all of one Church of one Religion Answ. The terme Nationall-Church is not in the Word of God but I pray you in what sense can the Iewish-Church bee called a Nationall-Church I conceive not because of the typicall and ceremoniall observances that put a Church-frame on the whole Nation for if so then the name of a Nationall Church or a nationall Religion cannot by envy it selfe bee put in the reformed Churches or on Church of Scotland which hath suffered so much for Iewish and Romish Ceremonies But if the Jewes were a Nationall-Church because they were a holy Nation in profession and God called the Nation and made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Church externally called to grace and glory and the whole Nation commensurable and of equall extent then all Christian Nations professing the true Faith and the Gentiles as well as the Iewes Then the believing Iewes of Pontus Asia Cappadocia and Bythinia as Augustine Eusebius Oecumenius Athanasius doe thinke that Peter wrote to the Iewes yea and the Gentiles as many interpreters with Lorinus Thomas Lyra and others thinke are yet 1 Pet. 2. 9. an holy Nation and so a Nationall Church and there is no more reason to scoffe at a Nationall Church in this sense then to mocke the holy Spirit which maketh but one Church in all the World Cant. 6. 9. as Cotton Ainsworth and other favorable witnesses to our Brethren confesse And if the Gentiles shall come to the light of the Jewish Church and Kings to the brightnesse of of their rising Esai 60. 3. if the abundance of the Sea shall be converted to the Iewes true Faith and Religion And the forces of the Gentiles shall come to them vers 5. and if all flesh shall see the revealed glory of the Lord Esai 40. 5. and the Earth shall bee filled with the knowledge of God as the Seas are filled with Water It is most agreeable to the Lords Word that there is and shall be a Church through the whole World you may nickname it as you please and call it a VVorld-Religion a VVorld-Church As if the lost and blinded World Ioh. 2. 16 17. 1 Joh. 5. 19. 2 Corin 4. 4. were all one with the Loved Redeemed Pardoned and Reconciled World Ioh. 3. 16. Ioh. 1. 29. 2 Cor. 5. 19. as if wee confounded these two Worlds and the Religion of these two Worlds And if this World could meet in its principall lights neither should an universall councell nor an Oath of the whole Representative Church be unlawfull but enough of this before And what if the World bee subdued to the World and a World of Nations come in and submit to Christs Scepter and royall power in his externall government are the opposers such strangers in the Scriptures as to doubt of this Reade then Esai 60. 4. 5. c. 60. 11 12 13 14 15 v. 4. 5 6 7. Psal. 2. 8 9. Psal. 72. 8. 9. 10. Esai 54. 3. Esai 49. 1. Esai 45. 22. 23. Psal. 110 1 2 3 4 5. and many other places and there is a Kingdome in a Kingdome Christs Kingdome and his Church lodging in a Worldly Kingdome and Christ spiritually in his power triumphing over the World and subduing Nations to his Gospell Object 8. If Classicall Presbyters be not Elders in â—elation to the classicall Church and so to all the Congregations in it yee must forsake all these places where it is said the Elders of Jerusalem the Elders of Ephesus the Angels of the seven Churches which is absurd if they be Elders to all these Churches then 1. All those people in those Churches must submit their consciences to them and their Ministery as to a lawfull ordinance of God 2. All the people of those Churches must have voyce in election of them all 3. All these people owe to theâ—s maintenance and double honor 1 Tim. 5. 17. for if the Oxes mouth must not be muzlâ—d but he must be fed by me and my corne he must tread my corne and labour for me These Churches cannot all meet in one to ordaine and chuse all these Ministers and to submit to their Ministery Answ. The Elders are Elders of Ephesus and Elders of Jerusalem not because every Elder hath a speciall pastorall charge over every Church distributively taken for it was unpossible that one Congregation of all the converts in Ierusalem extending to so many thousands could all beare the relation of a Church to one man as their proper Elder who should personally reside in all and every one of those Congregations to watch for their soules to preach to all and every Congregation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in season and out of season But they are in cumulo called Elders of Ephesus in that sense that Kings are called the Kings of the Nations not because every King was King of every Nation for the King of Edom was not the King of Babylon and the King of Babel was not the King of Assyria yet amongst them they did all fill up that name to be called the Kings of the Nations so were the Elders of Ierusalem in cumulo collectively taken Elders of all the Churches of Ierusalem collectively taken and as it followeth not that the King of Edom because hee is one of the Kings of the Nations is elected to the Crowne of Caldea by the Voyces of the States and Nobles of Caldea so is it not a good consequence such a number are called the Elders of the Church of Ierusalem therefore the Elder of one Congregation at the Easterne Gate at Ierusalem is also an Elder of a Congregation of the Westerne Gate Nor doth it follow that these two Congregations should submit their consciences to one and the same Elder as to their proper Pastor to whose Ministery they owe consent in Election Obedience in submitting to his Doctrine and mainetenance for his labours all these are due to him who is their owne proper Pastor the as Caldeans owe not Honour Allegiance Tribute to the King of Edom though the Kingdome of Caldea bee one of the Kingdomes of the Nations and the King of Edom one of the Kings of the Nations But if indeede all the Kings of the Nations did meete in one Court and in that Court governe the Nations with common Royall authority and counsell in those things which concerne all the Kingdomes in common then all the Nations were obliged to obey them in that Court as they governe in that Court but no farther and when the people doe consent to the power of that common Court â—â—citly they consent that every one of these shall bee chosen King of such and such a Kingdome and promise also tracitly Obedience and Subjection to every one of the Kings of the Nations not simply as they are Kings in relation to such a Kingdome but onely as they are members of that Court so the Congregations acknowledging and consenting to the classicall Presbytery doe tracitly chuse and consent to the common charge and care that every Pastor hath as hee
the new sense of our Malignant Divines should bee black policy not sound Divinity if any Ierimiah or Prophet should say amend your wayes and turne to the LORD with all your heart and put away your Idolls and your strange Gods providing the King will goe before you and command you so to doe Hence I say that 's a poore Court-argument of Parasites for Kings Wee never read of any Reformation of Religion in Israel and Judah but when holy and zealous Kings commanded the Reformation Ergo the Reformation begun in Scotland without the consent of the Supreame Magistrate and a Reformation now prosecuted in England against the Kings will is unlawfull To which I desire the Malignant Divines to receive these answers for Justifying the zeale of both Kingdomes in their Reformation 1. It is a question if they question not the Reformation according to the substance of the action that is if they are not offended that the Queenes Masse the popery of Prelates and Divines under their wings and their Arminianisme and Socinianisme should be abolished or if they condemne not the Doctrine but question onely the manner of abolishing such Heterodox stuffe If the former be said iâ— is knowen never Malignant Prelate or other had grace by Word or Writing to entreate his Mâ—jesty for a Reformation and this is enough for the former If they meane the latter they bee very like the Pharisees who when they durst not question the Doctrine and Miracles of Christ they onely questioned the manner of doing And sayd by what authority doest thou these But because they are joyned to the Papists side and fight under their banner It is most evident it galleth their stomacks that Popery Atminianisine and Socinianisme are cryed downe else the manner of doing a good worke and such a necessary worke as Reformation would not have offended them so highly as to move them to kill the people of GOD an error in the circumstances of a good worke is very veniall to Papists and Arminians 2. Let them give to us since they argue from a practice a warrant of any such practice where a whole Land went on in a Negative Reformation without the Prince Ergo Negative precepts by this logick shall lay no divine obligation on us except it bee the Kings will to forbid that which GOD forbiddeth then suppose Episcopacy and the Ceremonies were the Idoll of the Masse established by a standing Law it should bee unlawfull for the Kingdomes to forbeare and abstaine from Idolatry except the Kings Law forbid Idolatry What were this else but to say we are obliged to obey Christs will but not except with a Reservation of the Kings will 3. This is an argument Negative from one particular in Scripture and therefore not concludent For it is thus Reformation without the King wanteth a practise in the Scâ—ipture Ergo it is unlawfull it followeth not except it want Precept Promise and Practise for the argument Negative from Scripture is onely undeniable in this sense And in this sense onely pressed by our Divines against Papists And therefore it is like this argument Purgatory is not commanded in this Chapter Idolatry is not forbiâ—den in this Commandement Ergo neither Purgatorie nor Idolatry is forbidden in Gods Word So let the adversaries give me a practise in the Word of God where a Brother kept this order of Christs three Steps Mat. 18. First to reprove an offender alone Secondly before two or three witnesses Thirdly in case of obstinacy to tell the Church and to these adde that the man was by the Church to be reputed as an heathen and a Publican And I hope because such a practise we doe not read yet it followeth not that it is unlawfull So where read you a Man forgiving his Brother seventy seven times Ergo it is unlawfull to forgive him seventy and seven times Where read you that Christ and His Apostles and the Christian Church in the New Testament raised Warre and Armies either to defend or offend but I hope Anabaptists have not hence ground to inferre then must all Warres be unlawfull to Christians for wee can produce warrantable precepts where we want practise Fourthly where it is said Kings onely are rebuked for not removing high places and Kings onely are commended because they are removed therefore none should reforme but Kings This followeth no wayes but onely Kings by Royall authority should reforme but it followeth not Ergo the people without the King are not obliged to reforme themselves in their manner for I am sure that the people should all universally resolve and agree never to sacrifice in the high places and accordingly to practise And to sacrifice onely in the place which the Lord had chosen to place His Name there at GODS expresse Law commanded Deuteronomy 13. 23. Deuteronomy 12. 14. 18. Deuteronomy 16. 2. 7. 11. 15. Deut. 31. 11. had beene a removall of the high places and a warrantable Reformation though the King should have by a standing Law commanded that they should sacrifice in the high places for the people are rebuked because 2 Kings 17. 11. They burnt Incense in all the high places 2 Chronicles 33. 17. Hosea 4. 13. and a Chronicles 20. 33. the reason why the high places were not taken away is For as yet the people had not prepared their Hearts unto the GOD of their Fathers If then not Sacrificing in the high places was the peoples duty they were to remove the high places in their place and so farre to reforme without the KING yea suppose the KING command the contrary the people ought to obey GOD and the Parliament may by GODS Law abolish Episcopacy popish Ceremonics and the popish Service though the KING consent not upon this ground that those he the high places of England for the which the Wrath of the Lord is kindled against the Land Fifthly the adversaries may read 2 Chronicles 15. 9. That the Strangers out of Ephraim and Manasseh and Simeon gathered themselves together to Asa without the consent of their KING and did enter in a Covenant to seek the Lord God of their Fathers Sixtly the Pastors of the Land are obliged to preach all necessary truth without the KING and accordingly are to practise what they preach now Reformation is a most necessary truth they are then to reforme themselves and Religion without the KING for the Word of GOD not the KINGS will is the Pastors rule in preaching and hee is to separate the pretious from the vile that hee may be as Gods Mouth Jeremy 15. 19. and Ezekiel 2. 7. Thou shalt speake my words unto them that was the Doctrine of Reformation not the KINGS words vers 8. But thou sonne of man heare what I say to thee yea Pastors are to preach against Kings and their sinnes 1 Kings 13. 1. 2. 3. Jer. 1. 18. Ier. 26. 10 11 12. Seventhly if no Reformation can be without the KING 1. People are not to turne to the Lord and repent thâ—m
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
