Kingly Priestly and Propheticall office be overturned as we were forced in Popery to do we are to separate from the Church in that case It is not true that Master Robinson saith This distinction of fundamentalls and non-fundamentals in injurious to growing in grace whereas we should be led on to perfection as if it were sufficient for a house that the foundation were laid Answ. It followeth not for the knowledge of fundamentalls is onely that wee may know what is a necessary meane of salvation without which none can be saved notwithstanding he who groweth not and is not led on to perfection never laid hold on the foundation Christ nor are we hence taught to seeke no more but so much knowledge of fundamentals as may bring as to heaven that is an abuse of this Doctrine 2. Robinson faith fundamentall truthes are holden and professed by as vile heretickes as ever were since Christs dayes a company of excommunicates may hold teach and defend fundamentall truths yet are they not a true Church of God Answ. Papists hold fundamentalls and so doe Jewes hold all the old Testament and Papists hold both new and old but we know they so hold fundamentalls that by their doctrine they overturne them and though there bee fundamentalls taught in the Popish Church which may save if they were beleeved yet they are not a true and ministeriall Church simply because though they teach that there is one God they teach also there is a thousand Gods whom they adore and though they teach there is one Mediator yet doe they substitute infinite Mediators with and besides Christ so that the truth is not a formall ministeriall and visible active externall calling is in the Church of Rome as it is a visible Church in the which wee can safely remaine though fundamentalls be safe in Rome and the bookes of the old and new Testament be there yet are they not there ministerially as in a mother whose breasts we can sucke for fundamentall points falsely exponed cease to be fundamentall points yea as they be ministerially in Rome they be destructive of the foundation though there bee some ministeriall acts valid in that Church for the which the Church of Rome is called a true Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in some respect according to something essentiall to the true Church yet never sine adjecto as if it were a true Church where we can worship God Fundamentalls are safe in Rome materially in themselves so as some may be saved who beleeve these fundamentalls but fundamentalls are not safe in Rome Ecclesiastice Ministeraliter Pastoraliter in a Church way so as by beleeving these from their chaires so exponed they can be saved who doe beleeve them 2. Out of which we may have the doctrine of faith and salvation as from a visible mother whose daughters we are Some say the fundamentalls amongst Lutherans are exponed in such a way as the foundation is everted I answer There is a twofold eversion of the foundation 1. One Theologicall Morall and Ecclesiastick as the doctrine of the Councell of Trent which is in a ministeriall way with professed obstinacy against the fundamentall truths rightly exponed and such an eversion of the foundation maketh the Popish Church no Church truely visible whose breasts we can sucke But for Lutheranes their subversion of the foundation by philosophick consequences without professed hatred to the fundamentalls and that not in an Ecclesiasticke and Ministeriall way doth not so evert the fundamentalls as that they bee no visible Church The learned Pareus sheweth that there be no difference betwixt us and Lutherans in heads absolutely necessary to salvation the dissention is in one point onely anent the Lords Supper not in the whole doctrine thereof but in a part thereof not necessary for salvation There were divisions betweene Paul and Baâ—nabas betwixt Cyprim an African Bishop and Stephanus Bishop of Rome anent baptisme of hereticks which Cyprian rejected as no baptisme betwixt Basilius Magnus and Eusebius Ceâ—ariensis because Basilius stood for the Emperour Vaâ—ns his power in Church matters so was there dissention betwixt Augustine and Hierâ—nimus anent the ceremonies of the Jewes which Hyeronymus thought might be retained to gaine the Jewes so there was also betwixt Epiphanius and Chrysostome anent the bookes of Origâ—n The Orthodox beleevers agreed with the Novations against the Arrians anent the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the consubstantialitie of Christ and though excommunicate persons defend and hold all fundamentalls sound and so may bee materially a true Church yet because their profession is no profession but adenying of the power of godlinesse they cannot be formally a visible Church but are for scandalls casten out of the visible Church But saith Robinson most of England are ignorant of the first rudiments and foundation of Religion and therefore cannot bee a Church Answ. Such are materially not the visible Church and have not a profession and are to be taught and if they wilfully remaine in that darknesse are to be cast out But saith he the bare profession of fundamentalls maketh not a Church they must be a company of faithfull people and if they must not be truely faithfull then they must be falsely faithfull for God requireth true and ready obedience in his word according to which wee must define Churches and not according to casuall things Answ. This is a speciall ground that deceiveth the Separatists their ignorance I meane of the visible Church for the visible Church consisteth essentially neither of such as be truely faithfull nor of such as must be falsely faithfull for the ignorant man seeth not that the visible Church includeth neither faith nor unbeliefe in its essence or definition It is true to the end that professors may be members of the invisible Church they must be beleevers must beleeve except they would be condemned eternally but to make them members of the visible Church neither beleeving nor unbeleeving is essentiall but onely a profession ecclesiastically in tear that is not scandalous visibly apparently lewd and flagitious such as was the profession of Simon Magus when he was baptized with the rest of the visible Church Act. 8. And God indeed requireth of us true worship and ready obedience as he saith but not that a visible Church should be defined by true and sincere obedience for essentials onely are taken in a definition and casuall corruptions are only accidentall to Churches and fall out through mens faults and therefore should not be in the definition either of a visible or an invisible Church nor should ready and sincere obedience which is a thing invisible to mens eyes be put in the definition of a visible Church for it is accidentall to a visible Church and nothing invisible can be essentiall to that which essentially is visible the visible Church is essentially visible Anent separation from Rome we hold these Propositions 1. Profession consistetly not onely in a publike ministeriall avowing
meanes and the people lovâ—d to have it so Jer. 5. 31. Then in Synagogues there was Church-government as at â—erusalem for where the Lord rebuketh any sinne he doth recommend the contrary duty Now Prophets and Priests are rebuked tor their ruling with force and rigour every where and not at Ierusalem onely for that they were not compassionate to carry the Lambs in their bosome as Iesus Christ doth Esai 40. 11. their ill government every where must be condemned 3. Luk. 4. 16. Christ as his custome was went into the Synagogue on the Sabbath day Paul and Barnabas were requested to exhort in the Synagogue as the order was that Prophets at the direction of the Rulers of the Synagogue if they had any word of exhortation they should speake and consequently their order was that every one should not speake Ergo they had customes and orders of Church-Discipline to the which Christ and his Apostles did submit themselves And to tie all Church-government to the Temple of Ierusalem were to say God had ordained his people elsewhere to worship him publickly but without any order and that Christ and his Apostles subjected themselves to an unjust order I further argue thus Those Churches be of the same nature frame and essentiall Constiutions which agree in the same essentials and diffâ—r only in accidents but such are the Church of the Iewes and the Christian Churches Ergo what is the frame and essentiall constiâ—â—tion of the one Church must be the frame and essentiall constitution of the other Ergo c. the major is of undeniable certainty I prove the assumption These which have the same Faith and the same externall profession of Faith these have the same frame and essentiall constitution but they and we be such Churches for we have the same covenant of grace Jer. 31. 31. Jer. 32. 39 40. Heb 8. 8 9 10. Therefore that same faith differing only in accidents their faith did looke to Christ to be incarnate and our faith to that same very God now manifested in the flesh Heb. 13. 8. They were saved by faith as we are Heb. 11. Acts 10. 42 43. Acts. 11. 16 17 18. and consequently what visible profession of faith doth constitute the one visible Church doth constitute the other I know Papists Arminians Socinians doe make the Doctrine and Seales of the Iewish and Christian Church much different but against the truth of Scripture The onely answer that can be made to this must be that though the Church of the Jewes wanted not congregations as our Christian Churches have yet were they a nationall Church of another essentiall visible frame then are the Christian Churches because they had positive typicall and ceremoniall and carnall commandements that they should have one high Priest for the whole nationall Church the Christian Churches have not for that one visible Monarch and Pope they had an Altar Sacrifices and divers pollutions ceremoniall which made persons uncapable of the Passover but we have no such legall uncleannesse which can make us uncapable of the Seales of the New Testament and therefore it was not lawfull to separate from the Jewish Church in which did sit a typicall High Priest where were Sacrifices that did adumbrate the Sacrifice of our great High Priest c. not withstanding of scandalous persons in that Church because there was but one visible Church out of which was to come the Redeemer Christ according to the flesh but the Christian Churches under the New Testament be of another frame Christ not being tyed to one Nation or place or Congregation therefore if any one Congregation want the Ordinances of Christ we may separate therefrom to another Mount Sion seeing there bee so many Mount Sions noâ— Answ. 1. If the Church of the Iewes was a visible Church in its essentiall constitution different from our visible Churches because they were under the Religions tie of so me carnall ceremoniall and typicall mandats and Ordinances that we are not under then doe I inferre that the Tribe of Levy was not one visible Church in the essentiall frame with the rest of the Tribes which is absurd for that Tribe conteyning the Priests and Levites was under the obligatory tie of many typicall Commandements proper and peculiar to them only as to offer Sacrifices to wash themselves when they were to officiate to weare linnen Ephods to beare the Arke of the Covenant now it was sinne for any that were not of the Sonnes of Aaron or of another Tribe to performe these duties yet I hope they made but one nationall Church with the rest of the Tribes Secondly I infer that the Christian Church that now is cannot be of that same essentiall frame with the Apostolick Churches because the Apostolick Church so long as the Jewish ceremonies were indifferent in statu 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and mortall but not mortiferae deadly was to practice these ceremonies in the case of scandall 1 Cor. 10. 31 32 33. and yet the Christian Church that now is can in no sort practice these ceremonies yea I inferre that the Eldership of a Congregation doth not make one Church of one and the same essentiall frame and constitution with the people because the Elders be under an obligatory tie to some positive Divine Commandements such as are to administer the Seales Baptisme and the Lords Supper and yet the multitude of Believeres in that same congregation are under no such tie and certainly if to be under ceremoniall and typicall ordinances doth institute the whole Jewish Church in another essentiall frame different from the Christian Churches reason would say that then if the members of one Church be under Divine positive commandements which doth in no sort tie other members of the same Church that then there be divers memberships of different essentiall frames in one and the same Church which to me is monstrous for then because a command is given to Abraham to offer his sonne Isaak to God and no such command is given to Sarah in that case Abraham and Sarah shall not bee members of one and the same visible Church But the truth is different positive commandments of ceremoniall and typicall ordinances put â—o new essentiall frame of a visible Church upon the Jewish Church which is not on the Christian Churches These were onely accidentall characters and temporary cognizances to distinguish the Jewish and Christian Churches while as both agree in one and the same morall constitution of visible Churches for first both had the same faith one Lord one covenant one Iesus Christ the same seales of the covenant in substance both were visibly to professe the same Religion the differences of externals made not them and us different visible Churches nor can our brethren say they made different bodies of Christ different Spouses different royall Generations as concerning Church-frame Yet are wee not tied to their high Priest to their Altars Sacrifices Holy dayes Sabbaths new Moones c. no more then any one private
