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
his brother and therefore we doubt not but the Church hath jus law to excommunicate the Apostles in case of obstinacie and would have used this power iâ— Judas had lived now when the power of excommunication was in vigor but wee say withall de facto the suâ—position was unpossible in respect that continued and habituall obstinacie and flagitious and atâ—ocious scandals deserving excommunication were inconsistent with that measure of the holy Spirit bestowed upon those Catholick Organs and vessels of mercy but this exempteth the Apostles from act all excommunication de facto but is our brethren exâ—â—pt them a jure from the Law they transforme the Apostles into Popes above all Law which wee cannot doe Apostolick eminencie doth 〈…〉 neither Peter nor Paul to bee above either the 〈…〉 the 〈◊〉 Law or the positive Lawes gi 〈…〉 One doth wittily say on these 〈…〉 Matth. 8. 15. The Pope is either a 〈…〉 if hee bee a brother offending 〈…〉 complaine of him to the Church 〈…〉 bee no brother there 's an end 〈…〉 his father and never after this 〈…〉 〈…〉 in a Synod as Apostles doth not 〈…〉 in Apostolick acts could not use Sy 〈…〉 others 1. Because Daniel 9. 2. 〈…〉 understood by books the num 〈…〉 Lord came to Jeremiah the 〈…〉 Paul 1 Cor. 1. 1. and Timothi 〈…〉 and 〈◊〉 1 Thess. 1. 1. and 3. The 〈…〉 and yet â— ophâ—ts and Apostles were immedi 〈…〉 which they â—â—ote and spake Answ. 1. Daniel â—â—d the Prophecie of Jeremiah and the Pro 〈◊〉 the books of Moses and the Apostles read the old Testament 〈◊〉 and Paul read â—eathen Poets and citeth them Act. 17. 〈◊〉 Tiâ— 1. 12. and maketh them Scripture 2. But the question is now if as Prophets and immediatly inâ—â—â— Prophets and Apostles they did so consult with Scripture which they reade as they made any thing canoniâ—k Scripture upon 〈◊〉 medium and formall reason because they did read it 〈◊〉 it out of bookes and not because the immediate iâ—â—piration of the holy Ghost taught them what they should 〈◊〉 canonick Scripture Suppone a sentence of a â—eathen 〈◊〉 suppone this that Paul left his cloake at Troâ—s not the â—â—â—wledge of sense not naturall reason not experience none â—â— these can bee a formall medium a formall meane to make scripture but as thus saith Jehovah in his word is the formall reason why the Church beleeveth the Scripture to be the Word â—â— God so the formall reason that maketh Prophets and Apostles to put downe any truth as that which is formally canonicall scripture whether it bee a supernaturall truth as the 〈◊〉 was made flesh or a morall truth as Children obey your 〈◊〉 or a naturall truth as The Oxe knoweth his owner or an experienced truth as make not friendship with an angry 〈◊〉 a truth of heathen moralitie as mee are the off-spring of God or a truth of sense Paul lest his cloâ—ke at Tâ—oas I say the 〈◊〉 formall reason that maketh it divine and Scripturall truth is the immediate inspiration of God therefore though 〈◊〉 learned by bookes that the captivitie should indure seventi yeares yet his light by reading made it not formally Scripture but Daniels putting it in the Canon by the immediat actiâ—r impulsion and inspiration of the holy Spirit and though Matthew did read in Esaiah A Virgin shall conceive and beared Sonne yet Matthew maketh it not a part of the New Testament because Esaiah said it but because the holy Ghost did imdiatly suggest it to him as a divine truth for a holy man might draw out of the Old and New Testament a Chapter of orthodox truths all in Scripture words and beleeve them to bee Gods truth yet that Chapter should not formally bee the Scriptur of God because though the Author did write it by the light of faith yet the Propheticall and Apostolicall spirit did not suggest it and inspire it to the author I know some Schoolâ— Papists have a distinction here They say there bee some sepernaturall truths in Scriptures as predictions of things that tall out by the mediation of contingent causes and the supernaturall mysteries of the Gospell as that Achab shall bee killed in the wars the Messiah shall bee borne c. Christ came to 〈◊〉 sinners and those were written by the immediatly inspiring Spirit others were but historicall and naturall truths of fact as that Paul wrought miracles that hee left his cleake at Troas and these latter are written by an inferior spirit the assisting not the immediatly inspiring Spirit and by this latter spirit say they much of Scripture was written and from this assisting Spirit commeth the traditions of the Church say they and the decrees of Popes and councells and this holy Spirit though infallible may and doth use disputation consultations councells of Doctors reading but wee answer that what counsells determin by an assisting spirit is not Scripture nor yet â—m-ply infallible nor doth Daniel advise with Jeremialis writing what hee shall put downe as Scripture nor Paul with Sosâ—hâ—â—â—â— with Timothy and Silvamus what hee shall write as Canonick Scripture in his Epistles for then as the decrees of the coun 〈◊〉 at Jerusalem are called the decrees of the Apostles and Elders and this decree which commeth from the Apostles and Elders assemâ—led with one accord and speaking with joynt suffrages from the holy Ghost v. 7 8 9 10 c. v. 28. as collaterall authors of the decree is the conclusion of Apostles and Elders so also should the prophâ—cie of Daniel at least the first two verses of the ninth chapter bee a part of Daniel and a part of Jeremiâ—hs prophecie and Pauls Epistles to the Corinthians should bee the Epistle of Paul and Sâ—stheâ—es and his Epistles to the Colossians and Thessahâ—ianâ— the Epistles of Paul of Timothy of Silvanus whereas Sosthenes Timothy Silvanus were not immediatly inspired collaterall writers of these Epistles with Paul but onely joyners with him in the salutation The erring and scandalous Churches are in a hard condition if they cannot bee edified by the power of jurisdiction in presbyteries Object But it never or seldome in a century falleth out that a Church is to bee excommunicated and Christ hath provided Lawes for things onely that fall out ordinarily Answ. It is true wee see not how an whole Church can bee formally convented accused excommunicated as one or two brethren may bee in respect all are seldome or never deserted of God to fall into an atrocious scandall and wilful obstinacie yet this freeth them not from the Law as suppose in a Congregation of a thousand if five hundreth bee involved in libertinisme are they freed because they are a multitude from Christs Law or from some positive punishment by analogie answering to excommunication 2. The Eldership of a Congregation being three onely doth not seldome scandalously offend and are they under no power under heaven The people may withdraw from them saith the Synod of New England what then so may I withdraw
all fundamentalls 3. Totally and finally But wee are not to beleeve Papists who say things are fundamentall materially in themselves as all points necessary to bee beleeved but things are not formally fundamentall but such things onely as the Church dâ—fineth to be fundamentall But 1. the foundation of our Faith is Gods Word and Gods Word is necessary to be beleeved to salvation whether the Church define it or no to abstaine from Idolatry is necessary to be beleeved though Aaron and the Church of Israel say the contrary neither doth Gods Word borrow authority from men 2. If the Church may make points to be fundamentall by their definition whereas before they were not fundamentall then may the Church make articles of faith Sure I am Paipsts as Gerson Occam Almaine Suarez yea and a very Bellarmine is against this Yea and by that same reason they may make fundamentall points to bee no fundamentall points and they may turne the Apostles Creed into no faith at all for ejusdem est potestos creare annihilare 3. There cannot be a greater power in the Church to define Articles of faith then is in God himselfe but the very authority of God doth not define a matter to bee an article of faith except the necessitie of the matter so require for God hath determined in his word that Paul left his cloake at Treas but that Paul left his cloake at Troas is not I hope an article of faith or a fundamentall point of salvation 4. What can the Church doe saith Vincentius Lyrinens but declare that that is to be beleeved which before in it selfe was to bee beleeved and Bellarmine saith Councells maketh nothing to be of infallible verity and so doth Scotus say Verity before heresies erat de fide was a matter of faith though it was not declared to be so by the Church Determinatio non facit vertatem saith Oâ—cam The Churches determination maketh no truth 3. The evidence of knowledge of fundamentals is gravely to bee considered Hence these distinctions 1. One may beleeve that Christ is the Sonne of God by a Divine faith as Peter doth Matth. 16. 17. and yet doubt of the necessary consequences fundamentall Ergo Christ must bee delivered into the hands of sinners and bee crucified as the same Peter doubted of this for as one may fall in a grievous sinne though regenerated and faile in act and yet remaine in grace in habitu the seed of God remaining in him so may Peter and the Apostles doubt of a fundamentall point of Christs rising from the dead John 20. v 8 9. in an act of weakenesse and yet have saving faith in Christ as it is like many of of the Saints at Corinth denyed an article of their Faith the rising againe of the dead one act of unbeleefe maketh not an infidell 2. Dist. A simple Papist and a Lutheran not well educated doth beleeve upon the same former ground that Christ is true man hath an habitual faith of this article that Jesus Christ is truly the Son of David yet holdeth transubstantiation or consubstantiatiâ— that Christs body is in many sundry places in heaven and earth on this side of the Sea beyond Sea yet the connâ—xion betwixt Christs humanitie and this monster of transubstantiation not being possible all the error may be meerely philosophick that the extention of quantitative parts without or beyond part is not the essence of a quantitative body while as the rude man beleeveth firmely that Christ is true man and so beleeveth contradictory things by good consequence therefore the qualitie of the conscience of the beleever is to be looked into since fundamentall heresie is essentially in the mind and pertinacy and selfe-conviction doth inseparably follow it 1. There is a conscience simply doubting of fundamentall points this may be with a habit of sound faith 2. A scrupulous conscience which from light grounds is brangled about some fundamentall points and this is often in sound beleevers who may and doe beleeve but with a scruple 3. A conscience beleeving opinions and conjecturing and guessing as in Atheists this is damnable but where obstinacy is as defending with pertinacie transubstantiation and that it is lawfull to adore bread this pertinacious defending of Idolatry doth inferre necessarily that the faith of the article of Christs humanitie is but false and counterfeit and not saving 3. Dist. There is a certitude of adherence formall and a certitude of adherence virtuall A certitude of adherence formall is when one doth adhere firmly to the faith of fundamentalls A certitude of adherence virtuall is when with the formall adherence to some fundamentall points there is an ignorance of other fundamentall points and yet withall a gracious disposition and habit to beleeve other fundamentalls when they shall bee clearely revealed out of the word so Luke 24. Christ exponed the resurrection and the articles of Christs sufferings and glorification vers 25 26 27. to the Disciples who doubted of these before and yet had saving faith of other fundamentall points Matth. 16. 17. 18. 4. Hence there be two sorts of fundamentalls some principally and chiefely so called even the elements and beginning of the doctrine of Christ as Credenda things to be beleeved in the Creed the object of our faith and pâ—tenda things that we aske of God expressed in the Lords Prayer the object of our hope specially 2. Agenda things to be done contained in the decalogue the object of our love to God and our brethren Others are so secundarily fundamentall or lesse fundamentalls as deduced from these yea there be some artcles of the Creed principally fundamentall these all are explicitely to be beleeved noted by Vigilius Martyr and Pareus as that Christ died and rose againe c. Other Articles are but modi articulorum fundamentalium and expositions and evident determinations of cleare articles As Christs incarnation and taking on our flesh is explained by this conceived of the holy Ghost and borne of the Virgin Mary the death and suffering of Christ is exponed by subordinate articles as that he suffered under Pontius Pilate was crucisied c. and these lesser fundamentalls are to be beleeved necessitate praecepti because God commandeth them but happily non necessitate medii It is possible many bee in glory who beleeve not explicitely but onely in the disposition of the mind as some are baptized in voto in their desire onely these lesser fundamentalls it is enough they have the faith of non-repugnancy or negative adherence to these so as they would not deny them if they had beene proponed to them in a distinct and cleare way 5. The faith of fundamentalls is implicit three wayes 1. In respect of the degree of beleeving 2. In respect of the object 3. In respect of the subject or our adherence to things beleeved In respect of degrees the faith is implicite and weake three wayes as Calvin may teach 1. Because we are
ignorant of some lesse fundamentalls 2. Because we see in a mirror and imperfectly 3. In respect of beleeving upon a false ground as for miracles In respect of the object the certaintie is most sure as sure as that God cannot lie In respect of our adherence of understanding and affections in this respect the knowledge of fundamentalls must bee certaine 1. By a negative certitude which excludeth doubting and so Pastor and people must have a certitude of fundamentalls as Rom. 14 5. Col. 1. 9. Heb. 5. 12. but for a positive certitude there is not that measure required in a teacher that is in a scholler for all the body cannot be an eye 1 Cor. 12. 17. yet is a Christian certitude and fulnesse of perswasion required even of all Christians Colos. 2. 2. Colos. 3. 16. highest and greatest in its kind though many may bee saved with lesse yet a distinct knowledge of fundamentalls in all is not necessary by a necessitie of the meanes necessitate medii as Beza and Doctor Ames teach There is a faith of fundamentalls implicite in respect of the will and affections which Papists make a wide faith as the Jâ—uâ—e Becanus thinke to beleeve these two fundamentalls 1. That there is a God 2. That this God hath a providence conâ—â—â—ning mens salvation though other particulars be not knowne Or implicite faith is saith Estius when any is ready to beleeve what the Church shall teach which faith Suarez saith though it include ignorance yet keepeth men from the danger of errors because it doth submit the mind to the nearest rule of teaching to wit to the Church the knowledge of fundamentalls in this sense doth not save but condemne Thomas saith better then he 6. Dist. They are not alike who beleeve fundamentall hereâ—ies 2. And who defend them 3. And who teach them and obtrude them upon the consciences of others For the first many beleeve fundamentall errors who are ignorant of them and doe thinke that they firmely adhere to Christian Religion Oâ—cam termeth such haereticos nescientes ignorant heretickes as the Marcionites and the Manicheans and these the Church should tolerate while they bee instructed It is true the Jesuite Meratius saith When many things are proposed to the understanding for one and the same formall reason to wit for divine authoritie the understanding cannot imbrace one but it must imbrace all nor â—â—ject one but it must reject all which is true of a formall malitious rejecting the Manichean beleeveth nothing because God saith it and hath faith sound and saving in nothing but it is not true of an actuall or virtuall contempt in one or two fundamentalls because beleevers out of weakenesse ignorance and through strength of tentation may doubt of one fundamentall as the Disciples doubted of the resurrection Joh. 20. 9. and yet in habite beleeve all other fundamentalls but the Church is to correct such as professe fundamentall heresies and to cast out of the Church seducers and deceivers 7. Dist. It is one thing to hate a fundamentall point as that Christ is consubstantiall with the Father as the Arians doe and another thing by consequence to subvert a fundamentall point as Papists by consequence deny Christ to bee true man while they hold the wonder of Transubstantiation yet doe not they hate this conclusion formally that Christ is true man 8. Dist. Though it were true which Doctor Christo. Potter saith If we put by the Points wherein Christians differ one from another and gather into one body the rest of the articles wherein they all gnerallaly agree we should finde in these propositions which without all controversie are universally received in the whole Christian world so much truth is contained as being joyned with holy obedience may be sufficient io bring a man to everlasting salvation I say though this were true yet will it not follow that these few fundamentalls received by all Christians Papists Lutherans Arians Verstians Sabellians Maccdonians Nestorians Eutychanes Socinians Anabaptists Treithitae Antitrinitarii for all these be Christians and validely baptized doe essentially constitute a true Church and a true Religion Because all Christians agree that the old and New Testament is the truth and Word of God and the whole faith of Christian Religion is to bee found in the Old Testament acknowledged both by Jewes and Christians for that is not the Word of God indeed in the Old Testament which the Jewes say is the Word of God in the Old Testament Yea the old and new Testament and these few uncâ—nâ—â—averted points received universally by all Christians are not Gods Word as all these Christians expone them but the dreames and fancies of the Jewes saying that the old Testament teacheth that Christ the Messiah is not yet come in the flesh the Treithitae say there be three Gods yet are the Treithitae Christians in the sense of Doctor Potter so that one principall as that There is one God and Christ is God and man and God is noely to be adored not one of these are uncontraverted in respect every society of Sectaries have contrary expositions upon these common fundamentalls and so contrary Religions Who doubteth but all Christians will subscribe and sweare with us Protestants the Apostolicke Creed but will it follow that all Christians are of one true Religion and doe beleeve the same fundamentalls now these fundamentalls are the object of faith according as they signifie things To us and to the Treithitae this first Article I beleeve in God as I conceive doth not signifie one and the same thing now joyne this I beleeve in God with holy obedience as wee expone it and as the Treithitae expone it it could never bee a step to everlasting salvation for it should have this meaning I beleeve there is one only true God and that there be also three Gods and what kind of obedience joyned with a faith made up of contradictions can bee availeable to salvation 3. One generall Catechise and confession of faith made up of the commonly received and agreed upon fundamentalls would not make us nearer peace though all Christians should sweare and subscribe this common Christian Catechise no more then if they should sweare and subscribe the old and new Testament as all Christians will doe and this day doth 9. Disl Though the knowledge of fundamentalls be necessary to salvation yet it cannot easily be defined what measure of knowledge of fundamentalls and what determinate number of fundamentalls doth constitute a true visible Church and a sound beleever as the learned Voetius saith Hence 1. They are saved who soundly beleeve all fundamentalls materially though they cannot distinctly know them under the reduplication of fundamentalls nor define what are fundamentalls what not 2. Though a Church retaine the fundamentalls yet if wee beforced to avow and beleeve as truth doctrines everting the foundation of faith against the article of one God if we must worship as many Gods as there bee hosties if Christs
