The
first
Booke
.
Of
the
Jewish
Church-government
.
CHAP.
I.
That
if
the
Erastians
could
prove
what
they
alledge
concerning
the
Iewish
Church
Government
,
yet
in
that
particular
the
Iewish
Church
could
not
be
a
president
to
the
Christian.
OBserving
that
very
much
of
Erastus
his
strength
,
and
much
of
his
followers
their
confidence
,
lieth
in
the
old
Testament
,
and
Jewish
Church
,
which
(
as
they
averre
)
knew
no
such
distinction
,
as
Civill
Government
,
and
Church
Government
;
Civill
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
doe
heartily
acknowledge
,
that
what
we
finde
to
have
been
an
Ordinance
,
or
an
approved
practice
in
the
Jewish
Church
,
ought
to
be
a
rule
and
patterne
to
us
,
such
things
onely
excepted
which
were
typicall
,
or
temporall
,
that
is
,
for
which
there
were
speciall
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
Jewes
had
never
any
supreame
Sanhedrin
but
one
onely
,
and
that
civil
,
and
such
as
had
the
temporall
coercive
power
of
Magistracy
(
which
they
will
never
be
able
to
prove
)
yet
there
are
divers
con●iderable
reasons
,
for
which
that
could
be
no
president
to
us
.
First
,
Casaubon
exerc
.
13.
anno
31.
num.
10.
proves
out
of
Maimonides
,
that
the
Sanhedrin
was
to
be
made
up
(
if
possible
)
wholly
of
Priests
and
Levites
;
and
that
if
so
many
Priests
and
Levites
could
not
be
found
,
as
were
fit
to
be
of
the
Sanhedrin
,
in
that
case
some
were
assumed
out
of
other
Tribes
.
Howbeit
I
hold
not
this
to
be
agreeable
to
the
first
institution
of
the
Sanhedrin
.
But
thus
much
is
certaine
,
that
Priests
and
Levites
were
members
of
the
Jewish
Sanhedrin
,
and
had
an
authoritative
decisive
suffrage
in
making
decrees
,
and
inflicting
punishments
,
as
well
as
other
members
of
the
Sanhedrin
.
Philo
the
Jew
de
vita
Mosis
pag.
530.
saith
that
he
who
was
found
gathering
sticks
upon
the
Sabbath
,
was
brought
ad
principem
&
sacerdotum
consistorium
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
that
is
,
to
the
Prince
or
chiefe
Ruler
(
meaning
Moses
)
together
with
whom
the
Priests
did
sit
and
judge
in
the
Sanhedrin
.
Jehosaphat
did
set
of
the
Levites
,
of
the
Priests
,
and
of
the
chiefe
of
the
Fathers
of
Israel
,
for
the
judgement
of
the
Lord
,
&c.
2
Chro.
19.
8.
Secondly
,
the
people
of
Israel
had
Gods
own
Judiciall
Law
given
by
Moses
,
for
their
civill
Law
:
and
the
Priests
and
Levites
in
stead
of
civill
Lawyers
.
Thirdly
,
the
Sanhedrin
did
punish
no
man
,
unlesse
admonition
had
been
first
given
to
him
for
his
amendment
.
Maimon
.
de
fundam
.
legis
cap.
5.
sect.
6.
(
yea
saith
Gul.
Vorstius
upon
the
place
,
though
a
man
had
killed
his
parents
,
the
Sanhedrin
did
not
punish
him
unlesse
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
it self
tels
us
ad
tit
.
Sanhedrin
cap.
5.
sect
.
1.
Fourthly
,
the
Sanhedrin
respondebat
de
Jure
,
did
interpret
the
Law
of
God
,
and
determine
controversies
,
concerning
the
sence
and
intent
thereof
.
Deut.
17.
8
,
9
,
10
,
11.
and
it
was
on
this
manner
as
the
Ierusalem
Talmud
in
Sanhedrin
cap.
10.
sect
.
2.
records
.
There
were
there
(
in
Ierusalem
)
three
assemblies
of
Iudges
:
one
sitting
at
the
entry
to
the
mountaine
of
the
Sanctuary
:
another
sitting
at
the
doore
of
the
Court
:
the
third
sitting
in
the
Conelave
made
of
cut
stone
.
First
,
addresse
was
made
to
that
which
sate
at
the
ascent
of
the
mountaine
of
the
Sanctuary
:
then
the
Elder
(
who
came
to
represent
the
cause
which
was
too
hard
for
the
Courts
of
the
Cities
)
said
on
this
manner
.
I
have
drawne
this
sence
from
the
holy
Scripture
,
my
fellows
have
drawn
that
sence
.
I
have
taught
thus
,
my
f●…llows
so
and
so
.
If
they
had
learned
what
is
to
be
determined
in
that
cause
,
they
did
communicate
it
unto
them
.
If
not
,
they
went
forward
together
to
the
Iudges
sitting
at
the
doore
of
the
Court
:
by
whom
they
were
instructed
,
if
they
(
after
the
laying
forth
of
the
difficulty
)
knew
what
resolution
to
give
.
Otherwise
all
of
them
jointly
had
recourse
to
the
great
Sanhedrin
.
For
from
it
doth
the
Law
go
forth
unto
all
Israel
.
It
is
added
in
Exc.
Gemar
.
Sanhed
.
cap.
10.
sect.
1.
that
the
Sanhedrin
did
sit
in
that
roome
of
cut
stone
(
which
was
in
the
Temple
)
from
the
morning
to
the
evening
daily
sacrifice
.
The
Sanhedrin
did
judge
cases
of
Idolatry
,
apostasie
,
false
Prophets
,
&c.
Talm.
Hieros
.
in
Sanhed
.
cap.
1.
sect.
5.
Now
all
this
being
unquestionably
true
of
the
Jewish
Sanhedrin
:
if
we
should
suppose
,
that
they
had
no
supreme
Sanhedrin
but
that
which
had
the
power
of
civill
Magistracy
,
then
I
aske
where
is
that
Christian
State
,
which
was
,
or
is
,
or
ought
to
be
moulded
according
to
this
patterne
.
Must
Ministers
have
vote
in
Parliament
?
Must
they
be
civill
Lawyers
?
must
all
criminall
and
capitall
Judgements
be
according
to
the
Judiciall
Law
of
Moses
,
and
none
otherwise
?
Must
there
be
no
civill
punishment
,
without
previous
admonition
of
the
offender
?
Must
Parliaments
sit
,
as
it
were
in
the
Temple
of
God
,
and
interpret
Scripture
,
which
sence
is
true
,
and
which
false
,
and
determine
controversies
of
faith
and
cases
of
conscience
,
and
judge
of
all
false
doctrines
?
yet
all
this
must
be
,
if
there
be
a
paralell
made
with
the
Jewish
Sanhedrin
.
I
know
some
divines
hold
,
that
the
Judiciall
Law
of
Moses
,
so
far
as
concerneth
the
punishments
of
sins
against
the
morall
law
,
Idolatry
,
blasphemy
,
Sabbath-breaking
,
adultery
,
theft
,
&c.
ought
to
be
a
rule
to
the
Christian
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
shewing
,
what
must
follow
,
if
the
Jewish
Government
be
taken
for
a
pr●sident
,
without
making
a
dis●inction
of
Civil
&
Church
government
.
Surely
,
the
consequences
will
be
such
,
as
I
am
sure
our
opposites
will
never
admit
of
,
and
some
of
which
(
namely
concerning
the
civill
places
or
power
of
Ministers
,
and
concerning
the
Magistrates
authority
to
interpret
Scripture
)
ought
not
to
be
admitted
.
Certainly
,
if
it
should
be
granted
that
the
Jewes
had
but
one
Sanhedrin
,
yet
there
was
such
an
intermixture
●of
Civill
and
Ecclesiasticall
both
persons
and
proceedings
,
that
there
must
be
a
partition
made
of
that
power
,
which
the
Jewish
Sanhedrin
did
exercise
,
which
(
taken
whole
and
entire
together
)
can
neither
sute
to
our
Civill
nor
to
our
Ecclesiasticall
Courts
.
Nay
,
while
the
Erastians
appeale
to
the
Jewish
Sanhedrin
(
suppose
it
now
to
be
but
one
)
they
doe
thereby
ingage
themselves
to
grant
unto
Church
officers
a
share
at
least
(
yea
a
great
share
)
in
Ecclesiasticall
government
:
for
so
they
had
in
the
Supreme
Sanhedrin
of
the
Jewes
.
And
further
the
Jewes
had
their
Synagoga
magna
,
which
Grotius
on
Matth.
10.
17.
distinguisheth
from
the
Sanhedrin
of
71.
for
both
Prophets
and
others
of
place
and
power
among
the
people
praeter
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
besides
the
members
of
that
Sanhedrin
were
members
of
that
extraordinary
assembly
,
which
was
called
the
great
Synagogue
,
such
as
that
Assembly
Ezra
10.
which
did
decree
forfeiture
and
separation
from
the
Congregation
,
to
be
the
punishment
of
such
as
would
not
gather
themselves
unto
Ierusalem
:
in
which
assembly
were
others
beside
those
of
the
Sanhedrin
.
Of
the
men
of
the
great
Synagogue
I
read
in
Tzemach
David
pag.
56.
edit
.
Hen.
Vors
.
that
they
did
receive
the
traditions
from
the
Prophets
;
and
it
is
added
Viri
Synagogae
magnae
ordinarunt
nobis
preces
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
,
Zerubbabel
,
Mordechai
,
Ezra
,
Jehoshua
,
Seria
,
Rehaliah
,
Misphar
,
Rechum
,
Nehemias
.
Rambam
addeth
,
Chananiah
,
Mischael
,
and
Azariah
.
Finally
,
as
Prophets
,
Pries●s
,
and
Scribes
of
the
Law
of
God
had
an
interest
in
the
Synagoga
magna
after
the
Captivity
,
so
we
read
of
occasionall
and
extraordinary
Ecclesiasticall
Synods
before
the
Captivity
,
as
that
assembly
of
the
Priests
and
Levites
under
Hezekiah
,
2
Chro.
29.
4.
15.
and
that
erring
Synod
of
the
400
Prophets
,
1
Kings
22.
6.
Herod
also
gathered
together
the
chiefe
Priests
and
Scribes
,
Matth.
2.
4.
I
conclude
,
that
if
it
should
be
granted
there
was
no
Ecclesiasticall
Sanhedrin
among
the
Jewes
,
distinct
from
the
civill
,
yet
as
the
necessity
of
a
distinct
Ecclesiasticall
Government
among
us
,
is
greater
then
it
was
among
them
(
in
respect
of
the
foure
considerations
above
mentioned
)
so
likewise
the
Priests
had
a
great
deale
more
power
and
authority
in
the
Jewish
Church
,
(
not
onely
by
occasionall
Synods
,
but
by
their
interest
in
Synagoga
magna
,
and
in
the
civill
Sanhedrin
it selfe
)
then
the
Erastians
are
willing
that
Church
officers
should
have
in
the
Christian
Church
.
CHAP.
II.
That
the
Iewish
Church
was
formally
distinct
from
the
Iewish
State
or
Common-wealth
.
IT
hath
been
by
some
(
with
much
confidence
and
scorne
of
all
who
say
otherwise
)
averred
that
Excommunication
and
Church-government
distinct
from
the
Civill
,
hath
no
patterne
for
it
in
the
Jewish
Church
.
I
am
sure
(
saith
Mr
Coleman
in
his
Brotherly
examination
re-examined
,
pag.
16.
)
the
best
reformed
Church
that
ever
was
went
this
way
,
I
meane
the
Church
of
Israel
,
which
had
no
distinction
of
Church
government
and
Civill
government
.
Hast
thou
appealed
unto
Caesar
?
unto
Caesar
shalt
thou
goe
.
Have
you
appealed
to
the
Jewish
Church
?
thither
shall
you
goe
.
Wherefore
I
shall
endeavour
to
make
these
five
things
appeare
:
1.
That
the
Jewish
Church
was
formally
〈◊〉
from
the
Jewish
State
.
2.
That
there
was
an
Eccle●iasticall
Sanhedrin
and
Government
distinct
from
the
Civill
.
3.
That
there
was
an
Ecclesiasticall
Excommunication
,
〈◊〉
from
Civill
punishments
.
4.
That
in
the
Jewish
Church
there
was
also
a
publike
exomologesis
or
declaration
of
repentance
,
and
thereupon
a
reception
or
admission
againe
of
the
offender
to
fellowship
with
the
Church
in
the
holy
things
.
5.
That
there
was
a
suspension
of
the
prophane
from
the
Temple
and
Passeover
.
First
,
the
Jewish
Church
was
formally
distinct
from
the
Jewish
State
.
I
say
formally
,
because
ordinarily
they
were
not
distinct
materially
,
the
same
persons
being
members
of
both
.
But
formally
they
were
distinct
,
(
as
now
the
Church
and
State
are
distinct
among
us
Christians
.
)
1.
In
respect
of
distinct
lawes
;
the
Ceremoniall
Law
was
given
to
them
in
reference
to
their
Church
state
,
the
Judiciall
Law
was
given
to
them
in
reference
to
their
Civill
State
.
Is.
Abrabanel
de
capite
fidei
cap.
13.
putteth
this
difference
between
the
Lawes
given
to
Adam
and
to
the
sonnes
of
Noah
,
and
the
divine
Law
given
by
Moses
:
that
those
Laws
were
given
for
conservation
of
humane
society
and
are
in
the
classis
of
Judiciall
or
civill
Laws
.
But
the
divine
Law
given
by
Moses
,
doth
direct
the
soule
to
its
last
perfection
and
end
.
I
doe
not
approve
the
difference
which
he
puts
between
these
Lawes
.
This
onely
I
note
,
that
he
distinguisheth
Judiciall
or
Civill
Laws
for
conservation
of
society
,
(
though
given
by
God
)
from
those
Laws
which
are
given
to
perfect
the
soule
,
and
to
direct
it
to
its
last
end
,
such
as
he
conceives
the
whole
morall
and
ceremoniall
Law
of
Moses
to
be
▪
Halichoth
Olam
tract
.
5.
cap.
2.
tels
us
that
such
and
such
Rabbies
were
followed
in
the
ceremoniall
Lawes
:
other
Rabbies
followed
in
the
Judiciall
Lawes
.
2.
In
respect
of
distinct
acts
:
they
did
not
worship
God
and
offer
Sacrifices
in
the
Temple
,
nor
call
upon
the
name
of
Lord
,
nor
give
thanks
,
nor
receive
the
Sacraments
as
that
State
,
but
as
that
Church
.
They
did
not
punish
evill
doers
by
mulcts
,
imprisonment
,
banishment
,
burning
,
stoning
,
hanging
,
as
that
Church
,
but
as
that
State
.
3.
In
respect
of
controversi●s
;
some
causes
and
controversies
did
concerne
the
Lords
matters
,
some
the
Kings
matters
,
2
Chro.
19.
11.
To
judge
between
blood
and
blood
was
one
thing
.
To
judge
between
Law
and
Commandement
,
between
Statut●s
and
judgements
;
that
is
,
to
give
the
true
sence
of
the
Law
of
God
when
it
was
controverted
,
was
another
thing
.
4.
In
respect
of
Officers
:
the
Priests
and
L●vites
were
Church-officers
.
Magistrates
and
Judges
not
so
,
but
were
Ministers
of
the
State
.
The
Priests
might
not
take
the
Sword
out
of
the
hand
of
the
Magistrates
.
The
Magistrates
might
not
offer
Sacrifice
nor
exercise
the
Priests
office
.
5.
In
respect
of
continuance
,
when
the
Romans
tooke
away
the
Jewish
State
and
civill
Government
,
yet
the
Jewish
Church
did
remaine
,
and
the
Romans
did
permit
them
the
liberty
of
their
religion
.
And
now
though
the
Jewes
have
no
Jewish
State
,
yet
they
have
Jewish
Churches
.
Whence
it
is
,
that
when
th●y
tell
where
one
did
or
doth
live
,
they
doe
not
mention
the
Town
,
but
the
Church
:
In
the
holy
Church
at
Uenice
,
at
Frankford
,
&c.
See
Buxtorf
.
lex
.
Rabin
.
pag.
1983.
6.
In
respect
of
variation
.
The
constitution
and
Government
of
the
Jewish
State
was
not
the
same
,
but
different
,
under
Moses
and
Ioshua
,
under
the
Iudges
,
under
the
Kings
,
and
after
the
Captivity
.
But
we
cannot
say
,
that
the
Church
was
new
modelld
as
oft
as
the
State
was
.
7.
In
respect
of
members
.
For
as
[
a
](A42757-e11560-b)
a
De
Iure
natur
.
&
Gentium
lib.
2.
cap.
4.
Prosely●us
Iustitiae
utcunque
novato
patriae
nomine
Iudaeus
dice●etur
,
non
tam
quidem
〈◊〉
Iudaicus
simpliciter
censendus
●sset
quam
peregrinas
semper
,
cui
jura
quamplurima
inter
cives
.
See
the
like
lib.
5.
c.
20.
M.
Selden
hath
very
well
observed
concerning
that
sort
of
Proselytes
,
who
had
the
name
of
Pr●…selyti
Justitiae
;
they
were
initiated
into
the
Jewish
religion
by
Circumcision
,
Baptisme
,
and
Sacrifice
:
and
they
were
allowed
not
onely
to
worship
God
apart
by
themselves
,
but
also
to
come
into
the
Church
and
Congregation
of
Israel
,
and
to
be
called
by
the
name
of
Jewes
:
neverthelesse
they
were
res●rained
and
secluded
from
Dignities
,
Magistracies
and
preferments
in
the
Jewish
Republique
,
and
from
divers
marriages
,
which
were
free
to
the
Israelites
:
Even
as
strangers
initiated
and
associated
into
the
Church
of
Rome
,
have
not
therefore
the
priviledge
of
Roman
Citizens
.
Thus
M.
Selden
,
who
hath
thereby
made
it
manifest
,
that
there
was
a
dis●iuction
of
the
Jewish
Church
and
Jewish
State
,
because
those
Proselytes
[
b
](A42757-e11640-b)
b
Buxtorf
.
lexic.
Chald.
Talm.
&
Rabbin
pag.
408
Proselyti
justitiae
sunt
qui
non
rerum
externarum
,
sed
solius
religionis
causâ
,
&
gloriae
Dei
studio
,
religionem
Iudaicam
amplectuntur
,
&
totam
legem
Mosis
dicto
modo
recipiunt
.
Hi
natis
Iudaeis
habentur
aequales
:
understand
in
an
Ecclesiasticall
,
not
in
a
Civill
capacity
.
In
which
sence
also
Matthias
Martinius
in
lexic.
philol
.
pag.
2922.
saith
that
these
Proselytes
,
cum
ad
sacrorum
Iudaicorum
communionem
admit●ebantur
,
&c.
veri
Iudaei
censebantur
:
and
that
to
be
made
a
Proselyte
,
and
to
be
made
a
Jew
,
are
used
promiscuously
in
the
Rabbinicall
writings
.
So
also
Drusius
praet
.
l.
4.
in
Io.
12.
20.
being
imbodied
into
the
Jewish
Church
as
Church
members
,
and
having
a
right
to
communicate
in
the
holy
Ordinances
among
the
rest
of
the
people
of
God
,
yet
were
not
properly
members
of
the
Jewish
State
,
nor
admitted
to
Civill
priviledges
:
Whence
it
is
also
that
the
names
of
Jewes
and
Proselytes
were
used
distinctly
,
Acts
2.
10.
CHAP.
III.
That
the
Iewes
had
an
Ecclesiasticall
Sanhedrin
and
Government
distinct
from
the
Civill
.
I
Come
to
the
second
point
,
that
there
was
an
Ecclesiasticall
government
,
and
an
Ecclesiasticall
Sanhedrin
among
the
Jews
.
This
distinction
of
the
two
Sanhedrins
,
the
Civill
and
the
Ecclesiasticall
,
is
maintained
by
Zepperus
de
polit.
eccles
.
l.
3.
cap.
7.
Iunius
in
Deut.
17.
Piscator
ibid.
Wolphius
in
2.
Reg.
23.
Gerhard
Harm.
de
pass.
cap.
8.
Godwin
Moses
and
Aaron
lib.
5.
cap.
1.
Bucerus
de
gubern
.
eccl
.
pag.
61
,
62.
Walaeus
Tom.
2.
pag.
9.
Pelargus
in
Deut.
17.
Sopingius
ad
bonam
fidem
Sibrandi
pag.
261.
et
seq
.
The
Dutch
Annotations
on
Deut.
17.
&
2
Chron.
19.
Bertramus
de
polit.
Jud.
cap.
11.
Ap●…llonii
jus
Majest.
part
.
1.
p.
374.
Strigelius
in
2.
Paralip
.
cap.
19.
The
professours
of
Groning
.
(
Vide
Judicium
facult.
Theol.
academiae
Groninganae
,
apud
Cabeljav
.
def.
potest
.
Eccl.
pag.
54.
)
I
remember
Raynolds
in
the
Conference
with
Hart
is
of
the
same
opinion
.
Also
M.
Paget
in
his
defence
of
Church
government
,
pag.
41.
Besides
divers
others
.
I
shall
onely
adde
the
Testimony
of
Constantinus
L'Empereur
,
a
man
singularly
well
acquainted
with
the
Jewish
antiquities
,
who
hath
expressed
himselfe
concerning
this
point
both
in
his
Annotations
upon
Bertram
pag.
389.
and
Annot.
in
Cod.
Middoth
.
pag.
187
,
188.
The
latter
of
these
two
passages
you
have
here
in
the
[
c
](A42757-e11980-b)
c
Caete●ùm
supremus
Senatus
cujus
in
hoc
conclavi
sedes
,
duplex
fuisse
videtur
,
pro
●erum
Ecclesi●ticarum
&
politicarum
diversitate
:
quonia●
Deut
17.
12.
ubi
de
supremis
Senatoribus
agitur
,
manisestè
Sacerdos
d
Iudice
distinguitur
;
ad
sacerdotema●t
ad
Iudicem
i.
e.
Sacerdotes
aut
Iudices
,
ut
com
.
9.
inaicio
est
,
ubi
pro
Sacerd●te
ponuntur
Sacerdotes
.
Adde
Ieboshaphatum
,
cum
Iudicia
Hicrosolymis
restaura●et
,
duos
ordines
conflituisse
,
Sacerdetes
&
Capita
samilia●um
,
ad
judicium
Dei
&
ad
litem
:
similiter
duos
praes●les
com
11.
un●m
ad
omnem
causam
Dei
:
alterum
scilicet
duce●
Iudaeorum
ad
omne
negotium
Regis
.
Quibus
succinunt
verba
Jerem.
19.
1.
quibus
Seniores
populi●
Senioribus
Sacerdot●m
distinguntur
.
Quocirca
in
N.
T.
sublato
(
ut
videtur
)
per
H●rodem
,
uno
synedrio
,
sc.
politico
;
al●erum
Apostolorum
seculo
supersuit
,
in
quo
politici
etiam
manebant
reliqui●
:
nam
ab
Ecclesiasticis
Seniores
populi
distinguntur
,
Matth.
26.
3.
59
&
27.
vers.
1.
Ni
magis
placeat
,
quod
ab
aliis
observatum
suit
,
Herodem
,
sublatis
70.
Senioribus
è
familia
Davidica
,
alios
inseriores
substitu●sse
:
quod
judiciorum
quibusdam
excmplis
firmari
videtur
.
Adeo
〈◊〉
illis
temporibus
duplex
quoque
Synedrium
suerit
,
quamvis
utriusque
Senatores
subinde
convenirent
:
qu●
fortè
reserendum
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
quod
Matth.
26.
59.
Marc
14.
55.
&
15.
1.
Acts
22.
30.
occurrit
.
(
Quin
etiam
cap
1.
cod
.
Iomae
,
eadem
distinctio
his
verbis
confirmatur
(
ubi
de
〈◊〉
Sacerdotis
magni
ad
diem
expiationis
agitur
)
tradunt
eum
Seniores
d●mus
Iudicii
,
Senioribus
Sacerdotii
.
Margin
,
expressing
not
only
his
opinion
,
but
the
ground
of
it
.
And
it
is
no
obscure
footstep
of
the
Ecclefiasticall
Sanhedrin
,
[
d
](A42757-e12050-b)
d
Propter
meritum
assess●rum
Sy●edrii
,
qui
occupati
sunt
in
lege
,
&
illuminant
Iudicium
.
Et
descendit
in
Babyloniam
ad
concilium
Sapientum
.
I●
non
fuit
Synedrium
Iudicum
&
Magistratus
summi
,
sed
collegium
doctorum
.
which
is
cited
out
of
Elias
,
by
D.
Buxtorf
in
his
Lexicon
Chald.
Talmud
.
&
Rabbin
.
p.
1514.
The
first
institution
of
an
Ecclesiasticall
Sanhedrin
appeareth
to
me
to
be
held
forth
Exod.
24.
1.
where
God
saith
to
Moses
,
Come
up
unto
the
Lord
,
thou
and
Aaron
,
Nad●…
and
Abihu
,
and
seventy
of
the
Elders
of
Israel
.
It
is
a
controversie
among
Interpreters
who
those
seventy
Elders
were
.
[
f
](A42757-e12120-b)
f
In
Exod.
24.
Quaest.
3.
Tostatus
maketh
it
cleare
,
that
they
were
not
the
seventy
Elders
chosen
for
the
government
of
the
Common-wealth
,
Num
11.
Nor
yet
the
Judges
chosen
by
the
advice
of
Iethro
,
Exod.
18.
Nor
yet
any
other
Judges
which
had
before
time
Judged
the
people
.
These
three
negatives
Willet
upon
the
place
holdeth
with
Tostatus
.
Not
the
first
:
for
this
was
done
at
Mount
Sinai
,
shortly
after
their
comming
out
of
Egypt
.
But
on
the
twenty
day
of
the
second
moneth
,
in
the
second
yeere
,
they
tooke
their
journey
from
Sinai
to
the
Wildernesse
of
Paran
,
Num.
10.
11
,
12.
and
there
pitched
at
Hibroth-hattaavath
Num.
33.
16.
where
the
seventy
Elders
were
chosen
to
relieve
Moses
of
the
burthen
of
Government
.
So
that
this
election
of
seventy
Exod.
24.
was
before
that
election
of
seventy
Num
11.
Not
the
second
:
for
this
election
of
seventy
Exod.
24.
was
before
that
election
of
Judges
by
Iethros
advice
Exod.
18.
Iethro
himselfe
not
having
come
to
Moses
till
the
end
of
the
first
yeere
,
or
the
beginning
of
the
second
yeere
after
the
comming
out
of
Egypt
,
and
not
before
the
giving
of
the
Law
:
which
Tostatus
proves
by
this
argunent
,
The
Law
was
given
the
third
day
,
after
they
came
to
Sinai
;
but
it
was
impossible
that
Iethro
should
in
the
space
of
three
daies
,
heare
that
Moses
and
the
people
of
Israel
were
in
the
wildernesse
of
Sinai
,
and
come
there
unto
them
,
that
Moses
should
goe
forth
and
meet
him
,
and
receive
him
,
and
entertaine
him
;
that
Iethro
should
observe
the
manner
of
Moses
his
government
,
in
litigious
judgement
from
morning
till
evening
,
and
give
counsell
to
rectifie
it
;
that
Moses
should
take
course
to
helpe
it
;
how
could
all
this
be
done
in
those
three
daies
,
which
were
also
appointed
for
sanctifying
the
people
against
the
receiving
of
the
Law
?
Therefore
[
g
](A42757-e12420-b)
g
In
Exod.
18.
Quest.
2.
he
concludeth
that
the
story
of
Iethro
Exod.
18.
is
an
anticipation
.
Lastly
,
he
saith
,
the
seventy
Elders
mentioned
Exod.
24.
could
not
be
Judges
who
did
judge
the
people
before
Iethro
came
,
because
Iethro
did
observe
the
whole
burthen
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.
24.
were
also
invested
with
[
h
](A42757-e12500-b)
h
Menocbius
in
Exod.
24.
14.
redite
ad
populum
,
ut
illum
regatis
,
&
in
officio
contineati●
.
Pelargus
upon
the
place
saith
that
Moses
would
not
leave
the
Church
without
Rulers
to
avoyd
the
danger
of
popular
anarchy
.
authority
in
judging
controversies
,
wherein
Aaron
or
Hur
were
to
preside
vers.
14.
They
are
joyned
with
Aaron
,
Nadad
,
and
Abihu
,
and
are
called
up
as
a
Representative
of
the
whole
Church
,
when
God
was
making
a
Covenant
with
his
people
.
T
is
after
the
Judiciall
lawes
,
Exod.
21.
&
22.
&
23.
and
that
24
Chapter
is
a
transition
to
the
ceremoniall
lawes
concerning
the
worship
of
God
,
and
structure
of
the
Tabernacle
,
which
are
to
follow
.
Neither
had
the
seventy
Elders
(
of
which
now
I
speake
)
any
share
of
the
Supreme
civill
Government
,
to
judge
hard
Civill
causes
,
and
to
receive
appeals
concerning
those
things
from
the
inferiour
Judges
;
for
all
this
did
still
lie
upon
Moses
alone
,
Num.
11.
14.
Furthermore
they
saw
the
glory
of
the
Lord
,
and
were
admitted
to
a
sacred
banquet
,
and
to
eat
of
the
Sacrifices
in
his
presence
Exod.
24.
5
,
10
,
11.
and
were
thereby
confirmed
in
their
calling
.
All
which
laid
together
may
seem
to
amount
to
no
lesse
then
a
solemne
interesting
and
investing
of
them
into
an
Ecclesiasticall
authority
.
The
next
proofe
for
the
Ecclesiasticall
Sanhed●in
shall
be
taken
from
Deut.
17.
8
,
9
,
10
,
11
,
12.
where
observe
1.
T
is
agreed
upon
both
by
Jewish
and
Christian
Expositors
,
that
this
place
holds
forth
a
supreme
civill
Court
of
Judges
,
and
the
authority
of
the
civill
Sanhedrin
is
mainly
grounded
on
this
very
Text.
Now
if
this
Text
hold
forth
a
superior
civill
Jurisdiction
(
as
is
universally
acknowledged
)
it
holds
forth
also
a
superior
Ecclesiasticall
Jurisdiction
distinct
from
the
Civill
.
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
binding
,
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
inferiour
Courts
to
those
at
Ierusalem
.
1.
capitall
causes
.
2.
mulcts
.
3.
leprosie
,
and
the
judgement
of
clean
or
unclean
.
Now
this
third
belonged
to
the
cognizance
and
judgement
of
the
Priests
.
Yea
the
Text
it self
holdeth
forth
two
sorts
of
causes
,
and
controversies
,
some
forensicall
between
blood
and
blood
:
some
ceremoniall
between
stroke
and
stroke
;
not
onely
Hierome
,
but
the
Chaldee
,
and
Greek
,
readeth
,
between
leprosie
and
leprosie
.
Grotius
noteth
,
the
Hebrew
word
is
used
for
leprosie
,
many
times
in
one
chapter
,
Lev.
13.
Plea
and
plea
seemeth
common
to
both
,
there
being
difference
of
judgement
concerning
the
one
and
the
other
.
3.
Here
are
two
Iudicatories
distinguished
by
the
disjunctive
Or
V.
12.
which
we
have
both
in
the
Hebrew
,
Chaldee
,
Greek
,
and
in
our
English
Translation
;
so
that
vers.
9.
and
is
put
for
or
,
as
Grotius
noteth
,
expounding
that
verse
by
vers.
12.
And
as
the
Priests
and
Levites
are
put
in
the
plurall
V.
9.
the
like
must
be
understood
of
the
Iudge
,
whereby
we
must
understand
Iudges
,
and
so
the
Chaldee
readeth
V.
9.
even
as
(
saith
Ainsworth
)
many
Captains
are
in
the
Hebrew
called
an
head
,
1
Chron.
4.
42.
And
so
you
have
there
,
references
of
difficult
cases
from
inferior
Courts
,
to
the
Priests
or
to
the
Judges
at
Ierusalem
.
4.
There
is
also
some
intimation
of
a
twofold
sentence
;
one
concerning
the
meaning
of
the
Law
,
according
to
the
sentence
of
the
Law
,
which
they
shall
teach
thee
,
V.
11.
and
this
belonged
to
the
Priests
,
Mal.
2.
7.
for
the
Priests
(
it
s
not
said
the
Judges
)
lips
should
preserve
knowledge
,
and
they
should
seek
the
Law
at
his
mouth
.
Another
concerning
matter
of
fact
,
and
according
to
the
judgement
which
they
shall
tell
thee
,
thou
shalt
do
.
Grotius
upon
the
place
acknowledgeth
a
udgement
of
the
Priests
distinct
from
that
of
the
Judges
:
and
he
add●th
a
simile
from
the
Roman
Synod
consisting
of
seventy
Bishops
which
was
consulted
in
weighty
controversies
.
But
he
is
of
opinion
that
the
Priests
and
Levites
did
onely
end
avour
to
satisfie
and
reconcile
the
dissenting
parties
,
which
if
they
did
,
well
,
if
not
,
that
then
they
referred
the
reasons
of
both
parties
to
the
Sanhedrin
,
who
gave
forth
their
decree
upon
the
whole
matter
.
The
first
part
of
that
which
he
saith
,
helpeth
me
.
But
this
last
hath
no
ground
in
the
Text
,
but
is
manife●ly
inconsistent
therewith
,
V.
12.
The
man
that
will
doe
presumptuously
,
and
will
not
hearken
unto
the
Priest
,
or
unto
the
Judge
,
even
that
man
shall
die
.
Which
proves
,
[
i
](A42757-e12870-b)
i
Eros●…us
Confirm
th●…s
.
lib.
4
cap.
3
M●…ses
〈◊〉
ait
,
intersici
●…dum
●…sse
illum
,
qu●…
vel
〈◊〉
,
sentemiae
vel
Judicis
assentire
nollet
Non
ergo
liberum
facit
ab
i●…lo
ad
〈◊〉
pr●…vocare
.
that
the
judgement
of
both
was
supreme
in
suo
genere
,
that
is
,
if
it
was
a
controver●e
ceremoniall
,
between
leprosie
and
leprosie
,
or
between
clean
and
unclean
,
Lev.
10.
9
,
10
,
11.
Ezech.
22.
26.
or
dogmaticall
and
doctrinall
,
concerning
the
sence
of
the
Law
,
and
answering
de
Jure
,
when
the
sence
of
the
Law
was
controverted
by
the
Iudges
of
the
Cities
,
then
he
that
would
not
stand
to
the
sentence
of
the
Ecclesiasticall
Sanhedrin
,
whereof
the
high
Priest
was
pre●dent
,
was
to
die
the
death
.
But
if
the
cause
was
criminall
,
as
between
blood
and
blood
,
wherein
the
nature
or
proofe
of
the
fact
,
could
not
be
agreed
upon
,
by
the
Judges
of
the
Cities
,
then
he
that
would
not
submit
to
the
decree
of
the
civill
Sanhedrin
at
I●…rusalem
should
die
the
death
.
And
thus
the
English
Divines
in
their
late
annotations
,
give
the
sence
according
to
the
disjunction
,
V.
12.
While
the
Priest
bringeth
warrant
from
God
for
the
sentenee
which
he
passeth
in
the
cause
of
man
,
Ezech.
44.
23
,
24.
he
that
contumaciously
disobeyeth
him
disobeyeth
God
,
Luke
10.
16.
Matth.
10.
14.
The
cause
is
alike
if
the
just
sentence
of
a
competent
Judge
be
contemned
in
secular
effaires
.
In
the
third
place
,
we
read
that
David
did
thus
divide
the
Levites
(
at
that
time
eight
and
thirty
thousand
)
foure
and
twenty
thousand
of
them
were
to
set
forward
the
work
of
the
house
of
the
Lord
,
foure
thousand
were
porters
,
and
foure
thousand
praised
the
Lord
with
instruments
,
and
six
thousand
of
them
were
made
some
schoterim
Officers
,
and
some
sch●…phtim
Judges
,
1
Chro.
23.
4.
Some
understand
by
Schoterim
Rulers
,
or
those
who
were
over
the
charge
.
To
speak
properly
schophtim
were
those
that
gave
sentence
;
schoterim
those
that
lookt
to
the
execution
of
the
sentence
,
and
to
the
keeping
of
the
law
,
like
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
among
the
Craecians
:
(
for
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
was
one
thing
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
another
.
)
So
1
Chro.
26.
29.
Chenaniah
and
his
sonnes
were
for
the
outward
businesse
over
Israel
,
fo●…
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
they
[
k
](A42757-e13150-b)
k
Me●ochius
in
1.
Paral.
23.
4.
idem
sunt
praepositi
&
Iudices
,
quorum
mun●s
erat
Israelitarum
causas
qu●
juxta
legem
finiebantur
,
judicare
,
quod
patet
ex
2.
Paral.
19.
8.
ubi
habemus
constituit
Jehosaphat
in
Jerusalem
levi●…as
&
sacerdotes
,
&
Princip
s
famil●…arum
ex
Is●…a
l
,
ut
judicium
&
causam
domini
judicarent
.
were
to
judge
and
give
sentence
concerning
the
law
and
the
meaning
thereof
,
when
any
such
controversie
should
be
brought
before
them
from
any
of
the
Cities
in
the
Land
:
They
were
not
appointed
to
be
Officers
and
Judges
over
the
rest
of
the
Levites
to
keepe
them
in
order
(
for
which
course
was
taken
in
another
way
)
but
to
be
Rulers
and
Judges
over
Israel
,
saith
the
Text
,
in
the
outward
businesse
which
came
from
without
to
Ierusalem
,
in
judging
of
which
peradventure
they
were
to
attend
by
course
,
or
as
they
should
be
called
.
If
any
say
that
all
those
Levites
who
were
Judges
did
not
sit
in
judgement
at
Ierusalem
,
but
some
of
them
in
severall
Cities
of
the
Land
,
that
there
might
be
the
easier
accesse
to
them
;
I
can
easily
grant
it
,
and
I
verily
believe
it
was
so
,
and
it
maketh
the
more
for
a
Church
government
in
particular
Cities
,
which
was
subordinate
to
the
Ecclesiasticall
Sanh
d●in
at
Ierusalem
.
However
the
Levites
had
a
ruling
power
,
and
Deut.
31.
28.
those
who
are
schoterim
in
the
originall
,
the
Septuagints
call
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
Hierome
,
Doctores
,
because
their
Teachers
were
Officers
over
the
charge
,
and
had
a
share
in
Government
.
Now
no
man
can
imagine
that
there
were
no
other
Officers
over
the
charge
not
Judges
in
Israel
,
except
the
Levites
onely
;
for
it
followeth
in
that
same
Story
,
●
Chro.
28.
1.
And
David
assembled
all
the
Princes
of
Israel
,
the
Princes
of
the
Tribes
,
and
the
Captains
of
the
Companies
that
ministred
to
the
King
by
course
,
&
the
Captains
over
the
thousands
,
&c.
Nor
yet
wil
any
man
say
,
that
the
Levites
were
Officers
over
the
charge
,
and
Judges
of
the
same
kind
,
in
the
same
manner
,
or
for
the
same
ends
,
with
the
civill
Rulers
and
Judges
,
or
the
military
Commanders
;
or
that
there
was
no
distinction
between
the
ruling
power
of
the
Princes
,
and
the
ruling
power
of
the
Levites
.
Where
then
shall
the
difference
lie
,
if
not
in
this
,
that
there
was
an
Ecclesiasticall
Government
,
besides
the
Civill
and
Military
?
I
grant
those
Levites
did
rule
and
judge
not
onely
in
all
the
businesse
of
the
Lord
,
but
also
in
the
service
of
the
King
,
1
Chro.
26.
30
,
32.
But
the
reason
was
,
because
the
Jewes
had
no
other
civill
Law
,
but
Gods
owne
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
civill
affairs
:
(
nay
it
were
contrary
to
the
rule
of
Christ
and
his
Apostles
for
us
to
do
so
)
yet
the
Levites
their
judging
and
governing
in
all
the
bufines
of
the
Lord
,
is
a
patterne
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
Scripture
which
proves
[
l
](A42757-e13340-b)
l
Salmas
.
apparat
.
ad
libros
de
Primatu
p.
302.
Quae
ad
●es
sacras
ac
divinas
pertinebant
,
de
his
praecipue
judicium
Sacerdotum
fuit
,
de
ali●
civilibus
&
regalib●
,
praesides
〈◊〉
rege
constituti
,
ut
patet
ex
lib.
2.
Chro.
cap.
19.
Titinus
in
2.
Chro.
19.
11.
Ubi
not
a
distinctionem
sori
seu
Magistratus
Ec
clesiastici
&
civilis
,
contra
Anglo-Calvinistas
&
nostros
Arminianos
.
an
Ecclesiasticall
government
and
Sanhedrin
,
is
2
Chro.
19.
8
,
10
,
11.
where
Iehoshaphat
restoreth
the
same
Church
government
,
which
was
first
instituted
by
the
hand
of
Moses
,
and
afterward
ordered
and
setled
by
David
.
Moreover
(
saith
the
Text
)
in
Jerusalem
did
Jehoshaphat
set
of
the
Levites
,
and
of
the
Priests
,
and
of
the
chiefe
of
the
Fathers
of
Israel
,
for
the
judgement
of
the
Lord
,
and
for
controversies
,
&c.
It
is
not
controverted
whether
there
was
a
civill
Sanhedrin
at
Ierusalem
,
but
that
which
is
to
be
proved
from
the
place
,
is
an
Ecclesiasticall
Court
,
which
I
prove
thus
.
Where
there
is
a
Court
made
up
of
Ecclesiasticall
members
,
judging
Spirituall
and
Ecclesiasticall
causes
,
for
a
Spirituall
and
Ecclesiasticall
end
,
moderated
by
an
Ecclesiasticall
president
,
having
power
ultimately
and
authoritatively
to
determine
causes
and
controversies
brought
before
them
by
appeale
or
reference
from
inferiour
Courts
;
and
whose
sentence
is
put
in
execution
by
Ecclesiasticall
officers
;
There
it
must
needs
be
granted
that
there
was
a
supream
Ecclesiasticall
court
,
with
power
of
Government
.
But
such
a
Court
we
finde
at
Ierusalem
in
Iehoshaphats
time
.
Ergo.
The
Proposition
I
suppose
no
man
wil
deny
.
For
a
Court
so
constituted
,
so
qualified
,
and
so
authorised
,
is
the
very
thing
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
assumption
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
chiefe
of
the
Fathers
of
Israel
,
as
were
joyned
in
the
government
of
that
Church
;
Whence
the
Reverend
and
learned
Assembly
of
Divines
,
and
many
Protestant
Writers
before
them
have
drawn
an
argument
for
Ruling
Elders
.
And
this
is
one
of
the
Scriptures
alledged
by
our
Divines
against
Bellarmin
,
to
prove
that
others
beside
those
who
are
commonly
(
but
corruptly
)
called
the
Clergy
ought
to
have
a
decisive
voyce
in
Synods
.
2.
Spirituall
and
Ecclesiasticall
causes
were
here
judged
:
which
are
called
by
the
name
of
the
judgement
of
the
Lord
,
V.
8.
and
the
matters
of
the
Lord
distinguished
from
the
Kings
matters
,
V.
11.
so
V.
10.
beside
controversies
between
blood
and
blood
,
that
is
,
concerning
consanguinity
and
the
interpreting
of
the
Laws
concerning
forbidden
degrees
in
marriage
,
(
it
being
observed
by
interpreters
that
all
the
lawfull
or
unlawfull
degrees
are
not
particularly
expressed
,
but
some
onely
,
and
the
rest
were
to
be
judged
of
by
parity
of
reason
,
and
so
it
might
fall
within
the
cognizance
of
the
Ecclesiasticall
Sanhedrin
.
)
Though
it
may
be
also
expounded
otherwise
,
between
blood
and
blood
,
that
is
,
Whether
the
murther
was
wilfull
or
casuall
,
(
which
was
matter
of
fact
)
the
cognisance
whereof
belonged
to
the
civill
Judge
;
It
is
further
added
between
Law
and
Commandement
,
Statutes
and
Judgements
:
noting
seeming
contradictions
between
one
Law
and
another
,
(
such
as
Manasseb
Ben
Israel
hath
spoken
of
in
his
Conciliator
)
or
when
the
sence
and
meaning
of
the
Law
is
controverted
,
(
which
is
not
matter
of
fact
,
but
of
right
)
wherein
speciall
use
was
of
the
Priests
whose
lips
should
preserve
knowledge
and
the
Law
was
to
be
sought
at
his
mouth
,
A●…al
.
2.
7.
and
that
not
onely
ministerially
and
doctrinally
,
but
judicially
and
in
the
Sanhedrin
at
Ierusalem
,
such
controversies
concerning
the
Law
of
God
were
brought
before
them
,
as
in
2
Chro.
19.
the
place
now
in
hand
.
Yea
shall
even
warn
them
,
&c.
Which
being
spoken
to
the
Court
,
must
be
meant
of
a
synedricall
Decree
,
determining
those
questions
and
controversies
concerning
the
Law
,
which
should
come
before
them
.
As
for
that
distinction
in
the
Text
of
the
Lords
matters
and
the
Kings
matters
,
Erastus
page
274.
saith
that
by
the
Lords
matters
is
meant
any
cause
expressed
in
the
Law
,
which
was
to
be
judged
.
Whereby
he
takes
away
the
distinction
which
the
Text
makes
;
for
in
his
sence
the
Kings
matters
were
the
Lords
matters
.
Which
himselfe
(
it
seems
)
perceiving
,
he
immediately
yeeldeth
our
interpretation
,
that
by
the
Lords
matters
are
meant
things
pertaining
to
the
worship
of
God
;
and
by
the
Kings
matters
,
civill
things
.
Si
per
illas
libet
res
ad
cultum
Dei
spectantes
,
per
haec
res
civiles
accipere
,
non
pugnabo
.
If
you
please
(
saith
he
)
by
those
,
to
understand
things
pertaining
to
the
worship
of
God
,
by
these
,
civill
things
,
I
will
not
be
against
it
.
3.
It
was
for
a
Spirituall
and
Ecclesiasticall
end
,
ye
shall
even
warne
them
that
they
trespasse
not
against
the
Lord
.
It
s
not
said
against
one
another
,
but
against
the
Lord
,
for
two
reasons
.
1.
Because
mention
had
been
made
of
the
Commandements
,
Statutes
,
and
Iudgements
,
after
the
generall
word
Law
,
V.
10.
by
which
names
Interpreters
use
to
understand
(
both
in
this
and
many
other
places
of
Scripture
)
the
Lawes
morall
,
Ceremoniall
and
Judiciall
.
Now
the
case
to
be
judged
might
be
part
of
the
Ceremoniall
Law
,
having
reference
to
God
and
his
Ordinances
;
and
not
part
of
the
Judiciall
law
,
or
any
injury
done
by
a
man
to
his
neighbour
.
And
in
refer●nce
to
the
morall
Law
it
might
●e
a
trespasse
against
the
first
Table
,
not
against
the
second
.
2.
Even
in
the
case
of
a
personall
or
civill
injury
,
or
whatso●ver
the
controversie
was
that
was
brought
before
them
,
they
were
to
warn
the
Judges
in
the
Cities
not
to
trespasse
against
the
Lord
by
mistaking
or
mis-understanding
the
Law
,
or
by
righting
mens
wrongs
so
as
to
wrong
Divine
right
.
And
for
that
end
they
were
to
determine
the
Ius
,
and
the
intendment
of
the
law
,
when
it
was
controverted
.
4.
Whatsoever
cause
of
their
brethren
that
dwelt
in
the
Cities
,
should
come
unto
them
,
V.
10.
(
whether
it
should
come
by
appeale
,
or
by
reference
and
arbitration
)
this
Court
at
Ierusalem
was
to
give
out
an
ultimate
and
authoritative
determination
of
it
.
So
that
what
was
brought
from
inferiour
courts
to
them
,
is
brought
no
higher
to
any
other
Court
.
5.
This
Court
had
an
Ecclesiasticall
Prolocutor
or
moderator
,
V.
11.
Amariah
the
chiefe
Priest
is
over
you
in
all
matters
of
the
Lord
:
Whereas
Zebadiah
the
Ruler
of
the
house
of
Iudah
,
was
Speaker
in
the
civill
Sanhedrin
for
all
the
Kings
matters
.
Amariah
and
Zebadiah
were
not
onely
with
the
Sanhedrin
,
as
members
,
or
as
Councellors
,
but
over
them
as
Presidents
.
Eis
summos
Magistratus
(
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
)
ex
amicorum
numero
praeposuit
,
Amasiam
Sacerdotem
,
&
ex
Judae
tribu
Zebadiam
,
saith
Iosephus
antiq.
l.
9.
cap.
1.
Erastus
confesseth
pag.
273.
that
both
of
them
were
Presidents
set
over
the
Sanhedrin
.
and
pag.
275.
Si
Sacerdotem
in
Dei
nomine
,
Zebadiam
autem
Regis
praesedisse
affirmetur
,
non
refragabor
.
He
confesseth
also
,
that
the
one
was
more
especially
to
take
care
of
the
Lords
matters
,
the
other
of
the
Kings
matters
.
What
then
?
He
saith
they
were
Presidents
both
of
them
to
the
whole
Sanhedrin
,
not
the
one
to
one
number
,
and
the
other
to
another
.
Yet
in
this
he
yeeldeth
also
p.
273.
Quanquam
non
peccet
forte
,
qui
Senatores
hos
per
officia
distributos
di●…at
,
ut
alii
magis
haec
,
alii
magis
illa
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
Bildad
,
Jo●…
〈◊〉
.
8.
Enquire
I
pray
thee
of
the
former
age
,
and
prepare
thy selfe
to
the
s●…arch
of
their
fathers
:
and
in
the
Prophets
words
,
Ierem.
2.
10.
Passe
over
the
Isles
of
Chittim
,
and
see
,
and
send
unto
Kedar
and
consider
diligently
:
and
see
if
there
be
such
a
thing
.
Where
was
it
ever
heard
of
,
that
a
Priest
was
President
of
a
Cou●t
,
and
that
in
sacred
things
and
causes
;
that
a
civill
Magistrate
was
president
of
a
Court
,
and
that
in
civill
causes
:
and
yet
not
two
Courts
,
but
one
Court
?
If
both
Courts
had
materially
consisted
of
the
same
members
,
of
the
same
Priests
,
and
of
the
same
fathers
of
Israel
,
(
which
yet
cannot
be
proved
)
this
very
diversification
of
the
Presidents
,
and
of
the
subject
matter
,
(
if
there
were
no
more
)
will
prove
two
Courts
formally
distinct
.
Even
as
now
among
our selves
the
same
men
may
be
members
of
two
,
or
three
,
or
foure
,
or
more
Courts
,
but
the
distinction
of
Presidents
,
and
of
the
subject
matter
,
maketh
the
Court
distinct
.
6.
Here
were
also
Ecclesiasticall
Officers
,
vers.
11.
also
the
Levites
shall
be
officers
before
you
.
As
before
1
Chro.
23.
&
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
were
refractory
to
obey
it
,
(
so
doe
the
Hebrews
distinguish
these
two
words
)
so
it
was
here
also
,
some
of
the
Levites
appointed
to
judge
,
V.
8.
some
to
doe
the
part
of
Officers
in
point
of
execution
of
Ecclesiasticall
censures
,
for
they
could
not
,
nor
might
not
compell
men
by
the
civill
Sword
.
The
same
name
is
given
to
military
Officers
who
prosecute
the
commands
of
authority
,
Iosh.
1.
10.
And
so
much
of
this
fourth
.
The
fifth
place
which
I
take
to
hold
forth
that
distinction
of
Courts
and
Jurisdictions
is
Ierem.
26
,
where
first
the
Prophet
is
taken
into
the
Court
of
the
Priests
and
Prophets
,
for
which
the
Chaldee
readeth
Scribes
,
whose
office
it
was
to
be
Doctors
of
the
law
,
and
to
resolve
the
difficult
cases
,
and
in
that
capacity
they
were
members
of
Ecclesiasticall
councels
,
Matth.
2.
4.
To
the
same
sence
saith
Diodati
,
that
the
Prophets
here
spoken
of
,
were
such
as
were
learned
in
the
law
,
and
had
been
bred
in
the
Schooles
and
Colledges
of
the
chiefe
Prophets
,
and
in
Jeremiahs
time
were
present
at
Ecclesiasticall
judgements
and
assemblies
,
2
Kings
23.
2.
as
in
Christs
〈◊〉
Scribes
and
Doctors
of
the
Law
used
to
be
,
who
were
somewhat
like
these
Prophets
.
Menochius
and
others
expound
it
as
the
Chaldee
doth
.
In
this
Court
Ieremiah
was
examined
and
judged
as
a
false
Prophet
,
V.
8.
9.
yet
though
they
had
judged
him
worthy
to
die
,
the
Court
of
the
Princes
acquitteth
him
as
a
Prophet
of
the
Lord
,
who
had
spoken
to
them
in
the
name
of
the
Lord
,
V.
10
,
11
,
16.
That
Ieremiahs
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
appeales
from
Ecclesiasticall
to
Civill
courts
:
to
which
argument
I
have
elsewhere
spoken
.
Onely
I
take
here
what
they
grant
,
that
there
were
two
Courts
,
and
two
sentenc●s
given
,
and
so
it
was
.
The
sentence
of
the
Court
of
the
Priests
,
(
as
themselves
explaine
it
,
V.
11.
)
was
this
,
This
man
is
worthy
to
die
,
or
as
the
Hebrew
hath
it
,
the
judgement
of
death
is
for
this
man
.
The
Chaldee
thus
,
a
sinne
of
the
judgement
of
death
is
upon
this
man
.
For
(
say
they
)
he
hath
〈◊〉
so
and
so
;
and
he
that
speaketh
against
this
City
,
and
against
this
holy
place
is
worthy
to
die
.
But
the
sentence
●f
the
Court
of
the
Princes
is
V.
16.
This
man
is
n●…t
worthy
to
die
,
for
he
hath
spoken
to
us
in
the
name
of
the
Lord
our
God
.
They
doe
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
condemned
in
point
of
right
,
as
if
they
had
said
to
the
Priests
,
if
Ieremiah
were
a
false
Prophet
,
you
had
reason
to
call
for
justice
upon
him
even
unto
death
:
but
your
judgement
hath
runne
upon
a
false
supposition
in
point
of
fact
,
which
we
doe
not
finde
proved
,
but
know
to
be
false
.
Wherefore
from
this
place
,
these
two
things
may
appeare
:
1
▪
That
the
Court
of
the
Priests
had
not
power
of
capitall
punishments
;
for
if
they
had
,
certainly
Ieremiah
had
been
put
to
death
,
as
Hierom
noteth
.
2.
Yet
they
had
a
power
to
judge
of
a
false
Prophet
,
and
judicially
to
pronounce
him
to
be
a
false
Prophet
,
and
such
a
one
as
ought
to
be
punished
so
and
so
,
according
to
the
Law
.
That
they
had
such
a
power
,
appeareth
,
1.
from
V.
8
,
9.
where
they
doe
not
take
him
to
lead
him
to
the
Court
of
the
Princes
,
and
there
to
●ccuse
him
;
but
they
take
him
,
so
as
to
give
forth
their
owne
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.
Why
didst
thou
dare
to
pretend
the
name
of
God
,
as
if
God
had
sent
thee
to
preach
against
the
Temple
and
holy
City
?
2.
I●…remiah
doth
not
in
all
his
differences
alledge
that
the
Priests
and
Scribes
had
not
power
to
judge
of
a
false
Prophet
,
or
to
give
sentence
against
one
in
such
a
case
.
Nor
yet
did
the
Princes
object
this
,
as
hath
been
said
;
yet
this
had
been
as
strong
an
exception
as
could
have
been
made
against
the
Priests
,
if
they
had
assumed
a
power
and
authority
of
judgement
,
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
suo
genere
,
no
lesse
judiciall
,
authoritative
,
and
peremptory
,
than
the
later
:
onely
that
was
affirmative
,
this
was
negative
.
Finally
,
let
us
take
for
a
conclusion
of
this
Argument
,
that
which
Mr.
Prynne
himselfe
in
his
fourth
part
of
The
Soveraigne
power
of
Parliaments
and
Kingdomes
,
pag.
144.
tels
us
out
of
vindiciae
contra
Tyrannos
,
with
an
approbatory
and
encomiastick
close
of
his
citation
.
Ieremy
being
sent
by
God
to
denounce
the
overthrow
of
the
City
Jerusalem
,
is
for
this
first
condemned
(
citing
in
the
Margin
Ierem.
26.
)
by
the
Priests
and
Prophets
,
that
is
,
by
the
Ecclesiasticall
Judgement
or
Senate
:
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
by
the
Princes
of
Judah
:
that
is
,
by
71
men
sitting
in
the
new
porch
of
the
Temple
;
his
cause
being
made
known
,
he
is
acquitted
.
The
sixth
place
which
intimateth
an
Ecclesiasticall
Sanhedrin
,
is
Ierem.
18.
18.
where
the
adversaries
of
Ieremiah
say
among
themselves
,
Come
and
let
us
d●…vise
devices
against
Jeremiah
,
for
the
Law
shall
not
perish
from
the
Priest
,
nor
counsell
from
the
wise
,
nor
the
word
from
the
Prophet
.
Come
,
and
let
us
smite
him
with
the
tongue
.
The
force
of
their
argument
,
(
as
not
onely
our
Interpreters
,
but
Maldonat
also
and
Sanctius
,
following
Aquinas
and
Lyra
,
tell
us
)
stands
in
this
,
those
who
are
of
greatest
authority
in
the
Church
,
the
Priests
,
Prophets
,
and
Elders
,
with
whom
are
the
Oracles
of
truth
,
doe
contradict
Ieremiah
,
therefore
he
is
a
false
Prophet
.
But
what
was
the
ground
of
this
consequence
?
surely
the
ground
was
,
that
which
Bullinger
and
the
late
English
Annotations
doe
observe
,
namely
,
the
Popish
error
was
also
their
error
,
the
Church
cannot
erre
.
But
let
us
yet
follow
the
argument
to
the
bottome
.
How
came
they
to
thinke
the
Church
cannot
erre
?
or
what
was
that
Church
which
they
thought
infallible
?
No
doubt
they
had
respect
to
the
Law
of
the
Sanhedrin
,
Deut.
17.
10
,
11
,
12.
And
thou
shalt
doe
according
to
the
sentence
which
they
of
that
place
(
which
the
Lord
shall
●…hoose
)
shall
shew
thee
;
and
thou
shalt
observe
to
doe
according
to
all
that
they
enforme
thee
.
According
to
the
sen●…ence
of
the
Law
which
they
shall
teach
thee
,
and
according
to
the
judgement
which
they
shall
tell
thee
,
thou
shalt
〈◊〉
:
thou
shalt
not
decline
from
the
sentence
which
they
shall
shew
thee
,
to
the
right
hand
,
or
to
the
left
;
And
the
man
that
will
doe
presumptuously
,
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
misapplyed
they
drew
an
argument
against
Ieremiah
.
Wherein
their
meaning
could
not
be
this
,
that
the
doctrine
of
every
individuall
Priest
,
or
of
every
individuall
Scribe
,
is
infallible
,
(
for
as
the
Law
now
cited
did
speak
of
the
Sanhedrin
,
not
of
individuall
Priests
,
so
neither
the
Jewes
of
old
nor
the
Papists
after
them
,
have
drawn
the
conceited
infallibility
so
low
,
as
to
every
particular
Priest
.
)
But
they
mean
collectively
,
and
point
at
an
assembly
or
councell
of
Priests
,
Wise-men
,
and
Prophets
,
which
(
as
they
apprehended
)
could
not
erre
,
and
whose
determination
they
preferred
to
the
word
of
the
Lord
by
Ieremiah
:
for
the
Law
(
that
is
,
saith
Menochius
,
the
interpretation
of
the
Law
)
can
not
perish
from
the
Priest
,
nor
counsell
from
the
wise
.
Now
this
was
an
Ecclesiasticall
,
not
a
civill
Sanhedrin
,
which
may
appeare
thus
:
First
,
they
doe
not
make
mention
of
the
Judge
mentioned
Deut.
17.
(
where
the
Priest
&
the
Judge
are
distinguished
)
onely
they
mention
the
Priest
,
the
Prophet
,
(
for
which
the
Chaldee
hath
Scribe
:
which
is
all
one
,
as
to
the
〈◊〉
argument
for
we
finde
both
Prophets
and
Scribes
in
Ecclesiasticall
assemblies
,
as
was
said
before
)
and
the
wise
.
By
the
wise
are
meant
those
that
were
chiefe
or
did
excell
among
the
Scribes
or
Doctors
of
the
Law
.
So
Grotius
annot.
in
Matth.
●3
.
34.
and
it
may
be
collected
from
Ierem.
8.
8
,
9.
This
is
cert●ine
,
that
these
wise
men
were
Church-officers
;
for
as
they
are
〈◊〉
from
the
Judges
,
Esay
3.
2.
so
Jesus
Christ
speaking
of
〈◊〉
,
and
other
Ministers
of
the
Gospel
,
whom
he
was
to
send
forth
,
expresseth
himselfe
by
way
of
allusion
to
the
Ecclesiasticall
Ministers
of
the
Jewes
.
Matth
23.
34.
Behold
I
send
unto
you
Prophets
,
and
Wise
men
,
and
Scribes
,
which
Luke
ch.
11.
V.
49.
hath
thus
,
I
will
send
them
Prophets
and
Apostles
.
Secondly
,
the
civill
Sanhedrin
at
this
time
did
(
so
far
as
we
can
finde
)
contradict
Ieremiah
;
but
when
his
cause
came
afterward
before
them
,
Ierem.
26.
they
shew
much
favour
and
friendship
to
him
.
Thirdly
,
that
which
is
added
,
come
and
let
us
him
smite
with
the
tongue
:
may
be
three
waies
read
,
and
every
way
it
sut●th
to
the
Ecclesiasticall
Sanhedrin
(
whether
themselves
be
the
speakers
in
the
Text
,
or
whether
the
people
be
the
speakers
of
it
,
as
of
that
which
they
would
de●ire
and
move
the
Sanhedrin
to
doe
in
the
name
of
them
all
)
either
thus
:
Let
us
smite
him
for
the
tongue
,
that
is
for
an
Ecclesiasticall
cause
,
for
false
Doctrine
.
Or
thus
,
Let
us
smite
him
in
the
tongue
(
so
the
Septuagint
,
and
Arias
Montanus
)
that
is
,
Let
us
smite
him
with
an
Ecclesiasticall
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
Ecclesiasticall
sentence
or
declaration
,
smite
him
not
with
the
Sword
(
which
belonged
onely
to
the
civill
Magistrate
)
but
with
the
tongue
,
by
declaring
him
to
be
a
false
Prophet
,
and
by
determining
the
case
de
jure
,
what
ought
to
be
done
with
him
according
to
the
Law
.
Seventhly
,
consider
another
place
,
Ezech.
7.
26.
Then
shall
they
seek
a
vision
of
the
Prophet
:
but
the
Law
shall
perish
from
the
Priest
,
and
counsell
from
the
ancients
.
Here
againe
,
these
are
to
be
lookt
upon
collectively
and
conjunctly
,
(
not
di●tributively
and
severally
)
and
this
I
prove
from
the
Text
it selfe
,
not
onely
because
the
counsell
here
sought
for
,
was
not
to
be
given
by
one
ancient
,
but
by
the
ancients
,
yea
i●
was
a
principall
part
of
the
curse
or
judgement
,
that
counsell
could
not
be
had
from
an
assembly
of
ancients
or
Elders
,
suppose
it
might
be
had
from
some
individuall
Elders
here
or
there
:
)
but
also
because
the
Antithesis
in
the
Text
intimateth
a
disappointment
in
that
thing
which
was
sought
after
.
They
shall
seeke
a
vision
from
the
Prophet
,
or
(
as
the
Chaldee
hath
it
)
discipline
from
the
Scribe
.
This
they
shall
not
finde
,
and
why
?
because
the
Law
shall
perish
from
the
Priest
,
and
counsell
from
the
Ancients
.
It
was
therefore
Consistoriall
or
Synedricall
counsell
,
Judgement
,
or
Disscipline
,
which
should
be
sought
,
but
should
not
be
found
.
So
that
though
a
Prophet
of
the
Lord
shall
peradventure
be
found
,
who
can
reveale
the
councell
of
the
Lord
,
in
a
time
of
generall
defection
,
like
Micaiah
contradicting
the
400
Prophets
,
yet
an
Ecclesiasticall
counsell
of
Prophets
,
Scribes
,
Priests
,
and
Elders
,
sometime
Israels
glory
,
shall
turn
to
be
Israels
shame
,
and
that
assembly
which
did
sometime
respondere
d●…
jure
,
and
pronounce
righteous
judgement
,
and
give
light
in
difficult
cases
,
shall
doe
so
no
more
:
the
very
light
of
Israel
shall
be
darknesse
;
the
law
and
counsell
shall
perish
from
them
;
that
is
,
they
shall
not
finde
councell
,
nor
the
understanding
of
the
law
,
saith
Sanctius
.
Polanus
upon
the
place
draweth
an
Argument
against
the
infallibility
of
counsels
,
because
the
law
and
counsell
did
perish
not
onely
(
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
Ierusalem
.
If
this
Text
be
rightly
applied
by
him
(
and
so
it
is
by
other
Protestant
Writers
)
to
prove
against
Papists
that
Councels
may
erre
,
then
here
was
an
Ecclesiasticall
councell
.
Eightly
,
even
without
Ierusalem
and
I●…da
there
was
a
Senate
or
assembly
of
Elders
,
which
did
assist
the
Prophets
in
overseeing
the
manners
of
the
people
,
censuring
sin
,
and
deliberating
of
the
common
affairs
of
the
Church
.
This
C.
Bertramus
de
polit.
Jud.
c.
16.
collecteth
from
2
Kings
6.
32.
But
Elisha
sate
in
his
house
,
and
the
Elders
sate
with
him
.
I
know
some
think
that
those
Elders
were
the
Magistrates
of
Samaria
,
but
this
I
cannot
admit
,
for
two
reasons
.
1.
Because
Iosephus
Antiq.
lib.
9.
cap.
2.
cals
them
Elishaes
disciples
:
and
from
him
Hugo
Cardinalis
,
Carthusianus
,
and
others
doe
so
expound
the
Text.
They
are
called
Elishas
Disciples
,
as
the
Apostles
were
Christs
Disciples
,
by
way
of
Excellency
and
eminency
:
all
the
disciples
or
sonnes
of
the
Prophets
were
not
properly
Elders
,
but
those
onely
who
were
assumed
into
the
Assembly
of
Elders
,
or
called
to
have
a
share
in
the
mannaging
of
the
common
affaires
of
the
Church
.
2.
Cajetan
upon
the
place
gives
this
reason
from
the
Text
it selfe
,
to
prove
that
these
Elders
were
spirituall
men
(
as
he
speaketh
)
because
Elisha
asketh
them
,
See
ye
how
this
sonne
of
a
murderer
hath
sent
to
take
away
my
head
?
What
expectation
could
there
be
,
that
they
did
see
a
thing
,
then
secret
and
unheard
of
,
unlesse
they
had
been
men
familiar
with
God
?
Now
these
Elders
were
sitting
close
with
Elisha
in
his
house
.
It
was
not
a
publike
or
Church
assembly
for
worship
,
but
for
counsell
,
deliberation
,
and
resolution
,
in
some
case
of
difficulty
and
publike
concernment
.
So
Tostatus
and
Sanctius
on
the
place
.
A
paralell
place
there
is
,
Ezech.
8.
1.
I
sate
in
mine
house
,
and
the
Elders
of
Iudah
sate
before
me
.
Whether
those
Elders
came
to
know
what
God
had
revealed
to
the
Prophet
,
concerning
the
state
of
Iudah
and
Ierusalem
,
as
Lavater
upon
the
place
supposeth
,
or
for
deliberation
about
some
other
thing
,
it
is
nothing
like
a
civill
Court
,
but
very
like
an
Ecclesiasticall
senate
.
Now
if
such
there
was
out
of
Ierusalem
,
how
much
more
in
Ierusalem
,
where
(
as
there
came
greater
store
of
Ecclesiasticall
causes
and
controversies
concerning
the
sence
of
the
Law
,
to
be
judged
,
so
)
there
was
greater
store
of
Ecclesiastical
persons
●it
for
government
?
whatsoever
of
this
kind
we
finde
elsewhere
,
was
but
a
Transsumpt
,
the
Archetype
was
in
Ierusalem
.
Ninthly
,
that
place
Ze●…h
.
7.
1
,
2
,
3.
helpeth
me
much
.
The
Jews
sent
Commissioners
unto
the
Temple
,
there
to
speake
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
weepe
in
the
first
moneth
,
&c.
Here
is
an
Ecclesiasticall
assembly
,
which
had
authority
to
determine
controversies
concerning
the
worship
of
God
.
Grotius
upon
the
place
distinguisheth
these
Priests
and
Prophets
from
the
civill
Sanhedrin
,
yet
he
saith
they
were
to
be
consulted
with
,
in
controverted
cases
,
according
to
the
Law
,
Deut.
17.
9.
If
so
,
then
their
sentence
was
authoritative
and
binding
,
so
far
that
the
man
who
did
presumptuously
disobey
them
,
was
to
die
the
death
,
Deut.
17.
12.
Tenthly
,
let
it
be
considered
what
is
that
Moshav
Zekenim
consessus
or
Cathedra
seniorum
,
Psal.
107.
32.
(
for
though
every
argument
be
not
an
inf●llible
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
Elders
.
Compare
this
Text
with
Psalm
115.
9
,
10
,
11.
as
likewise
with
Psalm
118.
2
,
3
,
4.
In
all
the
three
Texts
,
there
are
three
sorts
of
persons
distinguished
,
and
more
especially
called
upon
to
glorifie
God
.
Oh
that
men
would
praise
the
Lord
for
his
goodnesse
,
saith
the
Text
in
hand
,
Psalm
107.
31.
for
that
you
have
in
the
other
two
places
,
Ye
that
feare
the
Lord
,
&c.
for
the
congregation
of
the
peple
,
you
have
in
the
other
two
places
Israel
,
and
the
house
of
Israel
.
For
the
Assembly
of
the
Elders
,
you
have
in
the
other
Texts
,
the
house
of
Aaron
.
I
will
not
here
build
any
thing
upon
the
observation
of
Hugo
Cardinalis
on
Psalm
107.
32.
that
the
congregation
of
the
Princes
is
not
mentioned
in
this
businesse
,
because
not
many
mighty
,
not
many
noble
,
&c.
One
thing
I
am
sure
of
,
there
were
Elders
in
Israel
,
clearly
distinct
both
from
the
Princes
,
Judges
,
and
civill
Magistrates
,
Ios.
23.
2.
2
Kings
10.
1.
Ezra
10.
14.
Acts
4.
5.
and
elsewhere
.
And
the
parallel
Texts
afore
cited
,
doe
couple
together
these
Elders
and
the
house
of
Aaron
,
as
Pastors
and
ruling
Elders
now
are
;
and
as
the
Priests
and
Elders
are
found
conjoyned
elsewhere
in
the
old
Testament
,
Exod.
24.
1.
Deut.
27.
1.
with
vers.
9.
Ezech.
7.
26.
Ier.
19.
1.
So
Matth.
26.
59.
The
work
also
of
giving
thanks
for
mercies
and
deliverances
obtained
by
the
afflicted
and
such
as
have
been
in
distresse
(
the
purpose
which
the
Psalmist
hath
in
hand
,
extended
also
to
the
deliverances
of
particular
persons
.
)
is
more
especially
commended
to
those
who
are
assembled
in
an
Ecclesiasticall
capacity
.
Even
as
now
among
our selves
,
the
civill
Courts
of
Justice
,
or
Magistrates
and
Rulers
or
Judges
assembled
by
themselves
in
a
politick
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
feare
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
therebe
occasion
)
by
a
Synod
of
Elders
,
who
as
they
ought
to
watch
over
the
City
of
God
,
and
to
stand
upon
their
watch-tower
for
observing
approaching
dangers
,
so
they
ought
to
take
speciall
notice
of
exemplary
mercies
,
bestowed
upon
the
afflicted
members
of
the
Church
,
and
be
an
ensample
to
the
flocke
,
in
giving
thanks
,
as
well
as
in
other
holy
duties
.
The
eleventh
place
,
which
seemeth
to
hold
forth
unto
us
an
Ecclesiasticall
Sanhedrin
,
is
Ezech.
13.
9.
where
its
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
inter
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
councell
to
have
any
voice
there
,
as
Prophets
in
those
daies
had
saith
Diodati
citing
Ier.
26.
7.
Secondly
,
they
shall
not
so
much
as
come
into
the
computation
or
numbring
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
returne
thither
from
their
captivity
;
they
shall
not
have
so
much
favour
as
strangers
had
,
who
might
come
into
the
holy
Land
and
sojourne
there
.
In
the
first
branch
,
the
word
translated
assembly
is
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
sod
which
properly
signifieth
a
secret
,
and
is
used
for
counsell
(
because
counsell
ought
to
be
secret
)
or
for
the
place
of
counsell
,
or
assembly
of
Counsellers
.
Pagnin
in
his
Thesaurus
p.
1761.
readeth
this
place
with
Hierome
,
in
consilio
,
or
otherwise
saith
he
,
in
concilio
.
Vatablus
:
in
concilio
populi
mei
non
erunt
.
The
Septuagints
read
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
:
that
is
,
those
Prophets
shall
have
no
hand
in
the
Discipline
of
my
people
.
The
same
word
they
render
in
other
places
by
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
yea
by
both
these
put
together
,
Prov.
20.
19.
where
for
the
Hebrew
sod
,
the
Septuagints
have
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
He
that
revealeth
the
secret
counsels
in
the
Sanhedrin
;
and
it
cohereth
well
with
the
preceding
Verse
,
where
they
mention
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
Governments
.
Sometime
they
expound
the
word
by
an
Episcopall
(
I
mean
not
Prelaticall
)
inspection
Iob
29.
4.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
God
was
an
overseer
of
my
house
.
So
that
,
so
far
as
the
Septuagints
authority
can
weigh
,
that
place
Ezek.
13.
9.
must
be
understood
of
the
secluding
of
those
Prophets
from
the
Sanhedrin
,
not
from
the
Civill
(
in
which
the
Prophets
were
not
members
)
but
from
the
Ecclesiasticall
Sanhedrin
.
In
the
twelfth
and
last
place
,
the
new
Testament
holds
out
to
us
an
Ecclesiasticall
Sanhedrin
:
Whether
the
civill
Sanhedrin
was
wholy
taken
away
by
Herod
,
and
another
civill
Sanhedrin
not
substitute
in
the
place
of
that
which
he
took
away
,
but
the
Ecclesiasticall
Sanhedrin
onely
remaining
,
as
some
hold
;
or
whether
both
did
then
continue
though
not
so
clearely
distinct
,
as
others
hold
:
This
we
finde
that
there
was
an
Ecclesiasticall
government
in
the
hands
of
Church-officers
;
for
1.
there
was
a
councell
of
the
Priests
and
Elders
and
Scribes
Matth.
2.
4.
&
16.
21.
&
21.
23.
&
26.
57
,
59.
&
27.
1.
12.
Marke
14.
43.
Luke
22.
66.
Acts
4.
5.
[
m
](A42757-e15870-b)
m
Magdeb
Gent.
〈◊〉
.
lib.
1.
cap
6.
Seniores
populi
videntu●…
fuisse
〈◊〉
è
populo
lecti
viri
,
aetate
,
d
ctrina
,
&
vitae
p●…obitate
spectati
,
gui
simul
cum
Ecclesiasticis
〈◊〉
,
Templi
,
〈◊〉
&
〈◊〉
rerum
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Ecclesiae
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
〈◊〉
habuerunt
.
The
Centurists
say
that
those
Elders
were
joyned
with
the
Priests
in
the
government
of
the
Church
,
with
Ecclesiasticall
persons
in
Ecclesiasticall
affaires
.
Which
hath
been
rightly
taken
for
a
president
of
our
ruling
Elders
.
2.
That
Councell
is
called
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Luke
22.
66.
Acts
22.
5.
the
Presbytery
or
Eldership
:
the
very
name
which
Paul
gives
to
that
assembly
of
Church-officers
,
who
ordained
Timothy
,
1
Tim.
4.
14.
is
it
credible
that
the
Apostle
would
transfer
the
name
of
a
civill
Court
to
signifie
an
Assembly
,
which
was
meerely
Ecclesiasticall
and
not
Civill
?
The
very
use
of
the
word
in
this
sence
by
the
Apostle
,
tels
us
that
in
his
age
the
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
was
taken
in
an
Ecclesiasticall
notion
onely
.
3.
This
Councell
did
examine
Iesus
concerning
his
Disciples
and
his
doctrine
,
and
received
witnesses
against
him
,
and
pronounced
him
guilty
of
blasphemy
,
Matth.
27.
57.
Marke
14.
53
,
55.
Ioh.
18.
19.
Hence
Protestant
writers
draw
an
argument
against
Papists
,
to
overthrow
their
infallibility
of
Councels
:
unto
which
argument
Bellarmine
deviseth
foure
answers
.
But
it
came
not
once
into
his
thoughts
,
to
reply
that
this
councell
was
civill
,
not
Ecclesiasticall
,
which
had
been
his
best
answer
,
if
any
probability
for
it
.
It
hath
been
supposed
,
both
by
Protestant
,
and
Popish
Writers
,
that
it
was
an
Ecclesiasticall
Councell
,
such
as
the
controversie
is
about
:
otherwise
our
Argument
had
been
as
impertinent
,
as
their
answer
was
insufficient
.
4.
Our
opposites
have
no
evasion
here
,
but
that
which
Bilson
,
Saravia
,
and
others
of
the
Prelaticall
party
did
answer
in
opposition
to
ruling
Elders
;
namely
,
that
the
Jewish
Elders
were
Judges
or
Magistrates
;
But
the
reply
which
served
then
,
will
serve
now
:
the
Elders
are
plainly
distinguished
from
Judges
,
Rulers
,
and
Princes
,
Ios.
8.
33.
&
23.
2.
Deut.
5.
23.
Iud.
8.
14.
2
Kings
10.
1
,
5.
Ezra
10.
14.
Acts
4.
5.
T●…status
on
Deut.
21.
2.
&
22.
15
,
16.
observeth
the
same
distinction
of
Judges
and
Elders
.
Pelargus
on
Deu●…
.
21.
2
,
3
,
4.
observeth
the
like
.
That
which
I
say
concerning
the
distinction
of
Judges
and
Elders
may
be
confirmed
by
Halichoth
Olam
Tract
.
1.
cap
3.
The
Judges
of
Soura
,
M.
Houna
,
and
D.
Isaac
.
The
Iudges
of
Phoumbeditha
M.
Papa
the
sonne
of
Samuel
,
&c.
The
Elders
of
Soura
M.
Houna
and
M.
Hisda
.
The
Elders
of
Phoumbeditha
Ena
and
Abimi
the
sonne
of
Rahba
.
And
thus
we
are
taught
how
to
under
and
th●se
Gemarick
phrases
,
of
the
Judges
of
such
a
place
,
and
the
Eld●rs
of
such
a
place
,
that
we
may
not
mistake
them
as
if
they
were
one
.
5.
Some
have
also
drawne
a
patterne
for
the
constitution
of
Synods
,
from
that
Councell
,
Acts
4.
5
,
6.
where
we
finde
assembled
together
Rulers
,
〈◊〉
,
Elders
,
Scri●es
,
according
to
which
patterne
we
have
in
our
Synods
,
1.
the
civill
〈◊〉
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
universities
,
answering
to
the
Scribes
or
Doctors
of
the
Law
.
4.
Ruling
Elders
who
assist
in
the
Government
of
the
Church
.
6.
After
that
Iudaea
was
redacted
into
a
Province
,
and
the
Romans
having
keptin
their
owne
hands
,
not
only
the
power
of
life
and
death
Iohn
18.
31.
but
all
judgement
in
whatsovever
civill
,
or
criminall
offences
,
falling
out
among
the
Jews
,
meant
by
matters
of
wrong
or
wicked
leudness
,
Acts
18.
14.
And
having
left
to
the
Jewes
no
government
,
nor
any
power
of
judgement
,
except
in
things
pertaining
to
their
religion
onely
Ib.
verse
15.
These
six
things
considered
,
it
is
very
unprobable
(
if
not
unpossible
)
that
the
Councell
of
the
Priests
,
Elders
,
and
Scribes
,
mentioned
so
often
in
the
New
Testament
,
should
be
no
Ecclesiasticall
Court
,
but
a
temporall
and
civill
Magistracy
.
The
Centurists
Cent.
1.
lib.
1.
cap.
10.
reckon
that
Councell
for
an
Ecclesiasticall
Court
,
distinct
from
civill
Magistracy
:
and
they
propose
these
two
to
be
distinctly
treated
of
,
Acta
coram
Pontificibus
seu
Magistratu
Ecclesiastico
,
(
and
here
they
bring
in
the
councell
of
the
Priests
,
Elders
,
and
Scribes
,
)
And
Actio
coram
Pilato
seu
magistratu
politico
.
I
know
Erastus
lib.
3.
cap.
2.
aud
lib.
4.
cap.
4.
though
he
confesse
plainly
that
the
Jewish
Sanhedrin
mentioned
in
the
Gosspell
,
and
in
the
Acts
of
the
Apostles
,
had
onely
power
of
judging
causes
belonging
to
Religion
,
and
that
the
Romans
did
leave
them
no
power
to
judge
of
civill
injuries
;
yet
he
holdeth
,
that
in
these
causes
of
Religion
,
the
Sanhedrin
had
power
not
onely
of
imprisoning
,
and
scourging
,
but
even
of
death
it selfe
.
And
so
endeavours
to
make
it
a
temporall
or
civil
Magistracy
,
(
which
Mr
Prynne
also
doth
vindic
.
page
4
,
5.
yet
he
speaketh
dubiously
of
their
power
of
capitall
punishments
.
)
But
this
is
confuted
by
the
reasons
which
I
have
given
.
Whereunto
I
further
adde
these
few
animadversions
.
-
1.
The
strongest
proofe
which
Erastus
brings
out
of
Iosephus
antiq.
lib.
20.
cap.
8.
which
(
as
he
alledgeth
)
puts
the
thing
out
of
all
controversie
,
is
a
very
weake
and
insufficient
proof
.
Iosephus
tels
us
in
the
close
of
that
Chapter
,
that
after
the
death
of
Herod
and
A
chelaus
,
this
was
the
Jewish
Government
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
This
he
citeth
page
177.
and
page
178.
to
prove
that
the
Sanhedrin
in
Christs
time
,
was
a
civill
Magistracy
,
having
power
of
the
Sword
.
But
I
may
with
a
great
deale
more
probability
argue
contrariwise
from
these
words
.
Iosephus
tels
us
the
Constitution
and
forme
of
the
Jewish
policy
or
Government
was
at
that
time
Aristocraticall
,
but
it
was
an
Ecclesiasticall
Aristocracy
,
the
government
was
in
the
hands
of
the
chiefe
Priests
.
Or
thus
(
if
you
will
)
the
Jewes
at
that
time
had
a
bare
name
of
an
aristocracy
;
they
had
their
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Optimates
,
Primates
,
or
Rulers
:
but
it
was
titulo
tenus
,
all
power
of
civill
government
being
taken
from
them
by
the
Romans
,
and
the
government
that
was
,
was
Ecclesiasticall
.
That
very
Chapter
gives
us
a
better
argument
to
prove
,
that
the
Romans
did
not
permit
to
the
Jewes
capitall
Judgements
:
for
Iosephus
there
records
that
Ananus
the
high
Priest
taking
the
opportunity
after
the
death
of
Festus
,
while
Albinus
the
Successour
of
Festus
,
was
but
yet
on
his
journey
toward
Iudea
,
did
call
a
Councell
of
Judges
(
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
)
before
whom
he
presented
Iames
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
comming
from
Alexandria
,
being
enformed
of
the
thing
,
and
that
it
was
not
lawfull
for
Ananus
to
doe
any
such
thing
,
without
the
Roman
Governour
,
wrote
a
chiding
and
threatning
letter
to
Ananus
.
And
further
,
the
thing
being
secretly
signified
by
some
to
King
Agrippa
,
who
did
also
beseech
the
King
to
command
Ananus
to
doe
no
such
thing
againe
,
he
having
trespassed
in
this
.
Whereupon
Agrippa
was
so
highly
offended
,
that
he
tooke
away
from
Ananus
the
high
Priests
place
,
and
gaue
it
to
Iesus
the
sonne
of
Damneus
.
-
2.
Whereas
Erastus
argueth
from
the
imprisoning
,
beating
,
or
scourging
,
yea
taking
counsell
to
kill
the
Apostles
Acts
4
,
&
5.
the
stoning
of
Steven
Acts
7.
Pauls
letters
from
the
high
Priest
,
for
biuding
and
bringing
to
Ierusalem
the
Disciples
of
the
Lord
Acts
9.
1
,
2.
also
the
imprisoning
and
condemning
to
death
the
Saints
Acts
26.
10.
Unto
all
this
I
answer
out
of
[
n
](A42757-e16790-b)
n
Antiq.
Iud.
lib.
20.
cap
6.
Ipsi
〈◊〉
pontifices
dissiacre
cae●erunt
à
Sacer●otibus
&
primatibus
Hieroso●
mi●anorum
●ivium
,
singuléque
m●edebant
stipati
manu
au
▪
dacissimorum
&
seditiosorum
bominum
,
〈◊〉
inter
se
mutu●S
ce●tabant
convitiis
&
〈◊〉
:
nec
erat
qui
compesceret
,
quasi
vacante
urbe
Magistratibus
.
In
tantum
autem
exarsit
summorum
pontific●m
impudentia
,
ut
auderent
servos
suos
in
areas
mittere
,
qui
auf●rrent
debitas
Sacerdotibus
decimas
,
aliquótque
pauperiores
è
Sacerdo●um
ordine
alimentorum
in●pia
fame
deficerent
.
Tantò
plus
●um
pol●ebat
violentia
sedi
-
tiosorum
quam
justitia
.
Iosephus
,
that
in
that
degenerate
age
the
high
Priests
and
such
as
adhered
to
them
,
did
use
a
great
deale
of
violence
,
whereby
they
did
many
things
for
which
they
had
no
just
nor
lawfull
power
.
So
that
the
Letters
and
Warrants
given
out
to
Saul
,
and
the
execution
of
the
same
by
a
cruell
and
bloody
persecuting
of
the
Saints
,
can
not
prove
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
the
power
and
authority
which
was
allowed
to
the
Sanhedrin
,
but
onely
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
the
present
prevalent
power
of
the
high
Priest
and
his
faction
in
that
confusion
of
affaires
;
and
their
extreame
malice
against
the
Saints
,
to
have
been
such
as
made
them
to
doe
things
for
which
they
had
no
legall
power
nor
warrant
.
And
this
one
Animadversion
breakes
all
the
strength
of
Mr
Prynnes
argument
vindic
.
page
5.
that
the
Councell
of
the
Jewes
had
power
(
which
no
meere
Ecclesiasticall
consistory
can
doe
)
to
scourge
,
imprison
,
torture
,
and
out-law
offenders
,
if
not
to
c●…ndemne
,
put
to
death
.
(
Where
he
citeth
divers
Texts
,
none
of
which
proveth
either
torturing
,
or
out-lawing
,
and
the
most
of
which
,
prove
not
so
much
as
that
the
Councell
of
the
Jewes
at
that
time
had
authority
to
scourge
or
imprison
,
as
Matth.
5.
22.
&
10.
17.
Mark
13.
9.
Acts
6.
12
,
13
,
14.
&
24.
20.
&
25.
15.
)
The
imprisonment
of
the
Apostles
was
not
without
the
authority
of
the
Captaine
of
the
Temple
Acts
4.
1
,
3.
This
captaine
of
the
Temple
,
is
thought
by
the
best
interpreters
,
to
have
been
the
Captaine
of
the
Garrison
which
the
Romans
placed
in
the
ca●tle
Antonia
hard
by
the
Temple
,
and
that
to
prevent
tumults
and
uproares
when
the
people
came
to
the
Temple
,
especially
at
the
solemne
feasts
in
great
multitudes
.
But
that
the
Captaine
of
the
Temple
was
a
civill
Magistrate
of
the
Jewes
,
or
one
deputed
with
authority
and
power
from
the
Sanhedrin
,
will
never
be
proved
.
When
the
Councell
thought
of
slaying
the
Apostles
Acts
5.
33.
it
was
in
a
sudden
passion
,
being
cut
to
the
heart
at
that
which
they
heard
.
But
Gamaliel
tels
them
Verse
35.
Ye
men
of
Israel
take
heed
to
your selves
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
warning
them
as
Interpreters
take
it
,
of
their
own
danger
,
from
the
Romans
,
if
they
should
put
any
one
to
death
.
The
putting
of
Steven
to
death
was
upon
pretence
of
Iudicium
zeli
,
or
Ius
zelotarum
,
as
Grotius
thinks
d●…
Jure
belli
a●…
pacis
lib.
2.
cap
20.
sect.
9.
If
so
,
it
was
an
extraordinary
act
.
I
am
sure
it
was
done
most
tumultuously
,
disorderly
and
furiously
,
before
either
himselfe
was
heard
speake
out
,
or
any
sentence
was
given
against
him
,
as
is
manifest
Acts
7.
54
,
57
,
58.
-
3.
Erastus
his
glosse
upon
Iohn
18.
31.
It
is
not
lawfull
for
us
to
put
any
man
to
death
,
meaning
(
saith
he
)
for
making
himselfe
a
King
against
Caesar
,
the
cause
for
which
they
did
chiefly
accuse
him
to
Pilate
.
So
likewise
Bishop
Bilson
(
a
great
follower
of
Erastus
)
of
the
perpetuall
government
of
Christs
Church
cap.
4.
But
marke
the
words
,
Then
said
Pilate
unto
them
,
Take
ye
him
and
judge
him
according
to
your
Law
;
The
Jewes
therefore
said
unto
him
,
It
is
not
lawfull
for
us
to
put
any
man
to
death
.
Pilate
durst
not
have
refused
to
judge
a
man
who
made
himselfe
a
King
against
Caesar
,
nor
durst
he
have
put
it
over
upon
the
Jewes
to
have
judged
one
in
that
which
concerned
Caesars
crowne
.
Nay
,
as
soone
as
the
Jewes
objected
,
If
thou
let
this
man
goe
,
thou
art
not
Caesars
friend
;
for
whosoever
maketh
himselfe
a
King
,
speaketh
against
Caesar.
Pilate
when
he
heard
that
,
went
in
againe
,
and
sate
down
on
the
Judgement
seat
Iohn
19.
12.
13.
Therefore
when
Pilate
said
to
the
Jewes
take
ye
him
,
and
judge
him
according
to
your
law
,
he
spake
it
of
matters
of
their
Law
.
The
Councell
of
the
chiefe
Priests
,
Elders
and
Scribes
had
given
sentence
against
Christ
de
ju●…e
,
that
he
was
guilty
of
blasphemy
,
and
thereupon
(
not
having
power
to
put
any
man
to
death
)
they
led
him
to
Pilate
,
Matth.
26.
65
,
66.
with
Matth.
27.
1
,
2.
Marke
14.
63
,
64.
with
Marke
15.
1.
Luke
22.
71.
with
Luke
23.
1.
Pilate
unwilling
to
meddle
against
Christ
,
waves
the
businesse
in
the
Judgement-hall
,
I
perceive
(
would
he
say
)
that
this
man
is
accused
of
such
things
as
concerne
your
Law
and
your
Religion
;
therefore
take
him
and
judge
him
according
to
your
Law
.
They
reply
,
in
reference
to
that
which
Pilate
did
drive
at
,
It
is
not
lawfull
for
us
to
put
any
man
to
death
.
If
they
had
meant
,
for
causes
which
concerned
Caesars
Crown
,
it
had
been
not
onely
an
impertinent
reply
,
but
a
yeelding
to
Pilates
intention
;
for
he
might
have
said
,
I
doe
not
meane
,
that
ye
shall
judge
him
for
that
which
concerneth
Caesar
,
but
for
that
which
concerneth
your
owne
Law
and
Religion
.
Therefore
certainely
the
answer
which
the
Jewes
made
to
Pilate
,
did
reply
,
that
though
they
had
power
to
judge
a
man
in
that
which
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
severall
passages
in
the
story
of
Paul
which
shew
us
,
that
though
the
Jewish
Sanhedrin
might
judge
a
man
in
matters
of
their
Law
,
yet
they
were
accusers
,
not
Judges
,
in
civill
or
capitall
punishments
,
I
meane
when
a
man
was
accused
as
worthy
of
bonds
or
of
death
,
though
it
were
for
a
matter
of
their
Law
,
they
had
no
liberty
to
judge
,
but
onely
to
accuse
.
The
Jewes
drew
Paul
before
the
judgement
seat
of
Gallio
,
even
for
a
matter
of
their
law
.
This
fellow
(
say
they
to
Gallio
)
perswadeth
men
to
worship
God
,
contrary
to
the
Law
Acts
18.
13.
If
they
had
intended
onely
an
Ecclesiasticall
censure
,
their
recourse
had
been
either
to
the
Sanhedrin
,
or
at
least
to
the
Synagogue
,
but
because
they
intended
a
corporall
temporall
punishment
,
which
neither
the
Sanhedrin
nor
the
Synagogue
had
power
to
inflict
,
therefore
they
must
prosecute
Paul
before
Gallio
;
whose
answer
was
to
this
purpose
,
that
if
it
had
been
a
matter
of
wrong
or
wicked
leudnesse
,
it
had
been
proper
for
him
to
have
judged
it
,
but
that
since
it
was
no
such
thing
,
he
would
not
meddle
in
it
,
knowing
also
,
that
the
Jewes
had
no
power
to
doe
it
by
themselves
.
Againe
,
Acts
23.
28
,
29.
Claudius
Lysias
writeth
to
Faelix
concerning
Paul
thus
,
and
when
I
would
have
knowne
the
cause
wherefore
they
accused
him
,
I
brought
him
forth
into
their
Councell
.
Whom
I
perceived
to
be
accused
of
questions
of
their
Law
,
but
to
have
nothing
laid
to
his
charge
worthy
of
death
or
of
bonds
.
That
which
made
Lysias
interpose
in
the
businesse
,
and
rescue
Paul
from
the
hands
of
the
Jewes
,
was
the
Jewes
designe
to
put
Paul
to
death
,
under
colour
of
judging
him
according
to
their
Law
(
which
was
the
pretence
made
by
Tertullus
Acts
24.
6.
)
Now
in
that
which
was
to
be
punished
,
either
by
death
,
or
so
much
as
by
bonds
,
Lysias
conceives
the
Jewes
to
be
no
competent
Judges
,
therefore
he
brings
Paul
into
the
councell
of
the
Jewes
,
not
to
be
judged
by
them
,
but
to
know
what
accusation
they
had
against
him
.
For
the
same
reason
Paul
himselfe
did
decline
going
to
Ierusalem
,
to
be
judged
there
,
no
not
of
matters
concerning
the
Religion
and
Law
of
the
Jewes
,
that
accusation
being
so
far
driven
on
,
as
to
make
him
worthy
of
death
.
His
accusers
(
saith
Festus
to
King
Agrippa
)
brought
none
accusation
of
such
things
as
I
supposed
,
but
had
certaine
questions
against
him
of
their
owne
superstition
,
and
of
one
Iesus
which
was
dead
,
whom
Paul
affirmed
to
be
alive
.
And
because
I
doubted
of
such
manner
of
questions
▪
I
asked
him
whether
he
would
goe
to
Ierusalem
,
and
there
be
judged
of
these
matters
,
Acts
25.
18
,
19
,
20.
This
Paul
had
declined
vers.
10.
I
stand
at
Caesars
judgement
seat
(
said
he
)
where
I
ought
to
be
judged
.
And
why
?
but
because
his
accusation
was
capitall
,
even
in
that
which
concerned
the
Law
of
the
Jewes
,
and
he
knew
the
Jewes
at
that
time
had
no
power
of
capitall
judgements
.
Some
have
alledged
this
example
of
Paul
for
appeales
from
Presbyteries
or
Synods
to
the
civill
Magistrate
:
by
which
argument
themselves
grant
that
the
Jewish
Sanhedrin
then
declined
by
Paul
,
was
a
Ecclesiasticall
,
not
a
civill
Court
.
-
5.
Besides
all
this
Erastus
his
opinion
is
strongly
confuted
by
that
which
Constantinus
L'Empereur
Annot.
in
remp
.
Jud.
pag.
404.
to
407.
proving
that
the
Jewes
after
the
thirtieth
yeere
of
Christ
,
had
no
power
of
punishing
with
death
;
for
proofe
hereof
citeth
a
passage
of
Aboda
zara
,
that
forty
yeers
before
the
destruction
of
the
Temple
,
the
Sanhedrin
(
which
had
in
former
times
exercised
capitall
judgements
)
did
remove
from
Hierusalem
,
quum
viderent
se
non
posse
judicia
capitalia
exercere
,
when
they
perceived
that
they
could
not
exercise
capitall
judgements
,
they
said
let
us
remove
out
of
this
place
,
lest
we
be
guilty
:
it
being
said
Deut.
17.
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
capitall
judgements
:
and
so
they
removed
.
And
if
you
would
know
whe
ther
he
tels
us
out
of
Rosch
Hasschana
,
they
removed
from
Hieru
salem
to
Iabua
,
thence
to
Ousa
thence
to
Sc●…aphrea
,
&c.
He
that
desires
to
have
further
proofes
for
that
which
hath
been
said
,
may
read
Buxtorf
.
lexic.
Chald.
Talmud
.
&
rabbin
.
pag.
514
,
515.
He
proves
that
Iudicia
criminalia
,
criminall
judgements
did
cease
,
and
were
taken
away
from
the
Jewes
forty
yeeres
before
the
destruction
of
the
second
Temple
.
This
he
saith
is
plaine
in
Talmud
Hierosol
.
in
lib.
Sanhedrin
cap.
7.
in
Talmud
Babyl
.
in
Sanbedrin
fol.
41.
1.
in
Aboda
z●…ru
fol.
8.
2.
in
Schab
.
fol.
15.
1.
in
Iuchasin
fol.
51.
1.
Majen●…on
.
in
Sanhedrin
cap.
14.
sect
.
13.
He
cites
also
a
passage
in
Berachos
fol.
58.
1.
concerning
one
who
for
a
hainous
crime
even
for
lying
with
a
beast
ought
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●…orf
is
the
very
same
,
which
the
Jewes
said
to
Pilate
John
18.
31.
Now
this
power
being
taken
from
the
Jewes
forty
yeeres
before
the
destruction
of
the
Temple
and
City
,
which
was
in
the
71
yeere
of
Christ
,
his
death
being
in
the
34.
Hence
he
proveth
that
this
power
was
taken
from
the
Jewes
neere
three
yeeres
before
the
death
of
Christ
.
And
I
further
make
this
inference
,
that
since
the
Sanhedrin
which
had
power
of
life
and
death
,
did
remove
from
Hierusalem
forty
yeers
before
the
destruction
of
the
Temple
(
for
which
see
also
Tzemach
David
.
edit
.
Hen.
Vorst
.
pag.
89.
and
so
about
three
yeeres
before
the
death
of
Christ
;
it
must
needs
follow
that
the
Councell
of
the
Priests
,
Elders
,
and
Scribes
,
mentioned
so
often
in
,
and
before
Christs
passion
,
was
not
a
civill
Magistracy
,
nor
the
civill
Sanhedrin
,
but
an
Ecclesiasticall
San●edrin
.
Whence
also
it
follows
,
that
the
Church
Matth.
18.
17.
unto
which
Christ
directs
his
Disciples
to
goe
with
their
complaints
,
was
not
the
civill
Court
of
Justice
among
the
Jewes
,
(
as
Mr
Prynne
takes
it
)
for
that
civill
Court
of
Justice
had
then
removed
from
Hierusalem
,
and
had
lost
its
authority
in
executing
Justice
,
I.
Coch
annot.
in
Exc.
Gem.
Sanhedrin
.
cap.
1.
s●…ct
.
13.
beareth
witnesse
to
the
same
story
above
mentioned
,
that
forty
yeeres
before
the
destruction
of
the
Temple
,
the
Sanhedrin
did
remove
from
its
proper
seat
(
where
he
also
mentions
the
ten
stations
or
degrees
of
their
removing
)
and
Iam
tum
cessarunt
judicia
capitalia
,
saith
he
.
Now
at
that
time
the
capitall
judgements
did
cease
.
Thus
we
have
three
witnesses
singularly
learned
in
the
Jewish
Antiquities
.
Unto
these
adde
Casau●…on
exerc
.
16.
anno
34.
num.
76.
He
holds
that
though
the
Councell
of
the
Jewes
had
cognizance
of
the
offence
(
for
otherwise
how
could
they
give
a
reason
or
cause
when
they
demanded
justice
)
in
which
respect
the
Councell
did
judge
Christ
to
be
guilty
of
death
,
Marke
14.
64.
yet
their
Councell
had
then
no
more
power
of
capitall
punishments
,
which
saith
he
,
the
more
learned
moderne
writers
doe
demonstrate
è
Iuchasin
,
and
from
other
Talmudicall
writings
;
he
addeth
that
this
power
of
putting
any
man
to
death
was
taken
from
the
Jewes
some
space
before
this
time
when
they
said
to
Pilate
,
It
is
not
lawfull
for
us
to
put
any
man
to
death
:
for
this
power
was
taken
from
them
,
saith
he
,
forty
yeeres
before
the
destruction
of
the
second
Temple
,
as
the
Rabbinicall
writers
doe
record
.
I
have
thus
largely
prosecuted
my
last
argument
,
drawn
from
the
New
Testament
,
mentioning
the
Councell
of
the
Priests
,
Elders
,
and
Scribes
.
And
I
trust
the
twelve
arguments
which
have
been
brought
may
give
good
satisfaction
toward
the
proofe
of
an
Ecclesiasticall
Jewish
Sanhedrin
.
The
chiefe
objection
which
ever
I
heard
or
read
against
this
distinction
of
a
Civill
Sanhedrin
and
an
Ecclesiasticall
Sanhedrin
among
the
Jewes
,
is
this
.
That
neither
the
Talmud
nor
the
Talmudicall
writers
mention
any
such
distinction
,
but
speake
onely
of
one
supreme
Sanhedrin
of
71
,
and
of
other
two
Courts
,
which
sate
the
one
at
the
doore
of
the
Court
before
the
Temple
,
the
other
at
the
gate
which
entereth
to
the
mountaine
of
the
Temple
.
There
were
also
Courts
in
the
Cities
where
capitall
cases
were
judged
by
three
and
twenty
,
pecuniall
mults
by
three
.
Answ.
It
must
be
remembred
that
not
onely
the
Talmudicall
Commentators
,
but
the
Talmud
it selfe
,
is
much
later
than
the
time
of
the
Sanhedrin
,
and
the
integrity
of
the
Jewish
government
.
Yea
later
(
by
some
Centuries
)
than
the
destruction
of
the
Temple
and
City
of
Ierusalem
.
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
Bishop
having
preeminence
over
the
rest
)
neither
in
the
Canon
Law
,
nor
decretals
of
Popes
,
nor
in
the
Booke
of
the
Canons
of
the
Roman
Church
.
Therefore
when
Paul
wrote
his
Epistle
to
the
Church
of
Rome
,
there
was
no
such
Eldership
in
that
Church
,
constituted
as
hath
been
said
.
But
if
the
Ecclesiasticall
Government
either
of
the
Church
of
Rome
,
or
of
the
Church
of
the
Jewes
can
be
proved
from
Scripture
(
as
both
may
)
it
ought
to
be
no
prejudice
against
those
truths
,
that
they
are
not
fou●d
in
the
Writers
of
af●ertimes
,
and
declining
ages
.
Howbeit
there
may
be
seen
some
footsteps
of
a
Civill
and
Ecclesiasticall
Sanhedrin
,
even
in
the
Talmudicall
writers
,
in
the
opinion
of
Constantinus
L'Empereur
,
and
in
that
other
passage
cited
by
D.
Buxtorf
out
of
Elias
.
Of
which
before
.
And
so
much
concerning
an
Ecclesiasticall
Sanhedrin
among
the
Jewes
.
If
after
all
this
,
any
man
shall
be
unsatisfied
in
this
particular
,
yet
in
the
issue
,
such
as
are
not
convinced
that
there
was
an
Ecclesiasticall
Sanhedrin
among
the
Jewes
,
distinct
from
their
civill
Sanhedrin
,
may
neverthelesse
be
convinced
not
by
the
former
arguments
,
but
by
other
Mediums
,
that
there
was
an
Ecclesiasticall
government
among
the
Jewes
distinct
from
their
civill
government
.
For
it
belonged
to
the
Priests
,
(
not
to
the
Magistrates
or
Judges
)
to
put
difference
between
holy
and
unholy
,
and
between
unclean
and
cleane
.
And
the
Priests
(
not
the
Magistrates
)
are
challenged
for
not
putting
difference
between
the
holy
and
prophane
Ezech.
22.
26.
And
this
power
of
the
Priests
was
not
meerly
doctrinall
or
declarative
,
but
decisive
,
binding
,
and
juridicall
,
so
farre
as
that
according
to
their
sentence
men
were
to
be
admitted
as
cleane
,
or
excluded
as
uncleane
.
Yea
in
other
cases
,
as
namely
in
trying
and
judging
the
scandall
of
a
secret
and
unknown
murther
,
observe
what
is
said
of
the
Priests
,
Deut.
21.
5.
by
their
word
shall
every
controversie
and
every
stroke
be
tried
.
Yea
themselves
were
Judges
of
controversies
Ezech.
44.
24.
And
in
controversie
they
shall
stand
in
judgement
,
and
they
shall
judge
it
according
to
my
judgements
.
Where
the
Ministers
of
the
Gospell
are
principally
intended
,
but
not
without
an
allusion
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
prophane
,
that
by
their
word
every
controversie
concerning
the
causes
of
suspension
or
sequestration
of
men
from
the
Sacrament
,
shall
be
tried
;
that
in
controversie
they
shall
stand
in
judgement
,
and
judge
according
to
the
word
of
God
:
Would
not
every
one
looke
upon
this
,
as
a
power
of
government
put
into
the
hands
of
Ministers
.
And
none
readier
to
aggravate
such
government
,
then
the
Erastians
.
Yet
all
this
amounts
to
no
more
,
then
by
the
plaine
and
undeniable
Scriptures
above
cited
,
was
committed
to
the
Priests
.
Suppose
also
,
that
men
were
kept
backe
from
the
Temple
and
from
the
Passeover
,
not
for
any
morall
uncleannesse
,
but
for
ceremoniall
uncleannesse
onely
(
which
is
to
be
afterwards
discussed
)
yet
the
Priests
their
judging
and
deciding
of
controversies
concerning
mens
legall
uncleannesse
,
according
to
which
judgement
and
decision
,
men
were
to
be
admitted
to
,
or
kept
backe
from
the
Temple
and
Passover
(
yea
sometime
their
owne
houses
,
as
in
the
case
of
leprosie
)
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
keepe
backe
the
uncleane
,
was
not
derived
from
the
Magistrate
;
for
it
did
belong
to
the
intrinsecall
sacerdotall
authority
2
Kings
11.
18.
The
Priest
(
Iehojada
)
appointed
Officers
over
the
house
of
the
Lord
.
The
70
thus
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
These
Officers
or
overseers
over
the
Temple
,
were
appointed
by
Iehojada
,
for
keeping
backe
the
uncleane
,
as
Grotius
upon
the
place
,
following
Iosephus
,
hath
observed
.
Compare
2
Chro.
23.
19.
And
he
(
Iehojada
)
set
the
Porters
at
the
gates
of
the
house
of
the
Lord
,
that
none
which
was
uncleane
in
any
thing
should
enter
in
▪
For
the
same
end
did
he
appoint
these
overseers
over
the
Temple
,
2
Kings
11.
It
was
also
appointed
by
the
Law
,
that
the
man
who
should
doe
any
thing
presumptuously
,
contrary
to
the
sentence
of
the
Priests
,
should
die
the
death
,
as
well
as
the
man
who
should
doe
any
thing
presumptuously
,
contrary
to
the
sentence
of
the
Judge
,
Deut.
17.
9
,
12.
Finally
,
the
high
Priest
was
a
ruler
of
the
people
,
and
to
him
is
that
law
applied
,
Thou
shalt
not
speake
evill
of
the
Ru●…ers
of
thy
people
Acts
23.
5.
Which
is
not
meant
onely
in
regard
that
he
was
president
of
the
Sanhedrin
;
for
there
was
an
Ecclesiasticall
ruling
power
,
which
was
common
with
him
to
some
other
Priests
,
2
Chro.
35.
8.
Hilkiah
the
high
Priest
,
and
Zachariah
and
Iehiel
Priests
of
the
second
order
,
are
called
Rulers
of
the
house
of
God
:
being
in
that
very
place
thus
distinguished
from
other
Priests
and
Levites
imployed
in
the
manuall
worke
of
the
Temple
about
Sacrifices
and
the
like
.
CHAP.
IV.
That
there
was
an
Ecclesiasticall
Excommunication
among
the
Iewes
:
and
what
it
was
.
IT
hath
been
affirmed
by
some
who
pretend
to
more
skill
in
Jewish
antiquities
than
others
,
that
though
the
Jewes
had
an
excommunication
which
did
exclude
a
man
from
the
liberty
of
civill
fellowship
,
so
that
he
might
not
come
within
foure
cubits
of
his
neighbour
,
(
and
so
one
man
might
and
did
excommunicate
another
)
yet
no
man
was
judicially
or
by
sentence
of
a
Court
excommunicated
,
at
least
not
from
the
Temple
,
Sacrifices
,
and
holy
assemblies
.
To
these
I
shall
in
the
first
place
oppose
the
judgement
of
others
who
have
taken
very
much
pains
in
searching
the
Jewish
antiquities
,
and
are
much
esteemed
for
their
skill
therein
.
[
n
](A42757-e18350-b)
n
Lexicon
Chald.
Talmud
.
&
Rabbin
.
edit
.
1639.
pag.
8●7
,
828.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Excommunicatio
,
exclusio
●
caetu
sacro
,
ejectio
ex
syna
▪
goga
&c.
Cum
tali
excommunicato
non
licet
edere
nec
bibert
.
Quo
fortè
respicit
Apostolus
1
Cor.
5.
11.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
Nam
admonitionem
illam
generalem
facit
,
ex
occasione
incestuosi
quem
excommunicare
jubet
.
D.
Buxtors
expoundeth
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
cherem
to
be
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.
5.
[
o
](A42757-e18430-b)
o
De
Iure
natur
.
&
Gentium
lib.
4.
cap.
9.
Atque
is
planè
à
communicatione
orationis
,
&
convenius
,
&
omnis
sancti
commercii
relegabatur
,
quemadmodum
de
bujusmodi
anathemate
sub
initils
Ecclesie
Christianae
loquitur
Tertullianus
.
Mr
Selden
extendeth
the
Jewish
Excommunication
so
farre
,
as
to
comprehend
an
exclusion
from
fellowship
in
prayer
and
holy
assemblies
,
and
makes
it
parallel
to
that
which
Tertullian
tels
us
to
have
been
used
by
the
Primitive
Church
.
Mr
Brughton
in
his
exposition
of
the
Lords
prayer
page
14.
makes
a
parallel
between
the
Jewish
and
the
Christian
Church
in
many
particulars
,
and
among
the
rest
,
he
saith
they
agree
in
the
manner
of
Excommunication
and
absolution
.
[
p
](A42757-e18500-b)
p
Animad
in
Pirke
pag.
169.
Qu●…
enim
dicat
apostatam
,
blashemum
aliaque
sacra
capita
intra
templum
suisse
admissa
?
&c.
Certe
si
quibuslibet
excommunicatis
permissum
suisset
in
trare
Templom
,
tum
〈◊〉
mitior
Judaicae
Synagoga
disciplina
esset
statuenda
,
quam
veteris
Christianae
Ecclesiae
.
Henric.
Vorstius
in
his
late
animadversions
upon
Pirke
Rabbi
Eliezer
,
wonders
how
any
man
can
imagine
that
an
Apostate
,
a
blasphemer
,
or
the
like
was
admitted
into
the
Temple
.
For
his
part
,
he
thinkes
some
excommunicate
persons
were
absolutely
excluded
from
the
Temple
,
and
that
others
for
whom
there
were
hopes
of
reconciliation
,
were
admitted
into
it
.
[
q
](A42757-e18550-b)
q
Quest.
&
Resp.
l.
1.
quaest.
9
Solebant
autem
veteres
(
I●der
)
si
qu●
gravius
deliquerat
,
primum
eum
movere
caetu
Ecclesiastico
:
si
non
emendabat
se
,
tum
feriebant
〈◊〉
:
quòd
si
ne
tum
quidem
redibat
ad
srugem
,
ultimo
ac
postremo
loco
samatizabant
.
Drusius
and
[
r
](A42757-e18570-b)
r
Annot.
in
Exc.
Gemar
.
Sanhedrin
cap.
1.
Qui
simpliciter
excommunicatus
est
(
menudde
)
est
ille
quidem
separatus
à
caetu
,
ita
ut
pro
vero
membro
Ecclesie
non
habeatur
.
Iohannes
Coch
hold
,
that
there
were
such
excommunicate
persons
among
the
Jewes
,
as
were
removed
from
Church
assemblies
,
and
were
not
acknowledged
for
Church
members
.
[
s
](A42757-e18590-b)
s
Lexicon
pentaglot
.
pag.
655.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Excommunicatio
,
cum
quis
se
non
emendans
catu
Ecclesiastico
●ovetur
,
&
ex
populo
suo
excinditur
.
Where
he
also
mentioneth
the
three
distinct
kinds
of
Excommunication
Niddui
,
Cherem
,
and
Schammata
.
Ibid.
pag.
1076.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
remetio
,
excommunicatio
,
ejectio
ex
caetu
piorum
,
illa
anathematis
species
,
qua
quis
immundus
ab
bominum
contubernio
,
aut
qua
aliquis
●
caetu
Ecclesiastico
removetur
ad
tempus
▪
à
lege
praescriptum
.
Schindlerus
describeth
their
excommunication
to
be
a
putting
away
of
an
impenitent
obstinate
sinner
from
the
publique
assembly
of
the
Church
,
and
so
a
cutting
him
off
from
his
people
.
[
t
](A42757-e18640-b)
t
De
arcano
sermone
cap.
47.
Ejectio
autem
è
Synagega
,
communicationis
abnegatio
est
,
&
abalienatio
a
religiosa
consuetudine
,
quae
á
nostris
recepto
jam
verbo
sixcommunicatio
dicitur
.
Arias
Montanus
expounds
their
casting
out
of
the
Synagogue
to
be
an
excommunication
(
such
as
in
the
Christian
Church
)
from
religious
fellowship
.
[
u
](A42757-e18660-b)
u
Magdeb.
Cent.
1.
●…ib
.
1.
cap
7.
Judicabant
degmata
&
promulgobant
eorum
damnationes
,
unà
cum
personis
:
quae
quidem
res
▪
nihil
aliud
quam
publica
Excommunicatio
erat
Jo.
9.
22.
&
11.
47.
48.
&
1●
.
4●
.
Et
infra
.
Extra
Synagogam
fieret
,
▪
hoc
est
excommunicaretur
.
So
doe
the
Centurists
plainly
,
where
they
doe
purposely
shew
what
was
the
Ecclesiasticall
policy
and
Church
government
of
the
Jewes
:
They
make
it
a
distinct
Question
,
whether
the
Jewes
in
Christs
time
had
any
civill
Government
,
or
Magistracy
.
[
x
](A42757-e18690-b)
x
〈◊〉
▪
Ebr.
cap
7.
legis
sanctio
triplex
&c.
Prima
est
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
aversatio
,
antolitio
&
amandatio
&c.
Secunda
est
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
devo●…
extremo
cuidam
exitio
.
Excommunicatio
:
quando
videlicet
a●…quis
excindi
duebatur
ex
populo
sue
,
&
in
eo
amplius
non
censeri
(
ut
jam
supra
expo
▪
suimus
)
ex
majore
aliquo
delicto
.
atque
hoc
p●…to
esse
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
fieri
&c.
Primae
illae
speciei
respondet
quod
in
Ecclesiis
nostris
vocamus
prohibitionem
seu
suspensionem
à
Sacramentis
:
〈◊〉
Excommunicatio
publice
facta
.
Cornelius
Bertramus
thinks
that
to
the
Jewish
Niddui
answereth
our
suspension
from
the
Sacrament
,
and
that
to
their
cherem
answereth
our
excommunication
from
the
Church
:
and
that
the
Jewes
had
the
very
same
kind
of
excommunication
,
by
which
the
incestuous
Corinthian
,
Hymeneus
and
Philetus
,
and
the
Emperour
Theodosius
were
excommunicated
.
Constansinus
l'
Empereur
annot.
in
rempub
.
Jud.
pag.
370.
to
378.
holdeth
the
same
thing
which
Bertramus
holdeth
concerning
the
Jewish
excommunication
,
and
which
hath
now
been
cited
.
Godwyn
in
his
Moses
and
Aacon
,
lib.
5.
cap.
1
speaketh
of
the
Ecclesiasticall
Court
of
the
Jewes
,
unto
which
(
saith
he
)
belonged
the
power
of
excommuication
,
the
severall
sorts
of
which
censure
he
explaineth
cap.
2.
namely
Niddui
,
cherem
,
and
Shammata
.
After
all
which
,
he
begins
cap.
3.
to
speake
of
civill
Courts
of
the
Jewes
,
a
distinct
government
.
Grotius
.
annot.
in
Luke
6.
22.
compares
the
Jewish
excommunication
with
that
which
was
exercised
by
the
Druides
in
France
,
who
did
interdicere
saerificiis
,
interdict
and
prohibit
from
their
Sacrifices
impious
and
obstinate
persons
.
Yea
those
who
were
excommunicate
by
Niddui
or
the
lesser
excommunication
,
he
likens
to
those
penitents
or
mourners
in
the
ancient
Christian
Church
,
who
were
said
to
be
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
qui
non
cum
caeteris
orabant
&c.
He
tels
us
the
ancient
Christians
did
in
divers
things
follow
the
Jewish
discipline
,
and
among
other
things
in
excommunication
;
He
cites
the
same
passage
of
Tertullian
which
is
cited
by
Mr
Selden
,
concerning
a
shntting
out
,
à
communicatione
orationis
,
&
conventus
,
&
omnis
sancti
commercii
.
Which
is
as
full
and
high
a
description
of
the
Ecclesiasticall
censure
of
Excommunication
,
as
any
can
be
.
So
that
the
Jewish
Excommunication
being
paralleld
with
that
Excommunication
which
Tertullian
speakes
of
,
and
which
was
practised
in
the
ancient
Christian
Church
,
what
more
can
be
required
in
this
particular
?
And
here
I
cannot
but
take
notice
,
that
Master
Prynne
doth
very
much
mistake
and
misrepresent
Mr
Selden
,
as
if
he
held
the
Jewish
excommunication
to
have
been
no
more
but
a
shutting
out
from
civill
company
or
fellowship
,
whereas
he
clearly
holds
lib.
4.
de
jure
nat
.
&
Gent.
cap.
9.
p.
522.
that
he
who
was
excommunicated
by
the
Jewish
cherem
,
was
put
away
and
cast
off
from
fellowship
in
prayer
,
and
from
all
religious
fellowship
,
even
as
Tertullian
speaks
of
excommunicated
persons
in
the
Church
.
Lud.
Capellus
in
Spicilegio
upon
Ioh.
9.
22.
speaking
of
the
common
distinction
of
the
three
degrees
of
the
Jewish
Excommunication
,
doth
plainly
beare
witnesse
to
that
which
I
plead
for
,
namely
,
[
y
](A42757-e19130-b)
y
Harum
trium
Excommunicationis
specierum
vel
potius
graduum
,
secunda
primam
,
tertia
utramque
includebat
.
Prima
piis
quidem
Iudaeis
erat
formidabtlis
,
quia
per
eam
à
sacrorum
communione
submovebantur
,
at
qui
minus
pii
erant
eâ
non
magnopere
movebantur
.
that
there
was
a
Jewish
Excommunication
from
communion
in
the
holy
things
.
I
confesse
he
understands
the
Cherem
,
and
the
Shammata
,
otherwise
then
I
doe
;
for
he
takes
the
Cherem
to
be
nihil
aliud
,
nothing
else
than
the
forfeiture
of
a
mans
substance
for
the
use
of
the
Sanctuary
:
(
whereas
it
is
certaine
there
was
a
Cherem
of
persons
as
well
as
of
things
,
and
the
formulae
of
the
Cherem
which
shall
be
cited
afterward
,
containe
another
thing
than
forfeiture
.
)
And
Shammata
he
takes
to
be
the
devoting
of
men
to
death
,
and
that
being
Shamatized
they
must
needs
die
.
(
And
yet
the
Jewes
did
shamatize
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
meere
Ecclesiasticall
censure
,
and
therefore
tels
us
it
was
formidable
to
the
godly
,
it
being
a
shutting
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
censure
or
punishment
,
except
what
was
civill
.
He
granteth
also
that
Niddui
was
included
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
Countreyman
Master
Weemse
in
his
Christian
Synagogue
lib.
1.
cap.
6.
sect.
3.
paragr.
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
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
put
out
of
the
Synagogue
:
and
they
hold
that
Cain
was
excommunicated
this
way
.
The
second
was
called
Cherem
or
Anathema
:
with
this
sort
of
Excommunication
was
the
Incestuous
person
censured
2
Cor.
2.
The
third
Shammatha
,
they
hold
that
Enoch
instituted
it
,
Jude
v.
14.
And
after
,
these
who
were
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
put
out
of
the
Synagogue
were
not
simply
secluded
from
the
Temple
,
but
suffered
to
stand
in
the
Gate
,
&c.
These
who
were
Excommunicated
by
the
second
sort
of
Excommunication
,
were
not
permitted
to
come
neer
the
Temple
.
These
who
were
Excommunicated
after
the
third
sort
,
were
secluded
out
of
the
society
of
the
people
of
God
altogether
.
And
thus
I
have
produced
fifteen
witnesses
for
the
Ecclesiasticall
Excommunication
of
the
Jewes
.
I
might
produce
many
more
,
but
I
have
made
choice
of
these
,
because
all
of
them
have
taken
more
than
ordinary
paines
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
Jewes
,
and
see
whether
all
these
doe
not
helpe
to
make
their
Excommunication
a
patterne
for
ours
.
For
the
causes
,
there
were
24
causes
,
for
which
a
man
was
Excommunicated
among
the
Jewes
.
You
may
read
them
in
Buxtorfs
Lexicon
Chald
▪
Talmud
&
Rabbin
.
p.
1304
,
1305.
M.
Selden
de
jure
nat
.
&
Gentium
.
lib.
4.
cap.
8.
Jo.
Coch
Annot.
in
Excerp
.
Gem.
Sanhedrin
cap.
2.
pag.
147.
divers
of
these
causes
did
not
at
all
concerne
personall
or
civill
injuries
(
for
such
injuries
were
not
accounted
causes
of
Excommunication
,
but
were
to
be
punished
otherwise
,
as
shall
be
proved
afterward
)
but
matters
of
scandall
,
by
which
God
was
dishonoured
,
and
the
stumbling-blocke
of
an
evill
example
laid
before
others
;
One
cause
was
the
despising
of
any
of
the
preceps
of
the
Law
of
Moses
,
or
Statutes
of
the
Scribes
.
Another
was
the
selling
of
Land
to
a
Gentile
.
Another
was
,
a
Priest
not
separating
the
gifts
of
the
oblation
.
Another
,
he
that
in
captivity
doth
not
iterate
or
observe
the
second
time
a
holy
day
.
Another
,
[
y
](A42757-e19440-b)
y
Buxtors
lexic.
Rabbin
.
p.
2463
ex
Pesachim
fol.
50.
Qui
vesperâ
sabbathi
&
aliorum
dierum
festorum
operas
serviles
●cit
,
infaustum
illud
quidem
est
,
neque
videt
signum
benedictionis
,
sed
non
schammatisamus
eum
:
at
qui
vesper●
pas
ch●tis
operas
serviles
facit
,
hîc
verò
omnino
schammatisamus
eum
.
They
did
also
excommunicate
an
hereticall
or
Epicurean
Israelite
.
Buxtorf
ibid
,
pag.
195.
he
that
doth
any
servile
worke
upon
Easter
eve
.
Another
,
he
that
mentioneth
the
name
of
God
rashly
,
or
by
a
vaine
oath
.
Another
,
he
that
enduceth
,
or
giveth
occasion
to
others
to
prophane
the
name
of
God
.
Another
,
he
that
makes
others
to
●ate
holy
things
without
the
holy
Temple
.
Another
,
he
that
maketh
computation
of
yeeres
and
moneths
without
the
Land
of
Israel
:
that
is
,
(
as
Dr
Buxtorf
)
writeth
Calendars
,
or
(
as
M.
Selden
)
computeth
yeeres
and
moneths
otherwise
than
their
fathers
had
done
.
Another
,
he
that
retardeth
or
hindreth
others
from
doing
the
Law
and
Commandement
.
Another
,
he
that
maketh
the
offering
prophane
(
as
Dr
Buxtorf
)
or
offereth
a
sickly
beast
,
(
as
I.
Coch.
)
Another
,
a
Sacrificer
that
doth
not
shew
his
Sacrificing
Knife
before
a
Wise
man
or
a
Rabbi
,
that
it
may
be
knowne
to
be
a
lawfull
Knife
,
and
not
faulty
.
Another
,
he
that
cannot
be
made
to
know
or
to
learne
.
Another
,
he
that
having
put
away
his
wife
,
doth
thereafter
converse
familiarly
with
her
.
Another
,
a
Wise
man
(
that
is
,
a
Rabbi
or
Doctor
)
infamous
for
an
evill
life
.
The
other
causes
had
also
matter
of
scandall
in
them
,
namely
,
the
despising
of
a
Wise
man
or
Rabbi
,
though
it
were
after
his
death
.
The
despising
of
an
Officer
or
messenger
of
the
house
of
judgement
.
He
that
casteth
up
to
his
neighbour
a
servile
condition
,
or
cals
his
neighbour
servant
.
He
that
contumaciously
refuseth
to
appeare
at
the
day
appointed
by
the
Judge
.
He
that
doth
not
submit
himselfe
to
the
Judiciall
sentence
.
He
that
hath
in
his
house
any
hurtfull
thing
,
as
a
mad
dogge
or
a
weake
leather
.
He
that
before
Heathen
Judges
beareth
witnesse
against
an
Israelite
.
He
that
maketh
the
blind
to
fall
.
He
that
hath
Excommunicate
another
without
cause
,
when
he
ought
not
to
have
been
Excommunicate
.
Thus
you
have
the
24
causes
of
the
Jewish
Excommunication
;
of
which
some
were
meere
scandals
:
others
of
a
mixed
nature
,
that
is
,
partly
injuries
,
partly
scandals
;
but
they
were
reckoned
among
the
causes
of
Excommunication
qua
scandals
,
not
qua
〈◊〉
.
Io.
Coch.
Annot.
in
Exc.
Gem.
Sanhedrin
.
pag.
146
▪
explaining
how
the
wronging
of
a
Doctor
of
the
Law
by
contumelies
,
was
a
cause
of
Excommunication
,
sheweth
that
the
Excommunication
was
because
of
the
scandall
.
Licet
tamen
condonare
nisi
res
in
praputulo
gesta
sit
.
Publicum
Doctoris
ludibrium
in
legis
contemptum
redundat
.
〈◊〉
ob
causam
Doctor
legis
honorem
〈◊〉
remittere
non
potest
.
Ubi
res
clam
&
sine
scandalo
gesta
est
,
magni
animi
&
sapientis
est
injuriam
contemptu
vindicare
.
If
there
was
no
scandall
,
the
injury
might
be
remitted
by
the
party
injured
,
so
as
the
offendor
was
not
to
be
Excommunicate
▪
But
if
the
contumely
was
known
abrond
,
and
was
scandalous
,
though
the
party
wronged
were
willing
and
desirous
to
bury
it
,
yet
because
of
the
scandall
,
the
Law
provided
that
the
offender
should
be
excommunicate
.
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
.
pag.
77
,
78.
)
and
hence
did
they
aggravate
an
Ecclesiasticall
or
Divine
(
not
a
Civill
)
injury
.
Whence
it
appeareth
that
the
causes
of
Excommunication
,
were
formally
lookt
upon
as
scandals
.
Adde
that
if
qua
injuries
,
then
a
quatenus
ad
omne
,
all
personall
or
civill
injuries
had
been
causes
of
Excommunication
.
But
all
civill
injuries
doe
not
fall
within
these
24.
causes
.
If
it
be
objected
,
that
neither
doe
all
scandalls
fall
within
these
24.
causes
.
I
answer
they
doe
;
for
some
of
the
causes
are
generall
and
comprehensive
,
namely
these
two
,
the
5th
.
He
that
despiseth
the
Statutes
of
the
Law
of
Moses
,
or
of
the
Scribes
;
and
the
18th
.
He
that
retardeth
or
hindereth
others
from
doing
the
Law
.
When
I
make
mention
of
any
particular
heads
,
either
of
the
Jewish
Discipline
,
or
of
the
ancient
Christian
discipline
,
let
no
man
understand
me
,
as
if
I
intended
the
like
Strictnesse
of
Discipline
in
these
dayes
.
My
meaning
is
onely
,
to
prove
Ecclesiasticall
censures
,
and
an
Ecclesiasticall
Government
.
And
let
this
be
remembred
upon
all
like
occasions
;
though
it
be
not
everywhere
expressed
.
And
so
much
for
the
causes
.
The
degrees
of
the
Jewish
excommunication
,
were
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Niddui
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Cherem
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Schammata
.
Elias
in
Tisbite
,
saith
plainly
that
there
were
three
kinds
of
excommunication
,
Niddui
,
Cherem
,
and
Schammata
.
Niddui
is
〈◊〉
out
;
but
if
he
be
not
converted
,
they
smite
him
with
Cherem
;
and
if
neither
so
he
repent
,
they
schammatize
him
.
These
three
Doctor
Buxtorf
thus
distinguisheth
,
not
only
out
of
Elias
,
the
common
sentence
of
the
but
Hebrew
Doctors
.
The
first
and
smallest
excommunication
is
Niddui
,
which
is
a
simple
separation
for
a
certain
time
.
The
greater
excommunication
is
Cherem
,
which
▪
is
a
separation
with
imprecations
and
curses
.
The
greatest
of
all
is
Schammata
,
a
finall
excommunication
,
without
hope
of
returning
to
the
Church
.
So
likewise
Hen.
Uorstius
animad.
in
Pirke
pag.
230.
And
answerably
hereunto
some
Divines
have
distinguished
Excommunicatio
Minor
,
Major
,
and
Maxima
.
The
first
is
suspension
from
the
Sacrament
.
The
second
is
a
casting
out
of
the
Church
,
and
a
delivering
over
to
Sathan
:
which
yet
is
a
medicinall
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
comimg
of
Christ
,
without
hope
of
mercy
;
which
is
excommunicatio
exterminativa
,
and
cannot
be
done
,
without
a
propheticall
Spirit
.
Corn.
Bertramus
de
repub
.
Ebraeor
cap.
7.
saith
that
our
suspension
from
the
Sacrament
answereth
to
their
Niddui
:
our
Excommunication
to
their
Cherem
.
And
for
their
Schammata
,
he
thinks
it
was
an
adjudging
of
one
to
eternall
death
;
whereunto
answereth
the
Apostles
Anathema
,
and
the
Churches
devoting
of
Iulian
the
Apostate
,
as
one
to
be
no
more
prayed
for
,
but
to
be
prayed
against
.
Munsterus
will
have
Schammata
to
be
the
same
with
Niddui
.
Wherein
Master
Selden
agreeth
with
him
,
still
holding
a
difference
between
Niddui
,
and
Cherem
,
as
between
the
lesser
,
and
the
greater
excommunication
:
de
Jure
nat
.
&
Gentium
,
l.
4.
c.
8.
Of
the
same
opinion
is
Io.
Coch
,
Annot.
in
Exc.
Gem.
Sanhedrin
.
p.
149.
But
Constantinus
l'
Empereur
annot.
in
rempub
.
Jud.
tels
us
,
that
the
Talmudists
in
divers
places
,
do
distinguish
the
three
degrees
of
Excommunication
,
as
Bertramus
doth
;
and
that
Schammata
was
the
highest
Excommunication
,
greater
then
either
Niddui
or
Cherem
,
he
proves
not
onely
by
the
Epitheton
adonai
added
by
the
Chaldee
paraphrase
Num.
21.
25.
Et
percussit
eum
Israel
per
Schammata
dei
;
but
further
from
the
words
of
Rabbi
Solomon
,
comparing
one
excommunicated
by
Schammata
,
to
the
fat
cast
in
the
Furnace
,
which
is
wholly
consumed
,
and
which
never
comes
out
,
so
he
that
is
Schammatized
,
is
lost
for
ever
,
and
without
all
remedy
unto
all
eternity
.
He
confirmeth
it
also
,
from
the
words
of
Elias
above
mentioned
.
It
is
not
much
to
my
present
argument
,
to
dispute
whether
the
Jewes
had
three
distinct
degrees
of
excommunication
or
two
only
.
However
it
's
agreed
,
that
the
Jews
had
their
Excommunicatio
Minor
&
Major
.
And
Niddui
▪
was
an
Excommunication
for
30.
dayes
,
during
which
time
if
the
person
(
man
or
woman
)
repent
,
well
and
good
:
if
not
,
he
was
excommunicate
,
for
other
30.
dayes
.
Yea
,
saith
Doctor
Buxtorf
,
the
time
might
be
triplicate
to
90.
dayes
.
And
if
after
all
that
time
he
repent
not
,
then
he
was
excommunicate
,
with
the
greater
excommunication
Cherem
.
And
so
much
for
the
degrees
.
As
for
the
manner
,
and
rites
of
their
excommunication
,
it
was
done
most
solemnly
,
[
z
](A42757-e20140-b)
z
Lexicon
.
Chald.
Talmud
.
&
Rabbin
.
pag.
2468.
Excom
municatio
siebat
quandoque
verbis
expressis
,
quando
excommunicandus
erat
praesens
:
quandeque
scripto
publicè
affixo
,
quando
absens
erat
.
Hinc
legitur
in
Majemone
in
libro
Madda
cop
.
7.
Sect.
2.
Quomodo
sit
Niddui
:
dicit
N.
esto
in
excommunicatione
.
Si.
excommunicant
eum
in
faciem
,
id
est
presentem
,
dicit
N.
hic
esto
in
excommunicatione
sive
banno
.
Ibid.
pag.
2469.
Nuncius
vel
minister
publicus
judicii
câ
side
habetur
,
ut
si
dicat
,
N.
à
me
citatus
ad
Judicium
,
contempsit
me
,
aut
vilipendit
Judicem
,
aut
dixit
sa
nolle
comparere
in
Judicio
,
tunc
sammatisent
ipsum
ad
verba
ejus
,
sed
non
scribunt
super
eo
Schedam
Excommunicationis
Shammata
,
donec
veuerint
duc
quo
testentur
ipsum
noluisse
comparere
ad
Judicium
.
Doctor
Buxtorf
tells
us
,
if
the
party
was
present
,
the
sentence
of
Excommunication
was
pronounced
against
him
by
word
of
mouth
:
If
he
was
absent
,
there
was
a
writ
publikely
affixed
,
containing
the
sentence
of
Excommunication
,
which
writ
was
not
published
,
till
the
offence
was
proved
,
at
least
by
two
witnesses
.
It
is
certain
from
Pirke
Rabb
.
Elierser
cap.
38.
that
Cherem
was
not
without
an
assembly
of
ten
at
least
.
And
it
is
as
certaine
that
Cherem
was
not
onely
in
a
solemn
,
but
in
a
sacred
manner
performed
,
which
is
manifest
from
that
Formula
Anathematis
,
which
[
a
](A42757-e20250-b)
a
Lexicon
Rabbin
.
p.
828.
Ex
sententia
domini
Dominorum
,
sit
in
Anathemate
Ploni
Filius
Ploni
,
in
utraque
domo
Judicii
,
Superiorum
scilicet
&
Inferiorum
,
in
Anathemate
item
Sanctorum
Excelsorum
,
in
anathemate
Seraphim
&
Ophannim
,
in
anathemate
denique
totius
Ecclesiae
,
maximorum
&
minimorum
&c.
Doctor
Buxtorf
hath
transcribed
out
of
an
old
Hebrew
Manuscript
;
and
from
[
b
](A42757-e20290-b)
b
Another
forme
more
full
and
large
see
in
Vorstius
his
Animadversions
upon
Pirke
pag.
226.
to
230.
Decreto
vigilum
atque
edicto
Sanctotum
anathemizamus
.
adju●amus
,
excommunicamus
Schammatizamus
,
maledicimus
,
execramus
ex
sententia
hujus
loci
atque
ex
scientia
hujus
coe●ûs
,
hoc
libro
legis
,
sexcentis
tredecim
praeceptis
in
illo
conscriptis
.
Anathe
.
mate
quo
Joshua
devo
vie
Jericho
;
maledictione
quâ
maledixit
Eliseus
pueris
,
&
maledictione
quam
imprecatus
est
Gichazi
servo
suo
.
Shammate
quo
Schammatizavit
Barack
Meroz
,
&c.
Nomine
Aebthariel
Jah
Domini
Zehaoth
.
Nomine
Michael
Principis
magni
.
Nomine
Mathatheron
cujus
nomen
est
sicuti
nomen
Domini
ejus
.
Nomine
Sandalphon
qui
nectit
coronas
pro
domino
suo
.
Nomine
Nominis
42.
literarum
.
Nomine
quod
apparuit
Mosi
in
Sinai
.
Nomine
quo
dissecuit
Moses
Mare
.
Nomine
Ehieh
ascher
Ehieh
,
Ero
qui
ero
.
Arcano
nominis
Amphor●…sch
.
Scripturâ
quae
exarata
est
in
tabulis
.
Nomine
Domini
exercituum
Dei
Israelis
,
qui
sedit
inter
cherubim
,
&c.
Maledictus
ex
ore
nominis
celebrandi
,
&
tremendi
,
quod
e●reditur
ex
ore
Sacerdotis
magni
die
expiationum
,
&c.
Evellatur
ipse
è
tabernaculo
.
Nolit
dominus
illi
condonare
,
sed
tunc
sumet
furor
&
indignatio
contra
virum
illum
.
Incumbant
illi
omnes
maledictiones
conscriptae
in
hoc
libro
legis
.
Expellat
nomen
ejus
sub
caelo
,
&
segreget
illum
in
malum
ex
omnibus
tribubus
Israelis
,
juxta
omnes
execrationes
hujus
faederis
consignatas
in
hoc
libro
legis
,
&c.
Haec
sit
voluntas
Dei
&
dicatur
Amen
.
another
forme
,
which
Hen.
Vorstius
taketh
out
of
Col
Bo
both
shewing
,
that
it
was
not
a
civill
,
but
a
sacred
businesse
,
done
in
the
name
and
authority
of
the
God
of
heaven
:
and
the
latter
formula
still
used
in
most
of
the
Jewish
Synagogues
as
Vorstius
informes
us
We
read
also
in
Pirke
Rabb
.
Elieser
cap.
38.
[
c
](A42757-e20440-b)
c
Quid
tum
fec●runt
Ezra
,
Zerobahel
,
&
Jehoshua
?
Congregaveront
totam
Ecclesiam
seu
caetum
populi
in
templum
dom
ni
&
introduxerant
300.
sacerdotes
,
&
300.
adoles
▪
centes
(
seu
discipulos
minores
)
quibus
erant
in
manibus
300.
buccinae
,
&
300.
libri
legis
.
Hi
clangebant
;
Levitae
autem
cantabant
&
psallebant
:
&
excommunicabant
Cuthaeos
per
mysterium
nominis
Te
r●grammati
,
&
per
scripturam
descriptam
in
Tabulis
legis
,
&
per
anathema
fori
superioris
seu
caelestis
,
&
per
anathema
fori
inferioris
seu
terrestris
,
ita
ut
nemo
Israelitarum
unquam
in
posterum
comederet
buccellam
aliquam
Cuthaeorum
.
Hinc
dicunt
Quicunque
comedit
carnem
Cuthaei
,
is
vescitur
quasi
carne
poreinâ
.
Cuthaeus
quoque
ne
seret
proselytus
,
neque
haberet
partem
in
resurrectione
mortuorum
,
juxta
illud
quod
scriptum
est
.
Non
ad
vos
simul
nobiscum
attinet
instauratio
domus
dei
nostri
:
neque
in
hoc
neque
in
suturo
seculo
.
Praeterea
quoque
ne
haberet
partem
in
Jerusalem
.
hinc
dicitur
,
Uobis
non
est
pars
neque
jus
,
neque
memoria
in
Jerusalem
.
Transmisetunt
autem
Anathema
hoc
ad
Israelitas
qui
erant
in
Babylonia
.
that
the
Cuthites
(
who
were
also
called
Samaritans
)
after
they
had
been
circumcised
by
Rabb
.
D●…stai
,
and
Rabbi
Zacharias
,
and
had
been
taught
by
them
out
of
the
Book
of
the
Law
;
they
were
excommunicate
by
Ezra
,
Zerubbabel
,
and
Ioshua
the
high
Priest
,
300.
Priests
,
and
300.
Disciples
,
and
the
whole
Church
,
in
the
Temple
;
the
Trumpets
sounding
,
and
the
Levites
singing
;
they
did
even
by
the
great
name
of
God
,
excommunicate
the
Cuthites
,
that
there
should
be
no
fellow-ship
between
any
man
of
Israel
and
the
Cuthites
,
that
no
Proselyte
should
be
received
of
the
Cuthites
;
and
that
they
should
have
no
part
in
the
resurrection
of
the
dead
,
nor
in
the
building
of
the
house
of
God
,
nor
in
Ierusalem
.
This
passage
Doctor
Buxtorf
,
in
his
Rabbinicall
Lexicon
,
p.
2464.
and
Master
Selden
de
Jure
nat
.
&
Gentium
.
l.
4.
c.
8.
have
observed
out
of
Pirke
;
and
Doctor
Buxtorf
,
both
there
and
dissert
de
lit
.
Hebr.
thes.
49.
noteth
the
three
words
used
by
the
Hebrews
in
this
relation
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
that
is
,
they
did
excommunicate
them
both
by
Niddui
,
Cherem
,
and
Schammata
.
And
so
much
for
the
manner
and
rites
.
As
for
the
authority
,
by
which
a
man
was
excommunicated
,
we
see
(
by
that
which
hath
been
already
noted
)
that
it
was
a
publike
and
judiciall
act
,
and
it
was
necessary
there
should
be
at
least
an
Assembly
of
ten
.
Those
formulae
before
cited
,
make
it
evident
,
that
it
was
an
authoritative
sentence
of
an
Ecclesiasticall
Assembly
,
(
and
therefore
done
as
it
were
in
name
of
the
Court
of
heaven
,
to
which
purpose
domus
Judicii
superioris
seu
coelestis
,
was
mentioned
in
the
businesse
,
and
it
was
a
juridicall
or
forensicall
act
,
and
done
solemnly
in
the
Temple
,
in
that
case
of
the
Cuthites
)
Drusius
de
tribus
Sectis
Judaeorum
lib.
4.
Num.
237.
concerning
the
Discipline
of
the
Essaeans
,
and
their
Excommunicating
of
ungodly
persons
,
tells
us
it
was
done
by
a
hundreth
men
Assembled
together
.
It
is
very
true
,
which
Mr.
Selden
observeth
,
de
Jure
nat
.
&
Gentium
l.
4.
c.
8.
the
Hebrews
writ
of
a
Judiciall
excommunication
,
and
of
an
extrajudiciall
excommunication
,
by
which
one
private
man
might
excommunicate
another
.
Yet
,
that
extrajudiciall
excommunication
could
not
stand
in
force
,
unlesse
it
were
ratified
by
the
Court
;
and
of
it selfe
,
it
was
rather
optative
,
or
imprecative
,
than
obligative
:
as
is
manifest
by
the
Instance
,
which
[
d
](A42757-e20770-b)
d
Annot
Gem
in
Ex.
Sanhedrin
.
p.
147.
R.
Simon
,
si●…
.
Lakisch
custodiebat
hortum
.
venit
quidam
&
ficus
caepit
vovare
.
Ille
inclamare
:
hic
non
nauci
facere
.
Tum
ille
▪
excommunicatus
esto
.
Tu
vicissim
inquit
alter
excommunicatus
esto
.
Nam
si
ad
pecuniam
tibi
obstrictus
sum
,
numquid
anathemati
obnoxius
sum
?
Adiit
R.
Lakisch
super
hoc
Scholae
rectores
.
Responsum
est
:
Ipsius
Anathema
anathema
est
▪
tuum
nullum
est
.
Io.
Coch
gives
us
ex
Gem.
Moed
Caton
.
Two
men
having
mutually
excommunicated
each
other
,
it
commeth
to
an
authoritative
decision
.
He
that
had
excommunicated
the
other
,
for
that
for
which
he
ought
to
have
been
punished
by
a
pecuniall
mulct
,
but
not
by
excommunication
,
was
himself
justly
excommunicate
by
the
other
,
according
to
the
last
of
the
24.
causes
of
excommunication
before
mentioned
,
that
is
,
that
he
who
unjustly
excommunicateth
another
,
shall
be
himselfe
excommunicated
.
So
the
excommunicating
of
the
one
man
for
a
civill
injury
was
declared
null
:
and
the
excommunicating
of
the
other
,
for
his
unjust
act
of
excommunication
,
was
ratified
.
Which
doth
not
onely
prove
what
I
have
said
of
private
,
or
extrajudiciall
excommunication
:
but
also
confirme
what
I
asserted
before
,
concerning
the
causes
of
excommunication
,
that
it
was
not
for
personall
or
civill
injuries
,
but
for
matter
of
scandall
.
And
that
pecuniary
mulcts
and
excommunication
,
were
not
inflicted
for
the
same
but
for
different
causes
.
And
so
much
for
the
authority
.
The
effects
of
excommunication
were
[
e
](A42757-e20830-b)
e
Buxtorf
.
Lexion
Chald.
Talm.
&
Rab.
p.
1305.
828.
these
.
He
might
not
be
admitted
into
an
Assembly
of
ten
persons
.
He
might
not
sit
within
foure
cubits
to
his
neighbour
.
He
might
not
shave
▪
his
hair
,
nor
wash
himself
.
It
was
not
lawfull
to
eat
nor
drinke
with
him
.
He
that
dyed
in
excommunication
got
no
Funerals
,
nor
was
there
any
mourning
made
for
him
,
but
a
stone
was
set
over
him
,
to
signifie
that
he
was
worthy
to
be
stoned
,
because
he
did
not
repent
,
and
because
he
was
separated
from
the
Church
.
An
excommunicate
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
lawfull
Assembly
.
Drusius
de
tribus
sectis
Judaeorum
lib.
3.
cap.
11.
draweth
two
consequences
from
that
excommunication
of
the
Cuthites
before
mentioned
.
1.
That
it
was
not
lawfull
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
regresse
,
being
Shammatized
.
It
is
more
disputable
,
how
farre
forth
Excommunication
did
deprive
a
man
of
the
liberty
of
accesse
into
the
Temple
.
The
Talmudists
hold
,
that
of
old
an
Excommunicate
person
might
enter
into
the
Temple
,
yet
so
as
he
might
be
known
that
he
was
Excommunicate
.
It
is
said
in
Pirke
Rabb
.
Elieser
cap.
17.
that
Solomon
built
two
Gates
,
one
for
Bride-grooms
,
another
for
Mourners
and
Excommunicated
persons
;
and
when
the
Children
of
Israel
,
sitting
between
these
two
Gates
,
upon
the
Sabbath-dayes
and
Holy-dayes
,
did
see
a
Bride-groome
come
in
,
they
knew
him
,
and
did
congratulate
with
him
:
but
when
they
saw
one
come
in
at
the
doore
of
the
mourners
,
having
his
Lips
covered
,
they
knew
him
to
be
a
mourner
,
and
said
,
He
that
dwells
in
this
house
,
comfort
thee
.
But
when
they
saw
one
come
in
at
the
doore
of
mourners
,
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
minde
,
to
hearken
unto
thy
Neighbours
.
The
like
you
have
in
codice
Middoth
cap.
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
excepted
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
Buxtorf
)
or
quia
ego
contaminatus
rejicior
(
so
readeth
l'
Empereur
)
and
then
it
was
said
to
him
,
He
that
dwells
in
this
house
,
put
into
thy
minde
,
to
hearken
to
the
words
of
thy
companions
,
that
they
may
restore
thee
.
The
same
thing
is
cited
e
libro
Musar
by
Drusius
praeter
.
lib.
4.
in
Jo.
9.
22.
His
opinion
is
that
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
those
that
were
separate
and
excommunicate
by
the
lesser
excommunication
,
were
admitted
into
the
Temple
,
in
the
manner
aforesaid
:
but
that
they
were
not
admitted
into
the
Synagogue
:
because
it
s
added
in
libro
Musar
,
(
which
I
finde
also
added
in
the
fore-mentioned
place
of
Pirke
R
Elies
.
)
that
after
the
temple
was
destroyed
,
it
was
decreed
,
that
Bride-grooms
and
Mourners
should
come
into
the
Synagogues
,
and
that
they
in
the
Synagogue
,
should
congratulate
with
the
one
,
&
condole
with
the
other
.
Behold
saith
Drusius
,
no
mention
here
of
excommunicate
persons
,
for
they
did
not
come
into
the
Synagogues
.
Peradventure
every
Excommunicate
person
,
had
not
accesse
to
the
Temple
neither
,
but
he
that
was
extrajudicially
,
or
by
private
persons
excommunicate
,
as
those
words
might
seeme
to
intimate
,
He
that
dwells
in
this
house
put
into
thy
mind
,
to
hearken
to
thy
neighbours
or
companions
,
that
they
may
restore
thee
.
Or
if
you
take
it
to
extend
to
judiciall
excommunication
,
then
Hen.
Vorstius
doth
expound
it
,
animad.
in
Pirke
p.
169.
[
f
](A42757-e21070-b)
f
De
his
meritò
dubitari
potest
,
num
licuerit
ipsis
sacra
adire
limina
,
imprimis
qui
severi●…i
ex
communicationis
genere
vel
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
multati
erant
.
Quis
enim
dicat
Apostatam
,
blasphemum
,
al●…áque
sacra
capita
intra
Templum
suisse
admissa
?
De
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
alia
ratio
●…sse
potest
,
eum
his
spes
veniae
non
fuerit
adempta
.
so
,
as
it
may
be
understood
onely
of
the
lesser
excommunication
,
when
there
was
still
hope
of
repentance
,
and
reconciliation
.
So
Io.
Coch.
ubi
supra
pag.
149.
thinks
that
an
excommunicate
person
was
not
altogether
cast
out
of
the
Synagogue
,
but
was
permitted
to
heare
,
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
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
menudde
,
of
him
that
was
simply
excommunicate
by
the
lesser
excommunication
or
Niddui
.
But
he
saith
otherwise
of
him
that
was
excommunicate
with
Cherem
.
Non
docet
,
non
docetur
.
He
is
neither
permitted
to
teach
,
nor
to
be
taught
.
Grotius
on
Luke
6.
22.
tells
us
,
that
excommunicate
persons
under
Niddui
,
came
no
otherwise
to
the
Temple
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
neere
the
Temple
,
saith
Master
Weemse
in
his
Christian
Synag
.
p.
138.
An
excommunicate
person
of
the
first
sort
,
(
Niddui
,
)
when
he
came
to
the
Temple
,
or
Synagogue
,
you
see
(
by
what
hath
been
said
)
he
was
there
publikely
bearing
his
shame
,
and
looked
upon
as
one
separate
from
the
Communion
of
the
people
of
God
.
And
so
much
for
the
effects
.
The
end
of
Excommunication
was
spirituall
,
[
g
](A42757-e21260-b)
g
M.
Selden
de
●…ure
natur
.
&
Gentium
lib.
4.
cap.
8.
Effectus
ac
finit
excommunicationis
hujusmodi
,
Jure
communi
erat
,
ut
solitae
popularium
consuetudin●…
libertate
reu●…
privaretur
,
usque
dum
panitentiâ
ad
bonam
mentem
rediens
solveretur
sententiâ
.
that
a
sinner
being
by
such
publike
shame
and
separation
humbled
,
might
be
gained
to
repentance
,
and
thereby
his
soule
saved
;
(
which
is
the
end
of
Church
Discipline
,
not
of
civill
censures
.
)
The
Court
waited
90.
dayes
upon
his
Repentance
,
and
did
not
proceed
to
Cherem
,
except
in
case
of
his
continuing
impenitency
,
when
all
that
time
he
gave
no
signe
of
repentance
,
nor
sought
absolution
.
From
all
that
hath
been
said
,
I
hope
it
's
fully
manifest
,
that
the
Jewish
excommunication
was
an
Ecclesiasticall
censure
,
and
not
(
as
(
[
h
](A42757-e21310-b)
h
Independency
examined
pag.
10.
Vindic.
of
the
4.
Questions
p.
4.
5
Master
Prynne
would
have
it
)
a
civill
excommunication
,
like
to
an
outlary
at
Common
Law
.
I
conclude
with
a
passage
of
Drusius
de
Tribus
Sectis
Judaeorum
lib.
4.
cap.
22.
concerning
the
Essaeans
,
who
did
most
religiously
retaine
the
Discipline
of
Excommunication
.
Jus
dicturi
inter
se
congregantur
centum
viri
,
qui
eos
quos
deprehenderint
reos
&
improbos
expellunt
e
caetu
suo
.
These
words
he
citeth
out
of
Salmanticensis
.
Being
to
Judge
or
give
sentence
among
themselves
,
a
hundreth
men
are
gathered
together
,
who
doe
expell
from
their
Assembly
those
whom
they
find
to
be
guilty
and
ungodly
.
He
addeth
this
Testimony
of
Rufinus
.
Deprehensos
verò
in
peccatis
à
sua
congregatione
depellunt
.
Such
as
are
deprehended
in
sinnes
they
put
away
from
their
Congregation
.
Loe
,
an
Ecclesiasticall
Excommunication
because
of
scandalous
sinnes
.
CHAP.
V.
Of
the
cutting
off
from
among
the
people
of
God
,
frequently
mentioned
in
the
Law
.
IT
hath
been
much
controverted
,
what
should
be
the
neaning
of
that
commination
,
so
frequently
used
in
the
Law
of
Moses
:
that
soule
shall
be
cut
off
from
among
his
people
.
The
radix
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
signifieth
properly
such
a
cutting
off
,
as
is
like
the
cutting
off
a
Branch
from
the
Tree
:
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
cutting
off
,
is
applied
to
divorcement
,
Deut
,
24.
1.
a
bill
of
divorcement
,
in
the
Hebrew
,
of
cutting
off
.
So
Isa.
50.
1.
Ier.
3.
8.
It
is
certaine
that
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
carath
doth
not
necessarily
signifie
to
cut
off
by
death
,
destruction
,
or
a
totall
abolition
of
the
very
existence
of
him
that
is
cut
off
,
but
any
cutting
off
,
by
whatsoever
losse
or
punishment
it
be
.
The
Septuagints
render
it
,
not
seldome
,
by
such
words
as
signifie
the
losse
or
punishment
of
the
party
,
without
destroying
him
,
as
by
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
abscindo
,
amputo
,
succid●…
,
excindo
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
avello
,
abstraho
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
demitto
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
circumcido
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
aufere
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
percutio
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
verbero
.
Sometime
they
render
it
by
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
contero
,
extero
,
terendo
excutio
:
to
strike
out
,
(
sometime
,
to
wash
out
,
or
,
to
wipe
off
spots
or
filth
,
as
H.
Stephanus
tels
us
:
thence
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
the
cloth
wherewith
we
wipe
our
hands
when
we
wash
them
)
Numb
.
19.
13.
that
soule
shall
be
cut
off
from
Israel
.
The
Septuagints
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Yea
where
they
render
it
by
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
that
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
or
cutting
off
is
sometimes
meant
of
captivity
Amos
1.
5.
sometimes
of
the
decay
and
dissolution
of
a
Monarchy
Ezech.
31.
12.
Sometimes
of
the
deposition
or
repudiating
of
Priests
.
1
Sam.
2.
33.
the
man
of
thine
whom
I
shall
not
cut
off
from
mine
Altar
.
Sometimes
generally
for
a
judgement
or
punishment
,
Isa.
22.
25.
The
English
translators
in
some
places
where
it
is
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
in
the
originall
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
render
it
to
faile
,
1
Kings
2.
4.
to
loose
1
Kings
18.
5.
Sometime
they
render
the
same
originall
word
to
hew
,
1
Kings
5.
6.
to
hew
timber
,
Jer.
66.
Sometime
simply
to
cut
,
Ezech.
16.
4
thy
navell
was
not
cut
.
In
other
places
where
the
Septuagints
have
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
aufero
,
the
English
hath
to
faile
,
1
Kings
8.
25.
&
9.
5.
2
Chro.
7.
18.
This
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
is
the
word
used
by
the
Apostle
in
the
case
of
Excommunication
,
1
Cor.
5.
13.
There
are
five
different
opinions
concerning
that
cutting
off
mentioned
in
the
Law
.
First
,
Augustine
in
divers
places
,
understands
the
meaning
to
be
of
the
second
death
or
eternall
condemnation
.
But
this
is
not
sutable
to
the
infancy
of
the
Jewish
Church
;
for
whiles
they
were
bred
under
the
paedagogy
of
the
Law
,
things
eternall
and
invisible
were
not
immediately
and
nakedly
propounded
unto
them
,
but
under
the
shadows
and
figures
of
temporall
and
visible
things
.
So
that
if
eternall
death
were
the
ultimate
intendment
of
that
commination
(
as
I
verily
believe
it
was
)
yet
it
must
needs
be
acknowledged
,
that
there
was
some
other
punishment
in
this
life
,
comprehended
under
that
phrase
,
to
resemble
in
some
sort
,
and
to
shadow
forth
that
everlasting
cutting
of
.
2.
Some
understand
that
cutting
off
to
be
when
a
man
dieth
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
without
children
,
having
no
off-spring
or
posterity
behind
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
privative
,
not
negative
,
it
is
a
depriving
of
a
man
of
what
he
hath
,
not
the
deniall
of
what
he
would
have
.
Neither
was
that
of
the
preserving
of
ones
name
in
the
posterity
,
applicable
to
women
,
but
to
their
husbands
onely
;
whereas
their
cutting
off
was
threatned
to
all
that
were
guilty
,
whether
men
or
women
.
Finally
,
if
that
were
the
sence
,
then
the
cutting
off
did
neither
belong
to
such
as
choosed
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
sinne
,
were
to
be
cut
off
,
whether
married
or
unmarried
,
whether
having
children
or
wanting
children
.
3.
Others
understand
capitall
punishment
to
be
inflicted
by
the
civill
Magistrate
.
But
if
all
the
offences
for
which
cutting
off
was
threatned
in
the
Law
,
had
been
punished
by
death
,
the
Mosaicall
lawes
,
no
lesse
then
those
of
Draco
,
might
have
been
said
to
be
written
in
blood
,
saith
[
i
](A42757-e22030-b)
i
De
gubern
.
Eccl.
pag.
57.
Gersomus
Bucerus
.
Is
it
credible
that
all
and
every
one
,
who
did
by
any
chance
,
eate
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
any
thing
which
an
unclean
person
had
touched
;
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.
30.
38.
Lev.
7.
15
,
17.
Num.
19.
13.
20.
Another
reason
I
take
from
Mercerus
on
Gen.
17.
14.
We
nowhere
finde
either
in
Scripture
,
or
in
the
Jewish
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
controversie
such
were
excluded
from
communion
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
signifie
that
the
person
cut
off
ceaseth
to
have
any
being
,
but
it
is
used
to
signifie
a
cutting
off
from
a
benefit
,
relation
,
or
fellowship
,
when
the
being
remains
,
as
was
noted
in
the
beginning
.
4.
Many
of
the
Hebrews
whom
M.
Ainsworth
annot
.
in
Gen.
17.
14.
Exod.
31.
14.
Numb
.
15.
30.
followeth
,
understand
by
that
cutting
off
,
untimely
death
,
or
the
shortning
of
life
,
before
the
naturall
period
.
This
interpretation
I
also
dislike
,
upon
these
reasons
,
1.
That
which
is
taken
for
a
foundation
of
that
opinion
,
namely
,
that
the
cutting
off
in
the
Law
is
meant
onely
as
a
punishment
of
private
sinnes
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
Levit.
17.
4
,
5.
the
end
of
that
cutting
off
was
,
that
the
children
of
Israel
might
feare
to
doe
that
thing
which
they
saw
so
punished
.
But
how
could
they
make
this
use
of
a
Divine
judgement
inflicted
for
some
private
sinne
,
they
knew
not
for
what
?
3.
The
commination
of
Divine
judgements
is
added
in
a
more
proper
place
Deut.
28.
Lev.
26.
and
in
divers
places
,
where
wrath
and
punishment
from
God
is
denounced
against
all
such
as
would
not
observe
his
Commandements
,
nor
keepe
his
Statutes
and
Judgements
.
But
the
cutting
off
is
a
part
(
and
a
great
part
)
of
the
corrective
or
penall
Mosaicall
Lawes
,
which
containe
punishments
to
be
inflicted
by
men
,
not
by
God
;
which
makes
Piscator
almost
everywhere
in
his
Scholia
to
observe
,
that
exscindetur
is
put
for
exscinditor
,
that
soule
shall
be
cut
off
for
,
let
that
soule
be
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
beare
their
iniquity
,
Lev.
18.
29.
Numb
.
15.
31.
But
we
cannot
say
that
Abijah
the
sonne
of
Ieroboam
,
or
King
Iosiah
,
being
taken
away
by
an
untimely
death
,
were
thereby
marked
with
a
signe
of
Gods
wrath
,
or
that
they
were
cut
off
from
among
their
people
,
and
did
beare
their
iniquity
.
5.
And
whereas
they
object
from
Levit.
17.
10.
&
20.
5
,
6.
that
the
cutting
of
was
a
worke
of
God
,
not
of
men
,
it
is
easily
answered
from
that
same
place
,
it
was
onely
so
,
in
extraordinary
cases
,
when
men
did
neglect
to
punish
the
offenders
.
Levit.
20.
4
,
5.
And
if
the
people
of
the
land
hide
their
eyes
from
the
man
,
when
he
giveth
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
light
to
the
other
place
Levit.
17.
10.
What
I
have
said
against
the
third
and
fourth
opinion
,
doth
militate
against
Erastus
,
for
he
expoundeth
the
cutting
off
these
two
waies
,
that
is
either
of
capitall
punishment
,
or
of
destruction
by
the
hand
of
God
,
yet
he
inclineth
chiefly
to
the
last
.
See
lib.
3.
c.
6.
He
toucheth
this
cutting
off
in
divers
places
but
valde
jejunè
.
And
because
he
is
pleased
to
professe
he
had
no
skil
of
the
Hebrew
,
he
appealeth
to
the
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Of
which
before
.
There
is
a
fifth
exposition
,
followed
by
many
both
Popish
and
Protestant
writers
,
who
understand
by
the
cutting
off
,
excommunicating
or
casting
out
from
the
Church
,
and
of
this
opinion
are
some
very
good
Hebritians
,
as
Schindlerus
lexic.
pentagl
.
pag.
655.
Cornelius
Bertramus
de
republica
Ebraeorum
.
cap.
2.
Godwyns
Moses
and
Aaron
lib.
3.
cap.
4.
The
Jewish
Canons
of
Repentance
printed
in
Latin
at
Cambridge
,
anno
1631.
where
the
Hebrew
hath
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
the
Latin
hath
ordinarily
Excommunicatio
.
So
doe
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
Ecclesiasticall
corporation
or
fellowship
.
It
is
not
said
,
that
soule
shall
be
cut
off
from
the
earth
,
or
cut
off
from
the
Land
of
the
living
,
but
,
cut
of
from
his
people
:
more
plainly
,
from
Israel
,
Exod.
12.
15.
Num.
19.
13.
but
most
plainly
,
that
soule
shall
be
cut
off
from
the
Congregation
(
or
Church
)
of
Israel
,
Exo.
12.
19.
that
soule
shall
be
cut
off
from
among
the
Congregation
(
or
Church
)
Num.
19.
20.
intimating
somewhat
Ecclesiasticall
.
So
Lev.
22.
3.
that
soule
shal
be
cut
off
from
my
presence
.
The
Septuagints
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
from
me
.
The
Chaldee
,
from
my
face
.
And
this
was
the
very
cutting
off
or
excommunication
of
Cain
from
the
Church
,
by
God
himselfe
Genes.
4.
14.
from
thy
face
shall
I
be
hid
.
and
vers.
14
,
and
Cain
went
out
from
the
presence
of
the
Lord
.
It
is
another
and
much
different
phrase
,
which
is
used
to
expresse
cutting
off
from
the
world
,
or
from
the
land
of
the
living
Ezech.
25.
7.
I
will
cut
thee
off
from
the
people
,
and
will
cause
thee
to
perish
out
off
the
Countreys
,
Jerem.
11.
19.
Let
us
cut
him
off
from
the
land
of
the
living
.
Zeph.
1.
3.
I
will
cut
off
man
from
off
the
Land
.
-
2.
He
that
in
his
uncleannesse
did
eate
of
an
unholy
thing
was
to
be
cut
off
Levit.
7.
20
,
21.
yet
for
such
a
one
was
appointed
confession
of
sinne
,
and
a
trespasse-offering
,
by
which
he
was
reconciled
and
atonement
made
for
him
,
as
M.
Ainsworth
himselfe
tels
us
on
Levit.
5.
2.
whence
I
inferre
,
that
the
cutting
off
such
a
one
was
not
by
death
inflicted
,
either
from
the
hand
of
the
Magistrate
,
or
from
the
hand
of
God
,
but
that
the
cutting
off
was
Ecclesiasticall
,
as
well
as
the
reception
or
reconciliation
.
I
know
M.
Ainsworth
is
of
opinion
that
the
cutting
off
was
for
defiling
the
Sanctuary
presumptuously
,
or
eating
of
an
holy
thing
presumptuously
,
when
a
man
was
not
cleansed
from
his
uncleannesse
:
and
that
atonement
by
sacrifice
was
appointed
for
such
as
defiled
the
Sanctuary
ignorantly
.
But
that
which
made
him
thinke
so
,
was
a
mistake
;
for
he
supposeth
,
that
for
sinnes
of
ignorance
or
infirmity
onely
,
God
did
appoint
Sacrifices
;
but
that
for
wilfull
or
malicious
sinnes
there
was
no
Sacrifice
.
See
his
annot.
on
Levit.
4.
2.
Which
Faustus
Socinus
also
holdeth
praelect.
cap.
22.
p.
144.
But
to
me
,
the
contrary
is
plaine
from
Levit.
6.
1.
to
8.
where
we
have
atonement
to
be
made
by
Trespasse
offerings
,
for
wilfull
lying
,
perjury
,
fraud
,
robbing
,
or
violence
,
which
made
the
Septuagints
,
V.
2.
for
commit
a
trespasse
,
to
read
,
despising
despise
the
commandements
of
the
Lord
.
And
whereas
M.
Ainsworth
confirmeth
his
opinion
from
Heb.
10.
26.
for
if
we
sinne
wilfully
after
that
we
have
received
the
knowledge
of
the
truth
,
there
remaineth
no
more
Sacrifice
for
sinnes
;
I
answer
with
Calvin
,
Beza
,
Hemmingius
,
and
others
upon
the
place
,
it
is
not
meant
of
all
sinnes
done
wilfully
,
(
which
to
hold
were
a
most
dangerous
and
despairing
Doctrine
,
)
but
of
a
totall
defection
from
Christ
and
the
truth
.
And
now
to
returne
,
there
is
nothing
Levit.
5.
2.
to
exclude
a
Trespasse-offering
for
one
who
should
in
his
uncleannesse
wilfully
goe
to
the
Sanctuary
,
or
touch
an
holy
thing
:
but
there
is
this
reason
,
why
it
should
not
be
excluded
,
because
in
that
very
place
Verse
1.
he
that
did
wilfully
,
for
favour
or
malice
,
conceale
his
knowledge
,
being
a
witnesse
in
judgement
,
was
yet
admitted
to
bring
his
Trespasse-offering
.
-
3.
The
Apostle
1
Cor.
5.
gives
us
some
light
concerning
the
cutting
off
;
for
as
Vers.
6
,
7
,
8.
most
manifestly
he
pointeth
at
the
purging
of
all
the
congregation
of
Israel
from
leaven
▪
Exod.
12.
so
Vers.
13.
when
he
saith
,
therefore
put
away
from
among
your selves
▪
that
wicked
person
,
he
plainly
alludeth
to
Exod.
12.
15
,
19.
Whosoever
eateth
that
which
is
leavened
,
even
that
soule
shall
be
cut
off
from
the
Congregation
,
(
or
Church
)
of
Israel
.
Theophylact
on
1
Cor.
5.
13.
observeth
the
Apostles
allusion
to
the
old
Law
of
cutting
off
:
and
Maccovius
(
otherwise
no
very
good
friend
to
Church-discipline
and
Government
)
loc.
com
.
disp
.
22.
proveth
that
Excommunication
was
transferred
from
the
Jewes
to
us
,
by
Christ
himselfe
Matth.
18.
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
your selves
that
wicked
person
.
-
4.
The
cutting
off
soule
from
among
his
people
did
typifie
or
resemble
eternall
death
and
condemnation
;
In
which
respect
Peter
doth
some
way
apply
it
to
the
daies
of
the
Gospell
,
that
every
soule
which
will
not
heare
Christ
the
great
Prophet
,
shall
be
destroyed
from
among
his
people
,
Acts
3.
23.
So
Vatablus
on
Gen.
17.
14.
that
soul
shall
be
cut
off
,
that
is
,
shall
not
be
partaker
of
my
promises
,
and
of
my
benefits
.
So
that
as
I.
Coch.
annot
▪
in
Sanhedrin
.
cap.
9.
saith
well
,
death
inflicted
by
the
hand
of
God
is
lesse
then
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
cutting
off
.
Nam
exterminii
post
mortem
poena
luitur
.
The
same
thing
Guil.
Vorstius
confirmeth
out
of
Maimonides
,
annot.
in
Maimon
.
de
fundam
.
legis
pag.
127.
And
Abrabanel
de
capite
fidei
cap.
8.
saith
that
the
greatest
reward
is
the
life
of
the
world
to
come
,
and
the
greatest
punishment
is
the
cutting
off
of
the
soule
.
Now
this
could
not
so
fitly
be
resembled
,
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
Magistrate
,
as
by
cutting
off
from
the
Church
,
and
from
the
communion
of
Saints
,
by
excommunication
,
which
is
summum
futuri
judicii
praejudicium
,
as
Tertullian
called
it
,
and
fore-sheweth
that
the
ungodly
shall
not
stand
in
the
judgement
,
nor
sinners
in
the
congregation
of
the
righteous
,
Psal.
1.
5.
But
Gods
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
[
k
](A42757-e23230-b)
k
Gen.
25
▪
17.
it
is
said
of
wicked
Ishmael
when
he
died
,
he
was
gathered
unto
his
people
.
And
as
for
the
abbreviation
of
life
,
and
the
untimelinesse
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
capitall
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
casting
out
of
a
man
from
having
part
or
portion
of
the
inheritance
of
the
Saints
in
light
.
-
5.
Dr.
Buxtorf
lexic.
chald
.
Talm.
&
Rahbin
.
page
1101.
tels
us
that
this
difference
was
put
between
him
that
was
guilty
of
cutting
off
,
and
him
that
was
guilty
of
death
.
Reus
▪
mortis
,
ipse
tantum
,
non
semen
ejus
:
paena
excidii
comprehendit
ipsum
&
semen
ejus
.
Now
if
the
punishment
of
death
was
personall
one●
▪
and
the
punishment
of
cutting
off
,
comprehensive
not
onely
of
them
but
of
their
seed
,
how
can
this
agree
so
well
,
to
any
thing
else
,
as
to
Excommunication
;
especially
if
that
hold
which
Godwyn
in
his
Moses
and
Aaron
lib.
5.
cap.
2.
tels
us
,
that
the
children
of
excommunicate
persons
were
not
circumcised
.
-
6.
M.
Selden
de
jure
nat
.
&
Gent.
lib.
7.
cap.
10.
tels
us
,
that
the
Hebrew
Doctors
themselves
doe
not
agree
concerning
that
cutting
off
in
the
Law
.
He
saith
that
R.
Bechai
and
others
,
make
three
sorrs
of
cutting
off
.
i.
a
cutting
off
,
whereby
the
body
onely
is
cut
off
,
which
they
understand
by
that
phrase
Levit.
20.
6.
I
will
cut
him
off
from
among
his
people
:
and
this
is
untimely
death
Palm
55.
23.
Bloudy
and
deceitfull
men
shall
not
live
out
half
their
daies
.
2.
They
say
there
was
another
cutting
off
,
which
was
of
the
soule
onely
,
Levit.
18.
29.
the
souls
that
commit
these
things
●…all
be
cut
off
from
among
their
people
.
By
this
cutting
off
(
they
say
)
the
soule
ceaseth
to
have
a
being
,
the
body
not
being
taken
away
by
death
,
before
the
naturall
period
.
3.
They
make
a
third
kind
,
whereby
both
soule
and
body
is
cut
off
,
Num.
15.
31.
That
soule
shall
be
utterly
cut
off
,
his
iniquity
shall
be
upon
him
.
Whereby
(
say
they
)
both
the
body
is
destroyed
before
the
naturall
time
,
and
likewise
the
soule
ceaseth
to
have
a
being
.
But
whatsoever
any
of
the
Hebrews
fancied
in
their
declining
latter
times
,
concerning
that
second
kinde
of
cutting
off
,
(
which
M.
Selden
doth
not
approve
,
but
relate
out
of
them
)
I
am
confident
it
was
onely
the
degenerating
notion
of
Excommunication
;
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
cutting
off
was
mentioned
in
the
Law
,
by
which
a
man
in
respect
of
his
Spirituall
being
was
cut
off
from
the
Church
of
Israel
,
whiles
his
naturall
life
and
being
was
not
taken
from
him
.
Yea
Gul●…elmus
Vorstius
annot.
in
Maimon
.
de
fundam
.
legis
pag.
60.
sheweth
us
,
that
some
of
the
Hebrewes
acknowledge
nothing
under
the
name
of
the
cutting
off
,
but
that
which
is
the
cutting
off
of
the
soule
onely
.
But
if
there
be
so
much
as
some
cutting
off
mentioned
in
the
Law
,
which
concerneth
a
mans
Spirituall
estate
onely
,
it
doth
abundantly
confirme
what
I
plead
for
:
and
I
shall
not
need
to
assert
,
that
everywhere
in
the
Law
Excommunication
must
needs
be
understood
by
cutting
off
.
Some
understand
the
cutting
off
in
the
Judiciall
or
Civill
lawes
,
to
be
meant
of
capitall
punishments
:
and
the
cutting
off
in
the
ceremoniall
Lawes
(
which
were
properly
Ecclesiasticall
)
to
be
meant
of
Excommunication
,
or
cutting
off
from
the
Church
onely
.
If
anywhere
the
cutting
off
be
Excommunication
,
it
sufficeth
me
.
Or
what
ever
it
may
signifie
more
,
or
be
extended
unto
,
if
Excommunication
be
one
thing
which
it
signifieth
,
then
they
who
thinke
it
signifieth
some
other
thing
beside
Excommunication
,
are
not
against
me
in
this
question
.
I
shall
conclude
with
that
in
the
Dutch
Annotations
upon
Gen.
17.
14.
that
soule
shall
be
cut
off
from
his
people
.
The
Annotation
Englished
saith
thus
,
that
man
shall
be
excommunicate
from
the
fellowship
of
Gods
people
.
This
kind
of
expression
implies
also
(
as
some
doe
conceive
)
a
bodily
punishment
to
be
inflicted
withall
by
the
Magistrate
.
They
hold
determinately
and
positively
that
it
signifieth
Excommunication
.
Whether
it
signifie
some
other
thing
beside
,
they
judge
not
to
be
so
cleare
,
and
therefore
offer
it
to
be
considered
.
It
is
but
a
poore
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
applyed
even
to
capitall
offences
,
such
as
the
Law
elsewhere
appointeth
men
to
be
put
to
death
for
.
As
if
it
were
any
absurdity
to
say
,
that
one
and
the
same
offence
,
is
to
be
punished
sub
formalitate
scandali
with
excommunication
,
and
sub
formalitate
criminis
with
capitall
punishment
.
And
who
knoweth
not
that
a
capitall
crime
is
a
cause
of
excommunication
,
which
is
also
sometimes
the
sole
punishment
,
the
Magistrate
neglecting
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
therefore
not
be
cut
off
by
excommunication
?
If
he
had
proved
that
all
the
causes
of
cutting
off
in
the
Law
were
capitall
crimes
,
he
had
said
much
:
but
that
will
never
be
proved
.
CHAP.
VI.
Of
the
casting
out
of
the
Synagogue
.
WE
read
of
a
casting
out
of
the
Church
,
which
was
pretended
to
be
a
matter
of
conscience
and
religion
,
and
such
as
did
more
especially
concerne
the
glory
of
God
,
Isa.
66.
5.
Your
brethren
that
hated
you
,
that
cast
you
out
for
my
names
sake
,
said
,
let
the
Lord
be
glorified
.
Such
was
the
casting
out
of
the
Synagogue
,
mentioned
in
the
Gospell
Ioh.
9.
22.
&
12.
42.
&
16.
2.
Arias
Montanus
de
arcano
Sermone
cap.
47.
expounds
it
of
excommunication
from
Church
Assemblies
.
So
the
Magdeburgians
cent
.
1.
lib.
1.
cap.
7.
and
Corn.
Bertramus
de
repub
.
Ebraeor
.
cap.
7.
Godwyn
in
his
Moses
and
Aaron
,
lib.
3.
cap.
4.
&
lib.
5.
cap.
2.
Wherein
the
interpreters
also
upon
the
places
cited
doe
generally
agree
,
Erasmus
,
Brentius
,
Tossanus
,
Diodati
,
Cartwright
in
his
harmony
,
Gerhard
,
&c.
So
likewise
M.
Leigh
out
of
Paulus
Tarnovius
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
dicitur
▪
ejectus
e
〈◊〉
sacro
Ecclesiae
,
excommunicatus
.
See
Critica
Sacra
of
the
new
Test.
pag.
391.
So
doth
Aretius
,
Theol.
Probel
.
loc.
133.
(
though
cited
by
our
Opposites
againstus
)
he
saith
,
though
it
was
abused
by
the
Pharisees
,
yet
it
sheweth
the
Antient
use
of
the
the
thing
it self
,
that
there
was
such
a
discipline
in
the
Jewish
Church
.
It
is
not
much
materiall
,
to
dispute
which
of
the
degrees
of
the
Jewish
Excommunication
,
or
whether
all
the
three
were
meant
by
that
casting
out
of
the
Synagogue
.
Drusius
,
and
Grotius
expound
,
Io.
9.
22.
of
Niddui
.
Gerhard
expounds
Io.
16.
2.
of
all
the
three
Niddui
,
Cherem
,
and
Shammata
.
It
is
enough
for
this
present
argument
,
if
it
was
a
spirituall
,
or
Ecclesiasticall
Censure
,
not
a
civill
punishment
.
Master
Prynne
,
Vindic.
pag.
48
,
49.
tels
us
.
First
,
this
casting
▪
out
of
the
Synagogue
,
was
not
warranted
by
Gods
Word
,
but
was
onely
a
humane
invention
.
Secondly
,
as
it
was
practiced
by
the
Jewes
,
it
was
a
diabolicall
institution
.
Thirdly
,
that
it
was
meerly
a
civill
Excommunication
,
like
to
an
Outlary
,
whereby
the
party
cast
out
,
was
separate
from
civill
conversation
onely
,
or
from
all
company
with
any
man
,
but
was
not
suspended
from
any
Divine
Ordinance
.
Fourthly
,
that
it
was
inflicted
by
the
Temporall
Magistrate
.
Fifthly
,
that
in
the
Jewish
Synagogues
at
that
time
,
there
was
neither
Sacrament
nor
Sacrifice
,
but
onely
Reading
,
Expounding
,
Preaching
,
Disputing
,
and
Prayer
,
so
that
it
cannot
prove
suspension
from
the
Sacrament
.
To
the
first
,
I
answer
,
it
was
not
onely
warranted
by
the
cutting
off
mentioned
in
the
Law
,
but
Erastus
himselfe
gives
a
warrant
for
it
from
Gods
word
.
He
saith
,
pag.
315.
the
casting
out
of
the
Synagogue
,
was
vel
idem
vel
simile
quidpiam
with
that
separating
from
the
congregation
Ez●…a
.
10.
8.
To
the
second
Aretius
hath
answered
.
The
best
things
in
the
world
may
be
abused
.
To
the
third
,
I
offer
these
eight
considerations
to
prove
that
it
was
an
Ecclesiasticall
,
not
a
civill
Censure
.
-
First
,
the
causes
for
which
men
were
put
out
of
the
Synagogues
,
were
matters
of
scandall
,
offences
in
point
of
Religion
,
and
we
read
of
none
cast
out
of
the
Synagogue
for
a
civill
injury
or
crime
;
It
was
for
confessing
Christ
Io.
9.
22.
&
12.
42.
then
counted
heresie
:
and
for
Preaching
of
the
Gospell
Io.
16.
2.
-
Secondly
,
The
Synagogicall
Assembly
or
Court
,
was
Spirituall
and
Ecclesiasticall
,
as
Ludoviens
de
Dieu
noteth
upon
Matth
10.
17.
we
read
of
the
Rulers
of
the
Synagogue
,
Act.
13.
15.
among
whom
he
that
did
pre●de
and
moderate
,
was
called
the
chiefe
Ruler
of
the
Synagogue
Act.
18.
8.
17.
names
never
given
to
civill
Magistates
or
Judges
.
Therefore
Brughton
makes
this
of
the
Rulers
of
the
Synagogue
,
to
be
one
of
the
paralells
betweene
the
Jewish
,
and
the
Christian
Church
.
See
his
exposition
of
the
Lords
Prayer
pag.
14.
16.
As
for
that
Assembly
of
the
Pharisees
,
which
did
cast
out
,
or
excommunicate
the
blind
man
,
Io.
9.
Tossanus
upon
the
place
calls
it
Senatus
Ecclesiasticus
;
and
Brentius
argueth
from
this
example
against
the
infallibility
of
Councells
,
because
this
Councell
of
the
Pharisees
call'd
Christ
himselfe
a
finner
.
-
3
The
Court
of
civill
Judgement
,
was
in
the
Gates
of
the
City
,
not
in
the
Synagogue
.
-
4
Such
as
the
Communion
and
fellowship
was
in
the
Synagogue
,
such
was
the
casting
out
of
the
Synagogue
.
But
the
Communion
or
fellowship
,
which
one
enjoyed
in
the
Synagogue
,
was
a
Church-Communion
and
Sacred
fellowship
,
in
acts
of
Divine
worship
.
Therefore
the
casting
out
of
the
Synagogue
was
also
Ecclesiasticall
and
Spirituall
,
not
civill
or
temporall
.
-
4
The
end
was
Sacred
and
Spirituall
,
to
glorifie
God
Is.
66.
5.
to
doe
God
good
service
Io.
16.
2.
in
that
which
did
more
immediately
and
neerly
touch
his
name
and
his
glory
,
Though
the
Pharisees
did
falsely
pretend
that
end
,
their
error
was
not
in
mistaking
the
nature
of
the
Censure
,
but
in
misapplying
it
where
they
had
no
just
cause
.
-
5
Master
Prynne
himself
tells
us
pag.
49.
That
this
excommunication
from
the
Synagogue
was
of
force
forty
dayes
(
though
I
beleeve
he
hath
added
ten
more
then
enough
,
and
if
he
look
over
his
Bookes
better
,
he
will
find
he
should
have
said
thirty
,
)
yet
so
as
that
it
might
be
shortned
upon
repentance
.
But
I
pray
,
are
civill
punishments
shortned
or
lengthened
according
to
the
parties
repentance
?
I
know
Church
Censures
are
so
.
But
I
had
thought
,
the
end
of
civill
punishments
,
is
not
to
reclaime
a
mans
soule
by
repentance
,
and
then
to
be
taken
off
:
but
to
guard
the
Lawes
of
the
Land
,
to
preserve
Justice
,
Peace
,
and
good
order
,
to
make
others
feare
to
doe
evill
,
to
uphold
the
publike
good
.
The
Magistrate
must
both
punish
and
continue
punishments
,
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
expresse
a
casting
out
from
civill
company
or
conversation
onely
,
(
which
was
not
within
,
but
without
the
Synagogue
)
would
choose
such
a
word
as
signifieth
the
casting
out
from
an
Ecclesiasticall
or
Sacred
Assembly
?
(
for
such
were
the
Synagogues
,
in
which
the
Jewes
had
Reading
,
Expounding
,
Preaching
and
Prayer
,
as
Master
Prynne
tells
us
)
Christ
himselfe
distinguisheth
the
Court
or
Judicatory
,
which
was
in
the
Synagogue
,
from
civill
Magistracy
Luk.
12.
11.
And
when
they
bring
you
unto
the
Synagogues
,
and
unto
Magistrates
and
Powers
.
Magistrates
and
Powers
are
civill
Rulers
,
supreame
and
subordinate
,
but
the
Synagogues
are
distinct
Courts
from
both
these
.
-
7
Our
Opposites
cannot
give
any
other
rationall
interpretation
of
the
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Erastus
pag.
315.
confesseth
,
it
is
very
hard
to
tell
what
it
was
.
He
gives
three
conjectures
.
First
,
that
it
was
some
ignominy
put
upon
a
man
:
which
I
thinke
no
body
denies
,
and
it
may
well
stand
with
our
interpretation
.
Secondly
,
he
saith
not
that
it
was
a
separating
of
the
party
from
all
company
,
or
society
with
any
man
.
(
for
which
Master
Prynne
citeth
Erastus
with
others
)
but
a
pulling
away
,
or
casting
out
of
a
man
from
some
particular
Towne
onely
;
for
instance
,
from
Nazareth
.
