corrective part of church government belongs to the Christian magistrate.
And now he brings in my reply thus: that I said he abuseth the place,
“Because spiritual censures belong not to the civil magistrate;” which,
saith he, begs the question, _Male Dicis_, p. 7. I replied no such thing
upon this argument. Look at my words again. How can the brother answer
it,—to shape answers of his own devising as if they were mine? My answer
was, That the punitive part, Rom. xiii. 4, belongs to all magistrates,
whether Christian or infidel; which he takes notice of in the second
place, and bids me prove “that Scripture-commands belong to infidels;” not
observing that the question is not of Scripture-commands, but whether a
duty mentioned in this or that scripture may not belong to infidels. There
are two sorts of duties in Scripture; some which are duties by the law of
God, written in man’s heart at his creation, some principles and notions
whereof remain in the hearts of all nations, even infidels by nature;
other duties are such, by virtue of special commands given to the church,
which are not contained in the law of nature. The first sort (of which the
punishing of evil doers, mentioned Rom. xiii. 4, is one) belongs to those
that are without the church as well as those within. The other only to
those that are within.
5. The reverend brother had said in his sermon, “Of other governments
besides magistracy I find no institution.” I cited 1 Thess. v. 12; 1 Tim.
v. 17; Heb. xiii. 7, 17, to prove another government (yea, the institution
of another government) besides magistracy. And, in my _Nihil Respondes_, I
told he had laughed, but had not yet loosed the knot. Now hear his two
answers: _Male Dicis_, p. 8, “First, for the institution; for the
Commissioner affirms so much. Had he said that these texts hold out an
office or officer already instituted, the words would have borne him out,”
&c. “But the institution in this place I cannot see.” See the like in Mr
Hussey, p. 19, 22. I thank them both. That Scripture which supposeth an
institution, and holds out an office already instituted, shall to me (and,
I am confident, to others also) prove an institution; for no text of
Scripture can suppose or hold out that which is not true. Nay, hath Mr
Coleman forgotten that himself proved an institution of magistracy from
Rom. xiii. 1, 2? Yet that text doth but hold out the office of magistracy
already instituted: but the institution itself is not in that place.
Secondly, Mr Coleman answereth to all these three texts. To that, 1 Thess.
v. 12, “Them which are over you in the Lord,” he saith that these words
prove not that it is not meant of magistracy. But he takes not the
strength of the argument. My words were, “Here are some who are no civil
magistrates set over the Thessalonians in the Lord.” This the reverend
brother must admit to be a good proof, or otherwise say that the civil
magistrates set over the Thessalonians, though they were heathens, yet
were set over them in the Lord.
For that of 1 Tim. v. 17, he saith it doth not hold out ruling elders.
Whether it doth hold ruling elders or not, doth not at all belong to the
present question. It is easy to answer something, so that a man will not
tie himself to the point. The place was brought by me to prove “another
government beside magistracy,” which he denied. Now suppose the place to
be meant only of preaching elders, yet here is a rule or government:
“Elders that rule well;” and these are no civil magistrates, but such as
“labour in the word and doctrine.” Come on now. “But I will deal clearly
(saith the brother): These officers are ministers which are instituted not
here, but elsewhere,—and these are the rulers here mentioned. And so have
I loosed the knot.” Now, Sir, you shall see I will not _male dicere_, but
_bene dicere_. My blessing on you for it. You have at last loosed the knot
so perfectly, that you are come to an agreement with me in this great
point, which I thus demonstrate: He that acknowledgeth ministers to be
instituted rulers, acknowledgeth another instituted government beside
magistracy. But Mr Coleman acknowledgeth ministers to be instituted
rulers, therefore Mr Coleman acknowledgeth another instituted government
beside magistracy.
To the other texts, Heb. xiii. 7, 17, he saith nothing against my
argument, only expounds the rulers to be guides, as Mr Hussey also doth,
of which more elsewhere; meanwhile it is certain that ὁ ἡγουμένοις is
usually taken for a name of highest authority, yea, given to emperors; for
which see learned Salmasius in his _Walo Messalinus_, p. 219, 220. It is
Joseph’s highest title to express his government of Egypt, Acts vii. 10.
It must the rather be a name of government and authority in this place,
Heb. xiii. 17, because subjection and obedience is required: “Obey them
that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves.” When the word
signifieth ὀδηγὸν, _seu viæ ducem_ (and it is very rarely so used by the
Septuagints, but frequently, and almost in innumerable places, they use it
for a name of rule and authority), obedience and subjection is not due to
such an one _qua talis_; for obedience and subjection cannot be
_correlata_ to the leading of the way, when it is without authority and
government.
6. I having charged Mr Coleman’s doctrine with this consequence, “That
there ought to be neither suspension from the sacrament, nor
excommunication, nor ordination, nor deposition of ministers, nor
receiving of appeals, except all these things be done by the civil
magistrate,” which things, I said, “are most of them corrective, and all
of them more than doctrinal,”—instead of making answer, the reverend
brother expresseth the error, which I objected to him, thus: “That here
are no church censures,” which is the _quæsitum_, saith he, _Male Dicis_,
p. 10. Here, again, he brings an imagination of his own, both for matter
and words, instead of that which I said, and doth not take the argument
right. If the minister’s power be merely doctrinal, and government wholly
in the magistrate’s hands, then all the particulars enumerated; for
instance, suspension from the sacrament, and the receiving of appeals
(which he must not bring under the _quæsitum_, except he bring the
ordinance of Parliament under the _quæsitum_), shall be wholly in the
magistrate’s hand; and elderships may not suspend from the sacrament;
classes and synods may not receive appeals, which yet, by the ordinance,
they have power to do. One of the particulars, and but one, the reverend
brother hath here touched, and it is this: “For ordination of ministers, I
say, it is within the commission of teaching, and so appertains to the
doctrinal part.” This is the effect of his zeal to maintain that all
ecclesiastical ministerial power is merely doctrinal. But mark the
consequence of it: He that holds ordination of ministers to be within the
commission of teaching, and to appertain to the doctrinal part, must hold,
by consequence, that the power of ordination is given _uni_ as well as
_unitati_; that is, that every single minister hath power to ordain, as
well as the classes. But Mr Coleman holds ordination of ministers to be
within the commission of teaching, &c. The reason of the proposition is
clear, because the commission of teaching belongs to every single
minister, so that if the power of ordination be within that commission, it
must needs belong to every single minister. _Quid respondes_?
7. The reverend brother having brought an odious argument against me,
which did conclude the magistrate to manage his office for and under the
devil, if not for and under Christ, I show his syllogism to have four
terms, and therefore worthy to be exploded. I get now two replies:
First, “This is an error (if one) in logic, not divinity. Is it an error
in divinity to make a syllogism with four terms?” _Male Dicis_, p. 15. See
now if he be a fit man to call others to school, who puts an _if_ in this
business—_if one_. Who did ever doubt of it? And if it be an error in
divinity to be fallacious, and to deceive, then it is an error in divinity
to make a syllogism with four terms, yea, as foul an error as can be.
Secondly, He admitteth not my distinction of those words, “Under Christ,
and for Christ.” I said the Christian magistrate is under Christ, and for
Christ, that is, he is serviceable to Christ, but he is not under Christ
nor for Christ as Christ’s vicegerent, _vice Christi_, in Christ’s stead,
as Christ is Mediator. The reverend brother saith, He foresaw that this
would be said (the greater fault it was to make his argument so unclear
and undistinct), but he rejecteth the distinction as being _distinctio
sine differentia_. “If a magistrate (saith he) be thus far a servant of
Christ, as Mediator, that he is to do his work, to take part with him, to
be for his glory, then he doth it _vice Christi_.” He adds the simile of a
servant. Hence it follows, by the reverend brother’s principles, that the
king’s cook, because he doth work and service for the king, therefore he
doth it _vice regis_, and as the king’s vicegerent. Likewise, that a
servant who obeyeth his master’s wife, and executeth her commands, because
it is his master’s will, and for his master’s honour, doth therefore obey
his master’s wife _vice domini_, as his master’s vicegerent; and, by
consequence, that the duty of obedience to the wife doth originally belong
to the husband; for the capacity of a vicegerent, which he hath by his
vicegerentship, is primarily the capacity of him whose vicegerent he is.
These, and the like absurd consequences, will unavoidably follow upon the
reverend brother’s argumentation, that he who doth Christ service doth it
_vice Christi_, as Christ’s vicegerent; and that to be a man’s vicegerent,
and to do a man’s work or service, which I made two different things, are
all one. But, further, observe his tergiversation. I had, p. 13, proved my
distinction out of these words of his own: “The Commissioner saith,
Magistracy is not derived from Christ. I say, magistracy is given to
Christ to be serviceable in his kingdom; so that, though the
Commissioner’s assertion be sound (which in due place will be discussed),
yet it infringeth nothing that I said.” I asked, therefore, _qua fide_ he
could confound in his argument brought against me those two things which
himself had so carefully distinguished. There is no reply to this in _Male
Dicis_. When the brother thought it for his advantage, he denied that the
magistrate’s being serviceable to Christ doth enter the derivation of his
power by a commission of vicegerentship from Christ (for that was the
derivation spoken of), and yielded that the magistrate may be said to be
serviceable to Christ, though his power be not derived from Christ. Now he
denieth the very same distinction for substance.
8. Whereas the reverend brother had told the Parliament that he seeth not,
in the whole Bible, any one act of that church government which is now in
controversy, I brought some scriptural instances against his opinion, not
losing either the argument from Matt. xviii. (concerning which he asketh
what is become of it), or other scriptural arguments, which I intend, by
God’s assistance, to prosecute elsewhere. Now hear what is replied to the
instances which were given. First, To that, 1 Cor. v. 13, “Put away that
wicked person from among you,” his answer is, “I say, and it is sufficient
against the Commissioner, If this be a church censure, then the whole
church jointly, and every particular person, hath power of church
censure.” _Male Dicis_, p. 10. I hope, Sir, it is not sufficient against
me that you say it, so long as you say nothing to prove it. I told you
that Mr Prynne himself (who holds not that every particular person hath
power of church censure) acknowledged that text to be a warrant for
excommunication, and when you say “every particular person,” you say more
than the Independents say, and I am sure more than the text will admit,
for the text saith, “Put away from among you,” therefore this power was
given not _uni_, but _unitati_, and this _unitas_ was the presbytery of
Corinth. The sentence was inflicted ὑπὸ τῶν πλείονων,—_by many_, 2 Cor.
ii. 6, it is not said _by all_. I might say much for this, but I will not
now leave the argument in hand; for it is enough against Mr Coleman that
the place prove an act of church government, flowing from a power not
civil but ecclesiastical. To whom the power belonged is another question.
To the next instance, from 2 Cor. ii. 6, which is coincident with the
former, a punishment or censure inflicted _by many_. “It is only a
reprehension (saith he),—ἐπιτιμία,—which, by all the places in the New
Testament, can amount no higher than to an objurgation, and so is
doctrinal.” _Ans._ 1. He made it even now an act of the whole church
jointly, and of every particular person. Why did he not clear himself in
this,—how the whole church, men, women, children and all, did doctrinally
reprehend him? 2. If the objurgation must be restricted, To whom? Not to a
single minister (yet every single minister hath power of doctrinal
objurgation), but to the presbytery. It was an act of those πλειόνες I
spake of; and this is a ground for that distinction between ministerial
and presbyterial admonition, which Mr Coleman, p. 22, doth not admit. 3.
If it were granted that ἐπιτιμία in this text amounteth to no more but an
objurgation, yet our argument stands good; for the Apostle having, in his
first epistle, required the Corinthians to put away from among them that
wicked person, which they did accordingly resolve to do (which makes the
Apostle commend their obedience, 2 Cor. ii. 9), no doubt either the
offender was at this time actually excommunicated and cast out of the
church, or (as others think) they were about to excommunicate him, if the
Apostle had not, by his second epistle, prevented them, and taken them off
with this _sufficit_: Such a degree of censure is enough, the party is
penitent, go no higher. 4. When the reverend brother appealeth to all the
places in the New Testament, he may take notice that the word ἐπιτιμία is
nowhere found in the New Testament, except in this very text. And if his
meaning be concerning the verb ἐπιτιράω he may find it used to express a
coercive power, as in Christ’s rebuking of the winds and waves, Matt.
viii. 26; Mark iv. 39; his rebuking of the fever, Luke iv. 39; his
rebuking of the devil (which was not a doctrinal, but a coercive rebuke),
Mark i. 25; ix. 25; Luke iv. 35; ix. 42. Sometimes it is put for an
authoritative charge, laying a restraint upon a man, and binding him from
liberty in this or that particular, as Matt. xii. 16; Mark iii. 12; viii.
30; Luke ix. 21. The word ἐπιτιμία I find in the apocryphal book of
Wisdom, chap. iii. 10. It is said of the wicked, ἓξουσιν ἐπιτιμίαν, they
shall have _correction_ or _punishment_. The whole chapter maketh an
opposition between the godly and the wicked, in reference to punishments
and judgments. The Hebrew געד (which, if the observation hold which is
made by Arias Montanus, and divers others, following Kimchi, when it is
construed with ב signifieth _objurgavit_, _duriter reprehendit_; when
without ב, it signifieth _corrupit_, _perdidit_, or _maledixit_), the
Septuagint do most usually turn it ἐπιτιμάω and that in some places where
it is without ב, as Psal. cxix. 21, “Thou hast rebuked the proud that are
cursed;” ἐπιτίμησας,—Pagnin, _disperdidisti_,—thou hast destroyed, so the
sense is; it is rebuke, with a judgment or a curse upon them. The second
part of the verse, in the Greek, is exegetical to the first part, “Thou
hast rebuked the proud, ἐπικατάρατοι, cursed are they,” &c.; so Zech. iii.
2, “The Lord rebuke (ἐπιτιμήσαι) thee, O Satan.” The same phrase is used
in Jude, ver. 9, which must needs be meant of a coercive, efficacious,
divine power, restraining Satan. The same original word they render by
ἀφορίζω, which signifieth to separate and to excommunicate, Mal. ii. 3,
“Behold I will corrupt your seed,” &c. In the preceding words, God told
them that he would curse them. The same word they render by ἀποσκορανίζω,
_extermino_, Isa. xvii. 13, a place which speaks of a judgment to be
inflicted, not of a doctrinal reproof. Yet Aquila readeth there
ἐπιτιμήσει; likewise the word which the Septuagint render ἀπώλεια,
_perdition_, Prov. xiii. 6, and θυμὸς, _wrath_, Isa. li. 20, in other
places they render it ἐπιτίμησις: Psal. lxxvi. 6, “At thy rebuke, O God of
Jacob, both the chariot and horse are cast into a dead sleep;” lxxx. 16,
“They perish at the rebuke of thy countenance.” These are _real_ rebukes,
that is, judgments and punishments.
