tye many particular Churches is lawfull to us I prove the assumption A question troubled these Churches some false teachers said Cyrinthus as Epiphanius thinketh You must be circumcised after the manner of Moses Acts 15. ver 1. and there was no small dissention and disputation about this ver 2. and this question troubled the Church of Jerusalem as ver 4. and 5. doe declare And it troubled the Churches of Antioch Syria and Cylicia ver 23. 2. That the question could not well be determined in their particular Churches is cleare from ver 34 from three circumstances 1. The maintainers of the question troubled them 2. They almost subverted their soules with words 3. They alleadge a necessity of keeping Moses Law and that it was the commandement and doctrine of the Apostles and Elders 3. That in this question that troubled them so much they have their recourse to a Synod is cleare ver 6. And the Apostles and Elders came to consider of this matter and ver 2. They determined that Paul and Barnabas and certaine others of them should goe up to Jerusalem unto the Apostles and Elders about this question And that the Apostles who were led by an infallible spirit and could not erre might have determined the question is cleare by their speeches in the counsell if the Apostles had not had a mind to set down a Samplar and a Copy of an Assembly in such cases 4. That there are here the members of a Synod is cleare Apostles Elders Brethren ver 23. and Commissioners from Antioch ver 2. certaine others and the Elders of the Church at Jerusalem James Paul and the Elders of Jerusalem chap. 21. v. 17 18 compared with ver 25. So here are Elders from sundry Congregations 5. That these Decrees did tye and Ecclesiastically oblige the Churches howbeit all the members were not present to consent is cleare chap. 16. ver 4. And as they went through the Cities they delivered them the Decrees for to keep Acts 21. ver 25. We have written and concluded that they observe no such things but that they keep themselves c. So chap. 15. 28. It seemed good to lay on you no greater burden then these necessary things c. Now let us heare the exceptions which our brethren propound on the contraâ—y to prove that this was no generall Assembly They object 1. This cannot be proved to be an oâ—cumenicke Councell that is an Assembly of the whole Churches of the world Answ. Howbeit Augustine Chrysostome Cyrillus Theophylact Theodoret Cyprian Ambrose and most of the learned Fathers agree that it was an oâ—cumenicke Assembly yet we will not contend many Churches of Jewes and Gentiles were here by their Commâ—ssioners which is sufficient for our point 2. The Apostles who were universall Pastors of the whole world were here 2. They object There is no word of a Synod or Assembly in the Text. Answ. The thing it selfe is here if not the name saith that learned Voetius 2. Neither is the name of an independent Church in Scripture nor the word Trinity or Sacrament what then the the things are in Scripture 3. verse 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they assembled and ver 25. they were together is plainly a Synod They object 3. Though there were a generall assembly here yet it proveth nothing for the power of the keyes to be in such an assembly but onely it saith something for a power of deciding of controversies in matter of â—aith which implyeth no act of iurisdiction Answ. 1. The deciding of controversies in matters of doctrine tying the Churches and laying a burthen on them as it is ver 28. and tying them to keep the Decrees chap. 21. 25. chap. 16. 4. is an aâ—t of jurisdiction and an opening and shutting heaven by the power of the keyes when it is done Synodically as this is here 2. This presupposeth that the power of the keyes is onely in censuring matters of fact and not in a ministeriall jâ—dging and condemning of false doctrine which is against Scripture For Ephesus is commended for using the keyes in condemning the doctrine of those who called themselves Apostles and were not and Pergamus rebuked for suffering the doctrine of Balaam and Thyatira is rebuked for suffering Jezabel to teach the lawfulnesse of fornication and of eating things sacrificed unto Idols Rev. 2. v. 2. v. 14. v. 20. They object fourthly The true cause why Paul and Barnabas were sent to Jerusalem was not to get authoritative resolution of the question in hand but to know whether these teachers had warrant from the Apostles to teach the necessity of circumcision as they pretended they had as may be gathered from ver 24. To whom we gave no such command Answ. The contrary is seen in the Text For if the Apostles had commanded any such thing it was a dispute of fact in this Synod and they might soone have answered that but the thing questioned was questis iuris a question if