Thirdly
,
He
saith
,
it
seemes
also
to
have
been
a
refusall
of
the
priviledges
of
Jewish
Citizens
▪
or
the
esteeming
of
one
no
longer
for
a
true
Jew
,
but
for
a
Proselyte
.
But
that
a
Proselyte
,
who
was
free
to
come
both
to
Temple
and
Synagogue
(
for
of
such
a
Proselyte
he
speaketh
expressely
)
should
be
said
to
be
made
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
it
may
well
weaken
,
it
cannot
strengthen
his
cause
.
-
8.
In
Tzemach
David
edit.
Hen.
Vorst
.
pag
,
89.
We
read
,
that
when
the
Sanhedrin
did
remove
from
Hierusalem
,
40.
yeeres
before
the
destruction
of
the
Temple
,
there
was
a
Prayer
composed
against
the
Hereticks
.
Hen.
Vorstius
in
his
observ.
pag.
285
▪
sheweth
out
of
Maimon
▪
that
it
was
a
maledictory
Prayer
appointed
to
be
used
against
the
Hereticks
of
that
time
,
who
encreased
mightily
:
and
that
R.
Sol.
Jarchi
addeth
this
explanation
of
the
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Minim
,
the
Disciples
of
Jesus
of
Nazareth
.
D.
Buxtorf
.
Lexic.
Chald.
Talm.
&
rab.
pag.
1201.
collecteth
that
this
maledictory
Prayer
was
composed
in
Christs
time
,
and
against
his
Disciples
.
Surely
it
suteth
no
story
so
well
,
as
that
of
the
decree
of
casting
out
of
the
Synagogue
Io.
12.
42.
After
all
these
eight
considerations
,
this
I
must
adde
,
that
I
doe
not
a
little
admire
,
how
Master
Prynne
could
cite
Godwyns
Jewish
Antiquities
lib.
5.
cap.
2.
for
that
opinion
,
that
the
casting
out
of
the
Synagogue
was
not
an
Ecclesiasticall
but
onely
a
civill
censure
.
If
he
had
but
looked
upon
the
page
immediately
preceding
,
he
had
found
this
distinction
between
the
Ecclesiasticall
and
civill
courts
of
the
Jewes
;
The
office
of
the
Ecclesiasticall
Court
,
was
to
put
a
difference
between
things
holy
and
unholy
,
&c.
It
was
a
representative
Church
.
Hence
is
that
,
di●…
Ecclesiae
.
Matt.
18.
17.
Tell
the
Church
because
unto
them
,
belonged
the
power
of
excommunication
,
the
severall
sorts
of
which
censure
follow
;
and
so
he
beginneth
with
the
casting
out
of
the
Synagogue
,
as
the
first
or
lesser
Excommunication
o●
Niddui
,
and
tells
us
among
other
effects
of
it
,
that
the
male
Children
of
one
thus
cast
out
were
not
circumcised
.
To
Master
Prynnes
fourth
exception
,
the
Answer
may
be
collected
from
what
is
already
said
.
We
never
find
the
temporall
Magistrate
called
the
Ruler
of
the
Synagogue
,
nor
yet
that
he
sate
in
Judgement
in
the
Synagogue
.
The
beating
or
scourging
in
the
Synagogues
,
was
a
tumultuous
disorderly
act
;
we
read
of
no
sentence
given
,
but
onely
to
be
put
out
of
the
Synagogue
,
which
sentence
was
given
by
the
Synagogicall
consistory
,
made
up
of
the
Priest
or
Priests
and
Jewish
Elders
.
For
the
power
of
judging
in
things
and
causes
Ecclesiasticall
,
did
belong
to
the
Priests
and
Levites
,
together
with
the
Elders
of
Israel
.
1
Chro.
23.
4.
&
26.
30.
32.
2.
Chro.
19.
8.
And
therefore
what
reason
Master
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
make
Priests
and
Levites
to
be
Judges
and
Rulers
Ecclesiasticall
;
of
which
before
.
As
for
the
chief
Ruler
of
the
Synagogue
:
Archysynagogus
erat
primarius
in
Synagoga
Doctor
,
say
the
Centurists
Cent.
1.
lib.
1.
cap
7.
and
if
so
,
then
not
a
civill
Magistrate
.
To
the
fifth
I
Answer
,
1.
If
there
was
an
exclusion
from
Reading
,
Expounding
,
Preaching
,
and
Prayer
,
then
much
more
from
Sacraments
,
in
which
there
is
more
of
the
communion
of
Saints
.
2.
He
that
was
cast
out
of
the
Synagogue
might
not
enter
in
the
Synagogue
,
saith
Menochius
in
Io.
9.
22.
therefore
he
did
not
communicate
in
Prayer
with
the
Congregation
,
nor
in
other
acts
of
Divine
Worship
,
(
which
how
farre
it
is
applicable
to
excommunication
in
the
Christian
Church
,
I
do
not
now
dispute
,
nor
are
all
of
one
opinion
,
concerning
excommunicate
persons
,
their
admission
unto
some
,
or
exclusion
from
all
publike
Ordinances
,
hearing
of
the
word
and
all
)
I
know
Erastus
answereth
the
word
Synagogue
may
signifie
either
the
materiall
house
,
the
place
of
Assembling
;
or
the
people
,
the
congregation
which
did
Assemble
;
and
some
who
differ
in
Judgement
from
us
in
this
particular
,
hold
that
when
we
read
of
putting
out
of
the
Synagogue
,
the
word
Synagogue
doth
not
signifie
the
house
or
place
of
publike
worship
(
which
yet
it
doth
signifie
in
other
places
,
as
Luk.
7.
5.
Act.
18.
7.
)
but
the
Church
or
Assembly
it selfe
.
But
I
take
it
to
signifie
both
joyntly
;
and
that
it
was
a
casting
out
,
even
from
the
place
it selfe
,
such
as
that
Io.
9.
34.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
and
they
cast
him
out
,
or
excommunicated
him
,
as
the
English
Translators
adde
in
the
Margine
.
Besides
,
I
take
what
it
is
granted
.
It
was
a
casting
out
from
the
Assembly
,
or
Congregation
it selfe
.
But
how
could
a
man
be
cast
out
from
the
Congregation
,
and
yet
be
free
to
come
where
the
Congregation
was
Assembled
together
?
O
but
he
must
keepe
off
foure
cubites
distance
,
from
all
other
men
.
And
was
there
so
much
roome
to
reele
to
and
fro
in
the
Synagogue
?
I
doe
not
understand
how
a
man
shall
satisfie
himselfe
in
that
notion
.
But
I
rather
thinke
Bertramus
speakes
rationally
,
that
he
that
was
excommunicate
by
Niddui
was
shut
out
ab
hominum
contubernio
atque
ade●…
ab
ipsius
Tabernaculi
aditu
.
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
mens
society
,
must
needs
be
excluded
from
the
publike
holy
Assemblies
,
and
from
the
place
where
these
Assemblies
are
.
Whereunto
agreeth
that
which
we
read
in
Exc.
Gem.
Sanhedrin
cap.
3.
Sect.
9.
a
certaine
Disciple
,
having
after
two
and
twenty
yeeres
divulged
that
which
had
been
said
in
the
Schoole
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
then
Mr.
Prynne
can
prove
that
the
Sacrament
of
Circumcision
was
not
then
administred
in
the
Synagogues
.
The
Jewes
do
administer
it
in
their
Synagogues
;
and
that
Iohn
was
Circumcised
in
the
Synagogue
,
some
gather
from
Luk.
1.
59.
Venerunt
,
they
came
(
to
wit
to
the
Synagogue
)
to
Circumcise
the
Child
;
for
my
part
I
lay
no
weight
upon
that
argument
.
But
I
see
l●sse
ground
for
Mr.
Prynnes
Assertion
.
As
for
that
which
M.
Prynne
addeth
in
the
close
,
that
those
who
were
cast
out
of
the
Synagogue
might
yet
resort
to
the
Temple
,
he
hath
said
nothing
to
prove
it
.
I
find
the
same
thing
affirmed
by
Sutlivius
de
Presbyt
.
pag.
25.
(
though
I
had
thought
Master
Prynnes
Tenen●s
of
this
kind
,
should
never
have
complyed
with
those
of
Episcopall
men
,
against
the
Anti-Episcopall
party
)
But
neither
doth
Sutlivius
prove
it
;
onely
he
holds
that
the
casting
out
of
the
Synagogue
was
meerely
a
civill
Excommunication
,
and
his
reason
is
that
which
he
had
to
prove
,
that
Christ
and
his
Disciples
,
when
they
were
cast
out
of
the
Synagogues
,
had
notwithstanding
a
free
accesse
to
the
Temple
.
To
my
best
observation
,
I
can
find
no
Instance
of
any
admitted
to
the
Temple
,
while
cast
out
of
the
Synagogue
.
I
turn
again
to
Erastus
pag.
314.
to
see
whether
he
proves
it
.
He
gives
us
two
instances
,
first
of
Christ
himselfe
who
was
cast
out
of
the
Synagogues
,
and
yet
came
into
the
Temple
.
But
how
proves
he
that
Christ
was
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
?
for
this
,
he
tells
us
onely
Quis
dubitat
?
who
makes
Question
of
it
?
I
am
one
who
make
a
great
Question
of
it●
,
or
rather
put
it
out
of
Question
,
that
Christ
was
not
cast
out
of
the
Synagogues
;
for
what
saith
he
himselfe
Io.
18.
20.
I
ever
taught
in
the
Synagogue
,
and
in
the
Temple
,
whether
the
Iewes
alwayes
resort
.
Christ
was
cast
out
of
the
City
of
Nazareth
in
the
tumult
by
the
people
Luk.
4.
but
here
was
no
consistoriall
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
immediately
went
to
the
Temple
,
and
taught
the
people
Act.
4.
&
5.
And
how
many
Synagogues
was
Paul
cast
out
of
?
2
Cor.
11.
Yet
he
is
not
reprehended
for
coming
into
the
Temple
.
Answ.
I
find
nothing
of
the
Synagogue
in
those
places
which
he
citeth
.
It
was
the
Councell
,
not
the
Synagogue
which
the
Apostles
had
to
doe
with
Act.
4.
v
5.
But
what
have
they
gained
if
they
could
prove
that
Christ
or
his
Apostles
,
while
knowne
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
people
,
and
so
were
restrained
?
Nay
,
what
if
they
could
give
other
Instances
,
that
such
as
were
cast
out
of
the
Synagogue
,
were
permitted
to
come
into
the
Temple
;
what
gaine
they
thereby
?
If
we
understand
the
casting
out
of
the
Synagogue
to
be
meant
of
Niddui
,
of
the
lesser
Excommunication
as
Drusius
,
Bertramus
,
Grotius
,
and
Godwyne
understand
it
,
we
are
not
at
all
pinched
or
straitned
.
Nay
,
though
we
should
also
comprehend
the
Cherem
or
greater
excommunication
under
this
casting
out
of
the
Synagogue
,
all
that
will
follow
upon
the
admission
of
such
into
the
Temple
,
will
be
this
,
that
excommunicate
persons
when
they
desired
to
make
atonement
for
their
sinne
by
Sacrifice
,
were
for
that
end
admitted
into
the
Temple
(
which
who
denies
?
)
but
still
with
a
marke
of
Ignominy
upon
them
as
long
as
they
were
excommunicated
,
as
I
have
shewed
before
.
Chap.
4.
Finally
whereas
Master
Prynne
concludeth
his
Discourse
of
this
point
,
that
we
may
as
well
prove
excommunication
from
Diotrephes
3.
Io.
10
,
as
from
the
casting
out
of
the
Synagogue
,
I
admit
the
paralell
thus
.
The
Pharisees
did
cast
out
from
the
Synagogue
such
as
professed
Christ
;
Diotrephes
did
cast
out
of
the
Church
(
as
Iohn
saith
)
such
as
received
the
Brethren
.
Both
clave
errante
:
the
Ecclesiasticall
censure
was
abused
and
misapplyed
;
yet
from
both
it
appeareth
▪
that
Ecclesiasticall
Censures
were
used
in
the
Church
.
There
was
a
casting
out
of
the
Synagogue
used
among
the
Jewes
,
which
the
Pharisees
did
abuse
.
There
was
a
casting
out
of
the
Church
used
among
Christians
,
which
Diotrephes
did
abuse
.
I
remember
I
heard
Master
Coleman
once
draw
an
argument
against
excommunication
from
that
Text
in
Iohn
concerning
Diotrephes
.
Which
is
as
if
we
should
argue
thus
,
the
Scripture
tells
us
it
is
a
sinne
to
condemne
the
righteous
,
Ergo
it
is
a
sinne
to
condemne
.
It
is
a
sinne
to
cast
out
of
the
Church
godly
persons
who
love
and
receive
the
Brethren
,
Ergo
it
is
a
sinne
to
cast
out
of
the
Church
.
A
fallacy
à
dicto
secundum
quid
ad
dictum
simpliciter
.
The
weight
is
laid
upon
the
application
of
such
a
Censure
to
such
persons
:
An
unju●
Excommunication
is
not
imitable
,
but
a
just
Excommunication
is
imitable
▪
according
to
the
warning
given
us
in
the
words
immediately
added
,
follow
not
that
which
is
evill
,
but
that
which
is
good
.
CHAP.
VII
.
Other
Scripturall
Arguments
to
prove
an
Excommucation
in
the
Iewish
Church
.
ANother
Scripture
proving
Excommunication
in
the
Jewish
Church
(
which
is
also
paralell
to
that
casting
out
of
the
Synagogue
as
Erastus
himselfe
told
us
)
is
Ezra
.
10.
8.
that
whosoever
would
not
come
within
three
dayes
,
according
to
the
counsell
of
the
Princes
and
Elders
,
all
his
Substance
should
be
forfeited
,
and
himselfe
separated
from
the
Congregation
(
or
Church
,
It
is
Kahal
in
the
Hebrew
,
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
in
the
Greeke
)
of
those
that
had
been
carryed
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.
eccl.
lib.
3.
cap.
7.
and
divers
others
who
cite
that
place
occasionally
.
Ampsingius
disp.
advers.
Anabaptist
.
pag.
276.
doth
from
that
place
confute
the
Anabaptists
tenent
,
that
there
was
no
other
but
a
Civill
Tribunall
in
the
Jewish
Church
.
Beda
upon
the
place
cals
this
Assembly
a
Synod
,
sanita
Synodo
&c.
Josephus
antiq
.
lib.
11.
cap.
5.
expresseth
the
punishment
of
those
who
would
not
come
to
Hierusalem
at
that
time
,
thus
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
A
double
punishment
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
:
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
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
signifieth
to
abalienate
a
person
or
thing
,
by
renouncing
and
quitting
the
right
,
title
,
and
interest
which
formerly
we
had
in
that
person
or
thing
;
so
houses
,
lands
,
persons
,
&c.
are
abalienated
,
when
(
though
they
and
we
remaine
where
before
)
we
cease
to
owne
them
as
ours
;
and
thus
the
Congregation
of
Israel
did
renounce
their
interest
in
those
offenders
,
and
would
not
owne
them
as
Church-members
.
The
other
punishment
was
the
dedicating
or
devoting
of
their
substance
.
Gelenius
the
Interpreter
hath
rightly
rendered
the
sence
of
Iosephus
:
Et
quisquis
non
adfuerat
intra
praescriptum
●…empus
,
ut
excommunicetur
,
bonaque
ejus
sacro
aerario
addicantur
.
You
will
object
,
this
separation
from
the
Congregation
is
coupled
together
with
forfeiture
of
a
mans
estate
,
and
so
seemeth
rather
banishment
than
Excommunication
.
This
objection
being
taken
off
,
I
think
there
shall
be
no
other
difficulty
to
perplex
our
interpretation
.
Wherefore
I
answer
these
two
things
.
1.
It
is
the
opinion
of
divers
who
hold
two
Sanhedrins
among
the
Jewes
,
one
Civill
,
and
another
Ecclesiasticall
;
that
in
causes
and
occasions
of
a
mixed
nature
which
did
concerne
both
Church
and
State
,
both
did
consult
conclude
,
and
decree
,
in
a
joynt
way
,
and
by
agreement
together
.
Now
Ezra
10.
the
Princes
,
Elders
,
Priests
,
and
Levites
,
were
assembled
together
upon
an
extraordinary
cause
,
which
conjuncture
and
concurrence
of
the
Civill
and
the
Ecclesiasticall
power
might
occasion
the
denouncing
of
a
double
punishment
upon
the
contumacious
,
forfeiture
and
excommunication
.
But
2.
The
objection
made
,
doth
rather
confirme
me
,
that
Excommunication
is
intended
in
that
place
.
For
this
forfeiture
was
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
a
making
sacred
,
or
dedicating
to
an
holy
use
,
as
I
have
shewed
out
of
Iosephus
.
The
originall
word
translated
forfeited
is
more
properly
translated
devoted
,
which
is
the
word
put
in
the
margin
of
our
bookes
.
The
Greek
saith
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
anathemstizabitur
which
is
the
best
rendring
of
the
Hebrew
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
It
was
not
therefore
that
which
we
call
forfeiture
of
a
mans
substance
.
Intellige
saith
Grotius
,
ita
ut
Deo
sacra
fiat
.
And
so
the
excommunication
of
a
man
,
and
the
devoting
of
his
substance
as
holy
to
the
Lord
,
were
joyned
together
:
and
the
substance
had
not
been
anathematized
if
the
man
had
not
been
anathematized
.
I
doe
not
say
that
Excommunication
ex
natura
rei
doth
inferre
and
draw
after
it
,
the
devoting
of
a
mans
estate
as
holy
to
the
Lord
.
No
:
Excommunication
can
not
hurt
a
man
in
his
worldly
estate
,
further
than
the
Civill
Magistrate
and
the
Law
of
the
Land
appointeth
.
And
there
was
Excommunication
in
the
Apostolical
Churches
,
where
there
was
no
Christian
Magistrate
to
adde
a
Civill
mulct
.
But
the
devoting
of
the
substance
of
Excommunicated
persons
Ezra
10.
as
it
had
the
authority
of
the
Princes
and
Rulers
for
it
,
so
what
extraordinary
warrants
or
instinct
there
was
upon
that
extraordinary
exigence
,
we
can
not
tell
.
Finally
M.
Selden
de
Jure
nat
.
&
Gentium
.
lib.
4.
cap.
9.
p.
523.
agreeth
with
Lud.
Capellus
that
the
separation
from
the
Congregation
Ezra
10.
8.
plane
ipsum
est
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
fieri
,
it
is
the
very
same
with
casting
out
of
the
Synagogue
,
which
confuteth
further
that
which
M.
Prynne
holds
,
that
the
casting
out
of
the
Synagogue
was
not
warranted
by
Gods
word
,
but
was
onely
a
humane
invention
.
I
know
some
have
drawne
another
argument
for
the
Jewish
Excommunication
from
Nehem.
13.
25.
I
contended
with
them
,
and
cursed
them
,
id
est
,
anathematizavi
&
excommunicavi
,
saith
C.
a
lapide
upon
the
place
.
So
Tirinus
upon
the
same
place
.
Mariana
expounds
it
,
anathema
dixi
.
Aben
Ezra
understands
it
of
two
kinds
of
Excommunication
,
Niddui
and
Cherem
.
For
my
part
,
I
lay
no
weight
upon
this
,
unlesse
you
understand
the
cursing
or
malediction
to
be
an
act
of
the
Ecclesiasticall
power
,
onely
authorised
or
countenanced
by
the
Magistrate
:
Which
the
words
may
well
beare
▪
for
neither
is
it
easily
credible
that
Nehemiah
did
with
his
owne
hand
smite
those
men
and
plucke
off
their
hayre
,
but
that
by
his
authority
he
tooke
care
to
have
it
done
by
civill
Officers
,
as
the
cursing
by
Ecclesiasticall
Officers
.
The
Dutch
annotations
leane
this
way
,
telling
us
that
Nehemiah
did
expresse
his
zeale
against
them
as
persons
that
deserved
to
be
banned
or
cut
off
from
the
people
of
God
.
Another
Text
proving
the
Jewish
Excommunication
is
Luke
6.
22.
When
they
shall
separate
you
,
and
shall
reproach
you
,
and
●…ast
out
your
name
as
evill
.
It
was
the
most
misapplied
censure
in
the
world
,
in
respect
of
the
persons
thus
cast
out
;
but
yet
it
proves
the
Jewish
custome
of
casting
out
such
as
they
thought
wicked
and
obstinate
persons
.
This
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Beda
upon
the
place
understandeth
of
casting
out
of
the
Synagogue
,
Separent
&
Synagoga
depellant
&c.
yet
it
is
a
more
generall
and
comprehensive
word
then
the
casting
out
of
the
Synagogue
.
It
comprehendeth
all
the
three
degrees
of
the
Jewish
Excommunication
,
as
Grotius
expounds
the
place
.
Which
agreeth
with
Munsterus
Dictionar
.
Trilingue
,
where
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
is
the
onely
Greeke
word
given
both
for
the
three
Hebrew
words
Niddui
,
Cherem
,
and
Shammata
,
and
for
the
Latine
Excommunicatio
.
Wherefore
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
in
this
place
is
extermino
,
excommunico
,
repudio
,
which
is
one
of
the
usuall
significations
of
the
word
given
by
Stephanus
,
and
by
Scapula
.
It
is
a
word
frequently
used
in
the
Canons
of
the
most
ancient
Councels
,
to
expresse
such
a
separation
as
was
a
Church-censure
,
and
namely
suspension
from
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lords
Supper
.
For
by
the
ancient
Canons
of
the
Councels
,
such
offences
as
were
punished
in
a
Minister
by
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
that
is
deposition
,
were
punished
in
one
of
the
people
by
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
that
is
segregation
or
sequestration
.
Zonaras
upon
the
13th
Canon
of
the
eighth
generall
Councell
,
observeth
a
double
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
used
in
the
ancient
Church
●ne
was
a
totall
separation
or
casting
out
of
the
Church
which
is
usually
called
Excommunication
;
another
was
a
suspension
or
sequestration
from
the
Sacrament
onely
.
Of
which
I
am
to
speak
more
afterward
in
the
third
Booke
.
I
hold
now
at
the
Text
in
hand
,
which
may
be
thus
read
,
according
to
the
sence
and
letter
both
,
when
they
shall
excommunicate
you
,
&c.
Howbeit
the
other
reading
when
they
shall
separate
you
,
holds
forth
the
same
thing
which
I
speake
of
;
separate
,
from
what
?
our
Translators
supply
from
their
company
:
but
from
what
company
of
theirs
?
not
from
their
civill
company
onely
,
but
from
their
▪
sacred
or
Church
assemblies
,
and
from
religious
fellowship
,
it
being
a
Church-censure
and
a
part
of
Ecclesiasticall
discipline
,
in
which
sence
,
as
this
word
frequently
occurreth
in
the
Greeke
fathers
and
ancient
Canons
when
they
speake
of
Church
discipline
,
so
doubtlesse
it
must
be
taken
in
this
place
.
1.
Because
,
as
Grotius
tels
us
,
that
which
made
the
Jewes
the
rather
to
separate
men
in
this
manner
from
their
society
was
the
want
of
the
Civill
coercive
power
of
Magistracy
,
which
sometime
they
had
.
And
I
have
proved
before
that
the
civill
Sanhedrin
which
had
power
of
criminall
and
capitall
judgements
did
remove
from
Ierusalem
,
and
cease
to
execute
such
judgement
,
forty
yeeres
before
the
destruction
of
the
Temple
.
2.
Because
in
all
other
places
of
the
new
Testament
where
the
same
word
is
used
,
it
never
signifieth
a
bare
separation
from
civill
company
,
but
either
a
conscientious
and
religious
separation
by
which
Church
members
did
intend
to
keep
themselves
pure
from
such
as
did
walke
,
(
or
were
conceived
to
walke
)
disorderly
and
scandalously
,
Acts
19.
9.
2
Cor.
6.
17.
Gal.
2.
13.
or
Gods
separating
between
the
godly
and
the
wicked
,
Matth
13.
49.
&
25.
32.
or
the
setting
apart
of
men
to
the
ministery
of
the
Gospell
,
Acts
13.
2.
Rom.
1.
1.
Gal.
1.
15.
Thirdly
,
a
Civill
separation
is
for
a
Civill
injury
;
but
this
separation
is
for
wickednesse
and
impiety
,
whether
accompanied
with
civill
injury
or
no
;
they
shall
cast
out
your
name
as
evill
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
or
as
it
seemes
the
Syriak
and
Arabik
interpreters
did
read
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
tanquam
improborum
,
as
of
wicked
and
evill
men
.
The
sence
is
the
same
.
Thus
farre
of
the
Jewish
Church
,
the
Jewish
Ecclesiasticall
Sanhedrin
,
the
Jewish
Excommunication
.
I
proceed
to
the
Jewish
Exomologesis
or
publike
Confession
of
sinne
.
CHAP.
VIII
.
Of
the
Iewish
Exomologesis
,
or
publike
Declaration
of
Repentance
by
confession
of
sinne
.
AS
there
were
some
footsteps
of
publique
Confession
among
the
Heathens
,
and
namely
among
the
Lacedemonians
:
[
l
](A42757-e26370-b)
l
Lorinus
in
Psal.
31.
5.
ex
Plutarcho
.
who
made
him
that
was
deprehended
in
a
crime
,
to
compasse
the
Altar
,
and
there
to
expresse
his
owne
shame
,
and
to
pronounce
some
disgracefull
words
against
himselfe
.
So
,
I
make
no
doubt
,
they
had
this
(
as
many
other
rites
)
from
an
imitation
of
the
people
of
God
,
who
had
their
owne
Exomologesis
,
and
publique
testimonies
of
Repentance
,
which
may
thus
appeare
.
-
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
for
him
,
Lev.
1.
4.
and
this
was
done
in
the
Tabernacle
publiquely
before
the
Priest
.
Genebrardus
and
Lorinus
in
Psalm
31.
5.
tell
us
out
of
Aben
Ezra
and
other
Rabbinicall
Autors
,
and
ex
libro
Siphri
,
that
when
he
that
brought
the
Sacrifice
,
did
put
his
hands
between
the
hornes
of
the
beast
which
was
to
be
offered
,
he
did
distinctly
commemorate
that
sinne
for
which
he
did
then
repent
,
professing
his
detestation
thereof
,
and
promising
to
do
▪
so
no
more
.
Mr
Ainsworth
on
Levit.
1.
4.
to
the
same
purpose
citeth
out
of
Maimeny
in
treat
.
of
offering
Sacrifices
,
cap.
3.
these
words
.
He
layeth
his
hands
between
the
two
hornes
,
and
confesseth
upon
the
same
offering
,
the
iniquity
of
sinne
,
and
upon
the
trespasse-offering
,
the
iniquity
of
trespasse
:
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
sinne
was
joyned
with
the
laying
on
of
hands
upon
the
Sacrifice
,
is
not
onely
proved
by
the
judgement
of
the
Hebrews
,
understanding
the
Law
in
that
sence
,
but
by
the
Law
it selfe
,
Lev.
16.
21.
where
Aaron
is
commanded
to
lay
his
hands
upon
the
head
of
the
live
Goat
,
and
confesse
over
him
all
the
iniquites
of
the
children
of
Israel
,
and
all
their
transgressions
in
all
their
sinnes
,
putting
them
upon
the
head
of
the
Goat
.
-
Secondly
,
the
Law
appointeth
confession
to
be
made
at
the
bringing
of
Trespasse-offerings
Levit.
5.
and
that
in
three
kinds
of
trespasses
.
-
1
If
one
heare
the
voyce
of
swearing
,
that
is
,
heare
his
neighbour
swearing
or
cursing
,
which
he
ought
to
reveale
:
and
is
a
witnesse
whether
he
hath
seen
or
known
of
it
:
(
that
is
,
whether
he
himselfe
hath
been
present
at
the
cursing
or
reviling
(
of
God
Levit.
24.
10
,
11.
or
of
man
,
2
Sam.
16.
7.
)
or
hath
heard
it
by
relation
from
others
,
and
knowne
it
that
way
.
So
the
Dutch
Annotations
and
the
best
Interpreters
)
if
he
doe
not
utter
it
,
then
he
shall
beare
his
iniquity
.
The
meaning
is
when
one
doth
for
favour
or
malice
(
So
Aretius
and
Pareus
upon
the
place
)
dissemble
the
truth
,
and
conceale
his
knowledge
,
and
so
make
himselfe
partaker
of
other
mens
sinnes
.
Grotius
expounds
it
by
Prov.
29.
Who
so
is
partner
with
a
thiefe
hateth
his
owne
soule
:
he
heareth
a
cursing
and
bewrayeth
it
not
.
In
such
a
case
a
man
did
greatly
scandalize
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
uncleane
thing
,
and
not
being
cleansed
from
his
uncleannesse
[
m
](A42757-e26710-b)
m
See
Ainswarth
upon
the
place
.
did
goe
into
the
Sanctuary
or
touch
an
holy
thing
(
whether
he
knew
himselfe
to
have
touched
the
uncleane
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
uncleannes
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
his
knowledge
,
he
was
held
guilty
till
confession
and
atonement
was
made
.
It
was
not
simply
the
touching
of
an
uncleane
thing
,
for
which
the
confession
and
trespasse-offering
was
appointed
:
Seeing
the
Law
(
saith
Ainsworth
)
maketh
such
uncleane
but
till
evening
Lev.
11.
24
,
31.
when
washing
themselves
and
their
clothes
they
were
cleane
,
and
for
uncleannesse
by
a
dead
man
,
the
sprinkling
water
cleansed
them
,
Num.
19.
17
,
18
,
19.
Wherefore
he
resolveth
out
of
the
Hebrew
Doctors
,
that
this
confession
of
sinne
,
and
the
trespasse-offering
was
required
in
case
an
uncleane
person
in
his
uncleannesse
came
to
the
Sanctuary
,
or
did
eate
of
an
holy
thing
.
-
3
If
one
had
sworne
unadvisedly
,
as
David
,
1
Sam.
25.
22.
Herod
,
Mark
6.
23.
those
conspirators
against
Paul
,
Acts
23.
21.
(
which
are
the
examples
given
in
the
Dutch
Annotations
,
and
they
are
examples
of
scandals
)
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
knowes
or
remembers
well
the
thing
.
Or
thus
;
If
a
man
had
sworne
an
oath
to
doe
a
thing
,
or
not
to
doe
it
,
and
afterward
falsified
his
oath
,
either
because
he
could
not
doe
what
he
had
rashly
sworne
,
or
because
he
was
unwilling
to
doe
it
,
or
because
he
neglected
to
doe
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
scandall
.
In
any
of
these
three
cases
,
a
man
was
to
confesse
his
sinne
,
when
he
brought
his
trespasse-offering
,
and
the
offering
was
not
accepted
without
confession
:
Lev.
5.
5.
And
it
shall
be
,
when
he
shall
be
guilty
in
one
of
these
things
,
that
he
shall
confesse
that
he
hath
sinned
in
that
thing
.
And
he
shall
bring
his
trespasse-offering
,
&c.
[
n
](A42757-e26870-b)
n
Bucer
.
scripta
Anglicana
▪
pag.
310.
Nunc
autem
legimus
▪
Lev.
4
,
5.
&
6.
Deum
populo
suo
ordin●sse
ac
mandasse
:
si
quos
de
populo
,
de
sacerdotibus
,
aut
principibus
,
aut
si
etiam
populus
universus
aliquid
fortè
deliquisset
contra
mand●a
sua
,
seu
faciendo
quae
ipse
vetuerat
,
seu
omittendo
quae
praeceperat
;
ut
tales
ante
se
in
ecclesia
sua
,
&
coram
sacerdote
comparerent
,
ibi
peccatum
suum
confiterentur
,
veniam
pererent
,
oblationes
suas
offerrent
,
&
hoc
modo
per
sacerdotem
recoaciliationem
consequerentur
.
idque
haud
dubiè
non
absque
seria
humiliatione
,
planctu
,
&
jejunio
.
This
confession
was
made
in
the
Priests
hearing
,
and
not
to
God
alone
,
as
Mr
Prynne
affirmeth
Vindic.
pag.
17.
For
,
1.
It
was
a
cereomoniall
Law
,
concerning
the
externall
worship
of
God
,
and
a
part
of
the
Law
of
trespasse-offerings
.
He
might
as
well
have
said
,
that
the
Trespasse-offering
was
made
to
God
alone
,
without
the
presence
of
the
Priest
or
any
other
▪
2.
He
himselfe
doth
not
deny
(
but
intimate
)
that
till
such
confession
was
made
,
a
man
was
not
admitted
to
make
atonement
by
trespasse-offerings
.
And
so
doe
the
Jewes
understand
the
Law
of
confession
,
as
we
shall
heare
by
and
by
.
Now
how
could
it
be
knowne
,
whether
a
man
had
confessed
any
thing
at
all
,
if
it
was
secretly
,
and
to
God
alone
?
3.
The
sinnes
to
be
confessed
,
were
oft
times
scandalous
and
knowne
to
others
,
(
as
hath
been
cleared
.
)
Therefore
the
confession
was
to
be
knowne
to
others
also
.
4
That
this
confession
(
not
private
and
auricular
,
but
publique
and
penitentiall
)
was
made
in
the
Temple
,
before
and
in
the
hearing
of
the
Priest
,
I
prove
from
Philo
the
Jew
.
In
his
booke
de
sacr.
Abelis
&
Caini
,
at
the
close
,
speaking
of
the
Levites
ministery
,
he
saith
,
that
he
did
execute
and
performe
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
all
those
services
which
belong
to
a
perfect
Priesthood
,
and
to
the
bringing
of
man
to
God
,
whether
by
burnt-offerings
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
aut
pro
peccatis
quorum
paenitet
saith
Gelenius
the
Interpreter
,
meaning
the
trespasse-offerings
.
But
observe
further
,
he
speaks
of
the
penitentiall
part
,
as
a
publique
thing
,
or
rather
of
the
publique
declaration
of
repentance
.
Repentance
of
sinnes
,
that
is
,
repentance
declared
or
professed
(
which
was
in
the
confession
joyned
with
the
trespasse-offerings
)
was
one
of
the
chiefe
things
about
which
the
Leviticall
ministery
was
exercised
:
which
is
the
cleare
sence
of
the
place
.
More
plainly
,
the
same
Philo
lib.
de
victimis
towards
the
close
,
where
he
tels
that
certaine
parts
of
the
trespasse-offerings
were
eaten
by
the
Priests
,
and
that
these
must
be
eaten
in
the
Temple
,
he
gives
this
reason
for
it
,
lest
the
penitents
sinne
and
shame
should
be
divulged
and
punished
more
then
needs
must
,
which
intimateth
that
the
particular
offence
was
so
confessed
that
it
was
made
knowne
to
such
as
were
within
the
Temple
.
The
third
Scripturall
proofe
is
Num.
5.
6
,
7.
When
a
man
or
a
woman
shall
commit
any
sinne
that
men
commit
,
to
doe
a
trespasse
against
the
Lord
,
and
that
person
be
guilty
,
Then
they
shall
confesse
their
sinne
which
they
have
done
:
and
he
shall
recompence
his
trespasse
,
&c.
The
Hebrews
expound
it
thus
:
All
the
precepts
in
the
Law
,
whether
they
command
or
forbid
a
thing
,
if
a
man
transgresse
against
any
one
of
them
,
either
presumptuously
or
ignorantly
,
when
he
maketh
repentance
and
turneth
from
his
sinne
,
he
is
bound
to
confesse
before
the
blessed
God
,
as
in
Numb
.
5.
7.
This
confession
is
with
words
,
and
it
is
commanded
to
be
done
.
How
doe
they
confesse
?
He
saith
,
Oh
God
,
I
have
sinned
,
I
have
done
perversely
,
I
have
trespassed
before
thee
,
and
have
done
thus
and
thus
:
and
loe
I
repent
,
and
am
ashamed
of
my
doings
:
and
I
will
never
doe
this
thing
againe
.
And
this
is
the
foundation
of
confession
.
And
who
so
maketh
a
large
confession
,
and
is
long
in
this
thing
,
he
is
to
be
commended
.
And
so
the
owners
of
sinne
and
trespasse-offerings
,
when
they
bring
their
oblations
for
their
ignorant
or
for
their
presumptuous
sinnes
:
atonement
is
not
made
for
them
by
their
oblation
,
untill
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
,
untill
they
have
repented
and
confessed
.
And
so
he
that
hurteth
his
Neighbour
,
or
doth
him
dammage
,
though
he
pay
him
whatsoever
he
oweth
him
,
atonement
is
not
made
for
him
,
tell
he
confesse
and
turne
away
from
doing
so
againe
for
ever
,
as
it
is
written
in
Num.
5.
6.
Any
of
all
the
sinnes
of
men
.
All
this
Ainsworth
transcribeth
out
of
Maimony
in
Misn.
treat
.
of
Repentance
,
Chap.
1.
Sect.
1.
See
also
the
Latin
Edition
of
the
Jewish
Canons
of
Repentance
Printed
at
Cambridge
Ann.
1631.
Where
beside
that
passage
in
the
first
Chapter
,
concerning
the
necessity
of
confessing
by
word
of
mouth
,
that
sinne
for
which
the
Trespasse
offering
was
brought
,
you
have
another
plaine
passage
,
cap.
2.
for
(
[
o
](A42757-e27110-b)
o
Eximia
l●us
est
paenitentiam
agenti
,
ut
publicè
confiteatur
,
iniquitates
suas
toti
caetui
indicans
,
&
delicta
quae
in
proximum
admisit
,
aliis
aperiens
hunc
in
modum
.
Revera
peccavi
in
N.
N.
(
virum
nominans
)
&
haec
vell
illa
feci
:
Ecce
autem
me
vobis
nunc
convertor
,
&
me
facti
paenitet
.
Qui
vero
prae
super●ia
non
indicat
,
sed
abscondit
iniquitates
suas
▪
ill●
perfecta
non
est
paenitentia
:
quia
dicitur
,
Qui
abscondit
scelera
sua
,
non
dirigetur
.
Haec
dicta
intelligenda
sunt
de
peccatis
quae
in
proximum
admittuntur
.
Verum
in
transgressionibus
quae
sunt
hominis
in
Deum
,
non
necesse
est
cuiquam
seipsum
propalare
:
Quin
imò
perfrictae
frontis
est
,
illiusmodi
peccata
revelare
:
Sed
in
conspectu
Dei
paenitentiam
agit
,
&
coram
illo
peccata
haec
speciatim
recenset
.
)
publike
confession
(
not
of
private
sinnes
known
to
God
onely
,
but
)
of
known
sinnes
by
which
others
were
scandalized
.
In
which
passage
I
nnderstand
by
sinnes
against
God
,
sinnes
known
to
God
onely
.
1.
Because
its
forbidden
to
reveale
those
sinnes
,
therefore
they
were
secret
.
2.
Because
otherwise
those
Canons
shall
contradict
themselves
,
for
cap.
1.
it
's
told
us
that
all
who
brought
trepasse
offerings
,
were
bound
to
confesse
by
word
of
mouth
,
the
sinne
which
they
had
done
,
without
which
confession
,
they
got
not
leave
to
make
atonement
by
the
trespasse-offering
.
Now
trespasse
offerings
were
for
sinnes
against
God
as
well
as
for
sinnes
against
man
.
3.
It
should
otherwise
contradict
the
Law
Num.
5.
6.
which
appointeth
any
sinne
or
trespasse
against
the
Lord
to
be
confessed
.
4.
Those
trespasses
were
to
be
publikely
confessed
,
for
which
in
case
of
impenitency
and
obstinacy
,
a
man
was
excommunicated
with
Cherem
,
or
the
greater
Excommunication
.
But
a
man
was
excommunicated
for
divers
sinnes
against
God
,
which
did
not
at
all
wrong
his
Neighbour
,
setting
a
side
the
scandall
.
Which
I
have
proved
before
.
These
four
reasons
will
prove
either
that
the
meaning
of
that
Canon
must
be
of
private
sinnes
,
and
not
of
publike
and
scandalous
sinnes
against
the
first
Table
:
or
otherwise
that
the
Canon
is
contrary
to
and
inconsistent
with
both
Scripture
,
Reason
,
and
other
Rabbinnicall
writings
.
From
the
Law
Num.
5.
thus
explained
,
observe
concerning
the
Confession
of
sinne
.
1.
It
was
for
any
scandalous
sinne
,
of
commission
or
omission
against
the
first
or
second
Table
.
2.
It
was
not
free
and
voluntary
to
the
offender
.
I
doe
not
say
that
he
w●s
compelled
to
it
by
any
externall
Force
or
coercive
power
:
but
he
was
commanded
and
obliged
by
the
Law
to
confesse
;
Vatablus
on
Num.
5.
7.
Fatebuntur
1.
●
.
t●…nebuntur
fateri
,
they
shall
confesse
,
that
is
,
they
shall
be
bound
to
confesse
:
and
a
man
was
not
admitted
with
his
trespasse
offering
except
he
confessed
.
3.
It
was
done
by
word
of
mouth
.
4.
And
publikely
before
the
Congregation
that
were
present
.
5.
[
p
](A42757-e27220-b)
p
Hanc
〈◊〉
confessionem
Hebraei
vocant
confessionem
super
peccato
singulari
,
quia
in
aliis
sacrificiis
siebat
confessio
peccatorum
generalis
,
saith
●atablus
upon
the
place
.
The
particular
trespasse
was
named
in
the
Confession
.
6.
Sinnes
both
of
Ignorance
and
Malice
,
when
scandalous
,
were
to
be
confessed
.
7.
The
sinner
was
not
slinted
to
a
Prescript
forme
of
words
in
Confession
,
but
was
to
enlarge
his
confession
,
as
his
heart
was
enlarged
.
8.
In
Criminall
and
Capitall
cases
,
beside
the
civill
or
corporall
punishment
,
confession
was
to
be
made
,
because
of
the
scandall
which
had
been
given
.
Which
doth
further
appeare
from
the
Talmud
it selfe
in
Sanhedrin
.
cap.
6.
Sect.
2.
for
that
is
observed
in
all
who
are
put
to
death
,
that
they
must
confesse
;
for
whoever
doth
confesse
he
hath
part
in
the
world
to
come
;
and
namely
it
is
recorded
of
Achan
,
that
Joshua
said
to
him
,
my
Sonne
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
is
it
collected
that
his
confession
did
expiate
his
sinne
.
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
Achans
confession
was
not
in
the
Sanctuary
,
nor
at
a
Trespasse
offering
.
But
I
make
mention
of
it
because
[
q
](A42757-e27380-b)
q
Confirm
.
Thes.
pag.
106.
113.
Erastus
holdeth
that
under
the
Law
,
confession
was
onely
required
in
such
cases
,
where
the
sinne
was
not
criminall
or
capitall
.
Which
is
confuted
by
the
afore-mentioned
passages
in
Maimonides
and
the
Talmud
it selfe
:
proving
that
whether
the
sinne
was
expiated
by
Sacrifice
or
by
death
,
it
was
alwayes
to
be
confessed
;
from
the
same
example
of
Achan
doth
P.
[
r
](A42757-e27450-b)
r
Ex
●o
quod
in
libro
Joma
,
id
est
,
dierum
,
in
capite
,
jom
h●kippurim
,
id
est
,
dies
propitiationum
,
ita
scribitur
.
Dixit
Rab.
Hunna
:
Omnis
qui
transgressione
transgressus
est
,
necesse
est
ut
singulatim
exprimat
peccatum
.
Galatinus
lib.
10.
cap.
3.
prove
that
Declaration
of
repentance
was
to
be
made
by
word
of
mouth
,
and
that
the
sinne
was
to
be
particularly
confessed
,
which
he
further
proveth
by
another
rabbinicall
passage
.
In
the
fourth
place
,
Io.
9.
24.
seemeth
to
hold
forth
a
judiciall
publike
confession
of
sinne
to
have
been
required
of
scandalous
sinners
.
The
Pharisees
being
upon
an
examination
of
him
that
was
born
blind
,
and
was
made
to
see
,
they
labour
to
drive
him
so
farre
from
confessing
Christ
,
as
to
confesse
sinne
and
wicked
collusion
,
Give
God
the
Praise
say
they
,
we
know
that
this
man
is
a
sinner
.
Which
is
to
be
expounded
by
Ios.
7.
19.
Give
glory
to
the
Lord
God
of
Israel
,
and
make
confession
.
Fifthly
,
as
the
Jewes
had
an
Excommunication
,
so
they
had
an
absolution
,
and
that
which
interveened
was
Confession
and
Declaration
of
Repentance
.
And
hence
came
the
Arabik
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
nadam
,
he
hath
repented
;
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
nadim
a
penitent
,
the
Niddui
made
the
nadim
:
for
when
a
man
was
excommunicated
by
the
lesser
Excommunication
,
[
s
](A42757-e27620-b)
s
Seld.
de
jure
nat
.
&
Gentium
lib.
4.
cap.
8.
Pro
diversitate
peccati
&
peccantis
moribus
,
nunc
citius
nunc
serius
sequebatur
absolutio
.
Sed
ut
plurimum
excommunicatio
fiebat
in
diem
tricesimum
&c.
Intra
hoc
tempus
exspectabat
forum
ut
ad
Bonam
●ediret
.
mentem
,
〈◊〉
,
&
quae
juberent
ipsi
praestaret
&c.
Post
trignta
di●um
contumaciam
,
idem
tempus
semel
i●erabatur
&c
▪
At
vero
s●
▪
neque
intra
id
spatii
paenitens
absolutionem
pe●eret
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Cherem
seu
Anathemate
feriebatur
.
the
Consistory
waited
first
30.
dayes
,
and
then
other
30.
dayes
,
and
as
some
thinke
(
the
third
time
)
30.
dayes
,
to
see
whether
the
offender
were
penitent
,
(
which
could
not
be
known
without
confession
)
and
would
seek
absolution
:
which
if
he
did
not
,
but
continued
obstinate
&
impenitent
,
then
they
proceeded
to
the
greater
excommunication
.
Which
doth
prove
a
publike
Confession
,
at
least
in
the
case
of
the
excommunicated
.
Sixthly
,
we
find
a
publike
penitentiall
confession
Ezra
.
10.
10.
11.
And
Ezra
the
Priest
stood
up
and
said
unto
them
,
ye
have
transgressed
and
have
taken
strange
wives
to
encrease
the
trespasse
of
Israel
.
Now
therefore
make
confession
unto
the
Lord
God
of
your
Fathers
,
and
doe
his
pleasure
,
and
separate
your selves
from
the
people
of
the
land
,
and
from
the
strange
wives
.
Marke
here
the
foresaking
of
the
sinne
could
not
su●fice
without
confessing
the
sinne
.
All
Israel
had
sworne
and
covenanted
to
doe
the
thing
,
to
put
away
the
strange
wives
vers.
5.
But
Ezra
the
Priest
tells
them
they
must
also
make
confession
of
their
sinne
;
confession
of
their
former
trespasse
must
be
joyned
with
Reformation
for
the
future
:
All
which
the
people
promise
to
doe
as
Ezra
had
said
vers.
12.
But
what
was
this
confession
?
was
it
onely
a
private
confession
to
God
alone
?
or
was
it
onely
a
generall
confession
made
by
the
whole
congregration
of
Israel
at
a
solemne
Fast
and
humiliation
?
Nay
,
that
there
was
a
third
sort
of
Confession
differing
from
both
these
,
appeareth
by
vers.
13.
neither
is
this
a
worke
of
one
day
or
two
:
for
we
are
many
that
have
transgressed
in
this
thing
;
yea
,
three
Moneths
are
spent
in
the
businesse
,
vers.
16
,
17.
during
which
space
,
all
that
had
taken
strange
wives
,
came
at
appointed
times
out
of
every
City
,
and
were
successively
examined
by
Ezra
the
Priest
and
certaine
chiefe
of
the
Fathers
and
Levites
,
(
such
of
both
,
as
were
not
themselves
guilty
)
before
whom
such
as
were
found
guilty
did
make
Confession
:
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
offerered
a
Ram
of
the
Flock
for
their
trespasse
.
With
which
trespasse
offering
confession
was
ever
joyned
,
as
hath
been
before
shewed
from
the
Law
.
Seventhly
,
Master
Hildersham
of
worthy
memory
in
his
34.
Lecture
upon
Psal.
51.
draweth
a●
Argument
from
Davids
example
for
the
publike
Confession
of
a
scandalous
sinne
before
the
Church
,
He
made
,
saith
he
,
publike
Confession
of
his
sinne
to
the
Congregation
and
Church
of
God
;
for
we
see
in
the
Title
of
this
Psalme
.
1.
That
he
committed
this
Psalme
(
that
containeth
the
acknowledgement
of
his
sinne
,
and
profession
of
his
repentance
)
to
the
chief
musitian
to
be
published
in
the
Sanctuary
and
Temple
.
2
That
in
this
publication
of
his
Repentance
,
he
hideth
not
from
the
Church
his
sinne
,
nor
cloketh
it
at
all
,
but
expresseth
in
particular
the
speciall
sinne
,
&c.
Adde
hereunto
,
this
publike
Confession
was
made
after
ministeriall
conviction
by
Nathan
,
who
did
convince
David
of
the
greatnesse
of
that
scandalous
sinne
,
in
which
he
had
then
continued
impenitent
neer
a
yeer
or
thereabout
.
The
Doctrin
which
Master
Hildersham
draweth
from
Davids
example
is
this
,
That
they
whose
sinnes
God
hath
detected
and
brought
to
light
,
whose
sinnes
are
publike
and
notorious
,
scandalous
and
offensive
to
the
congregations
where
they
live
,
ought
to
be
willing
to
confesse
their
sins
publikely
,
to
make
their
Repentance
as
publike
and
notorious
as
their
sinne
is
.
He
addeth
in
his
explanation
,
when
they
shall
be
required
to
doe
it
by
the
Discipline
of
the
Church
.
Marke
one
of
his
applications
(
which
is
the
Subject
of
the
37.
Lecture
)
The
second
sort
that
are
to
be
reproved
by
this
Doctrine
,
are
such
as
having
authority
to
enjoyne
publike
Repentance
to
scandalous
sinners
,
for
the
satisfying
of
the
Congregation
,
when
they
are
detected
and
presented
unto
them
,
refuse
or
neglect
to
doe
it
.
And
here
he
complaineth
,
that
the
publike
acknowledgement
of
scandalous
sinnes
,
was
grown
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.
straightly
charge
every
Minister
,
That
he
shall
not
in
any
wise
admit
to
the
Communion
,
any
of
his
flock
which
be
openly
known
to
live
in
sinne
notorious
without
Repentance
.
And
the
Booke
of
Common
Prayer
in
the
rubrike
before
the
Communion
,
commandeth
,
that
if
any
be
an
open
and
notorious
evill
liver
,
so
that
the
Congregation
by
him
is
offended
,
the
Minister
shall
call
him
,
and
advertise
him
in
any
wise
,
not
to
presume
to
the
Lords
Table
,
till
he
hath
openly
declared
himself
,
to
have
truly
repented
,
that
the
Congregation
may
thereby
be
satisfied
,
which
were
afore
offended
.
So
that
you
may
see
the
Lawes
and
Discipline
of
our
Church
,
require
that
open
and
scandalous
sinners
should
d●…e
open
and
publike
Repentance
▪
yea
,
give
power
to
the
Minister
to
repell
and
keepe
back
such
from
the
Communion
that
refuse
to
doe
it
.
Where
it
may
be
observed
by
the
way
,
that
the
Power
of
Elder-ships
for
suspending
scandalous
persons
(
not
Excommunicated
)
from
the
Sacrament
,
now
so
much
contented
against
by
Master
Prynne
,
is
but
the
same
Power
which
was
granted
by
authority
to
the
Ministery
,
even
in
the
prelaticall
times
.
And
he
hath
upon
the
matter
endeavoured
to
bring
the
Consciences
of
a
whole
Elder-ship
into
a
greater
servitude
under
this
present
Reformation
,
then
the
Conscience
of
a
single
Minister
was
formerly
brought
under
by
Law
in
this
particular
.
Eightly
,
Master
Hildersham
Ibid.
Lect.
34.
argueth
not
onely
●…
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
owne
words
are
very
well
worth
the
transcribing
.
This
is
evident
by
those
two
Laws
Lev.
6.
5.
6.
and
Num.
5.
6.
8.
where
God
plainly
taught
his
people
,
that
their
trespasse
offering
which
they
brought
to
him
,
to
seeke
pardon
of
any
sinne
,
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
le●…t
we
should
thinke
those
Lawes
concerned
the
Jewes
onely
,
our
Saviour
himselfe
giveth
this
in
charge
Matth.
5.
23.
24.
If
thou
bringest
thy
Gift
to
the
Altar
,
and
there
remembrest
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
Gift
.
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
halfe
said
,
Josh.
22.
The
Lord
God
of
Gods
he
knoweth
,
and
Israel
he
shall
know
.
Thus
Master
Hildersham
.
CHAP.
IX
.
Whether
in
the
Iewish
Church
,
there
was
any
Suspension
or
exclusion
of
prophane
,
scandalous
,
notorious
sinners
,
from
partaking
in
the
publike
Ordinances
,
with
the
rest
of
the
Children
of
Israel
in
the
Temple
.
ERastus
and
his
followers
hold
,
that
among
the
Jewes
none
was
excluded
from
any
publike
Ordinance
in
the
Temple
,
for
morall
uncleanesse
,
that
is
,
for
a
prophane
scandalous
conversation
,
but
onely
for
legall
or
ceremoniall
uncleanesse
.
The
like
Master
Prynne
saith
of
the
Passeover
,
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
particularly
make
Answer
both
to
Erastus
and
to
Master
Prynne
in
this
point
,
when
they
shall
fall
in
my
way
afterward
.
I
shall
here
,
more
generally
endeavour
to
rectifie
their
great
mistake
,
and
to
prove
an
exclusion
from
the
Temple
and
publike
Ordinances
,
for
publike
and
scandalous
offences
in
life
and
conversation
,
or
for
morall
as
well
as
ceremoniall
uncleanesse
.
First
,
I
shall
prove
it
ex
ore
duorum
,
from
the
Testimonies
of
two
of
the
most
famous
witnesses
of
the
Jewes
themselves
,
Philo
and
Iosephus
.
[
t
](A42757-e28240-b)
t
Offerenti
victimas
le●
praecipit
,
ut
p●rus
fiat
corpore
ac
animo
.
Et
infra
.
Necessum
est
igitur
adituros
Templum
sacr●rum
gratia
,
&
corpore
nitidos
esse
,
&
multo
magis
anima
.
●
&c.
nam
veri
Dei
Templum
non
patet
prophanis
sacrificiis
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
)
Et
post
.
an
dubium
est
,
neque
legem
quicquam
ab
injustis
,
neque
solem
à
tenebris
accipere
?
Et
versus
finem
.
Caeterum
quia
societatem
humanitatemque
(
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
)
maximè
docet
lex
nostra
,
utrique
vir●ti
honorem
habet
meritum
,
neminem
deplorate
malum
ad
eas
admittens
,
sed
quàm
longissimè
in
rem
malam
ablegans
.
Cum
igitur
sciret
concionibus
(
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
)
admisceri
multos
improbos
,
quòd
se
posse
in
turba
latere
autument
,
ut
id
caveret
in
posterum
,
omnes
indignos
à
sacro
caetu
edicto
prohibint
(
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
)
incipiens
à
semiviris
obscaeno
〈◊〉
laborantibus
,
qui
naturae
monetam
adulterantes
,
in
impudicarum
mulierum
affectum
&
formam
sponte
degenerant
.
Spadones
item
&
castratos
arcet
&c.
Pariter
repellit
non
tantum
scorta
,
sed
&
natos
è
prostitutis
,
contactos
materno
dedecore
propter
natales
adulterinos
.
&c.
Alii
vero
quasi
contendant
hos
in
impietatis
stadio
post
se
relinquere
,
addunt
amplius
,
ut
non
solùm
ideas
,
sed
&
deum
esse
negent
.
Et
post
.
Proinde
omnes
hi
meritò
pelluntur
à
sacris
c●ibus
,
(
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
)
Philo
lib
de
Victimas
offerentibus
,
is
so
full
and
plaine
,
as
if
he
had
purposely
written
that
Booke
to
record
the
exclusion
of
scandalous
persons
from
Communion
with
the
Church
of
Israel
in
the
Temple
.
He
presseth
all
along
the
necessity
of
holinesse
and
purity
in
those
who
bring
Sacrifices
,
and
tells
us
that
their
Law
did
exclude
from
their
holy
Assemblies
meretricious
persons
,
despisers
of
God
,
and
all
that
were
known
to
be
impious
and
prophane
,
as
well
as
those
who
were
legally
uncleane
.
The
same
thing
may
be
confirmed
out
of
Iosephus
,
[
u
](A42757-e28380-b)
u
Antiq.
lib.
19.
cap.
●
.
libenter
&
continuò
degebat
(
Agrippa
)
Hierosolymis
,
institutorum
ac
rituum
patriae
servator
religiosissimus
▪
〈◊〉
enim
●rat
â
contaminamentis
omnibus
,
nec
ulla
dies
ei
praeteribat
absque
sacrificio
.
Accidit
aliquando
ut
quidam
Hierosolymita
legis
peri●s
,
nomine
Simon
,
advocata
concione
,
per
regis
absentiam
,
agentis
●um
Caesareae
,
crimina●etur
illum
●t
impurum
&
arcendum
templi
aditu
,
quod
non
ni●i
dignis
pateat
.
Id
ubi
praefectus
u●bis
illi
significavit
per
literas
,
confestim
accersivit
hominem
&c.
Di●
mihi
inquit
,
quid
ribi
non
probatur
ex
his
quae
●acimus
.
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
be
suffered
to
enter
into
the
Temple
.
Iosephus
gives
a
good
Testimony
to
Agrippa
,
that
he
was
unjustly
accused
.
Agrippa
himselfe
sends
for
Simon
,
and
askes
him
what
he
had
ever
done
which
deserved
such
an
accusation
.
But
neither
Agrippa
himselfe
,
nor
Iosephus
,
saith
one
syllable
to
this
purpose
,
that
the
excluding
of
a
man
from
the
Temple
for
prophanenesse
and
impiety
was
a
new
Arbitrary
censure
,
contrary
to
the
law
or
custome
of
the
Jewes
:
which
(
no
doubt
)
they
had
done
,
if
there
had
been
any
ground
for
them
to
say
so
.
Their
very
pleading
of
innocency
,
and
no
more
,
tacitely
confirmeth
that
if
guilty
,
it
had
been
just
to
exclude
from
the
Temple
.
Againe
de
bello
Jud.
lib.
4.
cap.
5.
Iosephus
records
that
Ananus
the
high
Priest
(
whom
cap.
7.
He
highly
commends
for
good
government
)
had
an
oration
to
the
Jewes
against
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
the
zelots
,
who
under
colour
of
that
name
,
which
they
took
to
themselves
,
committed
a
great
deale
of
injustice
and
violence
.
He
said
with
tears
,
I
had
rather
dye
then
see
the
house
of
God
filled
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
with
such
crimes
(
or
criminall
persons
)
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
and
the
forbidden
and
holy
places
to
be
haunted
and
trode
with
the
feet
of
those
who
are
polluted
with
murthers
:
speaking
of
those
zelots
.
What
can
be
more
plaine
;
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
a
piacular
crime
,
was
a
cause
of
keeping
back
from
the
Temple
(
even
as
also
among
the
Heathens
,
some
were
for
piacular
crimes
interdicted
the
Sacrifices
)
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
blood-guiltinesse
,
defilement
by
murther
,
was
also
a
cause
of
exclusion
from
the
Temple
,
and
to
such
the
Temple
was
a
place
inaccessible
and
forbidden
.
I
adde
a
Testimony
of
I.
Scaliger
Elench.
Trihaeres
.
Nic.
Terar
.
cap.
28.
where
speaking
of
those
Essaeans
who
did
not
observe
the
Mosaicall
rites
,
he
saith
,
Itaque
non
mirum
,
si
tanquam
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
&
piaculares
aditu
Templi
prohibebantur
.
The
like
Constantinus
l'Empereur
annot.
in
Cod.
Middoth
pag
44.
proves
from
another
passage
in
Iosephus
:
vi●…i
autem
qui
non
per
omnia
cas●…i
essent
ab
interiori
aula
prohibebantur
.
Where
l'Empereur
addeth
,
In
spacii
descripti
partem
interiorem
non
admittebant
quoque
haereticum
:
which
he
saith
may
be
proved
out
of
the
Talmud
.
Quis
enim
dicat
(
saith
Hen.
Vorstius
,
animad.
in
Pirke
pag.
169.
)
apostatam
,
blasphemum
,
aliaque
sacra
capita
intra
Templum
fuisse
admissa
.
Of
the
exclusion
of
excommunicate
persons
I
have
before
spoken
,
following
their
opinion
who
hold
,
that
such
as
were
excommunicate
by
the
lesser
Excommunication
or
Niddui
,
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
Cherem
were
not
suffered
to
come
into
the
Temple
,
nor
so
much
as
into
any
assembly
of
ten
men
,
and
they
might
neither
teach
nor
be
taught
.
[
x
](A42757-e28770-b)
x
Annot
▪
in
Luk.
6.
22.
Qui
hac
nota
(
minoris
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
five
Niddui
)
inusti
erant
,
s●ante
Templo
,
accedebant
ad
Templum
,
ut
ex
Hebraeis
vir
doctus
notavit
:
sed
haud
dubiè
consistebant
extra
●
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
qui
distingueb●t
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
▪
ab
Israelitis
.
Nam
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
interim
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
lo●o
habebantur
.
Grotius
holds
that
such
as
were
excommunicated
by
Niddui
or
the
lesser
Excommunication
had
power
to
come
to
the
Temple
,
but
no
otherwise
then
Heathens
,
and
that
they
might
not
come
into
the
Court
of
Israel
:
which
is
an
answer
to
M.
Prynnes
objection
,
that
such
as
were
cast
out
of
the
Synagogue
came
to
the
Temple
.
There
are
but
two
places
in
the
new
Testament
,
which
seem
at
first
to
make
much
against
that
which
I
have
said
.
One
is
,
Luke
18.
concerning
the
Publicans
going
up
to
the
Temple
to
pray
,
as
well
as
the
Pharisee
.
The
other
is
Iohn
8.
concerning
the
woman
taken
in
adultery
,
whom
they
brought
before
Christ
in
the
Temple
.
I
remember
[
y
](A42757-e28910-b)
y
Confirm
Thes.
lib.
1.
cap.
2.
pag.
99.
and
elsewhere
.
Erastus
objecteth
them
both
.
To
the
first
I
answer
,
it
rather
confirmeth
then
confuteth
what
I
have
said
.
For
1.
The
Text
saith
,
Vers.
13.
the
Publican
stood
afarre
off
:
the
Pharisee
not
so
.
[
z
](A42757-e28970-b)
z
Nam
mos
id●●erebat
ut
Publicani
in
atrio
.
Gentilium
,
Pharisaei
in
atrio
Israelitarum
sta●nt
,
nec
quicquam
in
●o
erat
insolitum
au●
Pharisaeo
imputandum
.
Grotius
upon
the
place
,
Verse
11.
noteth
,
that
the
Pharisees
fault
was
not
in
this
particular
,
that
he
came
further
into
the
Temple
then
the
Publican
:
for
the
custome
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
18.
is
also
of
opinion
that
the
Publican
stood
in
the
Court
of
the
Gentiles
,
or
in
that
first
Court
into
which
Iosephus
lib.
2.
contra
Appion
.
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
will
never
be
able
to
doe
)
yet
this
place
helpes
them
not
at
all
,
unlesse
they
can
prove
that
this
was
a
scandalous
and
prophane
Publican
.
It
is
certaine
that
divers
of
the
Publicans
were
religious
and
devout
men
,
and
that
this
was
one
of
them
,
we
may
more
then
conjecturally
know
,
by
the
Pharisees
owne
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
himselfe
not
onely
to
the
infamous
and
scandalous
Publicans
,
but
even
to
this
devout
Publican
.
More
of
this
place
afterward
,
in
the
debate
of
Matth.
18.
To
the
other
objection
from
Iohn
8.
2
,
3.
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
[
a
](A42757-e29070-b)
a
Sanè
cum
Servator
in
Templo
d●cuisse
cap.
8.
Joh.
legitur
,
quò
mulierem
depraehensam
Pharisaei
ipsi
adduxerunt
;
alium
locum
praeter
hunc
qui
●at
extra
a
tria
,
designati
credere
nequeo
:
quandequidem
è
Josepho
obs●vatum
jam
suit
,
impu●is
atria
adire
fa●
non
fuisse
.
Const.
l'Empereur
annot.
in
Cod.
Middoth
cap.
2.
pag.
45.
by
the
Temple
,
in
that
place
,
we
are
to
understand
the
Intermurale
,
the
utter
Court
,
or
Court
of
the
Gentiles
,
which
was
without
the
Court
of
Israel
,
which
utter
Court
(
saith
he
)
both
the
Evangelists
and
Iosephus
call
by
the
name
of
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
the
Temple
.
Yea
the
whole
mountaine
of
the
Temple
,
even
comprehending
that
part
of
it
which
was
without
the
Intermurale
,
had
the
name
of
the
Temple
,
as
M.
Selden
noteth
de
Jure
nat
.
&
Gent.
l.
3.
c.
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
Iohn
8.
because
V.
2.
tels
us
,
it
was
in
the
place
where
all
the
people
came
unto
Jesus
,
and
he
taught
them
.
Now
it
is
certaine
that
both
Christ
and
his
Apostles
did
often
teach
the
people
in
the
Coutt
of
the
Gentiles
,
and
in
Solomons
porch
,
which
was
without
the
Court
of
Israel
,
in
the
Intermurale
,
that
all
might
have
the
better
occasion
of
hearing
the
Gospell
,
even
they
who
were
not
permitted
to
enter
into
the
Court
of
Israel
.
Wherefore
since
the
Text
tels
us
,
that
when
the
Pharisees
brought
the
woman
to
Christ
,
he
was
teaching
in
such
a
place
,
where
all
the
people
had
accesse
to
heare
him
:
this
agreeth
better
to
the
Intermurale
,
then
to
the
Court
of
Israel
.
Secondly
,
I
answer
,
that
woman
did
not
come
as
a
priviledged
person
,
free
to
come
and
worship
●in
the
Court
of
Israel
,
with
the
Church
of
Israel
;
but
she
is
brought
as
an
accused
person
,
that
in
the
most
publique
and
shamefull
manner
she
might
be
sentenced
and
condemned
,
and
made
vile
before
all
the
people
:
so
that
it
was
in
her
paena
,
non
privilegium
.
[
b
](A42757-e29340-b)
b
P.
Cuneu●
de
▪
repub
.
Hebr.
lib.
1.
cap.
12.
Concilii
magni
sedes
in
ipso
●anctuario
fuit
.
The
Sanhedrin
also
did
sit
in
the
Temple
,
so
that
such
as
were
to
be
examined
and
judged
,
must
be
brought
to
that
place
where
the
Sanhedrin
was
,
which
sate
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
judged
,
who
were
not
admitted
to
the
Ordinances
of
worship
in
the
Court
of
Israel
.
Even
as
the
prohibition
of
reading
atheisticall
or
hereticall
bookes
,
Sanhedrin
cap.
11.
sect.
1.
was
not
violated
by
the
Councels
reading
or
searching
of
them
for
a
Judiciall
triall
and
examination
:
as
is
rightly
observed
by
Dionysius
Vossius
,
annot.
in
Maimon
.
de
Idol
.
pag.
25.
And
now
having
taken
off
the
two
principall
objections
,
we
shall
take
notice
of
such
Scriptures
as
either
directly
,
or
at
least
by
consequence
prove
,
that
notorious
and
scandalous
sinners
were
not
allowed
to
be
admitted
into
the
Temple
,
and
partake
in
all
the
ordinances
.
-
1.
God
reproveth
not
onely
the
bringing
of
strangers
into
his
Sanctuary
,
who
were
uncircumcised
in
the
flesh
,
but
the
bringing
of
those
who
were
uncircumcised
in
heart
,
that
is
,
known
to
be
such
,
for
de
secretis
non
judicat
Ecclesia
,
Ezech.
44.
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
,
such
proselytes
as
having
renounced
idolatry
,
and
professing
to
observe
the
seven
precepts
given
to
the
sonnes
of
Noah
,
were
thereupon
permitted
to
dwell
and
converse
among
the
children
of
Israel
.
(
Of
which
more
elsewhere
.
)
Such
a
one
ought
not
be
admitted
into
the
Sanctuary
,
or
place
of
the
holy
assemblies
,
there
to
pertake
in
all
the
Ordinances
with
the
Church
,
unlesse
he
be
both
circumcised
in
flesh
,
and
also
in
regard
of
his
profession
and
practice
a
visible
Saint
,
or
one
supposed
to
be
circumcised
in
heart
.
The
disjunction
Nor
tels
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
al
publik
ordinances
.
-
2.
There
is
a
Law
,
Deut.
23.
18.
forbidding
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
her selfe
,
being
knowne
to
be
such
,
should
be
brought
to
the
house
of
the
Lord
?
For
propter
quod
ununiqu●…que
est
tale
,
id
ipsum
est
magis
tale
.
This
argument
is
hinted
by
[
c
](A42757-e29530-b)
c
De
monarchia
lib.
2.
proinde
rectè
honesté
que
vetitum
est
alicubi
,
ne
merce●
meretrici●
inferatur
in
sacratium
.
Atqui
nummi
per
se
carent
crimine
,
sed
quae
hos
accepit
unà
cum
suo
quaestu
est
abominabilis
.
Philo
the
Jew
.
-
3.
The
Lord
sharply
contendeth
with
those
who
did
steale
,
murther
,
and
commit
adultery
,
and
sweare
falsely
,
and
burne
Incense
to
Baal
,
and
yet
presumed
to
come
and
stand
before
him
in
his
owne
house
.
Is
this
house
which
is
called
by
my
name
,
saith
the
Lord
,
become
a
den
of
robbers
in
your
eyes
?
Ierem.
7.
9
,
10
,
11.
A
den
of
robbers
is
the
place
which
receives
robbers
;
and
(
saith
Vatablus
upon
the
place
)
as
robbers
after
their
robbing
come
to
their
denne
,
so
doe
these
even
after
their
stealing
,
murthering
,
&c.
come
to
the
Temple
.
To
the
same
purpose
is
that
challenge
Ezech.
23.
38
,
39.
Moreover
this
they
have
done
unto
me
,
they
have
defiled
my
Sanctuary
in
the
same
day
,
and
have
prophaned
my
Sabbaths
.
For
when
they
had
slaine
their
children
to
their
Idols
,
then
they
came
the
same
day
into
my
Sanctuary
to
prophane
it
.
But
God
would
not
have
the
Temple
to
be
a
receptacle
for
such
.
When
Christ
applieth
that
Scripture
,
Ierem.
7.
against
those
who
bought
and
sold
in
the
Temple
,
Matth.
21.
12
,
13.
he
makes
it
cleare
,
that
the
Temple
was
made
a
den
of
robbers
,
not
onely
as
it
was
made
a
place
of
gaine
,
or
a
den
where
the
robbers
prey
lies
,
but
even
as
it
was
a
receptacle
of
the
robbers
or
theeves
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
:
that
is
,
he
would
neither
suffer
such
things
,
nor
such
persons
in
the
Temple
,
yea
though
it
was
onely
in
the
utmost
Court
,
or
the
Court
of
the
Gentiles
,
as
Grotius
and
Mr
Selden
thinke
:
how
much
lesse
would
he
have
suffered
such
persons
in
the
Court
of
Israel
.
[
d
](A42757-e29690-b)
d
Lib.
de
Victimas
offerentibus
.
Nam
veri
Dei
Templum
non
pater
profanis
sacrificiis
.
Tali
homini
dicerem
,
obon●
,
non
gaudet
D●us
centenis
boum
victimis
&c.
mavult
pia●
mentes
&c
▪
Philo
the
Jew
doth
also
apply
what
is
said
in
the
Prophets
of
Gods
hating
the
Sacrifices
of
the
wicked
,
even
to
the
excluding
of
prophane
men
from
the
Temple
.
Mr.
Selden
de
jure
nat
.
&
Gent.
lib.
4.
cap.
5.
doth
so
explaiue
that
casting
out
of
the
buyers
and
sellers
out
of
the
Temple
,
that
the
argument
in
hand
is
not
a
little
strengthned
thereby
.
He
saith
truly
,
that
those
who
were
cast
out
had
polluted
and
profaned
that
holy
place
,
ideo
&
ipsi
,
ut
qui
tum
criminis
aliorum
participes
,
tum
suo
infames
pariter
,
sie
Templum
seu
montis
Templi
locum
illum
ipsis
permissum
profanabant
,
ejiciendi
.
He
holdeth
also
that
this
which
Christ
did
was
done
ex
jure
patrio
,
to
wit
,
ex
Zelotarum
jure
:
and
that
else
it
had
been
challenged
by
the
Priests
and
Scribes
,
if
it
had
been
contrary
to
the
law
or
custome
.
Zelots
,
that
is
,
private
persons
zealously
affected
,
were
permitted
to
scourge
,
wound
,
yea
kill
such
as
they
saw
publiquely
committing
atrocious
wickednesse
,
by
which
the
holinesse
either
of
the
name
of
God
,
or
of
the
Temple
,
or
of
the
Nation
of
the
Jewes
was
violated
.
So
Mr.
Selden
sheweth
out
of
the
Talmudists
,
Ib.
cap.
4.
Now
(
saith
he
)
Zelotarum
jure
,
our
Saviour
though
a
private
person
(
for
so
he
was
lookt
upon
by
the
Priests
and
Scribes
)
did
scourge
and
cast
out
the
buyers
and
sellers
.
If
so
,
then
certainly
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
persons
in
the
executing
of
justice
or
inflicting
of
punishment
,
out
of
their
zeale
to
the
glory
of
God
,
was
much
more
incumbent
to
such
as
had
authority
in
their
hands
for
correcting
and
removing
the
prophanation
of
the
Temple
in
an
authoritative
,
judiciall
,
and
orderly
way
.
-
4.
The
Levites
had
a
charge
to
let
none
that
were
uncleane
in
any
thing
enter
into
the
Temple
,
2
Chron.
23.
19.
Now
this
is
like
that
1
Cor.
5.
11.
with
such
a
one
no
not
to
eate
:
an
argument
from
the
deniall
of
that
which
is
lesse
,
to
the
deniall
of
that
which
is
more
.
So
here
,
it
was
a
necessary
consequence
:
If
those
that
were
ceremonially
uncleane
were
to
be
excluded
from
the
Temple
,
much
more
those
who
were
morally
or
impiously
uncleane
.
For
,
1.
the
legall
uncleannesse
did
signifie
the
sinfull
uncleannesse
;
and
the
exclusion
of
those
that
were
known
to
be
legally
uncleane
from
the
Temple
,
did
signifie
the
excluding
of
those
who
are
knowne
to
be
grossely
and
notoriously
uncleane
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
keepe
from
the
Temple
the
uncleane
aut
etiam
alio
quovis
modo
indignos
,
or
those
also
who
were
any
otherwaies
unworthy
.
2.
Godwyn
in
his
Moses
and
Aaron
,
lib.
5.
cap.
2.
makes
a
comparison
betweene
the
three
degrees
of
the
Jewish
excommunication
,
and
the
three
degrees
of
excluding
the
uncleane
,
Numb
5.
2.
which
parallel
if
we
please
to
make
then
as
for
any
of
the
three
sorts
of
uncleannesse
,
the
touch
of
the
dead
,
issue
,
or
leprosie
,
a
man
was
excluded
from
the
campe
of
God
or
the
Sanctuary
;
so
it
will
follow
that
even
those
who
were
cast
out
by
the
Niddui
▪
or
lowest
degree
of
Excommunication
,
were
fo●
a
time
suspended
from
communion
with
the
Church
in
the
Ordinances
.
3.
The
Levites
were
appointed
to
put
a
difference
not
onely
betweene
the
cleane
and
the
uncleane
,
but
betweene
the
holy
and
unholy
,
Levit.
10.
10.
or
betweene
the
holy
and
profane
,
Ezech.
22.
26.
&
44.
23.
By
cleane
and
uncleane
I
understand
persons
or
things
that
were
ceremonially
such
;
by
holy
and
prophane
,
persons
that
were
morally
such
.
-
5.
I
prove
the
same
point
from
Psalm
118.
19
,
20.
open
to
me
the
gates
of
righteousnesse
,
I
will
goe
into
them
,
and
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
Gods
Sanctuary
,
are
called
gates
of
righteousness
,
saith
Ainsworth
on
the
place
,
because
onely
the
just
and
cleane
might
enter
into
them
.
We
read
also
that
it
was
written
over
the
gates
of
some
of
the
Jewish
Synagogues
,
This
is
the
gate
of
the
Lord
,
into
which
the
righteous
shall
enter
.
[
*
](A42757-e30050-b)
*
Haec
porta
&c.
i.
e.
D●us
hoc
Templum
sibi
dicari
voluit
,
hîc
est
sanctuarium
ejus
:
debet
pu●um
esse
ab
omnibus
sordibus
,
quemadmodum
etiam
lex
severè
jubet
.
Antehac
impuri
&
scelerati
(
quales
Saul
,
&
alii
omnes
impii
qui
primas
tenebant
,
i●a
ut
nemo
non
〈◊〉
ipsorum
esse
Templum
)
co●ruperant
hoc
templum
.
Non
fuit
igitur
tam
domicilium
ipsius
Dei
,
quamlatronum
●verna
.
Vatablus
upon
this
place
,
thinks
that
David
speakes
by
way
of
antithesis
to
the
former
▪
pollution
of
the
Sanctuary
by
Saul
,
and
other
wicked
persons
,
who
by
comming
to
the
house
of
God
had
made
it
a
denne
of
thieve●
▪
But
now
the
righteous
shall
enter
in
it
.
[
The
righteous
]
●…on
to
such
(
saith
Di●…dati
)
and
〈◊〉
to
prophane
persons
,
it
belongeth
to
enter
in
there
.
-
6.
The
same
thing
may
be
proved
,
from
Psalm
15.
1.
Lord
who
shall
abide
in
thy
Tabernacle
?
who
shall
dwell
in
thy
holy
hill
?
He
that
walketh
uprightly
,
and
worketh
righteousnesse
,
&c.
I
know
the
chiefe
intendment
of
God
in
this
place
is
to
describe
such
a
one
as
is
a
true
member
of
the
Church
invisible
,
and
shall
enter
into
the
Heavenly
Ierusalem
.
But
certainly
there
is
an
allusion
to
the
Sanctuary
,
and
the
holy
hill
thereof
in
Ierusalem
,
as
to
the
type
of
that
which
is
Spiriuall
and
eternall
,
which
Iansenius
upon
the
place
noteth
:
and
the
Prophet
here
teacheth
the
people
so
to
looke
upon
those
offences
for
which
men
were
excluded
from
the
Sanctuary
,
as
to
learne
what
kind
of
persons
are
true
members
of
the
Church
,
and
who
not
;
who
shall
be
allowed
to
commun●cate
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
tipyfied
;
Gesnerus
upon
the
place
thinkes
that
communion
with
the
Church
in
this
world
is
meant
in
the
first
words
,
Lord
who
shall
sojourne
(
so
the
word
is
jagur
in
the
Hebrew
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
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
Triumphant
,
is
meant
in
the
following
words
:
who
shall
dwell
in
thy
holy
hill
?
which
noteth
a
permanent
and
durable
estate
.
The
Chaldee
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
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
and
who
shall
be
worthy
to
sojourne
in
the
mountaine
of
the
house
of
thy
holinesse
.
So
Psalm
24.
3.
the
Chald●
readeth
thus
,
Who
shall
be
worthy
to
ascend
unto
the
mountaine
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
〈◊〉
to
the
Sanctuary
,
but
such
as
had
the
markes
or
characters
there
enumerated
,
so
farre
as
men
can
●udge
of
these
markes
,
that
is
so
fa●e
as
they
are
externall
and
discernable
.
-
7.
The
same
thing
seemeth
also
to
be
alluded
unto
Psalm
50.
16.
Unto
the
wicked
(
the
Chaldee
addes
,
that
repenteth
not
,
and
prayeth
in
his
transgression
)
God
saith
,
what
hast
thou
to
doe
to
declare
my
Statutes
,
or
that
thou
shouldest
take
my
covenant
in
thy
mouth
.
It
is
spoken
to
a
scandalous
prophane
man
,
Vers.
18
,
19
,
20.
who
yet
will
needs
take
upon
him
a
forme
of
godlinesse
.
[
e
](A42757-e30340-b)
e
Lib.
3.
de
vit●…
Mos●…s
:
quem
ne
honoris
quidem
gratia
●…as
est
nominari
ab
omnibus●…
sed
à
solis
optimis
&
purificatis
hominibus
.
Where
Philo
the
Jew
speakes
of
him
that
blasphemed
the
name
of
the
Lord
,
he
addeth
,
that
it
was
not
lawfull
for
all
men
to
name
the
name
of
God
,
no
not
for
Honour
or
Religions
sake
,
but
onely
for
good
and
holy
men
.
And
this
gives
me
occasion
to
adde
in
conclusion
a
further
confirmation
out
of
the
Hebrew
Doctors
.
They
held
that
an
Israelite
turning
an
Hereticke
,
(
that
is
,
denying
any
of
their
thirteen
fundamentall
Articles
)
to
be
as
an
Heathen
man
,
and
did
therefore
permit
a
Jew
to
lend
to
him
upon
usury
even
as
to
an
Heathen
.
M.
Selden
de
Jure
nat
.
&
Gentium
.
lib.
6.
cap.
10.
They
held
that
such
a
one
,
an
hereticall
Israelite
,
had
no
communion
with
the
Church
of
Israel
.
See
Tzemach
David
translated
by
Hen.
Vorstius
pag.
67.
Abrabanel
de
capite
fidei
cap.
3.
dub
.
5.
&
Ib.
cap.
6.
They
esteemed
an
hereticall
Jew
,
more
hereticall
then
a
Christian
,
and
did
excommunicate
him
,
even
summarily
and
without
previous
admonition
.
See
Buxtorf
.
lexic.
Chald.
Talm.
&
Rabbin
.
pag.
195.
Moses
Maimonides
de
fundam
.
legis
.
cap.
6.
sect.
10.
tels
us
that
if
an
Epicurean
Israelite
had
written
a
coppy
of
the
booke
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
it selfe
to
be
polluted
and
prophaned
,
when
it
came
thorough
the
hands
of
an
Epicurean
,
or
Hereticall
Israelite
,
no
doubt
,
they
thought
the
Temple
polluted
and
prophaned
,
if
such
a
one
should
be
suffered
to
come
and
worship
in
it
.
From
all
which
it
appeareth
,
how
much
reason
L'Empereur
had
to
say
,
that
they
did
not
admit
an
Heretick
into
the
inner
part
of
the
Intermurale
,
or
that
part
of
the
Temple
which
divided
between
the
Israelites
and
Heathens
.
If
any
man
shall
aske
,
what
I
meane
to
inferre
from
all
this
.
Must
all
prophane
persons
be
kept
back
from
our
〈◊〉
●s
and
publike
Assemblies
,
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
prophane
persons
were
forbidden
to
enter
into
the
Temple
because
of
the
sacramentall
and
typicall
holinesse
thereof
(
for
the
Temple
was
a
Type
of
Christ
)
so
prophane
persons
are
now
much
more
to
be
kept
back
from
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lord
Supper
,
which
hath
more
of
Sacramentall
signification
,
mystery
,
and
holinesse
in
it
,
then
the
Temple
of
Ierusalem
had
,
and
whereby
more
ample
Evangelicall
promises
are
set
forth
and
sealed
unto
us
.
And
as
prophane
persons
might
of
old
come
into
the
Court
of
the
Gentiles
,
and
there
heare
the
word
preached
in
Solomons
Porch
(
where
both
Christ
and
his
Apostles
did
Preach
Io.
10.
23.
Act
3.
11.
Act.
5.
12.
which
Porch
was
in
the
utmost
Court
,
That
is
,
the
Court
of
the
Gentiles
:
of
which
else-where
out
of
Iosephus
)
but
might
not
come
into
the
Court
of
Israel
,
nor
have
communion
in
the
Sacrifices
:
so
prophane
obstinate
sinners
are
to
be
excluded
,
for
their
impiety
,
from
the
Church
communion
of
Saints
,
though
they
may
heare
the
word
,
as
Heathens
also
may
doe
.
Now
that
the
Temple
of
Ierusalem
had
a
Typicall
Sacramentall
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
Arke
and
the
Mercy
seat
;
and
at
the
dedication
of
the
Temple
,
the
cloud
of
the
glory
of
the
Lord
did
visibly
fill
the
whole
house
;
so
in
Christ
the
fulnesse
of
the
God-head
dwells
bodily
,
as
the
Apostle
speakes
▪
2.
As
the
great
God
whom
the
heavens
of
heavens
cannot
containe
,
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
neer
each
to
other
,
to
have
fellow-ship
together
in
Jesus
Christ
.
3.
God
revealed
his
will
,
that
he
would
accept
no
Sacrifices
from
his
people
,
but
in
the
Temple
onely
,
after
it
was
built
:
So
God
hath
revealed
his
will
,
that
〈◊〉
spirituall
Sacrifices
cannot
be
acceptable
to
him
,
except
in
▪
Jesus
Christ
onely
.
4.
The
people
of
God
were
bound
to
set
their
Faces
toward
the
Temple
of
Hierusalem
,
when
they
prayed
1.
Kings
8.
30.
48.
Dan.
6.
10.
So
are
we
bound
in
Prayer
to
looke
toward
Jesus
Christ
with
an
eye
of
faith
5.
As
there
was
an
ample
promise
of
God
to
heare
the
Prayers
which
should
be
made
in
that
place
2.
Chro.
7.
15
,
16.
so
hath
God
promised
to
heare
us
and
accept
us
,
if
we
seeke
unto
him
in
and
through
Jesus
Christ
.
6.
God
said
of
the
Temple
,
mine
eyes
and
mine
heart
,
shall
be
there
perpetually
.
2
Chro.
6.
16.
so
he
said
of
Chri●t
,
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.
56.
7.
and
the
s●ranger
,
as
well
as
the
Israelite
,
might
come
and
pray
in
it
2
Chro.
6
32.
So
〈◊〉
is
a
propitiation
,
not
for
the
Jewes
onely
,
but
for
the
Gentiles
;
and
whosoever
beleeves
on
him
,
(
Jew
or
Gentile
)
shall
not
be
confounded
.
9.
Because
of
thy
Temple
at
Hierusalem
,
shall
Kings
bring
presents
unto
thee
,
saith
the
Prophet
,
Ps.
68.
29.
so
because
of
Jesus
Christ
(
who
hath
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
Ierusalem
the
City
of
God
,
but
the
Temple
was
the
glory
of
Ierusalem
:
so
glorious
things
are
spoken
of
the
Church
,
But
Christ
is
the
Churches
glory
.
Other
like
considerations
might
be
added
,
but
these
may
suffice
.
CHAP.
X.
A
debate
with
Master
Prynne
,
concerning
the
exclusion
of
prophane
scandalous
persons
from
the
passeover
.
THat
which
Master
Prynne
in
his
Vindication
pag.
15
,
16.
pleadeth
for
his
opinion
,
from
the
Law
of
the
passeover
,
may
be
(
as
I
conceive
)
with
no
great
difficulty
answered
,
and
I
shall
doe
it
very
shortly
,
(
being
to
insist
further
in
answering
Erastus
,
who
said
much
more
for
that
point
,
which
deserveth
●n
answer
)
First
,
in
answer
to
our
argument
from
the
keeping
back
of
the
unclean
.
Num.
9.
he
saith
,
that
all
circumcised
persons
whatsoever
,
had
a
right
to
eat
the
passeover
,
&c.
being
bound
to
eat
the
passeover
in
its
season
,
except
in
cases
of
necessity
,
disability
,
by
reason
of
a
journey
,
or
of
legall
uncleannesse
onely
,
not
spirituall
,
as
is
cleer
by
Exo.
12.
3.
43.
to
50.
Num.
9.
1.
to
15.
Deut.
16.
16
,
17.
Ezra
.
6.
19
,
20
,
21.
2
Kings
23.
21
,
27
,
2.
Chron.
35.
6
,
7.
13.
17.
18.
where
we
read
that
all
the
people
and
all
the
males
that
were
present
received
the
passeover
,
not
one
of
them
being
excluded
from
eating
it
.
Answ.
1.
If
it
was
so
,
doth
not
this
make
as
much
against
himselfe
as
against
us
,
unlesse
he
will
say
,
that
the
Analogy
must
hold
so
farre
,
that
all
Baptized
persons
whatsoever
,
none
excepted
(
if
it
be
not
in
cases
of
necessity
or
disability
)
how
scand●lous
,
impenitent
,
and
obstinate
soever
they
be
,
ought
to
be
admitted
to
the
Lords
Table
?
so
there
shall
be
no
excommunication
at
all
(
which
yet
himselfe
granteth
)
for
if
any
Baptized
person
,
(
though
such
as
Master
Prynne
himselfe
would
have
to
be
excommunicated
)
shall
be
shut
out
from
the
Church
and
from
all
publike
Ordinances
,
and
so
from
the
Lords
Supper
,
because
of
his
obstinacy
and
continuance
in
some
foule
scandall
,
after
previous
admonitions
,
in
so
doing
,
we
shall
,
by
his
principles
,
doe
contrary
to
the
Law
of
the
passeover
,
in
the
point
of
Analogy
.
2.
The
Texts
cited
by
him
,
prove
that
men
were
debarred
for
legall
uncleannesse
,
but
there
is
not
one
of
them
which
will
prove
that
men
were
debarred
onely
for
legall
uncleannesse
,
and
no
man
for
morall
uncleannesse
.
Yea
,
one
of
those
Texts
.
Ezra
.
6.
21.
tells
us
that
those
who
were
admitted
to
the
passeover
,
were
such
as
had
separated
themselves
from
the
silthynesse
of
the
heathen
of
the
Land
,
to
seeke
the
Lord
God
of
Israel
.
3.
That
morall
uncleannesse
,
I
meane
known
prophannesse
or
scandalous
sinnes
,
did
render
men
uncapable
of
eating
the
passeover
I
shall
prove
anone
by
divers
arguments
,
unto
which
I
remit
Master
Prynne
.
That
which
hee
objecteth
from
1
Cor.
10.
I
am
to
answer
also
distinctly
by
it selfe
.
His
second
reply
is
,
that
those
who
were
legally
uncleane
at
the
day
appointed
for
the
passeover
,
so
as
they
could
not
then
receive
it
,
were
yet
peremptorily
enjoyned
to
eat
it
the
14.
day
of
the
second
moneth
,
&c.
Num.
9.
11.
12.
he
must
not
be
suspended
from
it
above
one
moneth
.
Answ.
The
Scripture
cited
proves
no
such
thing
,
except
upon
supposition
that
they
be
clean
the
14.
day
of
the
following
moneth
.
And
what
if
any
of
them
were
in
the
second
moneth
also
uncleane
,
by
the
touch
of
a
deadbody
or
otherwise
?
Were
they
not
kept
off
in
the
second
moneth
,
as
well
as
in
the
first
?
Is
it
not
plainly
said
of
the
second
passeover
vers.
12.
(
the
very
pla●e
cited
by
himselfe
)
according
to
all
the
Ordinances
of
the
passeover
they
shall
keep
it
?
and
one
of
those
Ordinances
was
the
keeping
back
the
uncleane
.
Thirdly
,
he
saith
,
that
he
who
was
legally
uncleane
,
was
kept
back
neither
by
the
Priest
nor
Magistrate
,
but
by
those
of
the
same
Family
as
vers.
6
,
7.
imports
.
And
the
true
reason
(
saith
he
)
in
this
Text
why
his
uncleannesse
did
seclude
him
from
eating
the
passeover
,
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
passeover
,
&c.
and
by
like
reason
it
debarred
him
from
all
other
Ordinances
.
-
Answ.
1
The
Text
Num.
9
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
passeover
,
nor
to
the
Family
to
admit
him
,
but
that
there
was
an
authoritative
restraint
,
I
prove
by
this
argument
.
He
that
was
uncleane
and
before
his
cleasing
did
eat
of
the
flesh
of
the
Peace-offerings
was
cut
off
from
among
his
people
Lev.
7.
20.
21
,
Therefore
he
that
in
his
uncleannesse
,
did
eat
the
passeover
,
was
to
be
cut
off
also
.
No
man
will
say
that
there
was
any
lesse
punishment
intended
for
the
pollution
of
the
passeover
,
than
for
the
pollution
of
Peace-offerings
.
And
if
the
uncleane
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
bloud
of
the
Covenant
,
from
being
trod
under
Foot
by
Dogges
and
Swine
?
-
2.
Neither
is
there
any
such
reason
in
that
Text
Num.
9.
as
the
excluding
quite
out
of
the
camp
,
those
who
were
uncleane
by
a
dead
body
,
and
so
by
consequence
from
the
passeover
.
Nay
the
Text
rather
intimateth
,
that
they
were
in
the
camp
;
for
they
came
before
Moses
and
Aaron
on
that
day
,
when
the
passeover
was
kept
,
and
said
,
We
are
defiled
by
the
dead
body
of
a
man
,
Wherefore
are
we
kept
back
.
vers.
6.
7.
I
hope
Moses
and
Aaron
were
not
without
the
camp
.
I
knew
the
Lepers
and
some
other
uncleane
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
uncleane
by
the
dead
body
of
a
man
were
quite
excluded
out
of
the
Camp
,
except
Num.
5.
2.
And
if
he
will
beleive
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
;
[
f
](A42757-e31210-b)
f
Vatablus
in
Num.
5.
2.
T●ia
secundum
Hebraeos
castra
erant
.
Castra
nempe
Dei
,
id
est
Tabernaculum
:
Castra
levitarum
,
&
castra
Israel
.
Leprosi
ab
omnibus
arcebantur
:
Impuri
per
fluxum
à
primis
duobus
excludebantur
.
Pollutus
vero
propter
cadaver
solum
à
tabernaculo
Ecclesiae
arcebatur
.
Godwyn
in
his
Moses
and
Aarom
lib.
5.
cap.
2.
cit●th
Paulus
fagius
for
the
same
thing
.
See
also
Mr.
Wee●…se
his
Christian
Synagogue
pag.
135.
136.
The
uncleane
by
the
dead
were
free
(
say
they
)
to
be
in
the
first
two
Camps
,
and
were
onely
excluded
from
the
third
.
However
,
it
s
agreed
,
that
some
uncleane
persons
were
excluded
from
the
Sanctuary
,
who
were
not
excluded
from
the
camp
of
the
Chidren
of
Israel
,
as
is
observed
by
Tostatus
in
Lev.
12.
Quaest.
21.
Menochius
in
Num.
5.
2.
the
English
Annotations
on
Num.
5.
2.
and
others
.
And
if
Master
Prynne
can
prove
,
that
those
uncleane
persons
who
were
excluded
from
the
Sanctuary
,
were
not
excluded
from
the
Passeover
,
let
him
try
it
.
That
this
thing
may
be
yet
better
understood
,
let
us
observe
with
Tostatus
in
Levit.
22.
Quest.
7.
a
threefold
separation
of
the
uncleane
under
the
Law
:
some
were
separate
onely
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
any
thing
else
,
which
had
been
under
him
or
her
,
was
not
permitted
to
come
unto
the
Tabernacle
,
till
he
was
cleansed
Lev.
15.
Others
were
separated
both
from
the
holy
things
,
and
from
the
company
or
society
of
their
Neighbours
,
yet
not
cast
out
of
the
camp
:
for
this
he
gives
the
case
of
women
having
an
issue
of
blood
,
who
were
put
apart
seven
dayes
Lev.
15.
and
for
the
same
space
a
woman
after
the
birth
of
a
male
Child
,
was
uncleane
,
so
farre
as
to
be
kept
apart
from
human
society
,
but
she
did
continue
uncleane
three
and
thirty
dayes
longer
,
as
to
the
Sanctuary
and
hallowed
things
,
during
which
space
of
the
three
and
thirty
dayes
,
she
was
not
separated
from
company
and
society
,
as
in
the
first
seven
dayes
,
onely
she
was
forbidden
to
touch
any
hallowed
thing
,
or
to
come
into
the
Sanctuary
.
There
was
a
third
sort
separated
not
onely
from
the
Sanctuary
,
and
from
humane
society
,
but
also
cast
out
of
the
camp
,
which
was
the
case
of
Lepers
.
I
conclude
,
all
uncleane
persons
whatsoever
were
excluded
from
the
Tabernacle
Lev.
15.
31.
and
from
eating
of
the
flesh
of
the
Sacrifices
Lev.
7.
20.
21.
Neither
might
any
of
the
Sonnes
of
Aaron
having
his
uncleannesse
upon
him
eat
of
the
holy
things
,
though
it
was
his
Food
Lev.
22.
v.
2.
to
7.
in
which
places
cutting
off
is
appointed
to
be
the
punishment
,
not
for
unclean
persons
their
being
in
the
camp
,
but
for
their
coming
to
the
Tabernacle
,
or
for
their
eating
of
the
holy
things
;
and
accordingly
it
is
said
2
Chro.
23.
19.
that
Ichojada
set
the
Porters
at
the
Gates
of
the
house
of
the
Lord
,
that
none
which
was
uncleane
in
any
thing
should
enter
in
.
But
we
never
read
that
none
which
was
uncleane
in
any
thing
,
was
permitted
to
enter
in
at
the
Gates
of
Ierusalem
,
or
to
converse
among
the
people
.
-
3
Whereas
Master
Prynne
thinkes
that
uncleane
persons
were
excluded
from
all
Ordinances
,
as
well
as
from
the
Passeover
,
first
,
what
saith
he
to
that
which
Erastus
holdeth
and
(
as
he
thinkes
)
grounded
upon
Scripture
,
namely
that
all
uncleane
persons
as
well
as
others
,
were
admitted
to
the
feast
of
expiation
?
Next
,
what
saith
he
to
that
which
is
observed
by
Master
Selden
and
divers
others
,
namely
,
that
some
uncleane
persons
might
come
not
onely
to
the
mountaine
of
the
house
of
the
Lord
,
but
might
also
enter
into
the
intermurale
?
Into
that
utmost
Court
the
heathens
might
come
and
pray
;
&
so
might
the
Israelites
that
were
not
legally
cleane
saith
[
g
](A42757-e31530-b)
g
De
tempfabrie
.
p.
15.
in
quod
(
at●ium
)
exte●i
,
id
est
Gentes
,
quae
Israolis
nomen
non
prosit
erentur
,
conve
nire
ad
orandum
poss●nt
:
&
Isr●elitae
etiam
qui
caeremoniali
ritu
puri
non
essent
:
Arias
Montanus
.
The
fourth
and
fifth
Answers
which
Mr.
Prynne
gives
that
there
is
no
such
warrant
for
keeping
back
scandalous
persons
from
the
Lords
Table
,
as
there
was
for
keeping
back
the
uncleane
from
the
Passeover
;
and
that
suspension
for
legall
uncleannesse
:
proves
not
suspension
for
morall
uncleannesse
,
These
I
say
doe
but
petere
principium
,
and
therefore
to
be
passedover
,
because
he
takes
for
granted
what
is
in
controversie
.
I
shall
therefore
proceed
to
that
which
he
addeth
in
the
next
place
,
in
answer
to
an
argument
of
mine
in
my
controversall
fast
Sermon
,
(
as
he
miscalleth
it
)
The
argument
as
I
did
propound
it
,
was
this
.
Those
scandalous
sinners
that
were
not
admitted
to
offer
a
trespasse
offering
(
which
was
reconciling
ordinance
)
without
confession
of
sinne
,
and
Declaration
of
their
Repentance
for
the
same
,
were
much
lesse
admitted
to
the
Passeover
(
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
trespasse
offering
(
which
was
a
reconciling
Ordinance
)
without
confession
of
sinne
and
Declaration
of
their
Repentance
for
the
same
Lev.
5.
5.
6.
Ergo
Mr
Prynne
answereth
pag.
17.
it
s
a
meer
non-sequitur
.
1.
Because
contradicted
(
as
he
thinks
)
by
1
Cor.
10.
which
is
a
contrarious
argument
,
and
I
shall
answer
it
in
the
proper
place
.
2.
He
saith
that
examination
of
the
Conscience
,
Repentance
,
and
Confession
,
are
no
where
required
of
such
as
did
eate
the
Passeover
,
it
being
onely
a
commemoration
of
Gods
mercy
in
passing
over
the
Israelites
first
borne
,
when
he
slew
the
Egyptians
:
but
there
being
no
remission
without
confession
,
it
was
necessary
that
those
who
came
to
offer
a
trespasse-offering
for
some
particular
sinnes
,
should
confesse
those
very
sinnes
,
yet
not
to
the
Priest
,
but
to
God
alone
.
-
Answ.
1.
If
examination
of
the
Conscience
,
Repentance
,
and
confession
,
were
not
required
in
those
that
did
eate
the
Passeover
,
and
if
there
might
be
a
worthy
eating
of
it
without
this
(
as
he
plainly
intimateth
when
he
saith
that
this
is
no
where
required
in
Scripture
,
of
such
as
did
eat
the
Passeover
,
though
all
circumstances
and
necessaries
for
the
worthy
eating
of
it
,
he
most
punctually
enumerated
)
And
if
the
Passeover
was
but
onely
a
commemoration
of
Gods
infinite
mercy
in
passing
over
the
Israelites
first
borne
,
as
he
saith
,
(
which
was
but
a
temporall
mercy
)
Then
he
must
needs
say
,
either
that
in
the
Sacrament
of
the
Passeover
,
or
confirmation
of
faith
,
increase
of
grace
,
nor
spirituall
mercy
was
given
,
or
that
in
that
Sacrament
this
grace
(
yea
,
by
his
Principles
,
conversion
and
regeneration
it selfe
)
was
conferred
ex
opere
operato
.
And
he
must
either
say
the
like
of
the
Lords
Supper
,
or
otherwise
hold
that
the
Sacraments
of
the
new
Testament
differ
from
those
of
the
old
,
specifically
;
and
that
the
Passeover
did
not
seale
the
same
covenant
of
grace
for
the
substance
,
which
is
now
sealed
by
the
Lords
Supper
.
-
2
What
was
the
meaning
of
the
bitter
Herbs
,
with
which
the
Passeover
was
commanded
to
be
eaten
?
Were
not
the
people
of
God
thereby
taught
the
necessity
of
Repentance
in
that
very
action
?
And
what
means
it
that
at
Hezekiahs
Passeover
,
the
people
are
called
to
turne
againe
unto
the
Lord
,
2
Chron.
30.
6.
that
the
Priests
and
the
Levites
were
ashamed
and
sanctified
themselves
,
vers.
15.
&
offered
Peace-offerings
made
confession
to
the
Lord
God
of
their
fathers
,
vers.
22.
where
I
understand
confession
of
sinne
,
according
to
the
Law
,
which
appointed
confession
of
sinne
to
be
made
with
the
Peace
offerings
,
which
confession
was
signified
by
laying
hands
upon
the
head
of
the
offering
Lev.
3.
2.
8.
13.
compared
with
Lev.
16.
21.
and
so
we
find
Repentance
joyned
with
peace
offerings
.
Iudg.
20.
26.
finally
read
we
not
of
the
peoples
preparing
of
their
heart
to
seeke
God
at
the
Passeover
2
Chro.
30.
19.
which
as
it
could
not
be
without
Repentance
and
examination
of
their
consciences
,
so
Hezekiah
mentioneth
it
,
as
that
without
which
the
peoples
eating
of
the
Passeover
,
could
not
have
been
in
any
wise
accepted
.
-
3.
That
it
was
not
a
private
confession
to
God
alone
,
but
a
publike
penitentiall
confession
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
Iew.
This
I
adde
here
.
The
Confession
of
the
sin
was
made
in
the
place
of
offering
the
trespasse
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
onely
:
which
doth
further
appear
,
by
the
●awes
concerning
such
and
such
Sacrifices
,
for
such
and
such
sinnes
,
Lev.
5.
and
by
the
restitution
which
was
also
joyned
with
the
confession
Num.
5.
7.
And
it
is
also
cleare
from
the
Jewish
[
h
](A42757-e31890-b)
h
Uide
edit
.
lutin
.
Cantabr
.
a●…no
.
1631.
pag.
5.
Eximia
laus
est
paenitentiam
agenti
,
ut
publicè
confiteatur
,
iniquitat●s
suat
toti
caetui
indicans
,
&
delicta
q●ae
in
proximum
admisit
,
●liis
〈◊〉
hunc
in
modum
,
●evera
pecca●i
in
N.
N.
(
vitum
nominans
)
&
haec
&
illa
seci
〈◊〉
Ecce
autem
me
vobis
nunc
conv●rtor
&
me
facti
paenitet
.
Q●i
verò
prae
superbia
non
i●dicat
,
sed
abscondit
iniquitates
suas
,
illi
perfecta
non
est
paenitentia
,
Quia
dicitu●
,
Qui
abscondit
scelera
sua
,
non
dirigetur
.
Canones
paenitentiae
cap.
1.
&
2.
where
we
find
confession
of
●inne
to
be
made
both
by
word
of
mouth
,
and
publikely
before
the
congregation
.
-
4.
In
stead
of
making
my
argument
a
non-sequitur
,
he
makes
it
a
clarè-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
vaine
so
much
as
to
sue
for
pardon
in
a
reconciling
Ordinance
,
when
the
sinne
was
not
confessed
;
how
much
more
had
it
been
a
taking
in
vaine
of
the
name
of
God
,
&
a
prophaning
of
a
sealing
Ordinance
,
to
seale
up
pardon
to
a
scandalous
sinner
,
who
had
not
so
much
as
confessed
his
scandalous
sin
,
but
continued
in
manifest
impetency
?
But
we
will
trie
whether
his
third
and
last
answer
can
relieve
him
.
It
is
this
:
That
every
particular
communicant
before
he
comes
to
receive
the
Sacrament
,
makes
a
publike
confession
of
his
sinnes
to
God
with
the
rest
of
the
congregation
,
and
in
words
at
least
,
voweth
newnesse
of
life
for
the
future
,
there
being
no
communicant
that
ever
I
heard
of
(
saith
he
)
so
desperatly
wicked
and
atheisticall
,
as
not
to
professe
heartily
sorrow
for
all
his
forepast
sinnes
,
or
to
avow
impenitent
continuance
in
them
when
he
came
to
the
Lords
Table
.
Behold
,
what
a
latitude
?
If
the
vilest
sinner
practically
persevering
in
a
scandalous
sinne
,
shall
but
joyne
with
,
and
not
gainsay
the
publique
confession
of
the
whole
congregation
(
wherein
the
best
men
doe
and
ought
to
joyne
)
and
in
words
promise
newnesse
of
life
(
and
who
will
not
promise
to
endeavour
to
live
better
?
)
nay
if
he
have
but
so
much
wit
,
as
not
to
professe
or
avow
impenitency
:
then
Mr.
Prynne
alloweth
his
admission
to
the
Sacrament
.
But
is
this
the
confession
that
my
argument
did
prove
?
nothing
like
it
.
It
was
a
particular
confession
of
such
a
sinne
by
name
,
Levit.
5.
5.
and
it
shall
he
when
he
shall
be
guilty
in
one
of
these
things
,
that
he
shall
confesse
that
he
hath
sinned
in
that
thing
:
and
with
the
confession
there
was
a
reall
amendment
.
For
instance
,
a
recompencing
of
the
trespasse
with
the
principall
,
and
the
addition
of
a
fifth
part
,
when
the
case
did
so
require
,
Num.
5.
7.
Then
they
shall
confesse
their
sinne
which
they
have
done
,
and
he
shall
recompence
his
trespasse
,
&c.
This
is
that
my
argument
did
drive
at
,
and
it
still
stands
in
force
to
conclude
that
the
confession
of
the
particular
sinne
which
hath
given
publique
scandall
,
[
i
](A42757-e32050-b)
i
R.
Mosis
canones
panitentiae
cap.
2.
Quicunque
verbis
confitetur
,
&
●x
corde
non
statuit
peccacum
derelinquere
:
ecce
hic
ei
similis
est
qui
lavat
,
&
manu
reptile
immundum
retinet
:
Neque
enim
quicquam
prodest
lavatio
,
donec
reptile
abjecerit
.
Et
hoc
illud
est
quod
a
Sapiente
illo
dicitur
.
Qui
autem
confessus
fuerit
&
reliquerit
ea
,
misericordiam
consequetur
.
Quin
&
oportet
ut
pecca●um
speciatim
recenseat
:
Quia
dicitur
:
Obsecro
domine
,
peccavit
populus
iste
peccatum
maximum
seceruntque
sibi
deos
anreos
.
together
with
the
forsaking
of
it
externally
and
in
practice
,
is
so
necessary
,
that
without
these
the
admission
of
a
scandalous
sinner
is
a
most
horrible
prophanation
of
the
Sacrament
.
But
now
finding
the
argument
concerning
the
Passeover
and
legall
uncleannesse
to
have
been
more
fully
prosecuted
by
Erastus
than
it
is
by
Mr.
Prynne
,
I
doe
resolve
to
trace
it
hard
at
the
heeles
whithersoever
it
goeth
.
CHAP.
XI
.
A
Confutation
of
the
strongest
arguments
of
Erastus
,
namely
,
those
drawn
from
the
Law
of
Moses
.
AMong
Erastus
[
k
](A42757-e32200-b)
k
Confirm
.
Thes.
lib
1.
cap.
3.
&
4.
his
arguments
against
Excommunication
,
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
restraine
,
nor
keep
off
any
from
the
Sacrifices
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
Jewes
and
forreiners
,
being
circumcised
,
and
not
being
legally
uncleane
,
nor
in
a
journey
,
should
compear
thrice
in
the
yeere
before
the
Lord
at
Ierusalem
,
to
keepe
the
three
solemn
feasts
,
of
the
Passeover
,
Weeks
,
and
Tabernacles
.
Now
(
saith
he
)
Christ
hath
not
in
this
thing
destroyed
nor
altered
the
Law
of
Moses
,
nor
hath
he
made
the
rule
straiter
now
then
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
priviledges
:
and
as
then
there
was
no
discipline
or
punishment
for
the
flagitious
and
wicked
,
except
by
the
hand
of
the
Magistrate
;
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
uncleane
under
the
Law
,
did
signifie
the
excluding
of
scandalous
sinners
from
communion
with
the
Church
,
he
spendeth
[
l
](A42757-e32230-b)
l
Lib.
2.
cap.
1.
a
long
chapter
against
that
opinion
,
and
laboureth
to
make
it
appeare
that
the
legall
uncleannesse
did
signifie
the
corruption
of
our
nature
and
unbeliefe
;
that
exclusion
from
the
Temple
did
signifie
exclusion
from
the
heavenly
Paradice
;
and
that
the
cleansing
and
reception
into
the
Temple
,
did
tipyfie
the
cleansing
of
our
souls
,
and
the
turning
of
us
to
God
by
the
blood
of
Jesus
Christ
.
Now
here
I
shall
make
such
animadversions
,
as
shall
not
onely
enervate
the
strength
which
these
arguments
may
seem
to
have
against
Church
censures
:
but
also
afford
some
strong
reasonings
against
Erastus
,
from
those
very
grounds
rightly
apprehended
,
from
which
(
upon
misapprehensions
)
he
disputeth
against
the
excluding
of
scandalous
sinners
.
First
,
it
is
certaine
that
for
divers
sinnes
against
the
morall
Law
,
the
sinners
were
appointed
not
onely
to
bring
their
Trespasse-offerings
,
but
to
confesse
the
sinne
which
they
had
committed
,
and
to
declare
their
repentance
for
the
same
,
and
till
this
was
done
,
the
Trespasse-offering
was
not
accepted
.
Let
us
but
have
the
like
,
that
is
a
confession
of
the
sinne
,
and
declaration
of
repentance
,
and
then
men
shall
not
be
excluded
for
scandals
formerly
given
.
[
m
](A42757-e32270-b)
m
Pag.
106
,
107
,
148
,
149.
Erastus
himselfe
acknowledgeth
that
in
this
point
of
the
confession
of
sinne
,
the
analogy
must
hold
betwixt
the
old
and
new
Testament
;
onely
he
pleadeth
,
that
the
very
act
,
the
very
desiring
of
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lords
Supper
,
is
really
a
confession
that
he
is
a
sinner
who
desireth
it
:
and
that
,
much
more
,
it
may
suffice
,
if
sinners
being
asked
by
the
Minister
,
confesse
themselves
to
be
sinners
,
and
that
they
have
not
perfectly
kept
the
Commandements
of
God
.
But
all
this
,
say
I
,
can
not
satisfie
the
argument
drawn
from
that
confession
of
sinne
under
the
Law
.
For
,
1.
It
was
not
a
confession
ipso
facto
,
by
the
bringing
of
the
Trespasse-offerings
,
but
by
word
of
mouth
,
and
[
n
](A42757-e32300-b)
n
See
Ainsworth
▪
annot.
on
Num.
5.
7.
thus
it
hath
been
expounded
by
the
Hebrew
Doctors
.
The
owners
of
siune
and
Trespasse-offerings
,
when
they
bring
their
oblations
for
their
ignorant
or
for
their
presumptuous
sinnes
,
atonement
is
not
made
for
them
by
their
oblation
,
untill
they
have
made
repentance
,
and
confession
by
word
of
mouth
.
2.
It
was
not
a
generall
confession
that
one
is
a
sinner
,
and
hath
not
perfectly
kept
the
Commandements
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
speake
of
the
suspending
of
any
from
the
Lords
Table
.
)
But
it
was
a
confession
of
the
particular
individuall
sinne
,
which
had
been
committed
,
Levit.
5.
5.
And
it
shall
be
when
he
shall
be
guilty
in
one
of
these
things
,
that
he
shall
confesse
that
he
hath
sinned
in
that
thing
.
Marke
,
in
that
thing
.
Num.
5.
7.
Then
they
shall
confesse
their
sinne
which
they
have
done
.
[
o
](A42757-e32370-b)
o
Ainsworth
on
Lev●t
.
6
4.
Which
Law
is
to
be
understood
of
all
like
sinnes
and
trespasses
,
that
is
,
that
other
sinnes
which
were
expiated
by
Sacrifice
,
were
first
to
be
confessed
.
All
this
maketh
against
Erastus
.
Next
,
whereas
he
saith
[
p
](A42757-e32410-b)
p
Pag.
106.
113.
that
this
confession
or
declaration
of
repentance
for
sinne
,
in
the
old
Testament
,
had
place
onely
in
those
sinnes
for
which
the
Law
appointed
no
particular
punishments
:
and
that
there
was
no
confession
imposed
where
the
Magistrate
was
to
punish
the
crime
:
This
with
a
great
deale
of
boldnesse
and
considence
(
as
his
manner
is
)
he
doth
maintaine
:
Intending
thereby
(
it
seems
)
to
exempt
from
all
manner
of
Church-discipline
whatsoever
is
punishable
by
the
civill
Magistrate
,
as
adultery
,
perjury
,
and
the
like
.
But
that
which
he
affirmeth
so
strongly
,
is
manifestly
contrary
to
the
expresse
Law
,
Levit.
6.
from
vers.
1.
to
vers.
8.
where
wilfull
lying
,
and
perjury
,
robbing
and
violence
,
fraud
and
couzenage
,
all
these
were
to
be
confessed
and
expiated
by
Sacrifice
;
notwithstanding
that
they
were
also
to
be
severely
punished
by
the
civill
Magistrate
.
Nay
,
in
that
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
this
did
not
exempt
the
sinner
from
making
confession
.
So
Num.
5.
6
,
7
,
8.
for
one
and
the
same
offence
the
Law
enjoyneth
both
that
confession
be
made
and
expiation
;
and
moreover
that
recompence
be
made
to
the
party
injured
or
to
his
kinsman
.
Yea
the
Law
,
Num.
5.
6
,
7.
speaketh
universally
;
When
a
man
or
woman
shall
commit
any
sinne
that
men
commit
,
&c.
then
they
shall
confesse
their
sinne
which
they
have
done
.
Which
made
the
Hebrews
extend
this
Law
to
criminall
and
capitall
cases
,
as
Mr.
Ainsworth
upon
the
place
noteth
out
of
these
words
of
Maimony
.
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
,
untill
they
have
repented
and
confessed
.
And
so
he
that
hurteth
his
neighbour
,
or
doth
him
dammage
,
though
he
payeth
him
what
ever
he
oweth
him
,
atonement
is
not
made
for
him
till
he
confesse
.
Therfore
Erastus
is
still
a
double
loser
in
arguing
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
Sanctuary
of
the
Lord
,
not
onely
for
ceremoniall
,
but
for
morall
uncleannesse
,
I
meane
for
publique
and
scandalous
sinnes
against
the
morall
Law
.
Ezech.
44.
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
practise
or
conversation
did
declare
them
to
be
uncircumcised
in
heart
:
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
be
perceived
by
his
people
;
according
to
that
Psalm
36.
1.
The
transgression
of
the
wicked
saith
within
my
heart
,
that
there
is
no
feare
of
God
before
his
eyes
.
To
the
same
purpose
we
read
Ezra
6.
21.
not
that
all
proselytes
,
nor
all
uncircumcised
,
but
onely
all
such
as
had
seperate
themselves
from
the
filthinesse
of
the
Heathen
of
the
Land
,
to
seeke
the
Lord
God
of
Israel
,
did
eate
of
the
Passeover
.
Moreover
we
may
argue
by
a
necessary
consequence
from
Scripture
.
The
ceremoniall
uncleannesse
was
a
cause
of
exclusion
from
the
Sanctuary
,
and
from
the
holy
things
.
Therefore
much
more
morall
uncleannesse
.
It
was
more
sinfull
in
its
selfe
,
and
more
abominable
in
Gods
sight
for
those
who
did
steale
,
murder
,
commit
adultery
,
sweare
falsely
,
and
burne
Incense
to
Baal
,
to
come
and
tread
in
the
Courts
of
the
house
of
the
Lord
,
and
to
offer
Sacrisices
there
,
as
if
Gods
house
had
been
a
denne
of
robbers
,
Isa.
1.
11
,
12
,
13
,
14.
Ierem.
7.
9
,
10
,
11.
This
I
say
was
more
abominable
to
God
then
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
legall
uncleannesse
.
Therefore
when
Christ
casteth
out
the
buyers
and
sellers
out
of
the
Temple
,
it
is
not
for
ceremoniall
but
morall
uncleannesse
,
and
he
applieth
to
them
the
words
of
Ieremiah
,
Ye
have
made
it
a
denne
of
theeves
,
Matth.
21.
13.
with
Ierem.
7.
11.
And
as
it
was
more
sinfull
to
the
person
,
and
more
hatefull
to
God
,
so
it
was
more
hurtfull
to
the
soules
of
others
,
who
were
in
greater
danger
of
infection
from
the
morall
,
then
from
the
ceremoniall
uncleannesse
.
This
[
q
](A42757-e32640-b)
q
Pag.
145.
Cum
ergo
quaeritur
cur
ei
qui
semen
praeter
voluntatem
noctu
emisit
,
ad
sacra
adire
non
licuerit
,
priusquàm
mundaretur
,
scortatori
autem
&
concubinario
licuerit
?
respondeo
,
quia
ille
ad
se
appropinquantes
contaminabat
;
hic
Deo
&
sibi
immundus
tantum
erat
:
aliosque
non
magis
inquinabat
,
quàm
si
cum
uxore
legitima
cubavisset
.
Erastus
denieth
indeed
,
but
his
expression
is
unsavoury
and
unholy
,
which
I
am
ashamed
to
repeat
.
Sure
the
Apostle
speaketh
farre
othewise
Heb.
13.
15
,
16.
Lest
any
root
of
bitternesse
springing
up
trouble
you
,
and
thereby
many
be
defiled
;
lest
there
be
any
fornicator
,
or
prophane
person
,
as
Esau
.
A
prophane
or
scandalous
person
defileth
,
you
see
,
many
others
:
and
sinne
was
of
a
defiling
nature
under
the
old
Testament
,
as
well
as
under
the
new
.
I
meane
a
root
of
bitternesse
not
plucked
up
,
a
prophane
person
not
censured
,
doth
defile
others
,
as
well
as
himselfe
.
Both
Peter
and
Iude
have
told
us
,
that
scandalous
persons
are
spots
and
blemishes
in
the
communion
of
Saints
,
2
Pet.
2.
13.
Iude
vers.
12.
So
that
as
Erastus
granteth
,
that
one
legally
uncleane
could
make
others
legally
uncleane
among
whom
he
came
,
and
therefore
was
kept
off
from
fellowship
and
company
with
the
congregation
of
Gods
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
evill
deeds
2
Iohn
10.
how
much
more
doth
the
admitting
of
such
or
the
like
scandalous
sinners
to
the
Lords
Table
make
(
I
say
not
all
who
communicate
then
and
there
,
but
)
all
who
consent
to
their
admission
,
to
be
partakers
of
their
evill
deeds
.
Fourthly
,
whereas
[
r
](A42757-e32770-b)
r
Pag.
140.
Quocirca
non
fuit
exclusio
haec
,
qua
propter
legis
immunditiam
aliqui
prohibebantur
venire
in
caetus
publicos
,
sigu●a
rei
cujuspiam
in
hoc
seculo
complendae
,
sed
i●ago
&
simulacrum
suit
rei
in
altera
vita
persiciendae
.
Erastus
holdeth
that
the
exclusion
of
the
uncleane
under
the
Law
,
did
onely
typyfie
something
which
is
to
come
to
passe
in
the
life
to
come
,
that
is
,
the
shutting
forth
of
sinners
from
the
Heavenly
Paradice
,
if
they
be
not
washed
from
their
silthynesse
by
the
blood
of
Jesus
Christ
:
and
therefore
ought
not
to
be
unto
us
any
argument
for
the
exclusion
of
scandalous
sinners
.
I
answer
,
If
the
shutting
out
from
Heaven
was
the
onely
thing
signified
,
and
if
there
be
a
fit
analogy
or
proportion
between
the
Type
and
the
thing
typified
,
then
1.
one
may
be
in
Heaven
and
cast
out
againe
,
and
in
and
out
againe
,
as
under
the
Law
one
might
be
many
times
admitted
to
the
Temple
and
shut
out
againe
.
2.
It
would
also
follow
,
that
there
is
some
other
exclusion
greater
then
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
from
the
company
and
conversation
of
Gods
people
:
[
s
](A42757-e32790-b)
s
Tostatus
in
Levit.
12.
quast.
21.
for
though
every
uncleannesse
which
did
exclude
one
from
the
company
of
the
Israelites
,
did
also
exclude
him
from
the
Sanctuary
;
yet
every
uncleannesse
which
did
exclude
one
from
the
Sanctuary
,
did
not
exclude
him
from
the
company
of
the
Israelites
.
Even
as
now
among
us
,
suspension
from
the
Lords
Table
is
not
the
greatest
and
worst
exclusion
,
but
there
is
another
greater
then
that
.
Thus
you
see
Erastus
could
not
make
his
Type
agree
with
his
Antitype
.
Whence
it
doth
further
appeare
that
the
exclusion
of
the
uncleane
under
the
Law
,
did
teach
and
hold
forth
somewhat
in
a
politicall
sence
,
touching
the
communion
and
fellowship
of
the
Church
in
this
life
.
Whatsoever
it
might
signifie
more
,
I
will
not
now
dispute
,
but
this
it
did
signifie
.
And
this
I
shall
so
farre
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
aud
scandalously
encleane
.
First
,
let
it
be
remembered
that
I
have
proved
already
from
Heb.
13.
15
,
16.
2
Pet.
2.
13.
Iude
vers.
12.
that
the
people
of
God
are
defiled
by
communion
and
fellowship
with
scandalous
sinners
.
In
the
second
place
consider
that
prophecy
,
Isa.
52.
1.
Put
on
thy
beautifull
garments
,
O
Jesusalem
,
the
holy
City
:
for
henceforth
there
shall
no
more
come
into
thee
the
uncircumcised
aud
the
uncleane
.
That
whole
Chapter
is
a
prophecy
concerning
the
condition
of
the
Church
in
the
New
Testament
,
as
is
evident
by
six
parallels
at
least
.
Vers.
5.
with
Rom.
2.
24.
Vers.
7.
with
Rom.
10.
15.
Vers.
10.
with
Luke
3.
6.
the
beginning
of
Vers.
11.
with
Revel.
18.
4.
the
following
part
of
Vers.
11.
with
2
Cor.
6.
17.
Vers.
15.
with
Rom.
15.
21.
Neither
is
it
the
Church
invisible
,
but
the
Church
visible
,
for
Vers.
15.
is
applied
to
the
calling
of
the
Gentiles
Rom.
15.
21.
and
Vers.
11.
to
the
Churches
open
separation
from
Babylon
,
Revel
.
18.
4.
It
is
also
the
Church
ministeriall
Vers.
7
,
8
,
11.
How
beautifull
upon
the
mountaines
are
the
feet
of
him
that
bringeth
good
tidings
,
&c.
Thy
watchmen
shall
lift
up
the
voyce
,
&c.
Be
ye
cleane
that
beare
the
vessels
of
the
Lord
.
It
remaines
to
consider
what
is
meant
by
the
uncleane
,
Vers.
1.
it
cannot
be
meant
of
legall
uncleannesse
(
the
ceremoniall
Law
being
abolished
)
nor
of
the
hid
uncleannesse
of
close
hypocrites
(
for
in
that
sence
it
is
onely
the
priviledge
of
the
Church
triumphant
,
that
no
uncleane
thing
,
nor
no
hypocrite
shall
enter
there
.
)
It
must
therefore
be
meant
of
such
as
are
visibly
or
scandalously
uncleane
.
And
when
it
is
said
,
there
shall
no
more
come
into
thee
the
uncircumcised
,
and
the
uncleane
,
it
must
be
understood
respective
,
the
uncircumcised
,
signifying
such
as
are
not
fit
to
be
at
all
Church-members
:
the
uncleane
signifying
such
as
are
not
fit
to
have
communion
in
the
holy
things
:
for
so
these
two
were
distinguished
under
the
Law
.
Thirdly
,
there
is
another
place
which
(
to
me
)
puts
it
out
of
controversie
,
2
Cor.
6
:
14
,
15
,
16
,
17.
Where
the
Apostle
exhorteth
believers
to
avoyd
all
intime
conversation
or
fellowship
with
unbelievers
,
by
marrying
with
them
,
by
going
to
the
Idoll
Temples
,
or
the
like
;
he
concludeth
with
a
manifest
allusion
to
the
legall
ceremony
,
Be
ye
separate
,
and
touch
not
the
uncleane
thing
,
or
the
uncleane
things
as
the
Syriacke
hath
it
.
And
what
agreement
hath
the
Temple
of
God
with
idols
,
Vers.
16.
Where
the
Syriack
readeth
thus
:
And
what
agreement
hath
the
Temple
of
God
with
the
temple
of
Divels
?
Remember
,
would
the
Apostle
say
,
that
as
under
the
Law
,
the
touching
or
eating
of
uncleane
things
made
those
that
touched
them
,
or
did
eate
of
them
to
be
uncleane
;
so
doth
your
fellowship
with
unbelievers
,
or
your
eating
in
their
Idoll
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
separate
from
the
sonnes
of
Belial
.
Therefore
touch
not
the
uncleane
thing
,
and
I
will
receive
you
:
Which
is
not
spoken
of
receiving
us
into
Heaven
,
but
of
receiving
us
into
the
Tabernacle
of
God
in
this
life
,
as
is
manifest
by
Levit.
26.
11
,
12.
the
place
cited
by
the
Apostle
in
the
words
immediately
preceding
.
And
I
will
set
my
Tabernacle
among
you
,
and
my
soule
shall
not
abhorre
you
.
And
I
will
walke
among
you
,
and
will
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
adde
fourthly
,
for
further
cleering
of
this
point
in
hand
,
Peters
vision
,
and
the
interpretation
thereof
Act
10.
&
11.
a
passage
cited
by
Erastus
pag.
138
,
139.
while
he
is
proving
,
that
the
thing
signified
by
the
legall
uncleannesse
,
was
onely
the
corruption
and
Infidelity
of
nature
which
excludeth
a
sinner
from
heaven
.
The
place
is
so
farre
from
proving
what
he
would
,
that
it
proveth
the
contrary
;
for
it
speaketh
plainly
of
that
uncleannesse
which
excludeth
men
from
fellow-ship
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
unlawfull
thing
for
a
man
that
is
a
Jew
to
keep
company
,
or
to
come
unto
one
of
another
Nation
:
but
God
hath
shewed
me
that
I
should
not
call
any
man
common
or
unclean
,
meaning
for
being
a
Gentile
and
not
a
Iew.
Act.
10.
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
fellowship
in
this
world
with
Heathens
,
or
irreligious
persons
,
and
such
as
walked
not
according
to
the
Law
.
And
in
this
sence
the
Law
was
understood
,
not
onely
by
Peter
,
but
generally
by
the
Jews
Act.
11.
3.
Gal.
2.
12.
Nay
fifthly
,
the
legall
uncleannesse
,
in
the
sence
of
the
Jewes
,
did
signifie
not
onely
such
things
as
did
exclude
others
from
fellow-ship
with
them
,
but
such
as
did
exclude
the
Jewes
themselves
from
the
holy
things
.
Therefore
it
is
said
Io.
18.
28.
they
themselves
went
not
into
the
Judgement
hall
,
lest
they
should
be
defiled
:
but
that
they
might
eat
the
Passeover
:
Intimating
that
if
they
had
gone
into
the
house
of
an
uncircumcised
man
,
or
had
upon
such
a
day
gone
into
the
Judgement
Hall
about
a
litigious
action
,
they
had
been
unclean
,
and
so
might
not
eat
the
Passeover
.
Whether
it
were
the
coming
into
the
house
of
Pilate
,
he
being
a
man
uncircumcised
;
or
[
t
](A42757-e33260-b)
t
Tostatus
in
Matth.
26.
quaest.
48.
Etiam
actus
quidam
praeter
contactum
,
reddebant
homines
immundos
ad
manducandum
agnum
,
vel
quaecunque
sanctificat●
,
sicut
litigare
judicialiter
,
vel
intrare
in
locum
Judicii
ad
litigandum
,
sic
dicitut
Io.
18.
Lud.
Capelli
ΕΠΙΚΡΙΣΙΣ
de
ultimo
Christi
paschate
p.
25.
Cum
itaque
haec
una
fuerit
illarum
Traditionum
,
ut
ne
die
festo
capitali
judicio
vacarent
,
causa
nulla
est
curex
istimemus
eos
sine
necessitate
voluisse
proprias
constitutiones
ita
pedibus
conculcare
,
&
tam
solennis
festi
religionem
prophanare
.
Casaubon
Exerc.
16.
Anno
34.
num.
32.
citeth
a
plaine
passage
in
Maimonides
declaring
that
they
held
it
unlawfull
to
judge
of
capitall
cases
upon
the
perparation
to
the
Sabbath
or
to
a
Holy-day
.
whether
it
were
(
which
I
rather
think
)
a
litigious
action
upon
a
Holy-day
,
which
might
have
defiled
them
:
this
is
plaine
,
that
they
thought
there
was
a
morall
uncleannesse
(
signified
by
the
ceremoniall
uncleanesse
)
which
might
keep
men
from
the
Passeover
.
The
fifth
animadversion
shall
be
this
:
whereas
Erastus
holdeth
pag.
106.
that
under
the
law
every
one
was
judged
cleane
or
uncleane
,
according
to
his
owne
judgement
and
conscience
,
aud
not
according
to
the
Priests
,
the
Lepers
onely
excepted
;
Also
that
when
a
man
had
committed
any
sinne
,
it
was
in
the
free
will
of
the
sinner
to
expiate
his
sinne
when
he
pleased
,
and
he
was
no
way
compelled
to
it
.
I
answer
,
If
every
uncleane
person
except
the
Leper
was
allowed
to
judge
and
pronounce
himself
cleane
when
he
pleased
,
then
to
what
purpose
did
[
u
](A42757-e33400-b)
u
L'
Empereur
annot.
in
cod
.
middoth
.
p.
40.
Arcebantur
autem
hujusmodi
contaminati
,
donec
ca
peregissent
quae
ad
reatum
caeremonialem
quem
contraxerant
delendum
facerent
,
atque
hac
ratione
suis
magistris
morem
gessissent
.
The
unclean
were
not
permitted
to
partake
of
the
sacrifices
.
Iosephus
de
bello
Iud
lib.
7.
c.
17.
that
Law
serve
Lev.
7.
20.
21.
or
that
whoever
was
uncleane
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.
19
?
By
Erastus
his
principles
no
man
should
have
been
cut
off
,
if
he
had
pleaded
himself
not
to
be
uncleane
;
and
how
many
would
doe
so
,
if
that
could
save
them
from
being
cut
off
?
Is
it
not
also
plaine
from
Levit.
15.
15.
30.
31.
that
both
men
and
women
who
were
uncleane
by
their
issues
,
(
not
by
Leprosie
)
were
to
bring
an
offering
to
the
Priest
for
their
cleansing
,
otherwise
were
not
to
be
accounted
cleane
,
but
lookt
upon
as
defilers
of
the
Tabernacle
in
their
uncleannesse
,
whatever
they
might
thinke
of
themselves
.
So
women
that
were
unclean
after
Child-Birth
,
had
not
power
to
pronounce
themselves
cleane
,
and
were
not
free
to
come
to
the
Sanctuary
when
they
pleased
,
but
they
were
first
to
bring
a
sinne
offering
,
and
the
Priest
was
to
make
atonement
for
them
Lev.
12.
6.
7.
8.
There
was
a
certaine
number
of
dayes
appointed
for
the
cleansing
,
both
of
women
after
Child-Birth
,
and
of
men
who
had
an
issue
,
yea
,
when
the
dayes
of
the
cleansing
were
full-filled
,
they
were
not
free
to
come
unto
the
Tabernacle
,
except
they
brought
their
offering
for
atonement
.
Lev.
12.
6.
7.
&
15.
v.
13.
14.
15.
Philo
the
Jew
de
vita
Mosis
lib.
3.
pag.
531.
tells
us
there
was
a
certaine
definit
time
,
till
the
expiring
whereof
,
those
that
were
uncleane
by
a
dead
body
,
were
excluded
from
the
Temple
.
Iosephus
antiq.
Iud.
lib.
3.
cap.
10.
records
the
like
,
not
onely
of
Lepers
,
but
of
those
that
had
an
issue
,
or
were
defiled
by
the
dead
,
that
till
the
set
time
was
fulfilled
,
all
these
were
kept
back
from
the
congregration
.
The
other
thing
which
Erastus
saith
,
that
it
was
left
free
to
the
sinner
to
expiate
his
sinne
when
he
pleased
,
doth
no
better
agree
with
the
Word
.
for
it
was
commanded
that
upon
the
very
knowledge
of
the
sinne
,
the
trespasse
offering
should
be
brought
,
and
the
sinne
confessed
Levit.
4.
14.
28.
&
5.
3.
4.
5.
Sixthly
,
whereas
Erastus
pag.
105.
urgeth
the
universall
Law
,
by
which
all
are
commanded
to
keep
the
Passeover
except
the
uncleane
,
and
those
in
a
journey
,
therefore
all
others
(
how
flagitious
or
scandalous
soever
in
their
lives
)
were
bound
to
keep
it
;
I
answer
.
Who
knows
not
,
that
many
universalls
in
Scripture
are
to
be
restricted
,
and
not
to
be
understood
as
the
words
at
first
sound
?
as
Io.
2.
10.
every
man
at
the
beginning
doth
set
forth
good
wine
,
that
is
every
Master
of
a
feast
Luk.
13.
15.
doth
not
each
one
of
you
on
the
Sabbath
lose
his
Oxe
or
his
Asse
;
that
is
each
one
that
hath
an
Oxe
or
an
Asse
;
Io.
10.
8.
all
that
ever
came
before
me
were
Theeves
and
Robbers
,
meaning
whoever
before
him
did
make
himself
the
true
doore
,
by
which
the
sheep
must
enter
in
.
So
Ioel.
2.
28.
I
will
poure
out
my
spirit
upon
all
flesh
,
yet
not
upon
all
and
every
one
,
but
upon
those
onely
whom
he
receiveth
in
Covenant
.
Rev.
13.
8.
and
all
that
dwell
upon
the
earth
shall
worship
him
(
the
Beast
)
whose
names
are
not
written
in
the
Booke
of
life
;
yet
there
have
been
many
reprobates
who
neither
worshipped
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
Passeover
,
it
must
be
understood
of
all
sit
persons
,
and
such
as
were
not
to
be
excepted
.
You
will
say
the
Law
excepteth
none
,
but
the
unclean
,
and
those
in
a
journey
,
therefore
all
others
not
excepted
were
to
keep
it
;
for
where
an
exception
is
made
from
an
universall
Rule
,
that
Rule
is
the
more
sure
and
certaine
concerning
all
other
particulars
not
excepted
.
To
that
I
answer
,
Erastus
himself
addeth
another
exception
,
and
that
is
,
of
the
sick
who
could
not
be
present
.
The
Hebrewes
make
divers
other
exceptions
,
for
they
say
,
Women
and
Servants
are
not
bound
to
appear
:
but
all
men
are
bound
except
the
deaf
,
and
the
Dumb
,
and
the
Foole
,
and
the
little-Child
and
the
Blinde
,
and
the
Lame
,
and
the
defiled
,
and
the
uncircumcised
;
and
the
old
man
,
and
the
sick
,
and
the
tender
and
weake
which
are
not
able
to
goe
up
on
their
Feet
.
All
these
eleven
are
discharged
&c.
See
Ainsworth
on
Exo.
23.
17.
And
compare
this
with
Maimonides
de
Idolol
.
ch●o
.
11.
Sect.
18.
where
he
that
hearkens
to
Sooth-sayers
,
Wizards
,
Charmers
,
and
the
like
,
is
said
to
be
reckoned
among
Fooles
and
Children
whose
reason
is
imperfect
.
Therefore
these
were
to
be
excepted
as
well
as
Fools
and
Children
,
and
so
were
other
scandalous
persons
,
which
I
shall
prove
anon
.
A
Seventh
Animadversion
shall
be
this
.
Erastus
in
these
Arguments
of
his
from
the
Law
,
doth
confound
Sacraments
with
Sacrifices
(
as
I
touched
in
the
beginning
)
yea
,
[
x
](A42757-e33800-b)
x
Pag.
94.
Huc
ipso
,
quod
ad
expiandum
peccatum
jubetur
adferre
Sacrificium
,
non
excluditur
à
Sacramentis
,
sed
ad
ea
invitatur
;
nam
o●nnia
haec
Sacrificia
etant
vera
Sacramenta
,
he
argueth
expressely
,
that
whoever
were
admitted
to
expiate
their
Sinne
by
Sacrifices
,
were
thereby
admitted
to
Sacraments
,
because
(
saith
he
)
all
these
Sacrifices
were
true
Sacraments
.
So
he
speaketh
in
other
places
,
that
he
might
seeme
to
dispute
the
more
appositely
for
promiscuous
admission
to
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lord
Supper
.
[
y
](A42757-e33820-b)
y
Pareus
in
●…evit
.
4.
differunt
Sacrificium
&
Sacramentum
;
quod
Sacrificium
est
obedientia
nostra
Deoad
mandatum
ejus
praestita
,
sive
moralis
five
caerimonialis
cum
morali
conjuncta
▪
Sacramentum
est
Signum
gratiae
dei
erga
nos
in
fide
à
nobis
susceptum
.
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
Sacrifices
Peace
is
made
with
God
.
In
Sacraments
it
is
sealed
and
supposed
to
be
made
.
They
therefore
that
hold
the
Passeover
was
a
Sacrifice
(
an
opinion
partly
grounded
on
Deut.
16.
2.
and
partly
taken
from
the
Jewes
dispersed
,
who
though
they
observe
divers
paschall
rites
,
yet
they
doe
not
kill
the
Paschall
Lambe
,
nor
keep
the
Passeover
according
to
the
Law
,
it
being
to
them
unlawfull
to
offer
Sacrifices
,
except
in
the
Land
of
Canaan
)
have
the
shorter
evasion
from
Erastus
his
Argument
touching
the
admission
to
the
Passeover
.
But
I
have
given
other
answers
.
And
this
much
shall
suffice
for
answer
to
the
Erastian
Arguments
drawn
from
the
Law
of
Moses
,
which
some
suppose
to
be
the
strongest
.
CHAP.
XII
.
Fourteen
Arguments
,
to
prove
that
scandalous
and
presumptuous
Offenders
against
the
morall
Law
(
though
circumcised
and
not
being
legally
uncleane
)
were
excluded
from
the
Passeover
.
THere
is
so
much
weight
laid
,
both
by
Erastus
himself
,
and
by
Master
Prynne
,
upon
the
universall
Law
commanding
all
that
were
circumcised
to
eat
the
Passeover
,
except
such
as
were
legally
uncleane
,
or
were
in
a
journey
:
that
I
am
resolved
,
once
for
all
,
to
demonstrate
against
them
,
that
men
were
excluded
from
the
Passeover
,
for
scandalous
and
enormous
Trespasses
against
the
morall
Law
,
as
well
as
for
legall
uncleannesse
.
Peradventure
it
will
seeme
to
some
,
that
I
undertake
to
prove
a
paradox
,
and
to
walke
in
an
untrodden
or
obscure
Path.
Yet
my
Arguments
are
such
,
as
I
trust
shall
weigh
much
with
intelligent
men
.
The
first
Argument
shall
be
this
.
(
which
is
hinted
by
Ursinus
and
Pareus
Explic.
catechit
.
Quest.
85.
art.
2.
)
Whosoever
by
Gods
appointment
were
excluded
from
the
priviledges
of
Church
Members
,
and
not
to
be
reckoned
among
the
Congregation
of
Israel
,
those
were
by
Gods
appointment
excluded
from
the
Passeover
.
But
whosoever
committed
any
scandalous
sinne
presumptuously
,
or
with
an
high
hand
,
were
by
Gods
appointment
excluded
from
the
priviledges
of
Church
Members
and
not
to
be
reckoned
among
the
Congregation
of
Israel
.
Ergo.
The
Proposition
hath
this
manifest
reason
for
it
.
Those
all
who
were
commanded
to
eat
the
Passeover
,
cannot
be
understood
to
be
of
a
larger
extent
then
the
Church
of
Israel
:
Those
therefore
who
were
not
to
be
acknowledged
or
used
as
Church-Members
,
were
by
Gods
appointment
excluded
from
the
Passeover
.
The
Assumption
is
proved
from
Numb
15.
30.
31.
But
the
soule
that
doth
ought
presumptuously
(
whether
he
be
born
in
the
land
,
or
a
stranger
)
the
same
reproacheth
the
Lord
,
and
that
soule
shall
be
cut
off
from
among
his
people
,
Because
he
hath
despised
the
word
of
the
Lord
,
and
hath
broken
his
commandement
,
that
soule
shall
utterly
be
cut
off
:
his
iniquity
shall
be
upon
him
.
The
presumption
here
spoken
of
,
is
not
onely
the
presumption
of
heart
(
saith
Cajetan
)
of
which
God
onely
is
Judge
,
but
a
presumption
manifested
in
word
or
work
,
which
he
conceives
to
be
intimated
by
the
Hebrew
phrase
,
with
an
high
hand
.
Grotius
understands
one
that
either
denyes
that
there
is
a
God
,
or
that
the
Law
was
given
by
God
,
or
after
admonition
goeth
on
in
his
trespasse
.
But
sure
he
mistakes
the
punishment
,
which
he
understands
to
be
extrajudiciall
,
and
that
he
who
finds
one
thus
sinning
presumptuously
,
may
kill
him
ex
jure
Zelotarum
,
as
Phinehes
did
kill
Zi●…i
and
Cosbi
.
I
have
spoken
before
of
the
cutting
off
,
which
I
will
not
here
resume
.
Onely
this
,
such
presumptuous
and
contumacious
sinners
were
not
to
be
reckoned
among
the
people
of
God
,
nor
to
enjoy
the
priviledge
of
Church
Members
,
therefore
not
admitted
to
the
Passeover
.
Secondly
,
Iosephus
de
bello
Iud.
lib.
7.
cap.
17.
speaking
of
such
as
were
permitted
to
eat
the
Passeover
,
in
the
time
of
Cestius
,
doth
thus
designe
them
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
being
all
of
them
pure
and
holy
,
not
onely
pure
from
legall
uncleannesse
,
but
such
as
were
also
esteemed
holy
.
But
moreover
,
it
is
clear
from
Io.
18.
28
,
they
themselves
(
the
Jewes
)
went
not
into
the
Judgement
Hall
lest
they
should
be
defiled
:
but
that
they
might
eat
the
Passeover
:
that
the
Jewes
did
so
understand
the
Law
,
that
morall
as
well
as
ceremoniall
uncleannesse
,
did
render
them
uncapable
of
the
Passeover
:
for
they
had
no
such
ceremoniall
Law
,
that
they
who
come
into
the
Judgement
Hall
,
should
be
legally
or
ceremonially
uncleane
:
yet
this
had
disabled
them
from
eating
the
Passeover
:
for
they
held
litigious
or
forensicall
actions
unlawfull
upon
a
holy
day
as
Capellus
,
and
Casaubon
(
above
cited
)
doe
prove
.
Such
a
finfull
and
scandalous
act
had
kept
them
back
from
the
Passeover
.
Thirdly
,
if
we
consult
the
Chaldee
paraphrase
upon
Exod.
12.
43.
it
saith
thus
.
Every
Sonne
of
Israel
,
who
is
an
Apostate
,
shall
not
eat
of
it
.
And
upon
the
same
place
Master
Ainsworth
proves
out
of
Maimonides
that
no
Apostate
nor
Idolater
was
permitted
to
eat
of
the
Passeover
.
Yea
,
some
Israelites
who
were
not
apostates
,
nor
idolaters
,
were
for
a
seandalous
action
excluded
from
civill
,
how
much
more
from
Ecclesiasticall
fellow-ship
?
See
Maimon
;
of
Idolatry
cap.
9.
Sect.
15.
With
an
Israelite
,
who
hath
made
defection
to
the
worship
of
Idolls
,
it
is
forbidden
to
have
traffique
or
commerce
either
in
his
going
or
returning
:
with
another
Israelite
going
to
the
Markets
and
Faires
of
Heathens
,
we
are
onely
forbidden
to
have
commerce
in
his
returning
.
If
it
was
unlawfull
to
them
,
so
much
as
to
have
civill
commerce
with
an
Israelite
coming
from
the
Markets
of
Heathens
(
fearing
lest
he
had
sold
some
what
which
was
dedicate
to
Idolatry
,
as
the
reason
is
there
given
)
although
he
was
no
Apostate
nor
Idolater
:
it
is
not
easily
●imaginable
,
that
such
a
one
was
freely
admitted
to
the
Passeover
.
Fourthly
,
an
Israelite
though
circumcised
,
and
not
legally
uncleane
,
yet
if
he
either
turned
Idolater
,
or
an
Heretick
,
or
an
Epicurean
,
was
no
longer
acknowledged
to
be
in
Church-Fellowship
or
Communion
,
therefore
rendred
uncapable
of
the
Passeover
.
Is.
Abrabanel
in
his
Book
de
capite
fidei
,
as
he
sheweth
whom
they
esteemed
Apostats
or
Hereticks
cap.
12.
so
he
also
intimateth
that
such
were
excluded
from
the
communion
of
their
Law
Cap.
3.
dub
.
5.
none
being
acknowledged
to
be
in
the
Communion
of
Israel
,
who
did
not
beleeve
the
Articles
of
faith
professed
in
the
Jewish
Church
Cap.
6.
yea
,
he
tells
us
Cap.
24.
(
which
the
Talmud
it self
saith
●…it
.
Sanhedrin
.
cap.
11.
Sect.
1.
)
that
Hereticall
or
Epicurean
Israelites
were
lookt
upon
as
excluded
from
having
portion
in
the
world
to
come
.
And
as
Doctor
Buxtorf
sheweth
out
of
their
owne
writers
,
they
esteemed
an
Hereticall
Israelite
to
be
so
abominable
,
that
they
did
straight
and
without
delay
excommunicate
him
.
Lexic.
Chald.
Talm.
&
Rabbin
.
pag.
195.
How
is
it
then
imaginable
that
they
admitted
such
a
one
to
eat
the
Passeover
?
Let
us
heare
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
aske
counsell
from
the
thoughts
of
their
own
mind
,
being
Ignorant
of
those
things
we
have
spoken
of
,
untill
having
transgressed
the
chief
heads
of
the
Law
,
they
offend
by
contumacy
and
presumption
,
and
say
there
is
no
sinne
in
this
thing
.
But
it
is
forbidden
to
speake
with
them
or
to
answer
them
;
for
it
is
said
,
come
not
neer
the
door
of
her
house
Prov.
5.
8.
Therefore
the
whorish
woman
that
Solomon
speakes
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
lesse
to
be
admitted
to
the
Passeover
.
yea
,
Maimonides
de
Idal
.
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
passeover
those
whom
they
thought
themselves
obliged
to
persecute
even
unto
hell
?
Fifthly
,
those
Arguments
which
prove
an
exclusion
of
known
prophane
persons
from
the
Temple
,
will
also
prove
an
exclusion
of
known
prophane
persons
from
the
Passeover
:
for
none
might
eat
of
the
Passeover
,
who
might
not
also
come
into
the
Temple
.
That
scandalous
prophane
persons
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
legall
uncleannesse
,
much
more
for
morall
uncleannesse
,
this
being
more
hatefull
to
God
and
more
hurtfull
to
men
then
the
other
.
This
just
consequence
Grotius
annot.
in
Luk.
6.
22.
doth
admit
.
If
by
the
Law
saith
he
,
one
that
was
leprous
or
had
a
filthy
scab
,
was
separated
from
mens
company
,
lest
he
should
infect
others
,
it
was
no
ill
consequence
.
that
(
if
no
heavier
thing
)
this
at
least
should
be
imposed
on
flagitious
&
wicked
persons
,
who
did
by
the
contagion
of
their
sinfull
example
hurt
others
,
&
bring
a
reproach
upon
the
whole
congregation
from
which
the
congregation
could
not
be
made
free
,
but
by
some
publik
detestation
of
that
wickednes
▪
thus
Groti
:
Seventhly
,
the
purging
out
of
leven
from
the
Congregation
of
Israel
,
was
a
significant
teaching
Ceremony
▪
holding
forth
this
duty
,
that
the
Church
ought
to
put
away
wicked
persons
from
among
them
;
for
so
doth
the
Apostle
expound
it
1.
Cor.
5.
vers.
6.
7.
Know
ye
not
that
a
little
leaven
leaveneth
the
whole
lumpe
?
purge
out
therefore
the
old
leaven
.
Which
relateth
not
onely
to
the
purging
of
their
own
hearts
,
but
to
the
purging
of
the
Church
,
and
the
putting
away
of
that
wicked
person
,
this
being
the
scope
of
the
whole
Chapter
.
Now
the
morall
signification
of
that
ceremony
of
purging
out
the
leaven
,
did
concerne
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
typifie
the
sanctification
of
the
Christian
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
yeelding
to
the
Substantials
of
the
second
)
yet
Abimelech
the
Priest
would
not
adventure
to
give
it
,
till
he
understood
that
the
young
men
had
then
kept
themselves
at
least
from
women
,
1
Sam.
21.
4
,
5
,
6.
this
being
a
part
of
that
sanctification
which
was
required
in
those
who
did
partake
of
holy
things
,
not
onely
among
the
Hebrews
,
but
among
other
Nations
,
as
Hugo
Grotius
noteth
upon
the
place
,
and
upon
Exod.
19.
15.
Now
the
Shew-bread
,
or
the
twelve
loaves
which
did
shew
or
present
the
people
to
God
,
can
not
be
supposed
to
be
holier
then
the
Paschall
Lambe
which
did
shew
or
present
Christ
to
the
people
,
and
was
a
Sacrament
or
Seale
of
the
covenant
of
grace
.
David
also
and
his
men
in
that
danger
of
their
lives
had
as
good
right
to
eate
the
Shew-bread
,
as
any
Israelite
could
pretend
to
for
his
eating
the
Passeover
:
yea
that
was
a
substantiall
duty
of
the
second
Table
,
which
Christ
himselfe
justifieth
:
this
was
a
ceremoniall
duty
of
the
first
Table
,
and
grounded
on
a
positive
law
.
This
therefore
doth
afford
me
an
argument
with
manifold
advantages
.
For
if
the
Shew-bread
might
not
be
given
to
David
and
his
men
in
their
extreame
necessity
,
unlesse
they
had
for
a
certaine
space
before
abstained
from
the
use
of
their
wives
,
otherwise
lawfull
:
how
much
lesse
might
the
Passeover
be
given
as
an
holy
Ordinance
(
which
did
not
concern
the
saving
of
mens
lives
in
extreame
necessity
)
to
scandalous
persons
living
in
known
whordome
and
adultery
?
Ninthly
,
I
argue
from
that
place
,
Ezech
▪
22.
26.
Her
Priests
have
violated
my
law
and
have
prophaned
mine
holy
things
:
they
have
put
no
difference
between
the
holy
and
prophane
.
Will
any
man
say
,
that
they
were
to
put
a
difference
between
the
holy
and
prophane
in
other
Ordinances
,
and
not
in
the
Passeover
?
and
why
not
in
the
Passeover
,
as
well
as
in
other
Ordinances
?
If
such
difference
was
to
be
put
in
the
Passeover
,
then
how
shall
one
imagine
that
no
man
was
kept
backe
from
the
Passeover
because
of
known
prophanesse
or
morall
uncleannesse
?
for
what
difference
was
put
between
the
holy
and
prophane
,
when
the
prophane
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
onely
that
the
Priests
did
prophane
the
holy
things
in
their
owne
practice
,
by
eating
in
their
uncleannesse
,
and
also
in
their
ministery
because
they
taught
not
the
children
of
Israel
to
put
a
difference
between
the
cleane
and
the
uncleane
.
Maledicis
pag.
11.
But
the
Text
gives
not
the
least
ground
to
restraine
this
fault
of
the
Priests
here
reproved
,
either
to
their
personall
actions
,
or
to
their
doctrinall
ministery
.
Nay
the
Text
will
reach
to
an
act
of
government
neglected
;
for
the
word
here
used
to
expresse
the
distinguishing
or
putting
of
a
difference
between
the
holy
and
prophane
is
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
which
is
often
used
in
Scripture
to
expresse
an
act
of
government
or
authority
,
whereby
one
person
is
separated
or
distinguished
from
another
person
,
or
one
thing
from
another
thing
,
as
Ezra
8.
24.
Then
I
separated
twelve
of
the
chiefe
of
the
Priests
,
&c.
Ezra
10.
8.
all
his
substance
should
be
forfeited
,
and
himselfe
separated
from
the
congregation
.
Here
it
signifieth
such
a
separation
,
as
was
a
publique
censure
:
why
not
also
Ezech.
22.
26
?
The
same
word
is
used
in
the
story
of
the
division
of
the
Land
by
Ioshua
,
Iosh.
16.
9.
And
the
separate
Cities
for
the
children
of
Ephraim
.
It
is
used
also
to
expresse
Gods
dividing
of
light
from
darknesse
,
Genes.
1.
4.
also
his
separating
of
Israel
from
all
other
Nations
,
Levit.
20.
24.
And
whereas
Mr
Coleman
did
take
hold
of
the
following
words
in
that
place
of
Ezechiel
,
neither
have
they
shewed
difference
between
the
uncleane
and
the
cleane
,
as
being
meerly
doctrinall
.
First
,
(
if
it
were
so
)
how
will
it
appeare
that
these
words
are
exegeticall
to
the
former
,
and
that
the
putting
of
difference
between
the
holy
and
prophane
,
mentioned
in
the
former
words
,
was
onely
meant
of
shewing
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
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
fecerunt
scire
,
the
Septuagints
render
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
:
and
they
use
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
as
Synonymous
with
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
:
by
all
these
(
signifying
to
separate
or
to
divide
)
they
render
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
yea
the
Septuagints
expresse
a
forensicall
censure
or
judiciall
separation
by
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
as
Ezra
108.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
So
that
when
they
retalne
the
same
word
in
rendering
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
in
this
Text
of
Ezekiel
,
they
doe
thereby
intimate
that
the
latter
word
will
reach
a
power
which
was
more
then
doctrinall
,
as
well
as
the
former
.
Which
I
doe
the
rather
assert
,
because
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
is
taken
by
the
Septuagints
(
not
seldome
)
as
agreeing
in
signification
with
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
de
voluntate
sua
certiorem
reddidit
,
constituit
,
decrevit
:
so
that
it
will
reach
the
making
of
others
to
know
a
thing
,
not
onely
doctrinally
,
but
by
rules
,
Canons
,
Statutes
,
and
Government
.
Yea
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
will
reach
the
teaching
or
making
men
to
know
by
censures
or
punishments
inflicted
,
as
Iudg.
8.
16.
Gedeon
tooke
briars
and
thornes
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Pagnin
,
&
confregit
.
and
he
brake
with
these
the
men
of
Succoth
.
Hierome
,
&
contrivit
.
The
Septuagints
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
comminui●…
.
The
English
Translation
,
and
with
these
be
taught
(
in
the
Margent
made
to
know
)
the
men
of
Succoth
.
For
this
signification
of
the
word
,
namely
conterere
,
Arias
Montanus
in
his
Hebrew
Lexicon
citeth
Isa.
53.
3.
Ezech.
19.
7.
So
conteri
Psalm
74.
5.
Prov.
10.
9.
Upon
this
last
place
Mercerus
tels
us
that
the
Hebrews
doe
not
onely
admit
this
sence
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
prophane
,
neither
have
they
broken
(
or
divided
)
between
the
uncleane
and
the
cleane
.
The
latter
part
seemeth
to
charge
the
Priests
with
the
admission
of
such
as
were
legally
uncleane
;
the
former
part
,
with
the
admission
of
such
as
were
morally
uncleane
or
prophane
,
to
such
ordinances
as
were
appointed
onely
for
the
holy
and
cleane
.
Tenthly
,
Heathens
or
strangers
who
were
not
Proselytes
of
the
covenant
or
of
righteousnessè
,
were
not
permitted
to
eate
of
the
Passeover
.
Now
one
that
is
by
profession
a
Church
member
,
but
living
in
prophanesse
and
scandalous
wickednesse
,
ought
to
be
esteemed
as
an
Heathen
,
Matth.
18.
17.
yea
as
worse
than
an
Infidell
,
1
Tim.
5.
8.
Hence
was
it
that
the
word
Heathen
was
used
for
an
irreligious
or
wicked
man
,
as
is
observed
by
Mathias
Martinius
in
lexic.
philol
.
pag.
717.
718.
and
as
a
discriminating
name
from
believers
;
so
Zonaras
in
Cone
.
Carthag
.
Can.
24.
When
David
speaks
of
his
persecuting
wicked
enemies
,
though
Israelites
,
he
cals
them
strangers
and
heathen
,
Psal.
54.
3.
Psal.
59.
5.
How
then
can
it
be
supposed
,
that
those
who
were
esteemed
as
heathens
,
were
admitted
to
all
Church
priviledges
,
as
well
as
the
best
Israelites
?
Eleventhly
,
that
which
was
among
the
Jewes
a
sufficient
cause
to
deny
circumcision
to
him
who
desired
to
be
admitted
and
received
into
the
Jewish
Church
as
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Ger
ben
berith
,
a
proselyte
,
sonne
of
the
covenant
,
or
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Ger
tsedeck
,
a
proselyte
of
righteousnesse
,
was
also
a
sufficient
cause
to
deny
the
Passeover
to
a
proselyte
who
desired
to
eate
it
.
Even
as
now
that
for
which
we
may
and
ought
to
refuse
Baptisme
to
one
that
desireth
it
,
must
needs
be
also
a
cause
and
reason
to
refuse
the
Lords
Supper
to
him
that
desireth
to
receive
it
;
for
he
that
is
not
fit
to
be
baptized
,
is
much
lesse
fit
to
receive
the
Lords
Supper
.
But
prophanesse
or
a
scandalous
conversation
was
among
the
Jewes
a
sufficient
cause
and
reason
to
refuse
Circumcision
.
Yea
as
Dr
Buxtorf
tels
us
in
Lexic
.
Chald.
Talm.
&
Rabbin
.
pag.
408.
before
the
Jewes
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
covetousnesse
,
ambition
,
feare
,
the
love
of
an
Israelitish
virgin
,
or
the
like
sinister
end
.
If
upon
examination
it
did
appeare
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
strictnesse
of
the
law
,
and
how
strait
and
narrow
a
path
he
must
walke
in
,
telling
him
also
of
the
persecutions
and
tribulations
of
Israel
.
If
after
all
this
triall
they
found
him
stedfast
in
his
desires
and
resolutions
,
then
they
received
him
,
he
being
first
instructed
in
the
Articles
of
their
faith
,
and
in
the
Commandements
of
the
Law
.
How
much
lesse
would
they
have
circumcised
a
scandalous
person
,
being
so
farre
from
any
hopefull
signes
of
sincerity
,
that
he
had
the
blacke
markes
of
a
worker
of
iniquity
?
And
if
they
would
not
receive
such
a
scandalous
flagitious
person
to
circumcision
,
how
could
they
receive
such
a
one
(
being
circumcised
)
to
the
Passeover
?
Twelfthly
,
compare
Ezra
6.
21.
with
Ezra
10.
16
,
17.
First
it
is
marked
Ezra
6.
21.
that
such
proselytes
did
eate
the
Passeover
with
the
children
of
Israel
,
as
had
separated
themselves
unto
them
from
the
silthinesse
of
the
Heathen
of
the
Land
,
to
seeke
the
Lord
God
of
Israel
.
If
those
who
did
eate
were
thus
qualified
,
it
is
not
obscurely
intimated
,
that
those
who
were
not
thus
qualified
did
not
eate
.
And
if
no
proselyte
who
did
not
separate
himselfe
from
the
filthinesse
of
the
Heathen
,
was
allowed
to
eat
the
Passeover
,
then
muchlesse
was
an
Israelite
who
did
not
separate
himselfe
from
the
silthynesse
of
the
Heathen
,
allowed
to
eat
it
.
I
like
well
Beda
his
observation
upon
Ezra
10.
16
,
17.
Israel
was
purged
from
unlawfull
marriages
,
and
the
strange
wives
put
away
;
and
this
worke
was
ended
against
the
beginning
of
the
first
moneth
,
to
the
intent
that
none
defiled
with
unlawfull
mariages
might
eate
the
Passeover
,
Ut
ante
initium
mensis
primi
consummarentur
omnes
qui
prophano
erant
connubio
maculati
,
id
est
a
tali
scelere
purgarentur
,
quatenus
ipsum
mensem
primum
in
quo
erat
pascha
faciendum
,
mundi
intrarent
,
mundi
paschalia
festa
peragerent
&c.
Thirteenthly
,
I
argue
from
the
signification
of
the
legall
or
ceremoniall
uncleannesse
,
and
from
that
which
was
signified
by
the
exclusion
of
those
that
were
legally
uncleane
.
Without
all
controversie
the
keeping
backe
of
such
,
was
a
significant
ceremony
.
For
all
the
legall
ceremonies
concerning
cleannesse
or
uncleannesse
were
teaching
ceremonies
,
and
are
therefore
called
Doctrines
,
Matth.
15.
9.
Col.
22.
2.
What
was
taught
and
signified
thereby
,
I
have
before
shewed
,
namely
,
that
prophane
ones
be
not
admitted
to
fellowship
with
Gods
people
in
their
holy
things
.
Yea
,
was
not
prophannesse
and
open
wickednesse
more
hatefull
to
God
than
legall
uncleannesse
?
yes
saith
Erastus
pag.
144.
because
God
appointed
greater
punishments
for
the
former
then
for
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
legall
uncleannesse
was
more
hatefull
to
God
than
prophanesse
and
wickednesse
,
in
reference
to
fellowship
in
the
holy
things
,
(
for
that
is
the
point
)
He
holds
that
the
most
flagitious
and
prophane
were
commanded
of
God
to
eate
the
Passeover
,
and
yet
those
that
were
onely
Iegally
uncleane
were
forbidden
:
though
the
Scripture
say
,
Prov.
15.
8.
&
21.
27.
that
the
Sacrifice
of
the
wicked
is
abomination
to
the
Lord
,
and
the
oblations
of
those
whose
hands
were
full
of
blood
,
his
soule
hated
,
and
he
could
not
away
with
them
▪
Isa.
1.
11
,
12
,
13
,
14.
and
when
they
came
to
his
house
,
he
told
them
,
When
ye
come
to
appeare
before
me
,
who
hath
requird
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
Passeover
,
and
the
admitting
onely
of
those
that
were
free
.
Which
[
z
](A42757-e35630-b)
z
Lavater
hom.
23.
in
Ezram
.
some
of
the
Zurik
Divines
themselves
have
interpreted
to
signifie
the
exclusion
of
those
who
are
servants
of
sinne
,
and
of
those
who
seeke
onely
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
uncleane
,
even
those
that
had
scandalously
transgressed
the
morall
Law
,
were
excluded
from
the
Passeover
.
The
ground
of
my
argument
is
that
whereof
I
have
spoken
before
,
the
law
for
confession
of
sinne
and
declaration
of
repentance
;
without
which
the
Trespasse-offering
was
not
accepted
Levit.
5.
5
,
6.
which
Law
is
extended
to
every
knowne
sinne
that
was
to
be
expiated
by
Sacrifice
,
Numb
.
5.
6
,
7.
When
a
man
or
woman
shall
commit
any
sinne
that
men
commit
,
to
doe
a
trespasse
against
the
Lord
(
the
70
read
,
and
despising
he
despise
;
to
note
rebellion
or
co●macy
)
and
that
person
be
guilty
(
that
is
be
found
guilty
,
or
when
the
sinne
shall
be
known
,
so
the
phrase
of
being
guilty
is
explained
,
Levit.
4.
13
,
14.
)
Then
they
shall
confesse
their
sinne
which
they
have
done
.
After
which
followes
restitution
to
the
party
wronged
,
and
atonement
made
by
the
Priest
.
Whence
I
argue
thus
.
If
the
scandalous
persons
were
not
admited
to
the
Trespasse
offering
(
which
was
a
reconciling
Ordinance
)
without
confession
of
their
sinne
,
which
was
knowne
to
have
been
committed
by
them
,
much
lesse
were
they
admitted
to
the
Passeover
(
which
was
a
sealing
Ordinance
)
without
such
confession
of
their
sinne
.
But
scandalous
persons
were
not
admitted
to
the
Trespasse-offering
,
(
which
was
a
reconciling
Ordinance
)
without
confession
of
their
sinne
which
was
known
to
have
been
committed
by
them
.
Therefore
much
lesse
were
they
admitted
to
the
Passeover
,
(
which
was
a
sealing
Ordinance
)
without
such
comession
.
This
argument
I
did
before
Chap.
10.
vindicate
from
Mr.
Prynne
.
I
will
here
further
strengthen
it
,
and
vindicate
it
from
another
exception
,
which
peradventure
will
be
made
against
it
.
The
proposition
is
certaine
:
for
some
are
called
to
make
their
peace
with
God
,
who
can
not
have
any
assurance
sealed
unto
them
,
that
their
peace
is
made
with
God
;
But
if
God
will
not
be
reconciled
,
he
will
farre
lesse
seale
reconciliation
.
There
is
no
peace
to
the
wicked
saith
God
,
how
much
lesse
can
their
peace
be
sealed
to
them
?
The
assumption
is
manifest
from
the
Scriptures
last
cited
.
And
if
any
shall
say
that
the
Law
,
Levit.
5.
is
meant
onely
of
private
sinnes
,
and
those
of
ignorance
,
which
so
soon
as
they
come
to
knowledge
,
are
to
be
confessed
:
I
answer
.
1.
It
s
more
then
can
be
proved
,
that
onely
private
sinnes
and
those
of
ignorance
are
there
meant
of
.
Of
this
I
have
spoken
elsewhere
.
But
be
it
so
.
If
some
private
sinnes
,
yea
sinnes
of
ignorance
were
to
be
publiquely
confessed
when
they
were
known
,
how
much
more
were
publique
and
scandalous
sins
to
be
publiquely
confessed
?
2.
The
Hebrews
understand
the
Law
of
confession
to
be
extended
to
all
sinnes
whatsoever
that
were
expiated
by
Sacrifice
,
and
that
before
atonement
could
be
made
,
the
sinner
must
make
confession
and
say
,
O
God
I
have
sinned
,
and
done
perversely
,
I
have
trespassed
before
thee
,
and
have
done
thus
and
thus
:
and
lo
I
repent
and
am
ashamed
of
my
doings
,
and
I
will
never
doe
this
thing
againe
.
3.
In
all
Sacrifices
for
atonement
or
expiation
a
man
laid
his
hand
upon
the
head
of
his
offering
,
Levit.
1.
4.
Exod.
29.
10
,
15
,
19.
This
laying
on
of
hands
was
the
rite
used
in
confession
of
sinne
,
whereby
a
man
did
professe
that
he
was
worthy
to
be
destroyed
for
his
sinne
,
and
that
he
laid
his
sinne
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
sinne
was
made
by
word
of
mouth
;
which
as
it
is
the
judgement
of
[
a
](A42757-e35790-b)
a
Tostatus
in
Levit.
1.
quaest.
15.
Ainsworth
on
Levit.
1.
4.
Interpreters
,
so
it
is
easily
proved
from
Levit.
16.
21.
And
Aaron
shall
lay
both
his
hands
upon
the
head
of
the
live
Goat
,
and
confesse
over
him
all
the
iniquities
of
the
children
of
Israel
,
and
all
their
transgressions
in
all
their
sinnes
,
putting
them
upon
the
head
of
the
Goat
.
Whereupon
I
conclude
,
that
any
sinne
which
was
expiated
by
Sacrifice
,
whether
a
publique
or
secret
offence
,
was
confessed
before
it
was
expiated
.
4.
The
Law
Numb
.
5.
6.
extends
confession
to
any
sinne
that
men
commit
,
as
hath
been
before
observed
.
5.
Philippus
Gamachaeus
a
learned
Doctor
of
Sorbon
,
comment
.
in
tertiam
partem
Thomae
,
de
Paenitentiae
Sacramento
cap.
13.
doth
ingenuously
acknowledge
,
that
the
foresaid
law
of
Moses
,
concerning
confession
of
sinne
,
is
no
warrant
for
their
private
auricular
,
and
Sacramentall
confession
,
[
b
](A42757-e35860-b)
b
Deinde
nec
Judaei
confiteban●
peccata
omnia
exactè
,
accuratè
,
sicut
nos
;
non
enim
peccata
interna
&
mentalia
,
sed
solùm
externa
,
quae
opere
ipso
consummata
essent
,
&
in
exteriorem
actum
trans●issent
&c.
Tertiò
,
nec
Judaei
omnia
externa
peccata
in
confessione
declarabant
,
sed
praesertim
notoria
&
publica
,
ut
fert
opinio
probabilior
.
because
the
Jewes
were
not
by
that
Law
bound
to
confesse
any
other
sinnes
,
but
sinfull
actions
or
externall
transgressions
,
nor
all
such
,
but
chiefly
the
notorious
and
scandalous
sinnes
.
If
he
had
perceived
the
least
colour
of
an
argument
,
from
that
Mosaicall
Law
,
for
the
necessity
of
confessing
private
sinnes
to
the
Priest
,
surely
he
had
taken
hold
of
it
,
and
had
not
quit
it
.
CHAP.
XIII
.
Master
Prynnes
Argument
from
1
Cor.
10.
(
which
he
takes
to
be
unanswerable
)
discussed
and
confuted
.
MAster
Prynne
in
the
15.
page
of
his
Vindication
endeavoureth
to
prove
,
that
spirituall
pollution
by
reason
of
grosse
and
scandalous
sinnes
,
did
not
debaree
them
that
were
circumcised
from
the
Passeover
.
as
Paul
(
saith
he
)
expressely
determines
1
Cor.
10.
1.
to
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
,
&
were
all
Baptized
unto
Moses
in
the
Cloud
&
in
the
Sea
;
and
did
all
eat
the
same
spirituall
meat
(
to
wit
the
Passeover
and
Manna
)
and
did
:
all
drinke
of
the
same
spirituall
drinke
,
for
they
dranke
of
the
Rock
that
followed
them
,
and
that
Rock
was
Christ
.
But
perhaps
all
these
Communicants
were
visible
Saints
,
free
from
any
legall
pollution
,
at
least
not
Tainted
with
any
scandalous
sinne
:
The
Apostle
to
take
off
this
evasion
,
subjoynes
,
in
the
very
next
words
.
But
with
many
of
them
,
God
was
not
well
pleased
,
&c.
So
that
the
Israelites
being
once
circumcised
,
were
all
admitted
to
eat
the
Passeover
,
though
some
of
them
were
Idolaters
,
others
lusters
after
evill
things
;
others
fornicators
,
others
tempters
of
Christ
;
others
murmurers
against
God
and
Moses
.
The
same
argument
he
hinteth
pag.
9.
to
prove
the
like
under
the
Gospell
.
It
's
one
of
Erastus
his
argments
,
Confirm
.
Thes.
pag.
118.
119.
and
as
colourable
as
any
other
,
yet
not
unanswerable
as
Master
Prynne
holds
.
-
For
1.
though
he
saith
the
Apostle
cleerly
determines
,
that
those
who
were
tainted
with
grosse
and
scandalous
sinnes
,
were
admitted
to
the
Passeover
;
yet
I
finde
nothing
of
the
Passeover
,
neither
in
the
Text
,
nor
in
the
sence
of
any
Interpreter
which
I
have
looked
upon
.
Nay
,
it
did
not
so
much
as
fall
in
the
thoughts
of
Erastus
himself
;
for
Beza
having
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
corporall
nourishment
;
Erastus
replyeth
nothing
concerning
the
Passeover
(
which
had
been
his
best
answer
if
he
had
seen
any
probability
for
it
,
)
onely
he
saith
that
he
compareth
our
Sacraments
with
the
manna
and
the
water
of
the
Rock
,
as
the
Apostle
doth
before
him
.
-
2.
The
Text
it self
seemeth
rather
to
determine
clearly
,
that
the
Passeover
is
not
there
intended
for
all
the
other
particulars
there
mentioned
did
agree
to
all
the
Israelites
,
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
spirituall
meat
,
that
is
of
the
Manna
,
not
of
the
Passeover
,
of
which
women
and
Children
under
13
yeares
of
age
did
not
eat
:
neither
did
all
the
males
above
13
yeares
eat
of
it
▪
for
the
unclean
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
Jewes
exclude
also
the
Dumbe
and
the
Deaf
.
If
it
be
said
,
that
vers.
1.
speaketh
onely
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
,
therefore
no
women
were
among
that
multitude
of
the
people
Act.
21.
35.
36.
39.
40.
or
thus
,
the
Apostle
saith
Brethren
pray
for
us
,
therefore
he
desires
not
beleeving
Sisters
to
pray
for
him
.
In
this
same
Text
in
hand
,
the
Apostle
speakes
to
the
whole
Church
of
Corinth
,
to
make
them
afraid
of
Gods
judgements
if
they
sinne
as
the
Israelites
did
.
If
he
had
argued
onely
from
the
sinne
and
judgement
of
the
men
,
and
not
also
of
the
women
in
the
wildernesse
,
the
women
in
Corinth
had
so
much
the
lesse
applyed
it
to
themselves
.
But
if
I
should
grant
(
which
will
never
be
proved
)
that
by
the
Fathers
are
understood
the
men
onely
,
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
spirituall
drink
which
came
out
of
the
Rock
,
so
all
of
them
did
eat
the
Passeover
▪
for
even
of
the
males
divers
were
excluded
from
the
Passeover
,
as
the
unclean
,
the
hired
Servant
,
the
Child
,
the
sick
,
&c.
so
that
this
would
make
the
Apostles
argumentation
running
upon
a
five-fold
all
to
hang
ill
together
.
I
had
not
insisted
at
all
upon
this
,
but
to
shew
the
weak
grounds
of
Mr.
Prynnes
strong
confidence
.
-
3.
If
this
argument
of
his
hold
good
,
he
must
grant
by
Analogy
that
all
Baptized
persons
must
be
admitted
to
the
Lords
Table
,
though
they
be
Idolaters
,
fornicators
,
&c.
which
as
it
is
contrary
to
the
Ordinance
of
Parliament
,
so
to
his
own
professed
Tenents
,
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
onely
suspended
from
the
Sacrament
,
but
excommunicated
from
all
other
Ordinances
,
till
publike
satisfaction
given
for
the
scandall
,
and
till
externall
symptomes
of
repentance
appear
.
So
the
Antidote
animadverted
tells
us
and
his
owne
vindication
pag.
50.
If
this
be
his
minde
,
then
it
is
incumbent
to
him
to
loose
his
owne
knot
,
all
circumcised
persons
though
Tainted
with
grosse
scandalous
sinnes
,
as
Idolatry
,
and
Fornication
,
were
admitted
to
the
Passeover
,
and
so
it
ought
to
be
under
the
Gospell
.
If
he
say
that
those
scandalous
sinners
in
the
wildernesse
had
not
been
admonished
,
were
not
obstinate
,
or
that
they
professed
repentance
,
and
promised
amendment
,
and
did
not
in
the
meane
while
persevere
in
their
wickednesse
,
but
satisfied
for
the
scandall
:
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
doe
not
confesse
and
forsake
their
sinne
,
may
be
admitted
to
the
Lords
Table
.
-
4.
The
Manna
and
the
water
out
of
the
Rock
,
though
they
had
a
spirituall
and
evangelicall
signification
,
and
di●
typifie
Jesus
Christ
,
yet
they
were
also
the
ordinary
Food
and
Drink
of
the
people
in
the
wildernesse
:
so
that
if
scandalous
sinners
had
been
excluded
from
partaking
of
these
,
they
had
been
deprived
of
their
ordinary
daily
corporall
nourishment
;
which
makes
a
vast
difference
between
their
case
in
the
wildernesse
,
and
ours
at
the
Lords
Table
.
-
5.
The
Apostle
speakes
of
those
scandalous
sinnes
,
as
committed
,
not
before
,
but
after
the
eating
of
that
spirituall
meat
,
and
drinking
of
that
spirituall
drink
;
first
this
is
cleer
of
their
Baptisme
in
the
Cloud
and
in
the
Sea
,
which
was
at
their
passing
through
the
Red
Sea
,
Exod.
14.
before
any
of
the
grosse
and
scandalous
sinnes
there
mentioned
were
committed
;
and
therefore
was
not
pertinent
to
be
objected
.
Immediately
thereafter
they
did
eat
of
the
spirituall
meat
,
that
is
of
the
manna
Exo.
16.
and
drank
of
the
spirituall
drink
,
that
is
of
the
Water
out
of
the
Rock
which
followed
them
Exod.
17.
to
give
drink
to
my
people
,
my
chosen
saith
the
Lord
Isa.
43.
20.
Now
after
those
men
had
eaten
of
the
spirituall
meat
,
and
drunk
of
the
spirituall
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
drunk
at
the
Lords
Table
;
for
after
all
this
they
had
need
to
take
heed
,
lest
they
fall
in
foule
sinnes
,
and
lust
after
evill
things
,
and
so
draw
upon
themselves
the
heavier
judgements
.
That
which
Master
Prynne
takes
for
granted
(
upon
a
marvellous
mistake
of
the
Apostles
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
committed
those
grosse
and
scandalous
sinnes
,
were
allowed
and
admitted
,
as
before
,
to
eat
of
the
spirituall
meat
,
and
drink
of
the
spirituall
drink
.
I
mean
not
onely
the
Passeover
,
(
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
sinne
of
Idolatry
:
and
for
the
rest
who
survived
Moses
made
atonement
,
and
got
an
answer
of
Peace
from
God
,
concerning
them
.
Exo.
32.
&
33.
We
read
also
that
the
Lord
plagued
the
people
,
because
of
their
Idolatry
Exo.
32.
35.
and
the
people
did
mourn
and
humble
themselves
and
cast
off
their
Ornaments
Exo.
33.
4.
So
that
(
I
am
sure
)
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
Fornication
together
;
but
what
came
of
it
?
Moses
gave
a
charge
to
the
Judges
of
Israel
,
to
slay
every
one
his
men
that
were
joyned
to
Baal
Peor
Numb
.
25.
5.
and
there
died
also
of
the
Plague
24000.
v.
9.
But
what
was
the
peoples
part
in
Repenting
?
vers.
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
,
Phinehes
made
atonement
,
and
the
Lord
smelled
a
savour
of
rest
vers.
11.
13.
As
for
the
third
case
,
instanced
by
the
Apostle
,
which
is
the
tempting
of
Christ
,
much
people
of
Israel
dyed
for
it
,
and
the
remnant
did
repent
,
and
confesse
that
particular
sinne
that
they
had
spoken
against
the
Lord
and
against
Moses
,
and
therefore
did
desire
Moses
,
to
pray
unto
the
Lord
for
them
.
Num.
21.
6.
7.
Lastly
,
for
that
of
murmuring
,
those
that
had
the
chiefe
hand
in
it
died
of
the
Plague
,
Num.
14.
37.
and
the
people
mourned
greatly
,
and
confessed
,
We
have
sinned
vers
.
34.
40.
And
thus
by
searching
for
an
Answer
to
our
Opposites
argument
,
we
have
found
this
argument
against
them
.
If
God
himself
did
execute
such
Discipline
upon
those
who
were
tainted
with
the
grosse
and
scandalous
sinnes
of
Idolatry
,
Fornication
,
&c.
That
he
would
not
permit
them
to
enjoy
their
former
liberty
of
eating
of
the
Manna
,
and
drinking
of
the
Water
of
the
Rock
,
(
being
spirituall
meat
,
and
spirituall
drink
,
as
Typifying
Christ
,
though
appointed
of
God
also
for
ordinary
daily
food
and
drink
to
his
people
)
untill
they
mourned
,
repented
,
confessed
,
and
atonement
was
made
for
them
:
It
is
much
lesse
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
Lords
Supper
,
which
is
an
Ordinance
purely
spirituall
.
But
the
former
part
is
true
.
Therefore
so
is
the
latter
.
-
6.
Another
Answer
I
shall
adde
,
(
though
I
need
adde
no
more
)
Those
sinnes
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
nationall
sinnes
;
and
so
fall
not
within
the
verge
of
our
Controversie
,
which
is
not
concerning
the
suspending
of
a
scandalous
Nation
from
the
Sacrament
,
for
some
nationall
sinne
;
but
concerning
the
suspension
of
scandalons
persons
for
their
personall
publike
offences
.
If
it
be
objected
unto
me
,
that
the
Apostle
saith
,
that
some
of
them
were
Idolaters
,
and
some
of
them
did
commit
Fornication
,
&c.
I
answer
,
when
he
saith
some
,
he
saith
so
in
reference
to
the
All
which
had
gone
before
,
that
is
,
all
the
Israelites
who
did
eat
of
the
Manna
and
drink
of
the
water
of
the
Rock
,
during
the
40
yeers
in
the
wildernesse
,
successively
:
so
that
he
makes
a
distribution
of
Israel
in
the
wildernesse
,
comparing
one
passage
with
another
,
not
distributing
those
that
lived
together
at
one
and
the
same
time
.
And
that
it
must
needs
be
so
understood
I
prove
from
Exo.
32.
where
we
find
all
the
people
falling
into
Idolatry
,
so
Num.
14.
2.
And
all
the
Children
of
Israel
murmured
against
Moses
and
against
Aaron
.
The
other
two
are
also
called
the
sinnes
of
the
people
,
and
of
Israel
,
and
the
people
were
punished
,
and
for
one
of
them
all
the
Heads
of
the
people
commanded
to
be
hanged
.
Num.
21.
5.
6.
&
25.
3.
4.
Peradventure
every
one
did
not
act
in
each
of
these
sinnes
,
but
yet
they
were
nationall
(
as
we
call
nationall
)
sinnes
,
the
generality
of
the
Children
of
Israel
,
either
acting
or
partaking
therein
.
In
such
a
case
Augustine
thought
fit
to
suspend
the
exercising
of
Excommunication
for
the
sinne
of
drunkennesse
rather
than
to
excommunicate
all
Africa
.
These
are
my
six
answers
to
Master
Prynnes
unanswerable
argument
.
The
end
of
the
first
Book
.
AN
APPENDIX
To
the
First
Booke
:
Containing
an
additionall
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
civill
Justice
among
the
Jewes
,
whereby
the
seeming
Old
Testament
strength
of
the
Erastians
,
is
sufficiently
yea
abundantly
broken
;
And
now
it
appeareth
how
ill
grounded
that
Assertion
is
which
did
lately
come
abroad
in
the
Discourse
entituled
,
The
difference
about
Church-government
ended
Pag.
8.
Moses
was
first
the
sole
Ruler
,
&c.
Afterwards
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
Ecclesiasticall
,
and
Priests
never
;
till
that
after
their
returne
from
the
Babylonish
captivity
,
&c.
And
no
better
grounded
are
the
first
five
questions
in
Mr
Prynne
his
Diotrephes
catechised
,
in
which
he
doth
intimate
that
there
was
no
distinct
Ecclesiasticall
jurisdiction
among
the
Jewes
,
and
that
all
scandalous
sinnes
and
offences
now
pretended
to
be
of
Ecclesiasticall
cognisance
,
were
by
Gods
owne
institution
throughout
the
old
Testament
,
inquireable
,
examinable
,
determinable
,
and
punishable
onely
by
the
temporall
Magistrates
or
●ivill
powers
,
not
by
any
Ecclesiasticall
persons
or
Officers
.
But
when
he
should
prove
that
there
was
no
Ecclesiasticall
jurisdiction
distinct
from
the
civill
,
he
brings
many
Scriptures
to
prove
that
there
was
a
civill
jurisdiction
and
civill
or
temporall
punishments
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
preceding
Booke
.
That
which
I
now
intend
is
onely
an
additionall
debate
.
And
first
of
all
it
is
to
be
observed
that
the
same
point
of
Controversie
is
debated
[
a
](A42757-e36790-b)
a
S●…e
A●…psiagius
Di●…p
:
adv.
Anabapt.
pag.
276.
Ioh.
Cloppenburg
.
in
Gangraena
Theol.
Anabapt.
part
.
3.
Disp.
11.
citeth
these
words
out
of
a
booke
of
the
Anabaptists
de
Censur
.
Eccles.
