Diotrephes Catechized 2

Sixteen Jmportant Questions touching the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and Censures, Contradistinct to Civil, now challenged by a Divine Right.

THe serious consideration of the importunate Claimes of a new kind of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction by a pretended Divine Right, by those very men who of late so eagerly declaimed against the Old, as Antichristian and Papal, when challenged by our Prelates upon the self-same grounds and Title, hath induced me to propound these few Important Questions to the over-eager prosecutors of this supposed Divine Authority, at leastwise to moderate, if not extinguish those unseasonable deplorable late kindled flames of contention, which if not timely prevented may prove more fatal to our Churches, Kingdoms, then all the former dissensions, and break forth into a new Civil war, between ourselves, when we have totally vanquished the common enemy. The Prelates deserting of their undoubted jus humanum, and unadvised challenge of a jus Divinum to advance perpetuate their Jurisdictions, and swearing men to this their Title by a new, &c. Oath, was the immediate forerunner, yea principal means of the utter subversion both of their Hierarchy and Authority. And we have cause to fear that some over-rigid Presbyterians inconsiderate zeal, in waving the Presbyterial Authority vested in them by an unquestionable Ordinance of Parliament (to their full contents as most men deemed;) and resorting to a more dubious disputable (pretended) jus Divinum (formerly laid aside by both Houses of Parliament and the Assembly, though new resumed, revived,) the more highly to advance and firmly settle it in our Churches, may produce the like contrary unexpected effects: and either revive the old exploded Luciferian Episcopacy, or introduce that more feared Anarchicall Hydra or Bible of Independency, which they most endeavor to suppress; or at leastwise revolve the censorius or corrective power of all scandalous sins and sinners into the Civil Magistrates hands, the far safest of the three: on whose behalf, I shall with the spirit of Peace and Meekness propose these following Queries, both to my Presbyterian and Independent Brethren; desiring their acquiescens in, or serious answers to them after sound deliberation (laying aside all private Interests and designs, whatsoever, which may misguide their judgments) for the sisting out of that one Golden medium of sacred truth, which can only reconcile and cordially re-unite us in the bonds of Love.

1. Whether all scandalous sins and offenses now pretended by Presbyterians or Independents to be of Ecclesiastical cognizance, be not by God's own Institution and command (as well before, as under the Law, and through out the Old Testament, ) inquirable, examinable, and to be determined, judged only by the temporal Magistrates, or Civil powers, and punished only with temporal or corporal punishments, not by any Ecclesiastical Persons Officers, or Church Censures only, distinct from civil; since, we read that the several scandalous sins of Idolatry, cursing, blaspreming, Sabbath-breaking, disobedience to Parents natural or civil, Whordome, Adultery Incest, rape, Sodomy, Buggery, Murder, Witchcraft, Sorcery, with sundry other sins, were by God's own precept, to be inquired after, censured, punished by the Temporal Majestra e, civil Congregation, powers and People only, with civil punishments alone, as putting or stoning to death, burning, hanging [k] fines, stripes and the like, but never enjoined to be examined, censured by Ecclesiastical Persons, Officer, or to be punished by them with Church-censures, as Excommunication, Suspention from the Passover, Circumcision, Sacrifices, Festivalls, or any public Ordinances then in use, or exclusion from the Temple or Synagogues, as the marginal texts demonstrate. And more especially Ezra. 7.25.26. where King Artaxerxes sending Ezra the Priest (descended linially from the High-Priests before him, as is evident by v. 1. to 6) up to Jerusalem, with a special Commission to repair the City, Temple, restore the service of God therein, and settle the Government of that place according to the Law of God, gives him this command: And thou Ezra, after the wisdom of thy God, that is in thine hand, set Magistrates and Judges that may judge ALL THE PEOPLE that are beyond the River, all such as know the LAW OF THY GOD, and teach ye them that know them not: AND WHOSOEVER WILL NOT DO THE LAW OF THY GOD, and the Law of the King; let judgment be executed speedily against him, [not by Ezra the Priest, or any Ecclesiastical Consistory or Presbytery of Priests, with mere Ecclesiastical Censures of Excommunication or suspension from the Temple, or public Ordinances of God no such Church Officers, punishments being then known, or instituted by God's Law; but by the Magistrates and Judges appointed, who were to punish them only with temporal censures, as the following words thus resolve] Whether it be unto DEATH, or to BANISHMENT, or to CONFISCATION of GOODS or to IMPRISONMENT: the only punishments censures then inflicted on Delinquents against God's Law, as well as against the Kings: Yea had there been any other censures Ecclesiastical distinct from those temporal, which ought by any Divine Right or institution then to have been inflicted upon notorious scandalous offenders against God's Law, by the high Priest, or any other Church Officers or Judicatory, no doubt this devout King upon this occasion would have expressly commanded Ezra the Priest himself, or those Church Officers or Judicatories to have duly executed the same when he gave him this large Commission, and extended so much extraordinary favor to him, that he cries out in the very next ensuing words, ver. 27. Blessed be the Lord God of our Fathers, who hath put such a thing as this into the Kings heart, &c. Which as it expressly determines, that this Commission and forecited direction was inspired into the Kings heart by God himself, and so most consonant to his written word and Law? so it insinuates, that by the Law of God in those days, all scandalous Offenders again. God's Law were to be punished only by the civil Magistrates and Judges with civil punishments, not by any Ecclesiastical Officers, or judicatory, with any Church censures whatsoever. This may be further evidenced by the Priests, Prophets Peoples, and Princes proceedings against Jeremiah, and Uriah, who for Preaching and prophesying falsely, [as was supposed] were punished by the King & Princes, upon the Priests, Prophets, and people's malicious accusation, only by imprisonment and death alone, not by Church censures Church judicatories: Yea Deu. 13.5. false Prophets are expressly enjoined to be put to death by the civil Majestrate, not punished by the Ecclesiastical powers with excommunications or suspentions. And it is most clear and undeniable by the 1 King 22.26, 27. 2 Chron. 16.10. c. 18.25.26. Mat. 14.3 4 5. Luk. 22.23. Acts 5.18.19. c. 8.3. c. 12.2, 3 4. c. 16.23, 24. c. 22.19.20. to 30. c. 24. & 25. & 26. 2 Cor. 6.5. Heb. 11.36.37. That both in the Old and New Testament, false Prophets, teachers and broachers of Erronious doctrines; or such who were so reputed though true, yea the Apostls & Saints of Christ, for preaching, professing the Gospel and truth of God amongst the Jews and others who reputed it Heresy, schism or false doctrine, contrary to what they had formerly received were usually convented before the civil Magistrates, and punished with imprisonment, stripes, putting or stoning to death, and the like, but not with excommunication, or any Ecclesiastical censures of divine institution, though now made matters of mere Ecclesiastical Cognisance. And if so, whether the temporal Christian Magistrates and civil powers as such, have not now the self-same divine Authority to punish such sins and sinners under the Gospel, only with temporal punishments, without the interposition, examination, or Censures of any Church-Officers or Presbyteries, as the Godly temporal Magistrates and civil powers had then under the Law? If not, how the contrary can be evidenced by clear Scriptures, and by what texts in particular?

