he redeemed with the Blood of God Acts 20. 28. Eph. 5. 25. 26. Col. 1. 18. 1 Cor. 12. 12. Is a church whereof all the members without exception are taught of God Jerem. 31. 34. They shall all know me saith the Lord from the least unto the greatest Esa. 54. 13. All thy children shall be taught of the Lord. And therefore they all haveing heard and learned of the Father come to Christ Iohn 6. 45. and therefore have all the anointing within them which teacheth them all things 1 Iohn 1. 27. And so they have all Eares to heare Yea among such a company Esai 35. 9. 10. there is no Lyon no ravenous beast but the Redeemed and Ransomed of the Lord. But so it is that no visible congregation on Earth that are visible Professors of any competent number is such a Church whereof all the members are taught of God all ransomed and redeemed and therefore no visible church as such is a people or Church in covenant with God See Rodgers Catechisme 3. Conclus A visible profession of the Truth and Doctrine of godlinesse is that which essentially constituteth a visible church and every member of the visible church onely our Brethren and we differ much about the nature of this profession which is required in members added to the Church Our Brethren will have none members of the visible Church but such as are satisfactory to the consciences of all the visible church and give evidences so cleare as the judgement of discerning men can atraine unto that they are truly regenerated We againe do teach that the scandalously wicked are to be cast out of the Church by excommunication and these of approved piety are undoubtedly members of the visible Church so these of the middle sort are to be acknowledged members of the Church though the Church have not a positive certainty of the judgement of charity that they are regenerated so they be knowen 1 To be Baptized 2. That they be free of grosse scandals 3. And professe that they be willing hearers of the Doctrine of the Gospell Such a profession as giveth evidences to the positive certainty of the judgement of charity of sound conversion is not required to make and constitute a true visible Church 1. Argu. Israel entered in covenant with God Deut. 29. was a true visible Church as our Brethren Teach because that they conceive to be a Church-covenant Deut. 29 but Churches by that Oath were not such as to the satisfaction of Moses and the whole people their consciences gave positive certainty of sound conversion Because v. 4. The Lord saith the Text hath not given you an heart to perceive nor eyes to see nor Eares to heare to this day Deut. 31. 27. for I know thy Rebellion and thy stifneck behell while I am yet alive with you this day yee have been rebellions against the Lord. ver 21. Deut. 32. v. 5. v. 15 16 17. Josh. 24. 23. 2. Argu. Christ would not seven times have said He that hath Eares to heare let him heare what the Spirit saith to the Churches if he had not supposed that in these seven Churches there were blind obdurate and carnall hearers as there were when Mat. 13. upon occasion of the like hearers he uttereth these same words in substance Now Christ would have blamed their ill discerning in admitting such to be the materialls of a visible Church as hee reproveth their other faults in government Neither could Christ reprove these Churches for not exercising the Church-censures against liers false Apostles fleshly Nicolaitans followers of Balaams wicked Doctrine Jezebed and other ill doers and seducers if these had not been Church-members as our Brethren teach how can we conceive that Christ would call these Churches who were false in the matter or give his presence and communion by walking among the golden candlestickes and holding the starres the Ministery in his right hand And if every one of these Churches were approved to the consciences one of another that they positively knew they were all of them a royall Priest-Hood an holy Generation all taught of God all sonnes and daughters of the Lord God Almighty how are there such grosse scandals put upon them by Jesus Christ 3. Argu. Paul clearely teacheth 1 Cor. 5. That the Church of Corinth convened had the power of the Lord Iesus amongst them and was a betrothed Bryde espoused in a Church covenant even all of the visible Church as one chaste Virgin to God as our Brethren prove from the 1 Cor. 11. 1 2 3. Who had received the Spirit and the Gospell their minds being knit thereunto in the simplicity of Iesus Christ now if the matter of this betrothed Church was such as our Brethren say then Christs Power and Presence and Spirit were in these as the Temples of the Holy Ghost and these were betrothed to Christ Iesus and had received the Spirit and were Saints by calling were justified washen sanctified who were incestuous Fornicators Drunkards Railers carnall Schismaticks going to the Law one with another before Infidells partakers of the Table of Christ and of divells deniers of the Resurrection to whom the Word was the savour of Death and the Gospell as it is to these whom the God of this world Satan hath blinded What can be more repugnant to the truth and to the Gospell of Christ It cannot be answered that these in Corinth who were hypocrites and walked so contrary to the Gospell were not members of the Church of Corinth For only the truly converted were such I answer 1. Then Paul writeth not to the visible Church and to all whom he doth rebuke the contrary whereof is cleare 1 Cor. 2. 11. 2 Cor. 3. 22. 1 Cor. 5. 1. 2. 1 Cor. 6. 1. 2. 3. 1 Cor. 11. 17 18 19 30. 1 Cor. 15. 12. 1 Cor. 10. 21. 1 Cor. 8. and in many other places 2. Then the visible church was not betrothed to Christ as a chaste Virgin contrary to this our Brethren alleadged 1 Cor. 11. 1 2 3. 3. Not only is conversion professedly true in the judgment of charity but also in the judgement of verity essentiall to a visible church as you teach and so none can be a member of the visible church but he who is a member of the invisible Church which is Anabaptisme 4. Three thousand in one day were added to the visible church who could not as I have proved all be approved to the conscience one of another as true converts Acts 2. Since amongst them were Ananias and Saphira and the time was short 5. If we are to beare one anothers burdens and so fulfill the Law of Christ and if grace may be beside many and great sinnes as we see in Asa in Salomon who remained the children of God under many out breakings if the children of God may be the children of God and yet some of them habitually proud passionate some of them worldly minded some talkative and imprudently rash in zeale some lustfull
his brother and therefore we doubt not but the Church hath jus law to excommunicate the Apostles in case of obstinacie and would have used this power iâ— Judas had lived now when the power of excommunication was in vigor but wee say withall de facto the suâ—position was unpossible in respect that continued and habituall obstinacie and flagitious and atâ—ocious scandals deserving excommunication were inconsistent with that measure of the holy Spirit bestowed upon those Catholick Organs and vessels of mercy but this exempteth the Apostles from act all excommunication de facto but is our brethren exâ—â—pt them a jure from the Law they transforme the Apostles into Popes above all Law which wee cannot doe Apostolick eminencie doth 〈…〉 neither Peter nor Paul to bee above either the 〈…〉 the 〈◊〉 Law or the positive Lawes gi 〈…〉 One doth wittily say on these 〈…〉 Matth. 8. 15. The Pope is either a 〈…〉 if hee bee a brother offending 〈…〉 complaine of him to the Church 〈…〉 bee no brother there 's an end 〈…〉 his father and never after this 〈…〉 〈…〉 in a Synod as Apostles doth not 〈…〉 in Apostolick acts could not use Sy 〈…〉 others 1. Because Daniel 9. 2. 〈…〉 understood by books the num 〈…〉 Lord came to Jeremiah the 〈…〉 Paul 1 Cor. 1. 1. and Timothi 〈…〉 and 〈◊〉 1 Thess. 1. 1. and 3. The 〈…〉 and yet â— ophâ—ts and Apostles were immedi 〈…〉 which they â—â—ote and spake Answ. 1. Daniel â—â—d the Prophecie of Jeremiah and the Pro 〈◊〉 the books of Moses and the Apostles read the old Testament 〈◊〉 and Paul read â—eathen Poets and citeth them Act. 17. 〈◊〉 Tiâ— 1. 12. and maketh them Scripture 2. But the question is now if as Prophets and immediatly inâ—â—â— Prophets and Apostles they did so consult with Scripture which they reade as they made any thing canoniâ—k Scripture upon 〈◊〉 medium and formall reason because they did read it 〈◊〉 it out of bookes and not because the immediate iâ—â—piration of the holy Ghost taught them what they should 〈◊〉 canonick Scripture Suppone a sentence of a â—eathen 〈◊〉 suppone this that Paul left his cloake at Troâ—s not the â—â—â—wledge of sense not naturall reason not experience none â—â— these can bee a formall medium a formall meane to make scripture but as thus saith Jehovah in his word is the formall reason why the Church beleeveth the Scripture to be the Word â—â— God so the formall reason that maketh Prophets and Apostles to put downe any truth as that which is formally canonicall scripture whether it bee a supernaturall truth as the 〈◊〉 was made flesh or a morall truth as Children obey your 〈◊〉 or a naturall truth as The Oxe knoweth his owner or an experienced truth as make not friendship with an angry 〈◊〉 a truth of heathen moralitie as mee are the off-spring of God or a truth of sense Paul lest his cloâ—ke at Tâ—oas I say the 〈◊〉 formall reason that maketh it divine and Scripturall truth is the immediate inspiration of God therefore though 〈◊〉 learned by bookes that the captivitie should indure seventi yeares yet his light by reading made it not formally Scripture but Daniels putting it in the Canon by the immediat actiâ—r impulsion and inspiration of the holy Spirit and though Matthew did read in Esaiah A Virgin shall conceive and beared Sonne yet Matthew maketh it not a part of the New Testament because Esaiah said it but because the holy Ghost did imdiatly suggest it to him as a divine truth for a holy man might draw out of the Old and New Testament a Chapter of orthodox truths all in Scripture words and beleeve them to bee Gods truth yet that Chapter should not formally bee the Scriptur of God because though the Author did write it by the light of faith yet the Propheticall and Apostolicall spirit did not suggest it and inspire it to the author I know some Schoolâ— Papists have a distinction here They say there bee some sepernaturall truths in Scriptures as predictions of things that tall out by the mediation of contingent causes and the supernaturall mysteries of the Gospell as that Achab shall bee killed in the wars the Messiah shall bee borne c. Christ came to 〈◊〉 sinners and those were written by the immediatly inspiring Spirit others were but historicall and naturall truths of fact as that Paul wrought miracles that hee left his cleake at Troas and these latter are written by an inferior spirit the assisting not the immediatly inspiring Spirit and by this latter spirit say they much of Scripture was written and from this assisting Spirit commeth the traditions of the Church say they and the decrees of Popes and councells and this holy Spirit though infallible may and doth use disputation consultations councells of Doctors reading but wee answer that what counsells determin by an assisting spirit is not Scripture nor yet â—m-ply infallible nor doth Daniel advise with Jeremialis writing what hee shall put downe as Scripture nor Paul with Sosâ—hâ—â—â—â— with Timothy and Silvamus what hee shall write as Canonick Scripture in his Epistles for then as the decrees of the coun 〈◊〉 at Jerusalem are called the decrees of the Apostles and Elders and this decree which commeth from the Apostles and Elders assemâ—led with one accord and speaking with joynt suffrages from the holy Ghost v. 7 8 9 10 c. v. 28. as collaterall authors of the decree is the conclusion of Apostles and Elders so also should the prophâ—cie of Daniel at least the first two verses of the ninth chapter bee a part of Daniel and a part of Jeremiâ—hs prophecie and Pauls Epistles to the Corinthians should bee the Epistle of Paul and Sâ—stheâ—es and his Epistles to the Colossians and Thessahâ—ianâ— the Epistles of Paul of Timothy of Silvanus whereas Sosthenes Timothy Silvanus were not immediatly inspired collaterall writers of these Epistles with Paul but onely joyners with him in the salutation The erring and scandalous Churches are in a hard condition if they cannot bee edified by the power of jurisdiction in presbyteries Object But it never or seldome in a century falleth out that a Church is to bee excommunicated and Christ hath provided Lawes for things onely that fall out ordinarily Answ. It is true wee see not how an whole Church can bee formally convented accused excommunicated as one or two brethren may bee in respect all are seldome or never deserted of God to fall into an atrocious scandall and wilful obstinacie yet this freeth them not from the Law as suppose in a Congregation of a thousand if five hundreth bee involved in libertinisme are they freed because they are a multitude from Christs Law or from some positive punishment by analogie answering to excommunication 2. The Eldership of a Congregation being three onely doth not seldome scandalously offend and are they under no power under heaven The people may withdraw from them saith the Synod of New England what then so may I withdraw
Divine saw visions and heavenly mysteries which none of the rest of the Apostles saw nor could write in their writings and Canonicall Epistles yet it doth not hence follow that James Peter Jude and Paul in their canonicall writings and Epistles were not immediatly inspired It is enough to make the Apostles in their writings infallible Apostles and immediatly inspired if that which they write bee the infallible truth and canonick Scripture though every Apostle write not all canonick truth now what the Apostles setteth down in this Synod is Scripture and the object of our faith and written for our instruction so something was revealed to James which was not revealed to Peter and Paul in this dispute but it followeth not Ergo what Peter and Paul spake they spake it not by immediate revelation and what they spake is not Scripture Answ. 1. The strength of my argument is close mistaken for I did not argue simply from the Apostles borrowing light one from another to prove they act not here as Apostles but as Elders neither did I argue simply from this James saith more then Peter doth Ergo Peter is not immediatly inspired in what hee saith for I grant the Apostles borrow â—ight from the Prophets and their writings one saith and writeth what another saith not and cannot write and yet all are immediatly inspired in what they write But I argued thus when ever the Apostles are consulted with to resolve a question as Apostles do conveenâ— Synodically intend to resorve the question if the Apostles in that case or any one of them come short of the resolution do not see the conclusion they intend to see but in so sarre as they are helped on by another in a way of disputation in that they doe not act as Apostles but the case is so here 1. all were consulted with Act. 15. 2. 2 all intended to resolve the question and did meet together for that end to resolve it fully v. 6. 3 yet divers of the Apostles as Peter Paul and Barnabas see not the resolution fully that they aimed at but determine the question imperfectly and so as if Iames had beene absent or if hee had seene no more in resolving the question then Paul and Barnabas and Peter said which was onely that the Law of Moses was not to bee kept by either Iew or Gentile upon the Necessitie of salvation but that both Jewes and Gentiles are saved by the grace of Jesus Christ if James I say had seene no more then this the consciences of both sides had not beene satisfied and the question not resolved but the Jewes should have gone on in a totall abstinence from all ceremonies which because of the indifference of the ceremonies was then dangerously scandalous and spirituall homicide and the Gentiles should freely have eaten blood meates offered to idols and things strangled which also was scandalous in a high measure to the weake Jewes and so the matter should have beene worse after this Synod and the controversie hotter the fire bolder and the scandall more dangerous then it was before the Synod which I cannot beleeve that the Apostles as Apostles could have done So wee know Nathan to have spoken as a man and not as a Prophet when being consulted with by David anent the building of the Temple and purposing and intending fully to resolve the question yet resolved it amisse and quite contrary to the mind of God now what the penmen of holy Scripture intended to write as Scripture that they fully wrote and no more and what they wrote not that they intended not to write but leave it to others of the penmen of the holy Ghost because the immediatly inspiring holy Ghost consulted with and intending to resolve such a canonick truth cannot misse in his blessed intention And also the Elders at Jerusalem were consulted with to resolve the question as well as the Apostles as is cleare Act. 15. 2. Now if the Church of Antiech had beene minded to referre the resolution to the Apostles as infallibles Apostle they would never have referred it to the Elders whom they knew could erre as well as themselves nor would the Elders have joyned as fellow-disputers with the Apostles as Apostles as they expresly doe v. 6. for that is as you would say some countrey men of ordinary spirit destitute of all propheticall light concurred with Esaiah to see the visions of God And it is as if David as king counsell at God whether the men of Keilah would deliver him up to Saul had consulted with God and with Abiathar and some foure or five Elders of Keilah voyd of all propheticall spirit whether the men of Keilah should deliver him up to Saul or no for these Elders of Jerusalem and Antioch and other brethren were as voyd of an Apostolick spirit as the Elders of Keilah were of a Propheticall spirit It were a vaine action for the Elders to joyne themselves as joynt-disputers and fellow-resolvers of the controversie with the Apostles for the fellow-resolvers were to seeke resolution at the Apostles who could as Apostles infallibly resolve them 2. What the Apostles set downe is Scripture and is the object of our faith and written for our instruction Ergo the Apostles did give it forth in the Synod as Scripture it followeth not I may preach Scripture and that which is the object of faith and written for our instruction Ergo I preach it as an Apostle by an Apostolick spirit it followeth not for so if the Elders had spoken Scripture which is written for our instruction the Elders should have spoken it by an Apostolick spirit which is manifestly false and so if the Elders of Corinth 1 Cor. 5. should have proven in their Presbytery that the incestuous person should bee delivered to Satan from Matth. 18. they should have spoken that in the presbytery by an Apostolick Spirit all which are manifestly false The holy Ghost by Luke did make it Scripture formally but that the Apostles spake it as Scripture by an Apostolick spirit because it is the object of our faith that Luke did insert it in the Canonicall history is no more hence proven then one might inferre that Gamaliel by the immediate inspiration of the Spirit spake the oration that hee uttereth to the councell of Priests and Pharisees Act. 5. 34 35. c. for that is formally made Scripture by Luke his inserting of it in the Register of Scripture yea the words of Satan Matth. 4. by that reason behoved to bee spoken by divine and immediate inspiration but the truth is wee are not to take what Peter speaketh from the Prophet Amos Act. 15. v. 16. to bee Scripture because Amos spake it in the Old Testament but because Luke by immediate inspiration saith that Peter uttered these words from the Prophet Amos. Immediate inspiration maketh any saying Scripture and not the Apostles historicall relating of it out of the writings of the Prophets though the sayings of the Prophets as
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-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
