because of the apostasie of the whole Church and judgements upon them for their apostasie v. 38. And because of all this we make and write a sure covenant saith the Text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in toto hoe vertit Arias montanus nos excidentes fidelitatem Iudaei excudentes faedus fidele Iunius pro toto hoc pepigimus constitutionem now sinnes back-slidings and judgements may be and often are in all the Christian Churches 2. To sweare to the true religion the defence and maintenance thereof is a lawfull oath as to sweare to any thing that is lawfull and to lay a new band on our soules to performe holy duties where we feare a breach and finde by experience there hath beene a breach is also a dutie of morall and perpetuall equity therefore such a sworne covenant is lawfull I say not from this place that it is necessary that all subscribe with their hands a covenant because I thinke onely the Princes Levites Priests and heads of families did subscribe the covenant Nehem. 9. 38. but Nehem. 10. 28 29. The whole people all who had separated themselves from the Lands sinne and their strange wives even their wives their sonnes their daughters every one having knowledge and having understanding V. 29. They clave to their brethren their Nobles and entered into a curse and into an oath to walke in Gods Law If it be replied that there was in Israel no written covenant drawne up by a man and put in a mans stile language method and frame they did sweare to keepe Moses his Law I answer when we sweare a covenant our faith doth not relie upon words characters stile of language or humane method or any humane respects but upon the truth of God in that platforme and suppose we should swear and subscribe the Old and New Testament translated into our vulgar Language we doe not sweare to the translation characters and humane expression but to the matter contained in the translation and that because Iehovah our Lord hath spoken it in his Word And if this be a good argument why we cannot sweare a platforme then should none sweare a covenant at all or make any holy vow but those who understand the originall Languages in Hebrew and Greeke and yet the characters and imprinting is humane even in the original so all religious covenants and oathes should be unlawfull 4. Argum. What a Church or person is to suffer for or to believe and obliged to render account of to every one that asketh account of us that we may sweare and seale with our hands because what we are to suffer death for and the losse of temporall life for which we owe a reckoning to God by vertue of the â—ixt Commandement that is a matter of truth which we professe before God and men and our dying for the truth is a sort of reall oath that we are before God professing that truth is to be preferred to our life But we are to suffer if God call us even death for the true Religion Revel 2. 13. Act. 7. 57 58. Luk. 21. 15 16. Phil. 1. 20 21. â—nd the truth and we are obliged to believe and to give account thereof before all men and a reason of our faith and hope 1 Pet â— 15. Ergo we may sweare it Argum. 5. If an oath to the true Religion and forme of wholesome Doctine be a speciall remedy against backâ—iding and a meane to keepe off false and heretical doctrine then is such an oath lawfull but the former is true Ergo The Proposition is cleare Gods people say Nehem. 9. 38. Because of all this that is because they had done wickedly and were tempted still to doe more therefore they write and seale a Covenant and if false teachers teach Circumcision must be if weâ— would be saved then the Church may according to Acts 15. condemâ—e that false doctrine by the VVord of God and set downe Canons which the Churches are to observe and what they are to observe as warranted by Gods VVord layeth on bands upon the Conscience and what layeth on such a band that wee may binde our selves by oath to performe it being a speciall remedy lawfull against backsliding from the truth 6. Arg. Our brethren have their grounds and reasons against the swearing of confession common to them with the Arminians and Socinians and their Arguments are all one for Arminians censure the Belgick confession and the Palaâ—ines Catechisme and propound thirteene questions against it as the third question is An quaecunque dogmata in confessione Catâ—chisme tractantur talia sunt ut cuilibet Christiano ad salutem creditu necessaria sint And their seventh question is If such confessions may be called secundaria fidei norma a secundary rule of faith also all Confessions say they declare That Confessions serve not to teach what we ought to beleeve but what the Authors of these Confessions did beleeve Hence they reject all the determinations of the Orthodox Councels condemning the heresies of Arrius Eutiches Macedonius Apollinaris Sabelliâ— Samosateâ—us Pelagius and all the Oxthodox Confessions of the reformed Churches Secondly also upon these grounds they alledge in their Apologie There be few things to be beleeves that every sect may be the true Church so they beleeve some