It s true they may say he plays the Tyrant in that but yet God hath given him the onely supreme power both to inquire saith Mr. H. and judge of Professions and Religions which is true and ought to be maintained which is false and ought to be rejected And if so the many godly who fled from Old England to New England because of Prelatical Tyranny of conscience did believe that the late King Charles had power as a King to judge the Service book and Ceremonies imposed upon the godly in England yea and upon Scotland also was the onely true Religion and had power given him of God as supreme Magistrate to command all the three Kingdoms to be of the Kings Religion or then let them all be banished out of his Dominions But is not this to make the King a Pope and the onely carver and Lord of the Faith and Religion of his Subjects and so the King by his Office is the Messenger of the Lord of Hosts and a Royal Prophetical Teacher who watches for the souls of all his people What Scripture puts the King in such an Office 2. Did not the godly and sound condemn such an Headship in the Oath of Supremacy and in the Kings Proclamation in which he as King commands all to receive such a Religion as he thinks fit even the substantials of the Mass and no Prayers but book-prayers the other Prayers being fancies And this command is equal to a pastoral or Synodical Decree 1. Because it comes from the King having no act of the Church but onely having taken the counsel of his Clergie and so by civil power peculiar to his power Royal and place as Mr. H. speaks p. 56. 2. Because its the onely form of worship he thinks fit 3. Because he commands it to all Ecclesiastick persons Arch-bishops Bishops c. as the onely Spiritual Pastor of Pastors on earth Hence if Christ hath given such power it s not lawful without breach of the fifth Command to embrace or profess any Religion in a Christian Kingdom except it be first instamped by or with the Authority of the King the Head as the Chaplain calls him of the Churches by his Royal Authority Yea our Book of Canons say that Christian Kings now have the same power in causes Ecclesiastical that the godly Kings among the Iews had And are they not then Prophets by office and may write Canonick Scripture as David and Solomon did and so we must not without Rebellion profess the Faith or the Christian Religion but when and where such as the King commands us contrary to Mat. 10. 32. or we are to confess Christ before men but not except the King teach and command a confession and such a confessor 3. Paul must have told us Eph 4. 11 12. of the King as well as of the Apostle given to edifie the Body and gather the Church if so be that he is the onely supreme Iudge of true and false Religions And he must be some spiritual officer and one who chooseth a God and a Religion to his Subjects and he must be â—he holiest Subject who can say The Kings God is my God When I read this I was sad to see Mr. Tho Hooker speak and write like the Royalist Mr. Rich. Hooker 4. The Magistrate supreme and inferiour except Mr. H. be an Erastian is a member of the Church and under the Scepter of Christ in the preached Gospel and to be edified by the Word Seals Rebukes and Censures for otherwise He that despiseth you despiseth me and if he hear not the Church let him be as a heathen and Faith comes by hearing must suffer a strange exception in the person of the King he may despise pastors and the Church without guiltiness for he is above the pastors and carves their Religion and prescribes as our cited Proclamation saith the causes why Bishops should excommunicate and censure to wit if they refuse the Kings Religion and Mr. H. warrants him by a power peculiar and supreme so to do 5. We reade not that the Kings of Israel and Iudah prescibed what was true and false Religion but were subject to the Priests and Prophets who spake the word of the Lord and the Prophets rebuked Kings as Ieroboam and others for intruding themselves in that office Moses Samuel David Solomon were Prophets 2 Chron. 36. 16. Isa. 50. 19. 6. The Magistrate is the Minister of God and bears the Sword to take order with evil doers and is Custos vindex utriusque tabulae and the Religion is supposed to be before the Ruler 7. It s somewhat heathenish like Numa Lycurgus who to procure obedience and authority to themselves gave out that they prescribed what Religion was true and that they conversed much with God 8. All questions and controversies of Religion in the Nation must be determined all cases of conscience resolved by this Pope who onely can determine what is true and what is false Religion and the King must be the Oracle and Priest with whom onely the Urim and the Thummim must be 9. All fallings against Religion must be Treason against the King whereas Kings and people are rebuked because they hearkened not to the voice of the Prophets not because disobedient to the word of the Lord in the mouth of the King Either this is to take both the Swords from the Pope and to give them to the King or it is nothing for without controversie the King bears the Sword to take vengeance of him that doth evil Rom. 13. 4. 1 Pet. 2. 