here truth and more true and most true Truth is in an indivisible line which hath no latitude and cannot admit of spleeting And therefore we may make use of the Philosophers word amicus Socrates amicus Plato sed magis amica veritas Though Peter and Paul bee our beloved friends yet the truth is a dearer friend The Sonnes of Babylon make out-cries of divisions and diversity of Religions amongst us but every opinion is not a new Religion But where shall multitude of Gods be had for multitude of new wayes to Heaven if one Heaven cannot containe two Gods how shall all Papists be lodged after death what Astronomy shall teach us of millions of Heavens for Thomists Scotists Franciscans Dominicans Sorbonists c. But I leave off and beg from the Reader candor and ingenuous and faire dealing from Formalists men in the way to Babylon I may wish this I cannot hope it Fare-well Yours in the Lord S. R. A Table of the Contents of this Book A Company of believers professing the truth and meeting in one place every Lords day for the worshipping of God is not the visible Church endued with ministeriall power p. 1. 2 3. seq The keys of the Kingdome of Heaven are not committed to the Church of Believers destitute of Elders p. 7 8. The keys are given to Stewards by office p. 13 14 seq The places Mat. 18. and Mat. 16. fully discussed by evidence of the text and testimonies of fathers and modern writers p. 14 15 16 17. seq Power ministeriall of forgiving sins belongeth not to private Christians as M. Robinson and Others imagine p. 20. 21. seq Private Christians by no warrant of Gods Word not in office can be publick persons warrantably exercising judiciall acts of the keys p. 26 27 28. seq Who so holdeth this cannot decline the meere popular government of Morellius and others p. 28. These who have the ministeriall power by office are not the Church builded on the Rock p. 29. The place Col. 4. 17. say to Archippus discussed p. 26 27. The keys not given to as many as the Gospell is given unto as Mr. Robinson saith p. 28 29. seq There is a Church-assembly judging excluding the people as judges though not as hearers and consenters p. 32. 33. Reasons why our Brethren of New England allow of Church-censures to the people examined p. 33 34 35 36. There is no necessity of the personall presence of all the Church in all the acts of Church censuâ—es p 36 37. seq The place 1 Cor. 5. expounded p 36 37 38. How farre Lictors may execute the sentence that is given out without their conscience and knowledge p. 41. 42. seq A speculative doubt â—nent the act maketh not a doubting conscience but onely a practicall doubt anent the Law p. 43. Ignorance vincible and invincible the former may bee a question of fact the latter is never a question of Law p. 43 44 45. The command of superiors cannot remove a doubting conscience p. 45 46. The conscience of a judge as a man and as a judge not one and the same p. 46 47. The people of the Jewes not judges as Ainsworth supposeth p. 48 49. That there is under the New Testament a provinciall and nationall Church p. 50. 51. seq A diocesian Church farre different from a provinciall Church p. 52 53. The place Acts 1. 21. proveth the power of a visible catholick Church p. 54 55. The equity and necessity of a Catholick visible Church p. 55. 56 57 58. How the Catholick Church is visible p. 58 59. The Jewish and Christian Churches were of one and the same visible constitution p. 60 61 62. The Iewish Church was a congregationall Church p. 61. 62. seq Excommunication in the Iewish Church p. 62. 63 64 65. Separation from the Jewish and the true Christian Churches both alike unlawfull p. 68. 69. The Iewish civil state and the Church different p. 68. 69 17. Separation from the Church for the want of some ordinances how far lawfull p. 71 72 73. A compleat power of excommunication how in a Congregation and how not p. 76. 77. How all are to joyne themselves to some visible Church p. 78. 79 80. The place 1 Cor. 5. 12 considered p. 80. That all without are not to be understood of all without the lists of a parishionall Church ibid 81. 82. That persons are not entered members of the visible Church by a Church-covenant p. 83 84 85 86 87. seq That there is no warrant in Gods word for any such covenant ibid. in seq The manner of entering in Church state in New England p. 91. 92. The place Act. 2 37 38. is not for a Church-covenant ibid. The ancient Church knew no such Church-Covenant p. 97. 98. No Church-Covenant in England p. 98. 99. Nor of old the places Genes 17. 7. Exod 19. 5. Acts 7. 38. favour not the Church-Covenant p. 100. 101 102. Nor Deut. 29. 10. p. 104 105. seq The exposition of Deut. 29. given by our Brethren favours much the glosse of Arminians and Socinians not a Church-Covenant p. 102. 103. 104. 105. A Church-covenant not the essentiall forme of a visible Church p. 123 124. The place 2 Chro. 9. 15. 2 Chro. 30. 8. speak not for a Church-covenant p. 111. 112. Nor doth Nehemiahs Covenant ch 10. plead for it the place of Esai 56. alledged for the Church-covenant discussed p. 112. 113. The place Ezech. 20. 27. considered p 114. 115. And the place Jer. 50. 5. p 115. 116. And the place Esay 44. 5. p 116. 117. The place 2 Cor. 11. 2. violently handled to speak for this Church-covenant p 118. 119. seq A passage of Iustine Martyr with the ancient custome of baptizing vindicated p. 121. John Baptists baptising vindicated p. 121. The place Acts 5. and of the rest durst no man joyne himselfe to them c. wronged and put under the Arminian glosse p. 123. 124. The pretended mariage betwixt the Pastor and the Church no ground of a Church-covenant and is a popish error p. 127. 128. Power of election of Pastors not essentiall to a Pastor all relation p. 128 129. It is lawfull to sweare a platforme of a confession of faith p. 130 131 132. seq Our Brethren and the Arminian arguments on the contrary are dissolved p. 136 137 138. Pastors and Doctors how differenced p. 140. Of ruling Elders p. 141. 142. And the place 1 Tim. 5. 17. farther considered the place 1 Tim. 5. 17. Elders that rule well examined p. 141 142 143. especially 144 145. seq Arguments against ruling Elders answered p. 152. 18. seq The places 1 Cor. 12. 18. Rom. 12. 8 discussed and vindicated p. 154. 155 156 157. seq Of Deacons p. 159. 160. seq The place Acts 6. for Deacons discussed p. 161. 162. The Magistrate no Deacon p. 161 162. Deacons instituted p. 163. 164. seq Deacons are not to preach and Baptize p. 165 166. seq Os Widdowes p. 172. 173 174. How the Church is before the
Christian in such a congregation or a beleeving woman is tied to preach and baptize and yet her pastor Archippus in that congregation is tied both to preach and baptize Secondly the Jews were to separate from B thaven and so are we Thirdly they were not to joyne with Idolaters in Idol-worship neither are we 2 Whereas it is said that it was not lawfull to separate from the Jewish Church because in it did sit the typicall high Priest and the Messiah was to be borne in it and because they were the onely Church on earth but now there be many particular Churches All this is a deception a non causiâ— pro causâ for separation from that Church was not forbidden for any typicall or ceremoniall reason not a shadow of reason can be given from the Word of God for this Because there can be no ceremoniall argument why there should be communion betwixt light and darknesse or any concord betwixt Christ and Belial or any comparting bètwixt the beleever and the infidell or any agreement of the temple of God with idols nor any reason typicall why Gods people should goe to Gilgal and to Bethaven or to be joyned with idols or why a David should sit with vaine persons or goe in to dissemblers or why he should offer the drinke offerings of these who hasten after a strange god or take up their names in his mouth This is then an unwritten tradition yea if Dagon had beene brought into the Temple as the Assyâ—ian altar of Damascus was set up in the holy place the people â—ught to have separated from Temple and Sacrifices both so loâ—g as that abomination should stand in the holy place Nor can it be proved that communicating with the Church of Israel as a member thereof was typicall and necessary to make up visible membership as ceremoniall holinesse is for to adhere to the Church in a sound worship though the fellow-worshippers be scandalous is a morall duty commanded in the second Commandment as to forsake Church-assemblies is a morall breach of that Commandment and forbidden to Christians Hebr. 10. 25. who are under no Law of Ceremonies And it is an untruth that those who were legally cleane and not ceremonially polluted were members of the Jewish visible Church though otherwise they were most flagitious For to God they were no more his visible Israel then Sodome and Gomorrah Isaiah 1. 10. or the children of Ethiopia Amos 9. 7. and are condemned of God as sinning against the profession of their visible incorporation in the Israel of God Jerem. 7. 4 5 6 7. But shall we name and repute them brethren whom in conscience we know to be as ignorant and void of grace as any Pagan I answer That if they professe the truth though they walke inordinately yea and were excommunicated Paul willeth us to admonish thâ—m as brethren 2 Thes. 3. 15. and calleth all the visible Church of Corinth for he writeth to good and bad amongst whom were many partakers of the table of devils pleaders with their brethren before heathen deniers of the resurrection yea those to whom the Gospell was hidden 2 Cor. 4. brethren and Saints by calling But say our brethren to be cast out of the Iewish Church was to be cast out of the Common-wealth as to be a member of the Church and to be a member of the state is all one because the state of the Jewes and the Church of the Jews was all one and none is said to be cut off from the people but he was put to death Answ. Surely Esay 66. vers 5. these who are cast out by their brethren and excommunicated are not put to death but men who after they be cast out live till God comfort them and shame their enemies but he shall appeare for your joy Secondly that the state of Gods Israel and the Church be all one because the Jewish policie was ruled by the judiciall Law and the judiciall Law was no lesse divine then the Ceremoniall Law is to me a wonder For I conceive that they doe differ formally though those same men who were members of the state were members also of the Church but as I conceive not in one and the same formall reason first because I conceive that the State by order of nature is before the Church for when the Church was in a family state God called Abrahams family and by calling made it a Church Secondly the Kingdome of Israel and the house of Israel in covenant with God as Zion and Jerusalem are thus differenced That to be a State was common to the Nation of the Jewes with other Nations and is but a favour of providence but to be a Church is a favour of grace and implieth the Lords calling and chusing that Nation to be his owne people of his free grace Deut. 7. 7. and the Lords gracious revealing of his Testimonies to Jacob and Israel whereas he did not so to every Nation and State Psal. 147. 19 20. but say they The very state of the Iewes was divine and ruled by a divine and supernaturall policie as the judiciall Law demonstrateth to us But I answer Now you speake not of the state of the Jewes common with them to all States and Nations but you speake of such a state and policie which I grant was Divine but yet different from the Church because the Church as the Church is ruled by the morall Law and the Commandments of both Tables and also by the Ceremoniall Law but the Jewish State or Common wealth as such was ruled by the judiciall Law onely which respecteth onely the second Table and matters of mercy and justice and not piety and matters of Religion which concerne the first Table and this is a vast difference betwixt the state of the Jews and the Church Thirdly when Israel rejected Samuel and would have a King conforme to other Nations they sought that the state and forme of governmnent of the Common-wealth should be changed and affected conformity with the Nations in their state by introducing a Monarchy whereas they were ruled by Judges before but in so doing they changed not the frame of the Church nor the worship of God for they kept the Priesthood the whole Morall Ceremoniall and Judiciall Law entire and their profession therein Ergo they did nothing which can formally destroy the being of a visible Church but they did much change the face of the state and civill policie in that they refused God to reigne over them and so his care in raising up Judges and Saviours out of any Tribe and brought the government to a Monarchy where the Crowne by divine right was annexed to the tribe of Judah Fourthly it was possible that the State should remaine entire if they had a lawfull King sitting upon Davids throne and were ruled according to the Judiciall Law but if they should remaine without a Priest and a Law and follow after Baal and change and alter Gods worship as the ten
Distinct. There is a confession which containeth fundamentalls only the knowledge whereof is simply necessary for salvation and the simple ignorance whereof condemneth There is a confession which containeth fundamentalls and non fundamentalls which are not simplie necessary to be knowen by all necessitate â—â—edii 3. Dist. A confession of faith is to be respected in regard of the matter which is Divine Scripture or according to the stile conception and inâ—erpretation which is in some respect humane 4. Distinct. There is a confession of a particular man what such a person or Church believeth de facto as the confession of â—â—e Belgick Arminians and a confession de jure what every one ought to believe as the Nicen Creed the Creed of â—thanasiâ—s 5. Dist. There is a confession of a faith firme and sure quoad â—ertitudinem fidei quoad substantiam articulorum credendoâ—um sure in the Articles believed and a confession sure quoad radicationem fidei in subjecto the first way all are obliged â—â— believe the Articles contained in the word But we see not how now after the Canon of Scripture is closed but the certainty of faith according to the measure of light more or lesse as our Lord more or lesse doth reveale himselfe in a more or lesse measure of ligh doth not grow woâ— or decrease according to the certainy of faith the second way hence we say 1. Conclusion Onely the Word of God is the principall and formall ground of our Faith Eph. 2. 20 21 22. 2 Tim. 3. 16. Luk. 14. 25. 2. Concl. A confession of Faith containing all fundamentall points is so farre forth the Word of God as it agreeth with the Word of God and obligeth as a rule secundary which wee believe with subjection to God speaking in his owne Word and to this plat-forme wee may lawfullly sweare 1. What ever wee are obliged to believe and professe as the saving truth of God that we may lawfully sweare to professe believe and practise that the bond of faith may be sure but wee are obliged to believe and professe the nationall confession of a sound Church Ergo. The proposition is cleare from Davids and the Saints practise who layed bands on their soules to tie themselves to that which is lawfull as Psal. 119. 106. I have sworn and will performe it that I will keep thy Righteous judgements The major is the doctrine of our Dvines and cleare when they explaine the matter of a lawfull Oath as Pareus Bucanus Tilenus Profess Leydens Calvin Iunius Beza Piscator Zanchiâ— c. That things lawfull may lawfully be sworne to GOD observing other due circumstances The assumption is â—â—deniable 2. Arg. That whereof we are assured in conscience to be the truth and true Religion bringing salvation to mens soules to that we may tie our selves by an Oath upon the former grounds But the sound confession of faith set downe in a platformâ— is such as we may and are to be assured of in conscience â— the truth of God Ergo The assumption is proved because what is Gods Word and truth of that we are to be assured of iâ— conscience as Col. 2. 7. Being knit together in love unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding and Heb. 6. 11. should keepe the full assurance of hope to the end Col. 2. 2 3. Eph. 4. 14. 3. If the people of the lewes did sweare a covenant with God to keep the words of the covenant to doe them Deut. 29. 9. 10 11. To seeke the Lord God of Israel with all their heart and with all their soule 2 Chron. 15. 12. and if they entered into a curse and an oath to walke in the Lords law which was given by Moses the servant of God to observe and doe all the Commandements of the Lord and subscribed and sealed the covenant with their hands Nehem. 10. 1. v. 29. Then is it lawfull for a Church to sweare and by oath subscribe an Orthodox confession But the former is true as the places alledged cleare Ergo so is the latter That which onely may be doubted of is the connexion of the major proposition because Israel did sweare to nothing but to Moses written Law which in matter and forme was Gods expresse written word but it will not follow that we may sweare a plat-forme of Divine truth framed and penned by men but the connexion notwithstanding of this remaineth sure because Israel did sweare the Lords covenant according to the true meaning and intent of the Holy Ghost as it is Gods Word and we also sweare a Nationall covenant not as it is mans word or because the Church or Doctors at the Churches direction have set it down in such and such words such an order or method but because it is Gods Word so that we sweare to the sense and meaning of the platforme of confession as to the Word of God now the Word of God and sense and meaning of the Word is all one Gods Law and the true meaning of the Law are not two different things When a Jew sweareth to the doctrine and covenant of God in the Old Testament in a Jewish meaning he sweareth not to the Word of God because the Word of God unsoundly expounded is not the Word of God and though the Sadducees and Pharisees sweare the five bookes of Moses and the very covenant which Asah and the Kingdome of Iudâ—h did sweare 2 Chron. 15. yet doe they not sweare the covenant of God and that same which Gods people did sweare 2 Chron. 15. Or if any professing they worship idols should sweare that covenant alledging the covenant doth not forbid idols to be memorials and objects by which absolute adoration is given to God we would not thinke that they had sworne the covenant of God but onely words of God falsely expounded yea and made to be not Gods Word but a plaine lying invention Therefore it is all one whether a Church sweare a confession in expresse words of Scripture or a covenant in other words expounding the Scriptures true meaning and sense according to the language and proper idiom of the Nation and Church for we sweare not words or a platforme as it is such but the matter sense and meaning of the Scriptures of God set downe in that platforme and it is certaine in Nehemiahs time there was some platforme either the writings of Moses or some sound exposition thereof else I see not how they could seale it Nehem. 9. 38. And because of all this we make a sure covenant and write it and our Princes Levites and Priests seale unto it Now that which was written could not but be a platforme either in Scripture onely according to the meaning of the exacters of the oath or some interpretation else every man writ his owne covenant and sealed it which is not like for they all joyntly sware this covenant and the reason of this written sworne and sealed covenant being morall as is cleare
