grace doth not destroy nature yet look as a particular Church constitution and government was never erected by the Law of nature but Divine institution so for the governing of many over one why should there not be the like institution But to come more near to the case it self we shall endeavour to clear two things 1. That there is no Catholick politicall Church society instituted by Christ to which the actuall administration and participation of Church government and communion in the instituted ordinances of Christ is given as to the first subject thereof 2. That the true form of all Church societies instituted by Christ to which he hath given the actuall administration and immediate participation of Church government and all other instituted ordinances as the subject thereof is onely Congregationall First concerning the first to make our discourse more distinct and plain we shall premise here that we doe not here at all take in or respect that question about the power of the Keys whether it be in the fraternity or guides we shall God willing have a fit place to speak something of it but here that we may not intermingle things we look onely at the true subject in which and unto which the actuall and immediate dispensation and participation of Church government and outward ordinances is given by the institution of the Gospel And here we first reason thus Such a Church society as Christ instituted the Apostles of Christ constituted and governed in But the Apostles never constituted such a Catholick church society or governed it in such a manner as is said Ergo. The Proposition is evident because the Apostles were to do whatsoever Christ commanded in Matth. 28.20 and were sufficiently furnished with power and wisdome so to doe Besides the Apostles having all power from Christ as hee received from the Father John 20. and the whole number of beleevers being then at the fewest there was never since such an opportunity or possibility to constitute such a Church if Christ Jesus had instituted such a thing The assumption or second part of the reason is proved thus If the Apostles ever constituted and administred in such a Church catholick it was either that at Jerusalem mentioned Acts 1 2. c. or that assembly that met Acts 15. for we meet with no other that can with any colour of reason bee supposed But neither of these were such a constituted Church Ergo. 1 Concerning the Church named Acts 1. carryed on Acts 2. c. we freely grant it was a constituted Church wherein the Apostles with Elders and Deacons afterward chosen did govern for as it is called a Church Acts 2.47 so likewise we see there were in it elections Act. 1. 6 and administrations of instituted ordinances of worship Acts 2.41 42. admission of members Chap. 2.41 47. and by the same reason there might have been excommunication also But that this Church was not the Catholick Church we prove thus If it were the Catholick church then it was such either in respect of the whole essence of the Catholick church or in respect of representation but neither ways Ergo. The first it could not be because it consisted at the first but of 120. which was a very small part of the Catholick number of visible beleevers for 1 Cor. 15.6 there were above 500 Brethren to whom Christ appeared at once which was but some few weeks before besides all that in the Jewish Church were converted and baptized by John which were very many yea if we speak of the Catholick church properly all the Jewish Church not yet dissolved were part of the Catholick church of that age visible Lastly if it had been the Catholick church beleevers being already of it could not be said to be added to this as Acts 5.13 14. Secondly it was not Catholick in respect of representation for if so then in respect of the Apostles onely as the Catholick guides or in respect of the whole assembly with them Acts 1. not the first for then the Apostles onely should have had power to set apart Barnabas and Maâ—…thias but it is evident that that election was by Peter himself committed to and acted by the whole company called the Brethren and Disciples Acts 1.15 16 26. where it appears that as he spake to all so it was concluded with the common suffrages of all Secondly if so because the Apostles were Catholick guides then where-ever they met was a Catholick church yea where two or three or any one of them was there was the Catholick representative church and so many such churches for any two or one had the catholick power as well as all Paul ordains rules and orders of discipline in all the churches as well as if all the Apostles had met 1 Cor. 7.17 1 Cor. 16.1 2 That assembly was not the representative catholick church because first there were the women in the same now women are no way capable of being messengers to represent churches secondly besides these could not be representative messengers from other churches because this was the first constituted church we see no colour of reason that there were any other constituted visible churches before this Lastly all the actions of that Church mentioned especially those in Acts 2.41 42. of admission of members baptism word seales fellowship day by day in such ordinances choice of Deacons c. speak aloud against a representative Church we should rather have heard of constitutions censures c. from such a representative Catholick church of generall counsell Object We are not ignorant what is said to the contrary viz. That it was the Catholick Church because they elected a Catholick officer for the whole Church viz. an Apostle Ans To which we answer 1 All the Catholick church and guides thereof had no power so to do no more then a particular church being a case reserved to Christ himself else Pauls argument to prove his Apostleship had not been strong because he was not called by man but by Christ himself and had seen the Lord c. Gal. 1.1 1 Cor. 9.1 2 The act of the Church was onely a preparatory act thereunto with an after consent the election was properly done immediately by a lot and what was done might as well be done in the first particular Church guided by the infallible spirit of the Apostles as by the Catholick Church it self Object Secondly it is objected Many of these were men of Galilee which by their habitation could not pertain to the Church in Jerusalem Answ True the Apostles and others were of Galilee but they had forsaken all to follow Christ and were commanded by Christ to remain a time at Jerusalem and then to goe forth to Samaria Judea and the utmost parts of the earth Acts 1.4 8. and therfore no Church relation in Galilee could hinder them from joyning in this first constituted Church or give any colour that they came as members representative from any Churches in Galilee And
rule like Beza his Episcopus humanus with subjection in case of error to the censure of all nay hence we see not but they may choose an universall Pastor and so give away the power to one if all will agree In a word they onely may combine into a Politicall Body where the whole may excommunicate any part but this cannot be in a combination of many Churches into one whole because no particular Church is capable of excommunication for it is impossible to be cast out of it self as was said before 5 A particular Church therefore must be such a Society as is so combined together that it may ordinarily enjoy Church communion to exercise Church power to be fed by her Officers and led by them hence Titus was to set Elders in every Church and these Elders were such as could ordinarily feed them by preaching the Word as well as rule and govern them Now that such a Congregationall Church is the institution of the Gospel appears first by those many Scriptures that speak of the Churches of one Countrey and in small compasse as severall Churches not as one as the Churches of Judea Samaria and Galilee Acts 9. the Churches of Galatia Gal. 1.1 yea not only in one small Countrey but in Cities or near unto them we read of distinct Churches as Corinth though God had much people there yet it was one Congregation 1 Cor. 14.33 and had another Church near to it viz. Cenchrea Also Rome whom the Apostle saluting sends also salutations by them to Aquila and Priscilla with the Church in their houshold which shew they were not far from that Church of Rome To these add that Jerusalem the first Church that was constituted by the Apostles