2. Whether the texts of Deut. 17.8. to 14. and 2 Chr. 19.8. to the end, do warrant any Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, Congregational or Classical in causes merely Ecclesiastical, or any mere Church censures, distinct from the civil Majestracy, and temporal censures, as some now pretend? Whether the genuine scope and sense of these texts, hold forth anymore or other jurisdiction and power in the Priests, Levites, or High Priest himself, then this: That they jointly with the temporal Judges, and chief of the Fathers of Israel not alone by themselves] should resolve (not ordinary plain, or undisputable but only] all such doubtfulll, cases, or controversies which the ordinary Judges or Magistrates in their Cities held dubious, or too hard for them to determine aright between [not scandal and scandal, or who should be excommunicated, suspended from the Ordinances, as scandalous, ignorant or unfit and who not; but between blood and blood, plea and plea, stroke and stroke, (being matters of civil controversy) in their gates; and between Law and Commandment, Statutes and judgments, (to wit the judicial written Law of God) upon whose exposition any civil doubts, or controversies should arise which the people themselves could not resolve,] whose superior resolutions they should submit to, and proceed accordingly to execution; and he that would presumptuously disobey and not submit to their sentence, was not to be excommunicated or suspended, but put to death; (a mere civil censure) to terrify others. And if this only be the full sense and meaning of these texts, whether any episcopal presbiteriall, classical or congregational jurisdiction to correct scandals with mere Ecclesiastical censures can be deduced from them? Whether that speech of Jehoshaphat, 2 Chro. 19.11. And behold Amariah the chief Priest is over you in all matters of the Lord [not scandalous sins and Ecclesiastical offenses committed by the Priests or people, no matters of the Lord, but sins of men, detested by the Lord;] imply or necessarily enforce, that he had any Ecclesiastical jurisdiction in point of judicature, to censure, punish all or any sort of scandalous sinners with Church censures] of which there is not one syllable in the text] vested in him by any divine Authority? And if so, whether it makes not more for Papal and Archiepiscopall, then Presbyterial, Classical, or Congregational Authority? this power or superintendent jurisdiction over all matters of the Lord, being vested in this High Priest alone, and no other. Or rather, whether it be not clearly meant, that as King Josiah himself did by his own Regal Authority appoint Judges in the Land, and in Jerusalem, in the preceeding 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. and 10. verses, to determine all controversies, and punish all Offences whatsoever, according to the Laws of God and that Kingdom; so, he did by the self-same regal authority appoint Amariah, then chief Priest, over the Priests and Levites only, (implied in the word You, not over the people of the Land] in all matters of the Lord, that is, to order, direct the Priests and Levites under him in their several courses, and all matters whatsoever concerning the worship, service, Oblations, and sacrifices of the Lord to be per. formed by them in the Temple at Jerusalem: in the self-same manner, as he set Zebadiah the ruler of the House of Judah, over all the Kings matters; in the very next ensuing words? That is, (as all consent,) not over the people and kingdom for to judge and govern them, for that the Judges forementioned were to do; but over his household, lands, revenues as his Lord Treasurer, or Lord high Steward of the Revenews of the Crown, as the comparing of it with 1 Chr. 26.30.33. [ And of the Hebronites, Hashabiah and his brethren, men of valor, a thousand and 700. were Officers among them of Israel on this side of Jordan westward IN ALL BUSINESSES OF THE LORD and in the service of the King, &c. And his Brethren, men of Vallour were 2000. 700. chief Fathers, whom King David made Rulers over the Rubenites, Gadites, and the half Tribe of Manasseh, for EVERY MATTER PERTAINING UNTO GOD and Officers of the King, jointly: (therefore Church Officers made by the King, and alterable at his pleasure, not by any Divine institution of God himself;) and the paralleling it with these explenatory texts, Num. c. 3. &. 4. & 18.3. to 12. 1 Chr. 9.10. to 35. c. 23. & 24. & 25. and 26. 2 Chro. 5.7. to 14. c. 8.14.15. c. 13.9.10.11.12. c. 26.16. to 21. c. 29.3. to 35. c. 30.16. c. 31.2.3.11. to 20. c. 35.2.12. Ezra. 6.17.18. Neh. 12.40. to 47. compared with Heb. 5.1, 2. For every high Priest taken from among men, is ordained for men IN THINGS PERTAINING TO GOD, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sine, &c. infallibly demonstrate? And if so, then what Divine warrant is there from hence for any such Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction distinct from the temporal, as many now comend for, from these two noted texts? or for any Priests, Ministers of the Gospel, or Church Officers distinct from the temporal Majestracy, to examine, correct any scandalous offenses by a mere Ecclesiastical power, or to punish them with Church Censures, different from civil punishments?