Ante
adventum
Christi
tempore
veteris
Testamenti
,
unicum
tantum
institutum
suisse
regimen
,
ac
non
nisi
unicam
punitionem
,
videlicet
d
m●…gistratu
exercendam
secundum
scriptam
lagem
à
Mose
traditam
:
quâ
luendum
erat
vel
in
bonis
vel
in
corpore
,
●…c
sustinenda
aut
Mors
,
aut
carcer
,
aut
muleta
pecuniaria
:
quae
omnia
politici
〈◊〉
,
non
Ecclesiastici
judicii
.
In
opposition
hereunto
he
addeth
.
In
Ecclesiis
reformatis
creditur
ex
verbo
Dei
,
fuisse
à
Deo
jam
olim
in
U.
T.
〈◊〉
duplex
regimen
,
duplici
officio
gubernátionis
,
qua
politicae
,
qua
Ecclesiasticae
;
distinctum
.
with
the
Anabaptists
,
they
holding
as
the
Erastians
doe
,
that
in
the
old
Testament
,
there
was
but
one
kind
of
government
,
one
kind
of
jurisdiction
,
one
kind
of
punishment
,
and
that
it
was
Civill
or
Temporall
;
but
an
Ecclesiasticall
Judicature
or
censure
in
the
old
Testament
they
deny
.
Wherein
they
are
contradicted
by
those
that
writ
against
them
.
Secondly
,
we
must
distinguish
with
great
caution
,
and
(
as
they
say
)
cum
grano
salis
,
between
that
which
was
ordinary
and
that
which
was
extraordinary
in
the
Jewish
Government
.
We
can
not
,
from
extraordinary
cases
collect
and
conclude
that
which
was
the
fixed
,
setled
,
ordinary
rule
.
The
examples
which
have
been
alledged
for
the
administration
of
Church-Government
,
the
purging
away
of
scandals
,
the
ordering
of
the
Ministery
in
the
old
Testament
,
by
the
Temporall
Magistrate
or
civill
powers
onely
,
and
by
their
owne
immediate
authority
,
how
truly
alledged
or
how
rightly
apprehended
shall
appeare
by
and
by
:
this
I
say
for
the
present
,
diverse
of
them
were
extraordinary
cases
,
and
are
recorded
as
presidents
for
godly
Magistrates
their
duty
and
authority
,
[
b
](A42757-e36870-b)
b
D.
〈◊〉
in
Deut.
17.
Judicia
ecclesiastica
ad
Ecclesiam
pertinent
secundum
verbum
Dei.
Magistratus
nihil
ominus
est
custos
utriusque
Tabulae
,
&
ces●antibus
Sacerdotibus
vel
degenerantibus
,
debet
reformare
secundum
legem
.
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
from
those
examples
,
for
investing
the
Magistrate
with
the
whole
and
sole
power
of
Government
and
jurisdiction
in
Ecclesiasticall
affaires
,
are
no
whit
better
than
the
Popish
and
Prelaticall
Arguments
,
for
the
lawfulnesse
of
the
civill
power
and
places
of
Clergymen
(
as
they
called
them
)
drawne
from
some
extraordinary
examples
of
Aaron
his
joyning
with
Moses
,
and
Eleazer
with
Ioshua
,
in
civill
businesse
of
greatest
consequence
;
of
the
administration
and
Government
of
the
Commonwealth
by
Eli
the
Priest
,
and
by
Samuel
the
Prophet
;
of
the
anointing
of
Iehu
to
be
King
by
Elisha
;
of
the
killing
of
Athaliah
,
and
the
making
of
Ioash
King
by
the
authority
of
Iebojada
the
Priest
;
of
the
withstanding
and
thrusting
out
of
King
Uzziah
,
by
fourscore
valiant
men
of
the
Priests
,
and
such
like
cases
.
Master
Prynne
himself
in
his
Diotrephes
catechised
pag.
4.
noteth
that
Ezra
the
Priest
received
a
speciall
commission
from
Artaxerxes
,
to
set
Magistrates
and
Judges
which
might
judge
all
the
people
Ezra
7.
11
,
25.
from
all
which
it
appeareth
that
as
Priests
did
extraordinary
some
things
which
ordinarily
belonged
to
Magistracy
,
so
Magistrats
did
extraordinarily
that
which
ordinarily
did
not
belong
to
their
administration
.
I
conclude
this
point
with
a
passage
in
the
second
book
of
the
Discipline
of
the
Church
of
Scotland
Chap.
10.
And
although
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
Emperours
and
Kings
also
in
the
light
of
the
new
Testament
:
yet
where
the
Ministery
of
the
Church
is
once
lawfully
constituted
,
and
they
that
are
placed
doe
their
Office
faithfully
,
all
godly
Princes
and
Magistrates
ought
to
beare
and
obey
their
voyce
,
and
reverence
the
Majesty
of
the
Sonne
of
God
speaking
in
them
.
In
the
third
place
,
let
us
take
a
particular
survey
of
such
Objections
,
from
which
the
Erastians
doe
conclude
that
the
power
of
Church-gov●rnment
in
the
old
Testament
was
onely
in
the
hand
of
the
Magistrate
.
And
first
concerning
Moses
,
it
is
objected
that
he
being
the
supreme
Magistrate
did
give
Lawes
and
Ordinances
for
ordering
the
Church
in
things
pertaining
to
God
.
Answ.
This
he
did
as
a
Prophet
from
the
mouth
of
the
Lord
,
yea
as
a
type
of
Jesus
Chri●t
the
great
Prophet
,
Deut.
18.
15.
18.
not
as
civill
Magistrate
.
2.
Object
.
We
read
not
of
an
Ecclesiasticall
Sanhedrin
adjoyned
with
Moses
,
but
onely
of
a
civill
Sanhedrin
Num.
11.
Neither
doth
the
Talmud
mention
any
supreme
Sanhedrin
but
one
.
Answ.
1.
If
those
70
Elders
,
Num.
11.
be
understood
onely
of
the
civill
Sanhedrin
,
(
which
some
doe
not
admit
,
though
for
my
part
I
doe
not
gainsay
it
)
yet
we
read
of
the
con●itution
of
another
Sanhedrin
or
Assembly
of
70
before
them
.
Which
I
have
before
proved
from
Exod.
24.
1.
2.
And
if
there
had
been
no
dis●inct
Ecclesiasticall
Sanhedrin
in
Moses
his
time
,
yet
by
the
Law
,
Deut.
17.
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
before
.
And
whereas
Mr
Prynne
in
his
Diotrephes
catechised
quaest
.
2.
intimateth
,
that
by
the
Law
Deut.
17.
the
Priests
were
onely
●oyntly
and
together
with
the
temporall
Judges
,
to
resolve
hard
civill
cases
or
controversies
:
this
sence
can
neither
agree
with
the
dis●unction
in
the
Text
verse
12.
the
man
that
will
not
hearken
unto
the
Priest
,
or
unto
the
Judge
:
nor
yet
with
the
received
interpretation
of
those
words
between
stroke
and
stroke
,
that
is
,
between
leprosie
and
leprosie
,
the
decision
whereof
,
is
no
where
in
Scripture
found
to
be
either
committed
unto
or
assumed
by
the
civill
Judge
.
As
for
the
Talmud
,
that
of
Babylon
was
not
begun
to
be
compiled
before
the
yeere
of
〈◊〉
367
,
nor
finished
before
the
yeere
of
Christ
500.
The
Ierusalem
Talmud
can
pretend
to
no
greater
antiquity
than
the
yeere
of
Christ
230.
So
that
both
were
collected
long
after
the
dissolution
of
the
Sanhedrin
and
government
of
the
Jewes
.
No
marvell
therefore
,
if
these
declining
times
did
weare
out
the
memory
of
some
part
of
their
former
government
.
3.
Object
.
The
King
was
by
Gods
appointment
entrusted
with
the
custody
of
the
booke
of
the
Law
,
Deut.
17.
18.
2
King
.
11.
12.
Answ.
1.
The
principall
charge
of
the
custody
of
the
Law
was
committed
to
the
Priests
and
Levites
,
Deut.
31.
9
,
24
,
25
26.
Of
the
King
it
is
onely
said
Deut.
17.
18.
That
he
shall
write
him
a
coppy
of
this
law
in
a
Booke
,
out
of
that
which
is
before
the
Priests
and
Levites
.
2.
I
heartily
yeeld
that
a
lawfull
Magistrate
,
whether
Christian
or
Heathen
,
ought
to
be
a
keeper
or
guardian
of
both
Tables
,
and
as
Gods
V●cegerent
hath
authority
to
punish
haynous
sinnes
against
either
Table
,
by
civill
or
corporall
punishments
which
proves
nothing
against
a
〈◊〉
Church-government
for
keeping
pure
the
Ordinances
of
Christ
.
4.
Object
.
King
David
did
appoint
the
Offices
of
the
Levites
and
divided
their
courses
1
Chr●…
.
23.
So
likewise
did
Solomon
appoint
the
courses
and
charges
of
the
Priests
,
Levites
and
Porters
in
the
Temple
.
Answ.
David
did
not
this
thing
as
a
King
,
but
as
a
Prophet
,
2
〈◊〉
.
8.
14.
For
so
bad
David
the
man
of
God
commanded
;
the
same
thing
being
also
commanded
by
other
Prophets
of
the
Lord
,
2
hro
.
29.
25.
According
to
the
commandement
of
David
,
and
of
G●…d
the
Kings
seer
,
and
Nathan
the
Prophet
,
for
so
was
the
commandement
of
the
Lord
by
his
Prophets
.
Which
cleareth
also
Solomons
part
,
for
(
beside
that
himselfe
also
was
a
Prophet
)
he
received
from
David
the
man
of
God
,
a
patterne
of
that
which
he
was
to
doe
in
the
worke
of
the
house
of
the
Lord
,
and
directions
concerning
the
courses
of
the
Levites
,
1
Chro.
28.
11
,
12
,
13.
2
Chro.
8.
14.
5
Object
.
King
Solomon
deposed
Abiathar
from
his
Priesthood
,
and
did
put
Zadok
in
his
place
.
Answ.
Abiathar
was
guilty
of
high
treason
for
assisting
and
ayding
Adonijah
,
against
Solomon
,
whom
not
onely
his
father
David
but
God
himselfe
had
designed
to
the
Crowne
.
So
that
the
crime
was
of
civill
cognizance
,
and
Abiathar
deserved
to
die
for
it
.
That
which
Solomon
did
was
an
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
a
moderation
of
the
punishment
,
as
Strigelius
cals
it
;
when
Solomon
might
justly
have
put
him
to
death
,
he
onely
banisheth
him
from
Hierusalem
to
Anathoth
,
there
to
enjoy
his
owne
inheritance
,
to
live
a
private
life
,
and
no
more
to
intermeddle
in
State
affaires
.
Wherefore
this
example
doth
belong
to
the
case
of
a
capitall
crime
committed
by
a
Minister
,
but
not
to
the
case
of
scandall
or
mal-administration
in
his
Ministery
.
2.
Neither
did
Solomon
directly
or
intentionally
put
Abiathar
from
the
Priesthood
for
that
offence
,
but
by
consequence
it
followed
upon
his
banishment
from
Hierusalem
,
the
place
where
the
high
Priest
was
to
exercise
his
calling
,
1
King
.
2.
27.
So
(
that
is
,
in
respect
of
banishment
from
Ierusalem
mentioned
in
the
verse
immediately
preceding
)
Solomon
thrust
out
Abiathar
from
being
Priest
unto
the
Lord
.
A
Minister
now
banished
is
not
thereby
thrust
out
from
all
exercise
of
his
Ministery
,
for
he
may
exercise
it
in
another
place
;
but
Abiathar
being
thrust
out
from
Hierusalem
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
knowes
what
warrants
he
had
more
then
ordinary
for
that
which
he
did
to
Abiathar
?
that
it
was
not
without
an
extrordinary
divine
instinct
,
some
collect
from
the
next
words
;
that
he
(
Solomon
)
might
fulfill
the
word
of
the
Lord
which
he
spake
cencerning
the
house
of
Eli
in
Shilo
.
4.
As
for
the
investing
of
Zadok
with
the
place
and
authority
of
the
high
Priest
,
it
doth
not
prove
that
the
Magistrate
hath
a
constitutive
power
to
make
or
authorize
Church
officers
:
for
Zadok
had
been
formerly
chosen
by
the
congregation
of
Israel
,
and
anointed
to
be
high
Priest
,
1
Chro.
29.
22.
yea
he
did
fall
to
the
place
Iure
divino
:
for
the
high
Priesthood
was
given
to
Eleazar
the
eldest
sonne
of
Aaron
,
and
was
to
remaine
in
the
family
of
Eleazar
,
from
whom
Zadok
had
lineally
descended
:
Whereas
Abiathar
was
not
of
the
family
of
Eleazar
,
but
of
the
family
of
Ithamar
.
6.
Object
.
Hezekiah
did
apply
his
regall
power
to
the
reformation
of
the
Levites
and
to
the
purging
of
the
Temple
,
2
Chr.
29.
5.
and
did
also
appoint
the
courses
of
the
Priests
and
Levites
every
man
according
to
his
service
,
2
Chro.
31.
So
likewise
did
King
Iosiah
,
2
Chro.
35.
Answ.
Hezekiah
in
exhorting
the
Levites
to
sanctifie
themselves
and
to
cleanse
the
Temple
,
doth
require
no
other
thing
than
the
Law
of
God
did
require
,
Num.
8.
6.
11.
15.
&
18.
32.
which
Hezekiah
himselfe
pointeth
at
,
2
Chro.
29.
11.
And
why
should
not
the
Magistrate
command
Ministers
to
do
the
duties
of
their
calling
according
to
the
Word
of
God
?
As
for
his
appointing
of
the
courses
of
the
Priests
and
Levites
,
he
did
nothing
therein
,
but
what
the
Lord
had
commanded
by
his
Prophets
,
2
Chro.
29.
25.
The
like
I
answer
concerning
King
Iosiah
,
for
it
is
recorded
,
that
what
hee
did
,
was
after
the
writing
of
David
and
Solomon
,
2
Chro.
35.
4.
and
according
to
the
Commandement
of
David
and
Asaph
,
and
Heman
,
and
Jeduthun
,
the
Kings
seer
,
Verse
15.
as
it
is
written
in
the
booke
of
Moses
,
v.
12.
7.
Object
.
King
Ioash
while
hee
yet
did
right
in
the
dayes
of
Iebojada
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
businesse
he
discharged
them
to
receive
any
more
money
so
collected
.
Ans.
Joash
did
impose
no
other
collections
,
but
those
quae
divino
jure
debebantur
,
which
were
due
by
divine
right
,
saith
Wolphius
,
in
2
Kings
12.
The
thing
was
expressely
commanded
in
the
Law
of
Moses
,
compare
2
Chro.
24.
6.
Exo.
30
,
12
,
13
,
14.
As
for
the
Kings
prohibition
afterwards
laid
upon
the
Priests
,
1.
the
Priests
had
still
neglected
the
worke
till
the
three
and
twentieth
yeare
of
his
raigne
was
come
,
2.
The
Priests
themselves
consented
to
receive
no
more
money
,
3.
The
high
Priest
had
still
a
chiefe
hand
in
the
managing
of
that
businesse
,
in
which
also
the
Priests
that
kept
the
doore
had
an
interest
.
All
which
is
plaine
from
2
Kings
12.
6.
8
,
9
,
10.
And
beside
all
this
,
it
was
a
money
matter
,
concerning
the
hyring
and
paying
of
workemen
,
and
so
did
belong
to
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
to
the
extrinsecall
,
not
to
the
intrinsecall
things
of
the
Church
.
8.
Object
.
The
Kings
of
the
Jewes
have
purged
the
Land
from
Idolatry
and
Superstition
,
have
broken
downe
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
,
whereunto
also
the
secular
coercivepower
was
necessary
.
Let
it
be
remembled
concerning
those
godly
reforming
Kings
of
〈◊〉
1.
The
case
was
extraordinary
,
no
matter
of
ordinary
Government
.
2
Their
reformation
was
Iure
divino
.
The
Law
of
God
was
the
rule
,
and
Ius
Divinum
was
not
then
startled
at
,
but
embraced
.
3.
Sometime
also
the
reformation
was
not
without
an
assembly
of
the
Prophets
,
Priests
and
Elders
,
as
2
Kings
23.
1.
9.
Object
.
Mr.
Prynne
in
his
Diotrephes
Catechised
,
Quest.
2.
〈◊〉
another
objection
from
2
Chr.
19.
asking
,
whether
it
be
not
clearly
meant
,
that
as
King
Josiah
himselfe
(
he
should
have
said
Iehoshaphat
)
did
by
his
owne
regall
authority
,
appoint
Iudges
in
the
Land
and
in
Jerusalem
,
in
the
preceeding
5
,
6
,
7
,
8
,
9.
&
10.
Verses
,
to
d●…termine
all
controversies
and
punish
all
offences
whatsoever
,
acco●…ding
to
the
Lawes
of
God
and
that
Kingdome
,
so
hee
did
by
the
selfe
same
regall
authority
appoint
Amariah
then
chiefe
Priest
,
over
the
Priests
and
Levites
onely
.
(
implyed
in
the
word
you
,
not
over
the
people
of
the
Land
)
in
all
matters
of
the
Lord
,
that
is
,
to
Order
,
direct
the
Priests
and
Levites
,
under
him
in
their
severall
courses
,
and
all
matters
whatsoever
concerning
the
Worship
,
&c.
Ans.
1.
Mr.
Prynne
will
never
prove
from
that
Text
,
That
Iehoshaphat
by
his
regall
authority
did
appoint
,
or
set
Amariah
the
chiefe
Priest
to
be
over
the
rest
;
The
English
translators
expresse
the
sence
by
interlacing
the
word
is
Verse
11.
And
behold
Amariah
the
chiefe
Priest
is
over
you
in
all
matters
of
the
Lord
.
2.
To
restrict
the
word
you
to
the
Priests
and
Levites
onely
,
is
an
intolerable
wresting
of
the
Text
;
for
all
these
relatives
,
Verse
9
,
10
,
11.
them
,
ye
,
you
,
must
needs
repeat
the
antecedent
Verse
8.
and
so
relate
to
the
chiefe
of
the
Fathers
of
Israel
,
as
well
as
to
the
Priests
and
Levites
.
So
that
these
words
,
Amariah
the
chiefe
Priest
is
over
you
,
are
spoken
to
the
Sanhedrin
;
and
the
plaine
meaning
is
,
that
Amariah
the
chiefe
Priest
was
at
that
time
the
Nasi
,
or
princeps
Senatus
,
the
Prince
or
chiefe
Ruler
of
the
Senat
,
as
Grotius
expounds
it
.
3.
That
the
high
Priest
was
a
Ruler
of
the
People
,
as
well
as
of
the
Priests
and
Levites
,
is
manifest
from
,
Acts
23.
5.
where
Paul
applieth
to
the
high
Priest
,
that
Law
,
Thou
shalt
not
speake
evill
of
the
Ruler
of
thy
people
.
4.
Wherefore
to
retort
the
Objection
,
Mr.
Prynne
doth
here
acknowledge
upon
the
matter
two
distinct
Governments
to
have
beene
at
that
time
,
one
civill
,
another
Ecclesiasticall
:
distinct
I
say
both
objectively
,
and
subjectively
:
objectively
,
for
hee
expounds
the
Lords
matters
to
be
meant
of
the
sacrifices
and
other
services
in
the
Temple
,
The
Kings
matters
hee
takes
to
be
the
Kings
Househould
,
Lands
,
Revenues
:
Subjectively
also
,
for
hee
yeeldeth
upon
the
matter
both
Amariah
and
Zebadiah
to
have
had
a
certaine
ruling
or
governing
power
in
ordering
and
directing
these
over
whom
they
were
set
,
which
well
agreeth
both
with
the
version
of
the
70
(
giving
the
name
of
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
both
to
the
one
and
to
the
other
)
and
with
the
Originall
;
for
he
that
is
over
the
Sanhedrin
it selfe
must
needs
be
a
Ruler
.
10.
Object
.
The
causes
of
Leprosy
,
Lev.
13.
&
14.
and
jealousie
Num.
5.
are
the
onely
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
farre
at
least
)
there
was
a
judging
,
decisive
,
binding
sentence
of
the
Priests
,
distinct
from
and
not
subordinate
unto
the
civill
Magistracy
.
2.
But
that
these
two
were
the
onely
cases
wherein
the
Priests
were
appointed
to
be
as
Judges
,
is
easily
confuted
,
being
an
assertion
contrary
to
diverse
Texts
of
Scripture
,
as
first
Deut.
21.
5.
in
the
triall
of
secret
murther
the
Law
appointeth
thus
:
And
the
Priests
the
sonnes
of
Levi
shall
come
neare
,
&c.
and
by
their
word
shall
every
controversy
and
every
stroke
bee
tried
,
that
is
,
every
controversy
which
was
to
be
ended
by
purgations
or
purifications
,
Oathes
or
confession
,
as
Pelargus
noteth
upon
the
place
.
There
is
also
a
generall
comprehensive
expression
concerning
the
Priests
their
judging
and
deciding
of
controversies
forensically
,
Ezech.
44.
24.
And
in
controversy
they
shall
stand
in
judgement
,
and
they
shall
judge
it
according
to
my
judgements
.
Likewise
Deut.
17.
8
,
9
,
12.
the
Priest
as
well
as
the
Judge
hath
authority
to
give
forth
a
binding
decree
concerning
hard
matters
,
brought
from
inferior
Courts
to
Ierusalem
.
Againe
2
Chron.
23.
19.
the
Porters
of
the
Temple
(
that
is
,
the
Priests
that
kept
the
doore
as
they
are
designed
2
Kings
12.
9.
of
whom
also
it
is
said
,
that
I●…hojadah
the
high
Priest
,
appointed
Officers
over
the
house
of
the
Lord
,
2
Kings
11.
18.
which
Text
Grotius
following
Iosephus
doth
parallell
wi●h
2
Chro.
23.
19.
)
had
this
charge
,
that
none
which
was
unclean
in
any
thing
should
enter
in
.
11.
Object
.
If
the
Priests
power
of
judging
reached
further
than
the
cases
of
Leprosie
,
and
Jealousie
,
the
most
was
to
judge
of
such
as
were
uncleane
in
any
thing
,
and
that
according
to
their
sentence
the
uncleane
were
to
be
excluded
.
Ans.
Not
to
insist
now
upon
these
Texts
,
Deut.
17.
9.
12.
&
21.
5.
Ez●…
.
44.
24.
which
hold
forth
the
juridicall
power
of
the
Priests
more
generally
and
comprehensively
,
without
restricting
it
to
cases
of
cleane
and
uncleane
only
;
nor
yet
to
repeat
diverse
other
answers
before
given
,
in
answer
to
Erastus
and
M.
Prynne
,
concerning
legall
and
morall
uncleannesse
;
I
shal
here
only
give
this
one
answer
out
of
that
Text
2
Chro.
23.
19.
none
which
was
unclean
in
any
thing
.
What
cogent
argument
can
now
restrict
this
Text
concerning
the
exclusion
of
uncleane
persons
from
the
Temple
,
to
such
only
who
were
legally
or
ceremonially
unclean
?
If
we
should
suppose
and
grant
that
it
is
meant
onely
of
the
legall
uncleannesse
,
yet
both
by
Analogy
and
à
fortiori
,
that
Text
affoordeth
an
argument
against
the
Erastians
,
and
I
have
accordingly
made
use
of
it
before
;
Yet
neverthelesse
I
believe
it
will
puzle
them
to
prove
that
this
Text
doth
not
comprehend
those
also
that
were
morally
uncleane
,
that
is
,
scandalous
prophane
persons
.
For
my
part
I
doe
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
uncleane
in
any
thing
,
or
as
the
70
have
it
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
such
as
were
uncleane
in
every
or
any
word
,
or
(
if
you
will
)
against
any
word
,
that
is
,
against
any
Commandement
of
the
Law
,
2.
Because
impiety
,
profannesse
,
and
wickednesse
hath
the
name
of
uncleannesse
,
even
in
the
old
Testament
;
&
such
as
commit
sin
and
ungodlinesse
are
called
unclean
,
and
are
said
to
defile
themselves
,
as
wel
as
those
that
were
legally
uncleane
.
I
shall
not
neede
to
expound
,
Lev.
5.
3.
if
he
touch
the
uncleannesse
of
man
,
whatsoever
uncleannesse
it
be
that
a
man
shall
be
defiled
withall
;
as
if
it
were
meant
of
fellowship
with
scandalous
sinners
;
which
is
Origens
Interpretation
,
Hom.
3.
in
Levit.
who
also
taketh
a
commentary
to
that
Text
from
,
1
Cor.
5.
11.
It
will
have
more
weight
in
it
,
to
observe
Targum
Onkel●…s
,
Deut.
23.
2.
Where
the
Law
concerning
Mamzer
a
bastard
or
whoores
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
Congregation
of
the
Lord
.
But
I
will
give
yet
surer
warrants
for
what
I
say
.
Iob.
36.
14.
their
life
is
among
the
uncleane
,
that
is
,
(
as
Pagnin
following
the
Chaldee
paraphrase
expresseth
it
)
inter
scortatores
;
Hierome
,
inter
effaeminatos
:
others
,
inter
impudicos
;
the
same
word
is
rendered
Sodomites
,
1
Kings
14.
24.
It
commeth
from
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
which
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
or
per
Antiphrasin
signifieth
to
be
impure
or
unclean
,
and
it
is
used
of
the
legall
uncleannesse
,
Deut.
22.
9.
lest
the
fruit
of
thy
Vineyard
be
defiled
.
So
Hag.
2.
13
,
14.
both
he
that
touched
a
dead
body
,
and
he
that
trespassed
against
the
morall
Law
,
is
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
uncleane
;
for
after
the
resolution
concerning
that
which
was
legally
uncleane
,
it
is
added
,
So
is
this
people
,
and
so
is
this
nation
before
me
saith
the
Lord
,
and
so
is
every
w●…rke
of
their
hands
,
and
that
which
they
offer
there
is
unclean
.
The
same
name
is
given
to
an
ungodly
person
,
Eccle.
9.
2.
where
the
godly
person
is
called
the
cleane
,
the
notorious
scandalous
prophane
person
is
called
the
unclean
.
So
wickednesse
is
frequently
called
uncleannesse
as
,
Ezra
.
9.
11.
Ezec.
36.
25.
Zech.
13.
1.
I
wil
here
adde
a
Testimony
of
Maimonides
in
More
Nevochim
part
3.
cap.
47.
Hence
also
the
transgression
of
the
Commandement
is
called
uncleannesse
or
pollution
,
and
it
is
said
of
the
principall
and
fundamentall
Commandements
,
of
Idolatry
,
of
uncovering
the
nakednesse
,
of
the
shedding
of
bloud
.
Of
Idolatry
it
is
said
[
c
](A42757-e39750-b)
c
Lev.
20.
3●
:
Because
he
hath
given
of
his
seed
unto
Molech
,
to
defile
my
Sanctuary
,
and
to
prophane
my
holy
Name
.
Of
the
uncovering
of
the
nakednesse
;
[
d
](A42757-e39770-b)
d
Lev.
18.
24
▪
defile
not
your selves
in
any
of
these
things
.
Of
the
shedding
of
bloud
,
[
e
](A42757-e39790-b)
e
Num.
35.
33
,
34.
defile
not
therefore
the
Land
wherein
ye
dwell
.
Wherefore
this
word
uncleannesse
or
defilement
is
said
of
three
sorts
of
things
,
first
of
a
mans
qualities
and
of
his
transgressions
of
the
Commandements
,
whether
theoricall
or
practicall
(
that
is
,
which
concerne
either
Doctrine
,
or
his
conversation
.
)
Secondly
of
externall
filthinesse
and
defilements
,
&c.
Thirdly
,
of
these
imaginary
things
,
that
is
,
the
touching
or
carrying
upon
the
shoulders
some
uncleane
thing
,
&c.
Adde
hereunto
the
observation
of
Drusius
de
tribus
sect.
Judaeor
.
lib.
2.
num.
82.
83.
84.
The
Pharisees
did
account
sinners
and
prophane
persons
to
be
uncleane
,
and
thought
themselves
polluted
by
the
company
of
such
persons
,
for
which
reason
also
they
used
to
wash
when
they
came
from
the
mercate
.
Though
there
was
a
superstition
in
this
Ceremony
,
yet
the
opinion
that
prophane
persons
are
uncleane
persons
,
and
to
be
avoided
for
uncleannesse
,
had
come
from
the
purest
antiquities
of
the
Jewes
,
even
from
Moses
and
the
Prophets
.
Since
therefore
both
in
the
old
Testament
phrase
,
and
in
the
usuall
language
of
the
Jewes
themselves
,
a
scandalous
prophane
person
was
called
an
unclean
person
,
it
is
to
me
more
then
probable
that
where
I
read
,
none
which
was
uncleane
in
any
thing
should
enter
in
it
is
meant
of
those
that
were
morally
uncleane
by
a
scandalous
wicked
conversation
,
no
lesse
yea
much
more
than
of
those
that
were
onely
ceremonially
uncleane
.
3.
Especially
considering
that
the
Sanctuary
was
prophaned
and
polluted
by
the
morall
uncleannesse
of
sinne
,
and
by
prophane
persons
their
entring
into
it
,
as
is
manifest
from
Lev.
20.
3.
Eze.
23.
39.
How
can
it
then
be
imagined
that
those
Priests
whose
charge
it
was
to
keepe
back
those
that
were
uncleane
in
any
thing
,
would
admit
and
receive
such
as
were
not
onely
unclean
persons
in
the
language
of
Scripture
and
of
the
Jewes
themselves
,
but
were
also
by
expresse
Scriptures
declared
to
be
defilers
or
polluters
of
the
Sanctuary
?
4.
It
is
said
of
the
high
Priest
,
Lev
16.
16.
and
he
shall
make
atonement
for
the
holy
place
,
because
of
the
uncleannesse
of
the
children
of
Israel
,
and
because
of
their
transgressions
in
all
their
sins
:
or
from
their
uncleannesse
and
from
their
transgressions
,
as
the
Chaldee
and
the
LXX
have
it
:
the
sence
is
the
same
:
and
it
sheweth
that
the
holy
place
was
made
uncleane
by
the
transgressions
and
sinnes
of
the
children
of
Israel
:
which
uncleannesse
of
transgression
,
if
it
were
visible
,
publik
and
notorious
,
then
the
Priests
had
failed
in
admitting
such
to
the
holy
place
.
12.
Object
.
Throughout
the
old
Testament
we
read
onely
of
temporall
punishments
,
as
burning
,
hanging
,
stoning
,
fines
,
stripes
,
and
the
like
,
but
never
of
Excommunication
or
any
Church
censure
.
Neither
did
the
Jewes
know
the
distinction
of
Lawes
Ecclesiasticall
and
Lawes
civill
,
causes
Ecclesiasticall
and
causes
civill
,
for
the
Church
of
the
Jewes
was
th●ir
Common-Wealth
,
and
their
Common-Wealth
was
their
Church
,
and
the
Government
of
Church
and
State
among
them
was
one
and
the
same
.
Their
civill
Lawyers
were
also
Expositors
or
Doctors
of
the
Law
of
God
.
Ans.
That
in
the
Jewish
Church
,
there
was
an
Ecclesiasticall
censure
or
punishment
distinct
from
the
civill
,
I
have
proved
in
this
preceeding
booke
,
both
from
Scripture
and
from
the
Jewish
antiquities
.
And
if
there
were
no
more
but
the
sequestration
or
separation
from
the
Temple
or
from
the
passeover
,
for
such
legall
uncleannesse
as
did
not
separat
a
man
from
his
house
,
nor
from
all
company
of
men
,
even
that
alone
proves
a
kinde
of
censure
distinct
from
all
civill
punishment
:
neither
did
it
belong
to
the
Magistrate
or
civill
Judge
,
but
to
the
Priests
to
examine
,
judge
,
and
determine
concerning
cleannesse
or
uncleannesse
,
and
consequently
concerning
admission
to
or
separation
from
the
Temple
,
Passeover
,
and
sacrifices
.
That
the
Jewish
Church
and
the
Jewish
State
were
formally
distinct
,
see
before
Chap.
2.
Where
it
hath
beene
observed
that
some
Proselytes
had
the
full
priviledges
of
the
Jewish
Church
,
though
none
of
them
had
the
full
priviledges
of
the
Jewish
common-wealth
.
The
like
I
have
read
of
the
Spaniards
,
who
admit
the
Moores
or
inhabitants
of
Morisco
to
turne
Christians
,
and
receive
them
into
Ecclesiasticall
Membership
and
Communion
,
but
by
no
meanes
into
their
civill
liberties
.
That
the
causes
of
Excommunication
among
them
were
lookt
upon
as
scandalls
,
and
not
as
civill
in●uries
,
see
Chap.
4.
This
onely
I
adde
that
More
Nevochim
part
.
2.
Chap.
40.
doth
distinguish
civill
Lawes
from
sacred
Lawes
,
even
among
the
people
of
God
,
making
the
scope
of
the
civill
Lawes
to
be
the
good
safety
and
prosperity
of
the
Common-wealth
;
the
Sacred
or
Divine
Lawes
to
concerne
properly
Religion
and
mens
soules
.
He
that
will
compare
the
civill
Lawes
and
panall
Statutes
of
the
Jewes
mentioned
in
Baba
Kama
,
with
their
ceremoniall
Lawes
concerning
the
holy
Ordinances
of
God
,
and
who
should
have
communion
therein
,
who
not
,
cannot
but
looke
upon
their
Church
and
〈◊〉
Lawes
,
as
formally
distinct
from
their
State
and
civill
Lawes
.
Again
,
he
that
will
consider
who
were
the
viri
synagogae
magnae
,
the
men
of
the
great
synagogue
,
and
what
their
power
and
acts
were
,
(
as
Dr.
Buxtorf
describeth
the
same
in
his
Tyberi●…t
Cap.
10
,
11.
)
and
their
authoritative
determinations
,
concerning
the
right
writing
,
reading
,
and
expounding
of
the
holy
Scripture
,
&c.
must
needs
acknowledge
that
it
was
Senatus
ecclesiasticus
magnus
(
as
Buxtorf
cals
it
)
and
that
such
power
and
acts
were
incompetent
to
the
civill
Magistrate
.
As
for
their
Doctors
of
Law
and
Scribes
,
they
were
of
the
sons
of
Aaron
,
yet
some
way
diversified
in
their
administrations
.
Scaliger
in
elench.
Trihaeres
.
Nic.
Serar
.
cap.
11.
distinguisheth
between
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
and
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
[
f
](A42757-e40150-b)
f
Quum
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
legem
interpretarentur
,
quod
proprium
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
verò
formulas
juris
praescriberent
,
&
actiones
civiles
docerent
,
&
forensia
magis
tractarent
.
that
the
former
were
the
wisemen
or
chief
of
the
Scribes
who
did
interpret
the
Law
,
and
declare
the
sence
of
it
;
the
latter
did
attend
civill
forensicall
matters
.
Drusius
de
tribus
sect.
Jud.
lib.
2.
cap.
13.
noteth
from
Luke
.
11.
45.
46.
that
there
was
some
distinction
between
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
and
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
between
the
Scribes
and
the
Lawyers
,
for
when
Christ
had
spoken
of
the
Scribes
and
Pharises
,
then
answered
one
of
the
Lawyers
and
said
unto
him
,
Master
,
thus
saying
thou
reproachest
us
also
.
And
he
said
,
Wo
unto
you
also
ye
Lawyers
:
This
will
be
more
plaine
by
that
other
distinction
observed
by
Lud.
de
dieu
.
in
Mat.
22.
35.
and
diverse
others
,
between
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
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
,
publick
Notaries
or
Clerks
.
Whence
it
appeareth
that
the
Offices
of
Scribes
and
Lawyers
(
although
the
persons
themselves
were
of
the
Tribe
of
Levi
)
were
so
ordered
,
as
that
civill
and
sacred
affaires
might
not
be
confounded
.
Yea
,
the
Scriveners
or
Notaries
were
of
two
sorts
;
for
besides
those
which
did
attend
civill
Courts
of
Justice
,
&c.
There
was
a
chiefe
Scribe
who
waited
upon
the
King
and
wrote
unto
him
a
coppy
of
the
Book
of
the
Law
,
according
to
that
Deut.
17.
18.
Such
a
Scribe
was
Sheva
,
2
Sam.
20.
25.
Shaphan
2
Kings
22.
3.
8.
Baruch
Jer.
36.
Such
a
Scribe
had
Joash
2
Kings
12.
10.
There
were
divers
other
Scribes
for
the
house
of
the
Lord
and
for
the
people
,
whose
office
it
was
to
write
and
to
read
the
Law
,
1
Chro.
2.
55
,
Psal.
45.
1.
Ier.
8.
8.
13.
Object
.
But
neither
in
the
old
Testament
nor
in
the
Talmudists
can
there
be
found
any
Ecclesiasticall
Excommunication
properly
so
called
.
Answ.
I
deny
both
,
yea
I
have
disproved
both
.
Moreover
,
as
touching
the
Excommunication
used
in
the
Jewish
Church
I
shall
adde
here
these
following
Testimonies
of
M●…imonides
.
In
libro
〈◊〉
Tract
.
Talmud
Torah
Cap.
6.
sect.
10.
He
that
revileth
a
wiseman
,
though
after
his
death
,
shall
be
excommunicated
by
the
Sanhedrin
,
by
whom
also
after
repentance
he
shall
be
absolved
.
Ib.
sect.
11.
He
who
is
excommunicated
in
his
own
Town
,
ought
also
to
be
esteemed
in
all
other
Cities
and
Towns
,
as
a
person
excommunicated
.
Answerable
hereunto
were
the
ancient
Canons
,
which
did
appoint
that
a
person
excommunicated
in
his
own
Church
should
not
be
received
to
communion
in
another
Church
.
The
24.
causes
of
excommunication
(
above
mentioned
)
he
there
reckoneth
forth
from
sect
.
13.
to
the
end
of
that
Chapter
.
Again
,
Cap.
7.
sect.
2.
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
person
excommunicated
be
present
,
they
who
doe
excommunicate
say
unto
him
,
Let
this
person
N.
be
separated
or
excommunicated
.
And
when
Cherem
or
the
greater
excommunication
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
doe
they
loose
the
person
excommunicated
,
and
how
doe
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
pardoned
.
In
the
same
Chapter
sect
.
8.
Neither
is
there
any
certain
space
of
time
predetermined
,
before
which
the
bond
of
the
excommunication
inflicted
may
not
be
loosed
.
For
immediately
and
at
the
same
time
when
excommunication
is
inflicted
,
it
may
be
loosed
if
the
guilty
party
doe
immediately
repent
,
and
come
to
himselfe
.
Which
doth
further
set
forth
the
great
difference
between
the
nature
and
scope
of
Excommunication
,
and
the
nature
and
scope
of
corporall
or
civill
punishments
.
For
how
soon
soever
an
excommunicat
person
giveth
good
signes
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
criminall
person
is
no
supersedeas
to
civill
Justice
.
Thereafter
Maimonides
proceedeth
thus
.
Yet
if
it
seem
good
to
the
Sanhedrin
that
any
man
shall
be
left
in
the
state
of
excommunication
,
for
how
many
yeeres
shall
be
be
left
in
excommunication
?
The
Sanhedrin
will
determine
the
number
of
yeers
and
space
of
time
,
according
to
the
haynousnesse
of
the
trespasse
.
So
likewise
if
the
Sanhedrin
will
,
it
may
devote
and
subject
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
neere
unto
him
unlesse
at
foure
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
observe
1.
It
was
from
the
Jewish
Church
,
that
the
ancient
Councels
of
the
Christian
Church
,
took
a
pattern
for
determining
and
fixing
a
certaine
number
of
yeeres
to
the
separation
of
some
haynous
offenders
from
the
Sacrament
,
and
sometimes
from
other
Ordinances
also
.
Though
I
doe
not
approve
this
thing
,
either
in
the
Jewish
or
Christian
Church
;
for
at
what
time
soever
a
scandalous
sinner
doth
give
evident
signes
of
repentance
,
the
Church
ought
to
receive
him
againe
into
her
bosome
and
fellowship
.
2.
From
the
Jewish
Church
also
was
the
patterne
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
excommunication
.
Which
thing
must
be
well
explained
and
qualified
before
it
can
be
approved
.
3.
Compare
also
this
passage
of
Maimonides
with
1
Cor.
5.
11.
with
such
a
one
no
not
to
eate
,
2
Thes.
3.
14.
have
no
company
with
him
,
that
he
may
be
ashamed
.
Which
Texts
doe
fitly
answer
to
that
which
the
Hebrew
writers
say
of
a
person
excommunicated
.
4.
The
excommunication
of
an
offender
among
the
Jewes
,
was
intended
not
onely
for
the
offenders
humiliation
and
amendment
,
but
for
an
ensample
to
others
,
that
they
might
heare
and
feare
and
do
no
more
any
such
thing
:
it
was
therefore
a
publique
and
exemplary
censure
.
And
so
much
of
Sect.
8.
In
the
9.
and
10.
Sections
Maimonides
sheweth
us
,
that
though
a
wise
man
was
allowed
to
prosecute
unto
the
sentence
of
excommunication
one
that
did
revile
or
calumniat
him
,
yet
it
was
more
praise-worthy
and
more
agreeable
to
the
example
of
the
holy
men
of
God
to
passe
in
silence
and
to
endure
patiently
such
injuries
.
Then
followeth
Sect.
11.
These
things
which
have
been
said
,
are
to
be
understood
of
such
reproaches
and
contumelies
as
are
clandestine
.
For
if
railers
doe
put
a
publike
infamy
upon
a
wise
man
,
it
is
not
lawfull
to
him
to
use
indulgence
or
to
neglect
his
honour
:
and
if
he
shall
pardon
(
as
to
the
punishment
)
him
who
hath
hurt
his
fame
,
he
himselfe
is
to
be
punished
,
because
that
is
a
contempt
of
the
law
.
He
shall
therefore
avenge
the
contumely
,
&
not
suffer
himselfe
to
be
satisfied
,
before
the
guilty
party
hath
craved
merey
.
Here
is
the
true
object
,
or
(
if
you
will
)
the
procuring
and
meritorious
cause
of
Excommunication
,
viz.
not
a
private
personall
or
civill
injury
,
which
a
man
may
passe
by
or
pardon
if
he
will
,
but
a
scandalous
sinne
the
scandall
whereof
must
be
removed
and
healed
,
by
some
Testimony
or
Declaration
of
the
sinners
repentance
,
otherwise
he
must
fall
under
the
censure
and
publique
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
Spirituall
censure
of
excommunication
was
translated
and
taken
from
the
Jewish
Church
into
the
Christian
Church
.
Furthermore
,
beside
all
the
Scriptural
proofs
already
brought
,
I
shall
desire
another
Text
,
Nehem.
13.
1
,
3.
to
be
wel
weighed
.
After
the
reading
of
the
law
(
Deut.
23.
3.
)
that
the
Amm●…nite
and
the
Moabite
should
not
come
into
the
congregation
of
God
for
ever
,
it
came
to
passe
,
saith
the
Text
,
when
they
heard
the
law
,
that
they
separated
from
Israel
all
the
mixed
multitude
.
I
conceive
that
this
separation
was
a
casting
out
of
the
Church
of
Israel
,
and
is
not
meant
here
of
a
civill
separation
from
honours
and
priviledges
,
nor
yet
onely
in
reference
to
the
dissolution
of
unlawfull
marriages
.
I
understand
also
by
the
prohibition
of
entring
into
the
congregation
of
the
Lord
Deut.
23.
1
,
2
,
3.
that
such
were
not
to
be
received
into
Church
communion
.
Ostendit
autem
qui
a
caetibus
fidelium
debeant
excludi
.
He
sheweth
who
ought
to
be
excluded
from
the
assemblies
of
the
faithfull
,
saith
Aretius
upon
Deut.
23.
1.
Hic
dicitur
Ecclesia
Dei
atrium
mundorum
,
quod
non
debebant
tales
ingredi
.
Here
that
Court
of
the
Temple
which
was
appointed
only
for
the
clean
,
is
called
the
Congregation
of
God
,
whereunto
such
persons
ought
not
to
enter
,
saith
Hugo
Cardinalis
upon
the
same
place
.
Audita
lege
de
duabus
inimicis
gentibus
anathematizandis
,
&c.
Having
heard
the
law
concerning
the
two
hostile
Nations
,
to
be
anathematized
or
accursed
,
saith
Beda
on
Nehem.
13.
thereupon
they
separated
the
mixed
multitude
.
Pelargus
on
Deut.
23.
citeth
Theodoret
,
Procpius
,
and
Rabanus
,
besides
the
Canonills
,
for
this
sence
,
that
the
not
entring
into
the
Congregation
of
the
Lord
,
is
meant
of
refusing
Ecclesiasticall
not
civill
priviledges
.
I
know
that
divers
others
understand
Deut.
23.
1
,
2
,
3.
of
not
admitting
unto
,
and
Nehem.
13.
3.
of
separating
from
marriages
with
the
Jewes
,
and
civill
dignities
or
places
of
Magistrates
or
Rulers
in
that
Commonwealth
,
such
a
one
shall
not
enter
into
the
congregation
of
the
Lord
,
that
is
,
shall
not
be
received
into
the
Assembly
or
Court
of
Judges
.
But
there
are
some
reasons
which
diswade
me
from
this
and
incline
me
to
the
other
interpretation
.
-
First
,
the
Law
Deut.
23.
being
read
to
the
people
Nebem
.
13.
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
was
married
to
Jewes
,
muchlesse
that
they
were
all
Magistrats
,
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
Jewes
and
had
civill
fellowship
with
them
,
but
had
no
part
nor
portion
(
by
right
)
in
Church-membership
and
Communion
:
in
which
sence
also
the
mixed
multitude
is
mentioned
Exod.
12.
38.
Num.
11.
4.
-
Secondly
,
that
this
separation
from
Israel
is
to
be
understood
in
a
spirituall
and
ecclesiasticall
sence
,
it
appeareth
by
the
instance
and
application
immediately
added
Neb.
13.
4.
to
vers.
10.
And
before
this
,
that
is
,
before
this
separation
,
Eliashih
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
east
out
the
stuffe
of
Tobiah
,
and
commanded
to
cleanse
the
chambers
of
the
Temple
which
had
been
defiled
by
Tobiah
.
Behold
an
instance
of
the
separation
in
reference
to
the
Temple
or
holy
place
,
not
to
any
civill
Court.
-
Thirdly
,
the
Chaldee
paraphrase
helpeth
me
Deut.
23.
1
,
2
,
3.
for
instead
of
these
words
,
shall
not
enter
into
the
congregation
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
uncleane
persons
to
enter
into
the
Temple
.
Ita
isti
mundi
reputabantur
;
so
likewise
were
these
(
Ammonites
,
Moabites
,
bastards
,
&c.
)
esteemed
as
unclean
,
saith
Tostatus
in
Deut.
23.
quaest.
1.
-
Fourthly
,
Edomites
and
Egytians
might
enter
into
the
congregregation
of
the
Lord
in
the
third
generation
Deut.
22.
7
,
8.
Was
the
meaning
,
that
Edomites
and
Egyptians
should
in
the
third
generation
marry
with
the
Jewes
,
or
be
Magistrates
in
Israel
,
members
of
the
Sanhedrin
,
or
Judges
?
He
that
will
thinke
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
third
generation
.
But
it
is
very
probable
,
that
when
an
Edomite
or
Egyptian
came
to
dwell
in
the
Land
of
Israel
,
as
a
proselyte
indweller
,
ob
erving
the
seven
precepts
given
to
the
sonnes
of
Noah
,
the
children
of
that
Egyptian
or
Edomite
in
the
third
generation
,
mi●ht
enter
into
the
congregation
of
the
Lord
,
that
is
,
might
upon
their
desire
and
submission
to
the
whole
law
of
Moses
,
be
received
as
proselytes
of
righteousnesse
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
offerentibus
towards
the
end
,
tels
us
that
their
Law
did
prohibit
all
unworthy
persons
from
their
sacred
Assemblies
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
From
the
same
sacred
Assemblies
of
the
Church
,
he
saith
that
their
law
did
also
exclude
Eunuohs
,
and
bastards
,
or
such
as
were
borne
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
(
the
word
used
by
the
LXX
in
Deut.
23.
2.
)
where
Philo
most
certainly
hath
respect
to
that
Law
,
Deut.
23.
understanding
by
the
congregation
of
the
Lord
in
that
pla●e
,
neither
a
civill
Court
nor
liberty
of
marriage
,
but
the
sacred
or
Church
Assembly
.
There
are
but
two
objections
which
I
finde
brought
against
that
which
I
have
been
now
proving
.
One
is
from
Exod.
12.
48.
a
law
which
admitteth
strangers
to
the
Church
and
Passeover
of
the
Jewes
,
provided
they
were
willing
to
be
circumcised
.
The
other
objection
is
from
the
example
of
Ruth
the
Moabitesse
,
who
was
a
member
of
the
Church
of
Israel
.
To
the
first
I
answer
,
that
Exod.
12.
48.
will
not
prove
that
every
stranger
who
desired
to
be
circumcised
,
and
to
eate
the
Passeover
,
was
to
be
immediately
admitted
upon
that
desire
,
without
any
more
adoe
:
onely
it
proves
that
before
any
stranger
should
eate
of
the
Passeover
,
he
must
first
be
circumcised
.
A
stranger
might
not
be
Gertsedek
,
a
proselyte
of
righteousnesse
,
when
he
pleased
,
but
he
was
first
to
be
so
and
so
qualified
.
Besides
this
,
it
may
be
justly
doubted
whether
Deut.
23.
3.
be
not
an
exception
from
the
rule
Exod.
12.
48.
for
all
strangers
were
not
to
be
alike
soon
and
readily
received
to
be
proselytes
of
righteousnesse
:
but
a
great
difference
there
was
between
those
Nations
which
God
had
expressely
and
particularly
devoted
and
accursed
,
and
others
not
so
accursed
.
To
the
other
objection
concerning
Ruth
,
Rabanus
cited
by
Pelargus
on
Deut.
23.
answereth
that
the
tenth
generation
of
the
Moabites
was
past
,
before
Ruth
did
enter
into
the
congregation
of
the
Lord
.
And
if
it
had
not
,
yet
the
case
was
extraordinary
,
and
one
Swallow
makes
not
Summer
.
14.
Object
.
But
is
there
any
patterne
or
president
in
the
Jewish
Church
,
for
keeping
backe
scandalous
sinners
from
the
Sacrament
?
Ans.
There
is
;
for
I
have
proved
a
keeping
back
of
notorious
sinners
both
from
the
Passeover
,
and
from
the
Temple
it selfe
which
had
a
Sacramentall
signification
and
was
a
Type
of
Christ
and
Communion
with
him
.
It
is
worthy
of
observation
that
by
the
Chaldee
paraphrase
,
Exod.
12.
43.
Any
Israelite
who
was
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
an
apostate
,
might
not
eate
of
the
Passeover
.
Againe
,
verse
48.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
&
omnis
prophanus
.
So
the
Latine
Interpreter
of
Onkelos
:
And
no
prophane
person
shall
eate
of
it
.
The
word
is
used
not
onely
of
a
Heathen
,
but
of
any
prophane
person
,
as
Prov.
2.
16.
where
the
Chaldee
expresseth
the
whorish
woman
(
though
a
Jewesse
)
by
the
name
of
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
It
commeth
from
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
to
be
prophaned
,
è
sancto
prophanum
fieri
.
Surely
Onkelos
had
not
thus
paraphrased
upon
Exod.
12.
if
it
had
not
been
the
Law
of
the
Jewes
,
that
notorious
prophane
persons
should
be
kept
backe
from
the
Passeover
.
The
second
Book
OF
THE
CHRISTIAN
Church-Goverment
.
CHAP.
I.
Of
the
Rise
,
Growth
,
Decay
,
and
Reviving
of
Erastianisme
.
DIverse
Learned
men
have
(
to
very
good
purpose
)
discovered
the
origination
,
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
honest
is
parentibus
natus
,
it
is
not
borne
and
descended
of
honest
parents
.
The
Father
of
it
is
the
old
Serpent
,
who
finding
his
Kingdom
very
much
impaired
,
weakned
and
resisted
by
the
vigor
of
the
true
Ecclesiastical
discipline
,
which
separateth
between
the
precious
and
the
vile
,
the
holy
&
prophane
;
and
so
contributeth
much
to
the
shaming
away
of
the
unfruitful
works
of
darknesse
;
thereupon
he
hath
cunningly
gone
about
to
draw
men
,
first
into
a
jealousie
,
and
then
into
a
dislike
of
the
Ecclesiastical
discipline
,
by
Gods
mercy
restored
in
the
Reformed
Churches
.
The
Mother
of
it
,
is
the
enmity
of
nature
against
the
Kingdom
of
Iesus
Christ
;
which
he
,
as
Mediator
,
doth
exercise
in
the
goverment
of
the
Church
:
Which
enmity
is
naturally
in
all
mens
hearts
,
but
is
unmortified
and
strongly
prevalent
in
some
,
who
have
said
in
their
hearts
,
We
will
not
have
this
man
to
raigne
over
us
.
Luke
19.
Let
us
break
their
bonds
asunder
,
and
cast
away
their
cords
from
us
.
Psal.
2.
3.
The
Midwife
which
brought
this
unhappy
brood
into
the
light
of
the
world
,
was
Thomas
Erastus
Doctor
of
Medicine
at
Heidelberg
of
whom
I
shall
say
no
more
,
then
what
is
apparant
by
his
owne
Preface
to
the
Reader
,
namely
,
that
as
he
was
once
of
opinion
,
that
excommunication
is
commanded
in
the
Word
of
God
,
so
he
came
off
to
the
contrary
opinion
,
not
without
a
male-contented
humour
,
and
a
resentment
of
some
things
which
he
lookt
upon
as
provocations
and
personal
reflections
,
though
its
like
enough
they
were
not
really
such
,
but
in
his
apprehensions
they
were
.
One
of
these
was
a
publick
dispute
at
Heydelberg
in
the
year
1568.
upon
certain
Theses
concerning
the
necessity
of
Church
Government
,
and
the
power
of
Presbyteries
to
excommunicate
:
Which
Theses
were
exhibited
by
M.
George
Withers
an
Englishman
,
who
left
England
because
of
the
Ceremonies
,
and
was
at
that
time
made
Doctor
of
Divinity
at
Heydelberg
.
And
the
learned
dispute
had
thereupon
,
you
may
find
epitomized
(
as
it
was
taken
the
day
following
from
the
mouth
of
Dr.
Vrsinus
)
in
the
close
of
the
second
part
of
Dr.
Pareus
his
explication
of
the
Heidelberg
Catechisme
.
The
Erastian
error
being
borne
,
the
breasts
which
gave
it
suck
were
prophanesse
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
.
Germanorum
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
Tenent
?
And
it
is
as
little
to
be
marvelled
at
,
if
those
,
whether
Magistrates
,
Lawyers
,
or
others
,
who
conceived
themselves
to
be
so
far
losers
,
as
Ecclesiastical
Courts
were
interested
in
Government
,
and
to
be
greater
gainers
by
the
abolition
of
the
Ecclesiastical
interest
in
government
;
were
byassed
that
way
:
Both
these
you
may
find
among
the
causes
(
mentioned
by
Aretius
〈◊〉
.
probl
.
loc.
133.
)
for
which
there
was
so
much
un
willingnes
to
admit
the
discipline
of
Excomunication
.
Magistratus
jugum
non
admittuxt
,
timent
honoribus
,
licentiam
amant
,
&c.
The
Magistrates
do
not
admit
a
yoke
,
are
jealous
of
their
honours
,
love
licentiousnesse
.
Vulgus
quoque
&
plebs
dissolutior
:
major
pars
corruptissima
est
,
&c.
The
Communaltic
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
Government
,
under
the
name
of
Royall
Prerogative
.
Mr.
Iohn
Wemys
(
sometime
Senator
of
the
Colledge
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
Ecclesiasticall
lawes
,
and
against
the
Synodical
power
of
censures
;
holding
that
both
the
power
of
making
Ecclesiastical
lawes
,
and
the
corrective
power
to
censure
Transgressors
,
is
proper
to
the
Magistrate
.
The
Tutor
which
bred
up
the
Erastian
error
,
was
Arminianisme
;
for
the
Arminians
finding
their
plants
pluckt
up
,
and
their
poison
antidoted
by
Classes
and
Synods
,
thereupon
they
began
to
cry
down
Synodical
authority
,
and
to
appeal
to
the
Magistrates
power
in
things
Ecclesiastical
,
hoping
for
more
favour
and
lesse
opposition
that
way
.
They
will
have
Synods
onely
to
examine
,
dispute
,
discusse
,
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.
pag.
131.
133.
And
for
the
Magistrate
they
have
endeavoured
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
proceedings
'
which
the
Pope
did
formerly
usurpe
:
For
which
see
Apollonius
in
his
Ius
Maj●…statis
circa
sacra
.
But
the
Erastian
Error
being
thus
borne
,
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
nakednesse
.
Some
harbour
it
had
in
Switzerland
,
but
that
was
lookt
upon
as
comming
onely
through
injury
of
time
,
which
could
not
be
helped
;
the
Theological
and
Scriptural
principles
of
the
Divines
of
those
Churches
,
being
Anti-Erastian
,
and
Presbyteriall
,
as
I
have
[
*
](A42757-e42480-b)
*
See
Nihil
Respondes
pag.
32
33.
Male
audis
pag.
52.
53.
else-where
shewed
against
Mr.
Coleman
.
So
that
Erastianisme
could
not
get
warmth
and
strength
enough
,
no
not
in
Zurick
it self
.
Yea
Dr.
Ursi●…us
in
his
Iudicium
de
Disciplinâ
Ecclesiasticâ
,
&
excommunicatione
,
exhibited
to
the
Prince
Elector
Palatine
Frederick
the
third
(
who
had
required
him
to
give
his
judgement
concerning
Erastus
his
Theses
)
doth
[
a
](A42757-e42590-b)
a
In
alijs
(
Ecclesijs
)
ubi
aut
nulla
est
excommunicatio
in
usu
,
aut
non
lecitime
administratur
,
ac
nihilomirus
absque
omni
convoversia
,
in
consesso
est
ac
palam
docetur
,
eam
merito
in
Ecclesia
vigere
debere
,
Et
infra
,
Ne
etiam
Celsitudo
tua
se
suasque
Ecclesias
ab
alijs
omnibus
Ecclesijs
,
tain
ab
ijs
quae
nullam
habent
Excommunicationem
,
quam
ab
ijs
quae
habent
,
nova
hac
opinione
sejungat
:
siquidem
universae
ac
singulae
uno
ore
confitentur
,
semperque
confessae
sunt
,
merito
illam
in
usu
esse
debere
.
once
and
again
observe
,
that
all
the
Reformed
Churches
and
Divines
,
as
well
those
that
did
not
practice
excommunication
,
as
those
that
did
practise
it
,
agree
notwithstanding
in
this
principle
,
that
excommunication
ought
to
be
in
the
Church
.
Which
is
a
mighty
advantage
against
Erastianisme
.
The
second
cause
was
a
mis-accident
from
the
Mid-wife
,
who
did
half
stisle
it
in
the
birth
,
from
which
did
accrue
a
most
dangerous
infirmity
,
of
which
it
could
never
recover
.
[
b
](A42757-e42640-b)
b
Erast.
praefat.
Nos
de
illis
solis
loqui
peccatoribus
qui
doctrinam
intelligunt
,
probant
amplectuntur
:
peccata
sua
se
agnoscere
vere
atque
edisse
aiunt
,
&
Sacramentis
secundum
Institutienem
Christi
uti
cupiunt
.
Et
lib.
6.
cap.
2.
faciunt
praelerea
nobis
injuriam
(
imo
vera
calumnia
est
)
cum
dicunt
nos
omnes
sine
ullo
examine
velle
admitti
,
quales
quales
sint
ac
esse
velint
.
Quippe
sic
volumus
unumquemque
admitti
,
quomodo
Ecclesiae
nostrae
consuetudo
&
regula
jubet
.
Et
intra
.
Sane
ut
Idololatram
&
Apostatam
,
negamus
membrum
esse
Ecclesiae
Christi
,
sic
etiam
Nequitiam
suam
desendentem
negamus
inter
membra
Ecclesiae
censendum
esse
.
Et
quemadmodum
illos
ex
Christiano
coetu
judicamus
exterminandos
,
sic
hos
queque
putamus
in
eo
coeiu
non
esse
ferendos
.
Verum
neque
de
bis
,
neque
de
illis
quaerunt
nostrae
Theses
:
sed
disputatur
in
eis
,
de
solis
doctrinam
amplexantibus
,
&
Sacramentis
rite
cum
Ecclesia
uti
cupientibus
,
hoc
est
poenit
entiam
eodem
modo
quo
alij
profitentibus
.
Read
the
preface
of
Erastus
before
the
Confirmation
of
his
Theses
;
also
the
close
of
his
sixth
Book
;
put
these
together
,
you
will
find
him
yeeld
,
that
all
ought
not
to
be
admitted
promiseuously
to
the
Sacrament
,
but
that
such
admission
be
according
to
the
custome
and
rule
observed
in
the
Church
of
Heidelberg
(
and
what
that
was
,
you
may
find
in
the
Heidelberg
Catechisme
Quaest.
82.
&
87.
namely
a
suspension
of
prophane
scandalous
persons
from
the
Sacrament
,
and
in
case
of
their
obstinacy
and
continuing
in
their
offences
,
an
excommunicating
of
them
.
)
He
yeelds
also
that
these
seven
sorts
of
persons
ought
not
to
be
esteemed
as
members
of
the
Church
,
and
that
if
any
such
be
found
in
the
visible
Church
,
they
ought
to
be
cast
out
.
1.
Idolaters
.
2.
Apostates
.
3.
Such
as
do
not
understand
the
true
Doctrine
,
that
is
,
Ignorant
Persons
.
4.
Such
as
doe
not
approve
and
embrace
the
true
Doctrine
,
that
is
,
Hereticks
and
Sectaries
.
5.
Such
as
desire
to
receive
the
Sacrament
otherwise
then
in
the
right
manner
,
and
according
to
Christs
Institution
.
6.
Such
as
defend
or
justifie
their
wickednes
.
7.
Such
as
doe
not
confesse
and
acknowledge
their
sins
,
and
professe
sorrow
and
repentance
for
them
,
and
a
hatred
or
detestation
of
them
.
And
thus
you
see
as
Erastianisme
pleadeth
for
no
favour
to
Sectaries
,
or
whosoever
dissent
in
doctrine
,
or
whose
Tenents
concerning
Christs
Institution
,
or
manner
of
Administration
,
are
contrary
to
that
which
is
received
in
the
Church
where
they
live
:
(
for
[
c
](A42757-e42750-b)
c
Erastus
ib.
Equidem
in
Thesibus
ab
initi●…
monui
,
me
de
sola
illa
excommunicatione
apere
,
qua
aliqui
doctrinam
intelligentes
,
probantes
,
amplexantes
,
&
Sacramentis
rectè
uti
cupientes
,
quod
ad
externum
usum
attinet
ab
eijsdem
propter
anteactae
vitae
turpitu
linem
a
quibusdam
Presbyteris
repelluntur
:
quia
scilic
et
non
videtur
eis
serio
dolere
,
qui
lapsus
fuit
,
ac
sibi
dolere
id
profitetur
.
it
is
content
that
all
such
,
were
they
never
so
peaceable
and
godly
,
be
cast
out
of
the
Church
by
excommunication
.
All
the
favour
and
forbearance
which
it
pleadeth
for
,
is
to
the
loose
and
prophane
)
So
neither
doth
it
altogether
exempt
the
prophane
,
but
such
onely
as
do
neither
deny
nor
defend
their
wickednesse
,
but
confesse
their
sins
,
and
professe
sorrow
for
them
.
Let
the
Erastians
of
this
time
observe
what
their
great
Master
hath
yeelded
touching
the
Ecclesiastical
Censure
of
prophane
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
hee
may
seem
to
have
said
somewhat
)
falls
a
quarrelling
with
Presbyteries
for
presuming
to
judge
of
the
sincerity
of
that
repentance
professed
by
a
scandalous
sinner
,
and
their
not
resting
satisfied
with
a
mans
owne
profession
of
his
repentance
.
If
his
followers
will
now
be
pleased
to
reduce
the
controversie
within
that
narrow
circle
,
Whether
a
Presbyterie
may
excommunicate
from
the
Church
,
or
at
least
suspend
from
the
Sacrament
,
any
Church-member
,
as
an
impenitent
scandalous
sinner
,
who
yet
doth
not
defend
nor
denie
his
sin
by
which
he
hath
given
scandall
,
but
confesseth
it
,
and
professeth
sincere
and
hearty
repentance
for
it
:
(
which
is
the
point
that
Erasius
is
faine
to
hold
at
in
the
issue
)
Then
I
hope
we
shall
be
quickly
agreed
,
and
the
controversie
buried
;
for
we
do
rest
satisfied
with
the
offender
his
confession
of
his
sinne
,
and
profession
of
his
repentance
,
unlesse
his
owne
known
words
or
actions
give
the
lye
to
his
profession
of
repentance
;
that
is
,
if
he
be
known
to
justifie
and
defend
his
sin
in
his
ordinary
discourse
,
or
to
continue
in
the
practice
of
the
sin
,
which
he
professeth
to
the
Presbyterie
he
repents
of
;
if
these
or
such
like
sure
signes
of
his
impenitency
be
known
,
must
the
Presbyterie
notwithstanding
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
,
Heretick
,
Apostate
(
for
Erastus
is
content
that
such
be
excluded
from
the
Sacrament
.
)
Suppose
such
a
one
doth
confesse
his
sin
,
and
professeth
repentance
,
in
the
mean
while
is
known
to
be
a
writer
or
spreader
of
books
in
defence
of
that
Idolatry
or
Heresie
,
or
to
be
a
perswader
and
enticer
of
others
secretly
to
that
way
,
or
if
there
be
any
other
known
infallible
signe
of
his
impenitency
,
must
his
verbal
profession
to
the
Presbyterie
in
such
cases
be
trusted
and
taken
as
satisfactory
?
I
am
confident
Erastus
himself
would
not
have
said
so
.
Wherefore
as
in
the
case
of
an
Heretick
,
so
in
the
case
of
a
prophane
person
,
or
one
of
a
scandalous
conversation
,
there
is
a
necessity
that
the
Presbyterie
examine
the
real
signes
of
repentance
,
and
the
offenders
verbal
profession
is
not
all
.
The
third
cause
which
helped
forward
the
deadly
malady
and
consumption
of
Erastianisme
;
was
the
grief
,
shame
,
confusion
and
losse
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
curled
nature
of
that
unlucky
brood
,
being
of
the
seed
of
the
Amalekites
,
which
ought
not
to
enter
into
the
Congregation
of
the
Lord
.
The
Divines
who
have
more
especially
and
particularly
appeared
against
it
,
are
(
to
my
observation
)
these
.
Beza
de
Excommunicatione
,
&
Presbyterio
contra
Erastum
:
Which
was
not
printed
till
Erastus
his
Reply
unto
it
was
first
printed
.
Whereunto
as
Beza
in
a
large
Preface
layeth
the
foundation
of
a
duply
,
so
he
had
prepared
and
perfected
his
duply
,
had
he
not
been
hindred
by
the
great
troubl●s
of
Geneva
,
at
that
time
besieged
by
the
Duke
of
Savoy
;
Beza
himself
being
also
at
that
time
71.
yeares
old
;
howbeit
for
all
this
,
he
did
not
lay
aside
the
resolution
and
thought
of
that
duply
,
if
he
should
have
opportunity
,
and
see
it
requisite
or
calld
for
;
all
which
is
manifest
from
that
preface
.
Next
to
him
,
I
reckon
Zacharias
Ursinus
a
most
solid
judicious
Divine
,
who
did
(
as
I
touched
before
)
exhibite
to
the
Prince
Elector
Palatine
Frederick
the
third
,
Iudicium
de
disciplina
Ecclesiastica
&
Excommunicatione
(
which
you
may
find
in
the
end
of
his
third
Tome
)
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
Catecheticall
explications
,
Quaest
,
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
beleeve
that
Ursinus
is
his
,
and
not
ours
,
in
this
controversie
.
After
these
,
there
did
others
,
more
lately
,
come
upon
the
Stage
against
the
Erastian
Principles
,
as
Casparus
Brochmand
a
Lutheran
,
in
System
.
Theol.
Tom.
2.
Artic.
De
disciplina
Ecclesiastica
,
where
he
examineth
the
most
substantiall
Arguments
of
Erastus
:
Antonius
Walaeus
de
munere
ministrorum
Ecclesiae
&
inspectione
Magistratus
circa
illud
.
Et
in
loc●…
com
.
de
clavivibus
&
potestate
Ecclesiastica
.
Et
Tom
,
2.
Disp.
de
disciplina
Ecclesiastica
.
Helmichius
de
vocatione
Pastorum
&
institutione
Consistoriorum
.
D.
Triglandius
in
differtatione
de
potestate
civili
&
Ecclesiastica
.
D.
Revius
in
examine
libelli
de
Episcopatu
Constantini
magni
.
D.
Apollonij
〈◊〉
Majestatis
circa
sacra
.
D.
Cabeliavius
de
libertate
Ecclesiae
in
exercenda
disciplina
spirituali
.
Dr.
Voqtius
in
his
Politica
Ecclesiastica
,
especially
his
Disputations
de
potestate
&
Politia
Ecclesiarum
.
Beside
Acronius
,
Thysius
,
Ludov.
a
Renesse
,
who
were
Champions
against
that
unhappy
error
revived
in
the
Low-Countries
by
W●…enbogard
a
Proselyte
of
the
Arminians
.
But
now
,
while
E●…astianisme
did
thus
lye
a
dying
,
and
like
to
breath
its
last
,
is
there
no
Physitian
who
will
undertake
the
cure
,
and
endeavour
to
raise
it
up
from
the
gates
of
death
to
life
?
Yes
,
Mr.
Coleman
was
the
man
,
who
(
to
that
purpose
)
first
appeared
publikely
;
First
by
a
Sermon
to
the
Parliament
;
Next
,
by
debating
the
Controversie
with
my selfe
in
writing
;
and
lastly
,
By
engaging
in
a
publike
debate
in
the
Reverend
Assembly
of
Divines
,
against
this
Proposition
:
Iesus
Christ
as
King
and
Head
of
His
Church
,
hath
appointed
a
Governement
in
the
Church
,
in
the
hands
of
Church-Officers
,
distinct
from
the
Civil
Governement
.
After
he
had
some
dayes
argued
against
this
proposition
(
having
full
liberty
both
to
argue
and
reply
as
much
as
he
pleased
)
it
pleased
God
to
visit
him
with
sicknesse
,
during
which
,
the
Assembly
(
upon
intimation
from
himself
,
that
he
wished
them
to
lay
aside
that
Proposition
for
a
time
,
that
if
God
should
give
him
health
again
,
he
might
proceed
in
his
debate
)
did
goe
upon
other
matter
,
and
lay
this
aside
for
that
season
.
The
Lord
was
pleased
to
remove
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
Gods
mercy
,
before
the
poison
was
ready
,
there
was
one
Antidote
ready
,
I
mean
Mr.
Rutherford
his
answer
to
Erastus
.
But
though
Mr.
Coleman
was
the
first
man
he
was
not
the
onely
man
that
hath
appeared
in
this
present
Controversie
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
.
Onely
I
shall
wish
every
man
to
consider
sadly
and
seriously
,
by
what
Spirit
and
Principles
he
is
led
,
and
whether
he
be
seeking
the
things
of
Christ
,
or
his
owne
things
;
whether
he
be
pleasing
men
,
or
pleasing
Christ
;
whether
sin
be
more
shamed
,
and
holinesse
more
advanced
,
this
way
,
or
that
way
;
Which
way
is
most
agreeable
to
the
Word
of
God
,
to
the
example
of
the
best
Reformed
Churches
;
and
so
to
the
sol●mne
League
and
Cov●nant
.
The
Controversie
is
now
hot
:
every
faithfull
servant
of
Christ
,
will
be
carefull
to
deliver
his
owne
soule
by
his
faithfulnesse
,
and
let
the
lord
do
what
seemeth
him
good
.
The
cause
is
not
ours
,
but
Christs
;
it
stands
him
upon
his
Honour
,
his
Crowne
,
his
Lawes
,
his
Kingdom
.
Our
eyes
are
towards
the
Lord
,
and
For
the
Lord
is
our
Judge
,
the
Lord
is
our
Law-giver
,
The
Lord
is
our
King
,
he
will
save
us
.
CHAP.
II.
Some
Postulata
or
common
Principles
to
be
presupposed
.
FOr
a
foundation
to
the
following
discourse
,
I
shall
premise
the
particulars
following
,
which
I
hope
shall
be
condescended
upon
,
and
acknowledged
,
as
so
many
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
-
1.
There
must
be
a
most
conscientious
and
speciall
care
had
,
that
there
be
not
a
promiscuous
admission
of
all
sorts
of
persons
(
that
please
or
desire
)
to
partake
in
all
the
publike
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
apparantly
and
visibly
such
.
This
was
a
principle
and
rule
among
the
Heathens
themselves
,
therefore
[
d
](A42757-e43270-b)
d
Procul
,
hinc
procul
ite
prophani
,
Conclamat
vates
,
totoque
absistite
luco
.
Et
illud
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Et
illud
,
Tu
Genitor
cape
sacra
manu
patriosque
penates
.
Me
bello
extento
digressum
&
caede
recenti
Attrectare
nefas
,
donec
me
flumine
vivo
Abluere
—
when
they
came
to
doe
sacrifice
,
the
prophane
were
bidden
be
gone
,
and
[
e
](A42757-e43390-b)
e
Caesar
lib.
6.
de
bello
Gallico
,
Si
quis
privatus
aut
publicus
eorum
decreto
non
steterit
,
sacrificijs
interdicunt
.
Haec
poena
est
apud
eos
gravissima
Quibus
est
interdictum
,
ij
numeroimpiorum
ac
sceleratorum
habentur
.
Ij
omnes
decedunt
(
others
read
)
ab
ijs
omnes
decedunt
)
adinim
sermonemque
defugiunt
,
ne
quid
ex
contagione
incommodi
accipiant
.
Caesar
tells
us
,
that
of
old
the
Druides
(
the
Heathnish
French
Priests
)
did
interdict
the
flagitious
from
their
sacrifices
and
holy
things
.
These
Druides
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
for
personal
and
private
injuries
between
man
and
man
,
so
much
more
for
publike
and
scandalous
sins
,
whereby
God
is
very
much
dishonoured
,
and
the
Church
dangerously
scandalized
.
Tyberius
his
slighting
maxime
,
Deorum
injurias
Dijs
curae
esse
,
may
be
entertained
among
Atheists
,
but
is
exploded
among
all
true
Christians
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
is
the
Christian
maxime
.
Care
is
to
be
first
taken
of
things
pertaining
to
God
.
-
3.
It
is
requisite
and
necessary
,
that
he
who
hath
given
publick
scandall
and
offence
to
the
Church
,
and
hath
openly
dishonoured
God
by
a
grosse
notorious
sin
,
should
honour
God
,
edifie
others
,
and
(
so
far
as
in
him
lyeth
)
remove
the
offence
by
a
publike
confession
of
the
sin
,
and
declaration
of
his
sorrow
and
repentance
for
the
sa●ne
;
and
of
his
resolution
(
through
the
grace
of
Christ
)
to
do
so
no
more
:
As
many
of
the
Beleevers
at
Ephesus
did
publikely
confesse
and
shew
their
deeds
:
Act.
19.
18.
The
Syriack
addeth
their
offences
.
A
patterne
of
this
confession
we
have
in
the
Law
of
Moses
,
and
Jewish
policie
(
whereof
else-where
)
as
likewise
in
the
Baptisme
of
Iohn
,
Matth.
3.
6.
Of
this
publike
Confession
of
sin
,
see
Festus
Honnius
disp
.
51.
Thes
,
2.
Mr.
Hildersham
on
Psal.
51.
Lect.
34.
&
37.
and
diverse
others
.
Both
the
Word
of
God
,
and
the
example
of
the
best
Reformed
Churches
,
leadeth
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
Iohn
1.
9.
Secondly
,
a
confession
coram
Ecclesia
,
before
the
Church
,
when
men
acknowledge
publikcly
their
wicked
and
scandalous
deeds
,
and
do
professe
their
repenting
and
lothing
of
the
same
:
And
for
this
they
cite
Act.
19.
18.
Thirdly
,
a
confession
one
to
another
of
particular
private
injuries
and
offences
,
chiefly
recommended
to
those
who
are
at
variance
,
and
have
wronged
one
another
.
Iam.
5.
16.
Fourthly
,
the
confession
or
profession
of
the
true
Faith
.
1
Iohn
4.
2.
-
4.
That
publick
shame
put
upon
a
scandalous
sinner
,
and
the
separating
or
casting
out
of
such
an
one
,
as
the
vlle
from
the
precious
,
is
the
fittest
and
most
eff●ctual
means
which
the
Church
can
use
to
humble
him
,
to
break
his
heart
,
and
to
bring
him
to
the
acknowledgement
of
his
offence
.
-
5.
That
there
may
be
and
often
are
such
persons
in
the
Church
,
whom
[
f
](A42757-e43790-b)
f
Erastus
lib.
4.
cap.
7.
Horum
debetis
vitam
&
mores
observare
,
&
quos
impuros
esse
cognovistis
vitare
,
ne
vos
quoque
inficiamini
;
ipsi
autem
pudefiant
&
in
viam
redeant
.
we
must
avoid
,
Rom.
16.
17.
Withdraw
from
them
.
1
Tim
6.
5.
2
Tim.
3.
5.
2
Thes.
3.
6.
Have
no
company
with
them
.
2
Thes.
3.
14.
Not
eat
with
them
.
1
Cor.
5.
11.
Nor
bid
them
God
speed
.
2
Epist.
John
,
vers
.
10.
11.
-
6.
That
since
there
must
be
a
withdrawing
from
a
brother
that
walketh
disorderly
and
scandalously
,
it
s
more
agreeable
to
the
glory
of
God
,
and
to
the
Churches
peace
,
that
this
be
done
by
a
publick
authoritative
Ecclesiastical
judgement
and
sentence
,
than
wholly
and
solely
to
trust
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
Ministery
,
even
Iure
Divino
.
That
the
civil
Magistrate
hath
not
power
to
abolish
or
continue
the
Ministery
in
abstracto
at
his
pleasure
;
nor
yet
to
make
or
unmake
Ministers
in
concreto
,
that
is
,
to
ordain
or
depose
Ministers
,
as
he
thinks
fit
.
-
8.
As
the
Offices
are
distinct
[
g
](A42757-e43980-b)
g
Salmasius
appar
.
ad
lib.
de
prim
.
pag.
303.
Cum
sit
ut
jam
vidimus
duplex
potestas
Ecclesiastica
,
altera
interna
,
external
altera
tam
peccant
qui
utramque
principi
,
vel
magistratui
civili
tribuunt
,
quam
qui
utramque
denegant
ministre
Ecclesiastico
.
so
is
the
power
;
Magistrates
may
do
what
Ministers
may
not
doe
:
and
Ministers
may
doe
what
Magistrates
may
not
do
.
-
9.
It
is
Iuris
Communis
,
a
principle
of
common
equity
and
naturall
reason
,
that
the
directive
Judgement
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
Judgement
thereof
.
A
consultation
of
Physitians
is
called
for
,
when
the
Magistrate
desires
to
know
the
nature
,
symptomes
,
or
cure
of
some
dangerous
disease
.
A
consultation
of
Lawyers
,
in
Legal
questions
.
A
Councell
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
,
Artifici
in
sua
arte
credendum
.
Wherefore
though
the
Judgement
of
Christian
prudence
and
discretion
belongs
to
every
Christian
,
and
to
the
Magistrate
in
his
Station
;
and
though
the
Magistrate
may
be
,
and
sometime
is
learned
in
the
Scriptures
,
and
well
acquainted
with
the
principles
of
true
Divinity
,
yet
ut
plurimum
,
and
ordinarily
,
especially
in
a
rightly
Reformed
and
well
constituted
Church
,
Ministers
are
to
be
supposed
to
be
fittest
and
ablest
to
give
a
directive
Judgement
in
things
and
causes
Spiritual
and
Ecclesiastical
:
with
whom
also
other
ruling
Church
.
Officers
do
assist
and
joyne
,
who
are
more
experimentally
and
practically
(
they
ought
also
,
and
diverse
times
are
more
Theoretically
)
acquainted
with
the
right
way
and
rules
of
Church-government
and
censures
;
then
the
civil
Magistrate
(
when
he
is
no
ruling
Elder
in
the
Church
,
which
is
but
accidentall
)
can
be
rationally
or
ordinarily
supposed
to
be
.
-
10.
There
is
some
power
of
Governement
,
in
the
Church
given
to
the
Ministery
by
Christ
:
else
why
are
they
said
to
be
set
over
us
in
the
Lord
,
and
called
Rulers
and
Governours
,
as
we
shall
see
afterwards
?
CHAP.
III.
What
the
Erastians
yeeld
unto
Vs
,
and
what
We
yeeld
unto
them
.
FOr
better
stating
of
the
controversie
,
We
shall
first
of
all
take
notice
of
such
particulars
as
are
the
Opposites
concessions
to
us
,
or
our
concessions
to
them
.
Their
concessions
are
these
.
-
1.
[
h
](A42757-e44120-b)
h
Erastus
confirm
.
Thes.
lib.
3.
cap.
1.
Veruntamen
ut
in
rebus
prophanis
curandis
ei
(
Magistratui
)
non
licet
terminos
&
fines
aequitatis
,
justitiae
ac
honestatis
,
hoc
est
praescriptionem
legum
&
statutorum
Reiptranscendere
.
Sic
in
disponendis
&
ordinandis
rebus
sacris
,
vel
ad
cultum
divinum
pertinentibus
,
longe
minus
ei
licet
〈◊〉
in
parte
,
a
praescripto
verbi
Dei
discedere
;
quod
tanquam
re
gulam
in
omnibus
debet
sequi
,
ab
eoquenusquam
vel
latum
pilum
deflectere
.
That
the
Christian
Magistrate
in
ordering
and
disposing
of
Ecclesiastical
causes
and
matters
of
Religion
,
is
tyed
to
keep
close
to
the
Rule
of
the
Word
of
God
;
and
that
as
he
may
not
assume
an
Arbitrary
Government
of
the
State
,
so
far
lesse
of
the
Church
.
-
2.
That
Church-Officers
may
exercise
Church-government
,
and
authority
in
matters
of
Religion
,
where
the
Magistrate
doth
not
professe
and
defend
the
true
Religion
:
In
such
a
case
two
Governments
are
allowed
to
stand
together
,
one
civil
,
another
Ecclesiastical
.
This
[
i
](A42757-e44150-b)
i
Erastus
ibid.
Intelligi
hoc
debet
de
ea
Repub.
dictum
,
in
quia
Magistratus
&
subditi
,
eandem
profitentur
Religionem
,
eamque
veram
.
In
hac
dico
duas
distinctis
jurisdictiones
minime
debere
esse
.
In
alta
,
in
qua
videlicet
Magistratus
falsam
tuetur
sententiam
,
certo
quodo●…modo
toler
abilis
videri
fortosse
possit
divisio
rectionum
.
Erastus
granteth
,
as
it
were
by
constraint
,
and
it
seems
by
way
of
compliance
with
the
Divines
of
Zurik
(
who
hold
excommunication
by
Church-Officers
under
an
infidel
Magistrate
,
and
that
Iure
Divino
)
to
move
them
to
comply
the
more
with
him
in
other
particulars
.
-
3.
That
the
abuse
of
Church-governement
is
no
good
argument
against
the
thing
it self
:
There
being
no
authority
so
good
,
so
necessary
in
Church
or
State
,
but
by
reason
of
their
corruptions
who
manage
it
,
may
be
abused
to
tyranny
and
opression
.
These
are
Mr.
Prinnes
words
,
Vindic.
of
the
4.
Questions
pag.
2.
-
4.
That
some
Jurisdiction
belongs
to
Presbyteries
by
Divine
Right
.
Mr.
Prynne
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
definite
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
Brotherly
examination
re-examined
pag.
14.
I
never
had
it
in
my
thoughts
that
the
Parliament
had
power
of
dispensing
the
Word
and
Sacraments
:
Then
so
far
there
is
a
distinction
of
Magistracy
and
Ministery
Iure
Divino
:
Yet
in
this
he
did
not
so
well
agree
with
[
k
](A42757-e44330-b)
k
Confirm
.
Thes.
lib.
4.
cap.
2.
Quod
addis
non
licere
magistratui
,
re
ita
postulante
,
docere
&
Sacramenta
administra
re
(
si
modo
per
ne
gotia
possit
utrique
muneri
sufficere
)
idverum
non
est
.
Erastus
.
-
6.
That
the
ministery
is
Iure
Divino
,
and
Ministers
have
their
power
and
authority
of
preaching
the
Word
derived
to
them
from
Christ
,
not
from
the
Magistrate
.
So
Mr.
Hussey
in
his
Epistle
to
my self
.
We
preach
the
Word
with
all
authority
from
Christ
,
derived
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
doe
not
exercise
Government
and
Jurisdiction
.
Erast.
lib.
4.
cap.
1.
Our
Concessions
to
our
Opposites
,
are
these
.
-
1.
That
all
are
not
to
be
admitted
promiscuously
either
to
be
governours
or
members
in
the
Ecclesiastical
Republick
,
that
is
,
in
a
visible
political
Church
.
None
are
to
governe
[
l
](A42757-e44470-b)
l
Bullinger
de
Conc.
lib.
1.
c.
8.
Si
turpe
aut
indignum
quondam
videbatur
gentes
inducere
in
templum
Del
:
quare
non
videatur
hodie
sacrilegum
,
introducere
in
Synodum
Ecclesiasticam
canes
&
porcos
.
nor
to
be
abmitted
members
of
Presbyteries
or
Synods
,
except
such
as
both
for
abilities
and
conversation
,
are
qualified
according
to
that
which
the
Apostle
Paul
requireth
a
Bishop
or
Elder
to
be
.
Scandalous
or
prophane
Church-Officers
are
the
worst
of
dogs
and
swine
,
and
to
be
first
cast
out
.
And
as
all
are
not
to
governe
,
so
all
are
not
to
be
governed
Ecclesiastically
;
but
onely
Church-Members
,
1
Cor.
5.
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
sit
for
a
Church-government
.
Therefore
those
that
are
fit
shall
not
have
a
Church-Government
.
So
they
must
argue
;
Or
thus
,
a
Popish
people
are
not
fit
to
be
governed
Presbyterially
,
and
Episcopal
Ministers
are
not
fit
to
governe
;
therefore
the
rest
of
the
Nation
shall
want
a
Government
.
-
2.
Presbyteriall
Government
is
not
despotical
,
but
ministerial
,
it
is
not
a
Dominion
,
but
a
Service
.
We
are
not
Lords
over
Gods
heritage
:
1
Pet.
5.
3.
but
we
are
the
servants
both
of
Christ
and
of
his
Church
.
We
preach
not
our selves
,
saith
the
Apostle
,
but
Christ
Jesus
the
Lord
,
and
our selves
your
servants
for
Jesus
sake
.
2
Cor.
4.
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
exercised
in
any
compulsive
,
coercive
,
corporal
,
or
civil
punishments
.
When
there
is
need
of
coertion
or
compulsion
,
it
belongs
to
the
Magistrate
,
not
to
the
Minister
,
though
the
question
be
of
a
matter
of
Religion
;
of
Persons
or
things
Ecclesiastical
.
Which
as
it
is
rightly
observed
by
[
m
](A42757-e44640-b)
m
Appar
.
ad
lib.
de
primatu
pag.
294.
Ubicunque
sane
imperio
opus
est
per
vim
agente
ac
jubenie
,
aut
Jurisdictione
cogente
&
cohercente
,
nihil
istic
habent
quod
agant
verbi
divini
ministri
,
neque
jus
agendi
ullum
,
etiamsi
de
re
aut
persona
Ecclesiastica
quaestio
sit
,
aut
de
Religione
agatur
,
sed
ad
principes
out
Magistratus
ea
vis
coactiva
,
&
il'ud
jus
imperativum
&
coercitivum
pertinet
.
Ibid.
pag.
295.
Iurisdictionem
ijdem
(
pontificij
Doctores
)
porro
interiorem
ac
exteriorem
ita
distinguunt
,
ut
interior
sit
qua
Sacerdos
possit
peccatorem
confessum
a
peccatis
absolvere
&
satisfactionem
ponere
:
exterior
autem
qua
peccatores
adstringit
〈◊〉
Anathematis
,
aliasque
publicas
censuras
irrc●…at
,
&
abijsdem
exsolvit
.
Verum
hae
duae
Iurisdictiones
un●…m
faciunt
,
ean
que
solam
interiorem
.
Nulla
quippe
exterior
est
,
cum
utraque
respiciat
&
p●…o
objecto
habeat
hominem
interiorem
,
id
est
animam
.
lb.
p.
297.
Finis
tantum
respici
debet
.
Aliquis
suspenditur
&
excommunicatur
?
Sane
,
sed
ut
per
poenitentiam
restitui
possit
,
&
Sacramenta
corporis
&
sanguiris
Christi
iterum
participare
.
Et
poenitentia
illa
quam
quis
agit
ut
possit
reconciliari
,
interioris
est
hominis
.
Salmasius
,
so
he
further
asserteth
against
the
Popish
Writers
,
that
all
Ecclesiastical
Jurisdiction
hath
for
the
object
of
it
,
onely
the
inward
man
;
for
consider
the
end
of
Church-censures
,
saith
he
,
even
when
one
is
ex
communicated
or
suspended
from
the
Sacrament
,
it
is
but
to
reduce
him
and
restore
him
by
repentance
,
that
he
may
again
partake
of
the
Sacrament
rightly
and
comfortably
:
which
repentance
is
in
the
soule
or
inward
man
,
though
the
signes
of
it
appear
externally
.
-
4.
Presbyterial
Government
is
not
an
arbitrary
Government
;
for
clearing
whereof
take
these
five
Considerations
.
1.
We
can
do
nothing
against
the
Truth
but
for
the
Truth
:
and
the
power
which
the
Lord
hath
given
u●
,
is
to
edification
and
not
to
destruction
2
Cor.
13
8
10.
All
Presbyterial
proceedings
must
be
levelled
to
this
end
,
and
squared
by
this
rule
.
2.
Presbyters
and
Presbyteries
are
〈◊〉
to
the
Law
of
the
Land
,
and
to
the
corrective
power
of
the
Magistrate
;
Quatenus
Ecclesia
est
in
Republica
,
&
Reipub.
pars
,
non
Respublica
Ecclesiae
:
In
so
far
as
the
Church
is
in
the
Common-wealth
,
and
a
part
of
the
Common-wealth
;
not
the
Common-wealth
a
part
of
the
Church
,
saith
Salmasius
appar
.
ad
lib.
de
Primatu
pag.
292.
for
which
,
pag.
300.
he
cites
,
Optatus
Milivitanus
lib.
3.
Non
enim
Respullica
est
in
Ecclesia
,
sed
Ecclesia
in
Republica
.
Ministers
and
Elders
are
Subjects
and
Members
of
the
Common-wealth
,
and
in
that
respect
punishable
by
the
Magistrate
,
if
they
transgresse
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
principles
of
Christian
Religion
,
or
by
the
received
Ecclesiastical
Constitutions
of
that
Church
,
they
ought
to
do
.
4.
And
in
corrupto
Ecclesiae
statu
,
I
mean
,
if
it
shall
ever
happen
(
which
the
Lord
forbid
,
and
I
trust
shall
never
be
)
that
Presbyteries
,
or
Synods
shall
make
defection
from
the
Truth
to
Errour
,
from
Holinesse
to
Prophanesse
,
from
Moderation
to
Tyranny
and
Persecution
,
censuring
the
innocent
and
absolving
the
guilty
,
as
Popery
and
Prelacy
did
,
and
there
being
no
hopes
of
redressing
such
enormities
in
the
ordinary
way
by
intrinsecal
Ecclesiastical
remedies
,
that
is
,
by
well-constituted
Synods
,
or
Assemblies
of
Orthodox
,
holy
,
moderate
Presbyters
:
In
such
an
extraordinary
exigence
,
the
Christian
Magistrate
may
and
ought
to
interpose
his
Authority
to
do
diverse
things
which
in
an
ordinary
course
of
Government
he
ought
not
to
do
;
for
in
such
a
case
,
Magistracy
(
without
expecting
the
proper
intrinsecal
remedy
of
better
Ecclesiasticall
Assemblies
)
may
immediately
,
by
it self
,
and
in
the
most
effectual
manner
,
suppresse
and
restrain
such
defection
,
exorbitancy
,
and
tyranny
,
and
not
suffer
the
unjust
,
heretical
,
tyrannical
Sentences
of
Presbyteries
or
Synods
to
be
put
in
execution
.
Howbeit
in
Ecclesia
bene
constituta
,
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
Mat.
22.
Sect.
3.
That
it
belongeth
to
the
Magistrate
,
to
reforme
things
in
the
Church
,
as
often
as
the
Ecclesiastical
persons
shall
either
through
ignorance
,
or
disorder
of
the
affection
of
covetuousnesse
or
ambition
,
d●…file
the
Lords
Sanctuary
.
For
saith
Iunius
Animad.
in
Bell.
contr.
4.
lib.
1.
cap.
12.
&
18.
Both
the
Church
when
the
concurrence
of
the
Magistrate
faileth
,
may
extraordinarily
doe
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
comparisons
be
rightly
made
,
Presbyterial
Government
is
the
most
limitted
and
the
least
Arbitrary
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.
Prynn
in
his
preface
to
his
four
grand
Questions
,
puts
the
Reverend
Assembly
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
Prelats
.
Mr.
Coleman
also
in
his
Sermon
brought
objections
from
the
usurpations
of
Pope
Paul
the
fift
,
and
of
the
Archhbishop
of
Canterbury
:
Well
,
if
we
must
needs
make
a
comparison
,
come
on
.
The
Papal
usurpations
are
many
.
1.
The
Pope
takes
upon
him
to
determine
what
belongs
to
the
Canon
of
Scripture
,
what
not
?
2.
That
he
onely
can
determine
what
is
the
sence
of
Scripture
.
3.
He
addeth
unwritten
Traditions
.
4.
He
makes
himself
Judge
of
all
controversies
.
5.
He
dispenseth
with
the
Law
of
God
it self
.
6.
He
makes
himself
above
General
Councels
.
7.
His
government
is
Monarchical
.
8.
He
receiveth
appeals
from
all
the
Nations
in
the
world
.
9.
He
claimeth
Infallibility
at
least
ex
Cathedra
.
10.
He
maketh
Lawes
absolutely
binding
the
Conscience
,
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
Anathema's
,
who
do
not
subject
themselves
to
him
.
14.
He
claimeth
the
sole
power
of
convocating
general
Councels
.
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
Papall
and
Presbyteriall
Governement
?
As
little
there
is
in
making
the
comparison
with
Prelacy
,
the
power
whereof
was
indeed
arbitrary
and
impatient
of
those
limitations
and
rules
which
Presbyteries
and
Synods
in
the
Reformed
Churches
walkby
.
For
1.
The
Prelate
was
but
one
,
yet
he
claimed
the
power
of
ordination
and
jurisdiction
as
proper
to
himself
in
his
owne
Diocesse
.
We
give
the
power
of
ordination
and
Church
censures
not
uni
,
but
unitati
,
not
to
one
,
but
to
an
Assembly
gathered
into
one
.
2.
The
Prelate
assumed
a
perpetual
precedency
and
a
constant
priviledge
of
moderating
Synods
,
Which
Presbyterial
Government
denyeth
to
any
one
man
.
3.
The
Prelate
did
not
tye
himself
either
to
aske
or
to
receive
advice
from
his
fellow
Presbyters
,
except
when
he
himself
pleased
.
But
there
is
no
Presbyteriall
nor
Synodicall
sentence
,
which
is
not
concluded
by
the
major
part
of
voices
.
4.
The
Prelate
made
himself
Pastor
to
the
whole
Diocesse
(
consisting
it
may
be
of
some
hundreds
of
Congregations
)
holding
that
the
Ministers
of
particular
Congregations
did
preach
the
Word
and
minister
the
Sacraments
,
in
his
name
by
vertue
of
authority
and
order
from
him
,
and
because
he
could
not
act
by
himself
in
every
Congregation
.
The
Presbyteriall
Government
acknowledgeth
no
Pastorall
charge
of
preaching
the
Word
and
ministring
the
Sacraments
to
more
Congregations
then
one
;
and
doth
acknowledge
the
Pastors
of
particular
Churches
,
being
lawfully
called
,
to
have
power
and
authority
for
preaching
the
Word
and
ministring
the
Sacraments
in
the
name
of
Christ
,
and
not
in
the
name
of
the
Presbyterie
.
5.
The
Prelates
as
they
denyed
the
power
and
authority
of
Pastors
,
so
they
utterly
denyed
the
very
offices
of
ruling
Elders
,
and
Deacons
for
taking
more
especiall
care
of
the
poor
,
in
particular
Congregations
.
6.
They
did
not
acknowledge
Congregationall
Elderships
,
nor
any
power
of
discipline
in
particular
Congregations
which
the
Presbyteriall
Government
doth
.
7.
They
intruded
Pastors
oft
times
against
the
consent
of
the
Congregation
,
and
reclamante
Ecclesiâ
,
which
the
Presbyteriall
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
Clergie
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
Nationall
Synods
.
In
Presbyteriall
Government
all
(
in
whatsoever
Ecclesiasticall
administration
)
are
called
to
an
account
in
Presbyteries
,
Provinciall
and
Nationall
Assemblies
respectively
,
and
none
are
exempted
from
Synodicall
censures
in
case
of
scandall
and
obstinacy
.
11.
The
Prelates
power
was
not
meerly
Ecclesiasticall
,
they
were
Lords
of
Parliament
,
they
held
Civil
places
in
the
State
,
which
the
Presbyterial
Government
condemneth
.
12.
The
Prelats
were
not
chosen
by
the
Church
,
Presbyters
are
.
13.
The
Prelates
did
presume
to
make
Lawes
binding
the
Conscience
,
even
in
things
indifferent
,
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
Presbyteriall
Government
abhorreth
.
14.
They
did
excommunicate
for
money
matters
,
for
trifles
.
Which
the
Presbyteriall
Government
condemneth
.
15.
The
Prelates
did
not
allow
men
to
examine
by
the
Judgement
of
Christian
and
private
discretion
,
their
Decrees
and
Canons
,
so
as
to
search
the
Scriptures
and
look
at
the
Warrants
,
but
would
needs
have
men
think
it
enough
to
know
the
things
to
be
commanded
by
them
that
are
in
place
and
power
.
Presbyteriall
Government
doth
not
lord
it
over
mens
consciences
,
but
admitteth
(
yea
commendeth
)
the
searching
of
the
Scriptures
,
whether
these
things
which
it
holds
forth
be
not
so
,
and
doth
not
presse
mens
Consciences
with
Sic
volo
,
sic
jubeo
,
but
desireth
they
may
doe
in
faith
what
they
do
.
16.
The
Prelates
held
up
pluralities
,
non-residencies
&c.
Which
the
Presbyteriall
Government
doth
not
17.
As
many
of
the
Prelates
did
themselves
neglect
to
preach
the
Gospel
,
so
they
kept
up
in
diverse
places
a
reading
non-preaching
Ministery
:
Which
the
Presbyteriall
Goverment
suffereth
not
.
18.
They
opened
the
door
of
the
Ministery
to
diverse
scandalous
,
Arminianized
,
and
popishly
affected
men
,
and
locked
the
door
upon
many
worthy
to
be
admitted
.
The
Presbyteriall
Government
herein
is
as
contrary
to
theirs
,
as
theirs
was
to
the
right
.
19.
Their
Official
Courts
,
Commissaries
,
&c.
did
serve
themselves
H●ires
to
the
sons
of
Eli
,
Nay
,
but
thou
shalt
give
it
me
now
,
and
if
not
,
I
will
take
it
by
force
.
The
Presbyterial
Government
〈◊〉
such
proceedings
.
20.
The
Prelates
and
their
High-Commission
Court
did
assume
pot●…statem
utriusque
gladij
,
the
power
both
of
the
Temporall
and
Civil
Sword
.
The
Presbyteriall
Government
medleth
with
no
Civil
nor
Temporall
punishments
.
I
do
not
intend
to
enumerate
all
the
differences
between
the
Papal
and
Prelatical
Government
on
the
one
side
,
and
the
Presbyterial
Government
on
the
other
side
;
in
this
point
of
unlimitednesse
or
arbitrarynesse
.
These
differences
which
I
have
given
,
may
serve
for
a
consciencious
caution
to
intelligent
and
moderate
men
,
to
beware
of
such
odiou●
and
unjust
comparisons
,
as
have
been
used
by
some
,
and
among
others
by
Mr.
Sal●…marsh
in
his
Parallel
between
the
Prelacy
and
Presbyterie
:
Which
as
it
cannot
strike
against
us
,
nor
any
of
the
Reformed
Churches
(
who
acknowledge
no
such
Presbyterie
as
he
describeth
)
and
in
some
particulars
,
striketh
at
the
Ordinance
of
Parliament
(
as
namely
in
point
of
the
Directory
)
so
he
that
hath
a
mind
to
a
Recrimination
,
might
with
more
truth
lay
diverse
of
those
imputations
upon
those
,
whom
(
I
beleeve
)
he
is
most
unwilling
they
should
be
laid
upon
.
In
the
third
place
,
The
Presbyterian
Government
is
more
limited
and
lesse
arbitrary
than
the
Independent
Government
of
single
Congregations
,
which
exempting
themselves
from
the
Presbyterial
subordination
,
and
from
being
accountable
to
,
and
censurable
by
Classes
or
Synods
,
must
needs
be
supposed
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
disclaimeth
the
binding
of
themselves
for
the
future
unto
their
present
judgement
and
practice
,
and
avoucheth
the
keeping
of
this
reserve
to
alter
and
retract
.
See
their
Apologetical
narration
,
pag.
10
,
11.
By
which
it
appeareth
that
their
way
will
not
suffer
them
to
be
so
far
moulded
into
an
Uniformity
,
or
bounded
within
certain
particular
rules
(
I
say
not
with
others
,
but
even
among
themselves
)
as
the
Presbyterian
way
will
ad●it
of
.
Finally
,
The
Presbyterial
Government
hath
no
such
liberty
nor
arbitrarinesse
,
as
Civil
or
Military
Government
hath
:
there
being
in
all
civil
or
temporal
affairs
a
great
deal
of
latitude
〈◊〉
to
those
who
manage
the
same
,
so
that
they
command
nor
act
nothing
against
the
Word
of
God
.
But
Presbyterial
Government
is
tyed
up
to
the
rules
of
Scripture
,
in
all
such
particulars
as
are
properly
spiritual
and
proper
to
the
Church
;
Though
in
other
particular
,
occasional
circumstances
of
times
,
places
,
accommodations
,
and
the
like
,
the
same
light
of
nature
and
reason
guideth
both
Church
and
State
;
yet
in
things
properly
Spiritual
and
Ecclesiastical
,
there
is
not
near
somuch
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
clearing
of
the
Presbyterial
Government
,
doth
overthrow
(
as
to
this
Point
)
Master
Hussey's
Observation
,
pag.
9.
of
the
irregularity
and
arbitrarinesse
of
Church-government
.
And
so
much
of
my
fourth
Conc●ssion
.
The
fifth
shall
be
this
:
'T
is
far
from
our
meaning
,
that
the
Christian
Magistrate
should
not
meddle
with
matters
of
Religion
,
or
things
and
causes
Ecclesiastical
,
and
that
he
is
to
take
care
of
the
Common-wealth
,
but
not
of
the
Church
.
Certainly
there
is
much
power
and
Authority
which
by
the
Word
of
God
,
and
by
the
Confessions
of
Faith
of
the
Reformed
Churches
,
doth
belong
to
the
Christian
Magistrate
in
matters
of
Religion
.
Which
I
do
but
now
touch
by
the
way
,
so
far
as
is
necessary
to
wipe
off
the
aspersion
cast
upon
Presbyterial
Government
.
The
particulars
I
refer
to
Chapter
8.
Our
sixth
Concession
is
,
That
in
extraordinary
cases
,
when
Church-government
doth
degenerate
into
tyranny
,
ambition
,
and
avarice
;
and
they
who
have
the
managing
of
the
Ecclesiastical
power
,
make
defection
and
fall
into
manifest
Heresy
,
Impiety
,
or
Injustice
,
(
as
under
Popery
and
Prelacy
it
was
for
the
most
part
:
)
then
,
and
in
such
cases
(
which
we
pray
and
hope
we
shall
never
see
again
)
the
Christian
Magistrate
may
and
ought
to
do
diverse
things
in
and
for
Religion
,
and
interpose
his
Authority
diverse
wayes
,
so
as
doth
not
properly
belong
to
his
cognizance
,
decision
,
and
administration
,
ordinarily
,
and
in
a
Reformed
and
well
constituted
Church
.
For
extraordinary
diseases
must
have
extraordinary
remedies
.
More
of
this
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
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
necessitate
the
Magistrate
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
lesse
,
as
he
will
answer
to
God
and
his
conscience
:
it
is
a
cumulative
Act
of
favour
done
by
the
Magistrate
.
My
meaning
is
not
,
that
it
is
free
to
the
Magistrate
▪
in
genere
moris
;
but
in
genere
entis
.
The
Magistrate
ought
to
adde
the
Civil
Sanction
hic
&
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
;
other
then
ariseth
from
the
Word
of
God
,
binding
his
conscience
.
There
is
no
power
on
Earth
,
Civil
or
Spiritual
,
to
constrain
him
.
The
Magistrate
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
calumny
,
that
Presbyterial
Government
doth
force
or
compel
the
conscience
of
the
Magistrate
.
I
pray
God
we
may
never
have
cause
to
state
the
Question
otherwise
,
I
mean
,
concerning
the
Magistrate
his
forbidding
what
Christ
hath
commanded
,
or
commanding
what
Christ
hath
forbidden
:
in
which
case
we
must
serve
Christ
and
our
consciences
,
rather
then
obey
Laws
contrary
to
the
Word
of
God
and
our
Covenant
:
whereas
in
the
other
case
,
of
the
Magistrate
his
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
Elders
,
whether
they
be
considered
distributively
,
or
collectively
in
Presbyteries
and
Synods
,
being
Subjects
and
Members
of
the
Common-wealth
,
ought
to
be
subject
and
obedient
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
trespasses
against
Law
are
punishable
,
as
much
,
yea
,
more
then
the
trespasses
of
other
Subjects
.
Of
this
also
before
.
Ninthly
,
If
the
Magistrate
be
offended
,
at
the
sentence
given
,
or
censure
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
their
proceedings
,
and
by
all
means
to
endeavour
the
satisfaction
of
the
Magistrate
his
conscience
:
or
otherwise
to
be
warned
and
rectified
,
if
themselves
have
erred
.
CHAP.
IV.
Of
the
agreements
and
differences
between
the
nature
of
the
Civil
and
of
the
Ecclesiastical
Powers
or
Governments
.
HAving
now
observed
what
▪
our
opposites
yeeld
to
us
,
or
we
to
them
,
I
shall
for
further
unfolding
of
what
I
plead
for
,
or
against
,
adde
here
the
chief
agreements
and
differences
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
Magistrate
,
and
the
Minister
is
authorized
from
God
,
both
are
the
Ministers
of
God
,
and
shall
give
account
of
their
administrations
to
God
.
2.
Both
are
tyed
to
observe
the
Law
and
Commandments
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
honoured
and
obeyed
according
to
the
fifth
Commandment
:
Utrumque
scilicet
dominium
,
saith
Luther
,
Tom.
1.
fol.
139.
both
Governments
,
the
Civil
and
the
Ecclesiastical
,
do
pertain
to
that
Commandment
.
4
▪
Both
Magistracy
and
Ministery
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
Ministery
,
and
the
Ministery
strengthens
Magistracy
.
6.
They
agree
in
their
general
kinde
;
they
are
both
Powers
and
Governments
.
7.
Both
of
them
require
singular
qualifications
,
eminent
gifts
and
endowments
▪
and
of
both
it
holds
true
,
Quis
ad
haec
idoneus
?
8.
Both
of
them
have
degrees
of
censures
and
correction
according
to
the
degrees
of
offences
.
9.
Neither
the
one
nor
the
other
may
give
out
sentence
against
one
who
is
not
convict
,
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
onely
;
yet
as
Dr.
Rivet
upon
the
Decalogue
,
pag.
260.
261.
saith
truly
,
there
is
a
two-fold
power
of
external
jurisdiction
which
is
exercised
in
foro
exteriori
:
one
by
Church-Censures
,
Excommunication
,
lesser
and
greater
▪
which
is
not
committed
to
the
Magistrate
,
but
to
Church-Officers
:
Another
,
which
is
Civil
and
coercive
,
and
that
is
the
Magistrates
.
But
Mr.
Coleman
told
us
,
he
was
perswaded
it
will
trouble
the
whole
World
to
bound
Ecclesiastical
and
Civil
Jurisdiction
,
the
one
from
the
other
;
Maledicis
pag.
7.
Well
:
I
have
given
ten
agreements
.
I
will
now
give
ten
differences
.
The
difference
between
them
is
great
;
they
differ
in
their
causes
,
effects
,
objects
,
adjuncts
,
correlations
,
executions
,
and
ultimate
terminations
.
1.
In
the
efficient
cause
.
The
King
of
Nations
hath
instituted
the
Civil
power
;
The
King
of
Saints
hath
instituted
the
Ecclesiastical
power
.
I
mean
the
most
high
God
,
possessor
of
Heaven
and
Earth
,
who
exerciseth
Soverainty
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
Iesus
Christ
as
Mediator
and
King
of
the
Church
,
whom
his
Father
hath
set
upon
his
holy
Hill
of
Zion
,
Psal.
2.
6.
to
reigne
over
the
House
of
Jacob
for
ever
,
Luke
1.
33.
who
hath
the
key
of
the
House
of
David
laid
upon
his
shoulder
,
Isa.
22.
22.
hath
instituted
an
Ecclesiastical
power
and
goverment
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
Scepter
and
the
Temporal
Sword
:
that
is
,
it
is
Monarchical
and
Legislative
:
it
is
also
punitive
or
coercive
of
those
that
do
evil
;
understand
,
upon
the
like
reason
,
remunerative
of
those
that
do
well
.
[
n
](A42757-e45370-b)
n
Festus
Honnius
disp.
30.
thes.
6.
Circa
bonum
spirituale
versatur
potestas
Ecclesi
astica
proprie
ita
dicta
,
cujus
proprium
officium
est
verbum
Dei
praedicare
,
Sacramenta
administrare
,
disciplinam
Ecclesiasticam
exercere
,
Ministros
Ecclesiae
ordinare
,
de
controversiis
Ecclesi
isticis
quae
circa
doctrinam
aut
regimen
Ec
clesiae
intercidunt
,
ordinarie
judicare
,
&
de
ritibus
adiaphoris
ad
ordinem
,
decorum
atque
aedificationem
Ecclesiae
pertinentibus
,
Canones
seu
leges
Ecclesiasticas
constituere
.
I.
Gerard
loc.
com
.
Tom.
6.
pag.
494.
Distinguitur
Christi
regnum
ad
quod
potestas
clavium
pertinet
,
ab
imperiis
mundanis
quae
gladio
corporali
in
administratione
utuntur
.
The
Ecclesiastical
power
hath
for
the
matter
of
it
,
the
keyes
of
the
Kingdom
of
Heaven
.
1.
The
key
of
knowledge
or
doctrine
,
and
that
to
be
administred
,
not
onely
severally
by
each
Minister
concionaliter
,
but
also
Consistorially
and
Synodically
in
determining
controversies
of
Faith
,
and
that
according
to
the
rule
of
holy
Scripture
onely
:
which
is
clavis
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
2.
The
key
of
order
and
decency
,
so
to
speak
:
by
which
the
circumstances
of
Gods
Worship
and
all
such
particulars
in
Ecclesiastical
affairs
,
as
are
not
determined
in
Scripture
,
are
determined
by
the
Ministers
and
ruling
Officers
of
the
Church
,
so
as
may
best
agree
to
the
generall
rules
of
the
word
concerning
order
and
decency
,
avoyding
of
scandall
,
doing
all
to
the
glory
of
God
,
and
to
the
edifying
of
one
another
.
And
this
is
clavis
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
3.
The
key
of
corrective
discipline
or
censures
to
be
exercised
upon
the
scandalous
and
obstinate
:
which
is
clavis
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
4.
Adde
also
the
key
of
Ordination
or
mission
of
Church-Officers
,
which
I
may
call
clavis
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
the
authorizing
or
power
giving
key
,
others
call
it
missio
potestativa
.
3.
They
differ
in
their
formes
.
The
power
of
Magistracy
is
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
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
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
or
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
or
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
onely
.
It
is
meerly
Ministeriall
and
Steward-like
,
and
exercised
in
an
immediate
subordination
to
Iesus
Christ
,
as
King
of
the
Church
,
and
in
his
name
and
authority
.
4.
They
differ
in
their
ends
.
The
supreme
end
of
Magistracy
is
onely
the
glory
of
God
,
as
King
of
Nations
,
and
as
exercising
dominion
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
where
of
lyeth
upon
all
Nations
,
and
all
men
.
The
supreme
end
of
the
Ecclesiastical
power
,
is
either
proximus
or
remotus
.
The
neerest
and
immediate
end
is
the
glory
of
Iesus
Christ
,
as
Mediator
and
King
of
the
Church
.
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
Iesus
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
Iesus
Christ
as
Mediator
,
then
by
personal
or
private
Christian
duties
,
which
are
incumbent
to
every
Christian
?
I
answer
,
no
doubt
he
ought
to
intend
more
,
even
to
glorifie
Iesus
Christ
in
the
administration
of
Magistracy
.
Which
that
you
may
rightly
apprehend
,
and
that
I
be
not
misunderstood
,
take
this
distinction
.
It
is
altogether
incumbent
to
the
ruling
Officers
of
the
Church
,
to
intend
the
glory
of
Christ
as
Mediator
,
even
ex
natura
rei
,
in
regard
of
the
very
nature
of
Ecclesiasticall
power
and
government
which
hath
no
other
end
and
use
for
which
it
was
intended
and
instituted
,
but
to
be
subservient
to
the
Kingly
office
of
Iesus
Christ
in
the
governing
of
his
Church
upon
earth
(
and
therefore
sublata
Ecclesiâ
perit
regimen
Ecclesiasticum
,
take
away
the
Church
out
of
a
Nation
,
and
you
take
away
all
Ecclesiasticall
power
of
government
,
which
makes
another
difference
from
Magistracy
,
as
we
shall
see
anon
.
)
But
the
Magistrate
though
Christian
and
godly
,
doth
not
ex
natura
rei
,
in
regard
of
the
nature
of
his
particular
vocation
▪
intend
the
glory
of
Iesus
Christ
as
Mediator
,
and
King
of
the
Church
:
but
in
regard
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
whatever
they
do
in
word
or
deed
,
they
do
all
in
the
name
of
the
Lord
Iesus
,
Col.
3.
17.
that
is
,
according
to
the
will
of
Christ
,
and
for
the
glory
of
Christ
:
And
so
a
Marchant
,
a
Mariner
,
a
Tradesman
,
a
School-master
,
a
Captain
,
a
Souldier
,
a
Printer
,
and
in
a
word
,
every
Christian
in
his
own
place
and
station
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
Kingdom
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
Ministery
both
finis
operis
,
and
finis
operantis
.
To
the
Magistrate
,
though
Christian
,
it
is
onely
finis
operantis
;
That
is
,
it
is
the
end
of
the
godly
Magistrate
,
but
not
the
end
of
Magistracy
:
whereas
it
is
not
onely
the
end
of
the
godly
Minister
,
but
the
end
of
the
Ministery
it self
.
The
Ministers
intendment
of
this
end
,
flowes
from
the
nature
of
their
particular
vocation
.
The
Magistrates
intendment
of
the
same
end
,
flowes
from
the
nature
of
their
general
vocation
of
Christianity
,
acting
,
guiding
,
and
having
influence
into
their
particular
vocation
.
So
much
of
the
supreme
ends
.
Now
the
subordinate
end
of
all
Ecclesiastical
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
delivered
to
us
by
Christ
and
his
Apostles
.
The
subordinate
end
of
the
Civil
power
is
,
that
all
publike
sins
committed
presumptuously
against
the
moral
Law
,
may
be
exemplarly
punished
,
and
that
peace
,
justice
,
and
good
order
may
be
preserved
and
maintained
in
the
Common-wealth
,
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
Christians
)
that
we
may
live
under
them
a
peaceable
and
quiet
life
,
in
all
Godlinesse
and
Honesty
:
1
▪
Tim.
2.
2.
He
saith
not
simply
,
that
we
may
live
in
Godlinesse
and
Honesty
,
but
that
we
may
both
live
peaceably
and
quietly
,
and
also
live
godly
and
honestly
:
which
is
the
very
same
that
we
commonly
say
of
the
Magistrate
,
that
he
is
Custos
utriusque
Tabulae
.
He
is
to
take
speciall
care
that
all
his
Subjects
be
made
to
observe
the
Law
of
God
,
and
live
not
onely
in
moral
honesty
,
but
in
Godlinesse
,
and
that
so
living
,
they
may
also
enjoy
peace
and
quietnesse
.
More
particularly
;
the
end
of
Church
censures
is
,
that
men
may
be
ashamed
,
humbled
,
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
according
to
Law
,
and
that
peace
and
good
order
may
be
maintained
in
the
Common-wealth
,
as
hath
been
said
.
The
end
of
delivering
Hymeneus
and
Alexander
to
Satan
,
was
,
that
they
may
learn
not
to
blaspheme
,
1
Tim.
1.
20.
Erastus
yeelds
to
Beza
,
pag.
239.
that
the
Apostle
doth
not
say
Ut
non
possint
blasphemare
,
that
henceforth
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
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
to
no
other
sence
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
Mastgirate
delivers
a
theef
from
the
gallows
,
that
he
may
not
be
able
to
steal
any
more
,
and
(
as
he
tels
us
some
speak
)
that
he
may
learn
to
steal
no
more
:
He
is
herein
confuted
,
not
onely
out
of
the
Text
,
but
out
of
himself
.
So
then
,
the
end
of
Church-censures
is
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
that
the
offenders
may
learn
or
be
instructed
to
do
so
no
more
;
which
belongeth
to
the
inward
man
or
soul.
The
end
of
civil
punishments
is
,
Ut
non
possint
(
as
Erastus
tels
us
)
that
the
offenders
may
not
be
able
or
at
least
(
being
alive
and
some
way
free
)
may
not
dare
to
do
the
like
,
the
sword
being
appointed
for
a
terrour
to
them
who
do
evil
,
to
restrain
them
from
publike
and
punishable
offences
,
not
to
work
upon
the
spirit
of
their
mindes
,
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
the
Ecclesiastical
power
,
are
Determinations
of
Controversies
of
Faith
,
Canons
concerning
Order
and
Decency
in
the
Church
,
Ordination
or
Deposition
of
Church-Officers
,
Suspension
from
the
Sacrament
,
and
Excommunication
.
The
powers
being
distinct
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
dispensing
of
the
Word
and
Sacraments
;
but
of
the
effects
of
the
power
of
Jurisdiction
or
Government
,
of
which
onely
the
Controversic
is
.
Sixthly
:
The
Civil
power
hath
for
the
object
of
it
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
the
things
of
this
life
,
matters
of
Peace
,
War
,
Justice
,
the
Kings
matters
,
and
the
Countrey-matters
,
those
things
that
belong
to
the
external
man
:
But
the
Ecclesiastical
power
hath
for
the
object
of
it
,
things
pertaining
to
God
,
the
Lords
matters
,
as
they
are
distinct
from
Civil
matters
,
and
things
belonging
to
the
inward
man
,
distinct
from
the
things
belonging
to
the
outward
man
.
This
difference
Protestant
Writers
do
put
between
the
Civil
and
Ecclesiastical
powers
.
Fr.
Junius
Ecclesiast.
lib.
3.
cap.
4.
saith
thus
:
We
have
put
into
our
definition
humane
things
to
be
the
subject
of
Civil
administration
:
but
the
subject
of
Ecclesiastical
administration
,
we
have
taught
to
be
things
Divine
and
Sacred
.
Things
Divine
and
Sacred
we
call
both
those
which
God
commandeth
for
the
sanctification
of
our
minde
and
conscience
,
as
things
necessary
;
and
also
those
which
the
decency
and
order
of
the
Church
requireth
to
be
ordained
and
observed
,
for
the
profitable
and
convenient
use
of
the
things
which
are
necessary
:
For
example
,
Prayers
,
the
administration
of
the
Word
and
Sacraments
,
Ecclsiastical
censure
,
are
things
necessary
and
essentially
belonging
to
the
Communion
of
Saints
:
but
set
dayes
,
set
hours
,
set
places
,
fasts
▪
and
the
like
,
belong
to
the
decency
and
order
of
the
Church
&c.
But
humane
things
we
call
such
as
touch
the
life
,
the
body
▪
goods
and
good
name
,
as
they
are
expounded
in
the
second
Table
of
the
Decalogue
;
for
these
are
the
things
in
which
the
whole
Civil
administration
standeth
.
Tilen
,
Synt.
part
.
2.
disp.
32.
tels
us
to
the
same
purpose
,
That
Civil
Government
or
Magistracy
versatur
circa
res
terrenas
&
hominem
externum
.
Magistratus
,
saith
Danaui
Pol.
Christ
.
lib.
6.
cap.
1.
instituti
sunt
à
Deo
rerum
humanarum
quae
hominum
societati
necessariae
sunt
,
respectu
,
&
ad
earum
curam
.
If
it
be
objected
,
How
can
these
things
agree
with
that
which
hath
been
before
by
us
acknowledged
,
that
the
Civil
Magistrate
ought
to
take
special
care
of
Religion
,
of
the
conservation
and
purgation
thereof
,
of
the
abolishing
idolatry
and
superstition
;
and
ought
to
be
Custos
utriusque
Tabulae
,
of
the
first
,
as
well
as
second
Table
?
I
answer
,
That
Magistrates
are
appointed
,
not
onely
for
Civil
Policy
,
but
for
the
conservation
and
purgation
of
Religion
▪
as
is
expressed
in
the
Confession
of
Faith
of
the
Church
of
Scotland
,
before
cited
,
we
firmly
beleeve
,
as
a
most
undoubted
truth
.
But
when
Divines
make
the
object
of
Magistracy
to
be
onely
such
things
as
belong
to
this
life
and
to
humane
society
,
they
do
not
mean
the
object
of
the
Magistrates
Care
(
as
if
he
were
not
to
take
care
of
Religion
;
)
but
the
object
of
his
Operation
.
The
Magistrate
himself
may
not
assume
the
administration
of
the
keys
,
nor
the
dispensing
of
Church-censures
;
he
can
but
punish
the
external
man
with
external
punishments
.
Of
which
more
afterwards
.
The
seventh
difference
stands
in
the
Adjuncts
:
For
1.
the
Ecclesiastical
power
in
Presbyterial
or
Synodical
Assemblies
,
ought
not
to
be
exercised
without
prayer
and
calling
upon
the
Name
of
the
Lord
,
Matth.
18.
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
Jurisdiction
is
committed
to
one
man
,
but
to
an
Assembly
in
which
two
at
least
must
agree
in
the
thing
,
as
is
gathered
from
the
Text
last
cited
.
3.
No
private
or
secret
offence
ought
to
be
brought
before
an
Ecclesiastical
Court
,
except
in
the
case
of
contumacy
and
impenitency
,
after
previous
admonitions
:
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
suppose
,
our
opposites
will
hardly
say
(
at
least
hardly
make
it
good
)
that
no
Civil
injury
or
breach
of
Law
and
Justice
,
being
privately
committed
,
may
be
brought
before
a
Civil
Court
,
except
first
there
be
previous
admonitions
,
and
the
party
admonished
prove
obstinate
and
impenitent
.
The
eighth
difference
stands
in
their
correlations
.
The
Correlatum
of
Magistracy
is
people
embodied
in
a
Common-wealth
,
or
a
Civil
corporation
.
The
Correlatum
of
the
Ecclesiastical
power
is
people
embodied
in
a
Church
,
or
Spiritual
corporation
.
The
Common-wealth
is
not
in
the
Church
,
but
the
Church
is
in
the
Common-wealth
,
that
is
,
One
is
not
therefore
in
or
of
the
Church
,
because
he
is
in
or
of
the
Common-wealth
,
of
which
the
Church
is
a
part
;
but
yet
every
one
that
is
a
Member
of
the
Church
,
is
also
a
Member
of
the
Common-wealth
,
of
which
that
Church
is
a
part
.
The
Apostle
distinguisheth
those
that
are
without
,
and
those
that
are
within
in
reference
to
the
Church
,
who
were
notwithstanding
both
sorts
within
in
reference
to
the
Common-wealth
,
1
Cor.
5.
12
,
13.
The
Correlatum
of
the
Ecclesiastical
power
may
be
quite
taken
away
by
persecution
,
or
by
defection
,
when
the
Correlatum
of
the
civil
power
may
remain
.
And
therefore
the
Ecclesiastical
and
the
civil
power
do
not
se
mutuò
ponere
&
tollere
.
Ninthly
:
There
is
a
great
difference
in
the
ultimate
termination
.
The
Ecclesiastical
power
can
go
no
further
then
Excommunication
,
or
(
in
case
of
extraordinary
warrants
,
and
when
one
is
known
to
have
blasphemed
against
the
holy
Ghost
)
to
Auathema
Maranatha
.
If
one
be
not
humbled
and
reduced
by
Excommunication
,
the
Church
can
do
no
more
,
but
leave
him
to
the
Judgement
of
God
,
who
hath
promised
to
ratifie
in
Heaven
,
what
his
Servants
in
his
Name
,
and
according
to
his
Will
,
do
upon
Earth
.
Salmasius
spends
a
whole
chapter
in
confuting
the
Point
of
the
coactive
and
Magistratical
Jurisdiction
of
Bishops
.
See
Walo
Messal
.
cap.
6.
He
acknowledgeth
in
that
very
place
,
pag.
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
offender
again
upon
the
evidence
of
his
repentance
.
But
the
Point
he
asserteth
is
,
That
Bishops
or
Elders
have
no
such
power
as
the
Magistrate
hath
,
and
that
if
he
that
is
excommunicate
do
not
care
for
it
,
nor
submit
himself
,
the
Elders
cannot
compel
him
.
But
the
termination
or
Quo
usque
of
the
civil
power
,
is
most
different
from
this
.
It
is
unto
death
,
or
to
banishment
,
or
to
confiscation
of
goods
,
or
to
imprisonment
.
Ezra
7.
26.
Tenthly
:
They
differ
in
a
divided
execution
.
That
is
,
the
Ecclesiastical
power
ought
to
censure
sometime
one
whom
the
Magistrate
thinks
not
fit
to
punish
with
temporal
or
civil
punishments
:
And
again
,
the
Magistrate
ought
to
punish
with
the
temporal
Sword
,
one
whom
the
Church
ought
not
to
cut
off
by
the
Spiritual
Sword
.
This
difference
Pareus
gives
,
Explic
.
Catech.
quaest
.
85.
art.
4.
and
it
cannot
be
denied
:
For
those
that
plead
most
for
Liberty
of
conscience
▪
and
argue
against
all
civil
or
temporal
punishments
of
Hereticks
,
do
notwithstanding
acknowledge
,
that
the
Church
whereof
they
are
Members
ought
to
censure
and
excommunicate
them
,
and
doth
not
her
duty
except
she
do
so
.
The
Church
may
have
reason
to
esteem
one
as
an
Heathen
and
a
Publican
that
is
no
Church-Member
,
whom
yet
the
Magistrate
in
prudence
and
policy
doth
permit
to
live
in
the
Common-wealth
.
Again
,
the
most
notorious
and
scandalous
sinners
,
blasphemers
,
murtherers
,
adulterers
,
incestuous
persons
,
robbers
,
&c.
when
God
gives
them
repentance
,
and
the
signes
thereof
do
appear
,
the
Church
doth
not
binde
but
loose
them
,
doth
not
retain
but
remit
their
sins
;
I
mean
ministerially
and
declaratively
.
Notwithstanding
the
Magistrate
may
and
ought
to
do
Justice
according
to
Law
,
even
upon
those
penitent
sinners
.
CHAP.
V.
Of
a
twofold
Kingdom
of
Iesus
Christ
:
a
general
Kingdom
,
as
he
is
the
eternal
Son
of
God
,
the
Head
of
all
Principalities
and
Powers
,
raigning
over
all
creatures
:
and
a
particular
Kingdom
,
as
he
is
Mediator
,
raigning
over
the
Church
onely
.
THe
Controversie
which
hath
been
moved
concerning
the
civil
Magistrate
his
Vicegerentship
,
and
the
holding
of
his
Office
▪
of
and
under
and
for
Jesus
Christ
as
he
is
Mediator
,
hath
a
necessary
coherence
with
,
and
dependance
upon
another
Controversie
concerning
a
twofold
Kingdom
of
Jesus
Christ
;
one
,
as
he
is
the
eternal
Son
of
God
,
raigning
together
with
the
Father
and
the
holy
Ghost
over
all
things
;
and
so
the
Magistrate
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
origination
and
tenure
of
the
Magistrate's
Office
,
I
have
thought
good
here
to
premise
the
enodation
of
the
Question
concerning
the
twofold
Kingdom
of
Jesus
Christ
.
It
is
a
distinction
which
Master
Hussey
cannot
endure
▪
and
no
marvel
;
for
it
overturneth
the
foundation
of
his
opinion
.
He
looks
upon
it
as
an
absurd
assertion
,
pag.
25.
Shall
he
have
one
Kingdom
as
Mediator
,
and
another
as
God
?
He
quarrelleth
all
that
I
said
of
the
twofold
Kingdom
of
Christ
,
and
will
not
admit
that
Christ
as
Mediator
is
King
of
the
Church
onely
,
pag.
25
,
26
,
27
,
35
,
36
,
37.
The
Controversie
draweth
deeper
then
he
is
aware
of
:
for
Socinians
and
Photinians
finding
themselves
puzzled
with
those
arguments
which
(
to
prove
the
eternal
Godhead
of
Jesus
Christ
)
were
drawn
from
such
Scriptures
as
call
him
God
,
Lord
,
the
Son
of
God
;
also
from
such
Scriptures
as
ascribe
Worship
and
Adoration
to
him
;
and
from
the
Texts
which
ascribe
to
him
a
Supreme
Lordship
,
Dominion
,
and
Kingdom
over
all
things
:
(
For
this
hath
been
used
as
one
Argument
for
the
Godhead
of
Jesus
Christ
and
his
consubstantiality
with
the
Father
.
The
Father
raigns
,
the
Son
raigns
,
the
holy
Ghost
raigns
.
Vide
lib.
Isaaci
Clari
Hispani
adversus
Varimadum
Arianum
:
)
Thereupon
they
devised
this
answer
▪
That
Jesus
Christ
in
respect
of
his
Kingly
Office
,
and
as
Mediator
,
is
called
God
,
and
Lord
,
and
the
Son
of
God
,
(
of
which
see
Fest.
Honnij
Specimen
Controv.
Belgic
.
pag.
24.
Ionas
Schlichtingius
contra
Meisnerum
pag.
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
onely
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-Writters
,
more
fully
and
distinctly
to
assert
the
great
difference
between
that
which
the
Scripture
saith
of
Christ
,
as
he
is
the
eternal
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
Mediator
,
he
hath
another
Kingdom
over
all
things
which
belongs
to
him
onely
as
he
is
the
eternal
Son
of
God
.
This
the
Socinians
to
this
day
do
contradict
,
and
stisly
hold
that
Christ
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
raigneth
over
all
things
:
But
our
Writters
still
hold
up
against
them
the
distinction
of
that
twofold
Kingdom
of
Jesus
Christ
.
See
Stagmanni
Photinianismus
Disp.
27.
quaest.
6.
The
same
distinction
of
the
twofold
Kingdom
of
Christ
,
as
God
,
and
as
Mediator
,
is
frequently
to
be
found
in
Protestant
Writers
.
See
Synops.
pur
.
Theol.
Disp.
26.
thes.
53.
Gomarus
in
Obad.
vers.
ult.
The
late
English
Annotations
on
1
Cor.
15.
24.
and
many
others
.
Let
[
o
](A42757-e46590-b)
o
Synt.
Theol.
lib.
6.
cap.
29.
Regnum
Christi
vel
naturale
est
▪
vel
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Regnum
Christi
naturale
est
quod
Christus
a
natura
hal
et
,
estque
communis
totius
Deita
is
&c.
Hes
Regnum
etiam
universale
dicitur
,
quia
est
simpliciter
in
universa
.
At
Regnum
Christi
donativum
est
qued
Christus
tradiium
a
Patre
ut
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
accepit
&c.
Hoc
Regnum
〈◊〉
prium
Christi
,
quod
ut
Rex
Mediator
obtinet
in
persona
sua
:
ac
Regnum
etiam
singulare
di●
quia
est
peculiare
in
Ecclesia
&c.
Utque
naturale
Regnum
obtinet
jure
naturae
,
quia
est
naturalis
filius
Dei
Patris
:
ita
donativum
Regnum
obtinet
jure
donationis
.
Polanus
speak
for
the
rest
.
See
also
the
same
distinction
cleared
and
asserted
by
Master
Apollonius
in
his
Ius
Majestatis
circa
sacra
,
part
.
1.
pag.
33.
&
seq
.
The
Arguments
to
prove
that
distinction
of
the
twofold
Kingdom
of
Christ
,
are
these
:
-
First
,
Those
Kingdoms
of
which
the
one
is
accessory
and
adventitions
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
different
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
.
Ergo
:
If
the
Son
of
God
had
never
received
the
Office
of
Mediator
,
and
so
should
not
have
raigned
as
Mediator
,
yet
he
had
been
the
natural
Son
of
God
;
for
this
could
not
be
a
necessary
consequence
,
He
is
the
natural
Son
of
God
,
Therefore
he
is
Mediator
;
for
he
had
been
the
natural
Son
of
God
,
though
he
had
not
been
Mediator
,
and
though
man
had
not
been
redeemed
.
But
if
you
suppose
that
the
Son
of
God
raigns
not
as
God
with
the
Father
and
the
holy
Ghost
,
from
everlasting
to
everlasting
,
then
you
must
needs
suppose
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
God-man
;
the
other
is
not
proper
and
personal
,
but
common
to
the
Father
and
the
holy
Ghost
,
are
most
different
and
distinct
Kingdoms
.
But
the
Kingdom
of
Jesus
Christ
as
Mediator
,
and
his
Kingdom
as
he
is
the
eternal
Son
of
God
,
are
such
.
Ergo
:
That
Kingdom
which
Christ
hath
as
Mediator
,
by
special
dispensation
of
God
committed
to
him
,
is
his
alone
properly
and
personally
:
for
we
cannot
say
that
the
Father
raigns
as
Mediator
,
or
that
the
holy
Ghost
raigns
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
raign
.
-
Thirdly
,
He
that
hath
a
Kingdom
which
shall
be
continued
and
exercised
for
ever
,
and
a
Kingdom
which
shall
not
be
continued
and
exercised
for
ever
,
hath
two
distinct
Kingdoms
.
But
Jesus
Christ
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
Kingdom
which
shall
not
be
continued
and
exercised
for
ever
,
namely
,
the
Kingdom
which
he
hath
as
Mediator
.
Ergo
:
The
eternity
of
the
one
Kingdom
is
not
doubted
of
:
But
that
the
other
Kingdom
shall
not
be
for
ever
exercised
,
that
is
,
[
p
](A42757-e46730-b)
p
Synt.
pur
.
Theol.
Desp.
26.
thes.
35.
Ipsi
(
Patri
)
suum
queque
Sceptrum
Mediatorium
seu
oeconomieum
traditurus
dicitur
,
ut
imperium
mere
divinum
eadem
gloria
ae
Majestate
cum
Patre
,
erga
suos
electos
in
aeternum
exerceat
.
Zach.
Ursinus
Tom.
1.
pag.
398.
Christus
Patri
tradet
Regnum
post
glorificationem
Ecclesiae
,
id
est
,
desinet
facere
Officium
Mediatoris
.
that
Christ
shall
not
for
ever
raign
as
Mediator
,
is
proved
from
1
Cor.
15.
24
,
25.
Master
Hussey
pag.
35
,
36
,
37.
goeth
about
to
answer
this
Argument
,
which
he
confesseth
to
say
something
:
and
indeed
it
saith
so
much
,
that
though
he
maketh
an
extravagant
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
yeelds
the
Point
,
which
I
was
then
proving
.
Christ
,
saith
he
,
in
the
day
of
Judgement
shall
lay
down
all
the
Office
of
Mediatorship
.
I
hope
he
will
not
say
that
Christ
shall
lay
down
at
the
day
of
Judgement
that
Kingdom
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
eternal
Son
of
God
.
And
whereas
Master
Hussey
holdeth
that
Christ
as
Mediator
raigns
over
all
things
as
the
Vicar
of
his
Father
,
we
shall
see
anon
the
weaknesse
of
his
Arguments
brought
to
prove
it
.
Mean
while
,
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
continued
for
ever
?
Let
him
think
on
this
Argument
,
Whatsoever
belongs
to
that
Kingdom
which
shall
be
continued
for
ever
,
and
shall
not
be
laid
down
at
the
day
of
Judgement
,
doth
belong
to
Christ
,
not
as
Mediator
,
but
as
the
eternal
Son
of
God
.
But
the
general
Power
and
Dominion
,
by
which
Jesus
Christ
exerciseth
Soveraignty
over
all
creatures
without
exception
,
doing
to
them
and
fulfilling
upon
them
all
the
good
pleasure
of
his
Will
,
belongs
to
that
Kingdom
which
shall
be
continued
for
ever
,
and
shall
not
be
laid
down
at
the
day
of
Judgement
.
Ergo
:
That
general
Power
and
Dominion
by
which
Jesus
Christ
exerciseth
Soveraignty
over
all
creatures
without
exception
,
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
,
He
that
hath
a
Kingdom
administred
by
and
in
Evangelical
Ordinances
,
and
a
Kingdom
administred
by
his
Divine
Power
,
without
Evangelical
Ordinances
,
hath
two
different
and
distinct
Kingdoms
.
But
Jesus
Christ
hath
a
Kingdom
administred
by
and
in
Evangelical
Ordinances
,
and
a
Kingdom
administred
by
his
Divine
power
,
without
Evangelical
Ordinances
.
Ergo
:
Doth
not
Jesus
Christ
raign
over
the
Devils
and
damned
Spirits
by
his
Divine
Power
,
reserving
them
in
chains
of
darknesse
to
the
Judgement
of
the
great
day
?
But
will
Master
Hussey
say
that
Christ
raigns
over
the
Divels
and
damned
Spirits
as
Mediator
or
by
the
same
Kingdom
by
which
he
raigns
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
Mediator
.
-
Fifthly
,
He
that
hath
a
Kingdom
in
subordination
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
Kingdom
in
subordination
to
God
the
Father
,
and
another
Kingdom
wherein
he
is
not
subordinate
unto
,
but
equal
with
God
the
Father
.
Ergo
:
The
Kingdom
which
Christ
hath
as
Mediator
doth
(
in
regard
of
the
Office
of
Mediatorship
)
constitute
him
in
a
subordination
to
his
Father
,
whose
Commandments
he
executeth
,
and
to
whom
he
gives
an
account
of
his
Ministration
.
So
that
though
he
that
is
Mediator
,
being
the
eternal
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
Scriptures
,
Isai.
42.
1.
Behold
my
servant
.
Jo.
14.
28.
My
Father
is
greater
then
I.
1
Cor.
11.
3.
The
Head
of
Christ
is
God
:
In
the
same
consideration
as
Christ
is
our
Head
,
God
is
Christs
Head
,
namely
,
as
Christ
is
Mediator
.
But
that
Kingdom
which
Christ
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
this
consideration
,
the
Father
is
not
greater
then
he
.
Master
Hussey
pag.
37.
saith
of
Christ
,
in
respect
of
the
Government
which
he
hath
as
Mediator
,
He
is
as
it
were
the
Vicar
of
his
Father
.
I
hope
he
will
not
say
so
of
that
Government
which
Christ
hath
as
the
eternal
Son
of
God
.
And
pag.
27.
he
holds
that
Christ
as
Mediator
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
cannot
but
yeeld
my
Argument
.
-
Sixthly
,
If
Christ
hath
a
Kingdom
in
time
dispensed
and
delegate
to
him
,
and
unto
which
he
was
anointed
,
and
hath
another
Kingdom
which
is
not
delegate
nor
in
time
dispensed
,
nor
he
anointed
to
it
;
but
doth
necessarily
and
naturally
accompany
the
communication
of
the
Divine
nature
to
him
by
eternal
generation
:
then
he
hath
two
most
different
Kingdoms
,
one
as
he
is
Mediator
;
another
as
he
is
the
eternal
Son
of
God
.
But
Christ
hath
a
Kingdom
in
time
dispensed
and
delegate
&c.
If
you
speak
of
Christ
as
Mediator
,
God
hath
made
him
both
Lord
and
Christ
,
Act.
2.
36.
but
as
he
is
the
eternal
Son
of
God
he
is
not
Dominus
factus
;
he
is
not
made
Lord
and
King
,
no
more
then
he
is
made
the
natural
Son
of
God
.
When
the
Psalmist
speaketh
of
that
Kingdom
which
Christ
hath
as
Mediator
,
he
tels
us
of
the
anointing
of
Christ
.
Ps.
45.
6.
The
Scepter
of
thy
Kingdom
is
a
right
Scepter
:
vers.
7.
Thy
God
hath
anointed
thee
with
the
oyle
of
gladnesse
.
But
we
cannot
say
that
Christ
was
anointed
to
that
Kingdom
,
which
he
hath
as
the
eternal
Son
of
God
.
-
Seventhly
,
If
the
Scripture
holds
forth
a
Kingdom
which
Christ
hath
over
all
creatures
,
and
another
Kingdom
which
he
hath
over
the
Church
onely
▪
then
it
holds
forth
the
twofold
Kingdom
which
I
plead
for
,
and
which
Master
Hussey
denieth
.
But
the
Scripture
holds
forth
&c.
Christ
as
he
is
God
over
all
,
blessed
for
ever
,
Rom.
9.
5.
exerciseth
Soveraignty
and
Dominion
over
all
things
,
even
as
his
Father
doth
,
Psal.
115.
3.
Dan.
4
34
,
35.
for
his
Father
and
he
are
one
.
But
as
he
is
Mediator
,
his
Kingdom
is
his
Church
onely
,
and
he
is
over
his
own
House
,
Heb.
3.
6.
You
will
say
the
word
onely
is
not
in
Scripture
.
I
answer
:
When
we
say
that
Faith
onely
justifieth
,
the
word
onely
is
not
in
Scripture
,
but
the
thing
is
.
Just
so
here
:
For
,
first
,
David
,
Solomon
,
and
Eliakim
were
types
of
Christ
the
King
.
Now
David
and
Solomon
did
raign
onely
over
Gods
people
as
their
Subjects
,
though
they
had
other
people
tributaries
and
subdued
:
So
doth
Christ
raign
over
the
House
of
Iacob
onely
,
Luk.
1.
32
,
33.
The
Lord
shall
give
unto
him
the
Throne
of
his
Father
David
,
and
he
shall
raign
over
the
house
of
Jacob
for
ever
.
Isai.
9.
7.
Of
the
encrease
of
his
Government
and
Peace
there
shall
be
no
end
,
upon
the
Throne
of
David
and
upon
his
Kingdom
to
order
it
.
Isa.
21.
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
applied
to
the
Church
and
people
of
God
as
a
proper
and
peculiar
comfort
to
the
Church
,
that
Christ
was
to
come
and
raign
as
a
King
:
Isai.
9.
6.
Unto
us
a
Child
is
born
,
unto
us
a
Son
is
given
,
and
the
Government
shall
be
upon
his
shoulder
.
Zech.
9.
9.
Rejoyce
greatly
O
Daughter
of
Zion
:
Shout
O
Daughter
of
Jerusalem
:
Behold
THY
KING
cometh
unto
thee
.
Matth.
2.
6.
Out
of
thee
shall
come
a
Governour
that
shall
rule
my
people
Israel
.
3.
The
Iews
did
generally
understand
it
so
,
That
the
Messias
was
to
be
the
Churches
King
onely
,
which
made
Pilate
say
to
them
,
Shall
I
crucifie
your
King
?
And
hence
it
was
also
,
that
the
wise
men
who
came
to
enquire
for
Christ
,
said
,
Where
is
he
that
is
born
King
of
the
Jews
?
Matt.
2.
2.
-
Eighthly
,
That
very
place
Eph.
1.
21
,
22
,
23.
from
which
Master
Coleman
drew
an
Argument
against
us
,
doth
plainly
hold
forth
a
two-fold
supremacy
of
Iesus
Christ
,
one
over
all
things
,
another
in
reference
to
the
Church
onely
which
is
his
body
,
his
fulnesse
,
and
to
whom
alone
he
is
head
,
according
to
that
Text
:
Of
which
more
afterwards
.
-
Ninthly
,
The
Apostle
Col.
1.
doth
also
distinguish
this
two-fold
preeminence
,
supremacy
,
and
Kingdom
of
Iesus
Christ
:
one
,
which
is
universal
,
and
over
all
things
,
and
which
belongeth
to
him
as
he
is
the
eternal
Son
of
God
,
vers.
15.
16.
17.
Who
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
earth
,
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
.
[
q
](A42757-e47450-b)
q
Calv.
in
Col.
1.
18.
Postquam
generaliter
de
Christi
excellentia
disseruit
,
deque
summo
ejus
in
omnes
creaturas
principa●…
:
iterum
redit
adea
quae
peculiariter
ad
Ecclesiam
spectant
.
In
nomine
capitis
alii
plura
considerant
&c.
Hic
vero
potissimum
,
meo
judicio
,
de
guhernatione
loquitur
.
Another
which
is
oeconomicall
and
particular
in
and
over
the
Church
,
and
this
he
hath
as
Mediator
:
vers.
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
preeminence
.
That
vers.
18.
he
speaketh
of
Christ
as
Mediator
,
is
not
controverted
.
But
Mr.
Hussey
pag.
35.
would
fain
make
it
out
(
if
he
could
)
that
Christ
as
Mediator
is
spoken
of
,
vers.
15.
16.
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
God-head
of
Iesus
Christ
.
Yea
,
Mr.
Hussey
himself
yeeldeth
,
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.
1.
16.
17.
against
the
Socinians
and
Photinians
,
to
prove
the
eternal
God-head
of
Iesus
Christ
,
because
by
him
all
things
were
created
,
and
he
is
before
all
things
.
See
Stegmanni
Photinianismus
disp
.
5.
Quaest.
12.
Becmanus
Exercit.
4.
and
Exerc.
8.
Where
you
may
see
,
that
the
Adversaries
contend
(
as
Mr.
Hussey
doth
)
that
the
Apostle
vers.
15.
16.
17.
doth
not
speak
of
the
person
of
Iesus
Christ
,
proving
him
to
be
true
God
;
but
that
he
speaks
of
Christ
as
Mediator
or
in
respect
of
his
Office
,
and
of
that
dominion
which
Christ
hath
as
Mediator
(
So
Ionas
Schlichtingius
contra
Meisner
.
pag.
469.
)
and
that
vers.
15.
16.
17.
ascribeth
no
more
to
Christ
,
than
vers.
18.
But
Becmanus
answering
Iulius
,
distinguisheth
the
Text
as
I
do
:
for
which
Analysis
I
did
formerly
cite
Beza
,
Zanchius
,
Gualther
,
Bullinger
,
Tossanus
,
M.
Bayne
,
beside
diverse
others
.
But
I
have
found
none
that
understands
the
Text
as
Mr.
Hussey
doth
,
except
the
Socinians
and
Photinians
,
who
do
not
acknowledge
that
Christ
hath
such
an
universall
dominion
and
Lordship
over
all
things
,
as
God
the
Father
,
but
onely
that
he
ruleth
over
all
things
,
as
Mediator
.
Now
for
answer
to
that
which
Mr.
Hussey
pag.
26.
27.
alledgeth
,
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
Christs
Kingdom
as
he
is
Mediator
,
is
to
be
understood
not
onely
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
notion
of
Civil
Government
,
that
is
,
that
Christ
reignes
as
Mediator
over
all
creatures
,
whether
under
or
without
the
Gospel
:
and
that
all
Civil
Power
,
Principality
,
and
Government
whatsoever
in
this
World
,
is
put
in
Christs
hand
as
Mediator
.
If
therefore
he
will
argue
,
let
him
argue
so
,
as
to
conclude
the
point
.
The
next
objection
he
maketh
,
is
from
Heb.
1.
2.
Christ
as
Mediator
is
made
Heir
of
all
things
.
But
I
answer
,
Christ
is
Heir
of
all
things
.
1.
as
the
eternall
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.
1.
15.
he
is
called
the
first
borne
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.
2.
8.
but
that
is
onely
Church-wise
,
he
shall
have
a
Catholique
Church
gathered
out
of
all
Nations
,
and
all
kings
and
people
,
and
tongues
,
and
languages
shall
be
made
to
serve
him
.
Moreover
Mr.
Hussey
objecteth
from
Heb.
2.
8.
and
1
Cor.
15.
28.
that
God
hath
put
all
things
under
Christs
feet
as
he
is
Mediator
.
Answ.
As
this
is
not
perfectly
fulfilled
in
this
World
,
but
will
then
be
fulfilled
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
onely
,
but
all
the
works
of
Gods
hands
,
Heb.
2.
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
Psalme
,
vers.
6.
7.
Thou
hast
put
all
things
under
his
feet
,
all
sheep
and
oxen
&c.
Now
how
is
it
that
the
Apostle
applyeth
all
this
to
Christ
?
How
doth
Christ
rule
over
the
beasts
,
fowles
,
fishes
?
Calvin
in
1
Cor.
15.
27.
28.
answereth
,
dominatur
ergo
,
ut
omnia
serviant
ejus
gloriae
.
He
ruleth
,
so
as
all
things
may
serve
for
his
glory
.
So
then
,
all
things
are
put
under
Christs
feet
as
he
is
Mediator
,
both
in
regard
of
his
excellency
,
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
dispose
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
exerciseth
his
office
and
government
over
all
men
as
his
Subjects
,
and
over
all
Magistrates
as
his
Deputies
,
yea
over
all
things
,
even
over
the
reasonlesse
creatures
;
for
by
his
arguing
,
he
will
have
Christ
as
Mediator
to
governe
the
sheep
,
oxen
,
fowles
,
and
fishes
:
all
things
as
well
as
all
persons
being
put
under
Christs
feet
.
But
in
the
handling
of
this
very
argument
Mr.
Hussey
yeelds
the
cause
.
God
is
said
to
put
all
things
under
him
,
saith
he
,
whereby
it
is
implyed
that
all
things
were
not
under
him
,
before
they
were
put
under
him
;
but
as
the
second
Person
in
Trinity
,
so
nothing
could
be
said
to
be
put
under
him
,
because
they
were
in
that
respect
alwaies
under
him
.
Is
not
this
all
one
for
substance
with
that
distinction
formerly
cited
out
of
Polanus
,
of
a
two-fold
Kingdom
of
Christ
,
one
natural
;
as
he
is
the
second
Person
in
the
Trinity
,
another
donative
,
as
he
is
Mediator
?
-
Lastly
,
Mr.
Hussey
argueth
from
Phil.
2.
8.
9.
10.
Christ
as
Mediator
is
exalted
to
have
a
name
above
every
name
,
that
at
the
name
of
Iesus
every
knee
may
bow
.
Answ.
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
onely
things
in
heaven
,
that
is
,
Angels
,
and
things
in
earth
,
that
is
,
men
,
but
also
things
under
the
earth
,
that
is
,
divells
,
yet
divells
are
none
of
the
Subjects
of
Christs
kingdom
as
he
is
Mediator
.
Therefore
this
Text
proves
not
a
Head-ship
or
Government
over
all
,
(
which
Mr.
Hussey
contends
for
)
but
a
power
over
all
.
I
will
here
anticipate
another
objection
,
which
is
not
moved
by
Mr.
Hussey
.
It
may
be
objected
from
1
Cor.
11.
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
Chrysostome
,
that
all
these
comparisons
and
subordinations
in
this
Text
,
are
not
to
be
taken
in
one
and
the
same
sence
.
2.
I
grant
also
that
Christ
may
be
called
the
head
of
every
man
,
not
onely
in
respect
of
his
God-head
,
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
divinitus
sancito
in
Ecclesiae
corpore
mystico
,
as
Mr.
David
Dicksone
(
an
Interpreter
who
hath
taken
very
good
pains
in
the
Textuall
study
of
Scripture
)
saith
upon
the
place
.
I
shall
clear
it
by
the
like
formes
of
speech
.
Ier.
30
6.
Wherefore
do
I
see
every
man
with
his
hands
on
his
loyns
?
Luke
16.
16.
The
Kingdom
of
God
is
preached
,
and
every
man
presseth
unto
it
.
1
Cor.
12.
7.
The
manifestaetion
of
the
Spirit
is
given
to
every
man
to
profit
withall
.
Heb.
2.
9.
Iesus
did
taste
death
for
every
man
.
Yet
none
of
these
places
are
meant
of
every
man
in
the
World
.
3.
Yea
in
some
sence
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
omnes
eminet
,
saith
Gualther
,
or
because
no
man
hath
parity
or
equality
of
honour
with
Christ
:
So
Martyr
and
Hunnius
.
The
English
annotations
say
,
that
Christ
is
the
Head
of
every
man
,
in
as
much
as
he
is
the
first
begotten
among
many
brtheren
.
Which
best
agreeth
with
my
second
answer
.
But
for
taking
off
all
these
,
and
for
preventing
of
other
objections
,
that
one
distinction
will
suffice
,
which
I
first
gave
in
examining
Mr.
Colemans
Sermon
.
In
the
Mediator
Iesus
Christ
there
is
,
1.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
dignity
,
excellency
,
honour
,
glory
,
splendor
.
2.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
his
mighty
power
,
by
which
he
is
able
to
do
in
heaven
and
earth
whatsoever
he
will
.
3.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
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
onely
between
Christ
and
his
Church
,
as
between
King
and
Kingdom
.
So
that
the
thing
in
difference
,
is
that
which
Mr.
Hussey
hath
not
proved
,
namely
,
that
Christ
as
Mediator
doth
not
onely
excell
all
things
in
glory
,
and
exercise
a
supreme
power
and
providence
over
all
things
,
for
his
own
glory
,
and
his
Churches
good
(
neither
of
which
is
denied
)
but
that
he
also
is
as
Mediator
,
King
,
Head
,
and
Governor
of
the
Universe
,
and
hath
not
onely
the
government
of
his
Church
,
but
all
Civil
government
put
in
his
hand
.
When
Mr.
Hussey
pag.
28.
saith
that
I
denyed
pag.
43.
what
this
distinction
yeeldeth
,
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
pag.
43.
was
concerning
the
Kingdom
,
not
the
power
:
my
words
were
these
.
But
as
Mediator
he
is
onely
the
Churches
King
,
Head
,
and
Governour
,
and
hath
no
other
Kingdom
.
Yea
himsef
,
pag.
26.
speaking
to
these
words
of
mine
,
noteth
that
I
did
not
say
,
that
as
Mediator
he
hath
no
such
power
.
How
commeth
it
to
passe
that
he
chargeth
me
with
the
denying
of
that
,
which
himself
but
two
pages
before
had
observed
that
I
denie
it
not
?
Well
,
but
pag.
43
,
he
desires
from
me
a
further
clearing
of
my
distinction
,
Kingdom
,
power
,
and
glory
,
and
that
I
will
shew
from
Scripture
,
how
it
agreeth
to
Christ
.
I
shall
obey
his
desire
:
though
it
was
before
easie
to
be
understood
,
if
he
had
been
willing
enough
to
understand
.
Solomon
did
excell
all
the
Kings
of
the
earth
in
wisedom
,
riches
,
glory
,
and
honour
,
2
Chron.
1.
12.
and
herein
he
was
a
type
of
Christ
,
Psal.
89.
27.
I
will
make
him
my
first
born
,
higher
then
the
Kings
of
the
earth
:
But
as
Solomon
was
onely
King
of
Israel
,
and
was
not
by
office
or
authority
of
Government
,
a
Catholique
King
over
all
the
Kingdomes
of
the
World
,
nor
all
other
Kings
Solomons
Vicegerents
,
or
Deputies
:
So
Iesus
Christ
as
Mediator
is
onely
the
Churches
King
,
and
is
not
King
or
Governour
of
the
whole
World
,
nor
Civil
Magistrates
his
Vicegerents
,
though
he
excell
them
all
in
dignity
,
glory
,
and
honour
.
Again
,
David
did
subdue
by
power
diverse
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.
8.
Nay
it
is
added
,
in
that
very
place
vers.
15.
And
David
reigned
over
all
Israel
,
and
David
executed
justice
and
judgement
unto
all
his
people
.
(
And
this
is
one
argument
to
prove
that
those
subdued
and
tributrary
Territories
,
were
not
properly
under
the
government
of
Israel
,
because
Israel
was
not
bound
to
extirpate
Idolaters
out
of
those
lands
,
but
onely
out
of
the
holy
land
.
See
Maimonides
de
Idolol
.
cap.
7.
sect.
1.
with
the
annotation
of
Dionysius
Vossius
.
)
So
Christ
who
was
set
upon
the
throne
of
David
,
doth
as
Mediator
,
put
forth
his
divine
and
irresistible
power
in
subduing
all
his
Churches
enemies
,
according
to
that
Psal.
2
9.
Thou
shalt
break
them
with
a
rod
of
iron
,
thou
shalt
dash
them
in
peeces
like
a
Potters
vessel
.
Rev.
17.
14.
The
Lamb
shall
overcome
them
,
for
he
is
Lord
of
lords
,
and
King
of
kings
.
But
this
vis
major
,
this
restraining
subduing
power
makes
not
Christ
,
as
Mediator
,
to
be
King
and
Governour
,
not
onely
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
,
fowles
,
and
fishes
;
Heb.
2.
7.
8.
compared
with
Psal.
8.
7.
8.
Yea
his
power
is
over
divells
,
meant
by
things
under
the
earth
,
Phil.
2.
10.
Wherefore
it
cannot
be
said
,
that
Christ
as
Mediator
,
is
King
,
Head
,
and
Governour
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
pag.
43.
objecteth
against
this
distinction
,
that
a
Kingdom
without
power
and
glory
,
is
a
nominall
empty
thing
.
Surely
there
may
be
a
Kingly
right
and
authority
to
governe
,
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
onely
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
Kingdomes
enemies
)
I
verily
beleeve
that
this
distinction
rightly
apprehended
,
will
discover
the
great
mistakes
of
that
supposed
universall
Kingdom
of
Christ
,
as
Mediator
,
reigning
over
all
things
,
and
the
Civil
Magistrate
as
his
Vicegerent
▪
CHAP.
VI.
Whether
Jesus
Christ
,
as
Mediator
and
head
of
the
Church
,
hath
laced
the
Christian
Magistrate
to
hold
and
execute
his
Office
under
and
fo
him
,
as
his
Vicegerent
.
The
Arguments
for
the
〈◊〉
discussed
.
MR.
Hussey
is
very
angry
at
my
distinctions
and
arguments
which
I
brought
against
Mr.
Col●…mans
fourth
rule
,
insomuch
that
in
his
Reply
to
me
,
he
spendeth
very
near
two
parts
of
three
upon
this
matter
,
from
pag.
16.
to
44.
having
past
over
sicco
ped
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
as
his
Vicegerent
,
and
hath
given
him
commission
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
controversie
:
though
this
is
not
all
which
is
incumbent
to
the
Erastians
to
prove
,
for
as
I
first
replied
to
Mr.
Colemans
fourth
rule
,
the
Question
is
,
whether
there
be
not
some
other
government
instituted
and
appointed
by
Iesus
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-Government
to
the
Magistrate
,
and
so
hath
left
no
share
of
Government
to
the
Ministery
.
But
I
can
by
no
means
yeeld
that
so
much
contended
for
Vicegerentship
of
the
Christian
Magistrate
,
and
his
holding
of
his
Office
of
and
under
Christ
as
he
is
Mediator
.
Mr.
Coleman
in
his
re-examination
pag.
19.
was
fearfull
to
set
his
foot
upon
so
slippery
ground
.
He
was
loth
to
adventure
upon
this
assertion
,
that
Magistracy
is
derived
from
Christ
as
Mediator
by
a
Commission
of
Deputation
and
Vicegerentship
(
which
yet
did
necessarily
follow
upon
the
fourth
rule
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
〈◊〉
a
great
deal
more
:
I
much
mistake
if
he
shall
not
be
made
either
to
make
a
retreat
as
Mr.
Coleman
did
,
or
to
do
worse
.
First
of
all
,
this
part
of
our
Controversie
is
to
be
rightly
stated
.
The
Question
is
not
.
1.
Whether
the
Magistrate
be
Gods
Deputy
or
Vicegerent
,
and
as
God
upon
earth
;
for
who
denies
that
?
Nor
2.
Whether
the
Magistrate
be
Christs
Deputy
as
Christ
is
God
,
and
as
he
exerciseth
an
universall
dominion
over
all
things
,
as
the
Father
and
the
holy
Ghost
doth
.
Here
likewise
I
hold
the
affirmative
.
Nor
3.
Whether
the
Christian
Magistrate
be
usefull
and
subservient
to
the
Kingdom
of
Jesus
Christ
,
even
as
he
is
Mediator
and
King
of
the
Church
;
for
in
this
also
I
hold
the
affirmative
,
that
is
,
that
as
every
man
in
his
owne
calling
,
parents
,
masters
,
servants
,
marchants
,
souldiers
&c.
being
Christians
,
so
the
Magistrate
in
his
eminent
station
,
being
a
Christian
,
is
obliged
to
endeavour
the
propagation
of
the
Gospel
,
and
the
good
and
benefit
of
the
Church
of
Christ
.
But
the
Question
is
,
Whether
the
Christian
Magistrate
be
a
Governour
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
formall
consideration
,
as
he
is
Mediator
and
head
of
the
Church
.
Or
(
which
is
also
the
same
)
whether
Jesus
Christ
by
vertue
of
that
authority
and
power
of
Government
which
as
Mediator
,
and
as
God-man
,
he
received
of
the
Father
,
hath
substituted
and
given
commission
to
the
Christian
Magistrate
to
govern
the
Church
in
subordination
to
him
,
as
he
governeth
it
in
subordination
to
his
Father
.
In
all
these
Mr.
Hussey
is
for
the
affirmative
,
I
am
for
the
negative
.
Let
us
hear
his
reasons
.
First
pag.
16.
He
argueth
from
my
concession
.
A
Christian
Magistrate
is
a
Governour
in
the
Church
,
said
Mr.
Coleman
,
This
understood
sano
sensu
I
admitted
.
Now
saith
Mr.
Hussey
,
If
the
Church
be
Christs
Kingdom
,
surely
such
as
govern
in
it
,
must
receive
commission
from
him
.
Which
commission
saith
he
,
must
be
in
this
forme
.
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
confesse
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
,
masters
of
Colledges
,
and
the
like
,
are
Governours
in
the
Church
,
that
is
,
being
within
,
not
without
the
Church
,
yet
as
Parents
or
masters
they
are
not
Church-Governours
.
2.
I
can
also
admit
that
the
Christian
Magistrate
governeth
the
Church
;
and
if
this
had
been
the
concession
,
which
is
more
then
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
Common-Wealth
,
as
learned
Salmafiu●…
distinguisheth
,
Appar
.
ad
lib.
de
primat
.
pag.
292.
300.
For
the
Common-wealth
is
not
in
the
Church
,
but
the
Church
in
the
Common-wealth
,
according
to
that
Rev
,
2.
The
Church
in
Smyrna
,
the
Church
in
Pergamus
,
the
Church
in
Thyatira
.
And
suppose
all
that
are
members
of
the
Common-wealth
to
be
also
Church-members
,
yet
in
an
universall
spread
of
the
Gospel
,
the
Church
is
governed
by
the
Magistrate
as
it
is
a
Common-wealth
,
not
as
it
is
a
Church
.
Every
soule
must
be
subject
to
the
higher
powers
,
Church-Officers
,
Church-members
and
all
,
but
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
qua
tale
,
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
:
quo
ad
,
is
not
any
Ecclesiastical
or
spiritual
,
but
a
humane
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
,
th●…n
the
Kingdom
of
Christ
must
needs
reach
over
all
the
World
:
his
proofes
are
meer
mistakes
:
he
cites
2.
Thess.
1.
7.
8.
Christ
shall
come
in
slaming
fire
,
to
take
vengeance
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.
2.
16.
Iudge
all
the
world
according
to
my
Gospel
:
but
the
Text
saith
not
so
;
it
saith
,
the
secrets
of
men
,
not
all
the
World
.
Wherefore
as
the
Apostle
there
saith
of
the
Law
vers.
12.
so
say
I
of
the
Gospel
,
as
many
as
have
sinned
without
the
Gospel
,
shall
also
perish
without
the
Gospel
;
and
as
many
as
have
sinned
under
the
Gospel
,
shall
be
judged
by
the
Gospel
.
Secondly
,
He
draweth
an
argument
the
strength
whereof
is
taken
from
Psal.
2.
8.
Ask
of
me
and
I
shall
give
thee
the
Heathen
for
thine
inheritance
,
and
the
uttermost
parts
of
the
earth
for
thy
possession
:
and
from
1
Tim.
6.
15.
our
Lord
Jesus
Christ
is
said
to
be
King
of
kings
,
and
Lord
of
lords
:
Jesus
,
Christ
,
being
names
that
agree
to
him
onely
as
Mediator
.
Answ.
Christ
as
Mediator
hath
right
to
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
onely
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
government
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
wayes
.
First
,
as
Christ
is
the
eternal
and
natural
Son
of
God
,
the
eternal
wisdom
of
God
,
by
whom
Kings
reigne
,
and
Princes
decree
justice
,
Prov.
8.
15.
16.
which
is
spoken
of
Christ
,
as
he
was
the
Fathers
delight
,
and
as
one
brought
up
with
him
before
the
foundation
of
the
World
:
Ibid.
vers
.
22.
to
30.
Neither
can
the
names
of
Jesus
and
Christ
prove
that
what
is
said
there
must
needs
be
meant
of
him
as
Mediator
,
mark
how
well
grounded
Mr.
Husseys
arguments
are
.
Iesus
sate
at
meat
in
Simon
the
Pharisees
house
.
Luke
7.
37.
Iesus
wept
for
Lazarus
because
he
loved
him
.
Iohn
11.
35.
36.
Must
we
needs
therefore
say
,
that
as
Mediator
he
sate
at
meat
in
the
Pharisees
house
,
and
as
Mediator
he
wept
for
Lazarus
?
Christ
is
the
Son
of
David
,
Matth.
22.
42.
Must
we
therefore
say
that
as
Mediator
he
is
the
Son
of
David
?
Christ
is
God
over
all
,
blessed
for
ever
.
Rom.
9.
5.
Must
we
therefore
say
that
this
is
meant
of
Christ
onely
as
Mediator
?
What
is
more
ordinary
then
to
use
the
names
of
Jesus
and
Christ
when
the
thing
which
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.
Husseys
sence
,
as
if
Kings
had
their
commission
from
Christ
,
and
did
reigne
in
his
stead
,
as
he
is
Mediator
;
but
in
the
sence
of
the
Hebraisme
,
Vanity
of
vanities
,
that
is
,
most
vain
;
holy
of
holies
,
that
is
,
most
holy
;
so
King
of
kings
,
and
Lord
of
lords
,
that
is
,
the
most
excellent
glorious
King
of
all
others
:
the
excellency
,
splendor
,
dignity
,
and
majesty
of
Kings
may
be
compared
without
any
subordination
.
Drusius
Pr●…terit
.
lib.
8.
upon
this
very
place
which
Mr.
Hussey
objecteth
,
saith
that
this
forme
of
speech
,
King
of
kings
,
and
Lord
of
lords
,
was
taken
from
the
Persians
and
Assyrians
,
who
called
a
great
King
,
King
of
kings
,
and
Lord
of
lords
.
Thirdly
,
The
Kingdom
of
Christ
saith
Mr.
Hussey
,
is
as
ample
as
his
Prophecy
;
but
the
Prophecie
of
Christ
is
extended
to
all
Nations
,
as
may
appear
by
the
commission
,
G●…
teach
all
Nations
.
But
1.
I
throw
back
the
argument
;
Christs
Kingdom
and
his
Prophecie
are
commensurable
:
therefore
as
his
prophecie
is
not
actually
extended
to
all
Nations
,
except
successively
,
as
the
Gospel
commeth
among
them
,
so
his
Kingdom
,
as
he
is
Mediator
,
is
extended
no
further
then
the
Church
,
not
to
all
Nations
.
2.
His
argument
therefore
is
a
miserable
fallacy
à
dicto
secundum
quid
ad
dictum
simpliciter
.
Christs
prophecy
is
extended
to
all
Nations
successively
,
and
when
the
Gospel
comes
among
them
,
therefore
his
Kingdom
is
simply
extended
to
all
Nations
▪
and
is
not
bounded
within
the
Church
onely
.
Fourthly
,
He
tells
us
pag.
17.
if
kings
may
be
called
holy
,
if
their
Offices
may
be
accounted
holy
Offices
,
or
not
sinful
,
they
must
be
held
off
and
under
Christ
.
Answ.
If
he
mean
holy
in
opposition
to
civil
,
humane
,
worldly
,
secular
,
I
denie
the
office
of
kings
to
be
holy
;
if
he
mean
holy
in
opposition
to
sinful
,
unlawful
,
unholy
(
as
it
seems
he
doth
)
then
I
confesse
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
then
carters
or
coblers
hold
their
office
of
and
under
Christ
:
I
am
far
from
making
a
paralel
between
the
Magistrate
and
these
:
but
this
I
say
,
Mr.
Husseys
plea
for
the
Magistrate
is
no
other
than
agreeth
to
these
.
And
where
he
addeth
out
of
Calvin
,
Kings
have
place
in
the
Church
,
and
flock
of
Christ
,
and
are
not
spoiled
of
their
Crown
and
Sword
that
they
may
be
admitted
into
the
Church
;
this
in
reference
to
the
conclusion
he
driveth
at
,
is
no
more
than
if
he
had
argued
thus
,
carters
and
coblers
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
.
Fifthly
,
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
,
Rom.
13.
4.
Answ.
1.
His
proposition
is
most
false
,
and
will
never
be
proved
.
2.
If
this
argument
hold
good
,
then
the
Pagan
Magistrate
holds
his
office
under
Christ
as
Mediator
(
for
of
such
Magistrates
then
in
being
,
the
Apostle
meaneth
,
Rom.
13.
)
So
that
either
he
must
recall
what
he
saith
here
,
or
what
he
saith
afterward
,
that
the
office
of
the
Pagan
Magistrate
is
sinful
and
unlawful
.
3
,
By
Mr.
Husseys
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
the
same
in
his
Gospel
.
Eph.
6.
5
▪
6
,
7
,
8.
Sixthly
,
He
saith
they
be
the
same
persons
that
are
under
Christ
,
and
under
the
Magistrate
,
and
further
,
Christs
ends
and
the
Kings
ends
are
both
one
,
1
Tim.
2.
2.
that
we
may
lead
a
quiet
and
peaceable
life
in
all
godlinesse
and
honesty
.
Now
either
the
office
of
the
Mediators
Kingdom
is
superior
,
or
inferior
,
or
co-ordinate
,
in
reference
to
the
Magistrates
office
.
Answ.
1.
Very
often
they
are
not
the
same
persons
that
are
under
Christ
,
and
under
the
Magistrate
.
For
1
Cor.
5.
11
,
12.
the
Apostle
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
diverse
places
are
under
the
Christian
Magistrate
,
not
under
Christ
.
2.
The
●nd
of
〈◊〉
kingly
office
,
and
the
end
of
Magistracy
are
so
different
,
that
to
say
they
are
the
same
,
i●
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
godlinesse
and
honesty
:
But
herein
he
hath
answered
himself
pag.
29.
the
civil
Magistrate
may
require
of
the
people
,
that
they
will
attend
upon
the
means
,
out
of
natural
Principles
,
Deum
esse
&
colendum
.
More
of
the
ends
of
Magistracy
I
have
spoken
before
,
whether
I
remit
him
.
The
ends
of
Christs
Kingly
Office
are
quite
another
thing
;
namely
,
to
destroy
all
our
soules
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
perfecting
of
the
Saints
,
for
the
work
of
the
ministery
,
for
the
edifying
of
the
body
of
Christ
,
to
govern
his
people
by
his
Word
and
Spirit
,
and
to
keep
them
by
the
power
of
God
through
faith
unto
salvation
.
3.
The
comparison
between
Christs
Kingly
office
as
Mediator
,
and
the
Magistrates
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
methods
sake
to
examine
other
four
Arguments
from
Scripture
,
upon
which
Mr.
Hussey
(
though
he
doth
not
joyn
them
to
the
former
six
)
afterward
layeth
no
small
weight
for
upholding
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
Matth.
28.
18.
pag.
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
eternall
Sonne
of
God
.
So
when
the
Ubiquitaries
would
prove
from
that
place
the
reall
communication
of
Divine
omnipotency
to
the
humane
nature
of
Christ
,
our
Divines
answer
,
the
Text
may
be
understood
either
of
Christs
person
,
God-man
,
or
as
he
is
the
natural
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
promising
sence
for
him
)
yet
it
cannot
prove
that
all
power
without
exception
,
and
all
government
as
well
without
as
within
the
Church
,
as
well
secular
as
Ecclesiastical
,
is
put
in
Christs
hand
as
he
is
Mediator
,
and
that
the
civil
Magistrate
holds
his
office
of
and
under
Christ
:
but
the
sence
must
be
[
r
](A42757-e50240-b)
r
Greg.
de
Valenti●
.
comment
.
in
Thom.
tom
.
4.
disp.
1.
quaest.
32.
punct.
6.
Si
autem
per
omnem
potestatem
,
secundo
intelligamus
ibi
cum
Hieronymo
&
Anselmo
omnem
potestatem
necessariam
quidem
Christo
ad
gubernandam
spiritualiter
omnem
Ecclesiam
,
tum
in
coelo
,
ubi
est
caput
&
rex
〈◊〉
;
tum
in
terra
,
ubi
〈◊〉
homines
,
quorum
item
est
rex
&
caput
:
satis
constat
non
inde
sequi
quod
accepe●…it
etiam
potestatem
pol●…ticam
.
Medina
in
tertiam
partem
,
quaest:
59.
a●t
.
4.
Dicendum
quad
omnis
potestas
&
auctoritas
tribuenda
est
Christo
,
si
tamen
decens
sit
ad
efficium
redemptionis
;
at
quod
fuerit
rex
temporalis
totius
orbis
minime
decuit
Christum
,
●…b
idque
istam
auctoritatem
non
accepit
.
All
power
which
belongs
to
the
Mediator
,
and
all
authority
which
belongs
to
the
gathering
and
governing
of
the
Church
is
given
to
me
:
for
we
must
needs
expound
his
meaning
as
himself
hath
taught
us
:
Iohn
18.
36.
Luke
12.
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
,
pag.
273.
doth
rightly
referre
these
words
,
All
power
is
given
unto
me
in
heaven
and
in
earth
,
to
the
head
de
Ecclesiae
oeconomia
,
and
makes
this
Text
paralel
to
Iohn
20.
21
,
22
,
23.
As
my
Father
hath
sent
me
,
even
so
send
I
you
,
&c.
Whose
soever
sins
ye
remit
,
&c.
and
to
Matth.
16.
19.
I
will
give
unto
thee
the
keyes
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
this
is
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
all
authority
or
power
in
heaven
and
in
earth
,
which
is
meant
Matth.
28.
18.
Which
is
further
confirmed
by
the
Syriack
,
which
readeth
thus
verse
18.
All
power
is
given
unto
me
in
heaven
and
in
earth
:
but
as
my
Father
hath
sent
me
▪
even
so
send
I
you
.
Vers.
19.
Goe
therefore
teach
all
Nations
:
So
restricting
the
sence
to
be
in
reference
to
the
Church
onely
,
and
excluding
civil
government
and
Magistracy
,
from
which
Christ
had
before
excluded
his
Apostles
.
Medina
in
tertiam
Partem
,
quaest.
59.
art.
4.
holds
the
same
thing
,
that
the
context
and
cohesion
of
vers.
18.
and
vers.
19.
proves
the
Kingdom
of
Christ
to
be
meerly
spirituall
.
But
2.
The
Text
will
suffer
yet
a
further
restriction
,
namely
that
all
power
in
heaven
and
in
earth
is
said
to
given
unto
Jesus
Christ
,
as
he
is
the
eternal
Sonne
of
God
,
and
that
both
in
respect
of
the
eternal
generation
by
which
the
God-head
,
and
so
all
Divine
properties
(
of
which
omnipotency
is
one
)
was
from
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
power
,
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
;
Where
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
reigne
over
the
Kingdoms
of
the
earth
,
&c.
and
this
power
was
given
&c.
It
is
not
fair
nor
just
dealing
to
change
a
mans
words
in
a
citation
,
especially
when
the
change
is
materiall
.
Now
here
are
divers
changes
in
this
passage
.
This
one
onely
I
take
notice
of
,
I
said
not
as
he
is
eternal
God
,
but
as
he
is
the
eternal
Sonne
of
God
,
and
all
along
in
that
Question
I
spake
of
the
Son
of
God
,
not
essentially
,
but
personally
,
as
he
is
the
Sonne
of
God
,
or
second
person
in
the
Trinity
,
and
so
the
God
head
and
all
the
attributes
and
properties
thereof
,
are
communicated
to
him
from
the
Father
by
the
eternal
Generation
;
and
as
the
Nicene
Creed
said
he
is
Deus
de
Deo
,
Lumen
de
Lumine
,
God
of
God
,
Light
of
Light
.
I
ask
therefore
Mr.
Hussey
,
What
do
you
mutter
here
?
Speak
it
out
,
Doe
you
hold
that
Jesus
Christ
is
not
onely
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
but
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
not
onely
essentially
,
but
personally
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
that
he
is
not
onely
ex
seipso
Deus
,
but
ex
seipso
filius
?
If
this
be
the
thing
you
hold
,
then
you
oppose
me
indeed
,
but
so
as
you
fall
into
a
blasphemous
heresie
,
that
Christ
as
he
is
the
eternall
Sonne
of
God
,
hath
not
all
power
in
in
Heaven
and
in
Earth
,
but
onely
as
he
is
Mediator
,
because
that
power
is
given
to
him
,
and
nothing
can
be
given
to
Christ
as
he
is
the
eternall
Sonne
of
God
,
but
onely
as
he
is
Mediator
,
by
your
principles
:
But
if
your
meaning
be
no
more
then
this
,
that
Christ
considered
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
in
respect
of
the
very
nature
and
essence
of
the
God-head
,
is
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
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
eternal
Son
of
God
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
in
respect
of
the
personality
or
relation
of
filiation
,
or
as
he
is
the
eternall
Son
of
God
,
in
which
sence
I
yet
averre
confidently
,
that
all
power
in
heaven
and
earth
may
be
said
to
be
given
to
Jesus
Christ
,
as
he
is
the
eternal
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
any
thing
should
be
given
him
that
should
concern
his
God-head
at
the
time
of
his
resurrection
,
is
more
monstrous
.
Then
hath
Gomarus
and
others
given
a
monstrous
answer
to
the
Ubiquitaries
,
yet
they
clear
it
by
Augustines
rule
,
aliquid
dicitur
fieri
quando
incipit
patesieri
.
Is
it
any
more
strange
then
to
say
that
Christ
was
begotten
that
day
when
he
was
raised
from
the
dead
Act.
13.
33.
The
Son
of
God
had
in
obedience
to
his
Fathers
will
,
laid
aside
and
relinquished
his
divine
dominion
and
power
when
he
took
upon
him
the
forme
of
a
servant
(
which
I
said
before
,
but
it
seems
was
not
considered
by
Mr.
Hussey
)
now
at
his
resurrection
the
Father
restoreth
with
advantage
that
formerly
relinquished
Soveraignty
.
But
he
addeth
,
that
if
Matt.
28.
18.
be
not
understood
of
Christ
as
Mediator
,
then
he
had
no
authority
as
Mediator
to
send
his
Apostles
:
for
it
followeth
Go
ye
therefore
and
preach
:
from
this
authority
here
spoken
of
,
is
the
authority
to
preach
the
Gospel
.
Answ.
Not
to
stand
upon
the
want
of
the
particle
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
therefore
,
in
diverse
Greek
coppies
:
I
admit
of
the
cohesion
and
dependance
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
,
All
power
is
given
unto
me
in
heaven
and
in
earth
,
as
if
he
had
said
,
Do
you
beleeve
that
I
who
send
you
out
,
a●
the
Son
of
the
living
God
?
T●en
know
assuredly
,
that
my
divine
power
and
soveraignty
shall
be
for
you
,
and
I
will
so
over-rule
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
Matth.
28.
18.
Salmeron
upon
the
place
draws
from
it
Christs
dominion
even
in
temporall
things
(
as
Mr.
Hussey
doth
)
and
thence
he
deriveth
the
temporall
power
of
the
Pope
as
Christs
Vicar
over
the
Kings
and
Kingdoms
of
the
World
.
So
Suarez
in
tertiam
partem
Thomae
disp.
48.
sect.
2.
Gamachaeus
in
tertiam
partem
Thomae
,
Quaest.
22.
yet
some
of
the
Papists
themselves
are
ashamed
to
defend
Christs
dominion
in
temporall
things
(
except
as
God
onely
)
it
appearin
to
them
so
far
contrary
to
other
Scriptures
.
Bellarmine
himself
lib.
5.
de
Pont.
Rom.
cap.
4.
confesseth
that
Christ
as
he
did
not
execute
any
Temporall
dominion
,
so
he
neither
had
nor
received
such
power
and
authority
:
thereupon
he
inferreth
that
the
Pope
whom
he
calleth
Christs
Vicar
and
Representee
on
earth
,
hath
not
any
Temporal
dominion
directly
,
but
indirectly
,
and
in
ordine
ad
spiritualia
.
I
appeal
also
to
Salmeron
in
another
place
where
he
speaks
more
soundly
Tom.
4.
part
▪
3.
Tract
.
4.
pag.
413.
he
proves
from
Iohn
18.
36.
and
Luke
12.
14.
that
Christ
had
not
nor
received
not
any
temporall
power
,
and
thence
inferreth
,
Cum
ergo
Christus
hujusmodi
potestatem
non
habuerit
,
nec
Petro
illam
tradidit
.
The
eigth
argument
shall
be
that
which
Mr.
Coleman
did
draw
from
1
Cor.
12.
28.
to
prove
that
Christ
hath
placed
in
his
Church
Magistrates
or
civil
Governments
.
Hereunto
I
had
made
four
answers
.
Mr.
Hussey
passeth
two
of
them
,
which
he
is
pleased
to
esteem
trifles
not
worth
answer
.
Now
the
Gamaliel
speaks
è
cathedra
.
The
other
two
he
offereth
to
confute
,
pag.
28
,
29
,
30
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
à
fortiori
you
disclaim
by
that
means
any
Government
in
this
place
as
Officers
under
Christ
.
No
Sir
,
this
reasoning
is
à
baculo
ad
angulum
.
I
hold
Church-Officers
and
Church-government
to
be
under
Christ
,
and
under
him
as
Mediator
,
and
K●ng
of
the
Church
,
and
am
ready
to
prove
it
against
any
that
will
denie
it
:
But
upon
supposition
,
that
civil
Government
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
Government
or
Magistracie
in
his
Church
.
This
was
the
point
it
was
brought
for
,
and
still
I
call
to
make
good
that
proof
,
for
I
denie
it
.
It
seemes
Mr.
Hussey
finds
himself
puzzled
to
make
it
out
,
and
therefore
he
saith
,
if
Mr.
Coleman
will
be
ruled
by
me
.
so
as
Mr.
Gilespie
will
not
urge
this
for
constitution
of
Church-Governments
,
he
shall
〈◊〉
it
goe
.
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
Governours
,
as
the
Church
had
at
that
time
;
but
at
that
time
the
Church
had
no
Godly
nor
Christian
Magistrates
.
Mr.
Hussey
answereth
that
it
cannot
be
proved
that
the
Apostle
speaketh
of
such
Officers
as
were
in
the
Church
in
his
time
onely
.
He
addeth
,
I
shall
urge
some
few
argaments
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
onely
:
but
that
the
Church
at
that
time
had
all
those
Officers
whom
the
Apostle
speaketh
of
.
One
would
think
that
he
who
censureth
others
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
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
will
signifie
proposuit
or
decrevit
,
so
that
where
we
read
God
hath
set
in
the
Church
,
it
may
be
read
God
hath
appointed
to
his
Church
,
so
to
take
in
those
Governments
which
should
afterward
by
Gods
appointment
come
to
the
Church
.
He
clears
it
by
Iohn
15.
16.
Act.
19.
21.
Answ.
Then
the
Apostle
saith
no
more
to
the
Corinthians
,
then
might
have
been
said
to
the
old
world
before
the
flood
,
for
if
the
meaning
be
that
God
hath
ordained
and
purposed
,
all
this
Text
had
been
true
,
if
delivered
in
terminis
terminantibus
,
to
the
old
World
,
God
hath
set
some
in
the
Church
,
first
Apostles
,
&c.
2.
The
context
sheweth
that
the
Apostle
speaketh
onely
of
such
administrations
,
as
the
Church
had
at
that
time
,
for
all
this
is
spoken
in
reference
to
the
preventing
of
a
Schisme
in
the
Church
of
Corinth
,
and
that
every
member
of
that
body
might
discharge
its
owne
proper
function
without
usurping
anothers
.
3.
He
confuteth
himself
,
for
he
addeth
,
This
cannot
be
a
Catalogue
of
such
Officers
as
are
at
all
times
necessary
to
the
Church
,
for
th●…n
Apostles
might
not
be
mentioned
.