and whose number was the greatest of any that we read of yet it was but one Congregation as is evident by Acts 1. and Chap. 2.41 42. What is objected against this to prove it the Catholick Church was answered before other objections against this and like examples shall be considered in their due place as we meet with them But we shall not need to say much that a Congregation furnished with its Officers is a Church according to the institution of the Gospel but there are more objections against the compleatnesse thereof which yet is proved thus That Church which hath power of all the Keys given unto it for actuall administration within it self is a compleat Church But so hath a particular Congregation Ergo. The first part is evident because where all the Keys are with full power to administer the same there nothing is wanting the Assumption is proved thus If all those Officers to whom is given the authoritative power of exercising the Keys be given to a Congregation then all the Keys are so given to it but so it is for since Apostles and extraordinary Officers ceased there are no other Officers but Pastors Teachers and Rulers called sometimes Bishops sometimes Elders but these Officers are given to such a Church as is proved Acts 14. Tit. 1.4 and is acknowledged in all Reformed Churches who ordain such Officers in particular Churches of one Congregation Ergo. Objection 1 If it be said that though a Congregation hath such Officers as have the power of the Keys yet that such must combine with others in way of co-ordination to govern in common and so to be helped and compleated by them Answ We grant much help may be had by sister Churches and consultative Presbyteries but that which takes away the exercise of the Keys in point of government from the church to whom Christ hath given it doth not compleat it but take away and destroy the power and liberty of it for though the Pastor of a congregation may oft consent yet the major part of the Presbytery must carry it whether he consent or no and therefore his power is swallowed up Besides it seems to us a mystery that every Pastor even such as have no flock should be Pastors of the Catholick church and yet a Pastor should not have power to rule in his own flock over which Christ hath made him a Bishop and for which flock he must give account unto God Objection 2 It cannot have a Synod which is one ordinance of God therefore it is not a compleat Church Answ By this reason a Classicall church is not compleat because it cannot have a Nationall councell nor a Nationall church because it cannot have a generall councell if it be said a classis have all ordinary meanes to a compleat church we say the like of a congregation Objection 3 Though a Town or family being cast alone may govern as a compleat body yet when it stands in a common-wealth as in England it may not be so independent but submit to combinations so here when a particular Congregation is alone it may govern as compleat not so when amongst other Churches Answ If such a Town or family have compleat power and all civill Officers within it self it is not bound to submit to such combinations in a common-wealth except it be under a superior power that can command the same As Abraham having a compleat government in his family was not bound to combine with the governments he came amongst neither did he in prudence he joyned in a league of amity and for mutual help with Aner c. but not to submit to their government so here a Church having compleat Officers is not bound to submit to such combinations except it be proved that any superior power of other churches can command the same Secondly though a family not having compleat civill government in it self must combine where it stands in a commonwealth yet never to yeeld up its family-government over wife children and servants to rule them in common with other Masters of families no civill prudence or morall rule taught men ever so to practise and therefore why in such a case should a Church give up the government of it self to Pastors of many Churches to rule it in common and not rather as a Classis is over-awed by the Provinciall onely in common things so in congregations Pastors should govern their flocks and onely in things common be under a Presbytery If it be said That the Classis do act in such things only for in excommunication of an offender the offence is common to all We answer if so then why should not the Provinciall and Nationall Churches by this reason assume all to themselves from the Classis for the offence of one is common to all As also upon this ground why should not the Classis admit all the members of every Congregation under them for this also may concern them all Thirdly here is a great difference for civill Societies are left to civill prudence and may give up themselves to many forms of government but Churches are bound to use and maintain such order of government as Christ hath set in the church and not to give it up to many no more then to
description of approved Christians we shall bee necessitated to admit of some if not many such Reply No question but many have been admitted by the Church who in truth are much too light and some refused who are better deserving then they that cast them off Answ Bee it so that through personall failings and weaknesse of discerning it may and doe fall out sometimes yet this no way hinders but that all lawfull meanes to prevent the same may and ought to be used and this we may before the Lord professe that the purpose and desire of our hearts are as well to embrace the weakest humble Christian as to keepe out the proud Pharisee and wee have seen a gracious presence of Christ in his Churches blessing our indeavours therein whatsoever any discontented persons returning back may clamour to the contrary CHAP. XI Consid 6. Reply TO the sixt consideration this conclusion is not to the question propounded for wee speake of such as cannot not of such as refuse to joyne themselves to the Churches or if they doe not joyne it is not out of contempt or wilfull neglect but for lacke of opportunity or through their default that should admit them but doe not Answ The learned Authour hâ—…re wholly mistakes the conclusion of this argument the conclusion is plaine and expressed with the ordinary note Ergo no christian can expect by the appointment of God to partake in the seales till he hath joyned himselfe in Church-fellowship and in the call of the Minister and this is fully to the question propounded and wee marvelâ—… it should not be observed but the last words of the answer should bee put in stead of it which are onely a secondary deduction from the former as an absurdity which may follow if the other be not granted And yet hence occasion is taken to charge us with injurious and tyrannical dealing toward such as are not admitted which we leave to the Lord to judge of and of us You say you accuse not the discretion of our Churches but impute it to the rashnesse of the zealous multitude but if it were so practised as is conceived the Churches and their guides should shew little wisedome and faithfulnesse to the Lord and the soules of his people Reply When a reason is demanded of your judgement why you debarre approved Christians from the seales and we dislike it you should put this note upon them as if against light they refused orderly to subject themselves to the Gospell of Christ What warrant you have thus to censure what use of this manner of dispute we leave it to your godly wisedome to judge Answ Wee are heartily sorry that this reverend man of God out of a meere and palpable mistake of the conclusion of the dispute should runne out to condemne us for so much câ—…nsoriousnesse of others without cause whether our manner of dispute bee here so without use wee leave to the judicious reader to judge And that wee are far from such censures of godly approved Christians amongst us wee can approve our selves to God and the consciences of many that live amongst us wee doe not say that all who doe not joyne with us doe refuse against light yet wee finde it true too oft that forward professors in England here discover evidently an heart refusing against light to submit to Gods ordinances and therefore wee had cause to say it were unreasonable such should have equall liberty with others Reply In the consideration it selfe there are many propositions