because of the apostasie of the whole Church and judgements upon them for their apostasie v. 38. And because of all this we make and write a sure covenant saith the Text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in toto hoe vertit Arias montanus nos excidentes fidelitatem Iudaei excudentes faedus fidele Iunius pro toto hoc pepigimus constitutionem now sinnes back-slidings and judgements may be and often are in all the Christian Churches 2. To sweare to the true religion the defence and maintenance thereof is a lawfull oath as to sweare to any thing that is lawfull and to lay a new band on our soules to performe holy duties where we feare a breach and finde by experience there hath beene a breach is also a dutie of morall and perpetuall equity therefore such a sworne covenant is lawfull I say not from this place that it is necessary that all subscribe with their hands a covenant because I thinke onely the Princes Levites Priests and heads of families did subscribe the covenant Nehem. 9. 38. but Nehem. 10. 28 29. The whole people all who had separated themselves from the Lands sinne and their strange wives even their wives their sonnes their daughters every one having knowledge and having understanding V. 29. They clave to their brethren their Nobles and entered into a curse and into an oath to walke in Gods Law If it be replied that there was in Israel no written covenant drawne up by a man and put in a mans stile language method and frame they did sweare to keepe Moses his Law I answer when we sweare a covenant our faith doth not relie upon words characters stile of language or humane method or any humane respects but upon the truth of God in that platforme and suppose we should swear and subscribe the Old and New Testament translated into our vulgar Language we doe not sweare to the translation characters and humane expression but to the matter contained in the translation and that because Iehovah our Lord hath spoken it in his Word And if this be a good argument why we cannot sweare a platforme then should none sweare a covenant at all or make any holy vow but those who understand the originall Languages in Hebrew and Greeke and yet the characters and imprinting is humane even in the original so all religious covenants and oathes should be unlawfull 4. Argum. What a Church or person is to suffer for or to believe and obliged to render account of to every one that asketh account of us that we may sweare and seale with our hands because what we are to suffer death for and the losse of temporall life for which we owe a reckoning to God by vertue of the â—ixt Commandement that is a matter of truth which we professe before God and men and our dying for the truth is a sort of reall oath that we are before God professing that truth is to be preferred to our life But we are to suffer if God call us even death for the true Religion Revel 2. 13. Act. 7. 57 58. Luk. 21. 15 16. Phil. 1. 20 21. â—nd the truth and we are obliged to believe and to give account thereof before all men and a reason of our faith and hope 1 Pet â— 15. Ergo we may sweare it Argum. 5. If an oath to the true Religion and forme of wholesome Doctine be a speciall remedy against backâ—iding and a meane to keepe off false and heretical doctrine then is such an oath lawfull but the former is true Ergo The Proposition is cleare Gods people say Nehem. 9. 38. Because of all this that is because they had done wickedly and were tempted still to doe more therefore they write and seale a Covenant and if false teachers teach Circumcision must be if weâ— would be saved then the Church may according to Acts 15. condemâ—e that false doctrine by the VVord of God and set downe Canons which the Churches are to observe and what they are to observe as warranted by Gods VVord layeth on bands upon the Conscience and what layeth on such a band that wee may binde our selves by oath to performe it being a speciall remedy lawfull against backsliding from the truth 6. Arg. Our brethren have their grounds and reasons against the swearing of confession common to them with the Arminians and Socinians and their Arguments are all one for Arminians censure the Belgick confession and the Palaâ—ines Catechisme and propound thirteene questions against it as the third question is An quaecunque dogmata in confessione Catâ—chisme tractantur talia sunt ut cuilibet Christiano ad salutem creditu necessaria sint And their seventh question is If such confessions may be called secundaria fidei norma a secundary rule of faith also all Confessions say they declare That Confessions serve not to teach what we ought to beleeve but what the Authors of these Confessions did beleeve Hence they reject all the determinations of the Orthodox Councels condemning the heresies of Arrius Eutiches Macedonius Apollinaris Sabelliâ— Samosateâ—us Pelagius and all the Oxthodox Confessions of the reformed Churches Secondly also upon these grounds they alledge in their Apologie There be few things to be beleeves that every sect may be the true Church so they beleeve some few Articles not controverted amongst Christians such as these Thâ— there is a God and that the Word of God is true c. Thirdly they will not condemne the Macedonians Arrians Anti-trinitarâ—â— Pelagians or others of fundamentall herefies Fourthly that one Church of Christians may be made up of Papists Protestants Anabaptists Macedonians Sabellians c. and all sects so they leade a good life according to the few Articles necessary to salvation may be saved and all may be saved of any sect or Religion Fifthly that to sweare Declarations Confessions Canons of Orthodox Councels is to take away the liberty of prophesying and growing in the knowledge of the Word of God and the praying for grace and light of the holy Spirit for the right meaning of Gods Word Sixthly that Athanasius spake amisse when he said of the Creed that it was to be beleeved of every one who is to bee saved 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the same is the doctrine of the Socinians who doe in all these oppose all Confessions of Faith and all Orthodox Decisions Canons and determinations of Sinods So Socinus rejecteth all Synods all Confessions and Decisions even of the Church universall So Smalcius calâ—eth it a rejecting of the Word of God And Theol. Nicoâ—aides saith That it is enough to know things absolutely necessary for salvation and that the Churches determination cannot remove errours and heresies Our brethens first Argument against a Nationall Covenant â— If the doctrine contained in your platforme of Confession â—warve from the Scriptures then the imposing thereof is so farre unlawfull if the doctrine be according to Scripture the platforme is â—eedlesse the
all of one Church of one Religion Answ. The terme Nationall-Church is not in the Word of God but I pray you in what sense can the jewish-Iewish-Church bee called a nationall-Nationall-Church I conceive not because of the typicall and ceremoniall observances that put a Church-frame on the whole Nation for if so then the name of a Nationall Church or a nationall Religion cannot by envy it selfe bee put in the reformed Churches or on Church of Scotland which hath suffered so much for Iewish and Romish Ceremonies But if the Jewes were a Nationall-Church because they were a holy Nation in profession and God called the Nation and made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Church externally called to grace and glory and the whole Nation commensurable and of equall extent then all Christian Nations professing the true Faith and the Gentiles as well as the Iewes Then the believing Iewes of Pontus Asia Cappadocia and Bythinia as Augustine Eusebius Oecumenius Athanasius doe thinke that Peter wrote to the Iewes yea and the Gentiles as many interpreters with Lorinus Thomas Lyra and others thinke are yet 1 Pet. 2. 9. an holy Nation and so a Nationall Church and there is no more reason to scoffe at a Nationall Church in this sense then to mocke the holy Spirit which maketh but one Church in all the World Cant. 6. 9. as Cotton Ainsworth and other favorable witnesses to our Brethren confesse And if the Gentiles shall come to the light of the Jewish Church and Kings to the brightnesse of of their rising Esai 60. 3. if the abundance of the Sea shall be converted to the Iewes true Faith and Religion And the forces of the Gentiles shall come to them vers 5. and if all flesh shall see the revealed glory of the Lord Esai 40. 5. and the Earth shall bee filled with the knowledge of God as the Seas are filled with Water It is most agreeable to the Lords Word that there is and shall be a Church through the whole World you may nickname it as you please and call it a world-VVorld-Religion a VVorld-Church As if the lost and blinded World Ioh. 2. 16 17. 1 Joh. 5. 19. 2 Corin 4. 4. were all one with the Loved Redeemed Pardoned and Reconciled World Ioh. 3. 16. Ioh. 1. 29. 2 Cor. 5. 19. as if wee confounded these two Worlds and the Religion of these two Worlds And if this World could meet in its principall lights neither should an universall councell nor an Oath of the whole Representative Church be unlawfull but enough of this before And what if the World bee subdued to the World and a World of Nations come in and submit to Christs Scepter and royall power in his externall government are the opposers such strangers in the Scriptures as to doubt of this Reade then Esai 60. 4. 5. c. 60. 11 12 13 14 15 v. 4. 5 6 7. Psal. 2. 8 9. Psal. 72. 8. 9. 10. Esai 54. 3. Esai 49. 1. Esai 45. 22. 23. Psal. 110 1 2 3 4 5. and many other places and there is a Kingdome in a Kingdome Christs Kingdome and his Church lodging in a Worldly Kingdome and Christ spiritually in his power triumphing over the World and subduing Nations to his Gospell Object 8. If Classicall Presbyters be not Elders in â—elation to the classicall Church and so to all the Congregations in it yee must forsake all these places where it is said the Elders of Jerusalem the Elders of Ephesus the Angels of the seven Churches which is absurd if they be Elders to all these Churches then 1. All those people in those Churches must submit their consciences to them and their Ministery as to a lawfull ordinance of God 2. All the people of those Churches must have voyce in election of them all 3. All these people owe to theâ—s maintenance and double honor 1 Tim. 5. 17. for if the Oxes mouth must not be muzlâ—d but he must be fed by me and my corne he must tread my corne and labour for me These Churches cannot all meet in one to ordaine and chuse all these Ministers and to submit to their Ministery Answ. The Elders are Elders of Ephesus and Elders of Jerusalem not because every Elder hath a speciall pastorall charge over every Church distributively taken for it was unpossible that one Congregation of all the converts in Ierusalem extending to so many thousands could all beare the relation of a Church to one man as their proper Elder who should personally reside in all and every one of those Congregations to watch for their soules to preach to all and every Congregation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in season and out of season But they are in cumulo called Elders of Ephesus in that sense that Kings are called the Kings of the Nations not because every King was King of every Nation for the King of Edom was not the King of Babylon and the King of Babel was not the King of Assyria yet amongst them they did all fill up that name to be called the Kings of the Nations so were the Elders of Ierusalem in cumulo collectively taken Elders of all the Churches of Ierusalem collectively taken and as it followeth not that the King of Edom because hee is one of the Kings of the Nations is elected to the Crowne of Caldea by the Voyces of the States and Nobles of Caldea so is it not a good consequence such a number are called the Elders of the Church of Ierusalem therefore the Elder of one Congregation at the Easterne Gate at Ierusalem is also an Elder of a Congregation of the Westerne Gate Nor doth it follow that these two Congregations should submit their consciences to one and the same Elder as to their proper Pastor to whose Ministery they owe consent in Election Obedience in submitting to his Doctrine and mainetenance for his labours all these are due to him who is their owne proper Pastor the as Caldeans owe not Honour Allegiance Tribute to the King of Edom though the Kingdome of Caldea bee one of the Kingdomes of the Nations and the King of Edom one of the Kings of the Nations But if indeede all the Kings of the Nations did meete in one Court and in that Court governe the Nations with common Royall authority and counsell in those things which concerne all the Kingdomes in common then all the Nations were obliged to obey them in that Court as they governe in that Court but no farther and when the people doe consent to the power of that common Court â—â—citly they consent that every one of these shall bee chosen King of such and such a Kingdome and promise also tracitly Obedience and Subjection to every one of the Kings of the Nations not simply as they are Kings in relation to such a Kingdome but onely as they are members of that Court so the Congregations acknowledging and consenting to the classicall Presbytery doe tracitly chuse and consent to the common charge and care that every Pastor hath as hee
ignorant of some lesse fundamentalls 2. Because we see in a mirror and imperfectly 3. In respect of beleeving upon a false ground as for miracles In respect of the object the certaintie is most sure as sure as that God cannot lie In respect of our adherence of understanding and affections in this respect the knowledge of fundamentalls must bee certaine 1. By a negative certitude which excludeth doubting and so Pastor and people must have a certitude of fundamentalls as Rom. 14 5. Col. 1. 9. Heb. 5. 12. but for a positive certitude there is not that measure required in a teacher that is in a scholler for all the body cannot be an eye 1 Cor. 12. 17. yet is a Christian certitude and fulnesse of perswasion required even of all Christians Colos. 2. 2. Colos. 3. 16. highest and greatest in its kind though many may bee saved with lesse yet a distinct knowledge of fundamentalls in all is not necessary by a necessitie of the meanes necessitate medii as Beza and Doctor Ames teach There is a faith of fundamentalls implicite in respect of the will and affections which Papists make a wide faith as the Jâ—uâ—e Becanus thinke to beleeve these two fundamentalls 1. That there is a God 2. That this God hath a providence conâ—â—â—ning mens salvation though other particulars be not knowne Or implicite faith is saith Estius when any is ready to beleeve what the Church shall teach which faith Suarez saith though it include ignorance yet keepeth men from the danger of errors because it doth submit the mind to the nearest rule of teaching to wit to the Church the knowledge of fundamentalls in this sense doth not save but condemne Thomas saith better then he 6. Dist. They are not alike who beleeve fundamentall hereâ—ies 2. And who defend them 3. And who teach them and obtrude them upon the consciences of others For the first many beleeve fundamentall errors who are ignorant of them and doe thinke that they firmely adhere to Christian Religion Oâ—cam termeth such haereticos nescientes ignorant heretickes as the Marcionites and the Manicheans and these the Church should tolerate while they bee instructed It is true the Jesuite Meratius saith When many things are proposed to the understanding for one and the same formall reason to wit for divine authoritie the understanding cannot imbrace one but it must imbrace all nor â—â—ject one but it must reject all which is true of a formall malitious rejecting the Manichean beleeveth nothing because God saith it and hath faith sound and saving in nothing but it is not true of an actuall or virtuall contempt in one or two fundamentalls because beleevers out of weakenesse ignorance and through strength of tentation may doubt of one fundamentall as the Disciples doubted of the resurrection Joh. 20. 9. and yet in habite beleeve all other fundamentalls but the Church is to correct such as professe fundamentall heresies and to cast out of the Church seducers and deceivers 7. Dist. It is one thing to hate a fundamentall point as that Christ is consubstantiall with the Father as the Arians doe and another thing by consequence to subvert a fundamentall point as Papists by consequence deny Christ to bee true man while they hold the wonder of Transubstantiation yet doe not they hate this conclusion formally that Christ is true man 8. Dist. Though it were true which Doctor Christo. Potter saith If we put by the Points wherein Christians differ one from another and gather into one body the rest of the articles wherein they all gnerallaly agree we should finde in these propositions which without all controversie are universally received in the whole Christian world so much truth is contained as being joyned with holy obedience may be sufficient io bring a man to everlasting salvation I say though this were true yet will it not follow that these few fundamentalls received by all Christians Papists Lutherans Arians Verstians Sabellians Maccdonians Nestorians Eutychanes Socinians Anabaptists Treithitae Antitrinitarii for all these be Christians and validely baptized doe essentially constitute a true Church and a true Religion Because all Christians agree that the old and New Testament is the truth and Word of God and the whole faith of Christian Religion is to bee found in the Old Testament acknowledged both by Jewes and Christians for that is not the Word of God indeed in the Old Testament which the Jewes say is the Word of God in the Old Testament Yea the old and new Testament and these few uncâ—nâ—â—averted points received universally by all Christians are not Gods Word as all these Christians expone them but the dreames and fancies of the Jewes saying that the old Testament teacheth that Christ the Messiah is not yet come in the flesh the Treithitae say there be three Gods yet are the Treithitae Christians in the sense of Doctor Potter so that one principall as that There is one God and Christ is God and man and God is noely to be adored not one of these are uncontraverted in respect every society of Sectaries have contrary expositions upon these common fundamentalls and so contrary Religions Who doubteth but all Christians will subscribe and sweare with us Protestants the Apostolicke Creed but will it follow that all Christians are of one true Religion and doe beleeve the same fundamentalls now these fundamentalls are the object of faith according as they signifie things To us and to the Treithitae this first Article I beleeve in God as I conceive doth not signifie one and the same thing now joyne this I beleeve in God with holy obedience as wee expone it and as the Treithitae expone it it could never bee a step to everlasting salvation for it should have this meaning I beleeve there is one only true God and that there be also three Gods and what kind of obedience joyned with a faith made up of contradictions can bee availeable to salvation 3. One generall Catechise and confession of faith made up of the commonly received and agreed upon fundamentalls would not make us nearer peace though all Christians should sweare and subscribe this common Christian Catechise no more then if they should sweare and subscribe the old and new Testament as all Christians will doe and this day doth 9. Disl Though the knowledge of fundamentalls be necessary to salvation yet it cannot easily be defined what measure of knowledge of fundamentalls and what determinate number of fundamentalls doth constitute a true visible Church and a sound beleever as the learned Voetius saith Hence 1. They are saved who soundly beleeve all fundamentalls materially though they cannot distinctly know them under the reduplication of fundamentalls nor define what are fundamentalls what not 2. Though a Church retaine the fundamentalls yet if wee beforced to avow and beleeve as truth doctrines everting the foundation of faith against the article of one God if we must worship as many Gods as there bee hosties if Christs
