The Due Right of Presbyteries
I answer, if this be a good argument, the Magistrate his alone without advise of the Church may impose Laws, yea and institute new Laws, and dite Canonical Scripture also, as did Moses, Deut. 5. Exod. 20. but it is certain that Moses gave these Laws, not as a Magistrate, but as a Prophet of God, who spake with God face to face, and it is more for us, then for our adversaries.
David also brought the Ark to its place, at God's special direction, the Levites carrying it by God's Law, though they failed in that sinful omission, 2 Sam. 6. but 1 David did convocate the chosen of Israel, even thirty thousand, to reduce the Ark to its place, and so the Levites and Church-men, and did it not as King his alone, as 1 Chron. 13. he did it. And Junius saith (and the text is clear) that he did it by the counsel of an Assembly and the whole Church, and that a King may do that in God's worship, in case of the negligence of the Church, that is warranted by God's word, is but his duty. Now Jesuits answer not to any purpose in this, for Becanus, and Suarez answer nothing to David's placing of the Ark in its place, only they say all the people conveved the Ark and danced before it, as well as David, but it is not hence proved, that all the people are heads of the Church, as they say the King is: and Lysimachus the Jesuit seeth in this that we a •• ee not with his friends the Jesuits.
Solomon built the Temple, and dedicated it to God's service, but this is no ground to make the King a Law-giver in the Church. 1. Because none can deny but Solomon did all this, as a Prophet, by special revelation: for 1. if Solomon might not build an house to the Lord, but by special revelation, that he should be the man, and not David his father, 2 Sam. 7. 6. 13. far more could he not as an ordinary King, build that typical house, which had a resemblance of Christ, and heaven it self, especially seeing the signification of the Holy of holiest in the Sanctuary is expressly given to the holy Spirit, Heb. 9. 7, 8. and the Temple was a type of Christ, Joh. 2. 20, 21. and they may say Kings by an ordinary power as Kings might pen Canonic Scripture, as well as they could build a typical Temple like Solomon's. God filled that Temple with his glory, and heard prayers made in that temple and toward that Temple. I think Kings as Kings cannot now build such Temples; therefore Solomon by a Prophetical instinct built that house. Jesuits give no answer to this, for Suarez saith Kings may build Churches to God; because of it self it is an act of Religion which requireth riches for the building thereof, and for the dedication it includeth two, 1. By some religious action to consecrate a house to God; and this way only the Priests by sacrificing dedicated the Temple, and God by filling of it with his presence, dedicated it to himself. 2. It includeth an offering and giving of an house to God's service.
I answer: by this Solomon as a private man built the Temple, and dedicated it to God, and not as either King or Prophet; but this is a vain answer, for no private man could have built an house to God, with such typical relations to Christ, and to the Church of the New Testament, except he had been immediately inspired by the holy Ghost. Becanus saith three sorts of men were actors here, 1. Solomon, 2. The Priests, 3. The people: Solomon prayed and gave thanks, the Priest • • arried the Ark, the Tabernacle, the holy vessels, and sacriji • s, the 〈…〉 present, rejoiced and gave thank • s to God: there is nothing 〈…〉 Solomon's headship; Solomon dedicated a Temple to God, what, it will no more follow, he was the head of the Church for that, 〈…〉 • ffered stones and timber to God, then the wom • n can • ee 〈◊〉 of the Church, who offered to God g •• d, purple, 〈…〉 budd •• Temple to God, many Mer • han • s • ubild Temple • upon their 〈…〉 God, and pray to God to accept these Temples; 〈◊〉 in England 〈◊〉 Temples to God, they are not for that head of the Church.
Answ. 1. This is another Temple then Temples built daily; 1. Because it was will-worship for David to build this Temple, and service to God for Solomon a King of peace, and a type of our King of wisdom Christ, to build this Temple and for no other; any Merchant may build a common house to God's service, without a special word of promise, which word Solomon behooved to have, or then he could not build this house. 1. To dedicate an house to God typical of Christ; 2. Filled with the cloud of God's presence, where God said, he would dwell in this house; 3. With such ornaments as the Holy of holiest in it; 4. In which God said he would hear prayers; whereas now in all places he heareth prayers, Joh. 4. 21. 1 Timoth • 2. 8. this is another positive worship then that a merchant build a house for God's daily service, which hath no relative holiness in it, but only is holy in the use, and to dedicate a house in these terms is more then an ordinary dedication to God's service, and their Prelates in England, who dedicated Temples to God, cannot answer this reply of the Jesuits, nor can the new Jesuit Lysimachus Nican • r their brother answer the Jesuit herein; we say from warrant of God's Word, that Solomon did all this, by a prophetical instinct, by the which also he prophesied, and did write the book of the Pro •• rbs, Ecclesiastes, and Solomon's Song; else Jesuits may say that these books do no more prove Solomon to be a Prophet, then the tomes written by Becanus and Suarez, doth prove that they were divinely inspired Prophets.
Obj. David also prepared materials for the Temple, 1 Chron. 22. 2. and dicided the Levites in certain ranks and orders, 1 Chron. 23. 4.
Answ. 2 Chron. 8. 13. for so had David the man of God commanded, the man of God is the Prophet of God, not the King of Israel as King, 2 Chron. 29. 25. and he set the Levites in the house of God with Cymba's and psalteries and • arpes according to the commandment of David, and of Gad the Kings Seer, and N • uh • n the Prophet, for so was the commandment of the Lord by his Prophets; they may prove then God the Prophet is the head of the Church, and hath power to make Church-Laws. But it is a great mistake. H •••• iah, David, Solomon, commanded the people and the • evites to do their duties according to God's Word. Ergo, Kings may make Church-constitutions by a mixed power, it followeth in no so •• ; we deny not but the King may command in God's worship, what is already of clear and evident divine institution, but that he may obtrude it, as a thing to be observed, by all Church men, and urge it, as a constitution come from authority, to b • e observed under the pain of ecclesiastical censures, we deny: now this formalists teach, that he may command in the external government, as a Church constitution to be in his royal name executed, by Church men with Church censures, though the Church never heard of it before.
It is true that Jehoshaph • t, 2 Chron. 19 8, 9, 10, 11. set of the Levites and Priests, and the chief of the fathers of Israel, for the judgment of the Lord, and for controversies—and charged them, to do in the fear of the Lord, v. 11. and behold Amariah the chie • e Priest (saith he) is over you in all the matters of the Lord▪ and Zebadiah the son of Ishmael, the ruler of the house of Judah, for all the Kings matters; also the Levites shall be officers before you; deal c •• ra • iously, and the Lord shall be with the good. Hence doth T • oker and other court parasites infer, 1. That the King constituting Levites, and Priests in a City, must be head of the Church, and 2. That Jehoshaph at having constitute two Vicars and D • puties under him, one in Church matters, to wit, Amariah, another in civil matters, to wit, Zebadiah, therefore hath the King a jurisdiction and headship in both Church and State.
