4. What saith Mr Coleman to Pasor, who expounds ἐπιτιμία to be the same with ἐπιτίμιον, mulcta, and that, 2 Cor. ii. 6. it is meant of excommunication; which he proves by this reason, Because, in the same [pg 4-013] place, the Apostle exhorteth the Corinthians to forgive him. Add hereunto Erasmus's observation upon the word κυρῶσαι[1348] (ver. 8, to “confirm your love toward him”); that it implies an authoritative ratification of a thing by judicial suffrage and sentence. Which well agreeth to the πλειόνες, ver. 6; that is, that they who had judicially censured him, should also judicially loose him and make him free. Now, therefore, the circumstances and context being observed, and the practice, 2 Cor. ii. 6, compared with the precept, 1 Cor. v. 13, I conclude, that, whether this ἐπιτιμία was excommunication already inflicted, or whether it was a lesser degree of censure, tending to excommunication,—a censure it was, and more than ministerial objurgation. And it is rightly rendered by the English translators punishment or censure; which well agreeth with the signification of the verb ἐπιτιμάω given us by Hesychius,[1349] and by Julius Pollux;[1350] who makes ἐπιτιμᾶν, to punish or chastise, and ἐπιτίμημα, punishment or chastisement. Clemens Alexandrinus[1351] useth ἐπιτιμία as well as ἐπιτιμιον, [pg 4-014] pro poena vel supplicio. So Stephanus, in Thes. Ling. Gr. From all which it may appear that the text in hand holds forth a corrective church government in the hands of church officers; the thing which Mr Coleman denieth.
To the next instance, from 1 Tim. v. 19, “Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses,” the reverend brother answereth, “It is either in relation to the judgment of charity, or ministerial conviction, as the verses following.” Ans. 1. That of two or three witnesses is taken from the law of Moses, where it is referred only to a forensical proceeding. But in relation either to the judgment of charity, or ministerial conviction, it is not necessary that there be two or three witnesses. If a scandalous sin be certainly known to a minister, though the thing be not certified by two or three witnesses, yet a minister, upon certain knowledge had of the fact, may both believe it and ministerially convince the offender. But there may not be a consistorial proceeding without two or three witnesses. 2. Since he appealeth to the following verses, let ver. 22 decide it: “Lay hands suddenly on no man.” To whom the laying on of hands or ordination did belong, to them also it did belong to receive an accusation against an elder: but to the presbytery did belong the laying on of hands, or ordination, 1 Tim. iv. 14; therefore to the presbytery did belong the receiving of an accusation against an elder. And so it was not the act of a single minister, as ministerial conviction is.
To the last instance, from Rev. ii. 14, 15, 20, the reverend brother answers, That he had striven to find out how church censures might be there grounded, but was constrained to let it alone. But what is it, in his opinion, which is there blamed in the angels of those churches? Doth he imagine that those who are so much commended by Christ himself for their holding fast of his name, and of the true faith, did not so much as doctrinally or ministerially oppose the foul errors of the Balaamites and of Jezebel? No doubt but this was done: but Christ reproves them, because such scandalous persons were yet suffered to be in the church, and were not cast out. “I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam;” and, ver. 20, “Thou sufferest [pg 4-015] that woman Jezebel.” And why was the very having or suffering them in the church a fault, if it had not been a duty to cast them out of the church? which casting out could not be by banishment, but by excommunication. It did not belong to the angel to cast out the Balaamites out of Pergamos, but he might, and ought to have cast them out of the church in Pergamos.
9. Mr Coleman hath another passage against the distinction of church censures and civil punishments. “But what are ecclesiastical censures (saith he)? Let us take a taste. Is deposition from the ministry? This kings have done,” &c., Male Dicis, p. 7. Now similia labra lactucis. But for all that, the taste is vitiated, and doth not put a difference between things that are different. Deposition is sometimes taken, improperly, for expulsion; as Balsamon, in Conc. Nicoen., can. 19, doth observe. And so the Christian magistrate may remove or put away ministers when they deserve to be put away, that is, by a coercive power to restrain them, imprison or banish them, and, in case of capital crimes, punish them with capital punishments. King James, having once heard a dispute in St. Andrews about the deposition of ministers, was convinced that it doth not belong to the civil magistrate, “yet (said he) I can depose a minister's head from his shoulders.” Which was better divinity than this of Mr Coleman. If we take deposition properly, as it is more than the expelling, sequestering or removing of a minister from this or that place, and comprehendeth that which the Council of Ancyra, can. 18, calls Ἀφαιρεισθαι την τιμὴι τον πρεσβυτεριον, the honour of presbytership to be taken away, or a privation of that presbyteratus, the order of a presbyter, and that ἐξουσία, the authority and power of dispensing the word, sacraments, and discipline, which was given in ordination, so none have power to depose who have not power to ordain. It belongeth not to the magistrate either to make or unmake ministers. Therefore, in the ancient church, the bishops had power of the deposition as well as of the ordination of presbyters, yet they were bound up that they might not depose either presbyter or deacon without the concurrence of a presbytery or synod in the business.[1352] Mark, [pg 4-016] of the synod, not of the magistrate. As for the testimonies brought by Mr Coleman, he doth, both here and in divers other places, name his authors, without quoting the places. It seems he hath either found the words cited by others, but durst not trust the quotations, or else hath found somewhat in those places which might make against him. However, all that he can cite of that kind concerning deposition of ministers by emperors, is meant of a coercive expulsion, not of that which we call properly deposition. And to this purpose let him take the observation of a great antiquary.[1353]
And, withal, he may take notice that Protestant writers[1354] do disclaim the magistrate's power of deposing ministers, and hold that deposition is a part of ecclesiastical jurisdiction: ministers being always punishable (as other members of the commonwealth), according to the law of the land, for any offence committed against law.