Church is no supernaturall act though there be a morall obligation tying the professours to the supernaturall sincerity of the act yet there is no essentiall obligation as touching the essence of a visible member tying him thereunto and therefore the Magistrate may compell thereunto and so Antonius following Gregorius doe teach that an indirect compulsion to the faith is lawfull and the compelling power of the Magistrate is terminated upon the profession not upon the hypocrisie of the profession else it were as good an argument to prove that the Magistrate by the sword cannot compell subjects to abâ—taine from murther sorcery perjury because many in an hypocriticall and servile manner for feare of the Magistrates wrath not for feare of God doe abstaine from these ils nor is their abstinence from worshipping idols a thing of it selfe as the Magistrate commandeth it supernaturall Neither would men by the Covenant of the Lord which King Asa did cause the people to sweare to wit that they should seeke the Lord God of their fathers 2 Chron. 15. 12. be compelled so as their seeking of God should not be willingly performed 5. This opinion is the way to Arminian liberty of conscience that men in a Christian Common-wealth may be of any Religion and the Magistrate is to behold men as an indifferent spectator not caring what religion they bee of whether they be Papists Jewes Pagans Anabaptists Socinians Macedonians c. which should inferre that the Magistrate were no nurse-father of the true Church nor yet a preserver of Religion if men might be of any Religion Neither is this the way as saith Robinson to the Papists implicite faith when men beleeveth as the Church beleeveth though they know not what it is nor is it a compelling of men as he saith to blasphemy and apparent wickednesse because the Magistrate is not to compell to profession of the truth immediately and without any foregoing information of the mind for the Church is to teach and instruct in all the externall acts of worship before the Magistrate doth compell to these acts yea and the same Robinson acknowledgeth that Jehoshaphat made compulsive lawes about Religion Ergo if he should execute these Lawes he should compell to some acts of Religion and should compell to hypocrisie as the same Mr. Robinson argueth against us 4. Conclus It is one thing to command acts of divine worship under the paine of civill punishment and another thing to punish or inflict civill punishment when these commandements are transgressed Christian Princes may doe both And that they doe the latter by Gods commandement and warrant is cleare in that Jehu destroyed all the house of Ahab for Idolatry and killed Baals Priests Good Josiah killed the Priests of the high places and burnt their bones upon the Altar Elias when the Magistrate would not doe his duty in an extraordinary way killed Baals Priests and if the Magistrate also in the New Testament have the sword given to him of God for the punishing of evill doers as Rom. 13. 4 5. that same Law must now also have force though in the use of the sword sundry hereticks are here to be distinguished as 1. seducing hereticks drawing others away from the worship of the true God to idolatry such are not to be pitied by the Magistrate as Deut. 13. 5 6 7. Zach. 13. 4 5 6. whereas seduced and drawne away soules for simple heresie cannot be put to death 2. Hereticks falling away in many particulars from the faith to Popery or other hereticall wayes are more severely to be punished then those who are hereticks in one or two fundamentall points onely And those who are universall Apostates and fall from the Christian faith to Judaisme and Paganisme deserve no lesse then death 3. Selfe-condemned hereticks after sufficient information and malitious opposers of the truth deserve harder dealing then simply seduced hereticks 4. All who beleeve blasphemies to be truth and hold them are not to be reckoned amongst formall blasphemers whose malice carrieth them on to raile upon the unspotted wayes of God 5. No hereticks having false opinions of God such as Antinomians and Libertines who thinke that the regenerate cannot sinne or that the worshipping of a creature is not idolatry can be innocent as if â—â—â—mply acts of the judgement and mind not conforme to Gods will revealed in his word were not sinnes as Arminians teach whereas all the faculties of the soule are under Gods Law 2. Hardly doth the mind conceive false thoughts of God or his worship but there be wicked crookes in the will and affections inclining thereunto the mind and smoaking the mind with will-guiltinesse 6. Except God was too rigorous and cruell in the Old Testament God avert such blasphemous thoughts what ever punishment even to bloud and death was inflicted upon hereticks seducing Prophets Idolaters Apostates these same stande yet in the plentitude of morall obligation against such as offend in the New Testament if the Magistrate beare the Lords sword as he doth in the New Testament Rom. 13. 4 5. Monfortius the Anabaptist as Beza saith had no Scripture to say because Christ is a meeke Saviour all corporall punishment inflicted upon hereticks in the Old Testament is turned over in spirituall punishment onely our brethren who deny that the Magistrate can compell any to an externall profession of the Gospel doe herein follow Arminians and Socinians So the Reâ—onstrants and Episcopius deny that the Magistrate can use any bodily punishment against hereticks The learned Professors of Leiden observe that Arminians here teach that same with the Socinians and the same is refuted well by Vedelius yea and Gerardus and Mersnerus and other pretended Disciples of Luther in this side with Arminians and Socinians and Socinians teach in this 1. that Hereticks should not be molested nor punished with the sword So Socinus Theophilus Nicolaides Ostorodius because the tares are not to be rooted out till harvest 2. Episcopius Slatius amongst Arminians and Ostorodius and the Catechise of Raccovia teach farther that the Magistrate may punish by fines and pecuniall mulcts but he cannot shed bloud or punish to death any murtherer because the Commandement of our meeke Saviour doth not permit to take away any mans life now it is certaine meeke Jesus while hee was on earth did neither fine nor imprison more then put to death 3. Soâ—inians teach that all warres under the new Testament are unlawfull for saith Smalâ—ius warres cannot consist with the 〈◊〉 of our enemie commanded by Christ Socinus and Ostorodius say it is an old precept not to shed blood and never retracted in the New Testament and God licenced it to the Jewes because he promised to them an earthly kingdome which hee hath not now promised under the New Testament Our Divines hold ringleading and seducing hereticks are to bee punished to death for so Beza Junius
Tribes did and the Kingdome of Iudah in the end did they should so marre and hurt the being and integrity of a visible Church as the Lord should say She is not my wife neither am I her husband and yet they might remaine in that case a free Monarchie and have a State and policy in some better frame though I grant de facto these two Twins State and Church civill Policy and Religion did die and live were sicke and diseased vigorous and healthy together yet doth this More that State and Church are different And further if that Nation had made welcome and with humble obedience beleeved in and received the Messiah and reformed all according as Christ taught them they should have beene a glorious Church and the beloved Spouse of Christ but their receiving and imbracing the Messiah should not presently have cured their inthralled state seeing now the Scepter was departed from Iudah and a stranger and heathen was their King nor was it necessary that that Saviour whose Kingdome is not of this world John 18. 36. and came to bestow a spirituall redemption and not to reestablish a flourishing earthly Monarchy and came to loose the works of the Devill Heb. 2 14. and not to spoile Cesar of an earthly Crowne should also make the Jews a flourishing State and a free and vigorous Monarchy againe Ergo it is most cleare that State and Church are two divers things if the one may bee restored and not the other Fifthly the King as the King was the head of the Common-wealth and might not meddle with the Priests office or performe any Ecclesiasticall acts and therefore was Uzzah smitten of the Lord with leprosie because he would burne incense which belonged to the Priests onely And the Priest in offering sacrifices for his owne sinnes and the sinnes of the people did represent the Church not the State And the things of the Lord to wit Church-matters and the matters of the King which were civill matters of State are clearly distinguished 2 Chron. 19. 11. which evidenceth to us that the Church and State in Israel were two incorporations formally distinguished And I see not but those who doe confound them may also say That the Christian State and the Christian Church be all one State and that the government of the one must be the government of the other which were a confusion of the two Kingdoms It is true God hath not prescribed judicials to the Christian State as he did to the Jewish State because shadows are now gone when the body Christ is come but Gods determination of what is morally lawfull in civill Laws is as particular to us as to them and the Jewish judicials did no more make the Jewish State the Jewish Church then it made Aaron to be Moses and the Priest to be the King and civill Judge yea and by as good reason Moses as a Judge should be a prophet and Aaron as a Prophet should be a Judge and Aaron as a Priest might put a malefactor to death and Moses as a Judge should prophâ—sie and as a Prophet should put to death a malefactor all which wanteth all reason and sense and by that same reason the State and Common-wealth of the Jews as a Common-wealth should offer sacrifices and prophesie and the Church of the Jews as a Church should denounce warre and punish malefactors which are things I cannot conceive Our brethren in their answer to the eleventh question teach That those who are sui juris as masters of families are to separate from these Parish-assemblies where they must live without any lawfull Ordinance of Christ and to remaine there they hold it unlawfull for these reasons First we are commanded to observe all whatsoever Christ hath commanded Matth. 28. 10. Secondly the Spouse seeketh Christ and rests not till she finde him in the fullest manner Cant. 1. 7 8. and 3. 1 2 3. David lamented when hee wanted the full fruition of Gods Ordinances Psal. 63. and 42. and 84. although he injoyed Abiathar the high Priest and the Ephod with him and Gad the Prophet 1 Sam. 23. 6 9. 10. 1 Sam. 22. 8. So did Ezra 8. 15 16. yea and Christ though he had no need of Sacraments yet for example would be baptized keepe the Passeover c. Thirdly no ordinances of Christ may be spared all are profitable Fourthly he is a proud man and knoweth not his owne heart in any measure who thinketh he may be well without any Ordinance of Christ. Fifthly say they it is not enough the people may be without sinne if they want any ordinances through the fault of the superiours for that is not their fault who want them but the superiours sinfull neglect as appeareeth by the practice of the Apostles Acts 4. 19. and 5. 29. For if they had neglected Church-ordinances till the Magistrates who were enemies to the Gospell had commanded them it had beene their grievous sinne For if superiours neglect to provide bodily food we doe not thinke that any mans conscience would be so scrupulous but he would thinke it lawfull by all good meanes to provide in such a case for himselfe rather then to sit still and to say If I perish for hunger it is the sinne of those who have authority over me and they must answer for it Now any ordinance of Christ is as necessary for the good of the soule as food is necessary for temporall life Ans. 1. I see not how all these Arguments taken from morall commandments doe not oblige sonne as well as father servant as master all are Christs free men sonne or servant so as they are to obey what over Christ commandeth Matth. 18. 10. and with the Spouse to seeke Christ in the fullest measure and in all his ordinances and sonne and servant are to know their owne heart so as they have need of all Christs ordinances and are no more to remaine in a congregation where their soules are samished because fathers and masters neglect to remove to other congregations where their souls may be fed in the fullest measure then the Apostles Acts 4. 29. and 5. 29 were to preach no more in the Name of Iesus because the Rulers commanded them to preach no more in his Name And therefore with reveâ—ence of our godly brethren I thinke this distinction of persons free and sui juris and of sonnes and servants not to be allowed in this point 2. It is one thing to remove from one congregation to another and another thing to separate from it as from a false constitute Church and to renounce all communion therewith as if it were the Synagogue of Satan and Antichrist as the Separatists doe who refuse to heare any Minister ordained by a Prelate now except these arguments conclude separation in this latter sense as I thinke they can never come up halfeway to such a conclusion I see not what they prove nor doe they answer the question c. concerning standing in
