PRIMS Full-text transcription (HTML)

THE POVVER OF THE Chriſtian Magiſtrate in Sacred things.

Delivered In ſome Poſitions, ſent to a Friend, upon which, a returne of his opinion was deſired.

With ſome conſiderations, upon the Anſwer; and a Digreſſion con­cerning Allegiance, and ſubmiſſion to the Supreame Magiſtrate.

By Lewis du Moulin, Hiſtory-reader of the Univerſity of Oxford.

LONDON, Printed by G. Dawſon, for FRAN­CIS EGLESFIELD, at the Marygold in Pauls Church­yard. 1650.

To the Right HONORABLE Bulſtrode Whitelocke Eſquire, Rich. Keble Eſq; Sergeant at Law, John Liſle Eſquire.Lords Commiſſioners for the Cuſtody of the Great Seal of England.

My Lords,

I Pretend not by this De­dication to looſen any one link of the chains of Civilities, and un­merited favors, where­by I am bound unto your Lordſhips: But rather, finding my ſelfe inſolvent, & as a ſtran­ger, deſtitute of other Sureties; I have taken the occaſion to give publick ſuretyſhip of my profeſt beholding­neſſe: Beſides this per­ſonall motive, there was another reall; for intending this diſ­courſe, onely as a Hue and Cry after truth, which the ſelf intereſt of ſome hath lurched from the knowledge of other Chriſtians, I ſhould wrong this ſame truth, if I did not entitle your Lord­ſhips to her patronage, who are upon all occa­ſions her ſo zealous a­bettors. Your known goodneſſe, requires, I preſume, no Apologie for the incongruous addreſſe or compoſure of a ſtranger: I pre­tend to truth; and if ſhe be not, (as ſhee ought to be) I am ſure my Engliſh is, ſtarke naked: in which con­dition if you pleaſe to caſt over her, the man­tle of your protection, the ſtormy age where­in we live, ſhall no more hinder her pro­duction, then abate the zeal of

Your Lordſhips moſt devoted Servant, LEWIS du MOULIN.

To the Reader.

HAving occaſionally made ſome Conſide­rations upon the en­ſuing Letter, which gave me in one place (pag. 20. &c.) a faire inſinuation to ſpeak of the Allegeance due by Subiects to the preſent power, by Gods providence ſet over them, I was the more willing to inſiſt a lit­tle upon it, and particularly upon the late Engagement, which, being tendred me in Oxford by order of the State, by whoſe favour I am a member of that Univerſity; I fre­ly acknowledge, I was not ſo ſcru­pulous as many of my brethren of the Univerſity were; men otherwiſe of known piety, and integrity; but have ſubſcribed unto it: for which undergoing various cenſures, by ma­ny, who, either are not yet perſwa­ded to ſubſcribe, or are enga­ged otherwiſe, and being not con­ſcious to my ſelf that herein I have done againſt my duty, or diſobeyed Gods word, or been prepoſſeſſed with particular intereſt; I thought my ſelfe obliged to give publickly an account from what Scripture, reaſon, and humane authority I have received ſatisfaction and en­couragement to ſubſcribe, thereby hoping even from the moſt averſe, either to be pardoned or excuſed.

Errata.

Pag. 81. lin. 24. read〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. p. 107. l. 9 Acts read Arts. p. 110. l. 13. 14. read, over few Biſhops.

1

Poſitions concerning the Power of the Chriſtian Ma­giſtrate in Church matters.

I.THat all humane a­ctions, Naturall, or Voluntary, even the moſt mechanick and ſer­vile, ſo they be neceſſary, and not ſinfull, muſt be done in faith, and are to be referred to the Soveraign end, which is to glorifie God by words and deede, and to obtain the Summum bonum of men, which is the love of God, and union with him.

2

II.That the principall duty of the Soveraigne viſible Pow­er, in regulating the actions of mens ſociety, is not to make new Lawes, but to de­clare the will of the Grand Legiſlator, (even God in his Word) for the right govern­ing of that ſociety, according to his divine will; making Lawes agreeable, or not re­pugnant to it; holding forth to the people for a ſoveraign Law, that God muſt be rather o­beyed then man.

III.That ſince the Soveraigne Power hath right to regulate all humane actions, which3 doe tend to that Soveraigne end, he alone muſt preſide o­ver all Orders, Lawes, Offi­ces, Places, and Perſons, which have any reference to the ſaid actions. Elſe, if two Supreame Magiſtrates were conſtituted, ſharing betwixt them the Supreame power, the one being over certain a­ctions, they call Eccleſiaſtical; the other over the Civill; ſuch a State cannot be conceived without a great deal of con­fuſion: Humane actions, of what kinde ſoever they be, having ſo neare affinity a­mong themſelves, and being included one within ano­ther.

4

IV.That for the moſt part, the cauſes of Hereſies, and Wars, which have troubled the World, came from the Popes dividing the ſaid actions, vin­dicating to themſelves the regulating of one part of them, leaving the ordering of the other to the Emperour and Kings, and thus erecting Imperium in Imperio; and not on­ly ſo, but by reaſon of the great affinity there is betwixt humane actions, reducing almoſt all of them under his cognizance.

V.That the Reformers have indeed repurged the doctrin5 from Popery, but ſtill have kept to themſelves the Sove­raign cognizance of the acti­ons which they call Eccleſia­ſticall, aſſuming to themſelvs the power of the Keyes, which in truth is reſtrained to this ſentence, That God muſt be rather obeyed then man; and therefore, when the Magiſtrate was unwilling to have a hand in the Refor­mation, or the exerciſe of the true Religion, as in the pri­mitive times, or in France, they have done well, even without, or againſt the liking of the Magiſtrate, to make a body of Congregations, gi­ving it an order, which they6 call purely Eccleſiaſticall. Likewiſe, they did well to create Elders, who are the Deputies of the people, for otherwiſe the word could not have been preached, the Sacraments adminiſtred, and the ſoules ſaved: But where the Soveraigne Magiſtrate is of the ſame Religion with the body of the people, theſe words Eccleſiaſticall, Civill, Spiritual, Temporall, Clerck, and Lay, ought to ceaſe, and with them the diverſity of le­giſlation and jurisdiction; and under ſuch a Magiſtrate the Common-wealth is a Chriſtian Viſible Church, theſe words having but an7 accidentall difference; but yet ſuch as have cauſed a re­all difference. Now ſuch di­ſtinction of words, which parts things that ſhould not be divided, ceaſing; the origi­nall of all order and power over all actions and things, is ſeated on the Soveraigne vi­ſible power, and doth extend to, and over all kinds of per­ſons, none being exempted, nor any thing excepted, if it be not contrary to Gods commands. In ſumme, the Supream Magiſtrate is none other then the Miniſter of God, for the good and ſalva­tion of thoſe that are under government.

8

VI.Theſe things being ſo, and the Chriſtian viſible Church being an aſſembly of good & bad, which have need to be governed for their tem­porall and eternall good, it is manifeſt, that under other words, it is the ſame thing with the words of Chriſtian Common-wealths, and that the legiſlatiō & jurisdiction which the Soveraigne Magi­ſtrate hath over it, is extend­ed over all perſons and cau­ſes, and in all Aſſemblies, Sy­nods and Claſſes; for even the concluſions and canons of the ancient Councels had no force which conſtrained9 to obedience, but as they were ratified by the ſeale, or ſupreame will of the Sove­raigne Magiſtrate, who uſu­ally did call, and diſſolved them.

VII.Although all power and jurisdiction in all things be annexed to the Soveraigne Magiſtrate; by that, we doe not meane to diminiſh any thing of the nature of the Empire, and jurisdiction which the Lord Ieſus Chriſt, even in this world, hath over his Church, whoſe members he knoweth by name, and which he doth governe by his Word and Spirit.

10

VIII.But to beleeve, that the body of thoſe that make an externall profeſſion of the true Religion, muſt be go­verned by Lawes made by perſons diſtinct in jurisdicti­on, or legiſlation from that power which belongeth to the Soveraigne Magiſtrate, tis a thing which cannot be found in the Scripture, where we doe read that the Church and Kingdome of the Iewes were the ſame thing, and that in the Synedrium all cauſes were decided, and all kinds of perſons convented.

IX.Theſe things being premi­ſed11 as afore, tis not under­ſtood that the government by Presbyteries, Synods, Claſ­ſes, or even by Biſhops muſt therefore be aboliſhed; but onely that all their jurisdicti­on is like a branch or rivolet ſtreaming from the fountain of power, reſiding in the So­veraign Magiſtrate.

X.Neither is it underſtood, that the Magiſtrate ought to give orders, or preach the Word, (although magiſtracy and miniſtry be things very conſiſtent) no more then to create Doctrors of phyſick, or the like, but onely that the power to exerciſe any pro­feſſion,12 or calling externally, is conferred by him, and can­not be done without him.

XI.That the calling of Lay-Elders is not of neceſſary uſe in a Country where the Ma­giſtrate is of the ſame Reli­gion with the body of the people, it being more then reaſonable, that ſo much, or more power be granted to the Orthodox Chriſtian Ma­giſtrate, then they yeeld to the Elders in France.

XII.Now becauſe ſome think it unfit, that the miniſters, and the cauſes which they maintaine to be of their cog­nizance,13 ſhould in all things be ſubalterne to the Sove­raign Magiſtrate, the only ex­pedient, if we beleeve them, to make the Church and State to be one Chriſtian Common-wealth under one Soveraigne power, were that the Rulers and Over-ſe­ers of the Church, as Miniſters and Elders ſhould have alſo the Common-wealth com­mitted to them, in the man­ner as the Waldenſes, or Albigen­ſes were governed; for it ſee­meth that ſuch Miniſters would be contented that the Church and Common­wealth were one, ſo that they might have the whole rule,14 and Government; but ra­ther then to miſſe a ſhare, they become ſtrong aſſertors of a diſtinct jurisdiction, whereof they may appropri­ate one unto themſelves. Sic hiſuperiorem, illi parem non ferunt.

15

A Letter Examining the foregoing Poſitions.

Sir.

YOu ſent me certaine arti­cles, touching the Eccle­ſiaſtical policy: and there­upon are earneſt to know my opinion: the which I was long in debate, whether I ſhould deliver or no; queſtioning, whether the de­claring of my ſence in this matter be of any weight or moment: but ſince, by your laſt, you preſſe it fur­ther upon me, telling me that ſome perſons of wiſdome, and gravity, and in authority in the ſtate, are earneſt to know my ſence and opinion there­on. I have at length given way to your importunity, leaving to your diſcretion, either the ſuppreſsing of16 this writing, or making of it pub­like.

The two firſt articles do lay down for a foundation, that all humane actions ought to be done in faith, and referred to the ſoveraign end, which is to glorifie God, and to ob­taine ſalvation, and that the duty of the ſoveraign viſible power is to declare unto the people the will of the great Legiſlator, and that the laws of the ſaid ſoveraign power ought to be conformable, at leaſt no way repugnant to the Law of God. All this is juſt and honeſt, and it were a ſinne againſt piety to contra­dict it.

The ſecond article ſaith, that the ſoveraign Magiſtrate hath right to regulate all humane actions which are tending to that ſoveraign end, and that he alone ought to ſway and preſide over all meanes, Lawes, offi­ces, places and perſons appertaining to the ſaid actions: elſe if there17 were two ſupreme Magiſtrates, one over the actions, they call Eccleſia­ſticall, and another over the civill, a great deal of confuſion would en­ſue: And that hereſies, ſchiſmes, and wars did ariſe, for the moſt part, from the Popes dividing the ſaid actions, challenging to them­ſelves the regulating of one part of them, leaving the other to the Em­perour and Kings; thus ſetting up Imperium in imperio.

I am of opinion that there can­not be in a well compoſed State, (and ſo doth the ſcripture teach us) more then one ſoveraign power, and that all perſons of what quality and con­dition ſoever, are ſubject to the ſo­veraign Magiſtrate, and that the Paſtors of the Church cannot be excepted or exempted from that ſub­jection: their duty being to exhort and diſpoſe the people to be faithfull and obedient to that power by Gods providence ſet over them, and chalk18 them the way by their example. 1. Ioſh. all the people (the Levites and the Prieſts being compriſed) ſpeak thus to Ioſhua, All that thou commandeſt us, will we do, and whitherſoever thou ſendeſt us, we wil go. 1 King. 1. v. 33. David ſaith to Bethſheba, Take with you the ſervants of your Lord. The context ſhewes that Zadok the high Prieſt was of the ſervants of the King. 2. King. 23. v. 4. And the King commanded Helkiah the high Prieſt, and the Prieſts of the ſe­cond order. And there he chideth them for not obeying his command, in repairing of the temple. S. Paul doth appeal to Ceſar acknowledging him his Iudge.