Answer 1. The institution of Priests is one thing, and the calling of the persons to the Office another▪ the former was God's due, who himself chose the tribe of Levi, and this the King did not. But it is another thing to constitute Priests and Levites, who were instituted and called of God, to serve in such a place at Jerusalem, rather then in any other place; this is but to apply a person, who is jure divine, by God's right in office, to such places and times. This is not a point of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, for placing and timing Preachers belongeth to the people calling them, and in the time of Apostasy, as this was, Jehoshaphat sent Levites to teach, and commanded them to do their duty; but that the High Priest is the Kings Deputy or Vicar, as if the King offered sacrifices to God, as the principal and Church head, or by the Ministry and service of Amariah, as his instrument, deputy and servant, is most idly, and untruly spoken. Yet will I not use the argument of Be • anus the Jesuit, who saith, If Amariah was the Kings Vicar, then may the King by himself sacrifice, for what ever the Vicar o • deputy may d • e, that may the person above him, who giveth him power, d • e without the Vicar. The Kings royal commandment is formally terminated upon the quality and manner of Ecclesiastical acts, that they be done according to God's Law, rather then upon the acts according to their substance.
It is one thing for Ministers to Preach sound Doctrine, and administrate the Sacraments in obedience, and at the Kings commandment, which we acknowledge a truth, and another thing for Ministers to Preach in the name and authority of royal Majesty, as having a calling from him: this latter is false: as the King may do an act of justice, at the direction of a Minister, commanding him in God's name to execute judgment impartially: yet the King doth not an act of justice in the name and authority of the Church. And that is true which Be • anus saith, What the instrument doth, the principal cause may do, where the Vicar or Deputy, and the principal substitut • r of the Vicar are both civil persons, or are both Ecclesiastical persons, for in a large and unproper sense, the nurse is a sort of deputy under the nurse father, the Father may take care that the nurse give milk, and wholesome milk to his child, yet cannot the Father give milk himself. The King may take care, actu imperato, as one intending, in a Kingly way, that Christ's body be edifyed, that the Priests and Prophets feed with knowledge, the Church and sister of Christ, and so are the Priests under the King, and at his command to feed, and to feed with wholesome food the flock, and in obedience to the King all are to do their duty, and his care is universal over all, and his end universal. That which is the end of Pastors, Doctors, Elders, Deacons, Lawyers, Judges, &c. is, in an universal intention, the Kings end, even God's honor, by p •• curing in a regal way, that all do their duty in keeping the two Tables of the Law, and so is he the great politick wheel moving by his royal motions, all the under wheels toward that same end: yet cannot the King without sin, and being like a Bird wandering from her nest, do that which is properly Pastoral, so that the Office is not subordinate to him, but immediately from God, yet are the operations of the Office, and to Preach tali modo, diligently sound Doctrine subordinate to him, but in a general and universal way, as he is a kingly mover of all, to keep the two Tables of the Law. Neither did the King (as Suarez saith) one and the same way appoint both the High Priest and the civil Judge. And Cajetan saith, he decerneth the two chief heads of Church and Common-wealth, but he appointed not both, for God appointed Amariah, to be High Priest, and not the King, but here is nothing to prove the Kings headship.
Asa reformed the Church and renewed the Covenant; Ezekia • reformed Religion also, and brake in pieces the Brazen Serpent, and all these in the case of universal apostasy, and the corruption of the Priest-hood did reform the Lord's house, break in pieces graven Images, but all this giveth to them no mixed Ecclesiastical power of making Canons, of ordaining and depriving Pastors.
Whereas some object, That the care both of temporal good, and spiritual good, belongeth to the Magistrate, therefore, he must have a power to make Church Laws. See Pareus. For his care cannot be supreme, if he must rule at the nod and beck of Church-men.
I Answer, the connection is weak: he who hath the care of both the temporal and spiritual good of the people, he hath a nomothetick power to procure both these two goods, it followeth no way, for then might he have a power in his own person to Preach, and administrate the Sacraments, this power procureth the spiritual good, but such as is the care, such is the power, the care is politick and civil, Ergo, the power to procure the spiritual good, must be politick and civil.
2. Neither is the King to do all at the nod and direction of the Priesthood, blindly and without examination. That is the blind doctrine of Papists, we hold that he hath a regal power to examine, if the Decrees of the Church be just, Orthodox, and tend to edification, For he is the Minister of God, for good, and to take vengeance on evil doing. And there is no just obligation to sin, he is not obliged to punish with the sword, well-doing, but evil doing, and the Church can oblige the Magistrate to do nothing, but that which in case there were no Church Law, and in case of the Churches erring, he should do.
2. They object, He to whom every soul is subject, he hath a power to make Church Laws, about all good: but all and every soul, without exception of Apostles, or Church-men, is subject to the civil Magistrate. Ergo. The proposition is proved from the Law of relatives, for he to 〈◊〉 we are subject, he may give Laws unto us, for our g •• d. See Pareus.
Answ. He to whom we are subject, may give any Laws, or command any manner of way, for our good. I deny the proposition in that sense; for then he might in the Pulpit preach the Commandments of God, for our good. He might give Laws under the pain of excommunication. It is enough that he may give Laws by sanction and civil enacting of Church Laws, and pressing us by the power of the Sword, to do our duty, for the attaining of a spiritual good. He to whom we are subject, he may give Laws, that is press, in a coactive way, obedience to Laws, that is most true, but it proveth not a nomothetick power in the King.
3. They object, What ever agreeth to the Kingly power concerning the good of Subjects, by the Law of Nations, that doth far more agreeth Kings by the Law of God. For the Law of God doth not desir 〈…〉 • e Law of Nations. But by the law of Nations, a care 〈◊〉 Religion belong th to the King, for Religion by the Law of nature is ind •• ed and brought in by the Law of Nations. As Cicero saith. And therefore to a Christian Kingly power, the care of Religion must be due.
Answer: we grant all, for a care in a civil and politick way belongeth to the Christian Prince, but a care by any mean whatsoever, by Preaching, or by making Church Canons, is not hence proved by no light of nature, or Law of Nations, in an ecclesiastical care of Religion due to the Christian Prince, but only in a politick and civil way.
4. All believers, even private men, may judge of Religion, not only by a judgment of apprehension, but also of discretion, to try what Religion is true, and to be holden, and what is false, and to be rejected. Ergo, far more may the Christian Magistrate definitively judge of Religion, so he do it by convenient means, such as are sound and holy Divines, and the rule of God's word. The consequence is proved, because the faithful Prince hath supreme power, which is n • mothetick, and a power to make Laws.
Answer: it is true, all private believers may try the Spirits, whether they be of God or not: but hence we may as well conclude, therefore Princes may preach and administer the Sacraments, as therefore the Prince may define matters ecclesiastical. For a eivill coactive power giveth to no man an ecclesiastical power, except he be called thereunto, as Aaron was. 2. The means alleged are the judgment of holy and pious Divines, and the word of God, but Moses whom they allege for a pattern of a civil ruler, who 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 Laws to God's people, and prescribed a Law to Aaren, and to the Priest-hood. Now if rulers have such a power of defining Laws, they need not follow the rule of God's 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 cometh Moses Law from a Spirit which may err, 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 root 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 only of the Church, without knowledge or judgment, he is the executioner and lictor of the Church, not a civil Judge.