The state of the question to be explained 3. The truth to be confirmed In the answers to the questions sent to New England they require of all persons come to age before they be received members of the Church 1. A publiquâ— vocall declaration of the manner and soundnesse of their conversion and that either in continued speech saith the Apologie or in answer to questions propounded by the Elders 2. They require a publick profâ—ssion of their faith concerning the articles of their religion the foresaid way also 3. An expresse vocall covenanting by oath to walke in that faith and to submit saith the Authour themselves to God and one to another in his feare and to walke in a professed subjection to all his holy Ordinances cleaving one to another as fellow members of the same body in brotherly love and holy watchfulnesse unto mutuall edification in Christ Iesus 4. And a covenanting not to depart from the said Church without the consent thereof This Church-covenant saith the Apologie is the essentiall or formall cause of a visible Church as a flocke of Saints is the materiall cause and so necessarily of the being of a Church that without it none can claim Church-communion and therefore it is that whereby a Church is constituted in its integrity that whereby a fallen Church is againe restored and that which being taken away the Church is dissolved and ceaseth to be a Church and it is that whereby Ministers have power over the people and people interest in their Ministers and one member hath interest and powerover another fellow-member The manner of entring in Church-state is this 1. A number of Christians with a gifted or experienced Elder meet often together saith this Authour about the things of God and performe some duties of prayer and spirituall conference together till a sufficient company of them be well satisfied in the spirituall good estate one of another and so have approved themselves to one anothers consciences in the sight of God as living stones fit to be said on the Lords spirituall Temple 2. They having acquainted the Christian Magistrate and neerest adjoyning Churches of their purpose of entring into Church-fellowship convene in a day kept with fasting and praying and preaching one bâ—ing chosen with common consent of the whole in name of the rest standeth up and propoundeth the covenant in the foresaid four Articles above named 3. All the rest declare their joynt consent in this covenant either by silence or word of mouth or writing 4. The brethren of other Churches some specials in name of the rest reach out to them the right hand of fellowship exhorting them to stand stedfast in the Lord. Which done prayers made to God for pardon and acceptance of the people a Psalm is sung But when a Church is to be gathered together of Infidels they must be first converted believers and so fit materials for Church fellowship before any of those things can be done by them 5. Baptisme maketh none members of the visible Church 6. A Church fallen cannot be accepted of God to Church fellowship till they renew their Church covenant Thus shortly for their mind about the gathering of a visible Church Let these distinctions be considered for the right stating of the question 1. Distinct. There is a covenant of free grace betwixt God and sinners founded upon the surety Christ Iesus laid hold on by us when we believe in Christ but a Church Covenant differenced from this is in question sub judice lis est 2. Distinct. There is a covenant of baptisme made by all and a covenant vertuall and implicite renewed when we are to receive the Lords Supper but an explicite positive professed Church covenant by oaâ—h in-churching a person or a society to a State-church is now questioned 3. Distinct. An explicite vocall Covenant whereby we bind our selves to the first three Articles in a tacite way by entring in a new relation to such a Pastor and to such a Flocke we deny not as if the thing were unlawfull for we may sweare to performe Gods commandements observing all things requisite in a lawfull oath 2. But that such a covenant is required by divine institution as the essentiall forme of a Church and Church-membership as though without this none were entered members of the visible Churches of the Apostles nor can now be entered in Church-state nor can have right unto the seales of the covenant we utterly deny 4. Distinct. We grant a covenant in Baptisme which is the seale of our entry unto the visible Church 2. That it is requisit that such Heretickes Papists Infidels as be received as members of our visible Church from which Papists have fallen having received baptisme from us doe openly professe subjection to God and his Church in all the Ordinances of God And that Infidels give a confession of their faith before they be baptized 3. Nor deny we that at the election of a Pastor the Pastor and people tie themselves by reciprocation of oathes to each other the one to fulfill faithfully the ministery that he hath received of the Lord the other to submit to his ministery in the Lord but these reciprocall oathes make neither of them members of a visible Church for they were that before these oathes were taken 5. Distinct. Any professor removing from one congregation to another and so comming under a new relation to such a Church or such a Ministery is in a tacite and vertuall covenant to discharge himselfe in all the duties of a member of that Congregation but this is nothing for a Church-covenant for when six are converted in the congregation whereof I am a member or an excommunicated person heartily and unfainely repenteth there ariseth a new relation betwixt those converts and the Church of God and a tie and obligation of duties to those persons greater then was before as being now members of one mysticall and invisible body Yet cur brethren cannot say there is requisite that the Church renew their Church-covenant towards such seeing the use of the Covenant renewed is to restore a fallen Church or to make a non-Church to be a Church and if those six be converted by my knowledge there resulteth thence an obligation of a vertuall and tacite covenant betwixt them and me but there is no need of an explicite and vocall covenant to tie us to duties that we are now obliged to in a stricter manner then we were before for when one is taken to be a steward in a great family there may be a sort of Covenant betwixt that servant and the Lord of the house and there resulteth from his office and charge a tie and obligation not onely to the head of the family but also to the children and fellow-servants of the house but there is no need of an expresse vocall and professed covenant betwixt the new steward and the children and servants yea and strangers also to whom he owes some acts of steward-duties
Text beare that the Elders set up a Court before the Eyes of all the people and delivered such a man to Satan so as this is called the head of Elders and people as our Brethren teach and here they distinguish where the Scripture distinguisheth not Fourthly if the Scripture give to us Thrones really different though names and titles cannot be found more then we find expresly and in words two Sacraments three Persons and one God Christ Iesus in two Natures and one Person then have we what we seeke but wee have these different in the things themselves as Acts 2. 46. wee have a Church meeting in an House for Word and Sacraments as Acts 20. 8. and a Congregation in Corinth meeting in an House 1 Cor. 11. 20. 1 Cor. 14. 23. and consequently here must bee some power in this meeting to order the worship of God this single meeting is to rebuke those that sinne openly and to hinder Women to preach in the Congregation and to forbid by the power of the Keys that two speake at once because God is the God of order to borbid Doctrine that edifieth not and speaking Gods Word in an unknowen Tongue c. 2. There is an Eldership 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every City in Ephesus in Ierusalem who met for Jurisdiction Acts 21. 18. who layd hands on Timothy 1 Tim. 14. 14. in Antioch Acts 13. 1. 3. There is a meeting of a provinciall Church in Galathia where there are many Churches as may be gathered from Acts 5. 9. 10. who were to purge out the scandalous and false Teachers who leavened all others and who were Gal. 6. 1. to restore with the spirit of meekenesse any fallen Brother and 4. There a map and patterne of a generall Synod warranting both a nationall Church-meeting and an Oâ—cumenick councell And the like may be gathered from that Synod Acts 1. and Acts 6. where these universall guides of the whole Christian World to wit the Apostles were and did exercise Jurisdiction by ordaining of Officers and though instances of these could not be given in Scripture there is a morall ground and warrant for it 1. Because joynt power of Jurisdiction are surer and better then a lesser and dispersed power For if the Keys be given to the Church visible not to this or this little Church as meetting in a private House Acts 2. 46. Acts 20. 8. The division or union of this power the extension of it must be squared by the rule of most convenient edification and it cannot stand with edification if it be given to one Congregation onely The God of nature for conserving humane societies hath given the power of government originally not to one but to a multitude for one onely is not in danger to be wronged and oppressed in a society but a society is in this danger therefore hath God given this power to a multitude and a multitude is the formall object of policy and government and cannot but be dâ—ssolved where Lawes and Government are not So the God of Grace must have given a power of government to a society and multitude of little Churches for a multitude of Congregations is a multitude and therefore this society and consociation cannot subsist except Christ have provided a supernaturall government for it It is not reasonable that some say a morall institution is not an institution for Magistracy is both morall and a Divine institution that God have a certaine day for his service is both morall and also a Divine institution all institutions are not meerly positive as some suppose such as is that the last day of the week be the Sabbath that Bread and Wine be signes of Christs Body brâ—ken and his Blood shed for us So supposing that Christ have a visible Church it is morall that shee have power of government also in so farre as shee is a Church Yea power of government upon this supposition is naturall or rather con naturall so by the same ground upon supposall that Christ have in a Nation a multitude of consociated Churches who for vicinity may either edifie encourage comfort and provoke â—re another to love and good workes they submitting themselves to the Lawes of Christs policy or may scandalize one another as many consociated Churches in Galathia were bent to bite devâ—ure and consume one another Gal. 5. 15. it is morall yea and con-naturall that they be under a Divine policy externall Nor is it more agreeable to the Wisdome of Christ that a multitude of consociated Churches in one Land should be left to the Lawes of nature and Christian brother-hood and be loosed from all Lawes of externall policy then that the just Lord who intendeth the conservation of humane societies should leave every man to the Law of nature and not give them a power to set up a Magistracy and to appoynt humane and civill Lawes whereby they may be conserved And I thinke we should all say if God had appoynted every great Family yea or every twenty Families in the World to be independent within it selfe and subordinate to no civill law to no power to no Magistracy without that independent little incorporation that God had not then appoynted a power of civill Policy and civill Lawes for the conservation of mankind and the reason should be cleare because in one Shire Countrey Province and Nation there should be a multitude to wit ten hundred ten thousand independent Kingdomes subject to no Lawes nor civill policy but immediately subordinate to GOD in the Law of nature and when these ten thousand should rise up and with the Sword devoure one another and one society independent should wrong another the onely remedy should be to complaine to God and renounce civill communion with such Societies that is traffique not with them doe not take or give borrow or lend buy or sell with them but it is unlawfull to use any coercive power of naturall or civill reparation to compell them to doe duty or execute mercy and Judgement one toward another now seeing grace destroyeth not nature neither can there be a policy independent which doth contradict this maxime of naturall policy acknowledged by all in all policies civill naturall supernaturall God intending the conservation of societies both in Church and State hath subjected all Societies and Multitudes to Lawes of externall policy but so it is a Multitude of little Congregations is a Multitude and a Society Then it must follow that government of independent little bodies under no coactive power of Church censures must want all divine institution and so be will worship For these it shall be easie to answer the obloquies of some saying that a nationall Church under the New Testament is Judaisme Hence say they a nationall Religion a nationall Oath or Covenant is like a world-World-Church a Church a huge body as big as the Earth and so if some Augustus should subdue the whole VVorld to himselfe with the Sword Hee might compell the VVorld to bee
because the Apostle mentioneth onely one single Church-meeting I think not and therefore the Apostles mentioning of one assembling of the Church acts 11. 26. and of one multitude in the singular number acts 15. 30. can never prove that there was but one single Congregation at Antioch Therefore there be great â—dds betwixt meeting in a Church and meeting in the Church Also Tit. 1. 5. for this cause was Titus left at Creet that he might appaynt Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every City if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be not all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 14. 23. acts 16. 4. 5. That is if ordaining of Elders of every City bee not as good as ordaining of Elders in every Church then must there be but in all and every City where ever the Apostles or Evangelists planted Churches but one single Congregation and not any more then could meet in a single Congregation which is a conjecture and much contrary to these times when the Gospell admirably grew in the World And it must follow that every City had but such a competent number as met in one place and if this hold as an uncertaine thing in great Cities then must we say an Eldership in a City and an Eldership of many Congregations were the first planted apostolick Churches and so rules to us also And looke what frame of Churches the Apostles did institute in Cities that same they behoved to institute in Villages also for places cannot change the frame of any institution of Christ. 2. The communion of Saints and Church-edification is as requisite for Villages as for Cities Arguments removed which Mr. Richard Mather and Mr. William Thomson Pastors in New England in their answer to Mr. Charles Herle do bring so far as they make against the authors former Treatises and a scanning of some Synodicall propositions of the Churches of N. England MR. Mather Mr. Thomson c. 1. 9. Governing power is only in the Elders 1 Cor. 12. 28. Rom. 12. 8. Heb. 13. 