circumcision must be v. 5. and that they must be circumcised ver 24. Also Paul and Barnabas were sent to Jerusalem ver 2. about this question Now the question was not whether the Apostles had taught the lawfulnesse of circumcision or not But the question is ver 1. Certaine men taught except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses you cannot be saved 2. It were a vaine thing to say that v. 6. the Apostles and Elders met about this matter to see what the Apostles had taught and what not 3. The Apostles bring reasons from the Scriptures and from the calling of the Gentiles which were vaine reasons if nothing were in question but whether the Apostles had taught this point or not taught it 4. That Paul and Barnabas were sent to be resolved of more then whether the Apostles had taught this or not is cleare by their answer in the Decree It seemed good c. to lay no greater burden on you and that you abstaine from meats offered to Idols c. They object fifthly There was no combination of many Pastors of divers Churches but onely a few messengers sene from Antioch to the Congregation at Jerusalem Hence many say it was an assembly of a particular Church and it bindeth only as a particular and speciall meeting So M. Best Answ 1. We stand not upon an exact meeting of all Churches when as the nature and essence of a Synodicall and Assembly-meeting is saved Here were Apostles and Elders whose charge was the wide world And the Elders of Ierusalem and Commissioners sent from Antioch and they send Canons and Decrees to other Churches 2. A decree of one particular independent Congregation cannot bind another as our brethren teach But the Decrees made here did tye the Churches of Syria Cylicia Antioch and Ierusalem v. 22 23. chap. 16. v. 4. Yea and all the Churches of the Gentiles Acts 21. 25. remember that enemies to our Synods as Bridgesius
but the childâ—en of beleeving parents aime at this That the faith of the father is imputed to the children which indeed reverend Beza doth maintaine Or then a worse that Infants are not to be baptized at all seeing they oppose the places that we cite for the lawfulnesse of baptizing Infants The authors of Presbyteriall government call the baptizing of children a untimous anticipation Our brethrens mind is that the Infants of both Parents knowne to be unbeleevers are not to be baptized untill they come to age and can give proofe that they are within the covenant of grace what Anabaptists thinke here is knowne Some say that Boniface the 4. in the yeare 606. began the Baptisme of infants M. Best saith too nakedly I beleeve at Augustine Cyprian Origen Cyrill Nazianzen Ambrose and many other Fathers affirme that the Church hath received the Baptisme of Infants from the Apostles What doth he not beleeve that it is most evidently in Scripture and hath he no better warrant then the â—athers Fourthly M. Best objecteth If there be no precept nor example for baptizing of Infants begotten of both Parents unbeleeving then there is no promise of blessing made unto it but the first is true Ergo the second Answ. 1. We aske with what faith and by what precept or example was ever circumcision in the whole old Testament denyed to any male-childe of the most wicked Jewes and by what precept and example is Baptisme denyed to any Infant in the New Testament for his Parents wickednesse the Fathers professing the Christian Faith Yea seeing Baptisme is denyed to Infants upon a suspition that their Parents are destitute of faith and not within the Covenant Now this suspition is not faith nor grounded upon any word of God or certaintie of faith for whether an other man beleeve or beleeve not it is not faith nor knowne by faiths certaintie to me but by the judgement of charitie Fifthly they object If all promiscuously be baptized Gods name is taken in vaine and the holy Sacrament greatly abused Mal. 1. 12. Heb. 10 29. Answ. This is to accuse God as if he had not found sufficient wayes out to save his owne name from blasphemy Nor can our brethren by their Doctrine save his name from dishonour nor the Sacrament from prophanation because multitudes of Infants borne of beleeving Parents are reprobates and yet God hath commanded to baptize them who being reprobates must be without the covenant and so the covenant is prophaned and many Infants of wicked Parents are chosen and within the covenant yet are we forbidden by our brethren to give them the seales of the covenant untill they come to age which also should be given to them and needs force by their doctrine that Christ hath commanded a certaine way of dishonouring his name which is blasphemy â—or we have not such a cleare way to know Infants cleane and uncleane as the Priest had to know the polluted bread and the polluted sacrifices Mal. 1. 