answer And this wee did the rather for our reason mentioned in our letter because though all of us could not concurre to condemne all set Formes as unlawfull yet wee could in this viz. that though some set Forms may bee lawfull yet it will not follow that this of the English Liturgy is therefore to remove all obscurities and breake all snares and resolve the question in the true intent of it wee were forced to distinguish of Formes and so touch the true Helena of this controversie and therefore if any shall narrowly observe Mr. Ball his large defence of set Forms in generall they shall finde those wings spread forth in a very great breadth to give some shelter and warmth to that particular Liturgie then languishing and hastening through age and feeblenesse towards its last end Reply It is true people separate from our Liturgie because stinted not because this or that or ours in particular Answ If because it's stinted then because yours for we know none properly such but yours and it may well bee one offence to all godly consciences that yours are so imposed and stinted as they bee though it is hardly credible to us so farre as our observation reach that the main causes of the godly withdrawing from your Liturgy should be the stinting of it when so many corruptions in Matter and Forme have been objected against it by the best godly Reformers And seeing the same persons will joyne with Prayers of godly Preachers though they use the same forme of prayer usually and so in a large sense freely stinting themselves thereto though not properly in such sense as your Liturgy is stinted Reply But say you such set Formes used by Preachers are disliked also and your reasons especially the two last why you admit not a stinted Liturgie conclude against both in our understanding Answ Wee deny not but some may dislike the constant use of such Formes especially when studiously framed with elegancy of phrases and as the manner of some is but doe any we now speak of condemne all use thereof or withdraw from them that use them which is now the case in hand For our parts wee neither know such men or if we did we should condemn such minds As for our Reasons in generall or the two last you mention in particular it passeth our understanding to conceive how any such inference can bee made if the Reply had formed the inferences from our arguments it may bee wee should have seene more by the helpe of such spectacles But passing over what we say to the Position as we interpret it you think fit to advertise us of some things which are six Reply Advert 1. Your reasons why you accept not a stinted Liturgie are ambiguously propounded and so that such as looke at stinted Liturgies as images forbidden Command 2. may easily draw your words to their meaning Answ If our Reasons themselves being sound and unanswered by you contain any thing that may be drawn to such a Position that cannot arise from the ambiguousnesse of words which are plaine but from their abuse who mis-apply them Reply Advert 2. The Reasons you bring against a set forme of Prayer doe hold as strong against a set forme of Catechisme confession and profession of faith blessing baptizing and singing of Psalmes Answ 1 Concerning forms of Catechismes and confessions of Faith if religiously and perspicuously framed wee account them of singular use though abused by men nor without some sacred allowance yet from hence to infer the like use of set Formes of prayers neither our reasons nor any other will in force for Catechismes and Confessions as well as Psalmes in the nature of the thing require in some sense a set and limited Forme but publike prayers though they may admit of a set and comely order in the generall to prevent errour yet of their owne nature they require no set Forme for God gives us no new matter or doctrine daily to be beleeved but he gives new matter of new affection in prayer daily 2 If by set Forms of Catechismes and Confessions bee meant according to the termes of the Question stinted Formes like stinted Liturgies i. e. beyond or short of which Ministers may not teach or Christians beleeve and professe then wee should say the same of these as wee doe of stinted Formes of Prayer wee confesse there is danger in casting by all Formes of Confessions and Catechismes lest through the instability of ungrounded and heady men pretending new light or searching after further light the Churches adhere to nothing and their Faith as the learned Leyden Professors terme it become fides horaria or menstrua The faith of an houre or moneth and then cast it off the next And on the other side there is danger that by imposing such Confessions too far that which is indeed further light be supprest wee therefore thinke it usefull and needfull to pave out such high wayes of Catechismes and Confessions so as the subjects of Christ Jesus our King and Law-giver may walke therein without shackles reserving liberty for further future light in points lesse cleare yet standing in a readinesse alwayes to confesse and hold fast the present truth which appeares most cleare 3 Concerning Forms of blessing baptizing singing Scripture Psalmes there is a far differing reason from this case for the Lord himselfe hath left us Formes in these cases not onely for instruction but allowing the use of the same as Numb 6.23 c. Luke 10.5 Matth. 28.20 2 Chron. 29.30 and therefore such may bee used as hee hath left yet the Lord hath not imposed some of these at least to bee used alwayes and onely in his Churches much lesse doth hee allow any man to impose their own Forms upon his Churches or conforme to such as are tyrannously imposed Reply Third Advert We have not called you at this time to witnesse for or against the corruptions of the Common-prayer-book this you fall upon by straining the sense of our demands Answ Wee have spoken to this before and we thinke whatsoever your intent and desire was yet the nature of the thing and the case it selfe gave us a just call to testifie against it especially seeing the corruptions then increased in England and the impositions were more rigid and violent Reply The reasons you bring against the Communion-booke wee cannot approve them all the exceptions against it wee know but to esteem the whole for some corruptions found therein a Monument of Idolatry that we have not learned Answ The Answer calls it not a Monument of Idolatry for some corruptions onely found in it though the corruptions in matter and manner bee objected as the first reason why wee used it not but being never commanded of God greatly abused unto Idolatry and superstition and of no necessary use the same that was in Popery for substance which are the usuall arguments for abolishing Images Ceremonies and all Monuments of Idolatry and wee marvaile how any
could passe over these things in the Answer which might evince it to bee a Monument of Idolatry as the argument of the Abridgement to which we referred doth prove Reply The argument in the Abridgement used against conformity to the Ceremonies did not in the judgement of the Authors hold against the Liturgie of which judgement we are Answ It matters not whether they saw so far and so judged if indeed the reason and nature of Ceremonies and the book be the same for the first Reformers thought their arguments strong against oyle creame and spittle c. in Baptisme but saw not that they would hold against the Crosse Surplice c. as well yet we doubt not but the Reverend Author did judge of all in the same manner and so it is in this case Reply Advert 4. If these reasons bee intended onely to shew why you receive not our forme of administration it is that which wee are perswaded you know we never required of you if to disallow the use of the Book amongst us altogether in things lawfull good and pertinent they will not hold weight Answ 1 Wee were told in the first Epistle of our Reverend and deare Brethren that whiles wee lived in England wee joyned in the same Ordinances and purity of worship and therefore wee might have some just cause to cleare up our differing practise from disusing that forme of Administration there considering that our differing practise might occasion others to rend off from your Administrations there whereof your complain 2 We doubt not but in the Popish Forms of Masse Matten and Evensong c. some things lawfull good and pertinent may bee found yet would not the godly allow these very reasons wee alledge in the Answer sufficient to refuse the whole Forme and so those good and lawfull things in that Forme as that they are devised by men without the command of God imposed by an Antichristian power abused to Idolatry and Superstition wherein the people place much holinesse and necessity full of scandall c. and if these Reasons do not hold against this Forme in the Communion booke the Reply should have acquited it from them or else the consequence must bee yeelded in this case as in the other notwithstanding all the good and pertinent things therein John Simpson and John Ardly Martyrs in Q. Maries dayes and faithfull Witnesses made answer to the sixt article of Bonner concerning the Masse that 't is of the Pope not of Christ and therefore not good not having in it any goodnesse saving Gloria in excelsis the Epistles and Gospels the Creed and Pater Noster and for this cause they said they have not nor will not come to heare Masse the same answer was made by six more in those dayes mentioned by Mr. Fox If therefore corrupt Formes may bee used because of some things good and lawfull mixt with them there should have been shewn us some proofe for it but if the meaning bee that there may bee a lawfull use of those things which are lawfull and good in it wee say so too due circumstances of their use being observed but then wee fall off from the question between us otherwise wee know that things lawfull and good in themselves yet not duly circumstantiated may be evill and scandalous in their use Heare what Paul saith it was lawfull for Paul to eate some kindes of meat yet if it maketh my brother offend I will eate no flesh whiles the world standeth 1 Cor. 8.13 Heare what the Authors of the second admonition to the Parliament say in Queen Elizabeths dayes the Booke of Common-prayer which of all others must not bee touched because they have gotten the State to beare it out yet hee hath but a bad conscience that in this time will hold his peace and not speake it for feare of trouble knowing that there are such intolerable abuses in it if there were never an ill word or sentence in all the Prayers yet to appoint it to