all gifted persons as our brethren teach may preach and so the gifted ones amongst the people have authority over the Pastors in this meaning as well as the Pastors have over them and so the difference of rulers and ruled of feeders and the fed is taken away Now for the power of Pastorall teaching the Pastors have authority over the Church but that is over the invisible Church of beleevers and regenerated persons for Pastors as Pastors doe not convert Soules and so they preach to the unconverted not as Pastors or with any Pastorall care for they teach that Pastors Doctors and Church-officers are given Ephes. 4. 11. onely for confirming of those who are already converted not for converting of Soules and by this meanes 1. Pastors doe not preach the Law for the humbling of unconverted sinners they doe not as Pastors or by vertue of the office open the eyes of the blinde nor are they Ministers by whom men beleeve 1 Cor. 3. 5. nor are they Fathers who begot men in Christ Jesus through the Gospell as 1 Cor. 4. 25. Nor doe they pray men in Christs stead to be reconciled unto God as 2 Cor. 5. 20. Which is strange and uncouth Doctrine of our brethren for all these acts ministeriall are performed upon non-converts who are not properly members of Christs mysticall body nor of the spouse of Christ nor members of the visible Church nor the Sonnes and Daughters of the Lord God Almighty nor have some measure of sincerity and truth as this author Chap. 3. Sect. 3. requireth of members of the visible Church and these are not under any pastorall care really and in very deed who are yet unconverted to the faith therefore the Pastor if hee convert any by his preaching he doth it by vertue of his gift not as a Pastor or by vertue of his office as they teach in their answer to the 32. questions so as Pastors they have no authoritie over the unconverted within the visible Church and this authoritative act of Elders over the people falleth to the ground by their principles 3. This authoritative preaching doth not yet make over to the Elders authoritative power above or over the people such as wee now seeke For 1. By this ruling Elders who do not preach and labour not in the Word and doctrine 1 Tim. 7. 17. by office have not this power Ergo yet you give no peculiar authoritie to the whole Eldership over the people 2. The Spirit of God requireth an authority of overseeing and governing to bee in Pastors beside the authoritative power of preaching for besides that a Bishop should bee â—apt to teach 1 Tim. 3. 2. hee must also v. 4 5 6. bee one who can both govern his own house and also the Church of God and not onely must hee not neglect the gift of prophecying 1 Tim. 4. 14. but also hee must know 1 Tim. 3. 13. how to behave himselfe in the Church of God and must bee circumspect in receiving accusations against an Elder and lay hands suddenly on no man and not be partaker of other mens sinnes 1 Tim. 5. 19. 22. he must not onely bee an approven workman to divide the Word aright 1 Timothey 2. 15. and preach in season and out of season 2 Tim. 4. 2. but also must commit the Word to faithfull men who are able to teach others 2 Tim. 2. 2. All which are singular points of authoritative power of government different from authoritative power of teaching And so Titus must not onely have the oversight by sound doctrine to exhort and convince the gainesayers Tit. 1. 9. but hee hath power in governing to order the things of discipline and to appoint Elders in every citie Tit. 1. 9. Act. 4. 23. yea there is an oversight in watching for soules in governing no lesse then in teaching Hâ—b 13. 17. Now this Author sheweth us nothing that is a peculiar authoritative power in ruling governing and a disciplinary overseeing of soules which the Word giveth to Elders as they are Elders and called Governors of Gods people as yet yea all the people are governors rulers and overseers in government by them no lesse then the Elders 4. The Author saith Elders have rule over the Church in dispensing all the censures of the Church unlesse it bee in their owne cause for though they take the consent of the Church in dispensing a censure yet they set on the censures with great authoritie in the name of the Lord yea it is no small power that they put forth in directing the Church what censures are due according to the word as though the Judge dispense no sentence but according to the verdict of the Jury yet his authority is great both in directing the Jury to give their verdict according to the Law and in pronouncing the sentence with power and terrour the like dâ—e the Elders in dispensing Church censures Answ. This dispensing of Church censures hath two branches 1. A directing of the Church in the qualitie of the censures 2. A binding of the