A dispute against the English-popish ceremonies, obtruded vpon the Church of Scotland Wherein not only our ovvne argumemts [sic] against the same are strongly confirmed, but likewise the ansvveres and defences of our opposites, such as Hooker, Mortoune ... Forbesse, &c. particularly confuted.

CHAP. VIII.

That the lavvfulnesse of the Ceremonies can not be vvar∣ranted by any Ordinance of the Civill Magistrate: vvhose povver in things Spirituall or Ec∣clesiasticall, is explained.

NOw are wee fallen upon the strong hold of our Opposites, which is the Kings Majesties Supermacy in things Ecclesi∣asticall. [Sect. 1] If they did meane in good earnest to qualify the lawfulnes of the Ceremonies from holy Scripture, why have they not taken more paines and travel to debate the matter from thence?

And if they meant to justify them by the Lawes & Constitutions of the Church, why did they not study to an orderly peaceable pro∣ceeding, and to have things concluded in a lawfull Nationall Synode, after free reasoning and mature advisement? Why did they carry matters so factiously and violently? The truth is, they would have us to acquiesce and to say no more against the Ceremonies, when once we heare that they are enjoyned by his Majestie, our only su∣preme Governour. What I am here to say, shall not derogate any thing from his Highnesse Supremacy, because it includeth no such thing as a nomotheticall power, to prescribe and appoint such sacred and significant Ceremonies as he shall thinke good.

The Arch-Bishop of Armagh, in his Speach which he delivered concerning the Kings Supremacy, (for which King Iames returned him in a Letter his Princely and gratious thankes, for that he had de∣fended his just & lawfull power, with so much learning and reason,) whiles he treateth of the Supremacy, and expoundeth that Title of The only Supreme Governour of all his Highnes Dominions and Countries, as well in all spirituall or Ecclesiasticall things or causes, as temporall; mentioneth no such thing, as any power to dispose by his Lawes and ordi∣nances, of things externall in the worship of God. Neither yet shall this following Discourse tend to the cooling & abating of that care and zeale which Princes owe to the oversight & promotion of Religion. For alas! the corruptions which have stept into Religion, and the decayes which it hath felt since Princes beganne to take small thought of it, and to leave the care of it to Popes, Bishops, Monkes, &c. can never be enough bewailed. Nihil enim, &c. For there is nothing (saith c Zanchius) more pernitious, either to the Commonwealth or to the Church, then if a Prince doe all things by the judgement of others, and he himself understand not those things which are propounded to bee done.

Nor lastly, are we to sound an alarum of Rebellion. For to say that Subjects are not bound to obey such Lawes and Statutes of their Prince, as impose upon them a Yoke of Ceremonies, which hee hath no power to impose, is one thing; and to say, that they are not bound to subject themselves unto him faithfully and loyally, is another thing. Recte Gerson; Qui abusui potestatis resistit, non resistit divinae ordinationi, saith d the Bishop of Sarisburie. Subjection, saith e D. Field, is required generally and absolutely, where obedience is not. If we have leave to speake with f Divines, the bond and signe of subjection, is only Homage, or the oath of fidelity, whereby Sub∣jects

binde themselves to be faithfull to their Prince. And we take the judge of all flesh to witnesse, before whose dreadfull Tribunall we must stand at that great day, how free we are of thoughts of Re∣bellion, & how uprightly we meane to be his Majesties most true and loy all Subjects to the end of our lives, and to devote our selves, our bodies, lives, goods and estates, and all that we have in the world, to his Highnesse service, and to the honour of his Royal Crowne.

Now for the purpose in hand, we will first examine what the Arch-Bishop of Spalato saith, for he discourseth much of the jurisdiction [Sect. 2] and Office of Princes, in things and causes Ecclesiasticall. The Title of the first Chapter of his sixt Booke de Rep Eccl. holdeth; That it is the duty of Princes super Ecclesiastica invigilare. But in the body of the Chapter, he laboureth to prove, that the power of governing Eccle∣siasticall things belongeth to Princes (which is farre more then to watch carefully over them.) This the Reader will easily perceive. Nay, he himselfe, Num. 115. & 174. professeth he hath been pro∣ving, that Divine and Ecclesiasticall things, are to be ruled and gover∣ned by the authority & Lawes of Princes. The Title prefixed to the sixt Chapter of that same Booke, is this: Legibus & edictis Principum Laicorum, & Ecclesiastica & Ecclesiasticos gubernari. So that in both Chapters, he treateth of one and the same office of Princes about things Ecclesiasticall.

Now, if we would learne what he meanes by those Ecclesiastica, which he will have to be governed by Princes, g he resolves us that he meanes not things internall, such as the deciding of controversies in matters of faith, feeding with the Word of God, binding & loo∣sing, and ministring of the Sacraments: (for in pure spiritualibus, (as he speaketh in Summa Cap. 5.) he yeeldeth thē not the power of judg∣ing and defining:) but onely things externall, which pertaine to the externall worship of God, or which concerne externall Ecclesiastical Discipline. Such things h he acknowledgeth to be res Spirituales. But vera Spiritualia, he will have to comprehend onely things inter∣nall, which hee removeth from the power of Princes. Thus wee have his judgement as plaine as himselfe hath delivered it unto us.

But I demaund, 1. Why yeeldeth he the same power to Princes in governing Ecclesiastica, which he yeldeth them in governing Ecclesias∣ticos? For Ecclesiasticall Persons, being members of the common-wealth no lesse then Laickes, have the same King and Governour with them. For which reason it is (as i the B. himself sheweth out of Molina) that they are bound to be subject to their Princes Lawes, which pertaine to the whole common-wealth. But the like cannot be alleadged for the power of Princes to governe Ecclesiastica: for the B. (I trust) would not have said, that things Ecclesiasticall and things civill doe equally and alike belong to their power and Iuris∣diction.

2. Why confoundeth he the governing of things and causes Ec∣clesiasticall, with watching over and taking care for the same? Let us only call to mind the native signification of the word: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Guberno signifieth properly to rule or governe the course of a S•…•…p: And in a Ship there may be many watchfull and carefull eyes over her course, and yet but one Governour directing the same.

3. Why holdeth he, that things externall in the worship of God are not vera spiritualia? For if they be Ecclesiasticall and sacred Ce∣remonies (not fleshly and wordly) why will he not also acknow∣ledge them for true spirituall things? And if they be not vera spiri∣tualia, why calls he them res spirituales? For are not Res and Verum reciprocall, as wel as Ens and Verum?

4. Even as a Prince in his Sea-voyage is supreme Governour of all which are in the Ship with him, end by consequence of the Go∣vernour, who directs her course, yet doth he not governe the action of governing or directing the course of the Ship: So though a Prince be the only supreme Governour of all his Dominions, & by consequence of Ecclesiasticall persons in his Dominions, yet he can not be said to Governe all their Ecclesiasticall actions & causes. And as the Governour of a Ship acknowledgeth his Prince for his only supreme Governour, even then whiles he is governing & directing the course of the ship, (otherwise whiles he is governing her course, he should not be his Princes Subject) yet he doth not thereby ac∣knowledge that his Prince governeth his action of directing the course of the Ship, (for then should the Prince be the Pilot:) So when one hath acknowledged the Prince to be the only supreme Governour upon Earth, of all Ecclesiasticall persons in his Domi∣nions, even whiles they are ordering and determining Ecclesiasticall causes; yet he hath not thereby acknowledged that the Prince go∣verneth the Ecclesiasticall causes. Wherefore whiles k the B. taketh the English Oath of Supremacy, to acknowledge the same which he teacheth touching the Princes power, he giveth it another sence then the words of it can beare. For it saith not that the Kings Majestie is the only supreme Governour of all his Highnes Dominions, and OF all things and causes therein, as well Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall, as Temporall. But it saith, that he is the only Supreame Governour of all his Highnes Dominions IN all things or causes, &c. Now, the spirituall Guides of the Church substituted by Christ, as Deputies in his stead, who is the most supreame Governour of his own Church, and l on whose shoulder the Governement resteth as his Royall prorogative; even then whiles they are governing and putting or∣der to Ecclesiasticall or spirituall causes, they acknowledge their Prince to be their only supreme Governour upon Earth: yet hereby they implie not that he governeth their Governing of Ecclesiasticall causes, as hath been shewed by that Simele of governing a Ship.

5. Whereas the B. leaveth all things externall, which pertaine to the worship of God, to be governed by Princes, I object that the ver∣sion [Sect. 4] of the holy Scripture out of Hebrew and Grèeke into the vul∣gar tongue, is an externall thing, belonging to the worship of God, yet it cannot be governed by a Prince who is not learned in the ori∣ginall tounges.

6. Whereas he yeeldeth to Princes the power of governing in spi∣ritualibus, but not in pure spiritualibus, I cannot comprehend this Di∣stinction. All sacred and Ecclesiasticall things belonging to the worship of God are spirituall things.

What then understands he by things purely spirituall? If he meane things which are in such sort spirituall, that they have nothing earthly not externall in them; in this sence the Sacraments are not purely spirituall, because they consist of two parts; one earthly, and another heavenly, as Ireneus saith of the Eucharist. And so the Sacraments not being things purely spirituall, shall be left to the power and government of Princes. If it be said, that by things pu∣rely spirituall, he meanes things which concerne our Spirits onely, and not the outward man; I still urge the same Instance: For the Sacraments are not in this sence spirituall, because a part of the Sa∣craments, to wit, the Sacramentall Signes or Elements, concerne our externall & bodily sences of seeing, touching, and tasting.

7. The B. also contradicteth himselfe unawares: For in m one place hee reserveth and excepteth from the power of Princes, the judging and deciding of controversies and questions of faith. Yet in n another place hee exhorteth Kings and Princes, to compell the Divines of both sides (of the Roman and Reformed Churches) to come to a free conference, and to debate the matters controverted betwixt them; in which conference, hee requireth the Princes them∣selves to bee Iudges.

It remaineth to trie what force of reason the B. hath to backe his opinion. As for the ragged rabble of humane Testimonies, which [Sect. 5] he taketh together, I should but weary my Reader, and spend paper and Inke in vaine, if I should insist to answer them one by one. Only thus much I say of all those Sentences of the Fathers, and Con∣stitutions of Princes and Emperours about things Ecclesiasticall, to∣gether with the Histories, of the submission of some Ecclesiasticall causes to Emperours; Let him who pleaseth read them; And it shall appeare,

1. That some of those things whereunto the power of Princes was applied, were unlawfull.

2. There were many of them things Temporall or Civill, not Ec∣clesiasticall or Spirituall, nor such as pertaine to the worshippe of God.

3. There were some of them Ecclesiasticall or spirituall things, but then Princes did only ratify that which had beene determined by Councells, and punish with the civill sword such as did stubbornly disobey the Churches lawfull constitutions. Neither were Princes allowed to doe any more.

4. Sometimes they interposed their authority and medled in cau∣ses spirituall or Ecclesiasticall, even before the definition of Coun∣cells: yet did they not judge nor decide those matters, but did only convocate Councells, and urge the Cleargie to see to the misor∣dered and troubled estate of the Church, and by their wholesome Lawes & ordinances to provide the best remedies for the same which they could.

5. At other times Princes have done somewhat more in Eccle∣siasticall matters: but this was only in extraordinary cases, when the Cleargy was so corrupted, that either through ignorance they were unable, or through malice and perversnesse unwilling to doe their duty in deciding of controversies, making of Canons, using the keyes, and managing of other Ecclesiasticall matters: in which case Princes might and did by their coactive temporall Iurisdiction, avoid dis∣order, errour and superstition, and cause a Reformation of the Church.

6. Princes have likewise in rightly constituted and well reformed Churches, by their owne Regall authority, straitly injoyned things pertaining to the worship of God: but those things were the very same which Gods owne written Word had expressely commanded.

7. When Princes went beyond these limits and bounds, they tooke upon them to judge and command more then God hath put within the compasse of their power

But as touching the passages of holy Sripture whichthe B. allead∣geth, [Sect. 6] I will answer thereto particularly. And first, hee produceth that place Deut. Chap. 17. vers. 19. where the King was appointed to have the Booke of the Law of God with him, that he might learne to feare the Lord his God, and to keep all the words of this Law and these Statutes to doe them. What Logicke (I pray) can from this place inferre that Princes have the supreme power of governing all Ecclesiasticall causes? Next, the B. tells us of Davids appointing of the offices of the Levites, and dividing of their courses, 1 Chron. 23. and his commending of the same to Solomon, 1. Chron 28. But he might have observed, that David did not this as a King, but as a Pro∣phet or man of God. 2. Chron. 8. 14. yea those orders and courses of the Levites, were also commanded by other Prophets of the Lord. 2. Chron 29. 25. As touching Solomons appointing of the courses and charges of the Priests, Levites, & Porters, he did it not of himselfe, nor by his owne Princely authority, but because David the man of God had so commanded, 2. Chron. 8 14. For Solomon received

from David, a patterne for all that which he was to doe in the worke of the house of the Lord, and also for the courses of the Priests and Levites, 1. Chron. 28. 11. 12 13.

The B•…•…comes on and tells us that Hezekiah did applie his Regall [Sect. 7] power to the Reformation of the Levites, and of the worship of God in their hands; o saying: Heare me yee Levites, sanctify now your sel∣ves and sanctify the house of the Lord God of your fathers, and carry forth the filthinesse out of the holy place.

Ans. He exhorted them to no more then Gods Law required of them. For the Law ordained them to sanctify themselves, and to doe the service of the house of the Lord, Num. 8. 6. 11. 15. & 18. 32. So that Hezekiah did here constitute nothing by his owne arbitrement and authority, but plainly sheweth his warrant, vers. 11. The Lord hath chosen you to stand before him, to serve him, and that you should minister unto him. But the B, further alleadgeth out of 2 Chron. 31. that Hezekiah appointed the courses of the Priests and Levites, every man accor∣ding to his service.

Answ. He might have read 2. Chron. 29. 25. that Hezekiah did all this according to the commandement of David & of God the Kings Seer, and Nathan the Prophet: for so was the commandement of the Lord by his Prophets. And who doubteth but Kings may command such things as God hath commanded before them.

The next example which the B. alleadgeth, is out of 2. Chron. 35. [Sect. 8] where we read that Iosias did set the Priests and Levites againe in their charges. Which example cannot prove that Kings have the supreme power of governing Ecclesiasticall causes, unlesse it be e∣vinced that Iosias changed those orders and courses of the Levites & Priests, which the Lord had commanded by his Prophets 2 Chron. 29. 25. and that he did institute other orders by his owne Regall au∣thority. Whereas the contrary is manifest from the Text. For Iosias did only set the Priests and Levites those charges and courses, which had been assigned unto them after the writing of David and Solomon vers. 4. and by the commandement of David, and Asaph, and Heman, and Ieduthun the Kings Seer, vers 15. Neither did Iosias command the Priests and Levites, any other service then that which was wri∣ten in the booke of Moses vers. 12. So that from his example it only followeth, that when Princes see the state of Ecclesiasticall persons corrupted, they ought to interpose their authority for reducing them to those orders and functions, which Gods Word comman∣deth.

Moreover, the B. objecteth the example of Ioash: who, while he [Sect. 8] yet did right in the dayes of Iehojada the Priest, p sent the Priests & Levites, to gather from all Israell, money for repairing the house of the Lord: and when they dealt negligently in this businesse, he transferred the charge of the same unto others, and making himselfe

the Keeper of the holy money, did both prescribe how it was to be •…•…eboursed, and likewise take from good Iehojada the Preist the ad∣ministration of the same. Now, where he hath read that Ioash made himselfe the keeper of the money and prescribed how it should be deboursed, also that he tooke the administration •…•…rom Iehojada; I can not guesse, or the Text hath no such thing in it, but the contrary, viz. that the Kings Scri•…•…e, and the High Preists Officer, keeped the mo∣ney and deboursed the same, as the King and Iehojada prescribed unto them. As to that which he truly alleadgeth out of the holy Text, I answer, 1. The collection for repairing the house of the Lord was no humane ordinance, for Ioash sheweth the Commandement of Moses for it, Vers. 6. having reference to Exod. 30. 12. 13. 14. No other collections did Ioash impose, q but those quae divino sure debebantur. 2. As for the taking of the charge of this collection from the Priests, he behooved to doe so, because they had still ne∣glected the worke, when the three & twentie yeare of his raigne was come. And so say we, that when the ministers of the Church faile to doe their duty, in providing that which is necessary for the service of God, Princes ought by some other meanes to cause these things be redressed. 3. Joash did nothing with these money•…•…s without Iehojada, but r Pontifex eas primum laborantibus tribuit, tum in aedis s•…•…crae re∣stauration em maxime converti•…•…. 4. And what if he had done this by himselfe? I suppose no man will reckon the hiring of Masons and Carpenters, with such as wrought Iron and Brasse, or the gathering of money for this purpose, among spirituall things or causes. 5. And if these employments about Solomons Temple were not to be called Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall, farre lesse about our materiall Churches, which are not holy nor consecrated as Solomons was for a typicall use. Wherefore without all prejudice to our cause, we may and doe commend the building and repairing of Churches by Christian Princes.

But the B. returneth to another Example in Solemon, which is the [Sect. 10] putting of Abjathar the chief Priest from his Office, and surrogating of another in his place. Answ. Abjathar was civilly dead, as the Lawyers use to speake, and it was only by accident or by consequent that Solomon put him from his Office: he sent him away to Anathoth, because of his treasonable following and aiding of Adonijah, where∣upon necessarily followed his falling away from the honour, dignity and Office of the High-Priest: whence it only followeth, that if a Minister be found guilty of l•…•…se Majesty, the King may punish him either with banishment or proscription, or some such civill punish∣ment, whereupon by consequence will follow his falling from his Ec∣clesiasticall office and dignity. 2. As for Solomons putting of Za∣dok in the roome of Abjathar, it maketh as litle against us, for Zadok did fall to the place jure divino.

The honour and office of the High-Priesthood was given to Elia∣zer the Elder Sonne of Aaron, and was to remaine in his family. How it came to passe that it was transferred to Eli, who was of the family of Ithamar, we read not. Alwayes after that Abjathar, who was of the family of Ithamar, and descended of Eli, had by a capitall crime fallen from it, it did of very right belong to Zadoke, who was the chiefe of the family of Eliazer. And so all this flowed, not from Solomons, but from Gods owne authority.

The B. remembreth another example in Hezekiah to, telling us [Sect. 11] that he removed the high places, and brake the Images, and cut downe the groves, and brake in peeces the brazen serpent, when the children of Israel did burne incense vnto it. Now, we wish from our hearts, that from this example all Christian Kings may learne to remove and destroy the monuments of Idolatry out of their Dominions. And if it be said that in so doing, Kings take vpon them to governe by their Princely authority, an Ecclesiasticall or spirituall cause; It is easily answered that when they destroy Idola∣trous monuments, they doe nothing by their owne authority, but by the authority of Gods Law, s which commandeth to abolish such monuments, and to root out the very names of Idolls: which com∣mandement is to be executed by the coaction of temporall power.

Finally, saith the B. the Kings of the Iewes t have in the Temple propounded the Law of the Lord to the people, renued the covenant [Sect. 12] of religion, pulled downe profane Altars, broken downe Idols, slaine idolatrous Priests, liberated their Kingdome from abomination, pur∣ged the Temple, w proclaimed the keeping of the passeover, and of the Feast of the Dedication, y and have also instituted new Feasts. For all which things they are in z the Scriptures much praised by the Holy Spirit.

Answ. True it is, Iosias did reade the Law of the Lord to the people in the Temple, and made a covenant before the Lord, but 1. He prescribed nothing at his owne pleasure, only he required of the people to walke after the Lord, and to keepe his commaunde∣ments.

2. Neither yet did he this worke by himselfe, but did convocate a Counsell of the Prophets Priests and Elders of Israel, for the advan∣cing of that reformation, 2. Kings. 23. 1.

3. And if he had done it by himselfe, yet we are to remember that the reformation of a Church generally and greatly corrupted, craveth the more immediate intermedling of Princes, and a great deale more then can be ordinarily and orderly done by them, in a Church already reformed. The slaying of the Idolatrous Priests had also the warrant and authority of the Law of God, which ap∣pointed a capitall punishment for blasphemers, a or such as in

contempt of God, and to rub some ignominie upon his name, did traduce his doctrine and religion, and either detract from him and attribute to Idolls that which appertained properly unto him, or else attributed unto him either by enunciation or imprecation, such things as could not stand with the glory of the Godhead. Con∣cerning the abolishing of Idolatry and all the reliques thereof, we have answered that it was commaunded by God. The keeping of the passeover was also commaunded in the Law: so that when Heze∣kiah enjoyned it, he did but publish Gods owne expresse ordi∣nance.

Last of all touching the two remanent examples. 1. The Feast of the Dedication was not ordained by the sole authority of Iudas, but b by his brethren and by the whole Congregation of Israel: and the dayes of Purim c were established by Mordecai a Prophet.

2. We have else-where made it evident, that the dayes of Purim by their first Institution were only dayes of civill joy and solemnity: and that the Feast of the Dedication was not lawfully institu∣ted.

Thus having dismissed the B. we will make us for clearing the pur∣pose in hand. But before we come to shew particularly what Prin∣ces [Sect. 13] may doe, and what they may not doe, in making Lawes about things Ecclesiasticall, we will first of all lay downe these Propositi∣ons following:

1. Whatsoever the power of Princes be in things and causes Ec∣clesiasticall, it is not (sure) absolute nor unbounded. Solius Dei est, saith e Stapleton, juxta suam sanctissimam voluntatem, actio∣n•…•… suas omn•…•… dirigere, & omnia facere quaecunque voluit. And a∣gaine: Vis tuam voluntatem esse regulam rerum omnium, ut om∣nia siant pro tuo beneplacito? Whether we respect the persons or the places of Princes, their power is confined within certaine li∣mits, so that they may not enjoyne whatsoever they list. As tou∣ching their persons: Bishop Spotswood would doe no lesse then war∣rant the Articles of Perth, by King Iames his personall qualities. His person f saith he, were he not our Soveraigne, gives them suf∣ficient authority, being recommended by him: For he knowes the na∣ture of things, and the consequences of them, what is fit for a Church to have, and what not, better then we doe all.

I meane not to derogate any thing from King Iames his due de∣served praise, nor to obscure his never dying memory. Only I say, that such a Prince as the B. speaketh of, who knoweth what is fit for a Church to have, and what not, better then many learned and godly Pastors assembled in a Synode, is Rara a•…•…is in terris nigroque simillima Cygno. For a Prince beeing but a man, and so subject to errour: being

but one man, and so in the greater hazard of errour, for plus vident oculi, quam oculus; and woe to him that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 alone, when he falleth, for he hath not another to help him up saith g the wisest of mortall Kings: being also compassed & assailed with so many and so mighty tenta∣tions, which other men are free of: and lastly, beeing so taken up and distracted with secular affaires and cares, that very seldome is he found well versed or singularly learned in the controversies of Reli∣gion: may not such a one in the common sence of Christians, be thought more like to faile & miscarry, in his judgement about things Ecclesiasticall, then a whole Synod, wherein there are many of the learned, judicious and godly Ministers of the Church. Papists tell us, that they will not defend the personall actions of the Pope, h quasi ipse solus omnibus horis sapore potuerit, id quod recte nemini concessum perhibetur. Their own records let the world know the abominable vices and impieties of Popes. Witnesse Platina, in the life of John the 10. Benedict the 4. John the 13. Boniface the 7. Iohn the 20:—Iohn the 22. Paul the 2. &c. And further when our Adversaries dispute of the Popes infallability, they graunt, for his owne person, he may be an Heriticke: only they hold that he cannot erre e Cathedra.

And shall we now Idolize the persons of Princes more then Papists doe the persons of Popes? Or shall Papists object to us, that we ex∣toll the judgement of our Princes to a higher degree of authority & infallibility, then they yeeld to the judgement of their Popes? Alas, why would we put Weapons in the hands of our Adversaries?

