 desire it). Then, last of all, after the sacra- 
 ment, was the missa fidelium, the dismis- 
 sion of the faithful, 
 
 Augustine, lib. de Fide et Operibus, cap. 
 6, so applieth the prohibition of giving holy 
 things to dogs, that he thence argueth against 
 the administration of baptism to persons liv- 
 ing in adultery (although such as have era- 
 braced the orthodox doctrine), which is also 
 the scope of that whole book. Now, if per- 
 sons of a profane conversation, though or- 
 thodox in their judgment and profession, be 
 such dogs as ought to be retiised baptism 
 when they desire it, surely they are also 
 such dogs as ought to be refused the Lord's 
 supper. 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 259 
 
 Moreover, the only seeming advantage 
 which Mr Prynne catcheth is from the word 
 dogs (which yet is no advantage ; for that 
 is apphed generally to wicked and profane 
 persons in the Scriptures above cited, and 
 so Rev. xxii. 15), but he shall do well to 
 observe the word swine too ; for (as Grotiiis 
 upon the place, following Chrysostom, doth 
 make the distinction) the dogs are such as 
 bark and contradict, — the swine such as do 
 not bark and contradict, but, by an impure 
 life, saith he, declare how little esteem they 
 have of the holy things : which difference, 
 as he conceives, the text itself doth hint ; 
 for it mentioneth not only the turning again 
 to rend, which is the dog's part, but the 
 trampling of pearls under feet, which is the 
 swine's part. 
 
 Finally, This argument from Matt. vii. 
 hath gained so much upon Erastus himself^ 
 (lib. 3, cap. 3), that he restricteth himself to 
 the admission of such only to the sacrament 
 as acknowledge and confess their fault, pro- 
 mise amendment, and desire to use the sa- 
 craments rightly with the rest, so far as we 
 are able to judge : which concession will go 
 far. 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 AN ARGUMENT OF ERASTUS (dRAWN FROM 
 THE BAPTISM OF JOHn) AGAINST THE EX- 
 CLUDING OF SCANDALOUS SINNERS FROM 
 THE lord's supper, EXAMINED. 
 
 The strongest arguments of Erastus drawn 
 from the Old Testament I have already dis- 
 cussed. Another argument of his which de- 
 serveth an answer (for I take him in his 
 greatest strength) is this : John Baptist, 
 saith he, did baptize all, none excepted, who 
 came to him to be baptized ; yea, even tlie 
 Pharisees and Sadducees, whom yet he call- 
 ed " a generation of vipers." 
 
 Ans. 1. They that were baptized by John 
 did confess their sins and profess repentance ; 
 and Erastus himself (p. 12) brings in John 
 Baptist speaking to those Pharisees on this 
 manner : I do not see into your hearts, but 
 he that cometh after me hath his fan in his 
 hand, and will separate the chaff from the 
 
 1 P. 107. — Sermo noster de illis est, qui crimen 
 agnoscunt et confitentur: qui emcndationem pro- 
 mittunt : qui sacramcntis recte cum cseteris uti, 
 quantum judicare nos possumus, desiderant. 
 
 wheat ; so that, though ye may deceive me 
 with a feigned repentance, yet you cannot 
 deceive him. Hereupon Erastus concludeth 
 that the ministers of the gospel ought not to 
 deny the sacraments to those that profess 
 repentance, and ought not take upon them 
 to judge of men's hearts whether they do 
 truly and unfeignedly repent. Now all this 
 maketh for the suspension from the sacra- 
 ment of all such as do not confess their sins, 
 nor profess repentance for the same the 
 drunkard that will not confess his drunken- 
 ness, the unclean person that will not con- 
 fess his uncleanness, the Sabbath-breaker 
 that will not confess his breach of the Sab- 
 bath, are, by this ground, to be excluded ; 
 and so of other scandalous persons. We are 
 not to judge of men's hearts, but we are to 
 judge of the external signs of repentance, 
 whether sin be confessed, and repentance 
 declared, by some hopeful signs, or not. 
 
 2. Neither doth his arguments fully reach 
 admission to the Lord's table, where some 
 further and more exact proof must be had 
 of one's fitness and qualification for the com- 
 munion of saints. Even those that are of age 
 when they ar6 baptized are but incipientes, 
 — when they come to the Lord's table they 
 are profidentes. There is some more re- 
 quired in proficients than in novices and be- 
 ginners, as there is more required to fit one 
 for strong meat than for milk. 
 
 3. It is also a question whether those 
 Pharisees that came to the baptism of John 
 were indeed baptized of him. Tostatus tells 
 us some think they were not baptized," and 
 they prove it from Luke vii. 29, 30, " And 
 all the people that heard him, and the pub- 
 licans, justified God, being baptized with the 
 baptism of John. But the Pharisees and 
 lawyers rejected the counsel of God against 
 themselves, being not baptized of him." 
 There is a controvei-sy whether these be the 
 words of our Saviour Christ, or of the evan- 
 gelist Luke ; but there can be no contro- 
 versy of this, — that the Pharisees and law- 
 
 1 Medina in tertiam partem, quest. 38. — Verura 
 cum non sit idem, agnoscere se peccatorem, et con- 
 fiteri peccata sua, recte intelligimus eos sua peccata 
 saltem majora indicasse, et confesses esse D. Jo- 
 hanni, sicut et Act. xix. multi credcntium dicuntur 
 venisse ad Paulam confitentes et aununtiantes actus 
 suos. 
 
 2 Tostatus in Matt, iii., quest. 64. So Salmeron, 
 torn. 4, part. 1, tract, a. — Narrantur yenisse ad Jo- 
 liannem et ad baptismura suum. Non constat au- 
 tem an baptisati fucrint : nam Luke vii. dicuntur 
 sprevisse consilium Dei in semet ipsos, non baptis- 
 ati a Johanne. 
 
260 
 
 AARON S ROD BLOSSOMING, OR THE 
 
 yers were not baptized of John, but the 
 people and the pubhcans were : which may 
 very well be extended to those Pharisees of 
 whom we read Matt. iii. 7 ; for the Holy 
 Ghost having said of the people, that they 
 were baptized of John in Jordan, confessing 
 their sins, he saith no such thing of the 
 Pharisees, but only that they came to his 
 baptism (whether to see the fashion and the 
 new ceremony, or whether with an inten- 
 tion to be baptized) ; after which we read 
 no more but that John gave them a most 
 sharp admonition, and called them a gener- 
 ation of vipers, and told them that they 
 should not glory in being Abraham's chil- 
 dren ; whereupon it may seem they went 
 away displeased and unbaptized. But when 
 I compare the evangelists together, that 
 which appears to nie to be meant Matt. iii. 
 7, concerning many of the Pharisees coming 
 to the baptism of John, is, that they wore 
 sent from Jerusalem with a message to ask 
 John, " Who art thou ?" for they who were 
 sent upon that message were of the Phari- 
 sees, John i. 24, and they were sent to Betli- 
 abara, beyond Jordan, where John was bap- 
 tizing, John i. 28 ; and a part of John's an- 
 swer to them was, " I baptize with water, 
 but there standetli one among you, whom 
 ye know not," &c. John i. 26. In both pas- 
 sages John speaks of him that was to come 
 after him, whom he preferred before him- 
 self; in both, he professeth he could do no 
 more but baptize with water, or ministeri- 
 ally ; in both, he saith he was not worthy 
 to unloose the latchet of Christ's shoe. So 
 that many of the circumstances do agree 
 with the story. Matt, iii., and the other cir- 
 cumstances are not inconsistent. In the 
 other evangelists it is, "I baptize you with 
 water ;" but that proves not that the Pha- 
 risees who were sent to John were baptized, 
 for Luke doth plainly apply those words to 
 the people, Luke iii. 15, 16, 18, but when 
 the Pharisees asked John, " Wliy baptizest 
 thou?" &c. the answer to them was not, " I 
 baptize you with water," but " I baptize with 
 water." The Centurists (cent. 1, lib. 1, cap. 
 10) think that the Pharisees who were sent 
 from Jerusalem to John, to ask him, " Who 
 art thou ?" John i., were not sent from any 
 good esteem which was had of John, but 
 from malice, and an intent to quarrel with 
 him. This they prove because John saith to 
 them, " O generation of vipers, who hath 
 forewarned you to flee from the wrath to 
 come ?" which insinuateth a coincidency of 
 
 these two stories related Matt, iii., John i. 
 Salmeron (torn. 4, part. 1, tract. 15) thinks 
 that message wa.s sent to John out of honour 
 and respect to him, and he endeavours to 
 confute the Centurists, but among all his 
 answers he doth not aver (which had been 
 his best reply, if he had thought it probable) 
 that those words, *' O generation of vipers," 
 were not spoken to the Pharisees that were 
 sent from Jenasalem to John. Yea, Salme- 
 ron [ibid., tract. 6) himself doth in another 
 place observe divers coincidences between 
 the story of that which passed between 
 John and the Pharisees that came to his 
 baptism, and the story of that which passed 
 between John and the Pharisees that were 
 sent to him from Jerusalem. 
 
 4. I'jrastus argueth from the admission of 
 a generation of vipers to baptism, to prove 
 tlie lawfulness of admitting a generation of 
 vipers to the Lord's table. But I argue 
 contrariwise. Such persons as desire to be 
 received into the church by baptism, if they 
 be profane and scandalous persons, ought 
 not to be baptized, but refused baptism, as 
 Augustine proveth in his book, De Fide et 
 Opcribus ; therefore profane and scandalous 
 persons ought much less to be admitted unto 
 the Lord's supper. Of which argument 
 more before. I conclude with the Centu- 
 rists " John did not cast pearls before 
 swine ; he did not admit rashly any that 
 would to baptism, but such as confessed 
 their sins, that is, only such as were tried 
 and did repent ; but the contumacious and 
 the defenders of their impieties or crimes 
 he did reject." 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 ANTIQUITY FOR THE SUSPENSION OF ALL 
 SCANDALOUS PERSONS FROM THE SACRA- 
 MENT, EVEN SUCH AS WERE ADiUTTED TO 
 OTHER PUBLIC ORDINANCES. 
 
 Mr Prynne, in his first query, would have 
 us believe that in the primitive times scan- 
 dalous sinners were ever exconnnunicated 
 and wholly cast out of the church, and se- 
 
 1 Cent. 1, lib. 1, cap. 10. — Nequaqnam margaritas 
 ante porcos projecit: non quoslibet temere ad bap- 
 tismum admisit, sed confitentes peccata sua, hoc 
 est, exploratos, et agontes poenitentiam tantnm : 
 conturaaces vero, ac defcnsores suaruiii inipietatum 
 aut scelerum, reprobavit. 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 261 
 
 questered from all other ordinances, as well 
 as from tlie sacrament. " And since (saitli 
 he), in the primitive times (as is evident by 
 Tertullian's Apology, cap. 39, de poeni- 
 tentia lib., and others), scandalous persons 
 were ever excommunicated and wholly cast 
 out of the church [extra gregem dati), not 
 barely sequestered from the sacrament. But 
 for further clearing of the ancient discipline 
 concerning suspension, I have thought good 
 here to take notice of the particulars fol- 
 lowing : — 
 
 First, That great antiquary, Albaspinseus,^ 
 proving that church communion or fellow- 
 ship was anciently larger than partaking of 
 the sacrament of the Lord's supper, he 
 proves it by this argument, because many of 
 those who had scandalously fallen, were ad- 
 mitted to connnunion with the church in 
 prayer and all other ordinances, the eu- 
 charist only excepted. 
 
