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
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.
baptize before there can bee a Church to call a Minister For a company of unbaptized men cannot choose a Minister to baptize them Answ Wee see here still how unawares the truth of this proposition and of the position it selfe breaketh forth for the proposition it is fully yeelded and is most plain in the place alluded to Acts 14. Vers 23. And the position is yeelded also for if the Apostles admitted beleevers into all those Churches in the first constitution of them by baptisme which is the very truth wee contend for and was formerly denyed and these Churches were such as chose Elders and therefore were particular Churches and so the cause is fully yeelded Reply A company of converts unbaptized ought to desire baptisme but they have no power to elect one amongst themselves to dispense the seales unto the rest c. It can never bee shewed in Scripture that any society of unbaptized did first choose from among themselves a Pastour or Teacher by whom they might bee baptized you cannot produce one example or other proofe in Scripture of one man teaching the Gospel ministerially but hee was baptized and a member of a true Church or of a society who made choyce of a Pastor or Teacher but they were baptized persons Answ 1 If all this were granted that when Churches were gathered by Apostles and extraordinary officers out of persons unbaptized they were first baptized into Church fellowship before they chose Officers and so long as the Apostles remained enjoyed from them other ordinances as Act. 2. and so had no Officers chosen by themselves but by Christ immediatly for them yet as when the Apostles left them they must choose Officers if they will enjoy ordinances So when there is no such Apostles nor Evangelists nor no need of baptisme as is usually the cause of Christians arising out of popery in this case wee say such Churches can partake of no ordinances without they choose officers and yet this varyeth not from the Scripture patterne neither But onely so farre as the state of those beleevers differ when Paul found about twelve beleevers at Ephesus who were baptized by John the Baptist Act. 19. 1. c. If these were by the Apostle set into a constituted Church as is probable being called on further to the knowledge of Christ and his will and wayes there was no need of baptizing them againe with water but onely with the holy Ghost as the Apostles were at Pentecost Act. 1. 5. with 2. 1. 2. and yet no varying from the rule in so doing and the like is our case now 2. If this bee so as here you urge then those former assertions must needs fall to the ground as That every society in covenant with God is the true Church of God page 23. and that it is simply necessary to the being of a Church that it hee layd upon Christ the foundation which being done the remaining of what is forbidden or want of what is commanded cannot put the society from the right and title of a Church If these were so a company of unbaptized persons may bee a Church being in Covenant with God and layd on Christ the foundation though they want baptisme 3. Though no such example of unbaptized persons choosing a Pastour among themselves can bee shewed when there was no need thereof Apostles being at hand to baptize them yet why in absence of Apostles c. might they not choose some other baptized Christian who comming into some farre remote country of Infidels is a meanes of their conversion wee see nothing to hinder it would bee hard for any to shew an example of Presbyters holding a Synod or ordaining of Elders without Apostles or some extraordinary officer yet we suppose you make no doubt of such things 4 If an example of one unbaptized that preached baptized Ministerially would satisfie the example of Iohn the Baptist might answer your demand for whether hee baptized himselfe or were baptized by some other at first an unbaptized person did baptize but wee see no need of such an example Scripture grounds are sufficient to guide us in these cases bee they rules examples or good consequences deduced from them and wee reason thus a Church of beleevers professing Christ have liberty from Christ to choose their Officers But a company of unbaptized men professing the entire faith in a combined society is a true Church and therefore may choose their officers Reply The third proposition That the power of calling Ministers is given by Christ unto the Church must also rightly be understood by the Church must not be understood the faithfull alone but their guids and Officers with them who are to goe before them and to governe and direct them in their choyce neither can wee say two or three beleevers linked in a society is such a Church to whom the call of Ministers do belong but that right was given by Christ to such Churches as were gathered by the Apostles Answ The first Limitation of this proposition wee passe over as being spoken to in the former to this wee answer that when a Church have guides wee grant they are to governe them therein but not to limit them whom to choose but when the Church have no such guides as by death and other wayes it may fall out shall they then lose their right of choosing if so let it be shewed to whom the right falls They may take what counsell and helpe from others they want but the choyce is onely in them and therefore this limitation is needlesse For the number of two or three wee contend not but such Churches as the Apostles gathered were particular Congregations and therefore the right is in such bee they more or fewer When Bellarmine saith that our Ministers intruded themselves into Churches no saith Dr. Field for the people elected them which they might lawfully doe and separate from wicked Ministers which hee proves by the testimony of Cyprian writing to the Bishops of Spaine not to communicate with Basilides and Martialis who fell to Idolatry in times of persecution Quando ipsa plebs potestatem habet c. Also from Ocham who saith Si Papa maxime celebres Episcopi incidunt in haeresin ad Catholicos devoluta est potestas omnis judicandi to which hee addes this reason either they must separate from them and choose others or consent to their impieties Field lib. 3. cap. 39. What followeth in this place being little to this point and for the most part not scrupled by us and what is not acknowledged by us wee shall have a fitter occasion to speake to it therefore here wee passe it over Reply Proposi 4. That all those who desire seales are bound to joyne themselves in Church fellowship that so they may call a Minister to dispense the seales unto them will not follow from the former rightly understood for they must partake of the seales before they can joyne themselves together in Church estate Answ
minded from us in some things as Melanchthon did in another the like case to live and die in their bosomes The name of this servant of Christ now asleep is an oyntment poured out and precious to us we could therefore have wisht it our portion to have answered the Booke without the least reflecting upon him but the necessity herein is unavoydable This onely we adde that whatever weaknesses may passe from us let them not bee imputed to those servants of Christ that set us on work and have wanted leisure to review what is here done Every one may not bee in all things of the same mind with us for they may meet us in the same end though they use not the same arguments or become followers of us in the same path yet we know wee are not alone in any thing but may safely say thus much that what is here defended is generally acknowledged and received in these Churches of Christ A DEFENCE OF THE NINE POSITIONS CHAP. I. Concerning the Title WHereas it is called a new Church-way wee little expected that Brethren studious of Reformation who have been so exercised with imputations of novelty would have so readily and in the frontispice cast the same upon us who with them desire to walk in the first wayes of our Lord Jesus Christ and his holy Apostles but as in most substantiall points of Church-order wee goe along with the best reformed Churches so wee doubt not to make it good that wherein wee pressing after further Reformation seeme to differ from them yet wee build upon Scripture grounds acknowledged by many godly and Learned Reformers in our English and other reformed Churches which if the Lord have in mercy given us further light or rather opportunity to practise then they had let it not bee imputed to us for novelty A new edition of the old Church-way of godly Reformers in some things perhaps corrected and amended is no new Church-way or if it be thought the mending of some crooks in the old way make a new way wee answer with Junius in a case not unlike Vteunque novam esse videatur attamen quaecunque sunt vetera fuerunt nova ac non propterea novitati◠nomine vitiosa nisi forte novam pro renovatâ restitutâ accipitis quo sensu novam esse hanc viam agnoscimus One thing more in the Title page the Reader is to take notice of that whereas it is said This Treatise of Mr. Ball was penned a little before his death and sent over 1637. it seemes to bee a mistake of the Printer for the Nine Questions themselves were sent over 1636 the answer returned 38 but miscarrying another was sent 39. from which time wee longingly expected a return but partly for the reason rendred in the Epistle and what else wee know not wee never in so many yeares received any till this printed Reply by a Friends meanes came occasionally to our hands 1644. Concerning the Epistle to the Reader Whereas the publishers of this Treatise impute unto us or some related to our Cause That we are the Volunteers such as cry up this way and forward to blow such things abroad in the world which pressed them to make this Controversie publique 1 Wee may truly professe before the world that our Epistle sent with our former Answer proceeded from a spirit of love and peace with an humble willingnesse to receive further light by the holy and just Animadversions of our reverend and beloved Brethren which wee earnestly expected as men searching after the truth 2 That wee were altogether ignorant of the Printing of that our Answer and in that it was published then was not without our utter dislike wee have neither sounded trumpet nor struck up drum to any if any such volunteers wee heartily grieve that there are any differences between Brethren much more that they should bee published most of all if before they bee privately debated and brought to some head by mutual consent are thought fit to be sent out to publique considerations 3 For our Brethren in England we know no reason to question the truth of that Apology of our Brother Mr. Thomas Weld in his answer to W. R. pag. 2. Obj. 3. Answ 1. where he professeth in the name of himselfe and others of our way a lothnesse to appeare in the case and that although they had Bookes of this subject ready for the Presse yet by joint consent they suppressed them happily to the detriment of the Cause being unwilling to blow a fire and whether they appeared in Pulpit or Presse without instigation and how sparingly hee appeales to all the godly to judge 4 Lastly wee desire our Brethren to consider the date of Mr. Ball his Booke printed for stinted Liturgies one chiefe part of this controversie and the Printed answer to the Nine questions and let that resolve the question who of us came first Volunteers into the field and if any through weaknesse or zeale without knowledge have been too clamorous to cry up New-England way with reproach to others wee desire the world to take notice that they have neither patent nor patterne from us so to doe who came not hither proudly to censure others but to reforme our owne CHAP. II. Qu. 1. That a stinted Forme of Prayer and set Liturgie i◠unlawfull Reply THis Position cannot beare that meaning which you give it if you take it according to our minds and the plaine construction of the words We never questioned why you made not use of a Liturgie c. Answ Let our Answer bee viewed and it will appeare that wee had just cause to premise those distinctions of Formes of Prayer into private and publike and publike into such as are imposed by others or composed and used by Ministers themselves before their Sermons otherwise we must have involved such in the Position as wee doe not condemn Now if your generall thesis justly admit such limitation to publike imposed Formes where shall wee finde any set stinted imposed Liturgies but in Churches of the Papacy or Prelacy no Reformed Churches stinting or imposing their Formes of Prayer but leaving Ministers and people at much liberty Onely the English Liturgy therefore is such according to the plaine construction of the words 2 Concerning your minds in the Position wee deny not but you might intend to draw from us an approbation of stinted Liturgies in generall that so you might have to stay the separation of people from your Liturgy whereof you complaine but by that it appeares plainly what your chiefe scope and ayme was in the Position according unto which wee thought it most safe and pertinent for us to answer And this wee did the rather for our reason mentioned in our letter because though all of us could not concurre to condemne all set Formes as unlawfull yet wee could in this viz. that though some set Forms may bee lawfull yet it will not follow that this of the English Liturgy is therefore to
of the people in joyning with the reading of this Liturgy or so much of it as is read usually by such Idol-priests First concerning the Liturgy it selfe if you respect the matter and forme or manner of it it would bee too tedious to rip up what for matter hath been objected by the godly Reformers Consider but two things objected strongly by Mr. Cartwright against the forme or manner of it First that it is taken out of the Popish Masse-book concerning which hee affirmeth that although there were nothing in it unlawfull or against the Word of God which saith hee I wish there were not yet no Word of God no reason nor example of the Ancient Churches Jewish or Christian will permit us to use the same formes and ceremonies viz. with Papists being neither commanded of God nor such as there may not bee as good as they and rather better established yea considering how neare the Papists live amongst us it were more safe to conforme to the Ceremonies of the Turks that are farre off And this hee speaketh of the forme of Liturgy as well as Ceremonies Cartw. reply to Whitgifts answer to the admonition to the Parliament pag. 131 132. And although you seeme to make light of this objection after page 15. end yet in a like case when Whitgift had said it is not materiall that Deanes Canons came from the Pope Cartwright replyeth thus It is as if hee had said it skilleth not if they came out of the bottomlesse pit for whatsoever commeth from the Pope who is Antichrist comes first from the Devill Cartw. Reply pag. 204. Secondly hee objecteth that absurd manner of chopping and interrupting the prayers of which Mr. Cartwright saith That if any man should make such a supplication to a Prince he would thinke him to make his supplication before hee knew what to ask or that hee had forgotten some piece of his suit or that he were distracted in his understanding Much more might bee added but wee have onely touched this sore and in the words of that learned and zealous Reformer that it may appeare neither the opinion of that Booke nor the reasons against it are so new or proper to the Separatists as is pretended Now what comfort can anygodly conscience have to joyn in or conform unto such a form of Worship as this is Further consider the administration of the Sacraments according to the Book as we speak still of joyning in it who knows not that such must subject their children to that grosse Idol of the crosse and see and approve the pollution of Gods Ordinances with the same and at the Lords table joyne in that Idolatrous gesture of kneeling and therefore how the godly can joyn lawfully in the whole or such parts as those Idol-priests dispense let all Non-conformists judge and it is well knowne how superstitiously precise such are in pressing all conformity to every gesture and ceremony prescribed in their Booke which they so idolize as they have good cause being that which maintaines them Secondly if wee consider the imposition hereof by the Prelates and late strict pressing thereof upon the people to be present and conforme fully to it as well as upon Ministers to use it The very yeelding of conformity thereto doth miserably cast away the liberty purchased by Christ to his Churches inthrall the Churches to Antichrist and lift up the power of Antichrist in his tyrannous usurpations upon the Churches of Christ Thirdly we might adde the dangerous consequences and scandals that