bee used or to use it as the Papists did their Mattens and Evensong as a fit service to God though the words bee good yet the use is naught But if this seem too sharpe heare what a late godly and learned Writer speakes Rejicimus illas precum cultusque publici formulas quae tyrannide quâdam conscientiis hominum ut cultus divini partes essentiales impoâ—…untur quamvis quoad materiam sunt legitime dispositae quoad formam modum tamen quo inducuntur illegitima crudelitatis instrumenta fiunt praetextus improbae malitiae occasiones violentae tyrannidis in dignissimos optimos Ecclesiae filias Reply Advert 5. You are generally you say loath to medâ—…le with the affaires of other Churches unlesse necessarily called thereunto but when some upon request as we suppose of private friends and others out of their zeal and forwardnesse have laboured to draw many to separate from the sacrament because ministred in a stinted Liturgie wee cannot apprehend any just ground of this Apologie the â—…ent is wide and some brethren had their hands deep therein which made us crave your judgements and the reasons thereof to make up the breach Answ 1 What you impute to some if justly wee grant will not allow this apologie to bee generall for all but how many that some is or who we know not it may bee one or two and if so one or two exceptions will not much infringe a generall rule nor hinder this generall apology 2 If such brethren had a necessary Call to speake or write what they did it hindreth not our apologie at all the desire of private friends which you onely suppose the moving cause might bee very weighty the satisfying of tender consciences of neare friends or such as once depended upon our Ministery in such a time of pressing humane inventions upon men as that was might bee a very urgent call to interpose but that any have endeavoured out of zeale to draw many to separation from the Sacrament upon such a ground as you say as we utterly dislike such fire upon the top of the house so it must be proved before we can call to minde or acknowledge any such thing Reply Advert 6. J. D. object to Mr. P. that his manner of preaching proceeding it should be was disorderly in carrying to the Classis a matter before hee had declared it to the Church c. and may not we with like reason object that this manner of proceeding is disorderly in seeking to draw men to separation because of a stinted Liturgie before you had shewed us or other Brethren whom it may concren by Scripture or reasons that a stinted Liturgie is unlawfull Answ What J. D. objects wee cannot tell seeing you neither quote the place nor the Printer give us his words in any way to make sense but so far as we guesse at the meaning the case is very wide from this in hand J. D. might justly complaine of wrong offered to him and
false Church We thinke it needlesse to recite more testimonies Aliquando honus dormitat Homerus A good memory may sometimes fall asleep and not see that which is sometimes most obvious and visible But what other arguments they have are or may bee common to others studious of Reformation as their arguments against ceremonies are common with Non-conformists and therefore if some of our grounds bee found in them it doth not follow they are â—…afts taken out of the same quiver and peculiar to them as you object Reply These reasons shall be common to all that plead for the purity of Gods Ordinances which were never taken to bee sound and true either by the Reformed Churches abroad or by the godly Brethren at home dead or living or yet by the most of the Brethren amongst whom they live and â—…old society or by any Minister and society holding the unity of the Spirit in the hand of peace thâ—…se 1400 years and upward unlesse within these few dayes and that by a few onely Answ Here is a great colour of Novelty and singularity objected to be in the grounds and reasons of the Letter used against conformity to the Liturgy but it is easie to conceive that the same common grounds of all Reformers may be justly carryed on against such further corruptions as they never â—…aw not attending their owne principles in such particulars as was said before of the first Reformers that purged out salt creame oyle c. not the crosse c. and so here it may fall out that as the Lord is pleased to let in more light in this or that particular corruption so upon common grounds it is rejected though yet but one or few apply those grounds to such a particular case Neither here was the number so few as is pretended when this Reply was drawn up or else at least it is much increased of late time since the Assembly and Parliament in England have so openly in their Directory witnessed against such stinted Formes and generally the Churches of Scotland renounced that Liturgy of yours as a piece of Popery Besides all the Orthodox Churches in New-England and Holland and many godly in England Reply As yet wee thinke most of them that have separated are not so farre gone as to condemne all our Assemblies as no Churches of Christ Answ By this you seeme to insinuate that notwithstanding our acknowledgement of your Churches and Ministery wee may justly bee accounted amongst those wee properly call Separatists but it is but your thought of most of them without ground contrary to their generall profession in their publique confessions and apologies And therefore we see no reason of it or that it toucheth us but passing these generalls let us come to the matter more particularly Reply Your judgement concerning the Position you deliver in three Propositions for so many they bee for substance in respect of the persons reading the Liturgie or the thing in selfe that is read as if any part of the Liturgie be read put case some few select prayers onely by an unable and ungodly Minister it is unlawfull say you for the people to joyne in that case But if unlawfull for the people to joyne when an ungodly Minister readeth some few select prayers it is either in respect of the Minister or the prayers themselves not of the Prayers themselves for they be select and choyce faultlesse in respect of matter and manner 〈◊〉 is taken for granted unlesse thâ—… distribution bee is no purpose if in respect of the Minister then it is not lawfull to joyne with such an one in any ordinance of God whatsoever In that you analyse our two Propositions into three we shall not contend but follow your method yet wee cannot but marvaile at the liberty that is taken in stating the first Proposition both leaving out and adding such things as will not stand with the termes in our Answer and indeed this is too frequent in divers places of this Reply which gives a great colour of strength unto the arguments but when they come to be scanned it will discover the impertinency of them For 1 Although the Answer distinguisheth of the Liturgie either of the whole or of some select prayers which may bee conceived to bee lesse offensive yet the application of this of select prayers is onely made in the second proposition of the Answer no way intended in the first Neither doth the Answer confesse those prayers as you say to bee choyce and faultlesse for matter and manner but which may bee conceived lesse offensive 2 Whereas the Proposition is of an unable and ungodly Minister such unlearned Idol-Priests that are countenanced and established by the Liturgie and can doe no more then read the same to the unspeakable hazard and ruine of a multitude of soules you carry along your arguments onely in the terme of an ungodly Minister which leaves out one chiefe ground of our proposition viz. unable To reduce therefore this proposition unto its true state which the answer puts it in which is thus If the question bee of joyning in prayer with and when that whole Liturgie is read or where that which is used viz. though not the whole is read by an unable and ungodly Minister wee see not how it can bee lawfull to joyne c. where that which is read by an unable and ungodly Minister cannot have reference to the select prayers but onely was put in to reach the whole case lest any should say may we not joyne therefore if they read not all as sometimes such doe not for haste to the Alehouse Beare-baitings c. And the case is so well known to our selves and others what the manner of such Priests is how farre they are from making any choyce of select prayers or having any skill indeed so to doe that if any bee more superstitious then others they would soonest choose them so that it was farre from our thoughts to impute it to them to read the select prayers onely The question being rightly stated the argument will halt very much For wee say it is unlawfull in both respects and the rather when jointly considered and therefore you should first have justified the whole Liturgy or so much as such Idol-Priests use to read to bee lawfull and also the standing and calling of those men before the argument can hold both which you have wholly left naked without proofe and argue onely about the lawfulnesse of joyning with an ungodly Minister in the Ordinances of God which will not reach this case If one should affirme it is unlawfull to goe to Mattens or Evensong when the whole is read or that which is read 〈◊〉 done by a popish Priest and you should answer then it is either because of the Prayers or the Priest Not the first for the prayers if select may bee good and faultlesse and not because of the Priest for then wee may never joyne with an ungodly Minister in the Ordinances of God