17. the people hath no power but rather a liberty or priviledge which when it is exercised about Ordination Deposition Excommunication is of the whole communiter or in generall but not of all and every member in particular Women for their Sex children for want of discrâ—tion are dâ—barred Answ. If there be no governing power in Women nor any act at all in excommunication You loose many arguments that you bring 1 Cor. 5. to prove that all have hand in excommunication 1. Because Paul writeth to all 2. All were to mourne 3. All ware to forbeare the company of the excommunicated men Then belike Paul writeth not to all Saints at Corinth not to Women and Women were not to mourne for the scandall nor to forbeare his company 2. The priviledge being a part of liberty purchased by Christs Body it must be due to Women for the liberty wherewith Christ hath made Women free cannot be taken away by any Law of God from their Sex except in Christ Iesus there be difference betwixt Iew and Gentile male and female nor is it removed because iâ— iâ— a power or authority for the authors say it is no power but a priviledge 3. What priviledge the people have in ordination to confer a Ministery which they neither have formally nor vertually I know not But I doe willingly say something here of the peoples power The first Synodicall proposition of New England is 1. Propos. The fraternity is the first Subject of all Ministeriall power radicalitèr idest 〈◊〉 per modum collationis some say suppletivè non habitualitèr non actualit â—r non formalitèr That is if I conceive it right The people voyd of all Officers have a vertuall power to conferre a Ministery on their Officers though they have not this power in themselves I could in some sense yield that Believers not Angells are capable of the Ministeriall power to exercise it formally but that Believers doe or can by any way of causative influence make Church-Officers I see not they may design a man qualified to bean Officer to the Office and that is all But say they people wanting or being naked and without all Officers hath not formally or habitually any power in them this latter part Igrant and the 2. Proposition I grant to wit That the presbytery is the first subject of all presbyteriall power habitually and formally But I doe not see how it standeth with the third proposition which is 3. The fraternity or the people without the Officers and without Women or children have an authoritative concurrence with the presbytery in judiciall acts Because if the Brethren have an halfe Ministeriall power with the Officers in acts of Jurisdiction and Excommunication Deposition and Censures I see not how there is not a Ministeriall power formally and habitually at least in part in the Brethren and so contrary to the third proposition the Prasbytery is not the first subject of all Prebyteriall power for the brethren are sharers with the Elders in this power 2. We desire to see it made good by Gods Word that the brethren have a joynt power of Jurisdiction with the Elders for the Table giveth them a brotherly publick power not by way of Charity but a politick Church power in many eminent acts especially in those eight and that constantly 1. In the admission 1. In Sending Messengers to the Churches 2. In the excommunication of members 2. 2. In interpretation of Scripture 3. In the calling 3. In a judiciall determination of controversies of Religion in a synod 4. And Deposition of Ministers 4. In a power of disposing of things indifferent I cannot see any judiciall power or any farther then a charitative yielding by way of a loving and brotherly consent that the Scripture giveth to brethren 3. How this can be denied to be a power of jurisdiction and governing and an actuall Ministeriall using of the Keyes of the Kingdome by those who ex officio by place and calling are no Officers I believe is not easily understood 4. The letter that I saw sayth that that learned and godly Divine Mr. Cotton and some others thinke that the Church as it is an Organicall Body made up of Elders and people is the first subject of all Ecclesiasticall power and they divide it into a power of authority and a power of liberty whereof the power of authority belongeth to the Elders or Eldership and the power of liberty to the Fraternity or Brethren that are not Officers and therefore these reverend brethren deny any authoritative concurrence to the brethren and they thinke that the Church as it is an homogeneall body that is a company destitute of Officers cannot formally ordaine excommunicate or censure the Elders though in case of obstinacy they may doe that which is equivalent and so separate from them The 4. Proposition is The fraternity or Brethren in an Organicall Body or in a â—â—med and established Church consisting of Officers and people act and use
Earth Answ. I see this sayd without any probation Churches depend on many above them for unity but what consequence is this Ergo they depend upon one visible Monarch It is an unjust consequence Mr. Mather Mr. Thomson c. 2 pag. 26. The Graecians and Hebrewes made not two Churches but one Congregation they called the multitude of Disciples together v. 2. Answ. That the chiefe of both Grecians and Hebrewes were convened in one to give their consent to the admission of their Officers the Deacons I conceive but that all the thousands of the Church of Jerusalem were here as in one ordinary Congregation I judge unpossible Mr. Mather c. 3. pag. 27. 28. If your argument be good if thy Brother offend and refuse to submit tell the Church because Christs Remedy must be as large as the Disease then if a Nationall Church offend you are to complaine to a higher Church above a Nationall Church and because offences may arise betwixt Christians and Indians you may complain of an Indian to the Church Ans. Because ordinary communion faileth when you got higher then a Nationall Church and Christs way suppoleth an ordinary Communion as is cleare If thy Brother offend c. Therefore I deny that this remedy is needfull in any Church above a Nationall Church 2. Christs remedy is a Church remedy for Offences amongst brethren and Members of the visible Church And Indians are no Members of the Church and so being without they cannot bee judged 1 Co. 5. 12. We say that if the Magistrate be an enemy to Religion may not the Church without him convene and renew a Covenant with God Mr. Mather and Mr. Thomson answer c. 3. pag. 29. if the supreame Magistrate be an enemy to Religion it is not like but most or many of the people will be of the same mind Regis ad exemplum as it is in France and Spaine and was in the dayes of Queene Mary and then the Believers in the Land will not be able to beare the name of the Land or Nation but of a small part thereof nor can it be well conceived how they should assemble in a Nationall Synod for that or any other purpose when the Magistrate is a professed Enemie nor doth God require it at their hands Answ. This is a weake answer the Christians under Nerâ— were not like their Prince and it s not like but sincere Christians will bee sincere Christians and professe truth even when the Magistrate is an enemy And 2. If your meaning be it cannot be conceived how they should assemble in a Nationall assembly when the Magistrate is an Enemy because it is not safe for feare of persecution Then you say nothing to the argument because the argument is drawen from a duty a Nation professing the Gospell after many backslidings are obliged to convene in a Nationall Synod and are to renew their Covenant with the Lord and your answer is from an ill of affliction and if you meane that because the Princes power is against their Synodicall convening this is nothing against the power of the Synods that CHRIST hath given to His Church But if your meaning be that it is not lawfull to them to convene in a Nationall Synod to renew a Covenant with GOD against the supreame Magistrates will I hope you minde no such thingâ— for so doe Malignants Now alledge that wee never read of any Reformation of Religion in Scripture warranted but where the Prince did contribute his authority because he onely is to reforme and he onely rebuked for the standing of the high places but hee may soone be answered 1. Both Israel and Iudah were so bent to backsliding that wee read not that ever the people made any reall Reformation of Religion Josiah Hezekiah and Asa did it for them But what an argument is this Iudah did never for the most of the Land seeke the Lord God of their Fathers with all their heart Ergo the seeking of the Lord God with all the heart is an unwritten tradition 2. Princes are obliged to remove high places But are they obliged with their owne Hands to breake all the Images No I thinke if they remove the high places by the Hands of their Subjects or command their Subjects to remove them they doe full well But I see not this consequence Ergo Princes onely are obliged to remove the high places it followeth not 3. If it be the Princes part to command his Subjects this duty of Reformation and removall of the high places then they may performe their duty without the Prince 4. There is a twofold Reformation one an heart-Reformation Sure this is not the Princes onely All the Land may repent without the King There is another an outward Reformation And that is twofold either Negative or Positiveâ— Negative is to refraine from ill and the unlawfull and superstitious manner of worshipping GOD as in new Offices not warranted by his Word Antichristian Ceremonies and a Masse-Booke c. Certainly all the Land are to abstaine from sinne though the King command not now all the Reformation for the most part in both Kingdomes is in obstinence from superstitious superadditions that defiled the worship of GOD and to this there is no necessity of the Magistrates authority more then wee needâ— the Kings warrant to put an Obligation upon Gods Negative Commandements All that is Positive is the swearing of a lawfull Covenant to observe and stand by the faith and true Religion of the Land but I see no more a necessity that a King warrant the lawfull Vow of twenty thousand then the Lawfull Vow of one Man seeing it is a lawfull profession of CHRIST before Men commanded in the third Commandement And to the observance of that Law of God which God and Conscience hic nunc doe oblige us there is no addition of a Kingly authority by necessity of a Divine Law required to make it valid no more then if all the Kingdome at such a solemne day of humiliation should all in every severall Church sweare to Reformation of life 5. The Apostles and Christ positively did reforme Religion and the Church without and contrary to the mind of civill authority nor is it enough to say the Apostles were Apostles but wee are not Apostles for upon this morall ground Acts 5. 29. Wee ought rather to obey GOD than man they reformed contrary to the Magistrates mind And wee doe but contend for that very same Faith Jud. 3. which was once delivered to the Saints So to Reforme is to seeke the old way and to walks in it Jeremy 6. 16. to turne to the LORD with all the heart Jeremy 1. and for this cause Jeremy 3. 10. Iudah is sayd not to veturue to the LORD with her whole heart but fainedly because when a zealous King reformed them they returned not with all their heart Whence Reformation of Religion must bee the peoples duty no lesse then the Kings and I believe such a divine precept carrying
the Church of Israel properly as a Church for as a Church of a nation they might convene and assemble themselves in one nationall Assembly to reforme Religion to renew a nationall Covenant to turne away a nationall judgement to make nationall acts that they should seeke the Lord God of Israel and put away strange wives Deut. 29. 2 Chron. 15. 12 13. Nehem. 10. and this is morall yea naturall to a number of Churches united in one nation and no wayes typicall 2. The proportion betwixt Israel and a parishionall Church is questioned the Author beggeth what is in question for it is evident that in Gods Word there is a visible Church of many Congregations associated in many visible acts of government 3. If the Church of Israel and the Churches of the New Testament be of different constitutions as Anabaptists Arminians and Socinians teacheth we shall try I affirme that the Constitution in matter and forme was one with the Christian visible Church 1. Our brethren bring arguments from the constitution of the Church of the Jewes that for matter they were a holy people a royall generation for forme they were united in one Church-state Covenant-wayes as they prove from Deut. 29. 2. Separation from sinne and the wicked world but not from the worship of God was commanded to them Psal. 26. 5 6. Esay 52. 11. 2 Cor. 6. 7. Levit. 26. 11 12. Communion with the wicked was forbidden to Israel 2 Chron. 19. 2. 2 Chron. 30. 6. but communion in worship both in the Synagogue and Temple was commanded to them 3. That God required not morall preparation in them for eating the Passeover as he doth in us before wee eate the Lords Supper I conceive to bee an untruth 1. Because not to prophane the holy things of God and not to take Gods Law in their mouth and to hate to be reformed Psal. 50. 16. not to sacrifice with bloody hands Esa. 1. 11 12 c. Psal. 50. 8 9 10. Esa 66. 1. was morall and did bind and oblige the Jewes as they doe us and 2 Chron. 30. 6. The postes are sent to gather the people to the Passeover charging them to turne to the Lord God of their fathers not to be like their fathers and it is cleare by Hezekiabâ— prayer ver 18 19. Good Lord pardon him that prepareth his heart to seeke the Lord God of his fathers though he be not cleansed according to the purification of the Sanctuary vers 20. And the Lord hearkened and healed the people Ergo there was required a preparation of the heart for the right eating of the Passeover besides the typicall and ceremoniall preparation Yea God counted the ceremoniall preparation voyd of the morall preparation but abomination as Esa. 66. 1. Esa. 58. 3 4 5 6. and Josiahs Passeover is commended from this 2 Kings 23. 22 as Junius well observeth that none did with such care and zeale as Josiah did prepare the Prâ—esâ—s the people and himselfe for the passeover in removing all Idâ—latry and abominatiâ—n and in renewing their Covenant and resolutiâ—n vers 3. To walke after the Lord and to keepe his Commandements with all their heart and with all their soule 4. The uncleane and uncircumcised in heart were no more members of the true and invisible Church of the Jewes and of Christs mysticall body his Spouse his royall generation then Sodom and Gomorrah Esa. 1 10. then the Ethiopians Amos 9. 7. then Ammon and Moah Jâ—r 9 25 26. as in the New Testament and the true invisible Church amongst them as amongst us were Kings and Priests unto God Exod. 19. 5. 9. Psal. 149. 1. as we are 1 Pet. 2. 9 10. Rev. 1. 5. 5. Amongst them no man could invade the Priests office or runne unsent no more then under the New Testament Heb. 5. 4. 1 Tim. 4. 22. though they were to rebuke one another Levit. 19. and they had sacrifices for sins of ignorance Levit. 4. 27. 2. The place seemeth not to want difficultie how many sacrifices would men offer how often yea while they were going home from Jerusalem which was a long Journey to many they might fall in these sinnes of ignorance and as Master Paget noteth there was no dispensation for this Law yet when Abraham travelled three dayes to Mount Moriah from Beersheba in the South and some of the Tribes Northward would bee al 's farre distant it would be seven dayes journey to many therefore the Text is if be sinne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in ignorance or through ignorance that is meerely of ignorance as when a man in drunkennesse killed a man he shall offer a trespasse offering for it the Jewes call it in their Language 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 timgnol magnal for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 megnal signifieth Pallium if he sinned with a cloake casten over his eyes and Weemes said the sinnes were done of ignorance not ignorantly or the word in the Hebrew is vel notificatum fuerit ei peccatum ejus when the conscience is wakened and convinced and he can finde no rest let him offer sacrifices And a third step was excommunication and casting out of the Synagogue after the captivity which are the very degrees of our Church censure They answer Israel had civill government which we have not I answer Deut. 17. 9. He that will not hearken to the Priest that standeth before the Lord to minister or unto the Judge even that man shall dye He saith not Hee that hearkeneth not unto the People 2. They say they could not in Israel forgive one anothers sinnes as we doe in the New Testament Answ. It is a divine Law in the Old Testament they were to forgive even their enemies Prov. 20. 22. c. Robinson saith No Church hath the absolute promise of the Lords visible presente which that Church then had till the comming of Christ Gen. 47. 10. and 17. 7. Exod. 19. 43 44. It was simply necessary that the Messiah should be borne in the true Church 3. In their deepest apost asy God shewed them some signes of his presence by raising up some godly King Priest or Prophet Answ. That they had Prerogatives above us is cleare Rom. 3. 1 2 3. Rom. 9. 4. and that in other respects farre more excellent wee have Prerogatives above them is as cleare 2 Cer. 3. 7 8 9. Matth. 13. 16 17. So one Christian Church have Prerogatives above another but the essentiall constitution of the Church of the Jewes and ours is one 1. They were a roâ—aâ—d Priest-hood a People holy to the Lord the Covenant made with them as with us 2. To them one little Leaven leavened the whole lumpe 3. Separation from sinne and Idolatrous worship was commanded them as it is us 4. Amongst them none who hated to be reformed were to take the Law of God in their mouth But to returne to our Author it is a false ground that one that is Baptized in one Church hath not right to the
