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
Congregation as set over them by the Holy Ghost as they are set over their owne Parish to whom they be onely Pastors having Ministeriall power by a Church Covenant and the peoples Ordination as our Brethren teach 2. Manuser Those over whom saith our Authour we have no power of censure over those we have no power to dispense the communion Now if we should censure any such for drunkennesse or other scandals who are not of our Congregation it should be a non habente potestatem an act done by those who have no power Answ. The major proposition by your owne Doctrine is clearely false for you say your selfe Strangers sojourning with us members of other Churches knowne not to be scandalous are admitted to the Lords Supper yet can you not excommunicate strangers sojourning for a time falling in scandals For First to you they are without how then can you judge them as you say Secondly You have by the holy Ghost no ministeriall power over them as over your owne flocke as you expone Act. 20. 28. Thirdly You looke aside at excommunication for those of other Churches consociated in a classe we doe lawfully excommunicate and censure for excommunication is not a cutting off of a person from one single Parishionall Church onely as you imagine but a cutting off of a person from all the visible Churches consociated first because he is delivered to Satan and his sin is bound in heaven in relation to all the faster Churches and is so to be esteemed and not in reference to the one single Congregation whereof he is a member Secondly all are to be humbled and mourne for his fall and to consent he be cut off and not one single Congregation onely Thirdly all consociated Churches shall be leavened by keeping Church-fellowship with such a lumpe Fourthly all are to repute him as a Heathen and a Publican Fifthly all are to admonish him as a Brother 2 Thessalon 3. 15. Sixthly all are to forgive him and receive him in Church-communion if he shall repent and occasionally to edifie him as a brother The Seales of righteousnesse of faith saith the Author are not seales to the faithfull as such but as they are joyned together and consederate in some visible Church none but in a visible Church may dispense the seales in the Oâ—d Testament none were partakers either of the Passeover or of Circumcision unlesse they were either Israelites borne or proselytes in the Church of Israel We read not that Job and his friends though righteous through faith were circumcised nor would they have omitted to speake of Circumcision as of a pertinent evidence of the corruption of mans nature of which they speake much the Sacraments saith this same Author are not given to the invisible Church nor to the members thereof as such but to the visible particular Churches of Christ and to the members thereof therefore the seales are not to be givento those who are of no particular visible Church Answ. 1. The Seales of the Covenant are principally given to the invisible Church as the Covenant it selfe in Gods decree of election is especially made with the elect and such as shall never fall away as is cleare Jer. 31. 37. Jer. 32. 40. Esay 54 10. Heb. 8. 9. 10. and the invisible Church as such as a number of beleevers have onely right before God to both Covenant and seales yea and consequently are onely Christs body and Spouse and redeemed Saints and so onely have all the power of the keyes and the ministeriall power of dispensing the Seales and by our brethrens doctrine the visible Church not as visible but as the true body Spouse and Bride of Christ so as the invisible company of the redeemed ones have the Seales and Covenant and so all Ministeriall power of Christ is given unto them 2. It is true the orderly and Ecclesiasticke way of dispensing the Seales is that they bee dispensed onely to the visible Church but this visible Church is not one parish but all professing the faith of Christ though they be not joyned in one visible parish by one Church oath as the Author meaneth for the Saints in Scripture as Cornelius the Eunuch the Jaylor did professe and visibly evidence their faith and so that they were capable of the Seales by desiring to be saved and saying What shall we doe to be saved by trembling at the Word of God by asking the meaning of the Word of God which expressions are in many not in-churched to particular Congregations not did the Apostles aske if they were members of one parish before they baptized them but if they beleeved in Christ. 3. Whether Job his friends Melchisedeck Lot and others the like were circumcised we need not dispute but that they were not circumcised because they were not in a visible Church estate with Abraham is a question and uncertaine and therefore not sure to be a foundation of new opinions in Church Government but though it were granted it followeth not because none were circumeised but Abrahams seed and all and onely Abrahams seed were circumcised therefore none are to be baptized but those who are members of one particular Congregation Alas this is a weakâ— consequence rather it followeth all borne of Jewes were circumcised Ergo all borne of Christian parents are to be baptized and we see not but sacrificing was restricted to the visible Church no lesse then Circumcision yet Job sacrificed to God Job 1. and Chap. 42. The Author addeth The difference here is The circumcised in Israel might rightly keepe the Passeover amongst themselves because the whole nation of Israel made but one Church and the officers and ministers of any one Synagogue and the Priests and Levites were ministers in â—â—mmune of the whole house of Israel in proportion whereunto they that are baptized in any particular Church may in like manner require the Lords Supper if there be no other impediment in regard of their unfitnesse to examine themselves which is a thing requisite to receive the Lords Supper more then was required to receive the Passeover But now because the Churches of the new Testament are of another constitution then the nationall Church of all Israel baptisme in one Church doth not give a man right to the Lords Supper in another unlesse the Officers of the one Church were Officers of all as in Israel they â—erâ— or unlesse that one Church and the Officers thereof did recommend their right and power to another Answ. 1. It is true in the one Church of Israel there was something typicall that is not in our Churches as one Temple â—â—e high Priest one place of sacrificing one Priesthood one Aâ—ke c. but this was peculiar to Israel as such a specifice Church and typiâ—ied also the externall visible unitie of the whole visible Church of the new Testament in professing one Lord one Faith one Baptisme one externall communion and government externall de jure but this agreed not to
the other and we find the keys given to Officers and Stewards only And here is no Church Mat. 18. or yet Mat. 16. without Pastors except they say that Christ Mat. 18. 18. speaketh not to the Disciples but to the multitude of the Jewes which is a great crossing of the Text. And to say that Christ speaketh to the Apostles not as to Apostles but as to the Church of believers is only a bare affertion and cannot be proved and all they can say hangeth upon this one place and this is the most The power of binding and loosing is given to the Church which is to be obeyed and heard in the place of God But this Church is never in the VVord of God say they taken for a company of Officers Pastors and Elders only it signifieth alwayes the Body of Christ his Spouse his Saints by calling partakers of the most holy Faith To which I answer The body Spouse of Christ and Saints by calling as they are such is the invisible Church and the keys and Seales sayth this Author are not to be dispensed to all the faithfull as such but as they arè confederate or joyned together in some particular visible Church that is sayth he as they are members of a visible Church Ergo c. the body and Spouse of Christ as such is not the Church here meant of but the visible Congregation Now the essence of a visible Church of which Christ speaketh here is saved in ten who are only visible professors and not a Church of sound Believers not the true body mysticall and Spouse of Christ and yet by this place the Keys are given to such a Church now wee desire againe a place in all Gods Word for a Church in this sense and a Body of Christ and his Spouse in this meaning for certainly professors this way confederate as professiors are no more a Church of Christ redeemed ones and his Spouse then an Assembly of Elders onely can be called such a Church of Believers for both Churches are and may be where no believers are at all at least for a time and even while they exercise this power of Binding and Loosing and so thâ— place Matthew 18. is as much against our brethren as against us And Lastly our Doctrine is acknowledged by all our Divines against the Papists proving that Mat. 16. the Keyes were given to Peter as representing the Apostles and his successors in the pastorall charge not as representing all believers Also the Fathers Irenaeus Nazianzâ—nus Cyprianus Basilius Ambrosius Theophilactus Cyrillus Euthymius Hyeronimus Augustine Beda Chrysostomus And ordinaria glossa Hugo de sanct Victor Haymo Cardinalis Cusanus Anastasius Leo Durandus Thomas Adrianus Scotus making a comparison between Peter and the rest of the Apostles say the keys were given to all the Apostles when they were given to Peter and Peter received them in the name and person of the rest of the Apostles wherby they declare it was never their mind that Peter received the keys in name of all believers Also the learned as Augustine Beda Gregorius expound the Church builded upon the rock to be the Catholick Church and not a particular visible Church And Gerardus giveth a good reason why this Church Mat. 16. cannot be a particular visible Church because the gates of hell prevaileth against many joyned to the visible Church in externall society and VVicklif writing against the Monkes resureth that error of the Papists that any members of the true Church can be damned and Whittaker sayth Augustin against Petilian sayth the Church builded on the rock is the Church of the Elect not the visible Church CHAP. 2. SECT 2. PROP. THis Church saith the Author doth meete together every Lords Day all of them even the whole Church for administration of the Ordinances of God to publick edification Ans. Two things are here said 1. That all even the whole Church must meete for administration of the Ordinances of God that so all and every one of the Church may be actors and Judges in dispensing of censures this we take to be popular governement 2. That there is a necessity of personall presence of all and every one of the Church Hence Quest. 