censures upon them or in executing the censures of the Church For the former if it bee a pastorall direction it is all one with preaching of the Word and is not an act of authority by way of governing but by way of pastorall teaching But 1. Wee would have a word from God giving this power of the keyes peculiarly to the Pastors for if you give the keyes to all the Church of beleevers as beleevers and because they are Christs Spouse his mysticall body the habitation of his Spirit by faith then with your good leave there bee neither keyes nor any power of the keyes given to the Pastors as Pastors and in respect of their office but onely as they are a part of Christs body now as Pastors or Elders they are neither beleevers nor the bride nor a part of the bride but at best the friends of the Bridegroome Joh. 3. 29. especially seeing the Church as the Church and as using actually the keyes doth censure and judicially prescribe the qualitie and quantitie of the censure as they are directed Matth. 18. 1 Cor. 5. 2 3 4 5. yea and the Church judicially and authoritatively pronounceth the sentence and maner of the censure on the sentence for example of ten collaterall and coequall Judges if two of these ten bee skilled Juristes and shall direct the rest in the qualitie of the punishment to bee inflicted upon a malefactor that direction commeth from them not as Judges over the rest nor by any peculiar power that they have above the rest seeing all the ten are equally and joyntly Judges of a like power but that direction commeth from them as skilled Jurists So here though the Elders direct the Church anent the qualitie of the censure they doe not this by an authority above the Church seeing the Church with them have received the Keyes yea they principally as the Spouse of Christ and his mysticall body have received the keyes and
Elders of Jerusalem for 〈◊〉 can Elders of one sister Church impose Lawes burdens â—28 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 decrees Ch. 16. 4. upon sister Churches or hâ—w can they pen canonicall Scripture joyntly with the Apostles Some of our brethren say so much of those degrees that they obliged formally the Churches as Scriptures doe oblige the learned Junius saith well that the Apostles did nothing as Apostles where there was an ordinarie and established Elderyâ—â— in the Church therefore those Elders behoved to bee the 〈◊〉 of Antioch for Act. 17. v. 2. 〈…〉 Commissioners were 〈◊〉 from Antioch then Paul and 〈…〉 I thinke also the Churches of Cyria and 〈◊〉 〈…〉 there as well as Antioch and de jure 〈…〉 should have beene there The case was theirs every way the same with the Church of Antioch and their soules subverted v. 24. 6. Those who are named v. 22. Apostles Elders and the whole Church are called v. 25. Apostles and Elders and Brethren and elsewhere alwayes Apostles and Elders Elders including brethren or the whole Church v. 22. of some chosen men and brethren as Act. 13. 2. v. 6. Ch. 16. 4. Act. 21. 18. 25. 2. I desire to try what truth is here that this Synod but power and authoritie in points dogmaticall but no Church-power saith the seventh proposition of the reverend and godly Brethren of New England and no power of jurisdiction but the Church of Antioch had Church-power and power of jurisdiction to determine this cause and censure the contraveeners as our Brethren say But I assume this Synod tooke this Church-power off their hand and with the joynt power of their owne Commissioners sent from Antioch v. 2. v. 22. 23. determined both cause and controversie and it never returned to any Church-Court at Antioch as is cleare v. 25 26 27 28. Ergo this Synod had a Church-power 2. A power and authoritie dogmaticall to determine in matters of doctrine is a Church-power proper to a Church as is granted by our brethren and as wee prove from Act. 20. 29. This is a part of the over-sight committed to the Eldership of Ephesus to take heed to men rising amongst themselves speaking perverse things that is teaching false doctrine and if they watch over them as members of their Church for they were v. 30. men of their owne they were to censure them 2. If Pergamus bee rebuked Reâ—el 2. 14. 