Answ. In a Church right constitute, we are to suppone, that the Laws of Synods are necessary and edificative, and that the Magistrate is obliged by his office to add his sanction to them not by an unfolded faith, and as blind; but he is to try them, not only by the judgment of discretion, as a Christian, (for so all Christians are to try them) but also (saving the judgment of some Learned) by a judicial cognition, as he trieth civil crimes, which he is to punish: but his judicial cognition is only in relation to his practice, as a Judge, to authorize these Laws, with his coactive power, not to determine truth in an ecclesiastical way, under the pain of Church censures. Neither do I believe, that the Magistrate is not subordinate to the Kingdom of Christ, as mediator, but subordinate to God as Creator only. Though some Divines teach, that there should have been Kings and supreme Powers in the world, though man had never fallen in sin, and a Savior had never been 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 think with reverence, this argument not strong, for generation and creation and multiplication of mankind should have been in the World, though never a sinner nor a Savior thould have been 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 means subordinate to the execution of the decree of prede • tination to Glory, which decree is executed in Christ, as the mean 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 Christ's Mediatory Kingdom. It followeth not. For by Christ the wisdom of God, Kings do reign, 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 sin 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 Savior, as all the gifts instituted for the government of the mediatory Kingdom 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 mean leading to the possession of that life purchased by the mediators blood, it followeth not. For the Magistracy is a nurse-father of the redeemed spouse of Christ with the sincere milk of the word. I mean a formal mean procuring, by a coactive power, that the Church shall be fed, and it procureth not only the Churches peace, which respecteth the second Table of the Law, but also godliness, which respecteth the first Table of the Law, 1 Tim. 2. 2. and Ephes. 4. 11. there be reckoned down only officers, which actibus elicitis, by formal elicit acts, procureth the intended end of Christ's mediatory Kingdom. Not all the offices which procureth edification any way. Such as is in civil Governors, who are to see that the body of Christ be nourished, and grow in godliness, for that is an essential and specific act of the Churches nurs-father.
3. It is objected. Magistracy compelleth men to the observance of God's Law, Deut. 17. and doth not immediately, of it self, by spiritual gifts of the evangell, produ • e its effects. But all the mediatory Kingdom of Christ and the Government thereof, of its self and its own nature, produceth the saving effects of the evangel • , by virtue of its institution, as faith, repentance, and salvation.
Answ. A Magistracy as a Magistracy, of it self concurreth, but in a coactive way, for producing of peace, honesty, and godliness, and serveth to edification: but I grant, not in such a spiritual way, as a Church-ministry, therefore it is not a mean subservient to the end of Christ's mediatory Kingdom. It followeth not. It is not a spiritual mean. Ergo, it is not a mean. The consequence is null, and it is false, that all the means of Christ's mediatory Kingdom are of their own nature spiritual, for that is to beg the question, for the Magistrate procureth that the Church be fed, he punisheth blasphemers, that others may fear, and so abstain, and so be edified, though the way be coactive, yet is it a way and mean appointed of God, as the nurse-father is a mean for the child's nourishing, though the nurse-breasts be a more subordinate mean, immediate mean.
4. It is objected. The Magistrate is not the Lord's Ambassador and minister in name of the Mediator Christ, as the Minister is, but it is extron • call to the government of Christ's Mediatory Kingdom, and 〈◊〉 help only to those things, which concern the external man.
Answ. He who is called God, and so is the vicegerent of God, is God's Ambassador politick commanding in God's name, but in another way then a preaching Ambassador commandeth: and though Christ as Mediator, may attain to his end without the King, as many were edified in the Apostolic Church where the civil Magistrate contributed no help, and was rather an enemy to the kingdom of Christ, and so Magistracy may be called accidental to Christ's mediatory government: but if this be a good argument to prove that Magistracy is not subordinate to Christ's mediatory kingdom, then Ecumenical and provincial Synods consisting only of Church men shall be no means subordinate to Christ's kingdom, because Christ's kingdom may subsist in one Congregation, without a provincial assembly, and circumcision is no mean subordinate to that kingdom in the Jewish Church, because that mediatory kingdom substisted forty years in the Jewish Church in the Wilderness without circumcision; yea and Apostles and Evangelists are no means subordinate to that kingdom, because Christ's mediatory kingdom subsisteth now without these officers. 2. Neither is it true that magistracy conferreth no help to this kingdom, but in these things which concern the external man, for in a politick and coactive way, the Magistracy taketh care by commandments, that the Church be fed with the pure Word of God; only this proveth that magistracy, and Church ministry have two different objects, and the way of proceeding of these two states, the one carnal and with the sword, Joh. 18. 36. Rom. 13. 3, 4. the other spiritual, to the manifestarion of the truth to the conscience, 2 Cor. 4. 1, 2. Psal. 110. 1. 2. Es • y 11. 4. Heb. 4. 12. which we grant to be true.
5. It is objected, Christ himself performed all the parts of his mediatory kingdom, and all the functions thereof, in his own person, and by his disciples, while he was on earth; but he refused all civil Magistracy, and did inhibit his disciples thereof, because it is not contained under the administration of his mediatory office, as subordinate thereunto.
Answ. Christ refused magistracy, not because it is not subordinate to edification, which is the end of Christ's mediatory kingdom, but because it is not compatible with his spiritual kingdom, in one and the same person, and therefore this is a caption, à non causa pro causa, in one and the same person and subject; the civil and the Ecclesiastical power are inconsistent and incompatible, that is true. Ergo, in the kind of lawful means these two powers are unconsistent and uncompatible. I deny it to follow, for both royal power and Church power concur for the producing of one and the same end, to wit, edification and obedience to both Tables of the Law, but after different ways, carnal and spiritual. I think it most considerable that though the Prince may by a coactive way, command that same which a Church Synod may command in an ecclesiastical way, yet differeth these same powers in their formal objects, because the King commandeth that which is good, religious, decent in God's worship as a thing already taught and determined judicially, either expressly in God's Word, or then by a pastoral or Synodical determination, and that not by way of teaching, informing the mind, exponing the Scripture, or by pastoral dealing with the conscience, as obliging to a Church Liturgy, and ceremonies, as one who intendeth formal edification and faith, repentance, and obedience to God; but the King commands that which is good and extra, as it is already taught, and expounded, and as it is an imperated act of external worship, or mercy and justice done by a coactive power.
Hence the Magistrates power is not to edify formally, but to procure that edification may be. 2. The Magistrates power is Lordly, the Churches power is only ministerial. 3. The Magistrates power may be in one, to wit, in the King, the Churches power of the keys is in the Church. 4. They differ in formal objects, as hath been said.
Now to obviate what the Jesuit Lysimachus Nicanor saith, we are no ways of Papists mind in the matter of the Magistrates power, for Papists, 1. exclude Kings and Emperors from any meddling with Church matters. Charles the fifth was upbraided by Paul the third, the Pope of Rome, because he did, as became a Prince, ordain meetings, conferences, and assemblies for composing of differences in Churches matters, not giving the power of convening councils, only to the Pope, comparing his fact to the attempt of Uzzah, who put his hand to the Ark, and to C • rah, Dathan and Abirams conspiracy against Moses; yea and Nicolaus the first in his Epistle to Michael the Emperor, denieth that Emperors are to be present in Synods, except in general Synods, where both Church men and laicks are present: we teach that the Magistrate is as the hand, the ministry as the eyes, and both are to concur for the spiritual good of the body of Christ.