 Next, It is well known to the seaixhers 
 of antiquity, that there were four degrees of 
 public declaration of repentance, Trpoc/cXov- 
 ats, aKfivaais, vTroTT-wats, avaraats ; wliich 
 the Latins call Jletus, auditio, siibstratio, 
 consistentia : after all which followed fied- 
 e£«s, the participation of the sacrament, 
 wliich they were at last admitted unto, and 
 is tlierefore mentioned by some as the filth 
 degree, though (to speak properly) it was 
 not penal, nor any degree of censure, as the 
 other lour were. First, The penitent was 
 kept weeping at the church door, beseeching 
 those that went in to pray for him ; there- 
 after he was admitted to hear the word afar 
 off among the catechumens ; in the third 
 place, there was a preparatory reconciliation 
 or reception into the church, with prayer 
 and imposition of hands, which being done, 
 the man was in some sort admitted into 
 Christian fellowship, and acknowledged for 
 a brotlier, yet after the word and prayer he 
 went forth with the catechumens before the 
 saci-ament. But there was a fourth degree 
 after all this, he might stay in the church, 
 and see and liear in the celebration of the 
 sacrament, after the catechumens and the 
 three first sort of penitents were dismissed, 
 yet still he was suspended from partaking of 
 
 1 Observat. lib. 1, cap. 1. — Nam eoriim in lapses 
 judicium ad eucharistiam referri ncquit, quibus 
 post aliquod tempus omnia cum caetei is fratribus 
 volunt esse comraunia, praetcr eucliaristiam, cui 
 enira cum fidelibus supplicationes facere ct orare 
 liceret, is ad omnia quae erant in societate Chris- 
 tiana, una excepta eucbaristia, jus habere cense- 
 batur. 
 
 the sacrament, for a certain time after he 
 was brought to this fourth and last step ; so 
 cautious were those ancients in admitting of 
 men to the sacrament, till they perceived 
 lasting, continuing, clear, and real evidences 
 of true repentance. 1 Three of the degrees 
 above mentioned are found in the canons of 
 the council of Ancyra, and of the council of 
 Nice, namely, the three last. The first, 
 which did not admit a man so much as into 
 the church to the hearing of the word, as it 
 was afterwards added, so it is not so justifi- 
 able as the other tliree. But here is the 
 point I desire may be well observed, that of 
 old, in the fourth and fifth, yea in the third 
 century, men were admitted not only to the 
 hearing of the word, but to prayer with the 
 church, who yet were not admitted to the 
 sacrament of the Lord's supper.^ 
 
 The council of Ancyra, held about the 
 year 308, can. 16, appointeth some scanda- 
 lous persons to show pulilic signs of repen- 
 tance for fifteen years, before they be ad- 
 mitted to fellowship with the church in 
 prayer ; and for five years thereafter to be 
 kept off from the sacrament. ^ 
 
 The council of Nice doth plainly intimate 
 the same thing, that some were admitted to 
 prayer, but not to the sacrament.* The dif- 
 ferent steps of the reception of those that 
 had fallen may be likewise proved from the 
 council of Aries. 3 
 
 1 Albaspiuaius, Observ. lib. 2, observ. 25. — Quod 
 si quseratur quam ob rem autiqui quartum ilium 
 gradum posuerint, &c. Nulla potest congruentior 
 commodiorque afferri ratio, quam quae cx reveren- 
 tia ac religione petitur, qua adversus sanctam eu- 
 cliaristiam ferebantur : detestabile qnippe Deo et 
 hominibus, non solum existimabant lioraincm, vel 
 levissima macula inquinatum, aut macula; nebula 
 offusura, ad eucliaristiam acccdcre, sed etiam peri- 
 culosum absolutes pocnitentes earn tangere et at- 
 trectare, quod non satis sancti et sanctificati ccnse- 
 bantur, quibus tanta res committcrctur. 
 
 2 Causabon, Exerc. 16, p. 397, edit. Francof. 1615. 
 'Xufrairis igitur e mysteriis Gentium vox accepta, 
 appellabatur static inter fidelcs : ibi poenitcntes 
 duos persajpc annos agebant ; quod ad caitcra ejus- 
 dem conditionis cum iidolibns ; iiequc jam cum ca- 
 tecliumenis cxibant ; sola participationc mysteri- 
 oruin csetcris fratribus infcriores. 
 
 3 Cone. Ancyr. can. 16. — De his qui irrationabili- 
 ter vcrsati sunt sive versantur. Quotquot ante 
 vicesimum setatis suae annum, talc crimen commi- 
 serint, quindecira annis exactis in poenitentia, com- 
 munionem mereantur orationum. Deinde quin- 
 quennio in hac comrauuione durantes, tunc demum 
 oblationis sacramenta contingant. Discutiatur au- 
 tera vita eorum, quales tempore posjiitudinis exti- 
 terint, &c. 
 
 ■i Cone. Nicaen. can. 11. — Duobus autem annis 
 iidem sine oblatione in oratione sola participent 
 populo. 
 
 8 Cone. Arelat. 2, can. 11. — Si qui vero dolors Ticti 
 
262 
 
 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 J. Mich. Dilherrus, lib. 2, Electorum, 
 cap. 1. After the mention of those roiroi 
 reairapes kiriTtfuwv, doth observe, that as 
 antiquity did go too far, so the latter times 
 have fallen too short. " And this is a chief 
 cause why Christian religion doth hear very 
 ill among many, because ecclesiastical dis- 
 cipline hath waxed cold."' So much by the 
 way. 
 
 This of the several degrees of penitents. 
 I shall yet further insist upon, because this 
 alone will prove that we have antiquity for 
 us. Gregorius Thaumaturgus,^ in his Ca- 
 nonical Epistle concerning those who, in the 
 time of the incursion of the barbarians, had 
 eaten things sacrificed to idols, and had com- 
 mitted other scandalous sins, doth plainly dis- 
 tinguish these five things thus : " 'H TrpoT- 
 «c\ai/(Tis, The weeping is without the gate of 
 the church, where the sinner must stand, be- 
 seeching the faithful that come in to pray for 
 him : 'H uKpoaais, The hearing is within the 
 gate in the porch, where the sinner may come 
 I no nearer than the catechumens, and thence 
 go out again, &c. : 'H vrrcnrTwcrii, The sub- 
 stration is, that standing within the church 
 door, he go forth with the catechumens : 'H 
 avcraiTis, The consistency is, that he stand 
 still together with the faithful, and do not go 
 i forth with the catechumens : TeXevrn tov fj 
 I fiiOelis tGiv ayiaa/uarwv, In the last place, 
 1 the participation of the holy mysteries or 
 j sacrament." He that will read the epistles 
 of Basilius Magnus to Amphilochius will 
 I find these five degrees more particularly dis- 
 : tinguished, apphed to several cases, and 
 bounded by distinct intervals of time. It 
 
 et pondere persecutionis negare et sacrificare cora- 
 pulsi sunt, duobus annis inter catechumenos : trien- 
 nio inter poenitentes habeantur a communione sus- 
 I pensi. Of these poenitentes we read also in Codice 
 I Canonum Ecdesice A frkance, can. 43, 102. And it is 
 ' certain tliev were admitted to the word, and some to 
 prayer, but not to the sacrament, till the church 
 was' abundantly satisfied with the signs and proofs 
 of their true repentance. 
 
 1 Et causa non est postrema cur apud multos 
 pessime audiat Christianismus : quod disciplina ec- 
 1 clesiastica refrixerit. 
 
 I 8 Vide apud Theod. Balsam, can. Greg. Thaumat. 
 i can. 11. — Fletus sen luctus est extra portam orato- 
 I rii : ubi peccatorera stantem oportet fideles ingre- 
 i dientes orare ut pro se precentur. Auditio est intra 
 I portam in porticu, ubi oportet eum qui peccavit 
 j stare, usque ad catechumenos, et illinc egredi. Au- 
 
 diens enim, inquit, scripturas, et doctrinam, ejicia- 
 i tnr, et precatione indignus censeatur. Subjectio 
 
 autem seu substratio est, ut intra templi portam 
 j stans cum catechnmenis egrediatur. Congregatio 
 1 seu consistentia est, ut cum fidelibus consistat, et 
 j cum catechumeuis non egrediatur: postremo est 
 I participatio sacramentornm. I 
 
 were too long to transcribe all ; I shall only 
 give you some most plain passages to prove 
 tliat there was in Basil's time a suspension 
 from the sacrament of the Lord's supper ' 
 alone, or that a man was suspended from the 
 sacrament, when he was not suspended from 
 hearing and praying among the faithful.^ 
 
 For further confirmation of the same { 
 thing, read Cone. Ancyr., can. 4 — 9, Cone. ' 
 Nicen., cann. 11 — 14. I do not mean to ap- 
 prove the too great severity of this ancient • 
 discipline, nor do I hold it agreeable to the | 
 will of Christ, that such as give good signs 1 
 of true repentance, and do humbly confiess j 
 and really forsake their sin, having also 
 made pubhc declaration of their repentance 
 to the church for removing the public scan- 
 dal, ought notwithstanding of all this to be | 
 suspended from the sacrament wlien they I 
 desire to receive it ; for the word doth not ! 
 warrant the suspending of scandalous sin- 
 ners from the sacrament, until such a set 
 determinate time be expired, but only till | 
 they give sufficient evidence of repentance, i 
 But setting aside this and such like circum- 
 stances, the thing itself, the suspending of a 
 scandalous person from the sacrament, who 
 is not nor ought not to be suspended from 
 assenibhng, hearing, and praying with the | 
 church, is the will of Christ, as I have ' 
 proved, and was the commendable practice 
 of the ancient church, which is the point I 
 now prove against Mr Prynne. 
 
 The council of Ancyra, can. 5, 16, doth 
 also appoint the time of suspension from the j 
 sacrament to be made shorter or longer, ac- 
 cording as the signs of tnie repentance 
 should sooner or latter, more or less, appear 
 in the offender. So doth the council of 
 Jsice, can. 12, and thee ouncil of Carthage, | 
 
 1 
 
 1 Vide apud Theod. Balsam. Canonic. Epist. Ba- 
 silii ad Araphil., can. — Oportet autem non eos 
 fTrigamos) oranino arcere ab ecclesia, sed dignari 
 auditione duobus vel tribus annis : et postea per- 
 mitti quidera consistere, seu in fidelinm esse con- 
 gregatione, a boni tamen communione abstinere, et 
 sic postquam poenitentia fructum uUum ostende- 
 rint, communionis loco restituere. Ihid. can. 61. — 
 'Ei'tfivroi' Koj\ud)i!T€Tai fioi rji rfji KitiviiU'ias ! 
 rtiij' oyin/T^arwi', anno a sola sacramentornm | 
 communione arcebitur. Ihid. can. 82. — Qui autem | 
 sine necessitate suam fidem prodiderunt : cum duo- i 
 bus annis defleverint, et duobus annis audiverint, ; 
 et in qninto in substratione fuerint, et in duobus j 
 aliis, uvev Trpoccpaiids ea ri)*' Koivt>>viav rfis | 
 ■iTpua€Vyi]s irapabe^OerTes sine oblatione in o- 
 rationis communionem suscepti extiterint, ita tan- 
 dem condigna scilicet pcenitentia ostensa, in corpo- 
 ris Christ! communionem recipientur. The like see 
 can. 56, 64, 66, 80. 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 263 
 
 held under Honorius and Theodosius the 
 Lesser, can. 46. 
 