Conſideration.

NOte that S. Paul appeales to Caeſar as to the ſupreme competent Iudge, not onely in relation to his private perſon and19 cauſe, but the cauſe of the Goſpel, for the queſtion was, whether there was any crime in preaching the Goſpel? and the Apoſtles ac­knowledge the worſt of the Em­perours, the ſupreme power and Iudge. Had Feſtus not been a com­petent Iudge in Eccleſiaſticall matters, but onely in civill, in­ſtead of ſaying, I am judged for the hope, &c. that is, for the re­ſurrection of the dead, the chief point of Chriſtianity, he would have ſaid, I am not to be judged before thee in theſe matters.

Letter.

THe ſame Apoſtle Rom. 13. enjoyneth that all perſons be ſubject to the higher powers, ac­knowledging the powers that have the preſent rule to be given of God, that is, ſuch as by a ſpeciall act of his providence have the ſoverain power in hand. St. Pet. 1.2. v. 13. 20Submit your ſelves to every or­dinance of man for the Lords ſake, and note, that the Emperour to whom obedience is commanded to be rendred, was a tyrant and a moſt wicked man: Nebuchad­nezzar had ſubdued Iudea, and lead the Iews captives, yet Ieremiah ſpeakes thus to the remnant of the Iewes not yet tranſported, Submit your neck under the yoak of the King of Babylon, and ſerve him.

Conſideration.

I Shall take liberty to digreſſe a little upon that paſſage of Ieremy, which doth not onely juſtifie, but command ſubmiſſion to the power, which by Gods pro­vidence is ſet over us, for lo here the Iſraelits ſpoiled of their goods and lands, driven from their ha­bitations, and enthraled in grie­vous bondage, are commanded to pray for the proſperity of their21 oppreſſour, and for a quiet go­vernment over them, as if their peace had been included in his: for as ſaith Calvin in the 4. book of his Inſtitut. ch. 20. §. 28. when God hath exalted a new power, he doth declare that it is his pleaſure he ſhould have the power and ſway. Detuli Nebuchadneſar regnum ſaith God, 2 Dan. v. 37. God hath gi­ven thee kingdomes and power. See Calvin in the quoted place, who is much inſiſting upon the words of the Apoſtle. Rom. 13.1. Submit your ſelves to the ſuperior powers whereby〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉ſome would not have the unlawfull powers, but onely the lawfull underſtood, which though it were granted, the text will very well bear this ſence, that when God hath exalted ſome in authority, his will is that his power ſhould be held for a law­full power: but the word〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉is for the moſt part taken generally22 for〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉whether lawfull or u­ſurped.

We read in Steven out of Xeno­phon,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I have pow­er to ſteal, where none will ſay, that that power of ſtealing is a lawfull power: Thus in the 1 to the Co­loſsians, St. Paul ſaying, That God hath delivered us from the power of darknes, that power being likewiſe〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉can no more be ſaid to be good and lawfull, then the tranſla­tion to Chriſts Kingdome ſpoken in the following words, be ſaid to be bad or unlawfull: And accor­ding to the beſt ſence you can give to〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as the ſaid Steven well ob­ſerves, 'tis but〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or as Cicero defines, Poteſtas vivendi ut velis, a power to live as you liſt: Now, if the poteſtas ſpoken of by the Apo­ſtle, be a priviledge, or power to rule as the Supreame Magiſtrate liſteth, I conceive, that this facul­ty, or priviledge, is as well, or ra­ther23 proper to Tyrannicall Go­vernments, (as moſt of them were in the time of St. Paul) both in the meanes to attaine to the Supreame Magiſtracie, and in the exerciſe of it, that is, as well in the adeption, as in the fruition. But Calvin, both in the ſaid place, and moſt expreſly upon the 13 to the Romanes, ex­pounds the Supream Power, that power, which by Gods provi­dence, permiſſion, or approbation is ſet over men; yea, that power which hath gotten the upper hand by intruſion. Theſe be his words: Hoc verbo videtur Apoſtolus tollere frivolam hominum curioſitatem qui ſaepe ſolent inquirere, quo jure adepti fuerint poteſtatem qui rerum potiun­tur; ſatis autem nobis eſſe debet quod praeſunt, non enim conſcenderunt ſua ipſi virtute, ſed manu dei ſunt impo­ſiti. By that word, the Apoſtle ſeemeth to take off the frivolous curioſity of men, who are wont of­ten24 to enquire, how, and by what right have thoſe in Supreame Au­thority come by their Power? It ought to ſuffice us that they Go­verne, and that they have not aſ­cended by their owne vertue, but are ſet over, and appointed by God.

Learned Deodati giveth the ſame interpretation. All thoſe that at­taine to dignity, doe ſo, either by his manifeſt will and approbation. Now it is fitting that men ſhould approve and tolerate that which God approves and tolerates; which ſence, and words of Deodati; have ſo much the more weight, for being appro­ved, and in the ſame words upon the matter transfer­red, by the Reverend Divines of the Aſſembly in England, into their Expoſition and Comment upon the place. Ordained of God, or ordered, that is, inſtituted of God among mankind, to rule and govern25 men in order, as in Gods ſtead; for God is the author of this order in the World: And all thoſe which attaine unto this dignity, or excellency, doe attaine unto it, either by his ma­nifeſt will and approbation, when the means are juſt and lawfull; or elſe by his ſecret providence, with permiſ­ſion and toleration, where the means are unlawfull. And it is juſt and equall, that men ſhould approve and tolerate that which God himſelfe ap­proves and tolerates, which cannot by any lawfull meanes appointed by him, decline and avoyd. All there­fore, who reſiſt Authority, make war after a ſort with God himſelfe. But this acception of power in St. Paul, only for a lawfull one, is attended with unavoydable inconveniences, that I may not ſay abſurdities: for firſt, who ſhall be judge what pow­er is lawfull? ſhall all joyntly, or every particular man under a pow­er, be judge whether that power o­ver26 them is lawfull; which is to ſeat the Superior Power no where, and to erect a Tribunall within every particular Dominion, diſtinct from that of the Supreame Magiſtrate, which ſhall judge of the right they came by to their Superiority. Se­condly, ſince this lawfulneſſe is as well in the adeption, as in the frui­tion, or the exerciſe of the Su­preame Power, it ſhall be preſent­ly lawfull for Subjects, who are to judge of both, to reſiſt the Su­pream Magiſtrate; not onely be­cauſe he is an Uſurper, but alſo for governing tyrannically, to which government, if we beleeve the new Expoſitors of St. Pauls meaning, the Apoſtle forbiddeth to ſubmit, and even to pay tribute; for where­as he commandeth to pay tribute to whom tribute belongeth, when the ſubject ſhall judge that ſubmiſ­ſion is not in conſcience, and in o­bedience to Gods Word, due unto27 ſuch a Magiſtrate, he muſt by the ſame tye of conſcience, deny to pay him tribute, and ſuffer his houſe rather to be forcibly entred, and his truncks to be broke open, then to pay it with his own hands, leſt his will ſhould ſeeme any way to concurre in the doing of a ſin­full thing, as is to pay tribute to whom it doth not belong. But, which is much materiall, it hath been often ſeen, that Subjects have refuſed to obey the commands of the Supreame Magiſtrate, oppo­ſing by reſiſtance of Armes the unjuſt managing of the power; but ſeldome, or never, ſo much as que­ſtioning the Title of the Supream Power, or Magiſtrate, but yeeld­ing Fealty, or Homage to him that had poſſeſſion de facto, though not de jure, which hath beene alwayes practiſed in England under all the Kings ſince the Conqueſt, who, although for the greateſt part28 they had no juſt title to the Crown; yet to avoyd confuſion, and the itching humour of people, queſtio­ning the validity of Lawes, and Law-givers, the Law hath alwayes provided, that Allegiance ſhould be given him to whom the Impe­riall Crowne of theſe Realmes ſhall deſcend, by which Imperiall Crowne, the Perſon is not princi­pally meant, but the Realme; no man owing other Allegiance, but ſuch as is yeelded, in, and for the defence of the Realme. This is made good by the Title of the Statute Eliz. 2. Cap. 1. All anci­ent jurisdiction reſtored to the Crowne, by which Crowne, none will, I thinke, underſtand the law­full Heires and Succeſſours of the Crowne, but him, or them that are actually in poſſeſſion of the Gouernment; or which is all one, by the Crowne is meant the Su­preame Judicature of the King­dom29 for the time being, where the Crowne is placed, and to which the Jurisdiction belongeth, what ever Title the Supreame Power for the time being may have; for ſure, unlawfull poſſeſſion of a Crowne doth not exempt ſubjects from the ſame Allegiance that the moſt lawfull Soveraigne can chal­lenge; for even I ſhould much doubt, whether Subjects may call any Supremacy of Power unlaw­full, or whether a Supreame Go­vernour is not a lawfull Govern­our; however, poſſeſſion is the great condition required for the duty of Allegiance, which in ex­preſſe termes is ſaid Eliz. 10. & 50. Cap. 1. to be due to Kings and Queenes Poſſeſſors of the Crown: But ſtill, the Lawes made by Henry the 4th 5th and 6th were never the leſſe valid, and of no leſſe force for being made by Kings called pretended. In the28 Statute Edward 4.10. Cap. 1. where ſome of their Acts were continu­ed, others repealed, which word re­pealed would not ſo much as have been uſed, had not theſe ſtatutes been enacted in a lawfull aſſembly of the three ſtates. And as the vali­dity of the Lawes under the ſaid pretended Kings were never que­ſtioned, ſo neither were the ſub­jects blamed, yea, rather juſtified, for bearing fealty and allegeance to the ſaid Kings: of which we have a notable example in the ele­venth of Henry the ſeventh cap. 1.1. where in an act, the Parliament declareth, as a thing unreaſonable, againſt Law and Conſcience, that the ſubjects going with their Sove­raigne (meaning ſuch as Henry the 4.5.6. and Richard the 3.) for the time being, and attending upon his perſon, or being in other pla­ces by his commands within the Land or without, ſhould in any29 thing forfeit for doing their true duty and ſervice of allegeance: But the main reaſon why the people in England have alwayes obeyed him who was in poſſeſſion de facto was becauſe they were not to oppoſe the uſurper, till he was ſo lawfully de­clared: So that, I conceive had the Turk conquered England, though no man can be ſo much deveſted of his reaſon, as not to judge of him as of an uſurper by a judgement of diſcretion; yet there being by Gods providence, who diſpoſeth of Kingdomes as he will, not any judgement of authority left, that can lawfully declare the Turk to be an uſurper, I conceive I ſay, that every Subjects duty is to im­poſe ſilence to his own judgement, without murmuring, and com­mune thus with his own heart, that God hath left the Kingdome without recourſe, that hee may diſpoſe of it to another; up­on28〈1 page duplicate〉29〈1 page duplicate〉32Upon all theſe grounds of Scrip­ture, reaſon and authority, it being manifeſt that all powers that have attained to the ſupreame dignity, are ordained of God, and are to be ſubmitted unto; it followeth un­denyably that every ſouls duty is to engage to be true and faith­full to ſuch a power, and there­upon that their priviledge is to be freed from all other en­gagements made to other pow­ers; I mean in ſuch things that ſalva fide are alterable, as to be ruled by this or that Magiſtrate, and to be under this or that Go­vernment;〈◊〉former engage­ment of that nature, how cir­cumſtantially ſoever expreſſed, being able to diſpence any man from his preſent duty, or from this command, Let every ſoul be ſubiect to the ſuperiour powers which are ordained of God. Be­ſides, that every promiſe or oath33 of fealty and homage to a ſu­pream power is a ſinfull act (and therefore better broken then kept) If ſome condition be not implyed as included in it, though not ex­preſſed; as it may be made evi­dent by the enſuing queries. 1. Whether an Engliſh man tranſporting his eſtate and family into a remote countrey, and be­ing minded to return no more to England, is not looſed from the ties of the oath of Allegeance. 2. Whether the ſame man may not tie himſelf by another oath of fealty and faithfullneſſe to the ſu­pream Magiſtrate of that coun­trey where his abode is, though occaſionally, yea conſequently this oath proveth repugnant to the oath of Allegeance. 3. Whe­ther a warre being kindled between England and the countrey of his abode, he finding the wrong to be on Englands ſide, he may not34 lawfully adhere rather to the later oath, and wage warre againſt England, in the behalf of thoſe among whom he liveth. 4. Whe­ther in eaſe the ſupream Magi­ſtrate be expelled, and a new go­vernment ſetled; the ſame man not being guilty of his expulſion, and remaining ſtill in England, there is not par ratio, and the like freedome and exemption from former oaths made to the expulſed Magiſtrate, with that ex­emption when the ſame man lea­ving England doth ſwear Alle­geance to another ſupream Magi­ſtrate in forreigne parts, where he purpoſeth to continue? 5. Whe­ther the ſame man having conti­nued ten yeares, as for example, in Venetia, afterwards making a journey into England, and finding there a new face of Government, whether he muſt reſume his obli­gation, and tye, to the oath of alle­geance,35 from which he was looſed, when he was ſubject to the Veneti­ans? 6. And ſince a man leaving England, is not onely looſed from the obligation to the Oath of Al­legiance, but alſo, it is free for him to bequeath his Allegiance to what Lord or Soveraign Magiſtrate he pleaſeth; whether it may not be in­different to him for matter of tye of conſcience, either to ſwear feal­ty to Governours newly ſet up in England, or to other Gover­nours in forreign parts, whether they be new to him, or lately come by their Soveraignty? 7. Whether a Tenant holding of a Liege Lord, his obligation of fealty, and of paying a penny rent, do not ceaſe, as to the per­ſon, though not to the thing, ſo long, at leaſt, as the Lord is out of poſſeſſion; or that I may better engliſh ſuch a querie, whether a freeman doing homage to his36 Lord of whom he holdeth in chief, or otherwiſe, ſwearing to become his man from this day forth for life, member, &c. and to owe him his faith for the Lands he hold­eth of him; whether the ſaid oath of homage is not conditionall, viz. ſo long as his Lord hath poſſeſſi­on of the Land held by the Far­mer. 8. Whether in thoſe re­lations that are accidentall, as thoſe between King and Subjects, Maſter and ſervant, the promiſe, as for example, of the ſervant to be as long as he liveth faithfull and obedient to his Maſter, doth not imply many conditions, which not continuing, do take away the obligation; ſuch are the Maſter decaying in his fortunes, and the Servant bettering of his; the Ma­ſter turning out the Servant, or being taken away from him? 9. Yea whether without violation of faith and bonds, which are between37 the Maſter and the Servant, the relation may not change termes, the Maſter becoming a Servant, and the Servant a Maſter? 10. Whether the Duke of Normandy did break his Allegeance to Chil­perick his heires and ſucceſſours, when he did homage of his Duke­dom to Charles Martel, who expel­led the lawful line? 11. Whether in caſe the Turk ſhould make ſuch a conqueſt of England, as he hath done of Conſtantinople, an Engliſh man minded to tarry in England is not tied to engage to be true and faithfull to him, and conſequently freed from former engagements? 12. Or if the Engliſhman may wave and ſuſpend his engaging ſo ſoon after the conqueſt, how long time may be allowed to him afore he do it? 13. Suppoſe, an Engliſhman had 15 yeares ago foreſeen, and foretold by probable and poſſible conjectures, ſuch a38 turne of State as ours is, whe­ther it had not been a ſinne in him to take, without ſome condition implyed, the oath of Allegeance? 14. Whether in caſe the King had (as it was once very doubt­full) clear overcome the Parlia­ment and had (as it is likely he would have done) aboliſhed all future thoughts of Parliaments, and had thereupon made a Pro­clamation and publick Declaration of his will and pleaſure; whe­ther, I ſay, in that caſe, he com­manding a generall ſubſcription to be true and faithfull to him in the maintenance of his Domi­nation, every Engliſhman had not been obliged in conſcience and o­bedience to Gods word, to ſubmit unto it, and thereby been looſed from his former tyes and obligati­ons to maintain the priviledges of Parliament, the liberties of the Kingdome, the extirpation of the39 Engliſh Hierarchie, and the like?

