but by the necessity of nature and invincible hinderances foreseen by Christ and intended by him And therfore as the Lord limiting his Church to one Nation united it into that form of a Nationall Church ordaining one place stated times and duties of Worship and one Government for the same so now the Lord neglecting all such things hath ordained a compleat administration of all his ordinances in particular Congregations and therefore if there be no other instituted visible Church but of a Congregation and Seals in their administration be given to the Church our first consideration will still hold firm But seeing in so vast a subject to say little is to say nothing and there is scarce any Truth in this wilie age but is almost disputed out of countenance and much darkned with humane evasions and seeing much depends upon this controversie it may be so most usefull before we come to the defence of our argument to take into consideration the nature and order of the visible Church of Christ Catholick and particular We are not ignorant of the knots and difficulties of this question which of late have so much exercised the minds of many Godly-learned And we think the notions of a Catholick Church as it is now held being but newly taken up amongst godly Reformers who formerly ran in another channell as is ingenuously confessed by some according to the truth this new-birth seems not yet so formed to its distinct proportions as time may bring it unto and it might make us afraid being the weakest of many to venture upon so diffuse and knotty a question when we look upon our own insufficiency to such a task and the Learned labors of such in this Point whom we reverence in the Lord yet when we consider of what great weight and moment the clearing up of this Truth would be unto the orderly proceedings of the great Work of Reformation in hand 2 How unavoydably it lyes in our way in this Work the Lord hath called us unto and that he sometimes doth vouchsafe to speak by weak ones that the praise may be his own in hope of his blessed guidance which we depend upon herein taking the light of his Word in our hands we shall rather as learners then otherwise venture to propound what is suggested to us herein Concerning which having digressed a while we shall return we hope with some advantage of clearer evidence to justifie the first argument of the Answer against what is said in the Reply CHAP. V. A digression tending to clear the state of that controversie concerning a Catholick visible Church in respect of the nature unity visibility and priority of the same THe world hath been long troubled with the equivocation of the word Church and therefore as it is needfull we shall labor to set down our thoughts as distinctly and plainly as we can in certain Propositions that may be some ground of our discourse Propos 1. The true Church of God is the whole number of Elect and called ones out of the world to fellowship with Jesus Christ their Head with whom they make up one mysticall body Ephes 1. 23. This whole Church is of the same nature and one in essence from the beginning of the world to the end for this Church Christ laid down his life Ephes 5. 26. Joh. 10. 15. and therefore he adds vers 16. such as are not yet of his fold actually shall be brought into the same viz. by effectuall calling that there may be one Shepheard and one sheepfold wherby it appears that the whole fold of Christ to which he stands as one Shepheard contains all his members and sheep to the end of the world and it is one fold in relation to Christ that one Shepheard Propos 2◠This one entire body of Christ doth naturally fall under various notions and considerations as omitting others when it is considered according to the adjuncts of visibility and invisibility which are onely adjuncts of the same Church as is generally observed by Divines In respect of the inward union which every such member hath with Christ the Head by the Spirit of Christ and by Faith whereby we are united to him it is called invisible because this union is not visible to men In respects of some visible fruits and manifestations of faith to the judgment of men it is called visible and hence though true beleevers be onely univoce and properly members of this body of Christ yet to men that judge onely by outward effects many hypocrites equivoce and improperly are accounted of the Church and hence the Scripture frequently speaks of visible Churches as if they were all really Saints Propos 3. As this Church comes to be visible so it becomes a fit and capable subject of visible policy and visible communion with Christ their Head and one with another in all the visible ordinances of Christ a capable subject we say or matter fit for such a state for by its visibility it self it is not so having yet no more then a spirituall relation to Christ and one another no visible combination one with another for visible beleevers may be so scattered in severall Countreys that they cannot make up one Society Propos 4. And therefore we add That there is no way for this Church to enjoy actuall visible communion under the visible government of Christ and in the visible instituted ordinances of Christ but in a Society A thousand uncombined persons meeting occasionally in one place though their naturall relations were as near as brethren yet have no power of government or actuall communion in any Civill priviledges if they stand not in relation to one another as a combined Society as after shall be shown so here And therefore Acts 2. 41 42. first they were added to the Church and then followed their fellowship in all the ordinances of the Church as after will more fully appear And hence it is said Acts 5. 14. Beleevers were added first they were beleevers standing in that spirituall relation to Christ and his whole body and then added to the Church by visible combination Propos 5. There is no visible society of a Church who hath actuall and immediate right unto and communion in the visible government of Christ and the dispensation of his instituted Worship and ordinances but such a Society as the Lord Jesus hath in the Gopel instituted and ordained for that end We say actuall and immediate right unto the same for though a beleever quâ beleever have an immediate right and actuall enjoyment of such benefits of Christ as necessarily and immediately flow from his internall union with Christ as justification adoption c. and such right to Christian communion with all the Saints in their prayers gifts c. as flow from his spirituall relation unto them yea and also he hath a true right to all benefits purchased by Christ in a due order and manner yet we say instituted priviledges and ordinances doe not
been said the Conclusion as we conceive doth easily and naturally follow That as notwithstanding all that is said there is no Catholick visible Body of mankinde to which or to the Officers wherof is given the power and priviledges of Civill government to rule this Catholick Body either as one totum politicum or the parts of it Families Cities Kingdoms in communi by subordination of all Societies with reference to the whole or so as every King Major c. should be an Officer of the whole So these and like consequences will not follow in respect of the guides government priviledges c. of the Catholick Church notwithstanding all that is said from these considerations of unity visibility priority of nature c. 1 Object If any shall Object the case is not alike because in this Catholick Church were universall Officers set up as the Apostles not so in the world of mankinde Ans We say these were but for a time in the first beginning for the setting up of the firâ—â— order in all the Churches who being dead there is none to succeed them in that respect of Catholick power Secondly we say likewise at the first for a time Adam and after Noah had a generall power over mankinde though after them none had the like as it is here And therefore the comparison stil runs clear 2 Object If any object as some doe in answer to an argument somewhat like this that this similitude holds not because there is not that externall union of visible communion in the Common-wealths of the world as in the Church if one say God hath placed Kings Dukes in the Common-wealths as in one organicall Body who have one head who giveth influence to so many organs of head feet c. as the Apostle speaketh of the Body the Church 1 Cor. 12. then indeed all the Common-wealths of the world would make but one body Answ To the Scripture alledged we shall speak after here onely let us clear our parallel And first take the similitude as it is stated by us and it will be clear First compare the Catholick number of mankinde with the Catholick Church which is the number of called ones and then there is as much externall union of visible communion in one as in the other For first all mankinde may and ought to maintain Civill communion one with another in all Offices of humanity for the common good of the whole as the members of the Catholick Church doe or ought to doe and common humanity and the command of the Morall Law binds thereto as well as Christianity and rules of the Gospel bind here Secondly if we compare Civill societies as Families Cities Common-wealths with instituted Churches it is as possible and as well the duty of all Common-wealths in the world by principles of humanity and the Morall Law in all mens hearts to maintain externall union of leagues of friendship and communion in all Offices of Civill society as it is possible and the duty of all Church societies by the principles of Christianity and rule of the Gospel to maintain externall union of visible communion in the duties of Church society Thirdly not to dispute here whether there be such an externall union of visible communion amongst all the visible Churches as parts of the Church Catholick if the reason alledged be sufficient to prove the same viz. because there is one head in the Church who giveth influence to so many organs of head feet eyes c. in the Church Then still our parallel will hold for as this Head is no other then Christ Jesus in his spirituall Kingdom the Church giving that influence named so the same Lord that is King and Head over all 1 Chron. 29. 11. Ephes 1. 22. doth give influence to many organs in this Body of Mankinde even to all Kings Judges Fathers of Families And Christ is the same in respect of all authority power gifts administrations Civill c. to this Kingdome of Men as he is to the Kingdom of his Church of all power spiritual And although the Church be a Body of nearer relation to Christ then the Body of mankinde yet in regard of a common relation between a Head and Body there is a similitude which is sufficient in this case There is one thing more we meet withall that here we shall remove viz. when it is objected that the Catholick visible Church cannot be one because it cannot convent together in one Society it is answered usually that such comming together in one society is not needfull because as a Kingdom may be one though all parts of it never meet together having the same King Laws c. And as an Army may be one having the same Generall the same Laws of Discipline the same cause c. though the severall Brigades should never be drawn up into one body So the Catholick Church having the same King Laws Cause Enemies is but one though it never meet To this we shall here Reply so far as it lyes in our way 1 As all union is for communion and all communion flows from union so look of what nature the union is such and no other is the communion and look of what nature the communion ought to be of like nature ought the union to be else it will not reach the end And therefore here as the mysticall spirituall union of the Catholick Church to Christ the head by faith and to one another by love is sufficient to afford spirituall communion with the same So unto Politicall communion there must bee a Politicall union into one policy And as the nature of Politicall communion is such must the nature of the union be that it may reach the end To apply this a Politicall Church is instituted of Christ for communion in all the Worship and Ordinances of Christ instituted in the Gospel as the Ministery of the Word the Seales and Discipline now no Church as One can have communion with Christ and one another in these things but it must have a Politicall union suitable thereunto that is they must be one Society that can at least meet to combine together And therefore if all Churches make one Politicall Body for Politicall communion it must be such an union as will reach that end which cannot be imagined in such a Catholick totum politicum as the Catholick Church 'T is true distinct Churches as distinct Kingdoms may have communion in some politicall priviledges answerable to their union consisting in a fraternall relation one unto another yet not make up one Body Politicall of which we speak Secondly to the similitudes brought we answer This whole Kingdom or Army is properly and clearly one Politicall Body under one Politicall head the King or General as stands by Covenant as members of that one Policy and those who have right to choose their King or Generall may and doe some time or other convene Let the like be shewed in the Catholick Church that all Politicall
not the English Churches out of the number and herein we deal no otherwise with them then with the members of our owne Churches Reply All possible care to keep the ordinances of God from contempt we allow and commend so you deny not Church priviledges to whom they are due nor the name of Churches to such as God hath blessed with meanes of grace and have râ—ceived the Tables and Seales and entred Covenant with God Your liberty to receive such satisfaction as is meet is not questioned nor whether you are to keep the bond of the spirit inviolable according to order but whether this be according to order to exclude from the Sacrament true visible Christians or known recommended Christians formerly members of visible Churches amongst us and their children and to put such difference between them and such as are in your Church order Answ 1 If the learned Author would hold to what here is granted we hope this controversie would soon be at an issue but it will appear after this order allowed binds onely in case of the Ministers to dispense Sacraments but Christians are left at a loose end in respect of combining themselves unto particular Churches according to the order of Christ which is the thing wee plead for 2 We have not denyed the name of Churches to such as are said to have plentifully the means of grace Tables Seales and Covenant 3 Concerning the stating of the question too much liberty is taken as in other cases for neither in the Position or in our Answer doe we limit the question to members in our Church order as here it is called but expresly extend the same to other Churches of Christ though through error or humane frailty defective in matters of order yea to the members of any true Church as in the Answer is said 2. Concerning such as come over and are for a time without Seales it is not because we refuse communion with them as being members of your Churches known or recommended Christians as you say For if any godly man remaining a member in any true Church with you or elswhere come so recommended or be well known to the Church we never under that notion refuse any but giving such other satisfaction as is meet shall readily receive them as we always professe and therefore we must still call for attendance to the state of this question in its right terms viz. whether the children of godly parents or themselves though of approved piety are to be admitted to the seales not being members of some particular Congregation or untill they be such CHAP. IV. Reply TO the first consideration If by the Church be understood the society of men professing the entire faith the seales are given to it as peculiar priviledges but if you understand a Congregationall assembly the seales were never appropriated to it Answ 1 Our meaning is plain in the second sense as may appear by the reasons alledged against any such universall Church as instituted and politicall wherein the seales are dispensed which reasons you answer not but grant there is no such Catholick Church in our sense pag. 21. And if no such Church wherein the seales are administred as we proved then the cause it self is yeelded and the seales must belong to particular Churches 2. Seeing the main hinge of this question turns upon this point to what Church the administration and participation of the seals belong wee shall a little further open our selves in this point And because we affect and study peace with truth we shall freely acknowledge First that as there is an invisible Church and Body of Christ consisting of all the elect effectually called throughout the world in all ages of it the whole family in heaven and earth so unto Jesus Christ all the visible beleevers and Churches of the world are as one body to him he governing protecting instructing all as his visible body Secondly we acknowledge a visible communion of all the true Churches of the Lord Jesus in all offices of brotherly love and in the holy things of Christ so far as may appear the Lord have ordained and commanded and by his Providence called them to exercise one with another Thirdly we grant that all true beleevers where-ever they bee have by faith in Christ a true right and interest unto Jesus Christ and all his benefits whatsoever he hath purchased for them but here we must first distinguish of these benefits of Christ whereof some are meerly spirituall inward and flowing immediately from Christ unto them and therefore peculiar to true beleevers as justification sanctification adoption accesse to God in prayer c. some are outward and tending to the help and furtherance of our spirituall communion with Christ being outward and visible meanes thereof and therefore are also extended to hypocrites being visible beleevers as the Ministery of the Word Seals Church-discipline c. And these cannot be dispensed by Christ immediately nor ordinarily but by means of a visible Church 2. We distinguish of right to these outward benefits of Christ which is either remote called jus ad rem or near and immediate called jus in râ— right to the enjoyment and fruition of it Now in the first sense we grant all visible beleevers have a right to seals c. But the immediate fruition of them they must have mediante Ecclesiâ visibili now here lyes the true state of the question Whether the Lord Jesus have ordained an universall visible Church in which and unto which by the Officers thereof all these outward visible priviledges and means of Grace are to be dispensed and immediately enjoyed of the faithfull or whether not the remote right but the immediate fruition and administration of all these ordinances by the institution of Christ be given to particular visible Churches and surely to whom one of these is given all are given For there is the same nature reason and use of all Ministry of the Word Seals Discipline all are outward ordinances priviledges means of Grace belonging to the visible Church where Christ hath given one he hath given all But we must confesse however you call this A new Church way it is new to us to read so much of late of such a Catholick Church to which administration of Seals Censures c. belong We are yet of the opinion of Baynes Parker and Cartwright c. that have against Papists and Prelates maintained that in the new Testament there is no instituted Catholick Nationall or Provinciall Church but onely the Church of a particular Congregation both for the reasons alledged in our Answer as also for the impossibility thereof in the days of the New Testament when the Lord Jesus sent his Apostles into all the world therefore impossible both in regard of distance of place and variety of language almost ever to meet in one so much as by representation and that not onely by accident as may befall a particular Church by sickness persecution c.
