the King Judgeth by them and in them 2. This error is founded upon a worse error to wit that the supreme Magistrate had no power of life and death in Israel without consent of the people but certainly there are as specious and plausible reasons if not more specious for the peoples government in all civill matters then there can be for their Church-power of judging in the Church-matters and government therof Yet there is no ground for it 1. Because the Rulers only could not be charged to execute judgement in the morning to deliver the oppressed to execute judgement for the Fatherlesse and the VViddow nor can there be a promise made to establish the Kings Throne for obeying that Commandement as a Gods Word teacheth if the people have as great yea greater power in Judging then the Rulers have by this our Brethrens argument They say all the Believers at Corinth 1 Cor. 5. could not be commanded to cast out the incestuous person nor could they all be taxed for omitting that duty if they had not power to excommunicate 2. Neither can the Spirit of God complaint that the Judges builded Zion with blood and the heads of the house of Jacob and Princes of the house of Israel did abhor judgement and pervert equity as the Prophets say nor could they be condemned as roaring Lyons and evening Wolves as the Prophet sayth for the Judgeâ— might well be faultlesse when the poore were crushed in the Gate and Judgement turned into Gall and Wormewood because they cannot helpe the matter the people are the greatest part in caring matters in judgement 2. We see Davids practise in condemning the Amalckite out of his own confession not asking the peoples consent and in condemning to death Baanah and Rehab for killing Ishbosheth Solomon gave sentence against Adoniiah Ioab Shimei without consent of the people David pardoned Shimei contrary to the counsell of Zerviahs sons 3. If from the peoples witnessing and hearing of judgement in the Gate we conclude the people were Judges with the Rulers there was never a time when there was no King in Israel and no Iudge to put evill doers to shame but every man did what seemed good in his own Eys contrary to Scripture because all are a generation of Kings and Princes no lesse then the Ruler himselfe as Anabaptists teach By the Doctrine of our brethren I deny not but he that gathered stickes on the Sabbath was brought Num. 15. 33. to Moses and to Aaron and to all the Congregation but the Congregation signifieth not the common multitude For 35. Moses received the sentence from God and pronounced it and the Congregation stoned him to death And Numb 27. 1. The Daughters of Zelophehad stood before Moses Eleazar and before the Princes as Iudges and before all the Congregation as witnesses not as Judges but v. 6. 7. Moses gave out the judiciall sentence from the Lords mouth And 1 King 21. 12. Naboth stood in presence of the people to be judged but the Nobles and Princes were his Judges because v. 8. Iezabel wrote to the Nobles and Princes that v. 10. they should carry out Naboth and stone him to wit judicially and v. 11. The Nobles and Princes did as Iezabel had sent unto them And Ieremiah cap. 26. pleaded his cause before the Princes and people for v. 10. The Princes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Set down judicially in the entry of the new gate of the Lords House nothing can be gathered from the place to prove that the people judged but because Ieremiah spake to the Princes and the people who vers 24 were in a fury and rage against Ieremiah if Ahikam had not saved him from their violence CHAP. 4. SECT 4. QUEST 5. WHether there be no nationall or provinciall Church under the New Testament but only a parishionall Congregation meeting every Lords day in one place for the worship of God The Author in this first proposition denieth that there is any Nationall or provinciall Church at all under the New Testament for clearing of the question observe these 1. Dist. VVe deny that there is any diocescan provinciall or Nationall Church under the care of one Diocesan or Nationall Prelate or Bishop but hence it followeth not there is no visible instituted Church now but only a particular Congregation 2. Dist. VVe deny any Nationall typicall Church where a whole Nation is tyed to one publick worship in one place as sacrificing in the Temple 3. Dist. VVe deny not but the most usuall acception of a Church or visible meeting is given as the refutator of Tylenus sayth to a convention of people meeting ordinarily to heare the word and adminstrate the Sacraments Stephanus deriveth it from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Cyrillus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As Causabon observeth so these who meete at one Sermon are called Ecclesia a Church and it is called Ecclesia concio sayth the Refutator of Tilen but this hindreth not the Union of more particular Congregations in their principall members for Church-government to be the meeting or Church representative of these many united Congregations 4. Dist. A Parish-Church materiall is a Church within such locall bounds the members whereof dwell contiguously togegether one bordering on the other our Brethren meane not of such a Church for as Paâ—â— Baynes sayth well this God instituted not because a company of Papists and Protestants may thus dwell together as in a Parish and yet they axe of contrary Churches a Parish-Church formally is a multitude who meete in manner or forme of a Parish as if they dwelt neere together in a place ordinarily to worship God as the 〈◊〉 of those who came together to celebrate the Lords Supper is called the Church 1 Cor. 11. 