But what say we of Princes in respect of their place and [Sect. 14] calling? Is not their power absolute in that respect? Recte quidam, saith i Saravia, illiberalis & inverecundi censet esse ingenij, de Princi∣pum potestate & rebus gestis questionem movere, quando & Imperator sacrilegium esse scribit, de eo quod a Principe factum est disputare. k Camero holdeth that in things pertaining to externall order in re∣ligion, Kings may command what they will pr•…•… authoritate, and for∣bidde to seeke another reason beside the Majesty of their authority: yea that vvhen they command frivola, dura, & iniqua respectu nostri, our consciences are bound by those their frivolous and unjust com∣maundements, not only in respect of the end, because scandall should possibly follovv in case vve obey them not, but also Iubentis respectu, because the Apostle biddeth us, obey the Magistrate for conscience sake. At the reading of these Passages in Sarauia & Camero, horrour and amazement have taken hold on me. O wisedome of God, by whom Kings doe raigne & Princes decree Iustice upon whose thigh & vesture is written King of Kings & Lord of Lords; make the Kings of the Earth to know that their Lawes are but Regulae regulatae, and mensurae mensuratae. Be wise now therefore. O ye Kings: Be instruc∣ted ye Iudges of the Earth. Serve the Lord with feare, and rejoyce

with trembling. Kisse the Sonne, and lay downe your Crownes at he feete of the Lambe l that sits upon the Throne, discite justitiam moniti, and remember that this is the beginning of wisedome, by casting pride away, to addict yourselves to the Dominion of Christ: Who albeit he hath given the Kingdomes of this world unto your hands, and Non a•…•…feret mortalia, Qui regna dat caelestia; m yet hath he kept the governement of his Church upon his owne shoulder. So that Rex non est proprie Rector Ecclesiae, sed Reipublicae: Ecclesiae ve∣ro Defensor est. O all yee Subjects of Kings and Princes understand that in things pertaining to the Church and Kingdome of Christ, n ye are not the Servants of men; to doe what they list, and that for their listing. The Apostle Rom. 13. (o) urgeth not obedience to Magistrates for conscience sake, but only subjection for conscience sake. For p he concludeth his whole purpose Vers. 7. Render therefore to all their dues, tribute to whom tribute is due, custome to whom custome, feare to whom feare, honour to whom honour. There is not in all that Chapter one word of obedience to Magistrats.

And as touching the binding power of their Lawes, be they never so just they cannot bind you any other way nor in respect of the ge∣nerall end of them: For per se they cannot bind more then the Chur∣ches Lawes can. Which things q D. Forbesse also hath told you out of Calvine.

And hence it followeth, that whensoever you may omit that which Princes enjoyne, without violating the Law of Charity, you are not holden to obey them, for the Majesty of Princely authority. Be ashamed O ye Formalists of your ascribing to Princes a Iurisdic∣tion so absolute. Bury it in the grave of eternall silence. Tell it not in Rome: publish it not among the Vashals of Antichrist, lest the daughters of Babylon rejoice, lest the worshippers of the Beast triumph. O how small confidence have the Cardinals, I say not now into the Popes person, but even into his chaire, when beeing entered in the Conclave, for the election of a new Pope, they spend the whole day following in the making of Lawes, belonging to the admi∣nistration & handling of all things by him. who shalbe advāced to the Popedome: which lawes every one of them subscribeth, and swareth to observe, if he be made Pope, as Onuphrius writeth. Though the Popes owne creatures the Iesuites in their Schooles and Bookes, must dispute for his infallibility e Cathedra, yet we see what trust the wise Cardinalls shut up in the Conclave, doe put in him, with what bound they tie him & within what bounds they con∣fine his power. Albeit the Pope after he is created observeth not strictly this oath, as r that wise writer of the History of the Coun∣cell of Trent noteth: yet let me say once againe; shall we set up the power of Princes higher, or make their power lesse limited, then Papists doe the power of Popes? Or shall they set bounds, to Popes, and we set none to Princes.

But I find my self a little digressed, after the roving absurdities [Sect. 15] of some opposites. Now, therefore to returne, the second Proposition which I am here to lay downe, before I speak particularly of the pow er of Princes, is this, whatsoeuer Princes can commendably either do by themselves, or command to be done by others, in such matters as any way pertaine to the externall worship of God, must be both law ful in the nature of it, and expedient in the use of it, which conditions if they be wanting, their commandemēts cannot bind to obedience.

For s 1. The very ground and reason wherefore we ought to obey the Magistrate, is, for that he is the Minister of God, or a Deputie set in Gods stead to us. Now, he is the Minister of God, only for our good, Rom. 13 4. Neither were he Gods Minister, but his owne Ma∣ster, if he should rule at his pleasure•…•…, and command things which serve not for the good of the Subjects. Since therefore the com∣maundements of Princes bind only so farre as they are the Mi∣nisters of God for our good: and Gods Ministers they are not, in commanding such things as are either in their nature unlawfull, or in their use inconvenient: it followeth that such commaundements of theirs cannot bind.

2. Princes cannot claime any greater power in matters Ecclesiasti∣call, then the Apostle Paul had, or the Church her selfe yet hath: that is to say, Princes may not by any Temporall or Regall Iurisdiction urge any Ceremony or forme of Ecclesiasticall Policy, which the A∣postle once might not, and the Church yet may not urge by a Spiri∣tuall Jurisdiction. But neither had the Apostle of old, nor hath the Church now power to urge either a Ceremony or any thing else, which is not profitable for edifying. Paul could doe nothing against the truth but for the truth, and his power was given him to edifica∣tion and not to destruction, 2. Cor. 13. 8 10. Neither shall Ecclesiasti∣call persons to the worlds end receive any other power, beside that which is for the perfecting of the Saints, and for the edifying of the body of Christ. Eph. 4. 12. Therefore as s the Churches power is only to prescribe that which may edify, so the power of Princes is in like sort given to them for edification, and not for destruction, neither can they doe ought against the truth, but only for the truth.

3. We are bound by the Law of God, to doe nothing which is not good & profitable or edifying, 1. Cor. 6. 12. & 14. 26. This Law of Charity is of a higher and straiter bound then the Law of any Prince in the World.

The generall rule of all indifferent things, is, let all things be done to edification: And Rō. 15. 1. 2. let every man please his neighbour to edification, even as Christ pleased not himself, but others. Whatso∣ever then is of this ranke, which either would weaken or not edify our

brother, he it never so lawfull, never so profitable to our selves, never so powerfully by earthly authority injoyned; Christians who are not borne vnto themselues, but vnto Christ, vnto his Church, and fellowe members, must not dare to m•…•…ddle with it, saith t one well to our pur∣pose.

A third Proposition I premit, which is this. Since the power [Sect. 16] of Princes to make Lawes about things Ecclesiasticall, is not absolute, but bound and adstricted vnto things lawfull and expedient, which sort of things, and no other, we are allowed to doe for their com∣mandements: and since Princes many times may and doe not only transgresse those bounds and limits, but likewise pretend that they are within the same, when indeed they are without them, and in∣ioyne things vnlawfull and in convenient, vnder the name, title, and shew of things lawfull and convenient: Therefore it is most necessary as well for Princes to permit, as for Subjects to take liberty to trie and examine by the judgement of discretion, everie thing which auctority enjoyneth whether it be agreeable or repuguant to the rules of the word, and if after triall it be found repugnant to abstaine from the doing of the same.

For 1. The word teacheth us, that the spirituall man judgeth all things 1. Cor. 2. 15. trieth the things that are different. Phil. 1. 10. hath his sences exercised to discerne both good and evill. Hebr. 5. 14. and that every one who wold hold fast that which is good, and ab∣staine from all appearance of evill, must first prove all things. 1. Thessal. 5. 21.

2. Whatsoever is not of faith is sinne Rom. 14. 23. But whatso∣ever a man doeth without the triall, Knowledge, and persuasion of the lawfullnesse of it, by the word of God, that is not of faith. Ergo a sinne. It is the word of God, and not the arbitrement of Princes wehereupon faith is grounded. And though the word may be withoutfaith, yet faith can not be without the word. By it therefore must a man trie and know assuredly the lawfullnesse of that which he doth.

3. Everie one of vs shall give account of himself to God. But as we cannot give an account to God of those actions which wee have done in obedience to our Prince, except we have examined•…•… considered, and vnderstood the lawfullnesse of the same: so an account could not be required of us for them, if we were bound to obey and to keep all his ordinances, in such sort that we might not trie and examine them, with full liberty to refuse those which we judg out of the word to be vnlawfull or inconvenient: for then Princes ordinances were a most sufficient warrant to us: we needed trie no more▪ let him make an account to God of his command: we have acount to make of our obedience.

4. If we be bound to receive and obey the lawes of Princes,

without making a free triall and examining of the equity of the same, then wee could not be punished for doing 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ willingly and in ignorance, things unlawfull prescribed by them. Whereas every soule that sinneth shall dye; and when the blind leads the blind, he who is ledde falls in the ditch as well as his leader.

5. No man is permitted to doe every thing which seemeth right in his eyes, and to follow every conceit which takes him in the head: but every man is bound t to walke by a rule: But the Law of a Prince cannot be a rule, except it be examined, whether it, be consonant to the Word of God. Index secundum legem, and his Law is only such a rule as is ruled by a higher rule: In so farre as it is ruled by the owne rule of it, in as farre it is a rule to us: and in so farre as it is not ruled by the owne rule of it, in as farre it is not a rule to us. Quid ergo? an non licebit Christiano cuique convenientiam regula & regulati (ut vocant observare? saith w Iunius.

6. The rule whereby we ought to walke in all our wayes, and ac∣cording to which we ought to frame all our actions, is provided of God x a stable and sure rule, that it being obserued and taken heed unto, may guide and direct our practise aright, about all those things which it prescribeth. But the Law of a Prince (if we should without triall and examination take it for our rule,) cannot be such a stable and sure rule. For put the case that a Prince enjoyne two things which sometimes fall out to be incompatible, and cannot stand to∣gether, in that case his Law cannot direct our practise, nor resol•…•… 〈◊〉〈◊〉 what to doe. Whereas God hath so provided for us, that the case can never occurre, wherein we may not be resolved what to doe, if we observe the rule which he hath appointed us to walke by.

7. Except this Iudgement of discretion which we plead for, be permitted unto us, it will follow that in the point of obedience we ought to give no lesse, but as much honour unto Princes, as unto God himselfe: For when God publisheth his Commandements unto us, what greater honour could we give him by our obedience, then to doe that which he commandeth, for his owne sole will and authority, without making further enquiry for any other reason.

8. The Apostle, 1. Cor. 7. 23. forbiddeth us to be the servant of men, that is, to doe things for which we have no other warrant, be∣side the pleasure and will of men. Which interpretation is groun∣ded upon other places of Scripture, that teach us, we are not bound to obey men in any thing, which we know not to be according to the will of God, Eph. 6 6. 7. that we ought not to live to the lusts of men but to the will of God, 1. Pet. 4. 2. and that therefore we ought in every thing to prove what is acceptable unto the Lord, Eph. 5. 20.

9. They who cleanse their way, must take heed thereto according

to the Word, Psal. 119. 9. Therefore if wee take not heed to our way according to the Word, we doe not cleanse it. They who would walke as the Children of light, must have the Word for a lampe unto their feet, and a light unto their path, Psal. 119. 105. Therefore if we goe in any path, without the light of the Word to direct us, we walke in darkenesse and stumble, because we see not where wee goe. They who would not bee unwise, but walke circumspectly, must understand, what the will of the Lord is, Eph. 5. 17. There∣fore, if we understand not what the Will of the Lord is concerning that which we doe, we are unwise, and walke not circumspectly.

10. y Dona Dei in Sanctis non sunt otiosa. Whatsoever Grace God giveth us, it ought to be used and exercised, and not to lie idle in us. But z God giveth us actionem cognoscendi, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 discernen∣di, &c. a certaine measure of the Spirit of Discretion, to teach us what to choose as good, and what to refuse as evill, 1 Ioh. 2. 27. The same anointing teacheth you of all things, 1 Cor. 2. 15. He that is Spiri∣tuall judgeth all things. Therefore God would have us to exercise that measure of the gift of discretion, which he hath bestowed on us, in discerning of things which are propounded to us, whether they ought to be done or not.

11. Doe not our Divines plead for this judgement of private dis∣cretion, which ought to be permitted to Christians, when any thing is propounded to bee believed or done by them? And this their judgement is to bee seene in their writings against Papists about the Controversies de interpretatione Scripturae, deside implicita, &c.

12. The Bishop of Sarisburie in his Prelections de judice contro∣versiarum, doth often and in many places commend unto Chri∣stians, the same judgement of discretion which wee stand upon, & holdeth it necessary for them to trie and examine whatsoever either Princes or Prelates command them to doe. Coactiva, &c. The coactive Power of a Prince a saith he, doth not absolutely bind the Subject, but onely with this condition, except he would compell him to that which is unlawfull. Therefore there is ever left unto Subjects a Power of proving and judging in their owne mind, whether that which is propounded be ungodly and unlawfull or not: and if it be ungodly, that which the King threatneth should be suffered, rather then that which he commandeth bee done. This Augustine hath taught &c. And whereas it might be objected, that this maketh a Subject to be his Princes Iudge, b he answereth thus. Non se &c, He maketh not himselfe anothers Iudge, who pondereth and examineth a Sentence publi∣shed by another, in so farre as it containeth something either to be done or to be believed by him; but onely hee maketh himselfe the Iudge of his owne ac∣tions. For, howsoever he who playeth the Iudge, is truly said to judge, yet every one who judgeth is not properly sayd to play the Iudge. Hee playeth the Iudge, who in a externall Court pronounceth a Sentence, which by force of

Iurisdiction toucheth another: but he judgeth, who in the inferiour Court of his owne private Conscience conceiveth such a Sentence of the things to be belie∣ved or done, as pertaineth to himselfe alone: This latter way private men both may and ought to judge of the Sentences and Decrees of Magistrates, neither by so doing doe they constitute themselves Iudges of the Magistrates, but Iudges of their owne actions.

Finally, there is none of our Opposites, but saith so much as in∣ferreth [Sect. XVII] the necessity of this Iudgement of private and practicall dis∣cretion, for every smatterer among them hath this much in his mouth, that if the King or the Church commande any thing un∣lawfull, then we ought to obey God rather then men: but when they commaund things indifferent and lawfull, then their Ordinance ought to be our Rule. But (goodmen) will they tell us, how wee shall know, whether the things which the King, or the Church (as they speake) doe injoyne, are lawfull or unlawfull, indifferent, or not indifferent; and so we shall be at a point. Dare they say, that we must judge those things indifferent which our Superiours judge to be such, and those unlawfull, which our Superiours so judge of? Nay, then they should deliver their distinction in other tearmes, and say thus: If our Superiours injoyne any thing which they judge to be unlawfull, and which they command us so to account of, then we ought to obey God rather then men: but if they injoyne such things as they judge to be indifferent, and which they com∣mand us so to account of, then we ought to obey their Ordinance. Which distinction me thinks, would have made Heraclitus himselfe to fall a lauging with Democritus. What then remaineth? Surely our Opposites must either say nothing, or else say with us, that it is not onely a Liberty but a duty of Inferiours, not to receive for a thing lawfull that which is injoyned by Superiours, because they account it and call it such, but by the judgement of their owne discretion following the rules of the Word, to trie and examine, whether the same be lawfull or unlawfull.

These Praecognita beeing now made good, come wee to speake [Sect. XVIII] more particularly of the Power of Princes to make Lawes and Ordi∣nances about things which concerne the Worship of God. The purpose we will unfold in three distinctions, 1. of things. 2. of times 3. of ties. First, let us distinguish two sorts of things in the Worship of God, viz. things substantiall, & things circumstantiall. To things substantiall we referre as well sacred and significant Ceremonies as the more necessary and essentiall parts of Worship, and in a word, all things which are not mere externall circumstances such as were not particularly determinable within those bounds which it pleased God to set to his written Word, and the right ordering whereof, as it is common to all humane societies whether civill or sacred, so it is investigable by the very light and guidance of naturall reason. That

among this kind of mere circumstances, sacred signifiant Cere∣monies can not be reckoned, we have otherwhere made it evident. Now therefore of things pertaining to the substance of Gods wor∣ship, whether they be sacred Ceremonies, or greater and more neces∣sary duties, we say that Princes have not power to injoyne any thing of this kynd, which hath not the plaine and particular Institution of God himself in Scripture. They may indeed and ought to publish Gods owne ordinances and commandements, and by their coactive temporall power urge and inforce the observation of the same. Notwithstanding it is a Princes duty, c that in the worship of God, whether internall or externall, he move nothing, he prescribe nothing, except that which is expressely delivered in Gods owne written Word. We must beware we confound not things which have the plaine warrant of Gods Word, with things devised by the will of man. David, Iehosaphat, Heze∣kiah, Iosiah, and other Kings among the people of God, did as well laudably as lawfully, injoyne and command that worship and for me of Religion, which God in his Law and by his Prophets commanded; and forbid, avoid, and abolish such corruptions, as God had for bid∣den before them, and appointed to be abobished: whence it follow∣eth not that Kings may in joyne things which want the warrant of the word, but only this much, which we all commend, viz. d That a Christian Princes office in Religion, is diligently to take care that in his Domi∣nion or kingdome, Religion out of the pure word of God, expounded by the word of God it self, and understood according to the first Principles of faith (which others call the analogy of faith) either be instituted; or beeing instituted be kept pure; or beeing corrupted be restored and reformed: that false doctrines, abuses, Idolls, and superstitions, be taken away to the glory of God, and to his owne and his Subjects salvation.

But in all the Scripture Princes have neither a commendable ex∣ample, [Sect. XIX] not any other warrant, for the making of any innovation in Religion, or for the prescribing of sacred significant Ceremonies of mens devising. Ieroboam caused a change to be made in the Cere∣monies and forme of Gods worship. Whereas God ordained the Arke of the Covenant to be the signe of his presence, and that his glory should dwell between the Cherubims. Ieroboam set up two Calves to be the signes representative of that God who brought Israel out of Egypt. And this he meanes while he saith, e Behold thy Gods, &c. giving to the signes the thing signified. Whereas God ordained Ie∣rusalem to be the place of worship, and all the sacrifices to be brought to the Temple of Solomon, Ieroboam made, Dan and Bethel to be places of worship, and built there Altars and high places for the sacrifices. Whereas God ordained the sonnes of Aaron onely to be his Priests, Ieroboam made Priests of the lowest of the people, which were not of the sonnes of Levi. Whereas God ordained the feast of Tabernacles to be kept on the fifteenth day of the seaventh moneth, Ieroboam ap∣pointed

it on the sisteenth day of the eight moneth. Now, if any Prince in the world might have faire pretences for the making of such innovations in Religion. Ieroboam much more. He might alledge for his changing of the signes of Gods presence, and of the place of worship, that since Rehoboams wrath was incensed against him, and against the ten Tribes which adhered vnto him, (as appeareth by f the accounting of them to be rebells, and by g the gathering of a huge armie, for bringing the kingdome againe to Rehoboam) it was no longer safe for his subjects to goe up to Ierusalem to worsh p, in which case God who required mercy more then sacrifice, would beare with their changing of a fewe Ceremonies, for the safety of mens lives. For his putting downe of the Priests and Levites, and his ordaining of other Priests which were not of the sonnes of Levi: he might pretend that they were rebellious to him, in that h hey would not assent vnto his new ordinances, which he had enacted for the safe∣tie and security of his Subjects, and that they did not only simply refuse obedience to these his ordinances, but in their refusall shew themselves so stedfastly minded, that they wolud refuse and with stand even to the suffering of deprivation and deposition; and not only so, but likewy se i drew after them many others of the rest of the Tribes, to be of their judgement, and to adhere to that manner of worship which was retained in Ierusalem. Lastly, for the change which he made about the season of the feast of Tabernacles, he might have this pretence, that as it was expedient for the strengthening of his king∣dome, k to drawe and allure as many as could be had, to associat and joyne themselves with him in his forme of worship, (which could not be done if he should keep that feast, at the same time when it was keeped at Ierusalem;) so there was no lesse (if not more) order and decency in keeping it in the eight moneth, l when the fruits of the ground were perfectly gathered in (for thankefull remembrance whereof, that feast was celebrated) then in the seaventh, when they were not so fully collected.

These pretences he might have made yet more plausible, by pro∣fessing and avouching, that he intended to worship no Idolls, but the Lord only; that he had not fallen from any thing which was funda∣mentall and essentiall in divine Faith and Religion; that the changes which he had made, were only about some alterable Ceremonies, which were not essentiall to the worship of God; and that even in these Ceremonies he had not made any change for his owne will and pleasure, but for important reasons which concerned the good of his Kingdome and saffety of his Subjects. Notwithstanding of all this, the innovations which he made about these Ceremonies of sacred Signes, sacred Places, sacred Persons, sacred Times, are condemned for this very reason, because m he devised them of his owne heart,

which was enough to convince him of horrible impiety in making Israel to sinne. Moreover, when king Ahaz tooke a patterne of the Altar of Damascus and sent it to Vrijah the Priest, though we can not gather from the Text, that he either intended or pretended any other respect beside n the honouring and pleasuring of his Patrone and Protectour the king of Assyria, (for of his appointing that new altar, for his owne and all the peoples sacrifices, there was nothing heard till after his returne from Damascus, at which time he beganne to fall backe, from one degree of defection to a greater:) yet this very innovation of taking the patterne of an Altar from Idolaters, is marked as a sinne and a snare. Last of all, whereas many of the kings of Iudah and Israel, did either themselves worship in the groves and the high places, or else at least suffer the people to doe so: hou∣soever o they might have alledged specious reasons for excusing themselves, as namely, that they gave not this honour to any strange Gods, but to the Lord only; that they choosed these places only to worship in, wherein God was of olde seene and worshipped by the Patriarchs; that the groves and the high places added a most amiable splendor and beauty, to the worship of God; and that they did con∣secratethese places for divine worship, in a good meaning, and with minds wholly devoted to the honour of God: yet notwithstan∣ding, because this thing was not commanded of God, neither came it in to his heart, he would admit no excuses, but ever challengeth it as a grievous fault in the governement of those Kings, that the high places were not taken away, and that the people still sacrificed in the high places. From all which examples, we learne how higly God was and is displeased with men, p for adding any other sacred Ce∣remonies to those which he himselfe hath appointed.

Now as touching the other sort of things which we consider in [Sect. XX] the Worship of God, namely, things merely circumstantiall, and such as have the very same use and respect in civill, which they have in sacred actions; we hold, that whensoever it happeneth to be the duty and part of a Prince, to institute and injoyne any order or policy in these circumstances of Gods Worship, then he may onely injoyne such an order, as may stand with the observing and follow∣ing of the Rules of the Word, whereunto wee are tied in the use and practice of things which are in their generall nature indifferent.

Of these Rules I am to speake in the fourth part of the Dispute. And here I say no more but this: Since the Word commandeth us q to doe all things to the Glory of God, r to doe all things to edi∣fying, & s to doe all things in Faith, & full persuasion of the law∣fulnesse of that which we doe: therefore there is no Prince in the world who hath Power to command his Subjects, to doe that which should either dishonour God, or not honour him; or that which should either offend their brother, or not edify him, or lastly, that

which their conscience either condemneth, or doubteth of. For how may a Prince command that which his Subjects may not doe? But a wonder it were, if any man should so farre refuse to be asha∣med, that he would dare to say, we are not bound to order whatsoe∣ver we doe according to these Rules of the Word, but onely such matters of private action, wherein we are lest at full liberty, there beeing no Ordinance of Superiours to determine our practi•…•…; and that it such an Ordinance be published and propounded unto us, we should take it alone for our Rule, and no longer thinke to examine and order ourpractise by the Rules of the Word.

For, 1. This were as much as to say, that in the circūstances of Gods Worship, we are bound to take heed unto Gods Rules, then onely and in that case, when men give us none of their Rules, which if they doe, Gods Rules must give place to mens Rules, and not theirs to his.

2. If it were so, then we should never make reckoning to God, whether that which wee have done in obedience to Superiours, was right or wrong, good or bad: and we should onely make recko∣ning of such things done by us, as were not determined by a hu∣mane Law.

3. The Law of Superiours in never the supreame, but ever a sub∣ordinate Rule, and (as we said before) it can never be a Rule to us, except in so farre onely, as it is ruled by a higher Rule. Therefore we have •…•…ver another Rule to take heed unto, beside their Law.

4. The Scripture speaketh most generally, and admitteth no ex∣ception from the Rules which it giveth. Whatsoever ye doe (though commanded by Superiours) doe all to the Glory of God. Let all things (though commanded by Superiours) be done to edifying. Whatsoever is not of Faith (though commanded by Superiours) is sinne.

5. We may doe nothing for the sole will and pleasure of men: for this were to be the Servants of men, as hath been shewed t The Bishop of Sarisburie also assenteth hereunto. Non enim (saith he) Deus vult, ut hominis alicujus voluntatem regulam nostrae voluntatis atque vitae faciams: sed hoc privilegium sibi ac verbo suo reservatum voluit. And againe Pio itaqu•…•… animo haec consideratio semper adesse debet, utrum id quod praecipitur sit divino mandato contrarium, necne: atque ne ex hac parte fal∣lantur, adhibedum est illud judicium discretionis, quod nos tantopere ur∣gemus.

These things if x Saravia had considered, he had not so abso∣lutely [Sect. XXI] pronounced that the Power of Kings may make Constitutions of the places and times, when and where the exercises of Piety may bee con∣veniently had: also with what Order, what Rite, what Gesture, what Ha∣bite, the Mysteries shall bee more decently celebrated. But what? thought hee, this Power of Kings is not a st•…•…cted to the Rules of the Word? have they any Power which is to destruction, and not to edifi∣cation?