a man or no. It is taken for a thing out of controversie yea that this is no question at all Whether or no doth an erroneous conscience so bind that we can doe nothing against the standing enditement of an erring conscience for the Scripture is cleare in this Rom. 14. 14. I know and am perswaded by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing of meat-kind now under the Gospel uncleane or unlawfull to eat of it selfe but to him that esteemeth any thing to bee uncleane in the light of his il-informed and erroneous conscience to him so thinking it is uncleane that is to this man now under the actuall darknesse and errour of an ill-informed conscience it is not lawfull to eat but hee must abstaine from eating not simply from eating but from eating â—â—li modo So all who have commented on the place Calvin Beza Parâ—us Rollocus c. and of the Fathers all who either commented on or handled the text occasionally as Theodoret Chrysostome Basilius Augustine Cyprian Ambrose Origen Anselm all the Popish writers Lyra Hugo Cardinalis Aquinas Toletus Pirerius Estius Cornelius a Lapide c. yea Adrianus Vasquez Pezantius say it is manifestly against the Scripture and hereticall to say it is no sinne to doe contrary to the commandement or prohibition of an erring conscience 3. Hence the conscience carrieth to the agent from God a twofold obligation most considerable here 1. one from the action it selfe to be done or not done and this commeth wholly from the oblieging Law of God and not from the conscience there is another obligation that consisteth not in the action and commeth not from the action but in the manner of doing and this obligation commeth from conscience it selfe and that is that we doe nothing in such a manner that is against the light or inditement of our conscience for this is an imbred Rose Flower of divinifie and majestie that groweth kindly out of conscience according to that high place of some sort of royaltie that it hath to bee something of God a little breast-God a little Deputie and Judge not to bee contemned so when a proconsull bringeth to mee a forged commandement from my Soveraigne and Prince I may receive it with non-obedience if I know it to bee a forgery but I am not to despise and put any note of disgrace upon the proconsull be cause hee is in respect of his office the deputie of my Soveraigne though in this particular mandat hee doth prevaricate and not represent the soveraigne power and Prince whose deputie otherwayes he is by vertue of his office so is this the deputed royaltie of conscience that it standing to me bic nunc as representing a message from God though it represent it falsely that I can doe nothing in the contrary that deputry and message standing actually in vigor 4. I desire that these two obligations of conscience bee carefully kept in mind hence I say that conscience carrying the former obligation of Gods Law from which formally the action hath its lawfulnesse and in an eccentrick and irregular discrepance from which it hath its unlawfulnesse it doth not obliege mee to the action because it is conscience simply for when it offereth an action to mee as lawfull which in very deed and a parte rei in it selfe is unlawfull I am not oblieged to that unlawfull action for as God hath given to no ruler made of clay any royall power to bee a tyrant and to destroy where as his office is as a father to save and governe so hath not God given to conscience any power to obliege me to sinnes yea and conscience remaineth conscience when it representeth forged and illegall mandates under the notion of things good even when men love to goe to hell by reason yet in that false representation conscience is not Gods deputie therefore though if a man judge some doctrines to bee errors though they bee in themselves truths to him that so judgeth they are errors yet are these truths not to bee rejected simpliciter and absolutely by him who judgeth so ony they are to be rejected 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in some respect as they come in under the notion and garments of errors also if any suffer death for an error which in conscience he conceiveth to be truth that error is to him truth Distinguo it is to him truth that is he conceiveth and dreameth that it is truth that is most true but to him it is truth that is it ought to bee beleeved by him as truth and practised as lawfull that is most false for it ought to bee rejected both in point of beleefe and in point of practise and the erroneous opinion thereof should bee rejected and therefore if hee receive it as truth and professe it and die for it hee dieth not for righteousnesse sake but hee dieth for errour and for the dreames of his owne head and so is not blessed as one who dveth for righteousnesse for this vaine reason saith 1. that it is no sinne for the mind to beleeve a lie to bee a divine truth and it is righteousnesse upon the beleefe whereby I beleeve a lie to bee a truth to suffer for a lie under the notion of a truth Both these are false the former is false for the mind is under Gods oblieging Law to conceive aright of all divine truths as all the faculties of the soule are under a Law 2. The latter is false for to beleeve lies as divine truths and suffer for them because the erring conscience saith they are divine truths is not righteousnesse but sinfull credulity and blind zeale 1. Because wee are not to beleeve what our conscience dictateth as truth under this formall reduplication because our conscience thus doth dictate and saith it is truth but because Gods spirit saith to our conscience it is a divine truth not because our owne spirit and our owne dreaming and misâ—ed conscience saith so This is the controversie betwixt us and Papists anent the authoritie of Gods Word but with a little change for our conscience or the testimony of our conscience as such is no more the formall object of our faith and the formall medium and reason why with a divine faith I beleeve a divine truth to bee a divine truth then the testimony of the Church or the Pope is the formall reason of my faith so An â—baptists make a Pope and an infallible spirit of their owne conscience but the whole formall obligation tying mee to receive this and this point as a divine truth is because God hath revealed it in his Word the consciences representing of it is but a necessary condition of my beleeving but not the formall object of my beleeving the conscience is the cause why I beleeve it tali modo after a rationall way and by the evidence of practicall reason but it is not the formall cause why I beleeve it simpliciter for Papists Arrians Macedonians and the most
weake p. 297 298 299 seq Mr. Coachmans arguments dissolved p. 305 306 307. seq The way of Church judging in independent congregations examined p. 308 309. That there be no peculiar authority in the Eldership for which they can be said to be over the people in the Lord according to the doctrin of independency of Churches and their six ways of the Elders authority confuted p. 311 312 313 314 315. seq That independency doth evert communion of sister-Churches and their seven wayes of Churches-communion refuted from their own grounds p. 324 325 326. seq The divine right of Synods Ten distructions thereanent p. 331 332. seq The desinition of a generall or Oecumenick Synod p. 332. 333 The place Acts 15 farther considered p. 334 335. Synods necessary by natures Law p. 336. Papists no friends to councells p. 336 337 338. seq 340 341. Three ways of communion of sister-Churches according to the doctrin of independent Churches confuted p. 346 347. seq How the magistrate hath power to compell persons to the profession of the truth p. 352 373. seq Six distinctions thereanent 2 part p. 352 353. The Magistrates power over a people Baptized and over Pagans who never heard of Christ in this poynt of Coaction to profession not alike p. 353 354 355. The magistrates compelling power terminated upon the externall act not upon the manner of doing sincerely or hypocritically p. 355 356. The magistrates power over hereticks with sundry distinctions thereanent p. 356 357 358. seq Socinians judgement and Arminians hereanent p. 359 360 A farther consideration of compelling or tolerating diverse Religions p. 361 362. Some indirect forcing lawfull p 362. Erroneous opinions concerning God and his worship though not in Fundamentalls censurable p 363 364. Diverse non Fundamentalls are to be believed with certainty of Faith and the non-believing of them are siâ—nes punishable p. 365. 366 367 seq Arguments on the contrary dissolved and the place Philip. 3. 15. cleared p 316. seq How an erring conscience obligeth p. 378 379 380 381 seq Arguments on the contrary answered p. 383 384. seq The Princes power in Church affairs Ten distinctions thereanent p. 391 392. 393. How the Magistrate is a member of the Church p. 392 393. The Prince by his Royall Office hath a speciall hand in Church-affaires p 393 394. The intrinsecall end of the Prince is a supernaturall good to be procured by the Sword and a coactive power and not only the externall peace of the State Spalato resuted p 396 397 398. seq How the Magistrate is subordinate to Christs mediatory Kingdome p 402 403 404 seq The ordinary power of the Prince is not Synodicall teaching or making Church-Lawes p. 403 404 405 406. seq The influence of the Princes civill power in Church-Canons p. 409. 410 411 seq The government of the visible Church spirituall and not a formall part of the Magistrates Office p. 417 418. seq The power of Ordination and Deprivation not a part of the Magistrates Office p. 427 428. seq Instances from David Salomon Ezechiah c. answered and our Doctrine and Iesuites differenced p. 438 439. seq Difference betwixt the Princes commanding Church-duties and the Churches commanding these same p. 417 418 seq The Kings ordinary power to make Church-Lawes examined p. 438 439 440. seq The intrinsecall end of the Magistrate a supernaturall good p. 442 443 446 447 448. The Popes pretended power over Kings protestants contrary to to Papists herein what ever the author or Popish libeller of the survey and the night-Author of Treason Lysimachus Nicanor say on the contrary p. 449 450 451 452. seq The way of Reformation of Congregations in England according to the independent way examined p. 457 458. The originall of Church-Patronages p. 459. And how unwarrantable by Gods Word p. 462 463. Other wayes of Reformation of England according to the way of independent Churches modestly considered as about maintenance of Ministers and replanting of visible Churches there p. 464 465 466. seq Errata THe Author could not attend the Presse therefore pardon errors of the Printing Observe that the Author was necessitated to make some occasionall addition to the mids of this Treatise which occasioned-variation of the Figures of the Pages and therefore stumble not that when the Booke commeth to page 484 the next page not observing due order is page 185. 186 and so forth to the end of the Treatise page 60. title of the page 60 c. page 61 62. 64. dele not and for not of the same essentiall frame c. read of the same essentiall frame c. page 484 line 22 Churches their persecution read Churches through their persecution for page 229 read 209. for page 259. read 269. for p. 484. r. p. 498. יהוה THE Way of the Church of Christ In NEW ENGLAND Measured by the Golden Reed of the SANCTUARY Or The way of Churches walking in brotherly equality and independence or coordination without subjection of one Church to another examined and measured by the Golden Reed of the Sanctuary Propositions concerning the supposed visibility and Constitution of independent Churches examined CHAP. 1. SECT 1. PROP. 1. THe Church which Christ in his Gospell hath instituted and to which he hath committed the keys of his Kingdome the power of binding and loosing the Tables and Scales of the Covenant the Officers and Consures of his Church the Administration of all his publick worship and Ordinances is coetus fidelium a company of Believers meeting in one place every Lords day for the administration of the holy ordinances of God to publick edification 1 Cor. 14. 23. 1 Because it was a company whereof Peter confessing and believing was one and built on a rock Mat. 16. 18. a Such as unto whom any offended brother might complaine Mat. 18. 17. 3 Such as is to cast out the incestuous Corinthian 1 Cor. 5. Which cannot agree to any diocesian provinciall or Nationall assemblie Ans. From these we question Quest. 1. If a company of believers and saints builded by faith upon the rock Christ and united in a Church-Covenant be the only instituted visible Church of the New Testament to the which Christ hath given the keys Let these considerations be weighed 1. Dist. The matter of an instituted visible Church is one thing and the instituted visible Church is another as there be ods betwixt stones and timber and an house made of stones and timber 2 Dist. It is one thing to govern the actions of the Church and another thing to governe the Church the Moderator of any Synod doth govern the actions of the Synod but he is not for that a Governour Ruler and Pastor of the Synod Or ordering actions and governing men are diverse things 3. Dist. A thing hath first its constituted and accomplished being in matter forme efficient and finall causes before it can performe these operations and actions that flow from that being so constituted a Church must be a Church before any
Distinct. There is a confession which containeth fundamentalls only the knowledge whereof is simply necessary for salvation and the simple ignorance whereof condemneth There is a confession which containeth fundamentalls and non fundamentalls which are not simplie necessary to be knowen by all necessitate â—â—edii 3. Dist. A confession of faith is to be respected in regard of the matter which is Divine Scripture or according to the stile conception and inâ—erpretation which is in some respect humane 4. Distinct. There is a confession of a particular man what such a person or Church believeth de facto as the confession of â—â—e Belgick Arminians and a confession de jure what every one ought to believe as the Nicen Creed the Creed of â—thanasiâ—s 5. Dist. There is a confession of a faith firme and sure quoad â—ertitudinem fidei quoad substantiam articulorum credendoâ—um sure in the Articles believed and a confession sure quoad radicationem fidei in subjecto the first way all are obliged â—â— believe the Articles contained in the word But we see not how now after the Canon of Scripture is closed but the certainty of faith according to the measure of light more or lesse as our Lord more or lesse doth reveale himselfe in a more or lesse measure of ligh doth not grow woâ— or decrease according to the certainy of faith the second way hence we say 1. Conclusion Onely the Word of God is the principall and formall ground of our Faith Eph. 2. 20 21 22. 2 Tim. 3. 16. Luk. 14. 25. 2. Concl. A confession of Faith containing all fundamentall points is so farre forth the Word of God as it agreeth with the Word of God and obligeth as a rule secundary which wee believe with subjection to God speaking in his owne Word and to this plat-forme wee may lawfullly sweare 1. What ever wee are obliged to believe and professe as the saving truth of God that we may lawfully sweare to professe believe and practise that the bond of faith may be sure but wee are obliged to believe and professe the nationall confession of a sound Church Ergo. The proposition is cleare from Davids and the Saints practise who layed bands on their soules to tie themselves to that which is lawfull as Psal. 119. 106. I have sworn and will performe it that I will keep thy Righteous judgements The major is the doctrine of our Dvines and cleare when they explaine the matter of a lawfull Oath as Pareus Bucanus Tilenus Profess Leydens Calvin Iunius Beza Piscator Zanchiâ— c. That things lawfull may lawfully be sworne to GOD observing other due circumstances The assumption is â—â—deniable 2. Arg. That whereof we are assured in conscience to be the truth and true Religion bringing salvation to mens soules to that we may tie our selves by an Oath upon the former grounds But the sound confession of faith set downe in a platformâ— is such as we may and are to be assured of in conscience â— the truth of God Ergo The assumption is proved because what is Gods Word and truth of that we are to be assured of iâ— conscience as Col. 2. 7. Being knit together in love unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding and Heb. 6. 11. should keepe the full assurance of hope to the end Col. 2. 2 3. Eph. 4. 14. 