1. That the objection from hence tend's as much to frustrate the Church act, or censure of excommunication upon members in full communion: and makes that ordinance of Christ vain, & needless to the parents in full communion, as to these children. 2. These words of the Apostle Peter, were indeed a dreadful admonition, and the Apostle being a Church Officer, did judg this sinner to deserve it for his simony; so that he was not (granting the cessation of his membership) felo de se. 3. By [this matter] spoken of in the text, seem's most properly to be meant (not Church-membership, but) the power of giving the holy Ghost spoken of in the context, which power Simon Magus would have bought with money, and for which the Apostle rebukes him: and therefore his not having part or lot in that matter, is to be understood directly with relation to that Extraordinary power; the Apostle would have him know, that he should not share in such a power or privilege as that was: 4. I would ask whether, if a Member of a church be discovered not to have his heart right in the sight of God, but to be in the Gall of bitterness and bond of Iniquity, stand convict of Simony, and the wickedness be so grossly aggravated as this Scandal of Simon Magus was; I say whether the Church is not bound to bear witness against such an offender by inflicting some Church-Censure (properly so taken) upon him? if it be said •oe; then may it not be questioned, whether such a Church would not as well tolerate any other pollutions and defilements in it whatsoever? The woeful fruit whereof who is there that doth not easily perceive: On the other side if it be said yea, that the Church is to Censure and Authoritatively to put away from among themselves such a wicked person by excommunication, I then demand (if this notion of felo de se be right and sound) how they can excommunicate one, who is a non-Member before the Church can pass the sentence of excommunication against him? whether doth this Scripture Act. 8.21. give the Church power over him by it's Discipline to censure him, who already (as the objection speak's) hath cut himself off from being a Church-Member? or whether the Church hath any part in him who hath no part or lot in them, or in these matters?
1. That the objection from hence tend's as much to frustrate the Church act, or censure of excommunication upon members infull communion: and makes that ordinance of Christ vain, & needless to the parents in full cōmunion, as to these children. 2. These words of the Apostle Peter, were indeed a dreadfull admonition, and the Apostle being a Church Officer, did judg this sinner to deserve it for his simonie; so that he was not (granting the cessation of his membership) felo de se. 3. By [this matter] spoken of in the text, seem's most properly to be meant (not Church-membership, but) the power of giving the holy Ghost spoken of in the context, which power Simon Magus would have bought with money, and for which the Apostle rebukes him: and therefore his not having part or lot in that matter, is to be understood directly with relation to that Extraordinary power; the Apostle would have him k•ow, that he should not share in such a power or priviledge as that was: 4. I would ask whether, if a Member of a church be discovered not to have his heart right in the sight of God, but to be in the Gall of bitterness and bond of Iniquity, stand conv•ct of Simonie, and the wickedness be so grosly aggravated as this Scandal of Symon Magus was; I say whether the Church is not bound to bear witness against such an offender by inflicting some Church-Censure (properly so taken) upon him? if it be said •oe; then may it not be questioned, whether such a Church would not as well tolerate any other pollutions and defilements in it whatsoever? The wofull fruit whereof who is there that doth not easily perceive: On the other side if it be said yea, that the Church is to Censure and Authoritatively to put away from among themselves such a wicked person by excommunication, I then demand (if this notion of felo de se be right and sound) how they can excommunicate one, who is a non-Member before the Church can pass the sentence of excommunication against him? whether doth this Scripture Act. 8.21. give the Church power over him by it's Discipline to censure him, who already (as the objection speak's) hath cut himself off from being a Church-Member? or whether the Church hath any part in him who hath no part or lot in them, or in these matters?
