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
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
Church because that mediatory kingdome substisted fortie yeeres in the Jewish Church in the Wildernesse without circumcision yea and Apostles and Evangelists are no meanes subordinate to that kingdome because Christs mediatory kingdome subsisteth now without these officers 2. Neither is it true that magistracie conferreth no helpe to this kingdom but in these things which concerne the externall man for in a politick and coactive way the Magistracy taketh care by commandements that the Church bee fed with the pure Word of God onely this proveth that magistracie and Church ministery have two different objects and the way of proceeding of these two states the one carnall and with the sword Joh. 18. 36. Rom. 13. 3 4. the other spirituall to the manifestarion of the truth to the conscience 2 Cor. 4. 1 2. Psal. 110. 1. 2. Esâ—y 11. 4. Heb. 4. 12. which we grant to be true 5. It is objected Christ himselfe performed all the parts of his mediatory kingdome and all the functions thereof in his owne person and by his disciples while hee was on earth but hee refused all civill Magistracy and did inhibit his disciples thereof because it is not contained under the administration of his mediatory office as subordinate thereunto Answ. Christ refused magistracie not because it is not subordinate to edification which is the end of Christs mediatory kingdome but because it is not compatible with his spirituall kingdome in one and the same person and therefore this is a caption à non causa pro causa in one and the same person and subject the civill and the Ecclesiasticall power are inconsistent and incompatible that is true Ergo in the kind of lawfull meanes these two powers are unconsistent and uncompatible I deny it to follow for both royall power and Church power concurre for the producing of one and the same end to wit edification and obedience to both Tables of the Law but after different wayes carnall and spirituall I thinke it most considerable that though the Prince may by a coactive way command that same which a Church Synod may command in an ecclesiasticall way yet differeth these same powers in their formall objects because the King commandeth that which is good religious decent in Gods worship as a thing already taught and determined judicially either expressely in Gods Word or then by a pastorall or Synodicall determination and that not by way of teaching informing the mind exponing the Scripture or by pastorall dealing with the conscience as oblieging to a Church Liturgie and ceremonies as one who intendeth formall edification and faith repentance and obedience to God but the King commands that which is good and extra as it is already taught and expounded and as it is an imperated act of externall worship or mercy and justice done by a coactive power Hence the Magistrates power is not to edifie formally but to procure that edification may bee 2. The Magistrates power is Lordly the Churches power is onely ministeriall 3. The Magistrates power may bee in one to wit in the King the Churches power of the keyes is in the Church 4. They differ in formall objects as hath been said Now to obviate what the Jesuite Lysimachus Nicanor saith wee are no wayes of Papists mind in the matter of the Magistrates power for Papists 1. exclude Kings and Emperours from any medling with Church matters Charles the fift was upbraided by Paul the third the Pope of Rome because hee did as became a Prince ordaine meetings conferences and assemblies for composing of differences in Churches matters not giving the power of conveening councells onely to the Pope comparing his fact to the attempt of Uzzah who put his hand to the Ark and to Câ—rah Dathan and Abirams conspiracie against Moses yea and Nicolaus the first in his Epistle to Michael the Emperour denyeth that Emperours are to bee present in Synods except in generall Synods where both Church men and laicks are present wee teach that the Magistrate is as the hand the ministry as the eyes and both are to concurre for the spirituall good of the body of Christ. 2. Papists will have the Magistrates so to defend the faith as they have not power to judge not as Christians with the judgement of descretion what is right or wrong but they must as blind servants execute what Prelates decree yea and see non prâ—priis saith Henr. Blyssemius sed alienis Episcoporum ac pâ—aelatorum suorum oculis videre not with their owne eyes but with the eyes of their Prelates yea and the Magistrate should not read the Scripture say Papists and Nicanâ—rs brethren the Jesuits expresly contrary to Gods Word Deut. 17. 17. Hee shall read in the booke of the Law all the dayes of his life Joshua 1. 