35 36 39. After avow is taken there ought to be as much tendernesse to observe it as caution before we undertake it else we shall but double our guilt and increase GODS displeasure against us What we vow is in it selfe good and so caries with it an engagement to performance Our Vow is second ingagement super-added to the first if after it we be negligent we breake more bonds and so must needs be more guilty It s not to be doubted but many enter this Protestation rather for company then conscience and so will make too little account of keeping it and need admonition to observe as well as to enter this Covenant But that this neglect should be so generall as to include the generality of the Godly as this Expositor doth make it that I dare not assent unto the Psalmist hath taught me more tendernesse Ps 73 15. If I will speake thus behold I should offend against the generation of thy Children To condemne the godly was such a thing to this blessed Psalmist that he would renownce sense and reason and set upon a serious review rather then dash upon it In whose steps had this Author troden hee would not have been so rash to have put the foole upon them He might with lesse adoe then the Psalmist have freed himselfe from needlesse Horrour and the godly from unjust censure But now to the point He gives us the ground of his Censure Pag. 2. THe Protestation is to maintain the Doctrine of the Church of England so far as it is opposite to Popery which they do not performe so long as they retaine and maintain the imposition of the Liturgy 2 the Discipline 3 the Government 4 the Ceremonies Ans In his very first Argumentation there is a most palpable fallacy which is so obvious that its wonder to me that any man that would undertake to write a Booke in a matter of this consequence should either not himselfe see or should imagine that so many cleere eyes that it must needs touch would not most easily discerne and discover it for the Argument must be framed thus He that hath solemnly vowed to maintain the Doctrine of the Church of England so far as it is opposite to Popery must renownce all Popery and particularly the imposition of the Liturgy c. or else he breakes his vow and is a foole c. But the Ministers and people have protested to maintain the Doctrine of the Church of England so far as it is opposite to Popery Therefore they must renownce all Popery and particularly the imposition of the Liturgy c. or else they breake their vowes and are fooles in whom GOD hath no pleasure Now what a manifest fallacy is here a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter from that which is spoken in some respect to that which is spoken absolutely for the Protestation is not against Popery absolutly but as this Author expresseth it so far forth as it is against the Doctrine of the Church of England what Popery then the Doctrine of the Church of England doth not condemne this Protestation doth not include being onely to defend the Doctrine of the Church of England against Popery and Popish Innovations But then some will demand is not the Doctrine of the Church of England against all Popery I answere ad hominem If the things here objected be Popery then the Doctrine of the Church is not against all Popery for these things so far as they may be termed Doctrinall are yet according to the Doctrine of the Church of England unlesse you will say that the Doctrine of the Church of England is contrary to the practise of the Church of England whence then thus I Argue Either the Doctrine of the Church of England is not against all Popery or else the imposition of the Liturgy Ceremonies Discipline Government are not Popery for the Doctrine of the Church of England is not against them If the Doctrine of the Church of England is not against all Popery he that vowes to maintaine that Doctrine against all Popery vowes not against Popery absolutly but only as it is against that Doctrine and then this Authors inference from this vow against Popery with this restraint that we must therefore oppose all Popery absolutly is a manifest inconsequence on the other side if the Liturgy c. be not Popery as they must not be if the Doctrine of the Church of ENGLAND be compleate against it then they are not abjured So however it be the Covenanter is free from breach and folly And this I conceive is so cleare that it needs no further confirmation yet a little more to evince the absurdity of it by other particulars in the Protestation we protest to maintaine every person that maketh this Protestation in whatsoever he shall do in the lawfull pursuance of it If a man should thence inferre that we must defend him whatsoever he shall doe in the pursuance of it if hee shall move sedition or the like were not this a violation of the sense of this Covenant and is not the same when we stretch the opposing of Popery so far as it is opposite to the Doctrine of the Church of England to be meant against all Popery whatsoever though it be granted it be maintained in the Church of England His foundation then is most rotten and what firmnesse can be in the building But he makes the objection Page 2. which he indeavors to answere aswell as he can The Objection is that these things are established by the Law therefore we may not cast them off till the Law be abrogated and we protest against Popery to cast it out so far as lawfully we may Thus the Protestor wherein he hath objected what he hath not well answered though all be don very rawly For first he should have framed the Argument thus Those things are established by the Lawes of England where the Doctrine of the Church of England is established and therefore according to the Doctrine of the Church of England these things cannot be interpreted to be Popery and so not within the Verge of that Protestation which is against Popery as it is opposite to the Doctrine of the Church of England which objection if he ever answere erit mihi magnus Apollo The Objection which he hath made he strengthens from the words of the Protestation that we protest to cast out things as far as lawfully we may which clause doth not at all respect the matter protested against but the meanes and manner of pursuance that we shall not doe it in any tumultuous or seditious or illegall way but by honest and lawful meanes A thing needfull to be taken notice of by many respective Readers of this Booke who while they learne of him that they must oppose the things mentioned as parts of Popery from themselves infer that it ought to be done in a violent way without waiting for the direction of Authority which in private persons