2. Papists will have the Magistrates so to defend the faith, as they have not power to judge, not as Christians with the judgment of descretion what is right, or wrong, but they must, as blind servants, execute what Prelates decree, yea and see (non pr • priis (saith Henr. Blyssemius) sed alienis Episcoporum ac p • aelatorum suorum oculis videre) not with their own eyes, but with the eyes of their Prelates, yea and the Magistrate should not read the Scripture, (say Papists and Nican • rs brethren the Jesuits) expressly contrary to God's Word, Deut. 17. 17. He shall read in the book of the Law, all the days of his life, Joshua 1. 8. but only believe as the Church believeth, and this is blind obedience that they require of Princes; this faith or obedience we think abominable in all men, as in Princes.
Of old, Popes and Prelates were subject to Kings and Emperors, as we teach from the Word of God, Rom. 13. 1. and 1. we teach against the Jesuit Lysimachus Nicanor, that his Prelates should not invade the King and civil Magistrates sword, and be civil Judges, as Popes and Prelates are; against which writeth Tertullian, Origen, Hilarius Chrysostom, Ambrosius, Augustinus; The author of the Survey saith, that if every Eldership be the tribunal seat of Christ, what appellation can be made there from to either provincial or general council? and he meaneth, that there can be no appellation to the King, seeing the Presbytery in Churches causes is as immediately subject to Jesus Christ, and the highest Judicature on earth, as the King is God's immediate vicegerent on earth, nearest to Jesus Christ, in civil causes.
I answer: the cause that is merely ecclesiastical, as the formal act of preaching and ecclesiastical determining of truth in Pulpits, and the determining the truth in Church assemblies, in an ecclesiastical way in Synods, and the excommunicating of a scandalous person, are immediately subject to Jesus Christ, speaking in his own perfect Testament: and these causes lie not at the feet of Princes to be determined by them, as Kings, but in a constitute Church they are to be determined by the ordinary Church assemblies, and in this place there is no appeal from the Presbytery to a King; but it followeth not, that there can be no appellation from a Presbytery to a provincial, or to a national assembly; 1. Because though every Presbytery be the tribunal seat of Christ, yet it is but a part of the tribunal seat of Christ, and such a part as may easily err, and therefore appellation may be made from the weaker, and the part more inclined to err, to the stronger and maniest, or the whole, who may more hardlier err: and that is not denied by this author, who dare not deny, but they may appeal from a Bishop who doth, and may mislead souls, and empty purses, to a Metropolitan, and an Archbishop, who is as dexterous and happy in emptying of poor men's purses, and destroying souls, if not large better, as a petty Lord Prelate, from whom he appealed; yet is the one Lord Prelate the Vicar of Christ, as well as the other, by formalists books. And, 2. If the cause be proper to the Presbytery, they have just right to judge it, as well as the provincial assembly hath, but possibly not such knowledge, and if the party complain that he is wronged, or may be wronged, he may well appeal to a larger part of Christ's tribunal, less obnoxious to erring, which is no wrong done to the Presbyterie. This man laboreth to make a division amongst our Divines, because we know not whether to make our Pastors, Doctors, and Elders immediate 〈…〉 to Christ, as Priests, because then they are Priests of the New Testament, or • ubject to Christ, as King, and then all our officers shall 〈◊〉 Kings, under Christ, and the Christian M • gistrate shall be so thrust out of his kingdom and chair. And the ignorant railer maketh much ado 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 sins of the people, and a real Sacrifice, our Divines deny that Christ hath any substitute and demie Priests under him, or master Priests to offer sacrifices real to God: if this Author put any Priests under Christ in this meaning, he is upon an unbloody Mass-sacrifice, much good do it him; if Fenner make this prophetical office of Christ a part of Christ's 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 God's will, not to Christ as our high Priest offering a bloody or a real sacrifice to God, & this Author maketh much ado to cite Cartwright, Fenner, Bez •• , and Sonnius, men whose books he is not worthy to bear, making the officers of Christ's kingdom subordinate to Christ as King, for as much as Christ as King prescribed the form of ecclesiastical government, and then saith the poor man the Pastors under Christ •• King must be all Emperors, the Doctors Kings, the Elders Dukes, the Deacons Lord's of the treasury, &c. and if they be Christ's immediate vicegerents, within their own Kingdoms, who shall control any of them, on whithot shall an injured man appe • le? Answ. 1. We are to bless God that these Officers, Pastors, Doctors, Elders & Deacons are expressly in the Word of God, and that this railers officers, to wit, Bishops, Archbishops, Metropolitans, Primats, Deans, Archdeanes, officials, &c. are in no place of Christ's testament, only they are in the Popes Mass book: now if the man offend, because they are subordinate to Christ as King, he must make his Primates, his Metropolitans, his Diocesan Lord's, his Deans, Officials, and such wild Officers, Emperors, Kings, Dukes and Lord Treasurers under Christ, for some room these creatures must have, else they must be put out at the Church doors, and if a man be injured by the Primate, to whom shall he appeal, but to some above him, a Cardinal? and if that creature be a Christ, who cannot do wrong, well and good it is, we rest, but if he be a man like the rest of the world, surely poor folk must appeal to his high holiness the Pope. 2. Deacons are not men of ecclesiastic authority 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 mere ministers and servants, and the Ambassadors of the King of Kings, who have no power to make laws, as if they were little Kings, but are to propound Christ's laws; he is ignorant of Christ's kingdom, for the officers of the New Testament are under Christ as their King; Ergo, they are under him as little deputy Kings to make Laws, as Judges earthly are under those whose kingdom is of this world, Joh. 18. 36. the man is both beside his book, and his wit, to infer this; Christ hath no Popes nor visible substitute Kings under him, but under him are mere servants and heralds.
4. We are far from holding, that one Church man such as the Pope may excommunicate Kings; Gregorius the second excommunicated the Emperor 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. We do not teach that the Pope or any Church man may dethrone Kings, and alienate their crowns to others. Gregory the first in a certain decree saith, Kings and Judges, who contr • veneth the constitution of the Sea of Rome, are to be deprived of her honor; Gregory the second having excommunicated the Emperor 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 kingdom of Italy, per sanctissimum diabolum, by a most holy devil: Pope Zachariah, (not the Prophet) deprived Childericus King of France of his kingdom, and procured that Pipinus the father of Charles the great, should be 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 fifth being the brother germane of Otbo the Emperor, made a Law that the Emperor should be chosen by seven Princes electors, which fact weakened the majesty of the Empire, which went before by inheritance, hence An. 1350. Charles the fourth, that his son 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 own will. Gregory the third began, and Leo the third finished the devise of erecting a new Empire in the West, and weakened the power of the Emperor of Constantinople.