14. and whosoever determineth by his supreme power what is true and false Religion to all the Subjects must bear the other Sword 10. M. H. makes out his Assertion thus Kings could not provide for their Subjects to live in godliness and honesty except they had power to inquire and judge of true and false Religions Now this is spoken of Nero and of heathen Kings 1 Tim. 2. 1 2. But out of doubt God never made heathens that are enemies to true Religion supreme determiners of true and false Religion And if this agree to Rulers as Rulers as M. H. saith it is peculiar to their power and place then all Rulers Heathen Christian high and low sound in the faith and corrupt and heretical should be carvers of so many sundry Gods and Religions But the next Reason is ill and worse if because the King is a Nurse-father to the Church he must be father and a begetter both of Religion and of the Church because he protects and defends the true Church then true Religion must be before him As also when Mr. H. saith that the Prince is a Nurse father to the Church he means the Independent Church onely so that he owes no protection to Presbyterians nor justice to them And if the Nurse-fathers care be that there should be a right opinion and worship openly professed within his Territories the Magistrate is to do this no other wayes but
a new instance of his own and pass by the Lords way For God sends not private men or Christian unofficed Scholars or if he do their extraordinary sending makes them publick Pastors and Prophets not the people but he sent Philip an Evangelist and after Peter and Iohn to Samaria Act. 8. Paul to Macedonia Act. 16. and his own Ministers Tit. 1. 5. 1 Tim. 4. 14. 5. 22. Paul and Barnabas men in office some more than zealous Christians and Scholars to the Gentiles Act. 13. Ionah to Niniveh Ananias to baptize Paul Jon. 3. Act. 9. 3. Doth not Mr. H. dress up a providence of a Christian Scholar sent to converted Pagans and must they be made the ordinary and onely Church who can call Ministers and this Scholar being unbaptized himself must as the married Pastor in the ordinary way of Christ baptize to his dying day others and his calling must be null say our Brethren except that onely Church call him and according to the ordinary Rule of Christ he must be all his life unbaptized which must be a reputing of Baptism with the Familâ—st a thing indifferent rather than he own a forreign jurisdiction as Mr. Lockier speaketh so as to be baptized by a Pastor of another Church Mr. H. If Baptism give the form to visible Membership then while that remaineth valid as it doth in excommunicated persons and when the Church is dissolved visible Membership must remain for where the form is the formatum the thing having such a form must be also for Relata se mutuò ponunt tâ—llunt Ans. The conclusion is fancied and nothing against me 2. There be two things in baptized Members 1. God is their God of Egypt and Assyria fathers and sons under the New Testament as the Prophecy is Isa. 2. 1 2. 19. 25. 60. 1 2 3. Rev. 11. 15. 2. Infants are holy as the root 1 Cor. 7. 13 14. Rom. 11. 16. and it must be cruel divinity to say That fathers and feed broken off an Independent Church through persecution and no sin in them are by the Lord cast out of visible covenanting with God and from Membership and Church right to the Seals nor is Baptism any wayes removed 2. There is the solemnity of admission by Baptism in the excommunicate this is hurt but it s no more to me the formal cause of Membership than the ceremony of Coronation or the delivery of a Sword is the specifick form of a King and of a Major and therefore all is granted and Mr. H. proves nothing M. H. Baptism is but a separable accident to the covenant its efficacy may be hindered by the unworthy receiver and yet it remains in its own nature to the excommunicate and dissolved member for the form can never be removed from the thing formed If to be the eldest son be the formal cause of possession it could never have been taken away But to be a well-deserving heir is that whâ—ch gives formality of possession Ans. 1. It is a wonder that M. H. cannot find valid arguments to bear a free conclusion For to me Baptism is not a means of a Church-membership simply but of a Church-member tali modo that is of a member conspicuously and solemnly differenced from a Pagan 2. It is bad Divinity to join the nocent excommunicate man with the innocent dissolved member 3. It is a naughty argument to prove that Baptism is a separable accident of the covenant why because its efficacy may be hindered by unbelief for the efficacy of any thing is the actus secundus the operation of it not its essence so he may prove that Christ the essential subject of the Gospel is a separable accident of the Gospel and covenant of Grace because both the efficacy of the Gospel and of the Redeemer by mens unworthiness and unbelief is hindered 4. He concludes not so much as his own fansied conclusion to wit this only ergo the efficacy of baptism is not the specified form of visible membership valeat totum what Dreamer said any such thing it is sure baptism in fieri as it is administrate and professed is the means of the excommunicate mans solemn installing and engaging to be a follower of Christ and by the scandal that brings on excommunication baptism as professed and