soules and emptie purses to a Metropolitan and an Archbishop who is as dexterous and happy in emptying of poore mens purses and destroying soules if not large better as a pettie Lord Prelate from whom hee appealed yet is the one Lord Prelate the Vicar of Christ as well as the other by formalists bookes And 2. If the cause bee proper to the Presbytery they have just right to judge it as well as the provinciall assembly hath but possibly not such knowledge and if the partie complaine that hee is wronged or may bee wronged hee may well appeale to a larger part of Christs tribunall lesse obnoxious to erring which is no wrong done to the Presbyterie This man laboureth to make a division amongst our Divines because we know not whether to make our Pastors Doctors and Elders immediat 〈…〉 to Christ as Priests because then they are Priests of the New Testament or â—ubject to Christ as King and then all our officers shall 〈◊〉 Kings under Christ and the Christian Mâ—gistrate shall be so thrust out of his kingdome and chaire And the ignorant railer maketh much adoe in this matter but the truth is stronger then this Popish scribler for 1. as Christ is a Priest having a body to offer for the sinnes of the people and a reall Sacrifice our Divines deny that Christ hath any substitute and demie Priests under him or master Priests to offer sacrifices reall to God if this Author put any Priests under Christ in this meaning hee is upon an unbloody Masse-sacrifice much good doe it him if Fenner make this propheticall office of Christ a part of Christs Priesthood because the Priest was to teach the people Matth. 2. 7. Hos. 4. 6. and Abraham Henrick say the same there is no absurd to make the officers of the New Testament subordinate to Christ as to our high Priest teaching us Gods will not to Christ as our high Priest offering a bloody or a reall sacrifice to God this Author maketh much ado to cite Cartwright Fenner Bezâ—â— and Sonnius men whose bookes hee is not worthy to beare making the officers of Christs kingdome subordinate to Christ as King for as much as Christ as King prescribed the forme of ecclesiasticall government and then saith the poore man the Pastors under Christ â—â— King must bee all Emperors the Doctors Kings the Elders Dukes the Deacons Lords of the treasury c. and if they bee Christs immediat vicegerents within their owne Kingdomes who shall controll any of them on whithot shall an injured man appeâ—le Answ. 1. Wee are to blesse God that these Officers Pastors Doctors Elders Deacons are expresly in the Word of God and that this railers officers to wit Bishops Archbishops Metropolitans Primats Deanes Archdeanes officials c. are in no place of Christs testament onely they are in the Popes Masse book now if the man offend because they are subordinate to Christ as King hee must make his Primates his Metropolitans his Diocesan Lords his Deans Officials and such wild Officers Emperours Kings Dukes and Lord Treasurers under Christ for some roome these creatures must have else they must bee put out at the Church doors and if a man bee injured by the Primate to whom shall hee appeale but to some above him a Cardinall and if that creature be a Christ who cannot do wrong well and good it is wee rest but if hee bee a man like the rest of the world surely poor folk must appeale to his high holines the Pope 2. Deacons are not men of ecclesiastick authoritie in our account but are to serve tables Acts 6. 3. nor are our officers little Kings under Christ for the man cannot hold of the sent of a Lord Bishop but meere ministers and servants and the Ambassadors of the King of Kings who have no power to make lawes as if they were little Kings but are to propound Christs lawes hee is ignorant of Christs kingdome for the officers of the New Testament are under Christ as their King Ergo they are under him as little deputie Kings to make Lawes as Judges earthly are under those whose kingdome is of this world Joh. 18. 36. the man is both beside his booke and his wit to infer this Christ hath no Popes nor visible substitute Kings under him but under him are meere servants and heralds 4. Wee are farre from holding that one Church man such as the Pope may excommunicate Kings Gregorius the second excommunicated the Emperour Leo and Gregorius the seventh alias wicked Hildebrand excommunicated Henry the fourth Christ hath committed the power of excommunication to the whole Church 1 Cor. 5. 4. Matth. 18. 17 18. and therefore Lysimachus Nicanor cannot but side with Papists in laying this power upon one Prelate as the Kings substitute or rather the Popes Vicar 5. Wee doe not teach that the Pope or any Church man may dethrone Kings and alienate their crownes to others Gregory the first in a certaine decree saith Kings and Judges who contrâ—veneth the constitution of the Sea of Rome are to bee deprived of her honour Gregory the second having excommunicated the Emperour Leo discharged the Italians to pay him tribute and that because Leo was against the worshipping of Images See Haiminsfieldius and Arniseus and Baleus saith the Pope drew the subjects of this Leo Isaurus in apertam rebellionem to 〈◊〉 rebellion and so the Emperors of the east were deprived of the kingdome of Italy per sanctissimum diabolum by a most holy devill Pope Zachariah not the Prophet deprived Childericus King of France of his kingdome and procured that Pipinus the father of Charles the great should bee created King so saith Baleus also Let the third transferred the Empire from the Grecians to the Romans and by the hand of Pope Leo saith Sigebertus Charles was crowned See for this Shardius Gregorius the fift being the brother germane of Otbo the Emperour made a Law that the Emperour should bee chosen by seven Princes electors which fact weakned the majestie of the Empire which went before by inheritance hence An. 1350. Charles the fourth that his sonne might succeed him in the Empire laid in pledge the free Cities of the Empire in the hands of the Prince electors which to this day are not redeemed So did the Pope shake the Empire at his owne will Gregory the third began and Leo the third finished the devise of erecting a new Empire in the West and weakned the power of the Emperour of Constantinople Gregorius the seventh alias gracelesse Hildebrand deprived Henry the fourth and created another in his place as Sleidan and Lampadius relateth Innocentius the third dethroned Otho the fourth and Innocentius the fourth dethroned Frederick the second and the like did Clemens the sixth to Lodovick the fourth by Bellarmines owne confession No Emperours can bee created but by their consent saith the Author of that learned worke Catalog
the other and we find the keys given to Officers and Stewards only And here is no Church Mat. 18. or yet Mat. 16. without Pastors except they say that Christ Mat. 18. 18. speaketh not to the Disciples but to the multitude of the Jewes which is a great crossing of the Text. And to say that Christ speaketh to the Apostles not as to Apostles but as to the Church of believers is only a bare affertion and cannot be proved and all they can say hangeth upon this one place and this is the most The power of binding and loosing is given to the Church which is to be obeyed and heard in the place of God But this Church is never in the VVord of God say they taken for a company of Officers Pastors and Elders only it signifieth alwayes the Body of Christ his Spouse his Saints by calling partakers of the most holy Faith To which I answer The body Spouse of Christ and Saints by calling as they are such is the invisible Church and the keys and Seales sayth this Author are not to be dispensed to all the faithfull as such but as they arè confederate or joyned together in some particular visible Church that is sayth he as they are members of a visible Church Ergo c. the body and Spouse of Christ as such is not the Church here meant of but the visible Congregation Now the essence of a visible Church of which Christ speaketh here is saved in ten who are only visible professors and not a Church of sound Believers not the true body mysticall and Spouse of Christ and yet by this place the Keys are given to such a Church now wee desire againe a place in all Gods Word for a Church in this sense and a Body of Christ and his Spouse in this meaning for certainly professors this way confederate as professiors are no more a Church of Christ redeemed ones and his Spouse then an Assembly of Elders onely can be called such a Church of Believers for both Churches are and may be where no believers are at all at least for a time and even while they exercise this power of Binding and Loosing and so thâ— place Matthew 18. is as much against our brethren as against us And Lastly our Doctrine is acknowledged by all our Divines against the Papists proving that Mat. 16. the Keyes were given to Peter as representing the Apostles and his successors in the pastorall charge not as representing all believers Also the Fathers Irenaeus Nazianzâ—nus Cyprianus Basilius Ambrosius Theophilactus Cyrillus Euthymius Hyeronimus Augustine Beda Chrysostomus And ordinaria glossa Hugo de sanct Victor Haymo Cardinalis Cusanus Anastasius Leo Durandus Thomas Adrianus Scotus making a comparison between Peter and the rest of the Apostles say the keys were given to all the Apostles when they were given to Peter and Peter received them in the name and person of the rest of the Apostles wherby they declare it was never their mind that Peter received the keys in name of all believers Also the learned as Augustine Beda Gregorius expound the Church builded upon the rock to be the Catholick Church and not a particular visible Church And Gerardus giveth a good reason why this Church Mat. 16. cannot be a particular visible Church because the gates of hell prevaileth against many joyned to the visible Church in externall society and VVicklif writing against the Monkes resureth that error of the Papists that any members of the true Church can be damned and Whittaker sayth Augustin against Petilian sayth the Church builded on the rock is the Church of the Elect not the visible Church CHAP. 2. SECT 2. PROP. THis Church saith the Author doth meete together every Lords Day all of them even the whole Church for administration of the Ordinances of God to publick edification Ans. Two things are here said 1. That all even the whole Church must meete for administration of the Ordinances of God that so all and every one of the Church may be actors and Judges in dispensing of censures this we take to be popular governement 2. That there is a necessity of personall presence of all and every one of the Church Hence Quest. 3. Whether or no the multitude of Believers and the whole people are to be judges so as private Christians out of Office are to exercise judiciall acts of the keys For the more easie clearing of the Question let it be observed 1. Dist. There is a dominion of Government Lordly and Kingly and this is in Christ only in relation to his Church and in civill judges and is no wayes in Church guides who are not Lords over the Lords inheritance there is a government Ministeriall of service under Christ and this is due to Church-guides 2. Dist. Regall power being a civill power founded in the Law of nature for the Ants have a King may well be in the people originally and subjectively as in the fountaine nature teaching every communitie to govern themselves and to hold off injuries if not by themselves yet by a King or some selected Rulers but power of Church-government being supernaturall and the acts of Church-government and of the casting such as offend out of Christs Kingdome being supernaturall neither of them can be originally in the multitude of professing beleevers but must be communicated by Christ to some certaine professing beleevers and these are Officers Therefore to put power and acts of government in all professors is a naturall way drawne from civill incorporations Christ is not ruled by our Lawes 3. Dist. The government of Christs Kingdome is the most free and willing government on earth yet it is a government properly so called for there be in it authoritative commandements and Ecclefiasticke coaction upon the danger of soule penalties in regard of the former all the people by consent and voluntary agreement have hand in election of Officers inflicting of censures because it concerneth them all but in regard of the latter the whole people are not over the whole people they are not all Kings reigning in Christs government over Kings but are divided into governours and governed and therefore the rulers Ecclesiasticke onely by power of office are in Christs roome over the Church to command sentence judge and judicially to censure 4. Distinct. The Officiall power of governing superaddeth to the simple acts of popular consenting the officiall authoritative and coactive power of Christs Sceptor in discipline That distinction in the sense holden by our brethren that the state of the Church is popular and the government Aristocraticall in the hands of the Eldership is no wayes to he holden nor doe the Parisian Doctors the authors of this distinction mind any Church-government to be in the people Our brethren in the answer to the questions sent to them from England explaine their minde thus 1. We acknowledge a Presbytery whose worke it is to teach and rule and whom the
