Sixteen Anti-quaeries; Propounded to the Catechiſer Of DIOTREPHES.

I. WHether no ſcandalous Sin belong to Eccleſiaſticall cogni­zance: If ſo, why then did the Apoſtle, and Church of Co­rinth preſume to judge the inceſtuous Corinthian, 1 Cor. 5. & 1 Cor. 2. Or why hath God given his Miniſters the greateſt abilities to judge of all ſins, if they muſt onely ſee with o­ther mens eyes, and judge nothing ſcandalous, but what the Magiſtrate judges ſo? If they may judge of any ſcandalous ſin, why not of all? and that this is more then a judgement of diſlike or reproof, ſee 1 Cor. 5.12, 13. for ſo I may judge him that is without, who yet falls not under the ſentence of excommunication, nor is capable of it.

II. Whether they who were the fitteſt and ableſt judges of caſes dubious and too hard for inferiour Magiſtrates, Deut. 17.8, 9. (according to Mr. Pryns own grant) might not lawfully judge of ordinary caſes alſo? Surely, Jethro Exod. 17.17, 18. did not think Moſes ſinned ſimply in judging leſſer matters, but counſel'd him rather for his owne & the peoples eaſe to refer pety mat­ters to inferiour Judges. Further, if the High Prieſt might judge of civill matters, why not alſo, yea much more of ſpirituall, being more within his ſpheare as a ſpirituall perſon? Elſe the Magiſtrate, being a meer civill power might judge both of civil and ſpirituall caſes; but the High Prieſt being a ſpi­rituall power, might judge onely of civill caſes. We deny not the judging of ſcandalous ſins to the Magiſtrate; and reſt conſident he wil never be ſo far ca­techiſed by Mr. Prynn, as to deny the judging of ſcandals to the Miniſtry, &c.

III. Whether the caſes of Leproſie and Jealouſie were the onely caſes wherein the Prieſts were appointed to be as Judges in the Old Teſtament; ſee the contrary, Deut. 17.8, 9. which is alſo confeſt by Mr. Prynn himſelf in his ſecond queſtion immediately foregoing.

IV. Whether any deny the Parliament and their Lay-Commiſſioners power to enquire after, and puniſh ſcandalous ſinners, (though I finde not where they have any power by the Ordinance to puniſh) and whether that may not go very well hand in hand with the cenſures of the Church, and their enquiry. But the great queſtion is, whether Lay-Commiſſioners have power from the Word to ſuſpend Church cenſures againſt ſcandalous per­ſons. If ſo, let Mr. Prynn ſhew an expreſſe place of Scripture for ſuch a ſu­ſpenſion, and we ſhal ſoon yeeld the cauſe. Otherwiſe he muſt pardon us if we receive not this his Catechiſe for an Oracle.

V. Whether any Miniſter claime power jure Divino to examine witneſſes upon oath: And whether Mr. Prynn think the evidence againſt the inceſtuous4 Corinthian was made good upon oath. If the Parliament out of their care to prevent miſ-information, require an Oath of the Witneſſes, I hope that doth not ſcruple his conſcience: and if any Miniſter ſcruple it, the ruling Elders have jus humanum, and ſo by conſequence jus Divinum to examine upon oath.

VI. Further, whether the not mentioning, or not appointing of eccleſiaſtical Juriſdiction in the Old Teſtament (if granted) be proofe ſufficient againſt the exerciſe of it in the New Teſtament: Yet if Mr. Prynn pleaſe to conſult Ez•k. 23. v. 28, 29. & Ezek. 44.7, 9. I beleeve he will find that not onely ceremoni­all, but alſo morall pollutions defiled the houſe of God; and that therefore ſuch were to be kept back.

VII. Whether Miniſters under the Law had equal Juriſdiction with Mini­ſters under the Goſpel; and whether Magiſtrates either under the Law or Go­ſpel had properly any Eccleſiaſticall power. If the former, then Prieſts might excommunicate under the Law for ſcandalous ſins, which both may be done, and hath been done under the Goſpel, 1 Cor. 5. & Tit. 3.10. If the latter, then let Mr. Prynn give us an expreſſe Scripture-evidence for the Magiſtrates pow­er to excommunicate: or that the Church might not excommunicate (when once it had Chriſtian Magiſtrates) till it had order from them.

VIII. Whether there be any expreſſe text in all the New Teſtament, gi­ving Juriſdiction by Divine right to all Miniſters, Presbyteries, &c. to ſu­ſpend or excommunicate all ſcandalous perſons; yea, though they profeſſe and proteſt they will never repent. If ſo, let Mr. Prynn produce thoſe places, and we ſhall make them good alſo againſt thoſe that being convinced of ſcandalous ſins, do externally pretend and profeſs repentance in generall, but give not the Church offended particular ſatisfaction for a particular ſcan­dall. If he can produce no ſuch poſitive text, then let him ſpeak out, that a viſible Devill, though he openly profeſſe he will live and dye in his abomina­tions, yet ought not to be denyed the Sacrament, if hee deſire to have it: or elſe let him give us leave to prove our aſſertions by good conſequences, which himſelf muſt be forced to uſe, for proving farre greater matters than Eccleſi­aſticall Juriſdiction.

