A vindication of Churches, Part 2
A VINDICATION OF CHURCHES, COMMONLY CALLED INDEPENDENT. OR AN ANSVVER To Mr. PRYNNES second Book.
MY deare Brother, to your twelve new Interrogatories I present you with a new Answer. I call it new, because I shall cull out such passages, as I find new, or not so much insisted on in your former twelve. Which as they are fewer, so I shall be the shorter, for as much as in the former, I have been the larger. But brother, I find not that in your Book, which you pretend in your Title, to wit, the Unmasking of Independency. Nor can we expect it of you: for in your Proeme you say, that the Independents have not dogmatically, and in direct termes, discovered the full truth of what they assert. If not, what kind of visage will you discover, when you have taken off the mask? Surely, by your handling of the matter, you mean to unmask some hags face, such as pleased the Painter. Which when you have done, it will appeare to all the wise-hearted, that it is not the face of Independency, as wherein there shines forth such a beauty, as it seemeth you yet never saw.
In your Preface to the Courteous R…der, you say, We politickly conceale the principall grounds, and more deformed parts of our Church-Platforme, for feare of miscarrying. Good brother, who told you so… Remember your own lesson before, Judge not. But indeed, had you reproved us (yet in love and meeknesse) for not setting forth more fully a compleat Modell of this fabrick, or spirituall house, it had been something. Which yet if it were done, you would not impute it to policy, that it was not* Eph. 2. 21. sooner done. But when it is exactly done, you will find no deformed parts at all in it: but contrariwise a greater beauty then in that famous Temple that Solomon built, as being the spirituall Temple of Jesus Christ; so as I am sorry you are put to the paines of pumping out our determinations (as you say) by your Questions: Prov. 5. 16.When as you should rather find it as a fountaine flowing forth in the streets. But brother, how doe you write by Question, not decision (as you say) when your Questions prove to be decisions, as your former twelve are? And what doe you els, but refute upon bare conjectures, Andabatarum more pugnando, as those at blind-man-buff. For your Charges upon us are very sore, and (as many doe say) bitter, so farre beyond reason, as you are not able truly to say, Wherefore.
For your first Question, Whether the Independent forme of Church-government be any where to be found in the Old or New Testament: this we have resolved in your former Twelve Questions: so as this is no new Interrogatory, unlesse you put the greater difference between Questions, and Interrogatories. And though it were in no antiquitie (which yet we have shewen before) neverthelesse, if it be found in the Scripture (as there it is) whatsoever clouds of the mastery of iniquitie have darkened the lustre of it for so many hundred yeares: yet this cannot plead prescription against it. For if Nullum tempus occurrit Regi: then surely no tract of time can prescribe against the law of Christs kingdome, which we finde upon sacred record. But where, say you? Why, brother, this House of God wherein Christ rules as King, stands upon so many Principles, as so many maine pillars, not to be shaken. As
1. It is a spirituall house, whose onelyonly builder and governour1. is Christ, and not man.
2. It is a spirituall kingdome, whose onelyonly King is Christ,2. and not man.
3. It is a spirituall Republick, whose onelyonly Law-giver is3. Christ, and not man.
4. It is a spiritual Corporation, or body, whose onelyonly head4. is Christ, and not man.
5. It is a Communion of Saints, governed by Christs Spirit,5. not man's.
6. Christs Church is a Congregation called and gathered out6. of the world by Christs Spirit and Word, and not by man.
These Principles are such, as the Adversaries themselves of this kingdome of Christ, cannot, dare not deny. And out of these Principles doe issue these Conclusions.
1. That no man is the builder of this spirituall house.1.
2. That no man, nor power on earth hath a kingly power2. over this kingdome.
3. That no earthly Law-givers may give Lawes for the3. government of this Republick.
4. That no man may claime or exercise a headship over this4. Body.
5. That no man can, or ought to undertake the Government5. of this Communion of Saints. Item, That none are of this Communion, but visible Saints. Ergo, a true visible Church of Christ cannot be defined, or confined to a parochiall multitude. Item, …hat, that Government of this Communion, is not extrinsecall, but intrinsecall, by the Spirit of the Word, and by the Word of the Spirit.
6. That men may not appoint, limit, constitute what Congregations6. of all sorts they please, to be Churches of Christ, as Nations and Parishes.
But you confesse in generall, Christ to be the Builder, the King,Obj. the Law-giver, the Head, the Governour, the Caller, the Gatherer of his Churches.
If you doe, you must approve of those Churches you call Independent, Ans.as whereof Christ is the onelyonly Builder, King, Law-giver, Head, Governour, Caller, and Gatherer. If you doe not, in denying Christ in these relations, you deny Christ in his absolute Regalitie.
But in your Answer to your Antiquerist, pag. 6. you doe in part grant Christ to be King internally in the soule, which, you say, may passe for tolerable. O brother! No more but may passe for toleráble? You that are so l…rge-…earred to your friends, are you so strait-laced to Christ? Surely, Brother, Christ is the full and sole King, raigning in the heart and conscience of every true beleever. It were intolerable, not to grant this in its full latitude. But you absolutely deny Christs sole kingly Government, externall over his Churches. Brother, this is no lesse Christs kingly Prerogative, then the former. Hee that is King over every part of the body, must needs be King over the whole body. It therefore Christ be the only King over every mans conscience, so as no man, nor power on earth, may sit with him in this his Throne: then consequently by the se…f-same reason, must he by the Word of the kingdome, as the only Law thereof, exercise his kingly office over his Churches; so as no humane power or law may intermeddle to prescribe rules for the government, or forms of this spirituall House, and Kingdome. For otherwise, if man should set up a form of Government over the Church of Christ, to which all must conforme; then of necessitie should man b… Lord over the couscience, which is the highest presumption against the most High. And then what mischiefs would follow… What intolerable tyrannie over the conscience? Then must your words (ibid.) come to passe: If a moderated or regulated Ep…scopacie the same with Presbyterio, should by the Synods advice, be unanim…usly established in Parliament, as most consonant to the Scriptures, and most agrerable to the Civill Government, I shall readily submit unto it without opposition, and why not you, and al… others? So you. O Brother, I stand amazed! But I go on.
