the King Judgeth by them and in them 2. This error is founded upon a worse error to wit that the supreme Magistrate had no power of life and death in Israel without consent of the people but certainly there are as specious and plausible reasons if not more specious for the peoples government in all civill matters then there can be for their Church-power of judging in the Church-matters and government therof Yet there is no ground for it 1. Because the Rulers only could not be charged to execute judgement in the morning to deliver the oppressed to execute judgement for the Fatherlesse and the VViddow nor can there be a promise made to establish the Kings Throne for obeying that Commandement as a Gods Word teacheth if the people have as great yea greater power in Judging then the Rulers have by this our Brethrens argument They say all the Believers at Corinth 1 Cor. 5. could not be commanded to cast out the incestuous person nor could they all be taxed for omitting that duty if they had not power to excommunicate 2. Neither can the Spirit of God complaint that the Judges builded Zion with blood and the heads of the house of Jacob and Princes of the house of Israel did abhor judgement and pervert equity as the Prophets say nor could they be condemned as roaring Lyons and evening Wolves as the Prophet sayth for the Judgeâ— might well be faultlesse when the poore were crushed in the Gate and Judgement turned into Gall and Wormewood because they cannot helpe the matter the people are the greatest part in caring matters in judgement 2. We see Davids practise in condemning the Amalckite out of his own confession not asking the peoples consent and in condemning to death Baanah and Rehab for killing Ishbosheth Solomon gave sentence against Adoniiah Ioab Shimei without consent of the people David pardoned Shimei contrary to the counsell of Zerviahs sons 3. If from the peoples witnessing and hearing of judgement in the Gate we conclude the people were Judges with the Rulers there was never a time when there was no King in Israel and no Iudge to put evill doers to shame but every man did what seemed good in his own Eys contrary to Scripture because all are a generation of Kings and Princes no lesse then the Ruler himselfe as Anabaptists teach By the Doctrine of our brethren I deny not but he that gathered stickes on the Sabbath was brought Num. 15. 33. to Moses and to Aaron and to all the Congregation but the Congregation signifieth not the common multitude For 35. Moses received the sentence from God and pronounced it and the Congregation stoned him to death And Numb 27. 1. The Daughters of Zelophehad stood before Moses Eleazar and before the Princes as Iudges and before all the Congregation as witnesses not as Judges but v. 6. 7. Moses gave out the judiciall sentence from the Lords mouth And 1 King 21. 12. Naboth stood in presence of the people to be judged but the Nobles and Princes were his Judges because v. 8. Iezabel wrote to the Nobles and Princes that v. 10. they should carry out Naboth and stone him to wit judicially and v. 11. The Nobles and Princes did as Iezabel had sent unto them And Ieremiah cap. 26. pleaded his cause before the Princes and people for v. 10. The Princes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Set down judicially in the entry of the new gate of the Lords House nothing can be gathered from the place to prove that the people judged but because Ieremiah spake to the Princes and the people who vers 24 were in a fury and rage against Ieremiah if Ahikam had not saved him from their violence CHAP. 4. SECT 4. QUEST 5. WHether there be no nationall or provinciall Church under the New Testament but only a parishionall Congregation meeting every Lords day in one place for the worship of God The Author in this first proposition denieth that there is any Nationall or provinciall Church at all under the New Testament for clearing of the question observe these 1. Dist. VVe deny that there is any diocescan provinciall or Nationall Church under the care of one Diocesan or Nationall Prelate or Bishop but hence it followeth not there is no visible instituted Church now but only a particular Congregation 2. Dist. VVe deny any Nationall typicall Church where a whole Nation is tyed to one publick worship in one place as sacrificing in the Temple 3. Dist. VVe deny not but the most usuall acception of a Church or visible meeting is given as the refutator of Tylenus sayth to a convention of people meeting ordinarily to heare the word and adminstrate the Sacraments Stephanus deriveth it from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Cyrillus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As Causabon observeth so these who meete at one Sermon are called Ecclesia a Church and it is called Ecclesia concio sayth the Refutator of Tilen but this hindreth not the Union of more particular Congregations in their principall members for Church-government to be the meeting or Church representative of these many united Congregations 4. Dist. A Parish-Church materiall is a Church within such locall bounds the members whereof dwell contiguously togegether one bordering on the other our Brethren meane not of such a Church for as Paâ—â— Baynes sayth well this God instituted not because a company of Papists and Protestants may thus dwell together as in a Parish and yet they axe of contrary Churches a Parish-Church formally is a multitude who meete in manner or forme of a Parish as if they dwelt neere together in a place ordinarily to worship God as the 〈◊〉 of those who came together to celebrate the Lords Supper is called the Church 1 Cor. 11. 18. For first of all when ye come together in the Church I heare that there are divisions amongst you 〈◊〉 what have ye not houses to eat and drink in or despise ye the Church of God 1. Concl. If we shall evince a Church-visible in the Now Testament which is not a Parishionall Church we evince this to be false which is maintained by our Brothren that there is no visible instituted Church in the New Testament save onely a Parishionall Church or a single independent Congregation But this Church we conceive to have been no Parishionall Church 1. Because these who met dayly and continued with one accord in the Temple and breaking bread from house to house that is administrating the Sacraments together as our Brethren say were a visible Church But these being first an hundred and twenty as Acts 1. and then three thousand added to them Acts 2. 41. could not make all one single independent Congregation whereof all the members had voyce in actuall government Ergo they were a visible instituted Church and yet not a Parishionall Church The proposition is cleare The Church of Ierusalem was one visible Church and did exercise
Tribes did and the Kingdome of Iudah in the end did they should so marre and hurt the being and integrity of a visible Church as the Lord should say She is not my wife neither am I her husband and yet they might remaine in that case a free Monarchie and have a State and policy in some better frame though I grant de facto these two Twins State and Church civill Policy and Religion did die and live were sicke and diseased vigorous and healthy together yet doth this More that State and Church are different And further if that Nation had made welcome and with humble obedience beleeved in and received the Messiah and reformed all according as Christ taught them they should have beene a glorious Church and the beloved Spouse of Christ but their receiving and imbracing the Messiah should not presently have cured their inthralled state seeing now the Scepter was departed from Iudah and a stranger and heathen was their King nor was it necessary that that Saviour whose Kingdome is not of this world John 18. 36. and came to bestow a spirituall redemption and not to reestablish a flourishing earthly Monarchy and came to loose the works of the Devill Heb. 2 14. and not to spoile Cesar of an earthly Crowne should also make the Jews a flourishing State and a free and vigorous Monarchy againe Ergo it is most cleare that State and Church are two divers things if the one may bee restored and not the other Fifthly the King as the King was the head of the Common-wealth and might not meddle with the Priests office or performe any Ecclesiasticall acts and therefore was Uzzah smitten of the Lord with leprosie because he would burne incense which belonged to the Priests onely And the Priest in offering sacrifices for his owne sinnes and the sinnes of the people did represent the Church not the State And the things of the Lord to wit Church-matters and the matters of the King which were civill matters of State are clearly distinguished 2 Chron. 19. 