of the keyes for if admonition private per modum communis charitatis and not per modum specialis delegationis were an act of the keyes then because an Elder woman is to instruct the younger one woman should have both the power and actuall exercise of the kyes towards an other woman this is absurd Their seventh Argument is from the Parisian Schoole All things are yours whether Paul or Apollo or Cephas c. So they cite Revel 2. 27. So Robinson and so Smith so Parker To whom Christ is given for a King to them the power of Christ the King is given Also to whome the covenant and Christ is given to them all the promises 2 Corinth 1. 10. Psalm 133. 3. Act. 2. 39. And so the power of binding and loosing is given Answer 1. All are yours finaliter that is all are for you avd tend to your salvation 2. All are yours in fructu in the fruit that God bringeth out of all Paul or Apollo their ministerie out of life and death that is faith comfort salvation are yours this is true But all are yours subjective inhaesive formaliter All are yours formally and in possession it is false for then yee should be all earthly Kings all Pastours to preach and administer the Sacraments 2. Christ and the promises are made to one single believer and that a woman a childe but a single woman is not the Church having power to bind and loose in heaven 3. The promise of binding and loosing is made to the faithfull that is for their good and edifying but not to them as the subject for in that place it is said The world life and death are yours how can the world be in the faithfull as in the subject They doe not possesse all the world how is death in them as the subject except they be dead 8. They reason thus Christ hath given in gift Pastors to the Church Ergo He hath given them the authoritie of Pastors for God mocketh not his Church to give them gifts whereof they are not capable Hence Parker inferreth that the power of the keyes is in the believers immediately and in the Rulers at the second hand and borrowed from them Answer First I retort the Argument Christ hath given the actuall exercise of the keyes the preaching of the Word and the administration of the Sacraments to the Church of believers will it hence follow that believers because they are believers are capable of the exercise of the keyes This is against Parker himselfe 2. Christ hath given Pastours to the Church in gift that is to the Church as the Subject and first disposer of these offices it is most false for the Rulers of the Church or Presbyterie is the first subject and these who authoritatively under Christ doe ordaine pastours the Church of believers doth only elect and choose them by a popular consent Christ hath given Pastours in gift to the Church that is for the Churches good and edification hence it followeth not that believers are uncapable of Pastours in the way and manner that they are given to them God mocketh not Israel when he giveth to them David as their King but it followeth not the people are the first subject of the Kingly power 9 Parker reasoneth thus ibid. The power spoken of Mat. 16. and 18. should be applyed to all the Church and to Christs friends not to his enemies there is no ecclesiastick power in heretikes and Schismatikes What is the cause seeing both heretikes and also believers doe exercise the power of the keyes that the keyes are given to the one that is to believers as to the end and not to heretikes Surely as Gyprian saith because the authoritie is given principally to believers as to the end and to them principally and to others secondarily as they are esteemed parts of the Church of believers and have their authoritie derived from believers Answer The power spoken of Mat. 16. 18. is given to the visible governing Church whether they be believers or hypocrites providing they be Pastours and Elders called lawfully by the presbyterie and chosen by the people and the power of the keyes is given to the eldership that hath the oversight of the flocke in the Lord 1 Thessal 5. as to the subject but yet this power is given to the Church of believers to gather them in to Christ and for the reprobate to cleare Gods justice and to make them inexcusable and there is no reason to aske a cause Why both believers and heretikes exercise the power of the Keyes seeing Christ gave this power to believers and not to heretikes for I say Christ hath given the power of the keyes to both when he gifteth both with abilitie to discharge the places and giveth them authoritie in his Church And it is a false ground and not farre from Anabaptisme that there is not Ecclesiasticall power in heretikes and Schismatikes Iudas and all called Pastors and Elders suppose they be before God but plaistered hypocrites and covered Wolves have no lesse the power of the keyes as is cleare Matthew 7. 22 23. Philippians 1. 16. then Paul or Peter And also it is false that Rulers have their authoritie from believers they have their offices by way of ordination from Christ and the Presbyterie and by way of popular election and designation from professors of the Church bee partly believers partly unbelievers 10. M. Smith reasoneth thus Christ gave the power of binding aâ—d loosing Mat. 18. not to the Presbytery but to Disciples and Bretâ—ren because vers 15. 17. the Disciples move a question concerning the Kingdome of Heaven and Christ teacheth that little ones that is Brethren and Disciples are not to be offended but to be sough when they are lost v. 15. he teaches the duties of admonition in the degrees thereof for the winning of brethren He speaketh of Brethren and Disciples attributing to them power of binding and loosing v. 19. promising the hearing of their prayers if they be but two or three v. 21. 22. teaching them remission of offences private unto seventy times seven times Answer All this dependeth upon this Argument If the whole scope and intent aime at Disciples and Brethren then power of binding and loosing is given to brethren which connexion is most false and loose Christ speaketh to believers of the power of the ministeriall Church or Preaching Baptizing Ergo Hee giveth to these hee speaketh unto and to all brethren power to binde and loose and preach and baptize This doth not follow for so a power to preach and baptize is given to believing women Christ speaketh to his Disciples as Disciples of the dominion of the Kings and Princes of the Gentiles of false Prophets Wolves in Sheep-skins ergo he giveth to his Disciples a power to be Kings and a warrant to be false Teachers it followeth no wayes 2. By a brother v. 15. is not meant a true believer but a brother in
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
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