together a visible act of government in sending messengers to 〈◊〉 Acts 15. 22. Then pleased it the Apostles and Elders and the whole Church our Brethren say the whole collective Church Men Women and Children at Ierusalem to send men of their own company to Antioch 23. And wrote Letters and some Decrees and Commandements to be observed Now the many thousands of the Church of Ierusalem by no possibility could meete aâ— one Parish in one materiall house to administrate the Lords Supper farre lesse could they be as is said Acts 2. 42. all continuing stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and followship our Brethren say in Pâ—rishionall or Congregationall fellowship and in breaking of bread and prayer nor could they dayly continue in the Temple and breake bread from house to house being all one Church or a fixed parishionall meeting in one materiall house Now it is cleare they were 〈◊〉 even after they exceeded many thousands in number in one Parishionall and Congregationall government as our Brethren would prove from Acts 15 22 23 24 25. And Acts 2. 42 43. Else how could they have all their goods common if there be not one visible government amongst them but this government could not be of one single Congregation for all who sold their goods and had all things common could not meete to give voyces in Discipline a judicatory of so many thousand Judges were impossible and ridiculous 2. Paul writeth to the Galatians where there were many Parish Churches Gal. 1. 2. as our Brethren teach yet doth he write to them as he doth to the Corinthians where our Brethren will have one Parish Church and writeth to them of uniformity of visible government that they meete not together to keepe dayes Sabbaths and yeers Gal. 4. 10. as the Iewes did that they keep not Iewish and ceremoniall meetings and conventions Gal. 4. 9. these Churches are called one lumpe in danger to be leavened as Corinth is a Parishionall lumpe in hazard to be leavened as our Brethren teach Now how could Paul will them that the whole lump of all the Churches and Congregations in Galatia be not leavened except he lay down a ground that they were with united authority to joyne in one visible government against the false Teachers suppose there were twenty sundry Kings in Brittaine and twenty Kingdoms could our friends over Sea write to us as to one Nationall lump to beware of the Spanish faction except they laid down this ground that all the twenty little Kingdomes had some visible union in Government and might with joynt authority of all the twenty Kingdomes concurre to resist the common Enemie Here that godly and learned Divine Mr. Baynes sayth Communion in government is not enough to make them one Church this sayth he maketh them rather one in tertio quodam separabili in a third thing which may be separated then one Church Government being a thing that commeth to a Church now constituted and may be absent the Church remaning a Church I answer this is a good reason against the Prelates Dioceseâ—n Church which as Baynes sayth well is such a frame in which many Churches are united with one head Church under one Lord prelate common Pastor to all the Pastors and particular Congregations of the Diocese as part aking of holy things or at least in that power of government which is in the chiefe Church for all the others within such a circuit Now the prelâ—tes frame of a properly so called Church under one Pastor being a Creature with a hundred heads having Church and pastorall care of a hundred little Congregations and Churches is a dreame for we know no such Church fed by a Prelate nor no such prelaticall Argos to oversee so many flocks nor doe we contend that the many Congregations united in a presbyteriall government doe make a mysticall visible Church meeting for all the Ordinances of God But union of many Congregations in a visible government is enough to make all these united Churches one visible ministeriall and governing Church who may meete not in one collective body for the worship of God yet in one representative body for government though worship may be in such a convened Church also as we shall heare The name of the Church I thinke is given to such a meeting Mat. 18. 17. Acts 15. 22. though more usually in Scripture the Church is a fixed Congregation convened for Gods worship now government is an accident separable and may goe and come to a mysticall Church but I thinke it is not so to a Ministeriall governing Church So the Church of Ephesus is called a Church in the singular number Rev. 2. 1. and all the Churches of Asia Rev. 1. 20. but seven Churches and Christ directeth seven Epistles to these seven and writeth to Ephesus as to a Church having one government v. 2. Thou hast tryed them which say they are Apostles and are not and hast found them lyers This was Ecclesiasticall tryall by Church-Discipline yet Ephesus contained more particular Congregations then one 1. Because Christ speaking to Ephesus only sayth v. 7. He that hath an Earâ— to heare let him heare what the spirit sayth unto the Churches in the plurall number 2. Because there were a good number of preaching Elders in Ephesus Acts 20. 28. 36. 37. and it is incongruous to Gods dispensation to send a multiude of pastors to over see ordinarily one single and independent Congregation 3. This I have proved from the huge multitudes converted to the Faith in Ephesus so huge and populous a City where many Iewes and Greeks dwâ—lâ— and where the Word of God grew so mighâ—â—ly Acts 19. 17 18 19 20. and Christ writeth to every one of the seven Churches as to one and yet exhorteth seven times in every Epistle that Churches in the plurall number heare what the spirit sayth Now as our Brethren prove that the Churches of Galatia so called in the plurall number were many particular Churches so doe we borrow this argument to prove that every one of the seven Churches who are seven times called Churche in the plurall number contained many Congregations under them yet doth Christ write to every one of the seven as having one visible Government 2. Concl. A nationall typicall Churchâ— was the Church of the Iewes we deny But a Church nationall or provinciall of Cities Provinces and Kingdomes having one common government we thinke cannot be denyed so Paul Baynes citeth for this 1 Pet. 1. 1. 1 Pet. 5. 2. Though we take not the Word Church for a my sticall body but for a ministeriall company But Acts 1. Matthias was elected an Apostle by the Church as our Brethren confesse but not by a particular Congregation who met every Lords-Day and in ordinary to partake of all the holy things of God the Word and Sacraments 1. Here were the Apostles whose Parish Church was the whole World Mat. 28. 19. Goe teach all Nations 2. In this Church were the brethren of Christ
Christian in such a congregation or a beleeving woman is tied to preach and baptize and yet her pastor Archippus in that congregation is tied both to preach and baptize Secondly the Jews were to separate from B thaven and so are we Thirdly they were not to joyne with Idolaters in Idol-worship neither are we 2 Whereas it is said that it was not lawfull to separate from the Jewish Church because in it did sit the typicall high Priest and the Messiah was to be borne in it and because they were the onely Church on earth but now there be many particular Churches All this is a deception a non causiâ— pro causâ for separation from that Church was not forbidden for any typicall or ceremoniall reason not a shadow of reason can be given from the Word of God for this Because there can be no ceremoniall argument why there should be communion betwixt light and darknesse or any concord betwixt Christ and Belial or any comparting bètwixt the beleever and the infidell or any agreement of the temple of God with idols nor any reason typicall why Gods people should goe to Gilgal and to Bethaven or to be joyned with idols or why a David should sit with vaine persons or goe in to dissemblers or why he should offer the drinke offerings of these who hasten after a strange god or take up their names in his mouth This is then an unwritten tradition yea if Dagon had beene brought into the Temple as the Assyâ—ian altar of Damascus was set up in the holy place the people â—ught to have separated from Temple and Sacrifices both so loâ—g as that abomination should stand in the holy place Nor can it be proved that communicating with the Church of Israel as a member thereof was typicall and necessary to make up visible membership as ceremoniall holinesse is for to adhere to the Church in a sound worship though the fellow-worshippers be scandalous is a morall duty commanded in the second Commandment as to forsake Church-assemblies is a morall breach of that Commandment and forbidden to Christians Hebr. 10. 25. who are under no Law of Ceremonies And it is an untruth that those who were legally cleane and not ceremonially polluted were members of the Jewish visible Church though otherwise they were most flagitious For to God they were no more his visible Israel then Sodome and Gomorrah Isaiah 1. 10. or the children of Ethiopia Amos 9. 7. and are condemned of God as sinning against the profession of their visible incorporation in the Israel of God Jerem. 7. 4 5 6 7. But shall we name and repute them brethren whom in conscience we know to be as ignorant and void of grace as any Pagan I answer That if they professe the truth though they walke inordinately yea and were excommunicated Paul willeth us to admonish thâ—m as brethren 2 Thes. 3. 15. and calleth all the visible Church of Corinth for he writeth to good and bad amongst whom were many partakers of the table of devils pleaders with their brethren before heathen deniers of the resurrection yea those to whom the Gospell was hidden 2 Cor. 4. brethren and Saints by calling But say our brethren to be cast out of the Iewish Church was to be cast out of the Common-wealth as to be a member of the Church and to be a member of the state is all one because the state of the Jewes and the Church of the Jews was all one and none is said to be cut off from the people but he was put to death Answ. Surely Esay 66. vers 5. these who are cast out by their brethren and excommunicated are not put to death but men who after they be cast out live till God comfort them and shame their enemies but he shall appeare for your joy Secondly that the state of Gods Israel and the Church be all one because the Jewish policie was ruled by the judiciall Law and the judiciall Law was no lesse divine then the Ceremoniall Law is to me a wonder For I conceive that they doe differ formally though those same men who were members of the state were members also of the Church but as I conceive not in one and the same formall reason first because I conceive that the State by order of nature is before the Church for when the Church was in a family state God called Abrahams family and by calling made it a Church Secondly the Kingdome of Israel and the house of Israel in covenant with God as Zion and Jerusalem are thus differenced That to be a State was common to the Nation of the Jewes with other Nations and is but a favour of providence but to be a Church is a favour of grace and implieth the Lords calling and chusing that Nation to be his owne people of his free grace Deut. 7. 7. and the Lords gracious revealing of his Testimonies to Jacob and Israel whereas he did not so to every Nation and State Psal. 147. 19 20. but say they The very state of the Iewes was divine and ruled by a divine and supernaturall policie as the judiciall Law demonstrateth to us But I answer Now you speake not of the state of the Jewes common with them to all States and Nations but you speake of such a state and policie which I grant was Divine but yet different from the Church because the Church as the Church is ruled by the morall Law and the Commandments of both Tables and also by the Ceremoniall Law but the Jewish State or Common wealth as such was ruled by the judiciall Law onely which respecteth onely the second Table and matters of mercy and justice and not piety and matters of Religion which concerne the first Table and this is a vast difference betwixt the state of the Jews and the Church Thirdly when Israel rejected Samuel and would have a King conforme to other Nations they sought that the state and forme of governmnent of the Common-wealth should be changed and affected conformity with the Nations in their state by introducing a Monarchy whereas they were ruled by Judges before but in so doing they changed not the frame of the Church nor the worship of God for they kept the Priesthood the whole Morall Ceremoniall and Judiciall Law entire and their profession therein Ergo they did nothing which can formally destroy the being of a visible Church but they did much change the face of the state and civill policie in that they refused God to reigne over them and so his care in raising up Judges and Saviours out of any Tribe and brought the government to a Monarchy where the Crowne by divine right was annexed to the tribe of Judah Fourthly it was possible that the State should remaine entire if they had a lawfull King sitting upon Davids throne and were ruled according to the Judiciall Law but if they should remaine without a Priest and a Law and follow after Baal and change and alter Gods worship as the ten
Tribes did and the Kingdome of Iudah in the end did they should so marre and hurt the being and integrity of a visible Church as the Lord should say She is not my wife neither am I her husband and yet they might remaine in that case a free Monarchie and have a State and policy in some better frame though I grant de facto these two Twins State and Church civill Policy and Religion did die and live were sicke and diseased vigorous and healthy together yet doth this More that State and Church are different And further if that Nation had made welcome and with humble obedience beleeved in and received the Messiah and reformed all according as Christ taught them they should have beene a glorious Church and the beloved Spouse of Christ but their receiving and imbracing the Messiah should not presently have cured their inthralled state seeing now the Scepter was departed from Iudah and a stranger and heathen was their King nor was it necessary that that Saviour whose Kingdome is not of this world John 18. 36. and came to bestow a spirituall redemption and not to reestablish a flourishing earthly Monarchy and came to loose the works of the Devill Heb. 2 14. and not to spoile Cesar of an earthly Crowne should also make the Jews a flourishing State and a free and vigorous Monarchy againe Ergo it is most cleare that State and Church are two divers things if the one may bee restored and not the other Fifthly the King as the King was the head of the Common-wealth and might not meddle with the Priests office or performe any Ecclesiasticall acts and therefore was Uzzah smitten of the Lord with leprosie because he would burne incense which belonged to the Priests onely And the Priest in offering sacrifices for his owne sinnes and the sinnes of the people did represent the Church not the State And the things of the Lord to wit Church-matters and the matters of the King which were civill matters of State are clearly distinguished 2 Chron. 19. 