 If any man shall object against me, and 
 say, Peradventure the penitents before spo- 
 ken of, were only such as did manifest their 
 repentance after excommunication, and these 
 several degrees afore-mentioned, were but 
 the degrees of their reception or admission 
 into the church, so that all this shall not 
 prove the suspension from the sacrament of 
 persons not excommunicated : I answer, he 
 that will think so, will be found in a great 
 mistake ; and my argument from antiquity 
 will yet stand good, for suspending from the 
 sacrament persons not excommunicated. For 
 first, neither do the canons of the councils of 
 Ancyra, and Nice, nor of Gregorius Thau- 
 maturgus and Basilius Magnus, nor yet the 
 commentators Zonaras and Balsamon, ap- 
 ply these five degrees above mentioned to 
 persons who had been excomnmnicated, but 
 they speak generally of persons who had 
 committed scandalous sins, and afterward 
 were converted and appeared penitent ; for 
 instance, those who did backslide and fall in 
 time of persecution, as multitudes did under 
 Licinius and other persecutors, when they 
 converted and professed repentance, they 
 were received again into the church by 
 certain steps and degrees, some more, some 
 fewer, according to the quality of their of- 
 fence. No man that hath searched anti- 
 quity will say, that all who did fall in time 
 of persecution were excommunicated for 
 that offence, nor yet that they were all put 
 to the jrp()<7k.Xai/<7«s, to the weeping at the 
 church door, but yet all of them, even those 
 whose offence was least (as the Libellatici 
 who had taken writs of protection from the 
 enemy or persecutor) were put to the av- 
 araais or consistentia, which was a suspen- 
 sion or abstention from the sacrament, even 
 when the person was admitted to hear and 
 pray with the church. Wherefore the de- 
 grees afore-mentioned were degrees of re- 
 ceiving into the communion of the church 
 scandalous persons professing repentance. 
 
 Secondly, The sixty-first canon of Basil 
 to Amphilochius, speaketh thus : " He that 
 hath stolen, if repenting of his own accord 
 he accuse himself, shall be for a year re- 
 strained from the communion of the holy 
 mysteries only ; but if he be convict, the 
 space of two years shall be divided to him 
 unto substration and consistency ; then let 
 him be thought worthy of the communion." 
 Will any man imagine that a penitent thief 
 
 accusing himself, was excommunicated ? It 
 is more than manifest that here was a sus- 
 pension of an offender not excommunicated. 
 For as soon as the offence was known by the 
 offender's accusing of himself, he was sus- 
 pended from the sacrament alone for a year, 
 and then admitted to the sacrament. Yea, 
 he that was convict of theft, was not by this 
 canon excommunicated, nor yet put either 
 to the 7rpc'<7K\ov<7t$, or to the ai;poaais, but 
 only to the third and fourth degrees. 
 
 Thirdly, By the thirteenth canon of Basil 
 to Amphilochius, he that had killed another, 
 though in a lawful war, was (for the greater 
 reverence to the sacrament) suspended for 
 three years ; and by the fifty -fifth canon, 
 he also that killed a robber was suspended 
 from the sacrament. I do not justify these 
 canons, but only I cite them to prove, that 
 by the ancient discipline, persons not ex- 
 communicated were suspended from the sa- 
 crament ; for no man can imagine that a 
 soldier shedding blood in a lawful war, or a 
 man killing a robber on the highway, was 
 therefore excommunicated. 
 
 Fourthly, The eighth General Council, 
 called St/nodus prima et secunda, held 
 about the year 869, in the thirteenth canon, 
 speaking of certain turbulent schismatics (not 
 being of the clergy, as the canon speaketh, 
 but laics or monks), appointeth this censure, 
 a<()opi^€o6M(rav nai TeXws riji IfCkrXjyn'as : Let 
 them be totally or altogether separated from 
 the church, — which intimateth that there was 
 a lesser degree of being separated or suspend- 
 ed from communion with the church. Zona- 
 ras upon that canon doth so understand it, 
 and distinguisheth a double acpopia^oi : " For 
 it is also a separation (saith he) to be excluded 
 or resti'amed from the receiving of the divine 
 mysteries only ; but there is another separa- 
 tion, which is to be cast out of the church, 
 which the canon calleth a total separation, 
 as being the heavier or greater censure^" — 
 which is the very same distinction with that 
 which was afterward expressed under the 
 terms of major and minor, the greater and 
 lesser excommunication. For which also I 
 shall give you another proof, as clear and 
 older too, taken from the sixty-first canon of 
 the sixth General Council, where it is de- 
 creed, that those who resort to magicians, 
 
 * 'Earl yap cKpopiiTfxos, Kai to fiOfjjs eip- 
 yedai rijs fieTa\ii\l>£U)s jaiy Beiwv fivoTt)- 
 pitiiv, eoTi be koi to eift) rijs edcXijff/as eli ai, 
 oi'TTavTeXij ibvoftaaav ws finpvrepov. 
 
264 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 charmers, fortune-tellers, and such others 
 who profess curious and unlawful arts, shall 
 fall under the canon of six years' separation. 
 " But as for those who persist in such things, 
 and do not turn away, nor flee from these 
 pernicious and heathenish studies, Trnirc'iTrcj- 
 oiv aTToppiTrrerrdai Tijs iKKXij/rias opi'^o/jer, 
 we appoint them to be altogether cast out of 
 the church." Mark the gradation in the 
 canon, and the iravTa-naaiv, and hear Bal- 
 samon's explanation upon it : " Note from 
 this present canon (saith he), that he who 
 sinneth and converteth, obtaineth favour, Ka\ 
 /jterplws icoXr'ii^eTat, and is punished in a lesser 
 measure ; but he who persevereth in tlie evil, 
 and is not willingly reduced to that which is 
 better, pcydXws KoXai^erat, is greatly pun- 
 ished. For here also, he that cometh and 
 confesseth the sin, is to be punished with six 
 years' segregation ; but he that persevereth 
 in the evil, eKHTipvuTos Tijs ecicXrjtT/as yerriar.- 
 rai, is to be cast out or expelled from the 
 church." Add what he had said before, koi 
 ovKCTt /Liera T(Ji' opdoboliov (Xvvav\i(TO{]U€Tai: 
 And sliall not, thenceforth, converse with 
 the orthodox, — which intimatetli as plainly 
 as anything can be, that there was an afopi/j- 
 fios, a segregation or sequestration used in 
 the ancient church, which was a lesser cen- 
 sure than casting out of the church, and 
 from the company of church members. Zo- 
 nai'as seemeth to understand the canon other- 
 wise, for he saith nothing of the offender's 
 converting and confessing his sin before the 
 six years' segregation ; but that for the of- 
 fence itself (committed, not confessed), a 
 man was segregated six years, and after- 
 ward, if he did not repent, but continue in 
 the offence, that then he was to be cut off 
 and cast out of the church, wherein, as I 
 take it, he did explain the mind of the coun- 
 cil better than Balsamon. However, in that 
 point which I now prove, they are most har- 
 monious, namely, concerning a greater and 
 lesser excommunication. " Wherefore, also, 
 the fathers of this synod (saith Zonaras) did 
 ordain those who do such a thing, ewi e|ae- 
 riav a(l)opi^€adai, to be segregated for six 
 years, &c., entfievovras be tovtois, kui r/7< 
 €Kt:Xri>T(as eicicoTrreadat, but if they continue 
 therein, to be also cut off from the church." 
 
 Fifthly, To suppose that there were no 
 poenitentcs in the ancient church but such 
 as were excommunicati, were a greater er- 
 ror than that it should need any confuta- 
 tion. Yea, there were some penitents who 
 did, of their own accord, confess their of- 
 
 fences, which could not have been otherwise 
 known,. but by such voluntaiy confession; 
 and those, saith Zonai-as, Annot in Cone. 
 Carth., can. 46, were most properly called 
 penitents, I hope no man will imagine that 
 such were excommunicated. But so it was, 
 that all the penitents (even such as had 
 neither been excommunicated, nor yet fo- 
 rensically convict by proof of scandal, but ! 
 did voluntarily confess and convert) were, \ 
 for some season, kept back from the sacra- 
 ment, as is manifesLby that instance given 
 out of Basilius Magnus, of theft volunta- 
 rily confessed, for which, notwithstanding, 
 the offender was, for a year, suspended from 
 the sacrament. 
 
 Sixthly, It is manifest that there were 
 several degrees of censure upon bishops and 
 presbyters : They were sometime suspended 
 from giving the sacrament, and, as it were, 
 sequestered from the exercise of their mi- 
 nistry, which suspension or sequestration is 
 sometimes called afopi^eadat, to be sepa- 
 rate; sometimes aKoiywvi'iToiy kivnt, to be 
 sequestered from communion, to wit, in the 
 exercise of the ministry ; or fxi) Xeirovp- 
 yely, not to minister. There was a higher 
 censure than this, which was deposition or 
 degradation, called a<!>aipei(idai rijv Tiftf)y 
 Tov irpeo^vTeptKv : The honour or degree of 
 presbytership to be taken away. Basil's 
 phrase is, Tuv (^aQfidu Kadntpovvmi : They 
 are deposed from their degree. These two 
 censures, a suspension or sequestration from 
 the ministry, and a total deposition from the 
 ministry, are distinguished by the eighteenth 
 canon of the council of Ancyra, and the 
 sixteenth canon of the council of Nice, com- 
 pared with the fifteenth canon of those call- 
 ed the Apostles (which certainly were not 
 the apostles, yet ai'e ancient). See also 
 Zonaras in can. \\., Apost. ; likewise both 
 him and Balsamon in Cone. Nice., can. 16. 
 Again, there was something beyond all this, 
 which was excommunication, or to be wholly 
 cast out of the church, a censure sometime 
 not inflicted, when the former were ; for a 
 minister might be suspended, yea, deposed 
 from his ministry, yet permitted to commu- 
 nicate or receive the sacrament among the 
 people, as is plainly determined, can. 15, 
 Apost., and can. 32, Basilii ad Amphil. If 
 there were such degrees of censure appoint- 
 ed for bishops and presbyters, how shall we 
 suppose that there was no less censure for 
 church members than excommunication ? 
 For Kndatpeais to a minister, and afopta/ins 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 265 
 
 to one of the people, were parallel, — whence 
 it is that you will often find in the ancient 
 canons, and, namely, of the Sixth General 
 Council, He that committeth such a feult, 
 if he be one of the laity, let him be segre- 
 gated ; if one of the clergy, let him be de- 
 posed. As, therefore, a further censure af- 
 ter Kadaifjeais might fall upon a minister, so 
 a further censure after that cKpopKTftdi might 
 be inflicted upon one of the people. 
 
 I have now made it to appear that the 
 practice, discipline, and canons of the an- 
 cient church, are for us in this present con- 
 troversy about suspension from the sacra- 
 ment. In the next place I will produce 
 particular testimonies of fathers. I shall 
 take them as they fall to my hand, without 
 any curious order. I begin with Isidoi'us 
 Pelusiota, who flourished about the year 
 431 or (as others say) 440. In the first 
 book of his Epistles, epist. 143, to Thale- 
 l?eus, he dissuadeth from giving the sacra- 
 ment to three sorts of persons. 1. To Jews. 
 2. To heretics, of both which he saith, that 
 they had once received the doctrine of truth, 
 but did after return with the dog to the vo- 
 mit. 3. To persons of a profme and swin- 
 ish conversation. Unto all or any of these, 
 he holds it unlawful to give the sacrament, 
 and that because of a divine prohibition, 
 " Give not holy things to dogs, neither cast 
 ye pearls bel'ore swine." And he conclud- 
 eth thus : 'H yai> npos rows towvtovs n'ov 
 fjiVTTi}inii)v fxe-ahoats fji'iiis eariv areyeprus 
 Tols KfiTdcppovriTiKuis nernhihovaiv : For, saith 
 he, the giving of the mysteries to such per- 
 sons, is unto those who contemptuously give 
 them, a breach out of which they are not 
 awaked. 
 