follow from admitting this Liturgy which being touched in our answer to the first Position we here passe over These things considered it appeares not onely that there was need to disprove the first part of your disjunction which you declined in stating the question but also the truth of the Position it selfe is confirmed Now let us consider your proof of the second part of your disjunction which is thus Reply If in respect of the Minister then it is not lawfull to joyn with such an one in any Ordinanee of God For if the Minister make it unlawfull then all communion in any part of Gods Worship with such Ministers is unlawfull and so the Churches in all ages of the world the Prophets our Saviour Christ the Apostles and the faithfull in the Primitive Church sinned in holding communion with such when the Priests were dumbe dogs c. but we never read that the Prophets our Saviour Christ the Apostles did ever forbeare themselves or warne the faithfull not to communicate with such in the ordinances of Worship Our Saviour charged the Disciples to beware of the leaven of the Scribes and Pharisees but never forbad them to communicate with them in the ordinances of God Answ To this we answer First that if you speake to the case in hand of those unable and ungodly Ministers of England Readers as they are called of the Common-service wee grant it is not lawfull to communicate in a stated way with them in any ordinance of Worship properly Ministeriall in any act that private persons may performe wee may communicate with them but not in Ministeriall worke as Sacraments for although being imposed on any Church as Ministers and so received by them their Ministeriall acts are not a nullity yet if wee speake of the lawfulnesse of such their act of receiving them then the Church sinneth in choosing them or being imposed in receiving them and submitting to their Ministery being such as are utterly contrary to the rule of Christ and rejected of him And by the like reason the godly sinne in receiving Sacraments c. from them as Ministers of Christ knowing they intrude into that office and have no authority by the rule of Christ so to doe Wee may heare a private gifted Christian prophecy but if hee intrude without a lawfull calling into the Ministery we may not receive him nor approve of him therein Cyprians speech is commonly noted that Plebs maxime habeâ— potestatem vel eligendi dignos Sacerdotes vel indignos recusandi yet the occasion of it is not so generally observed which is this Plebs obsequens praeceptis Dominicis Deum metuens à peccatore proposito separare se debet nec se ad sacrilegia sacerdotis sacrificia miscere â—um ipse maxime habet potestatem eligendi c. that is the people observing divine precepts and fearing God ought to separate themselves from a wicked Minister neither joyne themselves to the sacrifices of a sacrilegious Priest seeing they chiefly have power of choosing worthy Ministers and rejecting unworthy Secondly wee see no demonstrative argument that the Priests and Pharisees were wholly unable for the worke of those times as these wee speake of are for though the Priests Esay 56. 10. were dumb dogs that cannot barke yet it seemes by the place to be meant actually rather then habitually through their slumbering or security there mentioned not telling the people of their sinnes nor warning them of judgements rather
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
these cleave to his sacrifice what though the Minister offer the service so did the Priest the sacrifice But both in the name of the people and they joyning with him in offering the same to God 3ly Concerning Malach. 1. 13 14. the more advisedly wee consider it the more perswaded wee are the Lord allow us to make such application of the truth contained in it and wee thinke others will bee of our mind not onely in respect of the similitude that is in this case with that in Malachi but also if wee consider what an argument the Lord useth to convince them of their corruptions and carelesnesse in his service Verse 11. wherein the Lord upbraids the Jewes and provokes them to Jealousie as the Apostle Paul speakes by declaring the reverend esteeme of his name amongst the heathen and that every where Incense should bee offered and a pure offering to his name And what is that Incense and pure offering but the pure prayers and worship of God that should be in all Gentile Churches under the Gospell as Tertullian Eusebius Jerom and Austin with others expound it And hee applies it againe Verse 14. I am a great King and my name shall bee great amongst the heathen If then the Lord oppose the pure prayers and worship of Gentile Churches to the corrupt carelesse sacrifices of the Jewes the application is not onely sutable but the place containes a sad admonition to all Gentile Churches that by their corrupt worships and Incense so farre frustrate as it were Gods expectation and glorying of their pure oblations Reply Your third Proposition That as you are very tender of imputing sinne to those men that joyne in some select prayers read by an able and godly Minister so on the other side you are not without feare lâ—st such joyning may bee found unlawfull unlesse it may appeare that the Ministers with whom they have communion neither give scandall by reading them nor give unlawfull honour to a thing abused to Idolatry and Superstition nor doe suffer themselves to bee sinfully limited in the reading of them 1 Wee cannot conceive how you should imagine the practise of a godly Minister in reading some few select prayers to bee scandalous or offensive in the Congregations when the people generally in their assemblies and in the whole land were perswaded of the lawfulnesse of that course till now of late times some have beene drawne away to separate who yet by warrant of Scripture produce nothing of weight to countenance that practise Answ Concerning this Proposition wee doe ingenuously confesse that it may seeme over rigid and tending to separation and therefore we will not wholly justifie the same yet diverse things there bee which may much mitigate the seeming rigidnesse of it 1 In the words of the answer where wee doe not determine any thing positively wee doe not impute sinne to any in such a case wee say onely that wee are not without feare lest it may bee found unlawfull where any scandall unlawfull honour or sinfull limiting bee found in the Ministers and if our feares bee needlesse wee hope such as know how jealous the Lord is in matters of his worship will easily forgive us 2 Because you marvell wee should bee so timerous in this case wee shall give you some reasons of it which perhaps may abate much the marvell or wonder First let it bee remembred that these select prayers are yet a part of that Liturgie which is acknowledged to bee corrupt in matter and manner and clogged with such evill consequences as are afore touched Taken out of the Masse-booke c. And Master Parker who was no separatist doubts not to affirme that the touching of Antichrists things maketh uncleane for which hee cites 2 Cor. 6. 17. Haggai 2. 14. John 4. 23. Park of the Crosse part 1. pag. 137. Secondly let it be considered that this booke is imposed by an unlawfull Antichristian authoritie of the Prelates to whom to give place and subjection in any thing is justly to bee questioned And wee know that a man may acknowledge his fealtie and hold his Lands of the Lord of the Manner by a small rent as well as by a greater Thirdly conâ—ider this corrupt Service-booke hath beene over-long tolerated and borne withall in the English Churches it deserveth not so honorable a buriall as the Jewish worship but hath stunke above ground twice 40. yeeres in the nostrills of many godly who breathed in the pure ayre of the holy Scripture being witnessed against by the writings and sufferings of many godly Ministers and Christians in England and Scotland Fourthly many godly men it is well knowne have been of late times especially offended at many good Ministers silence in these things that they would no more plainely and boldly discover the corruptions in that booke and at their compliance with the same Fiftly these are times of more light whereby the Lord is consuming Antichrist with the breath of his mouth And therefore we have cause the more to feare how we meddle with any thing of his Sixtly consider the season when this answer was sent was it not at a time when superstitious opinions of the whole booke and the ceremonies thereof were growne to a great height in the mindes and hearts of very many when divers superstitious Popish worships as bowing at the name of Jesus reading at the Table set Altar-wise c. were added to the heape of former corruptions when the tyranny of the Prelates raged in the pressing of the booke and their other humane inventions when many Ministers and people well thought of by the best were carried away shamefully with these things when many weake Christians were staggering and wavering and looking at the judgement and practise of their guides ready to stand or fall with them Lastly consider that things lawfull in themselves may bee inexpedient because offensive in their use and so farre unlawfull which offence wee chiefly looked at in this act as appeares by our answer Let all these things bee laid together and weighed in an equall ballance which wee hope our brethren are now at some libertie and leasure to doe and let the consciences of all speake whether it was not high time for all the godly in England to take unto them that zeale and courage which was soone after in our Brethren of Scotland to cast off and wholly abandon the book it self and all the formes of it and use of the same in every part and peece thereof At least wee hope you will cease to marvell at our timerousnesse of such a season how ever wee confesse wee have sometime been more bold in the darke These considerations premised as they may in a great measure abate the seeming rigour of the proposition so they will much take off the edge of the Reply For it will appeare that all conformitie of Ministers and people to any parcells of that booke at such a season as this was is a farre differing case from those
that are put in some of the replies 1 To the first reply then wherein you put it beyond imagination that such a practise should bee scandalous or offensive wee know not what you have observed in some particular congregations neere you but what ever have beene the opinions of men formerly concerning this practise yet you know that the booke in generall hath been condemned of all godly reformers and the use of any part of it hath been counted burdensome to many for the reasons named But of later times as the booke and conformitie thereto was urged more hotly so the spirits of very many grew more zealous against it and began to loath it and to withdraw wholly from it many very inquisitive about the lawfulnesse or unlawfulnesse of joyning with it at all and your selves complaine of the withdrawing of many from joyning in the ordinances where it was used so that wee see not but at least in some persons and at some places and times it might probably bee offensive and scandalous so to practise 2 Wee looked not onely to the offence of those in your owne congregations but to the imboldning and hardning of Papists in honouring any part of their portuises above the formes of other reformed Churches abroad and you cannot bee ignorant how many of the Lords witnesses now asleepe have testified of the offence and danger thereof Reply 2 You say if the booke were an Idolothyte yet latent offence doth not oblige Answ The offence in this season and as all things stand cannot bee latent complaint is made of the offence taken by many and therefore it is evident Reply 3 The booke so farre as it is sound and good by your confession is no Idolothyte nor taken out of the Masse booke in such sense as you object but rather the Masse and other prayers added to it Popery is a sca◠leaving to the Church and many truths belonging to the Church as her proper Legacy were stolne and heaped together in that Denne And why the true man may not challenge his goods where ever hee finde them or the theefe plead title to the true mans goods by prescription wee know not Answ First wee judge the whole booke an Idolothyte and whence you gather that wee confesse the contrary of any part of it as it stands apart in relation to that whole wee know not Secondly that it was taken out of the Masse booke was proved by the confession of King Edward and other evidences are many but you say not in such sense as wee object But rather ◠contra Masse c. added to it c. But where to finde such a legacy bequeathed to the Church in the Testament of our Lord Jesus Christ wee could never yet see So that wee rather feare all those formes of prayer of marriage burialls visitations of the sick confirmation c. are rather the copper counterfeit coyne of a well growne Antichrist whereby he cousened the Churches when hee stole away the golden Legacy of Christ rather then any part of the true Churches Legacy and therefore it had been more happy for the Churches that they had never challenged the same but let the theefes prescription to have been a good plea to hold them still this further we adde when we say it was taken out of the Masse-booke wee understand Masse-booke in a large sense as it is commonly taken for to speake narrowly it was collected out of three Popish bookes the first part of publique Prayers exbreviario the second part viz. the order of administring Sacraments Matrimony visiting the sick and burialls è Rituali 3. the order of consecration in the Supper the Epistles and Gospels and Collects è Missali as the forme of consecration of Bishops and Priests was taken è Pontificali as the Author of Altare Damase shews pag. 612. Thirdly because those words Popery is a scab c. may bee a seed of much evill an Egge out of which a Serpent may bee hatched if men zealous of mouldy formes may but have time againe to set upon it if the wheele of these evill times through Gods judgement on this wantonage turne the Prelates or other zelotes for this Liturgie uppermost wee shall therefore crave libertie to examine this speech more narrowly And because as it is said unumquodque ex suâ origine rectissime judicatur wee shall grace the steps of the first times and so downeward to see what sound parts of Liturgie there was on which this scab is supposed to grow 1. Our blessed Saviour taught his Disciples a blessed forme which though it may bee lawfully and comfortably used the rather not being of mans but the Lords composing yet it is evident hee never appointed his people to use it as their onely forme and therefore the Apostles in the primitive Church in that heavenly prayer Acts 4. did not attend to the words and forme of this prayer though they might have this in their eye as the comon rule and direction how to powre out their prayers to God for particular things which may be an everlasting witnesse against their usurpations that will limit the Churches to their formes which the Lord Christ would not doe to his owne 2. In the first 300. yeeres after Christ wee read of few formes that the Churches used and those rather short ejaculations then set formes but contrarily wee read frequently of the exercise of their gifts in prayer They prayed sine monitore quia de pectore saith Tertullian i. e. They prayed without a Promptour because from the heart which as Zephirus observes was in opposition to the prompted formes then in use amongst the Pagans Wee read also what they prayed for viz. pro inimicis pro imperatoribus pro statu seculi pro morâ finis c. but of any set formes we read not Their persecutions and dayes of afflictions preserved them from formalitie in prayer and taught them how to finde their hearts and knees and tongues to poure out their soules to God while under the Altar they were pouring out their blood 3. But after the Churches had enjoyed peace for some space of time wherein securitie usually makes insensible and insenssblenesse formall then indeed wee read ofset and imposed formes which the rather prevailed in regard of the grosse and palpable ignorance of a blind ministry under a more learned Prelacy and therefore it is well observed by Chemnitius that the third Councell of Carthage decreed this ut nemo in precibus c. viz. that no Minister in his prayers either names the Father for the Sonne or the Sonne for the Father but when hee comes to the Altar to direct his prayers alwayes to God the Father and that no man use his owne formes till hee have conferred and shewed his formes to men more able which wee finde sometime to bee the Synod 4 After these times they added the commemoration of Saints to their Prayers and Letanies as appears from manifold instances whereof take
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.
