that Babel also least ye be partakers of her sinnes For they teach were a visible Church never so sound pure holy faire in doctrine and life yet if they refuse to cast out a scandalous person and will spare and defend him they are to be separated from and those that stay in that Church and keepe communion with her are partakers of her sins Howbeit some saving truths remain in the Church of Rome and in that we keepe yet a materiall and reall union with Rome in as farre as they professe one God three persons two natures in Christ c. but we have separated from Rome 1. Because their Doctrine of professed and commanded Idolatry and their other Heresies everteth the foundation of Faith 2. Because they lay another foundation above the foundation Christ the Pope and a multitude of Idol-gods but it followeth in no sort Ergo we are to separate from every true Church of Christ that is incorrigible in one fault or other Where is there a Christian Church that we could live in in the Earth yea except the Anabaptists-Church a Church of white paper as faire as Heaven and the Sunne that there is not a spot on more then on the triumphing Church this on Earth is a city in the Moone 3. They object Come not ye to Gilgall neither goe yee up to Bethaven therfore people were to separate from Idolatrous Israel Answ. I have prooved that the true Prophets commanded Church-fellowship with Israel after their Idolatry and judge if this be good Goe not to Bethaven that is the house of vanity called Bethel the house of God where Jeroboams calves were worshipped ergo separate from all the worship of God in Israel we say Ex negatione speciei malè concluditur negatio generis separate from Ieroboams calves therfore separate from all true worship of God in Israel it is a bad consequence 4. They object In the old Testament the Law consisted of outward ordinances and if they were outwardly performed there was no cause to separate from them But under the new Testament all things are become now and spirituall where Christ hath given power to all the faithfull to censure scandalous sinnes all should separate from a corrupt Church So Barrow But Master Smith helpeth him All things were shadowes in the old Testament David Jehoshaphat c. suffered knowne sinnes in the land yet were they the true matter of the typicall Church being typically and ceremonially cleane for to the constitution of the typicall Church there was not required true holinesse but ceremoniall cleannesse Holinesse was required of them for their acceptation before God but not for the constitution of their Church so there were there typicall Saints typicall Hypocrites that might have no communion together till they were purified and yet being indeed wicked persons they might have Church-communion together But our constitution ministry communion separation are contrary to theirs true holinesse is required under the new Testament Robinson addeth No man could absolutely separate from the Church of the Jews for it was the onely one visible Church upon the face of the Earth tyed to one Temple Altar Sacrifice Priest-hood and place they had not excommunication as we have now the offender was by bodily death cut off from the common-wealth as from the Church Answ. It is most false that externall performances of duties were sufficient to make men members of the visible Church of the old Testament 1. Because man-slayers adulterers c. were to be cut off and excommunicated from the congregation of the Lord and their prayers were not accepted of God even by Moses his law Num 35. 33 34. Es 1. 10 11 14 15. Es. 66. 3 4 5. 2 It is false that all the worship under the new Testament is so spirituall that outward performances of externall profession in the new Testament doth not also make professours Ecclesiastically holy and separated from other people not of the visible Church for Ananias Saphira Simon Magus for a time were externally holy and differenced from Pagans without the Church by their baptisme and externall profession Then Barrow must quit all places in the old Testament for separation from a wicked Ministry as that Prov. 15. The Sacrifice of the wicked is abomination to God was as true in the old as in the new Testament Ergo the Sacrifices offered by the wicked Priest were no ordinances of God and did pollute others who did communicate with him 2. The Sacraments of the Jewish Church in substance were one and the same with our Sacraments Heb. 13. 8. 1 Cor. 10. 1 2 3. Joh. 8. 56. Joh. 6. 50 51. Col. 2. 11 12. 1 Cor 5. 7. all say this except Papists Anabaptists Arminians and Socinians and for notoriously wicked persons to use the Sacraments with prophane and wicked hearts was most unlawfull and made them in that no members of the true Church but as Sodome and Gomorrah â—s 1. 10. as Aethiopians Aegyptians and Philistins Amos 9. 7. and such were forbidden to take Gods covenant in their mouth seeing they hated to be reformed Psal. 50. 16 17. Their prayers were abomination when their hands were bloody Es 1. 15. their Sacrifices like the murthering of a man and the Sacrificing of a dogg which was abomination to God Isa 66. 3. and so are all the means they use but I believe if Christ was the Spouse Priest head of the body to the Church of the Iews as to us to the constitution of this body visibly worshipping him in a Church-state there was required that the people should be not only typically holy but really and that God should be sanctified not only typically but really by reall declaration of all that drew nigh to him and the Song of Solomon saith that the communion was morall spirituall beside that it was typicall in some points And this is direct contrary to their confession where they make Separation from a corrupt Church morall and to that separation of the godly from the wicked was taught of God before the Law under the Law and under the Gospell and they teach That all true Churches from the beginning to the end of the world are one in nature and essentiall constitution And would the Lord have these to receive the seales of his covenant as true members typicall of a typicall Church This they say is 1 To take the name of God in vain 2. That the Lord doth seale unrighteousnesse 3. That he prophaneth his Sons bloud and death then a people laden with iniquâ—ty a Sodome a generation of Idolaters might all by Gods typicall command claime to the promises of the covenant and they only 3. The common beleevers amongst the Iewes had the power of the keyes as well as we if Separatists teach right for they had power to rebuke one another Levit 19. 17. and this to them is a part of the power of the keyes as Smith saith they had power of ordination to