so judge of themselves but if any will hold to their membership in England and come orderly to communion with us we have not nor shall not under that notion refuse them if they be fit for the ordinances and therefore we exclude not the English Churches out of the number and herein we deal no otherwise with them then with the members of our owne Churches Reply All possible care to keep the ordinances of God from contempt we allow and commend so you deny not Church priviledges to whom they are due nor the name of Churches to such as God hath blessed with meanes of grace and have received the Tables and Seales and entred Covenant with God Your liberty to receive such satisfaction as is meet is not questioned nor whether you are to keep the bond of the spirit inviolable according to order but whether this be according to order to exclude from the Sacrament true visible Christians or known recommended Christians formerly members of visible Churches amongst us and their children and to put such difference between them and such as are in your Church order Answ 1 If the learned Author would hold to what here is granted we hope this controversie would soon be at an issue but it will appear after this order allowed binds onely in case of the Ministers to dispense Sacraments but Christians are left at a loose end in respect of combining themselves unto particular Churches according to the order of Christ which is the thing wee plead for 2 We have not denyed the name of Churches to such as are said to have plentifully the means of grace Tables Seales and Covenant 3 Concerning the stating of the question too much liberty is taken as in other cases for neither in the Position or in our Answer doe we limit the question to members in our Church order as here it is called but expresly extend the same to other Churches of Christ though through error or humane frailty defective in matters of order yea to the members of any true Church as in the Answer is said 2. Concerning such as come over and are for a time without Seales it is not because we refuse communion with them as being members of your Churches known or recommended Christians as you say For if any godly man remaining a member in any true Church with you or elswhere come so recommended or be well known to the Church we never under that notion refuse any but giving such other satisfaction as is meet shall readily receive them as we always professe and therefore we must still call for attendance to the state of this question in its right terms viz. whether the children of godly parents or themselves though of approved piety are to be admitted to the seales not being members of some particular Congregation or untill they be such CHAP. IV. Reply TO the first consideration If by the Church be understood the society of men professing the entire faith the seales are given to it as peculiar priviledges but if you understand a Congregationall assembly the seales were never appropriated to it Answ 1 Our meaning is plain in the second sense as may appear by the reasons alledged against any such universall Church as instituted and politicall wherein the seales are dispensed which reasons you answer not but grant there is no such Catholick Church in our sense pag. 21. And if no such Church wherein the seales are administred as we proved then the cause it self is yeelded and the seales must belong to particular Churches 2 Seeing the main hinge of this question turns upon this point to what Church the administration and participation of the seals belong wee shall a little further open our selves in this point And because we affect and study peace with truth we shall freely acknowledge First that as there is an invisible Church and Body of Christ consisting of all the elect effectually called throughout the world in all ages of it the whole family in heaven and earth so unto Jesus Christ all the visible beleevers and Churches of the world are as one body to him he governing protecting instructing all as his visible body Secondly we acknowledge a visible communion of all the true Churches of the Lord Jesus in all offices of brotherly love and in the holy things of Christ so far as may appear the Lord have ordained and commanded and by his Providence called them to exercise one with another Thirdly we grant that all true beleevers where-ever they bee have by faith in Christ a true right and interest unto Jesus Christ and all his benefits whatsoever he hath purchased for them but here we must first distinguish of these benefits of Christ whereof some are meerly spirituall inward and flowing immediately from Christ unto them and therefore peculiar to true beleevers as justification sanctification adoption accesse to God in prayer c. some are outward and tending to the help and furtherance of our spirituall communion with Christ being outward and visible meanes thereof and therefore are also extended to hypocrites being visible beleevers as the Ministery of the Word Seals Church-discipline c. And these cannot be dispensed by Christ immediately nor ordinarily but by means of a visible Church 2. We distinguish of right to these outward benefits of Christ which is either remote called jus ad rem or near and immediate called jus in re right to the enjoyment and fruition of it Now in the first sense we grant all visible beleevers have a right to seals c. But the immediate fruition of them they must have mediante Ecclesiâ visibili now here lyes the true state of the question Whether the Lord Jesus have ordained an universall visible Church in which and unto which by the Officers thereof all these outward visible priviledges and means of Grace are to be dispensed and immediately enjoyed of the faithfull or whether not the remote right but the immediate fruition and administration of all these ordinances by the institution of Christ be given to particular visible Churches and surely to whom one of these is given all are given For there is the same nature reason and use of all Ministry of the Word Seals Discipline all are outward ordinances priviledges means of Grace belonging to the visible Church where Christ hath given one he hath given all But we must confesse however you call this A new Church way it is new to us to read so much of late of such a Catholick Church to which administration of Seals Censures c. belong We are yet of the opinion of Baynes Parker and Cartwright c. that have against Papists and Prelates maintained that in the new Testament there is no instituted Catholick Nationall or Provinciall Church but onely the Church of a particular Congregation both for the reasons alledged in our Answer as also for the impossibility thereof in the days of the New Testament when the Lord Jesus sent his Apostles into all the world
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 1â—… 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 iâ—…pawn 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 veâ—…s 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 Râ—…imes 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 gregâ—…m pascimus As also that there is Episcopatus unus Ecclesia una in â—…oto mundo Hence also may appear an answer to divers arguments the chief whereof we shall run through Objection 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 Oare 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 Objection 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 he 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 judicialitâ—…r not to have communion with him for so one Church should exercise jurisdiction over all Churches and that without their actuall approbation for quod spectat ad 〈◊〉 debat ob 〈◊〉 approbari If it be said That a particular Church doth excommunicate by an intrinsecall power not onely in it self but intrinsicall in the whole body the question will be What is that intrinsicall power Is it naturall or voluntary To say it is naturall were too absurd it voluntary then neither Congregations Classes Provinces Nations have power to excommunicate without the previous consent of the whole Catholick church which must voluntarily concurr thereunto And if the Catholick Presbytery as 〈◊〉 said have no next but a a remote power of excommunication and this remote power bee extraordinary or rare contingens or almost never then the ordinary power of excommunication which is enough for us is not from an intrinsâ—…call 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 â—…ot the use of lesser and greater Synodâ—…
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 seales 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 sinewes 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 dâ—…num 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 errâ—… Now hence the question is moved Whether the power bee 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 itselfe 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
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 â—…ee 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 iâ—… 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 objâ—…cted 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 Lordlike power in regard of her Ministers Reply 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
A DEFENCE OF THE Answer made unto the Nine Questions or Positions sent from New-England Against the REPLY THERETO BY That Reverend servant of Christ Mr. JOHN BALL Entituled A Tryall of the New Church-way in New-England and in Old Wherin beside a more full opening of sundry particulars concerning Liturgies Power of the Keys matter of the visible Church c. is more largely handled that controversie concerning the Catholick visible Church tending to cleare up the Old-way of Christ in New-England Churches By Iohn Allin Pastor of Dedham Tho. Shepard Pastor of Cambridge in New-England Veritas nihil crubescit praeterquam abscondi Tertul. 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 R. Cotes for Andrew Crooke and are to be sold at the Green Dragon in Pauls Church-yard 1648. 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 discâ—…sse 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