11. which evidenceth to us that the Church and State in Israel were two incorporations formally distinguished And I see not but those who doe confound them may also say That the Christian State and the Christian Church be all one State and that the government of the one must be the government of the other which were a confusion of the two Kingdoms It is true God hath not prescribed judicials to the Christian State as he did to the Jewish State because shadows are now gone when the body Christ is come but Gods determination of what is morally lawfull in civill Laws is as particular to us as to them and the Jewish judicials did no more make the Jewish State the Jewish Church then it made Aaron to be Moses and the Priest to be the King and civill Judge yea and by as good reason Moses as a Judge should be a prophet and Aaron as a Prophet should be a Judge and Aaron as a Priest might put a malefactor to death and Moses as a Judge should prophâ—sie and as a Prophet should put to death a malefactor all which wanteth all reason and sense and by that same reason the State and Common-wealth of the Jews as a Common-wealth should offer sacrifices and prophesie and the Church of the Jews as a Church should denounce warre and punish malefactors which are things I cannot conceive Our brethren in their answer to the eleventh question teach That those who are sui juris as masters of families are to separate from these Parish-assemblies where they must live without any lawfull Ordinance of Christ and to remaine there they hold it unlawfull for these reasons First we are commanded to observe all whatsoever Christ hath commanded Matth. 28. 10. Secondly the Spouse seeketh Christ and rests not till she finde him in the fullest manner Cant. 1. 7 8. and 3. 1 2 3. David lamented when hee wanted the full fruition of Gods Ordinances Psal. 63. and 42. and 84. although he injoyed Abiathar the high Priest and the Ephod with him and Gad the Prophet 1 Sam. 23. 6 9. 10. 1 Sam. 22. 8. So did Ezra 8. 15 16. yea and Christ though he had no need of Sacraments yet for example would be baptized keepe the Passeover c. Thirdly no ordinances of Christ may be spared all are profitable Fourthly he is a proud man and knoweth not his owne heart in any measure who thinketh he may be well without any Ordinance of Christ. Fifthly say they it is not enough the people may be without sinne if they want any ordinances through the fault of the superiours for that is not their fault who want them but the superiours sinfull neglect as appeareeth by the practice of the Apostles Acts 4. 19. and 5. 29. For if they had neglected Church-ordinances till the Magistrates who were enemies to the Gospell had commanded them it had beene their grievous sinne For if superiours neglect to provide bodily food we doe not thinke that any mans conscience would be so scrupulous but he would thinke it lawfull by all good meanes to provide in such a case for himselfe rather then to sit still and to say If I perish for hunger it is the sinne of those who have authority over me and they must answer for it Now any ordinance of Christ is as necessary for the good of the soule as food is necessary for temporall life Ans. 1. I see not how all these Arguments taken from morall commandments doe not oblige sonne as well as father servant as master all are Christs free men sonne or servant so as they are to obey what over Christ commandeth Matth. 18. 10. and with the Spouse to seeke Christ in the fullest measure and in all his ordinances and sonne and servant are to know their owne heart so as they have need of all Christs ordinances and are no more to remaine in a congregation where their soules are samished because fathers and masters neglect to remove to other congregations where their souls may be fed in the fullest measure then the Apostles Acts 4. 29. and 5. 29 were to preach no more in the Name of Iesus because the Rulers commanded them to preach no more in his Name And therefore with reveâ—ence of our godly brethren I thinke this distinction of persons free and sui juris and of sonnes and servants not to be allowed in this point 2. It is one thing to remove from one congregation to another and another thing to separate from it as from a false constitute Church and to renounce all communion therewith as if it were the Synagogue of Satan and Antichrist as the Separatists doe who refuse to heare any Minister ordained by a Prelate now except these arguments conclude separation in this latter sense as I thinke they can never come up halfeway to such a conclusion I see not what they prove nor doe they answer the question c. concerning standing in
the Church receiveth in as you say but the putting of Iudah and the strangers of Israel to this Oath was by the Kings authority who convened them 2. Chron. 15. 9. And Asah gathered all Judah and Benjamin and the strangers with them and they were compelled by the Royall sanction of a civill Law to this covenant v. 12. and they entred into covenant c. 13. That whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel should be put to death whether small or great man or woman 4. How were they all in conscience satisfied anent the regeneration one of another 1. Being such a number of Iudah Benjamin and strangers out of Ephraim Manasse and Simeon v. 9. Were 2. Gathered together and meet but one day 5. This covenant obliged young ones your covenant seekes no Church duties of little ones for to you they are not members of a visible Church 6. The place 2 Chron. 30. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yeild to God as servants Iunius humbly imploring his help as the same phrase is Lament 5. 6. we have served the Egyptians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Assyrians to be satisfied with bread neither doth the Text say in infinitive that yee may enter into the Sanctuary as if a renewed covenant were a necessary preparation before they could enter into the Sanctuary but it is set downe as an expresse Commandement of the King 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 enter yee into his Sanctuary and there is not a word of a covenant in the Text but only of the peoples keeping the Passover and though there had been a covenant of which the Spirit of God speaking so much of Iosiah's zealous Reformation would not have been silent it is not to a purpose Iudah was a visible Church before Hezekiah wrote Letters to them to â—ome to Jerusalem to keepe the Passover as is cleare ch 29. 17. they begun to sanctifie the House the first day of the first moneth and all the congregation worshipped 36. And Hezekiah rejoyced at their zeale and so there was a visible Church and the Passover was eaten the 14. day according to the Law also in all covenants renewed by the people of the Jewes the matter was done suddenly and all convened in a day when a voluntary preparation and evidenced regeneration could not be evidenced to the satisfaction of the conscience of all the people nor can this preparation be called Jewish and temporary for it is as morall to all who sweare Churches duties one to another as the covenant it selfe which our brethren say is of perpetuall equity And all these may be answered to the covenant Neh. 10. where there is no insinuation of Church duties but in generall 29. Yo walke in Gods Law and to observe and â—â—e all the Commandements of the Law and not to marry strange â—vives The apology saith it is to no purpose that the people 2 Chro 15. was a Church before this covenant because the place is not alledged to prove that a people are made a Church by entering into covenant with God but to prove that a decayed Church is restored by a covenant now the Church at this time was corrupted with idols sodomy c. Answ. 1. Yet it proveth well that this covenant is not the formall cause of a visible Church for a visible Church hath not its formall being before it hath its formall cause 2. The convening of all the people to sweare is an act of the Church visible now nothing can have operations before it have the formall cause 3. The Author saith who knoweth that all the Tribes of Israel were yet in covenant with God from the dayes of their Fathers Answer I think that it is easily knowne that they used and exercised many Church actions also and so were a Church visible of a promiscuous multitude and it is knowâ—n that none were excluded from this covenant none selected and chosen out as Regenerates who onely were thought fit to sweare this covenant and so that it is not your Church-covenant that all were forced to and commanded under painâ— of death to attest Our brethren as first our Author secondly the Apology thirdly the Author of the Church-covenant repose much on Isai. 56. 3. where the stranger is joyned to the Lord in a personall covenant for his own salvation for so the Text saith v. 3. 4. yet are they not joyned to the visible Church while they lay hold on the covenant that is to sweare a Church-covenant now that they are not members of the visible Church is cleare fâ—r Deut. 23. 