3. Whether or no the multitude of Believers and the whole people are to be judges so as private Christians out of Office are to exercise judiciall acts of the keys For the more easie clearing of the Question let it be observed 1. Dist. There is a dominion of Government Lordly and Kingly and this is in Christ only in relation to his Church and in civill judges and is no wayes in Church guides who are not Lords over the Lords inheritance there is a government Ministeriall of service under Christ and this is due to Church-guides 2. Dist. Regall power being a civill power founded in the Law of nature for the Ants have a King may well be in the people originally and subjectively as in the fountaine nature teaching every communitie to govern themselves and to hold off injuries if not by themselves yet by a King or some selected Rulers but power of Church-government being supernaturall and the acts of Church-government and of the casting such as offend out of Christs Kingdome being supernaturall neither of them can be originally in the multitude of professing beleevers but must be communicated by Christ to some certaine professing beleevers and these are Officers Therefore to put power and acts of government in all professors is a naturall way drawne from civill incorporations Christ is not ruled by our Lawes 3. Dist. The government of Christs Kingdome is the most free and willing government on earth yet it is a government properly so called for there be in it authoritative commandements and Ecclefiasticke coaction upon the danger of soule penalties in regard of the former all the people by consent and voluntary agreement have hand in election of Officers inflicting of censures because it concerneth them all but in regard of the latter the whole people are not over the whole people they are not all Kings reigning in Christs government over Kings but are divided into governours and governed and therefore the rulers Ecclesiasticke onely by power of office are in Christs roome over the Church to command sentence judge and judicially to censure 4. Distinct. The Officiall power of governing superaddeth to the simple acts of popular consenting the officiall authoritative and coactive power of Christs Sceptor in discipline That distinction in the sense holden by our brethren that the state of the Church is popular and the government Aristocraticall in the hands of the Eldership is no wayes to he holden nor doe the Parisian Doctors the authors of this distinction mind any Church-government to be in the people Our brethren in the answer to the questions sent to them from England explaine their minde thus 1. We acknowledge a Presbytery whose worke it is to teach and rule and whom the
meanes and the people lovâ—d to have it so Jer. 5. 31. Then in Synagogues there was Church-government as at â—erusalem for where the Lord rebuketh any sinne he doth recommend the contrary duty Now Prophets and Priests are rebuked tor their ruling with force and rigour every where and not at Ierusalem onely for that they were not compassionate to carry the Lambs in their bosome as Iesus Christ doth Esai 40. 11. their ill government every where must be condemned 3. Luk. 4. 16. Christ as his custome was went into the Synagogue on the Sabbath day Paul and Barnabas were requested to exhort in the Synagogue as the order was that Prophets at the direction of the Rulers of the Synagogue if they had any word of exhortation they should speake and consequently their order was that every one should not speake Ergo they had customes and orders of Church-Discipline to the which Christ and his Apostles did submit themselves And to tie all Church-government to the Temple of Ierusalem were to say God had ordained his people elsewhere to worship him publickly but without any order and that Christ and his Apostles subjected themselves to an unjust order I further argue thus Those Churches be of the same nature frame and essentiall Constiutions which agree in the same essentials and diffâ—r only in accidents but such are the Church of the Iewes and the Christian Churches Ergo what is the frame and essentiall constiâ—â—tion of the one Church must be the frame and essentiall constitution of the other Ergo c. the major is of undeniable certainty I prove the assumption These which have the same Faith and the same externall profession of Faith these have the same frame and essentiall constitution but they and we be such Churches for we have the same covenant of grace Jer. 31. 31. Jer. 32. 39 40. Heb 8. 8 9 10. Therefore that same faith differing only in accidents their faith did looke to Christ to be incarnate and our faith to that same very God now manifested in the flesh Heb. 13. 8. They were saved by faith as we are Heb. 11. Acts 10. 42 43. Acts. 11. 16 17 18. and consequently what visible profession of faith doth constitute the one visible Church doth constitute the other I know Papists Arminians Socinians doe make the Doctrine and Seales of the Iewish and Christian Church much different but against the truth of Scripture The onely answer that can be made to this must be that though the Church of the Jewes wanted not congregations as our Christian Churches have yet were they a nationall Church of another essentiall visible frame then are the Christian Churches because they had positive typicall and ceremoniall and carnall commandements that they should have one high Priest for the whole nationall Church the Christian Churches have not for that one visible Monarch and Pope they had an Altar Sacrifices and divers pollutions ceremoniall which made persons uncapable of the Passover but we have no such legall uncleannesse which can make us uncapable of the Seales of the New Testament and therefore it was not lawfull to separate from the Jewish Church in which did sit a typicall High Priest where were Sacrifices that did adumbrate the Sacrifice of our great High Priest c. not withstanding of scandalous persons in that Church because there was but one visible Church out of which was to come the Redeemer Christ according to the flesh but the Christian Churches under the New Testament be of another frame Christ not being tyed to one Nation or place or Congregation therefore if any one Congregation want the Ordinances of Christ we may separate therefrom to another Mount Sion seeing there bee so many Mount Sions noâ— Answ. 1. If the Church of the Iewes was a visible Church in its essentiall constitution different from our visible Churches because they were under the Religions tie of so me carnall ceremoniall and typicall mandats and Ordinances that we are not under then doe I inferre that the Tribe of Levy was not one visible Church in the essentiall frame with the rest of the Tribes which is absurd for that Tribe conteyning the Priests and Levites was under the obligatory tie of many typicall Commandements proper and peculiar to them only as to offer Sacrifices to wash themselves when they were to officiate to weare linnen Ephods to beare the Arke of the Covenant now it was sinne for any that were not of the Sonnes of Aaron or of another Tribe to performe these duties yet I hope they made but one nationall Church with the rest of the Tribes Secondly I infer that the Christian Church that now is cannot be of that same essentiall frame with the Apostolick Churches because the Apostolick Church so long as the Jewish ceremonies were indifferent in statu 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and mortall but not mortiferae deadly was to practice these ceremonies in the case of scandall 1 Cor. 10. 31 32 33. and yet the Christian Church that now is can in no sort practice these ceremonies yea I inferre that the Eldership of a Congregation doth not make one Church of one and the same essentiall frame and constitution with the people because the Elders be under an obligatory tie to some positive Divine Commandements such as are to administer the Seales Baptisme and the Lords Supper and yet the multitude of Believeres in that same congregation are under no such tie and certainly if to be under ceremoniall and typicall ordinances doth institute the whole Jewish Church in another essentiall frame different from the Christian Churches reason would say that then if the members of one Church be under Divine positive commandements which doth in no sort tie other members of the same Church that then there be divers memberships of different essentiall frames in one and the same Church which to me is monstrous for then because a command is given to Abraham to offer his sonne Isaak to God and no such command is given to Sarah in that case Abraham and Sarah shall not bee members of one and the same visible Church But the truth is different positive commandments of ceremoniall and typicall ordinances put â—o new essentiall frame of a visible Church upon the Jewish Church which is not on the Christian Churches These were onely accidentall characters and temporary cognizances to distinguish the Jewish and Christian Churches while as both agree in one and the same morall constitution of visible Churches for first both had the same faith one Lord one covenant one Iesus Christ the same seales of the covenant in substance both were visibly to professe the same Religion the differences of externals made not them and us different visible Churches nor can our brethren say they made different bodies of Christ different Spouses different royall Generations as concerning Church-frame Yet are wee not tied to their high Priest to their Altars Sacrifices Holy dayes Sabbaths new Moones c. no more then any one private
