a number of sole believers united in a Church-covenant which in very deed iâ— but stones and timber not an house builded of God for in the ministeriall Church of the New Testament there is eâ—eâ— a relation betwixt the Elders and the flock wee desire to to see a Copy of our brethrens instituted visible Church to the which Elders are neither essentiall nor integrall parts for their instituted visible Church hath its compleat being and all its Church-operations as binding loosing ordeining of Officers before there bee an Edldership in it and also when the Eldership is ordained they are not Eyes and Eares to the instituted Church nor watchmen because it is a body in essence and operation compleat without officers 2. the officers are not Governors for as I trust to prove they have no act of ministeriall authority of governing over the people by our brethrens Doctrine 2. all their governing is to Rule and moderate the actions of the whole governing Church which maketh them no wayes to be governours nor over the believers in the Lord nor overseers nor watchmen as a Preses who moderateth a Judicatorie a moderator in a Church-meeting a Prolocutor in a convocation is not over the Judicatorie Synod or meeting or Convocation 3. The Eldership are called by them the adjuncts the Church the subject the subject hath its perfect essence without its accidents and common adjuncts 2 Quest. Whether or not Christ hath committed the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to the Church of Believers which as yet wanteth all Officers Pastors Doctors c. The Author sayth this company of believers and Church which wanteth Officers and as we have heard is compleat without them is the corporation to which Christ hath given the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven which deserveth our brotherly censure for wee then aske a Scripture for the Lords giving of the keys to Pastors and Elders if the keys be given to Peter Mat. 16. as a professing believer by what Word of God are they given to Peter as to an Apostle and Pastor it would seem the Pastors have not the keys jure Divino for by this argument our Divines prove the Bishop not to bee an Office of power and jurisdiction above a Pastor and Presbyter because the keys were not given to Peter as to the Archbishop but as to a Pastor of the Church and indeed this would conclude that Pastors are not Officers of authority and power of jurisdiction jure Divino Hence the question is if it can be concluded that the keyes of of the Kingdom of Heaven Mat. 16. Mat. 18. were given to Peter as he represented all professing believers or if they were given for the good of professing believers but to Peter as carrying the person of Apostles Pastors and Church-guides 1. Distinction There is one question of the power of the keyes and to whom they are committed and another of the exercise of them and toucheth the government of the Church if it be popular and democraticall or not 2. Dist. It is not inconvenient but necessary that Christ should give to his Church gifts Pastors and Teachers of the which gifts the Church is not capable as a subject as if the Church might exercise the Pastor and Doctors place and yet the Church is capable of these gifts as the object and end because the fruit and effect of these gifts redoundeth to the good of the Church see Parker see the Parisian schoole and Bayner 3. Distinct. There is a formall ordinary power and there is a vertuall or extraordinary power 1. Concl. Christ Iesus hath immediatly himselfe without the intervening power of the Church or men appointed offices and Officers in his house and the office of a pastor and Elder is no lesse immediately From Christ for men as Christs Vicars and Instruments can appoint no new Office in the Church then the office of the Apostles Eph. 4. 11. 1 Cor. 12. 28. Mat. 28. 19. The Offices are all given to the Church immediatly and so absolutely and so the power of the keys is given to the Church the same way But the Officers and key bearers now are given mediatly and conditionally by the intervening mediation of the ruling and ministeriall Church that she shall call such and such as have the conditions required to the office by Gods Word 1. Tim. 3. 12 3. Hence we see no reason why the keys can be said to be given to believers any other wayes then that they are given for their good 2. Concl. I deny not but there is a power virtuall not formall in the Church of believers to supply the want of ordination of pastors or some other acts of the keyes simply necessary hic nunc this power is virtuall not formall and extraordinary not ordinary not officiall not properly authoritative as in a Church in an Iland where the pastors are dead or taken away by pest or otherwayes the people may ordaine Pastors or rather doe that which may supply the defect of ordination as David without immediate Revelation from Heaven to direct him by only the Law of nature did eate shewbread so is the case here so answer the casuistes and the schoolemen that a positive Law may yield in case of necessity to the good of the Church so Thomas Molina Suarez Vasquez Vigverius Sotus Scotus Altisiodorensis Durand Gabriel and consider what the learned Voetius sayth in this What if in an extreame case of necessity a private man endued with gifts and zeale should teach publickly after the example of the faithfull at Samosaten Yea and Flavianus and Diodorus preached in Antioch as Theodoret sayth yea saith Voetius an ordinary ministery might be imposed on a Laick or private person by the Church though the presbytery consent not in case of necessity God sayth Gerson may make an immediate intermission of a calling by Bishops yea sayth Anton. speaking of necessities Law The Pope may commit power of Excommunication quia est de jure positive pure Laico mulieri to one meere Laicke or a woman though we justifie not this yet it is hence concluded that God hath not tied himselfe to one set rule of ordinary positive Lawes a captive woman as Socrates saith preached the Gospell to the King and Queen of Iberranes and they to the people of the Land 3. Concl. The Author in the foresaid first proposition will have no instituted visible Church in the New Testament but a Congregationall or Parishionall Church that meeteth together ordinarily in one place for the hearing of the Word But we thinke as a reasonable man is the first immediate and principall subject of aptitude to laugh and the mediate and secondary Subjects are Peter Iohn and particular men so that it is the intention of nature to give these and the like properties principally and immediately to the speciâ—e and common nature and not immediately to this or that man
ordainers of Matthias to the Apostleship and this is the question 4. The place Act. 14. 23. proveth that Elders appoint or ordaine Elder with consent or lifting up of the hands of the people which is our very doctrine 5. Act. 6 The multitude are directed to choose out seven men as being best acquainted with them Yet if Nicholas the sect master of the fleshly Nicolaitans was one of them it is likely they were not satisfied in conscience of the regeneration of Nicholas by hearing his spirituall conference and his gift of praying which is your way of trying Church-members But 2. they looke out seven men 2. They choose theâ— But v. 6. The Apostles prayed and laid their hands on them which we call ordination and not the multitude 6. Cyprian giveâ—â— election of Priests to the multitude but neither Cyprian nor any of the Fathers give ordination to them Author Sect. 7. If the people have power to elect a King they have power to appoint one is their name to put the crown on his head Ergo if beleevers elect their Officers they may by themselves or some others lay hands on them and ordaine them Ans. The case is not alike the power of electing a King is naturall for Ants and Locusts have it Prov 30 25 16 27. Therefore a civill Society may choose and ordaine a King The power of choosing Officers is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a supernaturall gift And because God giveth to people one supernaturall gift it is not consequent that he should give them another also beside ordination is another thing then coronation of a King Presbyters in the Word have alwaies performed ordination Neither will it hence follow saith the Authour as some object that because the Church of believers neither make the Office nor authority of Pastors that both are immediately from Christ and that therefore the beleevers may not lay hands upon the Officers nor doth it follow because they receive ordination from the Church that therefore they should execute their Office in the Churches name or that they should be more or lesse diligent at the Churches appointment or that the Church of beleevers have a Lordly power over them or that the Elders must receive their commission from the Church as an Ambassadour doth from the Prince who sent him or that the Church in the defect of Officers may performe all duties proper to Officers as to administer the Sacraments For 1. most of the objections doe strike as much against imposition of hands by Bishops and Presbyters 2. Though Officers receive the application of their office and powerly the Church yet not from the Church and if from the Church yet not from her by any Lordly power and dominion but onely ministerially as from instruments under Christ so that they cannot choose or ordaine whom they please but onely him whom they see the Lord hath fitted and prepared for them nor can they prescribe limits to his Office nor give him his Embassage but onely a charge to looke to the Ministery that he hath received of the Lord. Ans. 1. I know none of ours who use such an Argument that because a Pasters or Elders Office is from Christ that therefore the Church cannot ordaine him For it should prove that the Presbyterie cannot ordaine him a Pastor because his Office is from Christ and not from the Presbyterie It would prove also that because the Office of a Judge is from God that the free States of a Kingdome could not ordaine one to be their King or that the King could not depute Judges under him because the Office of a King and Judge is from God and not from men 2. If Elders have their Ordination to that heavenly Charge from the people as from the first principall and onely subject of all ministeriall power I see not how it doth not follow that Elders are the servants of the Church in that respect and that though it doth not follow that they come out in the name of the Church but in the name of Christ whose Ambassadours they are yet it proveth well that they are inferiour to the Church of beleevers For 1. though the power of the Keys given to beleevers in relation to Christ be ministeriall yet in relation to the Officers whom the Church sendeth it is more then ministeriail at lest it is very Lordlike For as much of this ministeriall power is committed to the Church of possibly twenty or forty beleevers as to the Mistresse Lady Spouse and independent Queen and highest dispencer of all ministeriall power and the Elders though Ambassadours of Christ are but meere accidents or ornaments of the Church necessary ad benè esse onely and lyable to exauthoration at the Churches pleasure yea every way the Officers in jurisdiction are inferiour to the Church of beleevers by your grounds and not over the people of the Lord. For if the Church of believers as they are such be the most supreame governing Church then the Officers as Officers have no power of government at all but onely so farre as they are beleevers now if they be not believers as it falleth out very often then have they no power of the Keyes at all and what they doe they doe it meerely as the Churches servants to whom the Keyes are not given marriage-waies or by right of redemption in Christs blood yea Officers as they are such are neither the Spouse not redeemed Church yea nor any part or members of the redeemed Church 2. The Church of believers are the â—od the Officers meanes leading to the end and ordained to gather the Saints if therefore as the end they shall authoritatively send Officers they should call and ordaine Officers as the States of a Kingdome with more then a power ministeriall Yea with a Kingly power for all authority should be both formally and eminently in them as all Regall or Aristocraticall power is in the States of a Kingdom as in the fountaine But neither doe we bring this argument to prove a simple Dominion of the Church of believers over the Officers or a power of regulating limiting and ordering the Ambassage of Officers as King and State lay bands upon their Ambassadours but we bring it to prove that this doctrine degradeth the Officers from all power of government above the believers and putteth them in a state of ministeriall authority under these above whom Jesus Christ hath placed them contrary to Scripture 3. The Authour saith believers may not administer the Sacraments in the defect of Pastors because that by appointment of Christ belongeth onely to such as by Office are called to preach the Gospell Math. 28. 29. which is indeed well said but I desire to be satisfied in these 1. These places Math. 28. 29. Mar. 16. 14 15. Luke 24. 28. being all one with Math. 16. 17. and Joh. 20. 21 22 23. The Keyes of the Kingdome are given to Church-officers because of their Office So the Text is cleare and so
