may not preach nor baptize that so they may be prepared for the ministery according to that 1 Tim. 3. 13. For thâ—y who have used the office of a Deacon will purchâ—â—e to themselves a good degree and great boldnesse in the faith Answ. What Philip and Stephen did in facto in an extraordinary fact nihil ponit in iure it belongeth nothing to Law but the 〈◊〉 of it selfe is a serving of Tables and a taking of the burden of caring for the poore of the Pastors that the Pastors may give themselves to the word and prayer Acts 6. 2 4. Now if Deacons ex officio turne Preachers and give themselves to the word and prayer then by the Apostles reason Acts 6. 4. they cannot serve Tables but they must have other Deacons to take the burden of the poore off them that they may give themselves to the word 2. Christ ordaineth Mat. â—8 18. Apostles and Pastors their successors to preach the word and not Deacons 3. There shall be moe officers in Gods house given for the edifying of the Saints then Pastors and Doctors even preaching Deacons yea all the offices in Gods house shall be Preachers the Prelate to Formalists is a peece of a Preacher the Pastor and Doctor by their office must preach the ruling Elder is nothing to them and the Deacon is a teacher and so all are teachers ex officio why then doâ—h Paul 1 Cor. 12. difference betwixt Governours helps and teachers seeing all are teachers 4. Rom. 12. He who sheweth mercy and he who distributeth are differenced by their specificke acts from the Pastor who exhorteth and preacheth 5. Paul requireth 1 Tim. 3. that the Pastor be apt to teach but he requireth no such thing of the Deacon whose qualification he describeth at length 6. The well using of the Deacons office is no more by 1 Tim. 3. 13. a degree to the ministery or pastorall calling then much boldnesse in the faith is a degree thereunto for he who ex officio doth preach and baptize is not a degree to a Pastor as he who discourseth is not in degree to be a man or in preparation a man onely but he is formally a man now to preach and baptize are specificke acts of a Pastor Mat. 28. 18. and so the Deacon must be formally a Pastor as he is formally a a man who can and doth performe acts which proceed only from the specificke forme of a man 7. It is a mystery that a Deacon may preach and baptize but he may not administer the Sacrament of the Lords Supper For 1. Philip an Evangelist as well as a Deacon might have done both 2. Is the Sacrament of the Lords Supper holier then the Sacrament of Baptisme that the Deacon may administer the one Sacrament and not the other But this is a Masse-mystery there is no Transubstantiation in Baptisme and therefore a woman a laicke as they speake may baptize but he must be a consecrated and orderly Priest who hath power to make and create the naturall body of Christ. So Greg. de Valentia Suarez Vasquez Bucanus teacheth us 3. The word of God knoweth not any who have power to baptize and have no power to administer the Lords Supper 8. The Popish Libeller in the Survay saith when now contributions and collections cease the Deacon may preach and baptize Then Deacons ordained Rom. 12. 8. Acts 6. 4 5. 1 Tim. 3. are now out of the world and they have given to us for a well made Deacon an ill made and a spilt Minister but the cause remaining the office should remaine the Churches poverty remaineth For the Prelate hath a singular faculty of creating beggars in his Officiall-Courts Q. 9. How is it that you have taken away widowes which was an office established by the Apostles Rom. 12. 8. For some say they should be gone because they were temporary and the heate of the Easterne Countries which caused sicknesse required them but they are not needfull now So saith Cartwright Others make them perpetuall as Fenner some make them to be women as Cartwright some men as Travors some neither men nor women onely as Beza and Junius Answ. The perpetuall use of that office we thinke continueth that is that there be some to shew mercy on the poore which are captives exiled strangers diseased distracted and that there be Hospitals for that effect and Chirurgians Physicians aged men and women but that widowes were officers in the Church as Elders and Deacons are we thinke no but that that service may be performed by men or women as the Church shall thinke good Cartwright thinketh no other then what I say Fenner thinketh well that the sicke should alwayes be cared for neither by men only nor by women onely as Beza and Junius thinke but by both as need requireth Quest 10. Presbyteriall government cannot consist with a Monarchy you ioyne with Papists in oppugning the Princes authority in causes Ecclesiasticall Cartwright Viretus Calvin teach that the authority of Kings commeth immediately from God the Creator not from God in the Mediator Christ. So the Survay Answ. It is the slanderous malice of Court-Sycophants to say a friend to Christ cannot be a friend to Caesar but we set downe our mind here anent thus 1. Concl. Presbyteriall government and the regall power of Monarchs doe well consist Paul a favourer of this government 1 Tim. 4. 14. commandeth that prayers be put up to God for Kings and all who are in authority and so doe we teach 2. Conclusion Our adversaries here corrupt the mind of Cartwright Viretus Calvin and others who say that the authority of Kings come immediately from God as Creator and not from God in Christ as Mediator For the kingly power is considered two wayes 1. In generall as kingly and in the person of heathen Princes who know nothing of God as a Redeemer in the Mediator And so the kingly power in generall as given for the good of all humane societies in generall is from God the Creator for the good of all societies whither heathen or Christian. So Nebuchadnezzar Darius Nero and Julian were essentially Kings and yet had not their kingly power immediately from the Mediator Christ except in this generall sense that the kingly power is a lawfull ordinance of God warranted by the word of God and Testament of our Testator Jesus Christ because these are essentially Kings and lawfull Magistrates who either never heard of Christ nor any thing of God but onely that he is Creator of the world or then who persecute and hate the name of Jesus Christ. It may be that the fruits of persecuting Princes their government redound to the â—ood and salvation of the Saints and that by accident as all things worke out for the good to those who love God Now â—ormalists denying such to be lawfull Kings as either know not