Theſe quaeries are of themſelves ſo ſatisfactory, that they need no anſwer; for even in all oaths, which are not of Allegiance, contracts, & promiſes, though they be uttered, or written in abſolute terms, there is always ſome condition implyed, and included, as is the mutuall promiſe the firſt day of marriage; and Seneca in his fourth Book de Beneficijs, Chap. 35. giveth many pregnant inſtances. Tunc fidem fal­lam, tunc inconſtantiae crimen audi­am, ſi cum omnia eadem ſint, quae e­rant promittente me, non praeſtitero promiſſum, alioqui quicquid mutatur libertatem facit de integro conſulen­di & meam fidem liberat. That is, I ſhall then break my faith, and incurre the crime of inconſtancy, if I doe not fulfill my promiſe; all the things being the very ſame that they were, when I made the pro­miſe. And having made that good40 by examples, headdeth, omnia debent eſſe eadem quae fuerint cum promiten­tes ut promittentis, fidem teneas. That you may keep the faith, e­very thing muſt be the ſame it was when you promiſed. And in the 39 Chapter, he is very full, and ſaith, that in all promiſes, ſub­eſt tacita exceptio, ſi potero, ſi debe­bo, ſi haec ita erunt: effice ut idem ſtatus ſit cum exigitur qui fuit cum promitterem, ſi aliquid intervenit no­vi, quid miraris, cum conditio pro­mittentis mutata ſit, mutatum eſſe conſilium: eadem mihi omnia praeſta, & idem ſum. There is a tacite ex­ception, if I can, if I ought to doe it, if the things be thus: make that good that the ſame ſtate doe con­tinue, when it is demanded, that it was, when I made promiſe; if ſome new things come in the inte­rim, why doe you marveil that the reſolution is changed, ſince the con­dition of him that promiſed is alſo41 changed: ſee that all be as they were, and I am the ſame. This very ſubject, that promiſes and con­tracts, are conditionally to be in­terpreted, though the interpreta­tion is not expreſſed, is handled by Queene Elizabeth, in a controver­ſie betweene her ſelfe and the Hol­landers, in the clearing of which, She maketh uſe of this very place of Seneca. The whole paſſage is worth ſetting down briefly, being more largely related by learned cambden in his Annals, in the year 1595. The Queen being in a man­ner weary with the length of the warre that the States of the Low Country had with Spaine, and the greatneſſe of the expences, ſhewed this unto the States by her Am­baſſador Sir Thomas Bodley, reſi­dent in Holland, particularly, that England being exhauſted of wealth and military men, She required, not onely eaſe of the charge of42 the charge of maintaining Auxili­ary Forces, but alſo that they would repay ſome part of her ex­pences. They, after ſome comple­ments, and a demonſtration to the Queene, of the great loſſes they lately ſuſtained, and the heavy bur­den that lay upon them in proſe­cuting a warre againſt ſo potent an Enemy, deſired forbearance, but ſo, that they promiſed to pay a part of the money: when the Queen re­quired a greater proportion, they ſtood ſtifly upon the Contract in the year 1585. by which, the mo­ney was not to be repaid before the warre was finiſhed; and preſ­ſed her upon her Honour not to ſtart back from Her Contract: But She, by the advice of her Counſellours of State, replyed, That all Contracts with a Prince, are underſtood to admit an interpretation of ſincere fidelity, and no publick d­triment, cauſed by the Contract:43 That 'tis no breach when it is done by accident of a new caſe, concerning which, other proviſion would have been made, if it had been thought upon: That every Contract, though ſworne, is underſtood if matters con­tinue in the ſame ſtate; but not, if they be changed: That a man is bound more ſtrongly to the Common­wealth, then to his own promiſe; and out of the authority of Seneca, that a wiſe man doth not change his de­termination, all things continuing which were when he took it.

Letter.

Moſes, by the ſame power by which he plagued Aegypt, was able to take the people out of Ae­gypt, which yet he never attempted without Pharaohs permiſsion.

Conſideration.

FOr although God command­ed the Sacrifice, yet ſince the place was not defined, they could not be exempted from obeying the King.

44

Letter.

ANd becauſe ſome might ſay, that the Chriſtian people was bidden to obey the Emperours meer­ly out of neceſsity, and to avoyd per­ſecution, the Apoſtles words alledg­ed, commanding obedience to the higher Powers for Gods ſake, takes away any ſuch thought: And St. Paul bids us to yeeld obedience to the higher Powers, not only for wrath, but alſo for conſcience ſake; that is, not only for feare of puniſhment, but becauſe conſcience, and Gods Word, doth bind us thereunto. Jeſus Chriſt himſelfe, appearing before Pontius Pilate, to be judged by him, by that, acknowledeth that Pilate had recei­ved that Power from God.

Conſideration.

WEre it not too much to diſgreſſe from the ſubject in hand, which is, of the power of the Chriſtian Magiſtrate in ſacred things; this part of the Letter45 ſtrongly aſſerting out of the words of the Apoſtle, Rom. 13. That o­bedience and ſubmiſſion is due to that Magiſtrate which by Gods providence hath got the Suprema­cie, would lead me to a further con­ſideration of it; but having but now taken liberty to digreſſe upon the ſame, I ſhall onely obſerve upon this part of the Letter, that Jeſus Chriſt did not except againſt the power that Pilate tooke to judge him; but rather ſaid, that that power was given him from God. Thus in the fourth of the Acts Peter and John doe not ex­cept againſt the validity of the Court over them, but freely ac­knowledge their Judges: We are examined (ſay they) of the good deed done in the impotent man. The ſtate of the controverſie was, whe­ther it was lawfull to heal any one in the name of Jeſus? Peter, in the name of the Apoſtles, proved it was lawfull, becauſe Jeſus was an46 Head over the Church, and was author of Salvation, which they further ſtrengthened by proofes, from his Reſurrection, and ante­cedent Oracles; and when they were forbidden to preach any more in the name of Jeſus, they replied, Judge yee whether it be right in the ſight of God, to hearken unto you more then unto God. Intimating, that even the power of judging, whether Jeſus was the Meſſias, did belong unto them.

Letter.

Of the Power of Kings over the lives and calling of the High Prieſt, we have a cleare example in the 1 Book of the Kings, Chap. 2. Verſ. 26. where Salomon ſaith to Abiathar, Thou art worthy of death, but I will not at this time put thee to death; only was con­tented to thruſt him out from be­ing Prieſt unto the Lord, and con­fined him to his houſe at Anatoth; and oft-times the Roman Emperors,47 and the Chriſtian Kings, have puni­ſhed Biſhops and Paſtors with ba­niſhments, ſtripes, yea, with death. The Emperour Conſtantius did re­move Liberius Biſhop of Rome from the function of his Epiſcopacy, and baniſhed him to Berea.

Conſideration.

THis example, and many more he addeth, are ſufficient to e­vince, that the Magiſtrate hath power to exauctorate, or degrade; and thereupon to put another in the place. He that hath power to expell a Biſhop from his Domi­nion, hath alſo power to thruſt him out of his Sea, which is with­in the Dominion; and if the Ele­ction was not an Act of the Sove­raign Power, either by his con­ceſſion, or delegation to others, the Miniſter, or Biſhop could not be put out, but by the power that inveſted him. Any Act, which may contribute towards the ſecu­ritie,48 peace and weal of the ſtate, is of the cognizance of the ſupream power of that State, and the Jus ſacrum was compriſed under Jus publicum; for the definition of Jus, is the knowledge of Di­vine and humane things.

Letter.

IN the dayes of Valentinian, Damaſus and Urſicinus, being competitors of the ſea of Rome, the ſedition being grown to that height, as that there was found 137 dead bo­dies in a Baſilisk, but the commotion was appeaſed by the authority of the Emperour, who expelled Urſi­cinus, and ſetled Damaſus.

In the yeare of our Lord 420. there aroſe a great ſtrife between Bo­nifacius and Eulalius, competitors for the ſea of Rome, by the claſh­ing of the Suffrages of the people of Rome, to whom at that time be­longed the power and right of ele­ction. But the authority of Ho­norius49 intervening, he thruſt out Eulalius, and preferred Bonifaci­us, and withall made this Law, that if it falls out, that againſt right, and by the raſhneſſe of the contending parties, two are made Biſhops, we will not ſuffer that either of them be Biſhops: this Law is found in the Decree of Gra­tian. Diſtinct. 79. Canon, ſi duo forte.

Conſideration.

THough the election of Pa­ſtors ſhould naturally belong to other Paſtors, or Chriſtian people, as naturally every one chuſeth a Tutour to his ſonne; a Patient, what Phyſician he liketh beſt; a Merchant, his Factor; yet no doubt but the Soveraign pow­er may exerciſe ſuch actions that have no definitive bounds and rules preſcribed by the dictates of nature; thus in many places, the Soveraigne power will pro­vide50 Tutors for Pupills, publick Schoolmaſters for youth; Phy­ſicians for Townes and Cities: Beſides, the Factions, Schiſmes, and Hereſies, may ſo rend the State, that if the ſupream power hath not a chief regulating hand in the election of Paſtors calling, or convocation of Synods, it will never be able to ſettle the peace and ſecurity of the State up­on a right Baſis: The Canons about elections have no life nor validity, but what they receive from the ſupream power; much leſſe the elections, which are regu­lated according to the canons and decrees.

