clearely insinuate that their commandement as Apostles de jure should have ended the controversie but now for the edification and after-example of the Churches they tooke a Synodicall way 13. The way of the Apostles speaking seemeth to mee Synodicall and not given out with that divine and Apostolicall authoritie that the Apostles may use in commanding it is true they use lovely and swasory exhortations in their writing but this is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a decree not an exhortation now James saith 1◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is set downe as his private opinion with reverence to what Peter and Paul saith and v. 7. Peter when many had disputed and spoken before him standeth up and speaketh and v. 12. Barnabas and Paul after the multitude is â—â—nt doth speake which to mee is a Synodicall order and the whole Synod v. 28. say It seemed good to us They answer 1. Consociated Churches have some power in determining of dogmaticall points but this is no power of jurisdictim The seventh Proposition to which almost all the Elders of New England agreed saith The Synod bath no Church-power but the cause enimeth with the Church Corpus cum causa the Church-body and the cause which concerneth the Church-body doe remaine together â—nd therefore quaestio defertur ad Synodum causa manet penes eccleiam the question is brought to the Synod the cause remaineth with the Church Another Manuscript of Godly and learned Divines I saw which saith That the ministeriall power of applying of the rules of the word and Canons to persons and things from time to time as the occasions of the Church shall require pertaineth to and may be exercised by each particular Church without any necessary dependance on other Churches yet in difficill cases wee ought say they to consult with and seeke advise from presbyteries and ministers of 〈◊〉 Churches and give so much authoritie to a concurrence of judgements as shall and ought to be an obligation to us not to depart from any such resolutions as they shall make upon any consideration but where in conscience and hence our peace with God is apparently concerned Answ. I perceive 1. That our brethren cannot indure that a Synod should bee called a Church but 1. I verily thinke that when Paul and Barnabas Act. 15. 1 2. had much dissention with those who taught you must bee circumcised after the manner of Moses that the Church of Antioch resolved to tell the Church that is the Synod while as they fall upon this remedy v. 2. They determined that Paul and Barnabas and certaine other of them 〈◊〉 goe up to Jerusalem unto the Apostles and Elders about this question that is that the Church of Antioch when the subverâ—ers of soules would not heare their brethren of Antioch did tell the Synod convened at Jerusalem that is according to our â—viours order Maâ—â—â— 18. 17. they did tell the Church and my reason is if the Church at Antioch could not satisfie the conâ—câ—enâ—es of some who said you must bee circumcised else you cannâ—x in saved they could not nor had they power in that cast not to goe on but were obliged to tell the Synod that is the Church whom it concerned as well as Antioch for if they had sent the matter to the Synod as a question not as a cause proper to the Synod or Church then when the Synod had resolved the question the cause should have returned to the Church of Antioch and been determined at Antioch as in the proper court if that hold true the question is deserred to the Synod the cauâ—e remaineth with the body the Church but the cause returned never to the Church of Antioch but both question and cause was determined by the Synodicall-Church Act. 15 v. 22. 23 24. and the determination of both question and cause ended in the Synod as in a proper court and is imposed as a commandement and a Synodicall Canon to bee observed both by Antioch v. 25 26 27 28 29. and other Churches Act. 16. 4 5. Ergo either the Church of Antioch lost their right and yet kept Christs order Matth. 18. 15 16 17. or the question and cause in this case belongeth to a Synod 2. It is said expresly â— 22. It pleased tâ— Apostles Elders and the whole Church to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch c. What Church was this the whole Church of â—â—leevers or the fiaternitie at Jerusalem say our brethren but with leave of their godlinesse and learning no say â— 1. What reason that the Church of all beleevers men and women of Jerusalem should de jure have beene present to give either consent or surfrage there because it concerned then practise and conscience but I say it concerned as much if not more the conscience and practise of the Church of Antioch if not more for the cause was theirs say our brethen and cause ad corpus say they quaestio ad synodum and it concerned as much the practise and conscience of all the Churches who were to observe these decrees Act 16. 4. 5 Act. 21. 