4. What saith Mr Coleman to Pasor, who expounds ἐπιτιμία to be the same
with ἐπιτίμιον, _mulcta_, and that, 2 Cor. ii. 6. it is meant of
excommunication; which he proves by this reason, Because, in the same
place, the Apostle exhorteth the Corinthians to forgive him. Add hereunto
Erasmus’s observation upon the word κυρῶσαι(1348) (ver. 8, to “confirm
your love toward him”); that it implies an authoritative ratification of a
thing by judicial suffrage and sentence. Which well agreeth to the
πλειόνες, ver. 6; that is, that they who had judicially censured him,
should also judicially loose him and make him free. Now, therefore, the
circumstances and context being observed, and the practice, 2 Cor. ii. 6,
compared with the precept, 1 Cor. v. 13, I conclude, that, whether this
ἐπιτιμία was excommunication already inflicted, or whether it was a lesser
degree of censure, tending to excommunication,—a censure it was, and more
than ministerial objurgation. And it is rightly rendered by the English
translators _punishment_ or _censure;_ which well agreeth with the
signification of the verb ἐπιτιμάω given us by Hesychius,(1349) and by
Julius Pollux;(1350) who makes ἐπιτιμᾶν, to _punish_ or _chastise_, and
ἐπιτίμημα, _punishment_ or _chastisement_. Clemens Alexandrinus(1351)
useth ἐπιτιμία as well as ἐπιτιμιον, _pro poena vel supplicio_. So
Stephanus, in _Thes. Ling. Gr._ From all which it may appear that the text
in hand holds forth a corrective church government in the hands of church
officers; the thing which Mr Coleman denieth.
To the next instance, from 1 Tim. v. 19, “Against an elder receive not an
accusation, but before two or three witnesses,” the reverend brother
answereth, “It is either in relation to the judgment of charity, or
ministerial conviction, as the verses following.” _Ans._ 1. That of two or
three witnesses is taken from the law of Moses, where it is referred only
to a forensical proceeding. But in relation either to the judgment of
charity, or ministerial conviction, it is not necessary that there be two
or three witnesses. If a scandalous sin be certainly known to a minister,
though the thing be not certified by two or three witnesses, yet a
minister, upon certain knowledge had of the fact, may both believe it and
ministerially convince the offender. But there may not be a consistorial
proceeding without two or three witnesses. 2. Since he appealeth to the
following verses, let ver. 22 decide it: “Lay hands suddenly on no man.”
To whom the laying on of hands or ordination did belong, to them also it
did belong to receive an accusation against an elder: but to the
presbytery did belong the laying on of hands, or ordination, 1 Tim. iv.
14; therefore to the presbytery did belong the receiving of an accusation
against an elder. And so it was not the act of a single minister, as
ministerial conviction is.
To the last instance, from Rev. ii. 14, 15, 20, the reverend brother
answers, That he had striven to find out how church censures might be
there grounded, but was constrained to let it alone. But what is it, in
his opinion, which is there blamed in the angels of those churches? Doth
he imagine that those who are so much commended by Christ himself for
their holding fast of his name, and of the true faith, did not so much as
doctrinally or ministerially oppose the foul errors of the Balaamites and
of Jezebel? No doubt but this was done: but Christ reproves them, because
such scandalous persons were yet suffered to be in the church, and were
not cast out. “I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there
them that hold the doctrine of Balaam;” and, ver. 20, “Thou sufferest that
woman Jezebel.” And why was the very having or suffering them in the
church a fault, if it had not been a duty to cast them out of the church?
which casting out could not be by banishment, but by excommunication. It
did not belong to the angel to cast out the Balaamites out of Pergamos,
but he might, and ought to have cast them out of the church in Pergamos.
9. Mr Coleman hath another passage against the distinction of church
censures and civil punishments. “But what are ecclesiastical censures
(saith he)? Let us take a taste. Is deposition from the ministry? This
kings have done,” &c., _Male Dicis_, p. 7. Now _similia labra lactucis_.
But for all that, the taste is vitiated, and doth not put a difference
between things that are different. Deposition is sometimes taken,
improperly, for expulsion; as Balsamon, in _Conc. Nicoen._, can. 19, doth
observe. And so the Christian magistrate may remove or put away ministers
when they deserve to be put away, that is, by a coercive power to restrain
them, imprison or banish them, and, in case of capital crimes, punish them
with capital punishments. King James, having once heard a dispute in St.
Andrews about the deposition of ministers, was convinced that it doth not
belong to the civil magistrate, “yet (said he) I can depose a minister’s
head from his shoulders.” Which was better divinity than this of Mr
Coleman. If we take deposition properly, as it is more than the expelling,
sequestering or removing of a minister from this or that place, and
comprehendeth that which the Council of Ancyra, can. 18, calls Ἀφαιρεισθαι
την τιμὴι τον πρεσβυτεριον, _the honour of presbytership to be taken
away_, or a privation of that _presbyteratus_, the order of a presbyter,
and that ἐξουσία, the authority and power of dispensing the word,
sacraments, and discipline, which was given in ordination, so none have
power to depose who have not power to ordain. It belongeth not to the
magistrate either to make or unmake ministers. Therefore, in the ancient
church, the bishops had power of the deposition as well as of the
ordination of presbyters, yet they were bound up that they might not
depose either presbyter or deacon without the concurrence of a presbytery
or synod in the business.(1352) Mark, of the _synod_, not of the
magistrate. As for the testimonies brought by Mr Coleman, he doth, both
here and in divers other places, name his authors, without quoting the
places. It seems he hath either found the words cited by others, but durst
not trust the quotations, or else hath found somewhat in those places
which might make against him. However, all that he can cite of that kind
concerning deposition of ministers by emperors, is meant of a coercive
expulsion, not of that which we call properly deposition. And to this
purpose let him take the observation of a great antiquary.(1353)
And, withal, he may take notice that Protestant writers(1354) do disclaim
the magistrate’s power of deposing ministers, and hold that deposition is
a part of ecclesiastical jurisdiction: ministers being always punishable
(as other members of the commonwealth), according to the law of the land,
for any offence committed against law.
CHAPTER III.
THAT MR COLEMAN’S AND MR HUSSEY’S OPPOSING OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT NEITHER IS
NOR CAN BE RECONCILED WITH THE SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT.
Mr Coleman’s doctrine was by me charged to be a violation of the solemn
league and covenant. This he acknowledged in his _Re-examination_, p. 13,
17, to be a very grievous charge, and a greater fault in him than in
divers others, if made out; and he desired seriously, yea, challenged it
by the right of a Christian, and by the right of a minister, that I should
prosecute this charge; whereupon I did, in my _Nihil Respondes_, prosecute
it so far, that, by five strong arguments, I did demonstrate the
repugnancy of his doctrine to the covenant. About a month afterward comes
out Mr Hussey’s book, wherein the charge itself (before desired to be
prosecuted) is declined expressly by Mr Coleman in the few lines by him
prefixed (which are ranked together with the errata), in which he desires
that the argumentative part may be so prosecuted as that the charge of
covenant-breaking may be laid aside; which, if it be taken up, he lets me
know beforehand it shall be esteemed by them a _nihil respondes_. It is
also declined by Mr Hussey, p. 15: “The argument of the covenant is too
low to be thought on in the discourse: we are now in an higher region than
the words of the covenant,” &c.:—a tenet looked upon by the reformed
churches as proper to those that are inspired with the ghost of
Arminius;(1355) for the remonstrants, both at and after the Synod of Dort,
did cry down the obligation of all national covenants, oaths, &c., in
matters of religion, under the colour of taking the Scripture only for a
rule. Well, we see the charge declined as nothing. But this is not all.
Almost two months after my proof of the charge, Mr Coleman comes out with
his _Male Dicis_, and declines both the charge itself (which he calls an
“impertinent charge,” p. 22), and my five arguments too, without so much
as taking notice of them, or offering replies to them; yea, all that I
said in my _Nihil Respondes_, p. 27-34, in prosecution of this argument
concerning covenant-breaking, the reverend brother hath skipped over
_sicco pede_ in the half of one page, p. 23; all that follows is new and
other matter, wherein he did not mind his own answer to the learned
viewer, p. 33, “I will keep you to the laws of disputation, and will not
answer but as it is to the matter in hand.” I leave it to be judged by men
of knowledge and piety, whether such an one doth not give them some ground
to apprehend that he is αυτοκατάκριτος, that is, self-judged, who first
calleth so eagerly for making out a charge against him, and then when it
is made out, doth decline the charge, and not answer the arguments; and
such as esteem the charge of covenant-breaking to be a _nihil respondes_,
and the argument of the covenant too low to be thought on in a controversy
about church government, “O my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto
their assembly, mine honour, be not thou united.” It is in vain for them
to palliate or shelter their covenant-breaking with appealing from the
covenant to the Scripture, for _subordinata non pugnant_. The covenant is
_norma recta_,—a right rule, though the Scripture alone be _norma
recti_,—the rule of right. If they hold the covenant to be unlawful, or to
have anything in it contrary to the word of God, let them speak out. But
to profess the breach of the covenant to be a grievous and great fault,
and worthy of a severe censure, and yet to decline the charge and proofs
thereof, is a most horrible scandal; yea, be astonished, O ye heavens, at
this, and give ear, O earth! how small regard is had to the oath of God by
men professing the name of God.
As for that little which the reverend brother hath replied unto; first, he
takes notice of a passage of his sermon at the taking of the covenant,
which I had put him in mind of, but he answereth only to one particular,
viz., concerning that clause, “Doubtless many materials of Prelacy must of
necessity be retained, as absolutely necessary.” I asked what he
understood by this clause? Now observe his answer: “I answer ingenuously,
as he desires, and fully, as I conceive, These materials of Prelacy are
ordination.” Remember you said, “_many_ materials of Prelacy.” I beseech
you, Sir, How many is ordination? Ordination, ordination, ordination; tell
on till you think you have made many materials; and, withal, tell us (if
this be the meaning, that ordination should be retained without any power
of ecclesiastical government in the ministry) how was it imaginable that
he could hereby satisfy that scruple which then he spoke to, viz., the
scruple about the purging away of the exorbitances of Prelacy, and
retaining a regulated Prelacy? And after all this, I shall desire him to
expound that other clause (which I desired before, but he hath not done
it), “Taking away (said he) the exorbitancies, the remaining will be a new
government, and no Prelacy.” Either he means this of a new church
government distinct from the civil, so that the ministry should have new
power of government; or he meant it of the way which now he pleads for. If
the former, I have what I would. Mr Coleman himself, as well as other men,
took the covenant with an intention to have an ecclesiastical government
distinct from the civil. If the latter, then let him answer these two
things: 1. What good sense there was in applying such an answer to such a
scruple, as if the Erastian way, or the appropriating of all
ecclesiastical jurisdiction wholly to the civil magistrate, could be the
way to satisfy those who scrupled the total abolition of Prelacy. 2. How
will he reconcile himself with himself; for here, p. 22, he saith, That
his way was in practice before I was born, “and the constant practice of
England always.” This, as it is a most notorious untruth (for the constant
practice of England hath granted to the clergy, as he calls them, after
the popish dialect, a power of deposition and excommunication, whereas his
way denies all corrective power or church censures to the ministry), so,
if it were a truth, it is utterly inconsistent with that which he said of
the remaining part, namely, that it will be a new government. If it be his
way, how will he make it the constant practice of England always, and a
new government too?
In the next place, the reverend brother makes short work of my five
arguments to prove the repugnancy of his doctrine to the solemn league and
covenant. They were too hot for him to be much touched upon: “All is but
this much (saith he), the covenant mentioneth and supposeth a distinct
church government.” It is hard when arguments are neither repeated nor
answered. He repeats a point which was proved (and but a part of that),
but not the proofs; and so he answereth (rather to the conclusion than to
the arguments) these two things: “First (saith he), the expressions in the
covenant are according to the general apprehensions of the times, which
took such a thing for granted, yet I believe Mr Gillespie cannot make such
a supposition obligatory.” Now you yield, Sir, what before you eagerly
contended against, viz., that the covenant doth suppose a church
government. Remember your simile of the jury sworn to inquire into the
felony of a prisoner, which oath doth not suppose the prisoner to be
guilty of felony, but he is to be tried, guilty or not guilty. We are now
so far agreed, that the covenant doth suppose a church government distinct
from the civil government, and yet not merely doctrinal, for that was the
point which I proved, and which here he yields. As for the obligation of
an oath sworn upon such supposition, I answer, 1. It is more than
supposed, the words and expressions of the covenant do plainly hold out
the thing as I proved, and as the reverend brother here seems to yield. 2.
That which an oath doth necessarily suppose, if the oath be lawful, and
the thing supposed lawful, is without all controversy obligatory. Now the
reverend brother doth acknowledge both the covenant itself to be a lawful
oath, and that which the covenant supposeth, namely, a church government
distinct from the civil government, and yet not merely doctrinal, to be a
lawful thing; for he professeth to yield it (though not _jure divino_,
yet) in prudence, which he cannot do, if he make the thing unlawful. 3.
That which an oath doth suppose is sometimes supposed _vi materiæ_, or
_consequentiæ_, that is, the words of the oath do necessarily imply such a
thing, though it be not intended by the swearer; and here I will tell Mr
Coleman one story of Alexander for another: When Alexander was coming
against a town to destroy it, he met Anaximenes, who, as he understood,
came to make intercession and supplication for sparing the town. Alexander
prevented him with an oath that he would not do that thing which
Anaximenes should make petition for, whereupon Anaximenes made petition
that he would destroy the town. Alexander found himself bound by the plain
words of his oath not to do what he intended, and so did forbear. And to
add a divine story to an human, Joshua and the princes of Israel did swear
to the Gibeonites upon a supposition that was not true, yet they found
themselves tied by their oath. So he that sweareth to his own hurt must
not change, the oath being otherwise lawful, Psal. xv. 4, yet that
self-hurt which is wrapped up in the matter of his oath was not intended
in swearing. Sometimes, again, that which is supposed and implied in an
oath, lieth also in the thoughts and intentions of those that swear. Now,
where those two are coincident, that is, where the thing supposed in an
oath is both implied necessarily in the words of the oath, and is also
according to the apprehensions of those that swear (which is the case here
in the covenant, and is acknowledged by the reverend brother), I should
think it most strange how any divine can have the least doubt concerning
the obligation of such a thing, except he conceive the thing itself to be
unlawful.