Then againe, the Scripture, as it sets downe the qualifications of the members of this body, so the forming of them in the body in the parts thereof, more principall, and lesse, superiour and inferiour, for order and well-being: As Pastors and Teachers, 1 Tim. 5. 17. Phil. …. 1. 1 Cor. 12. 28.Teaching and Ruling Elders, Helpes, Governments, Bishops, and Deacons, or by what other means soever they are diversified in Scripture. And this is one uniforme forme of Government, which Christ hath fixed in his Churches, without any difference at all, but secundum…magis & minus (as before) as lesser ChurchesA… 6. & 20. have fewer Officers, greater moe. So as, brother, if the old Wine be better, old Presby…erie, old unlordly Episc…p…cy, surel▪ the Independents do justly challenge it: Which had you once truly tasted of, you would never have desired to drink other. The Lord remove that aguish humor *…alingen.Vexatus f…bre recus…t …ptima.
Your second Interrogatory is, about the lawfull powe… of Civill Magistrates in all matters of Church-government, wherein you tax some Independents for extraordinary eclipsing the same. Some: what some may say, is one thing, must therfore the Independent Church-government say it too? You alledge for this a passage in the Answer of two of the brethren to A. S. for wch one of them is lately questioned: but, I hope, he wil clear himself. But the weight of this whole Interrogatory lies in your Marginall note: where you peremptorily conclude; That the chief Government and ordering of the Church, and power of making Ecclesiasticall Lawes, or Canons to bind it, before the Law belonged to the Patriarks and others, was not as they were Priests, but Rulers, and Fathers of their Families: under the Law (say you) it belonged to Moses, to the Kings of Iudah, Israel, and the morall Assemblies or Congregations of the Princes, Nobles, chiefe Captains, Heads, and Elders of the people: Therefore under the Gospel, by like reason and equity, and because it is a part of Christs kingly, not Priestly, or Propheticall Office▪ it must needs belong to Christian Princes, Magistrates, Parliaments, to whom Christ hath delegated his kingly Office; not to Ministers, to whom he hath given onelyonly his Propheticall or Priestly Authoritie, not the Royall, as the Scriptures at large relate: nor yet to particular Congregations, who are not Magistrates, nor higher Powers, invested with Christs royall Authoritie.
So you, where you tell us many strange things, but prove nothing. But, brother, in such a weighty Argument as this, your foreign, will not serve the turne: yea, you here overthrow those Principles forementioned, That Christ is the onelyonly King, so the onelyonly Priest, the onelyonly Prophet of his Church; which his three offices are incommunicable to any creature, as they are proper and peculiar onelyonly to him; He is the onelyonly King, &c. Now to be solus, foreign, The onelyonly Potentate, the King of Kings, and 1 Tim. 6. 15.Lord of Lords; this is Christs Regall prerogative, which is in communicable to any, or to all the powers on earth. It is no lesse incommunicable, then his omnipotencie, his omniscience his omnipresence, and the rest of his incommunicable Attributes; no lesse then his Mediatorship. Those Patriarchs and Princes of Israel before the Law, and under the Law, from Adam to Christ, never had this power or prerogative, to make Ecclesiasticall Lawes, or binding Canons; no nor yet Moses, no… Kings of Iudah, Israel, and Generall Assemblies, Princes, Nobles, chiefe Captaines, and Elders of the people, as you muster them up together in your marginall note. A seeming goodly Army indeed; but so many shadowes of men, for any such power they had, as you would with your penfull of ink paint cut unto us. And first for those before the Law was given in Sinai: had they this power you speak of? Cain and Abel brought their Sacrifices.Gen. 4. 4. What? Was it a *Heb. 13. 10. 15.will-worship of their own election? If so, God had regarded Abels sacrifice no more then Cains. HowCol. 2. 23. then? Their Sacrifice was of Gods own appointment: Adam had it from God, and his children from him. For as God revealed to Adam, Christ, so those Sacrifices, types of Christ. Whence the learned Interpreter Calvin saith, Tenendum est, &c. We are Calv. Comment. in Gen. cap. 4. Tenendum est, non fuisse temerè ex cogitatu… ab illis sacrificandi morem, sed traditum divinitus, &c.to hold, that the manner of sacrificing was not unadvisedly devised by them, but delivered to them from God▪ For seeing the Apostle res…res the dignity of Abels sacrifice, as attributed to faith, it followes, he offered it not without Gods commandement. So as it could not have pleased God, had it not been according to his commandement. So Calvin. Nor is all here expressed: no doubt they had an Altar also, whereon to offer for the sanctifying and accepting the offering; which Altar was a type of Christ the true *Heb. 13. 10. 15.Altar, to whom Abels faith had respect. Though we read not of Altar before Gen. 8. 28. We read also of difference of beasts clean, & unclean, Gen. 7. By all which it is evident, that God gave a law to Adam and his offspring, sutable to that in Mount Sinai, for a rule of divine worship; so also for Church-government. And this further appeareth by the Law in Sinai afterwards, where Moses is expresly charged to do all things (both for worship and Church-government) according to the patern shewed him in the Mount; as before we noted. And when the Temple was to be built, God gave to David 1 Chron. 28. 11. 12, &c. to v. 19.an exact patern of all things, yea, of every particular, both in writing and by his Spirit, not onelyonly for worship, but for the whole ministration about the Temple, a type of Christs Church under the Gospell, so as neither Moses nor Kings of Iudah, had the least power to devise any other forme, then that prescribed of God. The keeping of the Passover once in the second month by Ezechiah, was extraordinary, upon a case of necessity. And for the Kings of Israel, will you equall them with the Kings of Judah? Had they lawfull power, as Jerobam, to set up his two golden …lvs, and so to change the form of worship & Church-government? When that King A…as set up his Damascen Altar, was it by a Regall power invested in him from God? So of other Kings of Juda, good or bad, they had no lawfull power at all to alter the form prescribed of God, one jor. And therefore, brother, you are wondred at, that being a man of much reading, and mightie parts, you should utter such strange things (ne quid dicam durius) as these are, and that so confidently, when you neither doe, nor ever can bring the least proofe, yea or colour of what you affirm. And therefore your inference upon such empty premises, that therefore under the Gospel, by like reason and equity, it must needs belong to Christian Princes, Magistrates, Parliaments, to whom Christ hath delegated his Kingly office, &c. is no consequence. Whence I note two things: 1. Like reason and equity. Now in your premises there is neither reason nor equity, because no truth in them. 2. Christ hath not delegated his Kingly office to any Princes, Magistrates, Parliaments, to set up any form of worship or Church-government of their devising, or conceiving, no more then hee did to all, or any of those you reckon up in the Old Testament. I pray God give you a better understanding in this mystery of Christ, and godly sorrow for these things. Take then the counsell of this great King: Bee wise therefore, and understand; and Psal. 2.kisse this King, this Sonne of God, by obeying him in all that he saith, as being not onelyonly the onelyonly King, but the onelyonly Prophet of his Church (as before) whom whoso heareth not IN ALL THINGS, shall even be cut off from his people. But how thenAct. 3. 22. doe you say, This is a part of Christs Kingly office, not Priestly, or Propheticall, to set up a government; and, hee hath not communicated those other offices to Princes and Parliaments: Whereas Christ doth in all things regulate his Kingly office by his Prophetical office? And again, how say you, Christ hath not given his Kingly office to Ministers, but onelyonly his Priestly and Propheticall; and yet you make an Assembly of Ministers as Rector Chori to be the leaders and guides to a Form of Reformation, and that necessarily? And denying such to bee Kings, or to have a Kingly office, you exclude them out of the Albe of those faithfull ones, whom Christ hath made▪ a *1 Pet. 2. 4.Royall Priesthood; even *Revel. 1. 6.Kings and Priests to God his Father. But so much of this second Interrogatory.
