of these congregations as where there is not a head of a Family and members there is not a Family and so you prove not Jerusalem a presbyteriall Church over many fixed and formed Churches as they are in Scotland and if the Apostles were pastors in a circular and fluid way to many congregations every one was a pastor to many congregations and so elected by many congregations which is absurd Ans. 1. Fixed or not fixed cannot vary the essence of the government 1. The Priests Levites and Prophets teaching in the wildernes from place to place and the people by war scattered to sundry Tribes doth not make these meetings not to be under the government of the great Sanedrim more then if the meeting made a fixed Synagogue divers members and dverso heads in one Family occasioned by death and pestilence diverse Souldiers and new Commanders in a Regiment diverse Inhabitants yea and weekly altered rulers and watchmen in a City doth not infer that that family Regiment and City is not under one government of the City one of the whole army and one parliamentary law of the whole kingdome no more then if all were fixed in members and heads 2. Churches their persecution may have both members and teachers removed to a corner and altered yet they remain the same single Congregation having the same government 3. Officiating in the same word seales censures by Peter to day and by Andrew to morrow though members also be changed is of the same species and nature even to the worlds and if we suppose the Church of Ierusalem to be one Congregation induring a patterne these sixteen hundred yeares members and officers must be often altered yet it is one Congregation in specie and one single Church in nature though not in number and the government not altered through the fluidity and alteration of members and officers as it is the same Parliament now which was in the raigne of King Iames though head and members be altered fluidity and alteration of rulers and members must be by reason of mortality accidentall to all incorporations and yet their government for all that doth remaine the same in nature if these same Lawes and Government in nature by these Lawes remaine CHAP. 4. SECT 5. Why we doe not admit the Members of the Churches of Old England to the Seales of the Covenant Quest. I. VVHether the Seales of the Covenant can be denyed to professors of approved piety because they are not members of a particular visible Church in the New Testament Our Brethren deny any Church Communion and the seales of the Covenant Baptisme to the children of Beleevers the Lords Supper to beleevers themselves who come to them from Old England because they be not members of the particular Congregation to which they come and because there is no visible Church in the New Testament but one particular Parish and all who are without a particular Parish are without the visible Church and so are not capable of either Church censures or the Seales of the Covenant because 〈◊〉 have right to the seales of the Covenant but onely this visible Church We hold all who professe faith in Christ to be members of the visible Church though they bee not members of a visible Congregation and that the seales of the Covenant should not be denyed to them And for more full clearing of the question let these considerations be observed First Dist. All beleevers as beleevers in foro Dei before God have right to the seales of the Covenant these to whom the Covenant and body of the Charter belongeth to these the seale belongeth but in foro Ecclesiastico and in an orderly Church-way the seales are not to be conferred by the Church upon persons because they beleeve but because they professe their beleeving therefore the Apostles never baptized Pagans but upon profession of their faith Second Dist. Faith in Christ truely giveth right to the seales of the Covenant and in Gods intention and decree called voluntas beneplaciti they belong onely to the invisible Church but the orderly way â—f the Churches giving the seales is because such a society is a professing or visible Church and orderly giving of the seales according to Gods approving will called voluntas signi revelata belongeth to the visible Church Third Dist. The Church may orderly and lawfully give the seales of the Covenant to those to whom the Covenant and promises of grace doth not belong in Gods decree of election Fourth Dist. The Church may lawfully adde to the Church visible such as God addeth not to the Church invisible as they may adde Simon Magus and the Church may lawfully cast out of the visible Church such as Christ hath not cast out of the invisible Church as the Church may excommunicate regenerate persons for scandalous sinnes Fift Dist. Then the regenerate excommunicated have right to the seales of the Covenant as they have to the Covenant and yet the Church doth lawfully debarre them hic nunc in such a scandalous case from the seales of the Covenant Wee hold that those who are not members of a particular Congregation may lawfully be admitted to the seales of the Covenant First Because those to whom the promises are made and professe the Covenant these should be baptized But men of approved piety are such though they be not members of a particular Parish The proposition is Peters argument Act. 2. 