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
c. as flow from his spirituall relation unto them yea and also he hath a true right to all benefits purchased by Christ in a due order and manner yet we say instituted priviledges and ordinances doe not immediately flow from spirituall union and relation to Christ and his members but are dispensed by Christ to his people mediately and in such an order as he hath in wisdome ordained and this the nature of visible government and ordinances of Christ necessarily requires And hence it is that although the Church in its nature and essence and in respect of its spirituall union and relation to Christ and one another profession of the same faith c. have been always one and the same in all ages yet both the visible government and ordinances of Worship and also the instituted form and order of Church-societies hath been various according to the wisdome and will of Christ whereby it appears that the order government forms of visible Church-societies to which actuall enjoyment of visible ordinances doe belong cannot justly be deduced from the common nature of the Church Cathoilck or any respects of reason or logicall notions under which it may fall but onely this depends upon the will and pleasure of Christ who hath in all ages instituted the forms and orders of such Societies to whom the actual enjoyment of instituted ordinances was given And hence the argument for a nationall form of a Church to be in the New Testament as wel as in the Old drawn from the common nature essence profession of faith c. of the Church in all ages falls flat to the ground for by the same reason it must then be in families onely now as it was about Abrahams time Proposition 6 Hence it follows that the true state of this great dispute about a Catholick Church so far as tends to clear up to what Church the actuall administration of Church-government and all instituted Worship belongs doth not lye in the consideration of the common nature essence unity visibility or any other notions under which it may fall but the true state lyes here concerning the nature order form of such visible Societies as Christ Jesus by Divine institution in the Gospel hath reduced his visible members unto for the actuall and immediate enjoyment of all his instituted ordinances And therefore with due respect to the Godly-learned be it spoken we conceive many large disputes in this question fall short of the issue that is desired and intended for what if it be granted 1 That there is a Catholick visible Church which in some respects of reason as Mr. Ball saith is one that having partes visibiles is a totum visibile 2 That the visible Church is not onely a totum genericum in relation to all the particular Congregations as species specialissimae of a visible Church in generall which respect of reason in some sense we freely consent unto but also that it may fall under the notion of a totum integrale as some contend though we conceive in this notion they are so intangled in their own logicall principles as that they cannot get out without breaking them and flying to theologicall considerations yet we say what if that also be attained 3 Yea further what if this Catholick Church be in some respects of reason and order of nature also the first Church and particular Churches ortae 4 Yea further what if it were gained also by such disputes that the Keys and Officers Ordinances c. be given firstly to this Catholick Church as to the object and end We confesse we do not see that what our Brethren contend for is by all this obtained For first if the universall number of visible beleevers be one totum aggregatum yet it will bee hard to prove that these are one instituted and politicall Society that can enjoy visible communion together in visible Worship and government and yet more hard to prove that by the institution of Christ these all are to be actually governed as one totum Secondly what though the members of the Church Catholick be in order of time before particular Churches as being fit matter for them and constituting of them yet this proves not one politicall body before they combine but rather the contrary Thirdly be it so that this Catholick Church is the first Church to which Christ hath firstly given the Keys Ordinances Promises c. for which Christ firstly performed the Offices of King Priest and Prophet and what else soever can be said in this kinde yet all this may be in this respect that Christ looked at this Catholick Church firstly as the chief object and end for whose sake and good he ordained and gave all these things and this will not carry the cause for as the Church Catholick visible in this sense is the first Church in respect of the particulars so the invisible body of Christ is in nature and priority the first Church in respect of visible as visible for Christ no doubt firstly intends and gives all these things to the invisible Church as to the object and end of the same for whose good they are all ordained rather then for the Catholick visible Church which containes many hypocrites and reprobates within the verge of it But now if we speak of a subject of the Keys to which the actuall exercise and dispensation of Keys and instituted Ordinances belong who doe not see that in this sense the invisible Church quâ talis cannot be that instituted Society to which the Keys c. belong and by the same reason the Catholick visible Church quâ totum and quâ Catholick cannot be this instituted Society to which they are given It is a known rule in Reason that That which is first in intention is last in execution and so it is here first Christ propounds this end to himself to gather edifie perfect sanctifie save his Catholick Church Ephes 4.11 12. 5.26 and therefore institutes all ordinances as means to farther and attain this great design but in execution he may for all this give the Keys and ordinances in regard of the immediate exercise to any form of visible Societies that he shall be pleased to institute and it may be that will prove the least Society sooner then a greater And seeing our Brethren otherwise minded make much use of similies in this dispute we hope it will not be amisse for us to illustrate what we say by a similitude â—…tly to make our conceivings the more plain to all whose edification we seek and partly to discover the invalidity of many discourses of this nature and because similia arguunt fidemque faciunt as he saith viz. so far as rightly applyed we will therefore propound it in way of argument The similitude is this genus humanum or mankinde in generall is the subject of Civill government in generall and of all the priviledges thereof as the object and the end and let the question be whether this Catholick number of
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
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
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
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
wisheth utinam tales hodie à ministerio aâ—…verentuâ—… Fourthly because the Lord would cast off their children from being his for this sinne as Calvin also notes upon the place the promise of shewing mercy to a 1000. generations being chiefly annexed to the observers of the second Command and the instituted meanes of worship which those Priests never were Reply On the contrary if you will extend this Text to all unworthy Ministers of what sort soever whom the Word of God condemns as not approved Ministers of God c. Answ Wee intended no other sorts then such as wee have in hand the unable and ungodly Idoll Priests of England and therefore this discourse concernes us not For wee freely confesse that it is lawfull in divers cases at least for a time to communicate with such unworthy Ministers as may bee contained in your description but that people must and ought to joyne with such in the worship of God and sinne if they separate from the ordinances as you say the Scriptures alledged teach not this so evidently that wee can see as 1 Sam. 2.12 13.17.24 that imputation Verse 24. They make the Lords people to transgresse doth not depend immediatly on Verse 13 14.17 but on Verse 22.23 where they are charged to have layne with the women the other passages being interrupted by the story of Samuel and his Mother Verse 18 19.20 21. So Jer. 8.8 9. Micah 3.11 12. containe onely threats against wicked Ministers but not a word to prove people ought to joyne with them c. Phil. 1.15 speaking of such as preach and preach Christ though not of sinceritie doth not reach such Ministers as the word condemnes for many such may be approved Ministers by the Word having a call according to the same but wee shall not contend in this case wherein wee doe not dissent so that Christians bee left to their lawfull libertie of withdrawing from Ministers grossely wicked and Teachers of false Doctrin or idle and unsufficient when they cannot reclaime them or remove them in the use of all lawfull meanes within their power Reply The reasons whereby the ancient Churches condemned the Donatists and Catharists for their voluntary and seditious separations and the moderne Churches condemne the Anabaptists for their renting from the body of Christ will hold against separation from the Prayers of the Congregation because they are read by an ungodly Minister Wee deny that wee teach or hold such separation because read by an ungodly Minister as is sufficiently shewed before but what we speak is against conformitie to and communion with the corruptions of the Liturgie especially used by an unable as well as ungodly Minister and therefore the arguments mentioned will hold against our proposition just as the accusations and imputations of Donatisme Puritanisme Anabaptisme which the Prelates cast upon all Non-conformists and men studious of reformation will hold and fasten upon them which is nothing at all Reply The second Proposition where the whole Liturgie is used though by an able and godly Minister it is not lawfull to joyne in prayer in that case Wee cannot bee of your judgement herein for in the times of the Prophets and our Saviour Christ as great abuses no question were found c. but they never taught people to separate from the holy things of God Answ First wee must still mind the Reader of the true and full state of the question which in our answer is of joyning in prayer with and when that whole Liturgy is used and hee that joynes with that whole Liturgie must needs bee supposed to have actuall communion with all the corruptions thereof what ever they bee and therefore though this Proposition reach to the practise of able and godly Ministers yet let none thinke wee plead herein separation from their ministery but onely that people may not conforme with them to any corruption in worship and by this proposition also the Author might easily have seene that wee denied the other which was woven in with this not because of the ungodlinesse of the Minister alone as hee carried his dispute but chiefly in respect of the corruptions of the worship together with the unlawfulnesse of such a ministery that is both unable and ungodly Secondly concerning the argument it runs as full for conformitie to all the corrupt ceremonies of the booke as the corrupt worship it selfe therein as was said before cleare the one viz. non-conformitie to ceremonies shew a reason why you will separate from the Sacrament because you will not kneele according to the booke and you answer your argument here alledged against us but the reply proceeds Reply And if presence at formes of prayer bee not lawfull by reason of the corruptions alledged there can bee no visible societie named since 200. yeeres after Christ or thereabout wherein a Christian might lawfully joyne in prayer reading the Scriptures hearing the word or participation of the Sacraments their Doctrines prayers rights being lesse pure then ours but no man wee hope will bee so bold as to affirme the state of the Churches within 200. yeers after Christ to bee so miserably decayed that the faithfull could not without sinne hold communion with them in the foresaid ordinances of God Answ First this argument holds as strongly for conformitie to the ceremonies as to the whole booke of Common Prayers as was said before Secondly this is a dangerous kind of reasoning from the practise of the faithfull in corrupt times of the Church especially when they are declining and growing clouds of darkenesse and superstition overspread the Churches It is no breach of charitie to thinke that through the iniquitie of the times the godly lived in many evils through ignorance and weakenesse which after light is come into the Churches wee ought to abandon wholly these are times of light and of the consumption of Antichrist and time for us to abolish his Liturgies and corrupt formes of worship as well as Images ceremonies c. Who doe not pitie the weaknesse of godly Bilny and others that seeing some grosse corruptions were yet so devoutly obedient to the Church as they called it in many grosse superstitions and the like may bee said of those former times and wee see not but this reason will goe farre in justification of communion with many false worships of Antichrists that are not grosly idolatrous Thirdly it is a great charge upon those times to say no visible societie throughout the world can bee named since 200. yeeres after Christ that was not lesse pure then England in Doctrine rites c. It may bee that as generally Churches were corrupt so they contemned and censured such as professed more puritie but that there were some visible assemblies more pure may bee conceived by that testimony given to Aerius and many orthodox Christians with him though condemned for a Hereticke in that which wee all now hold to bee an undoubted truth also after the Waldenses casting off the Pope and his will
all mankinde is the first subject of all power of Civill government and the priviledges thereof and if so whether such consequences will follow as our Brethren deduce from the unity visibility and priority of the Catholich Church Now we reduce what we intend into an Argument thus If all that can be said from Scripture and Reason concerning the unity visibility and priority of the Catholick Church may as truly be affirmed upon like grounds of the Catholick body of mankinde then á pari it will follow that there is no more one Catholick visible instituted totum that is the first subject of Church power and priviledges in the actuall exercise and enjoyment of the same then that there is such a Catholick body of mankinde that is the first subject of Civill power c. and that actually doth or ought to govern and be governed as one Catholick body in communion but it will appear from Scripture and Reason that the same things may be said of mankind that can be said of the other Ergo. And it is proved per partes thus 1 For the unity are not all mankinde oft in Scripture called the world Joh. 3.16 So God loved the world that is mankinde in the world which is one So frequently all mankinde is called man Gen. 6.5 6 7. I will not strive with man c. yea it is one kingdom Psal 145.11 12 13. which if we view the whole Psalm must be understood of the generall government of Gods providence over all the world and especially mankinde therein 1 Chron. 29.11 12. c. so that all is one kingdom Acts 17.26 God hath made of one blood all Nations all are one blood all have their bounds set by God c. that they might seek him and feel after him and as it is said for one Catholick Church because it hath one Lord one Faith one Baptism one Spirit and are bound to love and pray one for the other c. so there is a like unity here for the whole number of mankinde hath one Lord and King over all God who is King over all the earth called an head over all 1 Chron. 