25. yet they were not present If the multitude of â—â—leevers of Jerusalem was present because they were 〈…〉 to the Synod whereas Antioch other 〈…〉 were nor off were not present but in their commissioners then I say the Church â—â— the multitude of Jerusalem whose commidicâ—â—â—s were here 〈◊〉 I say the multitude was present â—uely de 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 nor was there more law for their presence then â—or all other Churches who also in conscience were obliged to obey the councells determinations but I deare a warrant that the fact of the Synod such as was sending of the decrees and Commissioners with the decrees to Antioch should bee â—â—â—â—ibed to the multitude of beleevers at Jerusalem who by no Law of God were present at the Synod and by no Law of God 〈◊〉 more consent then the Church of Antioch and were present 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by accident because they dwelt in the 〈◊〉 where the Synod did sit therefore say I the 〈◊〉 Church in the whole Synod 2. By what Law can Jerusalem a sister Church have influence or consent de jure in sending binding Acts as these were as is cleare v. 28. Ch. 16. 4 5. Ch. 21. 25. to the Church of Antioch for this is an authoritative sending of messengers and the Canons to the Church of Antioch as is evident v. 2 2. 3. It is utterly denied that the Church of Jerusalem I meane the multitude of beleevers could meet all at one Synod 4. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 12. which is said to hold their peace is referred to the Apostles and Elders met Synodically v. 6. and is not the multitude of beleevers 5. Where are these who are called Elders not Apostles they are ever distinguished from the Apostles as Act. 15. 2. v. 6. v. 22. Act. 16. 4. Act. 21. 18. 25. â—are is no reason that they were all
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
We say not that baptisme is imposed on all who beleeveth as they are such for God saveth divers beleevers who are not baptized but Gods will the supreme I aw-giver here is to be looked into God would have no circumcision from Adam to Abraham and would himselfe have the people want circumcision in the Wildernesse fortie yeares and would have it administrated in private houses it being a bloody and painefull Sacrament but we have an expresse Commandement of God to baptize all ordinarily of the visible Church yet not because they are members of one single Congregation but because they beleeve testifie themselves to be members of the visible Church in generall we deny that the want of membership in a particular CongregatioÌ„ is that strong band that should hinder baptisme or the seales of the Covenant God hath appointed no lawfull calling such as traffiquing by Seas â—equent travelling ordinary to transient members of the visible Church to be inconsistent with the lawfull partaking of the ordinances of grace seales of the Covenant for only those who doe not try and examine themselves and are prophanely scandalous are excluded as swine from the holy things of God and from the Lords Supper not men because they are necessarily busied in a lawfull calling and must ordinarily travell to farre countries and so cannot be members of a single parish 1. This is a physicall impediment and not a sinne nor a morall impediment excluding any from the Seales of grace yea and an unwritten tradition 2. I speake against that difference which the author maketh betwixt the seales of grace in the Old Testament and the seales of grace in the New Testament for there were Physicall and civill defects in the Old Testament which by a divine Law made some incapable of the Passeover as if any were Lepers bastards borne Moabites and Ammonites or typically uncleane or had touched the dead they could not eate the Passeover though otherwise they did beleeve in Christ to come and were morally cleane but by the contrary under the New Testament there be no Physicall or ceremoniall defects no callings no civill relations but onely morall defects and sinfull scandals which doth exclude men from the Seales of grace except you bring in ceremonies in the New Testament of your owne devising for all Nations so they beleeve in Christ Jew or Gentile Barbarian or Scythian bond or free male or female are to be baptized Matth. 28. 19. God is no accepter of 〈◊〉 or Nations or callings Act. 10. 34 35. compare this with ver 46 47. and Gal. 3. 27. For as many of you as have beene baptized unto Christ have put on Christ v. 28. There is neither Iew nor Gâ—â—ek there is neither bond nor free there is neither male nor female for 〈◊〉 all me in Christ Jesus so Gal. 6. 15. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcisionâ— waileth any thing nor uncircumcision but a new creature I must then say it is boldnesse in men to say that there is a lawfull calling in the New Testament which our Brethren are pleased to call the strong hand of God which maketh persons who are new creatures and baptized unto Christ uncapable of the seales of grace Deare Brethren yeeld to the cleare and evident truth of God And for this cause the seales of the New Testament must be more necessary in this respect then were the Seales in the Old Testament Our Brethren say All circumcised might eate the Passeover though I doubt much of it and might enter into the Temple if they were not legally uncleane but all baptized may not caâ—e the Lords Supper and all baptized though excommunicated may enter into the congregation for the publicke worship hearing the word praying praising c. But all circumcised might not enter into the congregation The places 1 Cor. 10. 