immediately flow from spirituall union and relation to Christ and his members but are dispensed by Christ to his people mediately and in such an order as he hath in wisdome ordained and this the nature of visible government and ordinances of Christ necessarily requires And hence it is that although the Church in its nature and essence and in respect of its spirituall union and relation to Christ and one another profession of the same faith c. have been always one and the same in all ages yet both the visible government and ordinances of Worship and also the instituted form and order of Church-societies hath been various according to the wisdome and will of Christ whereby it appears that the order government forms of visible Church-societies to which actuall enjoyment of visible ordinances doe belong cannot justly be deduced from the common nature of the Church Catholick or any respects of reason or logicall notions under which it may fall but onely this depends upon the will and pleasure of Christ who hath in all ages instituted the forms and orders of such Societies to whom the actual enjoyment of instituted ordinances was given And hence the argument for a nationall form of a Church to be in the New Testament as wel as in the Old drawn from the common nature essence prosession of faith c. of the Church in all ages falls flat to the ground for by the same reason it must then be in families onely now as it was about Abrahams time Propos 6. Hence it follows that the true state of this great dispute about a Catholick Church so far as tends to clear up to what Church the actuall administration of Church-government and all instituted Worship belongs doth not lye in the consideration of the common nature essence unity visibility or any other notions under which it may fall but the true state lyes here concerning the nature order form of such visible Societies as Christ Jesus by Divine institution in the Gospel hath reduced his visible members unto for the actuall and immediate enjoyment of all his instituted ordinances And therefore with due respect to the Godly-learned be it spoken we conceive many large disputes in this question fall short of the issue that is desired and intended for what if it be granted 1 That there is a Catholick visible Church which in some respects of reason as Mr. Ball saith is one that having partes visibiles is a totum visibile 2. That the visible Church is not onely a totum genericum in relation to all the particular Congregations as species specialissimae of a visible Church in generall which respect of reason in some sense we freely consent unto but also that it may fall under the notion of a totum integrale as some contend though we conceive in this notion they are so intangled in their own logicall principles as that they cannot get out without breaking them and flying to theologicall considerations yet we say what if that also be attained 3 Yea further what if this Catholick Church be in some respects of reason and order of nature also the first Church and particular Churches ortae 4 Yea further what if it were gained also by such disputes that the Keys and Officers Ordinances c. be given firstly to this Catholick Church as to the object and end We confesse we do not see that what our Brethren contend for is by all this obtained For first if the universall number of visible beleevers be one totum aggregatum yet it will bee hard to prove that these are one instituted and politicall Society that can enjoy visible communion together in visible Worship and government and yet more hard to prove that by the institution of Christ these all are to be actually governed as one totum Secondly what though the members of the Church Catholick be in order of time before particular Churches as being fit matter for them and constituting of them yet this proves not one politicall body before they combine but rather the contrary Thirdly be it so that this Catholick Church is the first Church to which Christ hath firstly given the Keys Ordinances Promises c. for which Christ firstly performed the Offices of King Priest and Prophet and what else soever can be said in this kinde yet all this may be in this respect that Christ looked at this Catholick Church firstly as the chief object and end for whose sake and good he ordained and gave all these things and this will not carry the cause for as the Church Catholick visible in this sense is the first Church in respect of the particulars so the invisible body of Christ is in nature and priority the first Church in respect of visible as visible for Christ no doubt firstly intends and gives all these things to the invisible Church as to the object and end of the same for whose good they are all ordained rather then for the Catholick visible Church which containes many hypocrites and reprobates within the verge of it But now if we speak of a subject of the Keys to which the actuall exercise and dispensation of Keys and instituted Ordinances belong who doe not see that in this sense the invisible Church quâ talis cannot be that instituted Society to which the Keys c. belong and by the same reason the Catholick visible Church quâ totum and quâ Catholick cannot be this instituted Society to which they are given It is a known rule in Reason that That which is first in intention is last in execution and so it is here first Christ propounds this end to himself to gather edifie perfect sanctifie save his Catholick Church Ephes 4. 11 12. 5. 26. and therefore institutes all ordinances as means to farther and attain this great design but in execution he may for all this give the Keys and ordinances in regard of the immediate exercise to any form of visible Societies that he shall be pleased to institute and it may be that will prove the least Society sooner then a greater And seeing our Brethren otherwise minded make much use of similies in this dispute we hope it will not be amisse for us to illustrate what we say by a similitude partly to make our conceivings the more plain to all whose edification we seek and partly to discover the invalidity of many discourses of this nature and because similia arguunt fidemque faciunt as he saith viz. so far as rightly applyed we will therefore propound it in way of argument The similitude is this genus humanum or mankinde in generall is the subject of Civill government in generall and of all the priviledges thereof as the object and the end and let the question be whether this Catholick number of all mankinde is the first subject of all power of Civill government and the priviledges thereof and if so whether such consequences will follow as our Brethren deduce from the unity visibility and priority of
the Catholich Church Now we reduce what we intend into an Argument thus If all that can be said from Scripture and Reason concerning the unity visibility and priority of the Catholick Church may as truly be affirmed upon like grounds of the Catholick body of mankinde then à pâ—ri it will follow that there is no more one Catholick visible instituted totum that is the first subject of Church power and priviledges in the actuall exercise and enjoyment of the same then that there is such a Catholick body of mankinde that is the first subject oâ— Civill power c. and that actually doth or ought to govern and be governed as one Catholick body in communion but it will appear from Scripture and Reason that the same things may be said of mankind that can be said of the other Ergo And it is proved per partes thus 1 For the unity are not all mankinde oft in Scripture called the world Joh. 3. 16 So God loved the world that is mankinde in the world which is one So frequently all mankinde is called man Gen. 6. 5 6 7. I will not strive with man c. yea it is one kingdom Psal 145. 11 12 13. which if we view the whole Psalm must be understood of the generall government of Gods providence over all the world and especially mankinde therein 1 Chron. 29. 11 12. c. so that all is one kingdom Acts 17. 26. God hath made of one blood all Nations all are one blood all have their bounds set by God c. that they might seek him and feel after him and as it is said for one Catholick Church because it hath one Lord one Faith one Baptism one Spirit and are bound to love and pray one for the other c. so there is a like unity here for the whole number of mankinde hath one Lord and King over all God who is King over all the earth called an head over all 1 Chron. 29. 11. yea Jesus Christ is Lord of Lords and King of Kings and head over all to the Church Ephes 1. 22. All have one Law the Morall Law the common rule of equity and righteousness whereby they are bound to walk towards God and one another and this writ in the hearts of all they have all one spirit of reason disposing them to society and mutuall offices of love one faculty of speaking to fit them for communion one end to feel after God Act. 17. and seek ye good of the whole kinde all ought to love one another desire and seek the welfare of the whole and of one another Esay 58. 7. yea the Lord as a common head by the working of his common Providence and out of his love of mankinde hath a common and constant influence into all giving not onely life and breath and all good things Acts 17. but also all gifts of wisdom art skill for Government c. to Kings Judges Fathers Masters and all Officers of Civill government for the good of the whole and what ever else may be said to prove the Catholick Church Onâ— may here be applyed And as for principles of reason it is easie to conceive that all mankinde will fall either under the notion of one genus homo whereof the individua are species specialissimae or in another respect all persons all Families Cities Kingdomes may in a sense make one totum integrale or aggregatum Secondly it is as evident that all this number of mankinde are one visibile totum by the arguments used for the visible Catholick Church for that which hath visible parts is a visible totum iâ— holds here as well as in the other case Yea if the Catholick Church be one visible Body because it hath organs and visible Officers in it it will hold here for all mankinde is but one Army of the Lord of Hosts who hath Armies of heaven and Armies on earth and in this Body God by his Providence hath set and by his ordinance hath ordained Fathers Masters Husbands Judges Kings c. to govern in this Body of mankinde for the good of the whole Ruling and subjection by the fifth Commandement of the Morall Law which is in all mens hearts is ordained of God for the order peace and welfare of all mankind and therefore why is not this by the same reason a totum visibile Thirdly for Priority it is clear that as God hath firstly in nature and intention given Christ to the whole Church then to this and that particular beleever and the power of feeding and being fed and governed by shepheards First to the whole race of sheep Secondly to this or that flock So in nature and Gods intention he hath firstly given to the race of mankind power of being governed with Government and Governors before they are given to this or that Family City Kingdom c. So likewise what is said of Promises given to the Church Catholick firstly is it not as true here Those promises and blessings increase and multiply Subdue the earth and inhabite it The feare and dread of you shall be on all beasts and all like promises and priviledges of marriage of liberty to eat flesh c. mentioned Gen. 2. 9. and all over the Scripture are they not in nature first given to mankinde and then to this or that person family City So if Church power and all Officers and Offices be firstly given to the Catholick Church not to this or that particular Church So it 's here when the Scripture saith Submit to the higher Powers for all Powers are of God Rom. 13 〈◊〉 me saith God Kings reign and Princes decree judgment and such like Scriptures doth this firstly belong to this or that Kingdome City c. and not rather that God hath firstly set up and ordained Civil Powers for mankind to be obeyed of all mankinde firstly and then in this or that state Is foederall holinesse first the priviledge of the Catholick Church which in a sense we will not now contradict so is legitimation first the priviledge of married society in generall in all mankinde and then of this or that family Are the members of particular Churches firstly of the Catholick Church and is it not so here the members of every family city c first and last of the number of mankinde and so when the Societies are dissolved they are still of mankinde and doe not all Societies spring of mankinde and are an additament and increase to it the one is true as well as the other It would be over tedious to follow this parallel so farre as wee might these may be sufficient instances to guide the Reader to apply whatever else is or can be said in this kinde from the common nature and logicall notions under which the Catholick Church visible may be considered What is said that may more properly concern the case under the notion of an instituted Society we shall consider in due place Now from that which hath
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 were 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 Arg. 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 Argum. 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 totum 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 Argum. 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 loosing 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 there is supposed a supreme Court in being to which the appeale may be prosecuted and there determined as
in the highest Sanhedrin of Israel But there is not in the Church nor like to be such a supreme Court where such appeals may be ended Ergo. Object 2 If it be said that what a particular Church binds on earth is bound in heaven except they erre but then appeals may be made and their power is gone Answ On this ground the universall Church should not have power to bind on earth so as in heaven without appeales for they may erre and that not onely rarely but frequently witnesse the complaint of Nazianzen and others of the time passed yea they may be as much inclined to erre considering the greatest part of Churches in the world are for the most part corrupt yea though they may have better eyes yet they are further from the mark if particular Churches have no power of excommunication because they may erre be corrupt be partiall or be divided upon the same consideration neither Classicall Nationall or oecumeniall Councells have any such power for they may erre grow corrupt be partiall and be miserably divided as well as a congregationall Church other Churches may admonish in case of scandall and counsell when a particular congregation wants light and moderate if desired in case of difference but still the power is in the particular Church Other arguments might be added but seeing this controversie as we hope will be more fully and purposely disputed by a farre better hand therefore we shall fall to the consideration of such Scriptures and some few generall Arguments which we meet withall in Mr. Ball briefly propounded and in divers other Authors more largely insisted upon which if the Lord be pleased to helpe us to vindicate and clear up we think other reasons and Scriptures of lesse force will fall of themselves And first we finde Cant. 6. 4. c. to prove the whole Catholick church visible to be one Ministeriall Body because it is called One compared to an Army terrible with Banners in respect of the order of Discipline and described as being an organicall Body having eyes hair teeth c. Answ 1 Theologia Symbolica non est argumentativa except it can be made clear that the parable is applyed according to the true scope of it and no further which here is very hard to evince we know the whole Book of the Canticles is variously applyed by good Interpreters Brightman none of the meanest in this kinde of Scriptures applyes this place to the church of Geneva and the times of purer Churches to arise after it which are said to be terrible as an Army with Banners not in respect of Discipline but in respect of warlike power whereby that state of the church shall defend it self 2 But suppose that it is a description of the catholick church visible yet it cannot be a sufficient argument that it is one Ministeriall church For first the catholick church is the same in all ages and therefore by this reason it was a catholick Ministeriall body as well in the days from Adam to Abraham c. as in the New Testament Secondly by this argument we may prove Christ the head and husband of the church to be an organicall body as he is the Head of the Church for Cant. 5. 