29.11 yea Jesus Christ is Lord of Lords and King of Kings and head over all to the Church Ephes 1.22 All have one Law the Morall Law the common rule of equity and righteousness whereby they are bound to walk towards God and one another and this writ in the hearts of all they have all one spirit of reason disposing them to society and mutuall offices of love one faculty of speaking to fit them for communion one end to feel after God Act. 17. and seek ye good of the whole kinde all ought to love one another desire and seek the welfare of the whole and of one another Esay 58.7 yea the Lord as a common head by the working of his common Providence and out of his love of mankinde hath a common and constant influence into all giving not onely life and breath and all good things Acts 17. but also all gifts of wisdom art skill for Government c. to Kings Judges Fathers Masters and all Officers of Civill government for the good of the whole and what ever else may be said to prove the Catholick Church One may here be applyed And as for principles of reason it is easie to conceive that all mankinde will fall either under the notion of one genus homo whereof the individua are species specialissimae or in another respect all persons all Families Cities Kingdomes may in a sense make one totum integrale or aggregatum Secondly it is as evident that all this number of mankinde are one visibile totum by the arguments used for the visible Catholick Church for that which hath visible parts is a visible totum it holds here as well as in the other case Yea if the Catholick Church be one visible Body because it hath organs and visible Officers in it it will hold here for all mankinde is but one Army of the Lord of Hosts who hath Armies of heaven and Armies on earth and in this Body God by his Providence hath set and by his ordinance hath ordained Fathers Masters Husbands Judges Kings c. to govern in this Body of mankinde for the good of the whole Ruling and subjection by the fifth Commandement of the Morall Law which is in all mens hearts is ordained of God for the order peace and welfare of all mankind and therefore why is not this by the same reason a totum visibile Thirdly for Priority it is clear that as God hath firstly in nature and intention given Christ to the whole Church then to this and that particular beleever and the power of feeding and being fed and governed by shepheards First to the whole race of sheep Secondly to this or that flock So in nature and Gods intention he hath firstly given to the race of mankind power of being governed with Government and Governors before they are given to this or that Family City Kingdom c. So likewise what is said of Promises given to the Church Catholick firstly is it not as true here Those promises and blessings increase and multiply Subdue the earth and inhabite it The feare and dread of you shall be on all beasts and all like promises and priviledges of marriage of liberty to eat flesh c. mentioned Gen. 2. 9. and all over the Scripture are they not in nature first given to mankinde and then to this or that person family City So if Church power and all Officers and Offices be firstly given to the Catholick Church not to this or that particular Church So it 's here when the Scripture saith Submit to the higher Powers for all Powers are of God Rom. 13. By me saith God Kings reign and Princes decree judgment and such like Scriptures doth this firstly belong to this or that Kingdome City c. and not rather that God hath firstly set up and ordained Civil Powers for mankind to be obeyed of all mankinde firstly and then in this or that state Is foederall holinesse first the priviledge of the Catholick Church which in a sense we will not now contradict so is legitimation first the priviledge of married society in generall in all mankinde and then of this or that family Are the members of particular Churches firstly of the Catholick Church and is it not so here the members of every family city c. first and last of the number of mankinde and so when the Societies are dissolved they are still of mankinde and doe not all Societies spring of mankinde and are an additament and increase to it the one is true as well as the other It would be over tedious to follow this parallel so farre as wee might these may be sufficient instances to guide the Reader to apply whatever else is or can be said in this kinde from the common nature and logicall notions under which the Catholick Church visible
grace doth not destroy nature yet look as a particular Church constitution and government was never erected by the Law of nature but Divine institution so for the governing of many over one why should there not be the like institution But to come more near to the case it self we shall endeavour to clear two things 1. That there is no Catholick politicall Church society instituted by Christ to which the actuall administration and participation of Church government and communion in the instituted ordinances of Christ is given as to the first subject thereof 2. That the true form of all Church societies instituted by Christ to which he hath given the actuall administration and immediate participation of Church government and all other instituted ordinances as the subject thereof is onely Congregationall First concerning the first to make our discourse more distinct and plain we shall premise here that we doe not here at all take in or respect that question about the power of the Keys whether it be in the fraternity or guides we shall God willing have a fit place to speak something of it but here that we may not intermingle things we look onely at the true subject in which and unto which the actuall and immediate dispensation and participation of Church government and outward ordinances is given by the institution of the Gospel And here we first reason thus Such a Church society as Christ instituted the Apostles of Christ constituted and governed in But the Apostles never constituted such a Catholick church society or governed it in such a manner as is said Ergo. The Proposition is evident because the Apostles were to do whatsoever Christ commanded in Matth. 28.20 and were sufficiently furnished with power and wisdome so to doe Besides the Apostles having all power from Christ as hee received from the Father John 20. and the whole number of beleevers being then at the fewest there was never since such an opportunity or possibility to constitute such a Church if Christ Jesus had instituted such a thing The assumption or second part of the reason is proved thus If the Apostles ever constituted and administred in such a Church catholick it was either that at Jerusalem mentioned Acts 1 2. c. or that assembly that met Acts 15. for we meet with no other that can with any colour of reason bee supposed But neither of these were such a constituted Church Ergo. 1 Concerning the Church named Acts 1. carryed on Acts 2. c. we freely grant it was a constituted Church wherein the Apostles with Elders and Deacons afterward chosen did govern for as it is called a Church Acts 2.47 so likewise we see there were in it elections Act. 1. 6 and administrations of instituted ordinances of worship Acts 2.41 42. admission of members Chap. 2.41 47. and by the same reason there might have been excommunication also But that this Church was not the Catholick Church we prove thus If it were the Catholick church then it was such either in respect of the whole essence of the Catholick church or in respect of representation but neither ways Ergo. The first it could not be because it consisted at the first but of 120. which was a very small part of the Catholick number of visible beleevers for 1 Cor. 15.6 there were above 500 Brethren to whom Christ appeared at once which was but some few weeks before besides all that in the Jewish Church were converted and baptized by John which were very many yea if we speak of the Catholick church properly all the Jewish Church not yet dissolved were part of the Catholick church of that age visible Lastly if it had been the Catholick church beleevers being already of it could not be said to be added to this as Acts 5.13 14. Secondly it was not Catholick in respect of representation for if so then in respect of the Apostles onely as the Catholick guides or in respect of the whole assembly with them Acts 1. not the first for then the Apostles onely should have had power to set apart Barnabas and Maâ—…thias but it is evident that that election was by Peter himself committed to and acted by the whole company called the Brethren and Disciples Acts 1.15 16 26. where it appears that as he spake to all so it was concluded with the common suffrages of all Secondly if so because the Apostles were Catholick guides then where-ever they met was a Catholick church yea where two or three or any one of them was there was the Catholick representative church and so many such churches for any two or one had the catholick power as well as all Paul ordains rules and orders of discipline in all the churches as well as if all the Apostles had met 1 Cor. 7.17 1 Cor. 16.1 2 That assembly was not the representative catholick church because first there were the women in the same now women are no way capable of being messengers to represent churches secondly besides these could not be representative messengers from other churches because this was the first constituted church we see no colour of reason that there were any other constituted visible churches before this Lastly all the actions of that Church mentioned especially those in Acts 2.41 42. of admission of members baptism word seales fellowship day by day in such ordinances choice of Deacons c. speak aloud against a representative Church we should rather have heard of constitutions censures c. from such a representative Catholick church of generall counsell Object We are not ignorant what is said to the contrary viz. That it was the Catholick Church because they elected a Catholick officer for the whole Church viz. an Apostle Ans To which we answer 1 All the Catholick church and guides thereof had no power so to do no more then a particular church being a case reserved to Christ himself else Pauls argument to prove his Apostleship had not been strong because he was not called by man but by Christ himself and had seen the Lord c. Gal. 1.1 1 Cor. 9.1 2 The act of the Church was onely a preparatory act thereunto with an after consent the election was properly done immediately by a lot and what was done might as well be done in the first particular Church guided by the infallible spirit of the Apostles as by the Catholick Church it self Object Secondly it is objected Many of these were men of Galilee which by their habitation could not pertain to the Church in Jerusalem Answ True the Apostles and others were of Galilee but they had forsaken all to follow Christ and were commanded by Christ to remain a time at Jerusalem and then to goe forth to Samaria Judea and the utmost parts of the earth Acts 1.4 8. and therfore no Church relation in Galilee could hinder them from joyning in this first constituted Church or give any colour that they came as members representative from any Churches in Galilee And
their baptizing he records withall their adding to them the latter being an exegesis of the former and that the same day as being performed at the same time and indeed when a convert publickly professeth his faith in Christ is it not as easily done to reâ—…eive him to a particular visible Church as into the Catholick before Baptism but first to baptize them and then the same day to add or joyn them to the Church is altogether unprobable And that this adding was to a particular Church is sufficiently proved before The next place you may note is Acts 5.14 where the Holy Ghost omitting the baptizing of those beleevers yet speaks of their adding to the Lord as if the one implyed the other and that their adding to the Lord was by their joyning to the Church is evident by the opposition between verse 13 14. Of the rest durst no man joyn himself to them but beleevers were the more added to the Lord. 3 In the conversion of Samaria although so great a work is declared in so few words in one verse Act. 8.12 yet the text puts a manifest distinction of Philips doctrine between the things of the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ which plainly enough sheweth that they taught the observing of the order of the Kingdom of Christ as well as the Doctrine of the name of Christ the object of saving faith And this they received by faith and professed before they were baptized Now the first and most famous examples of the Apostles perswading that so they practised why should we doubt of their like practice in other examples when nothing is said that contradicteth the same as Acts 10. in the baptizing of Cornelius his house where so many were met and the Holy Ghost fell on all why should we think the Apostle Peter baptized them and left them out of the order of Christ wherein they should worship him and be edified in the faith If we doubt of it because the Scripture is silent therein we may as well question whether those beleevers Acts 4.4 9.35 vers 42. whether any of these confessed their faith or were baptized for nothing is said thereof So likewise Acts 11. where we read of many beleeving turning to the Lord vers 21. of the adding others to the Lord vers 24. but nothing of their confession of faith or baptism and yet they are called a Church whereby it appears that the holy Ghost sometime expresseth their baptism without joyning to the Church and sometimes joyning without baptism and sometime he expresseth both Acts. 2.41 And therefore hence we may conclude the like of the case of Lydia and the Jaylor considering the former practice of the Apostles and that the Apostle speaks so expresly of a Church at Philippi in the beginning of the Gospel Phil. 4. at which time we have no more conversions expressed but of those two families at least they were the most eminent fruits of Pauls Ministery at that time and it is very probable the Church was gathered in Lydia's house seeing Paul going out of prison to her house he is said to see the Brethren and comfort them so departing verse 40. Besides why might not the Apostle baptize them into that particular visible Church in such a case as well as into the Catholick or all Churches as some say they professing subjection to Christ in every ordinance of his with reference to that Church he had there constituted The fulnesse of power in the Apostles might doe greater matters without breach of order though no rule for us so to do neither is it strange from the practice of those times to begin a Church in a family seeing the Apostle speaks of Churches in three severall families Rom. 16.5 Col. 4.15 Phil. 2. which though many understand to be called Churches in regard of the godlinesse of those families yet if we consider First how many eminent Saints the Apostle salutes who no doubt had godly families not so much as naming their housholds much lesse giving them such a title but onely to these three named Secondly how distinct his salutations are first the Governors and then the Church in their house Thirdly that the Apostle doth not onely send his salutations to the Church in the house of Aquila and Priscilla Rom. 16.5 but also keeping the name of a Church he sends salutations from that Church to the Church of Corinth 1 Cor. 16.19 All which doe strongly argue there is more in it then that they were godly families and therefore may perswade us that there were indeed constituted Churches in those Families though other Christians also might joyn with them Reply Thus having cleared our meaning and the consideration it self there will remain very few extraordinary cases if any of whom it can be proved they were not joyned to some particular Church when baptized as that of the Eunuch which as it was done by an extraordinary immediate call of Philip so to doe so also there was a speciall reason thereof the Lord intending thereby rather by him to send the Gospel into Ethiopia then to retain him in any other place to joyn with his Church And the Baptism of Paul who as without the Ministery of the Word he was converted by the immediate voice of Christ so he was baptized by the immediate call of Ananias so to do Now let us proceed to consider what further is replyed Answ The seals Baptism and the Lords-supper are given to the Church not onely in ordinary but also extraordinary dispensation True Baptism is not without the Church but in it an ordinance given to it The Sacraments are the seales of the Covenant to the faithfull which is the form of the Church tokens and pledges of our spirituall admittance into the Lords family Hence it is inferred that if the seales in extraordinary dispensation were given to the Church and yet to members of no particular Church then also in ordinary dispensation it may be so 1 It will not follow for first if the Apostle in extraordinary cases baptized privately will it follow that in ordinary dispensation it may be so Secondly if because the Ministery be given to the Church and extraordinary Officers were not limited to particular Churches will it therefore follow that in ordinary dispensations Ministers ought not to be given onely to particular churches Thirdly as we have oft said that seals belong de jure to all beleevers as such as members of the Catholick church they being given unto it firstly as to its object and end and all that are truly baptized are baptized into it and thus never out of it as being tokens of our spirituall admittance into the Lords family both in ordinary and extraordinary dispensation but doth it hence follow that actuall fruition of the seales of which the question is stated may ordinarily be had or given to such as set loose from all societies the Apostles had extraordinary power being generall Pastors over all persons
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