 Dionysius Areopagita (whom I do not 
 take to be that Areopagite converted by 
 Paul, Acts xvii. ; but certainly he is an 
 ancient writer, as is manifest by the scholia 
 upon him, written by Maximus, who flour- 
 ished about the year 657. He is also cited 
 by the Sixth General Council, and by some 
 ancient writers), de Ecclesiastica Hierar- 
 chia, cap. 3, part 3, sect. 6, 7, having spo- 
 ken of the exclusion of the catechumens, 
 energumens and penitents, from the sacra- 
 ment of the Lord's supper, though all these 
 
 1 Margaritas item ne ante porcos projiciamus, 
 divino interdicto probibemur, hoc est ante eos qui 
 in vitiosis affectibus volutantur, ac porcinum vitse 
 genus sequuntur: ne forte conculcent eas pedibus, 
 nirairum in sceleratis suis studiis divino nomini 
 conturaeliam inferentes : et conversi disrumpiaut 
 vos. 
 
 hear the word read and preached, he add- 
 eth, that unclean, carnal, profane persons, in 
 whom Satan reigneth by sin, are worse, and 
 ought much less to be admitted to the sacra- 
 ment than those who were bodily possessed of 
 the devil: "These, therefore (unclean and pro- 
 fane persons), as the first, and much rather, 
 then, those (energumens), let them be sus- 
 pended or sequestrated by the judicial or dis- 
 criminating voice of the minister; for it is not 
 permitted unto them to partake of any other 
 holy thing but the ministry of the word, by 
 which they may be converted. For if this 
 heavenly celebration of the divine mysteries 
 refuse or repel even penitents themselves 
 (although they were sometime partakers 
 thereof) tov /ai) irarreXtijs lepwTaTOv 6v irpo- 
 tne/jevr], not admitting him who is not alto- 
 gether most holy, &c. (for that most pure 
 voice doth also restrain those who cannot be 
 joined and knit together with such as do 
 worthily communicate in those divine mys- 
 teries), surely the multitude of those in 
 whom vile lusts and passions do reign, is 
 much more profane, and hath much less to 
 do with the sight and communion of these 
 holy things." The old scholiast Maximus, 
 upon that place, saith thus : " Note that he 
 reckoneth together with the energumens 
 those that continue without repentance in 
 the allurements of bodily pleasures, as for- 
 nicatoi'S, lovers and frequenters of unlawful 
 plays, such as the divine Apostle, having 
 mentioned, doth subjoin, ' with such an one 
 no not to eat.' " Whei-e Mr Prynne may 
 also note, by the way, how anciently 1 Cor. 
 V. 11 was applied, so as might furnish an 
 ai-gument against the admission of scandal- 
 ous persons to the sacrament. Let us also 
 hear the paraphrast Pachymeres upon the 
 place : " For if the celebration of the divine 
 mysteries refuse even those who are in the 
 very course of repentance, not admitting 
 such, because they are not thoroughly or 
 wholly purified and sanctified, as it were 
 proclaiming itself invisible and inconimuni- 
 cable unto all who are not worthy to com- 
 municate, TToXXw ye fiaWov a^etp^Oliirovrai 
 TnvTi}s bi en d/jfrfi vdryro/, much more they 
 who are yet impenitent are to be restrained 
 from it." 
 
 If you please to seaixh farther, take but 
 one passage from Cyprian, which speaks 
 plainly to nie for suspension from the sacra- 
 ment ; for he sharply reproves the receiving 
 to the sacrament such persons as were not 
 excommunicate (for if they had, most cer- 
 
266 
 
 AAROX'S ROD BLOSSOMING, OR THE 
 
 tainly he had mentioned that as the most 
 aggravating circumstance), but having com- 
 mitted smaller offences, had not made out 
 the course of the public manifesting their 
 repentance, according to the discipline of 
 the church. 1 
 
 If we shall require more, we have a most 
 plain testimony of Justine Martyr, telling 
 us, that at that time they admitted none 
 to the Lord's supper, except those only who 
 had these three quahfications : 1. They must 
 receive and believe the doctrine preached 
 and professed in the church. 2. They must 
 be washed or baptized unto the remission of 
 sins and regeneration. 3. They must be 
 such as live according to the rule of Christ. 
 
 His words are these " This food is with 
 us called the eucharist, which is lawful for 
 none other to partake of, but to him that 
 believeth those things to be true which are 
 taught by us, and is washed in the laver for 
 remission of sins and for regeneration, and 
 liveth so as Christ hath delivered or com- 
 manded." 
 
 Walafridus Strabo^ (a diligent searcher of 
 the ancients which were before him, and of 
 the old ecclesiastical rites), who died about 
 
 1 Cypr. lib. 3, epis. 14. — Nam cum in minoribus 
 peccatis agant peccatores poenitentiam jnsto tem- 
 pore, et secundum disciplinee ordinem ad exomolo- 
 gesin veniant, et per manus impositioncm episcopi 
 et cleri jus comraunicationis accipiant ; Nunc crudo 
 tempore, persecutione adhuc perseverante, nondum 
 restituta ecclesia; ipsius pace, ad communicationem 
 admittuntur, et ofFertur nomen eorum, et nondum 
 poenitentia acta, nondum exomologesi facta, non- 
 dum manu eis ab episcopo et clero imposita, eucha- 
 ristia illis datur, cum scriptum sit, Qui ederit panem 
 aut biberit calicem Domini indigne, reus erit corpo- 
 ris et sanguinis Domini. 
 
 2 Just. Martyr, Apol. 2, Kat Tpo(pfi uvrri Ka- 
 Xeirai Trap rifiiv evyapiaria, r'js di/Sei J iiWoi 
 /ieraffxelc elov kariv, J) tiH TTiarevoi Ti aXrjdij 
 eivai TO. bebibay/jeva vf' rinuit', c«t Xovuu- 
 fievta TO virep a(peaews afxapTiStv k'oi ets ava- 
 yevvtfoiv Xovzpov, Kal ovtws (iiouvri ws 6 
 ■^piaros irapihoKev. 
 
 3 De Rebus Eccles. cap. 17. — Unde etiam crimi- 
 nura foeditate capitalium, a membris Cliristi devi- 
 antes, ab ipsis sacramentis ecclesiastico suspendun- 
 tur judicio. Et infra. Sciendum enira a Sanctis 
 patribus ob hoc vel maxime constitutura, ut morta- 
 liter peccantes a sacramentis Dominicis arceantur, 
 ne indigne ea pcrcipientes, vel majore reatu invol- 
 vantur, ut Judas, &c. Vel ne (quod apostolus de 
 Corinthiis dicit) infirmitatem corporis et imbecil- 
 litatem, ipsamque mortem praesumptores incurrant. 
 Et ut a communione suspensi, terrore ejus exclu- 
 sionis, et quodam condemnationis anatiiemate com- 
 pellantur, studiosius poenitentiae medicamentum ap- 
 petere, et avidius rccuperandae salutis dcsideriis in- 
 liiare. 
 
 the year 849, mentioneth this suspension 
 from the sacrament, as an ecclesiastical cen- 
 sure received from the ancient fathers ; and 
 he gives three reasons for it, to prove that 
 it is for the sinner's own good to be thus 
 suspended. 1. That he may not involve 
 himself in greater guiltiness. 2. That he 
 may not be chastened of the Lord with sick- 
 ness and such other afflictions as the profa- 
 nation of that sacrament brought upon the 
 Corinthians. 3. That being terrified and 
 humbled, he may think the more earnestly 
 of repenting and recovering himself. 
 
 It was truly said, that this discipline was 
 received from the ancient fathers, which, as 
 it appeareth from what hath been already 
 said, so the testimony of Chrysostom must 
 not be forgotten. He, in his tenth Homily 
 upon Matthew, expounding these words, 
 Matt. iii. 6, " And were baptized of him 
 in Jordan, confessing their sins," noteth 
 that the time of confession belongeth to two 
 sorts of persons : — To the profane not yet 
 initiated, and to the baptized. To the one, 
 that, upon their repentance, they might get 
 leave to partake in the holy mysteries ; to 
 the other, that, being washed in baptism 
 from their filthiness, they might come with 
 a clean conscience to the Lord's table. His 
 meaning is, That neither the unbaptized, 
 nor scandalous livers, though they were bap- 
 tized, migli the admitted to the Lord's ta- 
 ble, whereupon he concludeth : " Let us, 
 therefore, abstain from this lewd and disso- 
 lute life." The Latin Translation, render- 
 ing the sense rather than the words, speak- 
 eth more plainly. But there is a most full 
 and plain passage of Chrysostom in his 
 eighty-third Homily upon Matthew, near 
 the end thereof, where he saith of the Lord's 
 supper, " Let no cruel one, no unmerciful 
 one, none any way impure, come unto it. I 
 speak these things both to you that do re- 
 ceive, and also to you that do administer. 
 Even to you this is necessary to be told, that 
 with great care and heedfulness, you distri- 
 bute these. There doth no small punish- 
 ment abide you, if you permit any whose 
 wickedness you know, to partake of this ta- 
 ble ; for his blood shall be required at your 
 hands. If, therefore, any captain, if the 
 
 1 Tempus quidem confessionis, asque et lotis bap- 
 tismate, et illotis profanisque incumbit : illis qui- 
 dem ut post patentia criminum vnlnera pcenitentia 
 inter veniente curentur, et ad sacra mysteria redire 
 mereantur: his verout ablutis in baptismo maculis, 
 ad Dominicam mensam munda jam conscientia ac- 
 ceduDt. 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 267 
 
 consul, if he himself that wears the crown 
 come unworthily, restrain him, which to do 
 thou hast more authority than he hath." 
 And after : " But if you say, How shall I 
 know this man and that man ? I do not 
 speak of those that are unknown, but of 
 those that are known. I tell you a horrible 
 thing, it is not so ill to have among you 
 those that are bodily possessed of the devil, 
 as these sinners which I speak of, &c. Let 
 us, therefore, put back, not only such as are 
 possessed, but all, without distinction, whom 
 we see to come unworthily, 6fc.i But if 
 thou thyself darcst not put him back, bring 
 the matter to me, I will permit no such 
 thing to be done. I will sooner give up my 
 life, than I will give the body of the Lord 
 unworthily ; and sooner suffer my blood to 
 be poured out, than give the Lord's blood 
 unworthily, and contrary to my duty {Ttaptx 
 TO TTpoarjKov), to such as are hoi-ribly scan- 
 dalous." He concludeth that this discipline 
 is medicinal and profitable in the church, 
 and that the keeping back of the scandalous 
 is the way to make many worthy commu- 
 nicants. 
 
 Can any man imagine that all such un- 
 worthy persons were excommunicate and 
 wholly cast out of the church ? Do not all 
 Chrysostom's arguments militate against the 
 admission of any scandalous and unworthy 
 person known to be such ? Saith he not, 
 that all simply or without distinction whom 
 they perceived to come unworthily were to 
 be put back? If only excommunicate per- 
 sons were kept back from the sacrament, 
 what needed all this exhortation to those 
 that did administer the sacrament to be so 
 careful, cautious and heedful whom they 
 would admit ? And if none were to be ex- 
 cluded from the sacrament but those that 
 were branded with the public infamy of ex- 
 communication, what needed this objection 
 to be moved. How shall I know such ? 
 
