is not this fulfilled in these times which wee wish may well bee laid to heart The second thing which wee conceive may chiefly hinder this closing is that point of Church government which concernes the power and liberties of particular Churches or Congregations and here wee must acknowledge the distance is too great For on the one side wee cannot see either by Treatises or by the Directory for Worship that Congregations are acknowledged to bee compleat Churches especially standing among other Churches or that any power or liberty is given to them to administer Church censures no not so long as they administer rightly according to the rule but all such power is taken indeed from the Churches though in words they are perswaded that it is to strengthen them and if this also come down from the Catholick Church and so to lesser Synods the greater part having power over the lesse as it were jure divino it will strike sore at the liberties and power of particular Churches But what here to say of the distance on the other hand wee cannot tell wee see or read nothing but that our deare and honoured Brethren doe freely imbrace communion of Churches in consultative Synods for the brotherly helpe of each other and the weaker Churches yea and in a doctrinall way to declare the will of Christ and to threaten his judgements against such as shall refuse wholsome counsell and withdraw communion from such as wilfully refuse to heare what is propounded according to the minde of Christ And what should we here say but on the bended knees of our soules intreat our reverend Brethren to consider what power any or many Churches can challenge over another to require them to give up their right to them to rule in common if a sister Church furnished with Officers shall refuse the same or what rule bindeth the Churches of an hundred or any such civill division to come into such a combination with those Churches rather then others if that refusing Churches have just reasons to object against such Churches or their Officers We think the more voluntary and free such consociations are the better Here we shall be bold to propound this one thing viz. Why may not the fifth and sixth Articles of agreement publikely professed to the world in answer to the Prelaticall petition obtaine amongst our Brethren that it may appeare to the disappointment of their hopes that the Prelates being downe the agreement would be easie as is there said Viz. Ar. 5. Each particular Church hath her owne power and authority and the use and benefit of all the ordinances of Christ neither is there any thing to be done without the expresse or tacit consent of the Congregation in matters which are proper and peculiar to a particular Church whether in election or ordination of Ministers or in admitting or excommunicating of members Ar. 6. It is in many respects expedient both for the members of each Church whether Ministers or people and for the right governing and well-being of the particular Churches in a Nation professing Christian Religion that besides their particular Assemblies and Elderships they meet by their Commissioners Ministers and Elders in greater Assemblies that matters that concern all the Churches within their bounds respective may with common advice and consent be agreed upon for their good and edification And we hope the Lord may yet have such a mercy for England if the crying sins thereof bee not still impenitently against this glorious shining light of the Gospel persisted in which wee confesse is our greatest feare Godly Brethren wee hope would agree if Englands sins hinder not We confesse it was the saddest newes that this yeare came unto our eares that the Kingdome of Christ is hardly like to obtaine so much jealousie there is lest the discipline of Christ should crosse the licentionsnesse of this age yea that generally there is no more regard of the solemn Covenant especially in personall reformation then if it were never made that many reject the reformations they seemed to desire at the first These with other sad things come to our eares which sadden our spirits Oh England England our beloved England wilt thou not be made cleane when will it once bee wilt thou still return the Lord Jesus graciously striving with thee for to save thee such an unkind answer We will not have this man reigne over us hast thou not yet learned so much wisdom as to kisse the son no not now when he is angry and the sword in his hand That voice of God soundeth oft in our eares when wee thinke of England Put off thine ornaments that I may know what to doe unto thee but for ought we heare the pride of England did never so much testifie to their faces as now when sackcloth and ashes were more suitable The Lord humble the hearts of our deare Countrey-men or else wee feare the yoake of Christ will never be born and how the Lord Jesus will beare and indure that we tremble to think But what doe we thus to take upon us and let loose our Pen so far pardon we beseech you Christian Reader this seeming boldnesse it is our hearty affection to the peace and prosperity of our deare Countrey and the Saints of God in it that have drawn these things from us Say not what calling have these thus to admonish and censure us Censure we doe not that we would doe onely to our selves but faithfully to admonish and exhort in the Lord we hope we may presume Neither have we taken upon us this whole weighty worke of our owne minds but at the request and call of divers our reverend Brethren whose voice herein we looked upon as the voice of God nor have wee accepted that call out of any lust we have to contend or enter the lists of disputation with any Wee love the peace of the Churches and unity and concord with all our deare and godly Brethren too well to have any such ends And though wee are not unwilling to receive and consider any returne that may bee made and we hope with a mind to submit to the truth yet wee must professe Two things chiefly inclined us to undertake this worke First to cleare up such truths as we conceive to bee according to the minde of Christ which were obscured by this Reply Secondly and that especially hoping that what wee should write would tend rather to a peaceable healing of offences and differences then otherwise and therefore have presumed to Preface thus farre and so to present these our affectionate requests to our deare Brethren and Country-men which wee heartily recommend to their serious consideration and to the blessing of God who onely can incline the hearts of men to attend to any thing of God set before them though wee bee the meanest and weakest of many to take upon us thus to speake to our deare Country-men yet through the grace of Christ who put us into the Ministery we
Doctrine and practise about Church-Government when wee give Discipline as well as other Ordinances to particular Churches not subjecting them to any Government out of themselves but onely to take the brotherly counsell and helpe one of another But how this should hinder a generall Reformation we see not for if every Church so reforme themselves as is aforesaid and have such Officers over them as the rule of the New Testament requires 1 Tim. 3. Tit. 2. wee need not feare to betrust the Church having such Officers with that power which we conceive Christ hath given to the same other Churches watching over them counselling and admonishing them in the Lord. But if there be not such a reformation of the Churches nor such guides set over them the power of the keyes in a Presbytery of such Pastors as may not be according to the rule may as much abuse them as a particular Church may doe and it may be to the hurt of many who would use them better in their own Congregations then they can in a Classis being over-voted there And we cannot conceive but both the care of reforming the matter of a Church and the recalling of the power of government to the Church tends much to further this worke of reformation no way to hinder the same And if wee might obtaine that of our deare Brethren which wee humbly crave viz. That our Doctrine and practise might be taken candidly according to our plaine meaning and declarations and not represented unto the World under such shapes and formes as make it seeme rigid all one with the most rigid Separatists Donatists Arminians Socinians c. we should hope that we shall goe for lovers and friends to a godly and generall Reformation not for disturbers of the same but the contrary dealing we meet with too too oft through the mistakes of Brethren This learned Author Mr. Ball though in the Epistle he desired us to rest assured that although he had conceived such thoughts of us as leaning to separation yet he would gladly receive every syllable from us that should dislodge such thoughts yet against our plaine profession sometime he will needs fasten the opinion of separation upon us and very frequently sets Mr. Robinson in a parallel with our opinions as if we generally went that way in those things which are well known to be the Doctrine of many of our godly and best reformers The Learned may plainly see how easie it had been for us and upon better grounds to have filled our margents with quotations out of Papists and Prelates as parallel with many passages of this Reply but we have purposely abstained from so doing that we might not cast any blur or provoke the spirits of brethren And seeing we are inforced to wipe off such aspersions we humbly desire our beloved Brethren whose learned labours wee honour to beare with us if we lightly touch this sore for wee confesse it brings blushing into our faces and sadnesse to our hearts to read so often such harsh imputations cast upon us which we cannot conceive but falling from such pens they breed a strange loathing of us in the stomachs of many that read bookes without serious examinations thereof First how oft doe wee meet with that imputation that wee make none members of a visible Church but such as are really saints and beleevers contrary to our frequent profession That visible saints that are such in judgement of charity are fit matter of the Church Secondly that we make a vocall Church Oath or Covenant the essentiall forme of a Church when as wee frequently acknowledge that this Covenant which constituteth a Church iâ— either implicite or explicite and that Congregations in England are truly Churches having an implicite covenant and it is far from our practise to use any Oath in our Covenant and strange to us to read so many Pages against our Church Oath and swearing to a Covenant to make our courses horrid and too too rigorous Thirdly that we set up a popular government making the Elders of the Church no more but moderators c. and that Ministers receive their power from the people are their servants and administer in their name as Mr. Ball and others object when we oft professe the contrary that all authority properly so called is in the hands of the Elders and the liberty of the people is to bee carryed in a way of subjection and obedience to them in the Lord neither doth it follow from any Doctrine of ours no more then from the ordination of Pastors by the Presbytery that they are their servants c. Fourthly that if a Congregation reject a Pastor for no fault they take both nomen esse the name and nature of a Pastor from him For this the Reader is referred to our Answer of the twenty fift Question of the thirty two questions sent unto us where nothing at all is said but reference is made to our answer to the nine questions amongst which the seventh being of this very point our answer is quite contrary to what is imputed to us Our words are these Concerning the Minister himselfe thus deposed c. we conceive though hee bee by them deprived of the execution of his Ministery amongst them yet untill hee accept of a call to another people hee still remaine a Minister of Christ in whose account hee hath true right of administration among the people Now if hee remaine a Minister of Christ and have true right to administer let any judge whether wee take away nomen or esse or that wee make Church censures worke ex opere operato clave errante as is also imputed to us Many such mistakes we finde but let these suffice to informe the Reader how wary hee had need bee in receiving such reports against brethren and this charity wee have cause the more earnestly to crave of all that they would reserve one eare to heare what their poore out-cast brethren can say for themselves because wee are placed at such a distance and disadvantage that oft-times it is not possible for us to take notice of such objections and return an answer under a yeare or almost two years whereby Satan hath a marvailous advantage to work strange thoughtâ— and distastefull affections towards us and fasten them so deeply that hardly they will bee taken off again But thus it falleth out too too frequently that when Brethren otherwise deare to each other differ in their judgements and breake out to open contention about the same they are very apt to make the opinions of the contrary party as unpleasing and absurd to the judgement of others as may bee whence griefe offence and alienations of affections through the subtilty of Satan and the corruption of our hearts are ready to follow And this makes us both fearfull of our selves lest wee should give way to any unloving thoughts towards the deare servants of Christ or returne any offensive language unto them yea this causeth us
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
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
ten men in a City 2 That they could not burn their books openly without danger to the Churches except a great part of the City beleeved seems a strange reason as if beleevers durst not professe openly except they had a great number to maintain them with club-law open profession in those times even amongst a few was not wont to be daunted with the grim looks of persecution 3 And lastly we grant Ephesus might be a numerous Church yet neither there nor any thing that is said from Rev. 2. 7. Hear what the Spirit saith to the Churches can perswade us that it was any more then one Congregation for that argues no more that Ephesus was a compound of many Churches then that it was compounded with all the other six Churches of Asia yea the Churches of all the world for what the Spirit speaketh to one Church is spoken for the use of all Reply It is not essentiall to the Church to meet together in one place ordinarily nor is the Society broken off by persecution when their meeting together in one place be interrupted Answ It is true one Church or Society by persecution or otherwise may meet in severall companies neither doe we say that place or meeting in one place is properly essentiall to the Church yet it is necessary both necessitate praecepti medii to be able at least so to doe for though it be not necessary to the unity of the Society thus to meet together yet it is necessary to the communion thereof in all Ordinances It is not necessary to the unity of a Classicall Presbytery to meet ordinarily in one place but unto the communion thereof it is necessary When the Papists to maintain their private Masses say That place is but accidentall to the ordinance And that Christians are not bound to the circumstance of place as Hardin objects any more then to observe dayes moneths times condemned as beggerly Elements by the Apostle Gal. 4. As also that all the faithfull are united together by the Sacrament though they meet not in the same place as the Ancients note How doth learned Chamier answer them he tels them That although this or that particular place is not necessary yet a place indefinitely taken is And that the Sacrament is restrained to be administred in a place because it cannot be administred but conventu fidelium and this conventus must be in some place And he adds That although all the faithfull have communion in the Sacrament though they meet not in one and the same place yet this he saith is to be understood of spirituall not sacramentall communion Nunquam enim auditum qui Hierosolymis erant sacramentaliter communicasse cum iis qui Alexandriae and therefore he thought communion in one place together necessary to Church-communion as wee doe Reply Seventhly Seeing then both the seals in ordinary and extraordinary dispensation c. Answ This with that which follows being but a recapitulation of the severall Replies made we shall leave it to the judicious having well observed our answer to embrace or reject the Conclusion CHAP. VII Consid 2. Reply To the second Consideration of the Answer THe Proposition is granted That the dispensation of the Sacraments both ordinary and extraordinary is limited to the Ministery but in that you alledge for confirmation some things may be noted 1 The first institution of Baptism is not contained in that passage but confirmed for the seals were instituted before his death c. Answ The Proposition being granted and the proof Mat. 28. 19. being we doubt not pertinent in the Authors own judgment as well as ours Brotherly love might easily have passed over greater mistakes then the answer seems to have fallen into for by First institution here we meant no more then that it is the ordinance of Christ himself instituted in that first time of all Divine ordinances We were not so ignorant to think there was no use and so no institution of Baptism before the death of Christ and therefore this confutation might have been spared Reply Secondly We see not how you can apply that Text Matth. 28 19. to preaching by Office which by your exposition is a dispensing of a fit portion to every one of the household and it is plain the Apostles were sent to preach to every creature c. Answ As if that commission Matth. 28. did not authorize them also and require them to dispense fit portions to the Churches did not the care of all the Churches lye on the Apostle 2 Cor. 11. 28. so also 1 Cor. 7. 17. were not Apostles given to the Church for the edifying of the body of Christ c. as well as other Officers Ephes 4. 11 12. 1 Cor. 12. 28. and therefore this note also might well have been spared Reply Thirdly If under the power of the Keys you comprehend preaching by Office dispensing seals c. we deny the power of the Keys to belong to the Church or community of the faithfull in those passages which speak of this power the execution of this authority is given to them to whom the authority is committed Answ This of the power of the Keys and the execution thereof was onely in the Answer touched by the way to prevent the objection of some 1 It is well known that it is no new opinion to hold that the Church is the first subject of the Keys and to alledge Matth. 16. 18. for the same and therefore might as well have been set in the margent many ancient Divines and our own Modern as Fulke Whittaker Baine Parker and others as Robinson if there were not a desire to possesse people with that conceit that we goe in new ways with the Separatists alone 2 We distinguish between power and authority there is a power right or priviledge as Joh. 1. 12. which is not authority properly so called the first is in the whole Church by which they have right to choose Officers Acts 6. 14. receiving members c. Authority properly so called we ascribe onely to the Officers under Christ to rule and govern whom the Church must obey Now we grant that where authority is given there power to exercise it is given also as Mat. 28. Joh. 20. c. it is given to the Apostles and Ministers and so where power is given to the Church there power to exercise the same orderly is given also as Mat. 18. 1 Cor. 5. 2 Cor. 2. 10. Reply If the power of the Keys be given to the Church the Apostles themselves must derive their authority immediately from the Church and not from Christ for the power must be derived from them unto whom it was given c. Answ We deny your consequence for the Lord may give power to his Church in all ordinary cases and yet reserve to himself that prerogative to doe what he please immediately without the Church as is cleare that in this case he hath first calling his twelve Apostles Mat. 10.
