Christ from whom they receive their authority immediately then the power of the Keys is not in the community of the faithfull if as the servants of the Church from which they derive their authority then the Office of a Minister is not the immediate gift of Christ nor the Minister so much the servant of Christ as of the Church from whom he must receive Lawes in whose names he must doe his Office and to whom he must give account Answ This Objection will hold as strongly against any other subject of the Keys that can bee named as Classes Synods or Church Catholick and therefore by this manner of reasoning the Lord Jesus must doe all things immediately himself in choosing Officers c. or else his Ministers must receive Laws doe all in the name of such as he delegates to that work of administration under him and therefore let others look to answer this Objection as well as we Our answer is briefly plainly this the Office is the immediate institution of Christ the gifts and power belonging thereto are from Christ immediately and therefore he ministers in his name and must give account to him 1 Pet. 5. and yet his outward cal to this Office whereby he hath authority to administer the holy things of Christ to the church is from Christ by his Church and this makes him no more the servant of the Church then a Captain by the leave of the Generall chosen by the Band of Souldiers is the servant of his Band. Wee see in this reply here and elsewhere how apt men are to cast this odium upon this Doctrine and to ranke us with Separatists in it but it is easily wiped off and stickes as fast upon the Classes Synods Catholick Church or any other subject of this power Reply If the communitie of the faithfull have to doe in all matters of the body to admit members cast out make and depose Ministers c. by authority from Christ wee cannot see how in your judgement the execution of the power of the Keys is concredited to the Ministers Answ If the power priviledge and liberty of the people be rightly distinguished from the authority of the officers as it ought a dim sight may easily perceive how the execution of the Keys by the officers authoritatively may stand with the liberties of the people in their place obedientially following and concurring with their guides so long as they goe along with Christ their King and his Lawes and cleaving in their obedience to Christ dissenting from their guides when they forsake Christ in their ministrations if there need an ocular demonstration hereof it is at hand in all civill administrations wherein the execution of Laws and of justice in the hands of the Judges and the priviledge power or liberty of the people in the hands of the Jurours Both sweetly concurre in every case both civill criminall neither is the use of a Jury onely to finde the fact done or not done as some answer this instance but also the nature and degree of the fact in reference to the Law that awards answerable punishments as whether the fact be simple theft or burglary murder or manslaughter c. and so in cases of dammages costs in civill cases whereby it appeares that although the power and priviledge of the people be great yet the execution authoritatively may bee wholly in the Officers Reply Fourthly That which you adde that God will not vouchsafe his presence and blessing to an Ordinance but when it is dispensed by those whom hee hath appointed thereunto must be warily understood or it may occasion errors and distractions not a few c. Answ Wee shall not contradict your warinesse in this case for wee acknowledge a presence of God with his Ordinances administred by such as hee appoints though some corruptions bee admixed in the entrance and administrations but wee doubt not the presence and blessing of God is more or lesse according to the purity or corruptions of the administration and participation of his Ordinances but what need there was or use of this note wee see not our words were sound and safe enough but it seemes your tendernesse of the standings of Ministers and Ordinances in England occasioned this warinesse and wee deny not what you say that Gods presence and blessing upon his ordinances dispensed by us gave some approbation to our standing and to his Ordinances the Lord mercifully passing over our many corruptions but this will no way give allowance to the many grosse corruptions and defects which cleaved to our standings and administrations nor to the continuance of any in such corruptions after the discovery thereof Reply Secondly As for the assumption that Pastors and Teachers are limited to a particular Church or society but that flock-is not ever one congregationall assembly meeting in one place neither the bond so straight whereby they are tyed to that one society that they may not upon occasion performe some ministeriall act of office in another congregation or to them that bee not set members of their proper assembly Answ For clearing of the the assumption that wee may give the more distinct answer wee shall take leave to explicate our selves concerning the limitation of the Ministery to the Church which it is like they who drew up the answer had formerly done had the times then been as criticall as they are growne since 1 When we say the Ministery is limited to a particular Church wee doe not so limit it to a Congregation under her owne Presbytery as to exclude from communion in the seales many Congregations standing under one common Presbytery as wee have formerly said we honour the reformed Churches of Christ Jesus and the godly members thereof 2 When wee say the seales are limited to a particular Church or Congregation because the Ministery is so limited our meaning is not of that congregation onely whereof the Ministry is but of any Congregation in generall 3 When wee say that where a Minister hath no power he may not do an act of power this is to be so understood that hee cannot performe such an act as an Officer over them or unto them as to his proper flock the office being as wee said founded in the relation betweene the Church and the Officer such a stated power as an Officer over his owne flocke hee hath not to those of other Congregations partaking in his owne Church or in any act of his Office in another Church yet an occasionall act of power or precaria potestâ—…s charitatively to put forth an act of his Office to those in an other church over whom he is no Officer wee see not but he may but then this act of power is not towards them as over his owne flocke for two things are cleare to us 1. That an Officer of one Church is no Officer over those of an other Church as not being his proper flocke for there being no Office of Pastour at large without power
The answer would bee very imperfect and impertinent and just so it is here in the frame of the reason though the corruptions in that service and this be not alike we grant But before wee answer to the second part of your dis-junction let us consider a little here once for all the act of the people in joyning with the reading of this Liturgy or so much of it as is read usually by such Idol-priests First concerning the Liturgy it selfe if you respect the matter and forme or manner of it it would bee too tedious to rip up what for matter hath been objected by the godly Reformers Consider but two things objected strongly by Mr. Cartwright against the forme or manner of it First that it is taken out of the Popish Masse-book concerning which hee affirmeth that although there were nothing in it unlawfull or against the Word of God which saith hee I wish there were not yet no Word of God no reason nor example of the Ancient Churches Jewish or Christian will permit us to use the same formes and ceremonies viz. with Papists being neither commanded of God nor such as there may not bee as good as they and rather better established yea considering how neare the Papists live amongst us it were more safe to conforme to the Ceremonies of the Turks that are farre off And this hee speaketh of the forme of Liturgy as well as Ceremonies Cartw. reply to Whitgifts answer to the admonition to the Parliament pag. 131 132. And although you seeme to make light of this objection after page 15. end yet in a like case when Whitgift had said it is not materiall that Deanes Canons came from the Pope Cartwright replyeth thus It is as if hee had said it skilleth not if they came out of the bottomlesse pit for whatsoever commeth from the Pope who is Antichrist comes first from the Devill Cartw. Reply pag. 204. Secondly hee objecteth that absurd manner of chopping and interrupting the prayers of which Mr. Cartwright saith That if any man should make such a supplication to a Prince he would thinke him to make his supplication before hee knew what to ask or that hee had forgotten some piece of his suit or that he were distracted in his understanding Much more might bee added but wee have onely touched this sore and in the words of that learned and zealous Reformer that it may appeare neither the opinion of that Booke nor the reasons against it are so new or proper to the Separatists as is pretended Now what comfort can any godly conscience have to joyn in or conform unto such a form of Worship as this is Further consider the administration of the Sacraments according to the Book as we speak still of joyning in it who knows not that such must subject their children to that grosse Idol of the crosse and see and approve the pollution of Gods Ordinances with the same and at the Lords table joyne in that Idolatrous gesture of kneeling and therefore how the godly can joyn lawfully in the whole or such parts as those Idol-priests dispense let all Non-conformists judge and it is well knowne how superstitiously precise such are in pressing all conformity to every gesture and ceremony prescribed in their Booke which they so idolize as they have good cause being that which maintaines them Secondly if wee consider the imposition hereof by the Prelates and late strict pressing thereof upon the people to be present and conforme fully to it as well as upon Ministers to use it The very yeelding of conformity thereto doth miserably cast away the liberty purchased by Christ to his Churches inthrall the Churches to Antichrist and lift up the power of Antichrist in his tyrannous usurpations upon the Churches of Christ Thirdly we might adde the dangerous consequences and scandals that follow from admitting this Liturgy which being touched in our answer to the first Position we here passe over These things considered it appeares not onely that there was need to disprove the first part of your disjunction which you declined in stating the question but also the truth of the Position it selfe is confirmed Now let us consider your proof of the second part of your disjunction which is thus Reply If in respect of the Minister then it is not lawfull to joyn with such on one in any Ordinance of God For if the Minister make it unlawfull then all communion in any part of Gods Worship with such Ministers is unlawfull and so the Churches in all ages of the world the Prophets our Saviour Christ the Apostles and the faithfull in the Primitive Church 〈◊〉 in holding communion with such wheâ—â— the Priests were dumbe dogs c. but we never read that the Prophets our Saviour Christ the Apostles did ever forbeare themselves or warne the faithfull not to communicate with such in the ordinances of Worship Our Saviour charged the Disciples to beware of the leaven of the Scribes and Phariseas but never forbad them to communicate with them in the ordinances of God Answ To this we answer First that if you speake to the case in hand of those unable and ungodly Ministers of England Readers as they are called of the Common-service wee grant it is not lawfull to communicate in a stated way with them in any ordinance of Worship properly Ministeriall in any act that private persons may performe wee may communicate with them but not in Ministeriall worke as Sacraments for although being imposed on any Church as Ministers and so received by them their Ministeriall acts are not a nullity yet if wee speake of the lawfulnesse of such their act of receiving them then the Church sinneth in choosing them or being imposed in receiving them and submitting to their Ministery being such as are utterly contrary to the rule of Christ and rejected of him And by the like reason the godly sinne in receiving Sacraments c. from them as Ministers of Christ knowing they intrude into that office and have no authority by the rule of Christ so to doe Wee may heare a private gifted Christian prophecy but if hee intrude without a lawfull calling into the Ministery we may not receive him nor approve of him therein Cyprians speech is commonly noted that Plebs maxime habet potestatem vel eligendi dignos Sacerdotes vel indignos recusandi yet the occasion of it is not so generally observed which is this Plebs obsequenâ—… praeceptis Dominicis Deum meâ—…uens à peccatore proposito separare se debet nec se ad sacrilegia sacerdotis sacrificia iniscere cum ipse maxime habet potestatem eligendi c. that is the people observing divine precepts and fearing God ought to separate themselves from a wicked Minister neither joyne themselves to the sacrifices of a sacrilegious Priest seeing they chiefly have power of choosing worthy Ministers and rejecting unworthy Secondly wee see no demonstrative argument that the Priests and Pharisees were wholly unable for the worke