1 2 3. The Moabit Ammonite though never so holy cannot be members of the visible Church because they are discharged to enter into the congregation of the Lord. 2. They complainâ— that they are not of the visible Church The Lord hath separated me from his people 3. Adjoyning of them to the visible Church is promised as a reward of their faith and obedience v. 8. even a Name in Gods House Hence it is cleare persons under the New Testament have a promise and propbecy thâ—â— if they be inwardâ—s joyned by faith God shall give them a Name of Church-membership amongst his people by swearing a Church-Oath or if they lay hold on the covenant of the Church Ans. 1. There is no churching here of strangers and Eunuches by Church-Oath but as Calvin Musculus Gualter Iunius observe the Eunuch and stranger are comforted that under the Messiâ—hs Kingdome they shall have no cause to complaine of their ceremoniall separation from Gods people and the want of some ceremoniall priviledges of that kind because the stranger and Eunuch shall have v. 5. an everlasting roome and honor in Gods Housâ— and the Son of the stranger a place in the Catholick Church v. 6. 7. so being they believe and obey But 1. v. 6. to lay hold on my covenant is not to lay hold on the Church-covenant give us precept promise practise or one syllable in Gods Word for this interpretation 1. v. 4. to take hold on the covenant is to believe the covenant and not to sweare a vocall Oath 2. To lay hold on the covenant saith Musculus is to keep the covenant and not to depart from it to live according to it saith Iunius and to rest on God to doe what is Gods will commanded in the covenant saith Calvin and Gualter and so all who spake sense on that place and never one dreamed of a Church-covenant before 3. God saith of it my covenant there is no reason then to call it a Church-covenant here more then Ierom. 31. 32. 33. Psal. 25. 10. Isai. 55. 3. Ierem. 50. 5. Zach. 2. 11. 4 Laying hold on the covenant is not an externall professed vocall visible and Church embracing of the covenant for then the Lord promiseth to the Eunuch the name of a faithfull visible fellow member in a congregation if he shall lay hold on the covenant and sweare it
of writing was that it might be a part of the Canon of faith So also the Covenant of Grace and the Gospell was made upon this occasion by reason that the first Covenant could not save us Heb. 8. vers 7. Rom. 8 2. 3. Gal. 3. 21 22. is therefore I pray you the Covenant of grace but a temporary and a prudentiall peece Upon the occasion of the death of Zelophead who died in the wildernesse without a male-childe whose name thereby was in danger to be delete and blotted out of Israel the Lord maketh a generall Law through all Israel binding till the Messiah his comming Numb 27. 8. If a man die and have no sonne then shall you cause his inheritance to passe unto his daughter this was no prudentiall Law I might alleage infinite Ordinances in Scripture the like to this Yea most of all the Ordinances of God are occasioned from our spirituall necessities are they therefore but humane and prudentiall Statutes that are onely to endure for a time I thinke no. Ob. 3. But if the civill Magistrate had been a friend to the Church Acts 6. his place had beene to care for the poore for the law of nature obligeth him to take care of the poore therefore did a woman in the famine at the siege of Samaria cry Helpe O King and if this were done by Christian Magistrates Pastors should be eased thereof that they might give themselves to the Word and Prayer and there should be no neede of a divine positive institution of Deacons for this charge Answ. That the godly Magistrate is to take care of the poore as they are members of the Common wealth I could easily grant But this is not now in question but whether or not the Church as it is an Ecclesiasticall society should not have a treasure of the peoples Eâ—angelike free-will-offering for the necessity of the Saints as Heb. 13. 16. 1 Cor. 16. 1 2. 2 Cor. 9. 5 6 7 8 and concequently whether or not Christ hath ordained not the Pastors but some officers besides to attend this worke VVee affirme he hath provided for his poore members even their bodily necessi ies Secondly if this be true that there should be no Deacon but the Christian Magistrate then were these seven Deacons but the Substitutes and Vicars of the Emperour and King Now certainly if Apostolike benediction and laying on of hands in the wisdome of God was thought fit for the Vicars and Deputies of the Magistrates it is like that beside the coronation of the Roman Emperour the twelve Apostles ought to have blessed him with prayer and separated him by laying on of hands for this Deaconrie for what Apostolike calling is necessary for the temporary substitute is more necessary and at least that same way necessary for the principall But that civill Magistrates ex officio are to be separated for this Church-office so holden forth to us 1 Tim. 3. 12. I can hardly beleeve Thirdly I see not what the Magistrate doth in his office but he doth it as the Minister of God who beareth the sword Rom. 13 4. and if he should compell to give almes then should almes be a debt and not an almes and free-will-offering It is tâ—uâ— there may intervene some coaction to cause every man to do his duty and to force men to give to the poore but then I say that forcing with the sword should not be an act of a separated Church-officer who as such useth no carnall weapons Fourâ—â—ly the law of nature may lead to a supporting of the poore but that hindreth not but God may ordaine it as a Church-duty and appoint a Church-officer to collect the bounty of the Sainâ—â— 1 Cor. 16. 3. 5. I see not how the Apostle 1 Tim. 3. should not hold forth his Cannons concerning a Deacon to the King if he ex officio be the Church-treasurer but the Apostle doth match him with the Bishop Acts 6. the appointing of the Deacon is not grounded Acts 6. upon the want of a Christian Magistrate but on another ground that the Apostles must attend a more necessary worke then Tables Object 4. But the occasion of appointing Deacons was to disburden the Pastor who was to give himselfe wholy to preaching and praying Ergo at the first the Apostles and so also Pastors were Deacons if therefore the poore be fewer then they were at Ierusalem Act. 6. where the Church did exceedingly multiplie this Office of Deaconry was to returne to the Pastors as its prime and native subject and therefore is not essentially and primarily an Office separated from the Pastors Office And if the poore cease to be at all the Office ceaseth also Ans. I cannot well deny but it is apparent from Act. 6. 4. that the Apostles themselves were once those who cared for the poore but I deny that hence it followes in the case of fewer poore that the Office can returne to the Pastors as to the first subject except you suppose the intervention of a divine institution to place it againe in the Pastors as the power of judging Israel was once in Samuel but upon supposition that Saul was dead that power cannot returne backe to Samuel except you suppose that God by his authority shall re-deliver and translate it backe againe to Samuel For seeing God by positive institution had turned the power of judging over from Samuel into the person of Saul and changed the same into a regall and Kingly power that same authority who changed the power must rechange it againe and place it in and restore it to its first subject 2. The fewnesse of poore or no poore at all cannot be supposed Joh. 12. 8. for the poore you have alwaies with you And considering the afflictions of the Churches the object of the Deacons giving and shewing mercy as it is Rom. 12. 8. cannot be wanting as that the Churches fabricke be kept in good frame the poore the captives of Christian Churches the sicke the wounded the stranger the distracted be relieved yea and the poor Saints of other Churches 1 Cor. 16. be supported 3. Not onely because of the impossibility that Pastors cannot give both themselves to praying and the Word and to the serving of Tables but by reason of the wisdome of Christ in a positive Law the Pastor cannot be the Deacon ex officie in any case For 1. Christ hath made them distinct Offices upon good grounds Act. 6. 4. 2. The Apostle hath set downe divers qualifications for the Bishop 1 Tim. 3. 1. and for the Deacon V. 12 13. And 3. the Pastor who is to give the whole man to the preaching of the Gospell cannot entangle himselfe with Tables 1 Tim. 4. 15. 2 Tim. 2. 3 4 5. if we should say nothing that if there were need of Officers to take care of the poore when there was such grace and love amongst the Saints and Apostles able and willing to acquit themselves toward the poore and when all things were common Act.