acquire to himselfe poâ—er over the Church of God Though the â—ight of presenting a man to benefice were a meere temporall thing yet because it removeth the libertie of a free election of the fittest pastor as Origen saith it cannot bee lawfull but it is not a temporall or civill right but a spirituall right though wee should grant that the people have a free voyce in choosing and that the patron were oblieged to present to the benefice the man onely whom the people hath freely chosen and whom the Elders by imposition of hands have ordained 1. Because the Pastors hath right to the benefice as the workeman is worthy of his hire and hee hath a divine right thereunto by Gods Law 1 Cor. 9. 8 9. c. Gal. 6 6. Matth. 10. 10. Ergo if the patron give any right to the Pastor to the benefice it must bee a spirituall right If it bee said hee may give him a civill right before men that according to the Lawes of the Commonwealth hee may legally brook and injoy the benefice this is but a shift for the civill right before men is essentially founded upon the Law of God that saith the workeman is worthy of his hire and it is that fame right really that the Word of God speaketh of now by no Word of God hath the Patron a power to put the Preacher in that case that hee shall bee worthy of his wages for hee being called chosen as Pastor hee hath this spirituall right not of one but of the whole Church 2. It is true Papists seeme to bee divided in judgements in this whether the right of patronage bee a temporall or a spirituall power for some Canonists as wee may see in Abb. decius and Rubio and the Glosse saith it is partly temporall partly spirituall Others say it is a spirituall power as Anton. de Butr. and Andr. Barbat and Suarez and whereas Papists doe teach that the Church may lawfully give a right of presenting to Church benefices even to those who are not Church men the power must bee ecclesiasticall and spirituall and cannot bee temporall also Suarez saith that the right of patronage may bee the matter of Simâ—ny when it is â—â—ld for mâ—ney Ergo they thinke it an holy and spirituall power It is true the Bishop of Spalato calleth it a temporall power which is in the hand of the Prince but there is neither reason nor Law why it can bee called a temporall power due to a man seeing the patron hath amongst us a power to present and name one man whom he conceiveth to be qualified for wee find the nomination of a list or the seeking out of men fit for the holy ministry some times ascribed to the Church as Act. 1 23. Then they appointed two Joseph called Barsabas who was surnam d Jusâ—us and Matthias which words may well bee referred to the eleven Apostles and so they nominated men or to the Church of beleevers and so though it bee not an authoritative action it is an ecclesiasticall action and belongeth to the Church as the Church and so to no Patron and the looking out of seven men to be presented as fit to bee ordained Deacons is expresly given to the Church of beleevers Act. 6. 3. Wherefore Brethren looke yee out amongst you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seven men of honest report and sometimes the Apostles doe nominate men for the ministery but never doth the holy Ghost mention a Patron But if the thing it selfe say they hee necessary then is the office not unlawfull But it is most necessary that some one or more eminent and powerfull men should have power to see that the Church goods bee not delapidated Answ. It is a part of the Magistrates office with his accumulative power whereby hee seeth that every one doe their dutie to take care that vulturs and sacrilegious devourers of Church livings bee punished and the Church themselves are to censure all guiltie of Simony or delapidation of the rents of the Church as may bee gathered by due analogie from Peters punishing with death the sacriledge of Ananias and Saphira and the Simony of Simon Magus 2. The ancient Church â—ooke care of dividing of the Church rent very carefully in foure parts one was given to the Pastor who was not to imploy â—ents of the Church upon Horses and Coaches and conquering Baronies and Lordships to their sonnes as our idle belleys were in custome to doe but the Bishop was to entertaine Hospitalls and to feed the poore to take care of bridges repâ—ring of Churches so as Ambrose saith what ever is the Biships it is the poores a second part was given to the Elders and Deacons a third part was for the repairing of Churches and a fourth part for Hospitalls for poore and strangers this distribution with some other order is made if wee beleeve Papists in a Synod at Rome under Silvester the first though Socrates Theodoret Sozomen and others well versed in antiquitie speake nothing of this Synod but you may see this cleare in Synodo Bracarensi in Aventinus in Gregorius so there is no need of a Patron nor was there any in the Apostolick Church Deacons were to take care for tables and the goods of the poore no reason that men seeme more carefull for the good of the Church then Jesus Christ. 3. Though there bee a necessitie that the Church bee defended in her liberties yet is there no reason an office should be made thereof as the Canonists make it an office with a sort of stipend And therefore to make a Patron they require not onely the founding of a Church but also the building of the house upon his owne charges and the dotation of a maintenâ—nce for the Church and for this cause the Patrou hath a buriall place in the Church and if hee or his children become poore they are to be entertained of the Church rents and therefore they call it jus â—uti'e a gainefull power 2. It is jus bâ—norifioum hee hath power to nominate and present a man to the benefice of the vaiking Church 3. It is jus onerosum because hee is oblieged to defend the Church see theâ— Law for this so see also Calderwood Gerardus Suarez Anton. de dom arcb Spal Hâ—spinianus yet Justinianus himselfe forbiddeth that the Patron should present a man to the Bishop to bee examined and tryed and certainly this place and charge for the defending of the Church of Christ from injuries and wrongs 〈◊〉 Christ of want of foresight and providence who hath not appointed officers civill and eccleâ—â—asticall to take care of his Church for no power over the Church was ever given to builders of Synagogues and therefore a calling by the Patron is no more Christs way then a calling by the Prelate and his Chaplaine 2. Nor would the Church receive the ministers from Christ Jer. 2. 5. and the laying
the man 1 Cor. 14. 34. 1 Tim. 2. 11 12. but to voyce judicially in Excommunication is an act of Apostolick authority Manuscript Ib. The whole Church is to be gathered together and to Excommunicate Ergo not the Bishop and Elders alone 3. Pauls spirit was to be with them and Christs authority 4. the whole Church 2 Cor. 2. did forgive him 5. nothing is in the Text that attributeth any power to the presbytery apart or singularly above the rest but as the reproofe is directed to all for not mourning so is the Commandement of casting out directed to all Ans. 1. It is cleare that if some were gathered together in the power of Christ and the spirit of Paul that is in the authority that he received over the Corinthians for edification 2. Cor. 10. 8. and Pauls Rod 1 Cor. 4. 21. then as many as were convened Church-ways and mourned not for the same did not cast out and authoritatively forgive seeing women and believing children did convene with the whole Church and were not humbled for the sinne and yet women and believing children cannot be capable of pastorall authority over the Church which was given for edification 2. The power of the Lord Jesus that is the keys of the Kingdom of God were committed to Peter as to a Pastor Mat. 16. and power to bind and retaine to loose and pardon sinnes Joh. 20. 20 21 22. Which power is given to these who are sent as Ambassadors as the Father sent Christ v. 21. which power cannot be given to puffed up women 3. Except this be said the Text must beare that there was not a Presbytery of Prophets Governors and Teachers there of all who had a more eminent act in excommunicating and Church pardoning then the women who mourned not for by what reason our brethren would have the act of excommunicating an act of the whole Church convened including all to whom Paul writeth women and children by that same reason we may appropriate it to these only who are capable of Pauls pastorall spirit and authority according as attributes are appropriated by good logick to their own subjects else that cannot be expounded 1 Cor. 14. 31. For ye may all prophecy one by one What may all that the Apostle writeth unto 1 Cor. 1. 2. prophecy one by one even the whole Church even all sanctified in Christ Jesus called to be Saints and all that in every place call upon the Lord Iesus I thinke our brethren will not say so so when Paul sayth 1 Thess. 5. 12. Esteem highly of these that are over you if that command be directed to the whole Church of the Thessalonians which is in God our Father as the Epistle is directed to them all 1 Thess. 1. 1. then doth Paul command the Elders in Thessalonica to esteem highly of themselves for their own workes sake if exhortations be not restricted according to the nature of the subject in hand we shall mock the Word of God and make it ridiculous to all Ainsworth sayth The putting away of leaven was commanded to all Israel Ergo the putting away of the incestuous person is commanded to them all in Corinth without exception and the putting away of the Leper was commanded to all Israel I answer 1. Proportions are weake probations 1. every single woman 2. privately in her own house 3. without Churches consent and authority was to put away Leaven but it is a poore inference therefore every woman in Corinth heâ—e alone might excommunicate without the Churches authority and in their private houses 2. The Priest only judicially putteth away the Leper Deut. 17. 13. and the Priests without the peoples consent put out Uzzah their Prince from the Sanctuary when he was a Leper 2. Châ—on 26. 20. Manuscript Lest this judgement should be restrained to Presbyteries only he magnifieth the judging of the Saints taking occasion from thence to stretch their judicature in some cases even to the deciding of civill causes rather then that they should fly suddenly to Law one against another before Infidels Ans. That upon this Church judging he taketh occasion to magnifiy the judging of the Saints I see not for he passeth to a new subject in reprehending their pleadng before heathen Judges 2. Though that cohesion of the Chapters were granted yet doth he not magnifie the Judging of all the multitude the Saints of men and women shall judge the world by assenting to Gods Judging but all the Saints even women are not Church-Iudges Also he extendeth Judging of civill causes to the most eminent Seniors amongst them v. 5. Is there not a wise-man amongst you no not one who shal be able to judge betwixt his brethren and therefore he layeth a ground that far lesse can all the rest of men and women be Judges Ecclesiastick to binde and loose validly in Earth and Heaven but onely the wiser and selected Elders I may adde what Master Robinson sayth that our argument from confession may be objected to the Apostles no lesse then to Separatists Acts 1. 23. They presented two that is the multitude which were about an hundred and twenty men and women and Act 6. 5. And the while multitude presented seven Deacons to the twelue Apostles and the twelve Apostles called the multitude and so spake to them and v. 6. prayed and laid hands on the Deacons Now when the multitude Acts 1. presented Joseph and Matthias it behoved them to speak spake they joyntly or all at once this were confusion contrary to 1 Cor. 14. 14. did the women speak they must not meddle in Church-maters v. 34. did children speak It is impossible so Acts 6. did all the twelve Apostles speak at once and pray vocally at once did the whole multitude speak when they presented the seven Deacons that is confusion by these and the like women and children are utterly excluded from the Church as no parts of it Acts 15. 22. The whole Church sent Messengers to Antioch 1 Coâ— 14. 23. the whole Church commeth together in one to exercise themselves in praying and prophecying but children could not send messengers nor pray nor prophecy and women might not speak in the Church and therefore women and children must be excluded from being parts of the Church if one be excluded why not another and so till we come to the chiefe of the Congreation Ans. This is much for us every way therefore the 120 Acts 1. and the multitude Acts 6. did present the two elect Apostles and the seven Deacons by some select persons and when these select persons spake the Church spake and when one Apostle prayed the whole twelve prayed Ergo there is a representative Church which performeth Church actions in the name of the Church and you will have a representative Church in the New Testament to be a point as you say of Judaisme yet here you are forced to acknowledge it 2. By all good reason when Christ Mat. 18. sayth if he refuse to heare the Church