would never meet to combine but they were onely a visible number of Saints We have been thus large in clearing this Scripture because we conceive the chief strength of the contrary opinion to lye in it And this being answered the light of it we hope will scatter the darknesse that is brought upon divers other Scriptures which are drawn to prove such a kinde of Catholick Church as Rom. 12.4 c. Col. 1.25 1 Tim. 3 1â—… Ephes 4.11 In which last Scripture we never doubted but that the Officers were given not for that particular Church of Ephesus onely much lesse to such a diminutive Congregation consisting of 40 60 or 100 onely as if we intended to iâ—…pawn all power in this or that Congregational body but to a congregationall Church considered as the genus of all particular Congregations of the world Neither to this congregationall Church onely but to all that are to be gathered to the unity of the faith But doth this argue one politicall body consisting of all these For though veâ—…s 16. the whole body be said to be compacted yet that this should be understood of a politicall not spirituall way of compacting we confesse with submission our weaknesse cannot apprehend The last Scripture which we find cited that seemeth to look this way is 1 Pet. 5.1 Feed the flock which is among you Answ 1 We answer It must necessarily be understood distributively for the severall flocks in all those Countreys to be fed by their particular Elders not collectively to be fed as one flock in common For the Countreys are so many and large as it was impossible Yea we have a clear parallel James 2.2 where writing to the Jews of the twelve Tribes scattered abroad yet he speaks of a man comming into their Assembly which cannot be meant collectively as if they had one assembly amongst them all but distributively of any assembly 2 Though they bee called a flock not flocks yet this as Râ—…imes observes was not because it was one flock really in themselves but in some respect of reason which also he expounds to be per internam we had rather say spiritualem unionem but not per externam combinationem in respect of which spirituall union that is true which Mr. Ball citeth out of Cyprian Etsi Pastores multi sumus unam tamen gregâ—…m pascimus As also that there is Episcopatus unus Ecclesia una in â—…oto mundo Hence also may appear an answer to divers arguments the chief whereof we shall run through Objection 1 If by baptism we are not admitted into one particular Church but into the whole Catholick visible Church 1 Cor. 12.13 then there is such a Catholick Church Answ Baptism admitteth us into the whole mysticall body of Christ whether visible or invisible of all ages But this is not a Catholick Politicall body of which we speak for then every baptized person should be a member of every particular Church and have an Oare in every boat in electing Officers admitting members censuring offenders c. which Mr. Ball will not grant and indeed would bring in endlesse confusion into the Churches of Christ Besides no man can be a member of any combined society without their consent for otherwise so many may croud into the Church because baptized as shall overthrow the edification thereof and that against the consent of the Church and all the Officers thereof Objection 2 When any scandalous person is delivered to Satan he is cast out of the whole Catholick church Ergo he was a member of the whole Catholick Church for he cannot be cast out who was never within Answ 1 Some answer that he is cast out of all onely consequenter by reason of communion of Churches neither doe we see that this is taken away by saying that As when the left hand cutteth off a finger of the right hand it is not the left hand onely that cuts it off but the whole man deliberate reason and will consenting For if this similitude would suit then the whole Catholick church must be called to consult and consent antecedenter before a particular Church can cut off any member which ordinarily is impossible to be attain'd 2 But further according to our former principles laid down we say he that is justly cast out of one Church he is morally excommunicated out of all but not politically and formally For to excommunicate politically and formally is by vertue of a superior authority next under Christ so that what is bound by them is bound in heaven In which act the Minister doth not onely bind the person but also by vertue of his Office chargeth the Church not to have communion with him But we doe not think that our Brethren will say that one Church putteth forth such an act of superior authority binding or charging all Churches politicè and judicialitâ—…r not to have communion with him for so one Church should exercise jurisdiction over all Churches and that without their actuall approbation for quod spectat ad 〈◊〉 debat ob 〈◊〉 approbari If it be said That a particular Church doth excommunicate by an intrinsecall power not onely in it self but intrinsicall in the whole body the question will be What is that intrinsicall power Is it naturall or voluntary To say it is naturall were too absurd it voluntary then neither Congregations Classes Provinces Nations have power to excommunicate without the previous consent of the whole Catholick church which must voluntarily concurr thereunto And if the Catholick Presbytery as 〈◊〉 said have no next but a a remote power of excommunication and this remote power bee extraordinary or rare contingens or almost never then the ordinary power of excommunication which is enough for us is not from an intrinsâ—…call power of the Church catholick On the other side if it be said this power is in the whole but not derived from the whole to the parts as the power of seeing is first in the man then in the eye yet not derived from hands leggs shoulders c. and as the great body of the Sunn hath intrinsecall light in every part not by derivation from one part to another so this power of the Keys is from Christ the Head to all the integral parts in points that severally concern the same First if this be so then every particular Congregation receives its power of the Keys immediately from Christ not by derivation from any Presbytery or the Catholick Church and is in that respect Independent Neither also can Congregations derive the power seated in them to Presbyteries nor any greater bodies take it from them Secondly though we acknowledge this intrinsecall power of excommunication in particular Congregations as being there properly seated by Christ yet that there are any such politicall Churches Classicall Provinciall Nationall or Catholick that have any such intrinsecall power as is in the Sunn this is not yet proved to our understanding We deny â—…ot the use of lesser and greater Synodâ—…
of Office and the power that a Pastour hath over others being by the election of those that chose him their Officer who thereby become his proper flocke hence he hath no power as an Officer over those of an other flock unlesse he should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That such an officer may put forth acts of his office towards those that are not of his proper flock E. g. A Minister ex officio as a Pastor not barely as a gifted man only may preach for the gathering in of those that are out of the Church as well as for the edificaon of those that are within Ephe. 4.11 12. and yet these are not his proper flock it is the office of every Pastour to preach the Gospel the meanes of converting and therefore not onely to intend but to attend the conversion of men especially in preaching to his owne Congregation for Christ hath sheep which are his flock to bee gathered into his fold which are not the Ministers proper flock and the Pastour is the Minister of Christ as well as the Pastour of his owne flock and therefore he is to intend their gathering in as well as the good of his owne flock Againe as he hath the Keys of Office by preaching the Gospel to open the Kingdome of heaven to beleevers so also he may ex officio shut it against impenitent sinners and unbeleevers that reject his Doctrine Matth. 16.19 Matth. 10.14 Jer. 1.10 and yet these are not of his proper flocke Againe a Pastour may administer the Seales which is an act of Office to members of other Churches in his his owne Congregation if they desire it who yet are not his proper Flocke Lastly a Deacon of one Church may performe an act of his Office occasionally to those out of the Church or the poore of another Church yet be no Officer or Deacon of the other Church and so 't is here To illustrate this A Captaine of a Band of Souldiers is an Officer onely over his owne Band but it 's an act of his Office to subdue enemies and to bring in those that submit A Steward is an officer over his Masters family not over others yet it 's an act of his Office to provide for the intertainment of Strangers that come to his Lords table Thus far it is cleare But now whether a Minister may administer the Seales in another Congregation is not so evident yet wee will not deny but that occasionally being called thereunto by the desire of the Church hee may lawfully doe the same yet it 's no foundation of a stated Presbytery out of a particular Congregation for in all such acts the Church still keepes her power in her owne hands while the Minister hath no authority nor can put forth any act of his Ministery but at her desire and according to her owne necessity neither doth this make a Minister a Pastour of the universall Church for pastorall Office consists in taking charge of a people and having power of authority to exercise the same towards his Church But all that is said doth include neither of these nor doth it follow that because they may set up a Presbytery over themselves in the same Church that therefore they may combine set up a Presbytery of many Churches the first being their duty injoyned by Christ not the other for it is necessary for them to have such amongst them as may ordinarily feed teach watch over them and rule them the end of a Ministers Office but it 's not necessary so to submit to others who may finde worke enough to feed and rule their owne and therefore looke as it is not in the power of many Congregations to joyne together to set one Pastour over them successively to feed them for so they make a Pluralist and the Bramble the King of trees nor yet in their power to set up as in the first ambitious time a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with power over all singly but under all joyntly so neither is it in their power to set up many Pastours who by their plurality of votes may wholly drowne that power of their owne Nor lastly doth it follow that if they may desire the benefit and exercise of