10 11. c. the Church doth allegorically describe the beauty and excellency of Christ in severall organs and parts but we suppose though Christ Jesus in his humane nature hath members yet the scope of the Church is not at all to set forth the members of his humane body but the glorious excellencies and spirituall perfections of Christ as the Redeemer and Saviour of his Church according to the manner of Lovers who are taken with the beauty of their spouses in all their members When the spouse saith Cant. 1. 1. Let him kisse me with the kisses of his mouth it were too grosse to apply it to the humanity of Christ or to argue from thence that Christ the husband of his Church is an organicall body Thirdly and lastly when the Church is called One the onely one of her Mother though it 's true she is one it seems rather to set out her excellency as rare and but one then her unity and so the other descriptions all tend to set forth her beauty in the eye and esteem of Christ neither is it any thing that the Church is compared to an Army terrible with banners for in the same Chap. vers the last she is compared to the company of Mahanaim or two Armies which is all one for the company of Mahanaim consisted of two Armies Gen. 32. 1 2 3. where Jacobs host meeting an host of Angels he calls the place Mahanaim or two Hosts and therefore we may as well say the Catholick church is terrible with two Armies of Banners as one Answ A second and chief Scripture we meet withall in divers Authors is 1 Cor. 12. 12 13. c. Whence the reason stands thus That church wherein Apostles Prophets Teachers c. are set is an organicall Church But those are set in the Catholick visible Church Ergo. For the better clearing of this Scripture it is needfull that we attend the scope of the Apostle who comming now to another branch of the things this Church had written unto him about Chap. 7. 1. 8. 1. 12. 1. and this about spirituall gifts wherein they abounded Chap. 1. 7. being the occasion of all their contentions and disorders Chap. 1. 12 13. hence he is studious the more to re-unite them again Chap. 12. 13. and to direct them how to improve their gifts orderly to edification Chap. 14. and in this Chapter he perswades their minds to unity who were divided partly through pride in their own gifts partly by disdain of others not so gifted hence he puts them in minde 1 What once they were following dumb idols 2 That all gifts are from the free dispensation of God and that one God one Lord one Spirit 3 That God in his wisdom hath dispensed great variety of gifts operations and administrations 4 That all are given to profit withal and these things he illustrates by a simile taken from a naturall body which having largely presented and applyed to this Church vers 27. he concludes with the variety of administrations in such things wherein they so much differed Chap. 1. 12 13. God hath set saith he in the Church not onely Apostles or Prophets or tongues c. but all these are all Apostles are all Prophets c no but the wisdom of God hath given you variety of these gifts and administrations and therefore Chap. 3. to quiet them he saith Paul an Apostle Apollos an Evangelist c. all are yours and as this is the scope of the Apostle so we see nothing in the Chapter but is appliable to Corinth in particular yea applyed unto them by the Apostle as what he spake vers 22. of one body he applyes to them vers 27. what he spake vers 28. of Apostles and
other gifts set in the Church he applyes also to them Chap. 14. whereas he speaks of the exercise of divers gifts in that Church when the whole Church came together vers 23 so he speaks the same of himself an Apostle vers 6. When I come c We take notice of divers reasons alledged from the Chapter that he spake of the Catholick church but they doe not inforce it for grant such things are true of the Catholick church in a sense viz. that in it God works all in all in it are diversities of gifts c. yet the Apostles scope is to speak to this Church as hath been shewed and all are truly applyable unto it this Church came behinde in no good gift Chap. 1. 7. this Church was one body vers 27. and baptized into one body whether Jews or Gentiles bond or free the members of this Church needed the helpe one of another must not make schismes in the Body must care one for another c. yea Apostles as well as other gifts were in the church 1 Cor. 3. 1. 1 Cor. 14. 6. So that from the scope and drift of the Apostle all these Offices and gifts might be and were set in Corinth and therefore this place will not evince a Catholick organicall body yet we mean not that Apostles were wedged in here but they were set also in every church as also Teachers are in every church but each according to the nature of the Office the one limited the other not Secondly we deny not but in this discourse the Apostle also vers 12 13. intendeth the whole mysticall body of Christ which is one Christ neither doe we deny that these gifts of Apostles Prophets c. are given to this Church but this will not prove it to be an organicall Church For what is this body of Christ this one Christ into whom all are baptized c. It is properly the whole company of true beleevers in all ages and so containes the invisible body of Christ which Catholick body of all ages cannot properly make an organicall body and be it so that this body is visible having visible ordinances baptized and drunk into one body yet the Apostle respects the reall union of all the members to Christ and therefore Interpreters understand spirituall and effectuall baptism containing the inward vertue with the outward sign Again the Apostles were fit for the gathering in of the elect amongst all the heathen nations but that proves not all these elect who also are a part of Christs sheep John 10. 16. were an organicall Church or a part of it till called and added to the Church In a word Apostles Prophets c. were given to and set in the mysticall body of Christ as the chief object and end for whose sake and good they were intentionally ordained of Christ but not set in it as one organicall body for the actuall and immediate administration of the visible ordinances of Christ to it but thus to it as gathered into such Church societies as the Lord hath instituted for that end and in this sense we agree with learned Mr. Rutherford libro of the right of Presbyt pag. 291. Ask saith he to what end and to what first principall subject hath the Lord given reason and the faculty to discourse Is it to Peter John c. as to the first subject and to them as for their good No no it is to and for the race of mankind The case is just so here 1 Cor. 12. 28. God hath set Apostles c. We say also it is just so here as God hath given reason in respect of the end to mankinde first and then to the individua so God hath set in the mysticall Church for the good of it as chiefly intended by Christ Apostles Prophets c. but now as in the actuall dispensing of this gift of reason for the good of mankinde Reason is not given to any such body as the whole race of mankinde to descend to John Peter c. but first to John Peter and all the individualls that so by induction of all particulars the whole kinde of reasonable man may be made up and the end attained and so it is here God in giving Officers and gifts for the good of the mysticall body of Christ firstly yet in execution gives these Officers and sets them in particular Churches that by the edification and perfection of all particulars the whole may be attained Thirdly Apostles Prophets and all gifts and offices in generall and indefinitely are given to the Church indefinitely considered but particular officers Paul Cephas Apollo Titus Archippus c. are given or set in particular Churches we mean according to the severall natures and extents of their offices As unto Bees in generall is given a power to gather honey and order themselves in their hives but in their exercise of this power it is given to the severall swarms in the hives who have their Queens c. to order themselves But as this power in generall makes not a universall organicall body of Bees no more here an universall organicall Church Lastly to speak more particularly we conceive that the place in the utmost latitude of it is meant of the mysticall body that one body into which all are baptized vers 13. And that the fundamentall mistake of our Brethren is this that because the Church here mentioned hath Organs and politicall Officers in it that therefore it must needs make one politicall Church where some Organs are to rule in common and every part is to be subject to the whole For although the mysticall Church hath Organs and politicall Officers in it yet it follows not therefore that it is one politicall body For the invisible Church conjoyned with the visible hath politicall Officers set in it and given to it as invisible as well as visible in respect of Gods generall designation and particular application of them to this whole Church yet it follows not that they are one politicall body by actuall combination thereunto actuall combination we say for although Christs institution must warrant and prescribe all forms of politicall bodies yet it will not be found that ever there was any politicall Society without actuall combination whether civill or sacred whether nationall or more particular The mysticall Church may be said to be organicall in respect of the Officers amongst them in the severall parts thereof every part being a part of the whole spiritually though not politically But it doth not thence follow that the whole is one politicall body but mysticall Politicall Officers may and must suppose some part of the Church to be visible but not that the whole should be Politicall For the Apostles by extraordinary Commission for their time were officers of visible beleevers fit matter for a combination as well as of particular combinations yet it follows not that visible beleevers existing out of combinations were a politicall Society that 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. 15. 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 impawn 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 vers 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 Baines 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 gregem pascimus As also that there is Episcopatus unus Ecclesia una in toto mundo Hence also may appear an answer to divers arguments the chief whereof we shall run through Object 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 Oaâ—e 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 Object 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 be 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 judicialitèr not to have communion with him for so one Church should exercise jurisdiction overall Churches and that without their actuall approbation for quod spectat ad omnes debet ab omnibus approbari If it be said That a particular Church doth excommunicate by an intrinsecall power not onely in it self but intrinsecall in the whole body the question will be What is that intrinsecall power Is it naturall or voluntary To say it is naturall were too absurd if voluntary then neither Congregations Classes Provinces Nations have power to excommunicate without the praevious consent of the whole Catholick church which must voluntarily concurr thereunto And if the Catholick Presbytery as is said have no next but a a remote power of excommunication and this remote power bee extraordinary or raro contingens or almost never then the ordinary power of excommunication which is enough for us is not from an intrinsecall 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 not the use of lesser and greater Synods nor
of such Doctrinall power as the pattern Acts 15. holdeth forth and which is all that Learned Mr. Rutherford conceives to belong to a generall Councell for thus he saith Verily I professe I cannot see what power of jurisdiction to censure scandalls can be in a generall Councell there may be some meâ—â— Doctrinall power in such a Councell 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 viderint 'T is true 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 respect 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 intrinsecall power then let the particular Churches enjoy that power till the Catholick Church can meet 2 It seems to us very strange that the Lord Jesus should institute such a supreme power in a Catholick Body which as 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 Object 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 redounding 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 place 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 consists properly in having a charge and power over those to whom he is a Pastor Act. 20. 28. 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 nor it subjecting to him If it be said such are made Pastors by Ordination of the Presbyters 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 intermeddle in all Churches as the Apostles had which we think none will yeeld them or else they are Pastors onely in name without power which is absurd Nor doth the similitude of a Physitian made Doctor of Physick at large by a Colledge of Physitians helpe in this case For it suppâ—seth him to be made such a Doctor before he be elected by any people to exercise this faculty which applyed to this case of a Pastor as having Ordination to make him a Pastor at large before election to this or that people is utterly against all examples of Scripture as Acts 1. 6. 14 Object 4. That which belongeth to a little part of a similar body quâ talis belongs to a greater part much more and therefore if the immediate exercise of the Keys belong to a single congregation then much more to the whole and to any greater part of the whole Answ 1 Such as say that the Catholick Church is a similar Body had need explicate themselves For to speak properly and strictly by this rule every particular visible beleever being a part of the whole as a totum aggregativum 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 Congregation that can joyn in Gods ordinances the minimum quod sic then particular visible beleevers considered as existing out of these Congregations cannot be members formally of the Catholick visible Church 2 We acknowledge the Catholick church considered as visible and invisible is one spirituall or mysticall body yet this Catholick body is under no Catholick policy but onely in the severall parts of it as 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 toâ—um are not distinct bodies spirituali relatione for then every company of women are a Church body but politicâ combinatione and hence though the Catholick church be one similar 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 gratiâ consider a particular Congregation as a number redeemed called to Christ espoused to him this much more belongs to the whole and so if any priviledge belong to them as such much more to the whole Yet 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 in it partem talis materiae partem formae Object 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. Answ We deny the consequence for there may be a fraternall 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 communion together in the Jewish policy and yet were not one politicall Body so the Churches of Galatia might have communion together yet were distinct Churches not one Church as also the Churches of New England have sweet and blessed communion yet are distinct And though the Churches of Galatia were called a whole lump as is objected yet were they thus by politicall combination or as Dr. Downam to mould up a Diocesan Church compares the first Church to a great lump of dough or batch of bread out of which particular Churches were formed into many loaves or not rather called a lump by spirituall union and relation common profession and fraternall communion being all the same Countrey-men so also the Apostles had Church communion yet were not a politicall body Kingdoms so may have civil communion and commerce yet not be one Kingdom Object 6. If the Keys be given to a particular Church under the notion of the Spouse of Christ a flock of redeemed ones c. and then much more to the Catholick visible Church which is the Spouse of Christ and flock of redeemed ones primarily and to a particular Church onely secondarily but the first is affirmed by such as deny such a Catholick Church Ergo. Answ 1 It is true the notion of a flock of redeemed ones of the Body and Spouse of Christ Kingdom House c. doe agree primarily to the Church not of this but of all ages and secondarily to the Church of this age Colos 1. 18. Ephes 5. 25 26. and 2. 19. 