discipline doe leaven a Church yet it doth not as Robinson saith evert the nature thereof and turne it into Babylon and a den of Dragons Robinson will have prophanenesse and impiety by absolute necessity rooted out by discipline but he is too hasty Nay not by publique preaching of a sent Pastor through absolute but onely through ordinary and conditionall necessity You bind the Almighty too hard The other question is if conversion of sinners be an ordinary effect of a publique and sent ministery Our brethren in their answer to the 32 Questions sent to them deny this but no marvell seeing all conversion to them is done without the publique ministery by onely private Christians and in this we see no necessity of a called ministery to convert men to Christ which is the doctrine of Socinians and Anabaptists So Chemnitius so Gastius teacheth The Socinian Theo. Nicolaides Luther erred saith he when he asked from Muncerus his calling to preach Muncerus was an Anabaptist So Ostorodius in his institutions and Raddetius who objected the same that our brethren doe that the whole beleevers be a royall Priesthood But though we deny not but some may be converted by the teaching and private conference of private Christians yet the ordinary publique way is by the Word preached by a seâ—â— Pastor as is cleare Rom. 10. 14. 1 Cor. 3. 5. Acts 9. 10. Acts 10. 5 6 c. CHAP. 10. SECT 10. Concerning our order and form in administration of Gods publique worship THe Authour here contendeth for the worship of God in its native simplicity without all ceremonies to which I can oppose nothing but shall prove the unlawfulnesse of humane ceremonies in another Treatise God-willing Of the communion of the visible Catholique Church IEsus Christ hath now under the N. Testament a Catholique visible Church on earth for of that part of the Catholique Church now triumphing in glory or of that part which onely is a Church of elected Saints and are not yet formally a professing Church but onely such in the predestinatiun of God I spake not now and to this Church universall visible hath the Lord given a ministery and all his Ordinances of Word and Sacrament principally and primarily and to the ministery and guides of this Catholique visible Church hath the Lord committed the Keyes as to the first subject and for the visible Church Catholique including also the invisible Church as for the object and end hath he given his ordinances and the power of the keyes And the Ministery and ordinances are not given to this or this Congregation which meeteth ordinarily in one place principally 1. The Lord Iesus gave this Ministeriall power to the universall guides of the catholick Church the Apostles as they did represent the Presbytery of the whole Catholick visible Church Ioh. 20. 21. As my Father sent me so send I you 22. And when he had thus sayd he breathed on them and said receive the Holy Ghost 23 whosoever sinnes you remit they are remitted and whosoever sinnes you retaine they are retained The Apostles here receive the keys in name of the whole Catholick Ministeriall guides For in this the Apostles must stand in the person and roome of a single society of believers united by a Church covenant in one parishonall Church if our brethrens grounds stand good so as a Parishionall Church must be the onely successors of the Apostles but this no Word of God can warrant Nor is the Eldership of a single Congregation that which the Apostles here represented except you say to this Eldership as to the first subject is this message of sending as the Father sent Christ committed and to this Eldership within one Congregation is the power Ministeriall of pardoning and retaining sinnes given For I aske from whence or from whose hands do the Eldership of a Congregation receive the keys from Jesus Christ say they but this is no answer the Ministery according to its institution is no doubt onely from the head of the body the Church from Iesus Christ. But I aske now of an ordinary Church-calling and I demand from whose hands under Jesus Christ have this particular Eldership received Ministeriall power they cannot say from themselves for they doe not make themselves Ministers they will not say from a Colledge of Presbyters of many congregations for they are flatly against all such presbyteries and that which they say indeed the Eldership of a congregation hath their Ministeriall power from the people Well then the Apostles when they received the keys they did represent the people but what people not the people of a classicall presbytery of a Province of a Nation of the whole redeemed Church but of one single congregation how shall this be made out of the Text or out of one Word of God I see not 2. Christ ascending on high and giving some to be Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers 12. For the perfecting of the Saints not of Ephesus far lesse of one single Congregation onely for the worke of the Ministery in generall for the edifying of the Body of Christ not a congregationall body onely 12. Till we all meet in the unity of the Faith and of the knowledge of the Sonne of God unto a perfit man unto the measure of the stature of the fulnesse of Christ. Consider I pray you that Christs intention in giving a Ministery is not for a congregation of forty or sixty or a hundred as if hee intended to impawn all power in that Congregationall body but hee intended the edifying of his body Catholick and the comming of all to the unity of the Faith A Congregation of sixty cannot be all Saints and this power is clearely given to that body which the Lord is to make a perfit man according to the measure of the fulnesse of the stature of Christ this is a mysticall man and the Catholick body of Iesus Christ. Call it a Congregation and you wrest the Scripture and vilifie the noble and large end for the which Christ hath given a ministery as aske to what end and to what first and principall subject hath the Lord given reason and a faculty of discoursing is it to Peter to Iohn c. as to the first subject and for them as for their good no no it is for and to the race of mankind The case is is just so here 1 Cor. 12. 28. God hath placed some in the Church first Apostles secondarily Prophets thirdly Teachers c. Is the meaning thus God hath placed in the body of a single Congregation Apostles Where do you read that I believe Apostles have the Catholick visible Church for their Parish and is it a Congregationall body wherein God placed such variety of members as Apostles Prophets Teachers Workes of miracles gifts of Healing Helps Governments c So Rom. 12. 5. So we being many are one body in Christ and every one members of another Hence hee
his Brotherly relation to the people as if hee were called to bee their Pastor I desire to know what the naked relation of Authority or Jurisdiction addeth to his care and onerousnesse in poynt of labouring by preaching the Gospell Indeed now being called his care is Pastorall and more authoritative But if according to the measure of the Talent every one is to proportion his paines to gaine more Talents to his Lord and if the relation of a Pastor adde no degrees of gifts to His Talent as wee may suppose I thinke his onerousnesse in labouring was as great before hee was a Pastor as after but I speake not this to say that in a constituted Church there is no calling required other then giftes Nor doe I speake this to say that a calling is not a new motive why a man should imploy his gifts for the honour of the Giver But only to shew that CHRIST hath united powers of Jurisdiction in Congregations in Presbyteries in Churches of Provinces and Nations that so not onely gifts might conduce to helpe and promove edification but also united powers of Jurisdiction which are also gifts of God and though some may say that a calling to an Office layeth on Mâ—n a more speciall Obligation to make accompt for Soules then gifts onely which in some sense I could also yeeld yet seeing wee thinke the relation of the Eldership to a whole Classicall Church is not founded upon an Office different from the Offices of Pastors and Elders which they have and are clothed with in relation to their particular Congregations but onely authoritative acts of the same Office and that for the common promoving of edification in the whole Classicall Church grounded in the depth of his Wisdome who hath seven Eyes upon a Brotherly Consociation in which they must either edifie one another and occasionally partake of these same holy things or then scandalizâ— and leaven one another with their publique transgressions wee cannot see how presbyteriall Elders are more to give accompt for the Soules of the whole Classicall Church in Scriptures sense Hebrewes 13. 17. then consociated pastors and Elders of consociated Churches are to give an accompt to GOD for sister Churches over which they are to watch and whose Soules they are to keepe and so farre as they are Brethren must make a reckoning to GOD for them And how can the presbytery be more said to intangle themselves in governing the Classicall Church in some things with things not proper to their calling seeing consociated Churches in a Brotherly way doe medle with those same things though not in a way of Jurisdiction For helping the Classicall Church by way of Fraternity is not unproper to a Christian calling of Brethren and the joyning of power of Jurisdiction I meane of power lesser to another power greater to helpe the Classicall Church upon the same ground of Fraternity cannot bee unproper to the calling of a Colledge of presbyters Objecti 5. The power of Presbyteries taketh away the power of a Congregation therefore it cannot bee lawfull The antecedent is thus confirmed 1. Because if the Presbytery ordainâ— one to bee Excommunicated whom the Elders of a Congregation in conscience thinke ought not to bee Excommunicated the man Jure Divino must be Excommunicated and the power of the Congregation which Christ hath given to them is nul And the exercise thereof impeded by a greater power 2. the voyces of two Elders of a Congregation which are now sitting in the greater and classicall Presbytery are swallowed up by the greater number of Elders of thirty or forty Congregations met in one great presbytery Ergo the power of the Congregation is not helped by the presbytery but close taken away Answ. The Argument doth presuppose that which is against GODS Law to wit 1. That there is a contradiction of Voyces betwixt the Elders of a Cong egation and of the greater presbytery which should not bee for Brethren even of Galathia which contained many Congregations as our Brethren confesse should all minde and speake and agree in one thing that belongeth to Church Discipline as is cleare Gala. 1. 8. Gala. 5. 10 v. 15. Gala. 6. 1. 2. 2. The Argument supposeth that the greater presbytery is wrong in their voycing that such a man should be excommunicated and the two Elders of the Congregationall Church is right and hath the best part in judging that the same man ought not to be Excommunicated But Christ hath given no power to any Church to erre and that power which in this case the presbytery exerciseth is not of Christ and de jure the power of the greater presbytery in this case ought to bee swallowed up of the two Voyces of the Elders of the Congregation But suppose that the Elders of one Congregation and the whole meeting all agree in the truth of GOD as they all doe Acts 15. will you say that Peter Paul and Iames their power is null and taken from them and their three voyces are swallowed up in that great convention because to their power and voyces are added in this dogmaticall determination which you grant even now to many consociated Churches the power and voyces of the rest of the Apostles and Elders yea and as some say of the whole Church Acts 15. 2 v. 6. 25. Acts 16. 4. Acts 21. 18. 25 I believe addition of lawfull power doth not annull lawfull power but corroborate and strengthen it So this shall fall upon your owne Eldership of your independent Congregation Suppose â—en Pastors Elders and Doctors in one of your Congregations whereas sometime there were but three and these three had the sole power of Jurisdiction and exercise of the Keyes you cannot say that the accession of six Elders to three hath made null the power of three and swallowed up their voyces for if their power and voyces were against the truth it is fit they should be swallowed up if they were for CHRIST they are strengthened by the accession of lawfull power and moe voyces and neither annulled nor swallowed up Object 6. The Church at the first for example when it was but a hundreth and twenty had the full entire power within it selfe Ergo it should bee in a worse case by the multiplication of Churches if now that power bee given to Presbyteries Ans. It is a conjecture that the whole Christian Church Acts 1. was onely an hundreth and twenty I thinke there were more though these onely convened at the ordination of Matthias for there were above five hundred Brethren at once which saw CHRIST after his Resurrection 1 Cor. 15. 6. and these I Judge belonged to the Christian Church also 2. It is constantly denied that addition of lawfull power to lawfull power doth arnull or put in a worse condition the prexistent power it doth helpe it but not make it worse and twenty Churches adding their good and Christian counsells and comforts to two Churches doe not annull or hurt or swallow up