3. Whether the Priests jurisdiction to judge of all causes of Leprosy (no scandalous sin nor offense, but a mere natural infirmity,) and that only among the Jews, yea as well in houses, garments, Vessels; [no subjects of Ecclesiastical censures] as persons: or their proceedings in the case of Jealousy, by virtue of express special Levitical or Ceremonial Laws (the only cases wherein the Priests were appointed to be as sole Judges in the Old Testament, whose proper office was, to offer sacrifices & make atonement for sins, not to censure or punish them; ] be any infallible proof of the Aaroricall Priests or Presbyteries Ecclesiastical Judicature or jurisdiction to censure all spiritual Leprosies of the soul with Church censures? Or of the Ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Presbyteries or Independent Congregations to judge or censure all causes of spiritual Leprosy, or scandalous offenses under the Gospel? And whither we may not as soundly argue from the Writ, De Leproso amovendo; and the Statute of 1 Iac. chap. 31. as they from these Texts; Majors, Bailiffs of Towns, Justices of Peace, Constables and other Officers may lawfully remove Lepers, and shut up persons infected with the Plague of Pestilence, Ergo, they may excommunicate and suspend from the Sacrament a l such as are scandalously or notoriously infected with the Leprosy and plague of sin?

4. Whether, Deut. 13.12, 13.14. Josh. 22.10. to 34. Judge. 20.1. to 18. 2 Chron. 19.9. to 11. Ezra. 10.16, 17. [where we read of temporal Officers, Princes sent and employed Commissioners, as well as Priests, to inquire after Idolaters, Idolatry, rapes, marriages with heathenish Wives, and other Ecclesiastical crimes] compared together, be not a stronger Scripture evidence for proof of the Parliaments, and Lay-Commissioners Authority, to inquire after, yea punish Idolaters and scandalous sinners, then any texts that can be produced by the Presbyterians or Independents out of the Old Testament, for probat of a divine right either in their Classes, Presbyteries or Independent Congregations to censure scandalous sins and sinners with Ecclesiastical censures? And whither the Statutes of 31. H. 8. c. 10. [appointing a Lay Vicegerent in all Ecclesiastical matters ] 26. H. 8. cap. 1.37. H. 8. c. 17.1. E. 6. c. 2.1. E. c. 1. [ appointing Laymen, and Lay-Commissioners, to exercise all manner of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction by way of censure,] do not justify such Commissioners to be legal, as well as these texts, warrant them to be in some sort divine?

