ordainers of Matthias to the Apostleship and this is the question 4. The place Act. 14. 23. proveth that Elders appoint or ordaine Elder with consent or lifting up of the hands of the people which is our very doctrine 5. Act. 6 The multitude are directed to choose out seven men as being best acquainted with them Yet if Nicholas the sect master of the fleshly Nicolaitans was one of them it is likely they were not satisfied in conscience of the regeneration of Nicholas by hearing his spirituall conference and his gift of praying which is your way of trying Church-members But 2. they looke out seven men 2. They choose theâ— But v. 6. The Apostles prayed and laid their hands on them which we call ordination and not the multitude 6. Cyprian giveâ—â— election of Priests to the multitude but neither Cyprian nor any of the Fathers give ordination to them Author Sect. 7. If the people have power to elect a King they have power to appoint one is their name to put the crown on his head Ergo if beleevers elect their Officers they may by themselves or some others lay hands on them and ordaine them Ans. The case is not alike the power of electing a King is naturall for Ants and Locusts have it Prov 30 25 16 27. Therefore a civill Society may choose and ordaine a King The power of choosing Officers is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a supernaturall gift And because God giveth to people one supernaturall gift it is not consequent that he should give them another also beside ordination is another thing then coronation of a King Presbyters in the Word have alwaies performed ordination Neither will it hence follow saith the Authour as some object that because the Church of believers neither make the Office nor authority of Pastors that both are immediately from Christ and that therefore the beleevers may not lay hands upon the Officers nor doth it follow because they receive ordination from the Church that therefore they should execute their Office in the Churches name or that they should be more or lesse diligent at the Churches appointment or that the Church of beleevers have a Lordly power over them or that the Elders must receive their commission from the Church as an Ambassadour doth from the Prince who sent him or that the Church in the defect of Officers may performe all duties proper to Officers as to administer the Sacraments For 1. most of the objections doe strike as much against imposition of hands by Bishops and Presbyters 2. Though Officers receive the application of their office and powerly the Church yet not from the Church and if from the Church yet not from her by any Lordly power and dominion but onely ministerially as from instruments under Christ so that they cannot choose or ordaine whom they please but onely him whom they see the Lord hath fitted and prepared for them nor can they prescribe limits to his Office nor give him his Embassage but onely a charge to looke to the Ministery that he hath received of the Lord. Ans. 1. I know none of ours who use such an Argument that because a Pasters or Elders Office is from Christ that therefore the Church cannot ordaine him For it should prove that the Presbyterie cannot ordaine him a Pastor because his Office is from Christ and not from the Presbyterie It would prove also that because the Office of a Judge is from God that the free States of a Kingdome could not ordaine one to be their King or that the King could not depute Judges under him because the Office of a King and Judge is from God and not from men 2. If Elders have their Ordination to that heavenly Charge from the people as from the first principall and onely subject of all ministeriall power I see not how it doth not follow that Elders are the servants of the Church in that respect and that though it doth not follow that they come out in the name of the Church but in the name of Christ whose Ambassadours they are yet it proveth well that they are inferiour to the Church of beleevers For 1. though the power of the Keys given to beleevers in relation to Christ be ministeriall yet in relation to the Officers whom the Church sendeth it is more then ministeriail at lest it is very Lordlike For as much of this ministeriall power is committed to the Church of possibly twenty or forty beleevers as to the Mistresse Lady Spouse and independent Queen and highest dispencer of all ministeriall power and the Elders though Ambassadours of Christ are but meere accidents or ornaments of the Church necessary ad benè esse onely and lyable to exauthoration at the Churches pleasure yea every way the Officers in jurisdiction are inferiour to the Church of beleevers by your grounds and not over the people of the Lord. For if the Church of believers as they are such be the most supreame governing Church then the Officers as Officers have no power of government at all but onely so farre as they are beleevers now if they be not believers as it falleth out very often then have they no power of the Keyes at all and what they doe they doe it meerely as the Churches servants to whom the Keyes are not given marriage-waies or by right of redemption in Christs blood yea Officers as they are such are neither the Spouse not redeemed Church yea nor any part or members of the redeemed Church 2. The Church of believers are the â—od the Officers meanes leading to the end and ordained to gather the Saints if therefore as the end they shall authoritatively send Officers they should call and ordaine Officers as the States of a Kingdome with more then a power ministeriall Yea with a Kingly power for all authority should be both formally and eminently in them as all Regall or Aristocraticall power is in the States of a Kingdom as in the fountaine But neither doe we bring this argument to prove a simple Dominion of the Church of believers over the Officers or a power of regulating limiting and ordering the Ambassage of Officers as King and State lay bands upon their Ambassadours but we bring it to prove that this doctrine degradeth the Officers from all power of government above the believers and putteth them in a state of ministeriall authority under these above whom Jesus Christ hath placed them contrary to Scripture 3. The Authour saith believers may not administer the Sacraments in the defect of Pastors because that by appointment of Christ belongeth onely to such as by Office are called to preach the Gospell Math. 28. 29. which is indeed well said but I desire to be satisfied in these 1. These places Math. 28. 29. Mar. 16. 14 15. Luke 24. 28. being all one with Math. 16. 17. and Joh. 20. 21 22 23. The Keyes of the Kingdome are given to Church-officers because of their Office So the Text is cleare and so
higher judicature can doe no more 3. Their is no reason to appeale to a higher judicature because the inferior may erre because all above a Congregation are Courts which may erre for Presbyteries Provinciall Nationall the universall councell of the Catholique Church may erre So Mr. Mather Answ. This is no reason why wee may not appeale from a Congregation because the sentence is ratified in Heaven because the sentence of an inferior Judge proceeding rightly is ratified in Heaven yet we may appeale from him to appeale is but upon feares of ill administration to desert a lower Court and go to a higher Court so when we feare a counsell and advice given by a sister Church to be not according to the Word of God which yet is according to the Word of God upon the supposall of that feare wee decline that counsell and take another Neither are we to appeale de jure from a just sentence in a presbytery Illud possumus quod jure possumus What the inferior Sanedrim of Israel did justly was ratified in Heaven yet by Gods Law there might be an appeale from it to the highest Sanedrim 2. Nor is this a good reason that we may not appeale from a Judicature which may inflict the highest censure for inferior Judicatures in Israel had power of life and death yet might man appeale from them 3. The cause of appeales is not because inferiour Judicatureâ— may erre for so wee might appeale from all judicatures even from a general councell for it may erre But the true cause is 1. Because rariùs errant they do not so frequently erre 2. They are not so inclined and disposed to erre for many Eyes see more then one and many Eyes doe more seldome miscarry in not taking up the right object then one 3. Because we conceive more equality and lesse partiality in higher Courts Ob. 10. You grant that a single Congregation in an Island hath power intrinsecall of Excommunication within it selfe Ergo thâ— inconvenient which you put on independent Congregations shall follow in the case of a remote congregation Christ hath not then provided sufficiently for that Church in that case Answ. It followeth onely Ergo Christ hath not provided so sufficiently for that Church as for others in a consociation which is nothing against us For woe to him that is alone and two are better then one Ob. 11. If the Church here be a representative Church theâ— it hath power from those whom they represent but they represent the people and so the power is first in the people and the people must be the first visible Church not the presbytery not a generall councell I prove the major because the power the representer hath that must be first in the represented Answ. A representer standeth for another either objectively or subjectively What ever representeth another objectively that is doth such a businesse for another or in remejus for his behalfe and good though he some way represent that other yet hath he not his power from that which he representeth as the Eye objectively in seeing and the Eare in hearing representeth the body for the Eye seeth for the whole body the Eare heareth for the whole body But the eye hath not its visiâ—e or seeing faculty from the body nor the Eare the hearing faculty from the body Now the Presbytery doth represent the people onely objectively that is for the good and salvation of the people and so the Elders have not all their power of ruling from the people but from Iesus Christ. That which representeth another subjectively hath indeed its power from that which it representeth as he who carrieth the person and roome of a King as an Ambassador doth fetch his power from the King and that power is more principally in the King But now the Assumption is false because the Eldership doth not represent the people in their power of Jurisdiction subjectively as standing in the place of the people but as the Ambassadors of Christ and as stewards they have both the Keyes from Christ not from the people and doe actually use the Keyes in his Name and authority not in the peoples name and authority Hence is easily answered that Delegatus seu deputatus non potest facere delegatum one delegate cannot transfer his power to another delegate that would bring a progresse infinite in government for one deligate standing in the roome of others sibjectively cannot transfer his whole power to another its true he cannot transfer his power in part and according to some singular acts it is false for Acts 15. 25. It is said by the councell It seemed good unto us with one accord to send chosen men to you with Paul and Silar Paul and Silas and these chosen men suppose six or ten are in this Embassage are but the deputies and Messengers of the councell and yet they doe agree to make Paul their deputy and mouth to speake for them all seeing order requireth that six at once should not speake in this case Paul speaking the minde of all the rest in this singular act he is a deputy of Deputies and he representeth the whole six who were Messengers of the Church sent with the Epistle and these six were Deputies and Messengers of the councell but as these six Messengers sent by the councell could not lay their whole power on another to carry the Epistle to the Church of Antioch and bestow their labours elsewhere nor could one of these six deligates being chosen as deligate to speake for the rest put that power of speaking the mind of the whole six off himselfe to another in which sense one deligate cannot make another one Messenger cannot send another so the Presbyteriall or classicall Court convened as the deligates of the whole Congregations under them or rather deligates for them then of them decerning that one of a Congregation should be excommunicated may deligate one in that Congregation to pronounce the sentence and this one pronouncing the sentence as the deligate and Messenger of the Church is a deligate a deputy of deligates and deputies in one particular act and this our Brethren in their own Church-sentences pronounced by one Elder must also say Object 12. That neerest Church to whom we delate the offence of one single offender is a single Congregation else we must over-leap this Church and tell the Presbytery contrary to Christs direction but if he heare not that very Church to whom we tell the businesse he is excommunicated by that neerest Church as the words beare Ergo that nearest Church being single congregations may excommunicate and so it is the first Church and the Presbyterial Church is not the first Church Ans. That neerest Church to whom we delate the offence of the delinquent first in the case of wilfull obstinacy secondly in the case of consociation of Churches whom the obstinacy concerneth is not a congregationall Church having power of Jurisdiction entirely and compleatly to whom we must tell
Rom. 15. 16. 1 Cor. 1. 10. Act. 1. 14. I answer 1. that is because they are in Church-government all one and a conspiracy in error is but seeming unity But 2. I say good men as Paul and Barnabas will differ But 3. what if all be wrong of three parts as 1 Cor. 1. 12. Some said I am of Paul some I am of Apollo some I am of Christ all the three were wrong in that case doth not a Synod by the word of God determine the matter best certainly though Synods may erre yet are they of themselves Christs lawfull way to preserve veritie and charity and unity But our brethren answer us divisions ought not to be and they will not but all agree in the truth if the Church will lay aside corrupt judgement and depend on Christ considering the promises made to the Church Jer. 32. Ephes. 3. 9. Matth. 18 20. Let me answer there is much more charity in this answer then verity 1. They ought not to disassent from truth true but what then the remedy is not given except you returne to a Synod the division Act. 15. ought not to be the house should not be fired true but the question is how shall water be had to quench it for many things are which ought not to be 2. Neither will divisions be that is false 1 Cor. 1. 12. 3. As heresies must be so scandals must be our author saith they will not be they will not be say the brethren if the Church lay aside corrupt judgement and affection and attend upon the rule and depend on Christ. I answer There is but vanity and no solidity I crave pardon in this answer it is the vaine answer of Arminius in the case of the Saints perseverance The regenerate say they cannot fall away if they be not inlaking to Gods grace and if they in holy feare take heed to their wayes so saith Arminius in his Declaration and in his answer to Perkins so also say the Arminians in their confession and Episcopius But what is this but regenerate persons shall persevere upon condition that they shall persevere for not to be inlaking to the grace of God is to cooperate to the grace of God or with the grace of God and to cooperate with the grace of God is very perseverance it selfe for saith the the wicked Socinus and Smalcius and so say our brethren all shall agree in the truth if they lay aside corrupt judgement And what is that if they lay aside corrupt judgement that is if they agree with the truth and assent to the Word of God But so it is that the best regenerate even Barnabas a man full of the holy Ghost Act. 11. doth not lay aside corrupt judgement But our brethren proveth they will law aside corrupt judgement but how you alleadge the Papists abused Scriptures Ier. 32. God promiseth to put his Spirit and feare in his Church that they shall not depart from the Lord. True say I they shall not depart from God providing they lay aside corrupt judgement as you teach us But doe you not teach us by your answer to elude these pregnant places which unanswerably prove the necessity of the perseverance of the regenerated But 2. what though God promise to put his feare in the heart of the regenerate this promise is not made to the visible Church conveened in a Synod as it is such nor will it prove that a Synod shall all agree in the truth that the whole Church shall lay aside corrupt judgement except you serve your selves with these and the like places as Papists and by name as Bellarmine Gâ—etserus Snarez Bucanus Stapleton Gregorius de Valentia doe serve themselves with them and the like to prove that Councels are in fallible What is said in the fourth Section anent the power of the people in Church-governâ—â—â—â— is already examined onely in the closure thereof they seeme to give something peculiar to the Elders which the people have not which I discusse in the insuing question Quest. VIII What peculiar auhority is in the Eldership for the which they are over the people in the Lord according to the doctrine of our brethren We hold that Christ hath given a superiority to Pastors and Overseers in his House whereby they are by office government and power of the keyes above the people But 1. this authority is limited and conditionall not absolute as if they may doe what they please 2. It is a power ministeriall not a Dominion for as meere Servants and Ambassadours of Christ they doe but declare the will and commandement of the King of Kings 3. When this authority is not exercised by the precise rule and prescript of the Law of God it is not valid but null and of no force 4. They are so above the people as 1. they are their Servants for Christs sake 2 Cor. 4. 5. yea we are their servants servants not as if the people had a dominion over the Pastors or as if they had their authority from the people they have it immediately from Christ but because all their service is for the good and the salvation of the people 5. They have so superiority as they are subject to the Prophets to be judged and censured by the Church representative of Pastors Doctors and Elders It will be found that our brethren give no authority or superiority to the Eldership above the people In their answers to the 32. questions We acknowledge say they a Presbytery whose worke it is to teach and rule and whom the people ought to obey and condemne a meere popular government such as our writers condemne in Morellius Answ. So say our brethren in their Doctrine we acknowledge that the people and gifted men not in office should teach and all the faithfull is the governing Church to which Christ hath committed the keyes and power of ordination and highest Church censures even excmmunication and that the Elders should obey the Church of beleevers Ergo in teaching and â—uling you acknowledge no Presbytery 2. Seeing you ordaine the Elders to be ordained by the imposition of the peoples hands to be elected called censured excommunicated exauthorited shew us why the people are not the Rulers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Elders ruled 3. The key of knowledge is a chiefe part of the keyes and these keyes by which sinnes are remitted and retained and men bound or loosed on earth and heaven and seeing Morellius Anabaptists and your selves teach that these keyes were given to the whole Church of beleevers how doe you thinke that people are not in teaching Overseers as properly as the Elders and that your government is meerely popular as Morellius taught to say nothing that when you deny your government to be meerely popular you doe not deny but it is popular for a government meerely popular admitteth of publike men to rule for the people and we never read of a government in Athens Lacedemonia
