bestoweth lawfull Kings and Magistrates upon many Nations who know nothing of a Saviour I answer When I consider the point more exactly I see not how Kings who reigne by the wisdome of God Jesus Christ Prov. 8. 14. 15. have not their kingly power from Christ who hath all power given to him in Heaven and in Earth Matth. 28. 18. for they are Nurse-fathers of the Church as Kings Esa. 49. 15. they are to kisse the Sonne and exalt his Throne as Kings Psal. 2. 11. they bring presents and kingly gifts to Christ as Kings Psal. 72. v. 10. 11. and they serve Christ not onely as men but also as Kings as Augustine saith therefore are they ordained as meanes by Christ the Mediator to promote his kingly Throne Some of our Divines will have the kingly power to come from God as Creator in respect God giveth Kings who are his Vicegerents to those who are not redeemed and to Nations who never heard of Christ and others hold that the kingly power floweth from Christ-Mediator in respect he accomplisheth his purposes of saving of his redeemed people by Kings authority and by the influence of their kingly government procureth a feeding ministery and by their princely tutory the edification of his body the Church which possibly both aime at truth See the groundlesse carping at Cartwright Calvin Beza and others by that sharp toothed envier of truth the Author of the Survey of holy discipline of this hereafter more 4. Conclusion The King as King hath not a nomothetick or legislative power to make Lawes in matters ecclesiastick in a constitute Church nor hath he a definitive sentence as a Judge 1. All power of teaching publikely the Church or the Churches of Christ is given to those who are sent and called of God for that effect but Magistrates as Magistrates are not sent nor called of God to the publike teaching of the Church Ergo. The proposition is cleare from the like Rom. 10. 14. How shall they preach except they be sent Ergo how shall they publikely and synodically teach except they be sent Heb. 5. 4. No man taketh this honour upon him but he that is called of God as was Aaron c. Ergo if none be a Priest to offer a Sacrifice without Gods calling neither can he exercise the other part of the Priesthood to teach synodically to give out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 decrees Acts 16. 4. that obligeth the Churches ecclesiastically but he who is called 2. Who so hath nomothetick power to define and make Lawes in matters ecclesiastick have onely a ministeriall power to expone Christs will in his Testament under paine of Church-censures and hath no coactive power of the sword to command these Lawes enacted and to injoyne them on the Churches But onely Church-men who are formally members of the Church as Pastors Doctors Elders and others sent by the Church have this ministeriall power without the coactive power of the sword and what ever the Magistrate as the Magistrate commandeth he commandeth it in things ecclesiastick necessary and expedient under bodily punishment I adde this because threatning of bodily punishment is not essentiall to Lawes in generall because some Lawes are seconded onely with rewards as the Judge offereth by law a reward to any who shall bring unto him the head of a Boar or of some notorious robber Ergo c. The proposition is cleare the learned Junius giveth to the Magistrate with our Divines an interpretation of Scripture as a Judge which concerneth his owne practise they are interpreters pro communi vocationis modo in a Christian way as private men but they have no power of ecclesiastick interpretation 2. Gul. Apollonius saith the Prince as a Christian hath an office to exhort the Svnod by word or Epistle as Constantius did the Fathers of the Nicen Councell and his Legates exhorted the Councell of Chalcedon ut Deo rationem reddituri See Ruffinus and the acts of the Councell of Chalcedon 3. The Magistrate hath a power judiciall as a Magistrate in so farre as his owne practise is concerned to expone the things defined but this expotition he useth non instruendo synodice non docendo ecclesiastice sed docendo seu potius mandando cum certa relatione ad paenam à brachio seculari insligendam contemptoribus not in an ecclesiasticall way teaching and instructing synodically but teaching or rather commanding with a certaine relation to civill punishment to be inflicted upon the contemners as he teacheth what is just or unjust in his civill Lawes not directly to informe the mind but to correct bad manners and this maketh the object of kingly power about Churches matters and the object of ecclesiasticall power formall objects different 3. Those who have a nomothetick power to define in Synods are sent by the Church to Synods with authoritative commission and power for that effect representing the Church which sent them as all who are sent with any ambassage doe represent those who sent them But Magistrates as Magistrates are not sent to represent those who sent them with authoritation commission of the Church Ergo they have no such power â—â—dâ—ine in Synods I prove the proposition from the Apostles practise Paul and Barnabas were sent as chosen men by the Church 〈◊〉 Antioch Acts 15. 2. 3. Acts 15. 6. the Apostles and Elders came from the Church to consider of this matter Acts 21. 18. Acts 22. 17. 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 8 17 18. if the Apostle with the Church sent Titus 〈◊〉 Brother whose praise is in the Gospel as chosen of the Churches to travell with us v. 19 in gathering the charity of the Saints for the poore at Jerusalem then by the like those who are sent to declare the minds of the Churches are also clothed with the authority of the Churches who sent them but Magistrates aâ— such are not sent but are there with the sword of Common-wealth and not with the mind of the Church as Magistrates except they be also Christians 4. The Apostolike Synods is to us a perfect patterne of Synods but persons defining in them are Apostles and Elders Acts 16. 4. Acts 15. 6. the Church Matth. 18. 18. defineth and 1 Cor. 5. 4. those who are conveened in the name of the Lord â—esus and the Apostles pastorall spirit those who are over us in the Lord and watch for our soules 1 Thes. 5. 14. Heb. 13. 17. but in these Synods there are no Magistrates yea there was at Câ—rinth a Heathen Magistrate 1 Cor. 6. 1. and in the Apostolike Church a persecutor Acts 22. 1 2 3. c. And the Magistrate as the Magistrate is not a member of the Church and is neither Pastor Elder nor Doctor nor a professor of the Gospel except he be more then a Magistrate 5. No Ecclesiasticall power or acts formally Ecclesiasticall are competent to one who is not an Ecclesiasticall person or not a member of the Church but a civill person
ordainers of Matthias to the Apostleship and this is the question 4. The place Act. 14. 23. proveth that Elders appoint or ordaine Elder with consent or lifting up of the hands of the people which is our very doctrine 5. Act. 6 The multitude are directed to choose out seven men as being best acquainted with them Yet if Nicholas the sect master of the fleshly Nicolaitans was one of them it is likely they were not satisfied in conscience of the regeneration of Nicholas by hearing his spirituall conference and his gift of praying which is your way of trying Church-members But 2. they looke out seven men 2. They choose theâ— But v. 6. The Apostles prayed and laid their hands on them which we call ordination and not the multitude 6. Cyprian giveâ—â— election of Priests to the multitude but neither Cyprian nor any of the Fathers give ordination to them Author Sect. 7. If the people have power to elect a King they have power to appoint one is their name to put the crown on his head Ergo if beleevers elect their Officers they may by themselves or some others lay hands on them and ordaine them Ans. The case is not alike the power of electing a King is naturall for Ants and Locusts have it Prov 30 25 16 27. Therefore a civill Society may choose and ordaine a King The power of choosing Officers is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a supernaturall gift And because God giveth to people one supernaturall gift it is not consequent that he should give them another also beside ordination is another thing then coronation of a King Presbyters in the Word have alwaies performed ordination Neither will it hence follow saith the Authour as some object that because the Church of believers neither make the Office nor authority of Pastors that both are immediately from Christ and that therefore the beleevers may not lay hands upon the Officers nor doth it follow because they receive ordination from the Church that therefore they should execute their Office in the Churches name or that they should be more or lesse diligent at the Churches appointment or that the Church of beleevers have a Lordly power over them or that the Elders must receive their commission from the Church as an Ambassadour doth from the Prince who sent him or that the Church in the defect of Officers may performe all duties proper to Officers as to administer the Sacraments For 1. most of the objections doe strike as much against imposition of hands by Bishops and Presbyters 2. Though Officers receive the application of their office and powerly the Church yet not from the Church and if from the Church yet not from her by any Lordly power and dominion but onely ministerially as from instruments under Christ so that they cannot choose or ordaine whom they please but onely him whom they see the Lord hath fitted and prepared for them nor can they prescribe limits to his Office nor give him his Embassage but onely a charge to looke to the Ministery that he hath received of the Lord. Ans. 1. I know none of ours who use such an Argument that because a Pasters or Elders Office is from Christ that therefore the Church cannot ordaine him For it should prove that the Presbyterie cannot ordaine him a Pastor because his Office is from Christ and not from the Presbyterie It would prove also that because the Office of a Judge is from God that the free States of a Kingdome could not ordaine one to be their King or that the King could not depute Judges under him because the Office of a King and Judge is from God and not from men 2. If Elders have their Ordination to that heavenly Charge from the people as from the first principall and onely subject of all ministeriall power I see not how it doth not follow that Elders are the servants of the Church in that respect and that though it doth not follow that they come out in the name of the Church but in the name of Christ whose Ambassadours they are yet it proveth well that they are inferiour to the Church of beleevers For 1. though the power of the Keys given to beleevers in relation to Christ be ministeriall yet in relation to the Officers whom the Church sendeth it is more then ministeriail at lest it is very Lordlike For as much of this ministeriall power is committed to the Church of possibly twenty or forty beleevers as to the Mistresse Lady Spouse and independent Queen and highest dispencer of all ministeriall power and the Elders though Ambassadours of Christ are but meere accidents or ornaments of the Church necessary ad benè esse onely and lyable to exauthoration at the Churches pleasure yea every way the Officers in jurisdiction are inferiour to the Church of beleevers by your grounds and not over the people of the Lord. For if the Church of believers as they are such be the most supreame governing Church then the Officers as Officers have no power of government at all but onely so farre as they are beleevers now if they be not believers as it falleth out very often then have they no power of the Keyes at all and what they doe they doe it meerely as the Churches servants to whom the Keyes are not given marriage-waies or by right of redemption in Christs blood yea Officers as they are such are neither the Spouse not redeemed Church yea nor any part or members of the redeemed Church 2. The Church of believers are the â—od the Officers meanes leading to the end and ordained to gather the Saints if therefore as the end they shall authoritatively send Officers they should call and ordaine Officers as the States of a Kingdome with more then a power ministeriall Yea with a Kingly power for all authority should be both formally and eminently in them as all Regall or Aristocraticall power is in the States of a Kingdom as in the fountaine But neither doe we bring this argument to prove a simple Dominion of the Church of believers over the Officers or a power of regulating limiting and ordering the Ambassage of Officers as King and State lay bands upon their Ambassadours but we bring it to prove that this doctrine degradeth the Officers from all power of government above the believers and putteth them in a state of ministeriall authority under these above whom Jesus Christ hath placed them contrary to Scripture 3. The Authour saith believers may not administer the Sacraments in the defect of Pastors because that by appointment of Christ belongeth onely to such as by Office are called to preach the Gospell Math. 28. 29. which is indeed well said but I desire to be satisfied in these 1. These places Math. 28. 29. Mar. 16. 14 15. Luke 24. 28. being all one with Math. 16. 17. and Joh. 20. 21 22 23. The Keyes of the Kingdome are given to Church-officers because of their Office So the Text is cleare and so
all of one Church of one Religion Answ. The terme Nationall-Church is not in the Word of God but I pray you in what sense can the Iewish-Church bee called a Nationall-Church I conceive not because of the typicall and ceremoniall observances that put a Church-frame on the whole Nation for if so then the name of a Nationall Church or a nationall Religion cannot by envy it selfe bee put in the reformed Churches or on Church of Scotland which hath suffered so much for Iewish and Romish Ceremonies But if the Jewes were a Nationall-Church because they were a holy Nation in profession and God called the Nation and made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Church externally called to grace and glory and the whole Nation commensurable and of equall extent then all Christian Nations professing the true Faith and the Gentiles as well as the Iewes Then the believing Iewes of Pontus Asia Cappadocia and Bythinia as Augustine Eusebius Oecumenius Athanasius doe thinke that Peter wrote to the Iewes yea and the Gentiles as many interpreters with Lorinus Thomas Lyra and others thinke are yet 1 Pet. 2. 9. an holy Nation and so a Nationall Church and there is no more reason to scoffe at a Nationall Church in this sense then to mocke the holy Spirit which maketh but one Church in all the World Cant. 6. 9. as Cotton Ainsworth and other favorable witnesses to our Brethren confesse And if the Gentiles shall come to the light of the Jewish Church and Kings to the brightnesse of of their rising Esai 60. 3. if the abundance of the Sea shall be converted to the Iewes true Faith and Religion And the forces of the Gentiles shall come to them vers 5. and if all flesh shall see the revealed glory of the Lord Esai 40. 5. and the Earth shall bee filled with the knowledge of God as the Seas are filled with Water It is most agreeable to the Lords Word that there is and shall be a Church through the whole World you may nickname it as you please and call it a VVorld-Religion a VVorld-Church As if the lost and blinded World Ioh. 2. 16 17. 1 Joh. 5. 19. 2 Corin 4. 4. were all one with the Loved Redeemed Pardoned and Reconciled World Ioh. 3. 16. Ioh. 1. 29. 2 Cor. 5. 19. as if wee confounded these two Worlds and the Religion of these two Worlds And if this World could meet in its principall lights neither should an universall councell nor an Oath of the whole Representative Church be unlawfull but enough of this before And what if the World bee subdued to the World and a World of Nations come in and submit to Christs Scepter and royall power in his externall government are the opposers such strangers in the Scriptures as to doubt of this Reade then Esai 60. 4. 5. c. 60. 11 12 13 14 15 v. 4. 5 6 7. Psal. 2. 8 9. Psal. 72. 8. 9. 10. Esai 54. 3. Esai 49. 1. Esai 45. 22. 23. Psal. 110 1 2 3 4 5. and many other places and there is a Kingdome in a Kingdome Christs Kingdome and his Church lodging in a Worldly Kingdome and Christ spiritually in his power triumphing over the World and subduing Nations to his Gospell Object 8. If Classicall Presbyters be not Elders in â—elation to the classicall Church and so to all the Congregations in it yee must forsake all these places where it is said the Elders of Jerusalem the Elders of Ephesus the Angels of the seven Churches which is absurd if they be Elders to all these Churches then 1. All those people in those Churches must submit their consciences to them and their Ministery as to a lawfull ordinance of God 2. All the people of those Churches must have voyce in election of them all 3. All these people owe to theâ—s maintenance and double honor 1 Tim. 5. 17. for if the Oxes mouth must not be muzlâ—d but he must be fed by me and my corne he must tread my corne and labour for me These Churches cannot all meet in one to ordaine and chuse all these Ministers and to submit to their Ministery Answ. The Elders are Elders of Ephesus and Elders of Jerusalem not because every Elder hath a speciall pastorall charge over every Church distributively taken for it was unpossible that one Congregation of all the converts in Ierusalem extending to so many thousands could all beare the relation of a Church to one man as their proper Elder who should personally reside in all and every one of those Congregations to watch for their soules to preach to all and every Congregation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in season and out of season But they are in cumulo called Elders of Ephesus in that sense that Kings are called the Kings of the Nations not because every King was King of every Nation for the King of Edom was not the King of Babylon and the King of Babel was not the King of Assyria yet amongst them they did all fill up that name to be called the Kings of the Nations so were the Elders of Ierusalem in cumulo collectively taken Elders of all the Churches of Ierusalem collectively taken and as it followeth not that the King of Edom because hee is one of the Kings of the Nations is elected to the Crowne of Caldea by the Voyces of the States and Nobles of Caldea so is it not a good consequence such a number are called the Elders of the Church of Ierusalem therefore the Elder of one Congregation at the Easterne Gate at Ierusalem is also an Elder of a Congregation of the Westerne Gate Nor doth it follow that these two Congregations should submit their consciences to one and the same Elder as to their proper Pastor to whose Ministery they owe consent in Election Obedience in submitting to his Doctrine and mainetenance for his labours all these are due to him who is their owne proper Pastor the as Caldeans owe not Honour Allegiance Tribute to the King of Edom though the Kingdome of Caldea bee one of the Kingdomes of the Nations and the King of Edom one of the Kings of the Nations But if indeede all the Kings of the Nations did meete in one Court and in that Court governe the Nations with common Royall authority and counsell in those things which concerne all the Kingdomes in common then all the Nations were obliged to obey them in that Court as they governe in that Court but no farther and when the people doe consent to the power of that common Court â—â—citly they consent that every one of these shall bee chosen King of such and such a Kingdome and promise also tracitly Obedience and Subjection to every one of the Kings of the Nations not simply as they are Kings in relation to such a Kingdome but onely as they are members of that Court so the Congregations acknowledging and consenting to the classicall Presbytery doe tracitly chuse and consent to the common charge and care that every Pastor hath as hee
Elders of Jerusalem for 〈◊〉 can Elders of one sister Church impose Lawes burdens â—28 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 decrees Ch. 16. 4. upon sister Churches or hâ—w can they pen canonicall Scripture joyntly with the Apostles Some of our brethren say so much of those degrees that they obliged formally the Churches as Scriptures doe oblige the learned Junius saith well that the Apostles did nothing as Apostles where there was an ordinarie and established Elderyâ—â— in the Church therefore those Elders behoved to bee the 〈◊〉 of Antioch for Act. 17. v. 2. 〈…〉 Commissioners were 〈◊〉 from Antioch then Paul and 〈…〉 I thinke also the Churches of Cyria and 〈◊〉 〈…〉 there as well as Antioch and de jure 〈…〉 should have beene there The case was theirs every way the same with the Church of Antioch and their soules subverted v. 24. 6. Those who are named v. 22. Apostles Elders and the whole Church are called v. 25. Apostles and Elders and Brethren and elsewhere alwayes Apostles and Elders Elders including brethren or the whole Church v. 22. of some chosen men and brethren as Act. 13. 2. v. 6. Ch. 16. 4. Act. 21. 18. 25. 2. I desire to try what truth is here that this Synod but power and authoritie in points dogmaticall but no church-Church-power saith the seventh proposition of the reverend and godly Brethren of New England and no power of jurisdiction but the Church of Antioch had Church-power and power of jurisdiction to determine this cause and censure the contraveeners as our Brethren say But I assume this Synod tooke this Church-power off their hand and with the joynt power of their owne Commissioners sent from Antioch v. 2. v. 22. 23. determined both cause and controversie and it never returned to any Church-Court at Antioch as is cleare v. 25 26 27 28. Ergo this Synod had a Church-power 2. A power and authoritie dogmaticall to determine in matters of doctrine is a church-Church-power proper to a Church as is granted by our brethren and as wee prove from Act. 20. 29. This is a part of the over-sight committed to the Eldership of Ephesus to take heed to men rising amongst themselves speaking perverse things that is teaching false doctrine and if they watch over them as members of their Church for they were v. 30. men of their owne they were to censure them 2. If Pergamus bee rebuked Reâ—el 2. 14. 15. and threatned with the removing of their Candlesticke because they had amongst them those who held the doctrine of Balaam and the doctrine of the Nicolaitans hated by Christ himselfe and did not use the power of jurisdiction against them then that Church which hath power dogmaticall to judge of doctrine hath power also of jurisdiction to censure those who hold the false doctrine of Balaam and v. 20. Christ saith to Thyatira Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because thou suffâ—â—â— that woman Jesabel which calleth herselfe a Prophetesse to teach and to seduâ—e my servants to commit fornication and to eate things sacrifâ—â—d to Idols Hence I argue what Church hath power to try the false doctrin of Jesabel and is blamed for not censuring her but permitteth her to teach and to seduce the servants of God hath also power of jurisdiction against her false doctrine this poposition I take to bee evident in those two Churches of Pergamus and Thyatira I assume but this Synod Act. 15. hath authoritie and power to condemne the false doctrine taught by subverters of soules teaching a necessitie of circumcision in the Churches of Syria Cilicia Antioch c. Act. 15. vers 23 24. Therefore this Synod hath power of jurisdiction 3. Every societie which hath power to lay on burdens as here this Synod hath v. 28. and to send decrees to be observed by the Churches as Act. 16. 4. and to send and conclude that they observe no such thing and that they observe such and such things Act. 21. 25. by the power of the holy Ghost conveened in an Assembly 25. and judging according to Gods Word as â— 7 8 9 10 11 12 c. these have power of juridiction to censure the contraveners but this Synod is such a societie Ergo it hath this power The Proposition is Matth. 18. 18. If hee refuse to heare the Church let him be to thee as a heathen and a publican nothing can bee answered here but because this Synod commandeth onely in a brotherly way but by no Church-power therefore they have no power of jurisdiction But with reverence of these learned men this is petitio principii to begge what is in question for the words are cleare a brotherly counsell and advise is no command no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no decree which wee must observe and by the observing whereof the Churches are established in the faith as is said of these decrees Act. 16. 4 5. To give a brotherly counsell such as Abigail gave to David and a little maide gave to Namaan is not a burden laid on by the commander but it is said of this decree v. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It seemed good to the holy Ghost to lay no other burden on you Also we do not say that power of jurisdiction is in provinciall or nationall Synods as in the Churches who have power to excommunicate for 1. this power of jurisdiction in Synods is cumulative not privative 2. It is in the Synod quoad actus imperatos potius quam act us elicitos according to commanded rather then to elicit acts for the Synod by an ecclesiasticall power added to that intrinsecall power of jurisdiction in Churches doth command the Churches to use their power of jurisdiction rather then use it actually her selfe Let me also make use of two propositions agreed upon in a Synod at New England Their 3. proposition The fraternitie have an authoritative concurrence with the Preshyteny in judiciall Acts. 4. Proposition The fraternitie in an Organicall body actu subordinate id est per modum obedientiae in subordination by way of obedience to the Presbytery in such judiciall Acts 2 Cor. 10. 6. Now if here the whole Church of Jerusalem as they say from v. 22. was present and joyned their authoritative concurrence to these decrees there was here in this Synod an Organicall body of eyes eares and other members that is of Apostles Teachers Elders and people and so a formed Church by our brethrens doctrine â—â—gs Paul and Barnabas v. 2. being sent to this Synod by the Church of Antioch to complaine were sent to tell the formed and organicall Churches as it is Matth. 18 19 which is a good argument if not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Aristotle saith yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. If the Brethren here concurre as giving obedience to the Elders and the Apostles doe here determine as Apostles and Elders then the brothren in this Organicall body doe concurre to the forming of these decrees by way of obedience to the
of the evill of their doings and to prevent the Babylonish captivity or a worse judgement except the KING will and all Religion and. 2. Church-worship must bee resolved ultimately on the KINGS will and pleasure for if it be not the KINGS pleasure to reforme the people must continue still where they were and Scotland who contrary to the will and heart of authority at our first Reformation put away the Masse and Popery and established Religion in sincerity is greatly to bee condemned Luther had authority against him and the powers of the World it was one point of Reformation that John Baptist tooke up against the Law of the Land to preach against Herods sinne for if Popery be in a Land to leave Popery is a great degree of Reformation and if the people without the Prince may goe on in the greatest step of Reformation why not also in the lesser except you say the people without the King are not to abstaine from the grossest Idolatry under the Sunne which is to worship and adore the worke of the Bakers hands Mr. Mather Mr. Thomson The name Church 1 Cor. 14. 4 5. 35. 26 27. 28. is plainly given to that company that did assemble and come together for performance of spirituall duties and for the exercise of spirituall gifts as Acts 14. 27. Acts 11. 26. 15. 4. 22. 30. 1 Cor. 11. 18. 20 22. 23. 3. Ioh. 6. which places doe abundantly shew that a company gathered together to one place is called by the name Church as Cencâ—rea Rom. 16. 1. which could not containe many Congregations being but the prot of Corinth Answ. We seeke no more if it be called a Church which conveneth for performance of spirituall duties as some of your places doe well prove Ergo no assembly should have the name of Church but such as assemble for Word and Sacraments this now you cannot affirme and it followeth not the Church spoken of Matthew 18. is not assembled to Word and Sacraments But to bind and loose on Earth The meeting 1 Cor. 5. 4. is not for Word and Sacraments but to deliver to Satan for ought wee can read the word Church Acts 14. 27. is not an Assembly for Word and Sacraments but to heare how God had opened the doors of Faith to the Gentiles and whether this was preaching of the Word and receiving the Sacraments or rather a matter that concerned the Apostles and Elders that they might not thinke hard to preach the Gospell to the Gentiles I leave to the judicious Reader and if to be received of the Church Acts 15. 4. be a matter of word and Sacraments let all judge And if to lend a decree of a Synod Acts 15. 22. be the act of a Church assembled for word and Sacraments let the World judge and therefore all these places doe strongly confirme a Presbytery assembled for acts of Iurisdiction and matters that belong to many Churches as is most cleare Acts 14. 27. Acts 15. 4. Acts 15. 22. and seeing wee finde the name Church given to a meeting assembled onely for discipline or things that concerne many Churches for any thing wee can read or observe from the word as Acts 14. 27. Acts 15. 4 22. 30. Matthew 18. 17. and also the word Church given to a meeting assembled for the word 1 Cor. 14. 1 Cor. 11. 18. 20 22 23. Rom. 16. 1. and not for acts of Jurisdiction for ought that wee can collect from the word I beseech you Brethren why doe we contend if the word Church be a meeting of persons assembled to one place for spirituall duties sometimes for word and Sacraments onely sometimes for acts of Jurisdiction onely then is the word Church by our brethrens argument taken both for the Congregation and for the Elders of one or of diverse Churches and so wee have our intent And we desire our brethren to prove which they must prove if they oppose our principles that the word Church is never taken for the Eldership onely in all the Word of God but these places prove the contrary as I have shewen 2. Whereas our brethren say a company gathered into one place which is nothing else but a Congregation are called by the name of a Church I answer 1. Such a company is onely called by the name of a Church as I have proved for a company meeting for discipline onely Matthew 18. 17 1 Cor. 5. 4. is a Church also 2. It is false that a company gathered in one place are nothing else but a Congregation As you take the word Congregation for to you Congregation is an assembly of men and Women meeting for word and Sacrament with the Elders of the Church I appeale to the judgement of our reverend brethren If the Church Mat. 18. 17. assembled to bind and loose if the Church 1 Cor. 5. 4. though the Text speake nothing of the word Church assembled to deliver to Satan If the Church assembled Acts 14. 27. Acts 15. 2. to heare things which concerned the Apostles and many Churches rather then one If the multitude convened Acts 15. 30. to heare the decree of the Synod read and if the Church of Apostles and Elders from Antiosh and Ierusalem Acts 15. 22. be a Congregation or a Congregationall Church assembled for word and Sacraments as the word Church is taken Acts 11. 26. 1 Cor. 11 20 22 33. Mr. Mather and Mr. Thomson Num. 8. 10. The children of Israel which were not the Church of Officers layd on hands on the Levites therefore when a Church hath no Elders the people may conferre ordination and it is not to be tyed to the Presbytery onely Hence other of our Brethren say ordination is but accidentall to a Ministers calling and may be wanting if the people shall chuse in the defect of Elders Answ. Here two poynts are to be discussed shortly 1. If Ordination belong to the People 2. If Ordination to a certaine stick be necessary for certainly the people doe not call but to a certaine flock To the first I say There is not a place in all the Word of God where the people conferre ordination to the Pastors of the New Testament Therefore our brethren flee to the Old Testament to prove it from the Levites who received imposition of hands from the children of Israel but our brethren hold that the calling of the Levites and of the Pastors of the New Testament are different as the Officers and Churches of the Jewish and Christian Church are different 2. Our brethren grant pag. 49. That it wanteth all example in the New Testament that the people lay on hands 3. These who layd on hands on the Levite Num. 8. were Elders and our brethren say It is like they were but. 1. They did it not as Elders 2. But as representing the people not as Elders civill for that belonged to Aaron and his sonnes Levit. 8. else it will follow that where the Church hath no Magistrate to lay on hands the
an exception for a greater Law in eating the Passeover I thinke it might for in case of necessity they came and dwelt at Jerusalem for feare of the Army of the Chaldeans Jer. 35. 11. and yet their vow was to dwell in Tents From these ariseth Quest. I. If Pastors may performe Ministeriall Acts in any other Congregation than their owne This is answered unto by a Manuscript If you take a Ministeriall act improperly when a Minister doth exercise his gift of praying and preaching being required so to doe so hee may exercise some Ministeriall acts but this he doth not by vertue of any calling but only by his gifts and occasionally but if you meane by a Ministeriall act an act of authority and power in dispensing of Gods Ordinances as a Minister doth performe to the Church whereunto he is called to be a Minister then we deny that he can so performe any Ministeriall act to any other Church than his owne Hence though he may preach to another congregation yet may he not administer the Sacraments to an other then to his owne Answ. First We hold that by a calling or ordination he is made a Pastor by election he is restricted to be Ordinarily the Pastor of his flocke Secondly A Pastor is a Pastor of the Catholike Church but he is not a Catholike Pastor of the Catholike Church as were the Apostles Thirdly The Reformed Churches may send Pastors to the Indians for that which Acosta saith of Jesuites wee may with better reason say it of our selves That Pasiors are as Souldiers and some souldiers are to keepe order and remaine in a certaine place others run up and don ne in all places So some are affixed to a Congregation to feed them others may be sent to those people who have not heard of the Gospel Which sending is ordinary and lawfull in respect of Pastors sending and the Pastors who are sent because in Pastors even after the Apostles be dead there remaineth a generall Pastorall care for all the Churches of Christ. Thus sending is not ordinary but extraordinary in respect of those to whom the Pastors are sent yet is it a Pastorall sending This opinion of our Prethren is against the care of Christ who hath left no Pastorall care on earth by this way now since the Apostles dyed to spread the Gospell to those Nations who have not heard of the name of Christ but a Pastorall care for the Churches is not proper to Apostles onely but onely such a Pastorall care by speciall direction from Christ immediately to Preach to all 2. Backed with the gift of tongues and of miracles and this essentially differenceth the Apostle from the ordinary Pastor but the former Pastorall care to Preach the Gospell to all Nations and to convert is common both to the Apostle and Pastor 2. Our Brethren distinguish betwixt office and the calling and they say that the office extendeth no further then the call and by 〈◊〉 he is onely a Pastor of this determinate flocke But if he be a Pastor essentially in relation to none but to his owne Congregation from which he hath all his calling as is supposed by that same reason a Christian is a Baptized Christian to none but in relation to that particular Church in whose society he is admitted and he doth partake of Christs body and blood in the Lords Supper in relation to no visible professors on earth but onely to the Parish Church whereof he is a Member 1 Cor. 10. 17. for they expone that onely of a Parishionall Communion within one single independant Congregation And he must be a Heathen or as a Pagan in all Congregations on earth but in his owne yea and he is a visible professor of the Covenant of grace which is one in substance as they say with the Church-Covenant and hath claime to Christ and all his Ordinances in no Congregation save in his owne I prove the consequence for by Baptisme the Baptized person is incorporated in Christs visible Church 1 Cor. 12. 13. If this be true when one removeth from one Congregation to another hee must bee re-baptized and incorporated a visible member of a body visible with them And I see not how one can be in-churched to another Congregation and made one body therewith while he eate of one bread with them as they expone 1 Cor. 10. 17. if he be not also a member of all visible Churches on earth 3. If a Pastor can exercise no Pastorall acts toward any Congregation save toward his owne then a Pastor as a Pastor cannot pray for the whole visible Churches of God but the latter is absurd Ergo so is the former I prove the major The praying for the whole visible Churches is a Pastorall Act due to a Pastor as a Pastor 1. Because every visible Church is oblieged as it is a Church to pray for all the visible Churches on earth for as a Christian is oblieged to pray for all Churches visible so farre more is a Church now a visible Church doth not pray but by the Pastor who is the mouth of the People to God and that this is a Pastorall duty due to a Pastor I thinke is said Isa. 62. 6. I have set watchmen on thy Tower O Jerusalem which shall never hold their peace day nor night Yee that make mention of the Lord keepe no silence till he establish and tâ—ll â—â— make Jerusalem the praise of the whole earth Also Pastors as Pastors are to pray for the King though the King be no member of that Congregation whereof they be Pastors 1 Tim. 2. 1 2. every Pastor as a Pastor is to Preach against the sinnes of the Land else how can the People mourne for these sinnes Ergo the Pastor doth exercise Pastorall acts upon all the visible Churches on earth upon the King and upon the whole Land to which he is not a Pastor by speciall election 4. If a Pastor be oblieged to Preach in season and out of season and that as a Pastor and because he is a Pastor 2 Tim. 4. 2. Ergo he is to Preach as a Pastor in any Congregation where he shall be desired They answer He may Preach the word in another Congregation not by vertue of a calling or office but by vertue of his gifts I answer First if he Preach by vertue of a gift onely he Preacheth in that case not as sent of God and so intâ—udeth himselfe and runneth unsent and a meere gift to be a King or a Magistrate maketh not a Magistrate as Master Robinson granteth Ergo one cannot warrantably exercise a Pastorall act by vertue of a meere gift 2. He may in another Congregation preach with Pastorall authority and use the keyes by binding and loosing sinnes according as hearers doe repent and harden their nockes against the Gospell Ergo he may preach as a Pastor to another Congregation 3. There shall be no Communion betwixt Sister Churches in Pastorall acts as Pastorall which is
Rom. 15. 16. 1 Cor. 1. 10. Act. 1. 14. I answer 1. that is because they are in Church-government all one and a conspiracy in error is but seeming unity But 2. I say good men as Paul and Barnabas will differ But 3. what if all be wrong of three parts as 1 Cor. 1. 12. Some said I am of Paul some I am of Apollo some I am of Christ all the three were wrong in that case doth not a Synod by the word of God determine the matter best certainly though Synods may erre yet are they of themselves Christs lawfull way to preserve veritie and charity and unity But our brethren answer us divisions ought not to be and they will not but all agree in the truth if the Church will lay aside corrupt judgement and depend on Christ considering the promises made to the Church Jer. 32. Ephes. 3. 9. Matth. 18 20. Let me answer there is much more charity in this answer then verity 1. They ought not to disassent from truth true but what then the remedy is not given except you returne to a Synod the division Act. 15. ought not to be the house should not be fired true but the question is how shall water be had to quench it for many things are which ought not to be 2. Neither will divisions be that is false 1 Cor. 1. 12. 3. As heresies must be so scandals must be our author saith they will not be they will not be say the brethren if the Church lay aside corrupt judgement and affection and attend upon the rule and depend on Christ. I answer There is but vanity and no solidity I crave pardon in this answer it is the vaine answer of Arminius in the case of the Saints perseverance The regenerate say they cannot fall away if they be not inlaking to Gods grace and if they in holy feare take heed to their wayes so saith Arminius in his Declaration and in his answer to Perkins so also say the Arminians in their confession and Episcopius But what is this but regenerate persons shall persevere upon condition that they shall persevere for not to be inlaking to the grace of God is to cooperate to the grace of God or with the grace of God and to cooperate with the grace of God is very perseverance it selfe for saith the the wicked Socinus and Smalcius and so say our brethren all shall agree in the truth if they lay aside corrupt judgement And what is that if they lay aside corrupt judgement that is if they agree with the truth and assent to the Word of God But so it is that the best regenerate even Barnabas a man full of the holy Ghost Act. 11. doth not lay aside corrupt judgement But our brethren proveth they will law aside corrupt judgement but how you alleadge the Papists abused Scriptures Ier. 32. God promiseth to put his Spirit and feare in his Church that they shall not depart from the Lord. True say I they shall not depart from God providing they lay aside corrupt judgement as you teach us But doe you not teach us by your answer to elude these pregnant places which unanswerably prove the necessity of the perseverance of the regenerated But 2. what though God promise to put his feare in the heart of the regenerate this promise is not made to the visible Church conveened in a Synod as it is such nor will it prove that a Synod shall all agree in the truth that the whole Church shall lay aside corrupt judgement except you serve your selves with these and the like places as Papists and by name as Bellarmine Gâ—etserus Snarez Bucanus Stapleton Gregorius de Valentia doe serve themselves with them and the like to prove that Councels are in fallible What is said in the fourth Section anent the power of the people in Church-governâ—â—â—â— is already examined onely in the closure thereof they seeme to give something peculiar to the Elders which the people have not which I discusse in the insuing question Quest. VIII What peculiar auhority is in the Eldership for the which they are over the people in the Lord according to the doctrine of our brethren We hold that Christ hath given a superiority to Pastors and Overseers in his House whereby they are by office government and power of the keyes above the people But 1. this authority is limited and conditionall not absolute as if they may doe what they please 2. It is a power ministeriall not a Dominion for as meere Servants and Ambassadours of Christ they doe but declare the will and commandement of the King of Kings 3. When this authority is not exercised by the precise rule and prescript of the Law of God it is not valid but null and of no force 4. They are so above the people as 1. they are their Servants for Christs sake 2 Cor. 4. 5. yea we are their servants servants not as if the people had a dominion over the Pastors or as if they had their authority from the people they have it immediately from Christ but because all their service is for the good and the salvation of the people 5. They have so superiority as they are subject to the Prophets to be judged and censured by the Church representative of Pastors Doctors and Elders It will be found that our brethren give no authority or superiority to the Eldership above the people In their answers to the 32. questions We acknowledge say they a Presbytery whose worke it is to teach and rule and whom the people ought to obey and condemne a meere popular government such as our writers condemne in Morellius Answ. So say our brethren in their Doctrine we acknowledge that the people and gifted men not in office should teach and all the faithfull is the governing Church to which Christ hath committed the keyes and power of ordination and highest Church censures even excmmunication and that the Elders should obey the Church of beleevers Ergo in teaching and â—uling you acknowledge no Presbytery 2. Seeing you ordaine the Elders to be ordained by the imposition of the peoples hands to be elected called censured excommunicated exauthorited shew us why the people are not the Rulers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Elders ruled 3. The key of knowledge is a chiefe part of the keyes and these keyes by which sinnes are remitted and retained and men bound or loosed on earth and heaven and seeing Morellius Anabaptists and your selves teach that these keyes were given to the whole Church of beleevers how doe you thinke that people are not in teaching Overseers as properly as the Elders and that your government is meerely popular as Morellius taught to say nothing that when you deny your government to be meerely popular you doe not deny but it is popular for a government meerely popular admitteth of publike men to rule for the people and we never read of a government in Athens Lacedemonia