Christ or beleeve not in him joyne hands with Papists and make way for Anabaptisticall Anaâ—chy that a persecuting or an unbeleeving King is no King not to be obeyed but to be turned out of his Throne And to this meaning Calvin Viretus and Cartwright teach that the kingly power floweth immediately from God the Creator not from God in the Mediator Christ. But 2. thâ— kingly power is considered in a speciall manner as it is in a Christian whether professing onely the Gospell or truly beleeving in Christ and so in relation to Christs Church and to the soule of a beleeving Prince the kingly power floweth from God in and through the Mediator Jesus Christ as all common favours which in generalâ— flow from God the Creator are sanctified and blessed to the beleevers in the Mediator Christ as meat drinke sleep riches kingly honour And in this meaning Sauls kingly honour in respect of Saul himselfe is but a common favour flowing from the Creator howbeit to Gods Church for whose good he did fight the battels of the Lord it was a speciall favour flowing from God in Christ as our Divines say that creation which in it selfe is a common favour to all is a meane in the execution of the Decree of Elâ—ction to the children of God 3. Conclusion Hence our Divines say that kingly authority is the same ordinance of God essentially considered in the heathen Princes as in Christian Kings as Cartwright and others say Neither doth it follow as our unlawfull Canons teach That the Christian Kings now have that same power in Causes Ecclesiasticall which the godly Kings amongst the Jewes as David and Salomon had â—or David and Salomon were Prophets as well as Kings and had power to pen Canonâ—cke Scripture and to prophesie which power in Ecclesiasticke causes no King now can have Neither doth it follow which Whytgift saith that we give no more authority to the Christian Magistrate in the Church of Christ then to the great Turke Our Divines say and that with good warrant that the kingly power as kingly is one and the same in kind in heathen Nero and in Christian Constantine As a heathen man is as essentially a father to his owne children and a husband to his owne wife and a King to his owne subjects as a Christian man is a father husband and king to his owne children wife and subjects Neither doth Christianity superadde and give of new any kingly power to a King because he is now become by Gods grace of a Heathen King a Christian King Christianity addeth indeed a new obligation to imploy his kingly power which he had full and entire before now in its exercise and use to more regall and kingly acts as to take care that the Gospell be soundly preached the Sacraments and discipline of the Church kept pure and heretickes punished according to that he to whom much is given from him much shall be required But the same King while he was a heathen King had the same kingly power and authority to performe these regall acts but being yet a heathen he wanted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 supernaturalis a supernaturall or reall and physicall power to performe these acts now this power which he wanted before he heard of the Gospell and beleeved in Christ was not a kingly authority for then he should not have been a compleat Heathen King before which is against Gods word commanding obedience to heathen Kings Rom. 13. 1 2. 1 Tim. 2. 1 2. 1 Pet. 2. 17. but this power that he wanted is a Christian power to exercise regall and kingly acts Neither is this an inconvenience that power to exercise the acts of a calling in a Christian manner be Christian and supernaturall and yet the authority kingly and not formally Christian but such as is and may be in a heathen King therefore kingly power and Christian power are here carefully to be distinguished and a Christian Kings power as a Christian is more then the Turks power in Church-matters Hence our Adversaries here dethrone and degrade the King for they give the King a head-ship and dominion over the Church as he is a Christian man and take that headship from him as a King because if the Turke by sword should conquer Britaine and become our King by their grounds he should be Head of the Church no lesse then our Christian Prince who now reâ—gneth over us and certaine it is a poore Headship that they give to the King even such a Head-ship as a Heathen King and the Turke hath over subdued Christian kingdomes and thus by their way Nero and Julian were heads of Christs Church 2. If unbeleeving Kings cease to be Kings then when they commit any fault that maketh them in Gods Court no members of the Church they are to be dethroned which is most seditious doctrine and so Formalists herein joyne with Papists 4. Conclusion There be these distinctions here considerâ—ble 1. The Kings power ordinary and extraordinary 2. His power as a King 2. and as a singularly graced Christian. 3. His power hortatorie as a Christian and coactive as a King 4. His power accumulative not privative in Church-matters 5. His power in actibus imperatis in acts commanding to another and his power in actibus elicitis which he is to performe himselfe If a King were a Prophet as a David he might doe many things in an extraordinary way in Church-matters which he cannot now ordinarily doe 2. As a singularly graced Christian he may write Sermons and Commentaries on holy Scripture for edifying the Church but this should be done by him by no kingly faculty 3. As a Christian he may exhort others to doe their duty but as King he may command that which Paul commanded Timothy and Titus to commit the Gospell to faithfull men who are able to teach others to preach in season and out of season to lay hands suddenly on no man and reforme Religion purge the Church of idolatry and superstition as Joshuah and Hâ—zekiah did all which Church-men and Synods might doe also but Synods doe this in an Ecclesiasticke way upon the paine of Ecclesiasticke censures The King doth it by a regall kingly and coactive power of the sword 4. the Kings power is accumulative in giving to the Church and ayding and helping God hath given to the King the ten Commandements and the Gospâ—ll as a pupill is given to a Tutor The King holds his sword above the Law of God to ward off the stroakes of wicked men who doe hurt the Law but the Kings power is not privative to take any priviledge from the Law and the Church so his power is as a tutor to keep not as a father who may both give and take away from his son the inheritance his power is defensive not offensive 5. He hath power in actibus imperatis to command that all preach sound Doctrine decree just Canons exercise discipline aright but in