before he instituted the Church of the New Testament after he was pleased to use the Ministery of the Church Acts 1. to choose two and take one of them immediately by a lot and when Paul was called he appeared to him immediatly and called him both to the faith and to his Apostleship whereby it is clear that their call is a reserved case Reply If Ministers dispense the seals as the stewards of Christ from whom they receive their authority immediately then the power of the Keys is not in the community of the faithfull if as the servants of the Church from which they derive their authority then the Office of a Minister is not the immediate gift of Christ nor the Minister so much the servant of Christ as of the Church from whom he must receive Lawes in whose names he must doe his Office and to whom he must give account Answ This Objection will hold as strongly against any other subject of the Keys that can bee named as Classes Synods or Church Catholick and therefore by this manner of reasoning the Lord Jesus must doe all things immediately himself in choosing Officers c. or else his Ministers must receive Laws doe all in the name of such as he delegates to that work of administration under him and therefore let others look to answer this Objection as well as we Our answer is briefly plainly this the Office is the immediate institution of Christ the gifts and power belonging thereto are from Christ immediately and therefore he ministers in his name and must give account to him 1 Pet. 5. and yet his outward cal to this Office whereby he hath authority to administer the holy things of Christ to the church is from Christ by his Church and this makes him no more the servant of the Church then a Captain by the leave of the Generall chosen by the Band of Souldiers is the servant of his Band. Wee see in this reply here and elsewhere how apt men are to cast this odium upon this Doctrine and to ranke us with Separatists in it but it is easily wiped off and stickes as fast upon the Classes Synods Catholick Church or any other subject of this power Reply If the communitie of the faithfull have to doe in all matters of the body to admit members cast out make and depose Ministers c. by authority from Christ wee cannot see how in your judgement the execution of the power of the Keys is concredited to the Ministers Answ If the power priviledge and liberty of the people be rightly distinguished from the authority of the officers as it ought a dim sight may easily perceive how the execution of the Keys by the officers authoritatively may stand with the liberties of the people in their place obedientially following and concurring with their guides so long as they goe along with Christ their King and his Lawes and cleaving in their obedience to Christ dissenting from their guides when they forsake Christ in their ministrations if there need an ocular demonstration hereof it is at hand in all civill administrations wherein the execution of Laws and of justice in the hands of the Judges and the priviledge power or liberty of the people in the hands of the Jurours Both sweetly concurre in every case both civill criminall neither is the use of a Jury onely to finde the fact done or not done as some answer this instance but also the nature and degree of the fact in reference to the Law that awards answerable punishments as whether the fact be simple theft or burglary murder or manslaughter c. and so in cases of dammages costs in civill cases whereby it appeares that although the power and priviledge of the people be great yet the execution authoritatively may bee wholly in the Officers Reply Fourthly That which you adde that God will not vouchsafe his presence and blessing to an Ordinance but when it is dispensed by those whom hee hath appointed thereunto must be warily understood or it may occasion errors and distractions not a few c. Answ Wee shall not contradict your warinesse in this case for wee acknowledge a presence of God with his Ordinances administred by such as hee appoints though some corruptions bee admixed in the entrance and administrations but wee doubt not the presence and blessing of God is more or lesse according to the purity or corruptions of the administration and participation of his Ordinances but what need there was or use of this note wee see not our words were sound and safe enough but it seemes your tendernesse of the standings of Ministers and Ordinances in England occasioned this warinesse and wee deny not what you say that Gods presence and blessing upon his ordinances dispensed by us gave some approbation to our standing and to his Ordinances the Lord mercifully passing over our many corruptions but this will no way give allowance to the many grosse corruptions and defects which cleaved to our standings and administrations nor to the continuance of any in such corruptions after the discovery thereof Reply Secondly As for the assumption that Pastors and Teachers are limited to a particular Church or society but that flock is not ever one congregationall assembly meeting in one place neither the bond so straight whereby they are tyed to that one society that they may not upon occasion performe some ministeriall act of office in another congregation or to them that bee not set members of their proper assembly Answ For clearing of the the assumption that wee may give the more distinct answer wee shall take leave to explicate our selves concerning the limitation of the Ministery to the Church which it is like they who drew up the answer had formerly done had the times then been as criticall as they are growne since 1 When we say the Ministery is limited to a particular Church wee doe not so limit it to a Congregation under her owne Presbytery as to exclude from communion in the seales many Congregations standing under one common Presbytery as wee have formerly said we honour the reformed Churches of Christ Jesus and the godly members thereof 2 When wee say the seales are limited to a particular Church or Congregation because the Ministery is so limited our meaning is not of that congregation onely whereof the Ministry is but of any Congregation in generall 3 When wee say that where a Minister hath no power he may not do an act of power this is to be so understood that hee cannot performe such an act as an Officer over them or unto them as to his proper flock the office being as wee said founded in the relation betweene the Church and the Officer such a stated power as an Officer over his owne flocke hee hath not to those of other Congregations partaking in his owne Church or in any act of his Office in another Church yet an occasionall act of power or precaria potestas charitatively to put
forth an act of his Office to those in an other church over whom he is no Officer wee see not but he may but then this act of power is not towards them as over his owne flocke for two things are cleare to us 1. That an Officer of one Church is no Officer over those of an other Church as not being his proper flocke for there being no Office of Pastour at large without power of Office and the power that a Pastour hath over others being by the election of those that chose him their Officer who thereby become his proper flocke hence he hath no power as an Officer over those of an other flock unlesse he should 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That such an officer may put forth acts of his office towards those that are not of his proper flock E. g. A Minister ex officio as a Pastor not barely as a gifted man only may preach for the gathering in of those that are out of the Church as well as for the edificaon of those that are within Ephe. 4. 11 12. and yet these are not his proper flock it is the office of every Pastour to preach the Gospel the meanes of converting and therefore not onely to intend but to attend the conversion of men especially in preaching to his owne Congregation for Christ hath sheep which are his flock to bee gathered into his fold which are not the Ministers proper flock and the Pastour is the Minister of Christ as well as the Pastour of his owne flock and therefore he is to intend their gathering in as well as the good of his owne flock Againe as he hath the Keys of Office by preaching the Gospel to open the Kingdome of heaven to beleevers so also he may ex officio shut it against impenitent sinners and unbeleevers that reject his Doctrine Matth. 16. 19. Matth. 10. 14. Jer. 1. 10. and yet these are not of his proper flocke Againe a Pastour may administer the Seales which is an act of Office to members of other Churches in his his owne Congregation if they desire it who yet are not his proper Flocke Lastly a Deacon of one Church may performe an act of his Office occasionally to those out of the Church or the poore of another Church yet be no Officer or Deacon of the other Church and so 't is here To illustrate this A Captaine of a Band of Souldiers is an Officer onely over his owne Band but it 's an act of his Office to subdue enemies and to bring in those that submit A Steward is an officer over his Masters family not over others yet it 's an act of his Office to provide for the intertainment of Strangers that come to his Lords table Thus far it is cleare But now whether a Minister may administer the Seales in another Congregation is not so evident yet wee will not deny but that occasionally being called thereunto by the desire of the Church hee may lawfully doe the same yet it 's no foundation of a stated Presbytery out of a particular Congregation for in all such acts the Church still keepes her power in her owne hands while the Minister hath no authority nor can put forth any act of his Ministery but at her desire and according to her owne necessity neither doth this make a Minister a Pastour of the universall Church for pastorall Office consists in taking charge of a people and having power of authority to exercise the same towards his Church But all that is said doth include neither of these nor doth it follow that because they may set up a Presbytery over themselves in the same Church that therefore they may combine set up a Presbytery of many Churches the first being their duty injoyned by Christ not the other for it is necessary for them to have such amongst them as may ordinarily feed teach watch over them and rule them the end of a Ministers Office but it 's not necessary so to submit to others who may finde worke enough to feed and rule their owne and therefore looke as it is not in the power of many Congregations to joyne together to set one Pastour over them successively to feed them for so they make a Pluralist and the Bramble the King of trees nor yet in their power to set up as in the first ambitious time a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with power over all singly but under all joyntly so neither is it in their power to set up many Pastours who by their plurality of votes may wholly drowne that power of their owne Nor lastly doth it follow that if they may desire the benefit and exercise of an others Office occasionally that they may or should doe it constantly no more then because they may desire sundry Ministers to preach amongst them every Sabbath for a time in the want of Officers that therefore they should content themselves to live altogether without any of their owne Now for application of these things to the assumption of our argument Although a Pastour in the sense explained may put forth acts of Office in another Congregation or to others in his owne Congregation yet will it hence follow that a Minister may administer Seales to such as are of no Congregation which is now the question Reply Now to remove those 2013 objections of Mr. Ball which onely reach the question in hand whereof the first is Reply the 8. When ordinary Elders in the Primitive Church were to labour the comming of the Infidels to God these being converted were to bee baptized of the Elders ordinarily in the Cities though the number might bee so great as they could not well meet in one Congregation nor bee subject to the same Pastour and therefore either the Pastours must Baptize them being no members or they must remaine without Baptisme till they grow into a body and choose Ministers to Baptize them which is contrary to all precedents in Scripture Answ There is a third way which is passed over that will ease the difficulty viz. the Pastours might baptize them unto their owne Congregations so long as the numbers did not exceed beyond edification and then dividing their numbers might make divers Churches of one and they call Pastours over them and so wee see Act. 2. they added 3000. and after more till they were scattered and when peace was restored Act. 9. the Churches were not onely edified but multiplied Verse 3. and so the consequence of your 9. Reply is also taken away Reply There is no precept or example in Scripture warrants the admitting of set members of one Congregation to the Seales in another more then the admitting of approved Christians that are not set members The Pastour is no more the Pastour of the one then of the other neither of them set members and both of them may bee members for the time being Answ Wee have before shewed in the first consideration that which warrants the dispensing of the Seales to confederating
beleevers as the way of the Gospel and Rom. 16. 1. wee have a plaine example of orderly receiving the members of one Church to Communion in an other being recommended thereunto by the Apostles wee have not the like for any not in Church order at all and though there be a parity in respect of particular relation with that Pastour and flock yet that is a disparity in regard of immediate right that the one have to the 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
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
