to God therefore Heb. 13. 17. 18. Then have the Elders by divine right a jurisdiction over the Lords people in the Lord and so the Elders in authoritie and jurisdiction are above the people And so by no reason can the people be over their overseers in the Lord and command watch take care for their soules They say divers wayes one may bee both a Sheepheard and a Sheep the King as King is above the Pastour and the Pastour being a man owes subjection and obedience to the King Againe as the King is a member of the Church he is to heare and obey the pastor as the messenger of Lord of losts according to that he that heareth you heareth me and so may it be here But I answer The case is no way like for our brethren make the pastours and the flock to bee over one another and subject one to another with one and the same kinde of subjection I grant Archippus is over the Colossians to command them in the Lord but the Colossians are not in the same power of jurisdiction over Archippus they may only admonish him to fulfill his Ministerie but they have no authoritative power of jurisdiction to command to deprive to excommunicate but by this learning ten Elders with the consent of ten believers may excommunicate ten believers and these same ten believers may excommunicate these ten Elders and his ten believers for there is an independent Church of believers on both sides hence sonnes and servants may excommunicate those that are over them in the Lord and watch for their soules 5. That ever in a constitute Church except where God calleth extraordinarily pastours were ordained pastours by a multitude that are not pastors nor Elders but only believers and private Christians is not to be read in the word of God for every where in the word where pastours and elders are created there are they ordained by pastours neither find we ever Apostles or pastours to be tried and found true or false and not suffered to teach by the sole believers but by the Angels of the Churches If believers being only believers may ordaine pastors and may againe depose and excommunicate which are the highest acts of jurisdiction then may they preach and baptize not being called Ministers then may the Sacraments be administrate where there are no pastours which is absurd to the Separatists themselves 6 If the whole eldership in a congregation erre and commit scandalous sins to whom shall we complaine not to themselves for they are parties to be judged nor to a Synod for independent congregations acknowledge no authoritie of Classes and Synods then to the Church What is that To the believers Then Christ Mat. 18. intended to erect no ministeriall Church at all yea the ministerie by no place in Scripture have power of jurisdiction If not by this place Mat. 18. for Mat. 16. the keyes were given and the binding and lâ—osing saith our brethren to the Church builded upon the rock but this was the Church of believers not the Church of Ministers Hence have we cause to doubt whether our brethren acknowledge a ministerie which hath received the keyes from Christ if these two prime places faile them whereas Fathers Doctors Councels our Divines Protestants and Lutherans popish Writers Schoolemen Canonists casuists acknowledge the keyes to bee given to the Apostles in these places This doctrine will finde too great favour with the Anabaptists denying the power and authoritie and necessitie of the Churches calling to the Ministers of the new Testament 7 What if the women and believing children be the greater part shall they be the Church Mat. 18. which hath the power of the keyes suppose the whole Eldership and gravest Christians be on the contrary side But the Elders with them being but three or foure believers gathered together in Christs name have also the power of the keyes and are essentially a true visible Church and yet are overswayed by the manifest and most ignorant 8 When a question cannot be determined by three believers viz. a complainer and three believing brethren who are witnesses Mat. 18. v. 16. 17. which to oâ—r brethren is a Church having power of the keyes then Christ commandeth to tell the Church which hath power to bind and loose that is the Elders When the Disciples and two Apostles cannot determine the question about circumcision and the Church of Antioch cannot determine it the practice of the Apostles was to refer the decision to Apostles and Elders Act. 15. 2. 6. 22. Act. 16. 4. This doctrine saith the contrary when matters cannot be determined by Elders and Minister the matter is to be referred to the company of private believers as to the Principal and sole supreme Church builded on the rock which only properly and principally and essentially hath the keyes And this is contrary to Apostolick order CHAP. IV. Whether or no our brethren prove strongly that the Church of believers is the first Church having supreme jurisdiction above the Eldership MAster Parker of good memorie to prove that the Church of believers is above and superiour to the ministerial Church of Bishops or Eldership 1. Reasoneth thus The member and the part is inferiour in authoritie to the body and the whole But guides are members of the Church of believers Therefore guides are inferiour to the Church of believers So saith the law The part is contained in the whole So Gerson and the fathers of Basill as Aeneas Silvius cited by Morton prove the Pope to be inferiour to a Generall Councell and that he must be judged by them Answ. We deny not but the guides as guides are inferiour to believers inferiour in Christian dignitie and eminency and this in as far as the guides are believers for one believer is inferiour to ten believers because a part of a Church of believers is inferiour to the whole but hence is not proved that the guides every way that are in authoritie and jurisdiction are inferiour to believers The eye as a part is inferiour to the whole body but as indued with the excellent facultie of seeing is not inferiour to the whole body 2. Rulers as Rulers are not parts nor members of a Congregation consisting only of believers for in so far as they are Rulers they are members of a Presbyteriall Church and so they are inferiour in dignitie and authoritie to the whole The Pope is a part and a base part of the ministeriall Church but it followeth not hence that the body or communitie of believers may censure him neither may every whole or every body exercise jurisdiction over the members for then every familie of believers might excommunicate the master of the family ten believers might excommunicate five Every body that hath authoritie and is a free incorporation within it selfe may censure every member but as a company of believers cannot ordaine so neither can they depose or excommunicate
profession else we are not to labour to gain by this text unbelieving brethren and to complaine to the Church of their obstinacie or to forgive them private offences done against us to seventie times seven times which is against the course of the Text. 3. By this glosse little Bairnes which are not to be offended are brethren which have power to binde and loose and preach and baptize which is absurd 4. It is cleare by the Church here is meant a Societie different from the faithfull and brethren that hee speaketh of for he will have the offended brother to rebuke before two or three brethren in private and if the offender heare not tell the Church Now three believers to whom the matter is already told is a Church to Master Smith for so he saith in that same place Then Christ biddeth tell the matter to the Church before the Church heare of it 5. Neither doth the hearing of prayers prove a ministeriall Church seeing God heareth the prayers of one believer in the Prison or the Whales belly but it is the doctrine of these with whom we now reason that six professing Christ being visible Saints who may be unseene Divels in heart and so neither Brethren Disciples nor little ones are an independent visible Church having power to binde and loose and therefore suppose Christ spake here to his Disciples and believers of the Churches power in excommunication it is a weake collection that therefore all Disciples have power to binde and loose And these words verse 18. Whatsoever ye bind on earth c. must be meant only of the Apostles and of the Church verse 18. yea and it must exclude Peter and his offending brother suppose they were both believers because parties by the Law of nature and Nations cannot be Judges But some say that these words What ye shall binde on earth shall be bound in heaven have reference to a private forgiving anâ— gaining of a convinced brother before witnesses vers 15. And a brother in private should forgive another to seventie times seven times 21. 22. Therefore private brethren may binde and loose Answer No private brother can binde on earth for then one brother might excommunicate for these words Whatsoever ye bind on earth c is a ratifying in heaven of the sentence of excommunication verse 17. 2. Binding in private must be a not forgiving of private wrongs which is a sinfull binding and forbidden verse 22. and Matthew 6. 14 And rather cannot be ratified in heaven as Ecclesiastick binding and loosing is verse 18. expresly made good and valid in heaven 11. Smith reasoneth thus The Covenant is made with the Church and so the promises of the covenant but cursing them that curse the Church and blessing them that blesse the Church Gen. 12. 3. and remission of sinnes which is a part of the blessing are given to believers as a part of the covenant Rom. 4. 7. 8. Therefore a power of binding and loosing from sin must be given to the Church as the covenant is given to her Answer The covenant is given to one believing woman ergo by this reason also power to baptize for Smith saith page 51. By one and the same power doth the Church preach pray baptize excommunicate absolve But this is absurd 2. Cursing and blessing Genes 12. and remission of sins Rom. 4. is not the private believers cursing and remission but Gods or the ministers publikely and authoritatively as sent of God And so it is a vaine collection 12. Smith reasoneth To whom Christ is given directly and immediately as King Priest and Prophet Vnto them all other things with Christ are given Rom. 8. 32. And so the Saints are made Kings Priests and Prophets to God to forgive bind and loose But Christ is given to all believers and so the power of binding and loosing to all believers Answer To whom Christ is given subjectively and formally as their gifted Redeemer to dwell into them by faith To them all things are given either subjectively as the personall blessings of the covenant a new heart remission of sinnes perseverance in grace or objectively and finaliter for their good other wayes if one manner of giving be understood in both it should follow that all the believers were temporall Kings and Princes which is most false for temporall princedomes are given for their good but not personally to themselves So the power of the keyes is given for their salvation but not to all believers personally It is in vaine to reason from the priviledges of believers as believers to inferre that all Ecclesiastick priviledges are personally given also to believers for then should all be Apostles all Teachers all the whole body should be an eye and where then should bee the hearing And this man taketh away all necessitie of a calling by the Church to the ministerie as doe the Arminians and Socinians Neither can hee maintaine that there is a twofold power of the keyes one remote belonging to men as Christians another nearer that is ecclesiasticall and given orderly by the Church for he and his followers will have all believers because they are believers in a visible Church actually to censure bind loose absolve excommunicate 13. Thus reasoneth Smith and so Parker The Spouse hath power immediately from the husband the body from the head without any intermediating power Ergo The believers have power of binding without the mediation of Elders Answer All comparisons halt either in one legge or other Every like halteth and the argument presupposeth a falshood that the power of binding and loosing is in the Church of believers mediately or immediately which we deny it is only in the ministeriall Church and conveyed from Christ to the Spouse as to the object and end in the fruits and effects 14 They lastly alledge Fathers Chrysostome saith The power of baptizing is given to the Church So Hierome The whole Church hath judiciarie power over the guides So Gratian Hugo a Sancto Victo Aquinas Gerson Councell of Constance Almaine for this coteth Augustine Answer Wee are not subject to Almaine or Gerson in this question they be otherwise expounded What is given for the Church is said to be given to the Church in the stile of Fathers So doe Ambrose Origen Beda Chrysostome say What was given to Peter was given to all faithfull Pastors And wee know that Chrysostome denyeth the power of baptizing to any but to Pastours 15. They also adde this He that may promise eternall life to a private believer and denounce wrath on an unbeliever hath power to open and shut heaven But a private believer who should exhort his brother Heb. 3. 13. teach and admonish Col. 3 16. Comfort him 1 Thes. 5. 11. may promise life to a believer denounce wrath to an unbeliever Ergo He may open and shut heaven for the word is the Key Answer One private Christian may use the
