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
execute it for Doeg the Edomite sinned in killing the Lords Priests at the command of Saul and the footmen of Saul did religiously refuse that service 1 Sam. 22. 17. The Souldiers who crucified Christ not only as men but as Lictoâ—s sinned against a principle of the Gospel which they were obliged to believe Maries sonne is the true Messiah nor are we to joyne with a Church excommunicating a man because he confessed Christ Iob. 9. nor need we consent to these that the Senate of Venice is excommunicated by Paul the fift An. 1607. and Henricus Borbonius King of Navarre by Sixtus 5. and Elizabeth of England by Pius 5. and Henry the 4. by Gregory 7. or Hilderland and Martin Luther by Leo the 10. An. 1520. the Pope is not the Catholick Church as many learned Papists especially the Parisian Theologues teach 3. Concl There is not required the like certainty of conscience practicall in a question of fact that is required in a question of Law 1. Because in a question of Law all ignorance is morall and culpably evill to any who undertaketh actions upon conscience of obedience to others for to all within the visible Church the word of God is exactly perfect for faith and manners and every on is obliged to know all conclusions of Law that are determinable by Gods word 2. Every one in his actions is to doâ— out of a plerophorie and a full perswasion of heart that what he doth pleaseth God Rom. 14. 14. I know and am perswaded by the Lord Jesus that nothing is uncleane of it selfe 3. We are to doe nothing but what is lawfull and what in our consciences we are perswaded is lawfull and are to know what is sinne and what is no sin All Souldiers in war and Lictors and these who execute the sentence of excommunication are to know what are the just causes of war and what crimes by Gods Law deserve death and what not as what homicide sorcery parricide incest and the like sinnes deserve by Gods Law and what not because every one is obliged to know morally what concerneth his conscience that he be not guilty before God the executioner who beheaded Iohn Baptist sinned because he was obliged to know this a prophet who rebuketh incest in a King ought not to be put to death therefore It was unlawfull for the men of Iudah to come and make war with Ieroboam and the ten Tribes because God forbade that war 1 Ki. 12. 23 24. 4. Concl. It is not enough that some say if the question be negatively just then Souldiers and executioners and people may execute the sentence that is if they see no unlawfulnesse in the fact I meane unlaw fulnesse in materiâ juris in a matter of Law hence some say subjects and common Souldiers not admitted to the secrets of the councell of war may fight lawfully when there is this negative justice in the war but forraine Souldiers who are conduced may not doe so for the Law sayth he is not free of a fault who intermedleth with matters which belonge not to him to the hurt of others so Teacheth Suarez D. Bannes Andr. Duvallius yet the command of the Prince can remove no doubt of conscience also that the cause of the war in the matter of Law so far as it is agreeable to Gods word is not manifest to executioners is there culpable ignorance no lesse then the ignorance of a sentence manifestly unjust Ergo the practise of these who execute a sentence negatively only just is not lawfull I prove the antecedent beacuse the practicall ignorance of what we doe which is not warranted by Gods Word is alwayes culpable whether the cause be cleare or darke for no obscurity of Gods Law doth excuse our ignorant practise when the Word of God can sufficienty resolve us 2. It is not enough that our morall actions in their lawfulnes be just negatively because actions morall which are beside the Word of God praeter dei verbum to us who hold Gods Word perfect in faith and manners are also contra dei verbum against the Word of God and so unlawfull 3. Because actions morall having no warrant but the sole will and Commandement of superiors are undertaken upon the sole faith that what superiors command if it seeme not to us unjust though it be in it selfe unjust may lawfully be done Now we condemne this in Schoolemen and Popish casuistes that the Commandement of superiors as sayth Gregor de Valent. Bannes Suarez Silvester Navarre may take away and remove all doubting of conscience and make the action lawfull Whereas Navarre Corduba Sylvester Adrian hold that an action done without a due practicall certainty is unlawfull If he shoud diligently sayth Suarez search for the truth and cannot find it yet the doubter may practise so he practically perswade himselse he doth it out of a good mind and whereas the Jesuite sayth that it is his negligence in not seeking the truth he answereth his negligence which is by past cannot have influence in his present action to make it unlawfull because it is past and gone But I answer it is Physically past but it is morally present to infect the