persons as his Master hath named thereunto and he instals them into the same the case is not alike yet here hee must have some power and authority so to doe so that he hath these offices vertually in his hand but if it be his Masters will he shall choose what persons hee sees fit according to rules given him which is the case here then hee hath this power vertually in his hand Reply Thirdly if Ecclesiasticall and spirituall power be in the multitude and community of the faithfull the Church doth not onely call but make Officers out of power and vertue received into her selfe and then should the Church have a true Lord like power in regard of her Ministers Answ If there be any such that hold the Church hath so the power of the Keyes in her selfe as that she may derive from her selfe authority to the Officers let such looke unto the conclusion as for Mr. Robinson though wee doe not approve the sentences you cite out of him yet we doubt whether you doe not goe beyond his sense meaning but according to our sense of this position before layd downe neither this absurdity of Lordship over the Officers nor any others that are instanced in under this reason doe at all follow and they may bee as strongly urged against the Presbyteries Classes Synods Catholick Church or any subject of the Keyes that can be named And the objection viz. That God will have the Church choose Officers to execute the power committed to her is so answered in the same page as will serve us as well as you viz. God will have her elect Officers of his designment that is such as the rule directs her to choose to doe his worke according to that Power which hee hath given them and by his direction and then they are Gods servants and not the Churches and receive that charge and function immediatly from God and not from the people wee meane no otherwise then by that outward call instrumentally applying that Office unto them and in this sense wee close with you herein and indeed this power of electing Officers doth not ever include authority over them whom they chuse but rather willing subjection unto them and setting them up to rule as when a woman chooseth a husband she makes him her husband in a sort but withall her head and ruler so when a people choose a Major c. Reply Fourthly if the Power of the Keyes be given first and immediatly to the community of the faithfull what reason can bee alleadged why in defect of Officers the Church might not rule feed bind loose preach and administer Sacraments or if any faile in Office why shee might not supply that want by her power for the power of the Keys doth containe both authority and exercise power being given that it may bee exercised as it is vouchsafed but the Church cannot exercise these acts of rule Ergo. Answ The reason is because the Church hath not received some of the Keyes formally but onely vertually and as was said out of Parker not as a gift absolute but conditionall that it might bee communicated to the Officers Such power as the body of the Church hath received formally shee may and doth exercise as a power of choosing Officers a power of judging in censures 1 Cor. 5. 12. and the like the power of preaching properly so called dispensing Sacraments c. being acts of authority the Church hath them onely vertually and therefore must choose Officers to whom Christ her Lord hath given authority in the Church A Corporation that by Patent from the King hath many Priviledges the power is given to the Body incorporated and so it is the first subject of it yet many acts cannot be put forth but by Officers duely chosen and so here Reply For these Reasons not to insist on any more wee judge the community of the faithfull not to bee the immediate receptacle of ecclesiasticall authority and so the Power of excommunication not to belong unto them Answ By this conclusion it appeares that how ever the author began professedly against us as Separatists in this point yet he followes the cause against Mr. Parker with whom hee seemes to be friends Secondly the power of excommunication may belong to the Church or community in respect of a fraternall power of judging though officiall authority bee not formally given to the Church but to the Officers Reply If consent of Churches bee asked in this point to omit others the Churches of Scotland speake fully and expresly for us in the second booke of Discip Cap. 1. The Church as it is taken for them that exercise spirituall functions in the Congregation of them that professe the truth hath a certaine power granted of God according to which it useth a proper jurisdiction c. Beza de Presb. pag. 60. Helv. Confess Cap. 18. Belgick c. Answ If consent of the learned godly and zealous reformers were asked a cloud of witnesses might bee produced that hold the Church the first subject of the Keyes as Fulke Whitaker Parker Peter Martyr Musculus and others besides many of the ancient Divines and Councells Gerson and the Parisian Divines well known to the learned concerning quotation of the Scottish discipline the first words lay so weake a foundation as leave the building ready to fall in these words The Church as it is taken for them that exercise spirituall functions hath a certaine power c. but where is the Church so taken not in all the New Testament that can be proved with any solid Reason notwithstanding all wrastling of men to find it out but generally for the company of the faithfull either the universall or particular Church and this sometime considered with her Officers and divers times as distinguished from them as Acts 14. 23. and 20. 13. 28. Jam. 5. 14. Revel 2. 1. 8. 12. c. but never contra for the Officers distinguished from the Church or body of the Congregation and therefore if the Keyes be given to the Church and the plea of the power of the Keyes to be given immediatly to the Officers be in and under the name of the Church it will fall to the Church of the faithfull if the Scripture may judge indeed among the Papists and so the Prelates the Clergy have long got and held possession of the name of the Church but the testament of Christ will not beare this foundation but wee will not trouble the Reader farther about humane testimonies CHAP. XV. Position 6. THat none are to bee admitted Members but they must promise not to depart or remove unlesse the Congregation will give leave Reply It is one thing abruptly to breake away when and whither they please and forsake fellowship another thing not to depart or remove habitation unlesse the Congregation will give leave also it is one thing mutually to compound and agree not to depart from each other without consent and approbation and other to require a
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
be taken in the first sense he remaines every way and in every respect by right a Minister as hee was before except he reject them and so dissolve the relation that was between them But if the question speak of an orderly censure of deposition unjustly then we judge of that case as we would do in any other censure of a member by excommunication therefore we say he is stil a Minister in foro interno before Christ for clavis errans non ligat Secondly in respect of that Church he hath stil right truly to minister to them and is their Minister though unjustly hindered in the execution of his Ministery as a member unjustly censured hath a true right to the Ordinances and membership though unjustly hindred from the same though in foro externo we grant to them or in their account he is no Minister as a person excommunicated is to them no member Thirdly in respect of other Churches if it doth appeare unto them that hee is unjustly deposed they may and ought to esteeme him still and receive him and have communion with him as a true Minister of Jesus Christ in the Church he doth belong to as they may do with a member unjustly cast out but til that appeare unto them they cannot so esteem and honor him being orderly deposed but must at least suspend their judgment til the case be cleared Fourthly we answer clearely and plainely to the chiefe scope of the question If a Minister bee unjustly deposed or forsaken by his particular Church and he also withall renounce and forsake them so farre as all Office and relation betweene them cease then is hee no longer an Officer or Pastour in any Church of God whatsoever you will call it And the Reason is because a Ministers office in the Church iâ— no indelible Character but consists in his relation to the flocke and if a Minister once ordained his relation ceasing his Office of a Minister Steward of the mysteries of God shall still remaine why should not a ruling Elder or Deacon remaine an Elder or Deacon in the Church as well all are Officers Ordained of Christ alike given to his Church Officers chosen and Ordained by laying on of hands alike but wee suppose you will not say a Deacon in such a case should remaine a Deacon in the Catholique Church therefore not a Minister Secondly wee shall now consider what is here said and first this language of a Minister in the usuall Church as a particular Church hath union with and is a part of the universall it is an unusuall expression to us and to the Scripture phrase and therefore beare with us if wee fall short of your meaning the usuall Church in England hath beene either the Arch-Deacons Church in the Deanaries or Diocesan in the Bishoprick or Provinciall or Nationall but wee hope that there is no such intended here yet to all this and the jurisdiction thereof particular Churches have been subject as parts there But if by usuall Church you meane a Classical Provinciall or Nationall Church wee must intreat better grounds for any of these and therefore wee must confesse our minde and meaning is not so that wee looke at a Minister of a particular Church in any such relation to the usuall and intermediate Church betweene it and the Catholique The second sense therefore we owne and acknowledge as before But whether this be contrary to the judgement and practise of the universall Church wee know not because it is hard for us know what the universall Church judgeth except we could heare it speake or see its practise if the onely head Prophet and Shepherd of the Church Jesus Christ be fit to declare her judgement we will be tryed thereby who we know hath sâ—t Elders in every particular Church Act. 14. 23. to watch over their particular flock Act. 20. 28. but not over any other Church that wee can finde Neither doth this destroy the unity or Communion of the Catholique Church nor of particular Churches one with another as is said for Churches may enjoy brotherly Communion one with another without such stated formes under the power and authority of one another as hath been shewed before Reply For if he be not a Minister to other Churches then are not the Churches of God one nor the Communion which they have together on nâ—r the Ministers one nor the â—â—â—cke which they feed one Answ In what sense is intended to have the Ministers one and flocke one we doe not see If you meane one by one visible Government over the Catholique Church wherein there is a subordination of Churches and Ministers you must at last rise to Oecomenicall Pastor or Councell that must be the supreme which can scarce ever be had If you meane an unity by brotherly Communion in offices of love and mutuall helpefulnesse of Churches and Ministers without usurpation such an unity and Community is not destroyed and the argument doth not follow Cannot many distinct societies ot Townes or Corporations make up one County except the Major or Constable in one Towne be a Major or Constable in others also By this Reason the Deacon of one Church is the Deacon of all or else the unity is destroyed Reply If the Pastor derive all his authority from the Church when the Church hath set him aside what right hath he to administer among that people Answ True but we say he derives all his authority from Christ by the Church indeed applying that office to him to which the authority is annexed by the institution of Christ hence being the Minister of Christ unto them if they without Christ depose him they hinder the exercise of his Office but his right remaines Reply As they give right to an unworthy man to minister amongst them if they cal him unjustly so they take right from the worthy if they unjustly depose him Answ We grant there is a parity in foro externo but as in the call his outward cal consists in the election of the calling and the acceptation of the called to compleat his power of administration Now this by Christ in his Church may be destroyed in a just censure without his consent but cannot unjustly be wrung from him without his consent therefore he may hold his right till either hee be justly deposed or willingly relinquish the same upon their injurious interruption of the use of his right Reply And whereas you say the Minister is for the Ministery and the Office for the execution and so the Pastor and the flocke are relatives and therefore if their election gave him authority among them to feed their casting him off hath stripped him of the same power they gave him Aâ—su Wee grant it is so yet the execution may bee unjustly hindred though the right and Office remaine But we may well retort this argument upon the Minister of the usuall or Catholicke Church Thus if the Minister bee for the Ministery and the Office for
the execution and so the Pastor and flock be relatives then hee that may justly for ever be hindred of all execution of the Ministery and hath no power to censure his flock or cannot so much as justly approve and admonish them for the same surely hee hath a poore Office and Ministery but such a Minister that hath no particular Congregation that is his flock under his charge may justly be excluded out of all Churches and cannot censure or reprove his Catholique or usuall Church for the same therefore he is indeed no Minister and and hath no Office in the Church of God CHAP. XVII Position 8. THat one Minister cannot performe any Ministeriall act in another Congregation Reply The Preaching of the Word and publique Prayer in the Congregation meet together solemnely to worship God c. are properly Ministeriall c. Answ Concerning our true sense and meaning in our answer to this Position wee have spoken in the second consideration of the second and third Positions to which wee referre the Reader onely here wee must ingenuously confesse that our expression That a Minister exercising in another Church doth it not by vertue of any calling but onely by his gifts is not so cleare but may occasion stumbling yet the the next words following doe fully expresse our mindes viz. that he doth not put forth such a Ministeriall act of authority and power in dispensing of Gods Ordinances as a Minister doth performe to that Church whereunto hee is called to be a Minister for so hee doth not performe any Ministeriall act with that authority hee doth to his owne which further cleares up our expression in the second consideration viz. that he is a Pastor of none but his proper flocke although some acts of his Office may extend beyond his owne flocke as we have shewed before and therefore in this sense we may still conclude that if the question be put to any Minister so exercising in another church which was once put to our Saviour By what authority dost thou these things let him study how to give an answer for wee have not yet learned it from this Reply We confesse there are some godly learned servants of Christ who possibly may bee otherwise minded and thinke that a Minister preaching in another Congregation doth it onely as a gifted man as the Refuter of Doctor Downam with others in former times of Reformation beleeved also But we desire that if any difference appeare herein it may bee no prejudice to the same cause for substance wee maintaine if by sundry lines wee all meet at last in the same point FINIS Vid Peâ— Mart. Loc. Com. de Excom Brins Watch part 3. cap. 10. Jun. lib. 1. paral 6. G. Apol. cap. 7. Q. 2. Ibid. p. 138. Peter Martyr in 1 Kings 12. verse 31. Peâ— Mart. Com. Lâ—c de Idol in praec l. 1. Iohn 2 15 16. Conc. Miliv Can. 12. Tertull. Apol. cap. 30. Vid. Chemnit Ex. de Innoc. Sanctorum Vid. Birth of Heresies out of Elasopolitans Comment Pet. Mart. loc com de Idol Whit. de Eccle. 1 Cor. 15. 47â— Vid. Brightm An. in Loc. Cypr. lib. 3. Epist 13. Cypr. lib. 4. Epist 7. * Right of Presbyt pag. 482. Page 22. Page 68. Tertul. lib. 4. Com. Mar. * Calvin Epist 332. Chamier de Euchar cap. 13. Peâ— Mart. de Excom Loâ— Com. * Officiall Lâ—b 1. â—ap 6. 7 Rev. 2. 2 and 3. 9. Acts â—â—8 â— 37. 19. â—7 â—â— â—9 Cham. de Bap. lib. 5. cap. 15.