The third Interrogatory.
Touching this: 1. Wee assume not the power to gather Churches, but being sent or called to preach the Word of the Kingdome, thereby people thus called of God, come to be gathered into Church-fellowship, and so by consent doe chuse their Officers.
2. Such as are thus called, to acknowledge Christ their onelyonly King, were not begotten to this acknowledgment by such Ministers as you speak of, who deny, disclaime, and preach against Christs Kingly government over mens consciences and Churches. So as such a conversion as you speak of, comes not home to whole Christ: and such, with their converters, doe deny Christs Kingly government; what kind of converts call you these? Or at least and best they are converted but in part; and that main thing wanting, to wit, Christs Kingly office, they come up to by the preaching thereof.
3. Such Ministers, when they set up Christs government, may (being agreed upon by all sides) have those Parishioners again, that for want of it at the first went from them.
4. Our solemne Vow and Covenant obligeth us not to any thing that is prejudiciall to the authority of Gods word, and the libertie of a good conscience, considering how Churches are gathered out of all the world, not this place, nor that, not this house nor that, but out of *Mat. 13. 19.every nation, such as fear God, and *Act. 10. 3…. Luke. 19. 6, 7, 8, 10.out of every house the sons of peace, & out of *Act. 10. 3…. Luke. 19. 6, 7, 8, 10.every Citie or Town, all that receive the Gospel, are called and gathered to Christ.
5. Concerning Christian liberty in joyning to severall Churches, as in the same house some to affect one, some another: you know what Christ saith, Luke 12. 51, 52, 53. And it is God that perswadeth I…ph…t to dwell in the Tents of Shem. Gen. 9. 27.And, brother, all that noyse you make all along, with extreame aggravations, as Confusion, Distraction, implacable Contestations, Schismes, Tum…lts, &c. What are they but the very out-cries which the Prelats ever used for the crying and keeping up of their Hierarchy, built upon the same sandy foundation. This is well noted in the Harmony of Confessions, Sect. 11. Confession of Ausburg. These Senater-like Declamations though they be very plausible, and incense the mindes of many against us, yet they may be confuted by most true and substantiall arguments. As, All the Prophets and Apostles were true lovers of the peace and concord of Nations and people: yet were they constrained by the commandement of God, to warre against the Devils kingdome, to preach heavenly doctrine, to collect a Church unto God, and the like. And, The true doctrine of God, and his true worship, must needs be embraced and received; and all errors, that tend to the dishonor of God, must be abhorred and forsaken, though all the world should break and fall down. And much more there.
6. Though we are fully perswaded by Gods Word and Spirit▪ that this our way is Christs way; yet wee neither doe, nor dare judge others to be reprobates, that walk not with us in it, but we leave all judgement to God, and heartily pray for them: we our selves have been formerly ignorant of it, therefore wee pitie others.
7. Where you object, that under pretence of Christian liberty, whole Houses, Parishes, Counties, may thus come to be divided into severall formes of Churches, as some for the Presbyteriall, some for the Hierarchicall, and so cause Schismes and ruines; or at least unavoidably subvert all ancient bounds of Parishes, all setled maintenance for the Ministery by tythes, &c. Brother, for Christian libertie, who shall perswade the conscience, or who hath power over it, but he that made it, even God, the onelyonly Judge thereof? And for difference of mens judgements in points of Religion, how can it be avoided? And yet it followes not, that upon such differences should come ruine to a State. What serveth the Magistrate, and the lawes of a civill State for, but to keep the peace? And as for Parishes, will you allow no Churches but Parishes? Or are Parishes originally any other but of humane, politicke, and civill constitution, and for civill ends? Or can you say, that so many as inhabit in every Parish respectively, shall bee a Church? Should such Churches and Parishes then necessarily be Churches of Gods calling and gathering? Are they not congregations of mans collection, constitution and coaction meerly? What Churches then? And as for Tithes: what Tithes, I pray you, had the Apostles? Such as be faithfull and painfull Ministers of Christ, he will certainly provide for them: as when hee sent forth his Disciples without any purse, or provision, he asked them, Lacked you any thing? They said, Nothing. Surely, the labourer is worthy of his hire. And as for Ministers maintenance by Tithes, I referre you to the judgment of your learned brother Mr. Selden. And as for your Independent Ministers, they plead no other maintenance then the New Testament holds forth, yet not denying the Magistrate and State a power to appoint maintenance for the preaching of the word, as is done in New England, to those that are not members of Churches. And where you charge them, for having the faith of Christ in respect of persons, as if they admitted the rich, rather then the poore: Brother, I hope it is not so with others; I am sure, not so with me. And lastly, for your marginall young Interrogatories: As,
1. Of how many members each Congregation? I am sure your Congregations admit neither augmentation nor diminution, but according to the capacitie of every Parish.
2. Within what precincts? Christs Churches are not limited either to place or number.
3. What set Stipends allowed? Sufficient more or lesse.
4. When and where Churches should assemble? For when? at times convenient. For where? Not necessarily in this or that place.