2 The Church which is the Body of Christ existing in this age the Keys are given to it primarily in comparison of particular Churches coexisting with it as to the chief object and end but not to it as a politicall Body in respect of actuall and immediate dispensation thereof for as we have oft said if in respect of Politicall dispensation the Keys belong firstly to the Body of Christ as his Spouse and redeemed ones then the Church invisible as invisible rather then visible must have the dispensation of the Keys primarily 3 It is not said that the Keys are immediately given to a particular Church abstractly as a number of redeemed but as consociated and politically combined And in this respect that may be attributed to the part a particular Congregation of redeemed ones which cannot be attributed to the whole Ex. gr such a Congregation is combined so is not the whole nor can be such a Church may choose a Pastor over it but so cannot the whole so a man may tell the particular Church who may convene together not so the whole Thus far through the helpe of Christ we have endevoured to clear the first Point propounded concerning a Catholick instituted Church We come now to prove the second Point viz. That Jesus Christ hath instituted in the Gospel a particular Church of one Congregation in which and unto which the actuall and immediate dispensation and participation of all instituted Worship doe regularly and ordinarily belong And here we shall shew 1 What such a particular Church is 2 How the dispensation of Church power and priviledge do belong unto it For the first we shall declare our selves in these Five Propositions 1 It must be a visible Society for One man cannot make a Church nor can many visible beleevers living severally without society in severall Nations make One Church 2 It 's not every Society of visible Professors that doe make a Church for then every family of such Professors are a Church Then two or three which our Brethren so much condemn are a Church and then a Society of Women professing the truth may be a Politicall Church then many members of severall Churches met to hear a Sermon or any like occasion make a Church then a number of Professors may constitute a Diocesan Church or any like form for out of this block That any number of beleevers made a Church Dr. Downam hewed out his Diocesan Church and so made a fit seat for his Diocesan Mercury Lastly then particular Churches should have no more any set Form prescribed then Civill government which is as variable as humane wisdome sees meet for hence a particular Church may be melted into any form or mould of civil Society for imagine a number of professing beleevers cohabiting either in a City Hundred Wapentake Shire Province Nation Empire c. there shall then be so many forms of Churches contrary to the principles and unanswerable arguments of our best Reformers who accounted it a great absurdity that the heavenly Kingdome of Christ should be moulded and framed according to the weaknesse of humane wisdome and policy 3 It must therefore be a Society combined and that by a Covenant explicite or implicite for it must be such a combined Society where the whole have power over its members now whatever power one hath over another if it be not by way of conquest or naturall relation as the father over the childe it is by covenant as husband and wife Master and servant Prince and people other powers are but usurpations it is noted as a prophane speech in Brennus who professed he knew no other rule of Justice then for the greater to subdue the lesse Again it is such a Society as hath an ordinate power to subject it self to Officers by electing of them to administer ordinances amongst them but this is onely a federall Society Again it is such a Society to the making up of which is required something more then faith Acts 5. 14. Beleevers were added to the Lord or to his Church so that they were first beleevers before they were added to the Church for there may be a number of beleevers converted at one Sermon and immediately scattered into many Towns or Countreys Now if faith professed alone makes not a Church but somewhat more is required what can that be but foederall combination Lastly that the dissolution whereof doth unchurch a people doth constitute a Church but breaking the combination dissolves the Church whether by consent schism or when God himself removes the candlestick Ergo. 4 Though a Church be such by combining and so subjecting themselves to the power of others yet it must not be herein illimited but according to the form and mould expressed in the Word for if they have this power to combine as many and as largely as they will then a Diocese Province Nation may combine and so put themselves under the power of a Diocesan Provinciall Nationall society which is unlawfull for the Church must be such a form as a man may ordinarily bring offences unto it according to Matth. 18. Tell the Church but that cannot be in a Diocese much lesse in a Province or Nation where the Members can neither take notice of the offence nor ordinarily so much as consent unto any censure acted by any Officers in such a Church nay further if their power be unlimited
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 beleeving as well as Churches and therfore at some times by speciall guidance of the Spirit they might doe that which ordinary Pastors may not do Reply Secondly as the seals so the Word of salvation preached and received is a priviledge of the Church c. If by preaching be meant the giving of the Word unto a people to abide and continue with them and consequently the receiving of it at least in profession then it is proper to the church of God Answ We grant in some sense it is a priviledge and proper to the Church so to have the Word but this no way takes away the difference between the Seals and the Word which the answer makes viz That the Word is not such a peculiar priviledge of the Church as the Seals in that the one is dispensed not onely to the Church but also to others for the gathering of them which is not so in the Seals for the Word of God received in Corinth abiding with them professed of them was not so peculiar but an Idiot comming in might partake in the same but not so in the Sacraments 1 Cor. 14. Reply The Word makes Disciples the Word given unto a people is Gods covenanting with them and the peoples receiving this Word and professing their faith in God through Jesus Christ is the taking of God to be their God the laws and statutes which God gave unto Israel were a testimony that God hath separated them from all other people the Word of reconciliation is sent and given to the world reconciled in Iesus Christ and they that receive the Doctrine Law or Word of God are the disciples servants and people of God Answ In these words and that which follows in the second Paragraph there seems to be a double scope First to prove the Word proper to the Church to which is answered afore Secondly that where-ever the Word of God is there is the true visible Church and so where the true Worship of God is there is a mark of the Church especially where it is received and confessed To which we answer 1 There is a covenanting between God and man which is personall and so whosoever receives the Word of Gods grace by faith sent unto him by God enters into Covenant to be his and that before he makes any visible profession thereof and so every beleever is a disciple a servant of God and one of Gods people but many thousands of these considered onely in this their personall relation to God doe not make a visible Church many such might be in the world but no members of the visible Church until they came and joyned to the Church of Israel of Old or to the visible Churches in the New Testament 2 There is a sociall or common covenanting between God and a people to be a God to them and they a people unto God in outward visible profession of his Worship and so the Lord took Abraham and his seed into Covenant and renewed that Covenant with them as an holy Nation and peculiar people to him and in this covenanting of God with a people whereby they become a Church there is required first that they be many not one Secondly that these many become one body one people Thirdly that they make visible profession of their Covenant with God really or vocally Fourthly that this Covenant contain a profession of subjection to the ordinances of Gods Worship wherein God requires a Church to walk together before him and all these may be seen in the Church of Israel who received Gods laws indeed but so as they became one people to God visibly avouched God for their God received and submitted unto all the laws of his Worship Government and other Ordinances And this is expresly or implicitly in every true visible Church though more or lesse fully and purely Now if you intend such a covenanting of a people with God by a professed receiving of his Word and subjection to his Ordinances we grant such to be true Churches and to such the seals do belong and therefore we willingly close with the Conclusion that follows They that have received the Word of salvation entirely and have Pastors godly and faithfull to feed and guide them they and their seed have right to the seals in order And they that joyn together in the true Worship of God according to his will with godly and faithfull Pastors they have right to the sacraments according to Divine institution These conclusions we willingly embrace and inferr that if the seals belong to such a Church then to particular Congregations For where shall we finde a people joyning together with godly Pastors but in such particular Assemblies For we doubt not our Brethren doe disclaim all Diocesan Pastors or Provinciall c. Reply That there is now no visible Catholick Church in your sense will easily be granted c. If this be granted in our sense so that there be no such Catholick church wherein seals are to be dispensed then it will fall to be the right and priviledge of particular Congregations to have the seals in the administration proper to them and so the cause is yeelded but because there is so much here spoken of the Catholick visible Church and so much urged from it we shall refer the Reader to what is said before onely one thing we shall note about the instance of Athanasius that a man may be a member of the Catholick visible Church but of no particular Society Reply You say it is evidenced in that a Christian as Athanasius for an example may be cut off unjustly from the particular visible Church wherein he was born and yet remains a member of the Catholick visible orthodox Church Answ This case proves nothing for look how such a Christian stands to the Catholick so he stands to the particular Church if he be unjustly censured as he remains before God a member of the Catholick so also the particular Church for clavis errans non ligat and in respect of men and communion with other Churches in the seals if they receive him being satisfied that he is unjustly cast out they may receive him not for his generall interest in the Catholick church but in respect of his true membership in the particular Church that unjustly cast him out Whereas if the Churches were not perswaded but that he were justly cast out of the particular they ought not to admit him to seales were he as Orthodox as Athanasius himself in doctrine and as holy in his life Reply Though there be no universall Congregation nor can be imagined yet there are and have been many visible Assemblies or Societies true Churches of Christ to whom the prerogative of the seals is given which have not been united and knit together into one Congregation or Society in Church-order For every Society in
but of what is to bee required of such as joyne unto a Church for a Church may bee a true Church and yet be very corrupt as is generally observed by Protestant writers hoth out of the examples of some Churches in the New Teâ—â—ament and that of the Old in the great Apostasie thereof wee thinke in this same Doctor Fields expressions may be safely received Some professe Christ saith hee but not wholly and intirely as Heretiques some professe the whole saving truth but not in unity as Schismatiques some professe it in unty but not in sincerity as prophaine persons and Hypocrites some in unity and sincerity all these are partakers of the heavenly calling by profession of the truth and consequently in some degree and sort the Church c. But wee thinke that this is no argument that either Heretiques Schismatickes prophane persons or Hypocrites if convictively discovered that such are meet matter to be joyned to a Church Secondly when a worke of grace is required and desired of those who are to joyne to a Church the meaning is not as if wee allowed none to bee of the Church but reall Saints and such as give demonstrative evidence of being members of the invisible Church for we professe according to the Scripture and generall doctrine of all reformed Churches what ever their practise bee that it is not reall but visible faith not the inward being but the outward profession of faith whence men are called visible Saints that constitutes a visible Church which faith so professed is called visible not in the judgement of certainty from such infallible signes of it as may demonstrate the hidden being of it within but in the judgement of charity which hopes the best 1 Cor. 12 7 in the weakest Christian and meanest profession even when it sometimes feares the worst and is not able at the present to convince the contrary Thirdly this judgment of charity concerning the truth of anothers profession or that which is called the worke of grace is to be regulated by the word which Christ hath left as a compleat rule not onely of faith but also of love and charity to guide both in their acts unto their ends and hence large professions and long relations of the worke of grace though full of exceeding glory when humbly and prudently made wee exact not rigorously and necessarily of all because the rule of charity directs us not so to judge because many Christians may bee drawne to Christ and have a seed of faith yet may sometimes not know it sometimes remember not the working of it sometimes through bashfulnesse feare want of parts nor not trained up under a knowing Ministery not be able to professe it so fully and clearely hence also to keepe out others from Communion out of groundlesse feares that all their profession might bee in hypocrisie wee allow not because no man in his charity is to bee ruled by his feares but by the word hence also to account any unfit for the Church because their hearts cannot close with them or because they like not their spirits speake not with favour or any such like principles and yet can give no rule or convicting argument from the word why thus they doe we thinke is rigouâ— not charity regulated by the word for humane charity doth not make Gods Church but such persons which from God according to the rule of Gods charity is to receive and therefore the rule is to be attended here it is necessary to looke for a ground of certainty to faith but not for charity which cannot bee infallibly certaine of anothers estate and therefore upon a hopefull supposition that the premises their profession is true hopefully onely makes the conclusion The question â—eing brought to this narrow it will here lye viz. First Whether profession of the worke of grace and faith be not required of those that enter into the Church Secondly With what profession of the worke of grace charity according to a rule is to rest satisfied The first wee thinke is writ with the beames of the Sunne for it is evident that neither the Lord in the Old Testament Exod. 19. or in the New Testament Acts 2. and in other like Scriptures did call for a profession of the Doctrine of faith onely but especially of the worke of faith for when the Lord promised to be a God to his people Exd. 19. Deut. 29. it was not with this condition if they did beleeve his word to bee true c. but if they will heare his voyce and keepe his Covenant which in a prepared people is a manifestation of a worke of grace So when the Apostles were required to goe preach to all Nations and baptize them and teach them looke as they did require such a faith as was saving he that beleeveth shall bee saved so upon the profession thereof they did receive them as also appeares Acts 2. 38. which therefore could not bee of the doctrine of faith for that the devils doe and tremble and profane men of much knowledge may doe and yet unfit to bee received and therefore it was of the worke of faith and therefore Act. 8. 37. Philip not onely requires faith but a beleeving with all the heart of the Eunuch and upon such a profession baptized him and hence the Churches erected by the Apostles at Corinth Colosse Ephesus c. are called Saints and sanctified of God in Christ Jesus c. How was it because debito and de jure onely they should be so then all who heare the Gospell though they reject it might bee called a Church for de jure they ought to be so Or was it because there were some that were truely such amongst them and so in concreto are called a Church and body of Christ not onely so for there may be some visible Churches of visible Saints and yet none among them of the invisible Church unlesse any will thinke that to bee of the Church invisible is essentiall to the beeing and title of a visible Church and therefore it was from their profession of saving faith which they maintained being a Church as it was required to the gathering into a Church John Baptist also though hee baptized none into a new Church and therefore might require the lesse yet as he really promised remission of sinnes by the Messiah so hee required that very faith and repentance which might make them partakers of this heavenly benefit and therefore if what hee required they manifested by their profession and confession of sinnes it was not onely to beleeve the doctrine of faith but a saving worke of faith which they held forth And therefore it is not an outward profession of faith according to a Creed which is required for then a Papist is fit matter for a Church nor willingnesse to heare the Word and receive the Sacraments for then heapes of prophane persons are to bee received into the Church but it 's profession of a worke and saving worke