grant have authoritie of grace to be Kings and Priests to God for grace hath with it heavenly Majestie and authoritie but they have not authoritie officiall or power ecclesiastick they want both power of order and jurisdiction except they be called Pastours and Elders but then they are believers and somewhat more But if they want power of jurisdiction their power as members of the congregation is christian popular private not authoritative not a power of the keyes Grace true and saving addeth a faire lustre to the power of the keyes and doth graciously qualifie and adorn that power but where there is no power of the keyes in simple believers it cannot adorne it to please and embrouder a wicked man is not Christ. What is the power of believers shall be declared hereafter if God permit 4. Parker disputeth thus The Church-guides must be subject to the censures of the Church of believers whereof they are members The Colossians must say to Archippus take heed to the ministerie that thou hast received of the Lord. So Ambrose thinketh it the rulers even the Emperours honour to bee subject to the Church Nazian calleth the Emperour himselfe a sheepe of the flocke and subject to the tribunall as Bellarmine granteth and that tell the Church bindeth Peter and the highest ruler So Barrow Every member is bound to the edification service and utilitie of the whole body commanded to reprove his brother to bind their sins by the word of God even their Princes with chaines to admonish Archippus yea though an Apostle or Angell preached an other Gospell to pronounce him accursed Answ. That the Prelate should be above the Church and exempted from the lawes and censures of the Church whereof he is a Prelate is most unjust and this worthy Parker proveth unanswerably Emperours being pastours are under the lawes of Jesus Christ the highest lawgiver and so Ambrose and Nazianzen say well But hence is not proved because the Collossians are as private Christians to admonish or rubuke their pastour Archippus Therefore the body of believers have the power of the keyes to depose and excommunicate and consequently to ordaine and lay hands on pastours which is commanded and commended only to such as to Timothy and Titus and in them to the Elders and Presbyterie and that tell the Church doeth bind Peter and oblige all Pastors and Rulers to be lyable to the lawes and censures of the Church but by the word Church is not meaned the Church of believers but the Eldership of all incorporations ecclesiastick respective of congregations presbyteries and Synods as God willing I shall make good 3. Barrowes Scriptures are most corruptly wrested for Ioseph a prince did bind in fetters the Senators of Egypt therfore a private believer hath the keyes of the Kingdome of heaven to shut and open What reason is there here An Apostle or Angell preaching another Gospell is accursed it followeth not Therefore a private believer suppone a woman who is no lesse than a man bound to the edification service and utilitie of the whole body is to excommunicate an Apostle or an Angell who shall preach an other Gospell The keyes shall be too common if all private Christians may put to their hand and use them because they are to teach admonish rebuke comfort and edifie one another in a private and popular way any may see it is one thing for one member of the body to help one another by exhorting and rebuking which is a worke of common charitie and for pastors publikely as the ambassadors of Christ Jesus to use the keyes by publike preaching of the Gospell which is a worke of his pastorall charge yea these two differ as an act of obedience to the law of nature and common charitie and an act of obedience to a divine positive law 5. Parker reasoneth thus Coactive jurisdiction as excommunication is a meane of edification that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord 1 Corinthians 5. 4. Now the soules of guides Parker saith the soules of Prelates shall bee in a worsâ— case than the soules of the flocke if they bee not subject to a particular Church as Corinth for they want that meane of edification which others have Some say Synods are to take order with pastoâ—rs and not the Church of Believers But Papists answer The Bishop is to be judged by the Archbishop or Patriarch if they shall scandalously sinne then they are to be left to the Pope and the Generall Councell which cannot be had Answer I deny not but every pastour is subject in some things to the Eldership of the congregation where he is and if he were not lyable to lawes or censure hee were a pope but in the matter that deserveth deprivation he is only to be censured by the Presbyterie and Synods for a number of believers nay a number of Ruling Elders cannot deprive him because they cannot ordaine a pastour for the law saith well It is one power of the keyes to ordaine and to exauthorate and deprive But no word of God will warrant a number of believers to censure ecclesiastically their pastor not because hee is their pastor and they his flocke for so the Eldership of his owne congregation might not ecclesiastically censure him which I judge to be false but because the Church of sole believers hath not the power of the keyes and they have not power to censure any other believer except in a private way as fellow members of that same body but in a constitute Church a Colledge of pastors and Elders only hath power to deprive or excommunicate a pastour and there remaineth CHRISTS way of edification that hee bee in this case censured by Synods But yee will say this is the Papists answer I answer it is not for they will have the pastour censured by the Prelate the Prelate by the Arch-Prelate which we deny as Antichristian for all are to be by the Church But Synods mâ—y erre Then appeâ—le to a greater Synod for united force is stronger But they also you will say may errrâ— I answer and the Congregation of sole beleevers is not free from error but this doctrine of our brethren shall resolve all government in the hands of thâ— people as in the highest and most soveraigne juâ—icature which is to make all Pastors all overseeâ—â— all Judges 6. Parker reasoneth from the necessary defence of the Church Every particular Church is an Armie a Ship a body 1 Cor. 12. Therefore when they are neare danger they have power to take order with a drunken Pilot and put him from the rudâ—er and to take order with a tyrannâ—uâ— Captâ—ine and to purge out the filth and excrements of the body So politicians as Keckerman Hottomanus say a wicked Magistrate is to be deposed if no other remedy can be found So Gerson Answ. It is one thing what a multitude may doe in a desperate case of necessity
such as hath joynt power of the keyes even by the grant of Separatists with the rest of the Congregation there is not faith in Christ required as an essentiall element as I have proved from Mat. 7. 22. so to make these twelve members of a visible Congregation Faith is not essentially required suppose it be morally required so by that same reason to make other twelve members in that visible society in Christ faith were not required as to make Demas Ananias Saphira Magus Alexander Hyâ—â—â—cus and some moe of that kind a visible Church There is no more required but that profession of faith which moved the Apostolike Church to make them members of a true Church visible For what maketh formally a member of a Church visible to wit profession of the faith that same maketh forty also members of a visible Church and quae est ratio constitutiva partium est etiam constâ—tutiva totius That which formally constituteth a part doth formally constitute the whole where the whole is made of parts of the same nature as what is essentiall to make a quart of water that is essentiall to make a whole sea of water and every part of the visible Church is visible and a visible professour as visibility denominateth the whole so doth it every part of the whole And from this I inferre this fourth That a visible Church as visible doth not essentially and necessarily consist of believers but only of professours of beliefe so that a Church and a visible Church may be opposed by way of contradiction as a number of believers and a number of non-believers For a Church essentially is a number of believers and Christs mysticall body els it is not a Church that is a number of persons effectually called for this cause I grant an Eldership of a congregation a Synod Provinciall or Nationall are unproperly called a Church and howbeit we list not to strive about names we may grant our General assembly not to be properly called a National Church but by a figure for the believers of the Nation are properly the Nationall Church I meane a mysticall believing Church 5. Conclusion The preaching of the Word and seals therof ordinarily setled in a visible society is the essentiall note and marke of a true Church It is weak and vaine that Ainsworth Robinson Canne and Master Smith say The preaching of the Word is no essentiall marke of the true Church and why Because forsooth our Masters learned from Barrow to say It is preached to the Reprobate to whom it is the â—avour of death unto death and it was preached to the scoffing Athenians by Paul Act. 17. and yet the Athenians were not a true Church But we distinguish three things here There is 1. The single and occasionall preaching of the Word 2. The setled preaching of the Word the setling of the Candle-sticke and Kingdome to dwell amongst a people 3. The preached Word with the seales especially the Sacrament of the Lords Supper The single and occasionall preaching or by concomitancy as to a people unconverted and unbelievers and so it is not an essentiall note of the true Church but a meane to gather a Church to God and this they proove and no more and so doe the Belgicke Arminians and Socinians proove against our reformed Churches that it is no marke of the Church so Episcopius the Remonstrants the Catechise of Raccovia and Socinus but this is as if one would say the colours and armes of such a King in warre are carried through the enemies fields as well as through the Kingsland therfore they are not the proper colours of such a King 2. The setled preaching of the Word established and remaining in a Church as the standing candlestick the fixed kingdome of God is the essentiall mark of the true Church and preached in Gods blessed decree of Election only for and to the chosen believers and as it were in the bie to the prophane reprobates amongst them and this they cannot be able to improove And it was M. Smiths vanity to say the Reformed Churches have the Word as the thiefe hath the honest mans purse Anabaptists reason just that way See Calvin 3. The preaching of the Word and the seales of the setled covenant is a means of confirming those that are already converted Neither is it much against us that the Word is preached to the reprobate for the preaching of the Word is considered either in it selfe and actu primo and so it is a mark of the visible Church Or. 2. As it is effectuall by the Spirit of Jesus and actu secundo and so it is an essentiall marke of the true Church and lively body of Christ according to that cited by Whittaker Calvin Willet Paraeus Beza Vrsine Bucanus and our Divines John 1â— My Sheepe heare my voyce Hence observe a vile Doctrine of Separatists holden also by Socinians and Arrainians as Episcopius the Belgicke Remonstrants Socinus the Raccovian Catechise and â—heophil Nicolaides That all gifted persons may preach publikely and that there is no necâ—ssity of câ—lling of Pastors by the Presbytery so doe they teach That there can be no lawfull Pastors now after the Apostacy of of Antichrist till tâ—ere be a constitute Church of believers to choose them or a flocke to them to watch over And therefore conversion is ordinarily wrought say they by private Christians that have the gift to pâ—ophecy publikely and yet are not Pastours for private Christians doe gather the Church say they Pastours doe not ordinarily convert they do only confirme the church of Saints already converted Against which we say The new Testament of Christ telleth us of no officers to preach in Christs name for the perfecting of the Saints the worke of the Ministry edifying of the body of Christ but Pastors and Doctors Eph. 4. 11 12. 2. None but such as have power of binding and loosing by the preaching of the Word Joh. 20. 3. Those to whom Christ giveth power of publick teaching to those he giveth power of Baptizing Mat. 28. 18 19. and sendeth them as his Father sent him 4. How shall they preach except they be sent Rom. 10. 14. Sending in the Apostolike Church was by praying and the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery 1 Tim. 4. 14. 5. There is nothing more ordinary then that Pastors as Pastors and by vertue of their pastorall office convert soules 1. Faith is begotten by hearing a sent â—reacher Rom. 10. 14 15. Ministers by whom we beleeve 1 Cor. 3. 9. by them we receive the Spirit by the hearing of Faith Gal 3. 2. 2. People are begotten over aâ—aine by them as by spirituall fathers and mothers 1 Cor. 4. 15. Gal 4. 19. 3. Pastors are the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wooers and under-suters to gaine the Brides consent to marry the lovely Bridegroome Christ Jesus Joh. 2. â—9 2 Cor 11. 2 3. 4.