few Articles not controverted amongst Christians such as these Thâ— there is a God and that the Word of God is true c. Thirdly they will not condemne the Macedonians Arrians Anti-trinitarâ—â— Pelagians or others of fundamentall herefies Fourthly that one Church of Christians may be made up of Papists Protestants Anabaptists Macedonians Sabellians c. and all sects so they leade a good life according to the few Articles necessary to salvation may be saved and all may be saved of any sect or Religion Fifthly that to sweare Declarations Confessions Canons of Orthodox Councels is to take away the liberty of prophesying and growing in the knowledge of the Word of God and the praying for grace and light of the holy Spirit for the right meaning of Gods Word Sixthly that Athanasius spake amisse when he said of the Creed that it was to be beleeved of every one who is to bee saved 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the same is the doctrine of the Socinians who doe in all these oppose all Confessions of Faith and all Orthodox Decisions Canons and determinations of Sinods So Socinus rejecteth all Synods all Confessions and Decisions even of the Church universall So Smalcius calâ—eth it a rejecting of the Word of God And Theol. Nicoâ—aides saith That it is enough to know things absolutely necessary for salvation and that the Churches determination cannot remove errours and heresies Our brethens first Argument against a Nationall Covenant â— If the doctrine contained in your platforme of Confession â—warve from the Scriptures then the imposing thereof is so farre unlawfull if the doctrine be according to Scripture the platforme is â—eedlesse the
Scripture being sufficient Ans. 1. This is the argument of Arminians Episcopius saith and expresly Smalcius Qui vnlt sensum scripturae ab ilâ—s confessionibus peti tacitè deserit scripta Apostolica traditiones humanas commendat And therefore such decisions are â—ay the Remonstrantes Pestes Ecclesiarum regni Anâ—christi idest tyrannidis fulcra tibicines Secondly this Arâ—ument may be as well propounded against the preaching of the Word all printed Sermons Commentaries and interpretation of Scripture as against a Confession For if the doctrine in Serâ—ons bee not agreeable to Scripture then in so farre as Ministers commend and command it to their hearers it is unlawfâ—ll if it be agreeable to the Scripture it is needlesse the Scriptures saith the Socinian Smalcius are sufficient Our brethren answer Preaching is an ordinance of God but a â—atforme of confession is not an ordinance of God Answ. A platforme as it is conceived in such a stile meâ—hod and characters and words is a humane ordinance Tali â—rie ordine and so is preaching but we sweare to no plat-â—orme in that consideration but a platforme according to the truth contained in it in which sense onely it is sworne unto is the Word of God as are systemes of Divinity â—ermons printed and Preached and so though preaching be an Ordinanced God as it is Rom. 10. 14. yet according to the words expression dialect method or doctrine it is an humane ordinance and so the Argument is against preaching as against our platforme Our Brethrens second Argument is The Platforme abridgeth Christian liberty to try all things and so though it be some means of unity yet it is a dangerous hinderance of some verity binding men to rest upon their former apprehensions and knowledge without libery to better their judgements Ans. 1. This in stile of language and truth of words is the very argument of Arminianâ— So in their Preface and in their Apology it selfe they say All liberty of prophecing and disputing against the Orthodox faith is taken away if men be tied and obliged to decisions and confessions of Churches and Synods Yea to make an end of controversies saith Episcopius otherwayes then by perswading is to bring a tyranny into the Church of Jesus Christ and wonderfully to bind if not to take away liberty of consciences So in their Apology they say confessions and decisions of Synods imposed by Oath and to be firmely believed arâ— contrary to the prayers of Saints where they pray that God would teach them his starutes and reveale his Law and Testimonies â—â— them and open their Eyes to behold the wonders of Gods Law But the truth is though these of Berea did well to try Pauls Doctrine if it was consonant to the Scriptures or not Yet Pauls Doctrine was the determination apostolick of Gods Spirit to the which they were firmely to adhere and their judgements are to be bettered in graduali revelatione creditorum â—â—â— revelatione plurium credendorum in cleare revelation of things revealed For so the children of God are to grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour 2 Pet. 3. 