Therefore
it
must
be
said
,
that
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
in
this
place
is
posuit
or
collocavit
(
according
to
the
more
usuall
signification
of
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
)
and
doth
relate
to
that
present
time
,
as
well
as
Act.
20.
28.
The
holy
Ghost
hath
made
or
set
you
overseers
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
:
In
like
manner
here
God
hath
set
(
or
placed
)
in
the
Church
,
and
so
it
will
agree
both
to
ordinary
and
extraordinary
officers
.
But
if
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
be
decrevit
,
then
it
will
referre
the
Apostles
,
Prophets
,
Evangelists
,
miracles
,
to
the
future
estate
of
the
Church
,
as
if
they
were
ordinary
Officers
to
continue
in
the
Church
.
4.
When
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
signifieth
decrevit
,
then
the
thing
is
not
mentioned
,
as
having
an
actuall
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
:
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
relates
to
all
that
follows
,
and
either
it
must
be
posuit
to
them
all
,
or
to
none
of
them
.
5.
If
he
had
intended
to
expresse
Gods
decree
or
purpose
to
give
unto
his
Church
certain
Officers
,
he
would
not
have
said
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
and
God
hath
decreed
some
in
the
Church
.
Which
could
make
no
perfect
sence
except
some
other
thing
were
added
.
Mr.
Hussey
might
as
well
expound
Act.
5.
18.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
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
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
he
might
have
rendred
it
so
,
but
when
the
Text
saith
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
he
must
not
render
it
●…o
the
Church
,
but
in
the
Church
,
as
Act.
19.
21.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
Paul
purposed
in
the
spirit
:
the
purpose
was
not
to
the
Spirit
,
but
in
the
Spirit
.
The
second
Argument
whereby
he
〈◊〉
that
which
I
said
,
is
this
,
at
tha●…
time
there
were
workers
of
miracl●…s
which
did
supply
the
defect
of
civil
Magistrates
.
And
here
he
insisteth
a
while
to
tell
us
that
thus
much
a
National
Covenant
and
〈◊〉
Magistrate
may
require
of
the
people
,
that
they
will
attend
upon
the
means
out
of
natural
principles
,
which
at
that
time
miracles
caused
men
to
attend
upon
.
But
quid
haec
ad
Rhombum
?
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
far
lesse
beholding
to
him
.
And
if
the
workers
of
miracles
did
at
that
time
supply
the
defect
of
civil
Magistrates
(
I
suppose
he
should
have
said
Christian
Magistrates
)
then
he
must
draw
Christian
Magistracy
to
come
in
succession
not
so
much
to
the
civil
Magistracy
in
the
Apostles
times
(
which
yet
was
true
Magistracy
)
as
to
the
miracles
mentioned
in
the
Text
,
and
so
bring
in
the
Christian
Magistrate
upon
the
ceasing
of
miracles
.
A
fine
plea
indeed
for
Christian
Magistracie
.
His
third
Argument
goeth
thus
,
We
have
in
the
Text
first
,
second
,
and
third
;
when
the
Apostle
speaks
of
these
which
might
be
liable
to
present
view
,
but
then
he
breaks
off
with
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
after
that
miracles
,
which
lasted
somewhat
longer
then
the
Apostles
and
Prophets
;
and
last
we
have
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
and
these
may
be
ordinary
gifts
,
and
this
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
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
beleeve
he
would
have
said
,
why
may
they
not
?
for
the
sence
can
be
no
other
)
belong
both
to
one
thing
,
and
this
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
may
not
have
some
influence
upon
the
times
and
after
age
.
Answ.
If
this
be
his
manner
,
we
shall
not
much
fear
the
dint
of
his
Arguments
,
when
it
comes
to
the
Schooles
,
which
he
calls
for
.
What
a
great
matter
is
made
of
meer
nothing
?
First
,
he
offereth
violence
to
the
Text
,
because
if
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
note
posteriority
of
time
,
and
ordinary
gifts
,
then
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
which
is
compounded
from
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
must
much
rather
note
the
same
thing
,
and
so
we
shall
have
not
onely
gifts
of
healing
,
but
miracles
too
,
ordinary
and
continuing
administrations
in
the
Church
.
Next
he
offereth
violence
to
the
Greek
language
:
for
when
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
signifie
posteriority
,
not
onely
in
the
enumeration
,
but
in
the
time
of
existence
,
then
the
one
must
needs
signifie
a
pre-existence
,
and
the
other
a
post-existence
,
they
cannot
be
contemporary
from
their
beginnings
;
yet
Mr.
Hussey
will
needs
have
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
before
miracles
,
and
again
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
efore
gifts
of
healing
and
diversities
of
tongues
,
to
signifie
posteriority
of
time
,
though
he
cannot
say
that
gifts
of
healing
and
diversities
of
tongues
were
not
contemporary
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
miracles
,
then
gifts
of
healings
,
&c.
Mr.
Hussey
will
make
this
the
sence
,
that
there
were
Apostles
before
prophets
,
there
were
Prophets
before
teachers
,
there
were
Teachers
before
miracles
,
there
were
miracles
before
gifts
of
healings
,
&c.
and
vice
versa
,
there
were
no
gifts
of
healings
till
after
there
had
been
miracles
,
no
miracles
till
after
there
had
been
Teachers
in
the
Church
,
&c.
even
as
Mark.
4.
28.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
first
the
blad
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
then
the
ear
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
after
that
the
ful
corn
in
the
ear
:
the
blade
hath
an
existence
before
the
eare
,
the
eare
before
the
full
corne
.
So
that
taking
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
in
his
sence
,
he
must
either
make
out
distinctly
the
order
of
time
,
or
else
confesse
he
would
make
the
Apostle
speak
as
never
Grecian
in
the
world
spake
,
or
lastly
be
content
to
understand
the
Apostles
words
of
the
order
of
enumeration
.
If
the
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
had
been
in
the
Text
▪
that
had
indeed
carried
it
to
posteriority
of
time
as
Heb.
12.
17.
but
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
(
though
sometime
it
signifieth
posteriority
of
time
,
yet
)
in
this
place
having
reference
to
such
antecedents
and
consequents
cannot
bear
his
sence
.
I
see
it
were
no
ill
sport
to
examine
his
quint
Arguments
if
a
man
had
but
so
much
leisure
.
Thirdly
,
He
offereth
violence
to
Calvin
,
for
[
s
](A42757-e52060-b)
s
Calv.
in
1
Cor.
12.
28.
Aut
certe
tam
munus
quam
domum
olim
suit
,
quod
nobis
hodie
est
incognitum
:
aut
ad
diaconiam
pertinet
,
hoc
est
curam
pauperum
.
Atque
hoc
secundum
mihi
magis
arridet
▪
Calvin
saith
that
these
helps
mentioned
1
Cor.
12.
28.
were
either
an
ancient
gift
and
office
unknown
to
us
now
,
or
it
belongs
to
Deaconship
,
that
is
,
the
care
of
the
poor
.
And
this
second
(
saith
he
)
rather
pleaseth
me
.
Qua
fide
then
,
could
Mr.
Hussey
affirm
that
Calvin
thinks
they
were
some
Officers
that
the
Church
hath
lost
.
Fourthly
,
Whereas
he
thinks
helps
,
governments
,
to
belong
both
to
one
thing
,
there
was
some
such
thing
once
foisted
into
the
English
Bibles
:
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
was
read
thus
,
helps
in
Governments
:
but
afterwards
the
Prelats
themselves
were
ashamed
of
it
,
and
so
it
was
printed
according
to
the
Greek
distinctly
,
helps
,
Govirnments
.
The
Syriack
addeth
a
copulative
,
and
readeth
thus
,
and
helpers
,
and
Governors
,
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
copulative
,
when
the
things
themselves
so
expressed
are
most
different
,
as
Matth.
15
,
19.
Gal.
5.
19
,
20
,
21
,
22
,
23.
Rom.
1.
29
,
30.
31.
The
next
thing
he
brings
against
me
,
is
from
Ephes.
4.
11.
where
there
is
no
ordinary
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
edifie
the
body
of
Christ
,
and
to
perfect
the
Saints
.
Answ.
What
Argument
is
there
here
?
ruling
Elders
are
not
mentioned
Ephes.
4.
therefore
the
Governments
mentioned
1
Cor
▪
12.
are
such
as
the
Church
had
not
at
that
time
.
There
are
diverse
passages
of
Christs
doctrine
,
life
,
and
sufferings
,
which
are
not
mentioned
by
Matthew
,
yet
they
are
mentioned
by
Iohn
or
some
of
the
other
Evangelists
.
So
if
we
take
the
primitive
platform
right
,
we
must
set
the
whole
before
us
,
that
which
is
not
in
one
place
is
in
another
place
.
The
Apostle
Eph.
4.
intendeth
onely
to
speak
of
preaching
officers
who
are
appointed
for
this
work
of
the
Ministery
,
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
,
v
12
13
,
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.
3.
His
last
Argument
is
,
that
in
this
very
place
1
Cor.
12.
the
Apostle
,
when
he
doth
again
enumerate
the
particulars
vers.
29.
30.
he
leaveth
out
helps
,
Governments
,
for
which
,
he
saith
,
he
knows
no
reason
,
but
because
there
were
none
such
at
that
time
,
and
the
Apostle
in
that
induction
was
to
deal
with
their
experience
.
This
(
as
many
other
things
which
he
hath
)
was
before
answered
to
Mr.
Coleman
.
I
give
this
plain
reason
for
the
omission
of
these
two
.
The
Apostle
speaketh
to
those
,
who
were
not
well
satisfied
nor
contented
with
their
owne
station
in
the
Church
,
but
were
aspiring
to
more
eminent
gifts
and
administrations
,
are
all
Apostles
?
saith
he
,
are
all
Prophets
?
&c.
and
so
he
reckoneth
out
onely
those
rare
and
singular
gifts
,
which
men
did
most
covet
:
and
for
that
cause
it
was
neither
necessary
,
nor
had
it
been
agreeable
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
owne
station
,
though
they
be
neither
Apostles
,
nor
Prophets
.
&c.
It
remaineth
therefore
that
the
Governments
in
the
Church
mentioned
1
Cor.
12.
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.
1.
21
,
22
,
23.
This
Argument
first
propounded
by
Mr.
Coleman
,
is
prosecuted
by
Mr.
Hussey
pag.
32
,
33.
&c.
He
demurres
upon
that
which
I
said
,
that
this
place
maketh
more
against
him
then
for
him
;
the
meaning
whereof
was
no
more
then
this
,
that
this
place
doth
rather
afford
us
an
Argument
against
him
,
then
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
all
Principalities
and
Powers
.
The
Brother
saith
so
,
and
in
saying
so
he
makes
Christ
a
head
to
those
that
are
not
of
his
body
.
This
exception
Mr.
Hussey
quarrelleth
,
but
when
he
hath
endeavoured
to
prove
from
that
Text
that
Christ
is
the
head
of
Principalities
:
because
he
that
is
head
of
all
things
,
is
also
head
of
Principalities
:
though
he
will
never
be
able
to
make
it
out
from
that
Text
,
that
Christ
(
as
Mediator
)
is
head
of
all
things
,
but
onely
,
that
he
who
is
the
Churches
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
before
,
the
Syriack
readeth
more
plainly
thus
,
and
him
who
is
over
all
,
he
gave
to
be
the
head
to
the
Church
.
)
At
last
he
fairly
gives
over
the
proof
.
It
is
true
saith
he
,
disputations
do
require
men
to
keep
close
to
termes
,
but
in
Col.
2.
10.
ye
have
the
very
words
,
head
of
all
Principality
and
Power
.
In
Col.
2.
10.
Christ
as
he
is
the
eternall
Son
of
God
,
is
called
head
of
all
Principality
and
power
:
as
we
shall
see
anon
:
but
Ephes.
1.
where
the
Apostle
speaketh
of
Christs
headship
,
in
reference
to
the
Church
,
and
as
Mediator
,
he
is
not
called
the
head
of
all
Principality
and
Power
.
So
that
I
had
reason
to
except
against
Mr.
Colemans
argument
which
made
that
Text
Ephes.
1.
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
onely
the
faithfull
.
He
might
have
observed
the
visible
Church
consisting
of
visible
Saints
,
plainly
spoken
of
,
as
the
body
of
Christ
,
1
Cor.
10.
16
,
17.
1
Cor.
12
,
12.
14
27.
I
know
the
visible
Church
is
not
all
one
with
the
invisible
and
mystical
body
of
Christ
;
but
he
who
denyeth
the
visible
Church
to
●e
the
visible
,
political
,
ministerial
body
of
Christ
,
must
also
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
replie
,
was
in
explanation
of
the
Text
,
which
was
to
this
sence
.
He
that
is
the
Churches
head
,
is
over
all
,
both
as
he
is
the
Sonne
of
God
,
or
as
the
Apostle
saith
Rom.
9.
5.
God
over
all
,
blessed
for
ever
,
yea
even
as
man
he
is
over
or
above
all
creatures
,
being
exalted
to
a
higher
degree
of
glory
,
majesty
,
and
dignity
,
then
man
or
Angel
ever
was
,
or
shall
be
:
but
neither
his
divine
omnipotency
,
nor
the
height
of
glory
and
honour
which
as
man
he
is
exalted
to
,
nor
both
these
together
in
the
Mediator
and
Head
of
the
Church
,
omnipotency
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
Mediator
.
Mr.
Hussey
replieth
that
the
Text
makes
Christ
over
or
above
Principalities
and
Powers
,
not
onely
in
dignity
and
honour
,
but
as
King
or
Head
of
them
,
and
that
thus
we
must
understand
the
comparison
,
that
he
is
above
Principality
in
Principality
,
Power
in
Power
,
Might
in
Might
,
Dominion
in
Dominion
.
This
is
nothing
but
a
begging
of
what
is
in
Question
:
That
the
Power
and
Dominion
of
the
civil
Magistrate
,
is
eminently
in
Christ
as
Mediator
,
and
from
him
(
so
considered
)
derived
to
the
Magistrate
,
is
that
which
I
deny
can
be
proved
from
that
Text
;
and
lo
when
he
comes
to
the
point
of
probation
,
he
supposeth
what
he
had
to
prove
.
My
exposition
of
the
Text
made
good
sence
;
For
as
an
earthly
King
is
exalted
to
have
more
power
and
more
glory
,
then
those
not
onely
of
his
Subjects
,
but
of
another
State
or
Kingdom
to
whom
he
is
not
King
;
so
the
Mediator
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
me
exposition
makes
good
sence
of
the
Text
,
his
makes
very
bad
sence
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
Principality
,
Power
,
might
,
and
Dominion
;
and
when
the
Apostle
wrote
this
to
the
Ephesians
,
it
must
be
granted
(
according
to
Mr.
Husseys
glosse
)
that
Christ
as
Mediator
was
head
and
King
of
the
Romane
Emperour
,
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
severall
reasons
from
the
Text
it self
.
The
first
was
this
,
The
honour
and
dignity
of
Jesus
Christ
there
spoken
of
,
hath
place
not
onely
in
this
world
,
but
in
that
which
is
to
come
(
vers.
21
)
But
the
Kingdom
and
Government
which
is
given
to
Christ
as
Mediator
,
shall
not
continue
in
the
World
to
come
.
Mr.
Hussey
answereth
pag.
41.
this
is
Ignoratio
el
nehi
,
it
followeth
not
,
that
which
belongeth
to
him
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
beggs
what
is
in
Question
,
and
divideth
asunder
what
the
Text
coupleth
together
,
not
onely
in
this
World
,
but
also
in
that
which
is
to
come
:
here
is
a
rising
and
heightning
,
but
no
contradistinction
,
nothing
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
)
beginnes
in
this
World
,
and
shall
continue
in
the
World
to
come
.
Calvin
.
in
Eph.
1.
21.
Seculi
autem
futuri
disertam
facit
mentionem
,
ut
significet
non
temporalem
esse
Christi
excellentiam
,
sed
aeternam
.
He
makes
expresse
mention
of
the
World
to
come
,
that
he
may
signifie
Christs
excellency
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
fetcht
from
the
Text
,
was
from
vers.
22.
He
hath
put
all
things
under
his
feet
;
that
is
,
all
things
except
the
Church
,
saith
Zanchius
.
But
all
things
are
not
yet
put
under
his
feet
,
except
in
respect
of
Gods
decree
;
It
is
not
yet
done
actually
.
Heb.
2.
8.
Now
Christ
reignes
as
Mediator
before
all
things
be
put
under
his
feet
,
not
after
all
things
are
put
under
his
feet
,
which
is
clear
1
Cor.
15.
25.
Act.
2.
34
,
35.
Mr.
Husseys
reply
pag.
41.
42.
saith
,
that
the
Church
is
not
here
to
be
excepted
,
but
Church
and
all
is
here
put
under
Christs
feet
,
which
he
proveth
by
Heb.
2.
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
Gods
decree
and
fore-knowledge
,
(
according
to
the
sence
I
gave
out
of
Hierome
on
Eph.
1.
22.
)
how
can
it
strengthen
him
in
this
particular
?
We
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
.
Ephes.
1.
22.
that
the
Church
is
not
meant
to
be
comprehended
,
but
to
be
excepted
in
that
place
as
Zanchius
saith
,
may
thus
appear
;
the
Apostle
distinguisheth
the
all
things
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
Christs
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
distinguisheth
between
Christs
putting
all
his
enemies
under
his
feet
,
1
Cor.
15.
25.
and
the
Fathers
putting
all
things
under
his
feet
,
Ibid.
vers
.
27.
and
maketh
this
latter
to
be
an
actual
putting
under
him
of
friends
,
foes
,
Church
and
all
,
whence
it
seems
he
would
have
it
to
follow
,
that
Christ
reignes
as
Mediator
,
even
after
all
things
are
put
under
his
feet
.
He
is
herein
easily
confuted
from
Heb.
2.
●
.
Where
God
the
Father
his
putting
all
things
under
Christs
feet
,
is
plainly
declared
to
be
a
thing
to
come
,
and
not
yet
actually
done
.
The
next
reason
which
I
gave
out
of
the
Text
was
from
those
words
,
And
gave
him
to
be
the
head
over
all
thiags
to
the
Church
;
Christs
headship
and
his
Government
as
Mediator
,
are
commensurable
.
Christ
is
a
head
to
none
but
to
his
Church
.
These
words
of
mine
Mr.
Hussey
changeth
thus
:
he
is
head
over
none
saith
Mr.
Gilespie
,
but
his
Church
,
and
then
he
addeth
,
Is
this
to
argue
out
of
Scripture
,
or
rather
to
deny
and
outface
the
Scripture
?
the
Scripture
saith
,
he
is
over
all
.
See
what
unconscionable
impudent
boldnesse
this
is
,
to
cite
my
words
(
yea
in
a
different
character
too
,
that
his
Reader
may
beleeve
it
the
better
)
and
yet
to
change
not
onely
my
words
,
but
my
meaning
.
I
purposely
kept
my self
to
the
Text
,
that
Christ
is
a
head
to
none
but
to
his
Church
,
yet
he
that
is
the
Churches
head
is
over
all
things
.
And
since
Mr.
Hussey
will
needs
hold
that
Christ
as
Mediator
is
head
of
all
things
(
which
the
Text
saith
not
)
what
were
the
consequence
hereof
?
The
Text
saith
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
over
all
things
,
not
over
all
persons
onely
:
So
Heb.
2
7
,
8.
compared
with
Psal.
8.
6
,
7.
Whence
it
followes
by
Mr.
Husseys
principles
(
which
I
tremble
to
mention
)
that
Christ
as
Mediator
is
Head
and
King
not
onely
of
men
,
but
of
sheep
,
oxen
,
fowles
,
and
fishes
.
Behold
how
dangerous
it
is
for
men
to
be
wise
above
that
which
is
written
.
The
last
reason
which
I
brought
from
the
last
verse
,
was
this
,
The
Church
is
there
called
Christs
fulnesse
in
reference
to
his
Headship
.
This
Mr.
Hussey
saith
,
seemeth
to
come
tolerably
from
the
Text
;
but
the
next
words
,
that
which
makes
him
full
and
compleat
so
farre
as
he
is
a
Head
or
King
:
he
calls
a
fallacy
,
How
commeth
this
word
King
in
here
?
saith
he
;
First
here
he
yeelds
that
the
Church
makes
Christ
full
and
compleat
so
farre
as
he
is
a
Head
,
whence
it
followeth
that
as
Mediator
he
is
onely
the
Churches
head
,
and
there
is
no
other
body
of
Christ
but
the
Church
;
for
if
the
Church
be
his
fulnesse
,
his
compleat
body
,
there
can
be
no
other
body
of
Christ
.
Doth
not
this
destroy
what
he
hath
been
arguing
for
,
that
Christ
as
Mediator
is
head
of
all
Principality
and
Power
?
And
for
the
word
King
,
it
may
well
come
in
where
Head
commeth
:
for
is
not
Christs
Kingdom
as
Mediator
,
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
yeeldeth
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.
2.
10.
To
this
I
answered
out
of
Bullinger
,
Gualther
,
and
Tossanus
;
the
scope
and
meaning
of
the
Apostle
,
is
to
shew
that
Christ
is
true
God
,
and
therefore
we
must
not
understand
the
Apostle
to
speak
of
Christs
headship
as
he
is
Mediator
,
but
as
he
is
the
natural
and
eternal
Sonne
of
God
.
Mr.
Hussey
pag.
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
Christ
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
Mr.
Hussey
proves
from
the
Text
that
Christ
is
there
spoken
of
as
Mediator
.
vers.
9
,
10.
For
in
him
dwelleth
the
fulnesse
of
the
God-head
bodily
,
and
ye
are
compleat
in
him
which
is
the
head
of
all
Principality
and
power
.
But
he
draweth
no
argument
from
the
words
.
Neither
is
there
any
thing
in
them
which
maketh
against
me
.
The
Apostle
shews
them
,
that
the
man
Jesus
Christ
is
also
true
God
,
equal
and
consubstantial
with
the
Father
;
for
the
very
fulnesse
of
the
God-head
is
in
him
,
that
is
,
he
is
fully
and
compleatly
God
,
so
that
saith
Calvin
,
they
who
desire
something
more
then
Christ
,
must
desire
something
more
then
God
.
Wherefore
our
Writers
make
the
right
use
of
this
place
when
they
bring
it
against
the
Socinians
,
to
prove
the
God-head
of
Christ
.
See
Christian.
Becman
.
exercit
.
9.
This
fulnesse
of
the
God-head
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
Tabernacle
and
Temple
in
which
the
God-head
was
typically
.
Ye
are
compleat
in
him
,
saith
the
Apostle
,
meaning
because
he
is
compleatly
God
,
so
that
we
need
not
invocate
or
worship
Angels
,
as
if
we
were
not
compleat
in
Christ
.
Mr.
Hussey
admitteth
what
I
said
concerning
the
scope
of
the
place
,
to
teach
the
Colossians
not
to
worship
Angels
,
because
servants
:
But
saith
he
,
may
they
not
worship
Christ
as
Mediator
?
yes
doubtlesse
they
may
.
No
doubt
he
that
is
Mediator
must
be
worshipped
,
because
he
is
God
;
Christ
God-man
is
the
object
of
divine
adoration
,
and
his
God-head
is
the
cause
of
that
adoration
;
but
whether
he
is
to
be
worshipped
because
he
is
Mediator
,
or
under
this
formall
consideration
as
Mediator
;
and
whether
the
Mediator
ought
to
be
therefore
adored
with
divine
adoration
,
because
he
is
Mediator
,
is
res
altioris
indaginis
.
If
Mr.
Hussey
please
to
read
and
consider
what
divers
School
▪
men
have
said
upon
that
point
,
as
Aquinas
tertia
part
.
quaest.
25.
art.
1.
&
2.
Alex.
Alensis
Sum.
Theol.
part
▪
3.
quaest.
30.
membr
.
2.
Suarez
in
tertiam
part
.
Thomae
Disp.
53.
sect.
1.
Valentia
Comment.
in
Tho.
Tom.
4.
Disp.
1.
quaest.
24.
punct.
1.
Tannerus
Theol.
Scholast.
Tom.
4.
Disp.
1.
quaest.
7.
Dub.
7.
But
much
more
if
he
please
to
read
Disputatio
de
adoratione
Christi
,
habita
inter
Faustum
Socinum
&
Christianum
Francken
:
and
above
all
Dr.
Voetius
select
.
disput.
ex
poster
.
part
.
Theol.
Disp.
14.
An
Christus
qua
Mediator
sit
adorandus
?
Then
I
beleeve
he
will
be
more
wary
and
cautious
what
he
holds
concerning
that
Question
.
But
I
must
not
be
ledd
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
sence
the
Apostle
calls
Christ
the
Head
of
all
Principality
and
Power
,
see
how
he
expounds
himsel
Coloss.
1.
15
,
16
,
17.
speaking
of
the
God-head
of
Jesus
Christ
.
Finally
,
If
Mr.
Hussey
will
prove
any
thing
from
Coloss.
2.
10.
against
us
,
he
must
prove
that
those
words
which
is
the
head
of
all
Principality
and
power
,
are
meant
in
reference
not
onely
to
the
Angels
,
but
to
Civil
Magistrates
;
and
next
,
that
they
are
meant
of
Christ
,
not
onely
as
God
,
but
as
Mediator
.
Both
which
he
hath
to
prove
,
for
they
are
not
yet
proved
.
CHAP.
VII
.
Arguments
for
the
Negative
of
that
Question
formerly
propounded
.
MY
Arguments
against
the
derivation
of
Magistracy
from
Jesus
Christ
as
Mediator
,
and
against
the
Magistrates
holding
of
his
office
of
and
under
Christ
as
Mediator
,
are
these
.
First
,
This
Doctrine
doth
evacuate
and
nullifie
the
civil
Authority
and
Government
of
all
Heathen
or
Pagan
Magistrat●
;
for
which
way
was
the
authority
of
Government
derived
from
Christ
,
and
from
him
as
Mediator
,
to
a
Pagan
Magistrate
or
Emperour
?
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
which
hold
that
all
government
,
even
civil
,
is
given
to
C
rist
,
and
to
him
as
Mediator
.
Mr.
Hussey
forsooth
doth
learnedly
yeeld
the
argument
,
and
answereth
pag.
20.
that
not
onely
it
is
a
sin
to
be
a
Heathen
,
but
the
government
of
a
Heathen
is
sinfull
and
unlawfull
,
for
which
he
gives
this
reason
,
Whatsoever
is
not
of
faith
is
sin
.
He
might
as
well
conclude
,
in
that
sence
,
that
the
best
vertues
of
the
Heathen
were
sin
,
because
not
of
faith
,
that
is
,
accidentally
sin
,
in
respect
of
the
end
,
or
manner
of
doing
,
not
materially
,
or
in
their
own
nature
.
Vpon
the
same
reason
he
must
conclude
,
that
the
government
of
a
Christian
Magistrate
is
unlawfull
,
if
it
be
not
of
faith
,
as
oftimes
it
is
not
,
through
the
blindnesse
and
corruption
of
mens
hearts
who
govern
.
But
whether
is
the
government
of
a
Heathen
Magistrate
per
se
,
simpliciter
,
&
ex
natura
sua
,
unlawful
and
sinful
?
Whether
hath
he
any
just
right
or
title
to
Government
and
Magistracy
?
If
his
title
to
civil
Magistracie
be
just
,
and
if
his
government
be
in
it self
materially
and
substantially
lawful
▪
then
he
must
have
a
Commission
from
Christ
,
and
from
him
as
Mediator
:
This
I
suppose
cannot
be
Mr.
Husseys
sence
,
for
he
hath
not
answered
one
syllable
to
the
argument
,
tending
that
way
.
But
if
the
Government
of
an
Heathen
Magistrate
be
in
it self
materially
,
substantially
,
and
in
the
nature
of
the
tenure
,
sinfull
and
unlawfull
,
so
that
as
long
as
he
remains
an
Heathen
,
he
hath
no
reall
right
,
nor
true
title
to
Government
,
but
onely
a
pretended
and
usurped
title
(
which
must
needs
be
Mr.
Husseys
sence
,
if
he
hath
answered
any
thing
at
all
to
my
Argument
)
then
he
goeth
crosse
not
onely
to
the
holy
men
of
God
in
the
old
Testament
who
honoured
Heathen
Princes
,
and
were
subject
to
them
as
to
lawful
Magistrates
;
but
also
to
the
doctrine
of
Jesus
Christ
,
who
taught
his
Disciples
to
give
unto
Caesar
what
is
Caesars
;
and
of
the
Apostles
who
in
their
time
exhorted
the
Churches
to
be
subject
even
to
Heathen
Magistrates
(
for
they
had
no
other
at
that
time
)
to
obey
them
,
to
pray
for
them
.
Rom.
13.
Titus
3.
1.
1
Tim.
2.
1
,
2.
1
Pet.
2.
13
,
14.
17.
It
is
justly
condemned
as
one
of
the
errors
of
the
Anabaptists
,
that
an
heathen
Magistrate
is
not
to
be
acknowledged
as
a
lawfull
Magistrate
,
or
as
being
from
God
.
See
Gerhard
loc.
com
.
Tom.
6.
Pag.
498
499
P.
Hinkelmannus
de
Anabaptismo
disp.
13.
cap.
1.
The
Scriptures
now
cited
are
so
clear
,
that
when
Mr.
Hussey
saith
of
the
heathen
Magistrate
,
Let
Baal
plead
for
himself
,
he
might
as
well
have
said
,
that
Christ
and
his
Apostles
pleaded
for
Baal
.
They
that
plead
for
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
,
Rom.
13.
1.
But
what
will
Mr.
Hussey
say
,
if
his
great
master
Erastus
be
found
a
pleader
for
Baal
,
as
much
as
I
am
?
Confirm
.
Thes.
lib.
3.
cap.
2.
pag.
184.
speaking
of
the
heathen
and
unbeleeving
Magistrates
,
before
whom
the
Corinthians
went
to
law
one
against
another
,
he
saith
,
An
non
est
impius
quoque
Magistratus
à
Deo
praepositus
,
ut
subjectes
quoslibet
ab
injuria
&
vi
tueatur
?
Is
not
the
ungodly
Magistrate
also
preferred
by
God
,
that
he
may
defend
any
of
his
Subjects
from
injury
and
violence
.
Yea
the
Scriptures
afore
touched
are
so
clear
in
this
point
,
that
Gamachaeus
in
primam
secunda
Quaest.
4.
&
5.
cap.
33.
though
he
hold
that
by
humane
and
Ecclesiastical
right
,
Pagan
Princes
lose
their
dominion
and
authority
over
their
Subjects
,
when
their
Subjects
turne
Christians
;
yet
he
acknowledgeth
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
unlawful
,
and
heathen
masters
are
unlawful
,
and
heathen
husbands
are
unlawful
;
(
all
which
were
contrary
to
the
Word
of
God
)
as
to
say
that
heathen
Magistrates
are
unlawful
.
Take
the
instance
in
Parents
,
for
all
lawful
Magistrates
are
fathers
by
the
fifth
Commandement
.
Doth
the
paternity
of
a
heathen
father
differre
specie
,
from
the
paternity
of
a
Christian
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
modaliter
that
I
may
borrow
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
can
not
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
,
submitted
unto
,
and
obeyed
,
they
are
both
of
them
the
ministers
of
God
for
good
to
their
people
:
their
power
is
the
same
in
actu
signato
,
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
,
enabled
,
and
sanctified
to
glorifie
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
Mediator
,
must
either
shew
from
Scripture
that
Jesus
Christ
as
Mediator
hath
given
a
commission
of
Vicegerentship
or
Deputyship
to
the
Christian
Magistrate
,
or
otherwise
acknowledge
,
that
they
have
given
the
most
dangerous
and
deadly
wound
,
even
to
Christian
Magistracy
it self
,
which
ever
before
it
received
.
Mr.
Hussey
pag.
20
answereth
,
I
conceive
he
(
the
Christian
Magistrate
)
hath
a
Commission
from
Christ
:
but
when
he
should
prove
it
(
which
my
argument
calld
for
)
here
he
is
at
a
losse
.
He
citeth
Psal.
72
▪
11.
All
Kings
shall
fall
downe
before
him
,
all
Nations
shall
serve
him
.
Isa.
60.
12.
That
Nation
and
Kingdom
that
will
not
serve
thee
shall
perish
.
I
hope
indeed
there
is
a
time
comming
when
all
Kings
shall
fall
down
before
Jesus
Christ
,
and
all
Nations
shall
serve
him
,
and
that
will
make
an
end
of
the
Erastian
controversie
.
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
onely
,
but
Christ
,
Eph.
6.
5
,
6
,
7.
Again
,
if
those
who
shall
perish
because
they
serve
not
Christ
,
be
his
Deputies
and
Vicegerents
;
then
the
wickedest
persecuters
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
un●er
Christ
as
Mediator
,
and
by
a
commission
of
Vicegerentship
from
him
;
and
when
they
are
put
to
it
,
to
produce
that
commission
,
they
prove
no
more
then
agreeth
either
to
the
meanest
Christian
,
or
to
the
wickedest
persecuter
.
The
Ministery
hath
a
clear
undeniable
commission
from
Christ
as
Mediator
(
even
our
opposites
themselves
being
Judges
)
Matth.
16.
19.
and
28.
19.
20.
Iohn
20.
21
,
22
▪
23.
2
Cor.
5.
19
,
20.
Eph.
4.
11
,
12.
Act.
20.
28.
Tit.
1.
5.
I
say
therefore
again
▪
let
them
also
shew
from
Scripture
a
commission
from
Jesus
Christ
constituting
Christian
Magistrates
to
be
his
Vicegerents
as
he
is
Mediator
,
and
to
hold
their
office
of
and
under
him
as
Mediator
:
which
if
they
cannot
shew
,
they
have
done
a
greater
disservice
to
the
Christian
Magistrate
,
then
they
can
easily
repair
or
amend
:
We
are
sure
the
lawful
Magistrate
(
whether
Heathen
or
Christian
)
is
Gods
Vicegerent
▪
and
that
is
a
safe
holding
of
his
office
.
But
our
opposites
shall
never
prove
,
that
any
civil
Magistrate
(
though
Christian
and
godly
)
is
the
Vicegerent
of
Jesus
Christ
as
Mediator
.
And
in
seeking
to
prove
it
,
I
am
perswaded
they
shall
but
discover
their
own
weaknesse
,
and
shall
also
weaken
the
Magistrates
authority
more
then
they
can
strengthen
it
.
Thirdly
,
The
Scripture
intimateth
this
difference
between
Ministery
and
Magistracy
;
that
the
work
of
the
Ministery
and
the
administrations
thereof
are
performed
in
the
name
of
Jesus
Christ
as
Mediator
and
King
of
the
Church
:
the
work
of
Magistracy
not
so
,
except
we
adde
to
the
Word
of
God
;
they
who
will
do
any
thing
in
the
Name
of
Jesus
Christ
as
Mediator
,
and
cannot
find
any
Scripture
which
can
warrant
their
so
doing
,
are
lyars
,
and
the
truth
is
not
in
them
.
Now
let
our
opposites
shew
(
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
Ministery
I
did
shew
,
that
in
the
name
of
the
Lord
Jesus
Christ
we
do
assemble
our selves
together
,
Matth.
18.
20.
in
his
name
doe
we
preach
,
Luk.
24.
47.
Act.
4.
17
,
18.
and
5.
28.
44.
and
9.
27.
In
his
name
do
we
baptize
,
Act.
2.
38.
and
8.
16.
and
19.
5.
In
his
name
do
we
excommunicate
,
1
Cor.
5.
5.
These
my
proofs
from
Scripture
Mr.
Hussey
pag.
21.
professeth
he
will
examine
according
to
laws
of
disputation
.
I
know
none
transgresseth
those
laws
more
than
himself
,
and
even
in
this
very
place
where
he
professeth
to
keep
close
to
lawes
of
disputation
:
my
first
proof
from
Matth.
18.
20.
he
quarrelleth
upon
a
meer
mistake
of
his
owne
.
He
saith
I
brought
it
to
prove
the
institution
of
Church-officers
,
and
that
to
prove
it
,
I
do
appropriate
the
meeting
in
the
name
of
hCrist
to
Church-Officers
,
and
thereupon
he
tells
us
the
Text
saith
not
,
that
none
shall
gather
together
in
my
name
but
Church-Officers
.
Are
these
Mr.
Husseys
lawes
of
disputation
?
He
had
need
to
be
a
better
disputer
who
calls
others
to
School
.
I
did
not
speak
here
of
the
Institution
of
Church-Officers
,
and
far
lesse
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
multitude
,
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
Logick
in
this
consequence
,
it
will
not
do
.
The
sixth
general
Councell
,
Actione
17.
apply
unto
their
owne
oecumenicall
Assembly
,
that
promise
of
Christ
Matth.
18.
20.
Where
two
or
three
are
gathered
together
in
my
Name
,
&c.
Protestant
Writers
both
in
their
Commentaries
,
and
Polemick
Writings
,
do
usually
apply
the
same
Text
to
Synods
and
Councells
:
For
instance
,
Calvin
.
Instit.
lib.
4.
cap.
9.
sect
1.
&
2.
holds
that
the
authority
of
Councells
dependeth
upon
that
promise
of
Christ
,
Where
two
or
three
are
met
together
in
my
name
,
&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
applyed
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
controversie
,
and
this
is
enough
to
justifie
all
that
I
brought
that
Text
for
;
especially
there
being
herein
a
difference
between
sacred
and
civil
Assemblies
:
there
is
no
such
promise
made
to
Magistrates
Courts
of
Justice
,
as
to
Church
Assemblies
.
That
which
he
citeth
out
of
Dr.
Whittaker
and
Bishop
Mortoun
makes
nothing
against
me
,
neither
doth
he
quote
the
places
,
peradventure
because
he
found
something
in
those
passages
which
made
against
him
.
Whittakers
sence
is
plainly
of
sacred
,
and
not
of
civil
Assemblies
.
And
for
that
so
much
controverted
Text
Matth.
18.
17.
Tell
the
Church
.
Whittaker
expoundeth
it
as
we
do
against
the
Erastians
,
Tell
the
Pastors
and
Rulers
of
the
Church
.
Whittak
.
de
Eccles.
quaest.
1.
cap.
2.
Dic
Ecclesiae
,
hoc
est
Pastoribus
&
Praefectis
Ecclesiae
.
As
for
preaching
,
Mr.
Hussey
saith
,
it
is
out
of
question
that
we
preach
in
the
name
of
Christ
.
Well
:
then
let
him
shew
such
another
thing
of
the
Magistrate
,
as
is
without
controversie
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
then
the
Scripture
saith
,
yet
he
is
pleased
to
object
against
me
.
These
places
he
citeth
saith
he
,
to
prove
that
we
baptize
in
the
Name
of
Jesus
,
as
exclusively
to
Father
and
holy
Ghost
,
(
leaving
out
the
words
of
the
commission
:
Matth.
28.
Baptize
in
the
name
of
the
Father
,
Son
,
and
holy
Ghost
)
for
so
the
state
of
his
question
doth
require
;
for
he
distinguisheth
acutely
and
acurately
between
Christ
as
Mediator
and
second
person
(
he
should
have
said
as
second
Person
)
in
Trinity
,
in
all
this
Argument
.
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
baptisme
is
administred
in
the
name
of
Christ
:
Either
Mr.
Hussey
denyeth
that
this
is
done
in
the
name
of
Christ
as
Mediator
:
or
he
denyeth
it
not
.
If
he
denie
it
,
let
him
speak
it
out
,
and
he
shall
not
want
an
answer
.
Mean
while
let
him
remember
that
himself
pag.
25.
saith
,
that
Christ
as
Mediator
did
give
that
commission
to
the
Apostles
,
Go
Preach
and
baptize
.
If
he
denie
it
not
,
then
let
him
give
the
like
instance
for
Magistracy
and
civil
Government
,
to
prove
it
to
be
managed
in
the
name
of
Jesus
Christ
as
Mediator
,
else
he
must
not
plead
that
Magistracy
is
of
the
same
tenure
from
Christ
as
the
Ministery
.
Again
,
either
he
admitteth
a
distinction
between
Christ
as
Mediator
,
and
as
second
person
in
Trinity
,
or
not
.
If
he
doe
not
,
he
will
infallibly
wind
himself
into
a
grosse
heresie
;
as
namely
these
two
.
1.
He
must
denie
that
principle
which
according
to
the
Word
of
God
,
all
Orthodox
Divines
hold
against
the
Arrians
and
Antitrinitarians
,
that
[
t
](A42757-e54130-b)
t
Synop.
pur
.
Theol.
Disp.
26.
Thes.
29.
Tametsi
ob
istam
mediationem
filius
Dei
minor
sit
Patre
,
non
propterea
ipso
minor
est
quoad
Deitatem
.
Christ
as
Mediator
is
subordinate
unto
,
and
lesser
then
the
Father
;
but
as
second
person
in
the
Trinity
he
is
not
subordinate
unto
nor
lesser
then
the
Father
,
nor
the
Father
greater
then
he
,
but
as
such
he
is
equal
with
the
Father
in
greatnesse
,
glory
,
and
honour
.
2.
As
opera
Trinitatis
ad
extra
sunt
indivisa
,
he
must
also
hold
that
whatsoever
Christ
as
Mediator
doth
,
that
also
the
Father
and
the
holy
Ghost
doth
:
but
Christ
as
Mediator
did
humble
himself
to
the
death
,
offer
himself
in
a
sacrifice
for
sin
,
maketh
intercession
for
us
,
Ergo
,
he
must
conclude
the
Father
doth
the
same
.
But
if
he
do
admit
the
distinction
as
Mediator
,
and
as
second
person
in
Trinity
,
then
why
doth
he
so
often
quarrell
it
?
And
in
this
very
place
his
Argument
must
drive
against
that
distinction
,
or
against
nothing
.
But
how
doth
the
baptizing
in
the
name
of
Christ
as
Mediator
,
agree
with
the
commission
to
baptize
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
actions
,
not
of
words
.
Mr.
Hussey
(
it
seems
)
did
apprehend
my
meaning
,
as
if
I
had
intended
an
expression
to
be
made
in
the
act
of
baptizing
,
thus
,
I
baptize
thee
in
the
name
of
Iesus
Christ
.
But
I
spake
of
the
action
,
not
of
the
expression
,
even
as
in
the
other
instance
I
gave
;
our
assembling
together
is
in
the
name
of
Christ
,
though
we
do
not
say
in
terminis
,
We
are
now
assembled
in
the
name
of
Christ
.
In
baptisme
Christ
doth
not
command
us
to
say
,
either
these
words
,
I
baptize
thee
in
the
Name
of
Christ
;
or
these
words
,
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
▪
in
Christs
stead
,
and
having
authority
for
that
effect
from
Christ
as
Mediator
;
for
Christ
as
Mediator
gave
us
our
commission
to
preach
and
baptize
by
Mr.
Husseys
confession
.
So
that
to
preach
and
baptize
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
(
which
we
find
both
of
preaching
,
Luk.
24
47.
and
of
baptizing
,
Act.
2.
38.
)
comprehendeth
a
formall
commission
,
power
and
authority
given
and
derived
from
Christ
,
I
say
not
that
it
comprehendeth
no
more
,
but
this
it
doth
comprehend
.
But
when
Christ
biddeth
us
baptise
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
unto
,
or
into
,
or
in
the
name
of
the
Father
,
Son
,
and
holy
Ghost
,
Mat.
28.
19.
this
doth
relate
to
the
end
and
effect
of
baptisme
,
or
the
good
of
the
baptized
(
if
we
understand
the
words
properly
)
not
the
authority
of
the
baptizer
,
as
if
a
formall
commission
were
there
given
him
from
the
Father
,
Son
,
and
holy
Ghost
.
So
that
to
baptize
one
in
or
unto
the
name
of
the
Father
,
Son
,
and
holy
Ghost
,
is
properly
meant
both
of
sealing
the
parties
right
and
title
to
the
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
Ghost
;
and
of
dedicating
the
party
to
the
knowledge
,
profession
,
saith
,
love
,
and
obedience
of
God
,
the
Father
,
Son
,
and
holy
Ghost
.
I
return
,
The
next
branch
of
my
Argument
was
that
we
excommunicate
in
the
name
of
Christ
1
Cor.
5
5.
Mr.
Hussey
pag.
22.
saith
I
make
great
hast
here
,
deliver
to
Sathan
saith
he
is
not
to
excommunicate
,
&c.
But
grant
that
it
were
excommunication
,
&c.
the
decree
was
Pauls
,
and
not
the
Corinthians
.
What
is
meant
by
delivering
to
Sathan
,
belongs
to
another
debate
.
Call
it
an
Apostolicall
act
,
or
call
it
an
Ecclesiasticall
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
Argument
?
And
as
to
his
exceptions
[
u
](A42757-e54390-b)
u
Synops.
pur
.
Theol.
Disp.
42.
Coroll
.
4.
An
Apostolus
Paulus
cum
hominem
incestuojum
Satanae
tra●…ret
,
quicquam
peculiare
habuerit
?
Nos
contra
Socinianos
Apostolum
Paulum
non
ex
jwe
sibi
peculiari
,
sed
sibi
cum
omnibus
Ecclesiae
Preslyteris
communi
,
incestuosum
illum
Satanae
tradidisse
,
colligimus
ex
1
Cor.
5.
4.
Mat.
18.
17.
18.
they
are
no
other
then
Prelats
,
Papists
,
and
Socinians
have
made
before
him
,
and
which
are
answered
long
agoe
.
That
the
Apostle
commandeth
to
excommunicate
the
incestuous
man
,
is
acknowledged
by
Mr.
Prynne
.
That
he
who
is
excommunicated
may
be
truly
said
to
be
delivered
to
Sathan
,
is
undeniable
;
for
he
that
is
cast
out
of
the
Church
,
whose
sins
are
retained
,
on
whom
the
Kingdom
of
heaven
is
shut
and
locked
,
whom
neither
Christ
nor
his
Church
doth
owne
,
is
delivered
to
Sathan
,
who
reignes
without
the
Church
.
That
this
censure
or
punishment
of
excommunication
was
a
Church
act
,
and
not
an
Apostolicall
act
onely
,
may
thus
appear
.
1.
The
Apostle
blameth
the
Corinthians
,
that
it
was
not
sooner
done
;
he
would
not
have
blamed
them
,
that
a
miracle
was
not
wrought
.
2.
He
writeth
to
them
,
to
do
it
when
they
were
gathered
together
,
not
to
declare
or
witnesse
what
the
Apostle
had
done
,
but
to
joyne
with
him
in
the
authoritative
doing
of
it
,
vers.
4.
5.
again
he
saith
to
them
vers.
7.
Purge
out
therfore
the
old
leaven
.
vers.
12.
Doe
not
ye
judge
them
that
are
within
?
vers.
13.
Put
away
from
among
your selves
that
wicked
person
.
3.
It
was
a
censure
inflicted
by
many
,
2.
Cor.
2.
6
not
by
the
Apostle
alone
,
but
by
many
.
4.
The
Apostle
doth
not
absolve
the
man
,
but
writeth
to
them
to
forgive
him
,
2
Cor.
2.
7.
Lastly
,
the
Syriack
maketh
for
us
,
which
runneth
thus
,
vers.
4.
That
in
the
name
of
our
Lord
Jesus
Christ
,
you
all
may
be
gathered
together
,
and
I
with
you
in
the
Spirit
,
with
the
power
of
our
Lord
Iesus
Christ
,
vers.
5.
That
you
may
deliver
him
to
Sathan
.
&c.
But
now
at
last
Mr.
Hussey
comes
home
,
and
gives
this
answer
to
my
third
Argument
.
A
thing
may
be
said
to
be
done
in
the
name
of
Christ
or
of
God
,
when
men
do
any
thing
in
confidence
that
God
will
assist
us
:
so
Psal.
20
5.
In
the
name
of
our
God
will
we
set
up
our
banners
in
confidence
God
will
assist
us
:
Thus
I
hope
the
Parliament
and
other
Christians
may
undertake
the
businesse
in
the
name
of
Christ
,
&c.
Secondly
,
In
the
name
of
Christ
a
thing
is
said
to
be
done
,
that
is
done
in
the
authority
,
room
,
and
place
of
Christ
,
&c.
So
he
pag.
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
then
agreeth
to
all
Christians
,
the
poorest
and
meanest
;
for
every
Christian
servant
,
every
Christian
Artificer
is
bound
to
do
whatsoever
he
doth
,
in
the
name
of
Christ
,
Colos.
3.
17.
But
what
is
that
to
the
Argument
?
Come
to
the
other
member
of
his
distinction
.
The
Ministers
of
Christ
do
act
in
the
name
of
Christ
:
that
is
,
in
the
authority
,
room
and
place
of
Christ
;
We
are
Ambassadors
for
Christ
,
and
we
preach
in
Christs
stead
,
2
Cor.
5.
20.
This
he
doth
not
nor
cannot
denie
:
(
which
makes
good
my
Argument
;
)
Why
did
he
not
shew
us
the
like
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
Magistrates
holding
of
his
office
of
,
and
under
,
and
for
Christ
,
that
is
,
in
Christs
room
and
stead
as
Mediator
,
shall
be
that
which
was
drawn
from
Luk.
12.
14.
The
Jewes
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
Ier.
23.
5.
He
shall
execute
justice
and
judgement
in
the
earth
;
and
such
other
Prophecies
by
them
mis-understood
.
And
hence
it
was
that
one
said
to
Christ
,
Master
,
Speak
to
my
brother
that
he
divide
the
inheritance
with
me
.
Our
Lords
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
Soveraigne
,
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
Christ
himself
,
when
present
in
the
dayes
of
his
flesh
,
had
power
as
Mediator
to
judge
such
causes
.
But
this
Christ
himself
plainly
denyeth
.
Let
us
hear
Mr.
Husseys
answer
,
pag.
24.
(
It
is
the
very
same
with
that
which
Azorius
Instit.
mor.
part
.
2.
lib.
4.
cap.
19.
(
pleading
for
the
Popes
Temporall
Dominion
)
answereth
concerning
the
point
now
in
hand
)
It
doth
not
follow
that
because
Christ
was
not
a
Iudge
actu
exercito
,
therefore
the
originall
right
of
Government
was
not
in
him
:
And
this
Objection
may
be
answered
thus
,
Christ
doth
not
say
he
was
not
a
Iudge
,
but
who
made
me
a
Iudge
?
how
dost
thou
know
that
I
am
a
Iudge
?
And
thus
Christ
in
the
time
of
his
humiliation
did
often
hide
the
manifestation
of
his
power
.
[
x
](A42757-e54750-b)
x
Jo.
Brentius
Hom.
in
Luc.
Tom.
1.
Hom.
106.
Quis
me
construit
Judicem
aut
divisorem
super
vos
?
hoc
est
,
alia
est
civilis
Magistratus
voca
to
,
alia
mea
vocatio
.
Ad
illum
pertinet
ut
dijudicet
controversias
de
haereditatibus
,
&
id
genus
ahis
rebus
.
Ad
me
autem
pertinet
ut
doceam
Evangelion
de
remissione
peccatorum
,
&
vita
aeterna
.
Ut
igitur
nollem
quod
magistratus
meum
officium
temere
usurparet
,
ita
&
mea
interest
,
ne
temere
usurpem
mihi
vocationem
magistratus
.
Observanda
doctrina
,
qua
non
solum
erudimur
,
quod
sit
proprium
&
legitimum
officium
Christi
in
hoc
externo
mundo
,
verum
etiam
admonemur
exemplo
Christi
,
ne
quis
alienam
vocationem
illegitime
invadut
.
Jo.
Winckelmannus
in
Luk.
12.
14.
Negat
se
esse
politicum
Judicem
herciscundae
familiae
,
sicut
nec
adulteram
damnet
,
Joh.
8.
Ostendit
enim
esse
discrimen
inter
Politicum
magistraium
,
&
munus
Ecclesiasticum
.
What
greater
violence
could
be
offered
to
the
Text
?
For
the
Verbe
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
constituit
is
purposely
used
to
deny
the
power
or
right
,
as
well
as
the
exercise
;
and
proveth
that
he
was
not
a
Judge
actu
signato
,
having
no
such
power
nor
authority
given
him
,
it
is
the
same
phrase
which
is
used
Act.
7.
35.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
Who
made
thee
a
Ruler
and
a
Judge
?
Moses
was
then
beginning
to
do
the
part
of
a
Ruler
and
a
Judge
,
actu
exercito
;
but
they
refuse
him
as
having
no
warrant
,
power
,
nor
authority
,
Act.
6.
3.
the
Apostles
bid
choose
seven
Deacons
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
whom
we
may
appoint
say
they
over
this
businesse
,
Tit.
1.
5.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
:
and
ordain
Elders
in
every
City
:
yet
neither
can
that
of
the
Deacons
,
nor
this
of
the
Elders
,
be
understood
otherwise
,
then
of
the
right
,
power
,
and
authority
given
them
.
See
the
like
Heb.
7.
28.
Luk.
12.
42.
Matth.
24.
47.
The
scope
therefore
of
Christs
answer
was
this
(
as
Aretius
upon
the
place
)
non
debeo
aliena
munia
invadere
.
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
Christs
Vicar
on
earth
,
yet
)
cannot
shut
their
eies
against
the
light
of
this
Text
,
who
made
me
a
Judge
or
a
divider
over
you
?
But
they
are
forced
to
acknowledge
[
y
](A42757-e54980-b)
y
Greg.
de
Valentia
comment
.
Theol.
Tom.
4.
Disp.
1
▪
Quaest.
22.
Punct.
6.
Homo
,
quis
me
constituit
Judicem
aut
divisorem
inter
vos
?
Quasi
diceret
:
Nemo
plane
,
neque
homo
,
&
multo
minus
Deus
.
Si
enim
a
Deo
habuisset
Dominium
Jurisdictionis
politicae
,
multo
verius
su
sset
censtitutus
Judex
politicus
,
quam
si
eam
Jurisdictionem
habuisset
ab
homine
.
Et
tamen
negat
omnino
se
fuisse
talem
Judicem
constitutum
.
Unde
per
hoc
quod
addit
,
Quis
me
constituit
Judicem
?
&c.
Eum
remisit
ad
alium
qui
haberet
eam
potestatem
,
qua
ipse
careret
.
See
the
like
in
Bellarmine
de
Pontif.
lib.
5.
cap.
4.
that
Christ
denies
that
he
had
any
right
or
authority
to
be
a
civil
Judge
.
For
how
can
he
who
is
authorized
to
be
a
Judge
say
,
Who
made
me
a
Judge
?
The
fifth
Argument
I
take
from
Iohn
18.
36.
My
Kingdom
is
not
of
this
World
.
The
great
jealousie
and
fear
which
both
Herod
and
Pilate
had
of
Christ
;
was
,
that
they
understood
he
was
a
King
.
Christ
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
;
though
it
be
here
,
it
is
not
from
hence
,
it
is
heterogeneous
to
Temporal
monarchy
and
civil
Government
.
Mr.
Hussey
pag.
24.
tells
us
,
he
knows
not
how
those
Governments
that
should
be
executed
by
Church-Officers
▪
should
savour
lesse
of
the
World
then
the
civil
Government
.
For
this
I
remit
him
to
those
many
and
great
differences
,
which
I
have
shewed
between
the
civil
and
the
Ecclesiastical
Power
.
In
the
mean
while
my
argument
stands
in
force
;
For
if
all
civil
Government
were
put
in
Christs
hand
as
he
is
Mediator
,
and
he
to
depute
and
substitute
others
whom
he
will
under
him
;
then
what
is
there
in
that
answer
of
his
to
Pilate
,
which
could
convincingly
answer
those
mistakes
and
misapprehensions
of
the
nature
of
his
Kingdom
.
That
which
is
now
taught
by
Master
Hussey
,
is
the
very
thing
which
Herod
and
Pilate
were
afraid
of
:
but
Christ
denyeth
that
which
they
were
afraid
of
:
and
vers.
36.
is
an
answer
to
the
Question
asked
,
vers.
33.
Art
thou
the
King
of
the
Jews
?
My
Kingdom
is
not
of
this
World
,
saith
he
.
To
the
same
sence
(
as
Grotius
upon
the
place
noteth
out
of
Eusebius
)
Christs
kinsmen
when
they
were
asked
concerning
his
Kingdome
,
did
answer
to
Domitian
,
[
z
](A42757-e55200-b)
z
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
that
his
Kingdom
was
not
worldly
;
but
heavenly
.
Sixthly
,
I
prove
the
point
from
Luke
17.
20
,
21.
And
when
he
was
demanded
of
the
Pharisees
when
the
Kingdom
of
God
should
come
;
he
answered
them
and
said
,
The
Kingdom
of
God
commeth
not
with
observation
.
Neither
shall
they
say
loe
here
,
or
lo
there
;
For
behold
the
Kingdom
of
God
is
within
you
.
By
the
Kingdom
of
God
is
meant
in
this
place
the
kingdom
of
the
Messiah
,
as
Interpreters
do
unanimously
agree
.
Both
Iohn
Baptist
and
Chrst
himself
had
preached
,
that
the
Kingdom
of
God
was
at
hand
;
and
the
Jews
themselves
were
in
expectation
of
the
Messiah
to
make
them
free
from
the
Roman
yoke
,
and
to
restore
a
temporal
or
earthly
monarchy
to
Israel
.
Hereupon
they
aske
when
this
Kingdom
should
come
.
His
answer
is
,
The
Kingdom
of
God
commeth
not
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
with
observation
,
or
outward
shew
and
pomp
,
but
it
is
within
you
,
it
is
spiritual
,
it
belongs
to
the
inward
man
.
But
if
the
Magistrate
be
Christs
Vicegerent
,
and
hold
his
office
of
and
under
Christ
as
Mediator
,
and
if
Christ
as
Mediator
reigne
in
,
through
and
by
the
Magistrate
,
then
the
Kingdom
of
the
Messiah
doth
come
with
observation
and
pomp
,
with
a
crown
,
a
scepter
,
a
sword
,
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
with
princely
splendor
,
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
,
observation
,
splendor
,
majesty
,
power
,
and
authority
,
which
a
Vicegerent
hath
,
doth
principally
redound
unto
his
Master
and
Soveraign
:
So
that
by
our
opposites
principles
,
the
Kingdom
of
Christ
must
come
with
observation
,
because
the
dominion
of
the
Magistrate
(
whom
they
hold
to
be
his
Vicegerent
)
commeth
with
observation
.
Seventhly
,
That
Government
and
authority
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
)
Ergo.
The
reason
of
the
proposition
,
is
because
the
law
of
nature
and
nations
,
and
the
law
which
was
written
in
mans
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
ruleth
and
governeth
all
nations
by
the
law
of
nature
and
nations
,
or
that
Christ
should
have
reigned
as
Mediator
,
though
man
had
not
sinned
.
The
Assumption
is
proved
by
Gerhard
loc.
com
.
Tom.
6.
pag.
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
husband
,
and
the
son
to
the
Father
,
so
no
doubt
there
had
been
an
union
of
diverse
families
under
one
head
,
man
being
naturally
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
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
,
govenment
?
And
what
wonder
that
the
law
of
nature
teach
all
Nations
some
government
:
[
a
](A42757-e55380-b)
a
Hier.
Ru
st
co
monacho
.
Etiam
muta
animantia
&
serarum
greges
ductores
sequuntur
suos
.
In
apibus
principes
sunt
.
Hicrome
observeth
,
that
nature
guideth
the
very
reasonlesse
creatures
to
a
kind
of
Magistracy
.
Eightly
,
If
the
Scripture
hold
forth
the
same
derivation
or
origination
of
Magistracy
in
the
Christian
Magistrate
and
in
the
heathen
Magistrate
,
then
it
is
not
safe
to
us
to
hold
that
the
Christian
Magistrate
holds
his
office
of
and
under
Christ
as
Mediator
.
But
the
Scripture
doth
hold
forth
the
same
derivation
or
origination
of
Magistracy
in
the
Christian
Magistrate
,
and
in
the
Heathen
Magistrate
.
Ergo
,
The
proposition
hath
this
reason
for
it
,
because
the
Heathen
Magistrate
doth
not
hold
his
office
of
and
under
Christ
as
Mediator
;
neither
doth
Mr.
Hussey
herein
contradict
me
:
onely
he
holds
the
heathen
Magistrate
and
his
Government
to
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
,
Rom.
13.
1.
the
powers
that
be
,
are
ordained
of
God
,
which
is
spoken
of
heathen
Magistrates
.
Dan.
2.
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
Ier.
27.
6.
Isa.
45.
1.
God
sent
his
servant
the
Prophet
to
anoint
Hazael
King
over
Syria
;
1
Kings
19.
15.
Read
to
this
purpose
Augustine
de
civit
.
Dei
,
lib.
5.
cap.
21.
Where
he
saith
[
b
](A42757-e55570-b)
b
Qui
Mario
,
ipse
Caio
Caesari
:
qui
Augusto
,
ipse
&
Neroni
;
qui
Vespasianis
vel
patri
vel
filio
,
suavissimis
Imperatoribus
,
ipse
&
Domitiano
crudelissimo
.
Et
ne
per
singulos
ire
necessesit
,
qui
Constantino
Christiano
,
ipse
Apostatae
Iuliano
.
that
the
same
God
gave
a
Kingdom
and
authority
both
to
the
Romans
,
Assyrians
,
Persians
,
Hebrews
;
and
that
he
who
gave
the
Kingdom
to
the
best
Emperors
,
gave
it
also
to
the
worst
▪
Emperors
;
yea
he
that
gave
it
to
Constantine
a
Christian
▪
did
also
give
it
saith
he
,
to
Iulian
the
apostate
.
Tertullian
Apol.
cap.
30.
speaking
of
the
heathen
Emperors
of
that
time
,
saith
that
they
were
from
God
,
à
quo
sunt
secundi
,
post
quem
primi
ante
omnes
,
that
he
who
had
made
them
men
,
did
also
make
them
Emperors
,
and
give
them
their
power
.
Ibid.
cap.
33.
Ut
meritò
dixerim
noster
est
magis
Caesar
,
ut
a
nostro
Deo
constitutus
:
so
that
I
may
justly
say
,
Caesar
is
rather
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
light
doth
darknesse
,
yet
in
this
point
of
the
derivation
and
tenure
of
Magistracy
;
they
both
are
equally
interested
,
and
the
Scripture
sheweth
no
difference
,
as
to
that
point
.
CHAP.
VIII
.
Of
the
Power
and
Priviledge
of
the
Magistrate
in
things
and
causes
Ecclesiastical
;
what
it
is
not
,
and
what
it
is
.
THe
new
notion
that
the
Christian
Magistrate
is
a
Church-officer
,
and
Magistracy
an
Ecclesiastical
as
well
as
a
civil
administration
,
calls
to
mind
that
of
the
Wise-man
;
Is
there
any
thing
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
supream
Magistrate
had
the
administration
of
the
holy
things
.
Notwithstanding
even
in
this
particular
there
still
appeareth
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
joyne
in
criminall
nor
capitall
judgements
,
lest
they
(
being
Priests
)
should
be
defiled
.
If
you
look
after
some
other
President
for
the
union
of
civil
and
ecclesiastical
Government
,
secular
and
spirituall
administrations
,
in
one
and
the
same
person
or
persons
,
perhaps
it
were
not
hard
to
find
such
presidents
,
as
our
opposites
will
be
ashamed
to
owne
.
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
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
For
this
is
another
thing
then
civil
Magistrates
.
He
had
said
before
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
For
a
civil
society
hath
need
of
many
Rulers
:
but
every
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
who
is
made
by
election
or
lot
,
is
not
a
civil
Magistrate
:
and
the
first
instance
he
giveth
is
that
of
the
Priests
:
and
so
Aristotle
would
have
the
Priest
to
be
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
a
Ruler
,
but
not
a
civil
Magistrate
.
So
de
Repub.
lib.
7.
cap.
8.
he
distingu
sheth
between
the
Priests
and
the
Judges
in
a
Citty
.
But
to
the
matter
.
I
will
here
endeavour
to
make
these
two
things
appear
.
1.
That
no
administration
formally
and
properly
Ecclesiasticall
(
and
namely
the
dispencing
of
Church
censures
)
doth
belong
unto
the
Magistrate
,
nor
may
(
according
to
the
word
of
God
)
be
assumed
and
exercised
by
him
,
2.
That
Christ
hath
not
made
the
Magistrate
head
of
the
Church
,
to
receive
appeals
(
properly
so
called
)
from
all
Ecclesiasticall
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
Kingdom
of
Heaven
.
It
is
the
unhappinesse
of
this
time
that
this
and
other
truths
formerly
out
of
controversie
,
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
Church
,
and
keeping
pure
of
the
ordinances
,
is
no
part
of
the
Magistrates
office
,
but
is
a
distinct
charge
belonging
of
right
to
Ministers
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
carry
the
power
of
Church
censures
and
the
administration
of
the
keys
of
the
Kingdom
of
Heaven
into
other
hands
then
the
Magistrates
;
)
so
I
shall
here
strengthen
it
by
these
confirmations
.
First
,
Church-censures
must
needs
be
dispensed
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
doe
evil
,
and
he
ought
to
punish
like
sirs
with
like
punishments
.
But
if
the
power
of
Church-censures
be
in
the
Magistrates
hands
,
he
cannot
walk
by
that
rule
;
For
Church-censures
are
onely
for
Church-members
,
not
for
all
Subjects
:
1
Cor.
5.
10.
12.
Secondly
,
Church-censures
are
to
be
executed
in
the
name
of
Christ
,
Matth.
18.
20.
with
vers.
17
,
18.
1
Cor.
5.
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
then
Heathen
?
Thirdly
,
Church-censures
are
for
impenitent
contumacious
offenders
:
but
the
Magistrate
doth
and
must
punish
offenders
(
when
the
course
of
Justice
and
law
so
requireth
)
whether
they
appear
penitent
or
impenitent
.
Fourthly
,
The
Magistrates
power
of
punishing
offenders
,
is
bounded
by
the
law
of
the
land
.
What
then
shall
become
of
such
scandalls
as
are
not
crimes
punishable
by
the
law
of
the
land
?
such
as
obscene
rotten
talking
,
adulterous
and
vile
behaviour
,
or
the
most
scandalous
conversing
and
companying
together
(
though
the
crime
of
adultery
cannot
be
proved
by
witnesses
)
living
in
known
malice
and
envie
,
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
taken
notice
of
by
the
civil
Judge
.
So
that
in
this
case
,
either
there
must
be
Church-censures
and
discipline
exercised
by
Church-officers
,
or
the
Magistrate
must
go
beyond
his
limits
:
Or
lastly
.
Scandalls
shall
spread
in
the
Church
,
and
no
remedy
against
them
.
Far
be
it
from
the
thoughts
of
Christian
Magistrates
,
that
scandalls
of
this
kind
shall
be
tolerated
,
to
the
dishonour
of
God
,
the
laying
of
the
stumbling
blocks
of
bad
examples
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
difference
betwixt
the
prophane
and
the
holy
,
the
unclean
and
the
clean
:
Levit.
10.
10.
Ezech.
22.
26.
Ezech.
44.
23
,
24.
Deut.
21.
5.
2
Chron.
23.
18
,
19.
And
in
the
new
Testament
,
the
keyes
of
the
Kingdom
of
Heaven
are
given
to
the
Ministers
of
the
Church
:
Matth.
16.
19.
and
18.
18.
Iohn
20.
23.
but
no
where
to
the
civil
Magistrate
.
It
belongeth
to
Church-officers
to
censure
false
doctrine
.
Revel.
2.
2.
14.
15.
to
decide
controversies
,
Acts
16.
4.
and
to
examine
and
censure
scandalls
,
Ezech.
44
23
,
24.
which
is
a
Prophecy
concerning
the
ministery
of
the
New
Testament
.
And
Elders
judge
an
Elder
,
1
Tim.
5.
19.
or
any
other
Church-member
.
1
Cor.
5.
12.
Thirdly
,
The
Scripture
holdeth
forth
the
civil
and
Ecclesiastical
power
as
most
distinct
;
insomuch
that
it
condemneth
the
Spiritualizing
of
the
civil
Power
,
aswell
as
the
Secularizing
of
the
Ecclesiastical
power
;
State
Papacy
,
aswell
as
Papal-State
:
Church-officers
may
not
take
the
civil
sword
,
nor
judg
civil
causes
:
Luke
12.
13
,
14
,
and
22.
25.
Matth.
26.
52.
2
Cor.
10.
4.
2
Tim.
2.
4.
So
Uzzah
might
not
touch
the
Ark
:
nor
Saul
offer
burnt
offerings
:
nor
Uzziah
burn
incense
:
I
wish
we
may
not
have
cause
to
revive
the
proverb
which
was
used
in
Ambrose
his
time
.
That
Emperors
did
more
covet
the
Priesthood
,
then
the
Priests
did
covet
the
Empire
.
Shall
it
be
a
sin
to
Church-officers
to
exercise
any
act
of
civil
government
?
and
shal
it
be
no
sin
to
the
civil
Magistrate
to
ingrosse
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
scandall
of
the
Reformed
Church
;
do
notwithstanding
acknowledge
that
Christ
hath
appointed
Church
discipline
and
censures
,
and
the
same
to
be
dispenced
by
Church-officers
onely
:
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
pag.
175.
hath
not
spared
to
say
,
that
the
Magistrate
may
in
the
New
Testament
(
though
he
might
not
in
the
old
)
exercise
the
ministeriall
function
,
if
he
can
have
so
much
leisure
from
his
other
employments
.
Fourthly
,
The
power
of
Church
discipline
is
intrinsecall
to
the
Church
,
that
is
,
both
they
who
censure
,
and
they
who
are
censured
,
must
be
of
the
Church
,
1
Cor.
5.
12.
13.
They
must
be
of
one
and
the
same
Corporation
,
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
extrinsecall
to
the
Church
.
For
the
Magistrate
quatenus
a
Magistrate
,
is
not
so
much
as
a
Church-member
;
far
lesse
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
Common-wealth
or
State
,
far
lesse
can
he
,
as
minister
,
exercise
jurisdiction
over
the
Subjects
,
as
Subjects
.
The
Christian
magistrate
in
England
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
Common-wealth
of
England
He
was
both
a
learned
man
and
a
great
Royallist
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
.
Io.
Wemius
,
de
Reg.
primat
.
pag.
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
dispence
Church-censures
,
under
Pagan
and
unbeleeving
magistrates
,
as
is
by
all
confessed
:
Now
the
Church
ought
not
to
be
in
a
worse
condition
under
the
Christian
magistrate
,
then
under
an
Infidel
;
for
the
power
of
the
Christian
magistrate
is
cumulative
,
not
privative
to
the
Church
;
He
is
a
Nursing
Father
,
Isa.
49.
23.
not
a
Step-Father
.
He
is
keeper
,
defender
and
guardian
of
both
Tables
,
but
neither
Judge
nor
Interpreter
of
Scripture
.
Sixthly
,
I
shall
shut
up
this
Argumentation
with
a
convincing
dilemma
.
The
Assemblies
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
Iure
proprio
,
and
virtute
officii
:
or
onely
Iure
devoluto
,
and
virtute
delegationis
,
such
authority
being
derived
from
the
magistrate
;
If
the
former
;
I
have
what
I
would
;
If
the
latter
,
then
it
followeth
,
1.
That
where
Presbyteries
and
Synods
do
exercise
spirituall
Jurisdiction
,
not
by
any
power
derived
from
,
or
dependant
upon
the
civil
Magistrate
,
but
in
the
name
and
authority
of
Iesus
Christ
,
and
by
the
power
received
from
him
,
as
in
Scotland
,
France
,
the
Low-Countries
,
&c.
there
all
Ecclesiastical
censures
,
such
as
deposition
of
Ministers
,
and
Excommunication
of
scandalous
and
obstinate
persons
.
have
been
,
are
,
and
shall
be
void
,
null
,
and
of
no
effect
.
Even
as
when
the
Prelaticall
party
did
hold
,
that
the
power
of
ordination
and
jurisdiction
pertaineth
onely
to
Prelats
,
or
such
as
are
delegate
with
commission
and
authority
from
them
:
thereupon
they
were
so
put
to
it
by
the
Arguments
of
the
Anti-Episcopall
party
,
that
they
were
forced
to
say
,
that
Presbyters
ordained
by
Presbyters
in
other
Reformed
Churches
,
are
no
Presbyters
,
and
their
excommunication
was
no
excommunication
.
2.
It
will
follow
,
that
the
Magistrate
himself
may
excommunicate
,
for
nemo
potest
aliis
delegare
plus
juris
quam
ipse
habet
;
No
man
can
give
from
him
by
delegation
or
deputation
to
another
,
that
right
or
power
which
he
himself
hath
not
.
3.
If
the
power
of
excommunication
come
by
delegation
from
the
Magistrate
,
either
the
Magistrate
must
in
conscience
give
this
power
to
Church-officers
onely
,
or
he
is
free
and
may
without
sin
give
this
power
to
others
;
If
the
former
,
what
can
bind
up
the
Magistrates
conscience
,
or
astrict
the
thing
to
Church-Officers
,
except
it
be
Gods
ordinance
that
they
only
do
it
?
If
the
latter
,
then
though
this
Parliament
hath
hath
taken
away
the
old
High
Commission
Court
,
which
had
Potestatem
utriusque
gladii
,
yet
they
may
lawfully
and
without
sin
erect
a
new
High
Commission
Court
,
made
up
of
those
who
shall
be
no
Church-officers
,
yea
having
none
of
the
Clergy
in
it
(
as
the
other
had
)
with
commission
and
power
granted
to
them
to
execute
spiritual
Jurisdiction
and
Excommunication
,
and
that
not
onely
in
this
or
that
Church
,
yea
or
Province
,
but
in
any
part
of
the
whole
Kingdom
.
So
much
of
the
first
point
.
Now
to
the
second
,
concerning
appeals
to
the
Magistrate
,
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
Magistrate
:
which
if
it
be
,
Church-officers
will
be
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
dore
opened
,
that
ministers
may
do
as
they
please
.
Answ.
1
Look
what
remedy
thene
is
for
abuses
in
the
preaching
of
the
Word
,
and
administration
of
the
Sacraments
;
the
like
remedy
there
is
for
abuses
in
Church-discipline
;
Mal-administration
of
the
Word
and
Sacraments
is
no
lesse
sinfull
to
the
ministers
,
and
hurtful
to
others
,
then
mal-administration
of
discipline
:
and
in
some
respects
the
former
is
more
to
the
dishonour
of
God
and
destruction
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
duely
administred
by
any
minister
or
ministers
,
the
Magistrate
seeketh
the
redresse
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
error
;
yet
the
Magistrate
taketh
not
upon
him
the
supreme
and
authoritative
decision
of
a
controversie
of
faith
,
but
still
endeavoureth
to
help
all
this
by
other
Ecclesiastical
remedies
;
as
another
Synod
,
and
yet
another
,
till
the
evil
be
removed
.
The
like
we
say
concerning
abuses
in
Church-discipline
:
The
Magistrate
may
command
a
resuming
and
re-examination
of
the
case
in
another
Synod
:
but
still
the
Synod
ratisieth
or
reverseth
the
censure
.
In
which
case
it
is
betwixt
the
Magistrate
and
the
Synod
,
as
betwixt
the
will
and
understanding
;
for
Voluntas
imperat
Intellectui
quo
ad
exercitium
,
yet
notwithstanding
determinatur
per
intectellum
quoad
specificationem
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
pag.
298.
the
Prince
or
Magistrate
cannot
take
from
a
minister
that
power
which
was
given
him
in
ordination
with
imposition
of
hands
,
for
he
cannot
take
away
that
which
he
cannot
give
.
But
if
a
Prince
would
have
a
minister
for
his
offence●
to
be
deprived
of
his
ministeriall
power
,
he
must
take
care
that
it
be
done
by
the
ministers
themselves
;
qui
Judices
veri
ipsius
sunt
,
&
auferre
soli
possunt
quod
per
ordinationem
dederunt
.
Who
are
his
true
Judges
,
and
they
onely
can
take
away
what
by
ordination
they
have
given
.
Thus
Salmasius
.
2.
And
further
,
if
Presbyteries
or
Synods
exceed
the
bounds
of
Ecclesiasticall
power
,
and
go
without
the
Sphaere
of
their
own
activity
,
interposing
and
judging
in
a
civil
cause
which
concerneth
any
mans
life
or
estate
,
The
Magistrate
may
reverse
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
Kings
2.
26.
It
was
not
a
case
of
scandall
onely
,
or
of
Delinquency
or
mal-administration
in
his
Sacerdotall
office
,
otherwise
it
had
fallen
within
the
cognizance
,
and
jurisdiction
of
the
Ecclesiastical
Sanhedrin
.
3.
Though
the
case
be
meerly
spirituall
and
ecclesiastical
the
Christian
Magistrate
(
by
himself
and
immediatly
)
may
not
onely
examine
by
the
judgement
of
discretion
the
sentence
of
the
Ecclesiastical
Court
,
but
also
when
he
seeth
cause
(
either
upon
the
complaint
of
the
party
,
or
scandall
given
to
himself
)
interpose
by
letters
,
messages
,
exhortations
,
and
sharp
admonitions
to
the
Presbyterie
or
Synod
,
who
in
that
case
are
bound
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
rationall
and
satisfactory
accompt
to
the
Magistrate
,
or
be
themselves
convinced
of
their
mal-administration
of
Discipline
.
4
And
in
extraordinary
cases
when
the
Clergy
hath
made
defection
,
and
all
Church
discipline
is
degenerated
into
Tyrannie
,
as
under
Popery
and
Prelacy
it
was
;
it
belongeth
to
the
Magistrate
to
take
the
protection
of
those
who
are
cast
out
or
censured
unjustly
;
for
extraordinary
evils
must
have
extraordinary
helps
.
And
in
this
sence
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
[
c
](A42757-e56690-b)
c
Synops.
pur
.
Theol.
disp.
48.
Thes.
19.
E●…si
vero
hanc
spiritualem
p●…testatem
a
Christiani
Magistratus
inspectione
,
tanquam
utriusque
tabulae
custode
non
eximimus
,
negamus
tamen
eam
,
aut
ejus
praxin
a
Magistratus
suprema
aucto●…itate
pendere
,
sicuti
quidam
●…ecentiores
contendunt
,
cum
a
Christo
solo
pendeat
,
&
ab
ipso
immediate
Ecclesiae
sit
concessa
ut
loci
an●…ea
producti
demon
strant
.
Ac
proinde
nec
per
appellationem
,
aut
provocationem
proprie
dictam
,
po●…estas
haec
ad
Magistratus
aut
Principum
tribunal
deferr●…
potest
.
quum
ejus
executio
penes
ipsos
non
sit
.
to
receive
appeals
(
properly
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
nullifie
or
make
void
the
Ecclesiastical
censure
.
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
Po●…edome
;
the
Head
,
but
not
the
Headship
;
for
is
not
this
the
Popes
chief
supremacy
,
to
judge
all
men
▪
and
to
be
judged
of
no
man
,
to
ratifie
or
rescind
at
his
pleasure
the
dec●ees
of
the
Church
,
Councels
●nd
all
:
and
shall
this
power
now
be
transferred
upon
the
Magistrate
?
Good
Lord
,
where
are
we
,
if
this
shall
be
the
up-shot
of
our
Reformation
?
Oh
for
it
?
Shall
we
condemn
the
Papists
and
Anabaptists
who
give
too
little
to
the
Magistrate
,
and
then
joyn
hands
with
the
Arminians
,
who
give
as
much
to
the
Magistrate
as
the
Pope
hath
formerly
usurp●d
?
2.
Appeals
lie
in
the
same
line
of
subordination
,
and
do
not
go
de
g●…nere
in
genus
;
but
the
civil
and
Ecclesiasticall
Courts
stand
not
in
one
line
,
neither
are
they
of
one
kind
and
nature
;
they
are
disparata
,
non
subordinata
.
3.
They
who
receive
appeals
,
have
also
power
to
execute
the
sentence
,
else
the
appeal
is
in
vain
.
But
the
Magistrate
hath
no
power
to
execute
the
Church
ce●sure
,
nor
to
shut
out
of
the
Church
,
our
opposites
themselves
being
Judges
.
It
was
not
therefore
without
just
cause
that
Augustine
did
v●ry
●uch
●lame
the
Donatists
for
their
appealing
from
the
Ecclesi●stical
Assemblies
,
to
the
Emperors
and
civil
C●urts
,
Epist.
48.
and
Epist.
162.
There
are
two
examples
alledged
from
Scripture
for
appeals
from
Ecclesiastical
to
Civil
Courts
:
One
is
the
example
of
Ieremiah
;
Ier
.
26.
The
other
is
the
example
of
Paul
,
Act.
25.
But
neither
of
the
two
prove
the
point
.
For
1.
Ieremiah
was
not
censured
by
the
Priests
with
any
Spirituall
or
Ecclesiastical
censure
(
of
which
alone
our
controversie
is
)
but
the
Priests
took
him
and
said
to
him
,
Thou
shalt
surely
die
.
Jer.
26.
8.
2.
Would
God
that
every
Christian
Magistrate
may
protect
the
servants
of
God
from
such
unjust
sentences
and
persecuting
decrees
.
When
Ecclesiasticall
Courts
are
made
up
of
bloody
persecuters
▪
that
is
an
extraordinary
evil
which
must
have
an
extraordinary
remedy
.
3.
Neither
yet
is
there
any
syllable
of
Ieremiahs
appealing
from
the
Priests
to
the
Princes
,
but
the
Text
saith
,
When
the
Princes
of
Judah
heard
these
things
,
then
they
came
up
,
&c.
verse
10.
that
is
,
The
Princes
so
soon
as
they
understood
that
the
Priests
had
taken
Ieremiah
,
and
had
said
to
him
Thou
shalt
surely
die
.
verse
8.
And
being
also
informed
that
all
the
people
were
gathered
together
tumultuously
and
disorderly
against
the
Prophet
,
verse
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
accused
as
one
worthy
to
die
.
As
for
Pauls
Appellation
to
Caesar.
First
,
It
is
supposed
by
our
opposites
that
he
appealed
from
the
Ecclesiastical
Sanhedrin
of
the
Jews
,
which
is
a
great
mistake
;
For
he
appealed
from
the
Judgement-seat
of
Festus
to
Caesar
;
that
is
,
from
an
inferior
civil
Court
,
to
a
superiour
civil
Court
,
which
he
had
just
cause
to
do
:
for
though
Festus
had
not
yet
given
forth
any
sentence
against
Paul
,
yet
he
appeals
à
gravamine
,
and
it
was
a
great
grievance
indeed
,
while
as
Festus
shew'd
himself
to
be
a
most
corrupt
Judge
,
who
though
the
Jews
could
prove
none
of
those
things
whereof
they
accused
Paul
,
Act.
25.
7.
(
which
should
have
made
Festus
to
acquit
and
dismisse
him
)
yet
being
willing
to
do
the
Jews
a
pleasure
,
he
would
have
Paul
to
go
to
Ierusalem
,
there
to
be
judged
before
himself
.
verse
9.
Now
this
was
all
the
favour
that
the
Jews
had
desired
of
Festus
,
that
he
would
send
Paul
to
Ierusalem
,
they
laying
wait
in
the
way
to
kill
him
.
vers.
3.
No
appellation
here
from
the
Sanhedrin
at
Ierusalem
,
where
he
had
not
as
yet
compeered
to
be
examined
,
far
lesse
could
he
appeal
from
any
sentence
of
the
Sanhedrin
.
The
most
which
can
be
with
any
colour
alleadged
from
the
Text
,
is
,
that
Paul
declined
to
be
judged
by
the
Sanhedrin
at
Ierusalem
,
they
not
being
his
competent
and
proper
Judges
in
that
cause
.
I
stand
at
Caesars
Iudgement-seat
saith
he
,
where
I
ought
to
be
judged
;
meaning
that
he
was
accused
as
worthy
of
death
,
for
sedition
,
and
offending
against
Caesar
;
whereof
he
ought
to
be
judged
onely
at
Caesars
Tribunall
;
not
by
the
Jews
,
who
were
no
Judges
of
such
matters
.
A
declinator
of
a
Judge
is
one
thing
,
and
Appellation
from
his
Judgement
or
sentence
is
another
thing
.
But
put
the
case
that
Paul
had
indeed
appeal●d
from
the
Sanhedrin
at
Ierusalem
,
either
it
was
the
civil
Sanhedrin
,
or
the
Ecclesiasticall
.
If
the
civil
,
it
is
no
President
for
appeals
from
Ecclesiastical
Courts
.
If
the
Ecclesiastical
,
yet
that
serveth
not
for
appeals
from
Ecclesiasticall
Courts
in
Ecclesiasticall
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
Sanhedrin
in
an
Ecclesiastical
cause
:
yet
neither
could
that
help
our
opposites
,
for
the
government
of
the
Christian
Church
,
and
the
government
of
the
Jewish
Church
were
at
that
time
separate
and
distinct
,
so
that
the
Ecclesiastical
Court
,
which
should
have
judged
of
any
scandall
given
by
Paul
(
if
at
all
he
ought
to
have
been
censured
)
had
been
a
Christian
Synod
,
not
a
Jewish
Sanhedrin
.
And
so
much
of
Appeals
.
Of
which
Question
Triglandius
,
Revius
,
and
Cabeljavius
,
have
peculiarly
and
fully
written
.
Three
famous
Academies
also
,
of
Leyden
,
Groening
,
and
Utrecht
,
did
give
their
publike
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
Arminian
poyson
lurking
in
the
contrary
Tenent
.
See
Cabeljav
.
defensio
potestatis
Ecclesiasticae
.
pag.
60.
It
is
further
objected
,
That
thus
fixing
a
spirituall
jurisdiction
in
Church-officers
,
we
erect
two
collateral
Powers
in
the
Kingdom
,
the
Civil
and
the
Ecclesiastical
,
unlesse
all
Ecclesiastical
Courts
be
subordinate
to
Magistracy
,
as
to
a
certain
head-ship
.
Answ.
There
is
a
subordination
of
Persons
here
,
but
a
co-ordination
of
powers
:
A
subordination
of
Persons
,
because
as
the
Ministers
of
the
Church
are
subject
to
the
civil
Magistrate
,
they
being
members
of
the
Common-wealth
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
inferre
the
subordination
of
the
power
and
office
of
the
Magistrate
to
the
Church-officers
:
So
the
subjection
of
Pastors
and
Elders
to
the
Magistrate
in
all
civil
things
(
as
other
members
of
the
Common-wealth
are
subject
)
may
well
consist
with
the
co-ordination
of
the
Ecclesiastical
power
with
the
civil
.
And
as
it
is
an
error
in
Papists
to
make
the
secular
power
dependant
upon
,
and
derived
from
the
Ecclesiasticall
power
:
So
it
is
an
error
in
others
to
make
the
Ecclesiastical
power
derived
from
,
and
dependant
upon
the
civil
power
:
for
the
Ecclesiastical
power
is
derived
from
Christ
,
Ephes.
4.
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
Judgement
;
For
he
who
wrote
Ius
Regum
in
opposition
to
all
spiritual
authority
exercised
under
any
forme
of
Ecclesiastical
Government
,
doth
not
withstanding
acknowledge
pag.
16.
Both
of
them
(
the
Magistrate
and
the
Minister
)
have
their
Commission
immediatly
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
lesse
subject
to
the
operation
of
the
Word
from
the
mouth
of
the
Minister
,
then
any
other
man
whatsoever
:
And
the
Minister
again
is
as
much
subject
to
the
authority
of
the
Magistrate
as
any
other
Subject
whatsoever
;
And
therefore
though
there
be
no
subordination
of
Offices
,
yet
is
there
of
Persons
;
the
Person
of
a
Minister
remaining
a
Subject
,
but
not
the
function
of
the
Ministery
.
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
keyes
of
doctrine
,
gave
also
the
keys
of
discipline
,
without
any
tye
to
make
the
use
thereof
subject
to
the
pleasure
of
the
civil
Magistrate
.
Let
him
prove
that
the
ministery
of
the
Word
is
not
subordinate
to
,
nor
dependant
upon
the
Magistrate
;
and
I
shall
prove
by
the
same
medium
,
that
the
ministery
of
Church-censures
hath
as
little
of
that
subordination
in
it
.
And
this
I
must
adde
,
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
Government
:
For
themselves
hold
as
much
in
this
point
(
if
not
more
)
then
we
do
.
Take
for
instance
Mr.
Cotton
his
k●…yes
of
the
Kingdom
of
Heaven
,
published
by
Mr.
Goodwyn
and
Mr.
Nye
,
pag.
49.
The
first
Subject
of
the
ministeriall
power
of
the
keyes
,
though
it
be
independent
in
respect
of
derivation
of
power
from
the
power
of
the
sword
to
the
performance
of
any
spiritual
administration
:
&c.
Pag.
53.
As
the
Church
is
subject
to
the
sword
of
the
Magistrate
in
things
which
concerne
the
civil
peace
:
so
the
Magistrate
(
if
Christian
)
is
subject
to
the
keyes
of
the
Church
.
&c.
As
for
that
collaterality
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
collaterality
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
kinde
and
nature
;
but
the
civil
Power
is
a
Dominion
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
Magistrates
authority
is
Ecclesiastical
objective
,
though
not
formaliter
:
but
the
Church-Officers
authority
is
not
civil
so
much
as
objective
,
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
streams
flowing
from
the
same
fountain
,
two
lines
drawn
from
the
same
center
,
two
arms
under
the
same
head
.
But
the
power
of
the
Magistrate
is
subordinate
unto
;
and
dependeth
upon
the
Dominion
of
God
the
Creator
of
all
:
the
power
of
Church-Officers
dependeth
upon
the
Dominion
of
Christ
,
the
Mediator
and
King
of
the
Church
.
I
shall
conclude
my
answers
to
the
present
Objection
,
with
the
Testimony
of
learned
[
d
](A42757-e57560-b)
d
Apparat.
ad
lib.
de
Primatu
pag.
282
,
283.
●…lebs
autem
ipsa
quam
curan●…
Pastores
,
quantum
a●…tines
ad
animaecuram
,
Pastoribus
suis
subdita
est
.
Si
corporis
ratio
aga●…ur
,
summum
in
illud
Imperium
habent
Principes
ac
Supremi
Magistratus
.
Delicta
igitur
hominum
dupliciter
puniumur
,
aut
in
anima
sola
,
aut
in
corpore
.
Poenae
quae
corporis
necem
aut
noxam
inferunt
,
aut
bonorum
amissionem
,
a
Magistratu
civili
infliguntur
:
Quae
vero
animarum
castigationem
&
emendationem
spectant
,
per
Ministrum
Ecclesiae
imponuntur
.
Summa
earum
poenarum
excommunicatio
est
.
Et
in●ra
.
Idem
peccatum
in
eodem
homine
ali●…er
vindicat
Magistratus
civilis
,
aliter
punit
Minister
Ecclesiae
.
Salmasius
,
who
hath
so
overthrown
the
Papal
and
Prelatical
Government
from
Scripture
and
antiquity
,
that
he
hath
withall
preserved
,
yea
strengthened
the
distinction
of
civil
Government
and
Church-government
,
and
holdeth
that
Church-censures
and
civil
punishments
do
very
well
consist
and
sweetly
agree
together
.
I
have
now
done
with
the
negative
part
of
this
present
Controversie
,
what
the
power
of
the
Magistrate
in
Ecclesiasticis
is
not
.
I
proceed
to
the
positive
part
,
what
it
is
.
To
this
I
w●ll
speak
first
more
generally
,
then
more
particularly
.
For
the
general
,
I
hold
with
the
large
Consession
of
Faith
of
the
Church
of
Scotland
;
Art.
25.
Moreover
to
Kings
,
Princes
,
Rulers
,
and
Magistrates
,
we
affirm
,
that
chiefly
and
most
principally
,
the
conservation
and
the
purgation
of
the
Religion
appertains
;
so
that
not
onely
they
are
appointed
for
civil
Policy
▪
but
also
for
maintenance
of
the
true
Religion
,
and
for
suppressing
of
Idolatry
and
Superstition
whatsoever
.
To
the
same
purpose
,
Calvin
,
Instit.
lib.
4.
cap.
20.
sect.
9.
Hoc
nomine
maximè
laudantnr
sancti
Reges
,
quòd
Dei
cultum
corruptum
vel
eversum
restituerint
,
vel
curam
gesserint
Religionis
,
ut
sub
illis
pura
&
incolumis
floreret
.
The
like
see
in
Zanchius
in
4.
praec
.
pag.
791.
and
in
Polanus
Syntag.
lib.
10.
cap.
65.
They
hold
that
the
Christian
Magistrate
his
Office
,
as
concerning
Religion
,
is
,
diligently
to
take
care
that
in
his
Dominion
,
or
Kingdom
,
Religion
from
the
pure
Word
of
God
,
expounded
by
●…he
Word
of
God
it self
,
and
understood
according
to
the
Principles
of
Faith
(
which
others
call
the
Analogy
of
Faith
)
be
either
instituted
,
or
(
being
instituted
)
kept
pure
;
or
being
corrupted
,
be
restored
and
reformed
:
that
false
Doctrines
,
Abuses
,
Idolls
,
and
Superstitions
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
un●erstanding
and
enodation
of
our
present
Question
,
I
will
particularize
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
intrinsecal
,
and
belonging
to
the
soul
or
inward
man
,
directly
and
primarily
.
Such
things
are
not
to
be
dispensed
and
administred
by
the
civil
Magistrate
,
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
Deposition
of
Officers
,
the
Determination
and
Resolution
from
Scripture
of
Controversies
concerning
the
Faith
,
the
Worship
of
God
,
the
Government
of
the
Church
,
Cases
of
Conscience
.
These
being
in
their
nature
,
end
,
and
use
,
meerly
spiritual
,
and
belonging
not
to
the
outward
man
,
but
to
the
inward
man
or
soul
,
are
committed
and
intrusted
to
the
Pastors
and
other
ruling
Officers
of
the
Church
,
and
are
not
of
civil
and
extrinsecal
,
but
of
Ecclesiastical
and
intrinsecal
cognizance
and
judgement
.
There
are
other
things
belonging
to
the
Church
,
which
are
extrinsecal
and
do
properly
belong
to
the
outward
man
,
and
are
common
to
the
Church
with
other
humane
Societies
or
Corporations
.
Things
of
this
kinde
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
trespasses
against
the
Law
of
God
or
the
Law
of
the
Land
:
By
the
Law
of
God
I
understand
here
Ius
divinum
naturale
,
that
is
,
the
moral
Law
or
Decalogue
,
as
it
bindeth
all
Nations
(
whether
Christians
or
Infidels
)
being
the
Law
of
the
Creator
and
King
of
Nations
.
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
trespasses
against
that
Law
.
From
this
obligation
of
the
Law
,
and
subjection
to
the
corrective
power
of
the
Magistrate
,
Christian
Subjects
are
no
more
exempted
then
Heathen
Subjects
,
but
father
more
straitly
obliged
.
So
that
if
any
such
trespasse
is
committed
by
Church-Officers
or
Members
,
the
Magistrate
hath
power
and
authority
to
summon
,
examine
,
judge
,
and
(
after
just
conviction
and
proof
)
to
punish
these
,
as
well
as
other
men
.
We
do
therefore
abominate
the
disloyal
Papal
Tenent
,
that
Clergy
men
are
not
to
be
examined
and
judged
by
civil
,
but
by
Ecclesiastical
Courts
onely
,
even
in
causes
civil
and
criminal
.
Whereof
see
Duarenus
de
Sacr.
Eccl.
Minist.
lib.
1.
cap.
2.
Spelman
Concil.
Britann
.
Tom.
1.
pag.
413.
I
further
explane
my self
by
that
common
distinction
,
that
there
are
two
sorts
of
things
that
belong
to
the
Church
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
things
inward
,
and
things
outward
.
For
Church
Officers
and
Church-members
do
consist
(
as
other
men
)
of
a
soul
,
and
of
a
body
.
All
things
properly
belonging
to
the
soul
or
internal
man
,
(
which
here
we
call
things
inward
)
are
the
object
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
judging
and
managing
thereof
,
is
in
the
hand
of
the
Magistrate
,
who
ruleth
not
onely
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
those
that
are
without
,
whom
the
Church
judgeth
not
,
but
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
the
things
outward
of
the
Church
.
Salmasius
calls
the
power
of
the
Magistrate
in
things
Ecclesiastical
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
the
inward
Episcopacy
or
overseeing
.
Which
well
agreeth
with
that
which
Constantine
said
to
the
Bishops
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
You
are
made
Bishops
of
the
inward
things
of
the
Church
,
I
of
the
things
outward
.
So
that
he
doth
not
assume
their
government
,
but
distinguisheth
his
from
theirs
.
This
external
inspection
and
administration
of
the
Magistrate
,
in
reference
to
Religion
,
is
twofold
.
1.
Corrective
,
by
externall
punishments
.
2.
Auxiliary
,
by
externall
benefits
and
adminicles
.
The
Magistrate
may
and
ought
to
be
both
Custos
&
vindex
utriusque
Tabulae
,
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
corporal
or
other
temporal
punishments
such
(
whether
Church
Officers
or
Church-members
)
as
openly
dishonour
God
by
grosse
offences
,
either
against
the
first
or
against
the
second
Table
;
and
this
he
doth
as
Gods
Deputy
and
Vicegerent
subordinate
and
subservient
to
that
universall
dominion
which
God
almighty
exerciseth
over
the
children
of
men
.
But
in
doing
hereof
,
he
is
also
helpfull
and
usefull
to
the
Kingdom
of
Christ
as
Mediator
;
Magistracy
being
(
in
the
respects
aforesaid
)
serviceable
and
profitable
(
as
to
order
the
Common-wealth
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
intrinsecally
,
but
extrinsecally
;
not
primarily
,
but
secundarily
;
not
directly
,
but
ex
consequenti
;
not
sub
formalitate
scandali
,
sed
sub
formalitate
criminis
,
not
under
the
notion
of
scandall
,
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
prot●cting
the
Church
from
danger
,
harme
,
or
mol●station
,
in
putting
a
hook
in
the
nostrils
,
and
a
bridle
in
the
mouthes
of
unruly
,
obstinate
,
and
contumacious
sinners
,
who
vexe
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
mean
while
not
depriving
the
Church
of
her
owne
int●insecall
power
and
Jurisdiction
,
but
making
it
rather
more
〈◊〉
by
the
aid
of
the
secular
power
.
And
so
much
of
the
corrective
part
of
the
Magistrates
administration
.
The
other
part
of
his
administration
in
reference
to
Religion
,
is
auxiliary
,
or
assistant
to
the
Church
.
For
the
Magistrate
watcheth
over
the
outward
businesse
of
the
Church
,
not
onely
by
troubling
those
persons
,
and
punishing
those
sins
that
trouble
the
Israel
of
God
;
but
by
administring
such
things
as
are
necessary
for
the
well
being
and
comfortable
subsistence
of
the
Church
,
and
for
that
end
,
doth
convocate
Synods
pro
re
nata
,
(
beside
the
ordinary
and
set
meetings
)
and
presideth
therein
(
if
he
please
)
in
externall
order
,
though
not
in
the
Synodicall
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
Common-wealth
.
The
Magistrate
ought
also
to
take
care
of
the
maintenance
of
the
Ministery
,
Schooles
,
poor
,
and
of
good
works
for
necessary
uses
,
that
Religion
and
Learning
may
not
want
their
necessary
adminicles
.
Finally
,
He
ought
to
take
care
that
all
Churches
be
provided
with
an
able
,
orthodox
,
and
Godly
Ministery
,
and
Schools
with
learned
and
well
qualified
Teachers
,
such
as
shall
be
best
approved
by
those
to
whom
it
belongeth
to
examine
and
Judge
of
their
qualifications
and
parts
.
And
all
these
wayes
the
Magistrate
ought
to
be
,
and
the
well
affected
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
onely
to
conserve
Justice
,
peace
and
order
in
the
Common-wealth
,
and
in
the
Church
,
as
it
is
in
the
Common-wealth
,
but
also
to
take
speciall
care
of
the
conservation
of
the
true
Reformed
Religion
,
and
of
the
Reformation
of
it
when
and
wherein
it
needeth
to
be
reformed
,
imperativè
,
not
elicitivè
.
The
Magistrate
saith
Dr.
Rivet
on
the
decalogue
,
pag.
262.
is
neither
to
administer
Word
,
nor
Sacraments
,
nor
Church
discipline
,
&c.
but
he
is
to
take
care
that
all
these
things
be
done
by
those
whom
God
hath
called
thereunto
.
What
ever
is
properly
spiritual
belonging
to
the
soul
and
inward
man
(
such
as
Church-censures
,
and
the
other
particulars
before
mentioned
)
cannot
be
actus
elicitus
of
the
Magistrate
:
The
Magistrate
can
neither
immediatione
suppositi
,
nor
immediatione
virtutis
,
determine
controversies
of
faith
,
ordain
Ministers
,
suspend
from
the
Sacraments
,
or
excommunicate
.
He
can
neither
doe
these
things
himself
;
nor
are
they
done
in
the
name
and
authority
of
the
Magistrate
or
by
any
Ministeriall
power
receeived
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
keyes
of
the
Kingdom
of
heaven
,
are
actus
imperati
of
the
Christian
Magistrate
,
and
that
both
antecedenter
and
consequenter
.
Antecedently
,
the
Magistrate
may
command
Church-officers
to
suspend
or
excommunicate
all
obstinate
and
scandalous
persons
:
he
may
command
the
Classis
to
ordain
able
and
godly
ministers
,
and
no
other
:
he
may
command
a
Synod
to
meet
,
to
debate
and
determine
such
or
such
a
controversie
.
Consequently
also
,
when
the
thing
is
examined
,
judged
,
resolved
,
or
done
by
the
Ecclesiasticall
power
,
the
Magistrate
hath
power
and
authority
to
adde
his
civil
sanction
confirmation
,
ot
ratification
,
to
make
the
Ecclesiasticall
sentence
to
be
obeyed
and
submitted
unto
by
all
whom
it
concerneth
.
In
all
which
the
Christian
Magistrate
doth
exceeding
much
for
the
conservation
and
purgation
of
Religion
:
not
eliciondo
actus
,
doing
or
exercising
by
himself
or
by
his
owne
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
ruling
Officers
of
the
Church
assembled
together
;
In
administring
therefore
that
which
concerneth
Religion
and
peoples
spirituall
good
,
the
Magistrate
not
onely
juvatur
,
but
dirigitur
,
is
not
onely
helped
,
but
directed
by
the
Ecclesiastical
directive
power
;
Fest.
Hon.
Disp.
30.
Thes.
6.
Magistracy
may
say
to
Ministery
as
Moses
said
to
Hobab
;
Thou
mayest
be
to
us
in
stead
of
eyes
.
Ad
sacrae
Religionis
informationem
,
fid●…lis
Magistratus
verbi
divini
administris
,
veluti
oculis
,
uti
debet
;
and
for
that
end
he
is
to
make
use
of
consistoriall
and
Synodicall
Assemblies
say
the
Professors
of
L●…yden
,
Synopspur
.
〈◊〉
.
Disp.
50.
Thes.
44.
But
the
coercive
part
,
in
compelling
the
obstinate
and
unruly
,
to
submit
to
the
Presbyteriall
or
Synodicall
sentence
,
belongs
to
the
Magistrate
.
Not
as
if
the
Magistrate
had
nothing
to
do
,
but
to
be
an
executioner
of
the
pleasure
of
Church-officers
,
or
as
if
he
were
by
a
blind
and
implicite
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
compell
men
to
do
,
to
judge
of
it
,
not
onely
judicio
appreh●…nsivo
,
by
understanding
and
apprehending
●right
what
it
is
,
but
judicio
discretivo
,
by
the
judgement
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
doubtingly
,
adde
his
authority
thereto
.
In
which
judging
,
he
doth
Iudicare
,
but
not
Iudicem
agere
;
that
is
,
he
is
Iudex
suarum
actionum
,
he
judgeth
whether
he
ought
to
adde
his
civil
authority
to
this
or
that
which
seemeth
good
to
Church-officers
,
and
doth
not
concur
therewith
,
except
he
be
satisfied
in
his
Conscience
that
he
may
do
so
;
yet
this
makes
him
not
supreme
Judge
or
Governour
in
all
Ecclesiastical
causes
,
which
is
the
Prerogative
of
Jesus
Christ
,
revealing
his
will
in
his
word
:
nor
yet
doth
it
invest
the
Magistrate
with
the
subordinate
ministeriall
forensicall
directive
judgement
in
Ecclesiastical
things
or
causes
,
which
belongeth
to
Ecclesiasticall
not
to
civil
Courts
.
-
4.
Distinguish
between
a
Cumulative
and
a
Privative
authority
.
The
Mag●strate
hath
indeed
an
authoritative
influence
into
matters
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
officio
they
are
bound
to
do
;
and
when
they
do
so
,
he
aideth
,
assisteth
,
strengtheneth
,
ratifieth
,
and
in
his
way
,
maketh
effectuall
what
they
do
.
But
that
which
belongs
to
the
Magistrate
is
not
privative
,
in
reference
to
the
Ecclesiastical
Government
.
It
is
understood
salvo
jure
Ecclesiastico
:
for
the
Magistrate
is
a
nursing
Father
,
not
a
step
.
Father
to
the
Church
:
and
the
Magistrate
(
as
well
as
other
men
)
is
under
that
tye
;
2
Cor.
13.
8.
We
can
do
nothing
against
the
Truth
,
but
for
the
Truth
.
This
Proviso
therefore
is
justly
made
,
that
whatever
power
the
Magistrate
hath
in
matters
of
Religion
,
it
is
not
to
hinder
the
free
exercise
of
Church
discipline
and
censures
against
scandalous
and
obstinate
sinners
.
As
the
Casuists
in
other
cases
distinguish
Lucrum
cessans
,
and
damnum
emergens
,
so
must
we
distinguish
between
the
Magistrate
his
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
authorizing
,
and
his
forbidding
or
restraining
.
It
doth
properly
and
of
right
belong
to
the
Magistrate
to
adde
a
civil
sanction
and
strength
of
a
law
for
strengthning
and
aiding
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
authority
to
lay
bands
and
restraints
upon
Church-officers
to
hinder
any
of
Christs
ordinances
,
or
to
forbid
them
to
do
what
Christ
hath
given
them
a
commission
to
do
.
And
if
any
such
restraints
of
prohibitions
or
lawes
should
be
laid
on
us
,
we
ought
to
obey
God
rather
than
men
.
-
5.
Distingue
tempora
.
Whatever
belongs
to
the
Magistrate
in
matters
of
Religion
,
more
then
falls
under
the
former
distinctions
,
is
extraordinary
,
and
doth
not
belong
to
ordinary
Government
.
In
extraordinary
reformations
the
Magistrate
may
do
much
by
his
owne
immediate
authority
,
when
Synods
have
made
defection
either
from
the
truth
of
doctrine
,
or
from
holinesse
and
godlinesse
:
yet
in
such
a
case
he
ought
to
consult
with
such
orthodox
godly
Divines
as
can
be
had
,
either
in
his
owne
or
from
other
Dominions
.
Fest.
Hon.
Disp.
30.
Thes.
5.
And
so
much
be
spoken
of
the
Magistrate
his
power
and
duty
in
things
and
causes
Ecclesiasticall
.
As
we
do
not
deny
to
the
Magistrate
any
thing
which
the
Word
of
God
doth
allow
him
,
so
we
dare
not
approve
his
going
beyond
the
bounds
and
limits
which
God
hath
set
him
.
And
I
pray
God
that
this
be
not
found
to
be
the
bottome
of
the
controversie
,
Whether
Magistracy
shall
be
an
arbitrary
Government
;
if
not
in
civil
,
yet
in
Ecclesiastical
things
?
Whether
the
Magistrate
may
do
,
or
appoint
to
be
done
in
the
matter
of
Church-Government
,
admission
to
,
or
exclusion
from
the
Ordinances
of
Christ
,
what
ever
shall
seem
good
in
his
eyes
?
And
whether
in
purging
of
the
Church
he
is
obliged
to
follow
the
rules
of
Scripture
,
and
to
consult
with
learned
and
godly
Ministers
?
although
Erastus
himself
(
as
is
before
observed
)
and
Sutlivius
(
a
great
follower
of
him
)
de
Presbyt.
cap.
8.
are
ashamed
of
,
and
do
disclaim
such
assertions
.
CHAP.
IX
.
That
by
the
Word
of
God
there
ought
to
be
another
Government
beside
Magistracy
●r
Civil
Goveram●nt
,
●amely
an
Ecclesiastical
Government
(
properly
so
call●d
)
in
the
hands
of
Church-offic●rs
.
THis
Question
hath
arisen
from
Mr.
Colemans
third
and
fourth
rule
which
he
offered
to
the
Parliament
,
excluding
all
Government
of
Church-officers
,
Ministers
and
Elders
;
that
is
,
as
he
expounds
himself
all
corrective
government
,
leaving
them
no
power
except
what
is
meerly
doctrinal
,
and
appropriating
all
government
properly
so
called
to
the
Magistrate
onely
.
Mr.
Hussey
following
him
falls
in
the
same
ditch
with
him
.
The
Question
is
not
whether
Church-officers
ought
to
have
any
share
in
the
Civil
Government
?
Nor
whether
Church-officers
may
have
any
Lordly
government
or
imperious
domination
over
the
Lords
heritage
?
Nor
whether
Church-Officers
may
exercise
an
arbitrary
irregular
Government
,
and
rule
as
themselves
list
?
God
forbid
.
But
the
Question
plainly
is
,
Whether
there
may
not
,
yea
ought
not
to
be
in
the
Church
a
Ministeriall
or
Ecclesiastical
Government
properly
so
called
,
beside
the
civil
Government
or
Magistracy
.
Mr.
Coleman
did
,
and
Mr.
Hussey
doth
hold
there
ought
not
.
I
hold
there
ought
:
and
I
shall
propound
for
the
affirmative
these
Arguments
.
The
first
Argument
I
draw
from
1
Tim.
5.
17.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
Elders
that
rule
well
.
Mr.
Hussey
pag.
8.
askes
whether
the
word
Elder
be
prima
,
or
secunda
notio
.
If
prima
notio
,
why
must
not
Elder
women
be
Church-officers
as
well
as
Elder
men
?
If
secunda
notio
for
a
ruling
Officer
,
Parliament
men
,
Kings
and
all
Civil
Governours
are
such
Elders
.
I
know
no
use
which
that
distinction
of
prima
and
secunda
notio
hath
in
this
place
,
except
to
let
us
know
that
he
understands
these
Logicall
termes
.
Egregiam
vero
laudem
.
He
might
have
saved
himself
the
labour
,
for
who
knowes
not
Hieromes
distinction
?
Elder
is
either
a
word
of
age
or
of
office
:
but
in
Ecclesiasticall
use
it
is
a
word
of
office
.
Mr.
Husseys
first
notion
concerning
Elder
women
is
no
masculine
notion
.
His
second
notion
is
an
anti-parliamentary
notion
.
For
the
honourable
Houses
of
Parliament
in
the
first
words
of
their
Ordinance
concerning
ordination
of
Ministers
have
declared
,
that
by
the
word
of
God
a
Bishop
and
a
Presbyter
or
Elder
are
all
one
;
for
thus
beginneth
the
Ordinance
,
Whereas
the
word
Presbyter
,
that
is
to
say
Elder
,
and
the
word
Bishop
,
do
in
the
Scripture
intend
and
signifie
one
and
the
same
function
,
&c.
Therefore
Parliament
men
and
civil
Governors
cannot
be
the
Elders
mentioned
by
the
Apostle
Paul
,
except
Mr.
Hussey
make
them
Bishops
,
and
invest
them
with
power
of
ordination
.
Besides
this
,
if
Kings
and
Parliament
men
be
such
Elders
as
are
mentioned
in
this
Text
,
then
the
Ministers
of
the
Word
must
have
not
onely
an
equall
share
in
Government
,
but
more
honour
and
maintenance
then
Kings
and
Parliament
men
.
See
how
well
Mr.
Hussey
pleadeth
for
Christian
Magistracy
:
It
is
also
an
anti-Scripturall
notion
,
for
some
of
those
Elders
that
ruled
well
,
did
labour
in
the
Word
and
Doctrine
,
as
Paul
tells
us
in
the
very
same
place
;
these
(
sure
)
are
not
civil
Governours
.
Wherefore
Mr.
Hussey
must
seek
a
third
notion
before
he
hit
the
Apostles
meaning
.
It
is
not
hujus
loci
to
debate
from
this
Text
the
distinction
of
two
sorts
of
Elders
;
though
among
all
the
answers
which
ever
I
heard
or
read
,
Mr.
Husseys
is
the
weakest
,
pag.
11.
that
by
Elders
that
labour
in
the
Word
and
Doctrine
,
are
meant
those
Ministers
whose
excellencie
lies
in
Doctrine
and
instruction
,
and
that
by
Elders
that
rule
,
are
meant
those
that
give
reproof
.
He
contradistinguisheth
a
reproving
minister
from
a
minister
labouring
in
the
Word
and
Doctrine
.
The
very
reproof
given
by
a
minister
will
be
,
(
it
seemes
)
at
last
challenged
as
an
act
of
government
.
It
is
as
wide
from
the
mark
,
that
he
will
have
the
two
sorts
of
Elders
to
differ
thus
,
that
the
one
must
governe
and
not
preach
,
the
other
must
preach
and
not
govern
;
not
observing
that
the
Text
makes
ruling
to
be
common
to
both
.
The
one
doth
both
rule
and
labour
in
the
Word
and
Doctrine
:
The
other
ruleth
one
y
,
and
is
therefore
called
ruling
Elder
,
non
quia
solus
praeest
,
sed
quia
solum
praeest
.
But
to
let
all
these
things
be
laid
aside
as
heterogeneous
to
this
present
Argument
:
the
point
is
,
here
are
Rulers
in
the
Church
who
are
no
civil
Rulers
.
Yea
this
my
Argument
from
this
Text
was
clearly
yeelded
by
Mr.
Coleman
in
his
Maledicis
pag.
8.
But
I
will
deal
clearly
saith
he
,
these
Officers
are
Ministers
,
which
are
instituted
not
here
,
but
else-where
;
and
those
are
the
Rulers
here
mentioned
.
Ergo
,
he
yeeldeth
Ecclesiastical
rulers
(
and
those
instituted
)
distinct
from
Magistracy
.
Neither
is
it
a
Lordly
but
a
ministeriall
ruling
of
which
our
Question
is
.
For
my
part
saith
Mr.
Hussey
,
I
know
not
how
Lordship
and
Government
doth
differ
one
from
another
.
Then
every
Governour
of
a
ship
must
be
a
lord
.
Then
every
Steward
of
a
great
house
must
be
lord
of
the
House
.
There
is
an
oeconomicall
or
ministerial
government
,
and
of
that
we
mean
.
My
second
Argument
I
take
from
1
Thes.
5.
12.
And
we
beseech
you
brethren
to
know
them
which
labour
among
you
,
and
are
over
you
in
the
Lord
,
and
admonish
you
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
qui
praesunt
vobis
.
Hence
doth
Calvin
conclude
[
e
](A42757-e58900-b)
e
Praesunt
in
Domino
.
Hoc
additum
videtur
ad
notandum
spirituale
regimen
.
Tametsi
enim
Reges
quoque
&
Magistrátus
Dei
ordinatione
praesunt
,
quia
tamen
Ecclesiae
gubernationem
Dominus
peculialiter
vult
suam
agnosci
,
ideo
nominatim
praeesse
in
Domino
dieuntur
,
qui
Christi
nomine
&
mandato
Ecclesiam
gu-bernant
.
a
Church
Government
distinct
from
civil
government
,
for
this
is
a
spirituall
Government
,
it
is
in
the
Lord
,
that
is
in
the
name
of
the
Lord
,
or
(
as
others
)
in
things
pertaining
to
God
.
Hence
also
Beza
argueth
against
Episcopall
Government
;
because
the
Elders
in
the
Apostolique
Churches
did
govern
in
common
.
But
saith
Mr.
Hussey
pag.
18.
Pasor
telleth
us
that
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
with
a
genitive
case
signifieth
praecedo
,
and
then
it
signifieth
no
more
but
them
that
go
before
you
,
either
by
Doctrine
or
example
.
I
answer
first
to
the
matter
,
next
to
the
force
of
the
Word
.
For
the
matter
,
certainly
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
or
ruling
power
of
ministers
,
is
not
meerly
doctrinall
or
perswasive
,
as
is
manifest
by
1
Tim.
5.
17.
where
those
who
are
not
convinced
of
two
sorts
of
Elders
,
are
yet
fully
convinced
of
two
sorts
of
acts
,
the
act
of
ruling
,
and
the
act
of
teaching
.
Whatsoever
that
Text
hath
more
in
it
,
or
hath
not
,
this
it
hath
,
that
those
who
labour
in
the
Word
and
Doctrine
,
are
Rulers
;
but
they
are
more
especially
to
be
honoured
for
their
labouring
in
the
Word
and
Doctrine
.
Next
,
as
to
the
force
of
the
Word
,
if
it
be
true
which
Mr.
Hussey
here
saith
,
then
the
English
Translators
that
read
are
over
you
;
Calvin
,
Beza
,
Bullinger
,
Gualther
,
and
others
that
here
follow
Hierome
,
and
read
praesunt
vobis
;
Arias
Montanus
who
reads
praesidentes
vobis
,
have
not
well
understood
the
Greek
.
But
if
Mr.
Hussey
would
needs
correct
all
these
and
many
more
,
Why
did
he
not
at
least
produce
some
instances
to
shew
us
where
the
words
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
or
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
or
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
or
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
or
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
are
used
for
no
more
,
but
a
meer
going
before
,
either
by
doctrine
or
example
,
without
any
power
or
authority
of
Government
.
Yea
if
this
here
be
no
more
but
a
going
before
either
by
Doctrine
or
example
,
then
every
good
Christian
who
goeth
before
others
by
good
example
is
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
;
Neither
will
that
of
the
genitive
case
help
him
,
for
see
the
like
1
Tim.
3.
4.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
one
that
ruleth
well
his
owne
house
,
Mr.
Hussey
will
make
it
no
more
but
this
,
one
that
goeth
before
his
owne
house
,
by
teaching
them
,
or
by
giving
them
good
example
,
though
the
very
next
words
tell
us
there
is
more
in
it
,
and
that
is
authoritative
government
,
having
his
children
in
subjection
.
So
vers.
12.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
ruling
their
children
well
.
Pasor
is
not
at
all
against
my
sence
,
but
for
it
:
for
if
Mr.
Hussey
will
make
Pasor
to
say
that
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
with
a
genitive
doth
never
signifie
any
more
but
praecedo
,
then
he
makes
him
to
say
both
that
which
is
manifestly
false
,
and
in
so
saying
to
contradict
himself
,
for
Pasor
tells
us
also
,
the
word
signifieth
praesum
,
and
for
that
he
cites
1
Tim.
3.
4.
where
it
is
with
a
genitive
.
Sometime
indeed
with
a
genitive
it
may
be
turned
praecedo
,
as
Pasor
saith
,
but
he
citeth
onely
Tit.
3.
8.
where
it
is
not
Genitivus
personae
(
as
1
Thes.
5.
but
rei
;
and
we
may
also
read
praestare
,
as
A.
Montanus
to
excell
or
be
chief
in
good
works
,
or
to
maintain
,
as
our
books
have
it
.
But
furthermore
I
shall
offer
for
answer
to
Mr.
Hussey
the
observation
of
an
excellent
Grecian
.
It
is
[
f
](A42757-e59400-b)
f
Et
hoc
nomine
differt
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
a
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
quod
haec
praesidentiam
cùm
potestate
,
sive
praeposituram
cum
jurisdictione
ac
coercitione
●ibuat
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
vero
ut
in
loco
quis
sit
priore
collocatus
,
tantum
efficit
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Hesychius
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
interpretatur
gubérnationem
vel
administrationem
.
Et
notum
qui
dicerentur
proprie
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
in
Republica
Atheniensium
.
Salmasius
de
primatu
Papae
,
pag.
18
,
19.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
to
speak
properly
,
is
another
thing
then
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
:
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
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
are
also
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Yea
they
have
the
very
names
of
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
or
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
(
if
you
look
to
the
native
Etymologie
of
the
words
)
from
their
precedence
or
standing
before
,
even
as
Antistites
quasi
ante
stantes
,
and
praetor
quasi
praeitor
:
such
names
being
chosen
(
for
mollifying
and
dulcifying
of
Government
)
as
might
hold
forth
precedence
,
rather
then
high
sounding
names
of
power
and
authority
.
I
shall
adde
but
two
testimonies
of
ancient
Grecians
:
Plato
Epist.
7.
near
the
end
:
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Or
if
he
that
ruleth
some
great
City
,
and
such
as
hath
the
dominion
over
many
smaller
Cities
,
should
unjustly
distribute
to
his
owne
City
the
means
and
substance
of
those
lesser
Cities
.
Dionysius
Areopagita
Epist.
8.
speaking
of
Moses
his
supreme
power
of
rule
and
government
over
Israel
,
which
was
envyed
by
Korah
and
his
faction
,
calls
it
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Well
:
Mr.
Hussey
will
try
if
his
Logick
can
help
him
,
if
his
Greek
cannot
.
Whatsoever
this
person
is
that
is
to
be
beloved
,
ho
is
supposed
not
instituted
in
this
place
,
the
subject
is
supposed
not
handled
in
any
Science
.
The
like
he
saith
afterward
pag.
22.
that
we
cannot
prove
from
1
Cor.
5.
that
Paul
did
institute
excommunication
,
but
at
most
that
he
supposed
an
Institution
.
For
my
part
,
that
Scripture
which
supposeth
an
Institution
,
shall
to
me
prove
an
Institution
;
for
I
am
sure
that
which
any
Scripture
supposeth
,
must
be
true
.
And
herein
as
I
take
it
,
Mr.
Coleman
would
have
said
as
I
say
,
for
in
his
fourth
rule
he
proved
the
Institution
of
Magistracy
from
Rom.
13.
yec
Magistracy
is
not
instituted
in
that
place
,
but
supposed
to
be
instituted
.
A
third
Argument
I
take
from
Hebr.
13
7.
Remember
them
which
have
the
rule
over
you
,
who
have
spoken
unto
you
the
Word
of
God
:
Vers.
17.
Obey
them
that
have
the
rule
over
you
,
and
submit
your selves
:
for
they
watch
for
your
soules
,
as
they
that
must
give
an
account
.
Bullinger
and
Gualther
referre
this
17th
.
verse
both
to
Magistracy
and
Ministery
,
and
so
far
they
are
ours
,
in
sharing
the
rule
and
government
between
both
,
and
in
making
obedience
due
to
both
.
But
Calvin
and
many
others
doe
better
expound
the
Text
of
Ecclesiasticall
Rulers
or
Governours
onel
:
wherein
Salmasius
followeth
the
Greek
Scholiasts
,
who
expound
the
Text
of
Bishops
or
Elders
who
did
in
common
govern
the
Church
.
See
Walo
Messal
.
pag.
137.
138.
That
it
is
not
spoken
of
civil
but
of
Ecclesiastical
rulers
,
may
thus
appear
:
beside
that
it
were
hard
to
take
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
in
the
17th
.
verse
in
another
sence
then
it
hath
verse
7.
or
the
Rulers
that
watch
for
the
soule
,
vers.
17.
to
be
any
other
,
then
the
rulers
that
had
spoken
the
Word
of
God
,
vers.
7.
it
is
further
to
be
noted
that
the
Apostle
speaks
of
such
Rulers
as
the
beleeving
Hebrewes
had
at
that
time
,
as
is
evident
by
vers.
24.
Salute
all
them
[
g
](A42757-e59850-b)
g
Aretius
comment
.
in
Hebr.
13.
14.
Primum
Apostolus
salutat
suo
nomine
ipsorum
praepositos
,
hoc
est
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
quo
nomine
intelligo
tum
Ministros
,
tum
etiam
Seniores
,
qui
reliquos
auctoritate
regebant
,
&
in
officio
detinebant
.
that
have
the
rule
over
you
,
and
all
the
Saints
,
and
those
Rulers
did
watch
for
their
soules
.
But
they
had
no
Christian
or
godly
Magistrates
that
watched
for
their
soules
,
or
whom
the
Apostle
would
thus
salute
with
the
Saints
.
But
the
word
is
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
saith
Mr.
Hussey
pag.
18.
which
is
ducum
,
them
that
lead
you
.
The
Apostle
hath
indeed
chosen
a
word
free
of
ambition
,
yet
saith
Beza
,
auctoritatis
maximae
,
it
is
a
word
of
the
greatest
authority
.
The
Syriack
hath
the
same
word
here
,
by
which
he
rendreth
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
1
Cor.
12.
28.
And
if
you
consult
the
Septuagints
,
the
Word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
except
very
rarely
where
it
signifieth
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
seu
viae
ducem
(
and
then
,
to
speak
properly
,
subjection
and
obedience
is
not
due
to
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
)
as
Exod.
23.
23.
where
yet
it
was
an
Angel
that
was
the
guide
,
and
so
not
without
authority
:
they
do
usually
and
in
innumerable
places
use
this
word
to
expresse
one
invested
with
power
and
authority
of
Government
;
and
the
same
Hebrew
words
which
they
render
by
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
are
likewise
by
by
them
translated
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
;
all
which
are
names
of
superiority
,
command
,
and
government
:
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
the
Governour
,
is
Pilates
highest
Title
,
Matth.
27.
2.
And
Erastus
,
lib.
5.
cap.
2.
pag.
312
,
saith
,
The
Magistrates
of
the
Gentiles
were
called
by
the
names
of
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Now
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
are
the
same
in
signification
.
Stephen
in
Theslinguae
Gr.
citeth
out
of
Plutarch
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
;
and
tells
us
that
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
with
a
Genitive
,
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
generally
is
used
for
praesum
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
is
Iosephs
greatest
Title
,
to
expresse
his
government
over
Egypt
,
Acts
7.
10.
yea
,
Christ
himself
is
called
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
to
expresse
his
governing
or
ruling
power
over
his
Church
,
Matth.
2.
6.
Salmasius
doth
at
once
shew
us
,
both
that
the
Apostle
means
the
Elders
of
the
Church
under
the
name
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
and
that
the
same
name
is
used
for
civil
Magistrates
,
yea
Emperours
.
See
Walo
Messal
.
pag.
219
,
220.
Far
be
it
from
all
the
Ministers
of
Christ
,
to
arrogate
or
assume
any
such
dominion
as
belongs
to
the
civil
Magistrate
,
or
to
lord
it
over
the
Lords
Inheritance
.
Nay
,
here
that
rule
must
take
place
,
Luke
22.
26.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
he
that
is
chief
,
as
he
that
serveth
.
Onely
the
holy
Ghost
gives
to
Church-officers
those
names
of
authority
which
are
given
to
civil
Magistrates
,
thereby
to
teach
the
people
of
God
their
duty
,
and
that
there
is
another
Government
beside
the
civil
,
whereunto
they
ought
to
submit
and
obey
in
the
Lord
.
Master
Husseys
next
answer
is
,
that
where
our
Books
have
it
Obey
them
that
have
the
rule
over
you
,
the
word
is
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
which
is
no
more
but
Be
perswaded
.
For
proof
whereof
,
he
tells
us
out
of
Pasor
,
that
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
is
verbum
foreuse
,
a
word
whereby
the
Advocates
perswade
the
Judges
:
yet
we
cannot
say
that
the
Judges
obey
the
Advocates
.
I
answer
:
Let
him
make
of
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
what
he
can
;
the
passive
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
doth
frequently
signisie
I
obey
,
or
obtemper
:
For
which
signification
,
H.
Stephanus
in
the
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
citeth
out
of
Xenophon
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
:
out
of
Plutaroh
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
:
out
of
Plato
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
If
we
come
to
the
Scripture
phrase
,
I
am
sure
in
some
places
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
signifieth
a
thing
of
another
nature
,
then
to
be
perswaded
forensically
,
as
Iam.
3.
3
,
Behold
,
we
put
bits
in
the
horses
mouthes
,
that
they
may
obey
us
:
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
But
here
when
we
speak
of
the
obedience
of
Church-members
to
Church-officers
,
it
is
a
free
,
rational
,
willing
,
Christian
obedience
;
yet
obedience
it
is
which
we
owe
to
Spiritual
Rulers
,
as
well
as
that
which
we
owe
to
civil
Magistrates
.
Sure
Gualther
and
Bullinger
did
understand
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
here
to
be
more
then
be
perswaded
;
for
they
apply
this
Text
to
the
obedience
due
to
Magistrates
.
And
M.
Hussey
might
have
also
observed
that
Pasor
renders
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
by
pareo
,
obedio
;
for
which
he
citeth
Gal.
3.
1.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
not
to
obey
the
truth
.
And
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
he
renders
inobediens
,
refractarius
,
as
Rom.
1.
30.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
disobedient
to
parents
.
I
know
that
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
is
also
used
for
to
be
perswaded
;
but
I
verily
believe
M.
Hussey
is
the
first
man
that
ever
quarrelled
the
word
obey
in
this
Text
,
and
turned
it
to
be
no
more
but
be
perswaded
.
Yet
if
he
shall
well
observe
that
which
followeth
in
the
very
next
words
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
and
submit
your selves
(
which
in
Theodorets
opinion
noteth
here
intense
obedience
:
They
must
not
onely
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
yeeld
,
but
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
yeeld
with
subjection
and
submission
:
This
relateth
to
authority
;
nor
can
we
say
that
the
Judges
do
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
to
the
Advocates
,
nor
travellers
to
their
guides
)
he
himself
shall
be
perswaded
to
cast
away
this
glosse
,
and
to
seek
a
better
.
And
if
he
will
stand
to
it
,
he
shall
but
do
a
disservice
to
Magistracy
,
whiles
he
would
weaken
the
power
of
the
Ministery
:
for
though
there
be
much
in
the
New
Testament
concerning
subjection
or
submission
to
Magistrates
;
yet
the
clearest
,
fullest
,
yea
(
to
my
remembrance
)
the
onely
expresse
word
for
obedience
to
Magistrates
is
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
which
is
rightly
translated
in
our
Books
to
obey
Magistrates
:
but
Master
Hussey
will
make
it
no
more
,
but
to
be
perswaded
by
Magistrates
.
Yea
,
the
very
simple
and
uncompounded
Verb
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
▪
in
the
fore-cited
passages
of
Xenophon
and
Plutarch
is
used
where
they
speak
of
obedience
to
Magistrates
and
masters
.
If
this
must
fail
him
,
he
hath
yet
another
answer
:
Let
the
word
stand
,
saith
he
,
as
it
is
translated
obey
;
yet
it
is
not
alway
correlative
to
the
command
of
a
Superiour
:
and
the
holy
Ghost
requireth
obedience
here
,
not
by
an
argument
from
the
authority
of
him
that
leadeth
them
,
but
from
the
benefit
that
cometh
to
themselves
;
for
that
is
unprofitable
for
you
.
He
divideth
what
the
Apostle
joyneth
;
for
there
are
two
sorts
of
Arguments
in
the
Text
,
by
which
the
Apostle
perswadeth
them
to
this
obedience
:
one
is
taken
from
the
authority
of
the
Ministery
,
which
is
intimated
both
by
that
name
of
authority
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
and
by
their
subordination
or
submission
which
the
Apostle
calls
for
:
another
from
the
benefit
that
cometh
to
themselves
,
by
their
obedience
,
and
the
hurt
which
they
shall
do
to
themselves
by
their
disobedience
.
Both
these
Arguments
are
wrapt
up
in
these
words
,
For
they
watch
for
your
souls
,
which
is
the
very
same
with
that
Acts
20.
28.
To
all
the
flock
over
the
which
the
holy
Ghost
hath
made
you
overseers
.
The
Apostle
doth
also
perswade
Christians
to
be
subject
to
the
Magistrate
,
by
an
Argument
taken
from
the
benefit
that
cometh
to
themselves
,
Rom.
13.
4.
For
he
is
the
Minister
of
God
to
thee
for
good
:
yet
that
doth
not
weaken
but
rather
strengthen
the
Authority
of
the
Magistrate
.
The
fourth
Argument
shall
be
taken
from
1
Tim.
5.
19.
Against
an
Elder
receive
not
an
accusation
,
but
before
(
or
under
)
two
or
three
witnesses
.
Which
is
not
a
temporary
charge
laid
upon
Timothy
as
an
Evangelist
,
and
so
incompetent
to
ordinary
Ministers
:
for
it
is
joyned
with
the
rules
of
publike
Rebuking
,
of
laying
on
of
hands
,
not
partaking
of
other
mens
sins
,
and
such
like
things
which
are
of
ordinary
concernment
.
He
is
also
charged
to
keep
the
Commandment
till
the
appearing
of
Christ
,
1
Tim.
5.
14
,
which
cannot
be
otherwise
understood
then
as
spoken
to
him
in
reference
to
the
Ministery
.
Now
what
is
an
act
of
Government
,
if
this
be
not
,
to
receive
accusations
,
and
that
against
Elders
,
and
that
under
two
or
three
witnesses
?
The
Apostle
intendeth
here
the
avoiding
of
these
two
evils
;
first
,
upon
the
one
hand
,
because
veritas
odium
parit
,
and
Elders
doing
their
duty
faithfully
,
will
certainly
be
hated
,
and
slandered
,
and
evil
spoken
of
by
some
,
that
therefore
every
Diotrephes
pratling
against
a
servant
of
Christ
with
malicious
words
,
may
not
be
able
to
blast
his
Christian
reputation
and
good
name
:
Next
,
upon
the
other
part
,
because
the
offences
and
scandals
of
Elders
are
not
to
be
connived
at
,
but
to
be
aggravated
and
censured
,
more
then
the
offences
of
others
,
that
therefore
an
accusation
be
received
against
them
,
if
it
be
under
two
or
three
witnesses
.
Now
where
accusations
ought
to
be
received
,
and
that
under
two
or
three
witnesses
,
and
not
otherwise
(
with
special
charge
also
to
observe
these
things
,
without
partiality
,
or
preferring
one
before
another
,
vers.
21.
)
there
is
certainly
a
forensical
proceeding
,
and
a
corrective
Jurisdiction
or
Government
.
More
of
this
Argument
in
Malè
audis
,
pag.
14.
Fifthly
,
what
is
that
else
but
a
corrective
Jurisdiction
,
Tit.
3.
10.
A
man
that
is
an
heretick
,
after
the
first
and
second
admonition
,
reject
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
He
speaks
of
a
rejecting
of
persons
,
not
of
things
onely
;
and
of
such
a
rejecting
of
persons
,
as
cannot
be
understood
onely
of
that
avoiding
or
rejecting
,
by
which
every
private
Christian
ought
to
observe
,
and
avoid
,
and
not
receive
false
Teachers
,
but
of
a
publike
Ministerial
or
Consistorial
rejecting
of
an
Heretick
,
by
cutting
him
off
,
or
casting
him
out
of
the
Church
.
It
is
a
Canon
de
Judiciis
Ecclesiasticis
,
saith
Tossanus
upon
the
the
place
.
This
the
Greek
will
easily
admit
:
for
Stephanus
in
Thesauro
linguae
Gr.
tells
us
that
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
or
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
is
used
for
recuse
,
aversor
,
repudio
;
and
citeth
out
of
Plutarch
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
to
repudiate
or
put
away
a
wife
.
As
here
also
we
may
read
,
A
man
that
is
an
Heretick
,
after
the
first
and
second
admonition
,
repudiate
or
put
away
;
though
the
word
reject
doth
also
bear
the
same
sence
.
And
as
the
Greek
will
admit
it
,
so
I
have
these
reasons
to
confirm
it
,
which
shall
suffice
for
the
present
.
(
He
that
pleaseth
,
may
read
a
large
Discourse
concerning
the
censure
of
Hereticks
,
in
Claudius
Espencaeus
upon
this
place
.
)
First
,
The
Apostles
scope
is
not
to
hold
forth
the
common
duties
of
all
Christians
,
except
ex
consequenti
:
but
his
primary
intention
all
along
in
that
Epistle
,
is
to
instruct
Titus
concerning
the
ordering
and
governing
of
the
Church
,
Chap.
1.
vers.
5.
Secondly
,
there
must
be
a
first
and
second
admonition
,
before
the
Heretick
be
thus
rejected
.
This
rejecting
is
not
for
his
dangerous
and
false
Doctrine
,
simply
or
by
it self
considered
,
but
for
his
contumacy
and
incorrigiblenesse
.
But
private
Christians
ought
to
observe
by
the
judgement
of
private
discretion
,
and
ought
in
prudence
and
caution
to
avoid
all
familiar
fellowship
and
conversation
with
a
man
that
is
an
Heretick
,
though
he
hath
not
yet
gotten
a
first
and
second
admonition
:
Matth.
7.
15
,
16.
Beware
of
false
Prophets
which
come
to
you
in
●…eeps
clothing
,
but
inwardly
they
are
ravening
Wolves
.
Ye
shall
know
them
by
their
fruits
.
Thirdly
,
the
admonition
in
the
Text
is
a
publike
authoritative
or
ministerial
admonition
,
after
that
thou
(
Titus
)
hast
once
and
again
admonished
him
saith
the
Syriack
:
therefore
the
rejecting
must
also
be
publick
and
ministerial
.
Fourthly
,
[
h
](A42757-e61390-b)
h
Zach
Ursinus
Tom.
3.
pag.
769.
Object
.
1.
Tantum
praecipit
ministro
ut
eum
sugiat
ergo
non
excommunicantus
.
Resp.
Negatur
antecedens
quia
non
vult
de
una
&
eadem
re
,
vel
persona
,
contraria
judicia
esse
aut
pugnantes
sententias
.
Ergo
dum
vult
ut
Haereticum
pro
everso
habeat
minister
,
non
vult
ut
reliqui
in
Ecclesia
habeant
eum
pro
stante
.
Object
.
2.
Sed
non
jubet
excommunicari
.
Resp.
Iubet
,
quia
vult
illum
pro
everso
&
suopte
judicio
condemnato
haberi
.
Ergo
non
est
Ecclesiae
membrum
,
&
alibi
docet
judicium
hoc
debere
fieri
ordinario
&
legitimo
consensu
Ecclesiae
.
This
rejecting
of
an
Heretick
is
the
last
act
,
when
he
appears
incorrigible
.
We
find
before
chap.
1.
vers.
13.
Rebuke
them
sharply
;
and
chap.
2.
vers.
15.
Rebuke
with
all
authority
.
But
now
when
the
Apostle
saith
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
reject
,
this
is
a
higher
degree
.
and
this
(
much
more
)
must
be
with
all
authority
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
which
words
compare
with
1
Cor.
7.
25.
where
the
Apostle
opposeth
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
commandement
,
and
opinion
or
judgement
.
From
all
which
it
will
appear
,
that
this
rejecting
of
an
Heretick
by
Titus
and
others
joyned
with
him
in
the
Government
of
the
Church
,
was
an
authoritative
and
Juridical
act
,
and
the
judgement
thereupon
decisive
,
not
consultative
onely
.
Fifthly
,
Look
by
what
authority
Elders
were
ordained
,
by
the
same
authority
they
were
for
heresie
(
maintained
with
contumacy
)
rejected
:
for
the
Apostle
committeth
into
the
same
hands
,
the
ordaining
of
Elders
,
and
the
rejecting
of
Hereticks
;
compare
Tit.
3.
10.
with
Tit.
1.
5.
Now
the
ordination
was
by
the
Presbyterie
:
1
Tim.
4.
14.
Therefore
so
was
the
rejection
.
I
conclude
with
the
Dutch
Annotations
upon
Tit.
3.
10.
reject
.
i.
e.
Have
no
communion
with
him
.
Let
him
go
without
disputing
any
further
with
him
,
and
casting
the
holy
things
before
such
dogs
.
Matth.
7.
6.
Let
him
not
remain
in
the
outward
communion
of
the
Church
.
The
sixth
Argument
I
draw
from
1
Cor.
5.
12.
Do
not
ye
judge
them
that
are
within
?
Vers.
13.
Therefore
put
away
from
among
your selves
that
wicked
person
.
2
Cor.
2.
6.
Sufficient
to
such
a
man
is
this
punishment
(
or
censure
.
)
which
was
inflicted
of
many
.
Here
is
an
Ecclesiastical
judging
,
not
by
the
judgement
of
private
Christian
discretion
onely
(
for
so
they
judged
those
also
that
were
without
)
but
an
authoritative
corrective
Judgement
,
by
which
a
scandalous
brother
,
a
rotten
member
,
like
to
infect
other
members
,
is
put
away
from
among
the
people
of
God
.
And
this
Judgement
was
made
,
sentence
given
,
and
censure
inflicted
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
by
many
,
that
is
not
by
all
,
but
by
the
Elders
of
that
Church
saith
Walaeus
,
Tom.
1.
pag.
468
,
or
you
may
read
by
the
chiefest
;
So
Piscator
and
Heinsius
upon
the
place
.
The
sence
is
all
one
,
as
if
the
Apostle
had
said
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
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
corrective
Church-government
?
As
for
Mr.
Colemans
answer
that
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
amounts
to
no
more
but
an
objurgation
,
I
have
fully
confuted
that
in
Male
audis
pag.
12.
13.
14.
which
I
will
not
resume
.
But
beside
all
I
said
there
,
I
add
somewhat
which
I
have
since
observed
.
Zonaras
in
Conc.
Antioch
.
can
.
22.
useth
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
for
to
be
punished
or
censured
:
and
in
Conc.
Carthag
.
can
.
49.
he
calls
the
man
who
is
under
Church-censure
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Balsamon
in
Conc.
Carthag
.
can
.
46.
calls
him
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Both
of
them
do
often
use
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
for
Church-censure
,
as
in
the
place
last
cited
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Yea
the
Councell
of
Antioch
held
under
Constantius
,
useth
Pauls
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
to
expresse
Ecclesiasticall
censure
,
and
an
act
of
corrective
government
.
Can.
3.
It
is
said
of
him
that
receiveth
a
Presbyter
or
Deacon
being
justly
deposed
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
ille
quoque
à
communi
Synodo
puniatur
,
ut
qui
Ecclesiastica
statuta
dissolvat
.
Ibid.
Can.
22.
A
Bishop
is
prohibit
to
ordain
within
the
charge
of
another
Bishop
,
unlesse
that
other
Bishop
consent
.
But
if
any
presume
to
do
such
a
thing
,
let
the
ordination
be
void
or
null
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
&
ipse
a
Synodo
puniatur
,
and
let
himself
be
punished
by
the
Synod
:
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
saith
Balsamen
,
how
they
should
be
punished
who
ordain
without
the
bounds
of
their
owne
charge
,
and
without
consent
of
him
whose
charge
it
is
,
may
be
learned
from
other
Canons
.
Where
you
see
he
understands
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
to
agree
in
signification
with
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
which
is
punishment
.
The
sixth
general
Councel
Can.
60.
useth
the
verb
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
for
suffering
punishment
,
adding
also
by
way
of
explanation
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
to
be
subject
to
afflictions
and
labours
.
Seventhly
,
We
have
an
Argument
from
1
Cor.
14.
32
,
33.
And
the
Spirits
of
the
Prophets
are
subject
to
the
Prophets
;
for
God
is
not
the
Author
of
confusion
,
but
of
peace
,
as
in
all
Churches
of
the
Saints
.
The
Apostle
is
giving
such
rules
and
directions
concerning
prophecying
or
interpretation
of
Scripture
,
that
upon
the
one
hand
there
may
be
a
liberty
to
all
the
Prophets
to
prophecy
,
and
that
the
Church
may
be
edified
by
the
gifts
of
all
,
and
that
for
that
end
one
ought
to
give
place
to
another
:
upon
the
other
hand
,
that
a
boundlesse
liberty
and
confusion
,
and
immunity
from
censure
,
may
not
be
introduced
into
the
Church
:
To
this
latter
branch
belongs
vers.
29.
32.
33.
Let
the
Prophets
speak
two
or
three
,
and
let
the
other
judge
.
He
will
have
two
,
or
at
most
three
Prophets
to
speak
in
one
Congregation
,
at
one
diet
or
time
of
assembling
:
and
those
Prophets
,
saith
he
,
must
be
[
i
](A42757-e62160-b)
i
Aegid
.
Hunnius
in
1
Cor.
14.
32.
Paulus
hanc
regulam
praescribit
,
ut
spiritus
Prophetarum
Prophetis
subjiciantur
,
id
est
▪
ut
is
qui
prophetas
,
non
du●…itet
,
sermonem
&
concionem
suam
censurae
judicioque
reliquorum
concionatorum
subjicere
.
examined
,
judged
,
and
censured
by
the
other
Prophets
:
for
the
Spirits
of
the
Prophets
are
subject
to
the
Prophets
,
that
is
,
every
particular
Prophet
distributively
,
is
subject
to
all
the
Prophets
collectively
,
or
to
the
colledge
of
Prophets
(
add
,
and
of
other
spirituall
persons
intrusted
with
the
government
of
the
Church
,
together
with
the
Prophets
,
as
from
vers.
37.
and
Gal.
6.
1.
is
well
observed
by
our
Country-man
Mr.
Dickson
upon
this
place
)
.
Therefore
Walaeus
Tom.
1
pag.
468.
doth
rightly
collect
from
this
place
an
authority
of
Church-Government
.
Protestant
Writers
prove
hence
the
authority
of
General-Councels
above
the
Pope
:
and
that
the
Pope
is
a
false
Prophet
,
because
he
refuseth
to
be
subject
to
the
Prophets
.
Iunius
in
divers
places
,
applieth
this
Text
to
the
authority
of
Presbyteries
and
Synods
.
Gualther
upon
the
place
applyeth
it
against
the
Pope
who
will
judge
all
men
,
and
be
judged
of
no
man
;
whereas
(
saith
he
)
the
Apostle
here
will
have
no
man
how
eminent
soever
,
to
be
free
from
censure
,
when
he
is
censurable
.
So
then
we
have
in
this
Text
a
subjection
,
and
an
authority
of
judging
and
censuring
.
And
this
Judgement
which
the
Apostle
here
speaks
of
,
is
neither
the
Judgement
of
the
civil
Magistrate
,
nor
the
Judgement
of
discretion
common
to
the
whole
Church
,
but
it
is
the
Judgement
or
censure
of
Prophets
,
and
that
not
School-wise
according
to
Mr.
Husseys
notion
of
Schooles
,
that
is
by
the
Prophets
disputing
a
man
out
of
his
error
,
and
no
more
,
no
vote
,
no
decision
,
no
result
,
except
he
that
hath
taught
an
error
do
agree
to
the
arguments
of
the
other
Prophets
,
and
so
all
end
in
a
brotherly
accord
,
and
in
the
unanimous
consent
of
the
whole
Clergy
(
for
so
doth
he
advise
the
Parliament
)
so
that
he
shall
be
no
more
subject
to
all
the
Prophets
,
then
all
the
Prophets
to
him
.
Yea
in
Mr.
Husseys
sence
the
Pope
will
not
refuse
to
be
subject
to
a
Councel
of
Prophets
,
and
then
Protestant
Writers
have
been
far
out
of
their
way
,
who
have
disputed
against
the
Pope
from
this
Text
,
supposing
it
to
hold
forth
a
binding
authoritative
Judgement
of
the
Prophets
,
whereunto
any
one
Prophet
is
bound
to
be
subject
,
the
Judgement
of
his
private
discretion
being
alwaies
reserved
to
him
,
that
he
give
not
blind
obedience
.
Eighthly
,
I
argue
from
Revel.
2.
14.
20.
The
Lord
Jesus
reproveth
the
Angel
of
the
Church
in
Pergamus
for
suffering
those
that
taught
the
doctrine
of
Balaam
,
and
the
Angel
of
the
Church
in
Thyatira
for
suffering
Iezebel
which
called
her self
a
Prophetesse
,
to
seduce
his
people
.
The
fault
here
reproved
must
be
the
neglect
of
Church-censures
and
corrective
government
,
which
is
so
manifest
,
that
they
who
plead
most
for
liberty
of
Conscience
from
the
Magistrate
,
do
acknowledge
that
the
Angels
of
these
Churches
are
reproved
for
not
censuring
Ecclesiastically
those
that
did
thus
seduce
Gods
people
.
Neither
is
it
said
because
thou
art
silent
and
dost
not
reprove
nor
convince
;
but
because
thou
hast
there
them
that
hold
the
Doctrine
of
Balaam
:
that
is
,
because
thou
dost
not
cast
them
out
of
the
Church
,
that
they
may
not
hurt
others
.
So
the
English
Annotations
upon
the
place
,
referring
us
also
to
1
Cor.
5.
The
Angel
of
the
Church
was
guilty
in
this
,
that
those
who
had
so
much
scandalized
the
Church
by
their
Doctrine
,
were
still
in
the
Church
,
and
not
yet
cast
out
of
the
Church
.
And
who
can
imagine
that
the
Angels
of
those
Churches
whom
Christ
himself
commendeth
for
holding
fast
his
name
,
and
for
their
love
,
service
,
faith
,
and
patience
were
so
void
either
of
prudence
as
not
to
observe
,
or
of
zeal
,
as
not
to
gainsay
and
confute
by
sound
doctrine
those
soul
and
scandalous
errors
?
Certainly
their
sin
was
like
that
of
Eli
,
they
did
not
together
with
the
doctrinal
and
monitory
part
,
make
use
of
that
Jurisdiction
and
corrective
power
,
which
God
had
put
in
their
hands
.
Ninthly
,
We
have
another
Argument
from
1
Thess.
3.
14.
And
if
any
man
obey
not
our
word
by
this
Epistle
,
note
that
man
,
and
have
no
Company
with
him
,
that
he
may
be
ashamed
.
Here
the
Syriack
helpeth
us
much
.
And
if
any
man
obey
not
these
words
which
are
contained
in
this
Epistle
,
let
that
man
be
separated
from
you
,
neither
have
company
with
him
,
that
he
may
be
ashamed
.
Gualther
upon
the
place
saith
,
the
Apostle
speaks
de
disciplina
Ecclesiastica
,
what
discipline
they
ought
to
have
in
the
Church
,
and
the
end
thereof
.
So
Calvin
,
Beza
,
Piscator
,
Zanchius
,
Diodati
,
The
Dutch
Annotations
,
Gomarus
,
also
Mariana
,
Cajetan
,
Salmeron
,
Gorranus
,
Esthius
in
lib.
4.
Sent.
Dist.
19.
Sect.
7.
and
diverse
others
following
Augustine
,
Ambrose
,
Chrysostome
,
Theophylact
,
Theodoret
,
Aquinas
,
all
these
do
apply
it
to
Ecclesiasticall
discipline
and
censure
.
Some
controversie
there
is
whether
this
Text
reach
as
far
as
Excommunication
(
which
doth
not
belong
to
this
present
Argument
)
but
certainly
it
reacheth
to
a
publick
Church-censure
,
and
is
more
then
the
withdrawing
of
private
Company
and
Fellowship
,
either
because
of
personal
or
private
injuries
,
or
because
of
prophanesse
.
For
1.
the
offence
spoken
of
by
the
Apostle
is
not
a
matter
of
Civil
or
Personal
injury
,
but
of
scandal
;
he
speaks
of
idle
bodies
that
walked
disorderly
,
not
working
at
all
,
and
if
these
must
be
noted
and
separated
,
how
much
more
saith
Theoylact
.
those
who
commit
crimes
and
wickednesse
?
2.
Here
is
contumacy
added
to
the
offence
,
if
any
man
obey
not
our
word
by
this
Epistle
,
intimating
that
upon
occasion
of
this
Epistle
,
those
that
walked
disorderly
were
to
be
solemnly
admonished
,
and
required
to
work
in
quietnesse
,
and
to
eat
their
owne
bread
:
which
if
after
admonition
they
would
not
do
,
then
to
note
them
.
Aquinas
clears
it
by
1
Sam.
15.
23
-
for
rebellion
is
as
the
sin
of
witck-craft
,
and
stubbornesse
is
as
iniquity
and
as
idolatry
.
3.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
note
that
man
:
signate
(
as
Menochius
rendreth
it
)
rather
then
either
significate
or
notate
:
set
a
mark
upon
him
,
even
as
(
saith
Erasmus
)
we
set
a
mark
upon
pushing
oxen
that
we
may
avoid
them
;
which
agreeth
well
with
the
Syriack
,
Let
that
man
be
separated
from
you
:
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
is
some
what
more
then
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
The
latter
usually
signifieth
no
more
,
but
significo
,
indico
,
signum
do
:
but
the
former
is
signum
&
notam
imprimo
,
obsigno
,
insignio
.
The
Septuagints
make
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
to
answer
to
the
Hebrew
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
levavit
,
elevavit
,
sustulit
,
So
Psal.
4.
7.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
&c.
signatum
est
super
nos
:
that
is
,
the
light
of
thy
c
untenance
is
lifted
up
upon
us
examplarly
,
or
banner-wise
,
so
as
it
may
be
remarkeable
to
others
.
The
learned
Authors
of
the
Dutch
Annotations
upon
2
Thess.
3.
14.
tell
us
that
this
Greek
word
doth
not
properly
signifie
to
present
or
represent
one
,
but
to
note
one
and
mark
him
out
,
putting
some
ignominy
upon
him
,
or
outing
him
from
an
honourable
Congregation
,
and
marking
or
blotting
out
his
name
,
as
one
unworthy
of
that
honour
.
By
which
reason
,
as
likewise
by
that
which
followes
,
they
confute
those
who
construe
the
word
note
with
the
Word
Epistle
,
as
if
the
Apostle
had
said
,
note
or
present
me
such
a
one
by
a
letter
.
4.
Have
no
company
with
him
.
He
speaks
it
to
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
that
they
may
have
no
fellowship
with
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
he
will
have
those
that
walk
orderly
and
by
rule
,
to
have
no
company
with
those
that
walk
disorderly
.
Now
this
concerneth
the
whole
Church
equally
,
and
it
is
spoken
to
the
Church
,
for
what
reason
can
there
be
that
some
in
the
Church
should
have
no
company
with
one
,
because
of
his
scandalous
and
disorderly
walking
,
but
the
same
reason
will
make
the
whole
Church
to
have
no
company
with
him
?
there
may
be
divers
civil
respects
and
considerations
which
may
make
it
unfit
for
some
to
keep
familiar
civil
fellowship
,
which
respects
and
considerations
do
not
concern
others
.
But
the
avoyding
of
the
company
of
those
who
walk
scandalously
and
disorderly
,
and
that
because
they
walk
in
that
manner
,
and
further
adde
obstinacy
to
their
sin
after
publike
admonition
;
must
needs
belong
to
the
whole
Church
.
5.
Note
that
man
and
have
no
company
with
him
;
he
must
first
be
noted
,
before
he
be
avoyded
,
and
both
these
are
publick
Ecclesiastical
acts
:
for
it
was
far
from
the
Apostles
meaning
that
every
man
should
be
herein
left
to
his
liberty
;
he
that
pleaseth
to
note
him
and
have
no
company
with
him
,
well
and
good
;
he
that
pleaseth
not
,
shall
be
free
.
But
unlesse
there
be
an
Ecclesiastical
Judgement
and
censure
past
upon
such
a
one
,
every
one
had
been
left
to
his
liberty
.
6.
That
he
may
be
ashamed
:
this
as
it
is
the
end
of
Church-censures
,
so
it
will
be
attained
in
a
very
small
measure
,
and
perhaps
not
at
all
,
by
one
private
man
his
avoyding
the
company
of
another
,
which
will
not
make
the
offender
ashamed
,
abased
,
and
humbled
,
but
when
he
is
publikely
noted
,
and
when
the
Church
avoids
his
Company
,
that
is
it
which
most
covers
a
man
with
shame
and
confusion
of
face
.
Tenthly
,
The
Apostle
mentioneth
Ecclesiastical
Rulers
,
Rom.
12.
8.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
praefectus
,
or
qui
praeest
,
he
that
ruleth
,
that
is
,
the
ruling
Elder
.
He
is
making
an
enumeration
of
Ecclesiastical
offices
and
administrations
,
and
no
other
:
So
Calvin
,
Beza
,
Piscator
,
Martyr
,
Tossanus
,
Diodati
,
all
upon
the
place
,
and
Iunius
Eccles.
lib.
2.
cap.
1.
do
conceive
,
and
the
whole
context
and
the
allusion
to
the
severall
offices
of
severall
members
in
the
same
body
proveth
it
,
and
if
all
the
rest
be
Ecclesiastical
,
why
not
[
k
](A42757-e62920-b)
k
Musculus
upon
the
place
.
Habet
Ecclesia
quaelibet
suos
praesectos
&
Gubernatores
&c.
Isti
sunt
Seniores
&c.
Calv.
ibid.
Temporis
illius
conditio
non
de
quibuslibet
praefectis
Paulum
loqui
ostendit
,
(
quia
tunc
nulli
erant
pii
Magistratus
)
sed
de
Senioribus
qui
morum
erant
Censores
.
Tossanus
ibid.
Id
omne
ad
regimen
&
ordinem
Ecclesiae
&
potestatem
illam
spiritualem
de
qua
2
Cor.
10.
referri
debet
:
&
tribuitur
praesidum
appellatio
quos
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
&
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
vocat
Apostolus
1
Tim.
5.
omnibus
in
genere
ministris
&
etiam
senioribus
Ecclesiae
.
the
office
of
ruling
also
,
which
is
there
mentioned
?
for
how
should
civil
ruling
come
in
among
the
Ecclesiastical
administrations
,
especially
in
those
dayes
when
Magistrates
were
not
Christian
?
Musculus
takes
the
Rulers
here
to
be
Elders
.
Gualther
and
Bullinger
,
though
they
make
this
Text
applicable
to
civil
Rulers
,
yet
they
do
not
exclude
Church-officers
from
ruling
,
but
expressely
mention
Church-Governours
distinct
from
civil
Governours
,
to
be
there
comprehended
under
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Mr.
Hussey
pag.
19.
answering
this
argument
,
can
neither
deny
what
I
said
of
Gualther
and
Bullinger
,
nor
yet
doth
affirm
that
civil
Rulers
are
there
meant
,
onely
his
reply
is
that
my
argument
is
drawn
from
the
interpretation
of
the
place
,
but
the
Disputant
may
not
interpret
saith
he
,
that
is
the
answerers
part
:
This
calls
to
mind
the
Anabaptistical
error
,
Concionatores
non
retinent
verba
Textus
,
sed
interpretantur
ea
,
id
quod
non
ferendum
.
For
which
see
Petrus
Hinkolmannus
de
Anabaptism●…
,
Disp.
9.
cap.
1.
My
Argument
was
drawn
from
the
Text
,
for
the
Text
rightly
understood
and
interpreted
;
is
the
Text.
But
see
now
what
strange
rules
you
may
exspect
when
Mr.
Hussey
comes
to
School-disputes
,
the
disputant
may
not
interpret
,
he
must
keep
close
to
termes
,
if
the
thing
be
not
in
terminis
in
the
Text
,
it
s
no
Argum●nt
,
by
which
rule
he
will
at
one
dash
overthrow
not
onely
the
disputations
of
Protestants
against
Papists
;
of
the
ancient
Fathers
against
the
Hereticks
of
their
times
(
for
how
is
Justification
by
Faith
ONELY
,
the
number
of
the
Sacraments
,
the
consubstantiality
of
the
Sonne
with
the
Father
,
and
many
other
most
materiall
points
proved
,
but
by
Scripture
rightly
opened
,
cleared
,
and
interpreted
?
)
but
also
the
disputations
of
the
Apostles
,
and
of
Jesus
Christ
himself
against
the
Pharisees
,
Sadduces
,
and
Jewes
;
for
there
is
nothing
more
ordinary
with
Christ
and
his
Apostles
in
their
disputes
for
the
truth
,
then
to
interpret
Scripture
,
and
give
the
sence
of
it
.
Eleventhly
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
the
Governments
mentioned
1
Cor.
12.
28.
are
not
Civil
but
Ecclesiastical
Governments
,
as
I
have
largely
proved
Chap.
6.
and
shall
not
need
here
to
repeat
it
;
onely
observe
what
[
l
](A42757-e63190-b)
l
At
Gubernatores
vocavit
Ambiosius
qui
spiritu
ilibus
retina●ulis
docum●nto
〈◊〉
hominibus
,
quales
sunt
seniores
,
Pres●yteri
,
&
disciplinae
Christianae
praesecti
,
morum
censores
.
Bullinger
saith
on
the
place
:
whereunto
add
the
Testimony
of
Hugo
Grotius
(
whom
I
suppose
our
opposites
do
not
look
upon
as
an
adversary
)
on
Luke
12.
14.
He
acknowledgeth
that
in
the
Church
of
Corinth
,
censura
morum
was
penes
Presbyterium
,
the
censure
of
mens
manners
,
was
in
the
power
of
the
Presbytery
.
This
Government
the
Church
of
Corinth
had
,
a
Christian
Magistrate
they
had
not
.
Twelfthly
,
If
in
the
Jewish
Church
there
was
an
Ecclesiastical
Government
,
distinct
from
the
Civil
;
then
in
the
Christian
Church
also
there
ought
to
be
an
Ecclesiastical
Government
distinct
from
the
Civil
.
But
in
the
Jewish
Church
there
was
an
Ecclesiastical
Government
distinct
from
the
Civil
.
Ergo.
The
Proposition
is
proved
thus
.
There
can
be
no
reason
given
for
an
Ecclesiastical
government
among
the
Jews
,
distinct
from
the
Civil
,
which
will
not
hold
as
well
and
as
strongly
for
an
Ecclesiastical
government
among
Christians
,
distinct
from
the
Civil
:
for
we
speak
not
now
of
the
particulars
(
a
high
Priest
,
or
the
like
)
which
were
typical
and
proper
to
that
time
,
but
we
speak
of
a
Church
government
distinct
from
the
Civil
,
look
upon
it
under
that
notion
,
and
then
see
if
any
reason
can
be
given
for
it
among
them
,
which
will
not
conclude
the
like
among
us
:
yea
much
more
among
us
,
for
if
the
Priests
had
a
great
influence
and
interest
into
the
Civil
Government
of
the
Jewes
,
and
yet
there
was
a
Church-government
distinct
from
the
Civil
;
how
much
more
now
when
Ministers
have
not
,
neither
ought
to
have
any
share
in
the
Civil
government
?
The
assumption
hath
been
abundantly
proved
before
in
the
first
book
.
I
will
not
repeat
,
but
here
note
these
Scriptures
:
Ier.
5.
31.
The
Prophets
bear
rule
:
It
was
their
office
to
bear
rule
,
It
was
their
sin
to
support
themselves
in
their
ruling
by
the
false
Prophets
.
1
Chron.
9
11.
Azariah
,
the
Ruler
of
the
House
of
God
.
2
Chron.
31.
13.
And
Azariah
the
Ruler
of
the
House
of
God
.
〈◊〉
.
11.
11.
Serajah
the
Ruler
of
the
House
of
God
.
All
the
chief
Pri●sts
or
heads
of
the
several
Classes
or
Orders
of
Priests
were
called
Principes
Sanctuarii
saith
Matthias
Martinius
Lexic
.
Philol.
pag.
3268.
So
2.
Chron.
35.
8.
Hilkiah
and
Zachariah
,
and
Jehiel
,
Rulers
of
the
House
of
God
.
Act.
23.
5.
Then
said
Paul
,
I
wist
not
brethren
that
he
was
the
high
Priest
,
for
it
is
written
thou
shalt
not
speak
evil
of
the
Ruler
of
thy
people
.
Finally
,
Deut.
31.
28.
where
we
find
schoterim
,
that
is
Officers
,
Rulers
,
or
such
as
were
set
over
the
charge
;
the
70.
read
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
Hierome
,
Doctores
.
More
plainly
2
Kings
11.
18.
the
Priest
appointed
Officers
over
the
House
of
the
Lord
.
Thirteenthly
,
A
corrective
Ecclesiastical
government
in
the
Churches
of
Galatia
seemeth
to
be
intimated
,
Gal.
5.
12.
I
would
they
were
even
cut
off
(
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
)
which
trouble
you
.
Which
many
understand
of
Excommunication
.
See
Esthius
in
lib.
4.
Sent.
Dist.
19.
Sect.
6.
7.
Also
Salmeron
,
Menochius
,
Vasquez
,
Novarinus
,
and
(
of
ours
)
B●…za
,
Diodati
,
Gomarus
,
all
upon
the
place
,
beside
diverse
others
.
Musculus
upon
the
place
doth
paralell
this
cutting
off
,
with
delivering
to
Sathan
,
1
Cor.
5.
5.
1
Tim.
1.
20.
and
explaineth
excindantur
by
abalienentur
which
best
suteth
to
excommunication
.
Certainly
the
words
will
easily
admit
this
sence
,
or
rather
invite
to
it
:
for
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
is
not
properly
perdo
,
destruo
,
consumo
,
but
amputo
,
abscindo
,
also
minuo
,
because
that
from
which
any
thing
is
cut
off
,
is
diminished
and
made
lesse
:
also
repello
,
abjungo
,
separo
,
ahstraho
.
And
so
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
abscindor
,
excindor
,
separor
,
abstrahor
.
Hunters
and
such
as
trace
the
Vestigies
,
but
cannot
find
them
,
are
said
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
to
be
cut
off
or
abstracted
.
H●…sych
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
So
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
abscissus
,
is
not
he
who
is
cut
off
by
death
or
destruction
,
but
he
that
hath
his
members
cut
off
:
Which
seems
to
have
been
the
ground
of
Augustine
his
mistake
of
this
Text
,
conceiving
the
Apostles
wish
to
be
,
that
those
men
should
be
made
Eunuchs
.
The
Septuagints
have
sometimes
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
circumcido
,
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
demitto
,
as
synonymous
with
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Now
from
the
phrase
,
to
the
purpose
of
the
Text.
That
it
is
meant
of
Excommunication
,
I
have
these
reasons
which
confirme
me
:
1.
Because
vers.
9.
a
little
leaven
leaveneth
the
whole
lump
,
are
the
very
same
words
which
he
useth
1
Cor.
5.
6.
where
he
presseth
the
excommunication
of
the
incestuous
man
;
as
there
,
one
unclean
person
in
life
;
so
here
,
some
few
seducers
(
especially
that
one
who
is
singularly
pointed
at
vers.
10.
)
is
meant
by
the
little
leaven
,
which
was
to
be
purged
out
,
lest
it
should
leaven
the
whole
Church
.
2.
Interpreters
do
generally
agree
,
that
the
Apostle
here
alludeth
to
Circumcision
,
which
those
Judaizing
teachers
pressed
upon
the
Galatians
as
necessary
:
wishing
that
they
who
would
so
fain
have
the
Galatians
circumcised
,
were
themselves
cut
off
and
cast
out
of
the
Church
as
rotten
members
,
or
as
a
Gangren
out
of
the
body
.
This
allusion
suteth
best
with
excommunication
.
3.
The
words
so
understood
will
more
fitly
answer
and
be
paralel
unto
the
cutting
off
in
the
Law
,
that
soul
shall
be
cut
off
from
among
his
people
(
which
I
have
before
proved
to
be
meant
of
excommunication
)
as
likewise
to
that
1
Cor.
5.
14.
Put
away
that
wicked
person
from
among
you
.
4.
Other
Interpretations
do
not
so
well
agree
to
the
Text.
This
cutting
off
could
not
be
expected
nor
any
hopes
had
of
it
by
the
hand
of
Justice
,
or
of
the
Magistrate
,
for
the
Magistrates
of
that
time
were
themselves
troublers
of
the
Christians
,
so
far
they
were
from
cutting
of
those
that
troubled
them
.
Those
that
understand
the
words
of
an
imprecation
of
eternal
cutting
off
from
God
,
and
being
accursed
from
Christ
,
draw
themselves
into
thorny
questions
,
wherein
they
can
hardly
satisfie
themselves
or
others
.
To
understand
it
of
cutting
off
by
death
,
doth
not
well
answer
that
allusion
to
Circumcision
,
generally
observed
(
as
hath
been
said
)
by
Interpreters
:
which
allusion
doth
intimate
that
it
is
not
a
cutting
off
out
of
the
World
,
but
a
cutting
off
from
the
body
of
the
Church
.
I
would
that
they
themselves
were
cut
off
as
the
praeputium
from
the
Church
,
that
is
,
cut
off
à
consortio
Ecclesiae
saith
Gu●…lther
.
If
it
be
said
,
why
then
doth
the
Apostle
onely
wish
it
?
Why
doth
he
not
prescribe
or
command
to
excommunicate
them
?
To
this
we
may
either
answer
as
B●…za
,
The
Apostle
Pauls
authority
at
that
time
was
extreamly
blasted
and
weakned
in
the
Churches
of
Galatia
;
Or
thus
,
the
Apostle
knew
that
as
the
Churches
of
Galatia
then
stood
affected
(
being
bewitched
with
the
Judaizing
Zealots
,
and
in
a
manner
moved
away
to
another
Gospel
)
both
Churches
and
Ministery
were
unwilling
to
excommunicate
those
that
he
means
of
:
for
which
cause
he
would
not
peremptorily
command
their
excommunication
,
renitente
Ecclesiâ
,
but
forbeareth
for
that
season
,
wishing
for
better
times
.
Some
think
that
the
Apostle
speaketh
positively
of
excommunication
,
vers.
10.
He
shall
bear
his
Judgement
.
But
others
are
of
opinion
the
Apostle
there
speaks
of
the
judgement
of
God
,
which
he
certainly
and
positively
denounces
,
and
that
vers.
12.
he
addeth
this
as
a
distinct
purpose
,
that
he
could
wish
them
also
cut
off
from
the
Church
by
excommunication
.
It
will
be
an
Argument
of
more
weight
against
Erastus
his
Interpretation
of
that
Text
,
if
we
object
against
him
thus
.
This
cutting
off
which
the
Apostle
wisheth
to
those
that
troubled
the
Galatians
,
cannot
be
meant
of
a
divine
or
miraculous
judgement
upon
them
,
such
as
he
thinks
to
be
meant
1
Cor.
5.
(
which
place
he
parallels
with
Gal.
5.
12.
as
to
the
punishment
intended
)
for
if
so
,
why
doth
not
the
Apostle
adjudge
them
positively
to
be
cut
off
or
destroyed
,
as
he
did
constitute
and
decree
by
his
Apostolical
power
of
miracles
(
so
thinks
Erastus
)
the
incestuous
Corinthian
to
be
delivered
to
Satan
?
To
this
Erastus
replieth
,
lib.
3.
cap.
9
,
Because
the
Apostles
had
not
power
to
work
miracles
quoties
vellent
,
as
often
as
they
would
,
nor
to
afflictor
stay
any
,
but
when
it
seemed
good
in
Gods
eyes
,
sed
quando
Deo
visum
fuit
utile
,
necessarium
,
&
salutare
.
But
I
ask
,
Was
it
right
and
agreeable
to
the
will
of
God
,
that
the
Apostle
should
wish
their
cutting
off
?
Was
it
not
profitable
and
necessary
for
the
Churches
good
,
that
they
should
be
cut
off
?
Where
shall
we
finde
that
the
working
of
a
miracle
was
profitable
and
necessary
for
the
Churches
good
,
and
that
an
Apostle
did
desire
and
thirst
after
the
working
of
that
miracle
,
and
yet
had
not
power
from
God
to
work
it
?
How
had
the
false
Apostles
insulted
at
this
?
Is
this
the
great
Apostle
of
the
Gentiles
,
who
hath
not
power
from
God
to
work
a
miracle
,
when
himself
professeth
he
would
gladly
have
it
wrought
?
Fourteenthly
,
that
passage
,
2
Cor.
10.
6.
is
by
some
brought
(
not
without
very
considerable
Reasons
)
for
the
Spiritual
or
Ecclesiastical
censures
.
And
have
in
readin●…sse
,
saith
the
Apostle
,
or
(
as
the
Syriack
,
we
are
ready
)
to
revenge
all
disobedience
,
when
your
obedience
is
fulfilled
.
Novarinus
in
2
Cor.
10.
6.
plerique
de
excommunicandi
potestate
haec
verba
interpretantur
.
In
this
sence
was
the
Text
understood
a
thousand
yeers
ago
by
Gegro●…y
Epist.
lib.
2.
cap.
37.
The
Dutch
Annotations
upon
the
place
,
say
that
the
Apostles
meaning
is
;
of
declaring
the
vengeance
of
God
against
the
obstinate
;
and
of
exercising
the
Ecclesiastical
Banne
or
Discipline
,
against
those
who
professing
themselves
members
of
the
Congregation
,
do
yet
teach
or
lead
unchristian
lives
or
doctrine
.
Others
also
(
among
whom
is
Master
David
Dickson
)
understand
Church-censures
to
be
here
meant
.
The
Apostle
is
in
that
Chapter
confuting
the
calumny
of
such
as
said
of
him
,
His
Epistles
were
weighty
and
powerful
,
and
did
speak
of
great
things
;
but
when
he
himself
is
bodily
present
,
he
doth
but
little
,
he
assumes
no
great
authority
,
he
is
weak
and
almost
contemptible
.
In
answer
hereunto
,
he
tells
them
,
The
weapons
of
our
warfare
(
speaking
not
onely
in
his
own
name
,
but
in
the
name
of
all
the
Ministers
of
Christ
)
though
they
be
not
carnal
,
yet
they
are
mighty
through
God
to
conquer
and
captivate
souls
to
the
obedience
of
Christ
.
And
as
for
the
stubborn
and
unruly
,
we
are
armed
with
a
power
of
corrective
government
,
which
shall
be
more
fully
executed
in
due
time
.
There
is
but
one
of
two
Interpretations
which
can
with
any
probability
seem
to
agree
to
this
Text
,
namely
,
that
it
is
meant
either
of
the
extraordinary
Apostolical
power
,
by
which
they
did
miraculously
punish
some
offenders
(
as
Peter
did
Ananias
and
Sapphira
,
and
as
Paul
did
E●…ymas
)
or
of
a
corrective
Church-government
,
and
Excommunication
.
The
Reasons
which
induce
me
to
believe
,
that
the
Apostle
meaneth
here
of
Church-censures
,
especially
Excommunication
,
and
not
of
that
extraordinary
miraculous
power
,
are
these
.
1.
The
reason
added
,
When
your
obedience
is
fulfilled
,
cannot
suit
to
the
power
of
working
miracles
(
for
it
had
been
the
more
seasonable
to
work
such
miracles
,
while
the
obedience
of
the
Corinthians
was
not
yet
fulfilled
.
Miracles
are
not
for
them
that
believe
,
but
for
them
that
believe
not
,
saith
the
same
Apostle
.
)
But
it
suits
very
well
to
the
power
of
Church-censures
:
for
as
Esthius
and
Novarinus
explain
the
Apostles
reason
,
it
is
in
vain
to
excommunicate
all
such
as
are
worthy
of
Excommunication
,
when
there
is
a
general
renitency
and
unwillingnesse
in
the
Church
;
or
to
cut
off
a
member
,
when
the
same
evil
hath
infected
either
the
whole
or
the
greatest
part
of
the
body
;
which
Augustine
also
tells
us
in
divers
places
.
And
this
(
by
the
way
)
confirms
the
reason
which
I
gave
why
the
Apostle
onely
wisheth
those
that
troubled
the
Galatians
to
be
cut
off
,
but
doth
not
command
it
,
in
regard
of
the
present
unwillingnesse
and
disaffection
of
those
Churches
.
2.
We
may
have
a
great
deal
of
light
to
this
place
by
comparing
it
with
Cha●…
.
12.
verse
20
,
21.
and
Chap.
13.
verse
2.
Many
among
the
Corinthians
had
sinned
foul
and
●eandalous
sins
,
whereof
they
had
not
repented
,
and
for
which
they
were
not
censured
or
cast
out
of
the
Church
.
The
Apostle
certifieth
them
,
that
if
he
come
,
he
will
not
spare
.
What
?
was
it
his
meaning
to
work
a
miracle
upon
every
fornicator
,
and
each
other
scandalous
person
in
the
Church
of
Corinth
?
No
sure
:
mark
his
words
;
Now
I
write
to
them
which
heretofore
have
sinned
,
and
to
ALL
OTHER
,
that
if
I
come
again
,
I
will
not
spare
.
Who
can
imagine
his
meaning
to
be
,
that
he
would
work
a
miracle
upon
them
and
all
other
?
So
●ere
when
it
is
said
,
having
in
readiness●…
to
〈◊〉
ALL
〈◊〉
,
let
it
be
remembred
that
the
Apostolical
power
of
miracles
was
never
appointed
to
be
executed
against
ALL
disobedience
.
Thirdly
,
that
which
the
Apostle
saith
of
the
Spiritual
weapons
,
mighty
through
God
to
the
pulling
down
of
strong
holds
,
&c.
was
not
proper
or
peculiar
to
the
Apostles
,
but
is
rightly
applied
to
all
the
Ministers
of
the
Gospel
:
the
more
hardly
can
it
be
supposed
,
that
what
is
immediately
added
,
and
as
it
were
with
one
breath
uttered
,
And
having
in
readinesse
to
〈◊〉
all
disobedience
,
is
meant
of
the
extraordinary
Apostolical
power
.
Fourthly
,
such
as
the
weapons
are
for
conquering
and
subduing
souls
to
the
obedience
of
Christ
,
such
is
the
corrective
or
punitive
part
there
spoken
of
.
But
the
weapons
for
conquering
,
are
meerly
Spiritual
,
not
corporal
:
Therefore
the
corrective
or
punitive
part
there
spoken
of
,
is
also
Spiritual
,
and
so
doth
not
concern
the
inflicting
of
corporal
punishment
,
such
as
the
Erastians
understand
by
delivering
to
Satan
.
Fifteenthly
,
an
Ecclesiastical
ruling
power
may
be
proved
from
2
Cor.
2.
8.
I
beseech
you
that
you
would
confirm
your
love
towards
him
.
Here
is
a
Juridical
power
of
loosing
,
and
consequently
of
binding
;
for
it
belongeth
to
the
same
power
to
binde
and
loose
,
to
excommunicate
and
to
absolve
.
An
authoritative
juridical
loosing
,
I
prove
from
the
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
which
properly
signifieth
the
making
a
thing
sure
or
firm
by
a
decisive
suffrage
,
authoritative
judgement
,
or
ratificatory
and
obligatory
sentence
past
upon
it
.
Hen.
Stephanus
in
Thes.
linguae
Gr.
in
the
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
saith
that
this
Text
2
Cor.
2.
8.
is
more
rightly
read
,
Ut
ratam
faciatis
in
illum
charitatem
,
then
as
the
vulgar
Latin
hath
it
,
Ut
confirmetis
.
The
Verb
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
he
expoundeth
thus
;
Auctoritatem
do
,
auctoritate
mea
comprobo
;
vel
ratum
habeo
,
ratum
facio
.
Pasor
renders
the
same
Verb
sancio
,
ratum
facio
,
and
citeth
for
that
sence
,
2
Cor.
2.
6.
So
Erasmus
likewise
upon
the
place
.
So
Cartwright
upon
the
same
place
against
the
Rhemists
.
So
Chemnitius
Exam.
Conc.
Trident.
part
.
4.
de
Indulg
.
pag.
53.
The
force
of
this
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
was
urged
against
the
opinion
of
Erastus
in
a
publike
Dispute
at
Heydelberg
;
the
narration
whereof
is
left
by
Ursinus
in
his
Catechetical
explications
.
That
the
word
signifieth
an
authoritative
act
,
and
supposeth
a
ruling
power
,
may
be
thus
further
confirmed
.
First
,
who
did
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
but
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
?
No
doubt
the
Apostle
borroweth
the
word
from
the
language
and
customs
of
the
Heathen
Greeks
.
Now
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
was
a
fixed
or
set
lawful
Assembly
,
which
met
with
a
judicial
ruling
power
,
and
ratified
a
thing
by
decisive
suffrages
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
See
Suidas
in
the
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
Stephanus
and
Scapula
in
the
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
;
Erasmus
in
2
Cor.
2.
8.
Arias
Montanus
in
the
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
tells
us
that
to
the
Graecians
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
was
the
same
thing
,
which
Comitia
to
the
Latines
:
Therefore
such
Assemblies
had
a
judicial
power
,
and
their
suffrages
were
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
firm
and
ratified
Sentences
.
Secondly
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
commeth
from
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
whence
also
cometh
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Lord
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
dominion
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
to
rule
,
or
to
have
a
dominion
:
It
was
long
ago
observed
by
Dionysius
Areopagita
,
de
divinis
nominibus
,
cap.
12.
where
after
he
hath
put
into
the
description
of
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
dominion
,
that
it
is
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
true
and
unshaken
firmenesse
,
he
addes
this
reason
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Which
Balthasar
Corderius
rendereth
thus
:
Qu●…propter
dominatio
Grae●…è
à
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
derivato
nomine
,
idem
est
quod
firmatio
,
firmamentum
&
firmum
,
ac
firmans
seu
ratificans
.
Pachimeres
in
his
Paraphrase
addeth
that
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
as
it
signifieth
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
hath
its
name
from
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
So
then
it
is
not
every
confirming
,
certifying
,
or
making
sure
a
thing
,
but
when
a
thing
is
made
sure
or
firm
with
fulnesse
of
authority
and
power
.
The
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
is
therefore
rightly
rendred
by
Stephanus
,
Scapula
and
Pasor
,
not
onely
firmamentum
,
rata
fides
,
but
auctoritas
plena
,
full
authority
.
Thirdly
,
the
same
Apostle
calls
a
ratified
Testament
(
which
ratification
is
by
a
legal
and
judicial
authority
)
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
Gal.
3.
15.
Fourthly
,
the
opposite
Verb
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
signifieth
anctoritate
priv●…
,
omni
imperio
spolio
,
irritum
reddo
.
As
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
noteth
a
privation
of
authority
,
so
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
a
giving
of
authority
or
ratification
.
The
sixteenth
Argument
to
prove
a
distinct
Church-Government
,
is
this
.
The
visible
political
ministerial
Church
is
the
Kingdom
of
Jesus
Christ
,
and
he
is
the
Head
,
King
,
Judge
,
and
Law-giver
thereof
,
Isa.
9.
6.
Isa.
22.
21
,
22.
Psal.
2.
6.
Luk.
1.
33.
1
Cor.
15.
24
Eph.
1.
21m
22
,
23.
Dare
any
say
that
the
Lord
Jesus
shall
not
governe
the
Church
of
England
,
and
reigne
over
the
same
?
Luk.
19.
14
27.
Must
he
not
be
received
both
as
Lord
and
as
Christ
?
Acts
2.
36.
Now
in
the
administration
and
government
of
a
Kingdom
these
three
things
are
necessarily
required
.
1.
Lawes
.
2.
Officers
,
Ministers
,
Judges
,
Courts
.
3.
Censures
and
punishments
of
offences
.
Which
three
being
universally
necessary
in
every
Kingdom
,
can
〈◊〉
of
all
be
supposed
to
be
wanting
in
the
Church
and
Kingdom
of
Jesus
Christ
,
who
hath
been
more
faithfull
in
the
execution
o●
his
Kingly
office
,
and
hath
provided
better
for
the
Government
of
his
Church
,
then
ever
any
King
or
State
in
this
world
did
for
a
Civil
Government
.
I
adde
the
Lawes
,
Judicatories
,
and
censures
in
the
Kingdom
of
Christ
must
be
spiritual
and
Becl●siastical
,
because
his
Kingdom
is
not
of
this
world
,
and
his
servants
cannot
take
the
sword
,
Iohn
18.
36.
Neither
are
the
weapons
of
our
warfarre
carnal
,
but
yet
mighty
through
God
,
and
in
readinesse
to
revenge
all
disobedience
:
2
Cor.
10.
4.
6.
I
do
not
see
what
can
be
answerd
to
this
Argument
,
except
any
do
so
far
deny
the
Kingly
office
of
Jesus
Christ
,
as
to
say
that
the
Church
Political
or
Ministerial
is
not
his
Kingdom
;
but
onely
the
Church
Mystical
;
that
is
,
as
he
ruleth
over
our
soules
by
his
Word
and
Spirit
.
To
which
purpose
Mr.
Hussey
in
his
plea
pag.
33.
denyeth
that
the
visible
Church
can
be
called
the
Body
of
Christ
,
or
he
their
Head
;
and
tells
us
that
the
government
which
Christ
hath
over
the
faithful
,
is
truely
spiritual
,
and
of
this
Kingdom
faith
he
,
he
hath
indeed
no
Officers
but
his
Spirit
.
I
reply
,
1.
The
Scripture
is
plain
that
a
visible
ministeriall
Church
is
the
body
of
Christ
,
Rom.
12.
4
,
5.
1
Cor.
10.
16.
17.
1
Cor.
12.
12.
to
28.
If
we
admit
of
a
visible
Church
and
visible
Saints
,
we
must
also
admit
of
a
visible
body
,
and
a
visible
Kingdom
of
Christ
.
2.
The
Political
Ministerial
Church
were
a
body
without
a
head
.
The
Analogie
of
a
political
head
as
well
as
of
a
natural
head
agreeth
to
Christ
:
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
as
well
as
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
:
and
he
hath
an
influence
upon
the
Church
potestative
as
well
as
effective
.
3.
He
〈◊〉
his
Propheticall
office
not
onely
in
teaching
us
inwardly
by
his
Spirit
,
but
in
teaching
the
Church
outwardly
by
his
servants
the
Ministers
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
receive
him
as
a
Prophet
,
must
also
receive
him
as
a
King
.
Yea
,
let
us
hear
Mr.
Hussey
himself
pag.
17.
The
Kingdom
of
Christ
is
〈◊〉
ample
as
his
Prophecy
,
&c.
the
Doctrine
which
they
must
teach
commands
,
no●…
commands
have
alwaies
power
and
authority
〈◊〉
.
So
that
either
he
must
say
that
Christ
gives
no
commands
to
the
visible
Church
,
or
confesse
that
the
visible
Church
is
the
visible
Kingdom
of
Christ
.
4
That
the
Kingdom
of
Christ
comprehendeth
the
Government
and
discipline
of
the
Church
,
I
prove
from
Matt●…
.
●16
.
28.
There
be
some
standing
here
which
shall
not
tast●…
of
death
till
they
see
the
Son
of
man
comming
in
his
Kingdom
:
Where
first
of
all
note
,
Christ
hath
not
onely
an
invisible
,
but
a
visible
Kingdom
;
Next
,
this
visible
Kingdom
is
not
meant
of
his
comming
again
in
glory
to
judge
the
quick
and
the
dead
;
for
all
that
were
then
hearing
Christ
,
have
tasted
of
death
,
and
yet
Christ
is
not
come
to
judgement
.
Nor
is
it
meant
of
Christs
tranfiguration
mentioned
Matth.
17.
for
that
was
six
dayes
after
,
Matth.
17.