lay hands on their officers and the right of election as they would prove from Levit 8. 2 3. a place notwithstanding abused for the congregation there is the Princes of the congregation as it is a hundred times taken in the old Testament els how could six hundreth thousand persons beside aged men women and children lay hands on the officers They did also excommunicate no lesse then our Church of believers as they say therfore their Church in the essence of a visible Church was every way as ours except in some accidentall ceremonies Lastly suppose the Iewes were the only visible Church that none could separate from yet Christ and Belial light and darknesse should never dwell together 5. They object A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump and so a scandalous sinner not censured maketh the whole Church an infected lump therfore we are to separate from that Church if they goe on except wee would be leavened So Robinson Ainsworth Smith Canne object Answ 1. There is a double infection one physicall as leaven that by touching leaveneth and pest-cloaths that by touching defile the ayre or mens bodies the comparison holdeth not in this I am sure There is a morall infection by evill example and so the incestuous Corinthian not excommunicated did infect if any should use his company as a brother and member of the Church of this latter sort the place 1 Cor 5. is to be understood The incestuous man would infect if the guides and the Apostles spirit should â—â—t cast him out Hence it is true that Church guydes in not excommunicating did what was in them morally to infect and leaven the Church but 1. It followeth not that the Church was actu secundo and actually infected howbeit no thanks to the guides 2. It followeth not that they should separate from a Church that might infect because that is not Gods meane of eschewing infection to lowpe out of one true Church to another for one fault 2. The eschewing and separating from the error of the Church and the mans company is enough to them to eschew the infection They urge But it is atempting of God to stay in an infected lump suppose you be not actually infected your selfe for no thankes to you as it is a tempting of God to keepe company with a wicked man suppose by Gods grace yee learne not his wicked fashions a man is guilty of selfe-murther who rydeth a swelling and dangerous river and sinneth in so doing suppose God graciously pardon his rashnesse and carry him through the river safe I Answ. 1. To stay in every place where sinners are and to haunt the wicked mans company as his companion is a sinfull tempting of God suppose ye be not actually insnared but to stay in the company or Church carefully flying every spot and soule ayre that may blow sin upon you is no tempting of God But secondly they thus urge to stay a member of a leavened Church and keepe Church-communion with that infected Church is to tempt God therfore God calleth you to separate from that Church I answer 1. To stay a member of that Church wholly leavened and where the matter of the worship is leaven and fundamentall points corrupted and obtruded upon the conscience is to tempt God for then I keepe communion with a leavened Church as leavened such as is Babell but the assumption now is false and the case not so here but to keep my self and remain a member of a Church leavened in part with one sin and to take no part with the sinne and yeeld no consent therunto is no tempting of God Paul joyned as a member with the Church of Corinth and acknowledged them as a Church and commanded to keepe Church fellowship with them 1 Cor 5. 4. even when this leavened lump was souring amongst them But thirdly they urge the incestuous mans sinne not censured infected the Church the infected Church infecteth the worship Answ. I deny that the sinne of the worshippers infecteth the worship to others that are not guilty it infecteth the worship to themselves but not to others a worship corrupt by accident only through the fault of the worshipper may and doth make the Lords Supper damnation to the eater and therefore the eater is forbidden so to eat a worship in the matter and intrinsecall principle unjust and sinfull is defiled both to the man himselfe and to all that taketh part with him as the teacher of false Doctrine and all that heareth and believeth are defiled but if the sin of an unworthy communicant even knowne to be so be damnation to himselfe and defile the worship to others then Paul would have said he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh his owne damnation and the damnation of the whole Church and Paul should have forbidden all others to eat and drinke withall who communicateth unworthily if he allowed separation but he saith he eateth and drinketh damnation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to himselfe not to all others But fourthly they urge thus We must not onely strive to rebuke and censure one another but we must not stay a member of that Church in the which we are not permitted to doe the duty that Christ hath commanded us for the station and place is unwarrantable where we are necessitated to sinne that is to omit a duty of the Keyes that God hath given to all the faithfull Ergo we must separate from that Church where all the faithfull may not use the Keyes Answ. 1. Also if the power of the Keys be in the hands of the people as some teach so as they are under a commandement of God to rebuke authoritatively and judicially to censure and excommunicate their universall omission of that duty seemeth to be sinfull and howbeit I be loath to teach Separation I see not how the authours who give the power of the keyes to all private Christians are not to separate from all Churches where Presbyteriall government is no lesse then the strictest Separatists doâ— 2. Affirmative precepts tye not in all differences of time To rebuke your brother is alwayes lawfull so it be done observing due circumstances but that every beâ—eever rebuke Church-wayes and judicially by the power of the keyes doth not tye at all because Christ never gave that power to all 2. Some duties tye absolutely as to pray these we cannot forbeare Suppose a Church should make a Law like Darius to borrow a dumbe Devill for thirty dayes and to pray none that Church should not be heard and not acknowledged in that Other dutyes tye conditionally as not to pray in publicke with a man notoriously serving Satan and deserving to be excommunicate yet if the Church excommunicate not wee are not to separate from the prayer of the Church because that person is suffered there so these duties that tye upon a condition that dependeth upon others and not upon my selfe tye not alwayes I am obliged to beleeve what point the Pastor teacheth but
19 20. where the Church had her owne Synods without the consent of a civill Magistrate but we are to repute it a speciall favour of God when the King as a nursing-â—ather will countenance Synods with his royall presence God blesse our King 5. Conclusion The Kings royall power in adding his sanction to the ecclesiasticall constitutions and in punishing such as are decreed to be hereticks by the Church is regall and not ministeriall and servile See for this the Con c. Chalced. Aâ—t 16. the Imperiall lawes Cod. l. 1 tit 8. leg 2. Heretic Vocab decret p. 2. caus 23. q. 8. c. 30. crossing Bellar. de pont l. 1. c. 7. So do their owne men goe against Bellarmine in this as Sanderus de clavib David l 2. c. 13. Carerius de potest sum pont l. 2. c. 23 Leo epist. 38. to Martian and Pulcheria and Leo epist. 7. to Theodosius Becanus erreth here with Bellarmine making the King as a servant obliged to adde his sanction civill to ecclesiasticall Canons Becan in opusc exam conc Anglic c. 7. 1. Because the use of the sword at Gods commandement is a kingly act commanded by God and is service done to God not to the Church 2. Neither is the King so to execute the Churches will as he should judge only of the fact and of the assumption yea he is to judge of the law and of the major proposition I or we see not in the Word of God where a Judge is a Judge to punish a fault and is not to know judicially that it is a fault a Judge as a Judge should know such a thing to be heresie and not takâ— it upon the word of an Assembly of Church-men Deu. 17. 