then of their totall inability Men of good parts and able gifts may be actually such dumb dogs as seldome preach or never to purpose and bee spiritually ignorant through much prophanenesse yet not totally deprived of common gifts It is most evident that the Pharisees were blinde yet taught the people and hence the Disciples were permitted to heare them but what is this to the question which is of unable as well as of ungodly Ministers Thirdly suppose some of the Priests and Levites were unable yet the Ministery of the Old Testament was limitted by God himselfe to the tribe of Levi and that by succession which is farre otherwise in the New Testament being left to the Churches election and therefore they had no power to reject them o◠withdraw from them when they had ministred the ordinances of God Fourthly suppose some of them were not called of God being not lineally descended of that tribe yet those things wherein the faithfull Christ and his Apostles and others did communicate with them were necessarily commanded of God viz. sacrifices offerings c. in the Temple which seale of God we see not stamped upon this Liturgy in question to make it currant And thus Peter Martyr answereth in the like case that though there were many pernicious doctrines taught by Scribes Pharisees and wicked Priests yet sacrificandi ritus c. the rites of sacrificing were not changed for the same oblations were offered which the Law commanded and therefore the Saints might use them having the word of God conjoyned with them Fifthly what you grant concerning Christ his warning his Disciples to take heed of the leaven of the Scribes and Pharisees no doubt hee did the like concerning the corruptions of the Priests in their administrations of Gods ordinances and wee doubt not but you will acknowledge that the Prophets and Apostles did or ought to abstaine from all actuall communion with those corruptions and the Lord Jesus out of question did abstaine which being so wee may retort this argument thus in regard of conformitie to ceremonies If it bee not lawfull to partake in the Ordinances of God where wee must actually joyne with such ceremonies then Christ the Prophets and Apostles must not have joyned in any ordinance of God in severall ages of the Church when worse or as ill corruptions were admixed with that worship But they never refused the ordinances of worship for such corruptions Therefore wee should not now for these ceremonies abstaine put case for kneeling at the Lords Supper c. If you please to solve this knot the same answer will serve our turne as well Reply It is not for private Christians to withdraw themselves from the ordinances of worship and communion of the Church because such are permitted to deale in the holy things of God whom they judge or know unfit when men joyne in the worship of God with unworthy Ministers they doe not countenance them their place and office but obey the commandement of God who requires their attendance upon his highnesse in that way and meanes Answ First wee grant it is not alwayes for private Christians so to leave the communion of a Church in the ordinances of God for such a reason but if they have first done their part according to their place to reforme or cast out such an unworthy and unable ministry and cannot or see no hope to procure one sufficient to edifie the Church hee may and ought to betake himselfe to some other Church where hee may bee edified and it is a great mistake to thinke in the constitution of the Gospell that a Christian cannot reject all fellowship with such Idoll Priests but hee must forsake the ordinances of Christ or rent off from the Church when indeed hee deprives himselfe of many ordinances in joyning with them and attaines them in forsaking of them Secondly if we consider wherein the outward call of all Church Officers in the New Testament lies viz. in a great part in the choice of the Church or at least in their after consent and receiving of them being chosen by others for them Act. 1. and 6. and 14. how can any godly man receive submit unto or acknowledge such unable wretches by receiving Gods ordinances from them as Ministers but they must needs countenance them in their places and set up to themselves an Idoll or meanes of worship to edifie themselves which God never appointed for let it bee proved that ever God appointed readers of a Liturgie to edifie the people Answ Thirdly but that to joyne in worship with such should bee to obey Gods command who requires attendance upon himselfe in that way and meanes wee thinke it a speech not so throughly digested if wee carry in our eye the case now in hand concerning these Idoll Priests and Silver shrines For where can they shew any such command or why hath it been suffered by any of our Brethren that the godly living under such Priests have been so frequently absent from them reading the liturgy to heare their Sermons Nay why have they not told them they were bound to attend upon God in hearing their Sir John read at home Wee appeale to all consciences whether they would approve of any godly man that would rest in such meanes and not call him to leave all his outward conveniences for some godly able Ministry or at least not to attend on them but get where they may bee better edified Reply To goe no further then the Text you quote Hosea 4. 6 7. Because thou hast despised knowledge I have rejected thee properly the Text speaketh of the ten Tribes and the Priests amongst them who worshipped the Calves c. whom the Lord threatens to reject but neither this nor any other Text proves that people joyning in worship with such doe countenance them in their places Answ The Text proves that God rejects such Priests as these are just like Jeroboams Priests of the meanest of the people and that was all it was alledged for and that receiving such as Ministers doth countenance them in their places was proved before And if it bee meant of Jeroboams Priests as you say the approved practise of the godly in those dayes 2 Chron. 11. 16. will well justifie and lead us to reject and leave these also Secondly there seemes to bee foure arguments why the people should withdraw from these kind of Priests First in regard of their miserable perishing for want of knowledge by their meanes Secondly because the people in receiving them rejected knowledge as Calvin notes upon the place Thirdly because God would take a time to disburthen the Church of them whence Drusius in locum wisheth utinam tales bodie à ministerio amoverentur Fourthly because the Lord would cast off their children from being his for this sinne as Calvin also notes upon the place the promise of shewing mercy to a 1000. generations being chiefly annexed to the observers of the second Command and the instituted
meanes of worship which those Priests never were Reply On the contrary if you will extend this Text to all unworthy Ministers of what sort soever whom the Word of God condemns as not approved Ministers of God c. Answ Wee intended no other sorts then such as wee have in hand the unable and ungodly Idoll Priests of England and therefore this discourse concernes us not For wee freely confesse that it is lawfull in divers cases at least for a time to communicate with such unworthy Ministers as may bee contained in your description but that people must and ought to joyne with such in the worship of God and sinne if they separate from the ordinances as you say the Scriptures alledged teach not this so evidently that wee can see as 1 Sam. 2. 12 13. 17. 24. that imputation Verse 24. They make the Lords people to transgresse doth not depend immediatly on Verse 13 14. 17. but on Verse 22. 23. where they are charged to have layne with the women the other passages being interrupted by the story of Samuel and his Mother Verse 18 19. 20 21. So Jer. 8. 8 9. Micah 3. 11 12. containe onely threats against wicked Ministers but not a word to prove people ought to joyne with them c. Phil. 1. 15. speaking of such as preach and preach Christ though not of sinceritie doth not reach such Ministers as the word condemnes for many such may be approved Ministers by the Word having a call according to the same but wee shall not contend in this case wherein wee doe not dissent so that Christians bee left to their lawfull libertie of withdrawing from Ministers grossely wicked and Teachers of false Doctrin or idle and unsufficient when they cannot reclaime them or remove them in the use of all lawfull meanes within their power Reply The reasons whereby the ancient Churches condemned the Donatists and Catharists for their voluntary and seditious separations and the moderne Churches condemne the Anabaptists for their renting from the body of Christ will hold against separation from the Prayers of the Congregation because they are read by an ungodly Minister Wee deny that wee teach or hold such separation because read by an ungodly Minister as is sufficiently shewed before but what we speak is against conformitie to and communion with the corruptions of the Liturgie especially used by an unable as well as ungodly Minister and therefore the arguments mentioned will hold against our proposition just as the accusations and imputations of Donatisme Puritanisme Anabaptisme which the Prelates cast upon all Non-conformists and men studious of reformation will hold and fasten upon them which is nothing at all Reply The second Proposition where the whole Liturgie is used though by an able and godly Minister it is not lawfull to joyne in prayer in that case Wee cannot bee of your judgement herein for in the times of the Prophets and our Saviour Christ as great abuses no question were found c. but they never taught people to separate from the holy things of God Answ First wee must still mind the Reader of the true and full state of the question which in our answer is of joyning in prayer with and when that whole Liturgy is used and hee that joynes with that whole Liturgie must needs bee supposed to have actuall communion with all the corruptions thereof what ever they bee and therefore though this Proposition reach to the practise of able and godly Ministers yet let none thinke wee plead herein separation from their ministery but onely that people may not conforme with them to any corruption in worship and by this proposition also the Author might easily have seene that wee denied the other which was woven in with this not because of the ungodlinesse of the Minister alone as hee carried his dispute but chiefly in respect of the corruptions of the worship together with the unlawfulnesse of such a ministery that is both unable and ungodly Secondly concerning the argument it runs as full for conformitie to all the corrupt ceremonies of the booke as the corrupt worship it selfe therein as was said before cleare the one viz. non-conformitie to ceremonies shew a reason why you will separate from the Sacrament because you will not kneele according to the booke and you answer your argument here alledged against us but the reply proceeds Reply And if presence at formes of prayer bee not lawfull by reason of the corruptions alledged there can bee no visible societie named since 200. yeeres after Christ or thereabout wherein a Christian might lawfully joyne in prayer reading the Scriptures hearing the word or participation of the Sacraments their Doctrines prayers rights being lesse pure then ours but no man wee hope will bee so bold as to affirme the state of the Churches within 200. yeers after Christ to bee so miserably decayed that the faithfull could not without sinne hold communion with them in the foresaid ordinances of God Answ First this argument holds as strongly for conformitie to the ceremonies as to the whole booke of Common Prayers as was said before Secondly this is a dangerous kind of reasoning from the practise of the faithfull in corrupt times of the Church especially when they are declining and growing clouds of darkenesse and superstition overspread the Churches It is no breach of charitie to thinke that through the iniquitie of the times the godly lived in many evils through ignorance and weakenesse which after light is come into the Churches wee ought to abandon wholly these are times of light and of the consumption of Antichrist and time for us to abolish his Liturgies and corrupt formes of worship as well as Images ceremonies c. Who doe not pitie the weaknesse of godly Bilny and others that seeing some grosse corruptions were yet so devoutly obedient to the Church as they called it in many grosse superstitions and the like may bee said of those former times and wee see not but this reason will goe farre in justification of communion with many false worships of Antichrists that are not grosly idolatrous Thirdly it is a great charge upon those times to say no visible societie throughout the world can bee named since 200. yeeres after Christ that was not lesse pure then England in Doctrine rites c. It may bee that as generally Churches were corrupt so they contemned and censured such as professed more puritie but that there were some visible assemblies more pure may bee conceived by that testimony given to Aerius and many orthodox Christians with him though condemned for a Hereticke in that which wee all now hold to bee an undoubted truth also after the Waldenses casting off the Pope and his will worships and the following reformed Churches those of Scotland Geneva and divers others in France and Switserland c. whose Doctrines rites and administrations wee doubt not will bee confessed more pure then English Churches It would bee too tedious and in these knowing times