Letter.

IN the yeare of our Lord, 451. The Emperour Theodoſius the II. (whoſe piety and goodneſſe is generally commended) expelled Ne­ſtorius Patriarch of Conſtantino­ple, and baniſhed him.

51

In the yeare 498. a great ſtrife happened about the election of a Bi­ſhop of Rome, betwixt Symmachus and Laurentius; the King Theo­dorick taking notice of the ſtrife, and hearing that Symmachus had been firſt named, preferred him be­fore Laurentius: but ſoon after Symmachus being accuſed of ma­ny crimes, he appointed Peter, Bi­ſhop of Altin to iudge of the accu­ſations, and look to the diſorders of Rome.

In the year 525. King Theodorick ſent Iohn Biſhop of Rome Ambaſ­ſadour to Iuſtine the Emperour; but this Iohn behaving himſelfe contrary to his inſtructions, Theo­dorick put him to death in priſon. Gregory the I. Biſhop of Rome, who wrote about the yeare of our Lord 595. writing to Maurice the Emperour, calls himſelf unworthy ſervant, and ſubject to his com­mands, yea duſt and aſhes in his52 preſence and a worme.

In the yeare 654. Conſtant the Emperour, put Martin the Bi­ſhop of Rome in chaines, and baniſh­ed him to Cherſoneſus, where he died. Under Pepin, Charles the Great, and Lewis le Debonaire, the power of the Romane Pontife grew by the liberality of thoſe Kings; yea, ſince them have they been often ill intreated, puniſhed, degraded and depoſed by the Empe­rours of Germany, and the Kings of Italy; and the Hiſtories of Ger­many, France and England are full of examples of Emperours and Kings, who have dealt roughly with the Biſhops, putting them out of their ſea, &c. There is no doubt made, when the King Clouis was a heathen, but that he had an ab­ſolute power over all French, both Lay and Eccleſiaſticall, and, that retained ſtill the a Chriſtian, he being afterwards ſame power, elſe53 he had been a loſer by his change, and ſuffered a diminution of autho­rity in his Empire: Under the firſt line of our Kings, Councells were aſſembled by their command, and the Biſhop of Rome never in­termedled, and had neither Nunci­oes nor Legats in France.

Conſideration.

THat the Supream power e­ven of contrary Religion, challenged power as well over Ecleſiaſticall perſons as cauſes, and were acknowledged compe­tent Iudges; we may ſee by the appeal of Saint Paul who appeal­ed to Ceſar, I ſtand (ſaith he) at the Judiciall ſeat of Ceſar; there I muſt be indged; and when Saint Peter (not declining the Iudgement of the Councell) ſaid, Act. 4. Whether we ought rather to obey God or man, Judge yee? And the great controverſie about the Tem­ples of Jeruſalem and Garizin,54 between the Iewes and the Sama­ritanes, was decided by Ptolomeus King of Egypt, and which was moſt materiall by the Law of Moſes; and his judgement was right, pronouncing to which of them the Temple and Prieſthood did belong.

Letter.

GRegory of Tours, who wrote about the yeare of our Lord 585. the hiſtorie of France, in the 18 chap. of the 5 book, ſpeaks thus to the King Chilperick, If any of us, O King, go beſides the path of righteouſneſſe, thou mayeſt redreſſe him; but if thou doſt tranſgreſſe, who ſhall be able to correct thee, we ſpeak to thee, and thou heareſt us, but if thou wilt not, who ſhall have the pow­er to condemne thee, but he that is Iuſtice it ſelfe. At that time the Biſhop of Rouen named Prae­textat was in great reputation;55 yet was this Biſhop being accuſed to have adhered to Meroue, who re­belled againſt Chilperick, clapt into priſon by the Kings command, and ſore beaten, and baniſhed to Garnſey.

Conſideration.

ALL this is ſufficient to prove that the Soveraigne power of the State, hath alwayes challenged power over Eccleſi­aſticall perſons: by that which follows, it will be as clear, that they challenge likewiſe the cognizance and ordering of Eccleſiaſticall cauſes and actions.

Letter.

THE Greek Emperours, have cal­led all the oeconomick Councells, not expecting the conſent of the Biſhop of Rome, and often againſt his conſent, as the firſt Councell of Conſtantinople, and of Chalce­done. Yea, in matters of Reli­gion, and Eccleſiaſticall policy, one56 cannot deny but that the Soveraign power of the State hath made or­ders. David made twenty foure ranks of Prieſts; Salomon had the chief overſight of the building of the Temple, and bringing in all the veſſels. We ſee in the Code of Iuſtinian, great number of Lawes concerning, not only, the policy of the Church, but alſo the purity of the doctrine; as be the titles, de ſumma Trinitate & fide Catholica; de Epiſcopis & Clericis; & ne ſan­ctum Baptiſma iteretur. By which Lawes it appeareth, that the Em­perours had power to puniſh the Bi­ſhops, namely by the 123 Authen­tick chap. 1. the Emperour ſpeak­eth thus, Si quis autem extra memoratam obſervationem Epiſ­copus ordinetur; jubemus hunc Epiſcopatu depelli. Yea, he there addeth pecuniary Fines.

57

Conſideration.

AS by theſe Lawes in the code of Juſtinian, it appeareth, that the Emperours had power to puniſh the Biſhops, as the Letter ſaith; ſo doe they much more clearely aſſert the right and power which the Supreame Magiſtrate hath, not only over all cauſes, they call Eccleſiaſticall, but to make Lawes and Conſtitutions, of the ſame nature as the cauſes be.

Letter.

A Great part of the Capitularies of Charles the great, and of Lewis le Debonnaire, are Laws Ec­cleſiaſticall, like thoſe we read in the Councels of thoſe dayes. The Coun­cell of Meyns, held in the yeare 813. begins thus: Carolo Augu­ſto verae religionis Rectori & Defenſori Sanctae Eccleſiae: And the ſecond Councell of Meyns ſpeaks thus to Lewis le Debonnaire at the opening of it: Domino & Se­reniſſimo58 & Chriſtianiſſimo Re­gi Ludovico verae religionis ſtre­nuiſſimo Rectori & Defenſori Sanctae Eccleſiae. I doubt not but theſe Emperours made thoſe Lawes by the counſell of the Biſhops and Prelats within their Dominions; But they were willing to have them cur­rant under the name of their Im­periall Lawes, and the ſtamp of their Authority; for the Soveraign Magiſtrate is the ſervant of God, appointed by God, to ſee the Law of God obſerved amongſt men, and the pure worſhip of his name ſet up.

Conſideration.

THe Soveraigne Power is conſtituted by God, to the end that men might live godly, juſtly, ſoberly, and peaceably. A Heathen could ſay, that in a Com­mon-wealth, the firſt care muſt be Religion, the〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Ariſt. And there is good rea­ſon59 that the Soveraign Magiſtrate ſhould ſeeke after that, which he is in the firſt place to ask for, which is the Kingdome of Hea­ven, being the baſis of humane ſociety; ſo ſaith Cicero, Religio eſt humanae ſocietatis fundamentum. But that the duty of the Supream Power is equally to order the re­ligion, and the civill government, St. Auſtin doth plainely ſet it downe in the third Book againſt Creſconius Grammaticus. In hoc Reges ſicut eis divinitus praecipitur Deo ſerviunt, in quantum Reges ſunt, ſi in regno ſuo bona jubeant, mala prohibeant, non ſolum quae pertinent ad humanam ſocietatem, verum etiam quae ad divinam reli­gionem. In that Kings, as they are injoyned by God, doe ſerve God as they are Kings, if with­in their Kingdom they command good things, and forbid evill things, not onely in things be­longing60 to humane ſociety, but alſo to divine religion.

Letter.

ANd I doe not believe, that in England there is any Mi­niſter of the Word of God found, who doth not acknowledge a ſubje­ction to the Sovereign Magiſtrate, but is rather exceeding joyfull that the holy Ordinances are ſetled by publick authority; and therefore, there is no feare that any of them ſhould goe about to perſwade that there muſt be an Eccleſiaſticall Common-wealth, differing from the civill, and one Common-wealth within another: 'Tis all the fault we finde with the Pope, and his Clergy, that they have made Im­perium in Imperio, and that the Clergy by his Lawes cannot be con­vented before the Royall Judges: for they have Courts of Judicature, and Priſons ſevered from the civill; they have their appeales to the Ro­man61 Court, and are freed from tax­es and impoſitions.

Conſideration.

THat power which the Mini­ſters doe challenge, in cenſu­ring, and puniſhing of offenders, ſuſpending from the communi­on, or excommunicating, as in­herent and intrinſecall to the Mi­niſters of the word, and not be­ing a branch depending of the ju­risdiction of the Soveraign Chri­ſtian Magiſtrate; that power, I ſay, thus challenged, is as much, as to conſtitute one Common-wealth within another.

Letter.

FOr I doe not thinke, that Bi­ſhops, or Miniſters, ought to ren­der themſelves Judges in any cauſe, civill, or capitall, to puniſh the of­fenders, by impriſonment, taxes, or bodily penalties. Jeſus Chriſt ne­ver authorized them ſo to doe, for he would not ſo much as accept of62 being an arbiter in ſharing of an Inheritance.

For theſe reaſons, I doe not believe that thoſe, in whoſe hands God hath now entruſted the Soveraign Power in England, ſhall have any ground of fearing that the Miniſters, ſo long as they diſcharge their calling, making uſe of that authority that Jeſus Chriſt hath given them, have any intention to intrench upon the Power and Authority of the Soveraign Magiſtrate. But, becauſe the third Article, attributing to the Supream Magiſtrate a right to order all humane actions tending to the Soveraign end, which is the glory of God, and the ſalvation of ſouls, might ſeem to draw this conſequence, that the ſoveraign Magiſtrate is judg of all actions about Miniſtry, and the Preaching of the Word; therefore, the article addeth a prudent cauti­tion, viz. That we muſt obey the Soveraign Magiſtrate, ſo long as his63 commands are not repugnant to Gods commands; for if he ſhould com­mand the abjuring of the Chriſtian Religion, or bowing before an Idol, or ſhould introduce another propiti­atory ſacrifice for ſinnes, beſides the death of Chriſt, then ſuch commands were not to be obeyed: Nor doe I ſay, that therefore the State muſt be embroiled, and the Magiſtrate re­ſiſted; but, that one is rather to en­dure martyrdome, or all kind of per­ſecution, then to loſe his ſoule, in giving obedience to ſuch commands. Thus have the three friends of Da­niel done, and all the faithfull mar­tyrs. We ſee in the Apologetick of Tertullian, that in his time, the Chriſtians did fill the greateſt part of the Roman Empire, which might have been very empty, had they gone about to flee for perſecution into a remote Country. Read St. Auſtin upon the 124 Pſalme. Valentinian the II. was laboured to take away64 the Temples from the Orthodoxes, and give them to the Arrians; but Ambroſius, Biſhop of Milan, withſtood him: but how? he tels you himſelfe: Dolere potero, po­tero flere, potero gemere, adver­ſus arma milites Gottos, lachry­mae meae arma ſunt; talia enim ſunt munimenta Sacerdotis, aliter nec debeo, nec poſſum reſiſtere.

To this exception, I would adde another, that the Magiſtrate muſt be obeyed in the actions in which he acts as Magiſtrate, and for ſuch a one taken: For, if a Soveraign Prince be in a Ship, and a ſtorme happens, I doe beleeve, that the Maſter Pilot ought rather to follow the rules of his art, than the will of the Prince, who is not verſed in na­vigation. The Magiſtrate indeed may forbid the mariners to lanch out of the Port, and to ſaile into Spain, or the Indies; or to import, or ex­port ſuch and ſuch wares; but it doth65 not belong to him to order how the Ship muſt be ſteered, or the ſailes hoiſed up. Thus, a Prince learning to ride, ought, if he meanes to learn, to obey the Maſter of the horſes; yea, as a Saveraign Prince, he hath power over the perſon, life, and goods of the Maſter of the horſes; yea, I ſay, that the yielding of the Prince to the Rider, is a kind of a command to the Rider, ſo to deale with him: I ſay the ſame of a Ma­giſtrate ſick, obeying the preſcripts of a Phyſitian; he doth obey as a man, and not as a Magiſtrate: where­upon, a queſtion may be moved, whether the Magiſtrate, being at publique prayers, and partaker of the Sacraments, is there as a Magi­ſtrate, or as a Chriſtian.

Conſideration.

