A defence of church-government, exercised in presbyteriall, classicall, & synodall assemblies; according to the practise of the reformed churches

CHAP. III.

The second Argument, taken from the words of Christ, Matth. 18.15-20.

THe second Argument is taken from that Rule of Discipline, delivered by Christ unto his Disciples, for the government of his Church in the New Testament, Mat. 18.15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. From this rule we may reason divers wayes, and chiefly thus: If this Rule of Christ be the same that was prescribed unto Israel of old, and be translated from the Jewes Synagogues unto the Christi∣an Churches; then are not these Churches independent, then are they not single uncompounded policies, then is not all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction limited within the compasse of particular Congregations, then cannot appeales unto superiour judicatories be justly denyed. But the first is true. Therefore the second also.

The Assumption of this Argument is denyed by many kindes of opposites. H. Barrow cryes out against it;(a) 1.1 Is it likely or possible that our Saviour Christ would fetch his patterne for the Elders of his Church & the execution of these high judgements from that corrupt degenerate Synedrion of the Iewes, which by the institution of God was merely Civill, and not ordained for causes Ecclesiasticall, as appeareth Exod. 18. Num. 11. Deut. 1. the Priests bearing the charge & having the deciding of all Ecclesiasticall causes: Num. 18. Deut. 17. But this Councell of theirs was now mixed of the Elders of the people and the Priests, & handled all causes, both Civill & Ecclesiasticall indifferently. Matt. 26.3. Act. 4.5. How unjustly and ungodly they dealt, may appeare by their handling our Saviour and his Apostles from time to time. Now as their is no likenes to collect these surmises from that place, so is there no one circumstance in that Scripture to lead thereunto.

Mr Ainsworth would perswade that(b) 1.2 Christs doctrine in Matt. 18.18. is a new rule which Israel had not: and thinks it would be good for men to yeeld unto this perswasion.

Mr Smith, that declined unto Anabaptisme, speaking of the order observed in the old Testament, sayth,(c) 1.3 The Lord did not then require men to proceed with their bre∣thren in three degrees of admonition, and so to bring them to the acknowledgment of their sinne and repentance: That is the Lords dispensation for the new Testament. But the Lords order for those times was 1. reproof for sinne, Lev. 19.17. 2. The partie reprooved was to offer a sacrifice, which if he did he was cleansed from his sinne visiblie, Levit. 4.23. 3. If the wil∣fully refused to hearken, he was to be promoted to the Magistrate, and put to death for his pre∣sumption. Numb. 15.30, 31. Deut. 17.12. This was the Lords oecconmie for those times: when this order was violated, then all communion was defiled; whiles it was observed, all was well in the visible communion. Let any man declare the contrary if he be able. Thus he chal∣lenged all men in the confidence of this opinion, that Christ gave a new rule.

Mr Iacob speaking of this rule, Mat. 18. sayth,(d) 1.4 The Iewish Church-government cannot be here alluded unto; much lesse required to be kept & practised by Christians. Con∣cerning which together with all other Iewish ordinances, the Apostle teacheth and confirmeth unto us that all those old things are passed away, and that all things (of such nature) un∣der

the Gospell, are made new: 2. Cor. 5.17. and that the same things are shaken and changed, and remaine not now unto us. Heb. 12.27.

[ I] NOw on the contrary to shew the trueth of the Assumption against these and the like denyals thereof, and to prove that Christ gave no new Rule, but the very same for substance which was given formerly to the Jewes; let us consider it in the severall parts thereof, & so by induction from them demonstrate that which is affirmed by us. _____ _____ In that Rule of Christ, Mat. 18.15-20. we have descri∣bed to us, 1. Three degrees of admonition. 2. A censure upon contempt of ad∣monition. 3. A confirmation of that censure.

The first degree of admonition is most private, betwixt the person admonishing and the person offending alone, vers. 15. This is no new commandement, but taught of old, both generally in the equity of the Law, to love our neighbour as ourselves, Lev. 19.18. and more specially, to shew this love by admonition, in the rebuke of sinne, Lev. 19.17. and that with secrecy. Prov. 11.13. & 25.9. And further, as Christ describes the person offending by the name of a brother, to shew in what loving manner this duety was to be performed to him, saying, If thy brother sinne against thee, &c. so had Moses done before, Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart, &c. As Christ requires not onely a simple telling of the fault, but a* 1.5 convincing of the offendour: so had Moses taught Israel before,* 1.6 thoroughly to reprove or con∣vince, and not to suffer sinne upon a brother. Mat. 18.15. with Lev. 19.17. As Christ in the same place to encourage unto this duety, propounds the winning of a brother; so the Lord in the old Testament, shewes how the fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, and how the wise doe winne soules. Prov. 11.30. Thus farre it was no new rule.

The second degree of admonition was with witnesses: If he heare thee not, take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. Mat. 18.16. This is expressely taken from & grounded upon the Policie of Mo∣ses, who prescribed the same order for Israel. Deut. 19.15. Hitherto therefore it is the same rule.

The third degree of admonition was by the Church, being complained unto and told of the offence. Mat. 18.17. This admonition was also observed in Israel, whē as the Church, or those Ecclesiasticall Governours which represented the Church, either in Synagogues, or (as occasion required) in superiour Judicatories, did teach, informe, and admonish offenders, before they gave sentence of their obstinacy and presumption. Deut. 17.9, 10, 11. 2. Chron. 19.10. Herein likewise the same rule was prescribed. And the word thus duely spoken in his place, or* 1.7 on the wheeles of order, in divers degrees of admonition, that it might runne and prevayle, was like apples of gold in pictures of silver. Prov. 25.11.

The censure which followed upon the contempt of these admonitions was Ex∣communication, or rejection of the obstinate offender. Mat. 18.17. This was no new kinde of censure, seeing Excommunication was also an ancient ordinance, a part of that Ecclesiasticall Policie under the old Testament; yea described by the same phrase of ••••tting off (Exod. 12.19. Num. 15.30, 31.) which is also used in the Gospell of Christ. Gal. 5.12. As in Israel they had a censure of separating from

the Congregation; Ezra. 10.8. so in the new Testament, in an equivalent phrase, the like judgement was signifyed, by denouncing some to be accursed, anathema. or separate from the Church of God. Gal. 1.9. And even in this text, Mat. 18.17. the censure of excommunication being described by declaring men to be as Heathens & Publicanes, there is not onely a manifest allusion and respect unto the e∣state of the Jewes, but a cōmandement of the same order for avoyding the obsti∣nate, by denying civill communion, of eating & drinking with excommunicates, as they did unto the Publicanes; Mat. 9.11. Luk. 15.2. and both religious & civill communion, both in publick & private, as they did unto the Heathen: Act. 11.2, 3. & 21.28, 29. neither could this rule be well understood without knowledge of the present practise of the Jewes in this behalf.

The confirmation of this censure, is described in the rule of Christ, by a threefold testimony and promise. 1. That this judgement of the Church given on earth should be ratifyed in heaven, either for binding or loosing, Mat. 18.18. And so Moses setting life and death, blessing and cursing, the judgements of God before Israel, calles heaven & earth to record for confirmation, to binde them to reve∣rence those ordinances of God. Deut. 30.19. & 4.26. 2. As Solomon, under the Law, at the building of the Temple, did by his prayer confirme Israel in hope of having their prayers to ascend from earth to heaven; 1. King. 8.30, 31, 32. so Christ here promiseth that the prayers of those which agreed touching any thing on earth, should be granted in heaven. vers. 19. 3. As Iosaphat for the establish∣ment of the Iudaicall Policie, encouraged the Iudges with the promise of Gods presence & assistance; that the Lord would be with them in the matter of judgement, that the Lord would be with the good: 2. Chron. 19.6, 11. so here Christ to encourage his servants in the observation of this order promiseth his presence, to be in the midst of two or three gathered together in his name. vers. 20.

Thus it appeareth from the enumeration of all the severall parts of this rule, compared with the ordinance of God in the old Testament, that this is no new rule. Though there were many other Ceremoniall and temporary ordinances in the Law, for the purging of sinne and uncleannes: yet so farre as concernes this Rule, Mat. 18. there is no new order prescribed herein; here is nothing specifyed which was not taught before.