5. Who shall prescribe extraordinary times of fasting, or thanksgiving to them upon just occasions? If the occasion be the Churches peculiar Interest, the Church agrees upon the time. But if it be publick, concerning the Politick body of the State, whereof we are native members, in whose weale or woe we sympathize, either we keep dayes of our own appointment extraordinary, or if the Civill State command and appoint a day, we refuse not to observe it.
6. Who shall rectifie their Church-Covenants, Discipline, Censures, Government, if erroneous, or unjust? First, Each Church useth her best meanes left her of Christ, within her selfe. Secondly, If need require, she useth the help of Sister-Churches. Thirdly, If any other, as the Civill State, be not satisfied, shee *Act. 25. 11.refuseth not to yeeld an account of her actions, being required.
7. Shew us (say you) a sufficient satisfactory Commission from Gods Word for all they doe, or desire, before they gather any Churches. Brother Prynne, you say you will pump out our thoughts▪ yea, it seemes, you will exanclate, pumpe out every drop that is in us. But stay, brother, you are not yet a Magistrate. And 2. wee hope you will not take up againe the Oath ex Officio to pump out all our secrets. And 3. Though I have for my part dealt very freely with you, as my brother, all along: yet give me leave to keep a Reserve, Done… ad Triarios redieritres, untill it come to a dead lift, in case we shall be brought before *Mat. 10 ….Princes and Rulers, to give an account of what we doe, or desire. And 4. you put us upon too unreasonable a taske, to satisfie you in all that we DOE, or DESIRE. First make your particular exceptions, and demands for this, or that▪ and then we shall know the better how to shape you an Answer, as you see we have here done. What are all your books of Law▪cases, all the Volumes of the Casuists, to the resolution upon general grounds, of incident matters, which could not be ruled till they happened? and yet the Government of States is one, and the doctrine of the Scripture in all generally necessary poynts cleare. And we desire you not too too much to grow upon us, when you see we are so coming, and free.
The fourth Interrogatory.
This is much like the next before. For that was about Ministers power to gather Churches: this, concerning the peoples power in uniting themselves in a Church, choosing their Minister, erecting such a Government, as they conceive most sutable to the Scripture. And so all manner of hereticks may set up Churches, and all manner of heresies, sects, be brought in.
I answer, as before. A Church is a Citie of God, which by her Charter becomes a Citie, being called of God, and by the same Charter (the Scripture) chuseth her own Officers: and sets up no other government, but what her Charter prescribes. If any other doe otherwise, and doe pervert the Scripture, it is not to be imputed to the Church of Christ. Her liberties are no law for others licentiousnesse. It was so in the Apostles times, and the next ages after. The true Churches liberties were no true cause of so many heresies; no more then the Christians of old were the cause of the calamities of the Citie or Empire of Rome, because Nero and other Tyrants falsly charged them, and as injuriously dealt with them. Nor may we cast away the priviledges of Christians, because others abuse them. Yea, whether we use our priviledges, or no, errours and heresies will be. The Apostles, and Apostolick Churches, could neither keep, nor cast them out; as is shewed before.
But brother, where you say, that if this liberty of setting up an Independent Church-government be admitted: then by the selfe-same reason, they must have a like libertie to elect, erect what Civil forme of government they please: to set up a new Independent Republick▪ Kingdome, &c. By the selfe-same reason? Surely by no reason at all. Shew us a reason hereof, and take all. And you know, that Republicks, Kingdomes are Independent, though not of Churches electing, erecting. It is unsatisfiable injury, and extreame irrationality thus to argue; for hath Christ given the same command to his people, as such who are not of this world, nor their Kingdome, as he hath done to them in spirituals which he commands them to practise whosoever forbids? 2. They set up no forme, but take that which is prescribed, which God hath not done in civill government, but left it free, 1 Pet. 2 Rom. 13.
The fifth Interrogatory.
Herein you make a comparison between Presbyteriall and Independent Churches; Why not that, as well as this? And if this, why doe we not shew solid proofe of it? I answer: We desire to enjoy ours, without making comparison with yours▪ For proofe we have shewed sufficient.
Then to a second Quere; the answer is, not the Minister alone, nor the Congregation alone, but both together admit members, and set up Christs Government, not their own. And how ever you make us a Conventicle, consisting of inconsiderable ignorant members: I beleeve, brother Prynne, when you shall have any thing to doe with the most contemptible of such Conventicles, as you esteeme us, you will not altogether find us such, as you are pleased to terme us. And for Nationall Parliaments, States, wee honour them with whatsoever honour is due unto them, as Gods *Rom. 13. 7.Word commandeth us. And for a Nationall Councell, as this is, called to advise, not to be peremptory Judges in the matters of God over our consciences, wee detract not their due honour too, as they are pious, and learned men. 2. Where you would have them have the same power in a Parliament and Synod, that they have in a Church, if they be members, it is answered, that all power is restrained to its own sphere and place, so that we may have a greater power in another kind, and yet not that; as no Parliament man hath the power of a Master of a family in the Parliament, though he have a greater.
The sixth Interrogatory.
This Interrogatory hath sundry branches: the answer whereunto respectively, will intimate what they be.
1. Wee say, as before, None of our Ministers doe by any usurped authoritie gather Churches.
2. We cannot conceive, that any law of the Land is against the setting up of Christs kingdome in the hearts of his people; and in those Congregations called and gathered by the voyce of his Word. Nor doth the Ministery of Christs word more in this, then it did by John Baptist, Christ himselfe, and his Apostles, when they called Christian Congregations out of the Jewes Nationall Church. Even the Imperiall heathen Roman Lawes gave way to the preaching of Christs kingdome, and gathering of Churches within their Territories, Provinces, Cities.
3. For Church-government, Covenant, wee have said enough before.
4. Concerning a Nationall Church also, we have spoke already in the former Answer. And I desire brevitie, and not to answer all your repetitions and aggravations, lest I may nauseam movere.
5. It is one thing for a State to set up a new forme of Ecclesiasticall Government, and another to pull downe the old. This they were bound unto by the Word of God: but not so that, unlesse it be the same Church-government which Christ sets downe in his Word; besides which none other ought to be set up, though never so much pretended, and by men conceived to be according to Gods Word, when made sutable to the Lawes, Customes of every Nation, and manners of the people, as you affirme; of which before.