of the keyes without any subjection to any superiour Ecclesiasticall indicatorie p. 187. CHAP. 14. QVEST. 14. Whether or no the power Ecclesiasticall of Synods can be proved from the famous Councell holden at Jerusalem Acts 15. p. 199. CHAP. 15. QVEST. 15. Whether or noe by other valid Arguments from Gods word the lawfulnesse of Synods and Assemblies can be concluded p. 217. CHAP. 16. QVEST. 16. Whether or no it can be demonstrated from Gods Word that all particular Congregations have of and within themselves full power of Church-discipline without any subiection to Presbyteries Synods and higher Church-Assemblies where also the question about publike prophecying of such gifted men as are not in office is discussed against the tenent of Separatists p. 231. CHAP. 17. QVEST. 17. Whether or no some doe warrantably teach that no man hath Pastorall power to preach and administer the Sacraments as a Pastor without the bounds of his owne Congregation And from whence essentially is the calling of a Minister from the Presbytery or from the people p. 260. CHAP. 18. QVEST. 18. Certaine Quares or doubts following upon the Doctrine of independent Congregations p. 272. CHAP. 19. QVEST. 19. Doubts generally seeming to oppose Presbyteriall government discussed and loosed as anent ruling Elders Deacons Widowes the power of Kings in matters Ecclesiastick p. 280. CHAP. 20. QVEST. 20. Whether or no the government of the Church of Scotland can be demonstrate from the cleare testimonies of Gods Word p. 362. CHAPTER I. Whether the power of the Keyes of the Kingdome of CHRIST be conferred upon the multitude of believers as upon the first and proper subject or upon the Church-guides THe Question is not understood of that Royall and Kingly power of excellency and Independencie called all power which is only in Christ Iesus but of the supreme Ministeriall power as all expound it Bucanus Cartwright Amesius Parker that is given to the Church By the Keyes wee understand not the Monarchicall power of Teaching supreme defining Articles of faith and judging the Scriptures as the Jesuites of Rhemes doe dreame Vulcane not Christ made these Keyes We deny not what Bellarmine saith that the keyes signifie a Princedome in Scripture as the key of Davids house promised to Eliakim This key Christ only keepeth Chrysostome and Gregory both say that the care of the whole Christian Church was committed to Peter which proveth not his Princedome but only his ministeriall power given to all the Apostles as well as to him but the Metaphor is borrowed from a Steward or Master-household who hath the keyes of the house given to him to open and shut doores at his pleasure as Calvin Bucan Whitaker explaine it well and it is the power of preaching and governing given to the guides of the Church as servants to open and shut Heavens doore to believers or impenitent persons If wee rightly proceed these distinctions are to bee considered 1. There is a power physicall and a power morall of the Keyes 2. A power popular of the Keyes that belongeth to all and a power authoritative that belongeth to the Guides only 3. The power of the Keyes is in Christ as in the formall subject and fountaine 2. In the Church of believers as in the finall object seeing all this power is for the Church 3. In the Guides as in the exemplar cause representing the Church as we say the image is in the glasse and learning in the booke and this Petrus de Alliaco and Gerson hath the like 4. The Keyes may be thought to be given Mat. 16. to Peter as Prince and King of the Apostles as Papists say or 2. As Peter representeth the Church of believers as some say or 3 As bearing the person of Church guides as we shall demonstrate God willing 5. There is a power ordinary and a power extraordinary 6. The Keyes may be thought to be conferred by Christ immediately either by the immediation of Christs free donation and gift or or by the immediation of simple designation in the former respect the keyes were given by Christ once to the Apostles and still to the Worlds end to the Church guides immediately without the Churches power intervening in the later respect Christ giveth the keyes mediately by the popular consent and election of the Church of believers who doe under Christ designe and choose this person rather than that person Thomas rather than John for the sacred office of weelding the Keyes neither is any man now elected immediately by Christ as the Apostles were 7. Then we may well distinguish in this question these foure 1. Power physicall 2. Power morall 3. Power of order and jurisdiction 4. The use and exercise of that power Wee are to observe that it hath beene a noble and grave Question betwixt the Church of Rome and the Vniversitie of Paris as Spalanto and Robert Parker with others have observed whether Christ hath given the power of the keyes immediately to all the faithfull and by them to the Pastours and Doctors as the Parisians hold so teacheth Almain Ioan. Major Gerson and Occam or if Christ hath given the keyes immediately to the Church guides as we maintaine from Gods Word The mistake hath beene that some Doctors believe that the power of the keyes seeing it is for the good of the whole Church must have some common subject viz. the universall Church in which it must for orders cause first reside before it be given to certaine guides But neither Scripture nature nor reason requireth such a shifting of the keyes from hand to hand seeing Christ can keep them and immediately put them in their trust whom he liketh best Hence for the determination of the Question I. Conclusion The physicall power of the keyes is given to men as they are professors that is men and not Angels are capable of that power for when they are made members of the visible Church they are differenced both from Angels and Infidels as Pagans and Turkes for Angels according to Christs humble love and deepe wisedome are not upon the list to be office bearers in his house but this is not formally a power of the keyes but a popular power about the keyes whereby popular consent may be given to the key-bearers for their election II. Conclusion There is a power popular but not authoritative a power of private Christians not an officiall power of charge given to the visible professors to make choise of their owne office-bearers those against whom we now dispute brethren reverend learned and holy doe confound and take for one and the same the power of electing or choosing officers and the power of Ordination And they make election of Elders which by Gods Word is due to all the faithfull an act of jurisdiction whereas it is a private and popularâ—act flowing from that spirit of grace in believers and from