15. and threatned with the removing of their Candlesticke because they had amongst them those who held the doctrine of Balaam and the doctrine of the Nicolaitans hated by Christ himselfe and did not use the power of jurisdiction against them then that Church which hath power dogmaticall to judge of doctrine hath power also of jurisdiction to censure those who hold the false doctrine of Balaam and v. 20. Christ saith to Thyatira Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because thou suffâ—â—â— that woman Jesabel which calleth herselfe a Prophetesse to teach and to seduâ—e my servants to commit fornication and to eate things sacrifâ—â—d to Idols Hence I argue what Church hath power to try the false doctrin of Jesabel and is blamed for not censuring her but permitteth her to teach and to seduce the servants of God hath also power of jurisdiction against her false doctrine this poposition I take to bee evident in those two Churches of Pergamus and Thyatira I assume but this Synod Act. 15. hath authoritie and power to condemne the false doctrine taught by subverters of soules teaching a necessitie of circumcision in the Churches of Syria Cilicia Antioch c. Act. 15. vers 23 24. Therefore this Synod hath power of jurisdiction 3. Every societie which hath power to lay on burdens as here this Synod hath v. 28. and to send decrees to be observed by the Churches as Act. 16. 4. and to send and conclude that they observe no such thing and that they observe such and such things Act. 21. 25. by the power of the holy Ghost conveened in an Assembly 25. and judging according to Gods Word as â— 7 8 9 10 11 12 c. these have power of juridiction to censure the contraveners but this Synod is such a societie Ergo it hath this power The Proposition is Matth. 18. 18. If hee refuse to heare the Church let him be to thee as a heathen and a publican nothing can bee answered here but because this Synod commandeth onely in a brotherly way but by no Church-power therefore they have no power of jurisdiction But with reverence of these learned men this is petitio principii to begge what is in question for the words are cleare a brotherly counsell and advise is no command no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no decree which wee must observe and by the observing whereof the Churches are established in the faith as is said of these decrees Act. 16. 4 5. To give a brotherly counsell such as Abigail gave to David and a little maide gave to Namaan is not a burden laid on by the commander but it is said of this decree v. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It seemed good to the holy Ghost to lay no other burden on you Also we do not say that power of jurisdiction is in provinciall or nationall Synods as in the Churches who have power to excommunicate for 1. this power of jurisdiction in Synods is cumulative not privative 2. It is in the Synod quoad actus imperatos potius quam act us elicitos according to commanded rather then to elicit acts for the Synod by an ecclesiasticall power added to that intrinsecall power of jurisdiction in Churches doth command the Churches to use their power of jurisdiction rather then use it actually her selfe Let me also make use of two propositions agreed upon in a Synod at New England Their 3. proposition The fraternitie have an authoritative concurrence with the Preshyteny in judiciall Acts. 4. Proposition The fraternitie in an Organicall body actu subordinate id est per modum obedientiae in subordination by way of obedience to the Presbytery in such judiciall Acts 2 Cor. 10. 6. Now if here the whole Church of Jerusalem as they say from v. 22. was present and joyned their authoritative concurrence to these decrees there was here in this Synod an Organicall body of eyes eares and other members that is of Apostles Teachers Elders and people and so a formed Church by our brethrens doctrine â—â—gs Paul and Barnabas v. 2. being sent to this Synod by the Church of Antioch to complaine were sent to tell the formed and organicall Churches as it is Matth. 18 19 which is a good argument if not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Aristotle saith yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. If the Brethren here concurre as giving obedience to the Elders and the Apostles doe here determine as Apostles and Elders then the brothren in this Organicall body doe concurre to the forming of these decrees by way of obedience to the
the most part 2. If the sinnes be against the worship of God as idolatry or sinnes of a wicked conversation the worship of God remaining pure and sound at least in professed fundamentals 3. If the idolatry be essentiall idolatry as the adoring of the worke of mens hands or onely idolatry by participation as Popish ceremonies the Surplice and Crosse being as meanes of worship but not adored and so being Idols by participation as Amesius and M. Ball doe well distinguish and before them so doth the learned Reynold and Bilson make use of the distinction 4. All lenity must be used against a Church if not more lenity then we use in proceeding against single persons 5. Divers degrees of separation are to be considered hence these considerations 1. There is a separation Negative or a non-union and a separation Positive Though a Church of Schismaticks retaining the sound faith yet separating from other be deserted by any it is a Negative separation from â— true Church and laudable as the faithfull in Augustins time did well in separating from the Donatists for with them they were never one in that faction though they separated not from the true faith holden by Donatists but kept a Positive union with them so doe all the faithfull well to separate from the Churches of the Separatists 2. If the whole and most part of the Church turne idolatrous and worship Idols which is essentiall idolatry we are to separate from that Church the Levites and the two Tribes did well as Mr. Ball saith to make a separation from Jeroâ—oams Calves and the godly laudably 2 King 16. 