Lastly, This Church-government, which we professe, you shall never be able to prove ridiculous and absurd, as you conclude your Interrogatory.
The seventh Interrogatory.
This Interrogatory is about the dismissing of members: 1. to become members of Presbyteriall Churches: 2. Or of other Independent Churches. I answer, If any will desert their Congregation, who can let them? Yet it is the Churches care and duty to preserve it selfe, and all the members in unity of the body; and also from whatsoever may be sinfull. If any shall repent, and fall back, Churches are not more free, then *Ioh. 6. 66.Christ himselfe was. If any for conveniency sake, or necessary occasion, desire to joyne with some other Church, doe you think it unreasonable, first to acquaint the Church with their desire? And doe you not allow of Letters of recommendation, when any is to passe to other Churches? May not els jealousies and suspicions arise, and heartburnings between Churches? Do you not remember, what divisions and emulations the want hereof did cause among the Churches of old? And, brother, we desire to doe all things in love. And we desire that others should doe no otherwise unto us, then we doe unto them: as you object. You twit us againe, for respecting the rich, more then the poore. If it be true, it is *1 Cor. 11, 22.our fault, and ought not so to be: if not true, it is yours, and that so often as (as you doe) you cast it in our dish.
The eight Interrogatory.
This Interrogatory is to charge us, for not admitting to Baptisme any Infants of such Parents, who are not members of our Churches. And, brother, you make this a most hainous and intolerable thing. Why, you know, if we would admit of all, it would be no small benefit and advantage to us, especially when we are to deale with rich mens children, such as you say we have in such high estimation. Therefore that we doe it not for rich men, you may thinke there is something in it, that covetousnesse is not▪ so predominant in us▪ as to corrupt our Conscience. And therefore brother, let some charitable thought take place in you, that we doe it rather of Conscience, then of Covetousnesse. And what say you to this, brother? We preach Christ to the Parents. We preach him no lesse a King, then a Priest and Prophet. We preach him the onelyonly King of our Conscience, and the onelyonly Law-giver and Governour of his Churches. We exhort them to set up this King in their hearts. Wee exhort them to become and professe to be those Saints, of whom he is King. For he is *Revel. 15▪ 3.King of Saints. But, brother, they will not beleeve us; they will not depend upon Christ, as the onelyonly Lawgiver, and King over their consciences. Now, what would you have us to doe in this case? Baptize the Infants of such Parents, as will not, in this respect, professe, nor confesse Christ to be their King? Why, doe you not know, that no Infants have any title to Baptisme, that are not within the Covenant visibly? And how are they within the Covenant visibly, but by vertue of their Parents faith outwardly professed? And what outward profession of faith in the Parents, that refuse Christ for their onelyonly King? that are ashamed, or afraid, to professe to be in covenant with Christ, as their King? If therefore the Parents professe not▪ yea refuse thus to be in visible, Covenant, can the children be said to be in visible Covenant, and so to have a right to Baptisme, the externall seale of the Covenant? Brother, here is obex, a barre put.
If you say, The child shall not beare the iniquitie of the father.
Obj.True; but the Parents keep themselves off from the covenantAns. by refusing Christ, in whom alone the beleever hath right to the Covenant; and so the child is withall kept off. For it is not now under the Gospel, as it was from Abraham to Christ, The covenant was made with Abraham and his seed, so as by vertue hereof all the male Infants of beleeving Abraham were and ought to be circumcised. But now under the Gospel, those onelyonly are accounted Abrahams seed, who professe the faith of Abraham, which faith looked upon Christ, and embraceth whole Christ in all his offices, and professe the same outwardly, Rom. 10. 9, 10. So as the Covenant is entayled onelyonly to beleevers now, and so to their children (as Act. 2. 39.) If then the Parents by refusing Christ as their King, as the Jewes did (Luk 19. 14.) doe hereby out themselves off from the Covenant, they do therewith cut off their children too: and this not to be recovered in the child, untill either the Parent be restored, or the child coming in time to beleeve, and to professe the faith of Christ, doe hereby claime his right to the Covenant, and so to Baptisme, as being a *Rom. 4. 11. 16childe of Abraham. Let this suffice for the present, why we dare not baptize the children of those Parents, that refuse to professe the faith of Christ, as their onelyonly King, as well as their onelyonly Priest and Prophet. For Christ divided, becomes no Christ to the divider. This is, according to the vulgar Latin translation, (1 Joh. 4. 3.) solvere Iesum, to dissolve Jesus, that is, to receive him only in part, and not in whole. Which is the spirit of Antichrist. Besides, willing disobedience to any good order in a Church, deprives a man of the liberties of the Church: (for so he may not eat of the provender, that will not undergoe the yoake) Now this of a voluntary profession to walk with the Saints of such a place, according to Christ, is a thing so just, as following the example of the old Church, who were in particular Covenant with God. 2. In the New, they professed their giving themselves to God, 2 Cor. 8. 5. 3. All societies require some promise of their members. If it be said, we are members of the universall Church by faith and repentance: we reply, 1. this faith must be shewen by a voluntary giving our selves to Christ visibly, and then to some Church of his, if opportunitie serve; for Christ will not have his people to be wandring sheep, when they may have a fold; nor to be individua vaga, when they may be reduced to order.
The ninth Interrogatory.
This Interrogatory lays a charge upon Independents, for refusing to admit to the Lords Supper such as are not notoriously scandalous, nor grossely ignorant, but professe repentance, &c. which you say, is a very uncharitable, arrogant, yea unchristian practise, contrary to Christs own example in admitting Iudas to the Lords Supper; Also to that of Paul, 1 Cor. 11. you calling it also a transcendent straine of tyrannicall usurpation over soules and consciences, and Gods Ordinances, worse then our most domineering Lordly Prelates, &c. yea Lording over Christ himselfe, and more then ever the Apostles did, but onelyonly by their extraordinary calling, &c.
