both doth elect and choose the man yet so that he is not elected without the consent of the King or Magistrate in the Kings roome I answer many things are here to be replyed 1. That the King who may be borne an heire to an earthly Kingdome is also borne and by nature a mixt person and halfe a Minister of the Gospell is against Gods word ministers in whole or in part are made so of God not so borne by nature in Aaronâ— Priesthaâ—d men by birth came to a sacred office but that is done away now in Christ. 2. With as good reason may the King preach and administer the Sacraments as a mixt person as he may ordaine by ecclesiasticall blessing imposition of hands ecclesiasticall designation any person to the Ministery that same auth nity of Christ which said to Timoth Lay hands suddainly 〈◊〉 man said also to him 2 Tim. 2. 15. Study to be approved unto 〈◊〉 a workeman that needeth not to be ashamed dividing the word right that is both ordaining of Ministers and pastorall preaching of the Word or pastorall acts flowing from an ecclesiasticall power How then can the one be given to the King by vertue of that same mixt power especially seeing baptizing it directly called 1 Câ—r 1. 17. a lesse principall worke of the ministery then preaching It it be said as ordination is performed by the King is not an ecclesiasticall action but civill or mixt partly civill partly ecclesiasticall I answer by that reason if the King should preach and administrate the Sacraments these actions should not be called ecclesiasticall actions and Uzzah's touching the Arke should not be called an action by office incumbent to the Levites only and it might be said the person being civill the actions are civill And Uzziah's burning of incense upon the Altar of incense was not a Priestly act but an act of a mixt power he was partly a King and partly a Priest who did performe the action but he was a Priest by sinfull usurpation in that action as we know 2. This answer is a begging also of the question 2. Whereas it is said that the Church ordainech Pastors and the King also but divers wayes the one by a regall power the other by me elâ—siasticall power I answer this is spoken to make the people ad saciendum populum for ejusdem potestatis est saith the Law constituere destiâ—â—ere it is the same power to ordaine and to destroy The high-Commission by the Kings authority doth deprive Ministers without so much as the knowledge of the Church If then the King as King may deprive ministers without the notice of the Church then may the King as King also ordaine Pastors without the notice of the Church For the action of the instruments as such is more principally the actions of the principall cause 3 Election of a Pastor is farre different from ordination of a Pastor the whole multitude as Christians have voyces in the election of a Pastor and so hath the King or his Magistrate as a part and member of the Church but this giveth no negative voice to the Magistrate in election but ordination is not done by all the multitude it is a worke of authority done onely by the Church-officers 4. The coactive and civill degradation must have also correspondent thereunto a coactive and civill ordination of Pastors Now I ask what is a coactive ordination If it be the Kings royall and civill authority commanding that the Church officers ordaine Pastors at Christs commandement This we deny not they fight with a shadow or a night ghost not against us who contend for this But if they meane a coactive degradation by the Sword in banishing imprisoning yea and for just causes punishing Ministers to death with the Sword this indirect deprivation we doe not deny But so the King depriveth a man from being a Minister when he is beheaded or hanged or banished for civill crimes no other wayes but as he depriveth a man from being a Fashioner a Saiâ—â—r a Plower a Souldier or a Father to his owne barnes a husband to his owne wife for when the man is beheaded or hanged by the sword of the Magistrate he is dâ—prived from being a fashioner a sailer a father a husband and Solomen did not other way deprive Abiathar from the Priest-hood then indirectly by consining him for treason at Anathoth so as he could not exercise the Priests office at Jerusalem So after Junius Calderwood Gul. Apollonius Sibrandus yea Muketus a man for the times denyeth that the Prince can take away that ecclesiasticall power that the Church hath given And so acknowledgeth Wedelius the same That reasonlesse lyer Lysimach Nicanor in this and in other things hath no reason to say we borrow Jesuites doctrine to answer this argument for the Jesuite Becanus is not â—nacquainted with Jesuits doctrine against the power of Kings yet he answereth that Solomen as King had no power over Abiathar for treason or any other crime and therefore following Bellarmine and Gretserus saith that Solomon did this by an extraordinary propheticall instinct yet Abulensis a great textuall Papist and Bâ—naventura a learned Schooleman saith this pâ—oveth that the King is above the Priest and that Priests in the Old Testament were not eximed from the civill Judges sword and power this is very doubtsome to Suarez who â—aith that it was a tempâ—rall civill punishment of exiâ—e and that â—â—â—sitiâ—n from the exercise of the Priests office followed upon the other But we neede not this answer for Solomons sentence containeth in tâ—rminis a meere civill punishment and these words 1 King 27. S. Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being Priest to the Lord seem not to be words of the Kings sentence of banishment but are relative to the fulfilling of the Lords word and a consequent of divine justice relative to the prophesie against Elies house Though verily I see no inconvenience to say that Solomon did indeed deprive him from the Priest-hood by an extraordinary instinct of the Spirit as he was led of God to build the Temple 1. Because the text saith so Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being Priest to the Lord and ver 35. and Zadok the Priest did the King put in the roome of Abiathar which is a direct deprivation from the Priest-hood but I contend not here But that the King causatively may deprive that is command the Church to cast out hereticks and to commit the Gospell to faithfull men who are able to teach others 2 Tim. 2. 2. wee confesse as for the power of convocating of Synods some thinke that the King may convocate Synods as men but as Church men they have power if the Magistrate bee averse to convocate themselves see Junius who insinuateth this distinâ—tion But certainly though the Kingly dignity be thought meerely civill yet let this be thought on it may be thought that the Kings power is divine three
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
Church which I grant is true and the end of the Ruler should be onely preservation of peace and the externall tranquillity of the Common-wealth yea I say from the Word of God that externall peace is too narrow an end and it doth belong to the second Table the Kings end as Nurse-father and his a like care is to preserve the first Table and as a Nurse-father to see that the childrens milke be good and wholesome though the milke come not from his owne breasts and so his power hath a kingly relation to all the Word of God and not to externall peace and naturall happinesse onely And the King as the King his end is edification and spirituall good of soules also but alwayes by a kingly power and in a coactive way by the sword whereas the Church are in their care of edifying soules to use no such carnall weapons in their warfare 2 Cor. 10. 4. For which cause that learned P. Martyr and 〈◊〉 Parker and also the Professors of Leyden say that Ministers deale with consciences of men Quoniam Spiritus Sanctus inquit Martyr vim suam adjungit cum praedicationibus orthodoxis the holy Spirit conjoyneth the power and influence of grace with sound preaching and the Magistrate doth onely exercise externall discipline And Parker reasoning against Whitgift and 〈◊〉 proveth well that the Church visible though externall yet is Christs spirituall Kingdome and that Church discipline is a part of Christs spirituall Kingdome and that the externall government of Christ by discipline is spirituall every way according to the efficient 1 Cor. 12. 1. according to the end spirituall â—dification Ephes. 4. 12. according to the matter the Word and Sacraments 2 Cor. 10. 3 4. according to the forme of working by the evidence of the Spirit 2 Cor. 2. 4. 13. And this is the cause I conceive why great Divines have said the object of the Magistrates power as a Magistrate is the externall man and earthly things because he doth not in such a spirituall way of working take care of the two Tables of the Law as the Pastor doth and yet the spirituall good and edification of the Church in the right preaching of the Word the Sacraments and pure discipline is his end It is true whether the blasphemer professe repentance or not the Magistrate is to punish yea and to take his life if he in seducing of many have prevailed but yet his end is edification even in taking away the life for he is to put away evill that all Israel may feare and doe so no more but this edification is procured by the sword and by a coactive power and so the Church power and the kingly power differ in their formall objects and their formall ends But Spalato speaketh ignorantly of Kings Who saith as the internall and proper end of the Art of painting the Art of sailing c. is not life eternall but onely to paint well according to the precepts of Art and to bring men safe to their harborie though the persons who are painters and sailers may direct works of their Art to life eternall so saith he the end of the kingly Art is not life eternall but onely the externall peace of the Common wealth hence inferreth he that there is no subordinatim betwixt the power of the Magistrate and the power of the Church but that they are both so immediate under God as the Church cannot in a Church way regulate the King as a King but onely as he is a christian man the Church may rebuke the King while as he abuseth his kingly power to the destruction of soules and that the Church power as such is not subordinate to the kingly power onely the King may correct with the sword the Pastors not as Churchmen and Pasâ—ors but as men who are his subjects But 1. whereas it is certaine the King in respect of politick power is the immediate Vicegerent of God and above any subject in his Dominions so doth the Bishop make the Shoe-maker the Painter the master-fashioner immediate unto God and censurable by none as they are Artificers even as the King is censurable by none as King and so the King is dishonoured who by office is the Lords annoynted and a little God on earth Psal. 82. v. 1. 