11. did not separate from the Israel and Church of God because the Altar of Damascus was set up and because of the high places Things dedicated unto Idols as Lutheran Images may be called and are called 1 Cor. 10. 34. idolatry yet are they idolatry by participation and so the Cup of Devils 1 Cor. 10. Paul doth not command separation from the Church of Corinth and the Table of the Lord there 3. Consideration There is a separation from the Church in the most part or from the Church in the least and best part In Achabs time Israel and the Church thereof for the most part worshipped Baal Elias Micajaâ— Obadiah and other godly separated from the Church of Israel in the most part Jeremiah wished to have a Cottage in the Wildernesse no doubt a godly wish that he might separate from the Church all then for the most part corrupted yet remained they a part of the visible Church and a part in the visible Church and therefore did he not separate from the Church according to the least and best part thereof The godly in England who refused the Popish ceremonies and Antichristian Bishops did well not to separate from the visible Church in England and yet they separated from the mainest and worst part which cannot be denied to be a ministeriall Church 4. Considerat If a Church be incorrigible in a wicked conversation and yet retaine the true faith of Christ it is presumed God hath there some to be saved and that where Christs ordinances be there also where Christs ordinances be there also Christs Church presence is And therefore I doubt much if the Church should be separated from for the case is not here as with one simple person for it is cleare all are not involved in that incorrigible obstinacy that is yet a true visible communion in which we are to remaine for there is some union with the head Christ where the faith is kept sound and that visibly though a private brother remaining sound in the faith yet being scandalous and obstinately flagitious be to be cast off as an Heathen yet are we not to deale so with an orthodox Church where most part are scandalous 5. Considerat I see not but we may separate from the Lords Supper where bread is adored and from baptisme where the signe of the Crosse is added to Christs ordinances and yet are we not separated from the Church for we professedly heare the word and visibly allow truth of the doctrine maintained by that Church which doe pollute the Sacraments and we are ready to seale it with our bloud and it is an act of visible profession of a Church to suffer for the doctrine mentioned by that Church 6. We may well hold that Ambrose saith well that a Church wanting the foundation of the Apostles is to be forsaken 7. There is a forced separation through Tyranny from personall communion and a voluntary separation David was forced to leave Israel and was cast out of the Inheritance of the Lord the former is not our sinne and our separation from Rome hath something of the former the latter would be wisely considered 8. There may be causes of non-union with a Church which are not sufficient causes of separation Paul would not separate from the Church of the Jewes though they rejected Christ till they openly blasphemed Act. 13. 44 45 46. Act. 18. 16. And when they opposed themselves and blasphemed Paul shooke his â—ayment and said unto them Your blood be upon your owne heads I am cleane from henceforth I will goe to the Gentiles There is a lawfull separation and yet before the Jewes came to this there was no just cause why any should have joyned to the Church of the Jewes who denyed the Messiah and persecuted his Servants Act. 4. Act. 5. seeing there was a cleaner Church to which Converts might joyne themselves Act. 2. 40 41 42. 