action as habituall ignorance maketh the acts of unbeliefe morally worse or ill And to these we may adde that he who doth with such a doubt 1. He sinneth because he doth not in faith 2. He exposeth himselfe to the hazard of finning and of joyning with an unjust sentence 3. It is the corrupt Doctrine of Papists who muzzle up the people in ignorance and discharge them to reade Gods Word and so maintaine because of the obscurity and imperfection of Gods Word which is not able to determine all questions that there is an ignorance of many lawfull duties which is invincible and to be excused as no wayes sinfull and which vitiateth not our morall actions so Thomas Bonaventura Richard Gabriel Occam Antoninus Adrianus Almaine Suarez though Occam and Almain may be expounded favourably 5. Concl. Souldiers Lictors Servants People under the Eldership are not meere instruments moved only by superiors as Schoolemen say 1. Because they are morall agents and are no lesse to obey in Faith then superiors are to command in Faith and they are to obey their Superiours only in the Lord. 2. They are to give all diligence that they be not accessary to unjust sentences lest they partake of other mens sinnes What Aquinas Greg. de Valent and And. Duvallius saith against this is not to be stood upon 6. Concl. But in questione facti in matters of fact there is not required that certainty of conscience But that we may more clearely understand the conclusion a question of fact is taken three wayes 1. For a fact expressely set down in Gods Word as that Moses led the people through the wildernesse that Cain slew his brother Abâ—l these are questions
de facto not questiones facti and must be believed as Almaine and Occam say well with that same certainty by which we believe Gods Word 2. A question of fact is taken for a question the subject whereof is a matter of fact but the attribute is a matter of Law as if Christ in saying he was the Son of God did blasphem if the Lords Priests in giving David shew-bread did commit Treason against King Saul there is some question there made circa factum about the fact but it is formally a question of Law For these questions may be cleared by Gods Word and the ignorance of any questions which may be cleared by Gods Word is vincible and culpable for the Law sayth The ignorance of these things which we are obliged to know is culpable and excuseth not But thirdly a question of fact is properly a question whether this Corinthian committed incest or no whether Tittrs committed murther or no and in this there is sometimes invincible ignorance when all diligence morally possible is given to come to the knowledge of the fact Now we know here the question of Law must be proved by the Law all are obliged in concience to know what sinnes deserve death and Excommunication But whether this man Iohn Anna Marie hath committed such sins is a question of fact and cannot be proved by the Law or the Word of God for the Lâ—â— is not anent singulars or particulars this is proved by sense and the Testimonie of witnesses and therefore the certainty practicall of conscience here is humane and failible not Divine and infallible Now though Souldiers Lictors or People joyne to the execution of a sentence and have their doubtings anent the fidelity of the witnesses yet when all diligence morally possible is given to try the matter they may well be said to doe in Faith though they have not certainty of Faith concerning the fact because there cannot be certainty of Divine Faith in facts mens confession sense the Testimony of witnesses cannot breed Divine Faith yea here the Judge himselfe may condemne the innocent and yet the sentence of the Judge may be most just because the witnesses are Lyers and the Judge giveth out that sentence in Faith because Gods Word hath commanded him to proceed secundum allegata probata he must give sentence under two or three witnesses yea though the Judge saw with his Eyes the guilty commit the fact yet he cannot by Gods Law condemne him but upon the testimony of witnesses For the wise Lord seeth what confusion and tyranny should follow if one might be both Index actor tâ—stis the Iudge the accuser and the witnesse And when the Judge giveth out a sentence to absolve the guilty and condemne the innocent his sentence is judicially and formally just and materially and by accident and contrary to his intention only unjust if the Judge in that case should say as Master Weemes observeth well such a proposition is true when he knoweth it to be false and being posed and urged in conscience is this an innocent man or no it he should answer and say he is not he should then answer contrary to his knowledge but as a Judge he must answer he is not innocent because witnesses being with all possible diligence examined have condemned him and it is no inconvenience here to say that the Judge hath one conscience as a man and another contrary conscience as a Judge in the question of fact for God hath