Nazianzen which is not against their authoritie and true fulnesse and he speaketh of the councells of his time and it is not to bee denyed but Panormitan saith well dictum unius privati est praeferendum dicto papae si ille moveretur melioribus rationibus veteris novi Testamenti and Augustine saith latter councells may correct older councells and Petrus de Monte under Eugenius complained that there was no godly and learned Bishops in his time to determine truth in a Synod when Doctors Professors Bishops and all have sworne obedience to the Pope to their Occumenick councells and to the wicked decrees of the councell of Trent as the Bull of Pius the fourth requireth But before I say any thing of the second question anent the magistrates power I shall close the other wayes of communion of sister Churches CHAP. 6. SECT 5. Three other wayes of communion of sister Churches A Fift way of communion saith the author is by helping and contributing to sister Churches Prophets and Teachers when they are in scarstie as Act. 11. 29. Rom. 15. 25. 26. Ans. This way of communion we acknowledg but we see not how this communion can stand wiâ—hout the authoritie of Synods if Churches bee not united in one visible body they cannot authoritatively send helpe of teachers one to another and this is a direct acknowledgement of a visible union of more Churches in one visible body for the Church of Jerusalem authoritatively sent Pastors Paul and Barnabas as Pastors to the Gentiles you will have them sent as gifted men and that they are not Pastors while they bee ordained and chosen by these Churches to which they goe A sixt way of communion saith hee is by admonition if a sister Church or any member thereof bee scandalous wee are then to send Elders to warn them to call Archippus or any other Elder to take beed to do their dutie if the Elders or Church bee remisse in consuring wee are to take the helpe of two or three Churches moe if yet that Church â—eare not wee are to tell a Congregation of Churches together or if the offence bee weightie wee are to withdraw the right hand of fellowship from such a Church and to forbeare all such sort of exercise of mutuall brotherly communion with them which all the Churches of Christ are to walke in one towards another Answ. You acknowledge that same order which Christ commandeth Matth. 18. to gaine a brother is to bee kept in the gaining of scandalous Churches But 1. What warrant have you of the two first steps of Christs order against scandalous Churches and to omit the third judiciall and authoritative way when sister Churches turne obstinate Christs order for gaining the scandalous is as necessary in the third as in the former two 2. Why doe you allow the third in a sort for if the sister Church will not bee admonished you will have her rebuked before moe sister Churches that are conveened that is before a Synod is it because you thinke there is more authority in a Synod then in one sister Church then you thinke there is authoritie in a Synod for by good Logick wee may inferre the positive degree from the comparative and there is no other reason why the matter should come before a Synod for all in a Synod wanteth authority and power to censure as you thinke yet to complaine to a Synod is an acknowledgement of the authoritie of a Synod as Christs order saith Matth. 18. 17. If hee neglect to heare them tell it to the Church 3. What is the withdrawing of brotherly communion from obstinate sister Churches but as Amesius saith well excommunication by proportion and analogie Ergo say I in this a Synod hath a Synodicall authoritie over the Churches within the bounds of the Synod by proportion for who can inflict a punishment of a Church censure by proportion answerable to excommunication but a Church or a Synodicall meeting which hath the power of the Church by proportion Amesius would prove that a particular Church cannot bee excommunicated because a Church cannot bee cast out of communion with it selfe for then she should bee cast out of herselfe But this argument with reverence of so learned and godly a man proveth onely that a particular Church cannot excommunicate herselfe which I grant but it concludeth not but a particular obstinate Church may bee excommunicated out of the societie of all sister Churches who meeting in a Synod in the name of Jesus Christ have power to save the spirits of sister Churches in the day of the Lord and are to edifie them by counsell and rebuking as the Author granteth and why not by an authoritative declaring that they will have no communion with such an obstinate sister or rather daughter Church Wee have never saith the Author been put to the utmost extent of this dutie the Lord hitherto preventing by his grace yet it is our dutie The Church Cant. 8. tooke care not onely for her owne members but also for her little sister that had no brests and would have taken care if having breasts they had been distempered with corrupt milke if the Apostles had a care of all the Churches 1 Cor. 8. 11. is that spirit of grace and love dead with them ought not all the Churches to care for sister Churches if not virtute officii by vertue of an office yet intuitu charitatis for charities sake Answ. That you have never beene put to these duties to the utmost will never prove that the government is of God for Corinth Ephesus Pergamus Thyatira which were glorious Churches by your owne confession were put to a necessitie of the utmost extent of these duties yea it proveth your government to bee rather so much the worse because Christs government is opposed by secret enemies in the Church 2. You make the spirit of love in a pastorall care over other Churches to bee dead because none have any pastorall care over any other Churches but the particular Congregation over which they are Pastors and pastorall love to unconverted ones as pastorall you utterly deny The last way of communion saith the Author is by propagation or multiplication which is as the Apostles had immediat calling from God to travell through the world and to plant Churches so have particular Churches given to them immediatly from Christ the fulnesse of measure of grace which the inlargement and establishment of Christs kingdome doth require that is when the Bee-hive a parishionall congregation is surcharged they have power to send forth their members to enter by Covenant in Church-state amongst themselves and may commend to them such able gifted Ministers as they thinke may bee Ministers in that young Church Answ. 1. This way of inlarging Christs kingdome is defective 1. It sheweth the way of inlarging the number of invisible Churches and multitudes of converts into new incorporations but doth shew no way how to
him all spirituall headship over the Church to the King and Burbillus also But Henric. Salcobrigiensis calleth the King primatem ecclesiae Anglicanae the Primate of the Church of England and â—ges oleo sacro uncti capaces sunt jurisdictionis spiritualis because they are annointed with holy oyle therefore are they capable of spirituall jurisdiction also may saith hee creat propria autoritate by his owne authoritie create Bishops and dâ—prive them See what Calderwood hath said and excerped out of the writings of these men the King as King 1. convocateth Synods 2. defineth ecclesiasticall canons 3. giveth to them the power of an ecclesiasticall Law 4. executeth Church Canons 5. appointeth commissioners who in the Kings authoritie and name may try heresies and errors in doctrine punish non-conformitie to Popish ceremonies may confine imprison banish Ministers 6. descerne excommunication and all Church censures and use both the swords 7. relax from the power and censures of all ecclesiastick Lawes give dispensations annull the censures of the Church upon causes knowne to them give dispensations against Canons unite or separate Parish Churches or diocesan Churches and by a mixt power partly coactive and civill partly of jurisdiction and spirituall the King may doe in foro externo in the externall court of Church discipline all and every act of discipline except hee cannot preach baptize or excommunicate And whereas Cartwright saith when a lawfull Minister shall agree upon an unlawfull thing the Prince ought to stay it and if Church ministers shew themselves obstinate and will not bee advised by the Prince they prove themselves to be an unlawfull Ministery and such as the Prince is to punish with the sword O but saith hee the author of the Survey how shall the Prince helpe the matter shall be compell them to conveene in a Synod and retract their mind but they will not doe this 2. By what authoritie shall the Prince doe this even by extraordinary authority even by the same right that David did eate of the Shew-bread if by ordinary authority the Prince would doe it yet doe you resist that authority also Answ. Though the Prince had not externall force to compell Church-men to decree in their Synods things equall holy juâ— and necessary yet it followeth not that the King as King hath not Gods right and lawfull power to command and injoyne them to doe their dutie force and Law differ much as morall and physicall power differ much 2. If they decree things good lawfull and necessary the Prince hath a power given him of God to ratifie confirme and approve these by his civill sanction but hee hath no power ordinary to infringe or evert what they have decreed 3. And if the Church bee altogether uncorrigible and apostate then wee say as followeth 7. Conclution When the representative Church is universally apostaticall then may the Prince use the helpe of the Church essentiall of found beleevers for a reformation and if they also bee apostatick which cannot be except the Lord utterly have removed his candlestick wee see not what hee can doe but heare witnesse against them but if there bee any secret seeker of God in whose persons the essence of a true Church is conserved The King by a royall power and the Law of charitie is oblieged to reforme the land as the godly Kings with a blessed successe have hitherto done Asa Jâ—siah Jehoshaphat 〈◊〉 in which case the power of reformation and of performing many acts of due belonging to the Church officers are warrantably performed by the King as in a diseased body in an extraordinary manner power recurreth from the members to the â—â—â—â—tick head and Christian Prince who both as a King 〈◊〉 â—â— in an authoritative way is oblieged to do more then ordâ—â—â—y and as a Christian member of the Church in a charitative and common way is to care for the whole body 8. Conclusion The influence of the Princes regall power in making constitutions is neither solitary as if the Prince his 〈…〉 could doe it nor is it 2. collaterall as if the Prince and Church with joynt concurrence of divers powers did it nor is 3. as some flatterers have said so eminently spirituall as the consultation and counsell of Pastors for light onely hath influence in Churches Canons but the Princes power hath onely the power to designe so as the Canon hath from the Prince the power of a Law in respect of us The Kings influence in Church Canons as wee thinke is as a Christian antecedent to exhort that the Lord Jesus bee served 2. concomitant as a member of the Church to give a joynt suffrage with the Synod 3. consequent as a King to adde his regall sanction to that which is decreed by the Church according to Gods Word or otherwise to punish what is done amisse Now that the Prince as a solitary cause his alone defineth Church matters and without the Church and that by his ordinary Kingly power wanteth all warrant of the Word of God 2. The King might have given out that constitution Act. 15. It seemeth good to the holy Ghost and to us which in reason is due to the ministeriall function for these are called Act. 16. 4. the decrees of the Apostles and Elders not the decrees of the King or Emperour either by Law or fact 3. Christ ascending to heaven gave officers requisite for the gathering of his Church and the edification of the body of Christ but amongst these in no place we finde the King 4. If this bee true heathen Kings have right to make Church-Canons though they bee not able and bee not members of the Christian Church and so without and not to bee judged by the Church nor in any case censured Matth. 18. 17. 1. Cor. 5. 11. and this directly is a King Pope who giveth Lawes by a Kingly power to the Church and yet cannot bee judged by the Church Burhillus and Thomson acknowledge that a Heathen King is primat and head of the Church and must hee not then have power aciu primo to make Lawes and to feede the flocke by externall government But Lancel Andreas Biship of Ely Tortura torti saith that a heathen King hath a temporall Kingly power without any relation to a Church power and when hee is made of a Heathen King a Christian King bee acquireth a new power But the question is if this new power be a new kingly power or if it be a power Christian to use rightly his former kingly power if the first bee true then 1. as learned Voetius and good reason saith hee was not a King before hee was a Christian for the essence of the Kingly power standeth in an indivisible point and the essence of things admit not of degrees 2. Then should hee bee crowned over againe and called of God to bee a Christian King and so hee was not a King before which is against Scripture for Nebucâ—adnezzar was to bee obeyed
and prayed for as King by the people of God at Jeremiahs expresse commandement 3. So a pagan husband becomming a Christian should by that same reason acquire a new husband-right over his wife contrary to the 1 Cor. 7. 13 14 15. the Captains or Masters who of heathens become Christians should obtaine a new right and power over their Souldiers and Servants and they should come under a new oath and promise to their Captaines and Masters 4. If the heathen King have onely temporall Kingly power he had no power as King to take care that God were worshipped according to the dictates of the Law of nature and Law of nations had power to punish perjury Sodomie parricid as sins against the Law of nature and the heathen King should not by office and Kingly obligation bee oblieged to be a keeper and a defender of the tables of the Law of nature which is against all sense But if the power which a heathen King becomming a Christian King acquireth be onely a Christian power to use for Christ the Kingly power that hee had while hee was a heathen King then a heathen King jure regali by a regall right is the head of the Church though hee bee a Woolfe and a Leopard set over the redeemed flocke of Christ yea though hee bee the great Turke hee is a Pastor called of God the Church though for his moralls hee bee a Woolfe and a hireling yet by office and Law hee is a feeder of the flocke Talis est aliquis qualem ius offiâ—ii requirit And certainly it is impossible that a heathen King can bee a member of the true Church hee wanting both faith and profession which doe essentially constitute a Church-membership if it bee said hee is ex officio by his office a member that is nothing else but hee ought to bee a member of the Church so all mankind are members of the Church for they are oblieged to obey Christ and submit to him upon the supposall of the revealed Gospel and the heathen King is no otherwise a member by the obligation regall that layeth upon him as King yea when the Gospel is preached and the heathen King converted to the faith hee is not a member of the Christian Church as a King but as a converted professor and so Christianitie maketh him not a Kingly head of the Church but what essentially constituteth him a King that also constituteth him a Christian King Christianitie is an accidentall thing undoubtedly to the office of a King 2. They doe no lesse erre who make the King and the Church officers collaterall Judges in Church matters so as with joynt and coâ—quall influence they should bee Canon makers 1. Because perfect Synods are and have beene in the Apostolick Church without any influence collaterall of Christian Magistrates as being against their will and mind who were Rulers of the people as Acts 1. 14 15. Acts 2. 46 47. Acts 4. 1 2. Acts 6. 1 2 3 4. Acts 15. 6 7 8. c. 2. What the Church decreeth in the name of Christ standeth valid and ratified in Heaven and Earth Matth. 18. 17 18. Joh. 20. 21 22. whether the Magistrate assent to it or not so that he hath not a negative voyce in it by any ecclesiastick power for Christ saith not What yee bind on earth in my name shall be bound in Heaven except the Magistrate deny as a collaterall Judge his suffrage Now if he be a collaterall Judge by divine institution no Church act should be valid in Christs Court without him as excommunication not in the name of Christ or performed by those who are not the Church but onely in civill offices is not excommunication also what ever the Magistrate doth as the Magistrate he doth it by the power of the sword Ergo if he take vengeance on the ill doer as his office is Rom. 13. 3. 4. his acts are ratified in Heaven though the Church as collaterall Judges say not Amen thereunto 3. The coactive power of the King and the Ecclesiasticall power of the Church differ as carnall and spirituall spirituall and not spirituall of this world and not of this world and are not mixed by the Word oft as Joh. 18. 36. 2 Cor. 10. 3 4. 2 Tim. 2. 4. and therefore it in one and the same Church constitution the King and the Church be joynt and coequall Judges and joynt definers the constitution must both be injoyned under the paine of bodily punishment which the Church whose weapons are not carnall cannot command and under the paine of Church censures as suspension rebukes and excommunication the King must command Now the Canon should neither be an Ecclesiasticall nor yet a civill Canon but mixt for the Canon makers injoyneth with powers and paines which are not due unto them nor in their power Now to make a Law saith Feild is to prescribe â—â—aw under the paine which the Law-maker hath power to inflict but neither hath the Church the power of the sword 2 Cor. 10. 3 4. Joh. 18. 36. nor hath the King by Gods â—aw the power of excommunication See Calderwood And one and the same Law should be backed both by a carnall and worldly power and not by a worldly and carnall power 3. The King as King must have a mixt power halfe kingly â—â—â— halfe ecclesiastick and by the same reason the Church must have a mixt power partly Ecclesiasticall and partly civill and this were to confound the two kingdomes the kingdome of this world and the spirituall kingdome of Christ which is not of this world Joh. 18. 36. condemned by Anselmâ— and Hilarius and Bernard and Augustin Put if they say that every one hath their influence partialitate causae non effâ—cii according to the nature of causes then is not one and the same Church constitution from both King and Church See Apollonius But the Kings Canon is civill the Churches Ecclesiasticall and every one of them without another perfect in their one kind See what the learned Gerson Bucer and Amesius saith further to adde light to this point Those who maintaine a third that the Church Canons hath all the power of being Church Lawes from the King and all Ecclesiasticall and oblieging authority from him and that they have onely some helpe of consulting power from the Church are grosser Divines See Joan. Weemes for so the King is the onely Canon maker and the Church-men giveth advice onely as the Kings Proclamation speaketh having taken 〈◊〉 counsell of our Clergy we command such a worship â— and so the Canon runneth it seemeth good to the holy Ghost and the King as the Canon speaketh Acts 15. 2. the King is made an Ecclesiasticall and ministeriall Prâ—acher to expone publikely the Scriptures to the Church of God for all lawfull Church Canons are but Ecclesiasticall expositions of Gods Word and so the Emperours and Christian Kings are the onely lawfull Canon
testium veritatis They loose the subjects from the oath of fidelitie Lodovick the fourth answering the calumnies of John the 22. saith it is against all Law that the Emperour hath no imperiall authoritie and power except hee bee anointed conâ—eâ—rated and crowned by the Pope he citeth their owne Law on the contrary That Joannes the 22. saith the Emperour insinuateth in his Bull that hee is universall Lord in both temporall and spirituall matters Bonifacius the eighth setteth out a Bull against Philip the Faire Philippus Pulcher King of France as saith Stephanus Aufrerii and speaketh thus that he is universall Lord of the earth in both temparall and spirituall thingâ— Bonifacius Episcopus servus serâ—orum dei Philippo Frâ—n 〈◊〉 regi deum time mandata ejus serva seire te volumus quod in spritualibus temporalibus nobis suâ—es benificiarum preâ—endâ—â—â— ad te câ—â—â—io nuda spectet c. Beleeve if ye will that Constanâ—â—â—â— gave to the Popes of Rome freedome and immunity from the imperiall Laws and that he gave to the Pope the territories of Rome and the City of Rome the Seat of the Empire to be Peter the fishers patrimony and this say they Constantine gave to Silvester which is the Patrimony of the Crowne and the very Empire it selfe given to Peter we teach no such Kingly power given to Church-men and judge this donation to be a forged lye invented by Papists because they are their owne witnesses of this donation For Hieronymus Paâ—â—â—us Cathâ—lanus a Lawyer and Chamberlaine to Pope Alexandâ—r the sixth saith exprelly there was no such donation made by Constantine And because those who are most diligent observers of memorable antiquities speake nothing of this donation as neither Eusebius nor Hieronymus nor Augustine nor Aâ—brase nor Basilius nor Chrysostome nor Ammianus nor Histeriâ— Tâ—ip â—â—tita nor Pope Damasus in his Chronicle nor Beda nor Orosâ—us it is but a dreame yet it is certaine that three hundreth veares after Constantine the Emperours keeped Rome and the Townes of Italy by their presidents and deputies as may be seene in Justiniâ—n And this they did to the time of Innâ—â—â—ntius the second as Chronicles doe beare 6. Wee doe not teach that Church-men are loosed from the positive Lawes of Emperours and Kings Bellarmine saith that the Magistrate can neither punish Church-men nor conveene them before the tribunallâ— so Innocentius the third saith the Empire is not above the Pope but the Pope is above the Empire And Bonifacinâ— the eighth saith all upon hazard of their salvation are subject to the Pope of Rome who hath the power of both swords and judgeth all and is judged by no man Now it is knowne to 〈◊〉 Nicanor that the Prelats of England and Scotland in their high Commission had the power of both swords and that by Episcopall Lawes the Primate 〈◊〉 all the 〈◊〉 and is judged by none and who but he and who ever spake as Suarez That Church-mâ—n 〈…〉 co 〈…〉 against Princes even to detbrane them And as he saith 〈…〉 by divine Law the Pope is eximed from aâ— Laws of Princes and shall we in this beleeve Bellarminâ— Sato â—â—â—etanus Turrecremata Grâ—gâ—rius de Valent. Suaâ—â—â—â— and then forsooth they bring us their Canon Law to judg the Law of God to prove it because it is said by their Silvester nemo judicabit primam â—dem and their Gratian learned this jus divinum this divine Law from Innocentius the Pope And what they alledge for Peters exemption from paying tribute will exime all the disciples and so all Church-men by divine right from the Lawes of Princes Yea all Clergy-men say they by a divine positive Law are eximed from the Laws of Magistrates So saith Suarez Bellarmine and the 〈◊〉 of Rbeimes but with neither conscience nor reason And contrary to their owne practise and doctrine For Paul will have every soule subject to superiour Powers and except the Roman Clergy want Soules they must also be subject Salomon punished Abiathar Josiah burnt the bones of the Priests upon the Aâ—tar Christ subjected himselfe to his Parents payed tribute to Caesâ—r and commanded Scribes and Pharisces to doe the like Matth. 22. Willing that they should give to Cesar those things which are Caesars Paul appealed to Caesars Tribunall and Rom. 13. as many as may doe evill as many as are in danger of resisting the power are to be subject Rom. 13. 4. 2. but Church-men are such therefore they are subject Agatho Bishop of Rome writing to Constantius the Emperour calleth himselfe imperii famulum a Subject of the Empire and saith pro obedientia quam debuimus Leo submitted himselfe to Lodovick the Emperour The Clergy of Constantinople may be conveened before the Patriarch or President of the City See the Law And and Bishops Clerks Monkes c. for criminall causes are judged by the Presidents If a man have a suit with a Clerk for a money matter if the Bishop resuse to heare tunc ad civilem judicem c. say they Sigebertus as also Luitprandus doth witnesse that the Bishops of Rome were compelled to pay a certaine summe of money to the Emperors to be confirmed in their Bishopricke evâ—n till the yeare 700. Leo the fourth who is canonized by Papists as a Saint writeth to Lotharius the Emperour that they will keepe the Emperors Lawes for ever and that they are lyars who say the contrary Arcadius made a Law that if a Priest were found to be seditious and troubling the publick peace he should be banished an hundred miles from that place But how farre Popes have surpassed bounds in these see their blasphemies As they say God should not have beene discreet nisi potestatem Pontifici super principes contulisset except he had given power to the Pope above Princes Also Papam superioritatem habere in imperatorem vacante imperatore imperatori succedere Also Papa habet utriusque potestatis temporalis nempe spiritualis Monarchiam Also Quanto sol lunam tanto Papa superat Imperatorem The Pope is above the Emperor and succeedeth to the Emperors throne when it is vacant and he is as farre above the Emperor as the Sunne is above the Moone The Pope also h in the Nativity night blesseth a Sword and giveth it to some Prince in signe that to the Pope is given all power in heaven and in earth 7. The Pope may loose all Subjects from their oath of Loyalty and may command that a Jesuite stabbe or poyson a King when he turneth enemy to the Roman Faith All these Satan and envy it selfe cannot impute to our doctrine Let Lâ—simachus the Jesuite heare this and see if his owne little Popes the Prclats doe not teach or aime at all these points against the Kings of the earth CHAP. 7. SECT 1. Of the way of
of the Churches of Christ in New England c. 3. sect 3 Fundamentalls Authority of Elders Magistrats power in matters Ecclesiasticall The way of the Churches Trelcat loc 16. aâ—t â— Tylen Syntag. disp 14. de Eccl. dis 1. Thes. 19. Profess leyd synop pur Theol. dis 4. thes 34. 35 Piscator dis 23. n. 15 16. Bucan loc 41. quest 7. s. 5. Answer to Quest. 2. Way of the Church Ch. Sect compare with chap. 2. Robins Iustifie pag. 106. Confess Separ art 37. Bell de Eccl. li. 3 cap. 2. 1 Cor. 11. 23. Mat. 28. 19. 1 Cor. 1. 17. Confess art 37. Quest. 2. a Parker de poâ—it Eccl. l. 3. c. 8. b Câ—hol Paris pag. 8. c Paul Baynes docesart tyrall 3. q. concl 3. pa. 83. a Thom. 22. q. 28. art 10 ad 2. b Molina tom 6 tract 5. dis 57. n. 6. c Suarez Tom. de legib lib. 2. cap 15. d Vasq. 12. dis 129. cap. 2. e Viguertus in institut Theol. cap. 15. s. 1. f Sotus de instit li. 2. q. 3. art 8. g Scotus 3. dist 37. quest 1. h Altisiodore l. 3 sum tract 7. cap. 1. Qu. 5. i Durandus 1. k Gabriel 3. dist 37. q. 1. Art 1. Concl. 2. l Voetius des causa pap li. 2. c. ca. 21. sect 3. 6. m Theodo l. 4. ca. 14. c. 24. n Gerson par 2. Sermon Rhen. dom 2. postpashat o Anton. 3. l. 3. c. 83. a Shindler in Lexico b Muscul. com in Is. 22. 22. Insigne acceptae potestatis Occonoms Praeposito domûs commendantur claves quibus potestatem suam administret c Calvin comment ib. Gualter Homil. 114. Claves symbolum potestatis regibus Claves offerunt d Iunius Plenam administrationem e Beza in Ma. aunot Potestas Ministrorum in Mat. 16. f Pareus domus meae faciam te aeconomum g Hieron Clavis potestas excellentiae h Chrysostom Homil. 55. in Mat. Magnam potestatem i August de civit de lib. 20. ca. 9. potestatem pastoris k Beda in Iohan. Clavis est potestas ligandi solvendi a li. de fide ad Pet. b Stephan in thesaur ling. Graecae c Whittakee tom 2. contr 4. câ— 5. d Calvin ib. dissert de Apostolatu Petri. e Bullinger ib. f Erasm. Para. g Zwinglius h Marlorat com i Pareus ib. a Beza Ministerii Ecclesiastici authoritâ—â— caelestis b Tolet comment in Joan. in loc an 21. c Maldonat Harm in loc d Cajetan com in Ioh. 20. 23. ideo hoc in loco instituitur promulgatur sacramentum paenitentiae e Rolloc ibâ—cpetita reiterata potestas f Beza in ani mad in Mat. 16. sicut Ioannes iuterpretatur in sra c. 21. g Bulling Mat. 16. h Pareus Quicquid solveris id est Joh. 20. quorum peccata remiseritis i Calv. instit 4. ca. 6. k Whittaker tom 2. contr 4. q. 2. ca. 5. l Zwinglius com m Asuscul in Joh. 21. n Way of the Church of n. E. ca. 2. sect 9 o Bulling in loc Mat. 16. Bullinger comment Mat. p Muscul. ibid q Beza an r Calvin comment s Psa. 105. 27 Judg. 15. 10. Psal. 149. 8. Mat. 22. 13. Acts 21. 11. Acts 22. 4. Mark 3. 37. l Levit. 14. 7. Psal. 102. 20. Jer. 40. 4. Ps. 105. 20. Act. 2. 24. Rom. 7. 2. 1 Cor. 7. 27. Rev. 20. 3. Rev. 9. 15. Job 12. 18. a Cap. 3. Sect. 1. b Mat. 10. 2. Joh 6. 70. Acts 17. 20. 21. a Gretser de in Augnr Doctor Luther p. â—9 b Belâ— de cöcli vut l. 2 ca. 2. c Suarez de trip virtâ—dis 9. de Eccl. Sec. 7. n. 7. d Greg de Valent tom 3. dis 1. q. 1. punct 7. e Hosius in confess Polmiea f Joan. de Turre cremat de Gal. l. 1. ca. 24 25 26. a Fran. Iohnson art 5. in M. Clisions booke p. 29. b Mat. 18. 19. 1 Cor. 11. 23. 1 Cor. 1. 17. Joh. 4. 12. c Consess art 27. d Remonst conf 21. apol cons. ib. e Socin tract de Eccl c. 1. n. 140. Gatechis Raccoviens c. 11. n. 305. f Cartwright ans to the admâ—nit tract 18. c. 1â— div 5. p 663. g Beza an in Mat. 17. h Pareus Apostolis dict manisestum est quicquid vos Apostoli ligaveritis ut supra Petro dixerat Christus Mat. 16. 19. i Calvin com ib. k Joh. Weemes vol. 3. expos of the judiciall Law c. 16. a Way of the Church of n. E. c. 4. sec. 5. Irenaus iâ— qui in Ecclesia sunt Presbyteris obedâ— oportet iis qui successionem habent ab Apostolis qui cum Episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum secundum beneplacitumpatris acceperunt Nazianzen oâ— at 21. de laud. Bas. ejusdem throni particeps est Petrus cum reliquis Apostolis in illa verba dabo tibi Claves Cyprian de unita Ecclesia Christus eandem dedit omnibus Apostolis potestatem hoc erant utique caeteri Apostoli quod Peâ—â—us suit pari consortto praediti honoris potestatis he should have said Hoc erant utique caeteri credentes in Christum quod Petrus suit also Basil de vita solitar c. 21. Omnibus pastoribus Doctoribvs candem potestatem tribuit cuâ—us signum est quod omnes exaequo ligant solvunt He should have said Omnibus credentibus in Christum eandem potestatem tribuit Ambros. in Ps. 38. in Luc. 10. Ser. 66. Quod hic dictum est Apostolis omnibus dictum non ait omnibus credentibus dictum The pâ—ilact in Mat. 6. Quamvis soli Petro dictum tamen omnibus Apostolis concessae sunt Claves Cyrillâ— in Joh. 4. l. 4. Responsionem illi Christus committebat qui ordine primus omnibus Apostolis non ait omnibus credentibus Euthymius in Mat. ca. tibi dabo claves atqui donum hoc ceterorum fuit Apostolorum Hugo de sanct victor Tom. 2. institut sanct monaster Quamvis potestas solvendi ligandi soli Petro data videatur tamen caeteris Apostolis data est Haymo Homil in festo Petri Pauli Quod Petro dixit in Petro caeteris Apostolis dixit Cardin Cusan concord Cathol 2. c. 13. Nih l dictum aâ—â—ctrum quod alits Apostolis nâ—n diâ—tum Glossa ordinaria Petâ—us tanquam principa is inter alios Apostolos non inter alios creientes pro aliis dat respensionem Cyrill in Es. 4. orat 2. sancti Apostoli Evangelistâ—e fundamenta Hyeron li. 1 cont Iovian Omnes Apostoli acceperunt claves non solus Petrus Anselm in Mat. 16. Habent eandem judiciariam potestatem alâ—i Apostoli Anastasius in quest sac script q. 79. in 6. Tom Biblioth Potestatem clavium non soli Petro sed aliis etiam Apostolis toti Ecclesie in Episcopis Presbyteris datam August tract in Joh 50. lib. de agâ—d Christi c. 30. Beda homil in Mat. 16. Chryâ—ostom Homil. 70. ad popul Hilarius ae trinit l. 6. Euscbius histor Eccl. lib 2. c.
a number of sole believers united in a Church-covenant which in very deed iâ— but stones and timber not an house builded of God for in the ministeriall Church of the New Testament there is eâ—eâ— a relation betwixt the Elders and the flock wee desire to to see a Copy of our brethrens instituted visible Church to the which Elders are neither essentiall nor integrall parts for their instituted visible Church hath its compleat being and all its Church-operations as binding loosing ordeining of Officers before there bee an Edldership in it and also when the Eldership is ordained they are not Eyes and Eares to the instituted Church nor watchmen because it is a body in essence and operation compleat without officers 2. the officers are not Governors for as I trust to prove they have no act of ministeriall authority of governing over the people by our brethrens Doctrine 2. all their governing is to Rule and moderate the actions of the whole governing Church which maketh them no wayes to be governours nor over the believers in the Lord nor overseers nor watchmen as a Preses who moderateth a Judicatorie a moderator in a Church-meeting a Prolocutor in a convocation is not over the Judicatorie Synod or meeting or Convocation 3. The Eldership are called by them the adjuncts the Church the subject the subject hath its perfect essence without its accidents and common adjuncts 2 Quest. Whether or not Christ hath committed the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to the Church of Believers which as yet wanteth all Officers Pastors Doctors c. The Author sayth this company of believers and Church which wanteth Officers and as we have heard is compleat without them is the corporation to which Christ hath given the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven which deserveth our brotherly censure for wee then aske a Scripture for the Lords giving of the keys to Pastors and Elders if the keys be given to Peter Mat. 16. as a professing believer by what Word of God are they given to Peter as to an Apostle and Pastor it would seem the Pastors have not the keys jure Divino for by this argument our Divines prove the Bishop not to bee an Office of power and jurisdiction above a Pastor and Presbyter because the keys were not given to Peter as to the Archbishop but as to a Pastor of the Church and indeed this would conclude that Pastors are not Officers of authority and power of jurisdiction jure Divino Hence the question is if it can be concluded that the keyes of of the Kingdom of Heaven Mat. 16. Mat. 18. were given to Peter as he represented all professing believers or if they were given for the good of professing believers but to Peter as carrying the person of Apostles Pastors and Church-guides 1. Distinction There is one question of the power of the keyes and to whom they are committed and another of the exercise of them and toucheth the government of the Church if it be popular and democraticall or not 2. Dist. It is not inconvenient but necessary that Christ should give to his Church gifts Pastors and Teachers of the which gifts the Church is not capable as a subject as if the Church might exercise the Pastor and Doctors place and yet the Church is capable of these gifts as the object and end because the fruit and effect of these gifts redoundeth to the good of the Church see Parker see the Parisian schoole and Bayner 3. Distinct. There is a formall ordinary power and there is a vertuall or extraordinary power 1. Concl. Christ Iesus hath immediatly himselfe without the intervening power of the Church or men appointed offices and Officers in his house and the office of a pastor and Elder is no lesse immediately From Christ for men as Christs Vicars and Instruments can appoint no new Office in the Church then the office of the Apostles Eph. 4. 11. 1 Cor. 12. 28. Mat. 28. 19. The Offices are all given to the Church immediatly and so absolutely and so the power of the keys is given to the Church the same way But the Officers and key bearers now are given mediatly and conditionally by the intervening mediation of the ruling and ministeriall Church that she shall call such and such as have the conditions required to the office by Gods Word 1. Tim. 3. 12 3. Hence we see no reason why the keys can be said to be given to believers any other wayes then that they are given for their good 2. Concl. I deny not but there is a power virtuall not formall in the Church of believers to supply the want of ordination of pastors or some other acts of the keyes simply necessary hic nunc this power is virtuall not formall and extraordinary not ordinary not officiall not properly authoritative as in a Church in an Iland where the pastors are dead or taken away by pest or otherwayes the people may ordaine Pastors or rather doe that which may supply the defect of ordination as David without immediate Revelation from Heaven to direct him by only the Law of nature did eate shewbread so is the case here so answer the casuistes and the schoolemen that a positive Law may yield in case of necessity to the good of the Church so Thomas Molina Suarez Vasquez Vigverius Sotus Scotus Altisiodorensis Durand Gabriel and consider what the learned Voetius sayth in this What if in an extreame case of necessity a private man endued with gifts and zeale should teach publickly after the example of the faithfull at Samosaten Yea and Flavianus and Diodorus preached in Antioch as Theodoret sayth yea saith Voetius an ordinary ministery might be imposed on a Laick or private person by the Church though the presbytery consent not in case of necessity God sayth Gerson may make an immediate intermission of a calling by Bishops yea sayth Anton. speaking of necessities Law The Pope may commit power of Excommunication quia est de jure positive pure Laico mulieri to one meere Laicke or a woman though we justifie not this yet it is hence concluded that God hath not tied himselfe to one set rule of ordinary positive Lawes a captive woman as Socrates saith preached the Gospell to the King and Queen of Iberranes and they to the people of the Land 3. Concl. The Author in the foresaid first proposition will have no instituted visible Church in the New Testament but a Congregationall or Parishionall Church that meeteth together ordinarily in one place for the hearing of the Word But we thinke as a reasonable man is the first immediate and principall subject of aptitude to laugh and the mediate and secondary Subjects are Peter Iohn and particular men so that it is the intention of nature to give these and the like properties principally and immediately to the speciâ—e and common nature and not immediately to this or that man
so are the blessings of the promises as to bee builded on a Rock victory over hell and such given principally and immediately to the Catholick and invisible Church as to the first and principall subject and no wayes to a visible Congregation consisting of 30 or 40. professing the Faith of Christ but onely to them not as Professors but to them as they are parts and living members of the true Catholick Church For sound professors though united in a Church-covenant are indeed the mysticall Church but not as professors but as sound believers and therefore these of whom Christ speaketh Mat. 16. Are builded on a Rock as true believers but the keys are given not to them but for them and for their good as professors making Peters confession and in Gods purpose to gather them into Christ. But the Text evinceth that these keys are given to Peter as representing the Church-guides especially though not excluding believers giving to them popular consent and not to Believers as united in a company of persons in Church-covenant excluding the Elders 1. To that Church are the keys given which is builded on the rock as a house the house of wisdome Prov. 9. 1. The house of God 1 Tim. 3. 15. Heb. 3. 4. By the Doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles by Doctors and Teachers whom Christ hath given for the building of his house Eph. 4. 11. But this house is not a company of professing believers united by a Church-covenant and destitute of Pastors and Teachers but a Church edified by the Word Seales and Discipline Ergo such a Church is not heere understood The propofition is granted by the Author I prove the assumption The Church of believers combined in Church-covenant but wanting their Pastors and Teachers is not wisdomes house nor builded by pastors and Doctors given to edifie and gather the body but they are only the materialls of the house yea wanting the pastors they want Ministeriall power for pastorall preaching and administrating the Seales and for that they want the power of edifying the body of Christ which is required in a visible Church Eph. 4. 11. Though the building of this Church on the Rock Christ may well be thought to be the inward building of the Catholick and invisible Church in the Faith of Christ yet as it is promised to the Church to the which Christ promiseth the keys of the Kingdome of Heaven it can be no other beside external and Ministeriall building by a publick Ministery 2. Arg. To these are the keys here promised who are stewards of the mysteries of God 1 Cor. 4. 1. And servants of the house by office 2 Cor. 4. 5. And are by office to open the doores and behave themselves aright in Gods house 1 Tim. 3. 16. and to divide to these of the house their portion in due season Mat. 24. 45. and to cut the word 2 Tim. 2. 15. But a company of professing believers joyned together in a Church-covenant and destitute of officers are not stewards by office nor servants over the house c. Ergo to such a company the keyes are not here given The proposition especially is to be proved for the assumption is granted by our brethren and evidently true but it is sure by the phrase of Scripture Esai 22. 22. And I will lay upon his shouldier the key of the house of David 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clavis a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apperuit proveth this Shindlerus in Lexico metonymicè significatur Authoritas Facultas potestas omnis gubernationis iubendo ac vetando expediendo ac coercendo power of government Musculus so Calvin these who are made masters of housholds receive keys whereby they open and shut it is a token of power given to Kings Iunius it noteth a full government by this borrowed speech sayth Beza is signified the power of Ministers Isai. 22. Mat. 16. Pareus I shall make the steward of my house Hierom the key is a power of excellency and Chrysostom Augustine Beda sayth the same Fulgentius calleth this the power of binding and loosing given to the Apostles so other Scriptures expound the keyes to be a power of office as Esa. 9. 6. And the government shall be upon his shoulder Interpreters say Davids keys are given here Rev. 3. 7. These things saith he that hath the key of David who openâ—h and no man shutteth and shutteth and no man openeth Rev. 1. 18. I have the keys of hell and death Rev. 9. 1. And to him was given the key of the bottomlesse pit so Stephanus on the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clavis Whittaker it signifieth a power of office given to some and not to all as Calvin here saith he Christ speaketh of Peters publick office that is of his Apostleship so Bullinger Erasm. Zwinglius Marlorat Pareus on the same place I think while of late never interpreter dreamed that in the Text Mat. 16. the keys of the Kingdome of Heaven are given to all believers but only to the stewards of the house builded upon the Rock 3. Arg. To these in this Text doth Christ give the keys to whom he giveth warrant for the actuall exercise of the keys to wit to bind and loose on Earth and so open and shut the doores of the Kingdome But this warrant and officiall authority of binding and loosing Christ giveth to Peter onely as representing Apostles Teachers and Elders and not to the Church of believers convened Covenant-wayes and destitute of Officers Ergo the proportion is cleare in the Text to the same person to whom the promiseth the power or keys to the same he promiseth Officiall warrant to exercise the speciall acts of the keys but to Peter is the promise of both made 19. and if Christ allude to the place Is. 22. 22. Then I say these to whom Christ gave the keys doe by Office represent him who hath the keys of Davids house and the Government on his shoulder And I will give to thee the Keys of the Kingdome of Heaven there is the power and authority granted And whatsoever thou shall bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven there is a warrant for the exercise of the acts of the power given also to Peter Now if the keys be not given to Peter as to a Pastor Peter and pastors by this place as pastors neither have the keys nor officiall warrant to preach and to remit or retaine sinnes and if by this place they have it not we desire to see a warrant from Christ before he went to heaven for pastorall preaching Beza in his marginall notes in this Text sayth here is the Heavenly authority of the Church Ministery also binding and loosing is all one with opening and shutting Heaven Gates and with remitting and retaining sinnes Ioh. 20. Papists I know deny that the Apostles were made priests judicially to remit
people ought to obey and we condemne a meere popular government such as our writers condemne in Morellius They adde Government meerly Aristocraticall where all authority is in the hands of the Eldership excluding the people from intermedling by way of power we conceive to be without warrant and injurious to the people infringing their liberties in chusing Officers admitting members censuring offenders even Ministers Col. 4. 16. To which doctrine we oppose these conclusions 1. Concl. Our brethren hold a meere popular government with Morellius 1. Because nothing is left peculiar in government to the Officers which all the people have not 2. Because a greater power of Church-Jurisdiction as I shall prove is given to the people then to the guides for cursing by Excommunication of all the Officers and blessing of them by pardoning their faults and admitting of Members and laying on of hands is the greatest power that can be given to people But this and many other acts of jurisdiction the people have by our brethrens Doctrine 3. The people is no more obedient to the Eldership in teaching then Indians and Infidels who are hearers of the word and are under an obligation to obey the word and under the very same obligation of an Evangelicke offer made to all The people say they are under the obligation of obedience to Pastorall teaching under the paine of Church censures but so are not Indians who may be onely hearers but are in no Church-membership I answer Obligation to Church censures from the Pastors as Pastors lyeth not on the people by our brethrens doctrine 1. Because Pastors as Pastors are not the Church builded on the rocke nor the Spouse of Christ nor any part thereof nor any part of the visible Church to the which Christ hath given the Keys for the visible Church is a compleate Church in esse in operari in their being and Church actions of a visible Church without all Pastors of any Officers as they teach 2. Because Pastors are onely parts of the visible Church as believers and so have the power of the Keyes as believers and this the believers have which the Pastors have not and so seeing the Pastors as Pastors have not the Keyes nor can they use the Keyes or excommunicate as parts or members of the visible Church because as Pastors they are neither parts nor members of the Church but adjuncts and meere accidents of the visible Church and therefore the people are under no obligation of obedience to Pastors as Pastors under paine of Ecclesiasticke censures more then Indians or Infidels who are their hearers 2. Concl. Christ hath given no warrant at all of actuall Church government to all the whole visible Church 1. so the places that I cited before Iadde the styles of Officiall dignity given to Officers because of their government are given onely to Officers and never to the people Ergo the people have no power of government the consequence is sure those who are priviledged of Christ to governe ordinarily should be and duely are Governours But the stile of Gods is given to Church-guides Ioh. 10. 33 36. Ioh. 20. 21. which title for governing is given to Judges Psalm 82. 6. Exod. 21. 6. And his Master shall bring him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Judges Now the people are not Gods nor are they 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 13. 17. over the people in the Lord. Which word no doubt the Apostle borrowed from the Septuagint so stiling the Rulers not because of their place of preaching onely but of governing also as Jos. 13. 21. Micah 3. 9. Ezech. 44. 3. Dan. 3. 2. Acts 23. 24. Matth. 27. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and it is given to the Kings or supreame rulers 1 Pet. 2. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so it is frivolous that they say Church-Officers are never called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For these words of officiall power of government are no lesse powerfull and never communicated to any but to Church-Officers such as are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 watchmen not onely for preaching but also for government Phil. 1. 1. 1 Tim. 3. 2. Acts 20. 28. and the people are not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Governours 1 Cor. 12. 28. nor are they 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 12. 8. nor obliged to bee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rulers as they are the visible Church nor should they bee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 5. 17. nor are they to bee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Labourers and over the Saints in the Lord. 1 Thess. 5. 12. 2. If all the people as contradistinguished from Officers are to watch over one another and by office to rebuke censure excommunicate ordaine and exauthorate Officers then must they in Conscience attend the judging of all causes of adultery fornication drunkennesse swearing oppressing defrauding one another as they fall under scandall Now this is a calling distinct from their owne calling in respect the holy Ghost alloweth to the Elders stipend and maintenance 1 Tim. 5. 17. yea and hire as to labourers Matth. 10. 10. as to souldiers husbandmen dressâ—rs of vineyards feeders of flocks 1 Cor. 9. 7 8. yea as to the oxe that treadeth out or thresheth the corne vers 9. and by this all the people are made officers and stipendiaries to whom by the Law of God and nature stipend is due Now this looscth them from their own proper callings of Merchandise Trading Husbandry Laws Medicine Manufactures and maketh all these callings sinfull unlawfull to the Saints by calling who are members of a visible Church according to that 2 Tim. 2. 4. No man that warreth in t angleth himselfe with the affairs or callings of this life which is grosse Anabaptisme condemned by Gods Word 1 Cor. 7. 20 21. Eph. 6. 5. Col. 2. 22. 1 Thess. 4. 11. Now certainly if actuall government with the power of the Keyes be committed to all the members of the visible Church the Epistles to Timothy and Titus and Canons of right government must be written to Timothy and Titus not as to Pastors but as to beleevers as the Keyes were given in Peters person and a warrant to binde and loose Matth 18. Matth. 16. as representing beleevers not as to a Pastor then they are to commit the word to faithfull men who are able to teach others and to give up their earthly callings as 2 Tim. 2. 2 3 4. and to lay hands suddenly on no man and not to receive a testimony against an Elder but before two or three witnesses 1 Tim. 5. 22 19. and to war a good warfare 1 Tim. 1. 18. And this must needs follow since Separatists teach That all the people are obliged in Conscience to judge and to be personally present and that by their Office and Church-calling when ever any sentence is given out against offenders for if the Elders be onely present and the people absent the Elders shall tyrannize saith Answorth over the peoples Consciences for the