Churches are moulded up into one Politicall Body either de jure or de facto or that it is possible as the case stands so to be and then the similitudes would be of some use Thirdly in a Kingdom or Army suppose they never meet yet there is such politicall union as fully reaches the politicall communion for which end it was combined viz. that they should enjoy peace and justice in and by a just Government or by the protection of the Army But if such a politicall Body were combined to have such communion as a Church-communion is then it would require conventing together as elswhere we shall more fully manifest For our parts we do not see that Christ hath ordained the whole Catholick church as One to have politicall communion together which is impossible And therefore we see no need of such a Politicall combination but as he hath ordained a Brotherly communion of counsell and helpfulnesse one to another as need requires so a spirituall relation and brotherly consociation of Churches together is union sufficient for such a communion And thus far we have endevored to take away all those arguments which are built upon the generall considerations of the unity visibility and priority of the Catholick church which we leave to the consideration and examination of the judicious We shall now as the Lord shall helpe us come to cleare the state of this knotty controversie as we think it ought to be stated and carryed Viz. What is that form of a Politicall Church which Jesus Christ in the Gospel hath instituted and appointed as the subject of Church power of government and administration of all the ordinances of the Gospel for actuall communion with Christ and one with another therein And here give us leave before we enter into the question it self to make a little further use of our former similitude for illustration and then we will shew where the ne plus ultra as we conceive must stand It hath been shewed in respect of the body of mankinde that although much may be said for the unity visibility and priority thereof before any parts of it yet no reason will inforce that it is the first subject of Civill power c. in respect of actuall administration and immediate enjoyment thereof and so here in respect of the Church We will now add but this one thing more that notwithstanding all such reasons yet in execution for the good of the whole the least civill society yea a family may be and is the first subject of civill power and priviledges of civill government so the least politicall Church society may be the first subject of these Keys of Church power in the exercise thereof and of immediate communion in all visible ordinances and we think that there by Divine institution it is seated and the edification and perfection of the Catholick Church may best be attained thereby Concerning Families we see no footsteps in the propagation of mankinde from Adam and Noah of any soveraign or universall government further then in the first Fathers of mankinde after whom as they increased families went out and combining made cities and so Common-wealths by mutuall consent as in Gen. 10. and other Stories appear except by the tyrannous usurpations of some as Nimrod the rest were brought under and this no doubt amongst any free people is still the most orderly just and safe way of erecting all forms of civill government Families to combine into Townes Cities Kingdomes or Aristocraticall States But here some will say If so that according to this similitude a particular congregation may be the first Church that have the Keys of Church power and Church communion then as families should combine into Towns and Cities and they into greater Common-wealths for the good of all mankinde so here these first Churches may not stand independently but ought to combine into greater Bodies till they come to be one whole Church to this we say this will not follow upon this evident reason because civill societies and government thereof is herein left to rules of humane prudence by the Lord and governor of the whole world and therefore may admit various forms of Government various Laws and Constitutions various priviledges c. according as men shall conceive best for themselves so they be not against the common morall rules of equity and the good of those Societies but here in the Kingdom of Christ as wee must attend what kinde of Church he hath instituted so we must cleave to such rules priviledges and forms of government and administrations as he hath ordained not presuming to goe one step beyond the same And hence it is not in the power of any Church to alienate the power rights or priviledges Christ have set in the same or to mould up any other politicall Churches then he hath appointed and here we conceive stands immovably the ne plus ultra of this similitude between the visible Church and the estate of mankinde in reference to power and government c. All which things well weighed to us seems to overthrow all such intermediate forms of Churches or the usuall Churches as Mr. Ball calls the same as Classicall Provinciall Diocesan Nationall Patriarchicall c. which we see not how according to the rule of Christ they can be constituted either descendendo from the common nature of the Catholick Church or ascendendo from the combination of particulars except institution can bee found for the same We find indeed that some endevor to build such forms upon the foundation of Morall principles and the Law of nature as That God hath given government to be over a multitude and that of many Societies as well as persons that one Society may not suffer as well as one person and that therefore must be given of the God of grace to a society and multitude of little Churches power of externall government To which we answer 1 That there is no such principle in nature that generally binds free Societies to submit to one common government must many Kingdoms c. by consequence all kingdoms combine in government lest one kingdome bee hurt â— must Moab Ammon Edom Tyre Sydon Judea c. being so contiguous in near vicinity to each other combine in one government 2 Is it not as suitable to morality and reason in such combinations that they set up One to rule over them when many grow ignorant evill or heady to preserve peace and prevent wrong as to set up many 3 Did Abraham Lot Melchisedeck and such family Churches walk against grounds of morality and nature that did not so combine We might add more but forbear but we could desire our dear Brethren to be wary of scattering such principles for though in the matters of the Church and Worship and Government of Christ 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
they may choose a Diocesan Pastor one or many to feed all or one to 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 Galilâ—e 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. Object 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 Object 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 Object 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 ioyned 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 noâ— 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 be 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 anthoritatively 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 undeâ— the government of a common Presbytery or other formes of government for wee have a brotherly esteeme of such congregaâ—ions 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 saith 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 Argum. 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 Argum. 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 Argum. 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 Argum. 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 Argum. 5. The learned Author Mr. Ball in this his dispute against our Conclusion yet in his Discourse let fall sundâ—y 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 Terâ—ullian 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 practiâ—â— 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
ten men 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 durst 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 nor any thing that is said from Rev. 2. 7. Hear what the Spirit saith to the Churches 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 meet together in one place ordinarily nor is the Society broken off by persecution when their meeting 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 it is necessary both necessitate praecepti medii to be able at least so to doe for though it be not necessary to the unity 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 Hardin objects any more then to observe dayes moneths times condemned as beggerly Elements by the Apostle Gal. 4. As also that all the faithfull are united together by the Sacrament though they meet not in the same place as the Ancients note How doth learned Chamier answer them he tels them That although this or that particular place is not necessary yet a place indefinitely taken is 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 enim auditum qui Hierosolymis erant sacramentaliter communicasse cum iis qui Alexandriae 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. Reply To the second Consideration of the Answer THe Proposition 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 household 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 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 potestas charitatively to put
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 ordinances of Christ and priviledges of a Church which the other have not being out of that order of Christ prescribed in the Gospel in which order of a visible Church visible ordinances are to be dispensed as hath been proved before Reply If a Synod consisting of sundry members of particular Churches met together in the name of Christ about the common and publike affaires of the Churches shall joine together in prayer and Communion of the Supper we can see no ground to question it as unlawfull although that assembly bee no particular Congregation or Church hath no Pastour over them c. Answ That suâ—h an assembly may pray together is no question for every family may doe so and that they may receive the Supper also in a right order wee deny not for meeting where there is a particular instituted Church they may have Communion therewith in the Supper being many as well as few but whether they may as a Church being no politicall body but members of many Politicall Churches administer Church ordinances proper to a Church wee would see some reasons before wee can judge it lawfull so to doe for though some doe account such a Synod Ecclesia orta yet not properly such a Church as hath Ecclesiasticall power authority and priviledge belonging thereto they may consult and doctrinally determine of cases of that assembly Acts 15. but further to proceed we see no rule nor paterne Besides if such an assembly of many Churches may administer Seales why may not any other assembly of Church members or Ministers doe the samâ— and so this power will be carried without limitation we know not how far if they once depart from a particular Church CHAP. VIII Consid 3. Reply TO the third consideration this whole reason as it is propounded makes onely against it selfe who ever thought that the Seales were not proper to confederates or the Church of God of old visible beleevers in the Covenant of grace were of the visible Church and in Church order according to the dispensation of those times though not joyned to the society of Abrahams family to exclude Job Melchisedeck c. because not of the visible Church is welnigh a contradiction and so to debarre known approved Christians c. Answ That this reason makes not against it self Mr. Ball himself hath cleared when he stated our consideration truely in the words following as will appeare however here he somewhat troubles the waters needlessely that the ground may not appeare for there is nothing in our answer which deny Melchisedech Job c. to bee of the visible Church according to the manner of those times indeed wee instance in them as persons under the covenant of grace not mentioning their membership in family Churches as being enough for our purpose if they had not right to Circumcision by vertue of their right in the covenant of grace except they joyned to the Church at first in Abrahams family and so after to the same Church in Israel and the more speciall Church relation in Abrahams family was required to Circumcision the stronger is the force of our reason not the weaker For so much the rather it followes that seales are not to bee dispensed to beleevers as such though visibly professing the faith except they joyne also to such a forme of the visible Church to or in which the seales are instituted and given Reply The true and proper meaning of this consideration is that as Circumcision and the Passeover were not to bee dispensed to all visible beleevers under the Covenant of grace but onely to such as were joyned to Abrahams family or the people of the God of Abraham no more may Baptisme and the Lords Supper be administred now to any beleevers unlesse they be joyned to some particular Congregation Answ These words rightly stating the consideration wee leave it to any indifferent reader to judge whether any way it make against it selfe or whether there was any cause first to darken it as was done in the former passage Reply The strength of it stands in the parity betweene Circumcision and Baptisme but this parity is not found in every thing as your selves alledge To unfold it more fully wee will consider three things First wherein the Sacraments agree and wherein they differ Answ It matters not in how many things the Sacraments differ so they agree in the thing questioned and though wee might raise Disputes and Queries about some particulars in this large discourse upon this first head yet seeing here is a grant of the parity in the point now questioned viz. Concerning the persons to whom Circumcision and Baptisme doe belong wee shall take what is granted and leave the rest For thus it is said Circumcision and Baptisme are both Sacraments of Divine institution and so they agree in substance of the things signified the persons to whom they are to be administred and the order of administration if the right proportion be observed Now that we â—â—ld the right proportion in the persons may appeare First in that as was granted Circumcision sealed the entrance into the Covenant but this Covenant was not simply and onely the Covenant of grace but that whole Covenant that was made with Abraham whereby on Gods part they were assured of many speciall blessings whereof Lot and others not in this Covenant with Abraham were not capable and whereby Abraham his seed and family were bound for their part to be a people to God and to observe this signe of the Covenant which others in the Covenant of grace were not bound to Answ Secondly as is granted it was Abraham and his houshold and the seed of beleeving Jewes that were the persons to bee Circumcised and therefore not visible beleevers as such for then Lot had been included so by right proportion not all visible beleevers as such but such as with Abraham and his family are in visible Covenant to bee the people of God according to the institution of Churches when and to which the seale of Baptisme is given and therefore as all family Churches but Abrahams being in a new forme of a Church were excluded so much more such as are in no visible constituted Church at all Reply Secondly As for the proposition it selfe certaine it is Circumcision and the Passeover were to bee administred onely to the visible members of the Church i. e. to men in Covenant professing the true faith but that in Abrahams time none were members of the visible Church which joyned not to Abrahams family wee have
which cannot be said of seales and censures being cultus institutus Reply Secondly A Person baptized is not baptized into that particular Congregation onely but into all Churches and in every particular Church hath all the priviledges of a baptized person and so to be esteemed of them Now the priviledge of the baptized person walking in the truth and able to examine himselfe is to bee admitted to the Lords Supper as all circumcised persons had right thereby to eate the Passeover in any society where God should choose to put his name there Exod. 4. 47. Deut. 16. 