an others Office occasionally that they may or should doe it constantly no more then because they may desire sundry Ministers to preach amongst them every Sabbath for a time in the want of Officers that therefore they should content themselves to live altogether without any of their owne Now for application of these things to the assumption of our argument Although a Pastour in the sense explained may put forth acts of Office in another Congregation or to others in his owne Congregation yet will it hence follow that a Minister may administer Seales to such as are of no Congregation which is now the question Reply Now to remove those 2013 objections of Mr. Ball which onely reach the question in hand whereof the first is Reply the 8. When ordinary Elders in the Primitive Church were to labour the comming of the Infidels to God these being converted were to bee baptized of the Elders ordinarily in the Cities though the number might bee so great in they could not well meet in one Congregation nor bee subject to the same Pastour and therefore either the Pastours must Baptize them being no members or they must remaine without Baptisme till they grow into a body and choose Ministers to Baptize them which is contrary to all precedents in Scripture Answ There is a third way which is passed over that will ease the difficulty viz. the Pastours might baptize them unto their owne Congregations so long as the numbers did not exceed beyond edification and then dividing their numbers might make divers Churches of one and they call Pastours over them and so wee see Act. 2. they added 3000. and after more till they were scattered and when peace was restored Act. 9. the Churches were not onely edified but multiplied Verse 3. and so the consequence of your 9. Reply is also taken away Reply There is no precept or example in Scripture warrants the admitting of set members of one Congregation to the Seales in another more then the admitting of approved Christians that are not set members The Pastour is no more the Pastour of the one then of the other neither of them set members and both of them may bee members for the time being Answ Wee have before shewed in the first consideration that which warrants the dispensing of the Seales to confederating beleevers as the way of the Gospel and Rom. 16.1 wee have a plaine example of orderly receiving the members of one Church to Communion in an other being recommended thereunto by the Apostles wee have not the like for any not in Church order at all and though there be a parity in respect of particular relation with that Pastour and flock yet that is a disparity in regard of immediate right that the one have to the
communion with him as a true Minister of Jesus Christ in the Church he doth belong to as they may do with a member unjustly cast out but til that appeare unto them they cannot so esteem and honor him being orderly deposed but must at least suspend their judgment til the case be cleared Fourthly we answer clearely and plainely to the chiefe scope of the question If a Minister bee unjustly deposed or forsaken by his particular Church and he also withall renounce and forsake them so farre as all Office and relation betweene them cease then is hee no longer an Officer or Pastour in any Church of God whatsoever you will call it And the Reason is because a Ministers office in the Church is no indelible Character but consists in his relation to the flocke and if a Minister once ordained his relation ceasing his Office of a Minister Steward of the mysteries of God shall still remaine why should not a ruling Elder or Deacon remaine an Elder or Deacon in the Church as well all are Officers Ordained of Christ alike given to his Church Officers chosen and Ordained by laying on of â—…ands alike but weâ—… suppose you will not say a Deacon In such a case should remaine a Deacon in the Catholique Church therefore not a Minister Secondly wee shall now consider what is here said and first this language of a Minister in the usuall Church as a particular Church hath union with and is a part of the universall it is an unusuall expression to us and to the Scripture phrase and therefore beare with us if wee fall short of your meaning the usuall Church in England hath beene either the Arch-Deacons Church in the Deanaâ—…ies or Diocesan in the Bishoprick or Provinciall or Nationall but wee hope that there is no such intended here yet to all this and the jurisdiction thereof particular Churches have been subject as parts there But if by usuall Church you meane a Classical Provinciall or Nationall Church wee must intreat better grounds for any of these and therefore wee must confesse our minde and meaning is not so that wee looke at a Minister of a particular Church in any such relation to the usuall and intermediate Church betweene it and the Catholique The second sense therefore we owne and acknowledge as before But whether this be contrary to the judgement and practise of the universall Church wee know not because it is hard for us know what the universall Church judgeth except we could heare it speake or see its practise if the onely head Prophet and Shepherd of the Church Jesus Christ be fit to declare her judgement we will be tryed thereby who we know hath set Elders in every particular Church Act. 14.23 to watch over their particular flock Act. 20.28 but not over any other Church that wee can finde Neither doth this destroy the unity or Communion of the Catholique Church nor of particular Churches one with another as is said for Churches may enjoy brotherly Communion one with another without such stated formes under the power and authority of one another as hath been shewed before Reply For if he be not a Minister to other Churches then are not the Churches of God one nor the Communion which they have together on nor the Ministers one non the flocke which they feed one Answ In what sense is intended to have the Ministers one and flocke one we doe not see If you meane one by one visible Government over the Catholique Church wherein there is a subordination of Churches and Ministers you must at last rise to Oecomenicall Pastor or Councell that must be the supreme which can scarce ever be had If you meane an unity by brotherly Communion in officeâ—… of love and mutuall helpefulnesse of Churches and Ministers without usurpation such an unity and Community is not destroyed and the argument doth not follow Cannot many distinct societies of Townes or Corporations make up one County except the Major or Constable in one Towne be a Major or Constable in others also By this Reason the Deacon of one Church is the Deacon of all or else the unity is destroyed Reply If the Pastor derive all his authority from the Church when the Church hath set him aside what right hath he to administer among that people Answ True but we say he derives all his authority from Christ by the Church indeed applying that office to him to which the authority is annexed by the institution of Christ hence being the Minister of Christ unto them if they without Christ depose him they hinder the exercise of his Office but his right remaines Reply As they give right to an unworthy man to minister amongst them if they cal him unjustly so they take right from the worthy if they unjustly depose him Answ We grant there is a parity in foro externo but as in the call his outward cal consists in the election of the calling and the acceptation of the called to compleat his power of administration Now this by Christ in his Church may be destroyed in a â—…ust censure without his consent but cannot unjustly be wrung from him without his consent therefore he may hold his right till either hee be justly deposed or willingly relinquish the same upon their injurious interruption of the use of his right Reply And whereas you say the Minister is for the Ministery and the Office for the execution and so the Pastor and the flocke are relatives and therefore if their election gave him authority among them to feed their câ—…sting him off hath stripped him of the same power they gave him Answ Wee grant it is so yet the execution may bee unjustly hindred though the right and Office remaine But we may well retort this argument upon the Minister of the usuall or Catholicke Church Thus if the Minister bee for the Ministery and the Office for the execution and so the Pastor and flock be relatives then hee that may justly for ever be hindred of all execution of the Ministery and hath no power to censure his flock or cannot so much as justly approve and admonish them for the same surely hee hath a poore Office and Ministery but such a Minister that hath no particular Congregation that is his flock under his charge may justly be excluded out of all Churches and cannot censure or reprove his Catholique or usuall Church for the same therefore he is indeed no Minister and and hath no Office in the Church of God â—…HAP XVII Position 8. THat one Minister cannot performe any Ministeriall act in another Congregation Reply The Preaching of the Word and publique Prayer in the Congregation meet together solemnely to worship God c. are properly Ministeriall c. Answ Concerning our true sense and meaning in our answer to this Position wee have spoken in the second consideration of the second and third Positions to which wee referre the Reader onely here wee must ingenuously confesse that our expression That a Minister exercising in another Church doth it not by vertue of any calling but onely by his gifts is not so cleare but may occasion stumbling yet the the next words following doe fully expresse our mindes viz. that he doth not put forth such a Ministeriall act of authority and power in dispensing of Gods Ordinances as a Minister doth performe to that Church whereunto hee is called to be a Minister for so hee doth not performe any Ministeriall act with that authority hee doth to his owne which further cleares up our expression in the second consideration viz. that he is a Pastor of none but his proper flocke although some acts of his Office may extend beyond his owne flocke as we have shewed before and therefore in this sense we may still conclude that if the question be put to any Minister so exercising in another church which was once put to our Saviour By what authority dost thou these things let him study how to give an answer for wee have not yet learned it from this Reply We confesse there are some godly learned servants of Christ who possibly may bee otherwise minded and thinke that a Minister preaching in another Congregation doth it onely as a gifted man as the Refuter of Doctor Downam with others in former times of Reformation beleeved also But we desire that if any difference appeare herein it may bee no prejudice to the same cause for substance wee maintaine if by sundry lines wee all meet at last in the same point FINIS Vid Pet. Mart. Loc. Com. de Excom Brins Watch part 3. capâ—… 10. Jun. lib. 1. paral 6. G. Apol. cap. 7. Q. 2. Ibid. p. 138. Peter Martyr in 1 Kings 12. verse 31. Pet. Mart. Com. Loc. de Idol in praeâ—… l. 1. Iohn 2.15 16. Conc. Miliv Can. 12. Tertull. Apol. cap. 30. Vid. Chemnit Ex. de Innoc. Sanctorum Vid. Birth of Heresies out of Elasopolitans Comment Pet. Mart. loc â—…om de Idol Whit. de Eccle. 1 Cor. 15.47 Vid. Brightm An. in Loc. Cypr. lib. 3. Epist 13. Cypr. lib. 4. Epist 7. * Right of Presbyt pag. 482. Page 22. Page 68. Tertul. lib. 4. Com. Mar. * Calvin Epist 332. Chamier de Euchar cap. 13. Reply To the second Consideration of the Answer Pet Mart. de Excom Loc. Com. * Officiall Lib. 1. cap. 6.7 Rev. 2.2 and 3.9 Acts 2 38.8 â—…7 19 17 18 â—… Cham de Bap. lib. 5. cap. 1â—…
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
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
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