or the Covenant of grace and so must tie us to other duties then either the Law or Gospell require of us and so is beside that Gospell which Paul taught and maketh the teacher though an Angell from Heaven accursed and not to be received The Apologie answering this saith First We call it a Church-covenant to distinguish it from civill Covenants and also from the Covenant of grace for the Eunuch and godly strangers Isaiah 56. 3. were in the covenant of grace by faith and yet complained that they were separated from the Church and not in Covenant with Gods visible Church Answ. 1. No doubt an excommunicated person whose spirit is saved in the day of Christ may be in the Covenant of grace and yet cut off from the visible Church for enormous scandals but this is no ground to make your Church-covenant different from the Covenant of grace A beleever in the Covenant of grace may not doe a duty to father brother or master but it is a weak consequence that therefore there is a Covenant-oath betwixt brother and brother sonne and father servant and master which is commanded by a divine Law of perpetuall equity under both old and new Testament as you make this Covenant of the Church to be which persons must sweare ere they can come under these relations of brother son and servant The Covenant of grace and the whole Evangell teach us to confesse Christ before men and to walke before God and be perfect and so that we should joyn our selves to the true visible Churh But none can in right reason conclude that it is a divine Law that necessitateth me to sweare another Covenant then the Covenant of grace in relation to those particular duties or to sweare over againe the Covenant of grace in relation to the duties that I owe to the visible Church else I am not a member thereof And that same Covenant in relation to my father brother and master else I cannot be a sonne brother or servant this were to multiply Covenants according to the multitude of duties that I am obliged unto and that by a divine commandment The word of God layeth a tie on Pastors to feed the flock and the flock to submit in the Lord to the Pastors But God hath not by a new commandment laid a new tie and obligation that Timothy shall not be made a Pastor of a Church at Ephesus and a member thereof nor the Church at Ephesus constituted in a Church-state having right to all the holy things of God while first they be all perswaded of one anothers regeneration secondly while all sware those duties in a Church-oath thirdly and all sweare that they shall not separate from Church followship but by mutuall consent Heare a reply againe to this of the Apologie such promises as leave a man in an absolute estate as he was before and ingage onely his act not his person these lay no forcing band on any man but as every man is tied to keepe his lawfull promise are tied But yet such promises or covenants as are made according to the Ordinances of God and doe put upon men a relative estate they put on them a forcing band to performe such duties such as are the promises of marriage betwixt man and wife master and servant magistrate and subject minister and people brother and brother in Church-state these put on men a divine tie and binde by a divine Ordinance to performe such duties But these Scriptures make not these relations these places make not every man who can teach a Pastor to us except we call him to be our Pastor indeed if we call him we ingage our selves in subjection to him you might as well say It is not the câ—venanting of a wife to her husband or the subject to the magistrate that giveth the husband power over his wife and the magistrate power over his subject but the word of God that giveth power to both and yet you know well the husband cannot call such an one his wife but by covenant made in marriage Answ. This is all which with most colour of reason can be said But these places of Scripture are not brought to prove the Pastors calling to the people or their relative case of subjection to him but onely they prove that the covenant of grace and whole Gospell layeth a tie of many duties upon us which obligeth us without comming under the tie of an expresse vocall and publique oath necessitating us by a divine Law because in this that I professe the faith of Christ and am baptized I am a member of the visible Church and have right to all the holy things and seales of grace without such an oath because the covenant of grace tieth me to aâ—joyne my selfe to some particular congregation and a called Pastor who hath giâ—â—â— and a calling from the Church is a member of the visible Church before he be called to be your Pastor though he be a member of no particular congregation for you lay down as an undeniable principle and the basis of your whole doctrine of independent government that there are no visible Churches in the world but a congregation meeting in one place to worship God which I have demonstrated to be most false for if my hand be visible my whole body is visible though with one act of the eye it cannot be seene if a part of a medow be visible all the medow thought ten miles in bredth and length is visible so though a congregation onely may be actually seene when it is convened within the soure Angles of a materiall house yet all the congregations on earth make one visible Church and have some visible and audible acts of externall government cummon to all as that all pray praise fast mourne rejoyce one with another and are to rebuke exhort comfort one another and to censure one another so farre as is possible and of right and by Law meet in one councell and so by Christs institution are that way visible that a single cong egation is visible which meeteth in one house though many be absent de facto through sickenesse callings imprisonment and some through sinfull neglect and therefore you doe not prove that we are made members of the visible Church having right to all the holy things of God by a Church-oath or covenant as you speake neither doe we deny but when one doth enter a member to such a congregation under the ministery of A. B. but he commeth under a â—ew relative state by an implicite and vertuall covenant to submit to his ministery yea and A. B. commeth under that same relative state of Pastorall feeding of such an one But you doe not say that A. B. entereth by a vocall Church-covenant in a membership of Church order and that by a commanded covenant of perpetuall equity laying a new forcing band upon both the person and the acts of A. B. just as the husband and the wife come under
not fall The sentence is either given out a jure vel ab homine by the Law or the persons Secondly it is either just or unjust Thirdly and that three wayes Exanimo good or ill zeal secondly Ex causa a just or unjust cause thirdly Ex ordine when order of Law is kept An unjust sentence is either valid or null That which is invalid is either invalid through defect of the good minde of the excommunicators and this is not essentiall to the excommuncations validitie That which is invalid this way onely ligat it bindeth in foâ—o exteriore But that which is uâ—just through want of a just cause it onely bindeth from externall communion but because Gods Ordinances are to be measured from their own nature and the generall intention of the Catholike Church and not from abuses and particular intentions of such excommunicators therefore they doe not exclude from the generall Church-desires The fourth Councell of Carthage as also Gerson saith an unjust sentence neminem gravare debet should affright no man I see not a warrant for division of excommunication into penall and not penall excommunication The ancients made some excommunication not penall as the fifth Councell of Carthage and Concilium Arelatense Turraconense Concilium Agathense As if one should culpably absent himselfe from a Synod erat privatus Episcoporum communione He was for a space excommunicated from the communion of other Bishops The Canonists infer that this excommunication was no Church-censure and M. Antonius of Spalato defendeth them in this But since Christ for scandals appointed onely publike rebuking or secondly confessing or thirdly excommunication from the Church not onely of Church guides but of professing beleevers we see not how any are to be excommunicated from the fellowship of the Clergy or Church-guides onely For Christ ordained no such excommunication and therefore wee are to repute this a popish device Zosimus saith Zancbius Celestinus Hormisda and Pelagius 2. did threaten to excommunicate Iohn of Constantinople from the communion of the Apostolike seat and of all Bishops Spalato his argument for this sort of excommunication is 2 Thessalonians 3. 15. which commandeth all Thessalonians to forbeare any fellowship with such as obeyeth not the Apostles doctrine and doth not infinuate any excommunication from the society of Church-guides onely Nay such an excommunication is not in Gods Word Cajetan calleth it excommunicatio claustralis whereby some were interdicted the company of some other Church-orders It is true that in the ancient Church the excommunicated person was debarred from comming to the Church to heare divine Service And Sylvester appointeth three degrees of excommunication first Debarring of the contumacious from entring into the Church secondly A suspending of them from communion with the Church thirdly An anathema or imprecation by cursing them So the fifth Synod under Symmachus appointed first that the contumacious should be deprived of the Communion and if he should not repent it was ordained â—â— anathemate feriatur that he should be cursed So say diverse of the Schoolmen and Casuists as Soto Paludanus Cajetanus Sylvester Navarrus that it is not lawfull to heart service or to be present at a Masse with an excommunicated person But in the fourth Councell of Carthage as Papists acknowledge no excommunicated person is debarred from hearing the Word But it is to bee observed carefully that for the same reasons Papists think the excommunicated persons should heare Sermons and the Word preached that our brethren say Because preaching is an act of jurisdiction and authority but not an act of order and therefore preaching is not an act of Church-communion but common to any who have not received orders and may be performed as the reading of the VVord by Deacons and those who have Priest-hood or power to administrate the Sacraments And Innocentius the third saith Preaching is proper to Priests who have received orders by no divine Law Indeed Leo the first made a Law of it for which cause Suarez saith That Christ in these words Iohn 21. Feed mâ—sheep and Matth. 