3. If the people of the lewes did sweare a covenant with God to keep the words of the covenant to doe them Deut. 29. 9. 10 11. To seeke the Lord God of Israel with all their heart and with all their soule 2 Chron. 15. 12. and if they entered into a curse and an oath to walke in the Lords law which was given by Moses the servant of God to observe and doe all the Commandements of the Lord and subscribed and sealed the covenant with their hands Nehem. 10. 1. v. 29. Then is it lawfull for a Church to sweare and by oath subscribe an Orthodox confession But the former is true as the places alledged cleare Ergo so is the latter That which onely may be doubted of is the connexion of the major proposition because Israel did sweare to nothing but to Moses written Law which in matter and forme was Gods expresse written word but it will not follow that we may sweare a plat-forme of Divine truth framed and penned by men but the connexion notwithstanding of this remaineth sure because Israel did sweare the Lords covenant according to the true meaning and intent of the Holy Ghost as it is Gods Word and we also sweare a Nationall covenant not as it is mans word or because the Church or Doctors at the Churches direction have set it down in such and such words such an order or method but because it is Gods Word so that we sweare to the sense and meaning of the platforme of confession as to the Word of God now the Word of God and sense and meaning of the Word is all one Gods Law and the true meaning of the Law are not two different things When a Jew sweareth to the doctrine and covenant of God in the Old Testament in a Jewish meaning he sweareth not to the Word of God because the Word of God unsoundly expounded is not the Word of God and though the Sadducees and Pharisees sweare the five bookes of Moses and the very covenant which Asah and the Kingdome of Iudâ—h did sweare 2 Chron. 15. yet doe they not sweare the covenant of God and that same which Gods people did sweare 2 Chron. 15. Or if any professing they worship idols should sweare that covenant alledging the covenant doth not forbid idols to be memorials and objects by which absolute adoration is given to God we would not thinke that they had sworne the covenant of God but onely words of God falsely expounded yea and made to be not Gods Word but a plaine lying invention Therefore it is all one whether a Church sweare a confession in expresse words of Scripture or a covenant in other words expounding the Scriptures true meaning and sense according to the language and proper idiom of the Nation and Church for we sweare not words or a platforme as it is such but the matter sense and meaning of the Scriptures of God set downe in that platforme and it is certaine in Nehemiahs time there was some platforme either the writings of Moses or some sound exposition thereof else I see not how they could seale it Nehem. 9. 38. And because of all this we make a sure covenant and write it and our Princes Levites and Priests seale unto it Now that which was written could not but be a platforme either in Scripture onely according to the meaning of the exacters of the oath or some interpretation else every man writ his owne covenant and sealed it which is not like for they all joyntly sware this covenant and the reason of this written sworne and sealed covenant being morall as is cleare
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
God that persons notoriously wicked should be admitted into the Church then should God directly crosse himselfe and his owne ends and should receive into the visible covenant of grace such as were out of the visible estate of grace and should plant such in his Church for the glory of his Name as served for no other use then to cause his Name to be blasphemed Answ. This argument proveth that the visible Church is not a visible Church except it consist of onely holy and gratious persons without any mixture and so not only holinesse in profession but holinesse reall and before God is required essentially to a visible Church Then Pastors Doctors and Professors binding and loosing clave non errante are not a visible Church Yea this is downe right Anabaptisme that no visible Churches are on Earth but such as consist of reall Saints only 2. It is most ignorantly reasoned that God in creating Man and Angells good did not intend that they should fall by his permission but that they should continue holy and then God was frustrated of his end as Arminians and Socinians Teach So sayth Arminius Antiperk Corvinus The Remonstrants at Dort and Socinus that God intendeth and purposeth many things which never come to passe 2. His Decrees faile and are changed 3. Men may make Gods Decrees of election fast and sure or loose and unsure as they please 3. Here is much ignorance that God intendeth nothing that may be against the glory of obedience due to him as Law-giver as if sinners and hypocrites being in the Church because they are dishonorable to God should crosse Gods end and purpose so Tertullian bringeth in some whom he calleth dogges thus reasoning against providence which suffereth sinne to be in the World so contrary to his Will and goodnesse And who denieth but Christ commanded Judas to preach and that the Apostles according to Gods Will and Cammandement received Ananias Saphira Simon Magus in the visible Church by baptizing them for I hope the Apostles sinned not against Gods revealed Will in admitting them to the visible Church And shall we say that God directly in that crosseth himselfe and his own ends because God gathered hypocrites into his Churcch and yet they dishonour and blaspheme the Name of God Whiles Robinson saith Gods maine end in gathering a visible Church is that they being separated from the World may glorifie his Name he speaketh grosse Arminianisme that God faileth in his ends Lastly he saith that God cannot will that persons notoriously wicked should be in his visible Church for then he should crosse himselfe and his owne ends advert notoriously is vainely added seeing we teach that notoriously wicked ought to be cast out of the visible Church as also if he shall will wicked persons let alone notoriously wicked or latent hypocrites to be in the Church yea or in this visible World he should by this Arminian argument crosse himselfe and his owne ends Do you believe with Arminians that Gods end is that Angells and men should have stood in obedience and that a Redeemer should never come to save sinners And that blasphemy and sinne is against Gods purpose and intended end and that sinne crosseth him but when all is done it is his intention and revealed will that hypocrites be invited to the visible and preached covenant and yet he knoweth that they are out of the visible yea and invisible state of grace Robinson In planting the first Church in the seed of the woman there were only Saints without any mixture now all Churches are of one nature and essentiall constitution and the first is the rule of the rest Answ. Though God planted Adam and Eve two restored persons to be the first repenting Church from Gods fact you cannot conclude a visible Church gathered by men should be voyd of all mixture so as it is no visible Church if it be a mixed company of good and bad this is contrary to his owne commandement Mat. 22 9. Go and call as many as you finde 2. Gods acts are not rules of morall duties his Word and Commandement doth regulate us not his Works God hardeneth Pharaos heart should Pharao harden for that his owne heart God forbid Robinson Cajan that evill on was broken off and cast out of the Church and by Moses it is imputed for sin that the sonnes of God married with the daughters of men Ergo it is far more unlawful to contract with the wicked in a religious covenant of the communion of Saints Answ. Wee grant such as Cain are to be excommunicated but what then Ergo none can be members of a visible Congregation but such as Abel we love not such consequences a Though God forbade his people to marry with the Canaanites yet he forbade not that the Godly and ungodly should come to the Temple together and that Noah and cursed Cham should be in one Arke together 3. Though it be a sinne that the wicked should mix themselves with the godly and come unto the Kings supper without the wedding garment yet that is not the question but if the pastors inviting all to come to the supper do sin and 2. If the Church be not a true visible Church though it consist of good and bad Robinson Circumcision is a seale of the righteousnesse of Faith Gen. 17. 10. Rom. 4. 11. Now to affirme that the Lord will seale up with the visible seale of Faith any visibly unrighteous and faithlesse person were that God should prophane his own Ordinance Answ. God doth by this argument profane his owne seale when a visibly wicked person is sealed with the seale as when one visibly unrighteous is sealed for the latent hypocrite profaneth the seale of Righteousnesse as the open and visibly unrighteous and faithlesse person doth Yet it is Gods command that the latent hypocrite have the seales of Righteousnesse since the Church conceiveth him to be a sound professor Ergo by your Doctrine God commandeth to prophane his owne seales but this is the wicked reasoning of Arminians and Socinians So Arminians against Perkins Corvinus against Molinâ—us the Arminians at the synod of Dort would prove an universall grace accompanying the Word and Sacraments and they say that Sacraments doe not seale remission of sins redemption in Christ and that they be empty and toome ordinances yea and mocking signes except all who receive the seales both elect and reproâ—ate be redeemed in Christ and have grace to believe But the truth is God doth not prophane his owne seales because he commandeth that they be received with Faith and let us see where any male child reprobate or elect borne amongst the Iewes but he is by Gods Commandement to be circumcised yet that seale was an empty ordinance to thousands in Israel 3. Nor is the seale a seale of righteousnesse actu secundo sed actu primo it is a seale of righteousnesse as the Word of God is the power of
Divine saw visions and heavenly mysteries which none of the rest of the Apostles saw nor could write in their writings and Canonicall Epistles yet it doth not hence follow that James Peter Jude and Paul in their canonicall writings and Epistles were not immediatly inspired It is enough to make the Apostles in their writings infallible Apostles and immediatly inspired if that which they write bee the infallible truth and canonick Scripture though every Apostle write not all canonick truth now what the Apostles setteth down in this Synod is Scripture and the object of our faith and written for our instruction so something was revealed to James which was not revealed to Peter and Paul in this dispute but it followeth not Ergo what Peter and Paul spake they spake it not by immediate revelation and what they spake is not Scripture Answ. 1. The strength of my argument is close mistaken for I did not argue simply from the Apostles borrowing light one from another to prove they act not here as Apostles but as Elders neither did I argue simply from this James saith more then Peter doth Ergo Peter is not immediatly inspired in what hee saith for I grant the Apostles borrow â—ight from the Prophets and their writings one saith and writeth what another saith not and cannot write and yet all are immediatly inspired in what they write But I argued thus when ever the Apostles are consulted with to resolve a question as Apostles do conveenâ— Synodically intend to resorve the question if the Apostles in that case or any one of them come short of the resolution do not see the conclusion they intend to see but in so sarre as they are helped on by another in a way of disputation in that they doe not act as Apostles but the case is so here 1. all were consulted with Act. 15. 2. 2 all intended to resolve the question and did meet together for that end to resolve it fully v. 6. 3 yet divers of the Apostles as Peter Paul and Barnabas see not the resolution fully that they aimed at but determine the question imperfectly and so as if Iames had beene absent or if hee had seene no more in resolving the question then Paul and Barnabas and Peter said which was onely that the Law of Moses was not to bee kept by either Iew or Gentile upon the Necessitie of salvation but that both Jewes and Gentiles are saved by the grace of Jesus Christ if James I say had seene no more then this the consciences of both sides had not beene satisfied and the question not resolved but the Jewes should have gone on in a totall abstinence from all ceremonies which because of the indifference of the ceremonies was then dangerously scandalous and spirituall homicide and the Gentiles should freely have eaten blood meates offered to idols and things strangled which also was scandalous in a high measure to the weake Jewes and so the matter should have beene worse after this Synod and the controversie hotter the fire bolder and the scandall more dangerous then it was before the Synod which I cannot beleeve that the Apostles as Apostles could have done So wee know Nathan to have spoken as a man and not as a Prophet when being consulted with by David anent the building of the Temple and purposing and intending fully to resolve the question yet resolved it amisse and quite contrary to the mind of God now what the penmen of holy Scripture intended to write as Scripture that they fully wrote and no more and what they wrote not that they intended not to write but leave it to others of the penmen of the holy Ghost because the immediatly inspiring holy Ghost consulted with and intending to resolve such a canonick truth cannot misse in his blessed intention And also the Elders at Jerusalem were consulted with to resolve the question as well as the Apostles as is cleare Act. 15. 2. Now if the Church of Antiech had beene minded to referre the resolution to the Apostles as infallibles Apostle they would never have referred it to the Elders whom they knew could erre as well as themselves nor would the Elders have joyned as fellow-disputers with the Apostles as Apostles as they expresly doe v. 6. for that is as you would say some countrey men of ordinary spirit destitute of all propheticall light concurred with Esaiah to see the visions of God And it is as if David as king counsell at God whether the men of Keilah would deliver him up to Saul had consulted with God and with Abiathar and some foure or five Elders of Keilah voyd of all propheticall spirit whether the men of Keilah should deliver him up to Saul or no for these Elders of Jerusalem and Antioch and other brethren were as voyd of an Apostolick spirit as the Elders of Keilah were of a Propheticall spirit It were a vaine action for the Elders to joyne themselves as joynt-disputers and fellow-resolvers of the controversie with the Apostles for the fellow-resolvers were to seeke resolution at the Apostles who could as Apostles infallibly resolve them 2. What the Apostles set downe is Scripture and is the object of our faith and written for our instruction Ergo the Apostles did give it forth in the Synod as Scripture it followeth not I may preach Scripture and that which is the object of faith and written for our instruction Ergo I preach it as an Apostle by an Apostolick spirit it followeth not for so if the Elders had spoken Scripture which is written for our instruction the Elders should have spoken it by an Apostolick spirit which is manifestly false and so if the Elders of Corinth 1 Cor. 5. should have proven in their Presbytery that the incestuous person should bee delivered to Satan from Matth. 18. they should have spoken that in the presbytery by an Apostolick Spirit all which are manifestly false The holy Ghost by Luke did make it Scripture formally but that the Apostles spake it as Scripture by an Apostolick spirit because it is the object of our faith that Luke did insert it in the Canonicall history is no more hence proven then one might inferre that Gamaliel by the immediate inspiration of the Spirit spake the oration that hee uttereth to the councell of Priests and Pharisees Act. 5. 34 35. c. for that is formally made Scripture by Luke his inserting of it in the Register of Scripture yea the words of Satan Matth. 4. by that reason behoved to bee spoken by divine and immediate inspiration but the truth is wee are not to take what Peter speaketh from the Prophet Amos Act. 15. v. 16. to bee Scripture because Amos spake it in the Old Testament but because Luke by immediate inspiration saith that Peter uttered these words from the Prophet Amos. Immediate inspiration maketh any saying Scripture and not the Apostles historicall relating of it out of the writings of the Prophets though the sayings of the Prophets as