His second answer is this: “In my way (saith he) the governments, civil
and ecclesiastical, are in the subject matter clearly distinct. When the
Parliament handles matters of war, it is a military court; when business
of state, it is a civil court; when matters of religion, it is an
ecclesiastical court.” If this hold good, then it will follow, 1. That the
Parliament, when they deliberate about matters of war or matters of
religion, are not, at least formally and properly, a civil court, else how
makes he these so clearly distinct? 2. That ministers may be called civil
officers, for consider his words in his _Re-examination_, p. 11: “I do not
exclude ministers, neither from ecclesiastical nor civil government, in a
ministerial way, doctrinally and declaratively.” Compare this with his
present answer, it will amount to thus much: That different denominations
being taken from the different subject matter, ministers, when they handle
doctrinally matters of religion, are ecclesiastical ministers; and when
they handle doctrinally matters of civil government, which himself
alloweth them to do, they are civil ministers. But now to apply his answer
to the argument, How doth all this solve the repugnancy of his doctrine to
the covenant? If he had examined my arguments, he had found that most of
them prove from the covenant a church government distinct from civil
government, subjective as well as objective; that is, another government
besides magistracy; different agents as well as different acts; different
hands as well as handling of different matters. I know the Christian
magistrate may and ought to have a great influence in matters of religion;
and whatsoever is due to him by the word of God, or by the doctrine either
of the ancient or reformed churches, I do not infringe, but do maintain
and strengthen it. But the point in hand is, that the covenant doth
undeniably suppose, and clearly hold forth a government in the church
distinct from magistracy, which is proved by these arguments (which, as
they are not yet answered, so I will briefly apply them to the proof of
that point which now Mr Coleman sticks at): 1. The church covenant
mentioned in the covenant is as distinct from the privileges of
parliament, as the first article of the covenant is distinct from the
third article. 2. The church government in the first article of the
covenant, the reformation whereof we are to endeavour, differeth from
church government by archbishops, bishops, &c., mentioned in the second
article, as much as a thing to be reformed differeth from a thing to be
extirpated; so that the church government formerly used in the church of
England is looked upon two ways in the covenant, either _qua_ church
government, and so we swear to endeavour the reformation of it (which I
hope was not meant of reforming that part of the privileges of Parliament
whereby they meddle with religion in a parliamentary way), or _qua_ church
government, by archbishops, bishops, &c., and so we swear to endeavour the
extirpation of it. This difference between the first and second articles,
between reformation and extirpation, proveth that the covenant doth
suppose that the church government formerly used in the church of England,
in so far as it was a church government, is not _eatenus_ to be abolished,
but in so far as it was a corrupt church government, that is, prelatical.
3. Church government, in the covenant, is matched with doctrine, worship,
and catechising. Now these are subjectively different from civil
government, for the civil magistrate doth not act doctrinally nor
catechetically, neither can he dispense the word and sacraments, as Mr
Coleman acknowledgeth. 4. In the first part of the first article of the
covenant, concerning “the preservation of the reformed religion in the
church of Scotland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government,” it
is uncontroverted, that discipline and government are ecclesiastical, and
subjectively different from civil government, that is, though divers who
have a hand in the civil government are ruling elders, yet it is as true
that divers members of Parliament and inferior civil courts are not church
officers; and of the ministry none are civil governors which makes the two
governments clearly distinct subjectively. Now the second part of that
article concerning “the reformation of religion in the kingdoms of England
and Ireland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government,” cannot so
far differ from the first part of that article in the sense of the words,
“discipline and government,” as that the same words, in the same article
of the same covenant, should signify things differing _toto genere_, which
will follow, unless “discipline and government” in the second branch, and
“form of church government” in the third branch, be understood of the
power of church officers, and not of the magistrate. 6. We did swear to
“endeavour the reformation of religion in the kingdoms of England and
Ireland, in doctrine, worship, discipline and government, according to the
word of God and the example of the best reformed churches.” Now the word
of God holds forth another government besides magistracy; for Mr Coleman
himself hath acknowledged, that he finds in the New Testament ministers to
be rulers, yea, instituted rulers; and the example of the best reformed
churches, without all doubt, leadeth us to an ecclesiastical government
different from magistracy. Neither hath the reverend brother so much as
once adventured to allege the contrary, except of the church of Israel,
which, as it is heterogeneous, being none of the reformed churches
mentioned in the covenant, so it shall be discussed in due place; from all
which reasons I conclude, that the wit of man cannot reconcile Mr
Coleman’s doctrine with the covenant. 6. I add a confutation of him out of
himself, thus: No such church government as Mr Coleman casts upon an
uncertainty, whether the word hold out any such thing, can be, by his
principles, the power of magistracy in things ecclesiastical, but another
government beside magistracy. But the church government, mentioned in the
first article of the covenant, is such a church government as Mr Coleman
casts upon an uncertainty, whether the word hold out any such thing;
therefore the church government mentioned in the first article of the
covenant cannot be, by his principles, the power of magistracy, but
another government beside magistracy. The proposition he will easily
admit, unless he alter his assertions; the assumption is clear from his
_Re-examination,_ p. 15.
CHAPTER IV.
MR COLEMAN AND MR HUSSEY’S ERRORS IN DIVINITY.
Mr Hussey all along calls for divinity schools: I confess himself hath
much need of them, that he may be better grounded in his divinity; and
that if he will plead any more for Christian magistracy, he may not
involve himself into such dangerous heterodoxies as have fallen from his
pen in this short tractate. I instance in these:—
First, In his epistle to the Parliament he hath divers passages against
synodical votes; he will have no putting to the vote: “For votes (saith
he, p. 6) are of no other use but to gather parties, and ought nowhere to
be used but by those that have the power of the sword.” And, p. 3, he will
have the business of assemblies to be only doctrinal, and “by dispute to
find out truth. Their disputes ought to end in a brotherly accord, as in
Acts xv., much disputing, but all ended in accord, no putting to the
vote.” And, p. 5, he will have things carried “with strength of argument
and unanimous consent of the whole clergy.” Behold how he joineth issue
with the remonstrants against the contra-remonstrants, to introduce not
only an academical, but a sceptical and Pyrrhonian dubitation and
uncertainty, so that there shall never be an end of controversy, nor any
settlement of truth and of the ordinances of Jesus Christ, so long as
there shall be but one tenacious disputer to hold up the ball of
contention. One egg is not liker another than Mr Hussey’s tenet is like
that of the Arminians, for which see the Synod of Dort, sess. 25.(1356) It
was the ninth condition which the Arminians required in a lawful and
well-constituted synod, that there might be no decision of the
controverted articles, but only such an accommodation as both sides might
agree to. And, generally, they hold that synods ought not to meet for
decision, or determination, but for examining, disputing, discussing; so
their _Examen Censurae_, cap. 25; and their _Vindiciae_, lib. 2, cap. 6,
p. 131, 133.
Secondly, In that same epistle to the Parliament, p. 4, he hath this
passage: “Will-worship is unlawful, I mean in matters that are essential
to God’s worship, which are matters of duty; as for circumstantials of
time and place, except the Sabbath, which are matters of liberty, in these
the commonwealth may vote, &c.; and this is your Christian liberty, that
in matters of liberty ye make rules and laws to yourselves, not crossing
the ends that you are tied to in duty.” And is the Sabbath only a
circumstantial of time contradistinct from matters of duty? It seems he
will cry down not only the _jus divinum_ of church censures with the
Erastians, but the _jus divinum_ of the Sabbath with the Canterburians.
And if will-worship be unlawful only in the essentials of God’s worship,
why was the argument of will-worship so much tossed, not only between
Prelates and Nonconformists, but between Papists and Protestants, even in
reference to ceremonies? And whether hath not Mr Hussey here engaged
himself to hold it free and lawful to the Christian magistrate, yea, to
private Christians (for he calls it Christian liberty, not parliamentary
liberty—now Christian liberty belongs to all sorts of Christians), to make
laws to themselves for taking the sacrament anniversarily on Christmas,
Good-Friday, and Easter, or to appoint a perpetual monthly fast or
thanksgiving; yea, another Parliament may, if so it should seem good to
them, impose again the surplice and cross in baptism, fonts, railing of
communion tables, the reading of divert passages of Apocrypha to the
congregations, doxologies, anthems, responsories, &c., as heretofore they
were used; or they may appoint all and every one to sit in the church with
their faces towards the east, to stand up at the epistles and gospels,
&c.; yea, what ceremonies, Jewish, popish, heathenish, may they not
impose, provided they only hold the foundation, and keep to those
essentials which he calls matters of duty? By restraining the unlawfulness
of will-worship to the essentials, he leaves men free to do anything in
religion, _præter verbum_, so that it appear not to them to be _contra
verbum_; anything they may add to the word, or do beside the word, so that
the thing cannot be proved contrary to the word.
Thirdly, Mr Hussey, ibid., p. 4, 5, saith, That the Parliament may require
such as they receive for preachers of truth, “to send out able men to
supply the places, and that without any regard to the allowance or
disallowance of the people,” where, in the first part of that which he
saith, there is either a heterodoxy or a contradiction. A heterodoxy, if
he mean that ministers are to be sent out without ordination: a
contradiction, if he mean that they must be ordained; for then he gives
classes a work which is not merely doctrinal. But most strange it is, that
he so far departeth from Protestant divines in point of the church’s
liberty in choosing ministers. He tells us, p. 14, that Mr Herle, “for
want of skill and theological disputations,” hath granted to people a
right to choose their minister. Mr Herle’s skill, both logical and
theological, is greater than it seems he can well judge of; neither can
this bold arrogant censure of his derogate from Mr Herle’s, but from his
own reputation. For the matter itself, it is one, and not the least, of
the controversies between the Papists and Protestants, what right the
church hath in the vocation of ministers: read Bellarmine, _de Cleric._,
and those that write against him, and see whether it be not so. The
Helvetic Confession tells us that the right choosing of ministers is by
the consent of the church, and the Belgic Confession saith, “We believe
that the ministers, seniors and deacons, ought to be called to those their
functions, and by the lawful elections of the church to be advanced into
those rooms.” See both these in the _Harmony of Confessions_, sect. 11. I
might here, if it were requisite, bring a heap of testimonies from
Protestant writers; the least thing which they can admit of is, that a
minister be not obtruded _renitente ecclesia. Factum valet, fieri non
debet._ It may be helped after it is done, without making null or void the
ministry; but in a well-constituted church there ought to be no intrusion
into the ministry, the church’s consent is requisite; for which also I
might bring both scripture and antiquity, but that is not my present
business. One thing I must needs put Mr Hussey in mind of, that when the
prelates did intrude ministers, without any regard to the disallowance of
the people, it was cried out against as an oppression and usurpation, and
we are often warned by Mr Prynne, by Mr Coleman, and by myself, to cast
away the prelates’ usurpation with themselves. But who lords it now over
the Lord’s inheritance, the Presbyterians or the Erastians? Nay, he who
will have ministers put in churches “without any regard to the allowance
or disallowance of people,” falls far short of divers prelatical men, who
did much commend the ancient primitive form of calling ministers, not
without the church’s consent. See Dr Field, _Of the Church_, lib. 5, cap.
54; Bilson, _de Gubern. Eccl._, cap. 15, p. 417; the author of _The
History of Episcopacy_, part 2, p. 360.
Fourthly, Mr Hussey, _Epist._, p. 7, saith, That upon further
consideration he found “the minister charged only with preaching and
baptising.” The like he hath afterwards, p. 39, “Let any man prove that a
minister hath any more to do from Christ than to teach and baptise.” And
again, p. 44, he propounds this query, “Whether Christ gave any more
government (he should have said any more to do, for preaching and
baptising are not acts of government) than is contained in preaching and
baptising,” and he holds the negative. If only preaching and baptising,
then not praying and reading in the congregation, ministering the Lord’s
supper, visiting the sick and particular families.
Fifthly, He holdeth, p. 20, That a heathen magistrate is unlawful, “and
for his government, if sin be lawful, it is lawful.” A gross heterodoxy.
The Apostle exhorteth to be subject even to heathen magistrates, Rom.
xiii., for there were no other at that time, and to pray for them, 1 Tim.
ii.; so that by Mr Hussey’s divinity, the Apostle would have men to be
subject unto, and to pray for an unlawful government. It is an
anabaptistical tenet, that an heathen magistrate is not from God, which
Gerhard, _de Magistrate Politico_, p. 498, 499, fully confutes.
Sixthly, He saith of Christ, p. 40, “He doth nothing as Mediator which he
doth not as God or as man.” It is a dangerous mistake, for take the work
of mediation itself, he neither doth it as God, nor as man, but as
God-man.
Seventhly, He saith, p. 35, “Nothing can be said of Christ as second
person in Trinity, in opposition to Mediator, but in opposition to man
there may.” So that he will not admit of this opposition. Christ, as the
Second Person in the Trinity, is equal and consubstantial to the Father,
but, as Mediator, he is not equal to his Father, but less than his Father,
and subject and subordinate to his Father—a distinction used by our
divines against the Anti-Trinitarians and Socinians. Now by his not
admitting of this distinction, he doth by consequence mire himself in
Socinianism; for Christ, as Mediator, is the Father’s servant, Isa. xlii.
1; and the Father is greater than he, John xiv. 28; and as the head of the
man is Christ, so the head of Christ is God, 1 Cor. xi. 3. If, therefore,
it cannot be said of Christ, as he is the Second Person in the Trinity,
that his Father is not greater than he, and that he is not subordinate to
God as his head, then farewell Anti-Socinianism. I dare boldly say, it is
impossible to confute the Socinians, or to assert the eternal Godhead of
Jesus Christ, except somewhat be affirmed of him as the Second Person of
the Trinity, which must be denied of him as he is Mediator, and something
be denied of him as he is the Second Person in the Trinity, which must be
affirmed of him as he is Mediator.
Eighthly, He saith, p. 36, That Christ, “by his mediation, hath obtained
from the Father that he shall not judge any man according to rigour, but
as they are in or out of Christ; all deferring of judgment from the wicked
is in and for Christ, which otherwise the justice of God would not allow.”
Then Christ did thus far make satisfaction to the justice of God in the
behalf of the wicked, and die for them, that judgment might be deferred
from them, and thus far perform acts of mediation for the savages and
Mohammedans, and for them that never heard the gospel, that by such
mediation he hath obtained of the Father that they shall be judged not
according to rigour, but by the gospel. Which intimateth that Christ hath
taken away all their sins against the law, so that all men shall now go
upon a new score, and none shall be condemned or judged by the law, but by
the gospel only; for if Christ have not taken away their sins against the
law, the justice of God will judge them according to the rigour of the
law. Must not every jot of the law be fulfilled? And is there not a
necessity that every one undergo the curse and rigour of the law, or else
that the Mediator hath undergone it for them?
Ninthly, He propounds this query, p. 44: “Whether ministers have any right
to those privileges which are given to the church more than another
Christian,” and he holds the negative. Now the preaching of the word, the
administration of the sacraments, and the power of the keys, are
privileges given to the church, that is, for the church’s good: “For all
things are yours (saith the Apostle), whether Paul, or Apollos,” &c., 1
Cor. iii. 21, 22. Therefore, by Mr Hussey’s divinity, any other Christian
hath as much right to administer word, sacraments, keys, as the minister.
Come on now to Mr Coleman’s errors in divinity, not to repeat what was
expressed in my _Nihil Respondes_, but to take off the _Male Dicis_ in the
main points.