38. Secondly Those who are not Members of a particular Church may be visible professors and so members of a visible Church Ergo the seales of the Covenant belongeth to them Thirdly The contrary opinion hath no warrant in Gods Word Fourthly The Apostles required no more of those whom they baptized but profession of beleefe as Act. 10. 47. Can any forbid water that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we Act. 8. 37. If thou beleevest with all thy heart thou mayest he baptized no more is sought of the Jaylor Act. 16. 31. 34. The Authour saith To admit to the Seales of the Covenant is not an act of Christian liberty that every Christian may dispense to whom he pleaseth but an act of Church power given to the Ministers to dispense to those over whom the Holy Ghost hath made them overseers but we have no Ministeriall power over those of another Congregation and who are not members of a particular Congregation Answ. First To dispense the Seales to whom we please as if mens pleasure were a rule were licentiousnesse not Christian Liberty There may be a communion of benefits where there is no communion of punishment Beneficia sunt amplianda Secondly It is false that Pastors have no Ministeriall power over those who are not of their Congregation for if so all communion of Churches should fall for Letters of recommendation from other Churches whereof they are Members cannot make Pastors of New England to have a Ministeriall power over those of another
is essentially an act of preaching the Word Object 14. This Synod declares only in a doctrinall way what is necessary what is scandalous the same way that Paul doth Rom. 14. 14 15. i Cor. 8. 1 Cor. 10. Answ. This Synod and Paul declare one and the same thing Ergo with one and the same authoritie it followeth not Paul writeth 1 Cor. 5. that the incestuous man should bee excommunicated and this hee wrote as canonicall Scripture by the immediat inspiration of the holy Spirit if then the Church of Corinth should have excommunicated him shall it follow that they gave out the sentence of excomunication by the immediate inspiration of the holy Spirit I thinke not their Churches sentence had been given out by a meere ecclesiasticall authoritie according to the wch Churches of Christ to the worlds end doth excommunicate following the Church of Corinth as a patterne Obj. 15. Though these obtruders of ceremonies did pervent soâ—ks v. 24. yet the Synod doth not summond them before them nor excommuncite them but remit them to the particular Churches to whom it properly belonged to censure and not to any Synod or superiour Judicature Answ. There was no need to summon them for these subverters of soules were personally present at the Synod and rebuked in the face of the Synod as perverters of soules v. 24. for if they were not present 1. to whom doth Peter speake v. 10. Now therefore why tempt yee God to put a yoake on the necke of the disciples c. the Apostles and Elders did not impose the yoake of Moses Law upon the beleeving disciples nor any other save onely the obtruders of circumcision 2. Who were they in the Synod who made much disputing v. 7. note the Apostles not any save these obtruders Ergo they were personally present at the Synod nor needed they to excommunicate them for I judge that they acquiesced to the determination of James which was the sentence of the Synod and the great dispute spoken of v. 7. ceased v. 13. and the conclusion is agreed upon 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then it seemed good to the Apostles Elders and whole Church and there was reason why these obtruders should acquiesce so that there was no need of further censure for there was satisfactiou in part given to both siddes The question was whether or no are beleevers now to keepe the Law and the ceremonies of Moses his Law It was answered by the Synod by a distinction which favoured in part both sides 1. There is no necessitie that the beleeving Gentiles who are saved by grace as well as the Jewes bee troubled to keepe all the ceremonies and this satisfied the Apostles who taught that the Gentiles were now made one people with the Jewes and both are freed in conscience from Moses his yoake the other part of the distinction it was this yet there bee some ceremoniall commandements as not to eate things offered to Idols blood and things strangled for fornication is of another nature and abstinence therefrom is of perpetuall necessitie 1 Cor. 6. 