 Moreover, both Cypi'ian and Ambrose 
 do most plainly and undeniably hold Ibrth 
 different degrees of church censures, and 
 Cyprian is most full and clear concerning 
 
 * Mj) TOtviiv Tovrois e\au)'(ii/Liei' fioroy, 
 aWh iravras nnXiZs ovs up 'Lbuifjey avn^/ws 
 irpniTioi'Tas. 
 
 2 Ambros. lib. 2, de offic. cap. 27, cui titulus : De 
 benignitate et quod excommunicatio tardius sit ex- 
 erenda ; saith tlius, Sic episcopi affectus boni est ut 
 optet sanare infirmos, serpentia auferri ulcera, adu- 
 rere aliqua non abscindere: postremo quod sanari 
 non potest, cum dolore abscindere. 
 
 a suspension from the sacrament of persons 
 not excommunicated nor cast out of the 
 church ;i for, answering a case of conscience 
 put to him concerning certain young women 
 whose conversation and behaviour with men 
 had been scandalous and vile, he resolveth 
 that so many of them as did profess x-epen- 
 tance, and forsake such scandalous conver- 
 sing and companying together, if they were 
 still virgins, were to be again received to 
 communicate with the church (namely, in 
 the sacrament, from which they had been 
 kept back) with premonition given to them, 
 that if they should after relapse into the like 
 offence, they should be cast out of the church 
 graviore censura, with a heavier censure ; 
 but that if they were found to have lost their 
 virginity, they should make out the whole 
 course of public declaration of repentance, 
 and so not be so soon admitted to, but longer 
 suspended from the sacrament. 
 
 Add hereunto a passage in Augustine^ 
 plainly intimating that at that time, beside 
 reprehension, degradation, and excommuni- 
 cation, there were other censures daily used 
 in the church, according to the Apostle's 
 conunandment, 1 Thes. iii. 14, 15. He is 
 speaking of the mixture of good and bad in 
 the church, and that wicked men may be in 
 some sort suffered in the church, provided, 
 saith he, that the discipline of excommunica- 
 tion, and the other usual censures in the 
 church be not neglected, but duly executed 
 where it is possible. But what were those 
 other censures, if not the suspension of scan- 
 dalous and pi'ofane persons (not excommu- 
 nicated) from the sacraments ? I appeal for 
 further proof hereof to one passage more of 
 Augustine, de Fide Operihus, cap. 18 ; 
 " Whores, stage-players, and others, whoso- 
 ever they be, that are professors of public 
 
 1 Cypr. lib. 1, epist. 11, or, according to Pamelius's 
 edition, epist. 62. — Quod si poenitentiara hujus illi- 
 citi concubitus sui egerint, et a se Invicem recesse- 
 rint, inspiciantur interim virgines ab obstetriclbua 
 diligenter, et si virgines iuventae fuerint, accepta 
 communicatione ad ecclesiam admittautur, hac ta- 
 men interminatione ut si ad eosdem masculos post- 
 modum reversae fuerint, ant si cum eisdem in una 
 domo et sub eodem tecto simul liabitaverint, gra- 
 viora censura ejiciantur, nec in ecclesiam postmo- 
 dum facile recipiantur. Si autem de eis aliqua cor- 
 rupta fuerit deprehensa, agat p<xnitentiam plenam. 
 
 '■^ August, lib. contra Donatist. post collationera, 
 cap. 4.- — Ita sane ut nec emendationis vigilantia 
 quiescat, corripiendo, degradando, excommunican- 
 do, cseterisque coercitionibus Ileitis atque concessis, 
 quaj salva unitatis pace in ecclesia quotidie fiunt, 
 secundum praiceptum apostolicum charitate ser- 
 vata, qui dixit, Si quis autem non obaudit verbo 
 nostro, &c. 
 
268 
 
 AARON S ROD BLOS.SOMIXG, OR THE 
 
 filthiness, except such bonds (of wickedness) 
 be loosed and broken, are not permitted to 
 come unto the sacraments of Christ ; which, 
 forsooth, according to their judgment (that 
 is, such as woukl have profane persons bap- 
 tized as well as others), should be all admit- 
 ted, unless the holy church should retain the 
 ancient and vigorous custom, which cometh 
 i'rom the most clear truth, by which she 
 hath it for certain, that they who do such 
 things shall not inherit the kingdom of 
 God."i 
 
 Whence it will certainly follow, that all 
 who were excluded from the Lord's table 
 ■were not excommunicated persons. For, 
 First, The church did keep back such scan- 
 dalous persons upon this ground, because 
 those who are known to Uve without repen- 
 tance in any of those sins of which the 
 Apostle saith, that they who do such things 
 shall not inherit the kingdom of God, ai-e 
 not fit to be admitted unto the sacrament 
 (for this were to give the seals of salvation 
 to those whom the word pronounceth to be 
 in a state of damnation). Secondly, Augxis- 
 tine is there confuting the opinion of some 
 (whom he calls Fratres qui aliter sapiunt, 
 brethren who otherwise undeistood them- 
 Belves well) whose principles did admit to 
 the sacraments all unclean and scandalous 
 persons, which cannot be meant of excom- 
 municated persons ; for there was never any 
 such opinion maintained in the church, that 
 all excommunicated persons ought or may 
 be received to the sacrament. Lastly, Lest 
 his meaning should be restricted to the sa- 
 crament of baptism only (of which principally 
 and purposely he treateth in that book), he 
 speaketh in the plui'al of the saci'aments of 
 Christ. 
 
 Observe also these passages of Gregory, 
 called the Great, epist., lib. 2, cap. 65, Sicut 
 exigente culpa, quis d sacrainento comniu- 
 nionis digne suspenditur, ita insontibus 
 nullo modo talis debet irrogari vindicta. 
 Ibid., cap. 66. — Et si in vestra cognitione 
 cujusquam cum f acinar osi criitiinis reum 
 esse patuerit, tunc ex nostra auctoritate 
 non solum Dominici corporis et sanguinis 
 
 1 Meretrices et liistriones et quilibet alii publicas 
 turpitudiai-s professores, nisi solutis aut dirnptis 
 talibus Tinculis, ad Christ! sacramenta non pennit- 
 tuntur accedere : qui utique secundum istorura sen- 
 teutiaiu omnes admitterentur, nisi antiquum et ro- 
 bustum morem saucta eoclesia retinerit, ex ilia sci- 
 licet liquidissiina veritate venienteni, qua certum 
 habet, quoniani qui lalia agunt, reguuai l)ei uou 
 possidebuut. 
 
 communione privatus sit, verumetiam in 
 monasterium ubi poenitentiam agere de- 
 beat, retrudatur. And so much for anti- 
 quity in this question. 
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 A DISCOVERY OF THE INSTABILITY AJfD LOOSE- 
 NESS OF MR pry>->t:'s principles, even 
 
 TO THE CONTR-^DICTING OF HIMSELF IN 
 TAVELVE PARTICULARS. 
 
 I shall not need to insist upon his tenth 
 point of difference, Vindic. p. 49, nor upon 
 his four following queries and conclusion, in 
 all which there is no new material point, 
 but a repetition of divers particulars spoken 
 to and debated elsewhere. As touching 
 that hint of a new argument, p. 56, " Con- 
 sider the parable of the king's son, where the 
 king sent forth his servants to invite guests 
 to the wedding supper, who gathered to- 
 gether all they found, both bad and good^ 
 that the wedding might be furnished with 
 guests," Matt. xxii. 1 — 11: I answer, 1. 
 Some understand here by the bad, ver. 10, 
 those who had formerly (before they were 
 called and brought home by the gospel) been 
 the worst and most vicious among the hea- 
 thens, so that the words " both bad and 
 good," make not a distinction of two soi-ts 
 of Christians or church members, but of two 
 soils of heathens not yet called, some of 
 them were good, some of them bad, compa^ 
 ratively, that is, some of them much better 
 than others, some of them much worse. So 
 Grotius, and long before liim Jerome and 
 Theophylact upon the place. 2. Others (as 
 Bucerus, Tossanus, Cartwright, Gomarus') 
 understand by the bad, close nypocrites, who 
 appear good so far as the minister and offi- 
 cers of the church are able to judge of them. 
 These, by a synecdoche of the genus for the 
 species, may be understood by the bad. And 
 so the text will not comprehend scandalous 
 
 1 Gomarus in Matt. xxii. — Neque enim apertos ac 
 palam malos, Apostoli ant nlli sancta evangeKi 
 praecones congregare, et ecclesiae communioni per 
 sacramenta agregare potuerunt aut congregarunt, 
 quod tales a communione ecclesiae tanquam pestes 
 illius siut arcendi, sed congregarunt opertos ac teo- 
 tos, quos quia sub ovina pelle sunt lupi et sub externa 
 fiuu et vitse CUristiauae specie, internum frandem 
 ac impietatera tegunt fatque ita vere bonis exteriua 
 pares, imo interdum superiores apparent; idcirco 
 ab Apostolis aliisque evangelii praecouibus dignosci 
 non potuerant, &c. 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 
 
 269 
 
 and known profane persons. That synec- 
 doche generis is often used in Scripture, is 
 proved by Sal. Glassius, Ph'dolog. Sacrce, 
 lib. 5, tract. 1, cap. 14. 3. I throw back 
 an argument from the same parable against 
 himself, for the king showeth his servants 
 that he will have unworthy persons kept 
 back from the mai-riage feast, ver. 8, " Then 
 saith he to his servants, the wedding is 
 ready, but they which were bidden were not 
 worthy ;" Luke xiv. 24, " For I say unto 
 you, that none of those men which were bid- 
 den shall taste of my supper." The king 
 makes it also known that he alloweth none 
 to come into this marriage feast, except such 
 only as have the " wedding garment" (or, as 
 the Syriac, wedding garments) upon them. 
 All which is consistent with Mr Prynne's 
 principles concerning the admission of known, 
 scandalous, unworthy persons to the sacra- 
 ment, as to a converting ordinance. 3. And 
 if all must be brought in or let in to the 
 Lord's supper, both bad and good promis- 
 cuously and without distinction, then it 
 should follow that the ordinances of parlia- 
 ment concerning the suspension "of all 
 sorts of scandalous persons" from the sacra- 
 ment are contrary to the will of Christ, 
 and that Mr Prynne himself in yielding, p. 
 50 and elsewhere, that scandalous, impeni- 
 tent, obstinate persons ought to be not only 
 suspended but excommunicated, doth yield 
 what his argument concludes to be unlawful. 
 And so I come to that which I have here 
 proposed, viz., the instability and looseness 
 of Mr Prynne's principles in this contro- 
 versy. 
 
 By comparing divers passages together, 
 I find that he doth profess and pretend to 
 yield the question, which yet he doth not 
 yield really and indeed. 
 
 1 . It is to be observed that he deserteth 
 Erastus and that party in the point of ex- 
 communication. For in the Vindication of 
 his Four Questions, p. 2, he readily yield- 
 eth " that gross, notorious, scandalous, obsti- 
 nate siimers, who presumptuously pei'severo 
 in their iniquities, after private and public 
 admonitions, without remorse of conscience 
 or amendment, may be justly excommuni- 
 cated from the church, the society of the 
 faithful, and all public ordinances, after due 
 proof and legal conviction of their scanda- 
 lous lives ; and that 1 Cor. v. 13 warrants 
 thus much." The Antidote Animadverted, 
 in the first page, yieldeth that excommuni- 
 cation is an orduiance of God. And indeed 
 
 1 Cor. V. 13, doth not only warrant excom- 
 munication as lawful, but enjoin and com- 
 mand it as necessary ; for the Apostle's words 
 are preceptive and peremptory : " Therefore 
 put away from among yourselves that wicked 
 person." The thing was not indifferent, but 
 necessary, and such as could not without sin 
 be omitted. However, Mr Prynne's assert- 
 ing from that place that it may be, is a de- 
 serting of the Erastian party. 
 
