CHAP. LXXXV.
In the next place, I observe upon the point of delinquency, such a conclusion as heaven and earth may stand amazed at. If the church offend, say they, after advice refused, in conclusion the magistrate must redress, that is punish the church, that is in church offences and cases, by a course of civil justice.
On the other side, if the civil magistrate offend after admonition used, and not prevailing, in conclusion the church proceeds to censure, that is to excommunication, as is afterward more largely proved by them.
The magistrate and the church, by the author’s grounds, at one and the same time, in one and the same cause, made the judges on the bench and delinquents at the bar.
Now I demand, if the church be a delinquent, who shall judge? It is answered, the magistrate. Again, if the magistrate be a delinquent, I ask who shall judge? It is answered, the church. Whence I observe—which is monstrous in all cases in the world—that one person, to wit, the church or magistrate, shall be at one time the delinquent at the bar and the judge upon the bench. This is clear thus: The church must judge when the magistrate offends; and yet the magistrate must judge when the church offends. And so, consequently, in this case [the magistrate] must judge, whether she contemn civil authority in the second table, for thus dealing with him: or whether she have broken the rules of the first table, of which (say they) God hath made him keeper and conserver. And therefore, though the church make him a delinquent at the bar, yet by their confession God hath made him a judge on the bench. What blood, what tumults, have been and must be spilt upon these grounds?
Peace.Dear Truth, no question but the church may punish the magistrate spiritually, in spiritual cases; andthe magistrate may punish the church civilly, in civil cases; but that for one and the same cause the church must punish the magistrate, and the magistrate the church, this seems monstrous, and needs explication.
An illustration, demonstrating that the civil magistrate cannot have power over the church in spiritual or church causes.
Truth.Sweet Peace, I illustrate with this instance: A true church of Christ, of which, according to the authors’ supposition, the magistrate is a member, chooseth and calls one of her members to office. The magistrate opposeth. The church, persuaded that the magistrates’ exceptions are insufficient—according to her privilege, which these authors maintain against the magistrates’ prohibition—proceeds to ordain her officer. The magistrate chargeth the church to have made an unfit and unworthy choice, and, therefore, according to his place and power, and according to his conscience and judgment, he suppresseth such an officer, and makes void the church’s choice. Upon this the church complains against the magistrate’s violation of her privileges given her by Christ Jesus, and cries out that the magistrate is turned persecutor, and, not prevailing with admonition, she proceeds to excommunication against him. The magistrate, according to his conscience, endures not such profanation of ordinances as he conceives; and therefore, if no advice and admonition prevail, he proceeds against such obstinate abusers of Christ’s holy ordinances (as the authors grant he may) in civil court of justice, yea, and—I add according to the pattern of Israel—cuts them off by the sword, as obstinate usurpers and profaners of the holy things of Christ.
The punishments civil which the magistrate inflicts upon the church for civil crimes, lawful and necessary.
I demand, what help hath any poor church of Christ in this case, by maintaining this power of the magistrate to punish the church of Christ, I mean in spiritual and soul-cases? for otherwise I question not but he may put all the members of the church to death justly, if they commit crimes worthy thereof, as Paul spake, Acts xxv. 11.
Shall the church here fly to the pope’s sanctuary against emperors and princes excommunicate, to wit, give away their crowns, kingdoms, or dominions, and invite foreign princes to make war upon them and their territories? The authors surely will disclaim this; and yet I shall prove their tenets tend directly unto such a practice.
Or secondly, shall she say the magistrate is not a true magistrate, because not able to judge and determine in such cases? This their confession will not give them leave to say, because they cannot deny unbelievers to be lawful magistrates: and yet it shall appear, notwithstanding their confession to the contrary, their tenets imply that none but a magistrate after their own conscience is a lawful magistrate.
Therefore, thirdly, they must ingenuously and honestly confess, that if it be the duty of the magistrate to punish the church in spiritual cases, he must then judge according to his conscience and persuasion, whatever his conscience be: and then let all men judge into what a woful state they bring both the civil magistrate and church of Christ, by such a church-destroying and state-destroying doctrine.
Peace.Some will here say, in such a case either the magistrate or the church must judge; either the spiritual or civil state must be supreme.
[Truth.] I answer, if the magistrate be of another religion,—
The true way of the God of peace in differences between the church and the magistrate.
First. What hath the church to judge him being without? 1 Cor. v. [12, 13.]
Secondly. If he be a member of the church, doubtless the church hath power to judge, in spiritual and soul-cases, with spiritual and church censures, all that are within, 1 Cor. v. 1-11.
Thirdly. If the church offend against the civil peace of the state, by wronging the bodies or goods of any, themagistratebears not the sword in vain, Rom. xiii. 4, to correct any or all the members of the church. And this I conceive to be the only way of the God of peace.