11. which evidenceth to us that the Church and State in Israel were two incorporations formally distinguished And I see not but those who doe confound them may also say That the Christian State and the Christian Church be all one State and that the government of the one must be the government of the other which were a confusion of the two Kingdoms It is true God hath not prescribed judicials to the Christian State as he did to the Jewish State because shadows are now gone when the body Christ is come but Gods determination of what is morally lawfull in civill Laws is as particular to us as to them and the Jewish judicials did no more make the Jewish State the Jewish Church then it made Aaron to be Moses and the Priest to be the King and civill Judge yea and by as good reason Moses as a Judge should be a prophet and Aaron as a Prophet should be a Judge and Aaron as a Priest might put a malefactor to death and Moses as a Judge should prophâ—sie and as a Prophet should put to death a malefactor all which wanteth all reason and sense and by that same reason the State and Common-wealth of the Jews as a Common-wealth should offer sacrifices and prophesie and the Church of the Jews as a Church should denounce warre and punish malefactors which are things I cannot conceive Our brethren in their answer to the eleventh question teach That those who are sui juris as masters of families are to separate from these Parish-assemblies where they must live without any lawfull Ordinance of Christ and to remaine there they hold it unlawfull for these reasons First we are commanded to observe all whatsoever Christ hath commanded Matth. 28. 10. Secondly the Spouse seeketh Christ and rests not till she finde him in the fullest manner Cant. 1. 7 8. and 3. 1 2 3. David lamented when hee wanted the full fruition of Gods Ordinances Psal. 63. and 42. and 84. although he injoyed Abiathar the high Priest and the Ephod with him and Gad the Prophet 1 Sam. 23. 6 9. 10. 1 Sam. 22. 8. So did Ezra 8. 15 16. yea and Christ though he had no need of Sacraments yet for example would be baptized keepe the Passeover c. Thirdly no ordinances of Christ may be spared all are profitable Fourthly he is a proud man and knoweth not his owne heart in any measure who thinketh he may be well without any Ordinance of Christ. Fifthly say they it is not enough the people may be without sinne if they want any ordinances through the fault of the superiours for that is not their fault who want them but the superiours sinfull neglect as appeareeth by the practice of the Apostles Acts 4. 19. and 5. 29. For if they had neglected Church-ordinances till the Magistrates who were enemies to the Gospell had commanded them it had beene their grievous sinne For if superiours neglect to provide bodily food we doe not thinke that any mans conscience would be so scrupulous but he would thinke it lawfull by all good meanes to provide in such a case for himselfe rather then to sit still and to say If I perish for hunger it is the sinne of those who have authority over me and they must answer for it Now any ordinance of Christ is as necessary for the good of the soule as food is necessary for temporall life Ans. 1. I see not how all these Arguments taken from morall commandments doe not oblige sonne as well as father servant as master all are Christs free men sonne or servant so as they are to obey what over Christ commandeth Matth. 18. 10. and with the Spouse to seeke Christ in the fullest measure and in all his ordinances and sonne and servant are to know their owne heart so as they have need of all Christs ordinances and are no more to remaine in a congregation where their soules are samished because fathers and masters neglect to remove to other congregations where their souls may be fed in the fullest measure then the Apostles Acts 4. 29. and 5. 29 were to preach no more in the Name of Iesus because the Rulers commanded them to preach no more in his Name And therefore with reveâ—ence of our godly brethren I thinke this distinction of persons free and sui juris and of sonnes and servants not to be allowed in this point 2. It is one thing to remove from one congregation to another and another thing to separate from it as from a false constitute Church and to renounce all communion therewith as if it were the Synagogue of Satan and Antichrist as the Separatists doe who refuse to heare any Minister ordained by a Prelate now except these arguments conclude separation in this latter sense as I thinke they can never come up halfeway to such a conclusion I see not what they prove nor doe they answer the question c. concerning standing in
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a place where the Congregation meeteth So the Chaldaick and Arabick use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the place where the worshippers met from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Caldaice Syriace Adoravit because it is a place of meeting for adoration and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thè Congregation from the Arabick 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 congregavit Yet speaking of a governing and orderly constituted Church you shall never finde such a Church having the name of a Church but such a company as hath officers and is spoken of as a house and family where there are stewards keys doores bread and other things noting a City-incorporation 1. Because the keys are given to stewards who by office beare the keys for taking in and casting out by power of censures is proper to an ordered City where there are governors and people governed 2. Because wee reade not that the keyes are given to a company of single believers out of office 3. Wee never finde in the word of God any practice or precept that a single company did use the keyes or can use them wanting all Officers Heare what Robinson objecteth that he may establish a popular government Two or three making Peters confession Mat. 16. are a Church But two or three may make this confession without officers Ergo The proposition is cleare by the promise made to build the Church upon the Rock of Peters confession Answ. 1. I deny the proposition and it is not proved two or three making Peters confession are not the Church ministeriall to which Christ gave the keyes for the keys include pastorall power to preach and baptize which Separatists deny to two or three wanting officers they may be a mysticall Church or a part of the redeemed Church Eph. 3. 25. 26. nor doth Christ promise to build the ministeriall Church properly on the rock but only the Church of believers for whom he gave the keyes but to whom he gave no keyes 2. This argument will hurt our brethren for two or three not entred in Church-state nor in Courch-Covenant without Church-state as well as without officers may and doe often make Peters confession yet are they not for that a governing Church because they may not happily as yet bee united covenant-wayes 2. He objecteth If the Apostles appoint Elders in every Church Acts 14. 23. If God seâ— in the Church Apostles Prophets Teachers 1 Cor 12. 28. Then there is a Church before Officers Apostles Prophets a Major presupposeth there was a City before he was Major a Steward presupposeth a family is not the Eldership an ordinance of the Church and called the Elders of the Church The Church is not an ordinance of the Elders or given â—â— the Elders Ans. Job 10. 20. God hath granted to Iob life Ergo Iob was a living man before God had given him life The Lord breathed in man the breath of life Ergo he was a breathing and a living man before God breathed that life in him God formed man of the dust Gen. 2. 7. Ergo hee was a man before God formed him All these are as good consequences So Iacâ—â— served for a wife Hos. 12. 12. Ergo she was his wife before hee served for her it followeth not 2. This proveth not there is a governing Church without Officers but the contrary because for that end doth the Lord appoint Elders in every Church and a ruler in a City a King in a Kingdome to governe them to feed the flock Acts 20. 28. Ergo before there be Officers in a Church there is no government in it And so it is not a governing Church nor is a City a governing incorporation without a Major or some other Rulers nor a Kingdome a monarchicall state without a King And so the Elders are the Churches Elders as life is the forme of a living man And this argument is much against them God say our Brethren hath appoynted a Church-covenant in his Church will it follow Ergo there is a Church before a Church-covenant They cannot say this 3. These with whom sayth Robinson God hath made a covenant to be their God and to have them his people and to dwell it them as his Temple which have right to the promises of Christ and his presence are his Church But a company of believers without Officers are such Ergo The proposition is Scripture Gen. 17. 17. Levi. 26. 11 12. Mat. 18. 17. The assumption is true because they may believe separate themselves from the world come out of Babel without Officers except you say they must go to Rome to Jerusalem and beyond sea to seeke a Church Answ. The major is false for God is in covenant with six believers before they sweare a Church-covenant and so all the promises are made to them and yet by your grant they are not a Church Yea all these agree to the invisible Church and every single member thereof 2. Without officers believers may not separate themselves from the world and come out of Babel by a positive and authoritative separation to erect a new Church without pastors or in an ordinary way though as Christians they may separate from Rome negatively and touch no uncleane things 3. We send none to Ierusalem and Babylon to seeke a Church yet but except we fall unto the Tenets of Anabaptists Socinians and Arminians wee must send farther then to every house where three believers are to seeke such as have warrant from Christ to adminstrate the seales of grace except you in casting downe Babel build Iericho and raise up a Tower of confusion and evert the ministeriall order that Christ hath appoynted in his Church 4. Then how often saith he the Officers die so oft the Church dieth also to remove the candlestick is to dischurch the assembly but the death of Officers which may be in a great persecution is never said to be a dischurching of an assembly And all communion of Saints shall perish when the Officers are removed for Baptisme is without the visible Church Eph. 4. Answ. 1. When the shepheards are removed the Tents cannot be called the Shepheards Tents and persecution often doth deface the visible face of a Ministeriall Church and to remove the candlestick is to remove the ministery as to take away eyes and eares and hands from the body is to hurt the integrity of it and make it lame 2. All communion Ministeriall whereby we are a body visible 1 Cor. 10. 16. eating one bread may well be loosed when pastors are removed whose onely it is by your owne confession to administrate the Sacraments except you allow all to administrate the Lords Supper and women to Baptise nor is there a communion in a family betwixt husband and wife if you remove husband and wife out of the family except you meane a communion by way of charity to rebuke exhort comfort one another which communion is betwixt two independent congregations who are not in Church-state one to another but
some slothfull some ambiticus yea and if Simon Magus his profession though false was esteemed sufficient for to give him baptisme the Seale of the covenant Acts 8. 9. Then it is not required that all the members of the visible church be such as positively wee know so farre as humane knowledge can reach that they are converted yea if this were true then speciall commandements would be given that as we are to examine and try our selves 1 Cor. 11. 28. 2 Cor. 13. 5. And to try officers before they be admitted 1 Tim. 3. 10. 1 Tim. 5 22. and to try the spirits of Prophets and their Doctrine 1 Iohn 4. 1. and 1 Thess. 5. 21. Acts 17. 13. So would God in his Word give a charge that we try examine and judge carefully one another and that every man labour to be satisfied in conscience anent the regeneration one of another But such commandements we reade not of 6. If many be brought and called into the visible church of purpose both on Gods revealed intention in his Word to convert them and on the churches part that they may be converted Then doth not the church confist of these who are professedly converted but the former â—â— true Ergo so is the latter The proposition is sure these whom God purposeth to convert by making them Church-members they are not Church-members because they are already converted I prove the assumption because 1. The contrary doctrine to wit that none are under a pastors care till they be first converted maketh to the eversion of the publick Ministery and gratifieth Arminians and Socinians as before I observed because Faith commeth not by hearing of sent pastors as Gods ordinance is Rom. 10. 14. but by the contrary we aske a warrant from the Testament of Christ that now since the Apostles are not in the Earth private men not sent to preach should be ordinary Fishers of men and gatherers of Christs church and Kingdome 2. That Christ hath provided no Pastors nor Teachers to watch over the Elect yet remaining in the Kingdome of darknesse and that Christ ascending on high as a victorious King hath not given Pastors and Teachers by office to bring in his redeemed flock which he hath bought with his blood Acts 20. 28. 3. It is against the nature of the visible Kingdome of Christ which is a dâ—aw-net and an officiâ—â— a workehouse of externall calling into Christ even such as are serving their honour buying a Farme and their gaine buying five yoke of Oxen and their lusts having married a Wife Luk. 14. 16 17 18. 4. It is against the nature of the Ministery and Wisdomes maides sent out to compell them to come in Luke 14. 23. Matthew 22. 4 5 6. Prov. 9. 2 3 4 5. who are yet without 7. If none can be members while they be first converted 1. The church visible is made a church visible without the Ministery of the church 2. These who are baptized are not by baptisme entered in the visible Church contrary to Gods Word 1 Cor. 12. 