bestoweth lawfull Kings and Magistrates upon many Nations who know nothing of a Saviour I answer When I consider the point more exactly I see not how Kings who reigne by the wisdome of God Jesus Christ Prov. 8. 14. 15. have not their kingly power from Christ who hath all power given to him in Heaven and in Earth Matth. 28. 18. for they are Nurse-fathers of the Church as Kings Esa. 49. 15. they are to kisse the Sonne and exalt his Throne as Kings Psal. 2. 11. they bring presents and kingly gifts to Christ as Kings Psal. 72. v. 10. 11. and they serve Christ not onely as men but also as Kings as Augustine saith therefore are they ordained as meanes by Christ the Mediator to promote his kingly Throne Some of our Divines will have the kingly power to come from God as Creator in respect God giveth Kings who are his Vicegerents to those who are not redeemed and to Nations who never heard of Christ and others hold that the kingly power floweth from Christ-Mediator in respect he accomplisheth his purposes of saving of his redeemed people by Kings authority and by the influence of their kingly government procureth a feeding ministery and by their princely tutory the edification of his body the Church which possibly both aime at truth See the groundlesse carping at Cartwright Calvin Beza and others by that sharp toothed envier of truth the Author of the Survey of holy discipline of this hereafter more 4. Conclusion The King as King hath not a nomothetick or legislative power to make Lawes in matters ecclesiastick in a constitute Church nor hath he a definitive sentence as a Judge 1. All power of teaching publikely the Church or the Churches of Christ is given to those who are sent and called of God for that effect but Magistrates as Magistrates are not sent nor called of God to the publike teaching of the Church Ergo. The proposition is cleare from the like Rom. 10. 14. How shall they preach except they be sent Ergo how shall they publikely and synodically teach except they be sent Heb. 5. 4. No man taketh this honour upon him but he that is called of God as was Aaron c. Ergo if none be a Priest to offer a Sacrifice without Gods calling neither can he exercise the other part of the Priesthood to teach synodically to give out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 decrees Acts 16. 4. that obligeth the Churches ecclesiastically but he who is called 2. Who so hath nomothetick power to define and make Lawes in matters ecclesiastick have onely a ministeriall power to expone Christs will in his Testament under paine of Church-censures and hath no coactive power of the sword to command these Lawes enacted and to injoyne them on the Churches But onely Church-men who are formally members of the Church as Pastors Doctors Elders and others sent by the Church have this ministeriall power without the coactive power of the sword and what ever the Magistrate as the Magistrate commandeth he commandeth it in things ecclesiastick necessary and expedient under bodily punishment I adde this because threatning of bodily punishment is not essentiall to Lawes in generall because some Lawes are seconded onely with rewards as the Judge offereth by law a reward to any who shall bring unto him the head of a Boar or of some notorious robber Ergo c. The proposition is cleare the learned Junius giveth to the Magistrate with our Divines an interpretation of Scripture as a Judge which concerneth his owne practise they are interpreters pro communi vocationis modo in a Christian way as private men but they have no power of ecclesiastick interpretation 2. Gul. Apollonius saith the Prince as a Christian hath an office to exhort the Svnod by word or Epistle as Constantius did the Fathers of the Nicen Councell and his Legates exhorted the Councell of Chalcedon ut Deo rationem reddituri See Ruffinus and the acts of the Councell of Chalcedon 3. The Magistrate hath a power judiciall as a Magistrate in so farre as his owne practise is concerned to expone the things defined but this expotition he useth non instruendo synodice non docendo ecclesiastice sed docendo seu potius mandando cum certa relatione ad paenam à brachio seculari insligendam contemptoribus not in an ecclesiasticall way teaching and instructing synodically but teaching or rather commanding with a certaine relation to civill punishment to be inflicted upon the contemners as he teacheth what is just or unjust in his civill Lawes not directly to informe the mind but to correct bad manners and this maketh the object of kingly power about Churches matters and the object of ecclesiasticall power formall objects different 3. Those who have a nomothetick power to define in Synods are sent by the Church to Synods with authoritative commission and power for that effect representing the Church which sent them as all who are sent with any ambassage doe represent those who sent them But Magistrates as Magistrates are not sent to represent those who sent them with authoritation commission of the Church Ergo they have no such power â—â—dâ—ine in Synods I prove the proposition from the Apostles practise Paul and Barnabas were sent as chosen men by the Church 〈◊〉 Antioch Acts 15. 2. 3. Acts 15. 6. the Apostles and Elders came from the Church to consider of this matter Acts 21. 18. Acts 22. 17. 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 8 17 18. if the Apostle with the Church sent Titus 〈◊〉 Brother whose praise is in the Gospel as chosen of the Churches to travell with us v. 19 in gathering the charity of the Saints for the poore at Jerusalem then by the like those who are sent to declare the minds of the Churches are also clothed with the authority of the Churches who sent them but Magistrates aâ— such are not sent but are there with the sword of Common-wealth and not with the mind of the Church as Magistrates except they be also Christians 4. The Apostolike Synods is to us a perfect patterne of Synods but persons defining in them are Apostles and Elders Acts 16. 4. Acts 15. 6. the Church Matth. 18. 18. defineth and 1 Cor. 5. 4. those who are conveened in the name of the Lord â—esus and the Apostles pastorall spirit those who are over us in the Lord and watch for our soules 1 Thes. 5. 14. Heb. 13. 17. but in these Synods there are no Magistrates yea there was at Câ—rinth a Heathen Magistrate 1 Cor. 6. 1. and in the Apostolike Church a persecutor Acts 22. 1 2 3. c. And the Magistrate as the Magistrate is not a member of the Church and is neither Pastor Elder nor Doctor nor a professor of the Gospel except he be more then a Magistrate 5. No Ecclesiasticall power or acts formally Ecclesiasticall are competent to one who is not an Ecclesiasticall person or not a member of the Church but a civill person
but wee uske who shall bee the visible ministeriall and vocall Judge under Christ speaking in his owne Testament for the King is a Politick and civill Judge and the Church an Ecclesiasticall Judge I answer this same is the question betwixt us and Papists anent the Judge of controversies whether the Judge bee a Synod or the Scriptures and wee answer by a distinction the Scripture is norm i judicandi 2. Christ the peremptory and infallible Judge speaking in his owne Word 3. A Synod lawfully conveened is a limited ministeriall and bounded visible Judge and to bee beleeved in so farre as they follow Christ the peremptory and supreme Judge speaking in his owne Word But wee deny that there is on earth any peremptory and in fallible visible Judge But to come yet nearer if the King have sworne to that same religion which the Church doth professe and so acknowledge and professe the reformed religion of that Church hee must then acknowledge the lawfull officers of that Church to bee his ordinary teachers and the lawfull ministers of the Church and that they are both in a Synod and out of the Synod to preach and to bee ministeriall definers of things contraverted and that they shall first determine in an ecclesiasticall way according to Gods Word and hee as King is to command them to determine according to Gods Word under the paine of civill punishment and the Kings civill and coactive way of judging is posterior and ratificatorâ—e of the right and oxthodox ecclesiasticall determination and Junius saith that the Magistrates judging politick presupposeth the Church judging ecclesiasticall going before and Calvin and Amesius are cleare that in this case the Church is to cognosce of hee owne ecclesiasticall affaires Ambrose writeth to the Emperor Valentinian that none should judge of this cause which is ecclesiasticall as one said but a Church-man qui nec munere sit impar neâ—jure dissimilis Gelasius the Pope inveigheth against Anastasius the Emperour because hee confounded these two civill and ecclesiasticall causes But if the Emperour or King professe not the religion of the land and repute it false and if the religion bee indeed hereticall then the Church is not constitute and the case extraordinary but the truth is neither the Kings judgement as a certaine rule to the representative Church nor the representative Churches judgement a rule to the King but the Word of God the infallible rule to both Judgement may crooke truth cannot bow it standeth still unmoveable like God the father of truth but in this case if both erre ex cellently saith Junius the Magistrate erring the Church may do something extraordinarily and tâ—e Church erring the Magistrate may do something also in an extraordinary way as coÌ„mon equitie and mutuall law requireth that friends with mutuall tongues bicke the wounds of friends Also fourthly some say they who make the King the head of the Church acknowledge that the King doth not judge except the matter be first defined in the Scriptures and in the generall councells yet they give a primacie spirituall in matters ecclesiasticall to the King and therefore if the King as King may forbid the inacting of wicked Canons hee determineth them to bee wicked before the Synod have passed their judgement of them I answer that learned Calderwood saith indeed the pretended Lords of high Commission have an act for them under Queene Elizabeth for this effect but it is made for the fashion for all errors and heresies are condemned in Scripture but not onely should there bee a virtuall and tacit determination of matters ecclesiastick which is undeniably in Scripture and may bee in generall councells also but also a formall Synodicall determination in particular must goe before the Princes determination in a constitute Church The Prince may before the Synods determination exhort to the determination of what hee conceiveth is Gods will in his Word but hee cannot judicially and by a Kingly power determine in an orderly way what is to bee defined in a Synod except hee infringe the Churches liberties and judicially prelimit under the paine of civill punishments the free voyces of the members of the Synod which is indeed an abuse of the authoritie of a nurs-father But fiftly it may bee objected that hee may in a thing that is manifestly evident by the Word of God to bee necessary truth command by the power of the sword that the Synod decree that or this particular so cleare in the Word the contrary whereof being Synodically determined hee may punish by the sword and so hee may judicially predetermine some things before the Sâ—nod passe their Synodicall act thereon and if hee may predetermine judicially one thing hee may predetermine all things I answer what the King may judicially determine and punâ—â—h with the sword that hee cannot judicially predetermine and command in any order that hee pleaseth but in a constitute Church whereof hee is a member and to bee taught hee is to determine judicially in an orderly way as a nurs-father But sixtly it may bee objected that if the King have a judiciall power by the sword to annull unjust acts then hath hee a power to 〈◊〉 them though hee abuse that power in making them as unjust and then hath hee a power to interpret Church acts and to defend them 〈…〉 Law saith it is not same power to make Lawes and to dâ—â—â—nd them and interpret them see Paraeus I answer the proposition is not universally necessary except onely in civill matters in the which as the Prince who is absolute hath supreme authority to defend and interpret civill lawes so hath hee power to make them for if the Magistrate hath a supreme judiciall power to interpret Church-Lawes hee is a minister of the Gospell in that case and may by that same reason administer the Sacraments so the argument is a just begging of the question 2. Though the King have power in case of the Church aberration which is somewhat extraordinary it followeth not therefore in ordinary hee hath a nomothetick power to make Church-Lawes Also seventhly it may bee objected if the King in case of the Churches aberration may by the sword rescind Church-Lawes then may hee make a Law to rescind them but those who aâ—firme that the King hath a sort of primacie and headship over the Church say not that the King hath any power formally ecclesiasticall to make Lawes as Ministers in a Synod do but onely that hee hath a power to command any forme of externall worship under the paine of bodily punishment they say not that the King may preach administrate the Sacraments or excommunicate or inflict any Church-censures I answer the transcendent power of Princesand their commissioners is not well knowne for the authors saith Calderwood agree not among themselves but it is true in words the author est Tortura torti the Bishop of Eli denyeth in words if you have strong faith to beleeve
him all spirituall headship over the Church to the King and Burbillus also But Henric. Salcobrigiensis calleth the King primatem ecclesiae Anglicanae the Primate of the Church of England and â—ges oleo sacro uncti capaces sunt jurisdictionis spiritualis because they are annointed with holy oyle therefore are they capable of spirituall jurisdiction also may saith hee creat propria autoritate by his owne authoritie create Bishops and dâ—prive them See what Calderwood hath said and excerped out of the writings of these men the King as King 1. convocateth Synods 2. defineth ecclesiasticall canons 3. giveth to them the power of an ecclesiasticall Law 4. executeth Church Canons 5. appointeth commissioners who in the Kings authoritie and name may try heresies and errors in doctrine punish non-conformitie to Popish ceremonies may confine imprison banish Ministers 6. descerne excommunication and all Church censures and use both the swords 7. relax from the power and censures of all ecclesiastick Lawes give dispensations annull the censures of the Church upon causes knowne to them give dispensations against Canons unite or separate Parish Churches or diocesan Churches and by a mixt power partly coactive and civill partly of jurisdiction and spirituall the King may doe in foro externo in the externall court of Church discipline all and every act of discipline except hee cannot preach baptize or excommunicate And whereas Cartwright saith when a lawfull Minister shall agree upon an unlawfull thing the Prince ought to stay it and if Church ministers shew themselves obstinate and will not bee advised by the Prince they prove themselves to be an unlawfull Ministery and such as the Prince is to punish with the sword O but saith hee the author of the Survey how shall the Prince helpe the matter shall be compell them to conveene in a Synod and retract their mind but they will not doe this 2. By what authoritie shall the Prince doe this even by extraordinary authority even by the same right that David did eate of the Shew-bread if by ordinary authority the Prince would doe it yet doe you resist that authority also Answ. Though the Prince had not externall force to compell Church-men to decree in their Synods things equall holy juâ— and necessary yet it followeth not that the King as King hath not Gods right and lawfull power to command and injoyne them to doe their dutie force and Law differ much as morall and physicall power differ much 2. If they decree things good lawfull and necessary the Prince hath a power given him of God to ratifie confirme and approve these by his civill sanction but hee hath no power ordinary to infringe or evert what they have decreed 3. And if the Church bee altogether uncorrigible and apostate then wee say as followeth 7. Conclution When the representative Church is universally apostaticall then may the Prince use the helpe of the Church essentiall of found beleevers for a reformation and if they also bee apostatick which cannot be except the Lord utterly have removed his candlestick wee see not what hee can doe but heare witnesse against them but if there bee any secret seeker of God in whose persons the essence of a true Church is conserved The King by a royall power and the Law of charitie is oblieged to reforme the land as the godly Kings with a blessed successe have hitherto done Asa Jâ—siah Jehoshaphat 〈◊〉 in which case the power of reformation and of performing many acts of due belonging to the Church officers are warrantably performed by the King as in a diseased body in an extraordinary manner power recurreth from the members to the â—â—â—â—tick head and Christian Prince who both as a King 〈◊〉 â—â— in an authoritative way is oblieged to do more then ordâ—â—â—y and as a Christian member of the Church in a charitative and common way is to care for the whole body 8. Conclusion The influence of the Princes regall power in making constitutions is neither solitary as if the Prince his 〈…〉 could doe it nor is it 2. collaterall as if the Prince and Church with joynt concurrence of divers powers did it nor is 3. as some flatterers have said so eminently spirituall as the consultation and counsell of Pastors for light onely hath influence in Churches Canons but the Princes power hath onely the power to designe so as the Canon hath from the Prince the power of a Law in respect of us The Kings influence in Church Canons as wee thinke is as a Christian antecedent to exhort that the Lord Jesus bee served 2. concomitant as a member of the Church to give a joynt suffrage with the Synod 3. consequent as a King to adde his regall sanction to that which is decreed by the Church according to Gods Word or otherwise to punish what is done amisse Now that the Prince as a solitary cause his alone defineth Church matters and without the Church and that by his ordinary Kingly power wanteth all warrant of the Word of God 2. The King might have given out that constitution Act. 15. It seemeth good to the holy Ghost and to us which in reason is due to the ministeriall function for these are called Act. 16. 4. the decrees of the Apostles and Elders not the decrees of the King or Emperour either by Law or fact 3. Christ ascending to heaven gave officers requisite for the gathering of his Church and the edification of the body of Christ but amongst these in no place we finde the King 4. If this bee true heathen Kings have right to make Church-Canons though they bee not able and bee not members of the Christian Church and so without and not to bee judged by the Church nor in any case censured Matth. 18. 17. 1. Cor. 5. 11. and this directly is a King Pope who giveth Lawes by a Kingly power to the Church and yet cannot bee judged by the Church Burhillus and Thomson acknowledge that a Heathen King is primat and head of the Church and must hee not then have power aciu primo to make Lawes and to feede the flocke by externall government But Lancel Andreas Biship of Ely Tortura torti saith that a heathen King hath a temporall Kingly power without any relation to a Church power and when hee is made of a Heathen King a Christian King bee acquireth a new power But the question is if this new power be a new kingly power or if it be a power Christian to use rightly his former kingly power if the first bee true then 1. as learned Voetius and good reason saith hee was not a King before hee was a Christian for the essence of the Kingly power standeth in an indivisible point and the essence of things admit not of degrees 2. Then should hee bee crowned over againe and called of God to bee a Christian King and so hee was not a King before which is against Scripture for Nebucâ—adnezzar was to bee obeyed