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
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
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
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
saints and al this Word they gladly received before they were baptized 2 When the holy Ghost vers 41. declareth their baptizing he records withall their adding to them the latter being an exegesis of the former and that the same day as being performed at the same time and indeed when a convert publickly professeth his faith in Christ is it not as easily done to receive him to a particular visible Church as into the Catholick before Baptism but first to baptize them and then the same day to add or joyn them to the Church is altogether unprobable And that this adding was to a particular Church is sufficiently proved before The next place you may note is Acts 5. 14. where the Holy Ghost omitting the baptizing of those beleevers yet speaks of their adding to the Lord as if the one implyed the other and that their adding to the Lord was by their joyning to the Church is evident by the opposition between verse 13 14 Of the rest durst no man joyn himself to them but beleevers were the more added to the Lord. 3 In the conversion of Samaria although so great a work is declared in so few words in one verse Act. 8 12. yet the text puts a manifest distinction of Philips doctrine between the things of the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ which plainly enough sheweth that they taught the observing of the order of the Kingdom of Christ as well as the Doctrine of the name of Christ the object of saving faith And this they received by faith and professed before they were baptized Now the first and most famous examples of the Apostles perswading that so they practised why should we doubt of their like practice in other examples when nothing is said that contradicteth the same as Acts 10. in the baptizing of Cornelius his house where so many were met and the Holy Ghost fell on all why should we think the Apostle Peter baptized them and left them out of the order of Christ wherein they should worship him and be edified in the faith If we doubt of it because the Scripture is silent therein we may as well question whether those beleevers Acts 4. 4. 9. 35. vers 42. whether any of these confessed their faith or were baptized for nothing is said thereof So likewise Acts 11. where we read of many beleeving turning to the Lord vers 21. of the adding others to the Lord vers 24. but nothing of their confession of faith or baptism and yet they are called a Church whereby it appears that the holy Ghost sometime expresseth their baptism without joyning to the Church and sometimes joyning without baptism and sometime he expresseth both Acts 2. 41. And therefore hence we may conclude the like of the case of Lydia and the Jaylor considering the former practice of the Apostles and that the Apostle speaks so expresly of a Church at Philippi in the beginning of the Gospel Phil. 4. at which time we have no more conversions expressed but of those two families at least they were the most eminent fruits of Pauls Ministery at that time and it is very probable the Church was gathered in Lydia's house seeing Paul going out of prison to her house he is said to see the Brethren and comfort them so departing verse 40. Besides why might not the Apostle baptize them into that particular visible Church in such a case as well as into the Catholick or all Churches as some say they professing subjection to Christ in every ordinance of his with reference to that Church he had there constituted The fulnesse of power in the Apostles might doe greater matters without breach of order though no rule for us so to do neither is it strange from the practice of those times to begin a Church in a family seeing the Apostle speaks of Churches in three severall families Rom. 16. 5. Col. 4. 15. Phil. 2. which though many understand to be called Churches in regard of the godlinesse of those families yet iâ— we consider First how many eminent Saints the Apostle salutes who no doubt â—ad godly families not so much as naming their housholds much lesse giving them such a title but onely to these three named Secondly how distinct his salutations are first the Governors and then the Church in their house Thirdly that the Apostle doth not onely send his salutations to the Church in the house of Aquila and Priscilla Rom. 16. 5. but also keeping the name of a Church he sends salutations from that Church to the Church of Corinth 1 Cor. 16. 19. All which doe strongly argue there is more in it then that they were godly families and therefore may perswade us that there were indeed constituted Churches in those Families though other Christians also might joyn with them Thus having cleared our meaning and the consideration it self there will remain very few extraordinary cases if any of whom it can be proved they were not joyned to some particular Church when baptized as that of the Eunuch which as it was done by an extraordinary immediate call of Philip so to doe so also there was a speciall reason thereof the Lord intending thereby rather by him to send the Gospel into Ethiopia then to retain him in any other place to joyn with his Church And the Baptism of Paul who as without the Ministery of the Word he was converted by the immediate voice of Christ so he was baptized by the immediate call of Ananias so to do Now let us proceed to consider what further is replyed Reply The seals Baptism and the Lords-supper are given to the Church not onely in ordinary but also extraordinary dispensation True Baptism is not without the Church but in it an ordinance given to it The Sacraments are the seales of the Covenant to the faithfull which is the form of the Church tokens and pledges of our spirituall admittance into the Lords family Hence it is inferred that if the seales in extraordinary dispensation were given to the Church and yet to members of no particular Church then also in ordinary dispensation it may be so Answ 1 It will not follow for first if the Apostle in extraordinary cases baptized privately will it follow that in ordinary dispensation it may be so Secondly if because the Ministery be given to the Church and extraordinary Officers were not limited to particular Churches will it therefore follow that in ordinary dispensations Ministers ought not to be given onely to particular churches Thirdly as we have oft said that seals belong de jure to all beleevers as such as members of the Catholick church they being given unto it firstly as to its object and end and all that are truly baptized are baptized into it and thus never out of it as being tokens of our spirituall admittance into the Lords family both in ordinary and extraordinary dispensation but doth it hence follow that actuall fruition of the seales of which the question is stated
may ordinarily be had or given to such as set loose from all societies the Apostles had extraordinary power being generall Pastors over all persons 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
one Assembly to edification then there was some other form of a Church besides Congregationall But so it was in Samaria c Answ We deny the consequences for when they grew to so great a number they might fall into more Congregationall Churches and so no other form arise from the multitude but we suppose you mean of such a multitude as is called a Church and therefore to answer to your Assumption we deny that any such multitude of beleevers as is here called a Church were so great as could not meet to edification And first concerning Samaria Reply That there was a Church gathered in Samaria will not be denyed for they received the Word and were baptized but that the Church in that City was onely a Congregationall Assembly is more then can probably be concluded Answ We grant a Church or Churches were gathered in Samaria and we accept your reason as good because they received the Word and were baptized where by the way you grant what we pleaded for before That the Apostles gathered Churches when they baptized them but that there was but one Congregationall Assembly lyes not in us to prove untill you prove that all the beleevers were called a Church or one Church which doth not appear in the whole story Acts 8. nor any other where that we can finde and it is very probable that as Philip converted and baptized so great a multitude at severall times and gathered them into the Church or Churches as he baptized them so he might gather severall Churches as well as one seeing that none doubt but that Congregationall Churches are an ordinance of Christ what ever men contend for beside And therefore be the number of beleevers in Samaria as great as you would have it it proves nothing Reply The Church at Jerusalem was one and distinct yet encreased to 3000 then to 5000 c. Answ Be it so the increase was very great yet so long as they are called one distinct Church it was one Congregation viz. untill they scattering by the persecution about Stephen Acts 7. 8. which is evident by these two arguments First Acts 2 41 c. where we see the 3000 added to the 120. they have their communion together described 1 In regard of their spirituall communion to be in the Apostles doctrine fellowship breaking of bread and Prayer verse 42. Secondly in regard of their outward communion in the good things of this life they bad all things common and sold their possessions c. verse 44 45 Now the manner of both parts of this communion in respect of time and place is described verse 46. viz. in their spirituall duties They continued daily with one accord in the Temple And secondly in respect of their outward communion in their States They eat their meat from house to house this latter requiring many tables and many houses to provide for them so that although in their outward communion it was in private houses yet their spirituall communion it was with one accord in one place viz. the Temple where they had room enough being the place erected for a Nationall Church and having favour with all the people were not interrupted therein by any persecution We need not step out of our way to reply to all that is said against this reason It is enough for us to note that they daily with one accord met and that in the Temple which is not answered by any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 This appeareth Acts 6. 1 5. where it is evident the election of Deacons was before and by the multitude verse 1. by the whole multitude verse 5. and this was the last Church-meeting and Church-act we read of before their scattering neither can it appear that the Jews and Grecians whose Widows murmured were two distinct Congregations but the contrary is evident in that the Deacons were chosen al by the whole and for the whole not distinctly so many for this and so many for that Church as it was needful if they were two Churches These proofs being so clear the inconveniences objected are of no force and sufficiently answered by many examples of as great Assemblies meeting ordinarily to edification as beside the Auditory of Chrysostome cited by others the Assemblies of Stepney in London Yâ—rmouth in Norfolk and others in our experience Beza a man not loving to hyperbolize saith that being in Paris there met at a Sermon 24000. And of a Synodall Assembly that they received the Lords-supper no lesse then 10000. Beza Epist. 65. Reply Without question the number of beleevers at Antioch was not small of which it is expresly said That a great number beleeved and that a great multitude were added to the Lord by the preaching of Barnabas c. and therefore we may think the Church rose to such a bignesse as could not well assemble in one Congregation Acts 11. 21. 14. 27. Answ 1 In that place Acts 11. 21. the great number that beleeved was the fruit of all the scattered Christians at Phenice Cyprus and Antioch for the hand of the Lord was with them all and their whole successe is summed up together nothing said before of the other places 2 Though Paul and Barnabas taught much people yet it proveth not that this much people were converted to the Church 3 Though much people were added to the Lord yet doth it follow they were more then could meet in one Congregation and if first Disciples were there called Christians must it needs be for their number and not rather for eminent likeness to Christ with other specialities of providence 4 It is expresly said the Church was gathered together Acts 14. 27. which is not meant of the Elders onely as if they onely could meet for Chap. 15. 30. They gathered the multitude together so that it was not such a number but might meet together in one place Reply The number of beleevers was great at Ephesus where Paul preached two years all that dwelt in Asia heard the Word a great door and effectuall ways open to him where the Shrines of Diana her Temple were in danger to be set at nought where those that used curious arts burnt their books openly which could not be done without great danger of the Church unlesse a great part of the City had beleeved Acts 19. 10 19 27. Answ 1 Be it so that many were converted and the Word grew mightily this proves not that all who heard Paul were of the Church of Ephesus for then all Asia should be of that Church Acts 19. 10. who did hear the Word both Jews and Gentiles As for the danger of the Shrines and Diana's Temple to be set at nought a little spark might kindle such fears and raise such outcryes in the covetous Craftsmen by whom the whole City was set in a superstitious uproare our own experience may teach how soon a prophane people will cry out against a faithfull Minister before he hath converted
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
not learned Answ The proposition wee see is granted yet it is obscured divers wayes to which wee answer First whereas it is said these members of the Church were men in Covenant professing the true faith True but where not in any place but in the Church of Abrahams family and so after in the Church of Israel Secondly what faith not onely faith in the Messiah for life and salvation but withall faith in the promises made to Abraham and his seed with subjection to the visible worship of God in that Church and to circumcision in particular Thirdly that there were no others of the visible Church besides Abrahams family is not said but being so it strengthens the argument as was shewed before Reply In the first institution of Circumcision God gave it to Abraham as the seale of the Covenant formerly made with him but of any Church Covenant whereinto Abrahams family should enter we read not Answ Whether Circumcision sealed any new Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. or that before Gen. 15. wee will not contend neither is it materiall bee it the same covenant hee entred into before for substance yet it is evident 1 That this covenant was no◠simply and onely the covenant of grace but had many peculiar blessings belonging to Abraham and his posterity and family contained in it Gen. 12. and 15. 2 It is very considerable that God made this Covenant with Abraham when hee cal'd him out of that corrupt state of the Church in Ebers family to worship God more purely according to his institutions Gen. 12. 1. with Josh 24. 2. Thirdly this covenant Gen. 17. is more explicate and full then before and especially in that promise which most properly concernes Church covenant viz. that God would take Abraham and his seed into covenant with himselfe even an everlasting covenant to be a God unto them Vers 7. and this in a speciall manner is that which the Lord saith hee would now establish betweene Abraham and himselfe viz. by this signe of the covenant Vers 9 10 11. Fourthly this is the very covenant which the Lord renewed with Abrahams seed afterward when hee established them to bee a Church or people to himselfe as is evident Deut. 29. 12 13. this the Lord is said oft to remember viz. to remember his covenant with Abraham when hee visited his seed with any mercy Exod. 6. 5 6 7 8. Psal 105. 8 9. and therefore it must needs bee a Church covenant Fiftly as Gen. 17. the Lord instituted a visible token and seale of this covenant so hee strictly enjoyned the observation of the same in all the seed and family of Abraham and that in all their generations all which things especially joyntly considered make it evident that Abraham and his were not onely a people but established a people to God in a Church covenant and that the same covenant which was the foundation of the nationall Church of God that was after in his posterity and to this covenant the seale of Circumcision was added Reply Melchisedeck Lot Job might bee circumcised though wee reade not of it as wee read not that John Baptist or the Apostles were baptized or if they were not circumcised it may bee that institution was not knowne to them or they were not required to joyne to Abrahams family and if they had they should have transgressed and so the reason was not because they were not in Church order but because Circumcision was appropriated to Abrahams family in some peculiar respects Answ Though wee reade not of the administration of Baptisme to John Baptist the Apostles and many others yet wee reade of a rule that required it of them and it was a part of that righteousnesse of which the Lord Jesus saith to John Thus it becommeth us to fulfill all righteousnesse Matth. 