one If testimonies were needfull we might produce Zanchi Zwinglius Parker Baines and others who are fully with us in this doctrine of a particular church yea Dr. Downam himself confesseth that the most of the churches in the time of the Apostle Paul did not exceed the proportion of a populous congregation and this confession puts us in minde of a witty passage of his Refuter or his Epistoler who against the Bishops maintains the doctrine of congregationall churches with us with whose expressions for the recreation of our selves and the Reader we will conclude The Papist saith he he tels us just as the Organs goe at Rome that the extent of a Bishops jurisdiction is not limited but by the Popes appointment his power of it self indifferently reaching over all the world Our Prelatists would perswade us to the tune of Canterbury that neither church nor Bishop hath his bounds determined by the Pope nor yet by Christ in the Scriptures but left to the pleasure of Princes to be cast into one mould with the Civill State Now the plain Christian finding nothing but humane uncertainties in either of these devises he contenteth himself with plain song and knowing that Christ hath appointed Christians to gather themselves into such Societies as may assemble themselves together for the worship of God and that unto such he hath given their peculiar Pastors he I say in his simplicity calleth these Assemblies the Churches of Christ and these Pastors his Bishops Thus much concerning the nature of a particular church and that it is instituted in the Gospel Now in the second place wee are to shew how church government and Ordinances are given to it as to the proper subject of the same Where we shall propound these Theses for explication of our selves First Though Pastourship considered as an office in relation to a people to feed them authoritatively be one of these Ordinances given to a particular church Yet Christ hath given it for the gathering in of his elect unto the church and therfore wee grant some acts of the Ministery viz. the preaching of the Word is to be extended beyond the bounds of the church Secondly Seales and other Priviledges although de jure and remotely they belong to the catholique church or the number of beleevers yet de facto and nextly they belong properly to this Subject which wee speake of as wee hope to make good Thirdly They are not so appropriated to such congregations onely as to exclude the members of those congregations which are under the government of a common Presbytery or other formes of government for wee have a brotherly esteeme of such congregations notwithstanding that tertium quoddam separabile of government as Mr. Baines cals it being a thing that commeth to a church now constituted and may be absent the church remaining a Church Fourthly although it be said by some Divines that as faith is the internall form of the church so profession of faith is the outward form and that therefore bare profession of faith makes a member of the visible church yet this must be understood according to the interpretations of some of them who so speak for there is a double profession of faith Personall which is acted severally by particular persons and common which is acted conjointly in and with a Society The first makes a man of the catholick number of visible Saints and so fit matter for politicall church-society the other makes a man of the politicall church formally and compleatly and in this latter sense profession of faith is the externall form of a visible church but not in the other Now that in and to this subject so professing the seals and other ordinances belong may be proved thus Argument 1 First the seals and other Church-ordinances must either belong to the Catholick church as such or to the particular Church but these cannot belong to the Catholick in actuall dispensation whereof we now speak Ergo. For that Church which is uncapable of actuall dispensation of seales censures c. is uncapable of the participation thereof in an orderly and ordinary way But the Catholick number of visible beleevers as Catholick and out of particular Societies are not capable of dispensing the same Ergo. The Proposition is evident for it cannot be shewed that any Church in the New Testament was ever capable of participating in seals that was not capable of dispensing them at least not having a next power to elect Officers to do it The Assumption is evident from what hath been proved that it is no politicall Body the sole subject of Church administrations neither in the whole nor in the parts as existing out of Congregations Argument 2 If the members of the Catholick church be bound to joyn into particular Societies that they may partake of seals c. then the seals are not to be administred immediatly to them for then they should have the end without the means But they are bound to joyn in such Societies for that end for otherwise there is no necessity of erecting any particular Churches in the world and so all the glory of Christ in this respect should be laid in the dust and these particular temples destroyed and thus a door of liberty is opened to many to live loosely without the care and watch and communion of any particular Church in the world Argument 3 If the seals are to be administred immediately to beleevers or professing beleevers as such then they may be administred privately to any one where-ever he be found but that were very irregular and against the common doctrine of Protestant Divines who give large testimony against private Baptism or of the Lords-supper neither doe we see any weight in the arguments of the Papists or Anabaptists alledged for the contrary Argument 4 Lest we seem to stand alone in this controversies let the arguments produced by Didoclavius and him that writes concerning Perth Assembly against private Baptisms be considered and it will be found that most of them doe strongly conclude against administration thereof to any but Church-members Argument 5 The learned Author Mr. Ball in this his dispute against our Conclusion yet in his Discourse let fall sundry things that confirm it as when he describes the Catholick Church to be the Society of men professing the faith of Christ divided into many particular Churches Whence we argue if the Catholick church existeth onely in these particular Churches the seales must onely be given to them and the members thereof also That Baptism is a solemn admission into the Church of Christ and must of necessity be administred in a particular Society Whence three things will follow First that Baptism sometimes administred privately by the Apostles is not an ordinary pattern Secondly that Baptism is not to be administred to beleevers as such immediatly if of necessity it must be administred in a particular Society Thirdly joyning to some particular Society being an Ordinance of God of so great
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
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
We deny the consequences for when they grew to so great a number they might fall into more Congregationall Churches and so no other form arise from the multitude but we suppose you mean of such a multitude as is called a Church and therefore to answer to your Assumption we deny that any such multitude of beleevers as is here called a Church were so great as could not meet to edification And first concerning Samaria Reply That there was a Church gathered in Samaria will not be denyed for they received the Word and were baptized but that the Church in that City was onely a Congregationall Assembly is more then can probably be concluded Answ We grant a Church or Churches were gathered in Samaria and we accept your reason as good because they received the Word and were baptized whâ—…e by the way you grant what we pleaded for before That the Apostles gathered Churches when they baptized them but that there was but one Congregationall Assembly lyes not in 〈…〉 prove untill you prove that all the beleevers were called a Church or one Church which doth not appear in the whole story 〈…〉 nor any other where that we can finde and it is very probable that as Philip converted and baptized so great a multitude at severall times and gathered them into the Church or Churches as he baptized them so he might gather severall Churches as well as one seeing that none doubt but that Congregationall Churches 〈◊〉 an ordinance of Christ what ever men contend for beside And therefore be the number of beleevers in Samaria as great as you would have it it proves nothing Reply The Church at Jerusalem was one and distinct yet encreased to 3000 then to 5000 c. Answ Be it so the increase was very great yet so long as they are called one distinct Church it was one Congregation viz. untill they scattering by the persecution about Stephen Acts. 7.8 which is evident by these two arguments First Acts 2.41 c. where we see the 3000 added to the 120. they have their communion together described 1 In regard of their spirituall communion to be in the Apostles doctrine fellowship breaking of bread and Prayer verse 42. Secondly in regard of their outward communion in the good things of this life they had all things common and sold their possessions c. verse 44 45 Now the manner of both parts of this communion in respect of time and place is described verse 46. viz. in their spirituall duties They continued daily with one accord in the Temple And secondly in respect of their outward communion in their States They eat their meat from house to house this latter requiring many tables and many houses to provide for them so that although in their outward communion it was in private houses yet their spirituall communion it was with one accord in one place viz. the Temple where they had room enough being the place erected for a Nationall Church and having favour with all the people were not interrupted therein by any persecution We need not step out of our way to reply to all that is said against this reason It is enough for us to note that they daily with one accord 〈◊〉 and that in the Temple which is not ansâ—…ered by any 〈…〉 2 This appeareth Acts â—… 1 5. where it is evident the election of Deacoâ—â— was before and by the multitude verse 1. by the whole multitude verse 5. and this was the last Church-meeting and Church act we read of before their scattering neither can â—…t appear that the Jews and â—…recians whose Widows murmured were two distinct Congregations but the contrary is evident in that the Deacons were chosen al by the whole and for the whole not distinctly so many for this and so many for that Church as it was needful if they were two Churches These proofe being so clear the inconveniences objected are of no force and sufficiently answered by many examples of as great Assemblies meeting ordinarily to edification as beside the Auditory of Chrysostome cited by others the Assemblies of Stepney in London Yarmouth in Norfolk and others in our experience Beza a man not loving to hyperbolize saith that being in Paris there met at a Sermon 24000. And of a Synodall Assembly that they received the Lords supper no lesse then 10000. Beza Epist. 65. Reply Without question the number of beleevers at Antioch was not small of which it is expresly said That a great number beleeved and that a great multitude were added to the Lord by the preaching of Barnabas c. and therefore we may think the Church rose to such aâ—… bignesse as could not well assemble in one Congregation Acts 11.21 14.27 Answ 1 In that place Acts 11.21 the great number that beleeved was the fruit of all the scattered Christians at Phenice Cyprus and Antioch for the hand of the Lord was with them all and their whole successe is summed up together nothing said before of the other places 2 Though Paul and Barnabas taught much people yet it proveth not that this much people were converted to the Church 3 Though much people were added to the Lord yet doth it follow they were more then could meet in one Congregation and if first Disciples were there called Christians must it needs be for their number and not rather for eminent likeness to Christ with other specialities of providence 4 It is expresly said the Church was gathered together Acts 14.27 which is not meant of the Elders onely as if they onely could meet for Chap. 15.30 They gathered the multitude together so that it was noâ—… 〈…〉 but 〈…〉 to gâ—…ther in 〈◊〉 place Reply The number of beleevers was great at Ephesus where Paul preached two years all that dwelt 〈…〉 heard 〈…〉 and effectuall ways open 〈…〉 the 〈…〉 of Diâ—…na her Temple were in danger to be seâ—… aâ—…â—…ought 〈◊〉 those 〈…〉 burnt their books openly which could not 〈…〉 great danger of the Church unlesse a great part of the City had 〈◊〉 Acts 19.10 19 27. Answ 1 Be it so that many were converted and the Word grâ—…w mightily this proves not thâ—â— all who heard Paul were of the Church of Ephesus for then all 〈◊〉 should be of that Church Acts 19.10 who did hear the Word 〈◊〉 Jewe and Gentiles As for the danger of the Shrines and Diana's Temple to be set at nought a little spark might â—…indle such fears and raise such out-cryes in the covetous Craftsmen by whom the whole City was see in a superstitious 〈◊〉 our own experience may teach how soon a prophane people will cry our against a faithfull Minister before he hath converted ten 〈◊〉 in a City 2 That they could not burn their books openly without danger to the Churches except a great part of the City beleeved seems a strange reason as if beleevers 〈◊〉 not professe openly except they had a great number to maintain them with club-law open profession in those times
