Selected quad for the lemma: earth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
earth_n	church_n	invisible_a	visible_a	3,670	5	9.2967	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A88947	A modest & brotherly ansvver to Mr. Charles Herle his book, against the independency of churches. Wherein his foure arguments for the government of synods over particular congregations, are friendly examined, and clearly answered. Together, with Christian and loving animadversions upon sundry other observable passages in the said booke. All tending to declare the true use of synods, and the power of congregationall churches in the points of electing and ordaining their owne officers, and censuring their offendors. By Richard Mather teacher of the Church at Dorchester; and William Tompson pastor of the Church at Braintree in New-England. Sent from thence after the assembly of elders were dissolved that last met at Cambridg to debate matters about church-government.	Mather, Richard, 1596-1669.; Tompson, William, d. 1666.	1644 (1644)	Wing M1274; Thomason E37_19; ESTC R16954	50,642	62

was the means of Paul's escape Finally there is not any supreme Judicatory upon earth neither Civill nor Ecclesiasticall but if they consist of many persons and be not absolute and meere Monarchies consisting of one alone the members thereof may be divided among themselves and yet they must be the finall Judges to determine matters within themselves if the matters must be determined at all so that this which you seeme to reject as an absurditie that parties should be Judges is in some cases and namely when the supreme Judicatory is divided into parts about matters arising among themselves a matter of unavoidable necessity and cannot be otherwise This communion and mutuall assistance in government God as by his Word so by the very light of Nature teacheth all societies whatever whether Common-wealths or Armies Vniversities or Navies pag. 7. Answ. Either this passage means that all Common-wealths c. are taught such communion and assistance in government with other Common-wealths c. as that none of them have entirenesse and supremacie of jurisdiction within themselves but are dependant on other the like societies for the same or else that the members and parts of a Common-wealth c. are taught such communion and assistance in government as not to be entire of themselves but to depend upon the whole society of which they are members and parts If it be taken in the latter sense then the thing is most true but no prejudice to our cause at all for we grant the same of the parts and members of a Congregationall Church c. But it must be taken in the former sense if it make any thing against us and in this sense it will not hold true for it is well known that Common-wealths and Universities as the Common-wealth of England for example and the University of Oxford have no such communion and assistance in government with other Common-wealths and other Universities but that they have entirenesse of jurisdiction within themselves and the same may be said of Armies and Navies The members of all these societies doe depend on the societie of which they are members But that is nothing against us If the Societies did depend upon other the like Societies this indeed were against us But this cannot be proved so to be Not that therefore this government of Churches should as those end in a Monarchy on earth Answ. We suppose it is a clear mistake to say that the government in all those societies doth end in a Monarchy For whatever may be said of the rest Common-wealths you know there are sundry whose government is either Democraticall or Aristocraticall and doth not end in any Monarchy at all witnesse for example the Low Countreys But if Churches must be dependent upon the government of Synods because the very light of Nature teacheth a communion and assistance in government to all Societies whatever then we see not how it will be avoyded but by the same reason Churches must end in a Monarchy upon earth if it were once proved that the light of Nature doth teach all societies whatever so to end For there is as good reason for this as for the other And the old plea for Bishops and Popes ut capite constituto schismatis occasio tolleretur will not be easily avoyded If we yeeld thus much that what the light of nature teacheth other Societies the same must be observed in the government of Churches You say indeed that this will not follow Because the Churches Monarch or Head is in Heaven and such an one as though in Heaven yet still present by his Word and Spirit here on earth too to all the offices of a Monarch pag. 7. But this we conceive doth not remove the difficultie partly because the objection is for a visible Head and not an invisible and partly because the time hath been when there was one High-Priest upon earth in whom you say pag. 6. that all appeals and judgements were to determine And yet at that time the Monarch or Head of the Church was in Heaven and present on earth too by his Word and Spirit to all the offices of a Monarch as truly then as now Whereby we may see that if you will goe by the light of Nature it is not the presence of Christ in Heaven and his spirituall and invisible presence with his Church on earth that will take away the necessity of a visible Head upon earth A surer answer to this plea is to flye to the institution and appointment of God whose wisedome and will it was to appoint one High Priest upon earth in former times but hath not done the like in these dayes CHAP. III. Containing an answer to the second Argument taken from