13. and the sound judgement of all Divines 3. All these who are baptized 2. Who write as Doctors for the defence of the Orthodox Faith 3. Who seale the Truth with their sufferings and blood 4. Who keepe communion with visible Churches in hearing partaking of the Word and Seales as occasion serveth if they be not professedly and notoriously to the consciences of a particular parish converted to Christ are no members of the visible church 8. All our Brethrens arguments to prove this Doctrine doe onely prove the truly regenerate to be members of the invisible Church and not of the visible Church And if the arguments bee naught the conclusion must bee naught and false 9. It is against the Doctrine of Fathers as Augustine Cyprian Gregorius Chysostome Nazianzen Eusebius Who al accord that the visible church is a company of professors consisting of good and bad like the Arke of Noah as Hierome maketh comparison I might cite Ireneus Tertullian Origen Cyrillus Basilius Hilarius Presper Ambrosius Primasius Sedulius Just. Martyr Clemens Alexandrinus Euthymius Theophylact Epiphanius Theodoret and Luther Melanchton Chemnitius Meisnerus Hunius Hemingius Gerardus Crocius Calvin Beza Voetius Sadeel Plesseus Whittakerus Ioannes Whyte Fransc. Whyte Reynoldus Iuellus Rich. Feildus Perkinsius Pau. Baynes Trelcatius Tilenus Piscator Ursinus Paraeus Sibrandus Professores Leydenses Antonius Wallaeus And. Rivetus Pet. Molineus Dam. Tossanus Mercorus Fest. Hommius Bullingerus Mnsculus Rollocus Davenantius Mortonus Quest. 2. Whether or no our Brethren prove by valid aguments the constitution of the Church visible to be only of visible Saints of sanctified washen and justified persons Let us begin with our present Authour and with what the a Apology saith We admit all even Infidells to the hearing of the Word 1 Cor. 14. 24 25. Yet we receive none as members â—â—to our Church but such as according to the judgement of charitable Christians may be conceived to be received of God unto fellowship with Christ the head of the Church Our reasons be 1. From the neere relation betwixt Christ Jesus and the Church as also betwixt the Church and other persons of the Trinity The Lord Jesus is the head of the Church even of the visible Church and the visible Church is the body of Christ Jesus 1 Cor. 12. and 27. Answ. To admit as ordinary hearers of the Word and Church Prayers is a degree of admission to Church-communion and they who are baptized and ordinarily heare and professe a willing mind to communicate with the Church in the holy things of God they being not scandalously wicked are to be admitted yea and are members of the Church visible â— Set the first reason in forme it is thus These only are to be received as Church members who are conceived to be members of that body whereof Christ is head But the promisccous multitude of professors are not conceived to be such but only the sanctified in Christ Iesus are such Or thus If Christ be the head of the visible Church then only such are to be admitted members of the visible Church as are conceived to be members of Christ the head and not the promiscuous multitude of good and bad But the former is true Ergo so is the latter 1. If Christ be the head of the visible Church as visible it would seeme onely these who are conceived Members of CHRIST should bee admitted Members of the visible body True and in this meaning let the Major passe but if Christ be the head of the visible church not as it is visible but as it is a body of believers and invisible then we see no reason to yeeld the connexion Because Christ is the Head of True Believers therefore none should be admitted members of the Church but such as we conceive are Believers because they are to be admitted to the visible Church who are willing to joyne themselves are baptized and doe professe
Earth Answ. I see this sayd without any probation Churches depend on many above them for unity but what consequence is this Ergo they depend upon one visible Monarch It is an unjust consequence Mr. Mather Mr. Thomson c. 2 pag. 26. The Graecians and Hebrewes made not two Churches but one Congregation they called the multitude of Disciples together v. 2. Answ. That the chiefe of both Grecians and Hebrewes were convened in one to give their consent to the admission of their Officers the Deacons I conceive but that all the thousands of the Church of Jerusalem were here as in one ordinary Congregation I judge unpossible Mr. Mather c. 3. pag. 27. 28. If your argument be good if thy Brother offend and refuse to submit tell the Church because Christs Remedy must be as large as the Disease then if a Nationall Church offend you are to complaine to a higher Church above a Nationall Church and because offences may arise betwixt Christians and Indians you may complain of an Indian to the Church Ans. Because ordinary communion faileth when you got higher then a Nationall Church and Christs way suppoleth an ordinary Communion as is cleare If thy Brother offend c. Therefore I deny that this remedy is needfull in any Church above a Nationall Church 2. Christs remedy is a Church remedy for Offences amongst brethren and Members of the visible Church And Indians are no Members of the Church and so being without they cannot bee judged 1 Co. 5. 12. We say that if the Magistrate be an enemy to Religion may not the Church without him convene and renew a Covenant with God Mr. Mather and Mr. Thomson answer c. 3. pag. 29. if the supreame Magistrate be an enemy to Religion it is not like but most or many of the people will be of the same mind Regis ad exemplum as it is in France and Spaine and was in the dayes of Queene Mary and then the Believers in the Land will not be able to beare the name of the Land or Nation but of a small part thereof nor can it be well conceived how they should assemble in a Nationall Synod for that or any other purpose when the Magistrate is a professed Enemie nor doth God require it at their hands Answ. This is a weake answer the Christians under Nerâ— were not like their Prince and it s not like but sincere Christians will bee sincere Christians and professe truth even when the Magistrate is an enemy And 2. If your meaning be it cannot be conceived how they should assemble in a Nationall assembly when the Magistrate is an Enemy because it is not safe for feare of persecution Then you say nothing to the argument because the argument is drawen from a duty a Nation professing the Gospell after many backslidings are obliged to convene in a Nationall Synod and are to renew their Covenant with the Lord and your answer is from an ill of affliction and if you meane that because the Princes power is against their Synodicall convening this is nothing against the power of the Synods that CHRIST hath given to His Church But if your meaning be that it is not lawfull to them to convene in a Nationall Synod to renew a Covenant with GOD against the supreame Magistrates will I hope you minde no such thingâ— for so doe Malignants Now alledge that wee never read of any Reformation of Religion in Scripture warranted but where the Prince did contribute his authority because he onely is to reforme and he onely rebuked for the standing of the high places but hee may soone be answered 1. Both Israel and Iudah were so bent to backsliding that wee read not that ever the people made any reall Reformation of Religion Josiah Hezekiah and Asa did it for them But what an argument is this Iudah did never for the most of the Land seeke the Lord God of their Fathers with all their heart Ergo the seeking of the Lord God with all the heart is an unwritten tradition 2. Princes are obliged to remove high places But are they obliged with their owne Hands to breake all the Images No I thinke if they remove the high places by the Hands of their Subjects or command their Subjects to remove them they doe full well But I see not this consequence Ergo Princes onely are obliged to remove the high places it followeth not 3. If it be the Princes part to command his Subjects this duty of Reformation and removall of the high places then they may performe their duty without the Prince 4. There is a twofold Reformation one an heart-Reformation Sure this is not the Princes onely All the Land may repent without the King There is another an outward Reformation And that is twofold either Negative or Positiveâ— Negative is to refraine from ill and the unlawfull and superstitious manner of worshipping GOD as in new Offices not warranted by his Word Antichristian Ceremonies and a Masse-Booke c. Certainly all the Land are to abstaine from sinne though the King command not now all the Reformation for the most part in both Kingdomes is in obstinence from superstitious superadditions that defiled the worship of GOD and to this there is no necessity of the Magistrates authority more then wee needâ— the Kings warrant to put an Obligation upon Gods Negative Commandements All that is Positive is the swearing of a lawfull Covenant to observe and stand by the faith and true Religion of the Land but I see no more a necessity that a King warrant the lawfull Vow of twenty thousand then the Lawfull Vow of one Man seeing it is a lawfull profession of CHRIST before Men commanded in the third Commandement And to the observance of that Law of God which God and Conscience hic nunc doe oblige us there is no addition of a Kingly authority by necessity of a Divine Law required to make it valid no more then if all the Kingdome at such a solemne day of humiliation should all in every severall Church sweare to Reformation of life 5. The Apostles and Christ positively did reforme Religion and the Church without and contrary to the mind of civill authority nor is it enough to say the Apostles were Apostles but wee are not Apostles for upon this morall ground Acts 5. 29. Wee ought rather to obey GOD than man they reformed contrary to the Magistrates mind And wee doe but contend for that very same Faith Jud. 3. which was once delivered to the Saints So to Reforme is to seeke the old way and to walks in it Jeremy 6. 16. to turne to the LORD with all the heart Jeremy 1. and for this cause Jeremy 3. 10. Iudah is sayd not to veturue to the LORD with her whole heart but fainedly because when a zealous King reformed them they returned not with all their heart Whence Reformation of Religion must bee the peoples duty no lesse then the Kings and I believe such a divine precept carrying
is to be seene in these bookes of the Chronicles written after the Captivitie as 2 Chron. 5. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they might praise Jehovah and Chap. 32. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he writ letters also to raile on the Lord and so the parallell place 2 King 19. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the place as the Doctor citeth is well exponed by R. Salomon Iarcâ—i in his Commentary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is it was proper to the Priests and Levites 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to teach instruct as it is written Deut. 24. 28. according to al that the Priests and Levites shal teach you do yee but the Princes went with them lest they should have rebelled against their words that they might compell them to obey c. the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in pihel signifieth this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in kall didicit in pihel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he caused him to learne Dan. 1. 3 4. Nebuchadnezzar commanded also Penaz 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to teach them learning and the language of Chaldea that honorable Courtier was not a Schoolemaster to teach the children of the captivitie himselfe but he did it by others The King of Syria saith to the King of Israel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thou shall cure Naaman of his leprosie the Maide exponed it thou shalt cure him by another Elisha shall cure him Pilat scourged Jesus but Livius saith the Judge said to a burrio i. Lictor colliga manus so Deut. 31. 22. Moses therefore writ this song the same day and taught it v. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 teach them this song and put it in their mouth It was impossible that Moses in his owne person could teach the people and put this song in their mouth therefore he behooved to teach them by the Priests and Levites as 24. 25. 2. The Hebrewes may read so but he sent to his princes for the letter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a note of the accusative case of the dative of the genitive or of the accusative case with a certaine motion as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to David or of David Valet Haebraeis inquit Schindlerus ad in vel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 super and it noteth a motion to a thing Gen. 2. 22. aedificavit he made the rib in a woman 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iud. 8. 27. and Gideon made it in an Ephod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Sam. 4. They annointed David 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to bee King Then it must bee read hee sent to the Princes Benchail c. to teach in the Cities of Iudah v. 8. and with them he sent Levites v. 9. and they taught in Iudah there is not the least signification in the Text that the Princes taught Robinson Princes and Iudges are to open and expone the Law by which they governe else they governe with tyranny Answ. Judges are to convince the theefe and the murtherer 1. In a coactive way not in an ecclesiastick way 2. As these sinnes are troublesonie and hurtful to the State and Common-wealth 3 That others may feare to hurt the State by the like sinnes not that the malefactors may be converted to God and their soules may be saved but your lay-Prophets simpliciter not in ordine ad paenam are the onely ordinary converters of soules Robinson There is an excellent Sermon saith he of Iel oshaphats to the Iudges 2 Chron. 19. 6. and to the Levites 9. 10. and a divine prayer 8. 20. and Hezekiah hath an excellent Sermon to the Priests and Levites in the very Temple 2 Chron. 29. 