3. 15. not for the institution of Circumcision did bind Lot Job c. yet that they were forbidden to joyne to Abrahams family and so bee circumcised wee cannot say seeing afterwards Proselytes were reecived into the same Covenant and Church and so circumcised Secondly that it was so appropriated to Abrahams family as that it was unlawfull for them to joyne to Abrahams covenant and be circumcised this is more then can bee shewed or if Lot Melchisedeck Job were excluded yet out of question Abraham might and did enlarge his family and so might take in proselytes visible beleevers in the covenant of grace and circumcise them and so still the appropriating of circumcision to the Church and Covenant of Abrahams family doth not weaken but strengthen the argument in as much as no visible beleever in the Covenant of grace might partake of the seale but by joyning in visible covenant with that Church to which it was given Thirdly suppose Job Lot c. and their families were circumcised as Junius alledgeth Jerome for it yet how will it appeare it was not by taking hold of the Covenant of Abraham to which Circumcision was applyed yet it seemes more probable that Lot and other families in Abrahams time were not partakers thereof God intending as the effect shewes not to establish them nor theirs to bee his people as by Circumcision hee established Abraham and his seed as for Iob if hee were of Abrahams seed and had Circumcision hereditarily à materno paternoque sanguine as some thinke yet this makes nothing against the argument wee have now in hand Answ After the Church of the Iewes was constituted when wee cannot imagine any Church amongst the Gentiles wee finde none must bee admitted to the Passeover that was not circumcised but nothing was required of a stranger but that hee professe the true faith and avouch the God of Abraham to be his God which must be done before hee could be reputed a visible beleever or under the covenant of Grace Reply If any doubtfulnesse can bee raised about the Church in Abrahams family yet the case is so cleare in the following story of the Church as you must needs grant the proposition as you do and the Church of the Jewes is still but the same Church that was in Abrahams house and the covenant the same for Gen. 17. God established the Covenant with him and his seed for an everlasting Covenant to be a God unto them and in Egypt the Lord challenges them as his owne his first borne c. and therefore there is the same reason of circumcision first and last in respect of the Persons that had right unto it but say you nothing was required to circumcision but to professe the faith But we demand first What was it to avouch the God of Abrabam to be his God Was it not to subject himselfe to all the Statutes Commandements and judgements of God in his Church to walke in them as is cleare Deut. 26. 17. Was there not the same Law for the stranger and the home-borne Secondly Where must they professe this faith and avouch this God Was it in any place where they dwelt
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
visible members of the flock of Christ understand that particular Church out of which they are cast so the right of Baptism belongs to their Infants which being so they are not without that Church though debarred unjustly of the present communion with it unlesse he renounce that Church or other Reply Secondly If such Churches renounce it as are no members of a politick spirituall fellowship be without then the members of one Church are without unto another c. Answ This objection wee have had and answered oft before In a word there cannot bee the like reason no not in respect of that other Church who may in a due order of Christ persecute the censures against them though not compleatly amongst themselves which cannot bee said of such as have not joyned themselves to any Church and therefore wee deny that the Apostles reason was because they were without to Corinth but without to all Churches Reply Thirdly The fornicators of this world doe they not explaine whom the Apostle pointeth unto by the title of being without Verse the 10. 11. such as had not received the Covenant of grace Answ Wee never thought otherwise but that the fornicators of this world and the heathen are most properly without in the Apostles sense but if our words bee observed that in a certain respect or as our words are in regard of visible Church communion such as are in no Church society are said to bee without what great offence have wee given For first is not a godly man if justly excommunicate without in this sense Secondly doth not the Apostle Iohn expresly call them without that forsooke the fellowship of the Church 1 Iohn 2. 19. saying they went out Thirdly were not the Catechumeni of old in this respect without and the lapsed in times of persecution and the like who in those zealous and severe times of Church discipline were not onely said to bee without but stood without though weeping and praying as penitents at the Church doores sometimes for two or three yeeres and after this degree of preparation for entrance into the Church which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there were three more before they were received to the Lords Supper which severity though wee approve not yet it may mollifie the mindes of the godly learned that are apt to bee offended at such a word from us Fourthly our Saviour himselfe expresly saith and that not onely of those of no Church but such as were even of the visible Church and his ordinary hearers that many of them were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or men without and therefore this application of 1 Cor. 5. 12. need not bee called insolent or raise such an hubbub abroad as wee perceive it doth Reply Fourthly Church order is necessary wee deny not but that a man should bee a constant set member of a particular society by Covenant to make him a member of the visible Church or to give him title or interest to the publike order this is not taught of God This is but a bare denyall of the position it selfe but what is meant by publike order wee know not or where the order of Christ which is granted to bee necessary can bee found but in particular Churches wee are yet to learne neither is it any where taught in this Reply and wee would gladly learne how that Church should orderly deale with such a man in case of offence that is of no particular Church Reply Fiftly Paul divides all men into two rankes the first and greater without the last and lesser within but that beleevers c. and their children should be reckoned without we read not in any Scripture but in Scripture phrase hereticks themselves are within 1 John 2 19. 1 Cor. 11. 19. Answ All that is said in this objection except the last clause is but a repeated deniall of the conclusion in other words to the objection about Hereticks within wee grant they are within till cast out or gone out of the Church 1 John 2. 19. and if gone out how are they within and so if an orthodox professor will frowardly forsake all Churches and live alone or among the heathen how is hee within we speake onely in generall Reply Sixtly This hath not beene beleeved in the Church Answ Wee are not bound in every thing to be of the Churches faith and what wee have said before may satisfie here Reply Seventhly Without are Dogs c. Rev. 22. 15. not such as are faithfull holy c. Answ True properly such are without not these yet in some respects as hath been said others also may be without as such as forsake the Church c. as was before said more fully Reply Eighthly They that are without in the Apostles sense are Aliens from the commonwealth of Israel strangers from the Covenant of promise having no hope and without God in the world but we hope you will not passe such rash censure upon the brethren who bee not gathered into the society as set members Answ To say some beleevers may bee without in some respect is farre from such a censure the Scripture saith of Israel in their corrupt estate and defect of the Ordinances of God that they were a long time without God without Law without a teaching Priest yet that hard expression doth not equall them with the heathen much lesse to say some beleevers are without the visible Church in regard of visible Church communion and wee judge no otherwise of such then of our selves when wee were in the like case Reply Ninthly Let this interpretation stand and hee shall bee without also that is not subject to the censures of the community of the particular combination few or many without or with Officers and so all the reformed Churches that ascribe the Keyes to the Presbytery or Classis and not to the community and some amongst your selves if not most shall bee without also And therefore wee cannot thinke that approved Christians desiring seales are either without or not capable of Church censures if they offend though no set members for desiring seales they put themselves under the ordinances for a time and may be proceeded withall as offending members Answ This objection hath no colour without extreame straining of our application of 1 Cor. 5. 12. seeing wee never limited the position to Churches of the same judgement or in like degree of order to ours it is onely a forced odium which is cast upon us but wee can beare more at our brethrens hands neither doe we know any Church or elder that ascribes the power of the Keys to the Presbytery or Classis excluding the community amongst us Secondly for that objection that such put themselves under the ordinances of Christ for the time if with profession of faith and subjection to the government of Christ they desire seales it is something but that the very desiring of seales doth include such a subjection in it selfe being but for this or that act of administration
wee cannot understand but let this bee really made good that desiring seales it being a way that subjects themselves to the Church as members and the case will bee issued being understood of such approved Christians as the position speakes of Lastly to proceed against such as are not members or of another Church as with an offending member of our owne is not much unlike the proceedings of Victor in his contentious time or may sow the seeds of such usurpations which wee leave to the godly wise to consider of Reply Tenthly If upon good reason a passage of Scripture can bee cleared to prove that for which it was never alleadged by any writer wee are not to except against it for want of mans testimony onely in such cases our reasons must bee convincing but for the exposition of this Text wee have not observed one substantiall ground or approved author to bee alledged Dr. Ames shewing the necessitie of Christians joyning themselves to some peculiar Church giveth this reason Quoniam alias fieri non potest quin conturbentur signa illa quibus fideles ab infidelibus discerni possunt 1 Cor. 5. 12. But herein Dr. Ames manifestly sheweth that by them without heathens and unbeleevers must be understood and not beleevers though of no setled society for the time for thus wee conceive hee argueth The signes whereby the faithfull are to bee discerned from unbeleevers must not bee confounded but unlesse Christians make themselves actuall members of a Church the signes whereby the faithfull are discerned from unbeleevers will bee obscured and darkned and if this be his reason how can that Text bee alledged unlesse by men without infidels bee understood Answ First That we have reasons to alledge it in that sense and respect declared may appeare by our answers to your objections Secondly That wee have one approved authour so alleadging it viz. Doctor Ames shall appeare in cleering his meaning from your objections 1. Grant that by men without according to Doctor Ames his reason Infidels be understood by the Apostle yet how shall the signes discerning beleevers from unbeleevers bee confounded by such as joyne not to some particular Church if those beleevers doe not in some respect stand without amongst unbeleevers and the consequence is so plaine that the owne Syllogisme whereinto you cast his argument would have concluded so much if it had been suffered to speake out in the conclusion For in stead of saying except such joyne to some Church the signes will be darkned and obscured the reason rightly concluded would have said fieri non potest it cannot bee but the signes will bee confounded and therefore in his judgement it is unavoidable that such mix themselves with unbeleevers that are without indeed properly in the Apostles sense Reply Againe Doctor Ames lib. 4. cap. 17. speaking of Infants to be received saith it is required first that they be in the Covenant of Grace by outward profession c. Answ What you alledge here out of Doctor Ames wee confesse sheweth that hee was very large in his charity about the baptizing of Infants extending the same to the child of a Papist c. but it may seeme by some passages that hee understood by profession of faith such as live in the visible Churches and lookes at the child of a Papist as one of a visible Church for substance though so exceedingly corrupt but all this do not disprove that he understood 1 Cor. 5. 12. otherwise then hath been said What you alledge out of his second Manuduction concerning the Churches of England we consent unto neither doe wee deny seales to any if they demand them as members of any true Church in England and in an orderly way CHAP. X. Consid 5. Reply TO the first consideration If it bee repugnant to divine institution to admit of approved Christians lawfully baptized walking in the faith members of the visible Churches and partakers of Church priviledges amongst us to the Lords Supper or their children to baptisme because they bee not entered into Church-fellowship according to your order then it is unlawfull though no such evill consequences are to bee feared but if by accident some abuse should fall out the evill is to bee prevented by all lawfull meanes but the faithfull are not to be debarred utterly of the order of God whereto they have right and title by his free grant and gracious institution Answ Wee cannot but still complaine of this liberty which is taken in changing the termes of the question First that clause Members of visible Churches is not in the position nor is it maintained by us in that sense neither doe wee limit Church-fellowship to our order as it is called but acknowledge Churches defective in matters of order as was said in the answer and therefore it is an apparent wrong to us and to the readers so oft to put in such things as are not in the controversie Secondly If it bee unlawfull by divine institution may not evill consequences bee added and if both hold are not our reasons the more strong What needeth then such a Reply Thirdly We have oft granted a remote right but next and immediate we still deny and wee conceive no other order of God in his Churches to prevent such evils then by joyning to the instituted Churches of Christ Reply Seals may bee prophaned when the dispensers cannot helpe it but here is no feare or danger of such consequences necessary to follow for wee speake not of all sorts at randome but of Christians professing the faith intirely lawfully baptized knowne and approved to the wise and judicious visible members of the Churches amongst us sufficiently knowne to you or orderly recommended c. Answ The feare and danger in this case is more then so farre off can easily bee discerned though the limitations bee good in themselves yet the application of this description in the first part of it would open a doore wider then many can imagine for many such in the judgement even of the wisest comming in to this state of temptations prove farre otherwise even your selves being Judges if you were here wee suppose the experience of the discoveries God hath made in these late trials of England amongst forward professors will teach our brethren to consider how many professors may prove here Yet secondly if you add such as retaining their membership in your Churches are recommended unto us by your Churches or by known godly Ministers wee can then according to order receive them and avoid the confusion and inconveniences wee objected Thirdly if also it be taken into the description knowne and sufficiently approved of our selves then the doore is open to them to the communion of the Church and all the priviledges thereof though they cannot settle in the place of their present abode and this way of order would prevent the inconveniences but if wee come to put a difference any other way wee cannot avoid it but great offence will be given to