14. After Christ is once revealed but not in believing in a new Christ or in believing of poynts contrary to the confession of faith The Argument presupposeth the Doctrine of the Arminians that there be a number of points in our confession of which we have no certainty of faith that they are Gods truth but are things controverted and being not fundamentall poynts may be holden or we may forsake them as false after better information Which indeed maketh our faith of Gods Word â—o full perswasion but as the learned professors of Leyden say a faith of an houre or a month or a yeare which we may â—ast away the next yeare And this is to deny all confessions and points of truth with pretence that the Spirit hath revealed new truth but how are these new revealed truths the Revelation whereof wee obtaine by prayer rather workes of the spirit of truth then the former poynts which wee retract No man by this can be rooted and built in the faith of any thing except in the faith of things simply fundamentall By which meanes all poynts at least many of them betwixt us and Papists Arminiaâ— Macedonians Sabellians Arrians Anabapâ—tiste are matters reconcileable and either side may be holden without hazard of salvation Neither is this definition of confessions any tyranny Because confessions are to be believed in so far as they are agreable to Gods Word and lay upon us an obligation secondary onely yet are they not so loose as that we may leap from poynts of faith and make the doctrine of faith arena gladiatoria a fencing field for Gamesters and Fencers The materiall object of our faith and the secondary ground and foundation thereof may be very well and is Gods Word primary is preaching confessions Creeds Symbols which are not serie ordine Scripturae and yet have wee certainty of Divine faith in these things because the formall object is because God so saith in hiâ— Scripture and wee believe these with certainty of Divine Faith under this reduplication because the Lord hath spoken these quoad sensum in true meaning though not in illâ scrie ordine But more of this hereafter CHAP. 6. SECT 6. Touching Officers and their election OUr Author laboureth to prove that Pastors and Doctors are different Officers which wee will not much improves but if the meaning be that they are inconsistent in one man person wee are against him 1. Because the Apostles in their owne persons and in feeding the flock 2 Tim. 3. doth both under the name of Overseers and Bishops and exercised both as they could according as they did finde the auditory 2. Because the formall objects the informing of the judgement and exhorting are not so different as that they should be imcompatible for if God give them gifts both for the Doctors Chaire and the pastors Pulpit as hee often doth what should hinder but the Church may call one and the same man to both the Pastor and the Doctors Chaire as hee is able to overtake both Author 1. Reas. 1 Cor. 12. 8. To one is given a word of wisdomâ— for direction of practice to another a word of knowledge for direction of judgement Ans. This proveth they be different gifts and Offices yet not that they are incompatible in one person as one may have both gifts given unto him as is cleare by experience 2 Reas. Author ib. Hee speaketh of diverse members of the Church as of diverse members of the naturall body v. 4. 5. All the members have not one Office it is the action of the Tongue to speak not to see Ans. The comparison holdeth not in all The eye cannot heare the eare cannot see yet the pastor may both see as pastor and heare and delate to the Church as the Churches eare the manners of
3. Wee are no where forbidden in Gods Word to heare Teachers sent and called but onely Wolves in sheepe skinnes voyd of all calling and intruders for pastors may be antichristian in the manner of the entry as Cajaphas 2. In the matter of their Doctrine Teaching some of mens Traditions in place of Gods Word as Scribes and Pharisees 3. Yea and brooke an antichristian calling as prelates doe and have done in Brittain◠and yet their Ministery be valid For that the calling of a Minister be valid and his Ministeriall acts not null it is sufficient that the governing Church give him a calling either by themselves their expresse call their silence or tacite consen◠or their approbation communicating with him in his Ministery or by these to whom the Church resigned her power or by these who stand in place of the Church though prelates invade the place of the Church yet because first they themselves be pastors and have power to teach and Baptize as pastors called of Christ. Mat. 18. 19. 2. Because they stand for the Church the Church approving or some way by silence consenting as in the case of Cajaphas entry to the priest-hood thereunto these who are baptized of them are not rebaptized and these who are ordained pastors by them are not reordained but have a calling to the Ministery and doe validly confer a calling upon others Yea many of great learning thinke that at the beginning of Reformation thousands being under popery baptized by Midwives and private persons were never rebaptized not that they thinke such Baptisme valid but where the Sacrament is wanting ex invincibili ignorantia facti out of an invincible ignorance of a fact such that way baptized doe indeed want the Lords Seale but wee cannot for that say that they are no better