Gerson as also Glorianus but he who is casten out as a Schismaticke is in the same case with an excommunicate person Lastly baptisme is not a priviledge of a particular visible Church onely nor doth the place of 1 Cor. 12. vers 13. meane of the visible parishionall Church of Corinth but of the whole visible Church of Jew and Gentile bond and free as the words doe beare Quest. III. In what cases it is lawfull to separate from a Church In this discourse three things must bee discussed 1. With what Church retaining the doctrine of fundamentalls we are to remaine 2. Whether our separation from Rome bee not warrantable 3. Whether wee may lawfully separate from true Churches for the sinnes of the Churches 1 Cor. 3. 11. Another foundation can no man lay then that which is laid Jesus Christ. Hence Jesus Christ is the foundation of faith reall or personall and the knowledge of Christ is the dogmaticall foundation of faith Upon this foundation some build gold that is good doctriae some hay and stubble that is as Calvin faith curious doctrine Pareus vaine and frivolous doctrine We are to distinguish betwixt articles of faith or res fidei matters of faith and fundamentall points of faith Matters of faith I reduce to three 1. Fundamentall points 2. Supra-fundamentalia superstructions â—â—illed upon fundamentalls 3. Circa-fundamentalia things about maâ—ers of Faith for praeter fundamentalia things indifferent and besides the foundation in matters of Religion and morall carriage I acknowledge none fundamentalls are the vitall and noble parts or the soule of Divinitie The ignorance of fundamentalls condemneth which is to be understood two wayes 1. The Ignorance of fundamentalls such as are supernaturall fundamentalls condemneth all within the visible Church as a sinne but it doth not formally condemne those who are without the visible Church Job 15. 22. It onely maketh those who are without the Church incurable but doth not formally condemne them as medicine not knowne and so not refused maketh sicke men incurable as a losse but doth not kill them as a sinne 2. Superstructures which by consequence arise from fundamentalls are fundamentalls by consequent and secondarily as the second ranke of stones that are immediatly laid upon the foundation are a foundation in respect of the higher parts of the wall and therefore are materially fundamentall and the ignorance of these virtually condemne and the denying of such by consequence is a denying of the foundation Things about the foundation circa fundamentalia are all things revealed in the word of God as all Histories Miracles Chronolâ—gie things anent Orion the Pleiades the North starres Job 38. 31. 32. That Paul left his cloakc at Troas The knowledge of these is considered three wayes 1. As necessary by necessitie of a meane necessitate medii and the knowledge so is not necessary to salvation many are in glory I doubt not who lived in the visible Church and yet knew never that Sampson killed a Lion but the knowledge of all these is necessary necessitate praecepti because all in the visible Church are oblieged to know these things therefore the ignorance of these onely doth not actually condemne but virtually and by demerit lead to condemnation 2. This knowledge is considered as commanded in the excellency thereof and so error and bad opinions about these are sinfully ill though in the regenerate by accident such errors condemne not where the foundation is holden 3. The knowledge of these is considered as commanded and enjoyned to us with the submission of faith for the authority of God the Speaker and the malicious opposing of these is a fundamentall error not formally but by evident consequent for though the matter of these errors be not fundamentall yet the malicious opposing of these is a fundamentall error against this principle What ever God saith is true but God saith there were eight soules in the Arke of Noah Hence because the historiall things of Scripture and things about the foundation as that Paul purified himselfe with the Jewes Act. 21. that Paul rebuked Peter Gal. 2. is no lesse true because God hath so spoken in his Word then this fundamentall point Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners it is cleare that the specifice and essentiall forme of a fundamentall article is not taken from the authoritie of God speaking in the Word seeing Gods authoritie is one and the same in all that he speaketh but from the influence that the knowledge of an article hath to unite us to God in Christ and bring us to salvation And secondly it will follow that this Thou shalt not by the use of things indifferent kill him for whom Christ died and the like be no lesse fundamentall by evident consequent in respect it is spoken by Gods own authority then articles of our faith Thirdly it followeth that formalists ignorantly divide matters of Gods worship into matters of Faith or points fundamentall and things indifferent as if many Scripturall truthes were not to be found in Gods Word such as the miracles of Moses and Elias the journeyes of Paul which are neither matters fundamentall nor yet things indifferent Fourthly many things may be fundamentall by consequent to one who can reade the Word and heareth it read which is not by consequent fundamentall to a rude and ignorant man The knowledge of points fundamentall is necessary 1. To obtaine salvation 2. To keepe communion with a true Church for we are to separate from a Church subverting the foundation and laying another foundation Fundamentalls are restricted by many to the Creed of Athanasius and Gregorius Nazimzen and Cyrillus of Jerusalem to the Apostles Creed as it is called others reduce all fundamentalls to the famous Creeds of Niâ—e of Constantinople of Ephesus of Chalcedâ—n Estius restricteth fundamentalls to things necessary for the well ordering of our life Davenantius saith better That such are fundamentall the knowledge whereof is simply necessary to salvation iâ— ignorance whereof doth condemne Doctor Potter calleth them Pâ—ime and capitall doctrines of our Religion or of that faith which essentially constituteth a true Church and a true Christian which is good but that he contradivideth from these things not fundamentall which may be disputed on either side and cannot be determined by the Word of God and must lie under a non liquet is his error Yet he may know that Bellarmine saith right many things are of faith and cleare in Scripture as historicall relations which are not fundamentall Camero and a greater Divine then Camero Dom. Beza reduceth all fundamentalls to things which necessarily belongeth to faith and obedience and great Calvin retrincheth fundamentalls within the Apostles Creed Occam will have the militant Catholicke Church alwayes explicitely or expressly beleevings things necessary to salvation and our Divines teach that the Catholike Church cannot erre in fundamentalls they meane with pertinacie and obstinacie 2. In
is to be seene in these bookes of the Chronicles written after the Captivitie as 2 Chron. 5. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they might praise Jehovah and Chap. 32. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he writ letters also to raile on the Lord and so the parallell place 2 King 19. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the place as the Doctor citeth is well exponed by R. Salomon Iarcâ—i in his Commentary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is it was proper to the Priests and Levites 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to teach instruct as it is written Deut. 24. 28. according to al that the Priests and Levites shal teach you do yee but the Princes went with them lest they should have rebelled against their words that they might compell them to obey c. the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in pihel signifieth this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in kall didicit in pihel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he caused him to learne Dan. 1. 3 4. Nebuchadnezzar commanded also Penaz 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to teach them learning and the language of Chaldea that honorable Courtier was not a Schoolemaster to teach the children of the captivitie himselfe but he did it by others The King of Syria saith to the King of Israel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thou shall cure Naaman of his leprosie the Maide exponed it thou shalt cure him by another Elisha shall cure him Pilat scourged Jesus but Livius saith the Judge said to a burrio i. Lictor colliga manus so Deut. 31. 22. Moses therefore writ this song the same day and taught it v. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 teach them this song and put it in their mouth It was impossible that Moses in his owne person could teach the people and put this song in their mouth therefore he behooved to teach them by the Priests and Levites as 24. 25. 2. The Hebrewes may read so but he sent to his princes for the letter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a note of the accusative case of the dative of the genitive or of the accusative case with a certaine motion as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to David or of David Valet Haebraeis inquit Schindlerus ad in vel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 super and it noteth a motion to a thing Gen. 2. 22. aedificavit he made the rib in a woman 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iud. 8. 27. and Gideon made it in an Ephod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Sam. 4. They annointed David 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to bee King Then it must bee read hee sent to the Princes Benchail c. to teach in the Cities of Iudah v. 8. and with them he sent Levites v. 9. and they taught in Iudah there is not the least signification in the Text that the Princes taught Robinson Princes and Iudges are to open and expone the Law by which they governe else they governe with tyranny Answ. Judges are to convince the theefe and the murtherer 1. In a coactive way not in an ecclesiastick way 2. As these sinnes are troublesonie and hurtful to the State and Common-wealth 3 That others may feare to hurt the State by the like sinnes not that the malefactors may be converted to God and their soules may be saved but your lay-Prophets simpliciter not in ordine ad paenam are the onely ordinary converters of soules Robinson There is an excellent Sermon saith he of Iel oshaphats to the Iudges 2 Chron. 19. 6. and to the Levites 9. 10. and a divine prayer 8. 20. and Hezekiah hath an excellent Sermon to the Priests and Levites in the very Temple 2 Chron. 29. 4 5. And Nehemiah taught the people the Law of the Lord Kings are Shepheards and feeders not onely by government but also by instruction Answ. 1. These Sermons of Iehoshaphat and Hezekiah were first in time of extraordinary defections when the Priests whose it were to teach the people were corrupted and turned dumbe dogs 2. They were Sermons of Propheticall instinct and divine impulsions as the very stile of them cleareth and therefore cannot warrant Christian Princes to bee ordinary Prophets except you make the King a nationall Pastor over Pastors and two thousand Congregations for if as Prince hee bee their Pastor he is equally Pastor and teacher to all these Congregations and he must be as Prince obliged to bee a Prophet to convert all How exclude they a Pastor of Pastors and a diocesian prelate who introduce a nationall Pastor Yea how deny we a Pope if the King carry both the swords both of the spirit as a Prophet and that ordinarily by his calling to feed soules and the civill sword to take vengeance upon evill doers for whosoever preacheth the word of God as a Prophet hath the keyes of the Kingdome of heaven committed unto him to bind and loose to remit and retaine sinnes on earth and in heaven for the preached Gospell is the keyes of the kingdome as is the power of Church censures Then must the Kings have both keyes of Church and State and what hindereth but they admit the King as King and a nationall Pastor to be the head of the Church under Christ. 3. Consider the King as a Christian and gifted with learning hee is parens patriae and publick nurse father of the Church and may occasionally upon some extraordinary exigent at the meeting of the States or when his armies are going out to battell make use of the Word of God to exhort them to generall duties of Religion and Justice and to be prepared for meeting with eternitie and judgement and this he doth as a Christian father his subjects being his children but what is this to inferre that the King as King is a Prophet and an ordinary feeder of soules ex officio by office and that by knowledge and instruction as Robinson saith and an ordinary converter of soules and such a Prophet as doth preach in the Church ordinarily to the edifying of the Church and conviction and conversion of Infidels and gathering of a people to God as they say of their Prophets out of office 1 Cor. 14. 4 5. 12. 23 24 25. 31. And upon the same ground a King who hath the spirit of adoption may publikely pray as Jeboshaphat did for the Lord of hosts his presence to goe out with his Armies against the enemies of the Gospel but à speciei positione ad generis positionem male sequitur hee may be the peoples mouth to God in such an exigence and hee may give a word of exhortation anent duties generall of good subjects Ergo hee is an ordinary Prophet for the ordinary preaching of the Gospel to all his Subjects it is a loose and vaine collection Lastly Nehemiah a Prince taught the people saith he I answer Nehemiah was a Prophet and Author of Canonick Scripture as was Salomon and therefore his teaching proveth not the point Nehem. 1. v. 1. Nor can I finde where Nebemiah preached or prophecied to the people at all but