the Church in neglecting them to goe immediately to the Classis and yet some of our Brethren at the requests of tender consciences might declare their judgement when no rule called them to write to their Pastors which perhaps were bitter persecutors or if better yet such as they had no knowledge of and if any by such writings did abstaine from the sacrament for such corruptions as their consciences would be defiled with no hinderance from us was in the way but that you might call them to account before the Church and convince and censure them if there were just cause which was the objection against Mr. P. in flying presently to the Classis CHAP. III. 2 Position That it is not lawfull to joyne in Prayer or receive the Sacraments where a stinted Liturgie is used Or as wee conceive your meaning to bee in this as in the former c. viz. where and when that stinted Liturgie is used Reply IF we mistake not your judgement and practise both you have born witnesse against both that you call the rigid separation and this more moderate also and wee humbly wish that the moderate doe not degenerate into the rigid ere long it is very strange if they take not great encouragement upon your grounds Answ If you will needs account not joyning in that stinted imposed Liturgy to bee a moderate separation wee must confesse we have witnessed against such separation yea not onely conformed to that corrupt Worship but also to divers of the Ceremonies thereof some of us with shame before the Lord may confesse it But we desire that may be no prejudice to the truth since discovered to us but wee have ever conceived that the separation witnessed against both by your selves and us have been such as to separate from the Churches of England as no true Churches the Ministery as no true Ministery their separations from corruptions in Doctrine and Worship their endeavour to enjoy all the ordinances of the Lord Jesus in purity if wee bee not mistaken your judgement and practise with ours have alwayes approved and the question now in hand is not about a new kinde of separation more moderate from the Churches and Ministery of England but whether the Liturgy of England be not indeed one of those corruptions in Worship which you and wee had need reject as well as the ceremonies and no longer conforme to the same And wee heartily wish that the growing endeavours of the godly after more purity of Worship and to bee purged from all the pollutions of the man of sinne bee not too rashly branded with the odium of separation and breach of peace and unity of the Church As for degenerating into the rigid separation wee think you need not feare it upon our principles no more then upon the common grounds of Non-conformists and you know what they inferre upon those principles now justly it concernes you to consider as well as 〈◊〉 but as it is truly observed in England it was the justification and pressing of ceremonies and other corruptions that drave many to separation not the endeavour of further Reformation so you may feare the too too much conformity of Ministers to humane impositions and justification of the Liturgie c. have and will more dangerously alienate godly minds from your Churches and Ministery and so drive to separation then all the principles and progresse of the godly in wayes of reformations and wee shall refer it to the judicious and common experience whether the discovery of the corrupt worship in the Liturgy or contrary conformity to it be the greater block of offence and strengthens the hands of the Separatists most which yet you after object unto us Wee suppose the Worthies of this renowned Parliament together with those of the reverend Assembly would not so soone have removed the whole frame and fabrick of this Book nor wholly stopped up this pit if building of battlements about it and keeping watchmen neare it to bid passengers take heed had been the readiest way to cure separation nor doe wee thinke that this reverend man of God would have been in more jealousie and feare of us if hee had considered how tenderly we returned our answer to the question then of those faithfull witnesses in Scotland who separated their lives into the hands of death rather then communicate in the use of this Booke and yet wee thinke they deserve a better place then to bee ranked so neare to the rigid separation notwithstanding for our selves we are heartily thankfull for what he humbly wisheth and for his jealousie over us so farre as it is godly but so farre as such wishes cast a cloud of evill suspition over us in the hearts of others as if we were going faster then we knew where to stay we wish humbly such words had been spared till some other time Concerning this distinction a letter of this subject is cited printed without the Authors knowledge that put a difference indeed between the reasons of the Separatists proper to them qua tales and other reasons used by himself common to others studious of Reformation To which we answer 1 That letter acknowledgeth no such distinction of separation rigid and moderate onely if you will a separation from Churches and separation from the sins and corruptions of Churches which latter is all we professe 2 Those Reasons which the letter ascribes to them qua tâ—…les will wee suppose bee found in their Books thus farre that the Prayers Preachings Sacraments c. are unlawfull because offered in a false Church by a false Ministery for the subjects of Antichrists kingdome That there should be no Separatists in the world because none it is said none plead against the Booke of Commonâ—…prayer as unlawfull because offered up in a false Church is strange to us that this learned Author should not read or observe the same exceeding frequently in the Separatists writings take but a taste in the first pages of Mr. Smith against Bernard in his parallels censures and observations his words pag. 9. are these Hee would prove that an erroneous constitution of a Church is a reall Idol and the prayers they offer with the prayers of the wicked comming from that false constitution are tainted with the Idolatry of that constitution And pag. 10. It is Idolatry to offer up service to God in a Church of a false constitution And pag. 13. Tell mee Mr. Bernard can there be a true Ministery true baptisme true faith true prayer true preaching and administring the supper true excommunication in a Church which is falsly constituted Did the Lord accept the sacrifice of the Church constituted by Jeroboam so page 14. A Church falsly constituted is not accepted of God neither are their actions ecclesiasticall as prayer preaching c. acceptable in the sight of God And againe a false Ministery Worship government may bee in a true Church through ignorance and the like but a true Ministery worship government cannot possibly bee in a
The answer would bee very imperfect and impertinent and just so it is here in the frame of the reason though the corruptions in that service and this be not alike we grant But before wee answer to the second part of your dis-junction let us consider a little here once for all the act 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 any godly 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 on one in any Ordinance 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 〈◊〉 in holding communion with such wheâ—â— 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 Phariseas 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 habet potestatem vel eligendi dignos Sacerdotes vel indignos recusandi yet the occasion of it is not so generally observed which is this Plebs obsequenâ—… praeceptis Dominicis Deum meâ—…uens à peccatore proposito separare se debet nec se ad sacrilegia sacerdotis sacrificia iniscere cum 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 or 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
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. Objection 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
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 Galilee 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. Objection 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 Objection 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 Objection 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 joyned 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 not 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
of God and where there is a Covenant there is the people of God c. Answ This assertion seems to us very strange to fall from that reverend and learned Author being a foundation of many inconveniences and absuâ—…dities and tending to overthrow the order of Christ in his visible Churches For First if this be so that every Society in Covenant with God be the Church of God then men may set up as many Forms of visible Churches as they please if the people be in Covenant with God visibly at least the Archdeacon with his Commissary Priests Churchwardens c. being in Covenant with God are a true Church So the Diocesan Bishop in his Cathedrall with his Clergy or any such Assembly are the Church of God or what other form-soever men will devise may goe for the Church of God and to them belong the seals and you may as wel say discipline and all Ordinances of God if they bee the true Church Secondly upon this ground every company of godly Christistians in Covenant with God meeting in fasting prayer c. are the true Church of God and to them as such the sealâ—… belong and sending for a true Minister of the Catholick church they may have Baptism and the Lords-supper administred and by the same reason discipline also yea if but two or three as you say being in Covenant with God meet together in their travail at an Inne c. are the Church of God especially every Christian family iâ—… the Church for they professe the entire faith joyn daily in prayer and thanksgiving receive the truth of God to dwell amongst them are in some measure obedient unto the commandâ—… of God and in Covenant with God And therefore being the Church of God why not call for a Minister and have seals ordinarily dispensed to them Thirdly upon this ground a company of Christian Women in Covenant with God are a Church to whom the seal â—… belong and who sees not how all orderly dispensation of Gods Ordinances and the whole order of visible Churches in the Gospel would be overturned by this assertion We verily beleeve this Author was far from admitting these things but the Position it self will unavoidably enforce the same Neither can we impute this assertion to any inconsideratenesse through heat of disputation For if any shall maintain the personall Covenant of people with God to be sufficient to constitute visible Churches and not admit a necessity of a more publick or generall Covenant explicite or implicite whereby a company of Christianâ—… are made one people joyning in one Congregation to worship God in his holy Ordinances and walk together in his wayâ—… they must of necessity acknowledge every Society in Covenant with God to be a Church as here is said and therefore admit all forms of Churches and all Families c. to be Churches and so bring in the confution objected which we desire may well bee considered All your Arguments stand upon that ground of personall covenant with God which is too weak to bear up that conclusion to make all such visible Churches to whom the seals belong as the absurd consequences thereof shew These Reasons and the Scriptures in the margent some of them will prove them fit matter for visible Churches and that they have a remote right unto the seals of that Covenant which we grant but they will not prove every Society of such to bee true Churches having immediate right to have the seals dispensed unto them Reply Fifthly If it be graâ—…ted that the seals are the prerogative of particular visible Churches known and approved Christians amongst us are members of such Churches and so to be esteemed amongst you c. and every visible beleever professing the pure entire faith admitted to the right and lawfull participation