[ II] EVen those witnesses, before alledged by M^r Canne, and before him by M^r Ainsw. doe testify the same: they and others, the most excellent servants of God, the starres of the Churches, subscribing unto this trueth, and bearing wit∣nesse with us unto this interpretation of Scripture, and arguing divers wayes for the authority of Classes & Synods from this place, Mat. 18. and specially in this respect, that it was no new rule.

Calvine speaking of this rule and of the Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction prescribed therein, sayth plainly,(e) 1.8 Christus nihil hîc novum instituit, &c. Christ here instituted no new thing; but followed the custome alwayes observed in the ancient Church of his owne na∣tion: whereby he signifyed that the Church could not want the spirituall jurisdiction vvhich had bene from the beginning, &c. And this he also applyes unto the jurisdiction ex∣ercised in Synods, when he writes,(f) 1.9 If it be demanded what the authority of Synods is

from the Scriptures, there is no clearer promise extant then in this sentence of Christ; Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. Mat. 18.20. Againe in his exposition of those words,

Tell the Church, he saith(g) 1.10 The quae∣stion is, what he meanes by the name of the Church. for Paul commands that the incestuous Corinthian should be excommunicated, not by any choyse num∣ber but by the whole company of the godly, 1. Cor. 5.5, 6. and therefore it might seeme probable that the judgement is here referred unto all the people. But because there was then no Church which had given the name unto Christ, nor such a manner appointed, but that the Lord speakes as of an usuall and received custome; there is no doubt but that he alludes unto the order of the old Church, even as in other places also he applyes his speech unto the knowne custome, &c. So therefore he now had respect unto the forme of discipline which was recei∣ved among the Jewes: because it would have bene absurd to propound the judgment of a Church which yet was not. Moreover seing the power of ex∣communication among the Jewes, was now in the Elders which represented the person of the Church, Christ fitly sayth that those which had offended should then at length be brought publickly to the Church, if either proudly they contemned or scurrilously rejected private admonitions. We know that from the time that the Jewes returned out of the captivity of Babylon, the cen∣sure of manners and of doctrine was committed to that chosen Councell which they called Sanhedrin, and in Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. This government was lawfull & approved of God, and this was the bridle to keep in order the froward & un∣tractable.

Thus hath he fully expressed himself, that this commandement of Christ, Mat. 18. is no new rule, but taken from the Ecclesiasticall Policie of the Jewes.

Beza in like manner confirmeth this interpretation, saying,(h) 1.11 This power & ju∣risdiction was in those which are therefore called, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Rulers of the Synagogue, Mark. 5.22. & an example of this custome is found, Ioh. 9.22. & 12.42. &c. And speaking of this word Church, mentioned Mat. 18. (he sayth,)

It is to be observed that they doe foulely erre which would prove from this place that all things are to be referred unto the assembly of the whole multitude. They say the name of Church is never otherwise taken: which from this very place is convinced to be false. for certainly it appeares that these things are spo∣ken as of the Jewes, at least from this which he addeth, Let him be unto thee as an Heathen and Publicane. But all writers of these things doe testify that the judgements of these matters among the Jewes were in the Elders, and that the whole multitude of the people was not alwayes wont to be assembled. And cer∣tainly unlesse Christ had applyed his whole speech unto the custome of his times, who could have understood what he spoke?

Afterwards againe in the same place he addeth this, Sed doceo Aristocratiam Christianam non esse novum aliquod institutum, &c. I teach that the Christian government of the Church by an Eldership is no new institution, &c. no new rule.

D. Whitaker to prove the authority of Synods, brings warrant & evidence, not

onely from the new Testament, but also(i) 1.12 from the Church of Israel and from the Ecclesiasticall Policie of the Jewes before Christ, in the times of David, Eze∣kias, Iosias & other godly Princes, by which it appeares that he held this part of Church-government not to be a new ordinance, but a practise common both to Jewish & to Christian Churches. And besides, from this very place, Mat. 18. he drawes a double warrant for Synods: first from the commandement, given to Pe∣ter as well as to others, to tell the Church. vers. 17. from thence he argueth against the Papists, that the Pope may be judged of a Councell.(k) 1.13 If (saith he) every par∣ticular Church hath greater authority in judgement, then Peter or any particular man; then much more the universall Church, which is represented in a generall Councell or Synod. Herein he is directly opposite to our opposers, who grant a power of jurisdiction to a par∣ticular Church, but none to any Synod whatsoever, further then to counsell and direct. Againe he(l) 1.14 argueth from the promise of Christ, Mat. 18. Where two or three are met together in my name there am I in the midst of them, & applyes that sentence to the maintenance & allowance of Synods, particular or generall.

Iunius in like manner, as he is plentifull in giving allowance unto the authority of Synods, so he derives this authority from this place, Mat. 18. both from the(m) 1.15 commandement of telling the Church, vers. 17. and from the(n) 1.16 promise made unto Ecclesiasticall assemblies, to be in the midst of them, vers. 20. while he allowes that promise alledged by others to be a just ground thereof, though he adde other warrant also. And further, speaking of the Councell or Ecclesiasticall Senate, he shewes what reference it had unto the Politie or government of the Jewish Sy∣nagogues; he saith, That which(o) 1.17 the Church of the Iewes called the Synagogue, that Christ in like manner called the Church in that place, Mat. 18. for as the Synagogue or Ec∣clesiasticall Counsell was a certaine Epitome of the Church, so also is the Presbytery.

Mr Cartwright above many other is very pregnant in giving plaine testimony, that this rule of discipline is no new ordinance, and this for that part of the rule in speciall which is most controversall. He disputing about the interpretatiō of Mat. 18. saith,(p) 1.18

It is commanded of our Saviour Christ, that in such a case when a brother doth not profit by these two warnings, it should be told the Church. Now I would aske who be meant by the Church here: if he say by the Church are meant all the people, then I will aske how a mā can conveniently complaine to all the whole congregation, or how can the whole congregatiō conveniently meet to decide of this matter. I doe not deny, but the people have an interest in the excommunication, as shall be noted hereafter; but the matter is not so farre come, he must first refuse to obey the admonitiō of the Church, or ever they can proceed so farre. Well, if it be not the people that be meant by the Church, who is it? Thē shewing that by the Church one person alone cannot be meant, he conclu∣des; Seeing then that the Church here is neither the whole congregatiō, nor the Pastour alone, it followeth that by the Church here he meaneth the Pastour with the Ancients or Elders. Or else whom can he meane? And as for this manner of speech, wherein by the Church is understanded the cheef governours & Elders of the Church, it is oftentimes used in the old Testamēt, from the which our Savi∣our borowed this manner of speaking.

For instances he alledgeth, Exo. 4.29, 30. Ios.

20.4, 6. 1. Chr. 13.2, 4. &c. After this he is yet more plaine in respect of the censure, saying,(q) 1.19

Now that this charge of excommunicatiō belongeth not unto one, or to the Minister, but cheefly to the Eldership & Pastour, it appeareth by that which the authors of the Admonitiō alledge out of S. Matth. c. 18.17. which place I have proved before to be necessarily understanded of the Elders of the Church.

And further in the same place,

It may be the clearlyer understanded that the Presby∣tery or Eldership, had the cheef stroke in this excommunication, if it be obser∣ved that this was the Polity or discipline of the Jewes, and of the Synagogue, from whence our Saviour Christ took this, and translated it unto this Church; that when any man had done any thing that they held for a fault, that then the same was punished & censured by the Elders of the Church, according to the quality of the fault, as it may appeare in S. Matthew, ch. 5.22. &c. A little after he addes, And if the fault were judged very great, then the sentence of Excom∣munication was awarded by the same Elders, as appeareth in S. Iohn, cha. 9.22. And this was the cause why our Saviour Christ spake so shortly of this matter in the 18. of S. Matthew, without noting the circumstances more at large, for that he spake of a thing which was well knowne and used amongst the Jewes whom he spake unto.

To the same purpose he writes in his answer to the Rhemists, where speaking of the Governours of the Church, which were set over every severall assembly in the time of the Law, he saith,(r) 1.20

Those governing Elders are divers times in the story of the Gospell made mention of under the title of the Rulers of the Sy∣nagogue. And this manner of government, because it was to be translated unto the Church of Christ under the Gospell, our Saviour by the order (at that pre∣sent) used amongst the Jewes, declared what after should be done in his Church.

Neither doth he speak these things touching the Elderships of particular Con∣gregations onely, but applyes the same unto Classicall & Synodall Presbyteries al∣so, and doth allow of appeales unto them, and thereby acknowledgeth a depen∣dency of Churches mutually one upon another.