Can they commaund their Subjects to doe any thing in the circumstances of Divine Worship, which is not for the Glory of God, which is not profitable for edifying, and which they can not doe in Faith? Nay, that all the Princes in the world have not such Power as this, will easily appeare to him who attendeth unto the reasons, which wee have propounded. And because men doe easily and ordinarily pretend, that their constitutions are accor∣ding to the Rules of the Word, when they are indeed repugnant to the same, therefore we have also proven, that Inferiours may & must trie and examine every ordinance of their Superiours, and that by the judgement of private discretion, following the Rules of the Word. I say, following the Rules of the Word, because wee will never allowe a man to follow Anabaptisticall or Swenckfeldian-like en∣thysiasmes and inspirations.

Touching the application of what hath been said, unto the con∣troverted [Sect. XXII] Ceremonies, there needs nothing now to be added. For that they belong not to that sort of things which may be applied to civill uses, with the same respect and account which they have, being applied to religious uses, the account I meane of mere circumstan∣ces, serving onely for that common order and decency, which is and should be observed in civill, no lesse then in sacred actions; but that they belong to the substance of Worship, as beeing sacred significant Ceremonies, wherein both holinesse and necessity are placed, and which may not without high sacriledge be used out of the compasse of Worship, wee have elsewhere plainly evinced. And this kinde of things, whensoever they are mens devices, and not Gods Ordinances, can not be lawfully injoyned by Princes, as hath been shewed.

But if any man will needs have these Ceremonies in question, to goe under the name of mere circumstances, let us put the case they were no other, yet our conforming unto them, which is urged, can not stand with the Rules of the Word.

It could not be for the Glory of God, not onely for that it is of∣fensive to many of Christs litle ones, but likewise for that it mini∣streth occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme; to Atheists, because by these naughty observances they see the Commandements of God made of litle or no effect, and many godly both Persons & Purposes despised and depressed, whereat they laugh in their sleeve, and say, Aha, so would we have it; to Papists, because as by this our Conformity, they confirme themselves in sundry of their errors and superstitions, so perceiving us so litle to abhorre the Pompe & Bravery of their Mother of Harlots, that we care not to borrow from her some of her meretricious trinckets, they promise to them∣selves, that in the end we shall take as great a draught of the Cup of the Wine of her Fornications, as they themselves

Neither yet can our conforming unto the Ceremonies pressed on us, be profitable for edifying, for we have given sufficient demon∣stration of manifold hurts and inconveniences ensuing thereo•…•….

Nor lastly can we conforme to them in Faith, for as our Con∣sciences can not finde, so the Word can not afford any warrant for them. Of all which things now I onely make mention, because I have spoken of them enough otherwhere.

The second distinction, which may help our light in this ques∣tion [Sect. XXIII] about the Power of Princes, is of times: for, when the Church and Ministers thereof are corrupted and must be reformed, Princes may doe much more in making Lawes about things Ecclesiasticall, then regularly they may, when Ecclesiasticall Persons are both able and willing to doe their duty, in rightly taking care of all things, which ought to be provided for the good of the Church, and con∣servation or purgation of Religion. For (saith y Iunius) both the Church, when the joyning of the Magistrate faileth, may extraordinarily doe something, which ordinarily shee can not: and againe, when the Church fai∣leth of her duty, the Magistrate may extraordinarily procure, that the Church returne to her duty: that is, in such a case extraordinarily happening, these (Ecclesiasticall Persons) and those (Magistrates) may extraordinarily doe some∣thing, vvhich ordinarily they can not. For this belongeth to common Lavv and Equity, that unto extraordinary evils, extraordinary remedies must also be applied. We aknowledge, that it belongeth to Princes, z to reforme things in the Church as often as the Ecclesiasticall Persons shall either through ignorance or disorder of the affection of covetousnesse or ambition, defile the Lords Sanctuary. At such extraordinary times, Princes by their coactive temporall Power, ought to procure & cause a Reformation of a buses, and the avoiding of misorders in the Church, though with the discontent of the Cleargie: for which end and purpose they may not onely injoyne and command the Profession of that Faith, and the Practise of that Religion which Gods Word appointeth, but also prescribe such an order and policy in the circumstances of Divine Worship, as they in their judgement of Christian Dis∣cretion, observing and following the Rules of the Word, shall judge and trie to be convenient for the present time and case, and all this under the commination of such temporall losses, paines, or punish∣ments, as they shall deprehend to be reasonable. But at other or∣dinary times, when Ecclesiasticall Persons are neither through igno∣rance unable, nor through malice and perversenesse of affection un∣willing, to put order to whatsoever requireth any mutation to bee made in the Church and Service of God, in that case without their advice and consent, Princes may not make an innovation of any Ecclesiasticall Rite, nor publish any Ecclesiasticall Law.

When a D. Field speaketh of the Power of Princes, to prescribe [Sect. XXIV] and make Lawes about things spirituall or Ecclesiasticall, he saith, That the Prince may with the advice and direction of his Cleargie, command things pertaining to Gods Worship and Service, both for Profession of Faith, Ministration of the Sacraments, and con∣versation fitting to Christians in generall, or men of Ecclesiasticall order in particular, under the paines of Death, Imprisonement, Ba∣nishment, Confiscation of goods, and the like: and by his Princely Power establish things formerly defined and decreed against what∣soever error, and contrary ill custome and observation. In all this the D. saith very right: but I demaund further these two things. 1. What if the thing have not been decreed before? and what if the free assent of the Cleargie be not had for it? would the D. have said, that in such a case, the Prince hath not Power by himselfe & by his owne sole Auctority, to injoyne it, and to establish a Law concerning it. For example, that K. Iames had not Power by him∣selfe to impose the controverted Ceremonies upon the Church of Scotland, at that time, when as no free assent (much lesse the direc∣tion) of the Cleargie, was had for them, so neither had they been formerly decreed, but Lawes and Decrees were formerly made a∣gainst them. If the D. would have answered affirmatively, that he had this Power, then why did he in a scornefull dissimulation, so circumscribe and limit the Power of Princes, by requiring a former decree, and the free assent of the Cleargie? If he would have answe∣red negatively, that he had not such Power, wee should have ren∣dred him thankes for his answer. 2. Whether may the Cleargie make any lawes about things pertaining to the Service of GOD which the Prince may not as well by himselfe and without them, constitute and authorize? If the affirmative part bee graunted unto us, we gladly take it. But we suppose D. Field did, and our Op∣posites yet doe hold the negative. Whereupon it followeth, that the Prince hath as much, yea the very same Power of making lawes in all Ecclesiasticall things which the Cleargie themselves have when they are conveened in a lawfull and free Assembly, yet I guesse from the D. words, what hee would have replied, namely, that the difference is great betwixt the Power of making Lawes about things Ecclesiasticall, in the Prince, and the same Power in the Cleargie as∣sembled togither: for he describeth the making of a Law, to be the prescribing of something, under some paine or punishment, which he that so prescribeth hath Power to inflict. Whereby hee would make it appeare, that he yeeldeth not unto Princes, the same power of Spirituall Iurisdiction, in making of Ecclesiasticall Lawes, which agreeth to the Cleargie: because whereas a Councell of the Cleargie may frame Canons about things which concerne the Worship of God, and prescribe them under the paine of excommunication and

other Ecclesiasticall censures, the Ordinance of Princes about such matters, is onely under the paine of some externall or bodily pu∣nishment. But I answer Potestas 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is one thing, and Potest•…•… 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is another thing. When the making of a Law is joyned either with the intention, or with the commination of a Punish∣ment, in case of transgression, this is but accidentall and adventi∣tious to the Law, not naturally or necessarily belonging to the es∣sence of the same. For many Lawes there hath been, and may be, which prescribe not that which they containe under the same paine or punishment. b Gratian distinguisheth three sorts of Lawes. Omnis &c. Fvery Law saith he, either permits something, for example, let a valorous man seeke a reward: or forbids, for example, let it be lawfull to no man to seeke the marriage of holy Virgins: or punisheth, for example, Hee who committeth Murther, let him bee capitally punished. And in this third kinde onely, there is something prescribed under a paine or punishment. It is likewise holden by c Schoolemen, that it is a Law which permitteth some indifferent thing, as well, as it which commandeth some vertue, or forbiddeth some vice. When a Prince doth statute and ordaine, that whosoever out of a generous and magnanimous Spirit, will adventure to imbarke and hazard in a certaine military exploit, against a forraine enemy whom he inten∣deth to subdue, shall be allowed to take for himselfe in propriety, all the rich spoile which he can lay hold on: there is nothing here prescribed under some paine or punishment, yet is it a Law; and properly so tearmed. And might not the name of a Law be given unto that Edict of King Darius, whereby d hee decreed that all they of his Dominions, should fear the God of Daniel, forasmuch as he is the living and eternall God, who raigneth for ever: yet it prescribed nothing under some paine or punishment to be inflicted by him who so prescribed. Wherefore though the Princ•…•… publish∣eth Ecclesiasticall Lawes under other paines and punishments, then the Cleargie doth, this sheweth onely that Potest•…•…s 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not the same, but different in the one and in the other: yet if it be granted, that whatsoever Ecclesiasticall Law, a Synode of the Cleargie hath Power to make and publish, the Prince hath Power to make and publish without them, by his owne sole Auctority, it followeth, that that Power of the Church to make Lawes which is called Potest•…•… 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, doth agree as much, as properly, and as directly to the Prince, as to a whole Synode of the Church.

Now therefore we firmly hold, 1. That the Prince may not inno∣vate [Sect. XXV] any Cuctome or Rite of the Church, nor publish any Eccle∣siasticall law, without the free assent of the Cleargie, they beeing neither unable for, nor unwilling unto their Ecclesiasticall functions

and duties: yea further, that so farre as is possible, the consent of the whole Church ought to be had, whensoever any change is to be made of some order or custome in the Church. For that which toucheth the whole Church, and is to be used by the whole Church e ab omnibus etiam merito curatur. Therefore f when there is any change to be made in the Rites of the Church, merito fit hoc eum omnium ordinum Ecclesiae consensu. Neither was there ever a rightly reformed Church, which was helped and not hurt, by such Rites and Customes, as to their grief and miscontentment Princes did impose upon them. Whence it was, that g they who were orthodoxe did ever withstand such a Magistrate, as would have by his commandements tied the Church, to that vvhich vvas burdensome to their consciences. That such inconveniencie•…•… may be shunned, it is fit, that when any change is to be made in the Policy of a Church, not the Cleargy alone, but the Elders also, and men of understanding among the Laytie, in a lawfull Assem∣bly, freely give their voices, and consent thereunto. Good reason have our Writers to holde against Papists, that Laymen ought to have place in Councells, wherein things which concerne the whole Church are to be deliberated upon. 2. Lest it be thought enough that Princes devyse, frame, and establish Ecclesiasticall lawes, as them best liketh, and then for more shew of orderly proceeding, some secrete and sinistrous way extort and procure the assent of the Synod of the Church; therefore we adde, that it belongeth to the Synode (the Cleargie having the chiefe place therein to give direction and advice,) not to receave and approve the definition of the Prince, in things which concerne the worship of God, but it selfe to define and determine what orders and customes are fittest to bee observed, in such things, that thereafter the Prince may approve and ratify the same, and presse them upon his Subjects by his regall coactive Power. To me, it is no lesse then a matter of admiration; how h Camero could so farre forget himself as to say, that in things per∣taining unto Religion, dirigere atque disponere penes magistratum est pro∣prie, penes Ecclesiasticos ministerium atque executio proprie, telling us further, that the directing and disposing of such things, doth then only be∣long to Ecclesiasticall Persons, when the Church suffereth persecu∣tion, or when the Magistrate permitteth, that the matter be judged by the Church.

Our Writers have said much of the power of the Church to make lawes. But this man (I perceive) will correct them all, and will not aknowledge, that the Church hath any power of making lawes, about things pertaining to Religon, (except by accident, because of perse∣cution, or permission) but only a power of executing what Princes pl•…•…ase to direct. More fully to deliver our minde, we say; that in the making of Lawes about things which concerne the worship of God, the Prince may doe much 〈◊〉〈◊〉 act•…•… i•…•…os, but nothing p•…•…r act•…•… •…•…li∣citos.

For the more full explanation of which distinction, I liken the Prince to the will of man: the Ministers of the Church, to mans par∣ticular sences: a Synod of the Church, to that internall sence which is called Sensus communis, the fontaine & originall of all the externall: things and actions Ecclesiasticall, or such as concerne the worship of God, to the objects and actions of the particular sences: and the power of making Ecclesiasticall lawes, to that power and vertue of the common sence, whereby it perceiveth, discerneth, and judgeth of the objects and actions of all the particular sences. Now as the will commandeth the common sence to discerne and judge of the actions and objects of all the particular sences, thereafter commandeth the eye to see, the eare to heare, the nose to smell, &c yet it hath not power by it selfe to exercice or bring forth any of these actions; for the will can neither see, nor yet judge of the object and action of sight, &c. So the Prince may command a Synode of the Church, to judge of Ecclesiasticall things and actions, and to define what order and forme of policy is most convenient to be observed, in things per∣taining to divine worship, and thereafter he may command the par∣ticular Ministers of the Church to exercise the workes of their Mini∣stery, and to applie themselves unto that forme of Church regi∣ment and policy, which the Synode hath prescribed, yet he may not by himselfe define and direct such matters, nor make any lawes thereanent.

For proof of these things I adde, 1. Politicke government, versatur [Sect. XXVI] circa res terrenas & hominem externum (saith i one of our Writers) Ma∣gistratus saith k another) instituti sunt a Deo rerum humanarum quae homi∣num societati necessariae sunt respectu, & ad earum curam. But they are Ec∣clesiasticall Ministers, who are l ordained for men in thing pertaining to God, that is, in things which pertaine unto Gods worship. It be∣longeth not therefore to Princes to governe and direct things of this nature, even as it belongeth not to Pastors to governe and direct earthly things, which are necessary for the externall, and civill socie∣tie of men. I meane, ordinarly and regularly, for of extraordinary cases we have spoken other wise. But according to the common order and regular forme, we are ever to put this difference, betwixt Civill and Ecclesiasticall governement, which m one of our best learned Divines hath excellently conceived after this manner. Altera differentia, &c. The other difference (saith he) taken from the matter and subject of the administrations. For we have put in our definition humane things to be the subject of civill administration: but the subject of Ecclesiasticall ad∣ministration, we have taught to be things divine and sacred: Things divine and sacred we call, both those which God commandeth for the sanctification of our minde and conscience, as things necessary; and also those which the decency and order of the Church requireth to be ordained and observed, for the profitable and convenient use of the things which are necessary. For example, Prayers; the

administration of the Word and Sacraments, Ecclesiasticall censure; are things necessary, and essentially belonging to the Communion of Saincts: but set dayes, set houres, set places, fasts, and if there be any such like, they belong to the de∣cency and order of the Church: without which the Church can not be well edified, nor any particular member thereof rightly fashioned, and fitly set in the body. But humane things, we call, such duties as touch the life, the body, goods, and good name, as they are expounded in the seconde table of the Decalogue: for these are the things in which the wholle civill administration standeth. Behold, how the very circumstances, which pertaine to Ecclesiasticall order and decency, are exempted from the compasse of civill governe∣ment.

2. Naturall reason (saith n the Bishop of Sarisburie) telleth, that to judge of every thing, and to instruct others, belongeth to them who before others take paines & study to the care and knowledge of the same. So Phisitions judge, which meat is whollesome, which noysome: Lawyers declare, what is just, what unjust: and in all Arts and Sciences, they who professedly place their labour and study in the polishing and practising of the same, both use and ought to direct the judgements of others. Since therefore o the Ministers of the Church are those quibus Ecclesiae cura incumbit vel maxime; since they doe above and before the civill Magistrate, devote themselves to the care and knowledge of things pertaining to God & his worship, where about they professe to bestow their ordinary study and painefull travell; were it not most repugnant to the law of naturall reason, to say, that they ought not to direct, but be directed by the Magistrate in such matters?

3. The Ministers of the Church are appointed to be Watchmen in the City of God, Mich. 7. 4. and Overseers of the Flocke, Acts. 20. v. 28. But when Princes doe without the direction and definition of Ministers establish certaine Lawes to be observed in things pertai∣ning to Religion, Ministers are not then Watchmen and Over∣seers, because they have not the first sight, and so can not give the first warning of the change which is to be made in the Church. The Watchmen are upon the walles: the Prince is within the City. Shall the Prince now view and consider the breaches and defects of the City, better and sooner then the Watchmen themselves? Or, shall one within the City tell what should be righted and helped therein, be∣fore them who are upon the walles? Againe, the Prince is one of the flocke, and is committed among the rest to the care, attendance, and guidance of the Overseers. And I pray, shall one of the sheep direct the Overseers how to governe and leade the whole flocke, or prescribe to them what orders and customes they shall observe for preventing or avoiding any hurt and inconvenience, which may happen to the flocke?

4. Christ hath ordained men of Ecclesiasticall order, p not one∣ly for the worke of the Ministery, that is, for preaching the Word and

ministring the Sacraments, for warning and rebuking them who sinne, for comforting the afflicted, for confirming the weake, &c. but also for provyding whatsoever concerneth either the private spirituall good of any member of the Church, which the Apostle calleth the perfecting of the Saincts, or the publike spirituall good of the whole Church, which he calleth the edifying of the body of Christ, Eph. 4. 12. Since therefore the making of Lawes, about such things without which the worship of God can not be orderly nor decently (and so not rightly) performed, concerneth the spirituall good and benefit of the whole Church, and of all the members thereof; it followeth, that Christ hath committed the power of judging, defin∣ing, and making lawes about those matters, not to Magistrats, but to the Ministers of the Church.

5. q The Apostle speaking of the Church Ministers, saith, Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit your selves: for they watch for your soules as they that must give account. Whence we gather, that in things pertaining to God, & which touch the spirituall benefit of the soule, the Ministers of the Church ought to give direction, & to be obeyed, as those who in things of this nature have the rule over all others in the Church, (and by consequence over Princes also,) so that it bee in the Lord. And lest this place and power which is given to Ministers, should either be abused by thēselves to the com∣manding of what they will, or envied by others, as too great ho∣nour & preeminence, the Apostle sheweth what a painefull charge lieth on them, and what a great reckoning they have to make. They watch for your soules saith he, not only by preaching & war∣ning every one, and by offering up their earnest prayers to God for you, but likewise by taking such care of Ecclesiasticall discipli∣ne, order, and policy, that they must provide and procure whatso∣ever shall be expedient for your spirituall good, and direct you in what convenient and beseeming manner, you are to performe the workes of Gods worship, as also to avoid and shunne every scan∣dall and inconveniency, which may hinder your spirituall good. And of these things, whether they have done them or not, they must make account before the judgement seat of the great Bishop of your soules. Surely, if it belong to Princes to define and ordaine, what order & policy should be observed in the Church, what formes and fashiones should be used, for the orderly and right managing of the exercises of Gods worship, how scandalls and misorders are to be shunned, how the Church may be most edified, and the spiri∣tuall good of the Saincts best helped and advanced, by whollesome & profitable lawes, concerning things which pertaine to Religion; then must Princes take also upon them a great part of that charge of Pastors, to watch for the soules of men, and must liberat them from beeing lieable to a reckoning for the same.

6. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the great, Theodosi•…•… both the one and the other, [Sect. XXVII] Martian•…•…, Charles the great, and other Christian Princes, when there was any change to be made of Ecclesiasticall rites, did not by their owne auctority imperiously injoyne the change, but convo∣cate Synods for deliberating upon the matter, as r Balduine noteth. The great Counsell of Nice was assembled by Constantine, not only because of the Arrian heresie, but also (as s Socrates witnesseth) because of the difference about the keeping of Easter. And though the Bishops, when they were assembled did put up to him libells of accusation, one against another, so that there could bee no great hope of their agreement upon fit and convenient Lawes; yet not∣withstanding, he did not interpone his owne definition and decree, for taking up that difference about Easter, only he exhorted the Bishops conveened in the Councell to peace, and so commended the whole matter to be judged by them.

7. We have for us the judgment of worthie Divines. A notable Testimony of Iunius we have allready cited. t Dan•…•… will not allowe Princes by thēselves to make Lawes about Ecclesiasticall rites, but this he will have done by a Synod. Porro quod ad ritus, &c. Furthermore saith he for Rites & Ceremonies, & that externall order which is necessary in the ad∣ministration of the Church, let a Synod of the Church conveene; the supreme and Godly Magistrat both giving commandement for the conveening of it, and beeing present in it. And let that Synod of the Church lawfully assembled, define what should be the order and externall regiment of the Church. This decree of the Ecclesiasticall Synod, shall the godly and supreame Magistrat afterward confirme, stablish, and ratify by his edict. u Ioh. Wolphius ob∣serveth of King Ioash, that he did not by himself take order for the reparation of the Temple, nor define what was to be done unto eve∣ry breach therein, but committed this matter to be directed and ca∣red for by the Priests, whom it chiefly concerned, commanding them to take course for the reparation of the breaches of the house, wheresoever any breach should be found, and allowing them money for the worke. Whereupon he further noteth, that as the superior part of mans soule, doth not it self, heare, see, touch, walke, speake, but commandeth the eares, eyes, hands, feet, and tounge, to doe the same, so the Magistrat should not himselfe either teach, or make lawes, but command that these things be done by the Doctors and Teachers. Cartwright and Pareus upon Hebr. 13. 17. tell the Papists, that we aknowledge, Princes are holden to be obedient unto Pa∣stors, in things that belong unto God, if they rule according to the Word. Which could not be so, if the making of Lawes about things pertaining to God and his worship, did not of right and due belong unto Pastors, but unto Princes themselves. Our secound Booke of Discipline Chap. 12. ordaineth. The Ecclesiasticall Assemblies have their place: vvith povver to the Kirke to appoint times and places convenient▪ for

the same, and all men as vvell Magistrats, as inferiours, to be subject to the judgement of the same in Ecclesiasticall causes. x Balduine holdeth, that a Prince may not by himself injoyne any new Ecclesiasticall rite, but must convocat a Synod, for the deliberation and definition of such things. And what meane y our Writers, when they say, that Kings have no spirituall, but only a civill power in the Church? As actions are discerned by the objects, so are powers by the actions: If therefore Kings doe commendably by themselves make lawes, about things pertaining to Gods worship, which is an spirituall action, then have they also a spirituall power in the Church. But if they have no spirituall power, that is, no power of spirituall jurisdiction, how can they actually exerce spirituall jurisdiction? That the making of Lawes about things pertaining to Gods worship, is an action of spirituall jurisdiction, it needeth not great demonstration. For, 1. When a Synod of the Church maketh Lawes, about such things, all men know that this is an action of spirituall jur•…•…ction, flowing from that power of spirituall jurisdiction w•…•… is called potestas 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And how then can the Princes making of such lawes, be called an action of civill, not of spirituall jurisdiction? I see not what can be answered, except it be said, that the making of those lawes by a Synod is an action of spirituall jurisdiction, because they are made and published with the commination of spirituall and Ec∣clesiasticall punishments, in case of transgression; but the making of them by the Prince, is an action of civill jurisdiction only, because he prescribeth and commandeth, under the paine of some temporall losse or punishment. But I have allready confuted this answere; be∣cause notwithstanding of the different punishments which the one and the other hath power to threaten and inflict, yet at least that part of spirituall jurisdiction which we call potestas 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 remai∣neth the same in both, which power of making Lawes must not (as I shew) be confounded with that other power of judging & punish∣ing offenders. 2. Actions take their species or kynd from the ob∣ject and the end, when other circumstances hinder not. Now a Prince his making of Lawes about things pertaining to Religion, is such an action of Iurisdiction, as hath both a spirituall end, which is the edification of the Church and spirituall good of Christians, and likewise a spirituall object, for that all things pertaining to di∣vine worship, even the very externall circumstances of the same, are rightly called things spirituall and divine, not civill or human, our Opposites can not denie, except they say, not only that such things touch the lives, bodies, estates, or names of men, and are not ordained for the spirituall benefit of their soules, but also that the Synod of the Church, whose power reacheth only to things spi∣rituall, not civill or human, can never make Lawes about those cir∣cumstances

which are applied unto and used in the worship of God. And as the Prince his making of Lawes about things of this nature, is in respect of the object and end, an action of spirituall jurisdiction, so there is no circumstance at all, which varieth the kind, or ma∣keth it an action of civill jurisdiction only. If it be said that the circumstance of the person changeth the kynd of the action, so that the making of Lawes about things pertaining to Religion, if they be made by Ecclesiasticall persons, is an action of spirituall juris∣diction, but if by the civill Magistrat, an action of civill jurisdiction: this were a most extreamely unadvised distinction: for so might z Vzziah the King have answered for himself, that in burning in∣cense he did not take upon him to execute the Priests office, because he was only a civill person: so may the Pope say, that he taketh not upon him the power of Emperours and Monarchs, because he is an Eccle•…•…sticall person. Many things men may doe de facto, which they can not de jure. Civill persons may exerce a spirituall jurisdic∣tion and office, and againe Ecclesiasticall persons may exerce a civill jurisdiction, de facto, thought not de jure. Wherefore the Prince his making of Lawes about things spirituall, remaineth still an action of spirituall jurisdiction, except some other thing can be alledged to the contrary, beside the circumstance of the Person. But some man peradventure will object, that a Prince by his civill power may injoyne and command, not only the observation of those Ecclesia∣sticall rites which a Synod of the Church prescribeth, but also that a Synod (when need is) presribe new orders and rites, all which are things spirituall and divine: And why then may he not by the same civill power make lawes about the Rites and circumstances of Gods worship, notwithstanding that they are (in their use and application to the actions of worship) things spirituall, not civill.