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
To this objection was spoken before onely we marvell why you say they must first partake of Seales when as Acts 2. they were baptized and added to the Church the same day and 't is granted the Apostles gathered Churches by baptisme Reply Such as for lack of meanes and opportunity cannot joyne in such estate er bee dispersed by persecution or destitute of Pastors or Teachers may for a time seeke the seales in other societies Answ The first instance is the thing in question and such as may come to any society to desire seales are not wholly destitute of meanes and opportunity to joyne viz. to that society The two other instances being of such as may bee supposed still to hold their right in a Church society the thing is granted by us in way of communion of Churches Reply The people also who are deprived of right and libertie to chuse their pastour may desire the seales of him that is set over them Answ This objection is easie for in desiring seales of him and submitting themselves to his ministry they doe now choose him however at first they opposed his comming But what is this to what ought to bee in an orderly way whereof wee speake Reply These propositions being allowed for currant a nation or people plunged into Idolatry or Infidelity or otherwise dischurched cannot by ordinary meanes recover into a Church estate wherein they may lawfully and according to Gods appointment desire or expect that the seales of the Covenant shall bee dispensed unto them Answ What should hinder if the whole nation would bee willing to recover themselves into Churches Indeed that is rare to be found that all will affect such a recovery But wee see nothing to hinder but all the nation or so many as are awakened in conscience to bewaile their Apostasie and lament after the Lord having especially the countenance of the supreme magistrate severall companies of Christians may combine in Churches so as may best suite with their edification chuse officers and injoy ordinances Nay è contra our Protestant Divines as Chemnitius Field Brentius Whitacher Luther c. make peoples power of electing their Ministers the best foundation of a peoples recovery of a true Ministry and Church estate Reply The fifth Proposition riseth beyond measure That no Christian can expect by the appointment of God to partake in the seales till hee have joyned himselfe in Church fellowship and in the call of the Minister We conceive you will not say that children and women have to doe in the call of the Minister If some part of the Church doe not consent in the call of the Minister must they separate from the ordinances of worship c. Answ The seeming swellings of this proposition will easily fall and run within bankes and bounds if it bee received in its true sense and meaning for by the call of a Minister must needs bee understood the voluntary subjection of all Church members to his ministery after hee is called as well as the act of election of him at the first It were irrationall to thinke a Minister is to bee chosen over againe whensoever a member is added to the Church And therefore our meaning was not hard to conceive and being so taken women choose their Minister that is voluntarily submit to him being chosen Children are subjected to him by their parents the dissenting part of the Church ought to submit to him being chosen and doe if they remaine under his Ministry and so in all other cases you have or can suppose Reply Here you say people must joyne in the call of a Minister before they can lawfully desire and bee admitted to the seales And another hath zealously affirmed It is a presumptuous sinne to choose an Officer not trayned up and â—ryed in debating discussing carrying and contriving Church affaires in admonishing exhorting comforting c. Lay these together and consider how long many a poore soule converted to the faith must bee compelled to want Gods ordinances Answ First it doth not answer the profession in the letter thus to joyne us with Mr. Robinson as another of the same sort as it were For such as would gladly receive every Syllable from us that may dislodge their thoughts of separation in us as wee are heartily desired to bee assured of in the Epistle to this Reply wee thinke would not so closely joyne us with such they would have us parted from and upon so little occasion and to so little purpose unlesse they doe much forget themselves Secondly when it cannot be denied but the choyse of Ministers is in the Church and that hands should not rashly bee laid on any man and Deacons the lowest Office should bee proved and then Minister being found blamelesse yea hee saith and these also proved implying that others also should bee so 1 Tim. 3. 10. what fault can be found with the substance of what either Robinson or our selves speake if our meaning and his were but charitably taken If his word bee over-zealous to say it is a presumptuous sin to doe otherwise what is that to us Thirdly For the delay of ordinances if both these be taken together in most cases it need not be long where God affordeth able and fit men for office But if some delay be and that a church want some ordinances and cannot by Communion with other Churches injoy them which is rare yet is it not better to forbeare some ordinances a while then miscarry in so great a worke as the choise of officers upon which the following comfort and good of the Church doth so much depend The demand following is answered in this whole discourse and wee hope not with words but proofes especially in our answer to the Reply in the first consideration neither doe wee see any such difficulty but that such Christians may as easily joyne to such a Church for a time as desire to injoy the ordinances and to sit loose from it for transient members we disallow not Reply If the propositions may stand for good I feare we shal scarce finde that ever in ordinary way the Sacraments were lawfully dispensed or received in the Christian Churches of God since the first foundation of them Answ If they bee taken in their true meaning and in that latitude we intend them wee see no such cause of scruple For what is more ordinary in all true Churches then for people first to chuse their Ministers then to receive the seals at their hands and this hath beene the way of Ancient reformers It is true many corruptions have beene in many true Churches and usurpations upon the right of the people in choosing their Ministers as also in administrations of the Ordinances themselves and oft in the Constitution of Churches But as the maintaining of any truth of God against those corruptions in worship c. doth not argue an unlawfulnesse of the ordinances in such Churches but convinceth onely the corrupt administration of them So in
this case to assent the right way of Churches electing officers and injoying Ordinances against all corruptions that have beene in the Churches doth not make a nullity of the Ordinances themselves We may say that this conclusion riseth beyond measure The objections being thus answered we leave the conclusion to the judgement of the indifferent Reader CHAP. XII Reply TO the seventh consideration The practise of the Church of Strangers in London recorded by John Alasco is for differing from your judgment and practise in the point in question For first say they Paul testifieth that the Church it self without exception of any member of it is cleane or holy by the administration of baptisme Answ We confesse the same Reply Secondly They bold Communion with the Church of England as one with theirs Answ The Church of England they call it not but the English Churches and we deny not the same in an orderly way as they also required Testimony of their piety if any did but present a child to baptisme in their Church Wee have often professed this and by your owne grant most of the approved Christians amongst us are not members of the English Churches having renounced their right of membership and Commuion with the Church they were of there Reply Thirdly This order was observed by them to prevent the impostures of some that pretended to the English they were joyned to the Strangers contra Answ This was not the onely reason of their order for his words are All strangers doe not joyne themselves to our Church yea there are those that avoiding all Churches c. which plainely sheweth they looked further then such according to our practise even their owne country men fled for religion as we are they yet received them not till by publike profession of faith and subjection to discipline they joyned themselves to some Congregationall Church Secondly this sheweth what disorder and abuse of ordinances will follow from such a liberty to admit such as are not joyned to some Church for by this meanes many will neglect all order and discipline if they may but have the seales Thirdly to put all out of question that their practise and judgement in effect was the same with ours in this point note the first question propounded by them Are these Infants which you offer the â—eed of this Church that they may lawfully be here baptized by our Ministery CHAP. XIII THus farre wee have answered to the Reply made to the considerations in our answer to the 3. and 4. positions Now whereas wee tooke notice of three objections against our first consideration and answered the same It pleaseth the learned authour to take up onely two of them and with much inlargement to urge the same as his reasons against the positions and to apply our answers thereunto by which meanes our answers to the objections briefly set downe may seeme not so apt and full here as they would appeare in their proper places and therefore it will bee needfull for us to inlarge our selves somewhat in answering some passages at least in the reasons as they are here propounded before we come to the Reply Reply Reason 1. That sacred order God hath set in his visible Church c. Answ These words with all that follow whatever they may seeme to carry with them are nothing but a bare denyall of the positions in variety of expressions Reply For first The baptisme of John was true baptisme c. but hee never demanded of those hee received whether they were entered into Church Covenant c. Answ This wee had in substance before and is answered with all the other instances in this first reason in our answer to the Reply to the first consideration and in other places and therefore in vaine here to repeat the same And wee have observed more then once your plaine confession that the Apostles constituted Churches by baptisme even such Churches as they set Elders in by the election of the people Reply The second reason in substance is this because from Christ and the constant practise of the Apostles we learne that such as are called of God received the holy Ghost beleeve in the Lord professe their faith in him with repentance and amendment of life have a right to baptisme and desiring it are wronged if they bee deprived thereof Answ We grant the whole but as it is supposed in due order they must receive it so wee desire no more for wee grant upon these common grounds such have jus ad rem but not jus in re and the immediate fruition of them Reply Thirdly By a lively faith a man hath internal Communion with Christ by profession of the intire faith joyned with conformity of life in righteousnes holinesse and fellowship of love hee is a member of the visible Congregation or flock of Christ though no set member of a free Independent society and baptisme is a seale of our admission into the flocke of Christ not ever more but by accident of our receiving into a particular Congregation Answ This reason stands upon such a sense of the Catholik Church as cannot be found and it was before confessed that the Catholick Church consisteth of all true particular Churches as the parts of it And therefore how can a man be visibly a member of the whole and belong to no part thereof Secondly We deny not but such have a right to be in the particular Church and so to baptisme and all ordinances but as by such profession they are not members of any particular Church so neither have they immediate right to the priviledges thereof without admittance into the same Fit matter such are for a particular visible Church that professe the intire faith c. But it doth not admit them actually thereunto and your owne expression secretly implyeth as much when you say baptisme is a seale of our admission into the Church or flocke of Christ If baptisme bee the seale of our admission then there is an admission thereunto before baptisme but who doth admit and where and when is any admitted to the Church but in particular Congregations Can any bee admitted into a Church that whole Church being ignorant thereof but a man may professe the intire faith and live accordingly amongst the Heathen where neither any Church nor member of it take knowledge thereof and therefore bare profession doth not admit men but make them fit to bee received and admitted into the visible Church Your fourth Reason wee have had twice before and answered the same Reply To our answer of the first objection from the Instances of the Centurion Lydia the Jailour and the Eunuch First If where the holy Ghost is given and received and faith professed according to Gods Ordinance there none may hinder from being baptized soil by such as have power to baptize them then either such are members of the Church or baptisme is not a priviledge of the Church then it is not essentiall to baptisme in the
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
practise bee as the Separation as wee feare you dissent from him and wee from you in these considerations Answ Wee are sorry to see this Reverend man of God so strongly possessed with a prejudicate opinion and feare of our concurrence with the Separation upon what grounds it is not said nor can wee apprehend That neither our flat negation of the position nor our reference to Mr. Parker as concurring with him should give him any satisfaction to the contrary But if that bee the judgement and practise of the Separation which is here imputed unto them viz. That the power and exercise of the Keys is in the body of the Church and what the Officers doe therein is but as servants of the Church from whom they derive their authority if our profession may bee of any use to satisfie wee doe freely and heartily professe to the contrary affirming that the authoritative power of transacting all things in the Church is in the hands of the Officers who minister in the name and power of Christ to and over the Church and that the power or liberty of the community whereby they may and ought to concurre with their guides so long as they rule in the Lord is to bee carried in a way of obedience unto them and when upon just cause they dissent from them still they are to walke respectfully towards them and wee thinke our brethren are not ignorant that Mr. Parker and Fenner give as much to the Church in excommunication as wee have pleaded for in any of our publique writings But seeing wee are led by this learned author from this particular question about excommunication to that beaten controversie of the power of the Keyes in generall and the first subject thereof whereby wee are forced to declare our selves herein wee shall briefly gleane up some few of our scattered apprehensions as may most concerne the case in hand 1 There are divers Keyes that are diversly distributed to severall subjects in respect of execution and therefore the question should have beene first stated and what Keyes are denied to the people and appropriated to the Officers And what to some Officers not to others should have been shewed before Arguments were pressed 2 The state of the Church being mixed of an Aristocracy to which belongs Office and Democracy to which belongs priviledge hence the power of the Keyes is twofold 1 Officiall power 2 Fraternall The first belonging to the guides of the Church the other to the fraternity thereof 3 The officiall power of the Keyes is a power to act with authority in the name of Christ ministerially in opening and shutting binding and loosing c. In respect of which Office while the Minister acts according to the will of Christ he is over the Church in things properly Ecclesiasticall because hee stands in the roome of Christ and comes in his name and hence in those Church acts which are not proper to him but common in some cases to the fraternitie yet there is an office-authority upon them which is not upon the like acts materially done by others Ex. gr Any brother may and ought to exhort and rebuke 1 Thes 5. 