commanded them for they have taken the accursed thing I answer This giveth us occasion to speake a little of the communion with other mens sins We partake these wayes of the Churches sins 1. When we worke with them and are helping causes this communion is unlawfull 2. When we counsell or perswade to false worship 3. When we omit what we are obliged to doe or commit that we should not doe from whence others are occasioned to sin for by morall interpretation he promoveth the sin of others who doth not give all due and obliged diligence to hinder the committing of sin 4. Those who consent to sin who approve and praise the fact and the committers of the fact 5. Those that doe not rebuke sinne 6. Those who are not displeased for it and doth not mourne for it Ezech. 9. and are not humbled for it and doth not pitty the sinner and pray that God in his mercy or justice may be glorified Now of all these we are to consider how Israel did properly communicate with Achans sin Some say there is a seventh way different from all when we in heart desire to doe what others doe wickedly in the externall fact As Israel also coveted in their heart what Achan tooke with his hands or when we doe the same sinne by Analogy that others are doing as the Marriners are punished for Jonahs sinne when as they were doing a sinne by Anology like the sinne of Ionah For Ionah fled from Gods presence as if God could not have followed him through the Seas and had been like the Idoll-gods and the Marriners did the same they worshipped an Idol-god and knew not the God that made the Heaven and the Earth Now wherein none of these seven wayes we partake of the sins of a Church how can their worship be defiled to us or have any influence to infect us but the truth is Israel were guilty of Achans sin because they did not carefully observe and waâ—ne one another to take heed that they medled not with the accursed thing but Joshuah never dreamed of Separation from Israel for Achans sin and the Text saith not that for they could not separate from the Church for Achans sacriledge which was not known to them while God discovered the same else by this Text we are to separate from all Churches where there doth live hidden and covered Achans and unseen hypocrites and thus we behoved to remove and separate up to the Church tryumphing in Heaven or then with Anabaptists find a spotlesse Church on Earth 14. They object To be present at a Masse is to countenance an Idol-worship so to be present in a Church-worship where there is any errours in the worship is to countenance the errour for what worship we countenance to that we say Amen and so we must consent to the wrong constitution of a Church where are prophane people Answ. 1. â—o countenance a worship professedly Idolatrous where the name of the worship doth import the worshipping of a false god is unlawfull for others doe interpret our presence a joynt worshipping with them But our presence at every lawfull worship that is acknowledged lawfull doth not give so much as interpretatively signification of our consent to every particular in the worship because hearing discerning choosing or refusing beleeving or not beleeving according as you find the points agreeable to Gods word or dissonant therefrom doth interveene betwixt your presence at the worship and your consent to the worship now the act of consenting approving and receiving the point of worship is formally to partake of the worship else we could not obey the precept 1 Thess. 5. 21. Try all things some things in the Preacher are to be borne with the Preachers of the Separation have not an Apostolick and infallible spirit if any of them preach unsound Doctrine the presence of the hearers doth not involve them in the guilt of the Preachers erronious worship The Pharisees corrupting of the Law was knowne and rebuked by Christ but yet Christ forbad Separation Heare them saith Christ Mat. 23. they sit in Moses his chaire CHAP. XII Quest. 12. Whither or no doe some warrantably teach that baptisme should be administrated onely to Infantâ— borne of one at least of the nearest Parents knowne to be a believer and within the covenant And who are to be admitted to the Lords Supper NOt only these of the Separation but also others whom we doe most unwillingly oppose in this hold that Baptisme is to be denyed to Infants whose nearest Parents one at least are not knowne to be within the covenant That our mind may be knowne in this we propose these distinctions to the learned and godly Reader to be considered 1. There is an inherent holines and there is a federall holines whereby some are holy by covenant that is have right to the meanes of salvation which right Turks and Pagans have not 2. People or persons are two wayes within the covenant 1. Truly and by faith in Christ and according to the election of grace 2. In profession because the word of the covenant is preached to them as members of the visible Church 3. There is a holines of the covenant and a holines of covenanters and there is a holines of the Nation flocke and people and a holines of the single person 4. There is a holines of election in Gods mind and a holines reall and of the persons elected 5. There is a federall or covenant-holines de jure by right such as goeth before Baptisme in the Infants borne in the visible Church and a holines de facto a formall covenant-holines after they are baptized Hence our first Conclusion All the Infants borne within the visible Church what ever be the wickednesse of their nearest Parents are to be received within the Church by Baptisme 1. Argument If the children of wicked parents were circumcised all without exception notwithstanding the wickednesse of their parents then the children of these who are borne in the visible Church of Christians are to receive that same seale in nature and substance of that same covenant of grace which is baptisme But all the children of most wicked parents were circumcised without exception Ergo so are the children of Christians borne in the visible Church The proposition cannot be denyed by our brethren 1. They say circumcision was given only to members of the visible Church to whom the doctrine of the covenant Gen. 17. 7 8. was preached and these were professors only within the visible Church of the Jewes as M. Best saith and if children were to be circumcised because God said I will be your God and the God of your seed then because this promise is made to Christians and to their seed in the new Testament Acts 2. 38. they should be baptized ver 38. be baptized every one of you c. ver 39. for the promise is made to you and to your children Whence it is cleare as these who were
they by Gods providence may be cast into a country where they are not and cannot be without due examination members of a setled Church as one may heare the word and joyn in publick prayer with any true Church he cometh unto and so having Christian-communion with a true Church he hath by that same also Church communion For baptisme is not like Burgessâ— freedome in a city a man may be a free Citizen in one Towne or City and not be a free citizen to have right to the priviledges of all other Cities but he who is Christs free-man in one Church hath Christian freedome and right to communion therby in all Churches and may have Church-communion in all true Churches but hee that is a free Burgesse in one City is not free in all Thirdly they object If Baptisme be given to all promiscuously the Church shall not be the house of God to receive only Gods family but a common Inne to receive all cleane and uncleane So Best citing Cartwright Baptisme is to be administred say the Separatists onely to the seed of the faithfull because such only are accounted to the Lord for a generation which he begetteth and receiveth in his Church to declare his righteousnesse in Christ Psalm 22. 30 31. Rom. 4. 11. and Rom. 11. 16. Math. 10. 13 16. Answ. Cartwright in that place is only against the baptizing of infants of excommunicate parents who are cast out of the Church but as the Church is a house so there are in the house of baptized ones both cleane and uncleane Neither are they all barnes of the house who are within the house the profession of cleannesse and holinesse and of the faith of Christ maketh it a house different from the society of Pagans and Inâ—idels 2. Wheras M. Best urgeth that none should be baptized but members of the visible Church he maketh all baptized members of the Church how then must they be all visible Saints clean persons and holy For baptisme maketh not the thousand part that are baptized to be visible Saints 3. This Generation begotten of the Lord and received into the Church to declare his righteousnesse Psal. 22. is not such only as are to be baptized for that generation v. 30. is a seed that serveth the Lord and v. 31. declareth his righteousnesse All infants whether of faithfull or unfaithfull parents doe alike service to God and alike declare his righteousnesse that is to say infants of what ever kinde can doe no service to God If their meaning bee the infants of faithfull parents circumcised shall serve God and declare his Righteousnesse when they come to age First this Text saith not they are the seed of the faithfull onely that shall serve God For the seed of the faithfull such as Ammon Absolom and Davids seed often refuse to serve God and declare his righteousnesse and the seed and children of wicked Parents as Hezekiah the sonne of wicked Ahaz and Josiah the sonne of wicked Amon doe often serve God and declare his righteousnesse So they cite Scriptures that by no force of reason doe speake for them as Rom. 4. 11. and Rom. 11. 16. say nothing but if the root be holy with the holinesse federall and of the externall profession So are the branches but the place speaketh nothing of true inherent holinesse for then all holy Parents should have holy and visible Saints comming out of their loines which is against Scripture and experience Fourthly they object By this our Divines lose their best Argument against Anabaptists namely that children of Christians by that same warrant are to be baptized that Infants under the Law were circumcised but none was circumcised but a member of the visible Church under the Law Now this ye gain-say who would have all cleane and uncleane baptized and so you leave your patterne Answ. We leave our patterne in no sort For all were circumcised that were borne of circumcised Parents within the Church of the Jewes so all are to be baptized that are borne of Christians and baptized Parents professing the faith But say they Drunkards Murtherers Scoâ—â—ers Swearers and ignorant Atheists both Fathers and Mothers whose children you baptize doe not professe the â—aith for in works they deny and belye their profession Answ. Then you will have the children of none to be baptized but those whose parents are sound and sincere professors in the judgement of charity but so Joshuah failed who circumcised the children of all professing themselves to be Abrahams sonnes carnally howbeit Joshuah knew and was an eye-witnesse that their Fathers did deny and belye their profession And John baptized the â—eed of all Mat. 3. that professed the faith of the Messiah although he knew them to be a generation of vipers 2. They often require that one of the Parents be a beleever or else the childe cannot be cleane nor lawfully baptized and they repose on that place 1 Cor. 7. 14. For the unbeleeving husband is sanctified by the wife and the unbeleeving wife is sanctified by the husband Else that is if both were unbeleevers were your children uncleane that is not within the covenant but now are they holy And they alleadge Beza and Pareus for this Answ. But they mistake the word unbeleeving for by unbeleeving in that place as the Professors of Leyden doe well observe is meant Infidell Gentiles that are without the Church and professe not Christ as is cleare from the Text For where the husband that beleeved was married on a Pagan-wife or a Jew hee thought being converted to the Christian faith he behooved to sunder with his Pagan-wife and the wife converted to the Christian faith married to a heathen and Pagan-husband thought she behoved to divorce and that the marriage could not be sanctified The Apostle answereth this case of conscience Suppose the Father be a Pagan if the Mother be a beleever that is a professour of Christianity for a Beleever is here opposed to a Pagan yet the children are holy by the Mothers or Fathers profession of Christianity Hence the Argument is strong for us Profession of Christianity opposed to Paganisme maketh the children cleane and holy before God by the holinesse of the Covenant therefore Infants borne of parents professing Christian Religion are to be baptized For that this troubled many converted that they were married to heathen and bondmen to them and in such and such callings as they thought inconsistible with Christian Religion is cleare from verse 14 15 16 20 21 22 23 24. And Beza on that place saith it was never heard in the ancient Church that every Infidell child was to be baptized And Pareus saith the children of Christian parents are holy before Baptisme by a Covenant and externall holinesse iure by Gods right being borne of Christian parents And after Baptisme they are holy de facto formally and actually So say Melancthon and Keckerman But I feare that these who will have none baptized
bought with a price all things are theirs and therfore all power which consequence is no stronger the one way then the other 9. It layeth a blot upon Christs wisdome who hath appointed congregations to be edified by no power of the keyes in case of aberration aâ—d incorrigible obstinacy 10. It maketh the Word of God imperfect which setteth downe no Canons how the believers of an independent Church should governe and Paul teacheth how Timothy and Titus and all Church-men should governe 11. It excludeth not women from usurping authority over men by judging excommunicating ordaining pastors seeing they are the body and Spouse of Christ as believing men are 12. It maketh the Sacraments no Sacraments the baptized non-baptized and in the place of Turkes if possibly the pastour and the ten professours of the independent Church be unbelievers which is too ordinary 13. By this an assembly of Pastors and Elders from divers congregations have no more the power of the keyes then one single man who may counsell and advise his brother 14. Extreme confusion and inevitable schismes hence arise whilst such a sister-Church saith I am Pauls and her sister-Church saith I am Apollo's and there is no remedy against this fire 15. The patterne of a Church governing and ministeriall consisting of only believers is neither in all the Scriptures antiquity nor in the writings of Divines But of these I shall speake more fully hereafter God willing 4. Argument That Doctrine is not to be holden which tendeth to the removing of a publick Ministry but the doctrine of independent Churches is such Ergo the doctrine of independent Churches is not to be holden The proposition is out of doubt seeing Christ hath ordained a publick Ministry for the gathering of his Church Ephes 3. 11. 1 Cor 11. 1 Cor 14 1 Tim 3. 1 2 3. Heb 13. 17. 1 Thess 5. 12 13. 1 Cor 5. 4. Math 16. 19. Math 28. 18. Joh 20. 21 22 23. I prove the assumption By the doctrine of independency two or three or ten or twelve private Christians in a private Family joyning themselves covenant-waies to worship God is a true visible Church So the English Puritanisme So a Treatise called Light for the ignorant So the Guide to Zion So the Separatists holding Independent Congregations define a visible Church Every company Congregation or Assembly of true believers joyning together according to the order of the Gospell in the true worship is a true visible Church This being the true definition of an independent congregation from the writings of the Patrons thereof I prove that it taketh away the necessity of publick ministery 1. because every twelve in a private Family is this way joyned together and is an independent Church 2 this congregation being independent it hath within it selfe the power of the keyes and is not subject saith the English Puritanisme to any other Superiour ecclesiasticall jurisdiction then to that which is within it self But 1 Katherin against M. Edwards saith p. 7 8. Private Christians have the Spirit Ergo they may pray Answ God forbid we deny but they both may and ought to pray continually but hence it followeth not affirmativè à genere ad speciem therfore they may authoritatively not being called of God as was Aaron and invade the pastors chaire and pray and fast and lay on hands by ministeriall authority as the pastors doe Act 6. 6. Act 13. 3. 