THis ſimilitude, or relation, betwixt a Prince in a ſtorm, and the Pilot; and betwixt a Prince ſick, and a Phyſitian, is66 very pertinent to declare, that the power of the Paſtor over the So­veraign Magiſtrate, is of the ſame nature, and proportionable to that power which the Phyſitian hath over the Soveraign Prince being ſick; or that of a skilfull Pilot in a ſtorme over him, who may be his King, but unskilfull in the art of navigation. This power, is rather a friendly counſell, though exerciſed, and uttered in a com­manding way, ſpecially, in the mouth of a Miniſter, who, in the name of God, may command a Soveraigne Prince to redeem his ſins by a ſpeedy repentance; for in effect, 'tis but declaring unto him what be the commands of God for the good of his ſoule. Thus, a Phyſitian following the rules of his art, and his long ex­perience, may charge a King his patient, as he tenders his owne health, which he muſt not obſti­nately67 caſt away, to refraine from ſuch and ſuch meates, and doubt­leſs, that King would grievouſly ſinne againſt God, who, rejecting the counſell of the Phyſition, and wilfully obeying his owne luſt, and appetite, ſhould thereby fall into a relapſe. It might happen, in a ſtorme, or ſhipwrack, that the Pilot ſhould uſe a kinde of compulſion and violence towards his Soveraign, pulling him (as it were) out of danger, and forcing him to hearken to the meanes of his preſervation: for which, he ought not to be blamed.

Letter.

I Think alſo, that we ſhould make a diſtinction between a Magiſtrate that is faithfull and orthodox, and one that is an Ethnick, or an He­retick: for under a heathen Magi­ſtrate, I doe not ſee how it can be­long to any but the Paſtors of the Church; to manage the Church: for68 ſhall a heathen Magiſtrate, and perſecutor, be a judge of the arti­cles of the Chriſtian faith, or make uſe of ſuſpenſion, or excommunica­tion? Whence it followeth, that the ſtate of the Church may ſubſiſt, al­though the power of the Keyes, and the governing of the Church, be not in the Magiſtrate: If the heathen Magiſtrate ſhould forbid the Paſtors upon paine of death, to hold coun­cels, or Eccleſiaſticall aſſemblies, or to preach the Goſpel; or if there be ſuch an urgent neceſsity of calling a Councell, to ſtop the current of a peſtilentiall hereſie, or to degrade ſome Paſtors that diſturbe the peace of the Church, or that have crept in forcibly, may the Paſtors be con­demned, if they doe privately con­vene themſelves contrary to the will of the Magiſtrate?

Conſideration.

THis is one of the ſtrongeſt arguments that can be al­ledged,69 for the power of the Keys, and Eccleſiaſticall Courts, and Jurisdiction, different, and inde­pendent from the civill Magi­ſtrate, becauſe there hath beene ſometimes Church-government, calling of Synods, and exerciſe of Jurisdiction, againſt the will of the ſoveraigne Power, and not complicate with the civill Power. But, in mine opinion, it hath no ſtrength all: for firſt, I lay down this for a ground, that the Magi­ſtrate, whether Orthodox, or not, doth retaine ſtill the ſame ſupream power over all perſons, and cauſes, of what kind ſoever. Secondly, that in all perſons, and actions of men, under the ſoveraigne Power, this grand rule muſt be firſt obſerved, that God muſt rather be obeyed then man. Thirdly, that many actions, of all kinds, naturall, or voluntary, even meetings, aſſem­blies, and orders, obliging ſome70 men, or ſociety, may be done without the cognizance of the ſo­veraigne Magiſtrate: For firſt; If heatheniſme, or hereſie, could deveſt a man of the power he hath over all perſons, and cauſes, by that, unjuſt lawes ſhould be no lawes; a diſeaſed man, by the ſame reaſon, ſhould ceaſe to be a man; and a wicked Emperour, as Heli­ogabalus, ſhould not have beene ranked among the Emperors, nor acknowledged for the ſupreame Judge of the Land, becauſe a bad one: I confeſſe, that a Heathen, or hereticall Soveraigne, cannot but judge amiſſe of perſons, and cauſes, either out of ignorance, or malice; but ignorance of what is right, doth not deveſt him of his right, neither doth a wicked ma­naging of his owne right, hinder it to be a right ſtill: Depraved a­ctions in nature, continue to be actions ſtill. An Orthodox So­veraign71 Magiſtrate, falling into heatheniſme, or hereſie, as Julian the Apoſtate, loſeth no part of his ſupreame power, he that over all cauſes, and perſons; no more doth the Soveraigne Magi­ſtrate get any addition, or extent of power, if from hereſie, or hea­theniſme, he is converted to the Chriſtian Religion. 'Tis the du­ty of a Magiſtrate, to defend and propagate Chriſtian Religion: It is the Fathers duty to provide for his children; the part of the Su­preame Judge, to adminiſter ju­ſtice impartially, though any, or all of them, may faile in the diſ­charge of their duty: The King being a perſecutor of the chriſtian people, inſtead of being their nur­ſing Father; the Father leaving his children to the wide world; and the Judge taking bribes, and being prepoſſeſſed with prejudi­ces: If mens ſins ſhould exempt72 exempt them from their duty, a wicked mans duty ſhould be ne­ver to be converted: None will ſay, 'tis not the duty of a Go­vernor of a ſtrong hold, to defend it, although he lets in the enemy without reſiſtance: That 'tis not the office of a Magiſtrate to look to the ſafety of the high wayes, becauſe he either neglects that care, or conniveth at ſuch as doe com­mit robbery. For the ſecond ground: Suppoſe that the Sove­raigne Power doth not impoſe a­ny Law; or rather, ſuppoſe his Lawes are unjuſt, ſhall a man un­der ſuch a power, live lawleſſe? or ſhall not rather ſuch a man, be­ing a Chriſtian, be tied to be a Law unto himſelfe; or rather, to make the word of God a Law to his conſcience: Sure, ſuch a man muſt not expect the commands of the Soveraign Power to abſtain from ſtealing, or fornication, which73 may be, are authoriſed by Law, but muſt avoid theſe, not for wrath, that is, not for fear of puniſhment, but for conſcience ſake, as the Apoſtle ſpeaketh; thus when Chriſt commandeth the Miniſters to preach, baptiſe, &c. and the people not to forſake their mutu­all Aſſembly; no doubt but that both the Chriſtian Paſtor and people are bound to all Church duties, though they have the So­veraign power oppoſite, and threatning all kind of puniſhment to thoſe that exerciſe them.

If thoſe in authority be wanting to their duty, I have no reaſon or ground to be deficient in mine. As for the third ground, concerning meetings, aſſemblies, &c. I ſay, that they may be ſuch as (though it ſhould be granted on all ſides, that the Church and States Juriſ­diction were but one) that the ve­ry Soveraign power needs not to74 pretend to have an eye over them; It being a kind of right of nature for Merchants trading in the ſame commodity to meet; for acquain­tance to appoint a Randezvous. A man being a feciable creature, it is no marvell if men are natural­ly deſirous to converſe together, without expecting any order for ſo doing. Were not the Heteries and Meetings of the ancient Chri­ſtians of the ſame nature? And up­on that account I ſee not, but the Meetings of congregations of thoſe called Independents are very com­mendable, and not to be enquired after by the Soveraigne Magi­ſtrate, nor by Synods which can­not be proved to be of Divine inſtitution, but have taken their originall from thoſe kinds of natu­rall and innocent meetings, which when they were about things which were neither plots nor con­ſpiracy to diſturb the peace of the75 State, needed not to be looked af­ter by the Magiſtrate, except when being converted to the Chri­ſtian Religion, he became himſelf a principall member of thoſe meet­tings; for then, ſpecially when the meetings are not onely in hou­ſes, but in publick places, and are tending to have the holy Ordinan­ces ſet up and publiſhed as the main rule of life, and ground­work of humane ſociety, his chief duty was to govern the Empire as Chriſtian, contributing his whole endevour towards the defence, maintenance and encreaſe of the Chriſtian Religion, Thus Leo Biſhop of Rome, Ep. 75. to Leo the Emperour, Debes incunctanter advertere Regiam poteſtatem tibi non ſolum ad mundi regimen ſed maxime ad Eccleſiae praeſidium eſſe collocatam: Thou oughteſt ſoberly to conſider that the Royall power is not onely committed to thee for the76 Government of the world, but chief­ly for the defence of the Church.

Letter.

ALL the difficulty then is con­cerning the Orthodox Magi­ſtrate, and one that is endowed with the true knowledge of God, ſuch as, by the mercies of God, the Magiſtrate of England is; upon that the fifth Article ſaith, that the Reformers have indeed purged the Popiſh Doctrine, but have reſerved to themſelves the Soveraigne cog­nizance of the actions they call Ec­cleſiaſticall, challenging the power of the Keyes, which when all is ſaid, is reduced to this ſentence, that God muſt be rather obeyed then men. The Authour of the Articles thinks that the Reforming Paſtors in re­taining the power of the Keyes, have not obeyed God: he doth indeed acknowledge, that under a Prince of contrary Religion, the Chriſti­an people have done well to eſtabliſh77 a government, which they call purely Eccleſiaſticall, and create Elders who are deputies of the people; but he is of that opinion that where the Magiſtrate is of the ſame Religion with the body of the people, there ought not to be any further diſtin­ction of Juriſdiction; the Church and State concurring into one Chri­ſtian common-wealth: To be ſhort, all his diſcourſe is tending to that, viz. that in a State where the Magiſtrate is Orthodox, the Keyes and power which the Paſtors had un­der Magiſtrates of contrary Reli­gion, doth no longer belong to them, but doth onely belong to the Sove­raigne Magiſtrate, whoſe power is over all perſons and things, and that in all Aſſemblies, Synods, and Claſſes, the concluſions have no force, if they be not ratified by the will of the Supreme Magiſtrate by whom they uſually are aſſembled.

78

Conſideration.

VVHat he ſaith from the Author of the articles, that where the Supream Magi­ſtrate becomes Orthodox, the power of the Keyes doth no lon­ger belong to the Miniſters, ought to be underſtood with ſome ex­plication; for the power of the Keyes is ſtill, and ought to be the ſame whether the Magiſtrate be orthodox or no; there is not in the Miniſters any addition of that power under the heathen Magi­ſtrate, nor any ſubſtraction of it under a Chriſtian: ſuppoſe that the Chriſtian Magiſtrate and Orthodox ſhould turn Apoſtate, I do not conceive that it follows thereupon, that the power which the Chriſtian Magiſtrate hath o­ver the Church, is through his A­poſtacy devolved unto the Mini­ſters; for that Legiſlation or Iu­risdiction practiſed in Chriſtian79 Congregations, Synods, or Aſ­ſemblies under the heathen Magi­ſtrate, is no more then a harmo­ny of minds, affections, and actions to holy ordinances and orders; by which Chriſtians may worſhip God more purely, and walk more cloſely with him, which ordinances are either Gods word, or ſuch as encreaſe the power of piety; and as they are publiſhed by common conſent as the beſt rule to walk by; ſo are they in the practiſe of them willingly, and u­nanimouſly conſented unto, and every member of a Chriſtian ſo­ciety, ſubmitteth himſelf to the rules, exhortations and cenſures of that ſociety or Church, not being awed or compelled by any coer­cive power, which they cannot a­void, if they liſted, but led by voluntary ſubmiſſion; to which by promiſe, and pact, they are in a manner already engaged. Beſides,80 ſuppoſe that the Magiſtrate doth not impoſe any Lawes to reſtrain ungodlineſſe, or the currant ſins in the world; yea, ſuppoſe that vices are authoriſed by Law; doth either Paſtors or ſociety of Chri­ſtians get an increaſe of power of Jurisdiction and Legſlation, if they be a Law unto themſelves, and practiſe the duties of piety, and exhort one another ſo to do; Plinius the younger, in the 97 Epiſtle to Trajan, and the tenth book where he ſpeaks of Chriſti­ans, ſaith, that one of their crimes was, that they joyned themſelves in a covenant, to live unblameably, not to ſteal, not to commit forni­cation, not to defraud his neigh­bour, and the like; I believe that none will from that practiſe of the Chriſtians, argue that they took upon them more power for ſo do­ing, then they durſt under a Chri­ſtian Magiſtrate, except he were81 of the mind of ſome of late in Authority, in England, who diſ­liked and endeavoured to ſup­preſſe all godly private meetings, under pretence of Factions. Sure if I miſtake it not, it will be found that the Paſtors power of the Keyes, had no life to compell the diſobedient to Gods ordi­nances, till they received it from the Soveraigne Magiſtrate, when he gave his name to Chriſt, who both more honoured and exalted Gods ordinances, raiſing them from the duſt, and added weight to the heavenly meſſages, by the mouth of the Miniſters, by be­ing a terrour to the evil, and pu­niſhing the ungodly. To the power of perſuaſion and declara­tion he addeth that of coaction; in which the Paſtors have nothing to do. The Biſhop, ſaith Saint Paul, muſt not be a ſtriker,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And hereupon Chryſoſtome ſaith well,82 If a man is drawn from the faith, the Prieſt muſt undertake with pa­tience to exhort him; for he cannot redreſſe him by force, onely he muſt ſtrive to perſwade him, to bring him to the right Faith. Paſtors, ſaith the ſame Father, are appointed to preach,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not to rule or command with authority.