Ans. a The Schoolmen say, that an action proceedeth from charity two wayes, either elicitivè, or imperativè: and that those actions which are immediatly produced and wrought out by charity, belong not to other vertues distinct from charity, but are comprehended under the effects of charity it self, such as are the loving of good, and re∣joycing •…•…o it: other actions say they, which are only commanded by charity, belong to other speciall vertues distinct from charity; So say I, an action may proceed from a civill power either elicitivé, or imperativè. Elicitivè a civill power can only make Lawes about things civill or human: but imperativé, it may command the Ec∣clesiasticall power to make Lawes about things spirituall, which Lawes thereafter it may command to be observed by all who are in [Sect. XXVIII] the Church.

8. Our Opposites themselves aknowledge no lesse, then that which I have beene pleading for. To devise new rites and Ceremonies saith b D. Bilson, is not the Princes vocation, but to receive and allowe such

as the Scriptures and Canons commend, and such as the Bishops and Pastors of the place shall advise. And saith not c the Bishop of Sarisburie, Ceremo∣nias utiles & decoras excogitare, ad Ecclesiasticos pertinet, tamen easdem comprobare, & toti populo observandas imponere, ad Reges spectat. d Ca∣mero saith, that it is the part of a Prince to take care for the health of mens soules, even as he doth for the health of their bodies, and that as he provideth not for the curing or preventing of bodily deseases directly and by himself, but indirectly and by the Phisitions, so he should not by himself prescribe cures & remedies for mens spirituall maladies. Perinde Principis est curare salutem animarum, ac ejusdem est sa∣luti corporum prospicere: non est autem Principis providere ne morbi grassentur directe, esset enim Medicus, at in directe tamen Princeps id sludere debet. Whence it followeth, that even as when some bodily sicknesse sprea∣deth, a Princes part is not to prescribe a cure, but to command the Phisitions to doe it: just so, when any abuse, misorder, confusion, or scandall in the Church, requireth or maketh it neecssary that a mutation be made of some rite or order in the same, & that whole∣some Lawes be enacted, which may serve for the order, decency, & edification of the Church, a Prince may not doe this by himself, but may only command the Pastors and Guides of the Church, who watch for the soules of men, as they who must give account, to see to the exigency of the present state of matters Ecclesiasticall, and to provide such Lawes as they beeing met togither in the name of the Lord, shall after due and free deliberation, find to be conve∣nient, and which being once prescribed by them, hee shall by his royall auctority confirme, establish, and presse.

Needs now it must be manifest, that the lawfullnesse of our con∣forming unto the Ceremonies in question, can be no way warran∣ted [Sect. XXIX] by any ordinance of the Supreame Magistrat, or any power which he hath in things spirituall or Ecclesiasticall. And if our Op∣posites would ponder the reasons we have given, they should be quickely quieted, understanding that before the Princes ordinance about the Ceremonies can be said to bind us, it must first be shewed that they have beene lawfully prescribed by a Synod of the Church. So that they must retire and hold them at the Churches ordi∣nance. And what needeth any more? let us once see any lawfull or∣dinance of the Synod or Church representative for them we shall without any more adoe aknowledge it to be out of all doubt, that his Majesty may well urge Conformity unto the same.

Now of the Churches power we have spoken in the former Cha∣pter. And if we had not, yet that which hath beene said in this Chapter, maketh out our point. For it hath beene proven, that nei∣ther King nor Church hath power to command any thing, which is not according to the rules of the Word, that is, which serveth not for the glory of God, which is not profitable for edifying, & which

may not be done in faith, unto which rules whether the things which are commanded us, be agreeable or not, we must trie and examine by the privat judgement of Christian discretion, following the light of Gods Word.

Resteth the third distinction, whereof I promised to speake, & that [Sect. XXX] was of Ties or Bonds. Quaedam obligatio, &c. Some bond (saith e Ge∣rard) is absolute, when the Lavv bindeth the conscience simply, so that in no respect, nor in no case, without the offence of God, and vvound of conscience, one may depart from the prescript thereof: but another bond is hypotheticall, vvhen it bindeth not simply, but under a condition, to vvit, if the transgres∣sion of the Lavv be done of contempt; if for the cause of lucre or some other vitious end; if it have scandall joyned vvith it. The former way he saith that the Law of God and Nature bindeth, and that the Law of the civill Magistrat bindeth the latter way. And with him we hold, that whatsoever a Prince commandeth his Subjects in things any way pertaining to Religion, it bindeth only this latter way; and that hee hath never power to make Lawes, binding the former way. For confirmation wherefore wee say,

1. The Lawes of an Ecclesiasticall Synod, to the obedience where∣of in things belonging to the worship of God, we are farre more strictly tied, then to the obedience of any Prince in the world, who (as hath beene shewed) in this sort of things, hath not such a voca∣tion nor power to make Lawes: the Lawes (I say) of a Synod can not bind absolutely, but only conditionally, or in case they can not be transgressed without violating the Law of Charity, by contempt shewed, or scandall given. Which as I have made good in the first part of this Dispute; so let me now produce for it a plaine testimony of f the Bishop of Sarisburie, who holdeth that the Churches rites and ordinances, doe only bind in such sort, ut si extra, &c. That if out of the case of scandall or contempt, through imprudence, oblivion, or some rea∣sonable cause inforcing, they be omitted, no mortall sinne is incurred before God. For as touching these constitutions, I judge the opinion of Gerson to be most true, to vvit, that they remaine unviolated, so long as the Lavv of Cha∣rity is not by men violated about the same. Much lesse then, can the Lawes of Princes about things Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall, bind absolutely, and out of the case of violating the Law of Cha∣rity.

2. If we be not bound to receive and aknowledge the Lawes of Princes as good and equitable, except only in so farre, as they are warranted by the Law of God and Nature, then we are not bound in conscience to obey them, except only conditionally, in case the violating of them include the violating of the Law of God and Na∣ture. But the former is true. Therefore the latter. It is Gods pecu∣culiar soveraignety, that his will is a rule ruling but not ruled, and that therefore a thing is good, because God will have it to be good.

Mans will is only such a rule, as is ruled by higher rules, and it must be knowne to be norma recta, before it can be to us norma recti.

3. If we be bound te trie and examine by the judgement of dis∣cretion (following the rules of the Word,) whether the things which Princes command be right, and such as ought to be done, and if we find them not to be such, to neglect them; then their Lawes can not bind absolutely and by themselves, (else what need were there of such triall and examination?) but only conditio∣nally, and in case they can not be neglected without violating some other Law, which is of a superior bond. But the former wee have proven by strong reasons. Therefore the latter standeth sure.

4. If neither Princes may command, nor wee doe any thing, which is not lawfull and expedient, and according to the other rules of the Word, then the Lawes of Princes bind not absolutely, but only in case the neglecting of them can not stand with the Law of Charity, and the rules of the Word. But the former hath beene evinced and made good. Therefore the latter necessarily follo∣weth.

5. If the Lawes of Princes could bind absolutely and simply, so that in no case without offending God & wounding our conscience, we could neglect them, this bond should arise either from their owne auctority, or from the matter and thing it self which is com∣manded. But from neither of these it can arise. Therefore from nothing. It can not arise from any auctority which they have, for if by their auctority we meane their Princely preeminence & dignity, they are Princes, when they command things unlawfull, as well, as when they command things lawfull, and so if because of their pre∣eminence their Lawes doe bind, then their unlawfull ordinances doe bind, no lesse then if they were lawfull: but if by their auctority, we meane the power which they have of God to make Lawes, this power is not absolute, (as hath beene said,) but limited: therefore from it no absolute bond can arise, but this much at the most, that g Kings on earth must be obeyed, so farre as they command in Christ. Neither yet can the bond be absolute in respect of the thing it self which is commanded.

When Princes publish the commandements of God, the things them selves binde, whether they should command them or not: but we speake of such things as Gods Word hath left in their nature indiffe∣rent, & of such things we say, that if being injoyned by Princes they did absolutely binde, then they should be in themselves immuta∣bly necessary, even secluding, as well the Lawes of Princes which injoyne them, as the end of order, decency, and edification, where unto they are referred. To say no more, hath not h D For∣besse

told us in Calvines words, Notatu dignum, &c. It is vvorthy of ob∣servation that human Lavves, vvhether they be made by the Magistrat or by the Church, hovvsoever they be necessary to be observed, (I speake of such as are good & just,) yet they doe not therefore by themselves binde the conscience, because the vvhole necessity of observing them, looketh to the generall end, but consisteth not in the things commanded.

6. Whatsoever bond of conscience, is not confirmed and war∣ranted by the Word, is before God no bond at all. But the absolute bond, wherewith conscience is bound to the obedience of the Lawes of Princes, is not confirmed nor warranted by the Word. Ergo. The Proposition no man can denie who aknowledgeth, that none can have power or dominion over our consciences, but God only, i the great Lawgiver, who alone can save and destroy. Nei∣ther doth any Writer whom I have seene, hold that Princes have any power over mens consciences, but only that conscience is bound by the Lawes of Princes, for this respect, because God who hath power over our consciences, hath tied us to their Lawes. As to the assum∣ption, he who denieth it, must give instance to the contrary. If k those vvords of the Apostle be objected; Yee must needs be subject, not only for vvrath, but also for conscience sake.

1 Ans. 1. The Apostle saith not, that we must obey, but that we must be subject, for conscience sake. And how oft shall we need to tell our Opposites, that subjection is one thing, & obedience another?

2. If he had said, that we must obey for conscience sake, yet this could not have beene expounded of an absolute bond of con∣science, but only of an hypotheticall bond, in case that which the Magistrat commandeth, can not be omitted, without breaking the Law of Charity. If it be said againe that we are not only bidden be subject, l but likewise to obey Magistrats. Ans. And who de∣nieth this? But still I aske, are we absolutely and allwayes bound to obey Magistrats? Nay, but only when they command such things as are according to the rules of the Word, so that either they must be obeyed, or the Law of Charity shall be broken: in this case, and no other, we are bidden obey.

Thus have we gained a principall point, Viz, That the lawes of [Sect. XXXI] Princes bind not absolutely but conditionally, nor propter se, but propter aliud. Whereupon it followeth, that except the breach of those ceremoniall Ordinances wherewith we are pressed, include the breach of the law of Charity, which is of a superior bond, we are not holden to obey them. Now that it is not the breach, but the obedien∣ce of those ordinances, which violateth the law of Charity, we have heretofore made manifest, and in this place we will adde only one generall. Whensoever the lawes of Princes about things Ecclesiasti∣call, doe bind the conscience conditionally, & because of some other law of a superior bond, which can not be observed if they be trans∣gressed;

(which is the only respect for which they bind, when they bind at all;) then the things which they perscribe belong either to the conservation, or purgation of Religion. But the controverted Ceremonies belong to neither of these. Therefore the lawes made thereanent bind not, because of some other law which is of a supe∣rior bond. As to the Proposition, will any man say that Princes have any more power, then that which is expressed in the 25 Article of the Confession of Faith, ratified in the first Parliament of King Iames the 6. which saith thus, Moreover, to Kings, Princes, Rulers, and Magistrats, we a•…•…me that chiefly and most principally, the conservation and the purgation of the Religion appertaines, so that not only they are appointod for civill policy, but also for maintenance of the true Religion, and for suppressing of Idolatry and superstition whatsoever. Hoe nomine (saith m Calvine) maxime laudantur sancti Reges in Scriptura, quod Dei cultum corruptum vel eversum restituerint, vel curam gesserint Religionis, ut sub illis pura & incolumis floreree. The 21, Parliament of King Iames holden at Edinburgh 1612. in the ratification of the Acts and Conclusions of the generall Assembly, keeped in Clasgove 1610. did innovate and change some words of that Oath of Allegiance, which the generall Assembly in reference to the conference keeped 1571. ordained to be given to the Person provided to any benefice with cure, in the time of his admission by the Ordinare. For the forme of the Oath set downe by the act of the Assembly, beginneth thus. I. A. B. now nominat and admitted to the Kirk of D, vtterly testify and declare in my conscience, that the right excellent, right high, and mighty Prince, Iames 6, by the grace of God King of Scots, is the only lawfull supreme Governour of this Realme, as well in things temporall, as in the conservation and purgation of Religion, &c. But the forme of the Oath set downe by the Act of Parliament, beginneth thus. I. A. B. now nominat and admitted to the Kirk of D, testify and declare in my conscience, that the right excellent &c. is the only lawfull supreme Governour of this Realme, as well in matters Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall, as in things tem∣porall &c. Yet I demand, whether or not doe those Matters Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall, of which the Act of Parliament speaketh, or those All Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall things or causes, of which the English Oath of Supremacie speaketh, comprehend any other thing then is com∣prehended under the conservation and purgation of Religion, where of the Act of Assembly speaketh? If it be answered affirmatively, ti will followe that Princes have power to destruction, and not to edifica∣tion only, for whatsoever may edify or profit the Church, pertaineth either to the conservation, or the purgation of Religion. If nega∣tively, then it can not be denied that the conservation and purga∣tion of Religion doe comprehend all the power which Princes have in things Ecclesiasticall.

Now to the Assumption. And first, that the controverted Ceremo∣nies [Sect. XXXII] pertaine not to the conservation of Religion, but contrary wise to

the hurt and prejudice of the same, experience hath (alas) made it too manifest. For, o what a dolefull decay of Religion have they drawne with them in this Land! Let them who have seene Scotland in her first glory, tell how it was then, and how it is now. n Idle and idole-like Bishopping hath shut to the doore painefull and profita∣ble Catechising. The keeping of some Festivall dayes, is set up in stead of the thankefull commemoration of Gods inestimable bene∣fites: howbeit o the festivity of Christmasse hath hitherto served, more to Bachanalian lasciviousnesse, then to the remembrance of the birth of Christ. The kneeling downe upon the knees of the body, hath now come in place of that humiliation of the soule, wherwith worthy communicants addressed temselves unto the holy Table of the Lord. And generally, the externall shew of these fruitlesse ob∣servances, hath worne out the very life and power of Religion. Neither have such effects ensued upon such Ceremonies among us only, but let it be observed every where else, if there be not least sub∣stance and power of godlinesse, among them who have most Cere∣monies, where unto men have at their pleasure given some sacred use and signification in the Worship of God, and most substance among them, who have fewest shewes of externall rites. No man of sound judgement (saith p Baza) will denie, Iesum Christum quo nudior, &c. that IESVS CHRIST, the more naked he be, is made the more manifest to us: whereas contrarywise all false religions use by certaine externall gesturings to turne away men from divine things. q Zanchius saith well of the Surplice and other popish Ceremonies, quod haec nihil ad pietatem accenden∣dam, multum autem ad restinguendam valeant. r Bellarmine indeed pleadeth for the vtility of Ceremonies, as things belonging to the conservation of Religion. His reason is, because they set before our sences such an externall majesty and splendor, whereby they cause the more reverence. This hee alledgeth for the utility of the Cere∣monies of the Church of Rome. And I would know, what better reason can be alledged for the utility of ours. But if this be all, we throwe backe the Argument, because the externall majesty and splendor of Ceremonies doth greatly prejudge and obscure the spirit and life of the worship of God, and diverteth the minds of men from adver∣ting vnto the same: which we have offered to be tried by common ex∣perience. Durand himself, for as much as he hath written in the de∣fence of Ceremonies, in his unreasonable Rationale, yet s he maketh this plaine confession. Sane in primitiva Ecclesia, Sacrificium fiebat in vasis ligneis & vestib•…•… communibus: tune enim evant lignei calices & aurei Sacerdo∣tes: nunc vero ècontra est. Behold what followeth upon the majesty and splendor which Ceremonies carry with them, and how Religion at it's best and first estate was without the same!

Neither yet doe the Ceremonies in question belong to the purga∣tion [Sect. XXXIII] of Religion. For wheresoever Religion is to be purged in a

corrupted Church, all men know that purgation standeth in putting some thing away, not in keeping it still, in voiding some what, not in retaining it: so that a Church is not purged, but left unpurged, when the unnecessary monuments of by past superstition are still preserved and kept in the same. And as for the Church of Scotland, least of all could there be any purgation of it intended, by the re∣suming of those Ceremonies, for such was the most glorious and ever memorable reformation of Scotland, that it was farre better purged then any other nighbour Church. And of Mr. Hookers jest we may make good earnest, for in very deed as the reformation of Genevah did passe the reformation of Germany, so the reformation of Scotland did passe that of Genevah.

Now hitherto we have discoursed of the power of Princes, in ma∣king [Sect. XXXIV] of lawes about things which concerne the worship of God; for this power it is, which our Opposites alledge for warrant of the con∣troverted Ceremonies: wherefore to have spoken of it is sufficient for our present purpose. Neverthelesse, because there are also other sorts of Ecclesiasticall things, beside the making of lawes, such as the vocation of men of Ecclesiasticall order, the convocation and moderation of Councells, the judging and deciding of controversies about faith, and the use of the keyes, in all which Princes have some place and power of intermeddling, and a mistaking in one, may possibly breed a mistaking in all: Therefore I thought good here to digresse, and of these also to adde some what, so farre as Princes have power and interest in the same.

DIGRESSION I.

Of the vocation of men of Ecclesiasticall order.

IN the vocation and calling of Ecclesiasticall persons, a Prince ought to carry himself ad modum procurantis speciem, non desig∣nantis individuum. Which shall be more plainly and particu∣larly vnderstood, in these Propositions which followe.

PROPOS. I. Princes may and ought to provide and take care, that men of those Ecclesiasticall orders, and those only, which are instituted in the new Testament, by divine auctority, have vocation and office in the Church.

Now beside the Apostles, Prophets, and Evangelists, which were not ordained to be ordinary and perpetuall offices in the Church, t there are but two Ecclesiasticall orders or degrees instituted by Christ in the new Testament, vix. Elders and Deacons. Excellenter Canones d•…•…os tantum sacros ordines appellari censent, Diaconatus scilicet & Presbyte∣rat•…•…, quia hos solos primitiva Ecclesia legitur habuisse, & de hi•…•… sol•…•… praeceptum

Apostli habe•…•…, saith w the Master of Sentences. As for the order and degree of Bishops, superior to that of Elders, that there is no divine Ordinance nor institution for it, it is not only holden by Calvine, Beza, Bucer, Martyr, Sadeel, Luther, Chemnitius, Gerard Balduine, the Magdebur∣gians, Musculus, Piscator, Hemmingius, Zanchius, Polanus, Iunius, Pareus, Fennerus, Danaeus, Morney, Whittakers, Willets, Perkins, Cartwright, the Pròfessours of Leiden, and the farre greatest part of Writters in refor∣med Churches, but also by Hierome, who upon Tit. 1. and in his Epistle to Fvagrius speaketh so plainly, that x the Archbishop of Spa∣lato is driven to say, Deserimus in hac parte Hieronymum, neque ei in his dictis assentimur: also by Ambrose on 1. Tim. 3. Augustine in his booke of questions out of both Testaments quest. 101. Chrysostome on 1. Tim. 3. Isidore dist. 21. cap. 1. The Canon Law dist. 93. c. 24. & dist. 95. c. 5. Lombard. lib. 4 dist. 24. And after him by many Schoolemen, such as Aquinas, Alensis, Albertus, Bonaventura, Richardus, and Dominicus Soto, all mentioned by the Archbishop of Spalato lib. 2. cap. 4. n. 25. y Ge∣rard citeth for the same judgement Anshelmus, Sedulius, Primasius, Theophylactus, Oecumenius, the Councell of Basil, Ardatensis, Ioh. Pari∣siensis, Erasmus, Medina, and Cassander. All which Authors have groun∣ded that which they say upon Scripture: for beside that Scripture maketh no difference of order and degree betwixt Bishops and El∣ders, it sheweth also that they are one and the same order. For in Ephesus and Crete, they who were made Elders were likewise made Bishops, Act. 20. 17. with 28. Tit. 1. 5. with 7. And the Apostle Phil. 1. 1. divideth the wholle ministery in the Church of Philippi into two orders, Bishops and Deacons. Moreover, 1. Tim. 3. he giveth order only for Bishops and Deacons, but saith nothing of a third order. Wherefore it is manifest, that beside those two orders of Elders and Deacons, there is no other Ecclesiasticall order which hath any divi∣ne institution, or necessary use in the Church. And Princes should doe well to applie their power and auctority to the extirpation and rooting out of Popes, Cardinals, Patriarches, Primats, Archbishops, Bishops, Suffragans, Abbots, Deanes, Vice-Deans, Priors, Arch∣deacons, Subdeacons, Chancellours, Chantours, Subchantours, Exorcists, Monkes, Eremits, Acoluths, and all the whole rabble of Popish orders, which undoe the Church, and worke more mischief in the earth, then can be either soone seene or shortly told.

But contrary wise, Princes ought to establish and mantaine in the Church, Elders and Deacons, according to the Apostolicall institu∣tion. Now Elders are either such as labour in the Word and Doc∣trine, or else such as are appointed for Discipline only. They who labour in the Word and Doctrine, are either such as doe only teach, and are ordained for conserving in Schooles and Seminaries of lear∣ning, the purity of Christian Doctrine, and the true interpretation of Scripture, and for detecting and confuting the contrary heresies and

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

errors, whom the Apostle calleth Doctours or Teachers: Or else they are such as doe not only teach, but also have a more particulr charge to watch over the flocke, to seek that which is lost 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to bring home that which wandereth, to heale that which is diseased, to bind up that which is broken, to visite every family, to warne every per∣son, to rebuke, to comfort, &c, whom the Apostle calleth sometines Pastors, and sometimes Bishops, or Overseers. The other sort of Elders are ordained only for Discipline and Church governement, and for assisting of the Pastors, in ruling the people, overseeing their manners, and censuring their faults. That this sort of Elders is insti∣tuted by the Apostle, it is put out of doubt, not alone by Calvine, Beza, and the Divines of Genevah, but also by Chemnitius, exam. part. 2. pag. 218. Gerard loc. theol. tom. 6. pag. 363. 364. Zanchius in 4. praec. col. 727. Martyr in 1. Cor. 12. 28. Bullinger in 1. Tim. 5. 17. Iunius animad. in Bell. contr. 5. lib. 1. cap. 2. Polanus Synt. lib. 7. cap. 11. Pareus in Rom. 12. 8. & 1. Cor. 12. 28. Cartwright on 1. Tim. 5. 17. The Professours of Leiden Syn. pur. Theol. disp. 42. Thes. 20. And many moe of our Divines, who teach that the Apostle 1. Tim. 5. 17. directly implieth that there were some Elders who ruled well, and yet laboured not in the Word and Doctrine, and those Elders he meaneth by them that rule, Rom. 12. 8. & by Governements 1. Cor. 12. 28. where the Apostle saith not helps in Governements, as our new English Translation corruptly readeth, but helps, governements, &c. plainly putting Governements for a dif∣ferent order from Helps or Deacons. Of these Elders speaketh z Ambrose, (as a D. Fulke also understandeth him) shewing that with all nations Eldership is honourable, wherefore the Synagoge also, and afterward the Church, hath had some Elders of the Con∣gregation, without whose counsell and advice nothing was done in the Church: and that he knew not by what negligence this had growne out of use, except it had beene through the sluggishnesse of the Teachers, or rather their pride, whiles they seemed to themselves to be somet•…•…ing, and so did arrogat the doing of all by themselves.

Deacons were instituted by the Ap•…•…stles b for collecting, recei∣ving, keeping, and distributing of Ecclesiasticall goods, which were given and dedicated for the maintenance of Ministers, Churches, Schooles, and for the help and relief of the poore, the stranger, the sicke and the weake, also c for furnishing of such things as are neces∣sary to the ministration of the Sacraments. Beside which •…•…mploy∣ments, the Scripture hath assigned neither Preaching, nor Baptising, nor any other Ecclesiast•…•…ll function to ordinary Deacons.

PROPOS. II. Princes in their Dominions, ought to procure and effect, that there bee never wanting men qualified and fit for those Ecclesiasticall functions and charges, which Christ hath ordained, and that such men only bee called, chosen, and set apart for the same.