13 14 15 16. 1 Thess. 4. 3. Col. 3. 5. these must bee avoided for scandals sake by all the Jewes but especially by the Gentiles lest the weake Jewes who take these to be divine commandements yet in force take offence and this was satisfactorie to the obtruders and wee heare no more of their disputing and there is an end of the controversie by the blessed labours of a lawfull Synod 3. I could easily yeeld that there is no necessitie of the elicit acts of many parts of government such as excommunication ordination admitting of heathens professing the faith to Church-membership in Synods provinciall nationall or oecumenicall but that Synods in the case of neglect of presbyteriall-Churches command these particular Churches whom it concerneth to doe their dutie and in this sense the Synod Act. 15. is to remit the censure of excommunication to the presbytery of Antioch and Jerusalem in the case of the obstinacie of these obtruders of circumcision but so some power of government is due to the Synod as prescribing of Lawes and Canons for presbyteries and Congregations Object 16. Therefore was the Synagogue of the Jewes no compleat Church because all the ordinances of God cannot bee performed in the Synagogue and therefore were the Jewes commanded onely at Jerus salem and in no other place to keepe the passeover and to offer offerings and sacrifices which were òrdinary worship Deut. 12. but there is not any worship or sacred ordinance saith that worthy Divine Dr. Ames of preaching praying Sacraments c. prescribed which is not to bee observed in every Congregation of the New Testament Nor is there any ordinary minister appointed who is not given to some one Assembly of this kind So also Mr. Mather and Mr. Thomson teachers in New England Others say because there was a representative worship of sacrificing of all the 12. Tribes at Jerusalem therefore all the Synagogues were dependent Churches and Jerusalem was the supreme and bighest Church but there is no representative worship in the New Testament and therefore no need of Synods as higher Churches Answ. Surely the aforesaid reverend Brethren of New England have these words But it seemeth to us that the power of a Synod is not proporly a power and exercise of government and jurisdiction but a power of doctrine and so a Synod is rather a â—aching then a governing Church from which I inferre 1. That out Brethren cannot deny a power of governing to a Synod but it is not so proper governing as excommunication and ordination performed in their Congregations but say I it is more properly governing as to make Lawes and rules of governing is a more noble eminent and higher act of governing as is evident in the King and his Parliament then the execution of these Lawes and rules 2. Our brethren incline to make a Synod a teaching Church but I inferre that Synodicall teaching by giving out decrees tying many Churches as our Brethren of New England and the forenamed authors teach is an ordinance of Christ that can bee performed in no single Congregation on earth for a doctrinall Canon of one Congregation can lay no ecclesiasticall tie upon many Churches Ergo by this reason our Congregations shall bee dependent as were the Jewish Synagogues 3. With favour of these learned men it is a begging of the question to make Jerusalem the supreme Church and the Synagogues dependent Churches because it was lawfull onely at Jerusalem to sacrifice for I hold that Jerusalem was a dependent Church no lesse then the smallest Synagogue in all the tribes for in a Catholick meeting of all Judah for renewing a Covenant with God Ierusalem was but a sister Church with all of Iudah Benjamin Ephraim Manasseh who 2 Chron. 15. 9. 10. 11 12. made up one great Church which did sweare that Covenant Ordinances doe not formally make Churches visible nor divers ordinances divers
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
weake p. 297 298 299 seq Mr. Coachmans arguments dissolved p. 305 306 307. seq The way of Church judging in independent congregations examined p. 308 309. That there be no peculiar authority in the Eldership for which they can be said to be over the people in the Lord according to the doctrin of independency of Churches and their six ways of the Elders authority confuted p. 311 312 313 314 315. seq That independency doth evert communion of sister-Churches and their seven wayes of Churches-communion refuted from their own grounds p. 324 325 326. seq The divine right of Synods Ten distructions thereanent p. 331 332. seq The desinition of a generall or Oecumenick Synod p. 332. 