as binding is so far hurt as the Covenant-Baptismal is violated and if the man be excommunicate for Apostasy then it is disputable whether Baptism be not quite undone 5. It is weak moral Philosophy which Mr. H. addeth that well deserving in an heir gives formality to possession Well deserving gives just and Law-right to possession in the heir But he is a weak Lawyer who would so plead the innocent Traveller believing in God hath due deserving to his own purse which yet is in the bloody Robbers pocket Why Mr. H. saith he hath well deserving which saith he is the formal cause of possession and so he must have possession for the formal cause cannot be separated from formatum And so godly David unjustly expelled from his Kingdom for many years yet deserving well must have right both to possess his Kingdom and not possess it for if he have the formal cause of possession he must have possession when he is expelled Mr. H. It shall follow that the Church of Rome is a true Church for all the members of that Church have true baptism which is the formal cause of a true Church but that is false that that Church is a true Church Ans. The conclusion of the connex proposition is nothing against me who deny Baptism to be the formal cause of Membership 2. Such a Baptism that is valid as touching the substance of the seal as is in Rome such a Church according to the Metaphysick entity and being of a Church is Rome a Ministerial Church teaching necessary fundamentals though darkning and contradicting all but it is not morally a true Church but leprose and unclean See what Iunius Whitaker Calvin and Rivetus say hereupon Mr. H. is far from their sound expressions if this be true then to Iezabel and seducing Teachers who are under the Church-covenant the formal cause of membership must appertain and they must be Church-members and must be tolerate till they be judicially tried and censures applyed so Mr. H. and Church priviledges bestowed on them at the command of Christ. So also Mr. H. So visible non-converts and swine adorned with Pearls contrary to Christs command Matth. 7. 6. and yet keeping the essential form of visible Saints must be visible Converts Which is a contradiction Mr. H. The seal of our incorporation which is latter and posterior to the incorporation cannot be the form of it for the Sacrament is not appointed to make a thing that was not but to confirm that was or it doth not give but confirm grace But such is Baptism Ans. The conclusion is not against me 2. Observe that Mr. H. sides with Arminians
organick body but it hath power to edâ—fie it selfe as totum essentiale Ans. Christian edifying one of another in divers congregations 1 Thes. 5. 12. Col. 3. 16. Heb. 3. 13. by women and children of age we deny not but a Church edifying without Pastors or a perfecting of the body without officers Eph. 4. 11 12. 1 Cor. 12. 12 13 28. 1 Cor. 14. 4 12. we find not 2 Your male-Church edifying without Pastors must also edifie as an organical body In it women and children be silent and some unofficed brother teach pray and preside in the creating of officers and do the like when the Officers turn grievous Wolves and are to be cast out for then some unofficed brother must be Mouth and Organ to the rest and that is the very charge that Peter sustained in pastoral preaching at the creating of an officer and the Apostle Matthias Act. 1. 15. Mr. H. Let Mr. R. tell how God set teachers in the Church if teachers be before the Church Ans. Let Mr. H. tell how God giveth breath to them that walk on the Earth Isa. 42. 5. Was there breath before there was a living man walking on the earth or was there a living man walking on the earth before there was breathing Teachers are before Converts as Fathers are before Children Iohn Baptist and the Apostles were before such as they converted to the faith and baptized Noah before the Vineyard which he dressed God planted Apostles and Teachers even in the organical politick Church before it was a politick organical Church for by setting Organs in the body he made it an organical body but it is a senseless inference Ergo these Organs who are both Organs and Fathers and causes procreant of the Church had no being before the politick Church had being for natural organs in a physical body are only organs but not causes of the natural body but politick organs may be both and in this case are both Mr. H. To these are the Keys promised who are Stewards of the mysteries of God 1 Cor. 4. 1. servants of his house 2 Cor. 4. 5. Ans. The Servants are Pastors and Teachers in these places then the ruling Elder shall bear no Key Ans. Yet the conclusion is strong against the unofficed bearers Mr. Cotton the New England Discipline and Paul are herein as much crossed as I am for to them the ruling Elders are Stewards applying in censures in the external Court of Christ the Word as the Teachers apply it concionally Mr. Cotton makes the ruling Elders to be included with the Teachers of Ephesus Act. 20. And by the Argument Mr. H. may deny office-power of overseeing the house to all but to such as labour in the Word and Doctrine Mr. H. The places Isa. 9. 6. Revel 3. 