There are two things contained in this Proposition. 1. That Princes ought to procure, that the Church never want men quali∣lified and gifted for the worke and service of the holy Ministery, for which end and purpose they ought to provide and mantaine Schooles and Colledges, intrusted and committed to the rule and oversight of orthodoxe, learned, godly, faithfull, and diligent Ma∣sters, that so qualified and able men may be still furnished and sent forth for the Ministery and service of the Church. They ought also to take care that the Ministers of the Church neither want due reve∣rence 1. Tim. 5. 17. Hebr. 13. 17. Nor sufficient maintenance 1. Cor. 9. that so men be not skarred from the service of the Ministery, but rather incouraged unto the same 2. Chron. 31. 4.

2. That Princes ought also to take order and course, that well qualified men, and no others, be advanced and called to beare charge and office in the Church: for which purpose, they should cause, not one disdainfull p•…•…lat, but a whole Presbytery or com∣pany of Elders, to take triall of him who is to be taken into the number of preaching Elders, and to examine well the piety of his life, the verity of his Doctrine, and his fitnesse to teach. And further, that due triall may be continually had of the growth or decay of the graces and utterance of every Pastor: it is the part of Princes to injoyne the visitation of particular Churches, and the keeping of other Presbyteriall meetings, likewise the assembling of Provinciall and Nationall Synods, for putting order to such things as have not beene helped in the particular Presbyteries. And as for the other sort of Elders, togither with Deacons, we judge the aun∣cient order of this Church, to have beene most convenient for provyding of well qualified men for those functions and offices. For the eight head of the first booke of Discipline, touching the elec∣tion of Elders and Deacons, ordaineth that men of best know∣ledge and cleanest life, be nominat to be in Election, and that their names be publikely read to the whole Church by the Minister, gi∣ving them advertisement, that from among them must be chosen Elders and Deacons: that if any of these nominat be noted with publike infamie, hee ought to be repelled: And that if any man know others of better qualities within the Church, then these that be nominat, they should be put in election, that the Church may have the choice.

If these courses whereof we have spoken, be followed by Chri∣stian Princes, they shall by the blessing of God procure, that the Church shall be served with able and fit Ministers. But though thus they may procurare speciem, yet they may not designare individuum, which now I am to demonstrat.

PROPOS. III. Neverthelesse c Princes may not designe nor appoint such or such particular men, to the charge, of such or such particular Churches, or to

the exercing of such or such Ecclesiasticall functions: but ought to provide that such an order & forme be keeped in the election and ordination of the Ministers of the Church, as is warranted by the example of the Apostles, and primitive Church.

The vocation of a Minister in the Church, is either inward or out∣ward. The inward calling which one must have, in finding himself by the grace of God, made both able and willing to serve God and his Church faithfully, in the holy Ministery, lieth not open to the vieu of men, and is only manifest to him from whom nothing can be hid. The outward calling is made up of Election & Ordina∣tion: that, signified in Scripture by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: this, by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Concerning which things, we say wi•…•… d Zanchius, Magistratus, &c. It pertaineth to a Christian Magistrat and Prince, to see for Ministers unto his Churches. But how? not out of his owne arbitrement, but as Gods Word teacheth. Therefore let the Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistles of Paul be read, how Ministers were elected and ordained, and let them followe that forme.

The right of Election pertaineth to the whole Church: which as it is mantained by forraine Divines, who write of the controver∣sies with Papists; and as it was the order which this Church prescri∣bed in the bookes of Discipline; so it is commended unto us by the example of the Apostles, and of the Churches planted by them. Ioseph and Matthias were chosen & offered to Christ by the whole Church, being about. 120. persons. Act. 1. 15. 23. The Apostles required the whole Church and multitude of Disciples, to choose out from among them seaven men to be Deacons Act. 6. 2. 3. The holy Ghost said to the whole Church at Antioch, beeing assembled togither to minister unto the Lord, Separate me Barnabas and Saul, Act. 13. 1. 2. The whole Church choosed Iudas and Silas to bee sent to Antioch. Act. 15. 22. The brethren who travailed in the Chur∣ches affaires, were chosen by the Church, and are called the Chur∣ches Messengers. 2. Cor. 8. 19. 23. Such men only were ordained Elders by Paul and Barnabas, as were chosen and approven by the whole Church, their suffrages beeing signified by the lifting up of their hands. Act. 14. 23. Albeit Chrysostome and other Ecclesiasticall Writers use the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for ordination by imposition of hands, yet when they take it in this sence, they speake figuratively and synegdochically, as e Iunius sheweth. For these two, Election by most voices, and Ordination by laying on of hands, were joyned togither, and did cohere, as an antecedent and an consequent, whence the use obtained, that the whole action should be signified by one word, per modum intellectus, collecting the antecedent from the conse∣quent, & the consequent from the antecedent. Neverthelesse accor∣ding to the proper & native significatiō of the word, it noteth the sig∣nifying

of a suffrage or election by the lifting up of the hand, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is no other thing, nor 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to lift or hold up the hāds in signe of a suffrage. And so Chrysostome himself u∣seth the word, when he speaketh properly, for he saith, that the Senate of Rome, tooke upon him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is (as f D. Potter turneth his words) to make Gods by most voices.

g Bellarmine reckoneth out three significatiōs of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 1. To choose by suffrages. 2. Simply to choose, which way soever it be. 3. To ordaine by imposition of hands. h Iunius answereth him, that the first only is the proper signification: the second is me∣taphoricall: the third synegdochicall.

Our English Translators, 2. Cor. 1. 19. have followed the meta∣phoricall signification, and in this place Act. 14. 23. the synegdo∣chicall. But what had they adoe either with a Metaphore or a Sy∣negdoche, when the Text may beare the proper sence? Now, that Luke in this place useth the word in the proper sence, and not in the synegdochicall, i Gerard proveth from the words which he subjoyneth, to signify the ordaining of those Elders by the laying on of hands: for he saith that they prayed and fasted and commen∣ded them to the Lord, in which words he implieth the laying on of hands upon them, as may be learned from. Act. 6. 6. When they had prayed they laid their hands on them. Act. 13. 3. When they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them. So Act. 8. 15. 17. Prayer and laying on of hands went togither. Wherefore by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Luke pointeth at the election of those Elders by voices, being in the fol∣lowing words to make mention of their ordination by imposition of hands.

k Cartwright hath for the same point, other waighty reasons. It is absurd (saith he) to imagine, that the holy Ghost by Luke, speaking with the tongues of men, that is to say, to their understanding, should use a word in that signification in which it was never used before his time by any Writer, Holy or Prophane. For how could he then be understood: if using the note and name they used, he should have fled from the signification whereunto they used it? unlesse therefore his purpose was to write that which none should read, it must needs be that as he wrote, so he meant the election by voices. And if Demosthe∣nes for knowledge in the tongue would have beene ashamed, to have noted the laying downe of hands by a vvord that signifieth the lifting of them up: they doe the holy Ghost (vvhich taught Demosthenes to speake) great injury, in im∣sing this unpropriety and strangenesse of speach unto himself: vvhich is yet more absurd, considering that there vvere both proper vvords to utter the laying on of hands by, & the same also used in the translation of the 70: vvhich Luke for the Gentiles sake did as it may seeme (vvhere he conveniently could) most follovve. And it is yet most of all absurd, that Luke vvhich straiteneth him∣self

to keep the vvords of the 70. Interpreters, vvhen as he could have other∣vvise uttered things in better tearmes then they did, should here forsake the phrase vvherevvith they noted the laying on of hands, beeing most proper and naturall to signify the same. The Greeke Scholiast also, and the Greeke Igna∣tius, doe plainly referre this vvord to the choice of the Church by voices.

But it is objected that Luke saith not of the whole Church, but only of Paul and Barnabas, that they made them by voices Elders in every citty.

Ans. But how can one imagine that betwixt them two alone the matter went to suffrages? election by most voices, or the lifting up of the hand in token of a suffrage, had place only among a multi∣tude assembled togither. Wherefore we say with l Iunius, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is both a common, and a particular action, whereby a man chooseth by his owne suffrage in particular, & likewise with others in commone, so that in one and the same action we can not divide those things, which are so joyned togither.

From that which hath beene said, it plainly appeareth, that the election of Ministers, according to the Apostolicke institution, per∣taineth to the whole body of that Church, where they are to serve; And that this was the Apostolicke & primitive Practice, it is aknow∣ledged even by some of the Papists, such as Lorinus, Salmeron, and Gas∣par 〈◊〉〈◊〉, all upon. Act. 14. 23. m The Canon Law it self commen∣deth this forme, and saith, Electio Clericorum est petitio plebis. And was he not a Popish Archbishop, n who condescended that the Citty of Magdeburg should have 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ac constituendi Ecclesiae Mini∣stros? Neither would the Citty accept of peace, without this con∣dition.

That in the auncient Church, for a long time, the election of Mi∣nisters remained in the power of the whole Church or Congrega∣tion, it is evident from Cypr. lib. 1. epist. 4 & 68. August. epist. 100. L•…•…o. 1. epist. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Socrat. lib. 4. cap. 30. & lib. 6. cap. 2. Possidon. in vita Aug. cap. 4. The Testimonies and examples themselves for brevities cause I omit. As for the 13. Canon of the Councell of Laodicea which forbiddeth to permit to the people the election of such as were to Minister at the Altar: we say with o Osiander that this Canon can not be approven, except only in this respect, that how∣beit the peoples election and consent be necessary, yet the election is not wholy and solly to be committed to them, excluding the judgement and voice of the Cleargie. And that this is all which the Councell meant, we judge with p Calvine & q Gerard. That this is the true interpretation of the Canon, r Iunius proveth both by the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, permittere turbis, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth to quit and leave the whole matter to the fidelity and will of others; and likewise by the common end and purpose of that

Councell, which was to represse certaine faults of the People, which had prevailed through custome: Indeed, if the whoole matter were alltogither left to the people, contentions and confusions might be feared. But whiles wee plead for the election of people wee adde.

1. Let the Cleargie of the adjacent bounds in their Presbyteriall Assembly, trie and judge who are fit for the Ministery; thereafter let a certaine number of those who are by them approven as fit, be offered and propounded to the vacand Church, that a free ele∣ction may be made of some one of that number, provyding al∣wayes that if the Church or Congregation have any reall reason for refusing the persons nominat and offered unto them, and for choo∣sing of others, their lawfull desires be herein yeelded unto.

2. Even when it comes to the election, yet populus non solus judicat, sed pr•…•…unte & modera•…•…e actionem Clero & Presbyterio, let the Elders of the Congregation, togither with some of the Cleargie concurring with them, moderat the action, and goe before the body of the people.

Would to God that these things were observed by all who de∣sire the worthy office of a Pastor! For neither the Patrons Presen∣tation; nor the Cleargies Nomination, Examination, and Recom∣mendation, nor the Bishops laying on of hands, and giving of In∣stitution, nor all these put togither, can make up to a man his cal∣ling to be a Pastor to such or such a particular Flocke, with∣out their owne free election. Even as in those places where Princes are elected, the election gives them jus ad rem (as they speake) without which, the inauguration can never give them jus in re: so a man hath from his election power to bee a Pastor, so farre as concerneth jus ad rem, and Ordination only ap∣plieth him to the actuall exercing of his pastorall office, which Or∣dination ought to be given to him only who is elected, and that because he is elected. And of him who is obtruded and thrust upon a people, without their owne election, it is well said by (t) Zanehius, that he can neither with a good conscience exercise his Ministery, nor yet be profitable to the People, because they will not willingly heare him, nor submit themselves unto him.

Furthermore, because Patronages and Presentations to Bene∣fices, doe often prejudge the free and lawfull election which Gods Word craveth, therefore the second booke of Discipline Chap. 12. albeit it permitteth and alloweth the auncient Patrones of Preben∣daries and such Benefices as have not curam animarum, to reserve their Patronages, and to dispone thereupon to Schollers and Bur∣sers, yet it craveth rightly that presentations to Benefices that have curam animarum, may have no place in this light of Reformation. Not that we thinke, a man presented to a Benefice that hath curam

animarum, can not be lawfully elected: But because of the often and ordinary abuse of this unnecessary custome, we could wish it aboli∣shed by Princes.

It followeth to speake of Ordination, wherein with v Calvin, x Iunius, y Gersomus Bucerus, and other learned men, we distinguish betwixt the act of it, and the rite of it. The act of Ordination stan∣deth in the mission or the deputation of a man to an Ecclesiasticall function, with power and auctority to performe the same. And thus are Pastors ordained when they are sent to a people with power to preach the Word, minister the Sacraments, and exerce Eccle∣siasticall Discipline among them. For z How shall they Preach except they bee sent? unto which mission or ordination, neither praier nor imposition of hands, nor any other of the Churches rites, is essentiall and necessary, as a the Archbishop of Spalato sheweth, who placeth the essentiall act of Ordination in missionè potestativa, or à simple deputation and application of à Minister to his Ministeriall func∣tion, with power to performe it. This may be done saith he by word alone, without any other Ceremony, in such sort that the fact should hold, and the ordination thus given should be valid enough. When a man is elected by the suffrages of the Church, then his Ordination is Quasi solennis missio in possessionem honoris illius, ex decreto, saith b Iunius. c Chemnitius noteth, that when Christ after he had chosen his twelve Apostles, ordained them to preach the Gospell, to cast out Divells, and to heale diseases, we read of no Ceremony used in this Ordina∣tion, but only that Christ gave them power to preach, to heale, and to cast out Divells, and so sent them away to the worke. And how∣soever the Church hath for order and decency used some rite in Or∣dination, yet there is no such rite to be used with opinion of neces∣sity, or as appointed by Christ or his Apostles. When our Writers prove against Papists, that Order is no Sacrament, this is one of their Arguments, that there is no rite instituted in the new Testament, to to be used in the giving of Orders. Yet because imposition of hands was used in Ordination, not only by the Apostles who had power to give extraordinarly the gifts of the holy Ghost, but likewise by the Presbytery or company of Elders, and Timothy did not only receive the gift that was in him, d by the laying on of Pauls hands, as the meane, but also e with the laying on of the hands of the Presbyte∣ry, as the rite and signe of his Ordination; therefore the Church in the after ages hath still kept and used the same rite in Ordination. Which rite shall with our leave be yet retained in the Church, provyding, 1. It be not used with opinion of necessity, for that the Church hath full liberty either to use any other decent rite (not beeing determined by the Word to any one) or else to use no rite at all, beside a publike declaration, that the person there presented, is called and appointed to serve the Church in the Pastorall office,

togither with exhortation to the said person, and the commending of him to the grace of God, the Church not beeing tied by the Word to use any rite at all in the giving of Ordination. 2. That it be not used as a sacred significant Ceremony to represent and signify, either the delivering to the person ordained, auctority to Preach and to Minister the Sacraments, or the consecration and mancipation of him to the holy Ministery, or lastly Gods bestowing of the gifts of his Spirit upon him, togither with his powerfull protection and gracious preservation in the performing of the workes of his cal∣ing; but only as a morall signe, solemnely to designe and point out the person ordained: which also was one of the ends and uses, whe∣reunto this rite of laying on of hands was applyed by the Apostles themselves, as f Chemnitius sheweth. And so Ioshua was designed and knowen to the people of Israel, as the man appointed to be the suc∣cessor of Moses, by that very signe, g that Moses laid his hands on him.

As a sacred significant Ceremony we may not use it. 1. Because h it hath beene proven, that men may never at their pleasure ascribe to any rite whatsoever, a holy signification of some mistery of Faith or duty of Piety. The Apostles indeed by the laying on of their hands, did signify their giving of the gift of the holy Ghost: but now as the miracle so the mistery hath ceased, and the Church not having such power to make the signification answere to the signe, if now a sacred or misticall signification be placed in the rite, it is but an emp∣tie and void signe, and rather minicall then misticall. 2. All such sacred rites, as have beene notoriously abused to superstition, if they have no necessary use, ought to be abolished, as i we have also proven. Therefore if imposition of hands in Ordination, be accoun∣ted and used as a sacred rite, and as having a sacred signification, (the use of it not beeing necessary,) it becommeth unlawfull, by reason of the by-gone and present superstitious abuse of the same in Poperie.

Now the right and power of giving Ordination to the Ministers of the Church, belongeth primarly and wholly to Christ, who com∣municateth the same with his Bride the Church. Both the Bride∣groome for his part, and the Bride for her part, have delivered this power of Ordination to the Presbytery jure DIVINO. Afterward the Presbytry conferred, jure humano, this power upon them, who were specially called Bishops. Whence the tyrannicall usurpation of Bishops, hath in processe of time followed, claiming the proper right and the ordinary possession of that, which at first they had only by free concession. And thus that great Divine k Franciscus Iunius, deriveth the power of Ordination. All which, that it may be plaine unto us, let us observe foure severall passages.

1. l The wholle Church hath the power of Ordination com∣municated

to her from Christ, to whom it wholy pertaineth. For, 1. It is most certaine (and among our Writers agreed upon,) that to the whole Church collectively taken, Christ hath delivered the keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven, with power to use the same, promising l that whatsoever the Church bindeth on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven, & whatsoever shee looseth on Earth, shall be loosed in Heaven. Therfore he hath also delivered unto the whole Church, power to call & ordaine Ministers for using the keyes: otherwise the promise might be made void, because the Ministers which shee now hath, may faile. 2. Christ hath appointed a certaine and a ordinary way, how the Church may provide her selfe of Ministers, and so may have ever in her selfe the meanes of grace and comfort sufficient to her self, according to that of m the Apostle, All things are yours, whether Paul, or Apollo, &c. But if shee had not the power of ordaining Ministers unto her self, when shee needeth, then might shee some times be deprived of such an ordinary & certaine way of provyding her self. 3. When the Ministery of the Church faileth or is wanting, Christian people have power to exerce that act of or∣dination, which is necessary to the making of a Minister. n D. Fulke sheweth out of Ruffinus and Theodoret, that Aede•…•… and •…•…rumen∣tius, being but privat men, by preaching of the Gospell, converted a great Nation of the Indians. And that the Nation of the Iberians being converted by a captive woman, the King and the Queene became Teachers of the Gospell to the people. And might not then the Church in those places, both elect and ordaine Ministers?

2. The Church hath by Divine institution delivered the Power of ordaining ordinary Ministers, to the Preshitery, whereof the Church consisteth representativè. And so saith o Paraus, that the power of mission (which is Ordination) belongeth to the Presbitery-Scriptura saith p Balduin, ordinationem tribuit toti Presbyterio, non s•…•…r∣sim Episcope. With whom say q the Professours of Leiden in like manner. Now when the Divines of Germany, and Belgia, speake of a Presbitery, they understand such a company as hath in it both those two sorts of Elders, which we spake of, viz. some, who labour in the Word and Doctrine, whom the Apostle calleth Bishops: and others, who labour onely in Discipline. The Apostolicke and Pri∣mitive times knew neither Parishionall nor Diocaesan Churches. Christians lived then, in Cities onely, not in Villages, because of the persecution. And it is to be remembred, that in Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, Colosse, Philippi, Thessalonica, and such other Cities inhabited by Christians, there were moe Pastors then one. r The Apostle cal∣led unto him the Elders (not Elder) of the Church of Ephesus. s He writeth to the Bishops (not Bishop) of the Church at Philippi t He biddeth the Thessalonians know them (not him) which laboured among them. Now that number of Pastors or Bishops which was

in one City, did in common governe all the Churches within that City, and there was not any one Pastor, who by himselfe gover∣ned a certaine part of the City, peculiarly assigned to his charge: to which purpose u the Apostle exhorteth the Elders of the Church of Ephesus, to take heed to all the flocke 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And to the same purpose it is said by x Hierome, that before schismes and divisions were by the Divels instigation made in Reli∣gion, communi Presbiterorum consilio Ecclesiae gubernabantur.

This number of Preaching Elders in one City, togither with those Elders which in the same City laboured for Discipline onely, y made up that company which the Apostle, 1 Tim. 4. 14. calleth a Presbytery, and which gave Ordination to the Ministers of the Church. To the whole Presbitery, made up of those two sorts of Elders, belonged the act of Ordination, which is mission, z how∣beit the Rite, which was imposition of hands, belonged to those Elders alone which laboured in the Word and Doctrine. And so wee are to understand that which the Apostle there saith, of the Presbiteries laying on of hands upon Timothy. As for a D. Downams two glosses upon that place, which he borroweth from Bellarmine, and whereby he thinketh to elude our Argument, we thanke b D. Forbesse for confuting them. Quod autem, &c. But whereas saith hee, some have expounded the Presbitery in this place, to be a company of Bishops, except by Bishops thou would understand simple Presbiters, it is a violent inter∣pretation, and a insolent meaning. And whereas others have understood the degree it selfe of Eldership, this can not sinnd, for the degree hath not hands, but hands are mens. Wherefore the D. himselfe, by the Presbitery whereof the Apostle speaketh, understandeth, (as we doe) consessus Presbiterorum.

But since we can not find in the Apostles times, any other Pres∣biterie or Assembly of Elders, beside that which hath been spoken of, how commeth it, may some say, that the Church of Scotland, and other reformed Churches, did appoint two sorts of Presbiteriall Assemblies, one (which here we call Sessions) wherein the Pastor of the Parish, togither with those Elders within the same, whom the Apostle calleth Governements and Presidents, put order to the Governement of that Congregation; another (which here we call Presbiteries) wherein the Pastors of sundry Churches lying neare togither, doe assemble themselves? Which difficulty yet more in∣creaseth, if it be objected, that neither of these two, doth in all points answer or comforme it self, unto that primitive forme of Presbite∣ry, whereof we spake. Ans. The division and multiplication of Parishes, and the appointment of particular Pastors to the peculiar oversight of particular flockes, togither with the Plantation of Churches in Villages, as well as in Cities, hath made it impossible

for us to be served, with that onely one forme of a Presbitery, which was constitute in the Apostles times. But this difference of the times beeing (as it ought to be) admitted, for a inevitable cause of the dif∣ference of the former, both those two formes of Presbyteriall mee∣tings appointed by the Church of Scotland, doe not onely necessa∣rily result from that one Apostolicke forme, but likewise (the actions of them both beeing laid togither) doe accomplish all these ordinary Ecclesiasticall functions, which were by it performed.

And first, Sessions have a necessary use, because the Pastors and those Elders who assist them in the governing of their Flockes, must as well conjunctly as severally, as well publikely and private∣ly, governe, admonish, rebuke, censure, &c. As for Presbiteries, because the Parishes beeing divided, in most places there is but one Pastor in a Parish, except there should be a meeting of a number of Pastors out of divers Parishes, neither could triall be well had of the groweth or decay of the Gifts, Graces, and utterance of eve∣ry Pastor, for which purpose the ninth head of the first Booke of Discipline, appointed the Ministers of adjacent Churches, to meet togither at convenient times in Townes and publike places, for the exercise of Prophecying and interpreting of Scripture, according to that forme commended to the Church of Corinth. 1 Cor. 14. 29. 30. 31. 32. Nor yet could the Churches bee governed by the common counsell and advice of Presbiters, which beeing necessary by Apo∣stolicke institution, and beeing the foundation and ground of our Presbiteries, it maketh them necessary too.

3. After that the golden age of the Apostles was spent and away, Presbyteries finding themselves disturbed with emulations, conten∣tions, and factions; for unities sake, choosed one of their number, to preside among them, and to conferre, in name of the rest, the rite & signe of initiation (which was imposition of hands) on them whom they ordained Ministers. This honour did the Presbytery yeeld to him who was specially and peculiarly called Bishop, jure humano: yet the act of Ordination they still reserved in their owne power. And wheresoever the act doth thus remaine in the power of the whole Presbytery, the conferring of the outward signe or rite by one in name of the rest, none of us condemneth, as may be seene in Beza, Didoclavius, and Gersonus Bucerus. Neither is there any more meant by c Hierome, whiles he saith. What doth a Bishop, (ordination beeing excepted,) vvhich a Presbyter may not doe? For, 1. He speaketh not of the act of ordination, which remained in the power of the Presbytery, but of the outward signe or rite, d which syneg∣dochically he calles Ordination. 2. He speaketh only of the custome of that time, and not of any Divine institution: for that the imposi∣tion of hands pertained to the Bishop alone, not by Divine institu∣tion, but only by Ecclesiasticall custome, e Iunius proveth out of Ter∣tullian, Hierome, and Ambrose.