7 12. as he citeth For what Infants are within the covenant indeed and chosen of God and what not We neither know nor is it requisite that we know further then that we are to know that they are borne within the visible Church Sixthly they say The Church of God is defiled Hag. 2. 14 15. Ezech. 44. 7. If all Infants promiscuously be baptized for then the people and every worke of their hand and their offering is uncleane So M. Best Answ. We deny that children borne within the visible Church are an uncleane offering to the Lord and that the baptizing of them polluteth the Nation and all the worship of the Nation as they would gather from Haggai For being borne of the holy Nation they are holy with a federall and nationall holinesse Rom. 11. 16. If the root be holy so are the branches For our brethren baptize children of Parents who are hypocrites and unbeleevers and so the uncircumcised in heart come into the Sanctuary Yea Peter in baptizing Simon Magus and Ananias and Saphira brought in the uncircumcised in heart and the strangers to Gods covenant as Best alledgeth from Ezech. 44. borrowing such abused testimonies of Gods word from Separatists as they borrowed them from Anabaptists For we preach and invite in the Gospell all the uncircumcised in heart and all the wicked to come and heare and partake of the holy things of the Gospell and receive the promises thereof with faith And when many come to this heavenly banquet without their wedding garment Mat. â—2 12 13. 2 Cor. 2. 16. Mat. 21. 43 44. It followeth not because they prophane the holy things of God that Ministers who baptize the Infants of hypocrites and prophane persons are accessarie to the prophaning of the holy things of God and that we bring in the polluted in heart to the Sanctuary of God It is one thing whom Ministers should receive as members of the Sanctuary and Church and another thing who should come in and what sort of persons they are obliged to be who come to be members To say that Ministers should receive none into the Church but those that are circumcised in heart and cleane and holy and cloathed with the wedding garment of faith is more then our brethren can prove Nay we are to invite to the wedding good and bad chosen and unchosen Mat. 22. 9. As many as you find bid to the wedding But that all that come to be received members of the unvisible Church are obliged to be circumcised in heart and holy and cloathed with the wedding garment else they prophane the Sanctuary and holy things of God is most true But we desire that our brethren would prove this The Porters that held out the uncircumcised and the strangers out of the Sanctuary were types of the Ministers and Church of the New Testament who should receive none to be Church-members and invite none to the wedding of the Gospell but such as have their wedding garment and are circumcised in heart and are cleane and holy else they prophane and defile the Church of God as M. Best saith We beleeve this latter to be an untruth and yet the strength of this Argument doth hang upon this They are obliged to be such who enter into the Church else they defile the Sanctuary Ergo the Church and Ministers of the New Testament are obliged to invite none to any Church-communion or receive them into a Church fellowship but only the circumcised in heart Wee utterly deny this consequence It is one thing what sort of persons they ought to be that should be members of the Church doubtlesse they should be beleevers And another thing whom the Church should receive in these should be professors Seventhly M. Best reasoneth thus The Minister is made a covenant-breaker Mal. 2. 8. who baptized the childe of prophane Parents and why because he offereth the blinde for a sacrifice to God Answ. What if the Parents be
and Hugo Grotius object this also This is the answer of Bridgesius and Hugo Grotius who deny the necessity of reformed Synods Parker who is for our brethren in many points refuteth this and proveth it was a Synod They object sixthly They were not neighbouring Churches that sent for Jerusalem did lye two hundred â—iles from Antioch How could they that lay so far distant ordinarily meet as your Classes did Answ. To the essence of a Synod and the necessity thereof is not required such meetings of Churches so farre distant but when the Churches necessity requireth it the lawfulnesse thereof may hence well be concluded and that when they lye so neâ—r-hand they may more conveniently meet 2. Neither is this much to give M. Best his Geography at his owne measure when the Churches were now in their infancy and the question of such importance that the Churches travell many miles for their resolutâ—on in this They object seventhly How prove you that these that were sent from Antioch had authority in the Church of Jerusalem