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
the other and we find the keys given to Officers and Stewards only And here is no Church Mat. 18. or yet Mat. 16. without Pastors except they say that Christ Mat. 18. 18. speaketh not to the Disciples but to the multitude of the Jewes which is a great crossing of the Text. And to say that Christ speaketh to the Apostles not as to Apostles but as to the Church of believers is only a bare affertion and cannot be proved and all they can say hangeth upon this one place and this is the most The power of binding and loosing is given to the Church which is to be obeyed and heard in the place of God But this Church is never in the VVord of God say they taken for a company of Officers Pastors and Elders only it signifieth alwayes the Body of Christ his Spouse his Saints by calling partakers of the most holy Faith To which I answer The body Spouse of Christ and Saints by calling as they are such is the invisible Church and the keys and Seales sayth this Author are not to be dispensed to all the faithfull as such but as they arè confederate or joyned together in some particular visible Church that is sayth he as they are members of a visible Church Ergo c. the body and Spouse of Christ as such is not the Church here meant of but the visible Congregation Now the essence of a visible Church of which Christ speaketh here is saved in ten who are only visible professors and not a Church of sound Believers not the true body mysticall and Spouse of Christ and yet by this place the Keys are given to such a Church now wee desire againe a place in all Gods Word for a Church in this sense and a Body of Christ and his Spouse in this meaning for certainly professors this way confederate as professiors are no more a Church of Christ redeemed ones and his Spouse then an Assembly of Elders onely can be called such a Church of Believers for both Churches are and may be where no believers are at all at least for a time and even while they exercise this power of Binding and Loosing and so thâ— place Matthew 18. is as much against our brethren as against us And Lastly our Doctrine is acknowledged by all our Divines against the Papists proving that Mat. 16. the Keyes were given to Peter as representing the Apostles and his successors in the pastorall charge not as representing all believers Also the Fathers Irenaeus Nazianzâ—nus Cyprianus Basilius Ambrosius Theophilactus Cyrillus Euthymius Hyeronimus Augustine Beda Chrysostomus And ordinaria glossa Hugo de sanct Victor Haymo Cardinalis Cusanus Anastasius Leo Durandus Thomas Adrianus Scotus making a comparison between Peter and the rest of the Apostles say the keys were given to all the Apostles when they were given to Peter and Peter received them in the name and person of the rest of the Apostles wherby they declare it was never their mind that Peter received the keys in name of all believers Also the learned as Augustine Beda Gregorius expound the Church builded upon the rock to be the Catholick Church and not a particular visible Church And Gerardus giveth a good reason why this Church Mat. 16. cannot be a particular visible Church because the gates of hell prevaileth against many joyned to the visible Church in externall society and VVicklif writing against the Monkes resureth that error of the Papists that any members of the true Church can be damned and Whittaker sayth Augustin against Petilian sayth the Church builded on the rock is the Church of the Elect not the visible Church CHAP. 2. SECT 2. PROP. THis Church saith the Author doth meete together every Lords Day all of them even the whole Church for administration of the Ordinances of God to publick edification Ans. Two things are here said 1. That all even the whole Church must meete for administration of the Ordinances of God that so all and every one of the Church may be actors and Judges in dispensing of censures this we take to be popular governement 2. That there is a necessity of personall presence of all and every one of the Church Hence Quest. 3. Whether or no the multitude of Believers and the whole people are to be judges so as private Christians out of Office are to exercise judiciall acts of the keys For the more easie clearing of the Question let it be observed 1. Dist. There is a dominion of Government Lordly and Kingly and this is in Christ only in relation to his Church and in civill judges and is no wayes in Church guides who are not Lords over the Lords inheritance there is a government Ministeriall of service under Christ and this is due to Church-guides 2. Dist. Regall power being a civill power founded in the Law of nature for the Ants have a King may well be in the people originally and subjectively as in the fountaine nature teaching every communitie to govern themselves and to hold off injuries if not by themselves yet by a King or some selected Rulers but power of Church-government being supernaturall and the acts of Church-government and of the casting such as offend out of Christs Kingdome being supernaturall neither of them can be originally in the multitude of professing beleevers but must be communicated by Christ to some certaine professing beleevers and these are Officers Therefore to put power and acts of government in all professors is a naturall way drawne from civill incorporations Christ is not ruled by our Lawes 3. Dist. The government of Christs Kingdome is the most free and willing government on earth yet it is a government properly so called for there be in it authoritative commandements and Ecclefiasticke coaction upon the danger of soule penalties in regard of the former all the people by consent and voluntary agreement have hand in election of Officers inflicting of censures because it concerneth them all but in regard of the latter the whole people are not over the whole people they are not all Kings reigning in Christs government over Kings but are divided into governours and governed and therefore the rulers Ecclesiasticke onely by power of office are in Christs roome over the Church to command sentence judge and judicially to censure 4. Distinct. The Officiall power of governing superaddeth to the simple acts of popular consenting the officiall authoritative and coactive power of Christs Sceptor in discipline That distinction in the sense holden by our brethren that the state of the Church is popular and the government Aristocraticall in the hands of the Eldership is no wayes to he holden nor doe the Parisian Doctors the authors of this distinction mind any Church-government to be in the people Our brethren in the answer to the questions sent to them from England explaine their minde thus 1. We acknowledge a Presbytery whose worke it is to teach and rule and whom the
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
not morall nor acts of justice or injustice more then the acts of Painting of sailing of making of Shooes and thus the King is not subject to the Church power nor is his intrinsecall end as King justice and godlinesse and preservation of Religion the man speaketh non-sense and wonders for the King as a King is a morall agent and not infallible in his Lawes or administration Ergo as a King he is under the Scepter of the King of Saints in discipline and in the keyes of the Kingdome of God and so the kingly office is subordinate to the power of Christ in his Ministers and Church discipline and by that same reason the power and offices of Ministers as they are morall agents and obnoxious to sinne to false doctrine blasphemy idolatry idlenesse and sleepinesse in feeding the flock are under the coactive power of the supreme Governour and he doth as King use the sword against them hence it is cleare that both the kingly power is subordinate to Church-power and that the subordination is mutuall that also the Church-power is subordinate to the kingly power and that both also in their kind are supreme the kingly power is the highest and most supreme and under no higher coactive power I meane the kingly as kingly conjoyned with the collaterall power of Parliaments where the Realme is so governed and the Church-power is the highest in the kind of Ecclesiasticall power Joan. Major saith well that they are not subordinate that is not one of them is above another that I grant but that which he and Spalato saith neutri in alteram est imperium that neither of the two hath a commandement over another that we deny yet are they powers in office and nature different for they differ in their objects 2. Use and end 3. And their manner of specifick operations and the Kings power is not ecclesiastick Others say that there was a perfect civill policy having no need of the Church power anent the perfect civill government amongst the Heathen and in Christian Common-wealths the civill power of it selfe and of its owne nature can doe nothing for the attaining of eternall happinesse except we would goe to the tents of Pelagians whither Papists doe lead us while as they teach that the naturall end of civill power of its owne nature and intrinsecally is ordained to eternall happinesse But the civill power of it selfe doth conferre nothing whereby the spirituall power of the Church hath intrinsecally and properly and formally its dignity power strength and proper vertue and doth produce its owne proper effect and end because as saith Spalato the civill Magistrates end is of another republike different from the Church he is head of the Common-wealth and civill body see Apollonius But I answer there is a Policy civill without the Ecclesiasticall Policy and the King is essentially a King though neither he be a Christian himselfe nor his subjects Christians and to the essence of a King and to the essence of a civill government Christianity and a church-Church-power is not required yet hath the King as King essentially a right and civill coactive power to promove Christian Religion and the edification of Christs body though he be a Heathen the want of Christianity doth not take away his kingly right onely it bindeth up and restraineth the exercise thereof but though he be a King essentially and actu primo while he wanteth Christianity and so is a perfect Magistrate quoad esse and the State that he ruleth over a perfect civill body quoad esse in respect of essence and being yet is he not a perfect Magistrate quoad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 operari neither he nor his civill State and body are perfect in operations And it followeth not that the King as King can doc nothing about the obtaining of life eternall for as a King he hath a perfect right and kingly power to doe and being a Christian he actually exerciseth that power as a Nurse-father of the Church to see that the Kings daughter be fed with wholsome milke to see that the first and second Table be kept and that men serve Christ and have the seales of the Covenant in purity under the paine of suffering the weight of his royall sword and I wonder that this should be called nothing for the obtaining of eternall happines seeing it is a way to eternall happinesse to be thus fed under a Christian King as a King But say they it is Pelagianism that the Kings power compelling the Nurses to let out their breasts to the Kings daughter that she may sucke the sincere milke of the Word should be a meane of eternall happinesse I answer and it is also Pelagianisme to say that the planting of Paul and watering of Apollos and the ministeriall power and paines of Ministers without the grace of God can produce or effectuate supernaturall happinesse and it is false that the kingly power of it self doth confer nothing whereby the spirituall and ecclesiasticall power hath intrinsecally and formally dignity and power and its proper effect for it is true the kingly power maketh not the ecclesiasticall power but it setteth it on worke in a coactive way for the edifying of Christs body and doth causatively edifie Lastly whereas it is said the King as King is over the civill body and the Common-wealth which is a body different in nature from the Christian body or Church I say that is false for the King as King ruleth over men as men and also as Christian men causing them to keepe both the Tables of Law But 3. say they the office of a King is not a meane sanctified of God for a supernaturall good because it is amongst the Gentiles I answer this is no consequence for that office of it selfe is sanctified and ordained of God for keeping of both Tables of the Law and that it worketh not this in its owne kind is not from the nature of the kingly office but from the sinfull disposition of the Gentiles so the Word is the savour of death to some through their default Ergo it is not a meane sanctified for that end it followeth not But 4. the office of the King of it selfe and its owne power doth not governe or subdue the inward man for immediately and of its owne power it cannot bind the conscience but onely by the interveening mediation of the Word of God Ergo of it selfe it intendeth not to produce a supernaturall and eternall good Answ. Nor can the office of a Minister of it selfe and in its owne power produce a supernaturall good but onely by the authority of the Word Esa. 8. 20. Jer. 23. v. 22. Tit. 1. 9. 10. is it therefore no office sanctified for a supernaturall end But 5. they reason a supernaturall good and life eternall are effects flowing from the mediatory office of Christ bestowed upon the Church but the kingly power floweth not from the Mediator Christ but from God as Creator who
bestoweth lawfull Kings and Magistrates upon many Nations who know nothing of a Saviour I answer When I consider the point more exactly I see not how Kings who reigne by the wisdome of God Jesus Christ Prov. 8. 14. 15. have not their kingly power from Christ who hath all power given to him in Heaven and in Earth Matth. 28. 18. for they are Nurse-fathers of the Church as Kings Esa. 49. 15. they are to kisse the Sonne and exalt his Throne as Kings Psal. 2. 11. they bring presents and kingly gifts to Christ as Kings Psal. 72. v. 10. 11. and they serve Christ not onely as men but also as Kings as Augustine saith therefore are they ordained as meanes by Christ the Mediator to promote his kingly Throne Some of our Divines will have the kingly power to come from God as Creator in respect God giveth Kings who are his Vicegerents to those who are not redeemed and to Nations who never heard of Christ and others hold that the kingly power floweth from Christ-Mediator in respect he accomplisheth his purposes of saving of his redeemed people by Kings authority and by the influence of their kingly government procureth a feeding ministery and by their princely tutory the edification of his body the Church which possibly both aime at truth See the groundlesse carping at Cartwright Calvin Beza and others by that sharp toothed envier of truth the Author of the Survey of holy discipline of this hereafter more 4. Conclusion The King as King hath not a nomothetick or legislative power to make Lawes in matters ecclesiastick in a constitute Church nor hath he a definitive sentence as a Judge 1. All power of teaching publikely the Church or the Churches of Christ is given to those who are sent and called of God for that effect but Magistrates as Magistrates are not sent nor called of God to the publike teaching of the Church Ergo. The proposition is cleare from the like Rom. 10. 14. How shall they preach except they be sent Ergo how shall they publikely and synodically teach except they be sent Heb. 5. 4. No man taketh this honour upon him but he that is called of God as was Aaron c. Ergo if none be a Priest to offer a Sacrifice without Gods calling neither can he exercise the other part of the Priesthood to teach synodically to give out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 decrees Acts 16. 4. that obligeth the Churches ecclesiastically but he who is called 2. Who so hath nomothetick power to define and make Lawes in matters ecclesiastick have onely a ministeriall power to expone Christs will in his Testament under paine of Church-censures and hath no coactive power of the sword to command these Lawes enacted and to injoyne them on the Churches But onely Church-men who are formally members of the Church as Pastors Doctors Elders and others sent by the Church have this ministeriall power without the coactive power of the sword and what ever the Magistrate as the Magistrate commandeth he commandeth it in things ecclesiastick necessary and expedient under bodily punishment I adde this because threatning of bodily punishment is not essentiall to Lawes in generall because some Lawes are seconded onely with rewards as the Judge offereth by law a reward to any who shall bring unto him the head of a Boar or of some notorious robber Ergo c. The proposition is cleare the learned Junius giveth to the Magistrate with our Divines an interpretation of Scripture as a Judge which concerneth his owne practise they are interpreters pro communi vocationis modo in a Christian way as private men but they have no power of ecclesiastick interpretation 2. Gul. Apollonius saith the Prince as a Christian hath an office to exhort the Svnod by word or Epistle as Constantius did the Fathers of the Nicen Councell and his Legates exhorted the Councell of Chalcedon ut Deo rationem reddituri See Ruffinus and the acts of the Councell of Chalcedon 3. The Magistrate hath a power judiciall as a Magistrate in so farre as his owne practise is concerned to expone the things defined but this expotition he useth non instruendo synodice non docendo ecclesiastice sed docendo seu potius mandando cum certa relatione ad paenam à brachio seculari insligendam contemptoribus not in an ecclesiasticall way teaching and instructing synodically but teaching or rather commanding with a certaine relation to civill punishment to be inflicted upon the contemners as he teacheth what is just or unjust in his civill Lawes not directly to informe the mind but to correct bad manners and this maketh the object of kingly power about Churches matters and the object of ecclesiasticall power formall objects different 3. Those who have a nomothetick power to define in Synods are sent by the Church to Synods with authoritative commission and power for that effect representing the Church which sent them as all who are sent with any ambassage doe represent those who sent them But Magistrates as Magistrates are not sent to represent those who sent them with authoritation commission of the Church Ergo they have no such power â—â—dâ—ine in Synods I prove the proposition from the Apostles practise Paul and Barnabas were sent as chosen men by the Church 〈◊〉 Antioch Acts 15. 2. 3. Acts 15. 6. the Apostles and Elders came from the Church to consider of this matter Acts 21. 18. Acts 22. 17. 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 8 17 18. if the Apostle with the Church sent Titus 〈◊〉 Brother whose praise is in the Gospel as chosen of the Churches to travell with us v. 19 in gathering the charity of the Saints for the poore at Jerusalem then by the like those who are sent to declare the minds of the Churches are also clothed with the authority of the Churches who sent them but Magistrates aâ— such are not sent but are there with the sword of Common-wealth and not with the mind of the Church as Magistrates except they be also Christians 4. The Apostolike Synods is to us a perfect patterne of Synods but persons defining in them are Apostles and Elders Acts 16. 4. Acts 15. 6. the Church Matth. 18. 18. defineth and 1 Cor. 5. 4. those who are conveened in the name of the Lord â—esus and the Apostles pastorall spirit those who are over us in the Lord and watch for our soules 1 Thes. 5. 14. Heb. 13. 17. but in these Synods there are no Magistrates yea there was at Câ—rinth a Heathen Magistrate 1 Cor. 6. 1. and in the Apostolike Church a persecutor Acts 22. 1 2 3. c. And the Magistrate as the Magistrate is not a member of the Church and is neither Pastor Elder nor Doctor nor a professor of the Gospel except he be more then a Magistrate 5. No Ecclesiasticall power or acts formally Ecclesiasticall are competent to one who is not an Ecclesiasticall person or not a member of the Church but a civill person
solos pertinent Episcopos Constantinus Magnus in concilio Niceno ut ait Ruffinus hist. l. â— addit Eusebio cap. 2. reâ—usavit ferre ju licium inter Episcopos Dâ—us inquit vos constituit sacerdotes nobis a dâ—o d â—ti isiis judices conveniens non est ut homo judicet deos Sâ—zomenus hist. l. 6. c. 7. Mibi inquit Ualentinianus senior qui sum in sorte plebis fas non est talia negotia ecclesiastica â—erserutari sacerdotes quorum ista curae funt inter seipsos quocunque voluerint loco conveniant Theodosius Junius epist. ad Fphesinum Synodum Deputatus est Candidianus magnificus Comes strenuâ—rum domesticorum transire usque ad sanctissimam Synodum testram ac in nullo quidem quae facienda sunt de piis dogmatibus quâ—stiones â—ommunicare illicitum namque est eum qui non sit ex ordâ—â—â—anctorum Episcoporum ecclesiasticis immisceri tractatibus Gregorius Mag. l. 5. Epist. 25. Notum est piissimos dominos dicipâ—inam diligere ordines servare canones venerari in causis sa 〈◊〉 â—ese non immiseere Distin. 96. C. satis evidenter illicitum est imperatorihus ecchsiasti â— sâ— immiscere tractatibus Constantius would not take on him to judge the Arrian cause but conveened a Councell and commanded them to judge according to the word So saith Eusebius de vita Constant. l. 3. c. 10. ad Theodor. l. 5. c. 9. Neither can it be said that Constantine judged with the Synod as Emperour as some affirme for though it be true yet he judged not in the Synod as Emperour but as Episcoporum conservus as he nameth himselfe and as Eusebius saith de vita Constant. l. 3. c. 16. ipse tanquam unus e vestro numero non recusabam Now Constantine as Emperour was not a fellow-servant with Pastors or one of the number but above them as the annointed of the Lord but he judgeth with them as one of their number as a Christian having one faith one baptisme one Lord with them and so as a member of the Church and so saith he in that same place Literarum divinitus inspiratarum testimonio res in quaestionem adductas dissolvamus And let this be our first distinction Emperours of old defined in Synods as Christian members of the Church not as Emperours for as Emperours they be politicke heads of the men of the Church Gerardus Tom. 6. de Magist. polit n. 175. pag. 586 587. who giveth also a nomotheticke power to Magistrates in matters ecclesiasticall furnisheth us with an argument here because the Magistrate is a principall member of the Church and all the members of the Church are to judge and try the spirits and to try all things now this proveth well as a member of the Church and so as a Christian he may judge and that in a meere ecclesiastick way as Pastors and Elders doth as private Christians may doe being called thereunto by the Church though the ground be weake for the Kingly power maketh not New Tiberius and other Emperours members of the Church onely grace faith and communion with Christ maketh Kings members of the invisible Church and baptisme and profession of the faith and not any earthly Prerogative of Scepter or Crowne maketh them members of the visible Church Our second distinction from Fathers is that Emperours have a Kingly power politicke to confirme and adde their civill sanction to Church constitutions but they have no power formally ecclesiasticke to define and make Church-lawes So Augustine as a man the King serveth the Lord vivendo fideliter by living the life of a sound beleever and as a King he serveth the Lord by adding the convenient vigour of a civill sanction to just Lawes as the King of Ninive did by compelling the men of Ninive to pacifie God And when Gaudentius the Donatist objected that the Emperour could not take course with the Schism made in the Church by their separation because God hath laid upon Prophets not upon Kings the Preaching of the word Augustine answereth not that Kings may either preach or define controversies in the Church but that sinco Donatists separate from the Church it should be the care of Kings to see that none rebell against the Church of Christ. Hence I reason thus no Synods ecclesiasticall can meddle with the blood and temporall lives of men nor can they forbid the beliefe and profession of heresies and erroneous doctrine or scandalls against pure discipline under the paine of bodily punishment as banishment imprisonment heading or hanging But Emperours and Kings either in a Synod or out of a Synod may lawfully forbid such things and that by a Kingly power therefore if Emperours in Synods make any Lawes of this kinde they are not Synodicall nor ecclesiasticall Lawes nor doe they make such Lawes jointly with the Church-Synod as some teach nor by any ecclesiastick power for coactive power and ecclesiasticall power cannot be joyned together as one power to make one and the same ecclesiasticall lawes Let any judge then if the ancient Lawes of some Emperours were any other things but civill and politick sanctions of Church-constitutions And judge of this Law which some call the ecclesiasticall determination of Heraclius the Emperour by the consent of Pope John he ordained that there is nâ—â—ther one nor two operations in Christ. Heraclius a Monothelite commanded this under the paine of civill punishment as is certaine But had Pope John as collaterall Judge with the Emperour in this that same coactive power that the Emperour had I thinke none can say it So three Emperours commanded all people to hold the doctrine of the Trinity and that those who hold not this be heretickes This is but a civill sanction of a Church Law So Martianus commandeth that the decrees of the Councell of Chalcedon be established and that no man dispute or call in question these decrees This is clearely the Emperours civill ratification of Church-lawes and Justinianus forbiddeth any publick service to be in the Church by laicks onely in the absence of the Clergie and commandeth the Bishops not to muttter in to themselves but to speake in the administration of the Sacraments with a cleare and distinct voice If Emperours did proceede any further as some say that Theodosius deposed the Nestorian Bishops though indeed he onely commanded them to be deposed their deeds are not Lawes a facto ad jus non valet consequentia Papists here are in two extremities For 1. they will not have Princes to meddle with Church-affaires whereas by office they are Nurs-fathers in the Church Charles the fift is rebuked by Paul the third because he conveened councells for composing of dissentions in the Church and he compareth him to Uzzah who touched the Arke without warrant as we may see Wolsius 2. Stapleton Bellarmine and Papists will have them to be brutish Servants to execute whatsoever the Pope and Councells
shall decree good or bad without examination also as Suarez the Councell of Paris their Law saith and Innocentius the first and Gregory the seventh doe teach Making Kings in their judgement slaves to the Pope and ' his determinations and to have no light but from their vertuall Church as the Moone hath all her light from the Sunne Our third distinction is that the Magistrate as Magistrate and a preserver of publicke peace may doe some thing when a Schisme and dissention is among the Church-men in a Synod 1. In this case he may punish perturbers of peace as Augustine answereth Gaudentius the Donatist and the separaters from the Church in which case the Magistrate indirectly condemneth one of the parties which the Church hath condemned but there be many other cases of dissention in this case therefore when the Magistrate findeth the Synod divided in two parties equally or three iâ— the corrupt part prevaile or foure in the case of the Churches aberration in one particular fact or five if there be an universall apostasie of the whole representative Church or sixe an universall defection of both the representative and essentiall Church all these being too casuall and of too frequent occurrence one and the same answer cannot be given and here be sundry subalterne distinctions considerable Hence our fifth Conclusion when there is an equall rupture in the body nothing extraordinary would be attempted if ordinary wayes can be had if Saul the ordinary Magistrate had at Gods Commandement killed Hagag Samuel the Prophet should not have drawne his Sword and therefore in this case the Magistrate would first seeke helpe from other Churches as that learned Apollonius saith But if that cannot be conveniently had as in a nationall Church it may fall out then the Magistrate as a preserver of peace and truth may command the sincerer part to conveene in a Synod and doe their duty as the good Kings of the people of God did 2 Chron. 15. Asa gathered together a people who entered in Covenant to seeke the Lord God with all their heart and layed an obligation of punishment to death on the rest v. 12 13. and Jehoshaphat 2 Chron. 23. 4. he layed charge on Hilkiah the High Priest and the Priests of the second order whom he knew to be better affected to the worke to bring out the Vessels made for Baal which proveth that the King should put the sincerest to doe that which in common belongeth to the whole in which case of the erring of the most part of the Church the Prince indirectly condemneth the erring part of the Synod because it is his place to forbid and to punish with the sword the transgressors of Gods Law But because his power is accumulative not privative under that pretence hee hath not power to hinder the sincerer part to meet and determine according to the Word of God 6. Conclusion In the case of the prevailing of the corrupt part of the Church or in the fourth case of the aberration of the Church in one particular the King hath a regall power to punish the Canonists if they shall decree in their Synod Popery and hereticall doctrine and so give to the Bride of Christ noysome and deadly milke the Prince as nursefather may punish the Canonists 1. Because hee is a keeper of both Tables of the Law and hath a royall power to inflict bodily punishment upon all sinnes even committed in foro exteriore ecclesiae as the King may punish false teachers 2. Because the Magistrates power is auxiliary accumulative as a tutor and nurâ—efather who hath law to helpe the Pupill and to adde to the inheriritance but hath no Law nor power to take away any part of the inheritance from the Pupill Ergo as a nursefather hee is to helpe the Church of Christ against the wicked Canons of the representative Church If any object then the King as King hath power to rescind and annull the ecclesiasticall Canons the contrary whereof that learned author of Altare Damascenum doth prove I answer that learned and worthy author proveth that the Prince cannot annull the Church-Canons and that the councell of Trent thought shame that the Pope should absolve any condemned by the Church-Canons and certainely the same power that maketh Canons should dissolve them but the Kings power cannot make Church-Canons for it is a part of the ministeriall calling to make Canons and therefore hee cannot annull and dissolve Canons but some greater Kingly power is due to the King in the case of the Churches aberring then in the case of the Churches right administration and as our Divines doe justly give to the Prince an extraordinary Kingly power in the case of universall apostasie of the Church as Jehoshaphat Hezekiah Josiah and other worthy reformers in the Church of the â—ewes did warrantably use their Kingly power when the Church-men were corrupted and negligent in their dutie so in a particular case of a particular error of the Synod the King as King may use his Kingly power in this fact that is secundum quid extraordinarie for the King is oblieged as King to adde his accumulative power of a civill sanction to all just and nâ—cessary Church constitutions and it the Canon or Church constitution bee wicked and popish he is oblieged to deny his civill sanction and not that onely for hee that is not with Christ is against him but hee is to imploy his kingly power against such Canons and so is to deliver the Church of God in that and in denying his accumulative power to unjust Canons hee addeth his kingly power accumulative to the true Church in saving them from these unjust Canons 2. Also it may bee objected If the King by a regall and coactive power may annull and rescind unjust Canons hee may by this coactive power make Canons for it is that same power to make and unmake Canons I answer if hee may annull unjust Canons that is liberate his subjects from civill punishment to bee inflicted for refusing obedience to such Canons and for bid the practise of wicked Church constitutions under the paine of the sword It will not follow that therefore hee may make Canons but onely that hee may adde his civill sanction to just Canons 2. Neither can the King properly annull the Canon but onely deny to adde his civill authoritie for the execution of such Canons But thirdly it is objected that the King bath a judgement that such Canons are wicked and superstition the Church-mens judgement at the assembly of Glascow Edenbrough an 1638 1639. is that such Canons are lawfull edificative and necessary then is the King obliged as King to deny his royall sanction and who shall bee Judge in the matter If you say the Word of God it satisfyeth not because both the King and the Synod alledgeth the Word of God as norm â— judicandi a rule of judging but the rule of judging is not formally the Judge