Tenthly, The tenth heterodoxy shall therefore be this, That whatsoever is
given to Christ, he hath it not as the eternal Son of God. Into this ditch
did Mr Coleman first fall, and then Mr Hussey, p. 25, after him. I said
this tenet leadeth to a blasphemous heresy. For the better understanding
whereof let it be remembered what I did promise in my _Nihil Respondes_,
p. 11, in reply to his proposition, “That which is given to Christ he hath
it not as God. This (said I) is in opposition to what I said, p. 45,
concerning the headship and dignity of Christ, as the natural Son of God,
the image of the invisible God, Col. i. 15, and, p. 43, of the dominion of
Christ, as he is the eternal Son of God. This being premised,” &c. Mr
Coleman, without taking the least notice of that which I did purposely and
plainly premise, begins to speak of God _essentially_; and that if
something may be given to Christ as God, then something may be given to
God, and then God is not absolutely perfect, &c., _Male Dicis_, p. 13, 14.
Thus he turneth over to the essence and nature of God what I spake of the
Second Person in the Trinity, or of Christ as he is the eternal Son of
God. Was not the question between him and me, Whether the kingdom and
dominion over all things may be said to be given to Christ as he is the
eternal Son of God. This is the point which he did argue against, because
it takes off his argument first brought to prove that all government, even
civil, is given to Christ as he is Mediator. And still from the beginning
I spake of Christ as the Second Person in the Trinity, or the eternal Son
of God. Thus therefore the case stands: The reverend brother, to prove
that an universal sovereignty and government over all things is given to
Christ as he is Mediator, and to confute my assertion that it is given to
Christ as he is the eternal Son of God, doth frame this argument against
me, “That which is given to Christ he hath it not as God. But here dignity
is given to Christ; therefore not here to be taken as God;” where there is
more in the conclusion than in the premises; for the conclusion which
naturally follows had been this, Therefore Christ hath not here dignity as
God. It seems he was ashamed of the conclusion, yet not of the premises
which infer the conclusion. But this by the way. I speak to his
proposition, “That which is given to Christ he hath it not as God.” These
words “as God,” either he understands οὐσιωδῶς, _essentially_, or
ἐπιστατικῶς, _personally_; that is, either in regard of the nature and
essence of God, which is common to the Son of God with the Father and the
Holy Ghost, and in respect whereof they three are one; or in regard of the
person of the Word, as Christ is the Second Person in the Trinity, and
personally distinct from the Father and the Holy Ghost. If in the former
sense, then he must lay aside his whole argument, as utterly impertinent,
and making nothing at all against my thesis, which affirmed that an
universal dominion and kingdom over all things is given to Christ, not as
he is Mediator (in which capacity he is only King of the church), but as
he is the eternal Son of God. In opposing of which assertion, as the
reverend brother was before _nihil respondens_, so now he is twice nought.
But if in the other sense he understands his proposition (which I must
needs suppose he doth, it being in opposition to what I said), then I
still aver his proposition will infer a blasphemous heresy, as I proved
before by a clear demonstration: That which is given to Christ he hath it
not as God. But life, glory, &c., is given to Christ; therefore Christ
hath not life, glory, &c., as God. The reverend brother saith, “I
acknowledge the conclusion unsound, and I deny not but that the major is
mine own, and the minor is the very Scripture.” Yet he denies the
conclusion, and clears himself by this simile, “That which was given this
poor man he had not before. But a shilling was given this poor man;
therefore he had not a shilling before: where both propositions are true,
yet the conclusion is false (saith he), contrary to the axiom, _Ex veris
nil nisi verum_.” You are extremely out, Sir: your syllogism of the poor
man is _fallacia ab amphibolia_. The major of it is ambiguous, dubious,
and fallacious, and cannot be admitted without a distinction. But here you
acknowledge the major of my argument to be your own, and so not fallacious
in your opinion. You acknowledge the minor to be Scripture. You have not
found four terms in my premises, nor charged my major or minor with the
least fault in matter or form, and yet, forsooth, you deny the conclusion,
and do not admit that incontrovertible maxim in logic, _Ex veris nil nisi
verum_; or, as Kekerman hath it, _Ex veris præemissis falsam conclusionem
colligi est impossibile_,(1357)—It is impossible that a false conclusion
should be gathered from true premises. Now let us hear what he would say
against my conclusion;—it is concerning the sense of the word _hath_: “For
_hath_ (saith he) by me is used for receiving or having by virtue of the
gift, but by him for having fundamentally, originally.” You are still out,
Sir. I take it just as you take it. For though the Son of God, as God
essentially, or in respect of the nature and essence of God, which is
common to all Three Persons in the blessed Trinity, hath originally of
himself a kingdom and dominion over all; yet, as he is the Second Person
in the Trinity, begotten of, and distinct from the Father, he hath the
kingdom and dominion over all not of himself, but by virtue of the gift of
his Father. So that the reverend brother is still _nihil respondens_, and
therefore he shall be concluded in this syllogism: He who holds that
whatsoever is given to Christ he hath it not by virtue of the gift, as he
is the eternal Son of God or Second Person in the Trinity, but only as
Mediator,—he holds, by consequence, that Christ hath not glory by virtue
of his Father’s gift, as he is the eternal Son of God or Second Person in
the Trinity. But Mr Coleman holds the former; therefore Mr Coleman holds
the latter. The consequence in the proposition is proved from John xvii.
22, “The glory which thou gavest me.” The assumption he will own, or else
quit his argument against my distinction of the double kingdom given to
Christ, as he is the eternal Son of God, and as Mediator. The conclusion
which follows is heretical; for whereas the Nicene Creed said of Christ,
in regard of his eternal generation, that he is _Deus de Deo, Lumen de
lumine_,—God of God, Light of light, Mr Coleman’s argument will infer that
he is not only _ex seipso Deus_, but _ex seipso Filius_; and so deny the
eternal generation of the Son of God, and the communication of the
Godhead, and the sovereignty, glory, and attributes thereof, from the
Father to the Son. For if Christ, as he is the eternal Son of God, hath
not glory by virtue of his Father’s gift, then he hath it not by virtue of
the eternal generation and communication, but fundamentally and originally
of himself.
As for the other branch of Mr Coleman’s argument, tending to prove that
Christ, as he is the eternal Son of God, cannot be given, which he
endeavours to vindicate, p. 14, 15, I answer these two things:
_First_, Granting all that he saith, he concludes nothing against me; for
I did from the beginning expound these words, Eph. i. 22, “And gave him to
be the head over all things to the church,” in this sense, That Christ as
Mediator is given only to the church, to be her head, but he that is given
as Mediator to the church is _over all_. So that the giving of Christ
there spoken of is as Mediator, and he is given to the church only, which
I cleared by the Syriac, “And him who is over all he gave to be the head
to the church.” But his being _over all_, there spoken of, if understood
of glory, dignity, excellency over all, so Christ is over all as Mediator
(yea, in regard of the exaltation of his human nature), and this helpeth
not Mr Coleman, who intends to prove from that place that all government,
even civil, is given to Christ as Mediator. But if understood of a kingdom
and government over all, so he is over all, as he is the eternal Son of
God or Second Person of the Trinity, and not as Mediator.
_Secondly_, The question which the reverend brother falls upon, concerning
the personal inhabitation of the Holy Ghost, will never follow from
anything which I said, more than God’s giving of his Son to us will infer
a personal inhabitation of the Son of God in us. That which I said was to
this intent, That both the Son of God and the Holy Ghost are given, not as
God essentially; that is, in respect of the Godhead itself, or as they are
one in nature with the Father (for so the Father that giveth, and the Holy
Ghost which is given, could not be distinguished), but the Son is given as
the Son proceeding from the Father, and the Holy Ghost is given as the
Holy Ghost proceeding and sent from the Father and the Son. Whether he be
given to dwell personally in us, or by his gracious operations only, is
another question, which hath nothing to do with the present argument, and
therefore I will not be led out of my way.
Eleventhly, The eleventh heterodoxy is this: “I see no absurdity to hold
that every man in authority is either Christ’s vicegerent, or the
devil’s.” _Male Dicis_, p. 16. Here I make this inference: Heathen and
infidel magistrates, either, 1. They are not men in authority; or, 2. They
are Christ’s vicegerents; or, 3. They are the devil’s, _Male Dicis._ If he
say they are not men in authority, he shall contradict the apostle Paul,
who calls them higher powers, Rom. xiii. 1, and men in authority, 1 Tim.
ii. 2, speaking in reference even to the magistrates of that time, who
were infidels. If he say they are Christ’s vicegerents, then, 1. He must
say, that Christ, as Mediator, reigns without the church, and is a king to
those to whom he is neither priest nor prophet. 2. He must find a
commission given by Christ to the infidel magistrate. 3. Whom in authority
will he make to be the devil’s vicegerents if infidel magistrates be
Christ’s vicegerents? If he say that they are the devil’s vicegerents,
then it follows, 1. That they who resist the devil’s vicegerent resist the
ordinance of God; for they that resist an infidel magistrate, and do not
submit to his lawful authority (which his infidelity takes not away), is
said, Rom. xiii. 2, to resist the ordinance of God. 2. That the apostle
Paul bade pray for the devil’s vicegerent, 1 Tim. ii. 1, 2. The reverend
brother doth but more and more wind himself into a labyrinth of errors,
while he endeavours to take away the distinction of the twofold kingdom,
and the twofold vicegerentship of God and of Christ.
Twelfthly, The twelfth heterodoxy followeth: “Now it is true that Christ,
being God as well as man, hath of himself originally, as God, whatsoever
he hath by virtue of gift as Mediator,” _Male Dicis_, p. 13. Now subsume
Christ hath, by virtue of gift, as Mediator, the priestly office;
therefore, by Mr Coleman’s principles, Christ hath of himself originally,
as God, the priestly office. And if Christ hath it of himself originally
as God, then the Father and the Holy Ghost hath it also; so that by his
doctrine the Father and the Holy Ghost shall be the priests of the church
as well as Christ, for Christ hath nothing of himself originally as God
which the Father and the Holy Ghost have not likewise.
Thirteenthly, The thirteenth and last error concerneth the office of
deacons. Not only a widow but a deacon is denied to be a church officer,
or to have any warrant from Scripture. “I hold not a widow a church
officer (saith he); no more do I a deacon; both having a like foundation
in Scripture, which is truly none at all,” _Male Dicis,_ p. 9. If this was
his opinion formerly, why did he not in so main a point enter his dissent
from the votes of the Assembly concerning deacons, together with his
reasons? Well, his opinion is so now, whereby he runneth contrary not only
to the reformed churches (which it seems weigh not much in his balance),
but to the plain Scripture, which speaks of the office of a deacon, 1 Tim.
iii. 10; and this could be no civil office, but an ecclesiastical office,
for the deacons were chosen by the church, were ordained with prayer and
laying on of hands, and their charge was to take special care of the poor;
all which is clear, Acts vi. If he had given us the grounds of his opinion
he should have heard more against it.
CHAPTER V.
THE PRELATICAL WAY AND TENETS OF MR COLEMAN AND MR HUSSEY, REPUGNANT ALSO,
IN DIVERS PARTICULARS, TO THE VOTES AND ORDINANCES OF PARLIAMENT.
1. Mr Coleman, in his _Re-examination_, p. 14, makes the Parliament to be
church governors and church officers to the whole kingdom. It was an
argument used against the prelates, that ecclesiastical and civil
government, spiritual and secular administrations, are inconsistent in the
same persons, either of which requireth the whole man. It was another
exception against the prelate, that he assumed the power of church
government and ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the whole diocese, which
was much more than he could discharge. How will Mr Coleman avoid the
involving the Parliament into prelatical guiltiness by his principles,
which we avoid by ours?
2. The prelates sought great things for themselves rather than to purge
the church of scandals. What other thing was it when Mr Coleman, in his
third rule, instead of exhorting to the purging the church, called only
for learning and competency, and told it out, that this will “get us an
able ministry, and procure us honour enough.” Mr Hussey, in his Epistle to
myself, tells me, that our attending on reading, exhortation and doctrine
(without government) will obtain the magistrate’s love, “more honour, more
maintenance:” something for shame he behoved to add of the punishing of
sin (yet he will not have the minister called from his study to be
troubled or to take any pains in discipline), but behold the love of the
magistrate; more honour and more maintenance, are strong ingredients in
the Erastian electuary.
3. Mr Hussey will have ministers placed “without any regard to the
allowance or disallowance of the people,” _Epist. to the Parliament._ This
is prelatical, or rather more than prelatical.
4. The prelates were great enemies to ruling elders: so are Mr Coleman and
Mr Hussey, who acknowledge no warrant from the word of God for that
calling, nor admit of any ruling elders who are not magistrates,—a
distinction which was used by Saravia and Bilson in reference to the
Jewish elders, and by Bishop Hall in reference to the elders of the
ancient church who were not preaching elders, _Assert. of Episcop. by
Divine Right_, p. 208, 209, 221,—and now, forsooth, Mr Hussey, in his
_Epistle to the Parliament_, doth earnestly beseech them to “set up
classes, consisting only of ministers, whose work should be only to preach
the word,” &c. Such classes, I dare say, the prelates themselves will
admit of. Sure the Scottish prelates, when they were at their highest,
yielded as much.
Mr Coleman and Mr Hussey hold, that ruling elders and a church government
distinct from the civil government, in the times of persecution and under
pagan magistrates, can be no warrant for the like where the state is
Christian. This plea for Christian magistracy was Bishop Whitgift’s plea
against the ruling elders, _Answer to the Admon._, p. 114.
6. Mr Hussey, p. 22, saith, That granting the incestuous Corinthian to be
excommunicated, “the decree was Paul’s and not the Corinthians’,” and that
it no way appertained to them under the notion of a church. This is
Saravia’s answer to Beza, _de Tripl. Epist. Genere_, p. 42, 43, yea, the
Papists’ answer to Protestant writers, by which they would hold up the
authority and sole jurisdiction of the prelates, as the apostles’
successors, to excommunicate.
They do not more agree with the prelatical principles than they differ
from the votes and ordinances of Parliament, which is the other point that
I have here undertaken to discover; and I shall do it by the particular
instances following:—
First, The ordinance of the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament, for
the calling of an assembly of divines, beginneth thus: “Whereas, among the
infinite blessings of Almighty God upon this nation, none is, or can be,
more dear unto us than the purity of our religion, and for that as yet
many things remain in the liturgy, discipline, and government of the
church, which do necessarily require a farther and more perfect
reformation than as yet hath been attained: and whereas it hath been
declared and resolved, by the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament,
that the present church government, by archbishops, bishops, &c., is evil
and justly offensive, &c.; and that, therefore, they are resolved that the
same shall be taken away, and that such a government shall be settled in
the church as may be most agreeable to God’s holy word, and most apt to
procure and preserve the peace of the church at home, and nearer agreement
with the church of Scotland, and other reformed churches abroad.” After it
was resolved and voted in both the honourable houses of Parliament, and
sent as one of the propositions to the treaty at Uxbridge, “That many
particular congregations shall be under one presbyterial government.” Now,
therefore, what can be more contrary to the votes and ordinances of
Parliament than that which Mr Coleman and Mr Hussey hold, that there ought
to be no ecclesiastical government beside civil magistracy, except we
please to take preaching and baptism under the name of government, as if,
forsooth, the Parliament had meant, by presbyterial government,
Parliamentary government; or as if, by the purity of religion in point of
the discipline of government of the church, they had intended nothing but
their civil rights and privileges; or as if the wise and honourable Houses
had understood themselves no better than to intend that for a nearer
agreement with the church of Scotland and other reformed churches, which
is the widest difference from them, to wit, the Erastian way.