5ly. Whether there be any precept or president in all the Old Testament directly or punctually determining, that there was by divine institution an unquestionable Ecclesiastical jurisdiction vested by God himself in Priests Levites, or any Jewish Officers, to examine witness upon Oath, convent or censure any scandalous sinners by excommunication, or suspension of them from the Tabernacle, Temple, pub ike Assemblies, Synagouges, sacrifices solemn public festivals, or other sacred Ordinances for any scandalous sin whatsoever? If so, then what are these precepts, presidents, and scandalous sins in particular? And whether it be probable they had any direct authority given them by God himself, to suspend or put back any from the Sacraments of Circumcision or the Passover (which Baptism and the Lord's Supper now succeed) since both of them originally were ordered to be performed in private, by the Parents or Masters of the Family not Priests or Levites; and executed or eaten by them in their several private houses, where the Priests and Levites had no Ecclesiastical jurisdiction that we read of, and were not present at these sacred actions unless only at some few solemn general Passovers at Jerusalem where they were but Ministerial, to help kill the Passover, and sprinkle the blood not Magisterial, to keep any back from eating thereof, by any pretext of Ecclesiastical Authority.

6ly. Whether Ministers or Presbyteries under the Gospel, have any other or greater Ecclesiastical jurisdiction then the Jewish High Priest, Priests and Levites had under the Law? And whether Christian Kings, Magistrates have not as large an Ecclesiastical power and Authority under the Gospel, as any godly Kings or Magistrates exercised under the Law? If you answer negatively to the first and affirmatively to the latter of these demands; then how can that Ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Presbyteries or Congregations, and their power of Church censures, distinct from the civil Magistracy, be any way ustified or maintained by the Scripture? If affirmatively in the first, and Negatively in the latter, then show us direct Scripture Authorities to convince our judgments of what you thus assert, or else give over your pretence of jus divinum? It is confessed both by the Presbyterians, and Independents and clear by sundry express texts, that Christian Magistrates are jure Divino, and have an undoubted divine Authority, yea command to punish and cut off all scandalous sinners, Psal. 100 5.7, 8. Rom. 13.1 to 8. Pro. 20.26. Whether Presbyteries, or Independent Congregations have any divine Ecclesiastical • ight to punish them with Church censures, is very disputable and denied by many. Therefore it is the safest, readiest way to Unity and Reformation to remit the punishment of all scandalous offenses to the Civil Magistrate, rather than to the pretended disputable questioned authority of Presbyteries, Classes, or Independent Congregations.

7ly. Whether there be any express texts in all the New Testament, and what in particular, which infallibly evince an Ecclesiastical jurisdiction by divine right to be settled by Christ in all Christian Ministers, Presbyteries, or Congregations and in which of them in particular, to continue un alterably in all Churches of Christ to the end of the world for the excommunication or suspension of all kinds of scandalous persons from the Sacrament, though they externally pretend and profess their sincere repentance in general? or any certain rules prescribed them in the Gospel and in what particular Texts for the due e ecution of this jurisdiction in all cases or scandals that may happen? If not whether in can probably be imagined that Christ in his wisdom would erect, institute and vest an Ecclesiastical Government in Church Officers, without prescribing them any certain rules whereby to manage it in all particulars, and leave them to proceed in an arbitrary way, according to their mere pleasures contrary to Mat. 28.19 20. If yea, then produce these texts to us for our satisfaction.

8ly. What rules or presidents are there in Scripture to relieve parties grieved by unjust, Ecclesiastical censures, either by appeals or other ways and to what superior Tribunalls? If no such rules or presidents appear therein; admitting Presbyteries, or Congregations Ecclesiastical jurisdictions, censures to be Jure divino, ] then whether by God's own Law which provides them no relief the parties injured must not remain remediless when mo • t injuriously sentenced by any private Presbytery Classis Congregation without any help or benefit of Appeale to Provincial National Synods, Parliaments or the Civil Magistrate? And if so: whether this will not introduce as many absolute tyrannies, and arbitrary Tribunalls, [against which we have so much contested of late] as there are Presbyteries or Congregations: especially if we grant them a general power of all things they themselves shall judge to be scanda • ls, without confining them to particulars, or establish their jurisdictions by a divine right, which no mere human power or institution can control?