is not to oppose lawfully but illegally and seditiously But now let us heare his Answer First saith he All Lawes are to be interpreted according to their cleere intention and end Now the Law for reformation never intended to allow or set up Popery in the Church of England Ans This rule for the interpretation of Laws in the a There is a twofold intention of Lawes one generall arising from mens goodnesse and that may be to remove whatsoever is evill the other speciall arising from mens light and that is to remove such particulars as are discovered to be evil the latter intention is the rule of interpreting Laws not the former and this Author speakes of the former sense he takes it is a device of his owne that hath neither authority nor reason for the confirmation of it Lawes are to be interpreted according to the minde of the Law giver which the Grammaticall sense of the words doth usually discover Indeed in matters doubtfull where the words are capable of a double sense the intention of the Law may there cleere what sense is most Genuine but that the generall intention of of the Law shall give a sense contrary to the letter of the Law is without doubt a groundlesse and dangerous fancy It s true the Law never intended to set up Popery but the question is whether it be destructive of all Popery The Law can reach no further then the light of the Law-givers who if they saw not all Popery could not by their Lawes condemne all nor did if the things in Question be Popery Lex Currit cum praxi The generall practise especially of those that are regular discovers the mind of the Law and the practise hath been to maintaine these things therefore it s not the meaning of the Law to condemne them nor of this Protestation to abjure them Secondly he saith If humane Lawes be found to be contrary to Gods word they are invalid and void ipso facto Ans This rightly understood is in part a truth but here misapplied we are subjected to all Terrene superiours by the Lord and under the Lord when they then command any thing contrary to GOD the Laws have noe binding power because by a superiour Law we are bound to the contrary But yet such Lawes are not Ipso facto void or if void yet they are void in foro conscientiae in the Court of Heaven not in foro politico in Courts on Earth though we are not bound to obey them yet we are without resistance to submit to such penalties under the danger of Sedition which were there noe Lawes we were free from Againe this Thesis of his is misapplied for thence he infers Thirdly that having made this Protestation we ought to have no communion with the aforesaid particulars notwithstanding they be confirmed by Law which inference is therfore faulty because the Protestation is onely against Popery as it is against the Doctrine of the Church and that which is confirmed by our law though it be Popery yet it is not Popery opposite to the Doctrine of the Church of England If the Lawes of the Land and the Doctrine of our Church had their establishment in different Courts then that which is establisht by Law might be against the Doctrine of the Church but the Doctrine of the Church and the Laws of the Lands having both their establishment in Parliament what is confirmed by Law cannot be Popery against the Doctrine of the Church and therefore this Authors arguing must needs be irrationall But now we are furnished with a second Objection which we are to consider of and whether this Author hath with any better successe taken of then he hath the former what saith hee If the Parliament did not by Popery understand the Liturgy Ceremonies Government of our Church and he gives good reason to conceive they did not for then many of them would not have taken it What shal we do then that is his Quaere now heare his Answers First saith he we are sure they intended in against all Popery To which I answere that its most cleare and so he himselfe expresseth in the former Page they only intend it against Popery as it is opposite against the Doctrine of the Church of England and such Popery the mentioned things cannot be Secondly saith he They expresse that the words are not to be extended to the maintaining of any forme of Worship Discipline or Ceremonies in the said Church What doth he thence inferre why forsooth that therefore we may not Protest for the maintenance of these why was that the Question whether we should be bound to maintaine them or whether we are bound to abolish them What ridiculous disputing then is this But hence I Argue If the Protestation do not include them for confirmation because they are no parts of Doctrine it doth not exclude them for abolition but leaves them for determination to another opportunity Thirdly saith he Suppose that at the first making of the Protestation that these particulars were not mentioned in the Catalogue of Popery yet no good Christian can or will deny that the House of Commons did not at all intend to exclude what ever should pertaine to Popery as a branch thereof This Author is very good at bold assertions but all as bad in confirmations for what a good Christian may do in weaknesse I will not determine but no wise Christian as far as I can conceive can judge that what ever shall be found to be Popery is included in this Protestation but what ever is found to be Popery against the Doctrine of the Church of England which is the terme limiting Popery in the Protestation Fourthly he Argues from the hopes that we have by this Parliament of such a Reformation as will not deserve the name of Reformation if all Popery be not made to be packing I joyne with him in all comfortable