professor at Rome Joan. de Lugo teach that the Sacraments are morall causes of grace but not physicall It is grosse that Henricus saith that God createth grace per tactum Sacramentorum by the touch of the Sacraments as Christ cured the Leper by the touch of his hand for Sacraments are not miracles as Papists say Phisicke worketh upon a mans body when he sleepeth so doe Sacraments justifie and worke grace ex opere operat◠though the faith of the Sacrament-Receiver doe worke nothing at all 4. Sacraments are considered 1. As holy signes 2. As Religious seales 3. As instruments by which faith worketh 4. As meanes used by us out of conscience of obedience to Christs commandement who hath willed us to use them Sacraments as signes are objective and morall causes exciting the mind as the word doth in a morall way they represent Christ and him crucified and this Sacraments have commune with the word The Sacrament is a visible word teaching us 2. Sacraments have the consideration of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tantum they be seales and not teaching and representing signes onely this way also they have no reall or physicall action in them or from them for a seale of a Prince and State as it is such conferreth not an acre or rigge of land but it is a legall Declaration that those lands written in the body of the Charter doe duely belong to the Person to whom the Charter is given But Arminians do here erre as Episcopius and also Socinus and Smalcius who teach that the Sacraments be nothing but externall rites and declarative signes scadowing out Christ and the benefits of his death to us because they find a morall objective working in the Word of God but a substantiall and Physicall working betwixt us and Christs bodie they say is ridiculous but they would remember that this is an insufficient enumeration the seale of a Kings Charter hath besides a morall action on the mind by bringing to the mind such lands given to such a man and so the seales worketh upon the witnesses or any who readeth the Charter as well as upon the owner of the Charter I say beside this the seale hath some reall action I grant not in it but about it and beside it for it sealeth that such lands are really and in effect given by the Prince and State the action is about the seale not in or from the seale When a Generall of an Army delivereth the keyes of a Castle to a Keeper thereof he saith I deliver the house to you when he delivereth the Keyes onely Physically and not the stones walls or timber of the house by a Physicall action or Physicall touch contactu Physico yet in delivering the keyes he doth really deliver to him the Castle but in a legall and morall way Arminians and Socinians may see here that there is neither an action by way of naked representation and teaching for the Sacrament is a teaching signe to the beholders who receive it not nor is it a Physicall action as if Christs Physicall body in a Physicall way were given yet it is an action reall and morall so the Sacraments are signes exhibitive and not naked signes Our brethren doe side with Arminians and Socinians who so often teach that Sacraments make nothing to be what they were not but onely declare things to be what they are It is true the formall effect of a Sacrament is to seale and confirme to seale and confirme is but a legall strengthning of a right and not the adding of any new thing Yet in this the Sacrament differeth from a seale 1. That to a civill seale there is not required the beleeving and faith of the owner of the Charter to make the seale effectuall for whether the Lord of the lands beleeve that his seale doth confirme him in the lands or not the seale of it selfe by the Law of the Prince State maketh good his right to the lands but Sacraments doe not worke ex opere operato as civill seales doe worke even as Physicke worketh upon the body without the faith of the mind though the man bee sleeping Hence the third consideration of a Sacrament as an instrument Faith in and through the Sacrament being wakened and stirred up layeth hold upon Christ his death and benefits and for this cause there is a reall exhibition of the thing signified and the Sacrament is an exhibitive seale 4. The Sacrament in the use is considered as wee use it in obedience to God who saith in the Lords Supper Do this in remembrance of me and in this it differeth from a civill seale also The Prince doth not conferre a seale to confirme a man in his land upon condition that he will make use of it otherwayes it shall be to him as no seale But God hath given the scale of grace upon condition that wee make use thereof in Faith else the Sacrament is blanke and null Therefore if you beleeve and not otherwayes the Sacrament of the Supper sealeth and confirmeth you in this that Christ is given already and is in the present given to be nourishment to your soule to life eternall and so oft as you eate the certioration and assurance groweth and the faith is increased and a further degree of a communion with Christ confirmed but it is not so in civill seales though yee repeate and reiterate the same seale of lands ten thousand times it never addeth one aker more to the in heritance because the repetition of a civill seale is not commanded under the promise of addition of new lands nor is it commanded as obedience to the owner of the Charter that hee should make use of the seale but from the using in faith the Sacrament we receive increase of Grace and a Sacramentall Grace Hence Baptisme is a seale of our incorporation in Christs visible Church 1 Cor. 12. 13. For by one spirit we be all baptized into one body whether we be Jew or Gentile or whether we be bound or free Act. 2. 41. Then they that received the word were baptized and the same day there were added unto them three thousand souls so Matth. 28. 19. the taught Disciples are to bee baptized in his name Act. 8. 38. Philip was this way received in the Christian Church and Cornelius Act. 10. 47. and Lidia Act. 16. 15. and the Jaylor vers 23. 2. That which distinguisheth by a visible note the Church as visible from the invisible Church and from other visible societies and sealeth our visible union with Christs body that is the seale of our entry in the visible Church but baptisme is such Ergo. 3. What circumcision was to the Church of the Jewes that baptisme is to the Christian Church because in re significatâ in the thing signified and inward substance of the Sacrament they were both one Col. 2. 11. 12. Phil. 3. 3. But circumcision was a seale of the
to holy actions performed by Gods enemies nor is our externall communicating with them a saying Amen to the wicked manner of receiving the seales this is most unreasonable and cannot be proved by Gods word But Robinson will prove that in this place 2 Cor. 6. the Lord forbiddeth communion not onely with evill workes of wicked men but with their persons and that he commandeth a separation not onely reall but personall 1. Because saith he the Scripture hath reference to the yoaking of the unbeleevers in marriage as the occasion of spirituall idolatrous mixture which he reproveth now this joyning was not in an evill or unlawfull thing but with the wicked and unlawfull persons Answer If the man had formed a syllogisme it should be a crooked proportion if Paul allude to the marriage with insides then as we are not to joyne with Pagans in lawfull marriage so neither with scand â—â—ous Christians in lawfull worship This connexion is gratis said and we deny it But as we are not to marry with Pagans so not to sit in their Idoll-Temple and to be present in their Idoll-worship else we were not to admit them or their personall presence to the hearing of the word contrary to your selves and to 1 Cor. 14. 