but wee uske who shall bee the visible ministeriall and vocall Judge under Christ speaking in his owne Testament for the King is a Politick and civill Judge and the Church an Ecclesiasticall Judge I answer this same is the question betwixt us and Papists anent the Judge of controversies whether the Judge bee a Synod or the Scriptures and wee answer by a distinction the Scripture is norm i judicandi 2. Christ the peremptory and infallible Judge speaking in his owne Word 3. A Synod lawfully conveened is a limited ministeriall and bounded visible Judge and to bee beleeved in so farre as they follow Christ the peremptory and supreme Judge speaking in his owne Word But wee deny that there is on earth any peremptory and in fallible visible Judge But to come yet nearer if the King have sworne to that same religion which the Church doth professe and so acknowledge and professe the reformed religion of that Church hee must then acknowledge the lawfull officers of that Church to bee his ordinary teachers and the lawfull ministers of the Church and that they are both in a Synod and out of the Synod to preach and to bee ministeriall definers of things contraverted and that they shall first determine in an ecclesiasticall way according to Gods Word and hee as King is to command them to determine according to Gods Word under the paine of civill punishment and the Kings civill and coactive way of judging is posterior and ratificatorâ—e of the right and oxthodox ecclesiasticall determination and Junius saith that the Magistrates judging politick presupposeth the Church judging ecclesiasticall going before and Calvin and Amesius are cleare that in this case the Church is to cognosce of hee owne ecclesiasticall affaires Ambrose writeth to the Emperor Valentinian that none should judge of this cause which is ecclesiasticall as one said but a Church-man qui nec munere sit impar neâ—jure dissimilis Gelasius the Pope inveigheth against Anastasius the Emperour because hee confounded these two civill and ecclesiasticall causes But if the Emperour or King professe not the religion of the land and repute it false and if the religion bee indeed hereticall then the Church is not constitute and the case extraordinary but the truth is neither the Kings judgement as a certaine rule to the representative Church nor the representative Churches judgement a rule to the King but the Word of God the infallible rule to both Judgement may crooke truth cannot bow it standeth still unmoveable like God the father of truth but in this case if both erre ex cellently saith Junius the Magistrate erring the Church may do something extraordinarily and tâ—e Church erring the Magistrate may do something also in an extraordinary way as coÌ„mon equitie and mutuall law requireth that friends with mutuall tongues bicke the wounds of friends Also fourthly some say they who make the King the head of the Church acknowledge that the King doth not judge except the matter be first defined in the Scriptures and in the generall councells yet they give a primacie spirituall in matters ecclesiasticall to the King and therefore if the King as King may forbid the inacting of wicked Canons hee determineth them to bee wicked before the Synod have passed their judgement of them I answer that learned Calderwood saith indeed the pretended Lords of high Commission have an act for them under Queene Elizabeth for this effect but it is made for the fashion for all errors and heresies are condemned in Scripture but not onely should there bee a virtuall and tacit determination of matters ecclesiastick which is undeniably in Scripture and may bee in generall councells also but also a formall Synodicall determination in particular must goe before the Princes determination in a constitute Church The Prince may before the Synods determination exhort to the determination of what hee conceiveth is Gods will in his Word but hee cannot judicially and by a Kingly power determine in an orderly way what is to bee defined in a Synod except hee infringe the Churches liberties and judicially prelimit under the paine of civill punishments the free voyces of the members of the Synod which is indeed an abuse of the authoritie of a nurs-father But fiftly it may bee objected that hee may in a thing that is manifestly evident by the Word of God to bee necessary truth command by the power of the sword that the Synod decree that or this particular so cleare in the Word the contrary whereof being Synodically determined hee may punish by the sword and so hee may judicially predetermine some things before the Sâ—nod passe their Synodicall act thereon and if hee may predetermine judicially one thing hee may predetermine all things I answer what the King may judicially determine and punâ—â—h with the sword that hee cannot judicially predetermine and command in any order that hee pleaseth but in a constitute Church whereof hee is a member and to bee taught hee is to determine judicially in an orderly way as a nurs-father But sixtly it may bee objected that if the King have a judiciall power by the sword to annull unjust acts then hath hee a power to 〈◊〉 them though hee abuse that power in making them as unjust and then hath hee a power to interpret Church acts and to defend them 〈…〉 Law saith it is not same power to make Lawes and to dâ—â—â—nd them and interpret them see Paraeus I answer the proposition is not universally necessary except onely in civill matters in the which as the Prince who is absolute hath supreme authority to defend and interpret civill lawes so hath hee power to make them for if the Magistrate hath a supreme judiciall power to interpret Church-Lawes hee is a minister of the Gospell in that case and may by that same reason administer the Sacraments so the argument is a just begging of the question 2. Though the King have power in case of the Church aberration which is somewhat extraordinary it followeth not therefore in ordinary hee hath a nomothetick power to make Church-Lawes Also seventhly it may bee objected if the King in case of the Churches aberration may by the sword rescind Church-Lawes then may hee make a Law to rescind them but those who aâ—firme that the King hath a sort of primacie and headship over the Church say not that the King hath any power formally ecclesiasticall to make Lawes as Ministers in a Synod do but onely that hee hath a power to command any forme of externall worship under the paine of bodily punishment they say not that the King may preach administrate the Sacraments or excommunicate or inflict any Church-censures I answer the transcendent power of Princesand their commissioners is not well knowne for the authors saith Calderwood agree not among themselves but it is true in words the author est Tortura torti the Bishop of Eli denyeth in words if you have strong faith to beleeve
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
and prayed for as King by the people of God at Jeremiahs expresse commandement 3. So a pagan husband becomming a Christian should by that same reason acquire a new husband-right over his wife contrary to the 1 Cor. 7. 13 14 15. the Captains or Masters who of heathens become Christians should obtaine a new right and power over their Souldiers and Servants and they should come under a new oath and promise to their Captaines and Masters 4. If the heathen King have onely temporall Kingly power he had no power as King to take care that God were worshipped according to the dictates of the Law of nature and Law of nations had power to punish perjury Sodomie parricid as sins against the Law of nature and the heathen King should not by office and Kingly obligation bee oblieged to be a keeper and a defender of the tables of the Law of nature which is against all sense But if the power which a heathen King becomming a Christian King acquireth be onely a Christian power to use for Christ the Kingly power that hee had while hee was a heathen King then a heathen King jure regali by a regall right is the head of the Church though hee bee a Woolfe and a Leopard set over the redeemed flocke of Christ yea though hee bee the great Turke hee is a Pastor called of God the Church though for his moralls hee bee a Woolfe and a hireling yet by office and Law hee is a feeder of the flocke Talis est aliquis qualem ius offiâ—ii requirit And certainly it is impossible that a heathen King can bee a member of the true Church hee wanting both faith and profession which doe essentially constitute a Church-membership if it bee said hee is ex officio by his office a member that is nothing else but hee ought to bee a member of the Church so all mankind are members of the Church for they are oblieged to obey Christ and submit to him upon the supposall of the revealed Gospel and the heathen King is no otherwise a member by the obligation regall that layeth upon him as King yea when the Gospel is preached and the heathen King converted to the faith hee is not a member of the Christian Church as a King but as a converted professor and so Christianitie maketh him not a Kingly head of the Church but what essentially constituteth him a King that also constituteth him a Christian King Christianitie is an accidentall thing undoubtedly to the office of a King 2. They doe no lesse erre who make the King and the Church officers collaterall Judges in Church matters so as with joynt and coâ—quall influence they should bee Canon makers 1. Because perfect Synods are and have beene in the Apostolick Church without any influence collaterall of Christian Magistrates as being against their will and mind who were Rulers of the people as Acts 1. 14 15. Acts 2. 46 47. Acts 4. 1 2. Acts 6. 1 2 3 4. Acts 15. 6 7 8. c. 2. What the Church decreeth in the name of Christ standeth valid and ratified in Heaven and Earth Matth. 18. 17 18. Joh. 20. 21 22. whether the Magistrate assent to it or not so that he hath not a negative voyce in it by any ecclesiastick power for Christ saith not What yee bind on earth in my name shall be bound in Heaven except the Magistrate deny as a collaterall Judge his suffrage Now if he be a collaterall Judge by divine institution no Church act should be valid in Christs Court without him as excommunication not in the name of Christ or performed by those who are not the Church but onely in civill offices is not excommunication also what ever the Magistrate doth as the Magistrate he doth it by the power of the sword Ergo if he take vengeance on the ill doer as his office is Rom. 13. 3. 4. his acts are ratified in Heaven though the Church as collaterall Judges say not Amen thereunto 3. The coactive power of the King and the Ecclesiasticall power of the Church differ as carnall and spirituall spirituall and not spirituall of this world and not of this world and are not mixed by the Word oft as Joh. 18. 36. 2 Cor. 10. 3 4. 2 Tim. 2. 4. and therefore it in one and the same Church constitution the King and the Church be joynt and coequall Judges and joynt definers the constitution must both be injoyned under the paine of bodily punishment which the Church whose weapons are not carnall cannot command and under the paine of Church censures as suspension rebukes and excommunication the King must command Now the Canon should neither be an Ecclesiasticall nor yet a civill Canon but mixt for the Canon makers injoyneth with powers and paines which are not due unto them nor in their power Now to make a Law saith Feild is to prescribe â—â—aw under the paine which the Law-maker hath power to inflict but neither hath the Church the power of the sword 2 Cor. 10. 3 4. Joh. 18. 36. nor hath the King by Gods â—aw the power of excommunication See Calderwood And one and the same Law should be backed both by a carnall and worldly power and not by a worldly and carnall power 3. The King as King must have a mixt power halfe kingly â—â—â— halfe ecclesiastick and by the same reason the Church must have a mixt power partly Ecclesiasticall and partly civill and this were to confound the two kingdomes the kingdome of this world and the spirituall kingdome of Christ which is not of this world Joh. 18. 36. condemned by Anselmâ— and Hilarius and Bernard and Augustin Put if they say that every one hath their influence partialitate causae non effâ—cii according to the nature of causes then is not one and the same Church constitution from both King and Church See Apollonius But the Kings Canon is civill the Churches Ecclesiasticall and every one of them without another perfect in their one kind See what the learned Gerson Bucer and Amesius saith further to adde light to this point Those who maintaine a third that the Church Canons hath all the power of being Church Lawes from the King and all Ecclesiasticall and oblieging authority from him and that they have onely some helpe of consulting power from the Church are grosser Divines See Joan. Weemes for so the King is the onely Canon maker and the Church-men giveth advice onely as the Kings Proclamation speaketh having taken 〈◊〉 counsell of our Clergy we command such a worship â— and so the Canon runneth it seemeth good to the holy Ghost and the King as the Canon speaketh Acts 15. 2. the King is made an Ecclesiasticall and ministeriall Prâ—acher to expone publikely the Scriptures to the Church of God for all lawfull Church Canons are but Ecclesiasticall expositions of Gods Word and so the Emperours and Christian Kings are the onely lawfull Canon
both doth elect and choose the man yet so that he is not elected without the consent of the King or Magistrate in the Kings roome I answer many things are here to be replyed 1. That the King who may be borne an heire to an earthly Kingdome is also borne and by nature a mixt person and halfe a Minister of the Gospell is against Gods word ministers in whole or in part are made so of God not so borne by nature in Aaronâ— Priesthaâ—d men by birth came to a sacred office but that is done away now in Christ. 2. With as good reason may the King preach and administer the Sacraments as a mixt person as he may ordaine by ecclesiasticall blessing imposition of hands ecclesiasticall designation any person to the Ministery that same auth nity of Christ which said to Timoth Lay hands suddainly 〈◊〉 man said also to him 2 Tim. 2. 15. Study to be approved unto 〈◊〉 a workeman that needeth not to be ashamed dividing the word right that is both ordaining of Ministers and pastorall preaching of the Word or pastorall acts flowing from an ecclesiasticall power How then can the one be given to the King by vertue of that same mixt power especially seeing baptizing it directly called 1 Câ—r 1. 17. a lesse principall worke of the ministery then preaching It it be said as ordination is performed by the King is not an ecclesiasticall action but civill or mixt partly civill partly ecclesiasticall I answer by that reason if the King should preach and administrate the Sacraments these actions should not be called ecclesiasticall actions and Uzzah's touching the Arke should not be called an action by office incumbent to the Levites only and it might be said the person being civill the actions are civill And Uzziah's burning of incense upon the Altar of incense was not a Priestly act but an act of a mixt power he was partly a King and partly a Priest who did performe the action but he was a Priest by sinfull usurpation in that action as we know 2. This answer is a begging also of the question 2. Whereas it is said that the Church ordainech Pastors and the King also but divers wayes the one by a regall power the other by me elâ—siasticall power I answer this is spoken to make the people ad saciendum populum for ejusdem potestatis est saith the Law constituere destiâ—â—ere it is the same power to ordaine and to destroy The high-Commission by the Kings authority doth deprive Ministers without so much as the knowledge of the Church If then the King as King may deprive ministers without the notice of the Church then may the King as King also ordaine Pastors without the notice of the Church For the action of the instruments as such is more principally the actions of the principall cause 3 Election of a Pastor is farre different from ordination of a Pastor the whole multitude as Christians have voyces in the election of a Pastor and so hath the King or his Magistrate as a part and member of the Church but this giveth no negative voice to the Magistrate in election but ordination is not done by all the multitude it is a worke of authority done onely by the Church-officers 4. The coactive and civill degradation must have also correspondent thereunto a coactive and civill ordination of Pastors Now I ask what is a coactive ordination If it be the Kings royall and civill authority commanding that the Church officers ordaine Pastors at Christs commandement This we deny not they fight with a shadow or a night ghost not against us who contend for this But if they meane a coactive degradation by the Sword in banishing imprisoning yea and for just causes punishing Ministers to death with the Sword this indirect deprivation we doe not deny But so the King depriveth a man from being a Minister when he is beheaded or hanged or banished for civill crimes no other wayes but as he depriveth a man from being a Fashioner a Saiâ—â—r a Plower a Souldier or a Father to his owne barnes a husband to his owne wife for when the man is beheaded or hanged by the sword of the Magistrate he is dâ—prived from being a fashioner a sailer a father a husband and Solomen did not other way deprive Abiathar from the Priest-hood then indirectly by consining him for treason at Anathoth so as he could not exercise the Priests office at Jerusalem So after Junius Calderwood Gul. Apollonius Sibrandus yea Muketus a man for the times denyeth that the Prince can take away that ecclesiasticall power that the Church hath given And so acknowledgeth Wedelius the same That reasonlesse lyer Lysimach Nicanor in this and in other things hath no reason to say we borrow Jesuites doctrine to answer this argument for the Jesuite Becanus is not â—nacquainted with Jesuits doctrine against the power of Kings yet he answereth that Solomen as King had no power over Abiathar for treason or any other crime and therefore following Bellarmine and Gretserus saith that Solomon did this by an extraordinary propheticall instinct yet Abulensis a great textuall Papist and Bâ—naventura a learned Schooleman saith this pâ—oveth that the King is above the Priest and that Priests in the Old Testament were not eximed from the civill Judges sword and power this is very doubtsome to Suarez who â—aith that it was a tempâ—rall civill punishment of exiâ—e and that â—â—â—sitiâ—n from the exercise of the Priests office followed upon the other But we neede not this answer for Solomons sentence containeth in tâ—rminis a meere civill punishment and these words 1 King 27. S. Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being Priest to the Lord seem not to be words of the Kings sentence of banishment but are relative to the fulfilling of the Lords word and a consequent of divine justice relative to the prophesie against Elies house Though verily I see no inconvenience to say that Solomon did indeed deprive him from the Priest-hood by an extraordinary instinct of the Spirit as he was led of God to build the Temple 1. Because the text saith so Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being Priest to the Lord and ver 35. and Zadok the Priest did the King put in the roome of Abiathar which is a direct deprivation from the Priest-hood but I contend not here But that the King causatively may deprive that is command the Church to cast out hereticks and to commit the Gospell to faithfull men who are able to teach others 2 Tim. 2. 2. wee confesse as for the power of convocating of Synods some thinke that the King may convocate Synods as men but as Church men they have power if the Magistrate bee averse to convocate themselves see Junius who insinuateth this distinâ—tion But certainly though the Kingly dignity be thought meerely civill yet let this be thought on it may be thought that the Kings power is divine three
wayes 1. Effectually and so we thinke that the Kingly power is an Ordinance of God lawfull jure divinâ— many Papists say the contrary but we thinke with Gods word it is of divine institution as is cleare Psal. 2. 11. Prov. 8. 14. 15. Rom. 13. 1 2 3 4 5 6. Matth. 22. 21. 1 Pâ—t 2. 17 18. Eccles. 9. 20. Prov. 25. 2. Prov. 20. 2. 2 The Kings power may be thought divine formally and so as divine is opposed to civill it is a humane ordinance and not formally divine or ecclesiasticall nor subjectively 3. It may be thought divine and ecclesiastick objectively and finaliter The end intrinsecall being a spirituall good and so the King hath power to conveene Synods not onely as they are men and his Subjects but also as they bee such subjects and Christian men and members of Synods as the King may command the minister of the Gospell both as a man yea and as a Preacher in the Pulpit to preach â—ound doctrine and to give wholesome and good milke to the Church and this is formally an act of a nurie-father such as the King is by his Kingly office and this way also doth the King send members to the Synod and moderate and preside in Synods actu impâ—rato nâ—n elicito actu objective ecclesiastico non intrinsece non formaliter non subjective ecclesâ—astico The King ruleth by the Sword and commandeth the Synods to meete ordereth politically and civilly the members and meeting and as King cooperateth but by a civill and regall influence with the Synod for the same very end that the Synod intendeth to wit the establishing of truth unity and the edification of Christs-body But this power of the Kings to conveene Synods is positive not negative auxiliary and by addition not by way of impedition or privation For the Church of her selfe hath from Christ her head and Lord power of conveening without the King beside his knowledge or against his will if he be averse as is cleare Matth. 18. 17 18. if they be conveened in his name he is with them not upon condition that the Prince give them power And Joh. 20. 19. there is a Church-meeting without the Rulers and a Church-meeting for praying preaching and discipline Act. 1. 13 14. c. without the Magistrate Act. 15. 1 2. and when the Magistrate is an enemy to the Church 2. Where Christ commandeth his disciples to preach and baptize Matth. 28. 19 20. and with all faith in the exercise of their ministry they shall be persecuted by rulers as Matth. 10. 17 18 19. Luk. 21. 12 13 14. He doth by necessary consequence command Church-meetings and Synods even when the Magistrate forbiddeth and this is practised 1 Cor. 5. 1 2 3 4 5. where the Magistrate is an heathen chap. 6. 1 2 3. 3. It should follow that Christ cannot have a true visible Church and ministry on earth except the Magistrate countenance his Church which is both against experience and Christs Kingly power who reigneth in the midst of his enemies Psal. 110. 2. And what glorious Courâ—bes had Christ in Asia with power of doctrine and discipline and â—o with all Church-meetings Rev. 2. chap. 3. where Tyrants did slay the witnesses of Christ Rev. 2. 13. and certainely by what power Kings alleadâ—e that Synods may not meet for the exercise of discipline and good order in Gods house by that same power they may say there should be no Church meeting for the hearing of the word and receiving the Sacraments without their authority For Church Synods for doctrine differ not in spece and nature from Synods for discipline all be one and the same acts under Christ as King and head of his Church for which see Spalato Uâ—â—tius Amâ—sius Calderwood the Professors â—â— Lâ—yden Now what any say on the contrary for the power of Princes in matters ecclesiasticall is soone answered Gerardus saith that Moses gave Lawes both to the People and Priests Exod. 20. Lev. 8. Num. 3. I answer if this be a good argument the Magistrate his alone without advise of the Church may impose Lawes yea and institute new Laws and dite Canonicall Scripture also as did Moses Deut. 5. Exod. 20. but it is certaine that Moses gave these Laws not as a Magistrate but as a Prophet of God who spake with God face to face and it is more for us then for our adversaries David also brought the Ark to its place at Gods speciall direction the Levites carrying it by Gods Law though they failed in that sinfull omission 2 Sam. 6. but 1 David did convocate the chosen of Israel even thirty thousand to reduce the Ark to its place and so the Levites and Church-men and did it not as King his alone as 1 Chron. 13. hee did it And Junius saith and the text is cleare that he did it by the counsell of an Assembly and the whole Church and that a King may doe that in Gods worship in case of the negligence of the Church that is warranted by Gods word is but his duty Now Jesuites answer not to any purpose in this for Becanus and Suarez answer nothing to Davids placing of the Arke in its place onely they say all the people conveved the Arke and danced before it as well as David but it is not hence proved that all the people are heads of the Church as they say the King is and Lysimachus the Jesuite seeth in this that wee aâ—â—ee not with his friends the Jesuits Solomon builded the Temple and dedicated it to Gods service but this is no ground to make the King a Law-giver in the Church 1. Because none can deny but Solomon did all this as a Prophet by speciall revelation for 1. if Solomon might not build an house to the Lord but by speciall revelation that hee should bee the man and not David his father 2 Sam. 7. 6. 13. farre more could hee not as an ordinary King build that typicall house which had a resemblance of Christ and heaven it selfe especially seeing the signification of the Holy of holiest in the Sanctuary is expressely given to the holy Spirit Heb. 9. 7 8. and the Temple was a type of Christ Joh. 2. 20 21. and they may say Kings by an ordinary power as Kings might pen Canonick Scripture as well as they could build a typicall Temple like Solomons God filled that Temple with his glory and heard prayers made in that temple and toward that Temple I thinke Kings as Kings cannot now build such Temples therefore Solomon by a Propheticall instinct built that house Jesuites give no answer to this for Suarez saith Kings may build Churches to God because of it selfe it is an act of Religion which requireth riches for the building thereof and for the dedication it includeth two 1. By some religious action to consecrate a house to God and this way onely the Priests by sacrificing dedicated the Temple and God by filling
act of justice at the direction of a Minister commanding him in Gods name to execute judgement impartially yet the King doth not an act of justice in the name and authority of the Church And that is true which Beâ—anus saith What the instrument doth the principall cause may do where the Vicar or Deputy and the principall substitutâ—r of the Vicar are both civill persons or are both Ecclesiasticall persons for in a large and unproper sense the nurse is a sort of deputy under the nurse father the Father may take care that the nurse give milke and wholsom milke to his child yet cannot the Father give milke himself The King may take care actu imperato as one intending in a Kingly way that Christs body bee edifyed that the Priests and Prophets feed with knowledge the Church and sister of Christ and so are the Priests under the King and at his command to feed and to feed with wholsome food the flocke and in obedience to the King all are to do their duty and his care is universall over all and his end universall That which is the end of Pastors Doctors Elders Deacons Lawyers Judges c. is in an universall intention the Kings end even Gods honor by pâ—â—curing in a regall way that all do their duty in keeping the two Tables of the Law and so is hee the great politick wheel moving by his royall motions all the under wheeles toward that same end yet cannot the King without sinne and being like a Bird wandring from her nest do that which is properly Pastorall so that the Office is not subordinate to him but immediately from God yet are the operations of the Office and to Preach tali modo diligently sound Doctrine subordinate to him but in a generall and universall way as hee is a kingly mover of all to keep the two Tables of the Law Neither did the King as Suarez saith one and the same way appoint both the High Priest and the civill Judge And Cajetan saith he decerneth the two chiefe heads of Church and Common-wealth but hee appointed not both for God appointed Amariah to bee High Priest and not the King but here is nothing to prove the Kings headship Asa reformed the Church and renewed the Covenant Ezekiaâ— reformed Religion also and brake in peeces the Brazen Serpent and all these in the case of universall apostasie and the corruption of the Priest-hood did reforme the Lords house breake in peeces graven Images but all this giveth to them no mixt Ecclesiasticall power of making Canons of ordaining and depriving Pastors Whereas some object That the care both of temporall good and spirituall good belongeth to the Magistrate therefore hee must have a power to make Church Laws See Pareus For his care cannot bee supreme if hee must rule at the nod and beck of Church-men I Answer the connexion is weak hee who hath the care of both the temporall and spirituall good of the people hee hath a nomothetick power to procure both these two goods it followeth no way for then might hee have a power in his own person to Preach and administrate the Sacraments this power procureth the spirituall good but such as is the care such is the power the care is politick and civill Ergo the power to procure the spirituall good must bee politick and civill 2. Neither is the King to do all at the nod and direction of the Priesthood blindly and without examination That is the blind doctrine of Papists wee hold that hee hath a regall power to examine if the Decrees of the Church bee just Orthodox and tend to edification For hee is the Minister of God for good and to take vengeance on evill doing And there is no just obligation to sinne hee is not obliged to punish with the sword well-doing but evill doing and the Church can oblige the Magistrate to do nothing but that which in case there were no Church Law and in case of the Churches erring hee should doe 2. They object He to whom every soule is subject he hath a power to make Church Laws about all good but all and every soule without exception of Apostles or Church-men is subject to the civill Magistrate Ergo. The proposition is proved from the Law of relatives for he to 〈◊〉 we are subject he may give Lawes unto us for our gâ—â—d See Pareus Answ. He to whom we are subject may give any Lawes or command any manner of way for our good I deny the proposition in that sense for then he might in the Pulpit preach the Commandements of God for our good He might give Laws under the paine of excommunication It is enough that he may give Laws by sanction and civill enacting of Church Laws and pressing us by the power of the Sword to doe our duty for the attaining of a spirituall good He to whom we are subject he may give Laws that is presse in a coactive way obedience to Laws that is most true but it proveth not a nomothetick power in the King 3. They object What ever agreeth to the Kingly power concerning the good of Subjects by the Law of Nations that doth farre more agreeth Kings by the Law of God For the Law of God doth not desir 〈…〉 â—e Law of Nations But by the law of Nations a care 〈◊〉 Religion belong th to the King for Religion by the Law of nature is indâ—â—ed and brought in by the Law of Nations As Cicero saith And therefore to a Christian Kingly power the care of Religion must be due Answer we grant all for a care in a civill and politick way belongeth to the Christian Prince but a care by any meane whatsoever by Preaching or by making Church Canons is not hence proved by no light of nature or Law of Nations in an ecclesiasticall care of Religion due to the Christian Prince but onely in a politick and civill way 4. All beleevers even private men may judge of Religion not onely by a judgement of apprehension but also of discretion to try what Religion is true and to be holden and what is false and to be rejected Ergo farre more may the Christian Magistrate definitively judge of Religion so he doe it by convenient meanes such as are sound and holy Divines and the rule of Gods word The consequence is proved because the faithfull Prince hath supreame power which is nâ—mothetick and a power to make Lawes Answer it is true all private beleevers may try the Spirits whether they be of God or not but hence we may as well conclude therefore Princes may preach and administer the Sacraments as therefore the Prince may define matters ecclesiasticall For a eivill coactive power giveth to no man an ecclesiasticall power except he be called thereunto as Aaron was 2. The meanes alleadged are the judgement of holy and pious Divines and the word of God but Moses whom they alleadge for a patterne of a civill ruler who
had a nomothetick power in Church matters used not the advise of Divines nor the rule of the written word but as a Prophet immediately inspired of God gave Lawes to Gods people and prescribed a Law to Aaren and to the Priest-hood Now if rulers have such a power of defining Lawes they neede not follow the rule of Gods word But how shall they prove that Moses gave the Law to the people and the Priesthood as a King and not as the Prophet of God inspired immediately of God For if Moses his Law came from the ordinary power of Kings as it is such then commeth Moses Law from a Spirit which may erre for the ordinary Spirit to Kings is not infallible but with reverence to Kings obnoxious to erring God save our King 5. It is a Princes part by office to defend Religion and to banish false Religion and to roote out blasphemies and heresies Ergo he ought to know and judge by his office of all these But if he be to use the sword at the nodde onely of the Church without knowledge or judgement he is the executioner and lictor of the Church not a civill Judge Answ. In a Church right constitute we are to suppone that the Lawes of Synods are necessary and edificative and that the Magistrate is obliged by his office to adde his sanction to them not by an unfolded faith and as blind but he is to try them not onely by the judgement of discretion as a Christian for so all Christians are to try them but also saving the judgement of some Learned by a judiciall cognition as he tryeth civill crimes which he is to punish but his judiciall cognition is onely in relation to his practise as a Judge to authorize these Lawes with his coactive power not to determine truth in an ecclesiasticall way under the paine of Church censures Neither doe I beleeve that the Magistrate is not subordinate to the Kingdome of Christ as mediator but subordinate to God as Creator onely Though some Divines teach that there should have beene Kings and supreme Powers in the world though man had never fallen in sinne and a Saviour had never beene in the World and so that Kings are warranted by the Law of nature and Nations and not by any Law evangelick and mediatory yet we thinke with reverence this argument not strong for generation and creation and multiplication of mankind should have beene in the World though never a sinner nor a Saviour thould have beene in the world yet are creation generation and multiplication of mankind by our divines Junius Trekatius Gomaras Calvin Beza Melancthon Polanus Rollocus and many others and with warrant of the word of God made meanes subordinate to the execution of the decree of predeâ—tination to Glory which decree is executed in Christ as the meane and meritorious cause of salvation purchased in his blood What heathen Magistrates as Magistrates know not Christ the Mediator Ergo they are not means subordinate to Christs Mediatory Kingdome It followeth not For by Christ the wisedome of God Kings doe reigne though many of them know him not As they are created by Christ as the second person of the Trinity though they know not the second person of the Trinity It is their sinne that they know him not 2. It is objected The Magistrate is not given to the Church under the New Testament by the calling of Christ as an exalted Saviour as all the gifts instituted for the government of the mediatory Kingdome are instituted for that end Ephes. 4. 11. but it is instituted by God as governer of the World rewarding good and ill Rom. 13. 1. 6. Answ. Neither is creation a gift of Christ as exalted mediator therefore it is not a meane leading to the possession of that life purchased by the mediators bloud it followeth not For the Magistracy is a nurse-father of the redeemed spouse of Christ with the sincere milke of the word I meane a formall meane procuring by a coactive power that the Church shall be fed and it procureth not onely the Churches peace which respecteth the second Table of the Law but also godlinesse which respecteth the first Table of the Law 1 Tim. 2. 2. and Ephes. 4. 11. there be reckoned downe onely officers which actibus elicitis by formall elicit acts procureth the intended end of Christs mediatory Kingdome Not all the offices which procureth edification any way Such as is in civill Governours who are to see that the body of Christ be nourished and grow in godlinesse for that is an essentiall and specifick act of the Churches nurs-father 3. It is objected Magistracy compelleth men to the observance of Gods Law Deut. 17. and doth not immediately of it selfe by spirituall gifts of the evangell produâ—e its effects But all the mediatory Kingdome of Christ and the Government thereof of its selfe and its owne nature produceth the saving effects of the evangelâ— by vertue of its institution as faith repentance and salvation Answ. A Magistracy as a Magistracy of it selfe concurreth but in a coactive way for producing of peace honesty and godlinesse and serveth to edification but I grant not in such a spirituall way as a Church-ministry therefore it is not a meane subservient to the end of Christs mediatory Kingdome It followeth not It is not a spirituall meane Ergo it is not a meane The consequence is null and it is false that all the meanes of Christs mediatory Kingdome are of their owne nature spirituall for that is to begge the question for the Magistrate procureth that the Church be fed he punisheth blasphemers that others may feare and so abstaine and so be edified though the way be coactive yet is it a way and meane appointed of God as the nurse-father is a meane for the childs nourishing though the nurse-breasts be a more subordinate meane immediate meane 4. It is objected The Magistrate is not the Lords Ambassadour and minister in name of the Mediator Christ as the Minister is but it is extron â—call to the government of Christs Mediatory Kingdome and 〈◊〉 helpe onely to those things which concerne the externall man Answ. Hee who is called God and so is the vicegerent of God is Gods Ambassador politick commanding in Gods name but in another way then a preaching Ambassador commandeth and though Christ as Mediator may attaine to his end without the King as many were edified in the Apostolick Church where the civill Magistrate contributed no helpe and was rather an enemy to the kingdome of Christ and so Magistracy may bee called accidentall to Christs mediatory government but if this bee a good argument to prove that Magistracie is not subordinate to Christs mediatory kingdome then Oecumenicall and provinciall Synods consisting onely of Church men shall be no meanes subordinate to Christs kingdome because Christs kingdome may subsist in one Congregation without a provinciall assembly and circumcision is no meane subordinate to that kingdome in the Jewish