ad me pertinet scias quiae crudelis est And Nazianz. Charitatem potius hic quam potestatem ostendendam To rebuke is a worke of charity rather then of power Calvin saith Good Ministers stand in need to be admonished Davenant thinketh that Archippus in the absence of Epaphras his collegue was to supply his absence and it is like was somewhat cold and therefore needed to be admonished But because the Collossians were to exercise an act of mercy towards their Pastor which the Law of nature enjoyned them it is a wide inference therefore they had Church authority and power over him to censure deprive excommunicate him so the faithfull receiveth a charge Hos. 2. 1. Say ye to your brethren Ammi and to your sisters Ruhammah 2. Plead with your mother plead pleading for wheredomes is more then a simple exhorting of Archippus yet none can well collect from these words that those faithfull who kept themselves cleane from the common defection had power of jurisdiction over their breth en sisters and mother to censure them judicially and by authority to un-Church them And certainely the Apostle if he had commanded here the judiciall act of Church-jurisaiction to all the Saints of Colosle men and women who may admonish Archippus we we would looke he had said command and charge with all authority Archippus to take heed to his ministery Also it is much to be doubted if the duties of rebuking exhorting and comforting one another be positive acts of Church-membership which the fellow-members of a visible Congregation owe one to another by vertue of a Church-covenant or that the people owe to the Pastor in a Church way for these ex hort teach comfort one another are duties mutuall not restricted to fellow-members of a visible Church or Parish but such as we owe to all the members of the Catholique Church as we are occasionally in company with them Yea and duties as our brethren say that sister Churches owe to sister Churches and acts of the Law of nature that we owe to all as brethren not as brethren in Church-membership Levit. 19. 17. onely I will here answer What Robinson saith By the Keyes is meant the Gospell opening a way by Christ and his merits as the doore into the Kingdome the power of binding and loosing opening and shutting Heaven is not tied to any Office or Order in the Church it dependeth onely upon Christ who alone properly forgiveth sinnes and hath the Key of David and this Key externally is the Gospell which with himselfe he giveth to the Church Isa. 6. 9. Rom. 3. 2. Ergo the Keyes are given to all though not to be used by all and every one alike which were grosse confusior The Keyes were not given to Peter as Prince of the Apostles as Papists say nor to Peter as chiefe Officer of the Church and so to Prelates nor to Peter as a Minister of the Word and Sacraments but we say to the confâ—ssion of faith which Peter made by way of answer to Christs demand and therefore to every faithfull man and woman who have received the like precious faith with Peter 2 Pet. 1. 1. Ans. 1. If the Keyes be given to as many as the Gospell is given unto all have the Keyes who are beleevers children women whether within or without the Church for all have obtained alike precious faith So it is vaine to speake there of a Church builded on the Rockâ— or of any ministeriall Churcâ— 2. The Keyes are not given to the naked Office or Order distinct from the spirits working and proving the acts of preaching and discipline to be mighty through God 2 Cor. 10 5. to open hearts Act. 16. 14. for what or who is Paul and who is Apollo but Ministers by whom ye beleeved 1 Cor. 3. 4 5. and Christ alone worketh with the Sacraments and without him great Iohn Baptist can but baptize with water Joh. 1. 26. yet all say administration of Sacraments externally is so tied to the Office as none can administer them without warrant but Pastors 1 John 5. 25 Math. 26 19. 1 Cor. 1. 17. and therefore this is weake to prove that because Christ onely hath the Keyes of the Word yea and of the Sacraments also that therefore he hath not committed the Keyes to certaine Officers under him who are Stewards and Key-bearers 3. The places alledged prove not Is. 6. 9. Christ is given to us that is to the Church as to the subject O say it not but to us the Church as the object and end for our salvation Ergo the Keyes and the Gospell are given to the Church yea and to every faithfull that they may by preaching open and shut Heaven You cannot say so Also Rom. 3. 2. to the Jewes were committed the Oracles and Scriptures that every one might be a Priest and Prophet to teach and sacrifice it is a shame to say so but to the Jewes as to the object and end that by the Scriptures and faith in these Oracles they might be saved 4. The Keyes that is the Gospell is given to all though not to be used alike by all and every one which were grosse confusion that is the same we say the Gospell in use is not given alike to all but to the believers as to the object and end to the Officers as to the subject and proper instrument And so you fall into grosse confusion while you eschew it Robinson The Keyes be one and the same in efficacy and nature and depend not upon the number and excellencie of any persons but upon Christ alone though the order and manner of using them be different Ans. The Sacraments remaine one and the same in nature and efficacy who ever be the persons many or few excellent or not excellent in whose hands soever they be it followeth not therefore the power of administration of Sacraments is given to all 2. We see no difference in the order and manner of using the keyes if all even a faithfull man or woman either may also truly and effectually loose and binde both in heaven and in earth as all the Ministers of the world for those be your words Robinson These keyes in doctrine may be turned also as well upon them which are without the Church as upon them which are within and their sinnes either loosed or bound Matth. 28 19. in discipline not so but onely on them that are within 1 Cor. 5 13. Answ. If this distinction were in Gods Word we would receive it but seeing by preaching there is receiving in and casting out and binding and loosing I aske how these who were never within can bee judged and cast out by preaching more then by discipline may Pastors judge these who are without by preaching and not judge those who are without by discipline and that in a setled Church Robinson There is an use of the keyes publike ministeriall by men in office by the whole Church joyntly
and Ostorodius Theoph. Nicolaides reason against Gods ordinance of a sent Ministerie Robins God hath indeed set in the body some to be eyes and mouth and hath not said to all the Church Goe and preach but first they have not their gifts from the Church Secondly you would have the body to starve if such hands as Deacons will not feed and all the body blinde if the eyes of the watchmen be blinde Answ. Yet thus much is granted that gifts give not the keyes nor authority to use gifts and so that all beleevers though gifted and graced also have not power of the keyes 2. It 's certaine that in a constituted Church there be no hands nor mouthes to doe and speake by authority and ex officio by vertue of an office save onely Elders and Pastors and that if they doe or speake they doe it extraordinarily when Churches hands are lame and her eyes blinde or if they doe and speake ordinarily it is from the law of charity in a private way not by power of the keyes and as Judges and Officers Manuscript 5 ch 4 sect The Churches not the Angels of the Churches are blamed for not executing censures against Balaam Jezabel the Nicolaitans g Robinson saith more 1. These whose workes Christ commendeth for that dwelling where Sathans throne was they kept his name and denyed not his faith these he reproveth for suffering the doctrine of Balaam and the Nicolaitans 13 14 15 16. 2. They which were commended by Christ for their workes love service faith patience increase of workes are reproved for suffering Jezabel but these were not the Angels onely 3. These conjunctions but never the lesse say though they were zâ—alous in many things yet they failed in not being zealous enough against false teachers Ans. 1. These connexions prove guiltinesse in Angels or Pastors and one common fault may be laid upon them all but hence it followeth not that they all abused one and the same power of the Keyes as being all collaterall Judges no doubt the Angels preached not against Balaam Jâ—zabel and the Nicolaitans doctrine and yet women dwelt where Sathans throne is and there faith and patience was commended and yet our brethren will not say women are rebuked and all the beleevers because they did not pastorally preach against Balaam and Iezabel so this argument hurteth them as much as our cause The Pastors were guilty because they did not in their place use the Keyes and the people because they did not say to Archippus and their Officers Take heed how you governe as Israel was involved in Achans trespasse because they warned not one another 2. Seeing the Spirit of God maketh mention of Churches in the plurall number and every one of the seven Churches of Ephesus Rev. 2. 7. of Sâ—yrna v. 11. of Pergamus 17. of Thyatira 29 of Sardis 3. 6. Philadelphia 13. Laodicea 22. It is cleare there were more Churches then a single Congregation and an independent incorporation in every one of them and so a Presbytery of Angels in every one of them behoved to be guilty of this neglect of discipline yet not all one and the same way It is not cleare enough though that the whole Church in Ephesus was to be rebuked or that all and every one of the Elders whereof there were a good number Act. 20. 26. He prayed with them all they all wept sore were guilty of these abuses of the power of the Keyes for in Sardis there were a few names which had not defiled their garments yet the whole body is rebuked Manuscript Ch. 5. Sect. 4. When the word Congregation is put for the Elders or Judges only it is never understood of them sitting in consistery and judgement there alone by themselves and apart from the people but in the presence of the publick assembly who also had liberty in such cases to rescue an innocent from unjust judgment 1 Sam. 14. 45. I answer we urge not a Church assembly of Elders only to exclude the people from hearing yea and in an orderly way from speaking reasoning and disputing even in our Generall assembly but for judiciall concluding we find not that given to any but to the Church-guides Act. 15. 6. Act. 16. 4. 2 It is not a good argument the people sate with the Rulers and rescued innocent Jonathan 1 Sam. 14. Therefore all the people may fit and give judiciall sentence or impede the Elders to sentence any This I grant is alledged by Ainsnorth for to give popular government to the people as also 1 King 21. 13. and Ier. 26. 11 12. but 1. a fact of the people is not a Law 2. It was one fact and that in an extraordinary case of extreame iniquity in killing innocent Ionathan a Prince and Leader of the people 3. in a civill businesse and the people were to be executioners of the sentence of death and they saw it manifestly unjust 4. they were not the common people only but in thar company were the Princes of the Tribes and heads and the King and his family only on the other side what will this infer but that there were no Kings in Israel who had power of life and death nor any judges as Ainsworth contrary to Scripture sayth but that the people were joynt Judges with the King and that the people in the New Testament are co-equall Judges with the Elders from so poore an example and so the Separatists proving from the peoples power of judging in civill causes which yet is a wide mistake and a punishment bodily to be inflicted upon strangers as Paget doth learnedly observe doe conclude the peoples power of judging in Ecclesiastick causes which concerneth only the members of the visible Church Manuscript We grant it is orderly to tell the Elders the offence that the whole Church be not frivolously troubled but it followeth not that the Officers may judge there alone without consent of the people he who told his complaint to the Levite told it orderly enough to the whole Congregation assembled at Mizpeh Jud. 20. Ans. These to whom we are to complaine these and these only are to be heard and obeyed as Judges binding and loosing in Earth and validly in Heaven Mat. 18. but these are not the multitude nor one Elder only but the Church of Elders 2. if the Church of Believers be the only subject as you teach of the Keys and not the Elders but in so far as they are parts of the believing Church then it is more orderly to complaine to the multitude who only are proper Judges then to Elders who are not properly Judges Manuscript A second reason why we allow such power to the people in Church censures is from the Church of Corinth 1. He directeth the whole Church of Corinth to whom he writeth to excomunicate the incestuous man Ans. He writeth to all the faithfull and so to women the woman is not to usurpe authority over
the man 1 Cor. 14. 34. 1 Tim. 2. 11 12. but to voyce judicially in Excommunication is an act of Apostolick authority Manuscript Ib. The whole Church is to be gathered together and to Excommunicate Ergo not the Bishop and Elders alone 3. Pauls spirit was to be with them and Christs authority 4. the whole Church 2 Cor. 2. did forgive him 5. nothing is in the Text that attributeth any power to the presbytery apart or singularly above the rest but as the reproofe is directed to all for not mourning so is the Commandement of casting out directed to all Ans. 1. It is cleare that if some were gathered together in the power of Christ and the spirit of Paul that is in the authority that he received over the Corinthians for edification 2. Cor. 10. 8. and Pauls Rod 1 Cor. 4. 21. then as many as were convened Church-ways and mourned not for the same did not cast out and authoritatively forgive seeing women and believing children did convene with the whole Church and were not humbled for the sinne and yet women and believing children cannot be capable of pastorall authority over the Church which was given for edification 2. The power of the Lord Jesus that is the keys of the Kingdom of God were committed to Peter as to a Pastor Mat. 16. and power to bind and retaine to loose and pardon sinnes Joh. 20. 20 21 22. Which power is given to these who are sent as Ambassadors as the Father sent Christ v. 21. which power cannot be given to puffed up women 3. Except this be said the Text must beare that there was not a Presbytery of Prophets Governors and Teachers there of all who had a more eminent act in excommunicating and Church pardoning then the women who mourned not for by what reason our brethren would have the act of excommunicating an act of the whole Church convened including all to whom Paul writeth women and children by that same reason we may appropriate it to these only who are capable of Pauls pastorall spirit and authority according as attributes are appropriated by good logick to their own subjects else that cannot be expounded 1 Cor. 14. 31. For ye may all prophecy one by one What may all that the Apostle writeth unto 1 Cor. 1. 2. prophecy one by one even the whole Church even all sanctified in Christ Jesus called to be Saints and all that in every place call upon the Lord Iesus I thinke our brethren will not say so so when Paul sayth 1 Thess. 5. 12. Esteem highly of these that are over you if that command be directed to the whole Church of the Thessalonians which is in God our Father as the Epistle is directed to them all 1 Thess. 1. 1. then doth Paul command the Elders in Thessalonica to esteem highly of themselves for their own workes sake if exhortations be not restricted according to the nature of the subject in hand we shall mock the Word of God and make it ridiculous to all Ainsworth sayth The putting away of leaven was commanded to all Israel Ergo the putting away of the incestuous person is commanded to them all in Corinth without exception and the putting away of the Leper was commanded to all Israel I answer 1. Proportions are weake probations 1. every single woman 2. privately in her own house 3. without Churches consent and authority was to put away Leaven but it is a poore inference therefore every woman in Corinth heâ—e alone might excommunicate without the Churches authority and in their private houses 2. The Priest only judicially putteth away the Leper Deut. 17. 13. and the Priests without the peoples consent put out Uzzah their Prince from the Sanctuary when he was a Leper 2. Châ—on 26. 20. Manuscript Lest this judgement should be restrained to Presbyteries only he magnifieth the judging of the Saints taking occasion from thence to stretch their judicature in some cases even to the deciding of civill causes rather then that they should fly suddenly to Law one against another before Infidels Ans. That upon this Church judging he taketh occasion to magnifiy the judging of the Saints I see not for he passeth to a new subject in reprehending their pleadng before heathen Judges 2. Though that cohesion of the Chapters were granted yet doth he not magnifie the Judging of all the multitude the Saints of men and women shall judge the world by assenting to Gods Judging but all the Saints even women are not Church-Iudges Also he extendeth Judging of civill causes to the most eminent Seniors amongst them v. 5. Is there not a wise-man amongst you no not one who shal be able to judge betwixt his brethren and therefore he layeth a ground that far lesse can all the rest of men and women be Judges Ecclesiastick to binde and loose validly in Earth and Heaven but onely the wiser and selected Elders I may adde what Master Robinson sayth that our argument from confession may be objected to the Apostles no lesse then to Separatists Acts 1. 23. They presented two that is the multitude which were about an hundred and twenty men and women and Act 6. 5. And the while multitude presented seven Deacons to the twelue Apostles and the twelve Apostles called the multitude and so spake to them and v. 6. prayed and laid hands on the Deacons Now when the multitude Acts 1. presented Joseph and Matthias it behoved them to speak spake they joyntly or all at once this were confusion contrary to 1 Cor. 14. 14. did the women speak they must not meddle in Church-maters v. 34. did children speak It is impossible so Acts 6. did all the twelve Apostles speak at once and pray vocally at once did the whole multitude speak when they presented the seven Deacons that is confusion by these and the like women and children are utterly excluded from the Church as no parts of it Acts 15. 22. The whole Church sent Messengers to Antioch 1 Coâ— 14. 23. the whole Church commeth together in one to exercise themselves in praying and prophecying but children could not send messengers nor pray nor prophecy and women might not speak in the Church and therefore women and children must be excluded from being parts of the Church if one be excluded why not another and so till we come to the chiefe of the Congreation Ans. This is much for us every way therefore the 120 Acts 1. and the multitude Acts 6. did present the two elect Apostles and the seven Deacons by some select persons and when these select persons spake the Church spake and when one Apostle prayed the whole twelve prayed Ergo there is a representative Church which performeth Church actions in the name of the Church and you will have a representative Church in the New Testament to be a point as you say of Judaisme yet here you are forced to acknowledge it 2. By all good reason when Christ Mat. 18. sayth if he refuse to heare the Church
together a visible act of government in sending messengers to 〈◊〉 Acts 15. 22. Then pleased it the Apostles and Elders and the whole Church our Brethren say the whole collective Church Men Women and Children at Ierusalem to send men of their own company to Antioch 23. And wrote Letters and some Decrees and Commandements to be observed Now the many thousands of the Church of Ierusalem by no possibility could meete aâ— one Parish in one materiall house to administrate the Lords Supper farre lesse could they be as is said Acts 2. 42. all continuing stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and followship our Brethren say in Pâ—rishionall or Congregationall fellowship and in breaking of bread and prayer nor could they dayly continue in the Temple and breake bread from house to house being all one Church or a fixed parishionall meeting in one materiall house Now it is cleare they were 〈◊〉 even after they exceeded many thousands in number in one Parishionall and Congregationall government as our Brethren would prove from Acts 15 22 23 24 25. And Acts 2. 42 43. Else how could they have all their goods common if there be not one visible government amongst them but this government could not be of one single Congregation for all who sold their goods and had all things common could not meete to give voyces in Discipline a judicatory of so many thousand Judges were impossible and ridiculous 2. Paul writeth to the Galatians where there were many Parish Churches Gal. 1. 2. as our Brethren teach yet doth he write to them as he doth to the Corinthians where our Brethren will have one Parish Church and writeth to them of uniformity of visible government that they meete not together to keepe dayes Sabbaths and yeers Gal. 4. 10. as the Iewes did that they keep not Iewish and ceremoniall meetings and conventions Gal. 4. 9. these Churches are called one lumpe in danger to be leavened as Corinth is a Parishionall lumpe in hazard to be leavened as our Brethren teach Now how could Paul will them that the whole lump of all the Churches and Congregations in Galatia be not leavened except he lay down a ground that they were with united authority to joyne in one visible government against the false Teachers suppose there were twenty sundry Kings in Brittaine and twenty Kingdoms could our friends over Sea write to us as to one Nationall lump to beware of the Spanish faction except they laid down this ground that all the twenty little Kingdomes had some visible union in Government and might with joynt authority of all the twenty Kingdomes concurre to resist the common Enemie Here that godly and learned Divine Mr. Baynes sayth Communion in government is not enough to make them one Church this sayth he maketh them rather one in tertio quodam separabili in a third thing which may be separated then one Church Government being a thing that commeth to a Church now constituted and may be absent the Church remaning a Church I answer this is a good reason against the Prelates Dioceseâ—n Church which as Baynes sayth well is such a frame in which many Churches are united with one head Church under one Lord prelate common Pastor to all the Pastors and particular Congregations of the Diocese as part aking of holy things or at least in that power of government which is in the chiefe Church for all the others within such a circuit Now the prelâ—tes frame of a properly so called Church under one Pastor being a Creature with a hundred heads having Church and pastorall care of a hundred little Congregations and Churches is a dreame for we know no such Church fed by a Prelate nor no such prelaticall Argos to oversee so many flocks nor doe we contend that the many Congregations united in a presbyteriall government doe make a mysticall visible Church meeting for all the Ordinances of God But union of many Congregations in a visible government is enough to make all these united Churches one visible ministeriall and governing Church who may meete not in one collective body for the worship of God yet in one representative body for government though worship may be in such a convened Church also as we shall heare The name of the Church I thinke is given to such a meeting Mat. 18. 17. Acts 15. 22. though more usually in Scripture the Church is a fixed Congregation convened for Gods worship now government is an accident separable and may goe and come to a mysticall Church but I thinke it is not so to a Ministeriall governing Church So the Church of Ephesus is called a Church in the singular number Rev. 2. 1. and all the Churches of Asia Rev. 1. 20. but seven Churches and Christ directeth seven Epistles to these seven and writeth to Ephesus as to a Church having one government v. 2. Thou hast tryed them which say they are Apostles and are not and hast found them lyers This was Ecclesiasticall tryall by Church-Discipline yet Ephesus contained more particular Congregations then one 1. Because Christ speaking to Ephesus only sayth v. 7. He that hath an Earâ— to heare let him heare what the spirit sayth unto the Churches in the plurall number 2. Because there were a good number of preaching Elders in Ephesus Acts 20. 28. 36. 37. and it is incongruous to Gods dispensation to send a multiude of pastors to over see ordinarily one single and independent Congregation 3. This I have proved from the huge multitudes converted to the Faith in Ephesus so huge and populous a City where many Iewes and Greeks dwâ—lâ— and where the Word of God grew so mighâ—â—ly Acts 19. 17 18 19 20. and Christ writeth to every one of the seven Churches as to one and yet exhorteth seven times in every Epistle that Churches in the plurall number heare what the spirit sayth Now as our Brethren prove that the Churches of Galatia so called in the plurall number were many particular Churches so doe we borrow this argument to prove that every one of the seven Churches who are seven times called Churche in the plurall number contained many Congregations under them yet doth Christ write to every one of the seven as having one visible Government 2. Concl. A nationall typicall Churchâ— was the Church of the Iewes we deny But a Church nationall or provinciall of Cities Provinces and Kingdomes having one common government we thinke cannot be denyed so Paul Baynes citeth for this 1 Pet. 1. 1. 1 Pet. 5. 2. Though we take not the Word Church for a my sticall body but for a ministeriall company But Acts 1. Matthias was elected an Apostle by the Church as our Brethren confesse but not by a particular Congregation who met every Lords-Day and in ordinary to partake of all the holy things of God the Word and Sacraments 1. Here were the Apostles whose Parish Church was the whole World Mat. 28. 19. Goe teach all Nations 2. In this Church were the brethren of Christ
may be a true visible Church there as yet and we then wronged them in separation from them Because Gods people in Babel did never wilfully reject the covenant 2. Our brethren professe they cannot receive into their Church the godly persecuted and banished out of Old England by Prelates for the truth unlesse saith he they be pleased to take hold of our Church-covenant Now not to admit into your Churches such as cannot sweare your Church covenant in all one as to acknowledge such not a true Church and to separate from them and so the want of an explicite and formall Church-covenanting to you maketh professors no Church-visible and unworthy of the seales of grace but reverend Parker saith that there is such a profession of the covenant in England sic ut secessionem facere salvâ conscientiâ nullus possit that no man with a safe conscience can separat therefrom 3. The ignorants and simple ones amongst the Papists have not rejected the Gospell obstinately in respect it was never revealed to them yet the simple ignorance of points principally fundamentall maketh them a non-Church and therefore the want of your Church-covenant must un-Church all the reformed Churches on Earth It is not much that this Author saith the primitive Church never did receive children to the communion nor any till they made a confession of their Faith What then a confession of their Faith and an evidence of their knowledge is not your Chuoch-covenant for by your Church-covenant the parties to be received in the Church must give testimony of their conversion to the satisfaction of the consciences of all your Church The old confirmation of children was not such a thing 2. The tryall of the knowledge of such as were of old not yet admitted to the Lords Supper is not an inchurching of them because if â—ny not that way tryed in the ancient Church did fall into scanâ—alcus sins they were being come to yeeres lyable to the censures of the Church which said certainly the ancients acknowledged them to be members of that visible Church but you say expresly they are without and you have not to doe to judge them 1 Cor. 5. 12. And let the author see for this the counâ—ell of Laodicea Gregorius Leo Augustine Tertullian Cyprian Ambrose the councell of Elibert Perkins Martine Bucer Chemnitius Peter Martyr who all teach that confirmation was nothing lesse then your Church-covenant 2. That it had never that meaning to make persons formll members of the visible Church 3. That that was sufficiently done in Baptisme 4. That comfimation was never the essentiall forme of a visible Church but rather the repetition of Baptisme so Whitgift a man much for confirmation confirmatio apud nos usurpatur ut pueri proprio ore proprioque consensu pactum quod in Baptismo inibant coram Ecclesiâ confirment Pareus sayth they were in the Church before Sed impositione manuum in Ecclesiam adultorum recipie bantur Beza saith the same Calvin liberi infidelium ab utero adoptati jure promissionis pertinebant ad corpus Ecclesiae Bullinger acknowledging that in Baptisme infantes were received into the Church saith Pastorum manus illis impone bantur quorum fidei committebatur Ecclesiarum cura 7. Argum. A multitude of unwarrantable wayes partly goeth before partly conveyeth this Church-covenant As. 1. It is a dreame that all are converted by the meanes of private Christians without the Ministery of sent Pastors by hearing of whom Faith commeth all are made materialls and convertes in private without Pastors judge if this be Christs order and way 2. How it is possible a Church shall be gathered amongst Infidells this way Infidells cannot convert Infidells and Pastors as Pastors cannot now be sent by our Brethrens Doctrine for Pastors are not Pastors but in relation to a particular congregation therefore Pastors as Pastors cannot be sent to Indians 3. They must be assured in conscience at least satisfied in every one anothers salvation and sound conversion were the Apostles satisfied anent the conversion of Anainas Saphira Simon Magus Alexander Hymeneus Philetus Demas and others 4. By what warrant of the word are private Christians not in office made the ordinary and onely converters of Soules to Christ conversion commeth then ordinarily and solely by unsent Preachers and private persons Ministery 5. What warrant have the sister Churches of the word to give the right hand of fellowship to a new erected Church for to give the hand of fellowship is an authoritative and pastoriall act as Gal. 2 9. When Iames Cephas and Iohn perceived the grace that was given unto me they gave unto me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship that is saith Pareus they received us to the colledge of the Apostles so Bullinger and Beza now this is to receive them in amongst the number of Churches as Pareus and members of the catholick Church but Churches being all independent and of a like authority the Sister Churches having no power over this new erected Church what authority hath Sister Churches to acknowledge them as Sister Churches For 1. They cannot be upon two or three houres â—â—ght of them hearing none of them speak satisfied in their consciences of their Regeneration 2. By no authority can they receive them as members of the catholick Church for this receiving it a Church-act and they have no church-Church-power over them 3. What a meeting is this of diverse Churches for the receiving of a new Sister Church It is a Church I believe meeting together and yet it is not a congregation and it is an ordinary visible Church for at the admitting of all converts to the Church-order this meeting must be surely here our brethren acknowledge that there is a Church in the New Testament made up of many congregations which hath power to receive in whole Churches and members of Churches unto a Church-fellowship this is a visible provinciall or nationall Church which they other wayes deny 6. We see no warrant why one not yet a Pastor or Elder should take on him to speake to a congregation though they all conseâ—t that he speak exhort and pray we desire a warrant from Gods Word that such a thing should be here is preaching and Church-preaching Church-praying and praysing and yet there is no Pastor nor man called to office we see not how this will abide the measure of the Golden-neede especially in a constituted Church 7. We desire to see such a Church-action Acts 2. Where three thousand were added in one day to the Church 8. If it be enough that all be silent and testify their consent to the Church covenant by silence how is the Church-Magistrate and these of other Churches satisfied in conscience of the conversion of all for all consent to this the Magistrate may be a King and he cannot acknowledge these as a Church whose faces he never
the Church receiveth in as you say but the putting of Iudah and the strangers of Israel to this Oath was by the Kings authority who convened them 2. Chron. 15. 9. And Asah gathered all Judah and Benjamin and the strangers with them and they were compelled by the Royall sanction of a civill Law to this covenant v. 12. and they entred into covenant c. 13. That whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel should be put to death whether small or great man or woman 4. How were they all in conscience satisfied anent the regeneration one of another 1. Being such a number of Iudah Benjamin and strangers out of Ephraim Manasse and Simeon v. 9. Were 2. Gathered together and meet but one day 5. This covenant obliged young ones your covenant seekes no Church duties of little ones for to you they are not members of a visible Church 6. The place 2 Chron. 30. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yeild to God as servants Iunius humbly imploring his help as the same phrase is Lament 5. 6. we have served the Egyptians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Assyrians to be satisfied with bread neither doth the Text say in infinitive that yee may enter into the Sanctuary as if a renewed covenant were a necessary preparation before they could enter into the Sanctuary but it is set downe as an expresse Commandement of the King 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 enter yee into his Sanctuary and there is not a word of a covenant in the Text but only of the peoples keeping the Passover and though there had been a covenant of which the Spirit of God speaking so much of Iosiah's zealous Reformation would not have been silent it is not to a purpose Iudah was a visible Church before Hezekiah wrote Letters to them to â—ome to Jerusalem to keepe the Passover as is cleare ch 29. 17. they begun to sanctifie the House the first day of the first moneth and all the congregation worshipped 36. And Hezekiah rejoyced at their zeale and so there was a visible Church and the Passover was eaten the 14. day according to the Law also in all covenants renewed by the people of the Jewes the matter was done suddenly and all convened in a day when a voluntary preparation and evidenced regeneration could not be evidenced to the satisfaction of the conscience of all the people nor can this preparation be called Jewish and temporary for it is as morall to all who sweare Churches duties one to another as the covenant it selfe which our brethren say is of perpetuall equity And all these may be answered to the covenant Neh. 10. where there is no insinuation of Church duties but in generall 29. Yo walke in Gods Law and to observe and â—â—e all the Commandements of the Law and not to marry strange â—vives The apology saith it is to no purpose that the people 2 Chro 15. was a Church before this covenant because the place is not alledged to prove that a people are made a Church by entering into covenant with God but to prove that a decayed Church is restored by a covenant now the Church at this time was corrupted with idols sodomy c. Answ. 1. Yet it proveth well that this covenant is not the formall cause of a visible Church for a visible Church hath not its formall being before it hath its formall cause 2. The convening of all the people to sweare is an act of the Church visible now nothing can have operations before it have the formall cause 3. The Author saith who knoweth that all the Tribes of Israel were yet in covenant with God from the dayes of their Fathers Answer I think that it is easily knowne that they used and exercised many Church actions also and so were a Church visible of a promiscuous multitude and it is knowâ—n that none were excluded from this covenant none selected and chosen out as Regenerates who onely were thought fit to sweare this covenant and so that it is not your Church-covenant that all were forced to and commanded under painâ— of death to attest Our brethren as first our Author secondly the Apology thirdly the Author of the Church-covenant repose much on Isai. 56. 3. where the stranger is joyned to the Lord in a personall covenant for his own salvation for so the Text saith v. 3. 4. yet are they not joyned to the visible Church while they lay hold on the covenant that is to sweare a Church-covenant now that they are not members of the visible Church is cleare fâ—r Deut. 23. 1 2 3. The Moabit Ammonite though never so holy cannot be members of the visible Church because they are discharged to enter into the congregation of the Lord. 2. They complainâ— that they are not of the visible Church The Lord hath separated me from his people 3. Adjoyning of them to the visible Church is promised as a reward of their faith and obedience v. 8. even a Name in Gods House Hence it is cleare persons under the New Testament have a promise and propbecy thâ—â— if they be inwardâ—s joyned by faith God shall give them a Name of Church-membership amongst his people by swearing a Church-Oath or if they lay hold on the covenant of the Church Ans. 1. There is no churching here of strangers and Eunuches by Church-Oath but as Calvin Musculus Gualter Iunius observe the Eunuch and stranger are comforted that under the Messiâ—hs Kingdome they shall have no cause to complaine of their ceremoniall separation from Gods people and the want of some ceremoniall priviledges of that kind because the stranger and Eunuch shall have v. 5. an everlasting roome and honor in Gods Housâ— and the Son of the stranger a place in the Catholick Church v. 6. 7. so being they believe and obey But 1. v. 6. to lay hold on my covenant is not to lay hold on the Church-covenant give us precept promise practise or one syllable in Gods Word for this interpretation 1. v. 4. to take hold on the covenant is to believe the covenant and not to sweare a vocall Oath 2. To lay hold on the covenant saith Musculus is to keep the covenant and not to depart from it to live according to it saith Iunius and to rest on God to doe what is Gods will commanded in the covenant saith Calvin and Gualter and so all who spake sense on that place and never one dreamed of a Church-covenant before 3. God saith of it my covenant there is no reason then to call it a Church-covenant here more then Ierom. 31. 32. 33. Psal. 25. 10. Isai. 55. 3. Ierem. 50. 5. Zach. 2. 11. 4 Laying hold on the covenant is not an externall professed vocall visible and Church embracing of the covenant for then the Lord promiseth to the Eunuch the name of a faithfull visible fellow member in a congregation if he shall lay hold on the covenant and sweare it
of writing was that it might be a part of the Canon of faith So also the Covenant of Grace and the Gospell was made upon this occasion by reason that the first Covenant could not save us Heb. 8. vers 7. Rom. 8 2. 3. Gal. 3. 21 22. is therefore I pray you the Covenant of grace but a temporary and a prudentiall peece Upon the occasion of the death of Zelophead who died in the wildernesse without a male-childe whose name thereby was in danger to be delete and blotted out of Israel the Lord maketh a generall Law through all Israel binding till the Messiah his comming Numb 27. 8. If a man die and have no sonne then shall you cause his inheritance to passe unto his daughter this was no prudentiall Law I might alleage infinite Ordinances in Scripture the like to this Yea most of all the Ordinances of God are occasioned from our spirituall necessities are they therefore but humane and prudentiall Statutes that are onely to endure for a time I thinke no. Ob. 3. But if the civill Magistrate had been a friend to the Church Acts 6. his place had beene to care for the poore for the law of nature obligeth him to take care of the poore therefore did a woman in the famine at the siege of Samaria cry Helpe O King and if this were done by Christian Magistrates Pastors should be eased thereof that they might give themselves to the Word and Prayer and there should be no neede of a divine positive institution of Deacons for this charge Answ. That the godly Magistrate is to take care of the poore as they are members of the Common wealth I could easily grant But this is not now in question but whether or not the Church as it is an Ecclesiasticall society should not have a treasure of the peoples Eâ—angelike free-will-offering for the necessity of the Saints as Heb. 13. 16. 1 Cor. 16. 1 2. 2 Cor. 9. 5 6 7 8 and concequently whether or not Christ hath ordained not the Pastors but some officers besides to attend this worke VVee affirme he hath provided for his poore members even their bodily necessi ies Secondly if this be true that there should be no Deacon but the Christian Magistrate then were these seven Deacons but the Substitutes and Vicars of the Emperour and King Now certainly if Apostolike benediction and laying on of hands in the wisdome of God was thought fit for the Vicars and Deputies of the Magistrates it is like that beside the coronation of the Roman Emperour the twelve Apostles ought to have blessed him with prayer and separated him by laying on of hands for this Deaconrie for what Apostolike calling is necessary for the temporary substitute is more necessary and at least that same way necessary for the principall But that civill Magistrates ex officio are to be separated for this Church-office so holden forth to us 1 Tim. 3. 12. I can hardly beleeve Thirdly I see not what the Magistrate doth in his office but he doth it as the Minister of God who beareth the sword Rom. 13 4. and if he should compell to give almes then should almes be a debt and not an almes and free-will-offering It is tâ—uâ— there may intervene some coaction to cause every man to do his duty and to force men to give to the poore but then I say that forcing with the sword should not be an act of a separated Church-officer who as such useth no carnall weapons Fourâ—â—ly the law of nature may lead to a supporting of the poore but that hindreth not but God may ordaine it as a Church-duty and appoint a Church-officer to collect the bounty of the Sainâ—â— 1 Cor. 16. 3. 5. I see not how the Apostle 1 Tim. 3. should not hold forth his Cannons concerning a Deacon to the King if he ex officio be the Church-treasurer but the Apostle doth match him with the Bishop Acts 6. the appointing of the Deacon is not grounded Acts 6. upon the want of a Christian Magistrate but on another ground that the Apostles must attend a more necessary worke then Tables Object 4. But the occasion of appointing Deacons was to disburden the Pastor who was to give himselfe wholy to preaching and praying Ergo at the first the Apostles and so also Pastors were Deacons if therefore the poore be fewer then they were at Ierusalem Act. 6. where the Church did exceedingly multiplie this Office of Deaconry was to returne to the Pastors as its prime and native subject and therefore is not essentially and primarily an Office separated from the Pastors Office And if the poore cease to be at all the Office ceaseth also Ans. I cannot well deny but it is apparent from Act. 6. 4. that the Apostles themselves were once those who cared for the poore but I deny that hence it followes in the case of fewer poore that the Office can returne to the Pastors as to the first subject except you suppose the intervention of a divine institution to place it againe in the Pastors as the power of judging Israel was once in Samuel but upon supposition that Saul was dead that power cannot returne backe to Samuel except you suppose that God by his authority shall re-deliver and translate it backe againe to Samuel For seeing God by positive institution had turned the power of judging over from Samuel into the person of Saul and changed the same into a regall and Kingly power that same authority who changed the power must rechange it againe and place it in and restore it to its first subject 2. The fewnesse of poore or no poore at all cannot be supposed Joh. 12. 8. for the poore you have alwaies with you And considering the afflictions of the Churches the object of the Deacons giving and shewing mercy as it is Rom. 12. 8. cannot be wanting as that the Churches fabricke be kept in good frame the poore the captives of Christian Churches the sicke the wounded the stranger the distracted be relieved yea and the poor Saints of other Churches 1 Cor. 16. be supported 3. Not onely because of the impossibility that Pastors cannot give both themselves to praying and the Word and to the serving of Tables but by reason of the wisdome of Christ in a positive Law the Pastor cannot be the Deacon ex officie in any case For 1. Christ hath made them distinct Offices upon good grounds Act. 6. 4. 2. The Apostle hath set downe divers qualifications for the Bishop 1 Tim. 3. 1. and for the Deacon V. 12 13. And 3. the Pastor who is to give the whole man to the preaching of the Gospell cannot entangle himselfe with Tables 1 Tim. 4. 15. 2 Tim. 2. 3 4 5. if we should say nothing that if there were need of Officers to take care of the poore when there was such grace and love amongst the Saints and Apostles able and willing to acquit themselves toward the poore and when all things were common Act.