2. The Church saith the Feminin Authour p. 8. is not blinde so that none have power of seeing but only the officers Answ. All believers see and discerne true and false teachers 1 Iohn 4. 1. Heb 5. 14. 2 Cor 3. 18. Psal 119. 18. Ephes 1. 17. but it followeth not affirmativè à genere aâ— speciem theâ—fore they doe all see as the eye of the body with an authoritative and pastorall light and eye for then all the body should be an eye where were then the hearing 2 Cor. 12. 17. 3 Within it self there is no jurisdiction ministeriall for in the definition of a Church ministeriall there is deepe silence of Ministers or office-bearers and good reason by their grounds who hold it For it is a society of believers joyned together covenant wayes in the true worship of God which society hath power to ordain and elect their owne pastors and Elders here is the power of the keyes to bind and loose on earth as Christ bindeth and looseth in Heaven Math 18. 18. chap 16. 19 and a ministeriall act of these keyes to wit the ordaining of Pastours Doctors Elders and Deacons before there be any Pastor Doctor or Elder or Deacon A ministery then must only be necessary ad benè esse non ad esse simpliciter to the better or wel-being of the independent Church and not to the simple being of the Church for the thing must have a perfect constituted being and essence before it can have any operation and working proceeding from that being as one must be a living creature indued with a sensitive soule before it can heare or see or touch now this independent Church must have the perfect essence and being of a ministeriall Church seeing it doth by the power of the keyes within it selfe constitute and ordaine her owne Ministers and Pastors and if they were joyned in the worship of God before they had Ministers they did in a visible way being a visible Church in the compleate being of a visible Church worship God before they had Ministers for before they ordaine their Ministers they must keepe the Apostolick order fast and pray and lay on their hands for so did the Apostles Act 1. 24. Acts 6. v. 6. Acts 13. 3. Act 14. 23. 1 Tim 4. 14. 2 Tim 1. 5. So here are publick fasting publick praying publick ordination of a visible and independent Church and as yet they have no Ministers So in case the Eldership of a congregation shall all turne scandalous and hereticall this same independent congregation may excommunicate them Ergo before excommunication they must publickly and by the power of the keyes convince them of Heresie rebuke them pray for them and finally by the spirit of Paul a Pastor 1 Cor 5. 4. judicially cast them out Now let all be Judges if this be farre from pastorall preaching and if here be not ministeriall acts and the highest judiciall and authoritative censure exercised by no Ministers at all and what hindreth by this reason but the independent Church that doth publickly and authoritatively pray fast rebuke convince gainsayers make and unmake by the power of the keyes pastours and Ministers may also without Ministers preach and administer the Sacraments against which the Separatists themselves doe speake and give reasons from Scripture that none may administer the Sacraments untill the pastors and teachers be chosen and ordained in their office But hence we clearly see an independent Church constituted in its compleat essence and exercising ministeriall acts and using the keyes without any ministry
Church consisting possibly of six or ten beleevers only that the care for many Churches 2 Cor. 11. 28. The pastorall care to gaine Jew and Gentile those that are within and without to be made all things to all men to save some should be now in no pastors on earth but dead with the Apostles as if these places 1 Cor. 10. 32. 1 Cor. 9. 19 20 21 22 23. Rom. 1. 14 15. Rom. 9. 2 3. did not presse to all Ministers of Christ the extending of their pastorall vigilancy to the feeding and governing of all the Churches in their bounds that maketh up one visible politick body communicating one with another in the acts of Church-communion Hence it must follow 1. When the Grecian Church shall be wronged by the Hebrew Church that the pastors may not synodically meet and by joynt authority remove the offences betwixt Church and Church as the Apostles did Act. 6. 2. It followeth that all the meetings and convention of the Apostles and Pastours to take care authoritatively for the Churches as Act. 1. Act. 4 35. Act. 6. 2 3 4. Act. 11. 1. Act. 8. 14. Act. 14. 1 2 3 Act. 15. 6. Act. 21. 18 19 20 c. Act. 20. 18. Act. 14 23. 1 Tim. 4. 14. were all meetings of Apostles extraordinary temporary and Synods of Apostles as Apostles and not meetings of pastors as pastors to joyn their authority in one for the governing of many Churches 3. It followeth that Pastors and Elders and Doctors may now no more lawfully meet and joyne their authority in one for the feeding of the flock then they may take on them to worke miracles speake with tongues and as Apostles goe up and down the earth and preach to all the world the Gospell O that our Lord would be pleased to reveale his minde to our deare Brethren in this point of truth For what be extraordinary and temporary in the conjoyned authority and pastorall care of the Apostles for all the Churches of the world I see not neither is it in reason imaginable which doth not in conscience oblige Pastors Doctors and Elders in the Church of Scotland to conjoyne their authority in one Synodicall power for all the Churches of Scotland O saith our Brethren there should be too many masters commanders and Lords over the free and independent visible Churches of Christ. I answer seeing all these Pastors and Elders in a nationall Synod are no other way over all the Churches of Scotland then the particular Eldership in a particular congregation is over the believers there be no more too many Lords and Masters over the whole Churches collectively united in a general Synod then there be too many Lords over the particular congregations For 1. in both meetings the beleevers choose their owne guides and commanders that are over them 2. Nothing is done in either a Nationall or in a congregationall Synod without the tacite consent of believers 3. In both it is free for beleevers to refuse and not receive what is decreed contrary to Gods Word See Zipperus and so there is no dominion here but what you finde Heb. 13. 17. 1 â—hess 5. 14 15. Math. 18. 17 18. Nay our brethren will have pastors so farre strangers to all congregations save only to their owne that M. Davenport and Mr. Best saith to the Pastours and Churches other Churches are without and Pastors have nothing to doe to judge them and they alleadge for this 1 Cor. 5. 12. but by these that are without Paul meaneth not these who were not of the congregation of Corinth but he meaneth Infidels and Heathen as in other Scriptures for Paul judged and excommunicated Hymenaeus and Alexander 1 Tim. 1. 20. who were without the Church of Corinth and if this exposition stand Pastors can extend no Church censure towards these who are of other congregations neither can they rebuke nor admonish them as Christians for these are Acts of Church-censures as our brethren teach Our eleventh Argument is from the light of sanctified reason for sanctisied reason teacheth that the stronger authority of the greater politicke body of Christ should help the parts of the body that are weaker as 1 Cor. 12. The whole body suffereth when one member suffereth and so the whole body helpeth the weaker and lesse honourable member 1 Cor. 12. v. 23 26. So universall nature contendeth for the safety of particular nature and helpeth it therefore the greater body and Nationall Church is to communicate its authority for the good of a particular Congregation which is a part thereof But the doctrine of independency maketh every Congregation an independent and compleat body within it selfe needing no authority to governe it higher then its owne authority as if it were an independent whole Church and no part of a greater visible Church But suppose the greatest part of Corinth deny the resurrection as often the worst are manyest then I aske whom to doth the Lord speake Take us the little foxes that spoile the vines He speaketh either to greater Synods which we say that the greater body may help a part and save a little daughter of Sion Or to the soundest part of the Congregation but they are weakest and fewest and shall the greater body looke and see a member perish and not help Let them help say our brethren with advise and counsell but not with command and authority I answer Take us the little foxes is an act of authoritative and disciplinary taking enjoyned to the Church 2. Our Argument is drawne from the greater authority in the politicke body to the lesser brotherly advise is not authority Hence authority as authority by this meanes shall not help the weaker parts of the body contrary to that which we have at length commanded 1 Cor. 12. Neither doe some reply well that he speaks 1 Cor. 12. of Christs invisible body because it is said v. 13. For by one spirit we are all baptized into one body whether we be Jewes or Gentiles Jewes and Gentiles saith he make not a visible Church but an invisible Catholike Church I answer 1. What can hinder under the New Testament Paul a Jew to make a visible Church with the Ephesians who are Gentiles 2. That he speaketh of a visible politicke body is cleare while he alleadgeth The eye exerciseth Pastorall acts of seeing for the foot and that the eare heareth for the whole body and when one member suffereth all suffer which is principally true of a politicke visible body For we are not baptized in one body visible with those preachers who are long agoe dead who never preached for the good of us who now beleeve in Christ because we never heard them preach and so they are not eyes seeing for us Our twelfth Argument is from the practises of the Jewish Church in a morall duty If Christ hath left the Churches of a whole Nation in no worse case then the Nationall Church of the Jewes were in for their publike giving of
power of the keyes the private person rebuketh swearing out of charity with care onely of these with whom hee converseth withall by noe power of the Keyes A Watch-man giveth warning of the approach of the enemy and the common Souldier may doe the same the Schoolemaster teacheth one lesson the schoole-fellow teacheth that same the one by office the other of common Charity 2. The Pastour interpreteth the word the private person doeth but use apply and accommodate the sense and interpretation of the word to his owne act of beleeving and the acts of admonishing rebuking comforting his brother Twelfthly they object against Synods The Pope is the Antichrist because he willeth men to appeale from their owne Churches to him as Whittaker and Chamier prove but the doctrine of the Synods teach men to appeale from particular Churches to Synods and by no word of God have Pastors power over other Congregations nor their owne Answ. Antioch appealed from corrupt teachers Acts 15. 2 3. and that is Apostolike but to appeale from a Church to a man of sin as if he were the whole Church is Antichristian 2. If sixe beleevers in a Congregation of forty beleevers should censure a brother our brethren would say that brother should appeale from these sixe who yet make an independent Congregation to the Church of forty yet should not this be Antichristian 3. To appeale from a Church as an unlawfull judicatory is unlawfull but to appeale from a lesser Church as from a not competent Judge to that same Church in a larger meeting is most lawfull 4. That Pastors of divers Churches have power over many Congregations being convened in a Synod is cleare Acts 1. Acts 6. Acts 15. 13. They object That this wanteth antiquity Answ. This is said for the fashion what meaneth then the tomes of Councels the Councell of Sardis Laodicea Africa Toledo 4. Canon Law Cyprian Augustine Tertullus Irene Chrysostome c. CHAP. XVII Whether or no some doe warrantably teach that a Pactor hath no pastorall power to preach and administrate the Sacraments without the bounds of his owne Congregation and from whence essentially is the calling of a Pastor OVr brethren who teach that the ordination of Pastors is onely from that power of the keyes that they imagine to be in the body of beleevers must needs holding such an humane ministeriall Church fall in divers errors as 1. that he cannot officiate pastorally without that number of beleevers from whence essentially he hath his pastorall calling 2. When the Churches necessity shall call him to remove to another independent flocke He is no Pastor while he be ordained and chosen of new by that flocke So the English Puritanisme and M. Best We hold that a Pastor may officiate as a Pastor without his owne congregation 1. Arg. That which the brotherhood and communion of sister-Sister-Churches requireth to be done that Pastors may lawfully doe but this the brotherhood of sister-Sister-Churches requireth to be done Ergo c. the assumption is proved 1. Because death or necessary absence of Pastors necessity of keeping the flocke 2. Necessity of convincing the gainsayers if the present Pastor be weake in learning yet able to cut the word aright saith M. Paget requireth this M. Best answereth Officers of Churches may be helpfull to other Churches as Christians but not as Ministers Answ. This Argument presupposeth that Pastors not as Pastors but as Christians either may administer the Sacraments lawfully and so any Christian may administer the Sacraments which is both Popish and absurd or that it is not lawfull for Pastors to administer the Sacrament out of their owne congregation or to any other of another congregation then their owne and so yet communion of Sister-Churches in these acts is cleane taken away 2. Our Argument is from Church-communion not in Christian acts as Christian but in ministeriall acts as ministeriall 2. Arg. If Ministers as M. Paget argueth may labour to convert unbeleeving strangers and to adde them to their flocke that they may enlarge Christs kingdome then they may exercise Pastorall acts over and above others then these of their owne charge but the former is true Ergo so is the latter The assumption is cleare because Prov. 93. Wisdome sendeth out her maids to call in these that are without and 1 Cor. 14. 24. the Prophets as Prophets were pastorally to convince and so to convert Inâ—idels who were not of their charge M. Best answereth These acts are not acts of a Minister as a Minister a man and a wife a father and a childe a Pastor and a flocke are relatives as I am a Father I exercise not proper acts as a Father but towards my owne children what good I doe to others cannot be said to be the acts of a Father but rather of a friend a neighbour a Christian c. Answ. He presumeth that a Pastor may preach and exercise pastorall acts as a Christian but so all Christians may pastorally preach though not called of God contrary to the Scripture so women and private persons may invade the Pastors chare 2. It is vaine to presse similitudes while they blood for Christ properly is the bridegroome and husband of his Church Eph. 5 6 27. John 3. 29 Rev. 19. 9. Rev. 21. 9. Isâ— 54 5. Pastors are but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under suitors for the bridegroome John 3. 29. This is Popish doctrine to make such a relation betwixt a mortall man and an independent Church Pope Enaristus and Calixâ—us saith while the Bishop liveth the Church can no more bee given to another without his consent nor the wife can bee given to another then to her owne husband without his consent And so said Innocentius the third therefore at the consecration after imposition of hands saith Vasquez and anointing of the Bishop and delivering to him a staffe a consecrated and blessed ring is put on his ring-finger in token he is married to the Church but what have we to do with such trash as this For in a word the comparison of a marriage in this point is either Popish or unseasonable or both because the mutuall consent betwixt A. B. and his wife being essentially marriage as the Canon Law Divines and sound Casuists acknowledge it maketh A B. a husband and also the husband of such a wife during their life-time but election of the people that A. B. be their Pastor and A. B. his acceptation of the Church as his charge maketh him not both a Pastor and also the Pastor of that Church because the ordination of the Presbytery maketh A. B. formally and essentially a Pastor I meane a called Pastor under Christ but the election of the people and his consent doth not make him a Minister but doth only appropriate him after he is made a Minister to be the Minister of such a Church and so the comparison halteth in the maine point for which it is alleadged therefore A. B.