Letter.

HEre I dare ſay, that the Re­formers of the Doctrine of the Pope, have not retained the Keys that were under Popery. In refor­ming the Doctrine, they have alſo reformed the abuſes cleaving, to the Keyes which are abominable,; for in the Romiſh Church, they ex­tend the power of the Keyes, ſo farre as pardoning ſinnes in a judiciall way, ſaying to the ſinner, I abſolve thee from thy ſinnes. The Prieſt renders himſelf Judge, in a cauſe wherein God is the party offended: By vertue of theſe Keyes the Pope83 drawes ſouls out of Purgatory; he looſeth thoſe he never bound, and which are none of his flock: he doth looſe under earth, becauſe Jeſus Chriſt hath ſaid, what ever you ſhall bind on earth: he doth looſe and diſpence with oaths and vows, and freeth Subjects from the obedience due to their Soveraigne Prince; he ſeparates marriages, exempting alſo children from the obedience they owe to their Father, and Mother. Theſe holy men of God, who have refor­med the Doctrine, have left off thoſe Keyes, and kept thoſe which Jeſus Chriſt hath given to his Diſciples, and their ſucceſſors, I will give thee the Keyes of the Kingdome of heaven; it was alſo impoſsible to reform the Doctrine, without reforming the Keyes, ſince thoſe Keyes are a part of the Doctrine; they have retained to themſelves, the power to bind and looſe, which Jeſus Chriſt gave to84 his Diſciples, Math. 16. What­ſoever thou ſhalt bind on earth, &c which power goeth no further then Eccleſiaſticall cenſures, as the Lord Jeſus Chriſt teacheth, in the ſame place; giving to underſtand, that by this binding, the rebellious ſinner is put among the Publicanes and ſin­ners, who were excluded from the Communion of the Church: Thus we muſt underſtand the power of re­mitting, or reteining ſinnes given by Jeſus Chriſt to his Diſciples. The faithfull Paſtors do remit ſinnes when they releaſe men of Eccleſia­call penalties, and receive to the Communion of the Church the re­penting ſinner who was excluded.

Conſideration.

THe Reformers have done as Richard the third, in uſurp­ing a power which yet he exer­ciſed with moderation, and ma­king of good Lawes; ſo did Au­guſtus Caeſar and ſome more: Thus85 the Reformers have reteyned the Keyes, to which they had no more right, then the Paſtors of the Romiſh Church, but have taken away thoſe adjuncts of abuſes, and abominations, adhering to the power of the Keyes. In that ſence, as Richard the third, may be ſaid to have uſurped the Crowne, as well as he, who to uſurpation hath added a tyrannicall Govern­ment, and making of wicked and unjuſt Lawes; ſo may it be ſaid that the Reformers, in reform­ing the Doctrine, have reteined the power of the Keyes: the Ar­ticle thus ſpeaking, having no further meaning then to ſay that the Reformers, in reforming the Doctrine have ſtill challenged to themſelves an Eccleſiaſticall Iu­risdiction, not belonging to the Civil Magiſtrate; even as the Pa­ſtours of the Romiſh Church have donc; though not the ſame for qua­lifications. 86As for the meaning of the words dic Eccleſiae, tell it unto the Church, it cannot have much ſtrength, what ever interpre­tation one may give to the words; whether by the word Church we underſtand a Synagogue, or judica­tory, as was that of the Iewes, a­mongſt which there was no diffe­rence between Church, and State, or Common-wealth, or a ſociety of faithfull men: and though by the Church Paſtours ſhould be un­derſtood, I do not ſee here any Iudiciall ſentence binding him that treſpaſſeth againſt his neighbour, but ſtill he may, if he will, hearken without fear of any coercive pow­er ſeated in the Miniſters; and the words, Let him be to thee a heathen or a publican, have no further meaning then have him for ſuch a one in thy thoughts and eſtimation: a Publicans office was lawfull, neither yet could he be excluded87 from the communion, nor from the congregation; the very heathen not being excluded from the lat­ter; for how elſe could they have been converted?

Letter.

THE Reformers then, in re­forming the abuſes in the Do­ctrine, and Keyes, have retained the Keyes, and power to bind, and unbind, committed to them by Je­ſus Chriſt: The Author of the Ar­ticles acknowledgeth, that the Pa­ſtors of the Church have well done, to retain that power under the hea­then Emperors, that is, almoſt for the ſpace of 350 yeares from Chriſt to Conſtantine, the firſt Chriſtian Em­perour; ſince which Emperour, the ſaid Author thinks, that the Biſhops and Paſtors were to part with that Power; and that the Soveraigne Power of the Keyes, did no longer belong to them, but that they were to deſert it, in obedience to God,88 which yet they have not done; for all the ancient Councels, although convened by the will of the Empe­rours, are full of penitentiall canons, preſcribing the forme, time, and degrees, for publique pennances; in the execution of which canons, the conſent of the Emperours, nor of their Lieutenants was never ex­pected.

Conſideration.

WE have ſeen before, that the power of the Mini­ſters is neither increaſed, nor di­miniſhed, whether the Magiſtrate be Orthodox, or no; and that the power of the keyes, given them by God, hath more lively actings under the Orthodox Magiſtrate. To that part of the Letter, which ſaith, that in the execution of the canons, the conſent of the Em­perours was never expected; I ſay, that the Emperours them­ſelves underſtood that their con­ſent89 was not required in the ex­ecution of the canons, which, as they were Acts of his, ſo might he diſannull them, adde to them, or repeale them, by his Soveraign Authority he had over all per­ſons and cauſes. In the year 815. Charles the great is ſaid to have added ſomething of his owne to the decrees of the Synod held in Theodon Towne; hoc de noſtro ad­ijcimus: and for the authority of the ſupreame Magiſtrate, in alter­ing, changing, or expunging the decrees of Synods, Bochellus ſaith, that Charles the Bald, did reject a great part of what was ſet forth in Synods by the Biſhops, in the yeare 856. and, that it was the uſuall cuſtome, when ever Synods were aſſembled, that their decrees were not ratified, till the King in his Privy Councell had ap­proved of them; the ſaid King ta­king away what he diſliked, as it90 was practiſed by the Councels of Tours and Cabilon, under Charles the Great, and as P. Pithoeus hath proved fully. And for the Power of the Soveraigne Magiſtrate, to make his Laws as valid as canons, and as authenticall as Synods de­crees, I would goe no further for a witneſſe, then what is related by the Agents and Orators of the Councell of Trent, as may be ſeen amongſt the Acts. The moſt Chri­ſtian Kings (ſay they) have made ma­ny decrees about ſacred things, follow­ing the examples of Conſtantine, Theodoſius, Valentinian, Juſtini­an, and other Chriſtian Emperors, and ordained ſeverall Eccleſiaſtical Lawes, which they have put amongſt their owne decrees. But, that the execution of the ancient canons, were as much acts of the Empe­rours, as the execution of decrees made in Chancery, or other Courts, are acts of the Soveraign91 Magiſtrate, though he never heares of it. It can be eaſily proved, by the liberty that the Soveraigne Powers have always kept to them­ſelves, to diſpence with pennan­ces, impoſed by the canons. Ger­vaſius, a Biſhop, being excommu­nicated, was againe received to the communion by Juo Carnuten­ſis, by the order and appointment of the King of France, Philip the 1. This ſcandalized other Biſhops; whereupon, Juo, though a great friend to the Popes, in a letter to his fellow-Biſhops, juſtifieth himſelfe, and the King; ſaying, That the Aſſembly of Prieſts and people, ought to receive to the com­munion, whom the Kings piety hath thought worthy of it. In the like language ſpeaketh John, Biſhop of Rome, in the 181 Epiſtle, to Juſtinian; I beſeech your Clemency, to receive them to the unity of the Church, and to your communion, if92 they will forſake their errour.

Letter.

THoſe Reformers have believed, that the change of Religion in Soueraign Princes, could not take a­way what Jeſus Chriſt had given them, although it was a change for the better: They remembred Chriſts words, commanding him that hath received an offence of his neighbour, to tell it to the Church; that is, to the aſſembly of Paſtors and Rulers of the Churches; and they were per­ſwaded, that this comand was perpe­tuall, and to remaine in force to the end of the world: When the Lord beſtowed upon his Diſciples the gift of working Miracles, and ſpeaking Tongues; In this gift, they have not had any ſucceſſors, becauſe the miracles done by the Apoſtles, are uſefull to this day, to confirme and ſtrengthen the Goſpel: but the gra­ces, and callings, granted for the peace of conſcience, and for recon­ciling93 penitent ſinners, and main­taining the Church in good order, ought to be perpetuall, and the A­poſtles were meerly truſted with them, that they ſhould tranſmit them to Poſterity: and it is certain, that the pardon granted by the Apoſtles to ſome in their times, (namely, to the Corinthian inceſtuous perſon) cannot be of uſe to ſinners of theſe dayes; theſe graces and actions being perſo­nall. The ſame Reformers have conſi­dered, that as there are various turns of the things of this world, and the wils of the great ones of the world, are ſubject to mutability; it may fall out, that in a country where the Ma­giſtrate is Orthodox, the ſame Ma­giſtrate may come to be an heretick, idolater, or perſecutor, and therefore it is not expedient, that the ſpiri­tuall graces and callings ſhould de­pend of the inſtability of temporall things, and of the changes which may happen in States and Common­wealths. 94If ſo be the Paſtors under an Orthodox Magiſtrate, had re­ſigned to him the power of the keyes, no doubt but the Magiſtrate Idola­ter, who ſucceedeth, would not per­mit the Paſtors of the Church to re­ſume the authority, which they ſo willingly did forgoe.

Conſideration.

VVHether the Magiſtrate be Orthodox, or no, the maine duty, and action of a Chriſtian, depends not of the Magiſtrate; as, to feare God, and keep his commandements, to be­beleeve in Jeſus Chriſt; yea, even when the Magiſtrate is moſt averſe, he cannot hinder the laſt action of martyrdome, from being an honourable badge of Jeſus Chriſt, ſealing the truth of the Goſpel with his bloud. Now, whereas the letter ſaith, that, had the Paſtors quitted the power of the keyes to an Orthodox Magi­ſtrate,95 a ſucceeding Magiſtrate that were an idolater, would not permit them to reſume it; there can be no ſuch fear, for as an orthodox Magi­ſtrate permitting for ſome reaſons of State, an Idolatrous religion, wil either diſdain, or make a ſcruple of conſcience to have a hand in regu­lating an Idolatrous worſhip, but will leave to the Profeſſours, the whole ordering of their Religion, ſo it be not to the diſturbance of the State. In like manner will an Idolatrous Magiſtrate deal with Orthodox Chriſtians within his Dominions, and not ſo much vouchſafe to know what is that power of the Keyes, much leſſe to have the handling of them: If he can but hold the Sword, it matters little to him who handles the Keyes.

Letter.

I Wiſh, the Authour of the Arti­cles had explained himſelf more96 fully, and ſince he is of opinion, that the Paſtours under a faithfull and orthodox Magiſtrate, ought in obedience to God, to render to him that power which they had under a Magiſtrate of contrary Religion, he had alledged ſome places of Scrip­ture proving that ſuch a command is laid upon them that God may be obeyed.

Conſideration.

COmmon ſence teacheth us, that when a Prince, either through incapacity, ignorance, or minority knoweth not the extent of his juſt power, he may upon knowledge thereof extend it fur­ther, and behave himſelfe other­wiſe upon better thought or in­ſtruction. Thus if a Prince being a heathen knoweth not that his chief duty and office is to govern, adorn, and defend the Chriſtian Religion, and people, and to promote the ſal­vation of thoſe which are under97 his Government; who doubts but afterwards giving his name to Chriſt he is above all other cares obliged to care what hereto­fore he did not know to concern his care; and if when he was a heathen; the Paſtours did ſupply that, wherin he was deficient, there is no queſtion to be made, when afterwards he is a Chriſtian, but that their duty is not onely to render him his own, but alſo in­ſtruct him, and make him know the extent of his power, and tell him his duty is to throw his ſcep­ter at the feet of Chriſt, and mainly ſeek and care for the things pertaining to the Kingdome of God: And likewiſe if the ſaid Magiſtrate upon deliberation takes that charge upon him; who doubts, but that (although the duties of the Paſtours be never the leſſe) their burden is ſo much the lighter and that they have leſſe to care98 for. The civil Lawyers tell us, that if a man by Will, is appoint­ed Guardian to a Pupil, and can­not produce the Will, the ſove­raign Magiſtrate may ordain any one to be Guardian till the Will be produced: This is the very caſe, and the application is eaſie, that the Soveraign Magiſtrate is ſet Tutour over the Chriſtian people, by the will of God; now the while a Will is concealed, it is well if ſome body takes care of the Ward; and it matters not much, who be the Guardian, ſo that the Ward do not ſuffer dammage in his perſon or eſtate; but when the Will is produced to the Su­pream Magiſtrate, good reaſon then, he ſhould diſcharge the part of a faithfull Tutour, and the maine truſt laid on him, and intended in the Will, which is, that thoſe that are under his tuition may inherit the Kingdom of heaven. To that99 purpoſe the Author of the book de regimine Principum, aſcribed to Thomas Aquinas, hath a golden ſaying, The end which principally the King muſt intend in himſelf, and Subjects, is eternall beatitude, which conſiſteth in the viſion of God, and becauſe that viſion is the moſt per­fect good, every King or Lord, is chiefly to endeavour himſelf, that his Subjects may attain to that end.