rebuke him from this Text. 14. Christ immediately and without the mediation of the Church saith Parker communicateth himselfe to beleevers ergo he communicateth his power also immediately to his Church Ans. It followeth not because he communicateth not his power of the keyes to the Church of believers either mediately or immediately because he giveth it not to them at all CHAP. V. Q. Whether or no some doe warrantably teach that the power of the Keyes is essentially and originally in the Church of Beleevers and in the Church-guides only at the second hand and in the by quoad exerâ—itium so as the Church of Believers should be the mistresse delegating the keyes by an imbred and kindly authority and the Church-guides as her proper servants and delegats do borrow the use and exercise of the keyes from the foresaid Church of Believers THe tenent of these with whom we now dispute is that all the power of the keyes is given by Christ to the multitude of Believers as to the first fountaine and that this power is derived and gested by the mulmultitude of believers to such and such persons to be used and exercised by them as the servants both of Christ and the Church For the clearing of the question and trying if this distinction be law-biding These distinctions are to be observed 1. The power of the keyes may be thought to come to the Ministers of the Church three waies as shall be cleared 1. By mediate derivation the Church receiving this power from Christ and deriving it over to the friends of the Bridegroome 2. By immediate donation God immediately giveth the honour of the keyes to these whom he maketh his Courtyers in this kinde 3. By application the Church only naming the men to the office 2. The power of the keyes and all sacred offices in Gods House are from the immediate wisdome of Christ The designation of such men to such offices is by the ministery of the Church 3. The power of the keyes is one thing the lawfull exercise of the keyes is another thing 4. The Ministers may be thought the servants either of the Church or servants of Christ for the Church 5. Designation of men by the Church to sacred offices may be thought either in the Churches free-will or tyed to the lawes designed by Christ. 6. The Church of believers may be thought either the virtuall or the formall subiect of the keyes 7. The power of the keyes may be thought to be given to the community or multitude of Believers or professours of faith in Christ in the generall not designing one man rather then another but leaving that to the disposition of meanes and disposition of second causes who shalâ— be the man as to be a Musitian to be an Astronomer is given to mankinde as some way proper to man as Porphyre saith howbeit all and every one of mankinde be not alwayes Musitians and Astronomers It is thought by our Brethren that the Church of believers is the first seat the prime subject and head fountaine under Jesus Christ to whom the keyes are given and that howbeit all offices and officers be only of Christs institution yet the Church of believers doe as the Spouse and Mistresse and bride of Christ communicate the lawfull exercise of some acts of the keyes as to preach administer the Sacraments oversee the conversation of the flock care for the poore to some certain men as her deputies and servants with borrowed authority from her selfe as the Well-head and prime fountain under Christ of all the authority and use of the keyes that is in the officers of the House as Pastors Doctors and Elders the Church still keeping in her own hands authority and power of the keyes in most materiall acts of the power of the keyes as by these keyes to ordain and elect all the officers and in case of aberration or failing to censure depose excommunicate them and all members of the visible Church and that independently and without any subordination to Presbyteries Classes and Synods even as the kingly power of actuall government is in the Kings hand and he appointeth deputies and servants under himself and in his name and authority to do and execute his will according to the Laws of the Kingdom so doth the Church of believers under Christ by an imbred authority and power received from Christ send out Pastors Doctors and Elders in her name and authority to exercise certain ministeriall acts yet so as the Church of believers in all the acts performed by the officers remaineth the principall and prime agent cause and actor under Christ and the officers only her servants deputies and instruments performing all by authority borrowed from her the bride Queen and Spouse of Christ This they believe to be contained in the Scriptures and taught by Fathers and Doctors of the Church I deny not but by the faculty of Paris this question was agitated in the Councell of Basil and Constance to bring the Pope as a sonne and servant under the power of a Generall Councell The Sorbonists and Doctors of Paris that are not near the smoake of the Popes glory for this contend with the Jesuites men that are sworne bellies to the world and the Pope The Parisians cite the Councell of Carthage where Augustine was present And Augustine and Tertullian and Chrysostome seeme to favour this So Maldonate Ferus Jansenius Sutluvius Whittaker Morton Spalato Gerson Almain Petr. de Alliac Also Edmundus Richerius and Sim. Vegorius set out a booke of Church policy depressing the Pope and extolling the Church power as full and compleat without a ministeriall head as their owne Parisian Doctors acknowledging the command of having a Pope to be affirmative and not to bind alwayes and that the Churches power remaineth full when the Pope is dead as the Parisians say p. 8. The booke came out without the name of an Authour and was condemned by Cardinall Peronius Archbishop of Senona and Primate of France and Germany and is refuted by Andreas Duvallius a Sorbonist What our Divines say in this I have exponed to be far otherwise then is the mind of Parker M. Jacob M. Best and the Authours of presbyteriall government examined Ann. 1641. Hence our first conclusion is All offices and office-bearers in Gods house have their warrant immediately from Christ Jesus as we all agree against the bastard prelacy 1. because of the perfection and plenitude of Scripture 2 because of our Law-giver Christs wisedome and his seven Spirits that are before the Throne seeing he seeth better then men 3. because of the Scriptures Eph. 4. 11. Rom. 12. 7 8 9. w 1 Cor. 12. 26 27 28 29. 1 Tim. 3. Act. 20. â—8 And therefore Presbyters and Deacons have their offices immediately from Christ and not from the Prelates 11. Conclusion The first subject of the keyes is either made quate or narrower as one Pastor and some ruling Elders of