Secondly, In the same ordinance of Parliament for the calling of an
assembly of divines, it is ordained that the assembly, after conferring
and treating among themselves touching the liturgy, discipline, and
government of the church, or vindication and clearing of the doctrine of
the same, shall deliver their opinions or advices of or touching the
matters aforesaid to both or either of the houses of Parliament, yet Mr
Hussey, _Epist. to the Parliament_, p. 36, will not have classes to put
anything to the vote, but to hold on the disputes till all end in accord,
and in unanimous consent of the whole clergy. But how can the Assembly,
after disputes, express their sense, and deliver their opinions and advice
to the Parliament, as they are required, except they do it by putting to
the vote? Mr Coleman himself hath consented, yea, sometime called to put
things to the vote; and as for classes, will any man imagine, that when
both houses of Parliament did vote “that many particular congregations
shall be under one presbyterial government,” their meaning was, that the
classical presbytery shall only schoolwise dispute, and put nothing to the
vote; or that the classical presbytery shall in common dispense the word
and sacraments to many congregations, and that either the classical
presbytery shall go to the several congregations successively, or the many
congregations come to the classical presbytery, for preaching and
baptising? I admire what opinion Mr Hussey can have of the Parliamentary
vote concerning presbyterial government.
Thirdly, Mr Hussey, _Epistle to the Parliament_, p. 4, 5, will have
ministers placed “without any regard to the allowance and disallowance of
the people,” yet the ordinance of Parliament, for giving power to
classical presbyteries to ordain ministers, doth appoint that he who is
examined and approved by the presbytery shall be “sent to the church or
other place where he is to serve (if it may be done with safety and
conveniency), there to preach three several days, and to converse with the
people, that they may have trial of his gifts for their edification, and
may have time and leisure to inquire into, and the better to know his life
and conversation,” after which the ordinance appointeth public notice to
be given, and a day set to the congregation to put in what exceptions they
have against him.
Fourthly, Mr Hussey in that _Epistle to the Parliament_, p. 5, saith, “Oh
that this honourable court would hasten to set up classes consisting only
of ministers whose work should be only to preach the word, and weekly meet
in schools of divinity!” Here is a double contradiction to the ordinances
of Parliament, for in the directions of the Lords and Commons for choosing
of ruling elders, and speedy settling of presbyterial government, it is
appointed that ruling elders shall be members both of classes and
synodical assemblies, together with the ministers of the word. Again, the
ordinance about suspension of scandalous persons from the sacrament
appointeth other work to classes, beside preaching and disputing, namely,
the receiving and judging of appeals from the congregational eldership. Mr
Coleman, in _Male Dicis_, p. 12, professeth that he excludeth ruling
elders from church government, yet he can hardly be ignorant that as the
Parliament hath voted “that many particular congregations shall be under
one presbyterial government,” so their votes do commit that government to
pastors and ruling elders jointly.
I will not here repeat the particulars wherein I showed in my _Nihil
Respondes_ that Mr Coleman hath abused the honourable houses of
Parliament, unto which particulars he hath answered as good as nothing.
The honourable houses, in their wisdom, will soon observe whether such
men, whose avouched tenets are so flatly repugnant to the parliamentary
votes and ordinances, are like to be good pleaders for Christian
magistracy.
CHAPTER VI.
MR COLEMAN’S WRONGING OF THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.
Mr Coleman ends his _Male Dicis_ with a resentment of accusations charged
upon him by a stranger, a commissioner from another church. The lot of
strangers were very hard, if, when they are falsely accused to authority,
they may not answer for themselves. He may remember the first accusation
was made by himself, when in his sermon to the Parliament, he did flatly
impute to the commissioners from the church of Scotland a great part of
the fault of hindering union in the Assembly of Divines, as having come
biassed with a national determination; his doctrine also at that time
being such, as did not only reflect upon the government of the church of
Scotland, but tend to the subversion of the covenant in one principal
point, without which there can be small or no hopes of attaining the other
ends of the covenant. Since that time he did in his _Re-examination_, and
now again in his _Male Dicis_, fall foully upon the church of Scotland,
not only by gross mistakes and misrepresentations of our way, but by most
groundless aspersions and most uncharitable and unjust calumnies. I am
sure I am not so much a stranger to this doctrine as he is to the church
of Scotland, of which notwithstanding he boldly speaks his pleasure in
divers particulars, which he will never be able to make good.
First, He hath aspersed that church in the point of promiscuous
communicating. This I confuted in my _Nihil Respondes_: and told him both
of the order of the church and practice of conscientious ministers to the
contrary. Now what replieth he?
“_First_, This refining work, I think, is not one year old in Scotland, or
much more. I was lately informed that in Edinburgh it is begun: whether
anywhere else I know not,” _Male Dicis_, p. 20. Are not these now good
grounds of censuring and aspersing a reformed church (whose name hath been
as precious ointment among other churches abroad), “I think; I was
informed; whether it be otherwise I know not?” He will sit in Cornhill,
and tell the world what he imagines or hears of the church of Scotland,
and that, forsooth, must be taken for a truth. Yet there was both rules
and practice in the church of Scotland for debarring ignorant and
scandalous persons from the sacrament before he was born, though all was
put out of course under the prelates.
“_Secondly_ (saith the reverend brother), It is not a very effectual
sin-censuring and church-refining government, under which, after fourscore
years’ constant practice, divers thousands in the kingdom, and some
hundreds in one particular parish, because of ignorance and scandal, are
yet unfit to communicate,” _Male Dicis_, p. 20. _Ans._ 1. It is
notoriously false that there hath been fourscore years’ constant practice
of presbyterial government in Scotland; for the prelates there were above
thirty years’ standing. 2. “Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one
day, or shall a nation be born at once?” saith the prophet, Isa. lxvi. 8.
It is no easy matter to get a whole nation purged of ignorant and
scandalous persons. 3. He may take notice that the apostle Paul, almost in
all his epistles, maketh mention of scandalous persons among those to whom
he wrote, warning them not to have fellowship with such, to note them, to
avoid them. If the apostolic churches were not free of such, what great
marvel if we be not? 4. Before he objected promiscuous communicating. This
being cleared to be a calumny, now he objecteth that there are such as are
unfit to communicate. But while he thus seeketh a quarrel against church
government, he doth upon the matter quarrel the preaching of the gospel
itself; for he that imputeth it as a fault to the church government that
there are still divers thousands who, by reason of ignorance or scandal,
are unfit to communicate, doth, by consequence, yea, much more, impute it
as a fault to the preaching of the gospel in England, Scotland, Ireland,
France, Germany, the Low Countries, Switzerland, Sweden, Poland,—that in
all these, and other reformed churches, after fourscore years’ constant
preaching of the gospel (which is appointed of God to turn unconverted and
unregenerate persons from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan
to God), there are not only divers thousands, but divers millions, who, by
reason of ignorance or scandal, are yet unfit to communicate. If the word
do not open the eyes of the ignorant, and convert the scandalous, what
marvel that church government cannot do it? Church government is not an
illuminating and regenerating ordinance as the word is. But this church
government can and will do, yea, hath done, where it is duly executed: It
is a most blessed means for keeping the ordinances from visible and known
pollution, which doth very much honour God, shame sin, and commend piety;
it putteth a visible difference between the precious and the vile, the
clean and the unclean, the silver and the dross; and may well be,
therefore, called a church-refining ordinance.
Secondly, The second calumny was this, “I myself (said he) did hear the
presbytery of Edinburgh censure a woman to be banished out of the gates of
the city.” I answered him in his own language, “It is at the best a most
uncharitable slander:” and told him there is no banishment in Scotland but
by the civil magistrate; and that he ought to have inquired and informed
himself better.
Now he doth neither adhere to his calumny, or offer to make it good, nor
yet quit it, or confess he was mistaken, but propoundeth three new queries
(_Male Dicis_, p. 21), still forgetting his own rule of keeping to the
laws of disputation and matter in hand. For the particular in hand he only
saith thus much, “I did make inquiry, and from the presbytery itself I
received information, but not satisfaction.” He tells not what information
he received. If he will say that he received information that the
banishment was by the magistrate, how could he then report that it was by
the presbytery. If he say that the information he had from the presbytery
gave him any ground for the report which he hath made, let him speak it
out, and the world shall know the untruth of it. He may remember, withal,
that by his principles an accusation may not be received against an elder
(much less against an eldership), in reference either to the judgment of
charity, or to ministerial conviction, except under two or three
witnesses. If, therefore, he would have his accusation believed, let him
find two or three witnesses.
Thirdly, Whereas I had rectified a great mistake of the reverend brother
when I told him, “It is accidental to the ruling elder to be of the
nobility, or to nobles to be ruling elders; there are but some so, and
many otherwise,” he is not pleased to be rectified in this, but replieth,
“I say, first, It is continually so; secondly, The king’s commissioner in
the General Assembly, is his presence accidental?” _Male Dicis_, p. 10.
See now here whether he understandeth what he saith, or whereof he
affirmeth. That which he saith is continually so, is almost continually
otherwise; that is, there are continually some ruling elders who are not
nobles, and there are continually some nobles who are not ruling elders.
So that, if anything be accidental, this is accidental, that an elder be
of the nobility, or nobles be elders; they are neither nobles _qua_
elders, nor elders _qua_ nobles. It is no less accidental that the king’s
commissioner be present in the General Assembly; for there have been
General Assemblies in Scotland, both before the erection and since the
last casting out of Prelacy, in which there was no commissioner from the
king. And when the king sends a commissioner, it is accidental that he be
of the nobility; for the king hath sent commissioners to General
Assemblies who were not of the nobility.
Fourthly, A fourth injury, not to be passed in silence, is this: Mr
Coleman hath endeavoured to make the world believe that the commissioners
from the church of Scotland came to the Assembly biassed with something
adventitious from without, which he calls a national determination, and
that we are not permitted by those that sent us to receive any further
light from the word of God. I shall say no more of the bias, because, as I
told him before, the standers by see well enough which way the bias runs.
But most strange it is, that after I had confuted his calumny, not only
from our paper first presented to the grand committee, but from the
General Assembly’s own letter to the Assembly of Divines, showing that
they had ordered the laying aside of some particular customs in the church
of Scotland, for the nearer uniformity with the church of England, so much
endeared unto them, yet he still adhereth to his former calumny (_Male
Dicis_, p. 20), without taking notice of the evidence which I had given to
the contrary. And not content with this, he still quarrelleth with my
allegation of certain parallel examples, which are by him so far
disesteemed, that he hath not stuck to pass the very same censure upon the
foreign divines who came to the Synod of Dort which the Arminians did. The
same he saith of Alexander’s coming to the Council of Nice, and of Cyril’s
coming to the Council of Ephesus; all these, I say, he still involveth
under the same censure with us; for whereas he had alleged that I
justified the bias, this I denied, and called for his proof. His reply now
is thus: “Is not the allegation of the examples of the like doing a
justification of the act done?” _Male Dicis_, p. 20. This reply can have
no other sense but this, That I justified the thing which he thinks our
bias, because I justified those other divines who (as he holds) came also
biassed in like manner. I am persuaded this one particular, his joining
with the Arminians in their exceptions against the Synod of Dort, would
make all the reformed churches, if they could all speak to him _uno ore_,
to cry _Male audis_. And I am as firmly persuaded that the confession
which I have extorted from him in this place, that he knoweth no
adventitious engagements those divines had, makes him irreconcileably to
contradict himself; for he made them but just now biassed in the same
manner as he thinks us, and made my allegation of their examples to be a
justification of the bias charged by him upon us: as, therefore, he doth
must uncharitably and untruly judge us to be biassed with adventitious
engagements, so doth he judge of them. Neither can he assoil them while he
condemneth us; for the articles concerning predestination, the death of
Christ, grace, free will, and perseverance, were determined before the
Synod of Dort by most (if not by all) of those reformed churches who sent
commissioners thither, as much as presbyterial government was determined
in the church of Scotland before the reverend Assembly of Divines was
called. And this pre-engagement and predetermination of those reformed
churches was the main objection of the Arminians against the foreign
divines who came to the Synod of Dort. To conclude this point, Mr Coleman
himself, in his _Re-examination_, p. 7, avoucheth roundly, that the
foreign divines came to Dort, not as divines, by dispute and disquisition
to find out truth, but as judges, to censure all different opinions as
erroneous.
CHAPTER VII.
CALUMNIES CONFUTED, AND THAT QUESTION BRIEFLY CLEARED, WHETHER THE
MAGISTRATE BE CHRIST’S VICEGERENT.
Mr Hussey, in his title page, tells us he hath prosecuted the
argumentative part without any personal reflections, yet I could instance
divers personal reflections in his book which any moderate impartial man
will extremely dislike; but what should this be to the edifying of my
reader, the end which, next to the glory of God and the promoting of
reformation, I have proposed to myself? Yet I must needs take notice of
some calumnies.
First, In his _Epistle_, p. 8, he offereth it to be examined whether I was
not beside my text, Mal. iii. 2, when I pressed from it reformation by
ecclesiastical discipline: whether that refiner’s fire and fuller’s soap
doth not point at another and a nearer operation upon the souls and
spirits of men by the blood, word, Spirit, and grace of Christ: and
whether such handling of a similitude in a text be to preach the mind of
God, or men’s own fancy. It is no discontent to me, but I shall rejoice in
it, that men of piety and judgment examine my doctrine by the word of God,
and hold fast what they find agreeable to the Scriptures, and no more. But
is this brotherly, or fair, or conscionable dealing, to offer my sermon to
be examined under such a notion, when he hath not only said nothing to
confute any of my doctrines, as not arising from my text, or any of my
applications, as not arising from my doctrines; but hath also untruly
represented my sermon, as coming short of, or not expressing that which
indeed it hath most principally and most expressly in it? That of
reformation was but a part of my sermon; and that of church censures,
against scandalous sinners, was but the least part of that part. And why
should not the fuller’s soap in the house of God, take off those spots in
our feasts? Why should not the refiner’s fire purge away the wicked of the
earth like dross? so David calls them. That reformation is one part of the
Holy Ghost’s intendment in that text, is Gualther’s opinion as well as
mine, yet he thinks Gualther his own. Nay, I proved it from comparing
scripture with scripture, which is the best way that I know to clear
scripture. Why did he not answer my proofs? But beside all that I said of
reformation, had I not other three doctrines out of that text
comprehending all that which Mr Hussey hinteth as omitted by me, and yet
intended in the text? Dare he say that I did not take in purgation by the
word? (though I confess he doth not well prove it from the words which he
citeth, “Is not my word an hammer?” But it is proved by the words which he
citeth not, “Is not my word like as a fire?”) Did I not expressly say that
Christ is to us as a refiner’s fire and as fuller’s soap three ways,—by
reformation, by tribulation, by mortification? Did I not handle the last
two as well as the first? Oh let no more such gross calumnies be found
among those who profess to be brethren!