hopes from this Honourable House but what is this to his matter in hand All the Reformation to be expected from this Parliament is not expected by this Protestation this is one degree to reforme whatever Popery or Innovation is against Law established this done the Parliament is proceeding further to perfect hoped for Reformation by removing corruptions established by Law Fiftly Suppose saith he that it could be imagined by any reasonable man that the House of Commons had no thought implicitely to include the foresaid things in the fardell of Popery shall private and particular Christians knowing these to be Popery and Antichristian being bound by their solemne Vow and Protestation never reforme themselves c. I Answere no man can if as he is rationall he deale rationally But suppose that these things were not included in the Protestation according to the intention of the House of Commons which may appeare by unanswerable grounds 1. Because the expresse words be against that Popery which is against the Doctrine of the Church of ENGLAND which these things mentioned established
by Law in our Church cannot be Secondly Since the generall taking and first making of this Protestation the Government and Discipline of the Church hath been in strong dispute whether it should continue or no which had it been Protested against there had been no place for dispute which yet doth neither take off the friends of that side from asserting nor is used by the opposites to Prelacy to overbeare their Antagonists which had been the easiest and speediest way of victory if this Authors fancy had had truth in it Thirdly Under favour though as I shall make it appeare I am no friend to the foresaid things yet it was not rationall that the Parliament should include these things in their PROTESTATION for these things being establisht by Law and fixt in many of the members hearts aswell as Laws to desire men presently to abjure them before a full debating of them seemes a point of such rashnesse yea Tyranny as will not consist with the transcendent wisdom and Iustice of that Honourable Court Fourthly Nay further I conceive under favour that it would not have stood with the duty of that House to their Soveraigne of which I know they are most tender nor that respect that they owe to the Lawes of the Land to protest against things established by Law till the Law it selfe be abrogated for none may Protest in such a case further then they are free Subjects can challeng no more freedom then the Laws allow them where and while Laws do tye them they are in subjection and therefore could not in point of duty Protest against such things in such a manner to which the Lawes binds them The power of the House of Commons where this Protestation was framed is no doubt great far beyond my apprehension yet in this case I conceive their power over Laws is with the consent of the Lords and his Majesty to abolish them but not Protest against them while they are in force By all which Arguments its manifest that the Parliament neither did really nor could rationally intend in the Protestation to Protest against these things established by Law and if we suppose truly they intended it not this Author doth suppose still falsely that we are by our Protestation bound to reject and oppose them for its an old sound rule Oathes and Protestations are to be expounded according to the meaning of the framer and giver not of the taker else by a dishonest aequivocation any thing almost may be eluded therfor what the Protestation meant not we in the taking are not tied to And if this disputer should thinke this should bind us in the things mentioned though the Parliament intended no such thing but the contrary He may as well affirme that we are bound to maintaine his impendant Churches for whereas we Protest to maintaine the lawfull Rights and Liberties of the Subject and every person that maketh this Protestation he may infer but independancy is in his judgment a right and liberty of all Christians entring into this Covenant therefore we are tyed to maintaine it This inference hath lesse dissonancy from the letter of the Covenant then that of his about the particulars questioned yet though I beleeve hee hath as good a will to this as the former he dare not be so bold as to draw such a conclusion because though the letter may beare it yet the judgment of the compilers makes it manifest it was far from their meaning which reason likewise might have kept him from including the particulars in hand But now lastly he comes in with other quaeries What then shall men never reforme themselves but live and die Communicants c. Ans How doth this follow may not men Reforme themselves in these things unlesse they do it by vertue of this Protestation did not all that held these unlawfull before this Protestation was formed in their owne practise withdraw from these things so far as they held them unlawfull and against the word of GOD and so may and ought to do still though they be not included in the Protestation But to proceed this Author next brings in his Schollers questioning how it may appeare that the forementioned particulars are branches of Popery And he faines them speaking that if their Consciences were convinced thereof by the word of GOD then by their Protestation as well as by GODS word they were bound to renownce them Ans But by his leave he makes them speake what many will not and none ought to speake If these things be Popish then by the word of GOD we ought to renownce them indeed but by this Protestation we ought not unlesse they be Popery opposite to the Doctrine of the Church of England I my selfe must needs account these things or the most of them of the same alloy with many things by the Doctrine and Lawes of our Church already condemn'd and abolisht else I should not have been nor continued as in part I doe a sufferer for witnessing against them And I doe as earnestly desire Reformation of them as of any thing that little grace that I have doth asmuch Act that way to wrastle with the Lord for the rooting up of those plants which our heavenly Father