Gregorius the seventh, alias graceless 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 Bellarmine's own confession. No Emperors can be created but by their consent, saith the Author of that learned work, Catalog. testium veritatis. They loose the subjects from the oath of fidelity. Lodovick the fourth answering the calumnies of John the 22. saith it is against all Law that the Emperor hath no imperial authority and power, except he be anointed, con • e • rated and crowned by the Pope; he citeth their own Law on the contrary. That Joannes the 22. (saith the Emperor) insinuateth in his Bull, that he is universal Lord in both temporal and spiritual matters. Boniface the eighth setteth out a Bull against Philip the Faire, Philippus Pulcher King of France (as saith Stephanus Aufrerii) and speaketh thus, that he is universal Lord of the earth in both temparall and spiritual thing • Boniface Episcopus servus ser • orum dei, Philippo Fr • n 〈◊〉 regi, deum time & mandata ejus serva, seire te volumus quod in spritualibus & temporalibus nobis su • es, benificiarum & pre • end ••• ad te c •• • io nuda spectet, &c. Believe if ye will, that Constan •••• gave to the Popes of Rome freedom and immunity from the imperial Laws, and that he gave to the Pope the territories of Rome, and the City of Rome the Seat of the Empire to be Peter the fishers patrimony, and this (say they) Constantine gave to Silvester, which is the Patrimony of the Crown, and the very Empire it self given to Peter, we teach no such Kingly power given to Church-men, and judge this donation to be a forged lie, invented by Papists, because they are their own witnesses of this donation. For Hieronymus Pa ••• us Cath • lanus, a Lawyer, and Chamberlain to Pope Alexand • r the sixth, saith exprelly there was no such donation made by Constantine. And because those who are most diligent observers of memorable antiquities speak nothing of this donation, as neither Eusebius, nor Hieronymus, nor Augustine, nor A • brase, nor Basilius, nor Chrysostom, nor Ammianus, nor Histeri • T • ip •• tita, nor Pope Damasus in his Chronicle, nor Beda, nor Oros • us, it is but a dream, yet it is certain that three hundredth veares after Constantine the Emperors keeped Rome, and the Towns of Italy, by their presidents and deputies, as may be seen in Justini • n. And this they did to the time of Inn ••• ntius the second, as Chronicles do bear.
6. We do not teach that Church-men are loosed from the positive Laws of Emperors and Kings. Bellarmine saith that the Magistrate can neither punish Church-men, nor convene them before the tribunal • so Innocentius the third, saith the Empire is not above the Pope, but the Pope is above the Empire. And Bonifacin • the eighth saith, all upon hazard of their salvation, are subject to the Pope of Rome, who hath the power of both swords, and judgeth all and is judged by no man. Now it is known to 〈◊〉 Nicanor, that the Prelates of England and Scotland in their high Commission, had the power of both swords, and that by Episcopal Laws, the Primate 〈◊〉 all the 〈◊〉 , and is judged by none, and who but he? and whoever spake as Suarez? That Church-m • n 〈…〉 co 〈…〉 against Princes, even to detbrane them. And as he saith, 〈…〉 , by divine Law the Pope is eximed from a • Laws of Princes: and shall we in this believe Bellarmine • , Sato, ••• etanus, Turrecremata, Gr • g • rius de Valent. Sua •••• and then forsooth they bring us their Canon Law to judge the Law of God, & to prove it, because it is said by their Silvester, nemo judicabit primam • dem, and their Gratian learned this jus divinum, this divine Law from Innocentius the Pope. And what they allege for Peters exemption from paying tribute, will exime all the disciples, and so all Church-men by divine right from the Laws of Princes. Yea all Clergy-men (say they) by a divine positive Law are eximed from the Laws of Magistrates. So saith Suarez, Bellarmine, and the 〈◊〉 of Rbeimes, but with neither conscience, nor reason. And contrary to their own practice and doctrine. For Paul will have every soul subject to superior Powers, and except the Roman Clergy want Souls, they must also be subject. Solomon punished Abiathar, Josiah burnt the bones of the Priests upon the A • tar, Christ subjected himself to his Parents, paid tribute to Caes • r, and commanded Scribes and Pharisces to do the like, Matth. 22. Willing that they should give to Caesar those things which are Caesar's. Paul appealed to Caesar's Tribunal, and Rom. 13. as many, as may do evil, as many, as are in danger of resisting the power, are to be subject. Rom. 13. 4. 2. but Church-men are such, therefore they are subject.
Agatho Bishop of Rome writing to Constantius the Emperor, calleth himself imperii famulum, a Subject of the Empire, and saith, pro obedientia quam debuimus. Leo submitted himself to Lodovick the Emperor. The Clergy of Constantinople may be convened before the Patriarch or President of the City. See the Law. And and Bishops, Clerks, Monks, &c. for criminal causes are judged by the Presidents: If a man have a suit with a Clerk, for a money matter, if the Bishop resuse to hear, tunc ad civilem judicem, &c. say they. Sigebertus, as also Luitprandus doth witness that the Bishops of Rome were compelled to pay a certain sum of money to the Emperors, to be confirmed in their Bishopric, ev • n till the year 700.
Leo the fourth, who is canonized by Papists as a Saint, writeth to Lotharius the Emperor, that they will keep the Emperors Laws forever, and that they are liars who say the contrary. Arcadius made a Law, that if a Priest were found to be seditious and troubling the public peace, he should be banished an hundred miles from that place. But how far Popes have surpassed bounds in these; see their blasphemies. As they say God should not have been discreet, nisi potestatem Pontifici super principes contulisset, except he had given power to the Pope above Princes. Also Papam superioritatem habere in imperatorem, & vacante imperatore, imperatori succedere. Also Papa habet utriusque potestatis, temporalis nempe & spiritualis, Monarchiam. Also Quanto sol lunam, tanto Papa superat Imperatorem. The Pope is above the Emperor and succeedeth to the Emperors throne, when it is vacant, and he is as far above the Emperor, as the Sun is above the Moon. The Pope also (h) in the Nativity night, blesseth a Sword, and giveth it to some Prince, in sign, that to the Pope is given all power in heaven and in earth.
7. The Pope may loose all Subjects from their oath of Loyalty and may command that a Jesuit stab or poison a King, when he turneth enemy to the Roman Faith. All these Satan and envy it self cannot impute to our doctrine. Let L • simachus the Jesuit hear this, and see if his own little Popes, the Prclats, do not teach or aim at all these points against the Kings of the earth.
CHAP. 7. SECT. 1.
Of the way of Reformation of the Congregations of England.
IN the first article, the Author acknowledgeth the Church of England was once rightly, and orderly gathered, either by Apostles •• apostolick men, whether Philip, or Joseph of Arimathea, or Simon Zealots, as we may read in Fox, &c. Sothat all the work now, is not to make them Churches which were none before, but to reduce and restore them to their primitive institution.
Answ. Though the Churches of England were planted by the Apostles, yet since Popery universally afterward prevailed, in both England and Scotland, as Beda and Nicephorus and ancient histories witness, we think by our brethren's grounds England loosed the very essence of a true Church. So that there be need of the constituting of a new Church, and not of simple restitution to the first restitution. 1. Because the Congregations wanteth the essential constitution of right visible Churches, as you say. 2. Because you receive none coming from the Church of New-England, to the seals of the Covenant, because they are members of no visible Church.