18 19. he is expresly to reade and know the law and to know and remember the Decree Prov. 31. 5. And the cause which he knoweth not he is to search out Job 29. 16. all which is meant of a knowledge not of private discretion which is required in all private Christians but as I take these places of a knowledge judiciall and authoritative which agreeth to a Judge as a Judge 3. If a Synod erre and decree that man to be an heretick who is sound in the faith the King is not obliged to erre with the Synod and to punish the innocent he is to decree righteous judgement and so the King is to judge of heresie but after a regall and civill way and with a coactive powâ—r as the Synod or Church-Assembly is to judge of heresie after an ecclesiastick way and with a spirituall power 2. The King punisheth heresie as it troubleth the Common-wâ—alth and the Synod as it is scandalous and infectious in the Church Yea and the Christian King ruleth over men as men and also as Christian-mâ—n he ruleth over them as men with a dominion over their bodies lives and goods by his civill lawes he hath also dominion as King over men as Christians and members of Christs kingdome and Church not over their conscâ—ences for that is proper only to the father of spirits but he hath a coactive power over all men even Pastors as to cause them do their Christian duties he hath power to compell Church-men in Assemblies to determine truth and to use the keyes right and to preach and use the Sacraments according as Christ hath commanded in his Word and to punish them when they do otherwise What then if the King discerne that to be truth and absolve the man whom the Church-Assembly doth condemne as an heretick who shall judge betwixt them I answer the infallible rule of judging for both is the Word of God which speaketh home unpartially to both if they will heare but certainly the Kings civill kingly coactive power to compell men to doe their duty remaineth the highest and most supream power on Earth in genere potestatis politicae in the kind of politick power and pastors and all men may by this power be compelled to do right as for the abuse of the power it is no part of the power and in this kind the King hath a negative politick and kingly suffrage and voyce in all Church Assemblies no ecclesiasticall constitution hath the force of a law without the politick suffrage of the civill Judge And againe the ecclesiastick power that Christ hath given to his Church remaineth also the most supreme power under Christ in genere potestatis ecclesiasticae and the King is subject to this power The King is not excepted in this He that despiseth you despiseth me and in this whatsoever ye shall binde on earth shall be bound in Heaven and in this whose sinnes ye remit they are remitted and whose sinnes ye retaine they are retained and this ecclesiasticall power being the highest on Earth Pastors may command Kings in the Lord Jer. 1. 10 18 17. to doe their duty by an ecclesiastick power Arminians and Formalists both aske which of the two powers are highest and nearest unto the head Christ whither the kingly power or the ecclesiastick power for two paralell highest powers on earth cannot be I answer by asking which of the two shoulders in a mans body are highest and nearest to the mans head Certainly one of them in a well proportioned body is not higher then another and both are alike neare the head as none of two pole-starrs are nearer to their Zenith and Nadir none of two wheels in a right Chariot are higher then another The Church power saith the Prelate Davenant is highest in teaching and directing the kingly power in commanding and compelling Barclai compareth them to two shoulders under one head Meisner saith one of them is not above another There is no absurdity saith Spalato that in two bodies formally different there should be two heads yea it is necessary The Roman Glosse saith Patricius is the Popes father in things temporall and the Pope is his father in things spirituall as Cusan saith Papists saith Spalat have deleted that out of the Glosse So Berengarius Gelasius Papa Nicolaius the I agree to these words Sciendum quod nec Catholicae fidei nec Christianae contrarium est legi si ad honorem regni sacerdotij Rex pontifici pontifix obediat regi Spalato seemeth against Bellarmine to make up the losses made by Papists in Kings honour while he holdeth that the King his person and as he is a Christian man is subject to Church-power but as King he is subject to none but to Christ from whom immediately he hath his kingly dignity even as saith he when an Emperours servant being a Physitian the Emperour as Emperour is not subject to the Physitian but only the Emperour as he is a wounded man is subject to the art of his owne servant who cureth him and that of the Emperour free-will not by coaction so the Image-maker or he who maketh pourtracts in his art is not subject to the King neither is the King as King
not absolutely but upon condition it agrees to Gods Word They fifthly urge But I am necessitated in a false Church to communicate with those whom I know to be no members of the true Church but limbs of Satan because in Gods court they are excommunicated and no members of the Church but through the corruption of these that have the power of the keyes these are permitted to be members of the Church who in Gods court are no members at all and if I remaine in the Church I must communicate with them yea if I remaine in the Church I must communicate at that table where the holy things of God are prophaned by dogges and swine therefore in that case I must separate Answ. In your holiest independant Church where discipline is mâ—st in vigour you meet with this doubt and must separate also if this reason be good For suppose you know one to be guilty of adultery and murther and had seen it with your eyes the party guilty to you is not guilty to the Church For 1. you are but one none is guilty Ecclesiastically and to be debarâ—ed penally and judicially from the holy things of God except by confession to the Church or by two or three witnesses 2. You know what is holden by all our Divines yea even the Canon Law and Papists teach that the Church cannot judge of hid things and acts of the mind So saith Thom. Aquin. Cajetan Soto Durandus Almain Gerson Navar. Driedo Joan. Maior Paludan Antonin their ground is good The Church cannot judge of that they cannot see And the Churches power of the keyes is all for the externall policy of the Church and therefore such a sinne cannot be the object of Church-censure or cause of Separation Excommunication is ever used against externall scandals Mat. 18. 15. 1 Cor. 5. 1. 1 Tim. 1. 19 20. 2 Thes. 3 14. shew one place where the Church excommunicateth for non-regeneration 6. They object It is not lawfull to call God Father ioyntly with these who are not brethren but sonnes of Satan Ergo we are to separate from such So Smith reasoneth Answ. Except they be all and every one the sonnes of God that are in our visible Church and not one hypocrite or childe of Satan amongst them by this argument we must separate from them and so Separatists are to separate from their owne Congregation wherein they acknowledge there be hypocrites This is Anabaptisticall holinesse Isa. 65. 