14. Heb. 3. 13. Titus a Minister is exhorted to doe the same thing but with all authority Titus 2. 15. some able and gifted though not in Office may occasionally open and apply the word yet not with an Office-authority But an Officer preacheth as an Ambassadour of Christ 2 Cor. 5. So also in admission of members and casting out of offenders wherein though the fraternity have a power whether in consenting or otherwise yet they act obedientially in respect of their guides declaring the rule going before them in example and commanding them if need bee in the name of Christ to doe his pleasure But the Officers act in these things in the name and authority of him in whose roome they stand and hence wee thinke that in case the fraternity without Officers should cast out any yet it is not altogether the same with that which may bee dispensed by the Officers thereof it being no officiall act 2 Fraternall power in publike Church acts is a joynt power of liberty or priviledge in some sense in some cases to open shut which power is not in any one or more severally but in the whole joyntly for as they have power to combine and so to receive others into the communion so by like reason to shut out offenders from their communion but thus they do fraternally not officially and as they have such a power of election of Officers to them so they have also a fraternall power due order being attended to shut them out when there is just cause according to the common received rule Cujus est instituere ejusdem est destituere These things which might bee more fully explained and confirmed wee have onely briefly set downe both to wash off the blot of popular Government from the wayes of Christ as if all authority were taken from the Ministers or nothing left them but to dispense the seales and in all other things to sit meerely as a moderator in the Churches of Christ which wee utterly disclaime And also to make way for our more cleare answer to what is objected here in the Reply Wee grant therefore the first argument and the conclusion thereof thus farre that the officiall power of the Keys was not given to the whole multitude but onely there is given to them a power to choose Officers which Officers should execute the same Reply 2 If Christ gave this power to the community was it from the beginning of the Church or tooke it effect after the Church was planted Not the first for then the Apostles themselves should derive their power from the community which they did not Answ This reason is answered before so farre as concernes our tenent in the second consideration where it is alledged to which wee referre the Reader neither doe wee say the officiall power is so given to the community but such things as are here added wee shall consider so farre as concernes us Reply The Apostles and other Governours were given of Christ to the Church as for their end and all their authority was given unto them for the Church as for the whole but the authority it selfe was immediatly derived from Christ and is not in the Church as the immediate subject nor derived from the Church but from Christ the King of the Church The authority of Governour is given of Christ for a gift to the Church but not a gift absolute That it may reside in the power of the whole Church but for a conditionall gift communicated to the Governours for the good of the whole Parker pol. lib. 3. cap. 8. Answ 1 Concerning the power of the Apostles and extraordinary Officers wee now dispute not it was answered before and for the authority of other Officers wee doe not affirme that it is derived from the Church but from Christ
for the good of the Church but if the question bee of the application of an Office and the power of it to such and such persons in the Church wee would demand whether Christ doth this to such a Pastour and Teacher immediatly or mediatly if immediatly then their call is not in this different from Apostles which Paul expresly distinguisheth Gal. 1. 1. Paul was an Apostle not of man nor by man but of God and by Jesus Christ false Teachers are of man and by man True Pastors as Thomas Iohn c. are of God by man and if Christ communicate this Office and the authority annexed unto it mediatly by man not immediatly the question is Who is the subject of this power to call and so to apply this office in the name of Christ to this or that person John Thomas c. Wee hold this fraternall ministeriall power under Christ is in the Church and so farre wee shall defend this position and where ever it be else placed it will be subject to all the absurdities that are imputed to us To the sentence of Parker we answer that the misinterpreting one word of his sentence doth pervert his whole meaning his words are Pro dono conditionali ut Rectoribus communicetur i. e. that the Church might not communicate that power to Officers nor keepe it in her owne hand Or that it might bee communicated from Christ by the Church And this will appeare his meaning and it agrees with that position hee holds so strongly that the Church is the first subject of the Keys Reply After the Churches were established it tooke not effect for it is no where found in Scripture that Christ first committed this power to the Apostles and after to the community the Ministers and guides were immediately of Jesus Christ from whom immediately they derive their power and authority by whom they are set over their charge in whose name they execute their Office c. Yea Pastorship is the gift of Christ as well as Apostleship and every Pastor is not immediately called but the office and order of Pastors the calling authority and jurisdiction is immediately from Christ not from the Church Answ First the power of the Keyes in a right sense given to the Church tooke effect from the beginning in Christs institution and in the frequent practice of the Church as is shewed before and therefore this is needlesse to bee proved that it tooke effect after Secondly that Ministers and guides were immediately from Christ if you meane ordinary officers and that every Pastour is not immediately called seemes to be a contradiction the places Act. 28. 8. Ephes 4. 8. c. doe not prove that all Officers are immedately from Christ though they bee set in the Church by Christ and over the Church by the Holy Ghost c. This the Lord can doe and doth doe by the meanes of his Church walking according to his rule and institution and therefore you must come at last home to our tenent as here you doe that Pastorship the office power jurisdiction c. annexed to it is immediately from Christ viz. by his institution in the Gospel but Pastors every one that receive this office hath it from Christ but by his Church calling them to the same and in the name of Christ applying it to them and thus far we agree with you Reply The Steward is appointed of the Master of the family alone and hath all his authority from him Every Embassador in the cause of his Embassage doth immediately depend upon him from whom he is sent but if the function order and authority of Pastors and Teachers bee immediately from Christ then it is not received from the Church as the immediate receptacle Answ Answ First though Pastors in respect of the exercise of their function dispense the Word and other Mysteries of Christ as from him immediately and so are fitly compared to Embassadors and Stewards yet in the call of the one and other to that work there is a plaine dissimilitude the one being called Mediately the other Immediately by their Masters and therefore in this case it proves nothing What doth this argument conclude if onely that the function and order is not from the Church as the first subject we readily grant it if the application of the office to such a person so farre as may bee done by an outward call it followes not at all for the function and office may bee from Christ and the application thereof by the Church Reply Thus Protestant Divines dispute against Papists if Bishops receive their power and authority of exercising immediately from Christ by Mandate Mission and commission from him then not from the Pope and so for Presbyters in regard of the Bishop Answ The reason and ground of that dispute is because the Pope claimes a plenitude of power from Peter whence all must see derived to all Bishops c. bee they never so orderly chosen and ordained in their owne esteeme and so indeed usurps the Prerogative of Christ the head of the Church The like usurpation â—â— its degree was in the Bishops over Presbyters But here the case is farre different the Church claming no such power but onely Ministeriall in the outward call of officers according to his direction and so the application of that office unto the persons which hath sufficient ground of Scripture from Christ and therefore we grant the conclusion viz. That they derive not their power from the people but from Christ by meanes of the Church Ministerially and instrumentally applying that office to them whereunto Christ hath annexed that power Lastly the like argument may be objected against any other subject of this power you can or will suppose even the Presbytery it selfe Reply It is usually objected that the Church cannot convey what she never had but the people may elect their Pastor Whereunto the answer is direct and plaine nothing can give that it had not formally or vertually unlesse it give it as an instrument ministring to one that hath it but so it may give what it never had nor is capable of A Steward may give all the offices in his Masters house as ministerially executing his Masters pleasure Answ This answer doth not satisfie for wee cannot put off our old principles of Reason that every instrument ministring to the principall cause doth Conferre vim ad effectum and so farre or in what sense it gives any thing to the effect in that sense and so farre it must needs have vertually or formally the same in itselfe If a Conduit convey water ministerially from the fountaine to the house it hath water in such a sense as it doth concurre to the effect and so the Church cannot give the Keys to the Officers as an instrument of Christ but it must be granted shee received them from Christ vertually to give them to the Officer Secondly for the instance if it bee meant of a Steward giving the offices to such
of grace which being ever required in the purest times is no novell invention of some more rigidly inclined in these things To the second with what profession charity according to rule is to rest satisfied Wee answer that there is a breadth in charity according to rule and profession of faith being but testimonium humanum or a mans owne testimony concerning himselfe therefore as in the most eminent profession potest subesse falsum there may bee hypocrisie latent it being no divine testimony so in the weakest profession of the worke of faith potest subesse verum id est there may be truth in the bottome hence man leaving all secrets to God the worke of grace wherewith charity is to be satisfied is one of these two First either with that which is onely verball and appeares to be false by conviction from the word Or secondly with that which appeares to bee reall which however it may bee false yet it is beyond the power of man to convince by a rule that so it is We confesse wee are fearefull as of opening the doore too wide so of shutting the doores upon any whom God would have us to receive in but for what yet wee see or read from the arguments here alledged in this Author or the writings of others godly learned wee thinke that Church charity is not to rest satisfied with the first but with the latter for let the profession of the worke of faith bee never so short or so weake let it be by their owne immediate relation or by question yet if it may but appeare to a regulated charity so as to hope that it is reall it is to rest satisfied then till God make discovery to the contrary wee intend not to heape up arguments nor answer scruples but these foure things seeme to evince as much 1 That the Apostles in the 3000. converted Acts 2. as they were very ready to receive them to the fold of Christ and therefore in one day immediatly received so many thousands which could not bee by large profession of every one so also they attended to the truth of that profession and therfore it was not bare profession of faith but as it is set downe for our patterne it was such a profession as was evidently joyned with humiliation pricking at the heart mourning and crying out before the Apostles What shall wee doe to be saved gladly receiving the word which are reall testimonies of some reall change from what they were but a little before and upon this ground the Apostles received them 2 The Apostles charge to Timothy 2 Tim. 3. 5. From such as have a forme of godlinesse and deny the power of it turne away if bare profession were sufficient why should Timothy turne from them but rather receive them who had a forme of profession And if it was in his power to avoyd them why should he not reject them and that not onely from private but Church communion also supposing them such as not o ney had a forme but might be by a rule convinced thereof 3 Lying and apparent untruth cannot make a man fit matter for a Church and therefore cannot bee a ground for charity to rest on that so he is but verball profession which appeares not to bee reall but false is palpable lying and indeed more fit to destroy the Church then to make the Church Hence Sanctius in Zach 14. 14 observes that the greatest enemies of the Church are such qui eum fidem retineant sanctitatem abjâ—cerunt 4 If bare profession of faith is a sufficient ground to receive men into the Church then an excommunicate person cast cut in one houre should bee immediatly received in againe if hee will but renew his generall profession of faith nay they the Indians in Maryland who will put on and put off this profession as their ghostly fathers the Popish Priests will bestow or withhold garments and shirts upon them should in charitie bee received into the Church But if it should bee asked how charity may know the reality of this profession we answer so long as the rule bee attended wee leave every one to the wisedome of Christ to make application thereof onely this we doe add in generall for more full satisfaction 1 Such a faith professed with the mouth which is confirmed by an innocent godly conversation in the life so as not to live in commission of any knowne sinne or omission of any knowne duty wee say this conversation makes faith appeare reall James 2. 18. Rev. 22. 14. wee conceive more is required to make a man appeare a fit member of a Church then of a Common-wealth to bee onely bonus civis and bare civility is sufficient for this latter but not for the former and therefore such a profession of faith is needfull as is confirmed by a not onely a civill but a godly life 2 Such a faith as is joyned with evident repentance and sorrow and mourning for sinne although there bee no experience alwayes of such a holy life antecedently seene for thus it was Act. 2. 37 38. for the riches of Christs grace is such as not onely to receive experienced christians into his family and house but also the weakest and poorest who may stand in most need of Christs Ordinances and that as soone as ever they seeme to bee brought in and therefore experience of a blamelesse life is not alwayes necessary for admission into the Church some think indeed that the Apostles received in the first converts Act. 2. 39. so soone because they had an extraordinary spirit of discerning but if they had so yet they did not receive them in here according to that for they received divers hypocrites in as Ananias and Sapphira c. and if all other of their acts in this chapter were exemplary why should this onely bee thought to be otherwise and extraordinary 3 When there is full and sufficient testimony from others of their faith and piety although their humiliation faith and conversation bee not so well knowne for wee see the Church received Paul when Barnabas had declared what God had done for him and if it may bee just to condemne another by the testimony of two faithfull witnesses it may not bee unchristian to receive an other into the fold of Christ much more readily upon the testimony of able and faithfull Christians especially then when they be not able openly and publiquely ro speake so fully for themselves and thus much for answer to the first question 2 Question Whether this profession is to bee judged by the Church Answer 1. The faithfull as they did at first combine into a Church so it is their duty to receive others to themselves as the Church did Acts 9. 26 27. encouraged by Barnabas and the Apostles and as the Apostle commands Rom. 14. 1. which although it was of fellow-members into their affections yet the proportion holds strong for receiving commers into the Church Joh. Ep. 3. 8 9 10. 2