4. Afterward Bishops beganne to appropriat to themselves, that power which pertained unto them jur•…•… devoluto, as if it had beene their owne jure proprio. Yet so, that some vestigies of the auncient order have still remained. For both Augustine and Ambrose (whose words most plaine to this purpose, are cited by f D. Forbesse) te∣stify, that in their time, in Alexandria, and all Aegypt, the Presbyters gave Ordination, when a Bishop was not present. g The Canon Law ordaineth, that in giving of Ordination, Presbyters lay on their hands, togither with the Bishops hands. And it is holden by many Papists, (of whom h D. Forbesse alledgeth some for the same point) that any simple Presbyter, (whom they call a Priest) may with the Popes commandement or concession, give valid Or∣dination. That which maketh them graunt so much, is, because they dare not denie that Presbyters have the power of ordination, jure Divino. Yea saith i Panormitanus. Olim Presbyteri in communi re∣gebant Ecclesiam, & ordinabant Sacerdotes. The Doctor himself holdeth. that one simple Presbyter, howsoever having, by vertue of his Presbyteriall order, power to give Ordination, quo ad actum primum five aptitudinem, yet quo ad exercitium can not validly give Ordination, without a commission from the Bishop, or from the Presbytery, if either there be no Bishop, or else he be a Hereticke and Wolfe. But I would learne, why may not the Presbytery validly Ordaine, ei∣ther by themselves, or by any one Presbyter with commission and power from them, even where there is a Bishop (and he no Here∣ticke) who consenteth not thereto: for k the D. acknowledgeth, that not only quo ad aptitudinem, but even quo ad plenariam ordinationis executionem, the same power pertaineth to the Presbytery collegialiter, which he alledgeth, (but proveth not) that the Apostles gave to Bishops personaliter.

Now from all these things, Princes may learne how to reforme their owne and the Prelats usurpation, and how to reduce the orders and vocation of Ecclesiasticall persons, unto conformity with the Apostolicke & Primitive patterne, from which if they goe on ei∣ther to injoyne, or to permit a departing, we leave them to be judged by the King of terrours.

DISGRESSION II.

Of the convocation and moderation of Synods.

TOuching the convocation of Synods, wee resolve with l the Professours of Leiden; that if a Prince doe so much as tollerat the order and regiment of the Church to be pub∣publike,

his consent and auctority should be craved, & he may also designe the time, place, and other circumstances. m But much more, if he be a Christian and Orthodoxe Prince, should his con∣sent, auctority, help, protection, & saffeguard be sought & graun∣ted. n And that according to the example, both of godly Kings in the old Testament, and of Christian Emperours and Kings 111 the New. o Chiefly then, and justly, the Magistrat may and ought to urge and require Synodes, when they of the Ecclesiasticall order cease from doing their duty. p Veruntamen si contra, &c. Neverthe∣lesse say they, if contrarywise, the Magistrat be an enemy and persecuter of the Church, and of true Religion, or cease to doe his duty, that is to wit, in a manifest danger of the Church, the Church notwithstanding ought not to be wanting to her self, but ought to use the right and auctority of convocation, which first and foremost remaineth with the rulers of the Church, as may be seene Act. 15.

But that this bee not thought a Tenet of Antiepiscopall Writters alone, let us heart what is said, by q one of our greatest Opposites. Neque defendi•…•…s ita, &c. Neither doe wee so defend, that this right of con∣vocating Councelle, pertaineth to Princes, at that the Ecclesiasticall Prelats may no way, either assemble themselves togither by mutuall consent, or be convocated by the auctority of the Metropolitan, Pri•…•…t, or Patriarch. For the Apostles did celebrat Councells, without any convocation of Princes. So many Coun∣cells as were celebrate before the first Ni•…•…ne, were vvithout all doubt gathered togither, by the meanes alone of Ecclesiasticall Persons: for to vuhom directly the Church is fully committed, they ought to beare the care of the Church. Yet Princes in some respect, indirectly, for help and aide, chiefly then vvhen the Prelats neglect to convocat Councells, or are destitute of povver for doing of the same, of dutymay, & use to convocat them. Where we see his judge∣ment to be, that the power of convocating Councells, pertaineth directly to Ecclesiasticall persons, and to Princes only indirectly, for that they ought to give help and aide, to the convocation of the same, especially when Church men either will not, or can not as∣semble themselves togither. His reasons whereupon he groundeth his judgement, are two, and those stronge ones.

1. The Apostolicall Councells, Act. 6. 2. & 15. 6. and so many as were assembled before the first Councell of Nice, were not con∣vocated by Princes, but by Ecclesiasticall persons, without the leave of Princes. Therefore in the like cases, the Church ought to use the like liberty, that is, when there is need of Synods, either for pre∣venting, or reforming some corruptions in the Doctrine or Po∣licy of the Church; and for avoiding such inconveniencies as may impede the course of the Gospell, (Princes in the meane time beeing hostile Opposites to the trueth of God, and to the pu∣rity of Religion,) then to convocat the same, without their auctority and leave.

2. The Church is fully committed, (and that directly) to the Ministers whom Christ hath set to rule over the same. Therefore they ought to take care and to provyde for all her necessities, as these who must give a count, & be answerable to God for any hurt which shee receiveth, in things Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall, for which (when they might) they did not provyde a remedie: Which beeing so, it followeth, that when Princes will neither convocat Synods, nor con∣sent to the convocating of thē, yet if the convocating of a Synod, be a necessary meane for healing of the Churches hurt, and Eccle∣siasticall Persons be able, (through the happy occasion of a fit op∣portunity,) synodically to assemble themselves, in that case they ought by themselves to come togither, unlesse one would say, that Princes alone, and not Pastors, must give a count to God, how it hath gone with the Church, in matters Spirituall and Eccle∣siasticall.

If it be objected, that our Divines mantaine against Papists, that the right and power of convocating Synods pertaineth to Princes. Ans. And so say I, but for making the purpose more plaine I adde three distinctions. 1. In ordinary cases, and when Princes are not enemies to the trueth and purity of the Gospell, Ecclesiasticall Per∣sons should not doe well to assemble themselves togither in a Synod, except they be convocate with the auctority or consent of Princes. Yet as r Iunius sheweth, in extraordinary cases, and when the Ma∣gistrat will not concurre not joyne with the Church, the Church may well assemble and come togither beside his knowledge; and without his consent, for that extraordinary evills must have extraordinary remedies. 2. Ecclesiasticall persons may convo∣cat Councells, simply and by a spirituall power and jurisdiction: but to convocat them by a temporall and coactive power, pertai∣neth to Princes onely. Ecclesiasticall Power (saith s the Archb. of Spa∣lato), may appoint and convocate Councels: but yet the Ecclesiasticall Power it selfe cannot with any effect or working compell Bishops, especially if the Bishops of another Province, or Kingdome, or Patriarchship, be to be con∣vocated. For because the Church can works by her censures and deprive them who refuse of her Communion, if they come not; yet they shall not therefore come to the Councell if they contemne the censure Therefore that no man may be able to resist, it is necessary that they be called by a coactive auctority, which can con∣straine them who gainestand both with banishments, and bodily punishments, & compell the Bishops, not onely of one Province, but also of the whole King∣dome or Empire, to conveene. 3. In the maine and substantiall respects, the convocation of Councels pertaineth to the Ministers of the Church, that is, as Councels are Ecclesiasticall meetings, for put∣ting order to Ecclesiasticall matters, they ought to be assembled by the Spirituall Power of the Ministers, whose part it is, to espie and note all the misorders and abuses in the Church, which must bee

righted. But because Councels are such meetings, as must have a certaine place designed for them, in the Dommions and Territo∣ries of Princes, needing further, for their safe assembling, a certifi∣cation of their Princely protection; and finally, it beeing expedient for the better successe of Councels, that Christian Princes be present therein, either personally, or by their Commissioners, that they may understand the Councels, Conclusions, and Decrees, & assenting unto the same, ratify and establish them by their Regall and Royall Auctority; because of these circumstances it is, that the consent and auctority of Christian Princes, is, and ought to be sought and ex∣spected for the assembling of Synods.

As for the right of presidency and moderation, wee distinguish with t Iunius two sorts of it, both which have place in Councels; vix. the moderation of the Ecclesiasticall action, and the modera∣tion of the humane order; and with him we say, that in Councels, the whole Ecclesiasticall action ought to be moderated by such a President, as is elected for the purpose, even as Hosius Bishop of Corduba was chosen to preside in the first Councell of Nice: Which office agreeth not to Princes: for in the point of propounding right∣ly the state of questions and things to be handled, and of contai∣ning the disputations in good order, Certe praefidere debet persona Ec∣clesiastica, in sacris literis erudita saith u the Archb. of Spalato. The presiding and moderating in the humane order, that is, by a coactive power to compesce the turbulent, to avoid all confusion and con∣tention, and to cause a peaceable proceeding and free deliberation, pertaineth indeed to Princes, and so did Constantine preside in the same Councell of Nice.

DIGRESSION III.

Of the judging of Controversies and Questions of Faith.

THere is a twofold judgement which discerneth and judgeth of Faith. The one absolute, whereby the most high God, whose supreme Auctority alone, bindeth us to beleeve whatsoever he propoundeth to be believed by us, hath in his written Word pronounced, declared, and established; what he would have us to believe concerning himself, or his worship. The other limited and subordinate: which is either publike or private. That which is publike, is either ordinary or extraordinary. The Ministe∣riall or subordinate publike judgement, which I call ordinary, is the judgement of every Pastor or Doctor; who by reason of his publike vocation and office, ought by his publike Ministery to di∣rect and instruct the judgments of other men, in matters of Faith.

Which judgement of Pastors and Doctors, is limited and restricted to the plaine warrants and testimonies of Holy Scripture, x they themselves beeing onely the Ambassadours of the judge, to preach and publish the sentence which he hath established, so that a Pastor is not properly judex but Index. The subordinate publike judge∣ment, which is extraordinary, is the judgement of a Councell, as∣sembled for the more publike and effectuall establishment and de∣claration of one or moe points of Faith, and heads of Christian Do∣ctrine, & that in Opposition to all contrary heresie, or error, which is broached and set a foot in the Church. y From which Councell, no Christian man who is learned in the Scriptures, may be exclu∣ded, but ought to be admitted to utter his judgement in the same. For in the indagation or searching out of a matter of Faith, they are not the persons of men, which give auctority to their sayings, but the reasons and documents which every one bringeth for his judge∣ment. The subordinate judgement, which I call private, is the judge∣ment of Discretion, z whereby every Christian, for the certaine information of his owne minde, and the satisfaction of his owne conscience, may and ought to trie and examine, as well the De∣crees of Councels', as the Doctrines of particular Pastors, and in so farre to receive and believe the same, as he understandeth them to agree with the Scriptures.

Beside these, there is no other kind of judgement, which God hath allowed to men, in matters of Faith. Which beeing first ob∣served, we say next concerning the part of Princes, that when que∣stions and controversies of Faith, are tossed in the Church, that which pertaineth to them, is, to convocate a Councell for the De∣cision of the matter, civilly to moderate the same, by causing such an orderly and peaceable proceeding, as is alike necessary in every grave Assembly, whether of the Church or of the Common-wealth; and finally, by their coactive temporall power, to urge and procure, that the decrees of the Councell be received, and the Faith there∣in contained, professed by their subjects.

But neither may they, by their owne Auctority, and without a Councell, decide any controverted matter of Faith, nor yet ha∣ving convocate a Councell, may they take upon them to command, rule, order, and dispose the disputes and deliberations according to their arbitrement; nor lastly, may they, by vertue of their Regall Dignity, claime any power to examine the Decrees concluded in the Councell, otherwise, then by the judgement of private dis∣cretion, which is common to every Christian.

First, I say, they may not by themselves presume, publikely and judicially, to decide and define any matter of Faith, which is questioned in the Church: but this definition they ought to remit unto a lawfull and free Councell. Ambrose would not come to the

Court to be judged by the Emperour Valentinian, in a matter of Faith, and asked, when ever he heard that Emperours judged Bishops in matters of Faith, seeing, if that were granted, it would follow that Laymen should dispute and deba•…•…e matters, and Bishops heare, yea that Bishops should learne of Laymen.

The true ground of which refusall (cleare enough in it selfe) is darkened by a D. Field, who alledgeth, 1. That the thing which Valentinian tooke on him, was, to judge of a thing already resolved in a generall Councell called by Constantine, as if it had been free, and not yet judged of at all. 2. That Valentinian was knowen to be partiall; that he was but a Novice; and the other Iudges which he meant to associate to himselfe suspected. But howsoever these cir∣cumstances might serve the more to justify Ambrose his not com∣pearing, to be judged in a matter of Faith by Valentinian, yet the D. toucheth not that which is most considerable, namely, the reason which he alledged for his not compearing, because it hath been at no time heard of, that Emperours judged Bishops in matters of Faith, and if that were granted, it would follow, that Bishops should learne of Laymen. Which reason holdeth ever good, even though the thing hath not beene formerly judged by a Councell.

And furthermore, if these (which the D. mentioneth) were the true reasons of his refusing to be judged by Valentinian, then why did he pretend another reason, (whereof we have heard) and not rather defend himselfe with the reall and true reasons? Wherefore we gather, that the reason which made Ambrose refuse to be judged by him, was no other then this, because he considered, that Princes neither by themselves, nor by any whom they please to choose, may, without a lawfully assembled and free Councell, usurpe a pub∣like judgement and decisive sentence in controversies of Faith: which if they arrogate to themselves, they farre exceed the bounds of their vocation For it is not said of Princes, but of Priests, b that their lippes should preserve knowledge, and that they should seeke the Law from their mouthes. And c the Priests did Iehosaphat set in Ierusalem, for the judgement of the Lord, and for controversies, and for judging betwixt Law & Commandement, statutes and judgements.

In the meane while, we denie not, but that in extraordinary ca∣ses, when lawfull Councels can not be had, and when the Cleargie is universally corrupted, through grosse ignorance, perverse affec∣tions, and incorrigible negligence, in such a case, the Prince not∣withstanding the defect of the ordinary and regular Iudges, may yet by the Power of he civill sword, represse and punish so many as pub∣lish and spread such Doctrines, as both he and other Christians by the judgement of discretion, plainely understand from Scripture, to be hereticall.

Next I say, that the Prince having assembled a Councell, may not

take so much upon him, as imperiously to command what he thin∣keth good, in the disputes and deliberations, & to have every thing ordered, disposed, and handled according to his minde. To debate and define Theologicall controversies, and to teach what is Orthodoxall, what Hereticall, is the office of Divines; yet by a coactive auctority to judge this Or∣thodoxe Faith to be received by all, and Hereticall pravity to be rejected is the office of Kings, or the supreme Magistrates in every Commonwealth, saith d the Bishop of Sarisburie. And e againe, in Searching, Directing, Teaching; Divines, ordinarily and by reason of their calling, ought to goe be fore Kings themselves: but in commanding, establishing, compelling; Kings doe farre excell. Where he sheweth, how in defining of the Contro∣versies of Religion, in one respect Ecclesiasticall persons, and in another respect Kings have the first place.

In the debating of a question of Faith, Kings have not, by ver∣tue of their Princely vocation, any precedencie or chiefe place, the action beeing meerely Ecclesiasticall. For, howbeit Kings may con∣vocate a Councell, preside also and governe the same as concer∣ning the humane and politicall order, yet saith f Iunius, Actiones, deliberationes, & definitiones, ad substantiam rei Ecclesiasticae pertinentes, à Sacerdotio sunt, à caetu servorum Dei, quibus rei suae administrationem man∣davit Deus. And with him the Archb. of Spalato saith in like man∣ner, that howbeit Christian Princes have convocated Councels, and civilly governed the same, yet they had no power nor auctority in the very discussing, handling, and deciding of matters of Faith.

What then? In the handling of controversies of Faith, have Prin∣ces no place nor power at all, beside that of Politicall governement onely? Surely by vertue of their Princely auctority, they have no other place in the hādling of these matters. Yet, what if they be men of singular learning and understanding in the Scriptures? Then let them propound their owne suffrage, with the grounds and reasons of it, even as other learned men in the Councell doe. But neither as Princes, nor as men singularly learned, may they require that others in the Councell shall dispute and debate matters, and that they themselves shall sit as Iudges having judiciall power of a ne∣gative voice. For in a Councell, no mans voice hath any greater strength, then his reasons and probations have. Non enim admit∣to, &c. For I admit not in a Councell (saith h the same Prelate) some as Iudges, others as Disputators, for I have shewed that a conciliarie judge∣ment, consisteth in the approbation of that sentence, which above others hath been shewed to have most waight, and to which no man could enough oppose. Wherefore no man in the Councell ought to have a judiciarie voice, unlesse he bee withall a Disputator, and assigne a reason wherefore hee adheres to that judgement, and repels another, and that reason, such a one, as is drawen from the Scriptures onely, and from Antiquity.

Lastly, I hold, that after the definition and decision of a Coun∣cell,

Princes may not take upon them, by any judiciall power or pu∣blike vocation, to examine the same, as if they had auctority to pro∣nounce yet another decisive sentence, either ratifying or reversing what the Councell hath decreed. Most certaine it is, that before Princes give their Royall assent, unto the Decrees of any Councell whatsoever, and compell men to receive & aknowledge the same, they ought first of all carefully to trie and examine them, whether they agree with the Scriptures or not, and if they find them not to agree with the Scriptures, then to denie their assent and auctority thereto. But all this Princes doe not by any judiciall power, or pu∣blike auctority, but onely by that judgement of private discretion, which they have as Christians, and which togither with them is common also to their subjects: for neither may a Master of a Fami∣ly commend, to his children and servants, the profession of that Faith, which is published by the Decrees of a Councell, except in like manner he examine the same by the Scriptures.

DIGRESSION IV.

Of the power of the Keyes and Ecclesiasticall censures.

ECclesiasticall censures and punishments, wherewith Delin∣quents are bound, and from which when they turne penitents they are loosed, are of two sorts: either such as are common, and agree unto all, as Excommunication and Absolution; or such as are peculiar, and agree onely to men of Ecclesiasticall order, as Suspension, Deprivation, &c.

As touching the power of the Keyes, to bindand loose, Excom∣municate and absolve: first of all, Princes are to remember, that nei∣ther they may, by themselves exerce this power, (for i Regum est Corporalem irrogare paenam; Sacerdotum Spiritualem inferre vindictam;) nor yet by their Deputes or Commissioners in their name, and with auctority from them, because as they have not themselves the po∣wer of the Keyes, so neither can they communicate the same unto others. Secondly, forasmuch as Princes are the wardens, defenders, and revengers of both the Tables, they ought therefore to provide and take course, that neither Laymen be permitted to have and exerce the power of Excommunication, nor yet that the Prelates themselves be suffered in their particular Dioceses, to appropriate this power and externall jurisdiction, as peculiar to themselves: but that it remaine in their hands to whom it pertaineth by Divine institution. What a woefull abuse is it, that in our neighbour Chur∣ches of England, and Ireland, the Bishops Vicar generall, or Offi∣ciall, or Commissarie, beeing oftentimes such a one as hath never

entered into any holy Orders, shall sit in his Courts, to use (I should have said to abuse) the power of Excommunication and Absolution? And what though some silly Presbiter bee present in the Court? Doth not the Bishops Substitute, beeing a Layman, exa∣mine and judge the whole matter, decree, and give sentence what is to be done? Hath he not the Presbiters tong tied to his belt? And what doth the Presbiter more, but onely pronounce the sentence according to that which he who sitteth judge in the Court, hath de∣creed and decerned? As touching the Prelates themselves, I pray, by what warrant have they appropriate to themselves, the whole externall jurisdiction of Binding and Loosing, Excommunicating, and Absolving? But that we may a litle scan this their usurpation, and discover the iniquity thereof to the view of Princes, whose part it is, to cause the same to be reformed, let us consider to whom Christ himselfe, k who hath the Key of David, who openeth and no man shutteth, and shutteth, and no man openeth, hath commit∣ted this power of the Keyes to be used upon earth. And first, let us distinguish betwixt the power it selfe, and the execution of it.

The power and auctority of Binding and Loosing, Christ hath delivered to the whole Church, that is, to every particular Church collectively taken. The auctority of Excommunication pertaineth to the whole Church saith l D. Fulke. Ius excommunicandi (saith m Balduine) non est penes quemvis privatum, five ex ordine fit Ecclesiastico, five Politico, &c. Sed hoc jus pertinet ad totam Ecclesiam. So say Zanchius in 4. praec. col. 756. Polanus Synt. lib. 7. cap. 18. Pareus in 1. Cor. 5. de Excom. Cartvvright, on 1. Cor. 5. 4. Perkins on Iude vers. 3. and generally all our sound Writers. n The Magdeburgians cite for the same judgement, Au∣gustine and Primasius. o Gerard citeth also some Popish Writers assenting hereunto. The reasons which we give for confirmation hereof, are these.

1. It pertaineth to the whole Church, collectively taken, to deny her Christian Communion, to such wicked persons as adde contu∣macie to their disobedience; Therefore it pertaineth to the whole Church to Excommunicat them. Againe, it pertaineth to the whole Church, to admit and receive one into her communion and familiar fellowship. Therefore to the whole Church it likewise pertaineth, to cast one out of her communion. Sure, the sentence of Excom∣munication is pronounced in vaine, except the whole Church out of the person thus judged, from all communion with her. And the sentence of Absolution is to as litle purpose pronounced, except the whole Church admit one againe to have communion with her. Shortly, the whole Church hath the power of punishing a man, by denying her communion unto him. Therefore the whole Church hath the power of judging, that he ought to be so punished. The whole Church hath the power of remitting this punishment againe.

Therefore the whole Church hath the power of judging that it ought to be remitted.

2. The Apostle 1. Cor. 5. sheweth the Israelits their purging away of leaven out of all their dwellings in the time of the Passeover, to be a figure of Excommunication, whereby disobedient and obsti∣nat sinners, who are as leaven to infect other men, are to be voided, and thurst out of the Church. Now as the purging away of the lea∣ven, did not peculiarly belong unto any one or some few among the Israëlits, but unto the whole Congregation of Israel: so the A∣postle writting to the whole Church of Corinth. even to as many as should take care to have the whole lumpe kept unleavened, p saith to them all. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lumpe? Purge out therefore the old leaven. Put away from among your selves that wicked person.

3. Christ hath delivered the power of binding and loosing, to every particular Church or Congregation, collectively taken, which thus we demonstrat. If our brother who trespasseth against us, will neither be reclaimed by privat admonition, nor yet by a rebuke gi∣ven him before some moe witnesses: then q saith Christ, Tell it unto the Church: but if he neglect to heare the Church, let him be unto thee as an Hea∣then man and a Publican. Verely I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven, & whatsoever ye shall loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven. Where he sheweth, that in the Christian Church (which hee was to plant by the Ministery of his Apostles) Excom∣munication was to be used, as the last remedy for curing of the most deadly & desperat evills: which Excommunication he setteth forth, by allusion unto the order and custome of the Iewes in his time, among whom they who were cast out, and excommunicat from the Synagogue, were accounted as Heathens and Publicans. And so when he saith, Let him be unto thee as an Heathen man and a Publican, he presupposeth, that the Church hath Excommunicat him for his con∣tumacie which he hath added to his disobedience. For as r Pareus saith, If by me, and thee, and every one, he is to be accounted for such a man, it must needs be, that the judgement of the Church be by publike declaration made knowen to me, and thee; & every one. And this meaning is throughly drawen out of the following verse. For whatsoever ye shall binde on Earth, &c. Therefore the Church ought first to binde him, before he ought to be ac∣counted by me or thee for one bound, that is, Excommunicat. Now what mea∣neth Christ by the Church, to which he giveth the power of bind∣ing and loosing? Not the Church universall, sure: for I can not tell the Church universall (whether it be understood collectivé, or re∣praesentativè) whensoever my brother trespasseth against me, and will not be reformed. He meaneth therefore the particular Church, whereof for the time it sha•…•…l happen one to be a Member. The power of the Keyes (saith s Perkins, •…•…is given to all Ministers, Churches, & Con∣gregations.

Neither could there otherwise an ordinary, perpetuall, & ready course be had, for the correcting of all publike contumacie and scandall, by the meanes of Ecclesiasticall Discipline. But it will be said, when he biddeth us tell that particular Church, whereof wee are Members, he meaneth not that wee should tell the whole body of that Church collectivè, but that we should tell the Governours of the Church, who are the Church representativè.

How then is this place alledged, to prove, that the whole Church, collectivè, hath Power and Auctority to binde and loose?

Ans. Christ meaneth indeed, that wee should tell those Gover∣nours who represent the Church: but whiles he calleth them by the name of the Church, and sendeth us to them as to those who repre∣sent the Church, he plainly in sinuateth, that they exerce the power of the Keyes (as in his name, so) in the name of the Church, and that this power and auctority pertaineth to the whole Church: even as when one man representeth another mans person, whatsoever power he exerceth •…•…o nomine, doth first of all agree, to the man who is represented, in his owne proper person.