7. They object It is not lawfull to make Christ a Mediator to all the prophane in the land and to make all the prophane members of his body Ergo we are to separate from a confused Church Answ. So was Corinth Galatin Ephesus confused Churches wherein there were hypocrites We make Christ Mediator and Head to the visible Church according to the best part as Christ speaketh Joh. 17. Thine they were when Judas was never Gods And Paul calleth Corinth Saints Colosse Saints and faithfull brethren and Peter the elected according to the fore-knowledge of God begotten againe to a lively hope where yet there was some at Corinth 2. Cor. 2. 16. To whom the Gospell was the savour of death unto death some to whom it was hidden whom Satan had blinded 2 Cor. 4. 3. And some in Colosse carried away with Angel-worship not holding the head Christ some of those to whom Peter writeth were such who stumbled at the stone laid on Zion and there was amongst them false teachers privily bringing in damnable Heresies 2. and many followed their pernicious wayes spots feasting amongst the Saints having eyes full of Adultery that cannot cease from sinne c. 8 They object These that are mixed with unbeleevers consent to all the sinnes of the unbeleevers and to all their prophanation of the holy things of God seeing God hath given them the power of the keyes to hold out and excommunicate all wicked persons therefore beleevers are to separate from all prophaners of the Covenant except they would forfeit their Covenant Answ. A simple worshipping with hypocrites whom we know not is not a consent to their prophanation of the holy things of God Christs eating the Passeover with Judas the Disciples eating the Passeover when Christ said One of you hath a Devill one of you shall betray me did not import consent nor partaking with Judas his prophaning of the Sacraments 2. Neither hath God given to all beleevers the power of the keyes that way as is alleadged 3. Suppose the Eldership in whose hands onely are the keyes should permit a knowne adulterer who never professed his repentance therefore to the Lords Table yet this were not in the Eldership the sinne against the Holy-Ghost and to forfeit the Covenant though it were a great sinne 9. They object God commandeth the godly to plead with their mother because saith he she is not my wife nor I her husband Ergo if the Church turne a harlot the children are to protest and plead against her as reputing her no mother and so they are to forsake her Answ. If this place prove lawfulnesse of separation from the Jewish Church as from a harlot cast off of God it shall crosse a maine principle of Separatists that the Jewish Church was the onely visible Church from which it was not lawfull to separate seeing the Messiah behooved to be borne there and the Temple sacrifices were onely there Also this pleading was for harlotry and Idolatry But M. Smith and others say that wickednesse and Idolatry did not marre the constitution of the Jewish Church so being they had ceremoniall and typicall holinesse according to the letter of the outward legall service and so from this separation from the true Church is vainly collected 2. Plead with your mother for her harlotries Hence it followeth first 1. They were to esteem her as a mother and of duty as sonnes to plead with her 2. If they were to plead with her and rebuke her they were to keep communion with her because non-rebuking for a time is a signe of separation and suspending communion for a time Ezech. 3. 26. Thou shalt be dumbe and shalt not be to them a reprover for they are a rebellious house Ergo reproving is a signe of communion But they say they were to plead with their mother by power of the keyes and if their mother would not return to the Lord her first husband then they were to goe on to a full separation from her I answer Then two or three faithfull ones in the Church of the Jewes no lesse then in the Christian Church were a true visible Church having the power of the keyes This is contrary to their owne doctrine who make a typicall and ceremoniall cleannesse sufficient to constitute the Jewish Church but require a reall true and spirituall holinesse to the constitution of the Church of the New Testament For if the children may plead with the mother for
Church consisting possibly of six or ten beleevers only that the care for many Churches 2 Cor. 11. 28. The pastorall care to gaine Jew and Gentile those that are within and without to be made all things to all men to save some should be now in no pastors on earth but dead with the Apostles as if these places 1 Cor. 10. 32. 1 Cor. 9. 19 20 21 22 23. Rom. 1. 14 15. Rom. 9. 2 3. did not presse to all Ministers of Christ the extending of their pastorall vigilancy to the feeding and governing of all the Churches in their bounds that maketh up one visible politick body communicating one with another in the acts of Church-communion Hence it must follow 1. When the Grecian Church shall be wronged by the Hebrew Church that the pastors may not synodically meet and by joynt authority remove the offences betwixt Church and Church as the Apostles did Act. 6. 2. It followeth that all the meetings and convention of the Apostles and Pastours to take care authoritatively for the Churches as Act. 1. Act. 4 35. Act. 6. 2 3 4. Act. 11. 1. Act. 8. 14. Act. 14. 1 2 3 Act. 15. 6. Act. 21. 18 19 20 c. Act. 20. 18. Act. 14 23. 1 Tim. 4. 14. were all meetings of Apostles extraordinary temporary and Synods of Apostles as Apostles and not meetings of pastors as pastors to joyn their authority in one for the governing of many Churches 3. It followeth that Pastors and Elders and Doctors may now no more lawfully meet and joyne their authority in one for the feeding of the flock then they may take on them to worke miracles speake with tongues and as Apostles goe up and down the earth and preach to all the world the Gospell O that our Lord would be pleased to reveale his minde to our deare Brethren in this point of truth For what be extraordinary and temporary in the conjoyned authority and pastorall care of the Apostles for all the Churches of the world I see not neither is it in reason imaginable which doth not in conscience oblige Pastors Doctors and Elders in the Church of Scotland to conjoyne their authority in one Synodicall power for all the Churches of Scotland O saith our Brethren there should be too many masters commanders and Lords over the free and independent visible Churches of Christ. I answer seeing all these Pastors and Elders in a nationall Synod are no other way over all the Churches of Scotland then the particular Eldership in a particular congregation is over the believers there be no more too many Lords and Masters over the whole Churches collectively united in a general Synod then there be too many Lords over the particular congregations For 1. in both meetings the beleevers choose their owne guides and commanders that are over them 2. Nothing is done in either a Nationall or in a congregationall Synod without the tacite consent of believers 3. In both it is free for beleevers to refuse and not receive what is decreed contrary to Gods Word See Zipperus and so there is no dominion here but what you finde Heb. 13. 17. 1 â—hess 5. 14 15. Math. 18. 17 18. Nay our brethren will have pastors so farre strangers to all congregations save only to their owne that M. Davenport and Mr. Best saith to the Pastours and Churches other Churches are without and Pastors have nothing to doe to judge them and they alleadge for this 1 Cor. 5. 12. but by these that are without Paul meaneth not these who were not of the congregation of Corinth but he meaneth Infidels and Heathen as in other Scriptures for Paul judged and excommunicated Hymenaeus and Alexander 1 Tim. 1. 