They would not depresse and submit the immediately inspiring Apostelike spirit to mens consent so as men must give consent and say Amen to what God the authour of Scripture shall dite as Scripture This was a villifying and lessening of the authority of Scripture therfore necessarily hence it followeth this was an Ecclesiasticall degrace of an Assembly They object twelfthly That Paul and Barnabas went up to Jerusalem not to submit their iudgement to the Apostles for then they had not been infallible neither for the necessity of an assembly or because Congregations depend dâ—th on assemblies but they did it 1. to conciliate authority to the Decrees 2. To stop the mouthes of false Apostles who alleadged that the Lords Apostles stood for circumcision otherwise Paul himselfe might have determined the point Answ. 1. Paul as an ordinary Pastor howbeit not as an Apostle was to submit to a Synod in this case as an Apostle he might have excommunicated the incestuous Corinthian without the Church but it shall not follow that Paul did write to the Corinthians to excommunicate him for no necessity of a Church-court and Synod but onely to conciliate authority to excommunication and to stop the mouthes of enemies 2. I aske what authority doe they meane 1. authority of brotherly advise But these Decrees bind as the Decrees of the Church v. 28. chap. 16. 4. chap. 21. v. 25. 2 If they meane authority Ecclesiasticall the cause is ours 3. If they meane authority of divine Scripture then this Decree must have more authority thâ—n other Scriptures which were not penned by common consent of all beleevers 4. This is a bad consequence Paul could have determined the point his alone Ergo there was no need of a Councell for the Scriptures and many holy Pastors determine that Christ is equall with God the Father It followeth not that therefore there is no need of one Councell to condemne â—rrius They object 13. There were no Commissioners at this assembly from the Churches of Syria and Cilicia therefore it was not an assembly obliging Ecclesiastically all the Churches of the Gentiles Answ. 1. Suppose Syria and Cilicia had no Commissioners here which yet we cannot grant but give only yet Ierusalem and Antioch had their Commissioners which maketh the meeting formally and essâ—ntially a Synod of many particular Churches met synodically in one for there were many single Pariâ—hionall congregations both at Ierusalem and at Antioch 2. We doubt not but the Apostles who wrote to them the Decrees of the assembly advertised them also of that Apostolike remedy for determining the question seeing they writ to them ver 24. We have heard that some have troubled you with words subâ—erting your soules saying ye must be circumcised Ergo the Apostles tendred their sâ—lvation therefore we are to thinke that Syria and Cilicia had their Commissioners here What if they neglected to send á facto ad ius non valet consequentia they should have sent Commissioners This assemblies Decrees did lay a tye and bond upon the Churches of Syria and Cilicia then it did either tye them as a counsell and advise or or as a part of Scripture or thirdly as a Decree of an Ecclesiasticall Synod If the first be said this Canon doth not lay a command upon them the contrary whereof we find v. â—8 it layeth a burthen on them chap. 16. 4. chap. 21. 28. and Decrees that they must keep The second is unanswerably confuted in answering the tenth objection If the third be said we obtaine what we seeke and so they should have sent Commissioners otherwise the Decrees of Synods shall oblige Ecclesiastically Churches who are not obliged to be present in their Commissioners which neither we nor they can affirme 14. They object That this is not one of our Synods for the multitude of beleevers had voices here And the whole multitude spake for it is said v. 12. Then all the multitude keept silence and gave audience And Whittaker saith they had decisive voices but in your Synods none have voyces but only the Eldership Answ. 1. That the faithfull speake propose and reason our booke of discipline saith So saith Zuinglius Beza yea the Fathers as Cyprian and others Who will not have Acts made against the peoples coâ—sent it is like the multitude speake but orderly seeing the Holy Ghost was here v 28. Whittaker saith only it is like that some of the multitude spake And what marvell then many should speake seeing it was untruth that any of Moses Law which was also Gods Law should be abrogated 2. The Church may send in some cases learned and holy men to Synods who are neither Pastors Elders nor Doctors So was here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 brethren that is choise and able men otherwise beleeving women and the whole Church of beleevers comâ— under the name of brethren in Scripture Parker saith well The materiall ground of commissioners at assemblies is their gifts and holinesse the formall ground is the Church calling and sending them 3. That the whole multitude had definitive voices is first against what we have said expounding these words Mat. 18. Tell the Church 2. It is a meere popular government refuted before 3. I reason from the end of the Synod These onely had definitive votes who met together synodically for to consider of this question but these were only Apostles and Elders v. 6. including brethren who only had place to judge as Bullinger and Calvin saith and not the multitude 4. The Canons are denominâ—ted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Decrees ordained by the Apostles and Elders Acts 16. 4. Acts 21. 25. 5. By what warrant could the brethren at Ierusalem give Lawes to brethren of other independent congregations of Syria and Cilicia and these also who were absent So this â—hall be no Synâ—d 6. I grant the Epistle is sent in the name of all For 1. to send greeting in an Epistle is not an act of jurisdiction but a sort of Christian kindnessâ— 2. It was done by common consent of all 3. It added some more authority 4. It is possible the sending of the Decrees required charges and expences 15. The Female replyer to M. Edwards the reason saith she why the Church of Antioch sent the matter to be dâ—cided at Jerusalem was because the parties were members of the Church of Jerusalem Acts 15. 1. certaine men which came from Judaea taught the brethren c. v. 24. They went out from us and this proveth independency of Churches for the Church of Antioch judged it an unequall thing to iudge members of the Church of Ierusalem Answ. 1. Let it be that contenders for ceremonies were of the sect of the Pharisees yet the soules of these of Antioch were subverted v. 24. If Antioch had been independent they could have determined the truth to prevent subversion of soules who ever were the authors of that wicked doctrine but their sending their commissioners to