of the sacraments is a visible member of the true Church if he hath neither renounced the Society nor deserved justly to be cast out by excommunication or Church censure c. And if known and approved Christians members of our Churches comming to New-England shall desire to have their children baptized or themselves admitted to the Lords-supper before they be set members amongst you we desire to know upon what grounds from God you can deny them if you acknowledge our Churches Ministery and Sacraments to be true as you professe and the members of the Church be known and approved orderly recommended unto you Answ We grant all this here expressed for the substance however some reasons spoken unto before intermixed we passe over and to your question we frame a ready answer from your own words For first you grant that if such members have renounced that Society wherein they did partake of the seals they are not to be reputed members of it and this is generally the case of all approved Christians among us who though they doe not so renounce the Churches that bare them and gave them suck as no true Churches yet seeing they were grown so corrupt many ways as they could neither enjoy some needfull Ordinances nor partake in those they had without sin they have therefore renounced and forsaken all further communion with them and membership in them and so by your own grant neither themselves nor the Churches here can take them as members of your Churches to receive them under that respect Secondly if any yet have not so far renounced those Churches they belonged unto yet they are not orderly recommended unto us which also you grant ought to be and indeed otherwise we may oft receive persons justly excommunicate or such as are no members of Churches any where or otherwise under great offence as frequent examples amongst our selves doe sheâ—…e though the Church may think well of such as offer themselves What else follows in this Paragraph is the same in substance and much of it in words also that we have answered before and therefore we passe it over and that of the Jewish Church we shall speak to after As for that you desire leave to set down and us to examine what may be objected against that we affirmed That the distinct Churches named in the New Testament were Congregationall Societies we shall consider as followeth Reply The number of beleevers were so great in some Cities that they could not conveniently meet in one place as one Assembly to worship God according to his will and for their edifying as in Samaria Jerusalem Antioch Ephesus Answ Although we expected not Objections in this case against the currant Tenent of our godly Reformers Baine Parker c. with whom we joyn and we might refer you to them for answer to this beaten Objection of the Prelates yet we are not unwilling to examine what is said in this digression The Argument stands thus If the number of beleevers were so great in some City as could not meet in one Assembly to edification then there was some other form of a Church besides Congregationall But so it was in Samaria c. Answ
We deny the consequences for when they grew to so great a number they might fall into more Congregationall Churches and so no other form arise from the multitude but we suppose you mean of such a multitude as is called a Church and therefore to answer to your Assumption we deny that any such multitude of beleevers as is here called a Church were so great as could not meet to edification And first concerning Samaria Reply That there was a Church gathered in Samaria will not be denyed for they received the Word and were baptized but that the Church in that City was onely a Congregationall Assembly is more then can probably be concluded Answ We grant a Church or Churches were gathered in Samaria and we accept your reason as good because they received the Word and were baptized whâ—…e by the way you grant what we pleaded for before That the Apostles gathered Churches when they baptized them but that there was but one Congregationall Assembly lyes not in 〈…〉 prove untill you prove that all the beleevers were called a Church or one Church which doth not appear in the whole story 〈…〉 nor any other where that we can finde and it is very probable that as Philip converted and baptized so great a multitude at severall times and gathered them into the Church or Churches as he baptized them so he might gather severall Churches as well as one seeing that none doubt but that Congregationall Churches 〈◊〉 an ordinance of Christ what ever men contend for beside And therefore be the number of beleevers in Samaria as great as you would have it it proves nothing Reply The Church at Jerusalem was one and distinct yet encreased to 3000 then to 5000 c. Answ Be it so the increase was very great yet so long as they are called one distinct Church it was one Congregation viz. untill they scattering by the persecution about Stephen Acts. 7.8 which is evident by these two arguments First Acts 2.41 c. where we see the 3000 added to the 120. they have their communion together described 1 In regard of their spirituall communion to be in the Apostles doctrine fellowship breaking of bread and Prayer verse 42. Secondly in regard of their outward communion in the good things of this life they had all things common and sold their possessions c. verse 44 45 Now the manner of both parts of this communion in respect of time and place is described verse 46. viz. in their spirituall duties They continued daily with one accord in the Temple And secondly in respect of their outward communion in their States They eat their meat from house to house this latter requiring many tables and many houses to provide for them so that although in their outward communion it was in private houses yet their spirituall communion it was with one accord in one place viz. the Temple where they had room enough being the place erected for a Nationall Church and having favour with all the people were not interrupted therein by any persecution We need not step out of our way to reply to all that is said against this reason It is enough for us to note that they daily with one accord 〈◊〉 and that in the Temple which is not ansâ—…ered by any 〈…〉 2 This appeareth Acts â—… 1 5. where it is evident the election of Deacoâ—â— was before and by the multitude verse 1. by the whole multitude verse 5. and this was the last Church-meeting and Church act we read of before their scattering neither can â—…t appear that the Jews and â—…recians whose Widows murmured were two distinct Congregations but the contrary is evident in that the Deacons were chosen al by the whole and for the whole not distinctly so many for this and so many for that Church as it was needful if they were two Churches These proofe being so clear the inconveniences objected are of no force and sufficiently answered by many examples of as great Assemblies meeting ordinarily to edification as beside the Auditory of Chrysostome cited by others the Assemblies of Stepney in London Yarmouth in Norfolk and others in our experience Beza a man not loving to hyperbolize saith that being in Paris there met at a Sermon 24000. And of a Synodall Assembly that they received the Lords supper no lesse then 10000. Beza Epist. 65. Reply Without question the number of beleevers at Antioch was not small of which it is expresly said That a great number beleeved and that a great multitude were added to the Lord by the preaching of Barnabas c. and therefore we may think the Church rose to such aâ—… bignesse as could not well assemble in one Congregation Acts 11.21 14.27 Answ 1 In that place Acts 11.21 the great number that beleeved was the fruit of all the scattered Christians at Phenice Cyprus and Antioch for the hand of the Lord was with them all and their whole successe is summed up together nothing said before of the other places 2 Though Paul and Barnabas taught much people yet it proveth not that this much people were converted to the Church 3 Though much people were added to the Lord yet doth it follow they were more then could meet in one Congregation and if first Disciples were there called Christians must it needs be for their number and not rather for eminent likeness to Christ with other specialities of providence 4 It is expresly said the Church was gathered together Acts 14.27 which is not meant of the Elders onely as if they onely could meet for Chap. 15.30 They gathered the multitude together so that it was noâ—… 〈…〉 but 〈…〉 to gâ—…ther in 〈◊〉 place Reply The number of beleevers was great at Ephesus where Paul preached two years all that dwelt 〈…〉 heard 〈…〉 and effectuall ways open 〈…〉 the 〈…〉 of Diâ—…na her Temple were in danger to be seâ—… aâ—…â—…ought 〈◊〉 those 〈…〉 burnt their books openly which could not 〈…〉 great danger of the Church unlesse a great part of the City had 〈◊〉 Acts 19.10 19 27. Answ 1 Be it so that many were converted and the Word grâ—…w mightily this proves not thâ—â— all who heard Paul were of the Church of Ephesus for then all 〈◊〉 should be of that Church Acts 19.10 who did hear the Word 〈◊〉 Jewe and Gentiles As for the danger of the Shrines and Diana's Temple to be set at nought a little spark might â—…indle such fears and raise such out-cryes in the covetous Craftsmen by whom the whole City was see in a superstitious 〈◊〉 our own experience may teach how soon a prophane people will cry our against a faithfull Minister before he hath converted ten 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 not professe openly except they had a great number to maintain them with club-law open profession in those times