9. There is no just cause to leave a lesse cleane Church if it be a true Church and to goe to a purer and cleaner though one who is a Member of no Church have liberty of election to joyne to that Church which he conceiveth to be purest and cleanest 10. When the greatest part of a Church maketh defection from the Truth the lesser part remaining sound the greatest part is the Church of Separatists though the maniest and greatest part in the actuall exercise of Discipline be the Church yet in the case of right Discipline the best though sewest is the Church for truth is like life that retireth from the maniest members unto the heart and there remaineth in its fountaine in case of danger CHAP. 4. SECT 6. The way of the Churches of Christ in New England IN this Section the Reverend Author disputeth against the Baptizing of Infants of unbeleeving or excommunicated neareit Parents of which I have spoken in my former Treatise Onely here I vindicate our Doctrine And first the Authour is pressed with this the excommunicated persons want indeed the free passage of life and vertue of the Spirit of Jesus till they be tuitched with repentance yet they are not wholly cut off from the society of the faithfull because the seed of faith remaineth in them and that knitteth them in a bond of conjunction with Christ. The Authour answereth It is true such excommunicates
or Church assembly have any power to bind the Churches to obedience because these commandements and decrees of censure are but ministeriall and limited and in so farre onely of force as they have reason from the Word of God as you say 3. Conclusion There is an authoritative power in Synods whereby they may and doe command in the Lord the visible Churches in their bounds the whole Churches are subject to the ordinance and decree of the Church Act. 1. where with common consent of a Synodicall meeting Matthias is ordained an Apostle Ergo all the Churches are to take him for an Apostle This argument cannot bee repelled because the Apostles by their extraordinary power did choose Matthias Because 1. they themselves cite this place to prove the peoples power ordinary which is to indure to Christs second comming in calling and electing their owne officers and Elders 2. Almain a Papist alleadgeth the place with good reason to prove that a generall councell is above Peter or the Pope because Peter would not choose Matthias without consent of the Apostles and Church 3. If this was extraordinary that Matthias was chosen why then is the vow and consent of the Church sought for there is nothing extraordinary and Apostolick flowing from an Apostolick spirit which is concluded or done by the spirit ordinary of the Church of beleevers So also Act. 6. If the Apostles did not by the ordinary and Synodicall power of ordinary Pastors choose seven Deacons how doe they first require that the Churches of Grecians and Hebrewes should seek out seven men v. 3. and did ordaine them with the common consent of the whole multitude v. 5. Act. 15. A Synod of moe Churches give decrees which obliege the Churches v. 28. ch 16. v. 4. Ergo Synods have authoritie over the Churches Those who say this Synod is not a patterne for after Synods say farre aside for their reason is this was 1. An Apostolick Synod 2. the holy Ghost was here 3. the thing determined was canonick Scripture But this is a way to clude all the promises made to Pastors in the word when as they are first made to Apostles this promise Behold I am with you to the â—nd of the world and this I will send you the other Comforter who 〈◊〉 lead you in all truth cannot bee made to faithfull Pastors and the Christian Church that now is for it is certaine Christ is otherwise present with his Apostles then with his Pastors after them And that he gave them a tongue a spirit when they were before the councels and rulers as to Apostolick men as Act. 4. 8. 9 10. Act. 5. 29. as Christ promised Matth. 10. 19. 20. Luk. 21. 13 14 15. for they were full of the holy Ghost before rulers but by our brethrens doctrine it shall follow none of these promises belong to Pastors now adayes in the like because no pastors now are Apostles Surely this were to fetter and imprison many glorious promises within the pale of the onely Apostolick Church and because Christ ascending to heaven sent downe the Apostolick spirit to his Apostles to write and preach canonick Scripture it shall follow he fulfilleth that promise John 16. 13. to none now adayes because none have the Apostolike spirit in the manner and measure that the Apostles had Yea further it is canonick Scripture that the Apostles at the last supper did shew forth the Lords death till be come againe therefore it shall follow that we have no warrant to shew forth the Lords death till he come againe 2. But that the Apostles in an ecclesiastick way did determine in the Synod for our imitation and not in an Apostolike way is cleare by many evidences in the text as Act. 15. 2. Paul and Barnabas were sent commissioners to the Apostles and Elders about this question Paul as an Apostle needed not be sent to know more of the matter then he knew as an Apostle for as an Apostle he knew the whole mystery of the Gospel Gal. 1. 