18. For first of all when ye come together in the Church I heare that there are divisions amongst you 〈◊〉 what have ye not houses to eat and drink in or despise ye the Church of God 1. Concl. If we shall evince a Church-visible in the Now Testament which is not a Parishionall Church we evince this to be false which is maintained by our Brothren that there is no visible instituted Church in the New Testament save onely a Parishionall Church or a single independent Congregation But this Church we conceive to have been no Parishionall Church 1. Because these who met dayly and continued with one accord in the Temple and breaking bread from house to house that is administrating the Sacraments together as our Brethren say were a visible Church But these being first an hundred and twenty as Acts 1. and then three thousand added to them Acts 2. 41. could not make all one single independent Congregation whereof all the members had voyce in actuall government Ergo they were a visible instituted Church and yet not a Parishionall Church The proposition is cleare The Church of Ierusalem was one visible Church and did exercise
and Ostorodius Theoph. Nicolaides reason against Gods ordinance of a sent Ministerie Robins God hath indeed set in the body some to be eyes and mouth and hath not said to all the Church Goe and preach but first they have not their gifts from the Church Secondly you would have the body to starve if such hands as Deacons will not feed and all the body blinde if the eyes of the watchmen be blinde Answ. Yet thus much is granted that gifts give not the keyes nor authority to use gifts and so that all beleevers though gifted and graced also have not power of the keyes 2. It 's certaine that in a constituted Church there be no hands nor mouthes to doe and speake by authority and ex officio by vertue of an office save onely Elders and Pastors and that if they doe or speake they doe it extraordinarily when Churches hands are lame and her eyes blinde or if they doe and speake ordinarily it is from the law of charity in a private way not by power of the keyes and as Judges and Officers Manuscript 5 ch 4 sect The Churches not the Angels of the Churches are blamed for not executing censures against Balaam Jezabel the Nicolaitans g Robinson saith more 1. These whose workes Christ commendeth for that dwelling where Sathans throne was they kept his name and denyed not his faith these he reproveth for suffering the doctrine of Balaam and the Nicolaitans 13 14 15 16. 2. They which were commended by Christ for their workes love service faith patience increase of workes are reproved for suffering Jezabel but these were not the Angels onely 3. These conjunctions but never the lesse say though they were zâ—alous in many things yet they failed in not being zealous enough against false teachers Ans. 1. These connexions prove guiltinesse in Angels or Pastors and one common fault may be laid upon them all but hence it followeth not that they all abused one and the same power of the Keyes as being all collaterall Judges no doubt the Angels preached not against Balaam Jâ—zabel and the Nicolaitans doctrine and yet women dwelt where Sathans throne is and there faith and patience was commended and yet our brethren will not say women are rebuked and all the beleevers because they did not pastorally preach against Balaam and Iezabel so this argument hurteth them as much as our cause The Pastors were guilty because they did not in their place use the Keyes and the people because they did not say to Archippus and their Officers Take heed how you governe as Israel was involved in Achans trespasse because they warned not one another 2. Seeing the Spirit of God maketh mention of Churches in the plurall number and every one of the seven Churches of Ephesus Rev. 2. 7. of Sâ—yrna v. 11. of Pergamus 17. of Thyatira 29 of Sardis 3. 6. Philadelphia 13. Laodicea 22. It is cleare there were more Churches then a single Congregation and an independent incorporation in every one of them and so a Presbytery of Angels in every one of them behoved to be guilty of this neglect of discipline yet not all one and the same way It is not cleare enough though that the whole Church in Ephesus was to be rebuked or that all and every one of the Elders whereof there were a good number Act. 20. 