couched to be examined the first That none have power to dispense seales but such as are called to the Ministry is freely granted The second That no man can be so called till there bee a Church to call him needeth explication For by the Church you must understand the community of the faithfull as they are one body without officers and such a Church there cannot be without a ministry to call and admit them into Church fellowship Answ This consideration shines with such clearenesse that an impartiall eye may easily see that the truth by sundry diverticâ—…lâ—… iâ—… rather clouded then the argument fairely answered This second proposition being too plaine to bee denied interpretationâ—… are sought but they are rather objections to which wee shall answer in order First though wee grant the Lord ordinarily gathered Churches by the ministry of men in Office as the Apostles Evangelists c. yet not alwayes so as is evident Acts 11.20 2â—… The story of Waldus is well knowne and we suppose you will grant those Waldenseâ—… the name of a true Church Origen when hee was not allowed of the Church to bee a Ministeâ—… yet converted many who died Martyrs The story also of Frumentius is well known with divers others Secondly Ministers by Office are of two sorts either such as are called immediatly or mediatly such as were immediatly and extraordinarily called were before Churches and were called together and begin Churches as the Apostles Matth. 28.20 Act. 1.8 But all ordinary officers that are to administer in a Church doe necessarily presuppose a Church to call them unlesse any will adventure to say in plaine English that the calling of a Minister may bee without the antecedent election of the people and then wee shall finde what to Reply Reply The Apostles â—…aptized not themselves but by the helpe of others and those not called of the people to baptize 1 Cor. 1.17 Answ Bee it so that in Corinth Paul baptized not many but by others yet first we demand By whom did Paul and the Apostles baptize It was either by Evangelists and so it is all one as if the Apostles as extraordinary officers did it or by the Pastors newly chosen and ordained in the Churches newly gathered who might baptize the rest and then the Church was before such officers or else by private persons which is denyed expresly in the Reply to the first proposition Reply The Apostles appointed by election Elders in every City or Church and so there was a Church before Elders but this Church was a society of beleevers by Baptisme admitted into Church fellowship and therefore there must be Ministers to baptize before there can bee a Church to call a Minister For a company of unbaptized men cannot choose a Minister to baptize them Answ Wee see here still how unawares the truth of this proposition and of the position it selfe breaketh forth for the proposition it is fully yeelded and is most plain in the place alluded to Acts 14. Vers 23. And the position is yeelded also for if the Apostles admitted beleevers into all those Churches in the first constitution of them by baptisme which is the very truth wee contend for and was formerly denyed and these Churches were such as chose Elders and therefore were particular Churches and so the cause is fully yeelded Reply A company of converts unbaptized ought to desire baptisme but they have no power to elect one amongst themselves to dispense the sâ—â—les unto the
so much for the plea for a Catholick church from Acts 1. c. Now concerning that which is supposed of a Catholick church representative in Act. 15. If it were such then in respect of the Apostles the catholick Officers onely or in respect of the body of the Assembly also but in neither respects Ergo. 1 Not the first for then as was said any one Apostle may make a representative Catholick church having the whole power as much as all of them together for though they would meet oft to consult and assist one another yet not for defect of power in any one and we think our brethren here will not say it was in respect of the Apostles alone supposing here they acted rather as Elders with the rest then out of their Apostolicall power 2 Not in respect of the whole Assembly for then that assembly must consist of the messengers of all the particular Churches and the decrees should have been directed to all the Churches but neither of these can appear For first wee read of no other messengers but those from Antioch and how to evince more then the Scriptures reveal is hard Secondly if we look back and consider how far the Gospel was spread before this assembly it will appear very strange and absurd to suppose such a thing for Paul had been in Arabia before ever he came to Ierusalem Gal. 1.17 and when he and Barnabas went sent out from Antioch Acts 13. they went to severall Islands and Countreys as Cyprus Paphos Salamis c. besides what other places scattered Christians and Apostles had preached in now there is no probability of messengers sent from all these places Secondly the decrees were expresly directed to the Gentiles beleeving in Antioch Syria and Cilicia where it seems this question had troubled the minds of the Disciples Acts 15.23 24. which was far short of the Catholick church neither is it proved that the Churches of Syria and Cilicia had any messengers there much lesse that all the Churches had their messengers Object But it is said they might have had their messengers there if they would and therefore they were bound to the decrees as of a generall Councell Answ It must first be proved that all Churches had lawfull summons to send their messengers to that Assembly before there can be laid any blame on them for neglecting the same or they be all tyed to the decrees of such an Assembly as a generall Councell which seems to us not so much as probable much lesse to be proved by any where the Scripture is so silent Argument 2 Every politicall Body is constituted by the combination of all the members into a Society But Christ hath not instituted that the Catholick church should combine into a Society Ergo. Propos Proved because there can be no instances given of any free Society civill or sacred that was under policy but that it arose from combination How came Israel to be one Nationall church but by a National covenant and that before it had Officers or how comes any nationall provinciall classicall Church that are pleaded for to be such but by some such combination Why is this Church of this Classis not of another but by combination Secondly in a politicall body the whole hath power to order every part but this power among persons that are free is onely by combination Assump Proved first because Christ never instituted that which is impossible as this is for the Catholick visible Church in every age so to doe Secondly Christ ordained combination for communion in his Worship but this communion also is impossible to the Catholick church as one Ergo. Thirdly corrupt Churches are visible Churches but it is hard for us to beleeve or any to prove that Christ hath instituted such combination of all Churches Asian African European American corrupt and uncorrupt for prudent men may easily foresee the heavy consequents thereof Argument 3 Every Politicall Church by the institution of Christ hath power to elect her own Pastor or Pastors over it But the Catholick visible Church hath not such power Ergo. Proposit Proved This all Scripture examples shew that every Church or flock of beleevers had her Pastor Act. 14. Tit. 1. Secondly according to our Brethrens principles if a particular Church may choose a Pastor much more the Catholick because all priviledges are primarily given to the Catholick church and what belongs to the part of a similar Body as a part that much more belongs to the whole Assump Proved first If the Catholick church may choose Pastors over it then they may make Apostles because Catholick Pastors over the Catholick Church Secondly the Reasons against an universall Bishop are strong here as that their office is not described in the Word nor their power able to reach all Churches If it be said that the Catholick church can choose her Pastors in the parts or particular Societies which are Pastors of the Catholick church though not Catholick Pastors of the Catholick church Answ If this be meant of the particular Churches choosing Pastors over themselves who are in some respects for the good of the whole as being partes partium and so partes totius then they come to our hand for thus it appears that there is no Catholick tâ—…tum that is the subject of officers but in its parts But the question is Whether all particular Churches having the officers in them do make one political Body or Catholick church and so have power to choose Catholick Pastors Argument 4 Christ Jesus instituted no such politicall Body as destroys Church policy But such a Catholick church politicall destroys policy Ergo. Assump Proved because it swallows up the power not onely of all Churches congregationall but all other forms of Churches by taking the power of excommunication from them for the power of excommunication is seated by Christ in that Church from which there can be justly no appeal for Matth. 