4 5. And Nehemiah taught the people the Law of the Lord Kings are Shepheards and feeders not onely by government but also by instruction Answ. 1. These Sermons of Iehoshaphat and Hezekiah were first in time of extraordinary defections when the Priests whose it were to teach the people were corrupted and turned dumbe dogs 2. They were Sermons of Propheticall instinct and divine impulsions as the very stile of them cleareth and therefore cannot warrant Christian Princes to bee ordinary Prophets except you make the King a nationall Pastor over Pastors and two thousand Congregations for if as Prince hee bee their Pastor he is equally Pastor and teacher to all these Congregations and he must be as Prince obliged to bee a Prophet to convert all How exclude they a Pastor of Pastors and a diocesian prelate who introduce a nationall Pastor Yea how deny we a Pope if the King carry both the swords both of the spirit as a Prophet and that ordinarily by his calling to feed soules and the civill sword to take vengeance upon evill doers for whosoever preacheth the word of God as a Prophet hath the keyes of the Kingdome of heaven committed unto him to bind and loose to remit and retaine sinnes on earth and in heaven for the preached Gospell is the keyes of the kingdome as is the power of Church censures Then must the Kings have both keyes of Church and State and what hindereth but they admit the King as King and a nationall Pastor to be the head of the Church under Christ. 3. Consider the King as a Christian and gifted with learning hee is parens patriae and publick nurse father of the Church and may occasionally upon some extraordinary exigent at the meeting of the States or when his armies are going out to battell make use of the Word of God to exhort them to generall duties of Religion and Justice and to be prepared for meeting with eternitie and judgement and this he doth as a Christian father his subjects being his children but what is this to inferre that the King as King is a Prophet and an ordinary feeder of soules ex officio by office and that by knowledge and instruction as Robinson saith and an ordinary converter of soules and such a Prophet as doth preach in the Church ordinarily to the edifying of the Church and conviction and conversion of Infidels and gathering of a people to God as they say of their Prophets out of office 1 Cor. 14. 4 5. 12. 23 24 25. 31. And upon the same ground a King who hath the spirit of adoption may publikely pray as Jeboshaphat did for the Lord of hosts his presence to goe out with his Armies against the enemies of the Gospel but à speciei positione ad generis positionem male sequitur hee may be the peoples mouth to God in such an exigence and hee may give a word of exhortation anent duties generall of good subjects Ergo hee is an ordinary Prophet for the ordinary preaching of the Gospel to all his Subjects it is a loose and vaine collection Lastly Nehemiah a Prince taught the people saith he I answer Nehemiah was a Prophet and Author of Canonick Scripture as was Salomon and therefore his teaching proveth not the point Nehem. 1. v. 1. Nor can I finde where Nebemiah preached or prophecied to the people at all but
and prayed for as King by the people of God at Jeremiahs expresse commandement 3. So a pagan husband becomming a Christian should by that same reason acquire a new husband-right over his wife contrary to the 1 Cor. 7. 13 14 15. the Captains or Masters who of heathens become Christians should obtaine a new right and power over their Souldiers and Servants and they should come under a new oath and promise to their Captaines and Masters 4. If the heathen King have onely temporall Kingly power he had no power as King to take care that God were worshipped according to the dictates of the Law of nature and Law of nations had power to punish perjury Sodomie parricid as sins against the Law of nature and the heathen King should not by office and Kingly obligation bee oblieged to be a keeper and a defender of the tables of the Law of nature which is against all sense But if the power which a heathen King becomming a Christian King acquireth be onely a Christian power to use for Christ the Kingly power that hee had while hee was a heathen King then a heathen King jure regali by a regall right is the head of the Church though hee bee a Woolfe and a Leopard set over the redeemed flocke of Christ yea though hee bee the great Turke hee is a Pastor called of God the Church though for his moralls hee bee a Woolfe and a hireling yet by office and Law hee is a feeder of the flocke Talis est aliquis qualem ius offiâ—ii requirit And certainly it is impossible that a heathen King can bee a member of the true Church hee wanting both faith and profession which doe essentially constitute a Church-membership if it bee said hee is ex officio by his office a member that is nothing else but hee ought to bee a member of the Church so all mankind are members of the Church for they are oblieged to obey Christ and submit to him upon the supposall of the revealed Gospel and the heathen King is no otherwise a member by the obligation regall that layeth upon him as King yea when the Gospel is preached and the heathen King converted to the faith hee is not a member of the Christian Church as a King but as a converted professor and so Christianitie maketh him not a Kingly head of the Church but what essentially constituteth him a King that also constituteth him a Christian King Christianitie is an accidentall thing undoubtedly to the office of a King 2. They doe no lesse erre who make the King and the Church officers collaterall Judges in Church matters so as with joynt and coâ—quall influence they should bee Canon makers 1. Because perfect Synods are and have beene in the Apostolick Church without any influence collaterall of Christian Magistrates as being against their will and mind who were Rulers of the people as Acts 1. 14 15. Acts 2. 46 47. Acts 4. 1 2. Acts 6. 1 2 3 4. Acts 15. 6 7 8. c. 2. What the Church decreeth in the name of Christ standeth valid and ratified in Heaven and Earth Matth. 18. 17 18. Joh. 20. 21 22. whether the Magistrate assent to it or not so that he hath not a negative voyce in it by any ecclesiastick power for Christ saith not What yee bind on earth in my name shall be bound in Heaven except the Magistrate deny as a collaterall Judge his suffrage Now if he be a collaterall Judge by divine institution no Church act should be valid in Christs Court without him as excommunication not in the name of Christ or performed by those who are not the Church but onely in civill offices is not excommunication also what ever the Magistrate doth as the Magistrate he doth it by the power of the sword Ergo if he take vengeance on the ill doer as his office is Rom. 13. 3. 4. his acts are ratified in Heaven though the Church as collaterall Judges say not Amen thereunto 3. The coactive power of the King and the Ecclesiasticall power of the Church differ as carnall and spirituall spirituall and not spirituall of this world and not of this world and are not mixed by the Word oft as Joh. 18. 36. 2 Cor. 10. 3 4. 2 Tim. 2. 4. and therefore it in one and the same Church constitution the King and the Church be joynt and coequall Judges and joynt definers the constitution must both be injoyned under the paine of bodily punishment which the Church whose weapons are not carnall cannot command and under the paine of Church censures as suspension rebukes and excommunication the King must command Now the Canon should neither be an Ecclesiasticall nor yet a civill Canon but mixt for the Canon makers injoyneth with powers and paines which are not due unto them nor in their power Now to make a Law saith Feild is to prescribe â—â—aw under the paine which the Law-maker hath power to inflict but neither hath the Church the power of the sword 2 Cor. 10. 3 4. Joh. 18. 36. nor hath the King by Gods â—aw the power of excommunication See Calderwood And one and the same Law should be backed both by a carnall and worldly power and not by a worldly and carnall power 3. The King as King must have a mixt power halfe kingly â—â—â— halfe ecclesiastick and by the same reason the Church must have a mixt power partly Ecclesiasticall and partly civill and this were to confound the two kingdomes the kingdome of this world and the spirituall kingdome of Christ which is not of this world Joh. 18. 36. condemned by Anselmâ— and Hilarius and Bernard and Augustin Put if they say that every one hath their influence partialitate causae non effâ—cii according to the nature of causes then is not one and the same Church constitution from both King and Church See Apollonius But the Kings Canon is civill the Churches Ecclesiasticall and every one of them without another perfect in their one kind See what the learned Gerson Bucer and Amesius saith further to adde light to this point Those who maintaine a third that the Church Canons hath all the power of being Church Lawes from the King and all Ecclesiasticall and oblieging authority from him and that they have onely some helpe of consulting power from the Church are grosser Divines See Joan. Weemes for so the King is the onely Canon maker and the Church-men giveth advice onely as the Kings Proclamation speaketh having taken 〈◊〉 counsell of our Clergy we command such a worship â— and so the Canon runneth it seemeth good to the holy Ghost and the King as the Canon speaketh Acts 15. 2. the King is made an Ecclesiasticall and ministeriall Prâ—acher to expone publikely the Scriptures to the Church of God for all lawfull Church Canons are but Ecclesiasticall expositions of Gods Word and so the Emperours and Christian Kings are the onely lawfull Canon
makers and definers in Oecumenick Councels and Bishops and Pastors and Doctors have all a meere power of advising and counselling which certainely all Christians on earth sound in the faith except women have O whither are all the tomes of the Councels Oecumenick nationall and provinciall evanished unto 3. Kings justly by this are made Popes and more then Popes for Kings onely have a definitive voyce in councells whereas Papists give a definitive voyce to all the lawfull members of the councell no lesse then to the Pope Weemes hath a distinction to save the Kings invading the Church-mens place while as hee giveth to Pastors a ministeriall interpretation of Scripture in the Pulpit and to the King a decretive and imperiall power of interpreting Scripture in the Senat. But 1. there is no exposition of the word at all imperiall but onely ministeriall by the Word of God except that imperiall interpretation that the Pope usurpeth over the consciences of men and this is as Bancroft said that the King had all the honors dignities and preheminencies of the Pope as Calderwood observeth and yet Edward the sixth and Edward the eighth would neither of them take so much on them What difference betwixt a Sermon made by the King in the Senat and the Pastor in the Pulpit It is that same word of God preached only the Kings is imperiall and so must bee in his owne as King the Pastors ministeriall in the name of Christ the distance is too great The administration of the Sacraments may be imperiall due to the King also as a pastorall administration is due to the Pastors 4. In the government of Church there is nothing set downe of the King but of Pastors to feede the flocke Act. 20. 28 29. to edifie the body of Christ Ephes. 4. 11. to rule the house of God 1 Tim. 3. 2 3 4. 16. to feede the sheepe and Lambs of Christ John 21. 14 15 16. and alwayes this is given to Pastors and Elders I know that Kings are nurs-fathers to feed edifie and watch over the Church causatively by causing others so to doe but this will not content the formalists except the King command and prescribe the externall worship of God Tooker Bancroft Whitegift Laâ—celot Andreas Salcobrigiensis have a maine distinction here That Pastors and Elders rule the Church as it is an invisible body by the preaching of the word and administration of the Saâ—raments and of this government the foresaid places speake but as the Church is a politick visible body the government thereof is committed to the King Bancroft said all the externall government of the Church is earthly and Wâ—iâ—eâ—gyft and Bancroft two grosse Divines made for the court say tâ—e externall government of the Church because externall is â—â—spiâ—â—tuall and not a thing belonging to Christs externall kingdome â—aith Bilâ—â—n but this is 1 false 2. Popish 3. Anabaptisticall 4. â—yrannicall False 1. Because externall and vocall preaching and a visible administration of the Sacrament in such an orderly way as Christ hath instituted is an externall ruling of Church members according to the â—aw of Christ as King an externall ordaining of the worship is an externall ordering of the worshippers according to the acts of worship thus ordered as sense teacheth us but the externall ordaining of the worship to preach this not this to celebrate in both kinds by prayer and the words of institution and not in one kind onely is an externall ordering of Gods worship therefore as Kings cannot administrate the Sacraments nor preach so neither can they have the externall government of the Church in their â—ands 2. The feeding of the flocke by Pastors set over the Church by the holy Ghost Act. 20. 28. includeth the censuring by discipline even the grievous Woolves entring in not sparing the flocke but drawing disciples after them vers 29 30 31. and therefore Pastors as Pastors are to watch and to try those who say they are Apostles 〈◊〉 not but doe lie Râ—vel 2. 2. by discipline so this externall â—eâ—ding is externall governing committed to Pastors whereas inward governing is indeed proper to Christ the head of the Church 3. What doe not the Epistles to Timothy containe comman dements about externall government to bee kept inviâ—â—able by Timothy not as a King I hope but as a Pastor even 〈◊〉 the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ 1 Tim. 6. 14. and this taketh away that poore shifâ— that the externall government of the Church as Tookerus saith was in the Apostles hands so long as persecuting Magistrates were over the Church but now when the Magistrates are Christians the case is changed but the government of all suâ—â— as Timothy is must bee visible externall and obvious to men as 1 Tim. 2. 1 2 3 4. 3. 1 2 3 4. â— 16. 1 Tim 5. 9. 1 Tim. 5. 19 20 21 22. 2 Tim. 2. 1 2 3 4. 2 Tim. 3 5. all which must bee kept untill the comming of Christ 1 Tim. 5. 21. 1 Tim. 6. 13. 2 Tim. 4. 1 2. 4. If externall government were in the Kings power then were it his part to rebuke publikely to excommunicate and to lay on hands upon the Timothies of the Church all which are denied by the formalists and are undoubtedly the Churches part as the Church Matth. 18. 17 18. 1 Tim. 5. 19 20 21 22 1 Tim. 3. 14. 1 Tim. 1. 20. 1 Cor. 5. 2 3 4 5. 5. Parker proveth well that the keyes are Christ as Kings ruling in word and discipline 2. This is popish for so doth the Papists teach as Stapleton and Becanus that the Pope quo ad externum infiuxum according to externall influence of visible government is head of the Church and Christ according to the internall influence of the spirit is the head of the invisible body of Christ and here the King is installed in that externall government out of which our Divines by Scriptures have extruded the Pope which is a notable dishonor done to Kings and as Parkerus observeth Joan. Raynoldus answereth that from two offices of the head which is to give life and influence of motion to the members and also to guide and moderate the actions externall of the body wee cannot make two heads and because the King hath some civill government about the Church wee cannot make two heads over the Church Christ one and the King another under him 3. This is Anabaptisticall for because the visible government of the Church is externall wee are not to cut off all necessitie of the ministery to feed and rule with ecclesiasticall authority and because the Prince is gifted and a Christian to give all to him for a calling there must bee from God for the King to governe the Church of Christ by Lawes and prescribing externall worship therein for Christ hath left Ephes. 4. 1 Cor. 12. 1 Tim. 3. men to bee feeders and governours of his Church by office whose it is to bee