8. but onely beleeve as the Church beleeveth and this is blind obedience that they require of Princes this faith or obedience wee thinke abominable in all men as in Princes Of old Popes and Prelates were subject to Kings and Emperors as wee teach from the Word of God Rom. 13. 1. and 1. wee teach against the Jesuit Lysimachus Nicanor that his Prelates should not invade the King and civill Magistrates sword and be civill Judges as Popes and Prelates are against which writeth Tertullian Origen Hilarius Chrysostome Ambrosius Augustinus The author of the Survey saith that if every Eldership be the tribunall seat of Christ what appellation can bee made there from to either provinciall or generall councell and hee meaneth that there can bee no appellation to the King seeing the Presbytery in Churches causes is as immediatly subject to Jesus Christ and the highest Judicature on earth as the King is Gods immediate vicegerent on earth nearest to Jesus Christ in civill causes I answer the cause that is meerely ecclesiasticall as the formall act of preaching and ecclesiasticall determining of truth in Pulpits and the determining the truth in Church assemblies in an ecclesiasticall way in Synods and the excommunicating of a scandalous person are immediatly subject to Jesus Christ speaking in his owne perfect Testament and these causes lie not at the feet of Princes to bee determined by them as Kings but in a constitute Church they are to bee determined by the ordinary Church assemblies and in this place there is no appeale from the Presbytery to a King but it followeth not that there can bee no appellation from a Presbytery to a provinciall or to a nationall assembly 1. Because though every Presbytery bee the tribunall seate of Christ yet it is but a part of the tribunall seat of Christ and such a part as may easily erre and therefore appellation may bee made from the weaker and the part more inclined to erre to the stronger and maniest or the whole who may more hardlier erre and that is not denied by this author who dare not deny but they may appeal from a Bishop who doth and may misleade
from Galilee Acts 1. 14. and some from Jerusalem v. 15. 3. No particular Church had power Ecclesiasticall as this Church had power to choose an Apostle who was to be a Pastor over the Churches of the whole World as our brethren teach so Mr. Paget sayth well These Disciples who waited upon Christ such as Barsabas and Matthias were no members of the Church of Jerusalem and so what powâ—r had a particular Church to dispose of them who were no members of their Church 3. That which concerneth all must be done by all and that which concerneth the feeding and governing of the Church of the whole World must be done by these who represent the Church of the whole World but that Matthias should be chosen and ordained an Apostle to teach to the whole World concerned all the Churches and not one particular Church 〈◊〉 Therefore there was here either no Church which no man dare say for â—here is here a company of believers where there is preaching and Church government v. 15. 16. 26. or then there was here a Congregation which is against sense and Scripture or there is a Church Provinciall Naturall or Oecumenick call it as you please it is a visible Church instituted in the New Testament after the ascension of Christ and not a Parishionall Church Some answer this was extraordinary and meerely Apostolick that an Apostle should be ordained and is no warrant for a nationall Church now when the Churches of Christ are constituted But I answer this distinction of ordinary and extraordinary is wearied and worne to death with two much employment 2. Beza Calvin Piscator Tilenus Whittaker Chamier Pareus Bucanus professors of Leyden Walaeus VVillet P. Martyr Ursinus c. and all our Divines yea Lorinus the Jâ—suite Cajetan alledge this place with good reason to prove that the ordination and election of Pastors belongeth to the whole Church and not to one man Peter or any Pope Yea Robinson and all our Brethren use this place to prove that the Church to the second comming of Christ hath power to ordaine and exanthorate and censure her officers 2. We desire a ground for this that the Ecclesiasticall power of the Church which is ordinary and perpetuall to Christs second comming should joyne as a collâ—terall cause in ordination and election of an Apostle which ordination is extraordinary temporary apostolick see for this Pet. Martyr VVhittaker Bilson Chamier Pareus Beza Calvin Harmonie of the confessions Iunius Cartwright Fulk Ursinus Zwinglius Munsterus and Theodoret would have us to rest upon Apostolick demonstrations like this And Irenaeus speaketh against rectifiers of the Apostles in this Cyprian sayth the like 2 Acts 6. A Church of Hebrewes and Graecians together with the twelve Apostles is not a particular Ordinary Congregation and a governing Church choosing Deacons therefore they are a nationall Church though the first ordination of Deacons be meerely Apostolick and immediately from Iesus Christ yet the ordination of these seven persons was a worke of the Churches power of the keys Now let our Brethren speake if this was a Congregationall Church that meeteth ordinarily to the word and Sacraments such as they say the Church of Corinth was 1 Cor. â—1 18. So say I of the Church Acts 15. 