actibus elicitis in acts performed by an intrinsecall power in the agent he hath no power for the King as King cannot preach himselfe nor baptize c. as the will may command the eye to see the feet to walke but the will doth not see nor walk Here two errours are to be rebuked 1. Whitgift saith the King is not the head of the Church as it is a society of elect and believers for so the government is spirituall but he is the head of the Church as it is a visible society in externall government comprehending good and evill For 1. The government visible and externall is meerly ecclesiasticall by Christs spirituall lawes and censures of rebuking binding loosing and excommunicating but the King is not an ecclesiasticall person and so not the head who hath any intrinsecall influence as King in these acts 2. He is the head of the persons who make the Church and so is a politick head but he is not the head of the Church visible as it is such The head visible and memberâ— are of one nature the King as King is a politicke and civill head the visible Church is not a politick and civill but an ecclesiastick body so Camero erreth who will have all Church-men synodically constituting and decreeing Canons and in all acts of externall government subordinate to the King as King as the instruments and servants are subordinate to the principall cause and first commander 1. Because then the King should be the principall ecclesiastick matter and prime Canon maker the King the first excommunicater when the Church excommunicateth but the members of a Church-Synod are immediately subordinate to Christ whose servants and instruments they are and not the servants of the King Nathan as a man was Davids servant but as a Prophet he was Gods servant and not Davids servant Hence a third errour of court sycophantes must be rejected that the King hath a negative voice in discipline and in Church-Assemblies which is most false 1. Because Christ hath promised to lead his Church in all truth to be with her to the end to be in the midst of his owne assemâ—led in his name and this promise Christ maketh and keepeth under Heathen Kings who have no voice at all in Church-Assemblies 1 Cor. 4 5. Math. 18. 23. Act. 15. 28. 2. If the acts of Church-Assemblies have no ecclesiasticall power without the consent of a Christian â—rince by that same reason the acts of publick preaching baptizing and administring the Lords Supper should lay no ecclesiasticall bond upon mens consciences except the King should consent unto these acts but the latter is against the Word of God Jer. 1. 10. Jer. 1. 18 19. 2 Cor. 10. 4 5. and most absurd Ergo so is the former I prove the connexion because that same power of Christ which is given to the Church conveened for acts of discipline is given for preaching and the conferring of the seales of the covenant for the Church hath the keyes to bind and loose from Christ equally independent upon any mortall man in discipline as in doctrine so in discipline the Kings power cannot be to impede all acts of discipline or to make them null except he consent to them 3. Because these words are absolutely made good without the interveening of any other authority Whatsoever ye binde on earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever ye loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven els Christ would have said whatsoever the King or civill Magistrate shall binde on earth shall be bound in Heaven otherwise nothing is ratified on earth or Heaven either which the Church bindeth or looseth because the King saith not Amen to it 4. If a contumacious brother shall refuse to heare the Church hee is not for that to bee excommunicated and to be reputed an Heathen and a Publican because the civill Magistrate doth not repute him such an one 5. Of that free grace wherby God heareth the prayers of two or three agreeing to pray for one thing on earth the Lord bindeth and looseth in heaven that which his Church bindeth and looseth on Earth Mat. 18. 19. but the Lord heareth the prayers of two or three agreeing to pray for one thing on Earth though the civill Magistrate doe not give his consent that these prayers be heard and granted of God because the Magistrate is no intercessour without whose consent God heareth not prayers The proposition is cleare from Matthew 18. ver 18 19. 6. If the Magistrate have such a joynt power of binding and loosing and of forgiving and reteining sins with the Church then also with the Apostles and their successours but Christ gave this power to his Apostles without any such condition Matth. 28. 18 19. John â—0 22 23. and they practised this power without consent of the Magistrate and preached and excommunicated against his will 1 Tim. 1. 19 20. 1 Cor. 5. 4. yea as the Father sent Christ so should the Father have sent the civill Magistrate for so are they sent who have power to forgive and retaine sinnes John 20. 21 22 23. 7. That power which upon just reasons we deny to the Pope that we cannot give to the King but upon just reasons we deny to the Pope a negative voyce in Councels to anull lawfull Councels conveened in the name of Christ except he who is the virtuall Church say Amen thereunto neither is the King the virtuall Church 8. If a woe be due to a Pastor if he preach not suppose the Magistrate should forbid him to preach then also is a woe due to the Church which useth not the keyes though the Magistrate forbid then hath the Magistrate no such voyce and if the Church of Pergamos be rebuked for not using the power of the keyes against these who held the Doctrine of Balaam and the Nicolaitanes even when the Magistrate was a killer of the witnesses of Jesus then the Magistratâ— hath no such negative voyce for it should not be possible to censure the followers of such Doctrine seeing hee was against both Doctrine and Discipline but the Lord reproveth Pâ—rgamos in this case Revelation 2. ver 13 14 15. 9. There is no Word of God to prove that the Lord hath given the power of thâ— keyes to the King as the King and therfore we are not to believe that he hath any such power Also if the fore-said power of the keyes be given to the Church without any such power of the King the Church by all the former arguments may conveene to exercise that power in preaching binding loosing excommunicating suppose the civill Magistrate should discharge and inhibit these meetings for if the power of the keyes be given immediately by Christ to the Church then the power of meeting for the exercise of that power must also be given though the Magistrate say not Amen as is cleare Mat. 18. 18 19 20 21. 1 Cor. 5. 4 5. 1 Cor. 11.