1 1. Answ This seemeth to touch the question it selfe rather then the proposition of this fourth consideration but wee shall answer to it as it stands 1. Here you grant that a person baptized is baptized unto a particular Congregation which wee accept as a yeelding of the question unawares 2. If you meane that such hath a liberty of Communion in a way of brotherly love in all Churches where he comes wee grant so farre as nothing in him justly hinder but if you meane that hee is baptized into all Churches so as to challenge a right of Membership in them all wee deny it as a position that would take away all distinction of Churches as wee have formerly shewed 3. We deny that the Lords Supper is the priviledge of a baptized person able to examine himself walking in the truth as a baptized person for then a Papist converted to the truth able to examine himselfe hath a right to the Lords Supper in every Church before he make any profession of his conversion and faith in any particular Church for hee may bee such a baptized person And we may say the like of an excommunicate penitent 4. We grant that a baptized person is not onely baptized in to that particular Church whereof hee was first a member For if it bee a seale of his initiation into that particular Church onely then he must bee rebaptized as oft as hee enters into another but hee is baptized in the sense formerly shewed into the whole mysticall Body of Christ and hence hath jus ad rem or a remote right unto the priviledges of the Church every where but that therefore he hath immediate right to the fruition of all when he is severed from that particular church wherein he was baptized that follows not for as he had this latter right in the first Church wherein hee was baptized so he must have it in any of the Churches of Christ afterward now if in the first Church the fruition of ordinances came by orderly joyning to it so it must be afterward for as wee said before such as the communion is such ought to be the union he that would have politicall communion with the politicall Churches of Christ must be some where in politicall union with them otherwise one may have communion in all Churches yet never unite himself to any one which loose walking we are perswaded Christ Jesus will not allow 5 The similitude from a circumcised person will not hold First because there is no parity between severall families in the same Church and severall Churches in the New Testament but rather severall seats of communicants in the same Church answers severall families eating the passeover in the Church of the Jewes Secondly an Edomite circumcised though he were converted and acknowledged the true God in his owne country never so fully yet might not eate the passeover till he joyned to the church of Israel as all other Proselytes did so is it here Reply Thirdly there is not the same reason of every Church priviledge one may have right to some who may not meddle with others as members of one Church may joyne in hearing and prayer with another Church but not meddle in election and ordination of their Teachers and therefore the proposition is not so evident to bee taken without proofe that they have no power to admit a beleever into communion in any Church priviledge who have no power to excommunicate Answ What is here objected from the liberty or restriction of Church members in another Congregation is answered before in the first objection and therefore the proposition may stand good for all that is here said 2 That which is set down as the proposition is neither the same with that in our reason nor any way allowed by us for wee speake not here of power to admit but of the right to bee partakers neither doe wee deny a power in officers to admit members of other Churches to the seales though they have no power to excommunicate them 3 If our proposition seeme to need proofe the reason of it is at hand because those that are the peculiar priviledges or proper priviledges or proprieties of the Church as seales and censures being of the same nature viz. outward ordinances of Christ ordained by him for the edification of his Church and joyntly given to his Church and therefore looke to what Church hee hath given the one hee hath given the other also if the one viz. censures bee given to the Church of a visible Congregation then the other they are all both seales and censures contained in the keys which are given to the visible instituted Churches of the New Testament not to the Catholick as such for a godly man justly cast out of the particular Church yet cannot bee cast out of the Catholick Reply That visible beleevers baptized into a true Church professing the true faith and walking in holy obedience and their seed should be judged such as are without in the Apostles sense because they are not externally joyned as set members to some peculiar Congregation in Church Covenant is affirmed not proved Answ Comming to the assumption of our argument it is expressed according to the frequent manner in this Reply in such termes as it is not affirmed by us and therefore if it want proof blame not us our assumption is Such as are not in Church Covenant are not capable of Church censures where by being in Church covenant wee meane either implicitly or explicitly membership in any true Church as in our answer wee expresse to prevent mistakes and this is proved from 1 Cor. 5. 12. and in applying hereof wee doe not affirme that such are simply without in the Apostles sense but in some respect onely viz. in regard of visible church Communion Reply First It doth oft fall out that the true members of the Catholick Church and best members of the orthodox Church by a prevailing faction in the Church may bee no members of any distinct society and shall their posterity be counted aliens from the Covenant and debarred from the Sacraments because their parents are unjustly separated from the inheritance of the Lord Answ This objection is before answered in the first consideration where was given the instance of Athanasius and it is answered by the Reply it selfe in the next words Surely as parents unjustly excommunicated doe continue still
many and the inconveniences objected in some degree at least will follow here with us and it may be much more in some other places Reply You professe high respect to your brethren in Old England but it seemes you judge them insufficient to give you orderly testimony of the sincerity of approved Christians well known and living amongst them which two cannot well agree Answ This Position holds forth no such judgement of the insufficiency of our Brethren in the case neither have we shewed it by rejecting such orderly testimony that we know Reply Wee speake not of such who against light refuse to professe subjection to the Gospell of Christ or to joyne to some approved Church c. Answ Neither doe wee impute that to all that joyne not unto us but our meaning is that under such a description of approved Christians we shall bee necessitated to admit of some if not many such Reply No question but many have been admitted by the Church who in truth are much too light and some refused who are better deserving then they that cast them off Answ Bee it so that through personall failings and weaknesse of discerning it may and doe fall out sometimes yet this no way hinders but that all lawfull meanes to prevent the same may and ought to be used and this we may before the Lord professe that the purpose and desire of our hearts are as well to embrace the weakest humble Christian as to keepe out the proud Pharisee and wee have seen a gracious presence of Christ in his Churches blessing our indeavours therein whatsoever any discontented persons returning back may clamour to the contrary CHAP. XI Consid 6. Reply TO the sixt consideration this conclusion is not to the question propounded for wee speake of such as cannot not of such as refuse to joyne themselves to the Churches or if they doe not joyne it is not out of contempt or wilfull neglect but for lacke of opportunity or through their default that should admit them but doe not Answ The learned Authour here wholly mistakes the conclusion of this argument the conclusion is plaine and expressed with the ordinary note Ergo no christian can expect by the appointment of God to partake in the seales till he hath joyned himselfe in Church-fellowship and in the call of the Minister and this is fully to the question propounded and wee marveld it should not be observed but the last words of the answer should bee put in stead of it which are onely a secondary deduction from the former as an absurdity which may follow if the other be not granted And yet hence occasion is taken to charge us with injurious and tyrannical dealing toward such as are not admitted which we leave to the Lord to judge of and of us You say you accuse not the discretion of our Churches but impute it to the rashnesse of the zealous multitude but if it were so practised as is conceived the Churches and their guides should shew little wisedome and faithfulnesse to the Lord and the soules of his people Reply When a reason is demanded of your judgement why you debarre approved Christians from the seales and we dislike it you should put this note upon them as if against light they refused orderly to subject themselves to the Gospell of Christ What warrant you have thus to censure what use of this manner of dispute we leave it to your godly wisedome to judge Answ Wee are heartily sorry that this reverend man of God out of a meere and palpable mistake of the conclusion of the dispute should runne out to condemne us for so much censoriousnesse of others without cause whether our manner of dispute bee here so without use wee leave to the judicious reader to judge And that wee are far from such censures of godly approved Christians amongst us wee can approve our selves to God and the consciences of many that live amongst us wee doe not say that all who doe not joyne with us doe refuse against light yet wee finde it true too oft that forward professors in England here discover evidently an heart refusing against light to submit to Gods ordinances and therefore wee had cause to say it were unreasonable such should have equall liberty with others Reply In the consideration it selfe there are many propositions couched to be examined the first That none have power to dispense seales but such as are called to the Ministry is freely granted The second That no man can be so called till there bee a Church to call him needeth explication For by the Church you must understand the community of the faithfull as they are one body without officers and such a Church there cannot be without a ministry to call and admit them into Church fellowship Answ This consideration shines with such clearenesse that an impartiall eye may easily see that the truth by sundry diverticula is rather clouded then the argument fairely answered This second proposition being too plaine to bee denied interpretations are sought but they are rather objections to which wee shall answer in order First though wee grant the Lord ordinarily gathered Churches by the ministry of men in Office as the Apostles Evangelists c. yet not alwayes so as is evident Acts 11. 20 21. The story of Waldus is well knowne and we suppose you will grant those Waldenses the name of a true Church Origen when hee was not allowed of the Church to bee a Ministes yet converted many who died Martyrs The story also of Frumentius is well known with divers others Secondly Ministers by Office are of two sorts either such as are called immediatly or mediatly such as were immediatly and extraordinarily called were before Churches and were called together and begin Churches as the Apostles Matth. 28. 20. Act. 1. 8. But all ordinary officers that are to administer in a Church doe necessarily presuppose a Church to call them unlesse any will adventure to say in plaine English that the calling of a Minister may bee without the antecedent election of the people and then wee shall finde what to Reply Reply The Apostles baptized not themselves but by the helpe of others and those not called of the people to baptize 1 Cor. 1. 17. Answ Bee it so that in Corinth Paul baptized not many but by others yet first we demand By whom did Paul and the Apostles baptize It was either by Evangelists and so it is all one as if the Apostles as extraordinary officers did it or by the Pastors newly chosen and ordained in the Churches newly gathered who might baptize the rest and then the Church was before such officers or else by private persons which is denyed expresly in the Reply to the first proposition Reply The Apostles appointed by election Elders in every City or Church and so there was a Church before Elders but this Church was a society of beleevers by Baptisme admitted into Church fellowship and therefore there must be Ministers to
first institution that it should bee dispensed to none but members of a Congregationall assembly Answ It is freely granted First That baptisme is a priviledge of the Church Secondly that such as professe the faith and have received the Holy Ghost are members of the Church if by Church bee meant the Church mysticall considered as visible though not alwayes political Thirdly that these may receive baptisme by such as have power to baptize them but immediately to baptize them none had power but by an extraordinary call of God so to doe as hath bin formerly shewed But it wil not hence follow that ordinary officers have such a power wanting such extraordinary call because the members of the Church Catholicke having right unto the seales yet the immediate fruition of them they must have by ordinary officers in a politicall body the onely subject according to order of all such institutions otherwise we must admit private baptismes if the extraordinary examples of the Apostles be pressed for our patterne Reply Then the Apostles in dispensing seales walked by rules of Scripture and grounds common to us and then the difficulty remaining is onely this Whether a Pastour may dispense seales to such as have right to them and do orderly desire them though hee be not yet a set member of a Congregation Answ Wee grant the Apostles ordinarily and generally baptized upon common grounds but still when they did so they received them into some particular Church and so baptized them and in the like orderly way any pastour may doe the same Secondly we answer things may bee done sano sensu upon common and morall grounds and yet may not be done by others upon the same grounds To give one instance in stead of many the Apostles preached the Gospel to gather in the elect of God and to edifie the Church c. and Ministers upon the same common grounds must now preach the Gospel also yet in that the Apostles on those grounds preached to all Nations this doth not warrant Ministers now to do the like so here though we baptize beleevers as they did yet wee may not do it to all in all cases as they did And therefore the rule holds onely when all circumstances are alike as well as the Common grounds Reply Secondly In the instance given it is not probable that baptisme was evermore administred by the Apostles or Evangelists For before the death of Christ the Disciples baptized when they were neither Apostles nor Evangelists properly After the death of Christ c. If Philip Ananias and others might baptize such as were no members of particular Congregations then may ordinary Pastours doe the like Answ You mistake here in the force of our answer as hath beene shewed in the first consideration to which this objection and answer belong For wee doe not make all the Acts of the Apostles and Evangelists extraordinary but generally orderly in the way wee professe Secondly wee answer to the particulars not to wrastle with the Ghosts of humane imaginations and conjectures whether any besides the Apostles baptized the 3000. Act. 2. As for Philip and Ananias if they baptized did they baptize as private men or as Church Officers If the second what Officers were they ordinary or extraordinary Wee thinke it will not bee thought they were ordinary who were honoured with such extraordinary worke But in what Office soever they were those particular actions in baptizing the Eunuch and Paul were done by an immediate call of God as is evident in the story Reply Thirdly It is very improbable that the persons baptized were in Church State or Order If they were members of the Jewish Church not yet dissolved this is not to the purpose for men have not right to baptisme because members of the Jewish Church but because Disciples and as you say joyned together in Covenant c. Answ Wee grant that since the visible kingdome of Christ was set up in visible Christian Churches the seales belong properly and ordinarily to the members of Christian Churches not Jewish yet wee may affirme that if in any speciall case a beleever was baptized by any that had a speciall call thereto where there was no Christian Church present actually to joyne unto yet being a member of the Jewish Church not yet dissolved the case does not so much vary from the set Order of Christ in those times and that is all wee intend Reply If the Eunuch and Centurion were proselytes and of the Jewish Church the Samaritans whom Philip baptized were not so and that any Gentiles or the Jaylour were set members of a Christian assembly is very strange c. Answ This is fully answered before in the first consideration and that which is according to the rule and mind of Christ and the first and common practise of the Apostles Act. 2. to joyne men to the Church when they baptized them need not seeme strange Reply In the Apostles practise two things are to bee considered First the circumstance of the action Secondly the substance or quality of the Act. In some circumstances the baptizing of some of these might bee extraordinary but the substance and quality of the action was grounded upon â—ules perpetuall and common to us and them That is done in an extraordinary way c. Answ 1 Wee suppose amongst such Circumstances you will reckon that for one that the Eunuch was baptized alone in the Wildernesse not in any visible assembly of Saints Wherein ordinary Pastors may not imitate that Act and this comes not farre short of what wee say for the chiefe proof that they were not received into a particular Church lies in their absence from such an assembly and if they might bee admitted to the Catholick Church without the presence of any Christian but him that baptized them why not into a particular Church as well 2 The large discourse about the Apostles extraordinary power and doing things upon common grounds is so oft said for substance and answered before that it were vaine to trouble the Reader againe with the same thing Reply Secondly an argument followes necessarily from a particular example to a generall when the proofe of one particular to another is made by force of the similitude common to the whole kind under which those particulars are contained Now in this matter wee speake of no reason can bee named why wee should thinke it lawfull for the Apostles to baptize such as were no set members and the same should be unlawfull in all cases for Pastors of particular Congregations Answ Wee deny that the Apostles did so ordinarily and therefore your Argument doth not hold if it bee built upon the common practise but if it be built upon some few speciall cases we retort the Argument thus That which the Apostles did ordinarily upon common grounds that Pastors ought to doe but ordinarily they baptized Disciples admitting them first into particular Churches therefore in the third reason wee grant the conclusion of it