hath not planted as any way but nothing ingaged by this Protestation but only by that allegiance which I owe to Christ and his word But some may say If you be against those things why doe you pleade for them Ans Mistake not I plead not for them but to cleare the sense of the Protestation that it may not be wrested to include them as it is by this Author of which wresting I see and feare manifest inconveniences First the Honourable Houses of Parliament are by it wronged and are thereby like to grow more opposite to the removing of the things here pleaded against and so as it is usually this making hast will hinder the work it aymes to further unlesse this conceit be seasonably corrected Secondly This misinterpretation will hinder many from entring this Protestation which remora of so good a worke had need be removed which this Answere may further Thirdly Many that have taken it are partly troubled because such things are yet suffered that they think they have Protested against which they think they should not only omit to Act but also by all meanes oppose partly I see men are taken off for praying for the abolition of such things as they conceive are already cast off by Protestation and are inclined by carnall violence under this pretence to do that in the Church which by a spirituall violence they should indeavor to prevaile for with GOD that so they may be prevailers with men to have publique corruptions purged by publique authority which is a safe comfortable and honorable way Lastly Some that think somethings in themselves lawfull and tolerable I find by this Protestation Protested to conceive them unlawfull as against the Protestation though in themselves indifferent As to instance though
In this Authors Answers to his owne Quaery what shall be substituted instead of Prelacy Liturgy and Ceremonies many things deserve examination First whereas he saith considering the Church of England to be none other then a National Church its uncapable of constitution This word Nationall Church I finde often used and much put upon it and yet neither is it a Scripture phrase nor do any give us a certaine exposition of it if by it they understand a Church that hath some common Nationall Worship by some common Pastor at some common place as all the Jewes had the same High Priest and Temple and all the Males were to meete thrice a yeare at the place which God should choose In which respect I conceive the Church of the Iewes was properly termed a Nationall Church in this sense Christians have no Nationall Churches But he seemes to make a National Church to be when an whole Nation is taken into a Visible Church or Churches having all of them the outward profession of Religion which he saith is impossible now because particular Visible Churches consist of none but Visible living members and visible Saints under Christ the King of Saints But here I would faine know the reason why it is necessary that the members in a particular Church should be of better mettall then the members of a Nationall Church doth not God require by his precepts as much of a Nationall Church and say as much of them as of a particular Church See Exodus 19.4 5 6 7 8. how often is that Priest on the Nationall Church of the Iewes Be yee holy or Saints for I am holy The very same charge that is prest on Christians 1 Pet. 1.14 15 16. where no more is required of the members of Christian particular Churches then of the members of the Iewish Nationall Church and are not the members of the Iewish Nationall Church called holy or Saints aswell as be commanded to be so How often is this reason given by the Lord for you are an holy people See Deut. 7.6 14◠21 26 19. And many other glorious things are spoken of the church of the Iewes Ie. 2 5. Ps 1354 And was not Christ their King Psa 44 4. If he were slayne from before the Foundation of the world and the Redeemer of he Church under the Law was he not their King too What difference then doth Scriptures make betweene the members of a Nationall and particular Church and who dares distinguish where the Scripture doth not If they Answere that the Nationall Church of the Iewes were holy in Profession or are called holy in regard of some that were so indeed the denomination being from the better part will not nay must not that answere serve us were all the members of the Apostolicall Churches Visible Saints otherwise then by profession what those that were carnal in Corinth Cap. 3. and defrauders and scandalous contenders too C. 6. Those that were drunk whē they came to the Sacrament too Those that denyed the Resurrection too 1 Cor. 15 12. and those that had not repented of their uncleannesse fornication and Lasciviousnesse too 2 Cor. 12 21. And those that traduced the Apostle too Cap. 11. Then what shall deny the visibility of a Saint or a living member So I might aske touching some in the Ancient holy Church of Rome Romans 16 17 18. And the like of some in the Church of Philippi Cap. 3.18.19 So likewise in the Church of Sardis Revel 3 1 4. and Laodicea Revel 3 16 c. Can these be sayd to consist of Saints or holy people any more then the Iewes must they not have the Title of Saints in regard of their Profession or the denomination from the better part Can Sardis in any other respect have the name of a Golden Candlestick And then I would know againe for what reason it should be more dishonorable to Christ to be the head of a Congregation that are not all Visible Saints further then by profession and outward conformity then to be the head of a Nation where all are not Visible Saints or why Christians should be in more danger for being one by Profession in a Congregationall body then Christ and Prophets for being one with such as were not Visible Saints in a Nationall body these I confesse are Riddles to mee Nay I conceive that though all that doe professe holynesse and life should in duty be so yet Christ in the parable of the Tares and wheate showes it will not be so and a generall seperation is not to be attempted till the end of the world for the Tares signifie the workers of Iniquitie that grow are to be