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 such 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 same 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 hold the right proportion in the persons may appearâ—… First in that as was granted Circumcision sealed the entrance into the Covenant but this Covenant was not simply and onely the Covenant of grace but that whole Covenant that was made with Abraham whereby on Gods part they were assured of many speciall blessings whereof Lot and others not in this Covenant with Abraham were not capable and whereby Abraham his seed and family were bound for their part to be a people to God and to observe this signe of the Covenant which others in the Covenant of grace were not bound to Answ Secondly as is granted it was Abraham and his houshold and the seed of beleeving Jewes that were the persons to bee Circumcised and therefore not visible beleevers as such for then Lot had been included so by right proportion not all visible beleevers as such but such as with Abraham and his family are in visible Covenant to bee the people of God according to the institution of Churches when and to which the seale of Baptisme is given and therefore as all family Churches but Abrahams being in a new forme of a Church were excluded so much more such as are in no visible constituted Church at all Reply Secondly As for the proposition it selfe certaine it is Circumcision and the Passeover were to bee administred onely to the visible members of the Church i. e. to men in Covenant professing the true faith but that in Abrahams time none were members of the visible Church which joyned not to Abrahams family wee have not learned Answ The proposition wee see is granted yet it is obscured divers wayes to which wee answer First whereas it is said these members of the Church were men in Covenant professing the true faith True but where not in any place but in the Church of Abrahams family and so after in the Church of Israel Secondly what faith not onely faith in the Messiah for life and salvation but withall faith in the promises made to
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 the baptized person and so to be esteemed of them Now the privilâ—…dge 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
exposition of this Text wee have not observed one substantiall ground or approved author to bee alledged Dr. Ames shewing the necessitie of Christians joyning themselves to some peculiar Church giveth this reason Quoniam alias fieri non potest quin conturbentur signa illa quibus fideles ab infidelibus discerni possunt 1 Cor. 5.12 But herein Dr. Ames manifestly sheweth that by them without heathens and unbeleevers must be understood and not beleevers though of no setled society for the time for thus wee conceive hee argueth The signes whereby the faithfull are to bee discerned from unbeleevers must not bee confounded but unlesse Christians make themselves actuall members of a Church the signes whereby the faithfull are discerned from unbeleevers will bee obscured and darkned and if this be his reason how can that Text bee alledged unlesse by men without infidels bee understood Answ First That we have reasons to alledge it in that sense and respect declared may appeare by our answers to your objections Secondly That wee have one approved authour so alleadging it viz. Doctor Ames shall appeare in cleering his meaning from your objections 1. Grant that by men without according to Doctor Ames his reason Infidels be understood by the Apostle yet how shall the signes discerning beleevers from unbeleevers bee confounded by such as joyne not to some particular Church if those beleevers doe not in some respect stand without amongst unbeleevers and the consequence is so plaine that the owne Syllogisme whereinto you cast his argument would have concluded so much if it had been suffered to speake out in the conclusion For in stead of saying except such joyne to some Church the signes will be darkned and obscured the reason rightly concluded would have said fieri non potest it cannot bee but the signes will bee confounded and therefore in his judgement it is unavoidablâ—… that such mix themselves with unbeleevers that are without indeed properly in the Apostles sense Reply Againe Doctor Ames lib. 4. cap. 17. speaking of Infants to be received saith it is required first that they be in the Covenant of Grace by outward profession c. Answ What you alledge here out of Doctor Ames wee confesse sheweth that hee was very large in his charity about the baptizing of Infants extending the same to the child of a Papist c. but it may seeme by some passages that hee understood by profession of faith such as live in the visible Churches and lookes at the child of a Papist as one of a visible Church for substance though so exceedingly corrupt but all this do not disprove that he understood 1 Cor. 5.12 otherwise then hath been said What you alledge out of his second Manuduction concerning the Churches of England we consent unto neither doe wee deny seales to any if they demand them as members of any true Church in England and in an orderly way CHAP. X. Consid 5. Reply TO the first consideration If it bee repugnant to divine institution to admit of approved Christians lawfully baptized walking in the faith members of the visible Churches and partakers of Church priviledges amongst us to the Lords Supper or their children to baptisme because they bee not entered into Church-fellowship according to your order then it is unlawfull though no such evill consequences are to bee feared but if by accident some abuse should fall out the evill is to bee prevented by all lawfull meanes but the faithfull are not to be debarred utterly of the order of God whereto they have right and title by his free grant and gracious institution Answ Wee cannot but still complaine of this liberty which is taken in changing the termes of the question First that clause Members of visible Churches is not in the poâ—…ition nor is it maintained by us in that sense neither doe wee limit Church-fellowship to our order as it is called but acknowledge Churches defective in matters of order as was said in the answer and therefore it is an apparent wrong to us and to the readers so oft to put in such things as are not in the controversie Secondly If it bee unlawfull by divine institution may not evill consequences bee added and if both hold are not our reasons the more strong What needeth then such a Reply Thirdly We have oft granted a remote right but next and immediate we still deny and wee conceive no other order of God in his Churches to prevent such evils then by joyning to the instituted Churches of Christ Reply Seals may bee prophaned when the dispensers cannot helpe it but here is no feare or danger of such consequences necessary to follow for wee speake not of all sorts at randome but of Christians professing the faith intirely lawfully baptized knowne and approved to the wise and judicious visible members of the Churches amongst us sufficiently known to you or orderly recommended c. Answ The feare and danger in this case is more then so farre off can easily bee discerned though the limitations bee good in themselves yet the application of this description in the first part of it would open a doore wider then many can imagine for many such in the judgement even of the wisest comming into this state of temptations prove farre otherwise even your selves being Judges if you were here wee suppose the experience of the discoveries God hath made in these late trials of England amongst forward professors will teach our brethren to consider how many professors may prove here Yet secondly if you add such as retaining their membership in your Churches are recommended unto us by your Churches or by known godly Ministers wee can then according to order receive them and avoid the confusion and inconveniences wee objected Thirdly if also it be taken into the description knowne and sufficiently approved of our selves then the doore is open to them to the communion of the Church and all the priviledges thereof though they cannot settle in the place of their present abode and this way of order would prevent the inconveniences but if wee come to put a difference any other way wee cannot avoid it but great offence will be given to many and the inconveniences objected in some degree at least will follow here with us and it may be much more in some other places Reply You professe high respect to your brethren in Old England but it seemes you judge them insufficient to give you orderly testimony of the sincerity of approved Christians well known and living amongst them which two cannot well agree Answ This Position holds forth no such judgement of the insufficiency of our Brethren in the case neither have we shewed it by rejecting such orderly testimony that we know Reply Wee speake not of such who against light refuse to professe subjection to the Gospell of Christ or to joyne to some approved Church c. Answ Neither doe wee impute that to all that joyne not unto us but our meaning is that under such a
description of approved Christians we shall bee necessitated to admit of some if not many such Reply No question but many have been admitted by the Church who in truth are much too light and some refused who are better deserving then they that cast them off Answ Bee it so that through personall failings and weaknesse of discerning it may and doe fall out sometimes yet this no way hinders but that all lawfull meanes to prevent the same may and ought to be used and this we may before the Lord professe that the purpose and desire of our hearts are as well to embrace the weakest humble Christian as to keepe out the proud Pharisee and wee have seen a gracious presence of Christ in his Churches blessing our indeavours therein whatsoever any discontented persons returning back may clamour to the contrary CHAP. XI Consid 6. Reply TO the sixt consideration this conclusion is not to the question propounded for wee speake of such as cannot not of such as refuse to joyne themselves to the Churches or if they doe not joyne it is not out of contempt or wilfull neglect but for lacke of opportunity or through their default that should admit them but doe not Answ The learned Authour hâ—…re wholly mistakes the conclusion of this argument the conclusion is plaine and expressed with the ordinary note Ergo no christian can expect by the appointment of God to partake in the seales till he hath joyned himselfe in Church-fellowship and in the call of the Minister and this is fully to the question propounded and wee marvelâ—… it should not be observed but the last words of the answer should bee put in stead of it which are onely a secondary deduction from the former as an absurdity which may follow if the other be not granted And yet hence occasion is taken to charge us with injurious and tyrannical dealing toward such as are not admitted which we leave to the Lord to judge of and of us You say you accuse not the discretion of our Churches but impute it to the rashnesse of the zealous multitude but if it were so practised as is conceived the Churches and their guides should shew little wisedome and faithfulnesse to the Lord and the soules of his people Reply When a reason is demanded of your judgement why you debarre approved Christians from the seales and we dislike it you should put this note upon them as if against light they refused orderly to subject themselves