If they bee to receive them they must by some meanes know them to bee such as they may comfortably receive into their affections a little leaven leavening the whole lumpe 1 Cor. 5. 3 The Officers of the Church who are first privately to examine them and prepare them for admission are to shew the Church the rule on which the Church is to receive them and themselves are ready to admit them Act. 10. 37. Can any forbid water c. This rule was best seene by that publike profession before the whole Church and if no just exception bee made as one should bee without conviction they are to be admitted by the Officers with the consent of the members hereunto for if publike profession is needfull at least before the Church though not the world alway as Didoclavius observes to the entrance into the Covenant and Church by baptisme wee see no reason but persons formerly baptized and entering a new into the Church but they should openly professe their faith againe the visible Church being built upon this rocke Matth. 16. 16 18. viz. Profession of the faith of Christ and lastly if there should be no necessity for such a profession yet if this bee desired of the people of God for the increase of their owne joy to see God glorified and Christs name professed and his vertues held forth and for the increase of their love to those that joyne with them why should it not be done before Saints which should bee done before persecutors 1 Pet. 3. 15. What is now said we thinke sufficient to undermine what is opposed herein by others and may easily give answer to the three arguments of the learned Authour from the example of the Church of Israel John Baptist and the Apostles and so cleare up our practise and judgement to the world from the aspersion of our rigidum examen for which we are by some condemned but for further clearing we shall answer to the particulars Now to your Reasons more particularly against this from the Old Testament and the manner of entring and renewing Covenant then Answ Wee answer first when as you say they professing the Covenant promised to take God for their God to keepe the words of the Covenant and doe them to seek the Lord with all their hearts to walke before him in truth and uprightnes this implyeth a profession of a worke of grace Secondly They did not immediately enter into Covenant but the Lord was long before preparing them for it for they were humbled much in Egypt in so much as their sighings came up to God Exod. 2. 23 24 25. They had seene the glory of God for their good against Pharaoh and all that Land by many miracles they had Gods visible presence in the Cloud were instructed by Moses concerning the Covenant of grace made with them in Abraham they were mightily delivered at the Red Sea so that they beleeved Moses and feared the Lord and sang his praise Exod. 14. 31. Psalme 106. 12. They were also instructed againe concerning the Covenant and were to sanctifie themselves three dayes legally which was for spirituall ends and of spirituall use Exod. 19. 10. and thus being prepared as fit matter for Covenant they then entered thereinto And they were all of them for ought we know thus externally and ecclesiastically holy though many were internally stiffe-necked blind and prophane And for our parts we desire no more then such a preparation in some worke of grace if appearing though not indeed reall as may make way for Church Covenant among a people now as we see was then Reply When John Baptist began to preach the Gospell and gather a new people for Christ he admitted none but upon confession of their sinnes but we read of no question that hee put forth to them to discover the worke of grace in their soules or repelled any upon that pretence that voluntarily submitted themselves Answ Though the Scripture record such things very briefly else the world would not have contained the Bookes that must have been written as John speaketh yet he that advisedly considers the case may see the profession of a work of grace in all that were received by John to his baptisme First John was sent with the Spirit and power of Elias to turne the hearts of the fathers c. to cast down every high hill c. Secondly His baptisme is called the baptisme of repentance for the remission of sinnes Mark 1. 4. Thirdly confession of sins is ever put for true repentance when there is a promise of pardon made to it Prov. 28. 13. 1 John 1. 9. and therefore when he requires confession of sins was it without remorse or sorrow for it was it not with profession of faith in the Messiah which he pointed unto Joh. 1. 29. and required with repentance Act. 19. 4. Fourthly did not hee fall upon the Pharisees with dreadfull thundering of Gods judgements for comming to his baptisme without conversion of heart and fruits meet for repentance Mat. 3. 7. and this Luke saith hee preached to the multitude Luke 3. 7. and whether any were received that embraced not that Doctrine and shewed the same in their confession viz. that their hearts were humbled and that the renounced their high thoughts of their priviledges of the Law c. and professed amendment fruits meet for the same it will be hard for any to prove and thus much is evident on the contrary that Pharesees Lawyers distinguished from the People and Publicans rejected the counsell of God in not being baptized of him and what counsell but that wholesome doctrine of John Luke 7. 29 30 Lay all these together and let any whose thoughts are not prepossessed with prejudice say whether this confession was not such a profession of faith and repentance which a discerning charity ought to take for a worke of grace Replâ— It appeares many wayes that when the Apostles planted Churches they made a Covenant betweene God and the people whom they received But they received men upon the profession of faith and promise of â—mendment of life without strict inquiry what worke of grace was wrought in the soule so in after ages c. Now the profession at first required of all that were received to baptisme was that they beleeved in the Father Sonne and holy Ghost This was the confession of the Eunuch when he was baptized I beleeve that Jesus Christ is the Son of God Answ Wee cannot but observe how still the evidence of the truth of what wee proved in the third and fourth positions breakes out at every turne when the heat of that disputation doth not hinder for if the Apostles planted Churches and made a Covenant betweene God and the people when they baptized them as the proofes for this Act. 2. 38. and 8. 37. and 19. 17 18 19. alledged in the margent shew then still it appeares they admitted men into planted Churches when they baptized them and the â—efore the
Apostles ordinary and first leading practise and examples are for those Position not against them 2 You grant here that Acts 2. and 8. and 19. there was a profession of faith and promise of amendment of life and so wee must suppose though not expressed for how else could the Apostles distinguish such as gladly received the word from the mockers and others Now let us consider what kinde of profession this must bee by the story it selfe The Apostle Peter in his doctrine presseth three things 1. Conversion or repentance for their sinnes 2. Faith in Christ in those words Bee baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ Verse 38. 3. With many other words he exhorted them saying Save your selves from this untoward generation that is this was the scope of and substance of his exhortation which includes a gathering themselves to the Church Now the Text saith in respect of the first That they were pricked to the heart and cryed out Men and Brethren what shall wee doe 2. They gladly received the word that is of faith in Christ and the duty of obedience to the Gospell and how did all this appeare but by their profession and what kinde of confession can any man think such soules would make but a broken hearted gracious confession which to any discerning charity must be taken to argue a worke of grace so that the very character given of them by the holy Ghost in so briefe an History doth cleerely evince what we contend for Consider also the story Acts. 8. and first not to passe over what is said of Simon Magus of whom it is said Hee beleeved was baptized continued with Philip and wondered so that no doubt they took him for a true beleever but when Peter discovered his falsnesse see what hee saith Verse 21. Thou hast no part nor lot in this matter and the reason is For thy heart is not right in the sight of God Let any here consider that if hee had no part nor lot in Christ and baptisme c. because not right whether the Apostle Peter or the Church would have received him if such had been discovered before And for the Eunuch Philip requiring his profession of faith If thou beleevest with all thy heart looked for a sound worke of grace and though it was delivered in those words which are the Fundamentall truth That Jesus is the Sonne of God yet it includes true faith in him for salvation as we see our Saviour Christ takes that confession of Peter for true faith Flesh and â—lood have not revealed this to thee but my Father and promised to build the Church on this rocke Matth. 16. Yea it includes subjection unto him as the Sonne of God the Prophet and King of his Church and this is no rare but a common thing in the New Testament by one fundamentall truth beleeved and confessed to include true faith and profession of the whole truth that suites with that foundation as Rom. 10. 9. so expounded Verse 10 11. as being more then historicall faith so 1 John 4. 1 2. and 5. 1. The like characters of a penitent and gracious carriage and confession may be observed Act. 19. 17 18 19. And seeing you have given us this occasion to lay downe some grounds of our practise from the first patternes we shall add a word or two to take away the conceit of novelty which is imputed to us in this point as much as in any thing else Tertullian saith in his booke of prescriptions Wee admit no man to any disputation about divine things unlesse hee first have shewed us of whom he received the faith and became a Christian and secondly whether hee admit and hold the generall principles wherein all Christians doe and ever did agree otherwise proscribing against him as an alien from the Common-wealth of Israel And if in those times they were so strict in admitting men to disputations no doubt much more in receiving men to Church Communion But if this seeme not full enough take another in the Churches of old there were Catechumeni instructed for enterance into the Church by baptisme with whom they tooke much paines in sanctifying them before by fasting and prayer and often preaching to them And for their admission there were foure things in use among them 1. Nominis professio 2. Scrutinium 3. Abrenuntiatio 4. Fidei professio Their Scrutinium which they call Examen competentium or the examination of such as were competent or fitting for admission This Examen was very strict as is observed out of Alcuinus by learned * Chamier Fiant scrutinia ut explorentur saepius an post renuntiationum Satanae sacra verba datae fidei radicitus corde defixerint i. e. Let examinations be made that it oft may bee tryed whether they have deeply fixed in the heart the sacred words of their professed faith And what ever any may thinke of the strictnesse of that their discipline in this point Chamier gives a large testimony by way of approbation of the same whose words upon it are these Certe nemo improbare potest seriam in tam sanctis rebus diligentiam ne quantum fieri poterit lateant Simones c. i. Certainely no man can disallow such serious diligence to prevent profanation of sacred things lest so farre as it is possible such as Simon Magus may lye hid And saith hee the Apostles went before in their examples for Philip Acts 8. being demanded of the Eunuch What hinders mee that I may not bee baptized hee answereth not simply thou mayst but with this supposition added if thou beleevest with thy whole heart Now this profession of their faith was either by reciting the Creed in an eminent place before all the people and that praeclarâ â—iduciâ with full affiance as hee observes out of Clement and Augustine or else respondendo interroganti Sacerdoti per singula in subsidium forte pudoris aut memoriae i. e. By answering to the Minister propounding questions concerning their faith for helpe of their bashfulnesse or want of memory Also Beza in his Epist 14. Commending much the severity and zeale of former Pastors and Churches in this kind and bemoaning the negligence of such as followed from whence hee saith it is that the Church without a miracle could not rise out of its filth he concludes thus Itaque frustra disputabitur tum voce tum scriptis nisi conversione cordium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 initium instaurationis sumatur Reverend Mr. Hildersam in his treatise of the doctrine of the Lords Supper to that question whether the people that come to the Lords Table bee bound to make knowne their knowledge and spirituall estate to their Pastor Answers thus yes verily for seeing Matth. 3. 6. Acts 8. 37. God required of them that being of yeares of discretion were to bee baptized that they should make knowne to the Congregation or their Minister their faith and repentance hee doth every whit as much require this of them
that are to come to the Lords Supper Whereby we see 1. that his judgement was that Act. 8. and Mat. 3. the people did make known their spirituall estate to the congregation or Minister when they professed faith and repentance and secondly that the same ought now so to bee Lastly We may appeale herein to the consciences of very many godly Ministers in our deare England whether they groane not under the mixture of the precious with the vile in the Ordinances of Christ and would not gladly have it otherwise which cannot bee without such a way of admissions into the Church as we plead for or else in constituted but corrupted Churches by casting out such as after admonitions appeare impenitent in sin by the severity of discipline And this was evident by the qualifications of persons to be received to the Lords Table voted at first by the present Reverend Assembly and presented in their Directory to the Parliament if wee bee not mis-informed whose words are these None are to bee admitted thereto meaning the Lord Suppers but such as being baptized are found upon carefull examination by the Minister before the other Church-Officers to have a competent measure of knowledge and ability to examine themselves and professe their willingnesse to submit thewselves to all the Ordinances of Christ and are of approved conversation according to Christ the ignorant and scandalous are not to bee admitted nor those of another Congregation unlesse they have sufficient testimony or be very well knowne If it bee objected that some of these instances concerne unbaptized persons onely which is not our case Answ 1. Multitude of baptized persons in these dayes are as ignorant and prophane as some unbaptized and therefore as apt to pollute Gods Ordinances 2. Chamiers reason why unbaptized persons were to go under such strict examination holds good in our case 3. Such profession of faith was required by John and the Apostles of those that were Church members before Reply The Creed is honored by the Ancients with glorious titles as the rule of faith c. by which they understood that rule of faith given by Christ when hee was about to ascend and commanded his Disciples saying Goe teach al Nations In after times some Articles were added for explanation to meet with the heresies of those times but for substance the Church never required other acknowledgement c. Answ If you meane that which is called the Apostles Creed it is justly doubted whether it bee so ancient however the times which followed the Scripture patterns are both obscure to us and no infallible pattern yet many Churches used great strictnesse as is shewed in receiving and restoring fallen members and if afterward heresies gave just occasion to require further professions of the doctrine of faith and to add more articles for explanation why may not the Churches require a more explicate confession of the work of faith and repentance the formality and meere outside profession of so many Civilists Formalists and Atheists requiring the same Reply If you put men to declare that worke of grace God hath wrought in this or that way which perhaps is not determined by the word of