Answ. Because Paul and Barnabas sent from Antioch had voyces in these Decrees They object eighthly It cannot be proved from henâ—e that Antioch was a Church depending on Jerusalem Answ. Neither doe we intend to prove such a matter But hence it followeth that both Antioch and Jerusalem and Syria and Cilicia depend upon the Decrees of these Pastors of divers Congregations assembled in this Synod They object ninthly That Papists and Prelates alleadge this place to prove their Diocâ—san Synods Answ. So doth Satan alleadge a Scripture Psalme 91. which must not be rejected because it was once in his foule mouth Prelates alleadge this place to make Jerusalem a Cathedrall and Mother-church having Supremacy and Jurisdiction over Antioâ—h and other Churches that there may be erected there a silken chaire for my Lord Prelate and that Lawes may bee given by him to bind all mens consciences under him in things which they call indifferent we alleadge this place for an Apostolike assembly to make Jerusalem a collaterall and Sister-church with Antioch and the Churches of Syria and Cilicia depending on a generall Councell We deny all Primacie to Jerusalem it was only judged the most convenient seat for the Councell We allow no Chaire for Prelate or Pastors but that they determine in the Councell according to Gods Word laying bands on no mans conscience farther then the Word of God and the dictates of sound reason and Christian prudency doe require They tenthly object That the matter carried from Antioch to Jerusalem was agreed upon by the whole Church and not carried thither by one man as is done in your Classes So M. Best Answ. It were good that things that concerne many Churches were referred by common consent to higher assemblies but if one man be wronged and see truth suffer by partiality the Law of nature will warrant him to appeale to an assembly where there is more light and greater authority as the weaker may â—ly to the stronger And the Churches whose soules were subverted with words Acts 15. v. 24. did â—ly to the authority of a greater assembly when therâ— is no small dissention about the question in hand Acts 15. 2. They object eleventhly The thing concluded in this assembly was divine Scripture imposed upon all the Churches of the Gentiles v. 22. 28. and the conclusion obliged because it was Apostolike and Canonicke Scripture not because it was Synodicall and the Decree of a Church-assembly and so the tye was Divine not Ecclesiasticke It seemed good to the Holy-Ghost Answ. 1. So the excommunication of the incestuous man 1 Cor. 5. if he was excommunicated and his re-receiving againe in the bosome of the Church 1 Cor. 2. and the laying on of the hands of the Elders on Timothy 1 Tim. 4. 14. and the appointing Elders at Lystra Iconium Antioch and fasting and praying at the said ordination Acts 14. v. 21 22 23. was Scripture and set downe in the Canonicke History by the Holy-Ghost but no man can deny that the conclusion or Decree of excommunication given out by the Church of Corinth and the ordination of Timothy to be a Pastor and the appointing of the Elders at Lystra did oblige the Churches of Corinth Ephesus and Lystra with an Ecclesiasticall tye as Ecclesiasticall Synods doe oblige 2. That this conclusion doth oblige as a Decree of a Synod and not as Apostolike and Canonicke Scripture I prove 1. Because the Apostles and Prophets being immediately inspired by the Holy-Ghost in the penning of Scripture doe never consult and give decisive voices to Elders Brethren and the whole community of beleevers in the penning holy Scripture For then as it is said Ephes. 2. 20. That our faith is built upon the Apostles and Prophets that is upon their doctrine so shall our faith in this point concerning the taking in of the Church of the Gentilâ—s in one body with the Jewes as is proved from Scripture v. 14 15 16 17. be built upon the doctrine of Elders Brethren and whole Church of Jerusalem for all had joynt voyces in this Councell as our brethren say which is a great absurdity The commandements of the Apostles are the commandements of the Lord 1 Cor. 14. 