Letter.

ANd ſince the Scripture ſaith, the Church is made up of two kinds of perſons, viz. Shepherd and ſheep, he ſhould have declared, whether he ranked the Magiſtrate amongſt the Paſtours or Sheep.

Conſideration.

THE Magiſtrate is among the Sheep in relation to the Paſtour; as he is a Patient in re­ſpect of his Phyſician, and a Diſciple in reſpect of his maſter,100 teaching him Arts and Sciences, & in a ſhip he is but one of the ve­ctores in relation to him that gui­deth the Ship, and ſits at the ſtern: Beſide in ſome regard, the So­veraign Magiſtrate is the Paſtor, as David is ſo called, and the Chriſtian people the Sheep: theſe relations being mutable accidents, and not inſeparable properties, do not in themſelves either abaſe, or elevate the nature of the Sub­ject.

Letter.

THis alſo is a point worthy the conſideration. If when a Magiſtrate liveth diſorderly, and is guilty of enormous crimes, the Paſtour may not deal with him with reprehenſions and admonitions, and when the Paſtour ſeeth apparantly that ſuch a Magiſtrate cannot be partaker of the holy Supper of the Lord but to his condemnation, whe­ther he may let him periſh without101 reproving and advertiſing of him. Conſideration

AS a Magiſtrate being ſick, is ſubject to the orders of the Phyſician; ſo as a Sheep, he is no leſſe, yea, more ſubject to the power of the Keyes, then the meaneſt of the flock: for the more he is expoſed to con­tagious vices, which he doth countenance by his example, the more need hath he of antidotes and preſervatives. It was an old and true ſaying, miſer eſt Impera­tor cui vera reticentur. The pow­er of the Keyes declaring from God a meſſage; no doubt but the Soveraign Magiſtrate is equal­ly concerned to heare God ſpeak­ing, as any one of the common people.

Letter.

ANd ſince the Authour of theſe Articles ſaith that the Soveraign Magiſtrate, ought to have102 in all cauſes and actions, and over all perſons an abſolute power, ſo that he commands not any thing con­trary to the word of God (for in theſe caſes he holds diſobedience to be juſt,) it had been needfull that the ſaid Authour had told us, who ſhall be Judge, whether the Ma­giſtrates commands are repugnant to Gods commandements, in caſe any difference be moved there­upon?

Conſideration.

TO this queſtion I anſwer, that none can be a viſible Judge, but he that is the Soveraigne power of the Common-wealth, and though he judgeth erroneouſly and partially, he hath onely God that ſhall judge him. Paſtors or Congregations, muſt either ac­quieſce to his judgement and deci­ſion as being onely legall, or they muſt ſuffer for righteouſ­neſſe ſake. Now if one ſaith,103 the Paſtours muſt be Judges, this Judgement muſt be, either of au­thority, or of diſcretion. This latter judgement is that by which every man having reaſon and conſcience, is able to diſcern what is true, what is falſe, what is fit and uſefull, and what is unprofi­table and hurtfull: by this judge­ment every Paſtor, yea, any other man, may judge of the wrong wayes the Magiſtrate takes; and the Paſtour may go yet further, for being convinced in his judge­ment and conſcience, that the Ma­giſtrate liveth in an ungodly way, he may and muſt preſſe unto his conſcience Gods word, and his Iudgements; but by the firſt kind of judgement which is of Autho­rity, I do not conceive the Pa­ſtors can judge the Soveraign Ma­giſtrate, only they muſt ſtrive to perſwade him, counſell him, and uſe no other forcible arms, then104 prayers to God and tears. Lachry­mae meae arma ſunt, ſaith St. Ambros to the Emperor Valentinian II. for it cannot be conceived that two ſo­veraign powers can ſtand together in a State; and Civilians have ever ſo contrived Laws and Courts, as they do not juſtle and claſh one a­gainſt another. Thus though pa­ternall right is moſt naturall and ancient, yet have they alwayes ſubjected it to the Soveraigne Magiſtrate, and make that yield to this; Now, as they make three kinds of actions, Eccleſi­aſticall, Iudiciall, and Military: ſuppoſe the Soveraigne power Eccleſiaſticall ſhould bid a man to go to Church; the ſecond power ſhould bid him to go to the market and the third power to the Lea­guer; I demand, how ſhall this man be able to fulfill all theſe commands at once; belike he will obey none, for as ſaith Tacitus,105 ubi omnes praecipiunt, nemo exequi­tur, when all do command, there is none that obey, therefore, there muſt bee an order a­mong the powers, one being ſubaltern to the other; elſe you can no more conceive a parity of powers, then two Gods in the world.

Letter.

ANd becauſe ofttimes, dicuſsi­ons may happen in the diſ­cuſsion of the true Doctrine, and up­on points of great concernment to the Chriſtian Religion, the au­thour of theſe Articles ſhould have declared whether he underſtands that the Soveraigne Magiſtrate is to decide thoſe controverſies? and whe­ther his meaning is, that the Su­pream counſel be made up of Di­vines expert in theſe matters.

Conſideration?

THough the Soveraigne pow­er ſhould have little or106 no inſight in things pertaining to the Kingdome of heaven; yet be­ing by Gods providence the Su­pream Iudicature of the Coun­trey; this muſt be taken for a Iudgement of God, who, as it is ſaid in the 4th of Daniel in his wrath ſets the moſt contemptible amongſt men; and children, for Kings, even children in judge­ment, over the people, that they may depend more on the King of Heaven. Yet the moſt part what they want in perſonall abi­lities to act of themſelves, they recompence in judgement and diſ­cretion about the choice of Coun­ſellours; many unlearned Fathers, and unacquainted in the wayes of education of children, will have a good ſagacity in chooſing able Tutours for their children; In like manner the Soveraigne Ma­giſtrate may wiſely order the courſe of Law, Sciences, Arts,107 Trades, Manufactures, though he be litttle or nothing verſed at all in any of them. And if it were required that the Soveraigne power ſhould be exactly conver­ſant in all the actions they or­der, there had need to be in a State ſo many Soveraigne pow­ers as there be acts and diſci­plines; and were they never ſo capable, yet they will do wiſely to chooſe able Counſellours; much more in a matter of ſo high im­portance, as is the deciding of controverſies in Religion, and ordering the actions belonging to the Kingdome of heaven, ubi magna negotia, magnis egent ad­jutoribus: and amongſt thoſe Counſellours, none will be ſo fit as Divines, men of Learning, Gravity, and Piety. Thus if the Soveraigne power goeth a­bout to reform the abuſes of ſeve­rall Profeſſions, and Arts within108 his Dominions, as for example of Phyſick, no doubt but he will joyn with his Counſell, the moſt skilfull of that Art. But that the Paſtours or Miniſters, are not the fitteſt to have a Supream Iurisdiction over perſons and cau­ſes, they call Eccleſiaſticall, rea­ſon, and the ſad experience of former times teacheth us: for were they endowed with know­ledge by Revelation; and had Eccleſiaſticall Aſſemblies com­pounded meerely of Divines, a non-erring gift not communica­ble to any other Aſſemblies of men; I ſhould willingly, and neceſſarily admit that Divines ought to be aſſiſting the Chri­ſtian Magiſtrate, not onely as Counſellours, but alſo as Iudges coequall to them, yea, Superi­ours in that Iurisdiction, which they challenge to themſelves; but the gifts of Government, being109 not inſeparably joyned with thoſe of preaching, and the Miniſters not being endowed with〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or infallibility more then thoſe that ſit at the Stern of the State can be; I do not ſee but that their proper place, and employment, is to be counſellours to the So­veraigne power in matters belong­ing to the Kingdome of heaven. But being falne inſenſibly upon the rank and ſtation that Mini­ſters ought to keep in a Chriſti­an Common-wealth, becauſe it is a matter complicate with the que­ſtion in hand, concerning the pre­tended Eccleſiaſticall Juriſdiction diſtinct from the Civil, it will not be amiſſe to diſcuſſe, which of the Governments, either by Bi­ſhops, or onely Presbyters is moſt conſiſtent, and compatible with the peace and ſafety of a Chriſtian Proteſtant State. If it be admitted on all ſides, that there110 is but one power of Legiſlation and Jurisdiction, in all cauſes, and over all perſons belonging to the Su­pream Magiſtrate, I conceive that then Biſhops & overſeers ſet over many Congregations; beſides that they are more agreeable with the Primitive inſtitution, will much eaſe the Supream power of the care they muſt take in ordering perſons and cauſes nearer concer­ning the Kingdome of heaven: for his inſpection being but over the Biſhops, Factions and Here­ſies will not ſo eaſily ſpread a­mong the multitude of the Chri­ſtian people; as if he were im­mediately to overlook the actions of the great body of Presbyters, who being numerous, may eaſily eſcape his eyes, and have a great­er freedome to innovate. There­fore Moſes being Supream in all cauſes, and over all perſons, It was a wiſe counſel of Jethro his fa­ther111 in Law to wiſh him to ſet un­der him men over the people, who beſides that, they bore the bur­den with him; thoſe men being far leſſe for number then the peo­ple, it was eaſie for Moſes to o­verſee them. But under thoſe Magiſtrates who ſhould condeſ­cend to a divided and diſtinct Iu­risdiction, one being civill and ex­erciſed by themſelves; the other Eccleſiaſticall and of Divine right belonging to the Miniſters of the Goſpell; In that caſe I do con­ceive that few Biſhops ſet over Presbyters, and being Indepen­dent from any other power, have a greater opportunity to Lord and tyrannize over the Chriſtian people, then a numerous compa­ny of Presbyters of the ſame rank and equall Authority can have.

112

Letter.

NOw for that, the Author of the articles would have this diſtin­ction of civill and ſpiritual aboliſhed; 'tis a thing very hard to change and alter the nature of things, as if one would take away the diſtinction be­twixt black and white: Let men doe what they can, and ſay what they will, the queſtions about Faith will be ſtill ſpirituall things; and ſuites in Law, for money, or houſes, will be ſtill civill and temporall matters: If we change the words, the nature of things cannot ſuffer alteration.

Conſideration.