26. He prayed with them all they all wept sore were guilty of these abuses of the power of the Keyes for in Sardis there were a few names which had not defiled their garments yet the whole body is rebuked Manuscript Ch. 5. Sect. 4. When the word Congregation is put for the Elders or Judges only it is never understood of them sitting in consistery and judgement there alone by themselves and apart from the people but in the presence of the publick assembly who also had liberty in such cases to rescue an innocent from unjust judgment 1 Sam. 14. 45. I answer we urge not a Church assembly of Elders only to exclude the people from hearing yea and in an orderly way from speaking reasoning and disputing even in our Generall assembly but for judiciall concluding we find not that given to any but to the Church-guides Act. 15. 6. Act. 16. 4. 2 It is not a good argument the people sate with the Rulers and rescued innocent Jonathan 1 Sam. 14. Therefore all the people may fit and give judiciall sentence or impede the Elders to sentence any This I grant is alledged by Ainsnorth for to give popular government to the people as also 1 King 21. 13. and Ier. 26. 11 12. but 1. a fact of the people is not a Law 2. It was one fact and that in an extraordinary case of extreame iniquity in killing innocent Ionathan a Prince and Leader of the people 3. in a civill businesse and the people were to be executioners of the sentence of death and they saw it manifestly unjust 4. they were not the common people only but in thar company were the Princes of the Tribes and heads and the King and his family only on the other side what will this infer but that there were no Kings in Israel who had power of life and death nor any judges as Ainsworth contrary to Scripture sayth but that the people were joynt Judges with the King and that the people in the New Testament are co-equall Judges with the Elders from so poore an example and so the Separatists proving from the peoples power of judging in civill causes which yet is a wide mistake and a punishment bodily to be inflicted upon strangers as Paget doth learnedly observe doe conclude the peoples power of judging in Ecclesiastick causes which concerneth only the members of the visible Church Manuscript We grant it is orderly to tell the Elders the offence that the whole Church be not frivolously troubled but it followeth not that the Officers may judge there alone without consent of the people he who told his complaint to the Levite told it orderly enough to the whole Congregation assembled at Mizpeh Jud. 20. Ans. These to whom we are to complaine these and these only are to be heard and obeyed as Judges binding and loosing in Earth and validly in Heaven Mat. 18. but these are not the multitude nor one Elder only but the Church of Elders 2. if the Church of Believers be the only subject as you teach of the Keys and not the Elders but in so far as they are parts of the believing Church then it is more orderly to complaine to the multitude who only are proper Judges then to Elders who are not properly Judges Manuscript A second reason why we allow such power to the people in Church censures is from the Church of Corinth 1. He directeth the whole Church of Corinth to whom he writeth to excomunicate the incestuous man Ans. He writeth to all the faithfull and so to women the woman is not to usurpe authority over
Tribes did and the Kingdome of Iudah in the end did they should so marre and hurt the being and integrity of a visible Church as the Lord should say She is not my wife neither am I her husband and yet they might remaine in that case a free Monarchie and have a State and policy in some better frame though I grant de facto these two Twins State and Church civill Policy and Religion did die and live were sicke and diseased vigorous and healthy together yet doth this More that State and Church are different And further if that Nation had made welcome and with humble obedience beleeved in and received the Messiah and reformed all according as Christ taught them they should have beene a glorious Church and the beloved Spouse of Christ but their receiving and imbracing the Messiah should not presently have cured their inthralled state seeing now the Scepter was departed from Iudah and a stranger and heathen was their King nor was it necessary that that Saviour whose Kingdome is not of this world John 18. 36. and came to bestow a spirituall redemption and not to reestablish a flourishing earthly Monarchy and came to loose the works of the Devill Heb. 2 14. and not to spoile Cesar of an earthly Crowne should also make the Jews a flourishing State and a free and vigorous Monarchy againe Ergo it is most cleare that State and Church are two divers things if the one may bee restored and not the other Fifthly the King as the King was the head of the Common-wealth and might not meddle with the Priests office or performe any Ecclesiasticall acts and therefore was Uzzah smitten of the Lord with leprosie because he would burne incense which belonged to the Priests onely And the Priest in offering sacrifices for his owne sinnes and the sinnes of the people did represent the Church not the State And the things of the Lord to wit Church-matters and the matters of the King which were civill matters of State are clearly distinguished 2 Chron. 