 2. In p. 50 of his Vindication, he pro- 
 fesseth that his antagonists do contend for 
 that which he granteth them with advan- 
 tage. They would have scandalous sinners 
 suspended from the sacrament : he will 
 have them not only suspended from the sa- 
 crament, but excommunicated from all other 
 public ordinances. 
 
 3. He confesseth, Ibid., that in some cases 
 a person not excommunicated may be sus- 
 pended from the sacrament. 
 
 But whatever his concessions may seem to 
 be, they are really as good as nothing : For, 
 1. He will have none to be suspended from 
 the sacrament except such as are ripe for 
 excommunication, and against whom the 
 sentence of excommunication is ready to be 
 pronounced, as persons incorrigible. 2. He 
 admitteth no suspension from the sacrament 
 till after several solemn previous public ad- 
 monitions, reprehensions, rebukes, contemned 
 or neglected: see both these, p. 50. Whence 
 you see, that with Mr Prynne's consent, all 
 the votes of parliament concerning several 
 causes of suspension from the Lord's table, 
 shall be of no use to presbyteries, until after 
 a long process of time, and after many pre- 
 vious public admonitions. So that if one in 
 the congregation commit a notorious incest 
 or murder a day or two, or a week, before 
 the celebration of the sacrament, and the 
 thing be undeniably certified and proved 
 before the eldership, yet the eldership can- 
 not suspend such an abominable scanda- 
 lous sinner from the sacrament, hac vice, 
 but must first go through all those prepara- 
 tory steps which are necessary and requisite 
 belbi'e exconununication. 
 
 Well, but after all those public previous 
 admonitions, shall the sentence of exconmiu- 
 nication follow ? Nay, here also he will have 
 presbyteries to go through a very narrow 
 lane ; for in the same place he thus de- 
 scribeth the persons whom he would have to 
 be excommunicated ; they are " scandalous, 
 obstinate, peremptory, incorrigible, notori- 
 ous sinners, who desperately and professedly 
 
270 
 
 Aaron's rod bi.ossoming, or the 
 
 persevere in their gross scandalous sins," &c. 
 But I beseech you, what if tliey persevere 
 in their gross scandalous sins, neither des- 
 perately nor professedly ? Must they not 
 then be oxcomnuinicate ? Shall not the of- 
 fender be cast out of the church after clear 
 proof of the offence, and several previous 
 public admonitions contemned or neglected ? 
 Must we wait till the adulterer profess that 
 he will persevere in his adultery ; and till 
 the blasphemer profess that he will perse- 
 vere in his blas])hcniy ? Nay, further, what 
 if the offender do neither professedly nor 
 actually persevere in his gross scandalous 
 sin ? Put the case : He that hath blas- 
 phemed once do not blaspheme the second 
 time ; and that he wlio grossly and scanda- 
 lously profaned the Lord's day, did it but 
 once, and hath not done it again since lie 
 was reproved. Must this hinder the sen- 
 tence of excommunication, when that one 
 gross scandal is not confessed, nor any sign 
 of repentance appearing in the offender ? 
 
 Moreover, whereas Mr Prynnc in his 
 fourth query, and in several places of his 
 Vindication, seemeth to allow none to be 
 admitted to the Lord's table except such as 
 profess sincere repentance for sins past, and 
 promise newness of life for time to come: if 
 we expound his meaning by his own expres- 
 sions in other places, that which he granteth 
 bordereth upon nothing; for, p. 13, speaking 
 of scandalous sinners' admission to the sa- 
 crament, if they profess sincere repentance 
 for their sins past, and reformation of their 
 lives for time to come, he addeth, " as all do, 
 at least in their general confessions before 
 the sacrament, if not in their private medi- 
 tations, prayers," &c. ; and a little after he 
 saith, that " all who come to receive, do al- 
 ways make a general and joint confession of 
 their sins before God and tlie congregation," 
 &c. And then he addeth, p. 14, " Yea I 
 dare presume, there is no receiver so des- 
 perate, that dares profess when he comes to 
 receive, he is not heartily sorry for his sins 
 past, but resolves to persevere impenitently 
 in them for the future, though afterward he 
 relapse into them, as the best saints do to 
 their old infirmities," &c. I know the best 
 saints have their sinful infirmities, but whe- 
 ther the best do relapse to their old infir- 
 mities may be a question. And, however, 
 he doth open a wide door for receiving to 
 the sacrament all scandalous sinners not ex- 
 communicated, if they do but tacitly join 
 in the general confession of sins made by the 
 
 whole church, or do not contradict those ge- 
 neral confessions, and profess impenitency 
 and persevering in wiclcedness, though in 
 the meantime there be manifest real syn)p- 
 tonis of impenitency, and no confession 
 made of that particular sin which hath given 
 public scandal. Wherefore I say plainly 
 with the Professors of Lcyden, Synopx. Pur. 
 Theol., disp. 48, thes. 35, the administra- 
 tion of this censure of suspension from the 
 Lord's table hath place in these two differ- 
 ent cases, " either when one that is called a 
 brother hath given some heinous scandal of 
 life or doctrine, who after admonition doth 
 indeed by word of mouth profess repentance, ' 
 but yet doth not show the fruits meet for 
 repentance, that so the scandal might be ta- 
 ken away from the church ; or when he 
 doth not so nmch as in words promise or 
 profess repentance," &c. Martin Bucenis 
 hath a nota))le speech to this purpose, de 
 Rc(jno C/n-isti, lib. 1, cap. 9: " To hold it 
 enough that one do profess by word only 
 repentance of sins, and say that he is am-ry 
 for his sins, and that he will amend his life, 
 the necessary signs and works of repentance 
 not being joined with such profession, it is the 
 part of Antichrist's priests, not of Christ's." j 
 
 In the next place it is to ho taken notice 
 of, how palpably and grossly Mr Pryniie 
 contradictetli himself in divers particulars ; ! 
 which being observed, may peradventure | 
 make himself more attentive in writing, and j 
 others more attentive in reading such subi- 
 tane lucubrations. The particulars are these 
 which follow : — 
 
 1. Vindic, p. 17, he saith, the confession 
 of sin which was made at the trespass-fjfier- 
 ings, was " not to the priest, classis, or con- 
 gi-egation, but to God alone." 
 
 Iri the very same page he saith, "None 
 were kept off from making their atonement 
 by a trespass-offering, if they did first con- 
 fess their sins to God, though, perchance, his 
 confession was not cordial, or such as the 
 priests approved, but external only in show." 
 I beseech you, how could it be at all judged 
 of whether it was external and only in show 
 if it was ma^le to God alone ? Nay, if it vraa 
 made to God alone, how could it be known 
 whether he had confessed any sin at all, and 
 so, whether he was to be admitted to the 
 trespass-offering or not ? 
 
 2. Vindic, p. 50, he freely granteth 
 " that all scandalous, obs-tinatc, peremp- 
 tory, incorrigible, notorious sinners, who 
 desperately and professedly persevere in 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 271 
 
 their gross scandalous sins, to the dishon- 
 our of Christian rehgion, the scandal of the 
 congregation, the ill example and infection 
 of others, after several solemn previous pub- 
 lic admonitions, reprehensions, rebukes, con- 
 temned or neglected, and full conviction of 
 theirscandalandimpenitency,mayand ought 
 -to be excommunicated, suspended," &c. 
 
 Vindic, p. 57, " Certainly the speediest, 
 best and only way to suppress all kinds 
 of sins, schisms, to reform and purge our 
 churches from all scandalous offences, will 
 be for ministers not to draw out the sword 
 of excommunication and suspension against 
 them, which will do little good, but the 
 sword of the Spirit, the powerful preaching 
 of God's word, and the sword of the civil 
 magistrate." If this be the best and only 
 way to suppress sin, and to reform and 
 purge the churches, how is it tliat some 
 scandalous sinners may and ought to be ex- 
 communicated ? 
 
 3. Vindic, p. 50, " WTiere the fact is 
 notorious, the proofs pregnant, the sentence 
 of excommunication ready to be pronounced 
 against them as persons impenitently scan- 
 dalous and incorrigible, perchance the pres- 
 bytery or classis may order a suspension 
 from the sacrament, or any other ordi- 
 nances, before the sentence of excommuni- 
 cation solemnly denounced, if they see just 
 cause." 
 
 Yet all along he disputes against the sus- 
 pending from the sacrament of a person un- 
 excomniunicated, and not suspended from 
 all other public ordinances and society of 
 God's people. And, p. 50, arguing for the 
 right of all visible members of the visible 
 church to the sacrament, he saith, that " no- 
 thing but an actual excommunication can 
 suspend them from this their right." 
 
 4. Vindic, p. 17, he saith, that " a par- 
 ticular examination of the conscience, and 
 repentance for sin, is nowhere required in 
 Scripture of such as did eat the passover." 
 And herein he distinguisheth the trespass- 
 
 , offerings and the passover : that in bringing 
 a trespa.ss-offering men came " to sue for 
 pardon, and make atonement," and that 
 therefore confession of sin was necessary ; 
 " but in the passover there was no atone- 
 ment, &c., but 07ily a commemoration of 
 God's infinite mercy in passing over the Is- 
 raelites' first-born when he slew the Egyp- 
 tians'." 
 
 Vindic, p. 24, he saith, that the pass- 
 over was " the same in substance with the 
 
 eucharist under the gospel, wherein Christ 
 was spiritually represented and received as 
 well as in the Lord's supper." But how 
 can this be if I'epentance for sin was not 
 necessary in the passover, and if it was on- 
 ly a commemoration of a by-past temporal 
 mercy in sparing the first-born of the Is- 
 raelites ? 
 
 5. Vindic, p. 18, he saith, that imme- 
 diately before the institution of the sacra- 
 ment, Christ told his disciples that one of 
 them should beti'ay him, and that Judas was 
 the last man that said. Is it I ? " imme- 
 diately before the institution." And, p. 27, 
 he saith that the other disciples did eat the 
 sacrament with Judas, " after Christ had 
 particularly informed them, and Judas him- 
 self, that he should betray him." 
 
 Yet, p. 25, he i-eckoneth that very thing 
 to have been after the institution of the sa- 
 crament; for to that other objection, that Ju- 
 das went out before supper ended, immediate- 
 ly after he received the sop, whereas Christ 
 did not institute the sacrament till after 
 supper, he makes this answer, That the dip- 
 ping of the sop (at which time Judas said, 
 " Is it I ?") was at the common supper, 
 which, saith he, succeeded the institution of 
 the sacrament, so that the sacrament was 
 instituted after the paschal, not after the 
 common supper. And, p. 19, he argues 
 that Judas did receive the sacrament, upon 
 this ground, " that all this discourse, and 
 the giving of the sop to Judas, was after 
 supper ended ; but Christ instituted and dis- 
 tributed the sacrament (at least the bread) 
 as he sat at meat, as they were eating," 
 before supper quite ended. 
 