Master of the art of painting or pourtract-making the art onely is subject to the precepts and principles of art but the person of the painter is subject to the kingly power for the King as Bellarmin saith may forbid the Image-maker to draw obscene and filthy Images or to waste too much gold or silver upon his Images or to sell his images at too deare a price Hence saith he the kingly dignity is not subject to the ecclesiasticall power or to any other power on earth but only to Jesus Christ. I answer the Prelate doth well difference in the art of paintry these two 1. That which is artificiall and is only ruled by art that the King cannot command another thing which is morall as that he sell not his Images too deare and hurt not the common wealth by spending vainly too much gold and silver on his Images and in this the King may make lawes to limit the Painters morall carriage but then he and his fellowes honour not the King who call him judge over all persons and of all causes or in all causes and that without any distinction for when two Shoomakers contend about a point of tanning leather the King is not Judge in that cause because it is a point of art which belongeth to the art not the King Also the right translation of the Bible out of the Hebrew and the Greeke in the vulgar language is a cause meerly ecclesiasticall belonging to the Church Assembly it were hard to make the King being ignorant of these mother languages the Judge of that version as he is made by them Judge in all causes ecclesiasticall howbeit de jure he is a politick Judge even in this judging by a coactive and kingly power howbeit de facto and through ignorance he cannot exercise the kingly power that God hath given him in this act 2. By this comparison the Prelate putteth upon the King â—ut a course peece of country honour O faith he as King I make him above all and subject to no power in Heaven or Earth but immediately to God forsooth so make you the Painter the Shoomaker the Fashioner subject to no power in Heaven and Earth no not to the King but only immediately to God only their persons are subject to the King and so is the person of the King as a Christian man not as a King subject to Pastors who may exhort him and rebuke him when he judgeth unjustly But 3. saith the Prelate The wounded Emperour is subject to his servant the Physitian who cureth him not as Emperour but as a wounded man and that of his owne free-will and not by coaction What meaneth this not by coaction but that a King neither as King neither as a Christian man is subject to Church-discipline to the admonition of Pastors by any ecclesiasticall coaction or any law of God but of the Kings owne free-will Consider how Court-parasites doe dishonour the Lord for if Nathan by Gods commandement was obliged to rebuke David for his adultery and murther and the man of God obliged to cry against Jeroboams Altar and the Seer obliged to reprove King Asa and Jeremiah commanded to speake against the Kings and Princes of the land and if the Kings of Israel and Judah were plagued of God because they would not heare and submit to the Prophets speaking to them in the name of the Lord then the King as a Christian man is subject to the Ecclesiasticall power not of his owne free-will as this flatterer saith but by such Ecclesiasticall coaction as God layeth upon all men whose spirits are subject to Christs kingly power 4. This comparison halteth fowlely In the art of paintry ye may abstract that which is morall from that which is artificiall but in a King as a King there is nothing artificiall or which is to be abstracted from justice and piety for all the acts of kingly authority as kingly are morall acts of justice and of piety in preserving both the Tables of the Law if a King command a stratagem of war that which is meerly artificiall is not from the King as King but from a principle of military art in him as an expert souldier if then the King as King be a morall agent and a preserver of both Tables then as King he is subject to the Ecclesiasticall power 5. Spalato faileth farre in making the end of kingly government a naturall end not life eternall as the end of sayling is the desired harbour and not the kingdome of Heaven which is lâ—fe eternall nay but if we speake either of the end of the worke or the end of the worker the end of kingly power is a morall end for the end of the worke called finis operis is by Paul said to be that we may lead a quiet and a peaceable life in all godlinesse and honesty and this is de iure also finis operantis the end which the Ring is to intend and so the dignity office acts and end of the King as the King is subordinated to Christs kingly power in Church-discipline and yet he is the most supreme politicke power on earth and in eo genere solo Deo minor and above the Pastors in that kind But doe we joyne with Papists in this 1. Papists say Kings hold their Crownes of the Pope the Church universall virtually We thinke Nero had not his kingdome from Peter nor Domitian and Traian their kingdome from Clemens and Anacletus nor Hadrian from Enaristus and Alexander 2. Innocentius 3d. forbad obedience to Emperours Bonifacius 8â— for hatred of King Philip of France forbad to pay tribute to the Emperors the Devill might blush to lay that upon us 3. Was there ever amongst us the like of their 8 generall Councell A Prelate shall not light off his horse nor bow to a King nor shall a King seeke that of a Bishop under the paine of two yeares excommunication 4. Did any of us thinke or write what Bellarmine hath spoken against the Lords anointed If Princes cannot be moved by Church-censures and if the necessity of the Church require the Pope shall free their subiects from obeying them ipsisque principatus abrogabit and shall pull their Princedome from them I say no more of this CHAP. XX. Q. 20. Whether or no the government of the Church of Scotland can be proved by Gods Word to be lawfull 1. ARTICLE Of the Doctrine and worship of the Church of Scotland WE acknowledge the Scriptures of God contained in the Old and New Testament to containe the whole doctrine of faith and good manners our Covenant rejecteth all traditions contrary without and beside the word of God and so it rejecteth all religious observances all humane Ceremonies all religious symbolicall signes all new meanes of worshipping God all Images positive Rites which have any influence in Gods worship as will-worship and impious additions to Gods word Jer. 7. 7. 2 Sam. 7. 7. Deut. 12.
