Selected quad for the lemma: death_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A57969
|
The due right of presbyteries, or, A peaceable plea for the government of the Church of Scotland ... by Samuel Rutherfurd ...
|
Rutherford, Samuel, 1600?-1661.
|
1644
(1644)
|
Wing R2378; ESTC R12822
|
687,464
|
804
|
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