that they are regenerated That we deny yea the servants bid all come whom they finde Mat. 22. 9. and that by the commandement of God And in this respect God doth not plant his visible Church a noble Vine and a Field sowen with good seed yea it is his revealed Will that the Church and the Servants of God invite all to come to Wisdomes banquet Prov. 9. 2. 3. and so all the called externally are not the choise Vines This you are to prove that the visible Church in all its members or essentially as it is a visible Church is a choise Vine and an holy seed Nor is it the Pastors negligence that Tares grow in the Lords Field though it be Satans malice yea the Pastors here are to invite all to come in and to call externally all to come to Christ. That they who are invited give not obedience is their own wickednesse but neither the Churches nor the Pastors sinne a Robinson There be amongst you hundreds and thousands partakers of the life of God in respect of your persons but in respect of your Church Communion and your Ordinances you are all alike because you are all alike partakers of one set forme of worship Answ. The Church of the Jewes so should be a falsely constituted Church because however there were many Believers amongst them yet all are commanded to receive one Ministery of Scâ—ibes and Pharisees sitting in Moses chaire But know that the leaven of the externall worship except it evert the foundation doth not make the Church a falsely constituted Church Robinson Mr. Smith truely affirmeth your Church to be a greater Antichristian Ministery and worship then Rome as the Temple which sanctifieth the gold and the altar which sanctifieth the offering is greater then the offering so the Temple of the New Testament the Church and people of God by whose Faith all the Ordinances of the Church are sanctified is greater then the Ministery worship or any other Ordinance and being Idolatrous is a greater Idoll Answ. This is a new poynt of Divinity that the Faith of the Ministery or congregation sanctifieth the worship as the Temple did the gold and the altar the offering yea though the Minister were a Judas and the people latent hypocrites the Ordinances of God lose no authority for all the Ministeriall sanctifying of the Ordinances is from Christ the Instituter not from the instruments and the Donatists did suspend the power of the Ordinances of God upon the holinesse or unholinesse of the Instruments 2. The Ministery in its substance is not Antichristian though it be from the Antichrist For Prelates giving of a ministery is not to be measured by the particular intention of the Ordainers but by the Nature of Gods Ordinances and the generall meaning of all the Catbolick Church Robinson here objecteth The Law sayth nemo potest plus juris in alium transferre quam ipse habet Prelates have no calling of God themselves therefore they cannot give it to others Answ. Prelates reduplicativè as Prelates have no calling yet as Pastors they have and Antichristian prelacy destroyeth not the essence of a Pastors office in the subject They object as a Prelate he ordaineth Ministers and not as a Pastor Answ. 1. as a Prelate he usurpeth to give a Ministery but as a Pastor he giveth it 2. He invadeth the place of the Church and with consent of the Church standeth for the Church though he be not the Church but a simple Pastor therefore what Ministery he conferreth it is the deed and fact of the Church 3. They object No man can give that which he hath not Answ. No man can give that which he hath not neque virtualiter neque formaliter true what he hath in no respect that he cannot give What he hath in vertue or in some respect that he can give What baptisme the hereticall Minister hath Ministerially that he may give validly Hieronimus saith the Luciferians admitted Baptisme conferred by an Heretick but not a Ministery Anatolus was consecrated by Dioscorus Faelix by the Arrians as Mr. Ball observeth So Bellarmine Gratian Nazianzen August They say we finde it by experience that the refusing of Church-communion hath been blessed of God to their conversion who were holden cut Answ. Manassâ—h his being bound in fetters was a meanes of his conversion David by his afflictions learned to keep Gods Commandements did therfore the persecuters of Manasseh or David right and lawfully The Apostles say they had commission to Baptize none but Disciples Mat. 28. 19. Answ. See you doubt not of a warrant for Baptizing children who are not Disciples for then the Apostles from this place had no warrant to baptize the infants of Believers We should say they open the doores of the Church more wiâ—â— then God alloweth how shall we lay wittingly and willingly dead stones in the living Temple If Christ be a Head of pure Gold and the Churches golden candlestick how shall we be allowed to put in leaden members Answ. This argument is against the Lords dispensation because not without his providence are hypocrites in the Church It is not against his Commandement for he alloweth and commandeth the Church to take in Hypocrites so they professe the truth and so commendeth that leaden toes and members be added to Christ the Head of gold Christ is the Head of the invisible Church properly and according to the influence of the Life of God but he is the head of the visible Church as it is such according to the influence of common gifts which may be in Reprobates And they may be this way in Christs Body who are not of Christs Body as Augustine sayth We are say they accessary to the prophaning of the Lords Ordinances Answ. So far as they are notoriously scandalous they are to bee cast out of the Church and debarred from the Seales The Church say they shall be pestered with prophane and carnall men and the blind shall lead the blind if all be admitted to Church fâ—llowship Answ. The admission or keeping in of all to partake especially of the Lords Supper we doe not allow 2. The multitude of carnall men in the Church is an inconvenience of providence and resulteth by accident from the receiving of Professors to Christs Body visible but it is no kindly fruit growing therefrom A faithfull servant say they would admit none into his Lords House but servicable instruments therefore neither may the Stewards of Gods House which is a spirituall building admit any but men of spirituall gifts living stones sanctifyed and meet for the Lords Worke. Answ. The comparison halteth many wayes 1. All in a Noble mans house are not stewards you make all the Church to be stewards having the power of the Keys to put in and out 2. Members are received into the Church not onely because they are serviceable for the masters use but to be made servicable and to be polished
not fall The sentence is either given out a jure vel ab homine by the Law or the persons Secondly it is either just or unjust Thirdly and that three wayes Exanimo good or ill zeal secondly Ex causa a just or unjust cause thirdly Ex ordine when order of Law is kept An unjust sentence is either valid or null That which is invalid is either invalid through defect of the good minde of the excommunicators and this is not essentiall to the excommuncations validitie That which is invalid this way onely ligat it bindeth in foâ—o exteriore But that which is uâ—just through want of a just cause it onely bindeth from externall communion but because Gods Ordinances are to be measured from their own nature and the generall intention of the Catholike Church and not from abuses and particular intentions of such excommunicators therefore they doe not exclude from the generall Church-desires The fourth Councell of Carthage as also Gerson saith an unjust sentence neminem gravare debet should affright no man I see not a warrant for division of excommunication into penall and not penall excommunication The ancients made some excommunication not penall as the fifth Councell of Carthage and Concilium Arelatense Turraconense Concilium Agathense As if one should culpably absent himselfe from a Synod erat privatus Episcoporum communione He was for a space excommunicated from the communion of other Bishops The Canonists infer that this excommunication was no Church-censure and M. Antonius of Spalato defendeth them in this But since Christ for scandals appointed onely publike rebuking or secondly confessing or thirdly excommunication from the Church not onely of Church guides but of professing beleevers we see not how any are to be excommunicated from the fellowship of the Clergy or Church-guides onely For Christ ordained no such excommunication and therefore wee are to repute this a popish device Zosimus saith Zancbius Celestinus Hormisda and Pelagius 2. did threaten to excommunicate Iohn of Constantinople from the communion of the Apostolike seat and of all Bishops Spalato his argument for this sort of excommunication is 2 Thessalonians 3. 15. which commandeth all Thessalonians to forbeare any fellowship with such as obeyeth not the Apostles doctrine and doth not infinuate any excommunication from the society of Church-guides onely Nay such an excommunication is not in Gods Word Cajetan calleth it excommunicatio claustralis whereby some were interdicted the company of some other Church-orders It is true that in the ancient Church the excommunicated person was debarred from comming to the Church to heare divine Service And Sylvester appointeth three degrees of excommunication first Debarring of the contumacious from entring into the Church secondly A suspending of them from communion with the Church thirdly An anathema or imprecation by cursing them So the fifth Synod under Symmachus appointed first that the contumacious should be deprived of the Communion and if he should not repent it was ordained â—â— anathemate feriatur that he should be cursed So say diverse of the Schoolmen and Casuists as Soto Paludanus Cajetanus Sylvester Navarrus that it is not lawfull to heart service or to be present at a Masse with an excommunicated person But in the fourth Councell of Carthage as Papists acknowledge no excommunicated person is debarred from hearing the Word But it is to bee observed carefully that for the same reasons Papists think the excommunicated persons should heare Sermons and the Word preached that our brethren say Because preaching is an act of jurisdiction and authority but not an act of order and therefore preaching is not an act of Church-communion but common to any who have not received orders and may be performed as the reading of the VVord by Deacons and those who have Priest-hood or power to administrate the Sacraments And Innocentius the third saith Preaching is proper to Priests who have received orders by no divine Law Indeed Leo the first made a Law of it for which cause Suarez saith That Christ in these words Iohn 21. Feed mâ—sheep and Matth. 28. Preach the Gospel gave power of jurisdiction but not of order onely It is given commonly saith he to the Clergy to preach and to Deacons because decentius it is more fiâ—ly and decently performed by them then by Laicks Though it be true that two Cardinals Toletus and Cajetanus be against Suarez in this and say that Iohn 21. Peter is made the head and universall Pastor over sheep and lambs to feed and governe them And Navarrus saith Preaching soli sacerdotio institutione divina adjuncta est is by divine institution proper to the Priesthood Yet this excluding of them from comming into the Church was from comming in to the holy place only where the Lords Supper was celebrated and they stood at the Church doore where they might heare the VVord and therefore were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hearers and murmurers as Basâ—lius saith and Field Excommunication doth not wholly saith he cut off men from the visible Church and his reason is good because they may and often doeretaine first The profession of pure truth secondly The character of Baptisme thirdly They professe obedience to their Pastors fourthly They will not joyne to any other communion And therefore to say with our Author we dare not to wit That though the seed of faith may remaine in the excommunicated person yet to the society of the faithfull joyned in a particular visible Church they are not knit but wholly cut off from their communion Also he is delivered unto Satan and therefore wholly cut off from the communion of the Church and so from the seals he and his seed as heathen and heathens seed are We condemne Novatians because as Cyprian saith they denied mercy to the repenting excommunicated person and because as Socrates said of them God onely can forgive sins And we condemne the Donatists who would not as Augustine saith receive into the Churches commmunion againe such as had delivered to persecuters the Bible and other holy things So we are to condemne these who are more rigorous toward such as are excommunicated then Christ is for Christ keepeth them as sick children within his visible Church and useth Satan as the Physitians servant who boyleth Herbs and dresseth Drugs for them while he by Gods permission tormenteâ—hthes spirit with the conscience of sinne As when a child is sick saith worthy Cartwright the Father calleth a Colledge of physicians to consult about medicine to be given to the child So iâ— the contumacious person under the medicine of excommunication administred by the Church-presbytery Now this wee cannot say of heathen and publicans And therefore Augustine sayth excellently excommunicated persons non esse Ethnicos sed tanquam ethnicos are not heathen but estemed as
transact within their owne Congregations but doe ex aequo belong to them all As 1. That they doe not give offence one to another that one Church doe not hold the Doctrine of Balaam to the effence and scandall of other Churches 2. That one Congregation make not Acts and Canons against the Word of God and against the Acts of another Congregation agreeable to the Word of God 3. That one Church admonish rebuke comfort provoke another to love and to good works in such and such poynts now though a Congregation make acts and constitutions for governing this or that member of the community yet they doe not nor cannot make acts that oblige the community and the Church as the Church the Church as the Church being a part is to be regulated by the whole and if there be things that ex aequo concerne all and doe not concerne one particular Church more then another one particular Congregation cannot governe in these And by the like reason particular Churches and classicall Presbyteries and Provinciall and Nationall Churches are parts of the whole Catholick visible Church 6. Because Christ hath not given the power of Ministery and Ordinances and Jurisdiction to the single Congregation as to the first subject upon the ground that our Brethren speake to wit because the single Congregation is that Spouse to which Christ is referred as an Husband and that body to which hee carrieth the relation of an head communicating life to all the members Eph. 1. 22. Col. 1. 18. nor is it that adequat number of ransomed persons of sheepe of lost ones of fellow-citizens of spirituall stones c. To the which Christ doth carry that adequat and compleat relation of a Saviour of a good Shepheard of a Seeker of lost ones of a King and Governour of the chiefe câ—â—ner-stone Therefore that visible Church for whose salvation Christ hath given the Ministeriall power must be the larger visible Church just as the God of Nature hath given to the whole race of sheep a power to seeke their own food and because of their simplicity a power to be ordered and led by the shepheard and secondarily this power is given to this or this flock feeding on Mount Caermel or elsewhere so hath the God of Grace given a power to the whole visible Catholick flock to submit themselves in the Lord to other guides and he hath given to the whole company of Shepheards as to the first subject the power of the Keys and secondarily the power is given to this or this visible Church and company of Pastors 7. When any scandalous person is delivered to Satan he is cast out of the whole Catholick Church Ergo he was before his ejection a member of the whole catholick Church for hecannot be cast out who was never within And when he is excommunicated his sins bound as in Heaven so on Earth that is not only in that Tract of ground where a handfull of a little Congregation independent as they say of 10 or 20 or an 100 doth ordinarily feed but in all the visible World where God hath a Church and all both within the little Congregation where hee is and without are to repute him as an Heathen and a Publican It is true some of our Brethren say he is excommunicated onely out of that Congregation whereof hee is a member antecedentèr because Christ hath given the power of excommunication onely 1 Cor. 5. 4. To the congregated Church when they are met together to deliver to Satan and they must do it in collegio in consessu coram tota Ecclesia before and in presence of the Church congregationall which is to give their consent and hath a certaine power of interest in the busines but he is cast out and excommunicated to all other Churches onely consequentèr by consequent and by vertue of the communion of Churches I answer the plaine contrary hee is antecedentèr and formally delivered to Satan by the power of the catholick visible Church which is put forth in exercises and in act before that Church whereof he is a neerest member Even as the left hand doth cut off a finger of the right hand which otherwayes should infect the whole body Now it is not the left hand onely that cutteth off the contagious and infectious finger but the whole man deliberate reason and the will consenteth it should be done for the preservation of the whole man the left hand is a meere instrument and the losse of the finger is the losse of the whole body and the finger is cut off the right hand not antedentèr and onely off the right hand by that power intrinsecall onely in the right hand but intrinsecall in the whole body it is true the contagion should creepe through and infect the right hand and right arme first and therefore incision is made upon the right hand So if the Eldership of a Congregation deliver to Satan it is not done by that power that is intrinseally onely in that Congregation but by the power intrinsecall in the whole universall Church who shall keepe communion with him that Eldership cuts him off as the instrument or hand of the Church catholick and the incision as it were is performed there in that meeting I will not say of the whole Congregation that is to be proved because the contagion shall come first upon these with whom the delinquent is to keepe the nearest fellowship and that Excommunication be performed in a meeting I grant and the place 1 Cor. 5. 4. saith so much and a meeting of the Church But that that is a meeting of the congregation with favour of the learned cannot be proved cogently though I thinke excommunication when it is actually performed it should be done before the Congregation but that is for the edification and nearest and most immediate practice of that Congregation for the contagion is nearest to them but the reason why the presence of the Congregation whereof the Delinquent is a member is requisit is not because this Congregation hath the sole intrinsecall power in her selfe and because shee onely doth formally and antecedentèr Excommunicate and the rest of the Churches consequenter and by vertue of a communion for the sister Churches are to debarre this excomunicate person from their communion with Christ in the Seales of the Covenant and that by an intrinsecall authoritative and Church power where as if he were not excommunicated they should have received him to a Communion with them in the Seales and that by an intrinsecall authoritative and Church power for one man cannot receive another to the Seales of the Covenant with him because no one man hath a Church authority If therefore the Church as the Church is consociated by an intrinsecall church-Church-power should have admitted him if he had not been excommunicated it is evident that hee was a member not onely of the Congregation out of which he is excommunicated but also of the whole consociated congregations 2 The man
originally in caetu sidelium in a Church of Believers but they cannot say that therefore the acts of Preaching administrating of the Sacraments and all acts of jurisdiction can be exercised by the Believers because they are the first subject Secondly the farther that the members or Churches either Congregationall Presbyteriall or Nationall are removed in locall distance one from another the lesse is the visible and externall communion of rebuking comforting and admonishing one another yet the power and obligation of these duties are not removed So though the Nationall Churches be locally distant one from another yet their power of exercising duties and so their power of Jurisdiction in an Oâ—cumenicke Councell is not from thence concluded to be null Yea Nationall duties upon occasion are still obligatoryâ— and communion of men of sundry Nations is cleare to mee Esai 2. 3. many Nations shall flow unto the Mountaine of the Lords House Zach. 8. 23. Ten men shall take hold out of all Languages of the Nations they even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew saying we will goe with you for wee have heard that God is with you I do not say these Nations doe meete all in one Synod but the places doe well prove the power lawfull of performing duties whereas the exercise of them in one place is not hic nunc in ordinary providence possible And so this consequence must be weake the whole catholick visible Churches in their principall guides cannot ordinarily and constantly meet hic nunc for the exercise of their power Ergo they have no such power For if the power be exercised in parts which through occurrences of Providence and the corruption of mens nature cannot be exercised in whole at once yet it s not hence evinced to be a power not given of Christ for eâ—ification for by our Brethrens grant three thousand are added to the Congregationall Church of Jerusalem Acts 2. and to this Church of three thousand and a hundred and twenty Christ hath given the ordinary power of the Keyes as to the first subject though through occurences of providence and the corruption of mans nature some of these suppose a thousand through sicknesse pest danger of persecution and sinfull separating from the assembly of Saints could not hic nunc meet in one house to exercise joyntly all the acts of that power which our Brethren say is given to them by Christ they cannot say therefore Christ never gave to this whole Church consisting of three thousand and a hundred and twenty any such power Thirdly there is a great difference betwixt the power given ad esse simplictèr to the being of a Church and the power given ad benè esse tantùm onely to the well-being 2. Great difference also there is betwixt ordinary power to be exercised constantly and ordinarily because of neerer consociation of the Churches in those things that concerne that Church in particular suppose a presbyteriall or Congregationall Church and a power to be exercised but more rarely not ordinarily because of the lesse communion visible and great locall distance of Churches as it falleth out in the whole visible Church Now from this First The ordinary power of Jurisdiction because of neerest vicinity and contiguity of members is given by Jesus Christ to one Congregation in an Isle 1. Because that Church is a Church properly so called though it be not a perfit and complete Church I say it is a Church properly so called Because 1. It is a little City and a little Kingdome of Jesus Christ having within it selfe power of the Word and Sacraments and that is a Church and hath the essence of a Church to which agree the essentiall notes of a visible Church Now preaching of the Word and Administration of the Sacraments are essentiall notes of a visible Church But I say it is not a compleate and perfit Church in the latitude of visibility for Churches are lesse or more visible according as they have lesse or more visible communion for visible communion constituteth a visible Church Now a Congregation in a remote Island hath a lesse communion visible with other visible Churches then conscciated visible Churches have 2. It is not compleate and perfit in its operations because in case of doubts of conscience touching government and practice and dogmaticall poynts it wants the joynt authority and power of Jurisdiction needfull for the well-being of a Church which it should have if it were consociated with many other Congregations so as wee say an hand with five fingers is a compleate hand but it is not a compleat organicall body but a part of the organicall body of a man so is a Congregation a Church wanting nothing of the being and essence of a Church yet is it incompleate because it is a part or member of a Presbyteriall Church and not being consociated wanteth that which belongeth to the well being of a compleat visible Church For visibility of a Church must have a latitude because it is an accident or adjunct of an organicall politick body which is totum integrale Secondly the ordinary power of ordinary Jurisdiction in a more perfit way because of ordinary and perfiter consociation is given to the Presbyteriall Church as to the proper subject in the constant and ordinary exercise of Discipline because contignity being the foundation of visible externall government the Presbyteriell Church of Ierusalem Ephesus Corinth Antioch and Rome is a perfit compleat consociaâ—d body To which the power of ordination exauthoration or deprivation of Pastors of excommunication in a constant and ordinary way doth belong For this is a principle of Church-policy Every politick body of Christ hath power of Church government within it selfe But a Presbyteriall church is such 2. This is a received maxime also Quod tangit omnes ab omnibus suo more tractari debet VVhat concerneth all should be agitated by all according to their degrees of concernment but excom nunication of a person in a consociated Church concerneth all the consociated Churches in a Presbytery all are scandalized all may be and are in danger to be leavened with the infectious lumpe And here it is to be observed that as preaching of the Word is an essentiall note of the visible Church and agreeing to the visible Church as necessary ad esse simpliciter to the very being of a visible Church For if the word as Preached and some way promulgated be not in such a society we cannot call it a visible Church so Discipline is a note of the visible Church and necessary ad bene esse and it cannot be a Ministeriall Church in a good condition exercising acts of edification if the wall of Discipline be broken downe and meeting in one place for Word and Sacraments is but accidentall for a Ministeriall Church If the Word be preached and the Sacraments administrated in sundry Congregations though not in a Presbyteriall Church all convened in all its members
in one place yet hath the Presbyteriall Church the essentiall note of a visible Church Because there is a difference betwixt carrying the colours in an Army tali modo as all the Army at once may see the colours and the carrying of the colours Yet the colours are a note visible of such an Army so there is a difference betwixt preaching the Word simpliciter and preaching the Word tali modo in such a way in one materiall house onely And therefore it is necessary that government which concerneth many Churches consociated be in its exercise hic nunc larger then preaching of the Word in its exercise hic nunc which cannot be done but to a multitude which conveneth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the same materiall place And we see an act of government Acts 15. by confession of our Brethren belonging to divers consociated Churches and performed by them and yet these cannot ordinarily meete to one and the same place in all their members for hearing of the Word Thirdly an extraordinary and remote power of Jurisdiction which is but rarely and in extraordinary cases to be put forth in acts is given to the Catholick visible Presbytery of the whole Catholick visible Church Because the Oommunion externall and visible is lesse where the locall distance of visible Churches is more and therefore because oecumenicall councells being necessary for the Catholick visible Church neque ad esse simpliciter neque ad bâ—â—è esse sed ad melius seu optimum esse neither in respect of the Churches being nor in respect of the Churches well-being â—uâ— onely in respect of her best and most spirituall well-being these councells are seldome to be had in an ordinary providence For the Cresse of Iesus Christ is rather a marke of the catholick visible Church then Bellarmine his prospeâ—ous condition that he will have to be one of his fifteene notes of the Church and since the Church cannot have her wishes the want of generall councells is the Catholick Churches Crosse not her sin we doe not say that God is deficient in meanes necessary to his Church or to some of his owne Children because the Woman hath wings given her of God to stie to the Wildernesse to hide her selfe from the Dragon Rev. 12. 14. and so cannot enjoy Gods ordinary presence in his Sanctuary Nor doe wee say that God hath denied a power to his Church in the Wildernesse to enjoy them in a visible Sanctuary I meane a morall power and jus a right and interest in that presence because he interrupteth the Churches physicall power for a while in the injoying of these comforts of a visible Church-Communion in the Sanctuary Fourthly hence it doth not follow that because the catholick representative visible Church is the first subject of the power of the Keys that the power of Excommunication is derived from the visible Church to a Presbyteriall Church or that a Presbyteriall Church cannot excommunicate without consulting with or fetching authority from the Catholick visible Church Because the Catholick visible Church is a great integrall body of Iesus Christ and he is the head of this body because though the power of seeing by order of nature be first in the whole man and then in the Eye yet the power of seeing in the Eye is not derived from the rest of the body from Hands Leggs Shoulders Armes to the Eye The light is first in the whole Body of the Sun as the first and prime subject of light yet supposing now the received opinion of Astronomers that the body of the Sun doth exceede the quantity of the Earth an hundred sixty and seven times it doth not follow that this or that part of the Sun hath no light intrinsecall in it but that which is derived from the whole body of the Sun for then this or this part of the Sun should have borrowed light derived to it from another so the Soule doth at one and the same instant animate and quicken the whole organized Body as its first matter and subject but it doth not follow that the Hand hath life derived to it from the whole body so because the power of the Keyes is also intrinsecall in the Presbytery as in an Oâ—cumenicall councell it doth not follow that the power that is intrinsecall in the presbytery is by derivation or borrowed and at the second hand from the Catholick presbytery of the whole World farre lesse that the Presbytery cannot Excommunicate except it consult with the catholick visible Church The power of the Keys by order of nature is onely in the catholick representative Church as in the first subject but in order of time this power is communicated from the head Christ to all the integrall parts of this great Body according to the capacity of every part so as it is intrinsecall in the particular Eldership of a single Congregation in these poynts of Discipline that concerne a Congregation as a Congregation and it is intrinsecall in the classicall Presbytery as it is such and it is intrinsecall in the provinciall and Nationall Synod in poynts belonging to them as such 3. They object if a single Congregation have not power of Excommunication and of entire and compleat government within it selfe because it is but a part of a Presbyteriall Church and so an incompleat Church by that same reason a Presbyteriall Church shall be a compleate Church and not have entire and compleat power of Government within it selfe because a presbyteriall Church is a part of a provinciall Church and a provinciall Church shall be in the same case because it is a part of a Nationall Church and a Nationall Church in that same case because it is a part of the catholick visible Church and there shall bee no perfit visible Church on Earth which hath full and entire power of jurisdiction save onely the caholicke visible Church which by no possibility can convene before her Oecunenick and highest catholick Court a Nationall Church or the Church of great Brittaine and upon the testimony of three witnesses deliver her to Satan and upon supposall of Repentance receive her againe to the catholick power of that same Court into fellowship of Church-union with the great catholick body For so because this catholick Church for many centuries yea possibly for a million of yeeres cannot convene to exercise her authority in a Court and out of her Court shee hath none the repenting Nationall Church shall remaine in Satans bands for ever by a physicall and invincible necessity Answ. A single Congregation is a Church but so as it is a part also and a member of a Presbyteriall Church and because of neernesse of communion with consociated Churches under one Presbytery it can neither have compleat power of casting out one of its owne members because that member hath so strict a visible Union of membership also with consociated Churches nor can it exercise that intrinsecall power that it hath as a remote part of Christs
higher judicature can doe no more 3. Their is no reason to appeale to a higher judicature because the inferior may erre because all above a Congregation are Courts which may erre for Presbyteries Provinciall Nationall the universall councell of the Catholique Church may erre So Mr. Mather Answ. This is no reason why wee may not appeale from a Congregation because the sentence is ratified in Heaven because the sentence of an inferior Judge proceeding rightly is ratified in Heaven yet we may appeale from him to appeale is but upon feares of ill administration to desert a lower Court and go to a higher Court so when we feare a counsell and advice given by a sister Church to be not according to the Word of God which yet is according to the Word of God upon the supposall of that feare wee decline that counsell and take another Neither are we to appeale de jure from a just sentence in a presbytery Illud possumus quod jure possumus What the inferior Sanedrim of Israel did justly was ratified in Heaven yet by Gods Law there might be an appeale from it to the highest Sanedrim 2. Nor is this a good reason that we may not appeale from a Judicature which may inflict the highest censure for inferior Judicatures in Israel had power of life and death yet might man appeale from them 3. The cause of appeales is not because inferiour Judicatureâ— may erre for so wee might appeale from all judicatures even from a general councell for it may erre But the true cause is 1. Because rariùs errant they do not so frequently erre 2. They are not so inclined and disposed to erre for many Eyes see more then one and many Eyes doe more seldome miscarry in not taking up the right object then one 3. Because we conceive more equality and lesse partiality in higher Courts Ob. 10. You grant that a single Congregation in an Island hath power intrinsecall of Excommunication within it selfe Ergo thâ— inconvenient which you put on independent Congregations shall follow in the case of a remote congregation Christ hath not then provided sufficiently for that Church in that case Answ. It followeth onely Ergo Christ hath not provided so sufficiently for that Church as for others in a consociation which is nothing against us For woe to him that is alone and two are better then one Ob. 11. If the Church here be a representative Church theâ— it hath power from those whom they represent but they represent the people and so the power is first in the people and the people must be the first visible Church not the presbytery not a generall councell I prove the major because the power the representer hath that must be first in the represented Answ. A representer standeth for another either objectively or subjectively What ever representeth another objectively that is doth such a businesse for another or in remejus for his behalfe and good though he some way represent that other yet hath he not his power from that which he representeth as the Eye objectively in seeing and the Eare in hearing representeth the body for the Eye seeth for the whole body the Eare heareth for the whole body But the eye hath not its visiâ—e or seeing faculty from the body nor the Eare the hearing faculty from the body Now the Presbytery doth represent the people onely objectively that is for the good and salvation of the people and so the Elders have not all their power of ruling from the people but from Iesus Christ. That which representeth another subjectively hath indeed its power from that which it representeth as he who carrieth the person and roome of a King as an Ambassador doth fetch his power from the King and that power is more principally in the King But now the Assumption is false because the Eldership doth not represent the people in their power of Jurisdiction subjectively as standing in the place of the people but as the Ambassadors of Christ and as stewards they have both the Keyes from Christ not from the people and doe actually use the Keyes in his Name and authority not in the peoples name and authority Hence is easily answered that Delegatus seu deputatus non potest facere delegatum one delegate cannot transfer his power to another delegate that would bring a progresse infinite in government for one deligate standing in the roome of others sibjectively cannot transfer his whole power to another its true he cannot transfer his power in part and according to some singular acts it is false for Acts 15. 25. It is said by the councell It seemed good unto us with one accord to send chosen men to you with Paul and Silar Paul and Silas and these chosen men suppose six or ten are in this Embassage are but the deputies and Messengers of the councell and yet they doe agree to make Paul their deputy and mouth to speake for them all seeing order requireth that six at once should not speake in this case Paul speaking the minde of all the rest in this singular act he is a deputy of Deputies and he representeth the whole six who were Messengers of the Church sent with the Epistle and these six were Deputies and Messengers of the councell but as these six Messengers sent by the councell could not lay their whole power on another to carry the Epistle to the Church of Antioch and bestow their labours elsewhere nor could one of these six deligates being chosen as deligate to speake for the rest put that power of speaking the mind of the whole six off himselfe to another in which sense one deligate cannot make another one Messenger cannot send another so the Presbyteriall or classicall Court convened as the deligates of the whole Congregations under them or rather deligates for them then of them decerning that one of a Congregation should be excommunicated may deligate one in that Congregation to pronounce the sentence and this one pronouncing the sentence as the deligate and Messenger of the Church is a deligate a deputy of deligates and deputies in one particular act and this our Brethren in their own Church-sentences pronounced by one Elder must also say Object 12. That neerest Church to whom we delate the offence of one single offender is a single Congregation else we must over-leap this Church and tell the Presbytery contrary to Christs direction but if he heare not that very Church to whom we tell the businesse he is excommunicated by that neerest Church as the words beare Ergo that nearest Church being single congregations may excommunicate and so it is the first Church and the Presbyterial Church is not the first Church Ans. That neerest Church to whom we delate the offence of the delinquent first in the case of wilfull obstinacy secondly in the case of consociation of Churches whom the obstinacy concerneth is not a congregationall Church having power of Jurisdiction entirely and compleatly to whom we must tell
Prophets doth beleeve in Christ love Christ contend for the prise of the high calling of God as is cleare Rom. â— 37 38 39. 1 Cor. 2. 12. 16. Phil. 3. 13. 14. 1 Cor. 9. 25. Yea Paul beleeveth not in Christ as an Apostle but as a Christian and yet hee beleeveth by the grace of the holy Ghost but â—â— followeth not that the same spirit which immediatly inspired the Prophets doth not immediatly inspire Paul as an Apostle and all the rest of the Apostles Object 5. These decrees Act. 16. 4. are called the decrees of the Apostles and Elders but if the Apostles in giving out these decrees gave 〈◊〉 as ordinary Elders not as Apostles then the sense of the words Act. 16. 4. should bee that they were the decrees of the Elders and of the Elders which is absued Answ. It followeth onely that they are the decrees of the Apostles who in that give them out as Elders and as a part of the ordinary established Elders of Jerusalem Whence if Christ promise the holy Spirit to lead his Apostles in all truth hee promiseth also the holy Spirit to all their successors Pastors Teachers and Elders not onely conveened in a Congregationall-Church but also in a Synod as hee maketh good his promise here Act. 15. 28. and whereas the holy Ghost commandeth in a Synod of Apostles and Elders who are lawfully conveened by our brethrens confession and speaketh authoritatively Gods Word by the holy Ghost Act. 15. 28. they cannot speake it as a counsell and brotherly advise onely for that a brother may doe to another a woman to a woman Abigail to David a maide to Naaman wee desire a warrant from Gods Word where an instituted societie of Pastors and Elders conveened from sundry Churches and in that Court formally consociated and decreeing by the holy Ghost as Act. 15. 28. against such and such heresies shall bee no other then a counsell and advise and no Church-commandement nor binding decree backed with this power Hee that despiseth you speaking by the holy Ghost the Word of God despiseth mee and whether doctrines or canons concerning doctrine comming from a lawfull Court conveened in Christs name have no ecclesiasticall power of spirituall jurisdiction to get obedience to their lawfull decrees for if every one of the suffrages of Elders bee but a private counsell having onely authoritie objective from the intrinsecall lawfulnesse of the thing and no authoritie officiall from the Pastors because Pastors then the whole conclusion of the Synod shall amount to no higher rate and summe then to a meere advise and counsell If it bee said that when they are all united in a Synod and speaking as assembled Act. 15. 25. and speaking thus Assembled by the holy Ghost v. 28. the authoritie is more then a counsell yet not a power of Church-jurisdiction Then 1. give us a warrant in Gods Word for this distinction 2. Wee aske whether this authoritie being contemned the persons or Churches contemnibg it bee under any Church-censure or not if they bee under a Church-censure what is this but that the Synod hath power of censure and so power of jurisdiction if you say non-communion is a sufficient censure But I pray you spare mee to examine this 1. If the sentence of non-Communion bee a sentence of 〈◊〉 it must proceed from a judicature that hath a 〈◊〉 of jurisdiction but give mee leave to say as all Church 〈◊〉 have and must have warrant in Gods Word so must 〈◊〉 such as non-communion for the ordinary Church punishments such as publike rebuâ—ing have warrant in the Word as in 1 Tim. 5. 20. and excommunication 1 Cor. 5. 4. 〈◊〉 1â— and the great Anathema Maranatha 1 Cor. 16. 22. and forbearing to eate and drinke with scandalous persons 1 Cor. 5. 10 11. withdrawing from his company 2 Thâ—s 3. 14. and I pray you where hath the Word taught us of such a bastard 〈◊〉 ensure or if you will not allow it that name a censure indicted by the Church or Churches as is non-communion May our brethren without Christs warrant shape any punishment equivalent to excommunication without Gods Word 〈◊〉 they may as well without the Word mould us such a censure as excommunication if they say separation warrenth this censure of non-communion But 2. By what Law of God can an equall give out a sentence of non-communion a 〈◊〉 an equall an equall cannot as an equall punish when a Christian denieth followship to another because hee is excommunicated hee doth not punish as an equall for the punisher in this case denying fellowship to the excommunicated doth 〈◊〉 an equall but as having authoritie from the Church who hath given this commandement in the very sentence of communication 1 Cor. 5. 4. compared with v. 10 11. Separation under a great controversie and denyed in many cases â—â— the way of those who are more rigid therein even by our 〈◊〉 2. Christ Matth. 18. 15 16. will not have any brother who 〈◊〉 but private authoritie and no Church-authoritie over a broâ—â—â—◠〈…〉 non habet potestatem to presently renounce 〈◊〉 give up all communion with his brother though hee bee 〈◊〉 before two or three witnesses and inflict on him the sentence of non-communion while hee first tell the Church and non-communion is inflicted on no man as if hee were a heathen 〈◊〉 to speak no thing of delivering to Satan while hee â—â— conveened and judicially sentenced before the Church 〈◊〉 our brethrens sentence of non-communion is in inflicted by an equall Church upon a â—â—ster Church in a meere pâ—â—â—â— way and by no Church-proces 4. Non-communion if it bee warranted by the law of â—â—ture as communion of equalls is yet should wee not bee refused of the like favour when wee plead that the Law of nature pleadeth for combination and communion of joynt authorities of sâ—sâ—er-Churches in one presbytery for if non-communion of Churches bee of the law of nature so must communion of Churches and authoritative communion and authoritative and judiciall non-communion by natures law must be as warrantable upon the same grounds They 6. Object â— the Apostles were in this Synod as ordinary Elders thâ—n The Synod might have censured and in case of obsâ—inacie excommunicated the Apostles which were admirable Answ. For reâ—ukeing of Apostles wee have against Papists a memorable warrant in Paul Gal. 2. withstanding Peter to â—ce face and Peter his giving an account Act. 11 1 2 3. to the Church of Jerusalem of his going in to the Gentiles which Parker acknowledgeth against Papists and Prelats to bee a note of Peters subjection to the Church Papists say it was Peters humilitie other Papists say Peter gave but such a brotherly account to the Church such as one brother is oblieged to give to another also all our Divines and those Papists who contend that the Pope is inferiour to universall councels doc with good warrant alledge that by Matth. 18. Peter is subjected to the Church-censures if hee sinn against