 6. Vindic, p. 42, speaking of ungodly 
 scandalous sinners, he plainly intimateth 
 that the receiving of the sacrament of the 
 Lord's supper is " more likely to regener- 
 ate and change their hearts and lives" than 
 the word preached. And in that same page 
 he holdeth, that this sacrament is " certain- 
 ly the most powerful and effectual ordinance 
 of all others to humble, regenerate, convert." 
 The like see p. 44, 45 ; and p. 52, " Yea, no 
 doubt many debauched persons have been 
 really reclaimed, converted, even by their 
 access and admission to the sacrament." 
 
 Vindic, p. 57, he ascribeth the power 
 of godliness in many English congregations 
 to powerfijl preaching, and saith, that this 
 sword of the Spirit, the powerful preaching 
 of God's word, and the sword of the civil 
 magistrate, " are only able to effect this 
 
272 
 
 AARON S ROD BLOSSOMIXG, OR THE 
 
 work," to suppress all kinds of sins, schisms, 
 to reform and purge the churches. If this 
 be " the speediest, best, and only way to 
 suppress all kinds of sins, schisms, to reform 
 and purge our churches from all scandalous 
 offences," as he there saith, and if the word 
 and the magistrate are only able to effect 
 this work, how is it that the Lord's supper 
 doth change men's hearts and lives, and 
 that more effectually than any other ordi- 
 nance ? Again, p. 37, he saith, he hath in 
 other treatises of his proved " God's pre- 
 sence and Spirit to be as much, as really 
 present in other ordinances, as in this" of 
 the Lord's supper. How then makes he 
 this sacrament to be the most powerful and 
 effectual ordinance of all others, to humble, 
 regenerate, convert ? 
 
 7. Vindic, p. 40, he makes the sacra- 
 ment to be a seal to the senses of unworthy 
 persons, but not to their souls. In this lat- 
 ter sense he saith it is a seal " only to wor- 
 thy, penitent, beheving receivers." 
 
 Yet, p. 44. 45, the strength of his tenth 
 argument lies in this, that the sacrament 
 sealeth unto the communicants' souls, vea, 
 to the flintiest heart and obduratest spirit, 
 the promises, an union with Christ, assur- 
 ance of everlasting life, and therefore, in 
 regard of the sealing of all these particulars 
 unto men's souls, must needs convert an 
 obdurate unregenerate sinner : which argu- 
 ment were nonsense if it did not suppose the 
 sacrament to seal all these particulars even 
 to the souls of unregenerate sinners. Mark 
 but these words of his own : " Since that 
 which doth seal all these particulars to 
 men's souls, and represent them to their 
 saddest thoughts, must needs more power- 
 fully persuade, pierce, melt, relent, convert 
 an obdurate heart and unregenerate sin- 
 ner," &c. 
 
 8. Vindic, p, 28, he admitted that a 
 minister ought in duty and conscience to 
 give warning to unworthy persons of the 
 danger of unworthy approaching to the 
 Lord's table, " and seriously dehort them 
 from coming to it unless they repent, re- 
 form, and come prepared." 
 
 Vindic, p. 46, He tells us of an old ei*- 
 ror in forbidding drink to those who were 
 inflamed with burning fevers, which physi- 
 cians of late have corrected, by suffering 
 such to drink freely. He desires that this 
 old error of physicians may not enter among 
 divines; for as drink doth extinguish the 
 unnatural heat, which else would kill the 
 
 diseased, so " feverish Christians, burning in 
 the flames of sins and lusts" ought to be per- 
 mitted freely to come to the Lord's table, 
 because they " need it most to quench their 
 flames." Do these now repent, reform, and 
 come prepared ? Yet here he makes it a 
 sin to forbid them to come to the Lord's 
 table. Though he applieth it against sus- 
 pension, yet the ground he goeth upon 
 makes it a soul-murdering sin so much as 
 to dehort them from that which they need 
 most to quench the flames of their lusts. 
 
 9. Fmdic, p. 37, " I answer. First, That 
 the minister doth not administer the sacra- 
 ment to any known impenitent sinners un- 
 der that notion, but only as penitent sin- 
 ners, truly repenting of their sins past." 
 The meaning of which words cannot be that 
 the minister gives the sacrament to known 
 impenitent sinners, while known to be im- 
 penitent, and yet he gives the sacrament to 
 those known impenitent sinners, not as im- 
 penitent, but as penitent, — which were a 
 mighty strong bull. But the meaning must 
 needs be, that the minister gives the sacra- 
 ment to such as have been indeed formerly 
 looked upon as impenitent sinners, and 
 known to be such, but are now, when they 
 come to the sacrament, looked upon under 
 the notion of penitent sinners, and that the 
 minister gives the sacrament to none except 
 only under the notion and supposition that 
 they are truly penitent. 
 
 This, as it casts down what himself hath 
 built, in point of the converting ordinance 
 (for if the sacrament be not administered to 
 any known impenitent sinners, under that 
 notion, but " only as penitent," then it doth 
 not work, but suppose, repentance and con- 
 version in the receivers, and so is not a con- 
 verting ordinance to any receiver), so also 
 it is inconsistent with what himself addeth 
 in the very same place. Secondly, saith Mr 
 PrjTme, " He (the minister) useth these 
 words, ' The body of Christ which was bro- 
 ken, and the blood of Christ shed for you,' 
 &c., not absolutely, but conditionally only, 
 in case they receive the sacrament worthily, 
 and become penitent and believing receivers, 
 as they all profess themselves to be, just so 
 as they preach repentance and remission to 
 their auditors ; therefore the case is just 
 the same in both (the word preached and 
 the sacrament) without any difference." 
 Here Christ is offered in the sacrament as 
 well as in the word, and accordingly the 
 sacrament administered to known impeni- 
 
DIVINE OPJUNAXCE OF CllUUCII GOVKKXMENT VIXDICATED. 273 
 
 tent sinners under that notion, and as still 
 known to be impenitent, upon condition tluit 
 tliey become penitent. 
 
 10. Vindic. p. 52, " It hein^ only the 
 total exclusion from the church and all 
 Christian society (not any bare suspension 
 from tlie sacrament) which works both 
 shame and remorse in excommunicate per- 
 sons, as Paul resolves, 2 Thcss. iii. 14 ; 1 
 Cor. V. 13, compared with 1 Cor. v. 1 — 11." 
 
 Yet, p. 4 and 10, he denieth that either 
 1 Cor. V. 9, 11 ; or 2 Thess. iii. 14, can 
 amount to any excommunication or exclu- 
 sion from the church, and expounds both 
 these places of a private withdrawing of civil 
 fellowship, without any public judicial act or 
 church censure. 
 
 11. In his " Epistle to the reader," before 
 his Vindication, he disclaimeth that which 
 some conceived to be his opinion, viz., that 
 the ministers and elders of Christ's church 
 " ought not to be trusted with the power of 
 church censures, or that all of them are to 
 be abridged of this power ;" and professetli 
 that these debates of his tend only to a re- 
 gular orderly settlement of the power of 
 presbyteries, "not to take from them all ec- 
 clesiastical jurisdiction due by divine right 
 to them, but to confine it within certain de- 
 finite limits." 
 
 Diotrcplica Catechised, p. 7, " It is the 
 safest, readiest way to unity and rcibrmation, 
 to remit the punishment of all scandalous 
 offences to the civil magistrate, rather than 
 to the pretended, disputable, questioned au- 
 thority of presbyteries, classes, or congre- 
 gations." 
 
 12. Vindic, p. 2, lie agrceth with his 
 opposites, that scandalous obstinate sinners, 
 after proof and conviction, " may be justly 
 excommunicated from the church, &c. ; and 
 that 1 Cor. v. 13, wairants thus much, &c. 
 So that thus far there is no dissent on either 
 part." liemember the presmt controversy 
 which he speaks to is concerning excom- 
 munication in England, and so under a 
 Christian magistracy. 
 
 Diotrcphes Catechised, p. 9, 10, He 
 plainly intimateth that 1 Cor. v. 13, is no 
 satisfactory argument " for the continuance 
 and exercise of excommunication" in all 
 churches, and where " the magistrates be 
 Christian." And that those who press this 
 text, may as well conclude from the veiy next 
 words, 1 Cor. vi. 1 — 9, " that it is unlawlul 
 for Cln-istians to go to law before any Chris- 
 tian judges now," &lc. Wiicro by the way 
 
 it is also to be noted, tliat he should have 
 said " before any heathen judges." Other- 
 wise the argument cannot be parallel. 
 
 I shall now close with four counter que- 
 ries to Mr Prynne. 
 
 1. Since diu deliberandum quod semel 
 statuendum, which is a received maxim ap- 
 proved by prudent men, and God himself, 
 as his epistle to the reader saith, whether 
 was it well done to publish his suhltane In- 
 euhrations (as himself in that preface calls 
 them), and upon so short deliberation to en- 
 gage, in this public and litigious manner, 
 against the desires of the reverend and 
 learned Assembly, especially in a business 
 wherein it is well known the hearts of 
 godly people do generally go along with 
 them ? 
 
 2. \^liether Mr Prynne's language be 
 not very much changed from what it was in 
 the Prelate's times, seeing, Vindic. p. 7, he 
 hath these words : " Our opposites generally 
 grant," &c., citing only Cartwright? And 
 are the old nonconformists, of blessed me- 
 mory, now opposites ? Where are we ? I 
 confess, as he now stands affected, he is op- 
 posite to the old nonconformists, and they to 
 him. For instance, Mr Ilildersham, lect. 
 5 on Psal. li., holdeth, that all open and 
 scandalous sinners should do 0])en and pub- 
 lic repentance, and acknowledge their scan- 
 dalous sins in the congregation, otherwise to 
 be kept back from the holy communion. 
 And while Mr Prynne pleadeth that Matt, 
 xviii. 15 — 17 is not meant of a presbytery 
 or of any church censure, he manifestly dis- 
 senteth from the nonconformist, and joineth 
 issue with Bishop Bilson, de Guhern. Eccl. 
 c. 4, and Sutlivius, de Preshytcrlo, cap. 9, 
 pleading for prelacy against presbytery. 
 
 !. Seeing the business of exconmiunica- 
 tion and sequestration from the sacrament, 
 now in public agitation, is a matter of great 
 moment, much diiriculty, and veiy circum- 
 spectly to be handled, established, to pre- 
 vent profanation and scandal on the one 
 hand, and aibitrary, tyrannical, papal, do- 
 mineering power over the consciences, the 
 spiritual privileges of Christians, on the 
 other (these are his own w^ords in the pre- 
 face of his queries), whether hath he gone 
 in an even path to avoid both these evils ? 
 Or whether hath he not declined to the left 
 hand, while he shunned the error of the 
 right hand ? Whether hath he not so gone 
 about to cure the heat of the liver, as to leave 
 a cold and phlegmatic stomach uncuri'd ? 
 
274 
 
 Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 And whether doth he not trespass against 
 that rule of his own last cited, when he ad- 
 viseth this as the best and only way to sup- 
 press all kind of sins, and to reform and 
 purge the churches of this kingdom, that 
 the sword of excommunication and suspen- 
 sion be not drawn, but only the sword of the 
 Spirit and the sword of the magistrate ? 
 Vindic, p. 57. Finally, Whether, in this 
 kingdom, there be more cause to fear and 
 apprehend an arbitrary, tyrannical, papal, 
 domineering power over the consciences of 
 Christians (where church discipline is to be 
 so bounded by authority of parliament, that 
 it be not promiscuously put in the hands of 
 all, but of such against whom there shall be 
 no just exception found, yea, are or shall be 
 chosen by the congregations themselves, who 
 have also lately abjured, by a solemn cove- 
 nant, the Popish and Prelatical government) ? 
 Or whether we ought not to be more afraid 
 and apprehensive, that the ordinances of 
 Christ shall hardly be kept from pollution, 
 and the churches hardly purged from scan- 
 dals, there being many thousands both gross- 
 ly ignorant, and grossly scandalous ? 
 