of the keyes without any subjection to any superiour Ecclesiasticall indicatorie p. 187. CHAP. 14. QVEST. 14. Whether or no the power Ecclesiasticall of Synods can be proved from the famous Councell holden at Jerusalem Acts 15. p. 199. CHAP. 15. QVEST. 15. Whether or noe by other valid Arguments from Gods word the lawfulnesse of Synods and Assemblies can be concluded p. 217. CHAP. 16. QVEST. 16. Whether or no it can be demonstrated from Gods Word that all particular Congregations have of and within themselves full power of Church-discipline without any subiection to Presbyteries Synods and higher Church-Assemblies where also the question about publike prophecying of such gifted men as are not in office is discussed against the tenent of Separatists p. 231. CHAP. 17. QVEST. 17. Whether or no some doe warrantably teach that no man hath Pastorall power to preach and administer the Sacraments as a Pastor without the bounds of his owne Congregation And from whence essentially is the calling of a Minister from the Presbytery or from the people p. 260. CHAP. 18. QVEST. 18. Certaine Quares or doubts following upon the Doctrine of independent Congregations p. 272. CHAP. 19. QVEST. 19. Doubts generally seeming to oppose Presbyteriall government discussed and loosed as anent ruling Elders Deacons Widowes the power of Kings in matters Ecclesiastick p. 280. CHAP. 20. QVEST. 20. Whether or no the government of the Church of Scotland can be demonstrate from the cleare testimonies of Gods Word p. 362. CHAPTER I. Whether the power of the Keyes of the Kingdome of CHRIST be conferred upon the multitude of believers as upon the first and proper subject or upon the Church-guides THe Question is not understood of that Royall and Kingly power of excellency and Independencie called all power which is only in Christ Iesus but of the supreme Ministeriall power as all expound it Bucanus Cartwright Amesius Parker that is given to the Church By the Keyes wee understand not the Monarchicall power of Teaching supreme defining Articles of faith and judging the Scriptures as the Jesuites of Rhemes doe dreame Vulcane not Christ made these Keyes We deny not what Bellarmine saith that the keyes signifie a Princedome in Scripture as the key of Davids house promised to Eliakim This key Christ only keepeth Chrysostome and Gregory both say that the care of the whole Christian Church was committed to Peter which proveth not his Princedome but only his ministeriall power given to all the Apostles as well as to him but the Metaphor is borrowed from a Steward or Master-household who hath the keyes of the house given to him to open and shut doores at his pleasure as Calvin Bucan Whitaker explaine it well and it is the power of preaching and governing given to the guides of the Church as servants to open and shut Heavens doore to believers or impenitent persons If wee rightly proceed these distinctions are to bee considered 1. There is a power physicall and a power morall of the Keyes 2. A power popular of the Keyes that belongeth to all and a power authoritative that belongeth to the Guides only 3. The power of the Keyes is in Christ as in the formall subject and fountaine 2. In the Church of believers as in the finall object seeing all this power is for the Church 3. In the Guides as in the exemplar cause representing the Church as we say the image is in the glasse and learning in the booke and this Petrus de Alliaco and Gerson hath the like 4. The Keyes may be thought to be given Mat. 16. to Peter as Prince and King of the Apostles as Papists say or 2. As Peter representeth the Church of believers as some say or 3 As bearing the person of Church guides as we shall demonstrate God willing 5. There is a power ordinary and a power extraordinary 6. The Keyes may be thought to be conferred by Christ immediately either by the immediation of Christs free donation and gift or or by the immediation of simple designation in the former respect the keyes were given by Christ once to the Apostles and still to the Worlds end to the Church guides immediately without the Churches power intervening in the later respect Christ giveth the keyes mediately by the popular consent and election of the Church of believers who doe under Christ designe and choose this person rather than that person Thomas rather than John for the sacred office of weelding the Keyes neither is any man now elected immediately by Christ as the Apostles were 7. Then we may well distinguish in this question these foure 1. Power physicall 2. Power morall 3. Power of order and jurisdiction 4. The use and exercise of that power Wee are to observe that it hath beene a noble and grave Question betwixt the Church of Rome and the Vniversitie of Paris as Spalanto and Robert Parker with others have observed whether Christ hath given the power of the keyes immediately to all the faithfull and by them to the Pastours and Doctors as the Parisians hold so teacheth Almain Ioan. Major Gerson and Occam or if Christ hath given the keyes immediately to the Church guides as we maintaine from Gods Word The mistake hath beene that some Doctors believe that the power of the keyes seeing it is for the good of the whole Church must have some common subject viz. the universall Church in which it must for orders cause first reside before it be given to certaine guides But neither Scripture nature nor reason requireth such a shifting of the keyes from hand to hand seeing Christ can keep them and immediately put them in their trust whom he liketh best Hence for the determination of the Question I. Conclusion The physicall power of the keyes is given to men as they are professors that is men and not Angels are capable of that power for when they are made members of the visible Church they are differenced both from Angels and Infidels as Pagans and Turkes for Angels according to Christs humble love and deepe wisedome are not upon the list to be office bearers in his house but this is not formally a power of the keyes but a popular power about the keyes whereby popular consent may be given to the key-bearers for their election II. Conclusion There is a power popular but not authoritative a power of private Christians not an officiall power of charge given to the visible professors to make choise of their owne office-bearers those against whom we now dispute brethren reverend learned and holy doe confound and take for one and the same the power of electing or choosing officers and the power of Ordination And they make election of Elders which by Gods Word is due to all the faithfull an act of jurisdiction whereas it is a private and popularâ—act flowing from that spirit of grace in believers and from
and Pauls Epistles to Collosse Ephâ—sus Galatia laid an Ecclesiasticall tye upon these Churches that consented not to the writing of these Epistles not onely because the matter is the Canonicke word of God but also the tye was Ecclesiasticall in so farre as the flocke is obliged to heare the Pastor according to that He that heareth you heareth me and he that despiseth you despiseth me Any absent through sicknesse or other distractions from the election of Matthias Acts 1. the seven Deacons Acts 6. and the Elders chosen in every City Acts 14. 23. were tyed to stand to the election of Matthias the seven Deacons and the Elders in every City else no act of the Church were valid where one or two dis-assenteth or where two or three are absent by sicknesse and other distractions insuperable And so here our brethren I beleeve cannot in reason deny but there is a representative Church whose deed tyeth the absents And the reason is cleare that to make a Church-constitution oblige in conscience and ecclesiastically there is not required as an essentiall ingredient of obligation that all and every one who are tyed and obliged be personally present to voyce and consent to the constitution for constitutions tye Ecclesiastically as made by the Church but not as made by all and every one of the Church And the lawfulnesse of Commissioners to represent the case of the Church is cleare in Gods Word as Antioch sent Commissioners to Jerusalem Acts 15. Jerusalem sent Barnabas their Messenger to Antioch 11. 22. But Titus Timotheus Epaphroditus and others were sent by the Churches and to the Churches as Commissioners and Embassadours of the Church of Christ. CHAP. VIII Quest. 8. If our Saviour doth warrant a Church of Elders and Overseers in these words Mat. 18. Tell the Church WE have an argument of weight for a Presbyteriall Church in our Saviours words Mat. 18. 17. If thy brother offending neglect to heare them the Christian witnesses before whom he is convinced of his â—ault tell the Church but if he neglect to heare the Church Let him be to thee as a heathen and a Publicane v. 18. Verily I say to you whatsoever ye bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever ye lose on earth shall be loosed in heaven The Septuagint agreeth with Matthew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Arias Montanus Tremell Beza Pareus Muscâ—lus Lyra Hug. Cardinalis Caietaâ— Aquinas It is not much matter that Castalio turneth Tell the Assembly of the Commons Augustine Cyprian Hyeronim and all are against him The scope of these words is not as many beleeve that our Saviour setteth downe a way how to remove private offences done betwixt brother and brother onely 1. Because the words then should not prove the lawfulnesse of excommunicating for publike and scandalous sinnes 2. The scope is as large as binding and loosing on earth and proportionally in heaven But our Saviours ayme is to establish a Church consistory for removing all scandals and offences out of the Church private and publike betwixt brother and brother and betwixt Church and Church Neither is there ground for the foresaid scope because he saith If thy brother offend in the singular number for what if three sixe tenne brethren offend is not this course of our Saviours to be taken if sixe offend sixe Hence it followeth that the Church here signifieth not onely the Eldership of a particular Congregation but it signifieth respectively all Presbyteries and Synods Provinciall Nationall and Oecomenicke for seeing Excommunication and Ecclesiasticall binding and loosing is Christs remedy against all scandals private or publike in Christs kingdome then by a brother by a Synechdoche is meant all that offendeth then if a sister-Church offend a sister-Church or a Provinciall or Nationall Church offend a neighbour sister-Church Christs remedies being Catholike and universall as farre as our diseases goe the course must be to Tell the Church I purpose then first to shew this interpretation to be agreeable to the mind of all Doctors acknowledging one Church of Elders here and next to prove our interpretation Chrysostome Tell the Overseers Augustine Tell the Watchmen Hieron We must tell many So Cyprian so the Councell of Ancyra So Ambrose Ball saith The Aethiopicke Interpreter saith Tell the house of Christians Boderian Tell the house of Judgements All our Divines say this Calvin Beza Pureus Chemnitius Aretius Erasmus Polunus Hemmigius Hyperius Musculus Iunius Piscator Bucanus Rivetus Cartwright Marlorat Dan. Tossun Buâ—er The harmony of confess Helvet French English Vrsine Whittaker So Papists Emanuel Sâ— Victor Parisian Doctors Fathers of Basill and Constance Joan Gerson Iac. Almain Simon Vigorius Aquinas Occam What Bilson Downam Sutluvius saith against this is answered by Parker Ant. Waleus and other worthy divines That the Church of Elders is here understood I prove Christ here alludeth to the Synedry and Consistory of the Jewes with which his hearers were well acquainted for he was now speaking to the Jewes who knew his language well and knew these termes Brother witnesses Sunedry Assembly Congregation Heathen Publicane and knew what Church had power to cast out and repute men for Publicanes and sinners For as Beza observeth who would understand Christ here to speake of a Christian Presbytery that has power to excommunicate except we consider that Christ has a respect in this forme of speech to the Iewes Church-policy And Christ in like manner Mat. 5. 22. accomodateth his speech to the forme of the Jewes judicatories For many learned note out of the Talmud that the Jewes had three judicatories noted there 1. The Triumviri judged small matters 2. Their Synedry consisting of twenty three judges more weighty matters and inflicted more weighty punishments and 3. the great Councell of 71. Judges did handle questions about false prophets the High-priest and of other weightiest causes and therefore he sheweth the punishment of an offending brother amongst the Iewes too darkly but these judicatories were well knowne to them And here excommunication is expressed in Jewish tearmes in use at that time Let him be to thee as a heathen that is a stranger from the common wealth of Israel not one of the true Chuâ—ch but such a one as they called Goijm So Drusius and Beza on this place Now Tell the Church Kahal to those that know the Iewes forme of speech must be Tell the Elders of the Congregation amongst them the multitude no more judged causes then we would thinke him excommunicated who is esteemed one not 〈◊〉 borne of Abraham and so all the whole Church of the Gentiles should be excommunicated So Franc. Iohnson 2. The Church of beleevers convened together is still a Church met together for hearing the Word receiving the Sacraments 1 Cor. 11. 18 19. 1 Cor. 14 19 20 21. In which none are to speake but Pastors and as the Separatists say Prophets and not all private persons but this