from any who walketh inordinately 2. Thes. 3. 14. 15. 3 It is not well said that Christ giveth no Lawes for sinnes that seldome fall out What say you of Anathema Maranatha 1 Cor. 16. 22. to bee used against an Apostate from the faith and against such as fall into the sinne against the holy Ghost I thinke visible professors capable both of the â—nne and the censure yet I thinke it falleth seldome out it fell seldome but that an Apostle was to bee rebuked haâ— Paul then no law to rebuke Peter Gal. 2. Object 2. A Synod or presbytery may prâ—nounce the dâ—â—dfull sentence of non-communion against persons and Churches 〈…〉 Answ. But I aske where is the power and institution from Christ that one private man as hee may counsell his brother so hee may by our brethrens grounds pronounce this sentence Object 3. One private man may not doe it to a whole Church â—â— a classicall Presbytery and a Synod hath more authoritie over him then hee hath over them Answ. One private man may rebuke another yea bee may plead with his mother the whole Church that hee liveth in for her whoredomes Hos. 2. 2. But if hee justly plead and his mother will not heare may hee not separate Our brethren of New England I thinke shall bee his warrant to separate for their sixth Synodicall proposition saith the fraternitie and people are to separate from the Eldership after they refuse wholesome counsell Now what Scripture warranteth twenty to withdraw and separate shall also warrant ten and five and one for no reason that if twentie bee carelesse of their salvation in the dutie of separation and shall not separate that one man shall not separate because a multitude doth evill I am not to doe evill with them Object 4. But a Synod or a classicall presbytery hath more 〈◊〉 and authoritie then one private man or one single Congregation 1. Because they are a company of Elders to whom as to the Priests of the Lord whose lips should preserve knowledge the â—â—yes of knowledge and consequently a power and Synodicall authoritie is given though they have no power of jurisdiction 2. Because as a private mans power is inferiour to a Pastors so is the power of classicall and Synodioall meeting of Elders above a man or a single congregation and a Synod in dogmaticall power ariseth so higher then these â—â— divine institution doth fall upon it Answ. The power of order and the key of knowledge doth elevate a Pastor whose lippes doth preserve knowledge above a private Christian yea as I conceive above a multitude of beleevers but I would know if a Synods dogmaticall power bee above the power of single congregations I thinke it is not by our brethrens â—enents for they say expresly that every particular 〈…〉 jus to decide dogmaticall points and this â—ight the Church of Antioch had Act. 15. and laboured to end that 〈…〉 in her selfe which sheweth that they had right and â— we but they had not habilitie and therefore in that case they 〈…〉 light and advise from other Churches and they say The câ—niociation of Churches into classes and Synods wee 〈◊〉 to bee lawfull and in some cases necessary as namely in things 〈…〉 not peculiar to one Church but common to all And likewise when a Church is not able to end any matter that concernes onely themselves theâ— they are to seek advise counsell from neighbour Churches hence the power of Synods is only by way of counsel and advise a Pastors advise is but an advise he giveth not his advise virtute 〈◊〉 as he is a Pastor for then his advise should bee pastorall and authâ—â—itative and proceeding from the power of order though not from the power of jurisdiction hee onely giveth his advise as a gifted and inlightned man and so to my poore knowledge two hundreth five hundreth holy and learned Pastors determining in a Synod any dogmaticall point they sit all there not as in a court not as Pastors for then their Decrees should have pastorall authoritie and some power formally ministeriall to determine yea and to sway in a ministeriall way by power of the keyes of knowledge all the inferiour Churches whom the decree concerneth even as the Eldership of Pergâ—mus which to our brethren is a congregationall Church doth decree by the dogmaticall power of the keyes of knowledge that the doctrine of Balaam is a false doctrine therefore they sit there as gifted Christians and so have no Church-power more then a private brother or sister of the Congregation hath toward or over another for though a multitude of counselling and advising friends be safer and more effectuall to give light then a counselling friend yet are they but a multitude of counselling friends and the result of all counselling and advising men doth never rise higher then a counsell and advise and can never amount to the nature of a command as twenty schâ—â—â—-fellowes suppose as â—udent and wise as the twentie masters of an Universitie if these twentie schoole-fellowes give their advise and counsell 〈◊〉 a weightie businesse that concerneth the practise and obedience of all the students the result of their counsell and advise can never bee more then an advise and cannot amount to the same determination of the twentie masters of the Universitie the result of whose determination is a soveraigne commandement and an authoritative and judiciall decree and statute to all the whole Universitie 2. Whereas these Godly brethren say the power of Synods in things which belong to particular Churches is but a counsell and advise they should have told their mind whether or no the Synod hath more then advise and counsell in things that are not peculiar to one Church but common to all the Churches in that bounds for it would seeme that a Synod is a colledge of commanders in dogmaticall points that doe equally concerne all Churches this should have beenespoken to though in those things which are peculiar to each particular Church they bee but a colledge of friendly advisers and counsellers 2. If a Synod bee but a societie of counsellers they have no more any authoritative power to pronounce the sentence of non-communion against any single Congregation or private man then a private man or a single Congregation hath authoritative power to pronounce that sentence against them but 3. You make the Synodicall power so above the power of private Christians in counselling as that this Synodicall power is of divine institution as you say but let me aske what to doe to counsell and advise onely then that power of counselling in Abigail to David in one brother or sister to another brother and sister is of divine institution warranted by the Law of nature Levit. 19. 18. by the Law of charitie by the communion of Saints Col. 3. 15. 1 Thes. 5. 14. Heb. 3. 13. Heb. 10. 24. Mal. 3. 16. Zach. 8. 21 22 23. for there is a divine institution for one brother to counsell
principally seated in the Presbytery in regard of the latter Synods are the first subject of the occasionall Church-power in things which â—e in common belong to many Presbyteries or to a nationall Church But to returne if the Synodicall power bee different in essence and nature and not gradually onely from the counsell and advise of Christians then first it is not a determination that bindeth by way of counsell and brotherly advise onely but under some higher consideration which is as like a Church-relation of Church-power as any thing can bee seeing here bee Pastors acting as Pastors 2. formally gathered in a councell 3. speaking Gods Word 4. by the holy Ghost But this shall bee against the Church-government of New England 2. If it bee essentially different from an advise and councell and warranted by divine institution why doe not our brethen give us Scripture for it for if they give us Act. 15. then can they not say that the Apostles in this Synod did determine and voyce as Apostles by an Apostolick and immediatly inspiring Spirit for the spirit Synodicall is a spirit imitable and a rule of pertually induring moralitie in all Synods and must leade us for an Apostolick spirit is not now in the world 3. As they require a positive divine institution for the frame of a Presbyteriall Church in power above a Congregation and will not bee satisfied with the light of nature which upon the supposall of a spirituall government instituted by Christ in a Congregation which is a part may clearely by the hand lead us to the inlarging of that same spirituall government in the whole that is to a number of consociated Churches which are all interessed as one common societie in a common government so they must make out for their Synod endued with dogmaticall power a positive divine institution 4. We desire a warrant from the Word why a colledge of Pastors determining by the Word of God as Pastors having power of order and acting in a colledge according to that power should not bee a formall and ordinary great Presbytery 5. How can they by our brethrens determination exercise such pastorall acts out of their owne Congregations towards those Churches to which they have no pastorall relation virtute potestatis ordinis 6. How can the wisedome of Christ who provideth that his servants bee not despised but that despisers in a Church way should bee censured 1 Tim. 1. 19 20. cloth his messengers in a Synod with a power dogmaticall and deny all power of iâ—â—â—diction to them upon the supposall that their determinations be rejected I feare there bee something under this that none are to bee censured or delivered to Satan for heterodox opinions except they erre in points fundamentall But farther it may bee made good that a power dogmaticall is not different in nature from a power of jurisdiction for we read not of any societie that hath power to meet to make Lawes and decrees which have not power also to backe their decrees with punishments if the Jewish Synedry might meet to declare judicially what was Gods Law in point of conscience and what not and to tie men to it they had power to conveene and make Lawes farre more may they punish contraveners of the Law for a nomothetick power in a societie which is the greater power and is in the fountaine must presuppose in the societie the lesse power which is to punish and the power of punishing is in the inferior judicature so a nomothetick power ministeriall cannot want a power of censuring It is true a single Pastor may ministerially give out commandements in the authoritie of Christ but hee cannot his alone censure or excommunicate the contraveners of those commandements but it followeth well in an assembly hee hath power to censure and excommunicate now here Pastors and Elders are in an assembly It is objected Pastors in a Synod have no jurisdiction as Pasters for what they doe as Pastors that they may doe there alone and on of a Synod but they doe not nor cannot determine and give out Canons there alone and they cannot there alone determine juridically therefore they doe not wholly and poorely as Pastors in relation to those Churches give out these decrees yet doe they not give out the decrees as privite men wholly but in some pastor all relation for Pastors as Pastors have something peculiar to them in all Churches whither they come to preach so as a speciall blessing followeth on their labours though they be not Pastors in relation to all the Churches they come to even as a Sermon on the Lords day is instamped with a more speciall blessing bâ—â—â—use of Gods institution imprinted on the day then a Sermon preached in another day Answ. This argument is much for us it is proper to acts of jurisdiction ecclesiasticall that they cannot bee exercised by one onely but must bee exercised by a societie now a Pastor as a Pastor his alone without any collaterally joyned with him exerciseth his pastorall acts of preaching and of administrating the Sacraments but those who give out those decrees cannot give them out Synodically but in a Synod and Court-wayes as forensicall decrees and so in a juridicall way and because Pastors whither so ever they come doe remaine Pastors 1. The Apostles are not in this Synod as Apostles Secondly nor yet as gifted Christians to give their counsell and advise nor thirdly as this answerer granteth meerely as Pastors then it must follow that fourthly they are here as such pastors conveened Synodically by divine institution and that this is the patterne of a Synod Object 2. But there is no censuring of persons for scandalls in this meeting because there is nothing here but a doctrinall declaration of the falsehood of their opinion who taught a necessitie of circumcision and that all is done by way of doctrine and by power of the Keyes of knowledge not of jurisdiction is cleare from the end of this meeting Act. 5. 2. Paul and Barnabas were sent from the Church of Antiocâ— unto Jerusalem unto the Apostles and Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concerning this question and v. 6. the Apostles and Elders came together to consider 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of this matter consideration of questions being the end of the Synod is a thing belonging to doctrinal power meerely so Mr. Mather Answ. 1. It is false that there is no censuring of persons here for to say nothing that Peter accuseth those of the wrong side as personally present at the Synod either being summoned or comming thither by appeale v. 10. Now therefore why tempt ye God to put a yoake upon the necke of the Discip'es c. which reproofe comming from one man onely cannot be called a Synodicall reproofe It is more then evident that the publick Synodicall censure of rebuke is put upon those who held and urged the necessitie of circumcision and why not excommunication also in case of obstinacy for the Synodicall censure
of a publick Synodicall rebuke is onely gradually different not specifically from excommunication and both must proceed from one and the same power Now the Synodicall censure is evident in the Text v. 24. certaine went out from us so it is cleare they pretended they were in this point followers of the Apostles and Lorinus thinketh that some deemed them schismaticks 2. They have troubled you with words Lorinus citeth the Sy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vedalacachum they have terrified you as if your salvation were not sure except you keepe Moses his Law of ceremonies and the morall Law 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 destraying by false arguments your soules it is a word contrary to building up in sound knowledge as Aristotle taketh the word saying that you must bee circumcised and keepe the Law 4. They abused the name of the Apostles as having an Apostolick commandement and so a divine warrant for their false doctrine and therefore are they refuted as liars 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence it is cleare they did labour to prove a necessitie of circumcision not onely from the old Testament and an expresse divine Law but also from the authoritie of the Apostles which was manifestly false out of which I argue thus If the Apostles doe not onely in a doctrinall way refute a false doctrine in this Synod but also in a Church-way and by a juridicall power rebuke and Synodically charge the authors as subâ—erters of soules and liars then they doe not onely use a meere doctrinall power in this Synod but also a juridicall power but the former is true Ergo so is the latter 2. Observe two things in these obtruders of circumcision First the error of their judgement It is more then apparent that they had a heterodox and erroneous opinion of God and his worship and the way of salvation as is cleare Act. 15. 1. And certaine men which came downe from Judea taught the brethren and said except yee bee circumcised after the manner of Moses yee cannot bee saved This doctrine is clearely refuted both by Peter v. 10. That yoake of the Law wee disclaime there is a way of salvation without that yoake v. 11. But wee beleeve that through the grace of the Lord Jesus wee shall bee saved as they and it is synodically refuted v. 24. wee gave no such commandement it is not the mind of us the Apostles of the Lord that you keepe Moses Law as you hope to bee saved there was for this error in their judgement required a doctrinall or dogmaticall power and this the Synod used 2. Besides this erroneous opinion in their judgement there was another fault and scandall that the Synod was to censure to wit their obtruding of their false way upon the soules and consciences of the Churches as vers 1 They taught the brethren this false doctrine 2. That they wilfully and obstinately did hold this opinion and raised a Schisme in the Courch v. 2. wherefore Paul and Barnabas had no small 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dissention the word signifieth sedition which was raised by those who held that erroneous opinion and great disputation with them 3. They laid a yoake upon the brethren v. 10. and v. 7. They made great disputation against the Apostles and v. 24. They troubled the brethren and perverted their soules This was not simply an heterodox opinion which is the materiall part of a heresie but had something of the formall part of an heresie to wit some degrees of pertinacie of brutish and blind zeale even to the troubling and perverting of the soules of the Churches while as they would make disciples to themselves and lead away soules from the simplicitie of the Gospell now the Synod doth not helpe this latter simply in a Synodicall way by a dogmaticall and doctrinall power but by an authoritie Synodicall and therefore they authoritatively rebuke them as subverters of soules and whereas these teachers laid on an unjust yoake to keepe Moses his Law upon the Churches v. 10. the Synod by their ecclesiasticall and juridicall authoritie doth free the Churches of that yoake and they say in their decree v. 28. It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to us not to lay the yoake of Moses his Law on you as those who trouble you have done to lay upon you no greater burden then these necessary things c. now if there had beene nothing to doe but to resolve the question if this had beene the totall and adequat end of the Synod in a meere doctrinall way to resolve the question Whether must wee bee circumcised and keepe the Law morall and ceremoniall of Moses upon necessitie of salvation as the argument of our brethren contendeth Peter v. 10. 11. made a cleare issue of the question We are saved by the grace of God both â—â—nes and Gentiles and it is to tempt God to lay the yoake of the Law of Moses upon the brethren the resolving of that question is the end of the Synod but not the adequat end for here that not onely the doctrinall power was to bee used but beside that 1. the schisme was to bee removed and the authoritie of the Synod to bee used against the wilfulnesse and obstinacie of those obtruders of circumcision in rebuking them as perverters of soules 2. For the scandall which might have been taken if the Gentiles should have eaten blood and things strangled and meats offered to idols and therefore the Apostles and Elders behoved as a conveened Synod to forbid a grievous scandall and a spirituall homicide against the Law of nature to wit that the Gentiles for feare of scandalizing weake beleevers amongst the Jewes should abstaine from the practise of some things at this time meerely indifferent in their nature though not indifferent in their use such as were to eate things offered to idols things strangled and blood and whereas our brethren 3. Object If the Apostles did any thing more then might have been done by private Pastors out of a Synod it was meerely Apostolicall and the Elders did but assent to the Apostles Apostolicall determination and every one did here Apostles Elders and Brethren more suo Apostles as Apostles Elders and Brethren as Elders and Brethren after their manner as consenters to the Apostles but other wayes it is a begging of the question for to say the Apostles and Elders rebuked Synodically the obtruders of circumcision it s but said because one Pastor might have rebuked those obtruders for the specification of actions must not bee taken from their efficient causes but from their formall objects therefore this is no good consequence the Synod rebuked those obtruders Ergo the Synod rebuked them as a Synod and by a power of jurisdiction it followeth not for Paul Gal. 2. rebuked Peter Ergo Paul had a power of jurisdiction over Peter I thinke your selves will deny this consequence I Answer 1. These two answers are contradictory and sheweth that our brethren are not true to their owne
colledge of Apostles and Elders conveened and yet materially it is the same prohibition Object 4. The Acts of this Synod are finaliter acts of government because they are rules conducing for the governing of the Church but formaliter they are acts of dogmaticall power and not formally acts of jurisdiction for there is no rebuking of subverters of soules inordine to excommunication no penall power is exercised here sub poona under the paine of excommunication and therefore there an here no formall acts of government Answ. 1. The acts of Church-government finaliter that is government because to prescribe rules and directive Lawes for they are not properly Lawes which the Church prescribeth Christ is the onely Law-giver are formall acts of governing and one power doth not make Lawes for governing the Church and another power different in nature punish the contraveners And what power disposeth and ordereth the meanes doe also dispose and order the end Canons of the Church tending to the edification of the Church are meanes tending to the government of the Church and I appeale to the judgement of our reverend brethren if wee suppose that one single Congregation should doe all that this Synod doth if they would not call it a formall governing of that particular Congregation for example in the Church of Pergamus one ariseth and teacheth the doctrine of the Nicolaitans suppose that fornication is indifferent is the eating of blood and is no sinne the Angels of the Church of Pergamus preach against this doctrine in private they deale by force of arguments from Scripture that it is a wicked doctrine and destructive to holinesse as Paul and Barnab as disputeth Act. 15. 1. 2. with the obtruders of a necessitie of Circumcision yet they prevaile not now suppose this independent Church following the Apostle Pauls way thinke good to convene a Synod or a parishionall assembly to determine Synodically that this is a wicked doctrine and shall in their decree call the holders of this doctrine subverters of soules and forbid fornication in their Synod now supposing Pergamus to be a single Church in a remote Iland consociated with no neighbouring Churches who could in reason deny that this Synodicall power so inacting were a power formally governing the Church of Pergamus it is true some of our brethren say that it is even to us a received tenent that the power that disposeth of the meanes of governing doth not for that governe in respect that we teach that the classicall presbytery doth decree and in act and the Congregation doth execute these Decreed but I pray you doth this prove that the power ordering the meanes of governing is no formall act of governing yea the contrary is true because the Congregation executing the acts of the classicall presbytery as subordinat in that act to the classicall presbytery by their authority therfore while they give out these acts or Canons doe formally governe that Congregation executing their acts in this particular Mr. Mather and Mr. Thomson against Mr. Herle c. 1. p. 9. teach that there is a power of clearing truth dogmatically and that 〈◊〉 ‑ 〈◊〉 ultimately where the controversie is ended but they will have this ultimate power not in a Synod onely but also in a Congregation But 1. they seeme to make this dogmaticall power a Church-power and the exercise thereof formally an act of Church-government and so it must bee Church-power and Church-government in the Synod as well as in the Congregation 2. The last period and conclusion of the controversie cannot bee both in the Congregation de jure by right onely and in the Synod by right onely for two last powers cannot bee properly in two subordinate judicatures for if Antioch appeale to a Synod as they doc Act. 15. 2. then Antioch is not the sole last and ultimate and finall judge and 3. If the controversie concerne many Churches as this doth Act. 15. 2. 23. 24. I see not how a Congregation except they transgresse their line can finally determine it And here while as our brethren doe all edge that a Synod hath a power to decree and make lawes but hath no power at all to execute these Lawes or to punish the contraveners but power of punishing is all in the single Congregation â— They tie all governing power to a punishing power as if there were no other wayes to governe but upon supposall of scandalls whereas all Scripture and polliticians make a power of giving Lawes formally a governing power 2. When one societie and Synod maketh the Lawes and another must execute them and punish the contraveners the single Congregation that punisheth is more subjected by a truely prelaticall bondage then if the Law-makers had onely the power of punishing the contraveners at they onely have the power of making the Lawes I take not here Lawes for Lawes properly so called but for ministeriall directories having ecclesiasticall authoritie and here in effect our brethren lay truely a prelaticall bondage on the Churches of Christ for they teach that a Synod may make a Law by a pastorall power and that this Synod is an ordinance of Christ by Act. 15. and that as Prelates did they send those Synodicâ—ll decrees to bee obeyed and put in execution by the Churches and ordaine the contraveners to bee punished by the Churches and here is a power above a power and mandates for government sent by the Synod to the Churches to bee obeyed and a Synod governing by Churches this they call prelaticall in us But 3. there is no penall power here say they and nothing decerved to bee obeyed sub paena under the paine of excommunication therefore no power of jurisdiction But this consequence is justly denyed for no politician no reason in the world can say that all power of jurisdiction is included in the power of excommunication What hath the Church a Church-power to threaten and no Church-power to pardon the penltent I think if the Church as the Church Matth. 18. receive a power from Christ to bind in heaven and earth doth not Christ in that same patent give to her also a power to loose in earth and heaven and when hee saith if bee refuse to beare the Church let him be to thee â— aubeâ—hen and publican doth hee not give to the Church a power to command if hee command to heare and obey the Church hee must give a power of jurisdiction to the Church to command and a power to command not penall onely but promissorie also to loose and absolve upon condition of prosessed repentance Now suppose the Church make a Law that theresurrection of the dead is a truth of God to bee beleeved and professed upon occasion that in the Congregation Hymeneus Alexander den yeth that Article in that very Commandement doctrinall the Church doth governe the whole Congregation and exerciseth a power of formall governing though in their act they say nothing of the censure of excommunication to those who shall deny that Article
of the resurrection for I hope a simple sanction maketh a Law though no penaltie bee expressed in it and though there had beene in the Decree Act 15. 28. an expresse punishment this should to our brethren prove no power of jurisdiction exercised by many for this which is said Gal. 1. 8. Though wee or an Angel from heaven preach unto you another Gospel then that which wee have preached let him bee accursed and that 1 Cor. 9. 16. Woe unto mee if I preach not the Gospel and many other threatnings in Scripture though a punishment bee annexed expressely cease not to bee meerely doctrinall and are not threatnings importing formally any power of Church-jurisdiction and therefore though mention should have beene made of a censure if there bee not here a Synod 2. Having power and authoritie from Christ. 3. Commanding by the holy Ghost as these indeed are all here the name of censure should prove no power of jurisdiction Object 5. The laying on of the yoake spoken of v. 28. is a meerâ— doctrinall yoake and it importeth no more a poner of jurisdiction then we can conclude that the obtruders of circumcision bad a power of jurisdiction because they are said to lay on a yoake also and to tempt God in so doing vers 10. Answ. I retort this reason for we can then no more conclude that the Apostles by an Apostolick authoritie layd on this yoake then wee can conclude that the obtruders of circumcision did lay on this yoake because they are said to lay on a yoake and to tempt God v. 10. It is a most unequall reasoning to argue against a iust Synodicall power from a sinfull and unjust power for these obtruders of circumcision had no lawfull power at all to lay a yoake on the Disciples but sinned and tempted God in laying on that yoake but it is not denyed by our brethren but the Apostles and Elders had a lawfull power to lay on a yoake in this Synod onely it is controverted whether it bee a meere dogmaticall or doctrinall power or if it bee a power of jurisdiction nay the obtruders of circumcision by neither of these two powers layd on a yoake upon the Dsciples Object 6. These decrees which did no other wayes bind the Church of Jerusalem then they did bind all the Churches of the world cannot bee decrees of power of jurisdiction over the Church of Jerusalem and over the Church of Antioch But these decrees did no otherwise bind the Church of Jerusalem then they did bind all the Churches of the world for the decrees of Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem Act. 6. 4 5. were sent to all the Churches of the world to bee observed and seeing they could not as Synodicall Canons obliege all the Churches of the world by an ecclesiasticall tie because all the Churches of the world sent not Commissioners and all the Churches of the world couldnot be represented in this Synod but onely the Churches of Jerusalem and Antioch yea wee see not that this Synod is any more then the Church of Antioch seeking counsell from the sister Church at Jerusalem as one Church may advise another Church that is weaker in knowledge in a matter of such difficultie because the Apostles were at Ierusalem and that 〈◊〉 1. The whole Canons are ascribed to the Church of Jerusalem onely to the Apostles Elders and the whole Church Act. 15. 22. and Act. 15. 22. and Act. 16. 4 5. and Act. 21. 25. the Elders of Jerusalem take this act or canon to themselves 2. It cannot be proven that the Churches of Syria and Cilicia had any commissioners heâ—â— farre lesse had all the Churches of the Gentiles who yet are commanded to keepe those decrees by commissioners there C. 15. 19. Act. 21. 25. Act. 16. 4 5. 3. It cannot bee proven that Antioch sent Elders to this meeting but onely Commissioners Act. 15. 2. Answ. This answer is much contradicent to what our brethren other waies hold for if it be a patterne of a sister Church giving advise and counsell to another this is imitable to the worlds end and if the Canon come from the Apostles as Apostles it is not imitable 2. That one sister Church can lay burdens on another and give out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 decrees to bee kept is unwarrantable now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as they are called by all that understandeth Greeke are not friendly advises of brethren the Seventie Interpreters use the word Daniel 6. 26. to expresse a Law made by Darius Luke useth the word c. 2. 1. saith a decree 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 came from Augustus Caesar to taxe all the World 2. It is a graver businesse then we can thinke of to beleeve that these who onely give advise and counsell and must conveene in a Synod as Apostles and Elders doe here v. 23. 2 that they can say as it is v. 28. It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to us to lay no other burden on you then tâ—â—se necessary things for a counsell or advise can never amount to the burden imposed by the holy Ghost speaking in a Synod 2. It is denied that this decree oblieged the Church of Jerusalem no other way then it oblieged all the Churches of all the world for here bee three sorts of Churches and three sorts of Churches are under a tie by this Synod first Jerusalem secondly Antioch Syria and Cilicia thirdly universally all the Churches of the Gentiles The Church of Jerusalem have formall commissioners here under an ecclesiasticall tie as concerning the faith of the things contained in the decree that it is lawfull for the Gentiles to abstaine from things offered to idolls from things strangled and from blood and they were simply under a tie both of the seventh Commandement and by the fifth Commandement to abstaine from fornication because the Synod had forbidden it 2. They were under a tie by due proportion not to keepe the Law of Moses and not to bee circumcised by any necessitie of a Divine Law but onely by permission to use these ceremonies for feare of scandall 3. They are tied by proportion also to give no offence in things indifferent 4. Not to reject the Gentiles whom the Lord had called to his heavenly kingdome as well as the Jewes 2. These Churches of the Gentiles who never heard of the Synod and so were not oblieged to bee there in their Commissioners or not tied at all by this Decree by vertue of any ecclesiasticall tie but are onely tied by the Law of Nature not to abuse their libertie in the use of things in their owne nature indifferent and so this is false that the Church of Jerusalem was tied no other way by these acts then all Churches of the world for some of the Churches of the world were not tied at all by any ecclesiasticall bond but onely for the necessitie of the Law of Nature 3. Jerusalem Antioch Syria and Cilicia were tied by an ecclesiasticall tie because Jerusalem
and the Churches of Antioch had here Commissioners for Antioch sent Paul and Barnabas with certaine other of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this must relate to Pastors and Elders if Syria and Cilicia had no Commissioners here as certainly they were oblieged to send Commissioners as well as Antioch seeing their case was one with Antioch v. 23. and they could not but heare of this Apostolick remedie to remove the scandall of false Doctrine and therefore their Commissioners were either here or then they were oblieged to bee here and here wee have the true essence of a Synod to wit a meeting of the Churches of Antioch and Jerusalem at Jerusalem to determine of this question But that the Church of Jerusalem did not determine all the businesse in a Presbyteriall way and that others had hand in it is cleare 1. Because Paul and Barnabas and others with them are expresly sent from Antioch to Jerusalem as Commissioners and Elders and here they reason and voyce as is cleare ch 15. v. 12. v. 22. v. 28. ch 16. 4. ch 21. 25 26. and the Acts and Decrees are ascribed to all the Apostles and Elders who were present at the councell ch 14. 4. ch 15. v. 22. v. 12. and amongst these were Paul and Barnabas with certaine others sent from Antiâ—b Act. 15. 2. and the Elders of Jerusalem Act. 21. 25. with the Apostles Act. 16. 4. 2. the reasons alledged are false for Act. 16. 4. Act. 15. 22. Act. 21. 25. the Acts and Synodicall Decrees are not ascribed to Elders of Jerusalem onely but to the Apostles who were not Elders at Jerusalem and to the Elders in Jerusalem Act. 16. 4. not of Jerusalem 3. It is no matter though it cannot bee proven that the Churches of Syria and Cilicis had no Commissioners there for first the contrary cannot bee proven secondly they ought to have had Commissioners here thirdly the Acts are sent to them conjunctly with Antioch and messengers to report the mind and sense of the Assembly as to Antioch v. 23. 4. It is but a groundlesse conceit to say that Paul and Barnabas came to the Synod as Commissioâ—â—â—s or as servants to receive information not as Elders to give their decisive voices because Paul carried himselfe in the assembly as Peter and James who were Elders in the assembly and they being Apostles the decrees are ascribed to the Apostles without any distinction Act. 15. 28. Act. 16. 4. And if Paul and Barnabas and Silas a Prophet of the Church at Antioch Act. 15. v. 32. with Judas v. 27. also a Prophet had beene onely Commissioners and servants of the Church at Antioch and not Elders and members of the Assembly how could they have voices in the Church or Congregation of Jerusalem for the messengers of one Congregation hath not place to voyce in another Congregation 2. It is said expressely It seemed good to the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church to send chosen men of their owne with Paul and Barnabas namely Judas surnamed Barsabas and Silas chiefe men leading men amongst the Brethren now I desire to bee resolved in two 1. how Judas and Silas were men of their owne company 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 certainly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must relate to the Assembly to wit to Elders and Apostles by all good Grammar and how are they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Captaines and leading men amongst the Brethren which brethren are certainly these mentioned in the same verse Apostles Elders and the whole Church and these mentioned in the next verse 23. Apostles Elders and Brethren that is chosen men of this Assembly now it is evident that Judas and Silas were no part of Elders of the Church of Jerusalem but Prophets at Antiab v. 32. and members of that Presbytery spoken of Act. 13. 1 2. and Act. 15. v. 35. And what power then had the Assembly to send them and especially what power had the Eldership or presbytery of Jerusalem to send men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of their owne company who were not men of their owne company therefore they were called chosen men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of their owne company and leading men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Brethren because they were members of the Assembly and of that councell gathered together with one accord v. 25. and not because they were naked messengers of the Church of Antioch but Elders Prophets v. 32. and members of the Assembly v. 22. 23. And when as it is said Act. 16. 4. Act. 21. 28. These decrees are ascribed to the Elders in Jerusalem I answer they are not called the Elders of the Church of Jerusalem as Revel 2. 1. To the Angel of the Church of Ephesus v. 8. To the Angel of the Church of Smyrna and v. 12. of the Church of Pergamus and v. 18. and Act. 20. 17. but the Eders which were at Jerusalem assembled and this doth no more prove that all these Elders were onely the Elders of the Church at Jerusalem then it proveth that the Apostles were the Apostles of the Church at Ierusalem which no man can say yea by the phrase of Scripture used in other places it is cleare they were not the Elders of the Church of Jerusalem and for Act. 21. 25. The Elders of the Church of Jerusalem taketh those Decrees upon them not as if they made the whole Synod but because they were a considerable part of the Synod for it is cleare from the story Act. 15. that the Apostles and others were members of that assembly and therefore that v. 25. Wee have written and concluded c. must bee expounded wee as a part of the Synod have written c. and it is a Synecdoche and the pronoune 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wee includeth no Apostle but James whereas Peter Paul Barnabas Iudas Silâ—s and others Elders and Brethren were members of the Synod yea and as our Brethren say though to mee it is not probable the whole Church of Ierusalem from v. 22. c. 15. Object 7. They take away the scandall in a doctrinall way only declaring that they ought to abstaine from things scandalous Answ. The very delivering to Satan may thus bee called doctrinall because it is a Declaration that the mans sinnes are retained in heaven yet it is an authoritative declaration and if it bee meere doctrinall one Pastor and one Prophet might have done all which this venerable colledge of Apostles and Elders disputed reasoned and concluded Synodically A meere doctrinall power layeth not on burdens and Decrees Herodian calleth such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 senatusconsultâ—in and Budeâ—â—s a man excellently skilfull in the Greeke language saith the like of it and so doth the civill Law make it a statute of the Senate Object 8. The reason why Patel could not though hee was an Apostle determine this at Antioch was not because hee wanted Apostolick authoritie but because his Apostolick power was more questionable hee not having seene Christ in the flesh
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
their authority subordinate per modum obedi ntâ—ae subordinately and by way of due obedience to the Elders 2 Câ—r 10. 6. But I desire a word of Christs Testament for this where wee aâ—de that collaterall Judges acting as Judges doe act by way of obedience and subjection one to another for if the brethren 1 Cor. 5. convened in Court with the Elders to deliver the incestuous man to Satan do act in that Court as giving obedience to the Elders I see not how they concurre authoritatively is sharers with them of that same Ministeriall power if it be said brethren though they act as Judges in excommunicating yet they remaine brethren and a part of the flock and so in all their morall acts of authoritative concurring with the Elders they are under the pastorall care of these who watch for Soules and so they judge and act even in the Court as under subjection to their watchmen who must give an accompt for their Soules I answer so the Elders in their acts of the most supreame Ministeriall authority and acting in a Church court leave not off to be brethren and a part of the flock of Christ and so in subjection one to another for six Elders watch for the Soule of one and one also for the Soules of six and so if this were a good reason the Elders should act with subordination of obedience to Elders As the people act with subordination to the Elders 2. The place cited for this 2 Cor. 10. 6. where it is said that the Preachers have in readinesse to revenge all disobedience must inferre that they are to revenge by the word which is mighty through God to cast downe strong holds as is said there v. 4. 5. even disobedience of Elders ruling unjustly and abusing the Keyes no lesse then disobedience of the people And I see not how brethen acting in a Church-Court joyntly with Elders how in that they put on the relation of the flock and the part governed in the very act of exercising acts of governing for otherwayes one Pastor in the act of preaching in the Name of Jesus Christ and so in authority above these to whom he preacheth doth preach subordinatè and as in subjection to the whole organicall and formed Church who hath power to censure him if he preach erroneous Doctrine 3. I see not how the third Proposition doth stand to wit that the brethren share with the Elders in authoritative acts of the Keyes and yet they â—ct according to the. 4. Proposition as under the Eldership by way of subjection and obedience to them Except this be that which our brethren meane that the people of a single Congregation exercise acts of Jurisdiction by way of dependence so as they may be censured by the Elders if they erre but the Elders if they erre are every way Popes and so independent that there is no Church-power on Earth above them that in a Church-way may censure them or call them to an accompt 4. The Table of New England divideth the actuall exercise of the power in a Charitative power by way of Love and Charity and a politick or Church-exercise the politick exercise againe is either brotherly fraternall or Presbyteriall and the presbyteriall exercise is either 1. Teaching  or  2. Governing And Teaching is either by way of Office or Administrating the Sacraments The Presbyteriall exercise of the Keyes is independentElders in the power of governing sed respectâ— apotelesmatis sâ—u complementi censurae in respect of the effect or a compleat act of governing the Elders Rule and Act with dependence upon the people in these foure cases 1. In excommunication  2. In judging  3. In sentencing the aocused  4. In election or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in calling of a Minister So that the Elders there alone without the people can exercise none of these acts completely without the people so heare the Elders depend upon the people in their actuall governing and the Fraternity or Brethren depend on the Elders by way of subjection or obedience to them Yet give me leave the letter informeth me that it is said by many learned and godly men in New England that if their policy should make the government of the Church popular they should give up the cause But I conceive the government to be popular though the people only be not governours for Morâ—llius never taught any such thing now this government maketh Elders and people to governe the Church joyntly with mutuall dependence one upon another which certainly maketh the brethren in the Lord as well as the Elders for if the Elders be not these onely which watch for the peoples Soules as these which must give an accompt Heb. 13. 17 18. and they be not onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over the people in the Lord as is said 1 Thess. 5. 12. 13. Then the brethren must be taken in with them aâ— joynt governours as is said Propos. 3. Which certainly must confound the Scripturall order established by God betwixt the Pastors and the Flock the Watchmen and the City the shepâ—eards and the flock these who are to obey and these who are over them in the Lord. The 5. and 6. Proposition is The Brethren may not excommunicate an Elder but mediante concilio by the intervening sentence of the Elders is but the brethren may separate and withdraw from the Presbyteris after they refuse sound advise Answ. 1. This is much contrary to that which they ordinarily teach to wit that people destitute of Officers may ordaine and excommunicate their Officers 2. By this learning the Soules of Elders are in an hard case for when they do all scandalously 〈◊〉 there is no Ecclesiasticall meane of edifying them for there is no Church on Earth to excomunicate Elders when they â—â—re Separation from them is an unwarrantable way except they be excommunicated 3. In the case of the Elderships incorrigible scandalls the power of excommunication retireth into the brethren yet it was never formally in the brethren nor can they exercise this power but mediante Presbyteriâ— that is they cannot excommunicate the Eldership but by the Judiciall sentence of the Eldership and so the power is but a shadow Mr. Mather Mr. Thomson cap. 2. pag. 16 17. though some have appealed as Luther and Cranmer from the Pope to a generall councell Yet not from a Congreation to a generall councell Answ. In matters doctrinall some as Luther and others have justly appealed from a Congregation to a generall councell though Luther and Cranmer did it not though verily I professe I cannot see what power of Jurisdiction to censure scandalls can be in a generall councell there may be some meerly Doctrinall power if such a councell could be had and that is all M. Mather Mr. Thomson c. 2. pag 20. if Churches be dependent on Synods because the light of nature teacheth a communion and assistance in government by the same reason Churches must end in a Monarchy on
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 new sense of our Malignant Divines should bee black policy not sound Divinity if any Ierimiah or Prophet should say amend your wayes and turne to the LORD with all your heart and put away your Idolls and your strange Gods providing the King will goe before you and command you so to doe Hence I say that 's a poore Court-argument of Parasites for Kings Wee never read of any Reformation of Religion in Israel and Judah but when holy and zealous Kings commanded the Reformation Ergo the Reformation begun in Scotland without the consent of the Supreame Magistrate and a Reformation now prosecuted in England against the Kings will is unlawfull To which I desire the Malignant Divines to receive these answers for Justifying the zeale of both Kingdomes in their Reformation 1. It is a question if they question not the Reformation according to the substance of the action that is if they are not offended that the Queenes Masse the popery of Prelates and Divines under their wings and their Arminianisme and Socinianisme should be abolished or if they condemne not the Doctrine but question onely the manner of abolishing such Heterodox stuffe If the former be said iâ— is knowen never Malignant Prelate or other had grace by Word or Writing to entreate his Mâ—jesty for a Reformation and this is enough for the former If they meane the latter they bee very like the Pharisees who when they durst not question the Doctrine and Miracles of Christ they onely questioned the manner of doing And sayd by what authority doest thou these But because they are joyned to the Papists side and fight under their banner It is most evident it galleth their stomacks that Popery Atminianisine and Socinianisme are cryed downe else the manner of doing a good worke and such a necessary worke as Reformation would not have offended them so highly as to move them to kill the people of GOD an error in the circumstances of a good worke is very veniall to Papists and Arminians 2. Let them give to us since they argue from a practice a warrant of any such practice where a whole Land went on in a Negative Reformation without the Prince Ergo Negative precepts by this logick shall lay no divine obligation on us except it bee the Kings will to forbid that which GOD forbiddeth then suppose Episcopacy and the Ceremonies were the Idoll of the Masse established by a standing Law it should bee unlawfull for the Kingdomes to forbeare and abstaine from Idolatry except the Kings Law forbid Idolatry What were this else but to say we are obliged to obey Christs will but not except with a Reservation of the Kings will 3. This is an argument Negative from one particular in Scripture and therefore not concludent For it is thus Reformation without the King wanteth a practise in the Scâ—ipture Ergo it is unlawfull it followeth not except it want Precept Promise and Practise for the argument Negative from Scripture is onely undeniable in this sense And in this sense onely pressed by our Divines against Papists And therefore it is like this argument Purgatory is not commanded in this Chapter Idolatry is not forbiâ—den in this Commandement Ergo neither Purgatorie nor Idolatry is forbidden in Gods Word So let the adversaries give me a practise in the Word of God where a Brother kept this order of Christs three Steps Mat. 18. First to reprove an offender alone Secondly before two or three witnesses Thirdly in case of obstinacy to tell the Church and to these adde that the man was by the Church to be reputed as an heathen and a Publican And I hope because such a practise we doe not read yet it followeth not that it is unlawfull So where read you a Man forgiving his Brother seventy seven times Ergo it is unlawfull to forgive him seventy and seven times Where read you that Christ and His Apostles and the Christian Church in the New Testament raised Warre and Armies either to defend or offend but I hope Anabaptists have not hence ground to inferre then must all Warres be unlawfull to Christians for wee can produce warrantable precepts where we want practise Fourthly where it is said Kings onely are rebuked for not removing high places and Kings onely are commended because they are removed therefore none should reforme but Kings This followeth no wayes but onely Kings by Royall authority should reforme but it followeth not Ergo the people without the King are not obliged to reforme themselves in their manner for I am sure that the people should all universally resolve and agree never to sacrifice in the high places and accordingly to practise And to sacrifice onely in the place which the Lord had chosen to place His Name there at GODS expresse Law commanded Deuteronomy 13. 23. Deuteronomy 12. 14. 18. Deuteronomy 16. 2. 7. 11. 15. Deut. 31. 11. had beene a removall of the high places and a warrantable Reformation though the King should have by a standing Law commanded that they should sacrifice in the high places for the people are rebuked because 2 Kings 17. 11. They burnt Incense in all the high places 2 Chronicles 33. 17. Hosea 4. 13. and a Chronicles 20. 33. the reason why the high places were not taken away is For as yet the people had not prepared their Hearts unto the GOD of their Fathers If then not Sacrificing in the high places was the peoples duty they were to remove the high places in their place and so farre to reforme without the KING yea suppose the KING command the contrary the people ought to obey GOD and the Parliament may by GODS Law abolish Episcopacy popish Ceremonics and the popish Service though the KING consent not upon this ground that those he the high places of England for the which the Wrath of the Lord is kindled against the Land Fifthly the adversaries may read 2 Chronicles 15. 9. That the Strangers out of Ephraim and Manasseh and Simeon gathered themselves together to Asa without the consent of their KING and did enter in a Covenant to seek the Lord God of their Fathers Sixtly the Pastors of the Land are obliged to preach all necessary truth without the KING and accordingly are to practise what they preach now Reformation is a most necessary truth they are then to reforme themselves and Religion without the KING for the Word of GOD not the KINGS will is the Pastors rule in preaching and hee is to separate the pretious from the vile that hee may be as Gods Mouth Jeremy 15. 19. and Ezekiel 2. 7. Thou shalt speake my words unto them that was the Doctrine of Reformation not the KINGS words vers 8. But thou sonne of man heare what I say to thee yea Pastors are to preach against Kings and their sinnes 1 Kings 13. 1. 2. 3. Jer. 1. 18. Ier. 26. 10 11 12. Seventhly if no Reformation can be without the KING 1. People are not to turne to the Lord and repent thâ—m