22. called Apostles Elders and Brethren and the whole Church this could not be a particular Church for no particular Congregation hath Ecclesiasticall power to prescribe Decrees and Canons to all the Churches of the Gentiles and that this was done by an ordinary Ecclesiastick power that remaineth perpetually in a Church such as this was is cleare because our Brethren prove that the whole multitude spake in this Church from vers 12. Then all the multitude kept silence and therefore the multitude say our Brethren spake from v. 21. all the Church voyced in these Decrees and Canons say they 3. Sister Churchers keepe a visible Church-communion together 1. They heare the word and partake of the Seales of the Covenant occasionally one with another 2. They eschew the same excommunicated heretick as a common Church-enemy to all 3. They exhort rebuke comfort and edifie one another as members of one body visible 4. If one sister Church fall away they are to labour to gaine her and if she will not be gained as your Author sayth they tell it to many sister Churches if shee refilse to heare them they forsake Communion with her 1. Here is a visible body of Christ and his Spouse having right to the keyes word and seales of grace 2. Here is a visible body exercising visible acts of Church-fellowship one toward another Hence here a visible Provinciall and Nationall Church exercising the specifick acts of a Church Ergo Here is a Provinciall and Nationall Church For to whom that agreeth which essentially constituteth a Church visible that must be a visible Church You will say they are not a visible Church because they cannot and doe not ordinarily all meete in one materiall house to heare one and the same word of God and to partake of the same Seales of the Covenant joyntly but I answer 1. This is a begging of the question 2. They performe other specifick acts of a visible Church then to meete ordinarily to partake joyntly and at once of the same ordinances 3. If this be a good reason that they cannot be a Nationall Church because they meete not all ordinarily to heare the some word and to partake of the same Ordinances then a locall and visible and ordinary union joyntly in the same worship is the specifick essence of a visible Church but then there was no visible Nationall Churches in Iudea for it was impossible that they could all meete in one materiall house to partake of the same worship 4. These who for sicknes and necessary avocations of their calling as Navigation Traffiquing and the like cannot ordinarly meet with the congregation to partake joyntly with them of these same Ordinances loose all membership of the visible Church which is absurd for they are cast out for no fault 5. This is not essentiall to a nationall Church that they should ordinarily all joyntly meet for the same worship but that they be united in one ministeriall government and meet in their chiefe members and therefore our Brethren use an argument à specie ad genâ—s negativè a provinciall or nationall company of believers cannot performe the acts of a particular visible Church Ergo such a company is not a visible Church just as if I would reason thus A Horse cannot laugh Ergo he is not a living Creature or it is an argument à negatione unius speciei ad negationem alterius such a company is not such a congregationall Church Ergo it is no visible Church at all an Ape is not a reasonable Creature Ergo it is not an Ape 3. Conclu There ought to be a fellowship of
heathen c. 6. and Chrysostome saith the same in sense Yea I gather this necessary distinction out of the Fathers as Chrysostome Theophylactus Hilarius that they are not members of the visible Church actu pleno in a full act because they want externall communion with the Church yet actu imperfecto imperfectly they are members A second distinction I collect from Ireneus Gregorius Hieronim Optatus Augustine that they are exclusi ab ecclesia quoad communionem non ab ecclesia ipsa They are excluded from the visible communion of the Church rather then from the Church A third distinction may be drawen from Eugenius Chrysostome Gregor Nazianzâ—â— while they call Baptisme januam spiritualem and lavacrum animae the doore of our entry to the Church for which cause papists though fondly place their Font at the Church-doore as the Lavatâ—r of the soule