gathered out of the Kingdome of him who is stiled the King of Saints and out of what Kingdome but the Kingdome parabolized The Kingdome of Heaven Math. 13 24 41. and these Tares were not secret Hypocrits for the Servants did discerne them and tell the Master of them and not the Master the Servants nor doth it any way crosse us that the field is interpreted the world as though the wicked and Godly should be in the world together but in distinct societies For this cannot be Why should the Servants wonder to see the wicked in the world how could the Tares come after the wheat as they are said to doe seeing the wicked were in the world before the Godly in the Church see verses 25 27 Why should the Servants consult about the wicked in the world What have they to do with those that are without yea if the wheate and the Tares be thus interpreted there must by this parable be nothing but wheate in the Church no Chaffe no Judas no hypocrite for all but the tares are righteous and shall shine as the Sun in the Kingdome of the Father verses 41.43 But why then is the Field interpreted to be the world A. For good reasons because the visible Church was not to be limited to Judea but extended to the whole world that would entertaine it Secondly the word of this Kingdome ver 19. was to be Preached in the world and by the word of this Kingdome this Kingdome wa◠to be gathered in the world in which Kingdome should appeare the Tares with the Wheat These things are so suitable to Christs words scop that I do not at al doubt but that this is the true exposition of this parable Nor doth the Argument so confidently held out against it any whit overthrow it if you thus interpret the parable say some you must of necessity exclude all Church Censures and so crosse other plaine Scriptures A. There is no such necessity in it neither for its a rule in interpreting parables we must not extend them beyond their scope now we must know wicked men are of two rankes one ordinary that though they have no grace visible yet they are formal Professors not guilty of Crimes others that are guilty of notorious crimes as the incestuous person c.
be suffered to be prophaners And for his Third The Preaching of the word generally corrupted that shewes a mind to cavill rather then any cause seeing that corrupting of the Word was against the Churches Lawes by particular persons and all such decrees against Laws are declared invalid But in this he hath an if at the ministery which he further proposeth in his Fourth particular in these words And to these Curates consideration I refer it whether they be able truely out of good premisses to conclude themselves the Ministers of Christ lawfully called when all of them doe immediatly derive their Ministry from the Antichristian Hierarchy as the sole foundation thereof and under the name of Curates he comprehends all the Godly and learned Pastors in the Church and dare he say that the sole foundation of their Ministry is the Antichristian Hierarchy Are the precious guifts and graces that Christ Jesus hath bestowed upon them and blessed and honoured with the conversion of many soules no part of the foundation of their Ministry Is the free choice of their people desiring them to take the oversight of them no part of the foundation of their Calling Will not these in some mens judgments and it may be of this disputers serve the turne without any thing else Have they any thing from the Bishops but as it were an externall authorising to exercise their guifts in a publique way amongst their people which if it be in som respects corrupt shall this corrupt complement make void the call of God of the people God forbid undoubtedly Christ would never so ordinarily worke by them as he doth were they not his Mimsters but Antichrists Besides I beleeve this disputer knowes that by Law the Bishop ought to have divers grave Presbyters with him and then the imposition of hands is by the Presbytery as was Timothies not of Episcopacy only But having answered his Objections Printed its needfull I answere some others occasioned by him Object Oh but say some if these things be not included in the Protestation of what use then is the Protestation Ans Very great Is it not a great matter to fulfill that great charge laid upon the Church of Thyatira Rev. 14. Hold fast that which thou hast God hath given this Church some light whereby almost all the erroneous Doctrines and superstitions of Popery are removed which light by the audaciousnesse and corruption of some Innovators hath beene greatly obscured our Churches Doctrine in matter of Iustification Free-will Free Grace Gods eternall decrees c. hath beene almost utterly overthrowne Altars Images c. brought in and the adversaries were as great as nought and had proceeded far to worke disturbance in the present proceedings whereupon it pleased God to move our wise and Religious Parliament ever blessed be his name for it to make this Protestation to maintaine the truths and purity by Law established which was an excellent meanes to hold fast that they had and prevent apostacy give me leave to illustrate this by an homely comparison When men are lifting up a thing of great weight or Horses are drawing some great burthen up a steep hill when either are at a stand wisdome teacheth them to under-prop the burthen and stay it where it is till breath is taken or more help added to raise it to a desired pitch So was it with our worthy Reformers they were tugging to heave an heavy weight and were at a dead lift This Protestation to defend our Doctrine that is pure was an underpropping that things might not goe backwards till they could add more strength to raise things higher which God be blest they are busily indeavoring and if men will but waite I hope they shall see the Reformation raised as high as the Doctrines of Scriptures which ought to be the only rule and I doubt not but is theirs Q. But if they were in the Protestation ought we not with violence to pull them downe and so deale with all superstitious pictures c. A. To the consideration of the matters Protested against we must