19. 11. which evidenceth to us that the Church and State in Israel were two incorporations formally distinguished And I see not but those who doe confound them may also say That the Christian State and the Christian Church be all one State and that the government of the one must be the government of the other which were a confusion of the two Kingdoms It is true God hath not prescribed judicials to the Christian State as he did to the Jewish State because shadows are now gone when the body Christ is come but Gods determination of what is morally lawfull in civill Laws is as particular to us as to them and the Jewish judicials did no more make the Jewish State the Jewish Church then it made Aaron to be Moses and the Priest to be the King and civill Judge yea and by as good reason Moses as a Judge should be a prophet and Aaron as a Prophet should be a Judge and Aaron as a Priest might put a malefactor to death and Moses as a Judge should prophâ—sie and as a Prophet should put to death a malefactor all which wanteth all reason and sense and by that same reason the State and Common-wealth of the Jews as a Common-wealth should offer sacrifices and prophesie and the Church of the Jews as a Church should denounce warre and punish malefactors which are things I cannot conceive Our brethren in their answer to the eleventh question teach That those who are sui juris as masters of families are to separate from these Parish-assemblies where they must live without any lawfull Ordinance of Christ and to remaine there they hold it unlawfull for these reasons First we are commanded to observe all whatsoever Christ hath commanded Matth. 28. 10. Secondly the Spouse seeketh Christ and rests not till she finde him in the fullest manner Cant. 1. 7 8. and 3. 1 2 3. David lamented when hee wanted the full fruition of Gods Ordinances Psal. 63. and 42. and 84. although he injoyed Abiathar the high Priest and the Ephod with him and Gad the Prophet 1 Sam. 23. 6 9. 10. 1 Sam. 22. 8. So did Ezra 8. 15 16. yea and Christ though he had no need of Sacraments yet for example would be baptized keepe the Passeover c. Thirdly no ordinances of Christ may be spared all are profitable Fourthly he is a proud man and knoweth not his owne heart in any measure who thinketh he may be well without any Ordinance of Christ. Fifthly say they it is not enough the people may be without sinne if they want any ordinances through the fault of the superiours for that is not their fault who want them but the superiours sinfull neglect as appeareeth by the practice of the Apostles Acts 4. 19. and 5. 29. For if they had neglected Church-ordinances till the Magistrates who were enemies to the Gospell had commanded them it had beene their grievous sinne For if superiours neglect to provide bodily food we doe not thinke that any mans conscience would be so scrupulous but he would thinke it lawfull by all good meanes to provide in such a case for himselfe rather then to sit still and to say If I perish for hunger it is the sinne of those who have authority over me and they must answer for it Now any ordinance of Christ is as necessary for the good of the soule as food is necessary for temporall life Ans. 1. I see not how all these Arguments taken from morall commandments doe not oblige sonne as well as father servant as master all are Christs free men sonne or servant so as they are to obey what over Christ commandeth Matth. 18. 10. and with the Spouse to seeke Christ in the fullest measure and in all his ordinances and sonne and servant are to know their owne heart so as they have need of all Christs ordinances and are no more to remaine in a congregation where their soules are samished because fathers and masters neglect to remove to other congregations where their souls may be fed in the fullest measure then the Apostles Acts 4. 29. and 5. 29 were to preach no more in the Name of Iesus because the Rulers commanded them to preach no more in his Name And therefore with reveâ—ence of our godly brethren I thinke this distinction of persons free and sui juris and of sonnes and servants not to be allowed in this point 2. It is one thing to remove from one congregation to another and another thing to separate from it as from a false constitute Church and to renounce all communion therewith as if it were the Synagogue of Satan and Antichrist as the Separatists doe who refuse to heare any Minister ordained by a Prelate now except these arguments conclude separation in this latter sense as I thinke they can never come up halfeway to such a conclusion I see not what they prove nor doe they answer the question c. concerning standing in