Secondly, Mr Hussey, in his epistle to myself, gives it out that I say,
“We have leave from the civil magistrate to preach the gospel,” which he
interprets as if I denied that we preach the word with authority from
Christ. It was _de facto_, not _de jure_, that I spake it. The magistrate
hath power in his hand to hinder both doctrine and discipline, if he be an
adversary, though it be the will of Christ that there be both doctrine and
discipline, and the authority of both is from Christ. When the magistrate
assisteth or countenanceth, or so much as doth not hinder the preaching of
the gospel, then he gives leave to it.
Thirdly, Mr Coleman, in his _Male Dicis_, p. 3, saith, “I am confident the
church of Scotland sent this Commissioner to dispute down our reasons, not
to revile our persons.” Why did he not, if he could, give instance of some
reviling word written by me against his person? I have not so learned
Christ. The Lord rebuke every railing and reviling spirit. I have given
him reason against railing; he hath given me railing against reason; I
spake to his doctrine, he speaks to my place and relation, which is both
the _alpha_ and _omega_ of his _Male Dicis_.
Fourthly, “Knowledge (saith he) is only with Mr Gillespie; others
understand neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm,” p. 3. He will
sooner bring water out of flint than prove this consequence out of my
title-page. Although I confess himself hath affirmed divers things of the
church of Scotland which he doth not understand, as I have made plainly to
appear. If he take a review of the title-page of his _Re-examination_, he
gives more ground for this consequence,—that Mr Coleman is the only man
that denies himself; others seek great things for themselves. Or from the
title-page of his _Male Dicis_ this consequence will be as good,—that Mr
Coleman is the only man that blesseth; others are revilers.
Fifthly, Thus saith Mr Coleman, “O ye honourable house of Parliament, take
you notice that you manage that great place of yours under Christ and for
Christ: He is your head, and you are his servants; and take you notice
withal that Mr Gillespie accounts this your reproach,” _Male Dicis
Maledicis_, p. 17. But O ye honourable house of Parliament, be pleased to
take notice of my own plain expression of my mind in my _Nihil Respondes._
p. 13: “The Christian magistrate manageth his office under and for Christ,
that is, so as to be serviceable for the kingdom and glory of Christ.” And
now judge whether it be suitable to the sincerity and candour of a
minister of the gospel to endeavour to make me odious to authority, by
imputing to me that which not only I did not say, but the contrary whereof
I did plainly express. The thing which I charged his doctrine with was
this, that by holding all government to be given to Christ as Mediator,
and from him, as Mediator, derived to the magistrate as his vicegerent, he
shaketh the foundation of magistracy. I am sure that which I hold, that
all lawful magistrates are powers ordained by God, and are to be honoured
and obeyed as God’s vicegerents, is a firm and strong foundation for
magistracy. But that which Mr Coleman and Mr Hussey hold, viz., that the
Christian magistrate holdeth his office of, under, and for Christ, as he
is Mediator, and doth act _vice Christi_, as Christ’s vicegerent, gives a
most dangerous wound to Christian magistracy, which I can demonstrate in
many particulars. I shall now give instance only in these few: First, They
must prove from Scripture that Christ, as Mediator, hath given a
commission of vicegerentship to Christian magistrates, and appointed them
not only to be serviceable to him, and to do his work (for that they must
serve Christ, and be for his glory, is not controverted, nay, can never
enough be commended to them), but also to govern _vice Christi_, in
Christ’s stead, and that not only as he is God, which is not controverted
neither, but as he is Mediator. This, I say, they must prove, which they
will never be able to do, or otherwise they do, by their doctrine, lead
the magistrate into a snare, and leave him in it. For how shall he be
acknowledged for a vicegerent who can show no commission nor warrant for
his vicegerentship? Secondly, Their doctrine tendeth to the altering of
the surest and best known tenure of magistracy, which is from God; for
they hold that God hath put all government, and all authority civil, and
all, into the hands of Christ as Mediator; if the tenure from Christ fail,
then, by their doctrine, the tenure from God shall fail too. Thirdly, The
vicegerent cannot act in that capacity, nor assume that power which his
sovereign, whose vicegerent he is, ought not to assume if he were
personally present; so that, by their principles, it will follow that the
Christian magistrate can act no farther, nor assume any other power of
government, than Christ himself might have assumed when he was on earth,
or might now assume and exercise as Mediator if he were on earth. But
Christ himself, when he was on earth, neither did exercise, nor was sent
to exercise, civil judgment, Luke xii. 14; and the temporal sword, John
xviii. 36; nor external observation and state, Luke xvii. 20, 21; and he
declined to be an earthly king, John vi. 15. Therefore, by their
principles, the Christian magistrate ought to forbear and avoid all these.
A sixth calumny is this: Mr Coleman, descanting upon the governments
mentioned 1 Cor. xii. 28, chargeth me with a circular argumentation: “He
circularly argues (saith he): they are civil, because God placed them
there, and God placed them there because they are civil,” _Male Dicis
Maledicis_, p. 9. I neither argued the one nor the other; they are both,
Sir, of your own forging. But this is not your first allegation of this
kind. I sometime admire what oscitancy or supine negligence (to judge it
no worse) this can be, to fancy to yourself that I have said what you
would, and then to bring forth your own apprehensions for my arguments.
CHAPTER VIII.
THAT MR COLEMAN DOTH GREAT VIOLENCE, BOTH TO HIS OWN WORDS AND TO THE
WORDS OF OTHERS WHOM HE CITETH.
The reverend brother hath offered extreme violence to his own declaration,
of which let the leader now judge, comparing his declaration with his
interpretation.—
_Declaration_
For much of what is reported of my sermon I utterly deny, and refer myself
to the sermon itself, for what I have acknowledged to be delivered by me,
although it is my judgment, yet because I see it hath given a great deal
of offence to this Assembly and the reverend Commissioners of Scotland, I
am sorry I have given offence in the delivery thereof; and for the
printing, although I have an order, I will forbear, except I be further
commanded. THO. COLEMAN.
_Interpretation_
It is a truth, and a Scripture truth, which I have delivered, and because
I see a scripture truth hath given offence to the Commissioners of
Scotland, &c. I am sorry. This must needs be the sense; I am sure this was
the sense intended, _Male Dicis, Maledicis_, p. 18.
Surely if such Orleans glosses be admitted upon men’s declarations, signed
with their hands, and if he who hath subscribed himself sorry that he hath
given offence in the delivery of such a doctrine, shall be allowed to
expound himself thus; that he meant he was sorry others had taken offence
at a Scripture truth, that is, he was sorry for our fault, not for his
own. I know not how men shall trust one another’s declarations, or how we
can practically, as well as doctrinally, confute the Jesuitical
equivocations and mental reservations. And if this must needs be the sense
which now the reverend brother gives, and was the sense intended, why
saith he that he did publicly recal that declaration? He might make a
revocation of it, in the sense wherein I understood it: but how could he
make a revocation of it as himself understood it, and as he saith the
sense must needs be? Was this his sorrow for our taking offence at a
Scripture truth, a sorrow to be sorrowed for? Why did he not rather make a
second declaration the next day interpreting the former? And whereas he
thinks that his revocation ought to have been mentioned together with his
declaration, because the whole truth is to be told as well as the truth,
his own heart knows that he himself hath not told the whole truth, for he
could tell much more if he pleased, how he was brought upon the business,
and particularly upon that revocation. Why will he challenge others for
not telling the whole truth, when himself doth it not? I should have
thought that this revocation was neither here nor there as to the point of
scandal, for proof whereof his declaration was brought; and that, as it
was not to the business in hand, so it might rather serve for impairing
his credit than for anything else. But seeing himself thinks it more for
his credit to tell the world of his saying and unsaying, declaring and
undeclaring, let him be doing.
In the next place, Will you see how much violence he offereth to divines
whom he citeth? I had cited plain and full testimonies of the Zurich
divines, showing that Gualther expounds 1 Cor. v. all along of
excommunication; that Bullinger holds excommunication to be instituted by
Christ, Matt. xviii.; that Aretius saith God was the author of
excommunication in the Old Testament, and Christ in the New, all which see
in _Nihil Respondes_, p. 32.
The reverend brother, notwithstanding of their plain testimonies, speaking
for me and against him in the main controversy between him and me, doth
still allege that they are for him, not for me, _Male Dicis_, p. 23, yet
he doth not so much as offer any answer to their testimonies by me cited,
only he bringeth three other passages of theirs, intimating that there may
be a true church without excommunication; that they thought it not
necessary where they lived; that they thought it hard, yea
impossible—_arduum nec non impossible_—to introduce excommunication in
those parts, by which citations the brother hath proved nothing against
me, but confirmed what I said. Let him remember first, he himself makes
the main controversy between him and me about the scriptural warrants of
church censures, now in that they are clearly against him. Next Aretius,
who thought it hard, yea impossible, to bring in excommunication at that
time, saith also, _Dabit posterior aetas tractabiliores forte
animas_,—peradventure the following age shall bring forth more tractable
souls; and thereupon he adviseth not to despair of the restitution of
excommunication. I cited also other testimonies to show that the Zurich
divines did endeavour and long for the discipline of excommunication,
though as things stood then and there, they did prudentially supersede the
restoring of it where they lived, because of the difficulty and
apprehended impossibility of the thing. If Mr Coleman will follow the
Zurich divines he must change his tone, and quite alter the state of the
question, and make it thus: Whether, as things now stand, it be expedient
to settle excommunication in the church of England. Now if he makes this
the state of the question, then he must make a revocation of that word, “I
deny an institution, I assent to a prudence.” For the tables were turned
with the Zurich divines; they assented to an institution; they denied a
prudence; they held an affirmative precept for excommunication, but that
it doth not bind _ad semper_, that the thing is not at all times, nor in
all places necessary; that weighty inconveniences may warrant the
superseding of it.
The reverend brother brings another testimony out of Aretius against
suspension from the sacrament: “And further (saith he) for this grand
desired power, suspension from sacrament, these are his words,” &c. A
testimony three ways falsified: 1. Aretius speaks not at all in that place
of the power or duty of church officers, of which suspension is a part,
but he speaks of private Christians, and what is incumbent to them. 2. He
speaks of separation, not of suspension from the sacrament; that a man is
not bound to withdraw and lie off from the sacrament, because every one
who is to communicate with him is not in his opinion a saint. 3. He
speaketh against separation from both word and sacrament, because of the
mixture of good and bad in hearing and in communicating; but scandalous
sinners are invited to, not suspended from the hearing of the word,
wherefore take Aretius’s(1358) words as they are, and then let the
reverend brother consider what he hath gained.
What hath this now to do with church officers’ power of suspension from
the sacrament?
Observe another testimony which he addeth out of Augustine, _lib. de Fide,
Excommunicatio debet supplere locum visibilis gladii_, which he Englisheth
thus: “Excommunication comes in only to supply the want of the civil
sword.” But how comes in your _only_, Sir? Augustine saith no such thing.
And when I have expunged that word, I must tell you farther, that I can
find no such passage in Augustine’s book _de Fide_; but I find somewhat to
this purpose in another book of his, which is entitled _De Fide et
Operibus_, a book which he wrote against the admission of such persons to
baptism, as being instructed in the faith, are, notwithstanding, still
scandalous in their lives (which, by the way, will hold _a fortiori_, for
the exclusion of notorious scandalous sinners from the Lord’s supper; for
they who ought not to be admitted to the sacrament of initiation, ought
much less to be admitted to the sacrament of confirmation). Now because
divers scriptures speak of a mixture of good and bad in the church,
Augustine takes there occasion to reprove those who abused these
scriptures against the exercise of discipline and church censures, the
necessity whereof he showeth to be the greater, because the magistrate
doth not punish by death all such crimes as under the law were punished by
death, as, namely, adultery, the scandal chiefly by him insisted upon. As
for that passage concerning excommunication supplying the place of the
sword,(1359) it plainly holds forth excommunication under Christian
emperors and magistrates, for such they were at that time, so far it is
from making against us. For these are the words which say no such thing as
Mr Coleman would make them say: “And Phinehas the priest did thrust
through the adulterous persons found together with the avenging sword;”
which signified that it should be none by degradations and
excommunications in this time, when, in the discipline of the church, the
visible sword was to cease.
If the reverend brother had let me know where to find his other
testimonies of Origen and Chrysostom, peradventure I had given him as good
an account of them. Tertullian’s(1360) words which he citeth, _Praesident
probati seniores_, I know very well where to find; and I know also, that
if there be a passage in all antiquity against the Erastians, that is one.
Which therefore I here offer as it is to be considered.
One instance more of his misalleging and perverting of testimonies. In the
close, he citeth a passage of Mr Case’s sermon, Aug. 22, 1645. “He
(Christ) is king of nations and king of saints. As king of nations he hath
a temporal kingdom and government over the world,” &c., “and the rule and
regiment of this kingdom he hath committed to monarchies,” &c. “Here is
Erastianism (saith Mr Coleman, p. 38), a step higher than ever I or
Erastus himself went. And I desire to know of Mr Gillespie, if he will own
this as good divinity?” Yes, Sir, I own it for very good divinity; for my
reverend brother, Mr Case, saith not that Christ, as Mediator, is king of
nations, and hath a temporal kingdom in the world, and hath committed rule
and regiment to monarchies or other lawful magistrates (which is the point
that you and Mr Hussey contend for, being a great heterodoxy in divinity),
but he saith of the Son of God, that he is king of nations, and hath
committed rule to monarchies, which I own with all my heart. The
distinction of the twofold kingdom of Christ,—an universal kingdom,
whereby he reigneth over all things as God, and a special economical
kingdom, whereby he is king to the church only, and ruleth and governeth
it,—is that which, being rightly understood, overturneth, overturneth,
overturneth the Erastian principles. Let Mr Coleman but own this
distinction, and that which Mr Case addeth concerning the kingdom, which
Christ, as king of saints (and so as Mediator), doth exercise both
invisibly, in the conscience, and visibly, in the church: First, By
conquering a people and visible subjects; secondly, By giving them laws
distinct from all the laws and statutes of all the kingdoms and republics
in the world, Isa. xxxiii. 22; thirdly, By constituting special officers
in the church not only to promulgate these laws, Matt, xviii. 19, but to
govern his people according to them, Acts xx. 28; Rom. xii. 8; 1 Cor. xii.
28; xiv. 32; fourthly, In that he hath commanded all his people to obey
these ecclesiastical officers, Heb. xiii. 7, 17; fifthly, And hath
appointed censures proper to this government, Matt, xviii. 17; 1 Cor. v.