all of one Church of one Religion Answ. The terme Nationall-Church is not in the Word of God but I pray you in what sense can the Iewish-Church bee called a Nationall-Church I conceive not because of the typicall and ceremoniall observances that put a Church-frame on the whole Nation for if so then the name of a Nationall Church or a nationall Religion cannot by envy it selfe bee put in the reformed Churches or on Church of Scotland which hath suffered so much for Iewish and Romish Ceremonies But if the Jewes were a Nationall-Church because they were a holy Nation in profession and God called the Nation and made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Church externally called to grace and glory and the whole Nation commensurable and of equall extent then all Christian Nations professing the true Faith and the Gentiles as well as the Iewes Then the believing Iewes of Pontus Asia Cappadocia and Bythinia as Augustine Eusebius Oecumenius Athanasius doe thinke that Peter wrote to the Iewes yea and the Gentiles as many interpreters with Lorinus Thomas Lyra and others thinke are yet 1 Pet. 2. 9. an holy Nation and so a Nationall Church and there is no more reason to scoffe at a Nationall Church in this sense then to mocke the holy Spirit which maketh but one Church in all the World Cant. 6. 9. as Cotton Ainsworth and other favorable witnesses to our Brethren confesse And if the Gentiles shall come to the light of the Jewish Church and Kings to the brightnesse of of their rising Esai 60. 3. if the abundance of the Sea shall be converted to the Iewes true Faith and Religion And the forces of the Gentiles shall come to them vers 5. and if all flesh shall see the revealed glory of the Lord Esai 40. 5. and the Earth shall bee filled with the knowledge of God as the Seas are filled with Water It is most agreeable to the Lords Word that there is and shall be a Church through the whole World you may nickname it as you please and call it a VVorld-Religion a VVorld-Church As if the lost and blinded World Ioh. 2. 16 17. 1 Joh. 5. 19. 2 Corin 4. 4. were all one with the Loved Redeemed Pardoned and Reconciled World Ioh. 3. 16. Ioh. 1. 29. 2 Cor. 5. 19. as if wee confounded these two Worlds and the Religion of these two Worlds And if this World could meet in its principall lights neither should an universall councell nor an Oath of the whole Representative Church be unlawfull but enough of this before And what if the World bee subdued to the World and a World of Nations come in and submit to Christs Scepter and royall power in his externall government are the opposers such strangers in the Scriptures as to doubt of this Reade then Esai 60. 4. 5. c. 60. 11 12 13 14 15 v. 4. 5 6 7. Psal. 2. 8 9. Psal. 72. 8. 9. 10. Esai 54. 3. Esai 49. 1. Esai 45. 22. 23. Psal. 110 1 2 3 4 5. and many other places and there is a Kingdome in a Kingdome Christs Kingdome and his Church lodging in a Worldly Kingdome and Christ spiritually in his power triumphing over the World and subduing Nations to his Gospell Object 8. If Classicall Presbyters be not Elders in â—elation to the classicall Church and so to all the Congregations in it yee must forsake all these places where it is said the Elders of Jerusalem the Elders of Ephesus the Angels of the seven Churches which is absurd if they be Elders to all these Churches then 1. All those people in those Churches must submit their consciences to them and their Ministery as to a lawfull ordinance of God 2. All the people of those Churches must have voyce in election of them all 3. All these people owe to theâ—s maintenance and double honor 1 Tim. 5. 17. for if the Oxes mouth must not be muzlâ—d but he must be fed by me and my corne he must tread my corne and labour for me These Churches cannot all meet in one to ordaine and chuse all these Ministers and to submit to their Ministery Answ. The Elders are Elders of Ephesus and Elders of Jerusalem not because every Elder hath a speciall pastorall charge over every Church distributively taken for it was unpossible that one Congregation of all the converts in Ierusalem extending to so many thousands could all beare the relation of a Church to one man as their proper Elder who should personally reside in all and every one of those Congregations to watch for their soules to preach to all and every Congregation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in season and out of season But they are in cumulo called Elders of Ephesus in that sense that Kings are called the Kings of the Nations not because every King was King of every Nation for the King of Edom was not the King of Babylon and the King of Babel was not the King of Assyria yet amongst them they did all fill up that name to be called the Kings of the Nations so were the Elders of Ierusalem in cumulo collectively taken Elders of all the Churches of Ierusalem collectively taken and as it followeth not that the King of Edom because hee is one of the Kings of the Nations is elected to the Crowne of Caldea by the Voyces of the States and Nobles of Caldea so is it not a good consequence such a number are called the Elders of the Church of Ierusalem therefore the Elder of one Congregation at the Easterne Gate at Ierusalem is also an Elder of a Congregation of the Westerne Gate Nor doth it follow that these two Congregations should submit their consciences to one and the same Elder as to their proper Pastor to whose Ministery they owe consent in Election Obedience in submitting to his Doctrine and mainetenance for his labours all these are due to him who is their owne proper Pastor the as Caldeans owe not Honour Allegiance Tribute to the King of Edom though the Kingdome of Caldea bee one of the Kingdomes of the Nations and the King of Edom one of the Kings of the Nations But if indeede all the Kings of the Nations did meete in one Court and in that Court governe the Nations with common Royall authority and counsell in those things which concerne all the Kingdomes in common then all the Nations were obliged to obey them in that Court as they governe in that Court but no farther and when the people doe consent to the power of that common Court â—â—citly they consent that every one of these shall bee chosen King of such and such a Kingdome and promise also tracitly Obedience and Subjection to every one of the Kings of the Nations not simply as they are Kings in relation to such a Kingdome but onely as they are members of that Court so the Congregations acknowledging and consenting to the classicall Presbytery doe tracitly chuse and consent to the common charge and care that every Pastor hath as hee
principles for sometime they say the Apostles gave out this decree as Apostles and sometime there is nothing here done by a meere doctrinall power such as Paul had over Peter or one single Pastor hath over another now it is sure that Paul had no Apostolick power over Peter and that one Pastor have not Apostolick power over another 2. When our brethren say here that the Apostles as Apostles by an infallible spirit gave out this Decree they doe in this helpe the Papists as Bellarmine Becanus Grâ—â—rut and in particular the Jesuit Lorinus who saith decrâ—um authenticum cujus inspirator spiritus sanctâ— and so saith Cornelius a lapide visiâ—m est nob is inspiratis decretis a Spiritu sanctus therefore saith hee the councell cannot erre and so Salmeron and Cajetan say and expresly Stapleton saith this Apostosack definition flowed from the instinct of the holy Ghost observandum saith Stapleton quanta habenda sit ecclesiae definienth authoritâ—s hence our brether here must yeeld either that all Synods are infallible as Papists say this Synod the patterne of all Synods being concluded by an Apostolick spirit could not erre and so neither can councells erre or they must with Socinians and Arminians say there is no warrant for Synods here at all And certainly though wee judge our brethren as farre from Popery and Socinianisme as they thinke wee detest Anti-Christian Presbytery yet if this Synod bee concluded by an Apostolick spirit it is no warrant to bee imitated by the Churches and wee have no ground hence for lawfull Synods Whittakerus Calvin Beza Luther and all our Divines do all alledge this place as a pregnant ground not of Apostolick but of ordinary and constant Synods to the end of the world and Diodatus good to the holy Ghost because they did treat of ecclesiasticall reders concerning the quietnes and order of the Church wherein ecclesiasticall authoritie hath place the Assembly used this tearme it seemed good to us which is not used neither in articles of faith nor in the commandements which meerely concerned the conscience and to shew that authoritie was with holy reason and wisedome there is added and to the holy Ghost who guided the Apostles in these outward things also 1. Cer. 7. 25. 40. 2. If our brethren meane that the Elders and brethren were in this Apostolick and immediatly inspired Synodicall determination not as collaterall penners of Scriptures joyned with the Apostles but onely as consenters and as consenters by power of an ordinary holy Ghost working consent in them more suo according to their capacitie as ordinary Elders 1. They yet more helpe the Papists because they must say onely Apostles and so onely their successors the Prelates had definitive voices in this Synod the Presbyters and Brethren did no more then Papists and Prelates say Presbyters did in generall councells of old and therefore the Presbyter is to subscribe Ego A. N. Presbyter consentiens subseribo whereas the Prelate subscribed say they Ego A. B. Episcopus definiens subscribo wee crave a warrant in Gods Word to make an Apostle or a Prelate a Synodicall definer having a definitive voyce and the Elder Brother or Presbyter to have a consultative voyce for here all the multitude if there was a multitude present doe make Synodicall decrees by consulting and consenting yea all the nation may come to a nationall Synod and both reason dispute and consent because matters of doctrine and government of the Church concerneth all therefore all have an interest of presence and all have an interest of reasoning and 3. by consequent all have an interest of consenting yea of protesting on the contrary if the Synod determine any thing against the Word of God If they say there is a threeford consent in this Synod 1. an Apostolicall 2. a second Synodicall agreeing to Elders as Elders and a third that of the people or a popular What a mixt Synod shall this be but 1. then as the Epistle to the Tlxssalonians is called the Epistle of Paul not the Epistle of Silvanus and Timotheus though Silvanus and Timotheus did consent so these dogmata or decrees should not be called the decrees of the Apostles and Elders as they are called Act. 16. 4. Act. 15. 6. Act. 21. 25. but onely the decrees of the Apostles seeing the Elders did onely consent and had no definitive influence in making the decree by this doctrine as Silvanus and Timotheus were not joynt pen-men of Scripture with Paul 3. When as it is said the specification of actions must not bee taken from the efficient cause but from the formall object and all that a done in this Synod might have beene done by a single Pastor I answer wee doe not fetch the specification of this rebuke and of these decrees from the efficient causes but from the formall object for an Apostle might his alone have rebuked these obtruders of circumcision and made this decree materialiter for Paul did more his alone then this when hee wrote the Eâ—istle to the Romans but yet one Pastor could not have Synodically rebuked and given out a decree formally Synodicall laying an Ecclesiasticall tie on moe Churches then one there is great ods to doe one and the same action formally and to doe the same action materially and I beleeve though actions have not by good logick their totall specification from their efficient cause yet that ordinances of God as lawfull have their specification from the efficient causes in part our brethren cannot deny For what made the difference betwixt Aaron his fire offered to the Lord and Nadab and Abihu their strange and unlawfull fire that they offered to the Lord but that the on fire had God for its author the other had men and the like I say of Gods feasts and the feasts devised by Jeroboam else if a woman preach and administrate the Lords Supper in the Church that preaching and sacrament administrated by her should not have a different specification and essence if wee speake morally or Theologically from that same very preaching and celebration of the Supper performed in the Church by a lawfull Pastor it is as I conceive of the essence of an action Synodicall I say not its totall essence that it cannot bee performed by one in a Church-way and with an ecclesiasticall tie but it must be performed by many else it is not a Synodicall action and it is true that Paul Rom. 14. and 1 Cor. 8. 10. hath in substance the same Canon forbidding scandall which is forbidden in this Canon prohibiting eating of meats offered to Idolls and blood in the case of scandall but I pray you is there not difference betwixt the one prohibition and the other yea there is for Rom. 14. 1 Cor. 8. 10. it hath undenyably Apostolick authoritie here it hath onely Synodicall 2. There it is a commandement of God here it is a Canon of the Church 3. There it commeth from one man here from a