Matth 18. Tell the Church THat this is spoken by our Saviour in reference to the Jewish Church-government is the joynt judgement of Ambrose Theodoret among the ancient Melanchton Strigetius Peretius Aretius and even Mr. Johnson himselfe And if so then our Saviour here sufficiently confirmes to us as lawfull and conveyes to us as usefull so much of the Jewish Church-government as includes an Independencie and liberty of Appe des therein pag. 9 10. Answ. By dependencie here spoken of must be meant dependencie upon the government of a Synod and by Appeal must be meant Appeale from a particular Congregation unto that Synod or otherwise the Argument concludes besides the Question And the words being thus understood the forme of the Argument must be to this purpose viz. If that which is here spoken by our Saviour be spoken in reference to the Jewish Church-government then particular congregations must depend upon the government of Synods But the first is true Therefore the second is true also But for confirmation of this Minor Proposition you bring no other proofe but onely the testimonies of a number of Authours all cited before by Mr. Paget in his Defence pag. 46 47 c. And for the consequence of your Major you bring no proofe at all Neverthelesse we are willing to consider what strength there may be in the Argument and to that purpose we must enquire into your meaning in this phrase of Reference to the Jewish Church-government whereby we conceive you intend one of these two either that the word Church in our Saviours rule Tell the Church doth signifie the Elders and Governours alone as sometimes the like word is used in the old Testament or else that no new rule is prescribed hereby our Saviour but the very same that was formerly given to the Jews Mr. Paget who also takes his second argument from this place of Mat. 18. doth understand our Saviours words in this later sense But whether way soever you intend our answer is briefly thus First that though we will not now deny the minor Proposition yet this we may say That it is not so evident of it self but that it needs some better proof then by you is given for the confirmation of it for of it self it is

in the last place must needs consist of seaven persons or more As for that speech of our Sauiour where he speaks of 2 or 3 gathered together in his Name Mat. 18. 20. He doth not thereby acknowledge such a small number to be a Church but fetcheth an argument from thence as from the lesser or lesse probable to prove the firm and inviolable authority of the Church and her Censures of which he had spoken before v. 18. As if he should say if two agreeing together upon earth shal be heard in whatsoever they shall aske and if I be present with two or three gathered in my name then much more shall the whole Church who is a greater number and a more solemne assembly be heard in their prayers and have Christs presence in the midst of them to bind and loose in heaven what they shall bind or loose in earth But the former is true vers. 19. 20 Therefore the latter is true also vers 18. And for excommunication ordination and censures there is nothing in Scripture nor proved in this discourse of yours that these matters belong onely to a Synod and not to a particular congreation yea wee conceive it will not bee easie for any man whatsoever to prove that Synods and they onely have power to ordain officers and to excommunicate offenders and till this be proved the Independants as you call them need not to relinquish their judgement and practice in these particulars Sure it is that Synod in Acts 15. did neither meddle with ordination nor excommunication but onely determined the controversie about circumcision and gave rules for practice to be observed of the beleeving Gentiles for avoiding of offence among the Jewes We acknowledge that where there is no consociation or neighbourhood of congregations or single Churches whereby they may with conveniency be aiding to each other and whereto the particulars may have recourse there a single congregation must not be denied entirenesse of jurisdiction If you acknowledge thus much which yet is no more then truth requires to be acknowledged and wherin we for our parts fully concurre with you then we suppose a man may improve this grant of yours to a confirmation of that independencie of Churches which you plead against and to a disproving of a good part of that authority of Synods which you would establish For if a Church that hath no neighbourhood of other Churches have power of jurisdiction entirely within it selfe as here you doe acknowledge then first let it be considered whence such a Church hath such power and see if that ground will not reach to prove the like power in other Churches also Now we suppose none will deny but such a Church hath this authority or power by the gift of Christ and the liberty which he hath granted to every Church as it is a Church which we had rather expresse in Doctor Ames his words then in our own The power it selfe namely in reproving scandals and purging out the wicked of right or in respect of the first act cannot be separated from a true Church Because it flows immediately and necessarily from its very essence For it is contained in that Covenant whereby beleevers are gathered into a Church Cas. Cons. lib. 4. cap. 24. Q. 4. Now if this be so that power of Jurisdiction doth immediately and necessarily flow from the very essence of a Church and so belongs to a Church as it is a Church then it will follow that this power must not be granted to be in such a Church as hath no neighbour Churches and be