even amongst a few was not wont to be daunted with the grim looks of persecution 3 And lastly we grant Ephesus might be a numerous Church yet neither there noâ—… any thing that is said from Rev. 2.7 Hear what the Spirit 〈…〉 can perswade us that it was any more then one Congregation for that argues no more that Ephesus was a compound of many Churches then that it was compounded with all the other six Churches of Asia yea the Churches of all the world for what the Spirit speaketh to one Church is spoken for the use of all Reply It is not essentiall to the Church to 〈◊〉 together in one place ordinarily noâ—… is the Society broken off by persecutionâ—… when 〈…〉 together in one place be interrupted Answ It is true one Church or Society by persecution or otherwise may meet in severall companies neither doe we say that place or meeting in one place is properly essentiall to the Church yet iâ—… to necessary both 〈…〉 to â—…e able at least so to doe for though it be not necessary to 〈…〉 of the Society thus to meet together yet it is necessary to the communion thereof in all Ordinances It is not necessary to the unity of a Classicall Presbytery to meet ordinarily in one place but unto the communion thereof it is necessary When the Papists to maintain their private Masses say That place is but accidentall to the ordinance And that Christians are not bound to the circumstance of place as Hâ—…rdin objects any more then to observe dayes monethâ—… times condemned as beggerly Elements by the Apostle Gal. 4. As also that all the faithfull are united together by the Sacraments though they meet not in the same place as the Ancients â—…o tell How doth learned Chamity answer them he tels them That although this or that particular place is not necessary yet a place indefinitely taken is â—… And that the Sacrament is restrained to be administred in a place because it cannot be administred but conventu fidelium and this conventus must be in some place And he adds That although all the faithfull have communion in the Sacrament though they meet not in one and the same place yet this he saith is to be understood of spirituall not sacramentall communion Nunquam â—…rim auditum qui Hierosolymis erant sacramentaliter communicasse cum iis qui Alexandrie and therefore he thought communion in one place together necessary to Church-communion as wee doe Reply Seventhly Seeing then both the seals in ordinary and extraordinary dispensation c. Answ This with that which follows being but a recapitulation of the severall Replies made we shall leave it to the judicious having well observed our answer to embrace or reject the Conclusion CHAP. VII Consid 2. THe Preposition is granted That the dispensation of the Sacraments both ordinary and extraordinary is limited to the Ministery but in that you alledge for confirmation some things may be noted 1 The first institution of Baptism is not contained in that passage but confirmed for the seals were instituted before his death c. Answ The Proposition being granted and the proof Mat. 28.19 being we doubt not pertinent in the Authors own judgment as well as ours Brotherly love might easily have passed over greater mistakes then the answer seems to have fallen into for by First institution here we meant no more then that it is the ordinance of Christ himself instituted in that first time of all Divine ordinances We were not so ignorant to think there was no use and so no institution of Baptism before the death of Christ and therefore this confutation might have been spared Reply Secondly We see not how you can apply that Text Matth. 28 19. to preaching by Office which by your exposition is a dispensing of a fit portion to every one of the houshold and it is plain the Apostles were sent to preach to every creature c. Answ As if that commission Matth. 28. did not authorize them also and require them to dispense fit portions to the Churches did not the care of all the Churches lye on the Apostle 2 Cor. 11.28 so also 1 Cor. 7.17 were not Apostles given to the Church for the edifying of the body of Christ c. as well as other Officers Ephes 4.11 12. 1 Cor. 12.28 and therefore this note also might well have been spared Reply Thirdly If under the power of the Keys you comprehend preaching by Office dispensing seals c. we deny the power of the Keys to belong to the Church or community of the faithfull in those passages which speak of this power the execution of this authority is given to them to whom the authority is committed Answ This of the power of the Keys and the execution thereof was onely in the Answer touched by the way to prevent the objection of some 1 It is well known that it is no new opinion to hold that the Church is the first subject of the Keys and to alledge Matth. 16. 18. for the same and therefore might as well have been set in the margent many ancient Divines and our own Modern as Fulke Whittaker Baine Parker and others as Robinson if there were not a desire to possesse people with that conceit that we goe in new ways with the Separatists alone 2 We distinguish between power and authority there is a power right or priviledge as Joh. 1.12 which is not authority properly so called the first is in the whole Church by which they have right to choose Officers Acts 6. 14. receiving members c. Authority properly so called we ascribe onely to the Officers under Christ to rule and govern whom the Church must obey Now we grant that where authority is given there power to exercise it is given also as Mat. 28. Joh. 20. c. it is given to the Apostles and Ministers and so where power is given to the Church there power to exercise the same orderly is given also as Mat. 18. 1 Cor. 5. 2 Cor. 2.10 Reply If the power of the Keys be given to the Church the Apostles themselves must derive their authority immediately from the Church and not from Christ for the power must be derived from them unto whom it was given c. Answ We deny your consequence for the Lord may give power to his Church in all ordinary cases and yet reserve to himself that prerogative to doe what he please immediately without the Church as is cleare that in this case he hath first calling his twelve Apostles Mat. 10. before he instituted the Church of the New Testament after he was pleased to use the Ministery of the Church Acts 1. to choose two and take one of them immediately by a lot and when Paul was called he appeared to him immediatly and called him both to the faith and to his Apostleship whereby it is clear that their call is a reserved case Reply If Ministers dispense the seals as the stewards of
of right and libertie to chuse their pastour may desire the seales of him that is set over them Answ This objection is easie for in desiring seales of him and submitting themselves to his ministry they doe now choose him however at first they opposed his comming But what is this to what ought to bee in an orderly way whereof wee speake Reply These propositions being allowed for currant a nation or people plunged into Idolatry or Infidelity or otherwise dischurched cannot by ordinary meanes recover into a Church estate wherein they may lawfully and according to Gods appointment desire or expect that the seales of the Covenant shall bee dispensed unto them Answ What should hinder if the whole nation would bee willing to recover themselves into Churches Indeed that is rare to be found that all will affect such a recovery But wee see nothing to hinder but all the nation or so many as are awakened in conscience to bewaile their Apostasie and lament after the Lord having especially the countenance of the supreme magistrate severall companies of Christians may combine in Churches so as may best suite with their edification chuse officers and injoy ordinances Nay è contra our Protestant Divines as Chemnitius Field Brentius Whitacher Luther c. make peoples power of electing their Ministers the best foundation of a peoples recovery of a true Ministry and Church estate Reply The fifth Proposition riseth beyond measure That no Christian can expect by the appointment of God to partake in the seales till hee have joyned himselfe in Church fellowship and in the call of the Minister We conceive you will not say that children and women have to doe in the call of the Minister If some part of the Church doe not consent in the call of the Minister must they separate from the ordinances of worship c. Answ The seeming sâ—…ellings of this proposition will easily full and run within bankes and bounds if it bee received in its true sense and meaning for by the call of a Minister must needs bee understood the voluntary subjection of all Church members to his ministery after hee is called as well as the act of election of him at the first It were irrationall to thinke a Minister is to bee chosen over againe whensoever a member is added to the Church And therefore ouâ—… meaning was not hard to conceive and being so taken women choose their Minister that is voluntarily submit to him being chosen Children are subjected to him by their parents the dissenting part of the Church ought to submit to him being chosen and â—…oe if they remaine under his Ministry and so in all other cases you have or can suppose Reply Here you say people must joyne in the call of a Minister before they can lawfully desire and bee admitted to the seales And another hath zealously affirmed It is a presumptuous sinne to choose an Officer not trayned up and tryed in debaâ—…ing disâ—…ssâ—…g câ—…ying and contriving Church affaires in adâ—…nishing â—…châ—…ting comforting c. Lâ—…y these together and consider how long many a poore soule converted to the faith must bee compelled to wâ—…t Gods ordinances Answ First it doth not answer the profession in the latter thus to joyne us with Mr. Robinson as another of the same sort as it were For such as would gladly receive euery Syllable from us that may dislodge their thoughts of separation in us as wee are heartily desired to bee assured of in the Epistle to this Reply wee thinke would not so closely joyne us with such they would have us parted from and upon so little occasion and to so little purpose unlesse they doe much forget themselves Secondly when it cannot be denied but the choyse of Ministers is in the Church and that hands should not rashly bee laid on any man and Deacons the lowest Office should bee proved and then Minister being found blamelesse yea hee saith and these also proved implying that others also should bee so 1 Tim. 3.10 what fault can be found with the substance of what either Robinson or our selves speake if our meaning and his were but charitably taken If his word bee over-zealous to say it is a presumpteous sin to doe otherwise what is that to us Thirdly For the delay of ordinances if both these be taken