18. the power of excommunication is seated in such a Church as whatsoever it binds on earth is bound in heaven by the highest Judge in the highest Court and from the sentence of this highest court and Judge how can there be any appeal But now supposing such a Catholick church having power of excommunication and that as the highest Church hence no inferior Church can binde on earth so as that the same is bound in heaven seeing appeales may be made from them to an higher power on earth Object If it be said that the sentence of an inferior Judge proceeding rightly as in an inferior Sanhedrin is ratified in heaven yet may we appeale from him Answ We deny that the sentence of every civill Court doth binde in heaven in the sense of our Saviour for every civil Court hath not this promise of binding and looâ—…ing the power of the Keys not belonging to the civill Magistrate Secondly suppose there were such a binding in civill Courts and appeals may be yet made from them yet this is because
concernment if Baptism must be administred in it why ought not why may not such joyn to that Society at least as members for a time Also when he saith divers times That men are made members of the Church by Baptism speaking of such Churches as choose Officers over them yea that the Apostles constituted Chrches by Baptism and the like which we shall note in the answer Now what doe these argue but a yeelding of the cause for if the Apostles made members and constituted Churches by Baptism this was onely sacramentally and if so then of necessity they must be really members of such Churches before Baptism Thus we have run through this large field of the Catholick and particular Church which hath detained us longer then we intended yet to prevent mistakes from any thing that have been said concerning the union communion and combination of the Churches we shall add these two things 1 We observe that the Scripture speaks of the Church sometimes as One body sometimes as many and therefore called Churches and hence our care is to preserve not onely the distinction of Churches as many by particular combinations but also their unity as being one by spirituall relation 2 Association of divers particular Churches we hold needfull as well as the combination of members into one yet so as there be no schism of one from another nor usurpation of one over another that either one should deprive the rest of peace by schism or many should deprive any one of its power by usurpation hence a fraternall consociation we acknowledge consociation we say for mutuall counsell and helpe to prevent or remove sinne and schism yet fraternall onely to preserve each others power consociation of Churches we would have cumulative not in words but in deed to strengthen the power of particular Churches not privative to take away any power which they had from the gift of Christ before For as on the one side it may seem strange that One Church offending should have no means of cure by the conceived power of many so on the other side the danger may appear as great and frequently falls out that when many Churches are scandalous one innocent Church may be hurt by the usurpation of all And hence we see not but that fraternall consociation is the best medicine to heal the wounds of both We utterly dislike such Independency as that which is maintained by contempt or carelesse neglect of sister Churches Faciunt favos vespae faciunt Ecclesias Marcionitae saith Tertullian We utterly dislike such dependency of Churches upon others as is built upon usurpations and spoils of particular Churches Having thus largely digressed for the clearing of the foundation of the dispute in hand we desire to be excused if we be the more brief in our answers to particulars which now we shall attend unto as they lye in order CHAP. VI. Reply THe seals are given unto the Church not onely in ordinary as you say but also in extraordinary dispensation c. And when you say the dispensing of the seals is an ordinance given onely for the edifying of the Church gathered must it not be understood of extraordinary dispensation as well as of ordinary c. added these words ordinary dispensation were to prevent the objection which you foresaw might be made from the Apostles practice and example but so as they cut asunder the sinews of the consideration it self and make it of no force Answ Before we come to the particulars of the Reply it is needfull to clear our meaning from this mistake about the word ordinary dispensation which being rightly understood it will appear that it no way cuts the sinews of the consideration as is objected For whereas first you extend the opposite term extraordinary dispensation to the whole generall practice of the Apostles and Evangelists and secondly take it for granted that their practice was not to baptize members of particular Churches we neither intended the first nor doe we grant the second as for the first we acknowledge freely that the Apostles and Evangelists ordinarily and generally practiced according to comon rules in this point of baptizing as well as in other and left their practice for our pattern and therefore their ordinary practice in this thing we shall stick to yet they having not onely extraordinary power above Pastors and Teachers but also having sometime an immediate call unto some acts and speciall guidance of the Spirit to warrant what they did therefore there were some of their actions especially in respect of some circumstances thereof which ordinary Pastors not so assisted may not doe as in this case when they baptized in private houses in the wildernesse alone and not in the face of a Congregation c. and therefore if in some few cases some doe think they did not baptize into a particular Church yet if their ordinary practice were otherwise we ought to imitate the ordinary not some extraordinary cases and thus the sinews and force of the consideration remains strong notwithstanding this word of ordinary dispensation and that this was our meaning was not hard to discern by the Scriptures cited in the answer to prove the seales are given unto the Church in ordinary dispensation amongst which Acts 2.41 42 47. containing the Apostles first practice in this kinde are expressed and Mr. Ball took notice thereof as appears by his own reference to the same afterwards though in his printed Reply those quotations bee wholly left out 2 Let us consider whether the Apostles ordinarily did not baptize into particular Churches and this may be proved from the stories of their ordinary practice First it will be easily granted that the Apostles did gather disciples into particular visible Churches but there is no other time or season of doing it can be shewed in all the stories of their Acts yea sometimes they were so suddenly called away or enforced away by persecution after they had converted disciples that it is very improbable if not impossible they should do it at all but when they converted and baptized them as Acts 16.40 17.5 c. But to come more particularly unto the story it self the Apostles first and exemplary practise being the best interpreter of their commission and of their ordinary proceeding therein the first converts which the Apostles baptized after the visible kingdom of Christ was set up were those in that famous place Acts 2.41 concerning whom observe first that the Apostle Peter not onely preached unto them repentance and faith in the name of Christ with promise of remission of sins and that they should be baptized but according to that commission Mat. 28. with many other words he exhorted them saying Save your selves from this untoward generation being the very scope of his exhortation and this implies a gathering of themselves to the fellowship of the saints and al this Word they gladly received before they were baptized 2 When the holy Ghost vers 41. declareth