answerable for soules Heb. 13. 18. 4. It is tyrannicall because it putteth power into the Magistrates hand to take from the Church that inbred and inâ—rinsecall power of externall and visible government over her selfe and members which all civill incorporations by instinct of nature have and the Magistrate as such not being a member of the Church hath a headship even being a heathen Magistrate over the redeemed body of Christ. 2. By this reason the Lord Jesus as King hath no Pastors in his name to use the â—â—ves of his kingdom by binding and loosing for discipline being an externall thing say they is not a part of Christs kingly power but the King as Christs civill vicar hath this power but I say all acts of Christ as hee is efficacious by the Gospel to gaine soules are acts of Christ as powerfull by the Scepter of his Word and those who are his instruments to exercise these acts are subordined to him as King of the Church but Church-men by an externall ecclesiasticall power delivering to Satan and externally and visibly casting out of the Church that the spirit may bee saved in the day of the Lord are instruments subordined to Christ who is efficacious to save spirits by excommunication and to gaine soules by rebukes Gregorius Magnus saith those to whom Christ hath given the Keyes of his kingdome by these hee judgeth and why is this word the word of his kingdome the Scepter of his kingdome the sword that commeth out of his mouth by which hee governeth his subjects and subdueth nations so called but because Christs kingly power is with those whom hee hath made dispensators of his Word 9. Conclusion Nor hath the King power of ordaining Pastors or depriving them or of excommunication 1. All these are acts of spirituall and ecclesiasticall power 1 Tim. 3. 14. 1 Tim. 5. 22. Act. 6. 6. Act. 13. 3. Act. 14. 23. Tit. 1. 5 6. and flow from the power of the keyes given by Christ to his Apostles and their successors Matth. 28. 18 19 20. Mark 16. 14 15 16. Joh. 20. 21 22 23. Hence I argue to whom Christ hath given out his power as King of the Church Matth. 28. 18 19. power of the keyes Matth. 18. 18. Matth. 16. 19. and a commandement to lay hands and ordaine qualified men for the ministry and those who by the holy Ghosts direction practised that power by ordaining of Elders these onely have right to ordaine Elders and their successors after them but Apostles and their successors onely are those to whom Christ gave that power and who exercised that power as the places prove 2. Ordination and election both in the primitive Church of the Apostles was done by the Church and consent of the multitude Act. 1. Act. 6. 2 3 4. 5 6 c. but the civill Magistrate is neither the Church nor the multitude 3. Ordination is an act formally of an ecclesiasticall power but the Magistrate as the Magistrate hath no ecclesiasticall power Ergo hee cannot exercise an act of ecclesiasticall power 4. If ordination were an act of Kingly power due to the King as King then 1. The Apostles and Elders usurped in the Apostolick Church the office and throne of the King and that behoved to bee in them an extraordinary and temporary power but wee never find rules tying to the end of the world given to Timothies and Elders of the Church anent the regulating of extraordinary and temporary power that were against the wisedome of God to command Timothy to commit the Word to faithfull men who are able to teach others as 2 Tim. 2. 2. and to set downe the qualification of Pastors Elders Doctors and Deacons to Timothy as a Church man with a charge to keepe such commandements unviolable to Christs second appearing if Timothy and his successors in the holy ministry were to bee denuded of that power by the incoming of Christian Magistrates 2. The King by the laying on of his hands should appoint Elders in every citie and the spirits of the Prophets should bee subject to the King not to the Prophets as the word saith 1 Cor. 14. 32. 5. Those who have a Church power to ordaine and deprive Pastors must by office try the doctrine and be able to 〈…〉 sayers and to finde out the Foxes in their hereticall wayes and to rebuke them sharpely that they may bee sound in the faith but this by office is required of Pastors and not of the King as is evident 1 Tim. 3. 2. 2 Tim. 2. 2â— Tit. 1. 9 10 11. It is not enough to say it is sufficient that the King try the abilities of such as are to bee ordained and the bontgates of hereticall spirits to bee deprived by Pastors and Church men their counsell and ministery and upon their testimony the King is to ordaine and make or exauthorate and unmake Pastors because 1. so were the King a servant by office to that which Church men shall by office determine which they condemne in our doctrine which wee hold in a right and sound meaning 2. He who by office is to admit to an office and deprive from an office must also by office bee obliged to bee such as can try what the office requireth of due to bee performed by the officer nor is it enough which some say that the ignorance of the King in civill things taketh not away his legall power to judge in civill things and by that same reason his ignorance in Church matters taketh not away his power to judge in ecclesiasticall matters for I doe not reason from gifts and knowledge that is in the King simply but from gifts which â—xâ—fficio by vertue of his Kingly office is required in him It is â—â—ue as King hee is oblieged to read continually in the book of the Law of God Deut. 17. and to know what is truth what hereâ—ie in so faâ—re as hee commandeth that Pastors preach sound doctrine and that as a Judge hee is to punish heresie Some say hee is to have the knowledge of private discretion as a Christian that hee punish not blindly I thinke hee is to know judicially as a King 1. Because hee hath a regall and judiciall knowledge of civill things even of the major proposition and not of the assumption and fact onely Ergo seeing hee is by that same kingly power to judge of treason against the Crown the civill State by which he is to judge of heresie to punish heresie it would seeme as King hee is to cognosce in both by a kingly power both what is Law and what is fact 2. Because the judgement of private discretion common to all Christians is due to the King as a Christian not as a King but the cognition that the King is to take of heresie and blasphemy whether it bee heresie or blasphemy that the Church â—â—â—â—eth heresie and blasphemy is due to the King as King because hee is a civill Judge therein and if the Church
should call Christs doctrine blasphemy Caesar and his deputie Pontius Pilat as Judges civill are to judge it truth Neither would I â—â—iâ—â—â—ly here contend for whether the Kings knowledge of herese in the major proposition bee judiciall or the knowledge of discretion onely as some say wee agree in this against Papistâ— that the King is not a blind servant to the Church to punish what the Church calleth heresie without any examination or tryall but though the Kings knowledge of heresie in the proposition and in Law bee judiciall and kingly yet because hee is to cognosce onely in so farre as hee is to compell and punish with the sword not by instructing and teaching It would not hence follow that hee is to make Church constitutions as King but onely that hee may punish those who maketh wicked constitutions because the Canon maker is a ministeriall teacher the King as King may command that hee teach truth and hee may punish hereticall teaching but as King he is not a teacher either in Synod or Senate in Pulpit or on the Throne now if the King by office ordaine Pastors and deprive them by office hee is to know who are able to teach others aâ—d must bee able also to stop the mouthes of the adversaries and to rebuke them sharpely that they may bee sound in the faith and this is required in Titus Ch. 1. 5 9 10 11 12 13. as a Pastor and as an ordainer of other Pastors therefore that which is required of a Pastor by his office must also bee required to bee in the King by his office 6. It is admirable that they give to Kings power to deprive ministers but with these distinctions 1. He may not discharge them to preach and administer the Sacraments but to preach and administer the Sacraments in his kingdome or dominions because the King hath a dominion of places 2. Hee may discharge the exercise of the ministery but hee cannot take away the power of order given by the Church 3. Hee may deprive say some by a coactive and civill degradation because the supreme magistrate may conferre all honours in the Christian common-wealth Ergo hee may take them away againe but hee cannot deprive by a canonicall and ecclesiasticall degradation 4. Hee may causâ—tively deprive that is compell the Church to deprive one whom he judgeth to bee an heretick and if the Church refuse hee may then in case of the Churches erring and negligence as King deprive himselfe But I answer the King as King hath dominion civill of places and times as places and times but not of places as sacred in use and of times as sacred and religious for his power in Church matters being accumulative not privative hee cannot take away a house dedicated to Gods service no more then hee can take away maintenance allotted by publick authority upon Hospitalls Schooles Doctors and Pastors God hath here a sort of proprietie of houses and goods as men have Places as sacred abused are subject to regall power hee may inhibit conventions of hereticks 2. The Apostles might preach in the Temple though civill authoritie forbid them 3. Kings are as much Lords of places as sacred and publick as they have a dominion of civill places in respect the King may be coactive power hinder that false and hereticall doctrine bee preached either in publick or private places for this hee ought to doe as a preserver of both tables and a beare of the Sword for the good of Religion and if they may command pure doctrine to bee preached and sound discipline to be exercised they may command the same to bee done in publick places The second distinction is not to purpose 1. To discharge the exercise of a ministery saith Calderwood is a degree of suspension and suspension is an ecclesiasticall degree to the censures of excommunication and therefore the King may as well excommunicate and remit and retaine sinnes which undoubtedly agreeth to the Apostles as hee can suspend 2. As for taking away the power of order it is a doubt to formalists if the Church can doe that at all seeing they hold Sacraments administred by ministers justly deprived to bee valid Ergo they must acknowledge an indeleble character in Pastors which neither King nor Church can take away If then the King deprive from the exercise hee must simpliciter deprive by their grounds it is weake that they say the King may deprive from the exercise of a ministry within his owne dominions for saith Calderwood they all know well that the King hath not power to deprive men from the exercise of the holy ministery in ether forraine Kingdomes For the third way of deprivation it hath a double meaning also 1. If the meaning bee that as the King by a regall and coactive power may take away all honours either civill or ecclesiasticall as hee giveth all honours then this way of depriving Ministers cannot bee given to the King for the King may give and take away civill honours for reasonable causes according to the Lawes But in ecclesiasticall honours there bee three things 1. The appointing of the honour of the office to bee an Ambassadour of Christ. 2. To give the true foundation and reall ground of a Church honour that is gifts and gracious abilities for the calling neither of these two doe come either from King or Church or from mortall men but onely from Jesus Christ who ascending on high gave gifts unto men and appointeth both office and giveth grace for to discharge the office Yea since morall philosophy maketh honor to bee praemium 〈◊〉 a reward of vertue the King doth not give that which is the soundation of honour civill for civill vertue is a grace of God but in Church honour there is a third to wit a deâ—â—â—nation of a qualified man for the sacred office of the ministry and an ordination by the imposition of hands used in the Apostolick Church Act. 6. 6. Act. 13. 3. Act. 14 23. 1 Tim. 4 14. 1 Tim. 5.22 Whether imposition of hands bee essentiall to ordination or not I disput not it is apostolick by practise yet there is something ecclesiasticall as praying of Pastors and an ecclesiasticall designation of men or the committing of the Gospell to faithfull men who are able to teach others 2 Tim. 2. 2. 1 Tim. 5. 22. No Scripture can warrant that the King ordaine Pastors by publick praving by laying on of hands or ecclesiasticall blessing or by such an ordination as is given to Timothy and the Elders of the Church Acts 13. 3. Acts 14. 23. Tit. 1. 5,6 7,8 9. 1 Tim. 4. 14. 1 Tim. 5. 22. 2 Tim. 2. 2. If any say the King hath a publick and regall power in ordaining of Ministers and so in dâ—priving them or a mixt power partly regall partly ecclesiasticall as hee is a mixt person and the Church hath their way of purely and unmixt ecclesiasticall calling or ordaining of Ministers or the Church and the Magistrate