grace at least not agreed upon amongst your selves wee beseech you to consider by what authority you doe it and upon what ground you stand Answ This is but upon a supposition if so c. which is contrary to our judgement and professed practise to limit the spirit of grace in the workings of it If any have so done as it may bee in the times of opinions prevailing among us wee doe not owne it but disapprove the same It is enough for us to see any have some way or by some meanes or other beene humbled for sinne brought home to Christ by faith or have any breathings of the Spirit of Christ with a life answerable to the Faith of Christ CHAP. XVI Position 7. That a Minister is so a Minister of a particular Congregation that if they dislike him or leave him unjustly hee ceaseth to be a Minister Reply The question is of Ministers unjustly forsaken or driven from the Church and your answer is for most part of Ministers set aside or deprived by their owne default wee never purposed to speake one word for an unworthy Minister whom Christ hath put out of Office and therefore your labour to prove that such justly rejected by the the Church are no longer Ministers might well have beene saved Answ The ground of this Position being about the Nature of a Ministers Office Whether it consist in his Office relation to the flocke of a particular Church the former part of our answer was not in vaine nor the grounds impertinent and wee accept your grant of it That a Minister justly rejected by his Church is no longer a Minister then wee inferre that there is no indelible character in the Office but that his Ministery stands in relation to a particular flocke not to the Catholike Church for then a particular Church could not dissolve his Office and therefore it will follow that if hee bee found worthy after upon repentance to bee called to another Church hee must bee new elected and ordained to his Office being no Minister upon his just deposing Reply But wee will examine your conclusions upon which you build the sentence which you passe against them first it is certaine c. Answ What is said to the first is spoken before and we will not repeat things in vaine Reply Secondly The power of feeding which the Minister hath is neither confined to one society onely nor nextly derived to him from Christ by the Church The Office and authority of a Pastour is immediately from Christ the deputation of the person which Christ hath designed is from the Church ministerially but neither vertually nor formally Answ These things about the call of a Minister by the Church were also spoken to before when wee spake of the power of the Keys and the first subject thereof and therefore the assertion being granted these things might well be spared but what we finde here more then in the other place we shall consider The power of the Church in electing her Officers is so cleare in the Scripture and so confessed a truth by the godly learned that it cannot bee denyed yet here seeme to be given so many restrictions in the case that they much abate and weaken this great and precious liberty and power given by the Lord. 1. That the power and Office of a Pastor is immediately from Christ by his institution is granted but the question is how this man comes to have this Office applyed to him if immediately then hee is in this an Apostle if mediately it is by the Church or else shew by whom 2. That the Church choose Ministerially and ought to choose whom Christ hath described in his word and fitted with gifts and so farre designed by Christ wee grant but what if there bee twenty such Which of
them doth Christ designe but whom the Church freely choose and therefore that is no diminution of their power that they must choose ministerially and whom Christ so designes The case is alike in all other Ordinances dispensed Examination is immediately from Christ by his institution the person to be censured is designed or described by Christ a notorious or obstinate sinner the Church passe this sentence onely Ministerially and yet puts forth a great power of the Lord Jesus Christ in applying the sentence to this or that person and so here and therefore it is strange to us that any should say they depute this Officer neither vertually nor formally when as the act which they put forth which is the outward call of the Officer must needs come from a power formally in the Church to doe the same as well as when the Church or Officers censure an offender c. Reply The consent of the people is requisite in the election of Pastors and Teachers we grant the direction of the Elders going before or along with them Acts 1. Peter declared what an one should be taken c. Acts 6. Deacons were chosen by the consent of the Church c. but in this election the people did first choose when most commonly the Apostles instructed the people and went before them in the electon and they consented Act. 14. 23. The Apostles by consent choose c. Answ This restriction of the peoples power to an after consent at least ordinarily will not hold if the evident light of Acts 6. could not be denyed and the other places were more obscure why should not that place with its light cleare the rest but that in Act. 1. is as evident Peter proves the need of such a choice to be made shews it must bee one that had so long conversed with Christ to witnesse such things and further hee doth not lead them there might be twenty such but they choose two as a preparative act to Apostleship Vers 23. and who were they but such as they speake unto viz. the Disciples Vers 15. whom he cals Men and Brethren Vers 16. so Act. 14. 23. lifting up of hands is the signe of election not of an after consent Lastly by this Doctrine how shall the Church come by Officers when shee hath none to goe before her in choosing for her must shee loose her right or take whom others will choose for her and impose upon her Reply In the primitive times after the Apostles one Church might elect a Pastor for another c. Answ 1 If by way of counsell one Church shall propound and advise another to choose such leaving them free to take or refuse this is lawfull in case but otherwise it is a plaine usurpation and we must leave Scripture rules and patterns to justifie it 2 Wee grant in a safe sense there may be Communis electio whereby a fit man is propounded by Churches or Ministers to be chosen by another people and thus the Philadelphians might elect a fit Pastor for the Church at Antioch as Ignatius exhots with sundry like instances in the first times after the Apostles and this wee deny not may lawfully bee now But this is nothing to that electio singularis whereby a people choose one to be their Minister of which we speake for it is evident from the Testimony of Cyprian oft alledged that it is in the power of the people to choose worthy Ministers and reject the unworthy and Ambrose thinkes that he is worthily thought to bee elected divino judicio whom all the people desire Ambros lib. 10. Ep. 82. It is very true that as the times grew worse the elections were oft disturbed sometimes by the Clergy choosing without the people of which Athanasius complaines sometimes by the peoples carrying it tumultuously sometime the Emperors interposing But this and like corruptions cannot forfeit the liberty of the Church which Christ hath given it and therefore hee that was no great friend to the peoples liberties yet ingenuously saith that although the people is Bellua multorum capitum and most apt to be tumultuous yet this is not innated to a beleeving people qui non minus nunc quam olim gravis esset in electionibus ac publicae utilitatis studiosissima Spalta de Rep. Eccles Lib. 3. Cap. 3. Reply If here it be questioned whether your election of the people be essentiall to the calling of a Minister wee answer First A thing is essentiall two wayes either as absolutely necessary so as the thing can have no existence without it or necessary to the integrity of a thing so that it is maymed without it Againe the people be either few in number and simple unable to judge of the sufficiency of a Minister or they be more in number increased in wisedome sound in faith and able to discerne of things that differ In the first sense the election of the people is not necessary or essentiall in the second his calling in that respect is maymed Answ It is to bee noted that here wee dispute of the outward calling of Church-Officers now the very essence of any outward calling doth lye in the right and power of them that elect If all the Countries of England should elect or call a Lord Major for London bee they never so many and wise it is a meere nullity and why Because the right of election is not in them but if the Citizens in whom the right lyes doe elect though weakly hee hath the true essence of the call if others electing a Major the City will receive him submit to him and so give their consent hee may bee said to have the substance of that call though not an orderly and lawfull election and so maymed so it is here Secondly if in our election of the people being the Scripture way of election the proper right and power bee seated by Christ in the Church unto whom they are to minister then it must needs follow that the very essence of a Ministers call stands in their election or at least in their after consent and subjection to his Ministery in which case wee grant though the calling be maymed yet it hath the substance of a true calling But if the people will not receive such as are imposed upon them hee hath no call at all but usurpes the same and it is a meer nullity And therefore it concernes Churches the more to consider what they doe in receiving and submitting to such unworthy Ministers as are oft imposed upon them but if the right and power of electing Ministers bee in any other Persons let it be shewed from the Scriptures for we are not much moved in such cases with the corrupt customes of after-times And this also shewes what kinde of call such men have that are ordained by Prelates at large without any election at all if they be Ministers to the Catholike Church then the Catholike Church is bound to receive them and submit to their Office but
no part of the Catholike Church and therefore not the whole is bound to submit to them and therefore indeed they have no office nor calling as Pastors or Teachers except it can be proved they be Evangelists Apostles or Prophets Reply If the people be few and simple they stand in more need of guidance from their owne Elders and other Churches If many and full of wisdome their liberty to choose is the greater and the greater wrong to bee deprived of it The practise of the Apostles and Primitive Churches shew this for many ages sometime men were propounded to the Church to be chosen sometimes the chiefe left wholly to them Answ 1 What is all this to the purpose what light or derection a Church need to receive the essence of a Ministers call lyes not in the propounding or advising of any to elect him but in the Election of such as have the true right so to doe which is still in the Church though few and weake if a true Church and yet you produce not one Scripture example of any Officer propounded by the Apostles or Elders to the Church to be chosen by them much lesse limiting the Church to consent thereto if they had nothing against him Reply In reason this is evident for the Childs consent is required in marriage but the more able he is to choose for himselfe the more liberty may Parents grant the lesse able the more watchfull must they be This similitude utterly faileth in two essentiall things that concerne the case for which it is applyed 1. Because a childe is under the authority of the parents whose right is such that a Childe cannot lawfully choose without them But there is no Church or others have such a right and authority over any Church in their choice of Officers 2. Whatsoever the power of parents bee yet the essence of the marriage consists in the mutuall consent and promise of the children that marry and so here the essence of a Ministers call must lye in the election of the Church and acceptance of the Minister which is not avoided but by the similitude confirmed Reply It is a duty of neighbour Churches to lend their helpe to their brethren in election of their Ministers when the Scripture willeth us to exhort one another or admonâ—sh one another it is not onely a command to every singular person towards his fellow but also to any whole company Answ Wee grant all this and that it is the duty of a Church bee it weake or strong to take all needfull counsell advise or exhortations and admonitions in so weighty a worke But if Churches or others shall impose upon any Church any Officer without their choice this is no brotherly helpe but unjust usurpation And if you understand Junius so as that Charitatis jure Communione sanctorum one Church have power to choose for another other wayes then by advising them to elect such an one for themselves wee see no reason for that nor doe wee thinke it is his meaning neither doth Paul Rom. 12. 12. lay any foundation of such usurpations but onely of mutuall brotherly helpfulnesse by counsell c. and the contrary is not Policy but some degree of tyranny Reply It is a blemish in the call of a Minister if either the people be not fit to choose or being fit they he shut out from the choice but this maime doth not make a nullity in his calling Answ If a people or Church bee never so weake which is here called unfitnesse yet Christ being amongst them and they making an orderly and good choice there can be no blemish in the call seeing the right is them and such a free choice will better stablish the conscience of any godly Minister in his call then if a Synod of the ablest Ministers should impose him without their free choice except it can bee proved that the right of election is in the Synod which we thinke will not bee done But bee they able or weake if the people be shut out it must needs make a great maim in his call and if they doe not consent nor submit to such a one called by others it will make it a nullity as was shewed before What authority hath hee to Minister to any Church if they will refuse him or who shall censure them for refusing by any rule of Christ Reply The saving truth of God and a lawfull Ministery are both essentiall to a true Church Answ Answ What then becomes of the Church when the Minister is dead Reply The true Church hath continued by the blessing of God where the election of Ministers hath beene given away by the people or taken from them Answ True but it hath been continued by the after consent and subjection of the people to their Ministers chosen by others else they must needs have broken a pieces and dissolved the Church or taken upon them to choose others to themselves which still shewes that the essence of the call is in the people What is said of the disorders of Ancient Churches in elections we passe over as nothing to this purpose That the Ministery might bee lawfull for substance where there were many defects in the manner of the call we grant the Church at length consenting to submit thereto in whom the true right is placed by Christ and therefore we passe over what followes to that purpose though wee might object against some passages in the discourse Reply As for the second branch of your answer we know not well your meaning if this be your minde that a Minister lawfully called and set over the Congregation is to bee esteemed a Minister in the usuall Church as the particular Church hath unity with and is part of the universall or Catholique and as a party baptized is not baptized into that Congregation onely but into all Churches and that the Ministery is one cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur as Cyprian speaketh and therefore though the Minister be unjustly cast eff by one Congregation yet hee is not to be esteemed as no Minister wee freely consent But if your meaning bee that hee is onely by right a Minister of that particular Congregation because unjustly deposed as formerly in the execution of his Office â—ee was a Minister to them onely and to no other society whatsoever or in what respect soever your opinion is contrary to the opinion of the universall and tends to destroy the unity of the Church and that Communion which the Churches of God ought to have one with another Answ First If our meaning be doubtfull seeing these expressions doe not well suite our notion nor fully enter into our understanding we shall give the meaning of our answer distinctly and then consider what is here said First there is a difference betweene the unjust leaving or casting off a Minister without all orderly proceedings against him and the unjust deposing him in an orderly way of Church censure if the question
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