7. speak of Monarchical power in Christ onely and prove not the point of delegated power Ans. Nor did I bring them for any other end but to prove that the Keys whoever bear them Head or Servants do signifie a power of office steward Oeconomus Commander of the Castle and so are never given to unofficed brethren for which cause I brought Fathers Doctors Divines Protestants Learned Papists saying the same And Mr. H. passes them all without an answer So the Learned Pagâ—in Mercerus Shimlâ—rus Buxtorf Ark of Noah Mr. Leigh and all Dictionaries expound the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when given to House Prison Gaol Kingdom and Stephanus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Mr. H. dictates against the authority of all the Learned Interpreters and Linguists and tells us besâ—de an office power it noteth Matth. 16. a judicial power of the spouse and wife to admit unto or reject out in the family as cause requires But 1. one word of Scripture he gives not 2. Nor saith Christ Matth. 16. any such thing as he gives the Keyes to the Church upon the Rock as the formal subject though it may be gathered he gives them for that Church as the object and final cause Mr. H. To these Mat. 16. doth Christ give the Keyes to whom be giveth warrant and official authority for actual exercising of opening and shutting but this he giveth to Peter as representing Teachâ—rs and Elders to thee will I give c. whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth c. So Mr. R. Ans. All may be granted and the official authority may be formally in the officers and originally and virtually in the Church 2. The proposition is fallâ— to wit to them the power of the Keyes is given firstly to whom warrant and official authoritie is given for the exercise of the same Keyes for the power of the Keyes is larger then office-power Ans. 1. My Argument is yet wronged to the same person to whom he promiseth the power or keyes or the power in its essence actu primo to the same person he promiseth shall exercise the specifick acts of the power and the second acts that must be the first formal subject to which God proâ—iseth a â—…sonable soul and the second and specifick acts of discoâ—rsing and that must be essentially a man Now unofficed brethren are not Embassadors but they are onely these to whom the Embassadors and officers are sent 2. By Mr. H. the â—eyes must in their official power begiven to Peter as representing the Guides â—nd also the power of the Keyes in the power of ruling must be given to Peter as to the first subject representing believers If the Text speak this it is a new conceit that never an Interpreter dreamed of and it must be made out that Peter iâ— spoken of in the Text in that â—â—ofold relation but that Peters binding and loosing on earth are acts of office or at least include â—cts of office and acts both of concional and also juridical remitting and retaining of sin and who despiseth Peter and the officers in either despiseth Christ and him that sent him is clear and that remitting and retaining sins is a binding and loosing cannot be denied and that remitting and retaining of sin flows from Christ calling the Disciples to an office is as clear Iohn 20. 21. As my Father Apostled me so send I you receive the Holy Ghost whose sins ye pardon they are pardoned c. And that this is a clear commission to Peter and all officers in him to exercise an official power of binding and loosing is apparent by this Text if by any in the New Testament But Mr. H. against this clear Text saith here Pastors have good warrant for their office power because the Church hath received power to admit chuse and refuse officers c. But because Mr. R said they have clear commission for the Keys both in power v. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in the acts and exercises 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and what thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven But though the place be clear and all Interpreters teach it yet will not Mr H. grant
by the Sword for another power he hath not then must he with the Sword compel all within his Dominions to be professed members of Independent Churches else M. H. judges there is some other sound worship and sound profession But this compelling of men to be Church-members Mr. H. before disclaimed Mr. H. doth also suspiciously give his sense of Toleration while he limiteth the Magistrates power to the not suffering of open Blasphemy and Idolatry But beside open Blasphemy there is Blasphemy Pepery in the hesds of it many dangerous errors about superstructures and non-fundamentals are these erroneous opinions professed to be tolerated Mr. H saith nothing against the Belgick and Socinian Toleration of all Errors except fundamentals which are made few by them and hard to be known And what the Gospel suffers by the Toleration holden by the Independents in England and swarms of Sects there is too manifest to the Christian world See the Arminians and Socinians in the Margin Let the Reader judge of Mr. H. his Reason The Kings of Israel did punish Blasphemy and Idolatry not as Types of Christ but by a Civil power Mr. H. shall not in haste teach us what was typical what moral Mr. Lockier and others make the constitution of the Jewish Church typical and of another nature from the New Testament Church others not so But I am afraid our Brethren augment the Kalendar of Typicals until the Old Testament be well near laid aside as many Anabaptists do The Kings of Israel punished blasphemers not as types of Christ but by civil power But Iohâ— Goodwyn will reply Was it a civil power morally that belongs to all Christian Magistrates to destroy the city in which the Inhabitants are seduced to Idolatry and that all the Inhabitants and the cattel be utterly destroyed and the spoil burnt with fire as Deut. 13. 