Christs body because it is a voluntary act of obedience to Christ that men adjoyne themselves to the visible Church Ergo none can be compelled thereunto by the authoritie of the Magistrate faith may bee counselled it cannot bee compelled For the clearing of this question these considerations are to bee weighed 1. The Magistrate may compell to the meanes and externall acts of worship and to desisting from externall false worship of the false God or of the true God worshipped in a false way hee cannot compell to internall acts of faith love and such like as having no power over the conscience 2. There is one consideration of a Heathen or Pagan nation which never received Christianitie and the true faith and another consideration of a nation baptized and professing Christ. 3. A Magistrate may compell a heathen nation to the negative reverence of Christ in a indirect way and that with the sword though he cannot compell to the positive worshipping of him if a Christian Prince subdue a Pagan nation hee cannot force them with the Sword to a positive receiving of the doctrine of the Gospell but if it bee a nation expressely blaspheming Christ as the nation of the Jewes now do hee may compell them to an abstinence from a professed blaspheming of Christ because he is to use the sword against blasphemy 4. The weapons of the Church as the Church are not carnall but spiritual and mightie through God 5. The compelling power of the Magistrate is terminated upon externall worship as abstracted from either hypocrisie or sinceritie in worship 6. Though no man resist the Magistrate in a matter of religion except in a hypocriticall way save onely he who thinketh hee hath reason 〈◊〉 and is led by the judgement and inditement of conscience to resist â—et is not the in litement of conscience but onely the Word of God â—et rule of mans obedience or resisting in actions purposes conversation 1. Conclusion Fire and sword or warre or the coactive power of a magistrate is not Gods way of planting the Gospell in a heathen nation which never heard of the Gospell before 1. Because the Apostles were commanded by teaching the Gospell to all nations Matth. 28. 19 20. Mark 16. 15. Act. 7. 8. and not by warre to spread the Gospel 2. Because Christs Kingdome is not of this world for then his servants would fight for him Joh. 18. 36. nor are the weapons of our warfare carnall 2 Cor. 10. 4. nor is Christs sword any other thing then the Word of God Rev. 19. 15. Gal. 6. 17. And in this meaning and with relation to the internall acts of sound beleeving have the learned taught us that religio suaderi potest cogi non potest if these bee the constitutions of Clemens let it goe for a truth in this sense that God hath given libertie of will to men not punishing them with temporall death but calleth them to give an account of â—â—eir doings in the life to come which yet cannot bee universally true except that the Author with Anabaptists take away the power of the civill magistrate and Athanasius meaned with us when hee citeth that If any will come after me let him take up his crosse to prove that the will cannot bee compelled and that of Lactantius is approved by all defendenda tamen religioest non occidendo sed moriendo non saevitiâ sed sapientiâ non sâ—â—lere sed fide illa enim malorum sunt baec bonorum necesse est bonum in religione versari non malum Nam si sanguine si tormentis si malo religionem defendere velis jam non defendetur illa fed polluetur violabitur Nihil est tam voluntarium quam religio in qua si animus sacrificantis est eversus jam sublata jam nulla est all which tendeth to this that religion is like free-will and free-will like a Virgin which cannot bee ravished Let that of Tertullian stand Lex nostra non se vindicat ultore gladioâ— Procopius saith that Justinian was blamed because hee compelled the Samaritans to imbrace the Christian faith 2. Conclusion A Christian Prince subduing a heathen Nation may compell them to desist from a negative disâ—onouring of Christ and from an externall false worship Dan. 3. 29. Therefore I make a Decree that every People Nation and Language which speake any thing amisse against the God of Sadrach and Abednego shall be cut in peeces and their houses shall be made a dungâ—ill 2. The Magistrate beareth not the sword for nothing or invaine for he is the minister of God a revenger to execute wrath on those who doe evill Rom. 13. 4. Therefore he should be Gods Minister to execute wrath on those who dishonour Christ. Nor must we approve of that of Tiberius that Gods take care of wrongs dene to themselves and that of the Emperour Alexander it 's sufficient that the breach of an oath hath God to be the revenger Yet the Emperour Constantine commanded all the Churches of the Pagan Gods to be closed up and Ambrose and Augustine both commended the fact and Ferdinand King of Spaine commanded all the Jewes who would not turne Christians to remove out of Spaine 3. Conclus Where a Nation hath embraced the faith and sworne thereunto in Baptisme it is lawfull for the Magistrate to compell them to professe that truth to the which they have sworne in Baptisme 1. Because the Magistrate is a keeper of both Tables of the Law Ergo he may take care that these who are baptized and sworne to be followers of Christ should professe what they have sworne to professe 2. Because the Magistrate may compell ad actus imperatos non ad actus elicitos commanded and externall acts of worship though he have no power over the conscience to command the elicit acts of will and mind 3. He may command to use the meanes of Religion though he cannot force Religion it selfe and this Jehoshaphat Ezechiah Asa and Josiah and other good Kings commanded and in that are set forth to all Princes as patterns of zeale 4. The most pungent argument of our brethren in the contrary is of no weight because say they for one to adjoyn himself to the visible Church in a profession of the faith it is a supernaturall worke of Grace and must be voluntary else the Magistrate should compell men to hypocrisie yea and he should saith Gregorius de Valentia following Cajetanus indirectly concurre to sacriledge to profane the holy things of God and feare of punishment maketh an action against the will secundum quid in some respect and for the point of supernaturality of professing Durandus handleth it Now I say that this is of no weight because as Suarez saith one may be compelled to heare the Word who yet cannot be compelled to beleeve so say I to make such a profession as may constitute any one a member of the visible
free act 2. because it is a supernaturall worke of God and so they are not under the stroake of the Magistrates sword for freewill in supernaturall acts is alike uncogible and free from all externall violence in both those who are baptized professors within the bosome of the visible Church and in Pagans and the truth is neither the Magistrate nor the Church can censine opinions even erronious in fundamentall points as they are opinions for no societie no humane authoritie can either judge of or punish the internall acts of the mind because as such they are indeed offensive to God but not offensive or scandalous to either Church or Commonwealth and so without the Spheare of all humane coercive power nor is Titus Tit. 1. To rebuke gainesiyers v. 9. that they may be sound in the faith v. 13. but in so farre as that faith is visible and as it commeth out of perverse mouthes which must be stopped v. 11. Also punishments either civill or ecclesiasticall do no other wayes worke upon the mind and heart but by a morall swasory influence for it is a palpable contradiction that freewil can physically be compelled therefore here saith Philip Gamacheus there is no need of an Emperours sword but of a Fishers Angle Let it goe then which is taught as a truth in this point by Covarruvias e Gregori de Valent. Gamacheus Tannerus Malderus that Princes have neither from the Law of nature or from any divine Law a coercive power over the faith of Pagans nor is Scotus in this to bee heard that the same divine law obliegeth all Princes and the Churches that did lie upon Israel to destroy the Cansanites Yet may it bee lawfull in some cases indirectly to force them in their false worship as Molina saith against Alphonsus a Castro if they kill their innocent children to their false Gods because it is lawfull to defend the innocent neither is that to bee regarded as a sufficient reason that these Infants doe not consent that they should bee defended because as Malderus saith it is lawfull to hinder a man who is willing to kill himselfe from unjust violence against his owne liâ— 2. It is lawfull as saith Aegidius Conin k Lorca Aquinas and Cajetanus to compell Pagans to desist from violent impeding of Pastors to preach the Gospell to some amongst them who are willing to heare because in that they are injurious to the salvation of those who are appointed to bee saved and doe manifestly hinder the Gospels progresse which the Church is so farre as is in her power to propagate even as her prayer is let thy kingdome come 2. Nor doe we thinke that Princes may compell Pagans who are under their dominions to the faith without foregoing information of their conscience or that simply they may compell them to embrace the faith except that here Princes have greater libertie indirectly to force them because they being now living as wee suppose in a visible Church they may infect the Church and therefore here should bee an indirect hindering of the exercise of their false religion in so farre as it is infectious to the Church of God ne pars sincera trahatur for to this by a certaine proportion the power of excommunication given to the Church by Christ may lead us 1 Cor. 5. 6. and if wee must live by Lawes and not by examples Paul the fourth his suffering of the Jewes Synagogues at Rome and their ancient feasts which faith Malderus of themselves are not evill is no law to us yea but to Christians it is a falling from Christ and his grace nor is Rome who tolerateth Jewith religion nor the edict of Honorius and Theodosius our warrant 3. Nor can wee beleeve that no other sinnes in opinion concerning God his nature attributes worship and Church-discipline except onely such as are against those points which are called fundamentall and the received principles of Christianitie should bee censurable by the Church or punishable by the Magistrate 1. Because Jesus Christ Mat. 18. ordaineth that every sin against our brother or a Church 1 Cor. 10. 31 32. in which the delinquent shall continue with obstinate refusall to heare the Church should bee censured with excommunication But there bee divers opinions concerning God his nature attributes worship and Church-discipline which are not against points fundamentall which being professed are sinnes against our brother and the Churches Ergo many opinions not against points fundamentall if professed are censurable by the Church and punishable by the Magistrate I prove the proposition because Christ Matth 18. maketh no distinction and exception of any sinne but saith universally v. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if thy brother trespasse against thee c. and wee can make no exception against an indefinit and Catholick statute and ordinance of Jesus Christ. I prove the assumption because there bee many scandalous points of Arminianisme Pelagianisme of Poperic anent Church government traditions the power and â—fficacie of grace circumciâ—ion forbidding of marriages and of meates which are doctrines of devills comming from such as have consciences burnt with an hot Iron 1 Tim. 4. 1 2 3. many points of Anabaptisme Antinomianisme Socinianisme and of divers other sects are not points fundamentall because many no doubt are glorified who lived and beleeved in Christ and died â—gnorant of either opinions either on the one side or the other yet being professed preached and maintained especially wilfully and obstinately do wonderfully scandalize our brethren and the Churches Nor can I say that such as beleeve that marriage of Churchmen is unlawfull and defend it as many holy and learned men in Popery did and died in that error if otherwise they beleeve in Christ and the like I say of Chastising the body and abstaining from such and such meates which yet are doctrines of devills and offensive to our brethren 1 Tim. 4. 1 2 3. can bee points fundamentall so as the holding of these must bee inconsistent with saving faith Some doe yet maintain that circumcision is lawfull and yet beleeve all points fundamentall shall wee say that such are damned and wee read Gal. 5. 2. Behâ—ld I Paul say unto you that if yee bee circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing 2. Opinions in points not fundamentall are either sinnes forbidden by Gods Law or they are not sinnes the latter can by no reason bee asserted because God hath in his word determined all controversies not fundamentall as well as fundamentall therefore it is necessary necessitate praecepti by vertue of a divine precept that â—ee beleeve that to bee true what God saith in his Word therefore the not beleeving of it must bee a sinne and a transgression of a Divine Law 2. If it bee no sinne it must bee because the mind is under no Law of God except in so far as the minde is ruled and led
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
not morall nor acts of justice or injustice more then the acts of Painting of sailing of making of Shooes and thus the King is not subject to the Church power nor is his intrinsecall end as King justice and godlinesse and preservation of Religion the man speaketh non-sense and wonders for the King as a King is a morall agent and not infallible in his Lawes or administration Ergo as a King he is under the Scepter of the King of Saints in discipline and in the keyes of the Kingdome of God and so the kingly office is subordinate to the power of Christ in his Ministers and Church discipline and by that same reason the power and offices of Ministers as they are morall agents and obnoxious to sinne to false doctrine blasphemy idolatry idlenesse and sleepinesse in feeding the flock are under the coactive power of the supreme Governour and he doth as King use the sword against them hence it is cleare that both the kingly power is subordinate to Church-power and that the subordination is mutuall that also the Church-power is subordinate to the kingly power and that both also in their kind are supreme the kingly power is the highest and most supreme and under no higher coactive power I meane the kingly as kingly conjoyned with the collaterall power of Parliaments where the Realme is so governed and the Church-power is the highest in the kind of Ecclesiasticall power Joan. Major saith well that they are not subordinate that is not one of them is above another that I grant but that which he and Spalato saith neutri in alteram est imperium that neither of the two hath a commandement over another that we deny yet are they powers in office and nature different for they differ in their objects 2. Use and end 3. And their manner of specifick operations and the Kings power is not ecclesiastick Others say that there was a perfect civill policy having no need of the Church power anent the perfect civill government amongst the Heathen and in Christian Common-wealths the civill power of it selfe and of its owne nature can doe nothing for the attaining of eternall happinesse except we would goe to the tents of Pelagians whither Papists doe lead us while as they teach that the naturall end of civill power of its owne nature and intrinsecally is ordained to eternall happinesse But the civill power of it selfe doth conferre nothing whereby the spirituall power of the Church hath intrinsecally and properly and formally its dignity power strength and proper vertue and doth produce its owne proper effect and end because as saith Spalato the civill Magistrates end is of another republike different from the Church he is head of the Common-wealth and civill body see Apollonius But I answer there is a Policy civill without the Ecclesiasticall Policy and the King is essentially a King though neither he be a Christian himselfe nor his subjects Christians and to the essence of a King and to the essence of a civill government Christianity and a Church-power is not required yet hath the King as King essentially a right and civill coactive power to promove Christian Religion and the edification of Christs body though he be a Heathen the want of Christianity doth not take away his kingly right onely it bindeth up and restraineth the exercise thereof but though he be a King essentially and actu primo while he wanteth Christianity and so is a perfect Magistrate quoad esse and the State that he ruleth over a perfect civill body quoad esse in respect of essence and being yet is he not a perfect Magistrate quoad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 operari neither he nor his civill State and body are perfect in operations And it followeth not that the King as King can doc nothing about the obtaining of life eternall for as a King he hath a perfect right and kingly power to doe and being a Christian he actually exerciseth that power as a Nurse-father of the Church to see that the Kings daughter be fed with wholsome milke to see that the first and second Table be kept and that men serve Christ and have the seales of the Covenant in purity under the paine of suffering the weight of his royall sword and I wonder that this should be called nothing for the obtaining of eternall happines seeing it is a way to eternall happinesse to be thus fed under a Christian King as a King But say they it is Pelagianism that the Kings power compelling the Nurses to let out their breasts to the Kings daughter that she may sucke the sincere milke of the Word should be a meane of eternall happinesse I answer and it is also Pelagianisme to say that the planting of Paul and watering of Apollos and the ministeriall power and paines of Ministers without the grace of God can produce or effectuate supernaturall happinesse and it is false that the kingly power of it self doth confer nothing whereby the spirituall and ecclesiasticall power hath intrinsecally and formally dignity and power and its proper effect for it is true the kingly power maketh not the ecclesiasticall power but it setteth it on worke in a coactive way for the edifying of Christs body and doth causatively edifie Lastly whereas it is said the King as King is over the civill body and the Common-wealth which is a body different in nature from the Christian body or Church I say that is false for the King as King ruleth over men as men and also as Christian men causing them to keepe both the Tables of Law But 3. say they the office of a King is not a meane sanctified of God for a supernaturall good because it is amongst the Gentiles I answer this is no consequence for that office of it selfe is sanctified and ordained of God for keeping of both Tables of the Law and that it worketh not this in its owne kind is not from the nature of the kingly office but from the sinfull disposition of the Gentiles so the Word is the savour of death to some through their default Ergo it is not a meane sanctified for that end it followeth not But 4. the office of the King of it selfe and its owne power doth not governe or subdue the inward man for immediately and of its owne power it cannot bind the conscience but onely by the interveening mediation of the Word of God Ergo of it selfe it intendeth not to produce a supernaturall and eternall good Answ. Nor can the office of a Minister of it selfe and in its owne power produce a supernaturall good but onely by the authority of the Word Esa. 8. 