Ninthly Whether if Christ hath instituted or left any exact Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, discipline or power of censures to his Church distinct from the Civil Magistracy and censues this pretended jurisdiction discipline or power be so absolute and sufficient of it self alone as to be fully able to correct redress, reform all abuses, scandals, corruptions, and suppress all Heresies, Schisms Errors, Vices, arising in every Church? If not, then we may justly suspect, it is no real jurisdiction nor discipline instituted by Christ, ho would institute and bequeath no incompleate, nor imperfect jurisdiction, judicatory, or discipline to his best Beloved Spouse the Church: If yea, whether is that jurisdiction now contended for by Presbyterians or Independents, such? If so, then it is complete, and every way self-sufficient without the concurtence or assistance of the Christian Magistrate or any temporal authority to assist, maintain it, or supply its defects: But this none can truly assert nor affirm.

For First, no Presbytery Classis or Independent Congregation hath yet challenged, not can claim by divine right, any coercive power by way of attachment, imprisonment, or fine to bring any party or witness summened so much as to appear before them, in case of willful neglect or refusal to appear or be examined, to prepare any cause or sentence.

Secondly In case any Ecclesiastical censure of Excommunication or suspension be inflicted by them upon scandalous person after full hearing, if they absolutely contemn the same or refuse to conform themselves, or by open violence intrude into the Congregation, Church, or force the Minister to give the Sacrament to them though excommunicated or suspended.

Thirdly, In case any Heretic Schismatic, or profane person shall willfully separate from our Congregations, (as thousands nov do) refusing to communicate with us in any Ordinances, proclaiming us to be no Churches, and pass a schimaticall sentence o Non-Communion with us, by reason of some unjust exceptions or pretences against our Orthodox Doctrine discipline, or form of government; and thereupon refuse to appear before our Presbyteries, Congregations, or to submit unto their jurisdictions or censures; in all these and such like cases, the pretended divine Ecclesiastical power, censures of Presbyteries, Classes, or Independent Congregations are at a Nonplus, and so defective, invalid of themselves to enforce obedience to such contumatious, or reduce, reclaim such heretical, schismatical, or profane persons from their obstinacy, Heresies, Schisms and neglect of public Ordinances, that they are enforced to pray in aid from the Civil Magistrate by Capias excommunicatums, imprisonments fines or other such civil compulsory means the only effectual course by way of censure used in all ages to suppress, reform heresies, schisms, and the only way to suppress, redress them now) without which all their Ecclesiastical censures, are both contemptible, ineffectual and altogether insufficient to reform abuses: So that if the Magistrates be Infidels, Heretics, or Schismatics, who will not; or profane, negligent timorous or licentious persons, who care not or dare not to assist the Presbyteries Classes or Congregations enforcing submission to their Church processes, censures, they are so defective and ineffectual of themselves, that none can justly call, or infallibly prove them to be the Kingdom, Scepter, Government, discipline and censures of Christ, whereby his Church must only be governed, purged, reformed as some now pretend them to be without any Scripture authority, which nowhere so much as once stiles Church-Discipline, Christ's kingdom or Scepter.

10ly. Whether Mat. 18.15, 16, 17. (if meant of Christian Presbyteries or Church Officers, as is pretended, not of the civil Magistracy or Jewish Sanhedrim, whereas the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which we translate Church, both in the Old and New Testament signifieth any Assembly, as well civil and profane, as Ecclesiastical, or Religious, as is clear by Acts 19.39.41. and sundry Texts of the Old Testament, as Master Rutherford himself confesseth) gives any authority to them to proceed ex officio, against notorious scandalous sins (as Idolatry, Blasphemy swearing drunkenness, &c. ) since it speaks not of any public scandalous offenses against God and the Church, but only of private personal trespasses between man and man, to be proceeded against only upon the voluntary complaint of the party offended, after previous private admonitions, and then reproofs before witnesses, yea, of such offenses, which upon private satisfaction we are to forgive 77. times, without any public complaint, or censure, Luk. 17.3, 4. Therefore not meant of mere public scandals, which no private man can remit, and no Church or Presbytery will grant that they ought to be 77. times remitted one after another, without the least suspension or excommunication, upon meet external shows of Repentance: And whether, thou hast gained thy brother, in this Text be meant properly of gaining him to God by true repentance, or only unto him who gains him, by way of reconciliation, and renewing friendship, as the phrase it self, compared with Prov. 18.19. intimates?

11ly. Whether, Acts 15.1. to 36. where a Synod of Apostles, Elders, and Brethren met together at Jerusalem, to debate and resolve a dubious point of doctrine only about Circumcision without exercising any act of discipline or Ecclesiastical censure on any scandalous person be a sound divine Au • hority to evidence to any man's conseience, the Divine Right of Presbyteries, Classes, or Independent Congregations, to inflict Ecclesiastical censures upon scandalous Delinquents, or to examine witnesses upon Oath against them, of which there is not one syllable in that text?