to preach and administer the Sacraments 4. The Apostles abode many yeares at Jerusalem after there was an erected Eldership Act. 15. 2. 22. Act. 16. 4. Act. 21. 18 19 20. Gal. 1. 18 After three yeares I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter Gal. 2. 1. Then foureture yeeres after I went up againe to Jerusalem c. 9. And when James Cephas and John who seemed to bee pillars perceived the grace that was given unto mee they gave to mee and Barnabas the right hands fellowship 5. Though wee should give and not grant that this dispersion did bring the Church of Jerusalem to so low an ebbe as to make it but one single Congregation yet after the dispersion all the Churches Act. 9. 3. had peace and were edified and multiplyed and so the Church of Jerusalem also was multiplied if all France be multiplied Paris which is a part of France must bee multiplied and if there were many thousands of the Jewes that did beleeve Act. 21. 20. though these many were for a great part come up to the feast at Pentecost as some thinke yet may wee well thinke a huge number of these thousands were of the Church of Jerusalem it is said v. 21. They are informed of thee that thou teachest all the Jewes which are amongst the Gentiles to forsak Moses these belike were the Jewes at Jerusalem who heard that Paul was come to Jerusalem and Act. 12. 24. The Word of God grew and multiplied it is the same phrase that is used Act. 6. v. 7. to expresse the multiplying of the Church by the multiplying of the Word for there is no other multiplication of the Word but in the hearts of numbers who receive the Word in faith Our brethren object 1. Though there bee Elders at Jerusalem Act. 15. 2. v. 4. and Act. 21. 18. yet that doth not prove an Eldership o◠a formall presbytery even a presbytery of a classicall Church doth not prove that these Classicall Elders are Elders of a Classicall Church Answ. Our brethren should give to us the measure which they take to themselves for they prove from that which the Scripture Act. 20. 28. doe name the Elders of the Church of Ephesus that there was an Eldership at Ephesus which governed all the people of Ephesus and from Bishops and Deacons at Philippi Phil. 1. 1. that there was an Eldership in that Church and from the Angel of the Church of Smyrna Pergamus Thyrtira c. that there was a colledge of Elders or a Presbytery in those Churches for if those Churches had elders in them though they were in their meaning Elders of a particular Congregation and so an Eldership and a presbytery they must give us the favour of the like consequence in many of those Churches they had Elders Ergo they had a presbyteriall or classicall Eldership and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as seldome in Scripture to our brethren to prove their Congregationall Eldership as it is to us to prove our Presbyteriall or classicall Eldership and in this jam sumns ergo pares and one government and combination voluntary under one Congregationall presbytery shall bee as hardly proven as one government and one voluntary combination of many Congregations and where the multitude is so numerous as that they cannot meet in one it is unpossible to prove that so many thousands did all agree and that according to Christs institution to meet ordinarily in one for doctrine and discipline whereas the meeting in one of so many thousands is most inconvenient 2. An Eldership doth prove there is a relation of those that make up the Eldership to all the Church distributively to which they have the relation of Elders but doth not prove that the Eldership is an Eldership in a Church-relation to any one single person and that that single person hath a reciprocall Church relation to that Eldership so here the classicall Eldership carrieth a relation to a classicall Church and a classicall Church doth retort and reflect a reciprocall relation to the Eldership but it doth not follow that every Congregation of the Classicall Church doth reflect a reciprocall relation of a Church classicall to either the classicall Eldership or to any one Elder of the classicall presbytery 2. They affirme that there was no presbyteriall government exercised by the Apostles in the Church of Jerusalem for they say for the substance of the Act it is true The Apostles did governe as Elders that is their Acts of government were not different from the Acts of government of ordinary Elders but the Apostles did not governe under this formall reduplication as ordinary Elders but as Apostles because as Apostles they were Elders both in the Church of Jerusalem and in all Churches of the world but this proveth not an ordinary Eldership Titus at Crete did but the ordinary Acts of an ordinary Elder at Crete in appointing Elders in every citie yet this proveth not that there is in the successors of Titus an ordinary Episcopall government for because of the extent of the Apostles power to all Churches on earth you may from this prove as well an Episcopall power as a presbyteriall power in an Eldership over many Congregations and before you prove a presbyteriall power you must prove an extent and an ordinary extent of an Eldership over many Congregations which you shall never prove from the extent of the Apostles power which was universall and alike in all Churches I answer if our brethren had formed their arguments in a syllogisme I could more easily have answered but I will doe it for them Those who did rule with an universall extent of power of government in all Churches these did rule as Apostolick rulers and not as ordinary presbyters in the ruling and governing the Church of Jerusalem but the Apostles before the dispersion did rule thus Ergo the Apostles before the dispersion did rule as Apostles not as ordinary presbyters The proposition they make good because if those who rule with an universall extent of power doe it not as Apostles they have then prelates to succeed them as ordinary officers in their extent of power and extent of pastorall care over many Churches But I answer by granting the major and the probation of it in the connex proposition because those who rule with an universall extent of power doe it as Apostles but I deny the assumption that the twelve Apostles did rule the Church of Jerusalem with an universall extent of power over all Churches for it is true the Apostles who did governe the Church of Jerusalem had an universall power over all Churches but that they did rule the Church of Jerusalem as having this universall power and by virtue of this universall and Apostolicall power I utterly deny and I deny it with the reduplication and except our brethren prove that the Apostles did governe the Church of Jerusalem as having this Apostolick power and under this reduplication they doe not prove that they ruled
Kingly Priestly and Propheticall office be overturned as we were forced in Popery to do we are to separate from the Church in that case It is not true that Master Robinson saith This distinction of fundamentalls and non-fundamentals in injurious to growing in grace whereas we should be led on to perfection as if it were sufficient for a house that the foundation were laid Answ. It followeth not for the knowledge of fundamentalls is onely that wee may know what is a necessary meane of salvation without which none can be saved notwithstanding he who groweth not and is not led on to perfection never laid hold on the foundation Christ nor are we hence taught to seeke no more but so much knowledge of fundamentals as may bring as to heaven that is an abuse of this Doctrine 2. Robinson faith fundamentall truthes are holden and professed by as vile heretickes as ever were since Christs dayes a company of excommunicates may hold teach and defend fundamentall truths yet are they not a true Church of God Answ. Papists hold fundamentalls and so doe Jewes hold all the old Testament and Papists hold both new and old but we know they so hold fundamentalls that by their doctrine they overturne them and though there bee fundamentalls taught in the Popish Church which may save if they were beleeved yet they are not a true and ministeriall Church simply because though they teach that there is one God they teach also there is a thousand Gods whom they adore and though they teach there is one Mediator yet doe they substitute infinite Mediators with and besides Christ so that the truth is not a formall ministeriall and visible active externall calling is in the Church of Rome as it is a visible Church in the which wee can safely remaine though fundamentalls be safe in Rome and the bookes of the old and new Testament be there yet are they not there ministerially as in a mother whose breasts we can sucke for fundamentall points falsely exponed cease to be fundamentall points yea as they be ministerially in Rome they be destructive of the foundation though there bee some ministeriall acts valid in that Church for the which the Church of Rome is called a true Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in some respect according to something essentiall to the true Church yet never sine adjecto as if it were a true Church where we can worship God Fundamentalls are safe in Rome materially in themselves so as some may be saved who beleeve these fundamentalls but fundamentalls are not safe in Rome Ecclesiastice Ministeraliter Pastoraliter in a Church way so as by beleeving these from their chaires so exponed they can be saved who doe beleeve them 2. Out of which we may have the doctrine of faith and salvation as from a visible mother whose daughters we are Some say the fundamentalls amongst Lutherans are exponed in such a way as the foundation is everted I answer There is a twofold eversion of the foundation 1. One Theologicall Morall and Ecclesiastick as the doctrine of the Councell of Trent which is in a ministeriall way with professed obstinacy against the fundamentall truths rightly exponed and such an eversion of the foundation maketh the Popish Church no Church truely visible whose breasts we can sucke But for Lutheranes their subversion of the foundation by philosophick consequences without professed hatred to the fundamentalls and that not in an Ecclesiasticke and Ministeriall way doth not so evert the fundamentalls as that they bee no visible Church The learned Pareus sheweth that there be no difference betwixt us and Lutherans in heads absolutely necessary to salvation the dissention is in one point onely anent the Lords Supper not in the whole doctrine thereof but in a part thereof not necessary for salvation There were divisions betweene Paul and Baâ—nabas betwixt Cyprim an African Bishop and Stephanus Bishop of Rome anent baptisme of hereticks which Cyprian rejected as no baptisme betwixt Basilius Magnus and Eusebius Ceâ—ariensis because Basilius stood for the Emperour Vaâ—ns his power in Church matters so was there dissention betwixt Augustine and Hierâ—nimus anent the ceremonies of the Jewes which Hyeronymus thought might be retained to gaine the Jewes so there was also betwixt Epiphanius and Chrysostome anent the bookes of Origâ—n The Orthodox beleevers agreed with the Novations against the Arrians anent the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the consubstantialitie of Christ and though excommunicate persons defend and hold all fundamentalls sound and so may bee materially a true Church yet because their profession is no profession but adenying of the power of godlinesse they cannot be formally a visible Church but are for scandalls casten out of the visible Church But saith Robinson most of England are ignorant of the first rudiments and foundation of Religion and therefore cannot bee a Church Answ. Such are materially not the visible Church and have not a profession and are to be taught and if they wilfully remaine in that darknesse are to be cast out But saith he the bare profession of fundamentalls maketh not a Church they must be a company of faithfull people and if they must not be truely faithfull then they must be falsely faithfull for God requireth true and ready obedience in his word according to which wee must define Churches and not according to casuall things Answ. This is a speciall ground that deceiveth the Separatists their ignorance I meane of the visible Church for the visible Church consisteth essentially neither of such as be truely faithfull nor of such as must be falsely faithfull for the ignorant man seeth not that the visible Church includeth neither faith nor unbeliefe in its essence or definition It is true to the end that professors may be members of the invisible Church they must be beleevers must beleeve except they would be condemned eternally but to make them members of the visible Church neither beleeving nor unbeleeving is essentiall but onely a profession ecclesiastically in tear that is not scandalous visibly apparently lewd and flagitious such as was the profession of Simon Magus when he was baptized with the rest of the visible Church Act. 8. And God indeed requireth of us true worship and ready obedience as he saith but not that a visible Church should be defined by true and sincere obedience for essentials onely are taken in a definition and casuall corruptions are only accidentall to Churches and fall out through mens faults and therefore should not be in the definition either of a visible or an invisible Church nor should ready and sincere obedience which is a thing invisible to mens eyes be put in the definition of a visible Church for it is accidentall to a visible Church and nothing invisible can be essentiall to that which essentially is visible the visible Church is essentially visible Anent separation from Rome we hold these Propositions 1. Profession consistetly not onely in a publike ministeriall avowing