subject according to order of all such institutions otherwise we must admit private baptismes if the extraordinary examples of the Apostles be pressed for our patterne Reply Then the Apostles in dispensing seales walked by rules of Scripture and grounds common to us and then the difficulty remaining is onely this Whether a Pastour may dispense seales to such as have right to them and do orderly desire them though hee be not yet a set member of a Congregation Answ Wee grant the Apostles ordinarily and generally baptized upon common grounds but still when they did so they received them into some particular Church and so baptized them and in the like orderly way any pastour may doe the same Secondly we answer things may bee done sano sensu upon common and morall grounds and yet may not be done by others upon the same grounds To give one instance in stead of many the Apostles preached the Gospel to gather in the elect of God and to edifie the Church c. and Ministers upon the same common grounds must now preach the Gospel also yet in that the Apostles on those grounds preached to all Nations this doth not warrant Ministers now to do the like so here though we baptize beleevers as they did yet wee may not do it to all in all cases as they did And therefore the rule holds onely when all circumstances are alike as well as the Common grounds Reply Secondly In the instance given it is not probable that baptisme was evermore administred by the Apostles or Evangelists For before the death of Christ the Disciples baptized when they were neither Apostles nor Evangelists properly After the death of Christ c. If Philip Ananias and others might baptize such as were no members of particular Congregations then may ordinary Pastours doe the like Answ You mistake here in the force of our answer as hath beene shewed in the first consideration to which this objection and answer belong For wee doe not make all the Acts of the Apostles and Evangelists extraordinary but generally orderly in the way wee professe Secondly wee answer to the particulars not to wrastle with the Ghosts of humane imaginations and conjectures whether any besides the Apostles baptized the 3000. Act. 2. As for Philip and Ananias if they baptized did they baptize as private men or as Church Officers If the second what Officers were they ordinary or extraordinary Wee thinke it will not bee thought they were ordinary who were honoured with such extraordinary worke But in what Office soever they were those particular actions in baptizing the Eunuch and Paul were done by an immediate call of God as is evident in the story Reply Thirdly It is very improbable that the persons baptized were in Church State or Order If they were members of the Jewish Church not yet dissolved this is not to the purpose for men have not right to baptisme because members of the Jewish Church but because Disciples and as you say joyned together in Covenant c. Answ Wee grant that since the visible kingdome of Christ was set up in visible Christian Churches the seales belong properly and ordinarily to the members of Christian Churches not Jewish yet wee may affirme that if in any speciall case a beleever was baptized by any that had a speciall call thereto where there was no Christian Church present actually to joyne unto yet being a member of the Jewish Church not yet dissolved the case does not so much vary from the set Order of Christ in those times and that is all wee intend Reply If the Eunuch and Centurion were proselytes and of the Jewish Church the Samâ—…ritans whom Philip baptized were not so and that any Gentiles or the Jaylour were set members of a Christian assembly is very strange c. Answ This is fully answered before in the first consideration and that which is according to the rule and mind of Christ and the first and common practise of the Apostles Act. 2. to joyne men to the Church when they baptized them need not seeme strange Reply In the Apostles practise two things are to bee considered First the circumstance of the action Secondly the substance or quality of the Act. In some circumstances the baptizing of some of these might bee extraordinary but the substance and quality of the action was grounded upon rules perpetuall and common to us and them That is done in an extraordinary way c. Answ 1 Wee suppose amongst such Circumstances you will reckon that for one that the Eunuch was baptized alone in the Wildernesse not in any visible assembly of Saints Wherein ordinary Pastors may not imitate that Act and this comes not farre short of what wee say for the chiefe proof that they were not received into a particular Church lies in their absence from such an assembly and if they might bee admitted to the Catholick Church without the presence of any Christian but him that baptized them why not into a particular Church as well 2 The large discourse about the Apostles extraordinary power and doing things upon common grounds is so oft said for substance and answered before that it were vaine to trouble the Reader againe with the same thing Reply Secondly an argument followes necessarily from a particular example to a generall when the proofe of one particular to another is made by force of the similitude common to the whole kind under which those particulars are contained Now in this matter wee speake of no reason can bee named why wee should thinke it lawfull for the Apostles to baptize such as were no set members and the same should be unlawfull in all cases for Pastors of particular Congregations Answ Wee deny that the Apostles did so ordinarily and therefore your Argument doth not hold if it bee built upon the common practise but if it be built upon some few speciall cases we retort the Argument thus That which the Apostles did ordinarily upon common grounds that Pastors ought to doe but ordinarily they baptized Disciples admitting them first into particular Churches therefore in the third reason wee grant the conclusion of it that the Apostles did walke by ordinary rules generally Reply Fourthly the practise of the Apostles in receiving the faithfull c. is backed on divine precept c. Answ If you meane they baptized such without receiving them into some particular Church wee deny this assumption upon the grounds laid downe before Reply Fiftly In the first consideration you prove the seales to be the priviledge of the Church in ordinary dispensation by this passage of Scripture Then they that gladly received the word were baptized but if the Apostles baptizâ—…d by extraordinary dispensation in your sense this testimony is insufficient for that purpose Answ Although the printed Copy of our answer omit this proofe wholly and also Rom. 9.4 yet in our true Cypy wee alledged Acts 2 41 42.47 wherein you will finde not onely this passage Then they that gladly received
professe their faith againe the visible Church being built upon this rocke Matth. 16.16 18. viz. Profession of the faith of Christ and lastly if there should be no necessity for such a profession yet if this bee desired of the people of God for the increase of their owne joy to see God glorified and Christs name professed and his vertues held forth and for the increase of their love to those that joyne with them why should it not be done before Saints which should bee done before persecutors 1 Pet. 3.15 What is now said we thinke sufficient to undermine what is opposed herein by others and may easily give answer to the three arguments of the learned Authourâ—… from the example of the Church of Israel John Baptist and the Apostles and so cleare up our practise and judgement to the world from the aspersion of our rigidum examen for which we are by some condemned but for further clearing we shall answer to the particulars Now to your Reasons more particularly against this from the Old Testament and the manner of entring and renewing Covenant then Answ Wee answer first when as you say they professing the Covenant promised to take God for their God to keepe the words of the Covenant and doe them to seek the Lord with all their hearts to walke before him in truth and uprightnes this implyeth a profession of a worke of grace Secondly They did not immediately enter into Covenant but the Lord was long before preparing them for it for they were humbled much in Egypt in so much as their sighings came up to God Exod. 2.23 24 25. They had seene the glory of God for their good against Pharaoh and all that Land by many miracles they had Gods visible presence in the Cloud were instructed by Moses concerning the Covenant of grace made with them in Abraham they were mightily delivered at the Red Sea so that they beleeved Moses and feared the Lord and sang his praise Exod. 14.31 Psalme 106.12 They were also instructed againe concerning the Covenant and were to sanctifie themselves three dayes legally which was for spirituall ends and of spirituall use Exod. 19.10 and thus being prepared as fit matter for Covenant they then entered thereinto And they were all of them for ought we know thus externally and ecclesiastically holy though many were internally stiffe-necked blind and prophane And for our parts we desire no more then such a preparation in some worke of grace if appearing though not indeed reall as may make way for Church Covenant among a people now as we see was then Reply When John Baptist began to preach the Gospell and gather a new people for Christ he admitted none but upon confession of their sinnes but we read of no question that hee put forth to them to discover the worke of grace in their soules or repelled any upon that pretence that voluntarily submitted themselves Answ Though the Scripture record such things very briefly else the world would not have contained the Bookes that must have beene written as John speaketh yet he that advisedly considers the case may see the profession of a work of grace in all that were received by John to his baptisme First John was sent with the Spirit and power of Elias to turne the hearts of the fathers c. to cast down every high hill c. Secondly His baptisme is called the baptisme of repentance for the remission of sinnes Mark 1.4 Thirdly confession of sins is ever put for true repentance when there is a promise of pardon made to it Prov. 28 1â—… 1 John 1.9 and therefore when he requires confession of sins was it without remorse or sorrow for it was it not with profession of faith in the Messiah which he pointed unto Joh. 1.29 and required with repentance Act. 19.4 Fourthly did not hee fall upon the Pharisees with dreadfull thundering of Gods judgements for comming to his baptisme without conversion of heart and fruits meet for repentance Mat. 3.7 and this Luke saith hee preached to the multitude Luke 3.7 and whether any were received that embraced not that Doctrine and shewed the same in their confession viz. that their hearts were humbled and that the renounced their high thoughts of their priviledges of the Law c. and professed amendment fruits meet for the same it will be hard for any to prove and thus much is evident on the contrary that Pharesees Lawyers distinguished from the People and Publicans rejected the counsell of God in not being baptized of him and what counsell but that wholesome doctrine of John Luke 7.29 30 Lay all these together and let any whose thoughts are not prepossessed with prejudices say whether this confession was not such a profession of faith and repentance which a discerning charity ought to take for a worke of grace Reply It appeares many wayes that when the Apostles planted Churches they made a Covenant betweene God and the people whom they received But they received men upon the profession of faith and promise of amendment of life without strict inquiry what worke of grace was wrought in the soule so in after ages c. Now the profession at first required of all that were received to baptisme was that they beleeved in the Father Sonne and holy Ghost This was the confession of the Enâ—…uch when he was baptized I beleeve that Jesus Christ is the Son of God Answ Wee cannot but observe how still the evidence of the truth of what wee proved in the third and fourth positions breakes out at every turne when the heat of that disputation doth not hinder for if the Apostles planted Churches and made a Covenant betweene God and the people when they baptized them as the proofes for this Act. 2.38 and 8.37 and 19.17 18 19. alledged in the margent shew then still it appeares they admitted men into planted Churches when they baptized them and the refore the Apostles ordinary and first leading practise and examples are for those Position not against them 2 You grant here that Acts 2. and 8. and 19. there was a profession of faith and promise of amendment of life and so wee must suppose though not expressed for how else could the Apostles distinguish such as gladly received the word from the mockers and others Now let us consider what kinde of profession this must bee by the story it selfe The Apostle Peter in his doctrine presseth three things 1. Conversion or repentance for their sinnes 2. Faith in Christ in those words Bee baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ Verse 38. 3. With many other words he exhorted them saying Save your selves from this untoward generation that is this was the scope of and substance of his exhortation which includes a gathering themselves to the Church Now the Text saith in respect of the first That they were pricked to the heart and cryed out Men and Brethren what shall wee doe 2. They gladly received the word that is
communion with him as a true Minister of Jesus Christ in the Church he doth belong to as they may do with a member unjustly cast out but til that appeare unto them they cannot so esteem and honor him being orderly deposed but must at least suspend their judgment til the case be cleared Fourthly we answer clearely and plainely to the chiefe scope of the question If a Minister bee unjustly deposed or forsaken by his particular Church and he also withall renounce and forsake them so farre as all Office and relation betweene them cease then is hee no longer an Officer or Pastour in any Church of God whatsoever you will call it And the Reason is because a Ministers office in the Church is no indelible Character but consists in his relation to the flocke and if a Minister once ordained his relation ceasing his Office of a Minister Steward of the mysteries of God shall still remaine why should not a ruling Elder or Deacon remaine an Elder or Deacon in the Church as well all are Officers Ordained of Christ alike given to his Church Officers chosen and Ordained by laying on of â—…ands alike but weâ—… suppose you will not say a Deacon In such a case should remaine a Deacon in the Catholique Church therefore not a Minister Secondly wee shall now consider what is here said and first this language of a Minister in the usuall Church as a particular Church hath union with and is a part of the universall it is an unusuall expression to us and to the Scripture phrase and therefore beare with us if wee fall short of your meaning the usuall Church in England hath beene either the Arch-Deacons Church in the Deanaâ—…ies or Diocesan in the Bishoprick or Provinciall or Nationall but wee hope that there is no such intended here yet to all this and the jurisdiction thereof particular Churches have been subject as parts there But if by usuall Church you meane a Classical Provinciall or Nationall Church wee must intreat better grounds for any of these and therefore wee must confesse our minde and meaning is not so that wee looke at a Minister of a particular Church in any such relation to the usuall and intermediate Church betweene it and the Catholique The second sense therefore we owne and acknowledge as before But whether this be contrary to the judgement and practise of the universall Church wee know not because it is hard for us know what the universall Church judgeth except we could heare it speake or see its practise if the onely head Prophet and Shepherd of the Church Jesus Christ be fit to declare her judgement we will be tryed thereby who we know hath set Elders in every particular Church Act. 14.23 to watch over their particular flock Act. 20.28 but not over any other Church that wee can finde Neither doth this destroy the unity or Communion of the Catholique Church nor of particular Churches one with another as is said for Churches may enjoy brotherly Communion one with another without such stated formes under the power and authority of one another as hath been shewed before Reply For if he be not a Minister to other Churches then are not the Churches of God one nor the Communion which they have together on nor the Ministers one non the flocke which they feed one Answ In what sense is intended to have the Ministers one and flocke one we doe not see If you meane one by one visible Government over the Catholique Church wherein there is a subordination of Churches and Ministers you must at last rise to Oecomenicall Pastor or Councell that must be the supreme which can scarce ever be had If you meane an unity by brotherly Communion in officeâ—… of love and mutuall helpefulnesse of Churches and Ministers without usurpation such an unity and Community is not destroyed and the argument doth not follow Cannot many distinct societies of Townes or Corporations make up one County except the Major or Constable in one Towne be a Major or Constable in others also By this Reason the Deacon of one Church is the Deacon of all or else the unity is destroyed Reply If the Pastor derive all his authority from the Church when the Church hath set him aside what right hath he to administer among that people Answ True but we say he derives all his authority from Christ by the