It is to be observed here (sayth he)(s) 1.21 that both in this part of the Discipline, viz. touching excommunication, and also in all other parts of it (as I have shewed) as in harder and difficulter causes, things were referred unto the Synods Provinciall, Nationall or Generall, as the case required: so if the Elders of any Church shall determine any thing con∣trary to the word of God, or inconveniently in any matter that falleth into their determination, the parties which are greeved may have recourse for remedy, unto the Elders and Pastours of divers Churches, that is to say, unto Synods of Shires, or Dioceses, or Provinces, or Nations, of as great or of as small com∣passe as shall be thought convenient by the Church, according to the difficulty or weight of the matters, which are in controversy. Which meetings ought to be as often as can be conveniently, not onely for the decision of such difficulties which the severall Presbyteries cannot so well judge of, but also to the end that commō counsell might be takē for the best remedy of the vices or incommodi∣ties, which either the Churches be in, or in danger to be in. And as those things

which cannot be decided by the Eldership of the Churches are to be reserved unto the knowledge of some Synod of a Shire or Diocese: so those which for their hardnes cannot be there decided, must be brought into the Synodes of larger compasse, as I shave shewed to have bene done in the Apostles times, and in the Churches which followed them long after.

And thus it appeares that according to the order and practise of the Jewes under the Law, he allowes and maintaines a liberty of appeales for parties greeved, and a superiour judicatory above particular Churches, an use of Synods not onely for counsell but for deci∣sion of controversies, for censuring of offenders even unto excommunication, ac∣cording to divers instances thereof given by him in the precedent pages, of which more is to be sayd hereafter.

Mr Traverse agreeth fully with the former, and witnesseth plainly that the Rule of Christ, Mat. 18. is no new rule, but taken from the Jewish Policie, and this both in respect of the persons judging, called the Church, and in respect of the censure & sentence of excommunication there described.

For the first, he sayth, speaking of the assembly of Elders,(t) 1.22 In Mat. 18. our Saviour calleth them by the name of the Church, because they rule and governe Church matters under the name and authority of the Church. So likewise the name of all the Assem∣bly, by Moses is given to the Elders of the Jewes; that is to say, unto certaine chosen & picked out men who were assigned by all the Congregation to the go∣vernment of the affaires. Thus plainly it is taken in Numb. 8. where the Lord appointeth the Congregation shall lay hands upon the Levites: but I think no man will say this is to be understood of all the congregation, that so many thou∣sands should lay their hands upon them, as are rehearsed then to have bene in the host of Israel, but the Elders and Princes onely as Aben Ezra doth rightly inter∣pret it. Which is to be noted the rather, because some will have the word of our Saviour to be expounded of all the Church, whereas according to the man∣ner of speaking which the Hebrewes use, the Consistory or Councell of the Church is called the Church: Where also it is to be observed that together with the name, the thing it self is translated from the Jewes unto us: that looke what a Councell the Jewes used for the government of the Church, we ought to understand by this name that such a one is appoynted by our Saviour to be u∣sed in the Church. Therefore in the same place he attributeth to this Coun∣cell the chief government of all Church matters; that all such things as cannot otherwise be agreed and ended be at the last brought unto them, and ended by their authority & judgement.

As for the second, the censures of the Church, having spoken before of Sus∣pension and proceeding to speak of Excommunication, he saith,(v) 1.23

This part of Ecclesiasticall censure, as also the first, were translated unto us from the Jewes; for the Church of Christ in all this matter of Discipline hath received all her lawes & decrees from the Jewes: for as it hath bene shewed before, it is plaine & manifest that our Saviour in Mat. 18.17. alluded to the manner of the Jewes, because that otherwise his speech should have bene very obscure, and such as no man had bene able to understand. But this appeareth most manifestly by the

excommunication of the blind man in the 9. of Iohn, &c.

And further, that which he sayth concerning the government of a particular Church, he extends al∣so unto the(x) 1.24 Synods for the governing of more Churches, of which there shall be more occasion to speake againe hereafter.

Mr Fenner in his Counterpoyson touching the certaine forme of Ecclesiasticall go∣vernment, declares himself to be of the same minde, viz. that the Rule of Christ, Mat. 18. is no new rule, when as he writes,(y) 1.25 Our Saviour Christ in setting downe the Ecclesiasticall Presbyterie, speaketh according to the Iewes, for otherwise the Apostles could not have understood him, when he sayd, Tell the Congregation, or Church, which was the title then given unto the Ecclesiasticall Senate; and his words of having as a Publicane & Heathen, doe manifestly prove he meant to speak according to their custome, &c. And therefore also in his(z) 1.26 generall description of a Presbyterie comprehending under it as well the government of many Churches by Synods, as of one particular Church by the Eldership thereof, for the proof and warrant of one as well as the other, he alledgeth this rule, Mat. 18.18. even as he doth other places taken from the Jewish Policy under the Law.

Mr Brightman, when he shewes that Christ in his Church hath appointed a more accurate order for remove all of lesse offences, then that which the Pharisees ob∣served, who corrupted the Law with their erroneous glosses, condemning grosser sinnes, as murders, and neglecting lesser transgressions; yet for the forme of the Ju∣dicatorie he declares that it was such an one as the former Writers doe witnesse to have bene taken from the Jewes Policy, when as he thus describeth it(a) 1.27 The Sy∣nedrion is a Senate of Elders, watching for the soules of that Congregation over which they are set in things that belong unto manners & Christian honesty, which Senate because it repre∣sents the state (or* 1.28 beares the place) of the whole Congregation, is called of Christ himself the Church, saying Tell the Church, Mat. 18.17. and of Paul is called* 1.29 the Elder∣ship, 1. Tim. 4.14. And againe in the next leafe, shewing the meaning of that text, Matth. 18.15, &c. Onely remember thence, that the Church is not the vvhole Congregation but a Synedrion or Senate of certaine chosen persons. And for ought that can be gathered from this his exposition, it was no new rule, but a renewing and confirming of that which had bene of old prescribed unto Israel.

Mr Parker for the maintenance of Classes and Synods whereby many particular Churches are combined & united together, argues also from Mat. 18. and that af∣ter a double manner. for first, to shew withall that the right manner and forme of combination doth consist in a mutuall obligation of Churches, without subjecti∣on unto the rule or dominion of any one, he reasons thus,(b) 1.30 Let us goe to the very fountaine of combination, which (as Chamierus saith well) is found in Mat. 18. because ma∣ny Churches are combined together after the same manner that the prime Churches, viz. par∣ticular Congregations, doe grow together in their members into one frame. And he main∣taines that the forme of this combination & comming together is noted in those words, in my name, and if they agree together. Mat. 18. v. 19, 20. Thus he derives the combi∣nation of Churches from their mutuall consent & agreement. And hence it may appeare further, that as members of particular Churches are united together by the bond of mutuall consent, not onely for counsell & advise, but also for the cen∣suring

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

& judging of their offences, and this without superiority of one member a∣bove another; so by the like bond of mutuall consent many Churches are also u∣nited, not onely for counsell, but for the mutuall censuring & deciding of one ano∣thers causes, and this without superiority of any one Church above the rest. O∣therwise also how could he have applyed these things as he doth, for the de∣fence of the Reformed Churches, wherein such authority of Classes and Synods is exercised?

Secondly, whereas D. Whitgift & others dispute against the Classes & Presby∣teries of Scotland & the Low-countries, where the faults and causes of particular Churches are judged & censured, and aske for Scripture to prove and justify such an order of government; M^r Parker in defence of them, besides other answers & proofes alledges this place, Matt. 18. for the warrant thereof, and sayth,(c) 1.31 This proceeding from an Eldership to a Classis, from a Classis to a Synod, is founded in the insti∣tution of Christ, Matt. 18.17. by proportion on this manner. He commands that from the admonition of one being despised men proceed unto the admonition of two or three, if that be con∣temned unto the censure of the Eldership, if that be despised unto the censure of the whole Church: therefore why not from one whole Church unto many in a Classis, & againe from many in a Classis unto yet more in a Synod? And having layd this just foundation he reprooves the opposites further from the confessiō of some of them contradicting the other,(d) 1.32 Both Sutlive & Downam doe interpret the Church, Mat. 18. to be either a Consistory or a Synod. Behold therefore by the judgement even of Hierachicall men themselves, a mani∣fest commandement of Christ for Classicall assemblies. for what? Is not the Classis a cer∣taine kinde of Synod?