then Infidells and unbaptized Turkes and Iewes because 1. Their being borne in the visible Church giveth a federall holinesse as all of Jewish parents had a federall right to circumcision and were eatenus in so far separated from the wombe 2. Because their profession of that Covenant whereof Baptisme is a seale separateth them sufficiently from Infidells though they want the seale externall But our Divines esteeme and that justly baptisme administrated by Women or such as have no calling to be no baptisme at all for which let the Reader see Calvin Beza the learned Rivetus We stand not for what Bellarmine Maldonatus Gretserus and other papists say on the contrary and also Cajetan and Toletus 4. Robinson and our Brethren acknowledge that the Church of Rome hath true baptisme for they retaine the essentiall causes of Baptisme even as the vessells of the Lords house profaned in Babylon may be carried back to the Temple but if these vessells were broken and mingled with brasse and iron and cast in another mould they could not obtaine their former place in the Temple Baptisme is a vessell profaned in Babell but not broken but the ministry and priest hood of Rome is like the new melted and mingled vessell and essentially degenerated from the office of pastorship But I answer if baptisme be valid in Rome so are the Ministers baptizers for if the Ministers and priests be essentially no Ministers the baptisme administrated by the Romish priests is no Ministery and all one as administrated by Midwives and private persons who therefore cannot administrate the Sacraments validly in the essentiall causes because they are essentially no Ministers If therefore Robinson will have the Romish priest-hood essentially no ministery by that same reason he must say baptisme administrated by Romish priests i◠no baptisme the contrary whereof he confesseth otherwise hee must say baptisme administrated à non habente potestatem even by Women and private Men is valid and cannot be but esteemed lawfull in the substance of the act 2. These have a ministery essentially entyre who have power under Christ to preach the Gospell and administrate the Sacraments Matthew 28. 19. The Romish priests have this and are called to this by the Church But saith Robinson How can England forsake the Church of Rome and forsake the ministery which is in the Church as in the subject especially seeing you teach that a true ministery maketh essentially a true Church I answer England may well separate from Rome everting the fundamentall parts of Faith and not separate from Romes baptisme or ministery in so farre as they be essentially the ordinances of Christ and I retort this argument How can Separatists separate from both us and Rome and yet retaine the baptisme in both our Church and Rome 2. A ministery true in the essence may make a Church true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in so far but because of many other substantiall corruptions in Rome it is a Church which we ought to forsake But sayth Robinson Apostates in the 10. Tribes leaving the Church which was radically at Jerusalem upon their repentance were readmitted to enter into the Temple into which no uncircumcised person might enter but any of the priests following Idolls were never readmitted to be priests though they should repent Therefore the ministery and baptisme are not alike I answer that the true Church was onely at Jerusalem radically as you say would import that the 10. Tribes revolting from Davids house ceased to be a Church which is false Israel though all the Land were in Covenant with God had circumcision and the Passover and so were a true visible Church even when they did meete in their Synagogues The Altar sacrifices Temple are not the essentialls of a visible Church they were a Church and did pray toward the Temple even in Babylon and were to professe the True God before the heathen Ierem. 10. 11. 2. There be typicall reasons to hinder men why they cannot be capable of the priest-hood that did not exclude them from Church state but this hindereth not but if the seales administated by a Minister be true seales then is the Minister thereof catenus in so far a true Minister He addeth a Minister may leave off to be a Minister and be justly degraded and excommunicated but none ever attempted to unbaptize one who was baptized nor can he be unbaptized who is baptized Answ. That proveth a difference betwixt the ministery and Baptisme which is not the question but it proveth not this to be false if Romes baptisme be lawfull in its essence so is Romes ministery CHAP. 9. SECT 9. Of the addition of Members to the Church THE Author sayth a Church cannot consist of a fewer number then seven since there must be foure of them a Pastor Doctor Elder and a Deacon Ans. And wee contend not for number but foure may be a Church of your making and in Church-covenant for it is a wonder that you require officers who by your Doctrine cannot be parts of the Church seeing you make them accidents of the Church and teach that the Church in its being and operation