both doth elect and choose the man yet so that he is not elected without the consent of the King or Magistrate in the Kings roome I answer many things are here to be replyed 1. That the King who may be borne an heire to an earthly Kingdome is also borne and by nature a mixt person and halfe a Minister of the Gospell is against Gods word ministers in whole or in part are made so of God not so borne by nature in Aaronâ— Priesthaâ—d men by birth came to a sacred office but that is done away now in Christ. 2. With as good reason may the King preach and administer the Sacraments as a mixt person as he may ordaine by ecclesiasticall blessing imposition of hands ecclesiasticall designation any person to the Ministery that same auth nity of Christ which said to Timoth Lay hands suddainly 〈◊〉 man said also to him 2 Tim. 2. 15. Study to be approved unto 〈◊〉 a workeman that needeth not to be ashamed dividing the word right that is both ordaining of Ministers and pastorall preaching of the Word or pastorall acts flowing from an ecclesiasticall power How then can the one be given to the King by vertue of that same mixt power especially seeing baptizing it directly called 1 Câ—r 1. 17. a lesse principall worke of the ministery then preaching It it be said as ordination is performed by the King is not an ecclesiasticall action but civill or mixt partly civill partly ecclesiasticall I answer by that reason if the King should preach and administrate the Sacraments these actions should not be called ecclesiasticall actions and Uzzah's touching the Arke should not be called an action by office incumbent to the Levites only and it might be said the person being civill the actions are civill And Uzziah's burning of incense upon the Altar of incense was not a Priestly act but an act of a mixt power he was partly a King and partly a Priest who did performe the action but he was a Priest by sinfull usurpation in that action as we know 2. This answer is a begging also of the question 2. Whereas it is said that the Church ordainech Pastors and the King also but divers wayes the one by a regall power the other by me elâ—siasticall power I answer this is spoken to make the people ad saciendum populum for ejusdem potestatis est saith the Law constituere destiâ—â—ere it is the same power to ordaine and to destroy The high-Commission by the Kings authority doth deprive Ministers without so much as the knowledge of the Church If then the King as King may deprive ministers without the notice of the Church then may the King as King also ordaine Pastors without the notice of the Church For the action of the instruments as such is more principally the actions of the principall cause 3 Election of a Pastor is farre different from ordination of a Pastor the whole multitude as Christians have voyces in the election of a Pastor and so hath the King or his Magistrate as a part and member of the Church but this giveth no negative voice to the Magistrate in election but ordination is not done by all the multitude it is a worke of authority done onely by the Church-officers 4. The coactive and civill degradation must have also correspondent thereunto a coactive and civill ordination of Pastors Now I ask what is a coactive ordination If it be the Kings royall and civill authority commanding that the Church officers ordaine Pastors at Christs commandement This we deny not they fight with a shadow or a night ghost not against us who contend for this But if they meane a coactive degradation by the Sword in banishing imprisoning yea and for just causes punishing Ministers to death with the Sword this indirect deprivation we doe not deny But so the King depriveth a man from being a Minister when he is beheaded or hanged or banished for civill crimes no other wayes but as he depriveth a man from being a Fashioner a Saiâ—â—r a Plower a Souldier or a Father to his owne barnes a husband to his owne wife for when the man is beheaded or hanged by the sword of the Magistrate he is dâ—prived from being a fashioner a sailer a father a husband and Solomen did not other way deprive Abiathar from the Priest-hood then indirectly by consining him for treason at Anathoth so as he could not exercise the Priests office at Jerusalem So after Junius Calderwood Gul. Apollonius Sibrandus yea Muketus a man for the times denyeth that the Prince can take away that ecclesiasticall power that the Church hath given And so acknowledgeth Wedelius the same That reasonlesse lyer Lysimach Nicanor in this and in other things hath no reason to say we borrow Jesuites doctrine to answer this argument for the Jesuite Becanus is not â—nacquainted with Jesuits doctrine against the power of Kings yet he answereth that Solomen as King had no power over Abiathar for treason or any other crime and therefore following Bellarmine and Gretserus saith that Solomon did this by an extraordinary propheticall instinct yet Abulensis a great textuall Papist and Bâ—naventura a learned Schooleman saith this pâ—oveth that the King is above the Priest and that Priests in the Old Testament were not eximed from the civill Judges sword and power this is very doubtsome to Suarez who â—aith that it was a tempâ—rall civill punishment of exiâ—e and that â—â—â—sitiâ—n from the exercise of the Priests office followed upon the other But we neede not this answer for Solomons sentence containeth in tâ—rminis a meere civill punishment and these words 1 King 27. S. Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being Priest to the Lord seem not to be words of the Kings sentence of banishment but are relative to the fulfilling of the Lords word and a consequent of divine justice relative to the prophesie against Elies house Though verily I see no inconvenience to say that Solomon did indeed deprive him from the Priest-hood by an extraordinary instinct of the Spirit as he was led of God to build the Temple 1. Because the text saith so Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being Priest to the Lord and ver 35. and Zadok the Priest did the King put in the roome of Abiathar which is a direct deprivation from the Priest-hood but I contend not here But that the King causatively may deprive that is command the Church to cast out hereticks and to commit the Gospell to faithfull men who are able to teach others 2 Tim. 2. 2. wee confesse as for the power of convocating of Synods some thinke that the King may convocate Synods as men but as Church men they have power if the Magistrate bee averse to convocate themselves see Junius who insinuateth this distinâ—tion But certainly though the Kingly dignity be thought meerely civill yet let this be thought on it may be thought that the Kings power is divine three
had a nomothetick power in Church matters used not the advise of Divines nor the rule of the written word but as a Prophet immediately inspired of God gave Lawes to Gods people and prescribed a Law to Aaren and to the Priest-hood Now if rulers have such a power of defining Lawes they neede not follow the rule of Gods word But how shall they prove that Moses gave the Law to the people and the Priesthood as a King and not as the Prophet of God inspired immediately of God For if Moses his Law came from the ordinary power of Kings as it is such then commeth Moses Law from a Spirit which may erre for the ordinary Spirit to Kings is not infallible but with reverence to Kings obnoxious to erring God save our King 5. It is a Princes part by office to defend Religion and to banish false Religion and to roote out blasphemies and heresies Ergo he ought to know and judge by his office of all these But if he be to use the sword at the nodde onely of the Church without knowledge or judgement he is the executioner and lictor of the Church not a civill Judge Answ. In a Church right constitute we are to suppone that the Lawes of Synods are necessary and edificative and that the Magistrate is obliged by his office to adde his sanction to them not by an unfolded faith and as blind but he is to try them not onely by the judgement of discretion as a Christian for so all Christians are to try them but also saving the judgement of some Learned by a judiciall cognition as he tryeth civill crimes which he is to punish but his judiciall cognition is onely in relation to his practise as a Judge to authorize these Lawes with his coactive power not to determine truth in an ecclesiasticall way under the paine of Church censures Neither doe I beleeve that the Magistrate is not subordinate to the Kingdome of Christ as mediator but subordinate to God as Creator onely Though some Divines teach that there should have beene Kings and supreme Powers in the world though man had never fallen in sinne and a Saviour had never beene in the World and so that Kings are warranted by the Law of nature and Nations and not by any Law evangelick and mediatory yet we thinke with reverence this argument not strong for generation and creation and multiplication of mankind should have beene in the World though never a sinner nor a Saviour thould have beene in the world yet are creation generation and multiplication of mankind by our divines Junius Trekatius Gomaras Calvin Beza Melancthon Polanus Rollocus and many others and with warrant of the word of God made meanes subordinate to the execution of the decree of predeâ—tination to Glory which decree is executed in Christ as the meane and meritorious cause of salvation purchased in his blood What heathen Magistrates as Magistrates know not Christ the Mediator Ergo they are not means subordinate to Christs Mediatory Kingdome It followeth not For by Christ the wisedome of God Kings doe reigne though many of them know him not As they are created by Christ as the second person of the Trinity though they know not the second person of the Trinity It is their sinne that they know him not 2. It is objected The Magistrate is not given to the Church under the New Testament by the calling of Christ as an exalted Saviour as all the gifts instituted for the government of the mediatory Kingdome are instituted for that end Ephes. 4. 11. but it is instituted by God as governer of the World rewarding good and ill Rom. 13. 1. 6. Answ. Neither is creation a gift of Christ as exalted mediator therefore it is not a meane leading to the possession of that life purchased by the mediators bloud it followeth not For the Magistracy is a nurse-father of the redeemed spouse of Christ with the sincere milke of the word I meane a formall meane procuring by a coactive power that the Church shall be fed and it procureth not onely the Churches peace which respecteth the second Table of the Law but also godlinesse which respecteth the first Table of the Law 1 Tim. 2. 2. and Ephes. 4. 11. there be reckoned downe onely officers which actibus elicitis by formall elicit acts procureth the intended end of Christs mediatory Kingdome Not all the offices which procureth edification any way Such as is in civill Governours who are to see that the body of Christ be nourished and grow in godlinesse for that is an essentiall and specifick act of the Churches nurs-father 3. It is objected Magistracy compelleth men to the observance of Gods Law Deut. 17. and doth not immediately of it selfe by spirituall gifts of the evangell produâ—e its effects But all the mediatory Kingdome of Christ and the Government thereof of its selfe and its owne nature produceth the saving effects of the evangelâ— by vertue of its institution as faith repentance and salvation Answ. A Magistracy as a Magistracy of it selfe concurreth but in a coactive way for producing of peace honesty and godlinesse and serveth to edification but I grant not in such a spirituall way as a Church-ministry therefore it is not a meane subservient to the end of Christs mediatory Kingdome It followeth not It is not a spirituall meane Ergo it is not a meane The consequence is null and it is false that all the meanes of Christs mediatory Kingdome are of their owne nature spirituall for that is to begge the question for the Magistrate procureth that the Church be fed he punisheth blasphemers that others may feare and so abstaine and so be edified though the way be coactive yet is it a way and meane appointed of God as the nurse-father is a meane for the childs nourishing though the nurse-breasts be a more subordinate meane immediate meane 4. It is objected The Magistrate is not the Lords Ambassadour and minister in name of the Mediator Christ as the Minister is but it is extron â—call to the government of Christs Mediatory Kingdome and 〈◊〉 helpe onely to those things which concerne the externall man Answ. Hee who is called God and so is the vicegerent of God is Gods Ambassador politick commanding in Gods name but in another way then a preaching Ambassador commandeth and though Christ as Mediator may attaine to his end without the King as many were edified in the Apostolick Church where the civill Magistrate contributed no helpe and was rather an enemy to the kingdome of Christ and so Magistracy may bee called accidentall to Christs mediatory government but if this bee a good argument to prove that Magistracie is not subordinate to Christs mediatory kingdome then Oecumenicall and provinciall Synods consisting onely of Church men shall be no meanes subordinate to Christs kingdome because Christs kingdome may subsist in one Congregation without a provinciall assembly and circumcision is no meane subordinate to that kingdome in the Jewish