Sect. 2. Certain propositions tending to Reformation.
In the third or fourth Proposition the Author condemneth Laics Patronages.
2. Dedicating of Lands to the Ministry; to these add what the Ministers of New-England say in their answer to the thirty two Questions sent to them from Old-England, where they condemn stinted maintenance. Though the right of Church Patronages were derived from Romulus, it is not for that of noble blood. • or Dionysius Halicarnasseus saith Romulus instituted Patronages, when he had divided the people in noble and ignoble, called, Patricii & Plebeii. But this Patronage was civil, and when servants and underlings were hardly used, it hath a ground in nature, that they choose Patrons to defend them, therefore he who gave liberty to a a servant, amongst the Romans was called a Patron, and he who defended the cause of the accused, as Valla saith, was called a Patron. If it be said that the servant was the proper goods, and part of the Masters patrimony, because he might sell his servant, and therefore there could be no Law given to prove men may limit the dominion of the master over the servant.
I answer; the servant was a part of his masters patrimony, but a part thereof for sin, not as his Ox or his Ass, is a part of his patrimony; therefore by the Law of nature, whereby the weaker imploreth help of the stronger, as the Lamb seeketh help from the mother, and the young Eagle from the old, the slave might well have liberty to choose a Patron, and this is a ground that the Magistrate the Churches nurs-father by office should plead the Churches cause, as her Patron, and everyone in power is to defend the Church in her liberties and patrimony; and therefore in the Apostles time, when holiness and the power of Religion did flourish, and was in court, there was not need of any positive, civil or Church Law, for a Patron to the Church, every believer in power is obliged to defend the Church: but when men became Vulturs and ravenous birds to pluck from the Church what was given them, the Council of Millian in the year of God 402. wherein some say Augustine was president, under Honorius and Arcadius, some holy and powerful men were sought from the Emperor to defend the Church in her patrimony, and rights against the power and craft of avaricious men, and they were called Patrons, and the same was desired in the first Council of Carthage, but with the Bishops advice, cum provisione Episcoporum. Hence it is clear, patronages from their original were not Church privileges, and Bishops being a part of the Church, could not be the Patrons, quia nemo sibi ipsi potest esse patronus, and for this cause that learned thinketh this was the original of Church Patronages, but the Patrons have been chosen with consent of the Church; hence they were not as our Patronages are now, which goeth 1. by birth, 2. and are a part of a man's patrimony, and civil thing, that the Patron hath right unto, under the Kings great Seal; but as a Minister is not a Minister by birth, neither was a Patron a Patron by birth: and from this we may collect, that the Patrons right was but a branch of the Magistrates right, and accumulative, not primitive, and that he could take nothing from the Church, and 〈◊〉 less might the Patron forestall the free election of the people, by tying them and their free suff • ages to a determinate man, whom he presented; and it is not unlike which A • entinus 〈◊〉 , when Bishops gave themselves only to the Word of God, to preaching and writing books in defense of the truth, the Emperor took care that they should be furnished with food and • aiment, and therefore gave them a p • tronus quem 〈◊〉 patronum curatoremque vocabant, whom they called a patron; and here observe the Bishop of old was the client, and the son and Pupil, now he must be the Patron and Tutor, and therefore in time of Popery, Antichristian Prelates would be Patrons both to themselves and to the Churches.
But this seemeth not to be the original of patronages, because this ground is common to all Churches, but not all, but only some certain Churches have patronages, therefore their ground seemeth rather to be that some religious and pious persons founded Churches, and dotted, and mortified to them benefices, and the Church by the Law of gratitude did give a Pat • onage over these founded Churches to the first foundators and their heirs, so as they should have power to nominate and present a Pastor to the Church. But there were two notable wrongs in this; for 1. If the fundator have all the Lands and Rents in those bounds, where the Church was erected, he is obliged to erect a Church, and furnish a •• pend, both by the Law of nature and so by God's Law also. Ergo, the Church owe to him no gift of patronage for that, nor is he to keep that patronage in his hand, when he erecteth a Church; but and if he being Lord heritor of all the Lands and Rents, both erecteth a Church, and dotteth a stipend, sub modum eleemosynae, non sub modum debiti, by way of alms, not by way of debt, then is there no gratuity of honor, nor reward of Patronage due to him, for alms as alms hath no real or bodily reward to be given by those on whom the alms is bestowed, but only the blessings of the poor, Joh 31. 20. it being a debt paid to God, he doth requite it. And Calderword saith, no wise man would think that the Church men should allure men to found Churches, and to works of Piety, by giving them the right of presenting a man to the change: and also he would call it Simony, not piety or religion, if one should refuse to do a good work to the Church, except upon so dear • t rate, and so hard a condition as to acquire to himself po • er over the Church of God.
Though the • ight of presenting a man to benefice were a mere temporal thing, yet because it removeth the liberty of a free election of the fittest pastor, as Origen saith, it cannot be lawful, but it is not a temporal or civil right, but a spiritual right, though we should grant that the people have a free voice in choosing, and that the patron were obliged to present to the benefice, the man only whom the people hath freely chosen, and whom the Elders, by imposition of hands, have ordained. 1. Because the Pastors hath right to the benefice, as the workman is worthy of his hire, and he hath a divine right thereunto by God's Law, 1 Cor. 9. 8, 9. & c. Gal. 6 6. Matth. 10. 10. Ergo, if the patron give any right to the Pastor to the benefice, it must be a spiritual right. If it be said, he may give him a civil right before men, that according to the Laws of the Commonwealth, he may legally brook and enjoy the benefice; this is but a shift, for the civil right before men is essentially founded upon the Law of God, that saith, the workman is worthy of his hire: and it is that fame right really that the Word of God speaketh of: now by no Word of God, hath the Patron a power to put the Preacher in that case, that he shall be worthy of his wages, for he being called, chosen as Pastor, he hath this spiritual right not of one, but of the whole Church. 2. It is true, Papists seem to be divided in judgments in this, whether the right of patronage be a temporal or a spiritual power; for some Canonists as we may see in Abb. decius, and Rubio, and the Gloss saith it is partly temporal, partly spiritual. Others say it is a spiritual power, as Anton. de Butr. and Andr. Barbat. and Suarez, and whereas Papists do teach that the Church may lawfully give a right of presenting to Church benefices, even to those who are not Church men, the power must be ecclesiastical and spiritual, and cannot be temporal; also Suarez saith, that the right of patronage may be the matter of Sim • ny, when it is •• ld for m • ney. Ergo, they think it an holy and spiritual power. It is true the Bishop of Split calleth it a temporal power, which is in the hand of the Prince, but there is neither reason nor Law, why it can be called a temporal power due to a man, seeing the patron hath (amongst us) a power to present, and name one man, whom he conceiveth to be qualified, for we find the nomination of a list, or the seeking out of men fit for the holy ministry, sometimes ascribed to the Church, as Act. 1 23. Then they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnam d Jus • us, and Matthias, which words may well be referred to the eleven Apostles, and so they nominated men, or to the Church of believers, and so though it be not an authoritative action, it is an ecclesiastical action, and belongeth to the Church as the Church, and so to no Patron: and the looking out of seven men to be presented as fit to be ordained Deacons, is expressly given to the Church of believers, Act. 6. 3. Wherefore Brethren, look ye out amongst you, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , seven men of honest report; and sometimes the Apostles do nominate men for the ministry, but never doth the holy Ghost mention a Patron. But if the thing it self (say they) he necessary, then is the office not unlawful.