37. But the commandements of the whole Church of Jerusalem such as they say this Decree was are not the commandements of the Lord For we condemne Papists such as Suareâ— Vasquez Bellarmine Caiâ—tan Sotus and with them Formalists such as Hooker and Sutluvius who make a difference betwixt divine commaâ—dements and Apostolike commandements and humane ordinances for our Divines as Junius Beza Pareus Tylen Sibrandus Whittaker Willet Reynolds Jewell make all Apostolike mandates to be divinâ— and humane commandements or â—cclesiasticall mandates to oblige onely secondarily and as they agree with divine and Apostolike commandements But here our brethren make mandates of ordinary beleevers that were neither Apostles nor Prophets to be divine and Canonicke Scripture 3. That which is proper to the Church to Christ his second comming againe doth not oblige as Canonicke Scripture â—or Canonicke Scripture shall not be still written till Christ come againe because the Canon is already closed with a curse upon all adders Rev. 22. but what is decreed according to Gods word by Church-guides with the consent tacit or expresse of all the community of beleevers as this was v. 22. as we and our brethren doe joyntly confesse is proper to the Church to Christs second comming Ergo this Decree obligeth not as Scripture 4. The Apostles if they had not purpose that this Decree should oblige as an Ecclesiasticall mandate but as Canonicke Scripture they would not 1. have advised with all the beleevers as with collaterall and joynt pen-men with them of holy Scripture 2. They would not have disputed and reasoned together every one helping another as they doe here v. 6 7 8 9 10 c. 3.
are not professed beleevers having saving faith can be any thing but a non-Church and such as is a non-Spouse a non-body of Christ and a non-covenanted people and so wanting all power of the keyes Quâ—re If the baptisme of that congregation can be valid baptisme not to be repeated I leave to the consideration of the learned Yea if the Minister be an unbeleever by the former grounds it can be no baptisme But some â—ay it is the baptisme of the Church and so valid suppose the Minister be an unbeliever and so want power I answer the whole congregation may be unbelievers as is the Minister and so yet the baptisme comming from the Church cometh from these who want power and cannot be valid 2. Suppose the congregation be a company of believers yet I see not how by their authority they can make the baptizing of a Pastor wanting all power to be valid for then if the Church should baptize by a Turke or a Woman that baptisme should be valid which no man can say 18. What sort of an Assembly was the meeting Act. 15. if it was a lawfull Synod of sundry particular Churches or an extraordinary meeting the practice whereof doth not oblige us If it was a meere Apostolick meeting obliging as Apostolick and if it oblige us as Apostolick how commeth it that the multitude spake and gave their mind in that which obligeth us as Canonick Scripture For that the multitude spake our brethren collect from v. 12. and how is it that Elders and brethren determine in penning Canonick Scripture Except the first be said there be many doubts here of which the way of independency cannot cleare us Q. 19. How commeth it that the Lords Apostles who were to goe through all the Nations of the world to preach the Gospell doe so often assemble together to consult about the common affairs of the Church and discipline as Act. 1. Act. 2. Act. 4. Act. 6. 4. Act. 8. 14. Act. 11. 1. Act. 13. 1 2 3. Act. 15. Act. 21. 18. Act. 20. Paul and the Elders of Ephesus v. 17 18. 1 Tim. 4. 14. it is questioned seeing these assemblies of many pastors from sundry Churches because the Scriptures saith they were occasioned by the present necessity of ordering things belonging to all the particular Churches if they were only temporary extraordinary and Apostolick meetings which oblige not us to the like practise howbeit there be the like cause of meetings in the Church now as errours and corrupt doctrine in many particular Churches as were Act. 15. the murmurings betwixt Churches as Act. 6. a suspitious practise of a pastor which seemeth to be against Gods law as Peters going in to the uncircumcised Act. 11. 20. Whither or not Paul did not some things as an Apostle as writing of Canonick Scripture working of miracles 2. And some things as a Christian as Phil. 3. 9 10 11 12 13. 3. And some things as an ordinary Elder and Pastor of the Church delivering some persons to Satan 1 Cor. 5. 4. and whither or no is Pauls rod and authority and his power of excommunicating whereof he speaketh 1 Cor. 4. 21. 1 Cor. 5. 4. 2 Cor. 10. 8. common to all believers Our brethren must say it is common to all believers 21. If the power of the keyes be given to all believers a question is 1. If Pastors have no other power of the keyes but that same that believers have seeing the ground of Christs gift is one and the same to wit alike interest in Christ and if alike power of preaching baptizing excommunicating be in Paul and all believers 2. Whither or no the calling of Christ and his Church doth not superadde and confâ—rre to him who is made a pastour some farther power of the keyes then hâ— had before he was cloathed with any such calâ—ing seeing to rebuke exhort and comfort one another are dâ—ties of the law of natâ—â—e and would oblige all suppose Christ had given the 〈◊〉 of the keyes to none at all wee