and prayed for as King by the people of God at Jeremiahs expresse commandement 3. So a pagan husband becomming a Christian should by that same reason acquire a new husband-right over his wife contrary to the 1 Cor. 7. 13 14 15. the Captains or Masters who of heathens become Christians should obtaine a new right and power over their Souldiers and Servants and they should come under a new oath and promise to their Captaines and Masters 4. If the heathen King have onely temporall Kingly power he had no power as King to take care that God were worshipped according to the dictates of the Law of nature and Law of nations had power to punish perjury Sodomie parricid as sins against the Law of nature and the heathen King should not by office and Kingly obligation bee oblieged to be a keeper and a defender of the tables of the Law of nature which is against all sense But if the power which a heathen King becomming a Christian King acquireth be onely a Christian power to use for Christ the Kingly power that hee had while hee was a heathen King then a heathen King jure regali by a regall right is the head of the Church though hee bee a Woolfe and a Leopard set over the redeemed flocke of Christ yea though hee bee the great Turke hee is a Pastor called of God the Church though for his moralls hee bee a Woolfe and a hireling yet by office and Law hee is a feeder of the flocke Talis est aliquis qualem ius offiâ—ii requirit And certainly it is impossible that a heathen King can bee a member of the true Church hee wanting both faith and profession which doe essentially constitute a Church-membership if it bee said hee is ex officio by his office a member that is nothing else but hee ought to bee a member of the Church so all mankind are members of the Church for they are oblieged to obey Christ and submit to him upon the supposall of the revealed Gospel and the heathen King is no otherwise a member by the obligation regall that layeth upon him as King yea when the Gospel is preached and the heathen King converted to the faith hee is not a member of the Christian Church as a King but as a converted professor and so Christianitie maketh him not a Kingly head of the Church but what essentially constituteth him a King that also constituteth him a Christian King Christianitie is an accidentall thing undoubtedly to the office of a King 2. They doe no lesse erre who make the King and the Church officers collaterall Judges in Church matters so as with joynt and coâ—quall influence they should bee Canon makers 1. Because perfect Synods are and have beene in the Apostolick Church without any influence collaterall of Christian Magistrates as being against their will and mind who were Rulers of the people as Acts 1. 14 15. Acts 2. 46 47. Acts 4. 1 2. Acts 6. 1 2 3 4. Acts 15. 6 7 8. c. 2. What the Church decreeth in the name of Christ standeth valid and ratified in Heaven and Earth Matth. 18. 17 18. Joh. 20. 21 22. whether the Magistrate assent to it or not so that he hath not a negative voyce in it by any ecclesiastick power for Christ saith not What yee bind on earth in my name shall be bound in Heaven except the Magistrate deny as a collaterall Judge his suffrage Now if he be a collaterall Judge by divine institution no Church act should be valid in Christs Court without him as excommunication not in the name of Christ or performed by those who are not the Church but onely in civill offices is not excommunication also what ever the Magistrate doth as the Magistrate he doth it by the power of the sword Ergo if he take vengeance on the ill doer as his office is Rom. 13. 3. 4. his acts are ratified in Heaven though the Church as collaterall Judges say not Amen thereunto 3. The coactive power of the King and the Ecclesiasticall power of the Church differ as carnall and spirituall spirituall and not spirituall of this world and not of this world and are not mixed by the Word oft as Joh. 18. 36. 2 Cor. 10. 3 4. 2 Tim. 2. 4. and therefore it in one and the same Church constitution the King and the Church be joynt and coequall Judges and joynt definers the constitution must both be injoyned under the paine of bodily punishment which the Church whose weapons are not carnall cannot command and under the paine of Church censures as suspension rebukes and excommunication the King must command Now the Canon should neither be an Ecclesiasticall nor yet a civill Canon but mixt for the Canon makers injoyneth with powers and paines which are not due unto them nor in their power Now to make a Law saith Feild is to prescribe â—â—aw under the paine which the Law-maker hath power to inflict but neither hath the Church the power of the sword 2 Cor. 10. 3 4. Joh. 18. 36. nor hath the King by Gods â—aw the power of excommunication See Calderwood And one and the same Law should be backed both by a carnall and worldly power and not by a worldly and carnall power 3. The King as King must have a mixt power halfe kingly â—â—â— halfe ecclesiastick and by the same reason the Church must have a mixt power partly Ecclesiasticall and partly civill and this were to confound the two kingdomes the kingdome of this world and the spirituall kingdome of Christ which is not of this world Joh. 18. 36. condemned by Anselmâ— and Hilarius and Bernard and Augustin Put if they say that every one hath their influence partialitate causae non effâ—cii according to the nature of causes then is not one and the same Church constitution from both King and Church See Apollonius But the Kings Canon is civill the Churches Ecclesiasticall and every one of them without another perfect in their one kind See what the learned Gerson Bucer and Amesius saith further to adde light to this point Those who maintaine a third that the Church Canons hath all the power of being Church Lawes from the King and all Ecclesiasticall and oblieging authority from him and that they have onely some helpe of consulting power from the Church are grosser Divines See Joan. Weemes for so the King is the onely Canon maker and the Church-men giveth advice onely as the Kings Proclamation speaketh having taken 〈◊〉 counsell of our Clergy we command such a worship â— and so the Canon runneth it seemeth good to the holy Ghost and the King as the Canon speaketh Acts 15. 2. the King is made an Ecclesiasticall and ministeriall Prâ—acher to expone publikely the Scriptures to the Church of God for all lawfull Church Canons are but Ecclesiasticall expositions of Gods Word and so the Emperours and Christian Kings are the onely lawfull Canon
should call Christs doctrine blasphemy Caesar and his deputie Pontius Pilat as Judges civill are to judge it truth Neither would I â—â—iâ—â—â—ly here contend for whether the Kings knowledge of herese in the major proposition bee judiciall or the knowledge of discretion onely as some say wee agree in this against Papistâ— that the King is not a blind servant to the Church to punish what the Church calleth heresie without any examination or tryall but though the Kings knowledge of heresie in the proposition and in Law bee judiciall and kingly yet because hee is to cognosce onely in so farre as hee is to compell and punish with the sword not by instructing and teaching It would not hence follow that hee is to make Church constitutions as King but onely that hee may punish those who maketh wicked constitutions because the Canon maker is a ministeriall teacher the King as King may command that hee teach truth and hee may punish hereticall teaching but as King he is not a teacher either in Synod or Senate in Pulpit or on the Throne now if the King by office ordaine Pastors and deprive them by office hee is to know who are able to teach others aâ—d must bee able also to stop the mouthes of the adversaries and to rebuke them sharpely that they may bee sound in the faith and this is required in Titus Ch. 1. 5 9 10 11 12 13. as a Pastor and as an ordainer of other Pastors therefore that which is required of a Pastor by his office must also bee required to bee in the King by his office 6. It is admirable that they give to Kings power to deprive ministers but with these distinctions 1. He may not discharge them to preach and administer the Sacraments but to preach and administer the Sacraments in his kingdome or dominions because the King hath a dominion of places 2. Hee may discharge the exercise of the ministery but hee cannot take away the power of order given by the Church 3. Hee may deprive say some by a coactive and civill degradation because the supreme magistrate may conferre all honours in the Christian common-wealth Ergo hee may take them away againe but hee cannot deprive by a canonicall and ecclesiasticall degradation 4. Hee may causâ—tively deprive that is compell the Church to deprive one whom he judgeth to bee an heretick and if the Church refuse hee may then in case of the Churches erring and negligence as King deprive himselfe But I answer the King as King hath dominion civill of places and times as places and times but not of places as sacred in use and of times as sacred and religious for his power in Church matters being accumulative not privative hee cannot take away a house dedicated to Gods service no more then hee can take away maintenance allotted by publick authority upon Hospitalls Schooles Doctors and Pastors God hath here a sort of proprietie of houses and goods as men have Places as sacred abused are subject to regall power hee may inhibit conventions of hereticks 2. The Apostles might preach in the Temple though civill authoritie forbid them 3. Kings are as much Lords of places as sacred and publick as they have a dominion of civill places in respect the King may be coactive power hinder that false and hereticall doctrine bee preached either in publick or private places for this hee ought to doe as a preserver of both tables and a beare of the Sword for the good of Religion and if they may command pure doctrine to bee preached and sound discipline to be exercised they may command the same to bee done in publick places The second distinction is not to purpose 1. To discharge the exercise of a ministery saith Calderwood is a degree of suspension and suspension is an ecclesiasticall degree to the censures of excommunication and therefore the King may as well excommunicate and remit and retaine sinnes which undoubtedly agreeth to the Apostles as hee can suspend 2. As for taking away the power of order it is a doubt to formalists if the Church can doe that at all seeing they hold Sacraments administred by ministers justly deprived to bee valid Ergo they must acknowledge an indeleble character in Pastors which neither King nor Church can take away If then the King deprive from the exercise hee must simpliciter deprive by their grounds it is weake that they say the King may deprive from the exercise of a ministry within his owne dominions for saith Calderwood they all know well that the King hath not power to deprive men from the exercise of the holy ministery in ether forraine Kingdomes For the third way of deprivation it hath a double meaning also 1. If the meaning bee that as the King by a regall and coactive power may take away all honours either civill or ecclesiasticall as hee giveth all honours then this way of depriving Ministers cannot bee given to the King for the King may give and take away civill honours for reasonable causes according to the Lawes But in ecclesiasticall honours there bee three things 1. The appointing of the honour of the office to bee an Ambassadour of Christ. 2. To give the true foundation and reall ground of a Church honour that is gifts and gracious abilities for the calling neither of these two doe come either from King or Church or from mortall men but onely from Jesus Christ who ascending on high gave gifts unto men and appointeth both office and giveth grace for to discharge the office Yea since morall philosophy maketh honor to bee praemium 〈◊〉 a reward of vertue the King doth not give that which is the soundation of honour civill for civill vertue is a grace of God but in Church honour there is a third to wit a deâ—â—â—nation of a qualified man for the sacred office of the ministry and an ordination by the imposition of hands used in the Apostolick Church Act. 6. 6. Act. 13. 3. Act. 14 23. 1 Tim. 4 14. 1 Tim. 5.22 Whether imposition of hands bee essentiall to ordination or not I disput not it is apostolick by practise yet there is something ecclesiasticall as praying of Pastors and an ecclesiasticall designation of men or the committing of the Gospell to faithfull men who are able to teach others 2 Tim. 2. 2. 1 Tim. 5. 22. No Scripture can warrant that the King ordaine Pastors by publick praving by laying on of hands or ecclesiasticall blessing or by such an ordination as is given to Timothy and the Elders of the Church Acts 13. 3. Acts 14. 23. Tit. 1. 5,6 7,8 9. 1 Tim. 4. 14. 1 Tim. 5. 22. 2 Tim. 2. 2. If any say the King hath a publick and regall power in ordaining of Ministers and so in dâ—priving them or a mixt power partly regall partly ecclesiasticall as hee is a mixt person and the Church hath their way of purely and unmixt ecclesiasticall calling or ordaining of Ministers or the Church and the Magistrate
both doth elect and choose the man yet so that he is not elected without the consent of the King or Magistrate in the Kings roome I answer many things are here to be replyed 1. That the King who may be borne an heire to an earthly Kingdome is also borne and by nature a mixt person and halfe a Minister of the Gospell is against Gods word ministers in whole or in part are made so of God not so borne by nature in Aaronâ— Priesthaâ—d men by birth came to a sacred office but that is done away now in Christ. 2. With as good reason may the King preach and administer the Sacraments as a mixt person as he may ordaine by ecclesiasticall blessing imposition of hands ecclesiasticall designation any person to the Ministery that same auth nity of Christ which said to Timoth Lay hands suddainly 〈◊〉 man said also to him 2 Tim. 2. 15. Study to be approved unto 〈◊〉 a workeman that needeth not to be ashamed dividing the word right that is both ordaining of Ministers and pastorall preaching of the Word or pastorall acts flowing from an ecclesiasticall power How then can the one be given to the King by vertue of that same mixt power especially seeing baptizing it directly called 1 Câ—r 1. 17. a lesse principall worke of the ministery then preaching It it be said as ordination is performed by the King is not an ecclesiasticall action but civill or mixt partly civill partly ecclesiasticall I answer by that reason if the King should preach and administrate the Sacraments these actions should not be called ecclesiasticall actions and Uzzah's touching the Arke should not be called an action by office incumbent to the Levites only and it might be said the person being civill the actions are civill And Uzziah's burning of incense upon the Altar of incense was not a Priestly act but an act of a mixt power he was partly a King and partly a Priest who did performe the action but he was a Priest by sinfull usurpation in that action as we know 2. This answer is a begging also of the question 2. Whereas it is said that the Church ordainech Pastors and the King also but divers wayes the one by a regall power the other by me elâ—siasticall power I answer this is spoken to make the people ad saciendum populum for ejusdem potestatis est saith the Law constituere destiâ—â—ere it is the same power to ordaine and to destroy The high-Commission by the Kings authority doth deprive Ministers without so much as the knowledge of the Church If then the King as King may deprive ministers without the notice of the Church then may the King as King also ordaine Pastors without the notice of the Church For the action of the instruments as such is more principally the actions of the principall cause 3 Election of a Pastor is farre different from ordination of a Pastor the whole multitude as Christians have voyces in the election of a Pastor and so hath the King or his Magistrate as a part and member of the Church but this giveth no negative voice to the Magistrate in election but ordination is not done by all the multitude it is a worke of authority done onely by the Church-officers 4. The coactive and civill degradation must have also correspondent thereunto a coactive and civill ordination of Pastors Now I ask what is a coactive ordination If it be the Kings royall and civill authority commanding that the Church officers ordaine Pastors at Christs commandement This we deny not they fight with a shadow or a night ghost not against us who contend for this But if they meane a coactive degradation by the Sword in banishing imprisoning yea and for just causes punishing Ministers to death with the Sword this indirect deprivation we doe not deny But so the King depriveth a man from being a Minister when he is beheaded or hanged or banished for civill crimes no other wayes but as he depriveth a man from being a Fashioner a Saiâ—â—r a Plower a Souldier or a Father to his owne barnes a husband to his owne wife for when the man is beheaded or hanged by the sword of the Magistrate he is dâ—prived from being a fashioner a sailer a father a husband and Solomen did not other way deprive Abiathar from the Priest-hood then indirectly by consining him for treason at Anathoth so as he could not exercise the Priests office at Jerusalem So after Junius Calderwood Gul. Apollonius Sibrandus yea Muketus a man for the times denyeth that the Prince can take away that ecclesiasticall power that the Church hath given And so acknowledgeth Wedelius the same That reasonlesse lyer Lysimach Nicanor in this and in other things hath no reason to say we borrow Jesuites doctrine to answer this argument for the Jesuite Becanus is not â—nacquainted with Jesuits doctrine against the power of Kings yet he answereth that Solomen as King had no power over Abiathar for treason or any other crime and therefore following Bellarmine and Gretserus saith that Solomon did this by an extraordinary propheticall instinct yet Abulensis a great textuall Papist and Bâ—naventura a learned Schooleman saith this pâ—oveth that the King is above the Priest and that Priests in the Old Testament were not eximed from the civill Judges sword and power this is very doubtsome to Suarez who â—aith that it was a tempâ—rall civill punishment of exiâ—e and that â—â—â—sitiâ—n from the exercise of the Priests office followed upon the other But we neede not this answer for Solomons sentence containeth in tâ—rminis a meere civill punishment and these words 1 King 27. S. Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being Priest to the Lord seem not to be words of the Kings sentence of banishment but are relative to the fulfilling of the Lords word and a consequent of divine justice relative to the prophesie against Elies house Though verily I see no inconvenience to say that Solomon did indeed deprive him from the Priest-hood by an extraordinary instinct of the Spirit as he was led of God to build the Temple 1. Because the text saith so Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being Priest to the Lord and ver 35. and Zadok the Priest did the King put in the roome of Abiathar which is a direct deprivation from the Priest-hood but I contend not here But that the King causatively may deprive that is command the Church to cast out hereticks and to commit the Gospell to faithfull men who are able to teach others 2 Tim. 2. 2. wee confesse as for the power of convocating of Synods some thinke that the King may convocate Synods as men but as Church men they have power if the Magistrate bee averse to convocate themselves see Junius who insinuateth this distinâ—tion But certainly though the Kingly dignity be thought meerely civill yet let this be thought on it may be thought that the Kings power is divine three