they are not one Church with us but there is a reall and essentiall separation betwixt us and them as betwixt a true Church and an Antichristian Church a spouse of Christ and no spouse for faith relatively taken faith of many united in one society doth essentially constitute a Church and the formall object of their faith is the word of the Church and of men or Gods word as expounded by men and our faiths object formall is the word of God as the word of God and so doe formally differ 7. Howbeit I say Rome is a Church teaching and professing and hath something of the life and being of a true Church yet I hold not that Rome is Christs body nor his wife Neither meane I with our late novators Prelates and their faction sometimes in this Land and now in England that Rome is a true Church as they taught that is so a true Church as 1. We erred in separating from that leaper whore 2. That her errours are not fundamentall and that we and this mother can be reconciled and bedde together But what I say is holden by our Divines Calvin Junius Whittaker that famous Divine Rivetus that most learned Professor Gilbertus Voetius and our Divines Voetius maketh nine rankes of these that were not dyed and engrained Papists in the popish Church 1. Some deceived 2. Some compelled 3. Some ignorant 4. Some carelesse who tookâ— not heed to that faith 5. Some doubting 6. Some loathing it 7. Some sighing 8. Some opposing and contradicting it 9. Some separating from it Now seeing our Church hath nothing to doe with Rome and our ministry lawfull Separatists may hence be satisfied Neither yet doe I thinke with Spalato de repub Eccles. in ostensione error Suarezij cap. 1. pag. 887 888. That the Roimane Church is erronious onely in excesse seeing â—n substantiall points there is such defect also as averteth aith 4. Conclusion There be three sorts that have communion rightly with our Church 1. Infants baptised for baptisme is a seale of their fellowship with Christ and therefore of communion with the Church because Separatists will have none members of the Church while they can give proofes thereof by signes of regeneration infants must be without the Church as Infidels and Turks for none are the Church to them but the royall generation partakers of the holy faith taught of God called and separated from the world the rest are without hence baptisme shall either seale no entring of infants in the Church contrary to Gods word or the baptizing of infants is not lawfull as Anabaptists teach 2. The hearers of the word have a communion with the Church as is cleare seeing these that eate of one bread are one body these that professe in the hearing of the word that same faith are also that same body in profession yet excommunicate persons are admitted as hearers of the word Hence only the extreame and great excommunication 1 Cor. 16. 22. cutteth of men from being simply no members of the Church that excommunication that maketh the party as a heathen and Publican supposeth him still to be a brother and hearer of the word 2 Thes. 3. 14 15. And all these are members of the Church and yet not necessarily converted 3. The regenerate and beleevers that communicate of one bread and one cup at the Lords Table are most neerely and properly members of one visible body and none of these are to separate from Christs body 5. Conclusion It is not lawfull to separate from any worship of the Church for the sinnes of the fellow-worshippers whether they be officers or private Christians 1. Because Scribes and Pharisees and the Church in Christs dayes was a most perverse Church the rulers perverted the Law Mat. 5. 21. denyed that hatred and rash anger was a sinne ver 22. or heart adultery a sin Made the commandement of God of no effect by their traditions Mat. 15. 6. polluted the worship with superstition and will-worship ver 7. 8. Mark 7. 6 7 8. said it was nothing to sweare by the Temple devoured widdows houses made their proselites children of damnation Mat. 13. 14 15 16. were blind guides filled the measure of their fathers wrath slew the Lord of glory 1 Cor. 2. 8 9. killed and crucisied the Prophets were blind guides and the blind people followed them and slew the Lord of glory also The Priest-hood was keeped by Moyen Caiphas was High-priest that yeare But Christ by practice and precept forbad to separate from this Church Ergo c The assumption is cleare Mat. 23. They sit in Moses his chaire heare them Mat. 10. 6 7. Goe to the lost sheepe of the house of Israel and preach And Christ and his Disciples observed their feasts preached in the Temple and Synagogues Joh. 1. 7 37. Joh 8. 2. Luk. 4. 16. Luk. 1. 9. Christ reasoned with them about religion Ioh. 10. 24 25 26. Ainsworth replyeth to this Christ and his Disciples separated from the corruptions of the Iewish Church and from false Churches as from the Samaritanes Answ. We acknowledge separation from corruption but not from the worship of corrupters when they keepe the foundation the Samaratine-Church had not the foundation but worshipped they knew not what neither was there salvation in their Church Iohn 4. 2. but there was the true God worshipped among the Iewes and salvation amongst them 2. Ainsworth replyeth The Iewish Church consisted still as Moses had ordained Levit. 20. 24. of a people separated from the heathen and were the children of the Prophets and covenant Joh. 4. 9. Acts 3. 25. but your Church consisteth of an unseparated people Answ. The Priest-hood was changed Ioh. 11. 51. Caiphas was High-priest that yeare against the Law as Tollet observeth for the High-priest Exod. 28. 29. by the Law was High-priest till his dying day But all was corrupted saith Calvin and all bought and sold saith Iosephus this was as Anti-Mosaicall as our reformers Ministry is Antichristian if they had their calling only from Rome 2. The Jewish Church consisted of men separated from heathen who said stand back I am holier then thou Isaiah 65. but they were corrupters of the Lâ—w murtherers of the Prophets and the heire Christ Math. 21. hypocrites will-worshippers blind guides blind people c. Our second Argument If Gods Prophets and people were never commanded to separate from the publike worship but commanded to come up to Ierusalem and worship pray sacrifice with Gods people Deut. 12 11 12 13. Deut. 15. 19 20. Deut. 16. 7 8. v. 16 17. And yet that people was a crooked and perverse generation Deut. 32. 5. not his children provokers of God to jealousie with strange gods sacrificers to Divells ver 16 17. their workes for bitternesse like the clusters and grapes of Sodome ver 32. a people that had neither eyes nor eares nor heart to understand God Deut. 29 3 4. stiffe necked foolish proud
seed of Christians and the seed of Turks and Pagans and these that are without the true Church of Christians But if so that the sinnes and wickednesse of the nearest parents cut off their children from the mercy of the covenant and hinder God to be their God then these infants are in no better case through the covenant made to their grandfathers and generations upward then the sonnes of Turks and Pagans for they are strangers to the covenant and have no right to the seales of the covenant no more then the children of Turks I prove the proposition I will be thy God and the God of thy seede extendeth the covenant to the seed of the faithfull to many generations downeward untill it please the Lord to translate his Sonnes Kingdome and remove the candlestick from a people Neither can the meaning be I will be thy God and the God of thy seed except the nearest parents of thy seed be unbeleevers for that is contrary to the Scriptures aboved cited Neither can they say that the children of unbeleeving parents borne within the christian Church have right to the covenant and the seales thereof when they come to age and doe beleeve and repent for so the children of Turks if they beleeve and repent have that same right as is cleare Isaiah 56. 6 7. Acts 10. 34 35. 6. Argument If God in the covenant of grace and Evangell will not have the sonne to beare the iniquity of the father except the sonne follow the evill wayes of his parents and so make the fathers iniquity his owne then cannot the children of wicked parents be excluded from the covenant and the seales of the covenant for the sinnes and wickednesse of their nearest parents But the former is said Ezech. 18. 4. The sonne shall not beare the iniquity of his father Now infants as yet being free of actuall sinnes have not served themselves heires to the iniquities of their fathers Neither can it be said as some say the children of Turks are not to be baptized because their parents are without the covenant and yet these children being free of actuall transgressions beare the iniquity of their fathers I answer God keepeth a legall way with Turks and all that are without the Church and covenant of grace and we suppose the child borne of wicked parents to be in the case of election and so really within the covenant and it is ordinary enough that chosen and redeemed infants be born of unbelieving parents in that case who can say that God layeth their fathers iniquities on them in spirituall and eternall punishments such as is to be reputed without the covenant and dying in that estate to be damned for ever 7. Arg. If the root be holy so also are the branches Rom. 11. 16. Now this holinesse cannot be meant of personall and inherent holinesse for it is not true in that sense if the fathers and fore-fathers be truly sanctified and beleevers then are the branches and children sanctified and beleevers the contrary wherof we see in wicked Absalom borne of holy David and many others Therfore this holinesse must be the holines of the Nation not of persons it must be an holines because of their elected and chosen parents the Patriarches and Prophets and the holy seed of the Iewes and so the holinesse federall or the holinesse of the covenant If then the Iewes in Pauls time were holy by covenant howbeit for the present the sons were branches broken oft for unbeliefe much more seeing God hath chosen the race and Nation of the Gentiles and is become a God to us and to our seed the seed must be holy with holinesse of the chosen Nation and holinesse externall of the covenant notwithstanding the father and mother were as wicked as the Iews who slew the Lord of glory 8. Argument If the speciall and only reason why Baptisme should be denied to the children of nearest Parents who are unbelievers be weake and contrary to the Scriptures then is this opinion contrary to Scripture also but the former is true Ergo so is the latter for not only the speciall but the only argument is because these children are without the covenant seeing their nearest Parents are without the covenant but this is most false many waies 1. God commandeth as I shewed before that the children of most wicked Parents Josh. 5. should be circumcised Ergo God esteemed them within the covenant notwithstanding of their fathers wickednesse 2. The Lord tearmeth the children of those who slew their sonnes to Molech and so ostered them to Divels to be his sonnes Ezech. 16. 20. Moreover thou hast taken my sonnes and my daughters which thou hast borne to me and these hast thou sacrificed to them to be devoured is this of thy whooredomes a small matter v. 21. That thou hast slaine my children c. So Ezek. 23. 37. If they be the Lords sonnes and borne to the Lord howbeit their Parents were bloody murtherers and sacrificers to â—Divels then God esteemed these sonnes within the covenant and who are we to exclude them out of Gods covenant 3. The sonnes of most wicked Parents dying in their iâ— fancy may be saved and of them God hath his owne chosen as we see in many aged ones borne of wicked Parents Ergo the wickednesse of the Parents is a weake ground to say they are without the covenant especially seeing we affirme God hath his decrees of Election and Reprobation of infants Rom. 9. 11. no lesse then of aged the contrary whereof wee know Arminians teach 9. Arg. If externall profession be sufficient without longer examination to baptize the aged as we see in Simon Magus Act. 8. 13. and in Ananias and Saphira Act. 2. 38 39 44 45. compared with Act. 5. 1 2. by the Apostles practise Then the profession of faith in the fore-fathers is enough for us to judge their fore-fathers within the covenant and consenters to the covenant for when many thousands at once are said to enter in covenant with God as is cleare Deut. 29. 10 11 12 13. Josh. 24. 24 25. 2 Chron. 15. 9 10 11 12. they could not give any larger proofs or evidences of their faith of the covenant then a solemne assembling together and a verball oath or a saying Amen or So be it as Deut. 27. 14 17. after which they were reputed in the covenant and so their seed also in the covenant Augustine his mind is that such infants are not to be excluded from baptisme so Bucan Calvin Wallens the Professours of Leyden Let us heare shortly what our brethren say on the contrary M. Best and others object Those only are to receive the seale of the covenant whose Parents at least one of them in externall profession are within the covenant but infants borne of wicked and prophane parents are not borne of parents in externall profession within the covenant Ergo the infants of wicked parents are not to