together in most cases it need not be long where God affordeth able and fit men for office But if some delay be and that a church want some ordinances and cannot by Communion with other Churches injoy them which is rare yet is it not better to forbeare some ordinances a while then miscarry in so great a worke as the choise of officers upon which the following comfort and good of the Church doth so much depend The demand following is answered in this whole discourse and wee hope not with words but proofes especially in our answer to the Reply in the first consideration neither doe wee see any such difficulty but that such Christians may as easily joyne to such a Church for a time as desire to injoy the ordinances and to sit loose from it for transient members we disallow not Reply If the propositions may stand for good I feare we shal scarce finde that ever in ordinary way the Sacraments were lawfully dispensed or received in the Christian Churches of God since the first foundation of them Answ If they bee taken in their true meaning and in that latitude we intend them wee see no such cause of scruple For what is more ordinary in all true Churches then for people first to chuse their Ministers then to receive the seals at their hands and this hath beene the way of Ancient reformers It is true many corruptions have beene in many true Churches and usurpations upon the right of the people in choosing their Ministers as also in administrations of the Ordinances themselves and oft in the Constitution of Churches But as the maintaining of any truth of God against those corruptions in worship c. doth not argue an unlawfulnesse of the ordinances in such Churches but convinceth onely the corrupt administration of them So in this case to assert the right way of Churches electing officers and injoying Ordinances against all corruptions that have beene in the Churches doth not make a nullity of the Ordinances themselves We may say that this conclusion riseth beyond measure The objections being thus answered we leave the conclusion to the judgement of the indifferent Reader CHAP. XII Reply TO the seventh consideration The practise of the Church of Strangers in London recorded by John Alasco is far differing from your judgment and practise in the point in question For first say they Paul testifieth that the Church it self without exception of any member of it is cleane or holy by the administration of baptisme Answ We confesse the same Reply Secondly They hold Communion with the Church of England as one with theirs Answ The Church of England they call it not but the
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
affirming that the authoritative power of transacting all things in the Church is in the hands of the Officers who minister in the name and power of Christ to and over the Church and that the power or liberty of the community whereby they may and ought to concurre with their guides so long as they rule in the Lord is to bee carried in a way of obedience unto them and when upon just cause they dissent from them still they are to walke respectfully towards them and wee thinke our brethren are not ignorant that Mr. Parker and Fenner give as much to the Church in excommunication as wee have pleaded for in any of our publique writings But seeing wee are led by this learned author from this particular question about excommunication to that beaten controversie of the power of the Keyes in generall and the first subject thereof whereby wee are forced to declare our selves herein wee shall briefly gleane up some few of our scattered apprehensions as may most concerne the case in hand 1 There are divers Keyes that are diversly distributed to severall subjects in respect of execution and therefore the question should have beene first stated and what Keyes are denied to the people and appropriated to the Officers And what to some Officers not to others should have been shewed before Arguments were pressed 2 The state of the Church being mixed of an Aristocracy to which belongs Office and Democracy to which belongs priviledge hence the power of the Keyes is twofold 1 Officiall power 2 Fraternall The first belonging to the guides of the Church the other to the fraternity thereof 3 The officiall power of the Keyes is a power to act with authority in the name of Christ ministerially in opening and shutting binding and loosing c. In respect of which Office while the Minister acts according to the will of Christ he is over the Church in things properly Ecclesiasticall because hee stands in the roome of Christ and comes in his name and hence in those Church acts which are not proper to him but common in some cases to the fraternitie yet there is an office-authority upon them which is not upon the like acts materially done by others Ex. gr Any brother may and ought to exhort and rebuke 1 Thes 5.14 Heb. 3.13 Titus a Minister is exhorted to doe the same thing but with all authority Titus 2.15 some able and gifted though not in Office may occasionally open and apply the word yet not with an Office-authority But an Officer preacheth as an Ambassadour of Christ 2 Cor. 5. So also in admission of members and casting out of offenders wherein though the fraternity have a power whether in consenting or otherwise yet they act obedientially in respect of their guides declaring the rule going before them in example and commanding them if need bee in the name of Christ to doe his pleasure But the Officers act in these things in the name and authority of him in whose roome they stand and hence wee thinke that in case the fraternity without Officers should cast out any yet it is not altogether the same with that which may bee dispensed by the Officers thereof it being no officiall act 2 Fraternall power in publike Church acts is a joynt power of liberty or priviledge in some sense in some cases to open shut which power is not in any one or more severally but in the whole joyntly for as they have power to combine and so to receive others into the communion so by like reason to shut out offenders from their communion but thus they do fraternally not officially and as they have such a power of election of Officers to them so they have also a fraternall power due order being attended to shut them out when there is just cause according to the common received rule Cujus est instituere ejusdem est destituere These things which might bee more fully explained and confirmed wee have onely briefly set downe both to wash off the blot of popular Government from the wayes of Christ as if all authority were taken from the Ministers or nothing left them but to dispense the seales and in all other things to â—…it meerely as a moderator in the Churches of Christ which wee utterly disclaime And also to make way for our more cleare answer to what is objected here in the Reply Wee grant therefore the first argument and the conclusion thereof thus farre that the officiall power of the Keys was not given to the whole multitude but onely there is given to them a power to choose Officers which Officers should execute the same Reply 2 If Christ gave this power to the community was it from the beginning of the Church or tooke it effect after the Church was planted Not the first for then the Apostles themselves should derive their power from the community which they did not Answ This reason is answered before so farre as concernes our tenent in the second consideration where it is alledged to which wee referre the Reader neither doe wee say the officiall power is so given to the community but such things as are here added wee shall consider so farre as concernes us Reply The Apostles and other Governours were given of Christ to the Church as for their end and all their authority was given unto them for the Church as for the whole but the authority it selfe was immediatly derived from Christ and is not in the Church as the immediate subject nor derived from the Church but from Christ the King of the Church The authority of Governour is given of Christ for a gift to the Church but not a gift absolute That it may reside in the power of the whole Church but for a conditionall gift communicated to the Governours for the good of the whole Parker pol. lib. 3. cap. 8. Answ 1 Concerning the power of the Apostles and extraordinary Officers wee now dispute not it was answered before and for the authority of other Officers wee doe not affirme that it is derived from the Church but from Christ for the good of the Church but if the question bee of the application of an Office and the power of it to such and such persons in the Church wee would demand whether Christ doth this to such a Pastour and Teacher immediatly or mediatly if immediatly then their call is not in this different from Apostles which Paul expresly distinguisheth Gal. 1.1 Paul was an Apostle not of man nor by man but of God and by Jesus Christ false Teachers are of man and by man True Pastors as Thomas Iohn c. are of God by man and if Christ communicate this Office and the authority annexed unto it mediatly by man not immediatly the question is Who is the subject of this power to call and so to apply this office in the name of Christ to this or that person John Thomas c. Wee hold this fraternall ministeriall power under Christ
conclusion as for Mr. Robinson though wee doe not approve the sentence you cite out of him yet we doubt whether you doe not goe beyond his sense meaning but according to our sense of this position before layd downe neither this absurdity of Lordship over the Officers nor any others that are instanced in under this reason doe at all follow and they may bee as strongly urged against the Presbyteries Classes Synods Catholick Church or any subject of the Keyes that can be named And the objection viz. That God will have the Church choose Officers to execute the power committed to her is so answered in the same page as will serve us as well as you viz. God will have her elect Officers of his designment that is such as the rule directs her to choose to doe his worke according to that Power which hee hath given them and by his direction and then they are Gods servants and not the Churches and receive that charge and function immediatly from God and not from the people wee meane no otherwise then by that outward call instrumentally applying that Office unto them and in this sense wee close with you herein and indeed this power of electing Officers doth not ever include authority over them whom they chuse but rather willing subjection unto them and setting them up to rule as when a woman chooseth a husband she makes him her husband in a sort but withall her head and ruler so when a people choose a Major c. Answ Fourthly if the Power of the Keyes be given first and immediatly to the community of the faithfull what reason can bee alleadged why in defect of Officers the Church might not rule feed bind loose preach and administer Sacraments or if any faile in Office why shee might not supply that want by her power for the power of the Keys doth containe both authority and exercise power being given that it may bee exercised as it is vouchsafed but the Church cannot exercise these acts of rule Ergo. Answ The reason is because the Church hath not received some of the Keyes formally but onely vertually and as was said out of Parker not as a gift absolute but conditionall that it might bee communicated to the Officers Such power as the body of the Church hath received formally shee may and doth exercise as a power of choosing Officers a power of judging in censures 1 Cor. 5.12 and the like the power of preaching properly so called dispensing Sacraments c. being acts of authority the Church hath them onely vertually and therefore must choose Officers to whom Christ her Lord hath given authority in the Church A Corporation that by Patent from the King hath many Priviledges the power is given to the Body incorporated and so it is the first subject of it yet many acts cannot be put forth but by Officers duely chosen and so here Reply For these Reasons not to insist