Reformation of the Congregations of England IN the first article the Author acknowledgeth the Church of England was once rightly and orderly gathered either by Apostles â—â— apostolick men whether Philip or Joseph of Arimathea or Simon Zelotes as we may read in Fox c. Sothat all the worke now is not to make them Churches which were none before but to reduce and restore them to their primitive institution Answ. Though the Churches of England were planted by the Apostles yet since Popery universally afterward prevailed in both England and Scotland as Beda and Nicephorus and ancient histories witnesse we thinke by our brethrens grounds England losed the very essence of a true Church So that there be neede of the constituting of a new Church and not of simple restitution to the first restitution 1. Because the Congregations wanteth the essentiall constitution of right visible Churches as you say 2. Because you receive none comming from the Church of New-England to the seales of the Covenant because they are members of no visible Church Sect. 2. Certaine propositions tending to Reformation In the third or fourth Proposition the Author condemneth Laicks Patronages 2. Dedicating of Lands to the Ministry to these adde what the Ministers of New-England say in their answer to the thirty two Questions sent to them from Old-England where they condemne stinted maintenance Though the right of Church Patronages were derived from Romulus it is not for that of noble blood â—or Dionysius Halicarnasseus saith Romulus instituted Patronages when he had divided the people in noble and ignoble called Patricii Plebeii But this Patronage was civill and when servants and underlings were hardly used it hath a ground in nature that they choose Patrons to defend them therefore hee who gave libertie to a a servant amongst the Romans was called a Patron and he who defended the cause of the accused as Valla saith was called a Patron If it bee said that the servant was the proper goods and part of the Masters patrimony because hee might sell his servant and therefore there could bee no Law given to prove men may limit the dominion of the master over the servant I answer the servant was a part of his masters patrimony but a part thereof for sinne not as his Oxe or his Asse is a part of his patrimony therefore by the Law of nature whereby the weaker imploreth helpe of the stronger as the Lambe seeketh helpe from the mother and the young Eagle from the old the slave might well have libertie to choose a Patron and this is a ground that the Magistrate the Churches nurs-father by office should plead the Churches cause as her Patron and every one in power is to defend the Church in her liberties and patrimony and therefore in the Apostles time when holinesse and the power of Religion did flourish and was in court there was not need of any positive civill or Church Law for a Patron to the Church every beleever in power is oblieged to defend the Church but when men became Vulturs and ravenous birds to plucke from the Church what was given them the Councell of Millian in the yeare of God 402. wherein some say Augustine was president under Honorius and Arcadius some holy and powerfull men were sought from the Emperour to defend the Church in her patrimony and rights against the power and craft of avaritious men and they were called Patrons and the same was desired in the first Councell of Carthage but with the Bishops advice cum provisione Episcoporum Hence it is cleare patronages from their originall were not Church priviledges and Bishops being a part of the Church could not be the Patrons quia nemo sibi ipsi potest esse patronus and for this cause that learned thinketh this was the originall of Church Patronages but the Patrons have beene chosen with consent of the Church hence they were not as our Patronages are now which goeth 1. by birth 2. and are a part of a mans patrimony and civill thing that the Patron hath right unto under the Kings great Seale but as a Minister is not a Minister by birth neither was a Patron a Patron by birth and from this wee may collect that the Patrons right was but a branch of the Magistrates right and accumulative not primitive and that hee could take nothing from the Church and 〈◊〉 lesse might the Patron forestall the free election of the people by tying them and their free suffâ—ages to a determinate man whom hee presented and it is not unlike which Aâ—entinus 〈◊〉 when Bishops gave themselves onely to the Word of God to preaching and writing bookes in defence of the truth the Emperour tooke care that they should bee furnished with food and â—aiment and therefore gave them a pâ—tronus quem 〈◊〉 patronum curatoremque vocabant whom they called a patron and here observe the Bishop of old was the client and the sonne and Pupill now hee must bee the Patron and Tutor and therefore in time of Popery Antichristian Prelates would bee Patrons both to themselves and to the Churches But this seemeth not to bee the originall of patronages because this ground is common to all Churches but not all but onely some certaine Churches have patronages therefore their ground seemeth rather to bee that some religious and pious persons founded Churches and dotted and mortified to them benefices and the Church by the Law of gratitude did give a Patâ—onage over these founded Churches to the first foundators and their heires so as they should have power to nominate and present a Pastor to the Church But there were two notable wrongs in this for 1. If the fundator have all the Lands and Rents in those bounds where the Church was erected hee is oblieged to erect a Church and furnish a â—â—pend both by the Law of nature and so by Gods Law also Ergo the Church owe to him no gift of patronage for that nor is hee to keepe that patronage in his hand when hee erecteth a Church but and if hee being Lord heritor of all the Lands and Rents both erecteth a Church and dotteth a stipend sub modum eleemosynae non sub modum debiti by way of almes not by way of debt then is there no gratuitie of honour nor reward of Patronage due to him for almes as almes hath no reall or bodily reward to bee given by those on whom the almes is bestowed but onely the blessings of the poore Joh 31. 20. it being a debt payed to God hee doth requite it And Calderword saith no wise man would thinke that the Church men should allure men to found Churches and to workes of Pietie by giving them the right of presenting a man to the change and also hee would call it Simonie not pietie or religion if one should refuse to doe a good worke to the Church except upon so deareâ—t rate and so hard a condition as to
Ministery and the Minestery before the Church p. 175 176 177. The Keys and power of ordaining Officers not committed to the Church of believers destitute of Elders p. 180. 181. 182. Robinsons reasons on the contrary siding with Arminians and Socinians who evert the necessity of a Ministery are dissolved p. 182. 183. No Ordination of Elders by a Church of onely Believers but by Elders in a constituted Church p. 184. 185. seq Ordination and Election differ ibidm Corrupt rites of the Romish Church added to ordination destroy not the nature of Ordination though such an Ordination be unlawfull yet is not invalid and null p 186. 187 188. The various opinions of Romanists anent Ordination ibid. Election may stand for Ordination in case of necessity p. 187. Of the succession of Pastors to Pastors p. 185. 186. Calling of Pastors seems by our Brethrens way not necessary p. 200 Arguments for Ordination of Elders by a Church of onely Believers dissolved p. 189. 190 191 seq Believers because not the successors of the Apostles have not power of Ordination p. 192. 193 194. seq The Keys by no warrant of Gods word are given to Pastors as Pastors according to the Doctrine of our Brethren p. 197. seq They side with Sociaians who ascribe Ordination to sole Believers p. 200. Election belongeth to the people p. 201. 202. seq In the ancient Church this was constantly taught till Papists did violate Gods Ordinance p. 203. Election of a Pastor not essentiall to his calliâ—g p. 205. The calling of Luther how ordinary and how extraordinary p. 205 206 207. seq The essence of a valid calling p. 208. 209. How it may be proved by humane testimonies that the now visible Church hath been a visible Church since the dayes of the Apostles p. 229. 230. seq Since the long continuance of the Waldenses p. 235 236. seq A calling frow the Papists Church as valid as Baptisme from the same Church p. 237 238. seq Robinsons arguments are removed p. 239. 240. Of addition of members to the Church p. 241. What sort of Professors whether true or seeming believers doe essentially constitute a visible Church divers considerable distinctions anent a visible Church p. ib. 242. 243 seq The invisible not the visible Church the prime subject of the Covenant of grace and of all the priviledges due to the Church and of all title claime and interest in Jesus Christ and how by the contrary doctrine our brethren imprudently fall into a grosse poynt of Arminianisme p. 244. 245 246 247 248. seq The invisible Church hath properly right to the seales of the Covenant our brethren in this poynt joyne with Papists whom otherwise they sincerely hate p. 242 205 251. seq What sort of profession doth constitute a visible Church p. 356. That Christ hath provided no Pastors as Pastors for converting of soules and planting visible Churches is holden by our Brethren p. 256. The arguments of our brethren for a pretended Church of visible Saints not only in profession but also in some measure of truth and sincerity as the author saith are disolved p. 256. 257 258. Robinsons arguments at length are discussed p. 268. 269 seq The Lords adding to the Church invisible no rule for our adding p. 256. The places Mat 22. Mat. 13 of the man without his wedding garment comming to the feast and of the tâ—res in the Lords Field discussed p. 261 262. 263. The typical Temple no ground for this pretended visible Church p. 263 264. Nor the place 2 Tim. 3. 5. p. 261. Nor Rev. 22. 15. without are Dogs p. 267. 268. And of diverse other places and persons at length in seq Ordinary and prosessed hearing is Church-Communion p. 268 269 270 seq Excommunicated persons not wholy cut off from the visible Church p. 272 273 274 seq Sundry distinctions thereanent collected out of the Fathers and Schoolemen p. 277 278 279 282. Some Separatists deny that the regenerated can be excommunicated as Robinson some say onely the Regenerated are capable of excommunication as Peter Coachman p 279 280 281. Of the diverse sorts of excommunication and the power thereof p. 282 283 295. The reason why Papists debar not the excommunicated from hearing the word p. 275 276. How the Seals are due to the visible Church only in foro Ecclesiastico properly p. 281. In what diverse considerations the word preached is a note of the visible Church p. 283 284. seq The difference betwixt nota and signum p. 301. And nota actu primo notificativa and nota actu secundo and notificans p. 285. Arguments of Robinson and others answered p. 286. 287. Whether discipline be a note of the true church diverse distinctions thereanent p. 287 288. The order of Gods publick worship p. 228. Of the Communion of the visible Catholik Church p. 289 290. The Ministery and Ordinances are given principally to the guides of the Catholick Church and to and for the Catholick Church p. 289 290 291. And not to a Congregation only ibid 292. Congregations are parts of a Presbyteriall Church p. 293 294. Christ principally the head of the Catholick Church and secondarily a Spouse Head Lord King of a praticular Congregation p. 295. The excommunicated is east out of the Catholick visible Church p. 295 296. A sister Congregation doth not excommunicate consequenter only but antecedenter also p. 297. How Presbyteriall Churches excommunicate not by power derived from the Catholick visible Church p. 299 300. Of the power of the Catholick visible Church p. 300 301. A Congregation in a remote I le hath power of Jurisdiction p. 302. A Presbyteriall Church is the first and principall subject of the Ordinary power of Jurisdiction p. 302 303. What power generall councells have and how necessary p. 304. Power of excommunication not in a single Congregation consociated with other Churches p. 205 206. Synods or councels occasionall rather then ordinary p. 307. A Congregational Church how it is by divine right p. 307. 308 Tell the Church Mat. 18. not restrained to a single Congregation only p. 310 311. The place Mat. 18. 17. Tell the Church considered p. 310 311 312 313 seq An appeale from a Church that hath lawful power p. 315. A representative Church p. 316. The power of a single Congregation p 320 321 322. Matthew 18. Tell the Church establisheth a Church Court p. 322 323 324. What relation of Eldership do the members of the classicall Presbytery beare to the whole Presbyteriall Church and to all the congregations thereof p. 325 326 327 328 329 seq They have power of governing all Congregations in those bounds and not power of Pastorall teaching in every one of them ibidem Oncrousnesse of ruling many Churches whereof the Elders of the classicall Presbytery are not Pastors no more then the onerousnesse of advising that is incumbent to sister Churches p. 331 332 333. The power of Presbyteries Auxiliary not destructive to the power of Congregations p 334. 335.
weake p. 297 298 299 seq Mr. Coachmans arguments dissolved p. 305 306 307. seq The way of Church judging in independent congregations examined p. 308 309. That there be no peculiar authority in the Eldership for which they can be said to be over the people in the Lord according to the doctrin of independency of Churches and their six ways of the Elders authority confuted p. 311 312 313 314 315. seq That independency doth evert communion of sister-Churches and their seven wayes of Churches-communion refuted from their own grounds p. 324 325 326. seq The divine right of Synods Ten distructions thereanent p. 331 332. seq The desinition of a generall or Oecumenick Synod p. 332. 333 The place Acts 15 farther considered p. 334 335. Synods necessary by natures Law p. 336. Papists no friends to councells p. 336 337 338. seq 340 341. Three ways of communion of sister-Churches according to the doctrin of independent Churches confuted p. 346 347. seq How the magistrate hath power to compell persons to the profession of the truth p. 352 373. seq Six distinctions thereanent 2 part p. 352 353. The Magistrates power over a people Baptized and over Pagans who never heard of Christ in this poynt of Coaction to profession not alike p. 353 354 355. The magistrates compelling power terminated upon the externall act not upon the manner of doing sincerely or hypocritically p. 355 356. The magistrates power over hereticks with sundry distinctions thereanent p. 356 357 358. seq Socinians judgement and Arminians hereanent p. 359 360 A farther consideration of compelling or tolerating diverse Religions p. 361 362. Some indirect forcing lawfull p 362. Erroneous opinions concerning God and his worship though not in Fundamentalls censurable p 363 364. Diverse non Fundamentalls are to be believed with certainty of Faith and the non-believing of them are siâ—nes punishable p. 365. 366 367 seq Arguments on the contrary dissolved and the place Philip. 3. 15. cleared p 316. seq How an erring conscience obligeth p. 378 379 380 381 seq Arguments on the contrary answered p. 383 384. seq The Princes power in Church affairs Ten distinctions thereanent p. 391 392. 393. How the Magistrate is a member of the Church p. 392 393. The Prince by his Royall Office hath a speciall hand in Church-affaires p 393 394. The intrinsecall end of the Prince is a supernaturall good to be procured by the Sword and a coactive power and not only the externall peace of the State Spalato resuted p 396 397 398. seq How the Magistrate is subordinate to Christs mediatory Kingdome p 402 403 404 seq The ordinary power of the Prince is not Synodicall teaching or making Church-Lawes p. 403 404 405 406. seq The influence of the Princes civill power in Church-Canons p. 409. 410 411 seq The government of the visible Church spirituall and not a formall part of the Magistrates Office p. 417 418. seq The power of Ordination and Deprivation not a part of the Magistrates Office p. 427 428. seq Instances from David Salomon Ezechiah c. answered and our Doctrine and Iesuites differenced p. 438 439. seq Difference betwixt the Princes commanding Church-duties and the Churches commanding these same p. 417 418 seq The Kings ordinary power to make Church-Lawes examined p. 438 439 440. seq The intrinsecall end of the Magistrate a supernaturall good p. 442 443 446 447 448. The Popes pretended power over Kings protestants contrary to to Papists herein what ever the author or Popish libeller of the survey and the night-Author of Treason Lysimachus Nicanor say on the contrary p. 449 450 451 452. seq The way of Reformation of Congregations in England according to the independent way examined p. 457 458. The originall of Church-Patronages p. 459. And how unwarrantable by Gods Word p. 462 463. Other wayes of Reformation of England according to the way of independent Churches modestly considered as about maintenance of Ministers and replanting of visible Churches there p. 464 465 466. seq Errata THe Author could not attend the Presse therefore pardon errors of the Printing Observe that the Author was necessitated to make some occasionall addition to the mids of this Treatise which occasioned-variation of the Figures of the Pages and therefore stumble not that when the Booke commeth to page 484 the next page not observing due order is page 185. 186 and so forth to the end of the Treatise page 60. title of the page 60 c. page 61 62. 64. dele not and for not of the same essentiall frame c. read of the same essentiall frame c. page 484 line 22 Churches their persecution read Churches through their persecution for page 229 read 209. for page 259. read 269. for p. 484. r. p. 498. יהוה THE Way of the Church of Christ In NEW ENGLAND Measured by the Golden Reed of the SANCTUARY Or The way of Churches walking in brotherly equality and independence or coordination without subjection of one Church to another examined and measured by the Golden Reed of the Sanctuary Propositions concerning the supposed visibility and Constitution of independent Churches examined CHAP. 1. SECT 1. PROP. 1. THe Church which Christ in his Gospell hath instituted and to which he hath committed the keys of his Kingdome the power of binding and loosing the Tables and Scales of the Covenant the Officers and Consures of his Church the Administration of all his publick worship and Ordinances is coetus fidelium a company of Believers meeting in one place every Lords day for the administration of the holy ordinances of God to publick edification 1 Cor. 14. 23. 1 Because it was a company whereof Peter confessing and believing was one and built on a rock Mat. 16. 18. a Such as unto whom any offended brother might complaine Mat. 18. 17. 3 Such as is to cast out the incestuous Corinthian 1 Cor. 5. Which cannot agree to any diocesian provinciall or Nationall assemblie Ans. From these we question Quest. 1. If a company of believers and saints builded by faith upon the rock Christ and united in a Church-Covenant be the only instituted visible Church of the New Testament to the which Christ hath given the keys Let these considerations be weighed 1. Dist. The matter of an instituted visible Church is one thing and the instituted visible Church is another as there be ods betwixt stones and timber and an house made of stones and timber 2 Dist. It is one thing to govern the actions of the Church and another thing to governe the Church the Moderator of any Synod doth govern the actions of the Synod but he is not for that a Governour Ruler and Pastor of the Synod Or ordering actions and governing men are diverse things 3. Dist. A thing hath first its constituted and accomplished being in matter forme efficient and finall causes before it can performe these operations and actions that flow from that being so constituted a Church must be a Church before any
so are the blessings of the promises as to bee builded on a Rock victory over hell and such given principally and immediately to the Catholick and invisible Church as to the first and principall subject and no wayes to a visible Congregation consisting of 30 or 40. professing the Faith of Christ but onely to them not as Professors but to them as they are parts and living members of the true Catholick Church For sound professors though united in a Church-covenant are indeed the mysticall Church but not as professors but as sound believers and therefore these of whom Christ speaketh Mat. 16. Are builded on a Rock as true believers but the keys are given not to them but for them and for their good as professors making Peters confession and in Gods purpose to gather them into Christ. But the Text evinceth that these keys are given to Peter as representing the Church-guides especially though not excluding believers giving to them popular consent and not to Believers as united in a company of persons in Church-covenant excluding the Elders 1. To that Church are the keys given which is builded on the rock as a house the house of wisdome Prov. 9. 1. The house of God 1 Tim. 3. 15. Heb. 3. 4. By the Doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles by Doctors and Teachers whom Christ hath given for the building of his house Eph. 4. 11. But this house is not a company of professing believers united by a Church-covenant and destitute of Pastors and Teachers but a Church edified by the Word Seales and Discipline Ergo such a Church is not heere understood The propofition is granted by the Author I prove the assumption The Church of believers combined in Church-covenant but wanting their Pastors and Teachers is not wisdomes house nor builded by pastors and Doctors given to edifie and gather the body but they are only the materialls of the house yea wanting the pastors they want Ministeriall power for pastorall preaching and administrating the Seales and for that they want the power of edifying the body of Christ which is required in a visible Church Eph. 4. 11. Though the building of this Church on the Rock Christ may well be thought to be the inward building of the Catholick and invisible Church in the Faith of Christ yet as it is promised to the Church to the which Christ promiseth the keys of the Kingdome of Heaven it can be no other beside external and Ministeriall building by a publick Ministery 2. Arg. To these are the keys here promised who are stewards of the mysteries of God 1 Cor. 4. 1. And servants of the house by office 2 Cor. 4. 5. And are by office to open the doores and behave themselves aright in Gods house 1 Tim. 3. 16. and to divide to these of the house their portion in due season Mat. 24. 45. and to cut the word 2 Tim. 2. 15. But a company of professing believers joyned together in a Church-covenant and destitute of officers are not stewards by office nor servants over the house c. Ergo to such a company the keyes are not here given The proposition especially is to be proved for the assumption is granted by our brethren and evidently true but it is sure by the phrase of Scripture Esai 22. 22. And I will lay upon his shouldier the key of the house of David 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clavis a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apperuit proveth this Shindlerus in Lexico metonymicè significatur Authoritas Facultas potestas omnis gubernationis iubendo ac vetando expediendo ac coercendo power of government Musculus so Calvin these who are made masters of housholds receive keys whereby they open and shut it is a token of power given to Kings Iunius it noteth a full government by this borrowed speech sayth Beza is signified the power of Ministers Isai. 22. Mat. 16. Pareus I shall make the steward of my house Hierom the key is a power of excellency and Chrysostom Augustine Beda sayth the same Fulgentius calleth this the power of binding and loosing given to the Apostles so other Scriptures expound the keyes to be a power of office as Esa. 9. 6. And the government shall be upon his shoulder Interpreters say Davids keys are given here Rev. 3. 7. These things saith he that hath the key of David who openâ—h and no man shutteth and shutteth and no man openeth Rev. 1. 18. I have the keys of hell and death Rev. 9. 1. And to him was given the key of the bottomlesse pit so Stephanus on the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clavis Whittaker it signifieth a power of office given to some and not to all as Calvin here saith he Christ speaketh of Peters publick office that is of his Apostleship so Bullinger Erasm. Zwinglius Marlorat Pareus on the same place I think while of late never interpreter dreamed that in the Text Mat. 16. the keys of the Kingdome of Heaven are given to all believers but only to the stewards of the house builded upon the Rock 3. Arg. To these in this Text doth Christ give the keys to whom he giveth warrant for the actuall exercise of the keys to wit to bind and loose on Earth and so open and shut the doores of the Kingdome But this warrant and officiall authority of binding and loosing Christ giveth to Peter onely as representing Apostles Teachers and Elders and not to the Church of believers convened Covenant-wayes and destitute of Officers Ergo the proportion is cleare in the Text to the same person to whom the promiseth the power or keys to the same he promiseth Officiall warrant to exercise the speciall acts of the keys but to Peter is the promise of both made 19. and if Christ allude to the place Is. 22. 22. Then I say these to whom Christ gave the keys doe by Office represent him who hath the keys of Davids house and the Government on his shoulder And I will give to thee the Keys of the Kingdome of Heaven there is the power and authority granted And whatsoever thou shall bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven there is a warrant for the exercise of the acts of the power given also to Peter Now if the keys be not given to Peter as to a Pastor Peter and pastors by this place as pastors neither have the keys nor officiall warrant to preach and to remit or retaine sinnes and if by this place they have it not we desire to see a warrant from Christ before he went to heaven for pastorall preaching Beza in his marginall notes in this Text sayth here is the Heavenly authority of the Church Ministery also binding and loosing is all one with opening and shutting Heaven Gates and with remitting and retaining sinnes Ioh. 20. Papists I know deny that the Apostles were made priests judicially to remit
people ought to obey and we condemne a meere popular government such as our writers condemne in Morellius They adde Government meerly Aristocraticall where all authority is in the hands of the Eldership excluding the people from intermedling by way of power we conceive to be without warrant and injurious to the people infringing their liberties in chusing Officers admitting members censuring offenders even Ministers Col. 4. 16. To which doctrine we oppose these conclusions 1. Concl. Our brethren hold a meere popular government with Morellius 1. Because nothing is left peculiar in government to the Officers which all the people have not 2. Because a greater power of Church-Jurisdiction as I shall prove is given to the people then to the guides for cursing by Excommunication of all the Officers and blessing of them by pardoning their faults and admitting of Members and laying on of hands is the greatest power that can be given to people But this and many other acts of jurisdiction the people have by our brethrens Doctrine 3. The people is no more obedient to the Eldership in teaching then Indians and Infidels who are hearers of the word and are under an obligation to obey the word and under the very same obligation of an Evangelicke offer made to all The people say they are under the obligation of obedience to Pastorall teaching under the paine of Church censures but so are not Indians who may be onely hearers but are in no Church-membership I answer Obligation to Church censures from the Pastors as Pastors lyeth not on the people by our brethrens doctrine 1. Because Pastors as Pastors are not the Church builded on the rocke nor the Spouse of Christ nor any part thereof nor any part of the visible Church to the which Christ hath given the Keys for the visible Church is a compleate Church in esse in operari in their being and Church actions of a visible Church without all Pastors of any Officers as they teach 2. Because Pastors are onely parts of the visible Church as believers and so have the power of the Keyes as believers and this the believers have which the Pastors have not and so seeing the Pastors as Pastors have not the Keyes nor can they use the Keyes or excommunicate as parts or members of the visible Church because as Pastors they are neither parts nor members of the Church but adjuncts and meere accidents of the visible Church and therefore the people are under no obligation of obedience to Pastors as Pastors under paine of Ecclesiasticke censures more then Indians or Infidels who are their hearers 2. Concl. Christ hath given no warrant at all of actuall Church government to all the whole visible Church 1. so the places that I cited before Iadde the styles of Officiall dignity given to Officers because of their government are given onely to Officers and never to the people Ergo the people have no power of government the consequence is sure those who are priviledged of Christ to governe ordinarily should be and duely are Governours But the stile of Gods is given to Church-guides Ioh. 10. 33 36. Ioh. 20. 21. which title for governing is given to Judges Psalm 82. 6. Exod. 21. 6. And his Master shall bring him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Judges Now the people are not Gods nor are they 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 13. 17. over the people in the Lord. Which word no doubt the Apostle borrowed from the Septuagint so stiling the Rulers not because of their place of preaching onely but of governing also as Jos. 13. 21. Micah 3. 9. Ezech. 44. 3. Dan. 3. 2. Acts 23. 24. Matth. 27. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and it is given to the Kings or supreame rulers 1 Pet. 2. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so it is frivolous that they say Church-Officers are never called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For these words of officiall power of government are no lesse powerfull and never communicated to any but to Church-Officers such as are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 watchmen not onely for preaching but also for government Phil. 1. 1. 1 Tim. 3. 2. Acts 20. 28. and the people are not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Governours 1 Cor. 12. 28. nor are they 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 12. 8. nor obliged to bee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rulers as they are the visible Church nor should they bee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 5. 17. nor are they to bee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Labourers and over the Saints in the Lord. 1 Thess. 5. 12. 2. If all the people as contradistinguished from Officers are to watch over one another and by office to rebuke censure excommunicate ordaine and exauthorate Officers then must they in Conscience attend the judging of all causes of adultery fornication drunkennesse swearing oppressing defrauding one another as they fall under scandall Now this is a calling distinct from their owne calling in respect the holy Ghost alloweth to the Elders stipend and maintenance 1 Tim. 5. 17. yea and hire as to labourers Matth. 10. 10. as to souldiers husbandmen dressâ—rs of vineyards feeders of flocks 1 Cor. 9. 7 8. yea as to the oxe that treadeth out or thresheth the corne vers 9. and by this all the people are made officers and stipendiaries to whom by the Law of God and nature stipend is due Now this looscth them from their own proper callings of Merchandise Trading Husbandry Laws Medicine Manufactures and maketh all these callings sinfull unlawfull to the Saints by calling who are members of a visible Church according to that 2 Tim. 2. 4. No man that warreth in t angleth himselfe with the affairs or callings of this life which is grosse Anabaptisme condemned by Gods Word 1 Cor. 7. 20 21. Eph. 6. 5. Col. 2. 22. 1 Thess. 4. 11. Now certainly if actuall government with the power of the Keyes be committed to all the members of the visible Church the Epistles to Timothy and Titus and Canons of right government must be written to Timothy and Titus not as to Pastors but as to beleevers as the Keyes were given in Peters person and a warrant to binde and loose Matth 18. Matth. 16. as representing beleevers not as to a Pastor then they are to commit the word to faithfull men who are able to teach others and to give up their earthly callings as 2 Tim. 2. 2 3 4. and to lay hands suddenly on no man and not to receive a testimony against an Elder but before two or three witnesses 1 Tim. 5. 22 19. and to war a good warfare 1 Tim. 1. 18. And this must needs follow since Separatists teach That all the people are obliged in Conscience to judge and to be personally present and that by their Office and Church-calling when ever any sentence is given out against offenders for if the Elders be onely present and the people absent the Elders shall tyrannize saith Answorth over the peoples Consciences for the