 4. I desire it may be (upon a review) 
 seriously considered, how little truth, wis- 
 dom, or charity, there is in that suggestion 
 of Mr Prynne, p. 57, that the lives of the 
 generality of the people are " more strict, 
 pious, less scandalous and licentious in our 
 English congregations, where there hath 
 been powerl'ul preaching, without the prac- 
 tice of excommunication or suspension Irom 
 the sacrament, than in the reformed churches 
 of France, Germany, Denmark, or Scotland, 
 
 for which I appeal to all travellers," &c. I 
 confess it is a matter of great humiliation to 
 the servants of Christ, that there is occasion 
 to exercise church discipline and censures in 
 the reformed churches, yet this is no other j 
 than what was the condition of the apostolic 
 churches; 1 Cor. xii. 21, " I fear (saith the | 
 Apostle) lest, when I come again, my God ! 
 will humble me among you, and that I shall 
 bewail many which have sinned already, and | 
 have not repented of the uncleanness, and i 
 fornication, and lasciviousness, which they 
 have committed." And this is not the only 
 testimony concerning scandals and disorderly 
 walking in those primitive churches ; but as 
 for those who are so rigid in their censures 
 against the government of the reformed 
 churches, I answer to them, as Jerome did 
 of the Montanists : " They are rigid, not to 
 the end that themselves also might not com- 
 mit worse sins; but this difference there is be- 
 tween them and us, that they are ashamed to 
 confess their sins, as if they were righteous : 
 we, while we repent, do the more easily obtain 
 mercy."! Mr Prynne, and others of his pro- 
 fession, are not very willing that such an eccle- 
 siastical discipline be established in England, 
 as is received and settled in Scotland and 
 other reformed churches ; but if once the 
 like sin -searching;, sin-discovering, and sin- 
 censuring discipline, were received and duly 
 executed in England, then (and not till then) 
 such comparisons may (if at all they must) 
 be made, between the lives of the generality 
 of the people in England, with those in other 
 reformed churches, which of them is more 
 or less licentious and scandalous. 
 
 AN APPENDIX TO THE THIRD BOOK. 
 
 WHAT ARE THE CHIEF OBSTACLES HIXDERING EXCOMMUNICATION? 
 
 A Testimony of Mr Fox, Author of the 
 Book of Martyrs, taken out of a Treatise 
 of his, printed at London, 1551, entitled 
 "De Censura Ecclesiastica Interpellatio J. 
 Foxi," the Eighth Chapter of which Trea- 
 tise is here Translated out of Latin into 
 English. — That the thought and care of ex- 
 
 communication hath now so far waxed cold, 
 almost in all the churches, is to be ascribed (as 
 appeareth) unto three sorts of men. The first 
 
 1 Rigidi autem sunt, non quo et ipsi perjora non 
 peccent : sed hoc inter nos et illos interest, quod illi 
 erubescunt confiteri peccata, quasi justi : nos dum 
 poenitentiam agimus, facilius veniam promeremur. 
 
DIVINE ORDINANCE OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT VINDICATED. 275 
 
 is of those whose minds the wealth of this 
 world, and high advancement of dignity do 
 so lift up, that they are ashamed to sub- 
 mit the neck to the obedience of Christ. 
 "What (say these) ! Shall that poor fellow lay 
 a yoke on me ? What ! Should I be sub- 
 ject to this naughty and rude pastor ? But 
 let go, good Sir, your vain, swelling, empty 
 words ; how rude soever he be, yet, if he be 
 your pastor, you must needs be a sheep of 
 the flock, wliom, if he doth rightly instruct, 
 so much the more dutifully you must submit. 
 But if otherwise, it is the fault of the man, 
 not of the ministry. To those, at least, yield 
 thyself to be ruled, whom thou knowest to be 
 more learned. But go to, thou which canst not 
 sutler a man to be thy pastor; to whom then 
 wilt thou submit thyself? Unto Christ him- 
 self, thou sayest ! Very well, forsooth. This, 
 then, is of such importance, tliat Christ, for 
 thy cause, must again leave the heavens, or, 
 by his angels or archangels, feed and go- 
 vern thee, whom these moan men, the pas- 
 tors, do not satisfy. But what if it so pleased 
 the Lord by these mean pastors, as thou call- 
 est them, to cast down and confound all the 
 highest stateliness and pride of this world, 
 even, as of old, by a few and contemptible 
 fishers, he subdued not only the high and 
 conceited opinion of philosophers, but even 
 the sceptres of kings also ? Now, what will 
 thy boasting magnificence say ? But hear 
 what Christ himself saith of them, whom 
 thou, from thy high loftiness, lookest down 
 upon as unworthy : " He that despiseth you, 
 despiseth me," saith he. And, moreover, 
 whoso despiseth Christ despiseth Him from 
 whom he is sent, and who said unto him, 
 " Thou art my Son, this day have I begot- 
 ten thee : Ask of me, and I will give thee 
 the heathen ibr tliine inheritance, and the 
 utmost ends of the earth fur thy possession : 
 Thou shalt rule them with a rod of iron, 
 I and break them in pieces, like a potter's 
 ! vessel." "Wherefore, seeing thou dost ac- 
 j knowledge so great a Lord, so many ways 
 I above all majesty whatsoever can be named, 
 I let it not be grievous to thee (my brother 
 whosoever thou art, or with how great power 
 soever thou art highly advanced), laying a- 
 side thy high looks and pride, to be hum- 
 bled under his mighty hand ; and do not 
 think it a light matter (whereas thou enter- 
 tainest, with so great applause and honoura- 
 ble respect, an earthly king's ambassadors), 
 that thou shouldest disdain the ambassadors 
 of him, who alone hath power over all kings 
 
 and lords. If thou yieldest unto a mortal 
 physician thy wounds to be handled, yea, to 
 be cut also, and to be burned and seared (if 
 need be), how cometh it that thou canst 
 less endure the same thing also, in the cur- 
 ing of the diseases of the soul, from the spi- 
 ritual Physician, especially seeing, in so many 
 respects, better is the health of the soul than 
 of the body ? Nor do thou so account any 
 whit, in this regard, to be impaired of thy 
 honour, if, unto thy bishop or pastor, yea, 
 rather herein to Christ, thou be subjected. 
 Yea, contrariwise, so account as the thing is 
 indeed, that there is no true glory but in 
 Christ and in his sheepfolds, that none do 
 more prosperously reign than they which 
 every way do serve him, without whom, as 
 there is no glory, so is there no safety and 
 salvation. Neither let it seem disgraceful 
 to thee, what, so many ages ago, the most 
 high monarchs of the world, and most 
 potent emperors, have done before thee, 
 amongst whom Philip, as he was the first 
 of all the emperors who was made a Chris- 
 tian, so I meet with no other more famous 
 example, and more worthy of all men's imi- 
 tation. He, willing to be present at the 
 solemn assemblies of the church on Easter, 
 and to communicate of the sacrament, when, 
 as yet, he was judged not worthy of admis- 
 sion, it is reported that Fabian the bishop 
 withstood him, neither did receive him be- 
 fore he confessed his sins and stood among 
 the penitentiaries. What would those our 
 proud giants, fighters against God, do here, 
 if they had stood in the like condition and 
 high place ? But this no less mild than 
 most mighty emperor, was nothing ashamed 
 (forgetting in the meanwhile his imperial 
 majesty), of his own accord, to submit himself 
 to the obedience of his pastor, undergoing 
 everything whatsoever in the name of Christ 
 was imposed upon him. O, truly noble em- 
 peror, and no less worthy bishop ! But these 
 examples, in both, are too rare amongst us 
 this day. 
 
 Another sort is of those which would be 
 Christians but in name and title only. They 
 promise an honest enough show of Christian 
 profession ; they dispute both learnedly and 
 everywhere, vvitli great endeavour, of Christ; 
 they carry about in their hands the gospel ; 
 they frequent sacred sermons, have cast off 
 all superstition ; they feed with the perfect ; 
 they marry, eat, and are clothed, so as they 
 hold no difference, either of times or places. 
 Finally, Wliatsoever is pleasing in Christ 
 
Aaron's rod blossoming, or the 
 
 I they take and stiffly hold. But if ye look 
 ! into their life, they are epicures, wasters, 
 [ ravenous, covetous, sons of Belial; not Christ's 
 I servants, but slaves of their belly, who, ac- 
 ' cording to the satirist, tiiink virtue to be 
 but words, as the wood to be but trees, 
 j And of these there is a great store every- 
 1 where, who, seeing only for their belly they 
 j follow Christ, they leave nothing undevised 
 I and unentei'prised to hinder excomniuni- 
 j cation, that so they may the more freely 
 j satisfy and serve their own lusts. So the 
 [ covetous man feareth that his covetousness 
 j be called in question, which he will not for- 
 i sake. The adulterer, he that buyeth or 
 selleth men into slavery, the dicer, the 
 whoremonger, the drunkard, would rather 
 his intemperance to be concealed. So the 
 robber, the murderer, the incendiary, is 
 afraid to be laid open or made known. So 
 he that delighteth to be fatted and enriched 
 with the damages of the commonwealth, is 
 unwilling to have any bridle to curb and re- 
 strain lum. The cheater, that with false 
 wares beguileth the people ; the seller, that 
 with unjust gain outeth counterfeit wares ; 
 the deceiver, who cozeneth and circumvent- 
 eth his neighbour. Last of all, whosoever 
 are thus affected, that they savour or follow 
 nothing but their belly, their ambition, and 
 the purse, they do not willingly endure that 
 their hberty of sinning should be stopped to 
 them. 
 
 Moreover, after these, others not much 
 unlike them, come into the same account, 
 which, out of some places of Scripture per- 
 versely wrested, if they find out aught that 
 may flatter their affections, hence forthwith 
 do they promise a wicked liberty of sinning 
 to themselves and others, whence follows a 
 very great corruption of lite, together with 
 injury of the Scripture. While these men 
 are not sufficiently shaken and stricken with 
 the sense of their sin, and force the Scrip- 
 ture, violently wrested to defend and main- 
 tain their perverse affections, from which 
 Scripture it hath been meet to seek all me- 
 dicines of their vices. But little do these 
 men, in the meanwhile, consider how dear 
 it cost Christ, wliich they make so small 
 account of. They do not mark and weigh 
 how horrible a thing sin is before God, 
 which no otherwise could be expiate and 
 purged, but by the death of his only begot- 
 ten Son, which hath utterly ruinated not 
 whole cities, but kingdoms also, and mo- 
 narchies. 
 
 Which things, if these and all other epi- 
 cures did more diligently think of, it would 
 come to pass, I suppose, that neither the 
 custom of sin would so much like them, and, 
 withal, the matter itself would so far draw 
 them, that more willingly they would have 
 recourse unto these so many ways whole- 
 some remedies of the church, as unto the 
 only medicine of man's life. 
 
 THE ESD. 
 
 An. Jll RUAV, PRlMliK, MILNE SUI AUK, EPI.NtUKGll. 
 
I 
 
 I 
 
Date Due 
 
 
 
 
 
 FACUL" 
 
 rr 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 f -- - f.J'^l 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 PRINTED 
 
 IN U. S. A 
 
 
■ 0 %x 
 
 *