But it is most necessary that someone or more eminent and powerful men, should have power to see that the Church goods be not delapidated.
Answ. It is a part of the Magistrates office, with his accumulative power, whereby he seeth that everyone do their duty, to take care that vulturs and sacrilegious devourers of Church livings be punished; and the Church themselves are to censure all guilty of Simony or delapidation of the rents of the Church, as may be gathered by due analogy from Peters punishing with death, the sacrilege of Ananias and Sapphira, and the Simony of Simon Magus. 2. The ancient Church • ooke care of dividing of the Church rent very carefully in four parts; one was given to the Pastor, who was not to employ • ents of the Church upon Horses and Coaches, and conquering Baronies and Lordships to their sons, as our idle belleys were in custom to do, but the Bishop was to entertain Hospitals, and to feed the poor, to take care of bridges, rep • ring of Churches, so as Ambrose saith, what ever is the Biships, it is the poor's; a second part was given to the Elders and Deacons; a third part was for the repairing of Churches, and a fourth part for Hospitals, for poor and strangers; this distribution with some other order, is made, if we believe Papists, in a Synod at Rome under Silvester the first, though Socrates, Theodoret, Sozomen, and others well versed in antiquity speak nothing of this Synod, but you may see this clear in Synodo Bracarensi, in Aventinus, in Gregorius, so there is no need of a Patron, nor was there any in the Apostolic Church. Deacons were to take care for tables, and the goods of the poor, no reason that men seem more careful for the good of the Church then Jesus Christ. 3. Though there be a necessity that the Church be defended in her liberties, yet is there no reason, an office should be made thereof; as the Canonists make it an office, with a sort of stipend; And therefore to make a Patron they require not only the founding of a Church, but also the building of the house, upon his own charges, and the dotation of a mainten • nce for the Church, and for this cause the Patrou hath a burial place in the Church; and if he or his children become poor, they are to be entertained of the Church rents; and therefore they call it jus • uti 'e, a gainful power. 2. It is jus b • norifioum, he hath power to nominate and present a man to the benefice of the vaiking Church. 3. It is jus onerosum, because he is obliged to defend the Church; see the • Law for this; so see also Calderwood, Gerardus, Suarez, Anton. de dom. arcb. Spal H • spinianus; yet Justinianus himself forbiddeth that the Patron should present a man to the Bishop to be examined and tried, and certainly this place and charge for the defending of the Church of Christ from injuries and wrongs 〈◊〉 Christ of want of foresight and providence, who hath not appointed officers civil and eccle •• asticall to take care of his Church, for no power over the Church was ever given to builders of Synagogues, and therefore a calling by the Patron is no more Christ's way, then a calling by the Prelate and his Chaplain. 2. Nor would the Church receive the ministers from Christ Jer. 2. 5. and the laying on of the hands of the Elders, 1 Tim. 4. 14. 2 Tim. 2. 2. but by the authority of the Patron, who doth nominate the man, and may charge the Presbyterie, by Law to admit him minister of such a flock. Nor is it enough to say that the Patron doth present to such a benefit only, and doth leave all the ecclesiastical part to the Church, and the officers thereof, for this would say something, if the Patron were tied to the Churches free choice, whereas the contrary is true, that the Church is tied to the Patrons free election of the man, but this is nothing, because the Patron being but one man only, and so the Church can have no lawful propriety, right and dominion over the rents of the Church, for Christ is only Lord and proprieter, and just titular of all rents dotted for the maintenance of the ministry, and under Christ, when the place vaiketh, the rents recur to the Church, as the proper proprieter under Christ: as the goods of Ananias and Sapphira are the goods of the Church, after they had given them in to the public treasury of the Church; Ergo, the Patron can give no right to any person to be presented and ordained, for no man can give to another that title and right which he hath not in himself. If it be said, he may give in the Churches name, as the Churches Patron, those goods which are mortified to the Church, well, then is the Patron in the act of presenting the representative Church, and hath the Churches power; Ergo, he is but the Churches servant in that, and to do at the Churches will, and the Church is the first presenter, this is a new representative Church, that we have not heard of.
2. This is against the nature of the Patrons office, whose it is, when he foundeth and buildeth a Church, to reserve the right of patronage to himself, and never to give that right to the Church; Ergo, by his own authority, and not in the Churches name, he giveth title to the benefice, to the Pastor of Minister.
3. The Church hath not power to alien ate and dispose to one particular man, those goods which are given to God, and to his Church, so as that one hath power in Law to dispose those goods to any, without the Churches consent, as the Patron may do. The Church may dispose and give power to one man to do certain actions in the Churches name, but yet so as the Church retaineth power to regulate that her delegate, or commissioner in these acts, and to correct him, in case of aberration; but the Church hath no power over the Patron as Patron to limit him in the exercise of his power, for the right of Patronage is his by birth, he may sel it for money to another; to a Papist, to an excommunicate person, to a Jew, or an enemy of the Church, as he may sell his lands and houses, and hath a civil right thereunto under his Majesty's great Seal; therefore the patron doth here, proprio suo jure, by his own proper right, present and give title and Law to the Church benesice, and doth not present in name of Church, or as having from the Church a power.
3. What ever taketh away an ordinance of Christ, that is not lawful: but the power of Patrons taketh away the ordinance of Christ, and the free election of the People, because the people have power to choose out of many one fittest, and most qualified, for the office; as is clear, Act. 6. 3. Act. 1. v. last. Act. 14. 23. because the man chosen should be one of a thousand, as Didoclavius or Calderwood saith in that learned Treatise, called Altare Damascenum. Nor can it be said (saith that learned Author) that the Church may transfer her right of presenting to a Patron, for that is in effect to transfer her power of election, but that (saith he). the particular Church cannot do except by the decrce of a gener all assembly, neither can that right be transferred over to a general assembly, especially a perpetual and hereditary right, because (as saith Cartwright) it is a part of that liberty, which is purchased by Christ's blood, which the Church can no m • re alienate and dispose, then she can transfer or dispose to another her inheritance of the kingdom of God, to the which this liberty is annexed: thus he.
4. The discerning of the spirits, and the knowing of the voice of Christ speaking in his called servants, is laid upon the flock of Christ, whose it is to elect, but not upon the Patron, which may be a Heathen, and a Publican, and as such is no member of the Church.
5. Every human ordinance not warranted by Christ's Tostament, and abused to sacrilege, rapine, delapidation of Church-rents, and Simoniacal pactions with the intrants into the holy ministry, is to be abolished, and is unlawful: but the right of patronages is such as experiences teacheth to many and lamentable. The proposition is above cleared.