THe Magiſtrate is no more head of two things, Church & State, then of thouſand kinds of actions in a Chriſtian Common-wealth, which, for every one of them, needs not a particular Soveraign a Power: Now, theſe two things, Chriſtian Church, and Com­mon-wealth, cannot be ſo much113 as conceived to have a reall being without each other; for, as every man is a reaſonable creature, and every reaſonable creature a man; ſo, every Chriſtian Common­wealth is a Church, and every Chriſtian Church a Common­wealth; I ſpeak of thoſe Church­es, that have as large, and ſpaci­ous extent of place, as the Com­mon-wealth it ſelfe; for, in ſome other ſence, a family in a houſe is called a Church, and according to that acception, every Church ſhould not be a Chriſtian Com­mon-wealth; I think the Church is not different from the Chri­ſtian Common-wealth, more then the underſtanding is from the Soul; for as powers and fa­culties are believed by great Phi­loſophers not to be diſtinguiſh­ed really from the Soul; how­ever, though there ſhould be a dif­ference, it cannot be ſo diſtinct, as114 that the power can have a diſtinct being from the Soul, but that at leaſt all powers are ſubaltern, and ſubordinate to the chief pow­er, called〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which ſits at the ſtern of all faculties, and di­rects and modifies all actions though never ſo ſeverall, contri­buting as well to ratiocination, and viſion, as to the coction and expulſion. In the like manner, that Soveraigne power, in a State, though one in eſſence, hath its ſe­verall faculties or powers, from which ſeverall actions do ſtream tending to the ordering of the whole man, in his being and well­being, as well in things of the inward man, as the outward. And to follow he analogy be­tween the body of man, and the State, it is no little illuſtration to beget belief; that as the primum movens, or Soveraigne power is one, and extends it ſelf as far, as115 it is circumſcribed by the cuticula or thin skin; there being not one Soveraigne power for the head, another for the lower regions, and a third for the hands and feet. So in a State bounded, as England, by certain limits, no doubt if it be one State or Comon-wealth, it hath one Soveraigne power; reaching as well to Cumberland, as to Kent and Cornwall, over all perſons, actions and cauſes; for if ſome perſons or cauſes were exempted, as for example, the per­ſons and cauſes they call Eccleſi­aſticall within the ſame limits of Land; I do not conceive that there can be any ſuch power, nor can I Imagine where that power in matters Eccleſiaſticall or ordering Church wayes ſhould reſide, by which the Supreame Civill Magiſtrate is bounded; but there may be as well ten thou­ſand Supream powers and Courts116 Eccleſiaſticall within England, as one ſingle generall power; for the Civill Magiſtrates Jurisdi­ction being diſtinct from the Ec­cleſiaſticall, he may not hinder that multiplication of powers; every one of theſe powers aſſuming to be ſui Juris in ſacred things: or if he hinders it, and prevaileth to have but one Soveraign power in Church matters in all his Domi­nions; this very act of prevailing will be a ſufficient demonſtration that there is but one Soveraigne power over all cauſes and perſons Eccleſiaſticall and Civill: & indeed the taking away the branch of the Jurisdiction, and power of the Chriſtian Soveraign Magiſtrate, in things pertaining to the King­dome of heaven, is as much as to deſtroy all Eccleſiaſticall power and Jurisdiction; for beſides that, this makes the Magiſtrate but a cipher or zero in ſacred things, it117 aboliſheth all Eccleſiaſticall Diſ­cipline, Pariſh meetings, publick and uniforme exerciſes of the or­dinances, which cannot be per­formed, but by the ſupreame Ma­giſtrates ordering, permiſſion, or at leaſt, connivence; and it re­duceth all Church wayes to the congregational; which way, though it cannot be diſproved, all men naturally having a power to aſ­ſociate themſelves, upon their or­dinary affairs, without the Su­preame Powers leave, or order­ing: much more when thoſe meet­ings are pious, innocent, and with­out danger to the publick weale: yet, if there be no other Church-way within all the Dominions of the Soveraigne Magiſtrate, then the Congregationall; not onely all Power of the Keyes, and Ju­risdiction in Church-matters, is quite taken away from the Chri­ſtian Magiſtrate; but alſo, all118 Presbyteries, Claſſes, Synods, and with them, their Pow­er and Jurisdiction vaniſheth, and comes to nothing; and in truth, it will come to nothing, if you doe not make that publique ordering of Church-way, ſetting up of Ordinances, uniformity of Catechiſing, confeſſion of Faith, diſcipline, cenſures, to be a branch of the Legiſlation, and Jurisdi­ction, which the Soveraign Chri­ſtian Magiſtrate is to have over all cauſes, perſons, and actions: for, in Gods name, where can that Power in Church matters be ſeat­ed, but in the Chriſtian Magi­ſtrate? May be you will ſeat it in all the Chriſtian people, within the Magiſtrates Dominions: But, by this, the Chriſtian people having the Soveraign Power in Eccleſi­aſticall, ſhall have the liberty, not onely, as I ſaid before, to make, as in England, either one,119 two, or more, yea, ten thouſand Nationall Churches, as far differ­ing one from the other in Rites and Conſtitutions, as the Scottiſh Church is from the Engliſh, and the Engliſh from the French: the word of God not ſtinting, whether aſſociated Chriſtians ought to be many, or few, in one body; or whether many bodies, or few, in one Nation, as England; and whether they muſt be a collection of Churches joyned in one body of a Nationall Church, or not? And, which is more, this abſurdi­ty, and great inconvenience, will follow from this dividing of Pow­ers, that it will be free for Chri­ſtians to erect in two contiguous Countryes, under two diſtinct Magiſtrates, as France, and the Territory of Geneva, one colle­ctive body of Churches, ruled by the ſame Synods and Decrees, under one Soveraigne Power in120 Eccleſiaſticall; and thus ſhall you have, not Imperium in Imperio, but Imperium in duobus Imperijs, a confuſion of Empires; for, who may have right to keep them from ſo doing? If you ſay, that both the neighbour Soveraigne civill Powers may hinder them; to that I ſay, either it is an uſurpation in them to doe ſo, or if not, then that Power by which the Church is ordered, is ſubordinate to the So­veraigne Chriſtian Magiſtrate, which is all I intended to make good. But it may be ſaid againe, that all the Chriſtians, or all the Congregations, who are big e­nough to make a Church, (ſuch as the little number of two or three of Chriſt in the Goſpel, gathered together in Chriſts name) within the Dominions of the Soveraign civill Power, will have that hu­mane wiſedome, as to erect but one Nationall Church, and of121 the ſame latitude and extent that the Dominions are: To that I ſay, that this very liberty, and hu­mane wiſedome, which they make uſe of, without a certaine preſcript from God, doth ſufficiently evi­dence, that they make uſe of the ſame guide, which the Supreame Power doth imploy in the go­verning of the State; and, that ſince humane wiſedome muſt be be called to help, for the ordering of theſe two things, they will have to be diſtinct, viz. the Church, and State; none can be better tru­ſted with them then the Supream Power of the State, where the Church muſt be conſtituted; and indeed, the Chriſtian Emperours have always modelled the Church after the faſhion of the State, or, if you will, the State after the Church, becauſe they were to de­pend of one ſupreame Power; for, as they had Biſhops in every122 City, whoſe bounds and extent was called〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Pariſh; ſo had they a Defenſor Civitatis; and in every Province, the Arch-bi­ſhop, or Metropolitan, was an­ſwerable to the Praeſes, or Pro­conſul: and in every Dioceſſe, the Primate, or Patriarch, was like the Lieutenant, or Vicarius, or Legatus. To ſumme up all, as the primum movens in the na­turall body extendeth it ſelfe to all parts and functions of the bo­dy; ſo the Soveraigne Power in a State, hath an equall Jus Im­perij in Eccleſiaſticall and civill matters: And as the ſenſitive and vitall parts are equally extended, and circumſcribed by the ſame limits; ſo all the cauſes, of what kind ſoever they be, are bounded by the ſame ſupreame Power within the ſame limits of land, as if on the North ſide, Barwick is the bound of the civill Power of En­gland;123 ſo is it of the Eccleſiaſti­call. But it may be demanded, how the ſoveraigne Power may be ſaid to have Jus Imperij in Divine Lawes? I anſwer, that properly, the office of a Sove­raigne Power is only miniſteriall, and in regard of God, it is rather an adminiſtration, then a power; but in regard of men, becauſe it bind­eth to obedience, 'tis a Power, and Authority: Now, his Law is either juſt, or unjuſt; if unjuſt, yet the obedience to it, being not ſinfull, it muſt be obeyed as a Law in force; for the ſtrength of a Law doth not conſiſt in that it is juſt, but in this, becauſe 'tis a Law or­dained by him who hath Autho­rity: Now, if this Law be juſt, it muſt be obeyed for two reaſons, viz. firſt, for conſcience ſake, and for wrath, that is the tye of eve­ry Chriſtian, in all the commands of the Magiſtrate, is to obey God,124 and doe whatſoever juſt and ho­neſt thing lies in ones power; then, for feare of puniſhment; for any precept, though morall, and never ſo juſt, although it bindes the conſcience, yet 'tis no Law binding to obedience in foro hu­mano, till it be reduced into a Law by the Legiſlative Power of the Soveraigne Magiſtrate; for even the ſupream power, though Chri­ſtian and godly, cannot puniſh a theife for tranſgreſſing the com­mandement, Thou ſhalt not ſteale, except this Law be alſo a Law of the State. But againe, it may be demanded, what authority and power doe you entitle on the Mi­niſters of the Goſpel, to whom the Scripture committeth the power of the Keyes, and giveth high Titles, Names, and Eloges? I anſwer, that ſtill they have the higheſt honour in the world, e­ven higher then the Magiſtrates125 and Kings; higher then Judges; for all men ſhall be judged by their Goſpel: they are Ambaſſa­dours from Chriſt, to earth­ly powers: as the Kingdom com­mitted to them, is not of this world; ſo their weapons are not earthy, but ſpirituall, and ſharper then any two edged ſword; they condemn, when they doe denounce the judgments of God to impe­nitent ſinners; they pardon, de­claring the mercies of God to penitent and mourning ſinners; they rebuke all kinds of men, teach, exhort, admoniſh, and have a kind of power and authoritie; binding as much, or more to o­bedience, then the commands of the Soveraigne Magiſtrate; for a man once convinced by the preach­ing of the word; the word of of the Miniſter, apprehended to be the truth of God, or a com­mand from God, will be like the126 Intellect, which being enlightened doth more powerfully work upon the will to act, then when it is compelled by an externall agent: and even civilly, the reſpect one hath to an Artiſt, binds in a man­ner to follow his preſcriptions. 'Tis no marvell then if Theodoſius being rebuked ſharply by Ambros, yielded to a cenſure, rather coming from God, which he was willing to undergo, being conſcious of his ſinfulneſſe and deſerts; then that it proceeded from a man endowed with a coercive power of excom­munication, to which not to yield had been a rebellion againſt God: as Chriſt alone is the true ſpiritu­all Legiſlatour, ſo he alone doth either (withold or remit ſinnes So­lus (ſaith Hilarius the Deacon) peccata dimittit, qui ſolus pro pecca­tis noſtris mortuus eſt, and the words of Lombard are very ex­preſſe to ſhew the extent of127 the power of the Keyes. Sa­cerdotibus tribuit Deus poteſtatem ſolvendi, & ligandi; id eſt, oſten­dendi homines ſolutos vel ligatos, God giveth the Prieſts power to looſe and bind, that is to make known they are either tied or looſed, li. 4. diſ. 18. Saint Hierome upon the 26. of Matth. teacheth us what this pote­ſtas Clavium is, as the Prieſt makes the Leprous, either clean, or unclean, ſo doth the Biſhop or Prieſt bind or unbind; and ſaint Cyprian, lib. de lapſis, and other where, ſaith, that by the preaching of Miniſters men receive not forgivenes of ſins, but are brought by it to be con­verted, by getting a Knowledge of their ſins. And ſaint Auguſtine in many places ſaith, that the Miniſter is ſome body in the adminiſtring of the Sacraments and diſpenſing the word, but no body for the Iuſtification of a ſinner, and for working inwardly, except he that128 made man, worketh in the man. Were the nature of Chriſts King­dome well underſtood, I ſuppoſe that the power of the Keyes would be eaſily ſtated: I mean that Kingdome and power, by which Chriſt worketh by his word and ſpirit upon the ſpirits of men, in­clining them to do his will, by perſwading, and not conſtraining them by any coercive power dele­gated to the Apoſtles and their ſucceſſors in the Miniſtery: Chriſt himſelf ſaith, he is not come into the world to Iudge the world, but that the world ſhould be ſaved by his preaching: And the comparing of Chriſts Kingdome to a grain of Muſtard ſeed, and to leaven hid in the dough, ſheweth mani­feſtly, that this Kingdome is pro­pagated by ſecret perſwaſions, and workings, and not by a Iudiciall external power ſeated in the Mini­ſters conſtraining to obededience,129 upon bodily or pecuniary penal­ties. Were the viſible Kingdome of Chriſt, a different Kingdome from that of the Chriſtian Ma­giſtrate, we ſhould read in the Goſpel of ſome Lawes, beſides thoſe about the ſacraments, for the regulating of the ſaid Kingdome: The precepts to believe, to re­pent, and to be baptiſed are no ſuch Lawes, that for the non-per­formance of them, men ſhould in­curre punition or damnation: for the not obeying of the Evangeli­call precepts, is an argument that the wrath of God is upon the tranſgreſſors, and not an effect following upon the tranſgreſſion. He that doth not believe in Chriſt is condemned already: man refu­ſing to accept of the remedy in the Goſpel, is left to his former miſerable eſtate; and the Law onely takes hold of him. Now this Law denouncing both tem­porall130 & eternal puniſhment to the tranſgreſſors, it is evident that the power to judge in the world accor­ding to that Law, in ordering all cauſes, and puniſhing all kinds of perſons tranſgreſſing, doth belong only to one Soveraigne power, ſubaltern, not to Chriſt as the So­veraigne Preacher and Mediatour, but as God in Trinity, and Tri­nity in unity; or as God Crea­tour and Supream Governour over all cauſes, perſons, eſtates, and conditions, temporall or eternall.

Letter.

A Midſt all theſe