333 The place Acts 15 farther considered p. 334 335. Synods necessary by natures Law p. 336. Papists no friends to councells p. 336 337 338. seq 340 341. Three ways of communion of sister-Churches according to the doctrin of independent Churches confuted p. 346 347. seq How the magistrate hath power to compell persons to the profession of the truth p. 352 373. seq Six distinctions thereanent 2 part p. 352 353. The Magistrates power over a people Baptized and over Pagans who never heard of Christ in this poynt of Coaction to profession not alike p. 353 354 355. The magistrates compelling power terminated upon the externall act not upon the manner of doing sincerely or hypocritically p. 355 356. The magistrates power over hereticks with sundry distinctions thereanent p. 356 357 358. seq Socinians judgement and Arminians hereanent p. 359 360 A farther consideration of compelling or tolerating diverse Religions p. 361 362. Some indirect forcing lawfull p 362. Erroneous opinions concerning God and his worship though not in Fundamentalls censurable p 363 364. Diverse non Fundamentalls are to be believed with certainty of Faith and the non-believing of them are siâ—nes punishable p. 365. 366 367 seq Arguments on the contrary dissolved and the place Philip. 3. 15. cleared p 316. seq How an erring conscience obligeth p. 378 379 380 381 seq Arguments on the contrary answered p. 383 384. seq The Princes power in Church affairs Ten distinctions thereanent p. 391 392. 393. How the Magistrate is a member of the Church p. 392 393. The Prince by his Royall Office hath a speciall hand in Church-affaires p 393 394. The intrinsecall end of the Prince is a supernaturall good to be procured by the Sword and a coactive power and not only the externall peace of the State Spalato resuted p 396 397 398. seq How the Magistrate is subordinate to Christs mediatory Kingdome p 402 403 404 seq The ordinary power of the Prince is not Synodicall teaching or making Church-Lawes p. 403 404 405 406. seq The influence of the Princes civill power in Church-Canons p. 409. 410 411 seq The government of the visible Church spirituall and not a formall part of the Magistrates Office p. 417 418. seq The power of Ordination and Deprivation not a part of the Magistrates Office p. 427 428. seq Instances from David Salomon Ezechiah c. answered and our Doctrine and Iesuites differenced p. 438 439. seq Difference betwixt the Princes commanding Church-duties and the Churches commanding these same p. 417 418 seq The Kings ordinary power to make Church-Lawes examined p. 438 439 440. seq The intrinsecall end of the Magistrate a supernaturall good p. 442 443 446 447 448. The Popes pretended power over Kings protestants contrary to to Papists herein what ever the author or Popish libeller of the survey and the night-Author of Treason Lysimachus Nicanor say on the contrary p. 449 450 451 452. seq The way of Reformation of Congregations in England according to the independent way examined p. 457 458. The originall of Church-Patronages p. 459. And how unwarrantable by Gods Word p. 462 463. Other wayes of Reformation of England according to the way of independent Churches modestly considered as about maintenance of Ministers and replanting of visible Churches there p. 464 465 466. seq Errata THe Author could not attend the Presse therefore pardon errors of the Printing Observe that the Author was necessitated to make some occasionall addition to the mids of this Treatise which occasioned-variation of the Figures of the Pages and therefore stumble not that when the Booke commeth to page 484 the next page not observing due order is page 185. 186 and so forth to the end of the Treatise page 60. title of the page 60 c. page 61 62. 64. dele not and for not of the same essentiall frame c. read of the same essentiall frame c. page 484 line 22 Churches their persecution read Churches through their persecution for page 229 read 209. for page 259. read 269. for p. 484. r. p. 498. יהוה THE Way of the Church of Christ In NEW ENGLAND Measured by the Golden Reed of the SANCTUARY Or The way of Churches walking in brotherly equality and independence or coordination without subjection of one Church to another examined and measured by the Golden Reed of the Sanctuary Propositions concerning the supposed visibility and Constitution of independent Churches examined CHAP. 1. SECT 1. PROP. 1. THe Church which Christ in his Gospell hath instituted and to which he hath committed the keys of his Kingdome the power of binding and loosing the Tables and Scales of the Covenant the Officers and Consures of his Church the Administration of all his publick worship and Ordinances is coetus fidelium a company of Believers meeting in one place every Lords day for the administration of the holy ordinances of God to publick edification 1 Cor. 14. 23. 1 Because it was a company whereof Peter confessing and believing was one and built on a rock Mat. 16. 18. a Such as unto whom any offended brother might complaine Mat. 18. 