the word were baptized but withall that they were added to the Church and such a Church as continued stedfastly in the fellowship c. of the Apostles Likewise Verse 47. that the conversion and baptizing of Disciples being omitted the joyning or adding to the Church is put in the stead thereof which proofes as they are omitted wholly in the printed Copy so also you make no reply unto them Secondly by these proofes it might easily have been seene that wee did not looke upon all the Apostles acts in this case of Baptisme as extraordinary but that their first and leading examples were ordinary and in that order wee plead for which if it had been regarded much labour had been saved in this dispute which hath been spent to little purpose And Our second Reason Reply In due order the seales belong to them to whom the grant is given but the grant is vouchsafed to the faithfull and their seed forgivenesse of sinnes c. and the benefits of the Covenant are so linked together that where one is granted none is denyed c. Answ 'T is true the Seales belong to all them by a remote right to whom the grant is given as hath been oft said but not immediate yet in the very propounding of this reason wee may observe two things that doe cut the sinewes of it 1 The limitation of due order which as hath been said can no where be found but in a particular Church Let any shew what order Christ hath put his Catholick visible Church into or where that order is to bee seene but in particular Churches by which order every one is bound to joyne to such Churches as well as to partake in the outward Ordinances of Gods worship which are there onely to be found Secondly it is granted that not onely forgivenesse of sins but all other benefits of the Covenant of grace are linked together and are the grant sealed up in the Sacrament and if so is not visible conjunction with Christ and his Church with all the priviledges of the Church and ordinances of the same part of that grant by the Covenant of grace or of the Gospell wee suppose none would deny it why then should not visible beleevers require and take up this part of the grant as well as the seale of it for sigillum sequitur dâ—…num let them take this gift and the seale is ready for them And this may answer the first part of the Reply about Rom. 4.11 as also all the rest which followes being things so oft repeated and answered before as make it tedious to all CHAP. XIIII Position 5. THat the power of excommunication is so in the body of the Church that what the major part shall allow must bee done though the Pastors and Governors and the rest of the assembly be of another mind and that peradventure upon more substantiall reasons Reply This question is much mistaken for the demand is not Whether in the Congregation matters should be carried by number of votes against God as you interpret the position but whether the power of excommunication so lie in the body of the Congregation as that sentence must proceed in externo foro according to the vote and determination of the major part and so in admissions of members c. and though they have no power against God but for God yet in execution of that power they may bee divided in judgement and one part must errâ—… Now hence the question is moved Whether the power bee so in the people that what the major part determine must stand Answ If our whole answer had been attended unto it is so cleare and full that it could not with any shew of reason bee subject to such a mistake To omit the first part of our answer affirmatively wherein wee cite Mr. Parker as consenting with him In the second part to the position as stated our answer is plainely negative that excommunication is not so seated neither ought to bee so in any of the Churches of the Lord Jesus What followes is our reason grounded upon the last clause of the position because Churches ought to carry things not by number of votes against God as this position implies but by strength of Rule and Reason according to God and for edification 2 Cor. 13.8 2 Cor. 10.8 Now let any judge whether the position doth not imply such an absurdity so oft as things should bee carried by the major vote against the Officers and the rest having better Reasons and therefore wee are apt to think that if the learned author had been so ready to embrace any syllable that lends to dislodge these thoughts of us as leaning to separation hee would have beleeved our plaine negation of this position which indeed is according to our constant practise never following the major part of votes against the Officers but counting it the duty of the Officers in such cases either to satisfie the consciences of the major part or lesser by the rule of the word or to yeeld not to the vote but reasons if they bee stranger or to suspend the businesse and referre to the counsell of other Churches if they cannot agree but a division arise according to the patterne Act. 15. Reply Amongst them that hold the power of the Keyes to bee given to the Church some as Fenner Parker I. D. distinguish between the power itselfe which they give to the Church and the execution which they confine to the Presbytery others give the power of the Keyes with the exercise thereof to the whole body of the Church or if in the dispensation they attribute any thing to the Officers it is but as servants of the Church from whom they derive their authority and here lies the stone at which the Separation stumble and which wee conceive to bee your judgement and practise wherein wee required your plaine answer but have received no satisfaction You referre us to Mr. Parkers Reasons to prove the power of the Keyes belong to the whole Church who are of farre differing judgement from him in the point it selfe and if your judgement and practise bee as the Separation as wee feare you dissent from him and wee from you in these considerations Answ Wee are sorry to see this Reverend man of God so strongly possessed with a prejudicate opinion and feare of our concurrence with the Separation upon what grounds it is not said nor can wee apprehend That neither our flat negation of the position nor our reference to Mr. Parker as concurring with him should give him any satisfaction to the contrary But if that bee the judgement and practise of the Separation which is here imputed unto them viz. That the power and exercise of the Keys is in the body of the Church and what the Officers doe therein is but as servants of the Church from whom they derive their authority if our profession may bee of any use to satisfie wee doe freely and heartily professe to the contrary
professe their faith againe the visible Church being built upon this rocke Matth. 16.16 18. viz. Profession of the faith of Christ and lastly if there should be no necessity for such a profession yet if this bee desired of the people of God for the increase of their owne joy to see God glorified and Christs name professed and his vertues held forth and for the increase of their love to those that joyne with them why should it not be done before Saints which should bee done before persecutors 1 Pet. 3.15 What is now said we thinke sufficient to undermine what is opposed herein by others and may easily give answer to the three arguments of the learned Authourâ—… from the example of the Church of Israel John Baptist and the Apostles and so cleare up our practise and judgement to the world from the aspersion of our rigidum examen for which we are by some condemned but for further clearing we shall answer to the particulars Now to your Reasons more particularly against this from the Old Testament and the manner of entring and renewing Covenant then Answ Wee answer first when as you say they professing the Covenant promised to take God for their God to keepe the words of the Covenant and doe them to seek the Lord with all their hearts to walke before him in truth and uprightnes this implyeth a profession of a worke of grace Secondly They did not immediately enter into Covenant but the Lord was long before preparing them for it for they were humbled much in Egypt in so much as