people being absent shall not know if the Eldership have proceeded right yet must they repute the excommunicated person as an heathen or a publicane 3. Arg. That government is not to be admitted which maketh men take honour to themselves without God calling them thereunto But the Doctrine of government in the hands of people is such ergo the assumption is proved 1. By it all are Kings Rulers and Guides and all have the most supreame power of the Keyes as authoritative receiving in of members and judiciall casting out by the pastorall spirit of Paul and all governe over all 2. Beleevers are a ministeriall Church a company of private Christians put in office and doing acts of a Ministeries now a Ministerie is a peculiar state of eminency that God calleâ—h some selected gifted persons unto that to the which he calleâ—h not all professors as in Israel he chosed one Tr be to minister to himselfe not all the visible Church of Israel as the Scripture teacheth us Ministers of the house of God the Levites the Lords Ministers Ministers of Gods Sanctuary and the ministery of the New Testament is a speciall emiâ—ency of office given to some few and not to all believers a matter of worke that some not all believers are put upon and employed in the act of the Ministery not common to all but restricted to the Ministers of the Church and not common to the whole visible Church Now to ordaine Elders excommunicate admit members into the Church are positive actes of a received ministery and must flow from an other principle then that which is common to all professing believers 4. Arg. All who have received such a Ministeriall state to discharge such excellent and noble actes as laying on of hands receiving of witnesses committing the Gospell to faithfull men who are able to teach others and must save some by gentle awaiting and stop the mouthes of other Pastors as the Scripture saith these must acquit themselves as approved worke-men to God and shall therefore receive a Crowne of Glory at the appearance of the chiefe Shepheard and must in a speciall manner fight the good fight of Faith and must be worke-men who neede not to be ashamed But these are not required of all the Church visible all are not men of God and ministeriall Souldiers of Christ and feeders of the flock but only such as Timothy Titus and Elders like to Peter as these Scriptures prove For the reward of a prophet is not due to all 5. Arg. That Government is not of God which taketh away the ordinary degrees of members in Christs body the Church But government exercised by all the visible body taketh away the deversity of offices members places of Rulers and ruled Ergo I prove the assumption 1. All have one and alike equall power of governing all the members are one in place and office all are Eyes all Eares all are hands according as all have one joynt and common interest and claime to Christ. One is not an Eye and head in relation to another for all are both governours and governed all the Watchmen and all the City all the flock and all the feeders all the House and all Rulers Key-bearers Stewards all the children of the house all the Fathers Tutors to bring up nuâ—ture and correct the children 2. If the power and use of the Keys result from this that the Corporation is the Spouse Body Sister of Christ the redeemed flock what should hinder but according as God inequally dispenseth the measure of grace to some more to some lâ—sse so some should have more some lesse power of the keys and some exercise more eminent acts of government as they be more eminent in grace some lesse eminent acts and if we grant this we cannot deny the order of a Hierarchy amongst Pastors This connexion may be denied happily by our brethren but there is no reason if their arguments be good they alwayes conclude Church-power from the graces of the members of the Church 3. Concl. It is cleare then that the state of the Church cannot be called popular and the government Aristocraticall or in the hands of the Elders as our brethren meane 1. Because by our brethren the government and the most eminent and authoritative acts thereof are in the hands of the people Ergo both state and government are popular 2. Because the people are not only to consent to the censures and acts of government but also authoritatively to judge with coequal power with the Eldership as they prove from 1 Cor. 5. 12. 3. The Parisian Doctors the authors of this distinction acknowledge a visible monarchy in the Church and are far from popular government Let us heare what our brethren say for the government of the people and their judiciall power in generall Quest. 15. Our brethren say the Colossians are exhorted Col. 4. 17. to say to Archippus Take heed to the Ministery that thou hast received of the Lord to fulfill it in all points Ergo the people are to censure and rebuke the Pastors and therfore they may and ought to exercise acts authoritative Ans. 1. This is an argument off the way with reverence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 say to Archippus take heede Ergo say Judicially and rebuke with all authority it is an argument à genere ad speciem affirmativè and a non-consequence Mat. 18. 17. If he will not heare them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tell the Church Ergo exercise an act of authority over the Church Ioh. 8. 48. The Jewes said unto him Ergo they said it authoritatively 1 Ioh. 1. 8. If we say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we have no sinne by no authority can we say we have no sinne Luk. 12. 11. Take not thought 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what ye shall say Rev. 22. 17. 2. The Fathers as Augustine Chrysostome Ambrose Hyeronimus The Schoolemen as Aquinas D. Bannes Suarez say correcting of our brother is sublevatio miseriae peccantis a succouring of the misery of a sinner Cajetanâ—ait actum correctionis elici à prudentia imperari à misericordia To warne or rebuke our brother is an act of prudence commanded by mercy and compassion And. Duvalius saith it is an act Non solum juris divini sed etiam naturalis and he citeth Lev. 19. Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart but shalt rebuke him and shall beare one anothers burdens and so fulfill the Law of Christ. And Greg. de Valent. saith it is a spirituall almes actum misericordiae quo subveniatur spirituali necessitati fratris So the Doctors of the Canon Law So the Fathers say as Basilius esse benevolentiam potius quam severitatem Augustin Vulnus fratr is contemnis vides cum perire negligis pejor es tu tacendo quam ille te offendendo Excellently Hieronim Sivide at in corpore carnes putridas dicat An
and Ostorodius Theoph. Nicolaides reason against Gods ordinance of a sent Ministerie Robins God hath indeed set in the body some to be eyes and mouth and hath not said to all the Church Goe and preach but first they have not their gifts from the Church Secondly you would have the body to starve if such hands as Deacons will not feed and all the body blinde if the eyes of the watchmen be blinde Answ. Yet thus much is granted that gifts give not the keyes nor authority to use gifts and so that all beleevers though gifted and graced also have not power of the keyes 2. It 's certaine that in a constituted Church there be no hands nor mouthes to doe and speake by authority and ex officio by vertue of an office save onely Elders and Pastors and that if they doe or speake they doe it extraordinarily when Churches hands are lame and her eyes blinde or if they doe and speake ordinarily it is from the law of charity in a private way not by power of the keyes and as Judges and Officers Manuscript 5 ch 4 sect The Churches not the Angels of the Churches are blamed for not executing censures against Balaam Jezabel the Nicolaitans g Robinson saith more 1. These whose workes Christ commendeth for that dwelling where Sathans throne was they kept his name and denyed not his faith these he reproveth for suffering the doctrine of Balaam and the Nicolaitans 13 14 15 16. 2. They which were commended by Christ for their workes love service faith patience increase of workes are reproved for suffering Jezabel but these were not the Angels onely 3. These conjunctions but never the lesse say though they were zâ—alous in many things yet they failed in not being zealous enough against false teachers Ans. 1. These connexions prove guiltinesse in Angels or Pastors and one common fault may be laid upon them all but hence it followeth not that they all abused one and the same power of the Keyes as being all collaterall Judges no doubt the Angels preached not against Balaam Jâ—zabel and the Nicolaitans doctrine and yet women dwelt where Sathans throne is and there faith and patience was commended and yet our brethren will not say women are rebuked and all the beleevers because they did not pastorally preach against Balaam and Iezabel so this argument hurteth them as much as our cause The Pastors were guilty because they did not in their place use the Keyes and the people because they did not say to Archippus and their Officers Take heed how you governe as Israel was involved in Achans trespasse because they warned not one another 2. Seeing the Spirit of God maketh mention of Churches in the plurall number and every one of the seven Churches of Ephesus Rev. 2. 7. of Sâ—yrna v. 11. of Pergamus 17. of Thyatira 29 of Sardis 3. 6. Philadelphia 13. Laodicea 22. It is cleare there were more Churches then a single Congregation and an independent incorporation in every one of them and so a Presbytery of Angels in every one of them behoved to be guilty of this neglect of discipline yet not all one and the same way It is not cleare enough though that the whole Church in Ephesus was to be rebuked or that all and every one of the Elders whereof there were a good number Act. 20. 26. He prayed with them all they all wept sore were guilty of these abuses of the power of the Keyes for in Sardis there were a few names which had not defiled their garments yet the whole body is rebuked Manuscript Ch. 5. Sect. 4. When the word Congregation is put for the Elders or Judges only it is never understood of them sitting in consistery and judgement there alone by themselves and apart from the people but in the presence of the publick assembly who also had liberty in such cases to rescue an innocent from unjust judgment 1 Sam. 14. 45. I answer we urge not a Church assembly of Elders only to exclude the people from hearing yea and in an orderly way from speaking reasoning and disputing even in our Generall assembly but for judiciall concluding we find not that given to any but to the Church-guides Act. 15. 6. Act. 16. 4. 2 It is not a good argument the people sate with the Rulers and rescued innocent Jonathan 1 Sam. 14. Therefore all the people may fit and give judiciall sentence or impede the Elders to sentence any This I grant is alledged by Ainsnorth for to give popular government to the people as also 1 King 21. 13. and Ier. 26. 11 12. but 1. a fact of the people is not a Law 2. It was one fact and that in an extraordinary case of extreame iniquity in killing innocent Ionathan a Prince and Leader of the people 3. in a civill businesse and the people were to be executioners of the sentence of death and they saw it manifestly unjust 4. they were not the common people only but in thar company were the Princes of the Tribes and heads and the King and his family only on the other side what will this infer but that there were no Kings in Israel who had power of life and death nor any judges as Ainsworth contrary to Scripture sayth but that the people were joynt Judges with the King and that the people in the New Testament are co-equall Judges with the Elders from so poore an example and so the Separatists proving from the peoples power of judging in civill causes which yet is a wide mistake and a punishment bodily to be inflicted upon strangers as Paget doth learnedly observe doe conclude the peoples power of judging in Ecclesiastick causes which concerneth only the members of the visible Church Manuscript We grant it is orderly to tell the Elders the offence that the whole Church be not frivolously troubled but it followeth not that the Officers may judge there alone without consent of the people he who told his complaint to the Levite told it orderly enough to the whole Congregation assembled at Mizpeh Jud. 20. Ans. These to whom we are to complaine these and these only are to be heard and obeyed as Judges binding and loosing in Earth and validly in Heaven Mat. 18. but these are not the multitude nor one Elder only but the Church of Elders 2. if the Church of Believers be the only subject as you teach of the Keys and not the Elders but in so far as they are parts of the believing Church then it is more orderly to complaine to the multitude who only are proper Judges then to Elders who are not properly Judges Manuscript A second reason why we allow such power to the people in Church censures is from the Church of Corinth 1. He directeth the whole Church of Corinth to whom he writeth to excomunicate the incestuous man Ans. He writeth to all the faithfull and so to women the woman is not to usurpe authority over
the King Judgeth by them and in them 2. This error is founded upon a worse error to wit that the supreme Magistrate had no power of life and death in Israel without consent of the people but certainly there are as specious and plausible reasons if not more specious for the peoples government in all civill matters then there can be for their Church-power of judging in the Church-matters and government therof Yet there is no ground for it 1. Because the Rulers only could not be charged to execute judgement in the morning to deliver the oppressed to execute judgement for the Fatherlesse and the VViddow nor can there be a promise made to establish the Kings Throne for obeying that Commandement as a Gods Word teacheth if the people have as great yea greater power in Judging then the Rulers have by this our Brethrens argument They say all the Believers at Corinth 1 Cor. 5. could not be commanded to cast out the incestuous person nor could they all be taxed for omitting that duty if they had not power to excommunicate 2. Neither can the Spirit of God complaint that the Judges builded Zion with blood and the heads of the house of Jacob and Princes of the house of Israel did abhor judgement and pervert equity as the Prophets say nor could they be condemned as roaring Lyons and evening Wolves as the Prophet sayth for the Judgeâ— might well be faultlesse when the poore were crushed in the Gate and Judgement turned into Gall and Wormewood because they cannot helpe the matter the people are the greatest part in caring matters in judgement 2. We see Davids practise in condemning the Amalckite out of his own confession not asking the peoples consent and in condemning to death Baanah and Rehab for killing Ishbosheth Solomon gave sentence against Adoniiah Ioab Shimei without consent of the people David pardoned Shimei contrary to the counsell of Zerviahs sons 3. If from the peoples witnessing and hearing of judgement in the Gate we conclude the people were Judges with the Rulers there was never a time when there was no King in Israel and no Iudge to put evill doers to shame but every man did what seemed good in his own Eys contrary to Scripture because all are a generation of Kings and Princes no lesse then the Ruler himselfe as Anabaptists teach By the Doctrine of our brethren I deny not but he that gathered stickes on the Sabbath was brought Num. 15. 33. to Moses and to Aaron and to all the Congregation but the Congregation signifieth not the common multitude For 35. Moses received the sentence from God and pronounced it and the Congregation stoned him to death And Numb 27. 1. The Daughters of Zelophehad stood before Moses Eleazar and before the Princes as Iudges and before all the Congregation as witnesses not as Judges but v. 6. 7. Moses gave out the judiciall sentence from the Lords mouth And 1 King 21. 12. Naboth stood in presence of the people to be judged but the Nobles and Princes were his Judges because v. 8. Iezabel wrote to the Nobles and Princes that v. 10. they should carry out Naboth and stone him to wit judicially and v. 11. The Nobles and Princes did as Iezabel had sent unto them And Ieremiah cap. 26. pleaded his cause before the Princes and people for v. 10. The Princes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Set down judicially in the entry of the new gate of the Lords House nothing can be gathered from the place to prove that the people judged but because Ieremiah spake to the Princes and the people who vers 24 were in a fury and rage against Ieremiah if Ahikam had not saved him from their violence CHAP. 4. SECT 4. QUEST 5. WHether there be no nationall or provinciall Church under the New Testament but only a parishionall Congregation meeting every Lords day in one place for the worship of God The Author in this first proposition denieth that there is any Nationall or provinciall Church at all under the New Testament for clearing of the question observe these 1. Dist. VVe deny that there is any diocescan provinciall or Nationall Church under the care of one Diocesan or Nationall Prelate or Bishop but hence it followeth not there is no visible instituted Church now but only a particular Congregation 2. Dist. VVe deny any Nationall typicall Church where a whole Nation is tyed to one publick worship in one place as sacrificing in the Temple 3. Dist. VVe deny not but the most usuall acception of a Church or visible meeting is given as the refutator of Tylenus sayth to a convention of people meeting ordinarily to heare the word and adminstrate the Sacraments Stephanus deriveth it from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Cyrillus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As Causabon observeth so these who meete at one Sermon are called Ecclesia a Church and it is called Ecclesia concio sayth the Refutator of Tilen but this hindreth not the Union of more particular Congregations in their principall members for Church-government to be the meeting or Church representative of these many united Congregations 4. Dist. A Parish-Church materiall is a Church within such locall bounds the members whereof dwell contiguously togegether one bordering on the other our Brethren meane not of such a Church for as Paâ—â— Baynes sayth well this God instituted not because a company of Papists and Protestants may thus dwell together as in a Parish and yet they axe of contrary Churches a Parish-Church formally is a multitude who meete in manner or forme of a Parish as if they dwelt neere together in a place ordinarily to worship God as the 〈◊〉 of those who came together to celebrate the Lords Supper is called the Church 1 Cor. 11. 18. For first of all when ye come together in the Church I heare that there are divisions amongst you 〈◊〉 what have ye not houses to eat and drink in or despise ye the Church of God 1. Concl. If we shall evince a Church-visible in the Now Testament which is not a Parishionall Church we evince this to be false which is maintained by our Brothren that there is no visible instituted Church in the New Testament save onely a Parishionall Church or a single independent Congregation But this Church we conceive to have been no Parishionall Church 1. Because these who met dayly and continued with one accord in the Temple and breaking bread from house to house that is administrating the Sacraments together as our Brethren say were a visible Church But these being first an hundred and twenty as Acts 1. and then three thousand added to them Acts 2. 41. could not make all one single independent Congregation whereof all the members had voyce in actuall government Ergo they were a visible instituted Church and yet not a Parishionall Church The proposition is cleare The Church of Ierusalem was one visible Church and did exercise
member Christs wisdome who careth for the whole no lesse then for the part cannot have denied a power conjunct with that congregation to save themselves from contagâ—ons to all the consociated Churches for if they be under the same danger of contagion with the one single congregation they must be armed and furnished by Christ Iesus with the same power against the same ill so the power of excommunication is given to the congregation but not to the congregation alone but to all the congregations adjacent so when I say the God of Nature hath given to the hands a power to defend the body I say true and if evill doe invade the body nature doth tell it and warne the hands to defend the body but it followeth not from this c. if the power of defending the body be given by the God of Nature to the hands therefore that same power of defence is not given to the feete also to the eye to foresee the ill to reason to the will to command that locomotive power that is in all the members to defend the body and if nature give to the Feete a power to defend the body by fleeing it is not consequence to infer O then hath nature denied that power to the hands by fighting so when Christ giveth to the congregation which in consociated Churches to us is but a part a member a fellowsister of many consociated congregations he giveth also that same power of excommunicating one common enemy to all the consociated Churches without any prejudice to the power given to that congregation whereof he is a member who is to be excommunicated because a power is commmon to many members it is not taken away from any one member When a Nationall Church doth excommunicate a man who hath killed his Father and is in an eminent manner a publick stumbling â—lock to all the congregations of a whole Nation it is presumâ—d that the single congregation whereof this parricide is a member doth also joyne with the nationall Church and put in exercise its owne power of excommunication with the nationall Church and therefore that congregation is not spoyled of its power by the nationall Church which joyneth with the nationall Church in the use of that power And this I thinke may be thus demonstrated The power of excomunication is given by Christ to a congregation not upon a positive ground because it is a visible instituted Church or as it is a congregation but this power is given to it upon this formall ground and reason because a congregation is a number of sinfull men who may be scandalized and infected with the company of a scandalous person this is so cleare that if a congregation were a company of Angels which cannot be infected no such power should be given to them even as there was no neede that Christ as a member of the Church either of Iewes or Christians should have a morall power of avoyding the company of Publicans and sinners because he might possibly convert them but they could no wayes pervert or infect him with their scandalous and wicked conversation therefore is this power given to a congregation as they are men who though frailty of nature may be leavened with the bad conversation of the scandalous who are to be excommunicated as is cleare 1 Cor. 5. 6. Your glorying is not good know yee not that a little leaven leavneth the whole lumpe therefore are we to withdraw our selves from Drunkards Fornicators Extortioners Idolaters and are not to eate and drinke with them v. 10. And from these who walke inordinately and are disobedient 1 Thess. 3. 12 13 14. And from Hereticks after they be admonished lest we be infected with their company just as nature hath given hands to a man to desend himselfe from injuries and violence and hornes to oxen to hold off violence so hath Christ given the power of excommunication to his Church as spirituall armour to ward off and defend the contagion of wicked fellowship Now this reduplication of fraile men which may be leavened agreeth to all men of many consociated congregations who are in danger to be infected with the scandalous behavior of one member of a single congregation and agreeth not to a congregation as such therefore this power of excommunication must be given to many confociated congregations for the Lord Iesus his salve must be as large as the wound and his mean must be proportioned to his end 2. The power of Church â—jection and Church separation of scandalous persons must be given to those to whom the power of Church communion and Church confirming of Christian love to a penitent excommunicate is given for contraries are in the same subject as hot and cold seeing and blindnesse but the power of Church-communio at the same Lords table and of mutuall rebuking and exhorting and receiving to grace after repentance agreeth to members of many consociated Churches as is cleare Col. 3. 16. Heb. 10. 23. 2 Cor. 2 6 7 and not to one congregation only Ergo c. the assumption is cleare for except we deny communion of Churches in all Gods Ordinances we must grant the truth of it 2. We say that of our Saviours tell the Church is not to be drawen to such a narrow circle as to a Parishionall Church only the Apostle practice is against this for when Paul and Bannabas had no small dissention with the Iewes of a particular Church they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certaine others of them should goe and tell the Apostles Elders and whole Church Nationall or Oecumemek Acts 15. 2. v. 22. and complaine of those who taught that they behoved to be circumcised Acts 15. 1. and that greater Church v. 22. 23. commanded by their ecclesiastick authority the contrary and those who may lay on burdens of commandements as this greather Church doth expresly v. 28. Acts 16. v. 4. ch 2. v. 25. they may censure and excommunicate the disobeyers And Acts 6. 1. the Greek Church complained Acts 6. of the Hebrewes to a greater and superior Church of Apostles and a multitude made up of both these v. 2. and 5. and they redresed the wrongs done to the Grecian Widdowes by appointing Deacons also though there was no complaint Acts 1. Yet was there a defect in the Church by the death of Judas and a catholike visible Church did meete and helpe the defect by chosing Mathias it is true the ordination of Matthias the Apostle was extraordinary as is cleare by Gods immediate directing of the lots yet this was ordinary and perpetuall that the election of Mathias was by the common suffâ—ages of the whole Church Acts 1. 26. and if we suppose that the Church had been ignorant of that defect any one member knowing the defect was to tell that catholick Church whom it concerned to choose a catholick Officer we thinke Antioch had power great enough intensively to determine the controversie Acts 15. but it followeth not that the catholick
of writing was that it might be a part of the Canon of faith So also the Covenant of Grace and the Gospell was made upon this occasion by reason that the first Covenant could not save us Heb. 8. vers 7. Rom. 8 2. 3. Gal. 3. 21 22. is therefore I pray you the Covenant of grace but a temporary and a prudentiall peece Upon the occasion of the death of Zelophead who died in the wildernesse without a male-childe whose name thereby was in danger to be delete and blotted out of Israel the Lord maketh a generall Law through all Israel binding till the Messiah his comming Numb 27. 8. If a man die and have no sonne then shall you cause his inheritance to passe unto his daughter this was no prudentiall Law I might alleage infinite Ordinances in Scripture the like to this Yea most of all the Ordinances of God are occasioned from our spirituall necessities are they therefore but humane and prudentiall Statutes that are onely to endure for a time I thinke no. Ob. 3. But if the civill Magistrate had been a friend to the Church Acts 6. his place had beene to care for the poore for the law of nature obligeth him to take care of the poore therefore did a woman in the famine at the siege of Samaria cry Helpe O King and if this were done by Christian Magistrates Pastors should be eased thereof that they might give themselves to the Word and Prayer and there should be no neede of a divine positive institution of Deacons for this charge Answ. That the godly Magistrate is to take care of the poore as they are members of the Common wealth I could easily grant But this is not now in question but whether or not the Church as it is an Ecclesiasticall society should not have a treasure of the peoples Eâ—angelike free-will-offering for the necessity of the Saints as Heb. 13. 16. 1 Cor. 16. 1 2. 2 Cor. 9. 5 6 7 8 and concequently whether or not Christ hath ordained not the Pastors but some officers besides to attend this worke VVee affirme he hath provided for his poore members even their bodily necessi ies Secondly if this be true that there should be no Deacon but the Christian Magistrate then were these seven Deacons but the Substitutes and Vicars of the Emperour and King Now certainly if Apostolike benediction and laying on of hands in the wisdome of God was thought fit for the Vicars and Deputies of the Magistrates it is like that beside the coronation of the Roman Emperour the twelve Apostles ought to have blessed him with prayer and separated him by laying on of hands for this Deaconrie for what Apostolike calling is necessary for the temporary substitute is more necessary and at least that same way necessary for the principall But that civill Magistrates ex officio are to be separated for this Church-office so holden forth to us 1 Tim. 3. 12. I can hardly beleeve Thirdly I see not what the Magistrate doth in his office but he doth it as the Minister of God who beareth the sword Rom. 13 4. and if he should compell to give almes then should almes be a debt and not an almes and free-will-offering It is tâ—uâ— there may intervene some coaction to cause every man to do his duty and to force men to give to the poore but then I say that forcing with the sword should not be an act of a separated Church-officer who as such useth no carnall weapons Fourâ—â—ly the law of nature may lead to a supporting of the poore but that hindreth not but God may ordaine it as a Church-duty and appoint a Church-officer to collect the bounty of the Sainâ—â— 1 Cor. 16. 3. 5. I see not how the Apostle 1 Tim. 3. should not hold forth his Cannons concerning a Deacon to the King if he ex officio be the Church-treasurer but the Apostle doth match him with the Bishop Acts 6. the appointing of the Deacon is not grounded Acts 6. upon the want of a Christian Magistrate but on another ground that the Apostles must attend a more necessary worke then Tables Object 4. But the occasion of appointing Deacons was to disburden the Pastor who was to give himselfe wholy to preaching and praying Ergo at the first the Apostles and so also Pastors were Deacons if therefore the poore be fewer then they were at Ierusalem Act. 6. where the Church did exceedingly multiplie this Office of Deaconry was to returne to the Pastors as its prime and native subject and therefore is not essentially and primarily an Office separated from the Pastors Office And if the poore cease to be at all the Office ceaseth also Ans. I cannot well deny but it is apparent from Act. 6. 4. that the Apostles themselves were once those who cared for the poore but I deny that hence it followes in the case of fewer poore that the Office can returne to the Pastors as to the first subject except you suppose the intervention of a divine institution to place it againe in the Pastors as the power of judging Israel was once in Samuel but upon supposition that Saul was dead that power cannot returne backe to Samuel except you suppose that God by his authority shall re-deliver and translate it backe againe to Samuel For seeing God by positive institution had turned the power of judging over from Samuel into the person of Saul and changed the same into a regall and Kingly power that same authority who changed the power must rechange it againe and place it in and restore it to its first subject 2. The fewnesse of poore or no poore at all cannot be supposed Joh. 12. 8. for the poore you have alwaies with you And considering the afflictions of the Churches the object of the Deacons giving and shewing mercy as it is Rom. 12. 8. cannot be wanting as that the Churches fabricke be kept in good frame the poore the captives of Christian Churches the sicke the wounded the stranger the distracted be relieved yea and the poor Saints of other Churches 1 Cor. 16. be supported 3. Not onely because of the impossibility that Pastors cannot give both themselves to praying and the Word and to the serving of Tables but by reason of the wisdome of Christ in a positive Law the Pastor cannot be the Deacon ex officie in any case For 1. Christ hath made them distinct Offices upon good grounds Act. 6. 4. 2. The Apostle hath set downe divers qualifications for the Bishop 1 Tim. 3. 1. and for the Deacon V. 12 13. And 3. the Pastor who is to give the whole man to the preaching of the Gospell cannot entangle himselfe with Tables 1 Tim. 4. 15. 2 Tim. 2. 3 4 5. if we should say nothing that if there were need of Officers to take care of the poore when there was such grace and love amongst the Saints and Apostles able and willing to acquit themselves toward the poore and when all things were common Act.