28. Preach the Gospel gave power of jurisdiction but not of order onely It is given commonly saith he to the Clergy to preach and to Deacons because decentius it is more fiâ—ly and decently performed by them then by Laicks Though it be true that two Cardinals Toletus and Cajetanus be against Suarez in this and say that Iohn 21. Peter is made the head and universall Pastor over sheep and lambs to feed and governe them And Navarrus saith Preaching soli sacerdotio institutione divina adjuncta est is by divine institution proper to the Priesthood Yet this excluding of them from comming into the Church was from comming in to the holy place only where the Lords Supper was celebrated and they stood at the Church doore where they might heare the VVord and therefore were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hearers and murmurers as Basâ—lius saith and Field Excommunication doth not wholly saith he cut off men from the visible Church and his reason is good because they may and often doeretaine first The profession of pure truth secondly The character of Baptisme thirdly They professe obedience to their Pastors fourthly They will not joyne to any other communion And therefore to say with our Author we dare not to wit That though the seed of faith may remaine in the excommunicated person yet to the society of the faithfull joyned in a particular visible Church they are not knit but wholly cut off from their communion Also he is delivered unto Satan and therefore wholly cut off from the communion of the Church and so from the seals he and his seed as heathen and heathens seed are We condemne Novatians because as Cyprian saith they denied mercy to the repenting excommunicated person and because as Socrates said of them God onely can forgive sins And we condemne the Donatists who would not as Augustine saith receive into the Churches commmunion againe such as had delivered to persecuters the Bible and other holy things So we are to condemne these who are more rigorous toward such as are excommunicated then Christ is for Christ keepeth them as sick children within his visible Church and useth Satan as the Physitians servant who boyleth Herbs and dresseth Drugs for them while he by Gods permission tormenteâ—hthes spirit with the conscience of sinne As when a child is sick saith worthy Cartwright the Father calleth a Colledge of physicians to consult about medicine to be given to the child So iâ— the contumacious person under the medicine of excommunication administred by the Church-presbytery Now this wee cannot say of heathen and publicans And therefore Augustine sayth excellently excommunicated persons non esse Ethnicos sed tanquam ethnicos are not heathen but estemed as
to Jerusalem by revelation as Paul did Gal. 1. Ergo all their acts that they did there they did them by immediate revelation Answ. The consequence is null Paul went by revelation up to Jerusalem and there Gal. 2. hee rebuked Peter as an Apostle no as a Brother for then Paul should have exercised Apostolick Authority over Peter which is popish Object 3. If the Apostles did act as Presbyters here they did wrong the particular Churches and took their Liberty from them in exercising ordinary Ministeriall acts there which are proper to that Church Answ. It followeth upon the denyed principles of an independent Congregation onely for a Church without Elders hath no Presbyteriall power and therefore such a power can not bee taken from it you cannot take from a Church that which by Law it hath not If the Acts of the government in the Apostles are according to the substance of the Acts all one with the Acts of government in the ordinary presbytery Ergo say I those Acts come not from an Apostolicall and extraordinary power even as the Apostles preaching and baptizing are not different in nature and essence from the Acts of preaching and baptizing in ordinary Pastors though they had power to preach and baptize every where and wee onely where wee have an ordinary calling of the Church and from the Apostles preaching and baptizing every where wee may inferre it is lawfull for the ordinary Elders their successors to preach and baptize in some place why may we not inferre because the Apostles in collegio in one presbytery did ordaine ordinary officers that we have thence a patterne for an ordinary presbytery Object 4. If there were no institution for preaching and baptizing but onely the Apostles naked practise we were not warrantably to preach and baptize from the sole and naked example of the Apostles Answ. Shew us an institution for preaching and baptizing then for that which we alledge is an institution Matth. 28. 19 20. Mark 14. v. 15. to you is a commandement given to the Apostles as Apostles as you said in the 1. objection proponed by you and therefore we have no more warrant to preach and baptize from the Apostles example then we have to work miracles and because by the same reason of yours Christs command to his Apostles to preach before his death Matth. 10. is not ordinary presbyteriall preaching but conjoyned also with the power of casting out devills Matth. 10. 1 2 3. it must also upon the same ground bee a Commandement given to the Apostles not as ordinary Pastors but as Apostles if we compare Matth. 10. 1 2 3. with Mark 16. 15 16 17 18. If you flee to John Baptist his practise of baptisme 1. you are farther off then you were 2. What warrant more that John Baptist his practise should warrant preaching and baptizing if it want an institution then the Apostles preaching and baptizing when it is separated from an institution 2. This argument pincheth you as much as us for a thousand times in your bookes a warrant for our ordinary Elders to preach and baptize is fetched from the sole practise of the Apostles 3. By this the argument for the Christian Salbath from the Apostles observing that day shall also fall 4. This also shall make us loose in fundamentalls of Church government which are grounded upon the Apostles practise 5. The Apostles had no Apostolick and extraordinary ground which moved them to preach and baptize according to the substance of the Acts for they did preach and baptize upon these morall and perpetuall motives and grounds which doe obliege ordinary Elders to preach and baptize even to Christs second comming Ergo their very practise not considered with the institution is our patterne and rule It is as evident that there was a Presbyteriall Church at Ierusalem after the dispersion seeing the dispersion as we have proved did not reâ—rench them to one Congregation because our Brethren doe conclude from a company of Elders of the Church of Ephesus Acts 20. of Ierusalem from the Angell of the Church of pergamus of Thyatira a formall ordinary Presbytery of Ephesus of Ierusalem of Thyatira Let us have the favour of the same argument upon the supposall of many Congregations which the word doth warrant and upon the supposall that it is called one Church alwayes as Acts 2. 47. The Lord added to the Church Acts 5. 11. feare came upon all the Church Acts 8. 1. there arose a great persecution against the Church Acts 12. 1. Herod stretched forth his hand to vex certaine of the Church v. 5. prayer was made without ceasing of the Church unto God Acts 15. 4. and when they were come to Jerusalem they were received of the Church and of the Apostles and Elders Acts. 21. 15. Paul went up to Jerusalem and v. 18. The day following Paul went in with us into James and all the Elders were present Here be Elders of the Church of Ierusalem and Ierusalem is named one Church frequently and alwayes before and after the dispersion it is called a Church in the singular number not onely in relation to persecuters but also in relation to government and because they were a politicall society to which there were many added Acts 2. 47. and which hath Elders Acts 15. 4. Acts 21. 15. 18. And a Church-union in a constituted body hearing the Word and receiving the Sacraments as this Church did Acts 2. 42. is not a Church but in regard of Church-policy and Church-government They reply That enemies doe persecute the Church Acts 8. 1. Acts 12. 1. Acts 8. 3. Saul made havock of the Church that is of the faithfull of the Church for Saul had no regard in his persecution to a Church in their government or Church combination therefore the enemies are said to persecute the Church materially I answer this objection I tooke off before But 2. Principally the enemies persecuted the Church under the notion of â— Society politicall holding forth in a visible Church-profession their faith in Christ and that by hearing receiving the Seales and subjecting themselves in a visible way obvious to the Eye of all to the government of the Christian Church Yea the enemies had no better character to discerne them to be Saints and so worthy of their malice then Church-characters of a Church-profession But 2. Whereas the Holy Ghost giveth the name of one Church to the Church of Ierusalem all constantly speaking of it both as a Church and in relation to persecuters and that every way in that notion as our Brethren say that the Scripture speaketh of their own Corgregationall Church wee have the same reason to call it one Church because of one government for the question is not now if it bee many Congregations but it it bee one Church Object 2. They are called the Elders at Jerusalem not the Elders of the Church of Jerusalem Ergo from this it is not concluded that they were one Church Answ. Acts 16. 4.