So as excommunicated persons are within the doore of the visible Church though not admitted to the Kings Table 4. The Schoolemen do allow to the excommunicated persons jus non consortium right but not fellowsh â—â— 5. Turrâ—cremaeta Vega. Soto Canus insinâ—â—â— distinctionem inter partes membra Ecclesiae visibilis because of some externall communion that they have as Teeth are parts of the body in a new borne Infant but they are not members but they deny them to be members because they are cut off 6. Suarez excellently prâ—vantur quoad communicationemcum alâ—s membris non quoad esse membri They are deprived acording to the act of communion with other members not as if they ceased to be members as a member which cannot receive nourishment is yet still a member Our Divines from Scripture make three degrees of excommunication 1. A debarring from the Lords Supper Mat. 5. 24. but it is not indeed a delivering to Satan or excommunication this is called the lesser excommunication 2. A delivering to Satan the greater excommunication 1 Cor. 5. 3. 4. of this we speake here especially 3. Maran-atha in the Syriack an is utter cursing till Christs second comming 3. Conclus Wee hold the preaching of the word to be an essentia note of the visible Church Our Brethren as Mr. Coachman Robinson our present Author deny that the profession or preaching of the Word is a true note of the visible Church Because Acts 17 Paul preached to the scoffing Athenians who were not for that a visible Church 2. Papists have some of Gods Ordinances and hereticks also as baptisme and the Old and New Testament as the Philistins had the Arke of God amongst them 3. The word may be preached where Christ is but gathering a Church and so is a meane of gathering a Church and therefore not an essentiall note of a gathered and constituted Church But herein our Brethren say no more against the Reformed Churches then Stapleton to wit that truth of doctrine is no note of the Church because it is not perpetuall and constant 2. Truth of Doctrine concurs to give being to the Church and to the constitution of it Bellarm. This note may be found in other societies and companies beside the Church aâ— amongst Scismaticks and Hereticks More of this please the Reader to see in Costerus in the Jesuite Gordonius Huntlaeus And this is the doctrine of Socinians as may be seene in the Cathechisme of Raccovia in Theo. Nicolaides and Francis Smalcius and Arminians second both in their confession because they think with Socinians that there is no ministery now necessary and so publick preaching is not a note of the Church especially since every gifted man may preach the Word Socinus in his tractate De Ecclesiâ and his Catechisme of Raccovia saith Notae evangelicorum nihil valent ' Doctrina pura est Ecclesiae natura essentia quae dat ei esse adâ—óque signum ejus esse non potest cum signum ipsum a re câ—jus est signum differre oporteat But the truth is the preaching of the Word hath diverse relations 1. As the members of the visible Church are in fiâ—ri in the way to be gathered the Word preached and believed is a way of gathering a Church Rom. 10. 14. 1 Cor. 1. 23. 1 Cor. 3. 5. Acts 16. 14. 2. That same word preached believed and outwardly professed is a signe of the visible Church For where Gods pastors and shepheards are there be flocks of redeemed ones Cant. 1. 8. Iohn 10. 12 13 14. 3 The Word simply preached and professed in a setled way of a fixed ministery is a note of a ministeriall Church this is cleare from Gods intention for he sendeth it of purpose to save his own as Rom. 10. 14. Acts 20. 28. For a man lighteth not a Candle in his house for nothing So this word preached as it is Gods Word is not properly the forme and essence of the Church but as believed and received it is the forme of the Church invisible 2. But to professe this word savingly est signum Ecclesiae non not A it is a signe that doth not infallibly notifie to us that such is for this time an invisible Church of redeemed ones for I have not infallible certainty what one man or what determinate number of men by name are true believers profession may beguile me as also the invisible Church as such is believed and not knowen infallibly by any note or externall marke that incurreth into the senses Neither is the preaching of the Word a note or infallible marke of the Church ministeriall to all or in relation to Infidels for the Word preached actu primo ex naturâ suâ essentially and of its own nature is more knowen and more sensible then the Church because the preached word is a Doctrine expounding what the true Church is and we do not expound ignotum per ignotius vel per aequè ignotum Darknesse cannot let us see darknesse or colours only light doth reveale things But the word preached in relation to unbelievers cannot be an