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
transact within their owne Congregations but doe ex aequo belong to them all As 1. That they doe not give offence one to another that one Church doe not hold the Doctrine of Balaam to the effence and scandall of other Churches 2. That one Congregation make not Acts and Canons against the Word of God and against the Acts of another Congregation agreeable to the Word of God 3. That one Church admonish rebuke comfort provoke another to love and to good works in such and such poynts now though a Congregation make acts and constitutions for governing this or that member of the community yet they doe not nor cannot make acts that oblige the community and the Church as the Church the Church as the Church being a part is to be regulated by the whole and if there be things that ex aequo concerne all and doe not concerne one particular Church more then another one particular Congregation cannot governe in these And by the like reason particular Churches and classicall Presbyteries and Provinciall and Nationall Churches are parts of the whole Catholick visible Church 6. Because Christ hath not given the power of Ministery and Ordinances and Jurisdiction to the single Congregation as to the first subject upon the ground that our Brethren speake to wit because the single Congregation is that Spouse to which Christ is referred as an Husband and that body to which hee carrieth the relation of an head communicating life to all the members Eph. 1. 22. Col. 1. 18. nor is it that adequat number of ransomed persons of sheepe of lost ones of fellow-citizens of spirituall stones c. To the which Christ doth carry that adequat and compleat relation of a Saviour of a good Shepheard of a Seeker of lost ones of a King and Governour of the chiefe câ—â—ner-stone Therefore that visible Church for whose salvation Christ hath given the Ministeriall power must be the larger visible Church just as the God of Nature hath given to the whole race of sheep a power to seeke their own food and because of their simplicity a power to be ordered and led by the shepheard and secondarily this power is given to this or this flock feeding on Mount Caermel or elsewhere so hath the God of Grace given a power to the whole visible Catholick flock to submit themselves in the Lord to other guides and he hath given to the whole company of Shepheards as to the first subject the power of the Keys and secondarily the power is given to this or this visible Church and company of Pastors 7. When any scandalous person is delivered to Satan he is cast out of the whole Catholick Church Ergo he was before his ejection a member of the whole catholick Church for hecannot be cast out who was never within And when he is excommunicated his sins bound as in Heaven so on Earth that is not only in that Tract of ground where a handfull of a little Congregation independent as they say of 10 or 20 or an 100 doth ordinarily feed but in all the visible World where God hath a Church and all both within the little Congregation where hee is and without are to repute him as an Heathen and a Publican It is true some of our Brethren say he is excommunicated onely out of that Congregation whereof hee is a member antecedentèr because Christ hath given the power of excommunication onely 1 Cor. 5. 4. To the congregated Church when they are met together to deliver to Satan and they must do it in collegio in consessu coram tota Ecclesia before and in presence of the Church congregationall which is to give their consent and hath a certaine power of interest in the busines but he is cast out and excommunicated to all other Churches onely consequentèr by consequent and by vertue of the communion of Churches I answer the plaine contrary hee is antecedentèr and formally delivered to Satan by the power of the catholick visible Church which is put forth in exercises and in act before that Church whereof he is a neerest member Even as the left hand doth cut off a finger of the right hand which otherwayes should infect the whole body Now it is not the left hand onely that cutteth off the contagious and infectious finger but the whole man deliberate reason and the will consenteth it should be done for the preservation of the whole man the left hand is a meere instrument and the losse of the finger is the losse of the whole body and the finger is cut off the right hand not antedentèr and onely off the right hand by that power intrinsecall onely in the right hand but intrinsecall in the whole body it is true the contagion should creepe through and infect the right hand and right arme first and therefore incision is made upon the right hand So if the Eldership of a Congregation deliver to Satan it is not done by that power that is intrinseally onely in that Congregation but by the power intrinsecall in the whole universall Church who shall keepe communion with him that Eldership cuts him off as the instrument or hand of the Church catholick and the incision as it were is performed there in that meeting I will not say of the whole Congregation that is to be proved because the contagion shall come first upon these with whom the delinquent is to keepe the nearest fellowship and that Excommunication be performed in a meeting I grant and the place 1 Cor. 5. 4. saith so much and a meeting of the Church But that that is a meeting of the congregation with favour of the learned cannot be proved cogently though I thinke excommunication when it is actually performed it should be done before the Congregation but that is for the edification and nearest and most immediate practice of that Congregation for the contagion is nearest to them but the reason why the presence of the Congregation whereof the Delinquent is a member is requisit is not because this Congregation hath the sole intrinsecall power in her selfe and because shee onely doth formally and antecedentèr Excommunicate and the rest of the Churches consequenter and by vertue of a communion for the sister Churches are to debarre this excomunicate person from their communion with Christ in the Seales of the Covenant and that by an intrinsecall authoritative and Church power where as if he were not excommunicated they should have received him to a Communion with them in the Seales and that by an intrinsecall authoritative and Church power for one man cannot receive another to the Seales of the Covenant with him because no one man hath a Church authority If therefore the Church as the Church is consociated by an intrinsecall Church-power should have admitted him if he had not been excommunicated it is evident that hee was a member not onely of the Congregation out of which he is excommunicated but also of the whole consociated congregations 2 The man
congregation of which the ' Delinquent is a member or after that you have complained to that congregation if the former be said then you cannot tell the presbytery or superior Courts but in case of obstinacy for if you can gaine a Brother or a Church in a private way you are not to bring him to a more publickeshame that is contrary to Christs order v. 15. If he heare thee thou hast gained thy brother And if you tell it the Presbytery and the superior Courts after you have told it to the Church whereof he is a member then you make foure steps in your reclaiming your brother where Christ hath made but three Ans. Christs order according to the number of steps are three when the fault is private scandalls of many Congregations cannot be private and in publick scandalls we cannot go but to that church which the offence doth immediatly concerne and if you make foure steps or five according to your grounds I see no transgression if 1. You admonish the offender 2. Before two 3. Before the half of the Elders 4. Before all the Elders and. 5. If you be willing that the Elders bring it to the hearing of the Congregation the number of three precisely are not of positive Divine institution they are only set downe by Christ to shew we are to labour to gaine our brother in private before we publish his shame to the Church and if he commit the offence before two I think you need not tell him your selfe alone but before two and yet the offence is private if three only be privy to it seeing it is not yet come to the Church 3. I much doubt if no faults be punishable by excommunication but only obstinacy I thinke the 〈◊〉 of incest parricide and the like deserveth excommunication though no contumacy be supervenient to such crimes Ob. 7. The Church spoken of Mat. 18. is all one with the House of God and the House of Prayer where two or three agree to pray for onething v. 19. and the place where worshiping is and word and Saâ—raments that society in which stewards give a portion of the treaâ—â— of life to every child of the House Mat. 24. 45 1 Cor. 4. 1. 2. 〈◊〉 publick Rebukes are tendered to these who sin publickly before all that others may feare 1 Tim. 5. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this must be in the Churches hearing and before the Congregation meet for the Word and Sacraments for these ordinances of God worke for the edifying both of the party reproved and before all the Congregation which shall heare and feare and they worke upon the Heart as the Word of God doth now a presbyteriall Church convened in some Elders of divers Congregations for Church censures and exercise of jurisdiction is not such a House of God where are the Word Sacraments and publick rebukes in the hearing of the Congregation for the Congregations of all the presbytery being 20. or 30. cannot meet in one Church Answ. That onely a Congregation and not the catholick Church is the House of God I judge the Word of God cannot teach as Esai 56. 5. To them will I give a name within my House What a name to be a member of a single Congregation No but of a whole visible Church opposed to the condition of Euâ—uches and strangers v. 4. that were not of the people of God Cant. 1. 17 The beames of our House are cedars this is the catholick Church and Spouse of Christ Cant. 3 4. I would not let Him goe till I brought Him to my Mothers House not a Congregation but Ierusalem saith Ainsworth the Mother of us all Cotton the Catholick Church Alstedius Ierusalem Heb. 3. 2. as Moses was faithfull in all his House Not a single congregation 2. This Church here is formally a Ministeriall Church meeting to bind and loose and excommunicate Nor is there need to expound it of an House of praying congregationally but rather 2. 19. of ligatory and authoritative prayers of the Presbytery 3. Nor is rebuking in a Congregation for the edifying of the hearers any thing but the execution of the judiciall sentence of a Presbyteriall Church which we grant may be done in the congregation whereof the Delinquent is a member and yet the Church here shall not signifie a congregation convened for the Word and Sâ—crameâ—ts except you say all the people must necessarily be present yea and authoritative actors to bind and loose as this Church is expresly called v. 18. for if the place speake 1 Tim. 5. 20. of concionall rebuking then it proveth nothing that is done by Timothy as a Pastor virtute potest at is ordinis and not by the Presbytery as an act of jurisdiction which is done by the Church not by one man if it be meant of juridicall rebuking that is done in a Court where all the congregation are not present or if it be done before the congregation in Name of the Presbytery what is done before the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before many is not done by those many as if they were the Church which our Saviour biddeth us tell and sure nothing iâ— here against us Ob. 8. The Word Church is never used in the New Testament for the Presbytery and if it signifie a Representative Church the meaning of this the Angell of the Church of Pergamus might be the Angell of the Church of Pergamus for the Representative Church is the Eldership of that Church Answ. This being the first time that Christ spake of the Church which the Hebrewes or Iewes who knew his language behoved to understand hee could not meane any thing but a representative Church not the common multitude and though it were taken other wayes in all Scriptures beside here it must have this meaning because he speakth of a court If he heart not the Church c 2 Of a company who bindeth and looseth on Earth 3. Whose sentence is â—atified in Heaven 4. Binding and loosing are words of highest royall judiciall authority in Scripture Psal. 105. 20. The King sent and loosed him 21. He made him Lord over his House v. 22. to bind his Princes at his pleasure Psal. 148. 8. To bind their Kings with chaines and their Nobles with fetters of Iron v. 9. To execute upon them the judgement written Mat. 22. 13. Take him and bind him Pauls being in bands is to be under the Judges power Acts 12 6. Peter was bound with two chaines So the Captaine of the Guard Jâ—r 40. 4. and now be hold I loose thee this day from thy chaines 2. The representative Church is not called the Elders of the representative Church nor the Angell of the representative Church but of the collective Church and therefore there is no Angell of a Church of a Church here Ob. 9. From the Church here spoken of their is no appeale because the sentence is ratified in Heaven 2. It inflicteth the highest punishment the censure of excommunication and a
higher judicature can doe no more 3. Their is no reason to appeale to a higher judicature because the inferior may erre because all above a Congregation are Courts which may erre for Presbyteries Provinciall Nationall the universall councell of the Catholique Church may erre So Mr. Mather Answ. This is no reason why wee may not appeale from a Congregation because the sentence is ratified in Heaven because the sentence of an inferior Judge proceeding rightly is ratified in Heaven yet we may appeale from him to appeale is but upon feares of ill administration to desert a lower Court and go to a higher Court so when we feare a counsell and advice given by a sister Church to be not according to the Word of God which yet is according to the Word of God upon the supposall of that feare wee decline that counsell and take another Neither are we to appeale de jure from a just sentence in a presbytery Illud possumus quod jure possumus What the inferior Sanedrim of Israel did justly was ratified in Heaven yet by Gods Law there might be an appeale from it to the highest Sanedrim 2. Nor is this a good reason that we may not appeale from a Judicature which may inflict the highest censure for inferior Judicatures in Israel had power of life and death yet might man appeale from them 3. The cause of appeales is not because inferiour Judicatureâ— may erre for so wee might appeale from all judicatures even from a general councell for it may erre But the true cause is 1. Because rariùs errant they do not so frequently erre 2. They are not so inclined and disposed to erre for many Eyes see more then one and many Eyes doe more seldome miscarry in not taking up the right object then one 3. Because we conceive more equality and lesse partiality in higher Courts Ob. 10. You grant that a single Congregation in an Island hath power intrinsecall of Excommunication within it selfe Ergo thâ— inconvenient which you put on independent Congregations shall follow in the case of a remote congregation Christ hath not then provided sufficiently for that Church in that case Answ. It followeth onely Ergo Christ hath not provided so sufficiently for that Church as for others in a consociation which is nothing against us For woe to him that is alone and two are better then one Ob. 11. If the Church here be a representative Church theâ— it hath power from those whom they represent but they represent the people and so the power is first in the people and the people must be the first visible Church not the presbytery not a generall councell I prove the major because the power the representer hath that must be first in the represented Answ. A representer standeth for another either objectively or subjectively What ever representeth another objectively that is doth such a businesse for another or in remejus for his behalfe and good though he some way represent that other yet hath he not his power from that which he representeth as the Eye objectively in seeing and the Eare in hearing representeth the body for the Eye seeth for the whole body the Eare heareth for the whole body But the eye hath not its visiâ—e or seeing faculty from the body nor the Eare the hearing faculty from the body Now the Presbytery doth represent the people onely objectively that is for the good and salvation of the people and so the Elders have not all their power of ruling from the people but from Iesus Christ. That which representeth another subjectively hath indeed its power from that which it representeth as he who carrieth the person and roome of a King as an Ambassador doth fetch his power from the King and that power is more principally in the King But now the Assumption is false because the Eldership doth not represent the people in their power of Jurisdiction subjectively as standing in the place of the people but as the Ambassadors of Christ and as stewards they have both the Keyes from Christ not from the people and doe actually use the Keyes in his Name and authority not in the peoples name and authority Hence is easily answered that Delegatus seu deputatus non potest facere delegatum one delegate cannot transfer his power to another delegate that would bring a progresse infinite in government for one deligate standing in the roome of others sibjectively cannot transfer his whole power to another its true he cannot transfer his power in part and according to some singular acts it is false for Acts 15. 25. It is said by the councell It seemed good unto us with one accord to send chosen men to you with Paul and Silar Paul and Silas and these chosen men suppose six or ten are in this Embassage are but the deputies and Messengers of the councell and yet they doe agree to make Paul their deputy and mouth to speake for them all seeing order requireth that six at once should not speake in this case Paul speaking the minde of all the rest in this singular act he is a deputy of Deputies and he representeth the whole six who were Messengers of the Church sent with the Epistle and these six were Deputies and Messengers of the councell but as these six Messengers sent by the councell could not lay their whole power on another to carry the Epistle to the Church of Antioch and bestow their labours elsewhere nor could one of these six deligates being chosen as deligate to speake for the rest put that power of speaking the mind of the whole six off himselfe to another in which sense one deligate cannot make another one Messenger cannot send another so the Presbyteriall or classicall Court convened as the deligates of the whole Congregations under them or rather deligates for them then of them decerning that one of a Congregation should be excommunicated may deligate one in that Congregation to pronounce the sentence and this one pronouncing the sentence as the deligate and Messenger of the Church is a deligate a deputy of deligates and deputies in one particular act and this our Brethren in their own Church-sentences pronounced by one Elder must also say Object 12. That neerest Church to whom we delate the offence of one single offender is a single Congregation else we must over-leap this Church and tell the Presbytery contrary to Christs direction but if he heare not that very Church to whom we tell the businesse he is excommunicated by that neerest Church as the words beare Ergo that nearest Church being single congregations may excommunicate and so it is the first Church and the Presbyterial Church is not the first Church Ans. That neerest Church to whom we delate the offence of the delinquent first in the case of wilfull obstinacy secondly in the case of consociation of Churches whom the obstinacy concerneth is not a congregationall Church having power of Jurisdiction entirely and compleatly to whom we must tell
neerely because as I sayd before the more universall the Church visible is the externall visible Communion is lâ—sse even as when the number of a Family is cut off by the Sword of the Magistrate the matter first and more intimately and more neerely concerneth the Family whereof hee is a Member yet it doth also concerne the Common-Wealth of which also hee is a Member A Finger of the right Hand is infected with a contagious Gangren it is to bee cut off yet the cutting-off concerneth more neerely the right Hand then it doth the left Hand and the whole Body For the contagion should first over-spread the right Hand and Arme and Shoulder before it infect the left Hand and the whole Body though it doe not a little concerne the whole Body also So though actuall Excommunication concerne all the Churches of the Presbyterie yet it doth more neerely concerne the Congregation whereof hee is a Member 2. The pronouncing of the sentence being edificative it is a fit meane to worke upon others but calling and trying of witnesses and Juridicall decerning of a Man to bee Excommunicated requiring secrecies yea and some scandals and circumstances of Adultery Incest Pestiality requiring a modest covering of them from Virgins young Men Children and the multitude wee have no warrant of GOD that they should bee tryed before the whole multitude nor are acts of Jurisdiction for their excellency to bee brought forth before the people but for their neerenesse of concernment and use of edification Object 12. The people are to consent yea they must have a power and some thing more than a consent in Excommunication Ergo they are all to bee present The antecedent is proved 1. Because they were not puffed up they did not keepe the Feast they did not dostaine from eating with the incestuous person onely by consent 2. Others not of that Church did excommunicate by consent 3. It is said v. 12 doe yee not judge them that are within Answ. If you will have them to excommunicate the same way that they doe other duties you may say they excommunicate the same way that Pastors and Elders doe and if they Judge vers 12. as the Elders doe either all the people are Judges and where are then all the governed if all bee governours or then hee speaketh in this Chapter to the Churches-Iudges onely 2. There bee degrees of consent these of other Churches have a tacite and remote consent the people of the Congregation are to heare and know the cause and deale in private with the offender and to mourne and pray for him Object 13. The highest and double honour is due to him who laboureth in the word 1 Tim. 5. 17. but if the Presbyteriall Church be the highest Church it shall not have the double honour for it is onely the governing Church Answ. Highest honour is due in suo genere to both And this is as if you should compare obedience and honour that I owe to my Father with that which I owe to my grand-Father 2. Paul 1 Tim. 5. 17. compareth Elders of diverse sorts together as the Ruling and Teaching Elder here you compare Pastors to bee honoured in respect of one act with themselves to bee honoured in respect of another act and this might prove I am to give more honour to my Pastor for preaching in the Pulpit then for ruling in the Church-Senate Object 14. The Congregation is the highest Church for it hath all the Ordinances Word Sacraments Jurisdiction Ergo there is not any Presbyteriall Church higher which hath only disciplinary power Answ. There is a double highnesse one of Christian Dignity 2. Another of Church-prehemenency or of Ecclesiasticall authority indeed the Congregation the former way is highest the company of Believers is the Spouse and ransomed Bride of Christ. But the Eldership hath the Ecclesiasticall eminency as the Kings heire and Sonne is above his Master and Teacher one way yet the Teacher as the Teacher by the fift Commandement is above the Kings Sonne as the Teacher is above him who is taught And so is the Case here Object 15. The Arguments for a Classicall or Presbyteriall Church do much side with Prelacy for you make many Lords ruling and not teaching Answ. Let all judge whether the independent power of three Elders accountable to none in a Church-way but to Iesus Christ onely as you make your little Kingdomes on Earth be neerer to the Popes Monarchy and especially when there is but one Pastor in the Congregation then the subordinate Government of fourescore or an hundred Eldersâ— sure I am three Neighbours are neerer to one Monarch then three hundred 2. One Monarchicall Society is as tyrannicall Antichristianism as one Monarchicall Pastor 3. If wee made many ruling and dominering Lords you should say something but wee make many servants endued onely with Ministeriall power onely to teach and rule and to bee accomptable to the Church your Eldership in this agreeth with the Pope that though they deliver many Soules to Satan yet no Man on Earth can in a Church-way say What doe you ACT. XV. A Patterne of a juridicall Synod THat the Apostles in that famous Synod Act. 15. did not goe on by the assistance of an immediately inspired spirit and by Apostolick authority but onely as Elders and the Doctors and Teachers assisted with an ordinary spirit to me is evident from the course of the context 1. Because Act. 15. when a controversie arise in the Church â—â— Antiochia Epiphanius saith as also Hieronymus by Câ—â—mbus and others touching the keeping of Moses his Law especially the Ceremonies except they would bee losers in the buâ—nesse of their salvation Paul could not goe as sent by Amiâ—h to submit that Doctrine which hee received not from flesh and blood but by the revelation of Jesus Christ Gal. 1. 12. to the determination of a Synod of Apostles and Elders for who would think that the immediatly inspiring spirit iâ— Pâ—ul would submit himselfe and his Doctrine to the immediately inspiring spirit in Paul Peter Apostles and Elders therefore Paul and Birnabas come as sent to Jerusalem not â—â— Apostles or as immediately inspired but as ordinary teachâ—â— Therefore saith Diodatus Not because these two A◠〈…〉 were every wayequall to the rest in the light and conduct 〈◊〉 Spirit and in Apostolicall authority Gal. 2. 6. 8. had any 〈◊〉 instruction or of confirmation but only to give the weake 〈◊〉 who had more confidence in Peter and James and in the Church at Jerusalem and to stop false doctors mouths and to estaâ—â—â—â— by common votes a generall order in the Church Hence when a controversie ariseth in the Apostolicke Church and the Controversie is betwixt an Apostle as Paul was and others and both sides alledge Scripture as here both did out of all controversie there is no reason that the Apostle Paul who was now a party should judge it and when a single Congregation in the like case is on two
and teach another But if our brethren give a positive power to a Synod to advise and counsell which private Christians have not then this Synodicall power shall not bee different from the power of private Christians gradually onely as a lesser power to advise differeth from a greater power but specifically and in nature And indeed some of our brethren teach so though I doubt if their brethren will returne them thankes for this way which to me is doubtsome For then the members of the Synod at Jerusalem seeme to mee to bee more then counsellers and there must bee a positive institution by our brethrens grounds to warrant a power Synodicall sentially different from a Church-power and essentially above it for wee teach that because a congregation is a part of a classicall Church and a classicall Church a part of a provinciall Church that this power in Congregations Presbyteries and Synods differ onely gradually in more or lesse extention and by the way Whereas some derive all Church-power from a single congregation to presbyteries and classes ascendendo by ascending others derive it from presbyteries to a Congregation descendendo yea and some from the Catholick visible Church to nationall assemblies and from nationall assemblies to provinciall Synods and from Synods to Presbyteries from Presbyteries to Congregations I with reverence of the learneder doe here conceive that there is no such cursory derivation to bee dreamed of but because the Catholick visible Church is the great organicall body whereof Christ Jesus God blessed for ever is head and King it is toâ—um integrale therefore there is no derivation either by climbing up staires or going downe but Jesus Christ hath communicated his power to this great politicall body and all its parts immediatly to a Congregation hee hath given by an immediat flux from himselfe a politicall Church power intrinsecally in it derived from none but immediately from Jesus Christ and the object of this power is those things that concerne a Congregation and that same head and Lord hath given immediatly an intrinsecall power to the Presbytery in things that are purely classicall and that without either the intervening derivation of either a Congregation that is inferior to the Presbytery by ascending or without any derivative flux of a Synodicall nationall or Catholick visible Church by descending and the like immediatly conveyed power politicall commeth from this glorious head to a Synodicall or nationall or the Catholick visible Church and the reason is the very nature of the visible Church which is totum integrale a great integrall intire body now we know that life commeth to the thighes immediatly from the soule neither by derivation from the feet and legs by way of ascending nor yet from the armes breaâ—s and shoulders by descending I deny not but here there may bee in other considerations some order as if you aske which is tâ—â— first Church I answer with these distinctions of primatus firstnesse 1. The first Church by way of constitution is a congregation in the family of Adam and Eâ—â— 2. The first Church by way of divine intention is the Catholick Church Hence secondly The first Church by generation or the order of generation and so the lesse perfit is a Congregation and here is an ascension still from the part to the whole from a Congregation to a Presbytery from thence to a provinciall Church from thence to a nationall from thence to the Catholick Church And the first Church by way of perfection is that Catholick Queen and Spouse which Christ is to present to the Father without spâ—â— or wrinkle and all parts are for this perfect whole all the ministery ordinances the dispensation of the worke of redemption Christ his death resurrection intercession c. are for this as the end the perfectum totum Ephes. 5. 25 26. Ephes. 4. 11. 12. 13. 1 Cor. 15. 23 24. Hence thirdly if wee regard the order of operation The Congregation is primum movens and primum operans for all the motions of the Catholick-Church beginneth at the inferior wheeles and at the lower spikes if a generall councell bee to inact any thing motions must begin at the single Congregation at Antioch at Jerusalem and from thence ascend to a Preshytery and from thence a nationall Church is to send their Commissioners to act in a Catholick councell though if wee looke to the power it selfe it is intrinsecally in the whole and in every part of the Catholick Church The fourth distinction considerable here is that wee are to regard either 1. The order of nature Or 1. The order of the inhesion of this power or 2. The order of time Or 2. Of the reall derivation of 〈◊〉 power If wee respect the order of nature the power by order of nature is given by Christ immediatly first to the whole Catholick Church as is proved before at length and by this order of natâ—â—â— inhereth first in the whole Catholick Church as mans organized intire whole body is by natures order the first adequat and principall subject of life and the reasonable soule not this â—â— this part but in regard of order of time or reall derivation of 〈◊〉 this whole power is immediatly conferred by Jesus Christ on the whole Catholicke visible Church and to every part of it and any reall derivation of power from one part of the Catholick Church to another by ascension or descension is not to bee dreamed of here As Commissioners of cities and shires have from those cities and shires who choosed them a virtuall power Parliamentary yet is it not formally a power Parliamentary while the Parliament receive them as formall members and then by Law of the State there falleth on them a formally parliamentall power so Commissioners have from their Churches which sent them onely a virtuall or radicall power but they have never a formally Synodicall power by virtue of a divine institution while they bee convened in Christs name Syn dically It is true the members of a generall councell derive their virtuall power to voyce and conclude from the naâ—â—â—nâ—ll Church that sent them to the councell but give me leave this is but a derived power of membership making them fit to bee incorporated in a Synod but being once incorporated they have by their power of order and by Christs immediate institution a power immediatly given by Christ in whose â—ames they conveene to voyce and conclude as a formall counâ—â—â— and to say It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to us they cannot say 〈◊〉 good to the Churches that sent us The 5. distinction is that the power is considered either â—exercised ordinarily or 2. occasionally In regard of the â—â—mer ordinary power is seated collaterally in the Congregation and Presbytery in each according to its proportion of power but because the power is compleater in the Presbyâ—â— which is a compleat body and lesse compleatly in the Congregation which is lesse compleat it is more