12ly. Whether the precept of Paul 1 Cor. 5.13. for putting away from among them the incestuous person, written to this particular Church in this one case of incest only, against which heinous scandalous sin, ( not so much at named among the very Gentiles, ver. 1.) being then under Heathen Magistrates they could not safely complain to them of it without great scandal, nor go to Law before them for ordinary just civil things without offense as appears by the very next words, 1 Cor. 6 1. to 9. when as by the Law of God had the Magistrates there been Jews or Christians this sin of Incest was to be punished by them, not with excommunication or suspension from the Church, but death it self, Lev. 18.8. c 20.11 12. Be any satisfactory or infallible argument for the continuance & exercise of excommunication, or suspension from the Sacrament in all Churches of Christ in all succeeding ages in all other cases of sin or scandal, though the Magistrates in them be Christian, and may, yea ought to punish those sins with death or other temporal censures, if complained of? Whether those that press this text may not as well conclude from the very next words, 1 Cor. 6.1. to 9. that it is unlawful for Christians to go to Law before any Christian Judges now, and that they must sue only before their Presbyteries or Congregations for mere temporal matters, because Paul then commanded the Corinthians not to go to Law before heathen Judges to prevent scandal, but only in the Church before the Saints, or such Judges as the Church should appoint them? As infer, that all scandalous persons must be excommunicated and suspended from the Sacrament by Classes, Presbyteries, and censured only by them now, not by the Christian Majestrate, because the incestuous Corinthian was then Ordered to be put away and punished by the Church and Saints of Corinth, for want of a Christian Majestrate to punish him with death, or corporal censures? Yea, whether they may not as Logically and Theologically argue from the very next chap. 1 Cor. 7.27. where Paul writes thus: I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress [or necessity] for a man not to touch a Woman, or marry; Ergo, it is lawful, yea it is necessary for Christian men or Women in all ages, Churches of Christ to vow perpetual Virginity, and not to marry at all, as the Papists thence infer in defense of their Monks, Nons, and unmarried Clargie; As reason from this Text, That Paul in regard of the Corinthians present distress and necessity for want of Christian Magistrates to punish this incestuous; person with death, and civil censures adviseth the Church of Corinth, To put away from AMONG THEMSELVES that wicked person; [or thing as some read it:] Ergo all Ministers Presbyteries and particular congregations of Christ have a divine inherent Ecclesiastical right and power in them to punish not only incestuous persons, but all other scandalous sinners with excommunication, suspension from the Sacrament, and other Church censures, even when and where there is no such necessity nor defect of Christian Magistrates but sufficient store of them both able and willing to punish such with civil punishments answerable to their crimes and scandals? This is all that can be extracted from this Text, whereon they most rely; which must needs be a gross inconsequent, because no Apostolical advice to any one particular Church upon a private extraordinary occasion and necessity only, can or ought to be a general binding Law or Institution of Christ to oblige all other Churches whatsoever in the like, or any other cases, where there is no such extraordinary occasion or necessity; As is clear by one pregnant evidence in the 16. chap. of this very Epistle, v. 1.2. concerning the Collection then advised to be made for the Saints, by the Corinthians on every first day of the week, or weekly; which being but a particular advice and direction to this Church for that one Collection; is no binding Law or Rule to all other Churches of Christ strictly to imitate in all their ensuing Collections, as is evident by Acts 13.28.29 30. 2 Cor. 8.1. to 21. c. 9.1. to 15. Rom. 13.25.26. Philip. 4.14. to 20. Else no Church could since appoint any public monthly collections on week days, or fasting days, but only weekly Collections on the Lord's day, under pain of transgressing the institution of Christ and this Apostle; which none dare aver: However, since the Apostle writes not here to any Classis, Presbytery, or Presbyter, but to the whole Church at Corinth; TO PUT AWAY FROM AMONG THEMSELVES, that wicked person: [that is, to seclude him wholly from their Congregation, Church, Company, and not so much as to eat at their Tables or keep any company with him at all, as is evident by ver. 7.9 11.] not to suspend him only from the Lord's Supper of which there is not one fillable in this cha. nor of any such suspension in the 10. and 11. chapters where he purposely treats of this Sacrament] we may well question whether it makes not more against Presbyteries and Classes divine power of Excommunication, and a bare suspension of scandalous persons from the Lord's Supper only, without secluding them from all other Ordinances and Church Assemblies as well as it, then for them, it being contrary to the very definition and practice of Excommunication hitherto known and used in the Church, to excommunicate a notorious scandalous person from the Lord's Supper only once a month, a quarter, a year, for fear of infecting others, and yet to admit him daily or weekly to join with the Church in all other Ordinances but it alone; when all [ ] Schoolmen [ ] Canonists resolve, that excommunication [especially that they call Major Excommunication ] excludes men, not only from the Sacrament but likewise from entering into the Church, the very society and prayers of the faithful, and those who wittingly keep company, buy or sell with such are to be ipso facto excommunicated; Whereas many now pretend it should seclude men from the Lord's Supper only, but not from any other Ordinance, contrary to this, to (c) other Texts produced by our opposites for proof of Excommunication, and all sound Antiquity.