16. 17. Ephes. 3. 4 5. Ergo he was sent to the Synod as a Pastor and that as an ordinary Pastor 2. They came together v. 6. to consider of this businesse but as Apostles they needed not the help of a Synod Ergo they came together as ordinary Pastors for the Churches after imitation 3. There was much debating and disputing v. 7. about the matter 4. They set down their minds and sentences in order one after another as Peter first v. 7. 8. then Barnabas and Paul v. 12. then James v. 13. and to James his sentence the whole Councell agreeth v. 22. Now what the Apostles as Apostles and from an infallible Spirit do they doe it not by seeking light and help one from another 5. The Decree of the Councell is a thing that Apostles Elders and Brethren and the whole Church resolveth after much dispute v. 22. But all these especially brethren and the whole beleevers as our Brethren say doe not joyne themselves with the Apostles either to write canonick Scripture or to give their consent to the writing of it therefore they doe consent by a synodall authority for the after imitation of the Churches Also there bee reasons of moment for Synods and 1. if according to the Law of nature and nations no man can bee a Judge in his owne cause then are appeales from the Eldership of one congregation when they are a party to the accused person naturall and from a Session to the Presbyteries and Synods of many moe Elders But the former is reason nature Law of Nations Ergo so is the latter 1. It is best reason which hath most of Scripture Paul and Barnabas Act. 15. 1. 2. had no small disputation with those who said circumcision was necessary finding their parties could not be Judges They appeale to a generall councell at Jerusalem where were the Apostles and Elders The Church of the Grecians and the Church of the Hebrewes strive neither of them can judge other and both appeale to a higher judicatory to the twelve Apostles and their owne Churches meeting with them and there is the matter determined aâ—ent helping the poore by Deacons if the Judge doe wrong and one particular congregation shall oppresse one sincere and sound beleever what remedy hath the care of Christ provided for this that the oppressours may be edisied by Church censures and the oppressed freed and delivered by remedy of discipline of Christ whose it is to judge the poore of the people and to save the children of the needy Ps. 72. 4. Now it is knowne that Diotrephes doth sometime excommunicate and the evill seâ—vant ruleth all Hieronymus saith Arrians ruled all in the dayes of Constantius and Valens Basil saith we may say in our time that there is neither Prince nor Prophet nor Ruâ—â—â— nor oblation nor incense Athanasius and Vincentius Lirinent complain'd that it was in the Arrians times as with the Church and Prophets in the
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
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
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
Church which I grant is true and the end of the Ruler should be onely preservation of peace and the externall tranquillity of the Common-wealth yea I say from the Word of God that externall peace is too narrow an end and it doth belong to the second Table the Kings end as Nurse-father and his a like care is to preserve the first Table and as a Nurse-father to see that the childrens milke be good and wholesome though the milke come not from his owne breasts and so his power hath a kingly relation to all the Word of God and not to externall peace and naturall happinesse onely And the King as the King his end is edification and spirituall good of soules also but alwayes by a kingly power and in a coactive way by the sword whereas the Church are in their care of edifying soules to use no such carnall weapons in their warfare 2 Cor. 10. 4. For which cause that learned P. Martyr and 〈◊〉 Parker and also the Professors of Leyden say that Ministers deale with consciences of men Quoniam Spiritus Sanctus inquit Martyr vim suam adjungit cum praedicationibus orthodoxis the holy Spirit conjoyneth the power and influence of grace with sound preaching and the Magistrate doth onely exercise externall discipline And Parker reasoning against Whitgift and 〈◊〉 proveth well that the Church visible though externall yet is Christs spirituall Kingdome and that Church discipline is a part of Christs spirituall Kingdome and that the externall government of Christ by discipline is spirituall every way according to the efficient 1 Cor. 12. 1. according to the end spirituall â—dification Ephes. 4. 12. according to the matter the Word and Sacraments 2 Cor. 10. 3 4. according to the forme of working by the evidence of the Spirit 2 Cor. 2. 4. 