Matth. 10. 5 6 7. they were members of the Jewish Church and called Apostles To the 3. I answer ignorance of fundamentall points not fully proposed and revealed if there bee a gratious disposition of saving faith to beleeve these when they shall be revealed such was as in the Lords Disciples Matth. 16. 16 17. Luk. 12. 32. Luk. 22. 28 29. may well stand with the dignitie of young and as yet limited Apostles Matth. 10. 5 6 7. who had not yet received the holy Ghost in that measure Act. 1. 8 9. that was requisite for Apostles in their full Apostolicke charge and made infallible pen-men of Canonick Scriptures sent to preach to all the world To the 4. I answer They were not non-residents because they returned to reside with Christ after they had casten out devils Ioh. 4. 1 2. which your lay-Prophets by your owne confession cannot lawfully doe not to bee idle but to learne more and to be eye and care witnesses of the doctrine life death resurrection and ascension to glory of Christ 2 Pet. 1. 16 17 18. 1 Joh. 1. 1 2 3. Matth. 26. 37 38 39. Luk. 24. 50 51 52. Joh. 20. 19 20. Act. 4. 20. which was necessary that they might preach these things to the world Nor is a Pastor in his studie attending reading as 1 Tim. 3. 15 16. though he be not then teaching a non-resident To the 5. I say when Christ ascended unto heaven Ephes. 4. 11. He gave some to bee Apostles c. but that gifting of Apostles is not to restrict the institution of Apostles to the precise time of his ascension for you grant that after the Lords resurrection and before his ascension they were ordained Apostles Matth. 28. 19. Joh. 20. 23. but the full sending of the holy Spirit to Apostles Evangelists Pastors and Teachers is ascribed to his ascension as a speciall fruite of his ascension Act. 1. 8 9. Joh. 16. v. 7 8 9. and therefore is their sending called an effect of the holy Spirit For the second point Giving and not granting that the Apostles were not Apostles till after the resurrection yet will it not follow that they were lay-Prophets or Prophets out of office for they might have beene Pastors in office though not Apostles in office for there were beside these others in the Jewish Church else where were Scribes Pharisees Lawyers Doctors all sitters in Moses his chaire They were not Apostles sure what were they then all teachers out of office No If then I prove that the Apostles were teachers in office though it were granted that they were not Apostles as in the fulnesse and plenitude thereof they were not till Christ arose from the dead I prove as much as taketh this argument for lay-prophets out of their hands But that they were not non-officed teachers but called Apostles or Pastors I prove 1. Argum. Judas was chosen one of the twelve and an Apostle Ergo farre more were the rest I prove the Antecedent 1. Act. 20. Let another take his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his charge 2. v. 17. He took part with us say they in this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this ministery 3. Matthias v. 25. was chosen in that place and Apostleship from which Judas fell Now Lay-Prophets have no officiall Episcopacie no Ministery nor can any chosen in their place said to bee chosen to an Apostleship Ioh. 6. 7. Have not I chosen you twelve this choosing was to an Embassage saith Cyrill Augustine Euthymius and all our Divines with them 2. Matth. 10. 2. These are the names of the twelve Apostles v. 5. he send them What power he giveth to them in respect of al the world to remit and retaine sinnes Iob. 20. that hee giveth to them toward the house of Israel v. 11 12 13. under the name of offered peace Magis minus non variant speciem Mark 13. 14. Mark 3. 14. hee ordained twelve 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hee made twelve to be with him which he might send to preach Luk. 9. 1. and he called the twelve and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be sent them hee tooke them from their fishing and made them fishers of men and Matth. 10. 10. hee calleth them workmen worthy of their hire private Prophets are not gifted nor sent nor taken from their callings nor are they workmen deserving stipend for that is due to Prophets by office 1 Cor. 9. 13. 14. Gal. 6. 6. 1 Tim. 5. 17. 3. Those who have power to dispense the seales of grace and to baptize are not private or unofficed Prophets but sent of God and in office as Matth. 28. 19. 1 Cor. 1. 17. and Robinson granteth this and so doe Separatists teach But the Disciples of Christ before his resurrection baptized Ioh. 4. 2. 4. Those who were witnesses of the life miracles doctrine of Christ and preached the same and confirmed it by miracles were pastors 5. Those who were twelve selected men chosen Luk. 6. 13. named Apostles Mark 9. 35. Mark 10. 32. Luk. 8. 1. to whom the keyes of the kingdome were given Matth. 18. 17 18 19. Matth. 16. 19. are not unofficed men 6. This is a Popish opinion and to be suspected for Papists to advance Peter to a Popedome will have him no Apostle while after the resurrection for Bellarmine saith Imposition of hands is essentiall to holy orders and that the Apostle ordained no Presbyters while Christ was risen and made the Apostles and gave them the holy Spirit The Councell of Trent hinteth at the same opinion Bellarmine saith the Apostles were made Priests at the last Supper to sacrifice Christs body but not Presbyters till after that when they received the holy Ghost and Cardinall Hosius Martinus Ledesma Petrus a Soto say the Disciples are made Apostles Ioh. 21. Toletus saith they had power before this time to preach but not to forgive sinnes in the Sacrament of pennance while now And Cardinall Cajetan saith here was first the Sacrament of pennance ordained and it is true Cyrillus and Chrysostome say that Iohn 21. Soli sacerdotes onely Pastors by this place have power to forgive sinnes but not by this place onely for they say that Matth. 16. power is given Joannes de Lugo the Popes Professor at Rome teach that Joh. 21. the Apostles first received this power And jayne with him Suarez Thomas Sanchez Aegidius Coniuk and Vasquez though as good as they say the contrary as Panormitanus a late Schooleman Avila and Sylvester and John Bishop of Rochester writing against Papists and their Popes power of dethroning Kings saith how could the Apostles who are examples of good order preach and baptize if they were meere Layicks and not Pastors while after Christ was arisen from the dead Robinson citeth Luk. 8. 39. Christ biddeth the dispossessed man gâ—shew what great things the Lord had done for him and hee went and preached it now
Nazianzen which is not against their authoritie and true fulnesse and he speaketh of the councells of his time and it is not to bee denyed but Panormitan saith well dictum unius privati est praeferendum dicto papae si ille moveretur melioribus rationibus veteris novi Testamenti and Augustine saith latter councells may correct older councells and Petrus de Monte under Eugenius complained that there was no godly and learned Bishops in his time to determine truth in a Synod when Doctors Professors Bishops and all have sworne obedience to the Pope to their Occumenick councells and to the wicked decrees of the councell of Trent as the Bull of Pius the fourth requireth But before I say any thing of the second question anent the magistrates power I shall close the other wayes of communion of sister Churches CHAP. 6. SECT 5. Three other wayes of communion of sister Churches A Fift way of communion saith the author is by helping and contributing to sister Churches Prophets and Teachers when they are in scarstie as Act. 11. 29. Rom. 15. 25. 26. Ans. This way of communion we acknowledg but we see not how this communion can stand wiâ—hout the authoritie of Synods if Churches bee not united in one visible body they cannot authoritatively send helpe of teachers one to another and this is a direct acknowledgement of a visible union of more Churches in one visible body for the Church of Jerusalem authoritatively sent Pastors Paul and Barnabas as Pastors to the Gentiles you will have them sent as gifted men and that they are not Pastors while they bee ordained and chosen by these Churches to which they goe A sixt way of communion saith hee is by admonition if a sister Church or any member thereof bee scandalous wee are then to send Elders to warn them to call Archippus or any other Elder to take beed to do their dutie if the Elders or Church bee remisse in consuring wee are to take the helpe of two or three Churches moe if yet that Church â—eare not wee are to tell a Congregation of Churches together or if the offence bee weightie wee are to withdraw the right hand of fellowship from such a Church and to forbeare all such sort of exercise of mutuall brotherly communion with them which all the Churches of Christ are to walke in one towards another Answ. You acknowledge that same order which Christ commandeth Matth. 18. to gaine a brother is to bee kept in the gaining of scandalous Churches But 1. What warrant have you of the two first steps of Christs order against scandalous Churches and to omit the third judiciall and authoritative way when sister Churches turne obstinate Christs order for gaining the scandalous is as necessary in the third as in the former two 2. Why doe you allow the third in a sort for if the sister Church will not bee admonished you will have her rebuked before moe sister Churches that are conveened that is before a Synod is it because you thinke there is more authority in a Synod then in one sister Church then you thinke there is authoritie in a Synod for by good Logick wee may inferre the positive degree from the comparative and there is no other reason why the matter should come before a Synod for all in a Synod wanteth authority and power to censure as you thinke yet to complaine to a Synod is an acknowledgement of the authoritie of a Synod as Christs order saith Matth. 18. 17. If hee neglect to heare them tell it to the Church 3. What is the withdrawing of brotherly communion from obstinate sister Churches but as Amesius saith well excommunication by proportion and analogie Ergo say I in this a Synod hath a Synodicall authoritie over the Churches within the bounds of the Synod by proportion for who can inflict a punishment of a Church censure by proportion answerable to excommunication but a Church or a Synodicall meeting which hath the power of the Church by proportion Amesius would prove that a particular Church cannot bee excommunicated because a Church cannot bee cast out of communion with it selfe for then she should bee cast out of herselfe But this argument with reverence of so learned and godly a man proveth onely that a particular Church cannot excommunicate herselfe which I grant but it concludeth not but a particular obstinate Church may bee excommunicated out of the societie of all sister Churches who meeting in a Synod in the name of Jesus Christ have power to save the spirits of sister Churches in the day of the Lord and are to edifie them by counsell and rebuking as the Author granteth and why not by an authoritative declaring that they will have no communion with such an obstinate sister or rather daughter Church Wee have never saith the Author been put to the utmost extent of this dutie the Lord hitherto preventing by his grace yet it is our dutie The Church Cant. 8. tooke care not onely for her owne members but also for her little sister that had no brests and would have taken care if having breasts they had been distempered with corrupt milke if the Apostles had a care of all the Churches 1 Cor. 8. 11. is that spirit of grace and love dead with them ought not all the Churches to care for sister Churches if not virtute officii by vertue of an office yet intuitu charitatis for charities sake Answ. That you have never beene put to these duties to the utmost will never prove that the government is of God for Corinth Ephesus Pergamus Thyatira which were glorious Churches by your owne confession were put to a necessitie of the utmost extent of these duties yea it proveth your government to bee rather so much the worse because Christs government is opposed by secret enemies in the Church 2. You make the spirit of love in a pastorall care over other Churches to bee dead because none have any pastorall care over any other Churches but the particular Congregation over which they are Pastors and pastorall love to unconverted ones as pastorall you utterly deny The last way of communion saith the Author is by propagation or multiplication which is as the Apostles had immediat calling from God to travell through the world and to plant Churches so have particular Churches given to them immediatly from Christ the fulnesse of measure of grace which the inlargement and establishment of Christs kingdome doth require that is when the Bee-hive a parishionall congregation is surcharged they have power to send forth their members to enter by Covenant in Church-state amongst themselves and may commend to them such able gifted Ministers as they thinke may bee Ministers in that young Church Answ. 1. This way of inlarging Christs kingdome is defective 1. It sheweth the way of inlarging the number of invisible Churches and multitudes of converts into new incorporations but doth shew no way how to