13ly. Whether there be any ground or example at all in Scripture to enjoin the civil Christian Magistrate, in cases of obstinacy contumacy against Church censures inflicted by Presbyteries or Congregations to become a meet servant and executioner to Presbyteries, Congregations or Church Officers, (as the Pope and Prelates anciently made them, to enforce Obedience to their censures by imprisonment or other coercive means without any particular examination of the merits of the cause, or justice of the proceedings? Whether such Ministerial execution of their censures, if admitted, do not necessarily subject the people to a double jurisdiction, vexation for one and the self-same scandalous crime which may prove more intolerably oppressive to them then the most exorbitant country Committees or Prelates consistories if not exactly bounded, & subordinate the Maj • stracy to the Ministry, Presbyteries & particular congregations in point of Authority? Which if obliged by any divine Law to see Church censures executed and enforce obedience to them, then certainly Christian Magistrates as such, must either be Church Officers as well as Ministers or Lay-Elders; (the rather, because all Precepts given to Magistrates themselves in Scripture are given only to such Godly or Christian Magistrates who belive, embrace the Scriptures, and are Members of a visible Church or Christian state, as such, not to any Infidels or heathen Magistrates as heathenish, or mere Magistrates out of the Church, as some grossly mistake, else they were not obliged by God's Law to see Church censures executed, obeyed, submitted too, if no Church Officers.

And whether the Antiqueries by affirming, it is the Magistrates duty to punish an obstinate Offender, at the motion of the Church or of one particular Minister which he ought • o do whether desired by them or no: doth not thereby grant that the power of punishing obstinate scandalous sinners, even for pretended Ecclesiastical Offences, belongs properly to the Christian Magistrates, not to Ecclesiastical Consistories and Presbyteries?

14ly. Whether it be not more agreeable to the word of God, the Rules of Justice, and more conducing to the Churches peace for the Civil Majestrate juditially to examine punish all pretended scandalous persons with temporal censures, and then (if they still continue impenitent to certify the proofs taken before him to the Presbytery, Classis, or Congregation, upon their request, for their conviction there, to ground an Excommunication or suspension upon, if there because: then to give them immediate power to examine all scandals themselves upon Oath; without first acquainting the Civil Majestrate with it, or desiring his antecedent examination of the scandals, of purpose to subject them to Church censures? Since we read of no such Examinatious upon Oath practiced by Presbyteries, Church Officers, or particular Congregations among the Jews or Christians in Scripture: which if taken in writing and recorded (as they ought to be, that so they may be scanned upon Appeales) there must then be a particular Examiner or Register at least appointed in every Presbytery, Classis and Provincial Synod to record them; for which they will expect a constant Fee from the Church or State or an answerable recompense from the parties accusing or accused; (which cannot be settled without Act or Ordinance of Parliament being new Fees and Offices) and so it will draw a very great unnecessary charge (far greater then that of Bishops and their Officials) upon the people, which they will unwillingly bear. In which regard it is fitest the civil Magistrates or Justices of Peace should only take the Examinations of scandals, as they do in cases of Felony and other scandalous crimes, and certify them to the Presbyterie, or Classis, as there shall be need.

15ly. Whether it be not both unjust and unreasonable to press the Parliament to settle any kind of Church government, as prescribed Jure divino, before it be clearly demonstrated or manifested to their judgments and consciences to be so, by perspicuous undeniable proofs from Scripture? Or to importune them to grant any unlimited arbitrary power to Classes, Presbyteries, or Congregations, to judge of or censure unknown contingent scandals [never yet thus censured from Adams days till now] before they can so much as conjecture what they are, or where ever they will be perpetrated in our Churches? since offenses always use to ( ) precede Laws made to punish them; and ex malis moribus optimae oriuntur leges, as all Politicians have resolved? whether the demanding of such an unlimited power to be now established, be not as bad, yea more unreasonable then the late Prelates &c. Oath (most justly damned, declaimed against, and savors not more of willfulness then conscience, of the spirit of ( ) Diotrephes, then of Christ, of whose kingdom some pretend it to be a most necessary and inseparable Branch? Whether any Prophet, Apostle, godly Presbyter private Congregation or Classis in the primitive Church, ever solicited their Princes or Parliaments for such an exorbitant unlimited power, and who in particular? Or whether any reformed Churches beyond the Seas do at this day claim, or really enjoy, execute any such an indefinite Arbitrary power (as some falsely pretend they do) and what Churches in particular?