tyed his conscience as a Judge to the fidelity of witnesses known not to be false I desire the Reader to see anent this more in Bonaventura Richardus Occam Antoninus Adrian and our Countreyman Iohn Weemes and Henricus Now because Souldiers Lictors and people are not Judges if they know the fact in Law deserveth such and such punishments where the sentence is not manifestly false and unjust but in the matter of Law just though erroneous in the matter of fact all possible dilligence being used by the Judges they are to execute that sentence upon the testimony of the Judges though they be not personally present at the proceedings of the Judges and Eldership which may be proved many wayes 1. By the confession of our brethren iâ— any of the Congregation be absent by Sicknesse Child-birth paine Trading over Sea imprisonment the Congregation doth justly put away from amongst them the incestuous Corinthian and they who are absent are to repute the party Excommunicate as a Heathen as their own practise is at censures in the week-day the largest halfe of the Congregation is absent yet the absent upon the testimony of the Church hold valid what is done by the Church 2. Other sister Churches who ought not to be present at Church-censures as our Brethren teach are to repute the Excommunicate cast out by a sister Church-independent as they say as an Heathen because being bound in Heaven here is he not bound in a Church visible one mile distant from the Church Excommunicating yet this is no tyranny of conscience 3. Women are to execute the sentence and to eschew the company of the party Excommunicated yet are they not to be present â—s Judges to nâ—â—rp authority over the men This Robinson granteth 4. This should evert all judicatories of peace and war so many thousands Acts 2. could not be present at every act of censure and that dayly nor are acts oâ— Discipline necessarily tied to the Lords-day They are I grant acts of Divine worship but the whole multitude of women and children are deprived of the liberty that God hath given them for six dayes to the works of their calling if they must be personally present at all the acts of Discipline to cognosce of all scandals and to here and receive Testimonies against Elders under two or three witnesses which is the office of Timothy this way the overseeing of the manners of the people which also our Brethren laye upon the whole people taketh up the great part of the Pastors office and the whole office of ruling Elders And if we lay upon the people the worke and all the acts of the office how can we not lay upon them the office it selfe 5. All Israel gathered to war from Dan to Beersheba could not by vertue of duty and obligation be present personally at the determination of lawfull War Nay if they were all present as Judges as Mr. Ainsworth would have them there be no Governors and Feeders in Israel but all the governed are Feeders and so no Magistrate and Ruler as Anabaptists teach here 1. It were not lawfull for one to be King over more people then he could in his own personall presence judge contrary to Gods Word that teacheth us to obey these who are sent by the supreme Magistrate as we obey the King 1 Pet. 2. 13. 14. Ergo these who are sent by him are lawfull Judges and yet
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
Christian in such a congregation or a beleeving woman is tied to preach and baptize and yet her pastor Archippus in that congregation is tied both to preach and baptize Secondly the Jews were to separate from B thaven and so are we Thirdly they were not to joyne with Idolaters in Idol-worship neither are we 2 Whereas it is said that it was not lawfull to separate from the Jewish Church because in it did sit the typicall high Priest and the Messiah was to be borne in it and because they were the onely Church on earth but now there be many particular Churches All this is a deception a non causiâ— pro causâ for separation from that Church was not forbidden for any typicall or ceremoniall reason not a shadow of reason can be given from the Word of God for this Because there can be no ceremoniall argument why there should be communion betwixt light and darknesse or any concord betwixt Christ and Belial or any comparting bètwixt the beleever and the infidell or any agreement of the temple of God with idols nor any reason typicall why Gods people should goe to Gilgal and to Bethaven or to be joyned with idols or why a David should sit with vaine persons or goe in to dissemblers or why he should offer the drinke offerings of these who hasten after a strange god or take up their names in his mouth This is then an unwritten tradition yea if Dagon had beene brought into the Temple as the Assyâ—ian altar of Damascus was set up in the holy place the people â—ught to have separated from Temple and Sacrifices both so loâ—g as that abomination should stand in the holy place Nor can it be proved that communicating with the Church of Israel as a member thereof was typicall and necessary to make up visible membership as ceremoniall holinesse is for to adhere to the Church in a sound worship though the fellow-worshippers be scandalous is a morall duty commanded in the second Commandment as to forsake Church-assemblies is a morall breach of that Commandment and forbidden to Christians Hebr. 10. 