Selected quad for the lemma: country_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A42758
|
An assertion of the government of the Church of Scotland in the points of ruling-elders and of the authority of presbyteries and synods with a postscript in answer to a treatise lately published against presbyteriall government.
|
Gillespie, George, 1613-1648.
|
1641
(1641)
|
Wing G745; ESTC R16325
|
120,649
|
275
|
against us our Saviours precept Tell the Church Wheresoever wee read in Scripture of a visible politicall Church and not of the invisible Catholike Church it is ever meant say they of a particular congregation used to assemble in one place for the exercise of Gods publike worship when the Scripture speaketh of a whole Province or Nation the plurall number is used as the Churches of Galatia the Churches of Macedonia the Churches of Asia c. Wherefore our Saviour in those words did deliver the power of Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction neither to Classicall Presbyteries nor to Synods but to particular congregations only Answ. 1. This place proveth indeed that particular Churches have their owne power of Jurisdiction but not that they alone have it 2. Yea it proveth that they alone have it not for Christ hath a respect to the forme of the Jewes as is evident by these words Let him be unto thee as an Heathen or a Publican Now we have proved that there was among the Jewes an high Ecclesiasticall Sanedrim beside the particular Synagogicall Courts So that by pointing out the forme of the Jewish Church hee recommendeth a subordination and not an independency of particular Churches 3. By the Church in that place is meant the competent Consistory of the Church and so it agreeth to all Ecclesiasticall Courts respectively This sence is given by Parker though he be most tender in the vindication of the liberty of congregations Nam cum c. For saith he since Christ would have every man to be judged by his owne Church Matth. 18. or if the judgement of his owne Church should displease him yet ever it must be by the Church that is by a Synod of many Churches 4. As for the reason alledged for proofe of the contrary exposition I oppugne it both by reason and by their owne Tenents and by Scripture By reason because the rule of Geometricall proportion whereof we have before spoken proveth a congregation to bee a part of a Nationall Church even as one man is a part of a congregation for as five is the hundreth part of five hundreth so is five hundred the hundreth part of fifty thousand By their own grounds because they hold the forme of a visible Church to consist in the uniting of a number of visible Christians into one by the bond of a holy covenant to walke in all the wayes of God Then say I we may say the Church of Scotland as well as the Churches of Scotland because all the particular Churches in Scotland are united together into one by the bond of a Nationall oath and covenant to walke in all the waies and ordinances of God By Scripture also because Acts 8.1 we read of the Church at Hierusalem not the Churches Howbeit there were at that instant above eight thousand Christians at Hierusalem and all these still in the City for the first scattering of them followeth thereafter in that Chapter This great number neither did nor could usually assemble into one place for the worship of God but they met 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 house by house Acts 2.46 And whereas objection is made to the contrary from Acts 2.44 and 5.12 and 6.2 Wee have before answered to the first of these places for it is to be expounded by Acts 4.32 they were in one that is they were of one heart and of one soule The second place may be expounded of the Apostles and the preceding words favour this exposition but though it should be takeÌ„ of the multitude it proveâ—h not their meeting together into one place for the worship of God for it was an extraordinary confluence upon an extraordinary occasion of that which had befallen to Ananias and Saphira The last place proveth no more but an extraordinary and occasionall meeting and it is also to be understood that they met turmatim as foure hundred thousand men did assemble together Jud. 20.1 Another Scripturall instance we give from 1 Pet. 1.1 with 5.2 the Apostle writing to the dispersed Jewes in severall Provinces calleth them all one flocke Wee read that Laban had many flockes Genes 30.36.38 yet are they all called one flocke verse 31.32 so were all the flockes of Iacob called one flocke Genes 32.7 and 33.13 In like manner every one of the particular Churches among those dispersed Jewes was a flocke but compared with the whole it was but a part of the flocke It is no more absurd to say that a congregation is both a body in respect of its owne members and a member in respect of a Nationall Church then it is to say that every beleever considered by himselfe is a tree of righteousnesse and a Temple of God yet compared with others he is a branch of the Vine and a stone of the Temple for all those waies is hee called in Scripture Sundry particular flockes may bee called one flocke three waies 1. Respectu pastorum when the same shepheards oversee take care of the whole See an example both of the one kinde of shepheards Luke 2.8 and of the other Acts 20.28 2. Respectu pabuli So Paul Baynes speaking of the Low Countries where sundry congregations in one City make but one Church saith that the sheepe feed together into one common pasture though they bite not on the same individuall grasse 3. Respectu pedi when many congregations are governed by the same Pastorall staffe of Ecclesiasticall Lawes and Discipline It is further objected that Presbyteriall government and the authority of Synods doe rob the congregations of their rights and liberties no lesse then the Prelacy did so that the Churches of Christ in the removall of Episcopacy have changed Dominum only not Dominium Answer There is a vaste difference for 1. Episcopall governement is Monarchicall and Christ hath left no Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction to bee exercised by one man Presbyteriall and Synodicall governement is partly democraticall in respect of the election of Ministers and Elders and the doing of matters of chiefest importance with the knowledge and consent of congregations partly aristocratical in respect of the parity of Presbyters and their consistorial proceedings and decrees The Monarchicall part is Christs peculiarly 2. The Prelacy permitteth not to congregations any act of their owne Church government but robbeth them of their particular Elderships which as Parker well noteth the Classicall Presbyteries doe not 3. It is one thing saith Baynes for Churches to subject themselves to a Bishop and Consistory wherein they shall have no power of suffrage Another thing to communicate with such a Presbytery wherein themselves are members and Iudges with others 4. The congregations did not agree not consent to Episcopall government but were sufferers in respect of the same but they doe heartily agree to the governement of Presbyteries and Synods in witnesse whereof they send their Commissioners thither to concur assist voice 5. Speciall respect is had in Presbyteries and Synods to the consent of congregations in all