24 25. So if because we are not to marry with them we are not to be personally present with them at the receiving of the Sacrament neither at the hearing of the word nor are we to be baptized because Simâ—n Magus and many Hypocrites are baptized 3. Locall separation from Idoll-worship in the Idoll-Temple we teach as well as Robinson but what then he commandeth locall and personall separation from all the professors of the truth in the lawfull worship of God this we deny to follow 2. The very termes saith Robinson beleevers unbeleevers light darknesse Christ Belial doe import opposition not of things only but of persons also for things sake so the faithfull are called righteousnesse light and the ungody darknesse and so not onely their workes but their persons are called Answer 1. We deny not opposition of persons and separation locall from persons in Idoll-worship at an Idoll-Table but hence is not concluded personall separation from wicked men in the lawfull worship of God 2. This is for us we are to separate from the persons because the worship is unlawfull and Idoll-worship and therefore the contrary rather followeth iâ— the worship were lawfull we would not separate for remove the cause and the effect shall cease 3. The Apostle saith he forbiddeth all unlawfull communion in the place but there is an unlawfull communion of the faithfull with the wicked in things lawfull as with the excommunicated idolatrous 〈◊〉 or my other flagitious person in the Sacraments prayers and other religious exercises and the Iewes were to separate themselves 〈◊〉 from the manners of the Heâ—then but even from their â—ersâ—s â—zr 19. 1. 2. and 10. 2 3. Nehem. 9. 10. 28 30. And Paul 〈◊〉 the Corinthians 1 Cor. 5. for having fellowship not onely in â—â— persons inâ—est but with the incestuous person whom therefore they 〈◊〉 â—urge out and to put away from amongst themselves verse 5. â— 13. Answer It is true there is an unlawfull communion of the faithfull that is overseers and guides of the Church to whom God hath committed the keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven with excommunicated persons in that they retaine one worthy to be excommunicated in the bosome of the Church but communion with the Church in the holy things of God is not hence concluded to be unlawfull because the guides of the people communicate with that Church where the excommunicated person is suffered it is the sinne of the Church-guides that an excommunicated person is not cast out and that he is suffered to communicate at the Lords Table and to profane â— in not discerning the Lords body but it is not the sinne of either guides or the people to communicate at one Table with the excommunicated person or him that deserveth to be excommunicated for not casting out is one thing and to communicate with the excommunicated in the true visible Church is another thing the former is a sinne not to use the power that Christ hath given but to communicate with the excommunicated person is not a sinne but a remembring of the Lords death at Christs commandement for one sinne maketh not another sinne to be lawfull or to be no sinne to deliver one unto Satan is to debarre one from the Lords Supper and to repute him as a Publican and to judge him not worthy of the communion in the holy things of God with the Church but this is not to repute the Church or guides or members as Publicans and Heathens and as not worthy of Church-communion with the man who is cast out we see the Church of Corinth rebuked for not excommunicating the incestuous man but not forbidden to come and eate the Lords Supper with him and these who came and did eate their owne condemnationâ— 1 Cor. 11. yea they are commanded to come to the publike meeting Ergo it is one thing not to excommunicate the scandalous a sinne and another thing to communicate with the scandalous which is not a sinne directly nor forbidden at all Though Paul have an allusion to the Lords separating of the Jewes from all other people yet it followeth not that we are to separate from the wicked men and unrenewed professing the truth that way first because there was a typicall separation in marriage with Canaanites if the Jewes should marry with the Canaanites the marriage was null and the Moabites and Ammonites ought not to enter in the Temple 2. The Jewes are to separate from the manners of Heathen and from the persons of strange wives yea and to put their wives of the Canaanites after they had married them away from them in token of their repentanee because the marriage was not onely unlawfull but null as is cleare Ezra 9. 1 2 3. Nâ—hem 9. 1 2. And this was a peculiar Law binding the holy seed but doth not inferre the like separation of Christians for 1 Cor. 7. 11 12. it is not lawfull for a Christian to put away a Pagan wife or for the beleeving wife to forsake the Pagan husband and therefore that Jewish separation cannot inferre a separation from the persons and worship of unbeleevers and it is true that Paul commandeth to cast out the incestuous person and to separate him from the Church but it followeth not therefore the Church was to separate from the publike worship because he was not cast out 4. Saith Robinson the Apostle injâ—yneth such a separation at upon which a people is to be esteemed Gods people the Temple of the living God and may challenge his promise to be their God and to dwell amongst them and to walke there and as for the Temple the stoneâ— and timber thereof were separated from all the trees of the Forest and set together in comely
the Author by which wee leepe the communion of Saints in divers Churches 1. By way of participation 2. Of recommendation 3. Of consultation 4. Of Congregation 5. Of contribution 6. Of admonition 7. Of propagation or multiplication of Churches It is allowed by the consent of our Churches that when the members of any other Churches are occasioned to rest with us on the Lords day when the Supper commeth to be administred and neither the persons themselves nor the Church they came from under any publick offence they bee by us admitted to the participation of the Lords Supper for wee looke at the Lords Supper not onely as a seale of our communion with the Lord Jesus but also of our communion with his members and that not onely with the members of our owne Churches but of all the Churches of the Saints and this is the first way of communion with other Churches to wit by participation Answ. 1. We heartily embrace the doctrine of the communion of Saints but many things are here which are incompatible with your doctrine as first communion of Churches which you call a branch of the communion of Saints cannot consist with your doctrine for a Church by you is relative onely to the Eldership of a Church as sonnes are relative to Fathers but a Sonne is not relative to a brother so neither is a Parishionall Church properly a Church in relation to a neighbour Church for a Church hath no Church-state no Church-priviledges no Church-worship in relation to a sister-Church therefore you should say the Communion of Christians of sister-Churches not the Communion of Churches for no Church by your doctrine hath any Church-state or Church-worship in relation to any but to its owne members 2. This enumeration is defective you make a Communion of Churches in the members of sister Churches in the Lords Supper though the members of neighbour Churches bee not inchurched in Church-state by oath as a member of that Church where hee partaketh the Lords Supper and why should not the Child of beleeving parents in the death or absence of the Pastors of neighbour Churches have communion with you in baptisme also for this communion in baptizing you deny to any but those who are members of that Church wherein they receive baptisme 3. if you admit communion of Churches in some things to wit in the Lords Supper how can you deny communion of Churches in other holy things of God for you admit no communion of Churches in the power of the keyes as in mutuall counselling warning rebuking binding and loosing for Christ hath left no common power of the keyes in many visible Churches who are united together in an Iland or Nation or Continent by which these acts of communion should bee regulated and in case of neglect and abuse censured according to Gods Word as you say for you deny all authoritative power in Synods let me bee resolved deere brethren in this how Christ hath put whole Churches and their soules in worse case then members of your independent Congregations are for the keyes of the kingdome of heaven in binding and loosing in excommunicating that the spirit may bee saved in 〈◊〉 day of the Lord the removing of scandalls out of sister parishionall kingdomes of Christ the gaining of sister Churches from heresies and scandalls as brethren are to bee gained Matth. 