I answer in one word (omitting your copious aggravations, and sharp censures) that we look further, then to a generall profession and conversation, namely, to their faith in Christ, that it be sound intire, and whole, and namely, whether they hold him to be as the onelyonly Prophet and High Priest, so the onelyonly Prince of his People, the onelyonly Lord, and Lawgiver to every mans conscience, and over every Congregation or Church of his Saints. If they thus acknowledge not Christs kingly office, as well as his other offices, we doe not, we dare not receive them. And what have they to do with the seales, that refuse by covenant to own Christ for their King? As for Judas, he received the sop, not the supper; for, after the sop, he went out *Iohn 13. 30.immediately, saith John. So as it appeares, the other Evangelists relate some other passages by a hysteron proteron, as is not unusuall in Scripture story. And none of them saith, that he received the Supper. And suppose …e did: the Churches Censure had not yet past upon him: onelyonly John by a secret signe knew he was to be the traytor. For that of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 11. 28. that was a true Church, though now disordered; and the Apostle refers the redressing of their abuses to themselves. The case is otherwise here, so as all your accumulated calumniations fall to ground. And concerning the Apostles extraordinary calling, if we must expect the like calling, we must not in the meane time admit of any, either to Baptisme, or to the Lords Supper; neither should there be any gathering of Churches at all; as some from hence doe gather. Besides, what shall the authority be, that Luther gathered the Churches by, and those that followed him? and what lawfull gathering then have the Reformed Churches?
For your marginall note of Moses, David, Solomon, about setling Religion by Gods own direction: herein you come home to that I said before, alledged against your unlimited law. But in that you now restraine by their example, all Church-government to the Civil Magistrates; you must make it out by holding close to the rule, that is, To settle Religion by Gods own direction, as you here confesse, and not to elect, erect a forme of Religion, and Church-government, such as they shall conceive sutable, &c. as before you told us. And Moses, David, Solomon, were all types of Christ, who put an end to all such. And while you there exclude the Priests from having any thing to doe in Reforming, or advising: What will the Assembly say to you? But they may advise, you will say. But the Priests might do nothing, but according to Gods prescript law; no more then Moses, David, Solomon. And if the Priests (as you say) had no ruling votes: then by this reckoning, what votes do you allow the Assembly-men, in their mixt Committees with the members of Parliament, or in the Assembly it selfe? Reconcile these I pray you.
The tenth Interrogatory.
This Interrogatory questions, or rather (as all the rest) concludes, that that Text (Mat. 18. 15, 16, 17.) is not meant of any Ecclesiasticall censure, as of Excommunication, but onelyonly of the civill Court of Justice. Brother, if you did speake hereas aThe writings of B…za and Er…stus one against the other, are extant. Divine, and not meerly as a lawyer, you would not have, against the judgment of most learned Divines, ancient and modern, and not Papists, &c. so interpreted this place. And what speak I of Divines? The Text it selfe is its own clearest Interpreter. For it is immediatly added (v. 18.) Verily I say unto you, whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose on earth, shall bee loosed in heaven. Which is without controversie spoken of Church-censure, or of the power of the Keyes in exercising Church-discipline; as that (Matth. 16. 19) is spoken of doctrine, as the learned Calvin well observeth. So as this very context cleareth the former to bee meant of Church-censure, as it was among the Jewes. You alledge on the contrary, that learned Lawyer whom wee all honour for his learning. Good brother, I could wish that all this zeale of yours against Independents, might not arise from any jealousie, as if Church-censures should prejudicate or trench upon your pleadings at the Barre of civill justice. Farre be it, that we should have our motion beyond our own Spheare. Content your self with your own Orb, and we shall confine our selves to ours, I dare warrant you. Again, to what purpose do you urge this interpretation of this Text against us? Do not all the Presbyterians expound it so? And if this Text, which is made the great pillar of Presbyterian excommunication, be taken off, you leave no more to a Classis then we, scil. to consult and advise. And with this foot you have dashed all the milk you gave them.
The eleventh Interrogatory.
This Interrogatory is to perswadeus, that in that Assembly, or Evangelicall Synod (as you call it) Acts 15. the Apostles voted not as they were Apostles infallibly guided by the holy Ghost, but rather as they were in their ordinary capacitie, as Elders and chiefe members of it. Whereupon (producing your six reasons for it) you peremptorily conclude, that this is an undeniable Scripture-authority for the lawfulnesse, use of Parliaments, Councels, Synods, under the Gospel, upon all like necessary occasions; and for their power to determine controversies of Religion, to make Canons in things necessary for the Churches peace and concernment, maugre all evasions, exceptions (of Independents) to elude it.
But let us examine your six reasons, why the Apostles sate not as Apostles, but as ordinary Elders, &c. Where first, we lay this ground for the contrary, scil. that they sate as Apostles, because not ordinary Elders, as Elders, can say, It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to us. But the Apostles, as Apostles, might say so, because in any doctrinall point they had the promise of the Spirit, to bee led into all truth, as upon whom the Church was to bee built, Eph. 2. 20. Secondly, if they sate as ordinary Elders, then their decrees did no further bind, then as they might appeare to agree with Scripture; otherwise Elders, as Elders, may bind the conscience, let the decree bee never so wicked. But to your reasons:
First, For else (say you) Paul and Barnabas being Apostles themselves, might have decided that controversie at Antioch, without sending to Ierusalem. Answ. 1. By your favour, brother, Barnabas was not (to speak properly) an Apostle, though an Apostolicall man. 2. They argued with those Legalists at Antioch, sufficiently to convince them; but they comming from Judea, and pretending the use of circumcision, and Moses Law, to be still in force in the Church at Jerusalem, and the controversie being between two great parties, the Christian Jews, and Christian Gentiles; hereupon the Church at Antioch thought it requisite, for the fuller satisfaction to all parties, to send Paul and Barnabas to the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem. And 3. because Paul and Barnabas are thus sent, doth it follow, that they were not sufficient (yea Paul alone, as an Apostle infallibly guided by the holy Ghost) to have decided the question at Antioch? As no doubt sufficiently they did, though not so satisfactorily to all. And 4. that they are thus by the Church at Antioch sent to the Apostles and Church at Jerusalem: here is a good example for the use of communion of Churches, as in doubtfull cases to consult one with another.
2. Else (say you) the Church at Antioch would have sent to none, to resolve their doubts, but to the Apostles onelyonly, and not to the Elders.
I answer: In that they sent to the Elders also, it shewes the respect that one Church should have to another. 2. Those Elders were men endowed with the gifts of the holy Ghost. 3. Though they had not infallibility, as the Apostles had, yet their assent to the determination, was a witnesse-bearing to the truth thereof.