13: I say, let Mr Coleman but own this doctrine of Mr Case, which was
printed by order of the honourable House of Commons as well as his was,
then we are agreed. And so much for this time.
THE END.
ONE HUNDRED AND ELEVEN PROPOSITIONS CONCERNING THE MINISTRY AND GOVERNMENT
OF THE CHURCH.
ONE HUNDRED AND ELEVEN
PROPOSITIONS
CONCERNING
THE MINISTRY AND GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH.
BY GEORGE GILLESPIE,
MINISTER AT EDINBURGH, 1642
EDINBURGH:
ROBERT OGLE AND OLIVER AND BOYD.
M. OGLE & SON AND WILLIAM COLLINS, GLASGOW. J. DEWAR, PERTH. W. MIDDLETON,
DUNDEE.
G. & R. KING, ABERDEEN. W. M’COMB, BELFAST.
HAMILTON, ADAMS, & CO., AND JAMES NISBET & CO., LONDON.
1642.
REPRINTED BY A. W. MURRAY, MILNE SQUARE, EDINBURGH.
1844.
_Act approving Eight general Heads of Doctrine against the Tenets of
Erastianism, Independency, and Liberty of Conscience, asserted in the One
Hundred and Eleven Propositions, which are to be examined against the next
Assembly._
Being tender of so great an engagement by solemn covenant,—sincerely,
really, and constantly to endeavour in our places and callings, the
preservation of the reformed religion in this kirk of Scotland, in
doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, the reformation of religion
in the kingdoms of England and Ireland, in doctrine, worship, discipline,
and government, according to the word of God and the example of the best
reformed kirks, and to endeavour the nearest conjunction and uniformity in
all these, together with the extirpation of heresy, schism, and whatsoever
shall be found contrary to sound doctrine: and considering, withal, that
one of the special means which it becometh us in our places and callings
to use in pursuance of these ends is, in zeal for the true reformed
religion, to give our public testimony against the dangerous tenets of
Erastianism, Independency, and (which is falsely called) _Liberty of
Conscience_, which are not only contrary to sound doctrine, but more
special lets and hinderances as well to the preservation of our own
received doctrine, worship, discipline and government, as to the work of
reformation and uniformity in England and Ireland. The General Assembly
upon these considerations, having heard publicly read the one hundred and
eleven following propositions, exhibited and tendered by some brethren who
were appointed to prepare articles or propositions for the vindication of
the truth in those particulars, doth unanimously approve and agree unto
these eight general heads of doctrine therein contained and asserted, viz,
1. That the ministry of the word and the administration of the sacraments
of the New Testament, baptism and the Lord’s supper, are standing
ordinances, instituted by God himself, to continue in the church to the
end of the world; 2. That such as administer the word and sacraments ought
to be duly called and ordained thereunto; 3. That some ecclesiastical
censures are proper and peculiar to be inflicted only upon such as bear
office in the kirk; other censures are common, and may be inflicted both
on ministers and other members of the kirk; 4. That the censure of
suspension from the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, inflicted because of
gross ignorance, or because of a scandalous life and conversation, as
likewise the censure of excommunication or casting out of the kirk
flagitious or contumacious offenders, both the one censure and the other
is warrantable by and grounded upon the word of God, and is necessary (in
respect of divine institution) to be in the kirk; 5. That as the rights,
power, and authority of the civil magistrate are to be maintained
according to the word of God, and the confessions of the faith of the
reformed kirks, so it is no less true and certain, that Jesus Christ, the
only Head and only King of the kirk, hath instituted and appointed a kirk
government, distinct from the civil government or magistracy; 6. That the
ecclesiastical government is committed and entrusted by Christ to the
assemblies of the kirk, made up of the ministers of the word and ruling
elders; 7. That the lesser and inferior ecclesiastical assemblies ought to
be subordinate and subject unto the greater and superior assemblies; 8.
That notwithstanding hereof, the civil magistrate may and ought to
suppress, by corporal or civil punishments, such as by spreading error or
heresy, or by fomenting schism, greatly dishonour God, dangerously hurt
religion, and disturb the peace of the kirk. Which heads of doctrine
(howsoever opposed by the authors and fomenters of the foresaid errors
respectively) the General Assembly doth firmly believe, own, maintain, and
commend unto others, as solid, true, orthodox, grounded upon the word of
God, consonant to the judgment both of the ancient and the best reformed
kirks. And because this Assembly (through the multitude of other necessary
and pressing business) cannot now have so much leisure as to examine and
consider particularly the foresaid one hundred and eleven propositions;
therefore a more particular examination thereof is committed and referred
to the theological faculties in the four universities of this kingdom, and
the judgment of each of these faculties concerning the same is appointed
to be reported to the next General Assembly. In the mean while these
propositions shall be printed, both that copies thereof may be sent to
presbyteries, and that it may be free for any that pleaseth to peruse
them, and to make known or send their judgment concerning the same to the
said next Assembly.
A. KER.
PROPOSITIONS.
1. As our Lord Jesus Christ doth invisibly teach and govern his church by
the Holy Spirit; so in gathering, preserving, instructing, building and
saving thereof, he useth ministers as his instruments, and hath appointed
an order of some to teach and others to learn in the church, and that some
should be the flock and others the pastors.
2. For beside these first founders of the church of Christ,
extraordinarily sent, and furnished with the gift of miracles, whereby
they might confirm the doctrine of the gospel, he appointed also ordinary
pastors and teachers, for the executing of the ministry, even until his
coming again unto judgment, Eph. iv. 11-13. Wherefore also, as many as are
of the number of God’s people, or will be accounted Christians, ought to
receive and obey the ordinary ministers of God’s word and sacraments
(lawfully though mediately called), as the stewards and ambassadors of
Christ himself.
3. It is not lawful for any man, how fit soever and how much soever
enriched or beautified with excellent gifts, to undertake the
administration either of the word or sacraments by the will of private
persons, or others who have not power and right to call, much less it is
lawful by their own judgment or arbitrement to assume and arrogate the
same to themselves. But before it be lawful to undergo that sacred
ministry in churches constituted, a special calling, yea beside, a lawful
election (which alone is not sufficient), a mission or sending, or (as
commonly it is termed) ordination, is necessarily required, and that both
for the avoiding of confusion, and to bar out or shut the door (so far as
in us lieth) upon impostors; as also by reason of divine institution
delivered to us in the Holy Scripture, Rom. x. 15; Heb. v. 4; Tit. i. 5; 1
Tim. ii. 7.
4. The church ought to be governed by no other persons than ministers and
stewards preferred and placed by Christ, and after no other manner than
according to the laws made by him; and, therefore, there is no power on
earth which may challenge to itself authority or dominion over the church:
but whosoever they are that would have the things of Christ to be
administered not according to the ordinance and will of Christ revealed in
his word, but as it liketh them, and according to their own will and
prescript, what other thing go they about to do than by horrible sacrilege
to throw down Christ from his own throne?
5. For our only lawgiver and interpreter of his Father’s will, Jesus
Christ hath prescribed and foreappointed the rule according to which he
would have his worship and the government of his own house to be ordered.
To wrest this rule of Christ, laid open in his holy word, to the counsels,
wills, manners, devices, or laws of men, is most high impiety. But
contrarily, the law of faith commandeth the counsel and purposes of men to
be framed and conformed to this rule, and overturneth all the reasonings
of worldly wisdom, and bringeth into captivity the thoughts of the proud
swelling mind to the obedience of Christ. Neither ought the voice of any
to take place or be rested upon in the church but the voice of Christ
alone.
6. The same Lord and our Saviour Jesus Christ, the only Head of the
church, hath ordained in the New Testament, not only the preaching of the
word and administration of baptism and the Lord’s supper, but also
ecclesiastical government, distinct and differing from the civil
government; and it is his will that there be such a government distinct
from the civil in all his churches everywhere, as well those which live
under Christian, as those under infidel magistrates, even until the end of
the world. Heb. xiii. 7, 17; 1 Tim. v. 17, 19; Rom. xii. 8; 1 Cor. xii.
28; 1 Thess. v. 12; Acts i. 20; Luke xii. 42; 1 Tim. vi. 14; Rev. ii. 25.
7. This ecclesiastical government, distinct from the civil, is from God
committed, not to the whole body of the church or congregation of the
faithful, or to be exercised both by officers and people, but to the
ministers of God’s word, together with the elders which are joined with
them for the care and government of the church, 1 Tim. v. 17. To those,
therefore, who are over the church in the Lord, belongeth the authority
and power, and it lieth upon them by their office, according to the rule
of God’s word, to discern and judge betwixt the holy and profane, to give
diligence for amendment of delinquents, and to purge the church (as much
as is in them) from scandals, and that not only by inquiring, inspection,
warning, reproving, and more sharply expostulating, but also by acting in
the further and more severe parts of ecclesiastical discipline, or
exercising ecclesiastical jurisdiction, even unto the greatest and
weightiest censures, where deed is.
8. None that is within the church ought to be without the reach of church
law, and exempt from ecclesiastical censures; but discipline is to be
exercised on all the members of the church, without respect or
consideration of those adhering qualities which use to commend a man to
other men, such as power, nobility, illustrious descent, and the like: for
the judgment cannot be right where men are led and moved with these
considerations. Wherefore, let respect of persons be far from all judges,
chiefly the ecclesiastical: and if any in the church do so swell in pride,
that he refuse to be under this discipline, and would have himself to be
free and exempt from all trial and ecclesiastical judgment, this man’s
disposition is more like the haughtiness of the Roman Pope, than the
meekness and submissiveness of Christ’s sheep.
9. Ecclesiastical censure, moreover, is either proper to be inflicted upon
the ministers and office-bearers only, or with them common to other
members of the church: the former consisteth in suspension or deposition
of ministers from their office (which in the ancient canons is called
καθαίρεσις); the latter consisteth in the greater and lesser
excommunication (as they speak). Whatsoever in another brother deserveth
excommunication, the same much more in a minister deserveth
excommunication: but justly sometimes a minister is to be put from his
office, and deprived of that power which by ordination was given him,
against whom, nevertheless, to draw the sword of excommunication, no
reason doth compel.
10. Sometime also it happeneth that a minister, having fallen into heresy
or apostacy, or other grievous crimes, if he show tokens of true
repentance, may be justly received into the communion of the church, whom,
notwithstanding, it is no way expedient to restore into his former place
or charge; yea, perhaps it will not be found fit to restore such an one to
the ministry in another congregation as soon as he is received into the
bosom of the church; which surely is most agreeable as well to the word of
God (2 Kings xxiii. 9; Ezek. xliv. 10-14,) as to that ecclesiastical
discipline, which in some ages after the times of the Apostle was in use.
So true is it that the ministers of the church are liable as well to
peculiar as to common censures; or that a minister of the church is
censured one way, and one of the people another way.
11. Ecclesiastical censure, which is not proper to ministers, but common
to them with other members of the church, is either suspension from the
Lord’s supper (which by others is called the publican’s excommunication),
or the cutting off of a member, which is commonly called excommunication.
The distinction of this twofold censure (commonly, though not so properly
passing under the name of the lesser and greater excommunication) is not
only much approved by the church of Scotland, and the synod now assembled
at Westminster, but also by the reformed churches of France, the Low
Countries, and of Poland, as is to be seen in the _Book of the
Ecclesiastical Discipline of the Reformed Churches in France_, chap. 5,
art. 9; in the _Harmony of the Belgic Synods_, chap. 14, art. 8, 9; in the
canons of the general synod of Torn, held in the year 1597.
12. That the distinction of that twofold church censure was allowed also
by antiquity, it may be sufficiently clear to him who will consult the
sixty-first canon of the sixth general synod, with the annotations of
Zonaras and Balsamon; also the thirteenth canon of the eighth synod (which
is termed the first and second), with the notes of Zonaras; yea, besides,
even the penitents also themselves of the fourth degree, or οἱ ἐν
συστασεῖ, that is, which were in the _consistency_, were suspended from
the Lord’s supper, though as to other things of the same condition with
the faithful; for, to the communion also of prayers, and so to all
privileges of ecclesiastical society, the eucharist alone excepted, they
were thought to have right: so sacred a thing was the eucharist esteemed.
See also, beside others, Cyprian, book 1, epist. 11; that Dionysius, the
author of _The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy_, chap. 3, part. 3; Basil.,
_Epist. to Amphilochius_, can. 4; Ambrose, _De Officiis_, lib. 2, chap.
27; Augustine, in his book against the Donatists after the Conference,
cap. 4; Chrysostom, hom. 83, in Matt.; Gregor. the Great, _Epist._, lib.
2, chap. 65, 66; Walafridus Strabo, _Of Ecclesiastical Matters_, chap. 17.
13. That first and lesser censure by Christ’s ordinance is to be inflicted
on such as have received baptism, and pretend to be true members of the
church, yet are found unfit and unworthy to communicate in the signs of
the grace of Christ with the church, whether for their gross ignorance of
divine things, the law, namely, and gospel, or by reason of scandal,
either of false doctrine or wicked life. For these causes, therefore, or
for some one of them, they are to be kept back from the sacrament of the
Lord’s supper (a lawful judicial trial going before) according to the
interdiction of Christ, forbidding that that which is holy be given to
dogs, or pearls be cast before swine, Matt. vii. 6; and this censure of
suspension is to continue till the offenders bring forth fruits worthy of
repentance.
14. For the asserting and defending of this suspension there is no small
accession of strength from the nature of the sacrament itself, and the
institution and end thereof. The word of God indeed is to be preached, as
well to the ungodly and impenitent, that they may be converted, as to the
godly and repenting that they may be confirmed; but the sacrament of the
Lord’s supper is by God instituted, not for beginning the work of grace,
but for nourishing and increasing grace, and therefore no one is to be
admitted to the Lord’s supper who by his life testifieth that he is
impenitent, and not as yet converted.
15. Indeed, if the Lord had instituted this sacrament, that not only it
should nourish and cherish faith, and seal the promises of the gospel, but
also should begin the work of grace in sinners, and give regeneration
itself as the instrumental cause thereof, verily even the most wicked,
most unclean, and most unworthy, were to be admitted: but the reformed
churches do otherwise judge of the nature of this sacrament, which shall
be abundantly manifest by the gleaning of these following testimonies.
16. The _Scottish Confession_, art. 23. “But we confess that the Lord’s
supper belongs only to those of the household of faith who can try and
examine themselves, as well in faith as in the duties of faith towards
their neighbours. Whoso abideth without faith, and in variance with their
brethren, do at that holy table eat and drink unworthily. Hence it is that
the pastors in our church do enter on a public and particular examination,
both of the knowledge, conversation and life, of those who are to be
admitted to the Lord’s table.” The _Belgic Confession_, art. 35:—“We
believe also and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ hath ordained the holy
sacrament of his supper, that in it he may nourish and uphold them whom he
hath already regenerated.”