professor at Rome Joan. de Lugo teach that the Sacraments are morall causes of grace but not physicall It is grosse that Henricus saith that God createth grace per tactum Sacramentorum by the touch of the Sacraments as Christ cured the Leper by the touch of his hand for Sacraments are not miracles as Papists say Phisicke worketh upon a mans body when he sleepeth so doe Sacraments justifie and worke grace ex opere operat◠though the faith of the Sacrament-Receiver doe worke nothing at all 4. Sacraments are considered 1. As holy signes 2. As Religious seales 3. As instruments by which faith worketh 4. As meanes used by us out of conscience of obedience to Christs commandement who hath willed us to use them Sacraments as signes are objective and morall causes exciting the mind as the word doth in a morall way they represent Christ and him crucified and this Sacraments have commune with the word The Sacrament is a visible word teaching us 2. Sacraments have the consideration of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tantum they be seales and not teaching and representing signes onely this way also they have no reall or physicall action in them or from them for a seale of a Prince and State as it is such conferreth not an acre or rigge of land but it is a legall Declaration that those lands written in the body of the Charter doe duely belong to the Person to whom the Charter is given But Arminians do here erre as Episcopius and also Socinus and Smalcius who teach that the Sacraments be nothing but externall rites and declarative signes scadowing out Christ and the benefits of his death to us because they find a morall objective working in the Word of God but a substantiall and Physicall working betwixt us and Christs bodie they say is ridiculous but they would remember that this is an insufficient enumeration the seale of a Kings Charter hath besides a morall action on the mind by bringing to the mind such lands given to such a man and so the seales worketh upon the witnesses or any who readeth the Charter as well as upon the owner of the Charter I say beside this the seale hath some reall action I grant not in it but about it and beside it for it sealeth that such lands are really and in effect given by the Prince and State the action is about the seale not in or from the seale When a Generall of an Army delivereth the keyes of a Castle to a Keeper thereof he saith I deliver the house to you when he delivereth the Keyes onely Physically and not the stones walls or timber of the house by a Physicall action or Physicall touch contactu Physico yet in delivering the keyes he doth really deliver to him the Castle but in a legall and morall way Arminians and Socinians may see here that there is neither an action by way of naked representation and teaching for the Sacrament is a teaching signe to the beholders who receive it not nor is it a Physicall action as if Christs Physicall body in a Physicall way were given yet it is an action reall and morall so the Sacraments are signes exhibitive and not naked signes Our brethren doe side with Arminians and Socinians who so often teach that Sacraments make nothing to be what they were not but onely declare things to be what they are It is true the formall effect of a Sacrament is to seale and confirme to seale and confirme is but a legall strengthning of a right and not the adding of any new thing Yet in this the Sacrament differeth from a seale 1. That to a civill seale there is not required the beleeving and faith of the owner of the Charter to make the seale effectuall for whether the Lord of the lands beleeve that his seale doth confirme him in the lands or not the seale of it selfe by the Law of the Prince State maketh good his right to the lands but Sacraments doe not worke ex opere operato as civill seales doe worke even as Physicke worketh upon the body without the faith of the mind though the man bee sleeping Hence the third consideration of a Sacrament as an instrument Faith in and through the Sacrament being wakened and stirred up layeth hold upon Christ his death and benefits and for this cause there is a reall exhibition of the thing signified and the Sacrament is an exhibitive seale 4. The Sacrament in the use is considered as wee use it in obedience to God who saith in the Lords Supper Do this in remembrance of me and in this it differeth from a civill seale also The Prince doth not conferre a seale to confirme a man in his land upon condition that he will make use of it otherwayes it shall be to him as no seale But God hath given the scale of grace upon condition that wee make use thereof in Faith else the Sacrament is blanke and null Therefore if you beleeve and not otherwayes the Sacrament of the Supper sealeth and confirmeth you in this that Christ is given already and is in the present given to be nourishment to your soule to life eternall and so oft as you eate the certioration and assurance groweth and the faith is increased and a further degree of a communion with Christ confirmed but it is not so in civill seales though yee repeate and reiterate the same seale of lands ten thousand times it never addeth one aker more to the in heritance because the repetition of a civill seale is not commanded under the promise of addition of new lands nor is it commanded as obedience to the owner of the Charter that hee should make use of the seale but from the using in faith the Sacrament we receive increase of Grace and a Sacramentall Grace Hence Baptisme is a seale of our incorporation in Christs visible Church 1 Cor. 12. 