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
Jewish entry in the visible Church Gen. 17. 13. It being the Covenant of God in the flesh the uncircumcised being commanded to be cut off from Gods people v. 14. 4. This is according to the Scriptures and the doctrine of the fathers Augustine Cyrill Basilius Tertullian Hieronymus Theophylact Theodoret Ambrose Cyprian who constantly so teach so doe our Divines Calvin Beza Buâ—nus Pareus Piscator Anton. Wallaeus Tilenus Kickermanus So Zanchius Polanus Sihrandus Rivetus Fennerus Whittakerus Raynoldus Willetus and the professors of Leyden 〈◊〉 Our Brethren say it is the opinion of the Anabaptists that the Church is made by baptisme and Papists have the same conceit and therefore place their Font at the Church doore to signifie mens entry into the Church by baptisme but we beleeve not that baptisme doth make men members of the Church nor to be administrated to them who are without the Church as the way to bring them in but to them that are within the Church as a seale to confirme the Covenant of Grace to them Answ. 1. Anabaptists deny that any ought to be baptized while thy come to age and while they beleeve and be regenerated and they say not farre from your selves in this who teach it to bee absurd to put a blanke seale upon a falshood and so you presuppone all to be regenerated and truly within the Covenant before they can be sealed to be within the Covenant by baptisme and yet you do not think all Infants of beleeving parents to be regenerated and truly within the Covenant then is the seale blanck Also you say baptisme is not to be administrated to those who are without but onely to those who are within the Church you meane not within the Church by profession for Infants have no profession and you say the Sacrament cannot be put on a blanke or a falshood Ergo you thinke all that are baptized ought to be within the Church really and not in profession ouely Ergo they must all come to age and beleeve before they can be baptized 2. We say not that baptisme maketh a Church mysticall and the true and lively body and Spouse of Christ but that it is a seale confirming us of our entry in the visible Church 3. The placing of the Font at the Church doore as a mysticall signe of our entry in the Church is an Antichristian ceremony of mens devising which wee disclaime 4. If Infants baptized must bee within the Church before they can be baptized how deny you to receive them to the Lords Supper when they come to age while they bee againe by your Church-oath received within the Church then are they both within the Church because they are baptized and without the Church because they are not received in by your Church-oath againe 5. If baptisme be a seale of grace to confirme the Covenant of grace to those who are within the Church that is onely a single Congregation for you deny that there be any visible Churches in the New Testament save these onely then are persons baptized persons and confirmed in the Covenant of grace onely within a single Congregation I would know if baptisme should not then be repeated and reiterated in every ones person as they come to a new Congregation for they are confirmed in the Covenant of grace by baptisme onely in one single Congregation as you teach Their second and third reason is Baptisme and all ordinances are priviledges given to the Church so it maketh not the Church but the Church is before baptisme and all ordinances the use also of baptisme is to be a seale of the Covenant now a seale is not to make a thing which was not but to confirme a thing which was Answ. 1. The Church is indeed the Church mysticall and the invisible body of Christ before baptisme but this proveth not but baptisme is a seale of our entry in the visible Church for if this be a good argument your Church-covenant which to you is an ordinance of God falleth to the grrund for persons are the true Churches of Christ before all the ordinances of Christ Ergo by your Church-covenant men doe not become Christs visible Church 2. The argument hath no feet for the ordinance of preaching the Word is a priviledge of the Church and ordinance of God yet is not the Church before the preaching of the Word for birth is not before the seed but the seed before the birth the preaching of the Word is the seed of the Church 1 Pet. 1. 23. and a meane of gathering the Church Rom. 10. 14. and it is also a priviledge of the Church for hee dealeth not so with every nation to send his Gospell to them Psal. 147. 19 20. 3. When you say that a Seale doth not make a thing that was not but confirme a thing that was while you would seeme to refute Papists who vainely teach that Sacraments doe confeâ—re grace ex opere opâ—rato by the deed done yet doe you make the Sacrament but a naked signe and take part with Arminians and Socinians whose very arguments in expresse words you use for Socinius goeth before you in this argument and so doth Smalcius follow him 〈◊〉 and sealing there is required the trying of the thing and some â—â—â—hing or document but that ceremony a baptisime and that rite though it bee â—â—ly doth nothing to the remission of sins but it doth onely shadow out and as it 〈◊〉 delineâ—ue and point forth remission of sinnes by the washing of water â—xpâ—ned in the Word of God You say Sacraments 〈◊〉 make a thing that was not but confirme a thing that was before you can have no other meaning then to deny all cansalitie and all reall exhibition of grace in the Sacraments for if a Sacrament make not a thing that was not before or if God give nâ—t and really produce conferre and exhibite grace and a stronger measure of faith and assurance of remission of sinnes at the due and right use of the Sacrament the Sacrament is a naked signe and not an exhibitive Seale But if Christ give and in the present exhibit as surely remission of sinnes as the infant is washen with water as our Divines and the Palatinate Catechise teacheth yea and the confession thereof and the Synod of Dort teacheth then by the Sacrament of Baptisme a thing is made that which it was not It is true a civill seale as I said before addeth no new lands to the owner of the Charter but if Christ by his Seales rightly and in faith used doe not onely confirme grace and pardon but also really exhibite and give grace and pardon in a further degree and a new measure of assurance to the conscience which there was not before you goe not a streas breadth from Arminians and Socinians especially seeing Episcopius Henricus Welsingius saith that remission of finnes is not sealed by
bee regenerated also for it is certaine that we have a communion most inteare and visible with all who are baptized 2. It is no inconvenient to professe that we are all one visible body in the Lords Supper 1 Cor. 10. 17. though wee be not one invisible true and mysticall and redeemed body of Christ as it is said 1 Cor. 10. 2. That all were baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the Seâ—t v. 3. and that all did eate the same spirituall meat v. 4. and that all did drinke the same spirituall drinke the rocke Christ yet did they not sinne in this and partake with the wicked in their â—ills to wit in their wicked prayers and sacrifices because it is said v. 3. God was not pleased with many of them in the Wildernesse because v. 6. They lusted after evill things and many of them were Idolaters Epicures fornicators tempters of Christ and mumurers and there sell of them in one day twenty three thousand v. 7. 89 10 11. And upon the same ground Paul saith in the same place v. 16 17. that we many speaking of the Corinthians are all 〈◊〉 â—read and one body and yet v. 21. many of these were partaâ—ers of the Table and cup of the devills and in the next Chapter many came drunke to the Lords Table many did eate and drinke their owne damnation and were stricken therefore of God with sicknes and deâ—th v. 18 19 20. 29 30 c. and yet v. 33. Paul chargâ—th them to come together to the Lords Supper so farre is hee from a shadow of separation The Sacrament is a seale of their unitie of one body and is a Seale of their communion with Christ v. 16. but all who receive the signe have not a communion with Christ nor are they all sealed as one body mysticall of Christ onely they are in profession by eating one bread declared to be one body and doe become one body visible and no question many make the Sacrament to themselves a lying signe and a blaneke ordinance But first this is not the sinne of such as doe communicate with those who receive the blaneke seale and make the Sacrament to themselves a lying seale and damnation for they are commanded to exaamine themselves and so to eate but they are not commanded to examine their fellow-communicants and they are to judge themselves but not to judge their fellow-communicants Master Coachman How can any godly man consent or say Amen saith be to such an holy action when it is joyntly done by such as for the most part are the enemies of God Answer 1. This maketh against the man and the Churches of New England for they admit constantly to the hearing of the word and so to the prayers of the Church those who are not received members of the visible Church how can any godly man say Amen to the action of hearing the word when it is joyntly done by Gods enemies I prove the Antecedent the unity of faith hearing one word of faith preached Eph. 4. 5. maketh a visible body in profession even as the joynt partaking of one bread and one cup in the Lords Supper maketh one body by obsignation or sealing 1 Cor. 10. 16 17. 2. Division of hearts in hearing while some follow Paul some Apollo some Cephas maketh a schisme and division in Christs body 1 Cor. 13. Ergo in hearing one and the same word preached there is a visible Church-union for all division of that kind presupposeth a union and unity in a visible incorporation 3. 1 Cor. 14. 