receive the seale of the covenant The proposition he proveth from Genes 17. 10. This is my covenant and every man-childe amongst you shall bee circumcised and Rom. 4. 11. He received the signe of circumcision a seale of the righteousnesse of Faith The assumption he and others proove because murtherers drunkards swearers and whose children we baptise declare themselves not to be Christians nor faithfull nor Saints by their wicked life and so not within the covenant This argument also the Separatists use Answ. The Major is false and not proved from Gen. 17. or Rom. 4 for neither of these places speake of nearest Parents father and mother one at least the Text beareth no such thing but the contrary These are to receive the seale of the covenant whose fore-fathers are in externall profession within the covenant for God commandeth not Abraham only to circumcise his sons but all parents descended of Abraham to circumcise their seed the seed of Abraham carnally descended to all generations and so the nearest parents only are not to be looked unto 2. This argument doth either proceed according to this meaning that these infants only are to receive the seale of the covenant whose parents are within the covenant by an inward ingrafting and union by true faith besides the externall professing therof or then there is no other thing required but only externall profession that the Church without sinne may conferre the seales if the former be said it will follow that God speaketh Gen. 17. only to Abraham and his sons by faith according to the promise and only to believers but God speaketh to all Abrahams sons according to the flesh 2. Because God should speake an untruth that he were a God by reall union of faith to all that are commanded to be circumcised for he commanded thousands to be circumcised to whom he was not a God by reall union of faith therefore these words must import that nothing is more required that the Church without sin may conferre the seale of the covenant but the children to be descended of parents professing the truth and faith although the parents indeed as concerning any reall union of faith be plain strangers to the covenant and members of the Church only as an arme of wood is a member of the body which being true as it must be said the assumption is weake and sick â—or the question is what it is to be externally within the covenant it is not to slee all knowne sinnes to be a chosen people a people taught of God for then God would not have commanded Joshua Chap. 5. to circumcise all Israel because their fathers externally were within the covenant as this argument would say for their fathers were a generation of unbelievers who knew not God who tempted him and grieved his holy Spirit in the wildernesse and professed themselves by their murmuring never to be truly within the covenant Then to professe the doctrine of the covenant is but to be borne Iewes and avow the Lord in externall profession and Deut. 29. sweare a covenant with him when the heart is blinded and hardned v. 4. And so by this it is cleare Joshua had commandement of God to give the seale of the covenant to their children who were as openly wicked against the Lord as murtherers drunkards swearers c. 3. This argument will prove circumcision could lawfully be given to none but the children of parents within the covenant that is professedly knowne to be faithfull holy and seâ—arated from the prophane world in the judgement of câ—arity this hath no warrant of the word For 1. The children of the moâ—t wicked were circumcised Iosh. 5. 2. We desire to know whom God forbad to be circumcised that were carnally descended of Abraham Or shew us exâ—mple or precept therof in the Word 3. What God required in the parents whose Infants the Church might lawfully and without sin circumcise so they were borne Iewes O saith Mr. Best they behooved to be members of the Church whose infants might lawfully be circumcised I answer that is ignotum per ignotius Shew me one person being a borne Iew whose child the Lord forbad to circumcise 2. What is it to be a member of the Iewish Church Is it to bee a visible Saint and taught of God I true that was required indeed to make men acceptable before God but to make one a visible member of the Iewish Church visible nothing was required but to be a borne Iew and professe Gods truth and keepe them from externall ceremoniall pollutions I mean to be a member of the visible Church to keep externall and Church-communion with the rest of Gods people Secondly they object Not onely must they be in profession within the covenant but also members of some visible Church and particular congregation that is that they be within the Church for we have nothing to do to judge them that are without 1 Cor. 5. 12. And this M. Best Proveth by the order required in Gods Church putting a difference betwixt Church-communion and Christian-communion A man may be a just peaceable quiet man and so meet to be a Citizen in a City but he hath not right to the priviledges of the brughe untill he come to them by due order so must a man not onely be a Christian ere his childe be baptized but also a member of a visible Church Answ. 1. This Objection proceedeth from a great mistake as if Church-communion with a particular independent congregation were more and a better and nearer ground of baptizing then Christian-communion which we judge to be false because the Catholick Church is by order of nature and first and more principally the body spouse redeemed flocke of Christ then any particular independent congregation that is but a part or member of the Catholike Church and therfore the covenant promises of grace the power of the keys the seals of the covenant belong first principally to the Catholike Church to these that are in Christian communion with her before they belong to this or that visible part of the Catholick Church and so all ecclesiastick power of the keys must be first more principally in the Catholick Church then in a particular congregatioÌ„ as a reasonable soul by order of nature is in man before it be in Peter Thomas or Iohn 2. I believe these are within that are professours of the true faith suppose they be not members of the Church of Corinth or of any setled Church it is enough if they be within the covenant and these are without only who are Infidels and Pagans not professing the true and sound faith as the Apostle meaneth 1 Cor. 5. 12. Baptisme is a priviledge of the Church not a priviledge of such a particular independent Church and the distinction betwixt Christian-communion and Church-communion in this point is needlesse and fruitlesse for none are to be refused of baptisme whose parents professe the faith and Christian-communion Howbeit
conversion of the Indies where there are no Pastors So Separatists and M. Jacob. Answ. I borrow this Argument what is essentiall at some time and places for the making of a Pastor is evermore essentiall but ordination of Pastors by Pastors and sending them to preach to the Indies who are unwilling to receive their ministery is onely essentiall to make a man sent thither a Pastor for peoples consent in that case cannot be essentiall where they will not give their consent at all and non ens cannot be essentiall to the making of a Pastor 2. What is essentiall for making a Minister who is extraordinarily called of God is not ever more essentiall to the making of a Minister ordinarily called of God in an Island where the Gospell is if all the Pastors should dye the people might chuse Pastors to themselves but they could not then make Pastors God onely without the ministery of other Pastors in that case should make Pastors but it followeth not hence that Pastors ordinarily have not their calling to be Pastors from the ordination of Pastors 4. They object When the Church electeth her Pastor she saith we give thee A. B. power to administer the word seales and censures and the Minister doth possesse and assume Ergo the people election is the essence of a Ministers calling So John Smith Answ. It is presupposed by order of nature that A. B. is first called and ordained a Pastor by Christ and 〈◊〉 laying on the hands of the Elders 1 Tim. 4. 14. before the people can elect him for their Pastor For if A. B. be no Pastor people cannot chuse him to be their Pastor neither doth the peoples election give any such power to A. B. That power is given by the Presbyteries act of ordination by order of nature before the peoples formall act of election As the husband who in a Lapidaries shop chooseth a gold ring for his wife and putteth it on her finger presupposeth it was a gold ring before his chusing thereof neither doth his chusing thereof make it a gold-ring but onely make it his wifes gold-ring by application to her Just so peoples election appropriateth such a man who is already a Pastor to such a charge but doth not make the Pastor a Pastor but chuseth him only to be their Pastor 5. Smith laboureth to prove that the ministery commeth not by succession from Ministers For then saith he the ministery should be before there were any Church but the Church is before the ministery and calleth the Ministers to office Answ. The Church ministeriall the governing Church whereof we now speake cannot be before there be a ministery for then there should be Ministers before there be Ministers which is against common sense The Church mysticall is before the Church ministeriall I grant but a Church mysticall or a Church of beleevers may chuse Pastors before they can ordinarily be their Pastors but they cannot make Pastors Yea and God at same times supplyeth the want of popular election while he calleth one to preach to a people never consenting he shall be their Pastor and so neither can the objector maintaine a succession of beleevers alwayes calling Ministers nor doe we hold a constant ordination of Pastors in a continuall line of succession from the Apostles made by Pastors the succession may be interrupted but then God himselfe supplyeth the want of ordinary ordination appointed by himselfe 1 Tim. 4. 14. Tit. 1. 5. 1 Tim. 5. 21 22. Acts. 6. 6. 6. They object If a Ministeriall power come saith M. Smith by succession from Presbyteries then are Presbyters Lords of the Churches faith in respect that the Church cannot enioy the holy things of God howbeit she be of her selfe the body and Spouse of Christ without the Presbyters consent Answ. Any may here see right downe Anabaptisme because the Church cannot enjoy pastorall preaching and the Sacraments without Pastors appointed of Christ for that effect Mat. 28. 18 19. John 20. 21 22 23. Mar. 16. 15. therefore Pastors are Lords of the peoples faith so they may have Baptisme and the Supper of the Lord because they are Christs Spouse and body without Pastors 2. By this goodly Argument private beleevers preaching and baptizing are Lords of the faith of other private beleevers who are their hearers because notwithstanding that private beleevers be the body and Spouse of Christ of themselves yet can they not by M. Smiths reasoning enioy the holy things of God without the ministery of private Christians preaching and administrating to them the Sacraments 7. Smith objecteth If ministeriall power come by succession from Ministers then Ministers may excommunicate the whole Church of Christ. Answ. This is most weake Illud tantum possumus quod de iure possumus And by this reason the beleevers may excommunicate the whole ministery also which is no lesse absurd 8. Smith addeth If the Eldâ—rs and Deacons dye the succession faileth and a mnisteriall power of Christ â—eing once lost can never be recovered againe and so there shall be no Ministers in the world Answ. Suppose in this or that Church all the Ministers should dye yet it followeth not that a Ministery can utterly faile in the Church It is contrary to Eph. 4. 11. and to the perpetuity of Christs kingly government and Thrâ—ne which shall endure as the dayes of heaven And what if God extraordinarily supply the want of ordination in this or that particular Church A ministeriall power is conferred in that case immediately upon some in a Church removed from any Church-consociation from other Churches and so Christs ministeriall power dieth not 9. Smith reâ—soneth thus to prove that beleevers may ordaine their owne officers That which is given by Christ to the Church is in the power and possession of the Church but officers and offices are given to the Church Answ. What is given to the Church sinaliter obiectivè that is for the behoofe and good of the Church for their edification and salvation as Gods proposed end such as preaching and baptizing that is in the Churches power and possession is most false and so I deny the maior proposition for preaching and baptizing is given by Christ for the good and salvation of women and private Christians yet women and private Christians may not preach baptize and ordaine Ministers Whatsoever is given to the Church subiectivè as to the proper subject Mistresse and Spouse to dispose and carve upon at her pleasure is in the Churches power and possession It is true but now the assumption is false because officers and offices are not so given to the Church of beleevers as to the subject Christ ascending on high gave Pastors and teachers for the Church of beleevers for their gathering and perfecting but not to the Church of beleevers 10. If two or three saith M. Smith faithfull ones have power to make a Church then have they power to make