their sighings came up to God Exod. 2.23 24 25. They had seene the glory of God for their good against Pharaoh and all that Land by many miracles they had Gods visible presence in the Cloud were instructed by Moses concerning the Covenant of grace made with them in Abraham they were mightily delivered at the Red Sea so that they beleeved Moses and feared the Lord and sang his praise Exod. 14.31 Psalme 106.12 They were also instructed againe concerning the Covenant and were to sanctifie themselves three dayes legally which was for spirituall ends and of spirituall use Exod. 19.10 and thus being prepared as fit matter for Covenant they then entered thereinto And they were all of them for ought we know thus externally and ecclesiastically holy though many were internally stiffe-necked blind and prophane And for our parts we desire no more then such a preparation in some worke of grace if appearing though not indeed reall as may make way for Church Covenant among a people now as we see was then Reply When John Baptist began to preach the Gospell and gather a new people for Christ he admitted none but upon confession of their sinnes but we read of no question that hee put forth to them to discover the worke of grace in their soules or repelled any upon that pretence that voluntarily submitted themselves Answ Though the Scripture record such things very briefly else the world would not have contained the Bookes that must have beene written as John speaketh yet he that advisedly considers the case may see the profession of a work of grace in all that were received by John to his baptisme First John was sent with the Spirit and power of Elias to turne the hearts of the fathers c. to cast down every high hill c. Secondly His baptisme is called the baptisme of repentance for the remission of sinnes Mark 1.4 Thirdly confession of sins is ever put for true repentance when there is a promise of pardon made to it Prov. 28 1â—… 1 John 1.9 and therefore when he requires confession of sins was it without remorse or sorrow for it was it not with profession of faith in the Messiah which he pointed unto Joh. 1.29 and required with repentance Act. 19.4 Fourthly did not hee fall upon the Pharisees with dreadfull thundering of Gods judgements for comming to his baptisme without conversion of heart and fruits meet for repentance Mat. 3.7 and this Luke saith hee preached to the multitude Luke 3.7 and whether any were received that embraced not that Doctrine and shewed the same in their confession viz. that their hearts were humbled and that the renounced their high thoughts of their priviledges of the Law c. and professed amendment fruits meet for the same it will be hard for any to prove and thus much is evident on the contrary that Pharesees Lawyers distinguished from the People and Publicans rejected the counsell of God in not being baptized of him and what counsell but that wholesome doctrine of John Luke 7.29 30 Lay all these together and let any whose thoughts are not prepossessed with prejudices say whether this confession was not such a profession of faith and repentance which a discerning charity ought to take for a worke of grace Reply It appeares many wayes that when the Apostles planted Churches they made a Covenant betweene God and the people whom they received But they received men upon the profession of faith and promise of amendment of life without strict inquiry what worke of grace was wrought in the soule so in after ages c. Now the profession at first required of all that were received to baptisme was that they beleeved in the Father Sonne and holy Ghost This was the confession of the Enâ—…uch when he was baptized I beleeve that Jesus Christ is the Son of God Answ Wee cannot but observe how still the evidence of the truth of what wee proved in the third and fourth positions breakes out at every turne when the heat of that disputation doth not hinder for if the Apostles planted Churches and made a Covenant betweene God and the people when they baptized them as the proofes for this Act. 2.38 and 8.37 and 19.17 18 19. alledged in the margent shew then still it appeares they admitted men into planted Churches when they baptized them and the refore the Apostles ordinary and first leading practise and examples are for those Position not against them 2 You grant here that Acts 2. and 8. and 19. there was a profession of faith and promise of amendment of life and so wee must suppose though not expressed for how else could the Apostles distinguish such as gladly received the word from the mockers and others Now let us consider what kinde of profession this must bee by the story it selfe The Apostle Peter in his doctrine presseth three things 1. Conversion or repentance for their sinnes 2. Faith in Christ in those words Bee baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ Verse 38. 3. With many other words he exhorted them saying Save your selves from this untoward generation that is this was the scope of and substance of his exhortation which includes a gathering themselves to the Church Now the Text saith in respect of the first That they were pricked to the heart and cryed out Men and Brethren what shall wee doe 2. They gladly received the word that is
their baptizing he records withall their adding to them the latter being an exegesis of the former and that the same day as being performed at the same time and indeed when a convert publickly professeth his faith in Christ is it not as easily done to reâ—…eive him to a particular visible Church as into the Catholick before Baptism but first to baptize them and then the same day to add or joyn them to the Church is altogether unprobable And that this adding was to a particular Church is sufficiently proved before The next place you may note is Acts 5.14 where the Holy Ghost omitting the baptizing of those beleevers yet speaks of their adding to the Lord as if the one implyed the other and that their adding to the Lord was by their joyning to the Church is evident by the opposition between verse 13 14. Of the rest durst no man joyn himself to them but beleevers were the more added to the Lord. 3 In the conversion of Samaria although so great a work is declared in so few words in one verse Act. 8.12 yet the text puts a manifest distinction of Philips doctrine between the things of the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ which plainly enough sheweth that they taught the observing of the order of the Kingdom of Christ as well as the Doctrine of the name of Christ the object of saving faith And this they received by faith and professed before they were baptized Now the first and most famous examples of the Apostles perswading that so they practised why should we doubt of their like practice in other examples when nothing is said that contradicteth the same as Acts 10. in the baptizing of Cornelius his house where so many were met and the Holy Ghost fell on all why should we think the Apostle Peter baptized them and left them out of the order of Christ wherein they should worship him and be edified in the faith If we doubt of it because the Scripture is silent therein we may as well question whether those beleevers Acts 4.4 9.35 vers 42. whether any of these confessed their faith or were baptized for nothing is said thereof So likewise Acts 11. where we read of many beleeving turning to the Lord vers 21. of the adding others to the Lord vers 24. but nothing of their confession of faith or baptism and yet they are called a Church whereby it appears that the holy Ghost sometime expresseth their baptism without joyning to the Church and sometimes joyning without baptism and sometime he expresseth both Acts. 2.41 And therefore hence we may conclude the like of the case of Lydia and the Jaylor considering the former practice of the Apostles and that the Apostle speaks so expresly of a Church at Philippi in the beginning of the Gospel Phil. 4. at which time we have no more conversions expressed but of those two families at least they were the most eminent fruits of Pauls Ministery at that time and it is very probable the Church was gathered in Lydia's house seeing Paul going out of prison to her house he is said to see the Brethren and comfort them so departing verse 40. Besides why might not the Apostle baptize them into that particular visible Church in such a case as well