26. When yee come together as one Church body every one of you hath a Psalme hath a Doctrine vers 4. He that prophecieth edifiesh the Church vers 31. so yee may all prophecy one by one that all may learne and all may be comforted 35 it is shame for a woman to speake in the Church Therefore the Saints meet together in one Church to be edified and comforted by doctrine and hearing of the word doe all joyntly performe an action of hearing and learning of the word of God and are in that one Church and one visible body and called one Church verse 4. 5. that the Church may receive edifying verse 12. Seeke that yee may excell by prophecying to the edifying of the Church vers 23. If therefore the whole Church come together unto some place c. vers 28. if there be not an interpreter let him keepe silence in the Church verse 34 35. And these who understand are all to say Amen to that which is prophecied verse 16 17. And yet that action of hearing and saying Amen to the word preached and to the prayers of the Church is done by many unregenerated who are yet in the state of enmity with God as our Brethren grant in that they doe admit all to be a Church and one Church hearing the word preached 2. But how can they say Amen saith he to a holy action done 〈◊〉 Gods enemies I answer 1. This objection is no lesse against Paul and the word of God then against us for many enemies to God whose hearts are rockie thorny and stony ground doe heare the 〈◊〉 of God and that by Gods commandement Matth. 13. vers 2. 3 4 5. c. The deafe and the blind are commanded to heare Esai 42. 18. Esai 28. 9 10. and these whom God hath covered with a spirit of slumber are to heare the words of the sealed booke Isai. 29. 9. 10 11. even those who stumble at the word and fall and are broken Esai 8. 14. 15 16. 1 Pet. 2. v. 8. What godly man can say Amen to such a holy action as is performed by Gods enemies 2. The godly say Amen to actions of Gods worship two wayes 1. As it is the ordinance of God injoyned and commanded to the wicked and hypocrites no lesse then to the godly and we are to countenance their communicating as we doe their hearing of the word and to joyne with them both in our reall and personall presence and say Amen with them as the Disciples gave their personall Amen and their countenance and presence to a holy action at the last Supper with one of their number whom they knew to have a Devill and to be a traitor and dipped their hand in the dish with this man after Christ had warned them that there was such an one but this is but to say Amen to the externall worship which is lawfull according to the substance of the act 2. The godly may be throught to say Amen to the actions of worship performed by the enemies of God by approving allowing and commending the manner of their performing the holy actions of Gods worship that is they may be thought to approve the manner of their hearing and receiving the Sacraments that is when they approve their performing of those holy actions without faith and with wicked hearts and hands and when they allow that they eats their owne damnation thus no godly man can say Amen
unto the Church was as the profession of a publike person receiving him and his children who could make no profession but by his mouth unto the Church so his violation of his profession by a scandalous criâ—â— was as a publike violation thereof for himself and his seed who stand or fall before the Church in his name and his person Answ. 1. It is true Christ giveth right to baptisme to the child by the Fathers right I distinguish that by the nearest father onely I deny by the right of fathers in generall true but then it will follow that no infant is to be debarred from baptisme for the sinnes of his nearest parents for if these who are descended of Abraham and David many generations upward from them were within the Covenant and so had right to circumcision for the Covenant made with David and Abraham and the nearest fathers sinne is not the cause of taking away the right to the Covenant from the child and right to the Church Communion 2. I much doubt if the child have right to the seales of the Covenant for the faith of the father and so I deny that hee loseth right to the seales of the Covenant for the fathers scandalous crime which is a violation of the Covenant I doe reverence grave and learned divines who speake so Oecolampadius and Zuinglius say that Insants are sanctified by their parents faith but I conceive they take the word faith objectively for the doctrine of faith profeffed by the father and not subjectively But I think that great Divine Beza saith well that no man is saved by another mans faith nor can the parents faith be imputed to the children which is no lesse absurd nor to say that one man liveth by the soule and life of another man and that he is wise by the wisedome of another man how then are Infants within the Covenant for their parents I answer for the faith of their fathers that is for the Covenant of their fathers they have right to baptisme for that I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Galat. 3. 8. comprehendeth all the beleeving Gentiles And for this cause the children of Papists and excommunicate protestants which are borne within our visible Church are baptized if their forefathers have beene found in the faith and I thinke the reason is given by Doctor Morton who saith The children of all Papists Anabaptists or other Hereticks are to be distinguished from the children of Turkes and Pagans because the Parents of Papists and Anabaptists have once beene dedicated to Christ in baptisme and the child saith he hath onely interest in that part of the Covenant which is sound and Catholike while as the parents themselves stand guiltie of heresie which by their owne proper and actuall consent they have added unto the Church And I thinke the Scripture saith here with us that the nearest parents be not the onely conveyers and propagators of federall holinesse to the posteritie Psal. 106. 35. They were mingled with the heathen and learned their workes 36. and they served their Idols c. 44. Neverthelesse he regarded their affliction 45. and he remembred for them his covenant What Covenant His Covenant made with Abraham and yet their nearest fathers sinned v. 6. We have sinned and our fathers v. 7. Our fathers understood not thy wonders in Egypt they remembred not the multitude of thy mercies but provoked him at the Sea even at the red Sea v. 8. Neverthelesse be saved them for his names sake His name was the glory of the Covenant made with Abraham by which his name and truth by promise was ingaged Esa. 63. 10. But they rebelled and vexed his holy Spirit therefore hee was turned to bee their enemy and hee fought against them v. 11. Then he remembred the dayes of old Moses and his people saying Where is he that led them and brought them out of the red Sea So also Esay 51. 1 2 3. and most evidently Ezek. 20. 8. They rebelled against me c. But I wrought for my names sake that it should not be polluted before the heathen among whom they were in whose sight I made my selfe knowne unto them in bringing them forth out of the land of Egypt Now this name is to be expounded his Covenant Jerem. 31. 32. which he made with them when hee brought them out of the land of Egypt which Covenant is extended unto the Christian Church Heb. 8. 8. 9 10. Now if God gave right unto the sonnes of the Jewes I meane federall right to temporall deliverance and the meanes of grace for the Covenant made with Abraham though their nearest parents rebelled against the Lord that same Covenant in all the priviledges thereof indureth yet yea and is made to all the Gentiles â—al 3. 8. Heb. 8. 8 9 10. for it is the covenant nationall made with the whole race not with the sonnes upon the condition of the nearest parents saith as is cleare after Christs ascension unto heaven Act. 2. 39. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are afarre off even to as many as the Lord our God shall call Now it is cleare that their fathers killed the Prophets Matth. 23. 30 31 32 33 34 35. they were a wicked generation under blood v. 37. 2. It is cleare that these externally and in a federall and Church profession have right ecclesiastick to the Covenant to whom the externall calling of the preached Gospell doth belong while he saith the promise of the Covenant is made to as many as the Lord our God shall call so the called nation though the nearest parents have killed the Prophets and rejected the calling of God Matth. 23. 33. 34. 37. is the nation which have externall and Church-right to the promises and Covenant and Rom. 11. 28. As concerning the Gospell they are enemies for your sake but as touching the election they are beloved for the fathers sake now their nearest fathers maliciously opposed the Gospell therefore it must be for the election of the holy nation in which respect the nation of the Jewes v. 16. was a holy seed and a holy root and the children were also the holy branches holy with the holinesse of the Covenant and Joshua had no reason to circumcise the people at Gilgal for the holinesse of their nearest parents whose earcasses fell in the wildernesse yet he circumcised them to take away the reproach of his people now this reproach was uncircumcision in the flesh the reproach of the Philistims so Goliah is called an uncircumcised Philistim and of all the nations without the Covenant of God yea by this there were no reason to circumcise the sonnes of Achab and Jezabel whose nearest parents were slaves to Idolatry and who were bloody persecutors of the Prophets nor was there reason to circumcise Jeroboams sonne in whom there was some good for both father and mother were wicked Apostates and very often by