to the Gospell of Christ What warrant you have thus to censure what use of this manner of dispute we leave it to your godly wisedome to judge Answ Wee are heartily sorry that this reverend man of God out of a meere and palpable mistake of the conclusion of the dispute should runne out to condemne us for so much câ—…nsoriousnesse of others without cause whether our manner of dispute bee here so without use wee leave to the judicious reader to judge And that wee are far from such censures of godly approved Christians amongst us wee can approve our selves to God and the consciences of many that live amongst us wee doe not say that all who doe not joyne with us doe refuse against light yet wee finde it true too oft that forward professors in England here discover evidently an heart refusing against light to submit to Gods ordinances and therefore wee had cause to say it were unreasonable such should have equall liberty with others Reply In the consideration it selfe there are many propositions couched to be examined the first That none have power to dispense seales but such as are called to the Ministry is freely granted The second That no man can be so called till there bee a Church to call him needeth explication For by the Church you must understand the community of the faithfull as they are one body without officers and such a Church there cannot be without a ministry to call and admit them into Church fellowship Answ This consideration shines with such clearenesse that an impartiall eye may easily see that the truth by sundry diverticâ—…lâ—… iâ—… rather clouded then the argument fairely answered This second proposition being too plaine to bee denied interpretationâ—… are sought but they are rather objections to which wee shall answer in order First though wee grant the Lord ordinarily gathered Churches by the ministry of men in Office as the Apostles Evangelists c. yet not alwayes so as is evident Acts 11.20 2â—… The story of Waldus is well knowne and we suppose you will grant those Waldenseâ—… the name of a true Church Origen when hee was not allowed of the Church to bee a Ministeâ—… yet converted many who died Martyrs The story also of Frumentius is well known with divers others Secondly Ministers by Office are of two sorts either such as are called immediatly or mediatly such as were immediatly and extraordinarily called were before Churches and were called together and begin Churches as the Apostles Matth. 28.20 Act. 1.8 But all ordinary officers that are to administer in a Church doe necessarily presuppose a Church to call them unlesse any will adventure to say in plaine English that the calling of a Minister may bee without the antecedent election of the people and then wee shall finde what to Reply Reply The Apostles â—…aptized not themselves but by the helpe of others and those not called of the people to baptize 1 Cor. 1.17 Answ Bee it so that in Corinth Paul baptized not many but by others yet first we demand By whom did Paul and the Apostles baptize It was either by Evangelists and so it is all one as if the Apostles as extraordinary officers did it or by the Pastors newly chosen and ordained in the Churches newly gathered who might baptize the rest and then the Church was before such officers or else by private persons which is denyed expresly in the Reply to the first proposition Reply The Apostles appointed by election Elders in every City or Church and so there was a Church before Elders but this Church was a society of beleevers by Baptisme admitted into Church fellowship and therefore there must be Ministers to 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 sâ—â—les unto the
English Churches and we deny not the same in an orderly way as they also required Testimony of their piety if any did but present a child to baptisme in their Church Wee have often professed this and by your owne grant most of the approved Christians amongst us are not members of the English Churches having renounced their right of membership and Commuion with the Church they were of there Reply Thirdly This order was observed by them to prevent the impostures of some that pretended to the English they were joyned to the Strangers contra Answ This was not the onely reason of their order for his words are All strangers doe not joyne themselves to our Church yea there are those that avoiding all Churches c. which plainely sheweth they looked further then such according to our practise even their owne country men fled for religion as we are they yet received them not till by publike profession of faith and subjection to discipline they joyned themselves to some Congregationall Church Secondly this sheweth what disorder and abuse of ordinances will follow from such a liberty to admit such as are not joyned to some Church for by this meanes many will neglect all order and discipline if they may but have the seales Thirdly to put all out of question that their practise and judgement in effect was the same with ours in this point note the first question propounded by them Are these Infants which you offer the seed of this Church that they may lawfully be here baptized by our Ministery CHAP. XIII THus farre wee have answered to the Reply made to the considerations in our answer to the 3. and 4. positions Now whereas wee tooke notice of three objections against our first consideration and answered the same It pleaseth the learned authour to take up onely two of them and with much inlargement to urge the same as his reasons against the positions and to apply our answers thereunto by which meanes our answers to the objections briefly set downe may seeme not so apt and full here as they would appeare in their proper places and therefore it will bee needfull for us to inlarge our selves somewhat in answering some passages at least in the reasons as they are here propounded before we come to the Reply Reply Reason 1. That sacred order God hath set in his visible Church c. Answ These words with all that follow whatever they may seeme to carry with them are nothing but a bare denyall of the positions in variety of expressions Reply For first The baptisme of John was true baptisme c. but hee never demanded of those hee received whether they were entered into Church Covenant c. Answ This wee had in substance before and is answered with all the other instances in this first reason in our answer to the Reply to the first consideration and in other places and therefore in vaine here to repeat the same And wee have observed more then once your plaine confession that the Apostles constituted Churches by baptisme even such Churches as they set Elders in by the election of the people Reply The second reason in substance is this because from Christ and the constant practise of the Apostles we learne that such as are called of God received the holy Ghost beleeve in the Lord professe their faith in him with repentance and amendment of life have a right to baptisme and desiring it are wronged if they bee deprived thereof Answ We grant the whole but as it is supposed in due order they must receive it so wee desire no more for wee grant upon these common grounds such have jus ad rem but not jus in re and the immediate fruition of them Reply Thirdly By a lively faith a man hath internal Communion with Christ by profession of the intire faith joyned with conformity of life in righteousnes holinesse and fellowship of love hee is a member of the visible Congregation or flock of Christ though no set member of a free Independent society and baptisme is a seale of our admission into the flocke of Christ not ever more but by accident of our receiving into a particular Congregation Answ This reason stands upon such a sense of the Catholik Church as cannot be found and it was before confessed that the Catholick Church consisteth of all true particular Churches as the parts of it And therefore how can a man be visibly a member of the whole and belong to no part thereof Secondly We deny not but such have a right to be in the particular Church and so to baptisme and all ordinances but as by such profession they are not members of any particular Church so neither have they immediate right to the priviledges thereof without admittance into the same Fit matter such are for a particular visible Church that professe the intire faith c. But it doth not admit them actually thereunto and your owne expression secretly implyeth as much when you say baptisme is a seale of our admission into the Church or flocke of Christ If baptisme bee the seale of our admission then there is an admission thereunto before baptisme but who doth admit and where and when is any admitted to the Church but in particular Congregations Can any bee admitted into a Church that whole Church being ignorant thereof but a man may professe the intire faith and live accordingly amongst the Heathen where neither any Church nor member of it take knowledge thereof and therefore bare profession doth not admit men but make them fit to bee received and admitted into the visible Church Your fourth Reason wee have had twice before and answered the same Reply To our answer of the first objection from the Instances of the Centurion Lydia the Jailour and the Eâ—…nuch First If where the holy Ghost is given and received and faith professed according to Gods Ordinance there none may hinder from being baptized scil by such as have power to baptize them then either such are members of the Church or baptisme is not a priviledge of the Church then it is not essentiall to baptisme in the first institution that it should bee dispensed to none but members of a Congregationall assembly Answ It is freely granted First That baptisme is a priviledge of the Church Secondly that such as professe the faith and have received the Holy Ghost are members of the Church if by Church â—…ee 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