joyne the manner how we protest to oppose them and that is lawfully This Protestation gives men no leave to breake their Ranks it puts not a sword of authority into every private mans hand but every thing is to be don in a lawfull way without breach of that order that God hath appointed in the world or our Laws have ordered in our Land To answere this then distinctly Things Protested against are either private things or publique as for instance some Crucifixes and other superstitious Pictures are our owne at our own full dispose some are in publique places and as it were of publique interest things that are private in a private mans power this Protestation doth bind him to a present Reformation of without further leave from any But for things that are publique private persons are to make their addresse to Magistracy and intreat them to proceed and then the private persons may follow as Assistants Againe Some coâ—ruptions are in our owne persons as our owne bowing to or before the Altar some are in others that in our owne we are presently to Reforme but if another continue corrupt practises we may admonish them Protest against them but not lay violent hands on them but detect them to the Magistrate who by his Protestation will be bound to punish and Reforme them thus Gods worke will be done in Gods way with more beauty safety and certainty and suteable to the mature Iudgments of the wise Compilers of this usefull Vow After he hath done thus with the Protestation he proceedes to other objections to overthrow all subordination in the particular Churches of a Nation not only to one another which was never dreamt of but to any generall government by Officers gathered out of all and so set over all and so he laies a ground for independant Separate Churches which he desires may be erected in this Nation but this taske of his is undertaken and performed with better order and strength by another Author in the Presbyteriall Government Examined And yet that hath received a solid Answere by the Assertor of the Scotch Government and that not only in the generall by the grounds there layd downe but by a particular view and answere to the Arguments of the examiner and therefore thither I shal remit the Reader that wil take paines for satisfaction in those points The full discussing of these things is also besides my purpose who do only undertake the Answere of it in reference to what is sayd touching the misinterpretation of the Covenants as impeaching the Doctrine that in the preceding Sermons I desired to publish yet because I perceive many are much unsettled and that even of those to whom I have some relation with the things that are scattered in this discourse I will indeavor briefly to run over the things here that are materiall especially such as have not a full answere in the aboue-mentioned Treatise
Answerably there may be conceived a two fold separation One generall of all the wicked the other speciall of those that are scandalous This Parable treates of a generall Separation of all the wicked from the godly which is here denyed to belong to the State of the Church in this world not of the particular Separation of the evill scandalous by some crime which elsewhere is required to be done by Church censures And in this Answere I am fully confirmed by this Argument Church censures are an Ordinance that is to be used not only for the separating of Tares but Wheate for a time nay sometimes of Wheate not Tares for excommunication is for those that are scandalous now a man may be in the judgment of charity godly in regard of his estate in generall and yet in some particular scandalous and so need and deserve excommunication And a man may be so meerly formall that in the judgment of charity hee cannot be deem'd godly and yet he may be faire-conditioned without crime and without scandall here the Tares will scape and the Wheate undergoe Separation and therefore sith the Separation here inquired of is of another nature then that which is effected by Church censures to exclude Church censures by it is to rack it and wrest it beyond its scope I have stuck the longer in this because this is the Cardo Controversiae the Hing on which the rest is turned now I proceed He after makes great complaint of the State of our Church to which I so far consent that I could wish with Ieremy my head waters and mine eyes fountaines to send forth rivers of teares for the breakers of Gods Law But he takes up afterward and tells us that like Sardis we have a few names which have not defiled their garments and the way of reformation he prescribes it by separating these few names into a new Church for which he cites 2 Cor 6 17. But stay is this Christs way doth he so counsell the Church of Sardis if so I will yeeld if not is not this way of his humane presumption exalted against the wisdome of Christ Now Christs Counsell is to repent of the evill hold fast the good ver 3. to strengthen the things that are ready to die ver 2. but not a word of separating the few How dare any then presume to do it I have often sought and long a resolution of this doubt but could never yet finde it but this Author thinkes he hath found a command 2 Cor. 6 17. Come out from among them and be yee separate A strange thing saith he be yee separate but a strange proofe say I That a command to Christians to come out from among Heathen Idolaters and not to touch any sinfull thing should be thought to prove it the duty of Christians to be separate from formall prophane Christians and not to touch any holy thing with them what proportion is here for an inference And for my part I must confesse I have wondred to see men so strict in this that they will not joyne in holy duties with the Prophane which yet I see make no scruple to joyne in following vaine fashions with them which was wont to be counted an uncleane thing But this is further confirmed by a direction to Ieremy Ier. 15 20. If thou take forth the precious from the vile but this is likewise as unfit a shaft for his Bow for Ieremy lived in a Nationall Church in which such a Separation as here this disputer