17. and 12. 13. prove not that the Seales of grace are administrated to a Church body of a particular congregation only as they are such for these seales are common to all the visible Churches on earth We many are one body it is not to be exponed We many are of one Parishionall Congregation and onely are one body but We many of all the visible Churches on Earth are one body in Christ. This you must say except you deny all visible communion of sister Churches The Object They who are not capable of Church censures are not capable of Church Priviledges But those that are not within the Church covenant of a particular congregation are not capable of Church censure The proposition being evident the assumption is proved 1 Cor. 5. 12. What have I to doe to judge those who are without that is without the communion of a particular congregation So Amesius de consc l. 4. c. 24. quest 1. resp ad Answ. First I answered before the major is false by your owne doctrine those of another Congregation cannot be censured but by their owne congregation yet by Letters of recommendation they may receive the Lords Supper in another Congregation Also strangers of approved piety may be capable of Church rebukes which are Church censures Secondly The place 1 Cor. 5. 12. is manifestly abused for by those who are without are meant onely the Insidels and Heathens who are without the whole visible Church and not those of approved piety who are baptized and professe the truth sincerely for Peter Martyr Beza Calvin Marlorat Pareus Zwinglius so also Haymo Aquinas expone it with us which is cleare first by the phrase of speaking What have I to doe being a note of estrangement as Joh. 2. 4. Woman what have I to doe with thee and 2 Sam. 16. 10. David said What have I to doe with you ye sonnes of Zerviah now Paul and the faithfull at Corinth are not estranged from those of approved piety of other Congregations he tooke care to edifie and rebuke them and so are all the Saints to edifie censure and rebuke one another Thirdly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alwayes those who are without are taken in an ill part in the Word of God as Mark. 4. 11. Those who are without are the blinded and hardned and Rev. 22. 15. for without are dogges our Brethren expone it of the visible Church Now not to be in Membership of such a particular congregation is not a sin nor a just ground of Pauls estrangement of his Ministeriall power from them it may be caused by persecution when the flocke are scattered by Wolves Fourthly Those who are here without 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are left by Paul to the immediate judgement of God and not to be judged of the Church ver 13. But them that are without God judgeth Now those who are members of another congregation then the Church of Corinth or members of no particular congregation and yet of approved piety are not left to the immediate judgement of God because they are without The banished servants of God who suffer for the Truth or transient members who
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
Elders as well as the Apostles convened to consider about this matter and Act. 21. 18. 25. All the Elders of Jerusalem with James take on them these acts as well as the Apostles and they are the decrees of the Elders no lesse then of the Apostles Act. 16. â— 4. a derivation of the immediate impiâ—ing Spirit to â—â—â— Elders and by them as fellow-members of the Synod to the Apostles and a derivation of this immediat Apostolick spirit by the Apostles to the Elders to make them also infallible is unknowne to Scripture for one Prophet did not immediatly inspire another and one Apostle did not immediatly inspire another wee read not in the Word of any such thing and therefore it is said Act. 15. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And when there had beene much disputing Peter sâ—â—d up All who interpret this place say even Papists not exâ—pted as Salmero com in 〈◊〉 Salmeron Lâ—â—mus â— Lorinus Cornelius a lapt Cornelius a lapide and others on the place that when there is not consultation and disputing on both sides to find out the truth but an absolute authoritie used by commanding the proceeding of the counceil is rash saith Salmeron now the Prophets were immediatly inspired without any consultation with men in delivering Gods will and they saw the visions of God as it is said And the Word of the Lord came to Jeremiah to Ezechiel to Hosea c. and bee said c. yea when a propheticall spirit came upon Baâ—â—m Num. 24. bee seeing the visions of God hee prophecied directly contrary to his owne carnall mind and to his consultation with Balâ—â—k now it is cleare that the Apostles what they spake by the breathings and inspirations of that immediatly inspiring Spirit is no lesse cannonick Scripture then the prophecies of the immediatly inspired Prophets who saw the visions of God and therefore 2 Pet. 1. 