1.
and
if
he
meant
that
,
he
would
not
have
said
so
emphatically
,
there
be
some
here
that
shall
not
taste
of
death
,
&c.
intimating
what
was
to
come
to
passe
,
not
after
some
daies
,
but
after
some
yeares
;
as
if
he
had
said
this
age
or
generation
shall
not
passe
away
till
these
things
be
fulfilled
.
Neither
is
that
transfiguration
any
where
called
the
Kingdom
of
God
,
nor
can
it
be
properly
so
called
.
Nor
lastly
is
the
Kingdom
of
God
in
that
place
meant
onely
of
the
preaching
of
the
Gospel
,
for
so
they
had
seen
Christ
comming
in
his
Kingdom
.
Luk.
10.
9.
11.
Nor
is
it
meant
of
Christs
working
of
miracles
,
for
so
likewise
they
had
seen
his
Kingdom
.
Matth.
12.
28.
Melius
ergo
Beda
&
Gregorius
,
quorum
sententiam
nostri
sequuntur
,
per
illud
Regnum
Christi
intelligunt
constitutionem
Ecclesiarum
,
post
Christi
ascensum
,
saith
Tossanus
upon
the
place
.
Some
of
those
to
whom
he
spoke
at
that
time
lived
to
see
Christ
reigne
in
the
gathering
and
governing
of
Churches
.
Gregor
..
Hom
32.
in
Evang.
Et
quia
nonnulli
ex
discip●…lis
usque
ad●…o
in
corpore
victuri
erant
ut
Ecclesiam
Dei
constructam
conspiceren●…
,
&
contra
mundi
hujus
glorium
erectam
,
consolatoria
promissione
nan●…
dieitur
:
Sunt
quidam
de
hinc
〈◊〉
qui
non
gustabu●…t
mortem
,
donec
videant
reg●…um
Dei
.
The
very
same
words
hath
Bed●…
on
Mark.
9.
1.
following
(
it
seemes
)
Gregory
.
Grotius
on
Matth.
16.
28.
doth
likewise
understand
the
promulgation
of
the
Gospel
,
and
the
Sc●pter
of
Christ
,
that
is
,
his
law
going
out
of
Zion
to
be
here
meant
.
I
conclude
,
as
the
Church
is
not
onely
a
mystical
but
a
political
body
,
So
Christ
is
not
onely
a
mystical
but
a
political
Head
.
But
peradventure
some
men
will
be
bold
to
give
another
answer
,
that
the
Lord
Jesus
indeed
reigneth
over
the
Church
,
even
in
a
political
respect
,
but
that
the
administration
and
influence
of
this
his
Kingly
office
is
in
,
by
,
and
through
the
Magistrate
,
who
is
supreme
Judge
,
Governour
,
and
Head
of
the
Church
under
Christ
.
To
this
I
answer
,
Hence
it
would
follow
1.
That
Christs
Kingdom
is
of
this
World
,
and
commeth
with
observation
,
as
the
Kingdoms
of
this
World
do
,
which
himself
denieth
Luke
17
20
Iohn
18
36.
Next
,
It
would
follow
,
that
Christ
doth
not
reigne
nor
exercise
his
Kingly
office
in
the
Government
of
his
Church
under
Pagan
,
Turkish
,
or
persecuting
Princes
,
but
onely
under
the
Christian
Magistrate
,
which
no
man
dare
say
.
3.
The
Civil
Magistrate
is
Gods
Vicegerent
,
but
not
Christs
:
that
is
,
the
Magistrates
power
hath
its
rise
,
orig●nation
,
institution
,
and
deputation
,
not
from
that
speciall
dominion
which
Christ
exerciseth
over
the
Church
as
Mediator
and
Head
thereof
,
But
from
that
Universal
Lordship
and
Soveraignity
which
God
exerciseth
over
all
men
by
right
of
Creation
:
In
so
much
,
that
there
had
been
(
for
orders
sake
)
Magistrates
or
superior
Powers
though
man
had
not
fallen
,
but
continued
in
his
innocency
;
and
now
by
the
Law
of
Nature
and
Nations
there
are
Magistrates
among
those
who
know
nothing
of
Christ
,
and
among
whom
Christ
reigneth
not
as
Mediator
,
though
God
reigneth
over
them
by
the
Kingdom
of
power
.
4.
If
the
Magistrate
be
supreme
Head
and
Governour
of
the
Church
under
Christ
,
then
the
Ministers
of
the
Church
are
the
Magistrates
Ministers
as
well
as
Christs
,
and
must
act
in
the
Magistrates
name
,
and
as
subordinate
to
him
;
and
the
Magistrate
shall
be
Christs
Minister
,
and
act
in
Christs
Name
.
The
seventeeth
Argument
I
draw
from
the
institution
of
Excommunication
by
Christ
,
Matth.
18.
17.
Tell
it
unto
the
Church
:
But
if
he
neglect
to
hear
the
Church
,
Let
him
be
unto
thee
as
a
heathen
man
and
a
Publican
.
In
which
Text
1.
All
is
restricted
to
a
brother
,
or
a
Church-member
,
and
agreeth
not
to
him
who
is
no
Church-member
.
2.
His
tre●pasle
is
here
lookt
upon
under
the
notion
of
scandal
,
and
of
that
which
is
also
like
to
destroy
his
owne
soule
.
3.
The
scope
is
not
civil
,
but
spiritual
,
to
gain
or
save
his
soul.
4.
The
proceedings
are
not
without
witnesses
.
5.
There
is
a
publick
complaint
made
to
the
Church
.
6.
And
that
because
he
appeares
impenitent
,
after
admonitions
given
privatly
,
and
before
two
or
three
.
7.
The
Church
speaks
and
gives
a
:
Judgement
concerning
him
,
which
he
is
bound
to
obey
.
8.
If
he
obey
not
,
then
he
is
to
be
esteemed
and
held
as
a
heathen
man
and
a
Publican
.
9.
And
that
for
his
not
hearing
the
Church
,
which
is
a
publike
scandal
concerning
the
whole
Church
.
10.
Being
as
as
an
Heathen
and
Publican
,
he
is
kept
back
from
some
ordinances
.
11.
He
is
bound
on
earth
by
Church-Officers
.
Whatsoever
ye
bind
,
&c.
12.
He
is
also
bound
in
Heaven
.
More
of
this
place
else-where
.
These
hints
will
now
serve
.
The
Erastians
deny
,
that
either
the
case
,
or
the
court
,
or
the
censure
there
mentioned
is
Ecclesiastical
or
Spiritual
.
But
I
prove
all
the
three
.
First
,
Christ
speaketh
of
the
case
of
scandals
,
not
of
personal
or
civil
injuries
,
whereof
he
would
be
no
Judge
,
Luk.
12.
14.
and
for
which
he
would
not
permit
Christians
to
go
to
Law
before
the
Roman
Emperor
or
his
deputies
,
1
Cor.
6.
1.
6.
7.
But
if
their
interpretation
stand
,
they
must
grant
that
Christ
giveth
laws
concerning
civil
injuries
,
and
that
he
permitteth
one
of
his
disciples
to
accuse
another
for
a
civil
injury
before
an
unbeleeving
Judge
.
Beside
,
Christ
saith
not
,
If
he
shall
hear
thee
,
thou
hast
from
him
a
voluntary
reparation
of
the
wrong
,
or
satisfaction
for
it
(
which
is
the
end
why
we
deal
with
one
who
hath
done
us
a
civil
injury
)
But
he
saith
,
If
he
shall
hear
thee
,
thou
hast
gained
thy
brother
,
intimating
that
the
offending
brother
is
told
and
admonished
of
his
fault
,
onely
for
a
spiritual
end
,
for
the
good
of
his
soul
,
and
for
gaining
him
to
repentance
.
All
which
proveth
that
our
Saviour
meaneth
not
there
of
private
or
civil
injuries
,
as
the
Erastians
suppose
,
but
of
scandals
,
of
which
also
he
had
spoken
much
before
,
as
appeareth
by
the
preceding
part
of
that
chapter
.
A
civil
injury
done
by
one
brother
to
another
is
a
scandal
,
but
every
scandal
is
not
a
civil
injury
.
The
Jewes
(
to
whose
custome
Christ
doth
here
allude
)
did
excommunicate
for
diverse
scandals
which
were
not
civil
injuries
.
And
Paul
saith
of
a
scandal
which
was
not
a
civil
injury
:
when
ye
sin
so
against
the
brethren
.
&c.
1
Cor.
8.
12.
2.
The
court
is
Ecclesiastical
,
not
civil
,
for
when
it
is
said
Tell
it
unto
the
Church
,
must
we
not
expound
Scripture
by
Scripture
,
and
not
understand
the
Word
Church
to
be
meant
of
a
civil
Court
?
for
though
the
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
is
used
Act.
19.
reoitative
,
of
a
heathenish
civil
assembly
,
called
by
that
name
among
those
heathens
:
yet
the
pen-men
of
the
holy
Ghost
have
not
made
choice
of
the
Word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
in
any
place
of
the
new
Testament
,
to
expresse
a
civil
court
either
of
Jewes
or
Christians
.
So
that
we
cannot
suppose
that
the
holy
Ghost
speaking
so
as
men
may
understand
him
,
would
have
put
the
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
in
this
place
to
signifie
such
a
thing
as
no
where
else
in
the
new
Testament
it
is
found
to
signifie
.
Nay
,
this
very
place
expoundeth
it self
,
for
Christ
directeth
his
speech
to
the
Apostles
,
and
in
them
to
their
Successors
in
the
government
of
the
Church
.
Whatsoever
ye
shall
bind
&c.
And
if
two
of
you
shall
agree
,
&c.
So
that
the
church
which
here
bindeth
or
judgeth
,
is
an
Assembly
of
the
Apostles
,
Ministers
,
or
Elders
of
the
church
.
3.
The
censure
is
spirituall
,
as
appeareth
both
by
these
words
,
Let
him
be
unto
thee
as
a
Heathen
and
a
Publican
;
which
relate
to
the
Excommunication
from
the
church
of
the
Jewes
,
and
comprehendeth
not
onely
an
exclusion
from
private
fellowship
and
company
(
which
was
the
condition
of
the
Publicans
,
with
whom
the
Jewes
would
not
eat
)
but
also
an
exclusion
from
the
Temple
,
Sacrifices
,
and
communion
in
the
holy
things
,
which
was
the
condition
of
heathens
,
yea
of
prophane
Publicans
too
:
of
which
elsewhere
.
And
further
it
appeareth
by
these
words
,
Whatsoever
ye
shall
bind
on
earth
,
&c.
The
Apostles
had
no
power
to
inflict
any
civil
punishment
,
but
they
had
power
to
bind
the
soul
,
and
to
retain
the
sin
.
Ioh.
20.
23.
And
this
power
of
binding
is
not
in
all
the
Scripture
ascribed
to
the
civil
Magistrate
.
The
eighteenth
Argument
shall
be
drawn
from
the
example
of
excommunication
,
1
Cor.
5.
4
,
5.
The
Apostle
writeth
to
the
church
of
Corinth
to
deliver
to
Sathan
(
for
the
delivery
to
Sathan
was
an
act
of
the
church
of
Corinth
,
as
the
Syriack
explaineth
it
)
the
incestuous
man
,
which
is
called
a
censure
inflicted
by
many
2
Cor.
2.
6.
that
is
,
by
the
whole
Presbytery
of
the
Church
of
Corinth
.
And
whereas
some
understand
by
delivering
to
Sathan
,
the
putting
forth
of
the
extraordinary
Apostolicall
power
to
the
working
of
a
miracle
upon
the
offender
,
by
giving
him
over
into
the
hands
of
Sathan
,
so
as
to
be
bodily
tormented
by
him
,
or
to
be
killed
and
destroyed
(
as
Erastus
takes
it
)
I
answer
1.
It
cannot
be
meant
of
death
,
for
it
is
said
that
Hymeneus
and
Alexander
were
delivered
to
Sathan
,
and
to
what
end
?
that
they
might
learne
not
to
blaspheme
,
1
Tim.
1.
20
which
had
been
too
late
to
learn
after
death
,
2.
Nor
is
it
at
all
meant
of
any
miraculous
tormenting
of
the
body
by
the
divel
,
for
beside
that
it
is
not
likely
this
miracle
could
have
been
wrought
,
Paul
himself
not
being
present
to
work
it
,
it
is
utterly
incredible
that
the
Apostle
would
have
so
sharply
rebuked
the
Church
of
Corinth
,
for
that
a
miracle
was
not
wrought
upon
the
incestuous
man
,
(
it
not
being
in
their
power
to
do
:
)
or
that
he
would
seek
the
consent
of
that
Church
to
the
working
of
a
miracle
,
and
as
a
joynt
act
proceeding
from
him
and
the
Church
by
common
counsell
and
deliberation
,
for
where
read
wee
of
any
miracle
wrought
that
way
?
Therefore
it
is
much
more
safe
to
understand
by
delivering
to
Sathan
,
(
as
Gualther
himself
doth
)
Excommunication
,
which
is
a
shutting
out
of
a
Church-member
from
the
Church
,
whereby
Sathan
commeth
to
get
dominion
and
power
over
him
,
for
he
is
the
God
of
this
World
,
who
reigneth
at
his
pleasure
in
and
over
those
who
are
not
the
Church
and
people
of
God
.
2
Cor.
4.
4.
Eoh.
2.
2.
And
if
any
shall
be
so
far
unsatisfied
as
not
to
admit
this
sence
which
we
put
upon
that
phrase
of
delivering
to
Sathan
;
Yet
our
Argument
for
Excommunication
drawn
from
1
Cor.
5.
standeth
strong
,
the
weight
of
it
not
being
laid
upon
tradere
Satanae
onely
,
but
upon
vers.
6.
7.
11
,
12.
compared
with
2
Cor.
2.
6.
which
undeniably
prove
Excommunication
from
Church
fellowship
.
The
nineteenth
Argument
shall
be
drawn
from
Act.
20.
28.
Take
heed
therefore
unto
your selves
,
and
to
all
the
flock
over
the
which
the
holy
Ghost
hath
made
you
Overseers
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
compared
with
1
Pet.
5.
2.
3.
Feed
the
flock
of
God
which
is
among
you
,
taking
the
oversight
thereof
:
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
:
Which
Texts
as
they
hold
forth
a
Bishop
and
a
Presbyter
to
be
one
and
the
same
Iure
divino
,
so
they
hold
forth
the
ruling
power
of
Presbyters
or
Elders
.
First
,
Because
otherwise
the
simile
(
so
much
made
use
of
in
these
Scriptures
)
of
overseeing
the
flock
(
mentioned
and
joyned
together
with
the
feeding
thereof
)
will
fall
short
in
a
main
and
most
materiall
point
:
for
the
overseers
of
flocks
do
not
onely
make
them
to
lye
down
in
green
pastures
,
and
lead
them
beside
the
still
waters
,
but
they
have
also
rodds
and
staves
for
ruling
the
flocks
,
and
for
correcting
and
reducing
the
wandring
sheep
,
which
will
not
be
brought
home
by
the
voice
of
the
shepheard
,
Psal.
23.
2.
4.
The
Pastorall
rod
there
mentioned
by
David
is
corrective
:
as
Clemens
Alexandrinus
paedag
.
lib.
1.
cap.
7.
who
doth
also
paralel
it
with
that
1
Cor.
4.
Shall
I
com●
unto
you
with
a
rod
?
Secondly
,
Paul
requireth
the
Elders
of
the
Church
of
Ephesus
to
take
heed
unto
,
and
to
oversee
the
whole
flock
,
which
did
consist
of
more
then
did
or
could
then
meet
together
ordinarily
into
one
place
for
the
worship
of
God
,
as
appeareth
by
the
Church
in
the
house
of
Aquila
and
Priscilla
(
which
was
one
,
but
not
the
onely
one
Church
assembly
at
Ephesus
)
by
the
great
and
wonderfull
increase
of
the
Gospel
at
Ephesus
,
and
such
other
Arguments
which
I
do
but
point
at
,
the
full
debate
of
them
not
being
my
present
work
.
Peter
also
writing
to
the
Churches
of
the
strangers
in
severall
provinces
,
calls
them
the
flock
not
flocks
,
and
commends
unto
the
Elders
the
feeding
and
oversight
of
that
flock
.
Now
what
is
it
that
can
denominate
many
particular
visible
Churches
or
Congregations
to
be
one
visible
ministeriall
flock
or
Church
,
unlesse
it
be
their
union
and
association
under
one
Ecclesiasticall
Government
?
No
doubt
,
they
had
the
administration
of
the
Word
and
Sacraments
partitive
,
or
severally
.
Nor
do
I
deny
but
they
had
a
partitive
several
Government
:
but
there
was
also
an
union
or
association
of
them
under
one
common
Government
,
which
did
denominate
them
to
be
one
visible
Ecclesiastical
flock
.
Thirdly
,
The
very
name
given
to
the
Elders
of
the
Church
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
is
a
name
of
authority
,
rule
,
and
government
,
especially
in
the
Christian
and
Ecclesiasticall
use
of
the
Word
.
H.
Stephanus
in
Thes.
ling.
Gr.
in
the
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
saith
that
the
Elders
of
the
Church
were
called
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
seu
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
to
wit
saith
he
,
those
qui
verbo
&
gubernationi
praeera●…t
.
Where
he
tells
us
also
that
the
Magistrate
or
Praetor
who
was
sent
with
a
Judiciall
power
into
those
Townes
which
were
und●r
the
power
of
the
Athenians
,
was
called
by
the
name
of
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
The
Septuagints
use
the
word
Nehem.
11.
9.
Ioel
the
son
of
Ziohri
was
their
overfeer
(
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
)
and
Judah
the
son
of
Senuah
was
second
over
the
City
.
He
that
had
but
the
second
place
was
a
Ruler
,
how
much
more
he
that
was
in
the
first
place
.
Loe
here
,
the
head
and
chief
Ruler
of
the
Benjamites
called
by
the
name
of
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
So
Numb
.
31.
14.
2
Kings
11.
15.
the
chief
officers
of
the
Host
,
the
Captains
over
thousands
,
and
captains
over
hundreds
,
are
called
by
the
Septu●gints
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
The
same
Hebrew
words
which
they
render
by
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
they
render
in
other
places
by
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
praefectus
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
Antistes
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
praepositus
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
Princeps
:
Yea
the
name
of
God
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
they
render
by
this
word
Iob.
20.
29.
This
is
the
portion
of
a
wicked
man
from
God
,
and
the
heritage
appointed
to
him
by
God
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
saith
the
Greek
,
by
the
overseer
,
(
even
as
the
same
name
of
Bishop
is
given
to
Christ
,
1
Pet.
2.
25.
)
Conradus
Kirch●…rus
in
the
word
Pakad
,
tells
us
also
that
Gen.
41.
34.
Let
Pharaoh
do
this
and
let
him
appoint
Officers
over
the
Land
,
where
the
70.
read
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
the
Greek
Scholia
which
he
useth
to
cite
hath
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Fourthly
,
Peter
addeth
,
not
as
being
Lords
,
or
over-ruling
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
that
we
might
understand
he
condemneth
the
ruling
power
of
the
Lord
Bishop
,
not
of
the
Lords
Bishop
,
of
Episcopus
Dominus
,
not
of
Episcopus
Domini
.
Just
as
Ezek.
34.
4.
the
shepheards
of
Israel
are
reproved
for
lording
it
over
the
flock
,
with
force
and
with
cruelty
have
ye
ruled
them
,
It
was
their
duty
to
rule
them
,
but
it
was
their
sin
to
rule
them
with
force
and
with
cruelty
.
The
twentieth
Argument
I
take
from
1
Cor.
4.
1.
Let
a
man
so
account
of
us
,
as
of
the
Ministers
of
Christ
,
and
Stewards
of
the
mysteries
of
God
.
Moreover
it
is
required
in
Stewards
that
a
man
be
found
faithfull
.
And
Tit.
1.
7.
a
Bishop
is
the
Steward
of
God
;
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
This
name
doth
exclude
Lordship
and
dominion
,
but
withall
it
noteth
a
ministeriall
rule
or
government
,
as
in
the
proper
,
so
in
the
metaphorical
signification
:
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
is
a
name
diverse
times
given
by
Aristotle
in
his
Politicks
to
the
civil
Magistrate
.
The
Septuagints
have
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
as
fynonymous
with
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Esth●…r
8.
9.
To
the
Lieutenants
and
the
Deputies
.
The
70.
thus
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
The
holy
Ghost
by
the
same
word
expresseth
Government
,
Gal.
4.
2.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
is
under
Tutors
and
Governors
.
Rom.
16.
23.
Erastus
is
called
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Theophylact
thinks
he
was
Governour
of
the
City
;
Erasmus
that
he
was
praefectus
aerario
,
Town-Treasurer
.
The
English
Translators
call
him
the
Chamberlain
of
the
City
.
Yea
setting
aside
the
metaphorical
signification
of
this
name
often
used
for
a
name
of
rule
;
the
very
literall
and
native
signification
of
the
word
will
serve
to
strengthen
this
Argument
in
hand
.
Ministers
are
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
that
is
,
house-stewards
,
or
over
the
house
;
but
what
house
?
Aristotle
at
the
beginning
of
the
second
book
of
his
Oeconomicks
,
distinguisheth
a
fourfold
oeconomy
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
:
kingly
,
noble
,
civil
,
private
:
The
Ministers
of
Christ
are
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
of
the
first
sort
.
They
are
stewards
in
the
house
of
the
great
King
.
He
that
is
steward
in
a
Kings
house
,
must
needs
have
a
ruling
power
in
the
house
.
1
Kings
4.
6.
Ahishar
was
over
Solomons
houshold
.
1
Kings
18.
3.
And
Ahab
called
Obadiah
which
was
the
Governour
of
his
house
.
2
Kings
18.
18.
Eliakim
which
was
over
the
houshold
.
In
all
which
places
the
70.
have
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
I
hold
therefore
with
[
m
](A42757-e67270-b)
m
Curabit
denique
(
oeconomus
)
ut
impuros
&
perdite
viventes
a
familia
excludat
,
eosdemque
si
poenitentiam
egerins
,
rursus
in
eam
recipiat
.
Peter
Martyr
upon
1
Cor.
4.
1.
that
Ministers
being
by
their
calling
and
office
stewards
in
the
house
of
God
,
ought
to
cast
out
prophane
impure
persons
out
of
the
house
,
and
receive
them
again
upon
their
repentance
.
And
why
are
they
called
Stewards
of
the
mysteries
of
God
?
surely
the
Sacraments
are
part
(
and
a
chief
part
)
of
those
mysteries
:
and
Christ
hath
made
his
Ministers
(
not
the
civil
Magistrates
)
stewards
of
these
mysteries
,
to
receive
unto
,
or
to
exclude
from
the
Sacraments
;
and
as
they
may
not
keep
back
any
of
the
children
of
the
house
,
so
they
may
not
suffer
dogs
to
eat
at
the
childrens
Table
.
The
one
and
twentieth
Argument
,
which
shall
claudere
agmen
,
shall
be
drawn
from
Act.
15.
where
we
find
an
Ecclesiastical
Assembly
or
Synod
of
the
Apostles
,
Elders
,
and
other
choice
brethren
,
snch
as
Iudas
and
Sylas
:
These
did
so
assemble
themselves
,
and
proceed
with
authority
in
a
businesse
highly
concerning
the
truth
of
the
Gospel
,
Christian
liberty
,
the
healing
of
scandal
,
and
the
preserving
of
peace
in
the
Church
,
as
that
it
is
manifest
they
had
,
and
executed
a
power
of
government
distinct
from
Magistracy
.
Mr.
Selden
de
Jure
natur
.
&
Gent.
lib.
7.
cap.
12.
hath
sufficiently
expressed
that
which
is
the
ground
of
my
present
Argument
:
and
I
rather
choose
to
speak
it
in
his
words
then
in
my
owne
,
Now
a
dispute
being
had
of
this
thing
at
Antioch
,
Paul
and
Barnabas
(
who
having
used
many
Arguments
against
that
Pharisaical
opinion
,
yet
could
not
end
the
controversie
)
are
sent
to
Hierusalem
that
there
the
thing
might
be
determined
by
the
Apostles
and
Elders
.
It
is
agitated
in
a
Synod
.
In
it
it
is
determined
by
the
Apostles
and
Elders
,
that
the
Gentiles
who
had
given
their
names
to
Christ
,
are
not
indeed
bound
by
the
Law
of
Moses
or
of
the
Hebrewes
,
as
it
is
Mosaicall
and
prescribed
to
the
Church
or
Common-wealth
of
the
Iewes
,
but
that
they
ought
to
enjoy
their
Christian
liberty
.
And
so
much
for
that
which
the
Synod
loosed
them
from
.
But
what
dorh
the
Synod
bind
upon
them
?
The
Synod
doth
also
impose
certain
things
,
namely
abstinence
from
fornication
,
and
from
things
offered
to
Idols
,
and
from
blood
,
and
things
strangled
,
VT
QUAE
NECESSARIO
OBSERVANDA
,
EX
AUTHORITATE
SYNODI
,
saith
Mr.
Selden
,
BEING
SUCH
AS
WERE
NECESSARILY
TO
BE
OBSERVED
,
IN
REGARD
OF
THE
AUTHORITY
OF
THE
SYNOD
,
by
those
who
giving
their
names
to
the
Christian
Religion
,
should
live
with
the
Jewes
(
they
also
giving
their
names
to
the
Christian
Religion
)
and
so
enter
into
religious
fellowship
with
them
.
I
shall
adde
two
other
Testimonies
of
Mr.
Prynns
;
The
first
I
shall
take
out
of
his
twelve
considerable
serious
Questions
concerning
Church-Government
,
pag.
5.
where
arguing
against
the
Independency
of
particular
Congregations
,
he
askes
,
whether
the
Synodal
Assembly
of
the
Apostles
,
Elders
,
and
Brethren
at
Hierusalem
,
Act.
15.
who
MADE
AND
SENT
BINDING
DECREES
to
the
Churches
of
the
Gentiles
in
Antioch
,
Syria
,
and
Cilicia
,
and
other
Churches
,
be
〈◊〉
an
apparent
subversion
of
Independency
.
So
that
by
Mr.
Prynns
confession
,
the
Scripture
holds
forth
other
Governours
or
Rulers
in
the
Church
beside
Magistrates
,
and
the
authority
of
these
other
Governours
to
be
such
as
to
make
and
send
to
the
Churches
BINDING
DECREES
in
things
and
causes
Ecclesiastical
.
Another
Testimony
I
take
from
his
Independency
examined
,
pag.
10
11.
where
he
argueth
against
the
Independents
,
and
proveth
from
Act.
15.
the
authority
of
ordinary
Ecclesiastical
Synods
,
bringing
also
six
Arguments
,
to
prove
that
the
Apostles
did
not
there
act
in
their
extraordinary
Apostolical
capacity
,
or
as
acted
by
a
spirit
of
infallibility
,
but
in
their
ordinary
capacity
.
Thereafter
he
concludeth
thus
.
Therefore
their
assembling
in
this
Councel
,
not
in
their
extraordinary
capacity
,
as
Apostles
onely
,
bu●…
as
Elders
,
Ministers
:
and
the
Elders
,
Brethrens
sitting
together
in
Councell
with
them
,
upon
this
Controversie
and
occasion
,
is
an
undeniable
Scripture
authority
for
the
lawfulnesse
,
use
of
Parliaments
,
Councels
.
Synods
under
the
Gospel
,
upon
all
like
nec●…ssary
occasions
:
and
FOR
THEIR
POWER
TO
DETERMINE
CONTROVERSIES
OF
RELIGION
,
TO
MAKE
CANONS
IN
THINGS
NECESSARY
FOR
THE
CHURCHES
PEACE
AND
GOVERNMENT
.
Loe
here
Mr.
Prynn
gives
us
an
undeniable
Scripture
authority
for
a
diataktick
governing
power
in
the
Church
,
distinct
from
Magistracy
.
How
he
will
draw
from
Act.
15.
the
use
of
Parliaments
or
their
authority
,
I
do
not
imagine
:
It
is
enough
for
my
Argument
that
he
acknowledgeth
this
Scripture
to
warrant
Synods
of
Ministers
and
Elders
,
and
the
power
of
these
Synods
to
be
not
onely
consultive
,
but
conclusive
,
decisive
,
and
obligatory
;
for
,
this
(
I
suppose
)
he
means
by
the
power
to
determine
controversies
,
and
to
make
Canons
for
the
Churches
peace
and
government
:
else
he
had
concluded
nothing
against
the
Independents
,
who
yeeld
a
consultive
Synodicall
power
.
If
any
shall
yet
desire
to
be
more
parti●ularly
satisfied
concerning
the
strength
of
my
present
Argument
from
Act.
15.
I
will
make
it
out
from
these
particulars
following
.
First
,
Here
is
a
power
and
authority
to
assemble
Synodically
,
and
it
is
an
intrinsecall
power
within
the
Church
it self
,
not
adventitious
or
extrinsecall
from
the
Magistrate
.
Whence
the
soundest
Protestant
writers
prove
,
that
though
the
civil
Magistrate
hath
a
power
of
convocating
Synods
,
and
he
ought
to
do
it
when
the
Churches
necessity
or
danger
doth
call
for
such
a
remedy
;
yet
this
power
of
his
is
positive
,
not
privative
,
cumulative
,
not
destructive
,
And
that
if
the
Magistrate
be
an
enemy
and
persecuter
of
the
Church
and
of
true
Religion
,
or
cease
to
do
his
duty
,
that
is
to
wit
,
in
a
manifest
danger
of
the
Church
,
the
Church
notwithstanding
ought
not
to
be
wanting
to
her self
,
but
ought
to
use
the
right
and
authority
of
convocation
,
which
first
and
for●…most
remaineth
with
the
Rulers
of
the
Church
;
as
may
be
seen
Act.
15.
So
say
the
Professors
of
Leyden
in
Synops.
purior
.
Theol.
Disp.
49.
Thes.
24.
beside
diverse
others
whom
I
might
here
cite
,
but
that
is
not
now
my
businesse
.
Secondly
,
Beside
the
publike
debate
and
deliberation
,
the
Synod
did
also
choose
and
send
certain
delegates
or
commissioners
to
Antioch
,
and
wrote
by
them
a
Synodical
Epistle
to
the
Churches
in
Antioch
,
Syria
,
and
Cilicia
.
I
beleeve
such
Synodical
acts
of
sending
Commissioners
and
letters
to
the
Churches
in
other
Nations
or
Provinces
,
should
now
be
lookt
upon
as
acts
of
government
,
if
done
without
the
leave
of
the
Magistrate
,
as
then
Iudas
and
Silas
were
sent
.
Thirdly
,
That
Synod
did
exercise
and
make
use
of
a
threefold
Ecclesiastical
power
,
for
remedy
of
a
three-fold
Ecclesiastical
disease
.
1.
They
purge
out
the
leven
of
false
doctrine
and
heresie
,
by
deciding
and
determining
that
great
controversie
,
whether
Circumcision
and
the
keeping
of
the
Ceremoniall
Law
of
Moses
were
neeessary
to
salvation
.
They
hold
forth
and
declare
to
the
Churches
the
negative
;
And
this
they
do
by
the
dogmatik
power
.
2.
There
was
a
great
scandal
,
taken
by
the
beleeving
Jewes
(
then
not
fully
instructed
and
perswaded
concerning
the
abrogation
of
the
Ceremoniall
Law
by
the
death
of
Christ
)
who
were
so
far
stumbled
and
offended
at
the
beleeving
Gentiles
for
their
eating
of
things
sacrificed
to
Id●ls
,
and
of
blood
,
and
things
strangled
,
that
they
could
not
freely
nor
contentedly
converse
,
company
,
and
eate
together
with
the
Gentiles
.
For
remedy
whereof
,
the
Synod
doth
require
(
in
regard
of
the
law
of
love
,
edification
,
peace
,
and
avoyding
of
scandall
)
that
the
Gentiles
should
abstain
from
those
things
,
as
also
from
fornication
,
(
which
for
what
cause
it
is
added
,
I
do
not
now
dispute
)
And
this
they
do
by
the
Diataktik
power
.
3.
There
was
a
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
a
schisme
,
dissention
,
and
rent
made
in
the
Church
by
the
Judaizing
Teachers
,
vers.
2.
Who
clothed
themselves
with
a
pretended
authority
and
warrant
from
the
Apostles
and
Elders
at
Hierusalem
,
and
thereupon
got
the
more
following
,
and
drew
away
the
more
disciples
after
them
.
For
remedy
hereof
,
the
Synod
stigmatizeth
and
brandeth
those
men
,
by
declaring
them
to
be
lyars
,
troublers
of
the
Church
,
and
subverters
of
souls
,
vers.
24.
And
this
they
do
by
the
Critick
power
,
or
authority
of
censures
.
Fourthly
,
The
decree
and
Canon
of
the
Synod
,
which
is
made
,
imposed
,
emitted
and
promulgat
,
is
authoritative
,
decisive
,
and
binding
;
Act.
15.
28.
For
it
seemed
good
to
the
holy
Ghost
,
and
(
here
the
Arabick
repeateth
it
seemed
good
)
to
us
,
to
lay
upon
you
no
greater
burthen
then
these
necessary
things
,
That
ye
abstain
&c.
If
it
be
said
that
this
was
but
a
doctrinal
advice
.
It
seemed
good
&c.
I
answer
,
Iosephus
Antiq.
Iud.
lib.
4.
cap.
8.
speaking
of
the
decree
of
the
supreme
Sanhedrin
(
which
he
that
disobeyed
was
to
be
put
to
death
)
calls
it
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
that
which
seemeth
good
:
So
likewise
in
this
place
,
the
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
is
not
meant
of
an
Opinion
onely
,
for
an
Opinion
(
as
Schoolmen
define
it
)
is
properly
such
a
〈◊〉
of
or
assent
to
a
thing
,
as
is
evident
and
firme
,
but
not
certain
:
So
that
Opinion
cannot
be
ascribed
to
the
holy
Ghost
;
It
is
therefore
here
a
word
of
authority
and
decree
:
as
Mr.
Leigh
in
his
Critica
sacra
at
the
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
noteth
out
of
Ch●…mnitius
.
In
which
sence
the
Grecians
frequently
use
it
.
So
Stephanus
out
of
Demosthenes
:
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
It
is
de
reed
by
the
Senate
.
And
Budaeus
out
of
Plato
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
It
is
certainly
appointed
to
die
.
Observe
also
the
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
imposing
and
burthen
.
They
do
impose
some
burthen
,
onely
they
are
carefull
to
impose
no
burthen
except
in
necessary
things
.
Acts
16.
4.
And
as
they
went
through
the
Cities
they
delivered
them
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
the
decrees
that
were
ordained
of
the
Apostles
and
Elders
which
were
at
Hierusalem
.
And
here
I
cannot
passe
the
observation
of
that
gentleman
who
hath
taken
so
good
pains
in
the
Original
Tongues
,
Mr.
Leigh
in
his
Critica
sacra
of
the
New
Testament
,
in
the
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
:
Wheresoever
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
is
found
in
the
New-Testament
,
it
is
put
for
Decrees
or
Lawes
,
as
Luke
2.
1.
Acts
17.
7.
it
is
put
for
the
Decrees
of
Caesar
;
and
Ephes.
2.
15.
Colos.
2.
14.
for
the
Ceremonial
Lawes
of
Moses
;
and
so
frequently
by
the
LXX
.
in
the
Old
Testament
for
Decrees
;
as
Dan.
2.
13.
and
3.
10.
29.
and
4.
6.
for
Lawes
,
Dan.
6.
8.
Caeterum
saith
Erasmus
upon
Act.
16.
4.
Dogmata
Graeca
vox
est
,
significans
&
ipsa
decreta
five
placita
,
non
doctrinam
ut
vulgus
existimat
.
And
whereas
some
have
objected
,
that
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
are
used
onely
in
reference
to
a
doctrinal
power
,
as
Col.
2.
20.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
I
answer
,
Budaeus
expounds
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
to
be
decerno
,
and
Col.
2.
20.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
The
Syriack
makes
it
judicamini
;
Erasmus
and
Bullinger
,
Decretis
tenemini
.
Stephanus
,
Beza
,
and
Gualther
,
ritibus
oneramini
;
the
English
Translators
,
are
ye
subject
to
Ordinances
?
This
subjection
was
not
onely
to
Doctrines
,
but
to
Commandements
,
vers
.
22.
after
the
Commandements
and
Doctrines
of
men
:
and
these
commandements
(
though
in
deed
and
truth
the
commandements
of
men
onely
at
that
time
)
were
imposed
as
the
Commandements
of
God
,
and
as
Ceremoniall
Lawes
given
by
Moses
.
The
vulgar
Latine
hath
decernitis
,
and
Tertullian
readeth
Sententiam
fertis
,
both
of
them
(
it
seemeth
)
having
read
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
:
however
they
understand
the
power
related
unto
to
be
more
then
Doctrinall
.
I
conclude
that
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
Acts
16.
4.
must
be
more
then
Doctrinal
declarations
,
and
that
it
is
meant
of
binding
decrees
(
that
I
may
use
Mr.
Prynns
phrase
)
especially
when
joyned
with
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
there
was
a
Judgement
passed
and
given
upon
the
making
and
sending
of
those
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
not
the
judgement
of
one
or
two
,
but
the
judgement
of
the
Apostles
and
Elders
Synodically
assembled
.
So
Acts
21.
25.
Iames
and
the
Elders
speaking
of
that
Synodical
judgement
say
,
we
have
written
and
concluded
that
they
observe
no
such
thing
,
&c.
These
four
considerations
being
laid
together
,
concerning
an
intrinsecall
Ecclesiastical
power
of
assembling
together
Synodically
;
of
choosing
and
sending
Commissioners
with
a
Synodical
Epistle
to
the
Churches
in
other
parts
;
of
providing
effectual
and
necessary
remedies
both
for
heresies
,
scandals
,
and
schismes
arising
in
the
Church
;
of
making
and
imposing
binding
decrees
on
the
Churches
,
will
infallibly
prove
from
Scripture
authority
another
Government
in
the
Church
beside
Magistracy
.
I
might
here
adde
other
Arguments
,
but
so
much
for
this
time
.
CHAP.
X.
Some
Objections
m●de
against
Ecclesiastical
Government
a●d
Discipline
answered
.
MR.
Hussey
in
his
Epistle
to
my selfe
objecteth
thus
,
What
will
your
censure
doe
?
it
will
shame
a
few
whores
and
knaves
;
a
great
matter
to
shame
them
the
Law
of
nature
shameth
.
All
this
in
terminis
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
from
that
Religion
which
will
not
shame
Whores
and
Theeves
,
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-censures
,
will
tell
him
,
that
scandalls
either
of
Doctrine
or
life
,
either
against
the
first
or
second
Table
,
fall
under
Ecclesiastical
cognizance
and
censure
.
Secondly
,
He
argueth
thus
Ibid.
Sure
in
the
day
of
our
Lord
there
will
be
as
good
a
returne
of
the
word
preached
,
as
of
the
censure
.
And
in
his
plea
pag.
1.
If
the
Word
be
able
to
make
the
man
of
God
perfect
,
then
nothing
is
wanting
to
him
:
perfectum
cui
nihil
deest
:
and
it
is
a
wonder
how
that
Conscience
should
be
wrought
upon
by
humane
authority
,
with
whom
divine
cannot
prevail
.
Answ.
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
rej●ct
an
Heretick
after
once
or
twice
admonishing
of
him
.
2.
He
might
object
the
same
thing
against
Magistracy
.
Shall
there
not
be
a
better
account
of
the
word
preached
then
of
Magistracy
?
and
if
the
Word
be
able
to
make
the
man
of
God
perfect
,
there
is
no
need
of
Magistracy
.
Perfectum
est
cui
nihil
deest
.
Surely
many
Erastian
Arguments
do
wound
Civil
as
well
as
Ecclesiastical
Government
.
3.
Church-censures
are
not
acts
of
humane
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
perfect
,
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
foules
,
is
a
meer
fallacy
ab
ignoratione
elenchi
:
for
Church
discipline
is
not
intended
as
a
converting
,
light-giving
,
or
life-giving
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
beleeveth
.
But
Ecclesiastical
Discipline
hath
a
necessary
use
,
though
it
hath
not
that
use
.
Discipline
and
censures
in
the
Church
are
intended
.
1.
For
the
glory
of
God
.
that
his
name
may
not
be
blasphemed
,
nor
the
doctrine
of
the
Gospel
reproached
,
by
occasion
of
uncensured
scandalls
in
the
Church
.
2.
For
keeping
the
Ordinances
of
Christ
from
prophanation
and
pollution
,
that
signa
gratiae
divinae
,
the
signes
of
Gods
favour
and
grace
,
and
the
seales
of
his
Covenant
may
be
denied
to
unworthy
scandalous
persons
.
3.
For
preserving
the
Church
from
the
infection
of
bad
and
scandalous
examples
,
it
is
fit
to
put
a
black
mark
upon
them
,
and
to
put
away
the
wicked
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
infect
the
rest
.
4.
For
the
good
also
of
the
offender
himself
,
that
he
may
be
ashamed
,
and
humbled
.
2
Thes.
3.
14.
2.
Cor.
2.
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.
5.
5.
that
is
to
tame
and
mortifie
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
necessary
use
in
the
Church
;
the
Erastians
gain
nothing
by
comparing
it
with
the
Word
.
Because
it
is
not
so
necessary
as
the
Word
,
Ergo
,
it
is
not
necessary
at
all
.
Or
because
it
is
not
efficacious
in
the
same
manner
as
the
word
is
.
Ergo
it
is
not
efficacious
at
all
.
The
Apostle
saith
Christ
sent
me
not
to
baptiz●…
but
to
preach
the
Gospel
,
1
Cor.
1.
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
then
that
can
prove
that
Baptisme
is
not
an
Ordinance
of
Christ
.
A
negative
in
the
comparative
,
will
not
inferre
a
negative
in
the
positive
.
3.
Object
.
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-ordinate
governments
of
a
General
and
an
Admiral
,
of
a
Master
and
a
Father
,
of
a
Captain
and
a
Master
in
one
ship
.
Mr.
Hussey
finding
he
can
not
make
good
Mr.
Colemans
word
,
tells
me
pag.
7.
that
he
meaneth
two
supreme
co-ordinate
Governments
.
Where
first
he
loseth
ground
,
and
tacitely
yeeldeth
that
Church-Government
and
Civil
Government
,
distinct
each
from
other
do
well
consist
,
as
long
as
they
are
not
supreme
,
but
as
two
armes
under
one
head
:
No
inconsistency
therefore
of
Congregational
and
Classical
Elderships
,
and
of
Provinciall
Assemblies
,
with
the
subordinate
Magistrates
and
civil
Courts
in
Cities
and
Counties
.
Next
we
shall
find
also
in
Scripture
two
co-ordinate
supreme
Governments
,
for
the
civil
and
the
Ecclesiastical
Sanhedrin
of
the
Jewes
were
both
supreme
and
co-ordinate
,
and
there
was
no
appeal
from
the
sentence
of
either
:
as
is
evident
by
that
disjunctive
Law
,
Deut.
17.
12.
And
the
man
that
will
do
presumptuously
,
and
will
not
hearken
unto
the
Priest
(
that
is
to
the
Priests
,
as
vers.
9.
)
or
unto
the
Judge
(
that
is
,
the
Assembly
or
Court
of
Judges
,
as
I
have
cleared
else-where
)
even
that
man
shall
die
.
But
I
have
also
answered
more
fully
this
objection
concerning
co-ordination
.
Chap.
8.
4.
Object
.
Ministers
have
other
work
to
do
,
and
such
as
will
take
up
the
whole
man
.
To
this
Argument
(
saith
Mr.
Hussey
pag.
8.
)
Mr.
Gilespie
maketh
no
answer
at
all
,
though
Saint
Paul
useth
the
very
self
same
Argument
to
discharge
the
Preachers
from
oversight
of
the
poor
.
Act.
6.
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
Romano
,
Saint
Paul
,
Saint
Matthew
,
Saint
Mark
,
&c.
ought
to
be
laid
aside
,
except
they
will
use
it
of
all
Saints
,
and
why
not
as
well
Saint
Moses
,
and
Saint
Aar●…n
(
whom
the
Psalmist
calls
the
Saint
of
the
Lord
?
)
or
why
not
Saint
Aquila
,
Saint
Apollos
,
Saint
Epaphras
,
&c.
Methinks
men
professing
Reformation
ought
not
to
satisfie
themselves
in
using
this
forme
of
speech
,
onely
of
such
as
have
been
canoniz●dat
Rome
,
and
inrolled
Saints
in
the
Popes
Calender
.
And
as
strange
it
is
that
Mr.
Hussey
makes
Paul
to
act
in
the
businesse
,
Act.
6.
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
)
pag.
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
pollution
:
that
is
,
Church-Government
is
a
part
of
their
work
,
and
a
necessary
part
,
which
hath
been
proved
:
I
thought
it
enough
to
touch
an
answer
where
an
objection
was
but
touched
:
another
objection
in
that
very
place
being
more
insisted
on
(
and
with
more
colour
of
reason
)
concerning
the
fear
of
an
ambitious
ensnarement
.
And
for
the
objection
now
in
hand
,
Mr.
Hussey
hath
made
it
no
whit
stronger
by
his
instance
from
Act.
6.
For
1.
the
Apostles
did
not
wholy
lay
aside
the
care
of
the
poor
.
Sure
Paul
(
afterward
an
Apostle
)
took
great
care
of
the
poor
at
diverse
times
,
and
in
diverse
places
as
himself
recordeth
:
but
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.
1.
17.
Likewise
the
work
of
Discipline
must
be
so
ordered
,
as
may
not
hinder
the
principal
work
of
preaching
the
Gospel
:
which
is
very
possible
,
yea
probatum
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
speciall
and
particular
care
of
the
poor
,
did
belong
by
Christs
institution
(
whose
mind
was
no
doubt
known
to
the
Apostles
)
to
the
office
of
Deacons
,
and
for
that
reason
the
Ministers
of
the
word
ought
in
like
manner
to
be
relieved
of
that
burthen
by
Deacons
:
but
Church-Government
doth
belong
to
the
Elders
of
the
Church
,
of
whom
some
labour
both
in
Doctrine
and
Government
,
others
in
Government
onely
.
But
neither
must
the
Argument
go
so
,
I
have
another
thing
to
ask
;
what
is
that
other
work
which
will
take
up
the
whole
man
?
Mr.
Hussey
pag.
12.
expounds
Mr.
Colemans
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
onely
with
preaching
and
baptizing
,
which
being
performed
with
such
zeal
and
diligence
as
is
needful
,
is
aboundantly
a
sufficient
employment
.
And
so
he
takes
off
the
Minister
not
onely
from
Government
,
but
from
visiting
particular
families
,
especially
the
sick
;
from
catechising
and
examining
those
who
are
to
be
admitted
to
the
Lords
Supper
,
from
the
celebration
of
the
Lords
Supper
it self
,
to
say
nothing
of
the
solemnization
of
marriage
,
yea
from
disputations
in
Schools
concerning
the
controversies
of
the
time
,
which
yet
himself
so
much
calls
for
.
And
why
?
the
Minister
hath
other
work
to
do
,
and
such
as
will
take
up
the
whole
man
,
which
is
to
preach
and
baptize
.
5.
Object
.
If
acts
of
Government
be
put
in
the
hands
of
Church-Officers
,
there
is
fear
of
an
ambitious
ensnarement
,
which
Mr.
Coleman
proved
by
an
arguing
from
his
owne
heart
to
the
hearts
of
other
men
.
Mr.
Gilespies
answer
to
the
matter
of
ambition
saith
Mr.
Hussey
,
pag.
10.
is
onely
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.
Colemans
Argument
:
for
the
foundation
of
his
Argument
was
universal
.
Might
I
measure
others
by
my selfe
,
and
I
know
not
why
I
may
not
(
God
fashioneth
mens
hearts
alike
,
and
as
in
warer
face
answers
to
face
,
so
the
heart
of
man
to
man
)
&c.
Hereupon
I
replyed
,
Is
this
corruption
onely
in
the
hearts
of
Ministers
?
or
is
it
in
the
hearts
of
all
other
men
?
I
suppose
he
will
say
in
all
mens
hearts
;
and
then
his
Argument
will
conclude
against
all
Civil
Government
.
And
now
per
omnes
musas
I
beseech
him
,
which
of
us
involveth
the
Magistrate
in
ambition
?
Must
I
be
charged
with
involving
the
Magistrate
because
I
discovered
that
Mr.
Colemans
Argument
involveth
the
Magistrate
?
He
might
as
truly
say
he
is
not
the
Traytor
that
commits
Treason
,
but
he
is
the
Traytor
that
reveals
Treason
.
And
why
saith
he
that
my
answer
was
onely
concerning
that
involving
of
the
Magistrate
?
Did
I
not
first
shew
that
the
two
Scriptures
on
which
Mr.
Colemans
Argument
was
grounded
,
did
not
prove
it
:
though
now
Mr.
Hussey
tells
us
Mr.
Coleman
did
but
allude
to
those
Scriptures
(
I
am
sure
it
was
all
the
Scripturall
proof
which
was
brought
for
that
Argument
upon
which
so
much
weight
was
laid
)
which
I
will
not
trouble
my
Reader
withall
saith
he
:
A
pretty
shift
,
when
a
man
cannot
defend
the
Argument
,
then
forsooth
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
mans
heart
,
to
prove
the
same
particular
corruption
in
all
other
mens
hearts
,
and
that
Paul
taught
us
not
so
?
Phil.
2.
3.
Did
I
not
also
answer
in
his
owne
words
,
that
his
Brethrens
wisedom
and
humility
may
safely
be
trusted
with
as
large
a
share
of
Government
as
themselves
desire
?
Did
I
not
lastly
answer
,
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
it self
?
Unto
which
exceptions
nothing
hath
been
replied
,
nor
offered
to
vindicate
or
make
good
that
Argument
which
was
publikely
offered
to
the
Parliament
.
If
such
men
were
fit
to
put
the
reverend
Assembly
and
all
the
Ministery
of
England
to
school
again
,
to
learn
to
dispute
,
let
every
pious
and
wise
man
judg
.
And
so
I
am
ledd
on
to
another
Objection
.
6.
Object
.
Schools
of
Divinity
will
advance
learning
and
Religion
,
and
get
us
an
able
Ministery
more
then
Ecclesiasticall
Government
can
do
.
So
Mr.
Col
man
in
his
Sermon
pag.
●6
.
Yea
Mr.
Hussey
calleth
for
Schools
,
that
there
may
be
unity
found
among
the
Preachers
of
the
Gospel
,
together
with
more
learning
and
knowledge
,
pag.
12
,
13
,
14
,
15.
(
where
by
the
way
the
Jesuits
are
much
beholding
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
wayes
to
get
knowledge
.
I
should
have
thought
multum
scientiae
,
parum
Cons●…ientiae
,
might
be
as
seasonable
a
complaint
.
Knowledge
and
learning
are
indeed
most
necessary
,
and
I
am
confident
shall
flourish
more
under
Presbyteriall
Government
,
then
either
under
Popery
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
contemplative
part
belonging
to
Schools
:
which
made
[
m
](A42757-e69700-b)
m
Synod
.
Dord
.
sess.
18.
Et
quia
vocati
ad
ministerium
regimini
Ecclesiae
aliquando
sunt
praeficiendi
:
Ecclesiarum
vero
regimen
in
Scholis
exacte
non
addiscitur
,
non
abs
re
f●…ret
si
aliquot
ante
vocasionem
mensibus
,
in
urbibus
〈◊〉
us
potestas
His
fiat
ut
inte●…sint
Presbyter●…is
,
&c.
the
Divines
of
Ze●…land
to
offer
this
among
other
Articles
to
be
advised
upon
by
the
Synod
of
Dort
,
that
they
who
are
preparing
for
the
Ministery
,
may
(
after
their
education
at
Schools
,
before
their
setling
in
the
Ministery
)
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
flock
,
in
dispensing
the
Ordinances
to
them
as
a
faithful
Steward
.
But
Mr.
Hussey
pag.
15.
tells
us
the
Minister
must
not
be
called
from
his
study
to
examine
notorious
offences
:
which
indeed
suteth
his
notion
of
Schools
.
The
Grecians
did
not
intend
Schools
for
any
such
work
;
for
to
them
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
was
rest
from
work
,
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
to
be
idle
,
to
take
a
vacation
from
work
,
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
.
7.
Object
.
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
owne
offences
?
How
shall
the
Censurers
themselves
be
censured
?
This
objection
I
find
in
the
eight
Epistle
of
Dionysius
Areopagita
(
or
who
ever
he
was
that
wrote
under
that
name
)
It
was
made
by
one
D●…mophilus
,
What
then
say
you
,
must
not
the
prophane
Priests
,
or
such
as
are
convicted
to
have
done
somewhat
amisse
be
corrected
?
and
shall
it
be
lawful
to
them
alone
,
while
they
glory
in
the
Law
,
to
dishonour
God
by
breaking
of
the
Law
?
A
little
after
,
this
direct
answer
is
made
to
the
objection
.
But
if
perhaps
any
among
these
erre
from
that
which
it
becommeth
him
to
do
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
let
him
be
corrected
by
the
Saints
of
his
owne
order
,
and
so
order
shall
not
be
intermixed
with
order
,
but
each
one
shall
be
exercised
in
his
owne
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-discipline
is
received
,
there
is
greatest
severity
of
Church-discipline
against
Church-officers
,
and
especially
against
Ministers
of
the
Word
,
when
any
such
are
upon
just
proof
convict
of
scandal
.
It
is
too
much
diffidence
(
and
groundlesse
,
I
dare
say
)
to
apprehend
that
Ministers
who
have
taken
upon
them
the
bond
of
such
a
Covenant
,
and
joyned
in
such
a
Reformation
,
will
yet
be
ready
to
connive
at
any
scandalous
person
of
their
owne
coat
.
And
if
a
Classis
should
happen
to
commit
such
an
error
,
yet
there
can
be
no
such
fear
in
this
particular
from
a
Provinciall
or
National
Assembly
,
which
in
a
well
Reformed
Church
,
(
as
they
are
constituted
of
choice
,
able
,
and
godly
,
both
Ministers
and
others
assembled
from
diverse
quarters
,
so
)
use
to
correct
(
not
to
confirme
)
the
mal-administration
in
inferior
Ecclesiastical
Courts
.
I
speak
here
of
the
Ecclesiastical
offences
of
Church-officers
:
their
other
offences
belonging
wholy
to
the
Civil
cognizance
and
Jurisdiction
.
8.
Object
.
But
let
the
Scripture
speak
expressely
,
and
Institutions
appear
Institutions
,
and
all
must
bow
.
It
is
asked
why
we
must
not
prove
a
must
be
,
as
well
as
a
may
be
:
and
whether
do
our
proofes
amount
to
an
Institution
and
a
Ius
divinum
.
For
satisfaction
in
this
point
also
.
I
answer
the
Question
which
for
the
present
I
speak
to
,
is
not
whether
Christ
hath
in
his
Word
limited
and
determined
us
to
any
one
particular
forme
of
Church-government
,
so
as
no
other
forme
can
be
admitted
as
lawful
or
agreeable
to
the
Word
:
Much
lesse
do
I
now
enquire
what
is
that
particular
forme
or
kind
of
Government
which
Christ
hath
instituted
.
But
the
present
controversie
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
enquire
whether
it
be
the
will
of
God
,
that
there
be
a
civil
Government
or
Magistracy
,
that
is
,
that
there
be
not
an
Anarchie
in
a
N●tion
,
but
some
rule
and
government
.
Another
thing
,
to
enquire
whether
God
hath
in
his
Word
limitted
a
nation
to
any
one
particular
kind
of
Civil
Government
,
and
if
any
,
what
it
is
?
So
it
is
one
thing
to
enquire
whether
it
be
the
will
of
Christ
,
that
there
be
an
Ecclesiastical
Government
,
or
an
intrinsecal
power
of
ruling
in
the
hands
of
Church-officers
,
distinct
from
the
civil
Government
?
Another
thing
to
ask
whether
the
Word
determineth
any
one
kind
of
Church-Government
as
necessary
,
and
which
it
is
?
The
former
,
not
the
latter
is
our
present
controversie
.
Yea
in
very
truth
the
Erastians
do
oppose
not
onely
the
institution
,
but
the
lawfulnesse
and
agreeablenesse
to
the
Word
of
God
,
of
a
Church-Government
distinct
from
the
civil
;
For
their
principles
and
Arguments
tend
to
the
investing
of
the
civil
Magistrate
with
the
whole
and
sole
power
of
Church-Government
;
as
that
which
belongeth
to
him
onely
,
and
that
Iure
divino
:
So
that
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
clearing
and
vindicating
of
the
lawfulnesse
of
a
distinct
Church-Government
,
doth
overthrow
the
Erastian
Principles
:
yet
that
I
may
deal
the
more
clearly
and
fully
,
for
the
satisfaction
of
all
such
as
may
be
satisfied
,
this
I
avouch
and
averre
:
It
is
Jure
divino
,
It
is
the
will
of
God
,
and
of
his
Sonne
Iesus
Christ
the
King
and
Head
of
his
Church
,
that
there
be
a
Church-Government
in
the
hands
of
Church-Officers
distinct
from
the
Civil
Government
.
It
is
de
necessitate
praecepti
,
of
the
necessity
of
precept
that
it
be
s●…
.
It
is
sin
and
a
violation
of
Christs
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
adde
these
following
Arguments
,
directly
inferring
and
proving
an
Institution
.
First
,
The
Scripture
speaks
of
Church
Government
in
the
same
manner
,
and
with
the
same
height
,
fulnesse
,
and
peremptorinesse
of
expression
,
as
it
speaketh
of
other
things
which
are
without
controversie
acknowledged
even
by
the
Erastians
themselves
to
be
Institutions
of
Christ
.
For
instance
,
Let
the
Erastians
prove
against
the
Socinians
the
necessity
and
perpetuity
of
the
Ordinance
of
Baptisme
,
that
it
ought
to
continue
alwais
in
the
Church
,
and
that
by
vertue
of
an
Institution
and
precept
of
Christ
:
I
will
undertake
by
the
like
medium
to
inferre
the
like
conclusion
concerning
Church-Government
.
Again
,
let
them
prove
the
necessity
,
perpetuity
,
and
institution
(
I
say
not
now
of
the
Word
it self
,
or
of
preaching
,
but
)
of
the
ministery
,
or
of
the
Pastoral
office
,
I
will
bring
the
like
Argument
concerning
Church-Government
:
I
do
not
now
compare
or
paralel
the
Government
with
the
Ministery
of
the
Word
quo
ad
necessitatem
medii
vel
finis
,
as
being
equally
necessary
to
salvation
,
nor
yet
as
being
equally
excellent
;
but
this
I
say
,
The
one
is
by
the
Scripture
language
an
Institution
and
Ordinance
of
Christ
as
well
as
the
other
.
One
Ordinance
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.
12.
28.
It
is
a
good
Argument
for
the
Institution
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.
4.
11.
Will
not
this
then
hold
as
well
for
the
Institution
of
a
Government
in
the
Church
?
That
the
Governments
mentioned
1
Cor.
12.
28.
are
Ecclesiastical
and
distinct
from
civil
,
is
already
proved
,
Chap.
6.
Thirdly
,
If
it
be
the
will
and
commandement
of
God
,
that
we
be
subject
and
obedient
to
Church-Governors
,
as
those
who
are
over
us
in
the
Lord
,
as
well
as
to
civil
Governors
,
then
it
is
the
will
of
God
that
there
be
a
rule
and
Government
in
the
Church
,
distinct
from
the
civil
.
For
Relata
se
mut●…o
ponunt
vel
tollunt
.
If
we
be
obliged
by
the
fifth
commandement
to
honour
Magistrates
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
Thess.
5.
12.
to
honour
doubly
Elders
that
rule
well
,
1
Tim.
5.
17.
to
be
subject
and
obedlent
unto
Ecclesiasticall
Rulers
,
Heb.
13.
17.
with
verse
7.
24.
doth
not
this
intimate
the
will
of
God
,
that
Pasto●s
and
Elders
be
over
us
in
the
Lord
,
and
rule
us
Ecclesiastically
?
Fourthly
,
That
which
being
administred
is
a
praise
and
commendati●n
to
a
Church
,
and
being
omitted
is
a
ground
of
controversie
to
Christ
against
a
Church
,
can
be
no
other
then
an
Ordinance
,
and
necessary
duty
.
But
Church-Government
and
Discipline
is
such
a
thing
,
as
being
administred
,
it
is
a
praise
and
commendation
to
a
Church
,
2
Cor.
2.
9.
Revil
.
2.
2.
and
being
omitted
is
a
ground
of
Controversie
to
Christ
against
a
Church
,
1
Cor.
5.
1.
2.
6.
Revel.
2.
14.
20.
Ergo.
Fifthly
,
The
rules
and
directions
concerning
an
Ecclesiastical
Government
and
Discipline
are
delivered
preceptwise
in
Scripture
1
Cor.
5.
13.
Put
away
that
wicked
person
from
among
you
.
2
Thess.
3.
14.
Note
that
man
.
Tit.
3.
10.
A
man
that
is
an
Heretick
after
the
first
and
second
admonition
reject
.
Augustine
lib.
contra
Donatistas
post
Collationem
,
Cap.
4.
saith
that
Church-censur●s
and
discipline
are
exercised
in
th●
Church
secundum
praeceptum
Apostolicum
,
according
to
the
Apostolick
precept
,
for
which
he
citeth
2
Thess.
3.
14.
Sixthly
,
There
is
an
Institution
and
command
,
Matth.
18
17.
Let
him
be
unto
thee
as
an
Heathen
man
and
a
Publican
.
In
which
place
there
are
three
Acts
of
the
Church
,
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
concerning
the
case
,
if
he
neglect
to
hear
the
Church
,
&c.
Where
heareing
is
required
and
obedience
,
there
must
needs
be
an
authoritative
speaking
or
judging
.
So
that
they
who
would
prove
the
Church
here
hath
onely
power
to
admonish
doctrinally
,
because
it
is
said
If
he
hear
not
the
Church
;
they
may
as
well
prove
that
the
Judges
of
Israel
had
no
more
power
but
to
admonish
doctrinally
because
it
is
appointed
Deut.
17.
12.
that
the
man
who
will
not
hearken
to
the
Judge
shall
die
;
and
it
is
not
there
expressed
that
the
Judge
shall
put
him
to
death
,
more
then
it
is
expressed
here
that
the
Church
shall
declare
the
offender
to
be
as
a
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-member
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
a
heathen
and
a
publican
,
and
withall
be
esteemed
by
the
whole
Church
as
a
brother
,
a
good
Christian
,
a
Church-member
,
and
accordingly
to
be
freely
admitted
to
the
Ordinances
.
CHAP.
XI
.
The
necessity
of
a
distinct
Church-Government
under
Christian
as
well
as
under
Heathen
Magistrates
.
SOme
when
they
could
not
denie
but
there
was
a
Church-Government
in
the
Primitive
and
Apostolick
Churches
,
distinct
from
all
civil
Government
,
and
Churchcensures
distinct
from
all
civil
punishments
;
yet
they
have
aledged
(
though
no
such
thing
was
alledged
of
old
,
neither
by
Constantine
and
other
Christian
Emperors
,
nor
by
others
in
their
behalf
)
that
this
was
for
want
of
Christian
Magistrates
,
and
that
there
is
not
the
same
reason
for
such
a
Church-Government
or
censures
,
where
there
is
a
Christian
Magistracy
.
See
Mr.
Husseys
plea
,
pag.
24.
As
likewise
Mr.
Prynne
in
his
Diotrephes
catechised
.
Master
Colemans
re-examination
,
pag.
16.
calls
for
an
instance
where
the
State
was
Christian.
For
taking
off
this
exception
,
I
shall
observe
,
First
of
all
[
n
](A42757-e70400-b)
n
Annot.
in
Luc.
6.
22.
Reperti
sunt
&
qui
Judicia
ista
Ecclesiae
putarent
inhibenda
;
quoties
Christiana●…
potestates
Deus
concederet
saeculo
&c.
At
Christi
leges
multo
plus
exigunt
,
quam
in
commune
civibus
impe●…ii
alicujus
praescribi
solet
,
aut
etiam
potest
,
semper
enim
magna
pars
hominum
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Quare
civiles
quidem
leges
suo
funguntur
officio
,
si
graviora
&
societati
maxime
no●…entia
delicta
coerceant
:
at
quae
contra
dilectionis
,
contra
mansuetudinis
,
contra
patientiae
leges
pec●…antur
,
extra
communes
leges
sunt
posita
:
non
etiam
extra
eas
leges
▪
quas
se
sectantibus
Christus
praescribit
,
&
secundum
quas
▪
judicare
debet
ille
selectus
ex
mundo
coetus
.
Grotius
(
otherwise
no
good
friend
to
Church-Government
,
being
poisoned
with
the
Arminian
Principles
,
who
have
endeavoured
to
weaken
extremely
the
authority
of
Classical
and
Synodical
Assemblies
,
and
to
give
a
kind
of
Papal
power
to
the
Magistrate
)
yet
in
this
particular
he
argueth
strongly
for
us
,
and
not
against
us
.
Secondly
,
Where
is
that
Christian
Magistracy
which
hath
suppressed
or
punished
all
such
offences
as
did
f●ll
under
Ecclesiastical
cognizance
and
censure
,
in
the
Primitive
and
Apostolick
Churches
?
Or
where
is
that
Christian
Magistrate
that
will
yet
undertake
to
punish
all
those
offences
and
scandals
which
were
censured
in
the
Apostolick
Churches
?
Till
some
such
instance
be
given
,
this
exception
against
Church-discipline
and
censures
under
a
Christian
Magistrate
hath
not
so
much
as
colour
enough
.
Aliae
sunt
leges
Caesarum
▪
ali●…e
Christi
:
aliud
Papinianus
,
aliud
Paulus
noster
praecipit
saith
Hierome
in
Epitaph
.
Fabiolae
.
Caesars
Lawes
,
and
Christs
Lawes
are
not
the
same
,
but
different
.
Papinianus
commands
one
thing
,
Paul
another
thing
.
Chrysostome
Homil.
12.
in
1.
Epist.
ad
Cor.
tells
us
that
the
best
and
wisest
Law-givers
had
appointed
no
punishment
for
fornication
,
for
consuming
and
trifling
away
of
time
with
playing
at
dice
,
for
gluttony
and
drunkennesse
,
for
Stage-plaies
and
lascivious
whorish
gestures
therein
.
Is
there
not
some
cause
to
apply
all
this
(
and
much
more
of
this
kind
)
even
to
Christian
Law
givers
and
Magistrates
?
Put
the
case
that
he
who
is
called
a
brother
(
as
the
Apostle
speaks
)
that
is
a
member
of
the
visible
Church
,
be
found
grossely
ignorant
of
the
Principles
of
Religion
,
and
so
far
from
growing
in
knowledge
,
that
he
loseth
the
knowledge
of
the
Scriptures
,
and
of
the
truth
of
God
which
he
had
(
for
this
hath
been
diverse
times
observed
)
through
neglect
of
the
means
:
or
if
he
be
known
to
neglect
ordina●lly
prayer
in
and
with
his
Family
,
and
to
continue
in
that
offence
after
admonition
:
or
if
he
live
in
known
or
scandalous
malice
and
envie
,
and
refuse
to
be
reconciled
with
his
neighbour
,
or
if
he
be
a
known
lyar
and
dissembler
:
or
if
by
his
words
and
actions
he
do
scandalously
and
manifestly
shew
himself
covetous
,
drowned
in
sensuality
,
ambitious
,
proud
:
or
if
he
give
a
foul
scandal
by
filthy
and
obscene
speeches
,
by
lascivious
,
obscene
,
whorish-like
gestures
or
actions
,
where
the
act
it self
of
adultery
or
fornication
cannot
be
proved
.
I
suppose
that
for
these
and
such
like
scandals
(
which
are
causes
deserving
not
onely
the
Elderships
enquiry
and
admonition
,
but
suspension
from
the
Lords
Table
)
the
Christian
Magistrate
neither
doth
,
nor
by
the
civil
or
municipal
Laws
is
bound
to
arraign
and
punish
all
such
as
are
guilty
thereof
.
Thirdly
,
whereas
Arch-bishop
Whitgift
Answ.
to
the
Admon
.
pag.
114.
did
alledge
that
the
Church
may
not
be
governed
under
a
Christian
Magistrate
as
it
may
under
a
Tyrant
,
which
he
brings
as
an
exception
against
ruling
Elders
and
Elderships
,
while
he
could
not
denie
but
such
there
were
in
the
Primitive
Church
.
Mr.
Cartwrigh
▪
in
his
Reply
pag.
140.
answereth
,
that
if
these
Elders
under
a
Tyrant
had
medled
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
onely
assist
the
Pastor
in
matters
Ecclesiastical
,
there
is
no
distinction
between
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
Presbyteries
and
Synods
,
if
suspension
and
excommunication
in
the
Apostles
times
had
been
an
usurping
of
any
thing
belonging
to
the
Magistrate
,
then
there
had
been
some
reason
to
lay
aside
all
Church-censures
and
Ecclesiastical
Government
,
when
the
Magistrate
turned
Christian
,
and
willing
to
do
his
duty
.
But
if
not
,
then
the
civil
and
Church-government
may
still
remain
distinct
,
even
where
the
State
is
Christian.
Fourthly
,
Every
Institution
or
Ordinance
of
Christ
,
must
continue
as
a
perpetual
obligation
,
unlesse
we
can
find
in
the
Word
that
Christ
hath
given
us
a
dispensation
or
taken
off
the
obligation
,
and
set
a
period
to
the
Ordinance
,
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
extraordinary
.
Now
in
the
Word
Christ
hath
not
appointed
the
governing
the
Church
,
and
correcting
scandals
,
to
be
onely
under
a
Tyrant
,
and
to
cease
under
a
Christian
Magistrate
:
neither
is
there
any
such
thing
held
forth
in
Scripture
(
which
yet
our
opposites
must
shew
,
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.
11.
23.
26.
1
Tim.
6.
14.
and
he
himself
saith
,
Rev.
2.
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
Christs
comming
again
)
but
the
charge
was
given
to
them
in
name
of
and
with
respect
unto
all
the
Ministery
and
Churches
of
Christ
.
Fifthly
,
This
exception
made
against
Church-censures
under
a
Christian
Magistrate
,
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
being
so
hugely
differenced
in
their
efficient
causes
,
matters
,
formes
,
ends
,
effects
,
objects
,
adjuncts
,
correlations
,
and
ultimate
terminations
,
as
I
have
made
it
to
appear
in
the
particulars
,
Chap.
4.
Sixthly
,
The
Churches
liberty
and
power
is
not
to
be
infringed
,
diminished
,
nor
taken
away
;
but
preserved
,
maintained
,
enlarged
,
and
augmented
under
a
Christian
Magistrate
.
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
Magistracy
,
as
well
as
the
Jewish
Church
government
did
consist
with
the
Jewish
Magistracy
,
being
of
the
same
Religion
?
Or
if
we
please
to
look
to
later
Presidents
,
who
can
be
ignorant
that
civil
government
and
Church-discipline
have
rather
strengthened
then
destroyed
each
other
,
not
onely
in
France
where
the
Magistracy
is
not
Protestant
,
but
in
Scotland
,
in
the
Low-Countries
,
in
Geneva
,
and
else-where
?
Eightly
,
We
have
covenanted
to
endeavour
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-government
distinct
from
civil
Government
:
and
the
example
of
the
best
Reformed
Churches
doth
undeniably
lead
us
to
a
Church-discipline
,
even
where
he
Magistrate
is
Christian
,
neither
doth
the
word
make
any
exception
of
Christian
States
,
but
contrariwise
chargeth
us
to
keep
the
commandement
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
burthen
of
Church-Government
,
the
enquiring
into
,
examining
and
correcting
of
all
scandals
in
the
Church
,
surely
it
is
more
then
he
can
discharge
,
or
give
a
good
account
to
God
of
.
It
will
be
hard
enough
to
Church-officers
to
do
it
,
though
they
are
set
apart
to
that
service
,
and
ex
officio
do
watch
over
peoples
souls
,
as
they
that
must
give
an
account
.
But
for
the
Christian
Magistrate
to
discharge
the
whole
corrective
part
of
Church-Government
,
and
to
watch
over
the
soules
of
all
the
people
;
so
as
to
take
care
of
the
purging
of
the
Church
from
scandals
,
and
for
that
end
to
observe
,
examine
,
and
judge
all
offences
in
the
Church
,
and
to
determine
that
this
man
ought
to
be
admitted
to
the
Sacrament
,
and
that
man
ought
not
to
be
admitted
(
for
that
there
must
be
a
suspension
of
scandalous
and
unworthy
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
beleeve
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
,
ministring
the
Sacraments
to
those
to
whom
they
are
appointed
to
give
them
,
catechizing
,
visiting
the
sick
,
exhorting
,
admonishing
,
reproving
,
comforting
.
It
was
a
good
argument
against
the
Prelat
;
he
assumed
the
Ecclesiastical
government
of
a
whole
Diocesse
,
and
could
not
give
account
to
God
for
so
many
thousands
,
and
sometime
hundreths
of
thousand
souls
.
Yet
Mr.
Coleman
would
have
had
the
Parliament
to
be
Church-Officers
to
the
whole
Kingdom
in
point
of
corrective
Government
,
and
the
Ministery
to
have
no
part
of
that
government
.
But
then
I
ask
,
How
shall
they
answer
for
that
Ecclesiastical
Government
and
administration
of
theirs
,
more
then
the
Prelat
could
answer
for
the
Ecclesiastical
Government
of
a
whole
Diocesse
?
If
it
be
said
that
the
Parliament
is
onely
to
settle
a
rule
,
and
to
give
order
what
is
to
be
done
,
and
to
commit
the
execution
and
the
managing
of
particular
cases
to
subordinate
Courts
and
inferiour
Officers
,
then
no
more
is
said
then
the
Prelats
did
plead
for
themselves
,
that
they
did
per
alium
what
they
could
not
do
per
se.
So
that
such
principles
do
tend
directly
to
involve
the
Parliament
in
the
Prelatical
guiltinesse
,
which
our
Principles
do
avoid
.
Was
it
not
another
Argument
used
against
the
Prelats
,
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
Prelats
were
pressed
?
For
if
any
of
these
two
administrations
require
the
whole
man
,
how
can
the
civil
Magistrate
(
though
Christian
)
take
upon
him
the
burthen
of
Church-Government
,
more
then
Church-Officers
can
take
upon
them
the
burthen
of
civil-government
?
Philo
the
Jew
gives
this
reason
why
Moses
did
make
a
partition
of
the
charge
between
Ioshua
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
charitate
.
Tenthly
,
Ratio
immutabilis
facit
praeceptum
immutabil●…
.
If
the
Apostle
had
required
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
excommunication
should
not
be
esteemed
a
perpetual
ordinance
in
the
Church
:
but
it
is
manifest
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
,
vers●…
1.
2.
He
that
had
done
such
wickednesse
as
was
not
so
much
as
named
among
the
Gentiles
,
was
not
to
be
suffered
among
Gods
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.
36.
22
,
23.
They
had
prophaned
the
holy
name
of
God
among
the
Heathen
,
therefore
God
would
sanctifie
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.
2.
6.
)
had
to
excommunicate
such
a●one
.
vers.
4
,
5.
In
the
name
of
our
Lord
Iesus
Christ
when
ye
are
gathered
together
.
&c.
3.
From
the
good
and
benefit
of
the
sinner
himself
,
that
he
might
be
ashamed
,
humbled
,
reclaimed
,
mortified
and
saved
:
vers.
5.
For
the
destruction
of
the
Flesh
,
that
the
Spirit
may
be
saved
in
the
day
of
the
Lord
Jesus
.
4.
From
the
Churches
good
,
that
the
Church
might
be
preserved
from
the
contagion
of
such
sinful
examples
vers.
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
Passeover
.
vers.
7
,
Purge
out
therefore
the
old
leaven
&c.
6.
From
the
end
of
Christs
death
,
which
was
to
purifie
and
sanctifie
,
as
well
as
to
reconcile
and
justifie
his
people
,
vers.
7.
8.
For
Christ
our
Passeover
is
sacrificed
for
us
,
Therefore
let
us
keep
the
Feast
,
&c.
7.
From
the
difference
which
ought
to
be
made
between
the
foul
sins
of
Church-members
,
and
others
that
are
not
Church-members
:
a
blacker
mark
is
to
be
put
upon
the
former
,
then
upon
the
latter
:
and
more
withdrawing
there
must
be
from
a
scandalous
brother
or
professor
of
Christian
Religion
,
then
from
a
prophane
Heathen
,
vers.
9.
10.
11.
From
all
which
it
doth
appear
,
that
it
is
not
without
good
reason
that
Martyr
and
Pareus
upon
1
Cor.
5.
do
maintain
the
necessity
of
Excommunication
,
under
a
Christian
and
pious
Magistrate
,
as
well
as
under
an
Infidel
and
prophane
Magistrate
.
Eleventhly
,
The
end
and
use
for
which
Church-censures
are
necessary
,
is
not
intended
and
endeavoured
,
much
lesse
attained
,
by
the
government
of
the
Christian
Magistrate
.
For
though
the
Christian
Magistrate
punisheth
many
(
I
cannot
say
all
)
grosse
and
scandalous
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
his
suffering
of
punishment
and
satisfying
the
Law
of
the
Land
is
one
thing
;
his
declaring
of
his
repentance
,
and
publike
confession
of
his
sin
,
for
taking
away
the
scandal
which
he
hath
given
to
the
Church
,
is
another
thing
.
Suppose
a
deli●quent
(
whose
fault
is
not
capitall
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
which
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
over-awed
and
restrained
from
committing
again
the
like
ext●rnal
acts
:
Notwithstanding
he
hath
not
the
least
signe
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
comes
and
desires
to
receive
the
Sacrament
.
Must
his
poenal
satisfaction
to
the
Christian
Magistrate
be
a
sufficient
poenitential
satisfaction
to
the
Church
?
Here
is
a
rock
which
the
Erastians
dash
upon
,
unlesse
they
admit
of
a
distinct
Ecclesiastical
Judgement
,
concerning
the
signes
of
repentance
in
a
scandalous
sinner
,
according
to
which
,
as
these
signes
shall
appear
or
not
appear
,
he
is
to
be
admitted
or
not
admitted
to
the
Sacrament
.
Twelfthly
,
the
power
of
binding
and
loosing
,
is
not
a
temporary
but
a
perpetual
power
,
that
is
,
appointed
by
Christ
to
continue
in
his
Church
alwaies
unto
the
end
.
Now
this
power
is
given
onely
to
Church-officers
,
and
Christ
hath
not
given
the
keyes
of
discipline
and
the
power
of
binding
and
loosing
(
of
which
else-where
)
to
the
Magistrate
,
nay
not
to
the
Christian
Magistrate
,
more
then
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
yeeld
the
cause
.
Thirteenthly
,
The
new
Testament
holdeth
out
as
little
of
the
Ministery
of
the
Word
and
Sacraments
under
a
Chrīstian
Magistrate
,
as
it
doth
of
a
Church-government
under
a
Christian
Magistrate
.
Shall
this
therefore
strengthen
the
Socinian
Tenent
,
That
Baptisme
is
not
a
perpetual
Ordinance
in
the
Church
,
and
that
we
are
not
obliged
by
that
commission
which
the
Apostles
had
to
baptize
?
God
forbid
.
Fourteenthly
,
The
German
Anabaptists
required
an
expresse
warrant
or
example
in
the
New
Testament
of
a
Christian
Magistrate
,
or
of
the
sword
and
wars
in
a
Christian
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
Iohn
9.
22.
after
he
hath
spoken
of
Excommunication
in
the
Jewish
Church
,
and
in
the
Apostolick
Churches
,
he
addeth
[
o
](A42757-e71140-b)
o
Et
hodie
e●iam
disciplina
Ecclesiastica
opus
est
,
quae
in
reforma●is
Eccles●is
instituta
diligenter
servari
debet
,
ne
Magistratum
indulgentia
quae
ubique
sere
regnat
,
Evangelii
doctrinam
exteris
suspectam
reddat
,
&
ut
ipsi
quoque
in
officio
contineantur
,
nec
sibi
quidvis
in
Ecclesia
licere
putentt
.
And
this
day
also
there
is
need
of
Ecclesiastical
discipline
,
which
being
instituted
in
the
Reformed
Churches
,
ought
to
be
diligently
kept
,
lest
the
indulgence
of
Magistrates
,
which
reignes
almost
every
where
,
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
any
thing
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
that
Jesus
Christ
hath
instituted
or
commanded
that
there
be
a
Church
Government
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
.
Otherwise
if
they
do
not
agree
in
this
,
it
is
but
a
blind
for
them
to
make
use
of
this
distinction
,
that
where
the
Magistrate
is
Christian
,
there
is
no
necessity
of
a
distinct
Church-Government
.
I
conclude
with
a
passage
of
Mr.
Prynne
in
his
twelve
considerable
serious
Questions
touching
Church-Government
.
The
ninth
of
those
Questions
runs
thus
.
Whether
the
Independents
challenge
of
the
Presbyterians
to
shew
them
any
National
Church
,
professing
Christ
in
our
Saviours
or
the
Apostles
daies
,
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
,
Republick
,
who
were
then
all
generally
Pagans
and
Persecutors
of
the
Gospel
,
not
then
universally
imbraced
,
be
not
a
most
irrational
unjust
demand
?
Sure
if
this
hold
against
the
Independents
,
it
will
hold
as
strongly
,
yea
more
strongly
against
the
Erastians
,
to
prove
their
demand
to
be
most
irrational
and
unjust
,
while
they
challenge
us
to
shew
them
in
the
New-Testament
a
distinct
Church-Government
under
a
Christian
Magistrate
,
or
where
the
State
was
Christian
,
though
themselves
know
Magistrates
and
States
were
then
generally
Pagan
and
not
Christian
:
Yea
there
was
in
those
daies
much
more
of
a
national
Church
then
of
a
Christian
Magistrate
.
An
Appendix
to
the
second
Book
,
containing
a
Collection
of
some
Testimonies
not
cited
before
;
And
first
a
Testimony
of
King
Iames
in
a
Declaration
of
his
,
penned
with
his
own
hand
,
signed
and
delivered
to
the
Commissioners
of
the
Church
of
Scotland
at
Linlithgow
,
December
7.
Anno
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
Interpretation
of
the
Scripture
:
but
according
to
my
first
act
which
confirmeth
the
liberty
of
preaching
the
Word
,
ministration
of
the
Sacraments
,
I
avouch
the
same
to
be
a
matter
meer
Ecclesiastical
,
and
altogether
impertinent
to
my
calling
.
Therefore
never
shall
I
,
nor
ever
ought
they
,
I
mean
my
posterity
,
acclaim
any
power
or
Iurisdiction
in
the
foresaids
.
His
Majesties
meaning
was
that
he
ought
not
to
do
this
in
prima
instantiâ
,
that
is
,
before
the
person
be
accused
,
convict
,
or
judged
in
any
Ecclesiastical
Court.
(
which
was
the
Question
at
that
time
,
occasioned
by
Mr.
Andrew
Melvill
his
Case
)
Afterward
in
the
same
Declaration
it
followeth
thus
.
Christ
saying
Dic
Ecclesiae
,
and
one
onely
man
stealing
that
dint
in
a
quiet
hole
,
the
Act
of
Parliament
reduceth
the
sentence
for
informality
and
nullity
of
processe
,
not
as
Iudges
whether
the
Excommunication
was
grounded
on
good
and
just
causes
or
not
,
but
as
witnesses
that
it
was
unformally
proceeded
,
against
the
warrant
of
Gods
Word
,
example
of
all
Reformed
Ki●ks
,
and
your
owne
particular
custome
in
this
Countrey
.
A
little
after
.
I
mind
not
to
cut
off
any
liberty
granted
by
God
to
his
Kirk
.
I
acclaim
not
to
my self
to
be
judge
of
Doctrine
in
Religion
,
salvation
,
heresies
,
or
true
Interpretation
of
Scripture
.
And
after
.
My
Intention
is
not
to
meddle
with
Excommunication
,
neither
acclaim
I
to
my self
or
my
Heires
power
in
any
thing
that
is
meer
Ecclesiastical
and
not
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
nor
with
any
thing
that
Gods
Word
hath
simply
devolved
in
the
hands
of
his
Kirk
.
And
to
conclude
,
I
confesse
and
acknowledge
Christ
Iesus
to
be
Head
and
Law-giver
to
the
same
.
And
what
soever
persons
do
attribute
to
themselves
,
as
Head
of
the
Kirk
,
and
not
as
Member
,
to
suspend
or
alter
any
thing
that
the
Word
of
God
hath
onely
remitted
to
them
,
that
man
I
say
committeth
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
bearing
the
contrary
record
to
his
Conscience
.
Testimonies
taken
out
of
the
Harmony
of
the
Confessions
of
the
Faith
of
the
〈◊〉
Churches
,
R●printed
at
London
1643.
Pag.
238.
Out
of
the
confession
of
Helvetia
.
FUrthermore
,
there
is
another
power
of
duty
,
or
ministerial
power
limited
out
by
him
,
who
hath
full
and
absolute
power
and
authority
.
And
this
is
more
like
a
Ministry
then
Dominion
.
For
we
see
that
some
master
doth
give
unto
the
steward
of
his
house
authority
and
power
over
his
House
,
and
for
that
cause
delivereth
him
his
keyes
,
that
he
may
admit
or
exclude
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
Lord
doth
ratifie
and
confirm
that
which
he
doth
,
and
will
have
the
deeds
of
his
ministers
to
be
acknowledged
and
esteemed
as
his
own
deeds
,
unto
which
end
are
those
speeches
in
the
Gospel
:
I
will
give
unto
thee
the
keyes
of
the
Kingdom
of
heaven
,
and
whatsoever
thou
bindest
or
loosest
in
earth
,
shall
be
bound
and
loosed
in
heaven
.
Again
,
whose
sins
soever
ye
remit
,
they
shall
be
remitted
;
and
whose
sins
soever
ye
retain
,
they
shall
be
retained
.
But
if
the
minister
deal
not
in
all
things
as
his
Lord
hath
commanded
him
:
but
passe
the
limits
and
bounds
of
Faith
,
then
the
Lord
doth
make
void
that
which
he
doth
.
Wherefore
the
Ecclesiastical
power
of
the
Ministers
of
the
Church
,
is
that
function
whereby
they
do
indeed
govern
the
Church
of
God
,
but
yet
so
as
they
do
all
things
in
the
Church
as
he
hath
prescribed
in
his
Word
;
which
thing
being
so
done
,
the
faithful
do
esteem
them
as
done
of
the
Lord
himself
.
Pag.
250.
Out
of
the
confession
of
Bohemia
.
THe
14th
.
Chapter
of
Ecclesiastical
doctrine
is
of
the
Lords
keyes
,
of
which
he
saith
to
Peter
,
I
will
give
thee
the
Keyes
of
the
Kingdom
of
Heaven
,
and
these
keyes
are
the
peculiar
function
or
Ministery
and
administration
of
Christ
his
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
onely
by
preaching
publish
the
holy
Gospel
,
although
they
should
do
this
especially
,
that
is
,
should
shew
forth
that
Word
of
true
comfort
,
and
the
joyful
message
of
peace
,
and
new
tydings
of
that
favour
which
God
offereth
,
but
also
that
to
the
beleeving
and
unbeleeving
,
they
should
publikely
or
privately
denounce
and
make
known
,
to
wit
,
to
them
his
favour
,
to
these
his
wrath
,
and
that
to
all
in
general
,
or
to
every
one
in
particular
,
that
they
may
wisely
receive
some
into
the
house
of
God
,
to
the
communion
of
Saints
,
and
drive
some
out
from
thence
,
and
may
so
through
the
performance
of
their
Ministery
,
hold
in
their
hand
the
Scepter
of
Christ
his
Kingdom
,
and
use
the
same
to
the
government
of
Christ
his
Sheep
.
And
after
,
Moreover
a
manifest
example
of
using
the
power
of
the
keyes
is
laid
out
in
that
sinner
of
Corinth
and
others
,
whom
St.
Paul
,
together
with
Verily
I
say
unto
you
,
whatsoever
ye
bind
on
earth
,
shall
be
bound
in
heaven
.
And
For
where
two
or
three
are
gathered
together
in
my
Name
,
there
am
I
in
the
middest
of
them
.
Pag.
253.
Out
of
the
French
Confession
.
WE
beleeve
that
this
true
Church
ought
to
be
governed
by
that
regiment
or
discipline
which
our
Lord
Jesus
Christ
hath
established
,
to
wit
so
,
that
there
be
Pastors
,
Elders
,
and
Deacons
,
that
the
purity
of
doctrine
may
be
retained
,
vices
repressed
.
&c.
Pag.
257.
Out
of
the
Confession
of
Belgia
.
WE
beleeve
that
this
Church
ought
to
be
ruled
and
governed
by
that
spiritual
Regiment
which
God
himself
hath
delivered
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
every
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
compasse
.
Pag.
260.
Out
of
the
Confession
of
Auspurge
.
AGain
,
by
the
Gospel
,
or
as
they
term
it
by
Gods
Law
,
Bishops
,
as
they
be
Bishops
,
that
is
,
such
as
have
the
administration
of
the
Word
and
Sacraments
committed
to
them
,
have
no
jurisdiction
at
all
,
but
onely
to
forgive
sin
,
Also
to
know
what
is
true
doctrine
;
and
to
reject
such
Doctrine
as
will
not
stand
with
the
Gospel
,
and
to
debarre
from
the
communion
of
the
Church
such
as
are
notoriously
wicked
,
not
by
humane
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
.
Upon
which
place
the
Observation
saith
thus
.
To
debar
the
wicked
,
&c.
To
wit
by
the
judgement
and
verdict
of
the
Presbyterie
,
lawfully
gathered
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
judgement
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
amisse
,
there
be
some
other
punishment
or
more
rigorous
censure
to
be
used
:
It
shall
then
be
done
either
by
suspension
,
or
privation
of
the
holy
communion
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
likewise
to
ponder
and
carefully
to
examine
the
faults
and
scandals
that
are
brought
before
them
,
with
all
their
circumstances
,
to
judge
warily
of
the
censure
,
which
may
be
required
.
Harmonia
Synodorum
Belgicarum
.
Cap.
14.
Art.
7.
8.
9.
PEccata
sua
natura
publica
,
aut
per
admonitionis
privatae
contemtum
publicata
,
ex
Consistorii
totius
arbitrio
,
modo
&
formâ
ad
aedificationem
maximè
accomodatis
sunt
Corrigenda
.
Qui
pertinaciter
Consistorii
admonitiones
rejecerit
,
à
S.
Coenae
communione
suspendetur
.
Si
suspensus
post
iter
atas
admonitiones
nullum
poenitentiae
signum
dederit
,
ad
Excommunicationem
procedet
Ecclesia
.
Melchior
Adamus
de
vitis
Germanorum
Theologorum
,
Pag.
342.
CUmque
sub
id
tempus
(
Anno
1545.
)
Fredericus
Elector
Palatinus
,
qui
Ludovico
successerat
,
de
Ecclesiarum
agitaret
Reformatione
:
composuit
Melanchthon
,
cum
evocato
venire
integrum
non
esset
,
scriptum
de
reformandis
Ecclesiis
:
cujus
Synopsin
aliquot
regulis
comprehendit
:
Vera
&
salutaris
gubernatio
Ecclesiae
Christi
praecipuè
in
his
sex
Membris
consistit
.
-
PRimum
,
In
vera
&
pura
Doctrina
,
quam
Deus
Ecclesiae
suae
patefecit
,
tradidit
,
&
doceri
mandavit
.
-
Secundo
,
In
legitime
usu
Sacramentorum
.
-
Tertio
,
In
conservatione
Ministerii
Evangelici
&
obedientiae
erga
Pastores
Ecclesiarum
;
sicut
Deus
vult
&
postulat
conservari
Ministerium
Evangelii
,
&
servat
ipse
sua
potentiâ
&
presentiâ
.
-
Quarto
,
In
conservatione
honestae
&
pia
Disciplinae
retinendae
per
judicia
Ecclesiastica
,
seu
jurisdictionem
Ecclesiasticam
.
-
Quinto
,
In
conservandis
studiis
necessariae
doctrinae
&
Scholis
.
-
Sexto
,
Ad
haec
opus
est
defensione
corporali
&
facultatibus
,
ad
personas
,
quae
sunt
in
efficiis
necessariis
,
alendas
.
The
Irish
Articles
of
Religion
.
Art.
58.
NEither
do
we
give
unto
him
(
the
Supreme
Magistrate
)
hereby
the
administration
of
the
Word
and
Sacraments
,
or
the
power
of
the
keyes
.
And
Art.
69.
But
particular
and
visible
Churches
(
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
lesse
sincerely
according
to
Christs
Institution
,
the
Word
of
God
is
taught
,
the
Sacraments
are
administred
,
and
the
authority
of
the
keyes
is
used
;
the
more
or
lesse
pure
are
such
Churches
to
be
accounted
.
Laurentius
Humfredus
de
Religionis
conservatione
&
Reformatione
vera
.
Ad
Nobilitatem
,
Clerum
,
&
Populum
Anglicanum
.
PAg.
23.
Nec
satis
mirari
possum
nec
satis
dolere
,
cum
intellgam
in
his
locis
[
*
](A42757-e72270-b)
*
He
wrote
from
Basil.
repudiari
disciplinam
Ecclesiasticam
,
&
vel
nullam
esse
vel
nimis
laxam
,
vel
non
satis
vigilanter
administratam
,
in
quibus
tamen
alioqui
Religionis
sincera
effigies
cernitur
:
quasi
Evangelium
esse
possit
ubi
non
vivitur
Evangelicè
:
aut
quasi
Christus
laeto
▪
carnali
,
voluptuario
delectetur
Evangelio
.
&c.
At
in
Ecclesia
manere
debet
censura
&
jurisdictio
,
non
minus
quam
gladius
in
Repub.
Pag.
25.
Sit
ergo
haec
prima
Reformationis
perfectae
ratio
,
nostri
ac
peccatorum
recognitio
&
emendatio
.
Deinde
severior
adsit
in
Ecclesia
castigatio
&
animadversio
:
ut
illa
laxit
as
&
remissio
frnaeetur
,
quo
minus
&
levius
deinceps
peccetur
.
FINIS
.
THE
THIRD
BOOKE
.
OF
Excommunication
from
the
CHURCH
.
AND
,
Of
Suspension
from
the
LORDS
TABLE
.
CHAP.
I.
An
opening
of
the
true
state
of
the
question
,
and
of
Master
Prynnes
many
mistakes
and
mis-representations
of
our
Principles
.
HAving
now
by
the
light
of
Scripture
and
other
helps
asserted
a
Church-government
distinct
from
civill
Magistracy
,
both
in
the
Old
and
New
Testament
,
the
last
part
of
my
present
undertaking
shall
be
to
vindicate
the
particular
Ordinances
of
Excommunication
and
Suspension
,
called
by
the
Schoolmen
Excommunicatio
major
&
minor
.
Of
which
also
I
have
before
spoken
divers
things
occasionally
;
for
I
have
asserted
an
Excommunication
and
Suspension
in
the
Jewish
Church
,
Booke
1.
Chap.
4
,
5
,
6
,
7
,
8
,
9
,
10
,
11
,
12.
The
nature
,
grounds
,
reasons
,
uses
,
and
ends
whereof
,
were
not
proper
to
the
Old
Testament
,
but
such
as
concerne
the
Christian
Church
.
I
have
also
brought
arguments
Booke
2.
Chap.
9
,
10.
which
conclude
not
onely
Church-government
,
but
Excommunication
.
And
so
much
of
my
worke
is
done
:
Neverthelesse
there
is
more
to
doe
.
Mr
Prynne
first
in
his
foure
grand
Quaeres
,
and
thereafter
in
his
Vindication
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
Scripturall
proofes
for
Excommunication
it selfe
.
In
his
Vindication
he
hath
branched
forth
the
controversie
into
ten
points
of
difference
.
Two
of
these
,
viz.
the
fifth
concerning
suspension
from
the
Sacrament
of
the
Passeover
,
and
the
ninth
concerning
casting
out
of
the
Synagogue
,
I
have
discussed
before
in
the
first
Book
.
Where
I
have
also
examined
other
assertions
of
his
concerning
the
Jewish
Sanhedrin
,
Temple
,
confession
of
sinne
.
The
other
points
of
difference
not
handled
before
,
I
am
(
as
the
Lord
will
help
me
)
now
to
speak
to
.
The
first
point
of
difference
is
,
whether
in
those
foure
Quaeres
of
his
he
stated
the
Controversie
aright
.
He
is
offended
that
I
(
in
a
Sermon
of
mine
before
the
honourable
House
of
Commons
)
charged
the
Questionist
with
mistakes
,
and
that
I
did
not
take
notice
of
the
question
concerning
suspension
from
the
Sacrament
,
as
he
stated
it
.
Vindic.
pag.
3.
I
had
reason
,
because
he
had
mis-stated
it
;
and
since
it
pleased
him
to
interpose
in
a
matter
depending
between
the
Honourable
houses
of
Parliament
,
and
the
Reverend
Assembly
of
Divines
,
and
to
publish
a
paper
plainly
reflecting
upon
a
Petition
of
the
Assembly
,
I
hope
he
can
not
think
either
the
Assembly
,
or
me
,
tied
to
his
stating
of
the
question
.
If
he
will
meddle
with
the
businesse
of
the
Assembly
,
he
must
speak
to
it
as
it
is
.
And
that
it
may
now
appeare
how
just
cause
I
had
to
charge
his
Queres
with
mistakes
of
the
state
of
the
question
,
(
which
he
still
mistaketh
)
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
Parliament
,
as
may
keep
off
all
scandalous
and
notorious
sinners
from
the
Sacrament
.
The
question
was
not
what
Texts
of
Scripture
doe
warrant
this
thing
.
It
did
not
concerne
me
to
debate
whether
the
Scriptures
of
the
Old
and
New
Testament
quoted
by
him
,
prove
suspension
from
the
Lords
Table
.
The
controversie
was
of
the
practicall
conclusion
,
and
of
establishing
such
a
rule
,
as
may
keep
off
scandalous
persons
from
the
Sacrament
.
If
the
thing
be
done
,
if
the
conclusion
be
consented
to
,
there
is
the
greater
liberty
for
men
to
abound
in
their
own
sence
concerning
the
mediums
to
prove
it
.
Secondly
,
and
if
he
would
needs
debate
what
Texts
of
Scripture
doe
prove
the
thing
,
and
what
precept
or
president
in
Scripture
doth
warrant
it
:
me
thinks
he
had
done
better
to
have
informed
himselfe
,
on
what
Scripturall
proofs
the
Reverend
Assembly
had
grounded
the
suspension
of
scandalous
sinners
from
the
Sacrament
,
though
not
yet
cast
out
of
the
Church
;
The
proofes
from
Scripture
voted
in
the
Assembly
,
were
these
.
Because
the
Ordinance
it selfe
must
not
be
prophaned
.
And
because
we
are
charged
to
withdraw
from
those
who
walk
disorderly
.
And
because
of
the
great
sinne
and
danger
both
to
him
that
comes
unworthily
,
and
also
to
the
whole
Church
.
The
Scriptures
from
which
the
Assembly
did
prove
all
this
,
were
,
Matth.
7.
6.
2
Thess.
3.
6
,
14
,
15.
1
Cor.
11.
27
,
to
the
end
of
the
Chapter
,
compared
with
Iude
vers.
23.
1
Tim.
5.
22.
Another
proofe
added
by
the
Assembly
was
this
.
There
was
power
and
authority
under
the
Old
Testament
to
keep
unclean
persons
from
holy
things
,
Levit.
13.
5.
Num.
9.
7.
2
Chro.
23.
19.
And
the
like
power
and
authority
by
way
of
analogy
continues
under
the
new
Testament
,
for
the
authoritative
suspension
from
the
Lords
Table
,
of
a
person
not
yet
cast
out
of
the
Church
.
Now
that
which
was
the
strength
of
the
Assemblies
proofes
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
no
body
,
that
I
know
,
asserts
.
The
power
is
given
not
uni
,
but
unitati
,
to
the
Eldership
,
not
to
any
one
,
either
Minister
or
Elder
.
Fourthly
,
that
which
in
the
Preface
of
his
Queres
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
concerning
a
limited
jurisdiction
in
Presbyteries
.
As
these
things
are
not
denied
by
any
that
I
know
,
so
himselfe
manifestly
acknowledgeth
by
these
expressions
,
the
thing
it selfe
for
the
substance
,
(
which
yet
the
current
of
his
debate
runneth
against●
)
and
onely
questioneth
concerning
the
bounds
,
cautions
and
limitations
.
God
forbid
that
Church-officers
should
ever
claim
an
unlimited
power
:
their
power
is
given
them
to
edification
,
and
not
to
destruction
,
and
we
can
doe
nothing
against
the
truth
,
but
for
the
truth
,
2
Cor.
13.
8
,
10.
The
power
of
censures
must
not
be
in
the
power
of
any
one
man
,
nor
in
the
power
of
any
who
are
themselves
scandalous
and
worthy
of
censure
.
[
a
](A42757-e72690-b)
a
Aug.
Tom
10.
bom
.
50.
Nos
vero
à
communione
prohibere
quenquam
non
postumus
,
quamvis
haec
prohibitio
nondum
sit
mortalis
,
sed
medicinalis
,
nisi
aut
spōnte
confessum
,
aut
in
aliquò
sive
seculari
five
Ecclesiastico
judicio
nominatum
atque
convictum
.
There
must
be
no
sentence
of
Excommunication
or
suspension
,
upon
reports
,
surmises
,
suspitions
,
but
either
upon
the
confession
of
the
offence
or
proofe
thereof
by
two
witnesses
at
least
.
None
must
be
excommunicated
nor
suspended
for
money
matters
,
debts
,
and
such
like
civill
causes
which
are
not
of
Ecclesiasticall
cognizance
,
but
are
to
be
Judged
by
the
civill
Judge
.
It
must
not
be
for
those
peccata
quotidianae
incursionis
,
such
sinfull
infirmities
as
all
the
godly
in
this
life
are
guilty
of
:
though
on
the
other
side
,
the
scandalous
sinnes
meant
of
in
this
controversie
,
must
not
be
restricted
to
such
sinnes
onely
as
can
not
stand
with
the
state
of
grace
.
These
and
such
like
limitations
we
doe
not
onely
admit
of
,
but
desire
to
be
put
.
Fifthly
,
he
goeth
about
to
cleare
the
state
of
the
question
out
of
Aretius
,
and
citeth
him
for
what
himself
now
undertaketh
to
prove
.
Whereas
Aretius
holds
Excommunication
to
be
an
ordinance
of
God
both
in
the
Old
and
New
Testament
,
and
that
it
was
wanting
through
the
injury
and
corruption
of
the
times
,
the
abuse
of
it
in
Popery
having
made
the
thing
it self
hatefull
;
and
the
most
part
in
those
places
where
he
lived
,
loving
carnall
liberty
so
well
;
and
taking
upon
them
the
protection
and
defence
of
prophane
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
himselfe
gives
the
reasons
:
and
[
b
](A42757-e72760-b)
b
Theol.
probl.
loc
.
132.
Interea
non
desperandum
esse
libenter
fateor
,
dabit
posterior
aetas
tractabiliores
fortè
animas
,
mitiora
pectora
,
quàm
nostra
habent
saecula
.
he
professeth
withall
,
that
he
doth
not
despaire
of
better
times
,
when
men
shall
be
more
willing
to
submit
to
that
discipline
.
So
that
this
is
the
question
,
if
it
shall
be
stated
out
of
Aretius
;
Whether
Excommunication
,
being
an
Ordinance
of
God
,
ought
to
be
setled
where
prophanesse
and
licentiousnesse
abounds
,
and
where
the
better
party
is
like
to
be
oppressed
by
the
greater
party
:
or
whether
we
should
wait
till
God
send
better
times
for
the
setling
of
it
.
Sixthly
,
the
Author
of
those
questions
maketh
a
parallel
between
that
power
of
censures
now
desired
to
be
setled
in
Presbyteries
,
and
the
Prelaticall
tyranny
,
as
if
this
were
the
very
power
which
heretofore
was
declaimed
against
in
,
denied
to
,
and
quite
taken
away
from
the
Prelates
.
Yea
in
the
close
he
makes
this
power
now
desired
to
be
setled
in
Presbyteries
,
to
be
such
as
our
very
Lordly
Prelates
never
durst
to
claime
.
Yet
Ecclesiae
Anglicanae
politeia
in
tabulas
digesta
authore
Richardo
Cousin
Tab.
5.
tels
me
that
the
Episcopall
Jurisdiction
did
exercise
it selfe
in
these
censures
,
which
were
common
both
to
Lay-men
and
Clergy-men
(
as
they
were
called
.
)
1.
Interdictio
divinorum
.
2.
Monitio
.
3.
Suspensio
vel
ab
ingressu
Ecclesiae
,
vel
a
perceptione
Sacramentorum
.
4.
Excommunicatio
.
5.
Anathematisinius
,
&c.
Neverthelesse
there
is
a
truth
too
in
that
which
Mr
Prynne
saith
.
I
confesse
the
Prelates
never
durst
desire
that
which
this
learned
and
pious
Assembly
hath
desired
in
this
particular
.
He
hath
said
it
.
The
Prelats
never
durst
indeed
take
upon
them
to
suspend
all
scandalous
persons
from
the
Sacrament
;
for
if
they
had
,
it
had
been
said
unto
most
of
them
,
Physitian
cure
thy selfe
,
besides
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
doe
.
The
Lordly
Prelate
did
(
contrary
to
the
institution
of
Jesus
Christ
)
make
himselfe
Pastor
of
many
Congregations
,
even
of
his
whole
Diocesse
,
and
did
assume
sole
and
whole
power
of
Government
and
Church
censures
to
himself
,
and
his
underling
officers
which
were
to
execute
the
same
in
his
name
.
And
as
the
appropriating
of
Jurisdiction
to
the
Lordly
Prelate
,
so
the
manner
and
kind
of
his
Government
,
and
his
proceedings
in
Ecclesiasticall
censures
,
came
neither
from
Christ
nor
from
the
purest
antiquity
,
but
from
the
Popes
Canon
Law
.
What
then
hath
Presbytery
to
doe
with
Prelacy
?
as
much
as
light
with
darknesse
,
or
righteousnesse
with
unrighteousnesse
.
He
that
would
see
more
of
the
differences
between
Presbyteriall
and
prelaticall
Government
,
let
him
read
a
Book
Printed
in
the
Prelates
times
,
entituled
The
Pastor
and
the
Prelate
.
And
the
cleere
Antithesis
between
Presbytery
and
Prelacy
Printed
at
London
anno
.
1644.
See
also
what
I
have
said
before
Book
.
2.
Chap.
3.
7.
It
is
evident
by
his
fourth
Question
,
that
he
states
the
case
,
as
if
Ministers
meant
to
know
the
secrets
of
all
mens
hearts
,
and
to
be
so
censorious
and
peremptory
in
their
Judging
as
to
quench
the
smoaking
Flax
or
to
break
the
bruised
Reed
;
Thereupon
he
askes
whether
the
Sacrament
may
be
denyed
to
a
man
,
if
he
desires
to
receive
it
,
in
case
he
professe
his
sincere
Repentance
for
his
sinnes
past
,
and
promise
newnesse
of
life
for
the
time
to
come
.
God
forbid
we
be
censorious
,
peremptory
,
and
rigid
in
our
judging
of
mens
spirituall
Estate
;
where
there
is
any
thing
of
Christ
,
it
s
to
be
cherished
,
not
quenched
.
But
again
,
God
forbid
that
we
shut
our
eyes
to
call
darknesse
light
,
or
black
white
.
In
that
very
place
where
our
Saviour
condemneth
uncharitable
Judgement
,
immediately
he
addeth
,
Give
not
that
which
is
holy
unto
the
Doggs
,
neither
cast
ye
pearles
before
swine
Mat.
7
6.
Impenitency
under
a
scandalous
sinne
is
discerneable
either
by
not
confessing
it
,
or
by
not
forsaking
it
.
All
our
present
controversie
is
concerning
a
visible
Church
,
visible
Saints
,
visible
holinesse
,
visible
Repentance
,
visible
fitnesse
or
qualification
for
the
Sacrament
,
that
is
[
c
](A42757-e72970-b)
c
Concil.
Nicaen
.
can
.
11.
Ab
omnibus
verò
illud
praecipue
observetur
,
ut
animus
eorum
&
fructus
paenitentiae
attendator
.
Quicunque
enim
cum
omni
timore
&
lachrymis
perseverantibus
,
&
operibus
bonis
conversationem
su●m
,
non
ve●bis
soli●
,
sed
opere
&
veritate
demonstran●
,
cum
tempus
statutum
etiam
ab
his
fuerit
imple●um
,
&
orationibus
jam
caeperint
communicate
,
licebit
etiam
Episcopo
humanius
circa
eos
aliquid
cogitare
.
Qui
vero
indifferenter
habnerint
lapsum
,
&
sufficere
sibi
quod
Ecclesiam
introierint
,
arbitrantur
,
ipsi
omnimodo
tempora
statuta
complebunt
.
of
such
externall
signes
and
evidences
as
the
word
of
God
holds
out
for
judging
of
the
spirituall
Estate
of
other
men
,
not
of
such
internall
gracious
marks
whereby
a
man
must
judge
of
his
own
spirituall
Estate
.
And
so
he
that
professeth
his
sincere
Repentance
for
his
sinnes
past
,
and
promiseth
newnesse
of
life
for
the
time
to
come
,
if
there
be
nothing
which
(
visibly
and
to
the
eye
of
man
)
giveth
the
lye
to
his
profession
and
promise
,
(
for
instance
,
if
it
can
be
proved
that
immediately
before
or
immediately
after
he
hath
professed
or
promised
the
contrary
to
his
companions
in
his
wickednesse
,
or
that
he
still
continueth
in
the
practise
of
that
sinne
)
is
not
to
be
excluded
as
an
impenitent
sinner
from
the
Sacrament
.
8.
The
third
Quaere
,
as
also
the
conclusion
of
all
,
runneth
upon
a
great
mistake
,
by
reason
of
the
confounding
of
things
which
are
of
a
different
nature
.
There
is
great
weigh-laid
upon
this
,
that
there
is
as
much
sin
&
danger
to
a
mans
soule
in
his
unworthy
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
deeme
unprofitable
hearers
,
as
refuse
to
give
them
the
Sacrament
,
because
they
judge
them
unmeet
to
receive
it
.
Whether
the
sinne
of
unworthy
hearing
be
as
great
as
the
sinne
of
unworthy
receiving
the
Sacrament
,
I
will
not
now
debate
.
The
[
d
](A42757-e73010-b)
d
A
full
answer
to
a
Printed
Paper
entituled
foure
serious
Questions
concerning
Excommunication
and
Suspension
&c.
Reply
which
was
made
to
his
Quaeries
by
another
,
hath
said
enough
to
that
point
.
But
that
which
I
intend
in
this
place
,
is
(
for
clearing
a
maine
Principle
which
we
goe
upon
)
to
distinguish
these
two
things
.
There
are
some
Ordinances
appointed
for
the
Conversion
of
Sinners
.
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
Communion
of
Saints
,
yet
it
is
also
appointed
for
converting
and
bringing
in
Sinners
who
have
no
part
in
the
Communion
of
Saints
.
The
Sacrament
was
not
appointed
for
the
Conversion
of
Sinners
,
but
is
peculiar
to
the
Communion
of
Saints
.
The
Apostles
Preached
to
the
unbeleiving
Jewes
in
the
Temple
and
Synagogues
Act.
2.
46.
Act.
3.
11.
12.
Act.
5.
12.
42.
Act.
9.
20.
22.
23.
But
it
is
onely
said
of
those
that
gladly
received
the
word
,
they
continued
stedfastly
in
the
Apostles
Doctrine
and
fellowship
,
and
in
breaking
of
bread
and
in
prayers
.
Act.
2.
42.
The
Apostles
Preached
also
to
many
Heathens
and
Idolaters
,
but
they
admitted
none
to
the
Sacramens
till
they
saw
such
evidences
as
might
perswade
them
in
the
judgement
of
charity
that
they
were
such
as
might
be
admitted
.
They
that
are
suspended
from
the
Sacrament
,
yea
they
that
are
excommunicate
,
are
admitted
to
the
hearing
of
the
word
for
their
conversion
,
as
the
unbeleeving
Jewes
and
Heathens
were
.
Can
any
alledge
the
like
reason
for
admitting
them
to
the
Sacrament
?
Erastus
himself
confirm
.
Thes.
lib.
2
p.
134.
non
tamen
pro
non
Judaeo
,
vel
non
circumciso
,
aut
pro
improbo
damna●…vór
habeba
●…ur
Cogebatur
inhilominus
secundùm
ritus
patrios
vivere
,
Sabbatum
custo
dire
,
aliáque
talia
sacere
.
Quinetiam
a
Sacramento
expiationis
generalis
,
quae
die
10.
●…eni
îs
Septembris
per
agebatur
Lev.
17.
&
23.
immundi
nulli
excludebantur
.
observeth
that
the
unclean
under
the
Law
who
might
not
eat
of
the
Passeover
,
yet
were
not
forbidden
but
commanded
to
observe
the
Sabbath
,
and
the
feast
of
Expiation
.
I
mention
it
onely
as
an
argument
ad
hominem
.
If
a
sinner
be
known
for
a
improfitable
hearer
of
the
word
,
that
cannot
make
it
a
sinne
to
me
to
Preach
any
more
to
him
.
But
if
he
be
known
to
be
a
Dogg
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
endevour
his
conversion
(
not
knowing
that
he
hath
blasphemed
against
the
holy
Ghost
)
but
I
am
not
bound
to
give
him
the
seale
of
remission
of
sinnes
and
salvation
by
Jesus
Christ
:
yea
it
were
sinne
to
give
that
Seal
to
him
who
is
visibly
and
apparently
uncapable
of
such
sweet
and
comfortable
application
of
Christ
.
I
conclude
that
the
suspending
of
scandalous
persons
from
the
Sacrament
,
is
neither
onely
nor
principally
grounded
upon
the
sinne
and
guilt
of
eating
and
drinking
unworthily
,
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
notoriously
scandalous
to
receive
,
but
that
holy
Ordinance
shall
thereby
be
prophaned
and
made
Common
;
for
what
can
be
more
contrary
to
the
na
ure
of
that
Ordinance
and
to
the
Institution
of
Jesus
Christ
,
than
to
turne
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
beleeve
,
to
be
a
comfort
and
Seal
of
Salvation
to
those
who
are
known
by
their
fruits
to
have
neither
Repentance
nor
Faith
,
and
so
to
send
them
away
with
a
good
conceit
of
their
spirituall
Estate
,
and
thereby
to
strengthen
their
hearts
and
hands
in
wickednesse
?
9.
The
Question
is
not
whether
all
scandalous
persons
are
to
be
excommunicated
and
wholly
cast
out
off
the
Church
.
The
Assemblies
Petition
was
not
concerning
excommunicating
,
but
concerning
suspending
from
the
Sacrament
all
scandalous
Persons
.
Yet
the
current
of
Master
Prynnes
Argumentation
both
in
his
Quaeries
,
and
in
his
Vindication
thereof
,
for
the
most
part
,
runneth
along
against
Excommunication
and
Suspension
from
the
Sacrament
,
as
the
Tittles
likewise
doe
promise
.
Which
is
a
fallacy
d
conjunctis
ad
divisa
.
And
when
he
debateth
so
much
concerning
excommunication
and
suspension
,
his
and
is
either
copulative
or
exegeticall
.
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
exegeticall
,
even
so
he
is
contrary
to
himself
,
who
confesseth
that
one
may
be
suspended
from
the
Sacrament
before
he
be
excommunicated
.
vindic
.
p.
50.
51.
And
whereas
in
the
latter
part
of
his
first
Quaere
,
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
Tertullians
Apology
cap.
39.
&
lib.
de
poenit
.
that
scandalous
persons
were
ever
excommunicate
and
wholly
cast
out
of
the
Church
,
not
barely
sequestred
from
the
Sacrament
.
Whence
saith
he
all
the
Canonists
and
Schoolemen
determine
that
an
excommunicate
person
is
excluded
from
the
Church
and
all
publike
Ordinances
.
Let
the
prudent
reader
observe
,
that
in
stead
of
proving
that
scandalous
persons
were
wholly
cast
out
of
the
Church
,
he
tells
us
out
of
the
Canonists
and
Schoolemen
,
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
Antiquities
.
Which
will
more
fully
appear
Chap.
17.
Meane
while
,
how
can
any
that
hath
read
Tertullian
or
Cyprian
,
not
know
,
that
some
failings
and
falls
in
time
of
persecution
,
and
other
smaller
offences
,
were
not
punished
by
excommunication
,
but
by
suspension
from
the
Sacrament
,
till
after
publike
Declaration
of
Repentance
and
confession
of
the
offence
,
the
offender
was
admitted
to
the
Sacrament
.
And
for
the
places
he
citeth
,
I
find
in
Tertullians
Book
de
poenitentia
much
of
that
Exomologesis
and
publike
Declaration
of
Repentance
,
but
that
all
scandalous
persons
brought
under
Church-censures
were
wholly
cast
out
of
the
Church
,
I
find
not
;
In
the
39
Chapter
of
his
Apologetick
there
is
no
such
thing
as
is
alledged
,
but
the
contrary
plainly
intimated
,
[
e
](A42757-e73380-b)
e
Ibidem
etiam
exhortationes
,
castigationes
,
&
censura
divina
.
Nam
&
judicatur
magno
cum
pondere
ut
apud
certos
de
Dei
conspectu
:
summumque
futuri
judicii
praejudicium
est
,
si
quis
ita
deliquerit
,
ut
a
communicatione
orationis
,
&
conventus
,
&
omnis
sancti
commercii
releget●r
.
concerning
severall
degrees
of
Ecclesiasticall
Discipline
,
and
that
if
any
mans
offence
was
so
great
,
as
to
deserve
excommunication
,
then
he
was
excommunicate
and
wholly
cast
out
of
the
Church
.
And
as
in
the
Antient
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
like
may
be
observed
,
both
concerning
Ceremoniall
uncleannesse
,
and
morall
offences
.
Touching
the
former
,
that
Law
Num.
5.
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
respectivè
,
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
Tabernacle
:
he
that
had
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
onely
restrained
from
the
Camp
of
divine
Majesty
,
for
which
also
see
before
Book
.
1.
Ch●…p
.
10.
And
touching
morall
offences
,
there
were
severall
Steps
and
degrees
in
the
Jewish
excommunication
,
as
[
f
](A42757-e73440-b)
f
De
Iure
natur
.
&
Gent.
lib.
4.
cap.
8.
Master
Selden
hath
observed
from
the
Talmudists
:
for
first
a
man
was
separate
from
the
Congregation
for
30
dayes
,
and
if
thereafter
he
was
found
obstinate
,
he
was
separate
for
other
30
dayes
,
and
if
after
60
dayes
he
did
not
repent
,
then
they
passed
from
the
lesser
excommunication
to
the
greater
,
that
is
from
Niddui
and
Shammatha
(
as
he
thinketh
)
to
Cherem
or
Anathema
.
The
Author
of
the
Quaeries
,
while
he
argueth
in
that
first
Quaere
against
the
suspending
from
the
Sacrament
of
a
person
not
excommunicated
nor
wholl●
cast
out
of
the
Church
,
closeth
in
this
particular
with
them
of
the
Separation
(
which
I
beleeve
he
did
it
not
intend
to
doe
;
)
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
Suspension
,
which
Christ
hath
not
appointed
.
They
doe
hold
Excommunication
to
be
an
Ordinance
of
Christ
,
but
doe
reject
the
distinction
of
Suspension
and
Excommunication
,
as
Master
Prynne
doth
.
Tenthly
,
the
true
state
of
the
present
Question
is
not
,
whether
the
Parliament
should
establish
the
power
of
suspending
scandalous
persons
from
the
Sacrament
,
as
Iure
divino
,
(
nay
,
let
Divines
assert
that
,
and
satisfie
peoples
consciences
in
it
:
but
let
the
Parliament
speak
in
an
authoritative
and
legislative
way
,
in
adding
their
civill
sanction
.
)
Nor
,
whether
there
ought
to
be
any
suspension
from
the
Sacrament
of
scandalous
persons
,
not
yet
excommunicated
and
cast
out
of
the
Church
;
and
that
the
Elder-ship
should
doe
it
;
for
the
Ordinance
of
Parliament
hath
so
farre
satisfied
the
desires
of
the
Reverend
Assembly
and
of
the
generality
of
godly
people
,
that
there
is
to
be
a
suspension
of
scandalous
persons
(
not
excommunicated
)
from
the
Sacrament
,
and
power
is
granted
to
the
Eldership
to
suspend
from
the
Sacrament
for
such
scandals
as
are
enumerate
in
the
Ordinances
of
Octob.
20.
1645.
and
March
.
14.
1645.
Which
Ordinances
doe
appoint
that
All
Persons
Or
any
Person
that
shall
commit
such
or
such
an
offence
,
shall
be
by
the
Eldership
suspended
from
the
Sacrament
,
upon
confession
of
the
party
,
or
upon
the
Testimony
of
two
credible
witnesses
.
So
that
in
truth
the
stream
of
Master
Prynnes
exceptions
runneth
against
that
which
is
agreed
and
resolved
upon
in
Parliament
:
and
his
arguments
(
if
they
prove
any
thing
)
must
necessarily
conclude
against
that
power
already
granted
by
Parliament
to
Elder-ships
.
And
now
if
he
will
speak
to
that
point
which
is
in
present
publike
agitation
,
he
must
lay
aside
his
Querees
and
his
Vindication
thereof
,
and
write
another
Book
to
prove
that
the
Assembly
and
other
godly
ministers
and
people
ought
to
rest
satisfied
(
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
scandalous
persons
from
the
Sacrament
for
other
scandalls
beside
these
enumerate
in
the
Ordinance
of
Parliament
.
Nay
,
and
he
must
confine
himself
within
a
nearower
circle
,
then
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
concerning
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
Churches
edification
.
But
since
he
professeth
in
the
Conclusion
of
his
foure
Questions
and
in
the
Preface
before
his
Vindication
,
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
is
now
desired
to
be
setled
in
the
new
Elderships
,
and
manifestly
reflecteth
upon
one
of
the
Assemblies
Petitions
concerning
that
businesse
,
as
hath
been
said
;
yea
the
first
words
of
his
Queres
tell
us
,
he
spoke
to
the
point
in
present
publike
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
Tenents
(
Master
Prynnes
or
ours
,
)
concerning
Suspension
,
doth
best
agree
with
the
mind
of
the
Parliament
,
let
us
heare
their
own
Ordinance
dated
March
14.
1645.
the
words
are
these
:
yet
were
the
fundamentalls
and
substantiall
parts
of
that
Government
long
since
setled
in
persons
by
and
over
whom
it
was
to
be
exercised
,
and
the
nature
,
extent
,
and
respective
subordination
of
their
power
was
limitted
and
defined
;
onely
concerning
the
administration
of
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lords
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
it self
,
as
in
the
Manner
,
how
it
should
be
done
,
and
who
should
be
the
Judges
of
the
Offence
:
The
Lords
and
Commons
having
it
alwayes
in
their
purpose
and
Intention
,
and
it
being
accordingly
declared
and
Resolved
by
them
That
all
sorts
of
notorious
scandalous
Offenders
should
be
suspended
from
the
Sacrament
,
Which
is
the
very
point
so
much
opposed
by
Master
Prynne
;
for
the
controversie
moved
by
him
is
not
so
much
concerning
the
manner
,
or
who
should
be
the
Judges
,
as
concerning
the
matter
it selfe
:
he
contending
that
all
sorts
of
notorious
scandalous
offenders
should
not
be
suspended
from
the
Sacrament
,
but
onely
such
as
are
excommunicated
and
excluded
from
the
hearing
of
the
Word
,
Prayer
,
and
all
other
publique
Ordinances
.
Having
now
removed
so
many
mistakes
of
the
true
state
of
the
question
:
that
which
is
in
controversie
is
plainly
this
;
Whether
according
to
the
word
of
God
there
ought
to
be
in
the
Elderships
of
Churches
a
spirituall
power
and
authority
,
by
which
they
that
are
called
brethren
,
that
is
,
Church
members
,
or
Officers
,
for
the
publique
scandall
of
a
prophane
life
,
or
of
pernicious
doctrine
,
or
for
a
private
offence
obstinately
continued
in
after
admonitions
,
and
so
growing
to
a
publique
scandall
,
are
upon
proofe
of
such
scandall
to
be
suspended
from
the
Lords
Table
untill
signes
of
repentance
appeare
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
sinnes
pronounced
to
be
bound
on
earth
,
and
by
consequence
in
Heaven
,
untill
by
true
and
sincere
repentance
they
turne
to
God
,
and
by
the
declaration
of
such
repentance
be
reconciled
unto
the
Church
.
The
affirmative
is
the
received
doctrine
of
the
reformed
Churches
,
whereunto
I
adhere
.
The
first
part
of
it
concerning
Suspension
,
is
utterly
denyed
by
Mr
Prynne
,
which
breaketh
the
concatenation
and
order
of
Church
discipline
held
forth
in
the
question
now
stated
.
Whether
he
denieth
also
Excommunication
by
Elderships
to
be
an
Ordinance
and
Institution
of
Christ
,
and
onely
holdeth
it
to
be
lawfull
and
warrantable
by
the
word
of
God
,
I
am
not
certaine
.
If
he
do
,
then
he
holds
the
totall
negative
of
this
present
question
.
However
I
am
sure
he
hath
gone
about
to
take
away
some
of
the
principall
Scripturall
foundations
and
pillars
upon
which
Excommunication
is
builded
.
[
*
](A42757-e73700-b)
*
Yea
now
also
it
appeareth
by
his
Diotrephes
catechised
that
he
denieth
and
opposeth
Excommunication
it selfe
,
at
least
under
a
Christian
Magistrate
.
As
touching
the
gradation
and
order
in
the
question
as
now
stated
,
it
is
meant
positively
and
exclusively
,
that
such
a
gradation
not
onely
may
but
ought
to
be
observed
ordinarily
(
which
Mr
Prynne
denieth
)
although
I
deny
not
tha●
for
some
publique
enormous
,
haynous
abominations
,
there
may
be
(
without
such
degrees
of
proceeding
)
a
present
cutting
off
by
Excommunication
.
But
this
belongs
not
to
the
present
controversie
.
CHAP.
II.
Whether
Matth.
18.
15
,
16
,
17.
prove
Excommunication
.
THe
second
point
of
difference
is
concerning
Matth.
18.
Mr
Prynne
in
the
first
of
his
foure
questions
told
us
that
the
words
Matth.
18.
17.
Let
him
be
to
thee
as
an
Heathen
man
and
a
Publican
,
are
meant
onely
of
personall
private
trespasses
between
man
and
man
,
not
publique
scandalous
sinnes
against
the
Congregation
:
and
that
t
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
personall
private
trespasse
;
much
more
to
the
whole
Church
,
for
a
publique
scandalous
sinne
,
whereby
he
trespasseth
against
the
whole
Congregation
.
Yea
,
it
followeth
upon
his
interpretation
,
that
he
may
account
the
whole
Church
as
Heathens
and
Publicans
,
if
all
the
members
of
the
Church
doe
him
a
personall
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
personall
injury
done
to
himselfe
alone
,
it
will
not
follow
that
much
more
the
whole
Church
may
account
a
man
as
a
Heathen
and
Publican
,
for
a
publique
scandalous
sinne
against
the
whole
Church
.
Mr
Prynne
in
his
Vindication
,
pag.
3.
glanceth
at
this
objection
,
but
he
takes
notice
onely
of
the
halfe
of
it
,
and
he
is
so
farre
from
turning
off
my
retortion
,
that
he
confirmeth
it
;
for
pag.
4.
he
confesseth
that
every
Christian
hath
free
power
by
Gods
word
to
esteeme
not
onely
a
particular
brother
,
but
all
the
members
of
a
Congregation
,
as
Heathens
and
Publicans
,
if
he
or
they
continue
impenitent
in
the
case
of
private
injuries
,
after
admonition
.
Now
my
exception
against
his
Quere
remains
unanswered
.
If
I
may
esteem
the
whole
Church
as
Heathens
and
Publicans
,
when
they
doe
me
an
injury
and
continue
impenitent
therein
:
may
not
the
whole
Church
esteem
me
as
an
Heathen
man
and
a
Publican
,
when
I
commit
a
publique
and
scandalous
trespasse
against
the
whole
Church
,
and
continues
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
a
Heathen
man
and
a
Publican
,
in
another
sence
then
either
the
reformed
Churches
doe
,
or
the
ancient
Churches
did
,
and
takes
the
meaning
to
be
of
avoyding
fellowship
and
familiarity
with
him
,
before
any
sentence
of
Excommunication
passed
against
the
offender
.
But
however
my
argument
from
proportion
will
hold
.
If
civill
fellowship
must
be
refused
,
because
of
obstinacy
in
a
civill
injury
,
why
shall
not
spirituall
or
Church-fellowship
be
refused
to
him
that
hath
committed
a
spirituall
injury
or
trespasse
against
the
Church
?
If
private
fellowship
ought
to
be
denied
unto
him
that
will
not
repent
of
a
private
injury
,
why
shall
not
publique
fellowship
in
eating
and
drinking
with
the
Church
at
the
Lords
Table
be
denied
unto
him
that
will
not
repent
of
a
publique
scandall
given
to
the
Congregation
?
Are
the
rules
of
Church
fellowship
looser
and
wider
than
the
rules
of
civill
fellowship
?
or
are
they
straiter
?
Is
the
way
of
communion
of
Saints
broader
than
the
way
of
civill
communion
?
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
fraternall
converse
or
private
Christian
fellowship
with
him
.
Well
then
:
If
thus
farre
he
be
as
a
Heathen
and
a
Publican
to
the
whole
Church
distributively
,
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
keepe
fellowship
with
him
till
he
be
excommunicated
?
Instead
of
loosing
such
knots
,
Mr
Prynne
undertakes
to
prove
another
thing
,
that
this
Text
of
Matthew
is
not
meane
of
Excommunication
or
Church
censures
,
and
that
the
Church
in
this
Text
was
not
any
Ecclesiasticall
Consistory
(
here
he
citeth
Iosephus
,
as
if
he
had
spoken
of
that
Text
)
but
onely
the
Sanhedrin
or
Court
of
civill
Justice
.
But
though
all
this
were
true
which
he
saith
,
yet
there
may
be
a
good
argument
drawn
by
necessary
consequence
from
this
Text
to
prove
Excommunication
.
Which
Grotius
did
well
perceive
:
for
in
his
annotations
upon
the
place
,
after
he
hath
told
his
opinion
that
excommunication
is
not
meant
in
this
Text
,
he
addeth
,
that
he
hath
elsewhere
spoken
of
the
antiquity
and
necessity
of
Excommunication
:
quanquam
ad
eam
ex
hoc
etiam
loco
non
absurde
argumentum
duci
p●…sse
,
non
negaverim
:
though
I
will
not
deny
,
saith
he
,
that
even
from
this
place
,
the
argument
may
be
drawn
to
excommunication
without
any
absurdity
.
My
argument
afore-mentioned
will
hold
good
even
from
Master
Prynnes
owne
exposition
.
Thus
farre
I
have
gone
upon
a
consession
:
now
to
the
confutation
.
Before
I
come
to
his
reasons
,
I
observe
in
his
margent
a
double
mistake
of
the
testimony
of
Scapula
.
First
,
he
sends
us
to
Scapula
to
learn
that
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
signifieth
any
civill
assembly
or
councell
,
as
well
as
an
Ecclesiasticall
Presbytery
.
Yes
:
Scapula
tels
us
,
it
hath
in
Heathen
writers
a
generall
signification
,
to
expresse
any
Assembly
called
forth
.
But
he
addeth
immediately
,
that
in
the
writing
of
Christians
it
signifieth
the
assembly
of
such
as
are
called
to
eternall
life
and
doe
professe
Christian
Religion
.
Since
therefore
it
hath
not
the
same
signification
in
Heathen
writings
,
and
in
the
New
Testament
,
he
should
have
shewed
us
where
the
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
in
the
new
Testament
doth
signifie
a
civill
Court
of
Justice
.
I
hope
the
holy
Ghost
did
speake
so
in
this
place
as
he
might
be
understood
,
and
to
take
the
word
Church
here
,
in
that
sence
which
it
hath
nowhere
else
in
the
new
Testament
,
doth
not
agree
with
that
received
maxime
,
That
Scripture
is
to
be
expounded
by
Scripture
.
I
finde
indeed
the
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
used
for
a
Civill
assembly
,
Acts
19.
39
,
41.
But
as
that
is
an
Heathen
assembly
,
so
it
is
not
the
Evangelist
Luke
his
expression
otherwise
then
recitative
:
that
is
,
he
mentioneth
an
Heathen
assembly
under
that
name
by
which
Heathens
themselves
called
it
.
His
other
mistake
of
Scapula
,
is
,
the
citing
of
him
for
that
assertion
,
that
the
Church
in
this
Text
is
not
an
Ecclesiasticall
Consistory
.
Whereas
Scapula
doth
expound
the
Church
Matth.
18.
to
be
meant
of
the
Presbytery
or
Colledge
of
Elders
,
(
as
[
g
](A42757-e74150-b)
g
Steph.
Restringitur
&
〈◊〉
m●…do
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
ad
synedrium
seu
Presbyterium
,
id
est
seniorum
collegium
,
ut
Matth.
18.
So
Marlorae
in
Thesaur●…
saith
that
the
word
Ecclesia
is
taken
prosenatu
Ecclesiastico
Matth.
18.
17.
Stephani
Thesaurus
doth
also
)
and
having
told
that
the
word
signifieth
the
whole
Christian
Church
:
also
particular
Congregations
:
he
addeth
two
more
restricted
significations
:
sometimes
it
signifieth
a
Christian
family
:
sometimes
the
Presbytery
;
for
this
last
he
citeth
Matth.
18.
Now
I
proceed
to
Mr
Prynnes
Reasons
.
First
,
saith
he
,
this
Text
speakes
not
at
all
of
any
publique
scandalous
sinne
against
the
Church
or
Congregation
,
the
proper
object
of
Church
censures
,
but
onely
of
private
civill
trespasses
between
man
and
man
,
as
is
evident
by
the
words
,
If
thy
brother
trespasse
against
thee
,
goe
and
tell
him
his
fault
between
him
and
thee
,
&c.
Answ.
We
have
ever
understood
that
place
of
such
trespasses
,
which
grow
publique
afterwards
by
the
offenders
obstinacy
after
admonition
.
Yet
the
trespasse
here
meant
,
may
be
often
such
as
even
at
first
is
scandalous
to
more
then
one
.
Such
a
case
falleth
under
Christs
rule
here
,
and
is
not
excluded
.
Wherein
observe
Durand
upon
the
fourth
Book
of
the
Master
of
Sentences
Dist.
19.
Quest.
4.
But
if
,
saith
he
,
the
sinne
be
not
altogether
secret
,
nor
altogether
knowne
,
that
is
,
such
as
is
known
to
many
by
whom
he
may
be
convict
,
or
be
is
ill
reported
of
among
grave
persons
,
though
the
publique
fame
be
not
against
him
,
so
the
procedor
which
Christ
hath
set
us
in
the
Gospell
,
seemeth
to
have
place
,
to
wit
,
that
first
he
may
be
secretly
admonished
,
concerning
his
amendment
;
which
if
it
profit
not
,
that
he
may
be
admonished
concerning
his
amendment
before
those
who
know
the
fact
;
but
if
that
also
doe
not
profit
,
that
then
he
may
be
declared
to
the
Church
.
But
if
we
should
grant
that
no
other
trespasse
is
meant
here
,
but
a
private
trespasse
,
yet
I
aske
,
is
there
no
private
trespasse
but
that
which
is
civill
?
The
Schoolmen
writing
de
scandalo
will
tell
him
that
one
brother
trespasseth
against
another
when
he
scandalizeth
him
by
any
sinfull
example
,
though
without
any
civill
injury
.
Nay
it
s
the
greatest
trespasse
which
is
committed
against
the
soule
of
our
neighbour
:
scandall
is
soule
murther
.
It
is
a
breach
of
the
Law
of
love
,
not
onely
by
omission
,
but
by
commission
.
He
that
is
commanded
to
edifie
his
brother
,
and
then
giveth
scandall
to
him
,
doth
he
not
trespasse
against
his
brother
?
The
like
answer
I
return
to
that
which
he
addeth
,
that
Luke
relating
the
same
thing
without
any
Dic
Ecclesiae
,
Luk.
17.
3
,
4
puts
it
out
of
question
,
if
compared
with
Gen.
52.
31.
(
there
is
no
such
Scripture
)
1
Sam.
25.
28.
What
?
out
of
question
.
Doth
he
not
find
scandalous
sins
in
the
two
verses
immediately
preceding
in
Luke
,
and
thereupon
it
s
immediatly
added
,
Take
heed
to
your selves
,
if
thy
brother
trespasse
against
thee
,
rebuke
him
,
and
if
he
repent
,
forgive
him
.
Can
not
a
Christian
rebuke
his
brother
who
scandalizeth
him
,
and
if
he
repent
forgive
him
?
Luke
needed
not
adde
Dic
Ecclesiae
,
because
he
speaks
of
a
repenting
brother
,
not
of
an
impenitent
brother
,
after
private
admonition
.
And
that
scandalous
trespasses
are
understood
Matth.
18.
19.
(
as
Augustine
,
Tostatus
,
and
many
others
have
observed
)
may
thus
appeare
.
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
greatest
evils
,
rather
than
against
the
lesser
.
2.
Christ
would
not
be
Judge
of
civill
injuries
,
Luke
12.
14.
How
can
it
be
then
supposed
that
he
giveth
here
Lawes
concerning
civill
rather
then
spirituall
injuries
?
3.
Christ
saith
,
If
be
shall
heare
(
not
repaire
)
thee
,
thou
hast
gained
(
not
thy
goods
or
thy
good
name
,
or
the
like
,
but
)
thy
brother
.
Intimating
,
that
it
s
not
a
mans
owne
interest
,
but
the
rescuing
of
his
brothers
soule
from
sinne
and
scandall
,
which
is
here
sought
.
Mr
Prynne
himselfe
confirmeth
it
not
a
little
,
for
he
takes
the
meaning
to
be
of
avoyding
a
brothers
company
,
in
the
case
of
a
civill
or
private
injury
,
if
he
continue
impenitent
after
admonition
.
Now
what
if
he
that
hath
done
the
injury
make
full
reparation
,
and
all
reall
satisfaction
to
the
brother
injured
,
and
yet
continue
impenient
shewing
no
symptome
at
all
of
repentance
,
must
he
not
by
Mr
Prynnes
exposition
be
esteemed
as
an
heathen
man
and
a
Publican
,
because
of
his
visible
and
scandalous
impenitency
?
How
often
hath
it
been
seen
that
a
man
was
compelled
by
Law
,
or
perswaded
by
friends
to
make
a
reall
restitution
and
full
satisfaction
for
a
civill
or
personall
injury
;
and
yet
hath
given
very
great
scandall
by
his
impenitency
,
not
so
much
as
confessing
,
but
still
defending
and
justifying
his
sinfull
act
,
in
his
discourses
?
4.
The
dependency
upon
the
preceding
parts
of
that
Chapter
confirmeth
it
:
from
the
beginning
of
the
Chapter
to
this
very
Text
,
vers.
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
doe
both
agree
in
this
,
that
Christ
here
hath
a
respect
to
the
Jewish
Government
.
Now
the
trespasses
for
which
men
were
excommunicate
by
the
Jewish
Sanhedrin
were
scandalous
trespasses
,
such
as
the
despising
of
any
of
the
precepts
of
the
law
of
Moses
,
or
Statutes
of
the
Scribes
:
The
doing
of
servile
worke
upon
Easter
Eve
:
The
mentioning
of
the
Name
of
God
rashly
,
or
by
a
vaine
oath
:
The
inducing
of
others
to
prophane
the
Name
of
God
,
or
to
eate
holy
things
without
the
holy
place
;
and
the
like
;
More
of
this
elsewhere
,
in
the
24
causes
of
the
Jewish
Excommunication
.
6.
Mr
Prynne
expoundeth
this
Text
in
Matthew
by
1
Cor.
5.
9
,
10
,
11
,
12.
but
there
the
Apostle
intends
the
purging
of
the
Church
from
scandals
,
whether
those
scandals
have
any
private
injury
in
them
or
not
.
Instance
in
Idolatry
and
drunkennesse
,
there
mentioned
.
7.
I
can
also
(
without
yeelding
the
least
advantage
to
the
Erastian
cause
)
admit
and
suppose
that
which
is
so
much
pressed
both
by
Erastus
,
Mr
Prynne
,
and
others
,
viz.
that
these
words
,
If
thy
brother
trespasse
against
thee
,
are
spoken
of
a
personall
injury
between
man
and
man
,
Though
I
doe
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
.
de
actib
.
supernat
.
Disp.
28.
Dub.
8.
that
Christ
doth
not
speake
of
the
case
of
personall
injuries
,
as
if
he
meant
to
restrict
unto
such
cases
the
order
of
proceeding
for
gaining
of
the
offenders
soule
from
sinne
;
[
h
](A42757-e74640-b)
h
Sed
solùm
exempli
causa
attulit
tale
genu●
peccati
,
de
quò
maximè
poterat
dubitari
,
an
in
ejus
correptione
hic
ordo
servandus
sit
,
&
in
quò
difficillimè
servetur
,
ob
innatam
multis
cupiditatem
vindictae
.
but
onely
for
examples
sake
he
brought
such
kind
of
sinne
,
of
which
it
might
have
been
most
doubted
,
whether
in
the
reproofe
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
brothers
soule
,
when
we
see
him
commit
a
trespasse
against
God
,
which
is
no
personall
injury
to
our selves
,
as
well
as
when
the
trespasse
is
a
personall
injury
.
3.
As
this
order
of
proceeding
here
prescribed
by
Christ
,
is
(
in
the
case
of
a
personall
injury
)
the
greatest
triall
of
Christian
love
in
the
person
offended
,
so
it
may
(
by
Gods
blessing
)
be
the
stronger
and
more
efficacious
upon
the
person
offending
,
to
conquer
and
overcome
his
spirit
,
while
he
that
might
prosecute
him
in
a
legall
and
criminall
way
,
commeth
in
meeknesse
and
love
to
admonish
him
,
and
to
endeavour
the
gaining
of
him
from
sin
by
repentance
.
Which
is
the
observation
of
Chrysostome
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
yeeld
.
4.
If
it
be
a
civill
and
personall
injury
matterially
,
yet
it
comes
not
in
here
under
that
formall
consideration
,
but
partly
as
a
scandall
to
him
that
hath
received
the
injury
(
so
that
Chrysostome
doth
rightly
make
this
Text
to
hang
together
with
that
which
was
said
before
in
the
same
Chapter
concerning
scandals
)
partly
as
a
soul-destroying
sinne
upon
him
that
doth
the
wrong
,
which
doth
endanger
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
civill
but
wholly
spirituall
;
which
Chrysostome
doth
very
well
explaine
.
Hom.
60.
in
Matth.
What
is
it
,
if
he
shall
heare
thee
?
if
he
shall
be
perswaded
to
condemne
himselfe
of
sinne
.
Thou
hast
gained
thy
brother
,
he
saith
not
thou
bast
a
sufficient
punishment
or
satisfaction
,
but
thou
hast
gained
thy
brother
.
And
after
,
He
saith
not
accuse
,
nor
censure
,
nor
demand
punishments
,
but
convince
,
saith
he
.
The
Context
confirmeth
it
;
for
these
words
are
added
immediately
after
the
parable
of
bringing
home
the
lost
sheep
.
Which
parable
we
have
also
Luke
15.
(
where
it
is
not
applied
to
the
reducing
of
such
as
have
done
private
injuries
,
but
of
Publicans
and
sinners
who
were
publiquely
scandalous
:
this
I
thought
good
to
note
by
the
way
)
Ammonius
Alexandrinus
de
Quatuor
Evang.
consonantia
,
cap.
96
,
97.
doth
together
with
the
parable
of
the
lost
sheep
,
adde
also
the
other
two
,
of
the
lost
penny
,
and
the
lost
sonne
,
immediately
before
these
words
,
If
thy
brother
trespasse
against
thee
&c.
6.
And
suppose
that
the
businesse
hath
its
rise
and
beginning
from
a
personall
injury
,
verse
15.
yet
the
trespasse
for
which
the
man
is
to
be
held
as
a
Heathen
and
Publican
,
is
a
publique
scandalous
sinne
against
the
Church
or
Congregation
,
namely
his
neglecting
to
heare
the
Church
vers.
17.
for
it
is
not
his
first
trespasse
,
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
Argument
by
which
Eràstus
would
prove
that
this
Text
is
meant
only
of
private
civill
injuries
:
because
(
saith
he
)
the
trespasse
here
spoken
of
is
no
other
then
what
one
brother
may
forgive
to
another
.
I
answer
,
both
he
and
Master
Prynne
doe
suppose
this
Text
Mat.
15
,
16
,
17.
to
be
parallell
to
that
in
Luk.
17.
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
replyed
that
even
in
this
very
Chapter
Matth.
18.
the
next
thing
which
follows
vers.
21.
is
concerning
personall
injuries
which
one
brother
can
and
ought
to
forgive
to
another
.
Then
came
Peter
to
him
and
said
,
Lord
how
oft
shall
my
Brother
sinne
against
me
,
and
I
forgive
him
?
&c.
To
that
I
answer
.
1.
We
cannot
gather
from
the
Text
that
Peter
did
propound
this
question
immediately
after
or
upon
occasion
of
that
which
went
before
vers.
15
,
16
,
17
,
&c.
where
nothing
is
spoken
of
one
Brothers
forgiving
another
.
We
read
Luk.
8.
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
before
mentioned
by
Luke
in
that
place
;
for
that
it
was
not
after
these
,
but
after
other
words
,
is
plain
from
the
Harmony
of
the
other
Evangelists
Matthew
and
Mark.
So
here
these
words
Then
came
Peter
,
may
very
well
relate
to
a
new
businesse
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
which
Christ
had
been
before
speaking
,
he
came
immediatly
after
,
&
did
propound
a
new
Question
.
3.
Suppose
also
that
Peter
was
present
and
heard
all
which
had
been
before
spoken
,
yet
it
is
much
doubted
among
Interpreters
,
whence
Peter
had
the
rise
and
occasion
of
that
Question
.
Some
think
it
was
upon
his
calling
to
minde
those
words
in
the
rule
of
Prayer
,
even
as
we
forgive
those
who
trespasse
against
us
.
Others
conceive
the
occasion
of
his
Question
was
that
which
was
said
vers.
19.
Againe
I
say
unto
you
if
two
of
you
shall
agree
on
earth
,
supposing
that
agreement
(
and
consequently
forgiving
of
injuries
)
is
necessary
to
make
our
Prayers
the
more
effectuall
;
for
my
part
,
I
think
it
not
improbable
that
whatever
the
occasion
of
the
Question
was
,
vers.
21
beginneth
a
new
and
distinct
purpose
.
Which
I
take
to
be
the
reason
why
the
Arabik
here
makes
an
intercision
,
and
beginneth
the
eight
and
fiftieth
Section
of
Matthew
at
those
words
,
Then
came
Peter
and
said
,
Lord
how
oft
,
&c.
4.
And
if
vers.
21.
have
a
dependence
upon
that
which
went
before
,
it
may
be
conceived
thus
:
Christ
had
said
,
If
thy
Brother
trespasse
against
thee
,
goe
&
tell
him
his
fault
betweene
thee
and
him
alone
,
which
supposeth
a
continuance
of
the
former
Christian
fellowship
and
fraternall
familiarity
,
and
that
we
must
not
cast
off
a
scandalous
Brother
as
lost
,
or
as
an
Enemy
,
but
admonish
him
as
a
Brother
.
This
might
give
occasion
to
Peter
to
aske
,
Lord
how
oft
shall
my
Brother
sinne
against
me
,
that
is
,
scandalize
me
by
his
sinne
against
God
,
(
for
even
in
Luk.
17.
3.
4.
that
of
forgiving
one
that
trespasseth
against
us
,
is
added
immediately
after
a
Doctrine
of
scandals
;
)
and
I
forgive
him
,
that
is
,
as
Grotius
expounds
it
,
restore
him
to
the
former
degree
of
friendship
and
intimate
familiarity
,
to
deale
with
him
thus
as
with
a
Brother
;
Which
he
well
distinguisheth
from
that
other
forgiving
which
is
a
not
revenging
.
And
so
much
of
Master
Prynnes
first
reason
.
His
second
reason
is
because
the
Mention
of
two
or
three
witnesses
vers.
16.
relateth
onely
to
the
manner
of
trying
civill
capitall
crimes
(
as
murders
and
the
like
)
before
the
civill
Magistrates
of
the
Jewes
,
&c.
not
to
any
proceedings
in
Ecclesiasticall
causes
,
in
their
Ecclesiasticall
Consistories
,
of
which
we
find
no
president
.
Answ.
1.
If
this
hold
,
then
the
Text
must
not
be
expounded
indefinitely
of
civill
injuries
(
as
he
did
before
)
but
of
civill
capitall
injuries
,
whereas
Erastus
takes
the
meaning
to
be
of
smaller
offences
onely
,
and
not
of
Capitall
crimes
.
2.
The
Law
concerning
two
or
three
witnesses
is
neither
restricted
to
Capitall
crimes
,
nor
to
civill
Judicatories
.
I
appeale
to
the
Ordinance
of
Parliament
dated
Octo.
20.
1645.
The
Elder-ship
of
every
Congregation
shall
judge
the
matter
of
scandall
aforesaid
,
being
not
Capitall
,
upon
the
Testmiony
of
two
credible
Witnesses
,
at
the
least
.
That
Law
therefore
of
witnesses
is
alike
applicable
to
all
causes
and
Courts
Ecclesiasticall
and
civill
Deut.
19.
30.
One
witnesse
shall
not
rise
up
against
a
man
for
any
iniquity
,
or
for
any
sinne
,
in
any
sin
that
he
sinneth
:
at
the
mouth
of
two
witnesses
or
at
the
mouth
of
three
witnesses
shall
the
matter
be
established
.
3.
And
the
same
Law
is
in
the
new
Testament
clearly
applied
to
proceedings
in
Ecclesiasticall
causes
2
Cor.
13.
1.
&
again
1
Tim.
5.
19.
Against
the
Elder
receive
not
an
accusation
but
before
two
or
three
witnesses
,
which
is
not
spoken
to
any
civill
Magistrate
,
but
to
Timothy
and
others
joyned
with
him
in
Church
Government
.
His
third
reason
doth
onely
begge
what
is
in
Question
,
that
by
the
Church
is
not
meant
any
Ecclesiasticall
but
a
civill
Court
of
the
Jewes
.
He
needed
not
to
cite
so
many
places
to
prove
that
the
Jewes
had
civill
Courts
.
If
he
could
but
cite
one
place
,
to
prove
that
they
had
no
Ecclesiasticall
Courts
,
this
were
to
the
purpose
.
Not
that
I
grant
that
at
this
time
the
Jewes
had
any
civill
Jurisdiction
or
Jewish
Court
of
Justice
;
for
after
that
Herod
the
great
did
kill
Hircanus
and
the
Sanhedrin
,
(
in
the
opinion
of
many
learned
men
)
the
Jewes
had
no
more
any
civill
Jurisdiction
.
Now
Herod
the
great
was
dead
before
the
time
of
Christs
Ministery
.
Others
think
they
had
some
civill
Jurisdiction
a
while
after
Hircanus
death
.
How
ever
he
cannot
prove
,
that
at
this
time
when
Christ
said
Tell
the
Church
,
the
Jewes
had
any
civill
Court
of
Justice
,
which
did
exercise
either
Criminall
or
Capitall
Judgements
.
I
have
in
the
first
Book
shewed
out
of
Buxtorf
,
L'Empereur
,
Casauhon
,
and
I.
Coch.
(
who
prove
what
they
say
from
the
Talmudicall
writers
)
that
40
yeeres
before
the
destruction
of
the
Temple
(
and
so
before
Christ
said
Tell
the
Church
)
the
Court
of
civill
Justice
at
Hierusalem
did
cease
.
If
Master
Prynne
make
any
thing
of
this
Glosse
of
his
,
he
must
prove
1.
That
there
was
no
Ecclesiasticall
Court
among
the
Jewes
.
(
I
have
before
proved
that
that
Councell
of
the
Jewes
in
Christs
time
was
an
Ecclesiasticall
Court
,
though
he
conceives
it
was
meerely
civill
)
2.
That
a
private
civill
injury
might
not
then
,
nor
may
not
now
,
be
brought
before
a
civill
Court
,
except
after
severall
previous
admonitions
despised
.
3.
That
Chists
Rule
,
Tell
the
Church
was
antiquated
and
ceased
,
when
a
civill
Court
of
Justice
among
the
Jewes
ceased
.
If
he
say
that
the
same
rule
continueth
for
telling
the
civill
Magistrate
in
case
the
offender
prove
obstinate
after
admonition
,
then
I
aske
.
●
.
how
will
he
reconcile
himself
?
for
pag.
4.
he
saith
the
Church
in
this
Text
is
onely
the
Sanhedrin
or
Court
of
civill
Justice
among
the
Jewes
.
2.
If
this
Text
Mat.
18.
was
applicable
to
the
primitive
Church
after
the
destruction
of
Ierusalem
,
and
when
there
was
no
Jewish
Sanhedrin
to
goe
to
,
then
the
Pagan
Magistracy
must
passe
under
the
name
of
the
Church
,
for
they
had
no
other
civill
Court
of
Justice
to
goe
to
.
One
thing
I
must
needs
take
notice
of
,
that
whereas
he
would
prove
here
that
Tell
the
Church
,
is
nothing
,
but
,
tell
the
civill
Court
of
Justice
among
the
Jewes
,
commonly
called
the
Councell
saith
he
,
or
Sanhedrin
,
he
doth
hereby
overthrow
all
that
he
hath
been
building
for
the
Jewish
Sanhedrin
at
that
time
,
had
not
power
to
judge
civill
,
nor
criminall
,
and
least
of
all
Capitall
offences
,
but
onely
causes
Ecclesiasticall
:
The
Romans
having
taken
from
them
their
civill
Government
,
and
left
them
no
Government
nor
Jurisdiction
except
in
matters
of
Religion
.
I
hope
Master
Prynne
will
not
in
this
contradict
[
i
](A42757-e75530-b)
i
confirm
.
Thesium
lib.
2.
cap.
2.
Quis
nescit
illo
tempore
Judaeos
sub
Romanis
vixisse
,
ac
praesidem
eorum
p●rentibus
omnibus
jus
dicere
solitum
suisse
?
Civilem
potentiam
ad
se
omnem
f●rè
per●raxerant
,
relicta
potestate
ipsis
de
rebus
sacris
judicandi
,
&
secundum
legis
ceremonias
vivendi
.
Idem
lib.
3.
cap.
1.
In●erim
tamen
pa●ebant
Romanis
:
neque
in
aliis
rebus
potestatem
servaverant
integram
,
quàm
in
rebus
ad
religionem
morésque
patrios
pertinentibus
.
Erastus
.
And
if
so
,
how
shall
his
Glosse
stand
,
that
this
Text
is
to
be
understood
of
civill
injuries
yea
,
and
of
these
onely
,
for
remedy
whereof
he
conceives
that
Christ
sends
his
Disciples
to
the
Jewish
Sanhedrin
?
How
sweetly
doe
his
Tenents
agree
together
?
His
fourth
reason
is
,
that
those
words
,
let
him
be
to
thee
as
an
Heathen
man
and
a
Publican
,
cannot
signifie
excommunication
,
because
Heathen
men
being
never
members
of
the
Church
,
could
never
be
excommunicated
or
cast
out
of
it
,
being
uncapable
of
such
a
censure
.
As
for
publicans
,
those
of
them
who
were
members
of
the
Jewish
Church
,
though
they
were
execrable
to
the
Jewes
,
by
reason
of
their
Tax-gatherings
and
oppressions
,
yet
we
never
read
in
Scripture
,
that
they
were
excommunicated
or
cast
out
of
their
Synagogues
,
but
contrarily
,
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●…yt
.
Cap.
9.
pag.
57.
I
answer
1.
by
a
retortion
.
Master
Prynne
p.
4.
expounds
these
words
,
let
him
be
unto
thee
as
an
Heathen
man
and
a
publican
,
to
be
meant
of
avoiding
familiar
fellowship
with
the
Brother
that
hath
committed
a
civill
trespasse
,
and
keeping
no
more
civill
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
Jewes
(
who
might
not
marry
nor
familiarly
converse
with
them
,
as
himself
proveth
pag.
4.
)
could
never
be
cast
out
of
their
fellowship
and
company
,
being
uncapable
of
any
such
thing
.
If
our
exposition
of
excommunication
must
drive
us
to
acknowledge
that
Heathens
were
formerly
members
of
the
Jewish
Church
,
his
exposition
of
avoiding
familiar
fellowship
,
must
drive
him
to
acknowledge
that
formerly
the
Heathens
were
admitted
into
familiar
fellowship
with
the
Jewes
.
2.
Those
words
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
let
him
be
unto
thee
,
&c.
do
not
look
backward
but
foreward
;
neither
is
the
matching
and
comparing
of
the
scandalous
impenitent
Brother
,
with
an
heathen
,
à
priori
,
but
à
posteriori
,
so
that
no
comparison
is
to
be
made
between
the
praeterite
Estate
of
an
offending
Brother
,
and
the
praeterite
Estate
of
an
Heathen
man
,
but
between
the
future
Estate
of
an
offending
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
fellowship
with
him
in
the
holy
Assemblies
nor
in
the
Temple
;
for
Heathens
were
not
permitted
to
come
into
the
Temple
Ezek.
44.
7.
9.
Act.
21.
28.
whereupon
Paul
is
accused
for
bringing
Greeks
into
the
Temple
and
so
polluting
that
holy
place
Act.
21.
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
Gentium
,
the
Court
of
the
Heathen
,
otherwise
called
Intermurale
,
because
it
lay
between
the
Temple
and
the
utter
wall
mentioned
Ezek.
42.
20.
Into
this
utmost
Court
or
intermurale
Heathen
men
were
admitted
to
come
and
worship
there
,
according
to
that
1
Kings
.
8.
41.
2
Chro.
6.
32.
They
might
not
onely
come
into
the
holy
Land
,
but
to
the
holy
City
,
and
not
onely
to
the
holy
City
,
but
to
the
mountain
of
the
house
of
the
Lord
,
yea
,
not
onely
to
the
mountaine
of
the
Temple
,
but
within
the
utter
Wall
:
yet
into
the
Court
of
Israel
which
was
properly
the
first
or
utter
Court
of
the
Temple
,
they
were
forbidden
to
enter
.
He
that
would
be
further
satisfied
that
these
things
were
so
,
let
him
read
Ioseph
.
antiq.
lib.
15.
cap.
14.
T●…status
in
1.
Reg.
8.
quaest.
21.
Arias
Montanus
de
saer
.
fabric
.
pag.
15.
Azorius
Instit.
moral
Tom.
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
person
being
esteemed
as
an
Heathen
,
must
not
g●t
leave
to
heare
the
word
,
nor
at
all
to
enter
into
the
places
of
publike
Ass●molies
where
the
word
was
Preached
.
Answ.
I
will
not
now
debate
that
point
.
Others
have
debated
it
with
the
Anabaptists
who
hold
that
excommunicate
persons
ought
not
be
admitted
to
the
Hearing
of
the
word
.
Luc.
Osiand
.
Enchirid.
contra
Anab.
c.
6.
quest.
2.
but
however
it
doth
not
follow
upon
what
I
have
said
,
that
excommunicate
persons
must
be
wholly
excluded
from
hearing
of
the
word
.
First
,
because
the
places
of
our
publike
worship
have
no
Sacramentall
significancy
or
holinesse
as
the
Temple
and
Tabernacle
had
of
old
:
therefore
say
the
professors
of
Leyden
there
is
not
the
like
reason
to
exclude
excommunicate
persons
wholly
from
our
Temples
,
as
there
was
excluding
them
from
the
Temple
of
Ierusalem
.
2.
because
both
Christ
Io.
10.
23.
and
the
Apostles
Acts
5.
12.
did
use
to
Preach
in
Solomons
Porch
,
(
[
b
](A42757-e76020-b)
b
Iosephus
an-tiq
.
lib.
20.
cap.
8.
Suasit
(
popu
lus
)
regi
ut
orientalem
instauraret
porticum
.
Ea
templi
extima
claudebat
,
profundae
valli
&
augustae
imminens
,
&c.
Opus
Solomonis
,
regis
,
qui
primus
integrum
Templum
condi●it
.
)
This
Porch
so
called
was
the
great
east
Porch
in
the
Intermurale
,
whether
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
Master
Selden
tells
us
de
Jure
nat
.
&
Gent.
lib.
3.
cap.
6.
some
understand
by
Solomons
Porch
act.
3.
11.
&
5.
12.
the
very
Court
of
the
Gentiles
,
into
which
they
came
to
worship
,
which
Gentiles
were
not
withstanding
forbidden
by
a
superscription
under
paine
of
death
to
enter
into
the
Court
of
Israel
,
or
into
that
which
Iosephus
calls
the
second
Temple
.
Iosephus
doth
also
make
mention
of
foure
Porches
of
the
Temple
;
into
the
utmost
of
which
(
&
this
is
certainly
meant
of
Solomons
porch
)
it
was
lawful
for
heathens
to
come
.
contra
appron
.
l.
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
familiarity
with
him
,
it
doth
not
hurt
our
Exposition
:
exclusion
from
the
Temple
being
clearly
signified
by
his
being
as
an
Heathen
:
and
avoiding
of
fellowship
with
him
being
in
the
most
emphaticall
manner
further
expressed
by
his
being
as
a
publicans
both
these
put
together
do
the
more
fully
hold
forth
excommunication
.
And
in
this
sence
some
resolve
the
words
.
5.
Yet
let
us
see
how
Master
Prynne
proves
that
the
Publicans
were
admitted
into
the
Temple
or
Synagogues
.
He
tells
us
that
Christ
received
them
or
conversed
with
them
,
as
if
the
meaning
had
been
to
compare
an
impenitent
Brother
with
penitent
publicans
,
Luk.
18.
13.
who
drew
neer
to
Christ
to
heare
him
Luk.
15.
2.
who
left
all
and
followed
Christ
to
be
among
his
disciples
Matth.
10.
3.
Luk.
5.
27
,
28.
Mark
.
2.
15.
who
justified
God
Luk.
7.
29.
who
knew
themselves
to
be
sick
of
soule-diseases
Matth.
9.
12
,
13.
These
very
places
cited
by
himself
make
against
him
.
However
the
Question
is
how
Publicans
were
esteemed
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
,
he
objecteth
that
Publicans
went
up
into
the
Temple
to
pray
.
If
he
meane
that
Publicans
who
were
neither
devout
Jewes
nor
Proselytes
,
went
up
into
the
Temple
to
pray
,
had
accesse
to
and
fellowship
in
the
Sacrifices
and
Temple
worship
,
as
well
as
the
Jewes
themselves
,
it
s
more
than
he
can
prove
.
If
he
mean
that
publicans
who
were
Jewes
or
Proselytes
,
went
up
into
the
Temple
to
pray
,
it
helpeth
him
not
,
except
he
can
prove
that
when
Christ
saith
,
let
him
be
unto
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
Jewes
did
not
keep
civill
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
18.
10.
concerning
the
Publicans
goeing
up
to
the
Temple
to
pray
;
first
,
it
is
expressely
declared
to
be
a
parable
Vers.
9.
and
therefore
can
not
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
16.
24.
to
the
end
of
the
Chapter
,
(
though
I
believe
that
be
a
History
related
parabolically
,
as
V●…ssius
proveth
in
his
Theses
:
)
farre
lesse
can
a
parable
properly
so
called
prove
an
historicall
narration
.
The
meaning
may
be
no
other
but
this
,
that
if
such
a
Publican
and
such
a
Pharisee
should
goe
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
businesse
of
Excommunication
that
the
Publican
,
yea
an
execrable
Publican
did
goe
up
to
the
Temple
to
pray
.
For
an
excommunicate
person
among
the
Jewes
(
as
many
thinke
)
so
long
as
there
was
hope
of
his
repentance
,
had
leave
to
come
into
the
utter
Court
of
the
Temple
,
yet
so
that
they
came
in
at
the
gate
of
the
mourners
,
and
excommunicate
persons
were
known
by
all
that
saw
them
,
to
be
excommunicate
persons
.
More
of
this
Booke
1.
cap.
4.
8.
This
very
Text
Luke
18.
helpes
us
.
For
t
is
said
Vers.
13.
The
Publican
stood
afarre
off
,
that
is
,
(
in
the
opinion
of
Diodati
)
in
some
remote
part
of
the
first
Court
of
the
Temple
,
1
Kings
8.
41.
It
is
very
probable
(
whereof
see
Book
1.
chap.
9.
that
the
Intermurale
or
atrium
Gentium
is
meant
,
which
sometime
hath
the
name
of
the
Temple
.
To
the
Publicans
standing
afarre
off
is
opposed
the
Pharisees
standing
by
himselfe
,
Vers.
11.
where
I
construct
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
with
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
as
Camero
doth
:
So
Camerarius
and
Beza
following
the
Syriack
and
some
old
Greek
copies
:
he
stood
apart
by
himselfe
,
the
very
custome
making
it
so
,
that
the
Publican
should
not
come
neere
him
,
but
stand
in
atrio
Gentium
.
9.
The
reason
why
Publicans
are
named
as
hatefull
and
execrable
persons
,
was
not
for
civill
respects
,
nor
because
Publicans
,
(
for
the
Jewes
themselves
did
not
refuse
to
keep
company
with
good
and
just
Publicans
,
as
I
shall
prove
afterwards
:
)
particularly
,
it
was
not
for
their
Tax-gathering
(
a
particular
mentioned
by
Mr
Prynne
,
it
seems
to
strengthen
his
exposition
of
civill
injuries
)
but
for
divers
scandalous
sinnes
and
abominable
prophanesse
,
therefore
publicans
and
sinners
,
publicans
and
harlots
,
publicans
and
gluttons
,
and
wine-bibbers
are
almost
synonyma's
in
the
Gospell
,
Matth.
9.
11.
&
11.
19.
&
21.
32.
Murke
2.
16.
Luke
5.
30.
and
Publicans
are
named
as
the
worst
of
men
,
Matth.
5.
46
,
47.
the
most
of
them
being
so
reputed
.
From
all
this
which
hath
been
said
in
answer
to
his
fourth
reason
it
appeareth
that
let
him
be
to
thee
as
an
Heathen
and
a
Publican
,
is
more
than
he
would
make
it
,
keepe
not
any
familar
company
,
or
have
no
civill
fellowship
with
him
.
And
whereas
page
4.
he
saith
that
Paul
expresly
interprets
it
so
,
1
Cor.
5.
10
,
11
,
12.
2
Thess
3.
4.
Ephes.
5.
11.
Rom.
16.
17.
I
answer
out
of
himselfe
,
in
that
same
place
,
and
pag.
5.
Let
him
be
to
thee
as
an
Heathen
,
&c.
is
a
phrase
never
used
elsewhere
in
Scripture
.
How
then
,
saith
he
,
that
Paul
doth
expresly
interpret
it
?
Paul
commandeth
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
himselfe
make
it
manifest
)
Therefore
Paul
doth
expresly
interpret
that
phrase
Mat.
18.
to
be
meant
of
withdrawing
civill
fellowship
only
.
What
consequence
is
there
here
?
I
come
to
his
fifth
and
last
reason
,
the
words
runue
only
,
Let
him
be
to
thee
as
an
Heathen
man
and
a
Publican
,
not
to
the
whole
Church
.
Answ.
1.
This
is
the
very
thing
he
said
in
his
first
Quaere
,
which
is
answered
before
.
I
shall
onely
adde
here
another
answer
out
of
[
l
](A42757-e76760-b)
l
Erast
Cousirm
.
Thes.
lib.
2.
pag.
158.
Quod
uni
dictum
est
,
dictum
toti
est
ecclesiae
.
At
uni
dictum
est
ut
septuagies
in
die
culpam
deprecanti
remit●at
.
Ergo
tota
Ecclesia
deprecanti
ignoscore
debet
,
quo●iescunque
in
die
sibi
ignosci
petot
Nulla
enim
justa
causa
proferri
poterit
,
cur
tota
Ecclesia
non
debeat
facere
in
hac
causa
,
quod
singulis
ejus
membris
praeceptum
est
.
Erastus
,
who
argueth
thus
:
One
brother
should
forgive
another
seventy
times
in
a
day
,
if
the
offending
brother
doe
so
oft
turn
againe
and
crave
pardon
:
Therefore
so
should
the
Church
doe
to
a
sinner
that
craveth
pardon
,
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
doe
herein
,
what
Church
members
ought
to
doe
severally
.
If
this
be
a
good
argument
when
Christ
saith
,
If
thy
brother
repent
,
forgive
him
,
Luke
17.
334.
(
by
which
place
Mr
Prynne
expoundeth
Matth.
18.
15.
)
will
it
not
be
as
good
an
argument
,
Let
him
be
to
thee
as
an
Heathen
and
a
Publican
,
therefore
let
him
be
such
to
the
whole
Church
,
when
the
whole
Church
is
offended
by
his
obstinacy
and
impenitency
?
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
obstinate
to
tell
the
Church
.
Now
the
commandement
for
rebuking
our
brother
that
fals
into
a
scandalous
sinne
,
is
not
restricted
to
him
that
is
personally
or
particularly
wronged
,
but
it
is
a
common
Law
of
spirituall
love
,
Levit.
19.
17.
Yea
,
saith
Mr
Hildersham
,
lect.
36.
on
Psal.
51.
Every
man
hath
received
●…
commandement
from
Christ
,
to
inform●…
the
governours
of
the
Church
of
such
a
brother
as
cannot
otherwise
be
reformed
,
Matth.
18.
17.
Tell
the
Church
.
If
it
belong
to
every
Church
member
to
reprove
a
scandalous
sinne
which
his
brother
committeth
in
his
●ight
or
hearing
,
or
to
his
knowledge
,
and
if
he
repent
not
,
to
tell
the
Church
,
then
it
also
belongs
to
every
Church
member
to
esteeme
him
as
an
Heathen
man
and
a
Publican
,
if
he
heare
not
the
Church
.
3.
The
next
words
,
Whatsoever
ye
shall
bind
on
Earth
shall
be
bound
in
Hraven
,
being
spoken
to
the
Apo
les
,
and
in
them
to
other
Mini●ers
of
Jesus
Christ
,
doe
expound
the
former
words
Let
him
be
unto
thee
,
&c.
to
be
meant
not
of
private
withdrawing
of
fellowship
,
but
of
a
publique
Church
censure
.
4.
The
reason
why
Chri●
will
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
contumacy
in
that
offence
,
and
his
neglecting
to
heare
the
Church
.
So
that
suppose
the
offence
had
been
a
private
or
personall
injury
;
yet
that
for
which
the
offender
is
to
be
esteemed
as
an
Heathen
and
a
Publican
,
toucheth
the
whole
Church
,
and
is
a
generall
scandall
to
them
all
,
namely
his
contumacy
and
not
hearing
the
Church
.
How
can
it
then
be
imagined
,
that
Christ
would
onely
have
one
Church
member
to
esteem
a
man
as
an
Heathen
and
a
Publican
,
for
that
which
is
a
common
generall
scandall
to
the
whole
Church
?
[
m
](A42757-e76990-b)
m
Quod
si
hos
contemn●t
,
indicetur
Ecclesiae
ejus
pervicatia
.
Et
si
ne
Ecclesiam
au
dierit
,
monitus
scilicet
à
multis
,
habeatur
ab
eis
veluti
ethnicus
&
publicanus
.
Et
quaecunque
illi
sic
ligave
in
t
,
ligata
habebuntur
in
caelis
,
hoc
est
,
quos
ita
monitos
ejecerint
è
suo
consortio
,
●i
etiam
apud
patrem
ejecti
habebuntur
.
Munsterus
in
his
Annotations
upon
Matth.
18.
doth
better
hit
the
meaning
,
that
the
offender
is
to
be
esteemed
as
an
Heathen
man
and
a
Publiean
,
by
those
who
did
before
admonish
him
but
were
despised
,
that
is
,
by
the
Church
,
whose
admonitions
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
a
Heathen
man
and
a
Publican
to
one
member
of
the
Church
,
and
yet
not
to
be
as
●
Heathen
man
and
a
Publican
,
but
as
a
brother
received
in
fellowship
by
the
whole
Church
?
Sure
this
were
a
repugnancy
between
the
judgement
of
the
whole
Church
,
and
the
judgement
of
one
member
of
the
Church
:
and
two
things
which
are
repugnant
can
not
be
both
of
them
agreeable
to
the
will
of
Christ
.
CHAP.
III.
A
further
demonstration
that
these
words
,
Let
him
be
to
thee
as
an
Heathen
man
and
a
Publican
,
are
not
meant
of
avoyding
Civill
,
but
Religious
or
Church-fellowship
.
I
Hope
I
have
already
made
it
to
appeare
that
to
draw
Excommunication
from
Matth.
18.
is
not
to
extract
water
out
of
flint
,
as
Mr
Prynne
supposeth
:
but
that
it
commeth
as
liquidè
from
the
Text
,
as
water
out
of
the
fountaine
.
Wherein
I
am
the
more
confirmed
,
because
Mr
Prynnes
exposition
of
these
words
,
Let
him
be
to
thee
as
an
Heathen
man
and
a
Publican
,
can
not
stand
,
for
he
takes
the
sence
to
be
no
more
but
this
,
keepe
not
any
civill
fellowship
or
company
with
such
a
one
.
Now
that
this
can
not
be
our
Saviours
meaning
,
I
prove
thus
.
1.
If
a
private
man
shall
thus
at
his
owne
hand
withdraw
and
separate
from
an
offending
brother
,
as
from
an
Heathen
man
and
a
Publican
,
[
n
](A42757-e77160-b)
n
Martyr
in
1
Cor.
5.
ult.
loc.
de
excom.
Verum
si
hoc
pro
suo
arbitrio
cuique
permittatur
,
ut
facultatem
habeat
discedend●
&
separandi
se
à
quibus
voluerit
,
simultates
,
contentiones
,
&
discordiae
,
longè
graviores
orientur
,
quàm
si
publicâ
excommunicatione
uteremur
.
what
order
,
peace
,
or
good
government
can
there
be
either
in
Church
or
State
?
And
all
the
odium
cast
upon
Excommunication
(
as
contrary
to
the
spirituall
priviledges
of
Christians
)
will
fall
more
heavy
upon
his
owne
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
persons
more
,
in
case
of
so
many
civill
injuries
,
not
amended
after
complaint
to
the
Magistrate
)
esteemed
,
avoyded
,
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
a
Heathen
and
a
Publican
by
ten
thousand
of
the
people
,
before
ever
he
be
so
judged
by
any
Judicature
.
For
instance
,
put
case
that
a
Minister
be
judicially
convict
to
have
wronged
his
parishioners
in
the
matter
of
small
tythes
,
and
they
conceive
him
to
persevere
in
the
same
injury
,
must
or
may
each
of
them
flee
from
him
as
from
an
Heathen
and
a
Publican
?
Put
case
a
whole
company
thinke
themselves
wronged
in
pay
or
otherwise
by
their
Captaine
,
or
a
whole
Regiment
by
their
Colonell
,
and
after
complaint
made
finde
themselves
not
repaired
,
are
they
therefore
free
to
avoyd
all
civill
company
with
the
Captaine
or
Colonell
,
and
to
flee
from
them
as
from
Heathens
and
Publicans
?
And
what
if
both
the
Lord
Major
of
London
and
many
godly
Ministers
who
have
eate
at
his
Table
,
should
accuse
Mr.
Prynne
of
a
calumny
,
because
of
that
passage
in
his
Booke
,
pag.
12.
where
he
saith
of
Anabaptists
,
Separatists
,
Independents
,
Presbyters
or
Divines
,
Neither
of
which
make
any
conscience
of
not
repairing
to
the
Lord
Majors
,
or
any
other
publique
City
feast
,
where
they
are
sure
of
good
fare
,
because
they
were
certaine
there
to
meet
and
eate
with
some
covetous
or
other
scandalous
persons
,
with
whom
St.
Paul
probibtes
them
,
no
not
to
eate
?
If
,
I
say
,
the
Lord
Major
should
accuse
Mr
Prynne
for
slandering
him
and
his
house
with
the
company
of
scandalous
persons
:
and
if
many
godly
conscientious
Ministers
should
accuse
him
for
aspersing
them
,
as
having
more
love
to
good
fare
,
then
conscience
of
avoyding
to
eate
with
scandalous
persons
:
And
if
after
sentence
past
against
Mr
Prynne
he
should
still
continue
impenitent
and
not
confesse
his
fault
in
this
particular
?
Will
he
allow
the
Lord
Major
,
and
all
the
godly
Ministers
who
have
eaten
at
the
Lord
Majors
table
to
avoyd
Mr
Prynne
as
an
Heathen
and
a
Publican
?
Let
hm
take
heed
whether
his
principles
will
lead
him
.
2.
Mr
Prynne
saith
pag.
4.
that
Let
him
be
to
thee
as
an
Heathen
and
a
Publican
,
is
interpreted
by
1
Cor.
5.
10
,
11
,
12.
2
Thess.
3.
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
vers.
12.
(
cited
by
himselfe
)
makes
it
plaine
,
that
a
judiciall
act
,
not
a
private
mans
withdrawing
onely
,
is
meant
;
for
that
verse
speaks
twice
of
judging
,
an
Apostolicall
judgeing
,
and
an
Ecclesiasticall
judging
.
And
the
best
interpreters
expound
2
Thess.
3.
14.
of
Church
censures
.
It
s
not
the
case
of
private
civill
injucies
which
the
Apostle
there
speaks
of
,
but
the
case
of
publique
scandall
,
If
any
man
be
disobedient
to
the
Apostolicall
Epistle
,
note
that
man
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
put
a
marke
upon
him
,
that
is
,
let
him
be
publiquely
censured
,
Let
him
be
separated
from
you
,
saith
the
Syriak
,
and
then
have
no
company
with
him
,
and
all
this
that
he
may
be
ashamed
,
which
must
needs
be
by
some
publique
censure
or
blacke
mark
put
upon
him
.
3.
Let
him
be
to
thee
as
an
Heathen
;
if
it
be
meant
of
keeping
no
civil
company
,
he
must
shew
us
that
the
Jews
of
old
were
and
Christians
under
the
new
Testament
are
forbidden
to
keepe
civill
company
with
Heathens
and
those
that
are
without
the
Church
.
He
goeth
about
to
prove
that
the
phrase
is
taken
from
the
practice
of
the
Jewes
in
that
age
,
pag.
4.
But
how
doth
he
prove
it
?
He
citeth
some
places
to
prove
that
the
Israelites
might
not
marry
with
the
Canaanites
,
but
he
doth
not
prove
that
they
might
not
keep
civill
company
with
any
of
the
Heathens
.
There
was
no
such
favour
nor
fellowship
permitted
between
the
Israelites
and
the
Canaanites
,
as
between
the
Israelites
and
other
Gentiles
who
came
among
them
from
other
Lands
,
as
Tostatus
noteth
in
Matth.
26.
quaest.
43.
The
reason
was
because
God
had
destinat
the
Canaanites
to
utter
destruction
,
and
that
the
whole
Land
of
Canaan
should
be
given
to
the
children
of
Israel
.
Onely
some
few
by
speciall
dispensation
were
spared
as
the
Gibeonites
because
Ioshua
and
the
Princes
had
sworne
unto
them
,
and
Rahab
with
her
kindred
because
she
saved
the
spies
.
But
such
extraordinary
cases
excepted
,
the
Israelites
ought
not
to
permit
any
of
the
Canaanites
to
live
,
nor
receive
them
though
they
had
been
willing
to
be
circumcised
as
Tostatus
there
thinketh
.
However
that
great
distance
and
alienation
in
point
of
fellowship
between
the
Israelites
and
the
Canaanites
,
was
not
qua
Heathens
,
but
qua
Canaanites
,
otherwise
the
children
of
Israel
had
been
obliged
to
root
out
other
Nations
as
well
as
the
Canaanites
.
Yea
the
Law
puts
an
expresse
difference
between
the
Nations
,
in
so
much
that
some
of
them
were
not
to
be
abominate
,
though
others
were
,
Deut.
23.
7.
Thou
shalt
not
abhorre
an
Edomite
,
for
he
is
thy
brother
:
thou
shalt
not
abhorre
an
Egyptian
,
because
thou
wast
a
stranger
in
his
Land
.
The
very
Canaanites
themselves
were
by
the
Law
,
Deut.
20.
10
,
11.
to
have
so
much
favour
as
an
offer
of
peace
,
which
if
any
of
their
Cities
had
accepted
,
that
City
was
not
to
be
cut
off
,
but
the
people
thereof
were
to
be
tributaries
,
and
to
serve
Israel
,
and
so
permitted
to
live
among
them
.
The
last
of
his
citations
maketh
very
much
against
him
,
namely
,
Acts
21.
28
,
29.
where
the
Jewes
of
Asia
doe
accuse
Paul
for
bringing
Greekes
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
.
Marke
here
Paul
is
not
challenged
for
conversing
familiarly
with
a
Greeke
,
but
onely
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
M.
Prynne
could
cite
this
place
to
prove
that
the
Jewes
might
not
converse
nor
keepe
civill
company
with
the
Heathens
,
since
it
proveth
the
very
contrary
,
that
the
Jewes
might
have
civill
,
but
no
religious
fellowship
with
Heathens
.
And
whereas
he
addeth
that
the
Jewes
had
no
dealing
or
conversation
with
the
Samaritans
,
Joh.
4.
9.
Luke
9.
52
,
53.
I
answer
,
the
reason
was
because
the
Jewish
Church
had
excommnnicated
and
anathematized
for
ever
the
Samaritans
,
who
being
once
circumcised
and
having
received
the
booke
of
the
Law
,
did
afterward
hinder
the
building
of
the
house
of
the
Lord
.
This
Excommunication
of
the
Cuthites
or
Samaritans
most
solemnly
performed
you
may
finde
in
Pirke
R.
Ecclesiae
,
cap.
38.
More
of
this
elsewhere
.
Here
I
onely
touch
it
,
to
shew
that
this
also
of
the
Samaritans
makes
against
him
.
4.
It
is
certaine
that
the
Jewes
had
civill
company
and
conversation
with
Heathens
.
For
Solomons
servants
and
Hirams
servants
were
both
together
.
1
Kings
5.
18.
2
Chr.
2.
8.
yea
,
2
Chr.
2.
17
,
18.
Solomon
numbred
of
strangers
or
heathens
in
the
Land
of
Israel
,
a
hundred
fifty
and
three
thousand
and
six
hundred
.
Could
there
be
so
many
of
them
and
employed
also
in
the
building
of
the
Temple
,
and
yet
no
civill
company
kept
with
them
?
Nehemiah
in
the
Court
of
Artaxerxes
,
and
Daniel
with
his
companions
in
the
court
of
Nebuchadnenar
had
civill
company
with
Heathens
,
but
religious
company
with
them
they
would
have
none
.
We
finde
the
King
of
Edom
in
fellowship
with
Iehoshaphat
and
Iehoram
,
2
Kings
3.
And
the
Merchants
of
Tyre
were
permitted
to
come
into
Ierusalem
,
and
there
to
fell
all
manner
of
ware
unto
the
children
of
Iuda
,
onely
they
were
forbidden
to
doe
it
upon
the
Sabbath
day
,
Nehem.
13.
16
,
20
,
21.
L'Empereur
de
legibus
Ebraeorum
forensibus
pag.
180
,
181.
putteth
it
out
of
controversie
,
that
in
Christs
time
there
were
many
Heathens
in
the
Land
of
Canaan
with
whom
the
Jewes
did
converse
and
dwell
together
;
and
that
Christ
found
in
those
places
where
he
preached
both
Jewes
and
Gentiles
.
Istis
locis
inter
istos
commorabantur
Gentiles
,
qui
magistrorum
placitis
se
astringi
passi
non
sunt
.
And
a
little
after
,
Nec
enim
Israelitas
ab
alienigenarum
urbibus
abstinuisse
,
Iosephus
Indicat
.
And
that
long
before
that
time
there
was
a
mutuall
conversing
of
Jewes
and
Gentiles
,
I
gather
from
1
Kings
20.
34.
Thou
shalt
make
streets
for
thee
in
Damascus
as
my
father
made
in
Samaria
,
meaning
for
trade
and
commerce
.
I
will
here
anticipate
a
great
objection
which
may
be
made
against
me
,
from
Acts
10.
28.
Ye
know
that
it
is
an
unlawfull
thing
for
a
man
that
is
a
Jew
to
keepe
company
or
come
unto
one
of
another
Nation
.
This
might
seem
to
make
more
for
Mr
Prynnes
exposition
,
then
all
the
places
cited
by
himselfe
.
But
I
answer
,
for
the
better
understanding
of
that
place
,
first
of
all
observe
what
Drusius
Quaest.
&
resp.
lib.
2.
quaest.
67.
tels
us
out
of
Elias
in
Thesbite
:
The
Jewes
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
praelibation
of
Wine
in
their
idolatrous
solemnities
:
whereupon
the
wise
men
of
the
Jewes
fearing
lest
Heathen
men
should
give
to
Jewes
that
Wine
which
had
been
dedicated
to
Idols
did
forbid
the
Jewes
to
drinke
Wine
with
Heathens
:
which
(
as
other
Statutes
of
their
wise
men
)
the
Jewes
did
religiosè
religiously
observe
.
Marke
we
hence
,
1.
It
was
not
a
generall
received
custome
among
the
Jewes
,
in
no
case
to
eate
or
drinke
with
Heathens
;
else
it
had
been
unnecessary
and
supervacaneous
to
forbid
the
drinking
of
Wine
with
Heathens
,
exceptio
affirmat
regulam
in
non
exceptis
.
2.
It
was
for
a
religious
and
consciencious
reason
,
propter
〈◊〉
idololatriae
,
for
feare
of
pertaking
with
Idolatry
,
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
civill
respects
,
that
they
were
forbidden
to
drinke
Wine
with
the
Gentiles
.