upon the same string The first is thus If those Churches planted by the Apostolique institution had power fully in themselves immediatly from Christ to practise all his ordinances Then have all Churches the like power now But the first is true Ergo. The third thus Whatsoever was commanded by the seven Churches to be practised by each of them apart in and for themselves that no Church of God must now omit But Ecclesiasticall government was commanded to the seven Churches to bee practised by each of them c. The fourth thus If the Church of Corinth had power and authority within her selfe to exercise Ecclesiasticall Government then ought not particular Congregations now to stand under any other Ecclesiastical authority out of themselves But the first is true Ergo. The sixth thus If the Apostle gave commandement unto the Eldership of Ephesus for the whole administration of all ordinances in that Church then may the Eldership of every particular congregation administer among themselves all Gods ordinances But the first is true Ergo. Now for answer to these First I simply deny the connexion of the proposition of the fourth argument because it argueth à genere ad speciem affirmative from the exercising of ecclesiastical Government to the exercising of it independently Neither hath hee said any thing for proofe hereof Next the Reader will easily perceive that both in the first and sixth Argument his citations in proofe both of the propositions and assumptions have not so much as the least colour of pertinency and farre lesse of proofe In both these arguments when he would prove the proposition he speaketh to the assumptioÌ„ contrariwise But these things I delight not to insist upon only I shall give two Distinctions any one of which much more both of them shall make these arguments wholly improfitable unto him First I distinguish his propositions That power authority which the Church of Corinth the seven Churches of Asia and other Apostolicall Churches had to exercise Ecclesiastical government in and for themselves the like have all Churches now which are of the like frame and condition but the most part of particular Churches now are of a different frame and condition from the Apostolique Churches and so have not such fulnesse of power as they had Put the case that the Apostolick Churches were no greater then might and did ordinarily assemble together into one place for the worship of God yet since by reason of the troubleâ— of those times which suffered not the Christians to spread themselves abroad all the countrey over but confined them within Cities and safe places those Churches were not planted so thick and neare together as that they might have the conveniency of Synodical consociation hence it appeareth that they might do many things in and by themselves which particular Congregations now having the conveniency of consociation with neighbour Churches ought not to do in and by themselves But this I have said gratis having in my former Treatise at length declared that the Apostolick Churches at least the most and principall of them were greater then could assemble ordinarily in one place of worship and that they were served with sundry both Pastors and Elders that therefore our Parochiall Churches ought not to be in respect of the points in question compared with their Churches nor our Parochiall Presbyteries with their Presbyteries The second distinction which I have to propound is concerning the assumptions of the arguments now in hand The Apostolick Churches did indeed ordinarily exercise Ecclesiasticall government and all the ordinances of Christ in and for themselves yet so that when the occasion of a Synode did occurre for determining a question which was too hard for particular Churches and was also common to many Churches in that case they did submit themselves to the authority of he Synod Which hath also before beene made plaine from Act. 15. To practise all the ordinances of God in a Church is one thing and to practise them independantly so as nevâ—r to be subject to the authority of a Synod is another thing My antagonist doth after take it for granted saith that all learned men have granted that the Churches of the Apostolick constitution were independant bodies But whence are you Sir that would make your Reader beleeve there are no learned men in the Churches of Scotland France the low-low-countries and the other reformed Churches which have the governement of Presbyteries and Synods conceiving it to be most agreeable to the Apostolicall patterne Have you put out of the category of learned men all Protestant writers who in the controversies about Councels dispute against Papists from Acts 15.2 Why did you not among all your imeprtinent allegations cite some few of those learned men who grant the Apostolick Churches to have been independant bodies But we must heare what more you have to say Your first eight and tenne arguments are in like manner coincident The first you frame thus Such actions the Church may lawfully do wherein no law of God is broken But there is no law of God broken when particular Churches do in and among themselves exercise all Gods ordinances Ergo. The eight thus Whatsoever governement cannot be found commanded in the written Word oâ— God ought not to have any place in the Church of God But the Government of Presbyteries and Synods over many particular congregations cannot be found commanded c. The tenth thus It is a sinne against God to adde any thing to that forme and manner of ordering Churches which Christ hath set forth in the new Testament But to subject particular congregations under any other Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves is to adde c. Now the word independantly must be added to the assumption of the first argument else it cannot conclude what he affirmes and we deny for there is no question but particular Churches may exercise in and among them selves all Gods ordinances in those cases and with those distinctions which I have spoken of before part 2. chap. 2. This being cleared I deny the assumption in all these three arguments I expected proofe for it but he hath given none except that it cannot for shame be denied I had thought it rather a shamefull thing for a writer to trouble his Reader with arguments which he cannot make good But what saith he to the professors of Leyden who hold the institution of Synods not to be humane but divine which they prove from Mat. 18. Act. 15. Nay what is more ordinary in Protestant writers then the applying of those words Where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them unto Synods and Councels and hence they condemne the popish Councels in so much that Bellarmin Salmeron and other Jesuits have in this contradicted all our writers telling us as these men doe that our Saviour meaneth not of Councels in these words Moreover that