Church indeed applying that office to him to which the authority is annexed by the institution of Christ hence being the Minister of Christ unto them if they without Christ depose him they hinder the exercise of his Office but his right remaines Reply As they give right to an unworthy man to minister amongst them if they cal him unjustly so they take right from the worthy if they unjustly depose him Answ We grant there is a parity in foro externo but as in the call his outward cal consists in the election of the calling and the acceptation of the called to compleat his power of administration Now this by Christ in his Church may be destroyed in a â—…ust censure without his consent but cannot unjustly be wrung from him without his consent therefore he may hold his right till either hee be justly deposed or willingly relinquish the same upon their injurious interruption of the use of his right Reply And whereas you say the Minister is for the Ministery and the Office for the execution and so the Pastor and the flocke are relatives and therefore if their election gave him authority among them to feed their câ—…sting him off hath stripped him of the same power they gave him Answ Wee grant it is so yet the execution may bee unjustly hindred though the right and Office remaine But we may well retort this argument upon the Minister of the usuall or Catholicke Church Thus if the Minister bee for the Ministery and the Office for the execution and so the Pastor and flock be relatives then hee that may justly for ever be hindred of all execution of the Ministery and hath no power to censure his flock or cannot so much as justly approve and admonish them for the same surely hee hath a poore Office and Ministery but such a Minister that hath no particular Congregation that is his flock under his charge may justly be excluded out of all Churches and cannot censure or reprove his Catholique or usuall Church for the same therefore he is indeed no Minister and and hath no Office in the Church of God â—…HAP XVII Position 8. THat one Minister cannot performe any Ministeriall act in another Congregation Reply The Preaching of the Word and publique Prayer in the Congregation meet together solemnely to worship God c. are properly Ministeriall c. Answ Concerning our true sense and meaning in our answer to this Position wee have spoken in the second consideration of the second and third Positions to which wee referre the Reader onely here wee must ingenuously confesse that our expression That a Minister exercising in another Church doth it not by vertue of any calling but onely by his gifts is not so cleare but may occasion stumbling yet the the next words following doe fully expresse our mindes viz. that he doth not put forth such a Ministeriall act of authority and power in dispensing of Gods Ordinances as a Minister doth performe to that Church whereunto hee is called to be a Minister for so hee doth not performe any Ministeriall act with that authority hee doth to his owne which further cleares up our expression in the second consideration viz. that he is a Pastor of none but his proper flocke although some acts of his Office may extend beyond his owne flocke as we have shewed before and therefore in this sense we may still conclude that if the question be put to any Minister so exercising in another church which was once put to our Saviour By what authority dost thou these things let him study how to give an answer for wee have not yet learned it from this Reply We confesse there are some godly learned servants of Christ who possibly may bee otherwise minded and thinke that a Minister preaching in another Congregation doth it onely as a gifted man as the Refuter of Doctor Downam with others in former times of Reformation beleeved also But we desire that if any difference appeare herein it may bee no prejudice to the same cause for substance wee maintaine if by sundry lines wee all meet at last in the same point FINIS Vid Pet. Mart. Loc. Com. de Excom Brins Watch part 3. capâ—… 10. Jun. lib. 1. paral 6. G. Apol. cap. 7. Q. 2. Ibid. p. 138. Peter Martyr in 1 Kings 12. verse 31. Pet. Mart. Com. Loc. de Idol in praeâ—… l. 1. Iohn 2.15 16. Conc. Miliv Can. 12. Tertull. Apol. cap. 30. Vid. Chemnit Ex. de Innoc. Sanctorum Vid. Birth of Heresies out of Elasopolitans Comment Pet. Mart. loc â—…om de Idol Whit. de Eccle. 1 Cor. 15.47 Vid. Brightm An. in Loc. Cypr. lib. 3. Epist 13. Cypr. lib. 4. Epist 7. * Right of Presbyt pag. 482. Page 22. Page 68. Tertul. lib. 4. Com. Mar. * Calvin Epist 332. Chamier de Euchar cap. 13. Reply To the second Consideration of the Answer Pet Mart. de Excom Loc. Com. * Officiall Lib. 1. cap. 6.7 Rev. 2.2 and 3.9 Acts 2 38.8 â—…7 19 17 18 â—… Cham de Bap. lib. 5. cap. 1â—…
bellum prodigorum the day of all the spend-thrifts and of all the vile persons of the Land to have their fingers in every mans coffers and their hands washed in the blood of them whom they have hated so soon as ever any of the Babylonish designes shall take their effect could wee wonder at it And is not this fulfilled in these times which wee wish may well bee laid to heart The second thing which wee conceive may chiefly hinder this closing is that point of Church government which concernes the power and liberties of particular Churches or Congregations and here wee must acknowledge the distance is too great For 〈◊〉 the one side â—…ee 〈◊〉 for either by Treatises or by the Directory for Worship that Congregations are acknowledged to bee compleat Churches especially standing among other Churches or that any power or liberty is given to them to administer Church censures no not so long as they administer rightly according to the rule but all such power is when indeed from the Churches though in words they are perswaded that it is to strengthen them and if this also come down from the Catholick Church and so to lesser Synods the greater part having power over the lesse as it were sure divino it will 〈◊〉 â—…ore at the liberties and power of particular Churches But what here to say of the distance on the other hand wee cannot tell wee see or read nothing but that our deare and honoured Brethren doe freely imbrace communion of Churches in consultation Synods for the brotherly helpe of each other and the weaker Churches yea and in a doctrinall way to declare the will of Christ and to threaten his judgements against such as shall refuse wholsome counsell and withdraw communion from such as wilfully refuse to heare what is propounded according to the minde of Christ And what should we heresay but on the bended knees of our soules intreat our reverend Brethren to consider what power any oâ—… many Churches can challenge 〈◊〉 another to require them to give up their right to them to rule in common if a sister Church purnished with Officers shall refuse the same or what rule bindeth the Churches of an hundred or any such civill division to come into such a combination with those Churches rather thâ—…n others fit but refusing Churches have just reasons to object against such Churches or their Officers We think the more voluntary and free such consociations are the better Here we shall be hold to propound this one thing viz. Why may not the fifth and sixth Articles of agreement publikely professed to the world in answer to the Prelaticall petition obtaine amongst our Brethren that it may appeare to the disappointment of their hopes that the Treaties being downe the agreement would be easie as is there said Viz. Ar. 5. Each particular Church hath her owne power and authority and the use and benefit of all the ordinances of Christ neither is there any thing to be done without the expresse or tacit consent of the Congregation in matters which are proper and peculiar to a particular Church whether in election or ordination of Ministers or in admitting or excommunicating of members Ar. 6. It is in many respects expedient both for the members of each Church whether Ministers or people and for the right governing and well-being of the particular Churches in a Nation professing Christian Religion that besides their particular Assemblies and Elderships they meet by their Commissioners Ministers and Elders in greater Assemblies that matters that concern all the Churches within their bounds respective may with common advice and consent be agreed upon for their good and edification And we hope the Lord may yet have such a mercy for England if the crying sins thereof bee not still impenitently against this glorious shining light of the Gospel persisted in which wee confesse is our greatest feare Godly Brethren wee hope would agree if Englands sins hinder not We confesse it was the saddest newes that this yeare came unto our eares that the Kingdome of Christ is hardly like to obtaine so much jealousie there is lest the discipline of Christ should crosse the licentiousnesse of this age yea that generally there is no more regard of the solemn Covenant especially in personall reformation then if it were never made that many reject the reformations they seemed to desire at the first These with other sad things come to our eares which sadden our spirits Oh England England our beloved England wilt thou not be made cleane when will it once bee wilt thou still return the Lord Jesus graciously striving with thee for to save thee such an unkind answer We will not have this man reigne over us hast thou not yet learned so much wisdom as to kisse the son no not now when he is angry and the sword in his hand That voice of God soundeth oft in our eares when wee thinke of England Put off thine ornaments that I may know what to doe unto thee but for ought we heare the pride of England did never so much testifie to their faces as now when sackcloth and ashes were more suitable The Lord humble the hearts of our deare Countrey-men or else wee feare the yoake of Christ will never be born and how the Lord Jesus will beare and indure that we tremble to think But what doe we thus to take upon us and let loose our Pen so far pardon we beseech you Christian Reader this seeming boldnesse it is our hearty affection to the peace and prosperity of our deare Countrey and the Saints of God in it that have drawn these things from us Say not what calling have these thus to admonish and censure us Censure we doe not that we would doe onely to our selves but faithfully to admonish and exhort in the Lord we hope we may presume Neither have we taken upon us this whole weighty worke of our owne minds but at the request and call of divers our reverend Brethren whose voice herein we looked upon as the voice of God nor have wee accepted that call out of any iust we have to contend or enter the lists of disputation with any Wee love the peace of the Churches and unity and concord with all our deare and godly Brethren too well to have any such ends And though wee are not unwilling to receive and consider any returne that may bee made and we hope with a mind to submit to the truth yet wee must professe Two things chiefly inclined us to undertake this worke First to cleare up such truths as we conceive to bee according to the minde of Christ which were obscured by this Reply Secondly and that especially hoping that what wee should write would tend rather to a peaceable healing of offences and differences then otherwise and therefore have presumed to Preface thus farre and so to present these our affectionate requests to our deare Brethren and Country-men which wee heartily recommend to their serious
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
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
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
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
it and see such superstitious opinions of it increasing and such pressing the same to the oppression of the Churches so many fall so many weak ones stagger and look at the example of their Guides if now when all are called of God to rise up against it with zeal and detestation a Minister godly and able will use any part of it with offence c. we suppose we had cause to fear and leave it doubtfull whether the godly might lawfully joyn with them therein and therefore we desire you to call back your sharp censure of such withdrawing as you conclude this passage withall or else we shal appeal to the reverend Assembly of Ministers and their late and godly Directory herein Reply Fifthly If these and such like scruples make it unlawfull to joyn in the ordinance of Worship we must hold communion with no society under heaven For may not the brethren which hold all stinted Liturgies and set Forms unlawfull say with like reason it is not lawfull to joyn with others inconceived Prayers if they give too little honor to it as conceiving the other lawful or sinfully limiting themselves to one stinted Form though conceived at first by themselves c. Answ We must intreat the Christian Reader still to carry in minde with what tendernesse we offered our selves in this point and upon what considerations we durst not wholly excuse and cleare such joyning as the case now stood and therefore we think these reasonings would be far differing from the case in hand and we would not be taken so as to justifie such rigid principles as these are We heartily joyn in the conclusion that such advancing of small differences would indeed bring all to confusion and we are far we hope from any such meaning If our answer in this or any other passage give just advantage to such separations we are heartily sorry for it but we hope what hath been said will satisfie the ingenuous and Christian Reader Reply Sixthly we have credibly heard that you hold fellowship with professed rigid separatists without acknowledging of their error and receive them as members or communicate with them in the priviledges of the Church though you professe you approve not their opinion or practice and if in godly wisdome you can see grounds to joyn with them we marvail you should be so timerous in this particular Answ Although in many of our Churches we know not that there be any such professed rigid Separatists that reject the Churches of England as no Churches and their Ministers as no true Ministers yet we deny not but some such there may bee in some of the Churches Whence we grant it may follow that we can have communion in Gods Worship with men of severall judgments yet we may be justly timerous of joyning or approving others to joyn in any part of a corrupt Worship in case of scandall c. we think these things have not the same face or shew of reason in them and therefore so long as they live peaceably with us we can well have fellowship with them as we have also with other that think it may be better of the Churches and wayes of it then there is cause in regard of the corruptions thereof so we be not bound to approve their opinions nor conform to any of their corrupt practises Reply Seventhly if to administer in a stinted Form be scandalous to such as separate it is scandall taken not given and we should do it the rather that they be not confirmed in their error the truth be not prejudiced needless scruples occasioned c. Answ 1 This is from the question for we dispute of your Liturgy not of any Liturgy or stinted Form 2 Take in the case in all its circumstances as before declared and it will appear scandall may be given at least we put the case of a scandall really given 3 How far a man in some cases of clear and undoubted truths may do a thing the rather for such reasons though others take offence we will not dispute but if for meat or by use of our liberty by eating of such meat as another accounts unclean we may destroy the work of God and therefore must not eat flesh nor drink wine nor any thing whereby a brother stumble c. Rom. 14 14 15 20 21. how dangerous then to use such corrupt Forms of Worship or any part thereof so much the rather when a weak brother stumbles at them we leave it to the Christian Reader to judge we doubt it will not agree with the rules of charity prescribed Rom. 14. 1 Cor. 8. CHAP. III. 3 Position That the children of godly and approved Christians are not to be baptized untill their Parents be set members of some particular Congregation 4 That the Parents themselves though of approved piety are not to be received to the Lords-supper untill they be admitted as set members Reply WHat is here premised to prevent mistakes doth seem more to raise then to abate scruples You refuse not all communion with all that are not Church-members and so much they professe who formerly have gone for and professed themselves Separatists from our assemblies you doe not appropriate these priviledges of the seals onely to members of your own Churches c. If you mean onely that the Sacraments administred in other Churches be true for substance it is no more then you will confesse of Rome If you deny not fellowship with them in the seals and to receive them to the Sacrament your judgement is against your practise or you exclude the Churches of England from the number of true Churches Answ We see not how such scruples could be raised without great mistake of our meaning our expressions were so plain and distinct For 1 What if some Separatists admit private communion with such yet they reject your Churches and Ministery as null which we doe not And many of them have refused also such private communion 2 We marvail how you could fall into such a mistake as to suppose we onely allow the truth of Sacraments for substance in other Churches when we speak in the same sentence of receiving satisfaction by Letters or otherwise concerning those we admit to the seales which plainly shew we speak of communion with such Churches 3 Concerning fellowship with those Churches we may admit members of them to the seales with us when we cannot always joyn with them in their administrations by reason of some sinfull corruptions wherein we must have actuall fellowship with them as your selves would not joyn in case you must kneel at the Lords-supper 4 Concerning the Dilemma We answer 1 Our practice is not crosse to this profession For such as come recommended from forein Churches and give such satisfaction as is meet we doe receive and such as have wholly cast off all relation to English Churches and live amongst us we have looked at as scattered stones till they joyn some where in a Church and themselves generally