strives for he confesseth is not requisite nor was it practised by Isaiah 8 18. though he had occasion or by any other I marvaile then that this Author or any other should bring this place of Ieremy to prove their Separation There is a Doctrinall Separation which is required in every Minister if he divide the word of truth aright and that we are bound to as well as Ieremy and the Godly Ministers do carefully performe but for such a Separation as this Protestor requires here can be no ground for which they affirme was not required from the Church of the Iewes But it is further affirmed that after such an Apostacy as ours Churches must be gathered anew as when the Apostles planted Churches where the Gospell had not been Preacht this is onely dictated without proofe and yet is neither true nor probable there being so wide a difference betweene our Nation now and when Ioseph of Arimathea first planted the Gospell in it when it was purely Paganish besides If this were requisite then must God also give Ministers qualified to gather Churches and not only to goe on in the ordinary worke of the Ministry that is Ministers indued with extraordinary guifts having immediate callings to Preach where they will without the leave of men with extraordinary assistance without which ordinarily no liberty can be expected to gather Churches till therefore I see the like guifts and callings in some measure I shall not beleeve the like worke or duty to lye on Ministers now But some may aske what shall then be done A. Can we have better Counsell then was given to Sardis by Christ Iesus our blessed Lord and Prophet and that is to repent of what hath beene amisse publik humiliation may fit publike transgression which the Parliament may be intreated to apply to this malady and then not separate from but labour to strengthen and rectifie that which is ready to die The Parliament are about a great and good worke of removing erroneous and scandalous Ministers and seting up godly and learned lights every where and withall giving or confirming rather power to the godly Pastors to keepe off those that are unfit for the Sacrament by grosse ignorance or scandalous life by which meanes Parishes that are already taught may be quickly brought into for better order and those that are not may by teaching be brought to some good measure of understanding and desire of the Sacrament and some at least outward Reformation before they be required or admitted to Communion in the Sacramēt But here we have another Quaere what we shall doe where prophane and ignorant persons are permitted Pell Mell to which he Answers that if Gods Ordinance be Prophane as they are by ignorant and prophaned persons coming to the Lords Table then others also that Communicate with them are guilty of the same prophanation What is this so without any exception prophane and ignorant persons prophane the Word and Prayer and Fasting and these are Gods Ordinances cannot we performe this with them but bee guilty this is new doctrine In the Church of Sardis to which he did compare us were the few names guilty of that prophanation which the rest must needes doe doe not the Scriptures shew the contrary Revel 3 4. their Garments were undefiled is there no other way to keep our selves free from pollution but separation what if we endeavor to remove the prophane is not that a better course and that which was the burthen
still layd upon the godâ—y but never that in this case they should separate themselves or if they cannot separate the wicked but do their part discovering them desiring their ejection will not that free them from guilt I thinke it will and if not I beleeve he must not long keepe in any of his new Churches But the Apostle saith 1 Cor. 5 6. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump so those that are corrupt will leaven all A. That is If they be accessory to the corruâ—tions of others not else againe how doth leaven leaven the lump but by diffusing a reall quality into it now there being two things in sinne the guilt which is a relation and in this case must come by imputation and the staine or vitiousnesse which is a quality and in this respect the corrupt will leaven only thus when he is suffered and countenanced he is apt to infect others with his ill qualities Thus this sentence must be expounded Gal. 5 9. in egard of infection with the same evils from which they shall be safe enough that bewaile and distast his ill qualities though they be at the Sacrament with him yet if they can get assistance one effect of their distast should be excommunication But the Apostle applies it to mixt Communion ver 8 but he misapplies that Text which others more suitably interpret of ieading our lives not eating the Sacrament And for that verse the 9. not to company with fornicators it s meant of familiarity not of the Sacrament For you may see by the two following verses such an accompanying is there forbidden to a Brother which is allowed with an heathen and therefore cannot be meant of Communion in the Sacrament But I hope by the pietie of our Parliament every godly Minister wil be enabled to keepe off all that be guilty of such crimes if that will serve the turne and remove that objection The place Ephes 5 5 7. Be not partakers with them is clearely meant in regard of their sinnes not the Sacrament as appeares by the following verse In Answering the next objection he brings two places to prove that the holy thing of God should not be prophaned but against what adversary whosoever taught so but that the prophaning of them by one should prophane then to others it s denyed his place Isa 1 1â— will only prove that God rejected their service whose hands were full of blood not the sacrificers of the good else how will he excuse Isaiahs Communion with that Church or Christ Iesus after him when they were as bad or where is his inference made or practised by the Prophets or Christ from this place of necessity of separation where the prophane be In answering his next quaere he tells us that to Communicate with evill doers is to partake of their evill deeds This