infallible note of the Church for to a blind man the morning as not a sensible marke that the sun is rising nor is smoake to a dead man a sensible marke of fire because he hath no senses to discerne either So to the infidell though the word as a sound or in a literall evidence be clearer then the Church and in a confused knowledge he knoweth the one better than the other yet is the true word in respect of certaine knowledge and spirituall evidence as darke to him as the Church for he hath not Eares to heare nor eyes to see any of the things of God either the word preached or the Church and therefore the word is both by nature and to us naturâ nobis in respect of distinct knowledge more knowen but not simply as the word actu primo but actu secundo as it both striketh upon outward
principles for sometime they say the Apostles gave out this decree as Apostles and sometime there is nothing here done by a meere doctrinall power such as Paul had over Peter or one single Pastor hath over another now it is sure that Paul had no Apostolick power over Peter and that one Pastor have not Apostolick power over another 2. When our brethren say here that the Apostles as Apostles by an infallible spirit gave out this Decree they doe in this helpe the Papists as Bellarmine Becanus Grâ—â—rut and in particular the Jesuit Lorinus who saith decrâ—um authenticum cujus inspirator spiritus sanctâ— and so saith Cornelius a lapide visiâ—m est nob is inspiratis decretis a Spiritu sanctus therefore saith hee the councell cannot erre and so Salmeron and Cajetan say and expresly Stapleton saith this Apostosack definition flowed from the instinct of the holy Ghost observandum saith Stapleton quanta habenda sit ecclesiae definienth authoritâ—s hence our brether here must yeeld either that all Synods are infallible as Papists say this Synod the patterne of all Synods being concluded by an Apostolick spirit could not erre and so neither can councells erre or they must with Socinians and Arminians say there is no warrant for Synods here at all And certainly though wee judge our brethren as farre from Popery and Socinianisme as they thinke wee detest Anti-Christian Presbytery yet if this Synod bee concluded by an Apostolick spirit it is no warrant to bee imitated by the Churches and wee have no ground hence for lawfull Synods Whittakerus Calvin Beza Luther and all our Divines do all alledge this place as a pregnant ground not of Apostolick but of ordinary and constant Synods to the end of the world and Diodatus good to the holy Ghost because they did treat of ecclesiasticall reders concerning the quietnes and order of the Church wherein ecclesiasticall authoritie hath place the Assembly used this tearme it seemed good to us which is not used neither in articles of faith nor in the commandements which meerely concerned the conscience and to shew that authoritie was with holy reason and wisedome there is added and to the holy Ghost who guided the Apostles in these outward things also 1. Cer. 7. 25. 40. 2. If our brethren meane that the Elders and brethren were in this Apostolick and immediatly inspired Synodicall determination not as collaterall penners of Scriptures joyned with the Apostles but onely as consenters and as consenters by power of an ordinary holy Ghost working consent in them more suo according to their capacitie as ordinary Elders 1. They yet more helpe the Papists because they must say onely Apostles and so onely their successors the Prelates had definitive voices in this Synod the Presbyters and Brethren did no more then Papists and Prelates say Presbyters did in generall councells of old and therefore the Presbyter is to subscribe Ego A. N. Presbyter consentiens subseribo whereas the Prelate subscribed say they Ego A. B. Episcopus definiens subscribo wee crave a warrant in Gods Word to make an Apostle or a Prelate a Synodicall definer having a definitive voyce and the Elder Brother or Presbyter to have a consultative voyce for here all the multitude if there was a multitude present doe make Synodicall decrees by consulting and consenting yea all the nation may come to a nationall Synod and both reason dispute and consent because matters of doctrine and government of the Church concerneth all therefore all have an interest of presence and all have an interest of reasoning and 3. by consequent all have an interest of consenting yea of protesting on the contrary if the Synod determine any thing against the Word of God If they say there is a threeford consent in this Synod 1. an Apostolicall 2. a second Synodicall agreeing to Elders as Elders and a third that of the people or a popular What a mixt Synod shall this be but 1. then as the Epistle to the Tlxssalonians is called the Epistle of Paul not the Epistle of Silvanus and Timotheus though Silvanus and Timotheus did consent so these dogmata or decrees should not be called the decrees of the Apostles and Elders as they are called Act. 16. 