may be considered What is said that may more properly concern the case under the notion of an instituted Society we shall consider in due place Now from that which hath been said the Conclusion as we conceive doth easily and naturally follow That as notwithstanding all that is said there is no Catholick visible Body of mankinde to which or to the Officers wherof is given the power and priviledges of Civill government to rule this Catholick Body either as one totum politicum or the parts of it Families Cities Kingdoms in communi by subordination of all Societies with reference to the whole or so as every King Major c. should be an Officer of the whole So these and like consequences will not follow in respect of the guides government priviledges c. of the Catholick Church notwithstanding all that is said from these considerations of unity visibility priority of nature c. Object 1 If any shall Object the case is not alike because in this Catholick Church were universall Officers set up as the Apostles not so in the world of mankinde Ans We say these were but for a time in the first beginning for the setting up of the first order in all the Churches who being dead there is none to succeed them in that respect of Catholick power Secondly we say likewise at the first for a time Adam and after Noah had a generall power over mankinde though after them none had the like as it is here And therefore the comparison stil runs clear Object 2 If any object as some doe in answer to an argument somewhat like this that this similitude holds not because there is not that externall union of visible communion in the Common-wealths of the world as in the Church if one say God hath placed Kings Dukes in the Common-wealths as in one organicall Body who have one head who giveth influence to so many organs of head feet c. as the Apostle speaketh of the Body the Church 1 Cor. 12. then indeed all the Common-wealths of the world would make but one body Answ To the Scripture alledged we shall speak after here onely let us clear our parallel And first take the similitude as it is stated by us and it will be clear First compare the Catholick number of mankinde with the Catholick Church which is the number of called ones and then there is as much externall union of visible communion in one as in the other For first all mankinde may and ought to maintain Civill communion one with another in all Offices of humanity for the common good of the whole as the members of the Catholick Church doe or ought to doe and common humanity and the command of the Morall Law binds thereto as well as Christianity and rules of the Gospel bind here Secondly if we compare Civill societies as Families Cities Common-wealths with instituted Churches it is as possible and as well the duty of all Common-wealths in the world by principles of humanity and the Morall Law in all mens hearts to maintain externall union of leagues of friendship and communion in all Offices of Civill society as it is possible and the duty of all Church societies by the principles of Christianity and rule of the Gospel to maintain externall union of visible communion in the duties of Church society Thirdly not to dispute here whether there be such an externall union of visible communion amongst all the visible Churches as parts of the Church Catholick if the reason alledged be sufficient to prove the same viz. because there is one head in the Church who giveth influence to so many organs of head feet eyes c. in the Church Then still our parallel will hold for as this Head is no other then Christ Jesus in his spirituall Kingdom the Church giving that influence named so the same Lord that is King and Head over all 1 Chron. 29.11 Ephes 1.22 doth give influence to many organs in this Body of Mankinde even to all Kings Judges Fathers of Families And Christ is the same in respect of all authority power gifts administrations Civill c. to this Kingdome of Men as he is to the Kingdom of his Church of all power spiritual And although the Church be a Body of nearer relation to Christ then the Body of mankinde yet in regard of a common relation between a Head and Body there is a similitude which is sufficient in this case There is one thing more we meet withall that here we shall remove viz. when it is objected that the Catholick visible Church cannot be one because it cannot convent together in one Society it is answered usually that such comming together in one society is not needfull because as a Kingdom may be one though all parts of it never meet together having the same King Laws c. And as an Army may be one having the same Generall the same Laws of Discipline the same cause c. though the severall Brigades should never be drawn up into one body So the Catholick Church having the same King Laws Cause Enemies is but one though it never meet To this we shall here Reply so far as it lyes in our way 1 As all union is for communion and all communion flows from union so look of what nature the union is such and no other is the communion and look of what nature the communion ought to be of like nature ought the union to be else it will not reach the end And therefore here as the mysticall spirituall union of the Catholick Church to Christ the head by faith and to one another by love is sufficient to afford spirituall communion with the same So unto Politicall communion there must bee a Politicall union into one policy And as the nature of Politicall communion is such must the nature of the union be that it may reach the end To apply this a Politicall Church is instituted of Christ for communion in all the Worship and Ordinances of Christ instituted in the Gospel as the Ministery of the Word the Seales and Discipline now no Church as One can have communion with Christ and one another in these things but it must have a Politicall union suitable thereunto that is they must be one Society that can at least meet to combine together And therefore if all Churches make one Politicall Body for Politicall communion it must be such an union as will reach that end which cannot be imagined in such a Catholick totum politicum as the Catholick Church 'T is true distinct Churches as distinct Kingdoms may have communion in some politicall priviledges answerable to their union consisting in a fraternall relation one unto another yet not make up one Body Politicall of which we speak Secondly to the similitudes brought we answer This whole Kingdom or Army is properly and clearly one Politicall Body under one Politicall head the King or General as stands by Covenant as members of that one Policy and those
who have right to choose their King or Generall may and doe some time or other convene Let the like be shewed in the Catholick Church that all Politicall Churches are moulded up into one Politicall Body either de jure or de facto or that it is possible as the case stands so to be and then the similitudes would be of some use Thirdly in a Kingdom or Army suppose they never meet yet there is such politicall union as fully reaches the politicall communion for which end it was combined viz. that they should enjoy peace and justice in and by a just Government or by the protection of the Army But if such a politicall Body were combined to have such communion as a Church-communion is then it would require conventing together as elswhere we shall more fully manifest For our parts we do not see that Christ hath ordained the whole Catholick church as One to have politicall communion together which is impossible And therefore we see no need of such a Politicall combination but as he hath ordained a Brotherly communion of counsell and helpfulnesse one to another as need requires so a spirituall relation and brotherly consociation of Churches together is union sufficient for such a communion And thus far we have endevored to take away all those arguments which are built upon the generall considerations of the unity visibility and priority of the Catholick church which we leave to the consideration and examination of the judicious We shall now as the Lord shall helpe us come to cleare the state of this knotty controversie as we think it ought to be stated and carryed Viz. What is that form of a Politicall Church which Jesus Christ in the Gospel hath instituted and appointed as the subject of Church power of government and administration of all the ordinances of the Gospel for actuall communion with Christ and one with another therein And here give us leave before we enter into the question it self to make a little further use of our former similitude for illustration and then we will shew where the ne plus ultra as we conceive must stand It hath been shewed in respect of the body of mankinde that although much may be said for the unity visibility and priority thereof before any parts of it yet no reason will inforce that it is the first subject of Civill power c. in respect of actuall administration and immediate enjoyment thereof and so here in respect of the Church We will now add but this one thing more that notwithstanding all such reasons yet in execution for the good of the whole the least civill society yea a family may be and is the first subject of civill power and priviledges of civill government so the least politicall Church society may be the first subject of these Keys of Church power in the exercise thereof and of immediate communion in all visible ordinances and we think that there by Divine institution it is seated and the edification and perfection of the Catholick Church may best be attained thereby Concerning Families we see no footsteps in the propagation of mankinde from Adam and Noah of any soveraign or universall government further then in the first Fathers of mankinde after whom as they increased families went out and combining made cities and so Common-wealths by mutuall consent as in Gen. 10. and other Stories appear except by the tyrannous usurpations of some as Nimrod the rest were brought under and this no doubt amongst any free people is still the most orderly just and safe way of erecting all forms of civill government Families to combine into Townes Cities Kingdomes or Aristocraticall States But here some will say If so that according to this similitude a particular congregation may be the first Church that have the Keys of Church power and Church communion then as families should combine into Towns and Cities and they into greater Common-wealths for the good of all mankinde so here these first Churches may not stand independently but ought to combine into greater Bodies till they come to be one whole Church to this we say this will not follow upon this evident reason because civill societies and government thereof is herein left to rules of humane prudence by the Lord and governor of the whole world and therefore may admit various forms of Government various Laws and Constitutions various priviledges c. according as men shall conceive best for themselves so they be not against the common morall rules of equity and the good of those Societies but here in the Kingdom of Christ as wee must attend what kinde of Church he hath instituted so we must cleave to such rules priviledges and forms of government and administrations as he hath ordained not presuming to goe one step beyond the same And hence it is not in the power of any Church to alienate the power rights or priviledges Christ have set in the same or to mould up any other politicall Churches then he hath appointed and here we conceive stands immovably the ne plus ultra of this similitude between the visible Church and the estate of mankinde in reference to power and government c. All which things well weighed to us seems to overthrow all such intermediate forms of Churches or the usuall Churches as Mr. Ball calls the same as Classicall Provinciall Diocesan Nationall Patriarchicall c. which we see not how according to the rule of Christ they can be constituted either descendendo from the common nature of the Catholick Church or ascendendo from the combination of particulars except institution can bee found for the same We find indeed that some endevor to build such forms upon the foundation of Morall principles and the Law of nature as That God hath given government to be over a multitude and that of many Societies as well as persons that one Society may not suffer as well as one person and that therefore must be given of the God of grace to a society and multitude of little Churches power of externall government To which we answer 1 That there is no such principle in nature that generally binds free Societies to submit to one common government must many Kingdoms c. by consequence all kingdoms combine in government lest one kingdome bee hurt i. must Moab Ammon Edom Tyre Sydon Judea c. being so contiguous in near vicinity to each other combine in one government 2 Is it not as suitable to morality and reason in such combinations that they set up One to rule over them when many grow ignorant evill or heady to preserve peace and prevent wrong as to set up many 3 Did Abraham Lot Melchisedeck and such family Churches walk against grounds of morality and nature that did not so combine We might add more but forbear but we could desire our dear Brethren to be wary of scattering such principles for though in the matters of the Church and Worship and Government of Christ
so much for the plea for a Catholick church from Acts 1. c. Now concerning that which is supposed of a Catholick church representative in Act. 15. If it were such then in respect of the Apostles the catholick Officers onely or in respect of the body of the Assembly also but in neither respects Ergo. 1 Not the first for then as was said any one Apostle may make a representative Catholick church having the whole power as much as all of them together for though they would meet oft to consult and assist one another yet not for defect of power in any one and we think our brethren here will not say it was in respect of the Apostles alone supposing here they acted rather as Elders with the rest then out of their Apostolicall power 2 Not in respect of the whole Assembly for then that assembly must consist of the messengers of all the particular Churches and the decrees should have been directed to all the Churches but neither of these can appear For first wee read of no other messengers but those from Antioch and how to evince more then the Scriptures reveal is hard Secondly if we look back and consider how far the Gospel was spread before this assembly it will appear very strange and absurd to suppose such a thing for Paul had been in Arabia before ever he came to Ierusalem Gal. 1.17 and when he and Barnabas went sent out from Antioch Acts 13. they went to severall Islands and Countreys as Cyprus Paphos Salamis c. besides what other places scattered Christians and Apostles had preached in now there is no probability of messengers sent from all these places Secondly the decrees were expresly directed to the Gentiles beleeving in Antioch Syria and Cilicia where it seems this question had troubled the minds of the Disciples Acts 15.23 24. which was far short of the Catholick church neither is it proved that the Churches of Syria and Cilicia had any messengers there much lesse that all the Churches had their messengers Object But it is said they might have had their messengers there if they would and therefore they were bound to the decrees as of a generall Councell Answ It must first be proved that all Churches had lawfull summons to send their messengers to that Assembly before there can be laid any blame on them for neglecting the same or they be all tyed to the decrees of such an Assembly as a generall Councell which seems to us not so much as probable much lesse to be proved by any where the Scripture is so silent Argument 2 Every politicall Body is constituted by the combination of all the members into a Society But Christ hath not instituted that the Catholick church should combine into a