Churches profession of the truth formally constituteth a visible Church and Church union in ordinances and government and this was alike in the Synagogues and in Ierusalem It was a thing meerely typicall that at Ierusalem onely and in the Temple onely should there bee offerings and sacrifices because in Christ God-man all our worship and service and prayers are accepted of the Father but I pray you did this instampe Ierusalem with any note of Church-supremacy above the meanest Synagogue in all Israel and Iudah I see it not all the Synagogues and all the land were members of the nationall Church and every one a member of his owne Synagogue the persons processing the truth and dwelling at Ierusalem had no supremacie over the Synagogues because they did inhabit that typicall place but the Priests and Levites were indeed servants to all the land in offering sacrifices and in governing in the Synedry either the greater or the lesse but these professors who did constitute the visible Church at Ierusalem had no Church supremacie at all for their relation to the Temple their cohabitation or bodily contiguitie was no Church-relation then or now and that these of the Synagogues behooved to worship in some solemne acts onely at Ierusalem did no more give supremacie to the inhabitants of Ierusalem to bee a Church over them then the Synagogues could claime supremacie over the inhabitants of Ierusalem for the inhabitants of Ierusalem were tied to worship there and in no other place and to stand to the determinntion of the great Synodrie without appeale because there was not a Catholick visible Church in the world but the Church of the Iewes and this argument with as great force of reason might conclude that all the cities and incorporations of England are in government dependent and subordinate to London and the suburbs because they are subordinate to the honorable Houses of Parliament if wee should suppone that Westminster by a standing Law of the Kingdome were the unalâ—erable seat where the Parliament can fit and in no other place which yet could prove nothing seeing London and the suburbs are in their government no lesse subordinate to the Parliament then the meanest village and towne in England and therefore I see no ground because some representative worship was tied to Jerusalem to give Jerusalem a Church-supremacie 2. because one Congregation doth pray for another that is under pestilence and diseases and praises God for the deliverance from these evills which also is a sort of representative worship every Church and person partaking of a Christian priesthood to offer up prayers and praises one for another it will not as I conceive prove that one Congregation hath Church-supremacie and power of jurisdiction over another Because 1. all Israel was alike circumcised 2. all alike the called people of God in covenant with God 3. all had claime to the Altar Sacrifices Temple Arke c. 4. All alike professed their subjection to God to Priests and Prophets in these same ordinances whether typicall or judiciall or morall therefore every Synagogue alike at Ierusalem at Dan or Bersheba were alike Congregationall Churches without dependance one upon another and all depended upon the whole nationall Church and on the Synodries supreme subordinate and the Synagogue-government according to their subordinations respectively and I see no nationall Church in Israel peculiar to them or typicall more then there is a nationall Church in Scotland or England though God put some distinguishing typicall notes upon their government yet it never made either the invisible or visible Church of the Iewes to differ in nature and essence from the Christian Churches Object 17. From the power of jurisdiction in a Synod you may inferre a power of jurisdiction in a nationall Church and a power of jurisdiction in the whole Christian world and wee know not any Politicall Church Catholick and visible in Scripture and if then were any such Church Catholick then might they conveene and sweart a Catholick-covenant for uniformitie of doctrine worship and government of the Church as wee have done in Britaine and this Catholick Church might impose it upon a nationall Church even by that same Law of proportion by which the nationall Church may impose it on particular Churches which are parts of the Nationall Church Answ. I see not how the consequence holdeth every way good that as wee inferre from a juridicall power in a presbytery the same power juridicall in a Synod and the same in a nationall Assembly that therefore wee may inferre the same juridicall power in an Oecumenick councell and the reasons of the disparitie I take to bee these 1. The farther remote in locall distance of place that Churches bee as it falleth out in the Catholick visible Church the danger of scandalizing one another by visible communion and so the opportunitie of edifying one another is the lesse and so the communion visible is the lesse and consequently the power of jurisdiction is the lesse 2. An universall and oecumenick councell of all the visible Churches on earth is an act of the visible Church which supposeth all the visible Churches on earth to bee in that morall perfection of soundnesse of faith of concord and unitie that some one Congregation or classicall presbytery of Elders according to Gods heart may bee in which morall perfection perhaps is not de facto attainable though it bee not physically impossible in this life except wee suppose the heavenly dayes of Christs visible reigne on earth a thousand yeares when yet there shall bee no Temple nor externall ministery of which state I cannot now dispute and therefore I conceive these sixteene hundred yeares there never was an integrall and perfect oecumenick councell of all the Churches on earth and therefore if wee should dispute of the juridicall power of such a Catholick assembly whether it may impose an oecumenick and Catholick oath on a nationall Church against their will and excommunicate a nationall Church is but a needlesse and a Châ—mericall dispute and it includeth two contradictory suppositions 1. That all the Churches on earth are of one sound faith worship doctrine and Church-government and yet one nationall Church is supposed to bee heterodox scandalous and obstinate so that that whole nationall Church must bee constrained to take a lawfull oath and must bee excommunicated such an hypothesis is not possible where the Gospell is preached for even the whole Romish Church in all its members deserveth not excommunication in respect wee are sure God hath thousands in the bosome of that Church who beleeve in Christ and doe not defend popery with obstinacie and such an hypothesis is contradicent to the supposition of the soundnesse of faith and unitie of all Christian Churches on earth and therefore I plainely deny that Christ hath given the like power of jurisdiction to the Catholick visible Church that hee hath given to a nationall Church over a provinciall Church or Synod and to a Synod over a classical
single Congregation which did meet in a private House for the celebration of the Lords Supper For Piscator with all our Divines 1 Cor. 14 teach that their were no capacious Temples in Corinth where they did meet for Gods worship 2. Judge if one single Congregation for the Congregations planted by the Apostles behoved to be competent and convenient for edification that all might heare and all partake of one bread 1 Cor. 10. 16. and one Table of the Lord v. 21. could necessitate Paul to stay at Corinth a yeare and six moneths when as Paul by one Sermon made in a certaine mans House named Justus did bring many to believe and be Baptized Acts 18 7. 8. And these many might conveniently make a Congregation beside the much people that God had there v. 10. not yet called but yet they were as interpreters say the Lords people by Gods decree of predestination 2. The multitude of Teachers proveth that their were more Congregation then one for 1. It is incongruous to the Wisdome of Christ to raise up many reapers where the harvest is narrow many builders for one congregationall House 2. It is contrary to Christs practice who sent not twelve Pastors to one place but sent them out two by two that all might find worke now can we thinke that where God had much people as Acts 18. 10. that he would have hundreths of Prophets to be hearers and one at once to speak to one single Congregation to what end gave the Lord a Talent to such a huge multitude of prophets that they might be oftener hearers then they could be in actuall prophecying It is not like 3. Whereas it is said 1 Cor. 14. 31. you may all prophecy one by one that all may learne and all may be comforted Diâ—datus saith yee may all prophecy namely by course and in diverse or severall Assemblies And Estius saith the same to wit that these Prophets were to prophecy in diverse assemblies and for this it is that he saith v 34. let your women 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 keepe silence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Churches Ergo he supposeth there were more Congregations then one at Corinth Nor is there reason to say with some he speaketh of Churches in the plurall number because he made mention of all the Churches of the Saints in the verse going before for 1. He saith your Womâ—n let them be silent now if he had not meant that there were many Congregations at Corinth he would not have forbidden it in their Women but of all Women and it is knowen there was a great abuse of spirituall gifts in Corinth so as women did prophecy in the assemblies and this the Apostle forbiddeth in their Churches in the plâ—â— all number And I pray you what roome or place was there for such a multitude of Prophets to edifie the Churches in one private House for there were no Temples where they might meet at Corinth 4. If Kenchrea be comprehended under the Church of Corinth in this Epistle and the Apostle writing to the Corinthians wrote also to this Church called Romans 16. 1. The Church at Kenchrea then have we more Congregations then one at Corinth Now the learned teach that Kenchrea was a Sea-port or Harbour of the Corinthians Origen saith it was a place neer to Corinth Off the Aegean Sea one the East and as Strabo saith ad sinum Saronicum as Lechea was the other port See Plinius And the multitude of Teachers I humbly conceive which did preach at Korinth may be gathered from 1 Cor. 1. 5. 1 Cor. 4. 6. 15. 1 Cor. 1. 12 13. 1 Cor. 3. 4 5. 1 Cor. 14. where there are multitudes of these who were all gifted to edifie others as those who spake with Tongues wrought miracles had the gift of healing And so many Prophets that Paul saith v. 31. for yee may all prophecy that all may learâ—e and all may be comforted if these all who were to learne and to be comforted be the much people which God had in this City Acts 18. 9. and this all to be instructed and comforted I have no farther to say And 3. I can hardly believe that the end why God sent the gift of diverse tongues amongst them was to eâ—ifie one single Congregation for it is true that our Brethren say that 1 Corinthiaâ—s vers 22. 14. Tongues are for a signe not to them that believe but to them that believe not But that which they hence collect is most groundlesse to wit that therefore the gift of Tongues according to its genuine end and intention is onely a miracle for the gaining of Heathen to the Faith and not intended to edifie the Church and people of a strange Language after they are brought in to the Church and therefore there is no ground for people of divers congregations to be instructed by strange Tongues Ans. The whole current of Divines answer as also Estius observeth on the place Tongues are given especially for infidels ut novitate miracâ—li convertantur that by the newnesse of the miracle they may be converted though also Tongues serve to instruct these who believe and consequently say I that the Churches of divers Tongues may be edified And let me adde that strange Tongues were a mixt miracle I say mixt because both they were given to be a miraculous signe to assure Heathen that the sending downe of the Holy Ghost was a miraculous fruit of Christs Ascension to Heaven who promised that when he was ascended to the Father he would send the other comforter as is cleare Acts 2 89 10 11 12. and also it was so a miracle that Paul proveth that it is fruitlesse and wanteth the naturall and genuine end of speech and an humane voyce in the Church if it edifie not as 1. Tongues edifie not the Church except you speak to these who know the Language or except there be an Interpreter for other ways the speaker with Tongues shall be as a Barbarian to these to whom â—e speaketh and they as Barbarians to him 1 Cor. 14. 6. 7. 8 9 10 11. 2 He that speaketh with Tongues is to pray that he may interpret v. 13. That he may edifie the Church 3. He that speaketh with Tongues if he be not understood is fruitlesse and uselesse to others because the hearers can neither say amen to his preaching nor to his praying v. 14. 15 16 17. 4 except a man teach others his gift of Tongues teacheth not the Church v. 18 19 10. 5 strange Tongues in the Church when the hearers understand not are a judgement of God rather then an edifying of the Church v. 21. c. hence it is more then evident that the edifying end why the Lord had raised up these in the Church of Corinth which was now a planted and watered Church 1 Cor. 1. 1. ch 3 5 6 7. and a building the foundation whereof was layd v. 10. 11 12 c. was that the Church might be edified
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
may receive the Seales in another Congregation if he be recommended by Letters as a sound Professor to that other Congregation I Answer Recommendatory Letters can never give a Church-right to the Church-Priviledges of the Seales of the Covenant they doe but onely notifie manifest and declare the Church-right which the man had before Ergo either he cannot in any sort be capable of the Seales of the Covenant in another Congregation then his owne whereof he is an inchurched Member which destroyeth all communion of sister Churches or if he be capable of the Seales in another Congregation he was capable and hâ—d a Church-right in himselfe before he received reconimeâ—â—aâ—ory Letters yea these whom we recommend by Letters as â—it to partake of the Sacraments in another Congregation â—â— presuppose they have Church-right to the Seales in another Congregation visible then in their owne whereof they are members except our testimony be false Ergo before our recommendatory Letters the person of approved piety was a member of all the visible Churches about hoc ipso and by that same reason that he is a member of one visible Congregation yea Peter clearely insinuateth that all who have received the Holy Ghost are to be baptized Act. 8. 47. as Philip Act. 8. 37. and That if the Eunuch beleeved be might be baptized So that Faith to speake properly doth give us right to the Seales and to speake accurately a visible profession of faith doth not give a man right to the seales of grace but onely it doth notifie and d clare to the Church that the man hath right to the seales because he beleeveth and that the Church may lawfully give to him the seales and that profession is a condition required in the right receivers of the seales in an Ecclesiasticall way but faith giveth the right to these seales and because the faith of the beleever goeth with the beleever when he goeth to another visible congregation then his owne that faith giveth him right to the seales in all places and in all Congregations for faith giveth right to receive Christ Sacramentally not in one Congregation onely but in all and a visible profession doth as a condition notifie this faith and Church-right in all Congregations Ergo the man hath right in all Congregations as he hath right in a parishionall Church But our Brethren reply Peter might baptize Cornelius though he was no member of a visible Congregation because the Apostles being â—fficers in al Churches might dispense the Seales in all Churches but Ministers now are pastors onely of the determinaâ—e flocke over which the holy Ghost hath set them therefore they have not Citie Seales at their power to dispense to any other then to Citizens Answ. Peter his argument to Baptize is not from a temporall reason that endureth for a while but from a morall argument of perpetuall equitie and necessitie till Christs second comming He that beleeveth and hath received the holy Ghost is to be baptized But many out of Church-state and who are not members of a particular Congregation have received the Holy Ghost and doe beleeve being Christians of approved pietie we are to adde no restrictions or exceptions where God addeth none Non est distinguendum ubi lex non distinguit They that beleeve should receive the seales but not except they be in-Churched and members of a particular Congregation The proposition is Gods Word but the restriction or exception is not Gods Word 2. The Apostles though they were universall Pastors of the world yet teach us by word and practise who are to be admitted to the seales even to the supper those who do try and examine themselves and that to the end of the world 2. Our brethren say It is probable that Cornelius was in Church-state and the Eunuch comming to Jerusalem to worship argueth he was a proselyte and a member of the Jewish Church not yet dissolved Lydia and the jaylor were members of the Church of Philippi which Church communicated with Paul at the beginning of the Gospel Psal. 4. 15. at least it is probable that Lidia was a member of the Church of the Jewes Answ. It is hard to build a new Church government contrary to the doctrine of the reformed Churches upon probabilities 2. If Cornelius Lydia and others were members of the Jewish Church it was not a good consequence by our brethrens doctrine to make them members of a Christian Congregation without in-churching of them by your Church-oath for you make the constitution of the Jewish Church and ours different yea and as you teach all circumcised were members of the Jewish Church and had right to their Passeover but all circumcised are not meet to bee members of a Christian Church for many circumcised were Idolaters murtherers prophane moâ—keâ—s of God Esay 1. 13 14 15 16. Jer. 10. 7 8 9 10 11. Ezek 10. 6. 17. 18 9. And though the Church of Philippi was one of the 〈◊〉 Church 〈◊〉 communicated with Paul yet was there no Christian Church of Elders and people there when Lydia was converted for Acts 16. 13. in the place where prayer was wont to be made on the Sabbath day none heard Paul preach but some women Ergo there could not be a Christian Church there and it is certaine the jaylor before was a persecutor and no member of a Christian Church They say Abraham and his seede were not circumcised till God called him into Church-Covenant and so into Church-state and there is the same reason and use of baptisme as of circumcision If the argument taken for baptizing of infants be good why may we not inserre a necessitie of Church-membership before baptisme as of Church membership before circumcision So the Apologie saith It cannot be proved that baptisme was imposed upon all beleevers as such no more then it can be proved that circumcision was imposed upon all beleevers as such and Baptisme is no more now necessary to a beleever whose calling or another strong hand of Gods providence will not suffer to live in Church fellowship with Gods people then circumcision was necessary to Melchisedeâ—k Job or others whom the hand of God detained from Church-fellowship with the posteritie of Abraham yea circumcision and the Passeover seeing they were administrated in private houses might more conveniently be administrated to persons not in Church-state nor Baptisme and the Lords Supper can be administrated so in respect they are seales given to a Church body in an assembly 1 Cor. 10. 17. and 12. 13. Answ. Abraham Sarah and the Soules they had gotten in Charran were in Church-state obeyed God built an Altar Gen. 12. 2 3 4. before the Church Covenant which you speake of Chap. 17. and it is denyed that that supposed oath of the Covenant made them a Church So we see no necessitie of Church-membership to one single Congregation before either circumcision or baptisme for baptisme is a seale of our entry into the visible Church as I shall prove 2.