that the Apostles did walke by ordinary rules generally Reply Fourthly the practise of the Apostles in receiving the faithfull c. is backed on divine precept c. Answ If you meane they baptized such without receiving them into some particular Church wee deny this assumption upon the grounds laid downe before Reply Fiftly In the first consideration you prove the seales to be the priviledge of the Church in ordinary dispensation by this passage of Scripture Then they that gladly received the word were baptized but if the Apostles baptized by extraordinary dispensation in your sense this testimony is insufficient for that purpose Answ Although the printed Copy of our answer omit this proofe wholly and also Rom. 9. 4 yet in our true Cypy wee alledged Acts 2 41 42. 47. wherein you will finde not onely this passage Then they that gladly received 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 sealeâ— 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 â—â—ewes 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 donum 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 erre Now hence the question is moved Whether the power hee 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 it selfe 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
persons as his Master hath named thereunto and he instals them into the same the case is not alike yet here hee must have some power and authority so to doe so that he hath these offices vertually in his hand but if it be his Masters will he shall choose what persons hee sees fit according to rules given him which is the case here then hee hath this power vertually in his hand Reply Thirdly if Ecclesiasticall and spirituall power be in the multitude and community of the faithfull the Church doth not onely call but make Officers out of power and vertue received into her selfe and then should the Church have a true Lord like power in regard of her Ministers Answ If there be any such that hold the Church hath so the power of the Keyes in her selfe as that she may derive from her selfe authority to the Officers let such looke unto the conclusion as for Mr. Robinson though wee doe not approve the sentences 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. Reply 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 taâ—ke 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 busiebodies 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. 9. 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 counsellers 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 like counsell but the case may bee such as needs the publike counsell of all and as wee have a
family with himselfe to the griefe and hazard of his godly wife and hopefull children c. from all Ordinances of Christ to a people full of fanaticall errours were it Christian liberty or dangerous licenciousnesse to leave such a man to his owne counsels and not meddle with him Reply May you not heare from your owne grounds that herein you have devised an expedient or necessary rite or custome to prevent the dissolution of the body which never came into he minde of the Lord Jesus the Saviour of his body and in so doing if your exposition hold good you break the second Commandement and so presse customes onely expedient for the time as standing rules necessary for all times and all persons to put that authority into the hands of men which God never put upon them to obliege men to meddle in the affaires of men beyond warrant to binde consciences under so heavy â— penalty as that of Ananias and Saphira where God hath not bound them to debarre approved Christians from the seales because they cannot promise as seiled members to abide in the society and yet charge them as men that against light refuse subjection to the Gospel this is that which wee cannot approve which yet wee suspect will follow from your judgement and desire to bee resolved in your practise Answ Here is a greater heape of heavy criminations gathered together and cast upon us upon very weake grounds upon mistakes suspitions and wee feare too much credulitie given to some clamorous persons returning to England and too little credit given to our true relations and faithfull professions most of these have beene cleared in the former passages where wee met with them and wee marvell how they come in so twisted together here againe wee shall here onely cleare our selves of the first and referre the Reader to their proper places to see our answer to the others Here it is imputed unto us that wee have devised a rite to preserve the unity and prevent the dissolutions of the body which wee conceive is intended of this promise of not removall without leave which promise is not required of us nor made in our Church Covenant as wee have said and the ground of this imputation is also a meere mistake arising from the confounding of a second answer to the objection against our first reason with the second reason of our practise which are distinct and have a different scope for whereas some might object that this reason from the Covenant holds with such as grant such a Covenant lawfull the answer saith that some indeed question the necessitie of it but wee hope you doe not question the lawfulnesse and thereupon the answer first gives reasons and proofes of the lawfulnesse of it And secondly for the necessitie which is taken from the nature of all societies incorporate which by a fundamentall rule doe require of all that enter into them and partake of the priviledges thereof to conforme to all such lawfull rites and orders as are expedient for the well being of that society the contrary whereof would bee injurious to him to offer and confusion in them to accept and from hence it easily followes that a Church being a body of a people injoying priviledges together it is necessary fundamentally that they should bee joyned in some promise or Covenant which Covenant though in civill societies it may consist in rites and orders devised by themselves for their good yet in the Church which is the body of Christ this Covenant is no other but to performe the duties required in the Gospel towards God and one another without any rites or order devised by themselves as wee professed in setting forth the nature of the Covenant and this being the true scope of those words let any judge what ground is given by us of such an imputation of devising rites c. Neither doth the second reason in the answer give any ground of this imputation for though it dispute from the necessary ruine of the Church and all Churches if it were lawfull for any member when whither and wherefore hee please to depart from the Church without consent yet there is not one syllable that gives an hint of any rite custome or order devised by us to prevent the same but for the avoyding thereof wee still wholly and onely bind our selves to the rule of the Word to direct order and reforme all actions of this nature and to shew unto men whether they may lawfully remove or not remove not requiring any expresse promise to the contrary in this particular no more then in others and thus wee hope wee have resolved you of our practise as you desired To conclude this passage give us leave without offence to say thus much Although through the grace of Christ we desire humbly to submit to this part of our tryall even to goe through evill report as well as good yea all the reproaches and cruell mockings of the world knowing that wee have deserved much more from the hand of that God without whose providence a tongue could not move against us yet wee cannot but account it one of our poorest afflictions to suffer in this kind from the pens or tongues of our dearly beloved brethren for whom wee daily pray and to whom wee hope wee shall never bee provoked to returne any other language then savouring of love and respect But wee must confesse wee meet with so many sore criminations oft upon meere mistakes cast not onely upon our selves but the truth and wayes of God which wee professe and that both by this learned author and some others that wee cannot be so senselesse of the dishonour is reflected upon the truth of God herein as wholly to bee silent and groane out the griefe of our spirits to him that knoweth our hearts wherefore wee humbly beseech all our godly brethren to beare with us a little if after all the harsh passages of this Reply such an heape of accusations as are here throwne upon us move us to present to the Reader a short view of such things as are unjustly and ungroundedly cast upon us and which wee cannot but thinke hath drawne a black cloud over the glory of the holy Discipline of Christ which hee hath here set up among us To omit the generall frame of this Reply in presenting our opinions and wayes to the people as if wee concurred generally with those of the Rigid separation and differed almost in every thing from such godly brethren as have breathed after puritie of Ordinances and Reformation To omit also the frequent inserting of such termes unto our questions and arguments contrary to the true state thereof which render every thing harst and full of rigidnesse to the eares of the Reader as have been observed by us And omitting also divers other suppositions and objections we shall onely desire those who have taken up evill thoughts concerning these Churches and the wayes of Christ wee walke in from this Reply to note
these particular imputations in this short Chapter and upon what grounds they are built As page 79. That wee hinder men from entrance into Church society because they cannot promise continuance in the Place and running upon this straine he saith Was it ever heard of in the Church of God from the beginning thereof unto this day that any such thing was propounded unto and required of members to bee admitted into Church fellowship Here is a loud outcry and who would not think but that we usually propound and require such a thing in our admissions which yet is nothing so But what is the ground of all this Looke a little before and hee saith If such a promise be required Againe ibidem saith hee wee thinke the Church is over-rigid in exacting such a condition of the members and the members goe beyond their measure as busie bodies and what is the ground It followes If they arrogate such a power to themselves So page next 80. In the word it is not commanded that no member should remove or occasionally be absent from the place of his habitation before he have acquainted the congregation whither he goeth on what occasion c. To what end is this inserted if not to suggest that there is such a practise among us that a man may not occasionally be absent c. which is far from us And what is the ground see a few lines after The Church shall burthen herselfe c. If shee take upon her to intermeddle in all such occasions And immediatly after wee feare the time appointed for religious exercises should bee profaned by unseasonable disputes But what is the ground of this feare conceived and published to the world viz. If such businesses must bee determined on the Lords day and that before the Ordinances c. because it seemes Robinson in case of some notorious obstinate offender would have some censure passed to prevent pollution of an Ordinance and is this ground sufficient Againe in the same page for these things are thick sowne Herein saith he you have devised an expedient or necessary rite or custome to preserve unity c. but if you seeke a ground it will bee found a mistake â—s is shewed before and contrary to the expresse profession of the Answer That wee promise no new duties but onely such as the Gospell requires of all Saints in Church order much lesse doe wee set up new rites and customes And as if all these particular imputations in the compasse of one leafe were two little Page next 81. wee have a whole Catalogue gathered together from other places and this that by laying things together the odium raised might stick the deeper for thus the words are But to presse customes expedient for the time as standing rules necessary at all times and all persons To put authority in the hands of men which God never put upon them and to oblige them to intermeddle To bind the consciences of men and that upon so heavy a penaltie as the sinne of Ananias and Saphira where God hath not bound it To debarre knowne Christians from the seales because they cannot promise to abide in the Church as setled members and yet charge them in the meane season against light to refuse subjection to the Gospel Concerning all which wee doe not know any of them to be true nor approve any such thing in any if it should be found among us And what is the ground of all this Truely weake enough as hath been shewed in our discourse and here it is the suspicion of the Author for thus hee adds This is that wee cannot approve and yet wee suspect will follow from your judgement These things wee have thus briefly presented in one view not to dishonour the learned and reverend Author whose memory wee honour two things we charitably take notice of to remove over hard thoughts of him First wee consider his spirit might bee over grieved and provoked to this harshnesse by the withdrawings of many Christians from the Ordinances of God because dispensed according to the corrupt Liturgy in which cause he stood too farre ingaged and supposing New-England wayes the cause of it he was the more sharpe Secondly wee consider that this Reply was not intended by him to be published to the world but to be sent unto us and therefore he is in our hearts the lesse blamable But seeing these things are now published and the harshnesse thereof may do much hurt wee were pressed to cleare our selves wherein if any thing reflect upon the Author or Publishers wee cannot avoyd it Neither doe wee write thus as if wee would wholly justifie our selves and all the particular miscarriages that happily at one time or other in some Church or other may have happened we have much cause to humble our selves before our God and abase our selves to the dust before men for all the weakenesses sinnes errors and miscarriages that have beene found among us in one kind and another Onely this wee may professe before the Lord and his people that in the maine scope of our hearts and indeavours of our lives wee have sought after such a forme of worship and frame of discipline as we could conceive by the Word of God and the helpe of the best Reformers to bee according to the will of Christ not allowing our selves in any evill discovered unto us but bewayling our great defects in all Reply And here wee crave leave to put you in mind of what you have considered already That the Church and every member have entered into Covenant to take God for their God c. but wee never finde that they were called to give account of the worke of grace wrought in their soules or that the whole Congregation were to bee judge thereof You stand here all this day saith Moses before the Lord your God c. that thou shouldest enter into Covenant with the Lord thy God All that were borne in the wildernesse Joshua circumcised but it is uncredible to thinke there was none that did not give good testimony of the worke of grace c. Because it is a principall thing especially in the builders of the Church to know their materials and because the reverend and learned Author steps somewhat out of his way to call us to give answer in this controversie of such great weight especially in this present turne of times wee shall therefore gladly accept of this occasion to declare our selves with as much brevity as we may to the two branches of the question Qu. First Whether the members of the Church are called to give an account of the worke of grace at there admission thereunto Answ 1. Secondly Whether the whole Church is to be judge hereof Whether the members of the Church be called c. For answer to which wee shall expresse our selves in these particulars to prevent mistakes First that the question is not of what may keepe a Church already constituted from being accounted no Church
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 Matthias 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