Zepperus having spoken of the Ecclesiasticall Policie or government in the Ju∣daicall Church, shewes how the same was continued, when he sayth,(e) 1.33 This ad∣ministration of Ecclesiasticall discipline Christ also established and made to be perpetuall, Mat. 18.15. &c.

Gersom Bucerus, that excellent and worthy servant of God, who hath given so full an answer to D. Downam, in defence of the Discipline practised in the Re∣formed Churches, is as full in this poynt, that the Rule of Christ, Mat. 18. is no new rule. He maintaineth that(f) 1.34 the forme of the sacred Politie in the new Te∣stament, ought to be framed according to the manner of the Jewes Politie. To this end he(g) 1.35 brings the testimony of many learned Writers, witnessing with him unto the same trueth.

Philip Melanchthon, as he is there alledged by him, shewing what order of Dis∣cipline was appoynted by Christ, in those words, Tell the Church, Mat. 18. sayth,(h) 1.36 This custome was not first instituted of the Messias, but was the old manner of the Leviticall Priests, who in their place maintained the discipline by such judgements, though they had also other Politicall judgements & punishments.

Victorinus Strigelius, cited also by him, speakes in like manner,(i) 1.37 A new forme of judgement is not instituted in this place, but the old manner is repeated, delivered from the first fathers, the steps whereof have alwayes remained in the Church. &c.

Pezelius having expressed the forme of Government in Israel, writes thus,(k) 1.38 According to this example of the old Politie, almost the same order of judgements was kept

in the new Testament. &c.

Musculus(l) 1.39, & Aretius(m) 1.40, are likewise brought in by him as deriving & descri∣bing the Discipline of the Church, Matth. 18. from the manner of the Jewish Synagogue.

Bucanus also describing this Discipline, sayth,(n) 1.41 Christ hath expressely appointed this order translated unto us from the Church of Israel. And againe,(o) 1.42 Christ doth not de∣scribe a temporary but a perpetuall order of his Church, Mat. 18.17. where following the cu∣stome that had bene alwayes observed in the ancient Church of the Iewes, he signifyed that the Church cannot want that spirituall jurisdiction, which had bene from the beginning.

And lest any should blame us, that we seeme to be drawne with the judgement and consent of late Writers, the same(p) 1.43 Gersom Bucerus doth also alledge divers of the ancient Writers, as(q) 1.44 Ambrose,(r) 1.45 Theodoret,(f) 1.46 Cyrill,(t) 1.47 Gregorius Magnus, agreeing with us that the Church of the new Testament succeeding the Church of the Jewes hath borrowed from thence the forme of her Politie, and the order of jurisdiction. And to these I might adde many other, but that I have further occasion to doe it hereafter, in answering the objections from the perverted Testi∣monies both of new & old Writers.

It is not here to be omitted, that Mr Iohnson, Pastour of the Separatists, who had bene a principall instrument in oppugning this interpretation of Matt. 18. by whose writings many had bene confirmed in their opposition against us, hath yet before his death, after long experience and consideration, confessed his errour in this poynt, and a in peculiar Treatise publickly revoked the same. And though in other poynts touching the order of government prescribed in Matt. 18. he came not to the cleare sight of the trueth, yet thus farre he hath shewed his consent with the former Writers, saying,(v) 1.48 Note here, that if Christ now had given a new Rule of go∣vernment that Israel had not, the Disciples to whom it was spoken, could not have understood it by these words, which were according to the Iewes received phrase & practise: and the Phari∣sees & other adversaries of Christ would have beneglad, if they could have had such an excep∣tion against Christ, that he had taught contrary to Moses, and had led the people from the way & order of government which the Lord himself had prescribed in his word.

[ III] AFter evidence of Scripture & consent of so many Writers agreeing in the in∣terpretation of this place, let us now examine the exceptions of such oppo∣sites, as maintaine that Christ gave a new rule in Mat. 18.

Some object with H. Barrow the unjust & ungodly dealing of the Rulers in that time, and reason thus: that it is not likely or possible that our Saviour should fetch his patterne from that corrupt degenerate Synedrion of the Iewes, &c. To these I answer:

I. Though the Governours of the Jewes in Christs time were most of them wicked men, and abused their authority; yet the forme of government it self, and namely so much of it & so farre as it is described in that Rule, Mat. 18. that there should be a Synedrion or Presbyterie for the judging of offences in such order as is there specifyed, cannot be shewed to be unlawfull, nor contrary to that which God had appoynted of old by Moses: And therefore our Saviour might well commend the very same unto his Disciples. Thus Calvine answereth a like ob∣jection,

(x) 1.49 If any man except that all things were corrupt & perverted in the time of Christ, so as that tyranny could be accounted nothing lesse then the judgement of the Church: the an∣swer is easy, Though there was then an adulterate & perverse manner, yet Christ might worthi∣ly commend the order so as it was delivered from the Fathers. And when a little after he erec∣ted his Church, the corruption being removed, he restored the pure use of excommunication.

II. How great soever the abuses and corruptions of Governours & Govern∣ment were in Christs time; yet were not the godly required then to renounce or forsake the communion of that Church. Christ himselfe both by his example & his commandement taught otherwise, whiles he both communicated therewith himself, Matt. 26.17, 18. and likewise required others to doe the same. Luk. 17.14. Mat. 8.4. & 23.2, 3. Now forasmuch as the publick worship of God and his ministery are holy ordinances, as well as the government of his Church; seeing Christ taught his people to goe unto the worship & ministery of the Jewes either in Synagogue or Temple, what reason is there to think that they should be for∣bidden to repayre unto their government in their Synedriō or Presbyterie? More∣over as our Saviour taught ordinarily in the Synagogue and in the Temple, whither the Iewes alwayes resorted; Iohn. 18.20. Matt. 4.23. so there were some righteous and faythfull men Governours and Rulers of the Jewes in Christs time, who though they consented not unto evill and unrighteous judgements, but testifyed against them; Luk. 1.6. Ioh. 7.50, 51. Luk. 23.50, 51. yet were they not required to for∣sake their offices and their government. And if they might lawfully retaine their office and government, why might not others resort unto them in their govern∣ment, and seek redresse of offences, and so by them tell the Church, according to the rule, Mat. 18.17?

III. For the further clearing of this poynt, concerning which many are di∣versly minded, and many stumble at this day also upon occasion of a like difficulty, minded, and many stumble at this day also upon occasion of a like difficulty, doubting what is meet to be done, when corruptions doe abound in a true Church (as the Jewes in Christs time were) when as yet some of the Ministers & Gover∣nours thereof doe become oppressours of the godly & persecutours of the trueth; we are therefore to observe divers rules of direction according to which both the Jewes then and Christians now in such case are to carry themselves, 1. There is a difference to be put betwixt the causes and matters of complaint, about which men had occasion to goe to the Jewes Synedrion or Eldership. There were some kinde of sinnes, as of open theft, adultery, extortion, sacriledge, legall impurity, Sabath-breaking & divers the like scandals, against which the Pharisees and Ru∣lers of the Jewes were very zealous: Luk. 18.11, 12. Rom. 10.2. Phil. 3.5, 6. Luk. 18.18, 21. Mark. 10.21. And what should hinder the godly from going unto their Presbyterie to seek redresse, and so to tell the Church of such offen∣ces? In other quaestions touching their traditions they had not the like encou∣ragement to goe unto them. 11. There was a difference to be put be∣twixt the Rulers of the Jewes to whom they had occasion to complaine. As there was a multitude of Synagogues among them, so there was great varie∣ty of the Rulers of those Synagogues; some of them being more modest, humble and attentive to the Gospell then others, as we read of Iairus, Cris∣pus,