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 â—…it meerely as a moderator in the Churches of Christ which wee utterly disclaime And also to make way for our more cleare answer to what is objected here in the Reply Wee grant therefore the first argument and the conclusion thereof thus farre that the officiall power of the Keys was not given to the whole multitude but onely there is given to them a power to choose Officers which Officers should execute the same Reply 2 If Christ gave this power to the community was it from the beginning of the Church or tooke it effect after the Church was planted Not the first for then the Apostles themselves should derive their power from the community which they did not Answ This reason is answered before so farre as concernes our tenent in the second consideration where it is alledged to which wee referre the Reader neither doe wee say the officiall power is so given to the community but such things as are here added wee shall consider so farre as concernes us Reply The Apostles and other Governours were given of Christ to the Church as for their end and all their authority was given unto them for the Church as for the whole but the authority it selfe was immediatly derived from Christ and is not in the Church as the immediate subject nor derived from the Church but from Christ the King of the Church The authority of Governour is given of Christ for a gift to the Church but not a gift absolute That it may reside in the power of the whole Church but for a conditionall gift communicated to the Governours for the good of the whole Parker pol. lib. 3. cap. 8. Answ 1 Concerning the power of the Apostles and extraordinary Officers wee now dispute not it was answered before and for the authority of other Officers wee doe not affirme that it is derived from the Church but from Christ for the good of the Church but if the question bee of the application of an Office and the power of it to such and such persons in the Church wee would demand whether Christ doth this to such a Pastour and Teacher immediatly or mediatly if immediatly then their call is not in this different from Apostles which Paul expresly distinguisheth Gal. 1.1 Paul was an Apostle not of man nor by man but of God and by Jesus Christ false Teachers are of man and by man True Pastors as Thomas Iohn c. are of God by man and if Christ communicate this Office and the authority annexed unto it mediatly by man not immediatly the question is Who is the subject of this power to call and so to apply this office in the name of Christ to this or that person John Thomas c. Wee hold this fraternall ministeriall power under Christ
conclusion as for Mr. Robinson though wee doe not approve the sentence 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. Answ Fourthly if the Power of the Keyes be given first and immediatly to the community of the faithfull what reason can bee alleadged why in defect of Officers the Church might not rule feed bind loose preach and administer Sacraments or if any faile in Office why shee might not supply that want by her power for the power of the Keys doth containe both authority and exercise power being given that it may bee exercised as it is vouchsafed but the Church cannot exercise these acts of rule Ergo. Answ The reason is because the Church hath not received some of the Keyes formally but onely vertually and as was said out of Parker not as a gift absolute but conditionall that it might bee communicated to the Officers Such power as the body of the Church hath received formally shee may and doth exercise as a power of choosing Officers a power of judging in censures 1 Cor. 5.12 and the like the power of preaching properly so called dispensing Sacraments c. being acts of authority the Church hath them onely vertually and therefore must choose Officers to whom Christ her Lord hath given authority in the Church A Corporation that by Patent from the King hath many Priviledges the power is given to the Body incorporated and so it is the first subject of it yet many acts cannot be put forth but by Officers duely chosen and so here Reply For these Reasons not to insist on any more wee judge the community of the faithfull not to bee the immediate receptacle of ecclesiasticall authority and so the Power of excommunication not to belong unto them Answ By this conclusion it appeares that how ever the author began professedly against us as Separatists in this point yet he followes the cause against Mr. Parker with whom hee seemes to be friends Secondly the power of excommunication may belong to the Church or community in respect of a fraternall power of judging though officiall authority bee not formally given to the Church but to the Officers Reply If consent of Churches bee asked in this point to omit others the Churches of Scotland speake fully and expresly for us in the second booke of Discip Cap. 1. The Church as it is taken for them that exercise spirituall functions in the Congregation of them that professe the truth hath a certaine power granted of God according to which it useth a proper jurisdiction c. Beza de Presb. pag. 60. Helv. Confess Cap. 18. Belgick c. Answ If consent of the learned godly and zealous reformers were asked a cloud of witnesses might bee produced that hold the Church the first subject of the Keyes as Fulke Whitaker Parker Peter Martyr Musculus and others besides many of the ancient Divines and Councells Gerson and the Parisian Divines well known to the learned concerning quotation of the Scottish discipline the first words lay so weake a foundation as leave the building ready to fall in these words The Church as it is taken for them that exercise spirituall functions hath a certaine power c. but where is the Church so taken not in all the New Testament that can be proved with any solid Reason notwithstanding all wrastling of men to find it out but generally for the company of the faithfull either the universall or particular Church and this sometime considered with her Officers and divers times as distinguished from them as Acts 14.23 and 20.13.28 Jam. 5.14 Revel 2.1.8.12 c. but never contra for the Officers distinguished from the Church or body of the Congregation and therefore if the Keyes be given to the Church and the plea of the power of the Keyes to be given immediatly to the Officers be in and under the name of the Church it will fall to the Church of the faithfull if the Scripture may judge indeed among the Papists and so the Prelates the Clergy have long got and held possession of the name of the Church but the testament of Christ will not beare this foundation but wee will not trouble the Reader farther about humane testimonies CHAP. XV. Position 6. THat none are to bee admitted Members but they must promise not to depart or remove unlesse the Congregation will give leave Reply It is one thing abruptly to breake away when and whither they please and forsake fellowship another thing not to depart or remove habitation unlesse the Congregation will give leave also it is one thing mutually to compound and agree not to depart from each other without consent and approbation and other to require a promise of all that be admitted into societie that they shall not depart without the Churches allowance if such a promise be required of all members to bee admitted wee cannot discerne upon what grounds your practise is warranted Answ Wee are still inforced to cleare our answer from mistakes for it seemes the answer left it doubtfull whether wee doe not hold the position affirmatively and in practise require such a promise as a part of our Church Covenant of all that are admitted and therefore to cleare the case more fully wee shall first minde the Reader with the true meaning of the answer and then adde what is needfull to take away the scruples and first the answer saith that wee judge it expedient and most according to rule that brethren should not forsake fellowship c. but in removalls approve themselves c. Now this is farre short of what the position affirmes for first that none
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 themselves 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 man 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. Answ 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.
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 â—…amilies 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 medale in election and ordination of their Teachers and therefore the prâ—…position is not so evidâ—…nt 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 theâ—â—â—ore 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 mâ—…mbers 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 beâ—… said of such as have not joyned themselves to any Church and therefore wee deny tâ—…at 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 nâ—…ver 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 certaine 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 eâ—…communicate 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 wâ—…nt out Thirdly were not the Catechumâ—…ni of old in this respect without and the lapsed in times of persecution and the likeâ—… 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 anywhere 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 believers 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 corrupâ—… 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 〈…〉 shall â—…ee without 〈◊〉 that is not 〈…〉 of the particular combination 〈…〉 reformed Churches that ascribe the 〈…〉 and not to the community and some amongst 〈…〉 also And therefore wee 〈…〉 approved Christ 〈…〉 are either without or not capable of Church censures if they offenâ—… though no set members for 〈…〉 themselves 〈…〉 ordinances for a time and 〈…〉 â—…ffending 〈◊〉 Answ This objection hath no colour without extreame straining of our application oâ—… 1 Cor 5 1â—… seeing 〈◊〉 never limited the position to Churches of the same judgemenâ—… or in like degree of order to ours it is onely a forced 〈◊〉 which is cast upon us but wee can 〈…〉 our brethren â—…andâ—… neither doe we know any Church oâ—… 〈◊〉 that 〈◊〉 the power of the Keys to the Presbytery or Classiâ—… excluding the community amongst us Secondly for that objection that such puâ—… 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 〈◊〉 deâ—…iâ—…ing of seales doth include such a subjection in it selfe being 〈◊〉 for this or that act of administration wee cannot understand but let this bee really made good that defiting seales it being a way that subjects themselves to the Church as members and the case will bee issued being understood of such approved Christians as the position speakes of Lastly to proceed against such as aâ—… not members or of another Church as with an offending member of our owne is not much unlike the proceedings of Victor in his contentious time or may sow the seeds of such usurpations which wee leave to the godly wise to consider of Reply Tenthly If upon good reason a passage of Scripture can bee cleared to prove that for which it was never alleadged by any writer wee are not to except against it for want of mans testimony onely in such cases our reasons must bee convincing but for the