see not but our brethren must deny that the calling of the Church giveth any other power of the keyes then the believer had before he was called 3. If there be not a greater power of preaching baptizing and binding and loosing in the believers then in pastors seeing believers give the power to pastours and may take it away againe 22. If six believers be excommunicated and that justly clave non errante yet remaining believers it is questioned if they keepe not still the power of the keys they must keepe that power and yet are no members of Christs visible body 23. I desire a place may be produced in all the old or new Testament where a ministeriall or governing Church is taken for a company of only believers This our brethren teach 24. If all authoritative Assemblies for renewing a covenant with God restoring of the worship of God be 1. A part of the paedagogy of the law of Moses and removed by Christ 2. If these Assemblies in the Churches of Christ now be a species of Judaisme This we deny 25. If believers exercising the most eminent acts of ordaining pastors publick censuring depriving and excommunicating pastors publick convincing gain-sayers be not formally hence made by our brethren over-seers watch-men for the soules of Pastors and guides and so Pastors of Pastors We answer affirmatively they are by the former grounds 26. Let the godly and learned consider if the Patrons of independent Churches are not to give obedience to Decrees and Canons of Synods for the necessity of the matter as a brotherly counsell from Gods Word obligeth in conscience the brother to whom the counsell and advise is given howbeit the tye be not authoritative by the power of the keyes and if in that they are not to conforme CHAP. XIX Doubts against Presbyteriall government discussed as about ruling Elders Deacons Widowes the Kings power in things ecclesiasticall Quest. 1. HOw doth Calvin and Cartwright deny that the Apostle speaketh of ruling Elders Tit. 1. and yet Junius and Beza that both a preaching and ruling Elder are there comprehended So the authour of the survey of discipline Answ. A great question anent the latitude of an haire how doth many Formalists make the Prelate an humane creature and some jure humano and yet Land of Canterbury and D. Hall maketh him jure divino 2. An office may be described two wayes 1. Directly and expressely as the Pastor 1 Tim. 3. 2. Indirectly as many things agreeing to the Deacon as that he hold the mystery of saith in a good conscience â—e be sober grave faithfull in all things c. all which are required in the Doctor and Pastor also Quest. 2. How are the ruling Elders 1 Tim. 3. omitted where the officers are named Paul passeth from the Bishop to the Deacon omitting the ruling Elder So is hee omitted Ephesian 3. 11 Philip. 1. 1. it is like they are not of Christs making who are not in Christs rowle
Answ. Either the Prelate or the Presbyter is omitted 1 Tim. 3. Phil. 1. not the preaching Presbyter as is cleare by the description agreeing onely to him Ergo the Prelate is out of Christs rowle 2. Doctors are omitted Phil. 1. 1. 1 Tim. 3. and yet are set downe Eph. 4. 11. yet are ruling Elders in other places as Rom. 12. 1 Cor. 12. 3. Paul 1 Tim. 3. is not describing offices but giveth Canons which generally agreeth to all Church-officers howbeit he giveth instance in two yet in such two as includeth all the rest as he that laboureth in teaching and governing and he that taketh care of the Church goods When Moses describeth the Judge he sheweth what a man the King the Justice of peace the Sheriffe the Major of a City the Lord of the privy Councell should be howbeit these be not named in the Text. Hence because they are not named it followeth not that they are omitted and not spoken of in the Text. Quest. 3. But Elders are not 1 Cor. 12. 29. nor yet Rom. 12. but only governours saith Whytgift and Dr. Field and it is an ill argument à genere ad speciem affirmativè he nameth gouernours it followeth not therfore he nameth your governing Elders Answ. 1. Where Paul setteth downe in order officers by their speciall names ordinary and extraordinary as first Apostles secondarily Prophets thirdly Teachers c. he cannot reckon out generals only for so Apostles Prophets Teachers should be also but generals for the words in Scripture also signifie generals 2. The enumeration should halt which yet is orderly set down if it were composed of a number of particulars and the generals of some easten in amongst them Neither can some here well understand the civill Magistrate 1. Because he speaketh of the Church as the body of Christ consisting of divers members ecclesiasticall And God hath set some iâ— the Church and also he speaketh of the Church Rom. 12. 