Sosthenes, and diverse of the Priests and cheef Rulers: Mark. 5.22, 23. Act. 18.8, 17. Mark. 12.28, 32, 34. Ioh. 12.42. Act. 6.7. And to such there was yet the more reason to complaine upon occasion. As for others that shewed themselves open & obstinate contemners of the Gospell & persecuters of Christ, our Saviour taught his Disciples to beware of such, Matth. 10.17. to fly from them, Ioh. 11.54. and not rashly to cast the pearles of holy admonition before such as would tread them under their feet, and seek to rend the admonishers. Mat. 7.6. with Prov. 20.15. & 9.8. Paul sometimes went voluntarily unto the Jewish Synagogues. Act. 13.14. & 17.2. & 18.4. sometimes he withdrew himself from such as were hardened & blasphemed; Act. 13.46, 51. & 19.9. III. For the persons admonishing, there is also a difference to be observed betwixt them; some of them being weake, and some stronger. Such of them as were weake in knowledge and weake in resolution and courage, were taught to take knowledge of their owne infirmity and not to presume above the grace given unto them, but to wait untill God had further prepared & inabled them, by furnishing them with such gifts as were meet and required for the performance of great & hard dueties. Matt. 17.9. Iohn. 13.36. Luk. 5.36, 37, 38. It was required of them that were to goe unto the Elderships of the Jewes, and so to tell the Church of corruptions a∣bounding among them, that they should be able to argue from the Scriptures & to convince the gainsayers, in publick as well as in private in the first degree of ad∣monition, Matt. 18.15. and withall to stand constantly as yron pillars against the faces of unrighteous & cruell men. Ier. 1.18. Esa. 50.7. Peter being yet weak, & presuming above his strength, did therefore fall so greevously. Matt. 26.33.74. But for those that are strong, confirmed in knowledge and godly resolution, they are to gird up their loynes for the doing of that which is not so safe for the weake to enterprise. And as the Apostle giving direction in other cases, wherein it was also something hard to discerne and determine what was best to be done, requires men to look unto their resolution & perswasion without wavering or fainting (as in the matter of marriage, of going to a feast with unbeleevers, and eating of meats then in question) and describes their resolution in many words, saying, He that standeth fast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his owne will, & hath so decreed in his heart, &c. 1. Cor. 7, 37. and If any of them that beleeve not bid you to a feast, & ye be disposed to goe, or as the words are and ye will goe, &c. 1. Cor. 10.27. and Let every man be fully perswaded in his owne minde: Rom. 14.5. So in the case of going to tell the Church among persecuters, every man was and is still to see that he be strong in the Lord & stand fast in his heart. 1v. Even those that were stron∣gest and most resolute, were yet bound to distinguish the times, and in all spiri∣tuall wisedome to put difference betwixt occasions. When Paul went bound in the spirit unto Ierusalem, knowing that bonds & afflictions waited for him there, Act. 20.22, 23. there was no intreaty, no teares & cryes of his godly friends could perswade him to stay, or hold him from going up thither to tell the Church and Rulers of the Jewes such things as God called him to witnesse unto them, Act. 21.12, 13, 14. though he was ready to have bene torne in peeces of that Seditious Church. Act. 23.10. At another time when Paul being bold as a Lyon would

have adventured himself among the tumultuous Ephesians for the defence of his companions in danger, yet not having so expresse and strong a call thereunto as in the former example, he yeelded to the counsell of others & suffered himself to be over-ruled: when he would have entred in unto the people, the Disciples suffered him not. Act. 19.30. Here is the wisedome, faith & patience of the Saints; let those that have understanding lay these examples before them, & labour to apply them unto themselves upon like occasions. V. Even those that are the weakest also are to put difference betwixt unadvised going of themselves and a necessary calling. for though men should not rashly expose themselves to danger, yet being brought by others & drawne before a Jewish Synedrion, & being examined touching their profession and practise, it is then required even of the simplest to answer for the trueth with meeknes & reverence, so farre as they know and are able, 1. Pet. 3.15, and not to betray the trueth by their silence, but to tell the Church of the evils to be reformed. Such were and are to remember the promises; that out of the mouth of babes & sucklings God ordaineth strength, to still the enemy & the avenger: Psal. 8.2. that such are blessed in suffering according to the will of God. Matt. 5.10, 11, 12. Act. 5.41. 1. Pet. 4.19. And thus according to these directions in divers kindes there was oc∣casion to practise in the Jewish Church that Rule of Christ, Mat. 18.

Some others, as was noted before, to prove that Christ gave a new rule, Mat. 18. doe object that(y) 1.50 Christ was to destroy both Citie & Sanctuary; so to force the Iewes to an end of their politie: Dan. 9.24.26. Luk. 19.41, 44. that Christ hath abrogated through his flesh the hatred, that is the law of commandements which stood in ordinances, &c. that we are built, not upon Moses politie that is done away, but upon the foundation of the Apostles & Prophets, &c. Eph. 2.15, 19, 20. That(z) 1.51 all those old things are passed away, that all things of such nature under the Gospell are made new, and that the same things are shaken and changed, and remaine not now unto us, &c. 2. Cor. 5.17. Heb. 12.27. To these I answer:

I. That the Ceremoniall law is abrogate, we willingly grant, and some of the Scriptures here alledged by them doe prove the same: & so much of the Iudiciall law as had a peculiar reference unto the state & condition of the Jewes, & did not in common equity concerne other people as well as them, we acknowledge in like manner to be disannulled, as we have also noted(a) 1.52 before. But that the spirituall admonitions & censures by the Ecclesiasticall judicatories, were either any Cere∣monial or Typicall ordinances, or such as doe not agree with the state of Christi∣an Churches under the new Testament, this remaines for them to shew, if they will make good those allegations of Scripture which they apply to such a purpose. In the meane time we esteeme such allegations to serve our opposites turne no better, then they doe the Anabaptists, who upon a like pretence that Moses po∣litie is abolished, and that the Law is changed and old things passed away, doe thereupon plead that the Civill power of the Magistrate, and the use of the sword is not to be exercised by Christians in the Church of God under the new Testament.

II. As for those places, Dan. 9.24, 26. Luk. 19.41, 44. where the destruc∣tion of the Citie and Sanctuary is foretold, they doe not prove the abolition of

that Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction of Synods which we maintaine; because this part of Moses politie, and this liberty of appeales from one judicatory to another, might have continued even among the Jewes themselves, though both City and Sanctuary were destroyed, and much more may still be retained among Christians, that are not tyed unto the Leviticall priesthood, nor unto any other legall cere∣monies. So the inquisition for murder was an ordinance of Moses politie: Deut. 21.1-9. though divers ceremonies were in Moses time annexed there unto, this hinders not but that those ceremonies being abolished, the Iudiciall law it self for inquisition after murders, being of common equity, ought still to continue among us.

Againe, it is further to be observed how some of our opposites labouring to finde a difference between Moses politie and Christs rule, have described unto us such a rule of proceeding in Moses time, as is not to be acknowledged. Mr Smith, as is noted(b) 1.53 before, makes this to be the order of proceeding in the time of the Law, 1. reproof of sinne, Levit. 19.17. 2. a sacrifice for the cleansing of the party reproved, Lev. 4.23. 3. death inflicted by the Magistrate upon the partie reproved, if he wilfully refused to hearken, &c. Numb. 15.30, 31. Deut. 17.12. Mr Ainsworth agreeth with him in this poynt, & sayth,(c) 1.54 God commanded this due∣ty in his law, playnly to rebuke our neighbour; Lev. 19.17. that so upon warning and sight of his sinne, he might bring his sacrifice & reconcile himself unto the Lord whom he had offended. Levit. 4.23-28. vvhich if he regarded not, but should doe ought with a high hand, he then was sayd to blaspheme the Lord, and must be cut off from among his peo∣ple, Numb. 15.30, 31. because he despised the word of the Lord, &c. Againe he writes:(d) 1.55 That private men forgave not sinnes in Israel, so absolutely touching the Church order or politie, as Christians doe now, is evident by the Law, which bound the offender not onely unto repentance and faith in Christ, Act. 15.9, 11. as also to confesse his sinne, Levit. 5.5. and satisfy his neighbour offended; Lev. 6.5. but withall to bring a trespasse offering to the Priest (the minister of the Church) that so the Priest making an atonement for him before the Lord, it should be forgiven him. Lev. 6.2, 5, 6, 7. Now under the Gospell the law is. If thy brother trespasse against thee rebuke him, and if he repent forgive him: Luk. 17.3. neyther is such a man bound to goe to a Minister that he may pray for, or forgive him; as the Papists by proportion(e) 1.56 doe gather. Now for answer hereunto, and to shew how they were mistaken about the rule of admonition in the old Testa∣ment, in teaching that men were bound upon admonition to bring an offering, & so bound that if they wilfully refused or regarded not to doe it, they were to dye or to be cut off from among their people, we are to observe that God did not lay such a bond of necessity upon his people, and this appeareth by these con∣siderations:

I. The* 1.57 words of the Text, Levit. 4.23-28. being rightly translated doe not inferre such a bond. Whereas the words are commonly translated, then he shall bring his offering, &c. they should rather have bene thus translated, and or if he will bring his offering, &c. or thus, then he may bring his offering, &c. And so the words being conditionall and not imperative, there is no absolute commandement to bring a sacrifice: but the ordinance of God in that place is, that if they would

bring a sacrifice for their sinne, then they must doe it in such manner as is there prescribed. And there is a double reason for this translation. I. The particle vau is(f) 1.58 often and very conveniently expounded conditionally by if or and if, as Numb. 5.13, 14. & 12.14. Deut. 24.1, 3. Exod. 4.23. So the principall Interpreters doe sundry times translate the same: the Chaldee Paraphrasts, both Onkelos and Iona∣than, as also the Greek version, in Num. 12.14. So the ancient Arabick version of Rabbi Saadias, as also that edition of the Chaldee printed at Constantinople in Exod. 4.23. So Tremellius and Iunius in Gen. 18.30. Levit. 26.40. Numb. 12.14. So our English translation in Exod. 4.23. Levit. 26.40. Numb. 12.14. Deut. 24.3. And to omit a multitude of other interpreters, M^r Ainsworth himself doth sometimes so translate the same, as in those places before specifyed, Exo. 4.23. Lev. 26.40. Numb. 12.14. and further(g) 1.59 notes that so it ought elswhere to be tran∣slated, as in Mal. 1.2. & 3.8. II. Suppose that the conjunction or particle vau were not conditionall in this place, yet the word turned into the future tense by vau hippuc according to the Hebrew speech, as other simple(h) 1.60 verbs future, doth not alwayes necessarily imply a commandement, but rather a permission. Though sometimes they import an absolute commandement, as in the Decalogue; yet sometimes they are used to signify what we may doe, and what we are permitted to doe. This is commonly observed by Translatours, who in their translation of the very same forme of the future verb, doe sometimes expresse it by a comman∣ding phrase, thou shalt doe, sometimes by a phrase of permission, thou mayest doe: for example, in our English translation, Gen. 2.16. Lev. 11.21, 22. Deut. 12.15, 20, & 20.19. & 23.20, 24, 25. & 24.2. Thou mayest eat, Thou mayest lend, Thou mayest eat grapes, Thou mayest pluck, She may goe, &c. Thus are many of these places trans∣lated by M^r Ainsw. himself; and thus in like manner might this place, Lev. 4.23, 28. be fitly translated, Then he may bring his offering, &c. And being so interpreted there is no such bond of necessity contained therein.

II. As the words and forme of speech in the Text doe admit this interpretati∣on; so the matter it self & the nature of the ordinance doth determine it, & con∣straine us to entertaine this translation, which shewes it to be a permission: because otherwise it had bene impossible ever to observe it in Israel. The sinnes spoken of in Lev. 4.2, 27. are for the generall nature of them all manner of sinnes, great or small, except presumptuous sinnes. The words of the Text are, If a soule shall sinne through ignorance against any of the commandements of the Lord, concerning things which ought not to be done, & shall doe against any one of them: the word schegagah there used cō∣taining under it all sinnes of infirmity, ignorance, errour, forgetfulnes or unadvised∣nes. Now the holyest men on earth being ready to offend on this manner every day & houre; if for every dayly unadvised word or deed they had bene bound to bring a sacrifice, & no other way to purge their sinne, thē had it bene utterly impossible to have kept this ordinance: I. In respect of the cost and charges, especially for the poore, described by this argument, that he* 1.61 wants an offering, so impoverished that he was not able to bring an oblation. Esa. 40.20. The poore soule that had but two mites, Mark. 12.42, 44. and the poore man that had but one lamb lying in his bosome, 2. Sam. 12.3. could not purge their dayly sinnes with sacrifices for

them all: especially considering that in this sinne-offering here spoken of, they must of necessity bring either a shee-goat or a lamb-female without blemish: Lev. 4.28, 32. there was no respect of the poore to spare them or to dispense with them for bringing a sacrifice of lesse price, as yet in other cases we see they were dispensed withall. Lev. 14.21, 22, 30, 31. & 12.6, 7, 8. whereupon the mother of Christ being very poore (as appeareth hence) brought a paire of turtle-doves or two young pigeons, Luk. 2.24. which had not bene lawfull, if she had bene able to have brought a lamb. Now if the Lord had this care to ease the burden of the poore leper at his cleansing, and of the poore woman at her purification, which might fall out to be but once in the yeare, or once in a life time, and to many never in their life; then how much more agreeable is it to the mercy of God, that the charges of the poore should have bene respected in those sacrifices which they might have had occasion to offer even every day in the yeare? but hence we may gather that this sacrifice was not of necessity imposed upon them. Yea it had bene impossible for the richer sort to have sustained this charge, especially in the yeares of dearth or scarsity. All the cattell upon the mountaines of Israel, with the sheep of Kedar and Nebaioth were not so many as the knowne sinnes of Israel, which needed this sacrifice. II. In respect of the labour and travell, this order was not possible to be observed, when for every knowne sinne they should take a journey to Ierusalem, many of the Israelites dwelling divers dayes journeys from the Tem∣ple. Abraham travelling from Beersheba in the South to offer his sonne in the mount of Morijah, where the Temple was afterwards built, 2. Chron. 3.1. came not thither before the third day, Gen. 22.2, 3, 4. And some others that dwelt in the Tribes Northward from Ierusalem, were as farre againe distant from the Tem∣ple, as appeares by the(i) 1.62 Geographicall description of that country; so that to goe and come & to performe that sacrifice could not be much lesse then a weeks work unto divers of them: & every week in the yeare they might have occasion to take this journey, if this sacrifice, Lev. 4. had bene exacted of them. Yea as Ioseph & Mary having bene at the feast, when they had come a dayes journey homeward from Ierusalem, seeking the child Iesus and not finding him in the company did returne back againe to Ierusalem: Luk. 2.43, 44, 45. so many sinners having of∣fered this sacrifice and comming homeward, might in the way come to the knowledge of some new sinne, and so be forced to goe back to Ierusalem to offer againe; yea and this so often that all their life long they might doe no other work but travell up and downe to offer sacrifices. But seeing it was impossible for the tribes and families of Israel to endure such travell, we may therefore conclude from hence, that both Mr Ainsworth and Mr Smith have erred in teaching that Israel was bound unto such a rule.

But against this it may be objected from the interpretation of the Rabbines al∣ledged by Mr Ainsworth, that these errours for which the Sinne-offering was to be brought were not so many & common, but few and rare, and that therefore there was no such impossibility of purging them by sacrifice. Therefore to cleare the Text, and to vindicate the ordinance of God from the absurd traditions of the Thalmudists, and that it may appeare how men have corrupted the Rules of ad∣monition

& discipline, as well in the Old as in the New Testament, I will briefly poynt out some of their vaine glosses, & shew their contrary extremities about this particular statute.