denied unto one that hath because a Church that hath neighbours is a Church and hath the essence of a Church as truly as that which hath none Power of Jurisdiction flowing immediately from the essence of a Church belongs indifferently to all Churches to one as much as to another without respect of what neighbours they have whether many or few whether any or none Secondly let it be considered also what is the end and use of the consociation and neighbourhood of Churches and the same truth will thence appeare also which neighbourhood where it is affoorded is from the benefit of Churches but not for their hindrance and losse And therefore it may be helpfull by casting in more light but cannot abridge them of any power which they had before When Doctor Ames Medul Theol. l. 1. c. 39. Sect. 27. had said that the combination of Churches into Classes and Synods doth neither constitute a new forme of the Church nor ought by any means to take away or impaire that libertie and power which Christ hath left unto his Churches sith it serveth onely for the directing and furthering of the same what saith Mr. Paget hereunto This saith he we willingly grant Paget Defence pa. 107. Now if this must be granted then that dependencie of Churches and that power of Synods which you plead for must not be granted For let a Church have entirenesse of Jurisdiction before she have any neighbouring Churches and be deprived of the power when God sends such neighbours and by this meanes she sustaines losse by having neighbours and comes to be in this respect in worse condition then when she had none which is against the true intent and use of the consociation of Churches Moreover if this grant of yours stand good then what shall become of that which is intimated pag. 6. and pa. 10. as a reason against the Independency of Congregations where you say that it is against the very light of nature that the adverse party be the sole Judge and party too in the cause and that it is against all equity that the offended party meaning the Congregation should be the sole and finall Judge of the offence Sure we cannot think that there can be such a case imagined wherein you would grant it lawfull for a single Congregation to do that which is against all equity and the very light of nature And yet you grant that the case may be such that a single Congregation may have entirenesse of jurisdiction within it self which seems to us plainly to prove that for a Congregation to be so independent as to be the finall Judge of offences within it self is not against all equity nor against the light of nature as is intimated by you in the pages afore-mentioned But sith in one place you grant that in some case a Congregation may have entirenesse of Jurisdiction within it self and in another place do seem to imply that it is against all equity and the light of nature that they should be granted we for our parts are not able to discern how these things do stand together But that too much may not be made of the grant of yours you do qualifie it in your subsequent words wherein you say that this is a case extraordinarie and falls not within the compasse of the Question which is about the ordinarie rule of Church-government Whereunto we answer two things 1 That

congregations in Israel did depend on the ministeriall government of a Synod nor will it follow that ours must be dependant as theirs were Touching the former of these to speak first of the minor proposition suppose it were true that the Congregations in Israel did depend upon the government of the Judicatories or Assemblies mentioned in those texts yet that doth not prove they depended upon a Synod And the reason is because the Judicatories there mentioned were not any Synods at all but Assemblies of another nature For first Synods as your selves describe them pag 2. are Assemblies consisting of the severall Pastors whom together with such other members as should be thought fit the several congregations are respectively to chuse send therto But those Judicatories in Deut. 17. and the other Scriptures did not consist of any Pastors or members whom the severall congregations did chuse and send thereto but of the Priests and Levites of the Judges and chiefe of the Fathers of Israel which were constantly resident at Jerusalem the place which the Lord had chosen And the severall congregations had nothing to do either to chuse them or send them Secondly these Jndicatories at Jerusalem were standing Courts and were constantly to continue and therefore they were not Synods for Synods are not wont to stand and continue but onely till they have ended the businesse which was the occasion of calling them and then to be dissolved and ended Thirdly Mr. Page out of whom it seems this argument and much of the discourse about it is taken doth confesse pag. 3. that the authority of Classes and Synods is not civill neither have they power to inflict civill pnnishments they onely judge of Ecclesiasticall causes and that in Ecclesiasticall manner using no other then spirituall censures in pag. 29. of his Defence But the Judicatories in these texts as Mr. Paget also confesseth pag. 34. 35. were for civill causes as well as Ecclesiasticall and so it is said Deut. 21. 