determinations on the contrary for it was certaine that the Word of God had refuted the necessitie of circumâ—ision and of observing Moses his Law as Peter James Paul Act. 15. doe strongly prove from the Word of God and the word of God condemned the eating of things strangâ—â—â— and of things sacrificed to Idolls in the case of scandall therefore none of sound judgement will inferre that the determination of a Synod such as is Act. 15. 22. is not necessary yea because the bookes of Moses condemned the Sadduces in their Epicurith opinion of denying the resurrection of the dead I hope it is not for that superfluous for Christ out of Moses his writings to determine and prove Matth. 22. that the dead must â—iâ—c againe you may by as good reason say nothing should bee determined in preaching nor in writings because all these are already determined in the Word by the Lord his Prophets and Apostles this shall close evert all ministery as Sâ—inians doe especially now after the cannon of the Scripture is closed for they use the same very arguments against the necessitie of a ministery because now the Gospell is fully revealed there is no necessitie of a sent ministery as was in the Apostles time so teach Andr. Raddeccius Smalcius and the Arminians And lastly it is a vild abusing of Scripture to say that the accept thâ—e yeare of the Lord of which Christ speaketh Luk. 4. 18 1â— is that Jubilee yeare of libertie of conscience to all sects of Papists Arminians Socinians Anabaptists c. 1. Because a libertie of hereticall and blasphemous opinions of God his nature worship and Word cannot bee the acceptable yeare of the Lord which Christ as Mediator came to proclaime Esa. 61 2. 5. for that is licence not libertie Christs acceptable yeare Fsiy 61. is the spirituall Jubilee of remission of sinnes and eternall redemption proffered in the Gospel and really bestowed upon the meeke the broken hearted the captives the prisoners the mourneâ—s in Ziâ—n and those whom Christ is sent to comfort and to clothe with the garments of praise but hee is not sent to comfort Macedonians Sabellians papists Socinians c. because they are Sectaries and doe adhere to their rotten and false grounds of divinitie for then libertie of conscience should have beene a mercy purchased by Christs death and Arius should obtaine by Christs death a power to bee an Arian and to deny the divinitie of Jesus Christ. 2. In the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ultio a revenging is an allusion to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 naeham consolatus est for this yeare was to the beleevers Nechama or consolation and to unbeleevers Nekama a revenge or a vengeance which cannot sort with sectaries 3. The acceptable yeare is as Paul expoundeth it 2 Cor. 6. 2. the acceptable time of the Gospell and the day of salvation and as Hugo Cardinalis expoundeth it well the time of the fulnesse of grace under the Gospel and that which is called Esay 49. 8. the day of salvation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ratson the day of good will and so Beda Toletus Cyrillus and the Jesuit Salmeron and Glossa Ordinaria expoundeth it faith and salvation Procopius the day of the Lords incarnation as Hieronymus expoundeth the day of vengeance opposit thereunto to bee the day of damnation and Lyra the yeare of Christs suffering in which Christ is pleased with mankind Quest. III. Whether the Jesuited Lysimachus Nicanor and the Author of the Survey of Discipline doth with good reason impute â—â— the Church-Government of the reformed Churches the eversion of the 〈◊〉 Magistrates power â—n matters ecclesiasticall There came to the light of day a night-peece of darkenesse Anno 1640. A Pamphlet by one Lysimachus Nicanor acting the person of a â—esuite but better resembling â— is nature against our blessed Reformation imputing to us Treason to Kings as the Popish author of the Survey had ledde the poore man both of these as Jesuites doe raile against Calvin Beza and the Geneva-discipline as Becanus Suarez Uasquez Bellarmine Greâ—serus and other their Doctors and teachers doe leade them That I may adde to what I have said before I desire the reader to eye and consider these distinctions 1. Paraeus teacheth that there is a double Church-power one internall and proper as to preach hinde and loose to administrate the Sacraments c. This is not in the Prince and there is another improper and externall which is exercised about Church-matters and Church-officers and this distinction is grounded upon that saying of Constantine the Emperour to the Bishops as Eusebius relateth it 2. An externall power about matters ecclesiasticke is three-fold 1. A power of order and jurisdiction about the externall or rather in the externall acts of the Church which are visible and incurreth in the 〈…〉 as to preach baptize and these as saith that learned and worthy preacher at Middleburgh Guliel Apollonii doe properly pertaine to the spirituall and proper Church-government and without controversie doe not belong to the Prince 2. A power externall about Church-matters which is objective in respect of the object sacred or ecclesiastick but improperly and by a 〈◊〉 enely ecclesiasticke and essentially and in it selfe politick such as we hold to be the Magistrates power in causing Church-men doe their duty in preaching sound doctrine and administrating the Sacraments â—cording to Christs institution and punishing hereticks and false teachers 3. Some have devised a mixed power ecclesiastick as Henric. Salcobrigiensis whereby the Prince is the head of the Church and hath a nomotheticke and legislative power in things ecclesiasticall and this is not onely objective in respect of the object ecclesiasticall but also subjective in respect of the subject ecclesiasticall in respect that the Prince by vertue of his civill office as a King may ordaine Prelats and make Lawes in Church-matters Distinction 3. There is a twofold power in a King one in a King as a King this is alike in all and ordinary regall coactive whether the King be a Heathen a Turke or a sound beleeving Christian There is another power in a King as such a King either a King and a Prophet also or as a Propheticall King and this extraordinary power was in Solomon and David to write Canonicke Scripture and to prophecie and is not properly a Kingly power or there is in a King as such a King even as a Christian beleeving King an other power ordinary indeede but it is not a new regall power but potestas executiva a power or a gracious hability to execute the Kingly power that he had before as a King so Christianity addeth no new Kingly power to a King but onely addeth a Christian power to use inlarge and dilate the Kingly power that he had before Distinction 4. The Magistrate as a Magistrate is a politicke head and ruler of the Common-wealth but as
him all spirituall headship over the Church to the King and Burbillus also But Henric. Salcobrigiensis calleth the King primatem ecclesiae Anglicanae the Primate of the Church of England and â—ges oleo sacro uncti capaces sunt jurisdictionis spiritualis because they are annointed with holy oyle therefore are they capable of spirituall jurisdiction also may saith hee creat propria autoritate by his owne authoritie create Bishops and dâ—prive them See what Calderwood hath said and excerped out of the writings of these men the King as King 1. convocateth Synods 2. defineth ecclesiasticall canons 3. giveth to them the power of an ecclesiasticall Law 4. executeth Church Canons 5. appointeth commissioners who in the Kings authoritie and name may try heresies and errors in doctrine punish non-conformitie to Popish ceremonies may confine imprison banish Ministers 6. descerne excommunication and all Church censures and use both the swords 7. relax from the power and censures of all ecclesiastick Lawes give dispensations annull the censures of the Church upon causes knowne to them give dispensations against Canons unite or separate Parish Churches or diocesan Churches and by a mixt power partly coactive and civill partly of jurisdiction and spirituall the King may doe in foro externo in the externall court of Church discipline all and every act of discipline except hee cannot preach baptize or excommunicate And whereas Cartwright saith when a lawfull Minister shall agree upon an unlawfull thing the Prince ought to stay it and if Church ministers shew themselves obstinate and will not bee advised by the Prince they prove themselves to be an unlawfull Ministery and such as the Prince is to punish with the sword O but saith hee the author of the Survey how shall the Prince helpe the matter shall be compell them to conveene in a Synod and retract their mind but they will not doe this 2. By what authoritie shall the Prince doe this even by extraordinary authority even by the same right that David did eate of the Shew-bread if by ordinary authority the Prince would doe it yet doe you resist that authority also Answ. Though the Prince had not externall force to compell Church-men to decree in their Synods things equall holy juâ— and necessary yet it followeth not that the King as King hath not Gods right and lawfull power to command and injoyne them to doe their dutie force and Law differ much as morall and physicall power differ much 2. If they decree things good lawfull and necessary the Prince hath a power given him of God to ratifie confirme and approve these by his civill sanction but hee hath no power ordinary to infringe or evert what they have decreed 3. And if the Church bee altogether uncorrigible and apostate then wee say as followeth 7. Conclution When the representative Church is universally apostaticall then may the Prince use the helpe of the Church essentiall of found beleevers for a reformation and if they also bee apostatick which cannot be except the Lord utterly have removed his candlestick wee see not what hee can doe but heare witnesse against them but if there bee any secret seeker of God in whose persons the essence of a true Church is conserved The King by a royall power and the Law of charitie is oblieged to reforme the land as the godly Kings with a blessed successe have hitherto done Asa Jâ—siah Jehoshaphat 〈◊〉 in which case the power of reformation and of performing many acts of due belonging to the Church officers are warrantably performed by the King as in a diseased body in an extraordinary manner power recurreth from the members to the â—â—â—â—tick head and Christian Prince who both as a King 〈◊〉 â—â— in an authoritative way is oblieged to do more then ordâ—â—â—y and as a Christian member of the Church in a charitative and common way is to care for the whole body 8. Conclusion The influence of the Princes regall power in making constitutions is neither solitary as if the Prince his 〈…〉 could doe it nor is it 2. collaterall as if the Prince and Church with joynt concurrence of divers powers did it nor is 3. as some flatterers have said so eminently spirituall as the consultation and counsell of Pastors for light onely hath influence in Churches Canons but the Princes power hath onely the power to designe so as the Canon hath from the Prince the power of a Law in respect of us The Kings influence in Church Canons as wee thinke is as a Christian antecedent to exhort that the Lord Jesus bee served 2. concomitant as a member of the Church to give a joynt suffrage with the Synod 3. consequent as a King to adde his regall sanction to that which is decreed by the Church according to Gods Word or otherwise to punish what is done amisse Now that the Prince as a solitary cause his alone defineth Church matters and without the Church and that by his ordinary Kingly power wanteth all warrant of the Word of God 2. The King might have given out that constitution Act. 15. It seemeth good to the holy Ghost and to us which in reason is due to the ministeriall function for these are called Act. 16. 4. the decrees of the Apostles and Elders not the decrees of the King or Emperour either by Law or fact 3. Christ ascending to heaven gave officers requisite for the gathering of his Church and the edification of the body of Christ but amongst these in no place we finde the King 4. If this bee true heathen Kings have right to make Church-Canons though they bee not able and bee not members of the Christian Church and so without and not to bee judged by the Church nor in any case censured Matth. 18. 17. 1. Cor. 5. 11. and this directly is a King Pope who giveth Lawes by a Kingly power to the Church and yet cannot bee judged by the Church Burhillus and Thomson acknowledge that a Heathen King is primat and head of the Church and must hee not then have power aciu primo to make Lawes and to feede the flocke by externall government But Lancel Andreas Biship of Ely Tortura torti saith that a heathen King hath a temporall Kingly power without any relation to a Church power and when hee is made of a Heathen King a Christian King bee acquireth a new power But the question is if this new power be a new kingly power or if it be a power Christian to use rightly his former kingly power if the first bee true then 1. as learned Voetius and good reason saith hee was not a King before hee was a Christian for the essence of the Kingly power standeth in an indivisible point and the essence of things admit not of degrees 2. Then should hee bee crowned over againe and called of God to bee a Christian King and so hee was not a King before which is against Scripture for Nebucâ—adnezzar was to bee obeyed