13. For by one spirit we be all baptized into one body whether we be Jew or Gentile or whether we be bound or free Act. 2. 41. Then they that received the word were baptized and the same day there were added unto them three thousand souls so Matth. 28. 19. the taught Disciples are to bee baptized in his name Act. 8. 38. Philip was this way received in the Christian Church and Cornelius Act. 10. 47. and Lidia Act. 16. 15. and the Jaylor vers 23. 2. That which distinguisheth by a visible note the Church as visible from the invisible Church and from other visible societies and sealeth our visible union with Christs body that is the seale of our entry in the visible Church but baptisme is such Ergo. 3. What circumcision was to the Church of the Jewes that baptisme is to the Christian Church because in re significatâ in the thing signified and inward substance of the Sacrament they were both one Col. 2. 11. 12. Phil. 3. 3. But circumcision was a seale of the
not morall nor acts of justice or injustice more then the acts of Painting of sailing of making of Shooes and thus the King is not subject to the Church power nor is his intrinsecall end as King justice and godlinesse and preservation of Religion the man speaketh non-sense and wonders for the King as a King is a morall agent and not infallible in his Lawes or administration Ergo as a King he is under the Scepter of the King of Saints in discipline and in the keyes of the Kingdome of God and so the kingly office is subordinate to the power of Christ in his Ministers and Church discipline and by that same reason the power and offices of Ministers as they are morall agents and obnoxious to sinne to false doctrine blasphemy idolatry idlenesse and sleepinesse in feeding the flock are under the coactive power of the supreme Governour and he doth as King use the sword against them hence it is cleare that both the kingly power is subordinate to Church-power and that the subordination is mutuall that also the Church-power is subordinate to the kingly power and that both also in their kind are supreme the kingly power is the highest and most supreme and under no higher coactive power I meane the kingly as kingly conjoyned with the collaterall power of Parliaments where the Realme is so governed and the Church-power is the highest in the kind of Ecclesiasticall power Joan. Major saith well that they are not subordinate that is not one of them is above another that I grant but that which he and Spalato saith neutri in alteram est imperium that neither of the two hath a commandement over another that we deny yet are they powers in office and nature different for they differ in their objects 2. Use and end 3. And their manner of specifick operations and the Kings power is not ecclesiastick Others say that there was a perfect civill policy having no need of the Church power anent the perfect civill government amongst the Heathen and in Christian Common-wealths the civill power of it selfe and of its owne nature can doe nothing for the attaining of eternall happinesse except we would goe to the tents of Pelagians whither Papists doe lead us while as they teach that the naturall end of civill power of its owne nature and intrinsecally is ordained to eternall happinesse But the civill power of it selfe doth conferre nothing whereby the spirituall power of the Church hath intrinsecally and properly and formally its dignity power strength and proper vertue and doth produce its owne proper effect and end because as saith Spalato the civill Magistrates end is of another republike different from the Church he is head of the Common-wealth and civill body see Apollonius But I answer there is a Policy civill without the Ecclesiasticall Policy and the King is essentially a King though neither he be a Christian himselfe nor his subjects Christians and to the essence of a King and to the essence of a civill government Christianity and a Church-power is not required yet hath the King as King essentially a right and civill coactive power to promove Christian Religion and the edification of Christs body though he be a Heathen the want of Christianity doth not take away his kingly right onely it bindeth up and restraineth the exercise thereof but though he be a King essentially and actu primo while he wanteth Christianity and so is a perfect Magistrate quoad esse and the State that he ruleth over a perfect civill body quoad