because of the apostasie of the whole Church and judgements upon them for their apostasie v. 38. And because of all this we make and write a sure covenant saith the Text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in toto hoe vertit Arias montanus nos excidentes fidelitatem Iudaei excudentes faedus fidele Iunius pro toto hoc pepigimus constitutionem now sinnes back-slidings and judgements may be and often are in all the Christian Churches 2. To sweare to the true religion the defence and maintenance thereof is a lawfull oath as to sweare to any thing that is lawfull and to lay a new band on our soules to performe holy duties where we feare a breach and finde by experience there hath beene a breach is also a dutie of morall and perpetuall equity therefore such a sworne covenant is lawfull I say not from this place that it is necessary that all subscribe with their hands a covenant because I thinke onely the Princes Levites Priests and heads of families did subscribe the covenant Nehem. 9. 38. but Nehem. 10. 28 29. The whole people all who had separated themselves from the Lands sinne and their strange wives even their wives their sonnes their daughters every one having knowledge and having understanding V. 29. They clave to their brethren their Nobles and entered into a curse and into an oath to walke in Gods Law If it be replied that there was in Israel no written covenant drawne up by a man and put in a mans stile language method and frame they did sweare to keepe Moses his Law I answer when we sweare a covenant our faith doth not relie upon words characters stile of language or humane method or any humane respects but upon the truth of God in that platforme and suppose we should swear and subscribe the Old and New Testament translated into our vulgar Language we doe not sweare to the translation characters and humane expression but to the matter contained in the translation and that because Iehovah our Lord hath spoken it in his Word And if this be a good argument why we cannot sweare a platforme then should none sweare a covenant at all or make any holy vow but those who understand the originall Languages in Hebrew and Greeke and yet the characters and imprinting is humane even in the original so all religious covenants and oathes should be unlawfull 4. Argum. What a Church or person is to suffer for or to believe and obliged to render account of to every one that asketh account of us that we may sweare and seale with our hands because what we are to suffer death for and the losse of temporall life for which we owe a reckoning to God by vertue of the â—ixt Commandement that is a matter of truth which we professe before God and men and our dying for the truth is a sort of reall oath that we are before God professing that truth is to be preferred to our life But we are to suffer if God call us even death for the true Religion Revel 2. 13. Act. 7. 57 58. Luk. 21. 15 16. Phil. 1. 20 21. â—nd the truth and we are obliged to believe and to give account thereof before all men and a reason of our faith and hope 1 Pet â— 15. Ergo we may sweare it Argum. 5. If an oath to the true Religion and forme of wholesome Doctine be a speciall remedy against backâ—iding and a meane to keepe off false and heretical doctrine then is such an oath lawfull but the former is true Ergo The Proposition is cleare Gods people say Nehem. 9. 38. Because of all this that is because they had done wickedly and were tempted still to doe more therefore they write and seale a Covenant and if false teachers teach Circumcision must be if weâ— would be saved then the Church may according to Acts 15. condemâ—e that false doctrine by the VVord of God and set downe Canons which the Churches are to observe and what they are to observe as warranted by Gods VVord layeth on bands upon the Conscience and what layeth on such a band that wee may binde our selves by oath to performe it being a speciall remedy lawfull against backsliding from the truth 6. Arg. Our brethren have their grounds and reasons against the swearing of confession common to them with the Arminians and Socinians and their Arguments are all one for Arminians censure the Belgick confession and the Palaâ—ines Catechisme and propound thirteene questions against it as the third question is An quaecunque dogmata in confessione Catâ—chisme tractantur talia sunt ut cuilibet Christiano ad salutem creditu necessaria sint And their seventh question is If such confessions may be called secundaria fidei norma a secundary rule of faith also all Confessions say they declare That Confessions serve not to teach what we ought to beleeve but what the Authors of these Confessions did beleeve Hence they reject all the determinations of the Orthodox Councels condemning the heresies of Arrius Eutiches Macedonius Apollinaris Sabelliâ— Samosateâ—us Pelagius and all the Oxthodox Confessions of the reformed Churches Secondly also upon these grounds they alledge in their Apologie There be few things to be beleeves that every sect may be the true Church so they beleeve some few Articles not controverted amongst Christians such as these Thâ— there is a God and that the Word of God is true c. Thirdly they will not condemne the Macedonians Arrians Anti-trinitarâ—â— Pelagians or others of fundamentall herefies Fourthly that one Church of Christians may be made up of Papists Protestants Anabaptists Macedonians Sabellians c. and all sects so they leade a good life according to the few Articles necessary to salvation may be saved and all may be saved of any sect or Religion Fifthly that to sweare Declarations Confessions Canons of Orthodox Councels is to take away the liberty of prophesying and growing in the knowledge of the Word of God and the praying for grace and light of the holy Spirit for the right meaning of Gods Word Sixthly that Athanasius spake amisse when he said of the Creed that it was to be beleeved of every one who is to bee saved 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the same is the doctrine of the Socinians who doe in all these oppose all Confessions of Faith and all Orthodox Decisions Canons and determinations of Sinods So Socinus rejecteth all Synods all Confessions and Decisions even of the Church universall So Smalcius calâ—eth it a rejecting of the Word of God And Theol. Nicoâ—aides saith That it is enough to know things absolutely necessary for salvation and that the Churches determination cannot remove errours and heresies Our brethens first Argument against a Nationall Covenant â— If the doctrine contained in your platforme of Confession â—warve from the Scriptures then the imposing thereof is so farre unlawfull if the doctrine be according to Scripture the platforme is â—eedlesse the
Scripture being sufficient Ans. 1. This is the argument of Arminians Episcopius saith and expresly Smalcius Qui vnlt sensum scripturae ab ilâ—s confessionibus peti tacitè deserit scripta Apostolica traditiones humanas commendat And therefore such decisions are â—ay the Remonstrantes Pestes Ecclesiarum regni Anâ—christi idest tyrannidis fulcra tibicines Secondly this Arâ—ument may be as well propounded against the preaching of the Word all printed Sermons Commentaries and interpretation of Scripture as against a Confession For if the doctrine in Serâ—ons bee not agreeable to Scripture then in so farre as Ministers commend and command it to their hearers it is unlawfâ—ll if it be agreeable to the Scripture it is needlesse the Scriptures saith the Socinian Smalcius are sufficient Our brethren answer Preaching is an ordinance of God but a â—atforme of confession is not an ordinance of God Answ. A platforme as it is conceived in such a stile meâ—hod and characters and words is a humane ordinance Tali â—rie ordine and so is preaching but we sweare to no plat-â—orme in that consideration but a platforme according to the truth contained in it in which sense onely it is sworne unto is the Word of God as are systemes of Divinity â—ermons printed and Preached and so though preaching be an Ordinanced God as it is Rom. 10. 14. yet according to the words expression dialect method or doctrine it is an humane ordinance and so the Argument is against preaching as against our platforme Our Brethrens second Argument is The Platforme abridgeth Christian liberty to try all things and so though it be some means of unity yet it is a dangerous hinderance of some verity binding men to rest upon their former apprehensions and knowledge without libery to better their judgements Ans. 1. This in stile of language and truth of words is the very argument of Arminianâ— So in their Preface and in their Apology it selfe they say All liberty of prophecing and disputing against the Orthodox faith is taken away if men be tied and obliged to decisions and confessions of Churches and Synods Yea to make an end of controversies saith Episcopius otherwayes then by perswading is to bring a tyranny into the Church of Jesus Christ and wonderfully to bind if not to take away liberty of consciences So in their Apology they say confessions and decisions of Synods imposed by Oath and to be firmely believed arâ— contrary to the prayers of Saints where they pray that God would teach them his starutes and reveale his Law and Testimonies â—â— them and open their Eyes to behold the wonders of Gods Law But the truth is though these of Berea did well to try Pauls Doctrine if it was consonant to the Scriptures or not Yet Pauls Doctrine was the determination apostolick of Gods Spirit to the which they were firmely to adhere and their judgements are to be bettered in graduali revelatione creditorum â—â—â— revelatione plurium credendorum in cleare revelation of things revealed For so the children of God are to grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour 2 Pet. 3. 14. After Christ is once revealed but not in believing in a new Christ or in believing of poynts contrary to the confession of faith The Argument presupposeth the Doctrine of the Arminians that there be a number of points in our confession of which we have no certainty of faith that they are Gods truth but are things controverted and being not fundamentall poynts may be holden or we may forsake them as false after better information Which indeed maketh our faith of Gods Word â—o full perswasion but as the learned professors of Leyden say a faith of an houre or a month or a yeare which we may â—ast away the next yeare And this is to deny all confessions and points of truth with pretence that the Spirit hath revealed new truth but how are these new revealed truths the Revelation whereof wee obtaine by prayer rather workes of the spirit of truth then the former poynts which wee retract No man by this can be rooted and built in the faith of any thing except in the faith of things simply fundamentall By which meanes all poynts at least many of them betwixt us and Papists Arminiaâ— Macedonians Sabellians Arrians Anabapâ—tiste are matters reconcileable and either side may be holden without hazard of salvation Neither is this definition of confessions any tyranny Because confessions are to be believed in so far as they are agreable to Gods Word and lay upon us an obligation secondary onely yet are they not so loose as that we may leap from poynts of faith and make the doctrine of faith arena gladiatoria a fencing field for Gamesters and Fencers The materiall object of our faith and the secondary ground and foundation thereof may be very well and is Gods Word primary is preaching confessions Creeds Symbols which are not serie ordine Scripturae and yet have wee certainty of Divine faith in these things because the formall object is because God so saith in hiâ— Scripture and wee believe these with certainty of Divine Faith under this reduplication because the Lord hath spoken these quoad sensum in true meaning though not in illâ scrie ordine But more of this hereafter CHAP. 6. SECT 6. Touching Officers and their election OUr Author laboureth to prove that Pastors and Doctors are different Officers which wee will not much improves but if the meaning be that they are inconsistent in one man person wee are against him 1. Because the Apostles in their owne persons and in feeding the flock 2 Tim. 3. doth both under the name of Overseers and Bishops and exercised both as they could according as they did finde the auditory 2. Because the formall objects the informing of the judgement and exhorting are not so different as that they should be imcompatible for if God give them gifts both for the Doctors Chaire and the pastors Pulpit as hee often doth what should hinder but the Church may call one and the same man to both the Pastor and the Doctors Chaire as hee is able to overtake both Author 1. Reas. 1 Cor. 12. 8. To one is given a word of wisdomâ— for direction of practice to another a word of knowledge for direction of judgement Ans. This proveth they be different gifts and Offices yet not that they are incompatible in one person as one may have both gifts given unto him as is cleare by experience 2 Reas. Author ib. Hee speaketh of diverse members of the Church as of diverse members of the naturall body v. 4. 5. All the members have not one Office it is the action of the Tongue to speak not to see Ans. The comparison holdeth not in all The eye cannot heare the eare cannot see yet the pastor may both see as pastor and heare and delate to the Church as the Churches eare the manners of
some slothfull some ambiticus yea and if Simon Magus his profession though false was esteemed sufficient for to give him baptisme the Seale of the covenant Acts 8. 9. Then it is not required that all the members of the visible church be such as positively wee know so farre as humane knowledge can reach that they are converted yea if this were true then speciall commandements would be given that as we are to examine and try our selves 1 Cor. 11. 28. 2 Cor. 13. 5. And to try officers before they be admitted 1 Tim. 3. 10. 1 Tim. 5 22. and to try the spirits of Prophets and their Doctrine 1 Iohn 4. 1. and 1 Thess. 5. 21. Acts 17. 13. So would God in his Word give a charge that we try examine and judge carefully one another and that every man labour to be satisfied in conscience anent the regeneration one of another But such commandements we reade not of 6. If many be brought and called into the visible church of purpose both on Gods revealed intention in his Word to convert them and on the churches part that they may be converted Then doth not the church confist of these who are professedly converted but the former â—â— true Ergo so is the latter The proposition is sure these whom God purposeth to convert by making them Church-members they are not Church-members because they are already converted I prove the assumption because 1. The contrary doctrine to wit that none are under a pastors care till they be first converted maketh to the eversion of the publick Ministery and gratifieth Arminians and Socinians as before I observed because Faith commeth not by hearing of sent pastors as Gods ordinance is Rom. 10. 14. but by the contrary we aske a warrant from the Testament of Christ that now since the Apostles are not in the Earth private men not sent to preach should be ordinary Fishers of men and gatherers of Christs church and Kingdome 2. That Christ hath provided no Pastors nor Teachers to watch over the Elect yet remaining in the Kingdome of darknesse and that Christ ascending on high as a victorious King hath not given Pastors and Teachers by office to bring in his redeemed flock which he hath bought with his blood Acts 20. 28. 3. It is against the nature of the visible Kingdome of Christ which is a dâ—aw-net and an officiâ—â— a workehouse of externall calling into Christ even such as are serving their honour buying a Farme and their gaine buying five yoke of Oxen and their lusts having married a Wife Luk. 14. 16 17 18. 4. It is against the nature of the Ministery and Wisdomes maides sent out to compell them to come in Luke 14. 23. Matthew 22. 4 5 6. Prov. 9. 2 3 4 5. who are yet without 7. If none can be members while they be first converted 1. The church visible is made a church visible without the Ministery of the church 2. These who are baptized are not by baptisme entered in the visible Church contrary to Gods Word 1 Cor. 12. 13. and the sound judgement of all Divines 3. All these who are baptized 2. Who write as Doctors for the defence of the Orthodox Faith 3. Who seale the Truth with their sufferings and blood 4. Who keepe communion with visible Churches in hearing partaking of the Word and Seales as occasion serveth if they be not professedly and notoriously to the consciences of a particular parish converted to Christ are no members of the visible church 8. All our Brethrens arguments to prove this Doctrine doe onely prove the truly regenerate to be members of the invisible Church and not of the visible Church And if the arguments bee naught the conclusion must bee naught and false 9. It is against the Doctrine of Fathers as Augustine Cyprian Gregorius Chysostome Nazianzen Eusebius Who al accord that the visible church is a company of professors consisting of good and bad like the Arke of Noah as Hierome maketh comparison I might cite Ireneus Tertullian Origen Cyrillus Basilius Hilarius Presper Ambrosius Primasius Sedulius Just. Martyr Clemens Alexandrinus Euthymius Theophylact Epiphanius Theodoret and Luther Melanchton Chemnitius Meisnerus Hunius Hemingius Gerardus Crocius Calvin Beza Voetius Sadeel Plesseus Whittakerus Ioannes Whyte Fransc. Whyte Reynoldus Iuellus Rich. Feildus Perkinsius Pau. Baynes Trelcatius Tilenus Piscator Ursinus Paraeus Sibrandus Professores Leydenses Antonius Wallaeus And. Rivetus Pet. Molineus Dam. Tossanus Mercorus Fest. Hommius Bullingerus Mnsculus Rollocus Davenantius Mortonus Quest. 2. Whether or no our Brethren prove by valid aguments the constitution of the Church visible to be only of visible Saints of sanctified washen and justified persons Let us begin with our present Authour and with what the a Apology saith We admit all even Infidells to the hearing of the Word 1 Cor. 14. 24 25. Yet we receive none as members â—â—to our Church but such as according to the judgement of charitable Christians may be conceived to be received of God unto fellowship with Christ the head of the Church Our reasons be 1. From the neere relation betwixt Christ Jesus and the Church as also betwixt the Church and other persons of the Trinity The Lord Jesus is the head of the Church even of the visible Church and the visible Church is the body of Christ Jesus 1 Cor. 12. and 27. Answ. To admit as ordinary hearers of the Word and Church Prayers is a degree of admission to Church-communion and they who are baptized and ordinarily heare and professe a willing mind to communicate with the Church in the holy things of God they being not scandalously wicked are to be admitted yea and are members of the Church visible â— Set the first reason in forme it is thus These only are to be received as Church members who are conceived to be members of that body whereof Christ is head But the promisccous multitude of professors are not conceived to be such but only the sanctified in Christ Iesus are such Or thus If Christ be the head of the visible Church then only such are to be admitted members of the visible Church as are conceived to be members of Christ the head and not the promiscuous multitude of good and bad But the former is true Ergo so is the latter 1. If Christ be the head of the visible Church as visible it would seeme onely these who are conceived Members of CHRIST should bee admitted Members of the visible body True and in this meaning let the Major passe but if Christ be the head of the visible church not as it is visible but as it is a body of believers and invisible then we see no reason to yeeld the connexion Because Christ is the Head of True Believers therefore none should be admitted members of the Church but such as we conceive are Believers because they are to be admitted to the visible Church who are willing to joyne themselves are baptized and doe professe
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