The
same
I
say
of
their
shunning
to
eate
with
them
,
for
the
Heathens
used
also
a
dedicating
of
their
meats
to
Idols
,
1
Cor.
10.
27.
Secondly
,
observe
Peter
addeth
immediately
:
but
God
hath
shewed
me
that
I
should
not
call
any
man
common
or
uncleane
:
meaning
,
so
as
not
to
keepe
company
with
him
because
of
his
Gentilisme
or
uncircumcision
,
or
because
of
his
eating
of
meats
which
were
uncleane
by
the
ceremoniall
Law
,
as
Ludovicus
de
Dieu
doth
rightly
give
the
meaning
,
understanding
,
not
morall
,
but
onely
ceremoniall
uncleannesse
to
be
there
spoken
of
;
for
many
men
under
the
Gospell
are
still
to
be
looked
upon
and
avoyded
as
morally
uncleane
.
But
God
had
taught
Peter
by
abrogating
the
ceremoniall
differences
of
meats
in
the
vision
,
that
the
ceremoniall
Law
which
was
the
partition
wall
between
Jewes
and
Gentiles
,
was
now
to
be
taken
away
:
so
that
the
Gentiles
should
be
no
longer
called
dogs
,
as
Matth.
15.
26.
neither
were
the
Disciples
to
be
forbidden
any
longer
to
goe
into
the
way
of
the
Gentiles
,
Matth.
10.
5.
Henc
forth
no
man
should
be
called
holy
because
of
his
circumcision
,
no
man
uncleane
because
of
his
uncircumcision
.
This
being
the
meaning
,
it
followeth
that
the
unlawfulnesse
of
eating
and
companying
with
an
Heathen
mentioned
Act.
10.
28.
must
not
be
so
understood
,
as
if
bare
civill
fellowship
had
been
unlawfull
;
but
it
must
be
understood
,
first
,
in
reference
to
the
morall
Law
,
that
is
for
avoiding
the
danger
of
Idolatry
in
eating
or
drinking
that
which
Idolatrous
Heathens
had
sacrificed
to
Idolls
,
as
hath
been
just
now
cleared
.
Secondly
,
in
reference
to
the
Ceremoniall
Law
,
or
of
such
fellowship
as
was
contrary
to
the
ceremoniall
Law
,
in
eating
together
with
Heathens
of
meats
legally
unclean
,
such
as
were
represented
to
Peter
in
the
vision
,
and
he
commanded
to
eate
what
was
formerly
unclean
to
him
.
Otherwise
when
the
Gentiles
did
not
eat
any
thing
which
the
Jewes
were
forbidden
to
eat
,
it
was
lawfull
for
the
Jewes
to
eat
with
the
Gentiles
saith
Tostatus
in
2.
Paral.
6.
Quest.
21.
So
likewise
Grotius
de
Jure
Belli
ac
pacis
lib.
2.
cap.
15.
Sect.
9.
where
he
referreth
the
Jewes
their
not
eating
with
the
Heathens
,
to
the
Law
of
meats
or
the
peculiaris
victus
which
was
prescribed
to
the
Jewes
.
But
otherwise
the
Law
did
not
make
it
unlawfull
for
them
to
eat
with
any
of
another
Nation
:
which
he
thinks
is
proved
by
Christs
own
example
who
took
a
drink
of
water
from
the
woman
of
Samaria
,
being
yet
most
observant
of
the
Law
.
That
the
unlawfulnesse
of
eating
with
the
Heathens
was
understood
in
reference
to
the
ceremoniall
Law
,
I
prove
,
from
Gal.
2.
12.
14.
Peter
having
before
eaten
with
the
Gentiles
,
to
avoid
the
scandall
of
some
Jewes
that
came
from
Iames
,
did
withdraw
and
separate
himself
from
the
believing
Gentiles
:
What
?
to
keep
no
more
any
civill
company
with
them
.
I
hope
no
man
will
imagine
that
.
But
the
Text
expounds
it selfe
vers.
14.
If
thou
being
a
Iew
,
livest
after
the
manner
of
the
Gentiles
,
and
not
as
doe
the
Iewes
,
why
compellest
thou
the
Gentiles
to
live
as
doe
the
Iewes
?
This
was
Peters
fault
,
that
having
formerly
lived
as
the
Gentiles
,
that
is
,
eating
with
them
all
sorts
of
meats
freely
,
thinking
himself
liberate
from
the
Yoke
of
the
ceremoniall
Law
,
afterward
he
withdrew
and
separated
himself
from
that
manner
of
fellowship
with
the
Centiles
,
and
bound
up
himselfe
to
live
as
doe
the
Jewes
,
and
to
observe
the
distinction
of
meats
according
to
the
Law
.
And
in
so
doing
,
whiles
he
avoided
the
scandall
of
the
Jewes
,
he
gave
a
greater
scandall
to
the
Gentiles
in
compelling
them
by
the
authority
of
his
example
to
Judaize
,
and
to
thinke
the
ceremoniall
Law
necessary
.
Thirdly
,
The
foresaid
place
Act.
10.
is
to
be
understood
of
such
fellowship
as
was
not
meerely
civill
,
but
religious
and
sacred
:
as
may
appear
,
1.
by
the
exposition
formerly
given
of
these
words
,
God
hath
shewed
me
that
I
should
not
call
any
man
common
or
unclean
.
2.
by
the
invitation
of
the
men
that
were
sent
from
Cornelius
to
Peter
who
did
not
call
him
to
civill
but
to
sacred
fellowship
Act.
10.
22.
And
they
said
,
Cornelius
the
Conturion
,
a
just
man
and
one
that
feareth
God
,
and
of
good
report
among
all
the
Nation
of
the
Jewes
,
was
warned
from
God
by
an
holy
Angell
,
to
send
for
thee
into
his
house
and
to
heare
words
of
thee
.
3.
Peter
calls
in
the
men
and
lodgeth
them
;
that
being
a
civill
fellowship
,
he
doth
it
freely
,
v.
23.
but
when
he
comes
to
Cornelius
and
those
that
were
assembled
with
him
,
to
heare
words
from
Peter
,
here
was
the
case
of
conscience
,
and
here
Peter
beginneth
to
apologize
v.
28.
ye
knew
how
that
it
is
an
unlawfull
thing
,
&c.
The
Syriak
hath
it
thus
,
ye
know
that
it
is
not
lawfull
for
a
man
that
is
a
Jew
to
joyn
himself
unto
a
man
that
is
a
stranger
,
who
is
not
a
sonne
of
his
generation
:
as
it
were
intimating
a
religious
and
Church
fellowship
.
4.
That
which
gave
offence
to
them
of
the
circumcision
at
Ierusalem
.
was
,
that
they
heard
Peter
had
so
gone
in
to
men
uncircumcised
,
that
they
had
also
received
the
word
of
God
from
him
Act.
11.
1.
3.
And
as
soone
as
they
were
satisfied
in
that
point
,
that
God
had
given
unto
the
Gentiles
repentance
unto
life
vers.
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
Jewes
might
and
did
keep
civill
company
and
fellowship
with
Heathens
.
Which
that
I
may
now
further
consirme
,
let
it
be
observed
with
Schindlerus
in
lexic.
pentaglo
p.
297.
that
there
were
two
sorts
of
Proselytes
among
the
Jewes
.
Some
that
were
circumcised
and
received
the
Law
of
Moses
;
and
such
a
one
was
even
as
a
Jew
,
and
was
called
Proselytus
justitiae
or
faederis
,
a
righteous
or
a
true
Proselyte
,
or
a
Proselyte
of
the
Covenant
.
Others
,
that
did
onely
renounce
ldolatry
and
keep
the
seven
precepts
given
to
the
sonnes
of
Noah
,
not
being
circumcised
nor
keeping
the
Law
of
Moses
,
were
permitted
to
dwell
with
the
Jewes
,
and
therefore
such
a
one
was
called
Proselytus
portae
or
Proselytus
incola
,
a
Proselyte
of
the
Gate
,
or
a
Proselyte
indweller
,
who
dwelt
within
their
Gates
.
See
for
the
same
thing
L'Empereur
de
legibus
Ebraeorum
forensibus
pag.
72
Buxtorflexic
.
Rabbin
.
p.
408.
409.
Grotius
de
Jure
belli
acpacis
lib.
1.
cap.
1.
Sect.
16.
Henr.
Vorstius
observ.
ad
chronol
.
R.
Ganz
.
pag.
279.
Georgius
Genzius
in
annot.
ad
Maimon
.
canon
.
Ethic.
p.
91.
92.
To
the
same
purpose
,
Master
Ainsworth
annot.
in
Gen.
9.
4.
and
on
Exod.
12.
45.
and
on
Levit.
22.
10.
hath
noted
out
of
the
Hebrew
writers
:
that
such
of
the
Heathens
as
did
observe
the
seven
precepts
given
to
the
Sonnes
of
Noah
,
though
they
were
not
circumcised
,
neither
did
observe
the
Ordinances
of
the
ceremoniall
Law
,
nor
were
admitted
to
the
holy
things
of
the
Children
of
Israel
,
yet
they
were
permitted
to
cohabit
and
converse
with
the
people
of
God
in
the
holy
Land
.
And
that
it
was
so
,
may
be
proved
from
Levit.
25.
6.
45.
47.
(
where
the
Chaldee
hath
an
uncircumcised
indweller
)
Deut.
14.
21.
yea
,
such
a
one
might
dwell
in
the
Priests
house
Lev.
22.
10.
The
Jewes
receive
no
Proselyte
now
except
one
that
undertakes
to
keep
the
whole
Law
to
the
least
jote
,
as
Doctor
Buxtorf
informes
us
in
the
place
last
cited
:
and
so
they
are
a
great
deale
more
strict
in
reference
to
the
Gentiles
then
the
Antient
Jewes
were
.
Notwithstanding
they
doe
without
scruple
familiarly
converse
and
keep
company
with
Gentiles
who
keep
not
the
last
of
the
seven
precepts
which
bind
(
as
they
think
)
all
the
Sonnes
of
Noah
,
namely
that
concerning
the
not
eating
of
blood
.
How
much
more
may
we
suppose
that
the
Antient
Jewes
did
keep
civill
company
and
fellowship
with
such
Gentiles
as
did
observe
all
these
seven
precepts
?
And
this
comparison
the
Jewes
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.
Sanhedrin
.
cap.
7.
Sect.
6.
So
that
the
Jewes
were
not
scandalized
at
the
Gentiles
their
not
observing
of
the
whole
Law
of
Moses
,
not
being
circumcised
,
&c.
but
at
their
not
keeping
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
&
Elders
at
Ierusa
.
did
impose
upon
the
Churches
of
the
Gentiles
no
other
burthen
of
Jewish
rites
&
Ceremonies
,
but
to
abstain
from
blood
&
things
strangled
:
they
did
not
impose
circumcision
,
nor
holy
dayes
,
nor
the
like
:
because
that
which
was
intended
was
,
to
draw
together
the
beleevers
of
the
Jewes
&
the
beleevers
of
the
Gentiles
into
a
familiar
conversation
,
that
they
might
live
together
and
eat
together
without
scandall
:
and
this
could
not
be
,
except
the
beleiving
Gentiles
should
observe
the
seven
precepts
which
were
given
not
onely
to
the
posterity
of
Abraham
,
but
to
the
posterity
of
Noah
;
of
which
precepts
one
did
forbid
the
eating
of
blood
Gen.
9.
4.
(
and
under
that
is
comprehended
also
the
eating
of
things
strangled
)
Now
there
was
no
doubt
of
the
beleiving
Gentiles
their
observing
of
the
other
six
precepts
which
the
Hebrewes
say
were
observed
from
Adam
to
Noah
:
the
first
against
Idolatry
,
2.
against
blasphemy
,
3.
against
shedding
of
blood
,
4.
against
uncleannesse
or
unlawfull
copulations
,
5.
against
Rapine
or
Robbery
,
6.
for
executing
judgement
and
inflicting
punishment
upon
malefactors
.
All
the
question
was
of
the
seventh
and
last
against
eating
of
blood
,
which
the
beleiving
Gentiles
(
though
they
knew
it
to
be
older
then
the
ceremoniall
Law
or
circumcision
it self
,
and
to
belong
to
all
the
posterity
of
Noah
,
yet
)
knew
to
be
temporary
and
not
perpetuall
,
and
so
at
the
abrogation
of
the
other
ceremonies
,
and
propagation
of
the
Gospell
to
the
Gentiles
,
thought
themselves
free
from
that
,
as
well
as
other
Ceremonies
.
On
the
other
part
,
it
was
a
principle
among
the
Jewes
,
that
they
ought
not
to
converse
familiarly
with
any
of
the
Gentiles
,
except
such
as
observe
the
seven
precepts
given
to
the
Sonnes
of
Noah
.
Wherefore
the
Synod
of
the
Apostles
and
Elders
thought
good
that
the
beleiving
Gentiles
should
so
farre
condescend
to
the
weaknesse
of
the
Jewes
(
not
fully
instructed
concerning
Christian
liberty
,
and
the
abrogation
of
the
old
ceremonies
)
as
to
observe
for
a
time
that
precept
against
eating
blood
,
as
well
as
the
other
precepts
given
to
the
Sonnes
of
Noah
;
to
the
intent
that
the
Jewes
and
Gentiles
might
Peaceably
and
familiarly
cohabite
and
converse
together
:
for
though
the
Gentiles
did
not
observe
the
other
ordinances
and
ceremonies
of
the
Jewes
:
yet
observing
those
seven
precepts
,
they
were
free
to
converse
familiarly
with
the
Jewes
.
Schindlerus
in
his
Lexicon
pentagl
.
pag.
298.
land
pag.
1530
seemeth
to
have
had
the
same
notion
;
for
he
saith
the
Apostles
and
Elders
would
not
impose
circumcision
and
the
keeping
of
the
Law
of
Moses
,
but
they
imposed
some
things
not
unlike
to
the
precepts
given
to
the
Sonnes
of
Noah
.
I
returne
to
that
distinction
of
the
two
sorts
of
Proselytes
.
The
one
had
the
name
of
Ger
tzedek
a
Proselyte
of
righteousnesse
,
and
Ger
berith
,
a
Proselyte
of
the
Covenant
.
The
other
was
called
Ger
toschav
,
a
Prosclyte
indweller
and
Ger
schagnar
,
a
Proselyte
of
the
Gate
,
qui
intra
portas
,
inter
Judaeos
scilicet
habitabat
,
who
dwelt
within
the
Gates
,
to
wit
among
the
Jewes
saith
Matthias
Martinius
in
Lexic
.
philol
.
pag.
2922.
This
Proselyte
indweller
was
not
called
nor
esteemed
as
one
of
the
Jewes
,
being
no
Church
Member
,
nor
admitted
to
any
religious
or
Church
Commnnion
with
the
Jewes
,
but
he
was
still
esteemed
and
reckoned
as
one
of
the
uncircumcised
Gentiles
.
Yet
the
Iewes
did
keep
civill
company
and
fellowship
with
such
a
one
,
as
with
a
neighbour
and
a
inhabitant
of
the
same
City
,
or
Land
.
And
if
the
Jewes
had
not
been
free
to
keep
civill
company
with
Heathens
or
Infidells
,
yet
Christians
are
expressely
allowed
to
do
so
.
1
Cor.
10.
27.
If
any
of
them
that
beleeve
not
,
bid
you
to
a
Feast
,
aud
ye
be
disposed
to
go
,
whatsoever
is
set
before
you
,
eat
,
asking
no
question
for
conscience
sake
;
and
Ch.
5.
10.
11.
12.
the
Apostle
permitteth
Christians
to
company
and
eat
with
Fornicators
,
Covetous
,
Extortioners
,
or
Idolaters
,
who
are
no
Church-Members
,
but
by
no
meanes
with
scandalous
Brethren
.
I
doe
not
dispute
whether
any
more
liberty
of
this
kind
is
granted
to
Christians
,
then
peradventure
was
granted
to
the
Jewes
.
Yet
I
am
sure
a
great
measure
of
the
liberty
of
civill
fellowship
with
Heathens
was
granted
to
the
Jewes
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
civill
fellowship
and
company
,
but
from
religious
and
Church-fellowship
.
This
agreeth
well
with
that
passage
in
Iosephus
contra
Appionem
lib.
2.
Whoever
(
of
the
Gentiles
)
are
willing
to
come
and
live
under
our
Law
,
it
doth
freely
receive
them
esteeming
Communion
to
consist
not
onely
in
origination
or
descent
,
but
also
in
choyce
of
life
.
But
as
for
those
(
of
the
Gentiles
)
who
come
occasionally
among
us
,
our
Law
doth
not
admit
them
into
our
solemne
or
sacred
Assemblies
,
but
it
appointeth
to
communicate
unto
them
all
such
things
as
they
need
,
as
fire
,
water
meat
,
also
to
shew
them
the
way
,
and
to
let
none
of
them
be
unburied
.
(
So
likewise
Publicans
noted
for
impiety
and
injustice
were
permitted
to
be
City
Members
,
but
not
owned
for
Church-Members
)
Grotius
de
Jure
Belli
ac
pacis
lib.
2.
c.
15.
Sect.
9.
holds
that
it
was
lawfull
for
the
Jewes
,
not
onely
to
have
company
and
commerce
with
Heathens
,
but
to
doe
them
good
and
to
enter
in
League
and
Covenant
with
them
,
such
onely
excepted
as
the
Law
did
accurse
,
namely
the
seven
Nations
in
Canaan
,
the
Amalekites
,
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
Lacedemonians
and
Romanes
:
yea
publikely
prayed
for
them
.
Learned
Master
Selden
de
Jure
nat
.
&
Gent.
lib.
2.
c.
3
doth
not
onely
confirme
what
hath
been
said
before
of
the
Proselyti
Domicilii
,
Heathens
not
circumcised
nor
keeping
the
Law
of
Moses
,
but
observing
the
seven
precepts
given
to
the
Sonnes
of
Noah
,
and
that
such
were
permitted
to
dwell
together
with
the
Children
of
Israel
;
but
he
further
tells
us
out
of
Maimonides
that
though
when
the
Jewish
Republike
did
flourish
and
when
they
were
sui
Juris
,
no
strangers
were
permitted
to
dwell
among
them
except
such
as
did
renounce
Idolatry
and
keep
the
seven
precepts
,
yet
after
the
captivity
and
under
the
Romans
,
the
Jewes
did
allow
to
themselves
a
common
commerce
and
civill
conversing
even
with
such
Gentiles
,
as
had
not
renounced
the
Pagan
or
Idolatrous
worship
;
&
as
for
such
of
the
Gentiles
,
as
the
Jewes
did
observe
to
be
good
men
whom
they
called
ex
piis
è
Gentibus
mundi
,
such
as
Cornelius
the
Centurion
,
to
whom
the
Jewes
themselves
gave
a
good
estimony
of
these
he
saith
that
though
they
were
not
formally
admitted
and
received
as
Proselyte
indwellers
were
wont
to
be
(
that
formall
reception
of
Proselyti
Domicilii
having
ceased
in
those
later
times
)
yet
he
puts
it
out
of
doubt
that
the
Jewes
were
willing
that
such
Gentiles
should
dwell
among
them
.
Adde
hereunto
that
which
Gul.
Vorstius
annot.
in
Maimon
.
de
fundam●…legis
cap.
5.
Sect.
9.
observeth
ou●
of
Beth
Joseph
de
Idololat
.
and
out
of
aboda
zara
,
that
a
Heathen
man
was
permitted
to
be
Phi●tian
to
a
Jew
,
provided
that
he
should
not
entice
him
to
Idolatry
:
and
that
a
Jew
also
was
permitted
to
be
Physitian
to
a
Gentile
,
for
which
purpose
they
alledged
the
example
of
Moses
who
(
as
their
Tradition
told
them
)
did
practice
medicine
in
Egypt
.
Furthermore
when
Master
Prynne
understands
nothing
by
those
words
Let
him
be
unto
thee
as
an
Heathen
man
and
a
Publican
,
but
avoid
civill
fellowship
and
keep
no
familiar
company
with
him
,
and
expounds
it
also
by
1
Cor.
5.
11.
with
such
a
one
not
to
eat
(
which
he
still
conceives
to
be
onely
meant
of
avoiding
civill
fellowship
)
and
by
2.
Io.
10.
receive
him
not
into
thy
house
.
He
is
twice
out
,
both
because
the
Jewes
did
keep
civill
company
with
Heathens
which
hath
been
proved
:
and
also
because
(
if
we
beleive
the
Jewish
writters
concerning
the
customes
of
their
Nation
)
the
Rabbies
or
wise
men
among
them
did
not
keep
familiar
fellowship
nor
civill
company
with
the
Plebeians
of
the
Jewes
themselves
:
they
were
forbidden
to
eat
and
drink
with
or
among
the
Plebeians
.
Maimen
de
fundam
.
legis
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.
pag.
73.
addeth
a
passage
in
Misua
that
a
wise
man
might
neither
lodge
with
a
Plebeian
nor
receive
a
Plebeian
to
lodge
with
him
.
Neverthelesse
a
wise
man
was
permitted
to
converse
not
onely
civilly
but
frequently
with
an
Heathen
man
,
for
which
see
Master
Selden
de
Jure
nat
.
&
Gent.
lib.
6.
cap.
10.
quoniam
nihil
mali
ex
Gentilium
consuetudine
viro
scientiori
im●…inere
censebant
.
So
that
in
Master
Pryn●…
sence
,
all
the
Plebeians
of
the
Jewes
themselves
were
as
Heathens
and
Publicans
,
or
civilly
excommunicated
by
their
wise
men
.
Wherefore
we
must
needs
distinguish
a
two
fold
communion
or
fellowship
among
the
Jewes
,
one
civill
,
another
Ecclesiasticall
;
It
was
the
shutting
out
from
the
Ecclesiasticall
communion
of
the
Jewes
,
which
Christ
alludes
to
Mat.
18.
for
beside
the
distinct
notions
of
the
Jewish
Church
and
the
Jew
State
(
of
which
before
)
Is.
Abrabanel
de
capitc
fidei
cap.
6.
speaking
of
certaine
fundamentall
Articles
which
the
Jewish
Church
did
beleive
,
saith
,
they
were
intended
to
be
Articles
of
Judaisme
,
so
that
he
that
should
beleive
these
should
be
in
the
communion
of
Israel
:
and
Ib.
cap.
3.
speaking
of
an
Article
concerning
the
coming
of
the
Messiah
,
he
moves
a
doubt
about
it
,
because
Rabbi
Hillell
who
denieth
it
,
was
not
excluded
from
the
communion
of
the
Law
,
for
the
Gema●…a
gives
him
the
Title
of
Rabbi
.
When
he
comes
to
the
solution
of
this
doubt
cap.
14.
he
cleares
Rabbi
Hillell
,
as
not
denying
that
Article
.
But
all
this
intimateth
that
for
heresy
there
was
a
shutting
out
from
Ecclesiasticall
communion
:
Or
that
an
hereticall
apostat
Jew
was
unto
them
as
an
Heathen
man
;
and
therefore
they
were
permitted
to
take
usury
as
from
strangers
or
Heathens
,
so
from
an
apostat
Jew
,
quia
fratris
nomen
exuerat
saith
Master
Selden
de
Jure
nat
.
&
Gent.
lib.
6
c.
10.
In
Tzemach
David
edit.
Hen.
Uorst
.
pag.
67.
it
is
said
that
the
chief
of
the
Hereticks
were
Tzadok
and
Baythos
,
who
denying
rewards
and
punishments
after
this
life
,
exiverunte
communione
(
vel
caetu
Israelis
)
they
went
out
from
the
Ecclesiasticall
communion
of
Israel
.
This
is
good
reason
to
say
of
a
sonne
of
Israel
,
if
he
be
a
sonne
of
Belial
,
let
him
be
to
thee
as
an
Heathen
,
that
is
,
esteeme
him
as
prophane
,
and
as
lost
as
an
Heathen
;
have
no
more
Church
communion
with
him
then
with
an
Heathen
.
And
by
this
time
I
suppose
it
doth
fully
appeare
to
the
intelligent
Reader
that
some
uncircumcised
Heathens
were
admitted
in
to
the
civill
fellowship
,
and
some
Israelites
continued
not
in
the
Ecclesiasticall
fellowship
of
ihe
Jewes
:
which
overturneth
the
whole
strength
of
Mr
Prynnes
answer
to
our
argument
from
Matth.
18
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
Ecclesia●icall
communion
,
not
civill
company
except
secondarily
&
as
a
consequent
of
Excommunication
,
&
for
spirituall
respects
and
ends
(
as
I
shall
shew
anon
)
but
it
is
not
meant
of
abstaining
from
meere
civil
company
&
fellowship
:
because
the
Jews
were
permitted
to
keep
civil
company
and
fellowship
with
Heathens
,
even
any
civill
company
which
did
not
encroach
upon
Religion
,
or
had
appearance
of
an
ensnarement
into
Idolatry
,
and
in
that
respect
(
as
participating
of
Religious
fellowship
)
became
unlawfull
.
This
is
the
point
I
have
been
proving
,
and
which
I
will
yet
further
prove
out
of
Maim
mides
de
Idolalotria
cap
▪
9.
That
one
Chapter
is
sufficient
to
〈◊〉
the
present
question
.
Thus
it
begins
.
Three
daies
before
the
feasts
(
or
holydaies
)
of
Heathens
that
worship
Idols
,
we
are
forbidden
to
buy
from
them
,
or
to
sell
unto
them
any
durable
thing
;
to
take
or
give
any
thing
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
onely
,
it
is
lawfull
to
exact
;
because
this
seemeth
to
be
taken
out
of
their
hands
.
It
is
also
lawfull
to
sell
unto
them
,
that
which
can
not
last
,
as
green
herbs
or
anything
sodden
;
and
that
ever
untill
their
holy
day
.
You
see
it
was
lawfull
among
the
Jewes
to
buy
and
sell
,
borrow
and
lend
,
to
make
contracts
,
with
Heathens
,
yea
with
Idolatrous
Heathens
;
onely
in
some
(
not
in
all
)
things
there
was
a
restraint
upon
them
,
and
that
but
three
daies
before
the
Heathen
sestivities
.
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
holy
day
.
If
any
man
transgresse
,
by
having
trade
or
commerce
with
them
,
during
that
space
of
three
daies
,
it
is
lawfull
(
though
)
to
use
the
ware
:
but
if
any
man
trade
with
them
upon
their
holyday
,
the
things
are
forbidden
to
be
used
.
It
is
unlawfull
also
to
send
a
gift
to
an
Heathen
man
upon
his
holy
day
:
unlesse
it
be
known
that
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
n●…t
〈◊〉
the
worship
of
Idols
,
neither
ser●…eth
them
.
But
if
som●…
〈◊〉
m●…n
upon
his
Holyday
send
a
gift
to
an
Israelite
,
let
him
not
take
it
from
him
,
〈◊〉
it
be
suspected
that
h●…
will
be
offended
.
Nevertheless●…
he
shall
not
use
it
,
untill
it
be
known
that
the
Heathen
man
doth
not
worship
Idols
nor
esteem
them
to
be
Gods
.
Observe
1.
that
the
things
mentioned
in
the
first
Section
,
though
unlawfull
to
the
●ewes
in
their
own
Land
,
three
daies
before
the
Heath●nish
〈◊〉
,
yet
they
held
them
not
unlawfull
in
other
Lands
.
2.
They
held
it
lawfll
for
a
Jew
to
send
a
gift
to
an
Heathen
man
,
or
to
receive
a
gift
from
him
,
so
that
it
were
not
upon
the
Heathenish
festivity
.
3.
Yea
in
some
cases
it
was
permitted
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
holy
day
)
for
avoyding
of
offence
.
Sect.
4.
reckoneth
among
the
Heathenish
festivities
a
day
set
apart
by
them
for
coronation
of
a
King
,
or
in
memory
of
a
mans
nativity
,
deliverance
out
of
danger
,
or
the
like
.
Then
it
is
added
Sect.
5.
But
with
those
Idolaters
who
spend
that
day
in
mirth
and
gladnesse
,
eating
and
drinking
,
and
observe
that
day
whether
for
custome
or
for
the
Kings
honour
,
neverthelesse
hold
it
not
for
a
holy
day
,
it
is
lawfull
to
have
commerce
and
trade
.
Wh●n
conversing
with
Heathens
did
not
entrench
upon
Religion
,
they
could
doe
it
without
scruple
,
even
upon
the
Heathens
good
daies
or
solemnities
of
joy
.
Then
Sect.
8.
Is
Israelites
dwell
among
Heathens
with
whom
they
have
made
a
Cov●…nt
,
it
is
lawfull
to
sell
armes
to
the
Kings
servants
and
to
his
military
forces
,
&c.
It
is
unlawfull
to
enter
into
a
Town
in
which
Idolatry
is
practiced
:
it
is
lawfull
to
come
out
of
it
.
But
if
the
Idoll
be
without
the
Town
,
it
is
also
lawfull
to
enter
in
it
.
If
the
Jewes
might
dwell
among
and
enter
into
league
and
covenant
with
Heathens
,
yea
enter
into
the
Townes
of
Idolaters
,
when
the
Idoll
was
not
in
Town
,
then
they
held
it
not
unlawfull
to
have
any
civill
company
with
Heathens
.
It
follows
Sect.
11.
It
is
lawfull
to
goe
to
the
markets
or
faires
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
goe
to
their
judiciall
courts
.
If
it
be
objected
that
Sect.
12.
doth
forbid
an
Israelite
to
come
to
the
banquet
of
a
Heathen
,
which
he
hath
made
for
his
sonne
or
for
his
daughter
;
I
answer
from
that
very
place
.
For
lest
this
should
be
taken
for
a
prohibition
of
civill
fellowship
,
Maimonides
did
adde
these
words
.
Now
this
intervall
is
appointed
for
Idolatry
:
for
it
is
said
,
and
one
call
thee
,
and
thou
eate
of
his
Sacrifice
,
and
thou
take
of
their
daughters
unto
thy
sonnes
,
and
they
goe
a
wboring
after
their
Gods
:
citing
Exod.
34.
15
,
16.
From
all
which
I
conclude
,
that
Christs
words
,
relating
to
the
Jewish
custome
,
Let
him
be
to
thee
as
a
Heathen
man
,
cannot
be
meant
(
as
Mr
Prynne
would
have
them
)
of
avoyding
meere
civill
company
and
fellowship
;
for
as
much
as
it
was
not
held
unlawfull
among
the
Jewes
to
have
civill
company
and
commerce
with
Heathens
.
Sure
the
Jewes
of
our
age
are
farre
from
holding
such
a
thing
unlawfull
.
Yea
so
farre
I
am
unsatisfied
with
Mr
Prynnes
interpretation
,
that
I
verily
believe
(
and
so
doe
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
lawfulnesse
,
yea
the
obligation
of
performing
all
naturall
(
and
in
diverse
cases
morall
)
duties
to
a
person
Excommunicated
:
I
meane
that
the
Text
doth
intimate
thus
much
.
As
upon
the
one
hand
the
contumacious
offender
who
will
not
heare
the
Church
,
is
to
be
used
no
better
than
an
Heathen
or
a
prophane
Publican
,
and
is
not
to
be
admitted
to
any
Ordinance
,
except
such
as
Heathens
and
prophane
Publicans
are
and
may
be
admitted
unto
;
So
upon
the
other
hand
,
let
him
have
no
worse
usage
and
entertainment
,
then
those
very
Heathens
and
Publicans
,
unto
whom
all
naturall
and
some
morall
duties
are
performed
,
notwithstanding
they
be
Heathens
and
Publicans
.
For
the
Apostle
commandeth
Christians
to
be
subject
even
to
Heathen
Magistrates
,
servants
to
honour
and
be
subject
to
heathen
and
ungodly
Masters
,
the
wife
not
to
depart
from
the
husband
because
he
believeth
not
.
So
that
this
rule
of
Christ
,
Matth.
18.
17.
is
so
full
and
perfect
,
as
to
teach
us
,
as
well
what
fellowship
is
lawfull
with
such
a
one
,
as
what
fellowship
is
not
lawfull
to
be
kept
with
him
.
I
doe
not
deny
but
that
(
according
to
the
ordinary
rule
)
fellowship
with
an
excommunicate
person
in
meat
,
drinke
,
familiarity
,
and
salutations
,
is
unlawfull
,
as
well
as
in
the
Sacrament
and
prayer
,
according
to
the
received
rule
:
Si
pro
delictis
,
anathema
quis
efficiatur
;
Os
,
or
are
,
vale
,
communio
,
mensa
negatur
.
And
the
Scripture
forbidding
to
eate
with
such
a
one
,
or
to
have
company
with
him
,
or
to
bid
him
God
speed
,
will
reach
as
farre
.
Neverthelesse
there
are
divers
excepted
or
reserved
cases
in
which
the
performance
of
naturall
duties
unto
and
keeping
of
civill
company
with
an
excommunicate
person
is
allowed
.
The
exception
made
from
the
rule
is
this
:
Haec
anathema
quidem
faciunt
,
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
doe
the
duties
of
children
,
and
servants
the
duty
of
servants
,
and
subjects
the
duty
of
subjects
,
and
vassals
the
duty
of
vassals
,
and
souldiers
the
duty
of
souldiers
,
in
companying
with
submitting
unto
,
honouring
and
obeying
of
their
excommunicated
Parents
,
Masters
,
Kings
,
Lords
,
Commanders
.
R●…s
ignorata
,
when
he
that
companieth
with
an
excommunicate
person
,
doth
not
know
that
he
is
excommunicate
.
Necesse
,
as
when
a
man
passeth
through
the
Land
or
is
under
the
power
of
excommunicate
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
breake
asunder
naturall
or
morall
,
but
spirituall
and
ecclesiasticall
bonds
.
If
it
be
asked
why
then
are
we
forbidden
to
eate
with
an
excommunicate
person
,
or
to
bid
him
God
speed
;
I
answer
,
these
things
are
not
forbidden
but
under
a
spirituall
notion
and
for
a
spirituall
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
complying
with
his
sinnes
,
or
as
a
signe
of
Christian
fellowship
with
a
scandalous
person
formerly
called
a
brother
▪
sinally
that
God
may
be
the
more
glorified
,
wickednesse
the
more
ashamed
,
others
the
more
edified
,
the
sinner
the
more
abas●d
,
our selves
the
better
kept
from
snares
by
avoyding
of
all
appearance
of
evill
.
Otherwise
setting
aside
these
and
such
like
spirituall
considerations
and
respects
,
I
doe
aver
that
Excommunication
hath
nothing
to
doe
with
the
avoyding
of
civill
company
qua
civill
,
that
is
under
a
civill
or
politicalln
otion
.
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
Publican
?
He
must
not
be
worse
used
in
naturall
or
civill
things
,
y●t
he
mu●
be
used
in
the
same
manner
as
an
Heathen
and
a
Publican
,
in
spirituall
things
.
Wherefore
,
Let
him
be
as
an
Heathen
man
,
implieth
foure
things
:
-
1.
I
have
proved
that
Heathens
were
not
permitted
to
come
into
the
utter
Court
of
the
Temple
,
which
the
children
of
Israel
did
come
into
,
onely
they
might
come
and
worship
in
the
〈◊〉
or
atrium
Gentium
;
and
when
they
were
at
any
time
brought
into
the
Temple
,
it
s
challenged
both
by
God
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
●9
.
and
by
the
people
of
the
Jews
,
Acts
21.
28.
-
2.
H●ns
,
though
sojourning
among
the
children
of
Israel
,
and
dwelling
within
their
gates
might
not
eate
of
the
Passeover
Exod.
12.
43
,
45.
where
the
civill
fellowship
was
allowed
,
partaking
of
the
Passeover
was
forbidden
.
-
3.
No
Heathen
man
,
no
not
he
that
was
in
the
Priests
house
,
might
ca●e
of
an
offering
of
the
holy
things
,
Levit.
22.
10
,
13.
-
4.
A
Sac●ifice
was
not
accepted
from
the
hand
of
an
Heathen
L●…it
.
22.
25.
those
that
came
from
a
farre
Countrey
to
pray
and
worship
before
the
Temple
,
if
they
had
brought
out
of
their
owne
Countrey
,
or
had
bought
in
the
Land
of
Israel
,
beasts
,
or
Bread
,
or
Oyle
,
or
Frankincence
,
or
the
like
,
and
brought
any
of
these
for
an
Oblation
,
it
was
not
accepted
from
their
hand
as
Tostatus
in
2.
paral
.
6.
quest.
21.
rightly
observeth
.
Onely
he
collecteth
from
Ezra
6.
8
,
10.
that
an
Heathen
might
give
to
the
Priests
money
or
expences
to
buy
Sacrifices
,
and
to
offer
them
in
the
Temple
.
Fiftly
,
and
generally
,
the
Heathens
had
no
part
or
portion
with
Gods
people
,
Nehem.
2.
20.
they
were
not
within
but
without
the
Church
,
being
aliens
from
the
Common-wealth
of
Israel
,
and
strangers
from
the
covenants
of
promise
,
having
no
hope
,
and
without
God
in
the
world
,
Ephes.
2.
12.
So
that
,
Let
him
be
as
an
Heathen
must
reach
thus
farre
,
Let
him
no
more
partake
in
the
Ordinances
then
an
Heathen
,
have
no
more
Church-communion
with
him
then
with
an
Heathen
,
let
him
be
no
more
acknowledged
for
a
Church
member
than
an
Heathen
.
And
good
reason
;
he
hath
made
himselfe
as
an
Heathen
,
yea
worse
than
an
Heathen
,
Rom.
2.
25.
If
thou
be
a
breaker
of
the
Law
,
thy
circumcision
is
made
uncircumcision
.
Yea
a
scandalous
and
prophane
Church
member
is
worse
then
an
Infidell
,
1
Tim.
5.
8.
1
Cor.
5.
1.
This
fivefold
restraint
of
Heathens
from
the
Temple
,
from
the
Passeover
,
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
proselyti
domicilii
:
and
no
Heathen
man
was
free
of
such
restraint
,
except
proselyti
justitiae
,
who
were
circumcised
and
made
members
of
the
Jewish
Church
,
and
had
the
name
of
Jewes
.
Finally
,
Let
him
be
unto
thee
as
an
Heathen
man
,
may
have
a
Commentary
from
1
Sam.
26.
19.
where
David
curserh
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
,
Goe
serve
other
Gods
.
He
did
not
reckon
his
banishment
,
want
of
civill
liberties
,
cutting
off
from
the
civill
fellowship
and
company
of
the
children
of
Israel
,
in
comparison
of
that
which
was
farre
worse
to
him
,
and
a
great
deale
heavier
to
be
borne
,
namely
,
that
he
was
rejected
and
repudiate
from
spirituall
fellowship
with
Gods
people
,
from
partaking
in
the
holy
Ordinances
,
from
comming
to
the
Sanctuary
,
from
the
Church
priviledges
,
that
his
persecution
was
materially
and
substantially
an
Excommunication
,
and
qua
Excommunication
it
was
more
grievous
to
him
then
qua
persecution
.
I
suppose
it
now
appeares
that
Let
him
be
to
thee
as
an
Heathen
man
,
is
a
shutting
out
not
from
civill
,
but
from
sacred
fellowship
.
The
other
branch
,
Let
him
be
to
thee
as
a
Publican
,
I
have
before
said
enough
of
it
.
This
onely
I
adde
.
There
were
among
the
Jewes
two
sorts
of
Publicans
:
some
were
good
and
just
men
,
exacting
no
more
then
what
was
appointed
them
;
others
were
unjust
and
extortioners
,
and
thereby
made
infamous
.
The
former
sort
the
Hebrews
have
professed
they
were
willing
to
converse
civilly
withall
,
as
members
of
the
same
Common-wealth
.
See
L'Empereur
de
legibus
Ebraeorum
forensibus
,
pag.
272.
But
when
Christ
saith
,
Let
him
be
to
thee
as
a
Publican
,
he
means
the
impious
and
unjust
Publican
onely
,
as
the
same
learned
Antiquary
there
saith
.
And
so
when
our
Saviour
bids
us
esteem
such
a
one
not
onely
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
infamous
among
the
people
;
for
the
name
Publican
is
used
to
signifie
the
worst
of
men
,
Matth.
5.
46
,
47.
and
in
the
Gospell
it
is
said
,
Publicans
and
Sinners
,
Publicans
and
Harlots
,
as
was
noted
before
.
So
Hierome
upon
Matth.
18.
17.
understands
the
name
of
Publicans
secundum
Tropologiam
,
for
such
as
are
given
to
unlawfull
gaines
,
deceits
,
thefts
,
perjuries
,
and
such
like
abominable
wickednesses
.
Wherefore
we
must
not
thinke
that
for
civill
respects
of
Tax-gathering
or
the
like
the
Jewes
refused
to
keepe
civill
company
or
fellowship
with
the
Publicans
.
For
we
read
in
Exc.
Gem.
Sanbedrin
cap.
3.
sect.
3.
that
though
he
that
was
a
shepheard
,
as
such
,
was
unfit
to
be
a
witnesse
,
yet
he
that
was
simply
a
Publican
(
that
is
,
as
I.
Coch.
saith
in
his
Annotation
,
a
Publican
who
is
not
convict
of
exacting
more
then
is
appointed
by
Law
)
or
a
Publican
as
a
Publican
is
not
forbidden
to
be
witnesse
.
Where
it
is
also
added
,
that
the
father
of
R.
Sira
had
the
office
of
a
Publican
thirteen
yeeres
.
Hence
we
see
that
a
Publican
were
he
a
Jew
or
Gentile
,
provided
he
were
a
just
Publican
,
his
testimony
had
faith
and
credit
in
Judgement
;
How
then
can
it
be
supposed
that
the
Jewes
did
not
so
much
as
keep
any
civill
company
with
such
a
one
?
We
must
therefore
understand
that
the
Jewes
refused
to
have
any
fellowship
with
the
impious
and
unjust
Publicans
,
as
with
Church
members
,
and
this
the
Jewes
did
because
of
their
scandalous
ungodlinesse
and
unrighteousnesse
.
Wherefore
to
be
esteemed
as
a
Publican
was
esteemed
among
the
Jewes
,
comprehendeth
these
three
things
.
1.
To
be
esteemed
as
the
worst
of
men
,
impious
,
abominable
,
execrable
,
infamous
,
and
as
it
were
publici
odii
victimae
,
for
so
were
the
Publicans
esteemed
among
the
Jewes
.
Dr
Buxtorf●…lexic
.
Chald.
Talm.
&
Rabbin
.
pag.
1065.
tels
us
that
where
in
Sanhedrin
fol.
44.
2.
it
is
said
of
a
certaine
Publican
,
the
Glosse
expounds
it
thus
,
Of
a
certaine
wicked
man
.
2.
Not
to
hold
or
keep
with
such
a
one
,
the
religious
Christian
fellowship
,
which
we
keep
with
Church
members
;
yea
,
and
(
for
religious
ends
,
and
in
spirituall
respects
,
as
was
said
before
)
not
to
keep
with
such
a
one
,
so
much
as
that
civill
fellowship
which
we
are
permitted
to
keep
with
Pagans
and
unbelievers
,
with
whom
when
bidden
to
a
feast
,
we
may
goe
and
eate
together
as
the
Apostle
expresly
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
eate
,
as
the
same
Apostle
teacheth
,
wherein
those
are
ever
to
be
excepted
,
who
are
tied
by
naturall
relations
to
performe
naturall
and
humane
duties
to
the
party
excommunicate
and
made
as
a
Publican
,
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
then
was
in
that
other
part
,
Let
him
be
as
an
Heathen
man
.
The
third
thing
which
I
conceive
to
be
meant
by
being
esteemed
as
a
Publican
,
is
coincident
with
was
meant
by
Let
him
be
as
an
Heathen
,
that
is
,
let
him
be
kept
that
which
back
from
communion
and
fellowship
with
the
Church
in
the
holy
things
.
Mr
Prynne
brought
a
parabolicall
argument
concerning
the
Publicans
going
up
to
the
Temple
to
pray
.
That
devout
and
religious
Publicans
,
whether
Jewes
or
Gentiles
did
goe
up
into
the
Temple
to
pray
,
I
make
no
question
,
and
such
a
one
is
the
Publican
in
the
Parable
;
yea
,
if
we
marke
the
Pharisees
owne
words
he
speaketh
of
that
Publican
as
one
of
the
best
and
most
religious
Publicans
Luk.
18.
11.
God
,
I
thanke
thee
that
I
am
not
as
other
men
are
,
extortioners
unjust
,
adulterers
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
even
as
this
Publican
,
The
vulgar
Latin
hath
it
velut
etiam
hic
publicanus
,
as
likewise
this
Publican
,
making
the
publican
to
be
one
of
those
extortioners
,
unjust
,
adulterers
.
But
it
is
a
mistake
of
the
Text
,
which
plainly
holds
forth
a
disjunctive
,
not
a
copulative
sence
.
The
Pharisee
is
further
declaring
what
himself
was
not
,
and
the
disjunctive
●
intimateth
some
new
matter
.
Therefore
the
Syriak
and
Arabik
hath
it
,
neither
as
this
publican
.
Erasmus
,
aut
etiam
ut
hic
publicanus
.
Arias
Monntanus
,
aut
&
ut
hic
publicanus
.
and
the
English
,
or
even
as
this
publican
.
Many
of
the
publicans
were
extortioners
,
unjust
,
adulterers
,
but
the
Pharisee
thought
he
had
not
said
enough
when
he
had
preferred
himself
to
these
,
therefore
he
addeth
this
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
or
even
as
this
publican
,
which
is
a
rising
and
heightning
of
his
speech
,
as
if
he
had
said
,
God
,
I
thank
thee
that
I
am
more
holy
and
righteous
then
the
best
of
the
publicans
,
who
yet
are
not
(
as
most
of
them
are
)
extortioners
,
unjust
,
adulterers
.
But
that
prophane
,
unjust
,
scandalous
,
infamous
,
publicans
whether
Jewes
or
Gentiles
,
were
allowed
or
permitted
to
come
to
the
Temple
,
to
the
Worship
,
Prayer
and
Sacrifices
,
among
the
rest
of
the
people
of
the
Jewes
,
I
deny
it
,
and
Master
Prynne
hath
said
nothing
to
prove
it
.
These
onely
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
any
thing
in
reference
to
the
Temple
,
it
was
but
to
stand
afarre
off
in
the
Intermurale
or
atrium
Gentium
as
Heathens
might
doe
.
If
the
religious
publican
stood
afarre
off
,
how
much
more
the
prophane
infamous
publican
?
That
such
as
were
publikely
scandalous
,
infamous
for
impiety
,
and
esteemed
the
worst
of
men
(
which
I
have
shewed
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
Jewes
,
or
had
fellowship
with
the
Church
in
the
holy
things
,
I
doe
not
beleive
,
I
have
proved
the
contrary
from
Philo
and
Iosephus
.
CHAP.
IV.
A
confutation
of
Erastus
and
Bilson
their
Interpretation
of
Math.
18.
15
,
16
,
17.
as
likewise
of
Doctor
Sutliffe
his
Glosse
differing
some
what
from
theirs
.
AS
for
that
other
Erastian
Glosse
upon
Matth.
18.
17.
that
Christ
meaneth
of
going
to
the
orthodox
Magistrate
being
of
the
same
true
religion
,
(
&
that
this
is
the
sence
of
those
words
Tell
the
Church
)
but
if
the
Brother
who
hath
done
us
wrong
will
not
heare
nor
obey
that
Magistrate
,
then
let
him
he
unto
thee
as
an
Heathen
man
and
a
publican
,
that
is
,
thou
mayest
prosecute
him
,
as
thou
wouldest
prosecute
an
Heathen
man
or
a
Publican
before
an
extrinsecall
Tribunall
,
such
as
at
that
time
the
Roman
Emperours
was
to
the
Jewes
.
See
Erastus
thes
.
41.
wherein
he
is
followed
by
Bishop
Bilson
of
the
perpetuall
Government
of
Christs
Church
cap.
4.
This
Glosse
hath
been
justly
rejected
by
many
learned
men
.
The
first
Argument
which
I
bring
against
it
,
is
that
it
is
wide
from
the
scope
of
the
Text
,
yea
prejudgeth
and
even
overthroweth
the
great
thing
which
is
principally
intended
by
Jesus
Christ
in
this
place
,
Camero
Myroth
.
in
Math.
18.
thinks
it
is
,
utterly
different
from
Christs
intention
in
this
place
,
which
is
to
prescribe
rules
to
our
consciences
concerning
the
amendment
of
our
Brother
,
and
the
reducing
of
him
from
his
sinne
,
not
to
give
oeconomicall
rules
concerning
the
reparation
of
our
injuries
or
losses
:
Wherefore
he
concludes
that
by
the
Church
is
meant
the
Presbytery
mentioned
1.
Tim.
4.
14.
He
holdeth
also
that
in
the
new
Testa
.
the
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
doth
ever
signifie
an
Assembly
cum
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
ad
religionem
,
with
an
habitude
and
reference
to
religion
.
Let
it
be
also
observed
with
Bucerus
Script
.
Anglic.
pag.
40.
41.
304
,
305
,
306.
that
what
our
Saviour
directeth
one
Brother
to
doe
toward
the
gaining
of
another
,
by
admonitions
and
reproofs
,
doth
onely
belong
to
the
care
and
sollicitude
of
the
salvation
of
his
soule
,
and
the
gaining
of
him
from
eternall
death
to
eternall
life
;
and
this
he
collects
from
these
words
in
the
Text
,
thy
Brother
,
and
thou
hast
gained
thy
Brother
.
He
doth
also
paralell
Math.
18.
15.
with
Gal.
6.
1.
Brethren
,
if
any
man
be
overtaken
in
a
fault
,
ye
which
are
spirituall
,
restore
such
an
one
in
the
spirit
of
meeknesse
.
Now
this
as
it
is
the
surest
exposition
(
expounding
Scripture
by
Scripture
)
so
it
doth
not
concerne
a
Judiciall
proceeding
in
the
case
of
private
Injuries
,
but
the
Christian
duty
of
reclaiming
and
saving
the
soule
from
sin
.
He
further
observeth
that
the
thing
which
Christ
recommendeth
to
every
Christian
,
to
be
done
ex
Charitate
Christiana
,
is
nothing
else
but
what
is
incumbent
to
Pastors
ex
officio
;
for
Pastors
ought
by
vertue
of
their
publike
charge
and
ministery
to
doe
the
same
thing
authoritatively
,
which
one
Christian
is
bidden
doe
to
another
in
Christian
Brotherly
charity
,
that
is
to
admonish
,
rebuke
,
&c.
I
am
perswaded
were
the
Lord
Jesus
his
scope
and
intent
in
this
Text
rightly
understood
,
there
should
need
no
other
confutation
of
the
Glosses
given
either
by
Erastus
or
by
Mr.
Prynne
.
They
restrict
to
the
case
of
private
or
personall
injuries
,
and
to
the
party
injuried
civilly
,
that
which
our
Saviour
prescribeth
[
o
](A42757-e81550-b)
o
Cartwright
Histor.
christi
ex
4.
Evang.
pag.
354.
Hoc
loco
(
Mat.
18
)
notandum
,
singulotum
in
Ecclesia
civium
munus
esse
,
ut
deiinquentem
s●rm
corpaint
.
as
a
duty
of
Christian
Charity
,
which
every
Church
Member
oweth
to
another
.
It
was
an
impious
word
of
Cain
,
Am
I
my
Brothers
Keeper
?
though
spoken
in
reference
to
his
Brothers
body
and
naturall
life
;
How
much
more
sinfull
is
it
,
to
say
or
thinke
in
reference
to
our
Brothers
soule
,
Am
I
my
Brothers
Keeper
?
Every
Christian
is
bound
by
the
commandement
of
God
to
rebuke
his
Brother
,
when
he
seeth
,
heareth
,
or
knoweth
hlm
to
commit
sinne
:
Lev.
19.
17.
Thou
shalt
in
any
wise
rebuke
thy
neighbour
,
and
not
suffer
sinne
upon
him
.
Where
the
Marginall
paralell
in
the
English
Bibles
is
Mat.
18.
15.
Yea
,
Erastus
himself
lib.
2.
cap.
2.
pag.
154.
confesseth
that
Christ
doth
in
Matth.
18.
interpret
that
Law
Lev.
19.
So
Prov.
28.
4.
Such
as
keep
the
Law
contend
with
the
wicked
.
We
ought
to
hate
and
abhorre
sinne
by
which
God
is
dishonoured
(
and
consequently
to
expresse
our
zeale
against
it
by
rebukes
when
it
is
committed
in
our
sight
,
hearing
,
presence
,
privity
or
knowledge
)
as
much
yea
much
more
,
then
if
it
were
a
private
and
personall
injury
against
our selves
Psal.
97.
10.
Amos
,
5.
15.
Rom.
12.
9.
Psal.
139.
21
,
22.
Hence
it
is
that
the
Apostle
exhorteth
Christians
to
warne
them
that
are
unruly
or
disorderly
,
1
Thess.
5.
13.
Wherefore
it
is
justly
and
truly
maintained
by
Augustine
Regul
.
3
infine
Tomi
primi
.
Durandus
lib.
4.
dist.
19.
Quaest.
3.
Tostatus
in
Math.
18.
Quaest.
29.
and
divers
thers
,
that
to
admonish
and
rebuke
a
Brother
committing
sinne
,
is
a
necessary
Christian
duty
commanded
by
the
word
of
God
,
whereunto
Christians
are
obliged
by
the
love
of
God
and
their
Neighbour
:
for
which
see
also
Aegidius
de
Coninck
de
actib
.
supernat
.
disp.
28.
dub
.
2.
&
4.
And
if
the
offender
be
not
reduced
by
more
private
admonitions
and
rebukes
,
the
same
Law
of
spirituall
love
bindeth
his
Brother
that
knoweth
his
sinne
and
impenitency
to
tell
the
Church
,
as
Ioseph
told
his
Father
of
his
Brethrens
faults
,
Gen.
37.
2.
and
Joseph
brought
unto
their
Father
their
evill
report
,
that
is
their
scandalous
sinnes
which
made
them
to
have
an
evill
report
.
It
is
well
noted
by
Pareus
upon
the
place
,
that
the
thing
which
Ioseph
did
complaine
of
to
his
Father
,
was
not
his
Brethrens
hatred
against
himselfe
,
nor
any
personall
injury
done
to
himself
,
(
because
their
hatred
of
Ioseph
was
the
effect
,
not
the
cause
,
of
the
information
which
he
gave
to
his
Father
of
their
faults
)
but
it
was
their
sinne
and
scandalous
life
by
which
they
brought
an
evill
name
upon
themselves
and
the
family
of
their
Father
.
Wherein
he
doth
upon
good
reason
justifie
what
Ioseph
did
,
because
he
told
not
his
Brethrens
faults
to
an
Enemy
but
to
a
Father
,
nor
for
their
evill
,
but
for
their
good
.
It
was
also
declared
unto
the
Apostle
by
them
of
the
house
of
Cloe
that
there
were
contentions
among
the
Corinthians
1
Cor.
1.
11.
So
it
is
collected
from
2
Thess.
3.
11.
that
some
in
the
Church
of
Thessalonica
gave
notice
to
the
Apostle
of
such
as
walked
disorderly
.
And
as
he
that
spares
the
Rod
hates
the
Child
,
so
he
that
neglects
to
rebuke
an
offending
Brother
,
or
(
when
that
cannot
amend
him
)
neglects
to
tell
the
Church
,
doth
hate
his
Brothers
soule
,
in
so
farre
as
he
suffers
sinne
upon
him
.
If
these
things
be
acknowledged
for
truths
,
we
will
be
easily
induced
to
believe
that
the
scope
of
Jesus
Christ
Math.
18.
15
,
16
,
17.
is
to
teach
us
,
not
what
he
permits
the
party
injured
to
doe
toward
the
party
injuring
,
but
what
he
commands
every
one
that
loves
the
soule
and
salvation
of
his
Neighbour
,
to
doe
for
reducing
his
Neighbour
from
a
sinne
wherewith
he
is
overtaken
.
Which
fitly
agreeth
with
[
p
](A42757-e82000-b)
p
Si
peccaverit
in
te
frater
tuus
]
Eadem
habentur
in
libro
Musar
221.
quan
▪
quam
paulò
aliter
,
Qui
arguit
socium
debet
primùm
hoc
sacere
placidè
interse
&
ipsum
solùm
verbis
mollibus
,
ita
ut
non
pude
saciat
eum
Si
respiscit
▪
bene
est
●…
sin
,
debet
eum
acriter
arguere
,
&
pudefacere
inter
se
&
ipsum
.
Si
non
respiscit
,
debet
adhibere
socios
,
ipsumque
coram
illis
pudore
afficere
:
si
nec
hoc
mod●…
quicquam
prosecit
,
debet
eum
pudesacere
coram
multis
,
ejusque
delictum
publicare
.
Nam
certè
detegendi
sunt
Hypocritae
.
that
which
Drusius
praeter
.
lib.
1.
on
Mat.
18.
15.
citeth
e
libro
Musar
.
Besides
,
both
Fathers
,
Schoole-men
,
Casuists
,
Commentators
,
Popish
,
and
Protestant
,
when
they
handle
the
Questions
de
correptione
fraterna
,
they
make
Brotherly
rebukes
to
be
a
common
duty
of
love
which
one
neighbour
oweth
to
another
,
and
ever
and
anon
they
cleare
what
they
hold
from
Mat.
18.
I
verily
believe
it
is
one
of
the
wiles
yea
depths
of
Sathan
in
perverting
that
Text
with
the
Erastian
Glosses
,
to
throw
out
of
the
Church
and
to
drown
in
desuetude
and
oblivion
,
a
great
and
necessary
duty
which
every
Christian
by
the
law
of
love
oweth
to
the
soule
of
his
Brother
with
whom
he
converseth
,
which
were
it
conscionably
practised
,
I
dare
say
,
it
should
be
a
most
powerfull
and
effectuall
meanes
(
by
the
blessing
of
Christ
upon
his
owne
ordinance
)
to
purge
the
Church
of
scandals
,
to
gaine
soules
,
and
to
advance
holinesse
.
Now
he
that
can
neither
be
reduced
by
more
private
reprehensions
nor
by
publike
Ecclesiasticall
conviction
,
Let
him
be
unto
thee
as
an
Heathen
man
,
saith
Christ
,
let
him
be
esteemed
as
one
that
hath
no
part
in
the
communion
of
the
Saints
,
in
Church-Membership
,
in
the
holy
things
,
in
the
common-wealth
of
Israel
,
in
the
Covenants
of
promise
,
more
then
an
Heathen
man
.
Which
is
a
spirituall
,
not
a
civill
separation
,
according
to
that
Gal.
2.
15.
We
who
are
Jewes
by
nature
,
and
not
sinners
of
the
Gentiles
.
My
second
Argument
shall
be
this
.
That
which
Christ
saith
generally
of
any
sinne
whereby
one
Brother
scandalizeth
another
Brother
,
the
Erastians
restrict
to
private
or
personall
injuries
.
And
whereas
Christs
rule
tendeth
to
the
rescuing
and
saving
of
a
sinner
,
their
Glosse
runnes
upon
a
mans
particular
interest
in
the
resarclating
of
a
private
injury
.
If
thy
Brother
trespasse
against
thee
,
that
is
,
Cum
quis
coram
aliquo
peccaverit
,
saith
Munsterus
,
when
any
brother
sinneth
in
the
presence
of
some
other
.
Are
we
not
oblidged
to
rebuke
an
offending
Brother
in
Christian
love
;
and
to
endeavour
to
bring
him
to
repentance
and
to
save
his
soule
;
whether
he
hath
done
to
us
any
particular
injury
or
not
:
May
we
suffer
sinne
upon
his
soule
,
because
that
sinne
is
not
an
injury
to
us
?
Let
it
be
well
observed
,
the
thing
here
aimed
at
,
is
the
salvation
of
the
offending
Brother
,
and
his
turning
from
sinne
,
as
Grotius
rightly
noteth
from
the
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
(
which
[
q
](A42757-e82170-b)
q
Confirm
.
Thes.
lib.
3.
cap.
3.
p
188.
Ideo
dicit
Christus
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
apud
Math.
ut
intelligamus
cum
erroris
&
iniquitatis
convincendum
esse
,
ut
eam
agnoscat
ac
deprecetur
non
apud
nos
tantum
,
sed
multò
magis
apud
Deum
.
Erastus
also
confesseth
from
the
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
)
for
in
that
sence
is
the
same
word
used
1
Cor.
9.
19
,
20
,
21
,
22.
that
I
might
gain
them
that
are
under
the
Law
,
&c.
and
1
Pet.
3.
1.
they
may
be
wonne
by
the
conversation
of
the
wives
.
This
(
saith
Grotius
)
James
doth
explain
Ch.
5.
v.
20.
he
which
converteth
the
sinner
from
the
error
of
his
way
,
shall
save
a
soule
from
death
,
and
shall
hide
a
multitude
of
sinnes
.
If
this
then
be
the
meaning
of
Christs
words
,
thou
hast
gained
thy
Brother
:
then
it
concerneth
all
sinnes
whereby
we
know
our
Brothers
soule
and
salvation
to
be
in
hazard
.
Wherefore
though
Grotius
understand
private
injuries
to
be
that
case
which
the
Text
putteth
,
yet
saith
he
,
it
is
the
manner
of
the
Law
of
God
,
by
one
particular
and
more
remarkable
kind
of
things
,
to
intimate
what
ought
to
be
done
in
other
things
according
to
the
rule
of
just
proportion
.
And
it
holds
more
true
in
other
sinnes
,
then
in
the
case
of
private
injuries
:
This
rebuking
is
necessary
as
well
in
sins
which
are
committed
against
God
as
in
those
which
are
committed
against
man
,
and
by
so
much
the
more
its
necessary
in
sinnes
which
are
committed
against
God
,
by
how
much
they
are
heavier
then
sinnes
which
are
committed
against
man
,
saith
Tostatus
in
Mat.
18.
quest.
93.
And
Grotius
himself
citeth
out
of
Mimus
,
Amici
vitia
si
feras
faeias
tua
.
And
whereas
the
Erastian
take
much
hold
of
the
words
against
thee
.
If
thy
Brother
trespasse
against
thee
.
I
have
before
answered
,
that
any
sinne
against
God
which
is
committed
in
my
sight
,
hearing
,
or
knowledge
,
and
so
becommeth
a
scandall
or
stumbling
Block
to
me
,
is
a
trespasse
committed
against
me
,
because
he
that
ought
to
edifie
me
doth
scandalize
me
.
So
that
the
words
against
thee
are
added
,
to
signifie
,
not
a
civill
injury
,
bnt
rather
a
spirituall
injury
or
scandall
.
Augustine
regul
.
3.
in
fine
Tom.
1.
applieth
the
rule
and
method
of
proceeding
mentioned
Mat.
18.
to
lascivious
or
adulterous
behaviour
,
which
one
Brother
observing
in
another
,
ought
to
admonish
him
,
first
secretly
,
then
to
take
witnesses
,
then
to
tell
the
Church
,
and
if
he
be
contumacious
,
de
vestra
societate
projiciatur
,
let
him
be
cast
out
of
your
society
saith
he
,
and
the
context
carrieth
it
to
any
scandall
whereby
one
Brother
scandalizeth
another
:
whereof
much
was
spoken
in
the
preceding
part
of
the
Chapter
.
Erastus
pag.
154.
Scopus
Christi
est
in
hoc
capite
docere
,
quantum
malum
sit
scandalum
.
The
scope
of
Christ
is
in
this
Chapter
to
teach
how
great
an
evill
scandall
is
.
Wherefore
I
adhere
to
the
resolution
of
Tostatus
in
Math.
18.
quaest.
84
,
sive
sit
peccatum
directè
contra
deum
,
sive
contra
proximum
,
si
fit
nobis
scientibus
,
fit
contra
nos
,
cum
nos
scandalizet
.
Both
Chrysostome
and
Theophilact
upon
Math.
18.
15.
observe
this
cohesion
,
that
Christ
having
before
spoken
against
those
that
give
scandall
,
now
he
gives
a
rule
to
the
person
scandalized
.
Thirdly
,
that
exposition
which
now
I
argue
against
,
tendeth
to
make
one
Scripture
contradict
another
,
and
to
make
that
lawfull
by
one
Scripture
,
which
another
Scripture
makes
unlawfull
even
some
of
themselves
being
Judges
.
They
so
expound
Matth.
1
S.
that
they
make
it
lawfull
(
and
as
such
allowed
by
Christ
himself
)
for
a
Christian
to
pursue
his
Brother
for
a
civill
injury
before
Infidell
or
Heathnish
Judges
,
even
as
he
would
pursue
an
Heathen
or
Infidell
,
if
such
an
one
had
done
him
the
in
ury
.
[
r
](A42757-e82590-b)
r
Confirm
.
Thes.
lib.
3.
cap
2
pag.
184.
Habitant
nunc
sub
Turca
&
pontifice
Romano
fideles
;
Si
quis
assiciatur
ibi
à
fratre
injuriâ
,
nec
audire
injuriosus
suum
coetum
velit
,
quid
aliud
potest
offensus
facere
quàm
ejus
implorare
Judicis
opem
,
qui
facultatem
habet
coercendi
?
Erast
,
saith
freely
(
yet
foully
)
that
if
a
Congregation
of
the
faithfull
be
under
the
Turke
or
the
Pope
,
one
of
them
may
pursue
another
for
an
injury
(
when
the
offender
will
not
hearken
to
his
own
Assembly
)
before
those
Judges
who
are
aliens
,
and
Enemies
to
the
true
Religion
.
His
exposition
of
Matth.
18.
doth
plainly
lead
hereunto
.
So
saith
Bishop
Bilson
(
a
great
follower
of
Erastus
)
in
this
debate
upon
Matth.
18.
in
the
place
before
cited
,
let
him
be
to
thee
as
an
Heathen
man
and
a
publican
,
that
is
pursue
him
in
those
courts
,
where
thou
wouldest
a
Pagan
and
Publican
that
should
do
thee
wrong
.
But
how
doth
this
agree
with
1
Cor.
6.
(
the
place
which
Erastus
thes
.
41.
conceiveth
to
be
a
Commentary
upon
Matth.
18.
)
doth
not
the
Apostle
expressely
condemne
it
,
as
being
utterly
a
fault
that
one
brother
went
to
Law
with
another
for
the
things
of
this
life
or
civill
causes
,
before
the
unjust
and
unbeleevers
?
Nay
,
let
us
heare
Bishop
Bilson
himself
in
that
very
place
.
Paul
saith
he
by
no
means
permitted
them
to
pursue
their
Brethren
at
the
Tribunals
of
Infidels
.
What
then
?
will
they
set
Paul
against
Christ
?
or
will
they
make
1
Cor.
6.
contrary
to
Matth.
18.
As
for
that
whereby
Erastus
would
reconcile
this
difference
,
it
is
as
good
as
nothing
.
He
saith
pag.
183.
that
Paul
requireth
them
to
referre
to
arbitrators
within
the
Church
it self
,
only
the
smallest
matters
and
things
pertaining
to
this
life
,
but
not
crimes
or
weighty
matters
which
he
would
reserve
to
the
Magistrates
,
otherwise
he
had
detracted
much
from
those
to
whom
he
every
where
commandeth
to
give
obedience
.
And
so
(
saith
he
)
that
which
Paul
saith
is
nothing
but
what
Christ
saith
,
Tell
the
Church
.
Besides
Paul
himself
appealed
to
Cesar.
let
all
men
judge
(
saith
he
)
whether
the
Apostle
would
make
it
unlawfull
to
other
wronged
persons
,
which
he
thought
lawfull
for
himself
?
I
answer
,
1.
If
it
was
a
shame
and
foule
scandall
for
Christians
to
pursue
one
another
for
smaller
matters
pertaining
to
this
life
,
how
much
more
for
crimes
and
weightier
matters
?
for
then
the
unbeleevers
might
cast
the
heavier
load
of
reproaches
upon
the
Christian
religion
.
2.
This
might
have
opened
a
door
to
elude
that
which
the
Apostle
so
earnestly
presseth
;
for
one
would
be
ready
to
say
,
this
cause
of
mine
is
a
weighty
one
,
it
is
an
injury
and
crime
that
can
not
be
born
,
therefore
I
am
free
to
pursue
it
before
unbelievers
.
Whereas
the
Apostle
saith
,
Why
do
ye
not
rather
take
wrong
?
why
doe
ye
not
rather
suffer
your selves
to
be
defrauded
?
3.
The
judging
of
the
smallest
matters
,
and
of
the
things
pertaining
to
this
life
,
is
by
the
Apostle
opposed
,
not
to
weighty
civill
injuries
,
but
to
the
judging
of
the
world
and
of
Angells
,
as
is
manifest
by
the
Antithesis
in
the
Text.
But
he
maketh
no
intimation
of
the
least
distinction
of
civill
injuries
,
as
if
some
might
be
pursued
before
unbeleiving
Judges
,
some
not
:
he
speaketh
generally
vers.
1.
Dare
any
of
you
having
a
matter
against
another
.
vers.
4.
If
then
ye
have
judgements
of
things
pertaining
to
this
life
vers.
7.
Why
doe
ye
not
rather
take
wrong
?
4.
If
that
which
Paul
saith
,
be
the
same
with
that
which
Christ
saith
Tell
the
Church
,
and
if
it
was
Pauls
mind
that
he
who
would
not
hearken
to
chosen
arbitrators
among
the
Saints
might
be
pursued
before
the
unbeleiving
Judges
(
as
Erastus
tells
us
both
here
and
Thes.
47.
)
then
Tell
the
Church
cannot
be
meant
of
telling
the
Magistrate
of
the
same
religion
;
for
Paul
sends
them
to
no
Christian
Magistrate
(
because
there
was
none
such
then
and
there
)
but
to
arbitrators
chosen
among
the
Saints
.
T
is
most
strange
to
me
that
so
acute
a
disputant
could
expound
the
Telling
of
the
Church
Matth.
18.
by
the
reference
to
arbitrators
1.
Cor.
6.
and
yet
understand
the
Church
Matth.
18.
to
be
the
civill
Magistate
.
5.
There
might
be
subjection
and
obedience
to
the
Heathen
Magistrates
,
although
the
Saints
should
not
go
to
Law
one
against
another
before
them
6.
Paul
did
but
appeal
from
Caesars
Deputy
to
Caesar
himself
.
He
was
drawne
by
the
Jewes
before
the
Tribunall
of
Festus
(
wherein
Paul
was
a
sufferer
)
and
finding
Festus
unjust
and
partiall
,
and
that
he
endeavoured
to
deliver
him
to
the
Jewes
,
who
had
a
mind
to
have
him
put
to
death
,
thereupon
he
appealeth
from
Festus
to
Caesar.
So
that
if
Erastus
had
made
the
paralell
right
,
all
that
he
could
conclude
from
Pauls
example
,
had
been
this
,
that
when
a
Christian
is
drawne
and
compelled
by
his
accusers
and
Enemies
(
not
being
Christians
)
before
the
Tribunall
of
an
inferiour
Heathen
Judge
,
if
he
there
find
himself
in
danger
of
his
life
,
he
may
appeale
in
his
just
defence
to
an
higher
Heathen
Judge
.
Wherefore
I
yet
conclude
that
by
the
Erastian
principles
Christ
and
Paul
cannot
be
reconciled
▪
These
three
Arguments
doe
militate
not
onely
against
Erastus
and
Bilson
,
but
likewise
against
Sutlivius
de
Presb.
Cap.
9.
where
he
gives
this
sence
of
Matth.
18.
15
,
16
,
17.
that
we
ought
to
take
heed
we
give
no
scandall
in
the
pursuing
of
injuries
,
and
for
that
end
ought
to
give
admonition
first
privately
,
then
before
witnesses
,
and
in
case
of
obstinacy
in
the
brother
that
hath
done
the
injury
,
to
tell
the
Rulers
of
the
Church
(
meaning
the
Prelates
)
and
if
he
will
not
hear
them
,
then
to
go
to
Law
with
that
Brother
,
as
with
an
Heathen
or
Publican
.
The
other
Arguments
which
are
to
follow
,
(
the
last
excepted
)
strike
not
at
his
Interpretation
,
but
at
those
other
Glosses
,
of
Erastus
,
Bilson
,
and
Master
Prynne
.
Fourthly
,
this
Erastian
exposition
makes
these
words
,
but
if
he
neglect
to
hear
the
Church
,
let
him
be
unto
thee
as
an
Heathen
man
and
a
publican
,
to
be
applicable
onely
to
such
Christians
as
live
under
unbelieving
Magistrates
,
and
not
to
all
Christians
.
This
consequence
Erastus
foresaw
,
that
it
would
needs
follow
from
his
Interpretation
,
therefore
he
plainly
owneth
it
Thes.
47.
He
confesseth
that
the
former
part
concerning
rebuking
and
seeking
to
gaine
the
offending
Brother
,
belongs
to
all
Christians
;
What
a
boldnesse
is
here
to
rent
asunder
this
passage
of
Scripture
,
which
was
uttered
as
it
were
with
one
breath
?
And
why
doth
not
the
latter
part
also
belong
unto
all
Christians
?
Must
Christians
that
live
under
an
Infidell
Magistrate
have
more
effectuall
meanes
and
wayes
to
use
towards
an
offending
Brother
,
and
may
they
go
a
step
further
in
putting
him
to
shame
or
in
humbling
him
,
then
those
Christians
can
doe
who
live
under
a
Christian
Magistrate
?
How
well
doth
this
hang
together
?
I
should
have
thought
the
ballance
must
rather
fall
to
this
hand
.
But
to
make
the
condition
of
those
,
who
live
under
a
Christian
Magistrate
to
be
more
privative
,
and
the
condition
of
those
who
live
under
an
Infidell
Magistrate
to
be
more
cumulative
,
is
too
great
a
paradoxe
for
me
.
Sixthly
,
Whereas
they
say
that
the
way
prescribed
by
Christ
Matth.
18.
is
such
as
is
agreeable
to
the
Law
of
Moses
,
and
they
understand
by
Tell
the
Church
,
Tell
the
Magistrate
,
I
aske
what
Magistrate
?
If
the
Judges
and
Magistrates
of
the
Cities
,
as
Bishop
Bilson
thinkes
,
then
he
who
did
not
hearken
to
those
Judges
might
appeale
to
the
great
Sanhedrin
at
Hierusalem
,
or
the
Judges
themselves
might
referre
and
transmit
the
case
thither
:
so
that
the
man
was
not
to
be
straight
way
accounted
as
an
Heathen
man
and
a
Publican
.
But
if
by
the
Church
they
understand
the
great
Sanhedrin
it self
,
he
that
would
not
hearken
to
it
was
to
be
put
to
death
by
the
Law
Deut.
17.
So
that
it
had
not
been
agreeable
to
the
Law
of
Moses
,
to
teach
that
he
who
will
not
hearken
to
the
great
Sanhedrin
is
to
be
esteemed
as
an
Heathen
man
and
a
Publican
;
for
this
supposeth
that
he
shall
not
dye
but
be
suffered
to
live
.
Seventhly
,
the
Erastian
principles
do
plainly
contradict
and
confute
themselves
.
For
both
Erastus
,
Bishop
Bilson
,
and
Master
Prynne
hold
that
he
Jewish
Sanhedrin
in
Christs
time
was
a
temporall
Magistracy
and
a
civill
Court
of
justice
,
which
had
power
to
scourge
,
imprison
,
torture
,
and
outlaw
offenders
,
yea
to
put
to
death
as
the
first
two
doe
positively
averre
.
[
s
](A42757-e83360-b)
s
Sutliviks
de
Presbyteri●
Cap.
9
deindelo●…uitur
Christus
de
Ecclesia
,
quae
cogendi
potestarem
non
habuit
,
c
▪
j
sque
sententiam
impunèlic●…it
contemn●…re
.
Nam
si
cogendi
po●…statem
habuisset
,
srustra
i●…la
verba
addita
sunt
,
fi
Ecclesiam
audire
noluerit
:
nam
Ecclesia
coegisset
,
&
sententiam
suam
executioni
mandasset
.
This
he
objecteth
against
the
Presbytetian
Interpretation
.
But
in
truth
it
helpeth
us
and
strongly
mili
tateth
against
the
Erastian
Interpretation
.
How
then
can
it
be
said
,
If
he
neglect
to
heare
the
Church
,
&c.
that
is
,
if
he
neglect
to
heare
the
civill
Magistrate
who
hath
power
to
imprison
,
scourge
,
torture
,
outlaw
,
yea
to
put
him
to
death
?
Surely
if
he
neglect
to
heare
the
Church
,
doth
intimate
that
the
Church
hath
not
used
nor
cannot
use
any
externall
coercive
power
.
Erastus
findes
himselfe
so
mightily
puzled
with
this
difficulty
,
that
to
make
out
his
interpretation
of
Matth.
18.
he
confesseth
Thes.
53.
and
confirm
.
Thes.
lib.
2.
cap.
2.
the
Jewish
Sanhedrin
had
no
power
under
the
Romans
to
judge
of
civill
causes
and
injuries
,
but
of
things
pertaining
to
their
religion
onely
,
[
t
](A42757-e83450-b)
t
Pag.
158.
Proinde
impunè
poterat
,
qui
volebat
judicium
Synedtii
contemnere
in
civilibus
rebus
.
so
that
at
that
time
(
saith
he
)
a
man
might
impune
without
punishment
contemne
the
judgement
of
the
Sanhedrin
in
civill
things
.
And
thus
while
he
seeketh
a
Salvo
for
his
Glosse
upon
Matth.
18.
he
overthroweth
the
great
argument
by
which
he
and
his
followers
endeavour
to
prove
that
there
was
no
other
Sanhedrin
in
Christs
time
,
but
a
civill
Court
of
justice
,
because
say
they
,
that
Sanhedrin
had
the
power
of
the
Sword
and
other
temporall
punishments
.
Eighthly
,
observe
the
gradation
in
the
Text
,
1.
a
private
conviction
or
rebuke
.
2.
Conviction
before
two
or
three
witnesses
.
3.
Conviction
before
the
Church
,
and
the
Churches
declaring
the
thing
to
be
an
offence
,
and
commanding
the
offender
to
turn
from
his
evill
way
.
4.
If
he
will
not
heare
the
Church
(
which
implieth
that
the
Church
hath
spoken
and
required
him
to
doe
somewhat
which
he
refuseth
to
doe
)
then
Let
him
be
as
an
Heathen
man
and
a
Publican
.
This
last
is
heavier
then
all
that
went
before
,
and
is
the
punishment
of
his
not
hearing
the
Church
now
this
gradation
is
in
consistent
with
the
Interpretation
which
Erastus
giveth
;
for
by
his
owne
confession
the
Sanh
drin
of
the
Jewes
at
that
time
had
not
power
to
judge
of
civill
causes
nor
to
punish
any
man
for
a
civill
injury
,
but
for
a
matter
of
religion
onely
.
(
yet
they
are
not
matters
of
Religion
,
but
civill
trespasses
which
he
understands
to
be
meant
Matth.
18.
)
Here
is
an
intercision
in
the
third
step
of
the
gradation
.
And
if
it
were
an
offence
in
the
matter
of
religion
,
it
had
not
been
a
greater
punishment
,
but
a
greater
ease
to
the
offender
,
to
draw
him
before
the
Roman
tribunals
,
for
the
Romans
cared
for
none
of
those
things
,
of
which
the
Jewish
Sanhedrin
was
most
zealous
.
The
gradation
in
the
Text
is
as
inconsistent
with
Mr
Prynnes
interpretation
;
for
imagine
the
offender
to
be
after
previous
admonitions
publiquely
accused
and
convict
before
the
Church
(
that
is
,
in
his
opinion
)
the
civill
Court
of
justice
which
had
power
to
imprison
,
scourge
,
torture
,
and
outlaw
offenders
,
if
not
to
condemne
,
and
put
to
death
)
what
should
be
done
with
such
an
one
?
can
we
goe
no
higher
?
yes
:
thus
it
is
in
Mr
Prynnes
sence
.
He
that
will
not
submit
to
the
Magistrate
,
and
cannot
be
reduced
by
stripes
and
imprisonment
,
torturing
and
outlawing
,
yea
peradventure
by
condemnation
to
die
the
death
;
let
this
be
the
last
remedy
for
such
an
one
,
Let
him
be
unto
thee
as
an
beathen
man
and
a
Publican
,
that
is
,
withdraw
familiar
civill
company
from
him
.
Ninthly
,
that
interpretation
of
Erastus
leaneth
to
a
false
supposition
,
namely
that
the
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
as
a
Publican
,
are
meant
universally
of
all
Publicans
good
or
bad
,
or
whatever
they
were
.
To
prove
this
he
takes
an
argument
pag.
189
,
190
,
195.
from
the
Article
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
;
for
with
the
Grecians
,
saith
he
,
the
Article
being
joyned
to
the
predicate
,
noteth
the
nature
and
consequently
the
universality
of
the
thing
;
whence
he
concludeth
that
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
signifieth
a
Publican
qua
Publican
,
and
so
every
Publican
.
Now
what
can
be
the
sence
of
Christs
words
in
reference
to
every
Publican
(
saith
he
)
unlesse
this
be
it
,
that
it
was
lawfull
to
pursue
any
Publican
at
a
Tribunall
of
the
Romans
?
I
answer
,
his
argument
goeth
upon
a
most
false
supposition
,
which
I
cleare
by
the
like
instances
,
Matth.
6.
7.
Use
not
vaine
repetitions
as
the
Heathen
doe
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Shall
we
thence
conclude
that
the
Heathens
as
Heathens
,
and
so
all
Heathens
without
exception
did
use
repetitions
in
prayer
,
or
that
they
were
all
so
devout
in
their
way
as
to
make
long
prayers
?
Luke
15.
11.
I
am
not
as
other
men
are
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
extortioners
,
unjust●…
&c.
Did
the
Pharisee
meane
that
every
man
eo
ipso
that
he
was
another
man
,
and
so
the
rest
of
the
Pharisees
as
well
as
others
,
were
extortioners
,
&c.
Iohn
15.
6.
he
is
cast
forth
as
a
branch
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
If
the
rule
of
Erastus
hold
,
then
a
branch
as
a
branch
,
and
so
every
branch
is
cast
out
.
Many
such
instances
might
be
given
.
If
in
these
Texts
there
must
be
a
restriction
of
the
sence
,
notwithstanding
of
the
prepositive
article
,
so
that
by
Heathens
we
must
understand
devout
or
praying
Heathens
:
by
other
men
,
vulgar
men
,
or
the
common
sort
of
men
;
by
a
branch
,
a
fruitlesse
or
withered
branch
.
Why
shall
we
not
also
understand
by
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
the
prophane
loose
or
unjust
Publican
,
and
as
Grotius
doth
rightly
expound
it
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Let
him
be
esteemed
,
saith
he
,
as
an
Heathen
man
,
that
is
,
as
an
alien
from
religion
,
or
as
a
Publican
;
that
is
,
if
he
be
a
Jew
,
esteeme
him
as
an
infamous
sinner
,
or
one
of
a
flagitious
life
.
Since
therefore
Erastus
confesseth
pag.
194.
that
as
the
office
of
the
Publicans
was
lawfull
,
so
likewise
many
Publicans
were
honest
,
chast
,
religious
,
and
pious
men
,
I
may
safely
conclude
,
that
Let
him
be
unto
thee
as
a
Publican
,
cannot
be
meant
universally
of
all
Publicans
.
For
how
can
it
be
supposed
that
Christ
would
tacitely
allow
of
alienation
from
or
severity
to
pious
Publicans
?
Tenthly
,
whereas
the
Erastians
lay
great
waight
upon
that
forme
of
speech
,
Let
him
be
to
thee
,
(
not
to
the
whole
Church
)
as
an
Heathen
man
and
a
Publican
,
(
which
is
also
one
of
Sullivius
his
exceptions
de
Presbyterio
,
cap.
9.
)
in
this
also
they
do
abuse
the
Text
,
for
1.
The
same
offence
which
is
a
sufficient
ground
to
one
Church-member
to
esteem
another
Church
member
as
an
Heathen
man
or
a
Publican
,
being
a
publique
and
known
scandall
(
such
as
is
contumacy
and
disobedience
to
the
Church
)
must
needs
be
a
sufficient
ground
to
all
other
Church
members
,
or
to
the
whole
Church
to
esteem
so
of
him
.
Surely
Christ
would
not
have
contradictory
judgements
in
his
Church
concerning
so
high
a
point
,
as
is
the
esteeming
of
a
Church
member
to
be
as
a
Heathen
man
and
a
Publican
.
2.
The
Erastians
herein
argue
no
better
than
the
Papists
:
Christ
said
to
Peter
,
I
will
give
unto
thee
the
keyes
of
the
Kingdome
of
Heaven
.
Therefore
unto
Peter
alone
.
Peradventure
Mr.
Hussey
was
so
sagacious
as
to
prevent
this
objection
with
his
popish
concession
:
these
Keyes
were
never
given
to
any
of
the
Apostles
but
to
Peter
,
saith
he
,
in
his
plea
for
Christian
magistracy
,
pag.
9.
It
seems
he
will
farre
lesse
sticke
to
grant
the
Prelaticall
argument
,
Timothy
laid
on
hands
,
and
Titus
ordained
Elders
,
therefore
each
of
these
had
the
power
of
ordination
by
himselfe
alone
.
3.
It
is
a
good
observation
of
Luther
Tom.
1.
Resolv
.
super
propos
.
13.
de
potest
.
Papae
.
fol.
299.
in
the
sixteenth
of
Matthew
Christ
begins
with
all
his
disciples
,
Whom
say
ye
that
I
am
?
and
he
endeth
with
one
,
Unto
thee
will
I
give
,
&c.
In
the
eighteenth
of
Matthew
he
beginneth
with
one
,
If
thy
brother
trespasse
against
thee
,
&c.
and
he
endeth
with
all
,
Whatsoever
he
binds
on
earth
,
&c.
Whence
he
concludeth
that
in
both
these
places
what
is
said
to
one
is
said
to
all
of
them
.
CHAP.
V.
That
Tell
it
to
the
Church
hath
more
in
it
,
then
,
Tell
it
unto
a
greater
number
.
THere
is
yet
another
interpretation
of
these
words
invented
to
elude
the
argument
for
Ecclesiasticall
government
and
censures
from
Mat.
18.
Tell
it
unto
the
Church
,
that
is
,
if
the
offending
brother
will
neither
hearken
to
private
admonition
,
nor
to
admonition
before
two
or
three
witnesses
,
then
tell
it
unto
many
or
unto
a
greater
company
.
This
cals
to
mind
[
u
](A42757-e84150-b)
u
Sutcliv
de
Presbyt.
cap.
1.
Dr
Sutcliffes
glosse
upon
the
word
Presbytery
,
1
Tim.
4.
14.
that
it
signifieth
Presbyters
or
Ministers
non
juris
vinculo
,
sed
utcunque
collectos
,
as
if
the
occasionall
meeting
of
some
Presbyters
in
Westminster
Hall
,
or
upon
the
Exchange
,
or
in
a
journey
,
or
at
a
buriall
,
were
a
Presbytery
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
considered
,
1.
Whether
either
in
Scripture
,
or
in
any
Greeke
Lexicon
,
or
in
any
Classick
author
,
it
can
be
found
that
the
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
was
ever
used
to
signifie
meerly
a
greater
number
or
company
then
two
or
three
,
not
called
out
and
imbodied
together
for
government
or
worship
.
For
my
part
I
could
never
yet
finde
where
the
simple
majority
of
the
number
maketh
the
denomination
of
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
I
finde
the
word
sometimes
(
yet
very
seldome
)
used
of
an
unlawfull
assembly
combining
or
joyning
together
to
evill
:
the
reason
I
take
to
be
this
,
because
they
pretended
to
be
authorised
as
a
lawfull
assembly
;
so
Christ
called
Iudas
,
friend
,
when
he
came
to
betray
him
with
a
kisse
.
But
since
the
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Matth.
18.
17.
doth
signifie
a
lawfull
assembly
,
(
as
all
doe
confesse
)
I
desire
some
testimony
of
Scripture
or
approved
authors
,
where
this
name
is
given
to
a
lawfull
assembly
,
which
was
not
imbodied
for
worship
or
government
,
but
had
the
name
of
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
simply
because
of
the
majority
of
number
.
Sure
I
am
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
is
at
least
caetus
evocatus
,
an
assembly
called
forth
;
and
every
offended
brother
hath
not
from
Christ
the
priviledge
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
doe
not
heare
the
Church
,
there
must
be
recourse
unto
some
others
distinct
from
the
Church
,
for
the
more
authoritative
and
ultimate
determination
,
(
unlesse
it
be
said
that
there
is
no
remedy
for
offences
,
but
in
a
greater
number
which
each
man
shall
make
choice
of
)
But
where
is
their
more
effectuall
remedy
,
or
where
will
they
fixe
the
ultimate
degree
of
proceedings
?
3.
When
Christ
saith
Tell
it
unto
the
Church
,
and
if
he
neglect
to
heare
the
Church
,
&c.
whether
respect
be
had
to
the
forme
of
the
Hebrews
,
or
to
the
forme
of
the
Grecians
,
the
Church
will
still
have
a
ruling
power
.
In
the
old
Testament
,
the
originall
giveth
the
name
Kahal
,
Church
,
(
which
is
the
word
used
in
the
Hebrew
Evangel
of
Matthew
published
by
Munsterus
,
chap.
18.
vers.
17.
)
and
the
Septuagints
the
name
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
to
the
Elders
and
Rulers
of
Israel
,
as
1
Chro.
13.
2.
4.
&
29.
1.
2
Chro.
1.
3.
and
in
other
places
.
And
that
which
is
said
of
the
Elders
,
Deut.
19.
12.
I●…sh
.
20.
4
.
is
said
of
the
Congregation
or
Church
,
Num.
35.
24.
Ios.
20.
6.
So
Exod.
12.
3.
compared
with
vers.
21.
The
Septuagints
also
render
Kahal
by
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Prov.
26.
26.
It
was
not
therefore
to
any
assembly
,
but
to
an
assembly
of
rulers
,
that
causes
were
brought
in
the
old
Testament
.
If
we
turne
to
the
Heathen
Grecians
,
among
them
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
had
a
power
of
jurisdiction
to
judge
and
determine
causes
,
as
is
manifest
from
Acts
19.
38.
39.
There
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
was
of
two
sorts
,
as
Suidas
,
Budaeus
,
Stephanus
,
and
others
have
observed
.
1.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
a
lawfull
set
fixed
assembly
,
which
met
at
ordinary
diets
(
which
is
meant
in
that
place
of
the
Acts
last
cited
)
It
was
also
called
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
because
of
the
jurisdiction
and
ruling
power
which
was
seated
in
it
.
Wherein
I
am
confirmed
by
this
passage
of
Aristotle
polit.
lib.
3.
cap.
11.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
for
the
assembly
,
saith
he
,
hath
the
government
or
arbitrement
of
all
such
things
;
He
is
speaking
of
the
choosing
of
Magistrates
,
and
of
craving
an
account
of
their
administration
.
2.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
which
was
indicted
and
called
pro
re
nata
,
upon
some
urgent
extraordinary
cause
,
and
it
was
concio
magnatum
s●…ve
optimatum
,
in
which
the
people
were
not
present
,
as
in
the
other
.
It
was
therefore
rightly
noted
by
Passor
that
Demosthenes
useth
the
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
pro
concione
magnatum
.
Afterward
the
Roman
Senate
was
called
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
and
sometimes
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
without
an
adjection
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
therefore
among
the
Heathen
Grecians
(
from
whom
the
word
came
)
was
not
any
assembly
,
but
an
assembly
which
had
a
jurisdiction
or
ruling
power
.
It
shall
not
be
in
vaine
to
adde
that
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
to
appeale
to
a
superiour
Ruler
commeth
from
the
same
originall
verbe
from
which
commeth
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
4.
The
Church
mentioned
Matth.
18.
17.
hath
a
forensicall
or
juridicall
power
,
as
appeareth
by
that
of
the
two
or
three
witnesses
vers.
16.
which
relateth
to
a
Juridicall
proceeding
in
the
trying
and
punishing
of
offences
,
as
M.
Prynne
hath
observed
.
Peradventure
some
man
will
say
,
that
the
two
or
three
witnesses
here
are
brought
in
onely
to
be
witnesses
to
the
admonition
,
or
to
make
the
admonition
the
more
effectuall
,
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
it selfe
before
the
Church
,
if
there
be
occasion
.
I
answer
,
either
it
must
be
supposed
here
that
the
trespasse
was
seen
or
knowne
onely
by
him
that
gives
the
first
rebuke
privately
,
or
that
it
was
also
seen
or
known
by
those
two
or
three
witnesses
.
If
the
former
,
it
is
much
disputed
among
Schoolmen
whether
he
that
rebukes
his
offending
brother
be
to
proceed
any
further
than
a
private
rebuke
for
a
private
offence
,
or
whether
he
is
to
stop
at
private
rebukes
,
and
not
to
take
witnesses
with
him
(
which
divers
thinke
to
be
unfit
and
disallowed
,
as
being
an
officious
and
unnecessary
irritation
of
the
offending
brother
by
the
spreading
of
his
shame
,
a
making
of
a
private
sinne
to
become
scandalous
to
others
,
as
likewise
an
engaging
of
witnesses
to
assist
in
the
admonition
and
rebuke
by
a
blinde
and
implicite
faith
)
for
my
part
I
shall
not
need
here
to
dispute
this
point
:
for
what
ever
ought
to
be
done
,
or
ought
not
to
be
done
in
this
case
,
when
the
trespasse
is
known
to
one
onely
:
yet
in
the
other
case
when
besides
him
that
rebukes
there
are
two
or
three
more
which
can
be
witnesses
of
the
fact
or
trespasse
committed
(
the
trespasse
being
yet
not
publiquely
divulged
)
it
can
not
be
denied
,
that
these
witnesses
of
the
fact
are
to
be
brought
unto
and
confronted
with
the
offender
,
when
he
cannot
be
gained
by
private
rebuke
,
and
(
if
need
be
)
prove
it
afterward
before
the
Church
.
Which
I
have
before
noted
out
of
Durand
.
And
[
x
](A42757-e84790-b)
x
De
actib
.
super●…at
.
Disp.
28.
D●…b
.
9.
Item
qua●do
peccatum
corripiendi
p●aeter
me
est
uni
vel
alteri
notum
,
etiam
facile
mihi
est
hos
post
primam
correp
ionem
adjungere
mihi
socios
ac
testes
secundae
〈◊〉
.
Cum
eni●
hi
non
minus
quàm
ego
ejus
pecc●tum
noverint
,
aequaliter
poterunt
ipsum
de
hoc
corripere
,
illudúe
poste●
,
si
opus
〈◊〉
,
coram
Superior●
testari
.
Quare
communiter
omnes
censent
in
eo
casu
testes
●sse
adhibendos
,
si
prima
correptio
non
suerit
efficax
.
Sed
tota
difficultas
est
quando
pecca●um
est
mihi
soli
notum
.
Qua
in
re
triplex
est
〈◊〉
.
Prima
docet
quando
tunc
proximus
non
●mendatur
secreta
me
admonitione
,
non
esse
ulterius
p●ogrediendum
,
&c.
Aegidius
de
Coninck
tels
us
(
in
whatsoever
other
case
witnesses
are
to
be
taken
,
or
are
not
to
be
taken
)
in
this
case
all
doe
consent
that
witnesses
are
to
be
taken
.
Concerning
the
taking
of
witnesses
,
when
the
trespasse
is
known
to
me
alone
,
there
are
three
different
opinions
.
1.
That
when
I
have
rebuked
the
offender
privately
,
and
cannot
gaine
him
,
I
am
to
proceed
no
further
,
but
have
done
my
duty
and
must
leave
the
event
to
God
.
2.
That
when
a
secret
admonition
is
not
effectuall
▪
witnesses
are
to
be
taken
,
in
case
the
offender
so
admonished
continue
in
his
sinne
,
or
in
case
his
relapse
be
feared
and
expected
,
that
the
witnesses
may
observe
such
continuing
or
relapse
in
sinne
,
and
then
assist
and
joyne
in
rebuking
him
,
and
if
need
be
(
that
is
,
in
case
of
his
contumacy
)
to
prove
the
fact
before
the
Church
.
3.
That
even
when
his
continuance
or
relapse
in
sinne
can
not
be
observed
,
(
and
so
can
not
be
afterward
proved
by
witnesses
)
yet
the
second
admonition
is
to
be
given
before
witn●sses
,
when
the
first
admonition
given
privately
hath
not
gained
the
offender
.
Of
these
let
the
Reader
judge
.
T
is
enough
for
the
point
now
in
hand
,
that
when
witnesses
can
be
had
to
prove
the
trespasse
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
doe
not
see
how
it
can
be
thought
necessary
,
if
we
suppose
that
the
sinne
is
not
known
to
any
but
to
me
alone
who
give
tho
first
rebuke
;
for
if
there
must
be
a
witnesse
of
my
second
admonition
,
why
may
not
one
witnesse
joyn
with
me
as
well
as
two
,
when
I
can
not
have
two
,
but
one
onely
,
willing
and
ready
to
●oyn
with
me
.
But
now
a
necessity
of
precept
lies
on
me
,
that
I
must
have
two
witnesses
at
least
,
which
cannot
be
otherwise
understood
,
but
in
reference
to
a
forensicall
proceeding
afterwards
,
if
need
be
.
5.
That
interpretation
which
now
I
speak
against
,
while
it
goeth
about
to
avoyd
a
power
of
Jurisdiction
and
Censure
in
this
Text
,
it
doth
subject
him
that
is
reproved
by
another
,
to
a
heavier
yoke
,
and
brings
him
into
a
greater
servitude
.
For
though
a
man
be
not
disobedient
nor
contumacious
unto
any
Court
Civill
or
Ecclesiasticall
,
yet
if
he
doth
not
hearken
to
such
a
number
,
as
the
party
offended
shall
declare
the
case
unto
(
being
a
greater
number
then
two
or
three
)
he
must
be
by
and
by
esteemed
and
avoyded
as
an
Heathen
man
and
a
Publican
.
6.
This
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
Drusius
citeth
,
è
libro
Musar
.
declare
it
coram
multis
,
before
many
.
But
is
this
any
other
then
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
the
many
spoken
of
2
Cor
2.
6
?
a
place
cited
by
Grotius
himselfe
,
together
with
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
before
all
,
1
Tim.
5.
20.
Now
these
were
acts
of
Ecclesiasticall
power
and
authority
,
not
simply
the
acts
of
a
greater
number
.
He
tels
us
also
it
was
the
manner
among
the
Jewes
to
referre
the
businesse
ad
multitudinem
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
to
the
assembly
of
those
who
were
of
the
same
way
,
or
followed
the
same
rites
,
the
judgements
of
which
multitude
(
saith
he
)
seniores
tanquam
praesides
moderabantur
,
the
Elders
as
Presidents
did
moderate
.
He
further
cleares
it
out
of
Tertullian
apol.
cap.
39.
where
speaking
of
the
Churches
or
assemblies
of
Christians
,
he
saith
:
ibidem
etiam
exhortationes
,
castigationes
&
censura
divina
&c.
praesident
probati
quique
seniores
.
Where
there
are
also
exhortations
,
corrections
,
and
Divine
censure
,
&c.
all
the
approved
Elders
doe
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
civill
Magistrate
,
nor
simply
of
a
greater
number
,
but
of
the
Elders
or
(
as
others
expresse
it
better
)
of
the
Eldership
or
Assembly
of
Elders
;
So
Stephanus
,
Scapula
,
and
Pasor
in
the
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
Calvin
,
Bucerus
,
Illyricus
,
Beza
,
Hunnius
,
Tossanus
,
Pareus
,
Cartwright
,
Camero
,
Diodati
,
the
Dutch
annotations
,
all
upon
the
place
.
Marlorat
in
Thesauro
in
the
word
Ecclesia
Zanchius
in
4.
Praec
.
pag.
741.
Iunius
Animad.
in
Bell.
Contr.
3.
lib.
1.
cap.
6.
Gerhard
loc.
theol
.
Tom.
6.
pag.
137.
Meisuerus
Disput.
de
regim
.
Eccles.
quaest.
1.
Trelcatius
Instit.
Theol.
lib.
1.
pag.
291.
Polanus
Syntag.
lib.
7.
cap.
1.
Bullinger
in
1
Cor.
5.
4.
Whittaker
.
de
Ecclesia
quaest
.
1.
cap.
2.
Danaeus
in
1
Tim.
pag.
246.
394.
These
and
many
more
understand
that
neither
the
Magistrate
nor
the
multitude
of
the
Church
,
nor
simply
a
great
number
,
is
meant
by
the
Church
Matth.
18.
but
the
Elders
or
Ecclesiasticall
senate
,
who
have
the
name
of
the
Church
,
partly
,
by
a
Syn●cdoche
because
they
are
a
chief
part
of
the
Church
(
as
otherwhere
the
people
or
flock
distinct
from
the
Elders
,
is
called
the
Church
Act.
20.
28.
)
partly
,
because
of
their
eminent
station
and
principall
function
in
the
Church
,
as
we
say
we
have
seen
such
a
mans
Picture
,
when
haply
t
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
his
observation
Tom.
4.
part
.
3.
Tract
.
9.
Christ
would
not
say
,
Tell
the
officers
or
Rulers
of
the
Church
,
but
Tell
the
Church
,
because
an
obstinate
offender
is
not
to
be
excommunicate
secretly
or
in
a
corner
,
but
with
the
knowledge
and
consent
of
the
whole
Church
:
so
that
for
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
Councell
is
done
by
the
City
.
Among
the
Jewes
with
whom
Christ
and
his
Apostles
were
conversant
this
manner
of
speaking
was
usuall
.
Danaeus
(
where
before
cited
)
citeth
R.
David
Kimchi
upon
Ose.
5.
noting
that
the
name
of
the
house
of
Israel
is
often
put
for
the
Sanhedrin
in
Scripture
.
T
is
certaine
the
Sanhedrin
hath
divers
times
the
name
Kabal
in
the
Hebrew
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
in
the
Greek
of
the
old
Testament
,
Which
is
acknowledged
even
by
those
who
have
contended
for
a
kind
of
popular
Government
in
the
Church
.
See
Guide
unto
Zion
pag.
5.
Ainsworth
in
his
Counterpoison
pag.
113.
CHAP.
VI.
Of
the
power
of
binding
and
loosing
Matth.
18.
18.
THey
that
doe
not
understand
Matth.
18.
17.
of
Excommunication
,
are
extreamely
difficulted
and
scarce
know
what
to
make
of
that
binding
and
loosing
which
is
mentioned
in
the
words
immediately
following
v.
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
party
offended
his
binding
or
loosing
of
the
offender
.
Bishop
Bilson
understands
it
of
a
civill
binding
or
loosing
by
the
Magistrate
,
whom
he
conceives
to
be
meant
by
the
Church
vers.
17.
These
doe
acknowledge
a
coherence
and
dependance
between
vers.
17.
and
18.
Mr
Prynne
differing
from
them
,
doth
not
acknowledge
this
coherence
,
and
expounds
the
binding
and
loosing
to
be
ministeriall
indeed
,
but
onely
Doctrinall
.
Some
others
dissenting
from
all
these
,
doe
referre
this
binding
and
loosing
not
to
a
person
,
but
to
a
thing
or
Doctrine
,
whatsoever
ye
shall
bind
,
that
is
,
whatsoever
ye
shall
declare
to
be
false
,
erroneous
,
impious
,
&c.
Sutlivius
though
he
differ
much
from
us
in
the
Interpretation
of
vers.
15
,
16
,
17.
yet
he
differeth
as
much
(
if
not
more
)
from
the
Erastians
in
the
Interpretation
of
vers.
18.
for
he
will
have
the
binding
and
loosing
,
to
be
Ecclesiasticall
and
spirituall
,
not
civill
,
to
be
Juridicall
,
not
Doctrinall
onely
,
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
Magistrate
,
or
to
the
party
offended
.
See
him
de
Presbyteri●…
Cap.
9.
&
10.
So
that
they
can
neither
satisfie
themselves
nor
others
,
concerning
the
meaning
and
the
context
.
For
the
confutation
of
all
those
Glosses
,
and
for
the
vindication
of
the
true
scope
and
sence
of
the
Text
,
I
shall
first
of
all
observe
,
whence
this
phrase
of
binding
and
loosing
appeareth
to
have
been
borrowed
,
namely
,
both
from
the
Hebrewes
and
from
the
Graecians
.
The
Hebrews
did
ascribe
to
the
Interpreters
of
the
Law
,
Power
,
authority
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
to
bind
,
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
to
loose
.
So
Grotius
tells
us
on
Mat.
16.
19.
The
Hebrews
had
their
loosing
of
an
Excommunicated
person
,
which
they
called
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
See
Buxtorf
.
Lexic.
Chald.
Talm.
Rabbin
.
pag.
1410.
The
Grecians
also
had
a
binding
and
loosing
which
was
judiciall
.
Budaeus
and
Stephanus
on
the
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
cite
out
of
Aeschines
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
Quum
primo
suffragio
non
absolutus
fuerit
reus
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
was
the
stone
by
which
the
Senators
did
give
their
suffrage
in
judgement
,
It
was
either
a
blacke
stone
,
by
which
they
did
bind
the
sinner
and
retaine
his
sinne
,
and
that
stone
was
called
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
:
or
it
was
a
white
stone
,
by
which
they
did
loose
remit
and
absolve
:
and
that
stone
was
called
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
:
which
was
the
thing
that
Tully
calleth
Solvere
crimine
.
So
where
it
is
said
,
her
iniquity
is
pardoned
Isa.
40.
2.
the
70
read
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
her
iniquity
is
loosed
.
And
because
there
is
usually
some
kind
of
expiation
before
a
loosing
and
remitting
of
sinnes
,
which
expiation
being
performed
the
loosing
follows
,
therefore
the
Graecians
called
such
necessary
and
r●quisit
expiation
by
the
name
of
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
that
is
,
loosing
:
and
they
had
their
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
they
expiatory
Gods
,
who
did
chiefly
take
care
of
those
expiations
.
That
in
Scripture
the
power
of
binding
,
is
judiciall
and
authoritative
,
is
cleared
by
my
Reverend
and
Learned
Colleague
Ma●er
Rutherford
in
The
Divine
right
of
Church
Government
pag.
234.
235
I
adde
,
that
the
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
unto
which
Grotius
sends
●s
,
is
●sed
for
that
binding
or
incarceration
which
is
an
act
of
〈◊〉
authority
,
as
Gen.
40.
3.
Gen.
42.
16.
19.
24.
Num.
15.
34
Levit.
24.
12.
2
Kings
.
17.
4.
Isa.
42.
7.
Jer.
40.
1.
Ezek.
3.
25.
It
is
also
used
for
an
authoritative
prohibition
Num.
11.
28.
my
Lord
Moses
forbid
them
.
Thence
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
interdictum
,
a
decree
forbidding
somewhat
Dan.
6
,
7
,
8
,
9.
As
binding
and
loosing
are
Acts
of
authority
and
power
,
such
as
doth
not
belong
to
any
single
person
or
brother
offended
,
so
the
binding
and
loosing
mentioned
Matth.
18.
18.
are
Acts
of
Ecclesiasticall
and
spirituall
authority
,
belonging
to
the
Kingdom
and
Government
of
Christ
in
his
Church
,
but
not
belonging
to
the
civill
Magistrate
.
And
as
the
authority
is
Ecclesiasticall
and
spirituall
,
so
it
is
more
than
Doctrinall
,
it
is
a
power
of
inflicting
or
taking
off
Church
Censures
.
These
two
things
I
will
endeavour
to
prove
.
1.
That
this
power
of
binding
and
loosing
belongeth
neither
to
private
Christians
nor
to
civill
Magistrates
,
but
to
Church
Officers
.
2.
That
this
power
is
juridicall
or
forensicall
,
and
not
Doctrinall
onely
;
that
is
,
that
Church-Officers
are
here
authorised
to
bind
with
censures
,
or
to
loose
from
censures
,
as
there
shall
be
cause
.
In
both
which
we
have
Antiquity
for
us
.
Which
I
doe
the
rather
observe
because
Erastus
and
Grotius
alledge
some
of
the
Antients
,
for
their
exposition
of
Math.
18.
18.
that
this
binding
or
loosing
is
by
the
offended
brother
.
That
which
Augustine
,
Origen
,
and
Theophylact
say
of
one
brother
his
binding
or
loosing
,
is
but
spoken
tropologically
,
and
not
as
the
literall
sence
of
the
Text
,
yea
,
Theophylact
in
that
passage
cited
by
Erastus
and
Grotius
,
doth
distinguish
between
the
Ministeriall
or
Ecclesiasticall
binding
and
loosing
,
and
the
party
offended
his
binding
and
loosing
.
Non
enim
solùm
quae
solvunt
sacerdotes
sunt
soluta
,
sed
quaecunque
&
nos
&c.
Theophylact
doth
also
find
excommunication
in
that
Text
Illam
autem
(
Ecclesiam
)
si
non
audierit
,
tunc
abjiciatar
,
ne
suae
maliti●…
participes
faciat
alios
.
I
further
appeal
to
Augustine
himself
Epist.
75.
where
speaking
of
Excommunication
and
Anathema
he
distinguisheth
it
from
corporall
punishment
,
and
after
he
hath
spoken
of
the
temporall
sword
he
addeth
,
Spiritualis
autem
paena
,
qua
fit
quod
scriptum
est
,
Quae
ligaveris
in
terra
,
erunt
ligata
&
in
caelo
,
animas
obligat
.
But
the
spirituall
punishment
,
by
which
that
thing
is
done
which
is
written
,
What
thou
shalt
bind
on
earth
shall
be
bound
in
heaven
,
doth
bind
soul●…
.
Againe
in
his
sixth
Tome
lib.
1.
contra
adversarium
legis
&
prophetarum
●…ap
.
17.
[
y
](A42757-e86250-b)
y
Ignoscendi
autem
misericors
mansuetudo
,
&c.
non
ad
hoc
valet
ut
sit
iniquitas
impunita
,
aut
torpens
&
dormiens
disciplina
,
quod
potius
obsit
quam
dil
g
ns
vigilansque
vindicta
.
Claves
quippe
●egni
caelorum
sic
dedit
Christus
Ecclesiae
,
ut
non
solùm
diceret
Quae
solveritis
super
terram
,
c●unt
solu
a
&
in
caelis
:
ubi
apertissim
è
bonum
,
non
malum
pro
malo
reddit
Ecclesia
:
verùm
&
adjungeret
:
Quae
ligaveritis
in
terra
erunt
ligata
&
in
caelo
.
quia
bon●
est
&
vindicandi
justitia
.
Illud
enim
quod
ait
,
Si
nec
Ecclesiam
audi●rit
,
sit
tibi
tanquam
ethn●cus
&
publicanus
,
g●avius
est
quam
si
gladio
soriretur
,
si
flammis
absumeret●r
,
si
feris
subrigeretur
.
Nam
ibi
quoque
subjunxit
,
Amen
dico
vobis
quae
ligaveritis
super
te●tam
erunt
ligata
&
in
caelis
:
ut
intelligeretur
quanto
gravius
sit
punitus
qui
velut
relictus
est
impunitus
.
he
doth
most
plainly
interpret
Math.
18.
18.
of
Church
discipline
and
binding
by
Censure
.
[
z
](A42757-e86280-b)
z
Hior
.
in
Matth.
18.
19
,
Quia
dixerat
,
Si
autem
Ecclesiam
non
audierit
,
sit
tibi
sicut
ethnicus
&
publicanus
,
&
poter●t
contemptoris
fratris
haec
occulta
esse
responsio
vel
tacita
cogitatio
:
si
me
despicis
&
ego
te
despicio
:
si
tu
me
condemnas
&
meâ
sententiâ
condemnaberis
:
potestatem
tribuit
Apostolis
,
ut
sciant
qui
à
talibus
condemnantur
,
humanam
sententiam
divina
sententia
roborari
,
&
quodcunque
ligatum
sucrit
in
terra
,
lig●ri
pariter
&
in
caelo
.
Hier.
Epist.
1.
ad
Heliod
.
Absit
ut
de
his
quicquam
sinist
um
loquar
,
qui
apostolico
gradui
succedentos
,
Christi
corpus
sacro
ore
conficiunt
,
per
quos
&
nos
Christiani
sumus
.
Qui
claves
regni
caelorum
habentes
,
quodammodo
ante
Judic●i
d●em
judicant
,
&c
,
Mihi
ante
Presbyterum
(
legendum
fortasse
Presbyterium
)
sedere
non
licet
:
illi
si
peccavero
,
li●et
tradere
me
Satanae
in
interitum
catuis
,
ut
spiritus
salvus
fit
.
Et
in
veteri
quidem
lege
,
quicunque
sacerdotibus
non
obtemperasset
,
aut
extra
castra
positus
,
lapidabatur
à
populo
,
aut
gladio
cervice
subjecta
,
contemptum
expiabat
c●uore
:
Nunc
ve●ò
inobediens
,
spirituali
mucrone
truncatur
,
aut
ejectus
de
Ecclesia
,
●abido
daemonum
ore
discerp●tur
.
Hierome
both
in
his
Commentary
upon
Matth.
18.
and
in
his
Epistle
to
Heliodorus
,
speaketh
of
this
power
of
binding
as
a
judiciall
forensicall
power
belonging
to
the
Ministers
or
Officers
of
the
Church
,
by
which
they
judge
and
censure
offenders
.
But
to
save
my self
the
labour
of
more
citations
,
I
take
help
from
Bishop
Bilson
,
of
the
perpetuall
Government
of
Christs
Church
cap.
4.
where
though
he
expound
the
binding
and
loosing
Matth.
18.
18.
to
be
Acts
of
the
Magistrate
,
yet
he
acknowledgeth
hat
the
Antient
writers
leane
vere
much
another
way
,
and
understand
that
Text
of
the
ministeriall
and
spirituall
power
of
Excommunication
,
for
which
he
citeth
Chrysost.
de
sacerdotio
lib.
3.
Ambros.
de
paenitent
.
lib.
1.
c.
2.
Hierom.
in
Matth.
cap.
18.
Hilar.
in
Mat.
can
.
18.
Vnto
these
I
also
adde
Isidorus
Polusiota
in
the
third
Book
of
his
Epistles
,
Epist.
260.
where
he
applieth
this
Text
Matth.
18
,
19.
to
this
sence
,
that
impenitent
finners
are
to
be
bound
,
and
penitent
sinners
loosed
,
and
thence
argueth
against
the
absolving
of
a
perjured
person
who
had
not
declared
himself
penitent
,
but
had
purchased
his
absolution
by
a
gift
.
Nor
can
I
passe
Chrysostome
upon
this
very
Text
,
where
he
tells
that
Christ
will
have
such
a
one
to
be
punished
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
both
with
a
present
Chastisement
and
with
a
future
punishment
,
or
both
in
earth
and
in
heaven
;
and
would
have
the
offender
to
fear
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
casting
out
of
the
Church
.
He
addeth
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
he
cuts
not
off
immediately
,
but
after
admonitions
.
I
will
now
proceed
to
a
further
confirmation
of
the
two
propositions
afore
mentioned
.
Touching
the
first
,
That
this
binding
and
loosing
Matth.
18.
18.
belongeth
nei
her
to
private
Christians
,
nor
to
civill
Magistrates
,
but
to
Church
Officers
,
I
clear
it
thus
.
There
are
two
things
by
which
(
as
Schoolemen
observe
)
mens
soules
and
consciences
are
bound
,
1.
They
are
bound
by
their
sinnes
.
Prov.
5.
22.
His
own
iniquities
shall
take
the
wicked
himself
,
&
he
shall
be
holden
with
the
cords
of
his
sins
,
Act.
8.
23.
thou
art
in
the
bond
of
iniquity
.
2.
Men
are
bound
by
precepts
Matth.
23.
4.
They
bind
heavy
burthens
and
grievous
to
be
born
,
and
lay
them
on
mens
shoulders
.
This
binding
by
precept
or
law
,
some
take
to
be
meant
Ezech.
3.
25.
O
Sonne
of
man
behold
they
shal
put
bands
upon
thee
,
&
shall
bind
thee
with
them
,
that
is
,
thou
shalt
in
vision
see
thy self
bound
with
bands
upon
thee
,
to
signifie
that
I
have
forbidden
thee
to
be
a
reprover
to
the
rebellius
house
.
So
the
Chaldee
paraphrase
.
But
thou
a
Sonne
of
man
,
behold
I
have
put
my
word
upon
thee
,
as
a
band
of
cords
with
which
they
bind
,
and
thou
shalt
not
goe
forth
into
the
midst
of
them
.
Now
in
both
these
respects
the
Scripture
elsewhere
doth
ascribe
to
Church-Officers
a
power
of
binding
and
loosing
.
1
In
respect
of
sinne
Io.
20.
23.
Whosesoever
sins
ye
remit
they
are
remitted
unto
them
,
and
whosesoever
sin
s
ye
retaine
they
are
retained
.
It
is
spoken
to
the
Apostles
and
their
successors
in
the
Ministery
of
the
Gospell
.
Matth.
16.
19.
I
will
give
unto
thee
the
Keyes
of
the
Kingdome
of
heaven
:
and
whatsoever
thou
shal●…
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
,
&
Grotius
upon
the
place
cleareth
it
from
2.
Cor.
5.
19.
20.
God
hath
committed
unto
us
the
word
of
reconciliation
.
Now
then
we
are
Ambassadours
for
Christ
.
So
that
we
find
in
Scripture
Church
Officers
inabled
and
authorised
ex
officio
as
the
Heraulds
and
Ambassadours
of
the
King
of
Zion
,
to
loose
from
the
bands
of
sinne
all
repenting
and
beleiving
sinners
,
and
to
bind
over
to
eternall
justice
and
wrath
the
impenitent
and
unbeleevers
.
2
They
are
also
authorised
,
dogmatically
and
authoritatively
to
declare
and
impose
the
will
of
Christ
,
and
to
bind
his
precepts
upon
the
shoulders
of
his
peeple
Matth.
28.
20.
as
likewise
to
loose
them
and
pronounce
them
free
from
such
burthens
,
as
men
would
impose
upon
them
contrary
or
beside
the
word
of
God
1
Cor.
7.
23.
An
example
of
both
we
have
Act.
15.
28.
The
Synod
of
the
Apostles
and
Elders
bindeth
upon
the
Churches
such
Burthens
,
as
were
necessary
by
the
Law
of
love
for
the
avoiding
of
scandall
,
but
did
pronounce
the
Churches
to
be
free
and
loosed
from
other
burthens
which
the
Judaizing
Teachers
would
have
bound
upon
them
.
Now
therefore
if
we
will
expound
Matth.
18.
18.
by
other
Scriptures
(
it
being
the
onely
surest
way
to
expound
Scripture
by
Scripture
)
it
is
manifest
and
undeniable
,
that
Church-Officers
are
by
other
Scriptures
inabled
and
authorised
to
bind
&
loose
in
both
those
respects
afore-mentioned
.
But
we
no
where
find
in
Scripture
,
that
Christ
hath
given
either
to
all
private
Christians
,
or
to
the
civill
Magistrate
,
a
Commission
and
Authority
to
bind
or
loose
sinners
;
I
know
a
private
Christian
may
and
ought
to
convince
an
impenitent
brother
,
and
to
comfort
a
repenting
brother
,
ex
charitate
Christiana
:
But
the
Scripture
doth
not
say
,
that
God
hath
committed
to
every
private
Christian
the
word
of
reconciliation
,
and
that
all
Christians
are
Ambassadours
for
Christ
,
nor
is
there
a
promise
to
ratifie
in
heaven
the
convictions
or
comforts
given
by
a
private
Christian
:
No
more
then
a
King
doth
ingage
himself
in
verbo
principis
to
pardon
such
as
any
of
his
good
Subjects
shall
pardon
,
or
to
condemne
such
as
any
of
his
good
Subjects
shall
condemne
:
but
a
King
ingageth
himself
to
ratifie
what
his
Ambassadours
,
Commissioners
or
Ministers
shall
doe
in
his
name
and
according
to
the
Commission
which
he
hath
given
them
to
pardon
or
condemne
.
Besides
all
this
,
if
Christ
had
meant
here
of
the
brother
to
whom
the
injury
was
don
,
his
private
binding
or
loosing
,
not
condemning
or
forgiving
,
then
he
had
kept
the
phrase
in
the
singular
number
,
which
Erastus
observeth
diligently
all
along
the
Text
vers.
15
,
16
,
17.
But
he
might
have
also
observed
,
that
vers.
18.
carries
the
power
of
binding
and
loosing
to
a
plurality
,
Whatsoever
ye
bind
,
&c.
As
for
the
Magistrate
,
it
belongeth
to
him
to
bind
with
the
cords
of
corporall
or
civill
punishments
,
or
to
loose
and
liberat
from
the
same
,
as
he
shall
see
cause
according
to
law
and
justice
.
But
this
doth
n
t
belong
to
the
spirituall
Kingdome
of
Jesus
Christ
;
for
his
Kingdome
is
not
of
this
world
,
neither
are
the
weapons
thereof
carnall
but
spirituall
.
And
beside
the
Magistrate
may
lawfully
and
sometime
doth
bind
on
punishment
,
when
the
soule
is
loosed
in
Heaven
,
and
the
sinne
remitted
.
Again
,
the
Magistrate
may
lawfully
,
and
sometime
doth
loose
and
absolve
from
punishment
,
when
a
mans
soule
is
impenitent
,
and
sinne
is
still
bound
upon
his
conscience
.
There
is
no
such
promise
that
God
will
forgive
whom
the
Magistrate
forgiveth
,
or
condemne
whom
the
Magistrate
condemneth
.
Neither
hath
God
any
where
in
Scripture
committed
to
the
Magistrate
the
Keyes
of
the
Kingdome
of
Heaven
,
or
the
word
of
reconciliation
,
as
to
the
Ambassadours
of
Christ
.
Binding
and
loosing
in
the
other
sence
by
a
dogmaticall
authoritative
declaration
of
the
will
of
Christ
,
is
not
so
principally
or
directy
intended
Matth.
18.
18.
as
that
other
binding
and
loosing
in
respect
of
sinne
.
Howbeit
it
is
not
to
be
excluded
,
because
the
words
preceding
Vers.
17.
mention
not
onely
the
execution
of
Excommunication
,
Let
him
be
to
thee
as
an
Heathen
man
and
a
Publican
;
but
also
the
Churches
judgement
,
and
determination
of
the
case
,
if
he
neglect
to
heare
the
Church
,
which
words
implie
,
that
the
Church
hath
declared
the
will
of
Christ
in
such
a
case
,
and
required
the
offender
to
doe
accordingly
,
but
he
shewing
himselfe
unwilling
and
contumacious
,
as
it
were
saying
in
his
heart
,
I
will
breake
their
bands
asunder
,
and
cast
away
their
cords
from
me
,
thereupon
the
promise
reacheth
to
this
also
,
that
what
the
Church
hath
determined
or
imposed
according
to
the
will
of
Christ
shall
be
ratified
and
approved
in
Heaven
.
[
a
](A42757-e86800-b)
a
Sutlivius
de
presbyt.
cap.
14.
p.
107.
Apostoli
religionis
&
fidei
à
Christo
cognitionem
acceperunt
:
haec
enim
pars
est
maxima
clavium
quas
ille
Apostolis
suis
commisit
.
Now
Christ
hath
no
where
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
determine
controversies
of
faith
,
or
cases
of
conscience
.
As
in
the
old
Testament
,
the
Priests
lips
did
preserve
knowledge
,
and
they
were
to
seeke
the
law
at
his
mouth
,
Mal.
2.
7.
so
in
the
new
Testament
the
Ministers
of
Christ
have
the
Commission
to
make
known
the
counsell
of
God
.
My
second
proposition
that
the
power
of
binding
and
loosing
Matth.
18.
18.
is
juridicall
or
forensicall
,
and
meant
of
inflicting
or
taking
off
Ecclesiasticall
Censures
;
this
I
will
make
good
in
the
next
place
against
Mr
Prynne
,
who
to
elude
the
argument
for
Excommunication
from
Matth.
18.
answereth
two
things
concerning
the
binding
and
loosing
there
spoken
of
.
1.
That
these
words
have
no
coherence
with
,
or
dependence
upon
the
former
.
2.
That
this
binding
and
loosing
is
meant
onely
of
preaching
the
Gospell
.
Touching
the
first
of
these
,
I
confesse
if
by
the
Church
,
vers.
17.
be
meant
a
civill
Court
of
Justice
;
and
by
those
words
,
Let
him
be
unto
thee
as
an
Heathen
,
&c.
be
meant
no
more
but
keepe
no
civill
fellowship
with
him
(
which
is
his
sence
of
the
Text
)
I
cannot
marvell
that
he
could
finde
no
coherence
between
vers.
17.
and
vers.
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
here
anticipate
a
great
objection
,
and
adde
a
great
encouragement
in
point
of
Church
discipline
;
for
when
the
offender
is
excommunicated
,
(
that
is
all
the
Church
can
doe
to
humble
and
reduce
him
)
put
the
case
he
or
others
despise
the
censures
of
the
Church
,
What
will
your
censure
doe
?
saith
Mr
Hussey
:
To
that
very
thing
Christ
answereth
,
It
shall
be
ratified
in
Heaven
,
and
it
shall
doe
more
then
the
binding
of
the
offenders
in
fetters
of
Iron
could
doe
.
But
let
us
heare
what
Mr
Prynne
saith
against
the
coherence
of
Text
:
because
(
saith
he
)
that
of
binding
and
loosing
is
spoken
onely
to
and
of
Christs
disciples
,
as
is
evident
by
the
parallel
Text
of
Joh.
20.
23.
not
of
the
Jewish
Church
.
It
maketh
the
more
against
him
(
I
am
sure
)
that
it
s
spoken
to
and
of
Christs
Disciples
,
for
this
proveth
that
the
Church
vers.
17.
is
not
the
Jewish
Sanhedrin
,
but
the
Christian
Presbytery
,
then
instituted
,
and
afterwards
erected
:
and
that
the
thing
which
makes
one
as
an
Heathen
and
a
Publican
,
is
binding
of
his
sinnes
upon
him
.
And
for
the
context
,
immediatly
after
Christ
had
said
,
If
he
neglect
to
heare
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
cleare
.
A
Christian
having
first
admonished
his
brother
in
private
,
then
having
taken
two
or
three
witnesses
,
after
this
having
brought
it
to
the
publique
cognizance
of
the
Ecclesiasticall
Consistory
,
and
after
all
that
,
the
offender
being
for
his
obstinacy
excommunicate
;
here
is
the
last
step
,
no
further
progresse
.
Now
might
one
thinke
,
what
of
all
this
?
what
shall
follow
upon
it
?
Nay
,
saith
Christ
,
it
shall
not
be
in
vaine
,
it
shall
be
ratisied
in
Heaven
.
And
as
the
purpose
cohereth
,
so
that
forme
of
words
,
Verily
I
say
unto
you
,
is
ordinarily
used
by
Christ
to
signifie
his
continuing
and
pressing
home
the
same
purpose
which
he
had
last
mentioned
,
as
Matth.
5.
26.
Matth.
6.
2.
Matth.
8.
10.
Matth.
10.
15.
Matth.
11.
11.
Matth.
18.
3.
Matth.
19.
23
,
28.
Matth.
21.
31.
Matth.
23.
36.
Matth.
26.
13.
Matth.
24.
34
,
47.
Marke
10.
15.
&
12.
43.
&
13.
30.
Luke
12.
37.
and
many
the
like
passages
.
To
my
best
observation
,
I
have
found
no
place
where
Christs
Verily
I
say
unto
you
,
begins
a
new
purpose
which
hath
no
coherence
with
nor
dependency
upon
the
former
.
This
coherence
of
the
Text
and
the
dependency
of
vers.
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
brothers
pardoning
or
not
pardoning
of
the
offender
,
Confirm
.
Thes.
pag.
157.
)
doth
also
quite
overthrow
Master
Prynnes
other
answer
,
that
this
binding
and
loosing
is
onely
meant
of
preaching
the
Gospell
,
and
of
denouncing
remission
of
sinnes
to
the
penitent
,
and
wrath
to
the
impenitent
.
Nay
,
That
potestas
clavium
conoionalis
is
instituted
in
other
places
:
but
here
its
potestas
cl●…vium
disciplinalis
,
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
succeed
them
in
the
worke
of
the
Ministery
have
the
same
power
of
the
Keys
committed
from
Christ
to
them
ministerially
,
which
Christ
hath
committed
from
the
father
to
him
(
as
Mediator
)
authoritatively
.
For
in
the
parallel
place
,
Ioh.
20.
v.
21
,
23.
where
he
gives
them
power
of
remitting
or
retaining
sinnes
,
he
saith
,
As
my
Father
hath
sent
me
,
even
so
send
I
you
.
But
the
Father
gave
Christ
such
a
power
of
the
Keyes
,
as
comprehends
a
power
of
Government
,
and
not
meerely
doctrinall
,
Isa.
22.
21
,
22.
I
will
commit
the
government
into
his
hand
,
&c.
And
the
Keyes
of
the
house
of
David
will
I
lay
upon
his
shoulder
.
Thirdly
,
It
may
be
proved
also
by
that
which
immediately
followeth
,
vers.
19.
Againe
I
say
unto
you
,
that
if
two
of
you
shall
agree
on
earth
&c.
which
cannot
be
meant
of
the
power
of
preaching
;
for
neither
the
efficacy
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
,
concerning
which
it
answereth
these
two
objections
.
First
,
it
might
be
said
,
the
Apostles
and
other
Church-governours
may
fall
to
be
very
few
in
this
or
that
Church
where
the
offence
riseth
;
shall
we
in
that
case
execute
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
vaine
.
Againe
,
it
might
be
objected
,
be
they
two
or
three
,
or
more
,
what
if
they
doe
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
can
not
say
the
like
of
the
doctrinall
power
of
binding
or
loosing
,
that
it
is
of
no
force
nor
validity
unlesse
two
at
least
agree
in
the
same
doctrine
,
as
hath
been
said
;
two
must
agree
in
that
sentence
or
censure
,
which
is
desired
to
be
ratified
in
Heaven
,
and
then
they
binding
on
Earth
,
and
unanimously
calling
upon
God
to
ratifie
it
in
Heaven
,
it
shall
be
done
.
Fourthly
,
this
binding
and
loosing
can
not
goe
without
the
Church
,
it
is
applicable
to
none
but
a
Church
member
or
a
Brother
.
So
the
threed
of
the
Text
goes
along
from
vers.
15.
If
thy
Brother
trespasse
against
thee
,
and
vers.
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
authority
,
and
of
whom
there
is
hope
that
he
will
heare
the
Church
.
And
when
it
is
said
,
Let
him
be
unto
thee
as
an
Heathen
man
and
a
Publican
,
it
is
supposed
that
formerly
he
was
not
unto
us
as
an
Heathen
man
and
a
Publican
.
For
these
and
the
like
reasons
Tostatus
in
Matth.
18.
quaest.
91.
and
divers
others
hold
that
this
rule
of
Christ
is
not
applicable
to
those
who
are
without
the
Church
.
But
if
the
binding
and
loosing
be
meant
onely
of
preaching
the
Gospell
,
as
Master
Prynne
would
have
it
,
then
it
were
applicable
to
those
that
are
not
yet
baptised
nor
made
Church
members
,
for
unto
such
the
Gospell
hath
been
and
may
be
preached
.
The
binding
and
loosing
which
is
proper
to
a
Brother
or
to
a
Church
member
,
must
be
a
juridicall
power
of
censures
,
of
which
the
Apostle
saith
,
1
Cor.
5.
12.
What
have
I
to
doe
to
judge
them
also
that
are
without
?
Doe
not
ye
judge
them
that
are
within
?
Therefore
Chrysostome
Hom.
61.
in
Matth.
(
according
to
the
Greeke
Hom.
60.
)
doth
parallel
Matth.
18.
with
1
Cor.
5.
proving
that
this
rule
of
Christ
is
not
applicable
to
one
that
is
without
,
but
onely
to
a
brother
.
Which
Paul
also
saith
in
these
words
,
What
have
I
to
doe
to
judge
them
also
that
are
without
?
But
he
commandeth
us
to
convince
and
reduce
brethren
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
and
to
cut
off
the
disobedient
:
this
he
(
Christ
)
doth
also
in
this
place
.
Theophylact
also
on
Matth.
18.
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
meanes
have
been
essayed
,
ante
tentanda
omnia
saith
Munsterus
,
first
a
private
admonition
,
then
before
witnesses
,
then
the
matter
is
brought
to
the
Church
,
the
Church
declareth
and
judgeth
,
the
offender
neglecteth
to
heare
the
Church
,
then
after
all
this
commeth
the
binding
,
which
must
needs
be
a
binding
with
censures
;
for
that
binding
which
Master
Prynne
speakes
of
,
the
denouncing
of
the
wrath
of
God
against
the
impenitent
,
by
the
preaching
of
the
Gospell
,
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
,
vers.
16.
But
that
of
two
or
three
witnesses
relateth
to
a
forensicall
or
judiciall
proceeding
,
as
Mr
Prynne
himselfe
tels
us
.
These
witnesses
may
be
brought
before
the
Ecclesiasticall
court
,
either
to
prove
the
offenders
contumacy
being
admonished
,
or
to
prove
the
scandalous
fact
it selfe
,
which
was
from
the
beginning
knowne
to
two
or
three
witnesses
,
according
to
the
sence
of
Schoolmen
,
expressed
in
the
precedent
Chapter
.
Seventhly
,
this
phrase
of
binding
and
loosing
is
taken
both
from
the
Hebrews
,
and
from
the
Grecians
.
But
both
the
Hebrews
and
the
Grecians
used
these
words
in
a
juridicall
sence
,
as
I
observed
in
the
beginning
.
Eighthly
,
that
the
binding
and
loosing
Matth.
18.
18.
is
juridicall
,
not
doctrinall
,
belonging
to
the
power
of
jurisdiction
,
not
of
order
,
is
the
sence
of
the
ancients
above
cited
,
as
likewise
of
Scotus
lib.
4.
Sent.
Dist.
19.
Quaest.
1.
art.
5.
Tostatus
in
Matth.
18.
Quest.
113.
yea
the
current
both
of
Schoolmen
and
of
Interpreters
,
as
well
Protestant
,
as
Popish
,
runneth
that
way
.
It
were
too
long
to
cite
all
.
Yea
further
Salmasius
in
appar
.
ad
lib.
de
primatu
p●…p
.
296.
understands
the
binding
and
loosing
Matth.
16.
19.
Ioh.
20.
23.
of
Discipline
.
So
Walaeus
Tom.
1.
pag.
92.
So
divers
others
.
From
the
same
places
Aretius
Theol.
probl.
loc
.
133.
de
excom
.
draws
Excommunication
as
an
Ordinance
of
Christ
.
From
the
same
two
Texts
Ioh.
20.
23.
and
Matth.
16.
19.
Dionysius
Areop
agita
de
Ecclesiastica
Hierarchia
cap.
7.
sect.
7.
doth
prove
that
Christ
hath
committed
unto
the
Ministers
of
the
Church
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
His
ancient
Scholiast
Maximus
upon
that
place
tels
us
,
that
he
speaks
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
of
excommunications
and
separations
,
or
(
as
he
there
further
explaineth
)
the
judging
and
separating
between
the
righteous
and
the
wicked
.
Salmeron
upon
Matth.
16.
19.
thinks
that
the
latter
part
of
that
verse
,
And
whatsoever
thou
shalt
binde
on
Earth
,
&c.
doth
belong
to
the
power
of
jurisdiction
and
censure
:
Hugo
de
S.
Victore
de
Sacramentis
lib.
1.
cap.
26.
doth
also
expound
Matth.
16.
19.
of
the
forensicall
power
of
Excommunication
.
Now
if
in
these
places
binding
and
loosing
,
remitting
and
retaining
sinnes
comprehend
a
juridicall
power
of
laying
on
or
taking
off
Church
censures
;
how
much
more
must
this
Juridicall
power
be
comprehended
Matth.
18.
18.
where
the
context
and
circumstances
will
much
more
enforce
this
sence
,
then
in
the
other
two
places
?
this
binding
and
loosing
being
also
in
the
plurall
number
,
Whatsoever
ye
bind
,
&c.
not
in
the
singular
,
as
the
phrase
is
Matth.
16.
19.
Whatsoever
thou
shalt
bind
&c.
One
Minister
may
bind
doctrinally
,
but
one
alone
can
not
bind
juridically
.
Ninthly
,
the
very
doctrinall
or
concionall
binding
which
is
yeelded
by
Mr
Prynne
,
is
voyded
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
,
Matth.
26.
27
,
28.
Drinke
ye
all
of
it
,
for
this
is
my
blood
of
the
New
Testament
,
which
is
shed
for
many
for
the
remission
of
sinnes
.
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
Sacrament
.
Surely
he
that
is
to
be
bound
by
the
word
,
ought
also
to
be
bound
by
suspension
from
the
Sacrament
,
unlesse
we
make
one
publique
Ordinance
to
contradict
another
.
Tenthly
,
doth
Mr
Prynne
believe
that
Jesus
Christ
hath
any
where
given
to
Church-officers
a
forensicall
or
juridicall
power
of
binding
by
Excommunication
,
and
loosing
by
Absolution
or
receiving
againe
into
the
communion
of
the
Church
?
If
he
doth
believe
it
,
then
I
aske
where
hath
Christ
committed
that
power
unto
them
,
if
not
Matth.
18
?
If
he
doth
not
believe
that
Christ
hath
given
any
such
power
,
then
why
doth
he
hold
Excommunication
to
be
lawfull
and
warrantable
by
the
Word
of
God
▪
Most
certaine
it
is
,
that
neither
King
,
nor
Parliament
,
nor
Eldership
,
nor
Synod
,
nor
any
power
on
earth
,
may
or
ought
to
prohibite
or
keepe
backe
from
the
Sacrament
such
as
Christ
hath
not
commanded
to
be
kept
backe
,
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
Matth.
18.
19.
with
Psalm
149.
6
,
7
,
8
,
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
pnnishments
upon
the
people
.
To
bind
their
Kings
with
chaines
,
and
their
Nobles
with
fetters
of
Iron
,
To
execute
upon
them
the
judgement
written
:
This
honour
have
all
his
Saints
.
Which
both
Jewish
and
Christian
Interpreters
referre
to
the
Kingdome
of
Christ
,
out
of
whose
mouth
proceedeth
a
two-edged
Sword
,
Revel.
1.
16.
&
2.
12.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
the
phrase
used
in
the
Greeke
version
of
Psalm
149.
If
it
should
be
understood
of
temporall
or
externall
victories
and
conquests
of
the
Nations
and
their
Kings
,
so
it
was
not
fulfilled
to
the
Jews
in
the
old
Testament
;
and
the
Jewes
doe
now
but
in
vaine
flatter
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.
6.
2.
and
then
vengeance
shall
be
executed
on
the
wicked
,
and
all
they
who
would
not
have
Christ
to
reigne
over
them
shall
be
bound
hand
and
foot
and
cast
into
utter
darknesse
.
This
is
the
sence
of
Arnobius
upon
the
place
,
and
the
Jesuits
of
Doway
,
Emmanuel
Sa
,
Jansenius
,
Lorinus
,
Menochius
goe
that
way
.
The
other
Exposition
holds
an
accomplishment
of
the
thing
in
this
same
world
,
and
this
in
a
Spirituall
sence
,
concerning
the
Kingdome
of
Christ
in
this
world
,
is
holden
by
Calvin
,
Bucer
,
Westmeherus
,
Heshusius
,
Gesuerus
,
Fabritius
,
and
others
.
So
the
Dutch
Annotations
,
Augustine
and
Hierome
,
both
of
them
upon
the
place
,
take
the
sword
,
and
the
chaine
,
and
fetters
to
be
meant
of
the
word
of
God
conquering
and
overcomming
aliens
,
and
Hereticks
,
and
the
mightiest
enemies
;
which
others
cleare
from
Isa.
45.
14.
Men
of
stature
shall
come
over
unto
thee
,
and
they
shall
be
thine
,
they
shall
come
after
thee
,
in
chaines
they
shall
come
over
.
But
because
the
Psalmist
maketh
mention
of
a
corrective
or
punitive
judiciary
power
,
therefore
others
▪
adde
for
making
the
sence
more
full
,
the
power
of
excommunication
;
for
which
Lorinus
citeth
Bruno
,
and
Hugo
Victorinus
.
Of
the
Protestant
Interpreters
upon
the
place
,
Gesnerus
,
applieth
it
to
the
power
of
the
Keyes
,
to
be
made
use
of
according
to
that
which
is
written
Math.
18.
Fabritius
conceiveth
the
Text
to
comprehend
castigationes
spirituales
,
and
he
citeth
Math.
16.
19.
Math.
18.
18.
Io.
20.
23.
Heshusius
cleareth
it
by
the
Instance
of
Theodosius
excommunicated
by
Ambrose
,
Master
Cotton
in
his
Keyes
of
the
Kingdom
of
heaven
pag.
53.
applyeth
it
to
the
Ecclesiasticall
power
of
the
Keyes
.
Bartholomaeus
Coppen
understands
it
of
the
spirituall
rule
and
Kingdom
of
Christ
,
and
makes
it
paralell
to
2
Cor.
10.
4.
the
weapons
of
our
warrefare
are
not
carnall
but
mighty
through
God
,
to
the
pulling
downe
of
strong
holds
,
vers.
6.
and
having
in
readinesse
to
revenge
all
disobedience
.
This
judiciary
Ecclesiasticall
power
is
to
be
executed
upon
all
such
of
the
nations
as
fall
under
the
Government
of
the
Church
according
to
the
rule
of
Christ
.
And
this
honour
have
all
his
Saints
,
that
their
Ministers
are
armed
with
a
power
.
They
that
follow
this
latter
exposition
will
be
easily
induced
to
beleive
that
the
binding
and
loosing
Mat.
18.
19.
is
also
judiciall
or
juridicall
:
They
that
follow
the
former
exposition
,
will
also
observe
that
the
phrase
of
binding
in
Scripture
,
even
where
it
is
ascribed
to
the
Church
or
Saints
,
is
used
in
a
judiciary
sence
,
and
therefore
it
is
most
sutable
to
the
Scripture
phrase
to
understand
Mat.
18
,
19.
in
that
sence
.
As
touching
that
other
Exposition
of
the
binding
and
loosing
,
that
the
object
it
is
exercised
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
forensicall
binding
and
loosing
even
of
persons
.
Onely
I
shall
adde
these
further
considerations
.
First
,
the
binding
and
loosing
are
Acts
of
the
power
of
the
Keyes
,
and
are
exercised
about
the
same
object
,
about
which
the
power
of
the
Keyes
is
exercised
Math.
16.
19.
Now
the
power
of
the
Keyes
is
exercised
about
persons
,
for
the
Kingdom
of
heaven
is
opened
or
shut
to
persons
,
not
to
Doctrines
.
If
it
be
said
that
the
Keyes
are
for
opening
and
shutting
,
not
for
binding
and
loosing
,
to
this
I
answer
with
Alexr
.
Alensis
part
4.
Quaest.
20.
Membr
.
5.
that
these
Keyes
are
as
well
for
binding
and
loosing
as
for
shutting
and
opening
;
but
the
Act
of
binding
and
loosing
doth
agree
to
the
Keyes
immediately
and
in
respect
of
the
subject
;
but
the
act
of
opening
in
reference
to
the
last
end
.
Ibid.
Membr
.
2.
He
had
given
this
reason
why
the
power
of
the
Keyes
is
called
the
power
of
binding
and
loosing
,
because
although
to
open
and
shut
be
the
more
proper
Acts
of
the
Keyes
themselves
,
yet
neverthelesse
to
loose
and
bind
are
the
more
proper
Acts
in
reference
to
those
who
are
to
enter
into
the
Kingdome
,
or
to
be
excluded
from
the
same
;
for
the
persons
themselves
which
doe
repent
,
are
the
subject
of
loosing
:
and
they
that
repent
not
,
of
binding
.
Which
is
not
so
of
opening
and
shutting
;
for
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
Keyes
,
because
a
man
is
bound
before
he
be
shut
up
,
and
loosed
before
the
door
be
opened
to
him
.
Secondly
,
that
Glosse
which
now
I
despute
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
againe
;
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
excepted
from
being
the
object
of
binding
and
loosing
Matth.
18
?
Fourthly
,
that
of
binding
and
loosing
Mat.
18.
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
farre
as
retaining
or
remitting
of
sinnes
Io.
20.
23.
but
there
it
is
Whosoever
sinnes
ye
remit
,
&c.
They
whose
sinnes
are
retained
,
are
bound
.
Wherefore
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
whatsoever
Mat.
18.
18.
is
put
for
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
whomsoever
,
by
an
Hypallage
generis
,
many
examples
whereof
may
be
given
in
Scripture
:
so
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Io.
1.
11.
is
expounded
by
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
:
and
all
things
that
offend
Mat.
13.
41.
expounded
by
them
that
doe
iniquity
.
Vnlesse
you
please
to
understand
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
whatsoever
sinnes
ye
bind
upon
men
or
loose
from
off
them
,
they
shall
be
bound
upon
them
or
loosed
from
off
them
in
heaven
.
CHAP.
VII
.
That
1
Cor.
5.
proveth
Excommunication
and
(
by
a
necessary
consequence
even
from
the
Erastian
Interpretation
)
Suspension
from
the
Sacrament
of
a
person
unexcommunicated
.
MAster
Prynne
in
his
first
Quaere
did
aske
whether
that
phrase
1
Cor.
5.
To
deliver
such
a
one
to
Sathan
,
be
properly
meant
of
excommunication
or
suspension
from
the
Sacrament
onely
.
This
,
he
saith
,
I
did
in
my
Sermon
wave
with
a
rhetoricall
preterition
.
I
answer
for
the
latter
part
of
the
Quaere
,
I
know
not
the
least
ground
,
for
who
did
ever
expound
it
of
suspension
from
the
Sacrament
onely
?
for
the
former
part
of
it
,
it
s
not
necessary
to
be
debated
,
therefore
for
husbanding
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
excommunication
;
and
that
we
have
a
shorter
way
to
prove
excommunication
from
the
last
words
of
that
Chapter
as
Doctor
Moulin
doth
in
his
Vates
lib.
2.
cap.
11.
And
if
I
should
grant
that
delivering
such
a
one
to
Sathan
signifieth
either
of
those
things
which
Master
Prynne
conceiveth
,
that
is
,
a
bodily
possession
,
torture
,
or
vexation
by
Sathan
,
inflicted
either
by
the
apostolicall
power
of
miracles
,
or
by
Gods
immediate
permission
:
yet
that
will
not
prove
that
it
signifieth
no
more
.
Therefore
Peter
Martyr
upon
the
place
,
thinks
that
the
Apostles
delivering
of
the
man
to
Sathan
by
a
miraculous
act
,
and
the
Churches
delivering
of
him
to
Sathan
by
Excommunication
,
doe
very
well
stand
together
.
So
Synop.
pur
.
Theol.
disp
.
48.
Thes.
40
▪
and
he
alloweth
of
both
these
expositions
;
and
afterward
in
his
common
place
of
excommunication
he
speaketh
of
Gods
cooperating
with
the
Church
censure
,
by
punishing
the
Excommunicate
person
with
diabolicall
vexations
.
Sure
I
am
an
excommunicate
person
may
truly
be
said
to
be
delivered
to
Sathan
,
who
is
the
God
and
Prince
of
this
world
and
reigneth
in
the
Children
of
disobedience
.
But
Master
Prynne
will
find
himself
difficulted
to
prove
that
tradere
Satanae
1
Cor.
5.
is
onely
meant
of
a
miraculous
or
extraordinary
act
,
or
to
shew
how
or
why
the
Apostle
requireth
the
Assembling
of
the
Church
and
their
consent
to
the
working
of
a
miracle
.
Which
(
if
there
were
no
more
)
may
discover
the
weaknesse
of
Master
Prynnes
notions
concerning
delivering
to
Sathan
6
,
7
,
8.
But
as
the
full
debate
were
long
,
so
it
were
not
necessary
,
since
Master
Prynne
doth
now
himself
acknowledge
that
the
last
verse
of
that
Chapter
proveth
excommunication
,
vindic
.
pag.
2.
I
come
therefore
to
the
next
,
which
he
calls
the
fourth
difference
,
whether
1
Cor.
5.
11.
with
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
suspension
from
the
Sacrament
so
much
as
by
necessary
consequence
.
But
let
us
see
whether
his
reasons
can
weaken
the
proof
of
Suspension
from
vers.
11.
first
he
saith
there
is
not
one
syllable
of
receiving
or
eating
of
the
Lords
Supper
in
this
Chapter
.
I
answer
,
the
question
is
neither
of
syllables
nor
words
but
of
things
,
and
how
will
he
prove
that
vers.
8.
Let
us
keep
the
feast
,
not
with
old
leavon
,
&c.
is
not
applicable
to
the
Lords
Supper
,
I
say
not
to
it
onely
,
yet
surely
it
cannot
be
excluded
,
but
must
needs
becomprehended
as
one
part
,
yea
,
a
principall
part
of
the
meaning
,
the
better
to
answer
the
Analogy
of
the
passeover
,
(
there
much
insisted
upon
.
)
He
may
be
pleased
also
to
remember
that
he
himself
pag.
24.
proving
the
passeover
and
the
Lords
Supper
to
be
the
same
for
the
substance
,
for
proof
hereof
citeth
1
Cor.
5.
7.
and
that
Aretius
Theol
probl.
loc
.
80.
expoundeth
our
Feast
of
the
Passeover
1
Cor.
5.
to
be
meant
of
the
Lords
Supper
.
But
he
further
objecteth
from
1
Cor.
10.
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
at
the
Israelites
under
the
Law
,
did
all
eat
the
same
spirituall
Meat
,
and
all
Drinke
the
same
spirituall
Drinke
though
God
were
displeased
with
many
of
them
who
were
Idolaters
,
tempters
of
God
,
fornicators
,
murmurers
,
and
were
destroyed
in
the
wildernesse
.
1
Cor.
10.
1.
to
12.
so
all
under
the
Gospell
who
were
visible
members
of
●…he
Church
of
Corinth
,
did
eat
and
drink
the
Lords
Supper
to
which
some
drunkards
whiles
drunken
did
then
resort
,
as
is
clear
by
1
Cor.
11.
20.
21.
Which
Paul
indeed
reprehends
vers.
22.
Answ.
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
,
&
the
word
all
can
be
of
no
larger
extent
then
visible
Saints
,
to
whom
the
Epistle
is
directed
1
Cor.
1.
2.
and
cannot
be
applyed
to
visible
workers
of
iniquity
,
who
continue
impenitent
and
obstinate
in
so
doing
.
As
we
may
joyn
in
communion
with
a
visible
Church
,
which
hath
the
externall
markes
of
a
Church
,
though
it
be
not
a
true
invisible
Church
;
so
we
joyne
with
visible
Saints
to
become
one
body
with
them
in
externall
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
joyne
in
Church
Communion
;
and
if
a
man
be
visibly
no
Saint
,
he
ought
not
to
be
admitted
to
the
communion
of
Saints
.
I
shall
never
be
perswaded
,
that
the
Apostle
Paul
would
say
of
himselfe
and
the
Saints
at
Corinth
,
We
are
one
body
with
known
Idolaters
,
Fornicators
,
Drunkards
and
the
like
.
2
If
all
in
the
Church
of
Corinth
,
(
none
excluded
)
even
drunkards
whiles
drunken
,
and
if
all
under
the
Gospell
who
are
visible
members
of
the
Church
ought
to
be
admitted
to
eat
the
same
spirituall
meat
and
drinke
the
same
spirituall
drink
at
the
Lords
Table
,
as
he
supposeth
that
in
the
wildernesse
all
the
Israelites
did
the
like
,
who
were
Idolaters
,
Fornicators
,
&c.
Then
I
beseech
you
observe
how
Master
Prynne
doth
by
all
this
overthrow
his
owne
rules
;
for
pag.
2.
and
elsewhere
he
tells
us
he
would
have
notorious
scandalous
sinners
who
after
admonition
persevere
in
their
iniquities
without
remorse
of
conscience
or
amendment
to
be
excommunicated
from
the
Church
and
from
the
society
of
the
faithfull
in
all
publike
Ordinances
?
If
both
in
the
Church
of
Israel
and
in
the
Church
of
Corinth
,
all
were
admitted
and
none
excluded
,
even
those
who
were
Idolaters
or
drunkards
,
whiles
actually
such
without
repentance
or
amendment
;
how
can
Master
Prynne
straiten
Christians
,
now
more
then
Moses
did
the
Jewes
,
or
Paul
the
Corinthians
?
Since
therefore
his
Arguments
drive
at
it
,
it
s
best
he
should
speak
it
out
,
that
all
manner
of
persons
who
professe
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
Lords
Table
.
3
He
shall
never
be
able
to
prove
either
that
those
drunken
persons
1
Cor.
11.
21.
were
drunken
when
they
did
resort
to
the
Church
,
(
for
it
was
in
the
Church
and
in
eating
and
drinking
there
,
that
they
made
themselves
drunke
)
nor
yet
that
the
Idolaters
and
Fornicators
in
the
wildernesse
their
eating
of
the
spirituall
meat
and
drinking
of
the
spirituall
drinke
mentioned
by
the
Apostle
1
Cor.
10.
was
after
their
Idolatries
and
Fornications
:
But
of
this
latter
,
I
have
elsewhere
spoken
distinctly
and
by
it self
.
4
To
say
that
all
who
were
visible
members
of
the
Church
of
Corinth
were
admitted
,
and
none
excluded
,
and
to
say
it
with
a
certainly
is
to
make
too
bold
with
Scripture
.
And
the
contrary
will
sooner
be
proved
from
1
Cor.
10.
21.
ye
cannot
drink
the
cup
of
the
Lord
and
the
cup
of
Devills
:
ye
cannot
be
partakers
of
the
Lords
Table
and
of
the
Table
of
Devills
.
So
much
for
his
first
exception
.
His
second
is
concerning
persons
(
but
not
to
the
purpose
)
that
if
we
looke
upon
the
catalogue
of
those
with
whom
we
are
forbidden
to
eat
,
not
onely
shall
most
of
the
Anabaptisticall
and
Independent
Congregations
,
but
too
many
Presbyterian
ministers
and
Elders
,
who
are
most
foreward
to
excommunicate
others
for
Idolatry
,
Fornication
,
Drunkennesse
,
must
first
be
excommunicated
themselves
for
their
owne
covetousnesse
.
Answ.
Let
it
light
where
it
may
,
Ministers
doe
not
stand
nor
fall
to
his
Judgement
▪
but
where
just
proof
can
fasten
either
covetousnesse
or
any
other
scandalous
sinne
upon
them
,
it
s
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
peece
from
Oxford
,
it
calls
to
my
thoughts
so
many
expressions
in
Pamphlets
from
thence
,
aspersing
London
and
Westminster
,
as
more
full
of
covetousnesse
,
lying
,
hypocrisie
,
then
Oxford
of
bloody
Oathes
,
Masses
and
the
like
.
Thirdly
,
saith
he
,
it
is
as
clear
as
the
noone
day
sunne
,
that
,
no
not
to
e●…t
,
in
this
Text
is
no
more
,
then
not
to
keep
company
,
or
hold
civill
familiarity
with
such
.
What
?
as
cleare
as
the
noon
day
sun
?
let
us
open
our
eyes
then
to
see
this
meridian
light
;
first
saith
he
,
no
not
to
eat
,
is
interpreted
in
the
Text
it self
by
not
to
keep
company
,
which
we
find
twice
in
the
preceding
words
,
eating
together
being
one
of
the
highest
expressions
of
outward
friendship
and
familiarity
.
Had
the
Apostle
said
simply
,
not
to
eat
▪
this
Argument
had
been
the
more
colourable
,
but
after
he
had
twice
said
,
not
to
keep
company
,
to
adde
no
not
to
eat
,
[
b
](A42757-e89430-b)
b
Magdeb.
Cent.
1
lib.
2.
cap.
4.
pag.
275.
edit.
1624
giving
the
sence
of
this
very
place
,
they
say
.
Atque
ita
excludantur
a
communione
Ecclesiae
,
ut
non
modo
arceantur
ab
usu
sacramen
:
orum
,
sed
etiam
à
commerció
,
ne
cibus
quidem
cum
iis
capiatur
.
Novariuus
upon
the
place
expreseth
the
Apostles
meaning
in
these
words
of
Ambrose
.
Cum
fraire
in
quo
vi●…ia
haec
reperiuntur
,
non
solùm
Sacramenta
non
edenda
,
sed
nec
communem
escam
docet
,
ut
erubescat
quum
vitatur
&
se
currigat
.
doth
plainly
intimate
that
the
Apostle
argueth
from
the
lesse
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
lesse
permitted
:
and
what
is
that
?
(
eating
together
being
as
Master
Prynne
saith
one
of
the
highest
expressions
of
outward
friendship
and
familiarity
.
)
Must
it
not
be
communion
in
the
holy
things
,
and
especially
the
receiving
such
a
one
to
the
Lords
Table
?
as
if
he
had
said
,
If
scandalous
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
extreamly
blamed
2
Pet.
2.
13.
Iude
v.
12.
Put
case
that
a
Parliament
man
or
a
Divine
of
the
Assembly
were
known
(
as
God
forbid
)
to
be
an
Incendiary
,
an
active
malignant
,
a
traytor
,
a
blasphemer
,
so
that
no
raher
Parliament
man
or
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
distributively
shall
not
so
much
as
eat
with
a
scandalous
person
,
and
yet
the
whole
Church
Collectively
shall
eat
with
him
,
in
that
very
action
which
is
a
symbole
of
the
communion
of
Saints
?
So
that
if
I
should
now
admit
that
sence
,
that
these
words
no
not
to
eat
,
amount
to
no
more
then
not
to
keep
company
,
or
hold
civill
familiarity
with
such
,
(
as
Mr.
Prynne
expresseth
it
)
yet
the
Argument
will
stand
firme
and
strong
in
regard
of
this
necessary
consequence
.
If
a
private
Christian
ought
not
to
hold
so
much
as
civill
fellowship
with
a
scandalous
brother
not
excommunicated
,
much
lesse
ought
the
Church
to
admit
him
to
Church
communion
in
all
publike
Ordinances
;
(
there
being
lesse
latitude
,
&
the
rule
much
stricter
in
this
Communion
than
in
private
civill
fellowship
,
)
&
if
we
be
forbidden
to
do
so
much
as
to
eat
with
such
a
one
at
a
common
meal
,
quanto
magis
convictu
sacro
saith
Pareus
upon
the
place
,
how
much
more
is
the
Church
forbidden
to
receive
him
to
the
Lords
Table
?
for
if
the
end
of
avoiding
private
company
with
such
a
one
be
to
make
him
ashamed
,
as
the
Erastians
themselves
doe
confesse
from
2
Thes.
3.
14.
were
it
not
contrary
to
that
end
to
countenance
and
embolden
him
by
receiving
him
to
publike
Church
communion
at
the
Lords
Table
?
Surely
the
refusing
of
the
private
could
not
so
much
put
him
to
shame
,
as
the
admission
to
the
publike
should
put
respects
upon
him
.
Wherefore
1
Cor.
5.
11.
as
it
is
interpreted
by
Master
Prynne
proveth
by
a
necessary
consequence
the
Suspension
from
the
Sacrament
of
a
scandalous
Church-Member
not
excommunicated
.
If
his
next
reason
help
him
not
,
surely
his
sun
will
go
down
at
noon
,
He
citeth
some
paralell
Texts
,
which
interpret
not
to
eat
here
,
of
avoiding
them
,
turning
away
from
and
rejecting
them
,
&c.
which
are
no
judiciall
acts
of
the
Presbytery
,
but
morall
or
prudentiall
acts
of
particular
Christians
.
Answ.
There
is
a
judiciall
Presbyteriall
act
,
(
as
very
many
conceive
)
in
some
of
those
paralell
Texts
cited
by
him
2
Thess.
3.
14.
Tit.
3.
10.
and
so
his
proof
is
no
lesse
questionable
,
then
the
thing
he
would
prove
by
it
.
And
here
the
Apostle
intendeth
more
then
a
voluntary
prudentiall
withdrawing
of
particular
Christians
,
even
a
judiciall
act
,
in
the
very
next
words
,
What
have
I
to
doe
to
judge
them
also
that
are
without
?
doe
not
ye
judge
them
that
are
within
?
where
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
guity
of
the
same
faults
.
The
reason
,
because
Church-censures
are
onely
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.
5.
11.
he
comes
in
the
next
place
to
answer
the
argument
drawn
by
consequence
▪
If
we
may
not
so
much
as
eate
with
such
a
one
at
our
owne
Tables
,
farre
lesse
at
the
Lords
Table
.
Whereunto
his
answer
is
,
The
argument
is
fallacions
,
saith
he
,
because
it
varieth
in
the
kinde
of
eating
,
the
one
being
civill
,
the
other
spirituall
;
the
one
private
in
ones
owne
house
,
or
anothers
,
where
he
hath
absolute
freedome
or
liberty
to
eate
or
not
to
eate
with
another
,
the
other
publike
in
the
Church
,
&c.
But
all
this
(
say
I
)
maketh
our
argument
the
stronger
;
for
if
it
be
sinne
to
a
private
man
to
eate
in
his
owne
house
with
a
scandalous
brother
,
though
this
be
but
a
civill
fellowship
in
which
there
is
more
liberty
and
lesse
latitude
than
in
religious
fellowship
;
how
much
more
sinfull
is
it
for
Church-officers
to
admit
such
a
one
to
Sacramentall
eating
with
the
Church
?
And
for
that
first
rule
of
his
,
that
arguments
from
the
lesse
t
the
greater
are
not
conclusive
,
except
in
the
same
kind
of
action
,
it
s
utterly
untrue
.
For
the
holy
Scripture
it selfe
hath
divers
arguments
from
the
lesse
to
the
greater
,
where
the
kind
is
no
lesse
different
,
if
not
more
,
than
private
civill
eating
together
is
from
publique
eating
together
at
the
Table
of
the
Lord
,
as
Numb
.
12.
14.
If
Miriams
father
had
spit
in
her
face
,
should
she
not
be
ashamed
seven
daies
?
how
much
more
when
God
hath
smitten
her
with
leprosie
for
speaking
against
his
servant
Moses
?
H●…g
.
1.
4.
you
have
built
to
your selves
ceiled
houses
,
how
much
more
ought
ye
to
have
built
the
house
of
the
Lord
?
Ioh.
3.
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.
6.
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
b●…th
under
the
self-same
precept
.
If
this
be
a
just
exception
against
our
argument
,
then
one
cannot
argue
thus
,
It
s
a
sinne
to
steale
a
mans
private
goods
,
how
much
more
to
steale
that
which
is
holy
?
It
s
a
sinne
to
reproach
a
mans
name
,
how
much
more
to
reproach
Gods
Name
?
These
doe
not
fall
under
the
selfe-same
precept
?
shall
such
arguments
be
therefore
inconcludent
?
Whence
comes
all
this
new
logick
which
the
world
never
knew
before
?
His
third
condition
(
let
it
be
remembred
he
saith
,
if
either
of
these
three
conditions
faile
,
the
argument
is
inconseqent
)
is
,
that
it
must
be
within
the
compasse
of
the
same
power
.
If
it
be
so
,
how
shall
that
hold
universally
true
?
H●…w
much
better
is
it
to
get
wisdome
then
Gold
?
and
to
get
understanding
rather
to
be
chosen
then
Silver
?
By
Mr
Prynnes
rule
it
must
onely
hold
true
in
this
case
,
when
it
fals
within
the
compasse
of
the
same
power
to
get
both
Wisdome
and
Gold
?
However
if
he
had
apprehended
out
argument
aright
,
he
had
perceived
that
the
Iesser
thing
,
and
the
greater
thing
are
both
within
the
compasse
of
the
same
power
.
The
Church
of
Corinth
ought
not
to
eate
with
such
a
one
at
common
Tables
:
therefore
not
at
the
Lords
Table
.
For
this
refusing
to
eate
with
such
a
one
at
common
Tables
,
was
by
vertue
of
a
judiciall
Ecclesiasticall
sentence
passed
against
the
scandalous
person
.
So
that
when
Mr
Prynne
saith
We
have
free
power
not
to
eate
Bread
with
those
at
our
own
Tables
,
with
whom
we
have
no
power
or
liberty
left
us
by
Christ
,
to
refuse
to
eate
with
them
at
the
Lords
Table
,
and
thereupon
supposeth
that
our
argumentation
from
that
Text
is
one
principall
cause
and
prop
of
Independency
,
yea
of
separation
,
not
onely
from
Sacraments
,
but
from
Churches
:
he
doth
altogether
misapprehend
the
businesse
.
For
1.
Separation
from
Churches
is
properly
a
renouncing
of
membership
as
unlawfull
:
our
argument
concerneth
the
unlawfulnesse
of
a
particular
act
,
not
of
a
membership
in
such
a
Church
.
2.
The
causes
and
motives
of
separation
suppose
either
an
unlawfull
constitution
of
Churches
,
or
an
unlawfull
government
of
Churches
,
or
both
,
so
farre
,
that
they
who
separate
hold
it
unlawfnll
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
admitted
to
the
Sacrament
.
3.
The
great
mistake
lieth
in
this
,
that
our
present
controversie
is
apprehended
to
be
whether
every
particular
Christian
hath
power
or
liberty
from
Christ
to
withdraw
from
the
Sacrament
,
because
of
the
admission
of
a
scandalous
person
.
Whereas
our
Question
is
onely
of
the
Churches
power
to
suspend
a
scandalous
person
from
the
Sacrament
,
and
when
the
Apostle
vers.
9.
10
,
11.
forbiddeth
to
be
mixed
or
so
much
as
to
eate
with
such
and
such
scandalous
members
of
the
Church
,
he
meaneth
of
Church-discipline
and
Excommunication
,
which
he
had
begun
to
speak
of
,
and
so
he
comes
to
shew
them
what
kinde
of
persons
[
c
](A42757-e89910-b)
c
Gualther
archel
.
in
1
Cor.
5.
11.
Catalogus
eorum
qui
debent
excommunica●i
.
Tossanus
ibid.
Quod
cibum
non
vult
sumi
cum
iis
,
pertinet
id
quidem
ad
disciplinam
excommunica●ionis
.
Martyr
ibid.
Notandum
praeterea
,
non
esse
privatorum
hominum
ut
quisque
pro
sus
libidine
ab
hoc
vel
ab
illo
,
quem
peccasse
fortè
suspicatus
fuerit
,
sese
disjungere
velit
.
Ad
commune
judicium
Ecclesiae
pertinet
.
Angust
.
Hom.
50
joyneth
1
Cor.
5.
v.
11.
with
v.
12
,
13.
and
then
saith
,
Quibus
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
oftendit
non
●…emerè
aut
quomodolibet
,
sed
per
judicium
●…uferondos
esse
〈◊〉
ab
Ecclesiae
communione
,
ut
si
per
judicium
auferri
non
possunt
,
tolerentur
potius
,
ne
perverse
malos
quisque
evitando
,
ab
Ecclesia
ipse
discedens
,
eos
quos
fugere
videtur
vinci●…t
ad
gehennam
.
The
same
hath
Bed●…
upon
the
place
out
of
Augustine
▪
So
likewise
Ambr●…se
and
the
Centurists
before
cited
▪
he
would
have
to
be
excommunicated
,
and
used
like
that
incestuous
man
.
So
Beza
,
Bullinger
,
Hunnius
,
Gualther
,
Martyr
,
Tossanus
,
and
others
upon
the
place
.
And
long
before
all
these
Augustine
and
Beda
plainly
expound
the
Apostles
words
of
a
publique
Ecclesiasticall
Judgement
,
past
upon
one
who
hath
either
confessed
his
offence
or
is
formally
accused
and
convict
thereof
;
and
as
they
conceive
,
that
Text
doth
not
at
all
justifie
but
doth
rather
condemne
private
Christians
their
separating
from
the
Church
,
because
of
a
mixture
of
scandalons
persons
.
I
know
we
ought
prudently
and
cautiously
to
endeavour
the
avoyding
of
the
company
and
fellowship
of
scandalous
brethren
,
though
not
yet
censured
in
the
Church
,
(
which
may
be
proved
from
other
Scriptures
)
but
that
is
not
the
point
the
Apostle
is
here
upon
:
he
meanes
by
no
not
to
eate
synecdochically
,
the
whole
casting
off
of
an
excommunicate
person
,
and
all
that
separation
or
withdrawing
which
is
commanded
to
be
made
from
him
,
or
if
you
will
(
by
a
metonimy
of
the
effect
for
the
cause
)
he
meanes
excommunication
it selfe
:
and
however
,
the
words
immediately
following
prove
that
a
publique
judiciall
act
is
intended
as
hath
been
said
before
.
These
things
considered
,
I
shall
not
need
to
be
led
out
of
my
way
by
Mr
Prynnes
descanting
upon
the
meaning
of
1
Cor.
5.
11.
how
farre
it
prohibits
civill
communion
and
eating
with
a
scandalous
Christian
,
being
a
railer
or
fornicator
or
Idolater
,
&c.
I
confesse
some
of
his
limitations
,
as
namely
,
that
we
may
eate
with
such
a●one
in
cases
of
expediency
or
when
we
can
not
avoyd
it
in
civility
nor
without
offence
,
are
very
lubricke
,
unsafe
,
and
ensnaring
,
and
at
best
it
s
but
like
that
in
Martials
Epigramme
Difficilis
,
facilis
,
jucundus
,
acerbus
es
idem
;
Nec
tecum
possum
vivere
,
nec
sine
te
.
But
to
treat
of
that
case
of
conscience
in
generall
is
not
hujus
loci
;
for
this
Text
speaks
of
not
eating
with
an
excommunicate
person
.
Neither
yet
shall
I
need
here
to
examine
Mr
Prynnes
six
considerations
p.
12
,
13
,
14.
which
he
wisheth
to
be
pondered
by
Separatists
and
Independents
misled
,
(
as
he
thinks
)
by
our
fallacious
argument
:
I
hope
he
doth
not
mistake
our
Question
so
farre
as
to
comprehend
the
sinfulnesse
of
any
private
Christian
his
receiving
of
the
Sacrament
,
when
and
where
some
scandalous
sinners
are
admitted
to
the
Sacrament
,
that
private
Christian
not
being
accessary
to
the
sinne
of
the
Minister
and
Eldership
in
admitting
those
scandalous
sinners
.
Wherefore
I
will
adde
eight
counterballancing
considerations
to
prove
from
1
Cor.
5.
[
*
](A42757-e90200-b)
*
The
13
verse
he
yeeldeth
to
be
a
warrant
for
Excommunication
:
yet
he
〈◊〉
concerning
that
also
,
in
Diotre●…
catechised
.
the
first
twelve
verses
thereof
(
all
which
Mr
Prynne
conceiveth
can
not
prove
Excommunication
)
compared
with
2
Cor.
2.
an
Ecclesiasticall
jurisdiction
or
power
of
censures
,
and
particularly
of
Excommunication
.
1.
There
was
a
censure
inflicted
upon
the
incestuous
man
by
the
Eldership
of
the
Church
of
Corinth
,
being
assembled
together
1
Cor.
5.
4
,
5.
Where
read
we
that
ever
the
Church
was
intentionally
gathered
together
,
to
cooperate
with
an
Apostle
in
the
exercise
of
his
miraculous
apostolicall
power
?
But
we
doe
read
that
this
mans
punishment
or
censure
was
inflicted
upon
him
not
by
the
Apostle
alone
but
by
Many
,
2
Cor.
2.
6.
Erastus
pag.
214
▪
thinks
that
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
(
in
our
bookes
rendered
punishment
,
and
in
the
margent
censure
)
was
not
excommunication
,
but
onely
sharpe
objurgation
or
reproofe
.
To
this
I
have
abundantly
answered
Book
2.
chap.
9.
and
in
Male
audis
pag.
12
,
13
,
14.
And
if
it
should
be
granted
that
the
man
was
not
then
excommunicate
but
sharply
and
publiquely
rebuked
(
which
indeed
is
the
opinion
of
some
)
yet
the
Church
of
Corinth
had
proceeded
to
excommunication
,
had
not
written
to
disswade
them
,
if
the
Apostle
and
take
them
off
with
a
Sufficit
,
which
he
neither
needed
nor
would
have
done
,
if
they
had
power
to
doe
no
more
●o
the
offender
then
to
rebuke
him
sharply
.
To
conclude
this
point
,
M
Prynne
granteth
that
1
Cor.
5.
13.
proveth
excommunication
;
and
why
the
gathering
together
,
vers.
4.
should
not
be
intended
for
the
same
worke
,
I
cannot
imagine
?
Some
question
there
was
of
old
whether
the
Apostles
meaning
vers.
13.
were
not
that
the
Corinthians
should
put
away
every
man
out
of
himselfe
the
evill
of
sinne
.
Which
Augustine
having
somewhere
left
in
medio
,
doth
in
his
Retractations
correct
,
(
and
Beda
upon
the
place
out
of
him
tels
us
the
very
same
)
and
expound
it
of
the
taking
away
of
the
evill
man
from
the
Church
by
Excommunication
,
because
saith
he
,
the
Greeke
can
not
be
rendered
hoc
malum
,
but
hunc
malum
.
2.
They
who
had
power
to
receive
him
and
forgive
him
,
and
to
confirme
their
love
towards
him
,
had
power
to
cast
him
out
and
censure
him
;
but
those
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
the
Church
officers
of
the
Church
of
Corinth
had
power
of
the
former
;
Therefore
of
the
latter
.
See
2
Cor.
2.
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
onely
by
the
doctrine
of
remission
of
sinnes
applied
to
him
in
foro
conscientiae
,
upon
evidence
of
his
repentance
:
that
any
one
Minister
might
doe
.
But
the
Apostle
will
have
those
many
who
had
censured
him
consistorially
and
judicially
,
to
forgive
him
in
the
same
manner
.
Which
is
yet
further
confirmed
by
that
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
that
confirming
of
their
love
towards
him
vers.
8.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
is
ratum
facere
,
thence
commeth
not
onely
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
but
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
When
the
Apostle
will
expresse
a
ratified
or
confirmed
testament
Galat.
3.
15.
he
cals
it
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
From
the
same
word
Erasmus
doth
collect
that
the
Apostle
speaketh
to
them
as
the
ordinary
Judges
who
have
power
to
confirme
their
love
to
that
penitent
sinner
in
an
authoritative
manner
.
And
why
doth
the
Apostle
choose
a
word
which
properly
signifi●th
an
authoritative
confirming
or
ratifying
of
a
thing
,
if
he
were
not
speaking
of
a
jurisdiction
and
power
of
inflicting
and
taking
off
againe
censures
?
3.
The
Apostle
upon
occasion
of
that
offenders
case
,
puts
the
Corinthians
in
remembrance
,
that
they
ought
likewise
to
purge
the
Church
from
the
mixture
of
other
scandalous
sinners
,
1
Cor.
5.
9
,
10
,
11
,
12.
The
Chapter
both
begins
and
ends
with
the
case
of
the
incestuous
man
and
his
punishment
;
which
makes
interpreters
conceive
,
that
what
is
enterlaced
concerning
other
scandalous
sinners
in
the
Church
,
is
to
be
understood
of
such
as
the
Apostle
would
have
to
be
censured
in
the
same
manner
as
that
incestuous
man
.
4.
He
instanceth
in
six
cases
,
(
not
intending
an
enumeration
of
all
the
particular
cases
of
Excommunication
)
fornication
,
covetousnesse
,
(
meaning
covetousnesse
scandalously
and
grossely
manifested
,
or
practicall
covetousnesse
,
for
of
the
heart
God
onely
judgeth
)
idolatry
,
railing
,
drunkennesse
,
extortion
.
His
instancing
in
these
,
tels
us
he
intends
not
the
case
of
private
civill
injuries
,
but
of
scandals
,
yea
though
the
scandall
be
without
the
mixture
of
any
civill
or
private
injury
,
as
in
the
case
of
an
Idolater
or
a
drunkard
.
5.
And
even
where
there
is
a
private
injury
wrapt
up
in
the
bosome
of
the
scandall
,
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
onely
the
party
particularly
interrested
and
injured
,
but
the
other
members
of
the
Church
also
to
withdraw
communion
from
the
offender
;
for
he
writeth
to
the
whole
Church
of
Corinth
,
not
to
keepe
company
with
such
.
6.
When
he
saith
,
with
such
a
one
no
not
to
●…ate
,
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
muchlesse
Church
communion
with
him
at
the
Lords
Table
.
7.
He
meanes
not
of
that
withdrawing
whereby
each
Christian
may
and
ought
to
withdraw
familiarity
and
fellowship
from
such
a
notorious
scandalous
sinner
,
whose
sinne
is
manifest
before
hand
,
that
he
may
keep
himselfe
pure
,
and
not
partake
of
another
mans
sinne
:
In
which
case
a
member
of
one
Church
may
withdraw
familiar
conversing
with
a
scandalous
member
of
another
Church
.
But
he
speakes
of
such
a
withdrawing
from
and
avoyding
of
the
fellowship
of
a
scandalous
Brother
,
as
is
done
not
by
one
or
some
few
private
Christians
,
but
by
the
whole
Church
(
for
hee
writeth
to
the
whole
Church
of
Corinth
,
not
to
company
nor
eate
with
such
a
one
)
I
say
,
by
the
whole
Church
,
whereof
the
offender
was
a
member
:
and
that
not
without
a
judiciall
or
consistoriall
sentence
,
vers.
12.
Doe
not
ye
judge
them
that
are
within
?
which
can
not
be
restricted
to
the
judgement
of
Christian
discretion
and
prudence
(
for
so
both
the
Apostles
and
they
did
judge
those
that
were
without
,
to
walke
circumspectly
toward
them
,
Col.
4.
5.
and
to
beware
of
their
evill
.
)
But
t
is
meant
of
censures
and
punishments
inflicted
by
many
,
that
is
,
by
the
Presbyters
of
that
Church
,
2
Cor.
2.
6.
8.
And
so
I
have
touched
upon
the
last
consideration
,
which
is
this
.
That
as
the
fault
was
a
scandall
given
to
the
Church
,
and
the
judgement
and
censure
was
Ecclesiasticall
,
not
civill
,
so
that
censure
for
that
offence
was
inflicted
onely
upon
Church
members
,
not
upon
unbelievers
.
If
an
unbeliever
did
a
civill
injury
to
a
Christian
,
the
Christian
was
free
to
accuse
the
unbeliever
(
if
he
saw
it
good
)
before
the
civill
Magistrate
,
and
there
to
seeke
judgement
and
justice
.
Or
the
Christian
was
free
to
withdraw
civill
fellowship
from
the
unbeliever
,
which
did
him
a
civill
injury
,
which
I
suppose
Mr
Prynne
will
easily
grant
.
But
this
way
of
censuring
and
punishing
a
scandalous
Church
member
,
did
not
agree
to
an
Heathen
who
was
an
Idolater
,
or
drunkard
,
or
extortioner
,
&c.
Vers.
10
,
11
,
12
,
13.
Thus
I
have
proved
Church
censure
from
1
Cor.
5.
compared
with
2
Cor.
2.
without
laying
the
weight
of
any
argument
upon
Tradere
Sathanae
.
Which
I
would
not
have
to
be
understood
,
as
if
I
yeelded
to
our
opposites
,
that
the
delivering
to
Satan
is
not
meant
of
Excommunication
.
My
meaning
is
onely
to
make
the
shorter
worke
of
the
Erastian
Antithesis
.
The
weight
of
their
arguments
,
not
of
ours
,
is
laid
upon
Tradere
Sathanae
.
But
for
my
sence
of
the
word
,
I
am
of
their
opinion
who
interpret
it
of
Excommunication
;
and
so
doth
Gualther
himselfe
.
So
doth
the
Syriack
,
which
readeth
,
That
you
(
Corinthians
)
may
deliver
such
a
one
to
Satan
.
If
it
was
an
an
act
of
the
Church
of
Corinth
,
then
it
was
a
Church
censure
,
not
a
miracle
.
The
Greeke
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
Canon
.
epist.
Basilii
ad
Amphilo●…
.
C●…n
.
●
.
observeth
.
Basil
speaketh
of
some
who
at
that
time
had
been
delivered
to
Satan
for
30
yeeres
,
that
they
might
learn
not
to
carry
thnmselves
filthily
,
yea
unnaturally
,
as
they
had
done
formerly
:
concerning
whom
he
adviseth
that
now
after
so
long
a
time
,
they
might
be
(
upon
their
spontaneous
confession
of
their
hainous
offence
)
received
againe
into
the
Church
.
Hereupon
Balsamonn
oteth
,
Those
are
said
to
be
delivered
to
Satan
,
who
are
separated
from
the
communion
of
Christians
.
CHAP.
VIII
.
Whether
Judas
received
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lords
Supper
.
Mr.
Prynne
hath
filled
up
a
good
part
of
his
Vindication
with
the
case
of
Iudas
,
as
going
very
farre
in
the
deciding
of
this
present
contoversie
.
But
as
Protestant
writers
answer
the
Papists
in
the
case
of
Peter
,
that
it
cannot
be
proved
tha●
Peter
was
ever
Bishop
of
Rome
,
but
rather
that
he
was
not
;
and
if
he
had
,
this
cannot
prove
the
Popes
Supremacy
:
the
like
I
say
of
this
case
of
Iudas
.
M.
Prynne
shall
never
be
able
to
prove
that
Iudas
did
receive
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lords
Supper
:
and
if
he
could
prove
it
,
yet
it
shall
not
at
all
helpe
that
cause
which
he
maintaineth
.
I
begin
with
the
matter
of
fact
,
whether
Iudas
received
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lords
Supper
,
as
well
as
the
other
Apostles
,
which
is
the
question
by
him
stated
.
For
decision
whereof
,
I
hold
it
necessary
,
first
of
all
that
these
two
things
be
premised
,
concerning
the
harmony
of
the
Evangelists
in
that
matter
of
Iudas
,
the
use
whereof
we
shall
see
afterwards
.
Matthew
and
Marke
tell
us
Christs
discourse
of
the
Traytor
at
Table
,
and
the
discovery
of
Iudas
,
before
the
institution
of
the
Sacrament
.
Luke
hath
the
same
thing
after
the
institution
and
distribution
of
the
Sacrament
.
So
that
either
Matthew
and
Marke
speak
by
anticipation
,
or
Luke
speaketh
by
a
recapitulation
;
that
is
,
either
Matthew
and
Marke
put
before
what
was
done
after
,
or
Luke
puts
after
what
was
done
before
.
Now
that
there
is
in
Luke
an
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
a
narration
of
that
after
the
institution
which
was
indeed
before
the
institution
of
the
Sacrament
,
may
thus
appeare
.
1.
That
very
thing
which
Luke
placeth
after
the
institution
and
distribution
of
the
Sacrament
,
Luk.
22.
21
,
22
,
23.
Behold
the
hand
of
him
that
betrayeth
me
is
with
me
on
the
Table
.
And
truly
the
sonne
of
man
goeth
as
it
was
determined
,
but
woe
unto
that
man
by
whom
he
is
betrayed
.
And
they
began
to
enquire
among
themselves
which
of
them
it
was
that
should
doe
this
thing
.
The
very
same
thing
doe
Matthew
and
Marke
record
before
the
institution
of
the
Sacrament
,
Matth.
26.
21.
to
26.
Marke
14.
18.
to
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
businesse
of
the
last
supper
according
to
that
order
wherein
things
were
acted
or
spoken
,
as
is
manifest
by
Luke
22.
17.
18.
And
he
tooke
the
cup
and
gave
thanks
and
said
,
Take
this
and
divide
it
among
your selves
.
This
though
related
before
the
taking
and
breaking
of
the
bread
,
yet
it
is
but
by
an
anticipation
or
preoccupation
,
occasioned
by
that
which
had
preceded
vers.
16.
so
to
joyne
the
protestation
of
not
drinking
againe
,
with
that
of
not
eating
againe
the
Passeover
with
his
Disciples
:
therefore
Beza
,
Salmeron
,
Maldonat
,
and
others
following
Augustine
and
Euthymius
doe
resolve
it
is
an
anticipation
,
even
as
Paul
mentioneth
the
cup
before
the
bread
,
1
Cor.
10.
16.
I
know
some
understand
the
cup
mentioned
Luke
22.
17.
to
be
the
Paschall
cup
;
others
,
to
be
the
cup
in
the
ordinary
supper
;
but
to
me
its
plaine
that
it
was
the
Eucharisticall
cup
;
yea
Mr
Prynne
takes
it
so
pag.
25.
because
that
which
Luke
saith
of
that
cup
,
that
Christ
tooke
it
,
and
gave
thankes
,
and
gave
it
to
the
Disciples
,
that
they
might
all
drinke
of
it
,
and
told
them
he
would
not
drinke
with
them
any
more
of
the
fruit
of
the
Vine
till
the
Kingdome
of
God
should
come
;
all
this
is
the
very
same
which
Matthew
and
Marke
record
of
the
Eucharisticall
cup.
Therefore
our
Non-conformists
were
wont
to
argue
from
that
place
,
that
the
Minister
ought
not
to
give
the
Sacramentall
elements
to
each
communicant
out
of
his
owne
hand
,
but
that
the
communicants
ought
to
divide
the
elements
among
themselves
,
because
Christ
saith
in
that
place
,
of
the
cup
,
Divide
it
among
your selves
.
3.
Luke
saith
not
that
after
Supper
,
or
after
they
had
done
with
the
Sacrament
,
Christ
told
his
Disciples
that
one
of
them
should
betray
him
;
onely
he
addeth
,
after
the
History
of
the
Sacrament
,
what
Chrst
said
concerning
the
Traytor
.
But
Matthew
and
Marke
doe
not
onely
record
Christs
words
concerning
the
Traytor
before
they
make
narration
concerning
the
Sacrament
,
but
they
record
expresly
that
that
discourse
and
the
discovery
of
the
Traytor
was
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
as
they
did
eate
,
Matth.
26.
21.
Marke
14.
18.
Now
when
the
evening
was
come
he
sate
down
with
the
twelve
,
and
immediately
followeth
,
as
the
first
purpose
which
Christ
spake
of
,
and
as
they
did
eate
,
he
said
,
verily
I
say
unto
you
,
that
one
of
you
shall
betray
me
.
Which
could
not
be
so
,
if
Luke
relate
Christs
words
concerning
the
Traytor
in
that
order
in
which
they
were
first
uttered
;
for
Luke
having
told
us
verse
22.
that
Christ
tooke
the
cup
after
Supper
and
said
,
This
cup
is
the
new
Testament
,
&c.
addeth
,
But
behold
the
hand
of
him
that
betrayeth
me
is
with
me
on
the
Table
.
