The divine right of church-government and excommunication

Ans. 1. We all think the Cumulative consent of the godly Magistrate, is necessary to Excommunication: Because he is obliged to join his sanction and authority to all Christs Ordinances, but we think not the privative, or negative consent is required; so as no mans sins should be bound in heaven, except the Magistrate say Amen. 2. Put Erastus his Arguments in form, and you shall see their weakness as thus: He whose consent is required to Excommunication, cannot be punished with Excommunication himself, because no man will consent, not Theodosius, nor the godliest man, that he be punished himself: But the Magistrates consent (say the Presbyterians) is to be had to Excommunication; Ergo, the ⟨p. 444⟩Magistrate cannot be punished with Excommunication himself.

Ans. 1. We all think the Cumulative consent of the godly Magistrate, is necessary to Excommunication: Because he is obliged to joyne his sanction and authority to all Christs Ordinances, but we think not the privative, or negative consent is required; so as no mans sinnes should be bound in heaven, except the Magistrate say Amen. 2. Put Erastus his Arguments in forme, and you shall see their weaknesse as thus: He whose consent is required to Excommunication, cannot be punished with Excommunication himselfe, because no man will consent, not Theodosius, nor the godliest man, that he be punished himselfe: But the Magistrates consent (say the Presbyterians) is to be had to Excommunication; Ergo, the ⟨p. 444⟩Magistrate cannot be punished with Excommunication himselfe.

Ans. I retort it, he whose consent is required for threatening wrath •o, and rebuking of offenders and scandalous men, he is not to be threatened with wrath, and rebuked for his own offences and scandals; because no man, no Theodosius, no godly Magistrate, when he seeth the present danger, will consent, that he be threatened with the wrath of God and rebuked himself; We know Nathan was afraid to rebuke a Magistrate according to Gods heart, but in the third Person. But Erastians teach that the Magistrate, when he scandalously offends, should be threatened and rebuked; Ergo, the Magistrates consent is not requisite to threatenings and rebukings of Pastors. But the conclusion is against Erastus, for the Pastors preach, and rebuke, and threaten as the deputies and servants of the Magistrate, and as sent by him; and the Magistrate preacheth, rebuketh, threateneth all offenders, and himself also in and through Pastors as his servants, as Erastus teacheth; then he must consent, that they threaten and rebuke himself. 2. The proposition is false, it is presumed, all the subjects do consent to lawful penal Laws against sorcery, murder, incest in the general, and virtually, that they shall be put in execution against themselves: yet the Sorcerer will never formally consent, that he himself be put to death, though he once, as a subject, consented to the Law, that all Sorcerers be put to death: For when the penal Law against sorcery was enacted, he consented to this. 3. He whose consent accumulative is requisite, that scandalous offenders in general be Excommunicated, but not that this or this man, possibly the Magistrate himself, he is not to be Excommunicated, is most false; he whose consent negative, is requisite for Excommunication, he is not to be Excommunicated himself, the proposition is true; But I assume, the Magistrates consent negative, is requisite to Excommunication, there is nothing more false: For shall that which the Church bindeth on earth, not be bound in heaven, except the King, the Justice, or Master Constable say Amen to it on earth? We say not that the Magistrates consent as a Magistrate, is requisite, for the Excommunicating of himself. For though as a Magistrate he ought to give his consent to Excommunicate all offenders, and add his civill sanction, as one of the seven wise men of Greece said, Patere legem, quam ipse tuleris.