of God and the wisedome of God to those who are saved is the Gospel preached by such as are sent both to preach and baptise but the Gospel preached by gifted men only out of office is not the Gospel preached by those who are sent both to preach and to baptise Ergo the Gospel preached by onely gifted persons voyd of all office is not the power and wisdom of God to those who are saved The assumption is granted for gifted men out of office may not lawfully baptise I prove the proposition 1 Cor. 1. 23. but wee preach Christ c. That this wee is to bee understood of those who are sent both to preach and baptise is cleare vers 17. But Christ sent mee not to baptise but to preach that is he sent mee not to baptise principally Ergo in one and the same Patent from heaven Paul was warranted to preach and to baptise as one commission is given Matth. 28. 19. to teach all Nations and to baptise yea it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then it is such a preaching as must bee backed with the sealing by baptisme also if he had meant that preaching was not peculiar to Apostles and other successors hee should have said But yet preach Christ crucified c. for Separatists do teach with Socinians that there was a multitude of unofficed Prophets at Corinth Robinson as if he had learned in Socinus his schoole saith to this But for the word sending which he so much urgeth it must bee knowne that all who teach lawfully are sent by Christ in respect of their personall gifts and graces so ordinary officers are not sent by those who appoint them to minister as was the extraordinary Apostles sent by Christ who appointed them Sending importeth a passeth of the sent from the sender to another and so the Apostles were sent by Christ to preach the Gospel to the Jewes and Gentiles and so are not Pastors sent by the Church which calleth them unto others but to minister unto her selfe after the exercise of publike ministery is ended the Church doe publikely exhort and require as the Rulers doe Paul and Barnabas Act 13. 14. that if they have any word of exhortation they would say on Answ. Surely Mr. Yates and wee both have much for us to urge the necessitie of sending except men would runne unsent and so be guilty of intrusion for so doth the Scripture Exod. 28. 1. Take to thee Aaron thy brother c. Numb 1. 49. Thou shalt appoint the Levits over the Tabernacle of the Testimony and over all the vessels and all that belongeth thereunto so saith Hezekiah to the Levites The Lord hath chosen you to stand before him and to minister unto him Esay 6. 8. And I heard the voyce of the Lord saying Whom shall I send and who shall goe for me 9. and hee said goe and say to this people Jerem. 1. 4. And the Word of the Lord came unto me saying v. 5. Hos. 1. 1. and the Word of the Lord came to me Heb. 1. 1. Joh. 1. 6. There was a man sent of God Luk. 3. 2. Matth. 10. 5. Those twelve Jesus sent forth Isa. 48. 16. Isa. 61. 1. Heb. 5. 4. Joh. 20. 21. Matth. 28. 19. Mark 16. 15. Rom. 11. 1. Rom. 1. 1. Gal. 1. 1. Act. 14. 13. Paul and Barnabas ordained Elders in every Church 1 Tim. 4. 14. 1 Tim. 5. 22. 2 â—im 2. 2 3. Tit. 1. 9 10. If you urge not sending you goe from the Scriptures 2. He saith all who lawfully teach are sent of God in respect of personall gifts But 1. where doth the holy Ghost speake so in the Scripture All then who have gifts to be Kings and Magistrates are sent of God to the throne and bench what bloody confusions would hence fellow Yea if they have gifts to bee Kings and do not all flie to the throne they resist the calling of God and sinne in so doing as Jonah did and hide their Lords Talent 2. Women in whose lipps is the Law of grace Prov. 31. 26. and who are to teach the younger women Tit. 2. 3. 4. are so sent of God to preach O but say they they are forbidden to preach I answer true then to be gifted to preach is not all one with this to bee sent to preach for to bee sent to preach of God is to be commanded to preach If then women bee sent in respect of gifts they are commanded to preach and that by God and yet Gods Word forbiddeth them to preach Ergo that same will of God revealed doth command and forbid one and the same thing which is absurd Ergo to be gifted is not to be sent to preach 3. You here clearely side with Arminians and Soâ—inians for Episcopius requireth no more to preaching but that the man bee idoneous and apt to teach And Theoph Nocolaides that there be in him an holy life and aptitudo ad docendum alios aptitude to teach others 4. Arminians and Socinians teach that the sending Rom. 10. 14. and other places are meant of extraordinary sending which is now ceased since the Apostles are dead So c Episcopius and Arminians in their confession Socinus Ostorodius expound the place Rom. 10. 14. Paulum de suo duntaxat tempore loqui and so there is no need of sending now and Robinson sympathizing with them saith Ordinary officers are not sent now by the Church as the Apostles were then sent of Christ but the professors of Leyden refuting the Arminians say there is a necessitie of sending now as there was then and Calvin Beza Paraeus accord to this that Paul speaketh of ordinary calling 4. The Word of God differenceth the giving of gifts to the ministery and the giving of authoritie and sending authoritative by a lawfull calling the one being collatio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the other 〈◊〉 as Matth. 10. 1. Then he called the twelve and gave them power and v. 5. their sending and gifting by authoritie is cleare these twelve he sent out So Jer. 1. 5. I have separated thee c. this is calling and sending v. 9. Then the Lord put forth his hand and touched my mouth this is a giving of gifts and Isa. 1. 1. Isaiah is gifted when he saw the visions of God but Chap. 6. 7. he is sent and receiveth authority to goe beside that v. 8 9. and Job 20. when Christ breathed upon the Disciples hee giveth them the gifts of the holy Spirit but when he saith Go and teach and as my father sent me so send I you he giveth them authoritie and sendeth them yea though Prophets did prophecie true things that should come to passe yet were they false Prophets Deâ—t 13. 1 2. because the Lord sent them not And for the place Rom. 10 14. cited from Isa. 52. though Prophets hearing Isaiah and Jeremiah prophecie of the peoples returne from Babylon should prophecy the same that Isaiah
and their doctrine judged by the Prophets now if such could erre our faith were not immediately builded upon the doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles Answ. This is before examined by me the consequence is null for the holy Spirit saith Pareus did not dite all things which the Prophets spake they might have mixed in some thing of their owne Robinson saith that Paul could not have said if any thinke himselfe to be a Prophet c. let such an one acknowledge that the thing I wrote are the commandements of the Lord if these had beene extraordinary Prophets they should have knowne Pauls writings undoubtedly to have beene the Canonick word of God and could not have beene ignorant thereof Answ. This presupponeth that these extraordinary Prophets might have beene ignorant that the Apostles commandements was the commandements of the Lord which is not absurd for Nathan and Samuel were ignorant of Gods will in some points for Prophets see and know sometimes as men and sometimes as Prophets in the former they may erre in the latter they are infallible He subjoyneth The word of God came it to you or came it from you if the word of God came after a sort to the Corinthians and not from them then were they not immediatly and extraordinarily inspired whereas indeed the Word of God came from the Apostles Answ. This proveth not the point for hee condemneth the arrogancie of some immediately inspired Prophets Came the word of God from you that is are yee above the Apostle to whom the word of God was committed that it may bee preached to all the world that it might come from the Apostles to others Or came it to you onely as to the only Apostolick teachers that you neede no admonition but hence it followeth not but they were extraordinarily inspired Prophets for Peter might be rebuked though an Apostle a chief one Neither is it any imputation to Paul or to any who hath received the Spirit in measure to be censured It is true Canonick doctrine as it is such cannot be censured but the teachers thereof though infallible even Paul Act. 17. 10 11. and every spirit is to bee tried whether they be of God or no 1 Joh. 3. 1. yea to say that the Church cannot be builded upon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles as Mr. Robinson saith pag. 68. if these Prophets extraordinary can erre or can bee subject to the censure and judgement of the Church is the very argument of Papists for they say that the Word of God borroweth authoritie quoad nos in respect of us from the Church and is to be beleeved because Peter Paul the Prophets and Apostles the then present Church say it is the Word of God So Stapleton as Whittakerne teacheth that Christ was the Sonne of God dependeth to our faith upon the testimony of John Baptist. See Bellarmine Gregorius de Valent. Gretser So three famous commentators say Jansenius Cardinalis Cajetan and Cardinalis Toletus But our Divines answer that the Word of God is true in it selfe and the authentick ground of our faith not because the Prophets and Apostles say it is the word of God not because Paul or an Angel from heaven saith it is so Gal. 1. 8. for even the Prophets and Apostles were but men and so their testimony not infallible but because God himselfe saith so See for this Rivetus Whittakerus Bucerus Calvinus yea and the Fathers most expressely say that the Prophets and Apostles are not the foundation of our faith nor their word because they were infallible but Gods word by their mouths and penne So Theaâ—â—â—lact Chrysostome Beda Ambrosius Occam and Gerson doe roundly acknowledge that their Popes word is not the foundation of faith quia Papa potest heretiâ—ari because the Pope may erre What because Samuel was deceived in calling Eliah the Lords annointed are not his bookes a part of canonick doctrine whereupon our faith is builded Lastly saith Robinson Pastors must preach and pray before they hee put in office otherwise they cannot bee trâ—ed if they bee apt to teach as they must be 1 Tim. 3. 2. Tit. 1. 9. It is decreed that all may preach Ministers Teachers Elders Deacons and if there beam ex ipsa plebe any of the common people who would imploy their gift for the good of the Church and it is practised in the Colledges where all must preach though they were never Priests Answ. 1. It is lawfull that these ayming at the office 2. Brought up in humane sciences 3. Called by the Church preach by way of tryall before they be admitted to the office but hence it cannot be concluded that tradesmen and artificersvoyd of learning and ignorant of the Scriptures should preach not for try all or as ayming at the office of the Ministery but as ordinary ministers of the conversion of soules to the faith and that without any calling of the Church either to the office or to the degree preparatorie to the office 2. All gifted should preach yea and in England ought to bee put in office where there is a reading ministery which Christ never ordained to bee in his house and this the harmony of confession and Synods teach and no more It is a fault that in Colledges all doe preach whether Christ hath called them or not such unsent runners Mr. Robinson cannot approve Ambrose saith at the beginning it was granted that all should preach and baptize that the Church might grow and Origen said the same But otherwise Hieronymus saith it is praesumptio temeritatis a rash presumption for any to preach who are not sent and Theophylact calleth them false Prophets Augustine will have them all to come before Christ and so to bee theeves and robbers who commeth not sent Sicut Moses Prophetâ— as Moses and the Prophets were sent Coachman saith if preaching be tyed to the ministery and that order there shall neither bee faith nor grace in a Church where there is no ministery Answ. It followeth not for faith may come by reading by conference and you expone Rom. 10. 14. As Arminians and Socinians doe 2. We as Embassadors pray you in Christs stead to be reconciled 2 Cor. 5. 20. Ephes. 4. 11. 1 Cor. 12. 29. Are all Prophets Ergo would you say no reconciliation in a land without apostolick Ambassadors It followeth not ex negatione unius medii for then there should be no grace nor salvation where there be none of your lay-Preachers Coachman Knowledge judgement utterance with gravitie authoritie power maketh a man a Minister whether he be in office or not Preaching is accidentall to the office and no part of the office but onely an ornament or appendix of it a Minister is in full office of the order of Priesthood though he never preach an office maketh not a Preacher it maketh him onely such
or any where in the which all the people did actually judge rule and command and so was meerely popular But the Word of God giveth a reall superiority to the Pastors and Church guides over the people in the Lord as Jer. 1. 10. So I have set thee this day over the Nations and over the Kingdomes to roote out and to pull downe and to destroy and to throw down to build and to plant here is a reall authority given to Jeremiah onely by his office of his prophecying without any power of the seales or sacrificing or judging or governing which was the part of the Tribe of Levi of which Tribe Jeremiah was not Matth. 10. v. 40. He who receiveth you receiveth me Luke 10. 16. He that heareth you heareth me he that despiseth you despiseth me and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me John 13. 20. 2 Cor. 10. 8. For though I should boast something of the authority which the Lord hath given us for edisication and not for your destruction I should not be ashamed 1 Cor. 4. 1. Let a man so account of us as of the Ministers of Christ and of the Stewards of the mysteries of God John 20. 23. Whose soever sinnes yee remit they are remitted and whose sinnes yee retaine they are retained 2 Cor. 5. 18. And he hath given to us the word of reconciliation 20. Now then wee are Ambassadours for Christ 1 Cor. 12. 28. And God hath set some in the Church first Apostles secondly Prophets c. Eph. 4. 11. And he gave some Apostles c. 1 Thes. 5. 12. And we beseech you brethren to know them which labour among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you Heb. 13. 17. Obey them that have the rule over you and submit your selves for they watch for your soules as they that must give an account Acts 20. 28. Take heed therefore unto your selves and to all the flocke over which the Lord hath made you Overseers to feed the Church of God which he hath purchased with his owne bloud 1 Pet. 5. 2. Feed the flock of God which is among you taking the over-sight thereof not by constraint c. 1 Tim. 3. 2. A Bishop then must be blamelesse c. 4. One that ruleth well his owne house c. 1 Tim. 5. 17. Let the Elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour v. 21. 28. 2 Tim. 2. v. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. Tit. 1. 9 10 11. 2. The Lord in his house putteth a difference betwixt the Feeders and the flocke the Governours and the governed those who are over the people in the Lord and those who are under them in the Lord the Overseers and Watchmen and the City over which they watch the Stewards and the family therefore there must be a peculiar authority in those who are Elders 3. The flock is to obey heare follow in the Lord to have the Elders in high estimation to submit to their doctrine to receive them as Christ Ergo some authority they must have 4. The Lord hath given to them an over-sight Act. 20. 28. and hath committed to them a ministery 2 Cor. 5. 15. hath put them in his worke and ministery 1 Tim. 1. 12. 5. God will seeke an account of the bloud of the lost at their hand Ezech. 3. 20. Heb. 13. 17. and God giveth a reward for the discharge of their office 1 Pet. 5. 4. 2 Tim. 4 8 Matth. 24. v. 45. 46. Ergo they must have a place of authority over the people which the people have not 6. The proportion betwixt the priesthood in the Old Testament and the ministery of reconciliation which is more excellent and glorious 2 Cor. 3. 7 8. requireth the same Now the Lord in a peculiar manner choosed the Tribe of Levi Deut. 33. 8 9. Esay 52. 11. Num. 3. 12. v. 45. ch 8. v. 6. Separate the Levites to me ch 18. 23. Josh. 3. 3. 1 Chron. 15. 2. Josh. 14. 3. 8. But let our Author speake what peculiar authority or what singular acts of authority are due to the Elders above the people The Church saith he exerciseth severall acts of authoritie over the Elders 1. In calling and electing them to office and ordaining them in defect of the Presbytery I answer 1. Calling and electing are not to be confounded electing is no act of authority but that the people calleth and ordaineth the Elders wanteth example in the word of God and therefore the Author addeth that the people ordaineth the Elders in defect of their Presbytery that is where there is no Presbytery then in case of extraordinary necessitie and where the Church is not constituted they are to ordaine the Elders but in a Constitute Church the power of ordination is in the Presbytery Ergo ordinarily the people doe not exercise this authoritie over the Elders 2. The Church of beleevers saith the Author sendeth forth the Elders for the publick service of the Church as the whole Church of Jerusalem sent forth chosen Ministers with letters of instruction to Antioch and to other Churches Act. 15. 22. Now the Ambassadour is not greater then he that sent him but usually inferiour Joh. 13. 16. Answ. 1. I deny not but a Church of beleevers in the least Congregation is greater then any Pastor or number of Pastors as they are such for the Pastors are servants for the Church and meanes for the end and lesse and inferior in respect of Christian dignity but this is not the point wee doe not now dispute of Christian dignitie one redeemed soule in that respect is of more worth then a thousand Pastors as they are but meere Pastors but because the Church sendeth the Elders the Elders are a part and a great part of the visible Church which also send themselves but it proveth not the Peoples Church authority as they are contradistinguished from Elders to be superior and above the authority of Elders for here the comparison must not be betwixt one or two Elders and the Church including all the people and the rest of the Elders but the comparison is betwixt spece and spece the office and dignitie and authoritie of the Elders as Elders and the people as people and the Church of Jerusalem was not a Parishionall but a Presbyteriall Church consisting of many Elders and Congregations now we deny not two Elders to be inferior in authoritie to the whole Colledge of Elders and people and so there is no authoritie of the people above the Elders from this proved 2. Morton answereth Papists in the like argument that sending proveth onely that those who are sent are not superiors to those who sent them for the Father sent his Sonne into the world 3. Saith the Author if an Elder or a whole Eldership erre the Church may call him or them to account and in case of obstinacie excommunicate them for it is not reason that Elders should want the medicine of excommunication to save their soules
if they stand in need thereof more then other As Peter gave an account Act. 11. to the Church of Jerusalem of his going in to the uncircumoised Answ. 1. If a warrant or example from the word that one single company of sole beleevers wanting Elders did in a Church way censure any one Pastor or a whole Eldership and that the Church of Jerusalem consisting onely of beleevers without Elders called Peter before them judicially to give an account of going in to the uncircumcised is a dreame and though Peter should have given satisfaction to a number of sole beleevers to remove the scandall it proveth not that they had authoritie over Peter for one private offender is obliged to give an account and a satisfaction to another private brother whom he hath offended Matth. 18. 15. yet hath not a brother Church authoritie over one another to excommunicate him as our brethren say that a company of onely private beleevers may excommunicate all the Elders of the Congregation 2. It followeth not that Elders should want the medicine of excommunication when they stand in need thereof because the people may not excommunicate them for there be others who of office should excommunicate and also the want of a meane of salvation as the want of baptisme where such are wanting as have the onely Church power to administer such means doth not condemn men On the other side saith the Author the Elders have rule over the Church and that in sundry Acts as 1. in calling together the Church upon any weighty occasion Act. 6. 2. Answ. 1. This power of conveening the multitude cannot bee the power of governing Gods house spoken of 2 Tim. 3 4 5. Tit. 1. 5. to obey those who watch for our soules Heb. 13. 17. cannot bee to conveene to a Church meeting at their commandement 2. To conveen the Church meeting or Synods is an action of the whole Church for Christ hath given power to his owne Church an ecclesiastick power to conveen her owne Courts and this can no more be a peculiar act of authoritie agreeing onely to the Elders or to a Pastor then the act of excommunication for it is given to all the faithfull by your owne grounds 1 Cor. 5. 4. 1 Cor. 11. 18 1 Cor. 14. 23. how then is it a peculiar act of auhoritie in the Elders 1. The Elders if they bee to bee accused and censured are they to conveen the Judicatory as the Consull did conveen the Senate and to summon themselves also if they have any power to conveen the Church it is but delegated for orders sake to them by the Church Ergo this authoritie is principally and first in the Church and so it is no authoritie peculiar to the Elders also if it be but a thing of meere order it is not an act of jurisdiction over the Church a Moderator who conveeneth the Synod or a Consul who conveenth the Senat have not in that jurisdiction or authoritie over the Synod or Senat and may the Elders hinder I pray you the conveening of the Church I thinke not 3. This is but a Popish argument Pope Julius the third in his Bull taketh this upon him to conveene Councells The Cardinall de Monte President for the Pope gave leave by a speciall Bull from the Pope to the Councell of Trent to advise about the translating of the Councell from Trent to Bonony And Good Bellarmine and Harding as Jewell teacheth us make this a part of the transcendent power and authoritie of the Pope over the Church to conveen the Church Catholick and if it bee an act of authoritie over the Church to conveene the Church farre more must it bee in the Pope to conveene the Catholick Church Lastly this power in Elders should bee made good by the Word of God Secondly saith hee their authority over the Church is in opening the doores of speech and silence to any of the Assembly Act. 13. 13. unlesse it be where the Elders themselves lie under offence or suspition then the offended party may begin with them Act. 11. 2. Yet with due reverence observed as to their yeares so to their place 1 Tim. 5. 3. Answ. If to speake first in a Church meeting prove that the Elders have authority over the Church then one Elder hath authority over all the rest of the Elders and must be a little Pope or a great Prelate for two or foure Elders cannot all speake first We seeke now an act of authority due to Elders or Pastors as they are such and above the people if you make this an act of authority you then give us in every Church-meeting and Synod a Pastor of Pastors and an Elder of Elders and a Pope 2. If this be an act of authority over the Church then have Papists well proven that Peter hath an authority and power over all the Church for Suarez and Bellarmine and Harding prove Peter to be a Pope because he speaketh first in the councell Act. 13. 13. and the text that you cite they cite also But Whittakerus and Gerson saith as also Lyran and Carthusian It is like that James spake first as President of the Councell 3. The Author leaveth this act of authority as weake and saith that the offended party may speake first Ergo say I to speake first is not an authoritative act of Pastors as Pastors agreeing to them by vertue of their office seeing this act is communicated to those who are out of office Ergo they have not shewen as yet any Pastorall act of office due to the Elders as Elders and if it were most convenient that Elders should first speake our brethren will not say that it is due to them by their office but for their age and gifts and so they say nothing Thirdly saith the Author Elders have rule over the Church in preaching the word and they have power to teach and exhort to charge and command to reprove and rebuke with all authoritie 1 Tim. 5. 7. and 6. 17. 2 Thes. 3. 6. Answ. It can not be denied but Elders that is preaching Elders or Pastors have authoritie over the people in preaching and rebuking with all authoritie but 1. I aske at our brethren by what authoritie of the Scripture is pastorall binding and loosing an authoritative act of the preaching Elder onely for the concionall or preaching power of remitting and retaining sinnes Joh. 20. 21. is all one with the power of the keyes Matth. 16. and that is given saith our brethren to the whole Church and by these texts are not restricted to Pastors as they expone them 2. Our brethren alledge there is a two-fold power of preaching in Pastors one by vertue of their gift another by vertue of their office By the first Pastors doe preach to Infidels Turkes and unconverted ones now this preaching is not proper to Pastors as Pastors nor is it any authority peculiar to Pastors over all the flocke for
all gifted persons as our brethren teach may preach and so the gifted ones amongst the people have authority over the Pastors in this meaning as well as the Pastors have over them and so the difference of rulers and ruled of feeders and the fed is taken away Now for the power of Pastorall teaching the Pastors have authority over the Church but that is over the invisible Church of beleevers and regenerated persons for Pastors as Pastors doe not convert Soules and so they preach to the unconverted not as Pastors or with any Pastorall care for they teach that Pastors Doctors and Church-officers are given Ephes. 4. 11. onely for confirming of those who are already converted not for converting of Soules and by this meanes 1. Pastors doe not preach the Law for the humbling of unconverted sinners they doe not as Pastors or by vertue of the office open the eyes of the blinde nor are they Ministers by whom men beleeve 1 Cor. 3. 5. nor are they Fathers who begot men in Christ Jesus through the Gospell as 1 Cor. 4. 25. Nor doe they pray men in Christs stead to be reconciled unto God as 2 Cor. 5. 20. Which is strange and uncouth Doctrine of our brethren for all these acts ministeriall are performed upon non-converts who are not properly members of Christs mysticall body nor of the spouse of Christ nor members of the visible Church nor the Sonnes and Daughters of the Lord God Almighty nor have some measure of sincerity and truth as this author Chap. 3. Sect. 3. requireth of members of the visible Church and these are not under any pastorall care really and in very deed who are yet unconverted to the faith therefore the Pastor if hee convert any by his preaching he doth it by vertue of his gift not as a Pastor or by vertue of his office as they teach in their answer to the 32. questions so as Pastors they have no authoritie over the unconverted within the visible Church and this authoritative act of Elders over the people falleth to the ground by their principles 3. This authoritative preaching doth not yet make over to the Elders authoritative power above or over the people such as wee now seeke For 1. By this ruling Elders who do not preach and labour not in the Word and doctrine 1 Tim. 7. 17. by office have not this power Ergo yet you give no peculiar authoritie to the whole Eldership over the people 2. The Spirit of God requireth an authority of overseeing and governing to bee in Pastors beside the authoritative power of preaching for besides that a Bishop should bee â—apt to teach 1 Tim. 3. 2. hee must also v. 4 5 6. bee one who can both govern his own house and also the Church of God and not onely must hee not neglect the gift of prophecying 1 Tim. 4. 14. but also hee must know 1 Tim. 3. 13. how to behave himselfe in the Church of God and must bee circumspect in receiving accusations against an Elder and lay hands suddenly on no man and not be partaker of other mens sinnes 1 Tim. 5. 19. 22. he must not onely bee an approven workman to divide the Word aright 1 Timothey 2. 15. and preach in season and out of season 2 Tim. 4. 2. but also must commit the Word to faithfull men who are able to teach others 2 Tim. 2. 2. All which are singular points of authoritative power of government different from authoritative power of teaching And so Titus must not onely have the oversight by sound doctrine to exhort and convince the gainesayers Tit. 1. 9. but hee hath power in governing to order the things of discipline and to appoint Elders in every citie Tit. 1. 9. Act. 4. 23. yea there is an oversight in watching for soules in governing no lesse then in teaching Hâ—b 13. 17. Now this Author sheweth us nothing that is a peculiar authoritative power in ruling governing and a disciplinary overseeing of soules which the Word giveth to Elders as they are Elders and called Governors of Gods people as yet yea all the people are governors rulers and overseers in government by them no lesse then the Elders 4. The Author saith Elders have rule over the Church in dispensing all the censures of the Church unlesse it bee in their owne cause for though they take the consent of the Church in dispensing a censure yet they set on the censures with great authoritie in the name of the Lord yea it is no small power that they put forth in directing the Church what censures are due according to the word as though the Judge dispense no sentence but according to the verdict of the Jury yet his authority is great both in directing the Jury to give their verdict according to the Law and in pronouncing the sentence with power and terrour the like dâ—e the Elders in dispensing Church censures Answ. This dispensing of Church censures hath two branches 1. A directing of the Church in the qualitie of the censures 2. A binding of the censures upon them or in executing the censures of the Church For the former if it bee a pastorall direction it is all one with preaching of the Word and is not an act of authority by way of governing but by way of pastorall teaching But 1. Wee would have a word from God giving this power of the keyes peculiarly to the Pastors for if you give the keyes to all the Church of beleevers as beleevers and because they are Christs Spouse his mysticall body the habitation of his Spirit by faith then with your good leave there bee neither keyes nor any power of the keyes given to the Pastors as Pastors and in respect of their office but onely as they are a part of Christs body now as Pastors or Elders they are neither beleevers nor the bride nor a part of the bride but at best the friends of the Bridegroome Joh. 3. 29. especially seeing the Church as the Church and as using actually the keyes doth censure and judicially prescribe the qualitie and quantitie of the censure as they are directed Matth. 18. 1 Cor. 5. 2 3 4 5. yea and the Church judicially and authoritatively pronounceth the sentence and maner of the censure on the sentence for example of ten collaterall and coequall Judges if two of these ten bee skilled Juristes and shall direct the rest in the qualitie of the punishment to bee inflicted upon a malefactor that direction commeth from them not as Judges over the rest nor by any peculiar power that they have above the rest seeing all the ten are equally and joyntly Judges of a like power but that direction commeth from them as skilled Jurists So here though the Elders direct the Church anent the qualitie of the censure they doe not this by an authority above the Church seeing the Church with them have received the Keyes yea they principally as the Spouse of Christ and his mysticall body have received the keyes and
the Pastoes and Elders as such have the keyes not but as they are beleevers and a part of the mysticall body but as they are Pastors and Elders they have not received the keyes at all by our brethrens doctrine yea as Elders or officers they are not parts of the Church but onely adjuncts and ornaments thereof For the second to wit the execution of the censures of the Church if they doe it as Pastors and by vertue of their office execute the sentence of the Church as Pastors they are meere servants of the Church not collaterall Judges with the Church and are not as the Judge who doth direct the Jury for the Jury doth only cognosce of the fact but hath no judiciall power to pronounce the sentence or discerne the qualitie of the punishment nor can the Jury at all discerne any punishment But the Judge cognosceth both of the Law and the fact and authoritatively pronounceth sentence but the Elders have no authoritative power in directing the people to pronounce or not pronounce the sentence or what sentence to pronounce or what censure to inflict for if they have this authoritative power then we seeke Scripture to warrant this power 2. The Elders must then have the keyes in a more emminent manner then the people or Church of beleevers so all bee but blanke and emptie titles given to Elders hitherto Fiftly saith the Author The Elders have power to dismisse the people or Church and that with a blessing Numb 6. 23. to 26. which is an act of seperioritie Heb. 7. 7. An. This is but an emptie title also For 1. The Pastoronly one dismisseth Doctor Elders Deacons and the whole Congregation and so one is a Pastor of Pastors and an Arch-Elder of Elders hath authority by this over his fellow Elders and candismisse them therefore there is nothing peculiar in an officiall power here to the whole presbytery above the people 2. A majority or superioritie is one thing and a power of jurisdiction is another Blessing of the Church at their dismission is nothing but a prayer of the whole Church the Minister being mouth who blesseth all and is no act of superioritie of jurisdiction or power of the keyes of which wee now dispute And you cannot thinke that to obey those who are over you in the Lord and submit to them as it is Heb. 13. 17. is nothing but to receive a dismissory blessing from the Pastor And I much doubt if the Priests blessing of the people Numb 6. was morall and if it was not typicall hee not taking in himselfe but as a type of Christ pronouncing the whole visible Church blessed sorypifying Christ our Priest in whom all the nations of the earth are blessed Gal. 38. 14. And do not the people pay the Pastor home in his owne coyne for you make the Church of beleevers to ordaine their owne Elders and to lay hands upon them and blesse them so you teach 3. Nor is dismissing of the Church an act of authoritie or of officiall power for your preaching and unofficed professors may dismisse as well as they may publikely pray and preach 2. A dismission is agreed upon by the Church before hand and floweth from the nature of all publike meetings 3. Ejusdem est potestatis congregare dimittere caetum congregatum you know to conveene Christs Courts authoritatively is due to no man on earth the Church hath an intrinsecall power of herselfe to conveene being the Court of the Lord Jesus and so also to dissolve and this is the usurped power that the Antichrist taketh to himselfe to conveene the generall councells as Bellarmin Suarez Pighius and Cajetanus teach us Sixtly our Author saith In case of Apostasie of the Church or other notorious scandals or obstinacie thereof their Elders have power to denounce the judgement of God against the Church and withdraw themselves from it As upon the Idolatry of the Israeliâ—es Moses tooke the Tabernacle and pitched it without the camp Exod. 33. And Paul with Barnabas rejected the Jewes for their blasphemy and turned to the Gentiles Act. 13. 45 46. Answ. Here be two diverse things sewed together to make up one thing 1. to denounce the judgement of God is one thing 2. to separate from the Church is another thing the former is an act of authoritie being rightly taken the latter is an act of no authoritie But for the first to denounce judgement on a visible Church and that with a separation is â— nothing but an act of Pastorall teaching and so no act of officiall power of governing in the Elders above the Church is brought in all these six and so yet the difference betwixt the feeders and the fed the shepheards and flocke the watchman and the citie or the people who are to submit and obey these who are over them in the Lord who rule well is close everted and all the Churches are turned masters feeders governors rulers for Elders have no officiall authoritie by our brethrens doctrine which is not in the Church of beleevers 2. To denounce judgement to an Idolatrous and obstinate Church who by their Apostasie do declare themselves not to bee Christs body is a Pastorall act of Pastors exercised on those who now leave off to be Churches and this is to play the Pastors to that which is not a flocke and as unlawfull as for a husband to exercise the actions of a husband to one who is not his wife 3. To separate from an obstinate Church is by you thought lawfull to all private Christians who would not defile themselves with the pollutions of the Church how then do you make it an authoritative act of ruling Pastors 4. For Pastors to remove the Gospell and preach no more to an obstinate Church is not nor can it in reason be that wherein wee are to submit and obey those who are over us in the Lord. My reason is we are to be agents at least for most part in submitting and yeelding our selves to those who in teaching and governing are over us in the Lord because they watch for our soules But in their separating from us and removall of the Gospel wee are meere patients and cannot be agents 5. Moses his removall of the Tabernacle and Paul his turning from the Jewes was by another spirits warrant then Pastors now a dayes can dare to remove themselves and their Ministery from a visible Church for Paul turned from the Jewes for their universall Apostasie blasphemy and opposing of the maine and principall foundation of the Christian faith to wit that Christ Jesus came in the world died for sinners rose againe and ascended to heaven c. The 4. case to wit of any particular scandall or scandals and of obstinacie therein cannot bee the like ground for Elders to separate from a Church and never preach the Gospel againe to them CHAP. 6. SECT 1. Of communion of sister Churches amongst themselves I Here bee seven wayes saith
Minister cannot administer the Lords Supper to any but his owne flocke see you to this 6. If the sister Church lie under any offence you will not admit any of their members to the Lords Supper though these members be of approven piety and why What a separation is this What if these members do not consent to that offence as some of the godly in Corinth might be humbled and mourne that the Church did not cast out the incestuous person shal they be debarred by you from the seales because they separate not from that infected lump the Apostle alloweth communicating so that every one examine himselfe 1 Cor. 11. 21. 30. with drunken persons and where many were stricken of God with death and diverse diseases as eating and drinking their owne damnation 7. You looke at the Lords Supper as a seale of communion with all the Churches of the Saints What communion meane you invisible no. You deny that the seales are given to the invisible Church and the members thereof but to the visible Church as you say If you meane a visible communion of all the visible Churches of the Saints why then brother doe you call the universall visible Church a Chimera or a dreame as you say and if all the visible Churches have a visible communion it is to deny Christs wisdome and care of his Church to deny the lawfulnesse of a Oecumenick and generall councell of all the Churches of the Saints We recommend saith the Author Brethren for a time to other Churches as Paul recommended Phoebe to the Church of Rome Rom. 16. 1. 2. or we give letters dismissorie to such as are for ever to reside in another congregation but members are not to remove from their congregation but upon just and weighty reasons made knowne and allowed by the whole Church for wee looke at our Church Covenant as an everlasting Covenant Jerem. 50. v. 5. And therefore though it may be resigned and translated from one Church to another as Gods hand shall direct yet it is not to be violated and rejected by us if members cut off themselves by excommunication it is their owne fault if any upon light reasons be importunately desirous to remove the Church is to use indulgence as not willing to make the Church of God a prison but often the hand of God in poverty and scandall followeth such and driveth them to returne when a person recommended by letters commeth to another congregation the Church by lifting up their hands or by silence receive him if he â—e altogether unknowne and doubted of because the Church may erre be is not received till due triall be taken of him Answ. We see not how letters of recommendation most lawfull as we judge and necessary can resigne ministeriall power a liberty bought with Christs bloud as you say to any other Church for we think all the visible Churches are one Catholike visible Church and should have a visible communion and so that there is no resignation of ministeriall power in these letters but they are declaratory of the Christian behaviour of the dismissed Christian. We aske if dimissory letters be authoritative and done by the Church as the Church and how can a Church usurp authority by your way over a sister Church to recommend a sojourner to a Church state and Church liberties and seales of the Covenant one Church hath no authority over another If these letters be meerely private and meerely declaratory to manifest and declare the sojourners Christian behaviour only then he had power and right without these letters or any act of resignation or giving away ministeriall power to be a Church-member of the visible Church to the which he goeth Ergo he was a member of the visible Church to which he goeth before the dimissory letters were written and the letters doe resigne no right but onely notifie and declare the sojourners preexistent right and so there is a visible Church and a visible communion of all congregations on earth and most be an externall power and authority in all for Synods Let our brethren see to this 3. The person to remove must be dismissed and loosed by the consent of the whole congregation it conveniency permit else he is not exonered of his Church-oath made to that congregation What if conveniency doe not permit then is he loosed from an oath without consent of the Church which did by oath receive him I thinke ejuâ—dem pâ—testatis est as the Law saith ligare solvere that Church power which bindeth must loose 4. If the Church-Covenant be an everlasting Covenant as Jer. 50. 5. tying the man to the membership of that particular congregation for ever I see not how the Church can use indulgenees and Pope-like dispensations against the oath of God to breake it upon light and frivolous reasons for if God punish Covenant breaking so also should the Church and can by no indulgence be accessory to the breach of Gods oath there is too great a smell of Popery Arminianisme and Socinianisine in this way in my weake judgement But if the man be not sworne a member of that particular Church by his oath he is sworne a member of the visible Church universall which our brethren cannot well say Neither is any Covenant called an everlasting Covenant in the Scripture but the Covenant of grace Jer. 31. 33. c. 32. 40. Isa. 54. 9 10. and that is made with the invisible Catholike Church of beleevers as is the Covenant Jer. 50. 5. and not a Covenant with one visible congregation and what warrant hath the Church to dispense with the breach of such an everlasting Covenant 5. The testimony of other Churches if it be a warrant to you in faith to receive into the Church such a one as a Saint and a Temple of the holy Spirit how should it not also be a warrant to you to cast out and excommunicate also 6. The person comming from another Church if of approven piety is received by lifting up of the hands or silence of the Church as you say 1. Have we a warrant from Gods word for such a new inchurching 2. Why is he not received by a Church oath as a Minister transplanted to another Church must have ordination and election of new for to you there is alike reason 3. If there be no need of a new Church oath to make him a member of that visible Congregation seeing now he is loosed from the former you inâ—inuate his former Church-oath did make him a member of a visible Church and so â—e that is a visible member in a Church is a visible member of all and so there must be a visible Church-Catholike if there be a Catholike visible membership in any one member and so you destroy what you build Manuscr 16. A third way of Communion with other Churches saith the Author is by seeking their helpe and presence 1. In admitting of members 2. In case of differences of judgments 3. In