3. Else (say you) Paul and Barnabas would have put the question to the Apostles onelyonly, not to the Elders and Church, as well as to them, vers. 4, 5, 6.
This is answered in the former.
4. Else the Apostles would not have called all the Elders and brethren to consult, v. 6. when themselves might have done it alone.
I answer: 1. Though the Apostles might have done it alone, yet they would not, but called together the Elders and Brethren, yea, and the whole Church at Jerusalem (vers. 4, 22.) hereby to give a precedent to all Presbyters, or Elders of Churches, that in cases of difference arising, they call the whole Church together, for assistance and counsell therein. 2. In so doing, the Apostles diminished nothing of that Judicial power and authority which Christ left with them for deciding of controversies, being infallibly guided by the holy Ghost, while they thought it not fit to doe such things in a corner, which concerned the whole Church.
5. Peter and Iames (say you) would not have argued the case so largely, and proved it by Arguments and Scriptures, as they did, one after another, but have peremptorily resolved it without dispute, had they sate and determined it by their extraordinary infallible power.
I answer: This followes no more then the former. For the Arguments they used, with the conclusion, were by the direction of the holy Ghost. And 2. The holy Ghost is not so peremptory, but will have his truths examined by the Scriptures, as Acts 17. 11. The Bereans are commended by the holy Ghost for examining Pauls Sermon by the Scripture, though hee were an Apostle, and spake by the holy Ghost. And 3. the Churches assent was taken in for a witnesse ex abundanti.
6. The finall resolution (say you) Letters and Canons of this Synod, had run onelyonly in the Apostles names, had they proceeded onelyonly by their Apostolicall infallible authority, and not in the names of the Elders and brethren too.
I answer: There is as little reason in this, as in all the rest of your reasons: for then by this reason sundry of Pauls Epistles, which were all dictated by the holy Ghost, did not proceed from that infallibility of Spirit alone wherewith the Apostle was guided, because we find others, not Apostles, joyned with him. As (1 Cor. 1. 1.) Paul, called to be an Apostle of Iesus Christ, and Softhenes a brother, to the Church of God &c. And 2 Cor. 1. 1. Paul an Apostle of Iesus Christ, and Timothy a brother, to the Church, &c. And Gal. 1. 1. Paul an Apostle, &c. and all the brethren that are with me, to the Churche▪ of Galatia, &c. So Phil. 1. 1. Col. 1. 1. 1 Thess. 1. 1. Paul, and Sylvanus, and Timotheus, to the Church, &c. In all which places, though there was but one Apostle, guided with infallibility of the holy Ghost to write the Scriptures, yet many brethren are joyned in the salutation of the Churches; and yet Paul, as Apostle, did write those Epistles, and not simply as a brother, or fellow-servant with them of Jesus Christ. Neither are those brethren (so named) accounted the Pen-men of the Scripture, as Paul of right is. Thus you see, brother, there was no necessity, that either the Apostles names should be put alone, because they only were guided by the Spirits infallibility: or that the names of the Elders and Brethren should not be put, without a necessary conclusion deduced thence, that the Decree there was therefore binding, as being the Decree of a Synod, and so exemplary for all Parliaments, Councels, Synods, to make the like binding Decrees.
But (good brother) for all your punctuall quotations of that Scripture, you doe not all this while tell us▪ (which is the main of all) that which we find in the 28. verse of that chapter, IT SEEMED GOOD TO THE HOLY GHOST AND VSUS, TO LAY VPONUPON YOU NO GREATER BVRTHEN, THEN THESE NECESSARY THINGS. Now, brother, we chalenge you to shew us any Parliament, Councell, Synod, ever since the Apostles, that could or can say thus, IT SEEMED GOOD TO THE HOLY GHOST AND VSUS, to determine controversies of religion, to make and impose Canons to bind all men, &c. Shew this to us, at this time, and we will obey. But if you cannot, as you never can, never let any man presse upon us that Scripture, that Synod, which hath no parallel in the whole world, and so is no precedent, pattern, for any Councell, Synod, Parliaments.
Let me conclude with a passage of the learned and famousPanstratie Catholicae. Tom. 3. De libertate Christiana. lib. 15. c. 10. De prohibitis Idolothytis, sāguine, & suffocato. Illis aderat extra ordinē spiritus sanctus: adeo ut quae illi proponerēt, a Deo simpliciter manarēt. Atreliquis Pastoribus adsistentia spiritus nulla extra ordinem: ita que ne eorū quidō sanctiones eodem loco habitae cū Apostolorum sanctionibꝰ. Precip autē discrimé in obligatio … Conscientiae, quae se restem habet, Deū solum Judicem: ideo ūhabet aliquid imperatum a Deo, non potest nō obstringi. Chamierus, that grand Antagonist of Bellarmins. Bellarmine upon the same Scripture you alledge (Act. 15.) (as also our late Prelates have usually done) would deduce the same conclusion, that you doe, for humane authority in binding mens consciences. To which Chamierus thus answereth: that this consequence holds not: Quia non eadem sit authoritas Apostolorum, & reliquorum Ecclesiae Pastorum: Because there is not the same authoritie of the Apostles, and of other Pastors of the Church. For with those the Holy Ghost was extraordinarily present: so as what they propounded, did simply proceed of God. But other Pastors have no such extraordinary assistance of the Spirit: and therefore their Decrees are not to be paralleld with the Apostles Decrees. Which is a speciall difference in binding of the conscience, which hath it selfe for witnesse, and God for the onelyonly Iudge: therefore, when it hath any thing commanded of God, it must needs stand bound. Where (inter caetera) is to be noted, That God is the onelyonly Iudge and binder of the Conscience. The great question in controversie at this day.
Obj. But you will here object, That although (as before you say of Priests) a Councel, or Synod, have not this authority to make and impose binding decrees, yet a Parliament hath; and you deduce it from this Synod, Act. 15.
Answ. Now truly, brother, by your favour, this doth no way hold proportion, that that which you call a Synod (as a patterne for binding Decrees) should not qualifie a Synod of Divines with the like power, and yet transmit it over to a Parliament for binding authority over the consciences of a whole Nation: surely that Apostolike Assembly, or Church meeting, was neither a Parliament, nor Diet, nor Senate, nor any such thing, that you should build any such power of Parliaments upon it, for the making of binding Decrees over the consciences of men. Therefore, good brother, be not so peremptory, but take in your top-sail, too high to bear up against so stiffe a gale, both of Scripture and Reason. But I come to your twelfth and last Interrogatory.