Society Ergo. Propos Proved because there can be no instances given of any free Society civill or sacred that was under policy but that it arose from combination How came Israel to be one Nationall church but by a National covenant and that before it had Officers or how comes any nationall provinciall classicall Church that are pleaded for to be such but by some such combination Why is this Church of this Classis not of another but by combination Secondly in a politicall body the whole hath power to order every part but this power among persons that are free is onely by combination Assump Proved first because Christ never instituted that which is impossible as this is for the Catholick visible Church in every age so to doe Secondly Christ ordained combination for communion in his Worship but this communion also is impossible to the Catholick church as one Ergo. Thirdly corrupt Churches are visible Churches but it is hard for us to beleeve or any to prove that Christ hath instituted such combination of all Churches Asian African European American corrupt and uncorrupt for prudent men may easily foresee the heavy consequents thereof Argument 3 Every Politicall Church by the institution of Christ hath power to elect her own Pastor or Pastors over it But the Catholick visible Church hath not such power Ergo. Proposit Proved This all Scripture examples shew that every Church or flock of beleevers had her Pastor Act. 14. Tit. 1. Secondly according to our Brethrens principles if a particular Church may choose a Pastor much more the Catholick because all priviledges are primarily given to the Catholick church and what belongs to the part of a similar Body as a part that much more belongs to the whole Assump Proved first If the Catholick church may choose Pastors over it then they may make Apostles because Catholick Pastors over the Catholick Church Secondly the Reasons against an universall Bishop are strong here as that their office is not described in the Word nor their power able to reach all Churches If it be said that the Catholick church can choose her Pastors in the parts or particular Societies which are Pastors of the Catholick church though not Catholick Pastors of the Catholick church Answ If this be meant of the particular Churches choosing Pastors over themselves who are in some respects for the good of the whole as being partes partium and so partes totius then they come to our hand for thus it appears that there is no Catholick tâ—…tum that is the subject of officers but in its parts But the question is Whether all particular Churches having the officers in them do make one political Body or Catholick church and so have power to choose Catholick Pastors Argument 4 Christ Jesus instituted no such politicall Body as destroys Church policy But such a Catholick church politicall destroys policy Ergo. Assump Proved because it swallows up the power not onely of all Churches congregationall but all other forms of Churches by taking the power of excommunication from them for the power of excommunication is seated by Christ in that Church from which there can be justly no appeal for Matth. 18. the power of excommunication is seated in such a Church as whatsoever it binds on earth is bound in heaven by the highest Judge in the highest Court and from the sentence of this highest court and Judge how can there be any appeal But now supposing such a Catholick church having power of excommunication and that as the highest Church hence no inferior Church can binde on earth so as that the same is bound in heaven seeing appeales may be made from them to an higher power on earth Object If it be said that the sentence of an inferior Judge proceeding rightly as in an inferior Sanhedrin is ratified in heaven yet may we appeale from him Answ We deny that the sentence of every civill Court doth binde in heaven in the sense of our Saviour for every civil Court hath not this promise of binding and looâ—…ing the power of the Keys not belonging to the civill Magistrate Secondly suppose there were such a binding in civill Courts and appeals may be yet made from them yet this is because
them vers 27. what he spake vers 28. of Apostles and other gifts set in the Church he applyes also to them Chap. 14. whereas he speaks of the exercise of divers gifts in that Church when the whole Church came together vers 23 so he speaks the same of himself an Apostle vers 6. When I come c. We take notice of divers reasons alledged from the Chapter that he spake of the Catholick church but they doe not inforce it for grant such things are true of the Catholick church in a sense viz. that in it God works all in all in it are diversities of gifts c. yet the Apostles scope is to speak to this Church as hath been shewed and all are truly applyable unto it this Church came behinde in no good gift Chap. 1.7 this Church was one body vers 27. and baptized into one body whether Jews or Gentiles bond or free the members of this Church needed the helpe one of another must not make schismes in the Body must care one for another c. yea Apostles as well as other gifts were in the church 1 Cor. 3.1 1 Cor. 14.6 So that from the scope and drift of the Apostle all these Offices and gifts might be and were set in Corinth and therefore this place will not evince a Catholick organicall body yet we mean not that Apostles were wedged in here but they were set also in every church as also Teachers are in every church but each according to the nature of the Office the one limited the other not Secondly we deny not but in this discourse the Apostle also vers 12 13. intendeth the whole mysticall body of Christ which is one Christ neither doe we deny that these gifts of Apostles Prophets c. are given to this Church but this will not prove it to be an organicall Church For what is this body of Christ this one Christ into whom all are baptized c. It is properly the whole company of true beleevers in all ages and so containes the invisible body of Christ which Catholick body of all ages cannot properly make an organicall body and be it so that this body is visible having visible ordinances baptized and drunk into one body yet the Apostle respects the â—…eall union of all the members to Christ and therefore I 〈…〉 understand spirituall and effectuall baptism containing the inward vertue with the outward sign Again the Apostles were 〈◊〉 for the gathering 〈◊〉 of the elect amongst all the heathen and 〈◊〉 but that proves not all those elect who also are a part of Christs sheep John in â—â— were an organicall Church or a part of it till called and added to the Church In a word Apostles Prophets c. were given to and set in the mysticall body of Christ as the chief object had and for whose sake and good they were intentionally ordained of Christ but not set in it as one organicall body for the actuall and immediate administration of the visible ordinances of Christ to it but thus 〈…〉 as gathered into such Church societies as the Lord hath 〈◊〉 for that end and in this sense we agree with 〈◊〉 Mr. 〈…〉 of the right 〈…〉 pag. 2â—…1 Aâ—â— saith he to what â—…nd and to what first principall subject hath the Lord given reason and the faâ—…ulty to discoâ—… as it is Peter John c. as to the first subject and to them as for their good No no it is 〈◊〉 and for the race of mankind The case is just so here 1. Cor. 12. â—…8 God hath set Apostles c. We say also it is just so here as God hath given reason in respect of the end to mankinde first and then to the individuâ—â— so God hath set in the mysticall Church for the good of it as chiefly intended by Christ Apostles Prophets c. but now as in the 〈◊〉 all dispensing of this gift of reason for the good of mankinde Reason is not given to any such body as the whole race of mankinde to descend to John Peter c. but first to John Peter and all the individualls that so by induction of all particulars the whole kinde of reasonable man may be made up and the end attained and so it is here God in giving Officers and gifts for the good of the mysticall body of Christ firstly yet in execution gives these Officers and sets them in particular Churches that by the edification and perfection of all particulars the whole may be attained Thirdly Apostles Prophets and all gifts and offices in generall and indefinitely are given to the Church indefinitely considered but particular officers Paul Cephas Apollo Titus Arabippus c. are given or set in particular Churches we mean according to the severall natures and extents of their offices As unto Bees in generall ingiâ—â—â— a power to gather honey and order themselves in their hives but in their exercise of this power it is given to the severall swarms in the hives who have their Queens c. to order themselves But as this power in generall makes not a universall organicall body of Bees no more here an universall organicall Church Lastly to speak more particularly we conceive that the place in the utmost latitude of it is meant of the mysticall body that one body into which all are baptized vers 13. And that the fundamentall mistake of our Brethren is this that because the Church here mentioned hath Organs and politicall Officers in it that therefore it must needs make one politicall Church where some Organs are to rule in common and every part is to be subject to the whole For although the mysticall Church hath Organs and politicall Officers in it yet it follows not therefore that it is one politicall body For the invisible Church conjoyned with the visible hath politicall Officers set in it and given to it as invisible as well as visible in respect of Gods generall designation and particular application of them to this whole Church yet it follows not that they are one politicall body by actuall combination thereunto actuall combination we say for although Christs institution must warrant and prescribe all forms of politicall bodies yet it will not be found that ever there was any politicall Society without actuall combination whether civill or sacred whether nationall or more particular The mysticall Church may be said to be organicall in respect of the Officers amongst them in the severall parts thereof every part being a part of the whole spiritually though not politically But it doth not thence follow that the whole is one politicall body but mysticall Politicall Officers may and must suppose some part of the Church to be visible but not that the whole should be Politicall For the Apostles by extraordinary Commission for their time were officers of visible beleevers fit matter for a combination as well as of particular combinations yet it follows not that visible beleevers existing out of combinations were a politicall Society that
would never meet to combine but they were onely a visible number of Saints We have been thus large in clearing this Scripture because we conceive the chief strength of the contrary opinion to lye in it And this being answered the light of it we hope will scatter the darknesse that is brought upon divers other Scriptures which are drawn to prove such a kinde of Catholick Church as Rom. 12.4 c. Col. 1.25 1 Tim. 3 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—…
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
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
Abraham and his seed with subjection to the visible worship of God in that Church and to circumcision in particular Thirdly that there were no others of the visible Church besides Abrahams family is not said but being so it strengthens the argument as was shewed before Reply In the first institution of Circumcision God gave it to Abraham as the seale of the Covenant formerly made with him but of any Church Covenant whereinto Abrahams family should enter we read not Answ Whether Circumcision sealed any new Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. or that before Gen. 15. wee will not contend neither is it materiall bee it the same covenant hee entred into before for substance yet it is evident 1 That this covenant was not simply and onely the covenant of grace but had many peculiar blessings belonging to Abraham and his posterity and family contained in it Gen. 12. and 15. 2 It is very considerable that God made this Covenant with Abraham when hee cal'd him out of that corrupt state of the Church in Ebers family to worship God more purely according to his institutions Gen. 12.1 with Josh 24.2 Thirdly this covenant Gen. 17. is more explicate and full then before and especially in that promise which most properly concernes Church covenant viz. that God would take Abraham and his seed into covenant with himselfe euen an everlasting covenant to be a God unto them Vers 7. and this in a speciall manner is that which the Lord saith hee would now establish betweene Abraham and himselfe viz. by this signe of the covenant Vers 9 10 11. Fourthly this is the very covenant which the Lord renewed with Abrahams seed afterward when hee established them to bee a Church or people to himselfe as is evident Deut. 29.12 13. this the Lord is said oft to remember viz. to remember his covenant with Abraham when hee visited his seed with any mercy Exod. 6.5 6 7 8. Psal 105.8 9. and therefore it must needs bee a Church covenant Fiftly as Gen. 17. the Lord instituted a visible token and seale of this covenant so hee strictly enjoyned the observation of the same in all the seed and family of Abraham and that in all their generations all which things especially joyntly considered make it evident that Abraham and his were not onely a people but established a people to God in a Church covenant and that the same covenant which was the foundation of the nationall Church of God that was after in his posterity and to this covenant the seale of Circumcision was added Reply Melchisedeck Lot Job might bee circumcised though wee reade not of it as wee read not that John Baptist or the Apostles were baptized or if they were not circumcised it may bee that institution was not knowne to them or they were not required to joyne to Abrahams family and if they had they should have transgressed and so the reason was not because they were not in Church order but because Circumcision was appropriated to Abrahams family in some peculiar respects Answ Though wee reade not of the administration of Baptisme to John Baptist the Apostles and many others yet wee reade of a rule that required it of them and it was a part of that righteousnesse of which the Lord Jesus saith to John Thus it becommeth us to fulfill all righteousnesse Matth. 3.15 not for the institution of Circumcision did bind Lot Job c. yet that they were forbidden to joyne to Abrahams family and so bee circumcised wee cannot say seeing afterwards Proselytes were reecived into the same Covenant and Church and so circumcised Secondly that it was so appropriated to Abrahams family as that it was unlawfull for them to joyne to Abrahams covenant and be circumcised this is more then can bee shewed or if Lot Melchisedeck Job were excluded yet out of question Abraham might and did enlarge his family and so might take in proselytes visible beleevers in the covenant of grace and circumcise them and so still the appropriating of circumcision to the Church and Covenant of Abrahams family doth not weaken but strengthen the argument in as much as no visible beleever in the Covenant of grace might partake of the seale but by joyning in visible covenant with that Church to which it was given Thirdly suppose Job Lot c. and their families were circumcised as Junius alledgeth Jerome for it yet how will it appeare it was not by taking hold of the Covenant of Abraham to which Circumcision was applyed yet it seemes more probable that Lot and other families in Abrahams time were not partakers thereof God intending as the effect shewes not to establish them nor theirs to bee his people as by Circumcision hee established Abraham and his seed as for Iob if hee were of Abrahams seed and had Circumcision hereditarily à materno paternoque sanguine as some thinke yet this makes nothing against the argument wee have now in hand Answ After the Church of the Iewes was constituted when wee cannot imagine any Church amongst the Gentiles wee finde none must bee admitted to the Passeover that was not circumcised but nothing was required of a stranger but that hee professe the true faith and avouch the God of Abraham to be his God which must be done before hee could be reputed a visible beleever or under the covenant of Grace Reply If any doubtfulnesse can bee raised about the Church in Abrahams family yet the case is so cleare in the following story of the Church as you must needs grant the proposition as you do and the Church of the Jewes is still but the same Church that was in Abrahams house and the covenant the same for Gen. 17. God established the Covenant with him and his seed for an everlasting Covenant to be a God unto them and in Egypt the Lord challenges them as his owne his first borne c. and therefore there is the same reason of circumcision first and last in respect of the Persons that had right unto it but say you nothing was required to circumcision but to professe the faith But we demand first What was it to a vouch the God of Abraham to be his God Was it not to subject himselfe to all the Statutes Commandements and judgements of God in his Church to walke in them as is cleare Deut. 26.17 Was there not the same Law for the stranger and the home-borne Secondly Where must they professe this faith and avouch this God Was it in any place where they dwelt and so might they circumcise themselves must not this bee done amongst and before the people of God in his visible Church whence such were called Proselytes and reckoned of the Common-wealth of Israel Esay 56.3 4 5 6. And is not all this to joyne themselves to the visible instituted Church before they were circumcised Lastly it is not true that no man could be reputed a visible beleever before hee did all this That which followes pag. 40. is answered before