The errours & sinnes for which this sacrifice was appointed are in one extremi∣ty restrained too much by the Jew-doctours: I. By expounding them onely of such works and deeds as are distinguished from thoughts and from words. Be∣cause the Text sayth, shall doe,(k) 1.63 this they restraine to deeds and facts, and there∣fore they teach that the Blasphemer because his sinne was in word & not in deed, was not to bring this sinne-offering. This glosse is a vaine and false collection: because the H. Ghost in the Scripture, doth ordinarily describe the words, spee∣ches and savings of men under the phrase of doing, as appeares, Psal. 15.2, 3. with vers. 5. & Psal. 50.19, 20. with vers. 21. And what reason is there that the sinnes of standering, rayling, cursing, perjury, blasphemy, being repented of should not be purged by sacrifice as well as other hainous facts & deeds? II. By a second re∣striction of these errours in deeds and facts unto the transgressing of negative com∣mandements onely. Herein they(l) 1.64 shew themselves partiall in the Law, dividing it into 613 commandements, & those againe into 248 affirmative cōmandements according to the supposed number of bones in a mans body, & 365 negative cō∣mandements according to the number of dayes in the yeare: & the sinne-offering they require onely for the breach of negative cōmandements, pretending a reason from the Text, which makes mention of all the cōmandements concerning things which should not be done. Hereupon they say, that no sinne-offering is to be brought for neglecting of Circumcision or the Passeover, because they are affirmative com∣mandements. And thus at once they cast out 248 kindes of sinnes, according to the number of the affirmative cōmandements, from having any part in the Sinne-offering. And this their exposition is not onely alledged but allowed & approved of Mr Ainsw. when he saith,(m) 1.65 The sinne-offerings in ch. 4. were for greater offences, in doing things forbidden of God, viz. in the negative commandements. And to pre∣vent an objection that might be made against this distinction, he sayth,(n) 1.66 Other sinnes (viz. against the affirmative commandements) in omitting things to be done, were expiated by Burnt-offerings, which vvere offered dayly for the whole Church, or by particular persons, as they would bring them, as is shewed on Lev. 1. Also by the sacrifices offered on Atonement day, whereof see Lev. 16. &c. But how vaine is this distinction? what just warrant is there that the expiation of sinnes of omission, against the affirmative commandements, should be restrained and applyed with such distinction unto the Burnt-offerings or unto that one day of Atonement? It is a generall rule and re∣ceived of Divines that in expounding the commandements the affirmative part should be comprehended under the negative, and the negative under the affirma∣tive. And there is ground for this from the word of God, who in his speech sometimes comprehendeth all our obedience of the Law under an affirmative commandement, as Deut. 5.33. sometimes under a negative, as Deut. 8.11. with Deut. 5.32, &c. III. By a third restriction they doe yet further limit & ap∣propriate this Sinne-offering to the ignorant or negligent breach of such nega∣tive commandements, for the presumptuous transgression whereof men deserved

cutting off by the Law, as is noted(o) 1.67 in generall by M^r Ainsworth, for the inter∣pretation and illustration of this ordinance. But that the Reader may the better discerne and judge thereof, I will set down the particular errours:p 1.68 The first when a man did ly with his mother, 2. with his wives mother, 3. with his mothers mother, 4. with his fathers mother, 5. with his daughter, 6. with his daughters daughter, 7. with his sons daugh∣ter, 8. with his wives daughter, 9. with her daughters daughter, 10. with her sons daughter, 11. with his sister, 12. with his sister, of his fathers wife, 13. with his fathers sister, 14. with his mothers sister, 15. with his wives sister, 16. with his fathers wife, 17. with his fathers bro∣thers wife, 18. with his sonnes wife, 19. with his brothers wife, 20. with a mans wife, 21. with a menstruous woman, 22. with a male, 23. with his father, 24. with his fathers brother, 25. with a beast, 26. a woman lying with a beast. And besides these 26 monstrous and unnaturall pollutions, they reckon 17 other transgressions, 1. Idolatry, 2. giving of their seed to Mo∣lech, 3. having a familiar spirit, 4. to be a wizard, 5. profaning of the Sabath, 6. to work upon Atonement day, 7. to eat or drink on Atonement day, 8. to eat the remainder, (viz. of the sa∣crifice on the third day, Lev. 7.17, 18.) 9. to eat leaven at the Passeover, 10. to eat fat, 11. to eat blood, 12. to eat the abominable thing, 13. to kill holy things without the court, 14. to offer sacrifice without the court, 15. to make the anoynting oyle, 16. to make the sweet in∣cense, 17. to anoynt with that anoynting oyle. Unto these 43 particular and enormous errours they restraine the Sinne-offering. As by the former restriction they ex∣cluded all the 248 affirmative commandements, so by this of 365 negative pre∣cepts they exclude 322. By these and sundry other groundles restrictions they doe many wayes make both this and other commandements and ordinances of God of no effect by their traditions, and as for private persons, so also for the Priest, the Congregation and Rulers, which being so vaine, I will not insist upon further refutation of them; they being also many wayes contradictory unto themselves about the same.

And as the Jewes doe thus offend in unjust restrictions, so doe they also in a con∣trary extremity of extending the words of this ordinance in some other respects too farre: as when it is sayd according to the translation of M^r Ainsw. and shall doe, of any one of them. Levit. 4.2. hence they gather that this Sinne-offering is to be brought by such as break any piece or part of those negative commandements;(q) 1.69 as for example, if upon the Sabbath one should write Shim of Shimeon, Nah of Na∣hor, Dan of Daniel, against such they doe apply the words of this commandement. Now if for so small a transgression as writing with a pen upon the Sabath but half a word, a syllable or two letters of a mans name, they were bound to bring this sinne-offering, and so accordingly for other sinnes of like nature and weight, what man though the holyest on earth, could have endured the labour and charge of so many sacrifices as such kinde of sinnes might have occasioned? Though Bel∣larmine erred in labouring to(r) 1.70 prove auricular confession of sinnes unto the Priest from the legall sacrifices, as M^r Ainsworth mentions (though the place be cited amisse, which I suppose to be the Printers fault, lib. 2. for lib. 3.) yet M^r Ainsw. himself doth erre likewise in describing an impossible & unreasonable order in the Old Testament, as Bellar. doth for the New.

Lastly, suppose there had bene such a bond of necessity layd upon the Jewes of

old, to bring a sacrifice for each sinne when it was made knowne unto them; yet this proves not that any new duety was prescribed in Matt. 18. which was not taught in the Law before. We know that the legall sacrifices and ceremonies are wholly abrogate: yet this hinders not but that the morall dueties observed in the midst of those ceremonies may still remaine, when the ceremonies are abolished. When the Ministers of the Lord in old time entred into their offices with know∣ledge and consent of the people, and together at the same time were consecrated with divers sacrifices and other ceremonies, Numb. 8.9, 10, &c. Levit. 8.2, 3, 4, 5. though the ceremonies of consecration be abolished, yet the peoples right of knowledge and consent is not therefore abolished. The Brownists themselves alledge(f) 1.71 the same places for the continuance thereof: and why can they not ob∣serve the same for the rule in Matt. 18. notwithstanding any ceremonyes that had formerly bene annexed unto the practise & observation of some dueties contained in that rule?

Moreover, it may be observed from M^r Ainsworths owne words that the Rule in Matt. 18. and in speciall that which concernes the third degree of admonition, was for the substance of it no new rule, but that which was required and practised under the Law. In Israel they told the Church two wayes: 1. By telling the Go∣vernours that represented the Church, because it then also chiefly appertained to the Ministers & watchmen of the Church to give the people warning, to admonish them of their wicked wayes, to teach the people the difference between the holy and profane, &c. Divers Scriptures are(t) 1.72 alledged by M^r Ainsw. himself for proof hereof, as Ezek. 3.17, 18, &c. Ezek. 44.23. Ier. 1.10. Hos. 6.5. &c. It was therefore no new rule in the new Testament when the like order was established for going first unto the Eldership and seeking redresse of evill by them. M^r Ainsw. acknow∣ledgeth, that(v) 1.73 the keyes of the kingdome of heaven are in more speciall manner given unto them; and therefore in speciall manner ought they to be told and spoken unto for the reformation of evils: seeing, they were to guide and goe before the people, as in other affaires, so in administring the censures of the Church; therefore ordinarily matters were to be brought unto them before they were brought unto the whole Congregatiō. 11. As it is the ordinance of God in the new Testament, 1. Cor. 5. & accordingly the practise of the Reformed Churches in these countries, that the more weighty affai∣res & censures of the Church should not be administred without knowledge and consent of the body of the Church; so that none is either received for a member of the Church, or cast out by excommunication, but they doe first tell the Church; even the whole Congregatiō is solemnely & publickly acquainted therewith, & liberty granted unto them to shew their assent or dissent therein: so M^r Ainsw. himself acknowledgeth that there was a like order in the old Testament. The Scriptures which he alledgeth, and his manner of arguing from them doth import so much. Of Israel he saith,(x) 1.74 Vnto all & every of the Israelites, was commended the care & observa∣tion of all Gods statutes; that neither all nor any of them, man nor woman, nor familie, nor tribe, should forsake the Lord, nor suffer among them any root to bring forth gall and worm∣wood, &c. Deut. 29.18. So of the multitude of beleevers and people in the new Testament, he writes in like manner, that(y) 1.75 they were willed to exhort and admonish

each other; even the Officers of the Churches, &c. and to look that no root of bitternes sprung up and troubled them, &c. Heb. 12.15, &c. Againe he saith,(z) 1.76 Even the leprous & un∣clean, though the tryall of them apperteyned to the Priests, Lev. 13. yet all the children of Israel were to look that such were removed out of the host; yea the care of the Priests purity in their administration, apperteyned to all the people. Levit. 21.1, 8, 24. And long after, both in counsels, & in the redressing of publick evils and trespasses, all Israel indifferently, had their hand and presence; as the Scripture sheweth. 2. Chron. 30.21, 23. Ezra. 10.1, 9, 12, &c. Then presently he parallels the course of the Churches in the New Testament with this supposed practise in the Old, saving, The Churches in the Apostles dayes had also the like right and liberty: for the multitudes of beleevers were both beholders and actors in the common affaires, &c. Afterwards againe, speaking of the rules of admonition & of the censures of the Church, he saith,(a) 1.77 The keeping of which rules belongeth to all the Saints, as the commandement directed of old to the children of Israel (Num. 5.2. Levit. 19.17.) and in the new Testament to all the brethren & Church, doth shew. Matt. 18.15. 1. Cor. 5. And thus by his owne confession, yea even according to his owne opi∣nion, in respect of the Churches power and the peoples right, there was no new rule given by Christ in Mat. 18.