makers and definers in Oecumenick Councels and Bishops and Pastors and Doctors have all a meere power of advising and counselling which certainely all Christians on earth sound in the faith except women have O whither are all the tomes of the Councels Oecumenick nationall and provinciall evanished unto 3. Kings justly by this are made Popes and more then Popes for Kings onely have a definitive voyce in councells whereas Papists give a definitive voyce to all the lawfull members of the councell no lesse then to the Pope Weemes hath a distinction to save the Kings invading the Church-mens place while as hee giveth to Pastors a ministeriall interpretation of Scripture in the Pulpit and to the King a decretive and imperiall power of interpreting Scripture in the Senat. But 1. there is no exposition of the word at all imperiall but onely ministeriall by the Word of God except that imperiall interpretation that the Pope usurpeth over the consciences of men and this is as Bancroft said that the King had all the honors dignities and preheminencies of the Pope as Calderwood observeth and yet Edward the sixth and Edward the eighth would neither of them take so much on them What difference betwixt a Sermon made by the King in the Senat and the Pastor in the Pulpit It is that same word of God preached only the Kings is imperiall and so must bee in his owne as King the Pastors ministeriall in the name of Christ the distance is too great The administration of the Sacraments may be imperiall due to the King also as a pastorall administration is due to the Pastors 4. In the government of Church there is nothing set downe of the King but of Pastors to feede the flocke Act. 20. 28 29. to edifie the body of Christ Ephes. 4. 11. to rule the house of God 1 Tim. 3. 2 3 4. 16. to feede the sheepe and Lambs of Christ John 21. 14 15 16. and alwayes this is given to Pastors and Elders I know that Kings are nurs-fathers to feed edifie and watch over the Church causatively by causing others so to doe but this will not content the formalists except the King command and prescribe the externall worship of God Tooker Bancroft Whitegift Laâ—celot Andreas Salcobrigiensis have a maine distinction here That Pastors and Elders rule the Church as it is an invisible body by the preaching of the word and administration of the Saâ—raments and of this government the foresaid places speake but as the Church is a politick visible body the government thereof is committed to the King Bancroft said all the externall government of the Church is earthly and Wâ—iâ—eâ—gyft and Bancroft two grosse Divines made for the court say tâ—e externall government of the Church because externall is â—â—spiâ—â—tuall and not a thing belonging to Christs externall kingdome â—aith Bilâ—â—n but this is 1 false 2. Popish 3. Anabaptisticall 4. â—yrannicall False 1. Because externall and vocall preaching and a visible administration of the Sacrament in such an orderly way as Christ hath instituted is an externall ruling of Church members according to the â—aw of Christ as King an externall ordaining of the worship is an externall ordering of the worshippers according to the acts of worship thus ordered as sense teacheth us but the externall ordaining of the worship to preach this not this to celebrate in both kinds by prayer and the words of institution and not in one kind onely is an externall ordering of Gods worship therefore as Kings cannot administrate the Sacraments nor preach so neither can they have the externall government of the Church in their â—ands 2. The feeding of the flocke by Pastors set over the Church by the holy Ghost Act. 20. 28. includeth the censuring by discipline even the grievous Woolves entring in not sparing the flocke but drawing disciples after them vers 29 30 31. and therefore Pastors as Pastors are to watch and to try those who say they are Apostles 〈◊〉 not but doe lie Râ—vel 2. 2. by discipline so this externall â—eâ—ding is externall governing committed to Pastors whereas inward governing is indeed proper to Christ the head of the Church 3. What doe not the Epistles to Timothy containe comman dements about externall government to bee kept inviâ—â—able by Timothy not as a King I hope but as a Pastor even 〈◊〉 the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ 1 Tim. 6. 14. and this taketh away that poore shifâ— that the externall government of the Church as Tookerus saith was in the Apostles hands so long as persecuting Magistrates were over the Church but now when the Magistrates are Christians the case is changed but the government of all suâ—â— as Timothy is must bee visible externall and obvious to men as 1 Tim. 2. 1 2 3 4. 3. 1 2 3 4. â— 16. 1 Tim 5. 9. 1 Tim. 5. 19 20 21 22. 2 Tim. 2. 1 2 3 4. 2 Tim. 3 5. all which must bee kept untill the comming of Christ 1 Tim. 5. 21. 1 Tim. 6. 13. 2 Tim. 4. 1 2. 4. If externall government were in the Kings power then were it his part to rebuke publikely to excommunicate and to lay on hands upon the Timothies of the Church all which are denied by the formalists and are undoubtedly the Churches part as the Church Matth. 18. 17 18. 1 Tim. 5. 19 20 21 22 1 Tim. 3. 14. 1 Tim. 1. 20. 1 Cor. 5. 2 3 4 5. 5. Parker proveth well that the keyes are Christ as Kings ruling in word and discipline 2. This is popish for so doth the Papists teach as Stapleton and Becanus that the Pope quo ad externum infiuxum according to externall influence of visible government is head of the Church and Christ according to the internall influence of the spirit is the head of the invisible body of Christ and here the King is installed in that externall government out of which our Divines by Scriptures have extruded the Pope which is a notable dishonor done to Kings and as Parkerus observeth Joan. Raynoldus answereth that from two offices of the head which is to give life and influence of motion to the members and also to guide and moderate the actions externall of the body wee cannot make two heads and because the King hath some civill government about the Church wee cannot make two heads over the Church Christ one and the King another under him 3. This is Anabaptisticall for because the visible government of the Church is externall wee are not to cut off all necessitie of the ministery to feed and rule with ecclesiasticall authority and because the Prince is gifted and a Christian to give all to him for a calling there must bee from God for the King to governe the Church of Christ by Lawes and prescribing externall worship therein for Christ hath left Ephes. 4. 1 Cor. 12. 1 Tim. 3. men to bee feeders and governours of his Church by office whose it is to bee
soules and emptie purses to a Metropolitan and an Archbishop who is as dexterous and happy in emptying of poore mens purses and destroying soules if not large better as a pettie Lord Prelate from whom hee appealed yet is the one Lord Prelate the Vicar of Christ as well as the other by formalists bookes And 2. If the cause bee proper to the Presbytery they have just right to judge it as well as the provinciall assembly hath but possibly not such knowledge and if the partie complaine that hee is wronged or may bee wronged hee may well appeale to a larger part of Christs tribunall lesse obnoxious to erring which is no wrong done to the Presbyterie This man laboureth to make a division amongst our Divines because we know not whether to make our Pastors Doctors and Elders immediat 〈…〉 to Christ as Priests because then they are Priests of the New Testament or â—ubject to Christ as King and then all our officers shall 〈◊〉 Kings under Christ and the Christian Mâ—gistrate shall be so thrust out of his kingdome and chaire And the ignorant railer maketh much adoe in this matter but the truth is stronger then this Popish scribler for 1. as Christ is a Priest having a body to offer for the sinnes of the people and a reall Sacrifice our Divines deny that Christ hath any substitute and demie Priests under him or master Priests to offer sacrifices reall to God if this Author put any Priests under Christ in this meaning hee is upon an unbloody Masse-sacrifice much good doe it him if Fenner make this propheticall office of Christ a part of Christs Priesthood because the Priest was to teach the people Matth. 2. 7. Hos. 4. 6. and Abraham Henrick say the same there is no absurd to make the officers of the New Testament subordinate to Christ as to our high Priest teaching us Gods will not to Christ as our high Priest offering a bloody or a reall sacrifice to God this Author maketh much ado to cite Cartwright Fenner Bezâ—â— and Sonnius men whose bookes hee is not worthy to beare making the officers of Christs kingdome subordinate to Christ as King for as much as Christ as King prescribed the forme of ecclesiasticall government and then saith the poore man the Pastors under Christ â—â— King must bee all Emperors the Doctors Kings the Elders Dukes the Deacons Lords of the treasury c. and if they bee Christs immediat vicegerents within their owne Kingdomes who shall controll any of them on whithot shall an injured man appeâ—le Answ. 1. Wee are to blesse God that these Officers Pastors Doctors Elders Deacons are expresly in the Word of God and that this railers officers to wit Bishops Archbishops Metropolitans Primats Deanes Archdeanes officials c. are in no place of Christs testament onely they are in the Popes Masse book now if the man offend because they are subordinate to Christ as King hee must make his Primates his Metropolitans his Diocesan Lords his Deans Officials and such wild Officers Emperours Kings Dukes and Lord Treasurers under Christ for some roome these creatures must have else they must bee put out at the Church doors and if a man bee injured by the Primate to whom shall hee appeale but to some above him a Cardinall and if that creature be a Christ who cannot do wrong well and good it is wee rest but if hee bee a man like the rest of the world surely poor folk must appeale to his high holines the Pope 2. Deacons are not men of ecclesiastick authoritie in our account but are to serve tables Acts 6. 3. nor are our officers little Kings under Christ for the man cannot hold of the sent of a Lord Bishop but meere ministers and servants and the Ambassadors of the King of Kings who have no power to make lawes as if they were little Kings but are to propound Christs lawes hee is ignorant of Christs kingdome for the officers of the New Testament are under Christ as their King Ergo they are under him as little deputie Kings to make Lawes as Judges earthly are under those whose kingdome is of this world Joh. 18. 36. the man is both beside his booke and his wit to infer this Christ hath no Popes nor visible substitute Kings under him but under him are meere servants and heralds 4. Wee are farre from holding that one Church man such as the Pope may excommunicate Kings Gregorius the second excommunicated the Emperour Leo and Gregorius the seventh alias wicked Hildebrand excommunicated Henry the fourth Christ hath committed the power of excommunication to the whole Church 1 Cor. 5. 4. Matth. 18. 17 18. and therefore Lysimachus Nicanor cannot but side with Papists in laying this power upon one Prelate as the Kings substitute or rather the Popes Vicar 5. Wee doe not teach that the Pope or any Church man may dethrone Kings and alienate their crownes to others Gregory the first in a certaine decree saith Kings and Judges who contrâ—veneth the constitution of the Sea of Rome are to bee deprived of her honour Gregory the second having excommunicated the Emperour Leo discharged the Italians to pay him tribute and that because Leo was against the worshipping of Images See Haiminsfieldius and Arniseus and Baleus saith the Pope drew the subjects of this Leo Isaurus in apertam rebellionem to 〈◊〉 rebellion and so the Emperors of the east were deprived of the kingdome of Italy per sanctissimum diabolum by a most holy devill Pope Zachariah not the Prophet deprived Childericus King of France of his kingdome and procured that Pipinus the father of Charles the great should bee created King so saith Baleus also Let the third transferred the Empire from the Grecians to the Romans and by the hand of Pope Leo saith Sigebertus Charles was crowned See for this Shardius Gregorius the fift being the brother germane of Otbo the Emperour made a Law that the Emperour should bee chosen by seven Princes electors which fact weakned the majestie of the Empire which went before by inheritance hence An. 1350. Charles the fourth that his sonne might succeed him in the Empire laid in pledge the free Cities of the Empire in the hands of the Prince electors which to this day are not redeemed So did the Pope shake the Empire at his owne will Gregory the third began and Leo the third finished the devise of erecting a new Empire in the West and weakned the power of the Emperour of Constantinople Gregorius the seventh alias gracelesse Hildebrand deprived Henry the fourth and created another in his place as Sleidan and Lampadius relateth Innocentius the third dethroned Otho the fourth and Innocentius the fourth dethroned Frederick the second and the like did Clemens the sixth to Lodovick the fourth by Bellarmines owne confession No Emperours can bee created but by their consent saith the Author of that learned worke Catalog