as into the Catholick or all Churches as some say they professing subjection to Christ in every ordinance of his with reference to that Church he had there constituted The fulnesse of power in the Apostles might doe greater matters without breach of order though no rule for us so to do neither is it strange from the practice of those times to begin a Church in a family seeing the Apostle speaks of Churches in three severall families Rom. 16.5 Col. 4.15 Phil. 2. which though many understand to be called Churches in regard of the godlinesse of those families yet if we consider First how many eminent Saints the Apostle salutes who no doubt had godly families not so much as naming their housholds much lesse giving them such a title but onely to these three named Secondly how distinct his salutations are first the Governors and then the Church in their house Thirdly that the Apostle doth not onely send his salutations to the Church in the house of Aquila and Priscilla Rom. 16.5 but also keeping the name of a Church he sends salutations from that Church to the Church of Corinth 1 Cor. 16.19 All which doe strongly argue there is more in it then that they were godly families and therefore may perswade us that there were indeed constituted Churches in those Families though other Christians also might joyn with them Reply Thus having cleared our meaning and the consideration it self there will remain very few extraordinary cases if any of whom it can be proved they were not joyned to some particular Church when baptized as that of the Eunuch which as it was done by an extraordinary immediate call of Philip so to doe so also there was a speciall reason thereof the Lord intending thereby rather by him to send the Gospel into Ethiopia then to retain him in any other place to joyn with his Church And the Baptism of Paul who as without the Ministery of the Word he was converted by the immediate voice of Christ so he was baptized by the immediate call of Ananias so to do Now let us proceed to consider what further is replyed Answ The seals Baptism and the Lords-supper are given to the Church not onely in ordinary but also extraordinary dispensation True Baptism is not without the Church but in it an ordinance given to it The Sacraments are the seales of the Covenant to the faithfull which is the form of the Church tokens and pledges of our spirituall admittance into the Lords family Hence it is inferred that if the seales in extraordinary dispensation were given to the Church and yet to members of no particular Church then also in ordinary dispensation it may be so 1 It will not follow for first if the Apostle in extraordinary cases baptized privately will it follow that in ordinary dispensation it may be so Secondly if because the Ministery be given to the Church and extraordinary Officers were not limited to particular Churches will it therefore follow that in ordinary dispensations Ministers ought not to be given onely to particular churches Thirdly as we have oft said that seals belong de jure to all beleevers as such as members of the Catholick church they being given unto it firstly as to its object and end and all that are truly baptized are baptized into it and thus never out of it as being tokens of our spirituall admittance into the Lords family both in ordinary and extraordinary dispensation but doth it hence follow that actuall fruition of the seales of which the question is stated may ordinarily be had or given to such as set loose from all societies the Apostles had extraordinary power being generall Pastors over all persons
yet it is beyond the power of man to convince by a rule that so it is We confesse wee are fearefull as of opening the doore too wide so of shutting the doores upon any whom God would have us to receive in but for what yet wee see or read from the arguments here alledged in this Author or the writings of others godly learned wee thinke that Church charity is not to rest satisfied with the first but with the latter for let the profession of the worke of faith bee never so short or so weake let it be by their owne immediate relation or by question yet if it may but appeare to a regulated charity so as to hope that is is reall it is to rest satisfied then till God make discovery to the contrary wee intend not to heape up arguments nor answer scruples but these foure things seemâ—… to â—…vince as much 1 That the Apostles in the 3000. converted Acts â—… as they were very ready to receive them to the fold of Christ and therefore in one day immediatly received so many thousands which could not bee by large profession of every one so also they attended to the truth of that profession and therfore it was not bare profession of faith but as it is set downe for our patterne it was such a profession as was evidently joyned with humiliation pricking at the heart mourning and crying out before the Apostles What shall wee doe to be saved gladly receiving the word which are reall testimonies of some reall change from what they were but a little before and upon this ground the Apostles received them 2 The Apostles charge to Timothy 2 Tim. 3.5 From such as have a forme of godlinesse and deny the power of it turne away if barâ—… profession were sufficient why should Timothy turne from them but rather receive them who had a forme of profession And if it was in his power to avoyd them why should he not reject them and that not onely from private but Church communion also supposing them such as not oneâ—…y had a forme but might be by a rule convinced thereof 3 Lying and apparent untruth cannot make a man fit matter for a Church and therefore cannot bee a ground for charity to rest on that so he is but verball profession which appeares not to bee reall but false is palpable lying and indeed more fit to destroy the Church then to make the Church Hence Sanctius in Zach. 14.14 observes that the greatest enemies of the Church are such qui cum fidem retineant sanctitatem abjecerunt 4 If bare profession of faith is a sufficient ground to receive men into the Church then an excommunicate person cast out in one houre should bee immediatly received in againe if hee will but renew his generall profession of faith nay then the Indians in Maryland who will put on and put off this profession as their ghostly fathers the Popish Priests will bestow or withhold garments and shirts upon them should in charitie bee received into the Church But if it should bee asked how charity may know the reality of this profession we answer so long as the rule bee attended wee leave every one to the wisedome of Christ to make application thereof onely this we doe add in generall for more full satisfaction 1 Such a faith professed with the mouth which is confirmed by an innocent godly conversation in the life so as not to live in commission of any knowne sinne or omission of any knowne duty wee say this conversation makes faith appeare reall James 2.18 Rev. 22.14 wee conceive more is required to make a man appeare a fit member of a Church then of a Common-wealth to bee onely bonus civis and bare civility is sufficient for this latter but not for the former and therefore such a profession of faith is needfull as is confirmed by a not onely a civill but a godly life 2 Such a faith as is joyned with evident repentance and sorrow and mourning for sinne although there bee no experience alwayes of such a holy life antecedently seene for thus it was Act. 2.37 38. for the riches of Christs grace is such as not onely to receive experienced christians into his family and house but also the weakest and poorest who may stand in most need of Christs Ordinances and that as soone as ever they seeme to bee brought in and therefore experience of a blamelesse life is not alwayes necessary for admission into the Church some think indeed that the Apostles received in the first converts Act. 2.39 so soone because they had an extraordinary spirit of discerning but if they had so yet they did not receive them in here according to that for they received divers hypocrites in as Ananias and Sapphira c. and if all other of their acts in this chapter were exemplary why should this onely bee thought to be otherwise and extraordinary 3 When there is full and sufficient testimony from others of their faith and piety although their humiliation faith and conversation bee not so well knowne for wee see the Church received Paul when Barnabas had declared what God had done for him and if it may bee just to condemne another by the testimony of two faithfull witnesses it may not bee unchristian to receive an other into the fold of Christ much more readily upon the testimony of able and faithfull Christians especially then when they be not able openly and publiquely ro speake so fully for themselves and thus much for answer to the first question 2 Question Whether this profession is to bee judged by the Church Answer 1. The faithfull as they did at first combine into a Church so it is their duty to receive others to themselves as the Church did Acts 9.26 27. encouraged by Barnabas and the Apostles and as the Apostle commands Rom. 14.1 which although it was of fellow-members into their affections yet the proportion holds strong for receiving commers into the Church Joh. Ep. 3.8 9 10. 