professor at Rome Joan. de Lugo teach that the Sacraments are morall causes of grace but not physicall It is grosse that Henricus saith that God createth grace per tactum Sacramentorum by the touch of the Sacraments as Christ cured the Leper by the touch of his hand for Sacraments are not miracles as Papists say Phisicke worketh upon a mans body when he sleepeth so doe Sacraments justifie and worke grace ex opere operat◠though the faith of the Sacrament-Receiver doe worke nothing at all 4. Sacraments are considered 1. As holy signes 2. As Religious seales 3. As instruments by which faith worketh 4. As meanes used by us out of conscience of obedience to Christs commandement who hath willed us to use them Sacraments as signes are objective and morall causes exciting the mind as the word doth in a morall way they represent Christ and him crucified and this Sacraments have commune with the word The Sacrament is a visible word teaching us 2. Sacraments have the consideration of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tantum they be seales and not teaching and representing signes onely this way also they have no reall or physicall action in them or from them for a seale of a Prince and State as it is such conferreth not an acre or rigge of land but it is a legall Declaration that those lands written in the body of the Charter doe duely belong to the Person to whom the Charter is given But Arminians do here erre as Episcopius and also Socinus and Smalcius who teach that the Sacraments be nothing but externall rites and declarative signes scadowing out Christ and the benefits of his death to us because they find a morall objective working in the Word of God but a substantiall and Physicall working betwixt us and Christs bodie they say is ridiculous but they would remember that this is an insufficient enumeration the seale of a Kings Charter hath besides a morall action on the mind by bringing to the mind such lands given to such a man and so the seales worketh upon the witnesses or any who readeth the Charter as well as upon the owner of the Charter I say beside this the seale hath some reall action I grant not in it but about it and beside it for it sealeth that such lands are really and in effect given by the Prince and State the action is about the seale not in or from the seale When a Generall of an Army delivereth the keyes of a Castle to a Keeper thereof he saith I deliver the house to you when he delivereth the Keyes onely Physically and not the stones walls or timber of the house by a Physicall action or Physicall touch contactu Physico yet in delivering the keyes he doth really deliver to him the Castle but in a legall and morall way Arminians and Socinians may see here that there is neither an action by way of naked representation and teaching for the Sacrament is a teaching signe to the beholders who receive it not nor is it a Physicall action as if Christs Physicall body in a Physicall way were given yet it is an action reall and morall so the Sacraments are signes exhibitive and not naked signes Our brethren doe side with Arminians and Socinians who so often teach that Sacraments make nothing to be what they were not but onely declare things to be what they are It is true the formall effect of a Sacrament is to seale and confirme to seale and confirme is but a legall strengthning of a right and not the adding of any new thing Yet in this the Sacrament differeth from a seale 1. That to a civill seale there is not required the beleeving and faith of the owner of the Charter to make the seale effectuall for whether the Lord of the lands beleeve that his seale doth confirme him in the lands or not the seale of it selfe by the Law of the Prince State maketh good his right to the lands but Sacraments doe not worke ex opere operato as civill seales doe worke even as Physicke worketh upon the body without the faith of the mind though the man bee sleeping Hence the third consideration of a Sacrament as an instrument Faith in and through the Sacrament being wakened and stirred up layeth hold upon Christ his death and benefits and for this cause there is a reall exhibition of the thing signified and the Sacrament is an exhibitive seale 4. The Sacrament in the use is considered as wee use it in obedience to God who saith in the Lords Supper Do this in remembrance of me and in this it differeth from a civill seale also The Prince doth not conferre a seale to confirme a man in his land upon condition that he will make use of it otherwayes it shall be to him as no seale But God hath given the scale of grace upon condition that wee make use thereof in Faith else the Sacrament is blanke and null Therefore if you beleeve and not otherwayes the Sacrament of the Supper sealeth and confirmeth you in this that Christ is given already and is in the present given to be nourishment to your soule to life eternall and so oft as you eate the certioration and assurance groweth and the faith is increased and a further degree of a communion with Christ confirmed but it is not so in civill seales though yee repeate and reiterate the same seale of lands ten thousand times it never addeth one aker more to the in heritance because the repetition of a civill seale is not commanded under the promise of addition of new lands nor is it commanded as obedience to the owner of the Charter that hee should make use of the seale but from the using in faith the Sacrament we receive increase of Grace and a Sacramentall Grace Hence Baptisme is a seale of our incorporation in Christs visible Church 1 Cor. 12. 13. For by one spirit we be all baptized into one body whether we be Jew or Gentile or whether we be bound or free Act. 2. 41. Then they that received the word were baptized and the same day there were added unto them three thousand souls so Matth. 28. 19. the taught Disciples are to bee baptized in his name Act. 8. 38. Philip was this way received in the Christian Church and Cornelius Act. 10. 47. and Lidia Act. 16. 15. and the Jaylor vers 23. 2. That which distinguisheth by a visible note the Church as visible from the invisible Church and from other visible societies and sealeth our visible union with Christs body that is the seale of our entry in the visible Church but baptisme is such Ergo. 3. What circumcision was to the Church of the Jewes that baptisme is to the Christian Church because in re significatâ in the thing signified and inward substance of the Sacrament they were both one Col. 2. 11. 12. Phil. 3. 3. But circumcision was a seale of the
Kingly Priestly and Propheticall office be overturned as we were forced in Popery to do we are to separate from the Church in that case It is not true that Master Robinson saith This distinction of fundamentalls and non-fundamentals in injurious to growing in grace whereas we should be led on to perfection as if it were sufficient for a house that the foundation were laid Answ. It followeth not for the knowledge of fundamentalls is onely that wee may know what is a necessary meane of salvation without which none can be saved notwithstanding he who groweth not and is not led on to perfection never laid hold on the foundation Christ nor are we hence taught to seeke no more but so much knowledge of fundamentals as may bring as to heaven that is an abuse of this Doctrine 2. Robinson faith fundamentall truthes are holden and professed by as vile heretickes as ever were since Christs dayes a company of excommunicates may hold teach and defend fundamentall truths yet are they not a true Church of God Answ. Papists hold fundamentalls and so doe Jewes hold all the old Testament and Papists hold both new and old but we know they so hold fundamentalls that by their doctrine they overturne them and though there bee fundamentalls taught in the Popish Church which may save if they were beleeved yet they are not a true and ministeriall Church simply because though they teach that there is one God they teach also there is a thousand Gods whom they adore and though they teach there is one Mediator yet doe they substitute infinite Mediators with and besides Christ so that the truth is not a formall ministeriall and visible active externall calling is in the Church of Rome as it is a visible Church in the which wee can safely remaine though fundamentalls be safe in Rome and the bookes of the old and new Testament be there yet are they not there ministerially as in a mother whose breasts we can sucke for fundamentall points falsely exponed cease to be fundamentall points yea as they be ministerially in Rome they be destructive of the foundation though there bee some ministeriall acts valid in that Church for the which the Church of Rome is called a true Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in some respect according to something essentiall to the true Church yet never sine adjecto as if it were a true Church where we can worship God Fundamentalls are safe in Rome materially in themselves so as some may be saved who beleeve these fundamentalls but fundamentalls are not safe in Rome Ecclesiastice Ministeraliter Pastoraliter in a Church way so as by beleeving these from their chaires so exponed they can be saved who doe beleeve them 2. Out of which we may have the doctrine of faith and salvation as from a visible mother whose daughters we are Some say the fundamentalls amongst Lutherans are exponed in such a way as the foundation is everted I answer There is a twofold eversion of the foundation 1. One Theologicall Morall and Ecclesiastick as the doctrine of the Councell of Trent which is in a ministeriall way with professed obstinacy against the fundamentall truths rightly exponed and such an eversion of the foundation maketh the Popish Church no Church truely visible whose breasts we can sucke But for Lutheranes their subversion of the foundation by philosophick consequences without professed hatred to the fundamentalls and that not in an Ecclesiasticke and Ministeriall way doth not so evert the fundamentalls as that they bee no visible Church The learned Pareus sheweth that there be no difference betwixt us and Lutherans in heads absolutely necessary to salvation the dissention is in one point onely anent the Lords Supper not in the whole doctrine thereof but in a part thereof not necessary for salvation There were divisions betweene Paul and Baâ—nabas betwixt Cyprim an African Bishop and Stephanus Bishop of Rome anent baptisme of hereticks which Cyprian rejected as no baptisme betwixt Basilius Magnus and Eusebius Ceâ—ariensis because Basilius stood for the Emperour Vaâ—ns his power in Church matters so was there dissention betwixt Augustine and Hierâ—nimus anent the ceremonies of the Jewes which Hyeronymus thought might be retained to gaine the Jewes so there was also betwixt Epiphanius and Chrysostome anent the bookes of Origâ—n The Orthodox beleevers agreed with the Novations against the Arrians anent the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the consubstantialitie of Christ and though excommunicate persons defend and hold all fundamentalls sound and so may bee materially a true Church yet because their profession is no profession but adenying of the power of godlinesse they cannot be formally a visible Church but are for scandalls casten out of the visible Church But saith Robinson most of England are ignorant of the first rudiments and foundation of Religion and therefore cannot bee a Church Answ. Such are materially not the visible Church and have not a profession and are to be taught and if they wilfully remaine in that darknesse are to be cast out But saith he the bare profession of fundamentalls maketh not a Church they must be a company of faithfull people and if they must not be truely faithfull then they must be falsely faithfull for God requireth true and ready obedience in his word according to which wee must define Churches and not according to casuall things Answ. This is a speciall ground that deceiveth the Separatists their ignorance I meane of the visible Church for the visible Church consisteth essentially neither of such as be truely faithfull nor of such as must be falsely faithfull for the ignorant man seeth not that the visible Church includeth neither faith nor unbeliefe in its essence or definition It is true to the end that professors may be members of the invisible Church they must be beleevers must beleeve except they would be condemned eternally but to make them members of the visible Church neither beleeving nor unbeleeving is essentiall but onely a profession ecclesiastically in tear that is not scandalous visibly apparently lewd and flagitious such as was the profession of Simon Magus when he was baptized with the rest of the visible Church Act. 8. And God indeed requireth of us true worship and ready obedience as he saith but not that a visible Church should be defined by true and sincere obedience for essentials onely are taken in a definition and casuall corruptions are only accidentall to Churches and fall out through mens faults and therefore should not be in the definition either of a visible or an invisible Church nor should ready and sincere obedience which is a thing invisible to mens eyes be put in the definition of a visible Church for it is accidentall to a visible Church and nothing invisible can be essentiall to that which essentially is visible the visible Church is essentially visible Anent separation from Rome we hold these Propositions 1. Profession consistetly not onely in a publike ministeriall avowing
eleven did eate one and the same passeover The Scripture saith Robinson denounceth the same judgement of God Ezech. 18. upon him that defileth his neighbours wife as to him who lifteth his eyes to the mountaines and the Idols thereof and murtherers are excluded out of the heavenly Jerusalem as well as Idolaters and Matth. 28. We are to esteeme every obstinate offender as a heathen and a Publican and Paul chargeth the Corinthians to avoyd Fâ—rnicators c. 1 Cor. 5. as well as Idolaters so all carnall men are Idolaters making their belly their God and the Apostle to Titus calleth prophane persons unbeleevers or infidels Ergo wee should walke toward the one as toward the other that is separate from them both Answ. 1. It is true God denounceth judgement against leud and unknowne hypocrites as against worshippers of the Gods of the Zidonians as your places prove Ezek. 18. Rev. 22. but your Logick is poore and blind that you will separate from the true Church in which there bee secret hypocrites and so from your owne Churches as you would separate from the Church of the Zidonians who worship professedly Baaâ— and deny Jehovah to be God you make arguments without head or foote 2. Murtherers are excluded out of heaven and haters of their brethren who are murtherers from life eternall 1 Joh. 3. 15. as Idolaters what then Ergo yee will exclude them out of the visible Church and separate from them It is good that you come out with Anabaptists to make these onely of your visible Church who shall reigne in glory with Christ and these onely and all without your visible Church to be firebrands of Hell as Revel 22. 15. 3. We are 1 Cor. 5. to avoyd Fornicators no lesse then Idolaters true Ergo we are to separate from the Church where there be Fornicators seeing they make the Church to bee false in its constitution as we are to separate from a societie of heathen Idolaters who worship a false God doe you love such consequences men not forsaken of mother wit would say I must separate from Aaron and the whole Church of Israel in the act of adoring the golden Calfe which is indeed a separation from the false worship of the Church but not separate from the Church but would you hence inferre because God punisheth fornication no lesse then Idolatry that I am to separate from the Church and all their persons and societie in the very true worship of God because some few persons there bee fornicators and carnall Surely then Paul did not his dutie who commanded communion with the Church of Corinth 1 Cor. 5. wherein there were carnall men and deniers of the resurrection and such as for gaine went to the Law with their brethren and that before Infidels yea because all sinne in the demerit thereof except you devise venials exclude men out of the new Hierusalem we must separate from all Churches on earth for there be none so cleane but there bee some sinne in it which excludeth out of the new Hierusalem as Idolatry doth though there bee degrees of sinne But some ignorant ones say the place 1 Cor. 5. 11. is to be expounded of eating at the Communion Table or if it bee of familiar eating and drinking of civill conversing then much more are wee not to communicate with them at the Lords Table But not to eate with such a one is not to keepe intire fellowship with him as the phrase noteth Psal. 4. 9. He that eat of my bread hath lift up his bâ—ele against me Joh. 13. 18. Psal. 55 13. So doth Chrysostome Theâ—phylact us Oecumenius expound this place Bullinger contubâ—â—nium interiorem convictum prohibet So Calvin Peter Martyr Bâ—za Piscator Pareus So Erasmus and Aquinas Haymo Gagneius Nor is all eating whatsoever with Heathen persons forbidden Paul practised the contrary Act. 13. 14. 5. 6. Act. 14. 8. 9. Act. 17. 16 17. Act. 27. 34 35 36. Act. 28. 11 12. 1 Cor. 10. 27. 2. The wife is not to separate a toro mensa from the excommunicated husband nor the sonne from the excommunicated father no positive Law can cancell the Law of nature nor can hence bee concluded that it is unlawfull to keepe any Church communion with these or to separate from the communion though they be at the Table 1. Because such eate damnation to themselves not to others 2. Because no private person can separate for the Churches sinne if the man be not convicted And lastly here is to bee observed that if the Church be not in its right constitution that is as Mr. Robinson teacheth us if it be not a people in whose hearts the Lord â—â—th written his covenant wee are to separate from it so as if one be found to be a non-converted though not scandalous he must be excommunicated for non-conversion never breaking out in scandalls a thing contrary to the Word of God as I have proved already Mr. Robinson objecteth Act. 2. 40. Save your selfe from this untoward generation Ans. That is from the malicious Jewes who deny Christ to be the Messiah But what is this to separate from the true Church professing Christ But Robinson saith You deny visibly God and his Sonne Christ. Answ. 1. Such as are thus scandalous are to be cast out 2. If the Church neglect to cast them out we are not to cast out and excommunicate the Church by separating from them no more then the godly forsooke the Church of the Jewes where there were many scandalous persons 3. There be great oddes betwixt a froward generation professedly denying Christ to bee come in the flesh as the Jewes Act. 2. and from such a Church wee are to separate totally and betwixt a Church where there bee many wicked persons who in their life and conversation deny Christ and yet doe beleeve soundly or orthodoxly the fundamentall points of salvation and hold in profession the orthodox faith for though wee are to separate from the bad conversation of such a generation yet are we not to separate from the Church-worship and Church-societie of such a generation therefore Paul might well break off communion with the Church of the Jewes whereof he was once a member because after Christs death ascension and the Gospell was preached it now became a fundamentall point of salvation simply necessary to bee beleeved by all That the Sonne of Mary was the Messiah which because the Jewes maliciously denyed they left off to be a Church but a scandalous life in many of the professors is not for that any ground to separate from the visible Church professing such fundamentall points Robinson saith from Job 17. 6. 7. 9. Where the Church is said to be given to Christ and chosen out of the world it is cleare that the true visible Church is gathered by separation from the world But I answer to be given to Christ and chosen out of the world is meant onely of the elect and invisible Church But