25. who are under no Law of Ceremonies And it is an untruth that those who were legally cleane and not ceremonially polluted were members of the Jewish visible Church though otherwise they were most flagitious For to God they were no more his visible Israel then Sodome and Gomorrah Isaiah 1. 10. or the children of Ethiopia Amos 9. 7. and are condemned of God as sinning against the profession of their visible incorporation in the Israel of God Jerem. 7. 4 5 6 7. But shall we name and repute them brethren whom in conscience we know to be as ignorant and void of grace as any Pagan I answer That if they professe the truth though they walke inordinately yea and were excommunicated Paul willeth us to admonish thâ—m as brethren 2 Thes. 3. 15. and calleth all the visible Church of Corinth for he writeth to good and bad amongst whom were many partakers of the table of devils pleaders with their brethren before heathen deniers of the resurrection yea those to whom the Gospell was hidden 2 Cor. 4. brethren and Saints by calling But say our brethren to be cast out of the Iewish Church was to be cast out of the Common-wealth as to be a member of the Church and to be a member of the state is all one because the state of the Jewes and the Church of the Jews was all one and none is said to be cut off from the people but he was put to death Answ. Surely Esay 66. vers 5. these who are cast out by their brethren and excommunicated are not put to death but men who after they be cast out live till God comfort them and shame their enemies but he shall appeare for your joy Secondly that the state of Gods Israel and the Church be all one because the Jewish policie was ruled by the judiciall Law and the judiciall Law was no lesse divine then the Ceremoniall Law is to me a wonder For I conceive that they doe differ formally though those same men who were members of the state were members also of the Church but as I conceive not in one and the same formall reason first because I conceive that the State by order of nature is before the Church for when the Church was in a family state God called Abrahams family and by calling made it a Church Secondly the Kingdome of Israel and the house of Israel in covenant with God as Zion and Jerusalem are thus differenced That to be a State was common to the Nation of the Jewes with other Nations and is but a favour of providence but to be a Church is a favour of grace and implieth the Lords calling and chusing that Nation to be his owne people of his free grace Deut. 7. 7. and the Lords gracious revealing of his Testimonies to Jacob and Israel whereas he did not so to every Nation and State Psal. 147. 19 20. but say they The very state of the Iewes was divine and ruled by a divine and supernaturall policie as the judiciall Law demonstrateth to us But I answer Now you speake not of the state of the Jewes common with them to all States and Nations but you speake of such a state and policie which I grant was Divine but yet different from the Church because the Church as the Church is ruled by the morall Law and the Commandments of both Tables and also by the Ceremoniall Law but the Jewish State or Common wealth as such was ruled by the judiciall Law onely which respecteth onely the second Table and matters of mercy and justice and not piety and matters of Religion which concerne the first Table and this is a vast difference betwixt the state of the Jews and the Church Thirdly when Israel rejected Samuel and would have a King conforme to other Nations they sought that the state and forme of governmnent of the Common-wealth should be changed and affected conformity with the Nations in their state by introducing a Monarchy whereas they were ruled by Judges before but in so doing they changed not the frame of the Church nor the worship of God for they kept the Priesthood the whole Morall Ceremoniall and Judiciall Law entire and their profession therein Ergo they did nothing which can formally destroy the being of a visible Church but they did much change the face of the state and civill policie in that they refused God to reigne over them and so his care in raising up Judges and Saviours out of any Tribe and brought the government to a Monarchy where the Crowne by divine right was annexed to the tribe of Judah Fourthly it was possible that the State should remaine entire if they had a lawfull King sitting upon Davids throne and were ruled according to the Judiciall Law but if they should remaine without a Priest and a Law and follow after Baal and change and alter Gods worship as the ten
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.