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
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
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
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
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
that of Ananias and Saphira where God hath not bound them to debarre approved Christians from the seales because they cannot promise as setled members to abide in the society and yet charge them as men that against light refuse subjection to the Gospel this is that which wee cannot approve which yet wee suspect will follow from your judgement and desire to bee resolved in your practise Answ Here is a greater heape of heavy criminations gathered together and cast upon us upon very weake grounds upon mistakes suspitions and wee feare too much credulitie given to some clamorous persons returning to England and too little credit given to our true relations and faithfull professions most of these have beene cleared in the former passages where wee met with them and wee marvell how they come in so twisted together here againe wee shall here onely cleare our selves of the first and referre the Reader to their proper places to see our answer to the others Here it is imputed unto us that wee have devised a rite to preserve the unity and prevent the dissolutions of the body which wee conceive is intended of this promise of not removall without leave which promise is not required of us nor made in our Church Covenant as wee have said and the ground of this imputation is also a meere mistake arising from the confounding of a second answer to the objection against our first reason with the second reason of our practise which are distinct and have a different scope for whereas some might object that this reason from the Covenant holds with such as grant such a Covenant lawfull the answer saith that some indeed question the necessitie of it but wee hope you doe not question the lawfulnesse and thereupon the answer first gives reasons and proofes of the lawfulnesse of it And secondly for the necessitie which is taken from the nature of all societies incorporate which by a fundamentall rule doe require of all that enter into them and partake of the priviledges thereof to conforme to all such lawfull rites and orders as are expedient for the well being of that society the contrary whereof would bee injurious to him to offer and confusion in them to accept and from hence it easily followes that a Church being a body of a people injoying priviledges together it is necessary fundamentally that they should bee joyned in some promise or Covenant which Covenant though in civill societies it may consist in rites and orders devised by themselves for their good yet in the Church which is the body of Christ this Covenant is no other but to performe the duties required in the Gospel towards God and one another without any rites or order devised by themselves as wee professed in setting forth the nature of the Covenant and this being the true scope of those words let any judge what ground is given by us of such an imputation of devising rites c. Neither doth the second reason in the answer give any ground of this imputation for though it dispute from the necessary ruine of the Church and all Churches if it were lawfull for any member when whither and wherefore hee please to depart from the Church without consent yet there is not one syllable that gives an hint of any rite custome or order devised by us to prevent the same but for the avoyding thereof wee still wholly and onely bind our selves to the rule of the Word to direct order and reforme all actions of this nature and to shew unto men whether they may lawfully remove or not remove not requiring any expresse promise to the contrary in this particular no more then in others and thus wee hope wee have resolved you of our practise as you desired To conclude this passage give us leave without offence to say thus much Although through the grace of Christ we desire humbly to submit to this part of our tryall even to goe through evill report as well as good yea all the reproaches and cruell mockings of the world knowing that wee have deserved much more from the hand of that God without whose providence a tongue could not move against us yet wee cannot but account is one of our poorest afflictions to suffer in this kind from the pens or tongues of our dearly beloved brethren for whom wee daily pray and to whom wee hope wee shall never bee provoked to returne any other language then savouring of love and respect But wee must confesse wee meet with so many sore criminations oft upon meere mistakes cast not onely upon our selves but the truth and wayes of God which wee professe and that both by this learned author and some others that wee cannot be so senselesse of the dishonour is reflected upon the truth of God herein as wholly to bee silent and groane out the griefe of our spirits to him that knoweth our hearts wherefore wee humbly beseech all our godly brethren to beare with us a little if after all the harsh passages of this Reply such an heape of accusations as are here throwne upon us move us to present to the Reader a short view of such things as are unjustly and ungroundedly cast upon us and which wee cannot but thinke hath drawne a black cloud over the glory of the holy Discipline of Christ which hee hath here set up among us To omit the generall frame of this Reply in presenting our opinions and wayes to the people as if wee concurred generally with those of the Rigid separation and differed almost in every thing from such godly brethren as have breathed after puritie of Ordinances and Reformation To omit also the frequent inserting of such termes unto our questions and arguments contrary to the true state thereof which render every thing harsh and full of rigidnesse to the eares of the Reader as have been observed by us And omitting also divers other suppositions and objections we shall onely desire those who have taken up evill thoughts concerning these Churches and the wayes of Christ wee walke in from this Reply to note these particular imputations in this short Chapter and upon what grounds they are built As page 79. That wee hinder men from entrance into Church society because they cannot promise continuance in the Place and running upon this straine he saith Was it ever heard of in the Church of God from the beginning thereof unto this day that any such thing was propounded unto and required of members to bee admitted into Church fellowship Here is a loud outcry and who would not think but that we usually propound and require such a thing in our admissions which yet is nothing so But what is the ground of all this Looke a little before and hee saith If such a promise be required Againe ibidem saith hee wee thinke the Church is over-rigid in exacting such a condition of the members and the members goe beyond their measure as busie bodies and what is the ground It followes If they arrogate
yet it is beyond the power of man to convince by a rule that so it is We confesse wee are fearefull as of opening the doore too wide so of shutting the doores upon any whom God would have us to receive in but for what yet wee see or read from the arguments here alledged in this Author or the writings of others godly learned wee thinke that Church charity is not to rest satisfied with the first but with the latter for let the profession of the worke of faith bee never so short or so weake let it be by their owne immediate relation or by question yet if it may but appeare to a regulated charity so as to hope that is is reall it is to rest satisfied then till God make discovery to the contrary wee intend not to heape up arguments nor answer scruples but these foure things seemâ—… to â—…vince as much 1 That the Apostles in the 3000. converted Acts â—… as they were very ready to receive them to the fold of Christ and therefore in one day immediatly received so many thousands which could not bee by large profession of every one so also they attended to the truth of that profession and therfore it was not bare profession of faith but as it is set downe for our patterne it was such a profession as was evidently joyned with humiliation pricking at the heart mourning and crying out before the Apostles What shall wee doe to be saved gladly receiving the word which are reall testimonies of some reall change from what they were but a little before and upon this ground the Apostles received them 2 The Apostles charge to Timothy 2 Tim. 3.5 From such as have a forme of godlinesse and deny the power of it turne away if barâ—… profession were sufficient why should Timothy turne from them but rather receive them who had a forme of profession And if it was in his power to avoyd them why should he not reject them and that not onely from private but Church communion also supposing them such as not oneâ—…y had a forme but might be by a rule convinced thereof 3 Lying and apparent untruth cannot make a man fit matter for a Church and therefore cannot bee a ground for charity to rest on that so he is but verball profession which appeares not to bee reall but false is palpable lying and indeed more fit to destroy the Church then to make the Church Hence Sanctius in Zach. 14.14 observes that the greatest enemies of the Church are such qui cum fidem retineant sanctitatem abjecerunt 4 If bare profession of faith is a sufficient ground to receive men into the Church then an excommunicate person cast out in one houre should bee immediatly received in againe if hee will but renew his generall profession of faith nay then the Indians in Maryland who will put on and put off this profession as their ghostly fathers the Popish Priests will bestow or withhold garments and shirts upon them should in charitie bee received into the Church But if it should bee asked how charity may know the reality of this profession we answer so long as the rule bee attended wee leave every one to the wisedome of Christ to make application thereof onely this we doe add in generall for more full satisfaction 1 Such a faith professed with the mouth which is confirmed by an innocent godly conversation in the life so as not to live in commission of any knowne sinne or omission of any knowne duty wee say this conversation makes faith appeare reall James 2.18 Rev. 22.14 wee conceive more is required to make a man appeare a fit member of a Church then of a Common-wealth to bee onely bonus civis and bare civility is sufficient for this latter but not for the former and therefore such a profession of faith is needfull as is confirmed by a not onely a civill but a godly life 2 Such a faith as is joyned with evident repentance and sorrow and mourning for sinne although there bee no experience alwayes of such a holy life antecedently seene for thus it was Act. 2.37 38. for the riches of Christs grace is such as not onely to receive experienced christians into his family and house but also the weakest and poorest who may stand in most need of Christs Ordinances and that as soone as ever they seeme to bee brought in and therefore experience of a blamelesse life is not alwayes necessary for admission into the Church some think indeed that the Apostles received in the first converts Act. 2.39 so soone because they had an extraordinary spirit of discerning but if they had so yet they did not receive them in here according to that for they received divers hypocrites in as Ananias and Sapphira c. and if all other of their acts in this chapter were exemplary why should this onely bee thought to be otherwise and extraordinary 3 When there is full and sufficient testimony from others of their faith and piety although their humiliation faith and conversation bee not so well knowne for wee see the Church received Paul when Barnabas had declared what God had done for him and if it may bee just to condemne another by the testimony of two faithfull witnesses it may not bee unchristian to receive an other into the fold of Christ much more readily upon the testimony of able and faithfull Christians especially then when they be not able openly and publiquely ro speake so fully for themselves and thus much for answer to the first question 2 Question Whether this profession is to bee judged by the Church Answer 1. The faithfull as they did at first combine into a Church so it is their duty to receive others to themselves as the Church did Acts 9.26 27. encouraged by Barnabas and the Apostles and as the Apostle commands Rom. 14.1 which although it was of fellow-members into their affections yet the proportion holds strong for receiving commers into the Church Joh. Ep. 3.8 9 10. 2 If they bee to receive them they must by some meanes know them to bee such as they may comfortably receive into their affections a little leaven leavening the whole lumpe 1 Cor. 5. 3 The Officers of the Church who are first privately to examine them and prepare them for admission are to shew the Church the rule on which the Church is to receive them and themselves are ready to admit them Act. 10.37 Can any forbid water c. This rule was best seene by that publike profession before the whole Church and if no just exception bee made as none should bee without conviction they are to be admitted by the Officers with the consent of the members hereunto for if publike profession is needfull at least before the Church though not the world alway as Didoclavius observes to the entrance into the Covenant and Church by baptisme wee see no reason but persons formerly baptized and entering anew into the Church but they should openly
by the Apostles or Elders to the Church to be chosen by them much lesse limiting the Church to consent thereto if they had nothing against him Reply In reason this is evident for the Childs consent is required in marriage but the more able he is to choose for himselfe the more liberty may Parents grant the lesse able the more watchfull must they be Reply This similitude utterly faileth in two essentiall things that concerne the case for which it is applyed 1. Because a childe is under the authority of the parents whose right is such that a Childe cannot lawfully choose without them But there is no Church or others have such a right and authority over any Church in their choice of Officers 2. Whatsoever the power of parents bee yet the essence of the marriage consists in the mutuall consent and promise of the children that marry and so here the essence of a Ministers call must lye in the election of the Church and acceptance of the Minister which is not avoided but by the similitude confirmed It is a duty of neighbour Churches to lend their helpe to their brethren in election of their Ministers when the Scripture willeth us to exhort one another or admonish one another it is not onely a command to every singular person towards his fellow but also to any whole company Answ Wee grant all this and that it is the duty of a Church bee it weake or strong to take all needfull counsell advise or exhortations and admonitions in so weighty a worke But if Churches or others shall impose upon any Church any Officer without their choice this is no brotherly helpe but unjust usurpation And if you understand Junius so as that Charitatis jure Communione sanctorum one Church have power to choose for another other wayes then by advising them to elect such an one for themselves wee see no reason for that nor doe wee thinke it is his meaning neither doth Paul Rom. 12.12 lay any foundation of such usurpations but onely of mutuall brotherly helpfulnesse by counsell c. and the contrary is not Policy but some degree of tyranny Reply It is a blemish in the call of a Minister if either the people be not fit to choose or being fit they be shut out from the chocie but this maime doth not make a nullity in his calling Answ If a people or Church bee never so weake which is here called unfitnesse yet Christ being amongst them and they making an orderly and good choice there can be no blemish in the call seeing the right is them and such a free choice will better stablish the conscience of any godly Minister in his call then if a Synod of the ablest Ministers should impose him without their free choice except it can bee proved that the right of election is in the Synod which we thinke will not bee done But