4. Act. 15. 6. Act. 21. 25. but onely the decrees of the Apostles seeing the Elders did onely consent and had no definitive influence in making the decree by this doctrine as Silvanus and Timotheus were not joynt pen-men of Scripture with Paul 3. When as it is said the specification of actions must not bee taken from the efficient cause but from the formall object and all that a done in this Synod might have beene done by a single Pastor I answer wee doe not fetch the specification of this rebuke and of these decrees from the efficient causes but from the formall object for an Apostle might his alone have rebuked these obtruders of circumcision and made this decree materialiter for Paul did more his alone then this when hee wrote the Eâ—istle to the Romans but yet one Pastor could not have Synodically rebuked and given out a decree formally Synodicall laying an Ecclesiasticall tie on moe Churches then one there is great ods to doe one and the same action formally and to doe the same action materially and I beleeve though actions have not by good logick their totall specification from their efficient cause yet that ordinances of God as lawfull have their specification from the efficient causes in part our brethren cannot deny For what made the difference betwixt Aaron his fire offered to the Lord and Nadab and Abihu their strange and unlawfull fire that they offered to the Lord but that the on fire had God for its author the other had men and the like I say of Gods feasts and the feasts devised by Jeroboam else if a woman preach and administrate the Lords Supper in the Church that preaching and sacrament administrated by her should not have a different specification and essence if wee speake morally or Theologically from that same very preaching and celebration of the Supper performed in the Church by a lawfull Pastor it is as I conceive of the essence of an action Synodicall I say not its totall essence that it cannot bee performed by one in a Church-way and with an ecclesiasticall tie but it must be performed by many else it is not a Synodicall action and it is true that Paul Rom. 14. and 1 Cor. 8. 10. hath in substance the same Canon forbidding scandall which is forbidden in this Canon prohibiting eating of meats offered to Idolls and blood in the case of scandall but I pray you is there not difference betwixt the one prohibition and the other yea there is for Rom. 14. 1 Cor. 8. 10. it hath undenyably Apostolick authoritie here it hath onely Synodicall 2. There it is a commandement of God here it is a Canon of the Church 3. There it commeth from one man here from a
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
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
had a nomothetick power in Church matters used not the advise of Divines nor the rule of the written word but as a Prophet immediately inspired of God gave Lawes to Gods people and prescribed a Law to Aaren and to the Priest-hood Now if rulers have such a power of defining Lawes they neede not follow the rule of Gods word But how shall they prove that Moses gave the Law to the people and the Priesthood as a King and not as the Prophet of God inspired immediately of God For if Moses his Law came from the ordinary power of Kings as it is such then commeth Moses Law from a Spirit which may erre for the ordinary Spirit to Kings is not infallible but with reverence to Kings obnoxious to erring God save our King 5. It is a Princes part by office to defend Religion and to banish false Religion and to roote out blasphemies and heresies Ergo he ought to know and judge by his office of all these But if he be to use the sword at the nodde onely of the Church without knowledge or judgement he is the executioner and lictor of the Church not a civill Judge Answ. In a Church right constitute we are to suppone that the Lawes of Synods are necessary and edificative and that the Magistrate is obliged by his office to adde his sanction to them not by an unfolded faith and as blind but he is to try them not onely by the judgement of discretion as a Christian for so all Christians are to try them but also saving the judgement of some Learned by a judiciall cognition as he tryeth civill crimes which he is to punish but his judiciall cognition is onely in relation to his practise as a Judge to authorize these Lawes with his coactive power not to determine truth in an ecclesiasticall way under the paine of Church censures Neither doe I beleeve that the Magistrate is not subordinate to the Kingdome of Christ as mediator but subordinate to God as Creator onely Though some Divines teach that there should have beene Kings and supreme Powers