CHAP. CXXX.
A strange double picture.
Truth.I may well compare this passage to a double picture; on the first part or side of it a most fair and beautiful countenance of the pure and holy word of God: on the latter side or part, a most sour and uncomely, deformed look of a mere human invention.
The great privileges of the true spouse, or church of Christ.
Concerning the former, they prove the true and unquestionable power and privilege of the churches of Christ to assemble and practise all the holy ordinances of God, without or against the consent of the magistrate.
Their arguments from Christ’s and the angels’ voice, from the apostles’ and churches’ practice, I desire may take deep impression, written by the point of a diamond, the finger of God’s Spirit, in all hearts whom it may concern.
This liberty of the churches of Christ, he enlargeth and amplifieth so far, that he calls it a usurpation of some magistrates to determine the time and place of worship: and says, that rather the churches should be left to their inoffensive liberty.
To hold with light and walk in darkness.
Upon which grant I must renew my former query, whether this be not to walk in contradictions, to hold with light yet walk in darkness? for,—
The magistrate lift up to be the chief governor of the church, and yet cast down not to have power to appoint the place or time of meeting.
How can they say the magistrate is appointed by God and Christ the guardian of the Christian church and worship, bound to set up the true church, ministry, and ordinances, to see the church do her duty, that is, to force herto it by the civil sword: bound to suppress the false church, ministry, and ordinances, and therefore, consequently, to judge and determine which is the true church, which is the false, and what is the duty of the church officers and members of it, and what not: and yet, say they, the churches must assemble, and practise all ordinances, without his consent, yea, against it. Yea, and he hath not so much power as to judge what is a convenient time and place for the churches to assemble in; which if he should do, he should be a usurper, and should abridge the church of her inoffensive liberty.
Two similitudes, illustrating the magistrate cannot be both governor of the church, and yet usurper in commanding.
As if the master or governor of a ship had power to judge who were true and fit officers, mariners, &c., for the managing of the ship, and were bound to see them each perform his duty, and to force them thereunto, and yet he should be a usurper if he should abridge them of meeting and managing the vessel at their pleasure, when they please, and how they please, without and against his consent. Certainly, if a physician have power to judge the disease of his patient, and what course of physic he must use, can he be counted a usurper unless the patient might take what physic himself pleased, day or night, summer or winter, at home in his chamber or abroad in the air?
If a church may assemble without and against the magistrate’s consent (as is affirmed), then much more constitute and become a church, &c.
Secondly, by their grant in this passage, that God’s people may thus assemble and practise ordinances without and against the consent of the magistrate, I infer, then also may they become a church, constitute and gather without or against the consent of the magistrate. Therefore may the messengers of Christ preach and baptize, that is, make disciples and wash them into the true profession of Christianity, according to the commission, though the magistrate determine and publicly declare such ministers, such baptisms, such churches to be heretical.
Thirdly, it may here be questioned, what power is nowgiven to the civil magistrate in church matters and spiritual affairs?
If it be answered, that although God’s people may do this against the magistrates’ consent, yet others may not:
Gross partiality.
I answer, as before, who sees not herein partiality to themselves? God’s people must enjoy their liberty of conscience, and not be forced; but all the subjects in a kingdom or monarchy, or the whole world beside, must be compelled by the power of the civil sword to assemble thus and thus.
Secondly, I demand, who shall judge whether they are God’s people or no? for they say, whether the magistrate consent or consent not, that is, judge so or not, they ought to go on in the ordinances,renuente magistratu.
If the civil magistrate be to build the spiritual or Christian house, he must judge in the matter.
How agrees this with their former and general assertion, that the civil magistrate must set up the Christian church and worship? Therefore, by their own grant, he must judge the godly themselves, he must discern who are fit matter for the house of God, living stones, and what unfit matter, trash and rubbish.
A close and faithful interrogatory to the consciences of the authors of these positions.
Those worthy men, the authors of these positions, and others of their judgment, have cause to examine their souls with fear and trembling in the presence of God upon this interrogatory, viz., whether or no this be not the bottom and root of the matter: if they could have the same supply of maintenance without the help of the civil sword, or were persuaded to live upon the voluntary contribution of poor saints, or their own labour, as the Lord Jesus and his first messengers did:—I say, if this lay not in the bottom, whether or no they could not be willingly shut of the civil power, and left only to their inoffensive liberties?
A sad query to some concerning their practice.
I could also put a sad query to the consciences of some, viz., what should be the reason why in their native country, where the magistrate consenteth not, they forebore topractise such ordinances as now they do, and intended to do so soon as they got into another place where they might set up magistrates of their own, and a civil sword? &c. How much is it to be feared, that in case their magistrate should alter, or their persons be cast under a magistracy prohibiting their practice, whether they would then maintain their separate meetings without and against the consent of the magistrate,renuente magistratu.
A marvellous challenge of more liberty to Christians under a Christian magistrate than under the heathen.
Lastly, it may be questioned, how it comes to pass that in pleading for the church’s liberty more now under the Christian magistrate, since the Christians took that liberty in dangerous times under the heathen, why he quotes to prove such liberty, Pharaoh’s hindering the Israelites from worship, and, Ezra vii. 23, Artaxerxes’s fear of wrath upon the realm?
Are not all their hopes and arguments built upon the Christian magistrate, whom, say they, the first Christians wanted? and yet do they scare the Christian magistrate, whom they account the governor of the church, with Pharaoh and Artaxerxes, that knew not God, expecting that the Christian magistrate should act and command no more in God’s worship than they.
But what can those instances of Pharaoh’s evil in hindering the Israelites worshipping of God, and Artaxerxes giving liberty to Israel to worship God and build the temple, what can they prove but a duty in all princes and civil magistrates to take off the yoke of bondage, which commonly they lay on the necks of the souls of their subjects in matters of conscience and religion?