20. who were without the Church of Corinth and if this exposition stand Pastors can extend no Church censure towards these who are of other congregations neither can they rebuke nor admonish them as Christians for these are Acts of Church-censures as our brethren teach Our eleventh Argument is from the light of sanctified reason for sanctisied reason teacheth that the stronger authority of the greater politicke body of Christ should help the parts of the body that are weaker as 1 Cor. 12. The whole body suffereth when one member suffereth and so the whole body helpeth the weaker and lesse honourable member 1 Cor. 12. v. 23 26. So universall nature contendeth for the safety of particular nature and helpeth it therefore the greater body and Nationall Church is to communicate its authority for the good of a particular Congregation which is a part thereof But the doctrine of independency maketh every Congregation an independent and compleat body within it selfe needing no authority to governe it higher then its owne authority as if it were an independent whole Church and no part of a greater visible Church But suppose the greatest part of Corinth deny the resurrection as often the worst are manyest then I aske whom to doth the Lord speake Take us the little foxes that spoile the vines He speaketh either to greater Synods which we say that the greater body may help a part and save a little daughter of Sion Or to the soundest part of the Congregation but they are weakest and fewest and shall the greater body looke and see a member perish and not help Let them help say our brethren with advise and counsell but not with command and authority I answer Take us the little foxes is an act of authoritative and disciplinary taking enjoyned to the Church 2. Our Argument is drawne from the greater authority in the politicke body to the lesser brotherly advise is not authority Hence authority as authority by this meanes shall not help the weaker parts of the body contrary to that which we have at length commanded 1 Cor. 12. Neither doe some reply well that he speaks 1 Cor. 12. of Christs invisible body because it is said v. 13. For by one spirit we are all baptized into one body whether we be Jewes or Gentiles Jewes and Gentiles saith he make not a visible Church but an invisible Catholike Church I answer 1. What can hinder under the New Testament Paul a Jew to make a visible Church with the Ephesians who are Gentiles 2. That he speaketh of a visible politicke body is cleare while he alleadgeth The eye exerciseth Pastorall acts of seeing for the foot and that the eare heareth for the whole body and when one member suffereth all suffer which is principally true of a politicke visible body For we are not baptized in one body visible with those preachers who are long agoe dead who never preached for the good of us who now beleeve in Christ because we never heard them preach and so they are not eyes seeing for us Our twelfth Argument is from the practises of the Jewish Church in a morall duty If Christ hath left the Churches of a whole Nation in no worse case then the Nationall Church of the Jewes were in for their publike giving of
are not professed beleevers having saving faith can be any thing but a non-Church and such as is a non-Spouse a non-body of Christ and a non-covenanted people and so wanting all power of the keyes Quâ—re If the baptisme of that congregation can be valid baptisme not to be repeated I leave to the consideration of the learned Yea if the Minister be an unbeleever by the former grounds it can be no baptisme But some â—ay it is the baptisme of the Church and so valid suppose the Minister be an unbeliever and so want power I answer the whole congregation may be unbelievers as is the Minister and so yet the baptisme comming from the Church cometh from these who want power and cannot be valid 2. Suppose the congregation be a company of believers yet I see not how by their authority they can make the baptizing of a Pastor wanting all power to be valid for then if the Church should baptize by a Turke or a Woman that baptisme should be valid which no man can say 18. What sort of an Assembly was the meeting Act. 15. if it was a lawfull Synod of sundry particular Churches or an extraordinary meeting the practice whereof doth not oblige us If it was a meere Apostolick meeting obliging as Apostolick and if it oblige us as Apostolick how commeth it that the multitude spake and gave their mind in that which obligeth us as Canonick Scripture For that the multitude spake our brethren collect from v. 12. and how is it that Elders and brethren determine in penning Canonick Scripture Except the first be said there be many doubts here of which the way of independency cannot cleare us Q. 19. How commeth it that the Lords Apostles who were to goe through all the Nations of the world to preach the Gospell doe so often assemble together to consult about the common affairs of the Church and discipline as Act. 1. Act. 2. Act. 4. Act. 6. 4. Act. 8. 14. Act. 11. 1. Act. 13. 1 2 3. Act. 15. Act. 21. 18. Act. 20. Paul and the Elders of Ephesus v. 17 18. 1 Tim. 4. 14. it is questioned seeing these assemblies of many pastors from sundry Churches because the Scriptures saith they were occasioned by the present necessity of ordering things belonging to all the particular Churches if they were only temporary extraordinary and Apostolick meetings which oblige not us to the like practise howbeit there be the like cause of meetings in the Church now as errours and corrupt doctrine in many particular Churches as were Act. 15. the murmurings betwixt Churches as Act. 6. a suspitious practise of a pastor which seemeth to be against Gods law as Peters going in to the uncircumcised Act. 11. 20. Whither or not Paul did not some things as an Apostle as writing of Canonick Scripture working of miracles 2. And some things as a Christian as Phil. 3. 9 10 11 12 13. 3. And some things as an ordinary Elder and Pastor of the Church delivering some persons to Satan 1 Cor. 5. 4. and whither or no is Pauls rod and authority and his power of excommunicating whereof he speaketh 1 Cor. 4. 21. 1 Cor. 5. 4. 2 Cor. 10. 8. common to all believers Our brethren must say it is common to all believers 21. If the power of the keyes be given to all believers a question is 1. If Pastors have no other power of the keyes but that same that believers have seeing the ground of Christs gift is one and the same to wit alike interest in Christ and if alike power of preaching baptizing excommunicating be in Paul and all believers 2. Whither or no the calling of Christ and his Church doth not superadde and confâ—rre to him who is made a pastour some farther power of the keyes then hâ— had before he was cloathed with any such calâ—ing seeing to rebuke exhort and comfort one another are dâ—ties of the law of natâ—â—e and would oblige all suppose Christ had given the 〈◊〉 of the keyes to none at all wee see not but our brethren must deny that the calling of the Church giveth any other power of the keyes then the believer had before he was called 3. If there be not a greater power of preaching baptizing and binding and loosing in the believers then in pastors seeing believers give the power to pastours and may take it away againe 22. If six believers be excommunicated and that justly clave non errante yet remaining believers