A TREATISE OF LITURGIES POWER of the KEYES And of matter of the Visible CHURCH IN ANSWER To the Reverend Servant of Christ Mr. John Ball. By THOMAS SHEPHARD sometimes fellow of Emanuel-Colledge in Cambridge and late Pastour of Cambridge in New-England Veritas nihil erubescit praeterquam abscondi Turtul Sua silentia amat Spiritus per quae nobis illabitur seque insinuat cupidis non gloriae sed cognoscendae veritatis Melanct. Let the blessing come upon the head of Joseph and upon the top of the head of him that was separated from his Brethren Deut. 33. 16. LONDON Printed by E. Cotes for Andrew Crooke and are to be sold at the Green Dragon in Pauls Church-yard 1653. The Preface to the Reader IT was the profession of the Lord Jesus before Pilate when he questioned with him about his Kingdome John 18. 37. That for this cause he was born and came into the world to beare witnesse of the truth Many truths about the spirituall Kingdom of Christ hath he imparted to us if therfore we be born into the world or sent into this Wildernesse to beare witnesse to his truth it is unto us reward sufficient that we should be witnesses thereunto even to the utmost parts of the Earth Wee confesse wee have been too slow in this service of Christ not having to this day set forth an unanimous Confession of that Form of wholsome words which is Preached received and professed in these Churches of the Lord Jesus and which we are not unmindfull of though our distances and other difficulties may delay the opportunity But this in the meane time we professe in generall That so farre as wee know there is the same blessed Spirit of Truth breathing in the Ministery of the Country the same Faith embraced and professed in the Churches which is generally received as the Orthodox Doctrine of the Gospel in the best reformed Churches and particularly by our godly learned Brethren of England and Scotland And though errours have sprung up among us and some are gone out from us that we feare were not of us yet wee have borne witnesse against them and by the blessing of God by the breath of Christ in the mouths of his servants they have been blasted Neither doe we understand that these Churches are accused of any errours about the saving truths of the Gospel and therefore we thought our selves not so much called of God to such a Confession at present as to cleare up to the world those Truths we professe about the kingdome and government of Christ in his Churches which is the great worke of this age and of this nick of time And yet here also we feare that we have been too slack for though it bee said VVee are the Volunteers such as cry up this way c. and so it seemes wee are apprehended to bee one cause of these present differences yet if things be well weighed we may seem rather to bee farre behinde in the duty that lyes upon us Indeed some briefe Answers sent over to some particular persons to satisfie Brethren what our practise is with some briefe touch of our reasons rather then to discusse those points have been printed by some without our knowledge or assent upon what grounds they best know And some short Treatises by some reverend Brethren have been published to declare their affectionate desires of the unanimous endevours of all our deare Brethren for a generall and holy Reformation But what hath been said or done that either may justly offend the minds of the godly provoke their spirits disunite their affections or hinder a godly Reformation Yea wee have been too slow to cleare our Doctrine and practise from the many objections harsh interpretations and manifold criminations cast upon the same wherein wee feare our lothnesse to intermeddle in these Controversies for feare of making the breach wider amongst Brethren and our desire rather to attend what light we might receive from others in these points wherein wee professe our selves seekers after the truth have made us guilty of neglect in this our duty But now we see our selves pressed hereto by a necessity of justifying our wayes against the many aspersions cast upon them as well as against the Reasons used against them for wee perceive by the first Letter of our Brethren how the with-drawing of Christians from the Liturgy was imputed to us and by this Reply both in the Epistle and divers passages wee cannot but see what apprehensions are raised of us yea many are apt to think that if we had said nothing yet our very act in forsaking the Churches of God in our deare native Country and the Cause of Christ there together with the practise of these Churches thought to bee so different from the reformed Churches have been not onely a great weakening to the hands of the Godly that have stood by the Cause of Christ but also have caused great disturbance to the Reformation in hand To which much might be said but that wee should exceed the bounds of an Epistle Yet let us intreat all the Godly wise to consider and look back upon the season of this great enterprise undertaken by us and the manner of our proceedings in it with the admirable workings of Gods Providence first and last about it and we think though we were silent they may easily satisfie themselves whether this was of God or men a sinfull neglect of the Cause of Christ or a manifest attestation to the truth by open profession against Corruptions of Worship in use and for the necessity of reformation of the Church and that confirmed by no small degree of sufferings for the same For was it not a time when humane Worship and inventions were growne to such an intolerable height that the consciences of Gods saints and servants inlightened in the truth could no longer bear them was not the power of the tyrannicall Prelates so great that like a strong Current carryed all down streame before it what ever was from the law or otherwise set in their way Did not the hearts of men generally faile them Where was the people to bee found that would cleave to their godly Ministers in their sufferings but rather thought it their discretion to provide for their owne quiet and safety Yea when some freely in zeale of the Truth preached or professed against the corruptions of the times did not some take offence at it judge it rashnesse and to bee against all rules of discretion who since are ready to censure us for deserting the Cause Many then thought it is an evill time the prudent shall hold their peace and might wee not say this is not our resting place And what would men have us doe in such a case Must wee study some distinctions to salve our Consciences in complying with so manifold corruptions in Gods Worship or should wee live without Gods ordinances because wee could not partake in the corrupt administration thereof or content our selves to live
needlesse to search all records and to compare the puritie of the prayers and rites of these with former times wee read of very few formes used for 300. yeeres some short ones they had which are retained yet in our Liturgie with many more and those formes they had not imposed nor stinted which is the great offence of this untill about the yeere 406. and there wee read in the Milevitâ—n Councell that no prayers should bee used in Churches but what were either composed of able and sufficient men or approved by the Synods and this was determined onely in regard of the ignorant Ministery of those contentious and hereticall times as Chemnitius observes ne forte aliquid contra fidem vel per ignorantiam vel per minus studium sit compositum If the Roman Bishops did multiply as indeed they did excessively unlesse their owne admirers erre grossely rites and formes of prayer yet it is well knowne how long it was ere the Churches in other places submitted to their power so that this comparison might well have beene spared To conclude though wee say not that all Churches since 200. yeeres after Christ were so miserably decayed that the faithfull might not without sinne communicate with them yet wee may bee bold to say many of them were so corrupt that the faithfull did not nor could not communicate in many parts of Gods worship without sinnes of ignorance conforming to the corruptions themselves and that if they had seene and discovered the evill of them they ought and we beleeve would have abstained from divers ordinances in regard of the corrupt administrations of them yea after all meanes used to purge them out and not prevailing they ought and would have withdrawn themselves to more pure Churches or erected such amongst themselves Reply The prayers of the Ministers conceived or stinted in a set forme bee not his private prayers but the publike prayers of the assembly but you will not say the people ought not to joyn with their pastour therein if ought bee amisse for matter manner or both Answ There is a wide difference betweene the whole Liturgie so imposed and so clogged as is before shewed and such prayers of the Minister having something amisse But you may put the case so as it would bee unlawfull for people to joyne in such prayers also as if the Minister for matter usually pray to Saints for manner turne himselfe and fix his eye on a Crucifix Reply It is all one to the people in this â—ase whether the fault bee personall as some distinguish or otherwise knowne before hand or not knowne for if simple presence defile whether knowne before hand or not all presence is faultie and if simple presence defile not our presence is not condemned by reason of the corruptions knowne whereof wee stand not guiltie Answ First we distinguish not here between personall and ministeriall faults but object against the personall act of him that joynes with that whole Liturgie and so in the corruptions of it as hee must needs doe that joyns with the whole not onely saying Amen to them but as is knowne he takes his share in those shreds of prayers Responds c. which in Mr. Cartwrights judgement is so absurd as makes a man seeme out of his wits And therefore his personall actuall conformitie must needs carry guilt and therefore there is more then simple presence in this case as is cleare to any understanding Secondly it is not all one whether the faults bee knowne or not knowne before hand as appeares plainely 1 Cor. 10. 27 28 29. where wee see if a man come to a feast and know not they eate with reference to the Idoll nor that any take offence he may eate without asking any question but if hee know such things he may not eate Besides publique sinfull actions of Ministers are either 1 Accidental occasional or 2ly known appointed in a stated service now the frailties of a Minister which accidentally fall in and are not known before nor are any part and essence of the service unto which men that come doe or should take themselves to bee called hinder not communion because they doe not prae se ferre by their presence to attend and observe them but the corruptions of the Liturgie are knowne and appointed and to which and with which the imposers call others to joyne as in a stated service to God the use of which if it bee an humane frailtie in Gods Ministers not yet convinced of the evill thereof yet for those to communicate herein who know such evills have surely passed the bounds of frailtie and infirmitie because in this action of prayer there is not onely communion by way of presence as it is in hearing the word but communion of action publique prayer being the common action of the whole Church towards God There can be no prayer by any man offered to God but there will be some humane frailties attending on it if therefore for this cause wee should reject communion in prayer wee should reject the ordinances of God and never joyne in any prayer in this world but the corruptions of the Liturgie are not such but that they may bee more easily cast off then kept This case stands not in tolerating faults in another as the reply makes it but in actuall joyning with the sinnes of another wherein hee that joyneth is involved and therefore whether they bee corruptions that may bee tolerated or not in another yet if sinnes they may not bee practised and so joyned in with another And therefore the case you put of communion with any person obstinate in errour till hee may bee convinced is nothing to this purpose For wee must not joyne with him in his error no not an houre though wee may tolerate him a moneth Reply Hath not Christian wisedome and experience of humane frailties lessoned you deare brethren to beare one with another in matters of greater consequence then any have or can bee objected truely against the forme of prayer in use among us Answ The Lord hath lessoned us to tolerate and beare with many humane frailties not onely in one another but also in our deare brethren abroad but to joyne with the best of men in conformitie to knowne and grosse corruptions in worshipping God or to stoop so low to the insolent tyranny of usurping Prelates as to beare on our backs their whole Liturgie and the corruptions thereof wee confesse wee have not yet learned and now wee hope never to goe to that schoole againe to learne the same Reply And why such corruptions should not bee ascribed to humane frailtie we see not For if a godly Minister make use of a booke in things which hee judges lawfull for matter and manner the corruption of him that useth it according to his judgement from what cause can it spring but humane ignorance and frailtie Answ First the learned replier is very apt to forget the termes of the Proposition which
but by the necessity of nature and invincible hinderances foreseen by Christ and intended by him And therfore as the Lord limiting his Church to one Nation united it into that form of a Nationall Church ordaining one place stated times and duties of Worship and one Government for the same so now the Lord neglecting all such things hath ordained a compleat administration of all his ordinances in particular Congregations and therefore if there be no other instituted visible Church but of a Congregation and Seals in their administration be given to the Church our first consideration will still hold firm But seeing in so vast a subject to say little is to say nothing and there is scarce any Truth in this wilie age but is almost disputed out of countenance and much darkned with humane evasions and seeing much depends upon this controversie it may be so most usefull before we come to the defence of our argument to take into consideration the nature and order of the visible Church of Christ Catholick and particular We are not ignorant of the knots and difficulties of this question which of late have so much exercised the minds of many Godly-learned And we think the notions of a Catholick Church as it is now held being but newly taken up amongst godly Reformers who formerly ran in another channell as is ingenuously confessed by some according to the truth this new-birth seems not yet so formed to its distinct proportions as time may bring it unto and it might make us afraid being the weakest of many to venture upon so diffuse and knotty a question when we look upon our own insufficiency to such a task and the Learned labors of such in this Point whom we reverence in the Lord yet when we consider of what great weight and moment the clearing up of this Truth would be unto the orderly proceedings of the great Work of Reformation in hand 2 How unavoydably it lyes in our way in this Work the Lord hath called us unto and that he sometimes doth vouchsafe to speak by weak ones that the praise may be his own in hope of his blessed guidance which we depend upon herein taking the light of his Word in our hands we shall rather as learners then otherwise venture to propound what is suggested to us herein Concerning which having digressed a while we shall return we hope with some advantage of clearer evidence to justifie the first argument of the Answer against what is said in the Reply CHAP. V. A digression tending to clear the state of that controversie concerning a Catholick visible Church in respect of the nature unity visibility and priority of the same THe world hath been long troubled with the equivocation of the word Church and therefore as it is needfull we shall labor to set down our thoughts as distinctly and plainly as we can in certain Propositions that may be some ground of our discourse Propos 1. The true Church of God is the whole number of Elect and called ones out of the world to fellowship with Jesus Christ their Head with whom they make up one mysticall body Ephes 1. 