IX. What rules or preſidents there are in Scripture to determine matters controverted between particular Churches, or in a particular church; and if the Officers of ſeverall Churches may meet for that end, Act. 15. Why not alſo for relieving of parties wronged by any particular Church in way of cenſure; & otherwiſe, what relief could the Primitive Churches have had for 300 years after Chriſt. Who denies the laſt appeal to the Magiſtrate in caſe the Church either cannot, or will not doe their duty; or having done their duty, yet cannot prevaile with obſtinate Churches or perſons to re­claime them?

X. Whether that power of cenſuring may juſtly be ſuſpected, which of it ſelf alone, is not fully able to redreſſe all abuſes and corruptions: and ſince the Magiſtrate cannot fully reform all abuſes, and the Church power may reforme all abuſes, or cut off all unreformable perſons from their com­munion, which is all God requires of his Church. In which caſe, if the party5 cenſured obtrude himſelf forcibly upon the Church and Ordinances, the C•••••cannot be counted either irreligious or uncivill to repell ſuch force with force, and therein to crave the Magiſtrates aſſiſtance, which hee can­not in conſcience or equity deny. The Officers of the High Prieſt knew this well enough, and therefore were affraid to apprehend the Apoſtles forcibly, Acts 5.26.

XI. Whether the Church, Mat. 18. v. 15, 17. being meant of Presbytery, (which Mr. Prynn ſeems to diſlike) may not much more cenſure groſſe ſins committed againſt God, then leſſer ſins committed againſt my brother: and whether a truly pious ſoul be not more offended with groſſe ſins committed againſt God, than a particular wrong done unto himſelf. If it be meant of the Civill Magiſtrate, or Jewiſh Sanhedrin (as he pretends) there's no doubt but complaint might be made unto them of groſſe ſins as well as of perſonall wrongs. And although I cannot forgive the wrong done by a ſcandalous ſinner to an whole ſociety; yet if his repentance appear to me being a member of that ſociety, I both may, and ought to forgive him for my owne particular: as when my brother wrongs me, I ought to forgive him the injury done my ſelf, though I cannot forgive the wrong he doth God by the ſame offence.

XII. Whether they, who have right and power to determine contro­verſies authoritatively, have not alſo right to cenſure and ſuppreſſe ſcandals: Otherwiſe thoſe Seducers might ſtil have gone on to trouble the Church of Antioch, notwithſtanding the decrees of the Synod, had there been no power in the Church to ſuppreſs them: And if the Church had power then to judge Hereſies and ſcandalls, let Mr. Prynn ſhew where they loſt that Charter; and where Chriſt ſaid the Church ſhould have that power no longer then till he ſent them Chriſtian Magiſtrates; or that civill cenſures give a ſuperſedeas, to Eccleſiaſticall cenſures.