17. The _Saxon Confession_, art. 15:—“The Lord willeth that every receiver
be particularly confirmed by this testimony, so that he may be certified
that the benefits of the gospel do appertain to himself, seeing the
preaching is common, and by this testimony, by this receiving, he showeth
that thou art one of his members, and washed with his blood.” And by and
by:—“Thus, therefore, we instruct the church, that it behoveth them that
come to the supper to bring with them repentance or conversion, and (faith
being now kindled in the mediation of the death and resurrection, and the
benefits of the Son of God) to seek here the confirmation of this faith.”
The very same things are set down, and that in the very same words, in the
consent of the churches of Poland in the Sendomirian synod, anno 1570,
art. “of the Lord’s supper.”
18. The _Bohemian Confession_, art. 11:—“Next our divines teach that the
sacraments of themselves, or as some say, _ex opere operato_, do not
confer grace to those who are not first endued with good motions, and
inwardly quickened by the Holy Spirit, neither do they bestow justifying
faith, which maketh the soul of man in all things obsequious, trusting and
obedient to God; for faith must go before (we speak of them of ripe
years), which quickeneth a man by the work of the Holy Spirit, and putteth
good motions into the heart.” And after:—“But if any come unworthily to
the sacraments, he is not made by them worthy or clean, but doth only
bring greater sin and damnation on himself.”
19. Seeing, then, in the holy supper, that is, in the receiving the
sacramental elements (which is here distinguished from the prayers and
exhortations accompanying that action), the benefits of the gospel are not
first received, but for them being received are thanks given; neither by
partaking thereof doth God bestow the very spiritual life, but doth
preserve, cherish and perfect that life; and seeing the word of God is
accounted in the manner of letters patent, but sacraments like seals, (as
rightly the _Helvetian Confession_ saith, chap. 19), it plainly followeth
that those are to be kept back from the Lord’s supper, who by their fruits
and manners do prove themselves to be ungodly or impenitent, and strangers
or aliens from all communion with Christ. Nor are the promises of grace
sealed to any other than those to whom these promises do belong, for
otherwise the seal annexed should contradict and gainsay the letters
patent; and by the visible word those should be loosed and remitted, who
by the audible word are bound and condemned: but this is such an
absurdity, as that if any would, yet he cannot smooth or heal it with any
plaster.
20. But as known, impious, and unregenerate persons, have no right to the
holy table, so also ungodly persons, by reason of a grievous scandal, are
justly for a time deprived of it; for it is not lawful or allowable that
the comforts and promises which belong only to such as believe and repent,
should be sealed unto known unclean persons, and those who walk
inordinately, whether such as are not yet regenerate, or such as are
regenerate, but fallen, and not yet restored or risen from their fall. The
same discipline plainly was shadowed forth under the Old Testament, for
none of God’s people, during their legal pollution, were permitted to
enter into the tabernacle, or to have access to the solemn sacrifices and
society of the church; and much more were wicked and notorious offenders
debarred from the temple, until, by an offering for sin, together with a
solemn confession thereof, being cleansed, they were reconciled unto God.
Num. v. 6-8; Lev. v. 1-7; vi. 1-8.
21. Yea that those who were polluted with sins and crimes were reckoned
among the unclean in the law, Maimonides (_in More Nevoch._, part. 3, ch.
47,) proveth out of Lev. xx. 3; xviii. 24; Num. xxxv. 33, 34. Therefore
seeing the shedding of man’s blood was rightly esteemed the greatest
pollution of all, hence it was that as the society of the leprous was
shunned by the clean, so that the company of murderers by good men was
most religiously avoided, Lam. iv. 13-15. The same thing is witnessed by
Ananias the high priest, in Josephus, _Jewish War_, book 4, ch. 5, where
he saith that those false zealots of that time, bloody men, ought to have
been restrained from access to the temple, by reason of the pollution of
murder; yea, as Philo the Jew witnesseth (in his book of the _Offerers of
Sacrifices_), whosoever were found unworthy and wicked, were by edict
forbidden to approach the holy threshold.
22. Neither must that be passed by which was noted by Zonaras, book 4, of
his annals (whereof see also Scaliger agreeing with him, in _Elench.
Triheres. Nicserrar._, cap. 28), namely, that the Essenes were forbidden
the holy place, as being heinous and piacular transgressors, and such as
held other opinions, and did otherwise teach concerning sacrifices than
according to the law, and observed not the ordinances of Moses, whence it
proceeded that they sacrificed privately; yea, and also the Essenes
themselves did thrust away from their congregations those that were
wicked. Whereof see Drusius, _Of the Three Sects of Jews_, lib. 4, cap.
22.
23. God verily would not have his temple to be made open to unworthy and
unclean worshippers; nor was it free for such men to enter into the
temple. See Nazianzen, _Orat._ 21. The same thing is witnessed and
declared by divers late writers, such as have been and are more acquainted
with the Jewish antiquities. Consult the Annotations of Vatablus, and of
Ainsworth, an English writer, upon Psal. cxviii. 19, 20; also Constantine
L’Empereur, _Annot. in Cod. Middoth_, cap. 2, p. 44, 45; Cornelius
Bertramus, _Of the Commonwealth of the Hebrews_, cap. 7; Henry Vorstius,
_Animadvers. in Pirk. Rab. Eliezer_, p. 169. The same may be proved out of
Ezek. xxiii. 30, 38; Jer. vii. 9-12; whence also it was that the solemn
and public society in the temple, had the name of the assembly of the
righteous, and congregation of saints, Psal. lxxxix. 5, 7; cxi. 1; cxlvii.
1; hence also is that (Psal. cxviii. 19, 20) of the gates of righteousness
by which the righteous enter.
24. That which is now driven at, is not that all wicked and unclean
persons should be utterly excluded from our ecclesiastical societies, and
so from all hearing of God’s word; yea there is nothing less intended: for
the word of God is the instrument as well of conversion as of
confirmation, and therefore is to be preached as well to the unconverted
as to the converted, as well to the repenting as the unrepenting: the
temple indeed of Jerusalem had special promises, as it were pointing out
with the finger a communion with God through Christ, 1 Kings viii. 30, 48;
Dan. vi. 10; 2 Chron. vi. 16; vii. 15, 16. But it is far otherwise with
our temples, or places of church assemblies, “because our temples contain
nothing sacramental in them, such as the tabernacle and temple contained,”
as the most learned Professors of Leyden said rightly in _Synops. Pur.
Theologiae_, disp. 48, thes. 47.
25. Wherefore the point to be here considered, as that which is now aimed
at, is this, that howsoever, even under the New Testament, the uncleanness
of those to whom the word of God is preached be tolerated, yet all such,
of what estate or condition soever in the church, as are defiled with
manifest and grievous scandals, and do thereby witness themselves to be
without the inward and spiritual communion with Christ and the faithful,
may and are to be altogether discharged from the communion of the Lord’s
supper until they repent and change their manners.
26. Besides, even those to whom it was permitted to go into the holy
courts of Israel, and to ingratiate themselves into ecclesiastical
communion, and who did stand between the court of Israel and the outer
wall, were not therefore to be kept back from hearing the word; for in
Solomon’s porch, and so in the _intermurale_ or court of the Gentiles, the
gospel was preached, both by Christ, John x. 23, and also by the apostles,
Acts iii. 11; v. 12, and that of purpose, because of the reason brought by
Pineda, _Of the things of Solomon_, book v. chap. 19, because a more
frequent multitude was there, and somewhat larger opportunity of sowing
the gospel: wherefore to any whomsoever, even heathen people meeting
there, the Lord would have the word to be preached, who, notwithstanding,
purging the temple, did not only overthrow the tables of money-changers,
and chairs of those that sold doves, but also cast forth the buyers and
sellers themselves, Matt. xxi. 12; for he could not endure either such
things or such persons in the temple.
27. Although, then, the gospel is to be preached to every creature, the
Lord in express words commanding the same, Mark xvi. 15, yet not to every
one is set open an access to the holy supper; it is granted that
hypocrites do lurk in the church, who hardly can be convicted and
discovered, much less repelled from the Lord’s supper; such therefore are
to be suffered, till by the fan of judgment the grain be separated from
the chaff; but those whose wicked deeds or words are known and made
manifest are altogether to be debarred from partaking those symbols of the
covenant of the gospel, lest that the name of God be greatly disgraced,
whilst sins are permitted to be spread abroad in the church unpunished; or
lest the stewards of Christ, by imparting the signs of the grace of God to
such as are continuing in the state of impurity and scandal, be partakers
of their sins. Hitherto of suspension.
28. Excommunication ought not to be proceeded unto except when extreme
necessity constraineth: but whensoever the soul of the sinner cannot
otherwise be healed, and that the safety of the church requireth the
cutting off of this or that member, it behoveth to use this last remedy.
In the church of Rome, indeed, excommunication hath been turned into
greatest injustice and tyranny (as the Pharisees abused the casting out of
the synagogues, which was their excommunication) to the fulfilling of the
lust of their own minds; yet the ordinance of Christ is not therefore by
any of the reformed religion to be utterly thrust away and wholly
rejected. What Protestant knows not that the vassals of Antichrist have
drawn the Lord’s supper into the worst and most pernicious abuses, as also
the ordination of ministers, and other ordinances of the gospel? Yet who
will say that things necessary (whether the necessity be that of command,
or that of the means or end) are to be taken away because of the abuse?
29. They, therefore, who with an high hand do persevere in their
wickedness, after foregoing admonitions stubbornly despised or carelessly
neglected, are justly, by excommunication in the name of the Lord Jesus
Christ, cut off and cast out from the society of the faithful, and are
pronounced to be cast out from the church, until being filled with shame
and cast down, they shall return again to a more sound mind, and by
confession of their sin and amendment of their lives, shall show tokens of
repentance, Matt, xviii. 16-18; 1 Cor. v. 13, which places are also
alleged in the Confession of Bohemia, art. 8, to prove that the
excommunication of the impenitent and stubborn, whose wickedness is known,
is commanded of the Lord: but if stubborn heretics or unclean persons be
not removed or cast out from the church, therein do the governors of the
church sin, and are found guilty, Rev. ii. 14, 20.
30. But that all abuse and corruption in ecclesiastical government may be
either prevented and avoided, or taken away, or lest the power of the
church, either by the ignorance or unskilfulness of some ministers here
and there, or also by too much heat and fervour of mind, should run out
beyond measure or bounds, or contrariwise, being shut up within straiter
limits than is fitting, should be made unprofitable, feeble, or of none
effect,—Christ, the most wise lawgiver of his church, hath foreseen and
made provision to prevent all such evils which he did foresee were to
arise, and hath prepared and prescribed for them intrinsical and
ecclesiastical remedies, and those also in their kind (if lawfully and
rightly applied) both sufficient and effectual: some whereof he hath most
expressly propounded in his word, and some he hath left to be drawn from
thence by necessary consequence.
31. Therefore, by reason of the danger of that which is called _clavis
errans_, or a wrong key; and that it may not be permitted to particular
churches to err or sin licentiously, and lest any man’s cause be
overthrown and perish, who in a particular church had perhaps the same men
both his adversaries and his judges; also that common business, which do
belong to many churches, together with the more weighty and difficult
controversies (the deciding whereof in the consistories of praticular
churches is not safe to be adventured upon) may be handled and determined
by a common council of presbyteries; finally, that the governors of
particular churches may impart help mutually one to another against the
cunning and subtile enemies of the truth, and may join their strength
together (such as it is) by an holy combination, and that the church may
be as a camp of an army well ordered, lest while every one striveth singly
all of them be subdued and overcome, or lest by reason of the scarcity of
prudent and godly counsellors (in the multitude of whom is safety) the
affairs of the church be undone: for all these considerations particular
churches must be subordinate to classical presbyteries and synods.
32. Wherefore it is not lawful to particular churches, or, as commonly
they are called, parochial, either to decline the authority of classes or
synods, where they are lawfully settled, or may be had (much less to
withdraw themselves from that authority, if they have once acknowledged
it), or to refuse such lawful ordinances or decrees of the classes or
synods as, being agreeable to the word of God, are with authority imposed
upon them. Acts xv. 2, 6, 22-24, 28, 29; xvi. 4.
33. Although synods assemble more seldom, classes and consistories of
particular churches more frequently, yet that synods, both provincial and
national, assemble at set and ordinary times, as well as classes and
parochial consistories, is very expedient, and for the due preservation of
church policy and discipline, necessary. Sometimes, indeed, it is
expedient they be assembled occasionally, that the urgent necessity of the
church may be the more speedily provided for, namely, when such a business
happeneth, which, without great danger, cannot be put off till the
appointed time of the synod.
34. But that, besides occasional synods, ordinary synods be kept at set
times, is most profitable, not only that they may discuss and determine
the more difficult ecclesiastical causes coming before them, whether by
the appeal of some person aggrieved, or by the hesitation or doubting of
inferior assemblies (for such businesses very often fall out), but also
that the state of the churches whereof they have the care, being more
certainly and frequently searched and known, if there be anything wanting
or amiss in their doctrine, discipline or manners, or anything worthy of
punishment, the slothful labourers in the vineyard of the Lord may be made
to shake off the spirit of slumber and slothfulness, and be stirred up to
the attending and fulfilling more diligently their calling, and not
suffered any longer to sleep and snore in their office; the stragglers and
wanderers may be reduced to the way; the untoward and stiff-necked, which
scarce, or very hardly, suffer the yoke of discipline, as also unquiet
persons, who devise new and hurtful things, may be reduced to order:
finally, whatsoever doth hinder the more quick and efficacious course of
the gospel may be discovered and removed.
35. It is too, too manifest (alas for it!) that there are those who with
unwearied diligence, do most carefully labour that they may oppress the
liberties and rights of synods, and may take away from them all liberty of
consulting of things and matters ecclesiastical, at least of determining
thereof (for they well know how much the union and harmony of churches may
make against their designs): but so much the more it concerneth the
orthodox churches to know, defend and preserve, this excellent liberty
granted to them by divine right, and so to use it, that imminent dangers,
approaching evils, urging grievances, scandals growing up, schisms rising,
heresies creeping in, errors spreading, and strifes waxing hot, may be
corrected and taken away, to the glory of God, and the edification and
peace of the church.
36. Beside provincial and national synods, an œcumenical (so called from
οἰκουμένη, that is from the habitable world,) or more truly, a general,
or, if you will, an universal synod, if so it lie free and rightly
constituted, and no other commissioners but orthodox churches be admitted
(for what communion is there of light with darkness, of righteousness with
unrighteousness, or of the temple of God with idols); such a synod is of
special utility, peradventure also such a synod is to be hoped for, surely
it is to be wished that, for defending the orthodox faith, both against
Popery and other heresies, as also for propagating it to those who are
without, especially the Jews, a more strait and more firm consociation may
be entered into. For the unanimity of all the churches, as in evil it is
of all things most hurtful, so on the contrary side, in good it is most
pleasant, most profitable, and most effectual.