bee sometimes physice impossible because of the corruption of mans nature there being bloody warres in Christendome yet it is morally lawfull for many things may bee inconvenient through mans wickednesse and so hic nunc not expedient which are morally lawfull 2. Conclusion Every particular Pastor hath a power though unproper of dominion and authoritie even out of a Synod about the Acts of preaching and determining truth according to the word of God as Jer. 1. 10. See I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdomes c. 1 Tim. 6. 17. Charge them that are rich that they bee not high minded c. 2 Tim. 4. 1. I charge thee before God and the Lord Jesus Christ who shall judge the quick and the dead c. So any Pastor hath power of dominion and authoritie over a Synod and Paul as a Pastor might preach even before the councell at Jerusalem passed their Synodicall determination Act. 15. that circumcision was not necessary and that to obstaine from things strangled from blood and fornication was necessary and lawfull yea and in preaching truth the Pastor is subject to no Synod But the Pastor hath not full power of jurisdiction about his acts of preaching necessary truth 1. Because the Church may for just causes deprive him from preaching 2. Because hee cannot use the censure of excommunication against those who refuse to receive his true and necessary doctrine without the Church joyne her power of jurisdiction with him 3. He his alone cannot in a Synod determine ecclesiastically and in an authoritative Church power that same truth which as a Pastor hee determined and with the power of pastorall dominion hee pressed upon the consciences of the Church yea of the whole Synod because one man is not the Church or Synod and James his alone Act. 15. v. 15. could but say Wherefore my sentence is that yee trouble not them which from among the Gentiles are turned unto God though this was the very word of God which James as a Pastor even as an ordinary Pastor might have preached in the name of God yet is it not the decree of the Church which the Churches is to keep Act. 16. 4. while it bee determined by the Church An example wee may have possible not unlike to this A man hath a power of dominion over his owne proper lands and goods to use them in God for his owne use but the supreme magistrate and Parliament hath a dominion of jurisdiction in a judiciall sentence over those same lands to forfeit them for crimes committed against King and State or this may cleare it Samuel hath a power immediately from God to annoint David King and in this hee is not subject to the suffrages of the tribes of Israel hee hath a power of dominion here but suppose wee that Samuel live till Gods time when all Israel shall crowne David King at Hebron Samuel as a part of the Assembly of Israel his alone without the suffrages of Israel could not make him King at Hebron Hence wee may see how weake the assertion of our brethren is who say That Synods should have power to bind the Churches say they wee see not Bellarmine indeed holdeth so But orthodox writers hold that the sentence of councels is but a certaine inquisition of the truth and a ministeriall and limited sentence so that the decree of a councell is of as great force as the reason thereof so saith Amesius and Junius But certainly this is a meer mistake of our brethren as if they were not orthodox writers but conspirers against the truth with Bellarmine who hold the authoritie of Synods The essentiall end to speak so of Synods is unitie and the eschewing of schisme and wee doubt not but Peter Paul James had in their Sermons and doctrine determined that same veritie to wit that the Law of Moses and ceremonies was a yoak not to bee laid upon the Christian Churches yet it was not a decree for unities sake and fuller authoritie binding the Churches to observe these as Act. 16. 4. while it was determined in a Synod Act. 5. 24. 25. But truely wee hold nothing in this common with Jesuites and Papists for wee condemne not that in Bellarmine that hee holdeth that lawfull Synods for of such wee dispute with him do bind the Churches to obedience in God to their decrees not because they say it but because they say it authoritatively from Gods Word authoritie of Synods no orthodox writers deny authoritie officiall as the representative Church of Christ they have He that heareth you heareth mee hee that despiseth you despiseth me Where two or three are gathered together in a Synod say our Divines I will bee amongst them But authoritie objective they have not so as what they say because they say it therefore the very matter object and thing said by them is no lesse the Word of God then if the Prophets and Apostles by divine inspiration had said it at least it is not infallibly true because they say it for that wee disclaime and it is that authoritie of Synods which Bellarmine and Papists hold Councells saith Bellarmine and Scripture are both infallible and the Jesuits of Rhemes and Lorinus the Jesuite said councells are infallible the holy Spirit is there present Gratian said all the decretall Epistles of Popes and the Canons of the Councells are of equall authoritie with the Scriptures and their Gregorius said hee received with the same reverence and authoritie the foure generall Councells the foure Evangelistâ— it is certaine saith Suarez that a Councell is an infallible rule of faith and Turrecremata saith the same It is certaine saith Bailius Councells are â—â— the Oracles of God to us in difficulties so saith Cajetanus Canus and Gregorius de Valentia wee hold the authoritie of Councels but ascribe to them as much power over the conscience as there is reason in them from Gods Word and no more But 2. This is a weake reason councels have no power to command obedience because their Canons and Decrees are of no more force then they have reason from Gods Word For 1. Friends brethren equals by that have no warrant to rebuke because their rebukes have but as much force as they have reason from the word of God for the reason is alike in both lawfull Pastors cannot command obedience in the Lord your independent Congregations cannot command that which bindeth the Church to obedience because the word or a commandement of a Pastor or your independent Church is onely a commandement ministeriall and limited and hath as much force as there is reason in it from the Word of God yea the Church of Corinâ—h hath not then the power of the Lord Jesus to excommunicate the incestuous person nor the Church of Thyatira to cast out and condemne Jezabell the false prophetesse nor do these commandements of the Synod
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
review of the councell of Trent saith gravely It is but a theating of Christâ—ndome above board to leave the judgement of the necessitie of generall councells to the Popes will and no marvell then Popes decline councells for the councell of Pisan as Bellarmine granteth was convocated against Julius the second that wicked man and therefore was rejected by Julian the second in the councell of Lateran yet this councell and all the decrees thereof was approven and confirmed by Alexander the first who was accounted lawfull Pope and b Platina faith this councell was approved and that in it Gregory 12. and Benet 13. were deprived of their papall dignitie all nations assenting except neither Spaine the King of Scotland and Earle of Arminac who followed Pope Benet and for approbation of the councells of Pise Constance and Basil which censured Popes and deprived them and subjected them to a generall councell let any man read the Review of the Councell of Trent and Bellarmine is therein fully consuted Also generall councells have condemned the doctrine of the Church of Rome for which they thinke them not necessary as the councell of Frankford saith Bellarmine and Basil and Constance are not approved in all because they favour not the Roman Churches doctrine and the Popes supremacy above Councells yea and generall councells cannot bee simply necessary saith hee because the Catholick Church remained safe the first three hundreth yeers after Christ without generall councells and might have remained safe other three hundreth yeers and so a thousand yeers and faults may bee amended by the Lawes of Popes and by provinciall councells saith hee and their Costerus saith the Pope him selfe without councells hath condemned many heresies and this is a shorter and more compendious way then by councells for it is hard and laborious to conveene councells therefore the Churches salvation doth not depend upon them saith Bellarmine yea it is in vaine saith the Jesuit Pererius to doe that by many which may as conveniently bee done by fewer he meaneth councels may be wanted Our brethren rejecting councells and their necessitie at all in this sideth with Papists Though Calvin saith Nullum esse nec melius nec certius remedium that there is no better nor surer remedy to find out the truth then a Synod of true Pastors And Arminians and Socinians thinke that Synods are neither necessary nor profitable for as our brethren here give no authoritie to Synods but to counsell and advise the very same is taught by a grand Arminian Episcopius who saith Synods are not profitable for the establishing the truth or rooting out of errors and heresies but onely to advise sist examine and by reasons and arguments to perswade and therefore are not profitable either for the being or for the well being of the Church Synodici conventus nec ad â—esse nec ad bene esse ecclesiae absolute necessarii sunt ad veritatis divinae stabilimentum hereseon errorumque averruns itionem vel exstirpationem eo tantum casu utiles esse statuimus si ad deliberandum ventilandum examinandum rationibus argumentisque persuadendum congregentur litium finem facere circa religionis capita aliter quam persuadendo est tyrannidem in ecclesiam invehere libertatem conscientiarum si non omnino tollere saltem vehementer astringere ligare To â—nd controversies in the Church any otherwise then by perswading is to bring in a tyranny in the Church of Christ and to hurt if not altogether to evert the libertie of consciences of men And the Arminians in their Apologie teach us that a decision or a determination of a Synod obligeth not those who were not present at the making of that decision And so have I shown from Answorth and our brethrens doctrine that they teach people cannot assent without tyranny of consciences to the decrees of the Elders at the making whereof they were not present and present consenters 2. A Synods decision doth incline the mind to consider of the decision but doth not compell authoritatively to consent and obey 3. This is violence to the conscience 4. To setch expositions of the word from confessions of faith or decrees of councells is dangerous and this is the doctrine of Socinians for Theophil Nicolaides saith the Church in a Synod cannot decide controversies because shee may erre neither can shee take them away for that were to doe violence to mens consciences and Smalcius saith this were tacite quietly to leave the writings of the Apostles and commend humane traditions So our brethren give nothing but a power of counselling and morall perswading to Synods and no authoritie to command because say they in their answers to the 32. questions Synods may erre and their decrees have no more force then they fetch reason from Gods Word and truely our brethren with Socinians and Arminians here do fall in many foule errors For 1. all preaching of the Word and all power of authoritie of Pastors commanding in the name of the Lord faith and obedience is onely morall and to perswade and not authoritative to command because Pastors may as well erre in preaching as the Church may erre in Synods 2. Because what Pastors preach hath no more force over the conscience then they have warrant to speake from the Word of God as is cleare Ezek. 3. 7. Gal. 1. 9. 1 Thess. 2. 13. 2. All confessions of faith that are set downe by lawfull Synods are null 3. Libertie of prophecying and a Cassandrian licence of beleeving in things controverted any thing in this or on that side is lawfull 4. A perpetuall doubting of conscience except in two or three points fundamentall that all Christians beleeve yea and all hereticks is brought in in the Church 5. The Lords working with the word preached is but by way of morall perswasion 6. But our Divines hold the authoritie of Synods and of Pastors preaching the Word from the Scriptures but I find both our brethren and Arminians do misken the authority of the Church and of Pastors in both Preaching and Synods for they thinke to set up the authoritie of Synods is to cast downe the authoritie of the Scriptures because things to bee distinguished are confounded for wee deny that Synods or Pastors have peremptory absolute and illimited authoritie and power to determine as they please in Sermons and Synods their Power is limited according to the Word of God and their word is onely to bee beleeved in so farre as it is agreeable to the Word of God but hence it followeth not that Pastors and Synods have no power and authoritie at all to determine but onely to counsell advise and perswade for private Christians our equalls and inferiours have power to counsell perswade and advise in a private way by teaching admonishing exhorting rebuking conference They build upon the reproving of events of councells by
plant soules who were non-converts and branches of the wild olive in Christ Jesus and to make new visible Churches but it is certaine that the Apostles as Apostles and as Pastors by vertue of their office converted obstinate sinners to the faith of Christ and planted them in a visible Church consisting of professors of the faith partly converted partly not converted but the pastors by your doctrine have no power as Pastors or by any Pastorall authoritie to plant the Gospell where it hath never beene that pastorall spirit is dead with the Apostles and in this contrary to all reason and sense and contrary to the Scriptures you make private Christians the successors of the Apostles to plant Churches and to convert soules and to make them fit materialls for the visible Church of regenerate persons for Pastors as Pastors and visible Churches as visible Churches doe nothing at all to the multiplying of Churches seeing Pastors and visible Churches as they are such by your doctrine are but nurses to give suck to those who are already converted but not fathers to convert them for private Christians or pastors as Christians gifted to prophesie not as Pastors doe multiply Churches and convert men to Christ as you teach now wee all know that nurses as nurses doe not propagate or by generation multiply people in the Common-wealth that fathers and mothers onely can doe your Churches have no ministeriall breasts but to give suck to babes who are already borne but wee see by your doctrine no ministeriall power of Pastors or Churches to send forth members to enter in a Church covenant or to enter in a new Church relation of a daughter or a sister visible Church if they send a number to bee a new Church your Pastors or visible Church did not multiply them it is presumed they were converts before they were members of the visible Church which now sendeth them out and if they bee multiplied in the bosome of your visible Church and converted they were not truely members of that visible Church before their conversion and also that they were not converted by any publike ministery but by private Christians gifted to prophesie who are the onely successors of the Apostles to plant visible Churches but what pastorall authoritie have you to send them forth to bee a new visible Church none at all they have as beleevers power to remove from you and because of multiplication to make themselves a new Church and this ministeriall power of making themselves a new Church they have not from you but from their fathers who converted them so that you make a visible Church within a visible Church but not a Church begotten or borne of a visible Church as a child of the mother and wee desire a word of God either precept promise or practise of such a Church multiplication mans word is not enough 2. Wee hold that the sending of the Apostles to all the world was not in it selfe that which essentially distinguisheth the Apostle from the now ordinary Pastor who is fixed to a single Congregation but the gift of tongues to preach to all the world upon the Lords intention to send the Gospel to all nations that as many as were chosen to life might beleeve was that which essentially differenceth the Apostle from the ordinary pastor together with a speciall revelation of God to goe to such and such people to Macedonia and not yet to Bythinia And now seeing these two are taken away the ordinary Pastors which now are have as Pastors a sufficient calling to preach the Gospel to all nations to whom by Gods providence they shall come and can understand their language whether of their owne Congregation or not Neither is a Pastor tied as a Pastor by Gods Word to one onely Congregation for then it should bee unlawfull for a Pastor as a Pastor to plant a new Church but shall it bee lawfull for private Christians to plant new Churches who are not the Apostles successors and yet it shall bee unlawfull for Pastors who are the undoubted successors of the Apostles to plant new Churches I would think that admirable doctrine for so you give to private Christians that which you make essentiall to the Apostles and you deny it to the undoubted successors of the Apostles to wit to Pastors But we hold a lawfull Pastor is a Pastor in relation to all the world with this distinction hee is by Christs appointment and the Churches a Pastor to all congregations to plant and water and preach but by speciall designation of Gods providence and the Churches appointment designed and set apart for such a determinate flock just as the Apostles in generall were made Pastors to all the world Matth. 28 19. Go teach all nations but by speciall revelation and Apostolick appointment Peter was appointed the Apostle of the Jewes Paul of the Gentiles Gal. 2. 9. yet Paul was a Pastor in relation to the Jewes and Peter also in relation to the Gentiles so by speciall revelation Act. 16. they are forbidden to preach the word in Bythinia and commanded to preach it elsewhere and for this cause pious antiquity as Morton observeth called some learned fathers Pastors of the World Athanasius is saluted Pontifex maximus as Russinus saith and Origen magister ecclesiâ—rum master of the Churches so Hieronymus and Cyprian totius orbis praeses Cypâ—ian the Bishop of all the world yea and Pope so Nazianz. Hilarius is called by Augustine insignis ecclesiae doctor a renowned teacher of the Church and Nazianzenus calleth Basilius the light of the word and Damascenus the light of the whole world and Theodoret saith Chrysostome is called totius orbis terrarum doctor the Doctor and teacher of the whole world all which titles saith evidently that antiquitie beleeved never a Pastor or Bishop not to bee a Pastor onely in relation to the one single Congregation whereof hee is Pastor but a Pastor in relation to the whole visible Church though by designation of the Church his ministery bee appropriated to one particular Church Thus it is cleare that our brethren deny all communion of Churches while they confine a visible Church to one onely single and independent Congregation subjected in its visible government to Christ Jesus immediatly and to no universall visible Church or Synod on earth Quest. II. Whether the Magistrate hath power to compell persons to a Church profession Anent Magistrates sundry things are questioned to make presbyteriall government odious And first our brethren complaine that our Churches are constitute by the authoritie of the Magistrate Robinson saith it was a presumptuous enterprise that people were haled against their will into covenant with God to sweare obedience to the protestant Faith being a profane multitude living before in grosse idolatry and that by the authority of the supreme magistrate for the commandement of the magistrate say they can make no members of the visible Church or of
Bucanus Zanchius Perkinsius Daneus Bullingerus the Professors of Leiden teach All that can be said commeth to this that Hereticks should not bee punished 1. Cyprian saith to Demetrius that hee was greater then his Gods because he revenged the wrongs done to his Gods and that it was a shame for him to hope for helpe from the Gods which hee behooved to defend Answ. This proveth that the false Gods of Demetrius were but false Gods because they were not able to revenge the wrongs done to themselves as the true God who made the heaven and the earth can doe but nothing against the punishing of the Hereticks for then it should follow that blasphemy against the holy Ghost and no sinnes should bee punished for all sinnes are injuries done to God and therefore neither Magistrates nor parents nor doctors yea nor the Church should use any rod either corporall or spirituall against subjects children or scandalous persons because God can revenge his owne quarrell yea excommunication is a revenging of a wrong done to God 2. They object the Apostles way was to watch against Hereticks Act. 20. 29. 31. and Rom. 16. 17. to esâ—hew them 2 Tim. 2. 25. the servant of the Lord must bee gentle Answ. This is objected by Gerardus as also because they may bee converted Ergo they are not to bee killed Christ would not have fire comming downe from heaven to destroy the Sa 〈◊〉 for afterward they were converted but wee thinke not any should be put to death for simple heresie as Musâ—uâ—us and Whittaker teach they are to bee instructed censured rebuked eschewed but though Ananias and Saphira might bee converted Peter strake them with death and Paul did right in â—iking Elymas the Sorcerer with blindnesse Act. 13. because he laboured to turne away Sergius Paulus from the faith these were extraordinary judgements but yet they doe well prove that where the Magistrate is armed with authority hee ought to inflict bodily punishment upon the seducing hereticks so it hee done as Augustine saith Animo corrigendi non vindicandi See Beza Professors of Leyden and what Elias did by an extraordinary power in killing Baals Priests that Achab the then supreme Magistrate should have done 3. They object that it is contrary to the meeke spirit of Christ in the New Testament that any should bee punished for heresie and that it is proper to enemies of the truth and Antichrist so to doe as their practise declare Nestorius being made Archbishop of Constantinople said to the Emperour I will give thee heaven O Emperour if thou with free the earth of hereticks Dioscorus compelled with armed souldiers the Bishops to subseribe to the heresie of Entyches Eudâ—xius the Arrian obliged Valens the Arrian Emperour to root out 〈◊〉 orthodox professors The Turke in his Alcoran commandeth to kill all who obey not his law Answ. The sword is expressely given by God Rom. 13. to Christian Magistrates and this is not against the meeknesse of Christ no more nor to deliver to Satan or to curse and excommunicate Apostats with that great curse called Anathâ—ina Maranatha 1 Cor. 16. 22. And though Hereticks and Mahomet teach that Hereticks as also they teach that manslayers adulterers paricides should die the death it followeth not that we are not to teach the same Fourthly The parable of letting the Tares grow while the day of judgement is alleaged It is true Chrysostome saith that many innocent persons are killed in the rooting out the tares by bloody warres Chrysologus saith Neither Matthew the publican nor Paul should have beene comerted if the Sword had beene used and Augustine seemeth to call the tares haereticorum falsitates and Theophylact Zizania sunt haereses But I answer Christ exponeth the tares 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Syriace 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Beza filii illius improbi Erasmus diaboli the children of the devill and Theophylact addeth Zizania sunt hâ—reses vel malae cogitationes and Gerardus perverteth Theophylact for he extendeth the tares not onely to Hereticks but also to wicked men to Matthew who was a publican but not a Heretick properly And first the field is the world of the visible Church where the seed of the Word is sowne and it must bee meaned of all scandalous persons in Christs visible kingdome so all shall bee spared and there shall neither bee use of the Magistrates sword nor of the Church discipline in the Church as Anabaptists expone the place 2. There should not so much as rebukes and threatnings beene used but wicked men should bee permitted to grow while the day of judgement that the Angels root them out Now it is knowne that the power of the word preached hath rooted out some tares because it hath converted them 3. Hereticks are not all things which offend the incestuous Corinthian offended also 2. Onely Hereticks are not such as worke iniquitie there bee others also in the visible Church as our brethren expone Revel 22. 15. nor are onely hereticks to be cast out in the furnace of fire where there shall bee weeping and gnashing of teeth 3. Nor are onely the good wheat those who are orthodox and opposite to hereticks who shall shine as the Sunne in the kingdome of their father p. 42. 43. except wee would say that all sound in the faith and holding no hereticall doctrine shall shine in the firmament as the Sun 4. The casting out of Hereticks out of the visible Church by excommunication is a rooting of them out of the field of the visible Church Let more of this be seen and considered in those who have written thereof as in Gâ—rardus loc cit Beza de puniend Haeret. Bellarm. de laicis c. 21. Costerus Enchirid. de moriâ—us haereticor Pelr. Gregorius lib. 12. de repub c. 4. Suarez de tripl virtut theolog disp 18. sect 2. Gregorius de Valent. 〈◊〉 3. disp l. q. 10. punc 6. Jus Canonicum C. Quid autem dist 49. Meiser lib. 4. de legibus sect 1. â— 10 11 12. Lipsius l. 4. 〈◊〉 c. 2. Coâ—â—d Bâ—unus l. 3. de haeretic c. 13. Paulus Windeck lib. de exsâ—irpandis haeretic APPENDIX A further consideration of compelling or tolerating those of contrary Religions and Sects in the Church WEe still hold as is already said that Christian Magistrates cannot compell Pagans to embrace the Christian faith Nor can the Church in a Church-way compell Pagans or Jewes comming to remaine amongst us Christians because Pagans are to bee gathered to a Church by the preaching of the Word and by that way that the Apostles planted Churches which was by the sword of the Spirit only as Matth. 28. 19 20. 1 Cor. 2. 1. 2. 2 Cor. 10. 4 5 6. But the argument which the Jesuit Tannerus other Papists bring for it I judge most weake for they will not have them compelled to the faith because 1. faith is a voluntary and
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
detestable Hereticks have consciences representing to them fundamentall truthes as lies and untruths and have died for these lies did they suffer for righteousnesse for that and yet to their judgement that which they suffered for was truth All the legall obligation is here from Gods Law not from our conscience Arminians Socinians Anabaptists imagine that our conscience is the nearest rule of our actions which is most false our present judgement is never a binding Law to us for the time to come no not when we beleeve fundamentalls Gods Word because it is Gods Word is a binding Law onely our judgement is regula regulata and not regula regulans to be led and not a leading or binding Law to us for conscience because conscience is no more a Pope to us then the dictates of the Bishop of Rome speaking out of his chaire can captivate the conscience of any man and Malderus holdeth that our opinion is a Law according to Ambrose and hee correcteth himselfe and saith our opinion or conscience non tam legem esse quam legis quaddam praeconium promulgationem insinuationem is not so much the Law of God as the promulgation of Gods Law but hee addeth which maketh the businesse as bad and saith promulgatio legis recte dicitur obligare but the truth is the promulgation of the Law doth not obliege for who can say that the Law hath an oblieging power from the Herald his act of proclaiming reading or declaring the Law the promulgation of the Law is an approximation of it to the understanding of the people but the Law of man hath its oblieging power from the honesty of the matter of the Law and it hath its obligation to punishment not from the Herauld but from the authoritie of the Law-giver And our conscience doth onely promulgate Gods oblieâ—ing Law but it layeth not on us the oblieging power except wee speake of an oblieging power in the manner of receiving and beleeving the Law of God that is as I said that wee receive not as a truth what God proposeth as an untruth or that wee receive not as a lie what God proposeth as spoken by himselfe for that is to receive truths against the light of our conscience And when Ambrose calleth our opinion an obliging Law he speaketh as Augustine often doth of the Law of nature which is that habituall opinion naturall that wee have of right and wrong or of the â—aw written in our heart I would not here distinguish betwixt recta ratio right reason and vera ratio true reason for some make right reason the nearest rule of our actions so as the action is lawfull it our conscience perswade to it though the action swaâ—ve and decline from Gods Law For to mee reason is never right which is not true and agreeable to Gods Law It is objected if one shall beleeve it is lawfull to kill a protestant King because it is good service in God to kill a heretick as there bee good store of consciences of this mettall amongst the nation of Jesuiâ—es if hee kill him not bee sinneth against God because be sinneth against the light of his conscience by the sinfull omitting of good service to God and if bee kill him 〈◊〉 sinneth also in committing murther both against the sixt Commandement and also against the fist which commandeth to honour Kings out of which it must follow that either an erring conscience because it is conscience obliegeth us to doe that which because wee doe it in obedience to an erring consceence now leaveth off to bee sinne to the actor under this condition of conscience or then that there may bee such a perplexitie wherein a man by way of contradiction whether hee doe such â—n all or doe it not is necessitated by Gods providence to sinne which absurdity shall make God the author of sinne Answ. There is no necessitie by way of contradiction that a man thus perplexed must sinne whether hee doe or not doe such anaction for I give easily a third case different from both for such a perplexed Jesuite is neither oblieged to kill the Prince nor yet to abstaine from killing in such a perplexed manner but hee is oblieged not to kill the Lords annointed tali modo hee is oblieged to abstinence but not to abstinence tali modo such a way for hee is oblieged to lay aside his erroneous and hereticall conscience and so to abstaine from killing with a well informed conscience for no man is brought under a lawfull perplexitie to sinne but men may bring themselves under sinfull perplexities of conscience which is not to bee fathered upon the holy Lord who hateth sinne with a perfect hatred I answer to the places Mark 9. 30. and Luk. 9. they be manifestly corrupted for the man who cast out devills in Christs name and followed not Christ was not a man who followed the light of an erroneous conscience who thought it service to God to cast out devills in Christs name and not to follow Christ for hee was not oblieged to follow Christ as the Disciples followed him except he had had the same command to follow Christ that the Apostles had which wee read not of nay it is most like if it had beene the error of his conscience not to follow Christ then should Christ have rebuked it but Christ did not rebuke it in the man but directly insinuateth v. 40. that the man was with Christ and a spirituall follower of Christ though hee did not in such a bodily way follow Christ as did Judas and the eleven and it was the fault of the Disciples to tie all the duties of a Disciple casting out devills in Christs name to a bodily following of Christ which was their pride 3. It is a good way to refute sects and erroneous opinions by Scriptures and so is it a good way to convince an incestuous man of the hainousnesse of his sinne by Scriptures and to convince Hymeneus and Alexander of their blasphemous opinions by Scripture for Scripture layeth open the vildnesse of sinnes and hereâ—es but it doth not follow therefore it is not also a good way to deliver incestuous persons and blasphemets to Satan that the spirit may bee saved in the day of the Lord and that they may learne not to blaspheme 1 Cor. 5. 5. 1 Tim. 1. 5. Preaching of the Word is one meane to beare downe sects and erroneous opinions but it taketh not away but establisheth Church-discipline as another meane and the one is subordinate to the other if Matth. 18. an offending brother can bee convinced and brought to repentance by the power of the Word as all rebukes must bee from the Word it is good but if he remaine obstinate in his offence Christ will have the man excommunicated and esteemed a Heatben and a Publicâ—n 4. It is a vaine thing to say that God hath refuted all hereâ—â—s in the Word and therefore there is no need of Synods to refute them and to make
a Christian he is a member of the Church 5. The Kings power as King in things ecclesiasticke is not serviâ—e and meerely executive as the Churches servant to put their decrees in execution but it is regall princely and supreame 6. The object of the Kings power is not simply a peaceable life and externall peace of humane societies but also honesty and godlinesse but to be procured by a civill politicke regall and coactive way by the Sword of the secular arme as the object of the Church power is honesty and godlinesse to be procured by a ministeriall ecclesiasticall and spirituall power without any forcing of men by externall power 7. The end of Kingly power de jure by Gods right and divine Law exintentione Dei approbativâ is godlinesse but the end of Kingly power according to its essence and de facto is a quiet life though it attaine not Godlinesse as it doth not attaine that end nor can it attaine it amongst Pagans and yet there is a Kingly power in its essence whole and intire amongst Pagans where there is no godlinesse or Christian Religion 8. There is in Heathen Kings a regall and Kingly power to establish Christian Religion and adde regall sanctions to Christian Synods though there neither is nor can be during the state of Heathen Paganisme any Christian Religion there this power is essentially and actu primo regall yet as concerning execution it is vertuall onely 9. There is a difference betwixt a royall command under the paine of 〈◊〉 punishment with a royall power to punish the contraveners 〈◊〉 ecclesiasticke and a nomotbeticke power to make Church Lawes 〈…〉 hath the former power but not the latter 10. If the royall power be of that transcendent and eminent greatnesse as to make Lawes in all things belonging to Church 〈◊〉 and so as Camero must be heard saying that the â—ing is the supreame ruler and Church-men be as servants and instruments under him and doe all in the externall government of the Church by vertue of the Kings supreame authority the King is not much honoured by this for they must say that the King in the Physitian giveth dregs to the sicke in the Plow-man laboureth the earth in the fashioner seweth and sâ—aâ—eth garments whereas Paraeus who without reason also giveth to the Prince a nomothetick power in Church-matteâ—s doth except some things that the Prince cannot doe sometimes for want of right and law other sometimes for want of knowledge sometimes because it is against the dignity of his Majesty as in sordid and base arts 11. The power of governing the Church of the Jewes though it was ordinarily in the Priesthood the Sonnes of Aaron whose â—ippes did preserve ex officio knowledge Mal. 2. yet as the Prophets were raised up by God extraordinarily to teach they 〈◊〉 by that same extraordinary power did governe and therefore though the Kings of Israel were not Priests yet without doubt some of them were Prophets and as Prophets they did prophecy and as Prophets determine many things of Government by that same extraordinary power by which some of them to wit David and Solomon did prophecy and pen Caâ— niâ—k Scripture 12. There is one consideration of abuses and heresies manifestly re 〈◊〉 to Gods word and another of those things that are ordinar◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the former there is no neede of the Churches ministeriall power of condemning them and therefore Ezechias Josâ—as Asa â—â—osaphat did manifestly by the light of nature and Gods word 〈◊〉 abuses and Idolatry in Gods worship without the Churches 〈◊〉 seeing the Church representative was guilty of these cor 〈◊〉 us themselves but in the latter seeing the Kings place is to com 〈◊〉 and compell by externall force and bodily punishments and it is the Churches part to teach inserme binde and loose therefore the King can make no Church Canons Hence our first conclusion The Christian Magistrate as a Christian is a member of the Church but as a Magistrate he is not formally a member or part of the Church 1. Because he is neither a Pastor Doctor Elder nor Deacon as is cleare to any for these offices were compleate in the Church without the Magistrate Ephes. 1. 11. else Christ ascending to heaven should have given Kings for the edifying of his body Neither is hee as a Magistrate a part of the company of beleevers 1. Because then all Magistrates as Magistrates should bee professors of the faith which is knowne to bee false 2. Because the Magistrate as such is the head of an externall politick civill societie not of Christs body 2. The Magistrate as a Magistrate wanteth such things as essentially constituteth a member of the Church as a Magistrate onely hee hath neither baptisme profession nor faith because then heathen Magistrates should not bee Magistrates the contrary whereof the Word of God saith Jeremiah in Gods name commanded to obey the King of Babylon and Paul commanded to pray for Kings and heathen Magistrates 1 Tim. 2. 1. Hence let us have leave to deny these Hee who is the Churches nurs-father is the Churches father and a part of the family 2. Whose office it is to cause all in the visible Church to professe the truth obey God and keep his Commandements hee is a member of the Church 3. Hee who is a keeper and preserver of Law and Gospell by his office hee is by his office a member of the Church For the first hee is a father metaphorically and doth by an externall coactive power and by the sword nourish the Church and therefore is not the Church nor a part of the Church ex officio by his office as the nurs-father is not the child nor a part of the child whereof hee is nurse-father and this and both the other two are to bee denyed because the Magistrate doth neither nurse the Church nor cause the Church doe their dutie nor desend the Law and Gospell by any power that is intrinsecally Church-power but by the sword and coactive power which in no sort belongeth to Christs kingdome as a part thereof either as it is internall and invisible or externall or visible which is not of this world Joh. 1â— 36. 3. By no word of God can Salcobrigiensis and Weemes prove that the Magistrate as the Magistrate is a mixt persen and his power a mixt power partly civill partly ecclesiastick for â—â— the ruler commeth in amongst the ordinary Church-officers â— m. 12. Ephes. 4. 11. 1 Tim. 2. 2. which the Word of God doth â—â—ver insinuate and hee should no lesse watch for soules as â—â—e who is to give an account to God then other Church-officers Heb. 13. 17. for the Magistrates office may bee performed by himselfe alone hee himselfe alone may use the sword in all things which hee doth as a Magistrate as is cleare Rom. 13. 1. and 1 Pet. 2. 13. 14 the King judging his alone and the Kings deputie sent by him judging his alone is to
shall decree good or bad without examination also as Suarez the Councell of Paris their Law saith and Innocentius the first and Gregory the seventh doe teach Making Kings in their judgement slaves to the Pope and ' his determinations and to have no light but from their vertuall Church as the Moone hath all her light from the Sunne Our third distinction is that the Magistrate as Magistrate and a preserver of publicke peace may doe some thing when a Schisme and dissention is among the Church-men in a Synod 1. In this case he may punish perturbers of peace as Augustine answereth Gaudentius the Donatist and the separaters from the Church in which case the Magistrate indirectly condemneth one of the parties which the Church hath condemned but there be many other cases of dissention in this case therefore when the Magistrate findeth the Synod divided in two parties equally or three iâ— the corrupt part prevaile or foure in the case of the Churches aberration in one particular fact or five if there be an universall apostasie of the whole representative Church or sixe an universall defection of both the representative and essentiall Church all these being too casuall and of too frequent occurrence one and the same answer cannot be given and here be sundry subalterne distinctions considerable Hence our fifth Conclusion when there is an equall rupture in the body nothing extraordinary would be attempted if ordinary wayes can be had if Saul the ordinary Magistrate had at Gods Commandement killed Hagag Samuel the Prophet should not have drawne his Sword and therefore in this case the Magistrate would first seeke helpe from other Churches as that learned Apollonius saith But if that cannot be conveniently had as in a nationall Church it may fall out then the Magistrate as a preserver of peace and truth may command the sincerer part to conveene in a Synod and doe their duty as the good Kings of the people of God did 2 Chron. 15. Asa gathered together a people who entered in Covenant to seeke the Lord God with all their heart and layed an obligation of punishment to death on the rest v. 12 13. and Jehoshaphat 2 Chron. 23. 4. he layed charge on Hilkiah the High Priest and the Priests of the second order whom he knew to be better affected to the worke to bring out the Vessels made for Baal which proveth that the King should put the sincerest to doe that which in common belongeth to the whole in which case of the erring of the most part of the Church the Prince indirectly condemneth the erring part of the Synod because it is his place to forbid and to punish with the sword the transgressors of Gods Law But because his power is accumulative not privative under that pretence hee hath not power to hinder the sincerer part to meet and determine according to the Word of God 6. Conclusion In the case of the prevailing of the corrupt part of the Church or in the fourth case of the aberration of the Church in one particular the King hath a regall power to punish the Canonists if they shall decree in their Synod Popery and hereticall doctrine and so give to the Bride of Christ noysome and deadly milke the Prince as nursefather may punish the Canonists 1. Because hee is a keeper of both Tables of the Law and hath a royall power to inflict bodily punishment upon all sinnes even committed in foro exteriore ecclesiae as the King may punish false teachers 2. Because the Magistrates power is auxiliary accumulative as a tutor and nurâ—efather who hath law to helpe the Pupill and to adde to the inheriritance but hath no Law nor power to take away any part of the inheritance from the Pupill Ergo as a nursefather hee is to helpe the Church of Christ against the wicked Canons of the representative Church If any object then the King as King hath power to rescind and annull the ecclesiasticall Canons the contrary whereof that learned author of Altare Damascenum doth prove I answer that learned and worthy author proveth that the Prince cannot annull the Church-Canons and that the councell of Trent thought shame that the Pope should absolve any condemned by the Church-Canons and certainely the same power that maketh Canons should dissolve them but the Kings power cannot make Church-Canons for it is a part of the ministeriall calling to make Canons and therefore hee cannot annull and dissolve Canons but some greater Kingly power is due to the King in the case of the Churches aberring then in the case of the Churches right administration and as our Divines doe justly give to the Prince an extraordinary Kingly power in the case of universall apostasie of the Church as Jehoshaphat Hezekiah Josiah and other worthy reformers in the Church of the â—ewes did warrantably use their Kingly power when the Church-men were corrupted and negligent in their dutie so in a particular case of a particular error of the Synod the King as King may use his Kingly power in this fact that is secundum quid extraordinarie for the King is oblieged as King to adde his accumulative power of a civill sanction to all just and nâ—cessary Church constitutions and it the Canon or Church constitution bee wicked and popish he is oblieged to deny his civill sanction and not that onely for hee that is not with Christ is against him but hee is to imploy his kingly power against such Canons and so is to deliver the Church of God in that and in denying his accumulative power to unjust Canons hee addeth his kingly power accumulative to the true Church in saving them from these unjust Canons 2. Also it may bee objected If the King by a regall and coactive power may annull and rescind unjust Canons hee may by this coactive power make Canons for it is that same power to make and unmake Canons I answer if hee may annull unjust Canons that is liberate his subjects from civill punishment to bee inflicted for refusing obedience to such Canons and for bid the practise of wicked Church constitutions under the paine of the sword It will not follow that therefore hee may make Canons but onely that hee may adde his civill sanction to just Canons 2. Neither can the King properly annull the Canon but onely deny to adde his civill authoritie for the execution of such Canons But thirdly it is objected that the King bath a judgement that such Canons are wicked and superstition the Church-mens judgement at the assembly of Glascow Edenbrough an 1638 1639. is that such Canons are lawfull edificative and necessary then is the King obliged as King to deny his royall sanction and who shall bee Judge in the matter If you say the Word of God it satisfyeth not because both the King and the Synod alledgeth the Word of God as norm â— judicandi a rule of judging but the rule of judging is not formally the Judge
but wee uske who shall bee the visible ministeriall and vocall Judge under Christ speaking in his owne Testament for the King is a Politick and civill Judge and the Church an Ecclesiasticall Judge I answer this same is the question betwixt us and Papists anent the Judge of controversies whether the Judge bee a Synod or the Scriptures and wee answer by a distinction the Scripture is norm i judicandi 2. Christ the peremptory and infallible Judge speaking in his owne Word 3. A Synod lawfully conveened is a limited ministeriall and bounded visible Judge and to bee beleeved in so farre as they follow Christ the peremptory and supreme Judge speaking in his owne Word But wee deny that there is on earth any peremptory and in fallible visible Judge But to come yet nearer if the King have sworne to that same religion which the Church doth professe and so acknowledge and professe the reformed religion of that Church hee must then acknowledge the lawfull officers of that Church to bee his ordinary teachers and the lawfull ministers of the Church and that they are both in a Synod and out of the Synod to preach and to bee ministeriall definers of things contraverted and that they shall first determine in an ecclesiasticall way according to Gods Word and hee as King is to command them to determine according to Gods Word under the paine of civill punishment and the Kings civill and coactive way of judging is posterior and ratificatorâ—e of the right and oxthodox ecclesiasticall determination and Junius saith that the Magistrates judging politick presupposeth the Church judging ecclesiasticall going before and Calvin and Amesius are cleare that in this case the Church is to cognosce of hee owne ecclesiasticall affaires Ambrose writeth to the Emperor Valentinian that none should judge of this cause which is ecclesiasticall as one said but a Church-man qui nec munere sit impar neâ—jure dissimilis Gelasius the Pope inveigheth against Anastasius the Emperour because hee confounded these two civill and ecclesiasticall causes But if the Emperour or King professe not the religion of the land and repute it false and if the religion bee indeed hereticall then the Church is not constitute and the case extraordinary but the truth is neither the Kings judgement as a certaine rule to the representative Church nor the representative Churches judgement a rule to the King but the Word of God the infallible rule to both Judgement may crooke truth cannot bow it standeth still unmoveable like God the father of truth but in this case if both erre ex cellently saith Junius the Magistrate erring the Church may do something extraordinarily and tâ—e Church erring the Magistrate may do something also in an extraordinary way as coÌ„mon equitie and mutuall law requireth that friends with mutuall tongues bicke the wounds of friends Also fourthly some say they who make the King the head of the Church acknowledge that the King doth not judge except the matter be first defined in the Scriptures and in the generall councells yet they give a primacie spirituall in matters ecclesiasticall to the King and therefore if the King as King may forbid the inacting of wicked Canons hee determineth them to bee wicked before the Synod have passed their judgement of them I answer that learned Calderwood saith indeed the pretended Lords of high Commission have an act for them under Queene Elizabeth for this effect but it is made for the fashion for all errors and heresies are condemned in Scripture but not onely should there bee a virtuall and tacit determination of matters ecclesiastick which is undeniably in Scripture and may bee in generall councells also but also a formall Synodicall determination in particular must goe before the Princes determination in a constitute Church The Prince may before the Synods determination exhort to the determination of what hee conceiveth is Gods will in his Word but hee cannot judicially and by a Kingly power determine in an orderly way what is to bee defined in a Synod except hee infringe the Churches liberties and judicially prelimit under the paine of civill punishments the free voyces of the members of the Synod which is indeed an abuse of the authoritie of a nurs-father But fiftly it may bee objected that hee may in a thing that is manifestly evident by the Word of God to bee necessary truth command by the power of the sword that the Synod decree that or this particular so cleare in the Word the contrary whereof being Synodically determined hee may punish by the sword and so hee may judicially predetermine some things before the Sâ—nod passe their Synodicall act thereon and if hee may predetermine judicially one thing hee may predetermine all things I answer what the King may judicially determine and punâ—â—h with the sword that hee cannot judicially predetermine and command in any order that hee pleaseth but in a constitute Church whereof hee is a member and to bee taught hee is to determine judicially in an orderly way as a nurs-father But sixtly it may bee objected that if the King have a judiciall power by the sword to annull unjust acts then hath hee a power to 〈◊〉 them though hee abuse that power in making them as unjust and then hath hee a power to interpret Church acts and to defend them 〈…〉 Law saith it is not same power to make Lawes and to dâ—â—â—nd them and interpret them see Paraeus I answer the proposition is not universally necessary except onely in civill matters in the which as the Prince who is absolute hath supreme authority to defend and interpret civill lawes so hath hee power to make them for if the Magistrate hath a supreme judiciall power to interpret Church-Lawes hee is a minister of the Gospell in that case and may by that same reason administer the Sacraments so the argument is a just begging of the question 2. Though the King have power in case of the Church aberration which is somewhat extraordinary it followeth not therefore in ordinary hee hath a nomothetick power to make Church-Lawes Also seventhly it may bee objected if the King in case of the Churches aberration may by the sword rescind Church-Lawes then may hee make a Law to rescind them but those who aâ—firme that the King hath a sort of primacie and headship over the Church say not that the King hath any power formally ecclesiasticall to make Lawes as Ministers in a Synod do but onely that hee hath a power to command any forme of externall worship under the paine of bodily punishment they say not that the King may preach administrate the Sacraments or excommunicate or inflict any Church-censures I answer the transcendent power of Princesand their commissioners is not well knowne for the authors saith Calderwood agree not among themselves but it is true in words the author est Tortura torti the Bishop of Eli denyeth in words if you have strong faith to beleeve