wayes 1. Effectually and so we thinke that the Kingly power is an Ordinance of God lawfull jure divinâ— many Papists say the contrary but we thinke with Gods word it is of divine institution as is cleare Psal. 2. 11. Prov. 8. 14. 15. Rom. 13. 1 2 3 4 5 6. Matth. 22. 21. 1 Pâ—t 2. 17 18. Eccles. 9. 20. Prov. 25. 2. Prov. 20. 2. 2 The Kings power may be thought divine formally and so as divine is opposed to civill it is a humane ordinance and not formally divine or ecclesiasticall nor subjectively 3. It may be thought divine and ecclesiastick objectively and finaliter The end intrinsecall being a spirituall good and so the King hath power to conveene Synods not onely as they are men and his Subjects but also as they bee such subjects and Christian men and members of Synods as the King may command the minister of the Gospell both as a man yea and as a Preacher in the Pulpit to preach â—ound doctrine and to give wholesome and good milke to the Church and this is formally an act of a nurie-father such as the King is by his Kingly office and this way also doth the King send members to the Synod and moderate and preside in Synods actu impâ—rato nâ—n elicito actu objective ecclesiastico non intrinsece non formaliter non subjective ecclesâ—astico The King ruleth by the Sword and commandeth the Synods to meete ordereth politically and civilly the members and meeting and as King cooperateth but by a civill and regall influence with the Synod for the same very end that the Synod intendeth to wit the establishing of truth unity and the edification of Christs-body But this power of the Kings to conveene Synods is positive not negative auxiliary and by addition not by way of impedition or privation For the Church of her selfe hath from Christ her head and Lord power of conveening without the King beside his knowledge or against his will if he be averse as is cleare Matth. 18. 17 18. if they be conveened in his name he is with them not upon condition that the Prince give them power And Joh. 20. 19. there is a Church-meeting without the Rulers and a Church-meeting for praying preaching and discipline Act. 1. 13 14. c. without the Magistrate Act. 15. 1 2. and when the Magistrate is an enemy to the Church 2. Where Christ commandeth his disciples to preach and baptize Matth. 28. 19 20. and with all faith in the exercise of their ministry they shall be persecuted by rulers as Matth. 10. 17 18 19. Luk. 21. 12 13 14. He doth by necessary consequence command Church-meetings and Synods even when the Magistrate forbiddeth and this is practised 1 Cor. 5. 1 2 3 4 5. where the Magistrate is an heathen chap. 6. 1 2 3. 3. It should follow that Christ cannot have a true visible Church and ministry on earth except the Magistrate countenance his Church which is both against experience and Christs Kingly power who reigneth in the midst of his enemies Psal. 110. 2. And what glorious Courâ—bes had Christ in Asia with power of doctrine and discipline and â—o with all Church-meetings Rev. 2. chap. 3. where Tyrants did slay the witnesses of Christ Rev. 2. 13. and certainely by what power Kings alleadâ—e that Synods may not meet for the exercise of discipline and good order in Gods house by that same power they may say there should be no Church meeting for the hearing of the word and receiving the Sacraments without their authority For Church Synods for doctrine differ not in spece and nature from Synods for discipline all be one and the same acts under Christ as King and head of his Church for which see Spalato Uâ—â—tius Amâ—sius Calderwood the Professors â—â— Lâ—yden Now what any say on the contrary for the power of Princes in matters ecclesiasticall is soone answered Gerardus saith that Moses gave Lawes both to the People and Priests Exod. 20. Lev. 8. Num. 3. I answer if this be a good argument the Magistrate his alone without advise of the Church may impose Lawes yea and institute new Laws and dite Canonicall Scripture also as did Moses Deut. 5. Exod. 20. but it is certaine that Moses gave these Laws not as a Magistrate but as a Prophet of God who spake with God face to face and it is more for us then for our adversaries David also brought the Ark to its place at Gods speciall direction the Levites carrying it by Gods Law though they failed in that sinfull omission 2 Sam. 6. but 1 David did convocate the chosen of Israel even thirty thousand to reduce the Ark to its place and so the Levites and Church-men and did it not as King his alone as 1 Chron. 13. hee did it And Junius saith and the text is cleare that he did it by the counsell of an Assembly and the whole Church and that a King may doe that in Gods worship in case of the negligence of the Church that is warranted by Gods word is but his duty Now Jesuites answer not to any purpose in this for Becanus and Suarez answer nothing to Davids placing of the Arke in its place onely they say all the people conveved the Arke and danced before it as well as David but it is not hence proved that all the people are heads of the Church as they say the King is and Lysimachus the Jesuite seeth in this that wee aâ—â—ee not with his friends the Jesuits Solomon builded the Temple and dedicated it to Gods service but this is no ground to make the King a Law-giver in the Church 1. Because none can deny but Solomon did all this as a Prophet by speciall revelation for 1. if Solomon might not build an house to the Lord but by speciall revelation that hee should bee the man and not David his father 2 Sam. 7. 6. 13. farre more could hee not as an ordinary King build that typicall house which had a resemblance of Christ and heaven it selfe especially seeing the signification of the Holy of holiest in the Sanctuary is expressely given to the holy Spirit Heb. 9. 7 8. and the Temple was a type of Christ Joh. 2. 20 21. and they may say Kings by an ordinary power as Kings might pen Canonick Scripture as well as they could build a typicall Temple like Solomons God filled that Temple with his glory and heard prayers made in that temple and toward that Temple I thinke Kings as Kings cannot now build such Temples therefore Solomon by a Propheticall instinct built that house Jesuites give no answer to this for Suarez saith Kings may build Churches to God because of it selfe it is an act of Religion which requireth riches for the building thereof and for the dedication it includeth two 1. By some religious action to consecrate a house to God and this way onely the Priests by sacrificing dedicated the Temple and God by filling
of it with his presence dedicated it to himselfe 2. It includeth an offering and giving of an house to Gods service I answer by this Solomon as a private man builded the Temple and dedicated it to God and not as either King or Prophet but this is a vaine answer for no private man could have builded an house to God with such typicall relations to Christ and to the Church of the New Testament except hee had been immediatly inspired by the holy Ghost Becanus saith three sorts of men were actors here 1. Solomon 2. The Priests 3. The people Solomon prayed and gave thankes the Priestâ— â—arried the Arke the Tabernacle the holy vessels and sacriji â—s the 〈…〉 present rejoyced and gave thankâ—s to God there is nothing 〈…〉 Solomons headship Solomon dedicated a Temple to God what it will no more follow hee was the head of the Church for that 〈…〉 â—ffered stones and timber to God then the womâ—n can â—ee 〈◊〉 of the Church who offered to God gâ—â—d purple 〈…〉 buddâ—â— Temple to God many Merâ—hanâ—s â—ubild Templeâ— upon their 〈…〉 God and pray to God to accept these Temples 〈◊〉 in England 〈◊〉 Temples to God they are not for that head of the Church Answ. 1. This is another Temple then Temples builded daily 1. Because it was wil-worship for David to build this Temple and service to God for Solomon a King of peace and a type of our King of wisedome Christ to build this Temple and for no other any Merchant may build a common house to Gods service without a speciall word of promise which word Solomon behoved to have or then hee could not build this house 1. To dedicate an house to God typicall of Christ 2. Filled with the cloud of Gods presence where God said hee would dwel in this house 3. With such ornaments as the Holy of holiest in it 4. In which God said he would heare prayers whereas now in all places hee heareth prayers Joh. 4. 21. 1 Timothâ— 2. 8. this is another positive worship then that a merchant build a house for Gods daily service which hath no relative holinesse in it but onely is holy in the use and to dedicate a house in these termes is more then an ordinary dedication to Gods service and their Prelates in England who dedicated Temples to God cannot answer this reply of the Jesuites nor can the new Jesuite Lysimachus Nicanâ—r their brother answer the Jesuite herein wee say from warrant of Gods Word that Solomon did all this by a propheticall instinct by the which also hee prophecied and did write the booke of the Proâ—â—rbs Ecclesiastes and Solomons Song else Jesuites may say that these bookes doe no more prove Solomon to bee a Prophet then the tomes written by Becanus and Suarez doth prove that they were divinely inspired Prophets Obj. David also prepared materialls for the Temple 1 Chron. 22. 2. and dicided the Levites in certaine rankes and orders 1 Chron. 23. 4. Answ. 2 Chron. 8. 13. for so had David the man of God commanded the man of God is the Prophet of God not the King of Israel as King 2 Chron. 29. 25. and hee set the Levites in the house of God with Cymba's and psalteries and â—arpes according to the commandement of David and of Gad the Kings Seer and Nâ—uhâ—n the Prophet for so was the commandement of the Lord by his Prophets they may prove then God the Prophet is the head of the Church and hath power to make Church-Lawes But it is a great mistake Hâ—â—â—â—iah David Solomon commanded the people and the â—evites to doe their duties according to Gods Word Ergo Kings may make Church-constitutions by a mixt power it followeth in no soâ—â— wee deny not but the King may command in Gods worship what is already of cleare and evident divine institution but that hee may obtrude it as a thing to bee observed by all Church men and urge it as a constitution come from authoritie to bâ—e observed under the paine of ecclesiasticall censures wee deny now this formalists teach that hee may command in the externall government as a Church constitution to bee in his royall name executed by Church men with Church censures though the Church never heard of it before It is true that Jehoshaph â—t 2 Chron. 19 8 9 10 11. set of the Levites and Priests and the chiefe of the fathers of Israel for the judgement of the Lord and for controversies and charged them to doe in the feare of the Lord v. 11. and behold Amariah the chieâ—e Priest saith hee is over you in all the matters of the Lord and Zebadiah the sonne of Ismael the ruler of the house of Judah for all the Kings matters also the Levites shall bee officers before you deale câ—â—raâ—iously and the Lord shall bee with the good Hence doth Tâ—oker and other court parasites inferre 1. That the King constituting Levites and Priests in a Citie must bee head of the Church and 2. That Jehoshaph at having constitute two Vicars and Dâ—puties under him one in Church matters to wit Amariah another in civill matters to wit Zebadiah therefore hath the King a jurisdiction and headship in both Church and State Answer 1. The institution of Priests is one thing and the calling of the persons to the Office another the former was Gods due who himselfe chused the tribe of Levi and this the King did not But it is another thing to constitute Priests and Levites who were instituted and called of God to serve in such a place at Jerusalem rather then in any other place this is but to apply a person who is jure divine by Gods right in office to such places and times This is not a point of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction for placing and timing Preachers belongeth to the people calling them and in the time of Apostasy as this was Jehoshaphat sent Levites to teach and commanded them to do their duty but that the High Priest is the Kings Deputy or Vicar as if the King offered sacrifices to God as the principall and Church head or by the Ministry and service of Amariah as his instrument deputy and servant is most idly and untruely spoken Yet will I not use the argument of Beâ—anus the Jesuite who saith If Amariah was the Kings Vicar then may the King by himselfe sacrifice for what ever the Vicar oâ— deputy may dâ—e that may the person above him who giveth him power dâ—e without the Vicar The Kings royall commandement is formally terminated upon the quality and manner of Ecclesiasticall acts that they bee done according to Gods Law rather then upon the acts according to their substance It is one thing for Ministers to Preach sound Doctrine and administrate the Sacraments in obedience and at the Kings commandement which wee acknowledge a truth and another thing for Ministers to Preach in the name and authority of royall Majesty as having a calling from him this latter is false as the King may do an
together a visible act of government in sending messengers to 〈◊〉 Acts 15. 22. Then pleased it the Apostles and Elders and the whole Church our Brethren say the whole collective Church Men Women and Children at Ierusalem to send men of their own company to Antioch 23. And wrote Letters and some Decrees and Commandements to be observed Now the many thousands of the Church of Ierusalem by no possibility could meete aâ— one Parish in one materiall house to administrate the Lords Supper farre lesse could they be as is said Acts 2. 42. all continuing stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and followship our Brethren say in Pâ—rishionall or Congregationall fellowship and in breaking of bread and prayer nor could they dayly continue in the Temple and breake bread from house to house being all one Church or a fixed parishionall meeting in one materiall house Now it is cleare they were 〈◊〉 even after they exceeded many thousands in number in one Parishionall and Congregationall government as our Brethren would prove from Acts 15 22 23 24 25. And Acts 2. 42 43. Else how could they have all their goods common if there be not one visible government amongst them but this government could not be of one single Congregation for all who sold their goods and had all things common could not meete to give voyces in Discipline a judicatory of so many thousand Judges were impossible and ridiculous 2. Paul writeth to the Galatians where there were many Parish Churches Gal. 1. 2. as our Brethren teach yet doth he write to them as he doth to the Corinthians where our Brethren will have one Parish Church and writeth to them of uniformity of visible government that they meete not together to keepe dayes Sabbaths and yeers Gal. 4. 10. as the Iewes did that they keep not Iewish and ceremoniall meetings and conventions Gal. 4. 9. these Churches are called one lumpe in danger to be leavened as Corinth is a Parishionall lumpe in hazard to be leavened as our Brethren teach Now how could Paul will them that the whole lump of all the Churches and Congregations in Galatia be not leavened except he lay down a ground that they were with united authority to joyne in one visible government against the false Teachers suppose there were twenty sundry Kings in Brittaine and twenty Kingdoms could our friends over Sea write to us as to one Nationall lump to beware of the Spanish faction except they laid down this ground that all the twenty little Kingdomes had some visible union in Government and might with joynt authority of all the twenty Kingdomes concurre to resist the common Enemie Here that godly and learned Divine Mr. Baynes sayth Communion in government is not enough to make them one Church this sayth he maketh them rather one in tertio quodam separabili in a third thing which may be separated then one Church Government being a thing that commeth to a Church now constituted and may be absent the Church remaning a Church I answer this is a good reason against the Prelates Dioceseâ—n Church which as Baynes sayth well is such a frame in which many Churches are united with one head Church under one Lord prelate common Pastor to all the Pastors and particular Congregations of the Diocese as part aking of holy things or at least in that power of government which is in the chiefe Church for all the others within such a circuit Now the prelâ—tes frame of a properly so called Church under one Pastor being a Creature with a hundred heads having Church and pastorall care of a hundred little Congregations and Churches is a dreame for we know no such Church fed by a Prelate nor no such prelaticall Argos to oversee so many flocks nor doe we contend that the many Congregations united in a presbyteriall government doe make a mysticall visible Church meeting for all the Ordinances of God But union of many Congregations in a visible government is enough to make all these united Churches one visible ministeriall and governing Church who may meete not in one collective body for the worship of God yet in one representative body for government though worship may be in such a convened Church also as we shall heare The name of the Church I thinke is given to such a meeting Mat. 18. 