principally seated in the Presbytery in regard of the latter Synods are the first subject of the occasionall Church-power in things which â—e in common belong to many Presbyteries or to a nationall Church But to returne if the Synodicall power bee different in essence and nature and not gradually onely from the counsell and advise of Christians then first it is not a determination that bindeth by way of counsell and brotherly advise onely but under some higher consideration which is as like a Church-relation of Church-power as any thing can bee seeing here bee Pastors acting as Pastors 2. formally gathered in a councell 3. speaking Gods Word 4. by the holy Ghost But this shall bee against the Church-government of New England 2. If it bee essentially different from an advise and councell and warranted by divine institution why doe not our brethen give us Scripture for it for if they give us Act. 15. then can they not say that the Apostles in this Synod did determine and voyce as Apostles by an Apostolick and immediatly inspiring Spirit for the spirit Synodicall is a spirit imitable and a rule of pertually induring moralitie in all Synods and must leade us for an Apostolick spirit is not now in the world 3. As they require a positive divine institution for the frame of a Presbyteriall Church in power above a Congregation and will not bee satisfied with the light of nature which upon the supposall of a spirituall government instituted by Christ in a Congregation which is a part may clearely by the hand lead us to the inlarging of that same spirituall government in the whole that is to a number of consociated Churches which are all interessed as one common societie in a common government so they must make out for their Synod endued with dogmaticall power a positive divine institution 4. We desire a warrant from the Word why a colledge of Pastors determining by the Word of God as Pastors having power of order and acting in a colledge according to that power should not bee a formall and ordinary great Presbytery 5. How can they by our brethrens determination exercise such pastorall acts out of their owne Congregations towards those Churches to which they have no pastorall relation virtute potestatis ordinis 6. How can the wisedome of Christ who provideth that his servants bee not despised but that despisers in a Church way should bee censured 1 Tim. 1. 19 20. cloth his messengers in a Synod with a power dogmaticall and deny all power of iâ—â—â—diction to them upon the supposall that their determinations be rejected I feare there bee something under this that none are to bee censured or delivered to Satan for heterodox opinions except they erre in points fundamentall But farther it may bee made good that a power dogmaticall is not different in nature from a power of jurisdiction for we read not of any societie that hath power to meet to make Lawes and decrees which have not power also to backe their decrees with punishments if the Jewish Synedry might meet to declare judicially what was Gods Law in point of conscience and what not and to tie men to it they had power to conveene and make Lawes farre more may they punish contraveners of the Law for a nomothetick power in a societie which is the greater power and is in the fountaine must presuppose in the societie the lesse power which is to punish and the power of punishing is in the inferior judicature so a nomothetick power ministeriall cannot want a power of censuring It is true a single Pastor may ministerially give out commandements in the authoritie of Christ but hee cannot his alone censure or excommunicate the contraveners of those commandements but it followeth well in an assembly hee hath power to censure and excommunicate now here Pastors and Elders are in an assembly It is objected Pastors in a Synod have no jurisdiction as Pasters for what they doe as Pastors that they may doe there alone and on of a Synod but they doe not nor cannot determine and give out Canons there alone and they cannot there alone determine juridically therefore they doe not wholly and poorely as Pastors in relation to those Churches give out these decrees yet doe they not give out the decrees as privite men wholly but in some pastor all relation for Pastors as Pastors have something peculiar to them in all Churches whither they come to preach so as a speciall blessing followeth on their labours though they be not Pastors in relation to all the Churches they come to even as a Sermon on the Lords day is instamped with a more speciall blessing bâ—â—â—use of Gods institution imprinted on the day then a Sermon preached in another day Answ. This argument is much for us it is proper to acts of jurisdiction ecclesiasticall that they cannot bee exercised by one onely but must bee exercised by a societie now a Pastor as a Pastor his alone without any collaterally joyned with him exerciseth his pastorall acts of preaching and of administrating the Sacraments but those who give out those decrees cannot give them out Synodically but in a Synod and Court-wayes as forensicall decrees and so in a juridicall way and because Pastors whither so ever they come doe remaine Pastors 1. The Apostles are not in this Synod as Apostles Secondly nor yet as gifted Christians to give their counsell and advise nor thirdly as this answerer granteth meerely as Pastors then it must follow that fourthly they are here as such pastors conveened Synodically by divine institution and that this is the patterne of a Synod Object 2. But there is no censuring of persons for scandalls in this meeting because there is nothing here but a doctrinall declaration of the falsehood of their opinion who taught a necessitie of circumcision and that all is done by way of doctrine and by power of the Keyes of knowledge not of jurisdiction is cleare from the end of this meeting Act. 5. 2. Paul and Barnabas were sent from the Church of Antiocâ— unto Jerusalem unto the Apostles and Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concerning this question and v. 6. the Apostles and Elders came together to consider 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of this matter consideration of questions being the end of the Synod is a thing belonging to doctrinal power meerely so Mr. Mather Answ. 1. It is false that there is no censuring of persons here for to say nothing that Peter accuseth those of the wrong side as personally present at the Synod either being summoned or comming thither by appeale v. 10. Now therefore why tempt ye God to put a yoake upon the necke of the Discip'es c. which reproofe comming from one man onely cannot be called a Synodicall reproofe It is more then evident that the publick Synodicall censure of rebuke is put upon those who held and urged the necessitie of circumcision and why not excommunication also in case of obstinacy for the Synodicall censure
they are registred in the bookes of Old Testament bee formally Scripture yet as cited by the Apostles they dâ—e not become Scripture except these saying bee cited tali modo that is by the influence of the immediatly inspiring holy Ghost which influence onely maketh formally any saying to bee Scripture Object 12. If the Apostles did not in a Synod with the Elders dispute and voyce as Apostles it should follow that as Apostles they did plant Churches but after the Churches were planted they ceased to bee Apostles and did all as ordinary Elders which is most incongrâ—oâ—s for then should they descend from an infallible to a fallible spirit Answ. The Apostles did onely use their Apostolick power when there was need of it as God worketh not miracles but in some necessitating exigence of second causes and what they could doe by an ordinary power when the Churches were once constituted they did not attempt to doe by their Apostolick power and though their Apostolick power was in them as a habit yet the exercise thereof was rather under the dominion of an extraordinary and immediate rapt and influence of God then under the mastery of their owne free-will I would aske why the Church of Antioch no doubt most lawfully Act. 15. 2. did send to seeke resolution at the fallible spirit of Elders and also as our brethren teach at the infallible spirit of the Apostles and why did they not from their infallible and Apostolick spirit seeke out and choose seven men to bee Deacons but remitted to the fallible spirit of the multitude who are not infallible or Apostolick in their choise both the nomination and election of these seven men but the Apostles did much honour the Churches of Christ in cooperating with them and in doing most things with their consent that by example they might interdict dominion and assert a ministeriall power and make Christ most Monarch-like in the government of his spirituall Kingdome nor did they put off or interdict themselves nor forfeit their Apostolick power after Churches were constituted but used their Apostolick power at the Commandement of that great King exalted Jesus Christ whose Catholick Ambassadours they were as God immediatly moved them Object 13. Paul exercised the power of the Keyes of knowledge upon Barbarians and might have preached to Indians and did presâ—h to the scefling Athenians Ergo hee might exercise power of jurisdiction over them and judge those who are without it is no consequence and against the word of God 1 Cor. 5. 12. Yea Paul by this power dogmaticall rebuked the Athenians Act. 17. 22. I perceive that in all things yee are too superstitious yet Paul had no power to excommunicate the Athenians Mr. Mather Answ. I deny not but there is great odds betwixt a concionall rebukinâ— by way of preaching which may bee and is alwayes performed by one and a juridicall rebuking by a power juridicall of the Keyes which is performed onely by a Church-sâ—ciâ—tie now it cannot bee denyed but the rebuking of men because they subverted soules v. 24. is not a meere concionall rebuking which may bee performed by one 1. it is a rebuking v. 24. 2 it is a rebuking performed by many by a whole Synod v. 6. v. 22. 3 It is performed by a politicall societie and body having a dogmaticall power to judge and determine in a doctâ—inall way as our brethren say and consequently as wee say having a juridicall power v. 25. It seemed good unto us being assembled with one accord to send chosen men unto you c. which is undenyably a politicall body an assembled company as v. 6. met about a question which concerneth the Churches of Christ as is cleare v. 2. v. 6. v. 23. c. 16. 4 5. c. 21. 25. compared with v. 22. hence a businesse of doctrine which troubleth the Churches of Antioch c 15. 2. and of Jerusalem v. 5 6 7 8. and Syria and Cilicia v. 23 24. must bee a Church-businesse in respect of the subject 2. The question is a Church-question in the matter of practise it conoâ—rneth the consciences of the Churches in the point of taking and giving offence in a Church-societie as this doth v. 19. That yee trouble not them which amongst the Gentiles are turned unto God and v. 28 29. compared with 1 Cor. 10. 24 25 26 27 c. Rom. 14. 14 15. this was a Church-â—candall or publick offence as touching the matter materia quâ—nt 2 The forme and manner of deciding the controversie was a publick Church-way by the Word of God Act. 15. so 〈◊〉 proveth v. 7 8. 9. and James v. 15 16 c. maketh good 4 The efficient causes and agents in the question are 1. Church 〈◊〉 v. 6. Apostles and Elders 2. Church-officers conveened Church-wayes in a Church-body or societie v. 6. c. 15. and The Apostles and Elders came together in a Synod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a word which cur brethren acknowledgeth doth 1 Cor. 5. 4. note a formall Church-assembly to consider of this matter and â— 25. It seemed good to us being assembled with one accord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the very word Church is not wanting though with reverence of others it seemeth not to bee the multitude seeing the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beeing so generall must have its signification from the action and end for which the meeting is intended as before I said as is cleare v. 22. It pleased the Apostles Elders and whole Church 5. The action they performe when they are met in a politicall body is to decide a Church-controversie that troubled many Churches Act. 15. 2. v. 23 24. 6 The end is the peace and edifying of the Churches as that the Churches of the Gentiles bee not troubled with needlesse ceremonies as James saith v. 19. and the good of the Churches v. 29. from which if you keepe your selves yee shall doe well c. 16. 4. And â—s they went through the cities they delivered them the Decrees to 〈◊〉 v. 5. so were the Churches established in the faith Consider 〈◊〉 is the happy end and fruit of this Synod The establishâ—â—â— of the Churches Therefore have our brethren without reason I speake with reverence of their learning and godlinese denied the word Church to bee given to a Synod or a meeting of Elders which to mee is cleare Act. 15. v. 6. The 〈◊〉 sending is the Eldership of Antioch the Church receiâ—â—â— v. 4. is the Eldership at Jerusalem and cannot conveniently bee exponed of the whole and numerous thousands that â—â—eâ—ed at Jerusalem the rebuking cannot then bee meerely â—â—â—â—inall by the power of the keyes of knowledge which is exercised by one nor are the Apostles and Elders here considered as meerely Preachers and Teachers in the Act of teacher for why then should they not bee formally a Church and a Church-assembly as our Brethren say if they bee an assembly meeting for preaching the Word for the exercise of the keyes of Knowledge in the hearing of a multitnde
of the evill of their doings and to prevent the Babylonish captivity or a worse judgement except the KING will and all Religion and. 2. Church-worship must bee resolved ultimately on the KINGS will and pleasure for if it be not the KINGS pleasure to reforme the people must continue still where they were and Scotland who contrary to the will and heart of authority at our first Reformation put away the Masse and Popery and established Religion in sincerity is greatly to bee condemned Luther had authority against him and the powers of the World it was one point of Reformation that John Baptist tooke up against the Law of the Land to preach against Herods sinne for if Popery be in a Land to leave Popery is a great degree of Reformation and if the people without the Prince may goe on in the greatest step of Reformation why not also in the lesser except you say the people without the King are not to abstaine from the grossest Idolatry under the Sunne which is to worship and adore the worke of the Bakers hands Mr. Mather Mr. Thomson The name Church 1 Cor. 14. 4 5. 35. 26 27. 28. is plainly given to that company that did assemble and come together for performance of spirituall duties and for the exercise of spirituall gifts as Acts 14. 27. Acts 11. 26. 15. 4. 22. 30. 1 Cor. 11. 18. 20 22. 23. 3. Ioh. 6. which places doe abundantly shew that a company gathered together to one place is called by the name Church as Cencâ—rea Rom. 16. 1. which could not containe many Congregations being but the prot of Corinth Answ. We seeke no more if it be called a Church which conveneth for performance of spirituall duties as some of your places doe well prove Ergo no assembly should have the name of Church but such as assemble for Word and Sacraments this now you cannot affirme and it followeth not the Church spoken of Matthew 18. is not assembled to Word and Sacraments But to bind and loose on Earth The meeting 1 Cor. 5. 4. is not for Word and Sacraments but to deliver to Satan for ought wee can read the word Church Acts 14. 27. is not an Assembly for Word and Sacraments but to heare how God had opened the doors of Faith to the Gentiles and whether this was preaching of the Word and receiving the Sacraments or rather a matter that concerned the Apostles and Elders that they might not thinke hard to preach the Gospell to the Gentiles I leave to the judicious Reader and if to be received of the Church Acts 15. 4. be a matter of word and Sacraments let all judge And if to lend a decree of a Synod Acts 15. 22. be the act of a Church assembled for word and Sacraments let the World judge and therefore all these places doe strongly confirme a Presbytery assembled for acts of Iurisdiction and matters that belong to many Churches as is most cleare Acts 14. 27. Acts 15. 4. Acts 15. 22. and seeing wee finde the name Church given to a meeting assembled onely for discipline or things that concerne many Churches for any thing wee can read or observe from the word as Acts 14. 27. Acts 15. 4 22. 30. Matthew 18. 17. and also the word Church given to a meeting assembled for the word 1 Cor. 14. 1 Cor. 11. 18. 20 22 23. Rom. 16. 1. and not for acts of Jurisdiction for ought that wee can collect from the word I beseech you Brethren why doe we contend if the word Church be a meeting of persons assembled to one place for spirituall duties sometimes for word and Sacraments onely sometimes for acts of Jurisdiction onely then is the word Church by our brethrens argument taken both for the Congregation and for the Elders of one or of diverse Churches and so wee have our intent And we desire our brethren to prove which they must prove if they oppose our principles that the word Church is never taken for the Eldership onely in all the Word of God but these places prove the contrary as I have shewen 2. Whereas our brethren say a company gathered into one place which is nothing else but a Congregation are called by the name of a Church I answer 1. Such a company is onely called by the name of a Church as I have proved for a company meeting for discipline onely Matthew 18. 17 1 Cor. 5. 4. is a Church also 2. It is false that a company gathered in one place are nothing else but a Congregation As you take the word Congregation for to you Congregation is an assembly of men and Women meeting for word and Sacrament with the Elders of the Church I appeale to the judgement of our reverend brethren If the Church Mat. 18. 17. assembled to bind and loose if the Church 1 Cor. 5. 4. though the Text speake nothing of the word Church assembled to deliver to Satan If the Church assembled Acts 14. 27. Acts 15. 2. to heare things which concerned the Apostles and many Churches rather then one If the multitude convened Acts 15. 30. to heare the decree of the Synod read and if the Church of Apostles and Elders from Antiosh and Ierusalem Acts 15. 22. be a Congregation or a Congregationall Church assembled for word and Sacraments as the word Church is taken Acts 11. 26. 1 Cor. 11 20 22 33. Mr. Mather and Mr. Thomson Num. 8. 10. The children of Israel which were not the Church of Officers layd on hands on the Levites therefore when a Church hath no Elders the people may conferre ordination and it is not to be tyed to the Presbytery onely Hence other of our Brethren say ordination is but accidentall to a Ministers calling and may be wanting if the people shall chuse in the defect of Elders Answ. Here two poynts are to be discussed shortly 1. If Ordination belong to the People 2. If Ordination to a certaine stick be necessary for certainly the people doe not call but to a certaine flock To the first I say There is not a place in all the Word of God where the people conferre ordination to the Pastors of the New Testament Therefore our brethren flee to the Old Testament to prove it from the Levites who received imposition of hands from the children of Israel but our brethren hold that the calling of the Levites and of the Pastors of the New Testament are different as the Officers and Churches of the Jewish and Christian Church are different 2. Our brethren grant pag. 49. That it wanteth all example in the New Testament that the people lay on hands 3. These who layd on hands on the Levite Num. 8. were Elders and our brethren say It is like they were but. 1. They did it not as Elders 2. But as representing the people not as Elders civill for that belonged to Aaron and his sonnes Levit. 8. else it will follow that where the Church hath no Magistrate to lay on hands the
Christians Esal 54. 13. not denied to Women and believing Children who cannot lay on hands nor ordaine Ministers as the presbytery doth 1 Timothy 4. 14. Acts 6. 6. Acts 13. 1 2. 3. 1 Timothy 5. 22. 2 Timothy 2. 2. but for trying of Ministers if they bee the sonnes of the Prophets and must be apt to teach 1 Timothy 3. 1 2. able to convince subtile Hereticks and gain-sayers and to put them to silence Titus 1. 10. 11. there must be in a constituted Church a Colledge of pastors and prophets to try the prophets with a presbyteriall Cognizance But here some object If Election bee absolutely in the hâ—â—ds of the people then is the peoples will because will the absolute determiner who shall be the Pastor to such a flock but people certainly may erre therefore the Presbytery must bee the last determiner in election And people have onely a rationall consent and if their consent be irrationall the Presbyter must chuse for them I answer shortly in these propositions 1 Pro. Neither is the People infallible in chusing nor the Presbytery infallible in regulating the peoples choice yet is power of regulating the choice the presbyteries due nor power of election to be denied to Gods people 2. Pro. You must suppose the Church a settled and an established Church of sound professors for if the Congregation or presbytery either of them be for the most part popish Arminian or unsound in the Faith in so far hath Christ given neither power to the one or other 3. Prop. When it is acknowledged by both people and presbytery that of two or three men any one is qualified for the place then the man is absolutely to bee referred to the peoples choice and though the people give no reason why they chuse this man rather then any of the other two yet iâ— the Peoples choice reasonable for no doubt Acts. 6. there were more men then these seven of good report and full of the Holy Ghost and fit to be Deacons therefore the multitudes choice of these seven and their nomination of them to be Apostles rather then the nomination of any other men is rationall and approved by the twelve Apostles though they give no reason Yea though Nicolas be the Sâ—ctmaster of the Nicolaitans as the learned thinke yet the election is Ecclesiastically lawfull and needeth not that a reason be given to the Apostles 4. Prop. We never read that in the Apostles-Church a man was obtâ—uded upon the people against their will And therefore Election by the people in the Apostolique Church as Acts 1. 26. Acts 6. 2 3 4. Revel 2. 12. Acts 20. 28. must be our rule any election without the peoples consent must be no Election for if it please not the whole multitude as Acts 6. 5. it is not a choice 5. Prop. We must distinguish Election and Regulation of the Election 2. There is a Regulation of the Election positive and a Regulation negative Hence the presbyteries power consisteth only in a negative regulation of the peoples choice not in a positive For example Election is an elicit act of the people and their birthright and priviledge that Christ hath given to them and it cannot be taken from them if there be any Election it must be made by the people the presbytery even in case of the peoples aberration cannot usurpe the act of Election because the Apostles who yet had the gift of discerning spirits in a greater measure then the multitude remit the choice of the seven Deacons to the multitude Ergo the presbytery should doe the same yet may the presbytery negatively reggulate the Election and if the people out of the humour of itching eares chuse an unfit man in that case the presbytery may declare the Election irregular and null as suppose the multitude Acts 6 had chosen such a man or all the seven men like Simon Magus the twelve Apostles by their Ministeriall power might have impeded that Election or rather nomination as irregular and put them to chuse other seven men but the Apostles could not have chosen for them other seven for then Election should have bin taken out of the peoples hands Hence that distinction of elicit and imperate acts even as the understanding commandeth and directeth the will to such and such elicit actions and regulateth the will therein and yet the understanding can neither nill nor will and the King may punish pastors who preach Hereticall doct in vitiate the Sacrament but the King can neither preach the word himself nor administate the Sacraments so the presbytery may regulate negatively and hinderth Election of an unfit man but the presbytery cannot do as the Pâ—elate did who would name a man to the people and desire their consent but consent is not all the presbytery and neighbour Congregations have consent but no elective liberty given them by Christ but if the people refused their consent he Prelate without more a do chose and ordained the man and so he was obtruded on the people without any Election at all Ordination of an ordinary pastor is always to a certain flock Act. 20. 28. 1 Pet. 5. 1. Rev. 2. 1. yet here must we distinguish'd dedication to Christs service by the office 2. The exercise of the office in the former respect the pastor is a pastor every where and may be sent as a Pastor to plant Churches but ratione finis He is primariò principally to feed this flock and secundario and ratione medâ—i secondarily while he feedeth this flock he feedeth the Church universall Mr. Mather if people may not mâ—dle with ordination because it is proper to Timothy and Titus this may prove that they were Bishops who did ordaine Elders there alone which ministers may not do there for these Epistles are not written to them as Bishops alone nor as Elders alone but as to a mixt state including the people Answ. Some parcells of these Epistles are written to Timothy and Titus as Evangelists such as none may now do but they only â—â— 2 Tim. 4. 4. 1 Tit. 1. 3. Tim. 1. 5. and some other things which they gave in charge to Elders 2. Some things are written to them as Christians as 1 Tim. 1. 19. Tit. 3. 3. finaliter or objectively all is written for the Churches good but 3 the builk of the Epistle is written to them as Elders and is a rule of perpetuall government and especially 1 Tim. 1. 22. 2. Tim. 2. 2. for these and the like they were to doe with the presbytery as is cleare 1 Tim. 1. 14. Object The Congregations of Jerusalem were not fixed in their members and officers onely the Apostles preached to them if they were many congregations which is possible in a circular way now one Apostle to this assembly then another But in regard not one Paster could say this is my flock not this nor any flock could say Peter is our Pastor not Andrew Therefore there was no Church-state in any
bee sometimes physice impossible because of the corruption of mans nature there being bloody warres in Christendome yet it is morally lawfull for many things may bee inconvenient through mans wickednesse and so hic nunc not expedient which are morally lawfull 2. Conclusion Every particular Pastor hath a power though unproper of dominion and authoritie even out of a Synod about the Acts of preaching and determining truth according to the word of God as Jer. 1. 10. See I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdomes c. 1 Tim. 6. 17. Charge them that are rich that they bee not high minded c. 2 Tim. 4. 1. I charge thee before God and the Lord Jesus Christ who shall judge the quick and the dead c. So any Pastor hath power of dominion and authoritie over a Synod and Paul as a Pastor might preach even before the councell at Jerusalem passed their Synodicall determination Act. 15. that circumcision was not necessary and that to obstaine from things strangled from blood and fornication was necessary and lawfull yea and in preaching truth the Pastor is subject to no Synod But the Pastor hath not full power of jurisdiction about his acts of preaching necessary truth 1. Because the Church may for just causes deprive him from preaching 2. Because hee cannot use the censure of excommunication against those who refuse to receive his true and necessary doctrine without the Church joyne her power of jurisdiction with him 3. He his alone cannot in a Synod determine ecclesiastically and in an authoritative Church power that same truth which as a Pastor hee determined and with the power of pastorall dominion hee pressed upon the consciences of the Church yea of the whole Synod because one man is not the Church or Synod and James his alone Act. 15. v. 15. could but say Wherefore my sentence is that yee trouble not them which from among the Gentiles are turned unto God though this was the very word of God which James as a Pastor even as an ordinary Pastor might have preached in the name of God yet is it not the decree of the Church which the Churches is to keep Act. 16. 4. while it bee determined by the Church An example wee may have possible not unlike to this A man hath a power of dominion over his owne proper lands and goods to use them in God for his owne use but the supreme magistrate and Parliament hath a dominion of jurisdiction in a judiciall sentence over those same lands to forfeit them for crimes committed against King and State or this may cleare it Samuel hath a power immediately from God to annoint David King and in this hee is not subject to the suffrages of the tribes of Israel hee hath a power of dominion here but suppose wee that Samuel live till Gods time when all Israel shall crowne David King at Hebron Samuel as a part of the Assembly of Israel his alone without the suffrages of Israel could not make him King at Hebron Hence wee may see how weake the assertion of our brethren is who say That Synods should have power to bind the Churches say they wee see not Bellarmine indeed holdeth so But orthodox writers hold that the sentence of councels is but a certaine inquisition of the truth and a ministeriall and limited sentence so that the decree of a councell is of as great force as the reason thereof so saith Amesius and Junius But certainly this is a meer mistake of our brethren as if they were not orthodox writers but conspirers against the truth with Bellarmine who hold the authoritie of Synods The essentiall end to speak so of Synods is unitie and the eschewing of schisme and wee doubt not but Peter Paul James had in their Sermons and doctrine determined that same veritie to wit that the Law of Moses and ceremonies was a yoak not to bee laid upon the Christian Churches yet it was not a decree for unities sake and fuller authoritie binding the Churches to observe these as Act. 16. 4. while it was determined in a Synod Act. 5. 24. 25. But truely wee hold nothing in this common with Jesuites and Papists for wee condemne not that in Bellarmine that hee holdeth that lawfull Synods for of such wee dispute with him do bind the Churches to obedience in God to their decrees not because they say it but because they say it authoritatively from Gods Word authoritie of Synods no orthodox writers deny authoritie officiall as the representative Church of Christ they have He that heareth you heareth mee hee that despiseth you despiseth me Where two or three are gathered together in a Synod say our Divines I will bee amongst them But authoritie objective they have not so as what they say because they say it therefore the very matter object and thing said by them is no lesse the Word of God then if the Prophets and Apostles by divine inspiration had said it at least it is not infallibly true because they say it for that wee disclaime and it is that authoritie of Synods which Bellarmine and Papists hold Councells saith Bellarmine and Scripture are both infallible and the Jesuits of Rhemes and Lorinus the Jesuite said councells are infallible the holy Spirit is there present Gratian said all the decretall Epistles of Popes and the Canons of the Councells are of equall authoritie with the Scriptures and their Gregorius said hee received with the same reverence and authoritie the foure generall Councells the foure Evangelistâ— it is certaine saith Suarez that a Councell is an infallible rule of faith and Turrecremata saith the same It is certaine saith Bailius Councells are â—â— the Oracles of God to us in difficulties so saith Cajetanus Canus and Gregorius de Valentia wee hold the authoritie of Councels but ascribe to them as much power over the conscience as there is reason in them from Gods Word and no more But 2. This is a weake reason councels have no power to command obedience because their Canons and Decrees are of no more force then they have reason from Gods Word For 1. Friends brethren equals by that have no warrant to rebuke because their rebukes have but as much force as they have reason from the word of God for the reason is alike in both lawfull Pastors cannot command obedience in the Lord your independent Congregations cannot command that which bindeth the Church to obedience because the word or a commandement of a Pastor or your independent Church is onely a commandement ministeriall and limited and hath as much force as there is reason in it from the Word of God yea the Church of Corinâ—h hath not then the power of the Lord Jesus to excommunicate the incestuous person nor the Church of Thyatira to cast out and condemne Jezabell the false prophetesse nor do these commandements of the Synod