18. 15. 1 Cor. 5. 5. 1 Tim. 1. 30. by censures the keeping of the holy things of God from profanation authoritative rebuking warning that others may feare and that the rebuked may bee ashamed and all these meanes of salvation are denied to your particular Congregations as if they were Angels and Popes who cannot be lacking in duties and yet all these are granted to members of any one particular Church how hath the care wisedome of Christ denied these meanes to many united Churches and yet you acknowledge that sister Churches have communion amongst themselves and that seven wayes in visible acts of externall communion I beleeve this one argument though there were no more doth strongly conclude the lawfulnesse of Synods and by consequent the Law of nature would say if Christs wisdome provide wayes to regulate the publike actions of the members of a particular Church that they may be edified and builded up in the most holy faith farre more hath he taken care for many Churches united in a visible communion seven wayes that Lord that careth for the part must farre rather care for the whole body 4. You say members of other Churches are admitted to the Lords Supper amongst you by consent of your Churches but what consent doe you meane is the consent authoritative by power of the keyes 1. This consent authoritative is either concluded in a Synod of many Churches and so you acknowledge the authoritative power of Synods if it be done and agreed upon in every particular Church by them alone then I aske seeing to administer the Lords Supper to any and so to make in your Church meeting that it shall be administred to any is as you teach an act of ministeriall power over those to whom you administer the Seale chap. 4. Sect. 5. Now how doe you exercise acts of ministeriall power or conclude ecclesiastically to exercise these acts in your parishional meeting toward those over whom you have no ministeriall power for members of neighbour Churches are under no ministeriall power in your particular Church as you teach in the same place as you can exercise no power of the keyes when some are absent that is tyranny upon the conscience saith Answorth who will have none censured or excommunicated except the whole congregation be present also he who of another Church communicateth with you 1. Hath no faith of the lawfull calling and choosing your Ministers for he neither could nor ought to be present thereat 2. He knoweth not but he may be leavened by a scandalous lumpe which leaveneth the whole Church and is enough as you say chap. 4. Sect. to hold any from communicating in the Seales with any Church Now these and many other things he must take in trust from you which Answorth thinketh tyranny of conscience neither can a letter of recommendation make one of another congregation capable of Seales with you for to dispone is to alienate and give away the ministeriall power of the Seales to another Church Now this power say you chap. 5. Sect. 4. is a part of the liberty wherewith Christ hath made you free and so you cannot dispone it to another Church except you bring your selfe in bondage contrary to Gal. 5. 1. 5. Mr. Best and your selfe bold that a Pastor can exercise no pastorall act but over his owne flocke and you say that the Scripture saith so Act. 20. 28. 1 Pet. 5. 2. Ergo either to administer the Lords Supper is no pastorall Act and may be done by non-Pastors as Arminians and Socinians destroying the necessity of a ministery doe averre or then a
Minister cannot administer the Lords Supper to any but his owne flocke see you to this 6. If the sister Church lie under any offence you will not admit any of their members to the Lords Supper though these members be of approven piety and why What a separation is this What if these members do not consent to that offence as some of the godly in Corinth might be humbled and mourne that the Church did not cast out the incestuous person shal they be debarred by you from the seales because they separate not from that infected lump the Apostle alloweth communicating so that every one examine himselfe 1 Cor. 11. 21. 30. with drunken persons and where many were stricken of God with death and diverse diseases as eating and drinking their owne damnation 7. You looke at the Lords Supper as a seale of communion with all the Churches of the Saints What communion meane you invisible no. You deny that the seales are given to the invisible Church and the members thereof but to the visible Church as you say If you meane a visible communion of all the visible Churches of the Saints why then brother doe you call the universall visible Church a Chimera or a dreame as you say and if all the visible Churches have a visible communion it is to deny Christs wisdome and care of his Church to deny the lawfulnesse of a Oecumenick and generall councell of all the Churches of the Saints We recommend saith the Author Brethren for a time to other Churches as Paul recommended Phoebe to the Church of Rome Rom. 16. 1. 2. or we give letters dismissorie to such as are for ever to reside in another congregation but members are not to remove from their congregation but upon just and weighty reasons made knowne and allowed by the whole Church for wee looke at our Church Covenant as an everlasting Covenant Jerem. 50. v. 5. And therefore though it may be resigned and translated from one Church to another as Gods hand shall direct yet it is not to be violated and rejected by us if members cut off themselves by excommunication it is their owne fault if any upon light reasons be importunately desirous to remove the Church is to use indulgence as not willing to make the Church of God a prison but often the hand of God in poverty and scandall followeth such and driveth them to returne when a person recommended by letters commeth to another congregation the Church by lifting up their hands or by silence receive him if he â—e altogether unknowne and doubted of because the Church may erre be is not received till due triall be taken of him Answ. We see not how letters of recommendation most lawfull as we judge and necessary can resigne ministeriall power a liberty bought with Christs bloud as you say to any other Church for we think all the visible Churches are one Catholike visible Church and should have a visible communion and so that there is no resignation of ministeriall power in these letters but they are declaratory of the Christian behaviour of the dismissed Christian. We aske if dimissory letters be authoritative and done by the Church as the Church and how can a Church usurp authority by your way over a sister Church to recommend a sojourner to a Church state and Church liberties and seales of the Covenant one Church hath no authority over another If these letters be meerely private and meerely declaratory to manifest and declare the sojourners Christian behaviour only then he had power and right without these letters or any act of resignation or giving away ministeriall power to be a Church-member of the visible Church to the which he goeth Ergo he was a member of the visible Church to which he goeth before the dimissory letters were written and the letters doe resigne no right but onely notifie and declare the sojourners preexistent right and so there is a visible Church and a visible communion of all congregations on earth and most be an externall power and authority in all for Synods Let our brethren see to this 3. The person to remove must be dismissed and loosed by the consent of the whole congregation it conveniency permit else he is not exonered of his Church-oath made to that congregation What if conveniency doe not permit then is he loosed from an oath without consent of the Church which did by oath receive him I thinke ejuâ—dem pâ—testatis est as the Law saith ligare solvere that Church power which bindeth must loose 4. If the Church-Covenant be an everlasting Covenant as Jer. 50. 