esse in respect of essence and being yet is he not a perfect Magistrate quoad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 operari neither he nor his civill State and body are perfect in operations And it followeth not that the King as King can doc nothing about the obtaining of life eternall for as a King he hath a perfect right and kingly power to doe and being a Christian he actually exerciseth that power as a Nurse-father of the Church to see that the Kings daughter be fed with wholsome milke to see that the first and second Table be kept and that men serve Christ and have the seales of the Covenant in purity under the paine of suffering the weight of his royall sword and I wonder that this should be called nothing for the obtaining of eternall happines seeing it is a way to eternall happinesse to be thus fed under a Christian King as a King But say they it is Pelagianism that the Kings power compelling the Nurses to let out their breasts to the Kings daughter that she may sucke the sincere milke of the Word should be a meane of eternall happinesse I answer and it is also Pelagianisme to say that the planting of Paul and watering of Apollos and the ministeriall power and paines of Ministers without the grace of God can produce or effectuate supernaturall happinesse and it is false that the kingly power of it self doth confer nothing whereby the spirituall and ecclesiasticall power hath intrinsecally and formally dignity and power and its proper effect for it is true the kingly power maketh not the ecclesiasticall power but it setteth it on worke in a coactive way for the edifying of Christs body and doth causatively edifie Lastly whereas it is said the King as King is over the civill body and the Common-wealth which is a body different in nature from the Christian body or Church I say that is false for the King as King ruleth over men as men and also as Christian men causing them to keepe both the Tables of Law But 3. say they the office of a King is not a meane sanctified of God for a supernaturall good because it is amongst the Gentiles I answer this is no consequence for that office of it selfe is sanctified and ordained of God for keeping of both Tables of the Law and that it worketh not this in its owne kind is not from the nature of the kingly office but from the sinfull disposition of the Gentiles so the Word is the savour of death to some through their default Ergo it is not a meane sanctified for that end it followeth not But 4. the office of the King of it selfe and its owne power doth not governe or subdue the inward man for immediately and of its owne power it cannot bind the conscience but onely by the interveening mediation of the Word of God Ergo of it selfe it intendeth not to produce a supernaturall and eternall good Answ. Nor can the office of a Minister of it selfe and in its owne power produce a supernaturall good but onely by the authority of the Word Esa. 8. 20. Jer. 23. v. 22. Tit. 1. 9. 10. is it therefore no office sanctified for a supernaturall end But 5. they reason a supernaturall good and life eternall are effects flowing from the mediatory office of Christ bestowed upon the Church but the kingly power floweth not from the Mediator Christ but from God as Creator who
both doth elect and choose the man yet so that he is not elected without the consent of the King or Magistrate in the Kings roome I answer many things are here to be replyed 1. That the King who may be borne an heire to an earthly Kingdome is also borne and by nature a mixt person and halfe a Minister of the Gospell is against Gods word ministers in whole or in part are made so of God not so borne by nature in Aaronâ— Priesthaâ—d men by birth came to a sacred office but that is done away now in Christ. 2. With as good reason may the King preach and administer the Sacraments as a mixt person as he may ordaine by ecclesiasticall blessing imposition of hands ecclesiasticall designation any person to the Ministery that same auth nity of Christ which said to Timoth Lay hands suddainly 〈◊〉 man said also to him 2 Tim. 2. 15. Study to be approved unto 〈◊〉 a workeman that needeth not to be ashamed dividing the word right that is both ordaining of Ministers and pastorall preaching of the Word or pastorall acts flowing from an ecclesiasticall power How then can the one be given to the King by vertue of that same mixt power especially seeing baptizing it directly called 1 Câ—r 1. 