23. This whole Church is of the same nature and one in essence from the beginning of the world to the end for this Church Christ laid down his life Ephes 5. 26. Joh. 10. 15. and therefore he adds vers 16. such as are not yet of his fold actually shall be brought into the same viz. by effectuall calling that there may be one Shepheard and one sheepfold wherby it appears that the whole fold of Christ to which he stands as one Shepheard contains all his members and sheep to the end of the world and it is one fold in relation to Christ that one Shepheard Propos 2◠This one entire body of Christ doth naturally fall under various notions and considerations as omitting others when it is considered according to the adjuncts of visibility and invisibility which are onely adjuncts of the same Church as is generally observed by Divines In respect of the inward union which every such member hath with Christ the Head by the Spirit of Christ and by Faith whereby we are united to him it is called invisible because this union is not visible to men In respects of some visible fruits and manifestations of faith to the judgment of men it is called visible and hence though true beleevers be onely univoce and properly members of this body of Christ yet to men that judge onely by outward effects many hypocrites equivoce and improperly are accounted of the Church and hence the Scripture frequently speaks of visible Churches as if they were all really Saints Propos 3. As this Church comes to be visible so it becomes a fit and capable subject of visible policy and visible communion with Christ their Head and one with another in all the visible ordinances of Christ a capable subject we say or matter fit for such a state for by its visibility it self it is not so having yet no more then a spirituall relation to Christ and one another no visible combination one with another for visible beleevers may be so scattered in severall Countreys that they cannot make up one Society Propos 4. And therefore we add That there is no way for this Church to enjoy actuall visible communion under the visible government of Christ and in the visible instituted ordinances of Christ but in a Society A thousand uncombined persons meeting occasionally in one place though their naturall relations were as near as brethren yet have no power of government or actuall communion in any Civill priviledges if they stand not in relation to one another as a combined Society as after shall be shown so here And therefore Acts 2. 41 42. first they were added to the Church and then followed their fellowship in all the ordinances of the Church as after will more fully appear And hence it is said Acts 5. 14. Beleevers were added first they were beleevers standing in that spirituall relation to Christ and his whole body and then added to the Church by visible combination Propos 5. There is no visible society of a Church who hath actuall and immediate right unto and communion in the visible government of Christ and the dispensation of his instituted Worship and ordinances but such a Society as the Lord Jesus hath in the Gopel instituted and ordained for that end We say actuall and immediate right unto the same for though a beleever quâ beleever have an immediate right and actuall enjoyment of such benefits of Christ as necessarily and immediately flow from his internall union with Christ as justification adoption c. and such right to Christian communion with all the Saints in their prayers gifts c. as flow from his spirituall relation unto them yea and also he hath a true right to all benefits purchased by Christ in a due order and manner yet we say instituted priviledges and ordinances doe not
the Catholich Church Now we reduce what we intend into an Argument thus If all that can be said from Scripture and Reason concerning the unity visibility and priority of the Catholick Church may as truly be affirmed upon like grounds of the Catholick body of mankinde then à pâ—ri it will follow that there is no more one Catholick visible instituted totum that is the first subject of Church power and priviledges in the actuall exercise and enjoyment of the same then that there is such a Catholick body of mankinde that is the first subject oâ— Civill power c. and that actually doth or ought to govern and be governed as one Catholick body in communion but it will appear from Scripture and Reason that the same things may be said of mankind that can be said of the other Ergo And it is proved per partes thus 1 For the unity are not all mankinde oft in Scripture called the world Joh. 3. 16 So God loved the world that is mankinde in the world which is one So frequently all mankinde is called man Gen. 6. 5 6 7. I will not strive with man c. yea it is one kingdom Psal 145. 11 12 13. which if we view the whole Psalm must be understood of the generall government of Gods providence over all the world and especially mankinde therein 1 Chron. 29. 11 12. c. so that all is one kingdom Acts 17. 26. God hath made of one blood all Nations all are one blood all have their bounds set by God c. that they might seek him and feel after him and as it is said for one Catholick Church because it hath one Lord one Faith one Baptism one Spirit and are bound to love and pray one for the other c. so there is a like unity here for the whole number of mankinde hath one Lord and King over all God who is King over all the earth called an head over all 1 Chron. 29. 11. yea Jesus Christ is Lord of Lords and King of Kings and head over all to the Church Ephes 1. 22. All have one Law the Morall Law the common rule of equity and righteousness whereby they are bound to walk towards God and one another and this writ in the hearts of all they have all one spirit of reason disposing them to society and mutuall offices of love one faculty of speaking to fit them for communion one end to feel after God Act. 17. and seek ye good of the whole kinde all ought to love one another desire and seek the welfare of the whole and of one another Esay 58. 7. yea the Lord as a common head by the working of his common Providence and out of his love of mankinde hath a common and constant influence into all giving not onely life and breath and all good things Acts 17. but also all gifts of wisdom art skill for Government c. to Kings Judges Fathers Masters and all Officers of Civill government for the good of the whole and what ever else may be said to prove the Catholick Church Onâ— may here be applyed And as for principles of reason it is easie to conceive that all mankinde will fall either under the notion of one genus homo whereof the individua are species specialissimae or in another respect all persons all Families Cities Kingdomes may in a sense make one totum integrale or aggregatum Secondly it is as evident that all this number of mankinde are one visibile totum by the arguments used for the visible Catholick Church for that which hath visible parts is a visible totum iâ— holds here as well as in the other case Yea if the Catholick Church be one visible Body because it hath organs and visible Officers in it it will hold here for all mankinde is but one Army of the Lord of Hosts who hath Armies of heaven and Armies on earth and in this Body God by his Providence hath set and by his ordinance hath ordained Fathers Masters Husbands Judges Kings c. to govern in this Body of mankinde for the good of the whole Ruling and subjection by the fifth Commandement of the Morall Law which is in all mens hearts is ordained of God for the order peace and welfare of all mankind and therefore why is not this by the same reason a totum visibile Thirdly for Priority it is clear that as God hath firstly in nature and intention given Christ to the whole Church then to this and that particular beleever and the power of feeding and being fed and governed by shepheards First to the whole race of sheep Secondly to this or that flock So in nature and Gods intention he hath firstly given to the race of mankind power of being governed with Government and Governors before they are given to this or that Family City Kingdom c. So likewise what is said of Promises given to the Church Catholick firstly is it not as true here Those promises and blessings increase and multiply Subdue the earth and inhabite it The feare and dread of you shall be on all beasts and all like promises and priviledges of marriage of liberty to eat flesh c. mentioned Gen. 2. 9. and all over the Scripture are they not in nature first given to mankinde and then to this or that person family City So if Church power and all Officers and Offices be firstly given to the Catholick Church not to this or that particular Church So it 's here when the Scripture saith Submit to the higher Powers for all Powers are of God Rom. 13 〈◊〉 me saith God Kings reign and Princes decree judgment and such like Scriptures doth this firstly belong to this or that Kingdome City c. and not rather that God hath firstly set up and ordained Civil Powers for mankind to be obeyed of all mankinde firstly and then in this or that state Is foederall holinesse first the priviledge of the Catholick Church which in a sense we will not now contradict so is legitimation first the priviledge of married society in generall in all mankinde and then of this or that family Are the members of particular Churches firstly of the Catholick Church and is it not so here the members of every family city c first and last of the number of mankinde and so when the Societies are dissolved they are still of mankinde and doe not all Societies spring of mankinde and are an additament and increase to it the one is true as well as the other It would be over tedious to follow this parallel so farre as wee might these may be sufficient instances to guide the Reader to apply whatever else is or can be said in this kinde from the common nature and logicall notions under which the Catholick Church visible may be considered What is said that may more properly concern the case under the notion of an instituted Society we shall consider in due place Now from that which hath
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
Churches are moulded up into one Politicall Body either de jure or de facto or that it is possible as the case stands so to be and then the similitudes would be of some use Thirdly in a Kingdom or Army suppose they never meet yet there is such politicall union as fully reaches the politicall communion for which end it was combined viz. that they should enjoy peace and justice in and by a just Government or by the protection of the Army But if such a politicall Body were combined to have such communion as a Church-communion is then it would require conventing together as elswhere we shall more fully manifest For our parts we do not see that Christ hath ordained the whole Catholick church as One to have politicall communion together which is impossible And therefore we see no need of such a Politicall combination but as he hath ordained a Brotherly communion of counsell and helpfulnesse one to another as need requires so a spirituall relation and brotherly consociation of Churches together is union sufficient for such a communion And thus far we have endevored to take away all those arguments which are built upon the generall considerations of the unity visibility and priority of the Catholick church which we leave to the consideration and examination of the judicious We shall now as the Lord shall helpe us come to cleare the state of this knotty controversie as we think it ought to be stated and carryed Viz. What is that form of a Politicall Church which Jesus Christ in the Gospel hath instituted and appointed as the subject of Church power of government and administration of all the ordinances of the Gospel for actuall communion with Christ and one with another therein And here give us leave before we enter into the question it self to make a little further use of our former similitude for illustration and then we will shew where the ne plus ultra as we conceive must stand It hath been shewed in respect of the body of mankinde that although much may be said for the unity visibility and priority thereof before any parts of it yet no reason will inforce that it is the first subject of Civill power c. in respect of actuall administration and immediate enjoyment thereof and so here in respect of the Church We will now add but this one thing more that notwithstanding all such reasons yet in execution for the good of the whole the least civill society yea a family may be and is the first subject of civill power and priviledges of civill government so the least politicall Church society may be the first subject of these Keys of Church power in the exercise thereof and of immediate communion in all visible ordinances and we think that there by Divine institution it is seated and the edification and perfection of the Catholick Church may best be attained thereby Concerning Families we see no footsteps in the propagation of mankinde from Adam and Noah of any soveraign or universall government further then in the first Fathers of mankinde after whom as they increased families went out and combining made cities and so Common-wealths by mutuall consent as in Gen. 10. and other Stories appear except by the tyrannous usurpations of some as Nimrod the rest were brought under and this no doubt amongst any free people is still the most orderly just and safe way of erecting all forms of civill government Families to combine into Townes Cities Kingdomes or Aristocraticall States But here some will say If so that according to this similitude a particular congregation may be the first Church that have the Keys of Church power and Church communion then as families should combine into Towns and Cities and they into greater Common-wealths for the good of all mankinde so here these first Churches may not stand independently but ought to combine into greater Bodies till they come to be one whole Church to this we say this will not follow upon this evident reason because civill societies and government thereof is herein left to rules of humane prudence by the Lord and governor of the whole world and therefore may admit various forms of Government various Laws and Constitutions various priviledges c. according as men shall conceive best for themselves so they be not against the common morall rules of equity and the good of those Societies but here in the Kingdom of Christ as wee must attend what kinde of Church he hath instituted so we must cleave to such rules priviledges and forms of government and administrations as he hath ordained not presuming to goe one step beyond the same And hence it is not in the power of any Church to alienate the power rights or priviledges Christ have set in the same or to mould up any other politicall Churches then he hath appointed and here we conceive stands immovably the ne plus ultra of this similitude between the visible Church and the estate of mankinde in reference to power and government c. All which things well weighed to us seems to overthrow all such intermediate forms of Churches or the usuall Churches as Mr. Ball calls the same as Classicall Provinciall Diocesan Nationall Patriarchicall c. which we see not how according to the rule of Christ they can be constituted either descendendo from the common nature of the Catholick Church or ascendendo from the combination of particulars except institution can bee found for the same We find indeed that some endevor to build such forms upon the foundation of Morall principles and the Law of nature as That God hath given government to be over a multitude and that of many Societies as well as persons that one Society may not suffer as well as one person and that therefore must be given of the God of grace to a society and multitude of little Churches power of externall government To which we answer 1 That there is no such principle in nature that generally binds free Societies to submit to one common government must many Kingdoms c. by consequence all kingdoms combine in government lest one kingdome bee hurt â— must Moab Ammon Edom Tyre Sydon Judea c. being so contiguous in near vicinity to each other combine in one government 2 Is it not as suitable to morality and reason in such combinations that they set up One to rule over them when many grow ignorant evill or heady to preserve peace and prevent wrong as to set up many 3 Did Abraham Lot Melchisedeck and such family Churches walk against grounds of morality and nature that did not so combine We might add more but forbear but we could desire our dear Brethren to be wary of scattering such principles for though in the matters of the Church and Worship and Government of Christ grace doth not destroy nature yet look as a particular Church constitution and government was never erected by the Law of nature but Divine institution so for the