20. Jer. 23. v. 22. Tit. 1. 9. 10. is it therefore no office sanctified for a supernaturall end But 5. they reason a supernaturall good and life eternall are effects flowing from the mediatory office of Christ bestowed upon the Church but the kingly power floweth not from the Mediator Christ but from God as Creator who
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
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
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
or Church assembly have any power to bind the Churches to obedience because these commandements and decrees of censure are but ministeriall and limited and in so farre onely of force as they have reason from the Word of God as you say 3. Conclusion There is an authoritative power in Synods whereby they may and doe command in the Lord the visible Churches in their bounds the whole Churches are subject to the ordinance and decree of the Church Act. 1. where with common consent of a Synodicall meeting Matthias is ordained an Apostle Ergo all the Churches are to take him for an Apostle This argument cannot bee repelled because the Apostles by their extraordinary power did choose Matthias Because 1. they themselves cite this place to prove the peoples power ordinary which is to indure to Christs second comming in calling and electing their owne officers and Elders 2. Almain a Papist alleadgeth the place with good reason to prove that a generall councell is above Peter or the Pope because Peter would not choose Matthias without consent of the Apostles and Church 3. If this was extraordinary that Matthias was chosen why then is the vow and consent of the Church sought for there is nothing extraordinary and Apostolick flowing from an Apostolick spirit which is concluded or done by the spirit ordinary of the Church of beleevers So also Act. 6. If the Apostles did not by the ordinary and Synodicall power of ordinary Pastors choose seven Deacons how doe they first require that the Churches of Grecians and Hebrewes should seek out seven men v. 3. and did ordaine them with the common consent of the whole multitude v. 5. Act. 15. A Synod of moe Churches give decrees which obliege the Churches v. 28. ch 16. v. 4. Ergo Synods have authoritie over the Churches Those who say this Synod is not a patterne for after Synods say farre aside for their reason is this was 1. An Apostolick Synod 2. the holy Ghost was here 3. the thing determined was canonick Scripture But this is a way to clude all the promises made to Pastors in the word when as they are first made to Apostles this promise Behold I am with you to the â—nd of the world and this I will send you the other Comforter who 〈◊〉 lead you in all truth cannot bee made to faithfull Pastors and the Christian Church that now is for it is certaine Christ is otherwise present with his Apostles then with his Pastors after them And that he gave them a tongue a spirit when they were before the councels and rulers as to Apostolick men as Act. 4. 8. 9 10. Act. 5. 29. as Christ promised Matth. 10. 19. 20. Luk. 21. 13 14 15. for they were full of the holy Ghost before rulers but by our brethrens doctrine it shall follow none of these promises belong to Pastors now adayes in the like because no pastors now are Apostles Surely this were to fetter and imprison many glorious promises within the pale of the onely Apostolick Church and because Christ ascending to heaven sent downe the Apostolick spirit to his Apostles to write and preach canonick Scripture it shall follow he fulfilleth that promise John 16. 13. to none now adayes because none have the Apostolike spirit in the manner and measure that the Apostles had Yea further it is canonick Scripture that the Apostles at the last supper did shew forth the Lords death till be come againe therefore it shall follow that we have no warrant to shew forth the Lords death till he come againe 2. But that the Apostles in an ecclesiastick way did determine in the Synod for our imitation and not in an Apostolike way is cleare by many evidences in the text as Act. 15. 2. Paul and Barnabas were sent commissioners to the Apostles and Elders about this question Paul as an Apostle needed not be sent to know more of the matter then he knew as an Apostle for as an Apostle he knew the whole mystery of the Gospel Gal. 1. 16. 17. Ephes. 3. 4 5. Ergo he was sent to the Synod as a Pastor and that as an ordinary Pastor 2. They came together v. 6. to consider of this businesse but as Apostles they needed not the help of a Synod Ergo they came together as ordinary Pastors for the Churches after imitation 3. There was much debating and disputing v. 7. about the matter 4. They set down their minds and sentences in order one after another as Peter first v. 7. 8. then Barnabas and Paul v. 12. then James v. 13. and to James his sentence the whole Councell agreeth v. 22. Now what the Apostles as Apostles and from an infallible Spirit do they doe it not by seeking light and help one from another 5. The Decree of the Councell is a thing that Apostles Elders and Brethren and the whole Church resolveth after much dispute v. 22. But all these especially brethren and the whole beleevers as our Brethren say doe not joyne themselves with the Apostles either to write canonick Scripture or to give their consent to the writing of it therefore they doe consent by a synodall authority for the after imitation of the Churches Also there bee reasons of moment for Synods and 1. if according to the Law of nature and nations no man can bee a Judge in his owne cause then are appeales from the Eldership of one congregation when they are a party to the accused person naturall and from a Session to the Presbyteries and Synods of many moe Elders But the former is reason nature Law of Nations Ergo so is the latter 1. It is best reason which hath most of Scripture Paul and Barnabas Act. 15. 1. 2. had no small disputation with those who said circumcision was necessary finding their parties could not be Judges They appeale to a generall councell at Jerusalem where were the Apostles and Elders The Church of the Grecians and the Church of the Hebrewes strive neither of them can judge other and both appeale to a higher judicatory to the twelve Apostles and their owne Churches meeting with them and there is the matter determined aâ—ent helping the poore by Deacons if the Judge doe wrong and one particular congregation shall oppresse one sincere and sound beleever what remedy hath the care of Christ provided for this that the oppressours may be edisied by Church censures and the oppressed freed and delivered by remedy of discipline of Christ whose it is to judge the poore of the people and to save the children of the needy Ps. 72. 4. Now it is knowne that Diotrephes doth sometime excommunicate and the evill seâ—vant ruleth all Hieronymus saith Arrians ruled all in the dayes of Constantius and Valens Basil saith we may say in our time that there is neither Prince nor Prophet nor Ruâ—â—â— nor oblation nor incense Athanasius and Vincentius Lirinent complain'd that it was in the Arrians times as with the Church and Prophets in the
dayes of Elias and amongst Papists Occam the author of Onus ecclesiae and Picus Mirandula complaine there was in their time no saith no truth no Religion no discipline no modesty but all sold offices Churches dignities and benefices and that ambitious Popes spill all the Clergy entered by Simony ruled by Simony the holy place corrupted At which times all the godly were crying for a free generall councell as a remedy against the corruption of inferior judicatories Saâ—anoâ—ala reputed a Prophet counselled Charles the eighth of France to reforme the Church as he would returne from Italy with honour as saith Philip de Comines Gerson pleadeth for the necessity of a generall Councell Genebrard saith for an hundred and fifty yeeres Popes to the number of fifty had made defection from the faith and godlinesse of their Ancestors Aventinus maketh the same complaint and Almain also that Prelats were more eaten up with the zeale of money then the zeale of Gods house Is there not need then of a generall Councell Hence came also appeales from the Pope The Emperour Lodovicus Bavarus saith the German Chronicle appealed from Pope John 22. misinformed to a generall Councell and the Pope better informed and the crime was because he had taken the title of Emperour before he was confirmed by the Pope for which he was excommunicated Sigismond Duke of Austria appealed from Pope Pius the second to the next succeeding Pope and a generall Councell under him for the Pope excommunicated Sigismond because he kept backe Cardinall Cusan from the Bishoprick of Brixen within his Dominion for the Bishoprick was given to him by a commendam by the Pope See Aeneas Silvius Philip the fourth appealed from wicked Boniface the eighth to the Sea Apostolike then vacant and to a future Councell so Platina relateth The University of Paris appealed from Leo the tenth who wickedly condemned the Councell of Basill to a future Councell as you finde it in the treatise called Fasciculus c. The Archbishop of Cullen excommunicated by Paul the third appealed to a lawful Councel in Germany because the Pope stood accused of heresie and idolatry as Sleidan saith The glosse of the Canon Law saith the Pope cannot be Judge in his owne cause and we all know how justly Luther appealed from Leo the tenth to a generall Councell all which saith that the like is warranted by the Law of nature where a particular Eldership and congregation is accused of scandals that superiour Synods there must be to discusse such causes And the good use of councels you may see in one The Councell of Constance Sess. 11. art 67. condemned John 23. because he taught there was no life eternall Nequeâ—aliam post hanc vitam pertinaciter credidit animam hominis cum corpore mori extingui ad instar animalium brutorum dixitque mortuum semel esse etiam in novissimo die minime resurrecturum The necessity of Assemblies when common enemies trouble the Church prove that Christ hath instituted Synods And 1. our present Authour reasoneth from the Churches necessity Synods may conveene to examine saith he either corrupt opinions or suspitious practises and citeth for this the Councell of Jerusalem Act. 15. Now this councell did authoritatively command Act. 15. 28. Act. 16. 4. Act. 20. 19. and not give advise or counsell onely 2. If by the Law of nature and by vertue of the communion of Saints Churches conveened may give advise then say I as communion of counsels and advises is lawfull so by the Law of nature communion of authoritative power is lawfull As after the eye saith Almain seeth the danger of the body it should give warning to the rest of the members to use their power And this power saith he denunciative or by way of charity though not authoritative is in private persons for the conveening of a Councell As after saith Almain in the same place any is instructed by a skilled Physitian of that which is necessary for the health and safety of the whole body he is obliged to use that necessary meane not now by vertue of the precept or rather counsell and advise of the Physitian but by vertue of the precept and authoritative power of the Law of nature for the safety of his body yea further saith he if the right band were fettered with chanizees or should refuse pertinaciously at the nodde of the imagination to defend the body then the whole power of defending the body should remaine in the left hand And certainly this is most naturall if a forraine enemy should invade a whole Land or any part of a Land the whole Land by the Law of nature were obliged with joynt authority and power to resist that common enemy Now seeing a number of consociated sister Churches make one visible Church body having visible communion together as the Author granteth in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper which is saith he a seale of the communion of all the Churches of the Saints and in other externall acts of Church communion as hearing the Word exhorting rebuking comforting one another then are all these visible Churches with united authority and Church power as Churches and not as Christians onely to conveen and condemne a common heretick infecting all or any part of that visible Church body and if any one Church or Congregation under the pretence of plenitude of independencie of government within themselves should refuse to joyne with the whole yet the authoritative power of Synodicall judging and condemning such a heretick doth reside by the Law of nature in the rest of the body If there bee a communion of gifts there is also a communion of authoritie And if a nation have intrinsecally authoritative power under a Prince to repell a common enemy for the safetie of the whole then hath a visible body of many Churches in joyning one externall communion of sisterly consociation under one Christ one Church power to repell a scandalous heretick who is a common enemy to the whole Churches visible This Argument is grounded upon the necessitie of Synods our brethren are forced to acknowledge their necessitie by way of counselling and advising but Synods as Synods to bee necessary they thinke popish The best popish councell wee read of is that of Basil where it was ordained that a generall councell should be holden within five yeers next following the next councell within seven yeers and alwayes after that every ten yeers and in the councell of Basil the Pope is discharged to transgresse that time of convocating a councell Now the councells as councells are no popish devices but rather hated by right downe and well died Papists as is cleare by Gersons complaint who saith omission of generall councells is the Churches plugue a lover of reformation Franc. Zabarell saith wicked Pâ—pes neglecting generall councells have undone the Church The learned author of the