heathen c. 6. and Chrysostome saith the same in sense Yea I gather this necessary distinction out of the Fathers as Chrysostome Theophylactus Hilarius that they are not members of the visible Church actu pleno in a full act because they want externall communion with the Church yet actu imperfecto imperfectly they are members A second distinction I collect from Ireneus Gregorius Hieronim Optatus Augustine that they are exclusi ab ecclesia quoad communionem non ab ecclesia ipsa They are excluded from the visible communion of the Church rather then from the Church A third distinction may be drawen from Eugenius Chrysostome Gregor Nazianzâ—â— while they call Baptisme januam spiritualem and lavacrum animae the doore of our entry to the Church for which cause papists though fondly place their Font at the Church-doore as the Lavatâ—r of the soule So as excommunicated persons are within the doore of the visible Church though not admitted to the Kings Table 4. The Schoolemen do allow to the excommunicated persons jus non consortium right but not fellowsh â—â— 5. Turrâ—cremaeta Vega. Soto Canus insinâ—â—â— distinctionem inter partes membra Ecclesiae visibilis because of some externall communion that they have as Teeth are parts of the body in a new borne Infant but they are not members but they deny them to be members because they are cut off 6. Suarez excellently prâ—vantur quoad communicationemcum alâ—s membris non quoad esse membri They are deprived acording to the act of communion with other members not as if they ceased to be members as a member which cannot receive nourishment is yet still a member Our Divines from Scripture make three degrees of excommunication 1. A debarring from the Lords Supper Mat. 5. 24. but it is not indeed a delivering to Satan or excommunication this is called the lesser excommunication 2. A delivering to Satan the greater excommunication 1 Cor. 5. 3. 4. of this we speake here especially 3. Maran-atha in the Syriack an is utter cursing till Christs second comming 3. Conclus Wee hold the preaching of the word to be an essentia note of the visible Church Our Brethren as Mr. Coachman Robinson our present Author deny that the profession or preaching of the Word is a true note of the visible Church Because Acts 17 Paul preached to the scoffing Athenians who were not for that a visible Church 2. Papists have some of Gods Ordinances and hereticks also as baptisme and the Old and New Testament as the Philistins had the Arke of God amongst them 3. The word may be preached where Christ is but gathering a Church and so is a meane of gathering a Church and therefore not an essentiall note of a gathered and constituted Church But herein our Brethren say no more against the Reformed Churches then Stapleton to wit that truth of doctrine is no note of the Church because it is not perpetuall and constant 2. Truth of Doctrine concurs to give being to the Church and to the constitution of it Bellarm. This note may be found in other societies and companies beside the Church aâ— amongst Scismaticks and Hereticks More of this please the Reader to see in Costerus in the Jesuite Gordonius Huntlaeus And this is the doctrine of Socinians as may be seene in the Cathechisme of Raccovia in Theo. Nicolaides and Francis Smalcius and Arminians second both in their confession because they think with Socinians that there is no ministery now necessary and so publick preaching is not a note of the Church especially since every gifted man may preach the Word Socinus in his tractate De Ecclesiâ and his Catechisme of Raccovia saith Notae evangelicorum nihil valent ' Doctrina pura est Ecclesiae natura essentia quae dat ei esse adâ—óque signum ejus esse non potest cum signum ipsum a re câ—jus est signum differre oporteat But the truth is the preaching of the Word hath diverse relations 1. As the members of the visible Church are in fiâ—ri in the way to be gathered the Word preached and believed is a way of gathering a Church Rom. 10. 14. 1 Cor. 1. 23. 1 Cor. 3. 5. Acts 16. 14. 2. That same word preached believed and outwardly professed is a signe of the visible Church For where Gods pastors and shepheards are there be flocks of redeemed ones Cant. 1. 8. Iohn 10. 12 13 14. 3 The Word simply preached and professed in a setled way of a fixed ministery is a note of a ministeriall Church this is cleare from Gods intention for he sendeth it of purpose to save his own as Rom. 10. 14. Acts 20. 28. For a man lighteth not a Candle in his house for nothing So this word preached as it is Gods Word is not properly the forme and essence of the Church but as believed and received it is the forme of the Church invisible 2. But to professe this word savingly est signum Ecclesiae non not A it is a signe that doth not infallibly notifie to us that such is for this time an invisible Church of redeemed ones for I have not infallible certainty what one man or what determinate number of men by name are true believers profession may beguile me as also the invisible Church as such is believed and not knowen infallibly by any note or externall marke that incurreth into the senses Neither is the preaching of the Word a note or infallible marke of the Church ministeriall to all or in relation to Infidels for the Word preached actu primo ex naturâ suâ essentially and of its own nature is more knowen and more sensible then the Church because the preached word is a Doctrine expounding what the true Church is and we do not expound ignotum per ignotius vel per aequè ignotum Darknesse cannot let us see darknesse or colours only light doth reveale things But the word preached in relation to unbelievers cannot be an infallible note of the Church for to a blind man the morning as not a sensible marke that the sun is rising nor is smoake to a dead man a sensible marke of fire because he hath no senses to discerne either So to the infidell though the word as a sound or in a literall evidence be clearer then the Church and in a confused knowledge he knoweth the one better than the other yet is the true word in respect of certaine knowledge and spirituall evidence as darke to him as the Church for he hath not Eares to heare nor eyes to see any of the things of God either the word preached or the Church and therefore the word is both by nature and to us naturâ nobis in respect of distinct knowledge more knowen but not simply as the word actu primo but actu secundo as it both striketh upon outward
and inward senses and as i◠revealeth and discovereth the things of God according to that 1 Cor. 14. 24. But if all prophecy and there come one who is an unbeliever and an unlearned he is convinced of all and judged of all v. 25. and thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest and so falling downe on his face he will worship God and report that God is in you of a truth So here is Gods order how the word preached is a notifying marke discovering to an unbeliever the true Church It I would poynt out one of the Kings Courtiers by this that he hath a purple cloak and a blew scarf if the man to whom I notifie the Courtier do neither know what a purple garment is nor what a blew scarf is the marke shall be no marke to him yet are these sufficient markes in their owne nature if we suppose that no other Courtiers are in that manner apparelled Therefore I would difference betwixt notam notificantem notam notificativam a note that of its owne nature doth make a thing knowen or that which actually maketh a thing knowen to some The settled professed preaching of the Word is a note of the visible Church Ministeriall and that there either is or in Gods own time shall be some invisible Church of sanctified ones there 1. Because Deut. 4. 6 the hearing and doing of Gods Word maketh the Church of the Jewes a renowned and wise people in the fight of the Nations 2. The preaching of the Word and administration of the Sacraments are proper to the Church and distinguish them from other Nations Psal. 147. 19. Hee sheweth his word unto Iacob and to Israel his statutes and his judgments 20. He hath not dealt so with any Nation So Deut. 17. 29. 30 31 32. The Lords worship is so peculiar to his Church as it differenceth them from all others So Esd. 2. 8. 3. Esa. 59. last verse 3. The Church is defined Acts 2. 42. a company of these who professe truly and continue in the Apostles doctrine and breaking of bread 4. The planting and gathering of Churches is expounded to be teaching and baptizing Mat. 28. 19. 20. 5. Christs sheep heare his voyce in his own sent shepheards Joh. 10. 27. 28. 6 The Church is a company built upon the Doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles Eph. 2. 20. 7 The Church is the pillar and ground of truth 1 Tim. 3. 15. because the Church teacheth professeth and keepeth the truth So Augustine Tertullian Hierom. and Chrysostome will have us to seeke the true Church by the true Word of God and not by mens word Robinson objecteth first Profession of the truth made by men of lewd conversation maketh them not the Church because they deserve to be cast out of the Church but by men visibly and externally holy Mat. 3. 6. Acts 1. 38. Act. 2. 37 38. 1 Cor. 15. 1. Mat. 10. 40. 41. Acts 8. 12 13. Answ. These and many other places do strongly prove our poynt and especially that the profession of Simon Magus who before God deserved to be cast out of the Church Acts 8. is sufficient to make one a member of a visible Church Yea but none deserve in foro Ecclesiae in the Churches Court to becast out but such as either confesse scandalous sins or are contumacious or convicted judicially of the same before witnesses otherwayes the dearest to Christ do legally before God deserve all to be cast out Robinson saith The word in the Bible is no note of the true Church but the Word believed and obeyed for Papists have the Bible And Mr. Coachman saith the Philistims had the Arke amongst them and a Iesuit at a river side baptized with a skoop a thousand Indians were they for that a true Church and Papists saith our Authour have baptisme Ans. The like is objected by Socinus Theoph. Nicolaides Cattch Raccoviensis and by Anabaptists But first we make not the word and materiall Bible and naked seales the marks of the true invisible Church we are now disputing about the markes of a visible Church 2. We make not the naked presence of Word and Sacraments true markes of the Church but a setled professed erected feeding by shepheards feeding with knowledge we make a marke of the shepheards Tents which way neither Philistines nor Indians have the Word of God and for the Church of Rome we cannot deny but she retaineth so much of the essence of a ministeriall Church as maketh baptisme administrated by them to be true baptisme that is a valid seale though she cannot 〈◊〉 be called a true ministeriall Church Other two questions here are shortly to be discussed as belonging to this purpose as 1. whether discipline be a marke of the visible Church Mr. Robinson saith the power of censures is simply necessary for the being of the Church sundry of our Divines affirm it is So the learned Professors of Leyden and Ursin with Pareus Great Junius saith it is a note belonging to the Churches order ad decorum the Augustine confession leaveth it out from amongst the notes and so doth Calvin and Whittakerus make two notes onely Word and Sacraments Learned Beza maketh onely the preaching of the Word a note not excluding the other two I thinke Distinctions may help the matter 1. There is a power of discipline and there is a care thereof True Churches have a power given them of Christ and this Robinson proveth and no more yet the care to exercise the power may be wanting in a true Church 2. Distinct. Right discipline is not necessary for the essence of a visible Church All our Divines condemne Anabaptists and Pelagians who plead that righteous men onely and such societies as have right discipline to be true Churches 2. Novatians and Donatists came neere to them in this also as we may see in Augustine So Rich. Field Parker Cartwright make it necessary to the wel-being of the Church 1. Because it is not indifferent 2. Because it is commanded in Gods word 3. Discipline in the substantiall points is immutable 4. It is necessary in respect of the end And all this the learned Parker demonstrateth to be true But it is not necessary simply to the being of it as a City may be without walls a Garden without an hedge 3. Distinct. The power and right to discipline is a propriety essentiall to the Church and is not removed from it till God remove the Candlesticke and the Church cease to be a visible Church but the exercise may be wanting and the Church a true visible Church from which we are not to separate 4 Discipline is a necessary note and unseparable from a visible Church whole intire and not lame and imperfect But ◠Church may retaine the essence and being of a visible Church and yet have no discipline in actuall use or little and though want of
would plant the Lords vâ—neyard with such impes or gather unto the Church flagitious persons drunkards iâ—â—esâ—tous persons or such as denied the resurrection Answ. 1. Paul never insinuateth in one letter that these wicked persons marred the constitution and matter of the visible Church but onely that they marred the constitution of the invisible Church that being bought with a price they should give their bodies to harlotry and that in denying the resurrection they denyed the Scriptures and turned Epicures who said Let us â—aâ—e and drinke for to morrow we shall die but there is nothing to insinuate separation from the Church as false in the constitution 2. Paul doth not plant wicked men as impes in the Lords Vineyard they plant themselves in the roome of true members of the Church invisible and as the redeemed of God when they are not so indeed and this sort of planting is given improperly to the pastors But if you understand by planting the casting out of the draw-net of the word of the kingdome preached and the inviting of as many to come in as the Pastors doe finde Matth. 22. 9. 10. even good and bad this way it is the mouth of truth and not a prophane mouth that Pastors invite professors to come in and bee members of the visible Church though their act of inviting have no kindly influence in the hypocrisie of their profession who are invited To professe the truth is good and laudable and to deny it before men damnable and to invite men to this profession of the truth is good and laudable also And wisedome sendeth out her maidens and by them inviteth simple ones and fooles to professe the truth and to come to the visible Church Prov. 9. 4. Prov. 1. 20 21. but Pastors doe not plant drunkards and flagitious persons in the visible Church but the Apostolike Church calling to her communion Simon Magus Act. 8. but doth not plant them as hypocrites but as externall professors Mr. Coachman saith It is no wrong to leave the carnal multitude as it was no hurt to Jehosaphat when Elisha in his presence protested against Joram as one betwixt whom and God hee would not intercede Answ. Put case Jehosaphat be a Church visible worshipping God aright you wrong his societie if you leave the shepheards tents where Christ feedeth amongst the Lilies till the day breake because there bee foxes in these tents and wicked persons Is it not saith he sweeter to converse with the Godly then with the ungodly Is not the presence of faithfull Christians sweeter when one commeth to powre out his prayers and offer his oblation then the society of carnall men Answ. This will prove it is lawfull to separate from Pharisees preaching the truth in Moses his chaire the contrary whereof you were Sect. 4. Pag. 10. because it is sweeter to heare the word with the Godly then with the ungodly We have not found saith Coachman the honorable name of Christians or godly men given to liars swearers c. no comfort no priviledges belong to them in that state it belongeth not unto them but unto us to build the house of the Lord Ezra 4. 3. Answer Yea God bestoweth the priviledges of externall calling unto good and bad even to those who preferre their lusts to Christ Matth. 22. 9. Luk. 14. 17 18 19. 2. The place of Ezra is corrupted for those were the open adversaries of Judah and Benjamin v. 1. and were not the Church at all 3. Onely Pastors are publicke and authoritative builders of the Church not private Christians The wicked saith he have the things of this life above the godly Ergo they should not be invested in the highest prerogatives above the godly also it is a presumption to say to any carnall man This is the body of the Lord that was given for thee Answer It is the cry of a stone to reason thus this argument is as much against Gods providence as against us for God sendeth to Capernaum and Bethsaida the priviledge of Christs presence in preaching the Gospel and working miracles yet they are an unworthy people 2. Pastors of the separation give the body of Christ to lurking Hypocrites are they not herein presumptuous also They object To live in the want of any of Gods ordinances is not lawfull as Matth. 28. 20. 2 Chron. 30. 8. Cant. 1. 7. 8. so saith Robinson A man is not onely bound in his place to admonish his neighbour but also to see his place be such as be may admonish his brother a calling absolutely tying a man to the breach of any of Gods Commandements is unlawfull and to be forsaken Answ. Seeing affirmative precepts tye not ad semper and Christian prudence is to direct us here there be some in Church communion whom we cannot without palpable inconveniences rebuke The Ministers of New-England in their answer to the nâ— question say such as are not free servants or sonnes may stay in paroch Assemblies in Old England so as they partake of no corruptions and live not in the want of any ordinances they meane wanting the Lords Supper through their default now to separate from the Lords Supper because of the wickednesse of the fellow-worshippers is their default which is against Robinson yet we see not how masters or fathers should separate from Christs true Church more then servants or sonnes 2. Not to admonish in some cases is not a breach of a Commandement nor living besides scandalous persons in a Church or for any to abstaine from the seales because such be in the Church except we would goe out of the world for Robinson presseth alwayes personall separation no lesse then Church separation Robinson There is the same proportion of one member sinning of a few of many of a whole Church now if one brother sinne and will not be reclaimed he is no longer to be reputed a brother but a heathen Ergo so are we to deale with a Church though there be a different order the multitude of sinners doe no wayes extenuate the sinne Answ. 1. Then may a whole Church by this reason be excommunicated which our brethren deny 2. There is the same proportion to be kept when one sinneth and when a whole Church sinneth but by observing due order one may admonish a private brother but not any one or many private persons may admonish and proceed after our Saviours order against a whole Church in a Church way in respect they are still inferiour to a whole Church sister Churches and Synods are to keepe this order with one particular Church that is incorrigible for private persons have relation of brotherhood to private persons and the relation is private and Churches have Church relation to Churches and the relation is publike Nor are whole Churches to be excommunicated while God first remove the Candlesticke as we see in Rome and the seven Churches in Asia 2. It is considerable 1. If the whole Church be obstinate and incorrigible or some few or
the most part 2. If the sinnes be against the worship of God as idolatry or sinnes of a wicked conversation the worship of God remaining pure and sound at least in professed fundamentals 3. If the idolatry be essentiall idolatry as the adoring of the worke of mens hands or onely idolatry by participation as Popish ceremonies the Surplice and Crosse being as meanes of worship but not adored and so being Idols by participation as Amesius and M. Ball doe well distinguish and before them so doth the learned Reynold and Bilson make use of the distinction 4. All lenity must be used against a Church if not more lenity then we use in proceeding against single persons 5. Divers degrees of separation are to be considered hence these considerations 1. There is a separation Negative or a non-union and a separation Positive Though a Church of Schismaticks retaining the sound faith yet separating from other be deserted by any it is a Negative separation from â— true Church and laudable as the faithfull in Augustins time did well in separating from the Donatists for with them they were never one in that faction though they separated not from the true faith holden by Donatists but kept a Positive union with them so doe all the faithfull well to separate from the Churches of the Separatists 2. If the whole and most part of the Church turne idolatrous and worship Idols which is essentiall idolatry we are to separate from that Church the Levites and the two Tribes did well as Mr. Ball saith to make a separation from Jeroâ—oams Calves and the godly laudably 2 King 16. 11. did not separate from the Israel and Church of God because the Altar of Damascus was set up and because of the high places Things dedicated unto Idols as Lutheran Images may be called and are called 1 Cor. 10. 34. idolatry yet are they idolatry by participation and so the Cup of Devils 1 Cor. 10. Paul doth not command separation from the Church of Corinth and the Table of the Lord there 3. Consideration There is a separation from the Church in the most part or from the Church in the least and best part In Achabs time Israel and the Church thereof for the most part worshipped Baal Elias Micajaâ— Obadiah and other godly separated from the Church of Israel in the most part Jeremiah wished to have a Cottage in the Wildernesse no doubt a godly wish that he might separate from the Church all then for the most part corrupted yet remained they a part of the visible Church and a part in the visible Church and therefore did he not separate from the Church according to the least and best part thereof The godly in England who refused the Popish ceremonies and Antichristian Bishops did well not to separate from the visible Church in England and yet they separated from the mainest and worst part which cannot be denied to be a ministeriall Church 4. Considerat If a Church be incorrigible in a wicked conversation and yet retaine the true faith of Christ it is presumed God hath there some to be saved and that where Christs ordinances be there also where Christs ordinances be there also Christs Church presence is And therefore I doubt much if the Church should be separated from for the case is not here as with one simple person for it is cleare all are not involved in that incorrigible obstinacy that is yet a true visible communion in which we are to remaine for there is some union with the head Christ where the faith is kept sound and that visibly though a private brother remaining sound in the faith yet being scandalous and obstinately flagitious be to be cast off as an Heathen yet are we not to deale so with an orthodox Church where most part are scandalous 5. Considerat I see not but we may separate from the Lords Supper where bread is adored and from baptisme where the signe of the Crosse is added to Christs ordinances and yet are we not separated from the Church for we professedly heare the word and visibly allow truth of the doctrine maintained by that Church which doe pollute the Sacraments and we are ready to seale it with our bloud and it is an act of visible profession of a Church to suffer for the doctrine mentioned by that Church 6. We may well hold that Ambrose saith well that a Church wanting the foundation of the Apostles is to be forsaken 7. There is a forced separation through Tyranny from personall communion and a voluntary separation David was forced to leave Israel and was cast out of the Inheritance of the Lord the former is not our sinne and our separation from Rome hath something of the former the latter would be wisely considered 8. There may be causes of non-union with a Church which are not sufficient causes of separation Paul would not separate from the Church of the Jewes though they rejected Christ till they openly blasphemed Act. 13. 44 45 46. Act. 18. 16. And when they opposed themselves and blasphemed Paul shooke his â—ayment and said unto them Your blood be upon your owne heads I am cleane from henceforth I will goe to the Gentiles There is a lawfull separation and yet before the Jewes came to this there was no just cause why any should have joyned to the Church of the Jewes who denyed the Messiah and persecuted his Servants Act. 4. Act. 5. seeing there was a cleaner Church to which Converts might joyne themselves Act. 2. 40 41 42. 9. There is no just cause to leave a lesse cleane Church if it be a true Church and to goe to a purer and cleaner though one who is a Member of no Church have liberty of election to joyne to that Church which he conceiveth to be purest and cleanest 10. When the greatest part of a Church maketh defection from the Truth the lesser part remaining sound the greatest part is the Church of Separatists though the maniest and greatest part in the actuall exercise of Discipline be the Church yet in the case of right Discipline the best though sewest is the Church for truth is like life that retireth from the maniest members unto the heart and there remaineth in its fountaine in case of danger CHAP. 4. SECT 6. The way of the Churches of Christ in New England IN this Section the Reverend Author disputeth against the Baptizing of Infants of unbeleeving or excommunicated neareit Parents of which I have spoken in my former Treatise Onely here I vindicate our Doctrine And first the Authour is pressed with this the excommunicated persons want indeed the free passage of life and vertue of the Spirit of Jesus till they be tuitched with repentance yet they are not wholly cut off from the society of the faithfull because the seed of faith remaineth in them and that knitteth them in a bond of conjunction with Christ. The Authour answereth It is true such excommunicates