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
a Catholick church representative in Act. 15. If it were such then in respect of the Apostles the catholick Officers onely or in respect of the body of the Assembly also but in neither respects Ergo. 1 Not the first for then as was said any one Apostle may make a representative Catholick church having the whole power as much as all of them together for though they would meet oft to consult and assist one another yet not for defect of power in any one and we think our brethren here will not say it was in respect of the Apostles alone supposing here they acted rather as Elders with the rest then out of their Apostolicall power 2 Not in respect of the whole Assembly for then that assembly must consist of the messengers of all the particular Churches and the decrees should have been directed to all the Churches but neither of these can appear For first wee read of no other messengers but those from Antioch and how to evince more then the Scriptures reveal is hard Secondly if we look back and consider how far the Gospel was spread before this assembly it will appear very strange and absurd to suppose such a thing for Paul had been in Arabia before ever he came to Ierusalem Gal. 1. 17. and when he and Barnabas were sent out from Antioch Acts 13. they went to severall Islands and Countreys as Cyprus Paphos Salamis c. besides what other places scattered Christians and Apostles had preached in now there is no probability of messengers sent from all these places Secondly the decrees were expresly directed to the Gentiles beleeving in Antioch Syria and Cilicia where it seems this question had troubled the minds of the Disciples Acts 15. 23 24. which was far short of the Catholick church neither is it proved that the Churches of Syria and Cilicia had any messengers there much lesse that all the Churches had their messengers Object But it is said they might have had their messengers there if they would and therefore they were bound to the decrees as of a generall Councell Answ It must first be proved that all Churches had lawfull summons to send their messengers to that Assembly before there can be laid any blame on them for neglecting the same or they be all tyed to the decrees of such an Assembly as a generall Councell which seems to us not so much as probable much lesse to be proved by any where the Scripture is so silent Arg. 2. Every politicall Body is constituted by the combination of all the members into a Society But Christ hath not instituted that the Catholick church should combine into a Society Ergo. Propos Proved because there can be no instances given of any free Society civill or sacred that was under policy but that it arose from combination How came Israel to be one Nationall church but by a National covenant and that before it had Officers or how comes any nationall provinciall classicall Church that are pleaded for to be such but by some such combination Why is this Church of this Classis not of another but by combination Secondly in a politicall body the whole hath power to order every part but this power among persons that are free is onely by combination Assump Proved first because Christ never instituted that which is impossible as this is for the Catholick visible Church in every age so to doe Secondly Christ ordained combination for communion in his Worship but this communion also is impossible to the Catholick church as one Ergo. Thirdly corrupt Churches are visible Churches but it is hard for us to beleeve or any to prove that Christ hath instituted such combination of all Churches Asian African European American corrupt and uncorrupt for prudent men may easily foresee the heavy consequents thereof Argum. 3. Every Politicall Church by the institution of Christ hath power to elect her own Pastor or Pastors over it But the Catholick visible Church hath not such power Ergo. Proposit Proved This all Scripture examples shew that every Church or flock of beleevers had her Pastor Act. 14. Tit. 1. Secondly according to our Brethrens principles if a particular Church may choose a Pastor much more the Catholick because all priviledges are primarily given to the Catholick church and what belongs to the part of a similar Body as a part that much more belongs to the whole Assump Proved first If the Catholick church may choose Pastors over it then they may make Apostles because Catholick Pastors over the Catholick Church Secondly the Reasons against an universall Bishop are strong here as that their office is not described in the Word nor their power able to reach all Churches If it be said that the Catholick church can choose her Pastors in the parts or particular Societies which are Pastors of the Catholick church though not Catholick Pastors of the Catholick church Answ If this be meant of the particular Churches choosing Pastors over themselves who are in some respects for the good of the whole as being partes partium and so partes totius then they come to our hand for thus it appears that there is no Catholick totum that is the subject of officers but in its parts But the question is Whether all particular Churches having the officers in them do make one political Body or Catholick church and so have power to choose Catholick Pastors Argum. 4. Christ Jesus instituted no such politicall Body as destroys Church policy But such a Catholick church politicall destroys policy Ergo. Assump Proved because it swallows up the power not onely of all Churches congregationall but all other forms of Churches by taking the power of excommunication from them for the power of excommunication is seated by Christ in that Church from which there can be justly no appeal for Matth. 18. the power of excommunication is seated in such a Church as whatsoever it binds on earth is bound in heaven by the highest Judge in the highest Court and from the sentence of this highest court and Judge how can there be any appeal But now supposing such a Catholick church having power of excommunication and that as the highest Church hence no inferior Church can binde on earth so as that the same is bound in heaven seeing appeales may be made from them to an higher power on earth Object If it be said that the sentence of an inferior Judge proceeding rightly as in an inferior Sanhedrin is ratified in heaven yet may we appeale from him Answ We deny that the sentence of every civill Court doth binde in heaven in the sense of our Saviour for every civil Court hath not this promise of binding and loosing the power of the Keys not belonging to the civill Magistrate Secondly suppose there were such a binding in civill Courts and appeals may be yet made from them yet this is because there is supposed a supreme Court in being to which the appeale may be prosecuted and there determined as
in the highest Sanhedrin of Israel But there is not in the Church nor like to be such a supreme Court where such appeals may be ended Ergo. Object 2 If it be said that what a particular Church binds on earth is bound in heaven except they erre but then appeals may be made and their power is gone Answ On this ground the universall Church should not have power to bind on earth so as in heaven without appeales for they may erre and that not onely rarely but frequently witnesse the complaint of Nazianzen and others of the time passed yea they may be as much inclined to erre considering the greatest part of Churches in the world are for the most part corrupt yea though they may have better eyes yet they are further from the mark if particular Churches have no power of excommunication because they may erre be corrupt be partiall or be divided upon the same consideration neither Classicall Nationall or oecumeniall Councells have any such power for they may erre grow corrupt be partiall and be miserably divided as well as a congregationall Church other Churches may admonish in case of scandall and counsell when a particular congregation wants light and moderate if desired in case of difference but still the power is in the particular Church Other arguments might be added but seeing this controversie as we hope will be more fully and purposely disputed by a farre better hand therefore we shall fall to the consideration of such Scriptures and some few generall Arguments which we meet withall in Mr. Ball briefly propounded and in divers other Authors more largely insisted upon which if the Lord be pleased to helpe us to vindicate and clear up we think other reasons and Scriptures of lesse force will fall of themselves And first we finde Cant. 6. 4. c. to prove the whole Catholick church visible to be one Ministeriall Body because it is called One compared to an Army terrible with Banners in respect of the order of Discipline and described as being an organicall Body having eyes hair teeth c. Answ 1 Theologia Symbolica non est argumentativa except it can be made clear that the parable is applyed according to the true scope of it and no further which here is very hard to evince we know the whole Book of the Canticles is variously applyed by good Interpreters Brightman none of the meanest in this kinde of Scriptures applyes this place to the church of Geneva and the times of purer Churches to arise after it which are said to be terrible as an Army with Banners not in respect of Discipline but in respect of warlike power whereby that state of the church shall defend it self 2 But suppose that it is a description of the catholick church visible yet it cannot be a sufficient argument that it is one Ministeriall church For first the catholick church is the same in all ages and therefore by this reason it was a catholick Ministeriall body as well in the days from Adam to Abraham c. as in the New Testament Secondly by this argument we may prove Christ the head and husband of the church to be an organicall body as he is the Head of the Church for Cant. 5. 10 11. c. the Church doth allegorically describe the beauty and excellency of Christ in severall organs and parts but we suppose though Christ Jesus in his humane nature hath members yet the scope of the Church is not at all to set forth the members of his humane body but the glorious excellencies and spirituall perfections of Christ as the Redeemer and Saviour of his Church according to the manner of Lovers who are taken with the beauty of their spouses in all their members When the spouse saith Cant. 1. 1. Let him kisse me with the kisses of his mouth it were too grosse to apply it to the humanity of Christ or to argue from thence that Christ the husband of his Church is an organicall body Thirdly and lastly when the Church is called One the onely one of her Mother though it 's true she is one it seems rather to set out her excellency as rare and but one then her unity and so the other descriptions all tend to set forth her beauty in the eye and esteem of Christ neither is it any thing that the Church is compared to an Army terrible with banners for in the same Chap. vers the last she is compared to the company of Mahanaim or two Armies which is all one for the company of Mahanaim consisted of two Armies Gen. 32. 1 2 3. where Jacobs host meeting an host of Angels he calls the place Mahanaim or two Hosts and therefore we may as well say the Catholick church is terrible with two Armies of Banners as one Answ A second and chief Scripture we meet withall in divers Authors is 1 Cor. 12. 12 13. c. Whence the reason stands thus That church wherein Apostles Prophets Teachers c. are set is an organicall Church But those are set in the Catholick visible Church Ergo. For the better clearing of this Scripture it is needfull that we attend the scope of the Apostle who comming now to another branch of the things this Church had written unto him about Chap. 7. 1. 8. 1. 12. 1. and this about spirituall gifts wherein they abounded Chap. 1. 7. being the occasion of all their contentions and disorders Chap. 1. 12 13. hence he is studious the more to re-unite them again Chap. 12. 13. and to direct them how to improve their gifts orderly to edification Chap. 14. and in this Chapter he perswades their minds to unity who were divided partly through pride in their own gifts partly by disdain of others not so gifted hence he puts them in minde 1 What once they were following dumb idols 2 That all gifts are from the free dispensation of God and that one God one Lord one Spirit 3 That God in his wisdom hath dispensed great variety of gifts operations and administrations 4 That all are given to profit withal and these things he illustrates by a simile taken from a naturall body which having largely presented and applyed to this Church vers 27. he concludes with the variety of administrations in such things wherein they so much differed Chap. 1. 12 13. God hath set saith he in the Church not onely Apostles or Prophets or tongues c. but all these are all Apostles are all Prophets c no but the wisdom of God hath given you variety of these gifts and administrations and therefore Chap. 3. to quiet them he saith Paul an Apostle Apollos an Evangelist c. all are yours and as this is the scope of the Apostle so we see nothing in the Chapter but is appliable to Corinth in particular yea applyed unto them by the Apostle as what he spake vers 22. of one body he applyes to them vers 27. what he spake vers 28. of Apostles and