XIII. Whether that precept of the Apoſtle, 1 Cor. 5. for caſting out the inceſtuous Corinthian, be not a clear & conſtant preſident for the like cenſure to be paſt upon all ſcandalous ſinners. Otherwiſe let Mr. Prynn give us a rea­ſon why one ſcandalous ſin ſhould be cenſured by the Church, rather then another. He that bid them purge out the old leaven, and not to eat with a ſcandalous brother, I think ſpeaks plaine enough, that ſuch a perſon ought to be caſt out. Doth not the Scripture by inſtancing in one particular, in­clude all of the ſame kind; and muſt not every text be interpreted in the lar­geſt ſenſe, unleſſe there be ſome juſt ground of limitation? I thought it had been a good rule both in Logick and Divinity, A quatenus ad omne valet conſe­quentia. Otherwiſe if his blaming them for not caſting out the inceſtuous Co­rinth•n be not a juſt item for the Church to caſt out all ſcandalous perſons then his blaming them for not mourning for that ſcandalous ſin, is no war­ning for any Church to mourne for ſcandalous ſins committed by any of their members, 1 Cor. 5.2. I cannot ſee why the cenſure of a Magiſtrate ſhould hinder Church-cenſures, more than the reproof of a Magiſtrate ſhould hin­der Church-reproof and admonition. The ſame offence committed both a­gainſt Church and State, may juſtly be reproved & cenſured both by Church and State. As for Suſpenſion, which he ſo much ſtickles againſt both in this6 and other places; let him ſhew me a reaſon why they who have power to do the greater, may not doe the leſſer. He that hath power to hang;〈…〉alſo power to mulct or ſcourge; and why ſhould not they have power to ſuſpend from one Ordinance, that have power to caſt out of the Church, and ſo to keep back from all Ordinances? (according to Mr. Prynn:) Though for my part I ſee not where he can cleare it by Scripture that an excommu­nicated perſon muſt be kept from all Ordinances. To inſtance particularly in hearing, where is it ſaid an excommunicated perſon ſhal not have ſo much as the priviledge of one that is without, 1 Cor. 14.24, 25. Might an Infidell heare the Word for his converſion, and ſhall an excommunicated perſon be denyed the benefit of that Ordinance? I grant by excommunication he is as an heathen, but why he may not have the priviledge of one that is without, I deſire Mr. Prynn to inſtruct me, and I ſhall thanke him for it. For my part, I beleeve this opinion of his is as true as that other formerly vented by him with ſo much confidence, namely, that the Lords Supper is a converting or­dinance. But I pray, where is there any cleare Scripture evidence, ei­ther by way of precept or example, that the Lords Supper was appointed to convert, or hath converted any. We deny not but the meditation of Chriſts death, the words of inſtitution, and the Sacramentall elements and actions may doe much, and let Mr. Prynn ſhew mee in Scripture, why either an ex­communicated perſon, or an infidell may not be preſent at all theſe, yet nei­ther of them may be admitted to partake of the Ordinance, and who knows what a prevailing argument it may be for their converſion to ſee the chil­dren of God ſitting at his Table, and themſelves ſhut out as dogs, Luk. 13.28 That which ſhall worke confuſion at the day of judgement may now worke converſion in the day of grace: yet I dare not ſay, every thing that may con­vert, is a converting ordinance; the works of God, an holy converſation, and the ſufferings of the martyrs may poſſibly convert, and no doubt have con­verted many: yet whoever called them converting ordinances? They well may be occaſions of converting, but it muſt be an expreſſe word of Inſtitu­tion that makes a converting Ordinance; or at leaſt to make a thing pro­perly a Divine Ordinance, there muſt bee a ſtrong and cleare conſequence from Scripture. And here by the way I humbly conceive that jus Divinum is of a larger extent, than either a Divine Ordinance, or a Divine inſtitution: There is no lawfull or good action, but hath a jus Divinum to juſtifie it; and that either mandatorium, or permiſſivum, either in expreſſe termes, or by good (though not immediate) conſequence; but this is not enough to make a Di­vine Ordinance. This I note the rather to take away that cavill againſt di­vers things in the Presbyterian government, as pleaded for jure Divino: the meaning is not, that every particular in that Government hath expreſſe words of Scripture immediately to make it good: nor can any Church go­vernment in the world, plead by ſuch a Charter: but that what is held in it as of Divine right may be cleared by good conſequence out of Scripture, and hath no juſt Scripture evidence againſt it. But I crave pardon for this long digreſſion. Onely I deſire the Reader to obſerve how importunate Mr. Prynn is for us to bring expreſſe proofs of Scripture for our tenets; and yet neither7 hath, nor can bring one expreſſe place to prove the Lords Supper a conver­ting ordinance; but is glad to fly to conſequences, and thoſe both weak and erronious.

XIV. Whether the Magiſtrate puniſhing of an obſtinate offendor (at the motion of the Church, make him a meer ſervant or executioner to Pres­byteries, Congregations, or Church-officers. If one particular Miniſter may in the name of God, command a Magiſtrate to do his duty, whether it be in matters of Religion or Juſtice; I ſee not why a company of Miniſters, &c. may not deſire him to puniſh a malefactor, which he ought to doe, whether deſired by them or no. It ſeems by Mr. Prynns inference the State of Scotland is a meer Servant and executioner to the Church; and the Presbyterian Go­vernment is like to prove as bad as that of the Pope & Prelates: ſuch odious compariſons might with far more honor and conſcience be buried in ſilence.

XV. Whether may I not deſire Authority to ſettle that jure Divino, which indeed is ſo (although not ſo apprended by divers in Authority) and which both Parliament and people have covenanted the ſetling of, ac­cording to the word of God. And whether moſt of the Reformed Churches have not this (unlimited, arbitrary) power, as (he calls it) to cenſure all ſcan­dalous ſinners, and that without any enumeration of particular ſins, or ap­peal to Lay-commiſſioners: and ſo (according to M. Prynn) are in a worſe caſe then if they were under the domineering of the Lordly Prelates.

XVI. Whether the former abuſe of the Magiſtrates favour, with all the evil conſequences thereof, be a ſafe ground to deny that juſt power where­withall God hath inveſted his Church, and of the exerciſe whereof wee have examples in the new Teſtament. And whether by the ſame argument Magi­ſtracy it ſelfe might not be cryed downe, ſince there is no form of Gover­ment, whether inferiour or ſuperiour, but hath been too too much abuſed to tyranny, &c. Yet I wonder withal Mr. Prynn doth not bring one inſtance of tyranny under the Presbyterian Government in any of the Reformed Churches: who I hope do not deſerve the name of Diotrephes, nor need to be catechiſed by Mr. Prynn.