17. Acts 15. 22. though more usually in Scripture the Church is a fixed Congregation convened for Gods worship now government is an accident separable and may goe and come to a mysticall Church but I thinke it is not so to a Ministeriall governing Church So the Church of Ephesus is called a Church in the singular number Rev. 2. 1. and all the Churches of Asia Rev. 1. 20. but seven Churches and Christ directeth seven Epistles to these seven and writeth to Ephesus as to a Church having one government v. 2. Thou hast tryed them which say they are Apostles and are not and hast found them lyers This was Ecclesiasticall tryall by Church-Discipline yet Ephesus contained more particular Congregations then one 1. Because Christ speaking to Ephesus only sayth v. 7. He that hath an Earâ— to heare let him heare what the spirit sayth unto the Churches in the plurall number 2. Because there were a good number of preaching Elders in Ephesus Acts 20. 28. 36. 37. and it is incongruous to Gods dispensation to send a multiude of pastors to over see ordinarily one single and independent Congregation 3. This I have proved from the huge multitudes converted to the Faith in Ephesus so huge and populous a City where many Iewes and Greeks dwâ—lâ— and where the Word of God grew so mighâ—â—ly Acts 19. 17 18 19 20. and Christ writeth to every one of the seven Churches as to one and yet exhorteth seven times in every Epistle that Churches in the plurall number heare what the spirit sayth Now as our Brethren prove that the Churches of Galatia so called in the plurall number were many particular Churches so doe we borrow this argument to prove that every one of the seven Churches who are seven times called Churche in the plurall number contained many Congregations under them yet doth Christ write to every one of the seven as having one visible Government 2. Concl. A nationall typicall Churchâ— was the Church of the Iewes we deny But a Church nationall or provinciall of Cities Provinces and Kingdomes having one common government we thinke cannot be denyed so Paul Baynes citeth for this 1 Pet. 1. 1. 1 Pet. 5. 2. Though we take not the Word Church for a my sticall body but for a ministeriall company But Acts 1. Matthias was elected an Apostle by the Church as our Brethren confesse but not by a particular Congregation who met every Lords-Day and in ordinary to partake of all the holy things of God the Word and Sacraments 1. Here were the Apostles whose Parish Church was the whole World Mat. 28. 19. Goe teach all Nations 2. In this Church were the brethren of Christ
the Church receiveth in as you say but the putting of Iudah and the strangers of Israel to this Oath was by the Kings authority who convened them 2. Chron. 15. 9. And Asah gathered all Judah and Benjamin and the strangers with them and they were compelled by the Royall sanction of a civill Law to this covenant v. 12. and they entred into covenant c. 13. That whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel should be put to death whether small or great man or woman 4. How were they all in conscience satisfied anent the regeneration one of another 1. Being such a number of Iudah Benjamin and strangers out of Ephraim Manasse and Simeon v. 9. Were 2. Gathered together and meet but one day 5. This covenant obliged young ones your covenant seekes no Church duties of little ones for to you they are not members of a visible Church 6. The place 2 Chron. 30. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yeild to God as servants Iunius humbly imploring his help as the same phrase is Lament 5. 6. we have served the Egyptians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Assyrians to be satisfied with bread neither doth the Text say in infinitive that yee may enter into the Sanctuary as if a renewed covenant were a necessary preparation before they could enter into the Sanctuary but it is set downe as an expresse Commandement of the King 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 enter yee into his Sanctuary and there is not a word of a covenant in the Text but only of the peoples keeping the Passover and though there had been a covenant of which the Spirit of God speaking so much of Iosiah's zealous Reformation would not have been silent it is not to a purpose Iudah was a visible Church before Hezekiah wrote Letters to them to â—ome to Jerusalem to keepe the Passover as is cleare ch 29. 17. they begun to sanctifie the House the first day of the first moneth and all the congregation worshipped 36. And Hezekiah rejoyced at their zeale and so there was a visible Church and the Passover was eaten the 14. day according to the Law also in all covenants renewed by the people of the Jewes the matter was done suddenly and all convened in a day when a voluntary preparation and evidenced regeneration could not be evidenced to the satisfaction of the conscience of all the people nor can this preparation be called Jewish and temporary for it is as morall to all who sweare Churches duties one to another as the covenant it selfe which our brethren say is of perpetuall equity And all these may be answered to the covenant Neh. 10. where there is no insinuation of Church duties but in generall 29. Yo walke in Gods Law and to observe and â—â—e all the Commandements of the Law and not to marry strange â—vives The apology saith it is to no purpose that the people 2 Chro 15. was a Church before this covenant because the place is not alledged to prove that a people are made a Church by entering into covenant with God but to prove that a decayed Church is restored by a covenant now the Church at this time was corrupted with idols sodomy c. Answ. 1. Yet it proveth well that this covenant is not the formall cause of a visible Church for a visible Church hath not its formall being before it hath its formall cause 2. The convening of all the people to sweare is an act of the Church visible now nothing can have operations before it have the formall cause 3. The Author saith who knoweth that all the Tribes of Israel were yet in covenant with God from the dayes of their Fathers Answer I think that it is easily knowne that they used and exercised many Church actions also and so were a Church visible of a promiscuous multitude and it is knowâ—n that none were excluded from this covenant none selected and chosen out as Regenerates who onely were thought fit to sweare this covenant and so that it is not your Church-covenant that all were forced to and commanded under painâ— of death to attest Our brethren as first our Author secondly the Apology thirdly the Author of the Church-covenant repose much on Isai. 56. 3. where the stranger is joyned to the Lord in a personall covenant for his own salvation for so the Text saith v. 3. 4. yet are they not joyned to the visible Church while they lay hold on the covenant that is to sweare a Church-covenant now that they are not members of the visible Church is cleare fâ—r Deut. 23. 1 2 3. The Moabit Ammonite though never so holy cannot be members of the visible Church because they are discharged to enter into the congregation of the Lord. 2. They complainâ— that they are not of the visible Church The Lord hath separated me from his people 3. Adjoyning of them to the visible Church is promised as a reward of their faith and obedience v. 8. even a Name in Gods House Hence it is cleare persons under the New Testament have a promise and propbecy thâ—â— if they be inwardâ—s joyned by faith God shall give them a Name of Church-membership amongst his people by swearing a Church-Oath or if they lay hold on the covenant of the Church Ans. 1. There is no churching here of strangers and Eunuches by Church-Oath but as Calvin Musculus Gualter Iunius observe the Eunuch and stranger are comforted that under the Messiâ—hs Kingdome they shall have no cause to complaine of their ceremoniall separation from Gods people and the want of some ceremoniall priviledges of that kind because the stranger and Eunuch shall have v. 5. an everlasting roome and honor in Gods Housâ— and the Son of the stranger a place in the Catholick Church v. 6. 7. so being they believe and obey But 1. v. 6. to lay hold on my covenant is not to lay hold on the Church-covenant give us precept promise practise or one syllable in Gods Word for this interpretation 1. v. 4. to take hold on the covenant is to believe the covenant and not to sweare a vocall Oath 2. To lay hold on the covenant saith Musculus is to keep the covenant and not to depart from it to live according to it saith Iunius and to rest on God to doe what is Gods will commanded in the covenant saith Calvin and Gualter and so all who spake sense on that place and never one dreamed of a Church-covenant before 3. God saith of it my covenant there is no reason then to call it a Church-covenant here more then Ierom. 31. 32. 33. Psal. 25. 10. Isai. 55. 3. Ierem. 50. 5. Zach. 2. 11. 4 Laying hold on the covenant is not an externall professed vocall visible and Church embracing of the covenant for then the Lord promiseth to the Eunuch the name of a faithfull visible fellow member in a congregation if he shall lay hold on the covenant and sweare it
all of one Church of one Religion Answ. The terme Nationall-Church is not in the Word of God but I pray you in what sense can the Iewish-Church bee called a Nationall-Church I conceive not because of the typicall and ceremoniall observances that put a Church-frame on the whole Nation for if so then the name of a Nationall Church or a nationall Religion cannot by envy it selfe bee put in the reformed Churches or on Church of Scotland which hath suffered so much for Iewish and Romish Ceremonies But if the Jewes were a Nationall-Church because they were a holy Nation in profession and God called the Nation and made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Church externally called to grace and glory and the whole Nation commensurable and of equall extent then all Christian Nations professing the true Faith and the Gentiles as well as the Iewes Then the believing Iewes of Pontus Asia Cappadocia and Bythinia as Augustine Eusebius Oecumenius Athanasius doe thinke that Peter wrote to the Iewes yea and the Gentiles as many interpreters with Lorinus Thomas Lyra and others thinke are yet 1 Pet. 2. 9. an holy Nation and so a Nationall Church and there is no more reason to scoffe at a Nationall Church in this sense then to mocke the holy Spirit which maketh but one Church in all the World Cant. 6. 9. as Cotton Ainsworth and other favorable witnesses to our Brethren confesse And if the Gentiles shall come to the light of the Jewish Church and Kings to the brightnesse of of their rising Esai 60. 3. if the abundance of the Sea shall be converted to the Iewes true Faith and Religion And the forces of the Gentiles shall come to them vers 5. and if all flesh shall see the revealed glory of the Lord Esai 40. 5. and the Earth shall bee filled with the knowledge of God as the Seas are filled with Water It is most agreeable to the Lords Word that there is and shall be a Church through the whole World you may nickname it as you please and call it a VVorld-Religion a VVorld-Church As if the lost and blinded World Ioh. 2. 16 17. 1 Joh. 5. 19. 2 Corin 4. 4. were all one with the Loved Redeemed Pardoned and Reconciled World Ioh. 3. 16. Ioh. 1. 29. 2 Cor. 5. 19. as if wee confounded these two Worlds and the Religion of these two Worlds And if this World could meet in its principall lights neither should an universall councell nor an Oath of the whole Representative Church be unlawfull but enough of this before And what if the World bee subdued to the World and a World of Nations come in and submit to Christs Scepter and royall power in his externall government are the opposers such strangers in the Scriptures as to doubt of this Reade then Esai 60. 4. 5. c. 60. 11 12 13 14 15 v. 4. 5 6 7. Psal. 2. 8 9. Psal. 72. 8. 9. 10. Esai 54. 3. Esai 49. 1. Esai 45. 22. 23. Psal. 110 1 2 3 4 5. and many other places and there is a Kingdome in a Kingdome Christs Kingdome and his Church lodging in a Worldly Kingdome and Christ spiritually in his power triumphing over the World and subduing Nations to his Gospell Object 8. If Classicall Presbyters be not Elders in â—elation to the classicall Church and so to all the Congregations in it yee must forsake all these places where it is said the Elders of Jerusalem the Elders of Ephesus the Angels of the seven Churches which is absurd if they be Elders to all these Churches then 1. All those people in those Churches must submit their consciences to them and their Ministery as to a lawfull ordinance of God 2. All the people of those Churches must have voyce in election of them all 3. All these people owe to theâ—s maintenance and double honor 1 Tim. 5. 17. for if the Oxes mouth must not be muzlâ—d but he must be fed by me and my corne he must tread my corne and labour for me These Churches cannot all meet in one to ordaine and chuse all these Ministers and to submit to their Ministery Answ. The Elders are Elders of Ephesus and Elders of Jerusalem not because every Elder hath a speciall pastorall charge over every Church distributively taken for it was unpossible that one Congregation of all the converts in Ierusalem extending to so many thousands could all beare the relation of a Church to one man as their proper Elder who should personally reside in all and every one of those Congregations to watch for their soules to preach to all and every Congregation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in season and out of season But they are in cumulo called Elders of Ephesus in that sense that Kings are called the Kings of the Nations not because every King was King of every Nation for the King of Edom was not the King of Babylon and the King of Babel was not the King of Assyria yet amongst them they did all fill up that name to be called the Kings of the Nations so were the Elders of Ierusalem in cumulo collectively taken Elders of all the Churches of Ierusalem collectively taken and as it followeth not that the King of Edom because hee is one of the Kings of the Nations is elected to the Crowne of Caldea by the Voyces of the States and Nobles of Caldea so is it not a good consequence such a number are called the Elders of the Church of Ierusalem therefore the Elder of one Congregation at the Easterne Gate at Ierusalem is also an Elder of a Congregation of the Westerne Gate Nor doth it follow that these two Congregations should submit their consciences to one and the same Elder as to their proper Pastor to whose Ministery they owe consent in Election Obedience in submitting to his Doctrine and mainetenance for his labours all these are due to him who is their owne proper Pastor the as Caldeans owe not Honour Allegiance Tribute to the King of Edom though the Kingdome of Caldea bee one of the Kingdomes of the Nations and the King of Edom one of the Kings of the Nations But if indeede all the Kings of the Nations did meete in one Court and in that Court governe the Nations with common Royall authority and counsell in those things which concerne all the Kingdomes in common then all the Nations were obliged to obey them in that Court as they governe in that Court but no farther and when the people doe consent to the power of that common Court â—â—citly they consent that every one of these shall bee chosen King of such and such a Kingdome and promise also tracitly Obedience and Subjection to every one of the Kings of the Nations not simply as they are Kings in relation to such a Kingdome but onely as they are members of that Court so the Congregations acknowledging and consenting to the classicall Presbytery doe tracitly chuse and consent to the common charge and care that every Pastor hath as hee