this doctrine should the people of the Jewes leave off to be the visible Church and so the promise of the Covenant should faile in the line from Abraham to David and from David to Christ even so oft as the nearest parents did evill in the sight of the Lord and many times should God have cast off his people whom be foreknew contrary to that which Paul saith Rom. 11. 1 2 3. To these I adde if the infants of the Christian Church have onely right to baptisme through the faith of the nearest parents onely then is this to be conceived either to bee true and saving faith in the nearest parents or onely faith in profession if you say the former then 1. The seed of the excommunicated parents in whom is faith or the seed thereof is to be baptized the contrary of which you affirme 2. Then the seed and Infants of no Parents but of such only as are members of the invisible Church of the first borne are to be baptized the contrary whereof you teach while you say The Sacraments are not given to the invisible Church and the members thereof but to the visible particular Churches 3. The Infants of the unbeleeving parents though members of the visible Church have no right to baptisme and the Covenant though they be the elect of God and borne within the visible Church which is admirable to us now it is knowne that Hypocrites and unbeleeving parents have often such a luster of a greene and fairelike profession as that they goe for visible members of the Church so as their children are by Christs warrant and right baptized I come to the other point if the faith of nearest parents onely true in profession and show before men give right to their Infants to bee sealed with the seales of the Covenant Then 1. apparent and bypocriticall faith conferreth true right to the seales to Infants and there is not required as the author saith Chap. 3. Sect. 3. that the members of the visible Church be the called of God the sonnes and daughters of the Lord God Almighty not onely in externall profession but also in some measure of sinceritie and truth 2. God hath warranted his Church to put his seale upon a falsehood and to conferre the seales upon Infants for the externall profession of faith where there is no faith at all this your writers thinke inconvenient and absurd Also it is objected by us that excommunicates children are in no better case by this doctrine then the children of Turkes and Infidels The Author answereth We willingly saith he put a difference excommunicates are nearer to helpes and meanes of salvation and conversion then Turkes 1 Cor. 5. 5. because excommunication it selfe is a meane that the spirit may be saved and Turkes are nearer then Apostates who turne enemies to the truth for better never have knowne the way of truth then to turne backe But in this they agree they are all of them as Heathen Matth. 18. and therefore neither parents nor children have right to the seales Answ. This is not an answer for the Infants of excommunicates though they be the seed of ancestors as grandfathers who were true beleevers yet as infants and dying in Infancy are no lesse without the Covenant and excluded from the seales thereof by you then the Infants of Turkes 2. The Infants of nearest parents in the Jewish Church though wicked were not excluded from circumcision nor were they in the case of the Infants of the prophane heathen and the same covenant made to the Jewes and their seed is made to us and to our seed Gal. 3. 8. Heb. 8. 9. 10. Rom. 11. 27. 28. Act. 2. 38 39. We also affirme that the Lord extendeth the mercy of the Covenant to a thousand generations and therefore the line of the covenant-mercy is not broken off for the unbeleefe of the nearest parents Our Author answereth Is the extension of Gods mercy to a thousand generations be a sufficient ground to extend baptisme to the Children of excommunicates in the right of their ancestors it may suffice as well to the children of Turkes and Insidels and Apostates for it is not above sixty and six generations from Noah to Christ as is plaine in the Genealogie Luk. 3. 13. and there have not passed as many more generations from Christs time to the Turkes and Infidels of the present age And all will not amount say they in their answers to the summe of two hundred generations The true meaning is that God out of his abundant and rich mercy may and doth extend thoughts of redeeming and converting mercy and grace unto thousand generations but he never allowes his Church any warrant to receive unto their Covenant and communion the children of godly parents who lived a thousand yeares agoe much lesse a thousand generations nay rather the Text is plaine 1 Cor. 7. 14. that the holinesse of the children depends upon the next immediat parents to wit upon such faith as denominateth them beleevers in opposition to Pagans and Infidels and that holinesse to the children is called federall which receiveth them unto the Covenant and seales thereof Answ. 1. We stand not on the number of a thousand precisely nor doth the holy Ghost intend that for as it is usuall in Scripture a definite number is put for an indefinite Wrath followeth the Ammonite and Moabite to the tenth generation Deut. 23. 2 3. and the Edomite and Egyptian though cursed entereth into the Congregation of the Lord the third generation v. 7. 8. The Lord here walketh in a latitude yet so as the mercy of the Covenant is extended to more generations a thousand for foure beyond the anger of God to the generation of the wicked nor doth the Authors consequence stand good that then wee had right and warrant to baptize the children of Turkes Pagans and Indians as for one single Apostate I account him as one single excommunicate Christian in this point because the Lords comparison of proportion holdeth in generations of the same kind and is restricted to the generations within the visible Church sheweth mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keepe my Commandements which must be extended to professed love of a nation that is federally holy Now Turkes and Indians are neither lovers of God nor in profession through federall holinesse such and it is most pregnant against such as confine and imprison the mercy of the Covenant towards poore Infants to their next immediate parents and by the Authors interpretation the thousand generations to which God extendeth mercy is confined to one because if the wicked two the father and mother bee violaters of the Covenant though nine hundreth foregoing generations have beene lovers of God yet the Covenant mercy is interrupted to the innocent Infants in this innocent and they are translated over to the classe and roll of the children of Turkes and Pagans under the curse and wrath of God for hundreth of generations
assigned of God to them though the lesse disâ—ractâ—ous the wages bee the better and the more convenient they are 2 Tim. 2. 3. 4. 5. As for the tithes wee thinke quotta decimarum or a sufficient maintenance of tithes or what else may conduce for food and raiment of divine right Matth. 10. 16. 1 Cor. 9. 8 9. tithes formally as tithes are not necessary so the Ministers bee provided and a stipend bee allowed to them not as an almes but as a debt Luk. 10. 7. But the stinting of maintenance for Ministers the author condemneth because when Constantine gave large rents to the Church it proved the lane of the Church But I answer stinting maketh not this but excesse for mountaines of rents may bee stinted no lesse then mole-hills In the first proposition Pastors are to bee chosen of new in England though they have beene Pastors before and that by the imposition of the hands of some gracious and godly Christians Answ. Such an ordination wanteth all warrant in the Word of God 2. Why are they ordained over againe who were once ordained already belike you count them not Ministers and baptisme administred by them no baptisme though these same gracious Christians have beene baptized by such and so England hath no Church visible at all and no ministry see what you lay upon Luther and some of our first reformers who had their externall calling from Antichristian Prelates the same very thing which Papists lay upon them 3. If there bee called Pastors in England to lay on hands on Ministers why are not they to impose hands on such as you judge to bee no ministers because possibly the Prelates laid hands upon them seeing you grant Chap. 5. Sect. 9. where there are Presbyters to lay on hands it is convenient that ordination should bee performed by them I confesse I am not much for the honoring of the Prelates foule fingers yet can they not bee called no Pastors no more then in right wee can say Caiaphas was no High Priest Proposition 6. Hee willeth Pastors and Doctors and Elders to bee put in the â—â—â—me of Parsons and Vicars Answ. If the offices of Parson and Vicar bee set up it is reason they be abolished but for the names there is not much necessitie of contending though in such cases it bee safer to speake with the Scripture then with Papists the Vicar Generall is indeed the Bishops delegat and a creature to bee banished out of the house of God of whose unprofitable place stile see that learned writer Dâ—â—id Calderwood who findeth him to bee made of the metall of the Popes service base Copper not Gold and the Popish parson is as the Vicar Firewood for Antichrists Caldron In the 12. and 13. Propositions it is said that it is necessary 〈◊〉 Preachers countenanced from King and State were sent to 〈◊〉 to congregations generally ignorant and prophane and till they 〈…〉 measure of gracious reformation as they can testifie their faith and repentance it were meet they should never renew their Câ—â—â—nant made in baptism nor yet have the Seales of the Covenant conâ—â—â—ed upon them but till then they shall lament after the Lord as the 〈◊〉 did when the Arke had beene long absent 1 Sam. 7. 