it is questioned if they keepe not still the power of the keys they must keepe that power and yet are no members of Christs visible body 23. I desire a place may be produced in all the old or new Testament where a ministeriall or governing Church is taken for a company of only believers This our brethren teach 24. If all authoritative Assemblies for renewing a covenant with God restoring of the worship of God be 1. A part of the paedagogy of the law of Moses and removed by Christ 2. If these Assemblies in the Churches of Christ now be a species of Judaisme This we deny 25. If believers exercising the most eminent acts of ordaining pastors publick censuring depriving and excommunicating pastors publick convincing gain-sayers be not formally hence made by our brethren over-seers watch-men for the soules of Pastors and guides and so Pastors of Pastors We answer affirmatively they are by the former grounds 26. Let the godly and learned consider if the Patrons of independent Churches are not to give obedience to Decrees and Canons of Synods for the necessity of the matter as a brotherly counsell from Gods Word obligeth in conscience the brother to whom the counsell and advise is given howbeit the tye be not authoritative by the power of the keyes and if in that they are not to conforme CHAP. XIX Doubts against Presbyteriall government discussed as about ruling Elders Deacons Widowes the Kings power in things ecclesiasticall Quest. 1. HOw doth Calvin and Cartwright deny that the Apostle speaketh of ruling Elders Tit. 1. and yet Junius and Beza that both a preaching and ruling Elder are there comprehended So the authour of the survey of discipline Answ. A great question anent the latitude of an haire how doth many Formalists make the Prelate an humane creature and some jure humano and yet Land of Canterbury and D. Hall maketh him jure divino 2. An office may be described two wayes 1. Directly and expressely as the Pastor 1 Tim. 3. 2. Indirectly as many things agreeing to the Deacon as that he hold the mystery of saith in a good conscience â—e be sober grave faithfull in all things c. all which are required in the Doctor and Pastor also Quest. 2. How are the ruling Elders 1 Tim. 3. omitted where the officers are named Paul passeth from the Bishop to the Deacon omitting the ruling Elder So is hee omitted Ephesian 3. 11 Philip. 1. 1. it is like they are not of Christs making who are not in Christs rowle
wicked but the Apostle speaketh not of the office but the officers and the praise-worthy exercise of the office The Elders who rule well are worthy of double honour and so the example is not alike 2. If Paul had put downe a generall onely in the former part and said an Elder is worthy of honour this answer might have had some colour howbeit but a colour But now Paul putteth downe a speciall Elders who rule well are worthy of double honour and with these another speciall sort of Elders especially these who labour in the word and doctrine and so clearly he setteth downe two particular species and sorts of Elders Now to make good the sense of the objectors of this they must say a worthy Preacher who ruleth well is worthy of double honour but especially a worthy Preacher is worthy of double honour Therefore of necessity some Elders who rule well must be meaned in the former part who are not meaned in the second and these can in good reason be no other but ruling Elders and teaching Elders for these same sort of Elders cannot be understood in both places 3. And this sense suppose it should stand should have but a colour of reason because you shall never find the Spirit of God commend and praise the simple exercise of an office but the right and conscientious exercise thereof Gods Spirit will not say he who ruleth and he who preacheth is worthy of double honour but he who ruleth well and preacheth well is worthy of double honour 4. By this wild interpretation men may be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 well-governing Pastors who labour not in the word and doctrine and so the dumbe Prelates who hold it all one to be damned to a Pulpit and to a man-mill shall be Pastors worthy of double honour Now Paul will not say this of a right Bishop 1 Tim. 3. 2. Tit. 1. 9. because good governing in a Pastor includeth labouring in the word and doctrine as the whole includeth the part For preaching is a speciall act of overseeing and well-governing of soules Jer. 1. 10. 2 Tim 4. 2. Because the word is the instrument of pastorall governing how can Pastors rule well by using aright the word of God except they labour in the word which is the shepheards staff of right governing and painfull preaching Heb. 13. 17. Acts 20. 28 29 â—0 31. And so the Apostle shall say one thing twice to wit these Pastors who rule well in labouring in the word are worthy of double honour especially these Pastors who labour well in the word and doctrine 5. To labour in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 3. 8. 1 Cor. 15. 38. 1 Thes. 1. 3. Mat. 11 28. is a word in the positive and not in the superlative degree And let it be a word of the superlative degree if the well-governing Elder here signifie the Prelate as the currant exposition of Formalists is and the Elder labouring in the word and doctrine signifie the painfull preaching Presbyter then the Presbyter who is a poore Pulpit-man is more worthy of double honor and double maintenance and the Lordly benefice then my Lord Prelate This glose will offend the proud Prelate Doctor Hall fetcheth from Sculâ—etus another poore interpretation The Elders who rule well that is administer the Sacraments make publike prayers and privately admonish faithfull people are worthy of double honour especially these who excell in the gift of teaching which is more excellent then baptizing 1 Cor. 1. 17. Answ. 1. We have a new office brought in in odium tertij out of hatred to ruling Elders and this is a creature who can baptize administer the Lords Supper and pray far off a print booke and admonish in corners but cannot preach but first I aske this fellowes name 2. Where is such an officer in Gods word 3. By what warrant hath one power to administer the Sacraments and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 well as a well-governing Elder who cannot preach the word and pray this is but the reading Priest who saith service for hire and yet he baptizeth ex officio by his office Christ conjoyneth the publike preaching and baptizing Mat. 28. 