a peoples Preacher when they have chosen him hee preacheth by vertue of his gift not by vertue of his office Answ. 1. Here are Socinian mysteries revealed Gerardus saith by this meane the Heretickes called Pepuziani permitted in the primitive Church to women the Ministery of the Sacraments And upon this ground the Socinians and Anabaptists proceeded that except a man would digge his Talent in the earth hee may preach though he have not a calling of the Church so doth Mr. Coachman make talents as judgement and utterance enough to constitute one a Minister whether he be called to the office or not And Gerardus setteth downe a good answer of Luther to the Argument God giveth talents but to those whom hee calleth therefore gifted men should in the use of their calling attend and accept the calling of God It may be the Church perversly set denyeth a calling to one who is gifted Then I say let him use his talent in private God reapeth not where he doth not sow 2. This is a wild saying A man is a Minister whether he be in office or not A ministery is essentially an office or a place that the Lord hath called a man unto else define what an officer is and how can he expone that Rom. 10. 14. how can they preach except they he sent if as our Divines doe then none are sent but such as are called to the office and this is against him if as Sâ—iniâ—ns say all gifted men are sent of God to preach then gifts essentially constituteth a sent man and what is a sent man â—ut a man called to the office 3. Preaching is accidentall to the office of a man that maketh court and the world his conscience it is true indeed but that preaching is accidentall to the office of a Pastor is Popish and Prelaticall for what is essentiall to the office to administer the Sacrament and consecrate the body of Christ Well said for the Popish cause Pope Eugenius in his decree and the councell of Florentine teach us that the essential forme of the office of the Priests is in these words receive power to offer a sacrifice in the Church for the living and the dead for saith Scotus and the Councell of Trent teach us that all the essentials of the Priesthood be in two â— In a power to consecrate Christs body and this is given in the last Supper 2. In a power to absolve a sinner so saith Meratius the Jesuite where the reader shall observe silence of preaching the word and Bellarmine saith the same Gulielmus Eslius saith the essentiall and most principall worke of the Priest is to offer Christs body and then to absolve from sinnes and this they have from their Master Aquinâ—s and further warrant for a Priest essentially dumbe you may find in Suarez And Vasquez doth collect from the fainzed Canons of the Apostles from Clemens his Epistles such a Priest I desire if preaching be accidentall to the office of a Pastor to know if feeding of the people Act. 20. 28. and â—eeding the flock Ezekiel 34. 2. be all in administring of the Sacrament It is strange if a watchman as as a watchman and by office should not preach and give warning Ezek. 3. 17 18. if an Ambassadour as an Ambassadour in Christs stead should not pray the people to be reconciled to God 2 Cor. 5. 20. if a Pastor as a Pastor should not feed the flocke with knowledge Jer. 3. â— 15. if as a workeman and a Minister he should not divide the word aright 2 Tim. 2. 15. if as a fisher he should not catch men but of this enough Lastly 1 Cor. 1. v. 17. Christ sent mee not to baptize but to preach Joh. 4. 2. Christ baptized none but was sent to preach Luk. 4. 43. Chap. 5. Sect. 3. The way of Church judging in New England VVE doe not saith the Author carry matters either by an over-ruling power of the presbytery nor by the consent of the major part of the Church but by the generall and joynt consent of all the members of the Church and we are of one accord as the Church of Christ should be Act. 2. If any disassent out of ignorance we labour to bring him to our mind by sound information 2. If by pride bee disassent the libertie of his voyce is taken from him If 3. the matter be difficill we seeke advice of sister Churches Answ. Unitie is much to be desired in the Church with veritie but your way we understand not Nor doe we in our Synods carry matters by the major and maniest voices because they are maniest nor because they are the the voice of men but because the thing concluded is agreeable to the word of God but what if the Church be divided and the people upon whose voyces principally the conclusion of the Church dependeth goe against both the truth and the Elders They answer These are miserable mistakes either to thinke that the people or Elders must needs disassent or that except they all consent there can be no rule I answer it is a miserable necessitie through the corruption of our nature not a mistake for Simon Magus and fortie like to him in a Church consisting of threescore must dissent from twentie whose hearts are streight in the truth You have no refuge here but let the maniest carry the matter to a mischiefe and the other twentie must separate and make a new Church presently Againe say I what if the Church differ They answer That ought not to bee nor will it bee if the Church will lay aside corrupt judgement and affections and if they attend the rule and depend upon Christ considering the promises made to the Church Jer. 32. 39. Zech. 3. 9. Matth. 1. 10. But if such a thing fall out as not often it doth if the Elders and major part consent and one disassent it is either of corrupt affection and pride and so he Ioseth his voyce or of weaknesse and then he is to submit his judgement to the Church Answ. But to beginne at your last if one out of weaknesse disassent he is to submit his judgement to the Church But I say what if forty out of weaknesse disassent from twenty may not that whole Church as well submit to a Synod as Act. 15. as one must submit his judgement to a Church the conscience of one should no more be fettered then the consciences of a whole Church 3. I grant the maniest should have Scripture but what if they say the Scripture yea and the Apostles are with them when there is no such thing as the case was Act. 15. 20. the wrong side alleadged Scripture and the Apostles commandement when the Apostles gave no such commandement should you not take Gods remedy to appeale to a Synod as the Apostolike Church doth Act. 15. 6. They answer in our Churches hitherto the major part yea all mind one thing as
Rom. 15. 16. 1 Cor. 1. 10. Act. 1. 14. I answer 1. that is because they are in Church-government all one and a conspiracy in error is but seeming unity But 2. I say good men as Paul and Barnabas will differ But 3. what if all be wrong of three parts as 1 Cor. 1. 12. Some said I am of Paul some I am of Apollo some I am of Christ all the three were wrong in that case doth not a Synod by the word of God determine the matter best certainly though Synods may erre yet are they of themselves Christs lawfull way to preserve veritie and charity and unity But our brethren answer us divisions ought not to be and they will not but all agree in the truth if the Church will lay aside corrupt judgement and depend on Christ considering the promises made to the Church Jer. 32. Ephes. 3. 9. Matth. 18 20. Let me answer there is much more charity in this answer then verity 1. They ought not to disassent from truth true but what then the remedy is not given except you returne to a Synod the division Act. 15. ought not to be the house should not be fired true but the question is how shall water be had to quench it for many things are which ought not to be 2. Neither will divisions be that is false 1 Cor. 1. 12. 3. As heresies must be so scandals must be our author saith they will not be they will not be say the brethren if the Church lay aside corrupt judgement and affection and attend upon the rule and depend on Christ. I answer There is but vanity and no solidity I crave pardon in this answer it is the vaine answer of Arminius in the case of the Saints perseverance The regenerate say they cannot fall away if they be not inlaking to Gods grace and if they in holy feare take heed to their wayes so saith Arminius in his Declaration and in his answer to Perkins so also say the Arminians in their confession and Episcopius But what is this but regenerate persons shall persevere upon condition that they shall persevere for not to be inlaking to the grace of God is to cooperate to the grace of God or with the grace of God and to cooperate with the grace of God is very perseverance it selfe for saith the the wicked Socinus and Smalcius and so say our brethren all shall agree in the truth if they lay aside corrupt judgement And what is that if they lay aside corrupt judgement that is if they agree with the truth and assent to the Word of God But so it is that the best regenerate even Barnabas a man full of the holy Ghost Act. 11. doth not lay aside corrupt judgement But our brethren proveth they will law aside corrupt judgement but how you alleadge the Papists abused Scriptures Ier. 32. God promiseth to put his Spirit and feare in his Church that they shall not depart from the Lord. True say I they shall not depart from God providing they lay aside corrupt judgement as you teach us But doe you not teach us by your answer to elude these pregnant places which unanswerably prove the necessity of the perseverance of the regenerated But 2. what though God promise to put his feare in the heart of the regenerate this promise is not made to the visible Church conveened in a Synod as it is such nor will it prove that a Synod shall all agree in the truth that the whole Church shall lay aside corrupt judgement except you serve your selves with these and the like places as Papists and by name as Bellarmine Gâ—etserus Snarez Bucanus Stapleton Gregorius de Valentia doe serve themselves with them and the like to prove that Councels are in fallible What is said in the fourth Section anent the power of the people in Church-governâ—â—â—â— is already examined onely in the closure thereof they seeme to give something peculiar to the Elders which the people have not which I discusse in the insuing question Quest. VIII What peculiar auhority is in the Eldership for the which they are over the people in the Lord according to the doctrine of our brethren We hold that Christ hath given a superiority to Pastors and Overseers in his House whereby they are by office government and power of the keyes above the people But 1. this authority is limited and conditionall not absolute as if they may doe what they please 2. It is a power ministeriall not a Dominion for as meere Servants and Ambassadours of Christ they doe but declare the will and commandement of the King of Kings 3. When this authority is not exercised by the precise rule and prescript of the Law of God it is not valid but null and of no force 4. They are so above the people as 1. they are their Servants for Christs sake 2 Cor. 4. 5. yea we are their servants servants not as if the people had a dominion over the Pastors or as if they had their authority from the people they have it immediately from Christ but because all their service is for the good and the salvation of the people 5. They have so superiority as they are subject to the Prophets to be judged and censured by the Church representative of Pastors Doctors and Elders It will be found that our brethren give no authority or superiority to the Eldership above the people In their answers to the 32. questions We acknowledge say they a Presbytery whose worke it is to teach and rule and whom the people ought to obey and condemne a meere popular government such as our writers condemne in Morellius Answ. So say our brethren in their Doctrine we acknowledge that the people and gifted men not in office should teach and all the faithfull is the governing Church to which Christ hath committed the keyes and power of ordination and highest Church censures even excmmunication and that the Elders should obey the Church of beleevers Ergo in teaching and â—uling you acknowledge no Presbytery 2. Seeing you ordaine the Elders to be ordained by the imposition of the peoples hands to be elected called censured excommunicated exauthorited shew us why the people are not the Rulers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Elders ruled 3. The key of knowledge is a chiefe part of the keyes and these keyes by which sinnes are remitted and retained and men bound or loosed on earth and heaven and seeing Morellius Anabaptists and your selves teach that these keyes were given to the whole Church of beleevers how doe you thinke that people are not in teaching Overseers as properly as the Elders and that your government is meerely popular as Morellius taught to say nothing that when you deny your government to be meerely popular you doe not deny but it is popular for a government meerely popular admitteth of publike men to rule for the people and we never read of a government in Athens Lacedemonia
or Church assembly have any power to bind the Churches to obedience because these commandements and decrees of censure are but ministeriall and limited and in so farre onely of force as they have reason from the Word of God as you say 3. Conclusion There is an authoritative power in Synods whereby they may and doe command in the Lord the visible Churches in their bounds the whole Churches are subject to the ordinance and decree of the Church Act. 1. where with common consent of a Synodicall meeting Matthias is ordained an Apostle Ergo all the Churches are to take him for an Apostle This argument cannot bee repelled because the Apostles by their extraordinary power did choose Matthias Because 1. they themselves cite this place to prove the peoples power ordinary which is to indure to Christs second comming in calling and electing their owne officers and Elders 2. Almain a Papist alleadgeth the place with good reason to prove that a generall councell is above Peter or the Pope because Peter would not choose Matthias without consent of the Apostles and Church 3. If this was extraordinary that Matthias was chosen why then is the vow and consent of the Church sought for there is nothing extraordinary and Apostolick flowing from an Apostolick spirit which is concluded or done by the spirit ordinary of the Church of beleevers So also Act. 6. If the Apostles did not by the ordinary and Synodicall power of ordinary Pastors choose seven Deacons how doe they first require that the Churches of Grecians and Hebrewes should seek out seven men v. 3. and did ordaine them with the common consent of the whole multitude v. 5. Act. 15. A Synod of moe Churches give decrees which obliege the Churches v. 28. ch 16. v. 4. Ergo Synods have authoritie over the Churches Those who say this Synod is not a patterne for after Synods say farre aside for their reason is this was 1. An Apostolick Synod 2. the holy Ghost was here 3. the thing determined was canonick Scripture But this is a way to clude all the promises made to Pastors in the word when as they are first made to Apostles this promise Behold I am with you to the â—nd of the world and this I will send you the other Comforter who 〈◊〉 lead you in all truth cannot bee made to faithfull Pastors and the Christian Church that now is for it is certaine Christ is otherwise present with his Apostles then with his Pastors after them And that he gave them a tongue a spirit when they were before the councels and rulers as to Apostolick men as Act. 4. 8. 9 10. Act. 5. 29. as Christ promised Matth. 10. 19. 20. Luk. 21. 13 14 15. for they were full of the holy Ghost before rulers but by our brethrens doctrine it shall follow none of these promises belong to Pastors now adayes in the like because no pastors now are Apostles Surely this were to fetter and imprison many glorious promises within the pale of the onely Apostolick Church and because Christ ascending to heaven sent downe the Apostolick spirit to his Apostles to write and preach canonick Scripture it shall follow he fulfilleth that promise John 16. 13. to none now adayes because none have the Apostolike spirit in the manner and measure that the Apostles had Yea further it is canonick Scripture that the Apostles at the last supper did shew forth the Lords death till be come againe therefore it shall follow that we have no warrant to shew forth the Lords death till he come againe 2. But that the Apostles in an ecclesiastick way did determine in the Synod for our imitation and not in an Apostolike way is cleare by many evidences in the text as Act. 15. 2. Paul and Barnabas were sent commissioners to the Apostles and Elders about this question Paul as an Apostle needed not be sent to know more of the matter then he knew as an Apostle for as an Apostle he knew the whole mystery of the Gospel Gal. 1. 16. 17. Ephes. 3. 4 5. Ergo he was sent to the Synod as a Pastor and that as an ordinary Pastor 2. They came together v. 6. to consider of this businesse but as Apostles they needed not the help of a Synod Ergo they came together as ordinary Pastors for the Churches after imitation 3. There was much debating and disputing v. 7. about the matter 4. They set down their minds and sentences in order one after another as Peter first v. 7. 8. then Barnabas and Paul v. 12. then James v. 13. and to James his sentence the whole Councell agreeth v. 22. Now what the Apostles as Apostles and from an infallible Spirit do they doe it not by seeking light and help one from another 5. The Decree of the Councell is a thing that Apostles Elders and Brethren and the whole Church resolveth after much dispute v. 22. But all these especially brethren and the whole beleevers as our Brethren say doe not joyne themselves with the Apostles either to write canonick Scripture or to give their consent to the writing of it therefore they doe consent by a synodall authority for the after imitation of the Churches Also there bee reasons of moment for Synods and 1. if according to the Law of nature and nations no man can bee a Judge in his owne cause then are appeales from the Eldership of one congregation when they are a party to the accused person naturall and from a Session to the Presbyteries and Synods of many moe Elders But the former is reason nature Law of Nations Ergo so is the latter 1. It is best reason which hath most of Scripture Paul and Barnabas Act. 15. 1. 2. had no small disputation with those who said circumcision was necessary finding their parties could not be Judges They appeale to a generall councell at Jerusalem where were the Apostles and Elders The Church of the Grecians and the Church of the Hebrewes strive neither of them can judge other and both appeale to a higher judicatory to the twelve Apostles and their owne Churches meeting with them and there is the matter determined aâ—ent helping the poore by Deacons if the Judge doe wrong and one particular congregation shall oppresse one sincere and sound beleever what remedy hath the care of Christ provided for this that the oppressours may be edisied by Church censures and the oppressed freed and delivered by remedy of discipline of Christ whose it is to judge the poore of the people and to save the children of the needy Ps. 72. 4. Now it is knowne that Diotrephes doth sometime excommunicate and the evill seâ—vant ruleth all Hieronymus saith Arrians ruled all in the dayes of Constantius and Valens Basil saith we may say in our time that there is neither Prince nor Prophet nor Ruâ—â—â— nor oblation nor incense Athanasius and Vincentius Lirinent complain'd that it was in the Arrians times as with the Church and Prophets in the