5. tying the man to the membership of that particular congregation for ever I see not how the Church can use indulgenees and Pope-like dispensations against the oath of God to breake it upon light and frivolous reasons for if God punish Covenant breaking so also should the Church and can by no indulgence be accessory to the breach of Gods oath there is too great a smell of Popery Arminianisme and Socinianisine in this way in my weake judgement But if the man be not sworne a member of that particular Church by his oath he is sworne a member of the visible Church universall which our brethren cannot well say Neither is any Covenant called an everlasting Covenant in the Scripture but the Covenant of grace Jer. 31. 33. c. 32. 40. Isa. 54. 9 10. and that is made with the invisible Catholike Church of beleevers as is the Covenant Jer. 50. 5. and not a Covenant with one visible congregation and what warrant hath the Church to dispense with the breach of such an everlasting Covenant 5. The testimony of other Churches if it be a warrant to you in faith to receive into the Church such a one as a Saint and a Temple of the holy Spirit how should it not also be a warrant to you to cast out and excommunicate also 6. The person comming from another Church if of approven piety is received by lifting up of the hands or silence of the Church as you say 1. Have we a warrant from Gods word for such a new inchurching 2. Why is he not received by a Church oath as a Minister transplanted to another Church must have ordination and election of new for to you there is alike reason 3. If there be no need of a new Church oath to make him a member of that visible Congregation seeing now he is loosed from the former you inâ—inuate his former Church-oath did make him a member of a visible Church and so â—e that is a visible member in a Church is a visible member of all and so there must be a visible Church-Catholike if there be a Catholike visible membership in any one member and so you destroy what you build Manuscr 16. A third way of Communion with other Churches saith the Author is by seeking their helpe and presence 1. In admitting of members 2. In case of differences of judgments 3. In
or Church assembly have any power to bind the Churches to obedience because these commandements and decrees of censure are but ministeriall and limited and in so farre onely of force as they have reason from the Word of God as you say 3. Conclusion There is an authoritative power in Synods whereby they may and doe command in the Lord the visible Churches in their bounds the whole Churches are subject to the ordinance and decree of the Church Act. 1. where with common consent of a Synodicall meeting Matthias is ordained an Apostle Ergo all the Churches are to take him for an Apostle This argument cannot bee repelled because the Apostles by their extraordinary power did choose Matthias Because 1. they themselves cite this place to prove the peoples power ordinary which is to indure to Christs second comming in calling and electing their owne officers and Elders 2. Almain a Papist alleadgeth the place with good reason to prove that a generall councell is above Peter or the Pope because Peter would not choose Matthias without consent of the Apostles and Church 3. If this was extraordinary that Matthias was chosen why then is the vow and consent of the Church sought for there is nothing extraordinary and Apostolick flowing from an Apostolick spirit which is concluded or done by the spirit ordinary of the Church of beleevers So also Act. 6. If the Apostles did not by the ordinary and Synodicall power of ordinary Pastors choose seven Deacons how doe they first require that the Churches of Grecians and Hebrewes should seek out seven men v. 3. and did ordaine them with the common consent of the whole multitude v. 5. Act. 15. A Synod of moe Churches give decrees which obliege the Churches v. 28. ch 16. v. 4. Ergo Synods have authoritie over the Churches Those who say this Synod is not a patterne for after Synods say farre aside for their reason is this was 1. An Apostolick Synod 2. the holy Ghost was here 3. the thing determined was canonick Scripture But this is a way to clude all the promises made to Pastors in the word when as they are first made to Apostles this promise Behold I am with you to the â—nd of the world and this I will send you the other Comforter who 〈◊〉 lead you in all truth cannot bee made to faithfull Pastors and the Christian Church that now is for it is certaine Christ is otherwise present with his Apostles then with his Pastors after them And that he gave them a tongue a spirit when they were before the councels and rulers as to Apostolick men as Act. 4. 8. 9 10. Act. 5. 29. as Christ promised Matth. 10. 19. 20. Luk. 21. 13 14 15. for they were full of the holy Ghost before rulers but by our brethrens doctrine it shall follow none of these promises belong to Pastors now adayes in the like because no pastors now are Apostles Surely this were to fetter and imprison many glorious promises within the pale of the onely Apostolick Church and because Christ ascending to heaven sent downe the Apostolick spirit to his Apostles to write and preach canonick Scripture it shall follow he fulfilleth that promise John 16. 13. to none now adayes because none have the Apostolike spirit in the manner and measure that the Apostles had Yea further it is canonick Scripture that the Apostles at the last supper did shew forth the Lords death till be come againe therefore it shall follow that we have no warrant to shew forth the Lords death till he come againe 2. But that the Apostles in an ecclesiastick way did determine in the Synod for our imitation and not in an Apostolike way is cleare by many evidences in the text as Act. 15. 2. Paul and Barnabas were sent commissioners to the Apostles and Elders about this question Paul as an Apostle needed not be sent to know more of the matter then he knew as an Apostle for as an Apostle he knew the whole mystery of the Gospel Gal. 1. 16. 17. Ephes. 3. 4 5. Ergo he was sent to the Synod as a Pastor and that as an ordinary Pastor 2. They came together v. 6. to consider of this businesse but as Apostles they needed not the help of a Synod Ergo they came together as ordinary Pastors for the Churches after imitation 3. There was much debating and disputing v. 7. about the matter 4. They set down their minds and sentences in order one after another as Peter first v. 7. 8. then Barnabas and Paul v. 12. then James v. 13. and to James his sentence the whole Councell agreeth v. 22. Now what the Apostles as Apostles and from an infallible Spirit do they doe it not by seeking light and help one from another 5. The Decree of the Councell is a thing that Apostles Elders and Brethren and the whole Church resolveth after much dispute v. 22. But all these especially brethren and the whole beleevers as our Brethren say doe not joyne themselves with the Apostles either to write canonick Scripture or to give their consent to the writing of it therefore they doe consent by a synodall authority for the after imitation of the Churches Also there bee reasons of moment for Synods and 1. if according to the Law of nature and nations no man can bee a Judge in his owne cause then are appeales from the Eldership of one congregation when they are a party to the accused person naturall and from a Session to the Presbyteries and Synods of many moe Elders But the former is reason nature Law of Nations Ergo so is the latter 1. It is best reason which hath most of Scripture Paul and Barnabas Act. 15. 1. 2. had no small disputation with those who said circumcision was necessary finding their parties could not be Judges They appeale to a generall councell at Jerusalem where were the Apostles and Elders The Church of the Grecians and the Church of the Hebrewes strive neither of them can judge other and both appeale to a higher judicatory to the twelve Apostles and their owne Churches meeting with them and there is the matter determined aâ—ent helping the poore by Deacons if the Judge doe wrong and one particular congregation shall oppresse one sincere and sound beleever what remedy hath the care of Christ provided for this that the oppressours may be edisied by Church censures and the oppressed freed and delivered by remedy of discipline of Christ whose it is to judge the poore of the people and to save the children of the needy Ps. 72. 4. Now it is knowne that Diotrephes doth sometime excommunicate and the evill seâ—vant ruleth all Hieronymus saith Arrians ruled all in the dayes of Constantius and Valens Basil saith we may say in our time that there is neither Prince nor Prophet nor Ruâ—â—â— nor oblation nor incense Athanasius and Vincentius Lirinent complain'd that it was in the Arrians times as with the Church and Prophets in the