CHAPTER III.
THAT MR COLEMAN'S AND MR HUSSEY'S OPPOSING OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT NEITHER IS NOR CAN BE RECONCILED WITH THE SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT.
Mr Coleman's doctrine was by me charged to be a violation of the solemn league [pg 4-017] and covenant. This he acknowledged in his Re-examination, p. 13, 17, to be a very grievous charge, and a greater fault in him than in divers others, if made out; and he desired seriously, yea, challenged it by the right of a Christian, and by the right of a minister, that I should prosecute this charge; whereupon I did, in my Nihil Respondes, prosecute it so far, that, by five strong arguments, I did demonstrate the repugnancy of his doctrine to the covenant. About a month afterward comes out Mr Hussey's book, wherein the charge itself (before desired to be prosecuted) is declined expressly by Mr Coleman in the few lines by him prefixed (which are ranked together with the errata), in which he desires that the argumentative part may be so prosecuted as that the charge of covenant-breaking may be laid aside; which, if it be taken up, he lets me know beforehand it shall be esteemed by them a nihil respondes. It is also declined by Mr Hussey, p. 15: “The argument of the covenant is too low to be thought on in the discourse: we are now in an higher region than the words of the covenant,” &c.:—a tenet looked upon by the reformed churches as proper to those that are inspired with the ghost of Arminius;[1355] for the remonstrants, both at and after the Synod of Dort, did cry down the obligation of all national covenants, oaths, &c., in matters of religion, under the colour of taking the Scripture only for a rule. Well, we see the charge declined as nothing. But this is not all. Almost two months after my proof of the charge, Mr Coleman comes out with his Male Dicis, and declines both the charge itself (which he calls an “impertinent charge,” p. 22), and my five arguments too, without so much as taking notice of them, or offering replies to them; yea, all that I said in my Nihil Respondes, p. 27-34, in prosecution of this argument concerning covenant-breaking, the reverend brother hath skipped over sicco pede in the half of one page, p. 23; all that follows is new and other matter, wherein he did not mind his own answer to the learned viewer, p. 33, “I will keep you to the laws of disputation, and will not answer but as it is to the matter in hand.” I leave it to be judged by men of knowledge and [pg 4-018] piety, whether such an one doth not give them some ground to apprehend that he is αυτοκατάκριτος, that is, self-judged, who first calleth so eagerly for making out a charge against him, and then when it is made out, doth decline the charge, and not answer the arguments; and such as esteem the charge of covenant-breaking to be a nihil respondes, and the argument of the covenant too low to be thought on in a controversy about church government, “O my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly, mine honour, be not thou united.” It is in vain for them to palliate or shelter their covenant-breaking with appealing from the covenant to the Scripture, for subordinata non pugnant. The covenant is norma recta,—a right rule, though the Scripture alone be norma recti,—the rule of right. If they hold the covenant to be unlawful, or to have anything in it contrary to the word of God, let them speak out. But to profess the breach of the covenant to be a grievous and great fault, and worthy of a severe censure, and yet to decline the charge and proofs thereof, is a most horrible scandal; yea, be astonished, O ye heavens, at this, and give ear, O earth! how small regard is had to the oath of God by men professing the name of God.
As for that little which the reverend brother hath replied unto; first, he takes notice of a passage of his sermon at the taking of the covenant, which I had put him in mind of, but he answereth only to one particular, viz., concerning that clause, “Doubtless many materials of Prelacy must of necessity be retained, as absolutely necessary.” I asked what he understood by this clause? Now observe his answer: “I answer ingenuously, as he desires, and fully, as I conceive, These materials of Prelacy are ordination.” Remember you said, “many materials of Prelacy.” I beseech you, Sir, How many is ordination? Ordination, ordination, ordination; tell on till you think you have made many materials; and, withal, tell us (if this be the meaning, that ordination should be retained without any power of ecclesiastical government in the ministry) how was it imaginable that he could hereby satisfy that scruple which then he spoke to, viz., the scruple about the purging away of the exorbitances of Prelacy, and retaining a regulated Prelacy? And after all this, I shall desire him to [pg 4-019] expound that other clause (which I desired before, but he hath not done it), “Taking away (said he) the exorbitancies, the remaining will be a new government, and no Prelacy.” Either he means this of a new church government distinct from the civil, so that the ministry should have new power of government; or he meant it of the way which now he pleads for. If the former, I have what I would. Mr Coleman himself, as well as other men, took the covenant with an intention to have an ecclesiastical government distinct from the civil. If the latter, then let him answer these two things: 1. What good sense there was in applying such an answer to such a scruple, as if the Erastian way, or the appropriating of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction wholly to the civil magistrate, could be the way to satisfy those who scrupled the total abolition of Prelacy. 2. How will he reconcile himself with himself; for here, p. 22, he saith, That his way was in practice before I was born, “and the constant practice of England always.” This, as it is a most notorious untruth (for the constant practice of England hath granted to the clergy, as he calls them, after the popish dialect, a power of deposition and excommunication, whereas his way denies all corrective power or church censures to the ministry), so, if it were a truth, it is utterly inconsistent with that which he said of the remaining part, namely, that it will be a new government. If it be his way, how will he make it the constant practice of England always, and a new government too?