on any more wee judge the community of the faithfull not to bee the immediate receptacle of ecclesiasticall authority and so the Power of excommunication not to belong unto them Answ By this conclusion it appeares that how ever the author began professedly against us as Separatists in this point yet he followes the cause against Mr. Parker with whom hee seemes to be friends Secondly the power of excommunication may belong to the Church or community in respect of a fraternall power of judging though officiall authority bee not formally given to the Church but to the Officers Reply If consent of Churches bee asked in this point to omit others the Churches of Scotland speake fully and expresly for us in the second booke of Discip Cap. 1. The Church as it is taken for them that exercise spirituall functions in the Congregation of them that professe the truth hath a certaine power granted of God according to which it useth a proper jurisdiction c. Beza de Presb. pag. 60. Helv. Confess Cap. 18. Belgick c. Answ If consent of the learned godly and zealous reformers were asked a cloud of witnesses might bee produced that hold the Church the first subject of the Keyes as Fulke Whitaker Parker Peter Martyr Musculus and others besides many of the ancient Divines and Councells Gerson and the Parisian Divines well known to the learned concerning quotation of the Scottish discipline the first words lay so weake a foundation as leave the building ready to fall in these words The Church as it is taken for them that exercise spirituall functions hath a certaine power c. but where is the Church so taken not in all the New Testament that can be proved with any solid Reason notwithstanding all wrastling of men to find it out but generally for the company of the faithfull either the universall or particular Church and this sometime considered with her Officers and divers times as distinguished from them as Acts 14.23 and 20.13.28 Jam. 5.14 Revel 2.1.8.12 c. but never contra for the Officers distinguished from the Church or body of the Congregation and therefore if the Keyes be given to the Church and the plea of the power of the Keyes to be given immediatly to the Officers be in and under the name of the Church it will fall to the Church of the faithfull if the Scripture may judge indeed among the Papists and so the Prelates the Clergy have long got and held possession of the name of the Church but the testament of Christ will not beare this foundation but wee will not trouble the Reader farther about humane testimonies CHAP. XV. Position 6. THat none are to bee admitted Members but they must promise not to depart or remove unlesse the Congregation will give leave Reply It is one thing abruptly to breake away when and whither they please and forsake fellowship another thing not to depart or remove habitation unlesse the Congregation will give leave also it is one thing mutually to compound and agree not to depart from each other without consent and approbation and other to require a promise of all that be admitted into societie that they shall not depart without the Churches allowance if such a promise be required of all members to bee admitted wee cannot discerne upon what grounds your practise is warranted Answ Wee are still inforced to cleare our answer from mistakes for it seemes the answer left it doubtfull whether wee doe not hold the position affirmatively and in practise require such a promise as a part of our Church Covenant of all that are admitted and therefore to cleare the case more fully wee shall first minde the Reader with the true meaning of the answer and then adde what is needfull to take away the scruples and first the answer saith that wee judge it expedient and most according to rule that brethren should not forsake fellowship c. but in removalls approve themselves c. Now this is farre short of what the position affirmes for first that none
are to bee admitted without such a promise includes a necessity the answer speakes onely of expediency and agreeablenesse to rule not to breake off abruptly Secondly the Position affirmes the necessitie of a promise the answer speakes onely of the case in practise as in many cases besides for the watch of the Church reacheth to such particular acts of which wee make no promise expresse in the entrance Thirdly the Position speakes of the Churches leave the answer acknowledgeth onely that brethren removing should approve themselves to doe that which is lawfull and take counsell in such weighty affaires By all which it appeares that wee doe not owne this position in judgement nor practise and therefore in effect our answer doth deny the same and is negative Secondly if the words of the answer bee not full enough because wee see our brethren here runne upon it as a question if such a promise be required and Mr. Rutherford and others take it up as a confessed practise wee doe therefore clearely and plainely deny the position and affirme that wee doe not thinke that none are to bee admitted without such a promise neither is there any such practise in our admissions of members to require such a promise wee onely count such removalls especially of families an action amongst many others whereunto the watch of the Church doth extend to prevent sinne where there is any just ground of suspition thereof and to further the best good of such as are under our charge by counsell prayers c. If any Minister and people of old acquaintance and deare affection or any other Christians cleaving together in love have privatly resolved or agreed together not to part from each others in any Church it is the most that wee have taken knowledge of and wee thinke that hath beene very rare but for any such publick promise Covenant or Church oath as some straining things to the height have called it it is not nor hath been required or practised amongst us this being so there needs no grounds of that which wee practise not Reply First you exclude all such as bee not set members from the seales and yet hinder them from entrance into the Church society because they cannot promise continuance in the place they are resident in for the present here we desire to bee satisfied by the word of God by what you require it c. Answ First We deny not but divers may and doe forbeare to joyne because of their unsettlednesse in the place of their present abode Secondly It may bee in some cases some may be advised by the counsell of their private friends in a Church to forbeare till they be some way setled But that any are debarred from Communion when they desire it because they cannot promise continuance unlesse other just causes hinder it neither suites with our judgement nor practise and if any should practise other wayes wee doe not allow of the same and therefore it 's needlesse to give you reasons of what we practise not Reply Secondly It pertaines not to the whole Congregation to take notice or bee acquainted with or judge of every particular members removall may not a servant remove from his Master to another Congregation or a father bestow his childe in marriage to one of another Congregation but the whole Church must be called to counsell in the matters c. when Churches grow populous they must bee negligent or weary of such a taske and for the present to challenge so much authority over one another is usurpation c. Answ If our answer were but attended such apprehensions of our practise of calling the whole Church to counsell in every such case and all that followes might be spared For thus we say Wee judge it expedient c. That none forsake fellowship and abruptly breake off c. This doth not imply a necessity of calling the whole Church to counsell in every plaine and easie case many times and for the most part such removals are so plaine and free from suspition of abrupt breaking off or forsaking fellowship that there is no need of counsell as in case of servants marriages c. and therefore no trouble to the Church and in some removall of families also the case is cleare and openly carried in the knowledge of many of the Church none scruple it and therefore at the first demand of dismission or letters of recommendations the same are granted but in removall of some members and in the manner of the same there are such difficulties and dangers as neede the prayers and counsell of the Officers and whole Church as is confessed after nor doe wee say it pertaines to the whole Church to bee called to counsell and judge of every particular members removall for they may approve themselves to the consciences of all mediately by advising with some who may satisfie the rest if need be Reply Let it be shewed that ever by divine right this power was committed to the Church and we will confesse it expedient but till then wee thinke the Church over rigid and the members busie bodies c. Answ The rule of love whereby wee are bound to exhort admonish seeke the edification and good one of another and that not onely in generall as of all Christians but as members of so neere relation in one Church body who are bound to serve the Lord with one shoulder Zeph. 3. â—… and to uphold the worship of Christ therein as this doth reach to all the actions and wayes of one another so in a speciall manner to such an action as this iâ—… and we thinke this ground is sufficient to satisfie our practice as wee have declared which may wipe off the aspersion of being rigid or busie-bodies Reply In the multitude of counsellors is peace but over-many counsellors oft causeth distractions and different apprehensions breed delayes Answ Wee grant it may doe so neither doe wee bring all cases to publike counsell but the case may bee such as needs the publike counsell of all and as wee have a gracious promise of the presence of Christ in his Churches who is the counsellour so we confesse to his praise that we finde the judgment of a Church of Saints in matters orderly carryed and gathered up from the various gifts of wisedome grace and experience of many Christians when need is to be a blessed priviledge of Gods people to enjoy and sanctified oft to the great good of his Saints and being neglected and slighted hath been oft followed with sad events Reply The nature of your Church-Covenant inferreth not a necessity of bringing every such businesse to the Church for you binde your selves mutually to watch one over another c. but this essentially tyeth not any man to a perpetuall residence in one place for then even occasionall absence should be a breach of Covenant without consent of the Church Answ We grant our Church-Covenant neither requires every businesse to come to publike counsell nor perpetuall
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