publikely Answ. These Prophets were Prophets by office and so bâ—side that they were gifted they were sent with officiall authority to preach 1. They are such as Paul speaketh of 1 Cor. 12. 28. God hath set some in the Church first Apostles secondarily Prophets Ergo they were officers set in the body as Apostles were at that time Eph. 4. 11. 2. They are called Prophets 1 Cor. 14. v. 29 32. But in all the old or new Testament Prophets signifie over these that are in office as the places in the margen cleare and a place cannot be brought where the word Prophet signifieth a man who publikely preacheth and yet is no Prophet by office but possibly a Fashioner a â—lough-man a Shoomaker 3. The formall â—ffâ—cts of publiâ—e edefying comfeâ—tiâ—g convincing converting soules are ascribed to these â—ophets v. 1 3 4 5 12 24 25 31. which are ascribed to prâ—â—ching Pastors Rom 10. 14 15. 1 Cor. 4. 1 2 3. 4. In this chapter and in chap. 13. Paul doth set downe Canons anent the right use of the offices that he spake of 1 Cor. 12. 28 29. 5. Paul must thinke them Prophets by office while as he compareth himselfe who was an Apostle and Prophet with these Prophets v. 37. If any man thinke himselfe to be a Prophet or spirituall let him acknowledge that the things that I write to you are the Commandements of the Lord. Also these Prophets were extraordinary and temporary as were the gifts of tongues and miracles and therefore none out of office now are to prophesie publikely M. Robinson saith they cannot be extraordinary because extraordinary Prophets are infallible and cannot erre else the Scriptures should have been written by Prophets who could erre but these Prophets 1 Cor. 14. could erre and were not infallible because their doctrine was to be judged v. 29. Answ. This is a silly reason Pareus Bulling Calvin Beza saith all spirits are to be tryed by the word and all Prophets even Samuell and Nathan may erre and looke beside the booke and may speake of their owne spirit how then were the pen-men of Scripture infallible saith Robinson I answer there are none simply infallible but God every man is a lyar The pen-men of the Scripture were infallible because when they were actually inspired by the Holy-Ghost they could not erre And the spirits of all Prophets are to be tryed by the word even of Paul preaching at Berea But it followeth not that Paul then could erre To this they answer that false Prophets as Balaam could not erre when they were actually inspired no more then Canonicke writers Answ. In the case of infallibility all are alike none are infallible by any infused habit of a Propheticall spirit but false Prophets were inspired with an habituall spirit of lying which spirit is not in Canonicke writers Robinson and others of his side thinke them not extraordinarily inspired 1. Because these Prophets might have been interrupted and put to silence that another to whom choiser things were revealed might prophesie v. 3. 2 Because Paul exhorteth to pray for the gift of interpretation and to covet saith others to prophesie Now we cannot seeke in faith from God an extraordinary and miraculous gift 3. Others adde this prophecying was subject to the free-will of the Prophets for they might prophesie or keep silence as they pleased but the acts of extraordinary prophecying are not subjected to the free-will of the Prophets therefore this was but ordinary prophecying to the which all gifted professors even out of oâ—fice are obliged for the edefying of the Church of Christ to the worlds end Answ. All these three come to one to wit acts of extraordinary prophecying are under the determination of free-will A little of this 1. Conclusion Pareus observeth well that there be two kinds of Prophets 1. Some who foretold things to come of these the Text in hand speaketh not 2. Some extraordinarily inspired with an extraordinary grace of interpreting Scripture The former were Prophets in the old Testament the latter especially Prophets of the new Testament knowledge of both were given without study or paines So there was a Propheticall spirit in Paul Gal. 1. 12. I received it not of man neither was I taught it but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. 2. Conclusion The act of foretelling things to come especially things meerly contingent which are determined onely in the free Decree of God is not so under our free-will as the acts of preaching and interpreting Scripture out of a Propheticall infused habit For prophecying things to come seemed to have come on the Prophets of old as a fire-â—lash appeareth to a mans eye in the darke ayre he cannot chuse but see it Ezech. 2. 14. So the spirit lifted me up and tooke me away and I went in bitternesse in the heate of my spirit but the hand of the Lord was strâ—ng upon me Jer. 20. 9. And I said I will not make mention of him nor speak any more in his name but his word was in my heart as a burning fire shut up in my bones and I was weary with forbearing and I could not stay 2. King 3. 15. The hand of the Lord came upon Elisha and he prophecyed See Ierom. Oecumen Gregâ—r and Thomas The Propheticall spirit in the New Testament seemeth to be more swayed with free-will and morall threatnings 1 Cor. 9. 16. Woe unto me if I preach not the Gospell yet the habit from whence he preached was a Propheticall principle Galath 1. 12. 1 Cor. 14. 32. 3. Conclu Hence prophecying is not a habit and it is a habit It is not an habit 1. Because no Prophet can simply prophecy when he will except the man Christ especially of things to come by contingent causes the presence of which things saith Suarez is onely connaturall to God and to no morrall man comming on men by a transient irradiation while as the candle of Gods propheticall light glanceth upon the fancy and from thence to the mind that the man may see and reade the species and images and when this light shineth not Nathan and Samuell reade beside the Bible and are widely out Prophâ—cy also is an habit For 1. something remaine in Isaiah and Jeremiah while they sleepe and prophecy not from whence they are named Prophets and really are Prophets for when God hath once revealed himselfe to one as to his owne Prophet even from by past revelation 1 There remaineth a disposition to prophecy 1 Sam. 3. 20. All Israel knew even from Dan to Beersheba that Samuell was established to be a Prophet of the Lord. 2. Because there remaineth a propheticall light whereby the man gave assâ—nt to the last propheticall revelation and so the species and propheticall images must remaine in the fantasie and with these a propheticall memory of by past predictions and so some experimentall certainty that what he fore-telleth shall come to passe See Thomas and Caietan now the object propheticall is
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