of these congregations as where there is not a head of a Family and members there is not a Family and so you prove not Jerusalem a presbyteriall Church over many fixed and formed Churches as they are in Scotland and if the Apostles were pastors in a circular and fluid way to many congregations every one was a pastor to many congregations and so elected by many congregations which is absurd Ans. 1. Fixed or not fixed cannot vary the essence of the government 1. The Priests Levites and Prophets teaching in the wildernes from place to place and the people by war scattered to sundry Tribes doth not make these meetings not to be under the government of the great Sanedrim more then if the meeting made a fixed Synagogue divers members and dverso heads in one Family occasioned by death and pestilence diverse Souldiers and new Commanders in a Regiment diverse Inhabitants yea and weekly altered rulers and watchmen in a City doth not infer that that family Regiment and City is not under one government of the City one of the whole army and one parliamentary law of the whole kingdome no more then if all were fixed in members and heads 2. Churches their persecution may have both members and teachers removed to a corner and altered yet they remain the same single Congregation having the same government 3. Officiating in the same word seales censures by Peter to day and by Andrew to morrow though members also be changed is of the same species and nature even to the worlds and if we suppose the Church of Ierusalem to be one Congregation induring a patterne these sixteen hundred yeares members and officers must be often altered yet it is one Congregation in specie and one single Church in nature though not in number and the government not altered through the fluidity and alteration of members and officers as it is the same Parliament now which was in the raigne of King Iames though head and members be altered fluidity and alteration of rulers and members must be by reason of mortality accidentall to all incorporations and yet their government for all that doth remaine the same in nature if these same Lawes and Government in nature by these Lawes remaine CHAP. 4. SECT 5. Why we doe not admit the Members of the Churches of Old England to the Seales of the Covenant Quest. I. VVHether the Seales of the Covenant can be denyed to professors of approved piety because they are not members of a particular visible Church in the New Testament Our Brethren deny any Church Communion and the seales of the Covenant Baptisme to the children of Beleevers the Lords Supper to beleevers themselves who come to them from Old England because they be not members of the particular Congregation to which they come and because there is no visible Church in the New Testament but one particular Parish and all who are without a particular Parish are without the visible Church and so are not capable of either Church censures or the Seales of the Covenant because 〈◊〉 have right to the seales of the Covenant but onely this visible Church We hold all who professe faith in Christ to be members of the visible Church though they bee not members of a visible Congregation and that the seales of the Covenant should not be denyed to them And for more full clearing of the question let these considerations be observed First Dist. All beleevers as beleevers in foro Dei before God have right to the seales of the Covenant these to whom the Covenant and body of the Charter belongeth to these the seale belongeth but in foro Ecclesiastico and in an orderly Church-way the seales are not to be conferred by the Church upon persons because they beleeve but because they professe their beleeving therefore the Apostles never baptized Pagans but upon profession of their faith Second Dist. Faith in Christ truely giveth right to the seales of the Covenant and in Gods intention and decree called voluntas beneplaciti they belong onely to the invisible Church but the orderly way â—f the Churches giving the seales is because such a society is a professing or visible Church and orderly giving of the seales according to Gods approving will called voluntas signi revelata belongeth to the visible Church Third Dist. The Church may orderly and lawfully give the seales of the Covenant to those to whom the Covenant and promises of grace doth not belong in Gods decree of election Fourth Dist. The Church may lawfully adde to the Church visible such as God addeth not to the Church invisible as they may adde Simon Magus and the Church may lawfully cast out of the visible Church such as Christ hath not cast out of the invisible Church as the Church may excommunicate regenerate persons for scandalous sinnes Fift Dist. Then the regenerate excommunicated have right to the seales of the Covenant as they have to the Covenant and yet the Church doth lawfully debarre them hic nunc in such a scandalous case from the seales of the Covenant Wee hold that those who are not members of a particular Congregation may lawfully be admitted to the seales of the Covenant First Because those to whom the promises are made and professe the Covenant these should be baptized But men of approved piety are such though they be not members of a particular Parish The proposition is Peters argument Act. 2. 38. Secondly Those who are not Members of a particular Church may be visible professors and so members of a visible Church Ergo the seales of the Covenant belongeth to them Thirdly The contrary opinion hath no warrant in Gods Word Fourthly The Apostles required no more of those whom they baptized but profession of beleefe as Act. 10. 47. Can any forbid water that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we Act. 8. 37. If thou beleevest with all thy heart thou mayest he baptized no more is sought of the Jaylor Act. 16. 31. 34. The Authour saith To admit to the Seales of the Covenant is not an act of Christian liberty that every Christian may dispense to whom he pleaseth but an act of Church power given to the Ministers to dispense to those over whom the Holy Ghost hath made them overseers but we have no Ministeriall power over those of another Congregation and who are not members of a particular Congregation Answ. First To dispense the Seales to whom we please as if mens pleasure were a rule were licentiousnesse not Christian Liberty There may be a communion of benefits where there is no communion of punishment Beneficia sunt amplianda Secondly It is false that Pastors have no Ministeriall power over those who are not of their Congregation for if so all communion of Churches should fall for Letters of recommendation from other Churches whereof they are Members cannot make Pastors of New England to have a Ministeriall power over those of another