as are truely faithfull remaine in Covenant with God because the seed of faith remaineth in them yet to the society of the faithfull joyned in a particular visible Church they are not knit but wholly cut off from their communion for it is not the seed of faith nor faith it selfe that knitteth a man to this or that particular Church but a holy profession of the Faith which when a man hath violated by a grievous sinne and is delivered to Satan he is now not as a dead palsie-member cut off from the body though bee may remaine a member of the invisible Church of the first borne yet he hath neither part nor portion nor fellowship in the particular visible Church of Christ Jesus but is as an heathen and a publican now Sacraments are not given to the invisible Church nor the members thereof as such but to the visible particular Churches of Jesus Christ and therefore we dare no more baptize his childe than the childe of an heathen I Answer First if Faith remaine in some excommunicated person as you grant it must be seene in a profession for though for some particular scandall the man be excommunicated yet is he not cut off as we now suppone for universall apostasie from the truth to Gentilisine or Judaisme for then he should be cursed with the great excommunication 1 Cor. 16. v. 22. and so though he be to the Church as a heathen in that act yet is he not to the visible Church an heathen but a brother and to be admonished as a brother 2 Thess. 3. 15. and the Church is to use excommunication as a medicine with intention to save his Spirit in the day of the Lord 1 Cor. 5. 4 5. 1 Tim. 1. 20. an excommunicated apostate is not so now if hee retaine faith to the Churches decerning he retaineth the profession of Faith and in so farre a visible membership with the Church in the Covenant Ergo for that professed Faith by our brethrens grant his childe should be baptized and so is not wholly cut off but is as a dead palsie member of the Church and so as a member though in a deliquie and Lethargie 2. You say to the faithfull of a particular Church the excommunicate is wholly cut off What doe you meane if his sinnes be bound in heaven as they are if he justly be excommunicated is he not also cut off to all the visible Churches on earthâ— are not all the Churches to repute him as a publican and a heathen I beleeve they are but you deny in this all visible communion of Churâ—hes 3. You say it is not the seede of Faith that knitteth a man to a particular visible Church but an holy profession But in the excommunicate person if the seede of faith remaine as you grant this faith must be seene by you in a holy profession else to you he hath no seed of faith and if his profession of faith remaine intire though it bee violated in the particular obstinate remaining in one scandall for the which he is excommunicated you have no reason to say that to the particular Church hee is wholly cut off since his profession remaineth 4. You say It is not the seed of faith nor faith it selfe that knitteth a man to this or that particular visible Church but a holy profession of faith Then I say one may be knit to a particular visible Church and a true member thereof though he want both the seed of Faith and Faith it selfe I prove the connexion A man is a perfect and true member of a Church though he want that which doth not knit him to the Church this is undenyable But without the seed of Faith or Faith it selfe as you say hee is knit to the true Church Ergo. But this is contrary to your Doctrine who require chap. 3. sect 3. that none must bee admitted members of a visible Church but those who are Christ his body the habitation of God by the Spirit the Temples of the Holy Ghost c. And that noâ— onely by externalâ— profession but in some measure of sincerity and Truth Now consider my Reverend Brethren if there bee a measure of sincerity and Truth where there is neither the seed of Faith nor Faith it selfe and surely by this you cast downe and marre the constitution of your visible Church when you exclude from the members thereof the seed of Faith and Faith it selfe and you come to our hand and teach that the seed of Faith and Faith it selfe is accidentall to a visible Church as visible which wee also teach and so there is no measure of truth and sincerity required to the essentiall constitution of a visible Church 5. But I would gladly learne how you contra-distinguish these two Faith and a holy profession of Faith Doe you imagin that there can be a holy profession knitting a man to the visible Church where there be neither the seed of Faith nor Faith it selfe It is Arminian holinesse which is destitute of Faith but if you meane by a holy profession a profession conceived to be holy though it be not so indeed then you doe yet badly contradivide a holy profession from faith for before any can be knit as a member to the visible Church you are to conceive him to be a Saint a Beleever and so to have both the seed of Faith and Faith it selfe though indeed he have neither of the two and so Faith is as wel that which knitteth a man as a member to the visible Church as holinesse 6. If he remaine a member of the universall Church of the first borne is hee therefore so as a heathen and so that you dare no more receive him to the Supper nor his seed to baptisme nor you dare receive a heathen and his seed to the Seales of the Covenant is a heathen a member of the invisible Church of the first borne but the excommunicated you presume is such a one 7. What warrant have you for this Doctrine That the Sacraments are not given to the invisible Church as it is such but to the visible Certainely God ordaineth the Sacraments to the beleevers as beleevers and because they are within the Covenant and their interest in the Covenant is the onely true right of interest to the Seales of the Covenant profession doth but declare who beleeve and who beleeve not and consequently who have right to the Seales of the Covenant and who not but profession doth not make right but declareth who have right The Author subjoyneth Christ giveth no due right unto baptisme to the child but by the Fathers right unto the Covenant and communion of the Church so by taking away right unto the Covenant and Communion of the Church from the Father he taketh away the childrens right also the personall sinne of the parent in this case is not a meere private personall sinne but the sinne of a publike person of his family for as his profession of his faith at his receiving
and their doctrine judged by the Prophets now if such could erre our faith were not immediately builded upon the doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles Answ. This is before examined by me the consequence is null for the holy Spirit saith Pareus did not dite all things which the Prophets spake they might have mixed in some thing of their owne Robinson saith that Paul could not have said if any thinke himselfe to be a Prophet c. let such an one acknowledge that the thing I wrote are the commandements of the Lord if these had beene extraordinary Prophets they should have knowne Pauls writings undoubtedly to have beene the Canonick word of God and could not have beene ignorant thereof Answ. This presupponeth that these extraordinary Prophets might have beene ignorant that the Apostles commandements was the commandements of the Lord which is not absurd for Nathan and Samuel were ignorant of Gods will in some points for Prophets see and know sometimes as men and sometimes as Prophets in the former they may erre in the latter they are infallible He subjoyneth The word of God came it to you or came it from you if the word of God came after a sort to the Corinthians and not from them then were they not immediatly and extraordinarily inspired whereas indeed the Word of God came from the Apostles Answ. This proveth not the point for hee condemneth the arrogancie of some immediately inspired Prophets Came the word of God from you that is are yee above the Apostle to whom the word of God was committed that it may bee preached to all the world that it might come from the Apostles to others Or came it to you onely as to the only Apostolick teachers that you neede no admonition but hence it followeth not but they were extraordinarily inspired Prophets for Peter might be rebuked though an Apostle a chief one Neither is it any imputation to Paul or to any who hath received the Spirit in measure to be censured It is true Canonick doctrine as it is such cannot be censured but the teachers thereof though infallible even Paul Act. 17. 10 11. and every spirit is to bee tried whether they be of God or no 1 Joh. 3. 1. yea to say that the Church cannot be builded upon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles as Mr. Robinson saith pag. 68. if these Prophets extraordinary can erre or can bee subject to the censure and judgement of the Church is the very argument of Papists for they say that the Word of God borroweth authoritie quoad nos in respect of us from the Church and is to be beleeved because Peter Paul the Prophets and Apostles the then present Church say it is the Word of God So Stapleton as Whittakerne teacheth that Christ was the Sonne of God dependeth to our faith upon the testimony of John Baptist. See Bellarmine Gregorius de Valent. Gretser So three famous commentators say Jansenius Cardinalis Cajetan and Cardinalis Toletus But our Divines answer that the Word of God is true in it selfe and the authentick ground of our faith not because the Prophets and Apostles say it is the word of God not because Paul or an Angel from heaven saith it is so Gal. 1. 8. for even the Prophets and Apostles were but men and so their testimony not infallible but because God himselfe saith so See for this Rivetus Whittakerus Bucerus Calvinus yea and the Fathers most expressely say that the Prophets and Apostles are not the foundation of our faith nor their word because they were infallible but Gods word by their mouths and penne So Theaâ—â—â—lact Chrysostome Beda Ambrosius Occam and Gerson doe roundly acknowledge that their Popes word is not the foundation of faith quia Papa potest heretiâ—ari because the Pope may erre What because Samuel was deceived in calling Eliah the Lords annointed are not his bookes a part of canonick doctrine whereupon our faith is builded Lastly saith Robinson Pastors must preach and pray before they hee put in office otherwise they cannot bee trâ—ed if they bee apt to teach as they must be 1 Tim. 3. 2. Tit. 1. 9. It is decreed that all may preach Ministers Teachers Elders Deacons and if there beam ex ipsa plebe any of the common people who would imploy their gift for the good of the Church and it is practised in the Colledges where all must preach though they were never Priests Answ. 1. It is lawfull that these ayming at the office 2. Brought up in humane sciences 3. Called by the Church preach by way of tryall before they be admitted to the office but hence it cannot be concluded that tradesmen and artificersvoyd of learning and ignorant of the Scriptures should preach not for try all or as ayming at the office of the Ministery but as ordinary ministers of the conversion of soules to the faith and that without any calling of the Church either to the office or to the degree preparatorie to the office 2. All gifted should preach yea and in England ought to bee put in office where there is a reading ministery which Christ never ordained to bee in his house and this the harmony of confession and Synods teach and no more It is a fault that in Colledges all doe preach whether Christ hath called them or not such unsent runners Mr. Robinson cannot approve Ambrose saith at the beginning it was granted that all should preach and baptize that the Church might grow and Origen said the same But otherwise Hieronymus saith it is praesumptio temeritatis a rash presumption for any to preach who are not sent and Theophylact calleth them false Prophets Augustine will have them all to come before Christ and so to bee theeves and robbers who commeth not sent Sicut Moses Prophetâ— as Moses and the Prophets were sent Coachman saith if preaching be tyed to the ministery and that order there shall neither bee faith nor grace in a Church where there is no ministery Answ. It followeth not for faith may come by reading by conference and you expone Rom. 10. 14. As Arminians and Socinians doe 2. We as Embassadors pray you in Christs stead to be reconciled 2 Cor. 5. 20. Ephes. 4. 11. 1 Cor. 12. 29. Are all Prophets Ergo would you say no reconciliation in a land without apostolick Ambassadors It followeth not ex negatione unius medii for then there should be no grace nor salvation where there be none of your lay-Preachers Coachman Knowledge judgement utterance with gravitie authoritie power maketh a man a Minister whether he be in office or not Preaching is accidentall to the office and no part of the office but onely an ornament or appendix of it a Minister is in full office of the order of Priesthood though he never preach an office maketh not a Preacher it maketh him onely such
by the dominion of free-will but this is Pelagianisme and Arminianisme and Papists and Pelagians will needs examine the inclinations powers and motions of the soule which goe before the wills consent or arise in us without the wills consent from all subjection to a Law that so originall sinne may bee no sinne because as Pâ—â—agius said it is not voluntary and concupiscence when the will joyneth no consent to it is no sinne yea so the unbeleefe and ignorance of fundamentall points as they remaine in the mind shall bee no sinne 3. If this bee no sinne we are not to pray for illumination to see either the truth on the one side nor on the other and what actions wee doe according to these opinions in things not fundamentall wee doe them not with any certaintie of faith or any plerophorie but blindly or doubtingly and so sinfully which is expresly condemned Rom. 14. 13. and is expressely against that full assurance of faith that wee are to have in those very actions which in their owne nature are indifferent as is evident Rom. 14. 14. I know and am perswaded by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing uncleane of it selfe â— 5. Let every one bee fully perswaded in his owne mind 4. If they be not sinnes then are none to bee rebuked for these opinions no more then they are to bee excommunicated for them and though any erre in points not fundamentall they are not to bee rebuked yea nor to bee convinced of them by the light of the word 2. If they bee sinnes then when they are publickly prosested they must scandalize our brother but there bee no sinnes which scandalize our brother but they are susceptible and in capacitie to bee committed with obstinacie Every sinne sub ratione scandali is the subject of Church-censure Yea Iâ—m 16. 17. Every one is to bee avoyded who causeth divisions and 〈◊〉 es contrary to the doctrine which the Church hath learned of the Apostles and every one who walketh disorderly 2 Thess. 3. 11. and 〈◊〉 not the commandement of the Apostles is to bee excommunicated 〈◊〉 hee bee ashamed v. 14. but opinions contrary to the Apostles doctrine in non-fundamentalls are not fundamentalls and if they bee professed cause divisions and offences contrary to the Apostolik doctrine for many non-fundamentalls are the Apostles doctrine 3. What ever tendeth to the subversion of fundamentalls tendeâ—â—â—◠〈…〉 to the subversion of faith and so doth much truly scandalizâ—anâ— bring on damnation that Christ hath ordained to be removed out of the Church by Church-censures but erroneous opinions in points not fundamentall and in superstructures being professed and instilled in the eares and simple mindes of others tend to the subversion of fundamentalls as having connexion by just consequent with fundamentalls and doe scandalize and bring on doubtings about the foundation and so bring damnation Ergo erroneous opinions in points not fundamentall must be removed out of the Church by Church-censures The proposition is cleare he that falleth in a publicke scandalous sinne is to be delivered to Satan both for his owne sake that he be not damned himselfe but that 1 Cor. 5. 5. to the destruction of the flesh the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord and so also for others because a little Leaven leaveneth the whole lump v. 6. The assumption is proved by dayly experience for corruption in Discipline and Government in the Church of Rome brought on corruption in Doctrine and the same did we find in the Churches of Scotland and England 4. Fundamentalls are no other thing then that which the Apostle calleth Heb. 6. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first principles of the oracles of God and ch 6. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Doctrine of the Principles of Christ which are laid as foundations as ib. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not laying the foundation againe c. Then non-fundamentalls must be such superstructures as are not the first Principles of the Oracles of God and are not the Doctrine of the Principles of Christ. But the Apostle will not have us to fluctuate and doubt as Skeptickes in a Pyâ—rhonian Vacillation and Uncertainty in these which he calleth the superstructures 1. As is evident by his words 11 Of whom we have many things to say and hard to be uttered but you are dull of hearing 12. For when for the time yee ought to be teachers yee have need that one teach you againe which be the first Principles of the Oracles of God and are become such as have neede of milke and not of strong food 13. For every one that useth milke is unskilfull in the word of righteousnesse for he is a babe 14. But strong meate belongeth to them that are of full age even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discerne both good and evill Chap. 6. 1. Therefore leaving the doctrine of the beginning of Christ let us goe on unto perfection not laying againe the foundation of repentance from dead workes c. Whence it is more then evidently apparent to any intelligent mind 1. That when he saith they ought to be teachers of others he cannot be thought to meane that they should teach fundamentalls onely to others because he would have them to be capable of the food of such as are stronger and have their senses exercised to discerne good and ill and will have them carried on to perction now fundamentalls are expressely the foode of babes which bâ—â— neede of milke c. 6. v. 12. and not the foode of the stronger if then they ought to teach superstructures and non-fundamentalls to others they cannot teach and exhort privately for of such he speaketh these things whereof they have no certainty of faith and which they beleeve with a reserve as ready to reject them to morrow upon second thoughts for what we teach to others those as I conceive we are oblieged to speake because we beleeve Psal. 116. 10. 2 Cor. 4. 13. and those we are to perswade because we know not with a reserve but with certainty of faith the terror of the Lord 2 Cor. 5. 11. If it be said teachers now are not oblieged to know all that they teach now to be divine truths with such a certainty of faith as Prophets and Apostles who were ledde by an infallible Spirit for our private exhorting our publick Sermons come not from a Spirit as infallible as that Spirit which spake and wrote canonick Scripture for we may erre in exhorting in Preaching in writing but the pen-men of canonick Scripture were infallible I answer the pen-men of Scripture when they did speak and write Scripture were infallible de jure de facto they could neither erre actually and by Gods word they were oblieged not to erre and in that they were freer from error then we are who now succeed them to preach and write but what God hath revealed in his word whether they be fundamentalls or superstructures doth obliege
us to belief and certainty of faith no lesse then it obliegeth the Pen-men of Scripture and our certainty of saving faith is as infallible as the faith of the Prophets and Apostles except with Papists we say no man can be assured that he is in the state of grace If therefore we be oblieged to beleeve all revealed superstructures though not fundamentall as the Prophets and Apostles were we sinne scandalously when obstinacie is added to ignorance if we beleeve them with such a reserve as is contrary to faith and because there is no ignorance of those who teach others but it is capable of obâ—tinacie and consequently it is capable of Church censure Matth. 18. 17. I grant the weake and unlearned though ignorant of their Christian liberty in that interim and case when many things are indifferent as the case was Rom. 14. though they be instructed by Paul sufficiently that nothing is uncleane and that they erre in that out of an erring consciences light or rather darkenesse they abstain from such and such meates as Gods law hath now made lawfull to both Jew and Gentile yet are they not to be censured nor troubled with thorny disputations but if these weake ones 1. persist in their error and 2. teach it to others and mislead them they knowing that they beleeve these errors with a reserve are as I conceive false teachers and censurable by the Church and State and not weake but obstinate 2. We are not to be dull of hearing but are to be fully instructed und certainly perswaded so of superstructures which are not the first principles of the Oracles of God as that we are to teach others Ergo a Pyrrbonian fluctuation in these is damnable How then can it be a principle next to Gods word most to bee followed not to make our present judgement and practise in matters not fundamentall a binding Law to us for the future 2. The Apostle ought not to rebuke them for being dull of hearing of those things whereof either sides may be beleeved in a necessary case of syncretisme and pacification without any hazard of punishment or Church-censures for what is a necessary principle and to be holden and enacted as the most sacred Law of all others next unto the Word of God the matter of that principle being unknowne and neither sides understood received or beleeved cannot put on any the rebuke of dull hearing For example if the point of Presbyteriall government of the Church or of independencie of single congregations be a point not to be received with such certainty of faith and assurance but we are to reject either or both when we shall receive new light that they are false and contrary to the rule of holy Scripture and againe if we are to reject the opinion contradicent to these former points of Presbyteriall government and independent congregations for there is by this opinion the same reason of the contradicent as of the formerly affirmed opinions I see not how I may not be dull of hearing yea how I may not simply be ignorant of both and not sinne against God 3. Those superstructures which are not fundamentall are the strong persons food as the knowledge of principles fundamentall is the food of babes vers 12 13. Then I must be perswaded of the truth of them else they cannot feed my soule with knowledge because knowledge of Pyrrhonian fluctuation which is conjecturall and may be no lesse false then true and which I must so beleeve for truth as possible the tyde of a contrary light may carry me to beleeve the just contrary as truth can never be the strong food of such as are skilled in the word of righteousnesse 4. The knowledge of these superstructures or non-fundamentals belongeth to those who are of full age and have their senses exercised to discerne both good and ill vers 14. and which are carried on to perfection c. 6. v. 1. having now left the fundamentals as food to babes and unskilled c. 5. v. 12. But I heartily crave to learn what perfection doewe arive unto and what encrease of fuller age what experience of more spirituall knowledge perfecting the spirituall senses doe I attaine to know certaine truths which to me may be no lesse rotten conclusions and meere forgeries of mens braines then divine truths Hence if this Arminian liberty of prophecying and this perpetuall fluctuation of men alwayes learning and never comming to the knowledge of the truth be contrary to growing in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ 2 Pet. 3. 18. and contrary to that which is called 1 Cor. 1. 5. all knowledge and to the abundance of knowledge which in the last dayes is to fill the earth as the sea is filled with waters so that when I have once over-sailed that point of the coast of the knowledge of fundamentall articles I am now in a Sea of foure contrary winds and foure contrary tydes at once and I know nothing for truth but its contradicent may be yea and to me is as true I say if this fluctuation of knowledge be contrary to growing in knowledge it must be rejected as a Chimera and the dreame of mens heads 5. Let us take one point not fundamentall to wit this Every congregation hath absolute power of Church government within it selfe without subjection to Classes Presbyteries and Synods You are so perswaded of the truth of this that your present judgement and practice is no binding Law to you for the morrow but you leave roome in your judgement to beleeve to morrow the contradicent when new light shall appeare Well then to morrow this non-fundamentall and this contradicent is now to you true No congregation hath absolute power of Church-government within it selfe but hath its power in dependance upon and with subjection unto Classes Presbyteries and Synods Well to morrow is come and this you beleeve now to be Gods truth yet so as your present judgement and practice is no binding Law to you for the second morrow but you leave roome for light which shall appeare the second morrow well in the second morrow new light appeareth and convinceth you that the contradicent is true and you recurre in a circle to beleeve your first proposition againe is true to wit the contradicent of your second dayes proposition and now to you this is true as it was once Every congregation hath absolute power of Church-government within it selfe without subjection to classes Presbyteries and Synods Now on the third morrow a new light appearing you are to beleeve the contradicent and because all circular motions are in credit to be deemed eternall and your mind is alwayes obliged to stoop and fall downe before new light and the conscience is to render her selfe captive to every emergent truth what can you here say but there is no end of fluctuations and doubtings But you say Gods spirit the revealer of all truth doth not fluctuate though I change God Jebovah
changeth not he can reveale no contradictory truths for one of them must be a lie and he is the Lord who cannot lie Answ. Then I say these non-fundamentals are in themselves and intrinsecally certaine and if God reveale them in his Word he must reveale them under the notion of things certaine and we are to beleeve them as certaine truths having intrinsecall necessity in themselves from the authority of God the revealer therefore I am not to beleeve them with a fluctuation of mind to casheere the truth of them to morrow and the next and the third morrow But you say I doe beleeve non-fundamentals as they are revealed now they are not revealed to me in the word in that measure and degree of clearnesse and evidence of light that fundamentall points of faith are revealed therefore I may lawfully beleeve these non-fundamentals which are lesse evidently revealed with a reserve that upon the supposall I see I had an error of judgement in taking them to be truths whereas now I see them to be untruths I doe renounce them but because fundamentals are clearely revealed I am to beleeve them without any reserve at all Answ. The degrees of revelation and proposals of truths to our minds lesse or more evident or lesse evident so they be revealed by God in a sufficient measure of evidence they free us from obligation of faith in tanto non in toto as is cleare John 15. 22. If I had not come to them they should not have had sinne the sin of unbeliefe and in such a measure yet if God reveale these non-fundamentals though not so perspicuously as he revealeth fundamentals we are obliged to know them and beleeve them with certainty of faith and upon this formall reason because Jehovah speaketh them in his word no lesse then we are obliged to know and beleeve fundamentals for our dulnesse and blindnes of mind doth not licence us to beleeve what God revealeth to us in his Word with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a fluctuation of mind no more then the naturall man is licenced to beleeve the fundamentals of the Gospel with doubting because they come in under the capacity of his understanding as foolishnesse 1 Cor. 2. 14. But say you upon supposall that our darkened hearts doe not see these non-fundamentals clearely we are obliged to take their meaning and sense with a reserve and so to receive and entertaine the truths of these non-fundamentals as we leave roome upon supposall of our misapprehensions to retract our judgement and to beleeve the contrary of what we once beleeved and this bindereth not but that we are simply and absolutely obliged to beleeve the non-fundamentalls Answ If we be simply and absolutely obliged to beleeve non-fundamentals though they be not so clearely revealed to us as the fundamentals as no doubt we are then doe we contrary to the morall obligation of a divine precept and so sinne in beleeving with a doubting and hesitation of that which God hath revealed in his word and when we beleeve Gods truth with a reserve to retract our judgement when a cleare light shall make naked to us our error that revealed error if revealed to be an error by the Lord speaking in his word doth clearely evince that God never revealed nor meant to reveale in his Word the former truth that was beleeved with a reserve for God cannot reveale things contradictory and out of the mouth of the Lord commeth no untruth therefore God in these non-fundamentals revealeth to us but one thing to be beleeved and that absolutely without all reserves for God can no more shine with a new light to delare the contradicent of what he hath once revealed as truth then he candeny himselfe or lie which to assert were high blasphemy and if the first truth of the non-fundamentall doe onely appeare truth to our understanding and be no such thing but in it selfe an untruth then doth the God of truth reveale no such thing 2. Upon supposall that we see not the truth of these non-fundamentals clearly we are neither to beleeve with a reserve nor to beleeve them absolutely nor yet are we to suspend our beliefe because I conceive all the three to be sinfull and we are never obliged to sinne but we are obliged to know and beleeve simply without all reserve having laid away our darke and confused conscience and are to know clearely and beleeve firmely that God speaketh this not this in his Word nor because I doe fluctuate about the truth of these non-fundamentals am I obliged to follow in non-fundamentals the endictment of a fluctuating conscience seeing holding the plenitude and plenary perfection of Gods Word the Lord hath no lesse manifested his will in setting downe superstructures and non-fundamentals in his Word then he hath revealed his mind to us in fundamentals But our Brethren prove that we may tolerate one another in diverse and contrary opinions about non-fundamentals from Phil. 3. 15. Let us therefore as many as be perfect be thus minded and if in any thing yee be otherwise minded God shall reveale this unto you 16. Neverthelesse whereunto we have already attained let us walke by the same rule let us mind the same thing Now there is nothing more opposite to this rule then the practises of some who will exclude and allow communion in nothing where there is difference in anything The labours of Davenant and others in this needfull case of syncretisme and pacification in those times are very seasonable I answer I distinguish three things that may be judged the object of syncretisme or mutuall toleration 1. Fundamentalia fundamentall points 2. Supra circa fundamentalia things that are builded on the foundation or superstructures or things about the foundation as many positive and historicall things that cannot result by good consequence off or from the foundation as that there were eight soules in Noahs Arke and some rituals of Gods institution in the Sacrament of the Supper and Baptisme c. 3. Praeter fundamentalia things meerely physicall not morall having no influence in Gods worship at all as such a day for meeting of an Assembly of the Church Wednesday rather then Thursday a cloake when you pray in private rather then a gowne these have or contribute of themselves no morall influence to the action as in what corner of your Chamber you pray in private these are meerely indifferent and tolerance in these I would commend It is true there is a strict connexion often betwixt the physicall and the morall circumstances so as the physicall circumstance doth put on by some necessity a morall habitude and respect and then the physicall circumstance becommeth morall as in what corner of your Chamber you pray it is meerely physicall and indifferent but if that corner that you pray in cast you obvious to the eyes of those who are walking in the streets that they may see and heare your private prayers then the place putteth on the