2 If they bee to receive them they must by some meanes know them to bee such as they may comfortably receive into their affections a little leaven leavening the whole lumpe 1 Cor. 5. 3 The Officers of the Church who are first privately to examine them and prepare them for admission are to shew the Church the rule on which the Church is to receive them and themselves are ready to admit them Act. 10.37 Can any forbid water c. This rule was best seene by that publike profession before the whole Church and if no just exception bee made as none should bee without conviction they are to be admitted by the Officers with the consent of the members hereunto for if publike profession is needfull at least before the Church though not the world alway as Didoclavius observes to the entrance into the Covenant and Church by baptisme wee see no reason but persons formerly baptized and entering anew into the Church but they should openly
Peter declared what an one should be taken c. Acts. 6. Deacons were chosen by the consent of the Church c. but in this election the people did first choose when most commonly the Apostles instructed the people and went before them in the electon and they consented Act. 14.23 The Apostles by consent choose c. This restriction of the peoples power to an after consent at least ordinarily will not hold if the evident light of Acts 6. could not be denyed and the other places were more obscure why should not that place with its light cleare the rest but that in Act. 1. is as evident Peter proves the need of such a choice to be made shews it must bee one that had so long conversed with Christ to witnesse such things and further hee doth not lead them there might be twenty such but they choose two as a preparative act to Apostleship Vers 23. and who were they but such as they speake unto viz. the Disciples Vers 15. whom he cals Men and Brethren Vers 16. so Act. 14.23 lifting up of hands is the signe of election not of an after consent Lastly by this Doctrine how shall the Church come by Officers when shee hath none to goe before her in choosing for her must shee loose her right or take whom others will choose for her and impose upon her Reply In the primitive times after the Apostles one Church might elect a Pastor for another c. Answ 1 If by way of counsell one Church shall propound and advise another to choose such leaving them free to take or refuse this is lawfull in case but otherwise it is a plaine usurpation and we must leave Scripture rules and patterns to justifie it 2 Wee grant in a safe sense there may be Communis electio whereby a fit man is propounded by Churches or Ministers to be chosen by another people and thus the Philadelphians might elect a fit Pastor for the Church at Antioch as Ignatius exhots with sundry like instances in the first times after the Apostles and this wee deny not may lawfully bee now But this is nothing to that electio singularis whereby a people choose one to be their Minister of which we speake for it is evident from the Testimony of Cyprian oft alledged that it is in the power of the people to choose worthy Ministers and reject the unworthy and Ambrose thinkes that he is worthily thought to bee elected divinâ—… judicio whom all the people desire Ambros lib. 10. Ep. 82. It is very true that as the times grew worse the elections were oft disturbed sometimes by the Clergy choosing without the people of which Athanasius complaines sometimes by the peoples carrying it tumultuously sometime the Emperors interposing But this and like corruptions cannot forfeit the liberty of the Church which Christ hath given it and therefore hee that was no great friend to the peoples liberties yet ingenuously saith that although the people is Bellua multorum capitum and most apt to be tumultuous yet this is not innâ—…ted to a beleeving people qui non minus nunc quam oliâ—… gravis esset in electionibus as publicae utilitatis studiosissima Spalta de Rep. Eccles Lib. 3. Cap. 3. Reply If here it be questioned whether your election of the people be essentiall to the calling of a Minister wee answer First A thing is essentiall two wayes either as absolutely necessary so as the thing can have no existence without it or necessary to the integrity of a thing so that it is maymed â—…i bout it Againe the people be either few in number and simple unable to judge of the sufficiency of a Minister or they be more in number increased in wisedome sound in faith and able to discerne of things that differ In the first sense the election of the people is not necessary or essentiall in the second his calling in that respect is maymed Answ It is to bee noted that here wee dispute of the outward calling of Church-Officers now the very essence of any outward calling doth lye in the right and power of them that elect If all the Countries of England should elect or call a Lord Major for London bee they never so many and wise it is a meere nullity and why Because the right of election is not in them but if the Citizens in whom the right lyes doe elect though weakly hee hath the true essence of the call if others electing a Major the City will receive him submit to him and so give their consent hee may bee said to have the substance of that call though not an orderly and lawfull election and so maymed so it is here Secondly if in our election of the people being the Scripture way of election the proper right and power bee seated by Christ in the Church unto whom they are to minister then it must needs follow that the very essence of a Ministers call stands in their election or at least in their after consent and subjection to his Ministery in which case wee grant though the calling be maymed yet it hath the substance of a true calling But if the people will not receive such as are imposed upon them hee hath no call at all but usurpes the same and it is a meer nullity And therefore it concernes Churches the more to consider what they doe in receiving and submitting to such unworthy Ministers as are oft imposed upon them but if the right and power of electing Ministers bee in any other Persons let it be shewed from the Scriptures for we are not much moved in such cases with the corrupt customes of after-times And this also shewes what kinde of call such men have that are ordained by Prelates at large without any election at all if they be Ministers to the Catholike Church then the Catholike Church is bound to receive them and submit to their Office but no part of the Catholike Church and therefore not the whole is bound to submit to them and therefore indeed they have no office nor calling as Pastors or Teachers except it can be proved they be Evangelists Apostles or Prophets Reply If the people be few and simple they stand in â—â—re need of guidance from their owne Elders and other Churches If many and full of wisdome their liberty to choose is the greater and the greater wrong to bee deprived of it The practise of the Apostles and Primitive Churches shew this for many ages sometime men were propounded to the Church to be chosen sometimes the chiefe left wholly to them Answ 1 What is all this to the purpose what light or derection a Church need to receive the essence of a Ministers call lyes not in the propounding or advising of any to elect him but in the Election of such as have the true right so to doe which is still in the Church though few and weake if a true Church and yet you produce not one Scripture example of any Officer propounded