6. That calling in part or in whole, which giveth no ground of faith, and assurance of a lawful calling to the Ministers entry to that holy charge, cannot belawfull; but the calling to the ministry by the good will and consent of the Patron as Patron, is such. Ergo. The proposition is clear, every lawful mean and way of entry unto that calling is warranted by a word of promise, or precept, or practice; the calling by the patrons consent, hath neither word of promise, or precept, or practice in the Word; and stayeth not the conscience of the man of God, that he did not run unsent: but a man is never a whit the more staid in his conscience, that he is presented by a Patron, to the tithes, and parsonage and vicarage of such a Congregation. It is but a cold comfort to his soul, that the Patron called him.
7. What ever privilege by the Law of nature all incorporations have to choose their own rulers and officers, this Christ must have provided in an eminent manner to the Church: but all cities, societies, incorporations and kingdoms have power to choose their own rulers, officers, and members, as is clear by an induction of all free colleges, societies, cities and republicks. Ergo, this cannot be laid upon a Patron; see for this also Ames, Guliel. Apollonius, who citeth that of Ath • nasius, Where is that Canon in the Word, that the sent Minister of Christ, is sent from the Court, or the Princes Pala • e?
As concerning the other two, this author condemneth Lands dedicated to the ministry, because the New Testament speaketh nothing of such Lands.
Answ. This speaketh against Glebes of Ministers, but the New Testament speaketh not of Manses or houses, or of moneys for Ministers; yet a wage we know is due, Matth. 10. 10. 1 Cor. 9. 8, 9, 10. Gal. 6. 6. and the Levites were not to be distracted from the most necessary work of the Tabe •• acle, and service of God, more then Ministers, yet they had Lands and Towns assigned of God to them; though the less dis • ract • ous the wages be, the better, and the more convenient they are, 2 Tim. 2. 3. 4. 5. As for the tithes we think quotta decimarum, or a sufficient maintenance, of tithes, or what else may conduce for food and raiment, of divine right, Matth. 10. 16. 1 Cor. 9. 8, 9. tithes formally as tithes are not necessary, so the Ministers be provided, and a stipend be allowed to them, not as an alms, but as a debt, Luk. 10. 7. But the stinting of maintenance for Ministers the author condemneth, because when Constantine gave large rents to the Church, it proved the lane of the Church.
But I answer, stinting maketh not this, but excess, for mountains of rents may be stinted, no less then mole-hills.
In the first proposition Pastors are to be chosen of new, in England, though they have been Pastors before, and that by the imposition of the hands of some gracious and godly Christians.
Answ. Such an ordination wanteth all warrant in the Word of God. 2. Why are they ordained over again, who were once ordained already? belike you count them not Ministers, and baptism administered by them, no baptism, though these same gracious Christians have been baptized by such, and so England hath no Church visible at all, and no ministry; see what you lay upon Luther and some of our first reformers, who had their external calling from Antichristian Prelates, the same very thing which Papists lay upon them. 3. If there be called Pastors in England to lay on hands on Ministers, why are not they to impose hands on such as you judge to be no ministers? because possibly the Prelates laid hands upon them, seeing you grant Chap. 5. Sect. 9. where there are Presbyters to lay on hands, it is convenient that ordination should be performed by them. I confess I am not much for the honoring of the Prelates foul fingers, yet can they not be called no Pastors, no more then in right we can say, Caiaphas was no High Priest.
Proposition 6. He willeth Pastors, and Doctors, and Elders to be put in the ••• me of Parsons and Vicars.
Answ. If the offices of Parson and Vicar be set up, it is reason they be abolished, but for the names there is not much necessity of contending, though in such cases it be safer to speak with the Scripture, then with Papists: the Vicar General is indeed the Bishops delegat, and a creature to be banished out of the house of God, of whose unprofitable place & style, see that learned writer D •• id Calderwood, who findeth him to be made of the metal of the Popes service, base Copper not Gold. and the Popish parson is as the Vicar; Firewood for Antichrists Caldron.
In the 12. and 13. Propositions, it is said, that it is necessary 〈◊〉 Preachers countenanced from King, and State, were sent to 〈◊〉 to congregations generally ignorant, and profane, and till they 〈…〉 measure of gracious reformation, as they can testify their faith and repentance, it were meet they should never renew their C ••• nant made in baptism, nor yet have the Seals of the Covenant con ••• ed upon them, but till then they shall lament after the Lord, as the 〈◊〉 did when the Ark had been long absent, 1 Sam. 7. 2.
Answ. In these Propositions most of all the Congregations of England, except some few following the way of independencie of Church government, though they be baptized and profess the truth, are brought just to the state of Turks and Indians willing to hear the Word, or of excommunicated persons, for they and their seed are to want the Scales, their children Bapti • me, themselves the Lord's Supper. But 1. how can the 〈◊〉 in ordinary rebukes, and excommunication from the S • all • be exercised upon these who are without, and no Church as yet? for while they swear the Covenant, they are not Churches. 2. It is said, godly Preachers must be sent to them, 〈◊〉 th • y 〈◊〉 reformed; but why not godly Pastors? because th • ugh these preachers preach unto them, yet exercise they no Pastoral care over them, because they are not yet a visible Church and flock, and therefore have no more Pastors to care for their souls, then Turks and Indians, and Preachers have 〈◊〉 a Pastoral relation to these, though baptized, and 〈◊〉 Christ, then to Indians, Jews or Turks, as our brethren teach, & a pattern of such flocks is not hard in the word, where ordinarily the word is preached to a number of people baptized, and yet baptism denied to all their seed, and the Lord's Supper to themselves. 3. It is the same Covenant the author speaketh of here with the Church Covenant that 〈◊〉 and Judah made with God, and which they say essentially constituteth a Church, and hinteth at the Covenant of the Church of Scotland, sworn and subscribed by many thousands ign • rant and profane, and who never came to such a measure of gracious reformation, as they can testify their faith and repentance; yet did this nation right in putting all to swear and enter into a Covenant with God, for Israel, Deut. 29. where there was many who had not eyes to see, ears to hear, and a heart to understand, v. 3. 4. and where there were many rebellious and stiff-hearted, Deut. 31. 27. entered all of them into Covenant with God, Captains, Elders, Officers, all the men of Israel, Deut. 29. v. 10. Little ones, wives, children, hewers of wood, &c. all which attained not to such a measure of gracious reformation. 2 Chron. 15. 9. all Judah and Benjamin, and the strangers with them out of Ephraim and Manasseh, and out of Simeon, entered into a Covenant with God; who after such Apostasy could not all have attained to that measure of gracious reformation, as to testify their faith and repentance by prayer, conference, experiences of God's ways in their heart and confession, and yet the Author saith that there is no color to conceive this way of entering into Church estate by Covenant, to be peculiar to the pedagogue of the Old Testament. 4. Israel's lamenting after the Lord, 1 Sam. 7. 2. was not the repentance of a people, who was not a Church visible, but was only a people to be prepared for a Church State, and not fit to receive circumcision and the passoever; as you conceive of the ignorant and profane in England, which to you are no visible Churches; for Israel at this time was a true visible Church. The rest of the propositions tending to reformation not discussed elsewhere, I acknowledge to be gracious and holy counsels, meet for a reformation. The Lord build his own Temple in that Land, and fill it with the cloud of his glory.