17. 3 Such as is to cast out the incestuous Corinthian 1 Cor. 5. Which cannot agree to any diocesian provinciall or Nationall assemblie Ans. From these we question Quest. 1. If a company of believers and saints builded by faith upon the rock Christ and united in a Church-Covenant be the only instituted visible Church of the New Testament to the which Christ hath given the keys Let these considerations be weighed 1. Dist. The matter of an instituted visible Church is one thing and the instituted visible Church is another as there be ods betwixt stones and timber and an house made of stones and timber 2 Dist. It is one thing to govern the actions of the Church and another thing to governe the Church the Moderator of any Synod doth govern the actions of the Synod but he is not for that a Governour Ruler and Pastor of the Synod Or ordering actions and governing men are diverse things 3. Dist. A thing hath first its constituted and accomplished being in matter forme efficient and finall causes before it can performe these operations and actions that flow from that being so constituted a Church must be a Church before any
execute it for Doeg the Edomite sinned in killing the Lords Priests at the command of Saul and the footmen of Saul did religiously refuse that service 1 Sam. 22. 17. The Souldiers who crucified Christ not only as men but as Lictoâ—s sinned against a principle of the Gospel which they were obliged to believe Maries sonne is the true Messiah nor are we to joyne with a Church excommunicating a man because he confessed Christ Iob. 9. nor need we consent to these that the Senate of Venice is excommunicated by Paul the fift An. 1607. and Henricus Borbonius King of Navarre by Sixtus 5. and Elizabeth of England by Pius 5. and Henry the 4. by Gregory 7. or Hilderland and Martin Luther by Leo the 10. An. 1520. the Pope is not the Catholick Church as many learned Papists especially the Parisian Theologues teach 3. Concl There is not required the like certainty of conscience practicall in a question of fact that is required in a question of Law 1. Because in a question of Law all ignorance is morall and culpably evill to any who undertaketh actions upon conscience of obedience to others for to all within the visible Church the word of God is exactly perfect for faith and manners and every on is obliged to know all conclusions of Law that are determinable by Gods word 2. Every one in his actions is to doâ— out of a plerophorie and a full perswasion of heart that what he doth pleaseth God Rom. 14. 14. I know and am perswaded by the Lord Jesus that nothing is uncleane of it selfe 3. We are to doe nothing but what is lawfull and what in our consciences we are perswaded is lawfull and are to know what is sinne and what is no sin All Souldiers in war and Lictors and these who execute the sentence of excommunication are to know what are the just causes of war and what crimes by Gods Law deserve death and what not as what homicide sorcery parricide incest and the like sinnes deserve by Gods Law and what not because every one is obliged to know morally what concerneth his conscience that he be not guilty before God the executioner who beheaded Iohn Baptist sinned because he was obliged to know this a prophet who rebuketh incest in a King ought not to be put to death therefore It was unlawfull for the men of Iudah to come and make war with Ieroboam and the ten Tribes because God forbade that war 1 Ki. 12. 23 24. 4. Concl. It is not enough that some say if the question be negatively just then Souldiers and executioners and people may execute the sentence that is if they see no unlawfulnesse in the fact I meane unlaw fulnesse in materiâ juris in a matter of Law hence some say subjects and common Souldiers not admitted to the secrets of the councell of war may fight lawfully when there is this negative justice in the war but forraine Souldiers who are conduced may not doe so for the Law sayth he is not free of a fault who intermedleth with matters which belonge not to him to the hurt of others so Teacheth Suarez D. Bannes Andr. Duvallius yet the command of the Prince can remove no doubt of conscience also that the cause of the war in the matter of Law so far as it is agreeable to Gods word is not manifest to executioners is there culpable ignorance no lesse then the ignorance of a sentence manifestly unjust Ergo the practise of these who execute a sentence negatively only just is not lawfull I prove the antecedent beacuse the practicall ignorance of what we doe which is not warranted by Gods Word is alwayes culpable whether the cause be cleare or darke for no obscurity of Gods Law doth excuse our ignorant practise when the Word of God can sufficienty resolve us 2. It is not enough that our morall actions in their lawfulnes be just