To conclude therefore with him, I grant Chriſts yoak is eaſie, but not to a carnall heart. And I deſire Mr. Prynn to give one inſtance in practice, where the Presbyterian Government, hath been an hard yoke, unleſſe to ſuch who ſtickle for a lawleſſe liberty of doing and ſpeaking what they pleaſe under the notion of a pretended liberty of conſcience.

If I ſhould make bold to adde one Queſtion more to the ſixteen; namely, whether by what Mr. Prynn hath written about this and other ſubjects; it doth not appeare that he is far better verſed in Law than Goſpel: it might happily bee offenſive; and therefore I forbeare: onely I ſhall add this, that if the Goſpel prevailed more, the Law would••in far leſſe requeſt: and wiſh heartily the fear of this did not make too••••y ſtickle ſo much againſt the Presbyterian Government, which if once rightly ſetled, I dare venture to prophecy it would cut off many needleſſe Law-ſuits, & prevent many a bitter potion. I honour both Law and Phyſick; yet wiſh with all my heart that every man were ſo conſcientious and peaceable as there might be no need of2 Lawyers: and ſo temperate and healthfull, as there might bee no worke for Phyſitians. And he that at is of another mind, I ſhall bee bold to tell him he is in the number of thoſe that eat up the ſin of Gods people, and ſet their hearts upon their iniquity, Hoſ. 4.8. How ever, I cannot but wonder at Mr. Prynns o­verweening confidence both in this and other writings of his about church Government. He cannot but know that the Honourable Houſes of Parlia­ment after conſultation had with the Aſſembly of Divines, and a ſolemne Covenant entred into to reform the Government according to the Word, have paſt an Ordinance for ſuſpenſion of ſcandalous perſons from the Sacra­ment. And therefore it might well have become him not to write ſo magiſte­rially, as if the ſpirit of God had left all them to come to him. Had any, be­ing not a profeſt Lawyer, paſt as confident a vote againſt any Law matter de­termined by an Aſſembly of the ableſt Judges and Lawyers, I ſhould not have blamed Mr. Prynn, if he had ſaid, Ne ſutor ultra crepidam. Let himſelfe then judge whether it bee not a preſumption for one that is not a Divine to vote ſo peremptorily againſt an Aſſembly of the moſt able and godly Divines in the Chriſtian world. Hath Mr. Prynn been preſent at all the debates about this argument, and heard all that was argued for it in the Reverend Aſſem­bly? He might at leaſt have ſuſpended his Catechiſe, till he had ſeen what an­ſwer they could have given to the Quaeries of the Honourable Houſe of Commons, but ſince he is ſo confident in particular againſt ſuſpenſion: Let him anſwer me directly, whether none are to be ſuſpended from the Sacra­ment of the Lords Supper. If he ſay ſome may be ſuſpended, let him ſhew me an expreſſe place of Scripture to warrant it, and what perſons may bee ſuſpended, and in what caſes. If he hold the univerſall negative, then it will neceſſarily follow that Infants, fools, mad-men, perſons actually drunk, yea, very heathens and infidells ought to be admitted to the Lords Supper. If he ſay, all theſe are viſibly uncapable of that Ordinance: I ask him why? for the Scripture ſayes not in expreſſe termes, admit no infidell, mad-man, &c. The ground then of their non-admittance muſt be cleared by way of conſequence, becauſe ſuch cannot receive worthily. It's apparent then, that viſible un­worthines is a juſt ground of non-admiſſion to the Lords Supper. As therfore reall unworthineſſe ſhould make the party forbear, ſo viſible unworthineſe is a juſt ground for the Church to ſuſpend him: and that whether this un­worthineſs be perſonall or preparatory, and this latter bee negative by na­turall incapacity, or privative by neglect, or poſitive by the guilt of ſome ſcandalous ſin unrepented of; any of theſe, if known, make a perſon viſibly unworthy. If then viſible unworthineſſe be the cauſa formalis, of non-admiſſi­on; then a quatenus adomne, &c. all that are viſibly unworthy muſt be ſuſpen­ded. Nor can Mr. Prynn prove it by Scripture or good Logick that a generall outward ſhew of repentance, can make him viſibly worthy, who by a ſcan­dalous ſin hath made himſelf viſibly unworthy; nay, did he truly repent, un­leſs that repentance were viſible, (as the ſcandall was) I ſhould queſtion his admiſſion. He that is really worthy, may be viſibly unworthy; as he that is really unworthy, may be viſibly worthy.