15 16 to punish the cattel of Idolaters and Apostates with death and burn all the goods with fire surely must be temporary then But let Mr. H. shew what is typical in a National Oath They say There is no shadow of it in the New Testament Ans. If the meaning be there is no express command no practise of it in the New Testament or for it and therefore it must be typical 1. By this Argument negative this is not in the New Testament Ergo there is no warrant for it in Scripture is fair for all who would casheer all the Books of the Old Testament as no Scripture and so that the Magistrate should take away the life of one that commits Sodomy Bestiality murthers Father or Mother must be typical and not obliging under the New Testament for let Mr. H. shew an express command or practise for it in the New Testament A general there is Rom. 13. but Socinians Anabaptists tell us You must not take away the life of him who is created according to the Image of God by Logick and argumentative consequences but by express Law 2. Let it be shewed by what express precept or practice in the New Testament a rich Son should take in to his house and feed and maintain his Father-in-law and his Grand-father and his Grand-mother that are begging 3. Mr. H. may also press us for an express precept or practice of a promissory oath in a private person as well as in a Nation and for a covenant of peace by oath between a Christian Nation and a neighbour Christian Nation in the New Testament or suppose a Christian Nation should neighbour with a nation that worships the sun compelling all strangers that come within their bounds by death to deny Jesus Christ worship their God the Sun there must be an express particular precept for a covenant oath for peace to warrant such a paction that the Heatâ—… Nation shall kill none of theirs for refusing Sun-Worship 4. The particular temptations that may tempt Ionathan to be on his own Fathers side against David and might stir David up against Saul and all his seed were a sufficient call to put David and Ionathan under the tye of the oath of God one to another There were good grounds of the covenant between Laban and Iacob And some Nations designed of God should submit suit peace and embrace the Jewish Religion Was there not cause why both they and Israel should lay upon themselves the band of a covenant oath that both of them should be the united Confederates of God and the like National temptations press a Nation now when it s become the Lords covenanted Kingdom as Isa. 19. 25. Rev. 11. 15. which within and without is enticed to receive the mark of the Beast and his name on their foreheads to guard themselves against such snares by a National oath not that every one of the Nation though ignorant profane and malignant and treacherous enemies to the truth should be admitted in covenant And Mr. H. seems to say that promissory oaths of single persons under the New Testament are not necessary and say I not lawful if not necessary For Mr. H. saith a man is not necessarily and morally tied to swear or vow And I believe a man may live all his life and never take a private oath I say private betwixt God and himself to keep his Laws and yet not be guilty of sin in so doing Mr. H. speaks most mistakingly of the doctrine of vowes as if he had not read our Divines For 1. Our National vow that we shall be the Lords people cannot be called a private vow 2. If a vow to keep Gods Commandmens tye not morally and so be not necessary it is not lawful and if so we must condemn these general vows which one makes to God in prayer Psal. 32. 2. I will bless the Lord at all times Psal. 101. 2. I will behave my self wisely in a perfect way Who can pray in faith to God in private but they must engage themselves to God to run if he draw and what suits an enlarged heart and strength against temptations and who can pray for faith and perseverance but they vow new obedience â—â—d yet Mr. H. saith a man may all his life never vow betwixt God and himselfe to keep the Commandments of God and not be guilty As for vowes of particular things vows concerning spare dyeâ— our Divines aâ— Calvin professors of Leyden Tilenus Bacanus teach they are utilia potius quam necessaira useful and in regard of particular temptations profitable rather then necessary Now one National vow is to the whole duties of the first and second Table which we tye our selves to perform both in Baptisme in the Lords Supper in selfe-judging in confession of sin And 2. To say a man all his life may never be tyed to a vow is to say a man may never pray never confess his sins never speak in private his godly Gospel-resolutions and purpose of heart to cleave to the Lord and yet not be guilty 3. This is to make