16 17 18 the voyce that the Apostles heard from heaven This is my beloved Sonnâ— in whom I am well pleased is made equall with the word of prophâ—cie and propheticall Scripture which the holy men of God spale â— they were moved by the holy Ghost v. 19 20 21. and 2 Pet. 3. 16. Pauls Epistles are put in the classe with other Scriptures v. 15 16. now all Scripture 2 Tim. 3. 16. is given by divine inspiration and 2 Peter 3. 2. puteth the words of the Prophets and Apostles in the same place of divine authority 2 Pet. 3. 2. That yee bee mindfull of the words which were spoken before by the holy Prophets and of the commandements of us the Apostles of the Lord and Saviour whence to mee this synodicall consultation is not Apostolicall but such as is obligatory of the Churches to the end of the world and a patterne of a generall Synod 6. This assembly is led by the holy Spirit as is cleare v. 25. 28. but this is not the holy Spirit immediatly inspiring the Apostles as Apostles but that ordinary Synodicall spirit to borrow that expression that is promised to all the faithfull pastors and rulers of the Church to the end of the world because the immediatly inspiring spirit comming on Prophets and Apostles in an immediate inspiration did necessitate the Prophets and Apostles to acquiesce and prophesie and to doe and speake whatsoever this spirit inspired them to doe and to speake but this spirit spoken of v. 28. doth not so but leaveth the assembly to a greater libertie because the assembly doth not acquiesce to that which Peter saith from Gods Word v. 7 8 9 10 11. nor doth the Assembly acquiesce to what Barnabas and Paul saith v. 12. but onely to that which James saith v. 13 14 15 16 17 18. but especially to his conclusion which hee draweth from the Law of nature not to give scandall and from the Scriptures cited by himselfe and by Peter v. 19 20. Wherefore my sentence is saith James c. and this clearely is the sentence of James as a member of the Synod v. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is an expression clearly insinuating that the judgement of James though it was not contrary to that which Peter Paul and Barnabas had spoken yet that is was somewhat diverse from them and more particular and the very mind of the holy Ghost which the whole Synod followed and therefore though Peter and Paul spake truth yet did they not speake that truth which did compose the controversie and this is to mee an argument that they all spake as members of the Synod and not as Apostles 7. The immediatly inspired Apostolick Spirit though it may discourse and inferre a conclusion from such and such premisses as Paul doth Rom. 3. 28. and hee proveth from the Scripture Rom. 4. 4. 5. 6. that wee are justified by saith without workes and 1 Tim. 5. 17. 18. and Act. 9. 22. Act. 24. 14. 17. and so doth Christ reason and argument from Scripture Matth. 22. 31. Luk. 24. 25 26 27. and so have both the Prophets and Apostles argued yet the immediatly inspired Spirit of God in arguing doth not take helpe by disputing one with another and yet doth not obtaine the conclusion in hand but here Peâ—â—â— and Paul argue from Scripture and they prove indeed a true conclusion that the Gentiles should not keepe Moses his Law as they would bee saved yet they did not remove the question nor satisfic the consciences of the Churches in their present practise for if James had not said more then the Churches had not beene sufficiently directed in their practise by the Synod and for all that Peter and Paul said the Churches might have eaâ—â—n meates offered to Idols and blood and things strangled which at that time had been a sin against the Law of nature and a great stumbling block and a scandalizing of the Jewes Except therefore wee say that the Apostles intending as Apostles to determine a controversie in the Church they did not determine it which is an injury to that immediatly inspiring spirit that led the Apostles in penning Scripture wee must say that Peter Paul and James here spake as members of an eccleâ—iasticall Synod for the Churches after-imitation 8. If the Apostles here as Apostles give out this decree then it would seeme that as Apostles by virtue of the immediatly inspiring spirit they sent messengers to the Churches for one spirit directeth all and by this Text wee should have no warrant from the Apostles practise to send messengers to satisfie the consciences of the Churches when they should bee troubled with such questions now all our Divines and reason doth evince that a Synod may by this Text send messengers to resolve doubting Churches in points dogmaticall for what the Apostles doe as Apostles by that power by which they writ canonick Scripture in that wee have no warrant to imitate them 9. I propounded another argument before which prevaileth much with mee The Elders of an ordinary Presbytery and Churches such as conveened at this Synod cannot be
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
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