Earth Answ. I see this sayd without any probation Churches depend on many above them for unity but what consequence is this Ergo they depend upon one visible Monarch It is an unjust consequence Mr. Mather Mr. Thomson c. 2 pag. 26. The Graecians and Hebrewes made not two Churches but one Congregation they called the multitude of Disciples together v. 2. Answ. That the chiefe of both Grecians and Hebrewes were convened in one to give their consent to the admission of their Officers the Deacons I conceive but that all the thousands of the Church of Jerusalem were here as in one ordinary Congregation I judge unpossible Mr. Mather c. 3. pag. 27. 28. If your argument be good if thy Brother offend and refuse to submit tell the Church because Christs Remedy must be as large as the Disease then if a Nationall Church offend you are to complaine to a higher Church above a Nationall Church and because offences may arise betwixt Christians and Indians you may complain of an Indian to the Church Ans. Because ordinary communion faileth when you got higher then a Nationall Church and Christs way suppoleth an ordinary Communion as is cleare If thy Brother offend c. Therefore I deny that this remedy is needfull in any Church above a Nationall Church 2. Christs remedy is a Church remedy for Offences amongst brethren and Members of the visible Church And Indians are no Members of the Church and so being without they cannot bee judged 1 Co. 5. 12. We say that if the Magistrate be an enemy to Religion may not the Church without him convene and renew a Covenant with God Mr. Mather and Mr. Thomson answer c. 3. pag. 29. if the supreame Magistrate be an enemy to Religion it is not like but most or many of the people will be of the same mind Regis ad exemplum as it is in France and Spaine and was in the dayes of Queene Mary and then the Believers in the Land will not be able to beare the name of the Land or Nation but of a small part thereof nor can it be well conceived how they should assemble in a Nationall Synod for that or any other purpose when the Magistrate is a professed Enemie nor doth God require it at their hands Answ. This is a weake answer the Christians under Nerâ— were not like their Prince and it s not like but sincere Christians will bee sincere Christians and professe truth even when the Magistrate is an enemy And 2. If your meaning be it cannot be conceived how they should assemble in a Nationall assembly when the Magistrate is an Enemy because it is not safe for feare of persecution Then you say nothing to the argument because the argument is drawen from a duty a Nation professing the Gospell after many backslidings are obliged to convene in a Nationall Synod and are to renew their Covenant with the Lord and your answer is from an ill of affliction and if you meane that because the Princes power is against their Synodicall convening this is nothing against the power of the Synods that CHRIST hath given to His Church But if your meaning be that it is not lawfull to them to convene in a Nationall Synod to renew a Covenant with GOD against the supreame Magistrates will I hope you minde no such thingâ— for so doe Malignants Now alledge that wee never read of any Reformation of Religion in Scripture warranted but where the Prince did contribute his authority because he onely is to reforme and he onely rebuked for the standing of the high places but hee may soone be answered 1. Both Israel and Iudah were so bent to backsliding that wee read not that ever the people made any reall Reformation of Religion Josiah Hezekiah and Asa did it for them But what an argument is this Iudah did never for the most of the Land seeke the Lord God of their Fathers with all their heart Ergo the seeking of the Lord God with all the heart is an unwritten tradition 2. Princes are obliged to remove high places But are they obliged with their owne Hands to breake all the Images No I thinke if they remove the high places by the Hands of their Subjects or command their Subjects to remove them they doe full well But I see not this consequence Ergo Princes onely are obliged to remove the high places it followeth not 3. If it be the Princes part to command his Subjects this duty of Reformation and removall of the high places then they may performe their duty without the Prince 4. There is a twofold Reformation one an heart-Reformation Sure this is not the Princes onely All the Land may repent without the King There is another an outward Reformation And that is twofold either Negative or Positiveâ— Negative is to refraine from ill and the unlawfull and superstitious manner of worshipping GOD as in new Offices not warranted by his Word Antichristian Ceremonies and a Masse-Booke c. Certainly all the Land are to abstaine from sinne though the King command not now all the Reformation for the most part in both Kingdomes is in obstinence from superstitious superadditions that defiled the worship of GOD and to this there is no necessity of the Magistrates authority more then wee needâ— the Kings warrant to put an Obligation upon Gods Negative Commandements All that is Positive is the swearing of a lawfull Covenant to observe and stand by the faith and true Religion of the Land but I see no more a necessity that a King warrant the lawfull Vow of twenty thousand then the Lawfull Vow of one Man seeing it is a lawfull profession of CHRIST before Men commanded in the third Commandement And to the observance of that Law of God which God and Conscience hic nunc doe oblige us there is no addition of a Kingly authority by necessity of a Divine Law required to make it valid no more then if all the Kingdome at such a solemne day of humiliation should all in every severall Church sweare to Reformation of life 5. The Apostles and Christ positively did reforme Religion and the Church without and contrary to the mind of civill authority nor is it enough to say the Apostles were Apostles but wee are not Apostles for upon this morall ground Acts 5. 29. Wee ought rather to obey GOD than man they reformed contrary to the Magistrates mind And wee doe but contend for that very same Faith Jud. 3. which was once delivered to the Saints So to Reforme is to seeke the old way and to walks in it Jeremy 6. 16. to turne to the LORD with all the heart Jeremy 1. and for this cause Jeremy 3. 10. Iudah is sayd not to veturue to the LORD with her whole heart but fainedly because when a zealous King reformed them they returned not with all their heart Whence Reformation of Religion must bee the peoples duty no lesse then the Kings and I believe such a divine precept carrying
the new sense of our Malignant Divines should bee black policy not sound Divinity if any Ierimiah or Prophet should say amend your wayes and turne to the LORD with all your heart and put away your Idolls and your strange Gods providing the King will goe before you and command you so to doe Hence I say that 's a poore Court-argument of Parasites for Kings Wee never read of any Reformation of Religion in Israel and Judah but when holy and zealous Kings commanded the Reformation Ergo the Reformation begun in Scotland without the consent of the Supreame Magistrate and a Reformation now prosecuted in England against the Kings will is unlawfull To which I desire the Malignant Divines to receive these answers for Justifying the zeale of both Kingdomes in their Reformation 1. It is a question if they question not the Reformation according to the substance of the action that is if they are not offended that the Queenes Masse the popery of Prelates and Divines under their wings and their Arminianisme and Socinianisme should be abolished or if they condemne not the Doctrine but question onely the manner of abolishing such Heterodox stuffe If the former be said iâ— is knowen never Malignant Prelate or other had grace by Word or Writing to entreate his Mâ—jesty for a Reformation and this is enough for the former If they meane the latter they bee very like the Pharisees who when they durst not question the Doctrine and Miracles of Christ they onely questioned the manner of doing And sayd by what authority doest thou these But because they are joyned to the Papists side and fight under their banner It is most evident it galleth their stomacks that Popery Atminianisine and Socinianisme are cryed downe else the manner of doing a good worke and such a necessary worke as Reformation would not have offended them so highly as to move them to kill the people of GOD an error in the circumstances of a good worke is very veniall to Papists and Arminians 2. Let them give to us since they argue from a practice a warrant of any such practice where a whole Land went on in a Negative Reformation without the Prince Ergo Negative precepts by this logick shall lay no divine obligation on us except it bee the Kings will to forbid that which GOD forbiddeth then suppose Episcopacy and the Ceremonies were the Idoll of the Masse established by a standing Law it should bee unlawfull for the Kingdomes to forbeare and abstaine from Idolatry except the Kings Law forbid Idolatry What were this else but to say we are obliged to obey Christs will but not except with a Reservation of the Kings will 3. This is an argument Negative from one particular in Scripture and therefore not concludent For it is thus Reformation without the King wanteth a practise in the Scâ—ipture Ergo it is unlawfull it followeth not except it want Precept Promise and Practise for the argument Negative from Scripture is onely undeniable in this sense And in this sense onely pressed by our Divines against Papists And therefore it is like this argument Purgatory is not commanded in this Chapter Idolatry is not forbiâ—den in this Commandement Ergo neither Purgatorie nor Idolatry is forbidden in Gods Word So let the adversaries give me a practise in the Word of God where a Brother kept this order of Christs three Steps Mat. 18. First to reprove an offender alone Secondly before two or three witnesses Thirdly in case of obstinacy to tell the Church and to these adde that the man was by the Church to be reputed as an heathen and a Publican And I hope because such a practise we doe not read yet it followeth not that it is unlawfull So where read you a Man forgiving his Brother seventy seven times Ergo it is unlawfull to forgive him seventy and seven times Where read you that Christ and His Apostles and the Christian Church in the New Testament raised Warre and Armies either to defend or offend but I hope Anabaptists have not hence ground to inferre then must all Warres be unlawfull to Christians for wee can produce warrantable precepts where we want practise Fourthly where it is said Kings onely are rebuked for not removing high places and Kings onely are commended because they are removed therefore none should reforme but Kings This followeth no wayes but onely Kings by Royall authority should reforme but it followeth not Ergo the people without the King are not obliged to reforme themselves in their manner for I am sure that the people should all universally resolve and agree never to sacrifice in the high places and accordingly to practise And to sacrifice onely in the place which the Lord had chosen to place His Name there at GODS expresse Law commanded Deuteronomy 13. 23. Deuteronomy 12. 14. 18. Deuteronomy 16. 2. 7. 11. 15. Deut. 31. 11. had beene a removall of the high places and a warrantable Reformation though the King should have by a standing Law commanded that they should sacrifice in the high places for the people are rebuked because 2 Kings 17. 11. They burnt Incense in all the high places 2 Chronicles 33. 17. Hosea 4. 13. and a Chronicles 20. 33. the reason why the high places were not taken away is For as yet the people had not prepared their Hearts unto the GOD of their Fathers If then not Sacrificing in the high places was the peoples duty they were to remove the high places in their place and so farre to reforme without the KING yea suppose the KING command the contrary the people ought to obey GOD and the Parliament may by GODS Law abolish Episcopacy popish Ceremonics and the popish Service though the KING consent not upon this ground that those he the high places of England for the which the Wrath of the Lord is kindled against the Land Fifthly the adversaries may read 2 Chronicles 15. 9. That the Strangers out of Ephraim and Manasseh and Simeon gathered themselves together to Asa without the consent of their KING and did enter in a Covenant to seek the Lord God of their Fathers Sixtly the Pastors of the Land are obliged to preach all necessary truth without the KING and accordingly are to practise what they preach now Reformation is a most necessary truth they are then to reforme themselves and Religion without the KING for the Word of GOD not the KINGS will is the Pastors rule in preaching and hee is to separate the pretious from the vile that hee may be as Gods Mouth Jeremy 15. 19. and Ezekiel 2. 7. Thou shalt speake my words unto them that was the Doctrine of Reformation not the KINGS words vers 8. But thou sonne of man heare what I say to thee yea Pastors are to preach against Kings and their sinnes 1 Kings 13. 1. 2. 3. Jer. 1. 18. Ier. 26. 10 11 12. Seventhly if no Reformation can be without the KING 1. People are not to turne to the Lord and repent thâ—m
of the evill of their doings and to prevent the Babylonish captivity or a worse judgement except the KING will and all Religion and. 2. Church-worship must bee resolved ultimately on the KINGS will and pleasure for if it be not the KINGS pleasure to reforme the people must continue still where they were and Scotland who contrary to the will and heart of authority at our first Reformation put away the Masse and Popery and established Religion in sincerity is greatly to bee condemned Luther had authority against him and the powers of the World it was one point of Reformation that John Baptist tooke up against the Law of the Land to preach against Herods sinne for if Popery be in a Land to leave Popery is a great degree of Reformation and if the people without the Prince may goe on in the greatest step of Reformation why not also in the lesser except you say the people without the King are not to abstaine from the grossest Idolatry under the Sunne which is to worship and adore the worke of the Bakers hands Mr. Mather Mr. Thomson The name Church 1 Cor. 14. 4 5. 35. 26 27. 28. is plainly given to that company that did assemble and come together for performance of spirituall duties and for the exercise of spirituall gifts as Acts 14. 27. Acts 11. 26. 15. 4. 22. 30. 1 Cor. 11. 18. 20 22. 23. 3. Ioh. 6. which places doe abundantly shew that a company gathered together to one place is called by the name Church as Cencâ—rea Rom. 16. 1. which could not containe many Congregations being but the prot of Corinth Answ. We seeke no more if it be called a Church which conveneth for performance of spirituall duties as some of your places doe well prove Ergo no assembly should have the name of Church but such as assemble for Word and Sacraments this now you cannot affirme and it followeth not the Church spoken of Matthew 18. is not assembled to Word and Sacraments But to bind and loose on Earth The meeting 1 Cor. 5. 4. is not for Word and Sacraments but to deliver to Satan for ought wee can read the word Church Acts 14. 27. is not an Assembly for Word and Sacraments but to heare how God had opened the doors of Faith to the Gentiles and whether this was preaching of the Word and receiving the Sacraments or rather a matter that concerned the Apostles and Elders that they might not thinke hard to preach the Gospell to the Gentiles I leave to the judicious Reader and if to be received of the Church Acts 15. 4. be a matter of word and Sacraments let all judge And if to lend a decree of a Synod Acts 15. 22. be the act of a Church assembled for word and Sacraments let the World judge and therefore all these places doe strongly confirme a Presbytery assembled for acts of Iurisdiction and matters that belong to many Churches as is most cleare Acts 14. 27. Acts 15. 4. Acts 15. 22. and seeing wee finde the name Church given to a meeting assembled onely for discipline or things that concerne many Churches for any thing wee can read or observe from the word as Acts 14. 27. Acts 15. 4 22. 30. Matthew 18. 17. and also the word Church given to a meeting assembled for the word 1 Cor. 14. 1 Cor. 11. 18. 20 22 23. Rom. 16. 1. and not for acts of Jurisdiction for ought that wee can collect from the word I beseech you Brethren why doe we contend if the word Church be a meeting of persons assembled to one place for spirituall duties sometimes for word and Sacraments onely sometimes for acts of Jurisdiction onely then is the word Church by our brethrens argument taken both for the Congregation and for the Elders of one or of diverse Churches and so wee have our intent And we desire our brethren to prove which they must prove if they oppose our principles that the word Church is never taken for the Eldership onely in all the Word of God but these places prove the contrary as I have shewen 2. Whereas our brethren say a company gathered into one place which is nothing else but a Congregation are called by the name of a Church I answer 1. Such a company is onely called by the name of a Church as I have proved for a company meeting for discipline onely Matthew 18. 17 1 Cor. 5. 4. is a Church also 2. It is false that a company gathered in one place are nothing else but a Congregation As you take the word Congregation for to you Congregation is an assembly of men and Women meeting for word and Sacrament with the Elders of the Church I appeale to the judgement of our reverend brethren If the Church Mat. 18. 17. assembled to bind and loose if the Church 1 Cor. 5. 4. though the Text speake nothing of the word Church assembled to deliver to Satan If the Church assembled Acts 14. 27. Acts 15. 2. to heare things which concerned the Apostles and many Churches rather then one If the multitude convened Acts 15. 30. to heare the decree of the Synod read and if the Church of Apostles and Elders from Antiosh and Ierusalem Acts 15. 22. be a Congregation or a Congregationall Church assembled for word and Sacraments as the word Church is taken Acts 11. 26. 1 Cor. 11 20 22 33. Mr. Mather and Mr. Thomson Num. 8. 10. The children of Israel which were not the Church of Officers layd on hands on the Levites therefore when a Church hath no Elders the people may conferre ordination and it is not to be tyed to the Presbytery onely Hence other of our Brethren say ordination is but accidentall to a Ministers calling and may be wanting if the people shall chuse in the defect of Elders Answ. Here two poynts are to be discussed shortly 1. If Ordination belong to the People 2. If Ordination to a certaine stick be necessary for certainly the people doe not call but to a certaine flock To the first I say There is not a place in all the Word of God where the people conferre ordination to the Pastors of the New Testament Therefore our brethren flee to the Old Testament to prove it from the Levites who received imposition of hands from the children of Israel but our brethren hold that the calling of the Levites and of the Pastors of the New Testament are different as the Officers and Churches of the Jewish and Christian Church are different 2. Our brethren grant pag. 49. That it wanteth all example in the New Testament that the people lay on hands 3. These who layd on hands on the Levite Num. 8. were Elders and our brethren say It is like they were but. 1. They did it not as Elders 2. But as representing the people not as Elders civill for that belonged to Aaron and his sonnes Levit. 8. else it will follow that where the Church hath no Magistrate to lay on hands the