our brethrens minde cleare Ten or twenty believers in a congregation have from Christ 1. The supreme power of the keyes 2. They are the supremest and highest Church on earth 3. Above Pastours and Elders even convened in a Synod in Christs name 4. Some few believers cloathed with no ecclesiasticall office may ordaine Pastours and Elders deprive and excommunicate them 5. Give ordinances and lawes to the Eldership 6. When Synods or assemblies of office-bearers are met in assemblies and cannot agree in their canons the matter is to be referred by appeale or reference to a company of believers cloathed with no ecclesiasticall function as to the most supreme ecclesiasticall judicatorie on earth These are points unknown to Scripture which our brethren hold Hence out third conclusion The Church of believers in eminence and primacie of Christian dignitie is above the Church ministeriall as ministeriall 1. In dignitie 2. Stabilitie 3. Causalitie Indignitie 1. Because the Church of believers is the redeemed and conquested purchase of our Lord Jesus but all the office-bearers or the ministeriall Churches of Pastours and Elders on earth are not his redeemed ones in so far as they are no more but officers and ministers of the house except they be believers and so they fall in to the redeemed Church which is a better world than to be naked pulpit-men 2. In stabilitie because the advocation of Christ that the gates of hell shall not prevaile against the Church of believers and the promises of the Covenant for perseverance standeth good for them But no such promises of stabilitie are made to naked Church guides but if they guide well they fare the better only common gifts are promised to them which cannot take them to heaven 3. In causalitie the Church of believers are superiour and above the Church of Church-guides because Rulers and Officers are servants and meanes imployed by Christ for the Church of believers as for the end office-bearers are for believers as the meanes for the end but believers are not for office-bearers Medicine is for our health and meate for our life and the end is the cause and so excellenter than the meanes because of these three respects and of the necessity of consent of believers in all acts of Government Christs kingdome being a willing people The Fathers Tertullian Origen Cyprian Chrysostome Augustine Epiphanius Ierome Cyrill Hilarie and our late Divines Junius Chemnitius Martyr Calvin Beza Willet Fulke Bucer and our brethren Baines and Ames doe ascribe a superioritie and so an authoritie to believers as to the fountaine and cause of jurisdiction above Ministers and give the exercise of jurisdiction only to officers not because officers have not the power aswell as the exercise but because the being and operation of officers is all for the Church Gerson also in this subjecteth the Pope and we every Pastour suppone he were a double Lord Prelate to the Church that is to the Councell or Assemblie of the Church and that in a fourefold respect 1. Ratione indeviabilitatis because the ports of hell shall not prevaile against the Church but the Pope or the Pastour is a man may nod and totter 2. Ratione regulabilitatis because the Church in a Synod may regulate and line the Pope or pastor when he crooketh because hee is not essentially a right line 3. Ratione multiplicitatis because the Church containeth in it the Popes or Pastours power but the Pope or Pastour containeth not in his bosome the Churches power 4. Ratione obligabilitatis because the Church may appoint lawes to oblige both Pope and Pastour but the Pope or Pastor cannot oblige the Church Now as the Church of believers is above the Church guides in Christian dignitie and excellency of grace for asmuch as the saving grace of faith is more excellent than the common graces of the power of the keyes yet in an other respect the Church guides are a Church ministeriall in authoritie and jurisdiction above the believers Therefore Junius saith the Pastour and the flock are in divers relations above and inferiour to one another Hence 1. Every one of these two Churches are first and highest each in their owne kind The Church of believers is the highest and most supreme Church I speake of a Christian supremacie and dignitie in the one kinde Also a ministeriall Church is the highest and most supreme Church in its kind to wit in a ministeriall authoritie But that which we prove is that we see not in Gods word a Church of sole believers that is a governing and ministeriall Church having the keyes and power and exercise of jurisdiction over the Eldership and Church-guides whatever our brethren say on the contrary Our first Argument is Because such a Church in name or thing is not in the old and new Testament Therefore this independent Church to us is nothing for the Antecedent we require precept promise or practice for such a Church 2. We have proved that the power of the keyes is no wayes given to sole believers ergo farre lesse can the exercise of that power be in them over their guides except we establish a popular government where all the members of the Church have the power of the keyes and doe actively use them and judge ordaine consttuite despose and excommunicate their rulers 3. Every lawfull power of jurisdiction is regulated by precepts in Gods word But this power in believers over their guides is not so regulated for Gods word giveth precepts to regulate the Kings power to his subjects that he play not the Tyrant the Masters power to his servants that he deale equally with them the parents power over the children that they provoke them not to wrath and so in all lawfull powers that are of God But in no place hath God said Ye that are the flocke and sheepe oversee and governe your sheepheards nor hath he said ye that are sheep children sonnes of the house use your power over your shepheards fathers in God stewards in Christs house with moderation and longanimitie and wisedome nor hath he said yee sons â—lock and people of God feede governe and rule these that are your fathers in God and have the oversight over you in the Lord not as lords over the Lords inheritance but as good examples to the flocke yet this must be in Scripture if this power be of God 4 If the Eldership and Church-guides be rulers and governours taking care of the house of God 1 Tim. 3 4 5. Such as rule well the people 1 Tim. 5. 17. such as must rule with diligence Rom 12. 8. and feed the flock of God not as lords over Gods inheritance taking the oversight not by constraint 1 Pet 5. 2. such as are over the people in the Lord 1 Thes. 5. 12. such as rule over the people and the believers watching for their soules and must give an account