by the dominion of free-will but this is Pelagianisme and Arminianisme and Papists and Pelagians will needs examine the inclinations powers and motions of the soule which goe before the wills consent or arise in us without the wills consent from all subjection to a Law that so originall sinne may bee no sinne because as Pâ—â—agius said it is not voluntary and concupiscence when the will joyneth no consent to it is no sinne yea so the unbeleefe and ignorance of fundamentall points as they remaine in the mind shall bee no sinne 3. If this bee no sinne we are not to pray for illumination to see either the truth on the one side nor on the other and what actions wee doe according to these opinions in things not fundamentall wee doe them not with any certaintie of faith or any plerophorie but blindly or doubtingly and so sinfully which is expresly condemned Rom. 14. 13. and is expressely against that full assurance of faith that wee are to have in those very actions which in their owne nature are indifferent as is evident Rom. 14. 14. I know and am perswaded by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing uncleane of it selfe â— 5. Let every one bee fully perswaded in his owne mind 4. If they be not sinnes then are none to bee rebuked for these opinions no more then they are to bee excommunicated for them and though any erre in points not fundamentall they are not to bee rebuked yea nor to bee convinced of them by the light of the word 2. If they bee sinnes then when they are publickly prosested they must scandalize our brother but there bee no sinnes which scandalize our brother but they are susceptible and in capacitie to bee committed with obstinacie Every sinne sub ratione scandali is the subject of Church-censure Yea Iâ—m 16. 17. Every one is to bee avoyded who causeth divisions and 〈◊〉 es contrary to the doctrine which the Church hath learned of the Apostles and every one who walketh disorderly 2 Thess. 3. 11. and 〈◊〉 not the commandement of the Apostles is to bee excommunicated 〈◊〉 hee bee ashamed v. 14. but opinions contrary to the Apostles doctrine in non-fundamentalls are not fundamentalls and if they bee professed cause divisions and offences contrary to the Apostolik doctrine for many non-fundamentalls are the Apostles doctrine 3. What ever tendeth to the subversion of fundamentalls tendeâ—â—â—◠〈…〉 to the subversion of faith and so doth much truly scandalizâ—anâ— bring on damnation that Christ hath ordained to be removed out of the Church by Church-censures but erroneous opinions in points not fundamentall and in superstructures being professed and instilled in the eares and simple mindes of others tend to the subversion of fundamentalls as having connexion by just consequent with fundamentalls and doe scandalize and bring on doubtings about the foundation and so bring damnation Ergo erroneous opinions in points not fundamentall must be removed out of the Church by Church-censures The proposition is cleare he that falleth in a publicke scandalous sinne is to be delivered to Satan both for his owne sake that he be not damned himselfe but that 1 Cor. 5. 5. to the destruction of the flesh the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord and so also for others because a little Leaven leaveneth the whole lump v. 6. The assumption is proved by dayly experience for corruption in Discipline and Government in the Church of Rome brought on corruption in Doctrine and the same did we find in the Churches of Scotland and England 4. Fundamentalls are no other thing then that which the Apostle calleth Heb. 6. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first principles of the oracles of God and ch 6. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Doctrine of the Principles of Christ which are laid as foundations as ib. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not laying the foundation againe c. Then non-fundamentalls must be such superstructures as are not the first Principles of the Oracles of God and are not the Doctrine of the Principles of Christ. But the Apostle will not have us to fluctuate and doubt as Skeptickes in a Pyâ—rhonian Vacillation and Uncertainty in these which he calleth the superstructures 1. As is evident by his words 11 Of whom we have many things to say and hard to be uttered but you are dull of hearing 12. For when for the time yee ought to be teachers yee have need that one teach you againe which be the first Principles of the Oracles of God and are become such as have neede of milke and not of strong food 13. For every one that useth milke is unskilfull in the word of righteousnesse for he is a babe 14. But strong meate belongeth to them that are of full age even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discerne both good and evill Chap. 6. 1. Therefore leaving the doctrine of the beginning of Christ let us goe on unto perfection not laying againe the foundation of repentance from dead workes c. Whence it is more then evidently apparent to any intelligent mind 1. That when he saith they ought to be teachers of others he cannot be thought to meane that they should teach fundamentalls onely to others because he would have them to be capable of the food of such as are stronger and have their senses exercised to discerne good and ill and will have them carried on to perction now fundamentalls are expressely the foode of babes which bâ—â— neede of milke c. 6. v. 12. and not the foode of the stronger if then they ought to teach superstructures and non-fundamentalls to others they cannot teach and exhort privately for of such he speaketh these things whereof they have no certainty of faith and which they beleeve with a reserve as ready to reject them to morrow upon second thoughts for what we teach to others those as I conceive we are oblieged to speake because we beleeve Psal. 116. 10. 2 Cor. 4. 13. and those we are to perswade because we know not with a reserve but with certainty of faith the terror of the Lord 2 Cor. 5. 11. If it be said teachers now are not oblieged to know all that they teach now to be divine truths with such a certainty of faith as Prophets and Apostles who were ledde by an infallible Spirit for our private exhorting our publick Sermons come not from a Spirit as infallible as that Spirit which spake and wrote canonick Scripture for we may erre in exhorting in Preaching in writing but the pen-men of canonick Scripture were infallible I answer the pen-men of Scripture when they did speak and write Scripture were infallible de jure de facto they could neither erre actually and by Gods word they were oblieged not to erre and in that they were freer from error then we are who now succeed them to preach and write but what God hath revealed in his word whether they be fundamentalls or superstructures doth obliege
changeth not he can reveale no contradictory truths for one of them must be a lie and he is the Lord who cannot lie Answ. Then I say these non-fundamentals are in themselves and intrinsecally certaine and if God reveale them in his Word he must reveale them under the notion of things certaine and we are to beleeve them as certaine truths having intrinsecall necessity in themselves from the authority of God the revealer therefore I am not to beleeve them with a fluctuation of mind to casheere the truth of them to morrow and the next and the third morrow But you say I doe beleeve non-fundamentals as they are revealed now they are not revealed to me in the word in that measure and degree of clearnesse and evidence of light that fundamentall points of faith are revealed therefore I may lawfully beleeve these non-fundamentals which are lesse evidently revealed with a reserve that upon the supposall I see I had an error of judgement in taking them to be truths whereas now I see them to be untruths I doe renounce them but because fundamentals are clearely revealed I am to beleeve them without any reserve at all Answ. The degrees of revelation and proposals of truths to our minds lesse or more evident or lesse evident so they be revealed by God in a sufficient measure of evidence they free us from obligation of faith in tanto non in toto as is cleare John 15. 22. If I had not come to them they should not have had sinne the sin of unbeliefe and in such a measure yet if God reveale these non-fundamentals though not so perspicuously as he revealeth fundamentals we are obliged to know them and beleeve them with certainty of faith and upon this formall reason because Jehovah speaketh them in his word no lesse then we are obliged to know and beleeve fundamentals for our dulnesse and blindnes of mind doth not licence us to beleeve what God revealeth to us in his Word with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a fluctuation of mind no more then the naturall man is licenced to beleeve the fundamentals of the Gospel with doubting because they come in under the capacity of his understanding as foolishnesse 1 Cor. 2. 14. But say you upon supposall that our darkened hearts doe not see these non-fundamentals clearely we are obliged to take their meaning and sense with a reserve and so to receive and entertaine the truths of these non-fundamentals as we leave roome upon supposall of our misapprehensions to retract our judgement and to beleeve the contrary of what we once beleeved and this bindereth not but that we are simply and absolutely obliged to beleeve the non-fundamentalls Answ If we be simply and absolutely obliged to beleeve non-fundamentals though they be not so clearely revealed to us as the fundamentals as no doubt we are then doe we contrary to the morall obligation of a divine precept and so sinne in beleeving with a doubting and hesitation of that which God hath revealed in his word and when we beleeve Gods truth with a reserve to retract our judgement when a cleare light shall make naked to us our error that revealed error if revealed to be an error by the Lord speaking in his word doth clearely evince that God never revealed nor meant to reveale in his Word the former truth that was beleeved with a reserve for God cannot reveale things contradictory and out of the mouth of the Lord commeth no untruth therefore God in these non-fundamentals revealeth to us but one thing to be beleeved and that absolutely without all reserves for God can no more shine with a new light to delare the contradicent of what he hath once revealed as truth then he candeny himselfe or lie which to assert were high blasphemy and if the first truth of the non-fundamentall doe onely appeare truth to our understanding and be no such thing but in it selfe an untruth then doth the God of truth reveale no such thing 2. Upon supposall that we see not the truth of these non-fundamentals clearly we are neither to beleeve with a reserve nor to beleeve them absolutely nor yet are we to suspend our beliefe because I conceive all the three to be sinfull and we are never obliged to sinne but we are obliged to know and beleeve simply without all reserve having laid away our darke and confused conscience and are to know clearely and beleeve firmely that God speaketh this not this in his Word nor because I doe fluctuate about the truth of these non-fundamentals am I obliged to follow in non-fundamentals the endictment of a fluctuating conscience seeing holding the plenitude and plenary perfection of Gods Word the Lord hath no lesse manifested his will in setting downe superstructures and non-fundamentals in his Word then he hath revealed his mind to us in fundamentals But our Brethren prove that we may tolerate one another in diverse and contrary opinions about non-fundamentals from Phil. 3. 15. Let us therefore as many as be perfect be thus minded and if in any thing yee be otherwise minded God shall reveale this unto you 16. Neverthelesse whereunto we have already attained let us walke by the same rule let us mind the same thing Now there is nothing more opposite to this rule then the practises of some who will exclude and allow communion in nothing where there is difference in anything The labours of Davenant and others in this needfull case of syncretisme and pacification in those times are very seasonable I answer I distinguish three things that may be judged the object of syncretisme or mutuall toleration 1. Fundamentalia fundamentall points 2. Supra circa fundamentalia things that are builded on the foundation or superstructures or things about the foundation as many positive and historicall things that cannot result by good consequence off or from the foundation as that there were eight soules in Noahs Arke and some rituals of Gods institution in the Sacrament of the Supper and Baptisme c. 3. Praeter fundamentalia things meerely physicall not morall having no influence in Gods worship at all as such a day for meeting of an Assembly of the Church Wednesday rather then Thursday a cloake when you pray in private rather then a gowne these have or contribute of themselves no morall influence to the action as in what corner of your Chamber you pray in private these are meerely indifferent and tolerance in these I would commend It is true there is a strict connexion often betwixt the physicall and the morall circumstances so as the physicall circumstance doth put on by some necessity a morall habitude and respect and then the physicall circumstance becommeth morall as in what corner of your Chamber you pray it is meerely physicall and indifferent but if that corner that you pray in cast you obvious to the eyes of those who are walking in the streets that they may see and heare your private prayers then the place putteth on the
morall respect of a savour of some Pharisaicall ostentation that you pray to be seene of men and so the circumstance now is morall and is to be regulated by the Word whereas the circumstance that is meerely physicall is not as it is such in any capacity to receive scripturall regulation nothing is required but a physicall convenience for the action Now for fundamentall superstructures for things about the foundation in so farre as they have warrant in the Word to me they oblige to faith and practises in so farre as the Lord intimateth to us in his Word either expressely or by good consequence that they are lawfull Now I may adde to these that there be some things adjacent circumvenient circumstantiall to these fundamentals superstructions and others that I named wherein mutuall tolerance is commendable Nor doe we thinke any Church Reformation so perfect as that reformers have not left it in some capacity more or lesse of receiving increase and latitude of Reformation but truely I doe not see the consequence that therefore in all points not fundamentall the conscience must be of that compliable latitude of Kid-leather to take in and let out so as none of these superstructures or non-fundamentals are to be beleeved but with a reserve that you take them to day as Gods truths and are in capacity to beleeve their contradicents to be Gods truth to morrow And for the place Phil. 3. 14. 15. The sense given by Zanchius pleaseth me We that are reputed perfect let us all think and mind this truth that I write to contend for the price of the high-calling of God and if any mind any other thing contrary to or diverse from my doctrine God in his owne time shall reveale it to him Zanchius saith Deus id quoque revelabit suo tempore nempe an falsum sit vel verum God shall reveale it to him in his owne time whether it be true or false to which part I doe not subscribe that God shall reveale to any other minded then Paul whether his doctrine be true or false for that may inferre a possibility that Paul taught in this point or in the matter of ceremonies something false but the meaning is God shall make him know by the revelation of truth that what I have taught is true and he addeth as Zanchius Estius Cornelius à Lapide Sâ—lmeron yea our owne Calvine Marlorat and others upon this condition that they walke with us in peace and concord according to the 〈◊〉 the Gospel and that these words are a condition I beleeve because Christ saith John 7. 17. If any man will doe his will he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God or whether I speake of my selfe But I see nothing here that reacheth the conclusion that we deny it will beare this indeed if any man be otherwise minded and thinke that Paul hath not delivered sound doctrine either concerning our pressing forward toward the prise of the high calling of God in Jesus Christ or concerning ceremonies that is if any man beleeve untruths contrary to Pauls doctrine let him beleeve these untruths leaving roome to Gods light to bow downe under truths feet when God shall reveale that Pauls doctrine is true and that his thoughts diverse from Pauls doctrine was misapprehensions and errours but there is nothing here that if any beleeve true non-fundamentals he is to beleeve them with a reserve that if God with a new light shall appear to discover these truths to be untruths he shall change his mind Now the supposition is vaine and as unpossible as to say God can contradict and belie his owne truth nor is there any word of toleration of Sects in the text Yea but say they Paul professeth to walke according to the rule to which they 〈◊〉 all attained with those who are contrary minded Ergo we are to tolerate and to keepe peaceable communion with those who are contrary minded in opinions and disagree from us Answ. Marke I pray you that Paul doth not say he will walke with them and keepe communion with them simply but onely 1. while God shall reveale their error and by his light make them see that Pauls doctrine is true 2. So in other things they be of one minde with Paul as perfect men should be and so I thinke Paul doth indeed condemne separation and breach of love for diversity of opinions in some things and we doubt not but if the servant of the Lord should with gentlenesse instruct malicious opposers of the truth and wait on them to see if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledgment of the truth 2 Tim. 2. 24 25. farre rather should Paul walke with those that are perfect according to the same rule though they be of another mind but it followeth not that those who are of another mind from Paul should 1 obstinately continue in that mind after that God hath by writings and dispute convinced them of their error 2. It followeth not that their obâ—tinate continuance in their error should alwayes be tolerated and never censured especially if it be such an error as causeth divisions and offences Rom. 16. 17. for then such should be avoided saith Paul in that same place 3. It followeth not that we are to beleeve no superstructures or non-fundamentals but with a reserve it is observable that Paul speaketh here of those who beleeve errors and doctrines contrary to Pauls doctrine Now consider then the force of the argument those who beleeve errors contrary to Pauls doctrine have no certainty of faith that what they beleeve is true and therefore must beleeve with a reserve leaving roome to new light therefore those who beleeve any true superstructures and any non-fundamentals have also no certainty of faith but must beleeve with a reserve that when light shall appeare they shall beleeve the contradicent of what they now beleeve there is no force in this connexion It is just like the question betwixt us and the Papists whether a man can be certaine with any divine and infallible certainty that he is in the state of grace and salvation Papists say hypocrites beleeve that they are in the state of grace and yet they have no certainty thereof Ergo say they the regenerate beleeving that they are in the state of grace can have no certainty This is a very ill consequence for a sleeping man is not certaine whether he be dreaming or waking Ergo a waking man knoweth not whether he be waking or not So a distracted man hath no certainty that he is as wise as seven men who can render a reason therefore a man sober in his wits knoweth not that he is in his sober wits these be poore and loose consequences It is true when we beleeve some alterable circumstances of some things rather about then in doctrine and discipline which are disputable and to us both sides have great probability we have not certainty of faith and possible here in