Whereas it is objected that the Jewish Synedrion(b) 1.78 by the institution of God was merely Civill, &c. that(c) 1.79 Moses appointed neither Iudges nor Elders in Citie or Synedri∣on, but they were Magistrates to execute the judgements of the law, & had the sword to cha∣stise the body and punish with death, &c. The errour of this assertion hath bene shew∣ed(d) 1.80 before from the Scriptures, Deut. 17. & 2. Chron. 19. From these places is the distinction of Civill and Ecclesiasticall judgements maintained by many learned Writers, as(e) 1.81 D. Rainolds,(f) 1.82 M^r Cartwright,(g) 1.83 M^r Fenner, and the(h) 1.84 Defender of him, and most largely by(i) 1.85 G. Bucerus. As for H. Barrow, he sufficiently resutes himself when he acknowledgeth that the Priests did beare the charge and had the deciding of all Ecclesiasticall causes, Numb. 18. Deut. 17. This they could not doe without judging of them; & therefore it appeareth hence that they had a double Synedrion, one Ecclesiasticall, the other Civill.

Notes

• (a) 1.1

  Refut. of Giff. p. 76.
• (b) 1.2

  Anim∣adv. p. 18.
• (c) 1.3

  Parall. Cens. Ob∣serv. Sect. 8. p. 75.
• (d) 1.4

  Attest. c. 8. p. 278.279.
• * 1.5

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.6

  hoche∣ach tochi∣ach.
• * 1.7

  gnal ophnan.
• (e) 1.8

  Instit. l. 4. c. 11. § 2. & 4.
• (f) 1.9

  Ibid. c. 9. § 2.
• (g) 1.10

  Harm. Evang. in Mat. 18.17.
• (h) 1.11

  Annot: maj. in N. Test. in Mat. 18.17.
• (i) 1.12

  Cont. 3. de Conc. qu. 1. de necess. Concil. c. 3. p. 15.
• (k) 1.13

  Ibid. de Concil. qu. 5. c. 3. p. 169. 170.
• (l) 1.14

  Ibid. qu. 1. c. 3.
• (m) 1.15

  Anim∣adv. in Bel∣larm. de Concil. l. 2. c. 19. art. 8.
• (n) 1.16

  Ibid. in lib. 1. c. 3.
• (o) 1.17

  Ecclesi∣ast. l. 2. c. 3.
• (p) 1.18

  First Reply to D. Whitg. p. 176. edit. 2.
• (q) 1.19

  Ibid. p. 183.
• (r) 1.20

  Confut. of Rhem. transl. on Mat. 18.18.
• (s) 1.21

  First Reply to D. Whitg. p. 187.
• (t) 1.22

  Eccles. Discipl. p. 87. edit. 1617.
• (v) 1.23

  Ibid. p. 92.
• (x) 1.24

  Ibid. p. 98.
• (y) 1.25

  Part of a Register, p. 479.
• (z) 1.26

  S. The∣ol. l. 7. c. 7. p. 276.
• (a) 1.27

  Com∣ment. in Cant. cap. 4.
• * 1.28

  quoniam vicem susti∣neat &c.
• * 1.29

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• (b) 1.30

  Polit. Eccles. l. 3. c. 22. p. 331
• (c) 1.31

  Polit. Eccl. l. 3. c. 24. p. 355.
• (d) 1.32

  Ibidem.
• (e) 1.33

  Polit. Eccl. l. 1. c. 16. p. 198.199.
• (f) 1.34

  Dissert. de Gubern. Eccl p. 182.
• (g) 1.35

  Ibid. p. 48.
• (h) 1.36

  P. Melā. cōment. in 1. Cor. 15.
• (i) 1.37

  Hypom. in N. T. in Mat. 18.
• (k) 1.38

  Argum. & Resp. Theol. part. 7.8.690.
• (l) 1.39

  Loc. cō. de Eccl. c. 5.
• (m) 1.40

  Problē. Tom. 2. loc. de Excom.
• (n) 1.41

  Loc. cō. loc. 44. de Discipl. qu. 12.
• (o) 1.42

  Ibid. qu. 22.
• (p) 1.43

  Dissert. de Gub. Ec∣cles. p. 49.50.
• (q) 1.44

  In 1. Tim 5.
• (r) 1.45

  In 1. Tim. 4.
• (f) 1.46

  In Ioan. l. 6. cap. 20.
• (t) 1.47

  In Cant. cap. 6.
• (v) 1.48

  Expos. of Mat. 18.17. C1.
• (x) 1.49

  Harm. Evang. in Mat. 18.17.
• (y) 1.50

  H. Ains. Animadv. p. 14, 15.
• (z) 1.51

  H. Iacob. Attest. p. 278. 279.
• (a) 1.52

  Pag. 36. 37.
• (b) 1.53

  Pag. 42.
• (c) 1.54

  H. Ains. Commun. of S. c. 22. p. 440.
• (d) 1.55

  Anim∣adv. p. 120. 121.
• (e) 1.56

  Bellar. de Poenit. l. 2. c. 3.
• * 1.57

  vehebi.
• (f) 1.58

  Vau om∣nium alia∣rum Con∣junctionum significatio∣nem assu∣mere po∣test. &c. aliquando conditionē includit▪ Cevall. & Bertr. in Galeed, p. 44.
• (g) 1.59

  Annot. on Lev. 26.40.
• (h) 1.60

  See Ga∣leed, p. 117.
• * 1.61

  hamsuc∣ran teru∣mah.
• (i) 1.62

  Cl. Ptol. Geogr. l. 5. c. 16. tab. 4.
• (k) 1.63

  H. Ains. Annot. on Lev. 4.2.
• (l) 1.64

  Ibidem.
• (m) 1.65

  Annot. on Lev. 5.1,
• (n) 1.66

  Annot. on Lev. 4.2.
• (o) 1.67

  Ibidem.
• p 1.68

  Maimo∣ny in She∣gagoth, c. 1.
• (q) 1.69

  R. Solo∣mon Iarchi, on Lev. 4.2. R. Moses Mikkotsi in Sepher mitsvoth gadol, prae∣cept affir. 213.
• (r) 1.70

  Bellar. de Paenit. l. 3. c. 3.
• (f) 1.71

  Confes. art. 23. Apo∣log. pos. 5. p. 46, 47, 48.
• (t) 1.72

  Cōmun. of Sts. c. 22. p. 450.
• (v) 1.73

  Ibid. p. 451.
• (x) 1.74

  Cōmun. of S. c. 18. § 8.
• (y) 1.75

  Ibid. § 9.
• (z) 1.76

  Ibid. c. 18. § 8.
• (a) 1.77

  Ibid. c. 22. § 12 p. 449.
• (b) 1.78

  H. Barr. Resut. of Giff. p. 76.
• (c) 1.79

  D. Bilsō, perpet. gov. ch. 4. p. 21.
• (d) 1.80

  Pag. 34, 35.41.
• (e) 1.81

  Conf. with Hart, c. 6. div. 2. p. 203, 204.
• (f) 1.82

  First re∣ply to D. Whitg. p. 192. Secōd reply, latter part. p. 152.153.
• (g) 1.83

  Coun∣terp. in part of Regist. p. 490.491.
• (h) 1.84

  Ibid. p. 522.
• (i) 1.85

  Diss. de Gub. Eccl. p. 59. &c.