18 19. as two parts of an office and here they are separated and given to different officers 4. How is a man called on that ruleth well because he baptizeth well and readeth faire in the booke and is not called on who ruleth well because he preacheth well For it cannot be conceived how baptizing belongeth rather to well governing then good preaching 3. Good governing is the Prelates element for so he saith himselfe but to preach base it 's for his Chaplaine and by this to read service to baptize to exhort privately shall make the Prelate a good governing Elder but worthy of lesse honour then the preaching Presbyter But the right Bishop 1 Tim. 3. must both be apt to teach and one who can governe well and this maketh the Prelate in office only a Reader But neither can Doctor Fields other glosse stand The guides of the Church are worthy of double honour both in respect of governing and teaching but especially for their paines in teaching so he noteth two parts or duties of Presbyteriall offices not two sorts of Presbyteries Answ. 1. By this it is the Prelates glory to preach but he cryeth up courting and Lordly command and in his practise cryeth downe preaching 2. This interpretation wrongeth the Text For the divers Pronounes must note divers persons as is cleare in the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and it is all one as if Paul should say That Archippus who ruleth well is worthy of double honour especially that Archippus who laboureth in the word and doctrine where as it is one Archippus who ruleth well and laboureth in the word and doctrine None use to speake so supersluously or ignorantly who understandeth the Greeke Language except by way of excellency persons be noted which is not here Also it should be untrue that any should be worthy of double honour for well governing except only he who laboureth in the word and doctrine which is against reason and the words of the Text. Neither can these words Tell the Church stand in a particular Congregation if ruling Elders be removed especially where there is a Pastor in the Congregation For then the Church should either signifie the multitude of beleevers which I have abundantly refuted or the Pastor with the Deacons but Deacons have no jurisdiction in Gods Church by the word of God Or thirdly the word Pastor it alone should signifie the Church which is Popish therefore of necessity there must bee some Rulers with the Pastors which make the ministeriall Church of which our Saviour speaketh Neither can the famous Councell at Jerusalem consisting of Apostles Elders and Brethren exclude ruling Elders D. Field citeth Cyprian Tertullian Hierom Ambrose for ruling Elders but doth no way satisfie the Reader for he
Christ or beleeve not in him joyne hands with Papists and make way for Anabaptisticall Anaâ—chy that a persecuting or an unbeleeving King is no King not to be obeyed but to be turned out of his Throne And to this meaning Calvin Viretus and Cartwright teach that the kingly power floweth immediately from God the Creator not from God in the Mediator Christ. But 2. thâ— kingly power is considered in a speciall manner as it is in a Christian whether professing onely the Gospell or truly beleeving in Christ and so in relation to Christs Church and to the soule of a beleeving Prince the kingly power floweth from God in and through the Mediator Jesus Christ as all common favours which in generalâ— flow from God the Creator are sanctified and blessed to the beleevers in the Mediator Christ as meat drinke sleep riches kingly honour And in this meaning Sauls kingly honour in respect of Saul himselfe is but a common favour flowing from the Creator howbeit to Gods Church for whose good he did fight the battels of the Lord it was a speciall favour flowing from God in Christ as our Divines say that creation which in it selfe is a common favour to all is a meane in the execution of the Decree of Elâ—ction to the children of God 3. Conclusion Hence our Divines say that kingly authority is the same ordinance of God essentially considered in the heathen Princes as in Christian Kings as Cartwright and others say Neither doth it follow as our unlawfull Canons teach That the Christian Kings now have that same power in Causes Ecclesiasticall which the godly Kings amongst the Jewes as David and Salomon had â—or David and Salomon were Prophets as well as Kings and had power to pen Canonâ—cke Scripture and to prophesie which power in Ecclesiasticke causes no King now can have Neither doth it follow which Whytgift saith that we give no more authority to the Christian Magistrate in the Church of Christ then to the great Turke Our Divines say and that with good warrant that the kingly power as kingly is one and the same in kind in heathen Nero and in Christian Constantine As a heathen man is as essentially a father to his owne children and a husband to his owne wife and a King to his owne subjects as a Christian man is a father husband and king to his owne children wife and subjects Neither doth Christianity superadde and give of new any kingly power to a King because he is now become by Gods grace of a Heathen King a Christian King Christianity addeth indeed a new obligation to imploy his kingly power which he had full and entire before now in its exercise and use to more regall and kingly acts as to take care that the Gospell be soundly preached the Sacraments and discipline of the Church kept pure and heretickes punished according to that he to whom much is given from him much shall be required But the same King while he was a heathen King had the same kingly power and authority to performe these regall acts but being yet a heathen he wanted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 supernaturalis a supernaturall or reall and physicall power to performe these acts now this power which he wanted before he heard of the Gospell and beleeved in Christ was not a kingly authority for then he should not have been a compleat Heathen King before which is against Gods word commanding obedience to heathen Kings Rom. 13. 1 2. 1 Tim. 2. 1 2. 1 Pet. 2. 17. but this power that he wanted is a Christian power to exercise regall and kingly acts Neither is this an inconvenience that power to exercise the acts of a calling in a Christian manner be Christian and supernaturall and yet the authority kingly and not formally Christian but such as is and may be in a heathen King therefore kingly power and Christian power are here carefully to be distinguished and a Christian Kings power as a Christian is more then the Turks power in Church-matters Hence our Adversaries here dethrone and degrade the King for they give the King a head-ship and dominion over the Church as he is a Christian man and take that headship from him as a King because if the Turke by sword should conquer Britaine and become our King by their grounds he should be Head of the Church no lesse then our Christian Prince who now reâ—gneth over us and certaine it is a poore Headship that they give to the King even such a Head-ship as a Heathen King and the Turke hath over subdued Christian kingdomes and thus by their way Nero and Julian were heads of Christs Church 2. If unbeleeving Kings cease to be Kings then when they commit any fault that maketh them in Gods Court no members of the Church they are to be dethroned which is most seditious doctrine and so Formalists herein joyne with Papists 4. Conclusion There be these distinctions here considerâ—ble 1. The Kings power ordinary and extraordinary 2. His power as a King 2. and as a singularly graced Christian. 3. His power hortatorie as a Christian and coactive as a King 4. His power accumulative not privative in Church-matters 5. His power in actibus imperatis in acts commanding to another and his power in actibus elicitis which he is to performe himselfe If a King were a Prophet as a David he might doe many things in an extraordinary way in Church-matters which he cannot now ordinarily doe 2. As a singularly graced Christian he may write Sermons and Commentaries on holy Scripture for edifying the Church but this should be done by him by no kingly faculty 3. As a Christian he may exhort others to doe their duty but as King he may command that which Paul commanded Timothy and Titus to commit the Gospell to faithfull men who are able to teach others to preach in season and out of season to lay hands suddenly on no man and reforme Religion purge the Church of idolatry and superstition as Joshuah and Hâ—zekiah did all which Church-men and Synods might doe also but Synods doe this in an Ecclesiasticke way upon the paine of Ecclesiasticke censures The King doth it by a regall kingly and coactive power of the sword 4. the Kings power is accumulative in giving to the Church and ayding and helping God hath given to the King the ten Commandements and the Gospâ—ll as a pupill is given to a Tutor The King holds his sword above the Law of God to ward off the stroakes of wicked men who doe hurt the Law but the Kings power is not privative to take any priviledge from the Law and the Church so his power is as a tutor to keep not as a father who may both give and take away from his son the inheritance his power is defensive not offensive 5. He hath power in actibus imperatis to command that all preach sound Doctrine decree just Canons exercise discipline aright but in