bee they able or weake if the people be shut out it must needs make a great maim in his call and if they doe not consent nor submit to such a one called by others it will make it a nullity as was shewed before What authority hath hee to Minister to any Church if they will refuse him or who shall censure them for refusing by any rule of Christ Reply The saving truth of God and a lawfull Ministery are both essentiall to a true Church Answ Answ What then becomes of the Church when the Minister is dead Reply The true Church hath continued by the blessing of God where the election of Ministers hath beene given away by the people or taken from them Answ True but it hath been continued by the after consent and subjection of the people to their Ministers chosen by others else they must needs have broken a pieces and dissolved the Church or taken upon them to choose others to themselves which still shewes that the essence of the call is in the people What is said of the disorders of Ancient Churches in elections we passe over as nothing to this purpose That the Ministery might bee lawfull for substance where there were many defects in the manner of the call we grant the Church at length consenting to submit thereto in whom the true right is placed by Christ and therefore we passe over what followes to that purpose though wee might object against some passages in the discourse Reply As for the second branch of your answer we know not well your meaning if this be your minde that a Minister lawfully called and set over the Congregation is to bee esteemed a Minister in the usuall Church aâ—… the particular Church hath unity with and is part of the universall or Catholique and as a party baptized is not baptized into that Congregation onely but into all Churches and that the Ministery is one cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur as Cyprian speaketh and therefore though the Minister be unjustly cast off by one Congregation yet hee is not to be esteemed as no Minister wee freely consent But if your meaning bee that hee is onely by right a Minister of that particular Congregation because unjustly deposed as formerly in the execution of his Office hee was a Minister to them onely and to no other society whatsoever or in what respect soever your opinion is contrary to the opinion of the universall and tends to destroy the unity of the Church and that Communion which the Churches of God ought to have one with another Answ First If our meaning be doubtfull seeing these expressions doe not well suite our notion nor fully enter into our understanding we shall give the meaning of our answer distinctly and then consider what is here said First there is a difference betweene the unjust leaving or casting off a Minister without all orderly proceedings against him and the unjust deposing him in an orderly way of Church censure if the question be taken in the first sense he remaines every way and in every respect by right a Minister as hee was before except he reject them and so dissolve the relation that was between them But if the question speak of an orderly censure of deposition unjustly then we judge of that case as we would do in any other censure of a member by excommunication therefore we say he is stil a Minister in fâ—…ro interno before Christ for clavis errans non ligat Secondly in respect of that Church he hath stil right truly to minister to them and is their Minister though unjustly hindered in the execution of his Ministery as a member unjustly censured hath a true right to the Ordinances and membership though unjustly hindred from the same though in foro externo we grant to them or in their account he is no Minister as a person excommunicated is to them no member Thirdly in respect of other Churches if it doth appeare unto them that hee is unjustly deposed they may and ought to esteeme him still and receive him and have
therefore impossible both in regard of distance of place and variety of language almost ever to meet in one so much as by representation and that not onely by accident as may befall a particular Church by sickness persecution c. but by the necessity of nature and invincible hinderances foreseen by Christ and intended by him And therfore as the Lord limiting his Church to one Nation united it into that form of a Nationall Church ordaining one place stated times and duties of Worship and one Government for the same so now the â—…ord neglecting all such things hath ordained a compleat administration of all his ordinances in particular Congregations and therefore if there be no other instituted visible Church but of a Congregation and Seals in their administration be given to the Church our first consideration will still hold firm But seeing in so vast a subject to say little is to say nothing and there is scarce any Truth in this wilie age but is almost disputed out of countenance and much darkned with humane evasions and seeing much depends upon this controversie it may be so most usefull before we come to the defence of our argument to take into consideration the nature and order of the visible Church of Christ Catholick and particular We are not ignorant of the knots and difficulties of this question which of late have so much exercised the minds of many Godly-learned And we think the notions of a Catholick Church as it is now held being but newly taken up amongst-godly Reformers who formerly ran in another channell as is ingenuously confessed by some according to the truth this new-birth seems not yet so formed to its distinct proportions as time may bring it unto and it might make us afraid being the weakest of many to venture upon so diffuse and knotty a question when we look upon our own insufficiency to such a task and the Learned labors of such in this Point whom we reverence in the Lord yet when we consider of what great weight and moment the clearing up of this Truth would be unto the orderly proceedings of the great Work of Reformation in hand 2 How unavoydably it lyes in our way in this Work the Lord hath called us unto and that he sometimes doth vouchsafe to speak by weak ones that the praise may be his own in hope of his blessed guidance which we depend upon herein taking the light of his Word in our hands we shall rather as learners then otherwise venture to propound what is suggested to us herein Concerning which having digressed a while we shall return we hope with some advantage of clearer evidence to justifie the first argument of the Answer against what is said in the Reply CHAP. V. A digression tending to clear the state of that controversie concerning a Catholick visible Church in respect of the nature unity visibility and priority of the same THe world hath been long troubled with the equivocation of the word Church and therefore as it is needfull we shall labor to set down our thoughts as distinctly and plainly as we can in certain Propositions that may be some ground of our discourse Proposition 1 The true Church of God is the whole number of Elect and called ones out of the world to fellowship with Jesus Christ their Head with whom they make up one mysticall body Ephes 1.23 This whole Church is of the same nature and one in essence from the beginning of the world to the end for this Church Christ laid down his life Ephes 5.26 Joh. 10.15 and therefore he adds vers 16. such as are not yet of his fold actually shall be brought into the same viz. by effectuall calling that there may be one Shepheard and one sheepfold wherby it appears that the whole fold of Christ to which he stands as one Shepheard contains all his members and sheep to the end of the world and it is one fold in relation to Christ that one Shepheard Proposition 2 This one entire body of Christ doth naturally fall under various notions and considerations as omitting others when it is considered according to the adjuncts of visibility and invisibility which are onely adjuncts of the same Church as is generally observed by Divines In respect of the inward union which every such member hath with Christ the Head by the Spirit of Christ and by Faith whereby we are united to him it is called invisible because this union is not visible to men In respects of some visible fruits and manifestations of faith to the judgment of men it is called visible and hence though true beleevers be onely univoce and properly members of this body of Christ yet to men that judge onely by outward effects many hypocrites equivoce and improperly are accounted of the Church and hence the Scripture frequently speaks of visible Churches as if they were all really Saints Proposition 3 As this Church comes to be visible so it becomes a fit and capable subject of visible policy and visible communion with Christ their Head and one with another in all the visible ordinances of Christ a capable subject we say or matter fit for such a state for by its visibility it self it is not so having yet no more then a spirituall relation to Christ and one another no visible combination one with another for visible beleevers may be so scattered in severall Countreys that they cannot make up one Society Proposition 4 And therefore we add That there is no way for this Church to enjoy actuall visible communion under the visible government of Christ and in the visible instituted ordinances of Christ but in a Society A thousand uncombined persons meeting occasionally in one place though their naturall relations were as near as brethren yet have no power of government or actuall communion in any Civill priviledges if they stand not in relation to one another as a combined Society as after shall be shown so here And therefore Acts 2.41 42. first they were added to the Church and then followed their fellowship in all the ordinances of the Church as after will more fully appear And hence it is said Acts 5.14 Beleevers were added first they were beleevers standing in that spirituall relation to Christ and his whole body and then added to the Church by visible combination Proposition 5 There is no visible society of a Church who hath actuall and immediate right unto and communion in the visible government of Christ and the dispensation of his instituted Worship and ordinances but such a Society as the Lord Jesus hath in the Gopel instituted and ordained for that end We say actuall and immediate right unto the same for though a beleever quâ beleever have an immediate right and actuall enjoyment of such benefits of Christ as necessarily and immediately flow from his internall union with Christ as justification adoption c. and such right to Christian communion with all the Saints in their prayers gifts
Peter declared what an one should be taken c. Acts. 6. Deacons were chosen by the consent of the Church c. but in this election the people did first choose when most commonly the Apostles instructed the people and went before them in the electon and they consented Act. 14.23 The Apostles by consent choose c. This restriction of the peoples power to an after consent at least ordinarily will not hold if the evident light of Acts 6. could not be denyed and the other places were more obscure why should not that place with its light cleare the rest but that in Act. 1. is as evident Peter proves the need of such a choice to be made shews it must bee one that had so long conversed with Christ to witnesse such things and further hee doth not lead them there might be twenty such but they choose two as a preparative act to Apostleship Vers 23. and who were they but such as they speake unto viz. the Disciples Vers 15. whom he cals Men and Brethren Vers 16. so Act. 14.23 lifting up of hands is the signe of election not of an after consent Lastly by this Doctrine how shall the Church come by Officers when shee hath none to goe before her in choosing for her must shee loose her right or take whom others will choose for her and impose upon her Reply In the primitive times after the Apostles one Church might elect a Pastor for another c. Answ 1 If by way of counsell one Church shall propound and advise another to choose such leaving them free to take or refuse this is lawfull in case but otherwise it is a plaine usurpation and we must leave Scripture rules and patterns to justifie it 2 Wee grant in a safe sense there may be Communis electio whereby a fit man is propounded by Churches or Ministers to be chosen by another people and thus the Philadelphians might elect a fit Pastor for the Church at Antioch as Ignatius exhots with sundry like instances in the first times after the Apostles and this wee deny not may lawfully bee now But this is nothing to that electio singularis whereby a people choose one to be their Minister of which we speake for it is evident from the Testimony of Cyprian oft alledged that it is in the power of the people to choose worthy Ministers and reject the unworthy and Ambrose thinkes that he is worthily thought to bee elected divinâ—… judicio whom all the people desire Ambros lib. 10. Ep. 82. It is very true that as the times grew worse the elections were oft disturbed sometimes by the Clergy choosing without the people of which Athanasius complaines sometimes by the peoples carrying it tumultuously sometime the Emperors interposing But this and like corruptions cannot forfeit the liberty of the Church which Christ hath given it and therefore hee that was no great friend to the peoples liberties yet ingenuously saith that although the people is Bellua multorum capitum and most apt to be tumultuous yet this is not innâ—…ted to a beleeving people qui non minus nunc quam oliâ—… gravis esset in electionibus as publicae utilitatis studiosissima Spalta de Rep. Eccles Lib. 3. Cap. 3. Reply If here it be questioned whether your election of the people be essentiall to the calling of a Minister wee answer First A thing is essentiall two wayes either as absolutely necessary so as the thing can have no existence without it or necessary to the integrity of a thing so that it is maymed â—…i bout it Againe the people be either few in number and simple unable to judge of the sufficiency of a Minister or they be more in number increased in wisedome sound in faith and able to discerne of things that differ In the first sense the election of the people is not necessary or essentiall in the second his calling in that respect is maymed Answ It is to bee noted that here wee dispute of the outward calling of Church-Officers now the very essence of any outward calling doth lye in the right and power of them that elect If all the Countries of England should elect or call a Lord Major for London bee they never so many and wise it is a meere nullity and why Because the right of election is not in them but if the Citizens in whom the right lyes doe elect though weakly hee hath the true essence of the call if others electing a Major the City will receive him submit to him and so give their consent hee may bee said to have the substance of that call though not an orderly and lawfull election and so maymed so it is here Secondly if in our election of the people being the Scripture way of election the proper right and power bee seated by Christ in the Church unto whom they are to minister then it must needs follow that the very essence of a Ministers call stands in their election or at least in their after consent and subjection to his Ministery in which case wee grant though the calling be maymed yet it hath the substance of a true calling But if the people will not receive such as are imposed upon them hee hath no call at all but usurpes the same and it is a meer nullity And therefore it concernes Churches the more to consider what they doe in receiving and submitting to such unworthy Ministers as are oft imposed upon them but if the right and power of electing Ministers bee in any other Persons let it be shewed from the Scriptures for we are not much moved in such cases with the corrupt customes of after-times And this also shewes what kinde of call such men have that are ordained by Prelates at large without any election at all if they be Ministers to the Catholike Church then the Catholike Church is bound to receive them and submit to their Office but no part of the Catholike Church and therefore not the whole is bound to submit to them and therefore indeed they have no office nor calling as Pastors or Teachers except it can be proved they be Evangelists Apostles or Prophets Reply If the people be few and simple they stand in â—â—re need of guidance from their owne Elders and other Churches If many and full of wisdome their liberty to choose is the greater and the greater wrong to bee deprived of it The practise of the Apostles and Primitive Churches shew this for many ages sometime men were propounded to the Church to be chosen sometimes the chiefe left wholly to them Answ 1 What is all this to the purpose what light or derection a Church need to receive the essence of a Ministers call lyes not in the propounding or advising of any to elect him but in the Election of such as have the true right so to doe which is still in the Church though few and weake if a true Church and yet you produce not one Scripture example of any Officer propounded