other gifts set in the Church he applyes also to them Chap. 14. whereas he speaks of the exercise of divers gifts in that Church when the whole Church came together vers 23 so he speaks the same of himself an Apostle vers 6. When I come c We take notice of divers reasons alledged from the Chapter that he spake of the Catholick church but they doe not inforce it for grant such things are true of the Catholick church in a sense viz. that in it God works all in all in it are diversities of gifts c. yet the Apostles scope is to speak to this Church as hath been shewed and all are truly applyable unto it this Church came behinde in no good gift Chap. 1. 7. this Church was one body vers 27. and baptized into one body whether Jews or Gentiles bond or free the members of this Church needed the helpe one of another must not make schismes in the Body must care one for another c. yea Apostles as well as other gifts were in the church 1 Cor. 3. 1. 1 Cor. 14. 6. So that from the scope and drift of the Apostle all these Offices and gifts might be and were set in Corinth and therefore this place will not evince a Catholick organicall body yet we mean not that Apostles were wedged in here but they were set also in every church as also Teachers are in every church but each according to the nature of the Office the one limited the other not Secondly we deny not but in this discourse the Apostle also vers 12 13. intendeth the whole mysticall body of Christ which is one Christ neither doe we deny that these gifts of Apostles Prophets c. are given to this Church but this will not prove it to be an organicall Church For what is this body of Christ this one Christ into whom all are baptized c. It is properly the whole company of true beleevers in all ages and so containes the invisible body of Christ which Catholick body of all ages cannot properly make an organicall body and be it so that this body is visible having visible ordinances baptized and drunk into one body yet the Apostle respects the reall union of all the members to Christ and therefore Interpreters understand spirituall and effectuall baptism containing the inward vertue with the outward sign Again the Apostles were fit for the gathering in of the elect amongst all the heathen nations but that proves not all these elect who also are a part of Christs sheep John 10. 16. were an organicall Church or a part of it till called and added to the Church In a word Apostles Prophets c. were given to and set in the mysticall body of Christ as the chief object and end for whose sake and good they were intentionally ordained of Christ but not set in it as one organicall body for the actuall and immediate administration of the visible ordinances of Christ to it but thus to it as gathered into such Church societies as the Lord hath instituted for that end and in this sense we agree with learned Mr. Rutherford libro of the right of Presbyt pag. 291. Ask saith he to what end and to what first principall subject hath the Lord given reason and the faculty to discourse Is it to Peter John c. as to the first subject and to them as for their good No no it is to and for the race of mankind The case is just so here 1 Cor. 12. 28. God hath set Apostles c. We say also it is just so here as God hath given reason in respect of the end to mankinde first and then to the individua so God hath set in the mysticall Church for the good of it as chiefly intended by Christ Apostles Prophets c. but now as in the actuall dispensing of this gift of reason for the good of mankinde Reason is not given to any such body as the whole race of mankinde to descend to John Peter c. but first to John Peter and all the individualls that so by induction of all particulars the whole kinde of reasonable man may be made up and the end attained and so it is here God in giving Officers and gifts for the good of the mysticall body of Christ firstly yet in execution gives these Officers and sets them in particular Churches that by the edification and perfection of all particulars the whole may be attained Thirdly Apostles Prophets and all gifts and offices in generall and indefinitely are given to the Church indefinitely considered but particular officers Paul Cephas Apollo Titus Archippus c. are given or set in particular Churches we mean according to the severall natures and extents of their offices As unto Bees in generall is given a power to gather honey and order themselves in their hives but in their exercise of this power it is given to the severall swarms in the hives who have their Queens c. to order themselves But as this power in generall makes not a universall organicall body of Bees no more here an universall organicall Church Lastly to speak more particularly we conceive that the place in the utmost latitude of it is meant of the mysticall body that one body into which all are baptized vers 13. And that the fundamentall mistake of our Brethren is this that because the Church here mentioned hath Organs and politicall Officers in it that therefore it must needs make one politicall Church where some Organs are to rule in common and every part is to be subject to the whole For although the mysticall Church hath Organs and politicall Officers in it yet it follows not therefore that it is one politicall body For the invisible Church conjoyned with the visible hath politicall Officers set in it and given to it as invisible as well as visible in respect of Gods generall designation and particular application of them to this whole Church yet it follows not that they are one politicall body by actuall combination thereunto actuall combination we say for although Christs institution must warrant and prescribe all forms of politicall bodies yet it will not be found that ever there was any politicall Society without actuall combination whether civill or sacred whether nationall or more particular The mysticall Church may be said to be organicall in respect of the Officers amongst them in the severall parts thereof every part being a part of the whole spiritually though not politically But it doth not thence follow that the whole is one politicall body but mysticall Politicall Officers may and must suppose some part of the Church to be visible but not that the whole should be Politicall For the Apostles by extraordinary Commission for their time were officers of visible beleevers fit matter for a combination as well as of particular combinations yet it follows not that visible beleevers existing out of combinations were a politicall Society that would never meet to combine
but they were onely a visible number of Saints We have been thus large in clearing this Scripture because we conceive the chief strength of the contrary opinion to lye in it And this being answered the light of it we hope will scatter the darknesse that is brought upon divers other Scriptures which are drawn to prove such a kinde of Catholick Church as Rom. 12. 4. c. Col. 1. 25. 1 Tim. 3. 15. Ephes 4. 11. In which last Scripture we never doubted but that the Officers were given not for that particular Church of Ephesus onely much lesse to such a diminutive Congregation consisting of 40 60 or 100 onely as if we intended to impawn all power in this or that Congregational body but to a congregationall Church considered as the genus of all particular Congregations of the world Neither to this congregationall Church onely but to all that are to be gathered to the unity of the faith But doth this argue one politicall body consisting of all these For though vers 16. the whole body be said to be compacted yet that this should be understood of a politicall not spirituall way of compacting we confesse with submission our weaknesse cannot apprehend The last Scripture which we find cited that seemeth to look this way is 1 Pet. 5. 1. Feed the flock which is among you Answ 1 We answer It must necessarily be understood distributively for the severall flocks in all those Countreys to be fed by their particular Elders not collectively to be fed as one flock in common For the Countreys are so many and large as it was impossible Yea we have a clear parallel James 2. 2. where writing to the Jews of the twelve Tribes scattered abroad yet he speaks of a man comming into their Assembly which cannot be meant collectively as if they had one assembly amongst them all but distributively of any assembly 2 Though they bee called a flock not flocks yet this as Baines observes was not because it was one flock really in themselves but in some respect of reason which also he expounds to be per internam we had rather say spiritualem unionem but not per externam combinationem in respect of which spirituall union that is true which Mr. Ball citeth out of Cyprian Etsi Pastores multi sumus unam tamen gregem pascimus As also that there is Episcopatus unus Ecclesia una in toto mundo Hence also may appear an answer to divers arguments the chief whereof we shall run through Object 1. If by baptism we are not admitted into one particular Church but into the whole Catholick visible Church 1 Cor. 12. 13. then there is such a Catholick Church Answ Baptism admitteth us into the whole mysticall body of Christ whether visible or invisible of all ages But this is not a Catholick Politicall body of which we speak for then every baptized person should be a member of every particular Church and have an Oaâ—e in every boat in electing Officers admitting members censuring offenders c. which Mr. Ball will not grant and indeed would bring in endlesse confusion into the Churches of Christ Besides no man can be a member of any combined society without their consent for otherwise so many may croud into the Church because baptized as shall overthrow the edification thereof and that against the consent of the Church and all the Officers thereof Object 2. When any scandalous person is delivered to Satan he is cast out of the whole Catholick church Ergo he was a member of the whole Catholick Church for be cannot be cast out who was never within Answ 1 Some answer that he is cast out of all onely consequenter by reason of communion of Churches neither doe we see that this is taken away by saying that As when the left hand cutteth off a finger of the right hand it is not the left hand onely that cuts it off but the whole man deliberate reason and will consenting For if this similitude would suit then the whole Catholick church must be called to consult and consent antecedenter before a particular Church can cut off any member which ordinarily is impossible to be attain'd 2 But further according to our former principles laid down we say he that is justly cast out of one Church he is morally excommunicated out of all but not politically and formally For to excommunicate politically and formally is by vertue of a superior authority next under Christ so that what is bound by them is bound in heaven In which act the Minister doth not onely bind the person but also by vertue of his Office chargeth the Church not to have communion with him But we doe not think that our Brethren will say that one Church putteth forth such an act of superior authority binding or charging all Churches politicè and judicialitèr not to have communion with him for so one Church should exercise jurisdiction overall Churches and that without their actuall approbation for quod spectat ad omnes debet ab omnibus approbari If it be said That a particular Church doth excommunicate by an intrinsecall power not onely in it self but intrinsecall in the whole body the question will be What is that intrinsecall power Is it naturall or voluntary To say it is naturall were too absurd if voluntary then neither Congregations Classes Provinces Nations have power to excommunicate without the praevious consent of the whole Catholick church which must voluntarily concurr thereunto And if the Catholick Presbytery as is said have no next but a a remote power of excommunication and this remote power bee extraordinary or raro contingens or almost never then the ordinary power of excommunication which is enough for us is not from an intrinsecall power of the Church catholick On the other side if it be said this power is in the whole but not derived from the whole to the parts as the power of seeing is first in the man then in the eye yet not derived from hands leggs shoulders c. and as the great body of the Sunn hath intrinsecall light in every part not by derivation from one part to another so this power of the Keys is from Christ the Head to all the integral parts in points that severally concern the same First if this be so then every particular Congregation receives its power of the Keys immediately from Christ not by derivation from any Presbytery or the Catholick Church and is in that respect Independent Neither also can Congregations derive the power seated in them to Presbyteries nor any greater bodies take it from them Secondly though we acknowledge this intrinsecall power of excommunication in particular Congregations as being there properly seated by Christ yet that there are any such politicall Churches Classicall Provinciall Nationall or Catholick that have any such intrinsecall power as is in the Sunn this is not yet proved to our understanding We deny not the use of lesser and greater Synods nor
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
and so might they circumcise themselves must not this bee done amongst and before the people of God in his visible Church whence such were called Proselytes and reckoned of the Common-wealth of Israel Esay 56. 3 4 5 6. And is not all this to joyne themselves to the visible instituted Church before they were circumcised Lastly it is not true that no man could be reputed a visible beleever before hee did all this That which followes pag. 40. is answered before Reply If Lot Job c. were not circumcised there is not the like reason for Circumcision and baptisme in this particular Answ The force of the consideration doth not depend upon the likenesse of reason betweene the persons to be circumcised and baptized in every respect but in this that as Circumcision and the Passeover were given onely to visible members of that instituted visible Church and therefore so in this case of baptisme and the Lords Supper now therefore if you could alledge many more different reasons betweene Lot Job c. that were not circumcised and those not to bee baptized it would little availe in the case but wee shall consider your differences particularly Reply First If ever circumcision was appropriated to Abrahams family and might not be communicated to other visible beleevers it was in the first institution but in the first institution of baptisme it was not so observed that beleevers should bee gathered into a Christian Church and then baptized Mat. 3. 7. John baptized such as came to him confessing their sinnes the Apostles baptized Disciples such as gladly received their doctrine c. Answ There is no such disparity in this as is objected for Abrahams family was in Covenant before Circumcision was given onely the Covenant was more fully explained and confirmed and so when John baptized hee baptized the members of the Jewes Church in Covenant before to whom hee was sent to turne the heart of the fathers to the children c. and to prepare a people for the Lord and baptisme was then given to the Church of the Jewes with reference to so many as would receive the doctrine of John concerning repentance and remission of sinnes by faith in the Messiah now come amongst them and therefore Christ himselfe and his Disciples remained yet members of that Church Secondly Though the visible Kingdome of Christ was not yet to bee erected in Christian Churches till after Christs death and Resurrection whereby hee did put an end to the Jewish worship and therefore no Christian Churches could bee gathered by John yet there was a middle state of a people prepared for the Lord gathered out of the Jewish Church which according to that state were made the Disciples of John by solemne profession of their repentance or conversion to God and acknowledgement of Christ the Lambe of God already come to whom the seale of baptisme was appropriated As for the instances Act. 2. 37. c. and 8. 37. and 10. 