an exception for a greater Law in eating the Passeover I thinke it might for in case of necessity they came and dwelt at Jerusalem for feare of the Army of the Chaldeans Jer. 35. 11. and yet their vow was to dwell in Tents From these ariseth Quest. I. If Pastors may performe Ministeriall Acts in any other Congregation than their owne This is answered unto by a Manuscript If you take a Ministeriall act improperly when a Minister doth exercise his gift of praying and preaching being required so to doe so hee may exercise some Ministeriall acts but this he doth not by vertue of any calling but only by his gifts and occasionally but if you meane by a Ministeriall act an act of authority and power in dispensing of Gods Ordinances as a Minister doth performe to the Church whereunto he is called to be a Minister then we deny that he can so performe any Ministeriall act to any other Church than his owne Hence though he may preach to another congregation yet may he not administer the Sacraments to an other then to his owne Answ. First We hold that by a calling or ordination he is made a Pastor by election he is restricted to be Ordinarily the Pastor of his flocke Secondly A Pastor is a Pastor of the Catholike Church but he is not a Catholike Pastor of the Catholike Church as were the Apostles Thirdly The Reformed Churches may send Pastors to the Indians for that which Acosta saith of Jesuites wee may with better reason say it of our selves That Pasiors are as Souldiers and some souldiers are to keepe order and remaine in a certaine place others run up and don ne in all places So some are affixed to a Congregation to feed them others may be sent to those people who have not heard of the Gospel Which sending is ordinary and lawfull in respect of Pastors sending and the Pastors who are sent because in Pastors even after the Apostles be dead there remaineth a generall Pastorall care for all the Churches of Christ. Thus sending is not ordinary but extraordinary in respect of those to whom the Pastors are sent yet is it a Pastorall sending This opinion of our Prethren is against the care of Christ who hath left no Pastorall care on earth by this way now since the Apostles dyed to spread the Gospell to those Nations who have not heard of the name of Christ but a Pastorall care for the Churches is not proper to Apostles onely but onely such a Pastorall care by speciall direction from Christ immediately to Preach to all 2. Backed with the gift of tongues and of miracles and this essentially differenceth the Apostle from the ordinary Pastor but the former Pastorall care to Preach the Gospell to all Nations and to convert is common both to the Apostle and Pastor 2. Our Brethren distinguish betwixt office and the calling and they say that the office extendeth no further then the call and by 〈◊〉 he is onely a Pastor of this determinate flocke But if he be a Pastor essentially in relation to none but to his owne Congregation from which he hath all his calling as is supposed by that same reason a Christian is a Baptized Christian to none but in relation to that particular Church in whose society he is admitted and he doth partake of Christs body and blood in the Lords Supper in relation to no visible professors on earth but onely to the Parish Church whereof he is a Member 1 Cor. 10. 17. for they expone that onely of a Parishionall Communion within one single independant Congregation And he must be a Heathen or as a Pagan in all Congregations on earth but in his owne yea and he is a visible professor of the Covenant of grace which is one in substance as they say with the Church-Covenant and hath claime to Christ and all his Ordinances in no Congregation save in his owne I prove the consequence for by Baptisme the Baptized person is incorporated in Christs visible Church 1 Cor. 12. 13. If this be true when one removeth from one Congregation to another hee must bee re-baptized and incorporated a visible member of a body visible with them And I see not how one can be in-churched to another Congregation and made one body therewith while he eate of one bread with them as they expone 1 Cor. 10. 17. if he be not also a member of all visible Churches on earth 3. If a Pastor can exercise no Pastorall acts toward any Congregation save toward his owne then a Pastor as a Pastor cannot pray for the whole visible Churches of God but the latter is absurd Ergo so is the former I prove the major The praying for the whole visible Churches is a Pastorall Act due to a Pastor as a Pastor 1. Because every visible Church is oblieged as it is a Church to pray for all the visible Churches on earth for as a Christian is oblieged to pray for all Churches visible so farre more is a Church now a visible Church doth not pray but by the Pastor who is the mouth of the People to God and that this is a Pastorall duty due to a Pastor I thinke is said Isa. 62. 6. I have set watchmen on thy Tower O Jerusalem which shall never hold their peace day nor night Yee that make mention of the Lord keepe no silence till he establish and tâ—ll â—â— make Jerusalem the praise of the whole earth Also Pastors as Pastors are to pray for the King though the King be no member of that Congregation whereof they be Pastors 1 Tim. 2. 1 2. every Pastor as a Pastor is to Preach against the sinnes of the Land else how can the People mourne for these sinnes Ergo the Pastor doth exercise Pastorall acts upon all the visible Churches on earth upon the King and upon the whole Land to which he is not a Pastor by speciall election 4. If a Pastor be oblieged to Preach in season and out of season and that as a Pastor and because he is a Pastor 2 Tim. 4. 2. Ergo he is to Preach as a Pastor in any Congregation where he shall be desired They answer He may Preach the word in another Congregation not by vertue of a calling or office but by vertue of his gifts I answer First if he Preach by vertue of a gift onely he Preacheth in that case not as sent of God and so intâ—udeth himselfe and runneth unsent and a meere gift to be a King or a Magistrate maketh not a Magistrate as Master Robinson granteth Ergo one cannot warrantably exercise a Pastorall act by vertue of a meere gift 2. He may in another Congregation preach with Pastorall authority and use the keyes by binding and loosing sinnes according as hearers doe repent and harden their nockes against the Gospell Ergo he may preach as a Pastor to another Congregation 3. There shall be no Communion betwixt Sister Churches in Pastorall acts as Pastorall which is
plant soules who were non-converts and branches of the wild olive in Christ Jesus and to make new visible Churches but it is certaine that the Apostles as Apostles and as Pastors by vertue of their office converted obstinate sinners to the faith of Christ and planted them in a visible Church consisting of professors of the faith partly converted partly not converted but the pastors by your doctrine have no power as Pastors or by any Pastorall authoritie to plant the Gospell where it hath never beene that pastorall spirit is dead with the Apostles and in this contrary to all reason and sense and contrary to the Scriptures you make private Christians the successors of the Apostles to plant Churches and to convert soules and to make them fit materialls for the visible Church of regenerate persons for Pastors as Pastors and visible Churches as visible Churches doe nothing at all to the multiplying of Churches seeing Pastors and visible Churches as they are such by your doctrine are but nurses to give suck to those who are already converted but not fathers to convert them for private Christians or pastors as Christians gifted to prophesie not as Pastors doe multiply Churches and convert men to Christ as you teach now wee all know that nurses as nurses doe not propagate or by generation multiply people in the Common-wealth that fathers and mothers onely can doe your Churches have no ministeriall breasts but to give suck to babes who are already borne but wee see by your doctrine no ministeriall power of Pastors or Churches to send forth members to enter in a Church covenant or to enter in a new Church relation of a daughter or a sister visible Church if they send a number to bee a new Church your Pastors or visible Church did not multiply them it is presumed they were converts before they were members of the visible Church which now sendeth them out and if they bee multiplied in the bosome of your visible Church and converted they were not truely members of that visible Church before their conversion and also that they were not converted by any publike ministery but by private Christians gifted to prophesie who are the onely successors of the Apostles to plant visible Churches but what pastorall authoritie have you to send them forth to bee a new visible Church none at all they have as beleevers power to remove from you and because of multiplication to make themselves a new Church and this ministeriall power of making themselves a new Church they have not from you but from their fathers who converted them so that you make a visible Church within a visible Church but not a Church begotten or borne of a visible Church as a child of the mother and wee desire a word of God either precept promise or practise of such a Church multiplication mans word is not enough 2. Wee hold that the sending of the Apostles to all the world was not in it selfe that which essentially distinguisheth the Apostle from the now ordinary Pastor who is fixed to a single Congregation but the gift of tongues to preach to all the world upon the Lords intention to send the Gospel to all nations that as many as were chosen to life might beleeve was that which essentially differenceth the Apostle from the ordinary pastor together with a speciall revelation of God to goe to such and such people to Macedonia and not yet to Bythinia And now seeing these two are taken away the ordinary Pastors which now are have as Pastors a sufficient calling to preach the Gospel to all nations to whom by Gods providence they shall come and can understand their language whether of their owne Congregation or not Neither is a Pastor tied as a Pastor by Gods Word to one onely Congregation for then it should bee unlawfull for a Pastor as a Pastor to plant a new Church but shall it bee lawfull for private Christians to plant new Churches who are not the Apostles successors and yet it shall bee unlawfull for Pastors who are the undoubted successors of the Apostles to plant new Churches I would think that admirable doctrine for so you give to private Christians that which you make essentiall to the Apostles and you deny it to the undoubted successors of the Apostles to wit to Pastors But we hold a lawfull Pastor is a Pastor in relation to all the world with this distinction hee is by Christs appointment and the Churches a Pastor to all congregations to plant and water and preach but by speciall designation of Gods providence and the Churches appointment designed and set apart for such a determinate flock just as the Apostles in generall were made Pastors to all the world Matth. 28 19. Go teach all nations but by speciall revelation and Apostolick appointment Peter was appointed the Apostle of the Jewes Paul of the Gentiles Gal. 2. 9. yet Paul was a Pastor in relation to the Jewes and Peter also in relation to the Gentiles so by speciall revelation Act. 16. they are forbidden to preach the word in Bythinia and commanded to preach it elsewhere and for this cause pious antiquity as Morton observeth called some learned fathers Pastors of the World Athanasius is saluted Pontifex maximus as Russinus saith and Origen magister ecclesiâ—rum master of the Churches so Hieronymus and Cyprian totius orbis praeses Cypâ—ian the Bishop of all the world yea and Pope so Nazianz. Hilarius is called by Augustine insignis ecclesiae doctor a renowned teacher of the Church and Nazianzenus calleth Basilius the light of the word and Damascenus the light of the whole world and Theodoret saith Chrysostome is called totius orbis terrarum doctor the Doctor and teacher of the whole world all which titles saith evidently that antiquitie beleeved never a Pastor or Bishop not to bee a Pastor onely in relation to the one single Congregation whereof hee is Pastor but a Pastor in relation to the whole visible Church though by designation of the Church his ministery bee appropriated to one particular Church Thus it is cleare that our brethren deny all communion of Churches while they confine a visible Church to one onely single and independent Congregation subjected in its visible government to Christ Jesus immediatly and to no universall visible Church or Synod on earth Quest. II. Whether the Magistrate hath power to compell persons to a Church profession Anent Magistrates sundry things are questioned to make presbyteriall government odious And first our brethren complaine that our Churches are constitute by the authoritie of the Magistrate Robinson saith it was a presumptuous enterprise that people were haled against their will into covenant with God to sweare obedience to the protestant Faith being a profane multitude living before in grosse idolatry and that by the authority of the supreme magistrate for the commandement of the magistrate say they can make no members of the visible Church or of
a Christian he is a member of the Church 5. The Kings power as King in things ecclesiasticke is not serviâ—e and meerely executive as the Churches servant to put their decrees in execution but it is regall princely and supreame 6. The object of the Kings power is not simply a peaceable life and externall peace of humane societies but also honesty and godlinesse but to be procured by a civill politicke regall and coactive way by the Sword of the secular arme as the object of the Church power is honesty and godlinesse to be procured by a ministeriall ecclesiasticall and spirituall power without any forcing of men by externall power 7. The end of Kingly power de jure by Gods right and divine Law exintentione Dei approbativâ is godlinesse but the end of Kingly power according to its essence and de facto is a quiet life though it attaine not Godlinesse as it doth not attaine that end nor can it attaine it amongst Pagans and yet there is a Kingly power in its essence whole and intire amongst Pagans where there is no godlinesse or Christian Religion 8. There is in Heathen Kings a regall and Kingly power to establish Christian Religion and adde regall sanctions to Christian Synods though there neither is nor can be during the state of Heathen Paganisme any Christian Religion there this power is essentially and actu primo regall yet as concerning execution it is vertuall onely 9. There is a difference betwixt a royall command under the paine of 〈◊〉 punishment with a royall power to punish the contraveners 〈◊〉 ecclesiasticke and a nomotbeticke power to make Church Lawes 〈…〉 hath the former power but not the latter 10. If the royall power be of that transcendent and eminent greatnesse as to make Lawes in all things belonging to Church 〈◊〉 and so as Camero must be heard saying that the â—ing is the supreame ruler and Church-men be as servants and instruments under him and doe all in the externall government of the Church by vertue of the Kings supreame authority the King is not much honoured by this for they must say that the King in the Physitian giveth dregs to the sicke in the Plow-man laboureth the earth in the fashioner seweth and sâ—aâ—eth garments whereas Paraeus who without reason also giveth to the Prince a nomothetick power in Church-matteâ—s doth except some things that the Prince cannot doe sometimes for want of right and law other sometimes for want of knowledge sometimes because it is against the dignity of his Majesty as in sordid and base arts 11. The power of governing the Church of the Jewes though it was ordinarily in the Priesthood the Sonnes of Aaron whose â—ippes did preserve ex officio knowledge Mal. 2. yet as the Prophets were raised up by God extraordinarily to teach they 〈◊〉 by that same extraordinary power did governe and therefore though the Kings of Israel were not Priests yet without doubt some of them were Prophets and as Prophets they did prophecy and as Prophets determine many things of Government by that same extraordinary power by which some of them to wit David and Solomon did prophecy and pen Caâ— niâ—k Scripture 12. There is one consideration of abuses and heresies manifestly re 〈◊〉 to Gods word and another of those things that are ordinar◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the former there is no neede of the Churches ministeriall power of condemning them and therefore Ezechias Josâ—as Asa â—â—osaphat did manifestly by the light of nature and Gods word 〈◊〉 abuses and Idolatry in Gods worship without the Churches 〈◊〉 seeing the Church representative was guilty of these cor 〈◊〉 us themselves but in the latter seeing the Kings place is to com 〈◊〉 and compell by externall force and bodily punishments and it is the Churches part to teach inserme binde and loose therefore the King can make no Church Canons Hence our first conclusion The Christian Magistrate as a Christian is a member of the Church but as a Magistrate he is not formally a member or part of the Church 1. Because he is neither a Pastor Doctor Elder nor Deacon as is cleare to any for these offices were compleate in the Church without the Magistrate Ephes. 1. 11. else Christ ascending to heaven should have given Kings for the edifying of his body Neither is hee as a Magistrate a part of the company of beleevers 1. Because then all Magistrates as Magistrates should bee professors of the faith which is knowne to bee false 2. Because the Magistrate as such is the head of an externall politick civill societie not of Christs body 2. The Magistrate as a Magistrate wanteth such things as essentially constituteth a member of the Church as a Magistrate onely hee hath neither baptisme profession nor faith because then heathen Magistrates should not bee Magistrates the contrary whereof the Word of God saith Jeremiah in Gods name commanded to obey the King of Babylon and Paul commanded to pray for Kings and heathen Magistrates 1 Tim. 2. 1. Hence let us have leave to deny these Hee who is the Churches nurs-father is the Churches father and a part of the family 2. Whose office it is to cause all in the visible Church to professe the truth obey God and keep his Commandements hee is a member of the Church 3. Hee who is a keeper and preserver of Law and Gospell by his office hee is by his office a member of the Church For the first hee is a father metaphorically and doth by an externall coactive power and by the sword nourish the Church and therefore is not the Church nor a part of the Church ex officio by his office as the nurs-father is not the child nor a part of the child whereof hee is nurse-father and this and both the other two are to bee denyed because the Magistrate doth neither nurse the Church nor cause the Church doe their dutie nor desend the Law and Gospell by any power that is intrinsecally Church-power but by the sword and coactive power which in no sort belongeth to Christs kingdome as a part thereof either as it is internall and invisible or externall or visible which is not of this world Joh. 1â— 36. 3. By no word of God can Salcobrigiensis and Weemes prove that the Magistrate as the Magistrate is a mixt persen and his power a mixt power partly civill partly ecclesiastick for â—â— the ruler commeth in amongst the ordinary Church-officers â— m. 12. Ephes. 4. 11. 1 Tim. 2. 2. which the Word of God doth â—â—ver insinuate and hee should no lesse watch for soules as â—â—e who is to give an account to God then other Church-officers Heb. 13. 17. for the Magistrates office may bee performed by himselfe alone hee himselfe alone may use the sword in all things which hee doth as a Magistrate as is cleare Rom. 13. 1. and 1 Pet. 2. 13. 14 the King judging his alone and the Kings deputie sent by him judging his alone is to