negatively because actions morall which are beside the Word of God praeter dei verbum to us who hold Gods Word perfect in faith and manners are also contra dei verbum against the Word of God and so unlawfull 3. Because actions morall having no warrant but the sole will and Commandement of superiors are undertaken upon the sole faith that what superiors command if it seeme not to us unjust though it be in it selfe unjust may lawfully be done Now we condemne this in Schoolemen and Popish casuistes that the Commandement of superiors as sayth Gregor de Valent. Bannes Suarez Silvester Navarre may take away and remove all doubting of conscience and make the action lawfull Whereas Navarre Corduba Sylvester Adrian hold that an action done without a due practicall certainty is unlawfull If he shoud diligently sayth Suarez search for the truth and cannot find it yet the doubter may practise so he practically perswade himselse he doth it out of a good mind and whereas the Jesuite sayth that it is his negligence in not seeking the truth he answereth his negligence which is by past cannot have influence in his present action to make it unlawfull because it is past and gone But I answer it is Physically past but it is morally present to infect the action as habituall ignorance maketh the acts of unbeliefe morally worse or ill And to these we may adde that he who doth with such a doubt 1. He sinneth because he doth not in faith 2. He exposeth himselfe to the hazard of finning and of joyning with an unjust sentence 3. It is the corrupt Doctrine of Papists who muzzle up the people in ignorance and discharge them to reade Gods Word and so maintaine because of the obscurity and imperfection of Gods Word which is not able to determine all questions that there is an ignorance of many lawfull duties which is invincible and to be excused as no wayes sinfull and which vitiateth not our morall actions so Thomas Bonaventura Richard Gabriel Occam Antoninus Adrianus Almaine Suarez though Occam and Almain may be expounded favourably 5. Concl. Souldiers Lictors Servants People under the Eldership are not meere instruments moved only by superiors as Schoolemen say 1. Because they are morall agents and are no lesse to obey in Faith then superiors are to command in Faith and they are to obey their Superiours only in the Lord. 2. They are to give all diligence that they be not accessary to unjust sentences lest they partake of other mens sinnes What Aquinas Greg. de Valent and And. Duvallius saith against this is not to be stood upon 6. Concl. But in questione facti in matters of fact there is not required that certainty of conscience But that we may more clearely understand the conclusion a question of fact is taken three wayes 1. For a fact expressely set down in Gods Word as that Moses led the people through the wildernesse that Cain slew his brother Abâ—l these are questions
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
Reformation of the Congregations of England IN the first article the Author acknowledgeth the Church of England was once rightly and orderly gathered either by Apostles â—â— apostolick men whether Philip or Joseph of Arimathea or Simon Zelotes as we may read in Fox c. Sothat all the worke now is not to make them Churches which were none before but to reduce and restore them to their primitive institution Answ. Though the Churches of England were planted by the Apostles yet since Popery universally afterward prevailed in both England and Scotland as Beda and Nicephorus and ancient histories witnesse we thinke by our brethrens grounds England losed the very essence of a true Church So that there be neede of the constituting of a new Church and not of simple restitution to the first restitution 1. Because the Congregations wanteth the essentiall constitution of right visible Churches as you say 2. Because you receive none comming from the Church of new-New-England to the seales of the Covenant because they are members of no visible Church Sect. 2. Certaine propositions tending to Reformation In the third or fourth Proposition the Author condemneth Laicks Patronages 2. Dedicating of Lands to the Ministry to these adde what the Ministers of New-England say in their answer to the thirty two Questions sent to them from Old-England where they condemne stinted maintenance Though the right of Church Patronages were derived from Romulus it is not for that of noble blood â—or Dionysius Halicarnasseus saith Romulus instituted Patronages when he had divided the people in noble and ignoble called Patricii Plebeii But this Patronage was civill and when servants and underlings were hardly used it hath a ground in nature that they choose Patrons to defend them therefore hee who gave libertie to a a servant amongst the Romans was called a Patron and he who defended the