being baptized are found upon carefull examination by the Minister before the other Church-Officers to have a competent measure of knowledge and ability to examine themselves and professe their willingnesse to submit themselves to all the Ordinances of Christ and are of approved conversation according to Christ the ignorant and scandalous are not to bee admitted nor those of another Congregation unlesse they have sufficient testimony or be very well knowne If it bee objected that some of these instances concerne unbaptized persons onely which is not our case Answ 1. Multitude of baptized persons in these dayes are as ignorant and prophane as some unbaptized and therefore as apt to pollute Gods Ordinances 2. Chamiers reason why unbaptized persons were to go under such strict examination holds good in our case 3. Such profession of faith was required by John and the Apostles of those that were Church members before Reply The Creed is honored by the Ancients with glorious titles as the rule of faith c. by which they understood that rule of faith given by Christ when hee was about to ascend and commanded his Disciples saying Goe teach al Nations In after times some Articles were added for explanation to meet with the heresies of those times but for substance the Church never required other acknowledgement c. Answ If you meane that which is called the Apostles Creed it is justly doubted whether it bee so ancient however the times which followed the Scripture patterns are both obscure to us and no infallible pattern yet many Churches used great strictnesse as is shewed in receiving and restoring fallen members and if afterward heresies gave just occasion to require further professions of the doctrine of faith and to add more articles for explanation why may not the Churches require a more explicate confession of the work of faith and repentance the formality and meere outside profession of so many Civilists Formalists and Atheists requiring the same Reply If you put man to declare that worke of grace God hath wrought in this or that way which perhaps is not determined by the word of grace at least not agreed upon amongst your selves wee beseech you to consider by what authority you doe it and upon what ground you stand Answ This is but upon a supposition if so c. which is contrary to our judgement and professed practise to limit the spirit of grace in the workings of it If any have so done as it may bee in the times of opinions prevailing among us wee doe not owne it but disapprove the same It is enough for us to see any have some way or by some meanes or other beene humbled for sinne brought home to Christ by faith or have any breathings of the Spirit of Christ with a life answerable to the Faith of Christ CHAP. XVI Position 7. That a Minister is so a Minister of a particular Congregation that if they dislike him or leave him unjustly hee ceaseth to be a Minister Reply The question is of Ministers unjustly forsaken or driven from the Church and your answer is for most part of Ministers set aside or deprived by their owne default wee never purposed to speake one word for an unworthy Minister whom Christ hath put out of Office and therefore your labour to prove that such justly rejected by the the Church are no longer Ministers might well have beene saved Answ The ground of this Position being about the Nature of a Ministers Office Whether it consist in his Office relation to the flocke of a particular Church the former part of our answer was not in vaine nor the grounds impertinent and wee accept your grant of it That a Minister justly rejected by his Church is no longer a Minister then wee inferre that there is no indelible character in the Office but that his Ministery stands in relation to a particular flocke not to the Catholike Church for then a particular Church could not dissolve his Office and therefore it will follow that if hee bee found worthy after upon repentance to bee called to another Church hee must bee new elected and ordained to his Office being no Minister upon his just deposing Reply But wee will examine your conclusions upon which you build the sentence which you passe against them first it is certaine c. Answ What is said to the first is spoken before and we will not repeat things in vaine Reply Secondly The power of feeding which the Minister hath is neither confined to one society onely nor nextly derived to him from Christ by the Church The Office and authority of a Pastour is immediately from Christ the deputation of the person which Christ hath designed is from the Church ministerially but neither vertually nor formally Answ These things about the call of a Minister by the Church were also spoken to before when wee spake of the power of the Keys and the first subject thereof and therefore the assertion being granted these things might well be spared but what we finde here more then in the other place we shall consider The power of the Church in electing her Officers is so cleare in the Scripture and so confessed a truth by the godly learned that it cannot bee denyed yet here seeme to be given so many restrictions in the case that they much abate and weaken this great and precious liberty and power given by the Lord. 1. That the power and Office of a Pastor is immediately from Christ by his institution is granted but the question is how this man comes to have this Office applyed to him if immediately then hee is in this an Apostle if mediately it is by the Church or else shew by whom 2. That the Church choose Ministerially and ought to choose whom Christ hath described in his word and fitted with gifts and so farre designed by Christ wee grant but what if there bee twenty such Which of them doth Christ designe but whom the Church freely choose and therefore that is no diminution of their power that they must choose ministerially and whom Christ so designes The case is alike in all other Ordinances dispensed Examination is immediately from Christ by his institution the person to be censured is designed or described by Christ a notorious or obstinate sinner the Church passe this sentence onely Ministerially and yet puts forth a great power of the Lord Jesus Christ in applying the sentence to this or that person and so here and therefore it is strange to us that any should say they depute this Officer neither vertually nor formally when as the act which they put forth which is the outward call of the Officer must needs come from a power formally in the Church to doe the same as well as when the Church or Officers censure an offender c. Answ Reply The consent of the people is requisite in the election of Pastors and Teachers we grant the direction of the Elders going before or along with them Acts 1.
nor of such Doctrinall power oâ—… the paâ—â—ern Acts 15. holdeth forth and which is all that Learned Mâ—… Rutherford conceives to belong to a generall Councell for thus he saith Verily I professe I cannot see whâ—â— power of jurisdiction tâ—… censure scandalls can be in a generall Councell there maâ—…ke some 〈◊〉 Doctrinall power in such a Câ—…uncell if such could be had and that is all And how a Nationall Provinciall or Classicall Synod being lesser parts of the whole can put forth such acts as the whole cannot do ipsi vidâ—…rint 'T is tâ—…ue a particular Church may formally cast out a scandalous member according to the rule Matth. 18. yet the argument from proportion will not hold in 〈◊〉 of the power of excommunication in greater assemblies against any particular Church offending though other means appointed by Christ we deny not for if excommunication casteth out an offender out of all Churches then such a particular Church cannot be excommunicated except it could be cast out of it self though it may be deprived of the communion of other Churches Lastly if it be no sin as is said but a crosse that the Catholick Church cannot meet to put forth its supposed intâ—…insecall power then let the particular Churches enjoy that power till the Catholick Church can meet a It seems to us very strange that the Lord Jesus should institute such a supreme power in a Catholick Body which aâ—… is said de jure should be till the comming of Christ and yet should be interrupted by the sin of man so many ages and which for ought appeares never orderly met to this day Objection 3 If all Pastors be Pastors of the Catholick Church then there is such a Catholick Church but all Pastors are Pastors of the Catholick Church Ergo. Answ If it be meant thus that they are Pastors of some particular part of the Church and in that respect in the whole and for the good of the whole the good of every part redoâ—…nding to the good of the whole yea if some Pastorall care also be intended towards other Churches and to fetch in such as are yet not of the Church we grant all this according to the meaning of that plâ—…ce 1 Cor. 12.28 formerly opened by us But if this Argument intend that they are Pastors of the Catholick Body as of One Politicall Church then we deny the Assumption upon this ground because a Pastorall Office consiâ—…ts properly iâ—… having a charge and power over those to whom he is a Pastor Act. 20. â—…8 but he hath no charge of the whole for if so he must give account to Christ of the whole neither hath he power over such a Catholick church being never chosen by it â—…or it subjecting to him If it be said such are made Pastors by Ordinaâ—…ion of the Presbyâ—â—â—â— not the election of the people who onely appropriate him to themselves who is a Pastor of the whole Church then he is either a Catholick Pastor that hath power to intâ—… 〈◊〉 in all Churches as the Apostles had which we think none will yeâ—…lâ—… them or else they are Pastors onely in name without power which is absurd Nor doth the similitude of a 〈◊〉 made Doctor of Physick at large by a Colledge of Physitians helpe in this case For it supposeth him to be made such â—… Doctor before he be elected by any people to exercise this faculty which applyâ—…d to this case of a Pastor â—…s having Ordination to make him a Pastor at large before election to thâ—â— or that people is utterly against all examples of Scriâ—â—ure 〈◊〉 Actâ—… 1. â—… 14 Objection 4 That whiâ—â— belongeth to a little part of a similar body and tâ—…lis belonge to a greater part much more and therefore if the immâ—…diâ—…te exercise of the Keys bâ—…long to a single congregation then much more to the whole and to 〈…〉 of the whole Answ 1 Such as say that the Catholick Church is a similar Body had need explicate theâ—…selves For to speak properly and strictly by this â—…ile every particular visible beleever being a part of the whole as a 〈…〉 must have nomen naturam totius and so every beleever is a Church or if they so divide this Catholick similar body as to make a particular Congrâ—…gation that can joyn in Gods ordiâ—…ancâ—â— the 〈◊〉 quod stâ—… then particular visible beleeverâ—… considered as existing out of these Congregations cannot be mâ—…mbers formally of the Catholick visible Church 2 We aâ—… knowledge the Catholick church considered as visible and invisâ—â—â—â— iâ—… one spirituall or mysticall body yet this Catholick body is under â—…o Catholick policy but onely in the severall parts of it 〈◊〉 hath been proved before and in this respect the Church which is spiritually one body is politicè many bodies so that the parts of this spirituall totum are not distinct bodies 〈…〉 for then every company of women are a Church body but 〈…〉 and hence though the Catholick church 〈…〉 body spiritually due cautions and interpretations observed yet it is not one similar Body politically and hence every society of beleevers is not a Church Hence though it be true that what belongs to a part of a similar body as a part belongeth much more to the whole and that therefore what belongs to a particular Church belongs much more to the whole It is true in this sense viz. what belongs to the part of the whole as spirituall and so participates the nature of the whole belongs much more to the whole because the whole is spirituall yet what belongs to the part as politicall doth not much more belong to the whole because the whole is not politicall Exempli gradiâ—… consider a particular Congregation as a number redeemed called to Christ 〈◊〉 to him this much more belongs to the whole and so if any priviledge belong to them as such much more to the whole Yeâ—… consider a Church as a combined Body so what belongs to this part belongs not to the whole For it belongs to the part to elect and enjoy constantly Pastors over it but this doth not belong to the whole as a totum The Catholick mysticall Church is indeed the prima materia out of which politicall Churches by their combination are formed but it is no first formed politicall similar Church whence every particular Church immediately participates of the nature of that whole having 〈…〉 tem talis materiae partem formâ—… Answ Objection 5 If there be Church communion between all Churches then there is one Catholick Church but there is Church communion of all Churches in hearing receiving Sacraments exhorting one another praying one for another c. Ergo. We deny the consequence for there may be a â—…raâ—â—â—nall Ecclesiasticall communion not onely internally but externally without such an union as makes one politicall combined Body such as here we dispute of as two or three Congregations may have communion together and yet not be one politicall body Twenty synagogues might have