a man or no. It is taken for a thing out of controversie yea that this is no question at all Whether or no doth an erroneous conscience so bind that we can doe nothing against the standing enditement of an erring conscience for the Scripture is cleare in this Rom. 14. 14. I know and am perswaded by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing of meat-kind now under the Gospel uncleane or unlawfull to eat of it selfe but to him that esteemeth any thing to bee uncleane in the light of his il-informed and erroneous conscience to him so thinking it is uncleane that is to this man now under the actuall darknesse and errour of an ill-informed conscience it is not lawfull to eat but hee must abstaine from eating not simply from eating but from eating â—â—li modo So all who have commented on the place Calvin Beza Parâ—us Rollocus c. and of the Fathers all who either commented on or handled the text occasionally as Theodoret Chrysostome Basilius Augustine Cyprian Ambrose Origen Anselm all the Popish writers Lyra Hugo Cardinalis Aquinas Toletus Pirerius Estius Cornelius a Lapide c. yea Adrianus Vasquez Pezantius say it is manifestly against the Scripture and hereticall to say it is no sinne to doe contrary to the commandement or prohibition of an erring conscience 3. Hence the conscience carrieth to the agent from God a twofold obligation most considerable here 1. one from the action it selfe to be done or not done and this commeth wholly from the oblieging Law of God and not from the conscience there is another obligation that consisteth not in the action and commeth not from the action but in the manner of doing and this obligation commeth from conscience it selfe and that is that we doe nothing in such a manner that is against the light or inditement of our conscience for this is an imbred Rose Flower of divinifie and majestie that groweth kindly out of conscience according to that high place of some sort of royaltie that it hath to bee something of God a little breast-God a little Deputie and Judge not to bee contemned so when a proconsull bringeth to mee a forged commandement from my Soveraigne and Prince I may receive it with non-obedience if I know it to bee a forgery but I am not to despise and put any note of disgrace upon the proconsull be cause hee is in respect of his office the deputie of my Soveraigne though in this particular mandat hee doth prevaricate and not represent the soveraigne power and Prince whose deputie otherwayes he is by vertue of his office so is this the deputed royaltie of conscience that it standing to me bic nunc as representing a message from God though it represent it falsely that I can doe nothing in the contrary that deputry and message standing actually in vigor 4. I desire that these two obligations of conscience bee carefully kept in mind hence I say that conscience carrying the former obligation of Gods Law from which formally the action hath its lawfulnesse and in an eccentrick and irregular discrepance from which it hath its unlawfulnesse it doth not obliege mee to the action because it is conscience simply for when it offereth an action to mee as lawfull which in very deed and a parte rei in it selfe is unlawfull I am not oblieged to that unlawfull action for as God hath given to no ruler made of clay any royall power to bee a tyrant and to destroy where as his office is as a father to save and governe so hath not God given to conscience any power to obliege me to sinnes yea and conscience remaineth conscience when it representeth forged and illegall mandates under the notion of things good even when men love to goe to hell by reason yet in that false representation conscience is not Gods deputie therefore though if a man judge some doctrines to bee errors though they bee in themselves truths to him that so judgeth they are errors yet are these truths not to bee rejected simpliciter and absolutely by him who judgeth so ony they are to be rejected 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in some respect as they come in under the notion and garments of errors also if any suffer death for an error which in conscience he conceiveth to be truth that error is to him truth Distinguo it is to him truth that is he conceiveth and dreameth that it is truth that is most true but to him it is truth that is it ought to bee beleeved by him as truth and practised as lawfull that is most false for it ought to bee rejected both in point of beleefe and in point of practise and the erroneous opinion thereof should bee rejected and therefore if hee receive it as truth and professe it and die for it hee dieth not for righteousnesse sake but hee dieth for errour and for the dreames of his owne head and so is not blessed as one who dveth for righteousnesse for this vaine reason saith 1. that it is no sinne for the mind to beleeve a lie to bee a divine truth and it is righteousnesse upon the beleefe whereby I beleeve a lie to bee a truth to suffer for a lie under the notion of a truth Both these are false the former is false for the mind is under Gods oblieging Law to conceive aright of all divine truths as all the faculties of the soule are under a Law 2. The latter is false for to beleeve lies as divine truths and suffer for them because the erring conscience saith they are divine truths is not righteousnesse but sinfull credulity and blind zeale 1. Because wee are not to beleeve what our conscience dictateth as truth under this formall reduplication because our conscience thus doth dictate and saith it is truth but because Gods spirit saith to our conscience it is a divine truth not because our owne spirit and our owne dreaming and misâ—ed conscience saith so This is the controversie betwixt us and Papists anent the authoritie of Gods Word but with a little change for our conscience or the testimony of our conscience as such is no more the formall object of our faith and the formall medium and reason why with a divine faith I beleeve a divine truth to bee a divine truth then the testimony of the Church or the Pope is the formall reason of my faith so An â—baptists make a Pope and an infallible spirit of their owne conscience but the whole formall obligation tying mee to receive this and this point as a divine truth is because God hath revealed it in his Word the consciences representing of it is but a necessary condition of my beleeving but not the formall object of my beleeving the conscience is the cause why I beleeve it tali modo after a rationall way and by the evidence of practicall reason but it is not the formall cause why I beleeve it simpliciter for Papists Arrians Macedonians and the most
detestable Hereticks have consciences representing to them fundamentall truthes as lies and untruths and have died for these lies did they suffer for righteousnesse for that and yet to their judgement that which they suffered for was truth All the legall obligation is here from Gods Law not from our conscience Arminians Socinians Anabaptists imagine that our conscience is the nearest rule of our actions which is most false our present judgement is never a binding Law to us for the time to come no not when we beleeve fundamentalls Gods Word because it is Gods Word is a binding Law onely our judgement is regula regulata and not regula regulans to be led and not a leading or binding Law to us for conscience because conscience is no more a Pope to us then the dictates of the Bishop of Rome speaking out of his chaire can captivate the conscience of any man and Malderus holdeth that our opinion is a Law according to Ambrose and hee correcteth himselfe and saith our opinion or conscience non tam legem esse quam legis quaddam praeconium promulgationem insinuationem is not so much the Law of God as the promulgation of Gods Law but hee addeth which maketh the businesse as bad and saith promulgatio legis recte dicitur obligare but the truth is the promulgation of the Law doth not obliege for who can say that the Law hath an oblieging power from the Herald his act of proclaiming reading or declaring the Law the promulgation of the Law is an approximation of it to the understanding of the people but the Law of man hath its oblieging power from the honesty of the matter of the Law and it hath its obligation to punishment not from the Herauld but from the authoritie of the Law-giver And our conscience doth onely promulgate Gods oblieâ—ing Law but it layeth not on us the oblieging power except wee speake of an oblieging power in the manner of receiving and beleeving the Law of God that is as I said that wee receive not as a truth what God proposeth as an untruth or that wee receive not as a lie what God proposeth as spoken by himselfe for that is to receive truths against the light of our conscience And when Ambrose calleth our opinion an obliging Law he speaketh as Augustine often doth of the Law of nature which is that habituall opinion naturall that wee have of right and wrong or of the â—aw written in our heart I would not here distinguish betwixt recta ratio right reason and vera ratio true reason for some make right reason the nearest rule of our actions so as the action is lawfull it our conscience perswade to it though the action swaâ—ve and decline from Gods Law For to mee reason is never right which is not true and agreeable to Gods Law It is objected if one shall beleeve it is lawfull to kill a protestant King because it is good service in God to kill a heretick as there bee good store of consciences of this mettall amongst the nation of Jesuiâ—es if hee kill him not bee sinneth against God because be sinneth against the light of his conscience by the sinfull omitting of good service to God and if bee kill him 〈◊〉 sinneth also in committing murther both against the sixt Commandement and also against the fist which commandeth to honour Kings out of which it must follow that either an erring conscience because it is conscience obliegeth us to doe that which because wee doe it in obedience to an erring consceence now leaveth off to bee sinne to the actor under this condition of conscience or then that there may bee such a perplexitie wherein a man by way of contradiction whether hee doe such â—n all or doe it not is necessitated by Gods providence to sinne which absurdity shall make God the author of sinne Answ. There is no necessitie by way of contradiction that a man thus perplexed must sinne whether hee doe or not doe such anaction for I give easily a third case different from both for such a perplexed Jesuite is neither oblieged to kill the Prince nor yet to abstaine from killing in such a perplexed manner but hee is oblieged not to kill the Lords annointed tali modo hee is oblieged to abstinence but not to abstinence tali modo such a way for hee is oblieged to lay aside his erroneous and hereticall conscience and so to abstaine from killing with a well informed conscience for no man is brought under a lawfull perplexitie to sinne but men may bring themselves under sinfull perplexities of conscience which is not to bee fathered upon the holy Lord who hateth sinne with a perfect hatred I answer to the places Mark 9. 30. and Luk. 9. they be manifestly corrupted for the man who cast out devills in Christs name and followed not Christ was not a man who followed the light of an erroneous conscience who thought it service to God to cast out devills in Christs name and not to follow Christ for hee was not oblieged to follow Christ as the Disciples followed him except he had had the same command to follow Christ that the Apostles had which wee read not of nay it is most like if it had beene the error of his conscience not to follow Christ then should Christ have rebuked it but Christ did not rebuke it in the man but directly insinuateth v. 40. that the man was with Christ and a spirituall follower of Christ though hee did not in such a bodily way follow Christ as did Judas and the eleven and it was the fault of the Disciples to tie all the duties of a Disciple casting out devills in Christs name to a bodily following of Christ which was their pride 3. It is a good way to refute sects and erroneous opinions by Scriptures and so is it a good way to convince an incestuous man of the hainousnesse of his sinne by Scriptures and to convince Hymeneus and Alexander of their blasphemous opinions by Scripture for Scripture layeth open the vildnesse of sinnes and hereâ—es but it doth not follow therefore it is not also a good way to deliver incestuous persons and blasphemets to Satan that the spirit may bee saved in the day of the Lord and that they may learne not to blaspheme 1 Cor. 5. 5. 1 Tim. 1. 5. Preaching of the Word is one meane to beare downe sects and erroneous opinions but it taketh not away but establisheth Church-discipline as another meane and the one is subordinate to the other if Matth. 18. an offending brother can bee convinced and brought to repentance by the power of the Word as all rebukes must bee from the Word it is good but if he remaine obstinate in his offence Christ will have the man excommunicated and esteemed a Heatben and a Publicâ—n 4. It is a vaine thing to say that God hath refuted all hereâ—â—s in the Word and therefore there is no need of Synods to refute them and to make
but wee uske who shall bee the visible ministeriall and vocall Judge under Christ speaking in his owne Testament for the King is a Politick and civill Judge and the Church an Ecclesiasticall Judge I answer this same is the question betwixt us and Papists anent the Judge of controversies whether the Judge bee a Synod or the Scriptures and wee answer by a distinction the Scripture is norm i judicandi 2. Christ the peremptory and infallible Judge speaking in his owne Word 3. A Synod lawfully conveened is a limited ministeriall and bounded visible Judge and to bee beleeved in so farre as they follow Christ the peremptory and supreme Judge speaking in his owne Word But wee deny that there is on earth any peremptory and in fallible visible Judge But to come yet nearer if the King have sworne to that same religion which the Church doth professe and so acknowledge and professe the reformed religion of that Church hee must then acknowledge the lawfull officers of that Church to bee his ordinary teachers and the lawfull ministers of the Church and that they are both in a Synod and out of the Synod to preach and to bee ministeriall definers of things contraverted and that they shall first determine in an ecclesiasticall way according to Gods Word and hee as King is to command them to determine according to Gods Word under the paine of civill punishment and the Kings civill and coactive way of judging is posterior and ratificatorâ—e of the right and oxthodox ecclesiasticall determination and Junius saith that the Magistrates judging politick presupposeth the Church judging ecclesiasticall going before and Calvin and Amesius are cleare that in this case the Church is to cognosce of hee owne ecclesiasticall affaires Ambrose writeth to the Emperor Valentinian that none should judge of this cause which is ecclesiasticall as one said but a Church-man qui nec munere sit impar neâ—jure dissimilis Gelasius the Pope inveigheth against Anastasius the Emperour because hee confounded these two civill and ecclesiasticall causes But if the Emperour or King professe not the religion of the land and repute it false and if the religion bee indeed hereticall then the Church is not constitute and the case extraordinary but the truth is neither the Kings judgement as a certaine rule to the representative Church nor the representative Churches judgement a rule to the King but the Word of God the infallible rule to both Judgement may crooke truth cannot bow it standeth still unmoveable like God the father of truth but in this case if both erre ex cellently saith Junius the Magistrate erring the Church may do something extraordinarily and tâ—e Church erring the Magistrate may do something also in an extraordinary way as coÌ„mon equitie and mutuall law requireth that friends with mutuall tongues bicke the wounds of friends Also fourthly some say they who make the King the head of the Church acknowledge that the King doth not judge except the matter be first defined in the Scriptures and in the generall councells yet they give a primacie spirituall in matters ecclesiasticall to the King and therefore if the King as King may forbid the inacting of wicked Canons hee determineth them to bee wicked before the Synod have passed their judgement of them I answer that learned Calderwood saith indeed the pretended Lords of high Commission have an act for them under Queene Elizabeth for this effect but it is made for the fashion for all errors and heresies are condemned in Scripture but not onely should there bee a virtuall and tacit determination of matters ecclesiastick which is undeniably in Scripture and may bee in generall councells also but also a formall Synodicall determination in particular must goe before the Princes determination in a constitute Church The Prince may before the Synods determination exhort to the determination of what hee conceiveth is Gods will in his Word but hee cannot judicially and by a Kingly power determine in an orderly way what is to bee defined in a Synod except hee infringe the Churches liberties and judicially prelimit under the paine of civill punishments the free voyces of the members of the Synod which is indeed an abuse of the authoritie of a nurs-father But fiftly it may bee objected that hee may in a thing that is manifestly evident by the Word of God to bee necessary truth command by the power of the sword that the Synod decree that or this particular so cleare in the Word the contrary whereof being Synodically determined hee may punish by the sword and so hee may judicially predetermine some things before the Sâ—nod passe their Synodicall act thereon and if hee may predetermine judicially one thing hee may predetermine all things I answer what the King may judicially determine and punâ—â—h with the sword that hee cannot judicially predetermine and command in any order that hee pleaseth but in a constitute Church whereof hee is a member and to bee taught hee is to determine judicially in an orderly way as a nurs-father But sixtly it may bee objected that if the King have a judiciall power by the sword to annull unjust acts then hath hee a power to 〈◊〉 them though hee abuse that power in making them as unjust and then hath hee a power to interpret Church acts and to defend them 〈…〉 Law saith it is not same power to make Lawes and to dâ—â—â—nd them and interpret them see Paraeus I answer the proposition is not universally necessary except onely in civill matters in the which as the Prince who is absolute hath supreme authority to defend and interpret civill lawes so hath hee power to make them for if the Magistrate hath a supreme judiciall power to interpret Church-Lawes hee is a minister of the Gospell in that case and may by that same reason administer the Sacraments so the argument is a just begging of the question 2. Though the King have power in case of the Church aberration which is somewhat extraordinary it followeth not therefore in ordinary hee hath a nomothetick power to make Church-Lawes Also seventhly it may bee objected if the King in case of the Churches aberration may by the sword rescind Church-Lawes then may hee make a Law to rescind them but those who aâ—firme that the King hath a sort of primacie and headship over the Church say not that the King hath any power formally ecclesiasticall to make Lawes as Ministers in a Synod do but onely that hee hath a power to command any forme of externall worship under the paine of bodily punishment they say not that the King may preach administrate the Sacraments or excommunicate or inflict any Church-censures I answer the transcendent power of Princesand their commissioners is not well knowne for the authors saith Calderwood agree not among themselves but it is true in words the author est Tortura torti the Bishop of Eli denyeth in words if you have strong faith to beleeve