4. t The Apostle writing to the whole Church of Corinth, will have them (being gathered togither) to deliver that incestuous per∣son to Satan. Therefore every particular Church or Congregation, hath power to Excommunicat such a contumacious sinner, as that incestuous person was. It is the common answere of Papists, that albeit the Apostle commanded the act should be done in face of the Church, yet the judgement and auctority of giving sentence, was in himself alone, land not in the Church of Corinth; whereupon they would make it to follow, that the power of Excommunication pertaineth to the Bishop alone, and not the Church. And the same answere doth u Saravia returne to Beza. But howsoever x the Apostle saith, that he had allready judged concerning the incestuous person, yet he did not hereby seclude the Church of Corinth, from the auctority of excommunicating him. It is to be observed saith y Cal∣vine, that Paul, albeit he was an Apostle, doth not for his owne will excommu∣nicat alone: but communicateth his counsell with the Church, that the thing may be done by common auctority. Himself indeed goeth before and sheweth the way: but whiles he adjoyneth to himself other partakers, he signifieth sufficiently, that it is not the privat power of one man. Nay, let us further observe with z Iunius, that the Apostles hath a two fold power: one, com∣monto them with other Presbyters, 1. Pet. 5. 1. another, singular proper, and extraordinary, which they had as Apostles. By this sin∣gular power. Paul saith: a What will ye? shall I come unto you vvith a rod? but by the common power it was that he said: b When ye are ga∣thered togither, and my Spirit, &c. By no other power, then that which was common to him with the rest of the Presbyters or Bishops in

Corinth, did he judge the incestuous person to be excommunicated: and thus, as though he had beene present in body, among the other Presbyters of that Church, and assembled togither with them, in their ordinary Councell or Consistorie (in which c fuerunt libere Apo∣stoli, alij vero Presbyteri ex •…•…ocatione propria, & necessitate officii;) so d he both pronounceth his owne judgement, and likewise goeth before, by pronouncing that judgement which was to be in common by them pronounced, Furthermore, that the Apostle would not have, that incestuous man to be excommunicat by his owne auctority alone, but by the auctority of the Church of Corinth, thus it appea∣reth.

1. e The Apostle challengeth and condemneth the Corinthians, because they had not excommunicat him, before his writting unto them: which he would never have done, if that Church had not had power and auctority of Excommunication.

2. Howbeit the Apostle gave his judgement, that he should be excommunicat, because he ought not to have beene tollerated in the Church, yet for all that, he should not have beene indeed ex∣communicat and thrust out of the Church of Corinth, except the Ministers and Elders of that Church, had in name of the whole body of the same, judicially cast him forth and delivered him to Satan. Which plainly argueth, that he should not have beene ex∣communicat by the Apostles auctority alone, but by the auctority of the Church of Corinth.

3. The Apostle only sheweth, that he should bee excommunicat, but referreth the giving of sentence and judgement upon him, to the Corinthians. For he saith not, that the Corinthians being gathered togither, should declare or witnesse, that such a one was delivered to Satan, by Pauls owne power and auctority, but, that they themsel∣ves should deliver him to Satan vers. 4. 5. And againe, Purge out there∣fore the old leaven. Put away from among your selves that wicked person, v. 7. 13. But saith f Saravia, partes Apostoli in illa actionè fuerunt au∣thoritatis, Ecclesiae vero Corinthiacae, obedientiae. Ans. That the action was done by the auctority of the Church of Corinth, it is manifest both from that which hath beene said, and likewise if further we con∣sider, that the Apostle ascribeth to the Corinthians, as much auctori∣ty in this action, as he assumeth to himself. For he saith of himself, that he had judged concerning him that had done this deed v. 3. and so he saith of them, Doe not ye judge them that are within? vers. 12. Where he speaketh not of the judgement of privat discretion, (for so they might have judged them that were without also,) but even of the externall and authoritative judgement of Ecclesiasticall Dis∣cipline. g The Apostle indeed saith, that he wrote to the Corinthians to excommunicat that person, that he might know them, whether they were obedient in all things: but this proveth not, that the au∣ctority

of the excommunication was not theirs: for their part in this action proceeded both from auctority & from obedience: from auctority, absolutely: from obedience, in some respect. De jure, they had no liberty nor power not to excommunicate him, but were bound to doe that which Paul pointed out to be their duty, and in that respect he calleth them obedient: yet absolutely, and de facto it was free to them, (notwithstanding of Pauls writing to them) ei∣ther to excommunicate him, or not to excommunicate him, and if they had not by their auctority excommunicate him, hee had not been at all excommunicate by any vertue of Pauls judging of him.

4. When the Corinthians proceeded to excommunicate him, h the Apostle calleth this a censure which was inflicted of many: which could not be said if he was to be excommunicate by the Apo∣stles auctority alone.

5. i The Apostle writeth againe to the Corinthians, to forgive the incestuous man, to receive him into their communion, and to re∣mit the punishment of his excommunication, because he was winne to repentance. And k he addeth: To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also. Now, who can remit the punishment, and save one from underlying the censure, except such as have the power and auctority of judgement?

Hitherto we have proven, that the power of binding and loo∣sing, pertaineth to every particular Church collectively taken. But the execution and judiciall exercing of this power, pertaineth to that company and assembly of Elders in every Church, which the Apostle, 1 Tim. 4. 14. calleth a Presbitery. In Scotland we call it a Session. In France it is called a Consistory. In Germany and Belgia according to the Scripture phrase it is tearmed a Presbitery. It is made up of the Pastor or Pastors of every Congregation, togither with those governing Elders which labour there (not in Doctrine, but) in Discipline onely: Of which things, we have spoken l before. That unto this Companie or Consistorie of Elders, pertaineth the power of binding and loosing, it is averred by the best Divines. Calvine on Math 18. 17. 18. & lib. Epistol. Col. 168. 169. Beza contra Sa∣raviam de divers. Minist. grad. Zanchius in 4. praec. col. 756. Iunius animad. in Bell. cont. 5. lib. 1. cap. 14. nota 28. Polanus Synt. lib. 7. cap. 18 Tilen Synt. part. 2. disp. 28. The Professours of Leiden Syn. Pur. Theol. disp. 48. Ge∣rard. loc. Theol. tom. 6. pag. 137. 138. Balduin de cas. consc. lib. 4. cap. 11. cas. 11. Pareus in Math. 18. 17. 18. & in 1 Cor. 5. Cartwright on Math. 18. sect. 7. Fennerus Theol. lib. 7. cap. 7. p. 152. 153. Alstedius Theol. casuum cap. 27. Danaeus Pol. Christ lib. 6 pag. 452. 464. Hēmingius Enchirid. class. 3. cap. 11. pag. 388. Martyr in 1 Cor. 5. and sundry others. m Bullinger recordeth, that this was the manner of the particular Churches in Helvetia, to choose unto themselves a certaine Senate of Elders, or company of the best men in the Church, which might according

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

to the Canon of Holy Scripture, exerce the Discipline of Excom∣munication. Which forme is well warranted by the Scriptures. For when Christ committeth the auctority of binding and loosing unto the Church, Math, 18. 17. 18. Howsoever the power & auctority it selfe pertaine to any particular Church collectively taken, as hath been said, yet the execution of the same is committed to the Consi∣story or Senate of Elders, which representeth that Church, and which Paul calleth a Presbitery. n Zanchius saith, that Chrysostome, Bullinger, and all good Interpreters, understand the Presbitery to be there meant by Christ, when he saith, Tell the Church. Chrysostome saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, saith o Iunius, the Ecclesia∣sticall Synedrium made up of Pastors and Elders. Thus p Camero likewise expoundeth the place. Ecclesiae nomine saith he, videtur Christus significasse Collegium Presbiterorum qui Ecclesiae Christianae erant praefuturi, cujus Presbyterij mentio fit, 1 Tim. 4. Now if Christ hath committed the power of Excommunication unto the Church, what have Bi∣shops to say for themselves, who appropriate th•…•… power unto them∣selves, each one in his owne Diocie? q for we can not give the name of the Church unto a Bishop: because he is but one man, and the Church is a company of many men. Nay, nor yet can we give the name of the Church unto a company of Bishops; for if they might bee called the Church, it should be for this respect alone, because they represent the Church. But soli Episcopi, &c. Bishops alone saith r Gerard, or they who teach, can not represent the Church, since hearers also pertaine to the definition thereof, but the Presbitery can represent the Church, whereunto not onely they pertaine who labour in the Word, but also Elders or Governours, put in auctority, for expeding of Ecclesiasticall matters in name of the whole Church. We graunt then, s that by the Church, Christ meaneth that company of Church Gouvernours, whereby a certaine particular Church is represented, but for as much as the Church consisteth of two integrant parts, viz. Pastors and Sheepe, Teachers and Hearers, we therefore denie, that the representative Church whereof Christ speaketh, can be any other, then that Eccle∣siasticall Consistory, whereof we have spoken.

Moreover, albeit the Apostle wrote to the whole Church of Corinth to deliver the incestuous man to Satan, because the matter could not be otherwise done, but onely in the name, and with the consent of that whole Church, yet he never meant, that the com∣mon promiscuous multitude should by their suffrages and voices examine and judge that cause. But saith t Calvine because the mul∣titude unlesse it be governed by councell, never doth any thing moderately, nor gravely, there was ordained in the auncient Church (meaning the Aposto∣lick Church) a Presbytery, that is, a company of Elders, which by the consent of all, had the first judgement and examination of things: from it the matter was carried to the people, but beeing already determined before. Againe,

when the Apostle writeth to them in his second Epistle, that they should forgive him, because he had repented, thus he reasoneth; u Sufficient to such a man is this censure which was inflicted of many. Which words that we may the better understand, it is worthy of observa∣tion, (which not x Calvins onely, but y Saravia also noteth) that it appeareth from this place, he was not excommunicate, but by sharpe rebukes tymously winne to repentance, whereby the Apostle sheweth it to be needlesse, yea most inconvenient to proceed against him, to the extremity of Discipline. The Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, there used by the Apostle, signifieth rebuke, reprehension, or chiding, saith D. Fulke. And so Scapula taketh it to be the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and to signifie another thing then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Beza and Tre∣mellius turne 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by increpatio. Ar. Montanus readeth, objurgatio. This chiding or threatning of the man, proceeded not from the whole Church of Corinth, but onely from many therein, as is plaine from the Text, and as a Saravia also graunteth. And who were the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, those ma•…•…y of whom the Apostle speaketh? Not such as from Christian and brotherly charity did privately chide and re∣buke him, for the matter was not then depending in private rebukes, but by the Apostles direction it was brought to the Churches part, and to publike Discipline, the scandall it selfe beeing so publike and notoriously manifest. They were therefore such as had pub∣like office and auctority to chide him. And who were those, but the Consistory of Pastors and Elders, which represented the whole Church, and were set in auctority for judging and managing of things pertaining to Ecclesiasticall Discipline? They (no doubt) beeing met together, called the man before them, and did most sharpely rebuke him and chide with him, and threatned that they would not onely debarre him from the Lords Table, (which is cal∣led lesser Excommunication, but more properly, a step or degree ten∣ding next to Excommunication:) but also wholly cast him out of the Church, and deliver him to Satan. Whereupon the man beeing made to see the grievousnesse of his sinne, and the terrible punish∣ment which was to follow upon it, becommeth most sorrowfull, humble and penitent. And this moved the Apostle to say, Sufficient to such a man, &c. as if he would say: what needeth him now to be excommunicate, and so to be corrected and put to shame by you all, when every one of you shall denie to him your Christian commu∣nion, as one wholly cast out of the Church? Is it not enough, that many among you, even your whole Presbitery, hath put him to such publike shame by their sharpe reprehensions, and to so great feare by their dreadfull threatnings? and since, through the blessing of God upon these meanes, he is already w•…•…nne to repentance, why

would you have him yet more publikely corrected and rejected by all and every one?

And further, the Apostle addeth, that now they should not onely forgive him and comfort him vers. 7. but also confirme, (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) their love towards him vers. 8. Now 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth to confirme or ratify by auctority, and so b Chemnitius, Bullinger, and Cartwright expound it in this place. It commeth from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Auctority, whence commeth also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Lord or one having auctority, As therefore the Presbitery or company of Pastors and Elders, had by their auctority established, that he was to be excommunicate, and determined to proceed to the execution of extreme Discipline against him, so now the Apostle would have them by the same au∣ctority, to ratify and establish the remission of this punishment unto him, and to decree that the Church should not denie her commu∣nion unto him. For this auctority of binding and loosing, though it pertained to the whole Church, in actu primo sive in esse, yet it per∣tained to the Presbitery alone, in actu secun•…•… sive in operari: and even as the act of speaking, pertaineth to a man, as Principium quod, but to the tongue alone, as Principium quo; so albeit the power of the Keyes, doth primarly and principally belong to the Church colle∣ctively taken, yet the actuall execution of this power, belongeth onely to the Presbitery which representeth the Church, and unto which the Church hath committed her auctority to bind and loose. Wherefore, since the Apostle writeth to the whole Church of Co∣rinth, to confirme by auctority their love to the penitent man, and since this auctority in the actuall execution of it (which the Apostle craveth) did not agree to that whole Church collectively taken, we must needs understand his meaning to be, that their love towards that man, & their forgiving of him, should be ratified & confirmed by the auctority of those Church Governours, qui Ecclesiae nomen ad caetum repraesentant, totius nimirum Presbiterij authoritate atque consensu.

Thus have we shewed, that the actuall use of the Keyes, or the execution of the auctority of binding and loosing, pertaineth to that Ecclesiasticall Sena•…•…e in every particular Church, which the Apostle calleth a Presbitery. For further illustration of the truth whereof, I adde these foure observations.

1. We must distinguish f a twofold power of the keyes: the one is execute in Doctrine: the other in Discipline: the one Concionalis: the other Iudicialis. Touching the former, we graunt it is proper for Pastors alone, whose office and vocation it is, by the Preaching and Publishing of Gods Word, to shut the Kingdome of Heaven against impenitent and disobedient men, and to open it unto peni∣tent sinners, to binde Gods heavie wrath upon the former, and (by application of the promises of mercy) to loose the lat•…•…er from the

sentence and fear of Condemnation. When we ascribe the power of binding and loosing to that whole Consistory, wherein gover∣ning Elders are joyned togither with Pastors, we meane only of the Keyes of externall Discipline, which are used in Ecclesiasticall Courts and Iudicatories.

2. When we teach, that the Pastor or Pastors of every particular Church and Congregation, with the Elders of the same, being met togither, have power to binde and loose, we understand this, only of such places wherein a competent number of understanding and qualified men, may be had to make up an Eldership: otherwise let there be one Eldership made up of two or three of the next adja∣cent Parishes, according as was ordained by the Church of Scot∣land, in the seaventh Chapter of the second booke of Discipline. Sine totius, &c. Without the consent of some whole Church saith g Zan∣chius, no man ought to be excommunicat. Yea I adde, if it be a small Church, and not consisting of many learned and skillfull men, Excommunication ought not to bee done, except the nighbour Churches be asked counsell of. And as touching the Pastors part, h Calvine saith well, Nunquam, &c. I ne∣ver thought it expedient, that the liberty of excommunicating should be per∣mitted to every Pastor. The feare of great inconveniences, which he thought likely to follow upon such a custome, if once it were per∣mitted, makes him professe in that Epistle, that he durst not advise Liserus, to excommunicate any man, without taking counsell of other Pastors. Now I much marvell what Butt i D. Forbesse shot at, when he entitleth one of his Chapters, De potestate Excommuni∣candi, and then in the body of the Chapter doth no more at all, but only quote those two Testimonies of Zanchius and Calvine: Both of which, doe utterly condemne the usurpation of Bishops, who ap∣propriat to themselves the power of Excommunication, & ascribe this power to the Consistory of Pastors and Elders in every parti∣cular Church: and in the forequotted places, doe only (for preven∣ting of abuses) set some bounds to the execution of their power: which bounds we also think good to be kept, Viz. that if a Church be so small, that it hath not so many well qualified men, as may be sufficient to assist the Pastor in the governement thereof, then let one commone Eldership be made up out of it, and some other nighbour Churches: By which meanes it shall moreover come to passe, (which is the other caution to be given) that not every Pastor (no not with the Elders of his Congregation) shall be permitted to have full liberty of binding and loosing, but shall in those matters receive counsell and advice from other Pastors. Howbeit for this latter purpose, the Church of Scotland hath profitably provyded another remedy also, namely, that in certaine chief places, all the Pastors in the adjacent bounds, shall at set and ordinary times assem∣ble themselves, (which Assemblies in this Nation we call Presby∣teries)

that so the Churches may be governed Communi Presbytero∣rum consilio, as Hierome speaketh of the Primitive times of the Church.

3. Though the execution of the Discipline of Excommunica∣tion and Absolution, pertaine to the Consistory of the Pastor and Elders in every Church, yet this Discipline is to be by them exe∣cute k in name of the whole Church. l Saravia is bold to affirme, that he who receiveth a sinner, or casteth him out of the Church, doth this in the name and auctority of God alone. We have pro∣ven by strong Arguments, that the auctority of Excommunication pertaineth to the whole Church: which though he contradicteth, yet in m one place forgetting himself he aknowledgeth, that the au∣ctority of the Church of Corinth, was to interveene in the Excom∣munication of the incestuous man. Wherefore, as in the name of God, so in the name and auctority of the whole Church, must one be cast our, or received.

4. To the right execution of this Discipline, n the manifest con∣sent of the whole Church is also necessary: The trueth whereof be∣side that it appeareth from that which hath beene said concerning the Churches auctority, it is further confirmed, if we consider, either the importance of the thing, or the good of the person. Touching the importance of the thing, Gravissima, &c. Most waightie matters in the Church saith o Gerard, (and the same saith p Zanchius also,) ought not to be undertaken without the consent of the whole Ecclesiasticall body, and as Pope Leo writeth, Such thing as pertaine unto all, ought to be done with the consent of all. But vvhat can be more waighty, and vvhat doth more pertaine to the body of the Church, then to cut off some member from the body? And touching the good of the person, q Augustine sheweth that then only a Sinner is both stricken with feare, and healed with shame, when seeing himself Anathematized by the whole Church, he can not find a fellowe multitude, togither wherewith he may re∣joyce in his sinne, and insult upon good men. And that otherwise, if the tares growe so ranke, that they can not be pulled up, and if the same evill disease take hould of so very many, that the consent of the Church can not be had to the excommunication of a wicked person, then good men must grieve and groane, and endure what they can not help. Therefore, that Excommunication may fruitfully succeed, the consent of the people is necessary: r Frustra enim ejicitur ex Ecclesia, & consortio fidelium privatur, quem populus abigere, & à quo abstinere recuset. Howbei•…•… even in such cases, when the consent of the Church can not be had to the execution of this Discipline, faithfull Pastors and Professors must, every one for his owne part, take heed that he haveno fellowship with the unfruitfull workes of darkenesse, but even reprove them; yea they ought, in sensu negativo, excom∣municat those who should be (but are not) excommunicat positively:

which negative Excommunication, is not an Ecclesiasticall censure' but either a bare punishment, or a cautell and animadversion; And so saith s the Archbishop of Spalato, not only one brother may re∣fuse to communicat with another, but a people also may refuse to communicat with their Pastor, which he confirmeth by certaine examples. But the publike censure of positive Excommunication should not be inflicted without the Churches consent, for the rea∣sons forsaid. Cyprian writteth to Cornelius Bishop of Rome, that he had much laboured with the people, that peace might be given to them who had fallen, that is, that they might be againe received into the communion of the Church: which if he might have done by him∣self, why did he labour and deale so much with the people in that bu∣sinesse? And as they were not received into the Churches commu∣nion, without the peoples consent, so neither were they, with out their consent, excommunicat. t Chrysostome sheweth concerning his time, that when one was to be excommunicat, the whole Church was humbled in prayer to God for him, and whenhe was againe re∣leased, they did all kindly salute him, & wish him peace. u Tertullian also writteth, that he who was to be excommunicat, in the publike Assembly of the Church, was by the common consent of all, stric∣ken with judgement, and that all the approven and well liked off Elders, had the presidence or direction of the rest of the Church in these Matters.

Now from all this, which hath beene said of the power and aucto∣rity to excommunicat and absolve, it is manifest how unjustly usurping Prelats doe arrogat & appropriat to themselves this power, which Christ hath committed to every particular Church or Con∣gregation, and ordained to be execute by the Ecclesiasticall Con∣sistory within the same. Which Episcopall usurpation, as it hath beene shewed to bee most contrary to Divine Institution, so doth it also depart from the manner of the auncient Church: For it may be seene in x Cyprian, that the auctority of reconciling and receiving into the Church, such as had fallen, was not proper to the Bishop, but with him common to his Cleargie and Presbytery, and that jus communicationis was given them by the Cleargie, as well as by the Bishop. We have heard out of y Hierome, that a Bishop did nothing, which a Presbyter did not also, except only that he gave the rite or sig•…•…e of Ordination, that is, imposition of hands. Whereby we un∣derstand, that as all other things, beside Ordination, so the power of Excommunication among the rest, was alike common to Bishops and Presbyters. Whence it is, that the same Hierome writting to De∣metriades, calleth excommunication, Episcoporum & Presbyterorum cen∣sura. And z elsewhere. Alligat vel solvit Episcopus & Presbyter. Iusti∣nian Novel. 123. cap. •…•…1. saith, Omnibus autem Episcopis & Presbyteris in∣terdicimus segregare aliquem à sacra communionè, antequam causa monstre∣tur,

&c. certifying them, if they doe otherwise, that he whom they excommunicat, should be loosed from Excommunication à majore Sacerdote. Whence we see, that Presbyters also were wont to excom∣municat, & that this power was common to them with the Bishops. The first Councell of Carthage Can. 23. decreeth that a Bishop heare no mans cause without the presence of his Cleargie: and that other∣wise his sentence shall be void, except it be confirmed by the pre∣sence of his Cleargie. The Canon Law it self hath some vestigies of the auncient order: for a it ordaineth, that when a Bishop either excommunicateth or absolveth any man, twelve of the Cleargie be present and concurre with him. b D▪ Forbesse now also aknowled∣geth, that it is not lawfull for a Bishop to exerce the power of pub∣like jurisdiction by himself, and without the Presbytery; and un∣der this power of Iurisdiction whereof he speaketh, c he compre∣hendeth, the Visitation of Churches, Ordination, Suspension, and Deposition of Ministers, the Excommunicating of contumacious persons, & the Reconciling of them when they become penitent, the calling of the fellow Presbyters to a Synod, the making of Ec∣clesiasticall Canons, &c. which power of Iurisdiction d saith he, remaineth one and the same, whole and entire, both in the Bishop, and in the Presbytery, in him personally, in it collegially. His con∣fession of the Presbyteries power and auctority, we catch & lay hold on: but whereas he would have this power any way proper and perso∣nall to Bishops, he is confuted by our former Arguments.

And thus farre have we demonstrat to Princes, who be they, to whom Christ hath committed the power of Excommunication, that with them they may cause it to remaine, and correct the usur∣pation of Prelats, who bereave them of it. Let us next consider, what Princes may, or should doe, after that the sentence of any mans Excommunication, or Reconciliation, is given forth by them, to whom the power of this Discipline pertaineth. e The Arch∣bishop of Spalato is of opinion, that, not only it is free to Princes to communicat with excommunicat persons, but also, that if they shall happen to communicat with them, the Church (for the re∣verence she oweth to Princes) should straight absolve them, and that her sentence of Excommunication should no longer have any strength. What? Shall the Church draw, and put up againe, the Spirituall Sword, at the pleasure of Princes? Or because Pr•…•…ces will perhaps cast holy things to Dogges: must others doe so like∣wise? O prodigious licentiousnesse, and hellish misorder, worthy to be drowned in the lake of Lethè! But what then is the part of the Prince, after that the Church hath given judgement? Surely, whensoever need is, he ought by the privat judgement of Christian discretion, to trie and examine, whether this Discipline be rightly execute, or not. If he find the execution thereof to be unreprove∣able,

and that yet the sinner goeth on in his contumacy, f then by his Civill power he ought further to punish him in his person, or wordly estate, that he may either reforme or represse, such a one as hath not been terrified by the Churches censures. But if after triall, he understand that the sentence given forth is unjust and erroneous, either through the ignorance or the malice of the Ecclesiasticall and regular Iudges, then hee ought to interpone his auctority, and cause a due proceeding, for in such extraordinary cases of the failing of Ecclesiasticall persons, Princes may doe much in things and cau∣ses Spirituall, which ordinarily they can not.