So
that
if
this
were
the
true
order
,
Christ
did
not
tell
his
Disciples
concerning
the
Traytor
,
as
they
did
eate
(
which
Matthew
and
Marke
doe
say
)
but
after
they
had
done
eating
.
If
it
be
said
that
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
may
suffer
this
sence
,
when
they
had
eaten
,
or
having
eaten
.
I
answer
,
the
context
will
not
suffer
that
sence
;
for
they
were
indeed
eating
in
the
time
of
that
discourse
,
Matth.
26.
23.
He
that
dippeth
his
hand
with
me
in
the
dish
the
same
shall
betray
me
,
Jos.
13.
26.
He
it
is
to
whom
I
shall
give
a
sop
after
I
have
dipped
it
.
4.
Musculus
in
loc.
com
.
de
caen
.
dom.
pag.
362.
gives
this
reason
out
of
Rupertus
,
why
Lukes
narration
of
Christs
words
concerning
the
Traytor
,
is
placed
by
a
recapitulation
after
the
Sacrament
:
because
Luke
is
the
onely
Evangelist
who
writeth
distinctly
of
the
Paschall
Supper
,
and
what
Christ
said
at
that
Supper
:
and
having
once
fallen
upon
that
purpose
,
the
connexion
of
the
matter
did
require
that
he
should
immediately
adde
the
story
of
the
Eucharisticall
Supper
,
without
interlacing
that
of
the
Traytor
.
Which
reason
will
passe
for
good
with
such
as
think
Iudas
did
eate
of
the
Paschalll
Supper
,
and
that
Christs
words
concerning
him
were
spoken
at
the
Paschall
Supper
,
which
I
greatly
doubt
of
.
5.
Mr
Prynne
pag.
18.
doth
in
effect
grant
the
same
thing
that
I
say
;
for
he
saith
,
that
Matthew
and
Marke
record
that
immediatly
before
the
institution
of
the
Sacrament
,
as
they
sate
at
meat
Jesus
said
unto
the
twelve
,
Verily
one
of
you
shall
betray
me
,
whereupon
they
began
to
be
sorrowfull
and
to
say
unto
him
,
&c.
He
addeth
,
that
Iudas
was
the
last
man
that
said
,
Is
it
I
?
immediately
before
the
institution
,
as
Matthew
records
.
But
of
Luke
he
saith
onely
thus
much
,
that
he
placeth
these
words
of
Christ
concerning
Judas
his
betraying
him
,
after
the
institution
and
distribution
of
the
Sacrament
,
not
before
it
.
If
it
be
thus
as
Mr
Prynne
acknowledgeth
,
that
Matthew
and
Marke
record
,
that
Christ
had
that
discourse
concerning
Iudas
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
Marke
say
.
Whence
it
will
necessarily
follow
that
Luke
doth
not
mention
that
discourse
concerning
Iudas
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
,
onely
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
Master
Prynne
pag.
26
,
27.
tels
us
that
the
Sacrament
was
given
after
Christ
had
particularly
informed
his
Disciples
that
one
of
them
should
betray
him
,
which
he
proves
from
Ioh.
13.
18.
to
28.
Matth.
26.
20.
to
36.
Marke
14.
18.
to
22.
Luke
22.
21
,
22
,
23.
Whence
it
follows
inevitably
by
his
owne
confession
,
that
Matthew
and
Marke
recording
that
discourse
about
Iudas
after
the
Sacrament
,
doe
place
it
in
the
proper
order
;
and
that
Luke
mentioning
that
discourse
about
Iudas
after
the
Sacrament
,
doth
not
place
it
in
its
owne
place
.
This
is
the
first
thing
which
I
thought
good
to
premise
,
which
will
easily
take
off
the
strongest
argument
which
ever
I
heard
alledged
for
Iudas
his
receiving
of
the
Sacrament
,
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
were
not
uttered
by
Christ
in
that
order
wherein
Luke
placeth
them
(
which
I
have
proved
)
then
the
argument
is
not
conclusive
.
The
second
thing
to
be
premised
,
is
this
:
that
the
story
which
we
have
Ioh
13.
from
the
beginning
to
verse
31.
concerning
the
Supper
at
which
Christ
discoursed
of
Iudas
and
gave
him
the
sop
,
after
which
he
went
immediately
out
,
was
neither
in
Bethany
two
daies
before
the
Passeover
,
as
the
Antidote
Animadverted
tels
us
pag
5.
nor
yet
after
the
institution
of
the
Sacrament
,
as
Mr
Prynne
tels
us
,
Vindic.
pag.
25.
herein
differing
either
from
himselfe
or
his
friend
.
That
Supper
in
Bethany
,
the
Pamphlet
saith
,
was
two
daies
before
the
Passeover
;
but
some
Interpreters
collect
from
Iohn
12.
1
,
2.
it
was
longer
before
;
Christ
having
come
to
Bethany
six
daies
before
,
and
after
that
Supper
the
next
day
Christ
did
ride
into
Ierusalem
on
a
young
Asse
,
and
the
people
cried
Hosanna
,
Joh.
12.
12.
the
very
story
which
we
have
Matth.
21.
Marke
saith
that
two
daies
before
the
Passeover
the
chiefe
Priests
and
Scribes
sought
how
to
put
Christ
to
death
,
but
he
doth
not
say
that
the
Supper
in
Bethany
was
two
daies
before
the
Passeover
.
But
of
this
I
will
not
contend
,
whenever
it
was
,
it
is
not
much
materiall
to
the
present
question
,
there
was
nothing
at
that
Supper
concerning
Iudas
,
but
a
rebuking
of
him
for
having
indignation
at
the
spending
of
the
Alabaster
box
of
Oyntment
,
and
from
that
he
sought
opportunity
to
betray
Christ
:
But
the
discourse
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
Passeover
,
as
is
cleare
Matth.
26.
19
,
20
,
to
26.
Marke
14.
16
,
to
22.
So
that
the
story
Ioh.
13.
18.
to
30.
being
the
same
with
that
in
Matthew
and
Marke
,
could
not
be
two
daies
before
the
Passeover
.
And
if
two
daies
before
Christ
had
discovered
to
Iohn
who
should
betray
him
,
by
giving
the
sop
to
Iudas
,
how
could
every
one
of
the
Disciples
(
and
so
Iohn
among
the
rest
)
be
ignorant
of
it
two
daies
after
,
which
made
every
one
of
them
to
aske
Is
it
I
?
Finally
,
that
very
night
in
which
the
Lord
Jesus
did
institue
the
Sacrament
,
the
Disciples
began
to
be
sorrowfull
,
and
began
to
enquire
which
of
them
it
was
that
should
betray
him
,
Matth.
26.
22.
Marke
14.
19.
Luke
22.
23.
But
if
Christ
had
told
them
two
daies
before
that
one
of
themselves
who
did
sit
at
Table
with
him
should
betray
him
,
surely
they
had
at
that
time
begun
to
be
sorrowfull
and
to
aske
every
one
Is
it
I
?
That
which
hath
been
said
doth
also
discover
that
other
mistake
that
the
discourse
at
Table
concerning
the
Traytor
,
and
the
giving
of
the
sop
to
Iudas
Ioh.
13.
was
after
the
institution
of
the
Sacrament
.
If
it
were
after
,
then
either
that
in
Iohn
is
not
the
same
with
the
discourse
concerning
the
Traytor
mentioned
by
Matthew
and
Marke
;
or
otherwise
Matthew
and
Marke
speake
by
anticipation
.
But
I
have
proved
both
that
the
true
order
is
in
Matthew
and
Marke
,
and
that
the
discourse
concerning
the
Traytor
mentioned
by
Iohn
must
be
in
the
Evangelicall
harmony
put
together
with
that
in
Matthew
and
Marke
,
as
making
one
and
the
same
story
.
And
if
this
in
Iohn
had
been
posterior
to
that
in
Matthew
,
then
why
doth
Mr
Prynne
himselfe
joyn
these
together
as
one
,
pag.
18
,
19.
These
things
premised
,
I
come
to
the
arguments
which
prove
that
Iudas
did
not
receive
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lords
Supper
.
The
first
argument
(
which
was
by
me
touched
in
that
Sermon
so
much
quarrelled
by
Mr
Prynne
)
is
this
.
It
is
said
of
Iudas
,
Ioh.
13.
30.
He
then
having
received
the
sop
went
immediatly
out
.
But
this
sop
or
morsell
was
given
him
before
the
Sacrament
,
whiles
they
were
yet
eating
the
other
Supper
,
at
the
end
whereof
Christ
did
institute
the
Sacrament
.
Therefore
Iudas
went
away
before
the
Sacrament
.
Let
us
heare
Mr
Prynnes
four
answers
to
this
argument
,
pag.
24
,
25.
First
,
saith
he
,
Iudas
went
not
out
till
after
Supper
,
Iohn
13.
2.
and
Supper
being
ended
,
&c.
Answ.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
will
not
prove
that
the
Supper
was
fully
ended
.
The
Centurists
Gent.
1.
lib.
1.
cap.
10.
explaine
Iohn
13.
2.
thus
,
Magnâ
caenae
hujus
parte
peractâ
,
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
English
Annotations
have
it
.
Ludovicus
de
Dieu
chooseth
this
sence
.
Salmeron
and
others
proue
it
from
verse
4.
He
riseth
from
Supper
,
with
vers.
12
▪
he
sate
down
againe
to
Supper
,
and
dipped
the
sop
.
Take
but
two
like
instances
in
this
same
story
of
the
passion
,
Matth.
26.
6.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Now
when
Jesus
was
in
Bethany
,
not
,
after
Jesus
was
in
Bethany
.
Matth.
26.
20.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
Now
when
the
even
was
come
,
not
,
when
the
even
was
ended
.
His
second
answer
,
that
all
the
other
three
Evangelists
prove
that
Iudas
was
present
at
the
Sacrament
,
is
but
petitio
principii
.
Thirdly
(
saith
he
)
the
Sacrament
was
not
instituted
after
Supper
,
but
as
they
sat
at
Supper
.
Answ.
It
was
indeed
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
distinguished
,
for
they
did
not
at
the
same
instant
receive
the
Sacrament
,
and
eate
of
another
supper
too
.
And
though
it
be
said
of
the
bread
,
that
as
they
did
eate
,
Jesus
tooke
bread
,
yet
of
the
cup
Paul
and
Luke
say
,
that
Jesus
tooke
it
after
Supper
,
that
is
,
after
they
had
done
eating
;
therefore
certainly
after
Iudas
got
the
sop
and
went
away
,
at
which
instant
they
had
not
done
eating
.
Neither
is
there
any
ground
at
all
Luke
22.
17.
to
prove
that
he
tooke
the
cup
during
supper
,
as
Mr
Prynne
conceiveth
.
But
finding
no
strength
herein
,
he
addeth
:
that
some
learned
men
are
of
opinion
that
Ter●…ul
.
apolog
.
Christ
had
that
night
first
his
paschall
supper
,
at
the
close
whereof
he
instituted
his
own
Supper
.
Secondly
,
an
ordinary
supper
which
succeeded
the
institution
of
his
own
,
in
imitation
whereof
the
Corinthians
and
Primitive
Christians
had
their
love
feasts
,
which
they
did
eat
immediately
after
the
Lords
Supper
:
and
this
is
more
then
intimated
John
13.
v.
2
,
12
,
to
31
,
&c.
therefore
Lukes
after
Supper
he
tooke
the
cup
,
must
be
meant
onely
after
the
Paschall
supper
,
not
th●…
other
Supper
.
Answ.
I
verily
believe
that
beside
the
Paschall
and
Eucharisticall
suppers
,
Christ
and
his
Disciples
had
that
night
a
common
or
ordinary
supper
,
and
so
think
Calvin
and
Beza
upon
Matth.
26.
20.
Pareus
upon
Matth.
26.
21.
Fulk
on
1.
Cor.
11.
23.
Cartwright
ibid.
and
in
his
Harmony
lib.
3.
pag.
173.
Pelargus
in
Ioh.
13.
quaest.
2.
Tossanu●…
in
Matth.
26.
Tolet
and
Maldon●…
upon
Iohn
13.
2.
Iansenius
cone
.
evang
.
cap.
131.
and
divers
others
.
I
am
very
glad
that
Mr
Prynn●…
grants
it
;
and
I
approve
his
reason
,
that
in
the
Paschall
supper
we
read
of
no
sops
,
nor
ought
to
dip
them
in
.
The
Jewes
indeed
tell
us
of
a
sauce
in
the
Passeover
which
they
call
Chareseth
:
but
I
suppose
Christ
kept
the
Passeover
according
to
the
Law
,
and
did
not
tie
himselfe
to
rites
which
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
loseth
much
,
a●
shall
appeare
afterwards
.
2.
Whereas
he
thinks
the
common
supper
at
which
Christ
did
wash
his
Disciples
feet
,
and
discover
Iudas
,
and
give
him
the
sop
,
was
after
the
Sacrament
,
as
I
know
not
those
learned
men
that
thinke
as
he
doth
in
this
point
,
so
●t
is
more
than
he
can
prove
.
The
contrary
hath
been
proved
from
Matthew
and
Marke
who
record
that
the
discourse
concerning
Iudas
was
while
they
were
eating
that
supper
which
preceded
the
Sacrament
;
so
that
the
giving
of
the
sop
to
Iudas
must
be
before
the
Sacrament
.
But
after
the
Sacrament
both
Matthew
and
Marke
doe
immediately
adde
,
and
when
they
had
sung
a
hymne
they
went
out
into
the
mount
of
Olives
.
3.
As
for
that
of
the
Corinthians
,
the
very
place
cited
by
himselfe
maketh
against
him
,
1
Cor.
11.
21.
for
when
they
came
together
to
eate
the
Lords
Supper
,
every
one
did
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
first
take
his
owne
supper
,
and
that
in
imitation
of
Christ
who
gave
the
Sacrament
after
supper
.
So
Aquinas
,
Lyra
,
and
others
following
Augustine
.
This
taking
first
or
before
,
[
d
](A42757-e93400-b)
d
〈◊〉
.
ce●…
.
1.
lib.
2.
cap.
6.
cap.
384.
edit.
1624.
apud
Corinthios
invalu●rat
●lle
abusus
,
ut
an●e
caenam
Dominicam
inter
se
concertarent
;
&
alii
ibi
suas
coenas
instruerent
&
benepoti
caenam
Domini
acciperen●
.
hath
reference
to
the
Sacrament
;
because
it
is
spoken
of
every
one
who
came
to
the
Lords
Table
,
every
one
taketh
before
his
owne
supper
,
which
made
such
a
disparity
that
one
was
hungry
and
another
drunken
at
the
Sacrament
,
the
poore
having
too
little
,
and
the
rich
too
much
at
their
owne
supper
.
4.
The
example
of
the
ancient
Christians
will
helpe
him
as
little
.
I
finde
no
such
thing
in
Tertullians
Apologetik
,
as
the
eating
of
the
love
feasts
immediately
after
the
Lords
Supper
.
But
I
finde
both
in
the
[
e
](A42757-e93490-b)
e
●…od
.
c●…non
.
eccl.
Afri●…
.
can
.
41.
Ut
Sacramenta
altaris
〈◊〉
ni●i
à
jejunis
hominibus
celebrentur
,
excepto
uno
die
anniversario
,
quo
caena
dominica
celebratur
.
African
Canons
and
in
[
f
](A42757-e93510-b)
f
August
.
epist.
118.
cap.
7.
Sed
nonnullos
probabilis
quaedam
ratio
delectavit
,
ut
uno
certo
die
per
annum
quo
ipsam
caenam
Dominus
dedit
,
●anquam
ad
insigniorem
commemorationem
,
post
cibos
offerti
&
accipi
liceat
corpus
&
s●nguinem
Domini
&c.
hoc
tamen
non
arbitror
institu●um
,
nisi
quia
plures
&
propè
omnes
in
plerisque
locis
eo
die
caenare
consueverunt
.
Augustine
,
and
in
[
g
](A42757-e93550-b)
g
Walafridus
Strabo
de
reb.
eccl.
cap.
19.
Hoc
qu●que
commemorandum
videtur
,
quod
ipsa
Sacrament●
quidam
interdum
jejuni
,
interdum
pransi
perc●pisse
leguntur
.
He
tels
us
out
of
Socrates
that
the
Egyptians
ne●re
Alexandria
,
as
likewise
those
in
Thebais
did
often
take
the
S●crament
after
they
had
eaten
lib●rally
.
Walafridus
Strabo
that
once
in
the
yeere
(
and
oftner
by
divers
)
the
Sacrament
was
received
after
the
ordinary
meat
for
a
commemoration
of
that
which
Christ
did
in
the
night
wherein
he
was
betrayed
.
It
had
been
formerly
in
use
among
diver●
to
take
the
Sacrament
ordinarily
after
meat
,
till
the
African
Councell
discharged
it
,
as
Laurentius
de
la
barre
observeth
in
the
notes
upon
Tertullian
pag.
339.
edit.
Paris
.
1580.
Augustine
epist.
118.
cap.
5.
&
6.
answereth
certaine
quaeries
of
Ianuarius
,
concerning
eating
or
not
eating
before
the
Sacrament
.
He
saith
that
Christ
did
indeed
give
the
Sacrament
after
supper
,
and
that
the
Corinthians
did
also
take
it
after
supper
:
but
that
the
Scripture
hath
not
tied
us
to
follow
these
examples
,
but
left
us
at
liberty
.
And
upon
this
ground
he
defendeth
the
Churches
custome
at
that
time
of
taking
the
Sacrament
fasting
,
for
greater
reverence
to
the
Ordinance
.
But
in
this
he
speakes
plainly
,
[
h
](A42757-e93700-b)
h
Cum
sero
factum
esset
,
recumbebat
cum
duodecim
,
&
manducantibus
ois
dixit
▪
Quoniam
unus
ex
vobis
me
tradet
.
Post
enim
tradidit
Sacramentum
.
that
when
Christ
was
eating
with
the
Disciples
,
and
telling
them
that
one
of
them
should
betray
him
,
he
had
not
then
given
the
Sacrament
.
With
Augustines
judgement
agreeth
that
Epistle
of
Chrysostome
,
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
sinne
,
because
Christ
gave
the
Sacrament
to
the
Apostles
after
they
had
supped
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Let
them
depose
,
saith
he
,
the
Lord
himselfe
,
who
gave
the
communion
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
Friday
received
it
after
meales
,
as
I
proved
before
.
And
this
I
also
adde
by
the
way
,
that
though
▪
Paul
condemneth
the
Corinthians
for
eating
their
love
feast
in
the
Church
,
yet
he
allowes
them
to
eate
at
home
before
they
come
to
the
Lords
Table
,
as
the
Centurists
,
cent
.
1.
lib.
2.
cap.
6.
pag.
384.
prove
from
1
Cor.
11.
34.
And
if
any
man
hunger
let
him
eate
at
home
,
that
ye
come
not
altogether
unto
condemnation
.
Casaubon
Exerc.
16.
pag.
367.
edit.
Francof
.
1615.
thinks
it
was
in
imitation
of
Christs
example
that
those
Egyptians
mentioned
by
Socrates
did
take
the
Sacrament
at
night
after
they
had
liberally
supped
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
being
filled
with
all
sorts
of
meats
.
I
conclude
therefore
that
when
Luke
saith
after
supper
he
took
the
cup
,
the
meaning
is
,
after
both
paschall
and
common
supper
,
and
that
there
was
no
other
eating
after
the
Sacrament
that
night
,
and
so
consequently
the
giving
of
the
sop
to
Iudas
must
needs
be
before
the
Sacrament
;
and
his
going
out
immediately
after
the
sop
proves
that
he
did
not
receive
the
Sacrament
.
But
Mr
Prynne
gives
us
a
fourth
answer
,
which
is
the
last
(
but
a
very
weake
)
refuge
.
The
word
immediately
,
saith
he
,
many
times
in
our
common
speech
signifieth
soon
after
,
or
not
long
after
,
as
we
usually
say
we
will
doe
this
or
that
immediately
,
instantly
,
presently
,
whenas
we
mean
onely
speedily
,
within
a
short
time
.
Answ.
1.
This
is
no
good
report
which
Mr
Prynne
brings
upon
the
English
tongue
,
that
men
promise
to
doe
a
thing
immediately
,
when
they
do
not
mean
to
doe
it
immediately
.
I
hope
every
conscientious
man
will
be
loath
to
say
immediately
,
except
when
he
meanes
immediately
,
(
for
I
know
not
how
to
explaine
immediately
,
but
by
immediately
)
and
for
an
usuall
forme
of
speaking
,
which
is
not
according
to
the
rule
of
the
word
,
it
s
a
very
bad
commentary
to
the
language
of
the
holy
Ghost
.
2.
And
if
that
forme
of
speech
be
usuall
in
making
of
promises
,
yet
I
have
never
known
it
usuall
in
writing
of
Histories
,
to
say
that
such
a
thing
was
done
immediately
after
such
a
thing
,
and
yet
divers
other
things
intervened
between
them
.
If
between
Iudas
his
getting
of
the
sop
and
his
going
out
did
interveene
the
instituting
of
the
Sacrament
,
the
taking
,
blessing
,
breaking
,
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
Iudas
went
out
immediately
after
his
receiving
of
the
sop
.
3.
Neither
is
it
likely
that
Satan
would
suffer
Iudas
to
stay
any
space
after
he
was
once
discovered
,
lest
the
company
▪
and
conference
of
Christ
and
his
Apostles
should
take
him
off
from
his
wicked
purpose
.
4.
Gerard
having
in
his
common
places
given
that
answer
,
that
the
word
immediately
may
suffer
this
sence
,
that
shortly
thereafter
Iudas
went
forth
;
he
doth
professedly
recall
that
answer
in
his
Cotinuation
of
the
Harmony
cap.
171.
p.
453.
and
that
upon
this
ground
,
because
Iudas
being
mightily
irritated
and
exasperated
▪
both
by
the
sop
,
and
by
Christs
answer
,
(
for
when
Iudas
asked
Is
it
I
?
Christ
answered
Thou
hast
said
)
would
certainly
breake
away
abruptly
and
very
immediately
.
So
much
of
the
first
argument
.
The
second
argument
(
which
I
also
touched
in
my
Sermon
)
was
this
.
As
Christ
said
to
the
Communicants
,
Drinke
ye
all
of
it
,
Matth.
26.
27.
and
they
all
dranke
,
Matth.
14.
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
22.
19.
20.
But
if
Iudas
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
argument
Mr
Prynne
p.
25.
doth
quite
mistake
,
as
if
the
strength
of
it
lay
in
a
supposed
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
plurall
.
This
is
my
Body
broken
for
you
,
&c.
my
Blood
shed
for
you
,
&c.
Mr
Prynne
conceives
that
it
might
have
been
said
to
Iudas
,
being
meant
by
Christ
,
onely
conditionally
,
that
his
Body
was
broken
,
and
his
Blood
was
shed
for
him
,
if
he
would
really
receive
them
by
faith
.
Jonas
Schlichtingius
a
Socinian
in
his
booke
against
Meisnerus
pag.
803.
though
he
supposeth
as
Mr
Prynne
doth
that
Iudas
was
present
at
the
giving
of
the
Sacrament
,
yet
he
holds
that
it
is
not
to
be
imagined
,
that
Christ
would
have
said
to
Iudas
,
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
sinne
(
which
the
Socini●
believe
not
)
admit
that
Christ
meant
to
comprehend
Iudas
●mong
others
,
when
he
said
this
is
my
body
which
is
broken
for
you
?
Ministers
doe
indeed
offer
Christ
to
all
upon
condition
of
believing
,
being
commanded
to
preach
the
Gospell
to
every
creature
,
and
not
knowing
who
are
reprobates
:
but
that
Christ
himselfe
(
knowing
that
the
sonne
of
perdition
was
now
lost
,
that
the
Scripture
might
be
fulfilled
Iohn
17.
12.
)
would
in
the
Sacrament
(
which
is
more
applicative
then
the
word
,
and
particularizeth
the
promises
to
the
receivers
)
so
speake
,
as
that
in
any
sence
those
words
might
be
applied
to
Iudas
,
that
even
for
him
his
body
was
broken
and
his
blood
shed
;
and
that
thereupon
the
seales
should
be
given
him
,
to
me
is
not
at
all
credible
;
and
I
prove
the
negative
by
foure
arguments
:
(
though
I
might
give
many
more
)
1.
If
Christ
did
in
reference
to
Iudas
meane
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
sonne
of
perdition
whom
he
knew
infallibly
to
be
lost
,
and
that
he
should
be
certainly
damned
and
goe
to
Hell
,
and
that
in
eating
the
Sacrament
he
would
certainly
eate
and
drinke
judgement
to
himselfe
(
all
which
Mr
Prynne
himselfe
pag.
26.
saith
Christ
infallibly
knew
)
But
who
dare
thinke
or
say
so
of
Jesus
Christ
?
Suppose
a
Minister
knew
infallibly
that
such
a
one
hath
blasphemed
against
the
holy
Ghost
,
(
which
sinne
the
Centurists
and
others
thinke
to
have
been
committed
by
Iudas
,
which
could
not
be
hid
from
Christ
)
and
is
irrecoverably
lost
,
and
will
be
most
certainly
damned
,
durst
that
Minister
admit
that
person
to
the
Sacrament
,
and
make
those
words
applicable
to
him
so
much
as
conditionally
;
This
is
the
Lords
body
broken
for
you
:
This
is
the
blood
of
the
new
Covenant
shed
for
you
unto
remission
of
sinne
?
How
much
lesse
would
Christ
himselfe
say
so
,
or
mean
so
in
reference
to
Iudas
?
2.
If
Christ
would
not
pray
for
Iudas
,
but
for
his
elect
Apostles
onely
,
and
such
as
should
believe
through
the
word
of
the
Gospell
,
then
he
meant
not
so
much
as
conditionally
to
give
his
body
and
blood
for
Iudas
.
(
for
if
he
meant
any
good
to
Iudas
,
so
much
as
conditionally
,
he
would
not
have
excluded
him
from
having
any
part
at
all
in
his
prayers
to
God
.
)
But
Christ
doth
exclude
Iudas
from
his
prayer
,
Iohn
17.
not
onely
as
one
of
the
reprobate
world
vers.
9.
but
even
by
name
vers.
12.
giving
him
over
for
lost
,
and
one
that
was
not
to
be
prayed
for
.
3.
Love
and
hatred
in
God
and
in
his
sonne
Jesus
Christ
,
being
eternall
and
unchangeable
,
(
for
actus
Dei
immanentes
sunt
aeterni
)
it
followeth
that
if
there
was
such
a
decree
of
God
,
or
any
such
meaning
or
intention
in
Christ
,
as
to
give
his
body
and
blood
for
Iudas
,
whom
he
knew
infallibly
to
be
lost
:
and
since
that
same
conditionall
meaning
or
intention
could
not
be
without
a
conditionall
love
of
God
and
of
Christ
to
Iudas
and
his
salvation
:
this
love
doth
still
continue
in
God
,
and
in
Christ
,
to
save
Iudas
now
in
Hell
upon
condition
of
his
believing
,
which
every
Christian
I
thinke
will
abominate
.
4.
That
conditionall
love
and
conditionall
intention
or
meaning
,
could
not
have
place
in
the
Sonne
of
God
.
For
as
Spanhemius
doth
rightly
argue
in
his
late
learned
Exercitations
de
gratia
universali
pag.
746.
it
doth
not
become
either
the
wisdome
or
goodnesse
of
God
to
will
and
intend
a
thing
upon
such
a
condition
as
neither
is
nor
can
be
.
And
pag.
829.
he
saith
,
that
this
conditionall
destination
or
intention
cannot
be
conceived
,
as
being
incident
onely
to
such
as
doe
neither
foreknow
nor
direct
and
order
the
event
,
and
in
whose
hand
it
is
not
to
give
the
faculty
and
will
of
performing
the
thing
.
Which
can
not
without
impiety
be
thought
or
said
of
God
.
Thus
he
.
The
third
argument
(
which
I
shall
now
adde
)
is
that
whereby
Hilarius
Can.
30.
in
Matth.
and
Innocentius
the
third
lib.
4.
de
mysterio
miss.
cap.
13.
prove
that
Iudas
received
not
the
Sacrament
,
neither
was
present
at
the
receiving
of
it
.
Because
that
night
while
Iudas
was
present
,
Christ
in
his
gracious
and
comfortable
expressions
to
his
Apostles
did
make
an
exception
,
as
Iohn
13.
10
,
11.
Ye
are
cleane
,
but
not
all
.
For
he
knew
who
should
betray
him
,
therefore
said
he
,
ye
are
not
all
cleane
,
vers.
18.
I
speak
not
of
you
all
,
I
know
whom
I
have
chosen
.
So
vers.
21.
even
as
before
Joh.
6.
70.
Have
not
I
chosen
you
twelue
,
and
one
of
you
is
a
divell
.
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
Sacrament
,
I
will
not
drinke
henceforth
of
this
fruit
of
the
Vine
,
untill
that
day
when
I
drinke
it
new
with
you
in
my
Fathers
Kingdome
,
Matth.
26.
29.
and
this
he
saith
nnto
them
all
,
as
it
is
cleare
from
vers.
27.
Drinke
ye
all
of
it
.
Againe
,
Luke
22.
28
,
29
,
30.
Ye
are
they
which
have
continued
with
me
in
my
temptatoons
.
And
I
appoint
unto
you
a
Kingdome
as
my
Father
hath
appointed
unto
me
.
That
ye
may
eate
and
drinke
at
my
Table
in
my
Kingdome
,
and
sit
on
Thrones
judging
the
twelve
Tribes
of
Israel
.
Would
not
Christ
much
more
have
excepted
Iudas
in
these
expressions
,
if
he
had
been
present
,
seeing
he
had
so
often
excepted
him
before
?
As
for
Mr
Prynnes
reasons
from
Scripture
to
prove
that
Iudas
did
receive
the
Sacrament
,
they
are
extreamely
inconcludent
.
First
,
he
saith
,
that
Matthew
,
Marke
,
and
Luke
,
are
all
expresse
in
terminis
,
that
Christ
sate
down
to
eate
the
Passeover
,
and
the
twelve
Apostles
with
him
;
that
Iudas
was
one
of
those
twelv●
,
and
present
at
the
Table
;
that
as
they
sate
at
meat
together
,
Jesus
tooke
Bread
,
&c.
that
he
said
of
the
cup
,
drinke
ye
all
of
it
;
and
Marke
saith
they
all
dranke
of
it
.
Answ.
1.
The
three
Evangelists
are
all
expresse
in
terminis
,
that
when
Even
was
come
,
Christ
sate
down
with
the
twelve
;
as
likewise
that
the
twelve
did
eate
with
him
that
night
;
but
that
the
twelve
Apostles
were
with
him
in
the
eating
of
the
Passeover
,
they
are
not
expresse
in
terminis
,
and
I
have
some
reasons
which
move
me
to
thinke
that
Iudas
did
not
eate
so
much
as
of
the
Passeover
that
night
▪
whereof
in
the
proper
place
.
2.
And
if
he
had
been
at
the
Passeover
,
that
proves
not
he
was
at
the
Lords
Supper
.
When
Christ
tooke
the
cup
and
said
,
Drink
ye
all
of
it
,
it
was
after
supper
,
that
is
,
after
the
Paschall
supper
,
as
Mr
Prynne
himselfe
gives
the
sence
.
3.
When
Marke
saith
,
They
all
dranke
of
it
,
he
means
all
that
were
present
,
but
Iudas
was
gone
forth
.
His
argument
supposeth
that
Iudas
was
present
,
which
being
before
disproved
,
there
remaines
no
more
strength
nor
life
in
his
argument
.
That
which
he
addeth
pag.
18
,
19.
if
it
have
either
strength
or
good
sence
,
I
confesse
the
dulnesse
of
my
conception
.
He
would
prove
from
Matthew
and
Marke
that
immediately
before
the
institution
of
the
Sacrament
,
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
Iudas
,
because
he
was
the
last
man
that
said
Is
it
I
?
immediately
before
the
institution
.
And
further
(
saith
he
)
Luke
placeth
these
words
of
Christ
concerning
Iudas
his
betraying
of
him
,
after
the
institution
,
which
manifesteth
that
Iudas
was
present
at
the
Sacrament
.
His
inference
is
this
,
that
seeing
Iohn
averreth
,
Chap.
13.
v.
2.
that
all
this
discourse
,
and
the
giving
of
the
sop
to
Iudas
was
after
supper
,
and
the
other
three
Evangelists
agreeing
that
Christ
instituted
and
distributed
the
Sacrament
,
as
they
did
eate
,
before
supper
quite
ended
,
it
must
follow
that
Iudas
did
receive
the
Sacrament
.
Answ.
1.
But
how
doth
this
hang
together
,
first
to
argue
that
Iudas
received
the
Sacrament
,
because
Christs
discourse
concerning
Iudas
,
and
Iudas
his
question
Is
it
I
?
were
immediately
before
the
institution
of
the
Sacrament
:
and
againe
to
prove
that
Iudas
did
receive
the
Sacrament
,
because
Christs
discourse
about
Iudas
was
after
supper
ended
,
and
after
the
Sacrament
which
was
instituted
before
supper
ended
?
the
one
way
of
arguing
destroyeth
the
other
.
2.
For
that
in
Matthew
and
Marke
,
that
Christ
discoursed
of
the
Traytor
,
and
that
Iudas
said
Is
it
I
?
before
the
institution
of
the
Sacrament
,
I
confesse
;
but
that
it
was
immediately
before
the
institution
of
the
Sacrament
the
Evangelists
doe
not
say
,
neither
doth
he
prove
it
.
Iudas
went
out
after
that
discourse
and
the
sop
,
and
how
much
of
the
consolatory
and
valedictory
Sermon
(
which
beginneth
Iohn
13.
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
wherein
they
were
done
:
which
is
also
the
opinion
of
Grotius
upon
that
place
.
And
for
that
Iohn
13.
2.
Supper
being
ended
,
I
have
answered
before
.
Shall
we
in
the
next
place
have
a
heape
of
humane
testimonies
concerning
Iudas
his
receiving
of
the
Sacrament
?
I
see
so
much
light
from
Scripture
to
the
contrary
,
that
I
shall
not
be
easily
shaken
with
the
authority
of
men
:
yet
it
shall
not
be
amisse
a
little
to
trie
whether
it
be
altogether
so
as
he
would
make
us
believe
.
He
saith
we
goe
against
all
antiquity
,
pag.
18.
and
against
the
most
and
best
of
Protestant
writers
,
pag.
23.
yea
,
that
all
ages
have
received
it
as
an
indubitable
verity
that
Iudis
received
the
Sacrament
,
pag.
19.
No
Sir
,
soft
a
little
.
The
truth
is
the
thing
hath
been
very
much
controverted
both
among
the
Fathers
,
and
among
Papists
,
and
among
Protestant
writers
.
I
have
found
none
so
unanimous
for
Iudas
his
receiving
of
the
Sacrament
as
the
Lutherans
,
[
i
](A42757-e95380-b)
i
Gerhard
.
loc.
com
.
tom.
5.
pag.
186
,
187.
Petrus
Hinckelmannus
de
Anabaptismo
.
disp.
5.
cap.
2.
endeavouring
thereby
to
prove
that
the
wicked
hypocrites
and
unbelievers
doe
in
the
Sacrament
eate
the
true
body
of
Christ
,
and
drinke
his
true
blood
,
yet
(
as
hot
as
they
are
upon
it
)
they
acknowledge
it
is
no
indubitable
verity
,
they
cite
authorities
against
it
as
well
as
for
it
.
See
Gerhard
Harm.
evang.
cap.
171.
Brachmand
Tom.
3.
pag.
2082.
Neither
doe
the
Lutherans
make
any
such
use
of
Iudas
his
receiving
of
the
Sacrament
as
Master
Prynne
doth
:
for
they
hold
that
not
onely
excommunicated
persons
,
but
scandalous
and
notorious
sinners
,
not
yet
excommunicated
,
ought
to
be
kept
backe
from
the
Lords
Table
:
See
Gerhard
loc.
com
.
Tom.
5.
180
,
181
,
182.
where
he
proves
distinctly
that
all
these
ought
to
be
excluded
from
the
Lords
Supper
.
1.
Hereticks
.
2.
Notorious
scandalous
sinners
.
3.
Excommunicated
persons
.
4.
Possessed
persons
,
furious
persons
,
and
idiots
.
5.
Infamous
persons
,
who
use
unlawfull
arts
,
as
Magitians
,
Negromancers
,
&c.
and
for
the
exclusion
of
scandalous
sinners
he
citeth
the
Ecclesiasticall
Electorall
Constitutions
.
L.
Osiander
Enchir.
contra
Anabap.
cap.
6.
quaest.
3.
tels
us
that
the
Lutheran
Churches
exclude
all
known
scandalous
persons
from
the
Sacrament
.
But
it
is
strangest
to
me
that
Mr
Prynne
will
not
give
credit
to
some
of
the
Testimonies
cited
by
himselfe
.
Theophylact.
enar
in
Matth.
26.
saith
Quidam
autem
dicunt
quod
egresso
Juda
,
tradidit
Sacramentum
aliis
Discipulis
,
proinde
&
nos
sic
facere
debemus
,
&
malos
à
Sacramentis
abarcere
.
Idem
enar
.
in
Marc.
14.
Quidam
dicun●…
(
but
who
they
were
appeares
not
saith
Mr
Prynne
,
in
any
extant
worke
of
theirs
)
Iudam
non
fuisse
participem
Sacramentorum
,
sed
egressum
esse
priusquam
dominus
Sacramenta
traderet
.
Shall
we
take
this
upon
Mr
Prynnes
credit
,
that
it
doth
not
appeare
in
any
extant
worke
of
theirs
?
Nay
,
let
him
take
better
heed
what
he
saith
,
and
whereof
he
affirmeth
.
In
the
next
page
he
himselfe
excepteth
one
,
which
is
Hilary
;
but
except
him
onely
,
he
saith
that
all
the
Ancients
unanimously
accord
herein
,
without
one
dissenting
voyce
.
But
see
now
whether
all
is
to
be
believed
that
Mr
Prynne
gives
great
words
for
.
T
is
well
that
he
confesseth
we
have
Hilary
for
us
.
First
therfore
let
[
b
](A42757-e95680-b)
b
Hilarius
Can.
30.
in
Matth
:
Post
quae
Judas
proditor
indicatur
,
sine
quo
pascha
accepto
calice
&
fracto
pane
conficitur
:
dignus
enim
aeternerum
sacramentorum
communione
non
f●erat
&c.
Neque
sanè
bibere
cum
eo
poterat
,
qui
non
erat
bibeturus
in
regno
.
the
words
of
Hilary
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
Paschall
or
typicall
supper
,
addeth
these
words
,
as
of
the
Apostles
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
But
when
he
had
delivered
to
us
the
antitype
mysteries
(
so
called
in
reference
to
the
Paschall
supper
)
of
his
precious
body
and
blood
,
Judas
not
being
present
with
us
.
I
doe
not
owne
these
eight
bookes
of
the
Apostolicall
constitutions
,
as
written
by
that
Clemens
who
was
Pauls
fellow-labourer
,
Phil.
4.
yet
certainly
they
are
ancient
as
is
universally
acknowledged
.
Dionysius
Areopagita
(
or
whosoever
he
was
that
anciently
wrote
under
that
name
)
de
Ecclesiastica
Hierarchia
cap.
3.
part
.
3.
sect.
1.
speaking
of
the
same
bread
,
and
the
same
cup
,
whereof
all
the
communicants
are
partakers
,
he
saith
that
this
teacheth
them
a
Divine
conformity
of
manners
,
and
withall
cals
to
mind
Christs
supper
in
the
night
when
he
was
betrayed
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
In
quo
caena
:
so
Ambrose
the
Monke
in
his
Latine
translation
,
and
Iudoeus
Clichtoveus
in
his
Commentary
,
In
which
supper
(
for
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
relates
to
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
the
supper
before
mentioned
,
and
signifieth
the
time
of
supper
,
or
after
supper
was
begun
.
;
so
the
Graecians
use
to
say
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
to
signifie
in
the
time
of
sicknesse
)
the
authour
himselfe
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
these
holy
things
he
understands
(
it
should
seem
)
the
Typicall
or
Paschall
supper
,
of
which
Iudas
had
eaten
before
,
and
peradventure
that
night
also
,
in
the
opinion
of
this
Ancient
.
Iudocus
Clichteveus
in
his
Commentary
saith
onely
,
that
Iudas
did
that
night
eate
together
with
Christ
cibum
,
meate
,
he
saith
not
Sacramentum
.
This
ancient
writer
is
also
of
opinion
that
Christ
did
excommunicate
Iudas
,
or
as
Clichtoveus
expounds
him
,
à
caeterorum
discipulorum
caetu
aequissime
separavit
,
discrevit
&
dispescuit
.
If
you
thinke
not
this
cleare
enough
,
heare
the
ancient
Scholiast
Maximus
to
whom
the
Centurists
give
the
Testimony
of
a
most
learned
and
most
holy
man
:
He
flourished
in
the
seventh
Century
,
under
Constans
,
he
was
a
chiefe
opposer
of
the
Monothelites
,
and
afterwards
a
martyr
.
His
Scholia
upon
that
place
of
Dionysius
,
maketh
this
inference
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
that
after
Judas
had
gone
forth
from
supper
,
Christ
gave
the
mystery
to
his
Disciples
.
Againe
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Where
note
,
that
to
him
also
,
(
that
is
,
to
Iudas
)
he
(
Christ
)
gave
of
a
mysticall
bread
(
meaning
the
unleavened
bread
of
the
Passeover
)
and
cup
(
meaning
the
cup
drunke
at
the
Paschall
supper
)
but
the
mysteries
(
that
is
,
the
Eucharisticall
bread
and
cup
,
commonly
called
the
mysteries
by
ancient
writers
)
he
gave
to
his
Disciples
after
Judas
went
forth
from
supper
,
as
it
were
because
Judas
himselfe
was
unworthy
of
these
mysteries
.
Adde
hereunto
the
Testimony
of
Georgius
Pachymeres
,
who
lived
in
the
thirteenth
Century
:
in
his
Paraphrase
upon
that
same
place
of
Dionysius
,
he
saith
that
Christ
himselfe
the
author
and
institutor
of
this
Sacrament
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Christ
doth
cast
out
and
separate
or
excommunicate
most
justly
Judas
,
who
bad
not
holily
supped
together
with
him
.
For
having
given
to
him
also
of
a
mysticall
bread
and
cup
,
he
gave
the
mysteries
to
the
Disciples
alone
,
after
be
went
forth
from
Supper
,
thereby
as
it
were
shewing
that
Judas
was
unworthy
of
these
mysteries
.
By
the
mysteries
which
Maximus
and
Pachimeres
speake
of
,
and
which
they
say
Christ
gave
to
his
Disciples
,
after
Iudas
was
gone
forth
.
,
I
can
understand
nothing
,
but
the
Eucharisticall
supper
,
the
Elements
whereof
are
very
frequently
called
the
mysteries
by
the
ancients
,
as
hath
been
said
.
And
if
any
man
shall
understand
by
these
mysteries
the
inward
graces
or
things
signified
in
the
Lords
Supper
,
then
what
senoe
can
there
be
in
that
which
Maximus
and
Pachimeres
say
?
for
Christ
could
as
easily
keepe
backe
from
Iudas
,
and
give
to
his
other
Disciples
,
those
graces
and
operations
of
his
Spirit
,
when
Iudas
was
present
among
them
,
as
when
he
was
cast
out
.
So
that
it
could
not
be
said
that
Christ
did
cast
out
Iudas
in
order
to
the
restraining
from
him
,
and
giving
to
the
other
Disciples
,
the
invisible
inward
grace
signified
in
the
Sacrament
,
as
if
the
other
Apostles
had
not
received
that
grace
at
the
receiving
of
the
Sacrament
,
but
that
Iud●…s
must
first
be
cast
out
,
before
they
could
receive
it
;
or
as
if
Iudas
had
received
the
inward
grace
,
if
he
had
not
gone
out
from
supper
.
The
sence
must
therefore
be
this
,
that
Iudas
as
an
unworthy
person
was
cast
out
by
Christ
,
before
he
thought
fit
to
give
the
Sacrament
of
his
Supper
unto
his
other
Apostles
.
Unto
all
these
Testimonies
adde
Ammonius
Alexandrinus
de
quatuor
Evangeliorum
consonantia
,
cap.
155.
where
he
hath
the
story
of
Iud●…s
his
receiving
of
the
sop
,
and
his
going
forth
immediately
after
he
had
received
it
:
thereafter
cap.
156.
he
addeth
the
institution
and
distribution
of
the
Lords
Supper
,
as
being
in
order
posterior
to
Iudas
his
going
forth
.
So
likewise
before
him
Tacianus
doth
make
the
History
of
the
institution
of
the
Sacrament
to
follow
after
the
excluding
of
Iudas
from
the
company
of
Christ
and
his
Apostles
:
which
neither
of
them
had
done
,
if
they
had
not
believed
that
Iudas
was
gone
before
the
Sacrament
.
With
all
these
agreeth
[
l
](A42757-e96440-b)
l
Lib.
4.
de
myster.
Misse
cap.
13.
Patet
ergo
quod
Judas
prius
exiit
quàm
Christus
traderet
Eucharistiam
.
Quod
autem
Lucas
post
calicem
commemorat
traditc●…em
,
per
recapitualtionem
potost
intelligi
:
Quia
saepe
●…it
in
Scriptura
ut'
quod
prius
sactum
sserat
posterius
enarretur
.
That
whole
Chapter
is
sp●nt
in
the
debating
of
this
questio●
.
Innocentius
the
third
,
who
holdeth
expresly
that
the
Sacrament
was
not
given
till
Iudas
had
gone
forth
:
and
that
there
is
a
recapitulation
in
the
narration
of
Luke
.
Moreover
as
it
is
evident
by
the
forementioned
Testimonies
of
Theophylact
that
some
of
the
Ancients
did
hold
that
Christ
gave
not
the
Sacrament
to
Iudas
:
so
also
the
Testimony
cited
by
Mr
Prynne
out
of
Victor
Antiochenus
beareth
witnesse
to
the
same
thing
:
sunt
tamen
qui
Judam
ante
porrectam
Eucharistiae
Sacamentum
exivisse
existiment
.
But
yet
(
saith
he
)
there
are
who
conceive
that
Judas
went
forth
before
the
Sacrament
of
the
Eucharist
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
ejusmodi
subindicare
videtur
.
Certainly
I●…hn
seemeth
to
intimate
some
such
thing
.
Which
is
more
then
halfe
a
consenting
with
those
who
thinke
that
Iudas
went
forth
before
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lords
Supper
.
I
shall
end
with
two
Testimonies
of
Rupertus
Tuitiensis
,
[
m
](A42757-e96640-b)
m
In
I●…h
6.
de
participatione
autem
co●po
r●s
&
sanguinis
ejus
,
potest
aliquis
opinari
quod
ille
(
Judas
)
intersuerit
.
Sed
profecto
diligentius
Evangelistarum
natratione
,
doctorumque
●nsiderata
diversitate
,
citius
deprehendi
,
huic
quoque
Sacramento
illum
nequaquam
inter●
Nam
cum
accepis●et
buccellam
,
qua
traditor
designatus
est
,
exivit
continuo
.
one
upon
the
sixth
:
[
n
](A42757-e96660-b)
n
Idem
in
Io.
13.
Sciendum
〈◊〉
ò
est
,
quia
,
sicut
&
ante
nos
dictum
est
,
si
post
bucellam
continuo
Judas
●xivit
,
sicut
paulò
post
Evangelista
dicit
,
procul●ubio
nequaquam
Discipulis
tunc
interfuit
,
quando
Domirus
noster
Sacramentum
illis
corporis
&
sanguinis
sui
distribuit
.
Et
paulo
post
.
Igitur
exemplo
Domini
,
tolerate
quidem
malos
boni
debent
in
Ecclesia
,
don●c
ventilabro
Judicii
granum
à
palea
,
vel
à
tritico
separentur
zizan●a
:
〈◊〉
e●
non
●o
usque
indis●
eta
debet
esse
patientia
,
ut
indig●is
,
quos
noverunt
,
Sacrosancta
Christi
tradant
mysteria
.
another
upon
the
thirteenth
of
Iohn
.
The
latter
of
the
two
speaketh
thus
,
being
Englished
.
But
we
must
know
,
that
,
as
it
hath
been
also
said
before
us
,
if
Judas
after
the
sop
did
goe
forth
immediately
,
as
a
little
after
the
Evangelist
saith
,
without
doubt
,
he
was
not
present
with
the
Disciples
at
that
time
when
our
Lord
did
distribute
unto
them
the
Sacrament
of
his
owne
body
and
blood
.
And
a
little
after
,
Therefore
by
the
Lords
example
the
good
ought
indeed
to
tolerate
the
bad
in
the
Church
,
untill
by
the
fanne
of
judgement
the
graine
be
separated
from
the
chaffe
,
or
the
tares
from
the
wheate
:
but
yet
patience
must
not
be
so
farre
void
of
discerning
,
as
that
they
should
give
the
most
sacred
mysteries
of
Christ
,
to
unworthy
persons
whom
they
know
to
be
such
.
As
for
moderne
writers
,
this
present
question
hath
been
debated
by
Salmeron
Tom.
9.
Tract
.
11.
and
by
Dr
Kellet
in
his
Tricaenium
lib.
2.
cap.
14.
both
of
them
hold
that
Iudas
did
not
receive
the
Lords
Supper
.
Mariana
on
Luke
22.
21.
citeth
authors
for
both
opinions
,
and
rejecteth
neither
.
Gerhard
Harm
.
Evang.
cap.
171
,
citeth
for
the
same
opinion
,
that
Iudas
did
not
receive
the
Lords
Supper
,
(
beside
Salmeron
)
Turrianus
and
Barradius
:
and
of
ours
Danaeus
,
Musculus
,
Kleinwitzius
,
Piscator
,
&
alii
complures
,
saith
he
,
and
many
others
.
Adde
also
Zanchius
upon
the
fourth
Command
.
Gomarus
(
who
professedly
handleth
this
question
upon
Iohn
13.
)
[
o
](A42757-e96920-b)
o
Beza
i●…
Jo.
13.
30.
certa
videtur
esse
corum
sententia
●ui
existimant
Judam
institutioni
sacrae
caenae
non
interfuisse
.
Beza
puts
it
out
of
question
,
and
[
p
](A42757-e96950-b)
p
Tessanus
in
Joh.
13.
ita
ut
Judae
qu●dem
laverit
pedes
Christus
,
sed
postea
egres●us
caenae
Sacramentali
non
interfuerit
,
sicut
●ruditi
multi
ex
hoc
capite
colligunt
.
Tossanns
tels
us
it
is
the
judgement
of
many
learned
men
,
as
well
as
his
owne
.
[
q
](A42757-e96980-b)
q
Musculus
in
loc.
com
.
de
can●…
Dom.
p.
352.
M●hi
sanè
dubium
non
est
,
egressum
ad
perficiendum
traditionis
scelus
fuisse
Judam
,
priusquam
Sacramentum
hoc
à
Domino
Disscipul
is
traderetu●
.
Musculus
following
Rupertus
,
concludeth
that
certainly
Iudas
was
gone
forth
,
before
Christ
gave
the
Sacrament
to
his
Apostles
.
So
likewise
[
r
](A42757-e97030-b)
r
Diodati
upon
Ioh
13.
30.
We
may
gather
from
hence
that
he
(
Judas
)
did
not
communicate
of
our
Saviours
Sacrament
.
Diodati
and
[
s
](A42757-e97090-b)
s
Grotius
annot.
in
Mat.
26.
21
,
26.
Luk
22.
21.
●…ch
.
13.
holds
that
the
Supper
at
which
the
sop
was
given
to
Iudas
,
and
from
which
he
went
forth
,
was
the
common
supper
,
and
that
it
was
before
the
Lords
Supper
,
and
that
Luke
doth
not
place
Christs
words
concerning
Iudas
Luke
22.
21.
in
the
proper
place
.
Grotius
.
By
this
time
it
appeareth
that
Mr
Prynne
hath
no
such
consent
of
writers
of
his
opinion
,
or
against
mine
,
as
he
pretendeth
.
As
for
those
Ancients
cited
by
Mr
Prynne
,
some
of
them
(
as
Origen
and
Cyrill
)
did
goe
upon
this
great
mistake
that
the
sop
which
Christ
gave
to
Iudas
,
was
the
Sacrament
;
which
errour
of
theirs
is
observed
by
Interpreters
upon
the
place
.
No
marvell
that
they
who
thought
so
,
were
also
of
opinion
that
Iudas
received
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lords
Supper
;
for
how
could
they
choose
to
thinke
otherwise
,
upon
that
supposition
?
But
now
the
later
Interpreters
,
yea
Mr
Prynne
himselfe
having
taken
away
that
which
was
the
ground
of
their
opinion
,
their
Testimonies
will
weigh
the
lesse
in
this
particular
.
Chrysostome
thinks
indeed
that
Iudas
received
the
Sacrament
,
but
he
takes
it
to
be
no
warrant
at
all
for
the
admission
of
scandalous
persons
:
for
in
one
and
the
same
Homily
,
Hom.
83.
in
Matth.
he
both
tels
us
of
Iudas
his
receiving
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
.
Oecumenius
(
in
the
passage
cited
by
Mr
Prynne
)
saith
that
the
other
Apostles
and
Iudas
did
eate
together
communi
mensa
,
at
a
common
Table
;
But
he
saith
not
at
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lords
Supper
.
That
which
Oecumenius
in
that
place
argueth
against
,
is
the
contempt
of
the
poore
in
the
Church
of
Corinth
,
and
the
secluding
of
them
from
the
love
feasts
of
the
richer
sort
.
Now
,
saith
he
,
if
Christ
himselfe
admitted
Iudas
to
eate
at
one
and
the
same
Table
,
with
his
other
Disciples
,
ought
not
we
much
more
admit
the
poore
to
eate
at
our
Tables
?
Mr
Prynne
tels
us
also
that
Nazianzen
in
his
Christus
patiens
agreeth
that
Iudas
did
receive
the
Lords
Supper
together
with
the
other
Apostles
.
I
answer
,
first
I
finde
no
such
thing
in
that
place
.
Next
,
those
verses
so
entituled
,
are
thought
to
be
done
by
some
late
author
,
and
not
by
Nazianzen
,
as
Io.
NeW
enklaius
in
his
Censure
upon
them
noteth
,
and
giveth
reason
for
it
.
Cyprians
Sermon
de
ablutione
pedum
,
as
it
is
doubted
of
whether
it
be
Cyprians
,
so
the
words
cited
by
Mr
Prynne
doe
not
prove
the
point
in
controverfie
.
The
other
Testimony
cited
out
of
Cyprians
Sermon
de
caena
Domini
,
as
it
is
not
transcribed
according
to
the
originall
,
so
if
Mr
Prynne
had
read
all
which
Cyprian
saith
in
that
Sermon
against
unworthy
receivers
,
peradventure
he
had
not
made
〈◊〉
of
that
testimony
.
The
words
cited
out
of
Ambrose
doe
not
hold
forth
clearely
Iudas
his
receiving
of
the
Eucharisticall
Supper
.
The
words
cited
out
of
Augustine
epist.
162.
Iudas
accepit
pretium
nostrum
,
are
not
there
to
be
found
,
though
there
be
something
to
that
sence
.
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
Ioh.
I
can
not
passe
them
without
two
Animadversions
.
First
,
the
greatest
part
of
those
words
,
which
he
citeth
as
Augustines
words
,
and
also
as
recited
by
Beda
in
his
Commentary
on
1
Cor.
11.
is
not
to
be
found
either
in
Augustine
or
Beda
in
the
places
by
him
cited
;
viz.
these
words
:
Talis
erat
Judas
,
&
tamen
cum
sanctis
Discipulis
undecin●…
intrabat
&
exibat
.
Ad
ipsam
caenam
Dominicam
pariter
accessit
,
conversari
cum
iis
potuit
,
eos
inquinare
non
potuit
:
De
uno
p●…ne
&
Petrus
accipit
&
Judas
;
&
tamen
quae
pars
fideli
&
infideli
?
Petrus
enim
accepit
ad
vitam
,
manducat
Judas
ad
mortem
:
Qui
enim
comederunt
indigne
judicium
sibi
manducat
&
bibit
SIBI
,
NON
TIBI
,
&c.
Of
which
last
sentence
if
Mr
Prynne
can
make
good
Latine
,
let
him
doe
it
,
(
for
I
can
not
)
and
when
he
hath
done
so
,
he
may
be
pleased
to
looke
over
his
Bookes
better
to
seeke
those
words
elsewhere
,
if
he
can
finde
them
,
for
as
yet
he
hath
directed
us
to
seeke
them
where
they
are
not
.
My
next
Animadversion
shall
be
this
.
The
words
of
Augustine
,
which
Mr
Prynne
alledgeth
for
Iudas
his
receiving
of
the
Sacrament
,
are
these
,
Tract
.
6.
in
Joh.
Num
enim
mala
erat
buccella
quae
tradita
est
Judae
à
Domino
?
Absit
.
Medicus
non
daret
venenum
:
salutem
medicus
dedit
,
sed
indigne
accipiendo
ad
perniciem
accepit
,
quia
non
pacatus
accepit
.
Thus
the
originall
,
though
not
so
recited
by
Mr
Prynne
:
but
that
I
passe
,
so
long
as
he
retaines
the
substance
.
Yet
how
will
he
conclude
from
these
words
that
Iudas
received
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lords
Supper
,
unlesse
he
make
Augustine
to
contradict
himselfe
most
grossely
:
for
Tract
.
62.
in
Joh.
(
another
place
whether
Mr
Prynne
directeth
us
,
)
speaking
of
Christs
giving
of
that
buccella
or
sop
to
Iudas
,
he
saith
,
Non
autem
ut
putant
quidam
negligenter
legentes
,
tunc
Judas
Christi
corpus
accepit
:
but
Judas
did
not
at
that
time
receive
the
body
of
Christ
,
as
some
negligently
reading
doe
thinke
.
Which
words
Beda
also
in
his
Comment
on
Ioh.
13.
hath
out
of
Augustine
.
It
is
Augustines
opinion
that
the
Sacrament
was
given
before
that
time
,
at
which
Iudas
was
present
.
That
which
Mr
Prynne
citeth
out
of
Algerus
(
a
Monke
,
who
in
that
same
booke
writeth
expresly
for
Transubstantiation
)
maketh
more
against
him
then
for
him
.
For
Algerus
takes
the
●eason
of
Christs
giving
the
Sacrament
to
Iudas
,
to
be
this
,
because
his
perverse
conscience
though
knowne
to
Christ
was
not
then
made
manifest
,
Iudas
not
being
accused
and
condemned
:
so
that
he
was
a
secret
,
not
a
scandalous
sinner
.
Thus
farre
we
have
a
taste
of
Mr
Prynnes
citations
of
the
Ancients
.
Peradventure
it
were
not
hard
to
finde
as
great
flaws
in
some
other
of
those
citations
.
But
it
is
not
worth
the
while
to
stay
so
long
upon
it
.
Among
the
re●
he
citeth
Haymo
Bishop
of
Halberstat
for
Iudas
his
receiving
of
the
Sacrament
.
But
he
may
also
be
pleased
to
take
notice
that
Haymo
would
have
no
notorious
scandalous
sinner
to
receive
the
Sacrament
,
and
holds
that
a
man
eats
and
drinks
unworthily
qui
gravioribus
criminibus
commaculatus
praesumit
illud
(
sacramentum
)
sumere
;
that
is
,
who
being
defiled
with
haynous
crimes
presumeth
to
take
the
Sacrament
;
but
if
he
had
thought
it
(
as
Master
Prynne
doth
)
the
most
effectuall
ordinance
,
and
readiest
meanes
to
worke
conversion
and
repentance
,
he
could
not
have
said
so
.
That
which
Mr
Prynne
pag.
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
Iudas
did
receive
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lords
Supper
.
The
Belgik
confession
saith
an
evill
man
may
receive
the
Sacrament
unto
his
own
condemnation
.
As
for
example
,
Judas
and
Simon
Magus
both
of
them
did
receive
the
Sacramentall
signe
.
I
can
subscribe
to
all
this
;
for
it
is
true
in
respect
of
the
baptisme
both
of
Iudas
and
Simon
Magus
.
But
I
must
here
put
Mr
Prynne
in
minde
,
that
the
thing
which
he
pleads
for
,
is
extreamly
different
from
that
which
the
Belgick
Churches
hold
.
For
Harmonia
Synodorum
Belgicarum
cap.
13.
saith
thus
,
Nemo
ad
Caenam
dominicam
admittatur
,
nisi
qui
fidei
Confessionem
ante
reddiderit
,
&
Disciplinae
Ecclesiasticae
se
subjecerit
,
&
vitae
inculpatae
testes
fideles
produxerit
.
Let
no
man
be
admitted
to
the
Lords
Supper
,
except
he
who
hath
first
made
a
confession
of
his
faith
,
and
hath
subjected
himselfe
to
the
Church
Discipline
,
and
hath
proved
himselfe
by
faithfull
witnesses
to
be
of
an
unblameable
life
.
The
other
confession
of
Bohemia
saith
that
Iudas
received
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lord
Christ
himselfe
,
did
also
execute
the
function
of
a
Preacher
,
and
yet
he
ceased
not
to
remaine
a
divell
,
an
hypocrite
,
&c.
This
needeth
not
be
expounded
of
the
Lords
Supper
(
which
if
he
had
received
,
how
did
he
still
remaine
an
hypocrite
?
for
that
very
night
his
wickednesse
did
breake
forth
and
was
put
in
execution
)
but
of
the
Passeover
received
by
Iudas
once
and
againe
,
if
not
the
third
time
.
That
Chapter
is
of
Sacraments
in
generall
,
and
that
which
is
added
,
is
concerning
Ananias
and
his
wife
,
their
being
baptised
of
the
Apostles
.
However
the
very
same
Chapter
saith
that
Ministers
must
throughly
looke
to
it
,
and
take
diligent
heed
lest
they
give
holy
things
to
dogs
,
or
cast
Pearles
before
swine
.
Which
is
there
applied
to
the
Sacraments
,
and
is
not
understood
of
preaching
and
admonishing
onely
as
Mr
Prynne
understands
it
.
Also
the
Booke
entituled
Ratio
Disciplinae
ordinisque
Eccles●…astici
in
unitate
fratrum
Bohemorum
cap.
7.
appointeth
not
onely
Church-discipline
in
generall
,
but
particularly
suspension
from
the
Lords
Table
of
obstinate
offenders
.
Finally
,
whereas
M.
Prynne
citeth
a
passage
of
the
antiquated
Common
prayer
Booke
,
as
it
hath
lost
the
authority
which
once
it
had
,
so
that
passage
doth
not
by
any
necessary
inference
hold
forth
that
Iudas
received
the
Sacrament
,
as
D.
Kellet
sheweth
at
some
length
in
his
Tricaenium
.
The
citation
in
which
M.
Prynne
is
most
large
,
is
that
of
Alexander
Alensis
part
.
4.
Quaest.
11.
membr
.
2.
art.
1.
sect.
4.
(
though
not
so
quoted
by
him
)
But
for
a
retribution
,
I
shall
tell
him
three
great
points
,
in
which
Alexander
Alensis
in
that
very
dispute
of
the
receiving
of
the
Eucharist
,
is
utterly
against
his
principles
.
First
,
Alexander
Alensis
is
of
opinion
that
the
precept
Matth.
7.
6.
Give
not
that
which
is
holy
to
dogs
,
neither
cast
ye
Pearles
before
swine
,
doth
extend
to
the
denying
the
Sacrament
to
known
prophane
Christians
;
for
both
in
that
Section
which
hath
been
cited
,
and
art.
3.
sect.
1.
answering
objections
from
that
Text
,
he
doth
not
say
,
that
it
is
meant
of
the
word
,
not
of
the
Sacrament
,
and
of
Infidels
,
Hereticks
,
Persecutors
,
not
of
prophane
ones
:
but
he
ever
supposeth
,
that
the
Ministers
are
forbidden
by
that
Text
,
to
consent
to
give
the
Sacrament
to
prophane
scandalous
sinners
.
Secondly
,
Alexander
Alensis
holds
,
that
Christs
giving
of
the
Sacrament
to
Iudas
,
is
no
warrant
to
Ministers
to
give
the
Sacrament
to
publique
notorious
scandalous
sinners
,
though
they
doe
desire
it
.
And
thus
he
resolveth
Ib.
art.
3.
sect.
1.
If
the
Priest
know
any
man
by
confession
to
be
in
a
mortall
sinne
;
he
ought
to
admonish
him
in
secret
,
that
he
approach
not
to
the
Table
of
the
Lord
:
and
he
ought
to
deny
unto
such
a
one
the
body
of
Christ
,
if
he
desire
it
in
secret
.
But
if
he
desire
it
in
publique
,
then
either
his
sinne
is
publique
or
secret
.
I●…
publique
,
he
ought
to
deny
it
unto
him
;
neither
so
doth
he
reveale
sinne
because
it
is
publique
:
If
private
,
he
must
give
it
,
lest
a
worse
thing
fall
out
.
Thirdly
,
Alexander
Alensis
holds
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lords
Supper
,
not
to
be
a
converting
,
but
a
confirming
and
conserving
Ordinance
Ibid.
art.
2.
sect.
2.
His
words
I
shall
cite
in
the
debating
of
that
controversie
.
CHAP.
IX
.
Whether
Judas
received
the
Sacrament
of
the
Passeover
that
night
in
which
our
Lord
was
betrayed
.
Mr
Prynne
(
distrusting
peradventure
the
strength
of
his
proofes
for
Iudas
his
receiving
of
the
Lords
Supper
)
betakes
himselfe
to
an
additionall
argument
pag.
24.
All
our
Antagonists
,
saith
he
,
and
the
Evangelists
clearely
agree
that
Judas
did
eate
the
Passeover
with
Christ
himselfe
,
as
well
as
the
other
Apostles
:
now
the
Passeover
was
a
type
of
the
Lords
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
doe
still
make
a
very
great
question
of
it
,
whether
Iudas
did
so
much
as
eate
the
Passeover
at
that
time
with
Christ
and
the
other
Apostles
:
and
I
thinke
I
have
very
considerable
reasons
which
make
it
probable
that
Iudas
did
not
eate
the
Passeover
that
night
with
Christ
and
the
Apostles
.
The
resolution
of
this
question
depends
upon
another
,
whether
Christ
and
his
Apostles
did
eate
the
Passeover
before
that
supper
at
which
he
did
wash
his
Disciples
feet
,
and
gave
the
sop
to
Iudas
(
after
the
receiving
whereof
Iudas
immediately
went
out
)
or
whether
that
supper
was
before
the
eating
of
the
Passeover
.
I
finde
[
t
](A42757-e98680-b)
t
Gerhard
.
Har●…
Evang.
cap.
170.
Quidam
statuunt
pedum
lotionem
ips●
etiam
legali
caenae
sive
agni
pasch●lis
esui
praemittendam
esse
.
some
others
as
well
as
my selfe
have
been
of
opinion
that
it
was
before
,
not
after
the
Passeover
;
(
yea
that
the
Jewish
custome
was
to
eate
their
common
Supper
before
the
Passeover
.
See
M.
Weemse
his
Christian
Synagogue
pag
120.
)
I
finde
also
Ammonius
Alexandrinus
de
quatuor
Evangeliorum
consonantia
cap.
154.
placeth
that
supper
mentioned
Iohn
13.
2
,
4
,
12
,
18.
at
which
Jesus
did
wash
his
Disciples
feet
,
and
when
he
had
done
sate
down
againe
,
and
told
them
that
he
who
was
eating
bread
with
him
should
betray
him
.
Then
cap.
155.
he
proceedeth
to
the
story
of
the
Paschall
supper
,
in
which
he
conceiv●th
the
sop
was
given
to
Iudas
;
but
in
this
particular
he
did
much
mistake
;
for
the
sop
was
given
at
the
same
supper
mentioned
Iohn
13.
2
,
4
,
12
,
18.
and
not
at
the
Paschall
Supper
(
as
M
Prynne
also
acknowledgeth
,
)
This
is
cleare
,
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
Paschall
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
orientall
custome
was
to
wash
before
meal
,
not
after
they
had
begun
to
eate
.
2.
This
Supper
(
in
which
the
sop
was
given
to
Iudas
,
whereupon
he
went
away
)
was
before
the
Feast
of
the
Passeover
,
Joh.
13.
1.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
meaning
immediately
before
the
feast
of
the
Passeover
,
it
being
reckoned
from
the
time
of
eating
the
Paschall
Lambe
,
and
so
before
the
Feast
of
the
Passeover
,
hath
the
same
sence
as
Luke
11.
38.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
the
Pharisee
wondred
that
Christ
had
not
washed
before
dinner
,
that
is
immediately
before
dinner
.
So
here
I
undestand
before
the
Feast
of
the
Passeover
,
that
is
immediately
before
the
time
of
eating
the
Paschall
Lambe
,
which
was
the
beginning
of
the
Feast
of
the
Passeover
.
You
will
say
perhaps
that
Christ
did
not
eate
the
Passeover
upon
the
same
day
that
the
Jewes
did
,
and
so
those
words
before
the
Feast
of
Passeover
,
may
be
understood
before
the
Passeover
of
the
Jewes
,
not
before
the
Passeover
of
Christ
.
I
answer
,
whether
Christ
and
the
Jewes
kept
the
Passeover
at
one
time
,
is
much
debated
among
Interpreters
.
Baronius
,
Toletus
,
and
divers
others
hold
that
Christ
did
eate
the
Paschall
Lambe
upon
the
same
day
with
the
Jewes
.
Scaliger
,
Causabon
,
and
others
hold
the
contrary
.
The
question
hath
been
peculiarly
debated
between
Ioh.
Cloppenburgius
,
and
Ludovicus
Capellus
,
yet
so
that
Capellus
(
who
followes
Scaliger
and
Casaubon
)
acknowledgeth
that
both
opinions
have
considerable
reasons
,
and
both
are
straitned
with
some
inconveniencies
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
de
ultimo
Christi
paschate
pag.
6.
&
22.
For
my
part
,
I
shall
not
contend
:
but
admit
the
distinction
of
Christs
Passeover
and
the
Jewes
Passeover
;
yet
saith
Maldonat
upon
Ioh.
13.
1.
I
doubt
not
but
Iohn
understands
Christs
Passe-over
;
for
all
the
Evangelists
in
the
story
of
the
last
Supper
when
they
speake
of
the
Passeover
,
they
mean
Christs
Passeover
,
and
it
was
the
true
Passeover
according
to
the
Law
.
3.
That
which
makes
many
to
thinke
that
Christ
did
eate
the
Passeover
before
that
other
Supper
in
which
he
gave
the
sop
to
Iudas
,
is
a
mistake
of
the
Jewish
custome
,
which
as
they
conceive
was
to
eate
other
meat
after
,
but
none
before
the
Paschall
Lambe
.
Now
to
me
the
contrary
appeareth
,
namely
,
that
whatsoever
the
Jewes
did
eate
before
the
Paschall
Supper
,
in
the
night
of
the
Passeover
,
was
eaten
before
the
Paschall
Supper
,
and
it
was
among
them
forbidden
to
eate
any
thing
after
the
Paschall
Supper
.
Which
may
be
proved
not
onely
by
that
Talmudicall
Canon
(
cited
by
D.
Buxtorf
in
hist.
instit.
caenae
Dom.
)
which
saith
,
The
Passeover
is
not
eaten
except
after
meal
:
but
also
more
plainly
by
[
w
](A42757-e99060-b)
w
Non
dimittunt
(
caetum
comedentium
)
post
esum
(
agni
)
paschalis
cum
bellariis
(
Hoc
est
non
sinunt
caetum
comedentium
post
esum
agni
paschalis
comedere
secundarum
mensatum
delitias
)
Ibid.
v●…rsus
finem
.
Comedentium
caetus
sic
dimittitur
,
ut
nihil
amplius
cibi
aut
bellariorum
aut
similes
secundarum
mensarum
delitias
,
quae
ad
commessationes
pertinent
,
illis
comedere
aut
quicquam
bibere
permissum
sit
:
non
enim
in
more
habent
post
sacram
hanc
caenam
indulgere
commess●tionibus
&
〈◊〉
,
imo
ne
minimum
quidem
▪
gustant
.
Liber
rituum
paschalium
lately
translated
and
published
by
Rittangelius
:
and
by
another
Canon
cited
by
[
x
](A42757-e99100-b)
x
Matth.
Martini●…
lexic.
philol
.
pag.
25
29.
Nam
sanè
Canon
paschali●…
diser●…e
interdicebat
,
post
poculum
la●…dationis
,
aliquid
cibi
aut
p●…tus
sumere
.
Interdicitur
comedere
aliquid
post
poculum
hymni
.
Hic
fuit
verus
ritus
celebrat●…nis
pascha
temporibus
Messiae
,
&c.
Martinius
.
But
there
are
two
arguments
which
may
be
brought
to
prove
that
Iudas
did
eate
the
Passeover
with
Christ
and
the
Apostles
.
1.
Because
that
Supper
at
which
Iudas
got
the
sop
,
was
after
the
Paschall
supper
,
for
it
is
said
Iohn
13.
2.
Supper
being
ended
.
Which
must
be
meant
of
the
Paschall
supper
.
I
answer
these
words
may
very
well
be
understood
not
of
the
Paschall
supper
,
but
of
that
other
supper
at
which
the
sop
was
given
to
Iudas
.
And
as
for
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
:
some
Greeke
copies
have
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
and
Nonnus
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
:
so
the
sence
were
as
Augustine
expounds
,
Supper
being
prepared
and
ready
and
set
on
Table
.
But
be
it
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
or
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
the
matter
is
not
great
;
for
there
is
no
necessity
of
expounding
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
thus
,
when
Supper
was
done
or
ended
.
It
may
suffer
other
two
sences
.
One
is
,
that
of
Augustine
,
when
it
was
Supper
time
,
or
when
Supper
was
set
on
Table
.
And
this
sence
is
followed
by
A●…binus
Fl●…us
Alcuinus
lib.
de
divinis
Officiis
,
Artic.
de
Caena
Domini
.
Circa
v●…speram
vero
caenâ
factâ
,
id
est
paratâ
,
&
ad
convivantium
mensam
usque
perductâ
,
non
transactâ
neque
●…initâ
,
surgit
Jesus
à
caenâ
&
p●…it
vestimenta
,
&c.
So
likewise
Mariana
upon
Ioh.
13.
2.
tels
us
that
caenâ
factâ
,
may
well
be
expounded
,
caenâ
paratâ
,
or
ante
caenam
,
or
cum
caenae
tempus
adesset
,
which
he
cleareth
by
the
like
formes
of
speech
in
other
Scriptures
.
Secondly
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
may
very
well
be
translated
,
when
supper
was
begun
,
or
when
they
were
at
Supper
,
as
I
have
before
shewed
by
like
instances
in
the
New
Testament
,
Matth.
26.
6.
20.
Things
permanent
as
a
house
,
or
the
like
are
said
to
be
factae
,
when
they
are
ended
and
compleate
.
But
things
which
are
successive
are
said
to
be
factae
,
when
they
are
begun
,
as
dies
factus
,
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
sence
is
given
by
Osiander
,
Erasmus
,
●…ossanus
harm
.
evang.
part
3.
cap.
1.
beside
the
Centuri●ts
,
Salmeron
,
and
Lud.
de
Dieu
before
cited
.
The
other
argument
may
be
this
.
Matthew
,
Marke
and
Luke
,
after
they
have
told
of
the
making
ready
of
the
Passeover
,
adde
that
Christ
sate
〈◊〉
with
the
Twelve
.
Ans.
1.
It
cannot
be
proved
,
that
this
is
meant
of
sitting
down
to
eate
the
Passeover
;
nay
,
it
rather
appeareth
from
the
Text
,
that
it
was
to
eate
that
other
supper
,
at
which
the
sop
was
given
to
Iudas
;
The
same
discourse
and
questioning
concerning
the
Traytor
,
which
Iohn
sets
down
before
Iudas
his
getting
of
the
sop
and
going
out
;
is
recorded
by
Ma●…thew
and
Marke
,
to
have
been
in
that
first
supper
,
unto
which
Christ
sate
down
with
the
twelve
when
even
was
come
.
Therefore
Christs
sitting
down
with
the
twelve
Matth.
26.
20
,
21.
Mark
▪
14.
17
,
18.
●eing
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
Prynnes
confession
was
not
the
Paschall
,
but
the
ordinary
supper
.
)
It
followeth
that
the
sitting
down
with
the
twelve
is
not
meant
of
the
Passeover
,
but
of
an
ordinary
supper
before
the
Passeover
.
2.
The
same
words
of
Christs
sitting
down
with
the
twelve
are
expounded
(
though
upon
other
considerations
)
as
spoken
in
reference
not
to
the
Paschall
,
but
the
ordinary
or
common
supper
,
by
Lorinus
in
Psal.
101.
6.
following
Maldonat
,
and
by
Gerhard
.
Harm
.
Evang.
cap
170.
p.
403.
Their
reason
is
,
because
according
to
the
Law
,
the
Passeover
was
to
be
eaten
standing
,
not
sitting
:
but
that
is
more
then
can
be
proved
from
the
Law
which
doth
not
so
much
as
speake
of
standing
at
the
first
Passeover
.
It
is
no
necessary
consequence
:
they
had
their
stav●s
in
their
hands
,
ergo
they
were
standing
.
This
by
the
way
.
3.
Granting
that
Christs
sitting
downe
with
the
twelve
were
spoken
of
the
Paschall
supper
,
yet
the
paschall
supper
being
after
the
other
supper
,
at
which
Iudas
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
Iudas
was
gone
,
that
Christ
sate
down
with
the
twelve
,
as
well
as
1
Cor.
15.
5.
it
is
said
of
Christ
risen
from
the
dead
,
he
was
seen
of
Cephas
,
then
of
the
twelve
,
though
he
was
seen
onely
of
the
eleven
,
and
Iudas
was
gone
to
his
place
.
Which
answers
all
that
can
be
said
from
Luke
22.
14
,
15.
If
I
have
not
said
so
much
,
as
to
put
it
out
of
all
question
that
Iudas
did
not
eate
of
the
Passeover
with
Christ
and
his
Apostles
,
yet
I
am
sure
I
have
cleared
so
much
as
this
,
that
Master
Prynne
will
not
be
able
to
prove
convincingly
that
Iudas
did
eate
of
the
Passeover
that
●ight
with
Christ
.
I
will
conclude
with
the
pious
observation
of
Mr
Cartwright
:
that
it
was
not
a
vaine
or
idle
question
,
which
the
Disciples
propounded
,
(
being
commanded
to
prepare
the
Passeover
)
they
aske
,
where
wilt
thou
that
we
prepare
?
Luke
22.
8
,
9.
for
Christ
having
commanded
them
,
that
into
whatsoever
City
they
entered
,
they
should
enquire
who
were
godly
therein
,
and
turne
in
to
such
,
to
lodge
and
to
eate
there
;
They
did
thereby
easily
understand
,
that
if
in
common
and
ordinary
eating
together
,
then
much
more
in
this
sacred
feast
,
they
must
turne
in
to
the
families
of
the
godly
,
and
avoyd
the
prophane
;
especially
considering
that
they
who
were
of
that
houshold
were
to
eate
the
Passeover
with
Christ
and
his
Disciples
,
according
to
the
Law
.
From
this
very
example
of
the
Passeover
he
drawes
an
argument
for
keeping
off
all
ungodly
and
prophane
persons
from
the
Sacrament
,
so
farre
as
is
possible
.
Thus
Cartwright
Harm
.
Evang.
lib.
3.
pag.
162.
The
like
observation
Chrysostome
hath
upon
Matth.
26.
18.
I
will
keepe
the
Passeover
at
thy
house
with
my
Disciples
.
He
bids
us
marke
those
words
with
my
Disciples
:
not
with
prophane
or
scandalous
ones
,
but
with
my
Disciples
.
To
the
like
purpose
Titus
Bostrorum
Episcopus
in
Luke
22.
hath
this
observation
.
Non
manducat
autem
hoc
pascha
cum
Judaeis
,
sed
tantum
cum
Discipulis
suis
:
Siquidem
Judaei
,
propter
obstinatam
incredulitatem
,
hoc
paschate
indigni
erant
.
Yet
he
eateth
not
this
Passeover
with
the
Jewes
,
but
onely
with
his
own
Disciples
:
for
as
much
as
the
Jews
,
because
of
their
obstinate
incred●…lity
,
were
unworthy
of
this
Passeover
.
CHAP.
X.
That
if
it
could
be
proved
that
Judas
received
the
Lords
Supper
,
it
maketh
nothing
against
the
Suspension
of
known
wicked
persons
from
the
Sacrament
.
I
Have
now
done
with
the
first
part
of
this
Controversie
concerning
Iudas
,
and
have
disproved
that
which
Mr
Prynne
hath
said
either
for
Iudas
his
receiving
of
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lords
Supper
,
or
for
his
eating
of
the
Passeover
.
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
looke
upon
it
as
a
matter
of
debate
,
and
I
know
none
that
ever
cried
downe
with
scorne
and
contempt
the
opinion
of
Iudas
his
not
receiving
of
the
Sacrament
,
excep●
Mr
Prynne
whose
grounds
are
oftimes
weakest
where
his
assertions
are
strongest
.
I
proceed
to
the
second
answer
.
Granting
that
Iud●…s
did
receive
the
Sacrament
,
that
can
make
nothing
for
the
admission
of
scandalons
sinners
whose
prophannesse
and
ungodly
conversation
is
knowne
,
and
maketh
their
name
to
stinke
in
the
Church
.
For
Iudas
his
wickednesse
was
not
publique
nor
knowne
before
he
had
got
the
sop
and
gone
out
,
and
left
the
company
of
Christ
and
the
Apostles
.
And
moreover
he
who
argueth
from
Christs
receiving
of
Iudas
to
the
Sacrament
,
when
though
his
sinne
was
yet
secret
,
yet
Christ
knew
him
to
be
a
divell
;
to
prove
that
the
Eldership
may
and
ought
to
admit
one
to
the
Sacrament
,
whom
they
know
to
be
a
Iudas
,
a
Divell
:
may
as
well
argue
from
Christs
choosing
of
Iudas
to
be
an
Apostle
when
he
knew
him
to
be
a
Divell
,
to
prove
the
lawfulnesse
of
the
Elderships
choosing
of
a
Minister
whom
they
know
to
be
a
divell
.
But
now
for
that
point
of
the
scandall
or
secresie
of
Iudas
his
sinne
,
let
us
heare
Mr
Prynnes
reply
,
pag.
26
,
27.
He
gives
it
foure
feet
to
runne
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
Iudas
should
betray
him
Iohn
13.
18.
to
28.
Matth.
26.
20.
to
26.
Marke
14.
18.
to
22.
Luk●…
22.
21
,
22
,
23.
More
plainly
pag.
27.
he
saith
,
Christ
did
admit
Iudas
,
to
eate
the
Passeover
and
Sacrament
with
his
other
Disciples
,
and
they
made
not
any
s●…ruple
of
conscience
to
communicate
with
him
in
both
,
no
not
after
Christ
had
particularly
informed
them
,
and
Iudas
himselfe
,
that
he
should
betray
him
,
Matth.
26.
21.
to
36.
Answ.
1.
It
was
but
just
now
that
Mr
Prynne
told
us
,
(
to
manifest
that
Iud●…s
was
at
the
Sacrament
)
that
Luke
placeth
Christs
words
concerning
Iud●…s
,
after
the
Sacrament
,
not
before
it
.
And
more
expressely
he
told
us
out
of
Iohn
that
Christs
discourse
about
Iudas
,
and
his
informing
of
the
Disciples
that
one
of
them
should
betray
him
,
and
his
giving
the
sop
to
Iudas
,
was
after
the
Sacrament
,
because
it
was
after
supper
end●d
,
the
Sacrament
being
instituted
and
distributed
before
supper
ended
Vindic.
pag.
18
,
19.
&
25.
The
same
thing
which
before
he
made
to
be
after
the
Sacrament
,
to
prove
that
Iudas
did
receive
the
Sacrament
,
the
very
same
he
now
makes
to
be
before
the
Sacrament
,
that
he
may
prove
Iudas
a
scandalous
sinner
and
a
known
Traitor
,
even
before
his
receiving
of
the
Sacrament
.
And
shall
he
thus
abuse
not
onely
his
Reader
,
but
the
Word
of
God
it selfe
with
palpable
and
grosse
contradictions
?
I
shall
beseech
him
in
the
feare
of
God
to
looke
to
it
,
and
never
more
to
take
this
liberty
to
put
contrary
sences
upon
the
holy
Scripture
,
so
as
may
seeme
to
serve
most
for
his
present
advantage
.
Surely
such
lucubrations
are
not
onely
subitane
but
sinfull
.
2.
His
answer
which
now
he
gives
us
doth
clearely
yeeld
these
two
things
:
1.
That
the
Discourse
about
the
Traytor
,
and
the
giving
of
the
sop
,
I●…hn
13.
8.
to
vers.
28.
was
before
the
Sacrament
;
Now
Iudas
having
gone
out
immediately
after
the
sop
,
hereby
Master
Prynne
strengthneth
my
argument
which
I
brought
to
prove
that
Iudas
did
not
receive
the
Sacrament
;
which
argument
in
this
very
particular
he
formerly
opposed
.
2.
He
hath
here
also
yeelded
that
these
words
Luke
22.
21
,
22
,
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
colourable
argument
for
Iudas
his
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
Marke
who
record
that
discourse
about
Iudas
before
the
Sacrament
.
And
in
yeelding
this
,
he
takes
off
his
own
strongest
argument
,
and
confirmes
what
I
have
before
taken
pains
to
prove
.
3.
Those
Divines
that
hold
Iudas
did
receive
the
Sacrament
,
doe
conceive
that
those
words
,
But
behold
the
hand
of
him
that
betrayeth
me
,
&c.
were
indeed
spoken
after
the
Sacrament
,
and
that
Luke
placeth
them
in
their
proper
place
.
And
so
holding
that
the
discourse
about
the
Traytor
was
after
the
Sacrament
,
they
doe
thereby
intimate
that
Iudas
was
not
knowne
to
be
the
Traytor
,
till
after
the
Sacrament
.
Wherefore
either
a
man
must
quit
the
most
considerable
argument
for
Iudas
his
receiving
of
the
Sacrament
,
or
else
acknowledge
that
Iudas
was
not
knowne
by
the
Disciples
to
be
the
Traytor
till
after
the
Sacrament
.
4.
When
after
the
giving
of
the
sop
Christ
said
to
Iudas
,
That
thou
dost
,
doe
quickly
,
No
man
at
the
Table
knew
for
what
intent
he
spake
this
unto
him
,
John
13.
28.
But
if
Christ
had
particularly
informed
them
that
Iudas
was
the
Traytor
,
how
is
it
that
they
could
have
been
so
altogether
ignorant
of
Christs
intent
,
as
to
thinke
that
he
was
still
trusting
Iudas
with
the
buying
of
what
they
had
need
of
against
the
Feast
,
or
with
giving
to
the
poore
?
Hence
Lud.
Capellus
Spicileg
.
in
Joh.
13.
collecteth
that
when
Iohn
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
Disciples
did
not
heare
it
:
else
they
could
not
have
been
so
ignorant
of
it
.
5.
The
places
cited
by
Mr
Prynne
doe
not
prove
that
Christ
did
particularly
tell
and
informe
his
Disciples
that
Iudas
(
but
that
one
of
them
)
should
betray
him
.
Christ
made
it
known
to
Iohn
alone
by
the
signe
of
giving
the
sop
,
Ioh.
13.
26.
Yea
Theophylact.
upon
Ioh.
13.
thinkes
,
that
as
the
other
Apostles
heard
not
what
Christ
said
to
Iohn
concerning
the
Traytor
,
so
Iohn
himselfe
even
at
that
instant
could
hardly
imagine
that
Iudas
would
commit
so
great
wickednesse
.
Nullus
ergo
cog●…vit
,
saith
he
,
no
man
did
know
it
,
which
he
gathers
from
the
words
of
John
himselfe
,
vers.
28
,
29.
Bucerus
in
Matth.
26.
23.
holdeth
the
same
.
I
know
some
thinke
it
was
made
knowne
to
all
the
Disciples
by
that
Math.
26.
25
Then
Jud●…s
which
betrayed
him
answered
and
said
,
Master
Is
it
I
?
He
said
unto
him
,
Thou
hast
said
.
But
others
answer
that
it
is
not
certaine
that
Christ
said
this
to
Iudas
in
the
hearing
of
all
the
Disciples
:
also
that
these
words
Thou
hast
said
,
are
not
a
cleare
affirmation
of
the
thing
.
Lud.
Capellus
Spicileg
.
in
Matth.
26.
admitteth
these
words
Thou
hast
said
,
to
be
affirmative
of
that
which
had
been
said
.
But
he
moves
this
doubt
:
when
Iudas
had
said
Is
it
I
?
he
did
not
affirme
the
thing
,
but
doubted
of
it
.
How
then
did
Christ
returne
such
an
answer
as
agreeth
to
that
which
Iudas
had
said
,
as
if
it
had
been
a
positive
truth
.
He
gives
this
solution
,
that
Christ
as
searcher
of
the
heart
did
speake
it
to
Iudas
,
who
was
in
his
conscience
convinced
that
he
was
the
man
,
and
so
assenteth
to
the
truth
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
cleare
information
to
all
the
Disciples
that
Iud●…s
was
the
Traytor
,
yet
(
by
their
principles
who
hold
Iudas
did
receive
the
Sacrament
)
this
was
after
,
not
before
the
Sacrament
,
for
they
make
the
anticipation
to
be
in
Matthew
and
Marke
,
and
the
true
order
to
be
in
Luke
.
6.
Beside
that
of
the
French
Catechisme
,
which
saith
the
impiety
of
Iudas
was
concealed
,
and
not
broken
forth
into
the
light
and
knowledge
of
men
when
the
Sacrament
was
given
:
take
these
other
Testimonies
,
Martyr
.
in
1
Cor.
5.
Et
quod
attinet
ad
Judam
,
peccatum
ejus
non
erat
cognitum
atque
perspectum
,
nec
ullo
judicio
convictum
.
Gerhard
.
Harm
.
Evang.
cap.
171.
pag.
453
,
Iudae
scelus
nondum
erat
in
lucem
productum
,
sed
anim●…
suo
illud
ad●…c
ela●…sum
tenebat
.
The
same
he
hath
in
his
common
places
Tom.
5.
pag.
181.
where
he
sheweth
that
Iudas
receiving
of
the
Sacrament
maketh
nothing
for
the
admission
of
scandalous
persons
;
because
although
Iudas
had
gone
to
the
chiefe
Priests
and
agreed
with
them
,
this
was
knowne
to
none
of
the
Disciples
,
at
that
time
,
but
to
Christ
himselfe
onely
.
Nay
the
Testimony
cited
by
Mr
Prynne
himselfe
out
of
Algerus
de
Sacram.
maketh
strongly
against
him
in
this
particular
:
Quia
enim
saith
Algerus
)
Judas
accusatus
&
damnatus
non
fuerat
,
ideo
Christus
conscientiam
ejus
perversam
,
quamvis
sibi
notam
damnare
noluit
.
For
because
Judas
was
not
accused
&
condemned
,
therefore
Christ
would
not
condemne
(
openly
)
his
perverse
conscience
,
though
known
to
himself
.
Innocentius
3.
in
the
place
above
cited
De
myst
.
Missae
lib.
4.
cap.
13.
after
he
hath
asserted
that
Iudas
did
not
receive
the
Lords
Supper
,
he
addeth
,
that
if
it
should
be
granted
that
Iudas
did
receive
it
,
this
onely
will
follow
at
most
,
that
Ministers
are
to
admit
to
the
Sacrament
such
as
are
not
known
to
the
Church
,
to
be
impious
or
wicked
,
as
Iudas
his
wickednesse
was
not
at
that
time
knowne
to
the
Disciples
.
Likewise
both
Chrysostome
and
Theophylact
upon
Iohn
13.
are
cleare
in
this
,
that
Iudas
hypocrisie
was
not
detected
to
the
Apostles
till
Christ
did
separate
him
,
and
he
went
forth
.
Moreover
I
shall
minde
Mr
Prynne
how
he
himselfe
doth
apply
this
example
of
Iudas
in
his
Independency
examined
,
pag.
8
,
9.
he
argueth
thus
:
Whether
Independents
refus●…ll
to
admit
such
Christians
who
are
not
notoriously
scandalous
in
their
lives
,
nor
grossely
ignorant
in
the
principles
of
Religion
,
to
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lords
Supper
,
&c.
onely
upon
this
suspition
or
apprehension
,
that
they
are
but
carnall
men
,
not
truly
regenerated
or
sanctified
by
Gods
Spirit
(
though
they
can
not
certainly
judge
of
their
present
spirituall
conditions
infallibly
known
to
God
alone
)
be
not
a
very
uncharitable
arrogant
,
yea
unchristian
practice
,
contrary
to
our
Saviours
owne
immediate
example
,
who
at
the
first
institution
of
this
Sacrament
admitted
Iudas
to
his
last
Supper
,
as
well
as
his
Disciples
,
though
he
certainly
knew
him
to
be
both
a
Traytor
and
a
Divell
.
In
which
argumentation
he
himself
supposeth
that
Iudas
was
not
notoriously
scandalous
,
nor
knowne
to
the
Disciples
,
(
but
to
God
and
Christ
alone
)
to
be
a
Traytor
and
Divell
.
For
otherwise
he
could
not
in
any
reason
argue
thus
against
the
Independents
:
because
if
this
supposition
be
not
laid
downe
that
Iudas
was
an
unregenerate
yet
not
a
scandalous
person
:
then
the
Independents
had
this
obvious
answer
,
that
if
his
Argument
prove
any
thing
,
it
doth
conclude
the
admission
not
onely
of
unregenerated
and
unsanctified
,
but
of
scandalous
persons
,
to
the
Sacrament
;
whereas
he
brings
it
to
prove
against
them
,
that
persons
not
scandalous
,
though
unregenerate
,
ought
not
to
be
refused
the
Sacrament
.
And
now
he
brings
the
same
thing
against
us
to
prove
that
scandalous
persons
ought
to
be
admitted
,
if
not
excommunicated
,
and
desirous
to
receive
the
Sacrament
.
He
tels
us
by
the
way
of
Iudas
his
theevish
,
covetous
,
as
well
as
traiterous
disposition
Iohn
12.
6.
both
which
did
make
him
scandalous
.
But
he
might
have
observed
,
that
the
holy
Ghost
sheweth
plainly
that
in
that
act
Iudas
was
not
a
scandalous
sinner
in
the
esteeme
of
the
other
Disciples
;
for
his
theevish
covetous
disposition
was
not
known
to
the
Disciples
;
yea
the
pretext
of
his
care
for
the
poore
was
so
plausible
to
them
(
though
abominable
to
Christ
who
knew
his
heart
)
that
it
is
said
,
not
onely
of
Iudas
,
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
poore
,
Matth.
26.
8.
Let
us
now
heare
Mr
Prynnes
other
answer
Vindic.
pag.
26
,
27.
he
tels
us
that
though
perchance
the
other
Disciples
did
not
know
that
Iudas
was
a
Traytor
and
a
Divell
,
yet
Christ
himselfe
did
infallibly
know
all
this
of
Iudas
,
and
did
notwithstanding
admit
him
to
the
Sacrament
.
Whereupon
he
beseecheth
all
Ministers
not
to
make
themselves
wiser
,
holier
,
rigider
in
this
point
then
Christ
himselfe
.
Answ.
1.
If
Ministers
did
take
upon
them
to
suspend
men
from
the
Sacrament
upon
their
owne
private
knowledge
of
some
secret
sinnes
whereof
those
men
are
guilty
:
his
argument
might
say
somewhat
.
But
the
question
being
of
suspension
by
the
Eldership
upon
the
notoreity
or
proofe
of
the
offence
,
and
consis●oriall
formall
conviction
of
the
offender
,
he
saith
here
nothing
to
that
point
.
2.
What
a
Minister
should
do
when
he
certainly
knows
one
of
the
Congregation
(
not
convict
nor
notoriously
scandalous
)
to
be
a
Iudas
,
a
Traytor
,
a
Divell
,
I
will
not
now
dispute
.
But
surely
Mr
Prynnes
reason
why
the
minister
ought
to
admit
such
a
one
,
is
not
rightly
applied
,
[
*
](A42757-e101370-b)
*
Durantus
de
ritibus
lib.
2.
cap.
38.
num.
16.
Ipsi
tamen
(
Judae
)
corpus
&
sanguinem
suum
dedit
,
ne
occultum
peccatorem
sine
accusatore
&
evidenti
probatione
,
ab
aliorum
communione
separarot
.
Et
insra
num.
17.
Nam
etsi
Christo
nota
crat
Judae
iniquitas
,
sicut
Deo
:
non
tamen
ei
cognita
crat
co
modo
,
quo
hominibus
innotescit
.
for
Christ
did
then
know
Iudas
to
be
a
Traytor
and
a
Divel
,
but
how
?
not
as
man
,
by
sight
,
information
,
or
the
like
,
but
as
God
and
as
omniscient
,
that
is
,
he
knew
Iudas
by
that
same
knowledge
whereby
he
knows
close
hypocrites
in
whom
no
eye
of
man
hath
seen
any
thing
scandalous
,
but
rather
good
and
promising
signes
;
some
of
this
kind
no
doubt
are
admitted
to
the
Sacrament
both
among
Presbyterians
and
Independents
,
whom
Christ
knowes
to
be
Iudasses
,
because
he
knows
what
is
in
man
.
But
now
for
a
Minister
to
know
(
not
the
heart
and
the
reines
as
Christ
doth
,
but
)
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
some
foule
act
which
a
man
hath
done
,
and
some
wicked
profession
which
a
man
hath
made
,
though
in
private
,
and
not
yet
known
to
the
world
;
this
is
a
very
different
case
from
the
other
,
and
if
Christ
had
admitted
Iudas
to
the
Sacrament
,
knowing
him
by
his
divine
knowledge
to
be
a
Traytor
,
this
could
not
prove
,
that
a
Minister
ought
to
admit
a
Traytor
,
whom
by
his
humane
knowledge
he
knows
to
be
such
.
3.
And
if
that
which
Christ
did
in
this
particular
ought
to
be
a
president
to
Ministers
what
to
doe
in
like
cases
:
Then
as
Christ
had
a
most
sad
and
moving
discourse
about
the
Traytor
,
till
Iudas
himselfe
was
made
to
understand
,
that
Christ
knew
his
traiterous
purpose
,
and
then
he
said
to
him
,
That
thou
dost
doe
quickly
,
which
[
x
](A42757-e101480-b)
x
Gerhard
.
Har.
Evang
cap.
172.
Christus
his
verbis
Judam
quasi
excommunicat
,
&
ex
Apostolorum
coll●gio
disc●dere
jubet
,
cum
se
totum
Diabolo
tradidisset
.
Quod
facis
fac
citius
,
id
est
,
cum
ali●
Magistro
te
addixeris
,
&
me
audire
pertinaciter
renuas
,
abi
ex
meo
&
apostolorum
meorum
conspectu
,
&c.
Ambros.
lib.
2.
de
Cain
&
Abel
cap.
4.
Quod
facis
fac
cele●…ius
,
quid
illud
?
ut
quia
introie●at
in
illum
Satanas
,
ipse
abiret
à
Christo.
Ejicitur
itaque
&
excluditur
,
●o
quod
jam
cum
Domino
Jesu
esse
non
posset
,
qui
caeperat
es●e
cum
diabolo
.
Estius
in
lib.
4.
Sent.
dist.
19.
sect.
9.
Qui●
&
ipse
Christus
hanc
potestatem
qua
traduntur
homines
Sathanae
,
exercuisse
videtur
,
quando
Iudam
à
suo
consortio
removit
,
atque
abire
jussit
dicendo
,
Quod
facis
,
fac
citius
.
Chrysostome
Hom.
71.
in
Joh.
(
according
to
the
Greek
Hom.
72.
)
making
a
Transition
unto
that
Text
,
That
thou
dost
,
doe
quickly
,
he
useth
these
words
,
to
expresse
what
Christ
was
at
that
instant
doing
to
Iudas
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
and
againe
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
Christ
did
separate
him
from
the
rest
of
the
Apostles
,
and
cast
him
out
.
Theophy
lact.
.
upon
the
same
place
:
illum
divisit
Domin●…s
&
separavit
ab
alils
discipulis
.
diverse
doe
rightly
conceive
to
be
as
much
,
as
if
Christ
had
said
to
him
,
Get
you
gone
,
I
have
no
more
to
doe
with
you
:
He
spake
it
,
ut
a
consortio
suo
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
excommunicate
Iudas
before
the
Sacrament
.
So
should
a
Minister
(
if
he
see
one
in
the
Congregation
whom
he
certainly
knows
to
be
a
Iudas
,
and
to
be
living
in
some
abominable
wickednesse
,
even
whiles
he
comes
with
a
professed
desire
to
receive
the
Sacrament
)
tell
the
Congregation
,
that
he
knows
and
sees
one
amongst
them
whom
he
certainly
knows
to
be
guilty
of
such
a
particular
secret
horrible
sinne
,
and
(
if
it
be
possible
)
make
the
sinner
himselfe
to
know
by
such
or
such
a
signe
,
that
he
is
the
man
whom
he
speakes
of
,
and
not
to
leave
off
powerfull
checks
,
sharpe
rebukes
,
terrible
comminations
,
till
by
the
blessing
of
God
and
the
power
of
the
word
,
he
get
such
a
one
terrified
and
chased
away
.
4.
It
shall
not
be
in
vaine
to
observe
here
that
Gamachaeus
in
tertiam
partem
Thomae
Quaest.
64.
c.
4.
though
he
hold
that
Christ
gave
the
Sacrament
to
Iudas
(
whence
he
argueth
that
the
Sacraments
doe
infallibly
worke
ex
opere
operato
,
where
no
barre
is
put
,
though
there
be
no
faith
nor
devotion
exercised
in
the
receiver
)
yet
he
doth
immediately
move
this
objection
,
It
is
unlawfull
to
give
the
Sacraments
to
the
unworthy
,
and
to
such
as
live
in
mortall
sinne
.
Whereunto
[
y
](A42757-e101700-b)
y
Respondemus
id
nobis
revera
esse
illicitum
,
&
peccare
Ministros
qui
dant
Sacramenta
indignis
,
quando
fine
scandalo
denegare
possunt
,
attamen
Deum
his
legibus
non
teneri
,
cum
sit
supremus
Dominus
,
qui
suis
donis
utitur
,
prout
voluerit
,
quemadmodum
etiam
Deus
non
peccat
permittendo
hominum
peccata
,
imò
&
ad
peccati
substantiam
concurrendo
;
nobis
verò
,
nec
concurrere
licet
nec
permittere
aliquod
peccatum
,
quando
sufficienter
&
moraliter
id
impedire
possumus
.
he
answereth
,
that
it
is
indeed
unlawfull
to
Ministers
to
give
the
Sacrament
to
the
unworthy
,
when
they
can
refuse
them
without
scandall
(
a
restriction
which
I
suppose
Mr
Prynne
dare
not
owne
;
for
if
the
lawfulnesse
or
unlawfulnesse
of
the
thing
must
be
determined
by
the
scandall
,
they
goe
upon
a
very
slippery
ground
.
)
He
addeth
that
it
is
unlawfull
to
us
to
follow
Gods
example
in
giving
holy
things
to
the
unworthy
,
as
it
is
unlawfull
to
follow
his
example
in
the
permitting
of
sinne
when
we
can
hinder
it
.
The
like
I
finde
in
Alexander
Alensis
,
Summa
Theol.
part
.
4.
Quaest.
11.
membr
.
2.
art.
1.
sect.
4.
where
he
moves
this
objection
in
the
question
,
whether
Christ
gave
the
Sacrament
to
Iudas
.
Christ
himselfe
hath
commanded
,
Give
not
that
which
is
holy
to
dogs
,
&c.
and
it
seems
he
would
not
doe
the
contrary
of
that
which
himselfe
commandeth
.
Unto
this
objection
his
answer
is
,
that
this
prohibition
lieth
indeed
upon
the
Ministers
,
Dispencers
of
the
Sacraments
,
but
bindeth
not
Christ
himselfe
the
Law-maker
.
As
long
therefore
as
we
are
able
to
prove
from
Scripture
,
that
scandalous
persons
ought
to
be
keep
back
from
the
Sacrament
,
and
that
it
is
unlawfull
for
Church
▪
officers
to
admit
such
;
the
Erastians
doe
but
weakly
helpe
themselves
by
arguing
from
Christs
giving
the
Sacrament
to
Iudas
.
Which
I
have
said
by
way
of
concession
:
for
my
opinion
is
,
that
Christ
did
upon
the
matter
excommunicate
Iudas
,
and
that
his
practice
in
this
very
particular
is
a
patterne
to
us
,
which
I
hope
I
have
made
evident
.
Finally
,
it
is
observed
by
Io.
Baptista
de
Rubeis
in
his
Novum
rationale
divinorum
officiorum
lib.
1.
cap.
24.
that
this
cause
of
Iudas
doth
not
concerne
publique
and
known
scandalous
persons
,
but
secret
and
lurking
wicked
persons
,
when
they
publikely
desire
to
receive
the
Sacrament
;
who
yet
(
saith
he
)
ought
to
be
admonished
and
dehorted
by
the
Minister
,
that
they
come
not
to
the
Sacrament
:
and
if
such
a
one
make
his
desire
to
receive
the
Sacrament
secretly
known
to
the
Minister
,
the
Minister
ought
to
refuse
him
,
though
his
sinne
be
yet
secret
,
and
not
publiquely
known
.
[
*
](A42757-e101840-b)
*
Si
verò
peccatum
est
manif●stum
,
tun●
verò
sive
in
occulto
sive
in
manifesto
petat
,
debot
ei
denegare
.
But
if
the
sinne
be
open
or
manifest
,
then
whether
the
sinner
do
secretly
or
openly
desire
to
receive
the
Sacrament
,
the
Minister
ought
to
refuse
him
.
CHAP.
XI
.
Whether
it
he
a
full
discharge
of
duty
to
admonish
a
scandalous
person
of
the
danger
of
unworthy
communicating
?
And
whether
a
Minister
in
giving
him
the
Sacrament
after
such
admonition
,
be
no
way
guilty
?
Mr.
Prynne
pag.
28.
stateth
the
seventh
point
in
difference
thus
,
Whether
the
Minister
hath
not
fully
discharged
his
duty
and
conscience
if
he
give
warning
to
unworthy
communicants
of
the
danger
they
incurre
by
their
unworthy
approaches
to
the
Lords
Table
,
and
seriously
dehort
them
from
comming
to
it
,
unlesse
they
repent
,
reforme
,
and
come
preparedly
?
But
here
he
much
mistakes
his
marke
,
or
hitteth
it
not
,
as
may
appeare
thus
.
First
,
what
if
we
should
affirme
it
,
as
he
doth
?
What
hath
he
gained
thereby
?
That
the
Minister
hath
not
the
power
of
keeping
backe
scandalous
persons
:
which
cannot
adde
one
dram
weight
to
his
cause
.
The
power
is
seated
in
the
Eldership
,
of
which
the
Minister
is
a
principall
member
:
even
as
Aristotle
polit.
lib.
3.
cap.
11.
tels
us
that
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
is
not
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
but
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
It
is
not
the
Senator
but
the
Senat
that
doth
rule
.
But
if
Mr
Prynne
meant
to
conclude
against
the
suspension
of
scandalous
persons
not
excommunicated
(
the
thing
which
all
along
he
opposeth
,
)
he
ought
to
have
stated
the
point
thus
,
Whether
the
Eldership
hath
not
fully
discharged
their
duty
,
&c.
For
every
branch
of
this
controversie
concerning
Suspension
(
which
is
an
act
of
jurisdiction
and
censure
)
must
be
fixed
upon
the
Eldership
,
not
upon
the
Minister
.
There
is
a
huge
difference
between
the
Ministers
personall
duty
,
and
the
censure
of
suspension
:
in
so
much
that
if
the
affirmative
of
this
present
question
(
as
he
stateth
it
)
were
yeelded
to
him
;
it
derogateth
nothing
from
the
power
of
the
Eldership
to
suspend
from
the
Sacrament
a
person
not
excommunicate
.
Secondly
,
in
the
debating
of
this
point
he
sometimes
argueth
against
the
refusing
or
withholding
of
the
Sacrament
by
any
Minister
or
Presbytery
as
pag.
29
,
30
,
31.
sometimes
he
argueth
that
no
Ministers
private
judgement
or
conscience
ought
to
be
the
rule
of
his
admitting
any
to
,
or
suspending
them
from
the
Sacrament
,
as
pag.
32.
Which
is
a
confounding
together
of
two
most
different
points
.
Thirdly
,
and
if
the
question
should
be
stated
of
the
Minister
his
duty
,
that
which
Mr
Prynne
affirmeth
,
viz.
that
the
Minister
hath
fully
discharged
his
duty
and
conscience
,
if
he
give
warning
to
unworthy
communicants
of
the
danger
they
incurre
by
their
unworthy
approaches
,
to
the
Lords
Table
,
and
seriously
dehort
them
from
comming
to
it
,
unlesse
they
repent
,
reforme
and
come
preparedly
;
is
erroneous
and
false
:
for
there
are
other
necessary
duties
incumbent
to
the
Minister
,
in
this
businesse
:
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
doe
their
duty
in
restraining
such
persons
:
or
(
if
not
so
)
that
God
would
by
his
owne
providence
keepe
backe
such
persons
,
or
hedge
up
their
way
with
thornes
,
and
make
a
wall
,
that
they
shall
not
finde
their
pathes
to
come
and
prophane
the
Lords
Table
.
2.
The
Minister
must
deale
seriously
with
the
Eldership
by
informations
,
exhortations
,
and
admonitions
,
to
move
them
to
doe
their
duty
.
3.
The
Minister
must
give
his
owne
vote
and
sentence
in
the
Eldership
against
the
admission
of
such
persons
.
4.
If
(
which
God
forbid
)
the
Eldership
be
not
willing
to
doe
their
duty
,
but
sinfully
neglect
it
,
the
Minister
ought
to
addresse
himselfe
with
his
complaints
to
the
superiour
Ecclesiasticall
assemblies
(
as
they
lie
in
their
order
)
that
they
may
interpose
by
their
authority
,
to
rectifie
the
mal-administration
of
the
Congregationall
Eldership
.
5.
And
if
it
should
fall
out
that
a
scandalous
unworthy
person
should
finde
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
cleere
in
his
conscience
,
that
the
matter
of
scandall
is
sufficiently
proved
,
he
must
not
doe
an
unlawfull
act
in
obedience
to
men
,
but
walke
by
that
Apostolicall
rule
,
1
Tim.
5.
22.
Be
not
partaker
of
other
mens
sinnes
;
Keep
thy selfe
pure
.
In
doing
whereof
,
he
doth
not
make
his
conscience
the
rule
of
inflicting
any
censure
and
particularly
of
suspending
from
the
Sacrament
(
which
must
be
done
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
by
many
)
but
yet
his
conscience
so
sarre
as
it
is
informed
and
illuminate
by
the
word
of
God
,
is
a
rule
to
him
of
his
owne
personall
acting
or
not
acting
,
notwithstanding
of
which
the
offender
stands
rectus
in
curia
,
and
is
not
excluded
by
the
sentence
of
any
Ecclesiasticall
Court.
I
confesse
a
Minister
ought
to
be
very
cleare
in
his
conscience
,
and
be
perswaded
(
not
upon
suspicions
,
surmises
,
or
such
like
sleight
motives
,
but
)
upon
very
certaine
grounds
,
that
the
sentence
of
an
Eldership
,
Classis
,
or
Synod
is
contrary
to
the
Word
of
God
,
before
he
refuse
to
doe
the
thing
.
But
what
may
be
the
reason
why
Mr
Prynne
is
so
large
upon
this
point
from
pag.
28.
to
35
?
I
take
not
upon
me
to
judge
de
intentione
operantis
.
But
the
intentio
operis
is
to
yeeld
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
necessary
use
in
the
Church
.
For
if
it
be
sufficient
and
a
full
discharge
of
duty
,
to
admonish
unworthy
scandalous
persons
,
not
to
come
to
the
Lords
Table
,
unlesse
they
repent
and
reforme
,
this
cuts
off
the
necessity
of
Censure
,
whether
Suspension
or
Excommunication
.
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
Ecclesiasticall
jurisdiction
can
be
excercised
,
or
Censure
inflicted
by
any
one
man
,
how
eminent
soever
in
the
Church
.
Yea
when
it
is
a
Consistoriall
or
Presbyteriall
Admonition
,
it
is
not
properly
a
Censure
,
but
a
Degree
to
Censure
.
1.
Because
Admonition
doth
not
exclude
a
person
from
any
Church
priviledge
nor
from
communion
in
any
Ordinance
.
And
how
can
one
be
said
to
be
under
Church
censure
,
who
still
enjoyeth
all
Church
priviledges
?
2.
If
Consistoriall
admonition
be
a
binding
,
where
is
the
loosing
of
that
bond
?
Every
censure
consistorially
inflicted
,
must
be
also
consistorially
taken
off
,
upon
repentance
appearing
in
the
party
.
These
things
I
doe
but
t●uch
,
that
I
might
make
it
appeare
how
Mr
Prynnes
doctrine
tendeth
to
strip
Elderships
out
of
all
jurisdiction
or
power
of
Censures
.
Now
come
we
to
the
particulars
,
wheren
I
doe
not
finde
any
great
matter
to
insist
long
upon
.
He
first
premiseth
six
conclusions
.
Supposed
conclusions
he
may
make
them
,
but
proved
Conclusions
they
are
not
.
The
first
of
them
is
indeed
ushered
in
syllogistically
,
but
very
weakly
,
as
shall
appeare
.
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
members
of
the
visible
Church
,
have
a
true
right
to
the
Sacrament
,
in
case
they
doe
demand
it
,
when
publiquely
administred
.
Ergo
,
they
ought
not
in
justice
or
conscience
be
deprived
of
it
,
by
any
Minister
or
Presbytery
,
when
publiquely
administred
,
if
they
shall
require
it
.
Answ.
First
,
this
is
fallacia
plurium
interrogationum
;
for
these
words
,
as
visible
members
of
the
visible
Church
,
both
in
the
Major
and
Minor
,
clogge
and
confound
the
argument
,
and
patch
up
two
distinct
propositions
into
one
.
Secondly
,
his
Major
cannot
be
admitted
without
a
distinction
.
There
is
Ius
ad
rem
,
and
Ius
in
re
.
There
is
a
remote
right
,
or
a
right
in
actu
primo
,
th●t
is
,
such
a
right
,
relation
,
or
habitude
as
entitleth
a
person
to
such
a
priviledge
or
benefit
,
to
be
enjoyed
and
possessed
by
him
when
he
shall
be
capable
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
T●nts
,
Houses
,
and
Goods
,
when
themselves
were
put
out
of
the
Camp
,
and
might
not
(
during
their
leprosie
)
actually
enjoy
their
own
habitations
:
Such
is
the
right
which
a
man
hath
in
England
to
his
sequestred
Estate
,
Lands
,
and
Houses
;
he
doth
not
lose
but
retaine
his
Right
,
Title
,
Charters
and
Deeds
(
as
valid
in
Law
,
and
not
made
voyd
or
null
)
and
may
be
againe
admitted
to
the
actuall
possession
upon
satisfaction
given
to
the
State
:
and
a
huge
difference
there
is
between
Sequestration
,
and
forfeiture
or
Outlawry
.
There
is
againe
a
proxime
right
,
or
a
right
in
actu
secundo
,
which
rendereth
a
person
actually
and
presently
capable
of
that
thing
which
he
is
entituled
unto
.
If
Mr
Prynnes
major
be
understood
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
himselfe
must
needs
admit
an
exception
from
his
major
proposition
,
for
by
his
owne
principles
,
those
that
have
a
true
right
to
the
Sacrament
,
as
visible
members
of
the
visible
Church
,
may
be
excommunicated
and
so
deprived
,
not
onely
of
the
Sacrament
,
but
of
all
other
publique
Ordinances
.
When
he
tels
us
here
that
nothing
but
an
actuall
excommunication
can
suspend
them
from
this
their
right
,
he
doth
but
begge
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
me●
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
externall
profession
and
conversation
)
qualified
according
to
the
rule
of
Christ
,
and
against
whose
admission
to
the
Sacrament
there
is
no
just
exception
.
Fifthly
,
when
he
concludeth
,
that
no
unexcommunicated
Christians
who
are
able
to
examine
themselves
(
that
is
,
as
himselfe
hath
explained
,
who
are
not
naturally
disabled
as
children
,
and
fooles
:
though
he
shall
finde
it
a
very
hard
taske
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
Octob.
20.
1645.
and
March
14.
1645.
authorising
Presbyteries
to
suspend
from
the
Sacrament
scandalous
persons
unexcommunicated
,
are
contrary
to
all
justice
and
conscience
.
N.
B.
Sixthly
,
as
touching
that
limitation
yeelded
by
himselfe
,
that
they
must
be
such
as
are
able
to
examine
themselves
,
I
aske
,
1.
Are
persons
grossely
ignorant
able
to
examine
themselves
?
2.
Are
drunken
persons
able
to
examine
themselves
?
3.
Are
men
of
corrupt
minds
and
erroneous
,
yea
prophane
principles
,
who
call
evill
good
,
and
pervert
Scripture
to
the
defending
of
some
grosse
sinnes
,
are
these
able
to
examine
themselves
?
4.
Are
those
who
are
known
that
they
had
never
any
worke
of
the
law
upon
their
consciences
to
convince
or
humble
them
(
for
by
the
Law
is
the
knowledge
of
sinne
)
able
to
examine
themselves
?
If
the
answers
be
affirmative
,
then
surely
this
selfe-examination
is
not
ri●htly
apprehended
what
it
is
.
If
the
answers
be
negative
;
then
those
who
in
their
address●s
to
the
Lords
Table
are
found
ignorant
,
or
drunke
,
or
defenders
of
sinne
,
or
presumptuous
and
unconvinced
,
and
doe
manifestly
appeare
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
farre
as
I
am
able
to
gather
from
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
Baptisme
,
ought
to
be
(
being
baptised
and
unexcommunicated
,
and
willing
to
communicate
)
admitted
to
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lords
Supper
.
But
in
all
Churches
from
Christs
time
till
this
present
,
all
externall
professors
of
Christ
,
even
carnall
persons
,
onely
upon
a
bare
externall
profession
of
faith
and
repentance
,
were
deemed
fit
to
receive
,
and
were
never
denied
the
Sacrament
of
Baptisme
(
yea
,
saith
he
,
we
read
in
the
very
Apostles
times
that
a
meere
externall
sleight
confession
of
sinne
,
and
profession
of
the
Christian
faith
,
was
sufficient
to
enable
sinners
to
be
baptized
Ergo
,
all
externall
professors
of
Christ
,
&c.
ought
to
be
admitted
to
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lords
Supper
.
Answ.
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
Baptisme
,
ought
also
to
be
deemed
unworthy
though
baptised
)
to
be
admitted
to
the
Lords
Supper
.
But
all
known
wicked
and
prophane
livers
,
how
able
and
willing
so
ever
to
make
confession
of
the
true
Christian
faith
,
have
been
by
the
Apostles
and
all
w●ll
con●ituted
Churches
deemed
unworthy
to
be
admitted
to
Baptisme
.
Ergo
,
all
known
wicked
,
&c.
More
of
this
afterward
Chap
13.
and
Chap
15.
Secondly
,
I
answer
directly
,
I
distinguish
the
Major
,
I
deny
the
Minor
.
I
distinguish
the
Major
:
Those
who
have
been
admitted
to
Baptisme
ought
to
be
admitted
to
the
Lords
Supper
caeteris
paribus
,
if
the
proportion
hold
in
the
particulars
,
and
if
they
be
as
free
of
scandalous
sines
now
when
they
desire
to
receive
the
Lords
Supper
,
as
they
were
when
they
desired
to
receive
Baptisme
.
He
needed
not
make
so
great
a
matter
of
our
suspending
from
the
Sacrament
a
person
formerly
deemed
fit
to
receive
Baptisme
.
For
why
?
the
person
is
a
scandalous
person
now
which
he
was
not
th●n
.
My
limitation
of
caeteris
paribus
he
himselfe
▪
must
admit
;
otherwise
how
will
he
defend
his
owne
Principle
,
that
the
flagicious
,
abominable
and
obstinate
sinners
who
cannot
be
reduced
by
Admonitions
,
may
and
ought
to
be
excommunicated
,
and
so
to
be
cut
off
from
the
Lords
Supper
,
and
all
other
publike
Ordinances
,
although
formerly
deemed
sit
to
receive
baptisme
?
The
Minor
I
utterly
deny
as
most
false
and
as
a
reproach
ca●
upon
the
Apostles
themselves
.
Mr
Prynnes
Rule
is
so
large
,
that
Turkes
or
Pagans
who
practically
live
in
Idolatry
,
common
swearing
,
adultery
,
drunkennesse
,
murthering
,
stealing
,
or
the
like
,
and
are
known
to
live
in
those
abominable
scandalous
sinnes
,
ought
neverthelesse
up●…n
a
meere
externall
sleight
confession
of
sinne
,
and
profession
of
the
Christian
faith
,
be
baptised
.
When
I
expected
his
proofe
from
the
Apostles
times
,
he
onely
tels
us
that
Philip
baptized
Simon
Magus
though
he
were
in
the
gall
of
bitternesse
and
bond
of
iniquity
,
Acts
8.
Yea
,
saith
he
,
many
other
who
turned
Wolves
,
Apostates
,
Hereticks
were
baptised
by
the
very
Apostles
,
Acts
20.
2.
Tim.
3.
If
he
had
proved
that
Simon
Magus
was
known
to
be
in
the
gall
of
bitternesse
and
bond
of
iniquity
when
Philip
did
baptize
him
,
or
that
the
Apostles
did
baptise
any
(
upon
a
sleight
externall
profession
)
who
were
then
known
to
be
Wolves
,
Apostates
,
and
Hereticks
,
he
had
said
more
for
his
cause
then
all
his
booke
saith
beside
.
But
to
tell
us
that
some
persons
baptized
(
he
might
as
well
have
said
that
some
persons
who
received
the
Lords
Supper
did
appeare
afterward
to
be
in
the
gall
of
bitternesse
,
Wolves
,
Apostates
,
Heretickes
,
is
as
much
as
to
travell
,
and
to
bring
forth
nothing
.
For
how
shall
ever
this
reach
the
admission
of
known
prophane
persons
to
the
Lords
Supper
?
That
which
he
had
to
prove
was
the
admission
(
not
of
hypocrites
,
but
)
of
knowne
scandalous
profane
persons
to
Baptisme
.
His
third
conclusion
that
it
is
the
Ministers
bounden
duty
to
administer
the
Sacraments
to
their
people
,
as
well
as
to
preach
and
pray
;
no
man
will
deny
it
,
so
that
the
Ministers
doe
it
debito
modo
,
and
according
to
the
rule
of
Christ
:
they
are
stewards
of
the
mysteries
of
God
:
moreover
it
is
required
in
stewards
that
a
man
be
found
faithfull
,
1
Cor.
4
1
,
2.
It
is
the
bounden
duty
of
Stewards
to
give
the
childrens
bread
to
children
and
not
to
dogges
and
swine
.
It
is
not
the
duty
of
Ministers
to
preach
peace
to
the
wicked
,
and
much
lesse
to
seale
it
to
them
who
are
knowne
to
be
such
.
The
fourth
conclusion
,
that
the
Word
and
Sacraments
are
set
accidentally
for
the
fall
and
ruine
,
as
wel
as
for
the
salvation
of
men
▪
maketh
nothing
to
the
purpose
in
hand
.
Whatever
the
secret
intention
of
God
be
,
and
his
unsearchable
judgement
upon
the
soule
of
this
or
that
man
,
it
is
no
rule
of
duty
to
the
Minister
or
Eldership
.
To
the
Law
and
to
the
Testimony
.
Secret
things
belong
to
God
.
The
fifth
,
that
God
onely
infallibly
knows
the
hearts
,
and
present
state
of
all
men
,
is
no
whit
neerer
the
point
The
Eldership
●udggeth
of
words
and
works
,
professions
and
practises
.
By
their
fruits
ye
shall
know
them
.
The
sixth
,
that
no
Ministers
private
judgement
or
conscience
ought
to
be
the
rule
of
his
admitting
any
to
,
or
suspending
them
from
the
Sacrament
,
is
also
wide
from
the
controversie
in
hand
,
which
is
concerning
the
Elderships
(
not
the
Ministers
)
power
.
Of
the
Ministers
personall
duty
I
have
spoken
before
.
These
six
conclusions
premised
▪
M
r
Prynne
proceeds
to
prove
,
that
a
Minister
in
delivering
the
Sacrament
to
a
scandalous
unexcommunicated
person
,
who
after
admonition
of
the
danger
,
doth
earnestly
desire
to
receive
it
,
&c.
becomes
no
way
guilty
of
his
sinne
or
punish●…ent
,
in
case
be
eate
or
drinke
judgement
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
already
answered
.
His
second
reason
,
because
●…e
(
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
businesse
,
but
onely
to
admonish
the
person
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
Minister
is
guilty
.
Whether
such
a
person
ought
to
be
kept
backe
is
the
point
in
controversie
,
and
therefore
he
ought
not
have
taken
the
negative
pro
confessò
.
His
third
reason
pag.
33.
is
the
same
which
was
used
by
[
z
](A42757-e103000-b)
z
C●…nfirm
,
Thes.
p●g
.
120.
Erastus
as
one
of
his
arguments
against
Excommunication
,
that
the
Apostle
saith
,
Let
a
man
examine
himselfe
,
and
so
let
him
eate
of
that
bread
,
and
drink
of
that
cup.
1
Cor.
11.
28.
Therefore
a
mans
fitnesse
or
unfitnesse
for
the
Sacrament
,
is
not
to
be
judged
by
others
,
but
by
himselfe
onely
,
and
if
he
judge
himselfe
fit
,
the
Eldership
hath
no
power
to
exclude
him
.
The
same
Scripture
is
here
pressed
against
us
by
Mr
Prynne
to
prove
,
that
if
a
man
judge
himselfe
fitly
prepared
,
joynes
with
others
in
the
publique
confession
of
his
sinnes
,
and
promiseth
newnesse
of
life
,
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
himselfe
,
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
himselfe
onely
.
2.
Yet
I
can
grant
it
to
be
exclusive
,
it
being
understood
of
that
judging
of
a
mans
selfe
,
which
prevents
the
judgement
of
God
vers.
31.
no
mans
examining
of
another
can
doe
this
,
but
his
examining
of
himselfe
.
That
which
can
give
us
confidence
and
boldnesse
before
God
,
and
assure
our
hearts
before
him
,
1
Joh.
3.
19.
is
not
the
examination
or
approbation
of
others
,
but
of
our
owne
conscience
;
for
what
man
knowes
the
things
of
a
man
,
save
the
spirit
of
man
which
is
in
him
?
1
Cor.
2.
11.
The
Pastors
and
Elders
of
Corinth
had
admitted
some
to
the
Lords
Table
,
whom
they
judged
sit
and
worthy
Communicants
,
but
God
judged
otherwise
of
them
.
Therefore
saith
the
Apostle
,
let
a
man
make
a
narrow
search
of
his
owne
conscience
,
and
not
rest
upon
the
judgement
of
others
.
3.
If
it
be
enough
for
a
man
to
examine
himselfe
,
by
what
warrant
doth
Mr
Prynne
require
more
,
namely
,
that
a
man
joyn
with
others
in
the
publique
confession
of
his
sinnes
,
and
promise
newnesse
of
life
.
4.
It
is
not
enough
for
a
notorious
scandalous
sinner
to
judge
himselfe
,
nor
yet
to
joyne
with
others
in
publique
confession
:
but
he
must
publiquely
and
particularly
confesse
his
owne
sinne
,
which
he
must
doe
personally
,
or
for
his
own
part
,
and
others
can
not
doe
it
with
him
.
5.
[
a
](A42757-e103150-b)
a
Tom.
10.
hom
.
50.
Et
cum
in
se
protulerit
severissimae
medicinae
sententiam
,
veniat
ad
antistites
,
per
quos
illi
in
Ecclesiâ
claves
ministrantur
,
&
tanquam
bonus
incipi●s
jam
esse
filius
maternorum
membrorum
ordine
custodito
,
à
praep●sitis
sacrorum
accipiat
satisfaction
s
suae
modum
,
ut
in
offe●ndo
sacrificio
cordis
contribulati
devotus
&
supplex
,
id
tamen
agat
,
quod
non
solum
illi
p●osit
ad
recipiendam
salutem
,
sed
etiam
caeteris
ad
exemplum
.
Ut
si
peccata
ejus
non
solum
in
gravi
ejus
malo
,
sed
etiam
in
scandalo
est
aliorum
:
atque
hoc
expedire
videtur
utilita●i
Ecclesiae
,
antistiti
in
notitia
multorum
,
vel
etiam
totius
plebis
agere
paenitentiam
non
recuset
.
Augustine
tels
us
when
a
man
hath
examined
himselfe
,
he
must
also
edifie
the
Church
(
which
before
he
scandalized
)
by
a
publique
declaration
of
repentance
for
his
scandalous
sinne
.
6.
Mr
Prynne
himselfe
Vindic.
pag.
50.
will
not
have
an
excommunicated
person
,
to
be
againe
received
and
admitted
to
the
Lords
Supper
till
publique
satisfaction
given
for
the
scandall
,
and
open
profession
of
amendment
of
life
,
accompanied
with
externall
symptomes
of
repentance
.
And
why
all
this
examination
should
not
be
required
for
a
prevention
of
excommunication
,
yea
of
suspension
,
I
know
not
.
Mr
Prynnes
fourth
reason
is
,
because
the
Minister
administers
the
Sacrament
to
that
scandalous
unexcommunicated
person
,
as
to
a
person
outwardly
fitted
and
prepared
,
the
inward
preparation
of
whose
heart
for
ought
he
knows
may
be
sincere
towards
God
,
and
really
changed
from
what
it
was
before
.
I
appeale
to
every
godly
Minister
,
whether
this
can
pacifie
or
secure
his
conscience
,
that
a
scandalous
unexcommunicated
person
living
in
known
prophannesse
and
wickednesse
,
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
grosse
scandalous
sinnes
,
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
unexcommunicated
person
who
after
admonition
of
the
danger
,
doth
earnestly
desire
to
receive
it
,
as
conceiving
himselfe
in
his
own●…
heart
and
conscience
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
Lords
Supper
as
a
person
outwardly
fitt●d
and
prepared
for
that
Sacrament
.
Fifthly
,
he
argueth
from
the
holinesse
and
lawfulnesse
of
administring
the
Sacrament
,
and
the
Ministers
good
intention
to
benefit
all
,
and
hurt
none
by
it
.
Answ.
The
first
part
of
this
reason
is
a
fallacy
ab
ignoratione
Elenchi
:
the
point
he
had
to
prove
was
,
that
the
administration
of
the
Sacrament
to
a
scandalous
person
,
is
a
holy
lawfull
action
.
The
latter
part
doth
not
conclude
.
A
good
intention
can
not
justifie
a
sinfull
action
.
Sixthly
,
saith
he
,
because
such
a
persons
unworthy
r●…eiving
is
onely
contingent
and
casuall
▪
no
Minister
or
creature
being
able
infallibly
to
judge
,
wh●…ther
God
at
this
instant
,
may
not
by
the
omnipotent
working
of
his
Spirit
,
&c.
change
both
his
●…eart
▪
and
his
life
.
Answ.
1.
By
this
principle
the
Minister
shall
become
no
way
guilty
,
if
he
deliver
the
Sacrament
to
an
Heathen
,
to
an
excommunicated
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
life
of
such
a
Heathen
or
excommunicate
person
.
2.
A
scandalous
prophane
person
his
unworthy
receiving
,
is
casuall
and
contingent
in
sensu
diviso
,
but
not
in
sensu
composit●…
,
that
is
,
peradventure
God
will
give
him
repentance
and
change
his
heart
and
his
life
,
which
done
,
he
shall
come
worthily
,
and
receive
worthily
:
but
while
he
is
yet
scandalous
and
neither
heart
nor
life
yet
changed
,
his
receiving
in
that
estate
will
certainly
be
an
unworthy
receiving
:
for
it
implies
a
contradiction
and
impossibility
,
to
say
that
a
mans
life
can
be
changed
while
it
is
not
changed
,
in
sensu
composit●…
,
or
that
a
man
can
be
worthy
while
he
is
unworthy
.
3.
It
is
a
most
sinfull
tempting
of
the
Almighty
to
ca●l
his
word
behind
us
,
and
then
expect
the
working
of
Omn●potency
for
that
whereof
we
have
neither
promise
nor
example
in
the
word
.
Seventhly
,
he
argueth
from
our
Concessions
that
Ministers
may
administer
the
Sacrament
to
masked
hypocrites
,
and
yet
are
not
guilty
of
their
unworthy
receiving
.
This
he
saith
is
a
yeelding
our
objection
false
in
the
case
of
scandalous
persons
too
.
But
his
reason
is
●ust
as
if
he
had
said
,
Ministers
are
not
guilty
when
they
give
the
Sacrament
to
those
who
are
not
scandalous
.
Ergo
,
they
are
not
guilty
when
they
give
the
Sacrament
to
those
that
are
scandalous
.
Or
,
as
if
he
had
argued
thus
He
th●t
harboureth
a
Traytor
whom
he
doth
not
nor
cannot
know
to
be
such
,
is
not
guilty
.
Ergo
,
he
that
harboureth
a
knowne
Traytor
is
not
guilty
.
Eighthly
,
(
for
he
hath
given
his
seventh
already
)
he
tels
us
,
that
the
Minister
onely
〈◊〉
the
Sacrament
,
and
the
unworthy
receiving
is
the
receivers
own
personall
act
and
sinne
alone
.
Answ
1.
He
begges
againe
and
againe
what
is
in
Que●ion
.
2.
There
is
an
unworthy
giving
,
as
well
as
an
unworthy
receiving
.
The
unworthy
giving
is
a
sin●ull
act
of
the
Minister
,
which
makes
him
also
accessary
to
the
sinne
of
unworthy
receiving
,
and
so
partake
of
other
mens
●innes
.
The
ninth
concerning
Christs
giving
of
the
Sacrament
to
Iudas
is
answered
before
.
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
faithfull
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.
11.
29.
He
that
eateth
and
drinketh
unworthily
,
eateth
and
drinketh
(
not
condemnation
but
)
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
judgement
,
(
meaning
some
temporall
judgement
)
to
himselfe
)
not
to
the
Minister
or
Communicants
.
)
Answ.
1.
Whatever
be
meant
by
judgement
in
this
place
,
certainly
it
is
a
punishment
of
sinne
,
and
such
a
thing
as
proceedeth
from
Gods
displeasure
:
and
it
is
as
certaine
that
unworthy
receiving
maketh
a
person
lyable
to
a
greater
judgement
then
that
which
is
temporall
.
2.
If
to
himselfe
be
restrictive
and
exclusive
in
the
case
of
close
hypocrites
,
such
as
are
by
Church-officers
(
judging
according
to
outward
appearance
)
admitted
to
the
Sacrament
;
yet
how
will
it
be
made
to
appeare
that
the
Apostle
meant
those
words
as
restrictive
and
exclusive
in
the
case
of
scandalous
and
knowne
unworthy
communicants
.
3.
Such
a
scandalous
person
doth
indeed
eate
and
drink
judgement
to
himselfe
;
but
this
can
neither
in
whole
nor
in
part
excuse
but
rather
greatly
aggravate
the
sinne
of
the
Minister
:
for
when
a
wicked
man
dieth
in
his
iniquity
,
yet
his
blood
God
will
require
at
the
hands
of
the
unfaithfull
Minister
,
who
did
strengthen
his
hands
in
his
sinne
.
CHAP.
XII
.
Whether
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lords
Supper
be
a
converting
or
regenerating
Ordinance
.
I
Had
in
answer
to
Mr.
Prynns
third
Quaere
,
given
this
reason
why
prophane
and
scandalous
persons
are
to
be
kept
off
from
the
Sacrament
,
and
yet
not
from
hearing
the
Word
:
because
the
word
is
not
onely
a
confirming
and
comforting
,
but
a
converting
Ordinance
,
and
is
a
mean
appointed
of
God
to
turn
sinners
from
darknes
to
light
,
and
from
the
power
of
Sathan
to
God
:
Whereas
the
Sacrament
is
not
a
converting
,
but
a
confirming
and
sealing
Ordinance
,
which
is
not
given
to
the
Church
for
the
conversion
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
eagernesse
contradict
me
in
this
,
and
argue
at
length
the
contrary
.
(
Which
is
the
marrow
and
fatnesse
(
if
there
be
any
)
in
his
debate
concerning
the
eighth
point
of
difference
)
Whereby
he
doth
not
onely
contradict
me
,
but
himself
too
(
as
shall
appear
)
yea
and
joyn
not
onely
with
the
more
rigid
Lutherans
,
but
with
the
Papists
themselves
against
the
Writers
of
the
Reformed
Churches
.
For
the
very
same
thing
which
is
controverted
between
him
and
me
,
is
controverted
between
Papists
and
Protestants
.
The
Papists
hold
that
the
Sacraments
are
instrumental●
to
confer
,
give
,
or
work
grace
;
yea
ex
opere
operato
▪
as
the
School-men
speak
.
Our
Divines
hold
that
the
Sacraments
are
appointed
of
God
,
and
delivered
to
the
Church
as
sealing
Ordinances
,
not
to
give
,
but
to
testifie
what
is
given
,
not
to
make
but
confirm
Saints
.
And
they
do
not
onely
oppose
the
Papists
opus
operatum
:
but
they
simply
deny
this
instrumentality
of
the
Sacraments
,
that
they
are
appointed
of
God
for
working
or
giving
grace
,
where
it
is
not
.
This
is
so
well
known
to
all
who
have
studied
the
Sacramentarian
controversies
,
that
I
should
not
need
to
prove
it
.
Yet
that
none
may
doubt
of
it
,
take
here
some
few
insteed
of
many
testimonies
.
[
b
](A42757-e103700-b)
b
I●stit
.
pag.
301.
edit.
1539.
Cum
hoc
tantum
in
ministerio
habeant
(
Sacramenta
)
testificari
nobis
ac
confirmare
Dei
in
nos
benevolentiam
&c.
Ut
quae
〈◊〉
largiantur
quidem
aliquid
gratiae
,
sed
renuncient
&
ostendant
quae
divina
largitate
nobis
data
sunt
.
Calvin
holds
plainly
against
the
Papists
that
the
Sacraments
do
not
give
any
grace
,
but
do
declare
and
shew
what
God
hath
given
.
He
clears
it
in
that
chapter
thus
,
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
foundation
,
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
newes
from
men
,
they
declare
what
is
,
but
do
not
so
much
as
instrumentally
make
it
to
be
.
These
are
Calvins
similes
.
[
c
](A42757-e103760-b)
c
Decad.
5.
Serm.
7.
Docuit
vulgus
Sacerdotum
&
Monachorum
Sacramenta
novae
legis
non
tantum
esse
signa
gratiae
,
sed
simul
etiam
gratiae
causos
,
hoc
est
qu●…
habeant
virtu●…m
conferendi
gra●…iam
.
And
after
.
Sancti
&
electi
Dei
non
tum
primum
gratia
Dei
donisque
coelestibus
participant
,
cum
Sacramenta
percipiunt
.
Etenim
rebus
prius
quam
fignis
partic●…pant
.
And
after
.
Pro●…nde
in
Coena
〈◊〉
non
primum
accipiuntur
divi●…a
〈◊〉
,
sed
pro
acceptis
aguntur
gratia
.
Effec●…
his
opinor
,
eviciqu●…
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
B●…llinger
confuteth
the
Popish
doctrine
concerning
the
Sacraments
conferring
of
grace
,
by
this
principle
,
that
the
Saints
are
justified
and
sanctified
before
they
are
sealed
and
confirmed
by
the
Sacraments
.
[
d
](A42757-e103820-b)
d
Ursin.
Tract
.
Theol.
pag.
350.
Sicut
verbum
est
conversionis
&
confirmationis
organum
:
sic
〈◊〉
Sacramenta
sunorgana
confirmationis
&c.
Non
res
accipimus
ideo
quia
signum
accipimus
:
sed
signum
nobis
tribuitur
quia
res
habemus
:
idque
ita
,
ut
non
cur
habeamus
causa
,
sed
quod
eas
habeamus
testimonium
sit
.
Ibid.
de
Sacram.
def●ns
.
quinti
Arg.
Pag.
557.
Nos
vero
supra
hoc
discrimen
verbi
&
Sacramentorum
non
dis●…imulavimus
,
quod
fides
per
verbum
inch●…atur
:
Sacramentorum
usu
autem
confirmatur
,
exercetur
,
fovetur
,
augetur
jam
inchoata
.
Sacramenta
enim
ne
docent
quidem
,
nedum
confirmant
,
nisi
praeeunte
verbo
&
addente
explicationem
typorum
.
Ideirco
etiam
Sacramenta
iis
instituta
sunt
,
quos
Deus
jam
pro
membris
Ecclesiae
a
nobis
vult
agnosci
.
Inchoatio
igitur
fidei
ordinaria
verbi
propria
est
;
confirmati●…
inchoatae
,
Sacramentis
cum
verbo
communis
est
.
Judicium
de
disciplina
Ecclesiastica
ad
finem
Tom.
3
pag.
89.
Quasi
non
pueris
jam
no●…um
,
verbum
&
conversis
&
non
conversis
esse
annuncia●…dum
,
quo
illi
quidem
confirmentur
,
hi
vero
convertantur
.
Sacramenta
autem
iis
esse
instituta
qui
jam
sunt
conversi
&
membra
populi
Dei
facti
.
Ursinus
speaks
so
fully
and
plainly
for
us
,
that
none
can
say
more
.
He
distinguisheth
between
the
Word
and
Sacraments
,
as
between
converting
and
confirming
Ordinances
,
and
argueth
that
the
Sacraments
do
not
confer
grace
,
because
we
receive
not
the
thing
by
receiving
the
signe
,
but
we
get
the
signe
because
it
is
supposed
we
have
the
thing
.
Yea
he
speaks
of
it
as
a
principle
known
to
children
.
Wolfangus
Musculus
in
his
[
e
](A42757-e103890-b)
e
De
Coena
Dom.
pag.
350
Quis
non
videt
quales
nos
ad
mysticam
hanc
Domini
mensam
accedere
oporteat
?
nempe
non
tales
qui
fruiti●…nem
corporis
ac
sanguinis
Domini
primum
in
ea
●…aeramus
,
tanquam
illius
adhuc
expertes
:
sed
qui
per
fidem
illius
jam
antea
participes
,
gratiam
semel
acceptam
,
communicatione
hac
Sacramentali
corporis
ac
sanguinis
Domini
,
&
mortis
ipsius
rememoratione
,
in
cordibus
nostris
magis
ac
magis
corrob●…rare
,
redemptorique
gratias
agere
cupiamus
.
common
places
saith
thus
,
Who
seeth
not
what
manner
of
persons
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
already
before
partakers
thereof
by
faith
,
do
desire
to
corroborate
more
and
more
in
our
hearts
,
the
grace
once
received
by
the
Sacramental
communication
of
the
body
and
blood
of
the
Lord
,
and
by
the
remembrance
of
his
death
,
and
to
give
thanks
to
our
Rede●…mer
.
[
f
](A42757-e103930-b)
f
Adhaec
praedicandum
iis
quoque
est
,
qui
nondum
audierunt
,
aut
certe
nondum
perceperunt
.
Attame●
utcunque
feratur
impuritas
con●entuum
ubi
verbum
praedicatur
,
quam
Christus
&
Apostoli
quoque
tulerunt
:
Coenae
tamen
communio
(
ut
dixi
)
purior
esse
debet
.
Nam
publica
est
eorum
qui
palam
se
Christianos
profitentur
,
de
redemptione
gratiarum
actio
●ideo
circa
hanc
,
ut
communionem
Christi
solemmiter
sancti
percipiunt
,
ita
excludendi
inde
sunt
qui
vita
sua
se
extra
●anc
communionem
esse
,
ma●ifesto
probant
.
Martin
Bucer
upon
Matth.
18.
17.
puts
this
difference
between
the
Word
preached
,
and
the
Lords
Supper
;
that
the
Word
may
be
preached
to
the
unconverted
:
but
the
Lords
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
controversie
.
[
g
](A42757-e103970-b)
g
Fideles
enim
ante
usum
Sacramentorum
hanc
gratiam
omnin●
habe●t
:
neque
ad
Sacramentorum
usum
accedere
debent
qui
ea●
gratiam
pro
aetatis
modo
non
habeat
,
neque
admittendi
sunt
qui
eam
non
habere
meri●o
praesumuntur
.
Festus
Honnius
Disp.
43.
Thes.
3.
confuting
the
Popish
opinion
of
the
Sacraments
working
or
giving
grace
,
brings
this
reason
against
it
;
They
that
receive
the
Sacraments
,
have
this
grace
before
they
receive
them
,
neither
are
any
to
be
admitted
to
the
Sacraments
who
may
be
justly
supposed
not
to
be
justified
and
sanctified
.
Aretius
Coment
.
in
Mark
14.
loc.
3.
observeth
,
Qui
admissi
sint
ad
istam
Coenam
?
discipuli
solum
,
Who
were
admitted
to
that
(
eucharistical
)
Supper
?
the
Disciples
o●…ely
.
Hence
he
inferreth
:
Quare
mysteria
haec
ad
solos
fideles
pertinent
:
Wherefore
these
mysteries
do
pertain
to
the
faithful
alone
:
that
is
,
to
those
who
are
supposed
to
be
converted
and
beleevers
.
Vossius
Disp.
de
Sacram.
effic
.
part
.
poster
.
After
he
hath
observed
two
respects
in
which
the
Sacraments
do
excel
the
Word
.
1.
That
Infants
who
are
not
capable
of
hearing
the
Word
,
are
capable
of
the
Sacrament
of
Baptisme
,
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
[
h
](A42757-e104080-b)
h
Quemadmodum
autem
Sacramenta
duplici
nomine
praesiant
verbo
,
itidem
verbum
duobus
nominibus
praferendum
Sacramentis
.
Vno
quod
verbum
in
adultis
&
generet
fidem
,
&
genitam
foveat
atque
alat
:
Sacramenta
vero
●am
non
gignant
,
sed
tantum
genitam
conserve●t
atque
augeant
.
Altero
quod
absque
verbo
non
salv●mur
.
&c.
Thes.
49.
other
two
respects
in
which
the
Word
doth
far
excel
the
Sacraments
.
1.
That
the
Word
can
both
beget
&
confirm
faith
:
the
Sacraments
cannot
beget
faith
in
those
that
are
come
to
age
,
but
onely
conserve
and
increase
it
.
2.
That
without
the
word
we
cannot
be
saved
,
for
he
that
beleeves
not
is
condemned
;
now
faith
commeth
by
hearing
:
but
the
Sacraments
though
profitable
means
of
grace
,
yet
are
not
simply
necessary
.
The
confession
of
the
faith
of
the
Church
of
Scotland
in
the
Article
entituled
to
whom
Sacraments
appertain
,
saith
thus
.
But
the
Supper
of
the
Lord
we
confesse
to
appertain
to
such
onely
as
be
of
the
houshold
of
faith
,
and
can
try
and
examine
themselves
as
well
in
their
faith
,
as
in
th●…ir
duty
towards
their
neighbours
.
The
Belgick
Confession
Art.
33.
saith
of
the
Sacraments
in
generall
,
that
God
hath
instituted
them
to
seal
his
promises
in
us
,
to
be
pledges
of
his
love
to
us
▪
and
to
nourish
and
strengthen
our
Faith
.
And
[
i
](A42757-e104160-b)
i
Credimus
&
confit●mur
Iesu●
Christum
servatorem
nostrum
sanctae
Coenae
Sacramentum
●rdinasse
&
instituisse
,
ut
ea
nutriat
&
sustentet
eos
,
quos
jam
regeneravit
,
&c.
At
vero
,
ad
conservationem
vitae
sp●ritualis
&
c●estis
,
quam
fideles
jam
habent
,
Deu●
illis
pane●
〈◊〉
misit
&c.
Art.
35.
They
plainly
hold
that
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lords
Supper
is
intended
and
instituted
by
Christ
for
such
as
are
already
regenerate
,
and
are
already
quickned
with
the
life
of
grace
.
The
Synod
of
Dort
in
their
Judgement
of
the
fifth
Article
of
the
Remonstrants
[
k
](A42757-e104200-b)
k
Quem
ad
modum
autem
Deo
placuit
opus
hoc
suum
gratiae
per
predicationem
Evangelii
in
nobis
incho●re
,
ita
p●r
ejusdem
auditum
,
lectionem
,
meditationem
,
adhortationes
,
minas
,
promissa
,
nec
non
per
usum
Sacramentorum
,
illud
conservat
,
continuat
et
persicit
.
Sect.
14.
ascribeth
both
the
inchoation
and
conservation
of
grace
to
the
Word
:
but
ascribeth
o●ely
to
the
Sacraments
the
conserving
,
continuing
,
and
perfecting
of
that
begun
grace
.
In
the
Belgick
form
of
the
administration
of
the
Lords
Supper
(
See
Corpus
Disciplinae
lately
published
by
the
Ministers
and
Elders
of
the
Dutch
Church
at
London
pag.
16.
)
it
is
said
thus
.
Those
which
do
not
feel
this
Testimony
in
their
hearts
(
concerning
their
examining
of
themselves
touching
their
repentance
,
faith
,
and
purpose
of
true
obedience
)
they
eat
and
drink
judgement
to
themselves
;
Wherefore
we
also
(
according
to
the
Commandement
of
Christ
and
the
Apostle
Paul
)
do
admonish
all
those
who
find
themselves
guilty
of
these
ensuing
sins
,
to
refrain
from
comming
to
the
Lords
Table
,
and
do
denounce
unto
them
that
they
have
no
part
in
the
Kingdom
of
Christ
.
(
Here
follows
an
enumeration
of
diverse
scandalous
sins
concluded
with
this
general
,
and
all
those
which
lead
a
scandalous
life
.
)
All
these
as
long
as
they
continue
in
such
sins
,
shall
refrain
from
this
spiritual
food
(
which
Christ
onely
ordained
for
his
faithful
people
)
that
so
their
●…udgement
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
signifie
,
Ibid.
pag.
17.
And
to
the
end
we
may
firmly
beleeve
that
we
do
belong
to
this
gracious
Covenant
,
the
Lord
Jesus
in
his
last
Supper
took
bread
.
&c.
[
l
](A42757-e104330-b)
l
Explic.
Catech.
Quaest.
67.
Verbum
est
instrumentum
Spiritus
sancti
,
per
quod
incl●…oat
&
confirmat
in
nobis
fidem
ideoque
verbum
debet
praeire
.
Sacramenta
sunt
organa
Spiritus
sancti
per
quae
fidem
inchoatam
confirmat
:
ideoque
Sacramenta
debent
sequi
.
Ibid.
Quaest.
81.
Art.
1.
Sacramenta
tantum
sunt
instituta
fidelibus
&
conversis
,
ut
his
promissionem
Evangelii
obsignent
,
&
fidem
confirment
.
Verbum
quidem
est
conversis
,
&
non
conversis
commune
,
ut
conversi
confirmentur
,
nondum
conversi
convertantur
:
Sacramenta
vero
ad
solos
fideles
per●…inent
.
Paraeus
puts
this
difference
between
the
Word
and
Sacraments
;
that
the
Word
is
a
mean
appointed
both
for
beginning
and
confirming
faith
:
the
Sacraments
means
of
confirming
it
after
it
is
begun
.
That
the
Word
belongs
both
to
the
converted
and
to
the
unconverted
:
the
Sacraments
are
intended
for
those
who
are
converted
and
do
beleeve
,
and
for
none
others
.
And
though
the
Lutherans
make
some
controversie
with
us
about
the
effect
of
the
Sacraments
,
yet
[
m
](A42757-e104390-b)
m
Loc.
com
.
Tom.
5.
pag.
1.
Per
Baptismam
regeneramur
ac
re●…ovamur
:
per
Sacramentum
Coenae
alimur
ac
nutrimur
ad
vitam
aeternum
.
In
Baptism●…
praesertim
Infan●…um
,
per
Spiritum
S.
fides
accenditur
:
in
usu
sacrae
Coenae
augetur
,
confirmatur
,
&
obsignatur
.
Per
Baptis●…num
Christo
inserimur
,
in
quo
spirituale
incrementum
salutari
Coenae
usu
accipimus
.
Ioh.
Gerhardus
doth
agree
with
us
in
this
point
,
that
the
Lords
Supper
is
not
a
regenerating
but
a
confirming
and
strengthening
Ordinance
,
and
this
difference
he
puts
between
it
and
Baptisme
.
[
n
](A42757-e104430-b)
n
Tom.
1.
pag.
477.
At
an
non
per
Sacramenta
etiam
fides
&
regeneratio
exhibetur
?
Resp.
Distinguendum
inter
primum
fidei
&
resipiscentiae
initium
,
&
confirmationem
ejus
ac
augmentum
.
Nemo
admit●…tur
ad
Sacramenta
nisi
pro
fideli
&
poenitente
habeatur
;
quemadmodum
verba
clara
sunt
,
Quisquis
crediderit
&
baptizatus
fuerit
.
In●…ntes
habentur
pro
foederatis
,
ac
proinde
etiam
pro
iis
qui
Spiritum
fidei
acceperunt
,
sed
de
hac
repostea
.
Sic
in
Coena
requiritur
,
ut
〈◊〉
probet
se
an
sit
in
fide
,
&
ut
digne
manducet
:
infidelibus
enim
vel
nondum
credentibus
nullae
fiunt
promissiones
,
ac
proinde
nec
obsignantur
.
Perperam
ergo
statuunt
ipsa
Sacramenta
esse
caus●…
primae
regenerationis
aut
justificationis
,
tum
Pontificii
,
tum
Lutherani
quidam
.
Sed
si
fidei
&
regenerationis
conf●…atio
&
augmentum
spectetur
,
recte
tribuitur
Sacramentis
ut
causis
instrumentalibus
.
Walaeus
asserteth
both
against
Papists
,
and
against
some
of
the
Lutherans
,
that
Sacraments
do
instrumentally
confirme
and
increase
faith
and
regeneration
;
but
not
begin
nor
work
faith
and
regeneration
where
they
are
not
.
Petrus
Hinkelmannus
de
Anabaptismo
Disp.
9.
cap.
1.
Error
6.
disputeth
against
this
as
a
Tenent
of
the
Calvi●…ists
.
Fideles
habent
Spiritum
S.
habent
res
signatas
ante
Sacramenta
:
the
faithful
have
the
holy
Spirit
,
they
have
the
things
which
are
sealed
,
before
they
receive
the
Sacraments
.
Brochmand
.
System
.
Theol.
Tom.
3.
de
Sacram.
Cap.
2.
Quaest.
1.
condemneth
this
as
one
of
the
Calvinian
errors
:
Sacramenta
non
esse
gratiae
conferendae
divinitu●…
ordinata
media
:
that
Sacraments
are
not
instituted
and
appointed
of
God
to
be
means
of
conferring
or
giving
grace
.
Which
he
saith
is
the
assertion
of
Zuinglius
,
Beza
,
Danaeus
,
Musculus
,
Piscator
,
Vorstius
.
The
Lutheran
opinion
he
propounds
ibid.
quaest
.
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
Calvinists
(
as
he
calls
us
)
thus
,
justificationem
usu
Sacramenti
esse
priorem
,
obtentam
nimirum
per
fidem
quâ
homo
jam
ante
credidit
sibi
remitti
peccata
;
Sacramentum
verò
postea
adhiberi
,
ut
verbo
quidem
promissionis
fides
confirmetur
:
elemento
verò
ceu
sigillo
quodam
diplomati
appenso
eadem
fides
obsignetur
;
atque
ita
per
Sacramentum
declaretur
testatumque
fiat
hominem
jam
prius
esse
per
fidem
justicatum
.
This
he
saith
is
manifestly
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
tertiam
partem
Thomae
Disp.
3.
Quaest.
3.
punct.
1.
thus
explaineth
the
Tenent
which
he
holdeth
against
the
Protestants
concerning
the
Sacraments
giving
of
grace
.
Sacramenta
esse
veras
causas
qualitatis
gratia
,
non
principales
,
sed
instrumentales
:
hoc
ipso
videlicet
,
quod
Deus
illis
utitur
ad
productionem
illius
effectus
,
qui
〈◊〉
gratia
,
tamet
si
supra
naturam
seu
efficacitatem
naturale●…
ipsorum
.
The
Papists
dispute
indeed
what
manner
of
casuality
or
vertue
it
is
by
which
the
Sacraments
work
grace
,
whether
Phisica
,
or
Ethica
;
whether
infita
,
or
adsita
.
In
which
questions
they
do
not
all
go
one
way
.
See
Gamachaeus
in
tertiam
partem
Tho.
Quest.
62.
Cap.
5.
But
that
the
Sacraments
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
Baptisme
and
Pennance
onely
give
the
first
habitual
grace
,
and
the
other
five
Sacraments
(
as
they
make
the
number
)
give
increase
of
grace
.
But
in
this
they
all
agree
,
that
habitual
grace
is
given
in
all
the
Sacraments
of
the
New-Testament
:
the
Thomists
hold
further
,
that
the
very
first
grace
is
de
facto
given
in
any
of
the
Sacraments
.
See
for
the
former
[
o
](A42757-e104810-b)
o
Becanus
Theol.
Schol.
part
.
4.
Tract
.
de
S●cram
.
Quaest.
7.
Omnia
Sacramenta
●…ovae
legis
s●…mper
conferunt
gratiam
habitu●…lem
seu
〈◊〉
,
non
ponentibus
obicem
,
ac
proinde
gratia
habitualis
est
communis
quidam
esfectus
om●…ium
Sacramentorum
:
Est
communi●…
sententia
.
Becanus
,
for
the
latter
[
p
](A42757-e104840-b)
p
Tannerus
in
Thomam
.
Tom.
4.
Disp.
3.
Qaest
.
3.
Dub.
5.
●…mo
omnia
Sacramenta
de
facto
nonnunquam
possunt
ex
opere
operato
(
how
much
more
if
there
be
also
opus
operantis
)
confer●…e
primam
gr●…am
.
Haec
est
sententia
magis
pia
&
probabilior
;
quam
docet
S.
Thomas
&c.
eandem
communiter
sequuntur
T●…omistae
.
He
confirms
it
thus
.
Quia
quaedam
Sacram●…nta
per
se
pro●…riesolum
instituta
ad
dindam
prima●…
gratiam
,
tossunt
conserre
〈◊〉
.
Ergo
etiam
per
se
instituta
ad
honc
toterunt
conferre
primam
&c.
Atque
hoc
etiam
sensu
admitti
potest
quod
nonnulli
dixeru●…t
,
omnibus
Sacramentis
sub
ratione
saltem
generica
Sacramenti
novae
Legis
,
etsi
non
specifica
,
per
se
co●…venire
ut
gratiam
primam
conferant
.
Tannerus
.
You
will
say
peradventure
▪
that
Protestant
Writers
hold
the
Sacraments
to
be
1.
Significant
or
declarative
signes
.
2.
Obsignative
or
confirming
signes
▪
3.
Exhibitive
signes
,
so
that
the
thing
signified
is
given
and
exhibite
to
the
soul.
I
answer
,
That
exhibition
which
they
speak
of
,
is
not
the
giving
of
grace
where
it
is
not
(
as
is
manifest
by
the
afore
quoted
Testimonies
)
but
an
exhibition
to
beleevers
,
a
real
effectual
lively
application
of
Christ
and
of
all
his
benefits
to
every
one
that
beleeveth
,
for
the
staying
,
strengthening
,
confirming
,
and
comforting
of
the
soul.
Chamierus
contractus
.
Tom.
4.
lib.
1.
cap.
2.
Docemus
ergo
in
Sacramentorum
perceptione
effici
gratiam
in
fidelibus
:
&
hactenus
Sacramenta
dicenda
efficacia
.
Polan
.
Syntag.
lib.
●
.
cap.
49.
saith
the
visible
external
thing
in
the
Sacrament
,
is
thus
far
exhibitive
,
quia
bona
spiritualia
per
eam
fidelibus
significantur
,
exhibentur
,
communicantur
&
obsignantur
.
So
that
in
this
point
Habenti
dabitur
is
a
good
rule
.
For
unto
every
one
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
.
Maith
.
25.
29.
Our
Divines
do
not
say
that
the
Sacraments
are
exhibitive
Ordinances
,
wherein
grace
is
communicated
to
those
who
have
none
of
it
,
to
unconverted
or
unbeleeving
persons
.
By
this
time
it
may
appear
(
I
suppose
)
that
the
controversie
between
us
and
the
Papists
concerning
the
effect
of
the
Sacraments
(
setting
aside
the
opus
operatum
,
which
is
a
distinct
controversie
▪
and
is
distinctly
spoken
to
by
our
Writers
,
setting
aside
also
the
casualitas
phisica
and
insita
,
by
which
some
of
the
Papists
say
the
Sacraments
give
grace
,
though
diverse
others
of
them
hold
the
Sacraments
to
be
onely
moral
causes
of
grace
)
is
thus
far
the
same
with
the
present
controversie
between
Mr.
Prynn
and
me
,
that
Protestant
Writers
do
not
onely
oppose
the
opus
operatum
,
and
the
casualitas
physica
&
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
alwaies
a
man
to
be
a
beleever
and
within
the
Covenant
of
grace
before
the
Sacrament
,
and
that
he
is
not
made
such
,
nor
translated
to
the
state
of
grace
in
or
by
the
Sacrament
.
This
the
Papists
contradict
,
and
therein
Mr.
Prynn
joyneth
with
them
.
When
Bellarmine
brings
an
impertinent
Argument
:
The
Sacraments
(
saith
he
)
have
not
the
same
relation
to
faith
which
the
Word
hath
:
Nam
verbum
Dei
praecedit
fidem
,
Sacramenta
autem
sequuntur
,
saltem
in
adultis
.
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
.
Tom.
3.
lib.
1.
cap.
5.
corrects
his
great
mistake
or
oblivion
.
Hoc
illud
est
quod
nos
docemus
:
Sacramenta
confirmare
fidem
per
verbum
Dei
prius
ingeneratam
,
saltem
in
adultis
.
This
(
saith
he
)
is
that
which
we
teach
,
that
the
Sacraments
confirm
that
faith
which
was
first
begotten
by
the
Word
of
God
,
at
least
in
those
who
are
of
age
.
Mr.
Prynns
assertion
is
▪
that
the
Lords
Supper
is
a
converting
,
as
well
as
a
sealing
Ordinance
;
for
clearing
whereof
h●
premiseth
two
distinctions
.
There
are
two
sorts
both
of
conversion
and
sealing
,
which
he
saith
his
Antagonists
to
delude
the
vulgar
have
ignorantly
,
wilfully
,
or
injudiciously
confounded
.
Whether
such
language
beseems
a
man
fearing
God
,
or
honouring
them
that
do
fear
God
,
let
every
one
judge
who
knoweth
any
thing
of
Christian
moderation
.
See
now
if
there
be
any
reason
for
this
grievous
charge
.
First
(
saith
he
)
there
is
an
external
conversion
of
men
from
Paganisme
or
Gentilisme
to
the
external
profession
of
the
faith
of
Christ
.
This
(
he
saith
)
is
wrought
by
the
Word
or
by
Miracles
,
and
effected
by
Baptisme
in
reference
to
infants
of
Christian
Parents
.
But
how
the
Baptism●
of
such
Infants
is
brought
under
the
head
of
conversion
from
Paganisme
to
the
external
profession
of
Christ
,
I
am
yet
to
learn
.
Secondly
saith
he
,
There
is
a
conversion
from
a
meer
external
formal
profession
of
the
Doctrine
and
Faith
of
Christ
,
to
an
inward
spiritual
embracing
and
application
of
Christ
with
his
merits
and
promises
to
our
souls
,
by
the
saving
grace
of
Faith
,
and
to
an
holy
Christian
real
change
of
heart
and
life
:
In
this
last
conversion
,
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lords
Supper
is
not
onely
a
sealing
or
confirming
,
but
likewise
a
regenerating
and
converting
Ordinance
as
well
as
the
Word
.
He
might
upon
as
good
reason
have
made
a
third
sort
of
conversion
from
a
scandalous
and
prophane
life
to
the
external
obedience
of
the
will
and
commandements
of
God
.
But
all
this
is
to
seek
a
knot
in
the
rush
;
for
there
is
but
one
sort
of
conversion
which
is
a
saving
conversion
,
and
that
is
a
conversion
from
nature
to
grace
,
from
sin
to
sanctification
,
from
the
power
of
Sathan
to
God
,
whether
it
be
from
paganisme
,
or
from
prophanenesse
,
or
from
an
external
formal
profession
.
Now
that
conversion
which
Mr.
Prynn
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
Paganisme
or
Gentilisme
to
the
external
profession
of
the
faith
of
Christ
,
without
the
other
conversion
to
an
inward
spiritual
embracing
of
Christ
,
doth
but
make
men
seven
▪
fold
more
the
children
of
Hell
.
So
that
Mr.
Prynn
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
Baptisme
and
the
Lords
Supper
are
termed
Sacraments
and
Seals
,
without
any
Text
of
Scripture
to
warrant
it
.
Hereby
as
he
gratifieth
[
q
](A42757-e105240-b)
q
Faustus
Socinus
de
Coena
Dom.
Tract
.
brev.
terum
,
quod
omnes
fere
opinantur
,
hoc
ritu
,
quem
Sacramentum
appellant
,
confirmari
saltem
fidem
nostram
,
ne
id
quidem
verum
censeri
debet
;
cum
nec
ullo
sacro
testimonio
comprobetur
,
nec
ulla
ratio
sit
,
cur
id
fièri
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
Sacramenti
in
hac
significatione
barbara
vel
saltem
sacris
liter
is
incognita
est
,
●…b
hominibus
vero
otiosis
,
qui
ceremoniis
hujusmodi
nescio
quid
praeter
sacram
Scripturam
superstiti●…sum
aut
eti●…m
Idololatricum
ex
parte
,
〈◊〉
non
sunt
〈◊〉
,
ad
〈◊〉
dolum
〈◊〉
.
the
Socinians
not
a
little
(
who
will
not
have
the
Lords
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
Lords
Supper
but
too
holy
to
delude
the
vulgar
)
So
he
correcteth
all
Orthodox
Writers
,
Ancient
and
Modern
.
The
Apostl●
▪
describeth
Circumcision
to
be
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
a
seal
of
the
righteousnesse
of
faith
,
Rom.
4.
11.
Whence
Divines
give
the
name
of
seals
to
all
Sacraments
Rectè
autem
(
saith
Aretius
Theol.
Probl.
Loc.
76.
)
speciebus
imis
&
intermediis
generibus
eadem
●…ssignantur
in
definiendo
genera
.
Circumcision
is
a
seal
,
therefore
a
Sacrament
is
a
seal
:
as
well
as
this
,
Justice
is
a
habit
,
therefore
vertue
is
a
habit
.
Man
is
a
substance
,
therefore
a
living
creature
is
a
substance
.
And
further
,
if
Circumcision
was
a
seal
;
the
Lords
Supper
is
much
more
a
seal
;
as
we
shall
see
afterwards
.
The
honourable
Houses
of
Parliament
,
after
advice
had
with
the
Assembly
of
Divines
have
judged
this
point
(
which
Mr.
Prynn
so
much
quarrelleth
)
to
be
not
onely
true
,
but
so
far
necessary
and
fundamental
,
that
in
their
Ordinance
of
October
20.
1645.
for
keeping
back
the
ignorant
and
the
scandalous
from
the
Sacrament
,
this
truth
,
That
the
Sacraments
are
seals
of
the
Covenant
of
grace
,
is
enumerate
among
those
points
of
Religion
,
which
all
persons
who
shall
be
admitted
to
the
Lords
Supper
ought
to
know
,
and
of
which
whosoever
is
ignorant
shal
not
be
admitted
to
the
Lords
Supper
.
I
hope
Mr.
Prynn
shall
not
be
willing
to
fall
within
the
Category
of
ignorant
persons
,
and
such
as
ought
not
be
admitted
to
the
Sacrament
:
which
yet
by
that
Ordinance
he
must
needs
do
;
if
he
will
not
know
the
Lords
Supper
to
be
a
seal
of
the
Covenant
of
grace
.
Wherefore
though
he
leaneth
much
that
way
,
both
here
,
and
pag.
30.
yet
I
shall
expect
he
will
rectifie
himself
in
this
particular
.
His
words
are
these
.
There
is
a
double
sealing
(
if
we
admit
this
Sacrament
or
Baptisme
to
be
seals
,
though
never
once
stiled
seals
in
any
Scripture
Text
)
And
in
the
Margent
,
they
are
termed
Sacraments
and
seals
of
the
Covenant
,
without
any
Text
to
warra●…t
it
.
Now
Quaeritur
whether
Mr.
Prynn
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
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
that
is
,
a
Seal
;
(
which
makes
most
to
our
present
purpose
)
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.
Prynn
is
the
more
afraid
of
the
Word
Sacrament
,
because
some
derive
it
à
sacramente
which
suteth
not
so
well
to
his
notion
of
a
converting
Ordinance
.
Well
:
But
what
are
nis
two
sorts
of
sealing
?
1.
A
visible
external
sealing
of
the
pardon
of
sin
and
Gods
promises
in
the
blood
of
Christ
to
our
outward
s●…nces
.
2.
An
internal
invisible
sealing
of
them
by
the
Spirit
,
working
in
,
by
the
Word
and
Sacraments
to
our
souls
.
In
the
first
sence
(
he
saith
)
this
Sacrament
is
a
seal
to
all
receivers
,
even
to
those
who
are
scandalous
and
unworthy
,
who
receive
onely
the
outward
Elements
.
Again
this
first
kind
of
sealing
(
saith
he
)
seals
all
Gods
promises
and
a
free
pardon
of
all
our
sins
onely
conditionally
,
if
we
truly
repent
,
lay
hold
on
Christ
&c.
The
second
which
is
an
absolute
sealing
,
he
grants
to
belong
onely
to
worthy
penitent
beleeving
receivers
.
Who
doth
now
delude
the
vulgar
?
When
the
Lords
Supper
is
called
a
sealing
Ordinance
;
did
ever
any
man
understand
this
of
a
sealing
to
our
outward
sences
onely
,
or
of
receiving
the
outward
Elements
and
no
more
?
Who
can
mistake
the
thing
so
far
as
to
think
that
Christ
hath
instituted
and
ordained
this
Sacrament
to
be
a
meer
external
seal
and
no
more
?
When
he
grants
that
in
the
second
sence
this
Sacrament
is
a
seal
,
onely
to
worthy
,
penitent
,
beleeving
receivers
,
who
receive
the
inward
invisible
grace
,
as
well
as
the
outward
signes
:
He
grants
that
which
I
require
,
that
is
,
that
it
is
a
sealing
Ordinance
intended
for
worthy
penitent
beleeving
receivers
,
not
for
the
scandalous
and
unworthy
.
God
forbid
we
should
make
a
sealing
Ordinance
to
be
an
empty
Ordinance
.
The
truth
is
,
his
first
kind
of
sealing
without
the
second
,
is
no
sealing
,
yea
worse
then
no
sealing
.
Where
there
is
no
charter
,
how
can
there
be
a
sealing
,
except
we
seal
blank
paper
?
and
as
we
shall
hear
anon
from
Chrysostome
,
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
scandalous
and
unworthy
▪
that
is
,
the
pardon
of
all
their
sins
conditionally
,
if
they
truly
repent
,
beleeve
,
lay
hold
on
Christ
.
In
this
very
place
Mr.
Prynn
tells
us
,
that
all
Gods
promises
and
a
free
pardon
is
sealed
,
even
to
scandalous
and
unworthy
receivers
conditionally
;
that
is
,
as
he
explicates
himself
pag
37.
upon
condition
that
they
become
penitent
and
beleeving
receivers
.
But
then
(
say
I
)
he
must
upon
as
good
reason
grant
,
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
repent
and
beleeve
on
Christ
,
they
shall
have
pardon
of
sin
?
Here
is
the
thing
to
be
sealed
in
Mr.
Prynn'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
Sacrament
even
to
Pagans
as
a
sealing
Ordinance
,
how
much
more
then
as
a
converting
Ordinance
?
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
advantage
.
I
will
now
premise
some
distinctions
of
my
owne
to
clear
that
which
I
hold
.
1.
The
Question
is
not
de
potentia
Dei
absoluta
,
Whether
God
by
his
omnipotency
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
be
,
and
who
knoweth
but
the
scandalous
sinner
may
be
converted
,
is
no
warrantable
ground
to
go
upon
in
this
case
,
as
Mr.
Prynn
would
make
it
pag.
47.
for
we
may
as
well
adventure
to
delay
repentance
,
upon
a
peradventure
it
may
be
.
There
is
an
example
in
the
New-Testament
of
one
who
got
repentance
and
mercy
at
his
end
,
and
if
we
beleeve
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
Sacrament
.
But
if
a
thing
be
contrary
to
the
revealed
will
and
commandement
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
peradventures
.
To
the
Law
,
and
to
the
Testimony
.
Search
the
Scriptures
.
If
the
Word
do
not
shew
us
any
thing
of
conversion
by
the
Sacrament
,
we
must
not
think
of
any
such
thing
.
2.
We
must
distinguish
between
the
Sacrament
it self
,
and
those
things
that
do
accompany
the
Sacrament
,
powerful
preaching
,
exhortation
,
prayer
,
or
the
like
before
or
after
the
Sacrament
.
Put
case
a
sinner
be
effectually
converted
by
a
Sermon
or
a
prayer
,
which
he
heareth
at
the
Ordination
of
a
Minister
,
will
any
man
therefore
say
that
Ordination
is
a
converting
Ordinance
?
So
if
by
most
serious
powerful
exhortations
,
convictions
,
promises
,
threatnings
,
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
impenitent
prophane
wicked
liver
,
nothing
of
this
kind
can
make
the
Sacrament
a
converting
Ordinance
.
3.
We
must
distinguish
even
in
conversion
between
gratia
praeveniens
&
subs●…quens
,
operans
&
co-operans
,
excitans
&
adjuvans
,
or
rather
,
between
habitual
and
actual
conversion
.
Habitual
conversion
I
call
the
first
infusion
of
the
life
and
habits
of
grace
;
actual
conversion
is
the
souls
beginning
to
act
from
that
life
and
from
those
habits
.
The
first
or
habitual
conversion
in
which
the
sinner
is
passive
,
and
not
at
all
active
,
it
being
wholy
the
work
of
preventing
,
exciting
,
quickning
grace
,
is
that
which
never
is
to
be
looked
for
in
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lords
Supper
,
which
is
enough
to
overthrow
that
opinion
,
that
scandalous
impenitent
sinners
(
having
an
external
formal
profession
,
but
known
by
a
wicked
abominable
conversation
to
be
dead
in
sins
and
trespasses
,
in
whom
the
holy
Ghost
hath
never
yet
breathed
the
first
breath
of
the
life
of
grace
)
may
be
admitted
to
the
Lords
Supper
(
if
they
desire
it
,
not
being
excommunicated
)
upon
hopes
,
that
it
may
prove
a
converting
Ordinance
to
them
.
As
for
gratia
subsequens
co-operans
&
adjuvans
,
by
which
the
sinner
(
having
now
a
spiritual
life
created
in
him
and
supernatural
habits
infused
in
his
soul
)
is
said
actually
to
convert
,
repent
,
and
beleeve
.
I
consider
even
in
this
actual
conversion
,
repenting
,
beleeving
,
these
two
things
.
1.
The
inchoation
.
2.
The
progresse
of
the
work
.
Where
the
work
is
begun
,
if
it
were
but
faith
like
a
grain
of
mustard
seed
,
and
where
there
is
any
thing
of
conversion
which
is
true
and
sound
;
the
Sacrament
is
a
blessed
powerful
means
to
help
forward
the
work
.
But
I
peremptorily
deny
that
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lords
Supper
is
appointed
or
instituted
by
Christ
as
a
regenerating
converting
Ordinance
,
as
well
as
the
word
,
or
as
a
means
of
beginning
actual
,
much
lesse
habitual
conversion
.
4.
When
I
hold
the
Lords
Supper
not
to
be
a
converting
but
a
sealing
Ordinance
,
the
meaning
is
not
as
if
▪
I
beleeved
that
all
who
are
permitted
to
come
to
the
Lords
Table
are
truly
converted
,
or
that
they
are
such
as
the
seals
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
do
indeed
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
childrens
read
onely
(
though
the
hired
servants
of
the
house
have
other
bread
enough
and
to
spare
)
and
he
alloweth
this
portion
to
none
but
such
as
are
already
converted
and
do
beleeve
:
and
that
they
who
are
the
ministers
of
Christ
and
stewards
of
the
mysteries
of
God
ought
to
admit
none
to
this
Sacrament
,
except
such
as
are
quallified
and
fit
(
so
far
as
can
be
judged
by
their
profession
,
knowledge
,
and
practice
,
observed
and
examined
by
the
Eldership
according
to
the
rules
of
the
Word
,
no
humane
court
being
infallible
)
to
have
part
and
portion
in
the
communion
of
Saints
,
and
to
receive
the
seals
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
at
least
that
they
may
not
dare
to
admit
any
man
whose
known
and
scandalous
wickednesse
continued
in
without
signes
of
repentance
,
saith
within
their
heart
,
that
there
is
no
fear
of
God
before
his
eyes
.
These
things
premised
(
which
are
to
be
remembred
by
the
Reader
,
but
need
not
be
repeated
by
me
as
we
go
along
)
I
proceed
to
the
Arguments
which
prove
my
assertion
,
that
the
Lords
Supper
is
not
a
converting
but
a
sealing
Ordinance
.
And
thereafter
I
shall
answer
Mr.
Prynns
Arguments
brought
to
the
contrary
.
CHAP.
XIII
.
Twenty
A●guments
to
prove
that
the
Lords
Supper
is
not
a
converting
Ordinance
.
First
,
THat
which
is
an
institute
significant
signe
,
to
declare
and
testifie
the
being
of
that
thing
which
is
thereby
signified
,
is
not
an
operating
cause
or
mean
which
makes
that
thing
signified
to
begin
to
be
where
it
was
not
.
But
the
Sacrament
is
an
instituted
signe
to
declare
and
testifie
the
being
of
that
thing
which
is
thereby
signified
.
Ergo
,
This
is
an
Argument
used
by
[
r
](A42757-e105900-b)
r
Chamier
.
contract
.
Tom
4.
lib.
2.
cap.
9.
Quia
ut
efficientia
toto
genere
suo
differt
a
significatione
:
ita
diversa
ratio
est
instituendi
in
st●…umenta
efficientia
,
&
significantia
&c.
2.
prob
.
inductione
.
Quia
nulla
signa
sive
miraculosa
,
sive
alia
sunt
efficientia
.
Polanus
Synt.
lib.
6.
cap.
49.
Elementum
Sacramentale
significat
,
testatur
,
&
obsignat
●…redentibus
rem
verbo
Dei
promissam
,
eam
autem
nequaquam
causat
,
efficit
,
aut
producit
.
Protestant
writers
against
Papists
.
The
Sacraments
being
by
their
definition
Signes
,
are
not
causes
of
that
which
they
signifie
,
neither
are
the
things
signified
the
effects
of
the
Sacraments
.
Wherefore
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lords
Supper
being
a
signe
of
our
spiritual
life
,
faith
,
union
with
Christ
,
and
remission
of
sins
,
is
not
instituted
to
convey
these
spiritual
blessings
to
such
as
have
them
not
.
Significancy
is
one
thing
,
efficiency
another
.
You
will
say
by
this
Argument
there
is
no
grace
exhibited
nor
given
to
beleevers
themselves
in
the
Sacrament
.
Answ.
Growth
in
grace
and
confirmation
of
Faith
is
given
to
beleevers
in
the
Sacrament
,
which
the
significancy
hinders
not
,
because
the
Sacrament
doth
not
signifie
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
of
grace
or
spiritual
life
,
regeneration
,
faith
and
remission
of
sins
are
signified
,
declared
,
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
Sacrament
,
I
mean
,
it
s
not
signified
that
we
have
it
,
but
that
we
shall
have
it
,
or
at
most
that
we
do
then
receive
it
.
So
that
beleevers
may
truly
be
said
to
receive
at
the
Sacrament
a
confirmation
or
strengthening
of
their
faith
,
or
a
further
degree
of
communion
with
Christ
:
but
it
cannot
be
said
that
the
very
Sacramental
act
of
eating
or
drinking
,
being
a
signe
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
instrumental
cause
to
make
a
man
have
that
which
it
testifieth
or
signifieth
he
hath
already
.
There
is
no
evasion
here
,
for
one
who
acknowledgeth
the
Sacrament
to
be
a
signe
,
declaring
or
shewing
forth
that
we
have
faith
in
Christ
,
remission
of
sins
by
him
,
and
union
with
him
.
Mr.
Prynn
must
either
make
blank
the
signification
of
the
Sacrament
à
parte
ante
,
though
not
à
parte
post
,
or
else
hold
that
the
signification
of
the
Sacrament
,
is
not
applicable
to
many
of
those
whom
he
thinks
fit
to
be
admitted
to
receive
it
.
Secondly
,
That
which
necessarily
supposeth
conversion
and
faith
,
doth
not
work
conversion
and
faith
.
But
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lords
Supper
necessarily
supposeth
conversion
and
faith
.
Ergo.
The
proposition
is
so
certain
,
that
either
it
must
be
yeelded
,
or
a
contradiction
must
be
yeelded
:
for
that
which
worketh
conversion
and
faith
,
cannot
suppose
that
they
are
,
but
that
they
are
not
.
Therefore
that
which
supposeth
conversion
and
faith
,
cannot
work
conversion
and
faith
,
because
then
the
same
thing
should
be
supposed
both
to
be
and
not
to
be
.
The
Assumption
I
prove
from
Scripture
.
Mark
.
16.
16.
He
that
beleeveth
and
is
baptized
shall
be
saved
.
Act.
2.
38.
Repent
and
be
baptized
.
vers
.
41.
Then
they
that
gladly
received
his
word
were
baptized
.
Act.
8.
36.
37.
And
the
Eunuch
said
,
See
here
is
water
,
what
doth
hinder
me
to
be
baptized
?
And
Philip
said
,
If
thou
beleevest
with
all
thin●…
heart
〈◊〉
mayest
.
Act.
10.
47.
Can
any
man
forbid
water
that
these
should
not
be
baptized
which
have
received
the
holy
Ghost
as
well
as
we
?
Now
if
Baptisme
it self
(
which
is
the
Sacrament
of
our
initiation
)
supposeth
(
according
to
the
tenor
and
meaning
of
Christs
institution
)
that
the
party
baptized
(
if
of
age
)
doth
actually
convert
and
beleeve
,
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
Family
,
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
Lords
Supper
,
necessarily
,
by
Christs
institution
,
suppose
that
the
receivers
are
not
unconverted
and
unbeleeving
persons
?
The
previous
qualifications
which
are
supposed
in
Baptisme
,
must
be
much
more
supposed
in
the
Lords
Supper
.
Thirdly
,
That
which
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
Sacrament
of
the
Lords
Supper
gives
us
the
new
food
.
Ergo
it
supposeth
we
have
the
new
birth
.
The
proposition
I
prove
thus
.
[
s
](A42757-e106170-b)
s
Synops.
Pur.
Theol.
Disp.
43.
Thes.
35.
Duo
tantum
esse
&
non
plura
(
Sacramenta
)
affirmamus
:
quoniam
unum
est
initiationis
,
seu
regenerationis
,
alterum
nutritionis
seu
alimoniae
.
So
Matthias
Martinius
lexic.
Philol.
pag.
3272.
makes
this
distinction
between
baptisme
and
the
Lords
Supper
:
that
is
a
Sacrament
of
initiation
and
●…doption
:
this
of
confirmation
and
●…urishment
.
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
before
that
act
,
but
to
get
a
spiritual
life
in
that
very
act
?
Doth
a
man
get
life
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
Divines
give
this
reason
why
we
are
but
once
baptized
,
but
do
many
times
receive
the
Lord●
Supper
;
because
it
is
enough
to
be
once
born
,
but
not
enough
to
be
once
nourished
or
strengthened
.
See
the
Belgick
confession
.
Art.
34.
and
D.
Parei
Miscellanea
Catechetica
pag.
79.
I
shall
strengthen
my
Argument
by
the
Confession
of
Bohemia
Cap.
11.
The
Sacraments
cannot
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
justifie
any
man
,
nor
inwardly
quicken
or
regenerate
any
mans
Spirit
:
for
faith
must
go
before
.
And
after
.
For
if
a
dead
man
or
one
that
is
unworthy
do
come
to
the
Sacraments
,
certainly
they
do
not
give
him
life
and
worthinesse
.
&c.
See
the
Harmony
of
Confessions
printed
at
London
1643.
pag.
280.
281.
To
what
end
then
is
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lords
Supper
instituted
?
For
that
,
see
the
Confession
of
Belgia
Ibid.
pag.
320.
We
beleeve
and
confesse
that
Jesus
Christ
our
Lord
and
Saviour
hath
instituted
the
holy
Sacrament
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.
Prynn
cite
in
the
Question
of
Iudas
(
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
directly
against
him
in
this
Question
of
conversion
or
conferring
of
grace
by
the
Sacrament
.
I
add
also
Mr.
Pemble
in
his
Christian
disections
for
receiving
the
Sacrament
.
The
Sacrament
saith
he
is
appointed
for
our
nourishment
in
grace
;
where
we
grow
not
by
it
,
it
is
a
signe
this
food
was
not
digested
but
vomited
up
again
[
t
](A42757-e106380-b)
t
Polan
.
Synt
lib.
6.
cap.
56.
He
holds
that
omnes
illi
qui
scandala
praebent
&
non
resipiscunt
serio
,
a
mensa
Domini
sunt
arcendi
.