Christ or beleeve not in him joyne hands with Papists and make way for Anabaptisticall Anaâ—chy that a persecuting or an unbeleeving King is no King not to be obeyed but to be turned out of his Throne And to this meaning Calvin Viretus and Cartwright teach that the kingly power floweth immediately from God the Creator not from God in the Mediator Christ. But 2. thâ— kingly power is considered in a speciall manner as it is in a Christian whether professing onely the Gospell or truly beleeving in Christ and so in relation to Christs Church and to the soule of a beleeving Prince the kingly power floweth from God in and through the Mediator Jesus Christ as all common favours which in generalâ— flow from God the Creator are sanctified and blessed to the beleevers in the Mediator Christ as meat drinke sleep riches kingly honour And in this meaning Sauls kingly honour in respect of Saul himselfe is but a common favour flowing from the Creator howbeit to Gods Church for whose good he did fight the battels of the Lord it was a speciall favour flowing from God in Christ as our Divines say that creation which in it selfe is a common favour to all is a meane in the execution of the Decree of Elâ—ction to the children of God 3. Conclusion Hence our Divines say that kingly authority is the same ordinance of God essentially considered in the heathen Princes as in Christian Kings as Cartwright and others say Neither doth it follow as our unlawfull Canons teach That the Christian Kings now have that same power in Causes Ecclesiasticall which the godly Kings amongst the Jewes as David and Salomon had â—or David and Salomon were Prophets as well as Kings and had power to pen Canonâ—cke Scripture and to prophesie which power in Ecclesiasticke causes no King now can have Neither doth it follow which Whytgift saith that we give no more authority to the Christian Magistrate in the Church of Christ then to the great Turke Our Divines say and that with good warrant that the kingly power as kingly is one and the same in kind in heathen Nero and in Christian Constantine As a heathen man is as essentially a father to his owne children and a husband to his owne wife and a King to his owne subjects as a Christian man is a father husband and king to his owne children wife and subjects Neither doth Christianity superadde and give of new any kingly power to a King because he is now become by Gods grace of a Heathen King a Christian King Christianity addeth indeed a new obligation to imploy his kingly power which he had full and entire before now in its exercise and use to more regall and kingly acts as to take care that the Gospell be soundly preached the Sacraments and discipline of the Church kept pure and heretickes punished according to that he to whom much is given from him much shall be required But the same King while he was a heathen King had the same kingly power and authority to performe these regall acts but being yet a heathen he wanted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 supernaturalis a supernaturall or reall and physicall power to performe these acts now this power which he wanted before he heard of the Gospell and beleeved in Christ was not a kingly authority for then he should not have been a compleat Heathen King before which is against Gods word commanding obedience to heathen Kings Rom. 13. 1 2. 1 Tim. 2. 1 2. 1 Pet. 2. 17. but this power that he wanted is a Christian power to exercise regall and kingly acts Neither is this an inconvenience that power to exercise the acts of a calling in a Christian manner be Christian and supernaturall and yet the authority kingly and not formally Christian but such as is and may be in a heathen King therefore kingly power and Christian power are here carefully to be distinguished and a Christian Kings power as a Christian is more then the Turks power in Church-matters Hence our Adversaries here dethrone and degrade the King for they give the King a head-ship and dominion over the Church as he is a Christian man and take that headship from him as a King because if the Turke by sword should conquer Britaine and become our King by their grounds he should be Head of the Church no lesse then our Christian Prince who now reâ—gneth over us and certaine it is a poore Headship that they give to the King even such a Head-ship as a Heathen King and the Turke hath over subdued Christian kingdomes and thus by their way Nero and Julian were heads of Christs Church 2. If unbeleeving Kings cease to be Kings then when they commit any fault that maketh them in Gods Court no members of the Church they are to be dethroned which is most seditious doctrine and so Formalists herein joyne with Papists 4. Conclusion There be these distinctions here considerâ—ble 1. The Kings power ordinary and extraordinary 2. His power as a King 2. and as a singularly graced Christian. 3. His power hortatorie as a Christian and coactive as a King 4. His power accumulative not privative in Church-matters 5. His power in actibus imperatis in acts commanding to another and his power in actibus elicitis which he is to performe himselfe If a King were a Prophet as a David he might doe many things in an extraordinary way in Church-matters which he cannot now ordinarily doe 2. As a singularly graced Christian he may write Sermons and Commentaries on holy Scripture for edifying the Church but this should be done by him by no kingly faculty 3. As a Christian he may exhort others to doe their duty but as King he may command that which Paul commanded Timothy and Titus to commit the Gospell to faithfull men who are able to teach others to preach in season and out of season to lay hands suddenly on no man and reforme Religion purge the Church of idolatry and superstition as Joshuah and Hâ—zekiah did all which Church-men and Synods might doe also but Synods doe this in an Ecclesiasticke way upon the paine of Ecclesiasticke censures The King doth it by a regall kingly and coactive power of the sword 4. the Kings power is accumulative in giving to the Church and ayding and helping God hath given to the King the ten Commandements and the Gospâ—ll as a pupill is given to a Tutor The King holds his sword above the Law of God to ward off the stroakes of wicked men who doe hurt the Law but the Kings power is not privative to take any priviledge from the Law and the Church so his power is as a tutor to keep not as a father who may both give and take away from his son the inheritance his power is defensive not offensive 5. He hath power in actibus imperatis to command that all preach sound Doctrine decree just Canons exercise discipline aright but in
19 20. where the Church had her owne Synods without the consent of a civill Magistrate but we are to repute it a speciall favour of God when the King as a nursing-â—ather will countenance Synods with his royall presence God blesse our King 5. Conclusion The Kings royall power in adding his sanction to the ecclesiasticall constitutions and in punishing such as are decreed to be hereticks by the Church is regall and not ministeriall and servile See for this the Con c. Chalced. Aâ—t 16. the Imperiall lawes Cod. l. 1 tit 8. leg 2. Heretic Vocab decret p. 2. caus 23. q. 8. c. 30. crossing Bellar. de pont l. 1. c. 7. So do their owne men goe against Bellarmine in this as Sanderus de clavib David l 2. c. 13. Carerius de potest sum pont l. 2. c. 23 Leo epist. 38. to Martian and Pulcheria and Leo epist. 7. to Theodosius Becanus erreth here with Bellarmine making the King as a servant obliged to adde his sanction civill to ecclesiasticall Canons Becan in opusc exam conc Anglic c. 7. 1. Because the use of the sword at Gods commandement is a kingly act commanded by God and is service done to God not to the Church 2. Neither is the King so to execute the Churches will as he should judge only of the fact and of the assumption yea he is to judge of the law and of the major proposition I or we see not in the Word of God where a Judge is a Judge to punish a fault and is not to know judicially that it is a fault a Judge as a Judge should know such a thing to be heresie and not takâ— it upon the word of an Assembly of Church-men Deu. 17. 18 19. he is expresly to reade and know the law and to know and remember the Decree Prov. 31. 5. And the cause which he knoweth not he is to search out Job 29. 16. all which is meant of a knowledge not of private discretion which is required in all private Christians but as I take these places of a knowledge judiciall and authoritative which agreeth to a Judge as a Judge 3. If a Synod erre and decree that man to be an heretick who is sound in the faith the King is not obliged to erre with the Synod and to punish the innocent he is to decree righteous judgement and so the King is to judge of heresie but after a regall and civill way and with a coactive powâ—r as the Synod or Church-Assembly is to judge of heresie after an ecclesiastick way and with a spirituall power 2. The King punisheth heresie as it troubleth the Common-wâ—alth and the Synod as it is scandalous and infectious in the Church Yea and the Christian King ruleth over men as men and also as Christian-mâ—n he ruleth over them as men with a dominion over their bodies lives and goods by his civill lawes he hath also dominion as King over men as Christians and members of Christs kingdome and Church not over their conscâ—ences for that is proper only to the father of spirits but he hath a coactive power over all men even Pastors as to cause them do their Christian duties he hath power to compell Church-men in Assemblies to determine truth and to use the keyes right and to preach and use the Sacraments according as Christ hath commanded in his Word and to punish them when they do otherwise What then if the King discerne that to be truth and absolve the man whom the Church-Assembly doth condemne as an heretick who shall judge betwixt them I answer the infallible rule of judging for both is the Word of God which speaketh home unpartially to both if they will heare but certainly the Kings civill kingly coactive power to compell men to doe their duty remaineth the highest and most supream power on Earth in genere potestatis politicae in the kind of politick power and pastors and all men may by this power be compelled to do right as for the abuse of the power it is no part of the power and in this kind the King hath a negative politick and kingly suffrage and voyce in all Church Assemblies no ecclesiasticall constitution hath the force of a law without the politick suffrage of the civill Judge And againe the ecclesiastick power that Christ hath given to his Church remaineth also the most supreme power under Christ in genere potestatis ecclesiasticae and the King is subject to this power The King is not excepted in this He that despiseth you despiseth me and in this whatsoever ye shall binde on earth shall be bound in Heaven and in this whose sinnes ye remit they are remitted and whose sinnes ye retaine they are retained and this ecclesiasticall power being the highest on Earth Pastors may command Kings in the Lord Jer. 1. 10 18 17. to doe their duty by an ecclesiastick power Arminians and Formalists both aske which of the two powers are highest and nearest unto the head Christ whither the kingly power or the ecclesiastick power for two paralell highest powers on earth cannot be I answer by asking which of the two shoulders in a mans body are highest and nearest to the mans head Certainly one of them in a well proportioned body is not higher then another and both are alike neare the head as none of two pole-starrs are nearer to their Zenith and Nadir none of two wheels in a right Chariot are higher then another The Church power saith the Prelate Davenant is highest in teaching and directing the kingly power in commanding and compelling Barclai compareth them to two shoulders under one head Meisner saith one of them is not above another There is no absurdity saith Spalato that in two bodies formally different there should be two heads yea it is necessary The Roman Glosse saith Patricius is the Popes father in things temporall and the Pope is his father in things spirituall as Cusan saith Papists saith Spalat have deleted that out of the Glosse So Berengarius Gelasius Papa Nicolaius the I agree to these words Sciendum quod nec Catholicae fidei nec Christianae contrarium est legi si ad honorem regni sacerdotij Rex pontifici pontifix obediat regi Spalato seemeth against Bellarmine to make up the losses made by Papists in Kings honour while he holdeth that the King his person and as he is a Christian man is subject to Church-power but as King he is subject to none but to Christ from whom immediately he hath his kingly dignity even as saith he when an Emperours servant being a Physitian the Emperour as Emperour is not subject to the Physitian but only the Emperour as he is a wounded man is subject to the art of his owne servant who cureth him and that of the Emperour free-will not by coaction so the Image-maker or he who maketh pourtracts in his art is not subject to the King neither is the King as King