makers and definers in Oecumenick Councels and Bishops and Pastors and Doctors have all a meere power of advising and counselling which certainely all Christians on earth sound in the faith except women have O whither are all the tomes of the Councels Oecumenick nationall and provinciall evanished unto 3. Kings justly by this are made Popes and more then Popes for Kings onely have a definitive voyce in councells whereas Papists give a definitive voyce to all the lawfull members of the councell no lesse then to the Pope Weemes hath a distinction to save the Kings invading the Church-mens place while as hee giveth to Pastors a ministeriall interpretation of Scripture in the Pulpit and to the King a decretive and imperiall power of interpreting Scripture in the Senat. But 1. there is no exposition of the word at all imperiall but onely ministeriall by the Word of God except that imperiall interpretation that the Pope usurpeth over the consciences of men and this is as Bancroft said that the King had all the honors dignities and preheminencies of the Pope as Calderwood observeth and yet Edward the sixth and Edward the eighth would neither of them take so much on them What difference betwixt a Sermon made by the King in the Senat and the Pastor in the Pulpit It is that same word of God preached only the Kings is imperiall and so must bee in his owne as King the Pastors ministeriall in the name of Christ the distance is too great The administration of the Sacraments may be imperiall due to the King also as a pastorall administration is due to the Pastors 4. In the government of Church there is nothing set downe of the King but of Pastors to feede the flocke Act. 20. 28 29. to edifie the body of Christ Ephes. 4. 11. to rule the house of God 1 Tim. 3. 2 3 4. 16. to feede the sheepe and Lambs of Christ John 21. 14 15 16. and alwayes this is given to Pastors and Elders I know that Kings are nurs-fathers to feed edifie and watch over the Church causatively by causing others so to doe but this will not content the formalists except the King command and prescribe the externall worship of God Tooker Bancroft Whitegift Laâ—celot Andreas Salcobrigiensis have a maine distinction here That Pastors and Elders rule the Church as it is an invisible body by the preaching of the word and administration of the Saâ—raments and of this government the foresaid places speake but as the Church is a politick visible body the government thereof is committed to the King Bancroft said all the externall government of the Church is earthly and Wâ—iâ—eâ—gyft and Bancroft two grosse Divines made for the court say tâ—e externall government of the Church because externall is â—â—spiâ—â—tuall and not a thing belonging to Christs externall kingdome â—aith Bilâ—â—n but this is 1 false 2. Popish 3. Anabaptisticall 4. â—yrannicall False 1. Because externall and vocall preaching and a visible administration of the Sacrament in such an orderly way as Christ hath instituted is an externall ruling of Church members according to the â—aw of Christ as King an externall ordaining of the worship is an externall ordering of the worshippers according to the acts of worship thus ordered as sense teacheth us but the externall ordaining of the worship to preach this not this to celebrate in both kinds by prayer and the words of institution and not in one kind onely is an externall ordering of Gods worship therefore as Kings cannot administrate the Sacraments nor preach so neither can they have the externall government of the Church in their â—ands 2. The feeding of the flocke by Pastors set over the Church by the holy Ghost Act. 20. 28. includeth the censuring by discipline even the grievous Woolves entring in not sparing the flocke but drawing disciples after them vers 29 30 31. and therefore Pastors as Pastors are to watch and to try those who say they are Apostles 〈◊〉 not but doe lie Râ—vel 2. 2. by discipline so this externall â—eâ—ding is externall governing committed to Pastors whereas inward governing is indeed proper to Christ the head of the Church 3. What doe not the Epistles to Timothy containe comman dements about externall government to bee kept inviâ—â—able by Timothy not as a King I hope but as a Pastor even 〈◊〉 the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ 1 Tim. 6. 14. and this taketh away that poore shifâ— that the externall government of the Church as Tookerus saith was in the Apostles hands so long as persecuting Magistrates were over the Church but now when the Magistrates are Christians the case is changed but the government of all suâ—â— as Timothy is must bee visible externall and obvious to men as 1 Tim. 2. 1 2 3 4. 3. 1 2 3 4. â— 16. 1 Tim 5. 9. 1 Tim. 5. 19 20 21 22. 2 Tim. 2. 1 2 3 4. 2 Tim. 3 5. all which must bee kept untill the comming of Christ 1 Tim. 5. 21. 1 Tim. 6. 13. 2 Tim. 4. 1 2. 4. If externall government were in the Kings power then were it his part to rebuke publikely to excommunicate and to lay on hands upon the Timothies of the Church all which are denied by the formalists and are undoubtedly the Churches part as the Church Matth. 18. 17 18. 1 Tim. 5. 19 20 21 22 1 Tim. 3. 14. 1 Tim. 1. 20. 1 Cor. 5. 2 3 4 5. 5. Parker proveth well that the keyes are Christ as Kings ruling in word and discipline 2. This is popish for so doth the Papists teach as Stapleton and Becanus that the Pope quo ad externum infiuxum according to externall influence of visible government is head of the Church and Christ according to the internall influence of the spirit is the head of the invisible body of Christ and here the King is installed in that externall government out of which our Divines by Scriptures have extruded the Pope which is a notable dishonor done to Kings and as Parkerus observeth Joan. Raynoldus answereth that from two offices of the head which is to give life and influence of motion to the members and also to guide and moderate the actions externall of the body wee cannot make two heads and because the King hath some civill government about the Church wee cannot make two heads over the Church Christ one and the King another under him 3. This is Anabaptisticall for because the visible government of the Church is externall wee are not to cut off all necessitie of the ministery to feed and rule with ecclesiasticall authority and because the Prince is gifted and a Christian to give all to him for a calling there must bee from God for the King to governe the Church of Christ by Lawes and prescribing externall worship therein for Christ hath left Ephes. 4. 1 Cor. 12. 1 Tim. 3. men to bee feeders and governours of his Church by office whose it is to bee
should call Christs doctrine blasphemy Caesar and his deputie Pontius Pilat as Judges civill are to judge it truth Neither would I â—â—iâ—â—â—ly here contend for whether the Kings knowledge of herese in the major proposition bee judiciall or the knowledge of discretion onely as some say wee agree in this against Papistâ— that the King is not a blind servant to the Church to punish what the Church calleth heresie without any examination or tryall but though the Kings knowledge of heresie in the proposition and in Law bee judiciall and kingly yet because hee is to cognosce onely in so farre as hee is to compell and punish with the sword not by instructing and teaching It would not hence follow that hee is to make Church constitutions as King but onely that hee may punish those who maketh wicked constitutions because the Canon maker is a ministeriall teacher the King as King may command that hee teach truth and hee may punish hereticall teaching but as King he is not a teacher either in Synod or Senate in Pulpit or on the Throne now if the King by office ordaine Pastors and deprive them by office hee is to know who are able to teach others aâ—d must bee able also to stop the mouthes of the adversaries and to rebuke them sharpely that they may bee sound in the faith and this is required in Titus Ch. 1. 5 9 10 11 12 13. as a Pastor and as an ordainer of other Pastors therefore that which is required of a Pastor by his office must also bee required to bee in the King by his office 6. It is admirable that they give to Kings power to deprive ministers but with these distinctions 1. He may not discharge them to preach and administer the Sacraments but to preach and administer the Sacraments in his kingdome or dominions because the King hath a dominion of places 2. Hee may discharge the exercise of the ministery but hee cannot take away the power of order given by the Church 3. Hee may deprive say some by a coactive and civill degradation because the supreme magistrate may conferre all honours in the Christian common-wealth Ergo hee may take them away againe but hee cannot deprive by a canonicall and ecclesiasticall degradation 4. Hee may causâ—tively deprive that is compell the Church to deprive one whom he judgeth to bee an heretick and if the Church refuse hee may then in case of the Churches erring and negligence as King deprive himselfe But I answer the King as King hath dominion civill of places and times as places and times but not of places as sacred in use and of times as sacred and religious for his power in Church matters being accumulative not privative hee cannot take away a house dedicated to Gods service no more then hee can take away maintenance allotted by publick authority upon Hospitalls Schooles Doctors and Pastors God hath here a sort of proprietie of houses and goods as men have Places as sacred abused are subject to regall power hee may inhibit conventions of hereticks 2. The Apostles might preach in the Temple though civill authoritie forbid them 3. Kings are as much Lords of places as sacred and publick as they have a dominion of civill places in respect the King may be coactive power hinder that false and hereticall doctrine bee preached either in publick or private places for this hee ought to doe as a preserver of both tables and a beare of the Sword for the good of Religion and if they may command pure doctrine to bee preached and sound discipline to be exercised they may command the same to bee done in publick places The second distinction is not to purpose 1. To discharge the exercise of a ministery saith Calderwood is a degree of suspension and suspension is an ecclesiasticall degree to the censures of excommunication and therefore the King may as well excommunicate and remit and retaine sinnes which undoubtedly agreeth to the Apostles as hee can suspend 2. As for taking away the power of order it is a doubt to formalists if the Church can doe that at all seeing they hold Sacraments administred by ministers justly deprived to bee valid Ergo they must acknowledge an indeleble character in Pastors which neither King nor Church can take away If then the King deprive from the exercise hee must simpliciter deprive by their grounds it is weake that they say the King may deprive from the exercise of a ministry within his owne dominions for saith Calderwood they all know well that the King hath not power to deprive men from the exercise of the holy ministery in ether forraine Kingdomes For the third way of deprivation it hath a double meaning also 1. If the meaning bee that as the King by a regall and coactive power may take away all honours either civill or ecclesiasticall as hee giveth all honours then this way of depriving Ministers cannot bee given to the King for the King may give and take away civill honours for reasonable causes according to the Lawes But in ecclesiasticall honours there bee three things 1. The appointing of the honour of the office to bee an Ambassadour of Christ. 2. To give the true foundation and reall ground of a Church honour that is gifts and gracious abilities for the calling neither of these two doe come either from King or Church or from mortall men but onely from Jesus Christ who ascending on high gave gifts unto men and appointeth both office and giveth grace for to discharge the office Yea since morall philosophy maketh honor to bee praemium 〈◊〉 a reward of vertue the King doth not give that which is the soundation of honour civill for civill vertue is a grace of God but in Church honour there is a third to wit a deâ—â—â—nation of a qualified man for the sacred office of the ministry and an ordination by the imposition of hands used in the Apostolick Church Act. 6. 6. Act. 13. 3. Act. 14 23. 1 Tim. 4 14. 1 Tim. 5.22 Whether imposition of hands bee essentiall to ordination or not I disput not it is apostolick by practise yet there is something ecclesiasticall as praying of Pastors and an ecclesiasticall designation of men or the committing of the Gospell to faithfull men who are able to teach others 2 Tim. 2. 2. 1 Tim. 5. 22. No Scripture can warrant that the King ordaine Pastors by publick praving by laying on of hands or ecclesiasticall blessing or by such an ordination as is given to Timothy and the Elders of the Church Acts 13. 3. Acts 14. 23. Tit. 1. 5,6 7,8 9. 1 Tim. 4. 14. 1 Tim. 5. 22. 2 Tim. 2. 2. If any say the King hath a publick and regall power in ordaining of Ministers and so in dâ—priving them or a mixt power partly regall partly ecclesiasticall as hee is a mixt person and the Church hath their way of purely and unmixt ecclesiasticall calling or ordaining of Ministers or the Church and the Magistrate
both doth elect and choose the man yet so that he is not elected without the consent of the King or Magistrate in the Kings roome I answer many things are here to be replyed 1. That the King who may be borne an heire to an earthly Kingdome is also borne and by nature a mixt person and halfe a Minister of the Gospell is against Gods word ministers in whole or in part are made so of God not so borne by nature in Aaronâ— Priesthaâ—d men by birth came to a sacred office but that is done away now in Christ. 2. With as good reason may the King preach and administer the Sacraments as a mixt person as he may ordaine by ecclesiasticall blessing imposition of hands ecclesiasticall designation any person to the Ministery that same auth nity of Christ which said to Timoth Lay hands suddainly 〈◊〉 man said also to him 2 Tim. 2. 15. Study to be approved unto 〈◊〉 a workeman that needeth not to be ashamed dividing the word right that is both ordaining of Ministers and pastorall preaching of the Word or pastorall acts flowing from an ecclesiasticall power How then can the one be given to the King by vertue of that same mixt power especially seeing baptizing it directly called 1 Câ—r 1. 17. a lesse principall worke of the ministery then preaching It it be said as ordination is performed by the King is not an ecclesiasticall action but civill or mixt partly civill partly ecclesiasticall I answer by that reason if the King should preach and administrate the Sacraments these actions should not be called ecclesiasticall actions and Uzzah's touching the Arke should not be called an action by office incumbent to the Levites only and it might be said the person being civill the actions are civill And Uzziah's burning of incense upon the Altar of incense was not a Priestly act but an act of a mixt power he was partly a King and partly a Priest who did performe the action but he was a Priest by sinfull usurpation in that action as we know 2. This answer is a begging also of the question 2. Whereas it is said that the Church ordainech Pastors and the King also but divers wayes the one by a regall power the other by me elâ—siasticall power I answer this is spoken to make the people ad saciendum populum for ejusdem potestatis est saith the Law constituere destiâ—â—ere it is the same power to ordaine and to destroy The high-Commission by the Kings authority doth deprive Ministers without so much as the knowledge of the Church If then the King as King may deprive ministers without the notice of the Church then may the King as King also ordaine Pastors without the notice of the Church For the action of the instruments as such is more principally the actions of the principall cause 3 Election of a Pastor is farre different from ordination of a Pastor the whole multitude as Christians have voyces in the election of a Pastor and so hath the King or his Magistrate as a part and member of the Church but this giveth no negative voice to the Magistrate in election but ordination is not done by all the multitude it is a worke of authority done onely by the Church-officers 4. The coactive and civill degradation must have also correspondent thereunto a coactive and civill ordination of Pastors Now I ask what is a coactive ordination If it be the Kings royall and civill authority commanding that the Church officers ordaine Pastors at Christs commandement This we deny not they fight with a shadow or a night ghost not against us who contend for this But if they meane a coactive degradation by the Sword in banishing imprisoning yea and for just causes punishing Ministers to death with the Sword this indirect deprivation we doe not deny But so the King depriveth a man from being a Minister when he is beheaded or hanged or banished for civill crimes no other wayes but as he depriveth a man from being a Fashioner a Saiâ—â—r a Plower a Souldier or a Father to his owne barnes a husband to his owne wife for when the man is beheaded or hanged by the sword of the Magistrate he is dâ—prived from being a fashioner a sailer a father a husband and Solomen did not other way deprive Abiathar from the Priest-hood then indirectly by consining him for treason at Anathoth so as he could not exercise the Priests office at Jerusalem So after Junius Calderwood Gul. Apollonius Sibrandus yea Muketus a man for the times denyeth that the Prince can take away that ecclesiasticall power that the Church hath given And so acknowledgeth Wedelius the same That reasonlesse lyer Lysimach Nicanor in this and in other things hath no reason to say we borrow Jesuites doctrine to answer this argument for the Jesuite Becanus is not â—nacquainted with Jesuits doctrine against the power of Kings yet he answereth that Solomen as King had no power over Abiathar for treason or any other crime and therefore following Bellarmine and Gretserus saith that Solomon did this by an extraordinary propheticall instinct yet Abulensis a great textuall Papist and Bâ—naventura a learned Schooleman saith this pâ—oveth that the King is above the Priest and that Priests in the Old Testament were not eximed from the civill Judges sword and power this is very doubtsome to Suarez who â—aith that it was a tempâ—rall civill punishment of exiâ—e and that â—â—â—sitiâ—n from the exercise of the Priests office followed upon the other But we neede not this answer for Solomons sentence containeth in tâ—rminis a meere civill punishment and these words 1 King 27. S. Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being Priest to the Lord seem not to be words of the Kings sentence of banishment but are relative to the fulfilling of the Lords word and a consequent of divine justice relative to the prophesie against Elies house Though verily I see no inconvenience to say that Solomon did indeed deprive him from the Priest-hood by an extraordinary instinct of the Spirit as he was led of God to build the Temple 1. Because the text saith so Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being Priest to the Lord and ver 35. and Zadok the Priest did the King put in the roome of Abiathar which is a direct deprivation from the Priest-hood but I contend not here But that the King causatively may deprive that is command the Church to cast out hereticks and to commit the Gospell to faithfull men who are able to teach others 2 Tim. 2. 2. wee confesse as for the power of convocating of Synods some thinke that the King may convocate Synods as men but as Church men they have power if the Magistrate bee averse to convocate themselves see Junius who insinuateth this distinâ—tion But certainly though the Kingly dignity be thought meerely civill yet let this be thought on it may be thought that the Kings power is divine three
wayes 1. Effectually and so we thinke that the Kingly power is an Ordinance of God lawfull jure divinâ— many Papists say the contrary but we thinke with Gods word it is of divine institution as is cleare Psal. 2. 11. Prov. 8. 14. 15. Rom. 13. 1 2 3 4 5 6. Matth. 22. 21. 1 Pâ—t 2. 17 18. Eccles. 9. 20. Prov. 25. 2. Prov. 20. 2. 2 The Kings power may be thought divine formally and so as divine is opposed to civill it is a humane ordinance and not formally divine or ecclesiasticall nor subjectively 3. It may be thought divine and ecclesiastick objectively and finaliter The end intrinsecall being a spirituall good and so the King hath power to conveene Synods not onely as they are men and his Subjects but also as they bee such subjects and Christian men and members of Synods as the King may command the minister of the Gospell both as a man yea and as a Preacher in the Pulpit to preach â—ound doctrine and to give wholesome and good milke to the Church and this is formally an act of a nurie-father such as the King is by his Kingly office and this way also doth the King send members to the Synod and moderate and preside in Synods actu impâ—rato nâ—n elicito actu objective ecclesiastico non intrinsece non formaliter non subjective ecclesâ—astico The King ruleth by the Sword and commandeth the Synods to meete ordereth politically and civilly the members and meeting and as King cooperateth but by a civill and regall influence with the Synod for the same very end that the Synod intendeth to wit the establishing of truth unity and the edification of Christs-body But this power of the Kings to conveene Synods is positive not negative auxiliary and by addition not by way of impedition or privation For the Church of her selfe hath from Christ her head and Lord power of conveening without the King beside his knowledge or against his will if he be averse as is cleare Matth. 18. 17 18. if they be conveened in his name he is with them not upon condition that the Prince give them power And Joh. 20. 19. there is a Church-meeting without the Rulers and a Church-meeting for praying preaching and discipline Act. 1. 13 14. c. without the Magistrate Act. 15. 1 2. and when the Magistrate is an enemy to the Church 2. Where Christ commandeth his disciples to preach and baptize Matth. 28. 19 20. and with all faith in the exercise of their ministry they shall be persecuted by rulers as Matth. 10. 17 18 19. Luk. 21. 12 13 14. He doth by necessary consequence command Church-meetings and Synods even when the Magistrate forbiddeth and this is practised 1 Cor. 5. 1 2 3 4 5. where the Magistrate is an heathen chap. 6. 1 2 3. 3. It should follow that Christ cannot have a true visible Church and ministry on earth except the Magistrate countenance his Church which is both against experience and Christs Kingly power who reigneth in the midst of his enemies Psal. 110. 2. And what glorious Courâ—bes had Christ in Asia with power of doctrine and discipline and â—o with all Church-meetings Rev. 2. chap. 3. where Tyrants did slay the witnesses of Christ Rev. 2. 13. and certainely by what power Kings alleadâ—e that Synods may not meet for the exercise of discipline and good order in Gods house by that same power they may say there should be no Church meeting for the hearing of the word and receiving the Sacraments without their authority For Church Synods for doctrine differ not in spece and nature from Synods for discipline all be one and the same acts under Christ as King and head of his Church for which see Spalato Uâ—â—tius Amâ—sius Calderwood the Professors â—â— Lâ—yden Now what any say on the contrary for the power of Princes in matters ecclesiasticall is soone answered Gerardus saith that Moses gave Lawes both to the People and Priests Exod. 20. Lev. 8. Num. 3. I answer if this be a good argument the Magistrate his alone without advise of the Church may impose Lawes yea and institute new Laws and dite Canonicall Scripture also as did Moses Deut. 5. Exod. 20. but it is certaine that Moses gave these Laws not as a Magistrate but as a Prophet of God who spake with God face to face and it is more for us then for our adversaries David also brought the Ark to its place at Gods speciall direction the Levites carrying it by Gods Law though they failed in that sinfull omission 2 Sam. 6. but 1 David did convocate the chosen of Israel even thirty thousand to reduce the Ark to its place and so the Levites and Church-men and did it not as King his alone as 1 Chron. 13. hee did it And Junius saith and the text is cleare that he did it by the counsell of an Assembly and the whole Church and that a King may doe that in Gods worship in case of the negligence of the Church that is warranted by Gods word is but his duty Now Jesuites answer not to any purpose in this for Becanus and Suarez answer nothing to Davids placing of the Arke in its place onely they say all the people conveved the Arke and danced before it as well as David but it is not hence proved that all the people are heads of the Church as they say the King is and Lysimachus the Jesuite seeth in this that wee aâ—â—ee not with his friends the Jesuits Solomon builded the Temple and dedicated it to Gods service but this is no ground to make the King a Law-giver in the Church 1. Because none can deny but Solomon did all this as a Prophet by speciall revelation for 1. if Solomon might not build an house to the Lord but by speciall revelation that hee should bee the man and not David his father 2 Sam. 7. 6. 13. farre more could hee not as an ordinary King build that typicall house which had a resemblance of Christ and heaven it selfe especially seeing the signification of the Holy of holiest in the Sanctuary is expressely given to the holy Spirit Heb. 9. 7 8. and the Temple was a type of Christ Joh. 2. 20 21. and they may say Kings by an ordinary power as Kings might pen Canonick Scripture as well as they could build a typicall Temple like Solomons God filled that Temple with his glory and heard prayers made in that temple and toward that Temple I thinke Kings as Kings cannot now build such Temples therefore Solomon by a Propheticall instinct built that house Jesuites give no answer to this for Suarez saith Kings may build Churches to God because of it selfe it is an act of Religion which requireth riches for the building thereof and for the dedication it includeth two 1. By some religious action to consecrate a house to God and this way onely the Priests by sacrificing dedicated the Temple and God by filling
of it with his presence dedicated it to himselfe 2. It includeth an offering and giving of an house to Gods service I answer by this Solomon as a private man builded the Temple and dedicated it to God and not as either King or Prophet but this is a vaine answer for no private man could have builded an house to God with such typicall relations to Christ and to the Church of the New Testament except hee had been immediatly inspired by the holy Ghost Becanus saith three sorts of men were actors here 1. Solomon 2. The Priests 3. The people Solomon prayed and gave thankes the Priestâ— â—arried the Arke the Tabernacle the holy vessels and sacriji â—s the 〈…〉 present rejoyced and gave thankâ—s to God there is nothing 〈…〉 Solomons headship Solomon dedicated a Temple to God what it will no more follow hee was the head of the Church for that 〈…〉 â—ffered stones and timber to God then the womâ—n can â—ee 〈◊〉 of the Church who offered to God gâ—â—d purple 〈…〉 buddâ—â— Temple to God many Merâ—hanâ—s â—ubild Templeâ— upon their 〈…〉 God and pray to God to accept these Temples 〈◊〉 in England 〈◊〉 Temples to God they are not for that head of the Church Answ. 1. This is another Temple then Temples builded daily 1. Because it was wil-worship for David to build this Temple and service to God for Solomon a King of peace and a type of our King of wisedome Christ to build this Temple and for no other any Merchant may build a common house to Gods service without a speciall word of promise which word Solomon behoved to have or then hee could not build this house 1. To dedicate an house to God typicall of Christ 2. Filled with the cloud of Gods presence where God said hee would dwel in this house 3. With such ornaments as the Holy of holiest in it 4. In which God said he would heare prayers whereas now in all places hee heareth prayers Joh. 4. 21. 1 Timothâ— 2. 8. this is another positive worship then that a merchant build a house for Gods daily service which hath no relative holinesse in it but onely is holy in the use and to dedicate a house in these termes is more then an ordinary dedication to Gods service and their Prelates in England who dedicated Temples to God cannot answer this reply of the Jesuites nor can the new Jesuite Lysimachus Nicanâ—r their brother answer the Jesuite herein wee say from warrant of Gods Word that Solomon did all this by a propheticall instinct by the which also hee prophecied and did write the booke of the Proâ—â—rbs Ecclesiastes and Solomons Song else Jesuites may say that these bookes doe no more prove Solomon to bee a Prophet then the tomes written by Becanus and Suarez doth prove that they were divinely inspired Prophets Obj. David also prepared materialls for the Temple 1 Chron. 22. 2. and dicided the Levites in certaine rankes and orders 1 Chron. 23. 4. Answ. 2 Chron. 8. 13. for so had David the man of God commanded the man of God is the Prophet of God not the King of Israel as King 2 Chron. 29. 25. and hee set the Levites in the house of God with Cymba's and psalteries and â—arpes according to the commandement of David and of Gad the Kings Seer and Nâ—uhâ—n the Prophet for so was the commandement of the Lord by his Prophets they may prove then God the Prophet is the head of the Church and hath power to make Church-Lawes But it is a great mistake Hâ—â—â—â—iah David Solomon commanded the people and the â—evites to doe their duties according to Gods Word Ergo Kings may make Church-constitutions by a mixt power it followeth in no soâ—â— wee deny not but the King may command in Gods worship what is already of cleare and evident divine institution but that hee may obtrude it as a thing to bee observed by all Church men and urge it as a constitution come from authoritie to bâ—e observed under the paine of ecclesiasticall censures wee deny now this formalists teach that hee may command in the externall government as a Church constitution to bee in his royall name executed by Church men with Church censures though the Church never heard of it before It is true that Jehoshaph â—t 2 Chron. 19 8 9 10 11. set of the Levites and Priests and the chiefe of the fathers of Israel for the judgement of the Lord and for controversies and charged them to doe in the feare of the Lord v. 11. and behold Amariah the chieâ—e Priest saith hee is over you in all the matters of the Lord and Zebadiah the sonne of Ismael the ruler of the house of Judah for all the Kings matters also the Levites shall bee officers before you deale câ—â—raâ—iously and the Lord shall bee with the good Hence doth Tâ—oker and other court parasites inferre 1. That the King constituting Levites and Priests in a Citie must bee head of the Church and 2. That Jehoshaph at having constitute two Vicars and Dâ—puties under him one in Church matters to wit Amariah another in civill matters to wit Zebadiah therefore hath the King a jurisdiction and headship in both Church and State Answer 1. The institution of Priests is one thing and the calling of the persons to the Office another the former was Gods due who himselfe chused the tribe of Levi and this the King did not But it is another thing to constitute Priests and Levites who were instituted and called of God to serve in such a place at Jerusalem rather then in any other place this is but to apply a person who is jure divine by Gods right in office to such places and times This is not a point of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction for placing and timing Preachers belongeth to the people calling them and in the time of Apostasy as this was Jehoshaphat sent Levites to teach and commanded them to do their duty but that the High Priest is the Kings Deputy or Vicar as if the King offered sacrifices to God as the principall and Church head or by the Ministry and service of Amariah as his instrument deputy and servant is most idly and untruely spoken Yet will I not use the argument of Beâ—anus the Jesuite who saith If Amariah was the Kings Vicar then may the King by himselfe sacrifice for what ever the Vicar oâ— deputy may dâ—e that may the person above him who giveth him power dâ—e without the Vicar The Kings royall commandement is formally terminated upon the quality and manner of Ecclesiasticall acts that they bee done according to Gods Law rather then upon the acts according to their substance It is one thing for Ministers to Preach sound Doctrine and administrate the Sacraments in obedience and at the Kings commandement which wee acknowledge a truth and another thing for Ministers to Preach in the name and authority of royall Majesty as having a calling from him this latter is false as the King may do an
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
soules and emptie purses to a Metropolitan and an Archbishop who is as dexterous and happy in emptying of poore mens purses and destroying soules if not large better as a pettie Lord Prelate from whom hee appealed yet is the one Lord Prelate the Vicar of Christ as well as the other by formalists bookes And 2. If the cause bee proper to the Presbytery they have just right to judge it as well as the provinciall assembly hath but possibly not such knowledge and if the partie complaine that hee is wronged or may bee wronged hee may well appeale to a larger part of Christs tribunall lesse obnoxious to erring which is no wrong done to the Presbyterie This man laboureth to make a division amongst our Divines because we know not whether to make our Pastors Doctors and Elders immediat 〈…〉 to Christ as Priests because then they are Priests of the New Testament or â—ubject to Christ as King and then all our officers shall 〈◊〉 Kings under Christ and the Christian Mâ—gistrate shall be so thrust out of his kingdome and chaire And the ignorant railer maketh much adoe in this matter but the truth is stronger then this Popish scribler for 1. as Christ is a Priest having a body to offer for the sinnes of the people and a reall Sacrifice our Divines deny that Christ hath any substitute and demie Priests under him or master Priests to offer sacrifices reall to God if this Author put any Priests under Christ in this meaning hee is upon an unbloody Masse-sacrifice much good doe it him if Fenner make this propheticall office of Christ a part of Christs Priesthood because the Priest was to teach the people Matth. 2. 7. Hos. 4. 6. and Abraham Henrick say the same there is no absurd to make the officers of the New Testament subordinate to Christ as to our high Priest teaching us Gods will not to Christ as our high Priest offering a bloody or a reall sacrifice to God this Author maketh much ado to cite Cartwright Fenner Bezâ—â— and Sonnius men whose bookes hee is not worthy to beare making the officers of Christs kingdome subordinate to Christ as King for as much as Christ as King prescribed the forme of ecclesiasticall government and then saith the poore man the Pastors under Christ â—â— King must bee all Emperors the Doctors Kings the Elders Dukes the Deacons Lords of the treasury c. and if they bee Christs immediat vicegerents within their owne Kingdomes who shall controll any of them on whithot shall an injured man appeâ—le Answ. 1. Wee are to blesse God that these Officers Pastors Doctors Elders Deacons are expresly in the Word of God and that this railers officers to wit Bishops Archbishops Metropolitans Primats Deanes Archdeanes officials c. are in no place of Christs testament onely they are in the Popes Masse book now if the man offend because they are subordinate to Christ as King hee must make his Primates his Metropolitans his Diocesan Lords his Deans Officials and such wild Officers Emperours Kings Dukes and Lord Treasurers under Christ for some roome these creatures must have else they must bee put out at the Church doors and if a man bee injured by the Primate to whom shall hee appeale but to some above him a Cardinall and if that creature be a Christ who cannot do wrong well and good it is wee rest but if hee bee a man like the rest of the world surely poor folk must appeale to his high holines the Pope 2. Deacons are not men of ecclesiastick authoritie in our account but are to serve tables Acts 6. 3. nor are our officers little Kings under Christ for the man cannot hold of the sent of a Lord Bishop but meere ministers and servants and the Ambassadors of the King of Kings who have no power to make lawes as if they were little Kings but are to propound Christs lawes hee is ignorant of Christs kingdome for the officers of the New Testament are under Christ as their King Ergo they are under him as little deputie Kings to make Lawes as Judges earthly are under those whose kingdome is of this world Joh. 18. 36. the man is both beside his booke and his wit to infer this Christ hath no Popes nor visible substitute Kings under him but under him are meere servants and heralds 4. Wee are farre from holding that one Church man such as the Pope may excommunicate Kings Gregorius the second excommunicated the Emperour Leo and Gregorius the seventh alias wicked Hildebrand excommunicated Henry the fourth Christ hath committed the power of excommunication to the whole Church 1 Cor. 5. 4. Matth. 18. 17 18. and therefore Lysimachus Nicanor cannot but side with Papists in laying this power upon one Prelate as the Kings substitute or rather the Popes Vicar 5. Wee doe not teach that the Pope or any Church man may dethrone Kings and alienate their crownes to others Gregory the first in a certaine decree saith Kings and Judges who contrâ—veneth the constitution of the Sea of Rome are to bee deprived of her honour Gregory the second having excommunicated the Emperour Leo discharged the Italians to pay him tribute and that because Leo was against the worshipping of Images See Haiminsfieldius and Arniseus and Baleus saith the Pope drew the subjects of this Leo Isaurus in apertam rebellionem to 〈◊〉 rebellion and so the Emperors of the east were deprived of the kingdome of Italy per sanctissimum diabolum by a most holy devill Pope Zachariah not the Prophet deprived Childericus King of France of his kingdome and procured that Pipinus the father of Charles the great should bee created King so saith Baleus also Let the third transferred the Empire from the Grecians to the Romans and by the hand of Pope Leo saith Sigebertus Charles was crowned See for this Shardius Gregorius the fift being the brother germane of Otbo the Emperour made a Law that the Emperour should bee chosen by seven Princes electors which fact weakned the majestie of the Empire which went before by inheritance hence An. 1350. Charles the fourth that his sonne might succeed him in the Empire laid in pledge the free Cities of the Empire in the hands of the Prince electors which to this day are not redeemed So did the Pope shake the Empire at his owne will Gregory the third began and Leo the third finished the devise of erecting a new Empire in the West and weakned the power of the Emperour of Constantinople Gregorius the seventh alias gracelesse Hildebrand deprived Henry the fourth and created another in his place as Sleidan and Lampadius relateth Innocentius the third dethroned Otho the fourth and Innocentius the fourth dethroned Frederick the second and the like did Clemens the sixth to Lodovick the fourth by Bellarmines owne confession No Emperours can bee created but by their consent saith the Author of that learned worke Catalog
on of the hands of the Elders 1 Tim. 4. 14. 2 Tim. 2. 2. but by the authoritie of the Patron who doth nominate the man and may charge the Presbyterie by Law to admit him minister of such a flock Nor is it enough to say that the Patron doth present to such a benefit onely and doth leave all the ecclesiasticall part to the Church and the officers thereof for this would say something if the Patron were tied to the Churches free choise whereas the contrary is true that the Church is tyed to the Patrons free election of the man but this is nothing because the Patron being but one man onely and so the Church can have no lawfull proprietie right and dominion over the rents of the Church for Christ is onely Lord and proprieter and just titular of all rents dotted for the maintenance of the ministery and under Christ when the place vaiketh the rents recurre to the Church as the proper proprieter under Christ as the goods of Ananias and Saphira are the goods of the Church after they had given them in to the publick treasurie of the Church Ergo the Patron can give no right to any person to bee presented and ordained for no man can give to another that title and right which hee hath not in himselfe If it bee said hee may give in the Churches name as the Churches Patron those goods which are mortified to the Church well then is the Patron in the act of presenting the representative Church and hath the Churches power Ergo hee is but the Churches servant in that and to doe at the Churches will and the Church is the first presenter this is a new representative Church that wee have not heard of 2. This is against the nature of the Patrons office whose it is when hee foundeth and buildeth a Church to reserve the right of patronage to himselfe and never to give that right to the Church Ergo by his owne authoritie and not in the Churches name hee giveth title to the benefice to the Pastor of Minister 3. The Church hath not power to alien ate and dispose to one particular man those goods which are given to God and to his Church so as that one hath power in Law to dispose those goods to any without the Churches consent as the Patron may doe The Church may dispose and give power to one man to doe certaine actions in the Churches name but yet so as the Church retaineth power to regulate that her delegate or commissioner in these acts and to correct him in case of aberration but the Church hath no power over the Patron as Patron to limit him in the exercise of his power for the right of Patronage is his by birth he may sel it for mony to another to a Papist to an excommunicate person to a Jew or an enemy of the Church as hee may sell his lands and houses and hath a civill right thereunto under his Majesties great Seale therefore the patron doth here proprio suo jure by his owne proper right present and give title and Law to the Church benesice and doth not present in name of Church or as having from the Church a power 3. What ever taketh away an ordinance of Christ that is not lawfull but the power of Patrons taketh away the ordinance of Christ and the free election of the People because the people have power to choose out of many one fittest and most qualified for the office as is cleare Act. 6. 3. Act. 1. v. last Act. 14. 23. because the man chosen should bee one of a thousand as Didoclavius or Calderwood saith in that learned Treatise called Altare Damascenum Nor can it be said saith that learned Author that the Church may transferre her right of presenting to a Patron for that is in effect to transferre her power of election but that saith hee the particular Church cannot doe except by the decrce of a gener all assembly neither can that right bee transferred over to a generall assembly especially a perpetuall and hereditary right because as saith Cartwright it is a part of that libertie which is purchased by Christs blood which the Church can no mâ—re alienate and dispose then shee can transferre or dispose to another her inheritance of the kingdome of God to the which this libertie is annexed thus he 4. The discerning of the spirits and the knowing of the voyce of Christ speaking in his called servants is laid upon the flocke of Christ whose it is to elect but not upon the Patron which may bee a Heathen and a Publican and as such is no member of the Church 5. Every humane ordinance not warranted by Christs Tostament and abused to sacriledge rapine delapidation of Church-rents and Simoniacal pactions with the intrants into the holy ministery is to bee abolished and is unlawfull but the right of patronages is such as experiences teacheth to many and lamentable The proposition is above cleared 6. That calling in part or in whole which giveth no ground of faith and assurance of a lawfull calling to the Ministers entry to that holy charge cannot belawfull but the calling to the ministery by the good will and consent of the Patron as Patron is such Ergo. The proposition is cleare every lawfull meane and way of entry unto that calling is warranted by a word of promise or precept or practise the calling by the patrons consent hath neither word of promise or precept or practise in the Word and stayeth not the conscience of the man of God that hee did not runne unsent but a man is never a whit the more staid in his conscience that hee is presented by a Patron to the tithes and parsonage and vicarage of such a Congregation It is but a cold comfort to his soule that the Patron called him 7. What ever priviledge by the Law of nature all incorporations have to choose their owne rulers and officers this Christ must have provided in an eminent manner to the Church but all cities societies incorporations and kingdomes have power to choose their owne rulers officers and members as is cleare by an induction of all free colledges societies cities and republicks Ergo this cannot bee laid upon a Patron see for this also Amesius Guliel Apollonius who citeth that of Athâ—nasius Where is that Canon in the Word that the sent Minister of Christ is sent from the Court or the Princes Palaâ—e As concerning the other two this author condemneth Lands dedicated to the ministery because the New Testament speaketh nothing of such Lands Answ. This speaketh against Glebes of Ministers but the New Testament speaketh not of Manses or houses or of moneys for Ministers yet a wage wee know is due Matth. 10. 10. 1 Cor. 9. 8 9 10. Gal. 6. 6. and the Levites were not to bee distracted from the most necessary worke of the Tabeâ—â—acle and service of God more then Ministers yet they had Lands and Townes