Church is no supernaturall act though there be a morall obligation tying the professours to the supernaturall sincerity of the act yet there is no essentiall obligation as touching the essence of a visible member tying him thereunto and therefore the Magistrate may compell thereunto and so Antonius following Gregorius doe teach that an indirect compulsion to the faith is lawfull and the compelling power of the Magistrate is terminated upon the profession not upon the hypocrisie of the profession else it were as good an argument to prove that the Magistrate by the sword cannot compell subjects to abâ—taine from murther sorcery perjury because many in an hypocriticall and servile manner for feare of the Magistrates wrath not for feare of God doe abstaine from these ils nor is their abstinence from worshipping idols a thing of it selfe as the Magistrate commandeth it supernaturall Neither would men by the Covenant of the Lord which King Asa did cause the people to sweare to wit that they should seeke the Lord God of their fathers 2 Chron. 15. 12. be compelled so as their seeking of God should not be willingly performed 5. This opinion is the way to Arminian liberty of conscience that men in a Christian Common-wealth may be of any Religion and the Magistrate is to behold men as an indifferent spectator not caring what religion they bee of whether they be Papists Jewes Pagans Anabaptists Socinians Macedonians c. which should inferre that the Magistrate were no nurse-father of the true Church nor yet a preserver of Religion if men might be of any Religion Neither is this the way as saith Robinson to the Papists implicite faith when men beleeveth as the Church beleeveth though they know not what it is nor is it a compelling of men as he saith to blasphemy and apparent wickednesse because the Magistrate is not to compell to profession of the truth immediately and without any foregoing information of the mind for the Church is to teach and instruct in all the externall acts of worship before the Magistrate doth compell to these acts yea and the same Robinson acknowledgeth that Jehoshaphat made compulsive lawes about Religion Ergo if he should execute these Lawes he should compell to some acts of Religion and should compell to hypocrisie as the same Mr. Robinson argueth against us 4. Conclus It is one thing to command acts of divine worship under the paine of civill punishment and another thing to punish or inflict civill punishment when these commandements are transgressed Christian Princes may doe both And that they doe the latter by Gods commandement and warrant is cleare in that Jehu destroyed all the house of Ahab for Idolatry and killed Baals Priests Good Josiah killed the Priests of the high places and burnt their bones upon the Altar Elias when the Magistrate would not doe his duty in an extraordinary way killed Baals Priests and if the Magistrate also in the New Testament have the sword given to him of God for the punishing of evill doers as Rom. 13. 4 5. that same Law must now also have force though in the use of the sword sundry hereticks are here to be distinguished as 1. seducing hereticks drawing others away from the worship of the true God to idolatry such are not to be pitied by the Magistrate as Deut. 13. 5 6 7. Zach. 13. 4 5 6. whereas seduced and drawne away soules for simple heresie cannot be put to death 2. Hereticks falling away in many particulars from the faith to Popery or other hereticall wayes are more severely to be punished then those who are hereticks in one or two fundamentall points onely And those who are universall Apostates and fall from the Christian faith to Judaisme and Paganisme deserve no lesse then death 3. Selfe-condemned hereticks after sufficient information and malitious opposers of the truth deserve harder dealing then simply seduced hereticks 4. All who beleeve blasphemies to be truth and hold them are not to be reckoned amongst formall blasphemers whose malice carrieth them on to raile upon the unspotted wayes of God 5. No hereticks having false opinions of God such as Antinomians and Libertines who thinke that the regenerate cannot sinne or that the worshipping of a creature is not idolatry can be innocent as if â—â—â—mply acts of the judgement and mind not conforme to Gods will revealed in his word were not sinnes as Arminians teach whereas all the faculties of the soule are under Gods Law 2. Hardly doth the mind conceive false thoughts of God or his worship but there be wicked crookes in the will and affections inclining thereunto the mind and smoaking the mind with will-guiltinesse 6. Except God was too rigorous and cruell in the Old Testament God avert such blasphemous thoughts what ever punishment even to bloud and death was inflicted upon hereticks seducing Prophets Idolaters Apostates these same stande yet in the plentitude of morall obligation against such as offend in the New Testament if the Magistrate beare the Lords sword as he doth in the New Testament Rom. 13. 4 5. Monfortius the Anabaptist as Beza saith had no Scripture to say because Christ is a meeke Saviour all corporall punishment inflicted upon hereticks in the Old Testament is turned over in spirituall punishment onely our brethren who deny that the Magistrate can compell any to an externall profession of the Gospel doe herein follow Arminians and Socinians So the Reâ—onstrants and Episcopius deny that the Magistrate can use any bodily punishment against hereticks The learned Professors of Leiden observe that Arminians here teach that same with the Socinians and the same is refuted well by Vedelius yea and Gerardus and Mersnerus and other pretended Disciples of Luther in this side with Arminians and Socinians and Socinians teach in this 1. that Hereticks should not be molested nor punished with the sword So Socinus Theophilus Nicolaides Ostorodius because the tares are not to be rooted out till harvest 2. Episcopius Slatius amongst Arminians and Ostorodius and the Catechise of Raccovia teach farther that the Magistrate may punish by fines and pecuniall mulcts but he cannot shed bloud or punish to death any murtherer because the Commandement of our meeke Saviour doth not permit to take away any mans life now it is certaine meeke Jesus while hee was on earth did neither fine nor imprison more then put to death 3. Soâ—inians teach that all warres under the new Testament are unlawfull for saith Smalâ—ius warres cannot consist with the 〈◊〉 of our enemie commanded by Christ Socinus and Ostorodius say it is an old precept not to shed blood and never retracted in the New Testament and God licenced it to the Jewes because he promised to them an earthly kingdome which hee hath not now promised under the New Testament Our Divines hold ringleading and seducing hereticks are to bee punished to death for so Beza Junius