2. Answ. In these Propositions most of all the Congregations of England except some few following the way of independencie of Church government though they bee baptized and professe the truth are brought just to the state of Turkes and Indians willing to heare the Word or of excommunicated persons for they and their seede are to want the Scales their children Baptiâ—me themselves the Lords Supper But 1. how can the 〈◊〉 in ordinary rebukes and excommunication from the Sâ—alâ— bee exercised upon these who are without and no Churche as yet for while they sweare the Covenant they are not Churches 2. It is said godly Preachers must bee sent to them 〈◊〉 thâ—y 〈◊〉 reformed but why not godly Pastors because thâ—ugh these preachers preach unto them yet exercise they no Pastorall care over them because they are not yet a visible Church and flocke and therefore have no more Pastors to care for their soules then Turkes and Indians and Preachers have 〈◊〉 a Pastorall relation to these though baptized and 〈◊〉 Christ then to Indians Jewes or Turkes as our brethren teach a paterne of such flocks is not hard in the word where ordinarily the word is preached to a number of people baptized and yet baptisme denyed to all their seed and the Lords Supper to themselves 3. It is the same Covenant the author speaketh of here with the Church Covenant that 〈◊〉 and Judah made with God and which they say essentially constituteth a Church and hinteth at the Covenant of the Church of Scotland sworne and subscribed by many thousands ignâ—rant and prophane and who never came to such a measure of gracious reformation as they can testifie their faith and repentance yet did this nation right in putting all to sweare and enter into a Covenant with God for Israel Deut. 29. where there was many who had not eyes to see eares to heare and a heart to understand v. 3. 4. and where there were many rebellious and stiff-hearted Deut. 31. 27. entered all of them into Covenant with God Captaines Elders Officers all the men of Israel Deut. 29. v. 10. Little ones wives children hewers of wood c. all which attained not to such a measure of gracious reformation 2 Chron. 15. 9. all Judah and Benjamin and the strangers with them out of Ephraim and Manasseh and out of Simeon entered into a Covenant with God who after such Apostasie could not all have attained to that measure of gracious reformation as to testifie their faith and repentance by prayer conference experiences of Gods wayes in their heart and confession and yet the Author saith that there is no colour to conceive this way of entering into Church estate by Covenant to be peculiar to the pedagogue of the Old Testament 4. Israels lamenting after the Lord 1 Sam. 7. 2. was not the repentance of a people who was not a Church visible but was onely a people to bee prepared for a Church State and not fit to receive circumcision and the passoever as you conceive of the ignorant and prophane in England which to you are no visible Churches for Israel at this time was a true visible Church The rest of the propositions tending to reformation not discussed elsewhere I acknowledge to be gracious and holy counsells meet for a reformation The Lord build his owne Temple in that Land and fill it with the cloud of his glory FINIS a Psal. 47. 9. b Sam. 23. v. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c Omnis sanguis concolor Franc. Petrarch Psal. 84. 11. Revel 12. 1. e 2 Cor. 8 23. a Cassian de incar lib. 1. c. 4. Primum est errores penitus non in currâ—rc secâ—ndum bene repudiare b James 4. 1. The way
to holy actions performed by Gods enemies nor is our externall communicating with them a saying Amen to the wicked manner of receiving the seales this is most unreasonable and cannot be proved by Gods word But Robinson will prove that in this place 2 Cor. 6. the Lord forbiddeth communion not onely with evill workes of wicked men but with their persons and that he commandeth a separation not onely reall but personall 1. Because saith he the Scripture hath reference to the yoaking of the unbeleevers in marriage as the occasion of spirituall idolatrous mixture which he reproveth now this joyning was not in an evill or unlawfull thing but with the wicked and unlawfull persons Answer If the man had formed a syllogisme it should be a crooked proportion if Paul allude to the marriage with insides then as we are not to joyne with Pagans in lawfull marriage so neither with scand â—â—ous Christians in lawfull worship This connexion is gratis said and we deny it But as we are not to marry with Pagans so not to sit in their Idoll-Temple and to be present in their Idoll-worship else we were not to admit them or their personall presence to the hearing of the word contrary to your selves and to 1 Cor. 14. 24 25. So if because we are not to marry with them we are not to be personally present with them at the receiving of the Sacrament neither at the hearing of the word nor are we to be baptized because Simâ—n Magus and many Hypocrites are baptized 3. Locall separation from Idoll-worship in the Idoll-Temple we teach as well as Robinson but what then he commandeth locall and personall separation from all the professors of the truth in the lawfull worship of God this we deny to follow 2. The very termes saith Robinson beleevers unbeleevers light darknesse Christ Belial doe import opposition not of things only but of persons also for things sake so the faithfull are called righteousnesse light and the ungody darknesse and so not onely their workes but their persons are called Answer 1. We deny not opposition of persons and separation locall from persons in Idoll-worship at an Idoll-Table but hence is not concluded personall separation from wicked men in the lawfull worship of God 2. This is for us we are to separate from the persons because the worship is unlawfull and Idoll-worship and therefore the contrary rather followeth iâ— the worship were lawfull we would not separate for remove the cause and the effect shall cease 3. The Apostle saith he forbiddeth all unlawfull communion in the place but there is an unlawfull communion of the faithfull with the wicked in things lawfull as with the excommunicated idolatrous 〈◊〉 or my other flagitious person in the Sacraments prayers and other religious exercises and the Iewes were to separate themselves 〈◊〉 from the manners of the Heâ—then but even from their â—ersâ—s â—zr 19. 1. 2. and 10. 2 3. Nehem. 9. 10. 28 30. And Paul 〈◊〉 the Corinthians 1 Cor. 5. for having fellowship not onely in â—â— persons inâ—est but with the incestuous person whom therefore they 〈◊〉 â—urge out and to put away from amongst themselves verse 5. â— 13. Answer It is true there is an unlawfull communion of the faithfull that is overseers and guides of the Church to whom God hath committed the keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven with excommunicated persons in that they retaine one worthy to be excommunicated in the bosome of the Church but communion with the Church in the holy things of God is not hence concluded to be unlawfull because the guides of the people communicate with that Church where the excommunicated person is suffered it is the sinne of the Church-guides that an excommunicated person is not cast out and that he is suffered to communicate at the Lords Table and to profane â— in not discerning the Lords body but it is not the sinne of either guides or the people to communicate at one Table with the excommunicated person or him that deserveth to be excommunicated for not casting out is one thing and to communicate with the excommunicated in the true visible Church is another thing the former is a sinne not to use the power that Christ hath given but to communicate with the excommunicated person is not a sinne but a remembring of the Lords death at Christs commandement for one sinne maketh not another sinne to be lawfull or to be no sinne to deliver one unto Satan is to debarre one from the Lords Supper and to repute him as a Publican and to judge him not worthy of the communion in the holy things of God with the Church but this is not to repute the Church or guides or members as Publicans and Heathens and as not worthy of Church-communion with the man who is cast out we see the Church of Corinth rebuked for not excommunicating the incestuous man but not forbidden to come and eate the Lords Supper with him and these who came and did eate their owne condemnationâ— 1 Cor. 11. yea they are commanded to come to the publike meeting Ergo it is one thing not to excommunicate the scandalous a sinne and another thing to communicate with the scandalous which is not a sinne directly nor forbidden at all Though Paul have an allusion to the Lords separating of the Jewes from all other people yet it followeth not that we are to separate from the wicked men and unrenewed professing the truth that way first because there was a typicall separation in marriage with Canaanites if the Jewes should marry with the Canaanites the marriage was null and the Moabites and Ammonites ought not to enter in the Temple 2. The Jewes are to separate from the manners of Heathen and from the persons of strange wives yea and to put their wives of the Canaanites after they had married them away from them in token of their repentanee because the marriage was not onely unlawfull but null as is cleare Ezra 9. 1 2 3. Nâ—hem 9. 1 2. And this was a peculiar Law binding the holy seed but doth not inferre the like separation of Christians for 1 Cor. 7. 11 12. it is not lawfull for a Christian to put away a Pagan wife or for the beleeving wife to forsake the Pagan husband and therefore that Jewish separation cannot inferre a separation from the persons and worship of unbeleevers and it is true that Paul commandeth to cast out the incestuous person and to separate him from the Church but it followeth not therefore the Church was to separate from the publike worship because he was not cast out 4. Saith Robinson the Apostle injâ—yneth such a separation at upon which a people is to be esteemed Gods people the Temple of the living God and may challenge his promise to be their God and to dwell amongst them and to walke there and as for the Temple the stoneâ— and timber thereof were separated from all the trees of the Forest and set together in comely