a Christian he is a member of the Church 5. The Kings power as King in things ecclesiasticke is not serviâ—e and meerely executive as the Churches servant to put their decrees in execution but it is regall princely and supreame 6. The object of the Kings power is not simply a peaceable life and externall peace of humane societies but also honesty and godlinesse but to be procured by a civill politicke regall and coactive way by the Sword of the secular arme as the object of the Church power is honesty and godlinesse to be procured by a ministeriall ecclesiasticall and spirituall power without any forcing of men by externall power 7. The end of Kingly power de jure by Gods right and divine Law exintentione Dei approbativâ is godlinesse but the end of Kingly power according to its essence and de facto is a quiet life though it attaine not Godlinesse as it doth not attaine that end nor can it attaine it amongst Pagans and yet there is a Kingly power in its essence whole and intire amongst Pagans where there is no godlinesse or Christian Religion 8. There is in Heathen Kings a regall and Kingly power to establish Christian Religion and adde regall sanctions to Christian Synods though there neither is nor can be during the state of Heathen Paganisme any Christian Religion there this power is essentially and actu primo regall yet as concerning execution it is vertuall onely 9. There is a difference betwixt a royall command under the paine of 〈◊〉 punishment with a royall power to punish the contraveners 〈◊〉 ecclesiasticke and a nomotbeticke power to make Church Lawes 〈…〉 hath the former power but not the latter 10. If the royall power be of that transcendent and eminent greatnesse as to make Lawes in all things belonging to Church 〈◊〉 and so as Camero must be heard saying that the â—ing is the supreame ruler and Church-men be as servants and instruments under him and doe all in the externall government of the Church by vertue of the Kings supreame authority the King is not much honoured by this for they must say that the King in the Physitian giveth dregs to the sicke in the Plow-man laboureth the earth in the fashioner seweth and sâ—aâ—eth garments whereas Paraeus who without reason also giveth to the Prince a nomothetick power in Church-matteâ—s doth except some things that the Prince cannot doe sometimes for want of right and law other sometimes for want of knowledge sometimes because it is against the dignity of his Majesty as in sordid and base arts 11. The power of governing the Church of the Jewes though it was ordinarily in the Priesthood the Sonnes of Aaron whose â—ippes did preserve ex officio knowledge Mal. 2. yet as the Prophets were raised up by God extraordinarily to teach they 〈◊〉 by that same extraordinary power did governe and therefore though the Kings of Israel were not Priests yet without doubt some of them were Prophets and as Prophets they did prophecy and as Prophets determine many things of Government by that same extraordinary power by which some of them to wit David and Solomon did prophecy and pen Caâ— niâ—k Scripture 12. There is one consideration of abuses and heresies manifestly re 〈◊〉 to Gods word and another of those things that are ordinar◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the former there is no neede of the Churches ministeriall power of condemning them and therefore Ezechias Josâ—as Asa â—â—osaphat did manifestly by the light of nature and Gods word 〈◊〉 abuses and Idolatry in Gods worship without the Churches 〈◊〉 seeing the Church representative was guilty of these cor 〈◊〉 us themselves but in the latter seeing the Kings place is to com 〈◊〉 and compell by externall force and bodily punishments and it is the Churches part to teach inserme binde and loose therefore the King can make no Church Canons Hence our first conclusion The Christian Magistrate as a Christian is a member of the Church but as a Magistrate he is not formally a member or part of the Church 1. Because he is neither a Pastor Doctor Elder nor Deacon as is cleare to any for these offices were compleate in the Church without the Magistrate Ephes. 1. 11. else Christ ascending to heaven should have given Kings for the edifying of his body Neither is hee as a Magistrate a part of the company of beleevers 1. Because then all Magistrates as Magistrates should bee professors of the faith which is knowne to bee false 2. Because the Magistrate as such is the head of an externall politick civill societie not of Christs body 2. The Magistrate as a Magistrate wanteth such things as essentially constituteth a member of the Church as a Magistrate onely hee hath neither baptisme profession nor faith because then heathen Magistrates should not bee Magistrates the contrary whereof the Word of God saith Jeremiah in Gods name commanded to obey the King of Babylon and Paul commanded to pray for Kings and heathen Magistrates 1 Tim. 2. 1. Hence let us have leave to deny these Hee who is the Churches nurs-father is the Churches father and a part of the family 2. Whose office it is to cause all in the visible Church to professe the truth obey God and keep his Commandements hee is a member of the Church 3. Hee who is a keeper and preserver of Law and Gospell by his office hee is by his office a member of the Church For the first hee is a father metaphorically and doth by an externall coactive power and by the sword nourish the Church and therefore is not the Church nor a part of the Church ex officio by his office as the nurs-father is not the child nor a part of the child whereof hee is nurse-father and this and both the other two are to bee denyed because the Magistrate doth neither nurse the Church nor cause the Church doe their dutie nor desend the Law and Gospell by any power that is intrinsecally Church-power but by the sword and coactive power which in no sort belongeth to Christs kingdome as a part thereof either as it is internall and invisible or externall or visible which is not of this world Joh. 1â— 36. 3. By no word of God can Salcobrigiensis and Weemes prove that the Magistrate as the Magistrate is a mixt persen and his power a mixt power partly civill partly ecclesiastick for â—â— the ruler commeth in amongst the ordinary Church-officers â— m. 12. Ephes. 4. 11. 1 Tim. 2. 2. which the Word of God doth â—â—ver insinuate and hee should no lesse watch for soules as â—â—e who is to give an account to God then other Church-officers Heb. 13. 17. for the Magistrates office may bee performed by himselfe alone hee himselfe alone may use the sword in all things which hee doth as a Magistrate as is cleare Rom. 13. 1. and 1 Pet. 2. 13. 14 the King judging his alone and the Kings deputie sent by him judging his alone is to
bee obeyed but no Church power mixt or pure and unmixt is committed to any one man but to many as to the Church Matth. 18. 17. 1 Cer. 5. 2. 3 4. 2 Cor. 2. 6 4. The Magistrate as the Magistrate hath a civill dominion ever the body goods and lives of men 2. And hath the sword to compell men to doe their duties 3. And compelleth to externall obedience and leadeth men on to godlinesse and to eternall life by externall pompe force and the terrors of bodily and externall punishment and his warfare is carnall aâ— the Scripture doth prove but the Church and members of the Church as they are such have no majoritie of dominion 1 Pet. 5. 3 4. Luke 22. 24. 25. over the body and goods and blood of men 2. They have not the sword nor power of the sword Joh. 18. 36. John 8. 11. Luke 12. 13. 14. 2 Cor. 10. 4. 3. The Church as the Church dealeth by the word of admonisting teaching rebuking excommunicating praying and requesting as the Scripture cleareth therefore the power of the Church and the power of the magistrate must dister in spece and nature 5. If the Magistrate be a chiefe member of the Church as a Magistrate with mixt power to make Church-Lawes then is the Church not perfect in its beeing and operations to obtaine the end convenient to the Church as the Church so long as it wanteth the Magistrate because it should bee made defective and not able to exercise all its operations for the edification of Christs body and gathering of the Saints Ephes. 4. 11. without this principall member especially seeing the Magistrate is alleadged to bee a member or integrall part of the Church such as the head or eyes otherwise without this or that professor a Church may be perfect as an army may be perfect without this or that common Souldier but wanting a Leader it should not bee perfect But so it is that the Church is and was perfect in its being and operations without the civill Magistrate the Church of Corinth where the Magistrate was a heathen and a Pagan 1 Cor. 6. 1 2 3. is yet a Church sanctified in Christ Jesus called to bee Saints 1 Cor. 1. 2 graced v. 4. inriched by Christ in all utterance and knowledge v. 5. comming behind in no gift v. 7. with power of excommunication which attaineth its proper end the saving of the spirit in the day of the Lord Jesus 1 Cor. 5. 4. A perfect body of Christ 1 Cor. 12. able to edifie the whole body 1 Cor. 14. 12. 25 26 27. having power of the seales of the Covenant 1 Cor. 11. 20 21 22 23. So was there a perfect Church-Synod without the civill Magistrate Act. 1. Act. 6. Act. 15. and all for the saving of the redeemed Church is laid upon the Eldership of Ephesus Act. 20. 28 29 30 31. without the Magistrate 6. If the King bee a mixt person indued with Church power to make canons and because annointed with holy oyle capable of jurisdiction ecclesiasticall as some say then as hee is a King by birth so is hee also borne with an ecclesiasticall power to exercise spirituall jurisdiction but Paul saith all ecclesiasticall power that hee had was given of God not borne with him hee was made not borne a Minister Col. 2. 25. the power to edifie was given him 2 Cor. 10. 8. 2. Conclusion Wee cannot by the Word of God acknowledge that difference betwixt the Magistrate and the Christian Magistrate that the Magistrat as a Magistrate hath a kingly power to rule over men as men and the Christian Magistrate hath a Christian kingly power to rule over men as they are Christians Because by one and the same kingly power the King ruleth over men as men and men as Christian men commanding by the sword and kingly power that Pastors preach sound doctrin administrate the Sacraments aright that all the Church professe Christ and abstaine from blasphemy and Idolatry Hee is the minister of God for good Rom. 13. Ergo hee is the Minister of God for all good for a Christian good and is a King compelling to a Christian good Also though the King were not a Christian magistrate yet hath hee a Kingly power to command men as Christians and it is by accident that hee cannot in that state actually command Christian duties and service to Christ because hee will not and cannot command these duties remaining ignorant of Christ even as a King ignorant of necessary civill duties cannot command them not because hee wanteth kingly power to command these civill things for undeniably hee is a Judge in all civill things but because hee hath not knowledge of them 3. Christianitie maketh him not a King over Christians as Christians for then hee could not bee their King and were not a King over Christians so long as hee wanteth Christianitie which is false for the Christians acknowledged heathen Emperours as their Kings the people of God were to obey Nebuchadnezzar Darius Cyrus and other beathen Kings Paul will have obedience and subjection due to every power Rom. 13. 1 2. 1 Tim. 2. 1 2 3. 1 Pet. 2. 7. 18. 4. It maketh way to the popish dethroning of Kings when they turne hereticks and leave off to bee members of the Christian Church which wee abhorre 5. A King is parens patriae the father of the Commonwealth Now Christianitie addeth no new fatherly power to a father over his children for a heathen father is as essentially a father as a Christian Father and a heathen commander in warre a heathen husband a heathen master a heathen doctor or teacher are all as essentially commanders husbands c. in relation to their soul diers wives servants and schollers as are the Christian commander the Christian husband the Christian master and Christian Doctor in relation to Christian souldiers Christian wives c. and no man can say that Christianitie giveth a new husband-right to the husband once a heathen over his wife that hee had not before 3. Conclusion The King is not debarred as King from the inspection oversight and care of ecclesiasticall affaires but the end of the Kingly power is not onely externall peace but also godlinesse 1 Tim. 2. 2. And in the intrinsecall end of magistracie as magistracie is not onely naturall happinesse and a quiet of life as Spalatâ— and after him that learned author Apollonius saith but also godlinesse that wee may lead a quiet and a peaceable life in all godlinesse and bâ—nesâ—ie Ergo in all that may conduce to life eternall hee is a King by office but in a coactive and regall way 2. The ruler is Rom. 13. 4 The minister of God to thee for good v. 3. Do that which is good and thou shalt have praise of the Ruler then looke how farre good and well doing which is praiseworthy extendeth as farre doth the intrinsecall end of magistracy reach but this good and welldoing which the magistrate as
the magistrate procureth is not onely a naturall happinesse and the quiet life of a civill societie but also the good and well doing of Christians as Christians to wit publick praying praysing preaching hearing of the word religious administration and receiving of the Sacraments all which the King as King is to procure for what ever good externall Pastors as Pastors doe procure that same also but in a civill and coactive way is the King as the King to procure and therefore his end as King is godlinesse and eternall life but he is busied about this end after a farre other and more carnall way then the pastor the weapons of whose warfare are not carnall 3. That the Kings end intrinsecall as King is more then externall and naturall peace is cleare because ill doing against which he as the Minister of God is to execute vengeance and wrath Rom. 13. 3 4. is not onely that which is contrary to externall quietnesse of the commonwealth and the naturall happinesse of civill societies but also that which is contrary to the happinesse supernaturall of the Church as beleevers in the way to life eternall for hee is to take vengeance upon blasphemy idolatry professed unbeleefe neglect of religious administration of the seales and the eating and drinking damnation at the Lords Table which are ills not formally contrary to externall quietnesse but which are directly scandalls and morall ills hindering men as members of the Church in their journey to life eternall for though men should never falle oâ— sinne against the externall quietnesse of the naturall happinesse of the members of a commonwealth yet the magistrate as the magistrate is to execute vengeance upon all externall ill-doing as blasphemy adoring of idolls 4. The magistrate as the magistrate in the zeale of God is to set himselfe against sinnes as dishonorable to God and his glory seeing the judgement that hee executeth is not mans but the Lords 2 Chron. 1â— 6. and hee is a little God in the roome of God yea God â—â—tteth judging in and through him Psal. 82. v. 1. and therefore his end is not onely to punish sinnes as they trouble the externall peace of the commonwealth but all externall sinnes that may wound the honour of God and against which the magistrate as he is such is to be armed and cloathed with zeale 5. Those who with Spalato teach that life eternall is not the end of the magistrate as a magistrate but onely the extrinsecall end of the magistrate or the end of the person who is the magistrate must foulely erre so it is not in their meaning the end of the office or kingly art to maintaine religion and piâ—tie but this is the end of the person cloathed with the office and so they deny that God hath destined the kingly office to helpe men as Christians to heaven and to promove Christs kingdome mediatory and they must bee forced to say God hath ordained magistracie to helpe men as men or as they have a life common to them with the beasts and not to helpe them as Christian men to â—â—ie from the wrath to come and obtaine life eternall which certainly is against the honour of magistracie which of its owne nature is destined for the promoving of religion else the magistrate as the magistrate is not a nurs-father in the Church nor to bring his glory to the new Jerusalem nor to kisse the Sonne nor to exalt the throne of Jesus Christ contrary to the Word of God 6. Yea they were onely to promove the Church as a societie of men and to set up the throne of justice for the second table of the Law and not a throne for pietie and for the first table of the Law which is observed by Augustine who will have Kings to serve the Lord not onely â—â—men but also as Kings in such sort which none can doe who are not Kings and that â—â— onely in civill â—ffaires but also in matters concerning divine religion which passage as Bellarmine corrupteth it on the one hand making the King a Governour of men according to their bodies and his old father the Antichrist a governouâ— of men according to their soules so doth that virulent libeller Lysimachus Nicanor with no reason inferre that the King is head of the Church and hath a Nomothetick power to impose the service booke and booke of Canons upon the Church of Scotland But because the King as King is to promove religion therefore saith Junius Minos Lyâ—urgus Charondas Zeleuâ—us and Numa obliâ—ged men to their Lawes by some colour of religion 7. Nor doe I thinke what is said against this by some learned men of great weight see Guliel Apollonius Spalatensis Tilenus Daneus Buâ—anus Professor Leidens Some say the magistrates power and the ecclesiastick power differ in the objects the Magistrates powers say they object is things earthly and the externall man the power of the Church is things spirituall and the inner man I answer these two powers differ in the objects no question I meane in the formall objects not in the materiall for the magistrate as a magistrate is a nurs-father and keeper and avenger of both Tables of the Law and hath a coactive power about hearing the word administration of the Sacraments Idolatry blasphemy and the right serving of God in Jesus Christ and these things are not res terrenae earthly things or things of this life but spirituall things Yea the affaires of Jehovah and the Kings matters 2 Chron. 19. 11. saith Amesius are not so different non it a disparata sunt as that the care and knowledge of the things of God belongeth not to the King sed it a distinguuntur ut in modo procurandi rex politice suas partes agat sacerdos ecclesiastice suas the objects of the magistrates power and of the Churches power may be materially and are one the same but the King worketh in a coactive and kingly way and the Church in an ecclesiastick and spirituall way For doe not both the King as King and the Church as the Church command and forbid one and the same thing doth not the King command the right worship of God and forbid Idolatry and the Blasphemy of God and doth not the Church in their Synodical Canons command and forbid one and these some things yea certainly but the King doth command and forbid by a kingly and coactive power under the paine of boâ—â—lv punishment as incarceration exile proscription or death according to the quality of the fact And the Church commandeth also the right worship of God and forbiddeth Blasphemy and Idolatry but by a spirituall and ecclesiastick power and under the paine of spirituall and ecclesiasticall censures as open rebuke suspension and excommunication and they differ not so in their ends as some teach so as the end of the Church powes should be the communion of Saints and the edifying of the body of the
Church which I grant is true and the end of the Ruler should be onely preservation of peace and the externall tranquillity of the Common-wealth yea I say from the Word of God that externall peace is too narrow an end and it doth belong to the second Table the Kings end as Nurse-father and his a like care is to preserve the first Table and as a Nurse-father to see that the childrens milke be good and wholesome though the milke come not from his owne breasts and so his power hath a kingly relation to all the Word of God and not to externall peace and naturall happinesse onely And the King as the King his end is edification and spirituall good of soules also but alwayes by a kingly power and in a coactive way by the sword whereas the Church are in their care of edifying soules to use no such carnall weapons in their warfare 2 Cor. 10. 4. For which cause that learned P. Martyr and 〈◊〉 Parker and also the Professors of Leyden say that Ministers deale with consciences of men Quoniam Spiritus Sanctus inquit Martyr vim suam adjungit cum praedicationibus orthodoxis the holy Spirit conjoyneth the power and influence of grace with sound preaching and the Magistrate doth onely exercise externall discipline And Parker reasoning against Whitgift and 〈◊〉 proveth well that the Church visible though externall yet is Christs spirituall Kingdome and that Church discipline is a part of Christs spirituall Kingdome and that the externall government of Christ by discipline is spirituall every way according to the efficient 1 Cor. 12. 1. according to the end spirituall â—dification Ephes. 4. 12. according to the matter the Word and Sacraments 2 Cor. 10. 3 4. according to the forme of working by the evidence of the Spirit 2 Cor. 2. 4. 13. And this is the cause I conceive why great Divines have said the object of the Magistrates power as a Magistrate is the externall man and earthly things because he doth not in such a spirituall way of working take care of the two Tables of the Law as the Pastor doth and yet the spirituall good and edification of the Church in the right preaching of the Word the Sacraments and pure discipline is his end It is true whether the blasphemer professe repentance or not the Magistrate is to punish yea and to take his life if he in seducing of many have prevailed but yet his end is edification even in taking away the life for he is to put away evill that all Israel may feare and doe so no more but this edification is procured by the sword and by a coactive power and so the Church power and the kingly power differ in their formall objects and their formall ends But Spalato speaketh ignorantly of Kings Who saith as the internall and proper end of the Art of painting the Art of sailing c. is not life eternall but onely to paint well according to the precepts of Art and to bring men safe to their harborie though the persons who are painters and sailers may direct works of their Art to life eternall so saith he the end of the kingly Art is not life eternall but onely the externall peace of the Common wealth hence inferreth he that there is no subordinatim betwixt the power of the Magistrate and the power of the Church but that they are both so immediate under God as the Church cannot in a Church way regulate the King as a King but onely as he is a christian man the Church may rebuke the King while as he abuseth his kingly power to the destruction of soules and that the Church power as such is not subordinate to the kingly power onely the King may correct with the sword the Pastors not as Churchmen and Pasâ—ors but as men who are his subjects But 1. whereas it is certaine the King in respect of politick power is the immediate Vicegerent of God and above any subject in his Dominions so doth the Bishop make the Shoe-maker the Painter the master-fashioner immediate unto God and censurable by none as they are Artificers even as the King is censurable by none as King and so the King is dishonoured who by office is the Lords annoynted and a little God on earth Psal. 82. v. 1. 2 The intrinsecall end of kingly power is no more the advancing of godlinesse and the promoving of the Kings daughter towards life eternall by the sincere milke of the Word as the Lords Vicegerent and Nurse-Father of the Church then the Painter as a Painter or a Sea-man as a Sea-man is to advance godlinesse for this mans intrinsecall and is onely a safe harbour and shoare to temporall lives not the harbour of salvation to soules and his end is onely a faire Image of Art in Paper or Clay not the Image of the second Adam and by this the King as King is interdicted of any Church businesse or care of soules to be fed by the Word or Sacraments to keepe them cleane if he looke to any of these as an end that is not the eye or intention of the King as King but of the King as a godly Christian saith Spalato hence to care for the spirituall good of the Church and the promoving of the Gospel is as accidentall as to say an excellent Painter such as Apâ—ies intendeth in his painting life eternall so the King by this looketh to the Law of God to Religion and the eternall happinesse of the Church by guesse by accident and as King hath neither chaire nor roome in Christian Synods nor a seat in the Church 3. If the meaning be that the King as King that is rightly exercisng the office of a King is subordinate to no Church power that is he cannot be justly and deservedly rebuked by Pastors that is most true but nothing to any purpose for so the Pastor as a Pastor Jeremiah as he doth truly and in the name of the Lord exercise the propheticall office cannot be deservedly censured nor punished either by the Church-synodrie or the King and Princes of the Land but thus way all members of the Church an I any one single beleever doing his duty should be as immediate and independent and highest next on earth to Christ as the King and his three Estates of the Honourable Parliament are in civill matters and as an Occumenick Councell or in our brethrens meaning independent Congregation which is against reason But if the meaning be the acts of a King as aberring from justice not as a King but as a fraile man may be censured and rebuked deservedly by Pastors in a Church way this way also the Pastor as a Pastor is not subject to the Church but onely as a fraile man and so nothing is said to the purpose in this more then the in the former But if the meaning be thirdly that which onely maketh good sense that the acts of the King abstracted from good or bad or as kingly or
but a power to define in Synods and the exercise of acts Ecclesiasticall and matters Ecclesiasticall are due to Ecclesiasticall persons and to the Church Ergo they are not competent to the civill Judge The proposition is evident by differences betwixt Ecclesiasticall persons and civill Magistrates which might be more accurately set downe by others then by me But they differ 1. that the Churches power is spirituall the Magistrates causatively effectively or objectively spirituall but not intrinsecally and formally spirituall because he may command by the power of the sword spirituall acts of preaching administrating the Sacraments purely of defining necessary truths in Synods and forbid the contrary but he cannot formally himselfe exercise these acts 2. The Church-men are members of the Church the Magistrate as such is a politick Father and Tutor of the Church but not formally as he is such a member of the Church 3. The power of the Magistrate is carnall and corporall and coactive upon the bodies for which cause Tylenus Daneus and others say the externall man is the object of his power the power of the Church is spirituall not carnall not coactive not bounded upon the body the Church hath neither power of heading or hanging but onely they may use the sword of the Spirit exhortations rebukes censures excommunication 4. Edification to be procured by the Word and Sacraments and Church-censures is the end of Church-power but edification to be procured by the sword is the end of the civill Magistrate 5. The Magistrate judgeth not what is true and false to be beleeved simply as teaching instructing and informing the conscience but onely what is true and false to be beleeved or professed in relation to his sword and bodily punishment or civill rewards 6. The Magistrates judgement is kingly supreame peremptory and highest on earth from which we are to provoke in no sort except in appealing to God the Churches judgement is ministeriall conditionall limited by the Word of God 7. The Magistrates power is over all Heathen and Christian over men as men and over men as Christians and agreeth to Heathen and Christian Magistrates alike the Church power agreeth onely to members of the Church and is onely over members of the Church as they are such 8. What ever causes the Magistrate handleth as hurtfull to the Common-wealth and contrary to the Law of God in a politicke and civill way these same the Churches handleth as they promote edification or if they be sinnes the Church cognosceth of them sub ratique scandali as they are Church scandals 9. The civill power is above the Church-men as they are Church-men and members of a Christian Common-wealth and the Church power is above the Magistrate as he is a member of the Church and to be edified to salvation or censured for scandals Matth. 18. 17. 2 This. 15. 13. 1 Tim. 5. 20. and therefore there is both a mutuall subordination betwixt the honors and also because both are highest and most supreme in their â—ind they are also coordinate and two parallel supreme powers on earth as the Church hath no politick power at all so hath the Church no politick power above the King but he is the onely supreme power on earth immediate under God so the King hath no power formally and intrinsecally ecclesiasticall over either the Church or any member of the Church but the Churches power is supreme under Christ the King and head of the Church 10. The Churches power may be without the Magistrate and is compleat both in being and operation as Acts 1. 1. and Acts 15. 1 2. 1 Cor. 5. 1 2 3 4. without it yet it is helped much by the Magistrates power which is cumulative to ad help to the Church and not privative to take away any right or priviledge from the Church for then the Church should be in worse case and greater bondage under a Christian King then if there were no King to defend the Church at al if the Kings power were privative and it is true the Churches own power is cumulative not privative because the Church hath no power to take nothing from it selfe but the King is to adde his royall â—â—ield to the Bride of Christ out of zeale to the honour of the Bridegroome for a politick promoving of godlinesse which the Church as such wanteth But the kingly power though it may be and is in Heathen Nations perfect in its being without the Church power yet is it not perfect in its operations as is said 11. The Church power is to goe before and to define prescribe and teach first and the civill power to adde a civill sanction thereunto as an accumulative and auxiliary supplement 12. The Magistrate hath no power properly to define controversies yet hath he the power of the judgement and discretion and also may with a coactive power cognosce in a politick way of Church matters in reference to the use of the sword but the Church as the Church hath a ministeriall power 〈◊〉 to define controversies according to the Word of God 13. Every one helpeth another to obtaine their owne ends but hey cannot be contrary one to another formally yet doe these differences prove that the Magistrate as such cannot detine in a Synod what is truly to be beleeved and practised by members of the Church what not And also godly Princes have refused this Hosius Cordubensis writeth to Constantius the Arrian Emperour which words Athanasius commendeth Desine desine quaeso memineris te mortalem esse reformida diâ—m judiâ—ii neque te immisecas eco'esiasticis nec nobis in hoc genere praecipe seâ—eâ— potius a nobis disce tibi autem dâ—us imperiunâ— commisit nobis autem quae sunt ecclesiae concredidit Ambrosius epist. 14. ut alii 33. ad Marcellinam sororem dicit se Valentiniano dicere Nolite gravare imperator ut â—uâ—es te in e t quae divina sunt imperiale jus habere noli te extollere sed si vis divinitus imperare esto c. subditus ad imperatorem palatia pertinent ad sacerdotem ecclesia publicorum tibi maenium jus ancessum est non sacrorum Augustin Epist. 48. 162. Neque ausus est Christianus imperator sic eorum Donaristarum tumultuosas et fallaces querelas suscipere ut de judicio Episcoporum qui Romae sederent ipse judicaret 16. iis ipse imperator cessit ut de illa causa post Fpiseopos ipse judicaret a sanctis antistitibus postea veniam petitucus Chrysost. hom 4. 5. de verbis Esa. Qumquam admirandus videtur thronus regius tamen rerum terrenarum administrationem sortitus est nee praeter potestatem hanc praetere â—quicquam autoritatis habet Leontius Tripolis Lydiae Episcopus cum Constantius in eonventu Episcoporum multa praescriberet Miror inquit qui fiat ut aliis curandis destinatus alia tractes qui cum rei militari et reipublicae praesis Episcopis ea praescribas quae ad