2 The intrinsecall end of kingly power is no more the advancing of godlinesse and the promoving of the Kings daughter towards life eternall by the sincere milke of the Word as the Lords Vicegerent and Nurse-Father of the Church then the Painter as a Painter or a Sea-man as a Sea-man is to advance godlinesse for this mans intrinsecall and is onely a safe harbour and shoare to temporall lives not the harbour of salvation to soules and his end is onely a faire Image of Art in Paper or Clay not the Image of the second Adam and by this the King as King is interdicted of any Church businesse or care of soules to be fed by the Word or Sacraments to keepe them cleane if he looke to any of these as an end that is not the eye or intention of the King as King but of the King as a godly Christian saith Spalato hence to care for the spirituall good of the Church and the promoving of the Gospel is as accidentall as to say an excellent Painter such as Apâ—ies intendeth in his painting life eternall so the King by this looketh to the Law of God to Religion and the eternall happinesse of the Church by guesse by accident and as King hath neither chaire nor roome in Christian Synods nor a seat in the Church 3. If the meaning be that the King as King that is rightly exercisng the office of a King is subordinate to no Church power that is he cannot be justly and deservedly rebuked by Pastors that is most true but nothing to any purpose for so the Pastor as a Pastor Jeremiah as he doth truly and in the name of the Lord exercise the propheticall office cannot be deservedly censured nor punished either by the Church-synodrie or the King and Princes of the Land but thus way all members of the Church an I any one single beleever doing his duty should be as immediate and independent and highest next on earth to Christ as the King and his three Estates of the Honourable Parliament are in civill matters and as an Occumenick Councell or in our brethrens meaning independent Congregation which is against reason But if the meaning be the acts of a King as aberring from justice not as a King but as a fraile man may be censured and rebuked deservedly by Pastors in a Church way this way also the Pastor as a Pastor is not subject to the Church but onely as a fraile man and so nothing is said to the purpose in this more then the in the former But if the meaning be thirdly that which onely maketh good sense that the acts of the King abstracted from good or bad or as kingly or
not morall nor acts of justice or injustice more then the acts of Painting of sailing of making of Shooes and thus the King is not subject to the Church power nor is his intrinsecall end as King justice and godlinesse and preservation of Religion the man speaketh non-sense and wonders for the King as a King is a morall agent and not infallible in his Lawes or administration Ergo as a King he is under the Scepter of the King of Saints in discipline and in the keyes of the Kingdome of God and so the kingly office is subordinate to the power of Christ in his Ministers and Church discipline and by that same reason the power and offices of Ministers as they are morall agents and obnoxious to sinne to false doctrine blasphemy idolatry idlenesse and sleepinesse in feeding the flock are under the coactive power of the supreme Governour and he doth as King use the sword against them hence it is cleare that both the kingly power is subordinate to Church-power and that the subordination is mutuall that also the Church-power is subordinate to the kingly power and that both also in their kind are supreme the kingly power is the highest and most supreme and under no higher coactive power I meane the kingly as kingly conjoyned with the collaterall power of Parliaments where the Realme is so governed and the Church-power is the highest in the kind of Ecclesiasticall power Joan. Major saith well that they are not subordinate that is not one of them is above another that I grant but that which he and Spalato saith neutri in alteram est imperium that neither of the two hath a commandement over another that we deny yet are they powers in office and nature different for they differ in their objects 2. Use and end 3. And their manner of specifick operations and the Kings power is not ecclesiastick Others say that there was a perfect civill policy having no need of the Church power anent the perfect civill government amongst the Heathen and in Christian Common-wealths the civill power of it selfe and of its owne nature can doe nothing for the attaining of eternall happinesse except we would goe to the tents of Pelagians whither Papists doe lead us while as they teach that the naturall end of civill power of its owne nature and intrinsecally is ordained to eternall happinesse But the civill power of it selfe doth conferre nothing whereby the spirituall power of the Church hath intrinsecally and properly and formally its dignity power strength and proper vertue and doth produce its owne proper effect and end because as saith Spalato the civill Magistrates end is of another republike different from the Church he is head of the Common-wealth and civill body see Apollonius But I answer there is a Policy civill without the Ecclesiasticall Policy and the King is essentially a King though neither