Church because that mediatory kingdome substisted fortie yeeres in the Jewish Church in the Wildernesse without circumcision yea and Apostles and Evangelists are no meanes subordinate to that kingdome because Christs mediatory kingdome subsisteth now without these officers 2. Neither is it true that magistracie conferreth no helpe to this kingdom but in these things which concerne the externall man for in a politick and coactive way the Magistracy taketh care by commandements that the Church bee fed with the pure Word of God onely this proveth that magistracie and Church ministery have two different objects and the way of proceeding of these two states the one carnall and with the sword Joh. 18. 36. Rom. 13. 3 4. the other spirituall to the manifestarion of the truth to the conscience 2 Cor. 4. 1 2. Psal. 110. 1. 2. Esâ—y 11. 4. Heb. 4. 12. which we grant to be true 5. It is objected Christ himselfe performed all the parts of his mediatory kingdome and all the functions thereof in his owne person and by his disciples while hee was on earth but hee refused all civill Magistracy and did inhibit his disciples thereof because it is not contained under the administration of his mediatory office as subordinate thereunto Answ. Christ refused magistracie not because it is not subordinate to edification which is the end of Christs mediatory kingdome but because it is not compatible with his spirituall kingdome in one and the same person and therefore this is a caption à non causa pro causa in one and the same person and subject the civill and the Ecclesiasticall power are inconsistent and incompatible that is true Ergo in the kind of lawfull meanes these two powers are unconsistent and uncompatible I deny it to follow for both royall power and Church power concurre for the producing of one and the same end to wit edification and obedience to both Tables of the Law but after different wayes carnall and spirituall I thinke it most considerable that though the Prince may by a coactive way command that same which a Church Synod may command in an ecclesiasticall way yet differeth these same powers in their formall objects because the King commandeth that which is good religious decent in Gods worship as a thing already taught and determined judicially either expressely in Gods Word or then by a pastorall or Synodicall determination and that not by way of teaching informing the mind exponing the Scripture or by pastorall dealing with the conscience as oblieging to a Church Liturgie and ceremonies as one who intendeth formall edification and faith repentance and obedience to God but the King commands that which is good and extra as it is already taught and expounded and as it is an imperated act of externall worship or mercy and justice done by a coactive power Hence the Magistrates power is not to edifie formally but to procure that edification may bee 2. The Magistrates power is Lordly the Churches power is onely ministeriall 3. The Magistrates power may bee in one to wit in the King the Churches power of the keyes is in the Church 4. They differ in formall objects as hath been said Now to obviate what the Jesuite Lysimachus Nicanor saith wee are no wayes of Papists mind in the matter of the Magistrates power for Papists 1. exclude Kings and Emperours from any medling with Church matters Charles the fift was upbraided by Paul the third the Pope of Rome because hee did as became a Prince ordaine meetings conferences and assemblies for composing of differences in Churches matters not giving the power of conveening councells onely to the Pope comparing his fact to the attempt of Uzzah who put his hand to the Ark and to Câ—rah Dathan and Abirams conspiracie against Moses yea and Nicolaus the first in his Epistle to Michael the Emperour denyeth that Emperours are to bee present in Synods except in generall Synods where both Church men and laicks are present wee teach that the Magistrate is as the hand the ministry as the eyes and both are to concurre for the spirituall good of the body of Christ. 2. Papists will have the Magistrates so to defend the faith as they have not power to judge not as Christians with the judgement of descretion what is right or wrong but they must as blind servants execute what Prelates decree yea and see non prâ—priis saith Henr. Blyssemius sed alienis Episcoporum ac pâ—aelatorum suorum oculis videre not with their owne eyes but with the eyes of their Prelates yea and the Magistrate should not read the Scripture say Papists and Nicanâ—rs brethren the Jesuits expresly contrary to Gods Word Deut. 17. 17. Hee shall read in the booke of the Law all the dayes of his life Joshua 1. 8. but onely beleeve as the Church beleeveth and this is blind obedience that they require of Princes this faith or obedience wee thinke abominable in all men as in Princes Of old Popes and Prelates were subject to Kings and Emperors as wee teach from the Word of God Rom. 13. 1. and 1. wee teach against the Jesuit Lysimachus Nicanor that his Prelates should not invade the King and civill Magistrates sword and be civill Judges as Popes and Prelates are against which writeth Tertullian Origen Hilarius Chrysostome Ambrosius Augustinus The author of the Survey saith that if every Eldership be the tribunall seat of Christ what appellation can bee made there from to either provinciall or generall councell and hee meaneth that there can bee no appellation to the King seeing the Presbytery in Churches causes is as immediatly subject to Jesus Christ and the highest Judicature on earth as the King is Gods immediate vicegerent on earth nearest to Jesus Christ in civill causes I answer the cause that is meerely ecclesiasticall as the formall act of preaching and ecclesiasticall determining of truth in Pulpits and the determining the truth in Church assemblies in an ecclesiasticall way in Synods and the excommunicating of a scandalous person are immediatly subject to Jesus Christ speaking in his owne perfect Testament and these causes lie not at the feet of Princes to bee determined by them as Kings but in a constitute Church they are to bee determined by the ordinary Church assemblies and in this place there is no appeale from the Presbytery to a King but it followeth not that there can bee no appellation from a Presbytery to a provinciall or to a nationall assembly 1. Because though every Presbytery bee the tribunall seate of Christ yet it is but a part of the tribunall seat of Christ and such a part as may easily erre and therefore appellation may bee made from the weaker and the part more inclined to erre to the stronger and maniest or the whole who may more hardlier erre and that is not denied by this author who dare not deny but they may appeal from a Bishop who doth and may misleade
Reformation of the Congregations of England IN the first article the Author acknowledgeth the Church of England was once rightly and orderly gathered either by Apostles â—â— apostolick men whether Philip or Joseph of Arimathea or Simon Zelotes as we may read in Fox c. Sothat all the worke now is not to make them Churches which were none before but to reduce and restore them to their primitive institution Answ. Though the Churches of England were planted by the Apostles yet since Popery universally afterward prevailed in both England and Scotland as Beda and Nicephorus and ancient histories witnesse we thinke by our brethrens grounds England losed the very essence of a true Church So that there be neede of the constituting of a new Church and not of simple restitution to the first restitution 1. Because the Congregations wanteth the essentiall constitution of right visible Churches as you say 2. Because you receive none comming from the Church of New-England to the seales of the Covenant because they are members of no visible Church Sect. 2. Certaine propositions tending to Reformation In the third or fourth Proposition the Author condemneth Laicks Patronages 2. Dedicating of Lands to the Ministry to these adde what the Ministers of New-England say in their answer to the thirty two Questions sent to them from Old-England where they condemne stinted maintenance Though the right of Church Patronages were derived from Romulus it is not for that of noble blood â—or Dionysius Halicarnasseus saith Romulus instituted Patronages when he had divided the people in noble and ignoble called Patricii Plebeii But this Patronage was civill and when servants and underlings were hardly used it hath a ground in nature that they choose Patrons to defend them therefore hee who gave libertie to a a servant amongst the Romans was called a Patron and he who defended the cause of the accused as Valla saith was called a Patron If it bee said that the servant was the proper goods and part of the Masters patrimony because hee might sell his servant and therefore there could bee no Law given to prove men may limit the dominion of the master over the servant I answer the servant was a part of his masters patrimony but a part thereof for sinne not as his Oxe or his Asse is a part of his patrimony therefore by the Law of nature whereby the weaker imploreth helpe of the stronger as the Lambe seeketh helpe from the mother and the young Eagle from the old the slave might well have libertie to choose a Patron and this is a ground that the Magistrate the Churches nurs-father by office should plead the Churches cause as her Patron and every one in power is to defend the Church in her liberties and patrimony and therefore in the Apostles time when holinesse and the power of Religion did flourish and was in court there was not need of any positive civill or Church Law for a Patron to the Church every beleever in power is oblieged to defend the Church but when men became Vulturs and ravenous birds to plucke from the Church what was given them the Councell of Millian in the yeare of God 402. wherein some say Augustine was president under Honorius and Arcadius some holy and powerfull men were sought from the Emperour to defend the Church in her patrimony and rights against the power and craft of avaritious men and they were called Patrons and the same was desired in the first Councell of Carthage but with the Bishops advice cum provisione Episcoporum Hence it is cleare patronages from their originall were not Church priviledges and Bishops being a part of the Church could not be the Patrons quia nemo sibi ipsi potest esse patronus and for this cause that learned thinketh this was the originall of Church Patronages but the Patrons have beene chosen with consent of the Church hence they were not as our Patronages are now which goeth 1. by birth 2. and are a part of a mans patrimony and civill thing that the Patron hath right unto under the Kings great Seale but as a Minister is not a Minister by birth neither was a Patron a Patron by birth and from this wee may collect that the Patrons right was but a branch of the Magistrates right and accumulative not primitive and that hee could take nothing from the Church and 〈◊〉 lesse might the Patron forestall the free election of the people by tying them and their free suffâ—ages to a determinate man whom hee presented and it is not unlike which Aâ—entinus 〈◊〉 when Bishops gave themselves onely to the Word of God to preaching and writing bookes in defence of the truth the Emperour tooke care that they should bee furnished with food and â—aiment and therefore gave them a pâ—tronus quem 〈◊〉 patronum curatoremque vocabant whom they called a patron and here observe the Bishop of old was the client and the sonne and Pupill now hee must bee the Patron and Tutor and therefore in time of Popery Antichristian Prelates would bee Patrons both to themselves and to the Churches But this seemeth not to bee the originall of patronages because this ground is common to all Churches but not all but onely some certaine Churches have patronages therefore their ground seemeth rather to bee that some religious and pious persons founded Churches and dotted and mortified to them benefices and the Church by the Law of gratitude did give a Patâ—onage over these founded Churches to the first foundators and their heires so as they should have power to nominate and present a Pastor to the Church But there were two notable wrongs in this for 1. If the fundator have all the Lands and Rents in those bounds where the Church was erected hee is oblieged to erect a Church and furnish a â—â—pend both by the Law of nature and so by Gods Law also Ergo the Church owe to him no gift of patronage for that nor is hee to keepe that patronage in his hand when hee erecteth a Church but and if hee being Lord heritor of all the Lands and Rents both erecteth a Church and dotteth a stipend sub modum eleemosynae non sub modum debiti by way of almes not by way of debt then is there no gratuitie of honour nor reward of Patronage due to him for almes as almes hath no reall or bodily reward to bee given by those on whom the almes is bestowed but onely the blessings of the poore Joh 31. 20. it being a debt payed to God hee doth requite it And Calderword saith no wise man would thinke that the Church men should allure men to found Churches and to workes of Pietie by giving them the right of presenting a man to the change and also hee would call it Simonie not pietie or religion if one should refuse to doe a good worke to the Church except upon so deareâ—t rate and so hard a condition as to
THE Due right of Presbyteries OR A PEACEABLE PLEA FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE Church of Scotland Wherein is examined 1. The way of the Church of Christ in New England in Brotherly equality and independency or coordination without subjection of one Church to another 2. Their apology for the said Government their Answers to thirty and two Questions are considered 3. A Treatise for a Church Covenant is discussed 4. The arguments of Mr. Robinson in his justification of separation are discovered 5. His Treatise called The peoples Plea for the exercise of prophecy is tryed 6. Diverse late arguments against presbyteriall government and the power of synods are discussed the power of the Prince in matters ecclesiastical modestly considered divers incident controversies resolved By SAMUEL RUTHERFURD Professor of Divinity at Saint Andrewes CANT 6. 10. Who is she that looketh forth as the morning faire as the Moone cleare as the Sun and terrible as an Army with Banners 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 LONDON Printed by E. Griffin for Richard Whittaker and Andrew Crook and are to be sold at their Shops in Pauls Church-Yard 1644. TO The most Noble and Potent Lord Archbald Marquesse of Argile one of His MAJESTIES honourable Privy Councell wisheth Grace Mercy and Peace WHo knoweth most Noble and potent Lord how glorious it is and how praise-worthy when the mighty and these who are called The shields of the Earth and the Cedars of Lebanon cast their shadow over the City of God Airie wits and broken spirits chase fame but fame and glory shall chase him who is as the spirit of God speaketh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Sonne of courage and one who hath done many acts for the Lord. The followers of Christ are the sonnes of Nobles All blood is of one colour holinesse maketh the difference Fortuna vitrea est tum cum splendet frangitur Things we rest on here be made of cristall glasse while they glister they are broken Plures tegit fortuna quam tutor facit The world may cover men it cannot make them secure But the Lord is a Sun and a shield What hath Jesus Christ on Earth which he loveth as he doth his Church What a created peece is the true Church A woman clothed with the Sunne and the Moone under her feet and upon her head a Crowne of twelve Starres Her very servants are the glory of Christ. Yet is this poore woman in Brittaine crying travelling in birth pained while shee be delivered because of the Idolatry of the Land and our defection and apostacy practised countenanced tolerated in both Kingdomes Many graves many Widowes and the Land turned into a field of blood are the just fruits of many Altars of Masse-idolls of Bread worship of many inventions of men let then have a name and flourish in the House of the Lord and let them be written with the living in Jerusalem who contribute help for the desired birth of the manchild Prelacy and Popery wither as in a Land of drought except they be planted beside Rivers of blood but the Lord shall build his own Jerusalem Your honour may justly challenge this little expression of my obliged respects to your Lordship I acknowledge it is little though it may have some use Etiam capillus unus habet umbram suam one haire casteth its owne shadow Jmpotency to pay debt layeth not upon any the note of unthankfulnesse except it be impotency of good will If I be not a debter for will I am nothing And this I owe and this Church and Nation may divide the sum with me for which wishing to your Lordship all riches of Grace I stand obliged Your Lordships servant at all dutifull observance in Christ Jesus Samuel Rutherfurd To the Reader THere be two happy things worthy Reader as one sayth The one is not to erre the other is to escape from the power of error Times wombe bringeth forth many truths though truth be not a debter to Time because Time putteth new robes on old Truth But truth is Gods debter and oweth her being to him only It is a great evil under the Sun and the sicknesse of mans vanity that the name of holy men should be a web to make garments of for new opinions but the errors of holy men have no whitenesse nor holinesse from men And it is a wrong that mens praise should be truths prejudice and mens gaine truths losse Yet I shall heartily desire that men herein observe the art of deep providence for the Creator commandeth darknes to bring forth her birth of light and God doth so over-aw with a wise super-dominion mens errors that contrary to natures way from collision of opinions resulteth truth and disputes as stricken flint cast fire for light God raising out of the dust and ashes of errors a new living truth What mistakes errors or heresies have been anent Church government that vigilant and never slumbering wisdome of Providence hath thence made to appeare the sound doctrine of Gods Kingdome So here Satan shapeth and God seweth and maketh the garment Error is but dregs by the artifice of all compassing Providence from whence are distilled strong and cordiall waters And what Antichrist hath conceived for a Hierarchy and humane ceremonies hath put Christ in his two witnesses in Brittaine to advocate for the truth and native simplicity of his own Kingdom But I heartily desire not to appeare as an adversary to the holy reverend and learned Brethren who are sufferers for the truth for there be wide marches betwixt striving and disputing Why should we strive for we be Brethren the Sonnes of one father the borne Citizens of one mother Ierusalem To dispute is not to contend We strive as we are carnall we dispute as we are men we war from our lusts we dispute from diversity of star-light and day-light Weaknesse is not wickednesse a roving of wit must not be deemed a Rebellion of will a broken inginne may part with a dead child and yet be a Mother of many healthy children And while our reverend and deare Brethren fleeing the coast of Egypt and Babylons wicked borders aym to shore upon truth wind may deceive good Sailors naturall land-motions as when heavy bodies move downward toward their own clay Countrey are upon a straight line But Sea-motions of sailing are not by right lines but rather by Sea-circles We often argue and dispute as we saile Where grace and weight of Scripture make motion we walke in a right line toward God But where opinion a messenger only sent to spie the Land of lies and truth usurpeth to conduct us what marvell then we goe about truth rather then lodge with Truth And Christ his Kingdome Scepter Glory Babylons fall be the materiall object of opinions on both sides And yet the word of God hath a right lith that cannot suffer division In Gods matters there be not as in Grammar the positive and comparative degrees there are not