1.
Quia
si
infideles
&
impoenitèntes
ad
Coenam
Domini
admitterentur
,
profanaretur
foedus
Dei
,
tam
communicando
Symbola
foederis
iis
quibus
Deus
nihil
promittit
,
quam
usu●…pando
Symbola
sacra
sine
fide
&
resipistentia
.
2.
Quia
polluerent
&
contaminarent
eibum
&
potum
consecra●…um
,
quem
Christus
non
destinavit
nisi
suis
domesticis
&
fidelibus
&c.
6.
Quia
incredulos
&
manifeste
impios
Christus
prohibuit
admitti
ad
sacram
Coenam
:
nam
instituit
illam
solis
fidelibus
.
Where
faith
,
repentance
,
thankfulnesse
,
and
obedience
are
not
increased
,
there
Christ
crucified
was
not
remembred
.
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
instituted
onely
for
beleevers
and
justified
persons
,
is
no
converting
but
sealing
Ordinance
.
But
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lords
Supper
is
instituted
onely
for
beleevers
and
justified
persons
.
Ergo.
The
Proposition
hath
light
enough
in
it self
;
for
converting
Ordinances
do
belong
even
to
unjustified
and
unconverted
persons
.
Therefore
that
which
is
instituted
onely
for
beleevers
is
no
converting
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
suspension
of
scandalous
persons
from
the
Lords
Table
.
Now
I
prove
the
Assumption
thus
.
Every
Sacrament
,
even
a
Sacrament
of
initiation
,
is
a
seal
of
the
righteousnesse
of
Faith
.
If
Circumcision
was
a
seal
of
the
righteousnesse
of
faith
.
Rom.
4.
11.
then
Baptisme
(
which
hath
succeeded
to
Circumcision
)
is
also
a
seal
of
the
righteousnesse
of
faith
,
and
that
more
fully
and
clearly
then
Circ●mcision
was
:
and
if
Baptisme
be
a
seal
of
the
righteousnesse
of
faith
,
much
more
is
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lords
Supper
a
seal
of
the
righteousnesse
of
Faith
;
which
is
also
proved
by
Mat.
26.
28.
For
this
is
my
blood
of
the
new
Covenant
,
which
is
shed
for
many
for
the
remission
of
sins
.
Chrysostome
on
Rom.
4.
considering
those
words
vers.
11.
a
seal
of
the
righteousnesse
of
Faith
,
hath
this
meditation
upon
it
,
that
a
Sacrament
is
no
signe
,
no
seal
,
except
where
the
thing
is
which
is
signified
and
sealed
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
For
of
what
shall
it
be
a
signe
,
or
of
what
shall
it
be
a
seal
,
when
there
is
none
to
be
sealed
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
For
(
faith
he
)
if
it
be
a
signe
of
righteousnesse
,
and
thou
hast
not
righteousnesse
,
neither
hast
thou
the
signe
.
If
therefore
a
Sacrament
be
a
seal
of
the
righteousnesse
of
faith
,
then
it
is
instituted
onely
for
beleevers
and
justified
persons
,
because
to
such
onely
it
can
seal
the
righteousnesse
of
faith
.
Upon
this
ground
saith
[
u
](A42757-e106620-b)
u
Ubi
supra
pag.
395.
Ursinus
that
the
Sacraments
are
to
the
wicked
and
unbeleevers
no
Sacraments
:
which
agreeth
with
that
Rom.
2.
25.
If
thou
be
a
breaker
of
the
Law
,
thy
Circumcision
is
made
uncircumcis●…on
.
Fifthly
,
The
Apostle
argues
that
Abraham
the
father
of
the
faithfull
,
and
whose
justification
is
as
it
were
a
pattern
of
ours
,
was
not
justified
by
Circumcision
,
or
(
as
Aquinas
confesseth
upon
the
place
)
that
Circumcision
was
not
the
cause
but
the
signe
of
Justification
.
Rom.
4.
9.
10.
11.
We
say
that
faith
was
reckoned
to
Abraham
for
righteousnesse
.
How
was
it
then
reckoned
?
When
he
was
in
Circumcision
or
in
uncircumcision
?
Not
in
Circumcision
but
in
uncircumcision
.
And
he
received
the
signe
of
Circumcision
,
a
seal
of
the
righteousnesse
of
the
faith
which
he
had
yet
being
uncircumcised
[
x
](A42757-e106730-b)
x
Bullinger
Decad.
5.
serm.
7.
Quis
praeterca
i●…de
non
colligat
,
nos
qui
filii
Abrahae
sumus
,
non
alia
ratione
justificari
,
quam
p●…trem
justifica●…um
constat
,
ac
Sacramenta
nostra
in
nobis
non
aliud
●…fficere
,
quam
quod
in
ille
〈◊〉
?
〈◊〉
cum
eadem
sit
ratio
Sacramentorum
veterum
&
nostrorum
.
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
onely
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
Abraham
,
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
Lords
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
admitted
to
the
Lords
Table
under
colour
of
a
converting
Ordinance
,
it
being
indeed
a
seal
of
the
Covenant
of
grace
.
Sixthly
,
That
Ordinance
which
is
appointed
onely
for
such
as
can
and
do
rightly
examine
themselves
concerning
their
spiritual
estate
,
regeneration
,
repentance
,
faith
,
and
conversation
:
is
no
converting
Ordinance
.
But
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lords
Supper
is
an
Ordinance
which
is
appointed
onely
for
such
as
can
and
do
rightly
examine
themselves
concerning
their
spiritual
estate
,
regeneration
,
repentance
,
faith
,
and
conversation
.
Ergo
,
it
is
no
converting
Ordinance
.
The
reason
of
the
Proposition
is
,
because
unconverted
persons
cannot
nor
do
not
rightly
examine
themselves
concerning
their
spiritual
estate
,
regeneration
,
&c.
For
such
are
a
generation
pure
in
their
own
eyes
,
and
yet
not
washed
from
their
filthinesse
.
Proverb
.
16.
2.
and
21.
2.
and
30.
12.
and
the
natural
man
cannot
know
the
things
of
the
Spirit
of
God
,
because
they
are
spiritually
discerned
,
But
he
that
is
spiritual
judgeth
all
things
.
1
Cor.
2.
14.
15.
The
carnal
mind
is
enmity
against
God
.
Rom.
8.
7.
The
Assumption
is
proved
by
1
Cor.
11.
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
mans
knowledge
,
[
y
](A42757-e106850-b)
y
Synops.
pur
.
Theol.
Disp.
45.
Th●s
.
83.
Dignus
ejus
usus
praeeu●…te
probatione
sui
cujusque
definitur
:
scilicet
an
sit
in
fide
2
Cor.
13.
5.
&
s●…ria
resipiscentia
afficiatur
,
secundum
illud
Pauli
,
Probet
vero
seipsum
homo
.
&c.
repentance
,
faith
,
and
conversation
.
The
Apostle
expounds
himself
2
Cor.
13.
5.
Examine
your selves
whether
ye
be
in
the
Faith
:
prove
your
own
selves
,
how
that
Jesus
Christ
is
in
you
except
ye
be
reprobates
,
or
counterfeit
,
and
unapproved
.
This
self
examination
,
as
it
is
requisite
at
other
times
,
so
especially
before
our
comming
to
the
Lords
Table
;
and
an
unconverted
man
can
no
more
do
it
truly
and
rightly
(
according
to
the
Apostles
meaning
)
then
he
can
convert
himself
.
And
here
that
which
Mr.
Prynn
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
a
mans
own
Conscience
,
and
to
the
inward
man
saith
Martyr
upon
the
place
,
not
to
the
Ecclesiastical
Court
.
But
a
natural
unconverted
man
may
possibly
examine
others
and
espie
a
mote
in
his
brothers
eye
,
he
cannot
in
any
right
or
acceptable
manner
examine
his
own
Conscience
,
nor
go
about
the
taking
of
the
beam
out
of
his
own
eye
.
[
z
](A42757-e106950-b)
z
Ursinus
Tract
.
Theol.
pag.
650.
edit.
1584.
Ad
Coenam
Domini
autem
nulli
nisi
adulti
,
qui
&
probare
seipsos
possunt
,
&
hanc
probationem
confessione
&
vita
ostendant
.
Quid
porro
de
his
faciendum
qui
vitam
Christianis
indignam
agunt
?
Ecclesiastica
disciplina
coercendi
sunt
.
He
therefore
who
either
cannot
through
ignorance
,
or
doth
not
through
impenitency
and
hardnesse
of
heart
,
examine
himself
,
and
is
known
to
be
such
a
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
onely
for
such
as
can
and
do
humbly
and
soundly
examine
themselves
,
and
consequently
not
intended
for
unconverted
impenitent
persons
.
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
Kings
son
,
is
an
Ordinance
unto
which
one
may
not
come
without
a
wedding
garment
.
Ergo.
The
Proposition
hath
this
reason
for
it
.
If
a
man
must
needs
have
a
wedding
garment
that
comes
,
then
he
must
needs
be
converted
that
comes
;
for
what-ever
ye
call
the
wedding
garment
,
sure
it
is
a
thing
proper
to
the
Saints
,
and
not
common
to
unconverted
sinners
,
and
the
want
of
it
doth
condemn
a
man
into
utter
darknes
,
Matth.
22.
13.
The
Assumption
is
clear
from
Matth.
22.
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
speechlesse
.
If
he
had
been
of
Mr.
Prynns
opinion
he
needed
not
be
speechlesse
;
for
Mr.
Prynns
divinity
might
have
put
this
answer
in
his
mouth
.
Lord
I
thought
this
to
be
a
converting
Ordinance
,
and
that
thou
wouldest
not
reject
those
that
come
in
without
a
wedding
garment
,
provided
that
here
at
the
marriage
feast
they
get
one
.
But
we
see
the
King
condemneth
the
man
for
comming
in
thither
without
a
wedding
garment
.
Eightly
,
That
Ordinance
which
is
not
appointed
to
work
faith
is
no
converting
ordinance
.
But
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lords
Supper
is
not
appointed
to
work
faith
.
Ergo.
The
proposition
must
be
granted
,
unlesse
a
man
will
say
that
conversion
may
be
without
faith
.
The
Assumption
is
proved
by
Rom.
10.
14.
men
cannot
pray
if
they
do
not
beleeve
,
and
they
cannot
beleeve
if
they
do
not
hear
the
Word
,
v.
17.
So
then
faith
commeth
by
hearing
,
and
hearing
by
the
word
of
God
.
If
faith
commeth
by
hearing
,
then
not
by
seeing
;
if
by
the
word
,
then
not
by
the
Sacrament
.
Ninthly
,
That
Ordinance
which
hath
neither
a
promise
of
the
grace
of
conversion
annexed
to
it
,
nor
any
example
in
the
Word
of
God
of
any
converted
by
it
,
is
no
converting
Ordinance
.
But
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lords
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
converting
Ordinance
.
Tenthly
,
That
Ordinance
whereof
Christ
would
have
no
unworthy
person
to
partake
is
not
a
converting
Ordinance
.
But
the
Lords
Supper
is
an
Ordinance
whereof
Christ
would
have
no
unworthy
person
to
partake
.
Ergo.
The
proposition
I
prove
thus
.
It
is
not
the
will
of
Christ
that
converting
Ordinances
should
be
dispenced
to
no
unworthy
person
(
for
else
how
should
they
be
converted
)
but
onely
he
hath
forbidden
to
dispence
unto
unworthy
persons
such
Ordinances
as
belong
to
the
Communion
Saints
.
The
Assumption
I
prove
from
1
Cor.
11.
27.
Whosoever
(
though
otherwise
a
worthy
person
&
one
converted
to
the
state
of
grace
)
shall
eat
this
bread
and
drink
this
cup
of
the
Lord
unworthily
,
shal
be
guilty
of
the
body
&
blood
of
the
Lord
.
v.
29.
For
he
that
eateth
and
drinketh
unworthily
,
eateth
and
drinketh
judgment
to
himself
,
not
discerning
the
Lords
body
.
If
the
unworthines
of
that
particular
act
,
in
respect
of
the
manner
of
doing
it
,
make
a
man
so
guilty
and
liable
to
such
judgement
,
how
much
more
the
unworthinesse
of
the
person
that
eats
and
drinks
?
For
a
mans
state
,
the
course
of
his
life
,
and
the
frame
of
his
Spirit
,
is
more
then
one
single
act
.
This
therefore
doth
prove
that
he
that
is
an
unworthy
person
(
if
he
come
to
the
Lords
Table
)
doth
eat
and
drink
unworthily
(
Whence
is
that
where
the
Apostle
saith
vers.
29.
He
that
eateth
and
drinketh
unworthily
,
the
Syriack
Interpreter
hath
it
,
he
that
eateth
and
drinketh
thereof
being
unworthy
,
or
indignus
existens
:
)
Which
may
be
also
gathered
from
the
interweaving
of
vers.
28.
between
vers.
27.
and
vers.
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
Lords
Table
unworthily
and
unpreparedly
,
eats
and
drinks
not
having
before
rightly
examined
himself
.
Ergo.
What
of
that
?
will
you
say
.
[
a
](A42757-e107210-b)
a
Magdeb.
Cent.
lib.
cap.
4.
pag.
278.
Indigne
eos
uti
docet
(
Paulus
)
qui
sine
vera
poenitentia
&
fide
accedunt
.
&c.
Oecumenius
upon
1
Cor
11.
fixeth
the
sin
of
eating
and
drinking
unworthily
upon
the
Corinthians
,
in
regard
of
their
contempt
of
the
●…
poor
,
and
their
other
sinnes
:
supposing
all
such
to
eat
unworthily
who
are
under
any
wickednesse
unrepented
,
when
they
come
.
Much
to
the
point
.
Every
unconverted
and
unregenerate
person
is
an
unworthy
person
(
as
the
Scripture
distinguisheth
worthy
persons
and
unworthy
)
and
comes
unworthily
and
unpreparedly
(
if
he
come
while
such
)
to
the
Lords
Table
;
Therefore
such
a
one
if
he
come
,
eats
and
drinks
unworthily
,
and
so
eats
and
drinks
judgement
to
himself
.
[
b
](A42757-e107270-b)
b
De
Tempore
Scrm.
244.
Et
cum
nullus
homo
velit
cum
●…unica
sordibus
plena
ad
Ecclesiam
convenire
,
nescio
qua
Conscientia
cum
anima
per
luxuriam
sit
inquinata
,
praesumit
ad
altare
accedere
:
non
timens
illud
quod
Apostolus
dixit
:
Qui
enim
manducat
Corpus
&
sumit
sanguinem
Domini
indigne
,
reus
erit
corporis
&
sanguinis
Domini
.
Augustine
argueth
promiscuously
against
those
who
come
unworthily
,
and
those
that
eat
and
drink
unworthily
,
and
applyeth
the
Apostles
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
eat
and
drink
unworthily
,
who
come
without
the
wedding
garment
,
and
without
faith
,
and
holinesse
of
conversation
,
which
intimateth
that
they
who
live
unworthily
,
do
also
eat
the
Lords
Supper
unworthily
,
which
is
most
plainly
intimate
in
the
Directory
pag.
50.
where
ignorant
,
scandalous
,
and
prophane
persons
are
warned
not
to
come
to
that
holy
Table
,
upon
this
reason
,
because
he
that
eats
and
drinks
unworthily
,
eats
and
drinks
judgement
to
himself
,
which
necessarily
implyeth
that
unworthy
persons
and
prophane
livers
,
if
they
come
to
the
Sacrament
,
are
not
converted
,
but
sin
more
in
eating
and
drinking
unworthily
.
I
conclude
therefore
that
the
prohibition
of
eating
and
drinking
unworthily
doth
necessarily
imply
a
prohibition
of
unconverted
,
unregenerate
,
impenitent
persons
,
to
come
to
the
Lords
Table
,
and
by
consequence
that
it
is
no
converting
Ordinance
.
Eleventhly
,
That
Ordinance
which
is
Eucharistical
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
Lords
Supper
is
an
Ordinance
Eucharistical
and
consolatory
.
Ergo.
The
Proposition
needs
no
other
proof
but
the
third
Commandement
;
Thou
shalt
not
take
the
Name
of
the
Lord
thy
God
in
vain
.
Shall
a
man
be
called
to
give
thanks
for
redemption
,
reconciliation
,
and
remission
of
sins
,
and
to
take
comfort
in
Jesus
Christ
,
even
while
he
is
such
a
one
of
whom
God
hath
said
,
There
is
no
peace
to
the
wicked
:
High
talk
becommeth
not
a
fool
.
Psal.
33.
1.
Rejoyce
in
the
Lord
O
ye
righteous
,
for
praise
is
comely
for
the
upright
.
Psal.
50.
14.
16.
Offer
unto
God
thanksgiving
&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
.
[
c
](A42757-e107380-b)
c
Zuinglius
Tom.
2.
de
verâ
&
falsâ
Religione
cap.
de
Sacram.
Coena
Dominica
d●…nus
experimentum
,
quod
morte
Christi
fidamus
,
quum
gratulantes
&
laeti
adsimus
in
eo
coe●…u
,
qui
Deo
gratias
agit
pro
beneficio
redemptionis
.
The
Assumption
is
acknowledged
among
all
;
for
as
it
hath
the
name
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
so
is
the
nature
of
it
.
It
is
also
a
consolatory
Ordinance
,
in
which
we
are
called
to
spiritual
joy
and
gladnesse
,
it
being
a
feast
of
fat
things
full
of
marrow
,
and
of
wines
on
the
lees
well
refined
.
At
this
Ordinance
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
malady
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
fatnesse
,
and
to
drink
of
the
rivers
of
pleasure
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
spiritual
gracious
qualifications
,
is
not
a
converting
but
a
sealing
Ordinance
.
But
the
Lords
Supper
is
an
Ordinance
unto
which
Christ
calleth
none
but
such
as
have
spiritual
and
gracious
qualifications
.
Ergo.
The
Proposition
I
hope
needs
no
proof
,
because
unconverted
persons
dead
in
sins
and
trespasses
,
have
no
spiritual
gracious
qualifications
.
The
Assumption
may
be
proved
by
many
Scriptures
.
If
of
any
Ordinance
,
chiefly
of
this
;
it
holds
true
that
Christ
inviteth
and
calleth
none
but
such
as
labour
and
are
heavie
loaden
,
Matth.
11.
28.
such
as
are
athirst
for
the
water
of
life
,
Iohn
7.
37.
Isa.
55.
1.
such
as
have
the
wedding
garment
,
Matth.
22.
12.
such
as
examine
themselves
1
Cor.
11.
28.
such
as
are
Christs
friends
,
Cant.
5.
1.
Eat
O
friends
,
drink
yea
drink
abundantly
O
beloved
.
Thirteenthly
,
That
Ordinance
which
is
instituted
for
the
Communion
of
Saints
,
is
intended
onely
for
such
as
are
Saints
,
and
not
for
unconverted
sinners
.
But
the
Lords
Supper
is
an
Ordinance
instituted
for
the
Communion
of
Saints
,
and
of
those
who
are
members
of
the
same
body
of
Christ
1
Cor.
10.
16.
17.
compared
with
1
Cor.
1.
2.
Ergo.
Martin
Bucer
de
Regno
Christi
lib.
1.
cap.
7.
conceiveth
that
this
Sacrament
doth
so
far
belong
to
the
Communion
of
Saints
,
that
wicked
and
unworthy
persons
are
not
onely
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
then
we
have
affirmed
.
Fourteenthly
,
If
Baptisme
it self
(
at
least
when
ministred
to
those
that
are
of
age
)
is
not
a
regenerating
or
converting
Ordinance
,
far
lesse
is
the
Lords
Supper
a
regenerating
or
converting
Ordinance
.
But
Baptisme
it self
(
at
least
when
ministred
to
those
that
are
of
age
)
is
not
a
regenerating
or
converting
Ordinance
.
Ergo.
The
ground
of
the
Proposition
is
,
because
Baptisme
hath
a
nearer
relation
to
regeneration
then
the
Lords
Supper
,
and
therefore
hath
the
name
of
the
laver
of
regeneration
.
The
Assumption
I
prove
thus
.
1.
Because
we
read
of
no
persons
of
age
baptized
by
the
Apostles
,
except
such
as
did
professe
faith
in
Christ
,
gladly
received
the
Word
,
and
in
whom
some
begun
work
of
the
Spirit
of
grace
did
appear
(
I
say
not
that
it
really
was
in
all
,
but
somewhat
of
it
did
appear
in
all
.
)
2.
If
the
Baptisme
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
Pagans
,
he
cannot
but
suppose
them
to
be
unregenerated
:
)
But
I
beleeve
no
consciencious
Minister
would
adventure
to
baptize
one
who
hath
manifest
and
infallible
signes
of
unregeneration
.
Sure
,
we
cannot
be
answerable
to
God
if
we
should
minister
Baptisme
to
a
man
whose
works
and
words
do
manifestly
declare
him
to
be
an
unregenerated
unconverted
person
.
And
if
we
may
not
initiate
such
a
one
,
how
shall
we
bring
him
to
the
Lords
Table
?
Fifteenthly
,
If
the
Baptisme
even
of
those
who
are
of
age
must
necessarily
precede
their
receiving
of
the
Lords
Supper
,
then
the
Lords
Supper
is
not
a
converting
but
a
sealing
Ordinance
.
But
the
Baptisme
even
of
those
who
are
of
age
must
necessarily
precede
their
receiving
of
the
Lords
Supper
.
Ergo.
The
Assumption
is
without
controversie
,
it
being
the
order
observed
by
Christ
and
by
the
Apostles
,
and
by
all
Christian
Churches
.
The
Proposition
I
prove
thus
.
1.
[
d
](A42757-e107640-b)
d
Hutterus
Disp.
17.
de
Coena
Dom.
Thes.
1.
Sacramentum
initiationis
novi
Test.
puta
Baptisinum
,
ordine
convenientissimo
excipit
Sacramentum
confirmationis
,
quod
est
sacra●…ssima
Coena
Domini
&
Servatoris
nostri
Jesu
Christi
:
tum
ob
causas
alias
,
tum
quod
ea
est
fidei
nostrae
,
in
baptismo
nobis
collatae
,
respectu
nostri
infirmitas
,
ut
nisi
subinde
confirmetur
,
mo●…
penitus
fatiscat
&
intereat
.
What
better
reason
of
the
necessity
of
this
precedency
of
Baptisme
,
than
that
Baptisme
is
the
Sacrament
of
regeneration
,
the
Lords
Supper
the
Sacrament
of
our
spiritual
nourishment
,
and
one
must
be
borne
before
he
eat
and
drink
.
2.
The
Apostle
saith
Gal.
3.
27.
As
many
of
you
as
have
been
baptized
into
Christ
,
have
put
on
Christ
.
Rom.
6.
4.
We
are
buried
with
him
by
Baptisme
into
death
.
Col.
2.
12.
Buried
with
him
in
Baptisme
,
wherein
also
you
are
risen
with
him
through
the
faith
of
the
operation
of
God
.
Therefore
if
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lords
Supper
be
intended
onely
for
the
baptized
,
then
it
is
intended
onely
for
such
as
are
supposed
to
have
put
on
Christ
,
are
buried
and
raised
again
with
him
through
faith
,
and
consequently
,
it
is
not
intended
for
unconverted
persons
to
convert
them
,
but
for
converted
persons
to
confirme
them
.
Sixteenthly
,
The
Method
of
the
parable
of
the
forlorne
Son
maketh
very
much
against
Mr.
Prynns
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
15.
20.
22
,
23.
And
this
is
done
in
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lords
Supper
,
more
especially
and
more
manifestly
then
in
any
other
Ordinance
.
But
when
?
not
while
the
man
is
yet
playing
the
prodigal
,
wasting
his
substance
with
riotous
living
,
nor
yet
while
he
is
filling
his
belly
in
a
far
Countrey
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
father
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
repented
and
came
to
himself
,
he
had
(
belike
)
been
so
much
the
more
carelesse
of
comming
home
to
his
father
.
But
we
see
these
love
tokens
,
this
feast
,
and
this
mirth
,
is
for
entertaining
a
poor
penitent
,
not
for
converting
an
impenitent
sinner
.
Seventeenthly
,
I
shall
draw
another
Argument
both
out
of
the
Directory
for
the
publike
Worship
of
God
throughout
the
three
Kingdoms
,
and
out
of
Mr.
Prynn
himself
.
Thus
it
is
.
That
Ordinance
from
which
the
Minister
in
the
Name
of
Christ
ought
concionaliter
or
Doctrinally
to
excommunicate
all
impenitent
prophane
persons
,
is
not
a
converting
but
a
sealing
Ordinance
.
But
the
Lords
Supper
is
an
Ordinance
from
which
the
Minister
ought
in
the
Name
of
Christ
concionaliter
or
Doctrinally
to
excommunicate
all
impenitent
prophane
persons
,
Ergo.
The
Proposition
ariseth
from
this
ground
,
we
ought
not
to
dehort
impenitent
prophane
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
Lords
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
,
prophane
,
or
that
live
in
any
sin
or
offence
against
their
knowledge
or
Conscience
,
that
they
presume
not
to
come
to
that
holy
Table
,
shewing
them
that
he
that
eateth
and
drinketh
unworthily
,
eateth
and
drinketh
judgement
to
himself
.
And
on
the
other
part
he
is
in
especial
manner
to
invite
and
encourage
all
that
labour
under
the
sence
of
the
burthen
of
their
sins
,
and
fear
of
wrath
,
and
desire
to
reach
out
unto
a
greater
progresse
in
grace
then
yet
they
can
attain
unto
,
to
come
to
the
Lords
Tàble
.
Is
it
not
here
held
forth
as
the
will
of
Christ
,
that
no
prophane
impenitent
unconverted
person
ought
or
may
come
to
the
Lords
Table
,
but
onely
such
as
have
somewhat
of
the
work
of
grace
in
them
?
But
let
us
hear
Mr.
Prynn
himself
.
The
seventh
difference
which
he
stateth
between
his
Antagonists
and
himself
pag.
28.
is
this
.
Whether
the
Minister
hath
not
fully
discharged
his
Duty
and
Conscience
if
he
give
warning
to
unworthy
Communicants
of
the
danger
they
incurr
by
their
unworthy
approaches
to
the
Lords
Table
,
and
seriously
dehort
them
from
comming
to
it
,
unlesse
they
repent
,
reform
,
and
come
prepared
.
If
this
be
a
right
stating
of
that
difference
(
and
if
it
be
true
which
Mr.
Hussey
in
his
Epistle
to
the
Parliament
pag.
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
publikely
and
privatly
.
)
Then
I
suppose
that
Mr.
Prynn
will
not
deny
that
a
Minister
ought
in
duty
and
conscience
to
do
all
this
,
to
admonish
a
scandalous
unworthy
person
,
and
seriously
dehort
&c.
Onely
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
Lords
Supper
is
no
converting
Ordinance
;
for
if
it
were
.
1.
How
dare
any
Minister
seriously
dehort
any
unworthy
person
from
approaching
to
it
?
May
we
forbid
sinners
to
use
the
means
of
their
conversion
,
especially
if
they
be
such
as
are
not
excommunicated
nor
cast
out
of
the
Church
,
and
do
desire
to
receive
the
Sacrament
?
(
which
are
the
cases
often
put
by
Mr.
Prynn
.
)
2.
How
can
the
Minister
warn
such
persons
not
to
come
to
the
Sacrament
unlesse
they
repent
,
reform
,
and
come
prepared
?
If
it
be
not
a
sealing
Ordinance
intended
onely
for
such
as
do
repent
and
reform
,
the
Minister
may
not
say
so
.
3.
And
otherwise
the
sence
were
this
,
that
such
persons
ought
not
to
come
to
a
converting
Ordinance
,
unlesse
they
be
converted
;
for
to
repent
,
reform
,
and
come
prepared
,
are
things
which
none
can
do
who
are
not
converted
.
Finally
▪
By
Mr.
Prynn
his
principles
,
we
may
as
well
▪
yea
rather
,
dehort
men
from
comming
to
hear
the
Word
unlesse
they
repent
and
reform
.
For
pag.
44.
he
saith
that
the
Sacrament
is
as
converting
,
yea
a
more
humbling
,
regenerating
,
converting
Ordinance
then
the
Word
.
Which
if
it
be
so
,
then
we
may
more
warrantably
and
with
lesse
danger
to
the
souls
of
those
who
do
not
repent
and
reform
,
dehort
them
from
comming
to
the
Word
,
then
from
comming
to
the
Sacrament
.
Eighteenthly
,
That
Ordinance
which
is
not
communicable
to
Heathens
or
Pagans
,
nor
to
excommunicated
Christians
,
for
their
conversion
from
darknesse
to
light
,
from
the
power
of
Sathan
to
God
,
from
the
state
of
sin
to
the
state
of
repentance
,
is
not
a
converting
Ordinance
.
But
the
Lords
Supper
is
such
.
Ergo.
The
Reason
of
the
Proposition
is
,
because
converting
Ordinances
are
communicable
to
Heathens
:
and
thence
proceeded
the
general
Commission
to
preach
the
Gospel
to
every
creature
,
and
to
teach
all
Nations
Matth.
28.
19
Mark
16.
15.
which
accordingly
the
Apostles
did
,
Rom.
10.
18.
Col.
1.
6.
And
if
the
Sacrament
be
a
converting
Ordinance
for
known
impenitent
scandalous
prophane
persons
within
the
Church
,
what
reason
is
there
imaginable
why
it
is
not
also
a
converting
Ordinance
for
Heathens
,
Pagans
,
Turks
,
Jews
?
Or
where
have
we
the
least
hint
in
Scripture
that
an
Ordinance
which
may
convert
the
prophanest
unexcommunicated
person
within
the
Church
,
cannot
convert
both
Heathens
and
excommunicated
Christians
?
The
Assumption
I
prove
from
Mr.
Prynns
own
acknowledgement
,
pag.
38.
though
the
Sacrament
saith
he
must
not
be
administred
to
Heathens
,
to
whom
the
Gospel
may
and
must
be
preached
,
before
they
beleeve
and
professe
Christ
:
yet
it
must
be
administred
to
them
as
well
as
Baptisme
,
after
their
beleef
and
profession
of
Christ
.
Where
he
clearly
grants
both
Sacraments
,
Baptisme
and
the
Lords
Supper
,
to
be
onely
sealing
and
confirming
(
not
converting
)
Ordinances
to
Heathens
,
and
therefore
not
communicable
to
them
,
till
after
they
beleeve
and
professe
Christ
.
Nineteenthly
,
That
Ordinance
which
is
not
communicable
nor
lawful
to
be
administred
to
any
known
impenitent
sinner
under
that
notion
,
but
onely
as
penitent
sinners
,
truly
repenting
of
their
sins
past
,
is
not
a
converting
but
a
sealing
Ordinance
.
But
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lords
Supper
is
such
.
Ergo.
The
Proposition
I
prove
thus
.
A
converting
Ordinance
may
be
administred
to
known
impenitent
sinners
under
that
notion
,
or
lookt
upon
as
such
,
wallowing
in
their
blood
and
filthinesse
.
Yea
a
converting
Ordinance
qua
converting
,
is
not
(
nor
indeed
can
be
)
administred
to
penitent
sinners
qua
penitent
,
or
lookt
upon
as
truly
converted
.
For
as
every
effect
is
in
order
of
nature
posterior
to
its
cause
,
so
a
converting
Ordinance
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
follow
after
the
administration
of
the
converting
Ordinance
.
The
Assumption
is
granted
by
Mr.
Prynn
pag.
37.
The
Minister
(
saith
he
)
doth
not
(
I
suppose
he
will
also
say
ought
not
)
administer
the
Sacrament
to
any
known
impenitent
sinners
under
that
notion
,
but
onely
as
penitent
sinners
,
truly
repenting
of
their
sins
past
,
and
promising
,
purposing
to
lead
a
new
life
for
the
future
.
Therefore
yet
again
by
some
of
his
own
principles
,
the
Sacrament
is
not
administred
as
instrumental
to
the
first
conversion
of
scandalous
unworthy
persons
in
the
Church
:
for
where
there
is
in
any
Ordinance
an
instrumental
causality
toward
the
conversion
of
a
scandalous
person
,
that
Ordinance
must
needs
be
administred
to
that
person
under
the
notion
of
an
unconverted
person
,
and
the
effect
of
conversion
lookt
upon
as
consequent
,
not
as
antecedent
.
The
twentieth
Argument
and
the
last
is
this
.
As
I
have
before
shewed
that
Mr.
Prynn
in
holding
the
Sacrament
to
be
a
converting
Ordinance
,
unto
which
unregenerate
impenitent
and
unbeleeving
persons
(
not
being
excommunicated
)
ought
to
be
admitted
,
doth
joyn
issue
with
Papists
,
and
dissenteth
from
the
Protestant
writers
in
a
very
special
point
,
and
that
the
controversie
draweth
very
deep
:
So
I
will
now
make
it
to
appear
that
he
dissenteth
as
much
from
the
Ancients
in
this
particular
.
Dionysius
Areopagita
de
Eccles.
Hierarch
.
Cap.
3.
Part.
3.
speaking
of
the
nature
of
this
Ordinance
of
the
Lords
Supper
,
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
lesse
prophane
and
unclean
persons
in
whom
no
signe
of
repentance
appeareth
;
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
not
admitting
him
who
is
not
altogether
most
holy
.
Just
in
Martyr
Apol.
2.
lets
us
know
that
in
his
time
the
Lords
Supper
was
given
to
none
,
but
to
such
a
person
as
was
lookt
upon
as
a
beleever
,
and
washed
in
the
laver
of
regeneration
,
and
lived
according
to
the
rule
of
Christ
.
Chrysostome
Hom.
83.
in
Matth.
Augustine
de
side
&
operibus
Cap.
18.
Isidorus
Pelusiota
lib.
1.
Epist.
143.
and
others
might
be
here
added
.
But
I
shall
bring
their
full
testimonies
chap.
17.
where
I
will
shew
Antiquity
to
be
for
the
suspension
of
scandalous
persons
unexcommunicated
.
Beside
these
,
I
add
also
[
e
](A42757-e108330-b)
e
Si
itaque
in
me
manet
,
&
ego
in
illo
,
tunc
manducat
,
tunc
bibit
.
Qui
autem
non
in
me
manet
,
nec
ego
in
illo
,
&
si
accipit
Sacramentum
,
magnum
acquirit
tormentum
.
Et
infra
.
Ad
altare
Dei
invisibile
(
quo
non
accedit
injustus
)
ille
pervenit
,
qui
ad
hoc
praesens
justificatus
accedit
.
Beda
upon
1
Cor.
11.
who
tells
us
both
out
of
Augustine
and
Prosper
,
that
none
ought
to
come
to
the
Lords
Table
but
a
justified
person
,
and
such
a
one
as
abideth
in
Christ
and
Christ
in
him
.
Isidorus
de
Ecclesiast.
offic.
lib.
1.
Cap.
18.
citing
the
Apostles
words
,
He
that
eateth
and
drinketh
unworthily
,
addeth
.
[
f
](A42757-e108430-b)
f
Hoc
est
enim
indignè
accipere
,
si
eo
tempore
quis
accipiat
,
quo
debet
agere
poenitentiam
.
For
this
is
to
receive
unworthily
,
if
any
man
receive
at
that
time
in
which
he
should
be
repenting
.
The
same
words
hath
Rabanus
Maurus
de
Instit.
Cleric
.
lib.
1.
cap.
31.
Which
plainly
sheweth
us
that
in
their
Judgement
,
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lords
Supper
doth
suppose
conversion
and
repentance
to
be
already
wrought
,
and
if
it
be
not
wrought
,
the
receiving
is
an
unworthy
receiving
.
Moreover
that
the
Lords
Supper
was
not
anciently
esteemed
a
converting
Ordinance
,
but
a
sealing
Ordinance
,
supposing
conversion
,
is
more
then
apparent
by
the
distinction
of
Missa
Catechumenorum
and
Missa
fidellum
:
and
by
that
proclamation
in
the
Church
before
the
Sacrament
,
Sancta
Sanctis
,
the
sence
whereof
Durantus
de
ritibus
,
lib.
2.
cap.
55.
num.
15.
giveth
out
of
Chrysostome
and
Cyrill
,
that
Sancta
Sanstis
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
a
holy
thing
,
sancti
&
vos
cum
sitis
sancto
Spiritu
donati
;
and
seeing
you
also
are
holy
,
the
holy
Spirit
being
given
unto
you
;
atque
ita
sancta
sanctis
conveniant
,
and
so
holy
things
agreeing
to
holy
persons
.
If
the
Lords
Supper
be
a
holy
thing
intended
onely
for
holy
persons
,
then
(
sure
)
it
is
no
converting
Ordinance
.
I
might
also
cite
divers
School-men
against
Mr.
Prynn
in
this
particular
.
I
shall
instance
but
in
two
for
the
present
.
Scotus
in
lib.
4.
Sent.
dist
.
9.
Quaest.
1.
proveth
from
1
Cor.
11.
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
signe
of
incorporation
into
Christ
.
Alexander
Alensis
part
4.
Quaest.
11.
Membr
.
2.
Art.
2.
Sect.
2.
saith
thus
.
As
there
is
a
double
bodily
medicine
(
curativa
&
conservativa
)
one
for
cure
,
another
for
conservation
,
so
there
is
a
double
spiritual
medine
,
to
wit
(
curativa
&
conservativa
)
one
for
cure
,
another
for
conservation
;
repentance
for
the
cure
,
the
Eucharist
for
conservation
.
&c.
CHAP.
XIIII
.
Mr.
Prynne
his
twelve
Arguments
brought
to
prove
that
the
Lords
Supper
is
a
converting
Ordinance
,
discussed
and
answered
.
IT
shall
be
now
no
hard
businesse
to
answer
Mr.
Prynns
twelve
Arguments
,
brought
by
him
to
refute
my
assertion
,
that
that
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lords
Supper
is
no
converting
Ordinance
.
See
Vindic.
pag.
41.
to
45.
First
he
tells
us
we
grant
that
moral
carnal
Christians
,
and
all
such
as
are
not
convicted
of
scandalous
sins
,
are
to
be
admitted
to
the
Sacrament
.
Thrrefore
doubtlesse
(
saith
he
)
it
is
and
was
intended
by
Christ
for
a
converting
Ordinance
to
all
such
as
these
,
to
turn
them
from
their
evil
waies
,
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
instituting
this
Supper
,
even
for
such
visible
,
moral
,
unregenerate
Christian
,
as
well
as
real
Saints
,
must
necessarily
be
for
their
conversion
,
not
their
confirmation
and
sealing
onely
.
Answ.
Lapsus
in
initio
mali
augurii
est
.
He
confoundeth
here
things
most
different
.
1.
He
confoundeth
our
admitting
of
Communicants
,
with
Gods
intention
to
do
good
to
their
souls
:
and
his
Argument
runs
upon
this
mistake
,
that
God
intendeth
good
to
the
souls
of
all
who
come
to
the
Lords
Table
,
though
wicked
close
Hypocrites
;
and
since
this
good
cannot
be
sealing
onely
,
it
must
be
conversion
.
But
it
is
neither
sealing
,
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
pag.
34.
that
even
in
these
,
the
Minister
administring
the
Sacrament
,
is
a
sweet
savour
to
God
,
who
hath
appointed
the
Sacrament
secundarily
and
contingently
,
to
be
a
means
of
aggravating
mens
sins
and
condemnation
,
to
magnifie
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
intendeth
or
purposeth
in
the
Councel
of
his
own
will
,
that
in
this
sence
God
intendeth
the
conversion
of
those
that
perish
,
is
to
make
void
and
frustraneous
the
decree
,
will
,
and
intention
of
God
,
which
is
grosse
Arminianisme
and
Jesuitisme
.
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
sence
,
to
say
that
Christs
intention
in
instituting
this
Sacrament
was
for
conversion
of
moral
unregenerate
Christians
,
is
meerly
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
myres
himself
in
Arminianisme
.
If
he
mean
the
proper
primary
effect
of
the
Sacrament
in
respect
of
its
own
nature
,
this
is
but
petere
principium
.
3.
All
who
pretend
right
to
the
Sacrament
are
either
visible
Saints
,
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
admitted
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
Eldership
judgeth
and
supposeth
them
fit
to
be
sealed
and
confirmed
,
so
far
as
they
can
understand
,
and
in
that
capacity
do
admit
them
:
God
onely
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
all
.
All
Ordinan●es
which
strengthen
grace
do
more
or
lesse
begin
or
beget
it
,
and
the
Directory
it self
calls
the
Sacraments
means
of
grace
pag.
52.
What
then
?
The
Directory
calls
this
Sacrament
means
of
grace
,
because
by
it
Christ
and
all
his
benefits
are
applied
and
sealed
up
unto
us
,
and
we
are
sealed
up
by
his
Spirit
to
an
assurance
of
happinesse
and
everlasting
life
.
But
(
saith
he
)
why
may
not
the
Sacraments
convert
as
well
as
confirm
.
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
Lords
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
often
rise
again
,
be
refreshed
,
comforted
,
and
get
strength
against
their
corruptions
and
sins
:
and
is
it
not
then
a
converting
as
well
as
a
confirming
Ordinance
?
What
a
wavering
is
here
?
Is
the
raising
,
refressiing
,
and
comforting
of
those
who
often
fall
through
infirmity
,
the
conversion
or
first
grace
which
now
we
dispute
of
?
Or
whether
doth
he
not
here
yeeld
the
cause
?
For
the
refreshing
and
comforting
and
strengthening
of
those
that
fall
through
infirmity
,
is
the
effect
of
a
confirming
not
of
a
converting
Ordinance
.
And
in
this
sence
Divines
have
given
a
reason
,
why
we
are
but
once
baptized
,
but
do
often
receive
the
Lords
Supper
,
because
Baptisme
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
Lords
Supper
is
the
Sacrament
of
our
spiritual
nourishment
and
strengthening
:
and
it
is
enough
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
●…nregenerate
persons
,
is
accompanied
with
such
things
as
are
most
effectual
to
convert
.
As
1.
With
a
previous
external
serious
examination
of
their
own
hearts
and
estates
between
God
and
their
own
Consciences
.
2.
A
solemn
searching
out
of
all
their
open
or
secret
sins
and
corruptions
,
past
or
present
,
accompanied
with
a
serious
particular
privat
confession
of
them
,
a
hearty
contrition
and
humiliation
for
them
&c.
3.
Pious
soul
ravishing
meditations
&c.
which
make
deep
temporary
impressions
on
their
hearts
4.
Flexanimous
exhortations
,
admonitions
,
comminations
,
directions
,
prayers
by
the
Ministers
in
the
Congregation
,
before
,
in
,
and
after
this
dutie
.
Whereupon
he
leaveth
it
to
every
mans
Conscience
to
judge
whether
this
Sacrament
is
not
more
likelie
to
regenerate
and
change
their
hearts
,
and
lives
,
then
the
bare
Word
preached
,
or
any
other
Ordinance
.
Answ.
1.
Here
is
a
lump
of
wild
,
uncouth
,
and
most
erroneous
Divinity
.
Who
ever
heard
of
an
external
examination
of
mens
hearts
between
God
and
their
own
Consciences
?
Or
2.
That
unregenerate
persons
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
impressions
on
their
hearts
are
most
effectual
to
convert
and
regenerate
(
for
he
doth
enumerate
all
these
as
particulars
most
effectual
to
convert
.
)
Or
4.
That
in
the
very
receiving
of
the
Sacrament
,
men
hear
the
Ministers
prayers
in
the
Congregation
.
5.
That
this
Sacrament
is
more
likely
to
regenerate
then
the
bare
Word
preached
(
I
suppose
he
means
not
the
word
without
the
Spirit
(
for
nobody
holds
the
bare
word
in
that
sence
to
regenerate
)
but
preaching
without
other
concurring
Ordinance
)
or
any
other
Ordinance
.
Which
if
it
be
,
he
cannot
choose
but
allow
to
give
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lords
Supper
to
excommunicated
persons
,
and
to
the
unbaptized
,
whether
Heathens
or
Jews
,
being
of
age
,
and
desiring
to
receive
it
.
Secondly
,
If
all
the
whole
Antecedent
part
of
his
Argument
were
granted
,
the
consequence
is
naught
:
for
this
must
be
the
consequence
,
If
examination
of
mens
hearts
,
the
searching
out
of
all
their
sins
,
confession
,
contrition
,
prayers
,
vowes
,
meditations
,
exhortations
,
which
do
accompany
the
Sacrament
,
be
most
effectual
to
convert
and
to
beget
grace
,
then
the
Sacrament
is
a
converting
Ordinance
.
Which
consequence
he
will
never
prove
.
Put
the
case
that
self-examination
,
confession
,
prayers
,
vowes
,
meditations
,
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
Ministers
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
weaknesse
thereof
might
the
sooner
appear
)
That
Ordinance
where●…n
we
most
immedietly
converse
with
God
and
Christ
,
and
have
more
intimate
visible
sensible
communion
with
them
,
then
in
any
other
,
is
certainly
the
most
powerful
and
effectual
Ordinance
of
all
others
,
to
humble
,
regenerate
,
convert
,
and
beget
true
grace
within
us
.
&c.
But
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lords
Supper
by
our
Antagonists
own
confession
is
such
.
Ergo.
Answ.
1.
I
retort
his
Argument
against
himself
.
That
Ordinance
wherein
we
most
immediatly
converse
with
God
and
Christ
,
and
have
more
intimate
communion
with
them
then
in
any
other
,
is
a
sealing
,
confirming
,
but
not
a
converting
Ordinance
.
For
they
who
are
converting
have
not
such
intimate
communion
and
immediat
conversing
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
beleeving
,
Rom.
15.
13.
even
with
joy
unspeakable
and
full
of
glory
,
1
Pet.
1.
8.
The
daughters
of
Ierusalem
being
sick
of
love
for
Christ
,
yet
are
far
from
that
communion
with
him
,
which
his
Spouse
longer
acquainted
with
him
did
enjoy
,
therefore
they
ask
at
her
,
whither
her
beloved
was
gone
that
they
might
seek
him
with
her
.
Cant.
6
1.
Hath
the
child
fed
with
milk
more
communion
and
conversing
with
his
father
,
then
the
son
come
to
years
,
who
eateth
and
drinketh
at
his
fathers
Table
?
Do
we
not
see
often
a
servent
convert
like
Apollos
,
whom
an
Aquila
and
Priscilla
must
take
and
expound
unto
him
the
way
of
God
more
perfectly
.
Act.
18.
25
,
26.
2.
I
deny
his
Proposition
as
he
frames
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
Medium
from
his
Antagonists
concession
,
for
they
accord
(
saith
he
)
that
we
have
more
immediate
communion
with
God
in
this
Ordinance
then
in
any
other
,
for
as
much
as
in
this
Sacrament
Christ
is
more
particularly
applied
,
and
the
remission
of
our
sins
more
sensibly
sealed
to
us
then
in
any
other
Ordinance
:
from
whence
I
thus
infallibly
conclude
against
these
opposites
.
Then
follows
his
Argument
,
which
is
no
other
then
a
putting
of
the
converted
in
the
condition
of
the
unconverted
,
or
the
unconverted
in
the
capacity
of
the
converted
▪
or
to
prove
it
converts
,
because
it
seals
.
3.
If
this
Sacrament
be
the
most
powerful
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
onely
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
crying
up
and
magnifying
this
Sacrament
above
the
Word
preached
,
and
by
way
of
opposition
tells
them
that
he
hath
in
some
former
Tractates
proved
Gods
presence
and
Spirit
to
be
as
much
,
as
really
present
in
other
Ordinances
as
in
this
.
Vindic.
pag.
37
yet
now
I
see
no
man
who
doth
so
much
as
himself
,
magnifie
the
Sacrament
above
the
Word
.
5.
Whereas
he
brings
this
proof
for
his
Major
Proposition
:
because
the
manifestation
,
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
,
then
the
Spirits
of
just
men
made
perfect
and
glorified
,
are
converted
by
the
revelation
and
proximity
of
God
and
of
Christ
,
whereof
they
have
unconceaveably
more
then
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
fieri
at
that
instant
when
God
so
manifesteth
and
revealeth
himself
,
which
is
the
thing
he
had
to
prove
.
I
give
instance
in
divers
of
those
Scriptures
cited
by
himself
:
Gods
revealing
of
himself
to
Iob
,
chap.
38.
and
42.
to
Isaiah
,
chap.
6.
Christs
manifesting
of
his
power
to
Peter
,
Luke
5.
was
after
,
not
at
their
conversion
,
so
that
Psal.
148.
14.
But
heteregeneous
impertinent
quotations
of
Scripture
are
usual
with
him
:
I
am
sorry
I
have
cause
to
say
it
.
Some
other
Scriptures
which
here
he
citeth
may
be
expounded
of
Gods
proximity
to
us
,
and
ours
to
God
in
Conversion
,
Isa.
55.
6.
Zeph.
3.
2.
Eph.
2.
17.
Iam.
4.
7.
But
that
this
kind
of
proximity
which
doth
convert
,
is
in
the
Sacrament
,
he
hath
supposed
,
but
not
proved
.
His
fifth
Argument
is
taken
from
the
converting
power
of
the
Word
:
that
which
makes
conversion
by
the
Word
is
the
particular
application
of
Christ
and
the
promises
.
Now
the
Sacrament
doth
most
particularly
and
effectually
apply
Christ
and
the
promises
unto
every
Communicants
eyes
,
ears
,
heart
,
and
soul
,
far
livelier
then
the
Word
preached
.
Answ.
1.
This
is
a
meer
fallacy
,
à
dicto
secundum
quid
ad
dictum
simpliciter
:
and
easily
discovered
.
The
Sacrament
applyeth
Christ
,
but
to
whom
?
not
to
the
unconverted
and
unbeleevers
(
for
that
were
to
give
a
seal
without
a
charter
)
but
to
those
that
are
supposed
to
be
converted
and
beleevers
.
He
had
this
to
prove
,
That
the
Sacrament
doth
apply
Christs
death
,
passion
,
and
merits
to
unconverted
persons
,
and
to
unbeleevers
,
yea
to
their
heart
and
soul.
2.
That
the
Sacrament
doth
apply
the
death
,
passion
,
and
merits
of
Christ
to
the
Communicants
ears
,
and
that
far
livelier
than
the
word
preached
,
is
to
me
a
riddle
which
I
think
will
trouble
Mr.
Prynn
himself
to
expound
.
3.
A
great
controversie
there
hath
been
about
the
orall
or
corporal
manducation
of
the
body
of
Christ
in
the
Sacrament
.
But
Mr.
Prynn
out-runneth
here
all
Ubiquitaries
in
the
World
,
for
he
hath
said
no
lesse
then
that
every
Communicant
eateth
spiritually
and
by
faith
the
body
of
Christ
,
even
unconverted
persons
,
for
he
saith
,
that
this
Sacrament
doth
most
particularly
,
fully
,
lively
,
and
sensibly
apply
the
promises
,
yea
the
death
,
passion
,
and
merits
of
Christ
unto
EVERY
Communicants
eyes
,
ears
,
HEART
and
SOUL
.
Which
is
plainly
universal
grace
to
all
who
ever
received
this
Sacrament
(
and
so
to
Iudas
,
according
to
his
principles
)
and
to
all
who
ever
shall
receive
it
.
4.
Whereas
he
would
confirm
this
which
he
saith
,
by
his
Antagonists
Confession
;
I
do
not
think
he
can
give
any
conscientious
account
of
that
word
.
Who
said
it
,
or
where
?
He
must
needs
hold
universal
grace
,
hold
it
who
will
.
5.
Here
lies
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
implyeth
,
that
all
who
receive
the
Sacrament
are
converted
.
Yea
if
application
inferre
conversion
,
as
the
effect
of
the
Application
,
the
Saints
and
Beleevers
themselves
must
be
again
constituted
in
the
first
Article
of
Conversion
,
and
transition
from
the
estate
of
nature
and
unregeneration
.
6.
The
Application
of
Christ
in
the
Word
unto
Conversion
,
is
a
thing
of
another
nature
than
the
Sacramental
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
convert
them
,
is
per
influxum
Physicum
,
by
a
most
efficacious
life-giving
influence
,
as
when
Elisha
applyed
himself
to
the
Shunnamites
dead
child
,
or
like
that
Ezek.
16.
6.
Iohn
5.
25.
and
11.
43.
But
this
manner
of
influence
or
causality
is
denied
to
the
Sacrament
by
many
of
the
Schoolmen
and
Papists
themselves
.
So
much
of
his
fifth
Argument
which
I
thought
to
answer
in
two
words
,
if
the
many
absurdities
in
it
had
given
me
leave
.
His
sixth
Argument
is
this
,
All
grant
that
God
doth
as
effectually
convert
by
the
eye
as
by
the
ear
.
All
grant
.
I
deny
it
.
and
I
verily
beleeve
he
can
produce
very
few
Authors
(
if
any
)
for
it
.
He
ought
not
to
speak
so
great
words
without
good
warrants
,
which
here
I
am
sure
he
hath
not
.
Well
:
but
he
will
prove
the
thing
it self
.
First
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
savingly
convert
to
Faith
in
Christ
and
to
true
sanctification
,
or
not
.
If
the
affirmative
,
then
the
Heathens
who
lived
and
died
in
Paganisme
had
sufficient
means
and
helps
to
conversion
and
faith
in
Christ
:
(
for
those
Pagans
had
the
book
of
the
Creatures
to
instruct
them
,
as
is
expressed
in
some
Scriptures
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
concerning
many
things
of
God
,
yet
doth
not
teach
us
to
know
Christ
and
all
things
necessary
to
salvation
,
far
lesse
doth
effectually
and
savingly
convert
:
then
he
hath
said
nothing
to
that
point
which
he
had
to
prove
.
2.
He
saith
that
all
the
Sacrifices
of
the
old
Law
,
and
Circumcision
,
and
the
Passeover
did
teach
Gods
people
who
participated
of
them
,
or
were
present
at
them
,
by
the
eye
,
and
were
converting
Ordinances
,
as
all
do
and
must
acknowledge
.
Answ.
Here
is
another
tinckling
Cymbal
.
Do
all
acknowledge
that
the
Sacraments
of
the
Old
Testament
were
converting
Ordinances
?
There
can
be
no
rational
account
given
hereof
.
Certainly
our
Writers
before
cited
,
and
diverse
others
who
denie
the
Sacraments
of
the
New
Testament
to
be
converting
Ordinances
,
never
meant
to
admit
that
the
Sacraments
of
the
old
Testament
were
converting
Ordinances
.
2.
How
Circumcision
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
,
except
seeking
to
make
the
Lords
Supper
a
converting
Ordinance
we
convert
it self
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
Conscience
:
Heb.
99.
and
therefore
calls
all
those
rites
carnal
Ordinances
,
vers
.
10.
for
though
they
were
spiritual
in
respect
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
operation
nor
effect
.
Fourthly
,
Mr.
Prynn
confirms
his
present
Argument
by
the
miracles
of
the
Prophets
,
Christ
and
the
Apostles
,
which
(
saith
he
)
converted
thousands
without
preaching
,
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
miracles
,
but
either
confirmation
as
Iohn
2.
11.
after
the
miracle
,
it
is
added
,
and
his
Disciples
beleeved
on
him
.
Or
some
preparatory
initial
work
before
regeneration
,
as
that
Iohn
3.
2.
Mr.
Prynn
will
hardly
prove
that
Nicodemus
was
already
regenerated
at
that
instant
,
when
he
knew
not
what
regeneration
was
:
Or
that
those
Iohn
2.
23.
who
beleeved
on
Christ
when
they
saw
his
miracles
at
the
feast
,
had
any
more
then
a
temporary
faith
,
it
being
said
of
them
,
that
Iesus
did
not
commit
himself
unto
them
,
because
he
knew
all
men
.
Act.
2.
12.
Luke
5.
25.
26.
tell
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
18.
38.
39.
Other
Texts
cited
by
him
make
expresse
mention
of
the
Word
as
a
mean
of
the
conversion
which
was
wrought
,
as
Iohn
4.
50.
the
man
beleeved
the
Word
that
Jesus
had
spoken
,
and
this
was
before
the
miracle
.
Iohn
7.
31.
many
beleeved
,
but
they
heard
Christ
preach
vers.
14.
So
Iohn
11.
45.
those
Jewes
who
beleeved
on
Christ
after
they
had
seen
the
miracle
,
did
also
hear
that
which
Christ
said
,
yea
their
beleeving
is
mentioned
as
an
effect
of
their
hearing
,
vers.
41.
42.
So
Act.
6.
8.
Stephen
did
indeed
great
miracles
,
but
the
multiplying
of
the
number
of
the
Disciples
,
is
referred
to
the
Word
,
vers.
7.
Act.
8.
6.
it
is
expressely
said
,
And
the
people
with
one
accord
gave
heed
unto
those
things
which
Philip
spake
,
hearing
and
seeing
the
miracles
which
he
did
.
Quâ
fide
hath
Mr.
Prynn
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
onely
a
popular
confluence
and
the
multitudes
following
of
Christ
.
Having
seen
his
miracles
as
Iohn
6.
2.
and
11.
47.
48.
Matth.
15.
30.
31.
For
the
people
were
inclined
to
hearken
to
doctrine
by
miracles
,
which
moveth
natural
men
to
flock
together
to
see
strange
things
saith
Mr.
Hussey
.
Plea
for
Christian
Magistracy
,
pag.
30.
which
he
is
pleased
to
clear
by
peoples
flocking
to
a
Mountebank
.
Other
Texts
which
he
citeth
,
speak
of
miracles
,
but
not
a
syllable
of
conversion
or
regeneration
wrought
by
miracles
,
as
Act.
15.
12.
Act.
19.
11.
12.
Among
the
rest
of
the
Texts
he
citeth
Iohn
6.
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
and
regenerate
men
.
I
had
not
touched
these
particulars
,
were
it
not
that
I
desire
Mr.
Prynn
himself
in
the
fear
of
God
may
be
convinced
of
his
making
too
bold
with
the
Scripture
in
citing
and
applying
it
very
far
amisse
:
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
,
then
the
things
we
hear
.
He
means
(
I
think
)
do
more
effectually
convert
,
for
so
he
makes
the
Application
,
that
the
very
beholding
of
Christs
Person
,
passion
,
without
the
Word
,
were
the
most
effectual
means
of
working
contrition
,
conversion
,
&c.
Well
:
What
is
his
proof
?
He
citeth
Christs
words
to
his
Disciples
,
Blessed
are
your
eyes
for
they
see
:
(
without
adding
the
rest
,
and
your
ears
,
for
they
hear
)
and
Simeons
words
,
Mine
eyes
have
seen
thy
salvation
,
as
if
forsooth
either
Simeon
or
the
Apostles
had
been
converted
and
regenerated
by
the
seeing
of
Christs
person
.
He
cites
also
Luk.
23.
46
,
47
,
48.
as
if
all
who
(
beholding
Christs
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
strange
things
work
deep
impressions
,
there
can
be
no
doubt
of
it
.
But
that
the
hearing
of
great
things
may
not
work
as
deep
impressions
,
or
that
seeing
without
hearing
doth
convert
and
regenerate
,
hath
been
strongly
affirmed
by
Mr.
Prynn
,
but
not
yet
proved
.
I
proceed
to
his
seventh
Argument
which
is
this
.
The
most
melting
soul-changing
meditation
is
the
serious
contemplation
of
Christs
death
and
Passion
.
No
meditation
comparable
to
this
,
to
regenerate
and
convert
a
carnal
heart
.
And
is
not
this
effectually
represented
to
our
eyes
,
hearts
,
in
this
very
Sacrament
in
a
more
powerful
prevailing
manner
then
in
the
Word
alone
.
Answ.
That
which
he
had
to
subsume
and
prove
is
,
that
this
Sacrament
worketh
in
a
unregenerate
carnal
heart
such
soul
changing
meditations
of
the
death
and
passion
of
Christ
,
as
it
never
had
before
(
the
soul
having
never
before
been
regenerate
)
Which
being
the
point
to
be
proved
,
why
did
he
not
prove
it
,
if
he
could
?
No
doubt
the
Sacrament
is
a
most
powerful
mean
to
beget
in
the
hearts
of
beleevers
and
regenerate
persons
most
humbling
and
melting
meditations
concerning
the
death
of
Christ
.
But
that
it
begetteth
any
soul
changing
or
regenerating
meditations
in
those
in
whom
the
Word
hath
never
yet
begun
the
work
of
regeneration
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
afflictions
.
Our
own
corporal
external
afflictions
are
many
times
without
the
Word
the
means
of
our
repentance
and
conversion
unto
God
,
&c.
Then
much
more
the
Sacrament
,
wherein
the
afflictions
of
Christ
himself
are
so
visibly
set
forth
before
our
eyes
.
Answ.
1.
It
is
a
very
bad
consequence
,
for
the
strength
resolves
into
this
principle
,
an
unregenerate
carnal
man
will
be
more
affected
and
moved
with
the
representation
of
Christs
afflictions
,
than
with
the
feeling
of
his
own
corporal
afflictions
.
2.
Affliction
doth
not
convert
without
the
Word
either
going
before
or
accompanying
it
(
unlesse
we
say
that
Pagans
or
Turks
may
be
converted
savingly
by
affliction
before
ever
they
hear
the
Word
.
)
Psal.
94.
12.
Blessed
is
the
man
whom
thou
chastenest
and
teachest
him
out
of
thy
Law
.
Job
.
36.
9.
10.
11.
And
if
they
be
bound
in
fetters
,
and
holden
in
cords
of
affliction
.
Then
he
sheweth
them
their
work
and
their
transgression
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.
Prynn
goeth
about
to
prove
that
afflictions
convert
without
the
Word
,
the
first
Text
he
citeth
is
Psal.
119.
67.
71.
where
expresse
mention
is
made
of
the
Word
.
3
As
for
Manasseh
his
conversion
2
Chron.
33.
11.
12.
it
was
wrought
by
the
means
of
affliction
,
setting
home
upon
his
Conscience
that
Word
of
God
mentioned
in
the
verse
imediatly
preceding
,
which
saith
and
the
Lord
spake
to
Manasseh
and
to
his
people
,
but
they
would
not
hearken
.
Let
him
shew
the
like
instance
of
the
conversion
by
the
Sacrament
of
such
as
would
not
hearken
to
the
Word
,
and
I
shall
yeeld
the
cause
.
The
Word
is
expresse
,
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
afflictions
do
convert
without
the
Word
,
not
onely
at
such
times
and
in
such
places
as
do
sequester
a
person
from
the
liberty
of
hearing
the
Word
preached
,
but
also
when
and
where
the
Word
is
freely
enjoyed
.
Otherwise
how
far
is
he
from
concluding
by
Analogy
the
point
he
had
to
prove
?
which
is
,
that
an
unregenerate
person
living
under
the
Ministery
of
the
Gospel
,
and
being
an
ordinary
hearer
,
never
converted
by
the
Word
,
may
neverthelesse
(
according
to
the
dispensation
of
the
grace
of
God
revealed
in
Scripture
)
be
converted
by
the
Sacrament
received
?
His
ninth
Argument
is
this
.
That
Ordinance
whose
unworthy
participation
is
a
means
of
our
spiritual
obduration
,
must
by
the
rule
of
contraries
when
worthily
received
,
be
the
instrument
of
our
mortification
,
conversion
,
salvation
.
But
the
unworthy
receiving
of
the
Sacrament
is
a
means
&c.
Answ.
1.
This
Argument
doth
necessarily
suppose
,
that
an
unconverted
,
unmortified
,
unworthy
person
,
while
such
,
may
yet
worthily
receive
(
and
so
by
that
means
be
converted
)
the
contrary
whereof
I
have
demonstrated
in
my
tenth
Argument
.
2.
If
the
Sacrament
be
not
worthily
received
,
without
repentance
,
faith
,
and
self-examination
(
for
which
cause
men
are
dehorted
to
come
,
except
they
repent
&c.
)
then
there
is
perfect
non-sence
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
converted
.
3.
That
rule
of
Contraries
is
extremely
mis-applyed
.
The
rule
is
Oppositorum
,
quatenus
talia
,
opposita
sunt
attributa
,
Contraries
have
contrary
attributes
.
[
g
](A42757-e110330-b)
g
Vide
Kekerm
.
System
.
log
.
lib.
3.
cap.
●0
.
The
comparison
must
be
made
secundum
differentias
quibus
dissident
,
Otherwise
that
old
fallacy
were
a
good
Argument
.
A
single
life
is
good
,
therefore
Marriage
is
evil
;
Virginity
is
pure
,
therefore
Marriage
is
impure
:
Whereas
Marriage
and
single
life
are
not
opposed
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
)
unworthy
receiving
of
the
Sacrament
is
an
instrument
of
obduration
,
Ergo
Worthy
receiving
of
it
is
a
mean
of
conversion
.
For
we
hold
that
worthy
receiving
and
unworthy
receiving
are
not
opposed
in
point
of
conversion
,
but
in
point
of
sealing
:
the
worthy
receiving
seals
remission
and
salvation
:
the
unworthy
receiving
seals
judgement
.
But
Mr.
Prynn
still
takes
for
granted
what
he
had
to
prove
;
viz.
That
this
particular
is
one
of
those
differentiae
quibus
dissident
ista
Opposita
.
Come
on
to
his
tenth
Argument
.
It
s
taken
from
the
ends
for
which
this
Sacrament
was
ordained
.
1.
The
keeping
in
memory
Christs
death
.
2.
The
ratification
and
sealing
of
all
the
promises
and
Covenant
of
grace
unto
the
receivers
souls
.
2.
To
be
a
pledge
and
symbole
of
that
most
neer
and
effectual
communion
which
Christians
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
binde
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
Gods
intention
and
Christs
ordination
,
be
a
converting
as
well
as
a
sealing
Ordinance
,
since
that
which
doth
seal
all
these
particulars
to
mens
souls
,
&c.
must
needs
more
powerfully
perswade
,
pierce
,
melt
,
relent
,
convert
an
obdurate
heart
and
unregenerate
sinner
then
the
Word
it self
?
Answ.
1.
His
Argument
may
be
strongly
retorted
against
himself
,
divers
of
these
ends
of
the
Sacrament
being
such
as
are
incompetent
and
unapplicable
to
obdurate
and
unregenerate
sinners
:
How
did
he
imagine
that
even
to
such
as
these
,
the
Sacrament
doth
ratifie
and
seal
to
their
souls
all
the
promises
and
Covenant
of
grace
,
they
not
having
yet
closed
with
Christ
in
the
Covenant
?
Or
how
will
he
make
it
to
appear
,
that
this
Sacrament
is
a
pledge
of
a
most
neer
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
Master
Prynne
granting
here
that
the
Sacrament
is
ordained
of
Christ
to
seal
,
and
that
it
doth
seal
all
these
particulars
to
mens
souls
,
doth
thereby
yeeld
the
whole
cause
.
For
that
which
doth
seal
all
these
particulars
to
mens
souls
,
most
certainly
doth
not
convert
,
but
presuppose
conversion
.
2.
If
this
Sacrament
be
by
Gods
intention
a
converting
Ordinance
,
and
Gods
intention
being
by
him
distinguished
from
Christs
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
decree
the
Conversion
of
the
flintiest
heart
and
obdurest
spirit
,
as
he
speaketh
;
and
that
either
this
effect
is
wrought
by
the
Sacrament
in
the
flintiest
heart
and
obduratest
spirit
(
which
I
believe
he
dare
not
say
)
or
that
Gods
decree
and
intention
is
frustrate
?
3.
And
if
the
Sacrament
must
needs
more
powerfully
perswade
,
pierce
,
melt
,
relent
,
convert
an
obdurate
heart
and
unregenerate
sinner
then
the
Word
it self
;
how
then
can
he
either
seclude
Pagans
,
or
dehort
impenitent
unworthy
persons
from
the
Sacrament
?
His
eleventh
Argument
is
the
grossest
and
palpablest
petitio
principii
of
any
that
ever
I
met
with
,
and
to
be
offered
to
none
except
such
as
cannot
distinguish
between
that
which
is
affirmed
,
and
that
which
is
proved
.
First
he
tells
us
what
true
conversion
is
,
and
then
asks
if
any
thing
be
so
prevalent
to
effect
this
as
the
Sacrament
.
This
therefore
I
passe
.
His
twelfth
and
last
Argument
is
an
appealing
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
tentations
,
which
doth
not
touch
this
present
Controversie
.
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
Christians
will
experimentally
affirm
,
that
the
receiving
of
the
Sacrament
was
the
first
effectual
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
affirmeth
it
:
and
if
any
who
hath
been
a
scandalous
liver
,
whose
heart
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
to
this
word
,
it
is
because
there
is
no
light
in
them
.
And
whereas
he
concludes
,
For
shame
therefore
disclaim
this
absurd
irreligious
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
more
bold
and
arrogant
,
then
either
prudent
or
conscientious
.
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
irreligiousnesse
will
lie
.
If
at
his
door
,
let
him
look
to
it
.
Alba
ligustra
cadunt
,
vaccin●…a
nigra
leguntur
.
All
that
he
addeth
pag.
45
,
46
,
47
,
being
at
best
rhetorical
,
not
rational
,
and
a
superstructure
upon
that
foundation
,
that
the
Lords
Supper
is
a
Converting
Ordinance
;
it
needs
no
battering
,
but
falls
of
it self
,
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
supposition
also
both
the
Advice
of
the
Assembly
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
Ordinance
(
which
I
hope
is
now
luce
clarius
)
there
needs
no
other
Argument
for
the
suspension
of
scandalous
sinners
living
in
grosse
reigning
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
incapable
,
they
being
such
as
ought
to
be
kept
back
à
signis
gratiae
divinae
,
as
Divines
speak
.
For
how
shall
these
that
in
words
professe
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
ballance
of
the
whole
Controversie
concerning
Suspension
:
which
I
have
therefore
been
the
larger
upon
.
And
whereas
Master
Prynne
concludeth
,
pag.
47
,
with
a
large
citation
out
of
Lucas
Osiander
Enchir.
contra
Anabapt.
cap.
6.
quaest.
3.
for
that
he
shall
have
this
return
.
First
,
all
that
Osiander
there
saith
,
is
brought
to
prove
this
point
against
the
Anabaptists
,
quod
et
si
unum
aut
alterum
videamus
in
Ecclesia
aliqua
flagitiosum
,
propterea
neque
secessionem
faciendam
,
neque
à
sacris
congressibus
,
aut
Coena
Domini
Christiano
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
Lords
Supper
.
Which
is
not
the
Question
now
agitated
between
us
.
Secondly
,
after
that
passage
cited
against
us
,
Master
Prynne
might
have
taken
notice
of
another
passage
which
maketh
against
himself
.
Where
the
Anabaptists
did
object
to
the
Lutheran
Churches
,
their
admitting
of
scandalous
persons
to
the
Sacrament
,
Osiander
denieth
it
:
for
(
saith
he
)
although
we
cannot
help
hypocrites
their
coming
to
the
Lords
Table
;
nos
tamen
scienter
neminem
admittimus
,
nisi
peccatores
poenitentes
,
&c.
Yet
we
admit
none
willingly
,
except
penitent
sinners
who
confesse
their
sins
and
sorrow
for
them
.
Thirdly
,
Osiander
,
ibid.
Quaest.
2.
holdeth
Excommunication
to
be
an
Ordinance
of
God
,
and
groundeth
it
upon
Matth.
18.
15
,
16
,
17.
Therefore
Master
Prynne
must
seek
another
Patron
then
Osiander
.
And
now
the
nature
of
the
Ordinance
being
cleared
,
there
needeth
no
more
to
confute
Master
Prynne
in
that
which
he
makes
the
eighth
thing
in
controversie
between
him
and
his
Antagonists
,
namely
,
Whether
Ministers
may
not
as
well
refuse
to
preach
the
Word
to
such
unexcommunicated
,
grosse
,
impenitent
,
scandalous
Christians
,
whom
they
would
suspend
from
the
Sacrament
.
Certainly
it
is
not
lawful
but
commanded
as
a
duty
to
preach
both
to
the
converted
and
to
the
unconverted
,
without
excluding
the
most
scandalous
impenitent
sinners
whosoever
.
But
the
Lords
Supper
being
(
according
to
its
institution
and
the
minde
of
Jesus
Christ
)
a
sealing
or
confirming
Ordinance
onely
,
it
cannot
without
a
violation
of
the
Institution
be
given
to
known
impenitent
scandalous
persons
.
Other
particulars
in
his
Debate
concerning
this
eighth
point
of
difference
,
which
do
require
any
Answer
,
I
will
take
occasion
to
speak
unto
them
in
the
next
Chapter
.
CHAP.
XV.
Whether
the
admission
of
scandalous
and
notorious
sinners
to
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lords
Supper
,
be
a
pollution
and
profanation
of
that
holy
Ordinance
;
And
in
what
respects
it
may
be
so
called
?
MAster
Hussey
in
his
Plea
,
pag.
2.
doth
very
much
mistake
his
mark
,
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
thereupon
concludeth
,
that
the
Sacrament
is
holy
and
pure
to
the
believer
,
notwithstanding
the
unpreparednesse
of
the
wicked
:
Which
is
not
the
thing
in
question
:
much
lesse
is
it
the
Question
,
Whether
there
be
any
such
thing
as
a
pollution
of
the
Sacrament
:
for
this
Master
Coleman
hath
yeelded
(
though
before
he
quarrelled
that
phrase
of
polluting
the
Ordinances
)
giving
instance
in
the
using
of
Cheese
instead
of
Bread
,
Male
dicis
,
pag.
12.
But
the
true
state
of
the
Controversie
may
be
laid
open
in
these
few
distinctions
.
First
,
as
Scotus
in
lib.
4.
Sent.
Dist.
3.
Quaest.
2.
distinguisheth
two
sorts
of
things
which
may
be
called
necessary
to
a
Sacrament
;
necessarium
simpliciter
,
and
necessarium
aliqualiter
:
the
former
he
calls
that
without
which
the
Sacrament
is
no
Sacrament
:
the
later
,
that
without
which
they
that
give
the
Sacrament
cannot
avoid
sin
,
or
the
want
whereof
maketh
the
Ministery
guilty
;
so
do
I
distinguish
two
sorts
of
pollution
of
the
Sacrament
,
one
which
makes
the
Sacrament
no
Sacrament
,
but
a
common
or
unhallowed
thing
to
those
that
do
receive
it
,
as
(
for
instance
)
if
the
Sacrament
were
given
by
those
that
are
no
Ministers
,
o●
to
those
that
are
no
Church
,
or
without
the
blessing
and
breaking
of
bread
:
Another
which
makes
the
ministration
of
the
Sacrament
hic
&
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
will
of
God
,
is
a
pollution
of
that
Ordinance
.
The
present
Question
is
of
the
later
,
not
of
the
former
.
Secondly
,
some
wicked
men
by
their
receiving
the
Sacrament
do
onely
draw
judgement
upon
themselves
,
and
these
are
close
hypocrites
:
Others
by
their
receiving
of
the
Sacrament
do
involve
not
themselves
onely
,
but
others
also
into
sin
and
Gods
displeasure
;
and
these
are
scandalous
notorious
sinners
.
Thirdly
,
the
sin
of
those
who
pollute
the
Sacrament
by
using
it
contrary
to
the
nature
and
institution
of
it
,
may
be
the
sin
of
others
,
and
those
others
accessary
to
such
pollution
of
the
Sacrament
two
ways
:
either
it
is
the
sin
of
the
whole
Church
,
none
excepted
,
so
that
none
that
communicateth
then
and
there
can
be
free
of
the
sin
,
as
where
the
bread
is
elevated
and
worshipped
,
all
the
communicants
are
eo
ipso
that
they
joyn
in
the
Sacrament
then
and
there
,
partakers
of
the
sin
of
bread-worship
,
though
perhaps
some
of
them
do
not
joyn
in
the
act
of
worshipping
the
bread
,
but
have
done
what
they
could
to
prevent
or
hinder
it
.
Or
it
is
the
sin
onely
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
restraining
the
scandalous
from
the
Lords
Table
,
they
have
discharged
their
consciences
,
and
may
without
sin
communicate
though
some
scandalous
members
be
admitted
:
for
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
from
Jesus
Christ
,
to
receive
none
whom
they
know
to
be
unworthy
,
profane
and
scandalous
,
shall
not
withstanding
admit
such
persons
,
they
are
thereby
partakers
of
their
sin
,
so
that
their
receiving
,
or
rather
polluting
of
the
Sacrament
,
is
imputed
not
to
themselves
onely
,
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
remedies
against
it
,
and
namely
,
when
we
exercise
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
Augustines
word
)
so
to
bear
with
wicked
men
,
as
not
to
execute
discipline
against
them
,
that
certainly
makes
us
partakers
of
their
sin
.
I
mean
in
a
reformed
and
well
constituted
Church
,
where
the
thing
is
feasible
.
But
where
it
cannot
be
done
,
because
of
persecution
,
or
because
of
the
invincible
opposition
either
of
authority
,
or
of
a
prevalent
profane
multitude
,
in
that
case
we
have
onely
this
comfort
left
us
,
Blessed
are
they
that
hunger
and
thirst
after
righteousnesse
;
and
,
in
magnis
voluisse
sat
est
.
Fifthly
,
neither
doth
this
Question
concerning
the
pollution
or
profanation
,
or
abuse
of
the
Sacrament
,
concern
those
peccata
quotidianae
incursionis
,
such
sins
of
infirmity
as
all
the
godly
,
or
at
least
the
generallay
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
onely
grosse
and
scandalous
sins
,
such
as
make
the
Name
of
God
and
the
profession
of
Religion
to
be
evil
spoken
of
and
reproached
,
those
roots
of
bitternesse
which
spring
up
,
whereby
many
are
like
to
be
defiled
;
those
that
are
guilty
of
such
sins
,
and
have
given
no
evidence
of
true
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
reformed
and
constituted
Church
,
is
a
profanation
or
pollution
of
that
Ordinance
,
may
be
thus
proved
.
First
,
Paraeus
upon
the
82
Question
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
s●als
of
the
Covenant
,
do
thereby
profane
the
Covenant
;
so
they
who
consent
to
known
wicked
and
scandalous
persons
their
taking
of
the
seals
,
or
to
their
coming
to
the
Sacrament
,
do
by
such
consenting
make
themselves
guilty
of
profaning
the
Covenant
of
God
(
for
the
doer
and
the
consenter
fall
under
the
same
breach
of
law
)
yea
,
so
far
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
Covenant
and
to
have
fellowship
with
God
.
He
distinguisheth
these
two
things
,
who
ought
to
come
to
the
Sacrament
,
and
who
ought
to
be
admitted
.
None
ought
to
come
,
except
those
who
truely
believe
and
repent
:
None
ought
to
be
admitted
,
except
such
as
are
supposed
to
be
believers
and
penitent
,
there
being
nothing
known
to
the
contrary
.
If
any
impenitent
sinner
take
the
Sacrament
,
he
profanes
the
Covenant
of
God
.
If
the
Church
admit
to
the
Sacrament
any
known
to
live
in
wickednesse
without
repentance
,
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
,
impenitent
,
and
unconverted
,
be
admitted
to
the
participation
thereof
.
But
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lords
Supper
is
not
a
converting
but
a
sealing
Ordinance
,
&c.
which
I
have
proved
by
infallible
demonstrations
.
Ergo.
Thirdly
,
That
use
of
the
Sacrament
which
is
repugnant
and
contradictory
to
the
Word
truly
and
faithfully
preached
in
the
name
of
Christ
,
is
a
prophaning
of
the
Sacrament
.
But
to
give
the
Sacrament
to
those
who
are
known
to
live
in
grosse
sins
without
repentance
,
is
an
use
of
the
Sacrament
which
is
repugnant
and
contradictory
to
the
Word
truly
and
faithfully
preached
in
the
Name
of
Christ
.
Ergo.
I
suppose
no
man
will
denie
,
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
Gods
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
theeves
,
nor
covetous
,
nor
drunkards
,
nor
revilers
,
nor
extortioners
,
shall
inherit
the
Kingdom
of
God
.
1
Cor.
6.
9.
10.
See
the
like
Ephes.
5.
5
,
6
,
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
prophane
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
lye
to
the
Word
?
[
h
](A42757-e111240-b)
h
Z●ch
.
Ursin
.
Judicium
de
disciplina
Ecclesiastica
.
Tom.
3.
pag.
806.
Haec
enim
Dei
voluntas
non
erit
in
aeternum
,
ut
Ecclesia
Christiana
alicui
gratiam
Christi
&
remissionem
pec
catorum
,
annun
ciatione
verbi
divini
deneget
,
&
eidem
exhibitione
Sacramentorum
spondeat
.
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
Lords
Table
,
while
known
to
continue
in
the
committing
of
their
damnable
sins
,
or
while
it
is
known
that
they
have
not
repented
of
the
uncleannesse
,
and
fernication
,
and
lasciviousnesse
which
they
have
committed
?
2
Cor.
12.
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
Sacrament
unto
those
on
whom
the
Word
shutteth
it
?
Fourthly
,
That
use
of
the
Sacrament
which
strengtheneth
the
hands
of
the
wicked
,
so
that
he
turneth
not
from
his
wickednesse
,
is
an
abuse
and
profanation
of
the
Sacrament
.
But
the
giving
of
the
Sacrament
to
any
known
prophane
impenitent
person
is
such
an
use
of
the
Sacrament
as
strengtheneth
the
hands
of
the
wicked
,
so
that
he
turneth
not
from
his
wickednesse
.
Ergo.
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
prophane
men
as
have
been
usually
admitted
to
the
Sacrament
,
then
to
convince
or
convert
such
as
have
been
kept
back
from
the
Sacrament
?
No
marvel
that
such
prophane
ones
as
have
usually
received
the
seals
of
the
Covenant
of
grace
,
and
joyned
in
the
highest
act
of
Church-communion
,
live
in
a
good
opinion
of
their
souls
estate
,
and
trust
in
lying
words
,
Have
we
not
eaten
and
drunken
at
thy
Table
?
The
Sacrament
,
The
Sacrament
,
as
of
old
The
Temple
,
The
Temple
.
Mr.
Prynn
thinks
,
that
the
Minister
hath
fully
discharged
his
duty
and
conscience
,
if
he
give
warning
to
unworthy
Communicants
of
the
danger
they
incurre
by
their
unworthy
approaches
to
the
Lords
Table
.
Vindic.
pag.
28
,
29.
But
he
may
be
pleased
to
receive
an
answer
from
himself
,
pag.
43.
The
things
we
see
with
our
eyes
do
more
affect
and
beget
deeper
impressions
in
our
hearts
,
then
the
things
we
hear
.
The
Word
preached
is
Verbum
audibile
,
the
Sacrament
is
Verbum
visibile
.
How
shall
prophane
ones
be
perswaded
by
their
ears
to
beleeve
that
whereof
they
see
the
contrary
with
their
eyes
?
they
will
give
more
credit
in
Mr.
Prynns
own
opinion
to
the
visible
Word
,
then
to
the
audible
Word
.
Fifthly
,
If
it
were
a
prophanation
of
the
Sacrament
of
Baptisme
to
baptize
a
Catechumene
,
a
Jew
,
or
a
Pagan
professing
a
resolution
to
turn
Christian
,
he
being
manifestly
under
the
power
of
abominable
reigning
sins
,
and
being
still
a
prophane
and
wicked
liver
,
although
he
were
able
to
give
a
sound
and
Orthodox
Confession
of
Faith
:
then
it
is
also
a
prophanation
of
the
Lords
Supper
to
admit
unto
it
abominable
and
prophane
livers
.
But
it
were
a
prophanation
of
the
Sacrament
of
Baptisme
&c.
Augustine
lib.
de
fide
&
operibus
cap.
18.
tells
us
,
that
the
Church
did
not
admit
whores
and
such
other
scandalous
persons
to
Baptisme
.
Et
nisi
egerint
ab
his
mortuis
operibus
poenitentiam
,
accedere
ad
Baptismum
non
sinuntur
.
And
except
they
repent
(
saith
he
)
from
these
dead
works
,
they
are
not
suffered
to
come
unto
Baptisme
.
Divers
Arguments
he
brings
in
that
Book
for
this
thing
,
as
1.
That
Peter
saith
(
Act.
2.
38.
)
Repent
and
be
baptized
.
2.
That
the
Apostle
Heb.
6.
1
,
2.
joyneth
repentance
from
dead
works
with
Baptisme
.
3.
That
Iohn
preached
the
Baptisme
of
Repentance
.
4.
That
fornicators
,
adulterers
,
theeves
,
&c.
shall
not
inherit
the
Kingdom
of
God
:
therefore
such
as
are
known
to
live
in
these
sins
without
repentance
ought
not
to
be
baptized
.
5.
He
argueth
from
2
Cor.
6.
14
,
15
,
16.
&c.
Now
I
offer
this
Quaere
.
Shall
an
abominable
wicked
life
,
murther
,
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
Lords
Table
?
Is
there
more
evidenc●
of
Saintship
required
in
those
who
come
to
be
baptized
,
then
in
those
who
come
to
the
Lords
Table
?
If
there
be
,
let
our
Opposites
speak
it
out
,
and
open
up
the
riddle
.
If
there
be
not
,
then
how
can
their
Tenent
avoid
the
prophanation
of
the
Lords
Table
?
Sixthly
,
That
Ordinance
which
is
prophaned
by
admitting
Infants
and
Idiots
who
can
make
no
good
use
of
it
,
is
much
more
prophaned
by
admitting
abominable
and
known
prophane
persons
who
make
a
very
bad
use
of
it
.
But
the
Lords
Supper
is
prophaned
by
admitting
Infants
and
Idiots
who
can
make
no
good
use
of
it
.
Ergo.
Mr.
Prynn
pag.
29.
yeeldeth
that
children
,
fools
,
and
distracted
men
,
are
by
a
natural
disability
made
uncapable
of
receiving
the
Lords
Supper
,
because
unable
to
examine
themselves
,
to
which
(
saith
he
)
not
withstanding
they
have
been
admitted
in
some
Churches
.
In
what
Churches
fools
and
distracted
men
have
been
admitted
to
the
Lords
Supper
,
I
should
have
willingly
learned
from
him
,
for
as
yet
I
know
not
any
such
thing
Children
I
know
were
somtime
admitted
by
the
Ancients
who
did
afterward
discover
their
own
great
error
in
that
particular
.
However
,
He
yeelds
as
I
take
it
,
children
and
fools
to
be
uncapable
of
the
Lords
Supper
.
And
why
?
because
unable
to
examine
themselves
,
in
regard
of
natural
disability
.
But
where
there
is
no
disability
in
the
natural
faculties
,
may
not
a
sinful
disability
which
a
man
hath
drawn
upon
himself
(
as
ignorance
,
drunkennesse
,
corrupt
and
atheistical
opinions
,
presumptuous
excusing
or
defending
of
sin
)
make
him
unable
to
examine
himself
?
Shall
men
that
are
unable
to
examine
themselves
be
admitted
to
the
Sacrament
,
because
not
disabled
by
any
natural
disability
?
Sure
this
was
far
from
Pauls
thoughts
when
he
delivered
that
rule
concerning
examining
our selves
before
the
Sacrament
.
Whoever
they
be
who
are
unable
to
examine
themselves
,
whether
naturally
or
sinfully
,
much
more
they
who
manif●stly
appear
unwilling
to
examine
themselves
,
if
they
be
admitted
and
allowed
to
come
to
the
Lords
Supper
,
it
is
a
high
and
haynous
prophanation
of
that
Ordinance
.
Wherefore
to
prosecute
my
Argument
,
Why
do
we
exclude
Infants
and
Idiots
?
because
〈◊〉
Apostle
saith
,
Let
a
man
examine
himself
,
and
so
let
him
〈◊〉
Bread
,
and
drink
of
that
Cup
:
but
Infants
and
Idiots
〈◊〉
examine
themselves
.
Now
a
positive
prophanation
of
the
Sacrament
,
is
worse
then
a
negative
prophanation
of
it
:
abuti
is
more
then
non
bene
uti
.
We
know
that
prophane
impenitent
sinners
will
not
onely
make
no
good
use
of
the
Sacrament
,
nor
examine
themselves
aright
,
but
will
abuse
it
to
the
worst
use
that
can
be
,
even
to
slatter
themselves
in
their
wickednesse
,
and
to
harden
themselves
in
sin
and
impenitency
.
Mr.
Prynn
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
easie
for
God
to
give
an
Idiot
or
distracted
man
his
right
wits
,
and
to
illuminate
him
with
a
self-examining
knowledge
and
light
in
the
very
instant
of
approaching
to
or
sitting
down
at
the
Table
;
And
if
a
possibility
,
a
per
adventure
it
may
be
,
and
who
knoweth
but
it
may
convert
and
do
them
good
;
be
a
warrantable
ground
for
Ministers
to
administer
the
Sacrament
to
prophane
and
scandalous
persons
as
Mr.
Prynn
holds
,
pag.
47.
why
shall
not
the
same
ground
be
as
warrantable
for
admitting
Idiots
.
Seventhly
,
If
the
Temple
was
polluted
and
prophaned
by
the
comming
of
prophane
and
abominable
persons
into
it
,
then
is
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lords
Supper
also
profaned
by
such
persons
their
participation
of
it
.
But
the
Temple
was
polluted
and
prophaned
&c.
The
reason
of
the
consequence
in
the
Proposition
is
,
because
as
the
Temple
had
a
Sacramental
signification
of
Christ
,
and
a
certain
Ceremonial
holinesse
,
as
well
as
the
Lords
Table
,
so
it
will
be
dur●…s
sermo
(
and
I
presume
none
of
our
Opposites
will
adventure
to
say
it
)
that
such
prophanesse
as
did
of
old
keep
back
men
from
the
Temple
,
cannot
now
exclude
them
from
the
Sacrament
.
The
Assumption
is
largely
proved
in
the
first
Book
,
both
from
Scripture
and
from
Jewish
writers
.
That
one
place
Ezek.
23.
38.
39.
(
beside
divers
others
)
cleareth
it
.
Moreover
this
they
have
done
unto
me
:
they
have
defiled
my
Sanctuary
in
the
same
day
,
and
have
prophaned
my
Sabbaths
▪
For
when
they
had
slain
their
children
to
their
Idols
,
then
they
came
the
same
day
into
my
Sanctuary
to
prophane
it
.
You
see
the
Temple
was
prophaned
and
polluted
,
not
onely
by
those
that
were
ceremonially
unclean
,
but
by
Idolaters
and
Murtherers
when
any
such
presumed
to
come
into
the
Temple
.
Eighthly
,
I
desire
the
scope
of
that
place
Hag.
2.
11
,
12
,
13
,
14.
may
be
considered
.
The
Lord
is
teaching
his
people
,
that
a
thing
legally
holy
,
could
not
by
the
touch
thereof
sanctifie
that
which
by
the
Law
was
common
and
not
holy
,
yet
he
which
was
legally
unclean
,
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
holinesse
and
uncleannesse
were
significant
ceremonies
to
teach
the
people
the
hecessity
of
moral
holinesse
,
and
the
evil
or
danger
of
moral
uncleannesse
:
Hence
God
himself
argues
from
the
significant
ceremony
to
the
morality
,
so
as
the
place
holds
forth
by
necessary
plain
consequence
these
three
propositions
.
1.
The
ceremonial
uncleannesse
did
signifie
the
moral
uncleannesse
,
and
the
effect
of
the
former
did
signifie
the
effect
of
the
latter
.
2.
Unholy
persons
are
not
sanctified
by
their
approaching
to
,
or
joyning
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
sanctifie
them
,
the
Ordinances
cannot
do
it
.
3.
Yet
unholy
persons
,
while
such
,
do
defile
holy
Ordinances
,
and
that
by
moral
as
well
as
by
ceremonial
uncleannesse
:
therefore
the
people
themselves
,
and
every
work
of
their
hands
being
evil
,
the
Lord
for
that
cause
reckoneth
their
sacrifices
to
be
unclean
.
Did
prophane
persons
defile
the
Sacrifices
of
old
,
and
do
they
not
defile
our
Sacraments
?
Nay
,
I
should
think
this
,
much
more
then
that
,
there
being
more
of
the
communion
of
Saints
in
our
Sacraments
,
then
in
their
Sacrifices
.
The
ninth
Argument
which
alone
may
conclude
the
point
,
shall
be
taken
from
Matth.
7.
6.
Give
not
that
which
is
holy
unto
the
dogs
,
neither
cast
ye
your
pearls
before
swine
.
If
the
Sacrament
be
a
holy
thing
,
and
if
prophane
scandalous
impenitent
sinners
be
dogs
and
swyne
,
then
to
give
the
Sacrament
to
such
,
is
to
prophane
and
pollute
the
Sacrament
,
and
indeed
no
better
but
worse
then
to
give
pearls
to
swine
.
Mr.
Prynns
▪
reply
vindic
.
pag.
39.
doth
not
take
off
this
Argument
.
For
without
any
proof
,
he
restricteth
to
certain
particulars
that
which
the
Text
saith
generally
both
of
the
things
and
of
the
persons
.
First
for
the
things
,
He
saith
the
Text
is
principally
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
onely
of
the
Word
?
He
hath
not
said
so
,
nor
will
(
I
think
)
say
so
.
Erastus
himself
pag.
207.
confesseth
it
is
meant
also
of
the
Sacraments
.
The
Text
saith
not
,
the
holy
thing
,
and
the
pearl
,
but
holy
things
,
pearls
.
It
must
therefore
be
understood
respective
.
Some
are
so
vile
,
and
so
abominably
prodigiously
prophane
,
blasphe●ous
,
mockers
,
persecuters
,
that
I
ought
not
to
preach
to
such
,
but
to
turn
away
from
them
to
others
,
according
to
Christs
direction
,
and
the
Apostles
example
.
Others
are
such
as
I
may
preach
unto
,
yet
ought
not
to
pray
or
give
thanks
with
them
,
nor
to
admonish
them
(
and
much
lesse
give
them
the
Sacrament
)
Others
I
may
admonish
and
pray
with
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
à
fortiori
,
from
the
Word
to
the
Sacrament
.
For
saith
[
i
](A42757-e111830-b)
i
Explic.
Catech.
q●aest
▪
84.
Si
enim
Christus
hoc
di
xit
de
verbo
audibili
▪
quod
ta●…men
institutum
est
conversis
,
&
n●…n
convers●…s
vel
convertendis
:
〈◊〉
magis
〈◊〉
dic●…uy
d●…
verbo
visibili
hoc
est
de
Sacrame●…tis
,
quae
tantum
conversis
sunt
institut●…
.
Pareus
.
If
Christ
said
this
of
the
Word
,
which
is
common
to
the
converted
and
to
the
unconverted
,
how
much
more
must
it
be
said
of
the
Sacraments
,
which
are
instituted
onely
for
such
as
are
converted
.
As
for
that
sort
of
persons
which
the
Text
speaks
of
,
Master
Prynne
(
following
Erastus
,
lib.
3.
cap.
3.
)
saith
that
these
doggs
and
swine
are
onely
such
Infidels
and
Heathens
,
who
refused
to
embrace
the
Gospel
,
and
harbour
the
Preachers
of
it
:
Or
pers●cutors
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
expresly
determine
it
.
But
he
observes
not
that
the
most
which
those
Scriptures
prove
,
is
,
that
such
men
as
he
speaks
of
are
doggs
and
swine
,
which
is
not
the
Question
:
That
which
he
had
to
prove
,
is
,
that
the
doggs
and
swine
which
Christ
speaks
of
,
are
onely
Infidels
,
or
persecutors
,
or
apostates
from
the
Christian
faith
.
This
ONELY
he
hath
boldly
averred
,
but
shall
never
prove
it
.
It
is
one
thing
to
prove
that
Infidels
,
persecutors
and
apostates
are
doggs
and
swine
,
another
thing
to
prove
that
there
are
no
other
doggs
and
swine
.
That
which
the
Apostle
Peter
saith
,
of
such
as
having
escaped
the
pollutions
of
the
world
,
and
known
the
way
of
righteousnesse
,
do
afterward
turn
aside
from
the
holy
Commandment
,
namely
,
that
such
do
with
the
dog
●eturn
to
the
vomit
,
and
with
the
sow
that
was
washed
to
the
wallowing
in
the
mire
,
2
Pet.
2.
18
,
20
,
22.
doth
belong
to
all
scandalous
and
backsliding
Christians
,
whether
they
be
such
in
doctrine
or
in
life
onely
;
and
is
generally
so
applied
by
Divines
.
Erastus
himself
,
pag.
207.
understandeth
that
vomit
and
puddle
,
2.
Pet.
2.
to
be
the
sinful
pleasures
of
the
world
,
relabuntur
(
saith
he
,
glossing
upon
the
place
)
ad
voluptates
moresque
hujus
seculi
.
And
Solomon
saith
the
same
thing
generally
of
an
ungodly
wicked
person
,
Prov.
26.
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.
1.
12.
because
they
professed
to
know
God
,
but
in
their
works
▪
denied
him
,
being
impure
,
disobedient
,
and
unto
every
good
work
reprobate
.
Wherefore
the
precept
Matth.
7.
6.
is
rightly
applied
by
Isidorus
Pelusiota
,
lib.
1.
Epist.
143.
to
the
denying
of
the
Sacrament
to
all
persons
of
an
unclean
conversation
,
▪
as
well
as
to
Jews
and
Hereticks
.
So
Chrysostome
doth
apply
this
Text
to
the
excluding
of
known
unworthy
men
from
the
Sacrament
;
and
this
he
doth
,
Homil.
1.
de
compunctione
cordis
,
as
I
remember
.
And
Hom.
83
in
Matth.
he
hath
these
words
to
the
same
purpose
.
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
whatsoever
,
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
it self
,
Matth.
7.
he
applieth
it
to
a
suspension
of
all
such
as
were
not
acknowledged
for
visible
Saints
,
not
onely
from
receiving
but
from
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
catechumenorum
,
&
missa
fid●…lium
.
When
the
Catechumens
were
dismissed
,
then
also
together
with
them
were
dismissed
all
scandalous
persons
who
had
scandalized
the
Church
,
except
such
Penitents
as
(
having
now
in
a
great
measure
satisfied
the
Church-discipline
,
and
manifested
their
repentance
publikely
,
according
to
certain
usual
degrees
of
publike
declaration
of
repentance
)
were
permitted
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
thorow
all
the
degrees
,
and
finished
the
whole
course
of
publikely
manifesting
Repentance
;
onely
in
the
danger
of
death
they
were
permitted
to
receive
the
Sacrament
,
before
that
course
was
finished
,
if
they
should
desire
it
.
)
Then
last
of
all
,
after
the
Sacrament
,
was
the
missa
fidelium
,
the
dismission
of
the
faithful
.
Augustine
,
lib.
de
fide
&
operibus
,
cap.
6.
so
applieth
the
prohibition
of
giving
holy
things
to
doggs
,
that
he
thence
argueth
against
the
administration
of
Baptism
to
persons
living
in
adultery
(
although
such
as
have
embraced
the
Orthodox
Doctrine
)
which
is
also
the
scope
of
that
whole
Book
.
Now
if
persons
of
a
profane
Conversation
,
though
orthodox
in
their
Judgement
and
Profession
,
be
such
doggs
as
ought
to
be
refused
Baptism
when
they
desire
it
,
surely
they
are
also
such
doggs
as
ought
to
be
refused
the
Lords
Supper
.
Moreover
,
the
onely
seeming
advantage
which
Master
Prynne
catcheth
,
is
from
the
word
doggs
(
which
yet
is
no
advantage
;
for
that
is
applied
generally
to
wicked
and
profane
persons
in
the
Scriptures
above
cited
▪
and
so
Revel.
22.
15.
)
but
he
shall
do
well
to
observe
the
word
swine
too
:
for
(
as
Grotius
upon
the
place
,
following
Chrysostome
,
doth
make
the
distinction
)
the
doggs
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
it self
doth
hint
:
for
it
mentioneth
not
onely
the
turning
again
to
rent
,
which
is
the
dogges
part
,
but
the
trampling
of
Pearls
under
feet
,
which
is
the
swines
part
.
Finally
,
this
Argument
from
Matth.
7.
hath
gained
so
much
upon
Sermo
noster
de
illis
est
,
qui
crimen
agnoscunt
&
con●…itentur
:
qui
emendationem
promi●…tunt
:
qui
Sacramentis
rectè
cum
cae●…eris
u●…i
,
quantum
judicare
nos
possumus
,
desiderant
.
Erastus
himself
,
lib.
3.
cap.
3.
that
he
restricteth
himself
to
the
admission
of
such
onely
to
the
Sacrament
as
acknowledge
and
confesse
their
fault
,
promise
amendment
,
and
desire
to
use
the
Sacraments
rightly
with
the
rest
,
so
far
as
we
are
able
to
judge
.
Which
concession
will
go
far
.
CHAP.
XVI
.
An
Argument
of
Erastus
(
drawn
from
the
Baptism
of
John
)
●gainst
the
excluding
of
scandalous
sinners
from
the
Lords
Supper
,
●xamined
.
THe
strongest
Arguments
of
Erastus
drawn
from
the
Old
Testament
,
I
have
before
discussed
.
Another
Argument
of
his
which
deserveth
an
Answer
(
for
I
take
him
in
his
greatest
strength
)
is
this
.
Iohn
Baptist
(
saith
he
)
did
baptize
all
,
none
excepted
,
who
came
to
him
to
be
baptized
;
yea
,
even
the
Pharisees
and
Sadduces
,
whom
yet
he
called
a
generation
of
Vipers
.
Answer
.
1.
They
that
were
baptized
by
Iohn
,
did
confesse
their
sins
,
and
professe
Repentance
;
and
[
l
](A42757-e112500-b)
l
Pag.
12.
Erastus
himself
brings
in
Iohn
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
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
professe
repentance
,
and
ought
not
take
upon
them
to
judge
of
mens
hearts
whether
they
do
truely
and
unfeignedly
repent
.
[
m
](A42757-e112550-b)
m
Medina
in
tertiam
partem
,
quaest.
38.
Verum
cum
non
sit
idem
,
agnoscere
se
peccatorem
,
&
con●…iteri
peccata
sua
,
recte
intelligimus
eos
sua
peccata
saltem
majora
indicasse
,
&
confessos
esse
D.
Johanni
,
sic●…t
&
Act.
19.
multi
creden●…ium
dicuntur
venisse
ad
Paulum
confitentes
&
annuntiantes
actus
suos
.
Now
all
this
maketh
for
the
suspension
from
the
Sacrament
of
all
such
as
do
not
confesse
their
sins
,
nor
professe
repentance
for
the
same
:
The
drunkard
that
will
not
confesse
his
drunkennesse
,
the
unclean
person
that
will
not
confesse
his
uncleannesse
,
the
Sabbath-breaker
that
will
not
confesse
his
breach
of
the
Sabbath
,
are
by
this
ground
to
be
excluded
;
and
so
of
other
scandalous
persons
.
We
are
not
to
judge
of
mens
hearts
▪
,
but
we
are
to
judge
of
the
external
sign●s
of
repentance
,
whether
sin
be
confessed
,
and
repentance
declared
by
some
hopeful
signes
or
not
.
2.
Neither
doth
his
argument
fully
reach
admission
to
the
Lords
Table
,
where
some
further
and
more
exact
proof
must
be
had
of
ones
fitnesse
and
qualification
for
the
communion
of
Saints
.
Even
those
that
are
of
age
when
they
are
baptized
are
but
Incipientes
:
when
they
come
to
the
Lords
Table
they
are
proficientes
:
There
is
some
more
required
in
proficients
,
then
in
Novices
and
beginners
:
as
there
is
more
required
to
fit
one
for
strong
meat
th●n
for
milk
.
3.
It
is
also
a
question
whether
those
Pharisees
that
came
to
the
baptisme
of
Iohn
were
indeed
baptized
of
him
[
n
](A42757-e112650-b)
n
In
Matth.
3.
quaest.
64.
So
Salmeron
▪
Tom.
4
Part.
1.
Tract
.
5.
Narrantur
venisse
ad
Jo●…annem
&
ad
baptis●…um
su●…m
.
Non
●…onstat
autem
an
baptisati
su●…rint
:
n●…m
Luc.
▪
7.
dicuntur
sprevisse
consilium
Dei
in
seme●…
ipsos
,
non
baptisati
a
Johanne
.
Tostatus
tells
us
some
think
they
were
not
baptized
,
and
they
prove
it
from
Luk.
7.
29
30.
And
all
the
People
that
heard
him
and
the
Publicans
justifie●…
God
,
being
baptized
with
the
Baptisme
of
John
.
But
the
Pharisees
and
Lawyers
rejected
the
Counsel
of
God
against
thems●…lves
,
being
not
baptized
of
him
.
There
is
a
controversie
whether
th●se
be
the
words
of
our
Saviour
Christ
,
or
of
the
Evangelist
Luke
.
But
there
can
be
no
controversie
of
this
,
that
the
Pharisees
and
Lawye●s
were
not
baptized
of
Iohn
,
but
the
people
and
the
pu●licans
were
.
Which
may
very
well
be
extended
to
those
Pharisees
of
whom
we
read
Matth.
3.
7.
For
the
holy
Ghost
having
said
of
the
people
,
that
they
were
baptized
of
Iohn
in
Iordan
,
confessing
their
sins
,
he
saith
no
such
thing
of
the
Pharisees
,
but
onely
that
they
came
to
his
Baptisme
(
whether
to
see
the
fashion
and
the
new
Ceremony
,
or
whether
with
an
intention
to
be
baptized
)
after
which
we
read
no
more
but
that
Iohn
gave
them
a
most
sharp
admonition
,
and
called
them
a
generation
of
vipers
,
and
told
them
that
they
should
not
glory
in
being
Abrahams
children
:
Whereupon
it
may
seem
they
went
away
displeased
and
unbaptized
.
But
when
I
compare
the
Evangelists
together
,
that
which
appears
to
me
to
be
meant
Matth.
3.
7.
concerning
many
of
the
Pharisees
comming
to
the
Baptisme
of
Iohn
,
is
that
they
were
sent
from
Ierusalem
with
a
message
to
ask
Iohn
,
Who
art
thou
?
For
they
who
were
sent
upon
that
message
were
of
the
Pharisees
,
Iohn
1.
24.
and
they
were
sent
to
Bethabara
beyond
Iordan
where
Iohn
was
baptizing
,
Iohn
1.
28.
and
a
part
of
Iohns
answer
to
them
was
,
I
baptize
with
water
,
but
there
standeth
one
among
you
whom
ye
know
not
:
&c.
Iohn
1.
26.
In
both
passages
Iohn
speaks
of
him
that
was
to
come
after
him
,
whom
he
preferreth
before
himself
.
In
both
,
he
professeth
that
he
could
do
no
more
but
baptize
with
Water
or
Ministerially
.
In
both
,
he
saith
he
was
not
worthy
to
unloose
the
latchet
of
Christs
shoe
.
So
that
many
of
the
circumstances
do
agree
with
the
story
,
Matth.
3.
and
the
other
circumstances
are
not
inconsistent
.
In
the
other
Evangelists
it
is
,
I
baptize
you
with
water
:
But
that
proves
not
that
the
Pharisees
who
were
sent
to
Iohn
,
were
baptized
,
for
Luke
doth
plainly
apply
those
words
to
the
people
Luke
3.
15.
16.
18.
But
when
the
Pharisees
asked
Iohn
,
Why
baptizest
thou
&c.
the
answer
to
them
was
not
I
baptize
you
with
Water
,
but
I
baptize
with
Water
.
[
o
](A42757-e112980-b)
o
Cent.
1.
lib.
1.
cap.
10.
The
Centurists
think
that
the
Pharisees
who
were
sent
from
Ierusalem
to
Iohn
to
ask
him
Who
art
thou
?
John
1.
were
not
sent
from
any
good
esteem
which
was
had
of
Iohn
,
but
from
malice
,
and
an
intent
to
quarrel
with
him
.
This
they
prove
because
Iohn
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
Matth.
3.
and
Iohn
1.
[
p
](A42757-e113070-b)
p
Tom.
4.
part
.
1.
Tract
.
15.
Salmeron
thinks
that
message
was
sent
to
Iohn
out
of
honour
and
respect
to
him
,
and
he
endeavours
to
confute
the
Centurists
,
but
among
all
his
answers
he
doth
not
averre
(
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
Ierusalem
to
Iohn
.
Yea
[
q
](A42757-e113120-b)
q
Ibid.
Tract
.
6.
Salmeron
himself
doth
in
another
place
observe
divers
coincidencies
between
the
story
of
that
which
passed
between
Iohn
,
and
the
Pharisees
that
came
to
his
baptism
;
and
the
story
of
that
which
passed
between
Iohn
and
the
Pharisees
that
were
sent
to
him
from
Ierusalem
.
4.
Erastus
argueth
from
the
admission
of
a
generation
of
Vipers
to
Baptisme
,
to
prove
the
lawfulnesse
of
admitting
a
generation
of
Vipers
to
the
Lords
Supper
.
But
I
argue
contrariwise
.
Such
persons
as
desire
to
be
received
into
the
Church
by
Baptisme
,
if
they
be
prophane
and
scandal
us
persons
,
ought
not
to
be
baptized
but
refused
baptisme
,
as
Augustine
proveth
in
his
Book
De
Fide
&
Operibus
.
Therefore
prophane
and
scandalous
persons
ought
much
lesse
be
admitted
unto
the
Lords
Supper
.
Of
which
Argument
more
before
.
I
conclude
with
the
[
r
](A42757-e113210-b)
r
Cent.
1.
Lib.
1.
Cap.
10.
Nequaquam
margaritas
anie
porcos
proi●…cit
:
non
quoslibet
temere
ad
Baptismum
admisit
,
sed
consitentes
peccata
sua
,
hoc
est
,
exploratos
,
&
agentes
poenitentiam
tantum
:
con●…umacos
vere
,
ac
defensores
suarum
impietatum
aut
scelerum
,
reprobavit
.
Centurists
.
Iohn
did
not
cast
pearls
before
swine
:
he
did
not
admit
rashly
any
that
would
to
Baptisme
,
but
such
as
confessed
their
sins
,
that
is
,
onely
such
as
were
tryed
and
did
repent
,
but
the
contumacious
and
the
defenders
of
their
impieties
or
crimes
he
did
reject
.
CHAP.
XVII
.
Antiquity
for
the
suspension
of
all
scandalous
persons
from
the
Sacrament
,
even
such
as
were
admitted
to
other
publik
Ordinances
.
MR.
Prynn
in
his
first
Quaere
would
have
us
beleeve
that
in
the
primitive
times
scandalous
sinners
were
ever
excommunicated
and
wholy
cast
out
of
the
Church
,
and
sequestred
from
all
other
Ordinances
,
as
well
as
from
the
Sacrament
;
And
since
(
saith
he
)
in
the
primitive
times
(
as
is
evident
by
Tertullians
Apologie
cap.
39.
De
poenitentia
lib.
and
others
)
scandalous
persons
were
ever
excommunicated
and
wholy
cast
out
of
the
Church
(
extra
gregem
dati
)
not
barely
sequestred
from
the
Sacrament
.
But
for
further
clearing
of
the
ancient
discipline
concerning
suspension
,
I
have
thought
good
here
to
take
notice
of
the
particulars
following
.
First
,
That
great
Antiquary
[
s
](A42757-e113360-b)
s
Observat.
lib.
1.
cap.
1.
Nam
eorum
in
lapsos
Judicium
ad
Eucharistiam
referri
nequit
,
quibus
post
aliquod
tempus
omnia
cum
〈◊〉
fratribus
volunt
esse
communia
,
praeter
Eucharistiam
,
cui
enim
cum
fidelibus
supplicationes
facere
&
orare
liceret
,
is
ad
omnia
quae
eram
in
societate
Christiana
,
una
excepta
Eucharistia
,
jus
habere
censebatur
.
Albaspinaeus
,
proving
that
Church
communion
or
fellowship
was
anciently
larger
than
partaking
of
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lords
Supper
;
he
proves
it
by
this
Argument
,
because
many
of
those
who
had
scandalously
fallen
,
were
admitted
to
communion
with
the
Church
in
prayer
and
all
other
Ordinances
,
the
Eucharist
onely
excepted
.
Next
,
It
is
well
known
to
the
searchers
of
Antiquity
,
that
there
were
four
degrees
of
publike
declaration
of
repentance
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
:
Which
the
Latines
call
fl●…us
,
auditio
,
substratio
,
consistentia
:
After
all
which
followed
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
the
participation
of
the
Sacrament
,
which
they
were
at
last
admitted
unto
,
and
is
therefore
mentioned
by
some
as
the
fifth
degree
,
though
(
to
speak
properly
)
it
was
not
poenal
,
nor
any
degree
of
censure
as
the
other
four
were
.
First
,
The
penitent
was
kept
weeping
at
the
Church
door
,
beseeching
those
that
went
in
to
pray
for
him
:
thereafter
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
brother
,
yet
after
the
Word
and
Prayer
.
he
went
forth
with
the
Catechumens
before
the
Sacrament
.
But
there
was
a
fourth
degree
after
all
this
;
he
might
stay
in
the
Church
,
and
see
and
hear
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
the
Sacrament
,
for
a
certain
time
after
he
was
brought
to
this
fourth
and
last
step
:
[
t
](A42757-e113430-b)
t
Albaspinaeus
Observ.
lib.
2.
Observ.
25.
Quod
si
quaeratur
quam
ob
rem
antiqui
quartum
illum
gradum
posuerint
&c.
Nulla
potest
c●…ngruentior
commodio●…
que
〈◊〉
ratio
,
quam
quae
ex
reverentia
ac
Religiene
petitur
,
qua
adversus
,
sanctam
Eucha●…istiam
fe●…ebantur
:
detetestabile
q●…ippe
Deo
&
hominilus
,
non
solum
existurabant
hominem
,
vel
levissima
macula
inquindium
,
aut
maculae
nebula
●…ffusum
,
ad
E●…haristiam
accedere
,
sed
etiam
periculosum
absolutes
poeni●…entes
eam
tangere
&
a●…ectare
,
quo●…●…on
satis
sancti
&
sanctificati
censebantur
,
quibus
tanta
res
committeretur
.
So
cautious
were
those
Ancients
in
admitting
of
men
to
the
Sacrament
,
till
they
perceived
lasting
,
continuing
,
clear
,
and
real
evidences
of
true
repentance
.
Three
of
the
degrees
above-mentioned
are
found
in
the
Canons
of
the
Councel
of
Ancyra
.
and
of
the
Councel
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
justisicable
as
the
other
three
.
But
here
is
the
point
I
desire
may
be
well
observed
,
that
of
old
in
the
fourth
and
fifth
,
yea
in
the
third
Century
,
[
u
](A42757-e113470-b)
u
Causabon
Exerc.
1●
.
pag.
397.
edit.
Francof
.
1615.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
igitur
c
mysteriis
Genti●…m
vox
accepta
,
appellabatur
statio
inter
fideles
:
ibi
poenitentes
duos
persape
annos
agebant
;
quod
ad
caetera
ejusdem
conditionis
cum
fidelibus
;
neque
jam
cum
Catechumenis
exibant
;
sola
participatione
mysteriorum
caeteris
fra●…ribus
inferiores
.
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
Lords
Supper
.
[
x
](A42757-e113510-b)
x
Conc.
Ancyr.
Can.
16
De
his
qui
irrationabiliter
versati
sunt
sive
versantur
.
Quotquot
ante
vicesimum
ae●…atis
suae
annum
,
tale
crimen
commiserint
,
quindecim
annis
exactis
in
poenitentia
,
communionem
mereantur
orati●…num
.
Deinde
quinquennio
in
hac
communione
durantes
,
tunc
dentum
oblationis
Sacramenta
contingant
.
Discutiatur
autem
vita
eorum
,
quales
tempore
poenitudinis
extiterint
.
&c.
The
Councel
of
Ancyra
held
about
the
year
308.
Can.
16.
appointeth
some
scandalous
persons
to
shew
publike
signes
of
repentance
for
15.
years
,
before
they
be
admitted
to
fellowship
with
the
Church
in
prayer
:
and
for
5.
years
thereafter
to
be
kept
off
from
the
Sacrament
.
[
y
](A42757-e113560-b)
y
Conc.
Nicaen
.
can
.
11
Duobus
autem
annis
iidem
sine
oblatione
in
oratione
sola
participent
populo
.
The
Councel
of
Nice
doth
plainly
intimate
the
same
thing
,
That
some
were
admitted
to
Prayer
,
but
not
to
the
Sacrament
.
The
different
steps
of
the
reception
of
those
that
had
fallon
may
be
likewise
proved
from
[
z
](A42757-e113590-b)
z
Conc.
Arelat.
2.
Can.
11.
Si
qui
vero
dolore
victi
&
pondere
persecutionis
negate
&
sacrificare
compulsi
sunt
,
duobus
annis
inter
Catechumenos
:
triennio
inter
poenitentes
habeantur
a
communione
suspensi
.
Of
these
Poenitentes
we
read
also
in
Codice
Canonum
Ecclesiae
Africanae
Can.
43.
&
Can
102.
And
it
is
certain
they
were
admitted
to
the
Word
,
and
some
to
Prayer
,
but
not
to
the
Sacrament
,
till
the
Church
was
abundantly
satisfied
with
the
signes
and
proofs
of
their
true
repentance
.
the
Councel
of
Arles
.
I.
Mich.
Dilherrus
Lib.
2.
Electorum
Cap.
1.
After
the
mention
of
those
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
doth
observe
that
as
Antiquity
did
goe
too
far
,
so
the
later
times
have
fallen
too
short
.
And
this
is
a
chief
cause
why
Christian
Religion
doth
hear
very
ill
among
many
,
because
Ecclesiastical
Discipline
hath
waxed
cold
[
*
](A42757-e113690-b)
*
Et
causa
non
est
postrema
cur
apud
multos
pessime
audiat
Christianismus
:
quod
disciplina
Ecclesiastica
refrixerit
.
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
.
[
a
](A42757-e113710-b)
a
Vide
apud
Theod.
Balsam
.
Can.
Greg.
Thaumat
.
Can.
11.
Fletus
seu
luctus
est
〈◊〉
p●…rtam
〈◊〉
:
ubi
peccato●…em
stantem
opo●…tet
fideles
ingredientes
orare
ut
pro
se
precentur
.
Auditio
est
intra
portam
in
porticu
,
uhi
oportet
eum
qui
peccavit
stare
,
usque
a●…
Catechumenos
,
&
illinc
egredi
.
audiens
enim
,
inquit
,
scriptaras
,
&
doctrinam
,
ejiciatur
,
&
precatione
indignus
censeatur
.
Subjectio
autem
seu
substiatio
est
,
ut
intra
Templi
portam
stans
cum
Catechumenis
egrediatur
.
Congrega●…o
seu
consistentia
est
,
ut
cum
fidelibus
consistat
,
&
cum
Catechumenis
non
egrediatur
:
●…ostremo
est
participatio
Sacramentorum
.
Gregorius
Thaumaturgus
in
his
Canonical
Epistle
concerning
those
who
in
the
time
of
the
incursion
of
the
Barbarians
,
had
eaten
things
sacrificed
to
Idols
,
and
had
committed
other
scandalous
sins
;
doth
plainly
distinguish
these
five
things
thus
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
The
weeping
is
without
the
gate
of
the
Church
,
where
the
sinner
must
stand
,
beseeching
the
faithfull
that
come
in
to
pray
for
him
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
The
hearing
is
within
the
Gate
in
the
Porch
,
where
the
sinner
may
come
no
nearer
then
the
Catechumens
,
and
thence
go
out
again
.
&c.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
The
substration
is
that
standing
within
the
Church
door
,
he
go
forth
with
the
Catechumens
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
The
consistency
is
that
he
stand
still
together
with
the
faithful
,
and
do
not
go
forth
with
the
Catechumens
.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
In
the
last
place
the
participation
of
the
holy
Mysteries
or
Sacrament
.
He
that
will
read
the
Epistles
of
Basilius
magnus
to
Amphilochius
will
find
these
five
degrees
more
particularly
distinguished
,
applyed
to
several
cases
,
and
bounded
by
distinct
intervalls
of
time
.
It
were
too
long
to
transcribe
all
:
[
b
](A42757-e113820-b)
b
Vide
apud
Theod.
Balsam
.
Canonic
.
Epist.
Basilii
ad
Amphil.
Can.
4.
Oportet
autem
non
eos
(
Trigamo●…
)
omnino
arcere
ab
Ecclesia
,
sed
dignari
auditione
duobus
vel
tribus
annis
:
&
postea
permitti
quidem
consistere
,
seu
in
fidelium
esse
Congregatione
,
a
boni
tamen
communione
abstinere
,
&
sic
postquam
poenitentiae
fructum
ullum
ostender●…nt
,
communionis
loco
restituere
.
Ibid.
Can.
61.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
anno
a
sola
Sacramentorum
commun●…one
arcebitur
.
Ibid.
Can.
82.
Qui
autem
sine
necessitate
suam
fidem
〈◊〉
.
cum
duobus
annis
defleverint
,
&
duobus
annis
audiverint
,
&
in
quinio
in
substratione
fuerint
,
&
in
duobus
aliis
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
sine
oblatione
in
orationis
communionem
suscepti
extiterint
,
ita
tandem
condigna
scilicet
poenitentia
ostensa
,
in
corpo●…is
Christi
communionem
recipientur
.
The
like
see
Can.
56.
Can.
64.
Can.
66.
Can.
80.
I
shall
onely
give
you
some
most
plain
passages
to
prove
that
there
was
in
Basils
time
a
suspension
from
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lords
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
Conc.
Ancyr
.
Can.
4.
Can.
5.
Can.
6.
Can.
7.
Can.
8.
Can.
9.
Co●…t
.
Nican
.
Can.
11.
Can.
12.
Can.
13.
Can.
14.
I
do
not
mean
to
approve
the
too
great
severity
of
this
ancient
Discipline
,
nor
do
I
hold
it
agreeable
to
the
Will
of
Christ
,
that
such
as
give
good
signes
of
true
Repentance
,
and
do
humbly
confesse
and
really
forsake
their
sin
,
having
also
made
publike
declaration
of
their
Repentance
to
the
Church
for
removing
the
publike
scandal
,
ought
notwithstanding
of
all
this
,
to
be
suspended
from
the
Sacrament
when
they
desire
to
receiv●
it
.
For
the
Word
doth
not
warrant
the
suspending
of
scandalous
sinners
from
the
Sacrament
,
until
such
a
set
determinate
time
be
expired
,
but
onely
till
they
give
sufficient
evidence
of
Repentance
.
But
setting
aside
this
and
such
like
circumstances
,
the
thing
it self
,
the
suspending
of
a
scandalous
person
from
the
Sacrament
,
who
is
not
nor
ought
not
to
be
suspended
from
assembling
,
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
Councel
of
Ancyra
Can.
5.
16.
doth
also
appoint
the
time
of
suspension
from
the
Sacrament
to
be
made
shorter
or
longer
,
according
as
the
signes
of
true
Repentance
should
sooner
or
later
,
more
or
lesse
appear
in
the
offender
.
So
doth
the
Councel
of
Nice
Can.
12.
And
the
Councel
of
Carthage
held
under
Honorius
and
Theodosius
the
lesser
.
Can.
46.
If
any
man
shall
obj●ct
against
me
and
say
;
Peradventure
the
Penitents
before
spoken
of
,
were
onely
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
Councels
of
Ancyra
,
and
Nice
,
nor
of
Gregorius
Thaumaturgus
and
Basilius
magnus
,
nor
yet
the
Commentators
Zonaras
and
Balsamon
,
apply
these
five
degrees
above
mentioned
to
persons
who
had
been
excommunicated
,
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
persecuters
,
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
offence
;
No
man
that
hath
searched
antiquity
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
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
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
Persecuter
)
were
put
to
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
or
consistentia
,
which
was
a
suspension
or
abstention
from
the
Sacrament
,
even
when
the
person
was
admitted
to
hear
and
pray
with
the
Church
.
Wherefore
the
degrees
afore-mentioned
were
degrees
of
receiving
into
the
Communion
of
the
Church
scandalous
persons
professing
repentance
.
Secondly
,
The
61.
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
restrained
from
the
Communion
of
the
holy
Mysteries
onely
.
But
if
he
be
convict
,
the
space
of
two
yeers
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
theef
accusing
himself
,
was
excommunicated
?
It
is
more
then
manifest
that
here
was
a
suspension
of
an
offender
not
excommunicated
.
For
assoon
as
the
offence
was
known
by
the
offenders
accusing
of
himself
,
he
was
suspended
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
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
or
to
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
but
onely
to
the
third
and
fourth
degrees
.
Thirdly
,
By
the
13th
.
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
yeers
;
and
by
the
55.
Canon
,
he
also
that
killed
a
Robber
was
suspended
from
the
Sacrament
.
I
do
not
justifie
these
Canons
,
but
only
I
cite
them
to
prove
,
that
by
the
Ancient
Discipline
Persons
not
excommunicated
were
suspended
from
the
Sacrament
:
for
no
man
can
imagine
that
a
Souldier
shedding
blood
in
a
lawful
war
,
or
a
man
killing
a
Robber
on
the
high
way
was
therefor
excommunicated
.
Fourthly
,
The
eighth
general
Councel
called
Synodus
prima
&
secunds
,
held
about
the
yeer
869.
in
the
thirteenth
Canon
,
speaking
of
certain
turbulent
Schismaticks
(
not
being
of
the
Clergie
as
the
Canon
speaketh
,
but
Laicks
or
Monks
)
appointeth
this
censure
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
Let
them
be
totally
or
altogether
separated
from
the
Church
.
Which
intimateth
that
there
was
a
lesser
degree
of
being
separated
or
suspended
from
communion
with
the
Church
.
Zonaras
upon
that
Canon
doth
so
understand
it
,
and
distinguisheth
a
double
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
[
c
](A42757-e114350-b)
c
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
For
it
is
also
a
separation
(
saith
he
)
to
be
excluded
or
restrained
from
the
receiving
of
the
Divine
Mysteries
onely
.
But
there
is
another
separation
,
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
&
minor
,
the
greater
and
lesser
excommunication
.
For
which
also
I
shall
give
you
another
proof
as
clear
and
older
too
,
taken
from
the
61.
Canon
of
the
sixth
general
Councel
,
where
it
is
decreed
that
those
who
resort
to
Magicians
,
Charmers
,
Fortune-tellers
,
and
such
others
who
professe
curious
and
unlawful
arts
,
shall
fall
under
the
Canon
of
six
years
separation
.
But
as
for
those
who
per●…ist
in
such
things
,
and
do
not
turn
away
nor
flee
from
these
pernicious
and
Heathenish
studies
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
We
appoint
them
to
be
altogether
cast
out
of
the
Church
.
Mark
the
gradation
in
the
Canon
,
and
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
And
hear
Balsamon
his
explanation
upon
it
.
Note
from
this
present
Canon
(
saith
he
)
that
he
who
sinneth
and
converteth
,
obtaineth
favour
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
and
is
punished
in
a
lesser
measure
;
But
he
who
persevereth
in
the
evil
,
and
is
not
willingly
reduced
to
that
which
is
better
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
is
greatly
punished
.
For
here
also
he
that
commeth
and
confesseth
the
sin
,
is
to
be
punished
with
six
yeers
segregation
:
but
he
that
persevereth
in
the
evil
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
is
to
be
east
out
or
expelled
from
the
Church
:
adde
what
he
had
said
before
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
and
shall
not
thenceforth
converse
with
the
Orthodox
.
Which
intimateth
as
plainly
as
any
thing
can
be
,
that
there
was
an
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
a
segregation
or
sequestration
used
in
the
ancient
Church
,
which
was
a
lesser
censure
than
casting
out
of
the
Church
and
from
the
company
of
Church-members
.
Zonaras
seemeth
to
understand
the
Canon
otherwise
.
(
for
he
saith
nothing
of
the
offenders
converting
and
confessing
his
sin
before
the
six
years
segregation
;
but
that
for
the
offence
it self
(
committed
,
not
confessed
)
a
man
was
segregated
six
years
,
and
afterward
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
Councel
,
better
then
Balsamon
.
However
in
that
point
which
I
now
prove
,
they
are
most
harmonious
,
namely
concerning
a
greater
and
lesser
excommunication
.
Wherefore
also
the
Fathers
of
this
Synod
(
saith
Zonaras
)
did
ordain
those
who
do
such
a
thing
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
to
be
segregated
for
six
years
,
&c.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
but
if
they
continue
therein
,
to
be
also
cut
off
from
the
Church
.
Fifthly
,
To
suppose
that
there
were
no
Poenitentes
in
the
Ancient
Church
but
such
as
were
Excommunicati
,
were
a
greater
error
then
that
it
should
need
any
Confutation
.
Yea
there
were
some
poenitents
who
did
of
their
own
accord
confesse
their
offences
which
could
not
have
been
otherwise
known
but
by
such
voluntary
confession
:
and
those
saith
Zonaras
Annot.
in
Conc.
Carth.
Can.
46.
were
most
properly
called
Poenitents
,
I
hope
no
man
will
imagine
that
such
were
excommunicated
.
But
so
it
was
that
all
the
Poenitents
(
even
such
as
had
neither
been
excommunicated
nor
yet
forensically
convict
by
proof
of
scandal
,
but
did
voluntarily
confesse
and
convert
)
were
for
some
season
kept
back
from
the
Sacrament
,
as
is
manifest
by
that
instance
given
out
of
Basilius
magnus
,
of
theft
voluntarily
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
sequestred
from
the
exercise
of
their
Ministery
,
which
suspension
or
sequestration
is
sometimes
called
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
to
be
separate
,
sometimes
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
to
be
sequestred
from
communion
,
to
wit
in
the
exercise
of
the
Ministery
,
or
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
not
to
minister
There
was
a
higher
censure
then
this
,
which
was
deposition
or
degradation
,
called
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
the
honour
or
degree
of
Presbytership
to
be
taken
away
;
Basils
phrase
is
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
they
are
deposed
from
their
degree
.
These
two
censures
,
a
suspension
or
sequestration
from
the
Ministery
,
and
a
total
deposition
from
the
Ministery
are
distinguished
by
the
eighteenth
Canon
of
the
Councel
of
Ancyra
,
and
the
sixteenth
Canon
of
the
Councel
of
Nic●…
,
compared
with
the
fifteenth
Canon
of
those
called
the
Apostles
,
(
which
certainly
were
not
the
Apostles
,
yet
are
ancient
)
See
also
Zonaras
in
Can.
11.
Apost.
Likewise
both
him
and
Balsamon
in
Conc.
Nic.
Can.
16.
Again
there
was
somthing
beyond
all
this
,
which
was
excommunication
or
to
be
wholy
cast
out
of
the
Church
,
a
censure
sometime
not
inflicted
when
the
former
were
:
For
a
Minister
might
be
suspended
,
yea
deposed
from
his
Ministery
,
yet
permitted
to
communicate
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
appointed
for
Bishops
and
Presbyters
,
how
shall
we
suppose
that
there
was
no
lesse
censure
for
Church-members
then
excommunication
?
For
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
to
a
Minister
,
and
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
to
one
of
the
people
,
were
paralel
.
Whence
it
is
that
you
will
often
find
in
the
ancient
Canons
,
and
namely
of
the
sixth
general
Councel
,
He
that
committeth
such
a
fault
,
if
he
be
one
of
the
laity
,
let
him
be
segregated
,
if
one
of
the
Clergie
,
let
him
be
deposed
.
As
therefore
a
further
censure
after
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
might
fall
upon
a
minister
;
so
a
further
censure
after
that
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
might
be
inflicted
upon
one
of
the
people
.
I
have
now
made
it
to
appear
that
the
Practice
,
Discipline
,
and
Canons
of
the
ancient
Church
,
are
for
us
in
this
present
controversie
about
suspension
from
the
Sacrament
.
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
Isidorus
P●…lusiota
who
flourished
about
the
year
431.
or
(
as
others
say
)
440.
In
the
first
Book
of
his
Epistles
,
Epist.
143
,
to
Thalel●…us
he
disswadeth
from
giving
the
Sacrament
to
three
sort
of
persons
.
1.
To
Jews
.
2.
To
Hereticks
,
of
both
which
he
saith
that
they
had
once
received
the
doctrine
of
truth
,
but
did
after
return
with
the
dog
to
the
vomit
.
3.
To
persons
of
a
prophane
and
swinish
conversation
.
[
d
](A42757-e114920-b)
d
Margaritas
item
ne
ante
porcos
projiciamus
,
divino
interdict●
prohibemur
,
hoc
est
ante
e●s
qui
in
vitiosis
affectibus
volutantur
,
ac
porcinum
vitae
genus
sequuntur
:
ne
forte
conculcent
eas
pedibus
,
nimirum
in
sceleratis
suis
studiis
divino
nomini
contumeliam
inferentes
:
&
conversi
disrumptant
vos
.
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
before
swine
.
And
he
concludeth
thus
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
For
saith
he
the
giving
of
the
mysteries
to
such
persons
,
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
▪
Act.
17.
But
certainly
he
is
an
Ancient
Writer
as
is
manifest
by
the
Scholia
upon
him
,
written
by
Maximus
who
flourished
about
the
year
657.
He
is
also
cited
by
the
sixth
general
Councel
,
and
by
some
ancient
writers
)
de
Ecclesiastica
Hierarchia
cap.
3.
part
.
3.
Sect.
6.
7.
having
spoken
of
the
exclusion
of
the
Catechumens
,
Energumens
,
and
Penitents
from
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lords
Supper
,
though
all
these
heard
the
word
read
and
preached
,
he
addeth
that
unclean
,
carnal
,
prophane
persons
in
whom
Sathan
reigneth
by
sin
,
are
worse
,
and
ought
much
lesse
to
be
admitted
to
the
Sacrament
,
then
those
who
were
bodily
possessed
of
the
divel
.
These
therefore
(
unclean
and
profane
persons
)
as
the
first
,
and
much
rather
then
those
(
Energumens
)
let
them
be
suspended
or
sequestrate
by
the
judicial
or
discriminating
voice
of
the
Minister
:
for
it
is
not
permitted
unto
them
to
partake
of
any
other
holy
thing
,
but
the
Ministery
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
)
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
not
admitting
him
who
is
not
altogether
most
holy
,
&c.
(
for
that
most
pure
voice
doth
also
restrain
those
who
cannot
be
joyned
and
knit
together
with
such
as
do
worthily
communicate
in
those
divine
mysteries
)
surely
the
multitude
of
those
in
whom
vile
lusts
and
passions
do
reigne
,
is
much
more
prophane
,
and
hath
much
lesse
to
do
with
the
fight
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
fornicators
,
lovers
and
frequenters
of
unlawful
plaies
,
such
as
the
divine
Apostle
having
mentioned
,
doth
subjoyn
with
such
a
one
no
not
to
eat
.
Where
Mr.
Prynn
may
also
note
by
the
way
how
anciently
1
Cor.
5.
11.
was
applied
,
so
as
might
furnish
an
argument
against
the
admission
of
scandalous
persons
to
the
Sacrament
.
Let
us
also
hear
the
Paraphrast
Pachimeres
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
throughly
or
wholy
purified
and
sanctified
,
as
it
were
proclaiming
it self
invisible
and
incommunicable
unto
all
who
are
not
worthy
to
communicate
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
much
more
they
who
are
yet
impenitent
are
to
be
restrained
from
it
.
If
you
please
to
search
further
,
take
but
one
passage
of
[
e
](A42757-e115200-b)
e
Cypr.
lib.
3.
Ep.
14.
Na●…
cum
in
mi●…oribus
peccatis
agant
peccatores
poenitentiam
justo
tempore
,
&
secundum
disciplinae
ordinem
a
l
exomologesin
veniant
,
&
per
manus
impositionem
Episcopi
&
Cleri
jus
communicationis
accipiant
;
Nunc
●…udo
tempore
,
persecutione
adhuc
perseverante
,
nondum
restituta
Ecclesiae
ipsius
pace
,
ad
communicationem
admittuntur
,
&
〈◊〉
nomen
●…orum
,
&
nondum
poenitentia
acta
,
nondum
exomologest
facta
,
nondum
manu
eis
ab
Episcopo
&
Clero
imposita
,
Eucharistia
illis
datur
,
cum
scriptum
sit
,
Qui
ederit
l'anem
aut
biber●…t
Calicem
Domini
indigne
,
reus
erit
Corporis
&
sanguinis
Domini
.
Cyprian
,
which
speaks
plainly
to
me
for
suspension
from
the
Sacrament
,
for
he
sharply
reproves
the
receiving
to
the
Sacrament
such
persons
as
were
not
excommunicate
(
for
if
they
had
,
most
certainly
he
had
mentioned
that
as
the
most
aggravating
circumstance
)
but
having
committed
smaller
offences
,
had
not
made
out
the
course
of
publike
manifesting
their
repentance
according
to
the
discipline
of
the
Church
.
If
we
shall
require
more
,
we
have
a
most
plain
Testimony
of
Iustine
Martyr
,
telling
us
that
at
that
time
they
admitted
none
to
the
Lords
Supper
except
those
onely
who
had
these
three
qualifications
.
1.
They
must
receive
and
beleeve
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
.
This
food
is
with
us
called
the
Eucharist
,
which
is
lawful
for
none
other
to
partake
of
,
but
to
him
that
beleeveth
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
commanded
.
g
Walasridus
Strabo
(
a
diligent
searcher
of
the
Ancients
Unde
etiam
criminum
foeditate
capitalium
,
a
membris
Christi
deviantes
,
ab
ipsis
Sacramentis
Ecclesiastico
suspenduntur
judicio
.
Et
infra
.
Sciendum
enim
a
sanctis
Patribus
ob
hoc
vel
maxime
constitutum
,
ut
mortaliter
peccantes
a
Sacramentis
Dominicis
arceantur
,
ne
indigne
ea
percipientes
,
vel
majore
reatu
involvantur
,
ut
Judas
,
&c.
Vel
ne
(
quod
Apostolus
de
Corinthiis
dicit
)
infirmitatem
corporis
&
imbecillitatem
,
ipsamque
mortem
praesumptores
incurrant
.
Et
ut
a
communione
susperst
,
terrore
ejus
exclusionis
,
&
quodam
condemnationis
Anathemate
compellantur
,
studiosius
poenitentiae
medicamentum
appete●…e
,
&
avidius
recuperandae
salutis
desideriis
inhiare
.
which
were
before
him
,
and
of
the
old
Ecclesiastical
Rites
)
who
died
about
the
year
849.
mentioneth
this
suspension
from
the
Sacrament
,
as
an
Ecclesiastical
censure
received
from
the
Ancient
Fathers
:
and
he
gives
three
reasons
for
it
,
to
prove
that
it
is
for
the
sinners
own
good
to
be
thus
suspended
.
1.
That
he
may
not
involve
himself
in
greater
guiltinesse
.
2.
That
he
may
not
be
chastened
of
the
Lord
with
sicknesse
and
such
other
afflictions
as
the
profanation
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
Chrysostome
must
not
be
forgotten
.
He
in
his
tenth
Homily
upon
Matthew
expounding
those
words
Matth.
3.
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
prophane
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
filthinesse
they
might
come
with
a
clean
Conscience
to
the
Lords
Table
.
His
meaning
is
,
That
neither
the
unbaptized
nor
scandalous
livers
though
they
were
baptized
,
might
be
admitted
to
the
Lords
Table
,
whereupon
he
concludeth
:
Let
us
therefore
abstain
from
this
l●…ud
and
dissolute
life
.
[
h
](A42757-e115410-b)
h
Tempus
quidem
confessionis
,
aeque
&
lotis
baptismate
,
&
illotis
prophanisque
incumbit
:
illis
quidem
ut
post
patentia
criminum
vulnera
poenitentia
inter
veniente
curentur
,
&
ad
sacra
Mysteria
redire
mereantur
:
his
vero
ut
ablutis
in
Baptisino
maculis
,
ad
Dominicam
mensam
munda
jam
Conscientia
accedant
.
The
Latin
Translation
rendring
the
sence
rather
then
the
words
,
speaketh
more
plainly
.
But
there
is
a
most
full
and
plain
passage
of
Chrysostome
in
his
83.
Homily
upon
Matthew
,
neer
the
end
thereof
,
where
he
saith
of
the
Lords
Supper
,
Let
no
cruel
one
,
no
unmerciful
one
,
none
any
way
impure
,
come
unto
it
.
I
speak
these
things
both
to
you
that
do
receive
,
and
also
to
you
that
do
administer
.
Even
to
you
this
is
necessary
to
be
told
,
that
with
great
care
and
heedfulnes
you
distribute
these
gifts
.
There
doth
no
small
punishment
abide
you
,
if
you
permit
any
whose
wickednesse
you
know
,
to
partake
of
this
Table
:
for
his
blood
shall
be
required
at
your
hands
.
If
therefore
any
Captain
,
if
the
Consul
,
if
he
himself
that
wears
the
Crown
come
unworthily
,
restrain
him
,
which
to
do
thou
hast
more
authority
then
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
tel
you
a
horrible
thing
,
it
is
not
so
ill
to
have
among
you
those
that
are
bodily
possessed
of
the
Divel
,
as
these
sinners
which
I
speak
of
,
&c.
[
i
](A42757-e115460-b)
i
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Let
us
therefore
put
back
not
onely
such
as
are
possessed
,
but
ALL
WITHOUT
DISTINCTION
WHOM
WE
SEE
TO
COME
UNWORTHILY
,
&c.
But
if
thou
thy self
darest
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
Lords
blood
unworthily
,
and
contrary
to
my
duty
(
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
)
to
such
as
are
horribly
scandalous
.
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
Communicants
.
Can
any
man
imagine
that
all
such
unworthy
persons
were
excommunicate
and
wholy
cast
out
of
the
Church
?
Do
not
all
Chrysostomes
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
onely
excommunicate
persons
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
excluded
from
the
Sacrament
but
those
that
were
branded
with
the
publike
infamy
of
excommunication
,
what
needed
this
objection
to
be
moved
,
how
shall
I
know
such
?
Moreover
,
Both
Cyprian
and
[
k
](A42757-e115550-b)
k
Ambros.
lib.
2.
de
offic.
cap.
27.
cui
titulus
:
De
be
▪
nignitate
&
quod
excommunicatio
tardius
sit
exerenda
;
saith
thus
Sic
Episcopi
affectus
boni
est
ut
〈◊〉
sanare
infirmo●…
,
serpentia
auserre
ulcera
,
ADURERE
ALIQUA
NON
ABSCINDERE
:
postremo
quod
sanari
non
potest
,
cum
dolore
abscindere
.
Ambrose
do
most
plainly
and
undeniably
hold
forth
different
degrees
of
Church
censures
,
and
[
l
](A42757-e115590-b)
l
Cypr.
lib.
1.
Epist.
1●
or
according
to
Pamelius
his
Edition
Epist.
62.
Quod
si
poenitentiam
hujus
illiciti
concubitus
sui
egerint
,
&
a
se
invicem
recesserint
,
inspiciantur
interim
Virgines
ab
obstetricibus
diligenter
,
&
si
Virgines
inventae
fuerint
,
accepta
communicatione
ad
Ecclesiam
admittantur
,
hac
tamen
interminatione
ut
si
ad
eosdem
masculos
postmodum
reversae
suerint
,
aut
si
cum
eisdem
in
una
domo
&
sub
eodem
tecto
simul
habitaverint
,
GRAVIORE
CENSURA
ejiciantur
,
nec
in
Ecclesiam
postmodum
facile
recipiantur
.
Si
autem
de
eis
aliqua
corrupta
fuerit
deprehensa
,
AGAT
POENITENTIAM
PLENAM
.
Cyprian
is
most
full
and
clear
concerning
a
suspension
from
the
Sacrament
of
persons
not
excommunicated
nor
cast
out
of
the
Church
.
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
professe
repentance
,
and
forsake
such
scandalous
conversing
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
publike
Declaration
of
repentance
,
and
so
not
be
so
soon
admitted
to
,
but
longer
susspended
from
the
Sacrament
.
Adde
hereunto
a
passage
in
[
m
](A42757-e115660-b)
m
Aug.
lib.
contra
Donatist
.
post
collationem
cap.
4.
Ita
sane
ut
nec
emendationis
vigilantia
quiescat
,
corripiendo
,
degradando
,
excommunicando
,
cae●…erisque
coe
citionibus
licitis
atque
concessis
,
quae
salva
unitatis
pace
in
Ecclesia
quotidie
fiunt
,
secundum
praeceptum
Apostolicum
charitate
se●…vata
,
qui
dixit
,
Si
quis
autem
non
obaudit
verbo
nostro
.
&c.
Augustine
plainly
intimating
that
at
that
time
,
beside
reprehension
,
degradation
,
and
excommunication
,
there
were
other
censures
daily
used
in
the
Church
according
to
the
Apostles
commandement
,
1
Thess.
3.
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
Excommunication
,
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
scandalous
and
prophane
persons
(
not
excommunicated
)
from
the
Sacraments
:
I
appeal
for
further
proof
hereof
to
one
passage
more
of
Augustine
de
fide
&
operibus
cap.
18.
[
n
](A42757-e115710-b)
n
Meretrices
&
hist●iones
&
quilibet
alii
publicae
turpitu
dinis
professores
,
nist
solutis
out
di●uptis
talibus
vinculis
,
ad
Christi
Sacramenta
non
permittun●ur
accedere
:
qui
utique
secundum
istorum
sententiam
omnes
admitterentur
,
nisi
antiquum
&
robustum
morem
sancta
Ecclesia
retineret
ex
illa
scilicet
liquidissima
verita●e
venientem
,
qua
cer●um
habet
,
quoniam
qui
talia
agunt
,
Regnum
Dei
non
p●ssidebunt
.
Whores
,
Stage-players
,
and
others
whosoever
they
be
that
are
Professors
of
publike
filthinesse
,
except
such
bonds
(
of
Wickednesse
)
be
loosed
and
broken
,
are
not
permitted
to
come
unto
the
Sacraments
of
Christ
:
which
forsooth
according
to
their
judgment
(
that
is
such
as
would
have
profane
persons
baptized
as
well
as
others
)
should
be
all
admitted
,
unlesse
the
holy
Church
should
retain
the
ancient
and
vigorous
custom
,
which
commeth
from
the
most
clear
truth
,
by
which
she
hath
it
for
certain
,
that
they
who
do
such
things
,
shall
not
inherit
the
Kingdom
of
God
.
Whence
it
will
certainly
follow
,
that
all
who
were
excluded
from
the
Lords
Table
were
not
excommunicated
persons
:
For
first
,
The
Church
did
keep
back
such
scandalous
persons
upon
this
ground
,
because
those
who
are
known
to
live
without
repentance
in
any
of
those
sins
,
of
which
the
Apostle
saith
that
they
who
do
such
things
shall
not
inherit
the
Kingdom
of
God
,
are
not
fit
to
be
admittrd
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
,
Augustine
is
there
confuting
the
opinion
of
some
(
whom
he
calls
Fratres
qui
aliter
sapiunt
,
Brethren
who
otherwise
understood
themselves
well
)
whose
Principles
did
admit
to
the
Sacraments
all
uncleane
and
scandalous
persons
:
which
cannot
be
meant
of
excommunicated
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
Sacrament
of
Baptisme
onely
,
(
of
which
principally
and
purposely
he
treateth
in
that
Book
)
he
speaketh
in
the
plural
of
the
Sacraments
of
Christ
.
Observe
also
these
passages
of
Gregory
called
the
great
,
Epist.
Lib.
2.
Cap.
65.
Sicut
exigente
culpâ
,
quis
à
Sacramento
communionis
dignè
suspenditur
,
ita
insontibus
nullo
modo
talis
debet
irrogari
vinaicta
.
Ibid.
Cap.
66.
Et
si
in
vestra
cognitione
cujusquam
●…um
facinorosi
criminis
reum
esse
patuerit
,
tunc
ex
nostra
auctoritate
non
solum
Dominici
Corporis
&
Sanguinis
communione
privatu●…
fit
,
verum●…tiam
in
Monasterium
ubi
poenitentiam
agere
debeat
,
retrudatur
.
And
so
much
for
Antiquity
in
this
Question
.
CHAP.
XVIII
.
A
Discovery
of
the
instability
and
loosenesse
of
Mr.
Prynn
his
Principles
,
even
to
the
contradicting
of
himself
in
twelve
particulars
.
I
Shall
not
need
to
insist
upon
his
tenth
point
of
difference
Vindic.
pag.
49.
nor
upon
his
four
following
Quaerees
and
Conclusion
,
in
all
which
there
is
no
new
material
point
,
but
a
repetition
of
divers
particulars
spoken
to
and
debated
else-where
.
As
touching
that
hint
of
a
new
Argument
pag.
56.
Consider
the
Parabl●…
of
the
mariage
of
the
Kings
son
,
where
the
King
sent
forth
his
servants
to
invite
guests
to
the
wedding
Supper
,
who
gathered
together
ALL
they
found
,
both
BAD
and
good
,
that
the
wedding
might
be
furnished
with
guests
.
Matth.
22.
1.
to
11.
I
answer
,
1.
Some
understand
here
by
the
bad
vers.
10.
those
who
had
formerly
(
before
they
were
called
and
brought
home
by
the
Gospel
)
been
the
worst
and
most
vicious
among
the
Heathens
,
so
that
the
words
both
bad
and
good
make
not
a
distinction
of
two
sorts
of
Christians
or
Church-members
,
but
of
two
sorts
of
Heathens
not
yet
called
,
some
of
them
were
good
,
some
of
them
bad
comparitively
,
that
is
,
some
of
them
much
better
then
others
,
some
of
them
much
worse
.
So
Grotius
,
and
long
before
him
Hierome
and
Theophylact
upon
the
place
.
2.
Others
(
as
Bucerus
,
Tossanus
,
Cartwright
,
[
o
](A42757-e115980-b)
o
In
Matth.
22.
Neque
enim
apertos
ac
palam
malos
,
Apostoli
aut
ulli
sancti
Evangelii
praecones
congregare
,
&
Ecclesiae
communioni
per
Sacramenta
aggregare
potuerunt
aut
congregarunt
,
quod
tales
a
communione
Ecclesiae
tanquam
pestes
illius
sint
arcendi
,
sed
congregarunt
opertos
ac●…ectos
,
quos
quia
sub
ovina
pelle
sunt
lupi
&
sub
externa
fidei
&
vitae
●…bristianae
specie
,
internam
fraudem
ac
impietatem
tegunt
(
atque
ita
vere
bonis
exterius
pares
,
imo
interdum
superiores
apparent
)
idcirco
ab
Apostolis
aliisque
Evangelii
praeconibus
dignosci
non
potuerunt
.
&c.
Gomarus
)
understand
by
the
bad
,
close
Hypocrites
who
appear
good
so
far
as
the
Ministers
and
Officers
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
and
known
prophane
persons
.
That
Synecdoche
generis
,
is
often
used
in
Scripture
,
is
proved
by
Sal.
Glassius
Philolog
.
sacrae
lib.
5.
Tract
.
1.
Cap.
14.
3.
I
throw
back
an
Argument
from
the
same
Parable
against
himself
,
for
the
King
sheweth
his
servants
that
he
will
have
unworthy
persons
kept
back
from
the
marriage
feast
,
vers.
8.
Then
saith
he
to
his
servants
,
the
Wedding
is
ready
,
but
they
which
were
bidden
were
not
worthy
,
Luk.
14.
24.
For
I
say
unto
unto
you
,
that
none
of
those
men
which
were
bidden
shall
tast
of
my
Supper
.
The
King
makes
it
also
known
that
he
alloweth
none
to
come
in
to
this
Mariage
Feast
,
except
such
onely
as
have
the
Wedding
garment
(
or
as
the
Syriak
Wedding
garments
)
upon
them
.
All
which
is
inconsistent
with
Mr.
Prynns
principles
concerning
the
admission
of
known
scandalous
unworthy
persons
to
the
Sacrament
,
as
to
a
converting
Ordinance
.
4.
And
if
all
must
be
brought
in
or
let
in
to
the
Lords
Supper
,
both
bad
and
good
promiseuously
and
without
distinction
,
then
it
should
follow
that
the
Ordinances
of
Parliament
concerning
the
suspension
of
all
sorts
of
scandalous
persons
from
the
Sacrament
are
contrary
to
the
Will
of
Christ
:
And
that
Mr.
Prynn
himself
in
yeelding
●…ag
.
50.
and
else-where
,
that
scandalous
impenitent
obstinate
persons
ought
to
be
not
onely
suspended
but
excommunicated
,
doth
yeeld
what
his
Argument
concludes
to
be
unlawful
.
And
so
I
come
to
that
which
I
have
here
proposed
,
viz.
the
instability
and
loosenesse
of
Mr.
Prynns
principles
in
this
controversie
.
By
comparing
divers
passages
together
,
I
find
that
he
doth
professe
and
pretend
to
yeeld
the
Question
,
which
yet
he
doth
not
yeeld
really
and
indeed
.
First
,
It
is
to
be
observed
that
he
deserteth
Erastus
and
that
party
in
the
point
of
Excommunication
.
For
in
the
vindication
of
his
four
Questions
pag.
2.
he
readily
yeeldeth
that
grosse
notorious
scandalous
obstinate
sinners
,
who
presumptuously
persevere
in
their
iniquities
,
after
private
and
publike
admonitions
,
without
remorse
of
Conscience
or
AMENDMENT
,
may
be
justly
excommunicated
from
the
Church
,
the
society
of
the
faithful
,
and
all
publike
Ordinances
,
after
due
proof
and
legal
conviction
of
their
scandalous
lives
:
and
that
1.
Cor.
5.
13.
warrants
thus
much
.
The
Antidote
animadverted
by
P.
in
the
first
page
yeeldeth
that
excommunication
is
an
Ordinance
of
God
.
And
indeed
1
Cor.
5.
13.
doth
not
onely
warrant
excommunication
as
lawful
,
but
injoyn
and
command
it
as
necessary
;
for
the
Apostles
words
are
praeceptive
and
peremptory
:
Therefore
put
away
from
among
your selves
that
wicked
person
.
The
thing
was
not
indifferent
,
but
necessary
and
such
as
could
not
without
sin
be
omitted
.
However
Mr.
Prynn
his
asserting
from
that
place
that
it
may
be
,
is
a
deserting
of
the
Erastian
party
.
2.
In
the
50.
page
of
his
vindication
he
professeth
that
his
Antagonists
do
contend
for
that
which
he
granteth
them
with
advantage
.
They
would
have
scandalous
sinners
suspended
from
the
Sacrament
.
He
will
have
them
not
onely
suspended
from
the
Sacrament
,
but
excommunicated
from
all
other
publike
Ordinances
.
3.
He
confesseth
ibid.
that
in
some
cases
a
person
not
excommunicated
may
be
suspended
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
publike
admonitions
,
reprehensions
,
rebukes
contemned
or
neglected
.
See
both
these
pag.
50.
Whence
you
see
that
with
Mr.
Prynns
consent
all
the
votes
of
Parliament
concerning
several
causes
of
suspension
from
the
Lords
Table
,
shall
be
of
no
use
to
Presbyteries
,
until
after
a
long
processe
of
time
,
and
after
many
previous
publike
admonitions
,
So
that
if
one
in
the
Congregation
commit
a
notorious
incest
or
murther
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
cannot
suspend
such
an
abominable
scandalous
sinner
from
the
Sacrament
,
hac
vice
:
but
must
first
go
through
all
those
preparatory
steps
which
are
necessary
and
requisite
before
excommunication
.
Well
:
but
after
all
those
publike
previous
admonitions
,
shall
the
sentence
of
excommunication
follow
?
Nay
,
here
also
he
will
have
Presbyteries
to
go
through
a
very
narrow
lane
:
for
in
the
same
place
he
thus
describeth
the
persons
whom
he
would
have
to
be
excommunicated
;
They
are
scandalous
,
obstinate
,
peremptory
,
incorrigible
,
notorious
sinners
,
who
desperately
and
professedly
persevere
in
their
grosse
scandalous
sins
,
&c.
But
I
beseech
you
,
what
if
they
persevere
in
their
grosse
scandalous
sins
neither
desperately
nor
professedly
?
Must
they
not
then
be
excommunicate
?
Shall
not
the
offender
be
cast
out
of
the
Church
after
clear
proof
of
the
offence
,
and
several
previous
publike
admonitions
contemned
or
neglected
?
Must
we
wait
till
the
adulterer
professe
that
he
will
persevere
in
his
adultery
;
and
till
the
blasphemer
professe
that
he
will
persevere
in
his
blasphemy
?
Nay
further
,
What
if
the
offender
do
neither
〈◊〉
nor
actually
persevere
in
his
grosse
scandalous
sin
?
Put
case
he
that
hath
blasphemed
once
do
not
blaspheme
the
second
time
:
and
that
he
who
grossely
and
scandalously
prophaned
the
Lords
day
,
did
it
but
once
,
and
hath
not
done
it
again
since
he
was
reproved
.
Must
this
hinder
the
sentence
of
excommunication
,
when
that
one
grosse
scandal
is
not
confessed
,
nor
any
signe
of
repentance
appearing
in
the
offender
?
Moreover
whereas
Mr.
Prynn
in
his
fourth
Quare
,
and
in
several
places
of
his
Vindication
seemeth
to
allow
none
to
be
admitted
to
the
Lords
Table
except
such
as
professe
sincere
repentance
for
sins
past
,
and
promise
newnesse
of
life
for
time
to
come
.
If
we
expound
his
meaning
by
his
own
expressions
in
other
places
,
that
which
he
granteth
bordereth
upon
nothing
:
for
pag.
13.
speaking
of
scandalous
sinners
their
admission
to
the
Sacrament
,
if
they
professe
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
meditations
,
prayers
,
&c.
and
a
little
after
he
saith
,
that
all
who
come
to
receive
,
do
alwaies
make
a
general
and
joynt
confession
of
their
sins
before
God
and
the
Congregation
&c.
And
then
he
addeth
pag.
14.
Yea
I
dare
presume
,
there
is
no
receiver
so
desperate
,
that
dares
professe
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
whether
the
BEST
do
relapse
to
their
OLD
infirmities
may
be
a
Question
.
And
however
he
doth
open
a
wide
door
for
receiving
to
the
Sacrament
all
scandalous
sinners
not
excommunicated
,
if
they
do
but
tacitely
joyn
in
the
general
Confession
of
sins
made
by
the
whole
Church
,
or
do
not
contradict
those
general
Confessions
,
and
professe
impenitency
and
persevering
in
wickednesse
,
though
in
the
mean
time
there
be
manifest
real
symptomes
of
impenitency
,
and
no
confession
made
of
that
particular
sin
which
hath
given
publike
scandal
.
Wherefore
I
say
plainly
with
the
Professors
of
Leyden
,
Synops.
Pur.
Theol.
Disp.
48.
Thes.
35.
The
administration
of
this
censure
of
suspension
from
the
Lords
Table
hath
place
in
these
two
different
cases
,
either
when
one
that
is
called
a
Brother
hath
given
some
hainous
scandal
of
life
or
Doctrine
,
who
after
admonition
doth
indeed
by
word
of
mouth
professe
repentance
,
but
yet
doth
not
sh●…w
the
fruits
meet
for
repentance
,
that
so
the
scandal
might
be
taken
away
from
the
Church
:
or
when
he
doth
not
so
much
as
in
words
promise
or
professe
repentance
,
&c.
Martin
Bucer
hath
a
notable
speech
to
this
purpose
de
Regno
Christi
,
lib.
1.
Cap.
9.
To
hold
it
enough
that
one
do
professe
by
Word
onely
repentance
of
sins
,
and
say
that
he
is
sorry
for
his
sins
,
and
that
he
will
amend
his
life
,
the
necessarie
signes
and
works
of
Repentance
not
being
joyned
with
such
profession
,
It
is
the
part
of
Antichrists
priests
,
not
of
Christs
.
In
the
next
place
it
is
to
be
taken
notice
of
,
how
palpably
and
grossely
Mr.
Prynn
contradicteth
himself
in
divers
particulars
:
Which
being
observed
,
may
peradventure
make
himself
more
attentive
in
writing
,
and
others
more
attentive
in
reading
such
subitane
lucubrations
.
The
particulars
are
these
which
follow
.
1.
Vindicat
,
pag.
17.
he
saith
,
the
Confession
of
sin
which
was
made
at
the
Trespasse
offerings
,
was
not
to
the
Priest
,
Classis
,
or
Congregation
,
but
to
God
alone
.
|
1.
In
the
very
same
page
he
saith
,
None
were
kept
off
from
making
their
atonement
by
a
trespasse
offering
,
if
they
did
first
confesse
their
sins
to
God
,
though
perchance
his
confession
was
not
cordiall
,
or
such
as
the
Priests
approved
,
but
external
onely
in
shew
.
I
beseech
you
how
could
it
be
at
all
judged
of
,
whether
it
was
external
and
onely
in
shew
,
if
it
was
made
to
God
alone
?
Nay
,
if
it
was
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
trespasse
offering
or
not
?
|
2.
Vindic.
pag.
50.
He
freely
granteth
That
ALL
scandalous
,
obstinate
,
peremptory
,
incorrigible
,
notorious
sinners
,
who
desperately
and
professedly
persevere
in
their
grosse
scandalous
fins
,
to
the
dishonour
of
Christian
Religion
,
the
scandal
of
the
Congregation
,
the
ill
example
and
infection
of
others
,
after
several
solemn
previous
publike
admonitions
,
reprehensions
,
rebukes
,
contemned
or
neglected
,
and
full
conviction
of
their
scandal
and
|
2.
Vindic.
pag.
57.
Certainly
the
speediest
,
BEST
and
ONLY
WAY
to
suppresse
ALL
kind
of
sins
,
schismes
,
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
Gods
Word
,
and
the
sword
of
the
Civil
Magistrate
.
|
impenitency
,
may
and
OUGHT
TO
BE
EXCOMMUNICATED
,
suspended
,
&c.
|
If
this
be
the
best
and
only
way
to
suppresse
sin
,
and
to
reform
and
purge
the
Churches
,
How
is
it
that
some
scandalous
sinners
may
and
ought
to
be
excommunicated
?
|
3.
Vindic.
pag.
50
Where
the
f●…ct
is
notorious
,
the
p●…oofs
〈◊〉
,
the
sentence
of
excommunication
ready
to
be
pronounced
against
them
as
persons
impenitently
scandalous
and
in●…orrigible
,
●…erchance
the
Presbyterie
or
●…l
ssis
may
order
a
suspension
from
the
Sacrament
,
or
any
other
Ordinances
,
before
the
sentence
of
excommunication
solemnly
denounced
if
they
see
just
cause
.
|
3.
Yet
all
along
he
disputes
against
the
su
pending
from
the
Sacrament
of
a
person
unexcommunicated
,
and
not
suspended
from
all
other
publike
Ordinances
and
society
of
Gods
people
.
And
pag
50.
arguing
for
the
right
of
all
visible
members
of
the
visible
Church
to
the
Sacrament
,
he
saith
that
nothing
but
an
actual
excommunication
can
suspend
them
from
this
their
rig●…t
.
|
4.
Vindic.
pag.
17.
He
saith
that
a
particular
examination
of
the
Conscience
,
and
Repentance
for
sin
,
is
no
where
required
in
Scripture
of
such
who
did
eat
the
Passeover
.
And
herein
he
distinguisheth
the
Trespasse-offerings
,
and
the
Passeover
,
that
in
bringing
a
trespasse
offering
men
came
to
sue
for
pardon
,
and
make
atonement
,
and
that
therefore
confession
of
sin
was
necessary
.
But
in
the
Passeover
|
4.
Ibid.
pag.
24.
He
saith
that
the
Passeover
was
the
same
in
substance
with
the
Eucharist
under
the
Gospel
,
wherein
Christ
was
spiritually
represented
and
received
,
as
well
as
in
the
Lords
Supper
.
But
how
can
this
be
,
if
repentance
for
sin
was
not
necessary
in
the
Passeover
,
and
if
it
was
onely
a
commemoration
of
a
by
▪
p●st
temporal
mercy
in
sparing
the
first
born
of
the
Israelites
?
|
there
was
r●…
atonement
&c.
but
ONELY
a
commemoration
of
Gods
infinite
mercy
in
passing
over
the
Israelites
first
born
when
he
sl●…w
the
Egyptians
.
|
|
5.
Vindic.
pag.
18.
He
saith
that
immediatly
before
the
institution
of
the
Sacrament
,
Christ
told
his
Disciples
that
one
of
them
should
betray
him
,
and
that
Iudas
was
the
last
man
that
said
Is
it
I
?
immediately
before
the
Institution
.
And
pag.
27.
he
saith
.
That
the
other
disciples
did
eat
the
Sacrament
with
Iudas
,
after
Christ
had
particularly
informed
them
and
Iudas
himself
,
that
he
should
betray
him
.
|
5.
Yet
pag.
25.
He
reckoneth
that
very
thing
to
have
been
after
the
Institution
of
the
Sacrament
:
for
to
that
Objection
that
Iudas
went
out
before
Supper
ended
,
immediately
after
he
received
the
sop
,
whereas
Christ
did
not
institute
the
Sacrament
till
after
Supper
:
he
makes
this
answer
,
that
the
dipping
of
the
sop
(
at
which
time
Iudas
said
is
it
I
?
)
was
at
the
common
Supper
,
which
(
saith
he
)
succeded
the
Institution
of
the
Sacrament
,
so
that
the
Sacrament
was
instituted
after
the
Paschal
,
not
after
the
common
Supper
.
And
pag.
19.
He
argues
that
Iudas
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
distributed
the
Sacrament
(
at
least
the
bread
)
as
he
sate
at
meat
,
as
they
were
eating
,
before
Supper
quite
ended
.
|
6.
Vindic.
pag.
42.
Speaking
of
ungodly
scandalous
sinners
,
he
plainly
intimateth
that
the
receiving
of
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lords
Supper
is
more
likely
to
regenerate
and
change
their
hearts
and
lives
then
the
Word
preached
.
And
in
that
same
page
,
he
holdeth
that
this
Sacrament
is
certainly
the
most
powerful
and
effectual
Ordinance
of
all
others
to
humble
,
regenerate
,
convert
.
The
like
see
pag.
44
,
45.
and
pag.
52.
Yea
no
doubt
many
debosht
Persons
have
been
really
reclaimed
,
converted
,
even
by
their
accesse
and
admission
to
the
Sacrament
.
|
6.
Pag.
57.
He
ascribeth
the
power
of
godlinesse
in
many
English
Congregations
to
powerful
preaching
,
and
saith
,
that
this
sword
of
the
Spirit
,
the
powerful
preaching
of
Gods
Word
,
and
the
sword
of
the
Civil
Magistrate
,
are
onely
able
to
effect
this
work
,
to
suppresse
all
kind
of
sinnes
,
schismes
,
to
reform
and
purge
the
Churches
.
If
this
be
the
speediest
,
best
,
and
onely
way
to
suppresse
all
kind
of
sinnes
,
schismes
,
to
reform
and
purge
our
Churches
from
all
scandalous
offences
,
as
he
there
saith
,
and
if
the
Word
and
the
Magistrate
are
onely
able
to
effect
this
work
;
How
is
it
that
the
Lords
Supper
doth
change
mens
hearts
and
lives
,
and
that
more
effectually
then
any
other
Ordinance
?
Again
pag.
37.
he
saith
,
he
hath
in
other
Treatises
of
his
proved
Gods
presence
and
Spirit
to
be
as
much
,
as
really
present
in
other
Ordinances
,
as
in
this
of
the
Lords
Supper
.
How
then
makes
he
this
Sacrament
to
be
the
most
powerful
and
effectual
Ordinance
of
all
others
,
to
humble
,
regenerate
,
convert
?
|
7.
Pag.
40.
He
makes
the
Sacrament
to
be
a
seal
to
the
sences
of
unworthy
persons
,
but
not
to
their
soules
;
In
this
latter
sence
he
saith
it
is
a
seal
onely
to
worthy
penitent
beleeving
receivers
.
|
7.
Yet
Pag.
44
,
45.
the
strength
of
his
tenth
Argument
lies
in
this
,
that
the
Sacrament
sealeth
unto
the
Communicants
souls
,
yea
to
the
flintiest
heart
,
and
obduratest
spirit
,
the
promises
,
an
union
with
Christ
,
assurance
of
everlasting
life
,
and
therefore
in
regard
of
the
sealing
of
all
these
particulars
unto
mens
souls
,
must
needs
convert
an
obdurate
unregenerate
sinner
.
Which
Argument
were
non-sence
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
mens
souls
,
and
represent
them
to
their
saddest
thoughts
,
must
needs
more
powerfully
perswade
,
pierce
,
mels
,
relent
,
convert
an
obdurate
heart
▪
and
unregenerate
sinner
,
&c.
|
8.
Vindic.
Pag.
28.
He
admitteth
that
a
Minister
ought
in
duty
and
Conscience
to
give
warning
to
unworthy
persons
of
the
danger
of
unworthy
approaching
to
the
Lords
Table
,
and
seriously
dehort
them
from
|
8.
Pag.
46.
He
tells
us
of
an
old
error
in
forbidding
drink
to
those
who
were
inflamed
with
burning
feavers
,
which
Physitians
of
late
have
corrected
by
suffering
such
to
drink
freely
.
He
desires
that
this
old
|
comming
to
it
unless
they
repent
,
reform
,
and
come
prepared
.
|
error
of
P●isicians
may
not
enter
among
Divines
;
for
as
drink
doth
extinguish
the
unnatural
heat
which
else
would
kill
the
diseased
,
so
feaverish
Christians
burning
in
the
flames
of
sins
and
lusts
ought
to
be
permitted
freely
to
come
to
the
Lords
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
Lords
Table
.
Though
he
applieth
it
against
suspension
:
yet
the
ground
he
goeth
upon
makes
it
a
soul
murthering
sin
,
so
much
as
to
dehort
them
from
that
which
they
need
most
to
quench
the
flames
of
their
lusts
.
|
9.
Vindic.
Pag.
37.
I
answer
,
First
▪
That
the
Minister
doth
not
administer
the
Sacrament
to
any
known
impenitent
sinners
under
that
notion
,
but
onely
as
penitent
sinners
,
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
impenitent
,
and
yet
he
gives
the
Sacrament
to
those
known
impenitent
sinners
,
not
as
impenitent
,
|
9.
This
as
it
casts
down
what
himself
hath
built
in
point
of
the
converting
Ordinance
(
for
if
the
Sacrament
be
not
administred
to
any
known
impenitent
sinners
,
under
that
notion
,
but
onely
as
penitent
,
then
it
doth
not
work
but
suppose
repentance
and
conversion
in
the
receivers
,
and
so
is
not
a
converting
Ordinance
to
any
receiver
:
)
So
also
it
is
inconsistent
with
what
himself
addeth
in
the
very
same
place
.
Secondly
|
|
but
as
penitent
:
which
were
a
mighty
strong
Bull.
But
the
meaning
bust
needs
be
,
that
the
Minister
gives
the
Sacrament
to
such
as
have
been
indeed
formerly
lookt
upon
as
impenitent
sinners
,
and
known
to
be
such
,
but
are
now
when
they
come
to
the
Sacrament
lookt
upon
under
the
notion
of
penitent
sinners
,
and
that
the
Minister
gives
the
Sacrament
to
none
,
except
onely
under
the
notion
and
supposition
that
they
are
truly
penitent
.
|
saith
Mr.
Prynn
,
He
(
the
Minister
)
us●…h
th●…se
words
,
The
body
of
Christ
which
was
broken
,
and
the
blood
of
Christ
shedd
for
you
,
&c.
not
absolutely
,
but
conditionally
onely
,
in
case
they
receive
the
Sacrament
worthily
,
and
become
penitent
▪
and
beleeving
receivers
,
as
they
all
professe
themselves
to
be
▪
just
so
as
they
preach
repentan●…e
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
to
the
Word
,
and
accordingly
the
Sacrament
administred
to
known
impenitent
sinners
under
that
notion
,
and
as
still
known
to
be
impenitent
upon
condition
that
they
become
penitent
.
|
10.
Vindic.
Pag.
52.
It
being
onely
the
total
exclusion
from
the
Church
and
all
Christian
society
(
not
any
bare
suspension
from
the
Sacrament
)
which
works
both
shame
aud
remorse
in
excommunicate
persons
,
as
Paul
resolves
,
2.
Thess.
3.
14.
1
Cor.
5.
13.
compared
with
1
Cor.
5.
1.
to
11.
|
10.
Yet
Vindic.
pag.
4.
and
10.
he
denieth
that
either
1
Cor.
5.
9.
11.
or
2
Thess.
3.
14.
can
amount
to
any
Excommunication
or
exclusion
from
the
Church
,
and
expounds
both
these
places
of
a
private
withdrawing
of
Civil
Fellowship
,
without
any
publike
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
Christs
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
professeth
that
these
debates
of
his
tend
onely
to
a
regular
orderly
settlement
of
the
power
of
Presbyteries
,
not
to
take
from
them
all
Ecclesiastical
Jurisdiction
due
by
divine
right
to
them
,
but
to
confine
it
within
certain
definite
limits
.
|
11.
Diotrephes
catechised
,
pag.
7.
It
is
the
safest
readiest
way
to
unity
and
Reformation
,
to
remit
the
punishment
of
all
scandalous
offences
to
the
civil
Magistrate
,
rather
then
to
the
pretended
disputable
questioned
authority
of
Presbyteries
,
Classes
,
or
Congregations
.
|
12.
Vindic.
pag.
2.
He
agreeth
with
his
Opposites
that
scandalous
obstinate
sinners
after
proof
and
conviction
,
may
be
justly
excommunicated
from
the
Church
&c.
And
that
1
Cor.
5.
13.
warrants
thus
much
&c.
So
that
thus
far
there
is
no
dissent
on
either
part
.
Remember
the
present
controversie
which
he
speaks
to
,
is
concerning
excommunication
in
England
,
and
so
under
a
Christian
Magistracy
.
|
12.
Diotrephes
catechised
,
pag.
9.
10.
He
plainly
intimateth
that
1
Cor.
5.
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
presse
this
Text
,
may
as
well
conclude
from
the
very
next
words
,
1
Cor.
6.
1.
to
9.
that
it
is
unlawful
for
Christians
to
go
to
Law
before
any
Christian
Judges
now
,
&c.
Where
by
the
way
it
is
also
to
be
noted
,
that
he
should
have
said
before
any
heathen
judge●…
.
Otherwise
the
Argument
cannot
be
parallel
.
|
I
shall
now
close
with
four
Counter-Quaeries
to
Mr.
Prynne
.
1.
Since
diu
deliberandum
quod
semel
statuendum
,
which
is
a
received
maxime
,
approved
by
prudent
men
,
and
God
himself
,
as
his
Epistle
to
the
Reader
saith
;
whether
was
it
well
done
to
publish
his
subitane
lucubrations
(
as
himself
in
that
preface
calls
them
)
and
upon
so
short
deliberation
to
ingage
in
this
publike
and
litigious
manner
against
the
desires
of
the
Reverend
and
Learned
Assembly
,
especially
in
a
businesse
wherein
it
is
well
known
the
hearts
of
godly
people
do
generally
go
along
with
them
?
2.
Whether
Mr.
Prynus
language
be
not
very
much
changed
from
what
it
was
in
the
Prelats
times
:
seeing
Vindic.
pag.
7.
he
hath
these
words
,
our
opposites
generally
grant
,
&c.
citing
onely
Cartwright
?
And
are
the
old
non
Conformists
of
blessed
memory
,
now
Opposites
?
Where
are
we
?
I
confesse
as
he
now
stands
affected
,
he
is
opposite
to
the
old
non-Conformists
,
and
they
to
him
.
For
instance
.
Mr.
Hildersham
Lect.
5.
on
Psal.
51.
holdeth
that
all
open
and
scandalous
sinners
should
do
open
and
publike
repentance
,
and
acknowledge
their
scandalous
sins
in
the
Congregation
,
otherwise
to
be
kept
back
from
the
holy
Communion
.
And
while
Mr.
Prynn
pleadeth
that
Matth.
18.
15
,
16
,
17.
is
not
meant
of
a
Presbyterie
or
of
any
Church-censure
,
he
manifestly
dissenteth
from
the
non-Conformist
,
and
joyneth
issue
with
Bpp.
Bilson
de
gubern
.
Eccl.
c.
4.
and
Sutlivius
de
Presbyterio
cap.
9.
pleading
for
Prelacy
against
Presbyterie
.
3.
Seeing
the
businesse
of
excommunication
and
sequestration
from
the
Sacrament
,
now
in
publike
agitation
,
is
a
matter
of
great
moment
,
much
difficulty
,
and
very
circumspectly
to
be
handled
,
established
,
to
prevent
profanation
and
scandal
on
the
one
hand
;
and
arbitrary
,
tyrannical
,
papal
domineering
power
over
the
Consciences
,
the
spiritual
priviledges
of
Christians
,
on
the
other
.
(
These
are
his
own
words
in
the
preface
of
his
Quaeries
)
whether
hath
he
gone
in
an
even
path
to
avoid
both
these
evills
?
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
phlegmatick
stomack
uncured
?
And
whether
doth
he
not
trespasse
against
that
rule
of
his
owne
last
cited
,
when
he
adviseth
this
as
the
best
and
onely
way
to
suppresse
all
kind
of
sins
,
and
to
reform
and
purge
the
Churches
of
this
Kingdom
,
that
the
sword
of
excommunication
and
suspension
be
not
drawn
,
but
onely
the
sword
of
the
spirit
,
and
the
sword
of
the
Magistrate
?
Vindic.
pag.
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
Covenant
,
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
scandals
,
there
being
many
thousands
both
grossely
ignorant
,
and
grossely
scandalous
?
4.
I
desire
it
may
be
(
upon
a
review
)
seriously
considered
,
how
little
truth
,
wisdom
,
or
charity
there
is
in
that
suggestion
of
Mr
,
Prynn
,
pag.
57.
that
the
lives
of
the
generality
of
the
people
are
more
strict
,
pious
,
lesse
scandalous
and
licentious
in
our
English
Congregations
▪
where
there
hath
been
powerful
preaching
,
without
the
practice
of
Excommunication
or
suspension
from
the
Sacrament
,
then
in
the
Reformed
Churches
of
France
,
Germany
,
Denmark
,
or
Scotland
,
for
which
I
appeal
to
all
Travellers
,
&c.
I
confesse
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
then
what
was
the
condition
of
the
Apostolique
Churches
.
2
Cor.
12.
21.
I
fear
saith
the
Apostle
l●…st
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
uncleannesse
,
and
fornication
,
and
lasciviousnesse
which
they
have
committed
.
And
this
is
not
the
onely
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
Hierome
did
of
the
Montanists
.
They
are
rigid
,
not
to
the
end
that
themselves
also
might
not
commit
worse
sins
;
but
this
difference
there
is
between
them
and
us
,
that
they
are
ashamed
to
confesse
their
sins
,
as
if
they
were
righteous
:
We
while
we
repent
,
do
the
more
easily
obtain
mercy
.
Mr.
Prynn
and
others
of
his
profession
are
not
very
willing
that
such
an
Ecclesiastical
discipline
be
established
in
England
,
as
is
received
and
setled
in
Scotland
and
other
Reformed
Churches
.
But
if
once
the
like
sin-searching
,
sin-discovering
,
and
sin-censuring
discipline
were
received
and
duely
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
lesse
licentious
and
scandalous
.
A
Testimony
of
Mr.
Foxe
the
Author
of
the
Book
of
Martyrs
,
taken
out
of
a
treatise
of
his
printed
at
London
,
1551.
entituled
De
Censura
Ecclesiastica
Interpellatio
J.
Foxi
,
the
eighth
Chapter
of
which
Treatise
is
here
translated
out
of
Latin
into
English
.
What
the
are
chief
obstacles
hindering
Excommunication
?
THat
the
thought
and
care
of
excommunication
hath
now
so
far
waxed
cold
almost
in
all
the
Churches
,
is
to
be
ascribed
(
as
appeareth
)
unto
three
sorts
of
men
.
The
first
is
of
those
whose
minds
the
wealth
of
this
world
and
high
advancement
of
dignity
do
so
lift
up
,
that
they
are
ashamed
to
submit
the
neck
to
the
obedience
of
Christ
.
What
(
say
these
)
shall
that
poor
fellow
lay
a
yoke
on
me
?
What
,
should
I
be
subject
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
,
whom
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
yeeld
thy self
to
be
ruled
,
whom
thou
knowest
to
be
more
learned
.
But
go
to
,
thou
which
canst
not
suffer
a
man
to
be
thy
Pastor
,
to
whom
then
wilt
thou
submit
thy self
?
unto
Christ
himself
(
thou
sayest
:
)
very
well
forsooth
.
This
then
is
of
such
importance
,
that
Christ
for
thy
cause
must
again
leave
the
heavens
,
or
by
his
Angels
or
Arch-Angels
feed
and
govern
thee
,
whom
these
mean
men
the
Pastors
do
not
satisfie
:
But
what
if
it
so
pleased
the
Lord
by
these
mean
Pastors
,
as
thou
callest
them
,
to
cast
down
and
conf●und
all
the
highest
statelynesse
and
pride
of
this
World
,
even
as
of
old
by
a
few
and
comtemptible
Fishers
he
subdued
not
onely
the
high
and
conceited
opinion
of
Philosophers
,
but
even
the
Scepters
of
Kings
also
?
Now
what
will
thy
boasting
magnificence
say
?
But
hear
what
Christ
himself
saith
of
them
,
whom
thou
from
thy
high
loftinesse
look●st
down
upon
as
unworthy
.
He
that
despiseth
you
despiseth
me
(
saith
he
.
)
And
moreover
who
so
despiseth
Christ
,
despiseth
him
from
whom
he
is
sent
,
and
who
said
unto
him
,
Thou
art
my
Son
,
this
day
have
I
begotten
thee
:
Ask
of
me
and
I
will
give
thee
the
Heathen
for
thine
inheritance
,
and
the
utmost
ends
of
the
earth
for
thy
possission
:
Thou
shalt
rule
them
with
a
rod
of
yron
,
and
break
them
in
pe●…ces
like
a
potters
vessel
.
Wherefore
seeing
thou
dost
acknowledge
so
great
a
Lord
,
so
many
wayes
above
all
Maiesty
whatsoever
can
be
named
;
let
it
not
be
grievous
to
thee
(
my
brother
whosoever
thou
art
,
or
with
how
great
power
soever
thou
art
highly
advanced
)
laying
aside
thy
high
looks
and
pride
,
to
be
humbled
under
his
mighty
hand
;
And
do
not
think
it
a
light
matter
(
whereas
thou
entertainest
with
so
great
applause
and
honourable
respect
an
earthly
Kings
Ambassadors
)
that
thou
shouldest
disdain
the
Ambassadors
of
him
,
who
alone
hath
power
over
all
Kings
and
Lords
.
If
thou
yeeldest
unto
a
mortal
Physitian
thy
wounds
to
be
handled
,
yea
to
be
cut
also
,
and
to
be
burned
and
seared
(
if
need
be
)
how
commeth
it
,
that
thou
canst
lesse
endure
the
same
thing
also
in
the
curing
of
the
diseases
of
the
soul
from
the
spiritual
Physitian
,
especially
seeing
in
so
many
respects
better
is
the
health
of
the
soul
then
of
the
body
?
Nor
do
thou
so
account
any
whit
in
this
regard
to
be
impared
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
reigne
,
then
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
Christian
;
so
I
meet
with
no
other
more
famous
example
,
and
more
worthy
of
all
mens
imitation
.
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
admission
;
It
is
reported
that
Fabian
the
Bishop
withstood
him
,
neither
did
receive
him
before
he
confessed
his
sins
,
and
stood
among
the
Penitentiaries
.
What
would
those
our
proud
gyants
,
fighters
against
God
do
here
,
if
they
had
stood
in
the
like
condition
and
high
place
?
But
this
no
lesse
mild
then
most
mighty
Emperor
was
nothing
ashamed
(
forgetting
in
the
mean
while
his
Imperial
Majesty
)
of
his
own
accord
to
submit
himself
to
the
obedience
of
his
Pastor
,
undergoing
every
thing
whatsoever
in
the
Name
of
Christ
was
imposed
upon
him
.
O
truly
noble
Emperor
,
and
no
lesse
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
onely
,
they
promise
an
honest
enough
shew
of
Christian
profession
;
they
dispute
both
learnedly
,
and
every
where
with
grea●
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
of
places
.
Finally
,
Whatsoever
is
pleasing
in
Christ
they
take
and
stiffely
hold
.
But
if
ye
look
into
their
life
,
they
are
Epicures
,
Wasters
,
Ravenous
,
Covetous
,
Sons
of
Belial
;
Not
Christs
servants
,
but
slaves
of
their
belly
;
who
according
to
the
Satyrist
,
think
vertue
to
be
but
words
,
as
the
wood
to
be
but
trees
.
And
of
these
there
is
a
great
store
every
where
,
who
seeing
onely
for
their
belly
they
follow
Christ
,
they
leave
nothing
undevised
and
uninterprised
to
hinder
Excommunication
,
that
so
they
may
the
more
freely
satisfie
and
serve
their
own
lusts
.
So
the
Covetous
man
feareth
that
his
Covetousnesse
be
called
in
question
,
which
he
will
not
forsake
.
The
Adulterer
,
he
that
buyeth
or
selleth
men
into
slavery
,
the
dycer
,
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
dammages
of
the
Common
▪
wealth
,
is
unwilling
to
have
any
bridle
to
curb
and
restrain
him
:
The
Cheater
that
with
false
wares
beguileth
the
people
;
the
seller
that
with
unjust
gain
outeth
counterfeit
wares
;
the
deceiver
who
cozeneth
and
circumventeth
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
liberty
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
perversely
wrested
,
if
they
find
out
ought
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
life
,
together
with
injury
of
the
Scripture
.
While
these
men
are
not
sufficiently
shaken
and
stricken
with
the
sence
of
their
sin
,
and
force
the
Scripture
violently
wrested
to
defend
and
maintain
their
perverse
affections
,
from
which
Scripture
it
had
been
meet
to
seek
all
medicines
of
their
vices
.
But
little
do
these
men
in
the
mean
while
consider
how
dear
it
cost
Christ
,
which
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
onely
begotten
Son
;
which
hath
utterly
rui●ated
not
whole
Cities
,
but
Kingdoms
also
and
Monarchies
.
Which
things
if
these
and
all
other
Epicures
did
more
diligently
think
of
,
it
would
come
to
passe
I
suppose
,
that
neither
the
custome
of
sin
would
so
much
like
them
,
and
withall
the
matter
it self
would
so
far
draw
them
,
that
more
willingly
they
would
have
recourse
unto
these
so
many
waies
wholsom
remedies
of
the
Church
,
as
unto
the
onely
medicine
of
mans
life
.
FINIS
.