13. And this is the cause I conceive why great Divines have said the object of the Magistrates power as a Magistrate is the externall man and earthly things because he doth not in such a spirituall way of working take care of the two Tables of the Law as the Pastor doth and yet the spirituall good and edification of the Church in the right preaching of the Word the Sacraments and pure discipline is his end It is true whether the blasphemer professe repentance or not the Magistrate is to punish yea and to take his life if he in seducing of many have prevailed but yet his end is edification even in taking away the life for he is to put away evill that all Israel may feare and doe so no more but this edification is procured by the sword and by a coactive power and so the Church power and the kingly power differ in their formall objects and their formall ends But Spalato speaketh ignorantly of Kings Who saith as the internall and proper end of the Art of painting the Art of sailing c. is not life eternall but onely to paint well according to the precepts of Art and to bring men safe to their harborie though the persons who are painters and sailers may direct works of their Art to life eternall so saith he the end of the kingly Art is not life eternall but onely the externall peace of the Common wealth hence inferreth he that there is no subordinatim betwixt the power of the Magistrate and the power of the Church but that they are both so immediate under God as the Church cannot in a Church way regulate the King as a King but onely as he is a christian man the Church may rebuke the King while as he abuseth his kingly power to the destruction of soules and that the Church power as such is not subordinate to the kingly power onely the King may correct with the sword the Pastors not as Churchmen and Pasâ—ors but as men who are his subjects But 1. whereas it is certaine the King in respect of politick power is the immediate Vicegerent of God and above any subject in his Dominions so doth the Bishop make the Shoe-maker the Painter the master-fashioner immediate unto God and censurable by none as they are Artificers even as the King is censurable by none as King and so the King is dishonoured who by office is the Lords annoynted and a little God on earth Psal. 82. v. 1. 2 The intrinsecall end of kingly power is no more the advancing of godlinesse and the promoving of the Kings daughter towards life eternall by the sincere milke of the Word as the Lords Vicegerent and Nurse-Father of the Church then the Painter as a Painter or a Sea-man as a Sea-man is to advance godlinesse for this mans intrinsecall and is onely a safe harbour and shoare to temporall lives not the harbour of salvation to soules and his end is onely a faire Image of Art in Paper or Clay not the Image of the second Adam and by this the King as King is interdicted of any Church businesse or care of soules to be fed by the Word or Sacraments to keepe them cleane if he looke to any of these as an end that is not the eye or intention of the King as King but of the King as a godly Christian saith Spalato hence to care for the spirituall good of the Church and the promoving of the Gospel is as accidentall as to say an excellent Painter such as Apâ—ies intendeth in his painting life eternall so the King by this looketh to the Law of God to Religion and the eternall happinesse of the Church by guesse by accident and as King hath neither chaire nor roome in Christian Synods nor a seat in the Church 3. If the meaning be that the King as King that is rightly exercisng the office of a King is subordinate to no Church power that is he cannot be justly and deservedly rebuked by Pastors that is most true but nothing to any purpose for so the Pastor as a Pastor Jeremiah as he doth truly and in the name of the Lord exercise the propheticall office cannot be deservedly censured nor punished either by the Church-synodrie or the King and Princes of the Land but thus way all members of the Church an I any one single beleever doing his duty should be as immediate and independent and highest next on earth to Christ as the King and his three Estates of the Honourable Parliament are in civill matters and as an Occumenick Councell or in our brethrens meaning independent Congregation which is against reason But if the meaning be the acts of a King as aberring from justice not as a King but as a fraile man may be censured and rebuked deservedly by Pastors in a Church way this way also the Pastor as a Pastor is not subject to the Church but onely as a fraile man and so nothing is said to the purpose in this more then the in the former But if the meaning be thirdly that which onely maketh good sense that the acts of the King abstracted from good or bad or as kingly or