5. that by the word of the Priests and Levites every controversie and every stroke mast be tried even in civill causes as that of trying out an uncertain murther which is the cause spoken of in that place By all which it plainly appeares that those superior Judicatories in Israel were not Synods and then suppose their congregations did depend upou those Judicatories and that ours must depend as theirs did yet it will not follow that ours must depend upon Synods And thus your Minor failing this might be enough to take away the whole strength of your Argument Neverthelesse for further answer we may also deny the consequence of your Major proposition For though it were yeelded that the congregations in Israel did depend upon a superiour Judicatory it will not follow that it must be so in these dayes And our reason is because the particular congregations in Israel viz. their Synagogues were not compleat Churches as the Congregations in the New Testament are That they were not entire and compleat Churches may appear by this because the people could not lawfully in them have the use of the most solemne ordinances of God and par●s of his worship though such as were of ordinary and continuall use but they must goe upto Jerusalem for the performing and enjoyment thereof and therefore they wete strightly commanded as not to keep the Passover so not to offer any Offerings or Sacrifices which yet were of very frequent use in any place within any of their gates but onely in Jerusalem the place which God did chuse to put his name there as we read at large Deut. 12. and 16. 5 6. Neither was it lawfull for the chiefe Ministers of the Church to execute the chiefe parts of their office in those synagogues but only at Jerusalem But now with congregations in these dayes it is farre otherwise there is none of the solemne Ordinances of God which are of ordinarie and continuall use but in these Congregations they may be enjoyed nor any ordinarie duties of the Ministery but in them they may be performed as preaching prayer Sacraments Discipline c. which shews they are entire Churches within themselves Dr. Ames hath the saying The Synagogues were not compleat Churches because the whole worship of God and all the sacred communion prescribed at that time could not be exercised in them Med. Theol. lib. 1. ca. 38. Thes. 37. And again There is nothing read in all the New Testament of the institution of any greater Church on which the lesser should depend Nor any worship or sacred ordinance prescribed which is not to be observed in every Congregation Nor any ordinary Minister appointed who is not given to some one Assembly of this kind Lib. 1. cap. 39. Thes. 26. Now if their Congregations could not enjoy all the Ordinances as not being compleat Churches there might be reason why they should be dependent upon Jerusalem and the Synedrion and Temple there where the Ordinances might be enjoyed and yet ours being compleat and enjoying al the Ordinances within themselves need not to be so dependent And another reason why their Congregations might be dependent and ours not so may be this They had a superiour Judicatory to appeal unto which had the supremum of Church power within it self and from whose sentence there was no appeal to any further Judge upon earth for so it is said of that Synedrion at Jerusalem Deut. 17. And Reason requires that some such supream Judicatory there should be for controversies cases of doubt must not be drawn out in Infinitum but of necessity standum est in aliquo supremo we must rest in some supreame and proceed no further But now in the New Testament if we once depart from a particular Congregation or Church where or when shall we find such a Supremum Surely not before we come to an Oecumenicall or Generall Councell For as for Classicall Provinciall and Nationall Synods there is none of these but those Cases which you put of deficiency and possibility of partiality may befall the best of them and therefore if for these causes the single Congregations must not be Independent but there must be appeals from them the Synods being subject to the like there must be liberty of appeals from them also For like as you do alledge that Congregations may be partiall and erre so we suppose it will not be denied but the Classis may erre the Provinciall Synod may erre the Nationall may erre And therefore by this Reason entirenesse of Jurisdiction must be granted to none of these And then whither shall we go but to a Generall Councill which as it hath not been seen for many by past generations so God knows whether ever there shall be any so long as this world shall endure But how if the Generall Councill do erre also Sure learned Doctor Reynolds doth abundantly clear it that such a thing is not impossible Thes. 2. Sect. 15. And so by this reason entirenesse of Jurisdiction must not

and therefore particular Congregations as well as members have hereby liberty to complain and appeal to a more generall Judgement for redresse And a little after That such offences may arise between Churches as well as members appears by that between the Graecians and Hebrews about the neglect of their widows Act. 6. 1. and that in such cases they may complain and implead each other appears by that of the Prophet Hosea 2. 