shall decree good or bad without examination also as Suarez the Councell of Paris their Law saith and Innocentius the first and Gregory the seventh doe teach Making Kings in their judgement slaves to the Pope and ' his determinations and to have no light but from their vertuall Church as the Moone hath all her light from the Sunne Our third distinction is that the Magistrate as Magistrate and a preserver of publicke peace may doe some thing when a Schisme and dissention is among the Church-men in a Synod 1. In this case he may punish perturbers of peace as Augustine answereth Gaudentius the Donatist and the separaters from the Church in which case the Magistrate indirectly condemneth one of the parties which the Church hath condemned but there be many other cases of dissention in this case therefore when the Magistrate findeth the Synod divided in two parties equally or three iâ— the corrupt part prevaile or foure in the case of the Churches aberration in one particular fact or five if there be an universall apostasie of the whole representative Church or sixe an universall defection of both the representative and essentiall Church all these being too casuall and of too frequent occurrence one and the same answer cannot be given and here be sundry subalterne distinctions considerable Hence our fifth Conclusion when there is an equall rupture in the body nothing extraordinary would be attempted if ordinary wayes can be had if Saul the ordinary Magistrate had at Gods Commandement killed Hagag Samuel the Prophet should not have drawne his Sword and therefore in this case the Magistrate would first seeke helpe from other Churches as that learned Apollonius saith But if that cannot be conveniently had as in a nationall Church it may fall out then the Magistrate as a preserver of peace and truth may command the sincerer part to conveene in a Synod and doe their duty as the good Kings of the people of God did 2 Chron. 15. Asa gathered together a people who entered in Covenant to seeke the Lord God with all their heart and layed an obligation of punishment to death on the rest v. 12 13. and Jehoshaphat 2 Chron. 23. 4. he layed charge on Hilkiah the High Priest and the Priests of the second order whom he knew to be better affected to the worke to bring out the Vessels made for Baal which proveth that the King should put the sincerest to doe that which in common belongeth to the whole in which case of the erring of the most part of the Church the Prince indirectly condemneth the erring part of the Synod because it is his place to forbid and to punish with the sword the transgressors of Gods Law But because his power is accumulative not privative under that pretence hee hath not power to hinder the sincerer part to meet and determine according to the Word of God 6. Conclusion In the case of the prevailing of the corrupt part of the Church or in the fourth case of the aberration of the Church in one particular the King hath a regall power to punish the Canonists if they shall decree in their Synod Popery and hereticall doctrine and so give to the Bride of Christ noysome and deadly milke the Prince as nursefather may punish the Canonists 1. Because hee is a keeper of both Tables of the Law and hath a royall power to inflict bodily punishment upon all sinnes even committed in foro exteriore ecclesiae as the King may punish false teachers 2. Because the Magistrates power is auxiliary accumulative as a tutor and nurâ—efather who hath law to helpe the Pupill and to adde to the inheriritance but hath no Law nor power to take away any part of the inheritance from the Pupill Ergo as a nursefather hee is to helpe the Church of Christ against the wicked Canons of the representative Church If any object then the King as King hath power to rescind and annull the ecclesiasticall Canons the contrary whereof that learned author of Altare Damascenum doth prove I answer that learned and worthy author proveth that the Prince cannot annull the Church-Canons and that the councell of Trent thought shame that the Pope should absolve any condemned by the Church-Canons and certainely the same power that maketh Canons should dissolve them but the Kings power cannot make Church-Canons for it is a part of the ministeriall calling to make Canons and therefore hee cannot annull and dissolve Canons but some greater Kingly power is due to the King in the case of the Churches aberring then in the case of the Churches right administration and as our Divines doe justly give to the Prince an extraordinary Kingly power in the case of universall apostasie of the Church as Jehoshaphat Hezekiah Josiah and other worthy reformers in the Church of the â—ewes did warrantably use their Kingly power when the Church-men were corrupted and negligent in their dutie so in a particular case of a particular error of the Synod the King as King may use his Kingly power in this fact that is secundum quid extraordinarie for the King is oblieged as King to adde his accumulative power of a civill sanction to all just and nâ—cessary Church constitutions and it the Canon or Church constitution bee wicked and popish he is oblieged to deny his civill sanction and not that onely for hee that is not with Christ is against him but hee is to imploy his kingly power against such Canons and so is to deliver the Church of God in that and in denying his accumulative power to unjust Canons hee addeth his kingly power accumulative to the true Church in saving them from these unjust Canons 2. Also it may bee objected If the King by a regall and coactive power may annull and rescind unjust Canons hee may by this coactive power make Canons for it is that same power to make and unmake Canons I answer if hee may annull unjust Canons that is liberate his subjects from civill punishment to bee inflicted for refusing obedience to such Canons and for bid the practise of wicked Church constitutions under the paine of the sword It will not follow that therefore hee may make Canons but onely that hee may adde his civill sanction to just Canons 2. Neither can the King properly annull the Canon but onely deny to adde his civill authoritie for the execution of such Canons But thirdly it is objected that the King bath a judgement that such Canons are wicked and superstition the Church-mens judgement at the assembly of Glascow Edenbrough an 1638 1639. is that such Canons are lawfull edificative and necessary then is the King obliged as King to deny his royall sanction and who shall bee Judge in the matter If you say the Word of God it satisfyeth not because both the King and the Synod alledgeth the Word of God as norm â— judicandi a rule of judging but the rule of judging is not formally the Judge
makers and definers in Oecumenick Councels and Bishops and Pastors and Doctors have all a meere power of advising and counselling which certainely all Christians on earth sound in the faith except women have O whither are all the tomes of the Councels Oecumenick nationall and provinciall evanished unto 3. Kings justly by this are made Popes and more then Popes for Kings onely have a definitive voyce in councells whereas Papists give a definitive voyce to all the lawfull members of the councell no lesse then to the Pope Weemes hath a distinction to save the Kings invading the Church-mens place while as hee giveth to Pastors a ministeriall interpretation of Scripture in the Pulpit and to the King a decretive and imperiall power of interpreting Scripture in the Senat. But 1. there is no exposition of the word at all imperiall but onely ministeriall by the Word of God except that imperiall interpretation that the Pope usurpeth over the consciences of men and this is as Bancroft said that the King had all the honors dignities and preheminencies of the Pope as Calderwood observeth and yet Edward the sixth and Edward the eighth would neither of them take so much on them What difference betwixt a Sermon made by the King in the Senat and the Pastor in the Pulpit It is that same word of God preached only the Kings is imperiall and so must bee in his owne as King the Pastors ministeriall in the name of Christ the distance is too great The administration of the Sacraments may be imperiall due to the King also as a pastorall administration is due to the Pastors 4. In the government of Church there is nothing set downe of the King but of Pastors to feede the flocke Act. 20. 28 29. to edifie the body of Christ Ephes. 4. 11. to rule the house of God 1 Tim. 3. 2 3 4. 16. to feede the sheepe and Lambs of Christ John 21. 14 15 16. and alwayes this is given to Pastors and Elders I know that Kings are nurs-fathers to feed edifie and watch over the Church causatively by causing others so to doe but this will not content the formalists except the King command and prescribe the externall worship of God Tooker Bancroft Whitegift Laâ—celot Andreas Salcobrigiensis have a maine distinction here That Pastors and Elders rule the Church as it is an invisible body by the preaching of the word and administration of the Saâ—raments and of this government the foresaid places speake but as the Church is a politick visible body the government thereof is committed to the King Bancroft said all the externall government of the Church is earthly and Wâ—iâ—eâ—gyft and Bancroft two grosse Divines made for the court say tâ—e externall government of the Church because externall is â—â—spiâ—â—tuall and not a thing belonging to Christs externall kingdome â—aith Bilâ—â—n but this is 1 false 2. Popish 3. Anabaptisticall 4. â—yrannicall False 1. Because externall and vocall preaching and a visible administration of the Sacrament in such an orderly way as Christ hath instituted is an externall ruling of Church members according to the â—aw of Christ as King an externall ordaining of the worship is an externall ordering of the worshippers according to the acts of worship thus ordered as sense teacheth us but the externall ordaining of the worship to preach this not this to celebrate in both kinds by prayer and the words of institution and not in one kind onely is an externall ordering of Gods worship therefore as Kings cannot administrate the Sacraments nor preach so neither can they have the externall government of the Church in their â—ands 2. The feeding of the flocke by Pastors set over the Church by the holy Ghost Act. 20. 28. includeth the censuring by discipline even the grievous Woolves entring in not sparing the flocke but drawing disciples after them vers 29 30 31. and therefore Pastors as Pastors are to watch and to try those who say they are Apostles 〈◊〉 not but doe lie Râ—vel 2. 2. by discipline so this externall â—eâ—ding is externall governing committed to Pastors whereas inward governing is indeed proper to Christ the head of the Church 3. What doe not the Epistles to Timothy containe comman dements about externall government to bee kept inviâ—â—able by Timothy not as a King I hope but as a Pastor even 〈◊〉 the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ 1 Tim. 6. 14. and this taketh away that poore shifâ— that the externall government of the Church as Tookerus saith was in the Apostles hands so long as persecuting Magistrates were over the Church but now when the Magistrates are Christians the case is changed but the government of all suâ—â— as Timothy is must bee visible externall and obvious to men as 1 Tim. 2. 1 2 3 4. 3. 1 2 3 4. â— 16. 1 Tim 5. 9. 1 Tim. 5. 19 20 21 22. 2 Tim. 2. 1 2 3 4. 2 Tim. 3 5. all which must bee kept untill the comming of Christ 1 Tim. 5. 21. 1 Tim. 6. 13. 2 Tim. 4. 1 2. 4. If externall government were in the Kings power then were it his part to rebuke publikely to excommunicate and to lay on hands upon the Timothies of the Church all which are denied by the formalists and are undoubtedly the Churches part as the Church Matth. 18. 17 18. 1 Tim. 5. 19 20 21 22 1 Tim. 3. 14. 1 Tim. 1. 20. 1 Cor. 5. 2 3 4 5. 5. Parker proveth well that the keyes are Christ as Kings ruling in word and discipline 2. This is popish for so doth the Papists teach as Stapleton and Becanus that the Pope quo ad externum infiuxum according to externall influence of visible government is head of the Church and Christ according to the internall influence of the spirit is the head of the invisible body of Christ and here the King is installed in that externall government out of which our Divines by Scriptures have extruded the Pope which is a notable dishonor done to Kings and as Parkerus observeth Joan. Raynoldus answereth that from two offices of the head which is to give life and influence of motion to the members and also to guide and moderate the actions externall of the body wee cannot make two heads and because the King hath some civill government about the Church wee cannot make two heads over the Church Christ one and the King another under him 3. This is Anabaptisticall for because the visible government of the Church is externall wee are not to cut off all necessitie of the ministery to feed and rule with ecclesiasticall authority and because the Prince is gifted and a Christian to give all to him for a calling there must bee from God for the King to governe the Church of Christ by Lawes and prescribing externall worship therein for Christ hath left Ephes. 4. 1 Cor. 12. 1 Tim. 3. men to bee feeders and governours of his Church by office whose it is to bee
act of justice at the direction of a Minister commanding him in Gods name to execute judgement impartially yet the King doth not an act of justice in the name and authority of the Church And that is true which Beâ—anus saith What the instrument doth the principall cause may do where the Vicar or Deputy and the principall substitutâ—r of the Vicar are both civill persons or are both Ecclesiasticall persons for in a large and unproper sense the nurse is a sort of deputy under the nurse father the Father may take care that the nurse give milke and wholsom milke to his child yet cannot the Father give milke himself The King may take care actu imperato as one intending in a Kingly way that Christs body bee edifyed that the Priests and Prophets feed with knowledge the Church and sister of Christ and so are the Priests under the King and at his command to feed and to feed with wholsome food the flocke and in obedience to the King all are to do their duty and his care is universall over all and his end universall That which is the end of Pastors Doctors Elders Deacons Lawyers Judges c. is in an universall intention the Kings end even Gods honor by pâ—â—curing in a regall way that all do their duty in keeping the two Tables of the Law and so is hee the great politick wheel moving by his royall motions all the under wheeles toward that same end yet cannot the King without sinne and being like a Bird wandring from her nest do that which is properly Pastorall so that the Office is not subordinate to him but immediately from God yet are the operations of the Office and to Preach tali modo diligently sound Doctrine subordinate to him but in a generall and universall way as hee is a kingly mover of all to keep the two Tables of the Law Neither did the King as Suarez saith one and the same way appoint both the High Priest and the civill Judge And Cajetan saith he decerneth the two chiefe heads of Church and Common-wealth but hee appointed not both for God appointed Amariah to bee High Priest and not the King but here is nothing to prove the Kings headship Asa reformed the Church and renewed the Covenant Ezekiaâ— reformed Religion also and brake in peeces the Brazen Serpent and all these in the case of universall apostasie and the corruption of the Priest-hood did reforme the Lords house breake in peeces graven Images but all this giveth to them no mixt Ecclesiasticall power of making Canons of ordaining and depriving Pastors Whereas some object That the care both of temporall good and spirituall good belongeth to the Magistrate therefore hee must have a power to make Church Laws See Pareus For his care cannot bee supreme if hee must rule at the nod and beck of Church-men I Answer the connexion is weak hee who hath the care of both the temporall and spirituall good of the people hee hath a nomothetick power to procure both these two goods it followeth no way for then might hee have a power in his own person to Preach and administrate the Sacraments this power procureth the spirituall good but such as is the care such is the power the care is politick and civill Ergo the power to procure the spirituall good must bee politick and civill 2. Neither is the King to do all at the nod and direction of the Priesthood blindly and without examination That is the blind doctrine of Papists wee hold that hee hath a regall power to examine if the Decrees of the Church bee just Orthodox and tend to edification For hee is the Minister of God for good and to take vengeance on evill doing And there is no just obligation to sinne hee is not obliged to punish with the sword well-doing but evill doing and the Church can oblige the Magistrate to do nothing but that which in case there were no Church Law and in case of the Churches erring hee should doe 2. They object He to whom every soule is subject he hath a power to make Church Laws about all good but all and every soule without exception of Apostles or Church-men is subject to the civill Magistrate Ergo. The proposition is proved from the Law of relatives for he to 〈◊〉 we are subject he may give Lawes unto us for our gâ—â—d See Pareus Answ. He to whom we are subject may give any Lawes or command any manner of way for our good I deny the proposition in that sense for then he might in the Pulpit preach the Commandements of God for our good He might give Laws under the paine of excommunication It is enough that he may give Laws by sanction and civill enacting of Church Laws and pressing us by the power of the Sword to doe our duty for the attaining of a spirituall good He to whom we are subject he may give Laws that is presse in a coactive way obedience to Laws that is most true but it proveth not a nomothetick power in the King 3. They object What ever agreeth to the Kingly power concerning the good of Subjects by the Law of Nations that doth farre more agreeth Kings by the Law of God For the Law of God doth not desir 〈…〉 â—e Law of Nations But by the law of Nations a care 〈◊〉 Religion belong th to the King for Religion by the Law of nature is indâ—â—ed and brought in by the Law of Nations As Cicero saith And therefore to a Christian Kingly power the care of Religion must be due Answer we grant all for a care in a civill and politick way belongeth to the Christian Prince but a care by any meane whatsoever by Preaching or by making Church Canons is not hence proved by no light of nature or Law of Nations in an ecclesiasticall care of Religion due to the Christian Prince but onely in a politick and civill way 4. All beleevers even private men may judge of Religion not onely by a judgement of apprehension but also of discretion to try what Religion is true and to be holden and what is false and to be rejected Ergo farre more may the Christian Magistrate definitively judge of Religion so he doe it by convenient meanes such as are sound and holy Divines and the rule of Gods word The consequence is proved because the faithfull Prince hath supreame power which is nâ—mothetick and a power to make Lawes Answer it is true all private beleevers may try the Spirits whether they be of God or not but hence we may as well conclude therefore Princes may preach and administer the Sacraments as therefore the Prince may define matters ecclesiasticall For a eivill coactive power giveth to no man an ecclesiasticall power except he be called thereunto as Aaron was 2. The meanes alleadged are the judgement of holy and pious Divines and the word of God but Moses whom they alleadge for a patterne of a civill ruler who