17. a lesse principall worke of the ministery then preaching It it be said as ordination is performed by the King is not an ecclesiasticall action but civill or mixt partly civill partly ecclesiasticall I answer by that reason if the King should preach and administrate the Sacraments these actions should not be called ecclesiasticall actions and Uzzah's touching the Arke should not be called an action by office incumbent to the Levites only and it might be said the person being civill the actions are civill And Uzziah's burning of incense upon the Altar of incense was not a Priestly act but an act of a mixt power he was partly a King and partly a Priest who did performe the action but he was a Priest by sinfull usurpation in that action as we know 2. This answer is a begging also of the question 2. Whereas it is said that the Church ordainech Pastors and the King also but divers wayes the one by a regall power the other by me elâ—siasticall power I answer this is spoken to make the people ad saciendum populum for ejusdem potestatis est saith the Law constituere destiâ—â—ere it is the same power to ordaine and to destroy The high-Commission by the Kings authority doth deprive Ministers without so much as the knowledge of the Church If then the King as King may deprive ministers without the notice of the Church then may the King as King also ordaine Pastors without the notice of the Church For the action of the instruments as such is more principally the actions of the principall cause 3 Election of a Pastor is farre different from ordination of a Pastor the whole multitude as Christians have voyces in the election of a Pastor and so hath the King or his Magistrate as a part and member of the Church but this giveth no negative voice to the Magistrate in election but ordination is not done by all the multitude it is a worke of authority done onely by the Church-officers 4. The coactive and civill degradation must have also correspondent thereunto a coactive and civill ordination of Pastors Now I ask what is a coactive ordination If it be the Kings royall and civill authority commanding that the Church officers ordaine Pastors at Christs commandement This we deny not they fight with a shadow or a night ghost not against us who contend for this But if they meane a coactive degradation by the Sword in banishing imprisoning yea and for just causes punishing Ministers to death with the Sword this indirect deprivation we doe not deny But so the King depriveth a man from being a Minister when he is beheaded or hanged or banished for civill crimes no other wayes but as he depriveth a man from being a Fashioner a Saiâ—â—r a Plower a Souldier or a Father to his owne barnes a husband to his owne wife for when the man is beheaded or hanged by the sword of the Magistrate he is dâ—prived from being a fashioner a sailer a father a husband and Solomen did not other way deprive Abiathar from the Priest-hood then indirectly by consining him for treason at Anathoth so as he could not exercise the Priests office at Jerusalem So after Junius Calderwood Gul. Apollonius Sibrandus yea Muketus a man for the times denyeth that the Prince can take away that ecclesiasticall power that the Church hath given And so acknowledgeth Wedelius the same That reasonlesse lyer Lysimach Nicanor in this and in other things hath no reason to say we borrow Jesuites doctrine to answer this argument for the Jesuite Becanus is not â—nacquainted with Jesuits doctrine against the power of Kings yet he answereth that Solomen as King had no power over Abiathar for treason or any other crime and therefore following Bellarmine and Gretserus saith that Solomon did this by an extraordinary propheticall instinct yet Abulensis a great textuall Papist and Bâ—naventura a learned Schooleman saith this pâ—oveth that the King is above the Priest and that Priests in the Old Testament were not eximed from the civill Judges sword and power this is very doubtsome to Suarez who â—aith that it was a tempâ—rall civill punishment of exiâ—e and that â—â—â—sitiâ—n from the exercise of the Priests office followed upon the other But we neede not this answer for Solomons sentence containeth in tâ—rminis a meere civill punishment and these words 1 King 27. S. Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being Priest to the Lord seem not to be words of the Kings sentence of banishment but are relative to the fulfilling of the Lords word and a consequent of divine justice relative to the prophesie against Elies house Though verily I see no inconvenience to say that Solomon did indeed deprive him from the Priest-hood by an extraordinary instinct of the Spirit as he was led of God to build the Temple 1. Because the text saith so Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being Priest to the Lord and ver 35. and Zadok the Priest did the King put in the roome of Abiathar which is a direct deprivation from the Priest-hood but I contend not here But that the King causatively may deprive that is command the Church to cast out hereticks and to commit the Gospell to faithfull men who are able to teach others 2 Tim. 2. 2. wee confesse as for the power of convocating of Synods some thinke that the King may convocate Synods as men but as Church men they have power if the Magistrate bee averse to convocate themselves see Junius who insinuateth this distinâ—tion But certainly though the Kingly dignity be thought meerely civill yet let this be thought on it may be thought that the Kings power is divine three