47 48. they are spoken to before in the first consideration Reply Secondly Lot Job c. were not bound to joyne to Abrahams family and bee circumcised but now all visible beleevers are bound to seeke baptisme in an holy manner Answ First This difference makes little to the point in hand it is enough that all that would be circumcised were bound to joyne to that Church and so now Secondly in after times no doubt every true proselyte fearing God was bound to joyne to that church as well as now and if now all visible beleevers be bound to professe their faith and seek baptisme in an holy manner why should they not bee bound to joyne to some visible Church and seeke it there as well as of old yea where should they professe their faith but in the visible Churches as the Proselytes of old did Your third difference is oft pressed and answered before Reply Fourthly If Circumcision bee appropriated to the family of Abraham it is because that Covenant was peculiar to Abrahams posterity namely that Christ should come of Isaac but baptisme is the Seale of the Covenant of Grace without peculiarity or respect Answ This difference is of little moment neither will it hold for first though that and other promises had a speciall eye to Abrahams family yet Circumcision sealed the righteousnesse of faith Rom. 4. to them being in visible Covenant with the Church as baptisme now doth Secondly this peculiar respect you speake of no way hindereth the joyning of many servants to Abrahams family and Covenant nor any proselytes to the Church afterward of any nation no more then now in respect of baptisme Thirdly the true reason was because although the Covenant was made with others yet not established nor enlarged towards them and hence if they would partake of such a Covenant they must joyne in this which also is the glory of the rich grace of Christ shining forth in Church-Covenant with all that will become a people to him to this day The first difference is answered in the first and second CHAP. IX Consid 4. Reply TO the fourth consideration first Men are capable of Church censures either as having power to dispense them or as being subject unto them c. In the second sense many are capable of Church priviledges who are not subject to Church censures as the children of Christian Parents are capable of baptisme and approved members of any true Church are capable of Seales in other Congregations amongst you who are not subject to the censures of the other Congregation spiritual Communion in publike prayer whereof visible beleivers not in Church order are capable but not subject to common censures in your sense Answ This distinction is needlesse our meaning is plaine in the second sense and therefore wee say nothing to what is objected against the first To the instances objected against the proposition in the second sense wee answer first concerning the Infants of Church-members they are subject to censures whensoever they offend the Church as others are though so long as they live innocently they need them not Secondly Members of any true visible Church are subject and so capable of censure though not in another Church which is not in in the proposition 2 Also they are capable of censures mediately by and in that other Church if they there offend for that Church may admonish and prosecute the admonition in the Church to which they belong and refuse society with them if they repent not which cannot bee said of such as are not members of any visible Church who cannot be prosecuted to excommunication in any place Thirdly Publike prayers of the Church though they bee an ordinance of Christ and the Church have a speciall Communion in them in which respect others do not share yet they are not a priviledge or peculiar ordinance wherein none but the Church may share for an Heathen or Infidel may hear the word and joyne in the prayers being cultus naturalis saying Amen unto the same
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
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
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
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
promise of all that be admitted into societie that they shall not depart without the Churches allowance if such a promise be required of all members to bee admitted wee cannot discerne upon what grounds your practise is warranted Answ Wee are still inforced to cleare our answer from mistakes for it seemes the answer left it doubtfull whether wee doe not hold the position affirmatively and in practise require such a promise as a part of our Church Covenant of all that are admitted and therefore to cleare the case more fully wee shall first minde the Reader with the true meaning of the answer and then adde what is needfull to take away the scruples and first the answer saith that wee judge it expedient and most according to rule that brethren should not forsake fellowship c. but in removalls approve themselves c. Now this is farre short of what the position affirmes for first that none are to bee admitted without such a promise includes a necessity the answer speakes onely of expediency and agreeablenesse to rule not to breake off abruptly Secondly the Position affirmes the necessitie of a promise the answer speakes onely of the case in practise as in many cases besides for the watch of the Church reacheth to such particular acts of which wee make no promise expresse in the entrance Thirdly the Position speakes of the Churches leave the answer acknowledgeth onely that brethren removing should approve themselves to doe that which is lawfull and take counsell in such weighty affaires By all which it appeares that wee doe not owne this position in judgement nor practise and therefore in effect our answer doth deny the same and is negative Secondly if the words of the answer bee not full enough because wee see our brethren here runne upon it as a question if such a promise be required and Mr. Rutherford and others take it up as a confessed practise wee doe therefore clearely and plainely deny the position and affirme that wee doe not thinke that none are to bee admitted without such a promise neither is there any such practise in our admissions of members to require such a promise wee onely count such removalls especially of families an action amongst many others whereunto the watch of the Church doth extend to prevent sinne where there is any just ground of suspition thereof and to further the best good of such as are under our charge by counsell prayers c. If any Minister and people of old acquaintance and deare affection or any other Christians cleaving together in love have privatly resolved or agreed together not to part from each others in any Church it is the most that wee have taken knowledge of and wee thinke that hath beene very rare but for any such publick promise Covenant or Church oath as some straining things to the height have called it it is not nor hath been required or practised amongst us this being so there needs no grounds of that which wee practise not Reply First you exclude all such as bee not set members from the seales and yet hinder them from entrance into the Church society because they cannot promise continuance in the place they are resident in for the present here we desire to bee satisfied by the word of God by what you require it c. Answ First We deny not but divers may and doe forbeare to joyne because of their unsettlednesse in the place of their present abode Secondly It may bee in some cases some may be advised by the counsell of their private friends in a Church to forbeare till they be some way setled But that any are debarred from Communion when they desire it because they cannot promise continuance unlesse other just causes hinder it neither suites with our judgement nor practise and if any should practise other wayes wee doe not allow of the same and therefore it 's needlesse to give you reasons of what we practise not Reply Secondly It pertaines not to the whole Congregation to take notice or bee acquainted with or judge of every particular members removall may not a servant remove from his Master to another Congregation or a father bestow his childe in marriage to one of another Congregation but the whole Church must be called to counsell in the matters c. when Churches grow populous they must bee negligent or weary of such a taâ—ke and for the present to challenge so much authority over one another is usurpation c. Answ If our answer were but attended such apprehensions of our practise of calling the whole Church to counsell in every such case and all that followes might be spared For thus we say Wee judge it expedient c. That none forsake fellowship and abruptly breake off c. This doth not imply a necessity of calling the whole Church to counsell in every plaine and easie case many times and for the most part such removals are so plaine and free from suspition of abrupt breaking off or forsaking fellowship that there is no need of counsell as in case of servants marriages c. and therefore no trouble to the Church and in some removall of families also the case is cleare and openly carried in the knowledge of many of the Church none scruple it and therefore at the first demand of dismission or letters of recommendations the same are granted but in removall of some members and in the manner of the same there are such difficulties and dangers as neede the prayers and counsell of the Officers and whole Church as is confessed after nor doe wee say it pertaines to the whole Church to bee called to counsell and judge of every particular members removall for they may approve themselves to the consciences of all mediately by advising with some who may satisfie the rest if need be Reply Let it be shewed that ever by divine right this power was committed to the Church and we will confesse it expedient but till then wee thinke the Church over rigid and the members busiebodies c. Answ The rule of love whereby wee are bound to exhort admonish seeke the edification and good one of another and that not onely in generall as of all Christians but as members of so neere relation in one Church body who are bound to serve the Lord with one shoulder Zeph. 3. 9. and to uphold the worship of Christ therein as this doth reach to all the actions and wayes of one another so in a speciall manner to such an action as this iâ— and we thinke this ground is sufficient to satisfie our practice as wee have declared which may wipe off the aspersion of being rigid or busie-bodies Reply In the multitude of counsellers is peace but over-many counsellors oft causeth distractions and different apprehensions breed delayes Answ Wee grant it may doe so neither doe wee bring all cases to publike like counsell but the case may bee such as needs the publike counsell of all and as wee have a
these particular imputations in this short Chapter and upon what grounds they are built As page 79. That wee hinder men from entrance into Church society because they cannot promise continuance in the Place and running upon this straine he saith Was it ever heard of in the Church of God from the beginning thereof unto this day that any such thing was propounded unto and required of members to bee admitted into Church fellowship Here is a loud outcry and who would not think but that we usually propound and require such a thing in our admissions which yet is nothing so But what is the ground of all this Looke a little before and hee saith If such a promise be required Againe ibidem saith hee wee thinke the Church is over-rigid in exacting such a condition of the members and the members goe beyond their measure as busie bodies and what is the ground It followes If they arrogate such a power to themselves So page next 80. In the word it is not commanded that no member should remove or occasionally be absent from the place of his habitation before he have acquainted the congregation whither he goeth on what occasion c. To what end is this inserted if not to suggest that there is such a practise among us that a man may not occasionally be absent c. which is far from us And what is the ground see a few lines after The Church shall burthen herselfe c. If shee take upon her to intermeddle in all such occasions And immediatly after wee feare the time appointed for religious exercises should bee profaned by unseasonable disputes But what is the ground of this feare conceived and published to the world viz. If such businesses must bee determined on the Lords day and that before the Ordinances c. because it seemes Robinson in case of some notorious obstinate offender would have some censure passed to prevent pollution of an Ordinance and is this ground sufficient Againe in the same page for these things are thick sowne Herein saith he you have devised an expedient or necessary rite or custome to preserve unity c. but if you seeke a ground it will bee found a mistake â—s is shewed before and contrary to the expresse profession of the Answer That wee promise no new duties but onely such as the Gospell requires of all Saints in Church order much lesse doe wee set up new rites and customes And as if all these particular imputations in the compasse of one leafe were two little Page next 81. wee have a whole Catalogue gathered together from other places and this that by laying things together the odium raised might stick the deeper for thus the words are But to presse customes expedient for the time as standing rules necessary at all times and all persons To put authority in the hands of men which God never put upon them and to oblige them to intermeddle To bind the consciences of men and that upon so heavy a penaltie as the sinne of Ananias and Saphira where God hath not bound it To debarre knowne Christians from the seales because they cannot promise to abide in the Church as setled members and yet charge them in the meane season against light to refuse subjection to the Gospel Concerning all which wee doe not know any of them to be true nor approve any such thing in any if it should be found among us And what is the ground of all this Truely weake enough as hath been shewed in our discourse and here it is the suspicion of the Author for thus hee adds This is that wee cannot approve and yet wee suspect will follow from your judgement These things wee have thus briefly presented in one view not to dishonour the learned and reverend Author whose memory wee honour two things we charitably take notice of to remove over hard thoughts of him First wee consider his spirit might bee over grieved and provoked to this harshnesse by the withdrawings of many Christians from the Ordinances of God because dispensed according to the corrupt Liturgy in which cause he stood too farre ingaged and supposing New-England wayes the cause of it he was the more sharpe Secondly wee consider that this Reply was not intended by him to be published to the world but to be sent unto us and therefore he is in our hearts the lesse blamable But seeing these things are now published and the harshnesse thereof may do much hurt wee were pressed to cleare our selves wherein if any thing reflect upon the Author or Publishers wee cannot avoyd it Neither doe wee write thus as if wee would wholly justifie our selves and all the particular miscarriages that happily at one time or other in some Church or other may have happened we have much cause to humble our selves before our God and abase our selves to the dust before men for all the weakenesses sinnes errors and miscarriages that have beene found among us in one kind and another Onely this wee may professe before the Lord and his people that in the maine scope of our hearts and indeavours of our lives wee have sought after such a forme of worship and frame of discipline as we could conceive by the Word of God and the helpe of the best Reformers to bee according to the will of Christ not allowing our selves in any evill discovered unto us but bewayling our great defects in all Reply And here wee crave leave to put you in mind of what you have considered already That the Church and every member have entered into Covenant to take God for their God c. but wee never finde that they were called to give account of the worke of grace wrought in their soules or that the whole Congregation were to bee judge thereof You stand here all this day saith Moses before the Lord your God c. that thou shouldest enter into Covenant with the Lord thy God All that were borne in the wildernesse Joshua circumcised but it is uncredible to thinke there was none that did not give good testimony of the worke of grace c. Because it is a principall thing especially in the builders of the Church to know their materials and because the reverend and learned Author steps somewhat out of his way to call us to give answer in this controversie of such great weight especially in this present turne of times wee shall therefore gladly accept of this occasion to declare our selves with as much brevity as we may to the two branches of the question Qu. First Whether the members of the Church are called to give an account of the worke of grace at there admission thereunto Answ 1. Secondly Whether the whole Church is to be judge hereof Whether the members of the Church be called c. For answer to which wee shall expresse our selves in these particulars to prevent mistakes First that the question is not of what may keepe a Church already constituted from being accounted no Church
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