morall respect of a savour of some Pharisaicall ostentation that you pray to be seene of men and so the circumstance now is morall and is to be regulated by the Word whereas the circumstance that is meerely physicall is not as it is such in any capacity to receive scripturall regulation nothing is required but a physicall convenience for the action Now for fundamentall superstructures for things about the foundation in so farre as they have warrant in the Word to me they oblige to faith and practises in so farre as the Lord intimateth to us in his Word either expressely or by good consequence that they are lawfull Now I may adde to these that there be some things adjacent circumvenient circumstantiall to these fundamentals superstructions and others that I named wherein mutuall tolerance is commendable Nor doe we thinke any Church Reformation so perfect as that reformers have not left it in some capacity more or lesse of receiving increase and latitude of Reformation but truely I doe not see the consequence that therefore in all points not fundamentall the conscience must be of that compliable latitude of Kid-leather to take in and let out so as none of these superstructures or non-fundamentals are to be beleeved but with a reserve that you take them to day as Gods truths and are in capacity to beleeve their contradicents to be Gods truth to morrow And for the place Phil. 3. 14. 15. The sense given by Zanchius pleaseth me We that are reputed perfect let us all think and mind this truth that I write to contend for the price of the high-calling of God and if any mind any other thing contrary to or diverse from my doctrine God in his owne time shall reveale it to him Zanchius saith Deus id quoque revelabit suo tempore nempe an falsum sit vel verum God shall reveale it to him in his owne time whether it be true or false to which part I doe not subscribe that God shall reveale to any other minded then Paul whether his doctrine be true or false for that may inferre a possibility that Paul taught in this point or in the matter of ceremonies something false but the meaning is God shall make him know by the revelation of truth that what I have taught is true and he addeth as Zanchius Estius Cornelius à Lapide Sâ—lmeron yea our owne Calvine Marlorat and others upon this condition that they walke with us in peace and concord according to the 〈◊〉 the Gospel and that these words are a condition I beleeve because Christ saith John 7. 17. If any man will doe his will he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God or whether I speake of my selfe But I see nothing here that reacheth the conclusion that we deny it will beare this indeed if any man be otherwise minded and thinke that Paul hath not delivered sound doctrine either concerning our pressing forward toward the prise of the high calling of God in Jesus Christ or concerning ceremonies that is if any man beleeve untruths contrary to Pauls doctrine let him beleeve these untruths leaving roome to Gods light to bow downe under truths feet when God shall reveale that Pauls doctrine is true and that his thoughts diverse from Pauls doctrine was misapprehensions and errours but there is nothing here that if any beleeve true non-fundamentals he is to beleeve them with a reserve that if God with a new light shall appear to discover these truths to be untruths he shall change his mind Now the supposition is vaine and as unpossible as to say God can contradict and belie his owne truth nor is there any word of toleration of Sects in the text Yea but say they Paul professeth to walke according to the rule to which they 〈◊〉 all attained with those who are contrary minded Ergo we are to tolerate and to keepe peaceable communion with those who are contrary minded in opinions and disagree from us Answ. Marke I pray you that Paul doth not say he will walke with them and keepe communion with them simply but onely 1. while God shall reveale their error and by his light make them see that Pauls doctrine is true 2. So in other things they be of one minde with Paul as perfect men should be and so I thinke Paul doth indeed condemne separation and breach of love for diversity of opinions in some things and we doubt not but if the servant of the Lord should with gentlenesse instruct malicious opposers of the truth and wait on them to see if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledgment of the truth 2 Tim. 2. 24 25. farre rather should Paul walke with those that are perfect according to the same rule though they be of another mind but it followeth not that those who are of another mind from Paul should 1 obstinately continue in that mind after that God hath by writings and dispute convinced them of their error 2. It followeth not that their obâ—tinate continuance in their error should alwayes be tolerated and never censured especially if it be such an error as causeth divisions and offences Rom. 16. 17. for then such should be avoided saith Paul in that same place 3. It followeth not that we are to beleeve no superstructures or non-fundamentals but with a reserve it is observable that Paul speaketh here of those who beleeve errors and doctrines contrary to Pauls doctrine Now consider then the force of the argument those who beleeve errors contrary to Pauls doctrine have no certainty of faith that what they beleeve is true and therefore must beleeve with a reserve leaving roome to new light therefore those who beleeve any true superstructures and any non-fundamentals have also no certainty of faith but must beleeve with a reserve that when light shall appeare they shall beleeve the contradicent of what they now beleeve there is no force in this connexion It is just like the question betwixt us and the Papists whether a man can be certaine with any divine and infallible certainty that he is in the state of grace and salvation Papists say hypocrites beleeve that they are in the state of grace and yet they have no certainty thereof Ergo say they the regenerate beleeving that they are in the state of grace can have no certainty This is a very ill consequence for a sleeping man is not certaine whether he be dreaming or waking Ergo a waking man knoweth not whether he be waking or not So a distracted man hath no certainty that he is as wise as seven men who can render a reason therefore a man sober in his wits knoweth not that he is in his sober wits these be poore and loose consequences It is true when we beleeve some alterable circumstances of some things rather about then in doctrine and discipline which are disputable and to us both sides have great probability we have not certainty of faith and possible here in
our opinions learned and holy men yea and whole Churches may looke beside their booke and be deceived and these we take not to be the subject of a sworne confession of faith and here we grant a non liquet on both sides and doe allow some graine weights of reserve to persons and Churches to retract in those things but hence it is badly concluded that we beleeve these non-fundamentals of discipline for which we have certainty of evidence from Gods Word with a reserve and with a loosnesse of assent and credulity to beleeve the contrary to morrow for so the same argument should militate against the certainty of faith in some fundamentals for a person yea any particular Church may erre in denying the resurrection of the dead as some did in the Church of Corinth and Christs Disciples though true beleevers doubted of his rising from the dead John 20. 9. Peter and the disciples doubted of Christ dying for the losed world Mat. 16. 21 22. Luke 24. 25 26. and because any true beleever may fall in that temptation and weaknesse as to deny all the articles of faith taken divisively for they may deny this or this article fundamentall though I doe not thinke a regenerated person can deny the whole systeme and body of fundamentals collectively it shall follow by this argument that regenerated persons and particular Churches are to beleeve some fundamentals with a reserve and keeping roome for light to beleeve the contrary and so if this argument be good wee have no certainty of faith in beleeving any one fundamentall article its alone Nor can Nathan or Samuel have certainty of faith in beleeving their owne prophecies flowing from the immediate inspiration of the Spirit but they are to beleeve them with a capacity to receive the faith of the contradicent prophecies because Nathan had no certainty of faith in commanding David to build the Temple and Samuel had as little certainty in pronouncing Eliah to be the Lords annoynted Another doubt against this is That if any out of weaknesse and meere tendernesse of conscience deny some superstructures which are indeed scripturall truths they are not to be counted hereticks because out of weaknesse not out of obstinacy they erre nor to be censured with excommunication or censures of Church or Magistrate and therefore in these we are to beleeve truths with a reserve and to tolerate the contrary minded if they agree with us in fundamentals Answ. That this may be answered 1. The object of these opinions would be distinguished 2. The persons weak or strong 3. The manner of refusing instruction or of admitting light of meere weaknesse or of obstinacy For the first if the matter be faultlesse or light as eating meats or not eating meats in time when they are meerely indifferent and the person weake and scarce capable of disputation he is to be tolerated and not received into knotty and thorny disputations about things indifferent for so Paul Rom. 14. is to be understood when he will not have the weake taken in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Michael strove with the Angel disputing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if the matter concerne an institution of Christ and our necessary practise in a Church and the party be not weake It is a question what maketh obstinacy and what tendernesse and weaknesse Turrecremata saith he who is ready to yeeld to light is not obstinate Scotus grosse ignorance Canus saith affected ignorance maketh obstinacie Malderus saith that grosse ignorance may leave a man ready to yeeld to the information of the Church Alphonsus a Castro saith better he is obstinate who 1. defendeth an opinion against the Scripture or saith he which is his error against the definition of a generall Councell or of the Pope 2. Who being admonished doth not amend 3. Who seeketh not resolution from the learned with a purpose to render himselfe truths captive 4. Who sweareth that he shall adhere to the end to that opinion By the light and knowledge of the holder of the opinion it may be collected whether he seeketh truth and is ready to yeeld himselfe and his understanding thereunto and except the point be fundamentall it can hardly be judged heresie if the point may be holden without any scandall or breach of peace much tolerance is required where error seemeth to be a temptation to holy men but finall tolerance and unlimitted where the party is of great knowledge and hath sway in the minds of many to prevaile to draw others after him is harder Object But hee that serveth God in these is acceptable to God Rom. 14. 18. and if a man judge some doctrine to bee error though it bee no error yet to him that so judgeth it is error if hee suffer death for that hee judgeth truth hee suffereth for righteousnesse being truth in his judgement and therefore libertie of conscience is to bee given to all sects Christ would not forbid a man that preached in his name to preach though hee did not follow him Mark 9. 38. Luk. 9. 50. The best way to hinder Sects is to reâ—ute them by the Scriptures and not to set decrees of Synods to others because that is done already by Christ and his Apostles for Gods judgement shall still bee on you while you establish Christs Jubilee and freedome of consciences Luke 4. 18. Answ. Let none thinke that these bee the words of our brethren but of a certaine Anabaptist and of Arminians and Socinians who object the same for Paul Rom. 14. 18. hee that serveth God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to bee understood as the context teacheth us that is that they relate the words going before v. 17. hee who serveth God in righteousnesse in peace in joy of the holy Ghost the meaning is not that hee is acceptable who serveth God in following the inditement of his light and conscience because it is his conscience for then some should please God in sinning against God But it is a point worthy our consideration what tie and obligation an erroneous conscience layeth on men hence with correction these considerations 1. The true cause why an erring conscience obliegeth to abstinence from the fact in the case of error and misrepresentation of conscience is 1. Because conscience is the nearest divine principle of our morall actions and standeth in the roome of God and therefore hee who doth any thing against the very erroneous ditement of conscience is hence convinced to have a perverse will to sinne against the majestie of God because hee who should beleeve usury to bee theft though we should suppose with Calvin and other great Divines usurie to bee in some cases lawfull should yet take usury hath a theâ—teous will in that and doth steale 2. Because the oblieging Law of God is not applyed to our actions at all but by the interveening actuall use of our conscience see Pirerius 2. Consideration In the question whether an erroneous conscience doth obliege
Church because that mediatory kingdome substisted fortie yeeres in the Jewish Church in the Wildernesse without circumcision yea and Apostles and Evangelists are no meanes subordinate to that kingdome because Christs mediatory kingdome subsisteth now without these officers 2. Neither is it true that magistracie conferreth no helpe to this kingdom but in these things which concerne the externall man for in a politick and coactive way the Magistracy taketh care by commandements that the Church bee fed with the pure Word of God onely this proveth that magistracie and Church ministery have two different objects and the way of proceeding of these two states the one carnall and with the sword Joh. 18. 36. Rom. 13. 3 4. the other spirituall to the manifestarion of the truth to the conscience 2 Cor. 4. 1 2. Psal. 110. 1. 2. Esâ—y 11. 4. Heb. 4. 12. which we grant to be true 5. It is objected Christ himselfe performed all the parts of his mediatory kingdome and all the functions thereof in his owne person and by his disciples while hee was on earth but hee refused all civill Magistracy and did inhibit his disciples thereof because it is not contained under the administration of his mediatory office as subordinate thereunto Answ. Christ refused magistracie not because it is not subordinate to edification which is the end of Christs mediatory kingdome but because it is not compatible with his spirituall kingdome in one and the same person and therefore this is a caption à non causa pro causa in one and the same person and subject the civill and the Ecclesiasticall power are inconsistent and incompatible that is true Ergo in the kind of lawfull meanes these two powers are unconsistent and uncompatible I deny it to follow for both royall power and Church power concurre for the producing of one and the same end to wit edification and obedience to both Tables of the Law but after different wayes carnall and spirituall I thinke it most considerable that though the Prince may by a coactive way command that same which a Church Synod may command in an ecclesiasticall way yet differeth these same powers in their formall objects because the King commandeth that which is good religious decent in Gods worship as a thing already taught and determined judicially either expressely in Gods Word or then by a pastorall or Synodicall determination and that not by way of teaching informing the mind exponing the Scripture or by pastorall dealing with the conscience as oblieging to a Church Liturgie and ceremonies as one who intendeth formall edification and faith repentance and obedience to God but the King commands that which is good and extra as it is already taught and expounded and as it is an imperated act of externall worship or mercy and justice done by a coactive power Hence the Magistrates power is not to edifie formally but to procure that edification may bee 2. The Magistrates power is Lordly the Churches power is onely ministeriall 3. The Magistrates power may bee in one to wit in the King the Churches power of the keyes is in the Church 4. They differ in formall objects as hath been said Now to obviate what the Jesuite Lysimachus Nicanor saith wee are no wayes of Papists mind in the matter of the Magistrates power for Papists 1. exclude Kings and Emperours from any medling with Church matters Charles the fift was upbraided by Paul the third the Pope of Rome because hee did as became a Prince ordaine meetings conferences and assemblies for composing of differences in Churches matters not giving the power of conveening councells onely to the Pope comparing his fact to the attempt of Uzzah who put his hand to the Ark and to Câ—rah Dathan and Abirams conspiracie against Moses yea and Nicolaus the first in his Epistle to Michael the Emperour denyeth that Emperours are to bee present in Synods except in generall Synods where both Church men and laicks are present wee teach that the Magistrate is as the hand the ministry as the eyes and both are to concurre for the spirituall good of the body of Christ. 2. Papists will have the Magistrates so to defend the faith as they have not power to judge not as Christians with the judgement of descretion what is right or wrong but they must as blind servants execute what Prelates decree yea and see non prâ—priis saith Henr. Blyssemius sed alienis Episcoporum ac pâ—aelatorum suorum oculis videre not with their owne eyes but with the eyes of their Prelates yea and the Magistrate should not read the Scripture say Papists and Nicanâ—rs brethren the Jesuits expresly contrary to Gods Word Deut. 17. 17. Hee shall read in the booke of the Law all the dayes of his life Joshua 1. 8. but onely beleeve as the Church beleeveth and this is blind obedience that they require of Princes this faith or obedience wee thinke abominable in all men as in Princes Of old Popes and Prelates were subject to Kings and Emperors as wee teach from the Word of God Rom. 13. 1. and 1. wee teach against the Jesuit Lysimachus Nicanor that his Prelates should not invade the King and civill Magistrates sword and be civill Judges as Popes and Prelates are against which writeth Tertullian Origen Hilarius Chrysostome Ambrosius Augustinus The author of the Survey saith that if every Eldership be the tribunall seat of Christ what appellation can bee made there from to either provinciall or generall councell and hee meaneth that there can bee no appellation to the King seeing the Presbytery in Churches causes is as immediatly subject to Jesus Christ and the highest Judicature on earth as the King is Gods immediate vicegerent on earth nearest to Jesus Christ in civill causes I answer the cause that is meerely ecclesiasticall as the formall act of preaching and ecclesiasticall determining of truth in Pulpits and the determining the truth in Church assemblies in an ecclesiasticall way in Synods and the excommunicating of a scandalous person are immediatly subject to Jesus Christ speaking in his owne perfect Testament and these causes lie not at the feet of Princes to bee determined by them as Kings but in a constitute Church they are to bee determined by the ordinary Church assemblies and in this place there is no appeale from the Presbytery to a King but it followeth not that there can bee no appellation from a Presbytery to a provinciall or to a nationall assembly 1. Because though every Presbytery bee the tribunall seate of Christ yet it is but a part of the tribunall seat of Christ and such a part as may easily erre and therefore appellation may bee made from the weaker and the part more inclined to erre to the stronger and maniest or the whole who may more hardlier erre and that is not denied by this author who dare not deny but they may appeal from a Bishop who doth and may misleade