he be a Christian himselfe nor his subjects Christians and to the essence of a King and to the essence of a civill government Christianity and a Church-power is not required yet hath the King as King essentially a right and civill coactive power to promove Christian Religion and the edification of Christs body though he be a Heathen the want of Christianity doth not take away his kingly right onely it bindeth up and restraineth the exercise thereof but though he be a King essentially and actu primo while he wanteth Christianity and so is a perfect Magistrate quoad esse and the State that he ruleth over a perfect civill body quoad esse in respect of essence and being yet is he not a perfect Magistrate quoad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 operari neither he nor his civill State and body are perfect in operations And it followeth not that the King as King can doc nothing about the obtaining of life eternall for as a King he hath a perfect right and kingly power to doe and being a Christian he actually exerciseth that power as a Nurse-father of the Church to see that the Kings daughter be fed with wholsome milke to see that the first and second Table be kept and that men serve Christ and have the seales of the Covenant in purity under the paine of suffering the weight of his royall sword and I wonder that this should be called nothing for the obtaining of eternall happines seeing it is a way to eternall happinesse to be thus fed under a Christian King as a King But say they it is Pelagianism that the Kings power compelling the Nurses to let out their breasts to the Kings daughter that she may sucke the sincere milke of the Word should be a meane of eternall happinesse I answer and it is also Pelagianisme to say that the planting of Paul and watering of Apollos and the ministeriall power and paines of Ministers without the grace of God can produce or effectuate supernaturall happinesse and it is false that the kingly power of it self doth confer nothing whereby the spirituall and ecclesiasticall power hath intrinsecally and formally dignity and power and its proper effect for it is true the kingly power maketh not the ecclesiasticall power but it setteth it on worke in a coactive way for the edifying of Christs body and doth causatively edifie Lastly whereas it is said the King as King is over the civill body and the Common-wealth which is a body different in nature from the Christian body or Church I say that is false for the King as King ruleth over men as men and also as Christian men causing them to keepe both the Tables of Law But 3. say they the office of a King is not a meane sanctified of God for a supernaturall good because it is amongst the Gentiles I answer this is no consequence for that office of it selfe is sanctified and ordained of God for keeping of both Tables of the Law and that it worketh not this in its owne kind is not from the nature of the kingly office but from the sinfull disposition of the Gentiles so the Word is the savour of death to some through their default Ergo it is not a meane sanctified for that end it followeth not But 4. the office of the King of it selfe and its owne power doth not governe or subdue the inward man for immediately and of its owne power it cannot bind the conscience but onely by the interveening mediation of the Word of God Ergo of it selfe it intendeth not to produce a supernaturall and eternall good Answ. Nor can the office of a Minister of it selfe and in its owne power produce a supernaturall good but onely by the authority of the Word Esa. 8. 20. Jer. 23. v. 22. Tit. 1. 9. 10. is it therefore no office sanctified for a supernaturall end But 5. they reason a supernaturall good and life eternall are effects flowing from the mediatory office of Christ bestowed upon the Church but the kingly power floweth not from the Mediator Christ but from God as Creator who
Church because that mediatory kingdome substisted fortie yeeres in the Jewish Church in the Wildernesse without circumcision yea and Apostles and Evangelists are no meanes subordinate to that kingdome because Christs mediatory kingdome subsisteth now without these officers 2. Neither is it true that magistracie conferreth no helpe to this kingdom but in these things which concerne the externall man for in a politick and coactive way the Magistracy taketh care by commandements that the Church bee fed with the pure Word of God onely this proveth that magistracie and Church ministery have two different objects and the way of proceeding of these two states the one carnall and with the sword Joh. 18. 36. Rom. 13. 3 4. the other spirituall to the manifestarion of the truth to the conscience 2 Cor. 4. 1 2. Psal. 110. 1. 2. Esâ—y 11. 4. Heb. 4. 