is affirmed but not proved nor doe I thinke it ever will that my doing a good action well upon command of God with one that doth the same good Action will make me guilty of his sinne sure I am then Christ and his Prophets and Apostles were all sorely defiled His proofe 2 Thes 3 6. is quite misapplied for it s spoken of withdrawing from him in regard of company and respect which is free and Arbitrary not of the Sacrament wherein they were not to withdraw from him but if the quality of the offence did require it were to put him away In his next Answere he affirmes that no Communion can be had in our Parish Assemblies possibly without setting up new Churches But I hope in this he is much deceived as in the rest He compares us to Sardis formerly yet I hope there Communion might be had without this medicine of new Churches Nay let there be shown any example or any precept in the Scripture that in our case new Churches should be erected and not the old repaired and brought back to the rule from which they have swerved and we will yeeld the cause but if there be no such precept nor example then in vaine are all such pleas as he useth for things which Christ hath neither left precept nor patterne of And when we see God hath heard the Prayers and blest the Nation for the prayers of the godly in our Churches as now they stand and hath made us a people saved by the Lord who is the shield of our helpe and the sword of our excellency more we shal not expect by his new Churches unlesse he convince the necessity of them by better evidence out of the word which when he hath proved we will never put him to trouble to answere inconveniences but will with him buckle our selves to digest them but we will not cast our selves nor will the wisdom of the state suffer it to be cast on inconveniencies for good mens fansies without Christs command Nor wil we ever object it to be too strickt pure or perfect if the rule for it be convinced but we will affirme that being its strayter then the counsell which Christ gave to Sardis and different from it too the pretence of purity and perfection is not to be hearkned to for it is not such in truth but shew because it is not after Christ Col. 2 8. The like we say for envying at them we will blame them that envy at them if they discover the rule for what they doe but till then we shall censure them we hope by this Parliament The Discipline of Christ wil be set up in every Congregation and this will be a better or weaklier managed as the Ministers and members are growne in Christ if then any Christian be where great scandalls are they may remove to other Congregations that have attained a better degree of Reformation and this without any breach His next quaere is what Nationall government shal be set up by the Parliament for which he heartily prayes that God would direct them in so glorious a work and blesseth God for such instruments for such a worke I thanke him for his affection but yet if his Doctrine of the independancy of Churches be sound this prayer cannot be of faith for a man cannot pray in faith that men should meddle with that which is not within their sphaere or Calling and sure if independancy be a liberty of Christ all the Parliament hath to doe is to assert this liberty and what is more is but usurpation Then he tells us that the government of a Nationall Church hath no patterne in the word the full answere of that I refer to the assertion of the government of the Church of Scotland which I doubt not but will give good satisfaction to the indifferent Reader Afterward he discovers me thinkes too much uncharitablenesse and selfe love When he affirmes let them have their liberty and do for the rest what they will t is indifferent to them a litle more care of the soules of Christians might better suite with those that so far transcend others in outward reformation His last objection is inconveniency of independant Churches if they erre as they may they want meanes of reâ—â—â—yming which is better set on by the Scotch Assertor yet he hath said more then he hath well answered for having named all the meanes which their independancy is capable of and being conscious it seemes that they were too weake He adds 2 other that quite destroy the independancy As first that other Churches may excommunicate them how are they independant if under the Iurisdiction of other Churches or how can they be excommunicated by those under whose Iurisdiction they are not sure this is worse dependance then under the Presbytery where a part is only subiected to the whole but here a part is subiected to a part And this second is no better for if they be under the Magistrate for any Haeresy why not for all those that are guilty will not confesse any of their Haeresies for knowne Haeresies but assert them for truth and so chalenge exception for them aswell as any and if that be a known heresy which is such to the judgment of the Magistrat theÌ„ for all heresy they are to be subject to ceÌ„sure their indepeÌ„daÌ„cy is a nullity Thus have I gon through this whole discourse without indeavouring to stifle but rather sincerely to search out what is truth in every particular It is my desire and prayer that I might doe nothing against but for the truth rather would I desire that God should bring me forth to the severest sufferings for the truth then leave me though in simplicity of heart to oppose any the least trueth What remaines but that while we that minde the same things Christs honour in the salvation of his people and right performance of his Ordinances and differ only in the way labour to keepe Vnity of heart till we have unity of judgment and let our Prayers be united at the Throne of Grace though our persons be in different Societies that God may perswade the wanderers into the Tents of those to whom he hath vouchsafed the better light That God may have the more honour and we the more strength comfort by our free and scruple-lesse consociation Which mercy the Lord vouchsafe for Jesus Christ his sake by the helpe of the Spirit of truth leading into al truth to whom be glory for ever Amen FINIS