16. Whether Christian Princes and Magistrates indulging of overmuch power, honor and Ecclesiastical Authority in point of Jurisdiction Church censures. and excommunication in former ages to the Clergy, under this apprehention persuasion, that they were most pious, conscientious, holy, moderate, just and humble persons, who would exercise it for God's glory only, and the Churches good; hath not been the true Original cause of all that Antichristian Tyranny, persecution, exorbitances of Popish Prelates, and Clergiemen, which have over-spread, corrupted, infested the Church and people of God? And whether former examples of this kind may not justly lesson us to beware of the like error for the present though our Ministers who claim this Ecclesiatiicall Jurisdiction now contested for by a Divine Right be never so godly, upright, discreet, humble, conscientious, since we know not wha • many of our Ministers, Elders who must exercise it in the Country are for the present; or what the best of them all or their successors at least may prove for the future, ( ) (ambition being man's first sin, and most pleasing to our corrupt natures, as we see by the example of [m] Christ's own Apostles, and daily experiences everywhere especially when they have engrossed more Ecclesiastical power into their hands by pretext of a Divine Right, then ever the express Law of God or Christ himself in his Gospel hath delegated to them. It is very observable, that while the [ Popes claimed their Papacy and superiority over other Churches by grants and donations from the Christian Emperors of Rome, they were very humble, loyal, and obsequious to them. But after the long enjo meant of their transcendent jurisdiction by imperial donations had so far puffed them up with pride as by degrees to desert their true ancient claim, and challenge both their Papacy and Supremacy by a Divine Right from Christ himself by wresting divers Scriptures to their purpose [and some of those among others which our Divines now principally insist upon.] they presently cast off both their subjection and Loyalty to the Emperors at once; and so prosecuted them with excommunications, Interdicts, suspentions, rebellions, force of Arms, and parties raised against them in their own Empires; that at last they quite trampled them under their f ete, disposing of their Crowns at pleasure, making them swear so emne homage to them as their Vassalls, and to hold their Imperial Crowns from them alone, who formerly did homage to and held their Bishoprics, with all the Papal jurisdiction they enjoyed only from them: Yea if our Presbyteries. Classes or Independent Congregations shall be admitted to hold and enjoy all the Ecclesiastical jurisdiction they now pretend to, by a Divine Right; and the Parliament their power, authority, only by a mere human institution and not by as clear a Divine Right as theirs; the next consequence I fear will be (and we see it already maintained in some [ Presbyterians and more [ ] Independents printed Books;) That our Parliaments Kings and temporal Magistrates must have not ing at all to do with Church Officers, or Church government by way of direction, correction, or app •… a • e, but merely as t • eir subordinate Ministers, to ratify their determination • and enforce obedience to their censures; which if they neglect or refuse to do or stop their proceedings by any Prohibitions or legal course, for ought I know, when their Divine pretended authority is settled to their minds, the next thing they shall hear of will be; that which • ur Kings, Judges, and Officers, did heretofore from our Clergy in Archbishop Boniface his time, when they opposed their extravagances even a serious admonition to obey their dictates and after that an I • te • diction of all their Lands, Castles. Towns with a suspension of them from the Sacrament, or excommunication from or Non-communion with their Congregations for this Contumacy: And then Lord have mercy upon us miserable sinners we may sooner bewail then remove that spiritual Yoak of bondage which we thus suffer voluntarily to be imposed both in our own and others neck • . It being a very difficult task and work of many ages to moderate abat 〈…〉 late or suppress any Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, though never so exo •… ant especially if once legally settled, or but encroached by color of a Divine Right, as we see by the Papacy and our late exploded Prelacy.

I shall therefore close up a l with the Apostles seasonable advice, Gal 5.1. Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free and be not again entangled with any Yoak of bondage, which Christ himself hath not imposed on us by a clear and evident institution in his word: Christ's Yoake is easy, and his burden light, to which all people must with cheerfulness submit: if the Presbyterians yoke, in suspending men from the Sacrament for all kind of supposed scandals, though they profess unfeigned penitence for all their sins, and eaenestly desire to receive it; or the Independents Yoak, in non-admitting or secluding those from their Congregations whom they judge not real Saints, or will not subscribe to their private Church Covenants, and denying all benefit of Appeales to any superior judicatories paramount their own private Congregations, (without any express precept or president in Scripture, to warrant these their practices, proceedings) be not such, we may justly suspect and reject them too, as none of Christ's.