It remaineth to shew, who have the power of those censures and punishments which are proper to Ecclesiasticall persons. Where first we are to consider, that there are two sorts of faults which make Ecclesiasticall men worthy to be punished, viz. either such as vio∣late sacred, or such as violate civill and humane duties: the one is to be judged by Ecclesiasticall Iudges alone, and that according to the Lawes of God and the Church: the other by civill Iudges alone, and that according to the civill and municipall Lawes of the Com∣mon-wealth. This latter sort againe is twofold, for either the fault is such, that though a man be condignely punished for it by the ci∣vill Magistrate, yet he doth not therefore fall from his Ecclesiasti∣call office or dignity; of which sort experience sheweth many: or else such as beeing punished according to their quality and demerit, a man by necessary consequence falleth from the Ecclesiasticall fun∣ction and dignity which before he had; this was Abiathars case, and the case of so many as beeing justly punished by Proscription, In∣carceration or Banishment, are secundario & ex consequenti shut from their bearing office in the Church. If Abiather had sinned in a sacred matter, the cognition thereof saith g Iunius, had pertained to the Priests: but because he sinned against the Common-wealth and the Kings Majesty, it was necessary to deale with him Civilly, and not Ecclesiastically. What? are not Ecclesiasticall men in this time also thought to be lawfully judged by the Civill Magistrate, if at any time they be found guilty of appaired Majesty? As for the other sorts of saults, whereby (as we have said) Sacred and Ec∣clesiasticall duties are violate, such as the teaching of False and Hereticall Doctrine, neglecting of Discipline, unbeseeming and scandalous conversation, &c. which things (if they be not amended) they who have the execution of Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction com∣mitted to them, ought to punish by Suspension, Deposition, &c. Now as when one is called to the worke of the Ministery, his fit∣nesse and qualification for that worke, should be tried and judged by the Cleargie of the adjacent bounds assembled in their Classicall Presbitery, to whom it also pertaineth (after that he is by them tried and approven, and after that he is elected by that Church where he is to serve) to send him out from them with power to exercise the

office of a Pastor: so when there is just cause of Suspending or De∣priving him, it belongeth to the same Presbitery to consider and judge hereof, and according to his offence to give judgement against him. For who should recall him, but they who sent him? Or who should discharge him his Ministeriall function, except they who or∣dained him to exerce the same? And who may take the power from him, but they who gave the power unto him? That Ordination per∣raineth to the whole Presbitery, and not to the Bishop alone, wee have shewed before: and now by the same reason we say, Suspension and Deposition pertaine to the Presbitery also, and are not in the power of the Bishop. And that in the auncient Church, as Bishops gave not Ordination, so neither did they Suspend nor Depose any man without the common Councell, Advice, and concurrence of the Presbitery, yea and sometimes of a Synod, it is cleare from Cypr. lib. 1. Epist. 9. lib. 3. Epist. 2. & 10. Concil. Carthag. 3. can. 8. Concil. Carthag. 4. can. 22. 23. Concil. African. can 20. Concil. Hispal. 2 can. 6. Iu∣stin Novel. 42. cap. 1. Hieron. comment. ad Isa. 3. Siricius Epist. ad Ambros. inter Ambr. epist. 80. Touching the Suspension and Deposition of Ministers, the Assembly at Glosgowe anno 1610. ordained, that the Bishop should associate to himselfe the Ministery of these bounds where the Delinquent served, that is, the Presbitery whereof hee hath been a Member, and togither with them there take triall of the fact, and upon just cause found, to Deprive or Suspend. Which act was ratified in the 21 Parliament of King Iames an∣no 1612. Neverthelesse, if any man thinke the sentence of the Bi∣shop and the Presbitery given forth against him, to be unjust, he ought to have liberty of recourse to the Synod, and there to bee heard, according as it was decreed by the fourth Councell of Car∣thage Can. 66. But oftimes the matter is of such difficulty or impor∣tance, that the Bishop and the Presbitery may not giveout an per∣emptory sentence of Suspension or Deprivation, h till the mat∣ter be brought to the Synod of the province, i where according to the auncient order the matter is to be handled, not by the censure of one Bishop, but by the judgement of the whole Cleargie gathered togither.

Princes therefore may not suffer Bishops to usurpe the power of Suspending and Depriving at their pleasure, and whensoever they commit any such tyranny in smiting of their fellow servants, it is the part of Princes to cause these things to be redressed, and for this end gratiously to receive the grievances of oppressed Ministers. The Arians of old beeing assembled in a Councell at Antioch, k decreed, that if any Ecclesiasticall Person, should without the advice and the letters of the Bishops of the Province, and chiefly of the Metropolitan, goe to the Emperour to put up any grievance unto him, he should be cast out, not onely from the holy Commu∣nion, but from his proper dignity which hee had in the Church.

Whereupon l Osiander hath this observation: This Canon also was com∣posed against holy Athanasius: for Attanasius beeing expelled by the Arrians, had fled to the Emperour Constantine the younger, and had from him obtained a returne to his owne Church. Now this Canon is very unjust, which forbids that a Bishop or any other Minister of the Church, beeing unjustly oppressed, flee to his godly Civill Magistrate: since it was lawfull to the Apostle Paul to appeale to the Romane Emperour, wicked Nero, as the acts of the Apostles wit∣nesse. But it may be seen in this place, that Bishops were very soone seeking dominion, yea tyrannie over the Church, and over their Colleags. Besides all this, there is yet another thing which ought to have a very princi∣pall consideration in the Deposition of a Minister, and that is the consent of the Church and Congregation where he hath served. Let the Magistrate know saith m Gerard, that as the vocation of Ministers pertaineth to the whole Church, so to the same also pertaineth the removing of Ministers, therefore as a Minister ought not to be obtruded upon a unwilling Church, so the Hearers beeing unwilling and striving against it, a fit Minister ought not to be plucked away from them. The Deposing of a Minister whom the Church loves and willingly heares, n Balduin accoun∣teth to be high Sacriledge, and holdeth, that as the calling, so the dis∣missing of Ministers pertaineth to the whole Church. And so teach∣eth o Iunius. Shortly, as a man is rightly called to the ministeriall office and dignity, when he is elected by the Church, and ordained by the Presbitery, so is he rightly deposed and put from the same, when he is rejected by the Church, and discharged by the Presbitery.

Now there was brought forth in Scotland, anno 1610. a certaine Amphibian brood, sprung out of the stem of Neronian tyranny, and in manners like to his nearest Kinsman the Spanish Inquisition. It is armed with a transcendent power, and called by the dreadfull name of the HIGH COMMISSION. Among other things, it arrogateth to it selfe, the power of Deposing Ministers. But how un∣justly, thus it appeareth.

1. If those Commissioners have any power at all to depose Mi∣nisters, they have it from the King whose Commissioners they are. But from him they have it not. Therefore they have none at all. The proposition is most certaine: for they sit not in that Commis∣sion to judge in their owne name, nor by their owne auctority quum nihil exerceat delegatus nomine proprio, as p Panormitan saith,) but by vertue onely of the Commission and Delegation which they have of the King. Yea, Bishops themselves exerce not any Iuris∣diction in the High Commission as Bishops, but onely as the Kings Commissioners, as q D. Downame aknowledgeth. The Assumption is gronnded upon this reason: The King hath not power to depose Ministers. Ergo he can not give this power to others. For r Ne∣mo potest plus juris transferre in alium quam sibi competere dignoscatur. The King may sometimes inflict such a civill punishment upon Mini∣sters,

whereupon secondarily and accidentally will follow their fal∣ling away from their Ecclesiasticall office and function, (in which sence it is said, that Solomon deposed Abiathar, as we heard before,) but to depose them directly and formally (which the High Com∣mission usurpeth to doe) he hath no power, and that because this de∣position is an act of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction: Whereas the power of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction doth no more agree to the King, then the power of Ecclesiasticall order: his power is Civill & Temporall, not Spirituall & Ecclesiasticall. s D. Field also confesseth, that none may judicially degrade or put any one lawfully admitted, from his degree and order, but the Spirituall Guides of the Church alone.

2. The deposing of Ministers pertaineth to Classicall Presbite∣ries, or (if the matter be doubtfull and difficille) to Synods, as hath been shewed. And who then can give the High Commission such auctority as to take this power from them, and to assume it unto it selfe. These Commissioners professe, that they have auctority to discharge other Ecclesiasticall Iudicatories within the Kingdome from meddling with the judging of any thing which they shall thinke impertinent for them, and which they shall thinke good to judge & decide by themselves in their Cōmission. Which if it be so, then (when it pleaseth them) they may make other Ecclesiasticall Iudicatories to be altogether uselesse and of no effect in the Church.

3. In this Commission, Ecclesiasticall and Temporall men are joyned togither, and both armed with the same power. Therefore it is not right nor regular, nor in any wise allowable. For even as when a Minister hath offended in a Civill matter, his fault is to bee judged by Civill Iudges according to the Civill Lawes, and by no other: so when he offendeth in an Ecclesiasticall matter, his fault is to be judged onely by Ecclesiasticall persons according to Eccle∣siasticall Lawes: and in such a case t Iustinian forbiddeth Civill men to bee joyned with Ecclesiasticall men in judgement. They are Ecclesiasticall things or causes which are handled and exami∣ned by the High Commission in the processe of deposing Mini∣sters: and a shame it is to Ecclesiasticall men, if they can without the help and joyning of Temporall men, judge and decide things of this quality.

4. As in the matters to be judged, so in the censures and pu∣nishments to be inflicted, Ecclesiasticall and Civill men have in this Commission alike power and auctority: for Ecclesiasticall men therein have power of Fining, Confining, Warding &c. common to them with the Temporal men: and againe, the Temporall men have power of Excommunication, Suspension, Deprivation, &c. common to them with the Ecclesiasticall men. For they all sit there as the Kings Commissioners, and co nomine they exerce this Iurisdiction: which Commission beeing alike discharged by them

all, it is manifest that both Temporall men take hold of the keyes, and Ecclesiasticall men take hold of the Civill sword. And this monstruous confusion and mixeture, giveth sufficient demonstra∣tion that such a forme of Iudgement is not from the God of order.

Of the abuses and inregularities of the High Commission, wee may not now speake at greater length, but are hasted to make fore∣ward.

Notes

• c

  In 4. praec. col. 791.
• d

  DeIud. controv. cap. 14. p. 76
• e

  Of the Church, lib. 4. c. 34. p. 400.
• f

  Gerard. loc. theol. tom. 6. p. 1280. Polan. Synt. lib. 10. cap. 62. col. 960.
• g

  Lib 6. Cap. 5. num. 3. & 17.
• h

  Ostens. error. Fr. Suarez. Cap. 3. Nmu. 23. Sect. 3.
• i

  De Rep. Eccl. Cap. 6. Num. 38.
• k

  Ostens. error Fr. Suarez. Cap. 3. n. 23.
• l

  Isa. 96.
• m

  Lib. 6. cap. 5. n. 174.
• n

  Ibid. num. 177.
• o

  2. Chrō 29. 5.
• p

  2. Chrō 24.
• q

  I. Wolph. in 2. Reg. 12.
• r

  Id. I. bid.
• s

  Exod. 33 13. & 34. 13. 14. Deut 7 5. Isa. 30. 22.
• t

  1. Kings 23. & 2•…•… Chron. 19
• w

  2 Chrō. 34 & 35.
• y

  Esther. 9. 26.
• z

  2. Chrō. 29. 2 & 34. 2. &c.
• x 1. Mac∣cab. 4. 59.
• a

  Zanch. in 3. praec. 575. 576. 577. 578.
• b

  1. Mac. 4. 59.
• c

  Est. 9. 20. 21.
• d Supra Cap. 6.
• e

  Promp•…•…. morall. in Domin. 1. quadrag. text. 10.
• f

  Serm. in Perth. as∣semb.
• g

  Eccl. 4. 10.
• h

  Onuphr de. vit. Hadr. 6.
• i

  De im∣per. aut. lib. 2. cap. 55.
• k

  praelect. tom. 1. pa. 370. 372. & tom. 2. pag. 41.
• l

  Calv. in Psal. 2.
• m

  Psal. 9. 6, & 22. 21.
• n

  1. Cor. 7. 23.
• (a) Taylor. on Tit. 3. 1. pag. 543.
• p

  Pareus in illum locum.
• q

  Iren. lib 2. cap. 4. §. 3.
• r

  Lib. 1.
• s

  Pareus in Rom. 13. 4.
• s

  D. Forb. Iren. lib 2 cap 4s. 10.
• t

  Taylor on Tit. 1. 15. pag. 295.
• t

  Gal. 6. 16.
• w

  Ani∣mad. in Bell. cont. 1. lib. 3. cap. 10.
• x

  Psal. 9. 7.
• y

  Zanch. in Phil. 1. 10.
• z

  Id. ibid.
• a

  cap. 14. pag. 77.
• b

  Ibid. c. 26. p. 152.
• c

  Danaus pol. Chryst. lib. 6. Cap. 3.
• d

  Zanch. in 4. praec. col. 791. Polan. synt. lib. 10. cap. 65.
• e

  1. King 12. 28.
• f

  2. Chron. 13. 6.
• g

  2. Chron 11. 1.
• h

  Martir. in 1. Reg. 8. 31.
• i

  2. Chron. 11. 16.
• k

  Martir. in 1. Reg. 8. 32.
• l

  Id. ibid.
• m

  1. Kings 22. 33.
• n

  2. Kings 16. 10. 18.
• o

  Hospin. de orig Tēpl. lib. 1. Cap. 1. 10. Wolph. in 2. Reg. 12. 4.
• p

  Hospin. ibid. pag. 3.
• q

  1 Cor. 10. 31.
• r

  1 Cor. 14. 26.
• s

  Rom. 14. 5. 23.
• t

  de justit. actual. cap. 41.
• (u) dejudice controv. cap. 26. pag. 153
• x

  de im∣per. author. lib. 2. c. 52.
• y

  •…•…nimad. in Bell. cōtr. 4. lib. 1. cap. 12. & 18.
• z

  Cartwr. on Math. 22. sect. 3.
• a

  of the Church. lib. 5. cap. 53.
• b

  decr. part. 1. dist. 3. c. 4.
• c

  Aquin. 1•…•… 2•…•… q. 92. art. 2.
• d

  Dan. 6.
• e

  Bald de cas. consc lib. 4. cap. 11. c•…•…s. 1.
• f

  Ide. ibid.
• g

  Ibid, cas. 2
• h

  Pralect. tom. 2. pag. 50.
• i

  Til. synt. part. 2. disp. 32. th. 33.
• k

  Danaeus. pol. christ. lib. 6. cap. 1.
• l

  Hebr. 5. 1.
• m

  Fr. Iun. Ecclesiast. lib. 3. cap. 4.
• n

  de Iudice controv. cap. 14 p. 70.
• o

  Gerard. locor. theol. tom. 6. pag. 840.
• p

  zanch. in Eph. 4. 12.
• q

  Hebr. 13. 17.
• r

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 cas. consc. lib. 6. c. 11. cas. 2.
• s

  lib. 1. cap. 8.
• t

  pol. Christ. lib. 6. cap. 3.
• u

  In. 2. Reg. 12. 5.
• x

  ubi su∣pra.
• y

  Perk. on Revel. 3. 7.
• z

  2. Chrō. 26. 18.
• a

  Aquin. 3•…•…. q. 85. art. 2.
• b

  apud Parker •…•…f th•…•…osse; c. 5. sect. 6.
• c

  de Iudi∣ce controv. cap. 16. pag. 92.
• d

  praelect. tom. 1. pag. 25.
• e

  locor. theol. tom. 6. p. 963.
• f

  de Iudi∣ce controv. c. 16. pag. 86. 87.
• g

  Perkins on Rev. 1. 5.
• h

  Iren. lib. 2. cap. 4. §. 3.
• i

  Ia. 4. 12.
• k

  Rom. 23. 5.
• l

  Tit. 3. 1•…•….
• m

  Inst. lib. 4. cap. 20. §. 9.
• n

  Cart•…•…. on Act. 8. sect. 7.
• o

  G. B•…•…∣chan. hist. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Scot. lib. 5. p. 152.
• p

  Confess. cap. 5. art. 20.
• q

  epist. ad Regin Elisab. epistolar lib. 1. p. 112.
• r

  de effect. sacr. cap. 31.
• s

  Rat. lib. 1. tit de pie∣tur & cortin.
• t

  Fr. I•…•…. animad. in Bell. cont. 5. l. 1. c. 11.
• w

  lib. 4. dist. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• x

  de rep. Eccl. lib. 2. c. 3. n. 47.
• y

  loc. th•…•…l. tom. 6. pag. 374. 375. 376.
• Tertullian also maketh mention of them, Apolo∣get c. 39. and Clemens epist. 1. ad Iacob.
• z

  In 1. Tim. 5. 1.
• a

  on 1. Tim. 5. 17.
• b

  Zanch. in 4. prac. col. 766. 767.
• c

  Iun. anim in Bell. cont. 5. l. 1. c. 13.
• c

  Iun. ubi sup. cap. 7. nota. 17. Bald. de cas∣cons. lib. 4. cap. 5. caf. 5. Ger. loc. theol. tom. 6. pag. 835. 132.
• d

  In. 4. prac. col. 794.
• e

  anim. in Bell. cont. 5. lib. 1. c. 7. •…•…ta. 59.
• f

  Charity mistaken. sect. 5. pag. 145.
• g

  de cleric. lib. 1. cap. 7.
• h

  ubi su∣pra nota. 55.
• i

  loc. theol. tom. 6. pag. 151.
• k

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 Act. 14. 23.
• l

  ubi supra 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 63. 64.
• m

  Decr. part. 1. dist. 62.
• n

  Thuan. hist. lib. 83. pag. 85.
• o

  hist. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. cent. 4. lib. 3. c. 38.
• p

  In Act. 14. 23.
• q

  ubi sa∣pra pag. 178.
• r

  ubi supra nota. 16.
• (〈◊〉〈◊〉) Iun. ubi supra nota. 24.
• v

  In 1: Tim. 4. 14.
• x

  ubi su∣pra cap. 3.
• y

  de ga∣b•…•…n. eccl.
• z

  Rom. 10. 15.
• a

  de rep. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. lib. 2. cap. 3. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. •…•…4. & cap. 4 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 13. 19. & lib. 3. cap. 5. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 48.
• b

  ubi supra cap. 7. nota 59.
• c

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. part. 2. pag. 221.
• d

  2. Tim. 1. 6.
• e

  1. Tim. 4. 14.
• f

  ubi su∣pra
• g

  Deut 34.
• h

  supra cap. 5.
• i

  supra cap. 2.
• k

  animad. in Bell. cont. 5. l. 1. cap. 3.
• l

  Ger. loc. theol. tom. 6. pag 135. Bald. de cas. consc. lib. 4. c. 6. cas. 4.
• l

  Math. 18. 1•…•….
• m

  1. Cor. 3. 21. 22.
• n

  on Rom. 10. 15.
• o

  In Rō. 10. 15:
• p

  ubi su∣pra.
• q

  Syn. pur. Theol. disp. 42. thes. 32. 37.
• r

  Act. 20. 17
• s

  Phil. 1. 1.
• t

  2 Thess. 5. 12.
• u

  Act. 20. 28.
• x

  Com. in Tit. 1.
• y

  Gerard loc. Theol. tom. 6. pag. 134 364.
• z

  Iun. ubi sup. not. 5. 12. Syn pur. Theol. disp. 42. thes. 37.
• a

  Serm. on Apoc. 1. 20.
• b

  Iren. lib. 2. cap. 11. p. 161.
• c

  Epist. ad Evagr.
• d

  Iun ubi sup. nota. 22.
• e

  ibid. nota. 10.
• f

  Iren. lib. 2. c. 11. pag. 165.
• g

  dist. 23. cap. 8.
• h

  ubi sup. pag. 175. & seq.
• i

  apud Forbes. ubi sup. p. 177.
• k

  Ibid. p. 194. 195. 196.
• l

  Disp. 49. thes. 20.
• m

  Ib. Thes. 21.
• n

  Thes. 22.
• o

  Thes. 23.
• p

  Thes. 24.
• q

  M. Ant. de Dom de rep. eccl. lib 6. cap. 5. num. 89.
• r

  ani•…•… in •…•…ell. cont. 4. lib. 1. cap. 12. not. 4. 18.
• s

  de Rep. Eccl lib. 6. cap. 5. num. 16.
• t

  animad. in Bell. cent. 4. lib. 1. cap. 19. no∣ta 12.
• u

  de rep. Eccl. leb. 7. cap. 3. n. 43
• x

  Iun. cont, 1. lib. 3. cap 4. nota 17.
• y

  M. Ant. de Dom. de rep. Eccl. lib. 7. c. 3. n. 32.
• z

  Dave∣nāt de jud. controv. cap. 25. Iun. ubi su∣pra.
• a

  of the Church lib. 5. cap. 53.
• b

  Mal. 2. 7.
• c

  2 Chron. 19. 8. 10.
• d

  de Iud. controv. cap. 16. pag. 92:
• e

  ibid. cap. 14. p. 75,
• f

  ani∣mad. in Bell. cont. 4. lib. 1. cap. 12. nota 15
• (g) de rep. Eccl. lib 6. cap. 5. num. 8. 30.
• h

  de Rep. num, 33.
• i

  Decr. part, 2. cau∣sa 2. q. 7. c. 41.
• k

  Rev. 3. 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• l

  on 1. Cor. 5. 4.
• m

  de cas. consc. lib. 4. cap. 10. cas. 9.
• n

  Cent. 5. cap. 4. col. 383.
• o

  loc. theol. tom. 6. p. 136. 137.
• p

  1. Cor. 5. 6. 7. •…•…3.
• q

  Math. 18. 17. 18.
• r

  In Math. 18. 17.
• s

  on Iude vers. 3.
• t

  1. Cor. 5. 4. 5.
• u

  de tripl. episc. gen. pag. 42. 43.
• x

  vers. 3.
• y

  In 1. Cor. 5. 4.
• z

  animad. in Bell. cont. 4. lib. 2. cap. 16. nota 6.
• a

  1. Cor. 4. 21.
• b

  I•…•…. 5.
• c

  Iun ubi supra nota. 7.
• d

  Id. cont. 3. lib. 4. c. 16. nota. 37.
• e

  1. Cor. 5. •…•…. 6. 9.
• f

  ubi su∣pra.
• g

  2. Cor. 2. 9.
• h

  Ib. vers. 6.
• i

  vers. 7.
• k

  vers. 10
• l

  supra Digr. 1.
• m

  apud. Zanch. in 4, praec. col. 745.
• n

  in 4. praec. col. 741.
• o

  cont. 3. lib. 1 cap. 6. nota 19.
• p

  praelect. tom. 1. pag. 23.
• q

  Calv. & Cartwr. on Math. 18. •…•…7. Par. in 1 Cor. 5
• r

  loc. Theol. tom. 6 pag. 137.
• s

  Trelcat Inst Theol. lib. 1. pag. 291.
• t

  in 1 Cor. 5. 4.
• u

  2 Cor. 2. 6.
• x

  com. in illum locum
• y

  de di∣vers minist. grad cap. 8. p. 85.
• (z) on 2 Cor. 2. 6.
• a

  ubi su∣pra.
• b

  exam. part 4 de indulg p. 53.
• (c) com in hunc locum.
• (d) annot. ibid.
• (e) Par. in 1 Cor. 5. 4.
• f

  Trelcat. Inst. theol. lib. 2. pag. 287. 288. Pareus in 1. Cor. 5. de excom.
• g

  In. 4. praec. col. 756.
• h

  lib. epistolar. col. 180.
• i

  Iren. lib. 2. cap. 12.
• k

  Zanch. in 4. praec. col. 756. D. Fulke on 1. Cor. 5. 4.
• l

  de tripl. Episc. gencr. pag. 43.
• m

  de di∣vers. minist. grad. p. 85. 86.
• n

  Zanch. ubi supra. Synop. pur. theol. disp. 48. thes. 9.
• o

  loc. theol. tom. 6. pag. 463.
• p

  ubi su∣pra.
• q

  lib. 3. contra epist. Parmen.
• r

  Ant. de Dom. de rep eccl. lib. 5. cap. 12. n. 67.
• s

  Ib. cap. 9. num. 8.
• t

  In 2. Cor. hom. 18.
• u

  apolo∣get. cap. 39. See Rhena∣nus his an∣notation upon that place, and M. Ant. de Dom. de rep. eccl. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 5. cap. 12. n. 67.
• x

  lib. 3. epist. 14. 15. 16. & lib. 5. epist. 12.
• y

  epist. ad Evagr.
• z

  In Math. 16.
• a

  Decr. part. 2. causa. 11. q. 3. c. 108. 110.
• b

  Iren. lib. 2. cap. 11. p. 195.
• c

  Ib. pag. 191.
• d

  p. 195. num. 25.
• e

  lib. 6. cap. 9.
• f

  Calv. lib. Episto∣lar. col. 169 Gratian. caus. 11. q. 1. c. 20.
• g

  contr. 4. lib. 1. e. 20. nota 8.
• h

  Fenner. Theol. lib. 7 c. 7. p. 153.
• i

  Hem∣ming en∣chir. class. 3. cap. 11. p. 39•…•…, 91
• k

  Can. 11.
• l

  Hist. Ec∣cl. cent. 4 l. 2. c. 48. p. 242.
• m

  loc. Theol. tom. 6. p. 838.
• n

  de cas. consc. l 4. cap. 5. cas. 12.
• o

  Eccle∣siast. lib. 3. cap. 3.
• p

  apud Forb. Iren lib. 2. cap. 11. p. 177.
• q

  Defens. lib. 1. p. 8.
• r

  Bonifae. 8. de regul. Iuris reg. 79.
• s

  of the Church. lib. 5. cap. 53. p. 682.
• t

  Novell. 83. cap. 1.