The twelfth Interrogatory.
This Interrogatory is concerning the lawfull coercive power of Civil Magistrates in suppressing Heresies, &c. Or, setters up of new forms of Ecclesiasticall Government, &c.
For answer hereunto, Wee do acknowledge and submit unto the lawfull coercive power of civill Magistrates, according to the Scripture, Rom. 13. But brother, however, you must distinguish between mens consciences and their practices. The conscience simply considered in it self, is for God, the Lord of the conscience, alone to judge, as before. But for a mans practices, (of which alone, man can take cognizance of) if they be against any of Gods Commandments of the first, or second Table; that appertains to the civill Magistrate to punish, who is for this cause called, Custos utrius que Tabulae. The keeper of both Tables: and therefore the Apostle saith, (Rom. 13. 3, 4.) For Rulers are not a terror to good WORKS, but to the evill. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? DO that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: for hee is the Minister of God to thee for good; but if thou DO that which is evill, be afraid, for he beareth not the sword in vain; for hee is the Minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that DOTH evill. So as we see here, what is the object of Civill power, to wit; actions, good, or bad. Not bare opinions, not thoughts, not conscience, but actions. And your self exempts the preaching of the Gospel and truth of God, from being restrained by the civill Magistrate. But now brother, the time hath been, and somewhere is, and will be, that the *2 Thes. 2.truth of God hath been with-holden in unrighteousnesse, and by the civill Magistrate punished with death, being condemned for heresie. And you see in these dayes, great diversities of mens opinions and judgements: one judging thus, another so; you think my way erroneous, and I may do as much for you. But do you or I, DO that which is evill, in actually breaking of any of Gods commandments, or any just lawes of the land? then we lie open to course of civill justice; but so long as wee differ only in opinion, which of us shall be punished first? or which of us is in the error? you write books, I write against them; yet sub judice lis est, who shall be Judge? you? or I? surely neither. Among other things, you would have the civill Magistrate to suppresse, restrain, imprison, confine, banish the setters up of new forms of Ecclesiasticall government without lawfull authority. It may be you will involve me in the number. But what if I prove that which you call a new form, to be the old form: and the lawfull authority of setting it up, to be of Christ? Must I therefore undergo all these your terrible censures, because you so judge? What if your judgement herein be altogether erroneous? What punishment then is due to him that condemnes the innocent? you may be a civill Judge one day; remember then, brother, that if I come before you, you meddle not with my conscience, nor with mee for it. If I shall offend any of your just lawes, punish mee and spare not. But if you should make a law like to that of the Jewes, that who so shall confesse Christ to be the Son of God, and the only Lawgiver, Lord, King, Governour over Consciences, Churches, and not man, not Assemblies, not Councels, or Senates, though after much Fasting, Prayers, Disputes, (as you say) I confesse, I shall be apt to transgresse that law; but yet take you heed how you punish me for that trangression, with an Ense recidendum, or I wot not what club-law. So ends your Book, and so my Answer.
Now brother, you have since published a third Book, partly in answer to your first Answerer, and partly touching Mr Joh. Goodwin; I leave the parties interessed to acquit themselves; Only your stating the Question in the conclusion of the Book, I could not omit. You sta… it thus: Whether a whole representative Church and State, hath not as great, or greater Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction over the whole Realm & Churches, with all the members, then any one Independent Minister or Congregation challenge over their members. Brother, I answer, if you can prove your Jurisdiction good, we will easily grant it to be greater. But if the Jurisdiction of the Churches you call Independent be good, as having Christ for the founder and owner of it, as we have cleerly proved, then certainly, it will prove the greater: For, magna est veritas, & praevalet: for Christs kingdome shall stand up, when all opposite earthly kingdomes, like earthen vessels, shall with his iron rod be dashed in pieces: This for the Clause.
Another passage in the same Book, is touching my person: where you say, That none of us three-brethren-Sufferers, suffered for opposing Bishops legall authority, or any Ceremonies by act of Parliament established: Here brother, give me leave to answer for my self: First, for all manner of Ceremonies of humane ordinance, imposed upon the conscience in the worship of God, I openly, for the space almost of a twelvemoneth, immediately before my troubles, preached against them, every Lords day, out of Col. 2. from the 8th verse to the end of the Chapter; so as when I was summoned into the High Commission Court, the Articles read against mee, were not only for my two Sermons, Nov. 5th, but also for those other Sermons against the Ceremonies: so as this might challeng to be one ingredient in my censure in Star-Chamber, and no lesse then a pillory matter.
And concerning my opposing of Bishops themselves, not only their extravagancies (for which I also was censured, and suffered) you may remember one passage in that Book, For God & the King, affixed to the information; Were there a law in England, as once among the Locrians, that who should come to propound a new law, he… should come with a rope about his neck; I would be the first my self, to petition the Parliament, that the government of Bishops might be abolished, and another set up more agreeable to the Scripture, (although I confesse, were I to make such a proposition now, I should … much alter my style, as the condition of this present time differs from that, I should mount much higher.) And do you not think, brother, that this helped to put the Hang-mans knife (though not the halter) so close to the very root of mine ears, that it opened the wider sluces for the blood to stream out (with yours my dear Fellow-sufferers) to fill the Whores cup, and make her drunk and spue, and fall, and rise up no more? Although the more cautelous and self-wise, or discreet any of us (but especially my self) then was, to avoid the fear of men, or force of law, certainly now, brother, it abates so much the more of the honour of that suffering; and the lesse honour, the more shame. But take we the shame to our selves, and give we all the honour to whom it is due; and brother, wherein we then came short, let us now make it up, by being zealous for our Christ, in labouring to advance the throne of his kingly government in all our souls, and over all the Churches of the Saints, and with those four and twenty Elders, cast our selves and crowns before him that sitteth on the throne, saying. Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory, and honour, and power, for Rev. 4. 10.evermore. Amen. And let this be our main contention, who shall most honor Christ, and most love one another, Farewell.
FINIS.
End of the text · Henry Burton, A vindication of Churches (1644)