cause of the accused as Valla saith was called a Patron If it bee said that the servant was the proper goods and part of the Masters patrimony because hee might sell his servant and therefore there could bee no Law given to prove men may limit the dominion of the master over the servant I answer the servant was a part of his masters patrimony but a part thereof for sinne not as his Oxe or his Asse is a part of his patrimony therefore by the Law of nature whereby the weaker imploreth helpe of the stronger as the Lambe seeketh helpe from the mother and the young Eagle from the old the slave might well have libertie to choose a Patron and this is a ground that the Magistrate the Churches nurs-father by office should plead the Churches cause as her Patron and every one in power is to defend the Church in her liberties and patrimony and therefore in the Apostles time when holinesse and the power of Religion did flourish and was in court there was not need of any positive civill or Church Law for a Patron to the Church every beleever in power is oblieged to defend the Church but when men became Vulturs and ravenous birds to plucke from the Church what was given them the Councell of Millian in the yeare of God 402. wherein some say Augustine was president under Honorius and Arcadius some holy and powerfull men were sought from the Emperour to defend the Church in her patrimony and rights against the power and craft of avaritious men and they were called Patrons and the same was desired in the first Councell of Carthage but with the Bishops advice cum provisione Episcoporum Hence it is cleare patronages from their originall were not Church priviledges and Bishops being a part of the Church could not be the Patrons quia nemo sibi ipsi potest esse patronus and for this cause that learned thinketh this was the originall of Church Patronages but the Patrons have beene chosen with consent of the Church hence they were not as our Patronages are now which goeth 1. by birth 2. and are a part of a mans patrimony and civill thing that the Patron hath right unto under the Kings great Seale but as a Minister is not a Minister by birth neither was a Patron a Patron by birth and from this wee may collect that the Patrons right was but a branch of the Magistrates right and accumulative not primitive and that hee could take nothing from the Church and 〈◊〉 lesse might the Patron forestall the free election of the people by tying them and their free suffâ—ages to a determinate man whom hee presented and it is not unlike which Aâ—entinus 〈◊〉 when Bishops gave themselves onely to the Word of God to preaching and writing bookes in defence of the truth the Emperour tooke care that they should bee furnished with food and â—aiment and therefore gave them a pâ—tronus quem 〈◊〉 patronum curatoremque vocabant whom they called a patron and here observe the Bishop of old was the client and the sonne and Pupill now hee must bee the Patron and Tutor and therefore in time of Popery Antichristian Prelates would bee Patrons both to themselves and to the Churches But this seemeth not to bee the originall of patronages because this ground is common to all Churches but not all but onely some certaine Churches have patronages therefore their ground seemeth rather to bee that some religious and pious persons founded Churches and dotted and mortified to them benefices and the Church by the Law of gratitude did give a Patâ—onage over these founded Churches to the first foundators and their heires so as they should have power to nominate and present a Pastor to the Church But there were two notable wrongs in this for 1. If the fundator have all the Lands and Rents in those bounds where the Church was erected hee is oblieged to erect a Church and furnish a â—â—pend both by the Law of nature and so by Gods Law also Ergo the Church owe to him no gift of patronage for that nor is hee to keepe that patronage in his hand when hee erecteth a Church but and if hee being Lord heritor of all the Lands and Rents both erecteth a Church and dotteth a stipend sub modum eleemosynae non sub modum debiti by way of almes not by way of debt then is there no gratuitie of honour nor reward of Patronage due to him for almes as almes hath no reall or bodily reward to bee given by those on whom the almes is bestowed but onely the blessings of the poore Joh 31. 20. it being a debt payed to God hee doth requite it And Calderword saith no wise man would thinke that the Church men should allure men to found Churches and to workes of Pietie by giving them the right of presenting a man to the change and also hee would call it Simonie not pietie or religion if one should refuse to doe a good worke to the Church except upon so deareâ—t rate and so hard a condition as to
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