in the world though man had never fallen in sinne and a Saviour had never beene in the World and so that Kings are warranted by the Law of nature and Nations and not by any Law evangelick and mediatory yet we thinke with reverence this argument not strong for generation and creation and multiplication of mankind should have beene in the World though never a sinner nor a Saviour thould have beene in the world yet are creation generation and multiplication of mankind by our divines Junius Trekatius Gomaras Calvin Beza Melancthon Polanus Rollocus and many others and with warrant of the word of God made meanes subordinate to the execution of the decree of predeâ—tination to Glory which decree is executed in Christ as the meane and meritorious cause of salvation purchased in his blood What heathen Magistrates as Magistrates know not Christ the Mediator Ergo they are not means subordinate to Christs Mediatory Kingdome It followeth not For by Christ the wisedome of God Kings doe reigne though many of them know him not As they are created by Christ as the second person of the Trinity though they know not the second person of the Trinity It is their sinne that they know him not 2. It is objected The Magistrate is not given to the Church under the New Testament by the calling of Christ as an exalted Saviour as all the gifts instituted for the government of the mediatory Kingdome are instituted for that end Ephes. 4. 11. but it is instituted by God as governer of the World rewarding good and ill Rom. 13. 1. 6. Answ. Neither is creation a gift of Christ as exalted mediator therefore it is not a meane leading to the possession of that life purchased by the mediators bloud it followeth not For the Magistracy is a nurse-father of the redeemed spouse of Christ with the sincere milke of the word I meane a formall meane procuring by a coactive power that the Church shall be fed and it procureth not onely the Churches peace which respecteth the second Table of the Law but also godlinesse which respecteth the first Table of the Law 1 Tim. 2. 2. and Ephes. 4. 11. there be reckoned downe onely officers which actibus elicitis by formall elicit acts procureth the intended end of Christs mediatory Kingdome Not all the offices which procureth edification any way Such as is in civill Governours who are to see that the body of Christ be nourished and grow in godlinesse for that is an essentiall and specifick act of the Churches nurs-father 3. It is objected Magistracy compelleth men to the observance of Gods Law Deut. 17. and doth not immediately of it selfe by spirituall gifts of the evangell produâ—e its effects But all the mediatory Kingdome of Christ and the Government thereof of its selfe and its owne nature produceth the saving effects of the evangelâ— by vertue of its institution as faith repentance and salvation Answ. A Magistracy as a Magistracy of it selfe concurreth but in a coactive way for producing of peace honesty and godlinesse and serveth to edification but I grant not in such a spirituall way as a Church-ministry therefore it is not a meane subservient to the end of Christs mediatory Kingdome It followeth not It is not a spirituall meane Ergo it is not a meane The consequence is null and it is false that all the meanes of Christs mediatory Kingdome are of their owne nature spirituall for that is to begge the question for the Magistrate procureth that the Church be fed he punisheth blasphemers that others may feare and so abstaine and so be edified though the way be coactive yet is it a way and meane appointed of God as the nurse-father is a meane for the childs nourishing though the nurse-breasts be a more subordinate meane immediate meane 4. It is objected The Magistrate is not the Lords Ambassadour and minister in name of the Mediator Christ as the Minister is but it is extron â—call to the government of Christs Mediatory Kingdome and 〈◊〉 helpe onely to those things which concerne the externall man Answ. Hee who is called God and so is the vicegerent of God is Gods Ambassador politick commanding in Gods name but in another way then a preaching Ambassador commandeth and though Christ as Mediator may attaine to his end without the King as many were edified in the Apostolick Church where the civill Magistrate contributed no helpe and was rather an enemy to the kingdome of Christ and so Magistracy may bee called accidentall to Christs mediatory government but if this bee a good argument to prove that Magistracie is not subordinate to Christs mediatory kingdome then Oecumenicall and provinciall Synods consisting onely of Church men shall be no meanes subordinate to Christs kingdome because Christs kingdome may subsist in one Congregation without a provinciall assembly and circumcision is no meane subordinate to that kingdome in the Jewish