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
answerable for soules Heb. 13. 18. 4. It is tyrannicall because it putteth power into the Magistrates hand to take from the Church that inbred and inâ—rinsecall power of externall and visible government over her selfe and members which all civill incorporations by instinct of nature have and the Magistrate as such not being a member of the Church hath a headship even being a heathen Magistrate over the redeemed body of Christ. 2. By this reason the Lord Jesus as King hath no Pastors in his name to use the â—â—ves of his kingdom by binding and loosing for discipline being an externall thing say they is not a part of Christs kingly power but the King as Christs civill vicar hath this power but I say all acts of Christ as hee is efficacious by the Gospel to gaine soules are acts of Christ as powerfull by the Scepter of his Word and those who are his instruments to exercise these acts are subordined to him as King of the Church but Church-men by an externall ecclesiasticall power delivering to Satan and externally and visibly casting out of the Church that the spirit may bee saved in the day of the Lord are instruments subordined to Christ who is efficacious to save spirits by excommunication and to gaine soules by rebukes Gregorius Magnus saith those to whom Christ hath given the Keyes of his kingdome by these hee judgeth and why is this word the word of his kingdome the Scepter of his kingdome the sword that commeth out of his mouth by which hee governeth his subjects and subdueth nations so called but because Christs kingly power is with those whom hee hath made dispensators of his Word 9. Conclusion Nor hath the King power of ordaining Pastors or depriving them or of excommunication 1. All these are acts of spirituall and ecclesiasticall power 1 Tim. 3. 14. 1 Tim. 5. 22. Act. 6. 6. Act. 13. 3. Act. 14. 23. Tit. 1. 5 6. and flow from the power of the keyes given by Christ to his Apostles and their successors Matth. 28. 18 19 20. Mark 16. 14 15 16. Joh. 20. 21 22 23. Hence I argue to whom Christ hath given out his power as King of the Church Matth. 28. 18 19. power of the keyes Matth. 18. 18. Matth. 16. 19. and a commandement to lay hands and ordaine qualified men for the ministry and those who by the holy Ghosts direction practised that power by ordaining of Elders these onely have right to ordaine Elders and their successors after them but Apostles and their successors onely are those to whom Christ gave that power and who exercised that power as the places prove 2. Ordination and election both in the primitive Church of the Apostles was done by the Church and consent of the multitude Act. 1. Act. 6. 2 3 4. 5 6 c. but the civill Magistrate is neither the Church nor the multitude 3. Ordination is an act formally of an ecclesiasticall power but the Magistrate as the Magistrate hath no ecclesiasticall power Ergo hee cannot exercise an act of ecclesiasticall power 4. If ordination were an act of Kingly power due to the King as King then 1. The Apostles and Elders usurped in the Apostolick Church the office and throne of the King and that behoved to bee in them an extraordinary and temporary power but wee never find rules tying to the end of the world given to Timothies and Elders of the Church anent the regulating of extraordinary and temporary power that were against the wisedome of God to command Timothy to commit the Word to faithfull men who are able to teach others as 2 Tim. 2. 2. and to set downe the qualification of Pastors Elders Doctors and Deacons to Timothy as a Church man with a charge to keepe such commandements unviolable to Christs second appearing if Timothy and his successors in the holy ministry were to bee denuded of that power by the incoming of Christian Magistrates 2. The King by the laying on of his hands should appoint Elders in every citie and the spirits of the Prophets should bee subject to the King not to the Prophets as the word saith 1 Cor. 14. 32. 5. Those who have a Church power to ordaine and deprive Pastors must by office try the doctrine and be able to 〈…〉 sayers and to finde out the Foxes in their hereticall wayes and to rebuke them sharpely that they may bee sound in the faith but this by office is required of Pastors and not of the King as is evident 1 Tim. 3. 2. 2 Tim. 2. 2â— Tit. 1. 9 10 11. It is not enough to say it is sufficient that the King try the abilities of such as are to bee ordained and the bontgates of hereticall spirits to bee deprived by Pastors and Church men their counsell and ministery and upon their testimony the King is to ordaine and make or exauthorate and unmake Pastors because 1. so were the King a servant by office to that which Church men shall by office determine which they condemne in our doctrine which wee hold in a right and sound meaning 2. He who by office is to admit to an office and deprive from an office must also by office bee obliged to bee such as can try what the office requireth of due to bee performed by the officer nor is it enough which some say that the ignorance of the King in civill things taketh not away his legall power to judge in civill things and by that same reason his ignorance in Church matters taketh not away his power to judge in ecclesiasticall matters for I doe not reason from gifts and knowledge that is in the King simply but from gifts which â—xâ—fficio by vertue of his Kingly office is required in him It is â—â—ue as King hee is oblieged to read continually in the book of the Law of God Deut. 17. and to know what is truth what hereâ—ie in so faâ—re as hee commandeth that Pastors preach sound doctrine and that as a Judge hee is to punish heresie Some say hee is to have the knowledge of private discretion as a Christian that hee punish not blindly I thinke hee is to know judicially as a King 1. Because hee hath a regall and judiciall knowledge of civill things even of the major proposition and not of the assumption and fact onely Ergo seeing hee is by that same kingly power to judge of treason against the Crown the civill State by which he is to judge of heresie to punish heresie it would seeme as King hee is to cognosce in both by a kingly power both what is Law and what is fact 2. Because the judgement of private discretion common to all Christians is due to the King as a Christian not as a King but the cognition that the King is to take of heresie and blasphemy whether it bee heresie or blasphemy that the Church â—â—â—â—eth heresie and blasphemy is due to the King as King because hee is a civill Judge therein and if the Church
should call Christs doctrine blasphemy Caesar and his deputie Pontius Pilat as Judges civill are to judge it truth Neither would I â—â—iâ—â—â—ly here contend for whether the Kings knowledge of herese in the major proposition bee judiciall or the knowledge of discretion onely as some say wee agree in this against Papistâ— that the King is not a blind servant to the Church to punish what the Church calleth heresie without any examination or tryall but though the Kings knowledge of heresie in the proposition and in Law bee judiciall and kingly yet because hee is to cognosce onely in so farre as hee is to compell and punish with the sword not by instructing and teaching It would not hence follow that hee is to make Church constitutions as King but onely that hee may punish those who maketh wicked constitutions because the Canon maker is a ministeriall teacher the King as King may command that hee teach truth and hee may punish hereticall teaching but as King he is not a teacher either in Synod or Senate in Pulpit or on the Throne now if the King by office ordaine Pastors and deprive them by office hee is to know who are able to teach others aâ—d must bee able also to stop the mouthes of the adversaries and to rebuke them sharpely that they may bee sound in the faith and this is required in Titus Ch. 1. 5 9 10 11 12 13. as a Pastor and as an ordainer of other Pastors therefore that which is required of a Pastor by his office must also bee required to bee in the King by his office 6. It is admirable that they give to Kings power to deprive ministers but with these distinctions 1. He may not discharge them to preach and administer the Sacraments but to preach and administer the Sacraments in his kingdome or dominions because the King hath a dominion of places 2. Hee may discharge the exercise of the ministery but hee cannot take away the power of order given by the Church 3. Hee may deprive say some by a coactive and civill degradation because the supreme magistrate may conferre all honours in the Christian common-wealth Ergo hee may take them away againe but hee cannot deprive by a canonicall and ecclesiasticall degradation 4. Hee may causâ—tively deprive that is compell the Church to deprive one whom he judgeth to bee an heretick and if the Church refuse hee may then in case of the Churches erring and negligence as King deprive himselfe But I answer the King as King hath dominion civill of places and times as places and times but not of places as sacred in use and of times as sacred and religious for his power in Church matters being accumulative not privative hee cannot take away a house dedicated to Gods service no more then hee can take away maintenance allotted by publick authority upon Hospitalls Schooles Doctors and Pastors God hath here a sort of proprietie of houses and goods as men have Places as sacred abused are subject to regall power hee may inhibit conventions of hereticks 2. The Apostles might preach in the Temple though civill authoritie forbid them 3. Kings are as much Lords of places as sacred and publick as they have a dominion of civill places in respect the King may be coactive power hinder that false and hereticall doctrine bee preached either in publick or private places for this hee ought to doe as a preserver of both tables and a beare of the Sword for the good of Religion and if they may command pure doctrine to bee preached and sound discipline to be exercised they may command the same to bee done in publick places The second distinction is not to purpose 1. To discharge the exercise of a ministery saith Calderwood is a degree of suspension and suspension is an ecclesiasticall degree to the censures of excommunication and therefore the King may as well excommunicate and remit and retaine sinnes which undoubtedly agreeth to the Apostles as hee can suspend 2. As for taking away the power of order it is a doubt to formalists if the Church can doe that at all seeing they hold Sacraments administred by ministers justly deprived to bee valid Ergo they must acknowledge an indeleble character in Pastors which neither King nor Church can take away If then the King deprive from the exercise hee must simpliciter deprive by their grounds it is weake that they say the King may deprive from the exercise of a ministry within his owne dominions for saith Calderwood they all know well that the King hath not power to deprive men from the exercise of the holy ministery in ether forraine Kingdomes For the third way of deprivation it hath a double meaning also 1. If the meaning bee that as the King by a regall and coactive power may take away all honours either civill or ecclesiasticall as hee giveth all honours then this way of depriving Ministers cannot bee given to the King for the King may give and take away civill honours for reasonable causes according to the Lawes But in ecclesiasticall honours there bee three things 1. The appointing of the honour of the office to bee an Ambassadour of Christ. 2. To give the true foundation and reall ground of a Church honour that is gifts and gracious abilities for the calling neither of these two doe come either from King or Church or from mortall men but onely from Jesus Christ who ascending on high gave gifts unto men and appointeth both office and giveth grace for to discharge the office Yea since morall philosophy maketh honor to bee praemium 〈◊〉 a reward of vertue the King doth not give that which is the soundation of honour civill for civill vertue is a grace of God but in Church honour there is a third to wit a deâ—â—â—nation of a qualified man for the sacred office of the ministry and an ordination by the imposition of hands used in the Apostolick Church Act. 6. 6. Act. 13. 3. Act. 14 23. 1 Tim. 4 14. 1 Tim. 5.22 Whether imposition of hands bee essentiall to ordination or not I disput not it is apostolick by practise yet there is something ecclesiasticall as praying of Pastors and an ecclesiasticall designation of men or the committing of the Gospell to faithfull men who are able to teach others 2 Tim. 2. 2. 1 Tim. 5. 22. No Scripture can warrant that the King ordaine Pastors by publick praving by laying on of hands or ecclesiasticall blessing or by such an ordination as is given to Timothy and the Elders of the Church Acts 13. 3. Acts 14. 23. Tit. 1. 5,6 7,8 9. 1 Tim. 4. 14. 1 Tim. 5. 22. 2 Tim. 2. 2. If any say the King hath a publick and regall power in ordaining of Ministers and so in dâ—priving them or a mixt power partly regall partly ecclesiasticall as hee is a mixt person and the Church hath their way of purely and unmixt ecclesiasticall calling or ordaining of Ministers or the Church and the Magistrate
of it with his presence dedicated it to himselfe 2. It includeth an offering and giving of an house to Gods service I answer by this Solomon as a private man builded the Temple and dedicated it to God and not as either King or Prophet but this is a vaine answer for no private man could have builded an house to God with such typicall relations to Christ and to the Church of the New Testament except hee had been immediatly inspired by the holy Ghost Becanus saith three sorts of men were actors here 1. Solomon 2. The Priests 3. The people Solomon prayed and gave thankes the Priestâ— â—arried the Arke the Tabernacle the holy vessels and sacriji â—s the 〈…〉 present rejoyced and gave thankâ—s to God there is nothing 〈…〉 Solomons headship Solomon dedicated a Temple to God what it will no more follow hee was the head of the Church for that 〈…〉 â—ffered stones and timber to God then the womâ—n can â—ee 〈◊〉 of the Church who offered to God gâ—â—d purple 〈…〉 buddâ—â— Temple to God many Merâ—hanâ—s â—ubild Templeâ— upon their 〈…〉 God and pray to God to accept these Temples 〈◊〉 in England 〈◊〉 Temples to God they are not for that head of the Church Answ. 1. This is another Temple then Temples builded daily 1. Because it was wil-worship for David to build this Temple and service to God for Solomon a King of peace and a type of our King of wisedome Christ to build this Temple and for no other any Merchant may build a common house to Gods service without a speciall word of promise which word Solomon behoved to have or then hee could not build this house 1. To dedicate an house to God typicall of Christ 2. Filled with the cloud of Gods presence where God said hee would dwel in this house 3. With such ornaments as the Holy of holiest in it 4. In which God said he would heare prayers whereas now in all places hee heareth prayers Joh. 4. 21. 1 Timothâ— 2. 8. this is another positive worship then that a merchant build a house for Gods daily service which hath no relative holinesse in it but onely is holy in the use and to dedicate a house in these termes is more then an ordinary dedication to Gods service and their Prelates in England who dedicated Temples to God cannot answer this reply of the Jesuites nor can the new Jesuite Lysimachus Nicanâ—r their brother answer the Jesuite herein wee say from warrant of Gods Word that Solomon did all this by a propheticall instinct by the which also hee prophecied and did write the booke of the Proâ—â—rbs Ecclesiastes and Solomons Song else Jesuites may say that these bookes doe no more prove Solomon to bee a Prophet then the tomes written by Becanus and Suarez doth prove that they were divinely inspired Prophets Obj. David also prepared materialls for the Temple 1 Chron. 22. 2. and dicided the Levites in certaine rankes and orders 1 Chron. 23. 4. Answ. 2 Chron. 8. 13. for so had David the man of God commanded the man of God is the Prophet of God not the King of Israel as King 2 Chron. 29. 25. and hee set the Levites in the house of God with Cymba's and psalteries and â—arpes according to the commandement of David and of Gad the Kings Seer and Nâ—uhâ—n the Prophet for so was the commandement of the Lord by his Prophets they may prove then God the Prophet is the head of the Church and hath power to make Church-Lawes But it is a great mistake Hâ—â—â—â—iah David Solomon commanded the people and the â—evites to doe their duties according to Gods Word Ergo Kings may make Church-constitutions by a mixt power it followeth in no soâ—â— wee deny not but the King may command in Gods worship what is already of cleare and evident divine institution but that hee may obtrude it as a thing to bee observed by all Church men and urge it as a constitution come from authoritie to bâ—e observed under the paine of ecclesiasticall censures wee deny now this formalists teach that hee may command in the externall government as a Church constitution to bee in his royall name executed by Church men with Church censures though the Church never heard of it before It is true that Jehoshaph â—t 2 Chron. 19 8 9 10 11. set of the Levites and Priests and the chiefe of the fathers of Israel for the judgement of the Lord and for controversies and charged them to doe in the feare of the Lord v. 11. and behold Amariah the chieâ—e Priest saith hee is over you in all the matters of the Lord and Zebadiah the sonne of Ismael the ruler of the house of Judah for all the Kings matters also the Levites shall bee officers before you deale câ—â—raâ—iously and the Lord shall bee with the good Hence doth Tâ—oker and other court parasites inferre 1. That the King constituting Levites and Priests in a Citie must bee head of the Church and 2. That Jehoshaph at having constitute two Vicars and Dâ—puties under him one in Church matters to wit Amariah another in civill matters to wit Zebadiah therefore hath the King a jurisdiction and headship in both Church and State Answer 1. The institution of Priests is one thing and the calling of the persons to the Office another the former was Gods due who himselfe chused the tribe of Levi and this the King did not But it is another thing to constitute Priests and Levites who were instituted and called of God to serve in such a place at Jerusalem rather then in any other place this is but to apply a person who is jure divine by Gods right in office to such places and times This is not a point of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction for placing and timing Preachers belongeth to the people calling them and in the time of Apostasy as this was Jehoshaphat sent Levites to teach and commanded them to do their duty but that the High Priest is the Kings Deputy or Vicar as if the King offered sacrifices to God as the principall and Church head or by the Ministry and service of Amariah as his instrument deputy and servant is most idly and untruely spoken Yet will I not use the argument of Beâ—anus the Jesuite who saith If Amariah was the Kings Vicar then may the King by himselfe sacrifice for what ever the Vicar oâ— deputy may dâ—e that may the person above him who giveth him power dâ—e without the Vicar The Kings royall commandement is formally terminated upon the quality and manner of Ecclesiasticall acts that they bee done according to Gods Law rather then upon the acts according to their substance It is one thing for Ministers to Preach sound Doctrine and administrate the Sacraments in obedience and at the Kings commandement which wee acknowledge a truth and another thing for Ministers to Preach in the name and authority of royall Majesty as having a calling from him this latter is false as the King may do an
Church because that mediatory kingdome substisted fortie yeeres in the Jewish Church in the Wildernesse without circumcision yea and Apostles and Evangelists are no meanes subordinate to that kingdome because Christs mediatory kingdome subsisteth now without these officers 2. Neither is it true that magistracie conferreth no helpe to this kingdom but in these things which concerne the externall man for in a politick and coactive way the Magistracy taketh care by commandements that the Church bee fed with the pure Word of God onely this proveth that magistracie and Church ministery have two different objects and the way of proceeding of these two states the one carnall and with the sword Joh. 18. 36. Rom. 13. 3 4. the other spirituall to the manifestarion of the truth to the conscience 2 Cor. 4. 1 2. Psal. 110. 1. 2. Esâ—y 11. 4. Heb. 4. 12. which we grant to be true 5. It is objected Christ himselfe performed all the parts of his mediatory kingdome and all the functions thereof in his owne person and by his disciples while hee was on earth but hee refused all civill Magistracy and did inhibit his disciples thereof because it is not contained under the administration of his mediatory office as subordinate thereunto Answ. Christ refused magistracie not because it is not subordinate to edification which is the end of Christs mediatory kingdome but because it is not compatible with his spirituall kingdome in one and the same person and therefore this is a caption à non causa pro causa in one and the same person and subject the civill and the Ecclesiasticall power are inconsistent and incompatible that is true Ergo in the kind of lawfull meanes these two powers are unconsistent and uncompatible I deny it to follow for both royall power and Church power concurre for the producing of one and the same end to wit edification and obedience to both Tables of the Law but after different wayes carnall and spirituall I thinke it most considerable that though the Prince may by a coactive way command that same which a Church Synod may command in an ecclesiasticall way yet differeth these same powers in their formall objects because the King commandeth that which is good religious decent in Gods worship as a thing already taught and determined judicially either expressely in Gods Word or then by a pastorall or Synodicall determination and that not by way of teaching informing the mind exponing the Scripture or by pastorall dealing with the conscience as oblieging to a Church Liturgie and ceremonies as one who intendeth formall edification and faith repentance and obedience to God but the King commands that which is good and extra as it is already taught and expounded and as it is an imperated act of externall worship or mercy and justice done by a coactive power Hence the Magistrates power is not to edifie formally but to procure that edification may bee 2. The Magistrates power is Lordly the Churches power is onely ministeriall 3. The Magistrates power may bee in one to wit in the King the Churches power of the keyes is in the Church 4. They differ in formall objects as hath been said Now to obviate what the Jesuite Lysimachus Nicanor saith wee are no wayes of Papists mind in the matter of the Magistrates power for Papists 1. exclude Kings and Emperours from any medling with Church matters Charles the fift was upbraided by Paul the third the Pope of Rome because hee did as became a Prince ordaine meetings conferences and assemblies for composing of differences in Churches matters not giving the power of conveening councells onely to the Pope comparing his fact to the attempt of Uzzah who put his hand to the Ark and to Câ—rah Dathan and Abirams conspiracie against Moses yea and Nicolaus the first in his Epistle to Michael the Emperour denyeth that Emperours are to bee present in Synods except in generall Synods where both Church men and laicks are present wee teach that the Magistrate is as the hand the ministry as the eyes and both are to concurre for the spirituall good of the body of Christ. 2. Papists will have the Magistrates so to defend the faith as they have not power to judge not as Christians with the judgement of descretion what is right or wrong but they must as blind servants execute what Prelates decree yea and see non prâ—priis saith Henr. Blyssemius sed alienis Episcoporum ac pâ—aelatorum suorum oculis videre not with their owne eyes but with the eyes of their Prelates yea and the Magistrate should not read the Scripture say Papists and Nicanâ—rs brethren the Jesuits expresly contrary to Gods Word Deut. 17. 17. Hee shall read in the booke of the Law all the dayes of his life Joshua 1. 8. but onely beleeve as the Church beleeveth and this is blind obedience that they require of Princes this faith or obedience wee thinke abominable in all men as in Princes Of old Popes and Prelates were subject to Kings and Emperors as wee teach from the Word of God Rom. 13. 1. and 1. wee teach against the Jesuit Lysimachus Nicanor that his Prelates should not invade the King and civill Magistrates sword and be civill Judges as Popes and Prelates are against which writeth Tertullian Origen Hilarius Chrysostome Ambrosius Augustinus The author of the Survey saith that if every Eldership be the tribunall seat of Christ what appellation can bee made there from to either provinciall or generall councell and hee meaneth that there can bee no appellation to the King seeing the Presbytery in Churches causes is as immediatly subject to Jesus Christ and the highest Judicature on earth as the King is Gods immediate vicegerent on earth nearest to Jesus Christ in civill causes I answer the cause that is meerely ecclesiasticall as the formall act of preaching and ecclesiasticall determining of truth in Pulpits and the determining the truth in Church assemblies in an ecclesiasticall way in Synods and the excommunicating of a scandalous person are immediatly subject to Jesus Christ speaking in his owne perfect Testament and these causes lie not at the feet of Princes to bee determined by them as Kings but in a constitute Church they are to bee determined by the ordinary Church assemblies and in this place there is no appeale from the Presbytery to a King but it followeth not that there can bee no appellation from a Presbytery to a provinciall or to a nationall assembly 1. Because though every Presbytery bee the tribunall seate of Christ yet it is but a part of the tribunall seat of Christ and such a part as may easily erre and therefore appellation may bee made from the weaker and the part more inclined to erre to the stronger and maniest or the whole who may more hardlier erre and that is not denied by this author who dare not deny but they may appeal from a Bishop who doth and may misleade
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
de facto not questiones facti and must be believed as Almaine and Occam say well with that same certainty by which we believe Gods Word 2. A question of fact is taken for a question the subject whereof is a matter of fact but the attribute is a matter of Law as if Christ in saying he was the Son of God did blasphem if the Lords Priests in giving David shew-bread did commit Treason against King Saul there is some question there made circa factum about the fact but it is formally a question of Law For these questions may be cleared by Gods Word and the ignorance of any questions which may be cleared by Gods Word is vincible and culpable for the Law sayth The ignorance of these things which we are obliged to know is culpable and excuseth not But thirdly a question of fact is properly a question whether this Corinthian committed incest or no whether Tittrs committed murther or no and in this there is sometimes invincible ignorance when all diligence morally possible is given to come to the knowledge of the fact Now we know here the question of Law must be proved by the Law all are obliged in concience to know what sinnes deserve death and Excommunication But whether this man Iohn Anna Marie hath committed such sins is a question of fact and cannot be proved by the Law or the Word of God for the Lâ—â— is not anent singulars or particulars this is proved by sense and the Testimonie of witnesses and therefore the certainty practicall of conscience here is humane and failible not Divine and infallible Now though Souldiers Lictors or People joyne to the execution of a sentence and have their doubtings anent the fidelity of the witnesses yet when all diligence morally possible is given to try the matter they may well be said to doe in Faith though they have not certainty of Faith concerning the fact because there cannot be certainty of Divine Faith in facts mens confession sense the Testimony of witnesses cannot breed Divine Faith yea here the Judge himselfe may condemne the innocent and yet the sentence of the Judge may be most just because the witnesses are Lyers and the Judge giveth out that sentence in Faith because Gods Word hath commanded him to proceed secundum allegata probata he must give sentence under two or three witnesses yea though the Judge saw with his Eyes the guilty commit the fact yet he cannot by Gods Law condemne him but upon the testimony of witnesses For the wise Lord seeth what confusion and tyranny should follow if one might be both Index actor tâ—stis the Iudge the accuser and the witnesse And when the Judge giveth out a sentence to absolve the guilty and condemne the innocent his sentence is judicially and formally just and materially and by accident and contrary to his intention only unjust if the Judge in that case should say as Master Weemes observeth well such a proposition is true when he knoweth it to be false and being posed and urged in conscience is this an innocent man or no it he should answer and say he is not he should then answer contrary to his knowledge but as a Judge he must answer he is not innocent because witnesses being with all possible diligence examined have condemned him and it is no inconvenience here to say that the Judge hath one conscience as a man and another contrary conscience as a Judge in the question of fact for God hath tyed his conscience as a Judge to the fidelity of witnesses known not to be false I desire the Reader to see anent this more in Bonaventura Richardus Occam Antoninus Adrian and our Countreyman Iohn Weemes and Henricus Now because Souldiers Lictors and people are not Judges if they know the fact in Law deserveth such and such punishments where the sentence is not manifestly false and unjust but in the matter of Law just though erroneous in the matter of fact all possible dilligence being used by the Judges they are to execute that sentence upon the testimony of the Judges though they be not personally present at the proceedings of the Judges and Eldership which may be proved many wayes 1. By the confession of our brethren iâ— any of the Congregation be absent by Sicknesse Child-birth paine Trading over Sea imprisonment the Congregation doth justly put away from amongst them the incestuous Corinthian and they who are absent are to repute the party Excommunicate as a Heathen as their own practise is at censures in the week-day the largest halfe of the Congregation is absent yet the absent upon the testimony of the Church hold valid what is done by the Church 2. Other sister Churches who ought not to be present at Church-censures as our Brethren teach are to repute the Excommunicate cast out by a sister Church-independent as they say as an Heathen because being bound in Heaven here is he not bound in a Church visible one mile distant from the Church Excommunicating yet this is no tyranny of conscience 3. Women are to execute the sentence and to eschew the company of the party Excommunicated yet are they not to be present â—s Judges to nâ—â—rp authority over the men This Robinson granteth 4. This should evert all judicatories of peace and war so many thousands Acts 2. could not be present at every act of censure and that dayly nor are acts oâ— Discipline necessarily tied to the Lords-day They are I grant acts of Divine worship but the whole multitude of women and children are deprived of the liberty that God hath given them for six dayes to the works of their calling if they must be personally present at all the acts of Discipline to cognosce of all scandals and to here and receive Testimonies against Elders under two or three witnesses which is the office of Timothy this way the overseeing of the manners of the people which also our Brethren laye upon the whole people taketh up the great part of the Pastors office and the whole office of ruling Elders And if we lay upon the people the worke and all the acts of the office how can we not lay upon them the office it selfe 5. All Israel gathered to war from Dan to Beersheba could not by vertue of duty and obligation be present personally at the determination of lawfull War Nay if they were all present as Judges as Mr. Ainsworth would have them there be no Governors and Feeders in Israel but all the governed are Feeders and so no Magistrate and Ruler as Anabaptists teach here 1. It were not lawfull for one to be King over more people then he could in his own personall presence judge contrary to Gods Word that teacheth us to obey these who are sent by the supreme Magistrate as we obey the King 1 Pet. 2. 13. 14. Ergo these who are sent by him are lawfull Judges and yet