5. seeing wee being many are one body in Christ and in that place the ruler is clearly differenced from the teaching Doctor v. 7. from the exhorting Pastour and him who showeth mercy in the Church but the civill Magistrate is not a Church officer whom God hath set in the Church as hee hath set Apostles Prophets c. for God hath set him in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Common-wealth and his influence in governing Gods house is meerely civill coactive and regall not pastorall ecclesiastick and ministeriall Neither yet can the place be meant of the governing Prelate 1. Because the Prelate is thought to be the Apostles successour and is first in the roule but the governours heere are some steps posterior to Apostles Prophets c. 2. Because the Prelate giveth himselfe out to be a certaine preaching creature such as it may be 1 Tim. 3. 2. Tit. 1. 9. but the governours here in this lincke are contra-distinguished from Prophets and Teachers and so the Prelate should either be a sole lord governor and no teacher or then he shall be twise yea thrice named in one verse 1. under the name of an Apostle next under the name of a Prophet and lastly should come in as a governour so the Prelate as in Church and State so also in the Bible he should carry too much booke Now seeing here are governours in the Church contra-distinguished from Prophets and Teachers from a just enumeration they must be ruling Elders and it is to be observed that the Apostle saith not Are all Arch-bishops are all Primates And surely the Jesuites have no lâ—sse roome without thâ—ong to pinne in in this wall under the name of helpes and governments their regular Canons and secular Priests as Formalists can alledge for Prelates and their long tayle What Tilenus saith against this place is fully answered by Didoclavius for because the Apostle confoundeth or rather reckoneth together in one enumeration ordinary and extraordinary functions in the Church will it follow he doth not here speake of ruling Elders If that reason be good neither is the Prelate here nor is the Pastor or the Doctor here and if there be who excell in the gift of governing who yet arâ— not called to preach who can deny the necessity of this office Many answers are given to elude the force of that place 1 Tim. 5. 17. The Elders who rule well c. shall ever inforce that loytering Pastors who labour not in the Word and Doctrine are commended by the Spirit of God as worthy of double honour For wee reason thus If these sort of Elders who rule well and especially these who labour in the Word and Doctrine are worthy of double honour then are there two sorts of Elders some who rule well and some who labour in the Word and Doctrine But the former is said 1 Tim. 5. 17. Ergo The latter must be true The proposition in terminis almost is our thesis if two sorts of Elders bee worthy of double honour then are there two sort of Elders for à qualitate ab adjuncto subjecti ponitur subjectum ipsum Also if Paul make the well ruling Elder worthy of double honour and more especially the teaching Elder then hee acknowledgeth some well-ruling Elder worthy of double honour howbeit hee labour not in the Word A reason is because the positive and comparative are ever differenced and maketh a number when both are specified with particularities as here they are by well-ruling and labouring in the word and doctrine The Author of the Survay durst not looke this place in the face Bilson Field and Tylen deny our major proposition If one should say say they a preacher is worthy of double honour especially a painfull Preacher he should not say there be two kinds of Preachers some Preachers thus and thus and some painfull Preachers and a King is worthy of honour especially a iust King he should not make two sorts some are Kings and some are iust Kings as Deacons and Pastors are two sort of Offices Answ. He who saith a Pastor is worthy of honour especially a painfull Pastor should clearly insinuate that two sort of honours were due to Pastors two wayes considered For in the former part he should speake of the office which indeed is worthy of honour In the latter part he should speake of the officer in concreto laudably discharging his office but Paul speaketh not so for he speaketh not of the office and the officer of the abstract and concret of the office and the use and exercise of the office as is here alleadged but he speaketh of officers in the exercise and use of their office in both He saith not Elders are worthy of honour for that might well beare this sense that the office of an Elder is worthy of double honour which sense should be most true for the office of an Elder is worthy of double honour which sense should be most true for the office of an Elder is worthy of honour Suppose the man be
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.