2. even the daughter Church with the mother pag. 10. To all which we thus answer First though we deny not but offences may arise betweene Churches as well as members yet we do not see that those instances alledged by you from Act. 6. and Hos. 2. do sufficiently prove the same because those Graecians and Hebrews Act. 6. might be all of one and the same Church and Congregation which was at Jerusalem and not two Congregations or Churches the Graecians one and the Hebrews another as it seems you do conceive of them For when the Apostles upon occasion of this murmuring of the Graecians for the neglect of their widows did take course for the appointing of Deacons for the remedying thereof the whole managing of the businesse was transacted and done in one Congregation alone for so it is said they called the multitude of Disciples together vers. 2. they appointed them to look out seven men duely qualified whom they might appoint over that businesse v. 3. and the saying pleased the whole multitude who thereupon did chuse seven whom they presented unto the Apostles ver. 5 6. and the Apostles imposed hands on them ver. 6. In all this there is no hint of two congregations one of Graecians and another of Hebrews but the Text seemeth plain enough that the whole multitude of Disciples whether Graecians or Hebrews were all gathered together into one Congregation about the choice and ordaining of these Deacons And as for Hos. 2. 2. Plead with your mother plead sith there is no mention in that Scripture of any daughter Church nor of any two Churches at all and sith at that time there was only one Church upon the face of the earth even the Nationall Church of the Jewes therefore we cannot see how this Text can be any proofe of Churches complaining and impleading one another If any man think otherwise and that the daughter-Churches did plead against the mother-Church of Israel that is here spoken of then we would demand what or where was that superiour Judicatory be it Synod or any other before which they did plead and before whom the mother-Church of Israel must answer for herselfe when the daughter-Churches did complain against her We suppose none will affirme there was any such and therefore this text can be no ground for Churches impleading one another But the true meaning of the place is thus much not that one Church must plead against another but that the godly members of the Church of Israel must plead against the corruptions of that very Church though in respect of them she were as a mother and they as children And before whom must they plead Not before any other Judge upon earth but before the Lord of heaven and unto her own face laying open her abominations and shewing unto her her sins And we acknowledge the members of any other Church may doe the like if there be the like occasion so that they keep themselves within the bounds of sobriety and their owne calling But if it were granted though these allegations doe not prove it that offences may arise between Congregations how doth this prove the thing in question viz. That Congregations must depend upon the government of Synods Yes say you Because the remedy must be as large as the malady and otherwise Christs salve were not equall to the sore But if this reason be sufficient against the Independency of Churches then by the like reason a man may prove that the Church of a Nation must not be Independent neither For as you alledge that offences may arise as well between divers congregations as between divers members in the same congregation so a man may alledge that offences may arise between divers Nationall Churches And as you demand What if a brother offend not a particular brother but the whole Congregation What if ten brethren offend the whole or part shall we think the offence falls not within our Saviours remedy So in like sort a man may demand What if the Congregation offend not a particular Congregation but the whole Church of a Nation What if ten twenty fourty congregations offend the whole Nation or part Yea we may adde What if the Nationall Church offend the Church of another Nation Would you now say that all these offences must fal within our Saviours rule of telling the Church and that this were a sufficient reason against the independencie of Nationall Churches and Nationall Synods We suppose you would not say so And yet we doe not see how it can be avoided by your reason and ground sith that ground is appliable to the one case as well as to the other If the reason doe overthrow the Independencie of particular Congregations then of a Nationall Church also If not of a Nationall Church then how doth it make any more against the other Of necessity for ought wee can discern you must owne the reason as strong in both cases or else refuse it as weak in both Yea and further by the like reason a man might prove that Indians and Turkes must be complained of unto the Church and that the offences of them or of other Heathen must fall within the compasse of our Saviours remedy For as offences may arise between members and members between Churches and Churches so it is apparent that offences may arise between Christians and Pagans and if this ground that you lay be sound that the remedy complaint or oppeale must be as large as the malady offence and consequently there must be a Church above Congregations then if an Indian or other Pagan shall commit an offence the remedy must be to complain of the Indian to the Church And sith as you say pag. 11. There must be power of judgement to redresse there where the complaint is to be made would it not thence follow that there must be power of judgement in the Church to redresse the offences of Indians Which were directly contrary to the plain words of the Apostle 1 Cor. 5. 12. What have I to doe to judge them that are without But this inconvenience of the Churches judging them that are without doth unavoidably follow upon this which you lay as a ground against the independencie of Congregations viz. that where an offence may be committed there Christs rule Tell the Church may be applied for redresse thereof But what shall we say then If Indians and other Heathens if Congregationall and Nationall Churches of Christians be not under the power of that rule of Christ shall we say then there is no salve for all