worship while we know it and the Church rebuke and censure it but it is too long to lye in the fire and be burnt to ashes till we take notice of the secrets that are known to God that is whether the whole thousand professors that worship with us be beleevers or unbeleevers 3. This answer helpeth not against our argument for Moses Isaiah Ieremiah and the Apostles knew most part that these with whom they did publikely communicate in publike worship were stiffe-necked rebellious idolatrous superstitious and yet they did not separate from the publike worship for their wickednesse 10. Argument That which is so hainous a sinne as to prophane Gods name and ordinances to marry Christ and Belial to mixe God and Idols that are Divells should have been forbidden in the old and new Testament but separation from the true worship of God for the sinnes of the worshippers is never forbidden and communion is ever commanded in the old or new Testament therfore separation cannot be lawfull and communion cannot be such a sin 6. Conclusion A worship may be false in the matter two wayes either when we are to practice it or give our assent to it as to receive the Sacraments after an unlawfull manner to assent to corrupt doctrine that is never lawfull and here we may separate from the worship when we separate not from the Church Or then the worship is false in the matter but our presence doth not make it unlawfull to us as professors may heare a preacher who preacheth the body of divinity soundly howbeit he mixe errors with it because what every one heareth they are to try ere they beleeve as the Spirit of God teacheth 1 Thes. 5. 21. Try all things hold fast what is good 1 Joh. 4. 1. Try the spirits in so doing we separate from the Sermon while we heare the good and refuse the evill because we separate from the error of the worship therefore to heare unsound doctrine is not to partake of false worship because we are to heare the Pharisees but to beware of their leaven and finding it to be soure and unsound doctrine we are to reject it 7. Conclusion A communion in worship true in the matter where the person called for example the Preacher is a minister of Antichrist is unlawfull because we are not to acknowledge any of Babel or Baals Priests professing their calling to be of the Pope the man of sinne 8. Conclusion When we separate from a Church overturning the foundation of religion as from Rome we are to keepe a desire of gaining them howbeit not a brotherly fellowship with them Augustine saith with us we are in mercy to rebuke what we cannot amend and to beare it patiently and else where So Ciprian August Epist. 162. 50. sheweth the Africans were esteemed a Church of Christ howbeit they strictly held baptisme by heretiques to be no baptisme CHAP. XI Quest. 11. Whither or no separation from a true Church because of the sinnes of professors and manifest defence of scandalous persons can be proved from Gods word to be lawfull DIvers places of Scripture are abused by Separatists to maintaine the lawfullnesse of their separation 2 Cor. 6. 17. Come out from amongst them and separate your selves saith the Lord and touch no uncleane thing and I will receive you Ergo saith Ainsworth It is commanded us of God to come out of a corrupt Church and separate from it if we would be in covenant with God Answ. 1. This is no locall separation commanded the Corinthians as Erasmus Sarcerius observeth but a separation in affection and if it were a locall separation it is from the Idol-table of the Gentiles at which some did eate at Corinth to the great offence of the weake 1 Cor. 8. 10. 1 Cor. 10. 17 18 19 20. but from this is badly concluded separation out of the Church of Corinth or any other true Church where the word and sacraments are in purity suppose some errors be practised by some Paul borrowed this place from Isa. 52. 11. as Calvin thinketh where the Lord chargeth the people to come out from Babilon seeing Cyrus had proclaimed liberty to them to come home and applyeth it to the case of Corinth that they should flye all fellowship with Idols and Idols temples and tables 1 Cor. 8. 10. because light and darkenesse Christ and Beliall cannot agree as he citeth from Ezech. 37. Ezech 43. 7. Levit. 26. in the former verse as Marlorat teacheth Now this separation in Corinth was in a Church from the Idolatry in it which separation we allow but not a separation out of a Church else the wordes would beare that Paul will have them to forsake the Church of Corinth for idolatrous tables in it and set up a new Church of their own which the Separatists dare not say and is contrary to other places 1 Cor. 5. 4. 1 Cor. 11. 1 Cor. 14. Where he commandeth and alloweth their meeting and publike Church communion therefore this place proveth not their point 2. This separation is such a separation as is betwixt light and darkenesse Christ and Beliall but the separation is not from externall communion which Separatists urge but from all spirituall and internall communion For Separatists teach that alwayes there are in the Church visible hypocrites and true beleevers for the which cause M. Barrow saith it is compared to a draw-net wherein there are both good and bad now Hypocrites and believers together in one visible Church are light and darknesse together and externall Church communion with the hypocrite which is lawfull cannot be a touching of an uncleane thing and so Church-fellowship with the wicked cannot be Christ and Belial together 3. That Separation here commanded is from the worship of God corrupted in the matter where need force the Corinthians behoved to be joyned to Idols v 16 For what agreement saith he hath the Temple of God with Idols Now he meaneth that the faithfull who were Temples of the holy Spirit should not sit and eat at the Idols Table which is called 1 Cor 10. 20 21. The Divels Table and cup. But what Logicke is this Separate from Idols ergo separate from a Church where the true worship of God is and is professed and taught this is to be yoaked with Christs body Spouse truth but to fly the errours that are in the body which we also teach 2. They object Rev 18. 4. Goe out of her my people that yee be not partakers of her sinnes and that yâ— receive not of her plagues Ergo we must seperate from the Church where there is any thing of Romes worship Answ. It followeth not for it is as if one would say the wrath of God is to come upon the whore of Rome who hath overturned the foundation of true faith Ergo if Corinth will not excommunicate the incestuous man after ye have warned them of their duty come out of