12. which we grant to be true 5. It is objected Christ himselfe performed all the parts of his mediatory kingdome and all the functions thereof in his owne person and by his disciples while hee was on earth but hee refused all civill Magistracy and did inhibit his disciples thereof because it is not contained under the administration of his mediatory office as subordinate thereunto Answ. Christ refused magistracie not because it is not subordinate to edification which is the end of Christs mediatory kingdome but because it is not compatible with his spirituall kingdome in one and the same person and therefore this is a caption à non causa pro causa in one and the same person and subject the civill and the Ecclesiasticall power are inconsistent and incompatible that is true Ergo in the kind of lawfull meanes these two powers are unconsistent and uncompatible I deny it to follow for both royall power and Church power concurre for the producing of one and the same end to wit edification and obedience to both Tables of the Law but after different wayes carnall and spirituall I thinke it most considerable that though the Prince may by a coactive way command that same which a Church Synod may command in an ecclesiasticall way yet differeth these same powers in their formall objects because the King commandeth that which is good religious decent in Gods worship as a thing already taught and determined judicially either expressely in Gods Word or then by a pastorall or Synodicall determination and that not by way of teaching informing the mind exponing the Scripture or by pastorall dealing with the conscience as oblieging to a Church Liturgie and ceremonies as one who intendeth formall edification and faith repentance and obedience to God but the King commands that which is good and extra as it is already taught and expounded and as it is an imperated act of externall worship or mercy and justice done by a coactive power Hence the Magistrates power is not to edifie formally but to procure that edification may bee 2. The Magistrates power is Lordly the Churches power is onely ministeriall 3. The Magistrates power may bee in one to wit in the King the Churches power of the keyes is in the Church 4. They differ in formall objects as hath been said Now to obviate what the Jesuite Lysimachus Nicanor saith wee are no wayes of Papists mind in the matter of the Magistrates power for Papists 1. exclude Kings and Emperours from any medling with Church matters Charles the fift was upbraided by Paul the third the Pope of Rome because hee did as became a Prince ordaine meetings conferences and assemblies for composing of differences in Churches matters not giving the power of conveening councells onely to the Pope comparing his fact to the attempt of Uzzah who put his hand to the Ark and to Câ—rah Dathan and Abirams conspiracie against Moses yea and Nicolaus the first in his Epistle to Michael the Emperour denyeth that Emperours are to bee present in Synods except in generall Synods where both Church men and laicks are present wee teach that the Magistrate is as the hand the ministry as the eyes and both are to concurre for the spirituall good of the body of Christ. 2. Papists will have the Magistrates so to defend the faith as they have not power to judge not as Christians with the judgement of descretion what is right or wrong but they must as blind servants execute what Prelates decree yea and see non prâ—priis saith Henr. Blyssemius sed alienis Episcoporum ac pâ—aelatorum suorum oculis videre not with their owne eyes but with the eyes of their Prelates yea and the Magistrate should not read the Scripture say Papists and Nicanâ—rs brethren the Jesuits expresly contrary to Gods Word Deut. 17. 17. Hee shall read in the booke of the Law all the dayes of his life Joshua 1. 8. but onely beleeve as the Church beleeveth and this is blind obedience that they require of Princes this faith or obedience wee thinke abominable in all men as in Princes Of old Popes and Prelates were subject to Kings and Emperors as wee teach from the Word of God Rom. 13. 1. and 1. wee teach against the Jesuit Lysimachus Nicanor that his Prelates should not invade the King and civill Magistrates sword and be civill Judges as Popes and Prelates are against which writeth Tertullian Origen Hilarius Chrysostome Ambrosius Augustinus The author of the Survey saith that if every Eldership be the tribunall seat of Christ what appellation can bee made there from to either provinciall or generall councell and hee meaneth that there can bee no appellation to the King seeing the Presbytery in Churches causes is as immediatly subject to Jesus Christ and the highest Judicature on earth as the King is Gods immediate vicegerent on earth nearest to Jesus Christ in civill causes I answer the cause that is meerely ecclesiasticall as the formall act of preaching and ecclesiasticall determining of truth in Pulpits and the determining the truth in Church assemblies in an ecclesiasticall way in Synods and the excommunicating of a scandalous person are immediatly subject to Jesus Christ speaking in his owne perfect Testament and these causes lie not at the feet of Princes to bee determined by them as Kings but in a constitute Church they are to bee determined by the ordinary Church assemblies and in this place there is no appeale from the Presbytery to a King but it followeth not that there can bee no appellation from a Presbytery to a provinciall or to a nationall assembly 1. Because though every Presbytery bee the tribunall seate of Christ yet it is but a part of the tribunall seat of Christ and such a part as may easily erre and therefore appellation may bee made from the weaker and the part more inclined to erre to the stronger and maniest or the whole who may more hardlier erre and that is not denied by this author who dare not deny but they may appeal from a Bishop who doth and may misleade
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